diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes index 0ab8baf7d6ac7dbcca36da5b81e646d968d173ba..dbcc4e44dcb3b9514021a133fd6f5751dbe2772f 100644 --- a/.gitattributes +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -6361,3 +6361,67 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text 2023/RoMQA_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Benchmark[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Robust,[[:space:]]Multi-evidence,[[:space:]]Multi-answer[[:space:]]Question[[:space:]]Answering/196afee1-17ad-4853-89f8-175284b5619b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text 2023/RobustEmbed_[[:space:]]Robust[[:space:]]Sentence[[:space:]]Embeddings[[:space:]]Using[[:space:]]Self-Supervised[[:space:]]Contrastive[[:space:]]Pre-Training/9ca14927-64ae-4a85-b127-81acac6ddba5_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text 2023/Robustness[[:space:]]Tests[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Automatic[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]Metrics[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Adversarial[[:space:]]Attacks/741055da-30ed-408c-92f2-b92276fe890a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Robustness[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Named-Entity[[:space:]]Replacements[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]In-Context[[:space:]]Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Role[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Context[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Unsupervised[[:space:]]Sentence[[:space:]]Representation[[:space:]]Learning_[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Case[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Dialog[[:space:]]Act[[:space:]]Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Roles[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Scaling[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Instruction[[:space:]]Tuning[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Perception_[[:space:]]Model[[:space:]]vs.[[:space:]]Human[[:space:]]Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Romanization-based[[:space:]]Large-scale[[:space:]]Adaptation[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Multilingual[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SAC3_[[:space:]]Reliable[[:space:]]Hallucination[[:space:]]Detection[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Black-Box[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Semantic-aware[[:space:]]Cross-check[[:space:]]Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SDOH-NLI_[[:space:]]a[[:space:]]Dataset[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Inferring[[:space:]]Social[[:space:]]Determinants[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Health[[:space:]]from[[:space:]]Clinical[[:space:]]Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SELFOOD_[[:space:]]Self-Supervised[[:space:]]Out-Of-Distribution[[:space:]]Detection[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SGP-TOD_[[:space:]]Building[[:space:]]Task[[:space:]]Bots[[:space:]]Effortlessly[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Schema-Guided[[:space:]]LLM[[:space:]]Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SHARCS_[[:space:]]Efficient[[:space:]]Transformers[[:space:]]Through[[:space:]]Routing[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Dynamic[[:space:]]Width[[:space:]]Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SIR-ABSC_[[:space:]]Incorporating[[:space:]]Syntax[[:space:]]into[[:space:]]RoBERTa-based[[:space:]]Sentiment[[:space:]]Analysis[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]a[[:space:]]Special[[:space:]]Aggregator[[:space:]]Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SQLPrompt_[[:space:]]In-Context[[:space:]]Text-to-SQL[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Minimal[[:space:]]Labeled[[:space:]]Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/STEER_[[:space:]]Unified[[:space:]]Style[[:space:]]Transfer[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Expert[[:space:]]Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SWEET[[:space:]]-[[:space:]]Weakly[[:space:]]Supervised[[:space:]]Person[[:space:]]Name[[:space:]]Extraction[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Fighting[[:space:]]Human[[:space:]]Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SYMPTOMIFY_[[:space:]]Transforming[[:space:]]Symptom[[:space:]]Annotations[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Model[[:space:]]Knowledge[[:space:]]Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Salespeople[[:space:]]vs[[:space:]]SalesBot_[[:space:]]Exploring[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Role[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Educational[[:space:]]Value[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Conversational[[:space:]]Recommender[[:space:]]Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Scaling[[:space:]]Law[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Document[[:space:]]Neural[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Scaling[[:space:]]Laws[[:space:]]vs[[:space:]]Model[[:space:]]Architectures_[[:space:]]How[[:space:]]does[[:space:]]Inductive[[:space:]]Bias[[:space:]]Influence[[:space:]]Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Scaling[[:space:]]Vision-Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Sparse[[:space:]]Mixture[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Scene[[:space:]]Graph[[:space:]]Enhanced[[:space:]]Pseudo-Labeling[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Referring[[:space:]]Expression[[:space:]]Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Schema-adaptable[[:space:]]Knowledge[[:space:]]Graph[[:space:]]Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Search[[:space:]]Augmented[[:space:]]Instruction[[:space:]]Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SegAugment_[[:space:]]Maximizing[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Utility[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Speech[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]Data[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Segmentation-based[[:space:]]Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Segmented[[:space:]]Recurrent[[:space:]]Transformer_[[:space:]]An[[:space:]]Efficient[[:space:]]Sequence-to-Sequence[[:space:]]Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SelectNoise_[[:space:]]Unsupervised[[:space:]]Noise[[:space:]]Injection[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Enable[[:space:]]Zero-Shot[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Extremely[[:space:]]Low-resource[[:space:]]Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Selecting[[:space:]]Key[[:space:]]Views[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Zero-Shot[[:space:]]Entity[[:space:]]Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Selective[[:space:]]Demonstrations[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Cross-domain[[:space:]]Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-Knowledge[[:space:]]Guided[[:space:]]Retrieval[[:space:]]Augmentation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-Polish_[[:space:]]Enhance[[:space:]]Reasoning[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]via[[:space:]]Problem[[:space:]]Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-Supervised[[:space:]]Behavior[[:space:]]Cloned[[:space:]]Transformers[[:space:]]are[[:space:]]Path[[:space:]]Crawlers[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-Supervised[[:space:]]Rule[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Link[[:space:]]Text[[:space:]]Segments[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Relational[[:space:]]Elements[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Structured[[:space:]]Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-distilled[[:space:]]Transitive[[:space:]]Instance[[:space:]]Weighting[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Denoised[[:space:]]Distantly[[:space:]]Supervised[[:space:]]Relation[[:space:]]Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-prompted[[:space:]]Chain-of-Thought[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Open-domain[[:space:]]Multi-hop[[:space:]]Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-supervised[[:space:]]Meta-Prompt[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Meta-Gradient[[:space:]]Regularization[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Few-shot[[:space:]]Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Self-supervised[[:space:]]Post-processing[[:space:]]Method[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]Enrich[[:space:]]Pretrained[[:space:]]Word[[:space:]]Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Semantic[[:space:]]Decomposition[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Question[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]SQL[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Text-to-SQL[[:space:]]Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Semantic[[:space:]]Parsing[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Intricate[[:space:]]Updating[[:space:]]Strategies[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Zero-Shot[[:space:]]Dialogue[[:space:]]State[[:space:]]Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Semantic[[:space:]]Similarity[[:space:]]Covariance[[:space:]]Matrix[[:space:]]Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Semi-Structured[[:space:]]Object[[:space:]]Sequence[[:space:]]Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Sharing,[[:space:]]Teaching[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Aligning_[[:space:]]Knowledgeable[[:space:]]Transfer[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Cross-Lingual[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Reading[[:space:]]Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Show,[[:space:]]Write,[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Retrieve_[[:space:]]Entity-aware[[:space:]]Article[[:space:]]Generation[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SiMFy_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Simple[[:space:]]Yet[[:space:]]Effective[[:space:]]Approach[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Temporal[[:space:]]Knowledge[[:space:]]Graph[[:space:]]Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SimCKP_[[:space:]]Simple[[:space:]]Contrastive[[:space:]]Learning[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Keyphrase[[:space:]]Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Simple[[:space:]]Hardware-Efficient[[:space:]]PCFGs[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Independent[[:space:]]Left[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Right[[:space:]]Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Simpler[[:space:]]neural[[:space:]]networks[[:space:]]prefer[[:space:]]subregular[[:space:]]languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Simultaneous[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Tailored[[:space:]]Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Smart[[:space:]]“Chef”_[[:space:]]Verifying[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Effect[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Role-based[[:space:]]Paraphrasing[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Aspect[[:space:]]Term[[:space:]]Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SmartSpanNER_[[:space:]]Making[[:space:]]SpanNER[[:space:]]Robust[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Low[[:space:]]Resource[[:space:]]Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Social[[:space:]]Commonsense-Guided[[:space:]]Search[[:space:]]Query[[:space:]]Generation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Open-Domain[[:space:]]Knowledge-Powered[[:space:]]Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Solving[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Right[[:space:]]Problem[[:space:]]is[[:space:]]Key[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Translational[[:space:]]NLP_[[:space:]]A[[:space:]]Case[[:space:]]Study[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]UMLS[[:space:]]Vocabulary[[:space:]]Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SoulChat_[[:space:]]Improving[[:space:]]LLMs’[[:space:]]Empathy,[[:space:]]Listening,[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Comfort[[:space:]]Abilities[[:space:]]through[[:space:]]Fine-tuning[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Multi-turn[[:space:]]Empathy[[:space:]]Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Sound[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Story_[[:space:]]Multi-modal[[:space:]]Storytelling[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Sources[[:space:]]of[[:space:]]Hallucination[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Inference[[:space:]]Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Sparse[[:space:]]Black-Box[[:space:]]Multimodal[[:space:]]Attack[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Vision-Language[[:space:]]Adversary[[:space:]]Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Sparse[[:space:]]Frame[[:space:]]Grouping[[:space:]]Network[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Action[[:space:]]Centered[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Untrimmed[[:space:]]Video[[:space:]]Paragraph[[:space:]]Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Speaking[[:space:]]Style[[:space:]]Conversion[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]the[[:space:]]Waveform[[:space:]]Domain[[:space:]]Using[[:space:]]Discrete[[:space:]]Self-Supervised[[:space:]]Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Speculative[[:space:]]Decoding_[[:space:]]Exploiting[[:space:]]Speculative[[:space:]]Execution[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Accelerating[[:space:]]Seq2seq[[:space:]]Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SpeechGPT_[[:space:]]Empowering[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Intrinsic[[:space:]]Cross-Modal[[:space:]]Conversational[[:space:]]Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Statistically[[:space:]]Profiling[[:space:]]Biases[[:space:]]in[[:space:]]Natural[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Reasoning[[:space:]]Datasets[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/SteerLM_[[:space:]]Attribute[[:space:]]Conditioned[[:space:]]SFT[[:space:]]as[[:space:]]an[[:space:]](User-Steerable)[[:space:]]Alternative[[:space:]]to[[:space:]]RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Steering[[:space:]]Large[[:space:]]Language[[:space:]]Models[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Machine[[:space:]]Translation[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Finetuning[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]In-Context[[:space:]]Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Strong[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Efficient[[:space:]]Baselines[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Open[[:space:]]Domain[[:space:]]Conversational[[:space:]]Question[[:space:]]Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Structure[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Label[[:space:]]Constrained[[:space:]]Data[[:space:]]Augmentation[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Cross-domain[[:space:]]Few-shot[[:space:]]NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/Style-Aware[[:space:]]Radiology[[:space:]]Report[[:space:]]Generation[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]RadGraph[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]Few-Shot[[:space:]]Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text +2023/StyleBART_[[:space:]]Decorate[[:space:]]Pretrained[[:space:]]Model[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]Style[[:space:]]Adapters[[:space:]]for[[:space:]]Unsupervised[[:space:]]Stylistic[[:space:]]Headline[[:space:]]Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_origin.pdf filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text diff --git a/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_content_list.json b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e202695cacc64648a4bde5e80addb9b141137e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2098 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robustness of Named Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 147, + 79, + 850, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Saeed Goodarzi† Nikhil Kagita† Dennis Minn† Shufan Wang†", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 105, + 794, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Roberto Dessi $^{\\infty, \\pi}$ Shubham Toshniwal $^{\\nabla}$ Adina Williams $^{\\infty}$", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 131, + 766, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jack Lanchantin\\*,Koustuv Sinha\\*,", + "bbox": [ + 321, + 156, + 673, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "†University of Massachusetts Amherst; †Universitat Pompeu Fabra \n∇NVIDIA; †FAIR, Meta", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 181, + 771, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sgoodarzitae@umass.edu, koustuvs@meta.com", + "bbox": [ + 258, + 217, + 742, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 341, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A key feature of modern large language models (LLMs) is their ability to perform in-context learning, a prompting technique where query-answer demonstrations are shown before the final query. This allows for generalization to novel distributions at inference time where the LLM can learn new rules without parameter updates. However, the choice of demonstrations and their relationship to a particular query can have a profound impact on model accuracy, raising concerns about the true in-context generalization capabilities (Zhao et al., 2021). In this work, we explore the robustness of the in-context learning paradigm by focusing on entities. In particular, we seek to understand the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements. We discover a significant variance in downstream performance based on the choice of the named entities, across three popular reasoning tasks and two popular LLMs. Specifically, model accuracy on the test sets can fluctuate between -2.7 to +8.0 points depending on the choice of named entity replacements. Our analysis exposes the sensitivity of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entities, and offers a simple recipe to improve test performance by hyper-parameter tuning the named entities for a given dataset. Code and datasets for reproducing the results are publicly available. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 732, + 258, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Modern large language models (LLMs) routinely demonstrate in-context learning, where the model can solve a wide range of tasks from a few demonstration examples (or exemplars) (Brown et al., 2020). In-context learning, or few-shot prompting, is a powerful learning paradigm as it allows for fast adaptation to new tasks without the need to train", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "https://github.com/DennisMinn/ entities-in-context", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 416, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "*Equal Leadership.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 255, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Demonstration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 638, + 254, + 747, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[...] context: Jason had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Jason has 12 lollipops.", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 263, + 855, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "question: How many lollipops did Jason give to Denny? \nanswer: Jason started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. So he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8.", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 288, + 873, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: $60 \\times 2 / 3 = 40$ loaves of bread are sold in the morning. $60 - 40 = 20$ loaves of bread are left. $20 \\times 2 = 40$ loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ###", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 316, + 868, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Named Entity Replaced Demonstration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 606, + 373, + 781, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[...] context: Douglas had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Douglas has 12 lollipops.", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 382, + 873, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "question: How many lollipops did Douglas give to Denny? \nanswer: Douglas started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. \nSo he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8.", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 407, + 868, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: $60 \\times 2 / 3 = 40$ loaves of bread are sold in the morning. $60 - 40 = 20$ loaves of bread are left. $20 \\times 1 / 2 = 10$ loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ### 10", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 434, + 868, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: Named entity replacements for In-Context Learning. Example from FLAN-T5 on GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). Here we replace all male entities $(e^{o})$ in demonstrations with Douglas, and observe a change in the query answer prediction (from the incorrect answer 40 to the correct answer 10). Only 1 out of $k = 5$ demonstrations $(D)$ is depicted to conserve space, with the remaining demonstrations denoted by “[...]”.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 882, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "model parameters. However, model performance in the in-context setting can vary significantly with the choice of demonstrations. Previous work has uncovered performance instability when altering the demonstrations, particularly when the demonstrations change semantically (Schick and Schütze, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021; Gonen et al., 2022a). Naturally, a question arises whether LLMs are robust to semantically preserving, minimal alterations to the demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 884, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we seek to address this question using simple, semantically preserving alterations: named entity replacements. Because changing named entities should not, in principle, change the correct response to the query, the model is expected to remain invariant to such modifications. For example, given the demonstration \"Alice has", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10914", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10914-10931", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 959, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the ball. Alice went to the kitchen. Where is the ball? kitchen.\", the model should be invariant to the choice of the named entity \"Alice\"-i.e., a model should behave the same if we swap all instances of \"Alice\" with another named entity, e.g. \"Eve\". However, we observe that the model behavior is not always robust to such alterations (Figure 1)—prompting us to critically evaluate named entity invariance within in-context learning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct experiments to investigate the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements in three popular named entity heavy reasoning tasks, namely, bAbI, Weston et al. 2015; CLUTRR, Sinha et al. 2019; GSM8k, Cobbe et al. 2021, and two popular models, Flant5-XL (Chung et al., 2022a) and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021). Our key findings are:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 230, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Neither Flan-T5-XL nor GPT-J are robust to entity replacements for in-context learning. On bAbI tasks, the best replacement entity yields a +8.0 point performance increase (for Task 16), and the worst replacement entity yields a -2.7 point performance drop (Task 12). Similarly, for CLUTRR, we observe a 1.6 point improvement. For GSM8k, we only find <1 point increase/decrease with entity replacements.", + "- Performance gains from best performing entities are not random. To verify, we ran a bootstrap analysis and observe consistent gains with low variance.", + "- Best/worst performing entities are task-specific.", + "- We also analyze frequency, token length and perplexity of replaced entities, and find none of these alone explain our results, introducing an open problem for future research." + ], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 362, + 489, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 682, + 321, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The goal of this study is to investigate the robustness of LLMs' in-context learning performance by changing entities in the demonstrations and queries. We consider a fixed set of prompt demonstrations aside from the named entities. By replacing the named entities and observing any accuracy changes, we can better understand the effect of certain entities on a model's accuracy. While many prior works have studied the robustness of LLMs with respect to perturbations (Ribeiro et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2020; Balasubramanian et al., 2020), we focus our analysis on in-context learning. A more in-depth analysis of related work is provided in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix subsection A.1.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 705, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 In-Context Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 112, + 719, + 128 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With in-context learning, a test sample is comprised of a sequence of $k$ demonstrations $D = d_{1},d_{2},\\ldots ,d_{k}$ . Each $d_{i}$ consists of a context, question and answer string. The final query $q$ , consisting only of a context and question string, follows $D$ . The goal of in-context learning is to predict the answer to $q$ given a small set of demonstrations at inference time. In other words, learning is done by eliciting activations and not changing model parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 133, + 884, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Modifying In-Context Learning with Named Entity Replacement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 306, + 843, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We seek to measure the change in accuracy when we replace named entities in the demonstrations $(D)$ and/or query $(q)$ . We perform entity replacement in the following way.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 343, + 882, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first extract the named entities from each demonstration and query using an off-the-shelf NER model, and flag the subject entity, $e^o$ , for replacement. We then select a replacement entity $e^r$ from a large set of entities from Tzioumis (2018), which is composed of 4,250 unique first names. Finally, we perform named entity replacement in one of the following three settings: $(D)$ replace all $e^o$ entities in the demonstrations, $e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \\dots, e_{d_k}^o$ , $(q)$ replace all $e^o$ entities in the query, $e_q^o$ , or $(D$ and $q)$ replace all $e^o$ entities in both the query and demonstrations, $e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \\dots, e_{d_k}^o, e_q^o$ . Note that each demonstration $d_i$ can contain multiple instances of the entity $e^o$ . These settings allow us to isolate and evaluate the effect of named entities in different parts of an in-context learning sample on accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 884, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We run multiple experiments using bootstrap sampling (with replacement) on three sets of names, half labeled as 'male' and half as 'female'. For each name $e^r$ in a particular bootstrap set, we replace the original entities $e^o$ with $e^r$ in the test samples according to one of the three previously mentioned settings. We then evaluate the performance on the entity-replaced dataset. This procedure is repeated for each bootstrap set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 665, + 882, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://huggingface.co/dslim/bert-base-NER, see Appendix Section A.3 for details on the selection of $e^{o}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 819, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3 Appendix Section A.4 describes each setting in detail.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 856, + 867, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4While our data source provided a binary gender annotation on names based on self-report, we note that this is a proxy and moreover, that using names as a proxy for gender is indicative but can be noisy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10915", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/17fab8028c5b111fa1080156a13637f492bdd2e2c8845e213fbafebb9fc96144.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Bootstrap results of Flan-T5-XL on validation sets for 3 distinct sets of 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across bootstrap sets of names." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 87, + 480, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baseline results are reported using the original prompt demonstrations and query. However, our replacement strategy introduces a frequency bias, as $e^r$ is used to replace multiple demonstrations in a given input, resulting in artificially increasing the usage of a given entity in an input. Thus, we also report the median accuracy of replacement, which serves as a proxy baseline for replacing all demonstrations and/or query with a random entity.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 508, + 489, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Models and Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 665, + 324, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our entity replacement strategy on both an encoder-decoder LLM (Flan-T5-XL, 3B; Chung et al. 2022b) as well as a decoder-only LLM (GPT-J, 6B; Wang and Komatsuzaki 2021). We test these models across the following datasets: bAbI (Tasks 1, 12, 14, 16; Weston et al. 2015), CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019), GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). We chose these datasets primarily because they include a significant presence of named entities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 688, + 487, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each dataset, we select five samples from the training set to serve as demonstrations. To maintain grammatical correctness and clarity, we", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 487, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "only do replacements that preserve gender when a pronoun is contained in the sentence (see Appendix A.5). This step specifically addresses any potential uncontrolled effects on the performance from entity replacement, such as perplexity spikes that may results from swaps where the genders of $e^{o}$ and $e^{r}$ differ, and the model is expected to accommodate unexpected pronominal coreference with $e^{r}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 230, + 608, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance Across Bootstrap Sets. We find a noticeable change in accuracy with the best and worst performing entity compared to the baseline or median performing entity. Figure 2 shows Flant5-XL results on all validation datasets (analogous GPT-J results are in Figure 5 in the Appendix, and follow a similar pattern). This indicates that specific entities can noticeably alter in-context learning performance. Furthermore, the standard deviations for the median and best performing entity across bootstraps are low, suggesting that the selection of different name sets will likely yield similar median and best performance. However, the variation in the worst performing entities is large.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 884, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance Within a Single Bootstrap Set. To analyze the results in more detail, we measure the performance for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J on a single bootstrap set of 200 examples. We show the results for bAbI task 14 in Figure 3. When we replace names only in the demonstrations $(D)$ , the variance in model performance is lower compared to both when we replace names only in the query $(q)$ and in both query and demonstration $(D$ and $q)$ . The $(D$ and $q)$ setup exhibits the highest variance, as this scenario involves the maximum change in the tokens of the original prompt. Nevertheless, we see a consistent variance from the baseline by simply replacing named entities in any of the three replacement settings. Other datasets exhibit a similar behavior; see Appendix Figures 6 and 7.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 492, + 882, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Best and Worst Entity Generalization. Thus far, we've used the valid set to demonstrate accuracy variation. To evaluate the best performing entities on the test set, we implement a majority voting method as follows. We first find the 10 best performing entities on the valid set. For each sample in the test set, we take the majority answer prediction from the 10 different best names, denoted \"Maj@10\". Table 1 shows results of entity replacements across the validation and test sets by replac", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5Except GSM8k, where we select 5 of the 8 prompts from Wei et al. (2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10916", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing entities in the demonstration and query (both $D$ and $q$ ). We observe a maximum 8.0 point accuracy increase, seen on bAbI task 16. $^{6}$ The best and worst performing entities vary by dataset, but overall entities generalize across the validation and test sets, with a uniform increase in accuracy from the best entity. A list of these entities for each dataset and further evaluations are in Appendix Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For all datasets, there are entities with appreciable deviations from the baseline, and these entities generalize across the validation and test splits. This finding indicates that the observed accuracy shifts are not coincidental and highlights the influence of entity swaps, including those that preserve overall example semantics, such as for names, on model performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 212, + 487, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 221, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Why are the models not invariant to entity replacements? We conducted several analyses in attempts to find the root cause of this result, but they were largely inconclusive.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 487, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Does the frequency of names affect how much they shift model performance? The lack of robustness could well be explained by the frequency effects of named entities in the training corpus of the pre-trained model (Wei et al., 2021). We use the entity frequency data provided by Tzioumis (2018), and assessed performance changes across names with varying frequencies. We do not find any correlation between name frequency and the model performance post entity replacement (see Appendix Section B.3).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 487, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Does the token length of names affect performance? Another hypothesis of the invariance could be due to the inconsistent tokenization of named entities. Rare names can be tokenized into longer tokens based on the learned subwords of the model. We analyzed token length post tokenization and compared it with model performance, but we are unable to find any meaningful relationship between the two (see Appendix Section B.4).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 487, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Does improved performance result from a decrease in prompt perplexity due to entity replacement? Finally, the surprisal of the LLM to certain entities could be a promising hypothesis to explain the change in model performance (Gonen et al., 2022b). We compare prompt perplexity af", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 487, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/806ba71760a2083e986f1d9e3c8486ceedd8450c702759db96c9852bcfc8b229.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 90, + 858, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a884b3da2e0d17034a9e33ec7f497e383486e897e60a3367f94c029904ee1c03.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "bAbI Task 14 (Baseline Accuracy=70)", + "Figure 3: Accuracy for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J-6B on bAbI task 14 for a single bootstrap set of 200 samples." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 277, + 858, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ter entity replacement to LLM performance, and yet again we are unable to find a statistical correlation (see Appendix Section B.5). While Gonen et al. (2022b) suggests improvement of model performance with decrease in perplexity, we observe certain entities displaying the opposite behavior.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 882, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 624, + 640, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this study, we find that LLMs exhibit a consistent lack of robustness with respect to named entity replacement for the in-context learning setting, fur", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 650, + 882, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/99f3f7f108c2d1d531a75f9dc65d14aecbc1534f3cb3314b2d990ab3697ac9ae.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetBaselineBest EntityWorst Entity
ValidTestValidTest (Maj@10)ValidTest
bAbI 1295.195.598.5 [+3.4]99.0 [+3.5]92.4 [-2.7]93.0 [-2.5]
bAbI 1476.177.578.4 [+2.3]79.5 [+2.0]75.2 [-0.9]76.6 [-0.9]
bAbI 1653.553.361.7 [+8.2]61.3 [+8.0]55.5 [+2.0]55.9 [+2.6]
GSM8k14.310.514.6 [+0.3]11.3 [+0.8]12.7 [-1.6]10.1 [-0.4]
CLUTRR59.053.061.8 [+2.8]54.6 [+1.6]51.4 [-7.6]53.1 [+0.1]
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 721, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Performance of FLAN-T5-XL, with accuracy shift from baseline provided in [square brackets]. Entity replacements are done in the $D$ and $q$ setting. bAbI task 1 reaches perfect accuracy and is thus omitted from this table. Performance between the validation and test datasets is consistent, and we observe a generalizable increase in accuracy across all datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 814, + 882, + 914 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6We did not include bAbI Task 1 because the baseline accuracy is already $100\\%$ , leaving no space for improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10917", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ther questioning the process of reasoning employed by these models (Min et al., 2022). We demonstrate this across three axes: the complexity of the task, the model architecture, and which named entities are to be replaced (in the demonstrations, query, or both). The cause for this effect remains elusive, which opens up exciting research directions. One intriguing result is that the entities that can boost performance are dataset specific. This points to potential avenues for enhancing LLM downstream performance by performing hyperparameter search over a range of entities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 290, + 250, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We acknowledge that the selection of names in our study may not provide an unbiased representation of the complete set of possible names. The data provided by Tzioumis (2018) was derived from mortgage applications which may introduce a bias against popular names within marginalized communities. Moreover, this issue is compounded when we sub-sample the set of names due to computational limitations. Additionally, we used a NER model available through Hugging Face to identify $e^o$ . It was BERT-based (Devlin et al., 2018) and trained on a CONLL-2003 corpus (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) (Wolf et al., 2019), and we anecdotally observed that sometimes it struggles to identify rare names as named entities, for example, it incorrectly identified \"TreQuan\" as \"TreQ.\" We spot checked for this issue and removed names that posed problems to the best of our abilities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 316, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Ethics and Broader Impact", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 619, + 384, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we explore the effect of name swaps in an in-context learning setup and find that particular names can increase accuracy. In our efforts to align names with their respective pronouns, we assumed binary gender, but acknowledge that other genders exist. We made this assumption because our evaluated datasets used binary pronouns, and our names dataset was also only binarily annotated. While our paper assumes name-gender associations, we do not want to discredit negative evidence. A name that is not explicitly associated with a gender doesn't imply evidence of absence of association (imagine that only one person named \"Alex\" was sampled, and she was a woman—that doesn't mean that there aren't also men or nonbinary people called \"Alex\"). At the moment, there aren't many annotated name datasets that consists", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of gender-agnostic, gender-ambiguous, or gender-neutral names. Hopefully, additional work such as (Dev et al., 2021; Lauscher et al., 2022; Ovalle et al., 2023) will expand such resources, but regardless of these complications, our conclusions are still useful for trying to understand why some names can shift model performance under some settings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 240, + 608, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2023. Genderize.io. https://genderize.io/. Accessed: June 15, 2023.", + "Oshin Agarwal, Yinfei Yang, Byron C Wallace, and Ani Nenkova. 2020. Entity-switched datasets: An approach to auditing the in-domain robustness of named entity recognition models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04123.", + "Sriram Balasubramanian, Naman Jain, Gaurav Jindal, Abhijeet Awasthi, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2020. What's in a name? are BERT named entity representations just as good for any other name? In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 205-214, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022a. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv:2210.11416.", + "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022b. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.", + "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168.", + "Sunipa Dev, Masoud Monajatipoor, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Jeff Phillips, and Kai-Wei Chang." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 263, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10918", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2021. Harms of gender exclusivity and challenges in non-binary representation in language technologies. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1968-1994, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805.", + "Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2017. Hotflip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06751.", + "Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE.", + "Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022a. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04037.", + "Hila Gonen, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2022b. Analyzing gender representation in multilingual models. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 67-77, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8018-8025.", + "Anne Lauscher, Archie Crowley, and Dirk Hovy. 2022. Welcome to the modern world of pronouns: Identity-inclusive natural language processing beyond gender. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1221-1232, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Bill Yuchen Lin, Wenyang Gao, Jun Yan, Ryan Moreno, and Xiang Ren. 2021. RockNER: A simple method to create adversarial examples for evaluating the robustness of named entity recognition models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3728-3737, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Robert L Logan IV, Ivana Balažević, Eric Wallace, Fabio Petroni, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Cutting down on prompts and parameters: Simple few-shot learning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13353.", + "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837.", + "Anaelia Ovalle, Palash Goyal, Jwala Dhamala, Zachary Jaggers, Kai-Wei Chang, Aram Galstyan, Richard Zemel, and Rahul Gupta. 2023. \"i'm fully who i am\": Towards centering transgender and non-binary voices to measure biases in open language generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1246-1266.", + "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM 2016-2016 IEEE Military Communications Conference, pages 49-54. IEEE.", + "Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:11054-11070.", + "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676.", + "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2022. True few-shot learning with prompts—a real-world perspective. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:716-731.", + "Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980.", + "Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177.", + "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10919", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04388.", + "Konstantinos Tzioumis. 2018. Demographic aspects of first names. Scientific data, 5(1):1-9.", + "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax.", + "Xiao Wang, Qin Liu, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Yicheng Zou, Xin Zhou, Jiacheng Ye, Yongxin Zhang, Rui Zheng, Zexiong Pang, Qinzhuo Wu, Zhengyan Li, Chong Zhang, Ruotian Ma, Zichu Fei, Ruijian Cai, Jun Zhao, Xingwu Hu, Zhiheng Yan, Yiding Tan, Yuan Hu, Qiyuan Bian, Zhihua Liu, Shan Qin, Bolin Zhu, Xiaoyu Xing, Jinlan Fu, Yue Zhang, Minlong Peng, Xiaqing Zheng, Yaqian Zhou, Zhongyu Wei, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. TextFlint: Unified multilingual robustness evaluation toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 347-355, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason Wei, Dan Garrette, Tal Linzen, and Ellie Pavlick. 2021. Frequency effects on syntactic rule learning in transformers.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903.", + "Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander M Rush, Bart Van Merrienboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2015. Towards ai-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771.", + "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10920", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 238, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 109, + 273, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Several works investigated the robustness of language models with respect to input rewrites (Papernot et al., 2016; Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020). In particular, Balasubramanian et al. (2020) found that while fine-tuned BERT models were brittle in certain tasks, they demonstrated robustness against entity replacement for question answering. Other works have shown that many transformer-based models are insufficiently robust to name swaps (Ribeiro et al. 2020; Agarwal et al. 2020; Lin et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021, i.a.), Our work differs from these in that we focus on the in-context learning setting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 130, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ability to do in-context learning first emerged from Brown et al. (2020). Subsequently, many works sought to improve and understand the abilities of LLMs with respect to in-context learning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Perez et al. (2021); Logan IV et al. (2021); Schick and Schütze (2022); Turpin et al. (2023) show an improvement over the original paper in the the \"true few-shot learning\" setup where there is no access to a large test set to tune in-context learning hyperparameters. Despite the impressive results of this new paradigm, little has been understood regarding the generalization of certain in-context demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 340, + 489, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gonen et al. (2022a) bring to attention the importance of the specific prompts in model performance. They show that the lower the perplexity of the prompt is, the better the prompt is able to perform the task. Min et al. (2022) show that the actual labels in the prompt are not very important. However, the labels still have a small impact in performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 489, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In recent years, several studies have explored the significance of prompt quality in few-shot learning, particularly in the context of question-answering tasks. One such study was conducted by Shin et al. (2020) who proposed AutoPrompt, an automated approach for prompt generation in few-shot learning scenarios that has been shown to achieve the highest accuracy. The AutoPrompt model leverages gradient-based prompt search techniques to find the optimal prompt for a given task, thereby reducing the need for human intervention. Additionally, AutoPrompt utilizes Masked Language Models (MLMs) to perform sentiment analysis and natural language inference tasks without the need for fine-tuning, highlighting the potential of MLMs", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in few-shot learning scenarios. In another study, Gonen et al. (2022a) introduced a novel technique for prompt generation that involves using a small set of manually created prompts and then applying paraphrasing and backtranslation to generate additional prompts automatically. Specifically, they utilized GPT-3 to perform the paraphrasing step, which involves rephrasing the original prompts while preserving their underlying meaning. The backtranslation step then involves translating the paraphrased prompts into another language and then back into the original language to generate new prompts that are semantically similar to the original prompts but with different phrasing and wording. This approach enables the generation of a large number of diverse prompts without requiring extensive manual effort, which can be particularly useful in few-shot learning scenarios where data is limited. Gonen et al. (2022a) also demonstrated an inverse relationship between the perplexity of the prompts and the model's performance across various tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work is related to previous studies as we focus on the true few-shot learning setup for the task of question answering and explore the robustness of NLP models against entity replacement. There are three main ways in which our work differs from previous studies. First, our investigation focuses on analyzing the robustness of language models against entity replacement specifically for the task of question answering in the ICL setup, which has not been explored in previous studies. Second, we utilize left-to-right language models, which are more widely used and powerful than masked language models. Finally, our approach involves prompt-learning instead of fine-tuning, whereby the parameters of the language model are modified to improve its performance on specific tasks. By leveraging the true few-shot learning setup and prompt-learning techniques, we aim to develop a more robust and effective approach for few-shot question-answering tasks that can handle entity replacement and other challenges more effectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 884, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Dataset Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 797, + 680, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "bAbI (Weston et al., 2015): The bAbI dataset consists of 20 tasks that evaluate various aspects of language understanding by NLP models. In our experiments, we select four tasks representing varying degrees of difficulty from the bAbI dataset: task 1, task 12, task 14, and task 16.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10921", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "context: Mary and $[e_{d1}]$ travelled to the \nbathroom. John and $[e_{d1}]$ travelled to the office. \nquestion: Where is $[e_{d1}]$ ? \nanswer: office \n???? \ncontext: $[e_{d2}]$ and Mary went back to the office. \nDaniel and Sandra went to the bedroom. \nquestion: Where is $[e_{d2}]$ ? \nanswer: bedroom \n???? \ncontext: Daniel and John moved to the hallway. \n $[e_q]$ and Daniel journeyed to the bathroom. \nquestion: Where is $[e_q]$ ? \nanswer:", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 87, + 460, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4: Named entity replacement overview for in context learning. Here we show an in-context learning example with $k = 2$ demonstrations before the final query. We consider 3 scenarios: replacing only the demonstration entities $(e_{d1}, e_{d2})$ , only the query entity $(e_q)$ , or both $(e_{d1}, e_{d2}, e_q)$ . All replacements are done with the same replacement entity $e^r$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 296, + 489, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019): This dataset is similar to a subset of the bAbI dataset, but contains more difficult multi-step questions. This allows us to determine whether named entity replacement robustness is affected by task difficulty. Given a multi-sentence context describing kinship relations between certain entities and a question, the task is to predict the kinship relation between the entities that can be inferred from the context but is not made explicit. We convert this into a multiple-choice question where we expect the model to pick the answer from the four choices provided.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 487, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021): This dataset is a collection of elementary multi-step mathematical reasoning questions. We specifically selected this dataset due to the challenging nature of arithmetic operations, where existing models often struggle to achieve accurate results. We subsampled GSM8k to include only examples which contained identifiable named entities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 623, + 489, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Tzioumis (2018) dataset, contains of 4,250 unique first names, associated with their unigram frequency, and self-reported demographic information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 755, + 489, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each sample in the dataset, which is comprised of a context, question, and answer triplet, we transform it into a formatted string. This transformation involves concatenating the field name, a colon, space, the respective value corresponding to that field, and newline character. We ap", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ply this transformation to $k$ demonstrations: $D = d_{1},d_{2},\\ldots ,d_{k}$ and the final query $q$ , where the answer to $q$ is omitted. We concatenate the formatted $k$ demonstrations and query $q$ , delimiting each string with a newline character followed by $\"\\# \\# \\# \"$ and a newline character. Figure 4 shows an incontext learning example.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Entity Selection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 210, + 685, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In general, we determine $e^o$ by selecting the first encountered entity within the question, as it often represents the subject of the question. If the question contains interrogative pronouns, such as \"who,\" no entities will be present within the question. In this case, we consider $e^o$ as the first entity encountered within the answer since it typically represents the subject being referred to. If the subject of the question and answer is referred to using pronouns then neither the question nor answer will contain any entities, we assume that noun ambiguity is not an issue and select the first encountered entity within the context as $e^o$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 233, + 885, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Entity-replacement Scenarios", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 456, + 793, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the demonstration-only replacement scenario, we perform entity replacement exclusively on the demonstrations $e_d$ while keeping the query unmodified 4. By selectively replacing entities within the context, question, and answer of the demonstrations, we aim to examine the extent to which this replacement strategy influences the model's performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 882, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the query-only replacement setting, we solely augment the entities within the query $e_{q}$ while leaving the demonstrations unaltered Fig 4. This allows us to investigate the impact of enhancing the query's entity representation on the model's ability to generate accurate responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 608, + 882, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Applying both demonstration and query replacement, we replace $e_d$ and $e_q$ in both the demonstrations and query simultaneously. By enriching the entity information in both the context and the question, we explore the combined effect of entity replacement on the overall performance of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 706, + 882, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Ensuring Grammatical Correctness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 832, + 840, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To begin, we verify the pronouns associated with both $e^o$ and $e^r$ using (gen, 2023). If the gender associated with $e^o$ corresponds with that of $e^r$ , we proceed to substitute $e^o$ with $e^r$ . However, if there", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10922", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is no alignment in gender, we refrain from altering $e^o$ and maintain its original form.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 130, + 226, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 Analyzing Best/Worst performing entities", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 156, + 485, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to examine the generalizability of the best and worst performing entities in each dataset, we extracted named entities from the validation dataset and tested them on the test dataset. More specifically, we replaced the named entities in the prompts of the validation dataset with a set of names that included 100 male and 100 female names. We then calculated the accuracy for each name, selecting the 10 names that exhibited the highest performance and the 10 names that showed the lowest performance. Next, we replaced the named entities in the test dataset prompts with these 20 selected names and calculated the corresponding accuracy for the test dataset. Table 2 presents the best and worst performing entities for each dataset along with the absolute percentage of accuracy changes. The ensemble model functions by replacing the named entity in the prompt with the highest performing entity and then generating an answer at each step. After cycling through the 10 best performing entities, it selects the answer with the most votes as the final response. This approach is referred to as majority@10. It's important to note that the bAbI task 1 doesn't have a 'best performing entity' because the baseline accuracy is already $100\\%$ , leaving no room for improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 178, + 489, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8 provides an example of an generated answer for the GSM8k test dataset. The original prompt failed to produce the correct answer, while the transformed prompt was able to successfully answer the question. The absolute improvement of $0.8\\%$ in the accuracy of GSM8k through the majority@10 is remarkable, given the following facts: 1) The baseline accuracy for this challenging dataset is $10.5\\%$ , making even a small improvement significant. 2) The number of named entities in GSM8k is fewer than in other datasets, meaning only a few words are replaced in the transformed prompt, as shown in Figure 8. The ratio of replaced words to the total number of words in the prompt is 0.032. 3) Of the 1319 examples in the GSM8k test dataset, 663 contain a male name, 377 contain a female name, and 279 don't contain any named entity in the query. We could have achieved greater changes in percentage if we had only considered examples where the gender of the best perform", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing entity matched the gender of the name in the query (as replacements wouldn't occur otherwise). However, we chose not to adjust the test dataset to ensure that our accuracy improvement could be compared with other studies.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The consistency in performance between the validation and test datasets in CLUTRR is lower than that in the other datasets. This could be attributed to the structure of CLUTRR, where four options are provided in the prompt, from which the model chooses an answer. This setup introduces a degree of randomness to the generated answer, potentially leading to less consistency between the performance of the validation and test datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 165, + 884, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.2 LLM Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 705, + 334 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The architecture of LLMs plays a crucial role in determining their behavior and performance, including their vulnerability to entity replacement. The design choices and architectural components of LLMs can influence how they process and generate text, affecting their sensitivity to changes in named input entities. By comparing the Flant5-XL, which employs an encoder-decoder architecture, with the GPT-J-6B, which represents a decoder-only architecture, we aimed to investigate the impact of LLM architecture on their brittleness towards entity replacement. The high variance in the performance of GPT-J (as shown in Fig 7) underscores that the brittleness towards entity replacement is not exclusive to the encoder-decoder architecture but is also a feature of decoder-only architecture models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 340, + 884, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.3 Effect of entity frequency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 625, + 756, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Frequently recurring named entities in the web, which subsequently appear in the training data, can impact both the model's ppl and performance. Entities appearing frequently in the training data are more likely to be well-represented in the model's understanding, contributing to lower ppl values. This occurs because the frequent presence of these entities reduces the unpredictability of the next word in a sequence, making it easier for the LLM to anticipate. The hypothesis is that names appearing more frequently would contribute to better model performance. To examine this hypothesis, the frequency of names, extracted from (Tzioumis, 2018), were categorized into five groups of equal numbers, labeled G1 to G5, ranging from the most to the least frequent names. Fig 9 presents the performance of Flan-T5-XL across different datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10923", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d2fa12070fd32ac897205bd220ddb0c766c2a9efe46e048bc8ea4736ad8eec2d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 192, + 490, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/074580c419c423622844c55c98b779242616403502e4dfd01ca02db84eff0410.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 505, + 192, + 870, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/149a1c5187a9b12426b10c9b18c1810803a37bb3390a2b5e830472973d64304c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Bootstrap results of GPT-J-6B for 3 distinct sets of names, each comprising 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across different name sets." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 482, + 490, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b595f85513bb0796b82cd377b64cef7f712d753e68c94765d5913129c854c29d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 482, + 868, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10924", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/84c5071efe92c658740b73b43fb7ab9a82d2445158c42c57023db64eadb65699.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 219, + 489, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9af7ee133001d94dd6145685fdd994c10f2f19ca3508f836765a296b8d4237c7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 219, + 870, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a3d0c964c46fa72e5dcfc45acd7e059152ae75558ae08d160fe211bd7efe33e5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 395, + 489, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a8be2c992d5164ed570c4c8fb0a62549d1c9061d5f2323a0edcd583e7e83e934.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 395, + 870, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fa2270a4e0ab7c99a1855f2a278ec33e6211bd361f83ee9d0cafdcc0942deaa0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Deviation in accuracy from the baseline (without data augmentation) for Flan-T5-XL across different datasets." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 568, + 489, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6adbcbf66a45bfc8c4b68034db00705847cb60e07ccc10e61116be7cf63afd4a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 568, + 870, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10925", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fc6aa65b5f61908d8679283485b4f204d69bc634e25afac91d976a623963c33e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 104, + 494, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ddbd6b645183aa081d4e287cc0f5f48cce9b986b4fe698cc6812c380a7380779.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 103, + 873, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dcec4185a5fef4c3dd60e4caa8629a2f2c8aead8bf54a79c699154c42db4b6dc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Deviation in accuracy of GPT-J from the baseline across various bAbI tasks. Like the encoder-decoder architecture, the decoder-only architecture also exhibits brittleness towards entity replacement." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 282, + 492, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dd0e5c65da0264ed6197fea3b66ecd58100960523f9ca9ebb2bff5d611931eb4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 282, + 873, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7125dc817e6dab1e6722d82340e62eee3454ac6ec98b07e07996c0c5ee4e27ef.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: An example of a generated answer from the GSM8k test dataset. In this instance, the original prompt fails to generate the correct answer, whereas the transformed prompt — with the best-performing entity replaced — successfully produces the correct response. This generated text is reproducible using a greedy decoding." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 546, + 882, + 840 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10926", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f221659095d2f3d58305b8b5881a62c7f2a1dda85f5423d06a99a52b9d2c80ce.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetIndexBest performing entityWorst performing entity
entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)
bAbI task 12 valid baseline Acc = 95.1 test baseline Acc = 95.51Penelope3.63.0Mihai-4.0-2.3
2Loreen3.63.0Raisa-4.0-3.6
3Dorcas3.63.2Ethel-3.7-3.5
4Toby3.43.4Migdalia-3.0-4.0
5Flora3.32.9Azucena-2.6-3.2
6Nataliya3.33.4Bhavana-2.6-3.6
7Nathaniel3.33.4Surinder-2.1-0.9
8Lucretia3.33.3Sanjeev-1.9-1.7
9Keiko3.23.0Armida-1.8-1.1
10Bernardo3.23.1Jianwei-1.7-1.4
Majority@103.5
bAbI task 14 valid baseline Acc = 76.1 test baseline Acc = 77.51Erich2.92.0Frederick-1.4-1.2
2Jacqueline2.61.8Raisa-1.3-1.3
3Zoltan2.42.3Maryellen-0.5-0.6
4Chryystal2.31.5Meera-0.5-0.5
5Petra2.21.1———
6Pravin2.21.8———
7Claudio2.21.0———
8Sanjeev2.21.1———
9Soledad2.12.1———
10Prashant2.12.3———
Majority@102.0
bAbI task 16 valid baseline Acc = 53.5 test baseline Acc = 53.31Loyd8.98.4———
2Armida8.78.1———
3Brannon8.79.5———
4Pravin8.48.8———
5Bozena8.18.2———
6Surinder8.07.2———
7Bonita8.07.1———
8Trena8.06.9———
9Rosalia7.96.2———
10Leopoldo7.79.3———
Majority@108.0
GSM8k valid baseline Acc = 14.3 test baseline Acc = 10.51Douglas0.50.9Leopoldo-2.5-0.8
2Juliann0.40.2Youssef-1.9-0.3
3Kathleen0.30.4Epifanioo-1.70.5
4Ernst0.30.4Sanjeev-1.6-0.8
5Tonja0.30.0Zoltan-1.5-0.3
6Angela0.20.2Jianwei-1.4-0.4
7Hina0.2-0.3Abelardo-1.3-0.7
8Diego0.20.4Alphonse-1.3-0.7
9Bradley0.10.9Dagoberto-1.3-0.5
10Jonathan0.10.8Nathaniel-1.2-0.1
Majority@100.8
CLUTRR valid baseline Acc = 59.0 test baseline Acc = 53.01Ashlee4.41.2Rob-8.20.6
2Penelope3.43.4Ahmad-8.0-0.2
3Allyson3.21.0Mihai-7.60.6
4Chryystal2.82.6Frederick-7.6-0.4
5Keiko2.8-4.4Martin-7.40.6
6Alisha2.63.0Jake-7.4-0.4
7Rosalba2.41.8Edward-7.40.2
8Jacqueline2.22.0Erik-7.40.2
9Zoltan2.21.2Giovanni-7.4-0.4
10Dillon2.01.4Douglas-7.2-0.2
Majority@101.6
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 153, + 884, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Performance of the best and worst performing entities in the validation and test datasets. The green color signifies consistent performance between the validation and test datasets, while the orange color indicates inconsistency. The entities, selected based on their performance in the validation dataset, show consistent behavior in the test dataset, suggesting that they generalize in each dataset. We have noted less than 10 entities in some columns because the remaining entities did not reduce the accuracy compared to the baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 766, + 884, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10927", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contrary to our hypothesis and expectations, there appears to be no correlation between the frequency of names and the performance of LLMs in entity replacement.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.4 Effect of entity token length", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 159, + 381, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The token length of a prompt can directly influence the performance of a QA task, particularly as it relates to the computational demands on the model. A longer prompt, represented by a larger number of tokens, increases the amount of data the model must process, potentially straining the model's capabilities and affecting the overall efficiency and accuracy of the task. Changes in the token length of a replaced name, which in turn modify the prompt's overall token length due to multiple instances of the name within the prompt, provide an interesting variable for analysis. We delved into this potential effect by examining the model's performance in relation to the token length of names, as illustrated in Fig 10. Contrary to expectations, our study found no observable correlation between the model's performance and the token length of names. This suggests that, within the ranges examined, the token length of names does not significantly affect the model's performance in QA tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 180, + 489, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.5 Perplexity Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 512, + 315, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our expectation was to observe a strong inverse correlation between the perplexity and accuracy of the model across all datasets, according to the findings reported in (Gonen et al., 2022a). However, we noted this inverse correlation only in some datasets, such as the bAbI task 14 (as shown in Figure Fig 11), but not in all of them. A plausible explanation for this inconsistency could be significant differences in our methodology compared to the approach adopted in (Gonen et al., 2022a). In our study, we limited our alterations to substituting named entities within the prompts, as opposed to changing the entire prompt. Therefore, this discrepancy in data augmentation techniques could potentially account for the lack of a significant correlation in some datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fig 12 shows the deviation of ppl from the baseline across various tasks. Regardless of the task, a more reduction in prompt ppl was observed when entities were replaced both in demonstrations and queries, compared to the other two data augmentation settings. This can likely be attributed to the repeated usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt. The frequent repetition", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of the same named entity can contribute to lower ppl due to the decreased uncertainty and increased predictability of the next word in the sequence.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10928", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/58e32b9a1d8be3aca18b8d21e84a5e900f70751678a1380cd248c6f16e43b277.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 181, + 494, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0cc51f357f2b90ed53ae8166969af204f584d8fafa2185109bbc91b4a56ce1de.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 181, + 870, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/37ac92f5d8397bfd8fa8e32f952baaca36d88b46979b43e1f016f85873041a4a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 378, + 492, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1d19d6b25aead79dfcb0ff6c926cc9fd0417248d8d82c84e24c3aea76fb21d11.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 376, + 870, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e25d5ca2003cba21a913c6ef1a965a09b79d7e307a69ec6dc759e92aa9bc3f36.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: The performance of Flan-T5-XL in relation to the frequency of names derived from a demographic dataset. Contrary to expectations, no correlation appears to exist between the frequency of names and the performance of Flan-T5-XL." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 574, + 494, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6a5d7a6d2b38215a0d6e2ad3e8f5a130ea23aae41f6b5fa36ac2822f535aa51a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 574, + 870, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10929", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/eb4910993580662683da331b1c3466154c0a8e1cdebb80164a4dc0471c38e127.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 181, + 494, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c7f334e2cef818d5180ef97130361a86b3d660760b22cb7e08f9a0d0fb42075f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 181, + 870, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ee690188a4278ea50a5461c0a43e0aaf3f0ff4d7fff300a5ba0fa3646094d636.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 378, + 494, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/45a432677bb3ac51bada3ed1361b45190d4ef9e46315b0587fa17bf3fff65c92.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 376, + 870, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e631edc615afeea6f5496310d1725428481ff0d60956520a0768f6f8d03ae95f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: The performance of various names in relation to their token length when using Flan-T5-XL. There is no apparent correlation between the performance and the token length in names. The quantity of names corresponding to each group of token lengths is illustrated on the plot." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 142, + 574, + 494, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5a8ab99e5b23ee2e077f59376c0bde6c68b9ac10248c552ba1a7fba4f3196ec0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 574, + 870, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10930", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/55ef7e12e623edcf93b4f8edc5372fd7fc5edd4d38bf0d9b0f3204b7b0536358.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Correlation between prompt perplexity (ppl) and LLM performance for task 14 and GPT-J-6B across various data augmentation settings. The accuracy and perplexity of prompt for the baseline are shown by red lines. Although a statistically significant inverse correlation between accuracy and ppl is observed in this dataset, this trend is not consistent across all datasets. The absence of this trend, contrary to expectation, could be attributed to the nature of our data augmentation approach, which only involved entity replacement instead of entire prompt modification." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 118, + 384, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/308344b9ef32d4e7ad0cee1a5995f4c16dc916fdad0a39aaf452168c7b965240.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 386, + 118, + 625, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ab2d347feb646d3499a5a59a68a7b05e460ec4ac40d0a38f083b45d11ed2fbde.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 118, + 870, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f5c65aec909b08d9053bcfa5d800e94e9356bb5254188cd6537a95db895722bf.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 470, + 495, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/350b9857cc3b55f107480b196ec3f22045615f87988c8087faec994472bf696b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 499, + 470, + 873, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/df0cfa71990b174c091e6d0f0b0f68a287f359214d474e3a5b816523961a6f4e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: Deviation of prompt ppl for GPT-J-6B from the baseline across different tasks. A greater reduction in prompt ppl is observed when entities are replaced in both demonstrations and queries, a trend likely driven by the recurrent usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 649, + 494, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b762292e2ec4bcf50af5382be903b24fe5be2077e24f0663b2a059c110810f73.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 499, + 649, + 873, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10931", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_model.json b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b75c1aecbd57708ccb0a49c5aa65cf472f76a2a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2546 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.08, + 0.851, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robustness of Named Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.107, + 0.795, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saeed Goodarzi† Nikhil Kagita† Dennis Minn† Shufan Wang†" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.133, + 0.768, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roberto Dessi\\(^{\\infty, \\pi}\\) Shubham Toshniwal\\(^{\\nabla}\\) Adina Williams\\(^{\\infty}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.322, + 0.158, + 0.675, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jack Lanchantin\\*,Koustuv Sinha\\*," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.182, + 0.773, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "†University of Massachusetts Amherst; †Universitat Pompeu Fabra \n∇NVIDIA; †FAIR, Meta" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.26, + 0.218, + 0.744, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sgoodarzitae@umass.edu, koustuvs@meta.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.342, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A key feature of modern large language models (LLMs) is their ability to perform in-context learning, a prompting technique where query-answer demonstrations are shown before the final query. This allows for generalization to novel distributions at inference time where the LLM can learn new rules without parameter updates. However, the choice of demonstrations and their relationship to a particular query can have a profound impact on model accuracy, raising concerns about the true in-context generalization capabilities (Zhao et al., 2021). In this work, we explore the robustness of the in-context learning paradigm by focusing on entities. In particular, we seek to understand the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements. We discover a significant variance in downstream performance based on the choice of the named entities, across three popular reasoning tasks and two popular LLMs. Specifically, model accuracy on the test sets can fluctuate between -2.7 to +8.0 points depending on the choice of named entity replacements. Our analysis exposes the sensitivity of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entities, and offers a simple recipe to improve test performance by hyper-parameter tuning the named entities for a given dataset. Code and datasets for reproducing the results are publicly available.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.733, + 0.26, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Modern large language models (LLMs) routinely demonstrate in-context learning, where the model can solve a wide range of tasks from a few demonstration examples (or exemplars) (Brown et al., 2020). In-context learning, or few-shot prompting, is a powerful learning paradigm as it allows for fast adaptation to new tasks without the need to train" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.418, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "https://github.com/DennisMinn/ entities-in-context" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.906, + 0.256, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal Leadership." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.64, + 0.255, + 0.748, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Demonstration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.265, + 0.857, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[...] context: Jason had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Jason has 12 lollipops." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.29, + 0.875, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "question: How many lollipops did Jason give to Denny? \nanswer: Jason started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. So he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.317, + 0.87, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: \\(60 \\times 2 / 3 = 40\\) loaves of bread are sold in the morning. \\(60 - 40 = 20\\) loaves of bread are left. \\(20 \\times 2 = 40\\) loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ###" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.607, + 0.374, + 0.783, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Named Entity Replaced Demonstration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.383, + 0.875, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[...] context: Douglas had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Douglas has 12 lollipops." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.409, + 0.87, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "question: How many lollipops did Douglas give to Denny? \nanswer: Douglas started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. \nSo he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.435, + 0.87, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: \\(60 \\times 2 / 3 = 40\\) loaves of bread are sold in the morning. \\(60 - 40 = 20\\) loaves of bread are left. \\(20 \\times 1 / 2 = 10\\) loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ### 10" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.884, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Named entity replacements for In-Context Learning. Example from FLAN-T5 on GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). Here we replace all male entities \\((e^{o})\\) in demonstrations with Douglas, and observe a change in the query answer prediction (from the incorrect answer 40 to the correct answer 10). Only 1 out of \\(k = 5\\) demonstrations \\((D)\\) is depicted to conserve space, with the remaining demonstrations denoted by “[...]”." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.642, + 0.885, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "model parameters. However, model performance in the in-context setting can vary significantly with the choice of demonstrations. Previous work has uncovered performance instability when altering the demonstrations, particularly when the demonstrations change semantically (Schick and Schütze, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021; Gonen et al., 2022a). Naturally, a question arises whether LLMs are robust to semantically preserving, minimal alterations to the demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we seek to address this question using simple, semantically preserving alterations: named entity replacements. Because changing named entities should not, in principle, change the correct response to the query, the model is expected to remain invariant to such modifications. For example, given the demonstration \"Alice has" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10914" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.787, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10914-10931" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.96, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the ball. Alice went to the kitchen. Where is the ball? kitchen.\", the model should be invariant to the choice of the named entity \"Alice\"-i.e., a model should behave the same if we swap all instances of \"Alice\" with another named entity, e.g. \"Eve\". However, we observe that the model behavior is not always robust to such alterations (Figure 1)—prompting us to critically evaluate named entity invariance within in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.231, + 0.49, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct experiments to investigate the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements in three popular named entity heavy reasoning tasks, namely, bAbI, Weston et al. 2015; CLUTRR, Sinha et al. 2019; GSM8k, Cobbe et al. 2021, and two popular models, Flant5-XL (Chung et al., 2022a) and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021). Our key findings are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.363, + 0.49, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Neither Flan-T5-XL nor GPT-J are robust to entity replacements for in-context learning. On bAbI tasks, the best replacement entity yields a +8.0 point performance increase (for Task 16), and the worst replacement entity yields a -2.7 point performance drop (Task 12). Similarly, for CLUTRR, we observe a 1.6 point improvement. For GSM8k, we only find <1 point increase/decrease with entity replacements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.514, + 0.49, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Performance gains from best performing entities are not random. To verify, we ran a bootstrap analysis and observe consistent gains with low variance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.584, + 0.489, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Best/worst performing entities are task-specific." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.606, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We also analyze frequency, token length and perplexity of replaced entities, and find none of these alone explain our results, introducing an open problem for future research." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.363, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.683, + 0.322, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The goal of this study is to investigate the robustness of LLMs' in-context learning performance by changing entities in the demonstrations and queries. We consider a fixed set of prompt demonstrations aside from the named entities. By replacing the named entities and observing any accuracy changes, we can better understand the effect of certain entities on a model's accuracy. While many prior works have studied the robustness of LLMs with respect to perturbations (Ribeiro et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2020; Balasubramanian et al., 2020), we focus our analysis on in-context learning. A more in-depth analysis of related work is provided in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.706, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix subsection A.1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.113, + 0.72, + 0.129 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 In-Context Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.134, + 0.885, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With in-context learning, a test sample is comprised of a sequence of \\( k \\) demonstrations \\( D = d_{1},d_{2},\\ldots ,d_{k} \\). Each \\( d_{i} \\) consists of a context, question and answer string. The final query \\( q \\), consisting only of a context and question string, follows \\( D \\). The goal of in-context learning is to predict the answer to \\( q \\) given a small set of demonstrations at inference time. In other words, learning is done by eliciting activations and not changing model parameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.307, + 0.844, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Modifying In-Context Learning with Named Entity Replacement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.344, + 0.884, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We seek to measure the change in accuracy when we replace named entities in the demonstrations \\((D)\\) and/or query \\((q)\\). We perform entity replacement in the following way." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.408, + 0.885, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first extract the named entities from each demonstration and query using an off-the-shelf NER model, and flag the subject entity, \\( e^o \\), for replacement. We then select a replacement entity \\( e^r \\) from a large set of entities from Tzioumis (2018), which is composed of 4,250 unique first names. Finally, we perform named entity replacement in one of the following three settings: \\((D)\\) replace all \\( e^o \\) entities in the demonstrations, \\( e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \\dots, e_{d_k}^o \\), \\((q)\\) replace all \\( e^o \\) entities in the query, \\( e_q^o \\), or \\((D\\) and \\( q)\\) replace all \\( e^o \\) entities in both the query and demonstrations, \\( e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \\dots, e_{d_k}^o, e_q^o \\). Note that each demonstration \\( d_i \\) can contain multiple instances of the entity \\( e^o \\). These settings allow us to isolate and evaluate the effect of named entities in different parts of an in-context learning sample on accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.667, + 0.884, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We run multiple experiments using bootstrap sampling (with replacement) on three sets of names, half labeled as 'male' and half as 'female'. For each name \\( e^r \\) in a particular bootstrap set, we replace the original entities \\( e^o \\) with \\( e^r \\) in the test samples according to one of the three previously mentioned settings. We then evaluate the performance on the entity-replaced dataset. This procedure is repeated for each bootstrap set." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.82, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://huggingface.co/dslim/bert-base-NER, see Appendix Section A.3 for details on the selection of \\(e^{o}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.857, + 0.868, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Appendix Section A.4 describes each setting in detail." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.87, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4While our data source provided a binary gender annotation on names based on self-report, we note that this is a proxy and moreover, that using names as a proxy for gender is indicative but can be noisy." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.82, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10915" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.089, + 0.482, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.44, + 0.489, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Bootstrap results of Flan-T5-XL on validation sets for 3 distinct sets of 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across bootstrap sets of names." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.51, + 0.49, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baseline results are reported using the original prompt demonstrations and query. However, our replacement strategy introduces a frequency bias, as \\( e^r \\) is used to replace multiple demonstrations in a given input, resulting in artificially increasing the usage of a given entity in an input. Thus, we also report the median accuracy of replacement, which serves as a proxy baseline for replacing all demonstrations and/or query with a random entity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.667, + 0.325, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Models and Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.689, + 0.489, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our entity replacement strategy on both an encoder-decoder LLM (Flan-T5-XL, 3B; Chung et al. 2022b) as well as a decoder-only LLM (GPT-J, 6B; Wang and Komatsuzaki 2021). We test these models across the following datasets: bAbI (Tasks 1, 12, 14, 16; Weston et al. 2015), CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019), GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). We chose these datasets primarily because they include a significant presence of named entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.834, + 0.489, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each dataset, we select five samples from the training set to serve as demonstrations. To maintain grammatical correctness and clarity, we" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "only do replacements that preserve gender when a pronoun is contained in the sentence (see Appendix A.5). This step specifically addresses any potential uncontrolled effects on the performance from entity replacement, such as perplexity spikes that may results from swaps where the genders of \\( e^{o} \\) and \\( e^{r} \\) differ, and the model is expected to accommodate unexpected pronominal coreference with \\( e^{r} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.231, + 0.61, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.885, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance Across Bootstrap Sets. We find a noticeable change in accuracy with the best and worst performing entity compared to the baseline or median performing entity. Figure 2 shows Flant5-XL results on all validation datasets (analogous GPT-J results are in Figure 5 in the Appendix, and follow a similar pattern). This indicates that specific entities can noticeably alter in-context learning performance. Furthermore, the standard deviations for the median and best performing entity across bootstraps are low, suggesting that the selection of different name sets will likely yield similar median and best performance. However, the variation in the worst performing entities is large." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.493, + 0.884, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance Within a Single Bootstrap Set. To analyze the results in more detail, we measure the performance for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J on a single bootstrap set of 200 examples. We show the results for bAbI task 14 in Figure 3. When we replace names only in the demonstrations \\((D)\\), the variance in model performance is lower compared to both when we replace names only in the query \\((q)\\) and in both query and demonstration \\((D\\) and \\(q)\\). The \\((D\\) and \\(q)\\) setup exhibits the highest variance, as this scenario involves the maximum change in the tokens of the original prompt. Nevertheless, we see a consistent variance from the baseline by simply replacing named entities in any of the three replacement settings. Other datasets exhibit a similar behavior; see Appendix Figures 6 and 7." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Best and Worst Entity Generalization. Thus far, we've used the valid set to demonstrate accuracy variation. To evaluate the best performing entities on the test set, we implement a majority voting method as follows. We first find the 10 best performing entities on the valid set. For each sample in the test set, we take the majority answer prediction from the 10 different best names, denoted \"Maj@10\". Table 1 shows results of entity replacements across the validation and test sets by replac" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5Except GSM8k, where we select 5 of the 8 prompts from Wei et al. (2022)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10916" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing entities in the demonstration and query (both \\(D\\) and \\(q\\)). We observe a maximum 8.0 point accuracy increase, seen on bAbI task 16.\\(^{6}\\) The best and worst performing entities vary by dataset, but overall entities generalize across the validation and test sets, with a uniform increase in accuracy from the best entity. A list of these entities for each dataset and further evaluations are in Appendix Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.214, + 0.489, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For all datasets, there are entities with appreciable deviations from the baseline, and these entities generalize across the validation and test splits. This finding indicates that the observed accuracy shifts are not coincidental and highlights the influence of entity swaps, including those that preserve overall example semantics, such as for names, on model performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.356, + 0.223, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.382, + 0.489, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Why are the models not invariant to entity replacements? We conducted several analyses in attempts to find the root cause of this result, but they were largely inconclusive." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.453, + 0.489, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Does the frequency of names affect how much they shift model performance? The lack of robustness could well be explained by the frequency effects of named entities in the training corpus of the pre-trained model (Wei et al., 2021). We use the entity frequency data provided by Tzioumis (2018), and assessed performance changes across names with varying frequencies. We do not find any correlation between name frequency and the model performance post entity replacement (see Appendix Section B.3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.636, + 0.489, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Does the token length of names affect performance? Another hypothesis of the invariance could be due to the inconsistent tokenization of named entities. Rare names can be tokenized into longer tokens based on the learned subwords of the model. We analyzed token length post tokenization and compared it with model performance, but we are unable to find any meaningful relationship between the two (see Appendix Section B.4)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.787, + 0.489, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Does improved performance result from a decrease in prompt perplexity due to entity replacement? Finally, the surprisal of the LLM to certain entities could be a promising hypothesis to explain the change in model performance (Gonen et al., 2022b). We compare prompt perplexity af" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.091, + 0.86, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.598, + 0.266, + 0.832, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "bAbI Task 14 (Baseline Accuracy=70)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.278, + 0.86, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.457, + 0.881, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Accuracy for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J-6B on bAbI task 14 for a single bootstrap set of 200 samples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.884, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ter entity replacement to LLM performance, and yet again we are unable to find a statistical correlation (see Appendix Section B.5). While Gonen et al. (2022b) suggests improvement of model performance with decrease in perplexity, we observe certain entities displaying the opposite behavior." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.625, + 0.641, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.651, + 0.884, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this study, we find that LLMs exhibit a consistent lack of robustness with respect to named entity replacement for the in-context learning setting, fur" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.722, + 0.883, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetBaselineBest EntityWorst Entity
ValidTestValidTest (Maj@10)ValidTest
bAbI 1295.195.598.5 [+3.4]99.0 [+3.5]92.4 [-2.7]93.0 [-2.5]
bAbI 1476.177.578.4 [+2.3]79.5 [+2.0]75.2 [-0.9]76.6 [-0.9]
bAbI 1653.553.361.7 [+8.2]61.3 [+8.0]55.5 [+2.0]55.9 [+2.6]
GSM8k14.310.514.6 [+0.3]11.3 [+0.8]12.7 [-1.6]10.1 [-0.4]
CLUTRR59.053.061.8 [+2.8]54.6 [+1.6]51.4 [-7.6]53.1 [+0.1]
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.815, + 0.883, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Performance of FLAN-T5-XL, with accuracy shift from baseline provided in [square brackets]. Entity replacements are done in the \\( D \\) and \\( q \\) setting. bAbI task 1 reaches perfect accuracy and is thus omitted from this table. Performance between the validation and test datasets is consistent, and we observe a generalizable increase in accuracy across all datasets." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6We did not include bAbI Task 1 because the baseline accuracy is already \\(100\\%\\), leaving no space for improvement." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10917" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ther questioning the process of reasoning employed by these models (Min et al., 2022). We demonstrate this across three axes: the complexity of the task, the model architecture, and which named entities are to be replaced (in the demonstrations, query, or both). The cause for this effect remains elusive, which opens up exciting research directions. One intriguing result is that the entities that can boost performance are dataset specific. This points to potential avenues for enhancing LLM downstream performance by performing hyperparameter search over a range of entities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.291, + 0.251, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.317, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We acknowledge that the selection of names in our study may not provide an unbiased representation of the complete set of possible names. The data provided by Tzioumis (2018) was derived from mortgage applications which may introduce a bias against popular names within marginalized communities. Moreover, this issue is compounded when we sub-sample the set of names due to computational limitations. Additionally, we used a NER model available through Hugging Face to identify \\( e^o \\). It was BERT-based (Devlin et al., 2018) and trained on a CONLL-2003 corpus (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) (Wolf et al., 2019), and we anecdotally observed that sometimes it struggles to identify rare names as named entities, for example, it incorrectly identified \"TreQuan\" as \"TreQ.\" We spot checked for this issue and removed names that posed problems to the best of our abilities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.62, + 0.386, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Ethics and Broader Impact" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.492, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we explore the effect of name swaps in an in-context learning setup and find that particular names can increase accuracy. In our efforts to align names with their respective pronouns, we assumed binary gender, but acknowledge that other genders exist. We made this assumption because our evaluated datasets used binary pronouns, and our names dataset was also only binarily annotated. While our paper assumes name-gender associations, we do not want to discredit negative evidence. A name that is not explicitly associated with a gender doesn't imply evidence of absence of association (imagine that only one person named \"Alex\" was sampled, and she was a woman—that doesn't mean that there aren't also men or nonbinary people called \"Alex\"). At the moment, there aren't many annotated name datasets that consists" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of gender-agnostic, gender-ambiguous, or gender-neutral names. Hopefully, additional work such as (Dev et al., 2021; Lauscher et al., 2022; Ovalle et al., 2023) will expand such resources, but regardless of these complications, our conclusions are still useful for trying to understand why some names can shift model performance under some settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.241, + 0.61, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.264, + 0.886, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2023. Genderize.io. https://genderize.io/. Accessed: June 15, 2023." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.302, + 0.886, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oshin Agarwal, Yinfei Yang, Byron C Wallace, and Ani Nenkova. 2020. Entity-switched datasets: An approach to auditing the in-domain robustness of named entity recognition models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04123." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.378, + 0.886, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sriram Balasubramanian, Naman Jain, Gaurav Jindal, Abhijeet Awasthi, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2020. What's in a name? are BERT named entity representations just as good for any other name? In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 205-214, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.481, + 0.886, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.571, + 0.886, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022a. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.726, + 0.886, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022b. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.802, + 0.886, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.892, + 0.886, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sunipa Dev, Masoud Monajatipoor, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Jeff Phillips, and Kai-Wei Chang." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.264, + 0.886, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10918" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2021. Harms of gender exclusivity and challenges in non-binary representation in language technologies. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1968-1994, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.178, + 0.489, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.245, + 0.487, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2017. Hotflip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06751." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.311, + 0.487, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.39, + 0.487, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022a. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04037." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.457, + 0.487, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hila Gonen, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2022b. Analyzing gender representation in multilingual models. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 67-77, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.549, + 0.487, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8018-8025." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.642, + 0.487, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anne Lauscher, Archie Crowley, and Dirk Hovy. 2022. Welcome to the modern world of pronouns: Identity-inclusive natural language processing beyond gender. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1221-1232, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.747, + 0.487, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bill Yuchen Lin, Wenyang Gao, Jun Yan, Ryan Moreno, and Xiang Ren. 2021. RockNER: A simple method to create adversarial examples for evaluating the robustness of named entity recognition models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3728-3737, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert L Logan IV, Ivana Balažević, Eric Wallace, Fabio Petroni, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Cutting down on prompts and parameters: Simple few-shot learning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13353." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.16, + 0.883, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.234, + 0.883, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anaelia Ovalle, Palash Goyal, Jwala Dhamala, Zachary Jaggers, Kai-Wei Chang, Aram Galstyan, Richard Zemel, and Rahul Gupta. 2023. \"i'm fully who i am\": Towards centering transgender and non-binary voices to measure biases in open language generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1246-1266." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.348, + 0.883, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM 2016-2016 IEEE Military Communications Conference, pages 49-54. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.421, + 0.883, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:11054-11070." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.482, + 0.883, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.582, + 0.883, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.643, + 0.883, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2022. True few-shot learning with prompts—a real-world perspective. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:716-731." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.704, + 0.883, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.778, + 0.883, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10919" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04388." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.489, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Konstantinos Tzioumis. 2018. Demographic aspects of first names. Scientific data, 5(1):1-9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Wang, Qin Liu, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Yicheng Zou, Xin Zhou, Jiacheng Ye, Yongxin Zhang, Rui Zheng, Zexiong Pang, Qinzhuo Wu, Zhengyan Li, Chong Zhang, Ruotian Ma, Zichu Fei, Ruijian Cai, Jun Zhao, Xingwu Hu, Zhiheng Yan, Yiding Tan, Yuan Hu, Qiyuan Bian, Zhihua Liu, Shan Qin, Bolin Zhu, Xiaoyu Xing, Jinlan Fu, Yue Zhang, Minlong Peng, Xiaqing Zheng, Yaqian Zhou, Zhongyu Wei, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. TextFlint: Unified multilingual robustness evaluation toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 347-355, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.48, + 0.489, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Dan Garrette, Tal Linzen, and Ellie Pavlick. 2021. Frequency effects on syntactic rule learning in transformers." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.53, + 0.489, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.593, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander M Rush, Bart Van Merrienboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2015. Towards ai-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.668, + 0.49, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.757, + 0.49, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10920" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.239, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.11, + 0.275, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.131, + 0.49, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Several works investigated the robustness of language models with respect to input rewrites (Papernot et al., 2016; Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020). In particular, Balasubramanian et al. (2020) found that while fine-tuned BERT models were brittle in certain tasks, they demonstrated robustness against entity replacement for question answering. Other works have shown that many transformer-based models are insufficiently robust to name swaps (Ribeiro et al. 2020; Agarwal et al. 2020; Lin et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021, i.a.), Our work differs from these in that we focus on the in-context learning setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.341, + 0.49, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ability to do in-context learning first emerged from Brown et al. (2020). Subsequently, many works sought to improve and understand the abilities of LLMs with respect to in-context learning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Perez et al. (2021); Logan IV et al. (2021); Schick and Schütze (2022); Turpin et al. (2023) show an improvement over the original paper in the the \"true few-shot learning\" setup where there is no access to a large test set to tune in-context learning hyperparameters. Despite the impressive results of this new paradigm, little has been understood regarding the generalization of certain in-context demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.55, + 0.49, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gonen et al. (2022a) bring to attention the importance of the specific prompts in model performance. They show that the lower the perplexity of the prompt is, the better the prompt is able to perform the task. Min et al. (2022) show that the actual labels in the prompt are not very important. However, the labels still have a small impact in performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.679, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In recent years, several studies have explored the significance of prompt quality in few-shot learning, particularly in the context of question-answering tasks. One such study was conducted by Shin et al. (2020) who proposed AutoPrompt, an automated approach for prompt generation in few-shot learning scenarios that has been shown to achieve the highest accuracy. The AutoPrompt model leverages gradient-based prompt search techniques to find the optimal prompt for a given task, thereby reducing the need for human intervention. Additionally, AutoPrompt utilizes Masked Language Models (MLMs) to perform sentiment analysis and natural language inference tasks without the need for fine-tuning, highlighting the potential of MLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in few-shot learning scenarios. In another study, Gonen et al. (2022a) introduced a novel technique for prompt generation that involves using a small set of manually created prompts and then applying paraphrasing and backtranslation to generate additional prompts automatically. Specifically, they utilized GPT-3 to perform the paraphrasing step, which involves rephrasing the original prompts while preserving their underlying meaning. The backtranslation step then involves translating the paraphrased prompts into another language and then back into the original language to generate new prompts that are semantically similar to the original prompts but with different phrasing and wording. This approach enables the generation of a large number of diverse prompts without requiring extensive manual effort, which can be particularly useful in few-shot learning scenarios where data is limited. Gonen et al. (2022a) also demonstrated an inverse relationship between the perplexity of the prompts and the model's performance across various tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.885, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work is related to previous studies as we focus on the true few-shot learning setup for the task of question answering and explore the robustness of NLP models against entity replacement. There are three main ways in which our work differs from previous studies. First, our investigation focuses on analyzing the robustness of language models against entity replacement specifically for the task of question answering in the ICL setup, which has not been explored in previous studies. Second, we utilize left-to-right language models, which are more widely used and powerful than masked language models. Finally, our approach involves prompt-learning instead of fine-tuning, whereby the parameters of the language model are modified to improve its performance on specific tasks. By leveraging the true few-shot learning setup and prompt-learning techniques, we aim to develop a more robust and effective approach for few-shot question-answering tasks that can handle entity replacement and other challenges more effectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.799, + 0.681, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Dataset Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "bAbI (Weston et al., 2015): The bAbI dataset consists of 20 tasks that evaluate various aspects of language understanding by NLP models. In our experiments, we select four tasks representing varying degrees of difficulty from the bAbI dataset: task 1, task 12, task 14, and task 16." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10921" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.089, + 0.461, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context: Mary and \\([e_{d1}]\\) travelled to the \nbathroom. John and \\([e_{d1}]\\) travelled to the office. \nquestion: Where is \\([e_{d1}]\\)? \nanswer: office \n???? \ncontext: \\([e_{d2}]\\) and Mary went back to the office. \nDaniel and Sandra went to the bedroom. \nquestion: Where is \\([e_{d2}]\\)? \nanswer: bedroom \n???? \ncontext: Daniel and John moved to the hallway. \n\\([e_q]\\) and Daniel journeyed to the bathroom. \nquestion: Where is \\([e_q]\\)? \nanswer:" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.49, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Named entity replacement overview for in context learning. Here we show an in-context learning example with \\( k = 2 \\) demonstrations before the final query. We consider 3 scenarios: replacing only the demonstration entities \\( (e_{d1}, e_{d2}) \\), only the query entity \\( (e_q) \\), or both \\( (e_{d1}, e_{d2}, e_q) \\). All replacements are done with the same replacement entity \\( e^r \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.428, + 0.489, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019): This dataset is similar to a subset of the bAbI dataset, but contains more difficult multi-step questions. This allows us to determine whether named entity replacement robustness is affected by task difficulty. Given a multi-sentence context describing kinship relations between certain entities and a question, the task is to predict the kinship relation between the entities that can be inferred from the context but is not made explicit. We convert this into a multiple-choice question where we expect the model to pick the answer from the four choices provided." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.624, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021): This dataset is a collection of elementary multi-step mathematical reasoning questions. We specifically selected this dataset due to the challenging nature of arithmetic operations, where existing models often struggle to achieve accurate results. We subsampled GSM8k to include only examples which contained identifiable named entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.756, + 0.49, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Tzioumis (2018) dataset, contains of 4,250 unique first names, associated with their unigram frequency, and self-reported demographic information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each sample in the dataset, which is comprised of a context, question, and answer triplet, we transform it into a formatted string. This transformation involves concatenating the field name, a colon, space, the respective value corresponding to that field, and newline character. We ap" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ply this transformation to \\(k\\) demonstrations: \\(D = d_{1},d_{2},\\ldots ,d_{k}\\) and the final query \\(q\\) , where the answer to \\(q\\) is omitted. We concatenate the formatted \\(k\\) demonstrations and query \\(q\\) , delimiting each string with a newline character followed by \\(\"\\# \\# \\# \"\\) and a newline character. Figure 4 shows an incontext learning example." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.211, + 0.686, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Entity Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.234, + 0.886, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In general, we determine \\( e^o \\) by selecting the first encountered entity within the question, as it often represents the subject of the question. If the question contains interrogative pronouns, such as \"who,\" no entities will be present within the question. In this case, we consider \\( e^o \\) as the first entity encountered within the answer since it typically represents the subject being referred to. If the subject of the question and answer is referred to using pronouns then neither the question nor answer will contain any entities, we assume that noun ambiguity is not an issue and select the first encountered entity within the context as \\( e^o \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.457, + 0.794, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Entity-replacement Scenarios" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the demonstration-only replacement scenario, we perform entity replacement exclusively on the demonstrations \\( e_d \\) while keeping the query unmodified 4. By selectively replacing entities within the context, question, and answer of the demonstrations, we aim to examine the extent to which this replacement strategy influences the model's performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.609, + 0.884, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the query-only replacement setting, we solely augment the entities within the query \\( e_{q} \\) while leaving the demonstrations unaltered Fig 4. This allows us to investigate the impact of enhancing the query's entity representation on the model's ability to generate accurate responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.707, + 0.884, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Applying both demonstration and query replacement, we replace \\( e_d \\) and \\( e_q \\) in both the demonstrations and query simultaneously. By enriching the entity information in both the context and the question, we explore the combined effect of entity replacement on the overall performance of the model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.833, + 0.842, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Ensuring Grammatical Correctness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To begin, we verify the pronouns associated with both \\( e^o \\) and \\( e^r \\) using (gen, 2023). If the gender associated with \\( e^o \\) corresponds with that of \\( e^r \\), we proceed to substitute \\( e^o \\) with \\( e^r \\). However, if there" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10922" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is no alignment in gender, we refrain from altering \\( e^o \\) and maintain its original form." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.131, + 0.227, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.157, + 0.486, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 Analyzing Best/Worst performing entities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.179, + 0.49, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to examine the generalizability of the best and worst performing entities in each dataset, we extracted named entities from the validation dataset and tested them on the test dataset. More specifically, we replaced the named entities in the prompts of the validation dataset with a set of names that included 100 male and 100 female names. We then calculated the accuracy for each name, selecting the 10 names that exhibited the highest performance and the 10 names that showed the lowest performance. Next, we replaced the named entities in the test dataset prompts with these 20 selected names and calculated the corresponding accuracy for the test dataset. Table 2 presents the best and worst performing entities for each dataset along with the absolute percentage of accuracy changes. The ensemble model functions by replacing the named entity in the prompt with the highest performing entity and then generating an answer at each step. After cycling through the 10 best performing entities, it selects the answer with the most votes as the final response. This approach is referred to as majority@10. It's important to note that the bAbI task 1 doesn't have a 'best performing entity' because the baseline accuracy is already \\(100\\%\\), leaving no room for improvement." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8 provides an example of an generated answer for the GSM8k test dataset. The original prompt failed to produce the correct answer, while the transformed prompt was able to successfully answer the question. The absolute improvement of \\(0.8\\%\\) in the accuracy of GSM8k through the majority@10 is remarkable, given the following facts: 1) The baseline accuracy for this challenging dataset is \\(10.5\\%\\), making even a small improvement significant. 2) The number of named entities in GSM8k is fewer than in other datasets, meaning only a few words are replaced in the transformed prompt, as shown in Figure 8. The ratio of replaced words to the total number of words in the prompt is 0.032. 3) Of the 1319 examples in the GSM8k test dataset, 663 contain a male name, 377 contain a female name, and 279 don't contain any named entity in the query. We could have achieved greater changes in percentage if we had only considered examples where the gender of the best perform" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing entity matched the gender of the name in the query (as replacements wouldn't occur otherwise). However, we chose not to adjust the test dataset to ensure that our accuracy improvement could be compared with other studies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.166, + 0.885, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The consistency in performance between the validation and test datasets in CLUTRR is lower than that in the other datasets. This could be attributed to the structure of CLUTRR, where four options are provided in the prompt, from which the model chooses an answer. This setup introduces a degree of randomness to the generated answer, potentially leading to less consistency between the performance of the validation and test datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.321, + 0.707, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.2 LLM Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.341, + 0.885, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The architecture of LLMs plays a crucial role in determining their behavior and performance, including their vulnerability to entity replacement. The design choices and architectural components of LLMs can influence how they process and generate text, affecting their sensitivity to changes in named input entities. By comparing the Flant5-XL, which employs an encoder-decoder architecture, with the GPT-J-6B, which represents a decoder-only architecture, we aimed to investigate the impact of LLM architecture on their brittleness towards entity replacement. The high variance in the performance of GPT-J (as shown in Fig 7) underscores that the brittleness towards entity replacement is not exclusive to the encoder-decoder architecture but is also a feature of decoder-only architecture models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.626, + 0.757, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.3 Effect of entity frequency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Frequently recurring named entities in the web, which subsequently appear in the training data, can impact both the model's ppl and performance. Entities appearing frequently in the training data are more likely to be well-represented in the model's understanding, contributing to lower ppl values. This occurs because the frequent presence of these entities reduces the unpredictability of the next word in a sequence, making it easier for the LLM to anticipate. The hypothesis is that names appearing more frequently would contribute to better model performance. To examine this hypothesis, the frequency of names, extracted from (Tzioumis, 2018), were categorized into five groups of equal numbers, labeled G1 to G5, ranging from the most to the least frequent names. Fig 9 presents the performance of Flan-T5-XL across different datasets." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10923" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.193, + 0.492, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.193, + 0.871, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.483, + 0.491, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.483, + 0.869, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.784, + 0.883, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Bootstrap results of GPT-J-6B for 3 distinct sets of names, each comprising 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across different name sets." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10924" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.221, + 0.49, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.221, + 0.871, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.396, + 0.49, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.396, + 0.871, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.569, + 0.49, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.569, + 0.871, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.755, + 0.883, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Deviation in accuracy from the baseline (without data augmentation) for Flan-T5-XL across different datasets." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10925" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.105, + 0.495, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.104, + 0.874, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.283, + 0.493, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.283, + 0.874, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.472, + 0.883, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Deviation in accuracy of GPT-J from the baseline across various bAbI tasks. Like the encoder-decoder architecture, the decoder-only architecture also exhibits brittleness towards entity replacement." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.548, + 0.883, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.885, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: An example of a generated answer from the GSM8k test dataset. In this instance, the original prompt fails to generate the correct answer, whereas the transformed prompt — with the best-performing entity replaced — successfully produces the correct response. This generated text is reproducible using a greedy decoding." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10926" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.154, + 0.885, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetIndexBest performing entityWorst performing entity
entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)
bAbI task 12 valid baseline Acc = 95.1 test baseline Acc = 95.51Penelope3.63.0Mihai-4.0-2.3
2Loreen3.63.0Raisa-4.0-3.6
3Dorcas3.63.2Ethel-3.7-3.5
4Toby3.43.4Migdalia-3.0-4.0
5Flora3.32.9Azucena-2.6-3.2
6Nataliya3.33.4Bhavana-2.6-3.6
7Nathaniel3.33.4Surinder-2.1-0.9
8Lucretia3.33.3Sanjeev-1.9-1.7
9Keiko3.23.0Armida-1.8-1.1
10Bernardo3.23.1Jianwei-1.7-1.4
Majority@103.5
bAbI task 14 valid baseline Acc = 76.1 test baseline Acc = 77.51Erich2.92.0Frederick-1.4-1.2
2Jacqueline2.61.8Raisa-1.3-1.3
3Zoltan2.42.3Maryellen-0.5-0.6
4Chryystal2.31.5Meera-0.5-0.5
5Petra2.21.1———
6Pravin2.21.8———
7Claudio2.21.0———
8Sanjeev2.21.1———
9Soledad2.12.1———
10Prashant2.12.3———
Majority@102.0
bAbI task 16 valid baseline Acc = 53.5 test baseline Acc = 53.31Loyd8.98.4———
2Armida8.78.1———
3Brannon8.79.5———
4Pravin8.48.8———
5Bozena8.18.2———
6Surinder8.07.2———
7Bonita8.07.1———
8Trena8.06.9———
9Rosalia7.96.2———
10Leopoldo7.79.3———
Majority@108.0
GSM8k valid baseline Acc = 14.3 test baseline Acc = 10.51Douglas0.50.9Leopoldo-2.5-0.8
2Juliann0.40.2Youssef-1.9-0.3
3Kathleen0.30.4Epifanioo-1.70.5
4Ernst0.30.4Sanjeev-1.6-0.8
5Tonja0.30.0Zoltan-1.5-0.3
6Angela0.20.2Jianwei-1.4-0.4
7Hina0.2-0.3Abelardo-1.3-0.7
8Diego0.20.4Alphonse-1.3-0.7
9Bradley0.10.9Dagoberto-1.3-0.5
10Jonathan0.10.8Nathaniel-1.2-0.1
Majority@100.8
CLUTRR valid baseline Acc = 59.0 test baseline Acc = 53.01Ashlee4.41.2Rob-8.20.6
2Penelope3.43.4Ahmad-8.0-0.2
3Allyson3.21.0Mihai-7.60.6
4Chryystal2.82.6Frederick-7.6-0.4
5Keiko2.8-4.4Martin-7.40.6
6Alisha2.63.0Jake-7.4-0.4
7Rosalba2.41.8Edward-7.40.2
8Jacqueline2.22.0Erik-7.40.2
9Zoltan2.21.2Giovanni-7.4-0.4
10Dillon2.01.4Douglas-7.2-0.2
Majority@101.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.768, + 0.885, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Performance of the best and worst performing entities in the validation and test datasets. The green color signifies consistent performance between the validation and test datasets, while the orange color indicates inconsistency. The entities, selected based on their performance in the validation dataset, show consistent behavior in the test dataset, suggesting that they generalize in each dataset. We have noted less than 10 entities in some columns because the remaining entities did not reduce the accuracy compared to the baseline." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10927" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contrary to our hypothesis and expectations, there appears to be no correlation between the frequency of names and the performance of LLMs in entity replacement." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.16, + 0.383, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.4 Effect of entity token length" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.181, + 0.49, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The token length of a prompt can directly influence the performance of a QA task, particularly as it relates to the computational demands on the model. A longer prompt, represented by a larger number of tokens, increases the amount of data the model must process, potentially straining the model's capabilities and affecting the overall efficiency and accuracy of the task. Changes in the token length of a replaced name, which in turn modify the prompt's overall token length due to multiple instances of the name within the prompt, provide an interesting variable for analysis. We delved into this potential effect by examining the model's performance in relation to the token length of names, as illustrated in Fig 10. Contrary to expectations, our study found no observable correlation between the model's performance and the token length of names. This suggests that, within the ranges examined, the token length of names does not significantly affect the model's performance in QA tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.513, + 0.317, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.5 Perplexity Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.534, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our expectation was to observe a strong inverse correlation between the perplexity and accuracy of the model across all datasets, according to the findings reported in (Gonen et al., 2022a). However, we noted this inverse correlation only in some datasets, such as the bAbI task 14 (as shown in Figure Fig 11), but not in all of them. A plausible explanation for this inconsistency could be significant differences in our methodology compared to the approach adopted in (Gonen et al., 2022a). In our study, we limited our alterations to substituting named entities within the prompts, as opposed to changing the entire prompt. Therefore, this discrepancy in data augmentation techniques could potentially account for the lack of a significant correlation in some datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.792, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fig 12 shows the deviation of ppl from the baseline across various tasks. Regardless of the task, a more reduction in prompt ppl was observed when entities were replaced both in demonstrations and queries, compared to the other two data augmentation settings. This can likely be attributed to the repeated usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt. The frequent repetition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of the same named entity can contribute to lower ppl due to the decreased uncertainty and increased predictability of the next word in the sequence." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10928" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.182, + 0.495, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.182, + 0.871, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.379, + 0.493, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.378, + 0.871, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.575, + 0.495, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.575, + 0.871, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.78, + 0.885, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: The performance of Flan-T5-XL in relation to the frequency of names derived from a demographic dataset. Contrary to expectations, no correlation appears to exist between the frequency of names and the performance of Flan-T5-XL." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10929" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.182, + 0.495, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.182, + 0.871, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.379, + 0.495, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.378, + 0.871, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.575, + 0.495, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.575, + 0.871, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.78, + 0.883, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: The performance of various names in relation to their token length when using Flan-T5-XL. There is no apparent correlation between the performance and the token length in names. The quantity of names corresponding to each group of token lengths is illustrated on the plot." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10930" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.119, + 0.386, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.388, + 0.119, + 0.626, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.12, + 0.871, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.308, + 0.884, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Correlation between prompt perplexity (ppl) and LLM performance for task 14 and GPT-J-6B across various data augmentation settings. The accuracy and perplexity of prompt for the baseline are shown by red lines. Although a statistically significant inverse correlation between accuracy and ppl is observed in this dataset, this trend is not consistent across all datasets. The absence of this trend, contrary to expectation, could be attributed to the nature of our data augmentation approach, which only involved entity replacement instead of entire prompt modification." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.472, + 0.497, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.5, + 0.472, + 0.875, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.65, + 0.495, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.5, + 0.65, + 0.874, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: Deviation of prompt ppl for GPT-J-6B from the baseline across different tasks. A greater reduction in prompt ppl is observed when entities are replaced in both demonstrations and queries, a trend likely driven by the recurrent usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10931" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_origin.pdf b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e542609bd36522deadbc942d40feac39175fdb2d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/92b3e48a-ba9b-4031-b53b-6f1de232b262_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7e0704ead5e413959fb7c0d4559ebc2b00fa2d7c299d6b78463234f6440f5272 +size 1144672 diff --git a/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/full.md b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..576701f62df09c4fd6859748d115756aad9138dc --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@ +# Robustness of Named Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning + +Saeed Goodarzi† Nikhil Kagita† Dennis Minn† Shufan Wang† + +Roberto Dessi $^{\infty, \pi}$ Shubham Toshniwal $^{\nabla}$ Adina Williams $^{\infty}$ + +Jack Lanchantin\*,Koustuv Sinha\*, + +†University of Massachusetts Amherst; †Universitat Pompeu Fabra +∇NVIDIA; †FAIR, Meta + +sgoodarzitae@umass.edu, koustuvs@meta.com + +# Abstract + +A key feature of modern large language models (LLMs) is their ability to perform in-context learning, a prompting technique where query-answer demonstrations are shown before the final query. This allows for generalization to novel distributions at inference time where the LLM can learn new rules without parameter updates. However, the choice of demonstrations and their relationship to a particular query can have a profound impact on model accuracy, raising concerns about the true in-context generalization capabilities (Zhao et al., 2021). In this work, we explore the robustness of the in-context learning paradigm by focusing on entities. In particular, we seek to understand the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements. We discover a significant variance in downstream performance based on the choice of the named entities, across three popular reasoning tasks and two popular LLMs. Specifically, model accuracy on the test sets can fluctuate between -2.7 to +8.0 points depending on the choice of named entity replacements. Our analysis exposes the sensitivity of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entities, and offers a simple recipe to improve test performance by hyper-parameter tuning the named entities for a given dataset. Code and datasets for reproducing the results are publicly available. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Modern large language models (LLMs) routinely demonstrate in-context learning, where the model can solve a wide range of tasks from a few demonstration examples (or exemplars) (Brown et al., 2020). In-context learning, or few-shot prompting, is a powerful learning paradigm as it allows for fast adaptation to new tasks without the need to train + +https://github.com/DennisMinn/ entities-in-context + +*Equal Leadership. + +# Original Demonstration + +[...] context: Jason had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Jason has 12 lollipops. + +question: How many lollipops did Jason give to Denny? +answer: Jason started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. So he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8. + +[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: $60 \times 2 / 3 = 40$ loaves of bread are sold in the morning. $60 - 40 = 20$ loaves of bread are left. $20 \times 2 = 40$ loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ### + +# Named Entity Replaced Demonstration + +[...] context: Douglas had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Douglas has 12 lollipops. + +question: How many lollipops did Douglas give to Denny? +answer: Douglas started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. +So he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8. + +[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: $60 \times 2 / 3 = 40$ loaves of bread are sold in the morning. $60 - 40 = 20$ loaves of bread are left. $20 \times 1 / 2 = 10$ loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ### 10 + +Figure 1: Named entity replacements for In-Context Learning. Example from FLAN-T5 on GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). Here we replace all male entities $(e^{o})$ in demonstrations with Douglas, and observe a change in the query answer prediction (from the incorrect answer 40 to the correct answer 10). Only 1 out of $k = 5$ demonstrations $(D)$ is depicted to conserve space, with the remaining demonstrations denoted by “[...]”. + +model parameters. However, model performance in the in-context setting can vary significantly with the choice of demonstrations. Previous work has uncovered performance instability when altering the demonstrations, particularly when the demonstrations change semantically (Schick and Schütze, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021; Gonen et al., 2022a). Naturally, a question arises whether LLMs are robust to semantically preserving, minimal alterations to the demonstrations. + +In this paper, we seek to address this question using simple, semantically preserving alterations: named entity replacements. Because changing named entities should not, in principle, change the correct response to the query, the model is expected to remain invariant to such modifications. For example, given the demonstration "Alice has + +the ball. Alice went to the kitchen. Where is the ball? kitchen.", the model should be invariant to the choice of the named entity "Alice"-i.e., a model should behave the same if we swap all instances of "Alice" with another named entity, e.g. "Eve". However, we observe that the model behavior is not always robust to such alterations (Figure 1)—prompting us to critically evaluate named entity invariance within in-context learning. + +We conduct experiments to investigate the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements in three popular named entity heavy reasoning tasks, namely, bAbI, Weston et al. 2015; CLUTRR, Sinha et al. 2019; GSM8k, Cobbe et al. 2021, and two popular models, Flant5-XL (Chung et al., 2022a) and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021). Our key findings are: + +- Neither Flan-T5-XL nor GPT-J are robust to entity replacements for in-context learning. On bAbI tasks, the best replacement entity yields a +8.0 point performance increase (for Task 16), and the worst replacement entity yields a -2.7 point performance drop (Task 12). Similarly, for CLUTRR, we observe a 1.6 point improvement. For GSM8k, we only find <1 point increase/decrease with entity replacements. +- Performance gains from best performing entities are not random. To verify, we ran a bootstrap analysis and observe consistent gains with low variance. +- Best/worst performing entities are task-specific. +- We also analyze frequency, token length and perplexity of replaced entities, and find none of these alone explain our results, introducing an open problem for future research. + +# 2 Experimental Setup + +The goal of this study is to investigate the robustness of LLMs' in-context learning performance by changing entities in the demonstrations and queries. We consider a fixed set of prompt demonstrations aside from the named entities. By replacing the named entities and observing any accuracy changes, we can better understand the effect of certain entities on a model's accuracy. While many prior works have studied the robustness of LLMs with respect to perturbations (Ribeiro et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2020; Balasubramanian et al., 2020), we focus our analysis on in-context learning. A more in-depth analysis of related work is provided in + +Appendix subsection A.1. + +# 2.1 In-Context Learning + +With in-context learning, a test sample is comprised of a sequence of $k$ demonstrations $D = d_{1},d_{2},\ldots ,d_{k}$ . Each $d_{i}$ consists of a context, question and answer string. The final query $q$ , consisting only of a context and question string, follows $D$ . The goal of in-context learning is to predict the answer to $q$ given a small set of demonstrations at inference time. In other words, learning is done by eliciting activations and not changing model parameters. + +# 2.2 Modifying In-Context Learning with Named Entity Replacement + +We seek to measure the change in accuracy when we replace named entities in the demonstrations $(D)$ and/or query $(q)$ . We perform entity replacement in the following way. + +We first extract the named entities from each demonstration and query using an off-the-shelf NER model, and flag the subject entity, $e^o$ , for replacement. We then select a replacement entity $e^r$ from a large set of entities from Tzioumis (2018), which is composed of 4,250 unique first names. Finally, we perform named entity replacement in one of the following three settings: $(D)$ replace all $e^o$ entities in the demonstrations, $e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \dots, e_{d_k}^o$ , $(q)$ replace all $e^o$ entities in the query, $e_q^o$ , or $(D$ and $q)$ replace all $e^o$ entities in both the query and demonstrations, $e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \dots, e_{d_k}^o, e_q^o$ . Note that each demonstration $d_i$ can contain multiple instances of the entity $e^o$ . These settings allow us to isolate and evaluate the effect of named entities in different parts of an in-context learning sample on accuracy. + +We run multiple experiments using bootstrap sampling (with replacement) on three sets of names, half labeled as 'male' and half as 'female'. For each name $e^r$ in a particular bootstrap set, we replace the original entities $e^o$ with $e^r$ in the test samples according to one of the three previously mentioned settings. We then evaluate the performance on the entity-replaced dataset. This procedure is repeated for each bootstrap set. + +![](images/17fab8028c5b111fa1080156a13637f492bdd2e2c8845e213fbafebb9fc96144.jpg) +Figure 2: Bootstrap results of Flan-T5-XL on validation sets for 3 distinct sets of 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across bootstrap sets of names. + +Baseline results are reported using the original prompt demonstrations and query. However, our replacement strategy introduces a frequency bias, as $e^r$ is used to replace multiple demonstrations in a given input, resulting in artificially increasing the usage of a given entity in an input. Thus, we also report the median accuracy of replacement, which serves as a proxy baseline for replacing all demonstrations and/or query with a random entity. + +# 2.3 Models and Datasets + +We evaluate our entity replacement strategy on both an encoder-decoder LLM (Flan-T5-XL, 3B; Chung et al. 2022b) as well as a decoder-only LLM (GPT-J, 6B; Wang and Komatsuzaki 2021). We test these models across the following datasets: bAbI (Tasks 1, 12, 14, 16; Weston et al. 2015), CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019), GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). We chose these datasets primarily because they include a significant presence of named entities. + +For each dataset, we select five samples from the training set to serve as demonstrations. To maintain grammatical correctness and clarity, we + +only do replacements that preserve gender when a pronoun is contained in the sentence (see Appendix A.5). This step specifically addresses any potential uncontrolled effects on the performance from entity replacement, such as perplexity spikes that may results from swaps where the genders of $e^{o}$ and $e^{r}$ differ, and the model is expected to accommodate unexpected pronominal coreference with $e^{r}$ . + +# 3 Results + +Performance Across Bootstrap Sets. We find a noticeable change in accuracy with the best and worst performing entity compared to the baseline or median performing entity. Figure 2 shows Flant5-XL results on all validation datasets (analogous GPT-J results are in Figure 5 in the Appendix, and follow a similar pattern). This indicates that specific entities can noticeably alter in-context learning performance. Furthermore, the standard deviations for the median and best performing entity across bootstraps are low, suggesting that the selection of different name sets will likely yield similar median and best performance. However, the variation in the worst performing entities is large. + +Performance Within a Single Bootstrap Set. To analyze the results in more detail, we measure the performance for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J on a single bootstrap set of 200 examples. We show the results for bAbI task 14 in Figure 3. When we replace names only in the demonstrations $(D)$ , the variance in model performance is lower compared to both when we replace names only in the query $(q)$ and in both query and demonstration $(D$ and $q)$ . The $(D$ and $q)$ setup exhibits the highest variance, as this scenario involves the maximum change in the tokens of the original prompt. Nevertheless, we see a consistent variance from the baseline by simply replacing named entities in any of the three replacement settings. Other datasets exhibit a similar behavior; see Appendix Figures 6 and 7. + +Best and Worst Entity Generalization. Thus far, we've used the valid set to demonstrate accuracy variation. To evaluate the best performing entities on the test set, we implement a majority voting method as follows. We first find the 10 best performing entities on the valid set. For each sample in the test set, we take the majority answer prediction from the 10 different best names, denoted "Maj@10". Table 1 shows results of entity replacements across the validation and test sets by replac + +ing entities in the demonstration and query (both $D$ and $q$ ). We observe a maximum 8.0 point accuracy increase, seen on bAbI task 16. $^{6}$ The best and worst performing entities vary by dataset, but overall entities generalize across the validation and test sets, with a uniform increase in accuracy from the best entity. A list of these entities for each dataset and further evaluations are in Appendix Table 2. + +For all datasets, there are entities with appreciable deviations from the baseline, and these entities generalize across the validation and test splits. This finding indicates that the observed accuracy shifts are not coincidental and highlights the influence of entity swaps, including those that preserve overall example semantics, such as for names, on model performance. + +# 4 Analysis + +Why are the models not invariant to entity replacements? We conducted several analyses in attempts to find the root cause of this result, but they were largely inconclusive. + +Does the frequency of names affect how much they shift model performance? The lack of robustness could well be explained by the frequency effects of named entities in the training corpus of the pre-trained model (Wei et al., 2021). We use the entity frequency data provided by Tzioumis (2018), and assessed performance changes across names with varying frequencies. We do not find any correlation between name frequency and the model performance post entity replacement (see Appendix Section B.3). + +Does the token length of names affect performance? Another hypothesis of the invariance could be due to the inconsistent tokenization of named entities. Rare names can be tokenized into longer tokens based on the learned subwords of the model. We analyzed token length post tokenization and compared it with model performance, but we are unable to find any meaningful relationship between the two (see Appendix Section B.4). + +Does improved performance result from a decrease in prompt perplexity due to entity replacement? Finally, the surprisal of the LLM to certain entities could be a promising hypothesis to explain the change in model performance (Gonen et al., 2022b). We compare prompt perplexity af + +![](images/806ba71760a2083e986f1d9e3c8486ceedd8450c702759db96c9852bcfc8b229.jpg) + +![](images/a884b3da2e0d17034a9e33ec7f497e383486e897e60a3367f94c029904ee1c03.jpg) +bAbI Task 14 (Baseline Accuracy=70) +Figure 3: Accuracy for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J-6B on bAbI task 14 for a single bootstrap set of 200 samples. + +ter entity replacement to LLM performance, and yet again we are unable to find a statistical correlation (see Appendix Section B.5). While Gonen et al. (2022b) suggests improvement of model performance with decrease in perplexity, we observe certain entities displaying the opposite behavior. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this study, we find that LLMs exhibit a consistent lack of robustness with respect to named entity replacement for the in-context learning setting, fur + +
DatasetBaselineBest EntityWorst Entity
ValidTestValidTest (Maj@10)ValidTest
bAbI 1295.195.598.5 [+3.4]99.0 [+3.5]92.4 [-2.7]93.0 [-2.5]
bAbI 1476.177.578.4 [+2.3]79.5 [+2.0]75.2 [-0.9]76.6 [-0.9]
bAbI 1653.553.361.7 [+8.2]61.3 [+8.0]55.5 [+2.0]55.9 [+2.6]
GSM8k14.310.514.6 [+0.3]11.3 [+0.8]12.7 [-1.6]10.1 [-0.4]
CLUTRR59.053.061.8 [+2.8]54.6 [+1.6]51.4 [-7.6]53.1 [+0.1]
+ +Table 1: Performance of FLAN-T5-XL, with accuracy shift from baseline provided in [square brackets]. Entity replacements are done in the $D$ and $q$ setting. bAbI task 1 reaches perfect accuracy and is thus omitted from this table. Performance between the validation and test datasets is consistent, and we observe a generalizable increase in accuracy across all datasets. + +ther questioning the process of reasoning employed by these models (Min et al., 2022). We demonstrate this across three axes: the complexity of the task, the model architecture, and which named entities are to be replaced (in the demonstrations, query, or both). The cause for this effect remains elusive, which opens up exciting research directions. One intriguing result is that the entities that can boost performance are dataset specific. This points to potential avenues for enhancing LLM downstream performance by performing hyperparameter search over a range of entities. + +# 6 Limitations + +We acknowledge that the selection of names in our study may not provide an unbiased representation of the complete set of possible names. The data provided by Tzioumis (2018) was derived from mortgage applications which may introduce a bias against popular names within marginalized communities. Moreover, this issue is compounded when we sub-sample the set of names due to computational limitations. Additionally, we used a NER model available through Hugging Face to identify $e^o$ . It was BERT-based (Devlin et al., 2018) and trained on a CONLL-2003 corpus (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) (Wolf et al., 2019), and we anecdotally observed that sometimes it struggles to identify rare names as named entities, for example, it incorrectly identified "TreQuan" as "TreQ." We spot checked for this issue and removed names that posed problems to the best of our abilities. + +# 7 Ethics and Broader Impact + +In this work, we explore the effect of name swaps in an in-context learning setup and find that particular names can increase accuracy. In our efforts to align names with their respective pronouns, we assumed binary gender, but acknowledge that other genders exist. We made this assumption because our evaluated datasets used binary pronouns, and our names dataset was also only binarily annotated. While our paper assumes name-gender associations, we do not want to discredit negative evidence. A name that is not explicitly associated with a gender doesn't imply evidence of absence of association (imagine that only one person named "Alex" was sampled, and she was a woman—that doesn't mean that there aren't also men or nonbinary people called "Alex"). At the moment, there aren't many annotated name datasets that consists + +of gender-agnostic, gender-ambiguous, or gender-neutral names. Hopefully, additional work such as (Dev et al., 2021; Lauscher et al., 2022; Ovalle et al., 2023) will expand such resources, but regardless of these complications, our conclusions are still useful for trying to understand why some names can shift model performance under some settings. + +# References + +2023. Genderize.io. https://genderize.io/. Accessed: June 15, 2023. +Oshin Agarwal, Yinfei Yang, Byron C Wallace, and Ani Nenkova. 2020. Entity-switched datasets: An approach to auditing the in-domain robustness of named entity recognition models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04123. +Sriram Balasubramanian, Naman Jain, Gaurav Jindal, Abhijeet Awasthi, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2020. What's in a name? are BERT named entity representations just as good for any other name? In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 205-214, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022a. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv:2210.11416. +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022b. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. +Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. +Sunipa Dev, Masoud Monajatipoor, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Jeff Phillips, and Kai-Wei Chang. + +2021. Harms of gender exclusivity and challenges in non-binary representation in language technologies. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1968-1994, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805. +Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2017. Hotflip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06751. +Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE. +Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022a. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04037. +Hila Gonen, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2022b. Analyzing gender representation in multilingual models. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 67-77, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8018-8025. +Anne Lauscher, Archie Crowley, and Dirk Hovy. 2022. Welcome to the modern world of pronouns: Identity-inclusive natural language processing beyond gender. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1221-1232, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Bill Yuchen Lin, Wenyang Gao, Jun Yan, Ryan Moreno, and Xiang Ren. 2021. RockNER: A simple method to create adversarial examples for evaluating the robustness of named entity recognition models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3728-3737, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804. + +Robert L Logan IV, Ivana Balažević, Eric Wallace, Fabio Petroni, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Cutting down on prompts and parameters: Simple few-shot learning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13353. +Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837. +Anaelia Ovalle, Palash Goyal, Jwala Dhamala, Zachary Jaggers, Kai-Wei Chang, Aram Galstyan, Richard Zemel, and Rahul Gupta. 2023. "i'm fully who i am": Towards centering transgender and non-binary voices to measure biases in open language generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1246-1266. +Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM 2016-2016 IEEE Military Communications Conference, pages 49-54. IEEE. +Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:11054-11070. +Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676. +Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2022. True few-shot learning with prompts—a real-world perspective. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:716-731. +Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980. +Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177. +Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147. + +Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04388. +Konstantinos Tzioumis. 2018. Demographic aspects of first names. Scientific data, 5(1):1-9. +Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax. +Xiao Wang, Qin Liu, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Yicheng Zou, Xin Zhou, Jiacheng Ye, Yongxin Zhang, Rui Zheng, Zexiong Pang, Qinzhuo Wu, Zhengyan Li, Chong Zhang, Ruotian Ma, Zichu Fei, Ruijian Cai, Jun Zhao, Xingwu Hu, Zhiheng Yan, Yiding Tan, Yuan Hu, Qiyuan Bian, Zhihua Liu, Shan Qin, Bolin Zhu, Xiaoyu Xing, Jinlan Fu, Yue Zhang, Minlong Peng, Xiaqing Zheng, Yaqian Zhou, Zhongyu Wei, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. TextFlint: Unified multilingual robustness evaluation toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 347-355, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason Wei, Dan Garrette, Tal Linzen, and Ellie Pavlick. 2021. Frequency effects on syntactic rule learning in transformers. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. +Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander M Rush, Bart Van Merrienboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2015. Towards ai-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771. +Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Related Work + +Several works investigated the robustness of language models with respect to input rewrites (Papernot et al., 2016; Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020). In particular, Balasubramanian et al. (2020) found that while fine-tuned BERT models were brittle in certain tasks, they demonstrated robustness against entity replacement for question answering. Other works have shown that many transformer-based models are insufficiently robust to name swaps (Ribeiro et al. 2020; Agarwal et al. 2020; Lin et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021, i.a.), Our work differs from these in that we focus on the in-context learning setting. + +The ability to do in-context learning first emerged from Brown et al. (2020). Subsequently, many works sought to improve and understand the abilities of LLMs with respect to in-context learning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Perez et al. (2021); Logan IV et al. (2021); Schick and Schütze (2022); Turpin et al. (2023) show an improvement over the original paper in the the "true few-shot learning" setup where there is no access to a large test set to tune in-context learning hyperparameters. Despite the impressive results of this new paradigm, little has been understood regarding the generalization of certain in-context demonstrations. + +Gonen et al. (2022a) bring to attention the importance of the specific prompts in model performance. They show that the lower the perplexity of the prompt is, the better the prompt is able to perform the task. Min et al. (2022) show that the actual labels in the prompt are not very important. However, the labels still have a small impact in performance. + +In recent years, several studies have explored the significance of prompt quality in few-shot learning, particularly in the context of question-answering tasks. One such study was conducted by Shin et al. (2020) who proposed AutoPrompt, an automated approach for prompt generation in few-shot learning scenarios that has been shown to achieve the highest accuracy. The AutoPrompt model leverages gradient-based prompt search techniques to find the optimal prompt for a given task, thereby reducing the need for human intervention. Additionally, AutoPrompt utilizes Masked Language Models (MLMs) to perform sentiment analysis and natural language inference tasks without the need for fine-tuning, highlighting the potential of MLMs + +in few-shot learning scenarios. In another study, Gonen et al. (2022a) introduced a novel technique for prompt generation that involves using a small set of manually created prompts and then applying paraphrasing and backtranslation to generate additional prompts automatically. Specifically, they utilized GPT-3 to perform the paraphrasing step, which involves rephrasing the original prompts while preserving their underlying meaning. The backtranslation step then involves translating the paraphrased prompts into another language and then back into the original language to generate new prompts that are semantically similar to the original prompts but with different phrasing and wording. This approach enables the generation of a large number of diverse prompts without requiring extensive manual effort, which can be particularly useful in few-shot learning scenarios where data is limited. Gonen et al. (2022a) also demonstrated an inverse relationship between the perplexity of the prompts and the model's performance across various tasks. + +Our work is related to previous studies as we focus on the true few-shot learning setup for the task of question answering and explore the robustness of NLP models against entity replacement. There are three main ways in which our work differs from previous studies. First, our investigation focuses on analyzing the robustness of language models against entity replacement specifically for the task of question answering in the ICL setup, which has not been explored in previous studies. Second, we utilize left-to-right language models, which are more widely used and powerful than masked language models. Finally, our approach involves prompt-learning instead of fine-tuning, whereby the parameters of the language model are modified to improve its performance on specific tasks. By leveraging the true few-shot learning setup and prompt-learning techniques, we aim to develop a more robust and effective approach for few-shot question-answering tasks that can handle entity replacement and other challenges more effectively. + +# A.2 Dataset Details + +bAbI (Weston et al., 2015): The bAbI dataset consists of 20 tasks that evaluate various aspects of language understanding by NLP models. In our experiments, we select four tasks representing varying degrees of difficulty from the bAbI dataset: task 1, task 12, task 14, and task 16. + +context: Mary and $[e_{d1}]$ travelled to the +bathroom. John and $[e_{d1}]$ travelled to the office. +question: Where is $[e_{d1}]$ ? +answer: office +???? +context: $[e_{d2}]$ and Mary went back to the office. +Daniel and Sandra went to the bedroom. +question: Where is $[e_{d2}]$ ? +answer: bedroom +???? +context: Daniel and John moved to the hallway. + $[e_q]$ and Daniel journeyed to the bathroom. +question: Where is $[e_q]$ ? +answer: + +Figure 4: Named entity replacement overview for in context learning. Here we show an in-context learning example with $k = 2$ demonstrations before the final query. We consider 3 scenarios: replacing only the demonstration entities $(e_{d1}, e_{d2})$ , only the query entity $(e_q)$ , or both $(e_{d1}, e_{d2}, e_q)$ . All replacements are done with the same replacement entity $e^r$ . + +CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019): This dataset is similar to a subset of the bAbI dataset, but contains more difficult multi-step questions. This allows us to determine whether named entity replacement robustness is affected by task difficulty. Given a multi-sentence context describing kinship relations between certain entities and a question, the task is to predict the kinship relation between the entities that can be inferred from the context but is not made explicit. We convert this into a multiple-choice question where we expect the model to pick the answer from the four choices provided. + +GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021): This dataset is a collection of elementary multi-step mathematical reasoning questions. We specifically selected this dataset due to the challenging nature of arithmetic operations, where existing models often struggle to achieve accurate results. We subsampled GSM8k to include only examples which contained identifiable named entities. + +The Tzioumis (2018) dataset, contains of 4,250 unique first names, associated with their unigram frequency, and self-reported demographic information. + +For each sample in the dataset, which is comprised of a context, question, and answer triplet, we transform it into a formatted string. This transformation involves concatenating the field name, a colon, space, the respective value corresponding to that field, and newline character. We ap + +ply this transformation to $k$ demonstrations: $D = d_{1},d_{2},\ldots ,d_{k}$ and the final query $q$ , where the answer to $q$ is omitted. We concatenate the formatted $k$ demonstrations and query $q$ , delimiting each string with a newline character followed by $"\# \# \# "$ and a newline character. Figure 4 shows an incontext learning example. + +# A.3 Entity Selection + +In general, we determine $e^o$ by selecting the first encountered entity within the question, as it often represents the subject of the question. If the question contains interrogative pronouns, such as "who," no entities will be present within the question. In this case, we consider $e^o$ as the first entity encountered within the answer since it typically represents the subject being referred to. If the subject of the question and answer is referred to using pronouns then neither the question nor answer will contain any entities, we assume that noun ambiguity is not an issue and select the first encountered entity within the context as $e^o$ . + +# A.4 Entity-replacement Scenarios + +In the demonstration-only replacement scenario, we perform entity replacement exclusively on the demonstrations $e_d$ while keeping the query unmodified 4. By selectively replacing entities within the context, question, and answer of the demonstrations, we aim to examine the extent to which this replacement strategy influences the model's performance. + +In the query-only replacement setting, we solely augment the entities within the query $e_{q}$ while leaving the demonstrations unaltered Fig 4. This allows us to investigate the impact of enhancing the query's entity representation on the model's ability to generate accurate responses. + +Applying both demonstration and query replacement, we replace $e_d$ and $e_q$ in both the demonstrations and query simultaneously. By enriching the entity information in both the context and the question, we explore the combined effect of entity replacement on the overall performance of the model. + +# A.5 Ensuring Grammatical Correctness + +To begin, we verify the pronouns associated with both $e^o$ and $e^r$ using (gen, 2023). If the gender associated with $e^o$ corresponds with that of $e^r$ , we proceed to substitute $e^o$ with $e^r$ . However, if there + +is no alignment in gender, we refrain from altering $e^o$ and maintain its original form. + +# B Analysis + +# B.1 Analyzing Best/Worst performing entities + +In order to examine the generalizability of the best and worst performing entities in each dataset, we extracted named entities from the validation dataset and tested them on the test dataset. More specifically, we replaced the named entities in the prompts of the validation dataset with a set of names that included 100 male and 100 female names. We then calculated the accuracy for each name, selecting the 10 names that exhibited the highest performance and the 10 names that showed the lowest performance. Next, we replaced the named entities in the test dataset prompts with these 20 selected names and calculated the corresponding accuracy for the test dataset. Table 2 presents the best and worst performing entities for each dataset along with the absolute percentage of accuracy changes. The ensemble model functions by replacing the named entity in the prompt with the highest performing entity and then generating an answer at each step. After cycling through the 10 best performing entities, it selects the answer with the most votes as the final response. This approach is referred to as majority@10. It's important to note that the bAbI task 1 doesn't have a 'best performing entity' because the baseline accuracy is already $100\%$ , leaving no room for improvement. + +Figure 8 provides an example of an generated answer for the GSM8k test dataset. The original prompt failed to produce the correct answer, while the transformed prompt was able to successfully answer the question. The absolute improvement of $0.8\%$ in the accuracy of GSM8k through the majority@10 is remarkable, given the following facts: 1) The baseline accuracy for this challenging dataset is $10.5\%$ , making even a small improvement significant. 2) The number of named entities in GSM8k is fewer than in other datasets, meaning only a few words are replaced in the transformed prompt, as shown in Figure 8. The ratio of replaced words to the total number of words in the prompt is 0.032. 3) Of the 1319 examples in the GSM8k test dataset, 663 contain a male name, 377 contain a female name, and 279 don't contain any named entity in the query. We could have achieved greater changes in percentage if we had only considered examples where the gender of the best perform + +ing entity matched the gender of the name in the query (as replacements wouldn't occur otherwise). However, we chose not to adjust the test dataset to ensure that our accuracy improvement could be compared with other studies. + +The consistency in performance between the validation and test datasets in CLUTRR is lower than that in the other datasets. This could be attributed to the structure of CLUTRR, where four options are provided in the prompt, from which the model chooses an answer. This setup introduces a degree of randomness to the generated answer, potentially leading to less consistency between the performance of the validation and test datasets. + +# B.2 LLM Architecture + +The architecture of LLMs plays a crucial role in determining their behavior and performance, including their vulnerability to entity replacement. The design choices and architectural components of LLMs can influence how they process and generate text, affecting their sensitivity to changes in named input entities. By comparing the Flant5-XL, which employs an encoder-decoder architecture, with the GPT-J-6B, which represents a decoder-only architecture, we aimed to investigate the impact of LLM architecture on their brittleness towards entity replacement. The high variance in the performance of GPT-J (as shown in Fig 7) underscores that the brittleness towards entity replacement is not exclusive to the encoder-decoder architecture but is also a feature of decoder-only architecture models. + +# B.3 Effect of entity frequency + +Frequently recurring named entities in the web, which subsequently appear in the training data, can impact both the model's ppl and performance. Entities appearing frequently in the training data are more likely to be well-represented in the model's understanding, contributing to lower ppl values. This occurs because the frequent presence of these entities reduces the unpredictability of the next word in a sequence, making it easier for the LLM to anticipate. The hypothesis is that names appearing more frequently would contribute to better model performance. To examine this hypothesis, the frequency of names, extracted from (Tzioumis, 2018), were categorized into five groups of equal numbers, labeled G1 to G5, ranging from the most to the least frequent names. Fig 9 presents the performance of Flan-T5-XL across different datasets. + +![](images/d2fa12070fd32ac897205bd220ddb0c766c2a9efe46e048bc8ea4736ad8eec2d.jpg) + +![](images/074580c419c423622844c55c98b779242616403502e4dfd01ca02db84eff0410.jpg) + +![](images/149a1c5187a9b12426b10c9b18c1810803a37bb3390a2b5e830472973d64304c.jpg) +Figure 5: Bootstrap results of GPT-J-6B for 3 distinct sets of names, each comprising 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across different name sets. + +![](images/b595f85513bb0796b82cd377b64cef7f712d753e68c94765d5913129c854c29d.jpg) + +![](images/84c5071efe92c658740b73b43fb7ab9a82d2445158c42c57023db64eadb65699.jpg) + +![](images/9af7ee133001d94dd6145685fdd994c10f2f19ca3508f836765a296b8d4237c7.jpg) + +![](images/a3d0c964c46fa72e5dcfc45acd7e059152ae75558ae08d160fe211bd7efe33e5.jpg) + +![](images/a8be2c992d5164ed570c4c8fb0a62549d1c9061d5f2323a0edcd583e7e83e934.jpg) + +![](images/fa2270a4e0ab7c99a1855f2a278ec33e6211bd361f83ee9d0cafdcc0942deaa0.jpg) +Figure 6: Deviation in accuracy from the baseline (without data augmentation) for Flan-T5-XL across different datasets. + +![](images/6adbcbf66a45bfc8c4b68034db00705847cb60e07ccc10e61116be7cf63afd4a.jpg) + +![](images/fc6aa65b5f61908d8679283485b4f204d69bc634e25afac91d976a623963c33e.jpg) + +![](images/ddbd6b645183aa081d4e287cc0f5f48cce9b986b4fe698cc6812c380a7380779.jpg) + +![](images/dcec4185a5fef4c3dd60e4caa8629a2f2c8aead8bf54a79c699154c42db4b6dc.jpg) +Figure 7: Deviation in accuracy of GPT-J from the baseline across various bAbI tasks. Like the encoder-decoder architecture, the decoder-only architecture also exhibits brittleness towards entity replacement. + +![](images/dd0e5c65da0264ed6197fea3b66ecd58100960523f9ca9ebb2bff5d611931eb4.jpg) + +![](images/7125dc817e6dab1e6722d82340e62eee3454ac6ec98b07e07996c0c5ee4e27ef.jpg) +Figure 8: An example of a generated answer from the GSM8k test dataset. In this instance, the original prompt fails to generate the correct answer, whereas the transformed prompt — with the best-performing entity replaced — successfully produces the correct response. This generated text is reproducible using a greedy decoding. + +
DatasetIndexBest performing entityWorst performing entity
entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)
bAbI task 12 valid baseline Acc = 95.1 test baseline Acc = 95.51Penelope3.63.0Mihai-4.0-2.3
2Loreen3.63.0Raisa-4.0-3.6
3Dorcas3.63.2Ethel-3.7-3.5
4Toby3.43.4Migdalia-3.0-4.0
5Flora3.32.9Azucena-2.6-3.2
6Nataliya3.33.4Bhavana-2.6-3.6
7Nathaniel3.33.4Surinder-2.1-0.9
8Lucretia3.33.3Sanjeev-1.9-1.7
9Keiko3.23.0Armida-1.8-1.1
10Bernardo3.23.1Jianwei-1.7-1.4
Majority@103.5
bAbI task 14 valid baseline Acc = 76.1 test baseline Acc = 77.51Erich2.92.0Frederick-1.4-1.2
2Jacqueline2.61.8Raisa-1.3-1.3
3Zoltan2.42.3Maryellen-0.5-0.6
4Chryystal2.31.5Meera-0.5-0.5
5Petra2.21.1———
6Pravin2.21.8———
7Claudio2.21.0———
8Sanjeev2.21.1———
9Soledad2.12.1———
10Prashant2.12.3———
Majority@102.0
bAbI task 16 valid baseline Acc = 53.5 test baseline Acc = 53.31Loyd8.98.4———
2Armida8.78.1———
3Brannon8.79.5———
4Pravin8.48.8———
5Bozena8.18.2———
6Surinder8.07.2———
7Bonita8.07.1———
8Trena8.06.9———
9Rosalia7.96.2———
10Leopoldo7.79.3———
Majority@108.0
GSM8k valid baseline Acc = 14.3 test baseline Acc = 10.51Douglas0.50.9Leopoldo-2.5-0.8
2Juliann0.40.2Youssef-1.9-0.3
3Kathleen0.30.4Epifanioo-1.70.5
4Ernst0.30.4Sanjeev-1.6-0.8
5Tonja0.30.0Zoltan-1.5-0.3
6Angela0.20.2Jianwei-1.4-0.4
7Hina0.2-0.3Abelardo-1.3-0.7
8Diego0.20.4Alphonse-1.3-0.7
9Bradley0.10.9Dagoberto-1.3-0.5
10Jonathan0.10.8Nathaniel-1.2-0.1
Majority@100.8
CLUTRR valid baseline Acc = 59.0 test baseline Acc = 53.01Ashlee4.41.2Rob-8.20.6
2Penelope3.43.4Ahmad-8.0-0.2
3Allyson3.21.0Mihai-7.60.6
4Chryystal2.82.6Frederick-7.6-0.4
5Keiko2.8-4.4Martin-7.40.6
6Alisha2.63.0Jake-7.4-0.4
7Rosalba2.41.8Edward-7.40.2
8Jacqueline2.22.0Erik-7.40.2
9Zoltan2.21.2Giovanni-7.4-0.4
10Dillon2.01.4Douglas-7.2-0.2
Majority@101.6
+ +Table 2: Performance of the best and worst performing entities in the validation and test datasets. The green color signifies consistent performance between the validation and test datasets, while the orange color indicates inconsistency. The entities, selected based on their performance in the validation dataset, show consistent behavior in the test dataset, suggesting that they generalize in each dataset. We have noted less than 10 entities in some columns because the remaining entities did not reduce the accuracy compared to the baseline. + +Contrary to our hypothesis and expectations, there appears to be no correlation between the frequency of names and the performance of LLMs in entity replacement. + +# B.4 Effect of entity token length + +The token length of a prompt can directly influence the performance of a QA task, particularly as it relates to the computational demands on the model. A longer prompt, represented by a larger number of tokens, increases the amount of data the model must process, potentially straining the model's capabilities and affecting the overall efficiency and accuracy of the task. Changes in the token length of a replaced name, which in turn modify the prompt's overall token length due to multiple instances of the name within the prompt, provide an interesting variable for analysis. We delved into this potential effect by examining the model's performance in relation to the token length of names, as illustrated in Fig 10. Contrary to expectations, our study found no observable correlation between the model's performance and the token length of names. This suggests that, within the ranges examined, the token length of names does not significantly affect the model's performance in QA tasks. + +# B.5 Perplexity Analysis + +Our expectation was to observe a strong inverse correlation between the perplexity and accuracy of the model across all datasets, according to the findings reported in (Gonen et al., 2022a). However, we noted this inverse correlation only in some datasets, such as the bAbI task 14 (as shown in Figure Fig 11), but not in all of them. A plausible explanation for this inconsistency could be significant differences in our methodology compared to the approach adopted in (Gonen et al., 2022a). In our study, we limited our alterations to substituting named entities within the prompts, as opposed to changing the entire prompt. Therefore, this discrepancy in data augmentation techniques could potentially account for the lack of a significant correlation in some datasets. + +Fig 12 shows the deviation of ppl from the baseline across various tasks. Regardless of the task, a more reduction in prompt ppl was observed when entities were replaced both in demonstrations and queries, compared to the other two data augmentation settings. This can likely be attributed to the repeated usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt. The frequent repetition + +of the same named entity can contribute to lower ppl due to the decreased uncertainty and increased predictability of the next word in the sequence. + +![](images/58e32b9a1d8be3aca18b8d21e84a5e900f70751678a1380cd248c6f16e43b277.jpg) + +![](images/0cc51f357f2b90ed53ae8166969af204f584d8fafa2185109bbc91b4a56ce1de.jpg) + +![](images/37ac92f5d8397bfd8fa8e32f952baaca36d88b46979b43e1f016f85873041a4a.jpg) + +![](images/1d19d6b25aead79dfcb0ff6c926cc9fd0417248d8d82c84e24c3aea76fb21d11.jpg) + +![](images/e25d5ca2003cba21a913c6ef1a965a09b79d7e307a69ec6dc759e92aa9bc3f36.jpg) +Figure 9: The performance of Flan-T5-XL in relation to the frequency of names derived from a demographic dataset. Contrary to expectations, no correlation appears to exist between the frequency of names and the performance of Flan-T5-XL. + +![](images/6a5d7a6d2b38215a0d6e2ad3e8f5a130ea23aae41f6b5fa36ac2822f535aa51a.jpg) + +![](images/eb4910993580662683da331b1c3466154c0a8e1cdebb80164a4dc0471c38e127.jpg) + +![](images/c7f334e2cef818d5180ef97130361a86b3d660760b22cb7e08f9a0d0fb42075f.jpg) + +![](images/ee690188a4278ea50a5461c0a43e0aaf3f0ff4d7fff300a5ba0fa3646094d636.jpg) + +![](images/45a432677bb3ac51bada3ed1361b45190d4ef9e46315b0587fa17bf3fff65c92.jpg) + +![](images/e631edc615afeea6f5496310d1725428481ff0d60956520a0768f6f8d03ae95f.jpg) +Figure 10: The performance of various names in relation to their token length when using Flan-T5-XL. There is no apparent correlation between the performance and the token length in names. The quantity of names corresponding to each group of token lengths is illustrated on the plot. + +![](images/5a8ab99e5b23ee2e077f59376c0bde6c68b9ac10248c552ba1a7fba4f3196ec0.jpg) + +![](images/55ef7e12e623edcf93b4f8edc5372fd7fc5edd4d38bf0d9b0f3204b7b0536358.jpg) +Figure 11: Correlation between prompt perplexity (ppl) and LLM performance for task 14 and GPT-J-6B across various data augmentation settings. The accuracy and perplexity of prompt for the baseline are shown by red lines. Although a statistically significant inverse correlation between accuracy and ppl is observed in this dataset, this trend is not consistent across all datasets. The absence of this trend, contrary to expectation, could be attributed to the nature of our data augmentation approach, which only involved entity replacement instead of entire prompt modification. + +![](images/308344b9ef32d4e7ad0cee1a5995f4c16dc916fdad0a39aaf452168c7b965240.jpg) + +![](images/ab2d347feb646d3499a5a59a68a7b05e460ec4ac40d0a38f083b45d11ed2fbde.jpg) + +![](images/f5c65aec909b08d9053bcfa5d800e94e9356bb5254188cd6537a95db895722bf.jpg) + +![](images/350b9857cc3b55f107480b196ec3f22045615f87988c8087faec994472bf696b.jpg) + +![](images/df0cfa71990b174c091e6d0f0b0f68a287f359214d474e3a5b816523961a6f4e.jpg) +Figure 12: Deviation of prompt ppl for GPT-J-6B from the baseline across different tasks. A greater reduction in prompt ppl is observed when entities are replaced in both demonstrations and queries, a trend likely driven by the recurrent usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt. + +![](images/b762292e2ec4bcf50af5382be903b24fe5be2077e24f0663b2a059c110810f73.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/images.zip b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e506a02881cbc4fa67bd9f6eb3f9aaf93a7584a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:62769932b79c8cebcbe58ff0a8823473fb4843a7d3d2367060cf39e16cfa7fd8 +size 1140430 diff --git a/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/layout.json b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cdba1196471f101ba277a58e2ebaf8e2c0669b87 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9913 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 67, + 506, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 67, + 506, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 67, + 506, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robustness of Named Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 89, + 473, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 89, + 473, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 89, + 473, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saeed Goodarzi† Nikhil Kagita† Dennis Minn† Shufan Wang†" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roberto Dessi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\infty, \\pi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Shubham Toshniwal" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\nabla}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Adina Williams" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 111, + 456, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\infty}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 132, + 401, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 132, + 401, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 132, + 401, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jack Lanchantin\\*,Koustuv Sinha\\*," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 153, + 459, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 153, + 459, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 153, + 459, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "†University of Massachusetts Amherst; †Universitat Pompeu Fabra \n∇NVIDIA; †FAIR, Meta" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 183, + 442, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 183, + 442, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 183, + 442, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sgoodarzitae@umass.edu, koustuvs@meta.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A key feature of modern large language models (LLMs) is their ability to perform in-context learning, a prompting technique where query-answer demonstrations are shown before the final query. This allows for generalization to novel distributions at inference time where the LLM can learn new rules without parameter updates. However, the choice of demonstrations and their relationship to a particular query can have a profound impact on model accuracy, raising concerns about the true in-context generalization capabilities (Zhao et al., 2021). In this work, we explore the robustness of the in-context learning paradigm by focusing on entities. In particular, we seek to understand the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements. We discover a significant variance in downstream performance based on the choice of the named entities, across three popular reasoning tasks and two popular LLMs. Specifically, model accuracy on the test sets can fluctuate between -2.7 to +8.0 points depending on the choice of named entity replacements. Our analysis exposes the sensitivity of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entities, and offers a simple recipe to improve test performance by hyper-parameter tuning the named entities for a given dataset. Code and datasets for reproducing the results are publicly available." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 616, + 154, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 616, + 154, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 616, + 154, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Modern large language models (LLMs) routinely demonstrate in-context learning, where the model can solve a wide range of tasks from a few demonstration examples (or exemplars) (Brown et al., 2020). In-context learning, or few-shot prompting, is a powerful learning paradigm as it allows for fast adaptation to new tasks without the need to train" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 248, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 248, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 248, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/DennisMinn/ entities-in-context" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 152, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 152, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 152, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal Leadership." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 214, + 445, + 222 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 214, + 445, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 214, + 445, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Demonstration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 222, + 509, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 222, + 509, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 222, + 509, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[...] context: Jason had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Jason has 12 lollipops." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 520, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 520, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 520, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "question: How many lollipops did Jason give to Denny? \nanswer: Jason started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. So he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60 \\times 2 / 3 = 40" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loaves of bread are sold in the morning. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60 - 40 = 20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loaves of bread are left. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20 \\times 2 = 40" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 266, + 517, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ###" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 314, + 465, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 314, + 465, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 314, + 465, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Named Entity Replaced Demonstration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 322, + 520, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 322, + 520, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 322, + 520, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[...] context: Douglas had 20 lollipops. He gave Denny some lollipops. Now Douglas has 12 lollipops." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 343, + 517, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 343, + 517, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 343, + 517, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "question: How many lollipops did Douglas give to Denny? \nanswer: Douglas started with 20 lollipops. Then he had 12 after giving some to Denny. \nSo he gave Denny 20 - 12 = 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[...] context: A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening. question: How many loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon? answer: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60 \\times 2 / 3 = 40" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loaves of bread are sold in the morning. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60 - 40 = 20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loaves of bread are left. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20 \\times 1 / 2 = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 365, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loaves of bread are sold in the afternoon. ### 10" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Named entity replacements for In-Context Learning. Example from FLAN-T5 on GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). Here we replace all male entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e^{o})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in demonstrations with Douglas, and observe a change in the query answer prediction (from the incorrect answer 40 to the correct answer 10). Only 1 out of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is depicted to conserve space, with the remaining demonstrations denoted by “[...]”." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "model parameters. However, model performance in the in-context setting can vary significantly with the choice of demonstrations. Previous work has uncovered performance instability when altering the demonstrations, particularly when the demonstrations change semantically (Schick and Schütze, 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Perez et al., 2021; Gonen et al., 2022a). Naturally, a question arises whether LLMs are robust to semantically preserving, minimal alterations to the demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we seek to address this question using simple, semantically preserving alterations: named entity replacements. Because changing named entities should not, in principle, change the correct response to the query, the model is expected to remain invariant to such modifications. For example, given the demonstration \"Alice has" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10914" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10914-10931" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the ball. Alice went to the kitchen. Where is the ball? kitchen.\", the model should be invariant to the choice of the named entity \"Alice\"-i.e., a model should behave the same if we swap all instances of \"Alice\" with another named entity, e.g. \"Eve\". However, we observe that the model behavior is not always robust to such alterations (Figure 1)—prompting us to critically evaluate named entity invariance within in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct experiments to investigate the robustness of LLM in-context learning with respect to named entity replacements in three popular named entity heavy reasoning tasks, namely, bAbI, Weston et al. 2015; CLUTRR, Sinha et al. 2019; GSM8k, Cobbe et al. 2021, and two popular models, Flant5-XL (Chung et al., 2022a) and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021). Our key findings are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 305, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 305, + 291, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 305, + 291, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 305, + 291, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Neither Flan-T5-XL nor GPT-J are robust to entity replacements for in-context learning. On bAbI tasks, the best replacement entity yields a +8.0 point performance increase (for Task 16), and the worst replacement entity yields a -2.7 point performance drop (Task 12). Similarly, for CLUTRR, we observe a 1.6 point improvement. For GSM8k, we only find <1 point increase/decrease with entity replacements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 432, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 432, + 291, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 432, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Performance gains from best performing entities are not random. To verify, we ran a bootstrap analysis and observe consistent gains with low variance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Best/worst performing entities are task-specific." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 509, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 509, + 291, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 509, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We also analyze frequency, token length and perplexity of replaced entities, and find none of these alone explain our results, introducing an open problem for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 191, + 589 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 191, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 191, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The goal of this study is to investigate the robustness of LLMs' in-context learning performance by changing entities in the demonstrations and queries. We consider a fixed set of prompt demonstrations aside from the named entities. By replacing the named entities and observing any accuracy changes, we can better understand the effect of certain entities on a model's accuracy. While many prior works have studied the robustness of LLMs with respect to perturbations (Ribeiro et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2020; Balasubramanian et al., 2020), we focus our analysis on in-context learning. A more in-depth analysis of related work is provided in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 420, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 420, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 420, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix subsection A.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 428, + 108 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 428, + 108 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 428, + 108 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 In-Context Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With in-context learning, a test sample is comprised of a sequence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D = d_{1},d_{2},\\ldots ,d_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consists of a context, question and answer string. The final query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", consisting only of a context and question string, follows " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The goal of in-context learning is to predict the answer to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given a small set of demonstrations at inference time. In other words, learning is done by eliciting activations and not changing model parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 502, + 284 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 502, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 502, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Modifying In-Context Learning with Named Entity Replacement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We seek to measure the change in accuracy when we replace named entities in the demonstrations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and/or query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We perform entity replacement in the following way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first extract the named entities from each demonstration and query using an off-the-shelf NER model, and flag the subject entity, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for replacement. We then select a replacement entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from a large set of entities from Tzioumis (2018), which is composed of 4,250 unique first names. Finally, we perform named entity replacement in one of the following three settings: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " replace all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entities in the demonstrations, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \\dots, e_{d_k}^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " replace all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entities in the query, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_q^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " replace all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entities in both the query and demonstrations, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{d_1}^o, e_{d_2}^o, \\dots, e_{d_k}^o, e_q^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that each demonstration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can contain multiple instances of the entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These settings allow us to isolate and evaluate the effect of named entities in different parts of an in-context learning sample on accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We run multiple experiments using bootstrap sampling (with replacement) on three sets of names, half labeled as 'male' and half as 'female'. For each name " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a particular bootstrap set, we replace the original entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the test samples according to one of the three previously mentioned settings. We then evaluate the performance on the entity-replaced dataset. This procedure is repeated for each bootstrap set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://huggingface.co/dslim/bert-base-NER, see Appendix Section A.3 for details on the selection of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^{o}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 720, + 516, + 731 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 720, + 516, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 720, + 516, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Appendix Section A.4 describes each setting in detail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4While our data source provided a binary gender annotation on names based on self-report, we note that this is a proxy and moreover, that using names as a proxy for gender is indicative but can be noisy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10915" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 286, + 355 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 286, + 355 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 286, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 286, + 355 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "17fab8028c5b111fa1080156a13637f492bdd2e2c8845e213fbafebb9fc96144.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Bootstrap results of Flan-T5-XL on validation sets for 3 distinct sets of 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across bootstrap sets of names." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baseline results are reported using the original prompt demonstrations and query. However, our replacement strategy introduces a frequency bias, as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used to replace multiple demonstrations in a given input, resulting in artificially increasing the usage of a given entity in an input. Thus, we also report the median accuracy of replacement, which serves as a proxy baseline for replacing all demonstrations and/or query with a random entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 193, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 193, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 193, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Models and Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 290, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 290, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 290, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our entity replacement strategy on both an encoder-decoder LLM (Flan-T5-XL, 3B; Chung et al. 2022b) as well as a decoder-only LLM (GPT-J, 6B; Wang and Komatsuzaki 2021). We test these models across the following datasets: bAbI (Tasks 1, 12, 14, 16; Weston et al. 2015), CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019), GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021). We chose these datasets primarily because they include a significant presence of named entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 290, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each dataset, we select five samples from the training set to serve as demonstrations. To maintain grammatical correctness and clarity, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "only do replacements that preserve gender when a pronoun is contained in the sentence (see Appendix A.5). This step specifically addresses any potential uncontrolled effects on the performance from entity replacement, such as perplexity spikes that may results from swaps where the genders of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^{o}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " differ, and the model is expected to accommodate unexpected pronominal coreference with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 362, + 206 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 362, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 362, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance Across Bootstrap Sets. We find a noticeable change in accuracy with the best and worst performing entity compared to the baseline or median performing entity. Figure 2 shows Flant5-XL results on all validation datasets (analogous GPT-J results are in Figure 5 in the Appendix, and follow a similar pattern). This indicates that specific entities can noticeably alter in-context learning performance. Furthermore, the standard deviations for the median and best performing entity across bootstraps are low, suggesting that the selection of different name sets will likely yield similar median and best performance. However, the variation in the worst performing entities is large." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance Within a Single Bootstrap Set. To analyze the results in more detail, we measure the performance for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J on a single bootstrap set of 200 examples. We show the results for bAbI task 14 in Figure 3. When we replace names only in the demonstrations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the variance in model performance is lower compared to both when we replace names only in the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and in both query and demonstration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 525, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " setup exhibits the highest variance, as this scenario involves the maximum change in the tokens of the original prompt. Nevertheless, we see a consistent variance from the baseline by simply replacing named entities in any of the three replacement settings. Other datasets exhibit a similar behavior; see Appendix Figures 6 and 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Best and Worst Entity Generalization. Thus far, we've used the valid set to demonstrate accuracy variation. To evaluate the best performing entities on the test set, we implement a majority voting method as follows. We first find the 10 best performing entities on the valid set. For each sample in the test set, we take the majority answer prediction from the 10 different best names, denoted \"Maj@10\". Table 1 shows results of entity replacements across the validation and test sets by replac" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5Except GSM8k, where we select 5 of the 8 prompts from Wei et al. (2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10916" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing entities in the demonstration and query (both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). We observe a maximum 8.0 point accuracy increase, seen on bAbI task 16." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " The best and worst performing entities vary by dataset, but overall entities generalize across the validation and test sets, with a uniform increase in accuracy from the best entity. A list of these entities for each dataset and further evaluations are in Appendix Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 290, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For all datasets, there are entities with appreciable deviations from the baseline, and these entities generalize across the validation and test splits. This finding indicates that the observed accuracy shifts are not coincidental and highlights the influence of entity swaps, including those that preserve overall example semantics, such as for names, on model performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 132, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 132, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 132, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Why are the models not invariant to entity replacements? We conducted several analyses in attempts to find the root cause of this result, but they were largely inconclusive." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Does the frequency of names affect how much they shift model performance? The lack of robustness could well be explained by the frequency effects of named entities in the training corpus of the pre-trained model (Wei et al., 2021). We use the entity frequency data provided by Tzioumis (2018), and assessed performance changes across names with varying frequencies. We do not find any correlation between name frequency and the model performance post entity replacement (see Appendix Section B.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Does the token length of names affect performance? Another hypothesis of the invariance could be due to the inconsistent tokenization of named entities. Rare names can be tokenized into longer tokens based on the learned subwords of the model. We analyzed token length post tokenization and compared it with model performance, but we are unable to find any meaningful relationship between the two (see Appendix Section B.4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 290, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Does improved performance result from a decrease in prompt perplexity due to entity replacement? Finally, the surprisal of the LLM to certain entities could be a promising hypothesis to explain the change in model performance (Gonen et al., 2022b). We compare prompt perplexity af" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 76, + 511, + 220 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 76, + 511, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 76, + 511, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 76, + 511, + 220 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "806ba71760a2083e986f1d9e3c8486ceedd8450c702759db96c9852bcfc8b229.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 233, + 511, + 368 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 223, + 495, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 223, + 495, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 223, + 495, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "bAbI Task 14 (Baseline Accuracy=70)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 233, + 511, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 233, + 511, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 233, + 511, + 368 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a884b3da2e0d17034a9e33ec7f497e383486e897e60a3367f94c029904ee1c03.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 524, + 408 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 524, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 524, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Accuracy for Flan-T5-XL and GPT-J-6B on bAbI task 14 for a single bootstrap set of 200 samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ter entity replacement to LLM performance, and yet again we are unable to find a statistical correlation (see Appendix Section B.5). While Gonen et al. (2022b) suggests improvement of model performance with decrease in perplexity, we observe certain entities displaying the opposite behavior." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 381, + 537 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 381, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 381, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 525, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this study, we find that LLMs exhibit a consistent lack of robustness with respect to named entity replacement for the in-context learning setting, fur" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 607, + 525, + 677 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 607, + 525, + 677 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 607, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 607, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetBaselineBest EntityWorst Entity
ValidTestValidTest (Maj@10)ValidTest
bAbI 1295.195.598.5 [+3.4]99.0 [+3.5]92.4 [-2.7]93.0 [-2.5]
bAbI 1476.177.578.4 [+2.3]79.5 [+2.0]75.2 [-0.9]76.6 [-0.9]
bAbI 1653.553.361.7 [+8.2]61.3 [+8.0]55.5 [+2.0]55.9 [+2.6]
GSM8k14.310.514.6 [+0.3]11.3 [+0.8]12.7 [-1.6]10.1 [-0.4]
CLUTRR59.053.061.8 [+2.8]54.6 [+1.6]51.4 [-7.6]53.1 [+0.1]
", + "image_path": "99f3f7f108c2d1d531a75f9dc65d14aecbc1534f3cb3314b2d990ab3697ac9ae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Performance of FLAN-T5-XL, with accuracy shift from baseline provided in [square brackets]. Entity replacements are done in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 685, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " setting. bAbI task 1 reaches perfect accuracy and is thus omitted from this table. Performance between the validation and test datasets is consistent, and we observe a generalizable increase in accuracy across all datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6We did not include bAbI Task 1 because the baseline accuracy is already " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", leaving no space for improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10917" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ther questioning the process of reasoning employed by these models (Min et al., 2022). We demonstrate this across three axes: the complexity of the task, the model architecture, and which named entities are to be replaced (in the demonstrations, query, or both). The cause for this effect remains elusive, which opens up exciting research directions. One intriguing result is that the entities that can boost performance are dataset specific. This points to potential avenues for enhancing LLM downstream performance by performing hyperparameter search over a range of entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 149, + 257 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 149, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 149, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We acknowledge that the selection of names in our study may not provide an unbiased representation of the complete set of possible names. The data provided by Tzioumis (2018) was derived from mortgage applications which may introduce a bias against popular names within marginalized communities. Moreover, this issue is compounded when we sub-sample the set of names due to computational limitations. Additionally, we used a NER model available through Hugging Face to identify " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It was BERT-based (Devlin et al., 2018) and trained on a CONLL-2003 corpus (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) (Wolf et al., 2019), and we anecdotally observed that sometimes it struggles to identify rare names as named entities, for example, it incorrectly identified \"TreQuan\" as \"TreQ.\" We spot checked for this issue and removed names that posed problems to the best of our abilities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 229, + 535 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 229, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 229, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Ethics and Broader Impact" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we explore the effect of name swaps in an in-context learning setup and find that particular names can increase accuracy. In our efforts to align names with their respective pronouns, we assumed binary gender, but acknowledge that other genders exist. We made this assumption because our evaluated datasets used binary pronouns, and our names dataset was also only binarily annotated. While our paper assumes name-gender associations, we do not want to discredit negative evidence. A name that is not explicitly associated with a gender doesn't imply evidence of absence of association (imagine that only one person named \"Alex\" was sampled, and she was a woman—that doesn't mean that there aren't also men or nonbinary people called \"Alex\"). At the moment, there aren't many annotated name datasets that consists" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of gender-agnostic, gender-ambiguous, or gender-neutral names. Hopefully, additional work such as (Dev et al., 2021; Lauscher et al., 2022; Ovalle et al., 2023) will expand such resources, but regardless of these complications, our conclusions are still useful for trying to understand why some names can shift model performance under some settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 202, + 362, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 202, + 362, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 202, + 362, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 527, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 527, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 527, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2023. Genderize.io. https://genderize.io/. Accessed: June 15, 2023." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 527, + 309 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 527, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 527, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oshin Agarwal, Yinfei Yang, Byron C Wallace, and Ani Nenkova. 2020. Entity-switched datasets: An approach to auditing the in-domain robustness of named entity recognition models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04123." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 527, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 527, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 527, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sriram Balasubramanian, Naman Jain, Gaurav Jindal, Abhijeet Awasthi, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2020. What's in a name? are BERT named entity representations just as good for any other name? In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 205-214, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 527, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 527, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 527, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 527, + 601 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 527, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 480, + 527, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022a. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 527, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 527, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 527, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022b. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 527, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sunipa Dev, Masoud Monajatipoor, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Jeff Phillips, and Kai-Wei Chang." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10918" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2021. Harms of gender exclusivity and challenges in non-binary representation in language technologies. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1968-1994, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 290, + 195 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 290, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 290, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 289, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2017. Hotflip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06751." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50-56. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 373 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022a. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04037." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hila Gonen, Shauli Ravfogel, and Yoav Goldberg. 2022b. Analyzing gender representation in multilingual models. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, pages 67-77, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 289, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 289, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 289, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8018-8025." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 617 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anne Lauscher, Archie Crowley, and Dirk Hovy. 2022. Welcome to the modern world of pronouns: Identity-inclusive natural language processing beyond gender. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1221-1232, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 628, + 289, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 628, + 289, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 628, + 289, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bill Yuchen Lin, Wenyang Gao, Jun Yan, Ryan Moreno, and Xiang Ren. 2021. RockNER: A simple method to create adversarial examples for evaluating the robustness of named entity recognition models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3728-3737, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert L Logan IV, Ivana Balažević, Eric Wallace, Fabio Petroni, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Cutting down on prompts and parameters: Simple few-shot learning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13353." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 196, + 525, + 284 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 196, + 525, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 196, + 525, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anaelia Ovalle, Palash Goyal, Jwala Dhamala, Zachary Jaggers, Kai-Wei Chang, Aram Galstyan, Richard Zemel, and Rahul Gupta. 2023. \"i'm fully who i am\": Towards centering transgender and non-binary voices to measure biases in open language generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1246-1266." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 525, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM 2016-2016 IEEE Military Communications Conference, pages 49-54. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 397 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:11054-11070." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 482 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902-4912, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 489, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 489, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 489, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2020. Exploiting cloze questions for few shot text classification and natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07676." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 525, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 525, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 525, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2022. True few-shot learning with prompts—a real-world perspective. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:716-731." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10919" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 692 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04388." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Konstantinos Tzioumis. 2018. Demographic aspects of first names. Scientific data, 5(1):1-9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Wang, Qin Liu, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Yicheng Zou, Xin Zhou, Jiacheng Ye, Yongxin Zhang, Rui Zheng, Zexiong Pang, Qinzhuo Wu, Zhengyan Li, Chong Zhang, Ruotian Ma, Zichu Fei, Ruijian Cai, Jun Zhao, Xingwu Hu, Zhiheng Yan, Yiding Tan, Yuan Hu, Qiyuan Bian, Zhihua Liu, Shan Qin, Bolin Zhu, Xiaoyu Xing, Jinlan Fu, Yue Zhang, Minlong Peng, Xiaqing Zheng, Yaqian Zhou, Zhongyu Wei, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2021. TextFlint: Unified multilingual robustness evaluation toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 347-355, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 403, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 403, + 290, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 403, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Dan Garrette, Tal Linzen, and Ellie Pavlick. 2021. Frequency effects on syntactic rule learning in transformers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 445, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 445, + 290, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 445, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander M Rush, Bart Van Merrienboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2015. Towards ai-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 561, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 561, + 291, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 561, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 636, + 291, + 692 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 636, + 291, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 636, + 291, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10920" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 163, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 163, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 163, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Several works investigated the robustness of language models with respect to input rewrites (Papernot et al., 2016; Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2020). In particular, Balasubramanian et al. (2020) found that while fine-tuned BERT models were brittle in certain tasks, they demonstrated robustness against entity replacement for question answering. Other works have shown that many transformer-based models are insufficiently robust to name swaps (Ribeiro et al. 2020; Agarwal et al. 2020; Lin et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2021, i.a.), Our work differs from these in that we focus on the in-context learning setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ability to do in-context learning first emerged from Brown et al. (2020). Subsequently, many works sought to improve and understand the abilities of LLMs with respect to in-context learning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021). Perez et al. (2021); Logan IV et al. (2021); Schick and Schütze (2022); Turpin et al. (2023) show an improvement over the original paper in the the \"true few-shot learning\" setup where there is no access to a large test set to tune in-context learning hyperparameters. Despite the impressive results of this new paradigm, little has been understood regarding the generalization of certain in-context demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gonen et al. (2022a) bring to attention the importance of the specific prompts in model performance. They show that the lower the perplexity of the prompt is, the better the prompt is able to perform the task. Min et al. (2022) show that the actual labels in the prompt are not very important. However, the labels still have a small impact in performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In recent years, several studies have explored the significance of prompt quality in few-shot learning, particularly in the context of question-answering tasks. One such study was conducted by Shin et al. (2020) who proposed AutoPrompt, an automated approach for prompt generation in few-shot learning scenarios that has been shown to achieve the highest accuracy. The AutoPrompt model leverages gradient-based prompt search techniques to find the optimal prompt for a given task, thereby reducing the need for human intervention. Additionally, AutoPrompt utilizes Masked Language Models (MLMs) to perform sentiment analysis and natural language inference tasks without the need for fine-tuning, highlighting the potential of MLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in few-shot learning scenarios. In another study, Gonen et al. (2022a) introduced a novel technique for prompt generation that involves using a small set of manually created prompts and then applying paraphrasing and backtranslation to generate additional prompts automatically. Specifically, they utilized GPT-3 to perform the paraphrasing step, which involves rephrasing the original prompts while preserving their underlying meaning. The backtranslation step then involves translating the paraphrased prompts into another language and then back into the original language to generate new prompts that are semantically similar to the original prompts but with different phrasing and wording. This approach enables the generation of a large number of diverse prompts without requiring extensive manual effort, which can be particularly useful in few-shot learning scenarios where data is limited. Gonen et al. (2022a) also demonstrated an inverse relationship between the perplexity of the prompts and the model's performance across various tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 526, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 526, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 526, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work is related to previous studies as we focus on the true few-shot learning setup for the task of question answering and explore the robustness of NLP models against entity replacement. There are three main ways in which our work differs from previous studies. First, our investigation focuses on analyzing the robustness of language models against entity replacement specifically for the task of question answering in the ICL setup, which has not been explored in previous studies. Second, we utilize left-to-right language models, which are more widely used and powerful than masked language models. Finally, our approach involves prompt-learning instead of fine-tuning, whereby the parameters of the language model are modified to improve its performance on specific tasks. By leveraging the true few-shot learning setup and prompt-learning techniques, we aim to develop a more robust and effective approach for few-shot question-answering tasks that can handle entity replacement and other challenges more effectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 671, + 405, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 671, + 405, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 671, + 405, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Dataset Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "bAbI (Weston et al., 2015): The bAbI dataset consists of 20 tasks that evaluate various aspects of language understanding by NLP models. In our experiments, we select four tasks representing varying degrees of difficulty from the bAbI dataset: task 1, task 12, task 14, and task 16." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10921" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context: Mary and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_{d1}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " travelled to the \nbathroom. John and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_{d1}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " travelled to the office. \nquestion: Where is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_{d1}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? \nanswer: office \n???? \ncontext: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_{d2}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Mary went back to the office. \nDaniel and Sandra went to the bedroom. \nquestion: Where is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_{d2}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? \nanswer: bedroom \n???? \ncontext: Daniel and John moved to the hallway. \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_q]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Daniel journeyed to the bathroom. \nquestion: Where is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_q]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 74, + 274, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? \nanswer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 0, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Named entity replacement overview for in context learning. Here we show an in-context learning example with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations before the final query. We consider 3 scenarios: replacing only the demonstration entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e_{d1}, e_{d2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", only the query entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e_q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", or both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e_{d1}, e_{d2}, e_q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". All replacements are done with the same replacement entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019): This dataset is similar to a subset of the bAbI dataset, but contains more difficult multi-step questions. This allows us to determine whether named entity replacement robustness is affected by task difficulty. Given a multi-sentence context describing kinship relations between certain entities and a question, the task is to predict the kinship relation between the entities that can be inferred from the context but is not made explicit. We convert this into a multiple-choice question where we expect the model to pick the answer from the four choices provided." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GSM8k (Cobbe et al., 2021): This dataset is a collection of elementary multi-step mathematical reasoning questions. We specifically selected this dataset due to the challenging nature of arithmetic operations, where existing models often struggle to achieve accurate results. We subsampled GSM8k to include only examples which contained identifiable named entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 291, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Tzioumis (2018) dataset, contains of 4,250 unique first names, associated with their unigram frequency, and self-reported demographic information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each sample in the dataset, which is comprised of a context, question, and answer triplet, we transform it into a formatted string. This transformation involves concatenating the field name, a colon, space, the respective value corresponding to that field, and newline character. We ap" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ply this transformation to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D = d_{1},d_{2},\\ldots ,d_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the final query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , where the answer to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is omitted. We concatenate the formatted " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations and query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , delimiting each string with a newline character followed by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\"\\# \\# \\# \"" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a newline character. Figure 4 shows an incontext learning example." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 177, + 408, + 190 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 177, + 408, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 177, + 408, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Entity Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In general, we determine " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by selecting the first encountered entity within the question, as it often represents the subject of the question. If the question contains interrogative pronouns, such as \"who,\" no entities will be present within the question. In this case, we consider " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the first entity encountered within the answer since it typically represents the subject being referred to. If the subject of the question and answer is referred to using pronouns then neither the question nor answer will contain any entities, we assume that noun ambiguity is not an issue and select the first encountered entity within the context as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 472, + 397 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 472, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 472, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Entity-replacement Scenarios" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the demonstration-only replacement scenario, we perform entity replacement exclusively on the demonstrations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while keeping the query unmodified 4. By selectively replacing entities within the context, question, and answer of the demonstrations, we aim to examine the extent to which this replacement strategy influences the model's performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the query-only replacement setting, we solely augment the entities within the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while leaving the demonstrations unaltered Fig 4. This allows us to investigate the impact of enhancing the query's entity representation on the model's ability to generate accurate responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Applying both demonstration and query replacement, we replace " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in both the demonstrations and query simultaneously. By enriching the entity information in both the context and the question, we explore the combined effect of entity replacement on the overall performance of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 500, + 713 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 500, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 500, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Ensuring Grammatical Correctness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To begin, we verify the pronouns associated with both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using (gen, 2023). If the gender associated with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corresponds with that of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we proceed to substitute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". However, if there" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10922" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is no alignment in gender, we refrain from altering " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and maintain its original form." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 110, + 135, + 122 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 110, + 135, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 110, + 135, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 289, + 145 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 289, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 289, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 Analyzing Best/Worst performing entities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 291, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to examine the generalizability of the best and worst performing entities in each dataset, we extracted named entities from the validation dataset and tested them on the test dataset. More specifically, we replaced the named entities in the prompts of the validation dataset with a set of names that included 100 male and 100 female names. We then calculated the accuracy for each name, selecting the 10 names that exhibited the highest performance and the 10 names that showed the lowest performance. Next, we replaced the named entities in the test dataset prompts with these 20 selected names and calculated the corresponding accuracy for the test dataset. Table 2 presents the best and worst performing entities for each dataset along with the absolute percentage of accuracy changes. The ensemble model functions by replacing the named entity in the prompt with the highest performing entity and then generating an answer at each step. After cycling through the 10 best performing entities, it selects the answer with the most votes as the final response. This approach is referred to as majority@10. It's important to note that the bAbI task 1 doesn't have a 'best performing entity' because the baseline accuracy is already " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", leaving no room for improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8 provides an example of an generated answer for the GSM8k test dataset. The original prompt failed to produce the correct answer, while the transformed prompt was able to successfully answer the question. The absolute improvement of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the accuracy of GSM8k through the majority@10 is remarkable, given the following facts: 1) The baseline accuracy for this challenging dataset is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", making even a small improvement significant. 2) The number of named entities in GSM8k is fewer than in other datasets, meaning only a few words are replaced in the transformed prompt, as shown in Figure 8. The ratio of replaced words to the total number of words in the prompt is 0.032. 3) Of the 1319 examples in the GSM8k test dataset, 663 contain a male name, 377 contain a female name, and 279 don't contain any named entity in the query. We could have achieved greater changes in percentage if we had only considered examples where the gender of the best perform" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing entity matched the gender of the name in the query (as replacements wouldn't occur otherwise). However, we chose not to adjust the test dataset to ensure that our accuracy improvement could be compared with other studies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 526, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The consistency in performance between the validation and test datasets in CLUTRR is lower than that in the other datasets. This could be attributed to the structure of CLUTRR, where four options are provided in the prompt, from which the model chooses an answer. This setup introduces a degree of randomness to the generated answer, potentially leading to less consistency between the performance of the validation and test datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 420, + 281 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 420, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 420, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.2 LLM Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The architecture of LLMs plays a crucial role in determining their behavior and performance, including their vulnerability to entity replacement. The design choices and architectural components of LLMs can influence how they process and generate text, affecting their sensitivity to changes in named input entities. By comparing the Flant5-XL, which employs an encoder-decoder architecture, with the GPT-J-6B, which represents a decoder-only architecture, we aimed to investigate the impact of LLM architecture on their brittleness towards entity replacement. The high variance in the performance of GPT-J (as shown in Fig 7) underscores that the brittleness towards entity replacement is not exclusive to the encoder-decoder architecture but is also a feature of decoder-only architecture models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 526, + 450, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 526, + 450, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 526, + 450, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.3 Effect of entity frequency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Frequently recurring named entities in the web, which subsequently appear in the training data, can impact both the model's ppl and performance. Entities appearing frequently in the training data are more likely to be well-represented in the model's understanding, contributing to lower ppl values. This occurs because the frequent presence of these entities reduces the unpredictability of the next word in a sequence, making it easier for the LLM to anticipate. The hypothesis is that names appearing more frequently would contribute to better model performance. To examine this hypothesis, the frequency of names, extracted from (Tzioumis, 2018), were categorized into five groups of equal numbers, labeled G1 to G5, ranging from the most to the least frequent names. Fig 9 presents the performance of Flan-T5-XL across different datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10923" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 162, + 292, + 398 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 162, + 292, + 398 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 162, + 292, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 162, + 292, + 398 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d2fa12070fd32ac897205bd220ddb0c766c2a9efe46e048bc8ea4736ad8eec2d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 518, + 398 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 518, + 398 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 518, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 518, + 398 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "074580c419c423622844c55c98b779242616403502e4dfd01ca02db84eff0410.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 406, + 292, + 641 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 406, + 292, + 641 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 406, + 292, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 406, + 292, + 641 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "149a1c5187a9b12426b10c9b18c1810803a37bb3390a2b5e830472973d64304c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 659, + 525, + 683 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 659, + 525, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 659, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Bootstrap results of GPT-J-6B for 3 distinct sets of names, each comprising 200 names. Error bars represent the variation across different name sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 517, + 641 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 517, + 641 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 517, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 517, + 641 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b595f85513bb0796b82cd377b64cef7f712d753e68c94765d5913129c854c29d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10924" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "84c5071efe92c658740b73b43fb7ab9a82d2445158c42c57023db64eadb65699.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 185, + 518, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 185, + 518, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 185, + 518, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 185, + 518, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9af7ee133001d94dd6145685fdd994c10f2f19ca3508f836765a296b8d4237c7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 291, + 472 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 291, + 472 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 291, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a3d0c964c46fa72e5dcfc45acd7e059152ae75558ae08d160fe211bd7efe33e5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 518, + 472 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 518, + 472 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 518, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 518, + 472 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a8be2c992d5164ed570c4c8fb0a62549d1c9061d5f2323a0edcd583e7e83e934.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 478, + 291, + 619 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 478, + 291, + 619 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 478, + 291, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 478, + 291, + 619 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fa2270a4e0ab7c99a1855f2a278ec33e6211bd361f83ee9d0cafdcc0942deaa0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 525, + 659 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 525, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 525, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Deviation in accuracy from the baseline (without data augmentation) for Flan-T5-XL across different datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 478, + 518, + 619 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 478, + 518, + 619 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 478, + 518, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 478, + 518, + 619 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6adbcbf66a45bfc8c4b68034db00705847cb60e07ccc10e61116be7cf63afd4a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10925" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 88, + 294, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 88, + 294, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 88, + 294, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 88, + 294, + 233 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fc6aa65b5f61908d8679283485b4f204d69bc634e25afac91d976a623963c33e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 87, + 520, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 87, + 520, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 87, + 520, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 87, + 520, + 233 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ddbd6b645183aa081d4e287cc0f5f48cce9b986b4fe698cc6812c380a7380779.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 238, + 293, + 382 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 238, + 293, + 382 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 238, + 293, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 238, + 293, + 382 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dcec4185a5fef4c3dd60e4caa8629a2f2c8aead8bf54a79c699154c42db4b6dc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 525, + 421 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Deviation in accuracy of GPT-J from the baseline across various bAbI tasks. Like the encoder-decoder architecture, the decoder-only architecture also exhibits brittleness towards entity replacement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 238, + 520, + 382 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 238, + 520, + 382 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 238, + 520, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 238, + 520, + 382 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dd0e5c65da0264ed6197fea3b66ecd58100960523f9ca9ebb2bff5d611931eb4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 525, + 707 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 525, + 707 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 525, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7125dc817e6dab1e6722d82340e62eee3454ac6ec98b07e07996c0c5ee4e27ef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 526, + 756 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 526, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 526, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: An example of a generated answer from the GSM8k test dataset. In this instance, the original prompt fails to generate the correct answer, whereas the transformed prompt — with the best-performing entity replaced — successfully produces the correct response. This generated text is reproducible using a greedy decoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10926" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 129, + 526, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 129, + 526, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 129, + 526, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 129, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetIndexBest performing entityWorst performing entity
entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)entityAcc change (valid)Acc change (test)
bAbI task 12 valid baseline Acc = 95.1 test baseline Acc = 95.51Penelope3.63.0Mihai-4.0-2.3
2Loreen3.63.0Raisa-4.0-3.6
3Dorcas3.63.2Ethel-3.7-3.5
4Toby3.43.4Migdalia-3.0-4.0
5Flora3.32.9Azucena-2.6-3.2
6Nataliya3.33.4Bhavana-2.6-3.6
7Nathaniel3.33.4Surinder-2.1-0.9
8Lucretia3.33.3Sanjeev-1.9-1.7
9Keiko3.23.0Armida-1.8-1.1
10Bernardo3.23.1Jianwei-1.7-1.4
Majority@103.5
bAbI task 14 valid baseline Acc = 76.1 test baseline Acc = 77.51Erich2.92.0Frederick-1.4-1.2
2Jacqueline2.61.8Raisa-1.3-1.3
3Zoltan2.42.3Maryellen-0.5-0.6
4Chryystal2.31.5Meera-0.5-0.5
5Petra2.21.1———
6Pravin2.21.8———
7Claudio2.21.0———
8Sanjeev2.21.1———
9Soledad2.12.1———
10Prashant2.12.3———
Majority@102.0
bAbI task 16 valid baseline Acc = 53.5 test baseline Acc = 53.31Loyd8.98.4———
2Armida8.78.1———
3Brannon8.79.5———
4Pravin8.48.8———
5Bozena8.18.2———
6Surinder8.07.2———
7Bonita8.07.1———
8Trena8.06.9———
9Rosalia7.96.2———
10Leopoldo7.79.3———
Majority@108.0
GSM8k valid baseline Acc = 14.3 test baseline Acc = 10.51Douglas0.50.9Leopoldo-2.5-0.8
2Juliann0.40.2Youssef-1.9-0.3
3Kathleen0.30.4Epifanioo-1.70.5
4Ernst0.30.4Sanjeev-1.6-0.8
5Tonja0.30.0Zoltan-1.5-0.3
6Angela0.20.2Jianwei-1.4-0.4
7Hina0.2-0.3Abelardo-1.3-0.7
8Diego0.20.4Alphonse-1.3-0.7
9Bradley0.10.9Dagoberto-1.3-0.5
10Jonathan0.10.8Nathaniel-1.2-0.1
Majority@100.8
CLUTRR valid baseline Acc = 59.0 test baseline Acc = 53.01Ashlee4.41.2Rob-8.20.6
2Penelope3.43.4Ahmad-8.0-0.2
3Allyson3.21.0Mihai-7.60.6
4Chryystal2.82.6Frederick-7.6-0.4
5Keiko2.8-4.4Martin-7.40.6
6Alisha2.63.0Jake-7.4-0.4
7Rosalba2.41.8Edward-7.40.2
8Jacqueline2.22.0Erik-7.40.2
9Zoltan2.21.2Giovanni-7.4-0.4
10Dillon2.01.4Douglas-7.2-0.2
Majority@101.6
", + "image_path": "f221659095d2f3d58305b8b5881a62c7f2a1dda85f5423d06a99a52b9d2c80ce.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 526, + 709 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 526, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 526, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Performance of the best and worst performing entities in the validation and test datasets. The green color signifies consistent performance between the validation and test datasets, while the orange color indicates inconsistency. The entities, selected based on their performance in the validation dataset, show consistent behavior in the test dataset, suggesting that they generalize in each dataset. We have noted less than 10 entities in some columns because the remaining entities did not reduce the accuracy compared to the baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10927" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contrary to our hypothesis and expectations, there appears to be no correlation between the frequency of names and the performance of LLMs in entity replacement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 227, + 147 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 227, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 227, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.4 Effect of entity token length" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The token length of a prompt can directly influence the performance of a QA task, particularly as it relates to the computational demands on the model. A longer prompt, represented by a larger number of tokens, increases the amount of data the model must process, potentially straining the model's capabilities and affecting the overall efficiency and accuracy of the task. Changes in the token length of a replaced name, which in turn modify the prompt's overall token length due to multiple instances of the name within the prompt, provide an interesting variable for analysis. We delved into this potential effect by examining the model's performance in relation to the token length of names, as illustrated in Fig 10. Contrary to expectations, our study found no observable correlation between the model's performance and the token length of names. This suggests that, within the ranges examined, the token length of names does not significantly affect the model's performance in QA tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 188, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 188, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 188, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.5 Perplexity Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our expectation was to observe a strong inverse correlation between the perplexity and accuracy of the model across all datasets, according to the findings reported in (Gonen et al., 2022a). However, we noted this inverse correlation only in some datasets, such as the bAbI task 14 (as shown in Figure Fig 11), but not in all of them. A plausible explanation for this inconsistency could be significant differences in our methodology compared to the approach adopted in (Gonen et al., 2022a). In our study, we limited our alterations to substituting named entities within the prompts, as opposed to changing the entire prompt. Therefore, this discrepancy in data augmentation techniques could potentially account for the lack of a significant correlation in some datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fig 12 shows the deviation of ppl from the baseline across various tasks. Regardless of the task, a more reduction in prompt ppl was observed when entities were replaced both in demonstrations and queries, compared to the other two data augmentation settings. This can likely be attributed to the repeated usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt. The frequent repetition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of the same named entity can contribute to lower ppl due to the decreased uncertainty and increased predictability of the next word in the sequence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10928" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "58e32b9a1d8be3aca18b8d21e84a5e900f70751678a1380cd248c6f16e43b277.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 310 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 310 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 310 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0cc51f357f2b90ed53ae8166969af204f584d8fafa2185109bbc91b4a56ce1de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 293, + 476 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 293, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 293, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 293, + 476 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "37ac92f5d8397bfd8fa8e32f952baaca36d88b46979b43e1f016f85873041a4a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1d19d6b25aead79dfcb0ff6c926cc9fd0417248d8d82c84e24c3aea76fb21d11.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 84, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e25d5ca2003cba21a913c6ef1a965a09b79d7e307a69ec6dc759e92aa9bc3f36.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 526, + 692 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: The performance of Flan-T5-XL in relation to the frequency of names derived from a demographic dataset. Contrary to expectations, no correlation appears to exist between the frequency of names and the performance of Flan-T5-XL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6a5d7a6d2b38215a0d6e2ad3e8f5a130ea23aae41f6b5fa36ac2822f535aa51a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10929" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 153, + 294, + 310 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "eb4910993580662683da331b1c3466154c0a8e1cdebb80164a4dc0471c38e127.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 311 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 311 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 153, + 518, + 311 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c7f334e2cef818d5180ef97130361a86b3d660760b22cb7e08f9a0d0fb42075f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 294, + 476 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 294, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 294, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 318, + 294, + 476 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ee690188a4278ea50a5461c0a43e0aaf3f0ff4d7fff300a5ba0fa3646094d636.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 317, + 518, + 476 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "45a432677bb3ac51bada3ed1361b45190d4ef9e46315b0587fa17bf3fff65c92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 483, + 294, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e631edc615afeea6f5496310d1725428481ff0d60956520a0768f6f8d03ae95f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 525, + 693 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 525, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: The performance of various names in relation to their token length when using Flan-T5-XL. There is no apparent correlation between the performance and the token length in names. The quantity of names corresponding to each group of token lengths is illustrated on the plot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 483, + 518, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5a8ab99e5b23ee2e077f59376c0bde6c68b9ac10248c552ba1a7fba4f3196ec0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10930" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 229, + 246 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 229, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 229, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 229, + 246 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "55ef7e12e623edcf93b4f8edc5372fd7fc5edd4d38bf0d9b0f3204b7b0536358.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 525, + 332 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 525, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 525, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Correlation between prompt perplexity (ppl) and LLM performance for task 14 and GPT-J-6B across various data augmentation settings. The accuracy and perplexity of prompt for the baseline are shown by red lines. Although a statistically significant inverse correlation between accuracy and ppl is observed in this dataset, this trend is not consistent across all datasets. The absence of this trend, contrary to expectation, could be attributed to the nature of our data augmentation approach, which only involved entity replacement instead of entire prompt modification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 230, + 100, + 372, + 246 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 100, + 372, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 100, + 372, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 100, + 372, + 246 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "308344b9ef32d4e7ad0cee1a5995f4c16dc916fdad0a39aaf452168c7b965240.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 100, + 518, + 246 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 100, + 518, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 100, + 518, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 100, + 518, + 246 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ab2d347feb646d3499a5a59a68a7b05e460ec4ac40d0a38f083b45d11ed2fbde.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 295, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 295, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 295, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 295, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f5c65aec909b08d9053bcfa5d800e94e9356bb5254188cd6537a95db895722bf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 396, + 520, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 396, + 520, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 396, + 520, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 396, + 520, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "350b9857cc3b55f107480b196ec3f22045615f87988c8087faec994472bf696b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 294, + 692 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 294, + 692 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 294, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 294, + 692 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "df0cfa71990b174c091e6d0f0b0f68a287f359214d474e3a5b816523961a6f4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 525, + 743 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 525, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: Deviation of prompt ppl for GPT-J-6B from the baseline across different tasks. A greater reduction in prompt ppl is observed when entities are replaced in both demonstrations and queries, a trend likely driven by the recurrent usage of the same replaced named entity within the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 546, + 520, + 692 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 546, + 520, + 692 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 546, + 520, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 546, + 520, + 692 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b762292e2ec4bcf50af5382be903b24fe5be2077e24f0663b2a059c110810f73.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10931" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_content_list.json b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..516b08ce114d0632a8ee8cb35e296dc49cc9cd1e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1699 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning: the Case of Dialog Act Tagging", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 87, + 870, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rastislav Hronsky", + "bbox": [ + 253, + 143, + 413, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jheronimus Academy of Data Science", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 160, + 489, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sint Janssingel 92, 5211 DA 's-Hertogenbosch", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 175, + 522, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Netherlands", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 193, + 383, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "r.hronsky@tue.nl", + "bbox": [ + 252, + 210, + 415, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Emmanuel Keuleers", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 143, + 754, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tilburg University", + "bbox": [ + 589, + 160, + 739, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 177, + 801, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Netherlands", + "bbox": [ + 615, + 193, + 715, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.A.Keuleers@tilburguniversity.edu", + "bbox": [ + 492, + 210, + 836, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unsupervised learning of word representations involves capturing the contextual information surrounding word occurrences, which can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning. While there are fewer reasons to believe that the same holds for sentences, learning through context has been carried over to learning representations of word sequences. However, this work pays minimal to no attention to the role of context in inferring sentence representations. In this article, we present a dialog act tag probing task designed to explicitly compare content- and context-oriented sentence representations inferred on utterances of telephone conversations (SwDA). Our results suggest that there is no clear benefit of context-based sentence representations over content-based sentence representations. However, there is a very clear benefit of increasing the dimensionality of the sentence vectors in nearly all approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 588, + 258, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unsupervised methods for constructing word representations vary widely in their implementation (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Mikolov et al., 2013a; Pennington et al., 2014), but share the core property that they try to capture the contextual information surrounding word occurrences. This can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning (De Saussure, 1916) and that, therefore, trying to extract meaning from form directly would be pointless.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, there are fewer reasons to believe that representing the meaning of a fully composed sentence requires the description of its context in the way that a word does. Still, much effort has been devoted to developing and evaluating context-oriented methods for sentence representation (Kiros et al., 2015; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Cer et al., 2018). Interestingly, the theoretical justification for the approach –roughly paraphrased– is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that it works well for words (Kiros et al., 2015).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 865, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the present article, we examine whether a contextual signal is of any significant benefit to general-purpose sentence representation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 269, + 880, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To accommodate this goal, we infer two sets of utterance representations from telephone conversation transcripts, one by a model trained to encode the transcripts' content, and one by a model trained to encode the transcripts context in a Skip-Thought-like fashion. We evaluate the learned representations with a linear probe classifying the dialog act tags. Below, we discuss these choices more extensively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 884, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The reason for the linear probing technique is to avoid any further representation learning in the downstream task training, such that the resulting accuracy numbers solely reflect the unsupervised representations. This technique is commonly used to assess to what extent sentence representations exhibit certain linguistic properties, such as part-of-speech or syntax (Conneau et al., 2018; Chrupała and Alishahi, 2019; Perone et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022a).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 882, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We chose the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997) corpus for the following properties: (1) its size allows for inferring representations with both traditional, statistical learning methods and modern neural network based methods; (2) at the same time, the corpus is fairly narrow-domain, enabling small models to converge to meaningful representations1; (3) it contains utterance labels that we consider suitable for a probing task with respect to contextuality: while a dialog act tag unquestionably depends on the utterance contents, the surrounding utterances likely provide a good signal about its label too. See example utterances from the corpus in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1As opposed to some other well-known sentence-level tasks, such as NLI (Bowman et al., 2015), SICK (Marelli et al., 2014), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), that require \"universal\" sentence representations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8784", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8784-8792", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/189a4430dcd0169a034f6f3dda776a9304f7ed13e516d4f2b82cfc1788c69a66.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SD^EBut I, my grandparents were looking into it before.
SDSo I know what they’ve said.
BUh-huh.
^HWell, I’m trying to think.
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 80, + 448, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Example dialog act tags and utterances from the SwDA corpus. (SD^E = Statement expanding y/n answer, SD = Statement-non-opinion, B = Backchannel, ^H = Hold before answer/agreement).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 177, + 489, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using context to enhance dialog act predictions is not a novel idea (Raheja and Tetreault, 2019; Li and Wu, 2019; Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013). To ascertain the usefulness of context in this task, we checked for the reduction in entropy of a tag in a \"unigram\" setting vs. conditioned on a previous tag, a \"bigram\" setting. The results were $H(\\text{currenttag}) = 2.1$ bit and $H(\\text{currenttag|previousat}) = 1.86$ bit, meaning that such a context-enhanced baseline would, at least, increase the chance-level accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 261, + 489, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the content-oriented representation variants, the representations of utterances were inferred via classic topic modeling methods, word vector averaging, or an LSTM-based auto-encoder (see Section 3 for details). The resulting sentence vectors were then used as input for a Skip-Thought-like training regime, where the goal was to learn their context-oriented version by projecting them such that they are predictive of surrounding utterances. Additionally, we trained a version where the utterance encoding and projection are trained jointly, with an LSTM-based encoder of identical proportions with the one used for auto-encoding.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 489, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 664, + 268, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the literature review, we summarize some of the most important work in sentence representation and relate it to the issues outlined in previous paragraphs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 487, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Before the deep learning era of NLP, text-processing methods relied mainly on lexical features of sentences and were invariant to word order. Using word frequency transformations, e.g., tfidf (Ramos et al., 2003), has proven effective to base the representations on more semantically laden words. Techniques such as singular value decomposition (SVD) (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Landauer et al., 1998), or topic modeling (Blei et al., 2003; Blei, 2012; Hofmann, 2001) were used", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to transform the sparse word-count matrices into dense vectors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With the subsequent success of simple neural networks such as word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013a,b; Goldberg and Levy, 2014) or GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) at representing words and phrases, a seemingly naive method of averaging these word vectors was shown to produce useful sentence/paragraph/document representations (Arora et al., 2017).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 120, + 884, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With further success of neural networks in text processing, the research on the topic grew markedly. Among the unsupervised methods, recursive auto-encoders (RAEs) (Socher et al., 2011a,b; Pollack, 1990) were trained to reconstruct sentences via recursively encoding nodes in a dependency parse tree and performed well at a paraphrasing task (Dolan et al., 2004). Tree-LSTMs (Tai et al., 2015) later succeeded the RAEs in the same recursive set up but using an LSTM encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), and evaluated on predicting semantic relatedness between two sentences (Marelli et al., 2014) and classifying sentiment (Socher et al., 2013). The current state-of-the-art unsupervised, general-purpose sentence representation systems are based on pre-trained Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017) and fine-tuned via contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012; Chen et al., 2020), i.e., pulling representations of alternative sentence formulations closer together and those of unrelated, random sentence pairs apart (Gao et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 255, + 884, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The success of skip-gram-based word representations inspired researchers to transfer the idea to sentence representation. Skip-Thought (Kiros et al., 2015) is a large, LSTM-based (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), sentence encoder that was trained to produce representations predictive of surrounding sentences. Quick-Thought (Logeswaran and Lee, 2018) is a similar system that differs in that it casts the problem as contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012). The Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) is a Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) system introduced by Cer et al. (2018) that uses the Skip-Thought as one of the tasks in a multi-task learning set-up (including some supervised tasks). The task of deciding whether two sentences are consecutive or not (NSP task) was also used in training of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). The latest dialog processing sys", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8785", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tems, built on top of Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017), typically learn to predict contextual utterances within the contrastive learning framework and achieve superior performance on dialog tasks compared to universal representations (Wu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023; Oh et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While sentence contextuality is used in all of the above-mentioned studies, there is little to no focus on assessing the necessity for using context to derive sentence representations. An ablation of the NSP task is presented by Devlin et al. (2019), suggesting a slight performance benefit over a version where the task is omitted. However, Devlin et al. (2019) only evaluate the fine-tuning pipeline, while the raw BERT representations were shown to perform poorly overall (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Further, results by Liu et al. (2019) are contradictory and do not credit a performance improvement to the NSP task. Lastly, Zhou et al. (2022) additionally compare the representations resulting from dropout augmentations (Gao et al., 2021) to those of consecutive utterances and found a significant benefit in favor of the latter augmentations. Their results are perplexing, however, since the dropout version they implemented performed even worse than that of SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021), which also uses dropout augmentation, and should in fact perform worse, not being tailored for dialog.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 199, + 489, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using the natural language inference (NLI) task has been effective in several general sentence representation learning systems (Conneau et al., 2017; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019; Zhou et al., 2022). However, along with machine translation models, these systems fall outside the category of unsupervised sentence representations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 554, + 489, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 682, + 218, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We trained several variants of content-based representations, their context-based counterparts, and an end-to-end, Skip-Thought like system, trained to encode and predict sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 487, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluated the following variants of content-based sentence representation2:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 778, + 489, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) $\\star$", + "2. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)\\* (Blei et al., 2003)" + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 826, + 485, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "3. Mean of GloVe word vectors $\\star$ (Pennington et al., 2014)", + "4. LSTM-based auto-encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997)", + "5. Mean of arbitrarily assigned word vectors" + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 84, + 880, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also varied the final dimension of the sentence vector, namely $D \\in \\{6, 12, 25\\}$ , either by setting the number_of_topics parameter, setting the auto-encoder bottleneck size, or truncating GloVe vectors. The auto-encoder was based on a 2-layer, bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network with hidden size of $D_{hidden} = 64$ , dropout of $p = 0.1$ . The variant 5 is one where we randomly assigned a feature vector from an 8-dimensional raster to each vocabulary entry (a procedure by which we want to emulate the usage of 1-hot vector encoding, but with dense, real-valued vectors), and created the final sentence representation by averaging corresponding word vectors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 200, + 884, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To create the context-based representations, we devised a learning regimen for 2 linear layers for each variant. One layer was used to project the sentence content vector to the context space (encode), and the other layer was used to predict the content vectors of surrounding sentences from the context vector (decode).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 882, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we trained a Skip-Thought-like model, where each sentence was represented by a sequence of word vectors (obtained via the same procedure as in variant 5), optionally truncated and padded to 20 tokens, processed via an LSTM (identical with the auto-encoder in variant 4), and projected such that, conditioned on the resulting vector, a decoder-LSTM reconstructs the surrounding sentences well via teacher forcing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 539, + 882, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In all of the context-based variants, we varied the context size between 1 and 2 sentences, on each side.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 684, + 880, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Dataset and Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 745, + 741, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To infer and evaluate the representations, we used the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997), with exception of the GloVe vectors, where we used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 vectors. The SwDA contains transcripts of casual telephone conversations in which the two parties were instructed to discuss a certain topic, e.g. \"care of the elderly\". Every utterance is assigned a label", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 766, + 884, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Entries marked with $\\star$ use the GenSim implementation.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 480, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3We used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 version.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 835, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8786", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4ded5239487167f661787aa1277fe7588a4a13ad65d90ac36d36c036b1cd23b8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 2: Summary of the SwDA dataset. In the upper section of the table, we summarize the corpus statistics. In the lower section we list the percentages of dialog act labels per corpus split (SD=\"Statement-non-opinion\", B=\"Backchannel\", SV=\"Statement-opinion\", AA=\"Agree/Accept\")." + ], + "table_body": "
TrainDevTest
Utterances212,14526,51826,519
Tokens1,833M227K227K
Tokens per att.8.648.568.32
SD35.47%33.52%35.00%
%/Other27.45%25.77%25.60%
B18.52%21.54%23.02%
SV13.76%14.60%13.73%
AA4.81%4.57%2.65%
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 480, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "describing the \"role\" of the act, in a similar way that part-of-speech tags describe roles of words in sentences 4.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 349, + 487, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To pre-process the texts, (1) we tokenized the utterances with the reference Morfessor 2.0 (Virpioja et al., 2013) implementation, (2) long utterances were broken down into multiple shorter utterances with a sliding-window of 20 words and a step-size of 18 words, and (3) we split the corpus into a train, dev, and test split with respective proportions of $80\\%$ , $10\\%$ , and $10\\%$ of the utterances. For an overview of the final corpus statistics, including the dialog act tags, see Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 398, + 487, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each representation type, we trained a linear ridge-regression $^{5}$ -based classifier with 10-fold cross-validation (on the training set) to predict the dialog act labels. Altogether, there were 42 distinct dialog acts. To simplify the probe, we only selected the 10 most frequent labels to classify, while grouping the remaining labels under a single category.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 560, + 489, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 683, + 213, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The classification accuracy results are presented in Table 3. We established baseline performance as the frequency of the majority class. The only variant performing below the majority baseline was the Random variant ( $D_{hidden} = 6$ ), which used means of arbitrarily assigned word vectors. The other variants achieved scores in the range of up to $15 - 21\\%$ above the majority baseline. Except", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 708, + 487, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8a17389fd4e21eaa37b2d880780239217e537085a1e11c87bbfc31ec1d281a18.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 3: Results. The three right-most columns contain the accuracy percentages for the content-only, context of distance 1, and context of distance 2 variants." + ], + "table_body": "
Context1 att.2 att.
Algo.Dim.Accuracy [%]
Maj. class35.00
GLOVE651.6250.3750.14
1252.8252.6052.55
2557.2957.2456.52
LDA651.1051.1651.05
1253.3252.9952.73
2556.8256.3656.13
LSA651.0750.6250.58
1251.9451.4451.04
2552.0252.1152.12
Random636.5241.5541.83
1246.9947.1746.47
2548.4647.6947.59
Auto-enc.653.8852.2751.63
1254.4653.8952.34
2552.4353.1852.57
Skip-Th.651.1339.66
1253.3352.38
2555.2157.54
", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 870, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for LSA, each algorithm achieved the highest score with $D_{hidden} = 25$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There were no big differences and no discerning patterns in the performance of the contextually projected variants.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 555, + 882, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The only case where the training regime of predicting two neighboring sentences on each side scored the best was with the end-to-end, SkipThought like variant, which also achieved the overall highest score.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 604, + 884, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 699, + 636, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All tested models performed well over the majority baseline, including the averaged random word vectors which exceeded the majority baseline by a large margin when coupled with high dimensionality. One reason for this might be that, when averaging word vectors of higher dimension, there is a higher chance that some important lexical features will remain separable from the noise (also applicable to GloVe). Only in case of LSA and AutoEncoder, the effect of dimensionality was small. For the latter, using a variational or contrastive learning set-up might allow for better scaling of", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4See the Coder's manual (Jurafsky, 1997) for more information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 844, + 487, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5We opted for ridge regression, instead of logistic regression, because of high colinearity (except for LDA and LSA) across feature vectors. See correlation matrices in the appendix Section A. We used the Scikit-Learn implementation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 869, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8787", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance with capacity. Based on the patterns observed here, increasing the dimensionality increases performance on the probe, with or without context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We did not find either of these aspects discussed in the mainstream related work (Conneau et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022b). The question of how far increasing the dimensionality helps performance should be explored in future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 487, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The presented results on the dialog act tag probing task are in line with related literature in that sequence/document representations with word embeddings and classical topic modeling approaches are a tough-to-beat baseline for many neural networks (Conneau et al., 2018; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Our results suggest that transforming existing, content-oriented representations to context-oriented ones provides minimal to no meaningful improvement in representation. An improvement of small, but perhaps meaningful magnitude is one from the best performing AutoEncoder to Skip-Thought variant $(3\\%)$ , suggesting that some benefit in this training scheme may be found for sentences, too.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 231, + 489, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, our experimental design limits us in drawing conclusions about what the Skip-Thought set-up benefited from specifically: the more general sentence representations may simply be an artifact of the more difficult learning task (predicting neighboring sentences), as opposed to being a result of form disambiguation via context, the way it works with words. Future work should employ methodology that separates the contribution of the competing sources of signal more clearly.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 487, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When compared to the obvious benefits of context on learning word representations, it is striking that the benefits for learning sentence representations appear to be very small at best.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 487, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This observation is suggestive of a more serious blind-spot in NLP: because context-based representations work well for words, many researchers assume that the same holds for any level of analysis. This is akin to claiming arbitrariness of the sign at any level of language processing.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 700, + 487, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 245, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We presented evidence that explicitly examines the differences between content-, and context-oriented unsupervised sentence representations. While results suggest that dimensionality, rather than context, is the determining factor in building good", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sentence representations, end-to-end approaches based on reconstructing surrounding sentences are a promising way forward.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 143, + 613, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since this work only presents evidence from one sentence task, the conclusions drawn are task-specific. Although we believe the chosen task to be fairly general, one can easily think of tasks that would likely challenge the drawn conclusions, e.g., recognition of humor or sarcasm. However, these are rather rare cases and it is questionable, where the best position of the boundary between unsupervised and task-specific lies. Additionally, the selected range of dimensions is limited to a small amount, and at larger scales the patterns of results might change.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 168, + 882, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8788", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sanjeev Arora, Yingyu Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2017. A simple but tough-to-beat baseline for sentence embeddings. In International conference on learning representations.", + "Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219.", + "Yonatan Belinkov. 2022b. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219.", + "David M Blei. 2012. Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4):77-84.", + "David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan):993-1022.", + "Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder for english. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 169-174.", + "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR.", + "Grzegorz Chrupa and Afra Alishahi. 2019. Correlating neural and symbolic representations of language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06401.", + "Yung-Sung Chuang, Rumen Dangovski, Hongyin Luo, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Marin Soljacic, Shang-Wen Li, Scott Yih, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2022. DiffCSE: Difference-based contrastive learning for sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4207-4218, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02364.", + "Alexis Conneau, German Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loic Barrault, and Marco Baroni. 2018. What" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01070.", + "Ferdinand De Saussure. 1916. Nature of the linguistic sign. Course in general linguistics, 1:65-70.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kenton Lee. 2019. Google, kt, language, ai: Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186.", + "William Dolan, Chris Quirk, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2004. Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Exploiting massively parallel news sources.", + "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yoav Goldberg and Omer Levy. 2014. word2vec explained: deriving mikolov et al.'s negative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722.", + "Michael U Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2012. Noisecontrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. Journal of machine learning research, 13(2).", + "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735-1780.", + "Thomas Hofmann. 2001. Unsupervised learning by probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Machine learning, 42(1-2):177.", + "Dan Jurafsky. 1997. Switchboard swbd-damsl shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Technical report.", + "Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent convolutional neural networks for discourse compositionality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.3584.", + "Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Russ R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28.", + "Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211.", + "Thomas K Landauer, Peter W Foltz, and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2-3):259-284." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 86, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8789", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Wei Li and Yunfang Wu. 2019. Multi-level gated recurrent neural network for dialog act classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01822.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02893.", + "Marco Marelli, Luisa Bentivogli, Marco Baroni, Raffaella Bernardi, Stefano Menini, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. Semeval-2014 task 1: Evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models on full sentences through semantic relatedness and textual entailment. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 1-8.", + "Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013a. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.", + "Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013b. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26.", + "Minsik Oh, Jiwei Li, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. Tadse: Template-aware dialogue sentence embeddings.", + "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543.", + "Christian S Perone, Roberto Silveira, and Thomas S Paula. 2018. Evaluation of sentence embeddings in downstream and linguistic probing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06259.", + "Jordan B Pollack. 1990. Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46(1-2):77-105.", + "Vipul Raheja and Joel Tetreault. 2019. Dialogue act classification with context-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02594.", + "Juan Ramos et al. 2003. Using tfidf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, volume 242, pages 29-48. Citeseer.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Richard Socher, Eric Huang, Jeffrey Pennin, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2011a. Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24.", + "Richard Socher, Jeffrey Pennington, Eric H Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher D Manning. 2011b. Semi-supervised recursive autoencoders for predicting sentiment distributions. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 151-161.", + "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642.", + "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00075.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.", + "Sami Virpioja, Peter Smit, Stig-Arne Gronroos, Mikko Kurimo, et al. 2013. Morfessor 2.0: Python implementation and extensions for morfessor baseline. Technical report.", + "Chien-Sheng Wu, Steven C.H. Hoi, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. TOD-BERT: Pre-trained natural language understanding for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 917-929, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Yejie Wang, Chen Zeng, Jinggang Wang, Yunsen Xian, and Weiran Xu. 2023. Futuretod: Teaching future knowledge to pre-trained language model for task-oriented dialogue.", + "Zhihan Zhou, Dejiao Zhang, Wei Xiao, Nicholas Dingwall, Xiaofei Ma, Andrew Arnold, and Bing Xiang. 2022. Learning dialogue representations from consecutive utterances. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 754-768, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8790", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e3bd7dab7f09a78492363b6a1387f06f781a32a9a2d1431da995acd3a7d59e8a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 147, + 257, + 248 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b2b7228fad90e69a59d321d64ac43cb69620915ca6ae02157f52ff20191a9668.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Pearson correlation between features (dim=6)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 148, + 413, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f4dc16a9bfd9f146d249cfd0a918b088a34fefa7f600a26f3c8189f1ab1e1e62.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 431, + 148, + 549, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b4aa368cbcbdcb09b1eb7f8f9d572459db95e964c62dec886e638d0c5861ca07.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 578, + 148, + 697, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a1b7a46a28ae57dbbbe6c0e2e4376fe4dc32594ad8fba9383dfaf5a21b1a4af9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 726, + 148, + 843, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b8318ad01d3dc6d703407573d070942519a0b3e2105f51dc1970dbe829d44af9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 250, + 255, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/406714a29b6928cbbd3cf99a5c1cf477acea5e0d3f634d05d710097bcadf6b8c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 250, + 413, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ab49c52879c9e63344ebb0b11d288945b4623c0921773c8bc1e507da73951071.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 431, + 250, + 549, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/18b2be039e660f5a21f72a97b37fb0712ffcabb9d570f6289638adbe73da9de6.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 578, + 250, + 695, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bbae9db3c2c61be51038065c6271133afbf794e7d81fb6f6dd2c9407dcc9e875.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 726, + 250, + 843, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/eaaff27a405d9fe37685a0491a51dae754afaba045402119ea5d7937a27e3471.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 6." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 351, + 255, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3f510d7fa00621c384e8521f1580fa5bdcf8eafda028390758d19d87d1eb36f8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 351, + 413, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3fb5ed6ae184b0b7cee9a431f65693bd100a4d0695b429e6f3bb0fd8fb051bd3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 431, + 351, + 549, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9f5cf7fbe539f5feb4e41b80a7565a289b306aa39c619b848002750a27de7930.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 578, + 351, + 697, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cdef12ac6c191c98ddd2445564c513d1bed3178d3106f1330f56cc272e3c1568.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 715, + 351, + 873, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ba962b57c0c5246fc90ef58b76a0c12cca8d16889acbe6c156a5f6a472c20ce7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 552, + 263, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a366fdfbea52d788a92af08818565a327e98c3df86a050e41e372e00b9c010f6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Pearson correlation between features (dim=12)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 552, + 418, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/04ac375c04e26358ccd6ea6389ef32d851582187466f15170f15e29747ddb1c6.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 430, + 552, + 551, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/464693b6622a338abc6c1f8268461dc4b3dc6d49ede288df8fa4cc1885724f2b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 576, + 552, + 700, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f3ba839187d7c35414596f45ae59a132d0142f60358af367f1c0a80a6f8e52eb.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 724, + 552, + 847, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ebe9284b92ab7aa72dc45aead00eec0f87619fb570715e1ca389850afabbb711.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 653, + 262, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/72fab356a9886508898e03f65065d7c6843406057da271191f22b7c4db25ed9b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 653, + 418, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1b8161abc276285198cd56cd2876819edc5098c492e311e7ed0a6ce3071f0cf0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 431, + 653, + 551, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fd1b29c5fdd1b56235c96ab54b644854c2e4899736b1437390b8ebb0da8a0739.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 576, + 653, + 700, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7559ab50de6be62847564c41822757c71d9f1024d785f2024d9f2d2b23101e08.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 724, + 653, + 847, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/69bdb5a9c1f7be3ac3ecea2e05d8fa810b85df666a6f76d0cabf96354bb29a86.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 12." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 756, + 262, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1841577c8eea6af3ff3767280aed87b54821d4228cccdf4386de82f0e4736ec4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 756, + 418, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2b0b460584ecf83a5f860bce74ea515a663989ca952fbfeccb6b2a3e242e649f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 430, + 756, + 551, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1057ade4d2ac1b65a8b24ba0436c30938bab50136818954bad3380fa91e22a9b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 576, + 756, + 700, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cd79acc52bec3506d06e3e8e662ff62d9650b35e9e7e0f21552102c3e9b4882f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 714, + 756, + 873, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "A Correlation Matrices", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 334, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8791", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=25)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 337, + 322, + 653, + 334 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4150446ab607544a5eb7c0f00ce24ce092873d5b85f8b9b72527d72fe720221a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 346, + 263, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c8cce625139a6879322e78635b20ef8a0bc1b8f4cbb939704211c3e9582da226.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 449, + 263, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8930cdf5fe5c77ffa84035a1d0d737b490b30ceb6625ca733e5b5019c9527df0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 25." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 548, + 262, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e47ecb0b45c1943cf4122e45fa8a6cf9b64a9cb4763ce1b7a2a826caeb3b7d5e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 346, + 420, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cf9627ac9b4e98c9ebee65949b37c162d6ef97cc4f18665daaa5047d90c22ba9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 448, + 420, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d82564006893445346d5e0d61c487f3ef32857a20dd2f3262f19758aa4ba2d86.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 548, + 420, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7b20f1378f18117882eeae91bcff18b5198d07eb49123bf3a6e61543d743e9f7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 428, + 346, + 554, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b2d98184a46d3e4682108937827856479f67325ff4e3edd3677090a21c527ad5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 428, + 448, + 552, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/763d9c57c03a73a650ca8d36c638af7a1a82d0472a7d623ae8c9a9f28aa33ff4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 428, + 548, + 552, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1cfd29e61a7083a3c9fd13f24a4282967ff1005d386da95ca8944188ed647fc3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 574, + 346, + 700, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/247cf832c26e0ffc9c8c1c35201d0cdd38890345da7d16fa13e7991d145877fd.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 576, + 448, + 700, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/39a24e18f9c9208d3b5d828bb77ee788f8111bd5534b1873320dbc4a4adbd332.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 576, + 548, + 700, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/028d2dd7a7a963c8fe04ee18e5dbdf982408ca9235cf9a731442d6334b6aeb33.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 722, + 346, + 847, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d2f0df741541b95d244eb4b1fc61eec1602867cddbe37ed93fb16e1da9e21f0d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 722, + 448, + 847, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/21a5f9311fc83cebd8d0f22c68e1bd69a752bfd38b6c4e584aee0d552567b8e7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 714, + 548, + 873, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8792", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_model.json b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df7e219f33765073c1b63a90221cb4a63acbf396 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2198 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.089, + 0.872, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning: the Case of Dialog Act Tagging" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.254, + 0.144, + 0.414, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rastislav Hronsky" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.178, + 0.161, + 0.49, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jheronimus Academy of Data Science" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.177, + 0.523, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sint Janssingel 92, 5211 DA 's-Hertogenbosch" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.194, + 0.384, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Netherlands" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.211, + 0.416, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "r.hronsky@tue.nl" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.144, + 0.756, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emmanuel Keuleers" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.591, + 0.161, + 0.741, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tilburg University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.178, + 0.802, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.616, + 0.194, + 0.716, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Netherlands" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.494, + 0.211, + 0.838, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.A.Keuleers@tilburguniversity.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unsupervised learning of word representations involves capturing the contextual information surrounding word occurrences, which can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning. While there are fewer reasons to believe that the same holds for sentences, learning through context has been carried over to learning representations of word sequences. However, this work pays minimal to no attention to the role of context in inferring sentence representations. In this article, we present a dialog act tag probing task designed to explicitly compare content- and context-oriented sentence representations inferred on utterances of telephone conversations (SwDA). Our results suggest that there is no clear benefit of context-based sentence representations over content-based sentence representations. However, there is a very clear benefit of increasing the dimensionality of the sentence vectors in nearly all approaches." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.589, + 0.26, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unsupervised methods for constructing word representations vary widely in their implementation (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Mikolov et al., 2013a; Pennington et al., 2014), but share the core property that they try to capture the contextual information surrounding word occurrences. This can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning (De Saussure, 1916) and that, therefore, trying to extract meaning from form directly would be pointless." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, there are fewer reasons to believe that representing the meaning of a fully composed sentence requires the description of its context in the way that a word does. Still, much effort has been devoted to developing and evaluating context-oriented methods for sentence representation (Kiros et al., 2015; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Cer et al., 2018). Interestingly, the theoretical justification for the approach –roughly paraphrased– is" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.254, + 0.866, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that it works well for words (Kiros et al., 2015)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.271, + 0.882, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the present article, we examine whether a contextual signal is of any significant benefit to general-purpose sentence representation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.321, + 0.885, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To accommodate this goal, we infer two sets of utterance representations from telephone conversation transcripts, one by a model trained to encode the transcripts' content, and one by a model trained to encode the transcripts context in a Skip-Thought-like fashion. We evaluate the learned representations with a linear probe classifying the dialog act tags. Below, we discuss these choices more extensively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.468, + 0.884, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The reason for the linear probing technique is to avoid any further representation learning in the downstream task training, such that the resulting accuracy numbers solely reflect the unsupervised representations. This technique is commonly used to assess to what extent sentence representations exhibit certain linguistic properties, such as part-of-speech or syntax (Conneau et al., 2018; Chrupała and Alishahi, 2019; Perone et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.884, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We chose the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997) corpus for the following properties: (1) its size allows for inferring representations with both traditional, statistical learning methods and modern neural network based methods; (2) at the same time, the corpus is fairly narrow-domain, enabling small models to converge to meaningful representations1; (3) it contains utterance labels that we consider suitable for a probing task with respect to contextuality: while a dialog act tag unquestionably depends on the utterance contents, the surrounding utterances likely provide a good signal about its label too. See example utterances from the corpus in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.87, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1As opposed to some other well-known sentence-level tasks, such as NLI (Bowman et al., 2015), SICK (Marelli et al., 2014), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), that require \"universal\" sentence representations." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8784" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8784-8792" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.082, + 0.449, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SD^EBut I, my grandparents were looking into it before.
SDSo I know what they’ve said.
BUh-huh.
^HWell, I’m trying to think.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.178, + 0.49, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Example dialog act tags and utterances from the SwDA corpus. (SD^E = Statement expanding y/n answer, SD = Statement-non-opinion, B = Backchannel, ^H = Hold before answer/agreement)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.262, + 0.49, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using context to enhance dialog act predictions is not a novel idea (Raheja and Tetreault, 2019; Li and Wu, 2019; Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013). To ascertain the usefulness of context in this task, we checked for the reduction in entropy of a tag in a \"unigram\" setting vs. conditioned on a previous tag, a \"bigram\" setting. The results were \\( H(\\text{currenttag}) = 2.1 \\) bit and \\( H(\\text{currenttag|previousat}) = 1.86 \\) bit, meaning that such a context-enhanced baseline would, at least, increase the chance-level accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.441, + 0.49, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the content-oriented representation variants, the representations of utterances were inferred via classic topic modeling methods, word vector averaging, or an LSTM-based auto-encoder (see Section 3 for details). The resulting sentence vectors were then used as input for a Skip-Thought-like training regime, where the goal was to learn their context-oriented version by projecting them such that they are predictive of surrounding utterances. Additionally, we trained a version where the utterance encoding and projection are trained jointly, with an LSTM-based encoder of identical proportions with the one used for auto-encoding." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.665, + 0.27, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.693, + 0.489, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the literature review, we summarize some of the most important work in sentence representation and relate it to the issues outlined in previous paragraphs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Before the deep learning era of NLP, text-processing methods relied mainly on lexical features of sentences and were invariant to word order. Using word frequency transformations, e.g., tfidf (Ramos et al., 2003), has proven effective to base the representations on more semantically laden words. Techniques such as singular value decomposition (SVD) (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Landauer et al., 1998), or topic modeling (Blei et al., 2003; Blei, 2012; Hofmann, 2001) were used" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to transform the sparse word-count matrices into dense vectors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.121, + 0.885, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With the subsequent success of simple neural networks such as word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013a,b; Goldberg and Levy, 2014) or GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) at representing words and phrases, a seemingly naive method of averaging these word vectors was shown to produce useful sentence/paragraph/document representations (Arora et al., 2017)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.256, + 0.885, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With further success of neural networks in text processing, the research on the topic grew markedly. Among the unsupervised methods, recursive auto-encoders (RAEs) (Socher et al., 2011a,b; Pollack, 1990) were trained to reconstruct sentences via recursively encoding nodes in a dependency parse tree and performed well at a paraphrasing task (Dolan et al., 2004). Tree-LSTMs (Tai et al., 2015) later succeeded the RAEs in the same recursive set up but using an LSTM encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), and evaluated on predicting semantic relatedness between two sentences (Marelli et al., 2014) and classifying sentiment (Socher et al., 2013). The current state-of-the-art unsupervised, general-purpose sentence representation systems are based on pre-trained Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017) and fine-tuned via contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012; Chen et al., 2020), i.e., pulling representations of alternative sentence formulations closer together and those of unrelated, random sentence pairs apart (Gao et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The success of skip-gram-based word representations inspired researchers to transfer the idea to sentence representation. Skip-Thought (Kiros et al., 2015) is a large, LSTM-based (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), sentence encoder that was trained to produce representations predictive of surrounding sentences. Quick-Thought (Logeswaran and Lee, 2018) is a similar system that differs in that it casts the problem as contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012). The Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) is a Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) system introduced by Cer et al. (2018) that uses the Skip-Thought as one of the tasks in a multi-task learning set-up (including some supervised tasks). The task of deciding whether two sentences are consecutive or not (NSP task) was also used in training of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). The latest dialog processing sys" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8785" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tems, built on top of Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017), typically learn to predict contextual utterances within the contrastive learning framework and achieve superior performance on dialog tasks compared to universal representations (Wu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023; Oh et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.2, + 0.49, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While sentence contextuality is used in all of the above-mentioned studies, there is little to no focus on assessing the necessity for using context to derive sentence representations. An ablation of the NSP task is presented by Devlin et al. (2019), suggesting a slight performance benefit over a version where the task is omitted. However, Devlin et al. (2019) only evaluate the fine-tuning pipeline, while the raw BERT representations were shown to perform poorly overall (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Further, results by Liu et al. (2019) are contradictory and do not credit a performance improvement to the NSP task. Lastly, Zhou et al. (2022) additionally compare the representations resulting from dropout augmentations (Gao et al., 2021) to those of consecutive utterances and found a significant benefit in favor of the latter augmentations. Their results are perplexing, however, since the dropout version they implemented performed even worse than that of SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021), which also uses dropout augmentation, and should in fact perform worse, not being tailored for dialog." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.555, + 0.49, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using the natural language inference (NLI) task has been effective in several general sentence representation learning systems (Conneau et al., 2017; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019; Zhou et al., 2022). However, along with machine translation models, these systems fall outside the category of unsupervised sentence representations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.683, + 0.219, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.713, + 0.489, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We trained several variants of content-based representations, their context-based counterparts, and an end-to-end, Skip-Thought like system, trained to encode and predict sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.779, + 0.49, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluated the following variants of content-based sentence representation2:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.827, + 0.409, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) \\(\\star\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.859, + 0.486, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)\\* (Blei et al., 2003)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.827, + 0.486, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Mean of GloVe word vectors \\(\\star\\) (Pennington et al., 2014)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.129, + 0.882, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. LSTM-based auto-encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.173, + 0.858, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Mean of arbitrarily assigned word vectors" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.202, + 0.885, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also varied the final dimension of the sentence vector, namely \\( D \\in \\{6, 12, 25\\} \\), either by setting the number_of_topics parameter, setting the auto-encoder bottleneck size, or truncating GloVe vectors. The auto-encoder was based on a 2-layer, bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network with hidden size of \\( D_{hidden} = 64 \\), dropout of \\( p = 0.1 \\). The variant 5 is one where we randomly assigned a feature vector from an 8-dimensional raster to each vocabulary entry (a procedure by which we want to emulate the usage of 1-hot vector encoding, but with dense, real-valued vectors), and created the final sentence representation by averaging corresponding word vectors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.428, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To create the context-based representations, we devised a learning regimen for 2 linear layers for each variant. One layer was used to project the sentence content vector to the context space (encode), and the other layer was used to predict the content vectors of surrounding sentences from the context vector (decode)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.54, + 0.884, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we trained a Skip-Thought-like model, where each sentence was represented by a sequence of word vectors (obtained via the same procedure as in variant 5), optionally truncated and padded to 20 tokens, processed via an LSTM (identical with the auto-encoder in variant 4), and projected such that, conditioned on the resulting vector, a decoder-LSTM reconstructs the surrounding sentences well via teacher forcing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.686, + 0.882, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In all of the context-based variants, we varied the context size between 1 and 2 sentences, on each side." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.746, + 0.742, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Dataset and Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.767, + 0.885, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To infer and evaluate the representations, we used the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997), with exception of the GloVe vectors, where we used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 vectors. The SwDA contains transcripts of casual telephone conversations in which the two parties were instructed to discuss a certain topic, e.g. \"care of the elderly\". Every utterance is assigned a label" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.904, + 0.482, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entries marked with \\(\\star\\) use the GenSim implementation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.836, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3We used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 version." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8786" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.482, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TrainDevTest
Utterances212,14526,51826,519
Tokens1,833M227K227K
Tokens per att.8.648.568.32
SD35.47%33.52%35.00%
%/Other27.45%25.77%25.60%
B18.52%21.54%23.02%
SV13.76%14.60%13.73%
AA4.81%4.57%2.65%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.24, + 0.49, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Summary of the SwDA dataset. In the upper section of the table, we summarize the corpus statistics. In the lower section we list the percentages of dialog act labels per corpus split (SD=\"Statement-non-opinion\", B=\"Backchannel\", SV=\"Statement-opinion\", AA=\"Agree/Accept\")." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.35, + 0.488, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "describing the \"role\" of the act, in a similar way that part-of-speech tags describe roles of words in sentences 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.399, + 0.489, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To pre-process the texts, (1) we tokenized the utterances with the reference Morfessor 2.0 (Virpioja et al., 2013) implementation, (2) long utterances were broken down into multiple shorter utterances with a sliding-window of 20 words and a step-size of 18 words, and (3) we split the corpus into a train, dev, and test split with respective proportions of \\(80\\%\\), \\(10\\%\\), and \\(10\\%\\) of the utterances. For an overview of the final corpus statistics, including the dialog act tags, see Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.561, + 0.49, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each representation type, we trained a linear ridge-regression\\(^{5}\\)-based classifier with 10-fold cross-validation (on the training set) to predict the dialog act labels. Altogether, there were 42 distinct dialog acts. To simplify the probe, we only selected the 10 most frequent labels to classify, while grouping the remaining labels under a single category." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.684, + 0.214, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.709, + 0.489, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The classification accuracy results are presented in Table 3. We established baseline performance as the frequency of the majority class. The only variant performing below the majority baseline was the Random variant (\\(D_{hidden} = 6\\)), which used means of arbitrarily assigned word vectors. The other variants achieved scores in the range of up to \\(15 - 21\\%\\) above the majority baseline. Except" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.845, + 0.489, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4See the Coder's manual (Jurafsky, 1997) for more information." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.87, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5We opted for ridge regression, instead of logistic regression, because of high colinearity (except for LDA and LSA) across feature vectors. See correlation matrices in the appendix Section A. We used the Scikit-Learn implementation." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.845, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.871, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Context1 att.2 att.
Algo.Dim.Accuracy [%]
Maj. class35.00
GLOVE651.6250.3750.14
1252.8252.6052.55
2557.2957.2456.52
LDA651.1051.1651.05
1253.3252.9952.73
2556.8256.3656.13
LSA651.0750.6250.58
1251.9451.4451.04
2552.0252.1152.12
Random636.5241.5541.83
1246.9947.1746.47
2548.4647.6947.59
Auto-enc.653.8852.2751.63
1254.4653.8952.34
2552.4353.1852.57
Skip-Th.651.1339.66
1253.3352.38
2555.2157.54
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.453, + 0.883, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Results. The three right-most columns contain the accuracy percentages for the content-only, context of distance 1, and context of distance 2 variants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.523, + 0.883, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for LSA, each algorithm achieved the highest score with \\( D_{hidden} = 25 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.556, + 0.884, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There were no big differences and no discerning patterns in the performance of the contextually projected variants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.605, + 0.885, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The only case where the training regime of predicting two neighboring sentences on each side scored the best was with the end-to-end, SkipThought like variant, which also achieved the overall highest score." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.7, + 0.637, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All tested models performed well over the majority baseline, including the averaged random word vectors which exceeded the majority baseline by a large margin when coupled with high dimensionality. One reason for this might be that, when averaging word vectors of higher dimension, there is a higher chance that some important lexical features will remain separable from the noise (also applicable to GloVe). Only in case of LSA and AutoEncoder, the effect of dimensionality was small. For the latter, using a variational or contrastive learning set-up might allow for better scaling of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8787" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance with capacity. Based on the patterns observed here, increasing the dimensionality increases performance on the probe, with or without context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.15, + 0.489, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We did not find either of these aspects discussed in the mainstream related work (Conneau et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022b). The question of how far increasing the dimensionality helps performance should be explored in future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.232, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The presented results on the dialog act tag probing task are in line with related literature in that sequence/document representations with word embeddings and classical topic modeling approaches are a tough-to-beat baseline for many neural networks (Conneau et al., 2018; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Our results suggest that transforming existing, content-oriented representations to context-oriented ones provides minimal to no meaningful improvement in representation. An improvement of small, but perhaps meaningful magnitude is one from the best performing AutoEncoder to Skip-Thought variant \\((3\\%)\\), suggesting that some benefit in this training scheme may be found for sentences, too." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.474, + 0.489, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, our experimental design limits us in drawing conclusions about what the Skip-Thought set-up benefited from specifically: the more general sentence representations may simply be an artifact of the more difficult learning task (predicting neighboring sentences), as opposed to being a result of form disambiguation via context, the way it works with words. Future work should employ methodology that separates the contribution of the competing sources of signal more clearly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.636, + 0.489, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When compared to the obvious benefits of context on learning word representations, it is striking that the benefits for learning sentence representations appear to be very small at best." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.701, + 0.489, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This observation is suggestive of a more serious blind-spot in NLP: because context-based representations work well for words, many researchers assume that the same holds for any level of analysis. This is akin to claiming arbitrariness of the sign at any level of language processing." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.812, + 0.246, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We presented evidence that explicitly examines the differences between content-, and context-oriented unsupervised sentence representations. While results suggest that dimensionality, rather than context, is the determining factor in building good" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sentence representations, end-to-end approaches based on reconstructing surrounding sentences are a promising way forward." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.145, + 0.615, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.17, + 0.884, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since this work only presents evidence from one sentence task, the conclusions drawn are task-specific. Although we believe the chosen task to be fairly general, one can easily think of tasks that would likely challenge the drawn conclusions, e.g., recognition of humor or sarcasm. However, these are rather rare cases and it is questionable, where the best position of the boundary between unsupervised and task-specific lies. Additionally, the selected range of dimensions is limited to a small amount, and at larger scales the patterns of results might change." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8788" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.489, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sanjeev Arora, Yingyu Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2017. A simple but tough-to-beat baseline for sentence embeddings. In International conference on learning representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.171, + 0.489, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.221, + 0.489, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yonatan Belinkov. 2022b. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.27, + 0.489, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David M Blei. 2012. Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4):77-84." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.307, + 0.489, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan):993-1022." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.358, + 0.489, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.446, + 0.489, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder for english. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 169-174." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.549, + 0.489, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.625, + 0.489, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Grzegorz Chrupa and Afra Alishahi. 2019. Correlating neural and symbolic representations of language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06401." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.675, + 0.489, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yung-Sung Chuang, Rumen Dangovski, Hongyin Luo, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Marin Soljacic, Shang-Wen Li, Scott Yih, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2022. DiffCSE: Difference-based contrastive learning for sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4207-4218, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.816, + 0.489, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02364." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau, German Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loic Barrault, and Marco Baroni. 2018. What" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.087, + 0.882, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01070." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.137, + 0.882, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ferdinand De Saussure. 1916. Nature of the linguistic sign. Course in general linguistics, 1:65-70." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.883, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kenton Lee. 2019. Google, kt, language, ai: Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.882, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William Dolan, Chris Quirk, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2004. Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Exploiting massively parallel news sources." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.316, + 0.883, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.419, + 0.883, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoav Goldberg and Omer Levy. 2014. word2vec explained: deriving mikolov et al.'s negative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.483, + 0.883, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael U Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2012. Noisecontrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. Journal of machine learning research, 13(2)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.547, + 0.883, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735-1780." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.598, + 0.883, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Hofmann. 2001. Unsupervised learning by probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Machine learning, 42(1-2):177." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.649, + 0.883, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Jurafsky. 1997. Switchboard swbd-damsl shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Technical report." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.7, + 0.883, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent convolutional neural networks for discourse compositionality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.3584." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.751, + 0.883, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Russ R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.883, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas K Landauer, Peter W Foltz, and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2-3):259-284." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.087, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8789" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Li and Yunfang Wu. 2019. Multi-level gated recurrent neural network for dialog act classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01822." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.139, + 0.49, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.219, + 0.489, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02893." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.271, + 0.49, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Marelli, Luisa Bentivogli, Marco Baroni, Raffaella Bernardi, Stefano Menini, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. Semeval-2014 task 1: Evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models on full sentences through semantic relatedness and textual entailment. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 1-8." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013a. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.455, + 0.49, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013b. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.534, + 0.489, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minsik Oh, Jiwei Li, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. Tadse: Template-aware dialogue sentence embeddings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.575, + 0.49, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.654, + 0.489, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christian S Perone, Roberto Silveira, and Thomas S Paula. 2018. Evaluation of sentence embeddings in downstream and linguistic probing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06259." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.719, + 0.489, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jordan B Pollack. 1990. Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46(1-2):77-105." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.489, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vipul Raheja and Joel Tetreault. 2019. Dialogue act classification with context-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02594." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.813, + 0.489, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juan Ramos et al. 2003. Using tfidf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, volume 242, pages 29-48. Citeseer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Socher, Eric Huang, Jeffrey Pennin, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2011a. Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.162, + 0.885, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Socher, Jeffrey Pennington, Eric H Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher D Manning. 2011b. Semi-supervised recursive autoencoders for predicting sentiment distributions. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 151-161." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.25, + 0.885, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.352, + 0.885, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00075." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.415, + 0.885, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.491, + 0.885, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sami Virpioja, Peter Smit, Stig-Arne Gronroos, Mikko Kurimo, et al. 2013. Morfessor 2.0: Python implementation and extensions for morfessor baseline. Technical report." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.553, + 0.885, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Steven C.H. Hoi, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. TOD-BERT: Pre-trained natural language understanding for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 917-929, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.655, + 0.885, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Yejie Wang, Chen Zeng, Jinggang Wang, Yunsen Xian, and Weiran Xu. 2023. Futuretod: Teaching future knowledge to pre-trained language model for task-oriented dialogue." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.718, + 0.885, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihan Zhou, Dejiao Zhang, Wei Xiao, Nicholas Dingwall, Xiaofei Ma, Andrew Arnold, and Bing Xiang. 2022. Learning dialogue representations from consecutive utterances. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 754-768, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8790" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.336, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Correlation Matrices" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.34, + 0.124, + 0.651, + 0.137 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=6)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.148, + 0.258, + 0.249 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.149, + 0.415, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.432, + 0.149, + 0.55, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.579, + 0.149, + 0.698, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.727, + 0.149, + 0.845, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.251, + 0.256, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.251, + 0.415, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.432, + 0.251, + 0.55, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.579, + 0.251, + 0.697, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.727, + 0.251, + 0.844, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.353, + 0.256, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.353, + 0.415, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.432, + 0.353, + 0.55, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.579, + 0.353, + 0.698, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.716, + 0.353, + 0.875, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.468, + 0.489, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 6." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.338, + 0.529, + 0.654, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=12)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.553, + 0.264, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.554, + 0.42, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.431, + 0.554, + 0.552, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.554, + 0.701, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.725, + 0.554, + 0.848, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.655, + 0.263, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.655, + 0.419, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.432, + 0.655, + 0.552, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.655, + 0.701, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.725, + 0.655, + 0.848, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.757, + 0.263, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.757, + 0.42, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.431, + 0.757, + 0.552, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.757, + 0.701, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.715, + 0.757, + 0.875, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 12." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8791" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.338, + 0.323, + 0.654, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=25)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.347, + 0.264, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.45, + 0.264, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.549, + 0.263, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.347, + 0.421, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.449, + 0.421, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.549, + 0.421, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.43, + 0.347, + 0.555, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.43, + 0.449, + 0.554, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.43, + 0.549, + 0.554, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.347, + 0.701, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.449, + 0.701, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.549, + 0.701, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.723, + 0.347, + 0.848, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.723, + 0.449, + 0.848, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.715, + 0.549, + 0.875, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.664, + 0.84, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 25." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8792" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_origin.pdf b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2ee2a507f47cd23a73f9f60dfdb2cb6fa9aea7e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/7f70510d-2f4b-4269-8c9d-3b663839a931_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:636e10d892974c9df1fb8f6cfc932a933861df018f339b65b0287502d1056a25 +size 335591 diff --git a/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/full.md b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72afe61f2aa2024a8c8b8b310a7c9061dfabd368 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@ +# Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning: the Case of Dialog Act Tagging + +Rastislav Hronsky + +Jheronimus Academy of Data Science + +Sint Janssingel 92, 5211 DA 's-Hertogenbosch + +Netherlands + +r.hronsky@tue.nl + +Emmanuel Keuleers + +Tilburg University + +Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg + +Netherlands + +E.A.Keuleers@tilburguniversity.edu + +# Abstract + +Unsupervised learning of word representations involves capturing the contextual information surrounding word occurrences, which can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning. While there are fewer reasons to believe that the same holds for sentences, learning through context has been carried over to learning representations of word sequences. However, this work pays minimal to no attention to the role of context in inferring sentence representations. In this article, we present a dialog act tag probing task designed to explicitly compare content- and context-oriented sentence representations inferred on utterances of telephone conversations (SwDA). Our results suggest that there is no clear benefit of context-based sentence representations over content-based sentence representations. However, there is a very clear benefit of increasing the dimensionality of the sentence vectors in nearly all approaches. + +# 1 Introduction + +Unsupervised methods for constructing word representations vary widely in their implementation (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Mikolov et al., 2013a; Pennington et al., 2014), but share the core property that they try to capture the contextual information surrounding word occurrences. This can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning (De Saussure, 1916) and that, therefore, trying to extract meaning from form directly would be pointless. + +However, there are fewer reasons to believe that representing the meaning of a fully composed sentence requires the description of its context in the way that a word does. Still, much effort has been devoted to developing and evaluating context-oriented methods for sentence representation (Kiros et al., 2015; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Cer et al., 2018). Interestingly, the theoretical justification for the approach –roughly paraphrased– is + +that it works well for words (Kiros et al., 2015). + +In the present article, we examine whether a contextual signal is of any significant benefit to general-purpose sentence representation. + +To accommodate this goal, we infer two sets of utterance representations from telephone conversation transcripts, one by a model trained to encode the transcripts' content, and one by a model trained to encode the transcripts context in a Skip-Thought-like fashion. We evaluate the learned representations with a linear probe classifying the dialog act tags. Below, we discuss these choices more extensively. + +The reason for the linear probing technique is to avoid any further representation learning in the downstream task training, such that the resulting accuracy numbers solely reflect the unsupervised representations. This technique is commonly used to assess to what extent sentence representations exhibit certain linguistic properties, such as part-of-speech or syntax (Conneau et al., 2018; Chrupała and Alishahi, 2019; Perone et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022a). + +We chose the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997) corpus for the following properties: (1) its size allows for inferring representations with both traditional, statistical learning methods and modern neural network based methods; (2) at the same time, the corpus is fairly narrow-domain, enabling small models to converge to meaningful representations1; (3) it contains utterance labels that we consider suitable for a probing task with respect to contextuality: while a dialog act tag unquestionably depends on the utterance contents, the surrounding utterances likely provide a good signal about its label too. See example utterances from the corpus in Table 1. + +
SD^EBut I, my grandparents were looking into it before.
SDSo I know what they’ve said.
BUh-huh.
^HWell, I’m trying to think.
+ +Table 1: Example dialog act tags and utterances from the SwDA corpus. (SD^E = Statement expanding y/n answer, SD = Statement-non-opinion, B = Backchannel, ^H = Hold before answer/agreement). + +Using context to enhance dialog act predictions is not a novel idea (Raheja and Tetreault, 2019; Li and Wu, 2019; Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013). To ascertain the usefulness of context in this task, we checked for the reduction in entropy of a tag in a "unigram" setting vs. conditioned on a previous tag, a "bigram" setting. The results were $H(\text{currenttag}) = 2.1$ bit and $H(\text{currenttag|previousat}) = 1.86$ bit, meaning that such a context-enhanced baseline would, at least, increase the chance-level accuracy. + +For the content-oriented representation variants, the representations of utterances were inferred via classic topic modeling methods, word vector averaging, or an LSTM-based auto-encoder (see Section 3 for details). The resulting sentence vectors were then used as input for a Skip-Thought-like training regime, where the goal was to learn their context-oriented version by projecting them such that they are predictive of surrounding utterances. Additionally, we trained a version where the utterance encoding and projection are trained jointly, with an LSTM-based encoder of identical proportions with the one used for auto-encoding. + +# 2 Related Work + +In the literature review, we summarize some of the most important work in sentence representation and relate it to the issues outlined in previous paragraphs. + +Before the deep learning era of NLP, text-processing methods relied mainly on lexical features of sentences and were invariant to word order. Using word frequency transformations, e.g., tfidf (Ramos et al., 2003), has proven effective to base the representations on more semantically laden words. Techniques such as singular value decomposition (SVD) (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Landauer et al., 1998), or topic modeling (Blei et al., 2003; Blei, 2012; Hofmann, 2001) were used + +to transform the sparse word-count matrices into dense vectors. + +With the subsequent success of simple neural networks such as word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013a,b; Goldberg and Levy, 2014) or GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) at representing words and phrases, a seemingly naive method of averaging these word vectors was shown to produce useful sentence/paragraph/document representations (Arora et al., 2017). + +With further success of neural networks in text processing, the research on the topic grew markedly. Among the unsupervised methods, recursive auto-encoders (RAEs) (Socher et al., 2011a,b; Pollack, 1990) were trained to reconstruct sentences via recursively encoding nodes in a dependency parse tree and performed well at a paraphrasing task (Dolan et al., 2004). Tree-LSTMs (Tai et al., 2015) later succeeded the RAEs in the same recursive set up but using an LSTM encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), and evaluated on predicting semantic relatedness between two sentences (Marelli et al., 2014) and classifying sentiment (Socher et al., 2013). The current state-of-the-art unsupervised, general-purpose sentence representation systems are based on pre-trained Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017) and fine-tuned via contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012; Chen et al., 2020), i.e., pulling representations of alternative sentence formulations closer together and those of unrelated, random sentence pairs apart (Gao et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2022). + +The success of skip-gram-based word representations inspired researchers to transfer the idea to sentence representation. Skip-Thought (Kiros et al., 2015) is a large, LSTM-based (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), sentence encoder that was trained to produce representations predictive of surrounding sentences. Quick-Thought (Logeswaran and Lee, 2018) is a similar system that differs in that it casts the problem as contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012). The Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) is a Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) system introduced by Cer et al. (2018) that uses the Skip-Thought as one of the tasks in a multi-task learning set-up (including some supervised tasks). The task of deciding whether two sentences are consecutive or not (NSP task) was also used in training of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). The latest dialog processing sys + +tems, built on top of Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017), typically learn to predict contextual utterances within the contrastive learning framework and achieve superior performance on dialog tasks compared to universal representations (Wu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023; Oh et al., 2023). + +While sentence contextuality is used in all of the above-mentioned studies, there is little to no focus on assessing the necessity for using context to derive sentence representations. An ablation of the NSP task is presented by Devlin et al. (2019), suggesting a slight performance benefit over a version where the task is omitted. However, Devlin et al. (2019) only evaluate the fine-tuning pipeline, while the raw BERT representations were shown to perform poorly overall (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Further, results by Liu et al. (2019) are contradictory and do not credit a performance improvement to the NSP task. Lastly, Zhou et al. (2022) additionally compare the representations resulting from dropout augmentations (Gao et al., 2021) to those of consecutive utterances and found a significant benefit in favor of the latter augmentations. Their results are perplexing, however, since the dropout version they implemented performed even worse than that of SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021), which also uses dropout augmentation, and should in fact perform worse, not being tailored for dialog. + +Using the natural language inference (NLI) task has been effective in several general sentence representation learning systems (Conneau et al., 2017; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019; Zhou et al., 2022). However, along with machine translation models, these systems fall outside the category of unsupervised sentence representations. + +# 3 Method + +We trained several variants of content-based representations, their context-based counterparts, and an end-to-end, Skip-Thought like system, trained to encode and predict sentences. + +We evaluated the following variants of content-based sentence representation2: + +1. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) $\star$ +2. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)\* (Blei et al., 2003) + +3. Mean of GloVe word vectors $\star$ (Pennington et al., 2014) +4. LSTM-based auto-encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) +5. Mean of arbitrarily assigned word vectors + +We also varied the final dimension of the sentence vector, namely $D \in \{6, 12, 25\}$ , either by setting the number_of_topics parameter, setting the auto-encoder bottleneck size, or truncating GloVe vectors. The auto-encoder was based on a 2-layer, bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network with hidden size of $D_{hidden} = 64$ , dropout of $p = 0.1$ . The variant 5 is one where we randomly assigned a feature vector from an 8-dimensional raster to each vocabulary entry (a procedure by which we want to emulate the usage of 1-hot vector encoding, but with dense, real-valued vectors), and created the final sentence representation by averaging corresponding word vectors. + +To create the context-based representations, we devised a learning regimen for 2 linear layers for each variant. One layer was used to project the sentence content vector to the context space (encode), and the other layer was used to predict the content vectors of surrounding sentences from the context vector (decode). + +Finally, we trained a Skip-Thought-like model, where each sentence was represented by a sequence of word vectors (obtained via the same procedure as in variant 5), optionally truncated and padded to 20 tokens, processed via an LSTM (identical with the auto-encoder in variant 4), and projected such that, conditioned on the resulting vector, a decoder-LSTM reconstructs the surrounding sentences well via teacher forcing. + +In all of the context-based variants, we varied the context size between 1 and 2 sentences, on each side. + +# 3.1 Dataset and Evaluation + +To infer and evaluate the representations, we used the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997), with exception of the GloVe vectors, where we used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 vectors. The SwDA contains transcripts of casual telephone conversations in which the two parties were instructed to discuss a certain topic, e.g. "care of the elderly". Every utterance is assigned a label + +
TrainDevTest
Utterances212,14526,51826,519
Tokens1,833M227K227K
Tokens per att.8.648.568.32
SD35.47%33.52%35.00%
%/Other27.45%25.77%25.60%
B18.52%21.54%23.02%
SV13.76%14.60%13.73%
AA4.81%4.57%2.65%
+ +Table 2: Summary of the SwDA dataset. In the upper section of the table, we summarize the corpus statistics. In the lower section we list the percentages of dialog act labels per corpus split (SD="Statement-non-opinion", B="Backchannel", SV="Statement-opinion", AA="Agree/Accept"). + +describing the "role" of the act, in a similar way that part-of-speech tags describe roles of words in sentences 4. + +To pre-process the texts, (1) we tokenized the utterances with the reference Morfessor 2.0 (Virpioja et al., 2013) implementation, (2) long utterances were broken down into multiple shorter utterances with a sliding-window of 20 words and a step-size of 18 words, and (3) we split the corpus into a train, dev, and test split with respective proportions of $80\%$ , $10\%$ , and $10\%$ of the utterances. For an overview of the final corpus statistics, including the dialog act tags, see Table 2. + +For each representation type, we trained a linear ridge-regression $^{5}$ -based classifier with 10-fold cross-validation (on the training set) to predict the dialog act labels. Altogether, there were 42 distinct dialog acts. To simplify the probe, we only selected the 10 most frequent labels to classify, while grouping the remaining labels under a single category. + +# 4 Results + +The classification accuracy results are presented in Table 3. We established baseline performance as the frequency of the majority class. The only variant performing below the majority baseline was the Random variant ( $D_{hidden} = 6$ ), which used means of arbitrarily assigned word vectors. The other variants achieved scores in the range of up to $15 - 21\%$ above the majority baseline. Except + +
Context1 att.2 att.
Algo.Dim.Accuracy [%]
Maj. class35.00
GLOVE651.6250.3750.14
1252.8252.6052.55
2557.2957.2456.52
LDA651.1051.1651.05
1253.3252.9952.73
2556.8256.3656.13
LSA651.0750.6250.58
1251.9451.4451.04
2552.0252.1152.12
Random636.5241.5541.83
1246.9947.1746.47
2548.4647.6947.59
Auto-enc.653.8852.2751.63
1254.4653.8952.34
2552.4353.1852.57
Skip-Th.651.1339.66
1253.3352.38
2555.2157.54
+ +Table 3: Results. The three right-most columns contain the accuracy percentages for the content-only, context of distance 1, and context of distance 2 variants. + +for LSA, each algorithm achieved the highest score with $D_{hidden} = 25$ . + +There were no big differences and no discerning patterns in the performance of the contextually projected variants. + +The only case where the training regime of predicting two neighboring sentences on each side scored the best was with the end-to-end, SkipThought like variant, which also achieved the overall highest score. + +# 5 Discussion + +All tested models performed well over the majority baseline, including the averaged random word vectors which exceeded the majority baseline by a large margin when coupled with high dimensionality. One reason for this might be that, when averaging word vectors of higher dimension, there is a higher chance that some important lexical features will remain separable from the noise (also applicable to GloVe). Only in case of LSA and AutoEncoder, the effect of dimensionality was small. For the latter, using a variational or contrastive learning set-up might allow for better scaling of + +performance with capacity. Based on the patterns observed here, increasing the dimensionality increases performance on the probe, with or without context. + +We did not find either of these aspects discussed in the mainstream related work (Conneau et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022b). The question of how far increasing the dimensionality helps performance should be explored in future work. + +The presented results on the dialog act tag probing task are in line with related literature in that sequence/document representations with word embeddings and classical topic modeling approaches are a tough-to-beat baseline for many neural networks (Conneau et al., 2018; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Our results suggest that transforming existing, content-oriented representations to context-oriented ones provides minimal to no meaningful improvement in representation. An improvement of small, but perhaps meaningful magnitude is one from the best performing AutoEncoder to Skip-Thought variant $(3\%)$ , suggesting that some benefit in this training scheme may be found for sentences, too. + +However, our experimental design limits us in drawing conclusions about what the Skip-Thought set-up benefited from specifically: the more general sentence representations may simply be an artifact of the more difficult learning task (predicting neighboring sentences), as opposed to being a result of form disambiguation via context, the way it works with words. Future work should employ methodology that separates the contribution of the competing sources of signal more clearly. + +When compared to the obvious benefits of context on learning word representations, it is striking that the benefits for learning sentence representations appear to be very small at best. + +This observation is suggestive of a more serious blind-spot in NLP: because context-based representations work well for words, many researchers assume that the same holds for any level of analysis. This is akin to claiming arbitrariness of the sign at any level of language processing. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We presented evidence that explicitly examines the differences between content-, and context-oriented unsupervised sentence representations. While results suggest that dimensionality, rather than context, is the determining factor in building good + +sentence representations, end-to-end approaches based on reconstructing surrounding sentences are a promising way forward. + +# Limitations + +Since this work only presents evidence from one sentence task, the conclusions drawn are task-specific. Although we believe the chosen task to be fairly general, one can easily think of tasks that would likely challenge the drawn conclusions, e.g., recognition of humor or sarcasm. However, these are rather rare cases and it is questionable, where the best position of the boundary between unsupervised and task-specific lies. Additionally, the selected range of dimensions is limited to a small amount, and at larger scales the patterns of results might change. + +# References + +Sanjeev Arora, Yingyu Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2017. A simple but tough-to-beat baseline for sentence embeddings. In International conference on learning representations. +Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219. +Yonatan Belinkov. 2022b. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219. +David M Blei. 2012. Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4):77-84. +David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan):993-1022. +Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics. +Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder for english. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 169-174. +Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR. +Grzegorz Chrupa and Afra Alishahi. 2019. Correlating neural and symbolic representations of language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06401. +Yung-Sung Chuang, Rumen Dangovski, Hongyin Luo, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Marin Soljacic, Shang-Wen Li, Scott Yih, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2022. DiffCSE: Difference-based contrastive learning for sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4207-4218, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02364. +Alexis Conneau, German Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loic Barrault, and Marco Baroni. 2018. What + +you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01070. +Ferdinand De Saussure. 1916. Nature of the linguistic sign. Course in general linguistics, 1:65-70. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kenton Lee. 2019. Google, kt, language, ai: Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186. +William Dolan, Chris Quirk, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2004. Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Exploiting massively parallel news sources. +Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yoav Goldberg and Omer Levy. 2014. word2vec explained: deriving mikolov et al.'s negative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722. +Michael U Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2012. Noisecontrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. Journal of machine learning research, 13(2). +Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735-1780. +Thomas Hofmann. 2001. Unsupervised learning by probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Machine learning, 42(1-2):177. +Dan Jurafsky. 1997. Switchboard swbd-damsl shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Technical report. +Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent convolutional neural networks for discourse compositionality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.3584. +Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Russ R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28. +Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211. +Thomas K Landauer, Peter W Foltz, and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2-3):259-284. + +Wei Li and Yunfang Wu. 2019. Multi-level gated recurrent neural network for dialog act classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01822. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02893. +Marco Marelli, Luisa Bentivogli, Marco Baroni, Raffaella Bernardi, Stefano Menini, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. Semeval-2014 task 1: Evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models on full sentences through semantic relatedness and textual entailment. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 1-8. +Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013a. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781. +Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013b. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26. +Minsik Oh, Jiwei Li, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. Tadse: Template-aware dialogue sentence embeddings. +Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543. +Christian S Perone, Roberto Silveira, and Thomas S Paula. 2018. Evaluation of sentence embeddings in downstream and linguistic probing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06259. +Jordan B Pollack. 1990. Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46(1-2):77-105. +Vipul Raheja and Joel Tetreault. 2019. Dialogue act classification with context-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02594. +Juan Ramos et al. 2003. Using tfidf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, volume 242, pages 29-48. Citeseer. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084. + +Richard Socher, Eric Huang, Jeffrey Pennin, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2011a. Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24. +Richard Socher, Jeffrey Pennington, Eric H Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher D Manning. 2011b. Semi-supervised recursive autoencoders for predicting sentiment distributions. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 151-161. +Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642. +Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00075. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. +Sami Virpioja, Peter Smit, Stig-Arne Gronroos, Mikko Kurimo, et al. 2013. Morfessor 2.0: Python implementation and extensions for morfessor baseline. Technical report. +Chien-Sheng Wu, Steven C.H. Hoi, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. TOD-BERT: Pre-trained natural language understanding for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 917-929, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Yejie Wang, Chen Zeng, Jinggang Wang, Yunsen Xian, and Weiran Xu. 2023. Futuretod: Teaching future knowledge to pre-trained language model for task-oriented dialogue. +Zhihan Zhou, Dejiao Zhang, Wei Xiao, Nicholas Dingwall, Xiaofei Ma, Andrew Arnold, and Bing Xiang. 2022. Learning dialogue representations from consecutive utterances. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 754-768, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +![](images/e3bd7dab7f09a78492363b6a1387f06f781a32a9a2d1431da995acd3a7d59e8a.jpg) + +![](images/b2b7228fad90e69a59d321d64ac43cb69620915ca6ae02157f52ff20191a9668.jpg) +Pearson correlation between features (dim=6) + +![](images/f4dc16a9bfd9f146d249cfd0a918b088a34fefa7f600a26f3c8189f1ab1e1e62.jpg) + +![](images/b4aa368cbcbdcb09b1eb7f8f9d572459db95e964c62dec886e638d0c5861ca07.jpg) + +![](images/a1b7a46a28ae57dbbbe6c0e2e4376fe4dc32594ad8fba9383dfaf5a21b1a4af9.jpg) + +![](images/b8318ad01d3dc6d703407573d070942519a0b3e2105f51dc1970dbe829d44af9.jpg) + +![](images/406714a29b6928cbbd3cf99a5c1cf477acea5e0d3f634d05d710097bcadf6b8c.jpg) + +![](images/ab49c52879c9e63344ebb0b11d288945b4623c0921773c8bc1e507da73951071.jpg) + +![](images/18b2be039e660f5a21f72a97b37fb0712ffcabb9d570f6289638adbe73da9de6.jpg) + +![](images/bbae9db3c2c61be51038065c6271133afbf794e7d81fb6f6dd2c9407dcc9e875.jpg) + +![](images/eaaff27a405d9fe37685a0491a51dae754afaba045402119ea5d7937a27e3471.jpg) +Figure 1: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 6. + +![](images/3f510d7fa00621c384e8521f1580fa5bdcf8eafda028390758d19d87d1eb36f8.jpg) + +![](images/3fb5ed6ae184b0b7cee9a431f65693bd100a4d0695b429e6f3bb0fd8fb051bd3.jpg) + +![](images/9f5cf7fbe539f5feb4e41b80a7565a289b306aa39c619b848002750a27de7930.jpg) + +![](images/cdef12ac6c191c98ddd2445564c513d1bed3178d3106f1330f56cc272e3c1568.jpg) + +![](images/ba962b57c0c5246fc90ef58b76a0c12cca8d16889acbe6c156a5f6a472c20ce7.jpg) + +![](images/a366fdfbea52d788a92af08818565a327e98c3df86a050e41e372e00b9c010f6.jpg) +Pearson correlation between features (dim=12) + +![](images/04ac375c04e26358ccd6ea6389ef32d851582187466f15170f15e29747ddb1c6.jpg) + +![](images/464693b6622a338abc6c1f8268461dc4b3dc6d49ede288df8fa4cc1885724f2b.jpg) + +![](images/f3ba839187d7c35414596f45ae59a132d0142f60358af367f1c0a80a6f8e52eb.jpg) + +![](images/ebe9284b92ab7aa72dc45aead00eec0f87619fb570715e1ca389850afabbb711.jpg) + +![](images/72fab356a9886508898e03f65065d7c6843406057da271191f22b7c4db25ed9b.jpg) + +![](images/1b8161abc276285198cd56cd2876819edc5098c492e311e7ed0a6ce3071f0cf0.jpg) + +![](images/fd1b29c5fdd1b56235c96ab54b644854c2e4899736b1437390b8ebb0da8a0739.jpg) + +![](images/7559ab50de6be62847564c41822757c71d9f1024d785f2024d9f2d2b23101e08.jpg) + +![](images/69bdb5a9c1f7be3ac3ecea2e05d8fa810b85df666a6f76d0cabf96354bb29a86.jpg) +Figure 2: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 12. + +![](images/1841577c8eea6af3ff3767280aed87b54821d4228cccdf4386de82f0e4736ec4.jpg) + +![](images/2b0b460584ecf83a5f860bce74ea515a663989ca952fbfeccb6b2a3e242e649f.jpg) + +![](images/1057ade4d2ac1b65a8b24ba0436c30938bab50136818954bad3380fa91e22a9b.jpg) + +![](images/cd79acc52bec3506d06e3e8e662ff62d9650b35e9e7e0f21552102c3e9b4882f.jpg) + +# Pearson correlation between features (dim=25) + +![](images/4150446ab607544a5eb7c0f00ce24ce092873d5b85f8b9b72527d72fe720221a.jpg) + +![](images/c8cce625139a6879322e78635b20ef8a0bc1b8f4cbb939704211c3e9582da226.jpg) + +![](images/8930cdf5fe5c77ffa84035a1d0d737b490b30ceb6625ca733e5b5019c9527df0.jpg) +Figure 3: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 25. + +![](images/e47ecb0b45c1943cf4122e45fa8a6cf9b64a9cb4763ce1b7a2a826caeb3b7d5e.jpg) + +![](images/cf9627ac9b4e98c9ebee65949b37c162d6ef97cc4f18665daaa5047d90c22ba9.jpg) + +![](images/d82564006893445346d5e0d61c487f3ef32857a20dd2f3262f19758aa4ba2d86.jpg) + +![](images/7b20f1378f18117882eeae91bcff18b5198d07eb49123bf3a6e61543d743e9f7.jpg) + +![](images/b2d98184a46d3e4682108937827856479f67325ff4e3edd3677090a21c527ad5.jpg) + +![](images/763d9c57c03a73a650ca8d36c638af7a1a82d0472a7d623ae8c9a9f28aa33ff4.jpg) + +![](images/1cfd29e61a7083a3c9fd13f24a4282967ff1005d386da95ca8944188ed647fc3.jpg) + +![](images/247cf832c26e0ffc9c8c1c35201d0cdd38890345da7d16fa13e7991d145877fd.jpg) + +![](images/39a24e18f9c9208d3b5d828bb77ee788f8111bd5534b1873320dbc4a4adbd332.jpg) + +![](images/028d2dd7a7a963c8fe04ee18e5dbdf982408ca9235cf9a731442d6334b6aeb33.jpg) + +![](images/d2f0df741541b95d244eb4b1fc61eec1602867cddbe37ed93fb16e1da9e21f0d.jpg) + +![](images/21a5f9311fc83cebd8d0f22c68e1bd69a752bfd38b6c4e584aee0d552567b8e7.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/images.zip b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aaf41bd57d15dff3adb6d5078640b3cf4f92e9c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1e12a1f43eab7a65b615bf92f5081a9627f48d6ccc56368df5bc212162008d7f +size 518839 diff --git a/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/layout.json b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67a664704bd7c5a76c21b46ce7686ba1970fb9bc --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning_ the Case of Dialog Act Modeling/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7381 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 74, + 518, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 74, + 518, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 74, + 518, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Role of Context in Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning: the Case of Dialog Act Tagging" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 121, + 246, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 121, + 246, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 121, + 246, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rastislav Hronsky" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 135, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 135, + 291, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 135, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jheronimus Academy of Data Science" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 148, + 311, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 148, + 311, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 148, + 311, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sint Janssingel 92, 5211 DA 's-Hertogenbosch" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 228, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 228, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 228, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Netherlands" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 177, + 247, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 177, + 247, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 177, + 247, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "r.hronsky@tue.nl" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 121, + 449, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 121, + 449, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 121, + 449, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emmanuel Keuleers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 135, + 440, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 135, + 440, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 135, + 440, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tilburg University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 149, + 477, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 149, + 477, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 149, + 477, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 366, + 163, + 426, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 366, + 163, + 426, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 366, + 163, + 426, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Netherlands" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 177, + 498, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 177, + 498, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 177, + 498, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.A.Keuleers@tilburguniversity.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unsupervised learning of word representations involves capturing the contextual information surrounding word occurrences, which can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning. While there are fewer reasons to believe that the same holds for sentences, learning through context has been carried over to learning representations of word sequences. However, this work pays minimal to no attention to the role of context in inferring sentence representations. In this article, we present a dialog act tag probing task designed to explicitly compare content- and context-oriented sentence representations inferred on utterances of telephone conversations (SwDA). Our results suggest that there is no clear benefit of context-based sentence representations over content-based sentence representations. However, there is a very clear benefit of increasing the dimensionality of the sentence vectors in nearly all approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 154, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 154, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 154, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unsupervised methods for constructing word representations vary widely in their implementation (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Mikolov et al., 2013a; Pennington et al., 2014), but share the core property that they try to capture the contextual information surrounding word occurrences. This can be grounded in the observation that word form is largely disconnected from word meaning (De Saussure, 1916) and that, therefore, trying to extract meaning from form directly would be pointless." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, there are fewer reasons to believe that representing the meaning of a fully composed sentence requires the description of its context in the way that a word does. Still, much effort has been devoted to developing and evaluating context-oriented methods for sentence representation (Kiros et al., 2015; Logeswaran and Lee, 2018; Cer et al., 2018). Interestingly, the theoretical justification for the approach –roughly paraphrased– is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 515, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 515, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 515, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that it works well for words (Kiros et al., 2015)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 524, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the present article, we examine whether a contextual signal is of any significant benefit to general-purpose sentence representation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To accommodate this goal, we infer two sets of utterance representations from telephone conversation transcripts, one by a model trained to encode the transcripts' content, and one by a model trained to encode the transcripts context in a Skip-Thought-like fashion. We evaluate the learned representations with a linear probe classifying the dialog act tags. Below, we discuss these choices more extensively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The reason for the linear probing technique is to avoid any further representation learning in the downstream task training, such that the resulting accuracy numbers solely reflect the unsupervised representations. This technique is commonly used to assess to what extent sentence representations exhibit certain linguistic properties, such as part-of-speech or syntax (Conneau et al., 2018; Chrupała and Alishahi, 2019; Perone et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We chose the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997) corpus for the following properties: (1) its size allows for inferring representations with both traditional, statistical learning methods and modern neural network based methods; (2) at the same time, the corpus is fairly narrow-domain, enabling small models to converge to meaningful representations1; (3) it contains utterance labels that we consider suitable for a probing task with respect to contextuality: while a dialog act tag unquestionably depends on the utterance contents, the surrounding utterances likely provide a good signal about its label too. See example utterances from the corpus in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1As opposed to some other well-known sentence-level tasks, such as NLI (Bowman et al., 2015), SICK (Marelli et al., 2014), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), that require \"universal\" sentence representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8784" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8784-8792" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 267, + 140 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 267, + 140 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 267, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 267, + 140 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SD^EBut I, my grandparents were looking into it before.
SDSo I know what they’ve said.
BUh-huh.
^HWell, I’m trying to think.
", + "image_path": "189a4430dcd0169a034f6f3dda776a9304f7ed13e516d4f2b82cfc1788c69a66.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 291, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 291, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 291, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Example dialog act tags and utterances from the SwDA corpus. (SD^E = Statement expanding y/n answer, SD = Statement-non-opinion, B = Backchannel, ^H = Hold before answer/agreement)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using context to enhance dialog act predictions is not a novel idea (Raheja and Tetreault, 2019; Li and Wu, 2019; Kalchbrenner and Blunsom, 2013). To ascertain the usefulness of context in this task, we checked for the reduction in entropy of a tag in a \"unigram\" setting vs. conditioned on a previous tag, a \"bigram\" setting. The results were " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H(\\text{currenttag}) = 2.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " bit and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H(\\text{currenttag|previousat}) = 1.86" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 291, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " bit, meaning that such a context-enhanced baseline would, at least, increase the chance-level accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the content-oriented representation variants, the representations of utterances were inferred via classic topic modeling methods, word vector averaging, or an LSTM-based auto-encoder (see Section 3 for details). The resulting sentence vectors were then used as input for a Skip-Thought-like training regime, where the goal was to learn their context-oriented version by projecting them such that they are predictive of surrounding utterances. Additionally, we trained a version where the utterance encoding and projection are trained jointly, with an LSTM-based encoder of identical proportions with the one used for auto-encoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 559, + 160, + 572 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 559, + 160, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 559, + 160, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 290, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the literature review, we summarize some of the most important work in sentence representation and relate it to the issues outlined in previous paragraphs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Before the deep learning era of NLP, text-processing methods relied mainly on lexical features of sentences and were invariant to word order. Using word frequency transformations, e.g., tfidf (Ramos et al., 2003), has proven effective to base the representations on more semantically laden words. Techniques such as singular value decomposition (SVD) (Landauer and Dumais, 1997; Landauer et al., 1998), or topic modeling (Blei et al., 2003; Blei, 2012; Hofmann, 2001) were used" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to transform the sparse word-count matrices into dense vectors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 101, + 526, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 101, + 526, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 101, + 526, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With the subsequent success of simple neural networks such as word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013a,b; Goldberg and Levy, 2014) or GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) at representing words and phrases, a seemingly naive method of averaging these word vectors was shown to produce useful sentence/paragraph/document representations (Arora et al., 2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 526, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 526, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 526, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With further success of neural networks in text processing, the research on the topic grew markedly. Among the unsupervised methods, recursive auto-encoders (RAEs) (Socher et al., 2011a,b; Pollack, 1990) were trained to reconstruct sentences via recursively encoding nodes in a dependency parse tree and performed well at a paraphrasing task (Dolan et al., 2004). Tree-LSTMs (Tai et al., 2015) later succeeded the RAEs in the same recursive set up but using an LSTM encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), and evaluated on predicting semantic relatedness between two sentences (Marelli et al., 2014) and classifying sentiment (Socher et al., 2013). The current state-of-the-art unsupervised, general-purpose sentence representation systems are based on pre-trained Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017) and fine-tuned via contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012; Chen et al., 2020), i.e., pulling representations of alternative sentence formulations closer together and those of unrelated, random sentence pairs apart (Gao et al., 2021; Chuang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The success of skip-gram-based word representations inspired researchers to transfer the idea to sentence representation. Skip-Thought (Kiros et al., 2015) is a large, LSTM-based (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), sentence encoder that was trained to produce representations predictive of surrounding sentences. Quick-Thought (Logeswaran and Lee, 2018) is a similar system that differs in that it casts the problem as contrastive learning (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2012). The Universal Sentence Encoder (USE) is a Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) system introduced by Cer et al. (2018) that uses the Skip-Thought as one of the tasks in a multi-task learning set-up (including some supervised tasks). The task of deciding whether two sentences are consecutive or not (NSP task) was also used in training of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). The latest dialog processing sys" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8785" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tems, built on top of Transformer language models (Vaswani et al., 2017), typically learn to predict contextual utterances within the contrastive learning framework and achieve superior performance on dialog tasks compared to universal representations (Wu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023; Oh et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While sentence contextuality is used in all of the above-mentioned studies, there is little to no focus on assessing the necessity for using context to derive sentence representations. An ablation of the NSP task is presented by Devlin et al. (2019), suggesting a slight performance benefit over a version where the task is omitted. However, Devlin et al. (2019) only evaluate the fine-tuning pipeline, while the raw BERT representations were shown to perform poorly overall (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Further, results by Liu et al. (2019) are contradictory and do not credit a performance improvement to the NSP task. Lastly, Zhou et al. (2022) additionally compare the representations resulting from dropout augmentations (Gao et al., 2021) to those of consecutive utterances and found a significant benefit in favor of the latter augmentations. Their results are perplexing, however, since the dropout version they implemented performed even worse than that of SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021), which also uses dropout augmentation, and should in fact perform worse, not being tailored for dialog." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using the natural language inference (NLI) task has been effective in several general sentence representation learning systems (Conneau et al., 2017; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019; Zhou et al., 2022). However, along with machine translation models, these systems fall outside the category of unsupervised sentence representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 130, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 130, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 130, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 290, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 290, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 290, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We trained several variants of content-based representations, their context-based counterparts, and an end-to-end, Skip-Thought like system, trained to encode and predict sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 291, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluated the following variants of content-based sentence representation2:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 695, + 289, + 748 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 695, + 243, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 695, + 243, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 695, + 243, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 695, + 243, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\star" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 722, + 289, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 722, + 289, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 722, + 289, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)\\* (Blei et al., 2003)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 524, + 158 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Mean of GloVe word vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\star" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Pennington et al., 2014)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 108, + 524, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 108, + 524, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 108, + 524, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. LSTM-based auto-encoder (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 145, + 510, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 145, + 510, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 145, + 510, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Mean of arbitrarily assigned word vectors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also varied the final dimension of the sentence vector, namely " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D \\in \\{6, 12, 25\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", either by setting the number_of_topics parameter, setting the auto-encoder bottleneck size, or truncating GloVe vectors. The auto-encoder was based on a 2-layer, bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network with hidden size of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{hidden} = 64" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", dropout of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The variant 5 is one where we randomly assigned a feature vector from an 8-dimensional raster to each vocabulary entry (a procedure by which we want to emulate the usage of 1-hot vector encoding, but with dense, real-valued vectors), and created the final sentence representation by averaging corresponding word vectors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To create the context-based representations, we devised a learning regimen for 2 linear layers for each variant. One layer was used to project the sentence content vector to the context space (encode), and the other layer was used to predict the content vectors of surrounding sentences from the context vector (decode)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we trained a Skip-Thought-like model, where each sentence was represented by a sequence of word vectors (obtained via the same procedure as in variant 5), optionally truncated and padded to 20 tokens, processed via an LSTM (identical with the auto-encoder in variant 4), and projected such that, conditioned on the resulting vector, a decoder-LSTM reconstructs the surrounding sentences well via teacher forcing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 524, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 524, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 524, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In all of the context-based variants, we varied the context size between 1 and 2 sentences, on each side." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 441, + 639 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 441, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 441, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Dataset and Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 526, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To infer and evaluate the representations, we used the Switchboard Dialog Act Corpus (SwDA) (Jurafsky, 1997), with exception of the GloVe vectors, where we used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 vectors. The SwDA contains transcripts of casual telephone conversations in which the two parties were instructed to discuss a certain topic, e.g. \"care of the elderly\". Every utterance is assigned a label" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entries marked with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\star" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " use the GenSim implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 497, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3We used the pre-trained glove-twitter-25 version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8786" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 286, + 194 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 286, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 286, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 286, + 194 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TrainDevTest
Utterances212,14526,51826,519
Tokens1,833M227K227K
Tokens per att.8.648.568.32
SD35.47%33.52%35.00%
%/Other27.45%25.77%25.60%
B18.52%21.54%23.02%
SV13.76%14.60%13.73%
AA4.81%4.57%2.65%
", + "image_path": "4ded5239487167f661787aa1277fe7588a4a13ad65d90ac36d36c036b1cd23b8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 201, + 291, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 201, + 291, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 201, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Summary of the SwDA dataset. In the upper section of the table, we summarize the corpus statistics. In the lower section we list the percentages of dialog act labels per corpus split (SD=\"Statement-non-opinion\", B=\"Backchannel\", SV=\"Statement-opinion\", AA=\"Agree/Accept\")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 294, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 294, + 290, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 294, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "describing the \"role\" of the act, in a similar way that part-of-speech tags describe roles of words in sentences 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To pre-process the texts, (1) we tokenized the utterances with the reference Morfessor 2.0 (Virpioja et al., 2013) implementation, (2) long utterances were broken down into multiple shorter utterances with a sliding-window of 20 words and a step-size of 18 words, and (3) we split the corpus into a train, dev, and test split with respective proportions of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 335, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the utterances. For an overview of the final corpus statistics, including the dialog act tags, see Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 471, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 471, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 471, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each representation type, we trained a linear ridge-regression" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 471, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 471, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-based classifier with 10-fold cross-validation (on the training set) to predict the dialog act labels. Altogether, there were 42 distinct dialog acts. To simplify the probe, we only selected the 10 most frequent labels to classify, while grouping the remaining labels under a single category." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 575, + 127, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 575, + 127, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 575, + 127, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The classification accuracy results are presented in Table 3. We established baseline performance as the frequency of the majority class. The only variant performing below the majority baseline was the Random variant (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{hidden} = 6" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), which used means of arbitrarily assigned word vectors. The other variants achieved scores in the range of up to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15 - 21\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 596, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " above the majority baseline. Except" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 518, + 372 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 518, + 372 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 518, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 518, + 372 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Context1 att.2 att.
Algo.Dim.Accuracy [%]
Maj. class35.00
GLOVE651.6250.3750.14
1252.8252.6052.55
2557.2957.2456.52
LDA651.1051.1651.05
1253.3252.9952.73
2556.8256.3656.13
LSA651.0750.6250.58
1251.9451.4451.04
2552.0252.1152.12
Random636.5241.5541.83
1246.9947.1746.47
2548.4647.6947.59
Auto-enc.653.8852.2751.63
1254.4653.8952.34
2552.4353.1852.57
Skip-Th.651.1339.66
1253.3352.38
2555.2157.54
", + "image_path": "8a17389fd4e21eaa37b2d880780239217e537085a1e11c87bbfc31ec1d281a18.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 417 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Results. The three right-most columns contain the accuracy percentages for the content-only, context of distance 1, and context of distance 2 variants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for LSA, each algorithm achieved the highest score with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{hidden} = 25" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There were no big differences and no discerning patterns in the performance of the contextually projected variants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 526, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The only case where the training regime of predicting two neighboring sentences on each side scored the best was with the end-to-end, SkipThought like variant, which also achieved the overall highest score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 379, + 600 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 379, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 379, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All tested models performed well over the majority baseline, including the averaged random word vectors which exceeded the majority baseline by a large margin when coupled with high dimensionality. One reason for this might be that, when averaging word vectors of higher dimension, there is a higher chance that some important lexical features will remain separable from the noise (also applicable to GloVe). Only in case of LSA and AutoEncoder, the effect of dimensionality was small. For the latter, using a variational or contrastive learning set-up might allow for better scaling of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4See the Coder's manual (Jurafsky, 1997) for more information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5We opted for ridge regression, instead of logistic regression, because of high colinearity (except for LDA and LSA) across feature vectors. See correlation matrices in the appendix Section A. We used the Scikit-Learn implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8787" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance with capacity. Based on the patterns observed here, increasing the dimensionality increases performance on the probe, with or without context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We did not find either of these aspects discussed in the mainstream related work (Conneau et al., 2018; Belinkov, 2022b). The question of how far increasing the dimensionality helps performance should be explored in future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The presented results on the dialog act tag probing task are in line with related literature in that sequence/document representations with word embeddings and classical topic modeling approaches are a tough-to-beat baseline for many neural networks (Conneau et al., 2018; Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Our results suggest that transforming existing, content-oriented representations to context-oriented ones provides minimal to no meaningful improvement in representation. An improvement of small, but perhaps meaningful magnitude is one from the best performing AutoEncoder to Skip-Thought variant " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(3\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", suggesting that some benefit in this training scheme may be found for sentences, too." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, our experimental design limits us in drawing conclusions about what the Skip-Thought set-up benefited from specifically: the more general sentence representations may simply be an artifact of the more difficult learning task (predicting neighboring sentences), as opposed to being a result of form disambiguation via context, the way it works with words. Future work should employ methodology that separates the contribution of the competing sources of signal more clearly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When compared to the obvious benefits of context on learning word representations, it is striking that the benefits for learning sentence representations appear to be very small at best." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 290, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This observation is suggestive of a more serious blind-spot in NLP: because context-based representations work well for words, many researchers assume that the same holds for any level of analysis. This is akin to claiming arbitrariness of the sign at any level of language processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 146, + 695 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 146, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 146, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We presented evidence that explicitly examines the differences between content-, and context-oriented unsupervised sentence representations. While results suggest that dimensionality, rather than context, is the determining factor in building good" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sentence representations, end-to-end approaches based on reconstructing surrounding sentences are a promising way forward." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 121, + 365, + 134 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 121, + 365, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 121, + 365, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 142, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 142, + 525, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 142, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since this work only presents evidence from one sentence task, the conclusions drawn are task-specific. Although we believe the chosen task to be fairly general, one can easily think of tasks that would likely challenge the drawn conclusions, e.g., recognition of humor or sarcasm. However, these are rather rare cases and it is questionable, where the best position of the boundary between unsupervised and task-specific lies. Additionally, the selected range of dimensions is limited to a small amount, and at larger scales the patterns of results might change." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8788" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 135 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 290, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sanjeev Arora, Yingyu Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2017. A simple but tough-to-beat baseline for sentence embeddings. In International conference on learning representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 143, + 290, + 176 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 143, + 290, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 143, + 290, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yonatan Belinkov. 2022a. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 290, + 218 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 290, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 290, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yonatan Belinkov. 2022b. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 290, + 250 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 290, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 290, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David M Blei. 2012. Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4):77-84." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 290, + 292 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 290, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 290, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research, 3(Jan):993-1022." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 367 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 290, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder for english. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations, pages 169-174." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 290, + 516 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 290, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 290, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 525, + 290, + 559 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 525, + 290, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 525, + 290, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Grzegorz Chrupa and Afra Alishahi. 2019. Correlating neural and symbolic representations of language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06401." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 290, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yung-Sung Chuang, Rumen Dangovski, Hongyin Luo, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Marin Soljacic, Shang-Wen Li, Scott Yih, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2022. DiffCSE: Difference-based contrastive learning for sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4207-4218, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02364." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau, German Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loic Barrault, and Marco Baroni. 2018. What" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 73, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 28, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01070." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 524, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 524, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 524, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ferdinand De Saussure. 1916. Nature of the linguistic sign. Course in general linguistics, 1:65-70." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kenton Lee. 2019. Google, kt, language, ai: Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 4171-4186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William Dolan, Chris Quirk, Chris Brockett, and Bill Dolan. 2004. Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Exploiting massively parallel news sources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoav Goldberg and Omer Levy. 2014. word2vec explained: deriving mikolov et al.'s negative-sampling word-embedding method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.3722." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 525, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael U Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2012. Noisecontrastive estimation of unnormalized statistical models, with applications to natural image statistics. Journal of machine learning research, 13(2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural computation*, 9(8):1735-1780." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Hofmann. 2001. Unsupervised learning by probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Machine learning, 42(1-2):177." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 525, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Jurafsky. 1997. Switchboard swbd-damsl shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Technical report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nal Kalchbrenner and Phil Blunsom. 2013. Recurrent convolutional neural networks for discourse compositionality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.3584." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 631, + 525, + 676 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 631, + 525, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 631, + 525, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Russ R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas K Landauer, Peter W Foltz, and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2-3):259-284." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8789" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Li and Yunfang Wu. 2019. Multi-level gated recurrent neural network for dialog act classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01822." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 290, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lajanugen Logeswaran and Honglak Lee. 2018. An efficient framework for learning sentence representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02893." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 291, + 316 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 291, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 291, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Marelli, Luisa Bentivogli, Marco Baroni, Raffaella Bernardi, Stefano Menini, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2014. Semeval-2014 task 1: Evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models on full sentences through semantic relatedness and textual entailment. In Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 1-8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013a. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013b. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 290, + 472 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 290, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 290, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minsik Oh, Jiwei Li, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. Tadse: Template-aware dialogue sentence embeddings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 291, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 290, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christian S Perone, Roberto Silveira, and Thomas S Paula. 2018. Evaluation of sentence embeddings in downstream and linguistic probing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06259." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 604, + 290, + 628 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 604, + 290, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 604, + 290, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jordan B Pollack. 1990. Recursive distributed representations. Artificial Intelligence, 46(1-2):77-105." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 672 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vipul Raheja and Joel Tetreault. 2019. Dialogue act classification with context-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02594." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 290, + 728 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 290, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 290, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juan Ramos et al. 2003. Using tfidf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, volume 242, pages 29-48. Citeseer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Socher, Eric Huang, Jeffrey Pennin, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2011a. Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 526, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Socher, Jeffrey Pennington, Eric H Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher D Manning. 2011b. Semi-supervised recursive autoencoders for predicting sentiment distributions. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 151-161." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 526, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1631-1642." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 526, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00075." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 526, + 404 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 526, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 526, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 526, + 457 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 526, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 526, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sami Virpioja, Peter Smit, Stig-Arne Gronroos, Mikko Kurimo, et al. 2013. Morfessor 2.0: Python implementation and extensions for morfessor baseline. Technical report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 526, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Steven C.H. Hoi, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. TOD-BERT: Pre-trained natural language understanding for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 917-929, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 526, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Yejie Wang, Chen Zeng, Jinggang Wang, Yunsen Xian, and Weiran Xu. 2023. Futuretod: Teaching future knowledge to pre-trained language model for task-oriented dialogue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 603, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 603, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 603, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihan Zhou, Dejiao Zhang, Wei Xiao, Nicholas Dingwall, Xiaofei Ma, Andrew Arnold, and Bing Xiang. 2022. Learning dialogue representations from consecutive utterances. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 754-768, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8790" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 124, + 153, + 209 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 124, + 153, + 209 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 124, + 153, + 209 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 124, + 153, + 209 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e3bd7dab7f09a78492363b6a1387f06f781a32a9a2d1431da995acd3a7d59e8a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 125, + 246, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 104, + 387, + 115 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 104, + 387, + 115 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 104, + 387, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=6)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 125, + 246, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 125, + 246, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 125, + 246, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b2b7228fad90e69a59d321d64ac43cb69620915ca6ae02157f52ff20191a9668.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 257, + 125, + 327, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 125, + 327, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 125, + 327, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 125, + 327, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f4dc16a9bfd9f146d249cfd0a918b088a34fefa7f600a26f3c8189f1ab1e1e62.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 344, + 125, + 415, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 125, + 415, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 125, + 415, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 125, + 415, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b4aa368cbcbdcb09b1eb7f8f9d572459db95e964c62dec886e638d0c5861ca07.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 432, + 125, + 502, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 125, + 502, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 125, + 502, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 125, + 502, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a1b7a46a28ae57dbbbe6c0e2e4376fe4dc32594ad8fba9383dfaf5a21b1a4af9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 211, + 152, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 211, + 152, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 211, + 152, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 211, + 152, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b8318ad01d3dc6d703407573d070942519a0b3e2105f51dc1970dbe829d44af9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 211, + 246, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 211, + 246, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 211, + 246, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 211, + 246, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "406714a29b6928cbbd3cf99a5c1cf477acea5e0d3f634d05d710097bcadf6b8c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 257, + 211, + 327, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 211, + 327, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 211, + 327, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 211, + 327, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ab49c52879c9e63344ebb0b11d288945b4623c0921773c8bc1e507da73951071.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 344, + 211, + 414, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 211, + 414, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 211, + 414, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 211, + 414, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "18b2be039e660f5a21f72a97b37fb0712ffcabb9d570f6289638adbe73da9de6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 432, + 211, + 502, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 211, + 502, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 211, + 502, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 432, + 211, + 502, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bbae9db3c2c61be51038065c6271133afbf794e7d81fb6f6dd2c9407dcc9e875.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 152, + 380 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 152, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 152, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 152, + 380 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "eaaff27a405d9fe37685a0491a51dae754afaba045402119ea5d7937a27e3471.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 417 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 296, + 246, + 380 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 296, + 246, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 296, + 246, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 296, + 246, + 380 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3f510d7fa00621c384e8521f1580fa5bdcf8eafda028390758d19d87d1eb36f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 257, + 296, + 327, + 380 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 296, + 327, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 296, + 327, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 296, + 327, + 380 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3fb5ed6ae184b0b7cee9a431f65693bd100a4d0695b429e6f3bb0fd8fb051bd3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 344, + 296, + 415, + 380 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 296, + 415, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 296, + 415, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 296, + 415, + 380 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9f5cf7fbe539f5feb4e41b80a7565a289b306aa39c619b848002750a27de7930.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 426, + 296, + 520, + 380 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 426, + 296, + 520, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 426, + 296, + 520, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 426, + 296, + 520, + 380 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cdef12ac6c191c98ddd2445564c513d1bed3178d3106f1330f56cc272e3c1568.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 465, + 157, + 549 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 465, + 157, + 549 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 465, + 157, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 465, + 157, + 549 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ba962b57c0c5246fc90ef58b76a0c12cca8d16889acbe6c156a5f6a472c20ce7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 465, + 249, + 549 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 444, + 389, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 444, + 389, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 444, + 389, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=12)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 465, + 249, + 549 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 465, + 249, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 465, + 249, + 549 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a366fdfbea52d788a92af08818565a327e98c3df86a050e41e372e00b9c010f6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 256, + 465, + 328, + 549 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 256, + 465, + 328, + 549 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 256, + 465, + 328, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 256, + 465, + 328, + 549 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "04ac375c04e26358ccd6ea6389ef32d851582187466f15170f15e29747ddb1c6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 465, + 417, + 549 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 465, + 417, + 549 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 465, + 417, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 465, + 417, + 549 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "464693b6622a338abc6c1f8268461dc4b3dc6d49ede288df8fa4cc1885724f2b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 431, + 465, + 504, + 549 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 465, + 504, + 549 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 465, + 504, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 465, + 504, + 549 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f3ba839187d7c35414596f45ae59a132d0142f60358af367f1c0a80a6f8e52eb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 550, + 156, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 550, + 156, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 550, + 156, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 550, + 156, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ebe9284b92ab7aa72dc45aead00eec0f87619fb570715e1ca389850afabbb711.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 550, + 249, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 550, + 249, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 550, + 249, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 550, + 249, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "72fab356a9886508898e03f65065d7c6843406057da271191f22b7c4db25ed9b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 257, + 550, + 328, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 550, + 328, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 550, + 328, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 550, + 328, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1b8161abc276285198cd56cd2876819edc5098c492e311e7ed0a6ce3071f0cf0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 550, + 417, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 550, + 417, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 550, + 417, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 550, + 417, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fd1b29c5fdd1b56235c96ab54b644854c2e4899736b1437390b8ebb0da8a0739.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 431, + 550, + 504, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 550, + 504, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 550, + 504, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 550, + 504, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7559ab50de6be62847564c41822757c71d9f1024d785f2024d9f2d2b23101e08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 636, + 156, + 719 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 636, + 156, + 719 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 636, + 156, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 636, + 156, + 719 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "69bdb5a9c1f7be3ac3ecea2e05d8fa810b85df666a6f76d0cabf96354bb29a86.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 756 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 636, + 249, + 719 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 636, + 249, + 719 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 636, + 249, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 636, + 249, + 719 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1841577c8eea6af3ff3767280aed87b54821d4228cccdf4386de82f0e4736ec4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 256, + 636, + 328, + 719 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 256, + 636, + 328, + 719 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 256, + 636, + 328, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 256, + 636, + 328, + 719 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2b0b460584ecf83a5f860bce74ea515a663989ca952fbfeccb6b2a3e242e649f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 636, + 417, + 719 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 636, + 417, + 719 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 636, + 417, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 636, + 417, + 719 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1057ade4d2ac1b65a8b24ba0436c30938bab50136818954bad3380fa91e22a9b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 425, + 636, + 520, + 719 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 636, + 520, + 719 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 636, + 520, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 636, + 520, + 719 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cd79acc52bec3506d06e3e8e662ff62d9650b35e9e7e0f21552102c3e9b4882f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 33 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 199, + 83 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 199, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 199, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Correlation Matrices" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8791" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 271, + 389, + 281 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 271, + 389, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 271, + 389, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pearson correlation between features (dim=25)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 291, + 157, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 291, + 157, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 291, + 157, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 291, + 157, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4150446ab607544a5eb7c0f00ce24ce092873d5b85f8b9b72527d72fe720221a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 378, + 157, + 459 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 378, + 157, + 459 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 378, + 157, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 378, + 157, + 459 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c8cce625139a6879322e78635b20ef8a0bc1b8f4cbb939704211c3e9582da226.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 461, + 156, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 461, + 156, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 461, + 156, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 461, + 156, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8930cdf5fe5c77ffa84035a1d0d737b490b30ceb6625ca733e5b5019c9527df0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 558, + 499, + 571 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 558, + 499, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 558, + 499, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Correlation matrices of feature vectors across representation variants with dimension of 25." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 291, + 250, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 291, + 250, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 291, + 250, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 291, + 250, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e47ecb0b45c1943cf4122e45fa8a6cf9b64a9cb4763ce1b7a2a826caeb3b7d5e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 377, + 250, + 459 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 377, + 250, + 459 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 377, + 250, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 377, + 250, + 459 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cf9627ac9b4e98c9ebee65949b37c162d6ef97cc4f18665daaa5047d90c22ba9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 461, + 250, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 461, + 250, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 461, + 250, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 461, + 250, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d82564006893445346d5e0d61c487f3ef32857a20dd2f3262f19758aa4ba2d86.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 291, + 330, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 291, + 330, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 291, + 330, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 291, + 330, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7b20f1378f18117882eeae91bcff18b5198d07eb49123bf3a6e61543d743e9f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 377, + 329, + 459 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 377, + 329, + 459 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 377, + 329, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 377, + 329, + 459 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b2d98184a46d3e4682108937827856479f67325ff4e3edd3677090a21c527ad5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 461, + 329, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 461, + 329, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 461, + 329, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 461, + 329, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "763d9c57c03a73a650ca8d36c638af7a1a82d0472a7d623ae8c9a9f28aa33ff4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 342, + 291, + 417, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 291, + 417, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 291, + 417, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 291, + 417, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1cfd29e61a7083a3c9fd13f24a4282967ff1005d386da95ca8944188ed647fc3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 377, + 417, + 459 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 377, + 417, + 459 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 377, + 417, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 377, + 417, + 459 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "247cf832c26e0ffc9c8c1c35201d0cdd38890345da7d16fa13e7991d145877fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 461, + 417, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 461, + 417, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 461, + 417, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 461, + 417, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "39a24e18f9c9208d3b5d828bb77ee788f8111bd5534b1873320dbc4a4adbd332.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 430, + 291, + 504, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 291, + 504, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 291, + 504, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 291, + 504, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "028d2dd7a7a963c8fe04ee18e5dbdf982408ca9235cf9a731442d6334b6aeb33.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 430, + 377, + 504, + 459 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 377, + 504, + 459 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 377, + 504, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 377, + 504, + 459 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d2f0df741541b95d244eb4b1fc61eec1602867cddbe37ed93fb16e1da9e21f0d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 425, + 461, + 520, + 545 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 461, + 520, + 545 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 461, + 520, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 461, + 520, + 545 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "21a5f9311fc83cebd8d0f22c68e1bd69a752bfd38b6c4e584aee0d552567b8e7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8792" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_content_list.json b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3250e372d2d841fffb3066f6e211c6b6de0db09c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2369 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception: Model vs. Human Attention", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 166, + 87, + 835, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Changjiang Gao1 Shujian Huang1* Jixing Li2 Jiajun Chen1", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 141, + 774, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 159, + 816, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Department of Linguistics and Translation, City University of Hong Kong gaocj@smail.nju.edu.cn {huangsj, chenjj}@nju.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 196, + 175, + 803, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "jixingli@cityu.edu.hk", + "bbox": [ + 394, + 210, + 608, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent large language models (LLMs) have revealed strong abilities to understand natural language. Since most of them share the same basic structure, i.e. the transformer block, possible contributors to their success in the training process are scaling and instruction tuning. However, how these factors affect the models' language perception is unclear. This work compares the self-attention of several existing LLMs (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna) in different sizes (7B, 13B, 30B, 65B), together with eye saccade, an aspect of human reading attention, to assess the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on language perception. Results show that scaling enhances the human resemblance and improves the effective attention by reducing the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does not. However, instruction tuning significantly enhances the models' sensitivity to instructions. We also find that current LLMs are consistently closer to non-native than native speakers in attention, suggesting a suboptimal language perception of all models. Our code and data used in the analysis is available on GitHub.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 279, + 460, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 646, + 258, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, ChatGPT and Vicuna, have shown nearly human-level understanding of text inputs, indicating better human-like language perception compared with their predecessors such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). However, the mechanism behind such improvement is largely unknown. One way to interpret such mechanism is comparing model computation processes to human data. For example, prior work compared language models (mainly GPT-2) with human neuroimaging data during language comprehension, suggesting that models with higher human resemblance also perform better in NLP tasks. (Hasson", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2020; Schrimpf et al., 2021). However, given recent breakthroughs in LLMs, it remains to be tested whether the newest LLMs still align with human perception data. Based on the training pipeline of current LLMs, there are two possible sources for the potential change: the scaled model/data size and the aligning process after pretraining, such as instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). This paper aims to provide a further understanding of LLMs' mechanism by investigating the roles of these two factors in language understanding.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 884, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we analyze self-attention as a channel to the language perception ability of LLMs, because it is the key mechanism of transformer language models, and it naturally resembles the human attention mechanism in language perceiving (Merkx and Frank, 2021). The attention patterns under investigation includes those from trending open-sourced LLMs with different sizes, i.e., 7B, 13B, 30B, 65B, and different training stages, i.e., pretrained (LLaMA) and instruction-tuned (Alpaca and Vicuna) models. Given these models are all trained mainly with English data, we also compare the attention patterns of LLMs with human saccade (a form of eye-movement) data, including both native speakers (L1) and non-native learners (L2) of English (Li et al., 2019) to see if the models correlates more with L1 subjects.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 449, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our analysis is three-fold. First, we compare the general attention distributions of LLMs to measure the impact of these two varying factors on the model ( $\\S 3.1$ ). Second, we perform linear regressions (LRs) between the model self-attention and human saccade matrices to see how human-like they are, and how the resemblance is affected by the two factors ( $\\S 3.2$ ). Third, we analyze the relation between the given attention and some trivial patterns, revealing the difference between different levels of language perception abilities ( $\\S 3.3$ ). The main findings are:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 294, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13042", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13042-13055 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Scaling significantly affects the general attention distribution on plain text, while instruction tuning has limited effect. However, instruction tuning enhances the model's sensitivity to instructions (§5.1).", + "- Higher human resemblance is significantly correlated to better language modeling. Scaling improves the resemblance by scaling law (Henighan et al., 2020), while instruction tuning reduces it. All models have higher resemblance to L2 rather than to L1, suggesting further room for the improvement in language perception (§5.2).", + "- L2 saccade has higher dependency on trivial attention patterns than L1, indicating a more rigid way of perception. Scaling significantly lowers LLMs' reliance on trivial attention patterns, while instruction tuning does not (§5.3)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 84, + 487, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 270, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-attention analysis is a common way to interpret transformer models. Several studies has shown that it is correlated to linguistic information, such as syntactic or semantic structures (Mareček and Rosa, 2018; Raganato and Tiedemann, 2018; Voita et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2019). There are also some attempts and debates to explain the models' prediction with attention (Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wegreffe and Pinter, 2019; Serrano and Smith, 2019; Vashisth et al., 2019). Different from them, we use self-attention patterns as a measurement of the language perception abilities of LLMs. Also, some new ways to interpret model self-attention have been proposed, such as Attention Flow (Abnar and Zuidema, 2020), vector norm (Kobayashi et al., 2020, 2021), ALTI (Ferrando et al., 2022), Value Zeroing (Mohebbi et al., 2023), and logit analysis (Ferrando et al., 2023). These methods can raise the interpretability of model attention w.r.t. linguistic structural information, but are not tested with human eye-tracking data. Also, some of them suffer from huge computational cost. Instead, we choose to use the raw attention scores, as it is produced in the models' original computational processes, and they already correlate the human data, demonstrating their interpretability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 441, + 489, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction tuned LLMs achieve better performances in performing tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). It seems that the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLMs are better at understanding human instructions. However, there is little discussion on how the instruction tuning process affects the language perception.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Eye-movement in the human reading process has drawn attention in the computational linguistic field. It is proposed that scanpaths, i.e. tracks of eye-movement, reveals characteristics of the parsing processes and relates to working memory during reading (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the irregularity of scanpaths is affected by sentence structures and age (von der Malsburg et al., 2015). Such work provides theoretical ground for our analysis on saccade data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 160, + 884, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint study of language models and human eye-movement is also receiving growing interest. Prior studies have shown the correlation between language processing of human and artificial neural networks (Kell et al., 2018), especially pretrained language models such as GPT-2 (Caucheteux et al., 2021, 2022; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Lamarre et al., 2022). Especially, Oh and Schuler (2023a,b) explored the fit of model surprisal to human reading times, noting the effect of models' sequential memorization and dataset size. Hollenstein and Beinborn (2021) studied the correlation between relative word importance derived from models and humans, and Morger et al. (2022) extended that research to a multilingual setting, as well as analysis on model attention. Some studies also use human attention as supervision to assist specific tasks (Sood et al., 2020; Bansal et al., 2023), or use sequential models to predict eye-tracking data (Chersoni et al., 2022). Different from them, we use human attention as references for the language perception abilities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 331, + 884, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 697, + 621, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To show the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on different models, we compare the self-attention scores of different LLMs given the same input, by viewing model attention as probability distributions and calculating the general attention divergence based on Jensen-Shannon divergence.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 725, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To analyze model self-attention, we take the human saccade as a reference, and design a human resemblance metric based on linear regression scores.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we select several trivial, context-free attention patterns, and design a trivial pattern reliance metric to help demonstrate the difference", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13043", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "between models and human subject groups.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 438, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 General Attention Divergence", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 111, + 394, + 126 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We assess the mean Jensen-Shannon (J-S) divergence between attention from different models on all sentences. For two attention matrices $A$ , $B \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\times n_{\\mathrm{word}}}$ , the J-S divergence is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 131, + 489, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} D _ {\\mathrm {J S}} (A, B) = \\frac {1}{2} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {\\text {w o r d}}} \\left[ D _ {\\mathrm {K L}} \\left(A _ {i} \\| B _ {i}\\right) \\right. \\\\ + D _ {\\mathrm {K L}} \\left(B _ {i} \\| A _ {i}\\right) ] \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 219, + 428, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $D_{\\mathrm{KL}}$ is the Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence, $A_{i}$ and $B_{i}$ are the $i$ -th rows in the two matrices. Note the attention matrices are re-normalized to keep the sum of every row to 1.0. We calculate the J-S divergence between heads-averaged attention scores per sentence, and demonstrate the mean values. For models with the same number of layers, the divergence is calculated layerwise; For models with different numbers of layers, we divide their layers into four quarters and calculate the divergence quarter-wise.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 290, + 489, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To identify high and low divergence, a reference value is required. We propose to use the attention divergence between two models that share the same structure, size, and training data, but have small difference in training strategies as the reference. A divergence value higher than the reference suggests relatively large change attention, while one lower than that indicates small (but not necessarily negligible) change.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 468, + 489, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Divergence by Scaling and Instruction Tuning Models with different scales or training stages are compared with the above divergence to show the effect of different factors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 485, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sensitivity to Instructions To evaluate the effect of instruction tuning, we measure a given model's sensitivity to instructions by the same general attention divergence metric, but on different input, i.e., plain input and input with instructions. If the divergence between them is significantly higher than reference, we say the model has high sensitivity to instructions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To construct instructed text, we attach two prefixes to plain text sentences: \"Please translate this sentence into German:\", and \"Please paraphrase this sentence\":\". They are within the reported capacity of most LLMs, and require no extra information to follow. Then, we collect model attention on", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the two corpora within the original sentence spans (re-normalized) to represent non-instruction and instruction scenarios. Also, as a control group, we attached a noise prefix made of 5 randomly sampled English words \"Cigarette first steel convenience champion.\", and calculate the divergence between prefixed and plain text to account for the effect of a meaningless prefix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Human Resemblance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 224, + 722, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.1 Human Resemblance Calculation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 831, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the model self-attention and the human saccade data in matrix form for each sentence, we first extract the lower-triangle parts of the matrices (marking right-to-left attendance), because prior studies have found that such eye-movements in reading are related to working memory efficiency (Walczyk and Taylor, 1996) and parsing strategies (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the auto-regressive LLMs only have right-to-left self-attention. Then, we flatten the extracted parts of each sentence attention matrix, and concatenate them to get attention vectors $\\{v_{\\mathrm{human}}^i\\}$ for each subject $i$ , and $\\{v_{\\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\\}$ for head $k$ in model layer $j$ . We then stack $\\{v_{\\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\\}$ along the attention heads and get a matrix $\\{V_{\\mathrm{model}}^j\\}$ for the $j$ -th layer. The LR for model layer $j$ and subject $i$ is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 263, + 884, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\arg \\min _ {w, b} \\left\\| V _ {\\mathrm {m o d e l}} ^ {j \\top} w + b - v _ {\\mathrm {h u m a n}} ^ {i} \\right\\| _ {2} ^ {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 538, + 828, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This means we take the linear combination of attention scores from all heads in a layer to predict the human saccade. Note that the model attention here are not re-normalized, in order to preserve the relative weight w.r.t. the $$ token. The regression scores $R_{i,j}^{2}$ (ranging from 0 to 1, larger value means better regression) are averaged over subjects to represent the human resemblance of layer $j$ , and the highest layer score is considered as the regression score of the whole model, $R_{\\mathrm{model}}^{2}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 882, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Because the human saccade pattern varies across individuals, there exists a natural upper bound for human resemblance of models, i.e., the human-human resemblance, or the inter-subject correlation. To calculate this correlation within the two language groups, L1 and L2, we take the group mean to regress over each individual data independently, and use the average regression score $R_{\\mathrm{inter}}^2$ as the inter-subject correlation for that group. The final human resemblance score is $R_{\\mathrm{model}}^2 / R_{\\mathrm{inter}}^2$ , ranging from 0 to 100%.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 743, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13044", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.2 Human Resemblance vs. Next-Token Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 463, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A previous study finds a positive correlation between the next-token predication (NTP) performance and the \"Brain Score\" of neural networks (Schrimpf et al., 2021), which supports the intuition that the more human-like models are, the better generation they output. To test this finding in our setting, we calculated the per-token prediction loss (the negative log likelihood loss normalized by sequence lengths) of the models employed in this study on the Reading Brain dataset, and calculate the Pearson's Correlation between their prediction loss and max layerwise human resemblance scores.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 120, + 489, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 349, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.1 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 443, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We select three representative trivial patterns of transformer attention: attending to the first word in the sentence, attending to the previous word (Vig and Belinkov, 2019), and self-attending (Clark et al., 2019), and analyze the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on models' reliance on them.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 487, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we represent the trivial patterns as binary adjacent matrices, where attending relations are marked with 1, others with 0, and use their flattened lower-triangle parts as the independent variables. The model attention is similarly processed to be the dependent variables. Then, an LR is fit between the two, and the regression scores are collected to represent the trivial pattern reliance of each model layer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 487, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.2 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Humans", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 615, + 453, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research compares the models' resemblance to L1 and L2 humans because intuitively, L1 is better than L2 in language understanding. To test this intuition, we compare their reliance on the three trivial patterns to see whether their attention mode differs. Similar to model attention, the flattened human saccade vectors are used as the dependent variable to fit the LRs with the trivial patterns.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 487, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiment Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 775, + 324, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 802, + 200, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the Reading Brain dataset (Li et al., 2019) for both the text input and the human data. The dataset includes 5 English STEM articles. Each article has $29.6 \\pm 0.68$ sentences of $10.33 \\pm 0.15$ words. It also includes human eye-tracking and fMRI data recorded synchronously during self-paced reading", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/72af1df936c3ae4afd689692a37f326c1690dfeaa2151877027d8fb5cc2d467c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Individual", + "Figure 1: Examples of individual and group mean saccade of the sentence \"Could humans live on Mars some day?\"" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 83, + 692, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/00e40331f9f9f846d20f3c9cd578170c07c200d1400a103ffaf58bb6603b4d7c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Group Mean" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 82, + 875, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on the articles. The human subjects are 52 native English speakers (L1) and 56 non-native learners of English (L2). We choose this dataset for the following reasons: (1) The text is presented to the subjects sentence by sentence instead of page by page, making in-sentence reading patterns clearer. (2) It has synchronous eye-tracking and fMRI data, which allows both behavioral- and neural-level analysis. In this article we mainly focus on the behavioral part, but we also have some preliminary results on the fMRI analysis (See Appendix D).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 306, + 884, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We take the saccade number, i.e. times of eye movements from a word to another, instead of saccade duration, to represent the human reading attention, because this reduces the effect of other factors such as word length. The saccade data of a human subject for a given sentence is a $n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\times n_{\\mathrm{word}}$ matrix. Figure 1 gives examples of individual and group mean saccades.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 882, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 627, + 606, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We employ LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and its instruction-tuned versions, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) in this research. We use them because: (1) The model sizes and different instruction-tuning methods covers the majority of current open-sourced LLMs. (2) These models are being widely used and customized globally. Thus, analysis on them is representative and meaningful.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 882, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLaMA is a series of pretrained causal language models with parameter sizes 7B, 13B, 30B and 65B, trained on over 1T publicly available text tokens, and reaches state-of-the-art on most LLM benchmarks (Touvron et al., 2023). The training corpus is mainly English. We use all 4 sizes of LLaMA, which covers the sizes of most current", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13045", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "open-sourced LLMs. We also use the 774M GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) to represent smaller pretrained models in the scaling analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alpaca is fine-tuned from the 7B LLaMA model on 52K English instruction-following demonstrations generated by GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) using self-instruct (Wang et al., 2023). To analyze the effect of scaling, we also trained a 13B version of Alpaca using the official data and training strategy of Alpaca. Our 13B Alpaca model scores 43.9 and 46.0 on the MMLU dataset in zero-shot and one-shot setting respectively, proving the soundness of our fine-tuning. (The corresponding scores are 40.9 and 39.2 for the official Alpaca 7B model.)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 143, + 489, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vicuna models are fine-tuned from the 7B and 13B LLaMA models on 70K user-shared conversations with ChatGPT. The data contains instruction and in-context learning samples in multiple languages, thus the Vicuna models can also be viewed as instruction-tuned.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 334, + 489, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 LLMs Attention Collection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 444, + 371, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To obtain model attention, text is provided to the models sentence by sentence to perform next token predict, and we collect the attention tensors in each layer. This resembles the human self-paced task-free reading process, where only one sentence is visible at a time to the subjects, and the natural human behavior is to predict the next word (Kell et al., 2018; Schrimpf et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 487, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Because models use the SentencePiece tokenization (Kudo and Richardson, 2018), but the human saccade data is recorded in words, the attention matrices need to be reshaped. Following Clark et al. (2019) and Manning et al. (2020), we take the sum over the \"to\" tokens, and the average over the \"from\" tokens in a split word. Also, the $$ token is dropped as it is not presented to human subjects.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reference of Divergence We use the attention divergence of Vicuna v0 and Vicuna v1.1 13B as the reference values. The two versions share the same training data and strategy, but have minor difference in separators and loss computation2. We use the divergence calculated on 13B Vicunas across all divergence analyses, because it has lower mean and variance than the 7B one, making our comparison fairer and stricter.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 737, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 608, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ec644743c14c8077c18e304cd43e115de1a02fc57935327bff3bdeb62939a0c4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Mean J-S divergence between 7B and 13B model attention in each layer quarter, measured on non-instruction sentences." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 124, + 870, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 General Attention Divergence", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 789, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1.1 Scaling Significantly Changes the General Attention", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 354, + 830, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The general attention divergence between models in different sizes is shown in Figure 2. The results show that LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all reveal divergence significantly higher than the reference values when scaled from 7B to 13B. This means scaling causes large change in the overall attention distribution.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 391, + 882, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1.2 Instruction Tuning Has Limited Effect on General Attention", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 870, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The general attention divergence between pretrained and instruction tuned models is shown in Figure 3. It can be observed that only Vicuna 13B brings divergence above the reference values, while all the others don't. The same result can also be observed on instruction-prefixed sentences. This suggests that instruction tuning can only bring limited change to the models' general attention distribution. This can also be verified by other results in the following parts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 551, + 882, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1.3 Instruction Tuning Enhances Sensitivity to Instructions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 722, + 880, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The divergence between the models' attention obtained on the original and instruction-attached sentences are shown in Figure 4. There are two major observations. Firstly, LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all show divergence significantly above the reference values between the two types of sentences, especially in the shallower layers, which means they all have sensitivity to instructions. Secondly, while the divergence of LLaMA drops in the deeper layers, the divergence of Alpaca and Vicuna does", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Based on this GitHub repository for LLM evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 890, + 467, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2According to notes in the Vicuna GitHub repository.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 460, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13046", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fc5d47d7c18de76657c2fc72e97c7d6618092e97df812d52e938b4fa7a26142e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 86, + 470, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/85a93c8b9a28b689b6faa748f92743d88ed79f05e4da2930be71c7e7b557f76e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: General attention divergence between pretrained and instruction-tuned models in 7B and 13B, measured on non-instruction sentences." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 214, + 470, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "not go down, but rather up, suggesting higher sensitivity to instructions in the deeper layers. This effect is not observed in the noise-prefixed scenario (See Appendix A).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 416, + 487, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From these two observations, we can conclude that the pretrained LLaMA has already obtained some sensitivity to instructions, i.e. to change its attention mode when it meets instructions, and this sensitivity is further strengthened by instruction tuning, which makes this sensitivity higher in the deeper layers. Because in causal language models like LLaMA, the last few layers are related to generation, this effect of instruction tuning may bring more suitable generation for a certain instruction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 481, + 487, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Human Resemblance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 327, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.1 Higher Human Resemblance, Lower Prediction Loss", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 674, + 460, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The per-token NTP loss and the maximum layerwise human resemblance scores are compared in Table 1 and Figure 5. One can tell from it that, within the considered range of parameter sizes, the human resemblance is negatively correlated with the NTP loss, where the resemblance goes higher nearly linearly with the loss going lower. The Pearson's correlation is $-0.875$ for L1 ( $p < 0.002$ ) and $-0.917$ for L2 ( $p < 0.0005$ ), supporting a significant and strong negative linear correlation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 487, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This result shows that, the human resemblance we defined is positively related to the language modeling performance of the LLMs considered in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1f008220a318e85eb96f9974abe4cb35e28cfcd3055c85a6548958ea60eda23d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 86, + 867, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f76cbc30a5588ac8a4301ce3303f98d0edd580660d4ba45a0c94f8532c70bab8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Attention divergence on the original and instruction-attached text of 7B and 13B models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 214, + 867, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "this research, giving a practical meaning to our human resemblance analysis. Also, based on this result, we know the pursuit for higher human resemblance is consistent with the target of training better LLMs. Similarly, factors negatively impacting the human resemblance could also harm the models' language modeling performance, such as instruction tuning brings lower human resemblance as well as higher NTP loss.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 403, + 884, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/84993aceea938241ed48581fe63c0ac38da565077937761d44e5cb5a2247baf2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SizeNameLossL1(%)L2(%)
774MGPT-20.326434.9940.03
7BLLaMA0.240853.0462.44
Alpaca0.264652.5161.71
Vicuna0.259351.9061.19
13BLLaMA0.240655.6664.20
Alpaca0.263455.0564.46
Vicuna0.284754.2661.31
30BLLaMA0.237263.1669.40
65BLLaMA0.237564.0570.07
", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 560, + 852, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Comparison between NTP loss and the human resemblance scores", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 695, + 880, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.2 Scaling Enhances Human Resemblance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 878, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The layerwise human resemblance of pretrained models in different scales are shown in Figure 6, where the LLaMAs are very different from GPT-2 Large in two ways. First, the layerwise human resemblance of the LLaMAs are much higher than GPT-2, but the gaps among the LLaMAs are small; Second, human resemblance of GPT-2 drop quickly in the deeper layers, while it remains high across all layers in the LLaMAs. one can refer from these", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13047", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ea819d17b6d953235351d5a73b5a5b7e65ce7a5938cf23f98cd7b2ffcce21a37.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The correlation between the per-token negative log likelihood loss and the max layerwise human resemblance of LLMs." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 86, + 470, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "results that LLaMA has undergone a phase change in terms of human-like attention from the level of GPT-2. However, the scaling from 7B to 30B does not cause another phase change.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 300, + 487, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 and Figure 7 show the max layerwise human resemblance increases linearly while the model parameter size increases exponentially, where the Pearson's correlation is 0.989 for L1 $(p < 0.002)$ and 0.964 for L2 $(p < 0.01)$ . This agrees with the scaling law of LLMs (Henighan et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 365, + 487, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This result shows that, within the scope of this study, scaling significantly enhances the human resemblance. If the scaling law continues to take effect, the human resemblance is expected to reach $98.80\\%$ for L2 and $88.82\\%$ for L1 at the scale of 100B. However, because the law is expected to fail after reaching a threshold (Hestness et al., 2017), the relation between human resemblance and model scale is expected to change before reaching that scale.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 479, + 489, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/99999bf1715290bbd957e3d38c0341977f821304f94c56a1505d37af8accb45c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelResemblance (%)
NameSizeL1L2
GPT-2774M34.9940.03
7B53.0462.44
LLaMA13B55.5664.20
30B63.1669.40
65B64.0570.07
", + "bbox": [ + 173, + 650, + 428, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Max layerwise human resemblance of models ranging from 774M to 65B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 747, + 485, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.3 Instruction Tuning Harms Human Resemblance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 803, + 443, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the max layerwise human resemblance of the pretrained and instruction tuned models. It shows that the instruction tuned Alpaca and Vicuna models have lower max layerwise human resemblance to both L1 and L2 than LLaMA in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1616780722649fc2e8bd4012e111df8abb9d9fbd88f15d3c1b25f44acaaab699.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 85, + 867, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/37368eb43a0304641eb4bde8759e4bf745ad410b101965746d6be748aa6b7ea1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Layerwise L1 and L2 human resemblance for different sized pretrained models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 212, + 867, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/422fa9644ff1b557cfbe55e417d82fbf8846d43f61e00df97e26a8bb9394c59b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: The change of max layerwise human resemblance caused by the scaling of model sizes, where the x-axis is log scaled." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 395, + 867, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "both sizes, which suggests that instruction tuning causes decline in the human resemblance of attention. However, the decline is minor compared with the increase brought by scaling, which agrees with the limited effect of instruction tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 612, + 882, + 692 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also conduct relative t-tests to detect significant difference in layerwise human resemblance $(p = 0.05 / n_{\\mathrm{test}})$ . The numbers of significant layers are shown in Table 4, and the complete lists of layers are in Table 6, 7 in Appendix C). The tables show that instruction tuning enhances or reduces human resemblance on about the equal numbers of layers on the 7B models, but reduces human resemblance to much more layers on the 13B models. Also, the layers with significantly lower resemblance are distributed across all layers. This result means that, while the total effect of instruction tuning is small, the drop in human resemblance caused by it is significant and widespread.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13048", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sum up, instruction tuning does small but significant harm to the human resemblance of LLMs, which in turn may bring potential damage to their language perception. This challenges the common assumption that instruction tuning can activate the model's ability to perceive language with human-aligned behaviors. However, this negative effect could be compensated by scaling, for scaling increases the human resemblance in a larger degree. This provides a novel reason for further scaling.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d780297f3a566d20e077e26dc998e4c550d1006ea9aebba740858ec1ac9d40cd.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA53.0462.44
Alpaca52.5161.71
Vicuna51.9061.19
13BLLaMA55.6664.20
Alpaca55.0563.46
Vicuna54.2661.31
", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 261, + 425, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4085e71631c817dbdffefdc4becf5988bf96ea1a67e95cf1dab6ebf17dca090b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Max layerwise human resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layer-wise human resemblance." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelHigherLower
SizeNameL1L2L1L2
7BAlpaca3847
Vicuna91089
13BAlpaca471625
Vicuna581416
", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 464, + 431, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.4 All Models Show Higher L2 Resemblance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 394, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparing the L1 and L2 human resemblance of all models (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna, 7B and 13B) in Table 2 and Table 3, an advantage of L2 over L1 can be observed steadily. Independent t-test also shows that, all models considered in this research show significantly higher resemblance to L2 than to L1 ( $p = 0.05 / n_{\\mathrm{test}}$ to avoid false positives). This means the models are closer to non-native English learners than to native English speakers in attention, though they are all trained mainly on English data. Furthermore, this trend is not reversed by the scaling or instruction tuning within the scope of this research, which suggests that it is a innate feature of LLMs. We will look further into this phenomenon in the next section.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 742, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.1 L2 Relies More on Trivial Patterns", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 840, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of LR scores between trivial patterns and L1 and L2 human saccade is shown in Table 5, where L2's score is higher than L1's in minimum, maximum and mean values. Independent t-test also supports a significant advantage of L2 over L1 on the regression scores $(p < 5 \\times 10^{-8})$ . This means one significant difference between L1 and L2 English speakers is that L2 people show more trivial and fixed attention mode than L1 people while reading, which suggests a weaker language understanding ability as those patterns contain no linguistic or factual information.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 124, + 884, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This finding can help us interpret the difference between the models' L1 and L2 human resemblance. Note that all models considered in this research are trained mainly on English, but show higher attention resemblance to L2 subjects, this result suggests that their language perception is not ideal.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 884, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ae9923d9e6ca9e111e8a4a0d6a3d06636b71a880b2e59bc9ef35edd71fcd3b5f.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Numbers of Alpaca and Vicuna layers with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in the same sizes." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
GroupMinMaxMeanSE
L10.00480.15250.04730.0037
L20.01340.21650.08940.0060
", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 439, + 852, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Regression scores of human saccade on the trivial patterns, across L1 and L2 subjects. SE stands for standard errors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 491, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.2 Scaling Reduces Trivial Pattern Reliance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 880, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relative difference between 13B and 7B models in trivial pattern reliance is shown in Figure 8, where the decline in the deeper layer quarters is substantial across all models. There is also a consistent increase in the second quarter, but the amplitude is small, so the total trivial pattern reliance is reduced. This phenomenon is also observed between LLaMA 13B and 30B (Figure 11 in Appendix B). This means scaling can effectively reduce the trivial pattern reliance, especially in the deeper layers, indicating a more contextualized and adaptive language perception.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 583, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3.3 Instruction Tuning Increases Trivial Pattern Reliance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 853, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 9 shows the relative difference between pretrained and instruction tuned models in trivial pattern reliance, where the tuned ones show reliance gain in the deeper layers. There is also a small drop in the second quarter, but the total trivial pattern reliance is increasing. Also, total increase here is", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13049", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/84748b7f55f7fdaea4e031031566ffb84d5ba054996d35d7c775213b9e606b90.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: The difference between trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B model attention." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 86, + 470, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "also smaller in amplitude than the reduction caused by scaling, again supporting the limit effect of instruction tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 487, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Also, one can tell from Figure 8 and Figure 9 that scaling and instruction tuning changes the trivial pattern reliance in opposite directions. However, because the effect of instruction tuning is also smaller than that of scaling, as long as the model size continues to grow, this gain in trivial pattern reliance brought by instruction tuning could be compensated or even covered, offering another reason for further scaling.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 319, + 487, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2ff27b9802e5b1274efa0fbe3d7d72a0c686dd78e360414feadcbe4bb61bfe6d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: The difference in trivial pattern reliance of attentions in pretrained and instruction-tuned models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 480, + 473, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 247, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research evaluates the effects of scaling and instruction tuning on LLMs' attention. We find that scaling effectively changes the general attention distribution, enhances the human resemblance, and reduces the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does the opposite, but also increases the models' sensitivity to instructions. Furthermore, we find current open-sourced LLMs closer to non-native English speakers in language perception, which contains more trivial attention patterns. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to analyze the effect of instruction tuning on the human resemblance of model attention. We hope this can inspire future work on analyzing LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 615, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One key limitation of this study is that we cannot apply our current method to closed-sourced LLMs such as ChatGPT, for their layerwise attention scores are unavailable. With the rapid development of open LLMs, it is hopeful that we can examine these findings on the largest and most advanced LLMs in the near future.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 108, + 884, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, though we demonstrate the difference in LLMs' resemblance to L1 and L2 people, and partially explained the effect by trivial pattern reliance, it is not enough to explain the underlying cause or consequences of this phenomenon. We do have some observations, such as the inter-subject correlation in the L1 group $(0.1560 \\pm 0.0073)$ is lower than L2 $(0.2463 \\pm 0.0090)$ , and L1 subjects tend to look back to pervious words less frequently than L2 subjects. However, the underlying mechanism is still unclear. We hope to dive deeper into this non-native resemblance in our following study.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 221, + 884, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another limitation of this work comes from the way we obtain model attention. We used the attention scores when predicting the next single token, which makes sense. However, the attention patterns could be different in the following decoding steps. Also, it is possible that combining attention scores across multiple layers can improve the analysis. We will investigate this in our future work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 882, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, the Reading Brain dataset we used in this research is monolingual, which does not reflect the language perception process in the cross-lingual setting, which is also important for the application of LLMs. We also hope to examine our findings in the cross-lingual scenario in the future.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 542, + 882, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 650, + 660, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The authors declare no competing interests. The human behavioral data we use is publicly available and does not contain personal information of the subjects.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 674, + 880, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 750, + 680, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Shujian Huang is the corresponding author. We thank Yunzhe Lv and Wenhao Zhu for finetuning the Alpaca 13B model. This work is supported by National Science Foundation of China (No. 62376116, 62176120), the Liaoning Provincial Research Foundation for Basic Research (No. 2022-KF-26-02).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 902 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13050", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Samira Abnar and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4190-4197, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aakash Bansal, Bonita Sharif, and Collin McMillan. 2023. Towards modeling human attention from eye movements for neural source code summarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(ETRA):1-19.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2021. Model-based analysis of brain activity reveals the hierarchy of language in 305 subjects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06078.", + "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2022. Deep language algorithms predict semantic comprehension from brain activity. Scientific Reports, 12(1):16327.", + "Emmanuele Chersoni, Nora Hollenstein, Cassandra Jacobs, Yohei Oseki, Laurent Prévot, and Enrico Santus, editors. 2022. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland.", + "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\\%$ * chatgpt quality.", + "Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT's attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276-286, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, and Marta R. Costajussà. 2022. Measuring the Mixing of Contextual Information in the Transformer. In Proceedings of" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8698-8714, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2023. Explaining How Transformers Use Context to Build Predictions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5486-5513, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Uri Hasson, Samuel A. Nastase, and Ariel Goldstein. 2020. Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. *Neuron*, 105(3):416-434.", + "Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B. Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, Chris Hallacy, Benjamin Mann, Alec Radford, Aditya Ramesh, Nick Ryder, Daniel M. Ziegler, John Schulman, Dario Amodei, and Sam McCandlish. 2020. Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling. ArXiv:2010.14701 [cs].", + "Joel Hestness, Sharan Narang, Newsha Ardalani, Gregory Diamos, Heewoo Jun, Hassan Kianinejad, Md Mostofa Ali Patwary, Yang Yang, and Yanqi Zhou. 2017. Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00409.", + "Nora Hollenstein and Lisa Beinborn. 2021. Relative Importance in Sentence Processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 141-150, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3543-3556, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alexander JE Kell, Daniel LK Yamins, Erica N Shook, Sam V Norman-Haignere, and Josh H McDermott. 2018. A task-optimized neural network replicates human auditory behavior, predicts brain responses, and reveals a cortical processing hierarchy. Neuron, 98(3):630-644.", + "Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2020. Attention is Not Only a Weight: Analyzing Transformers with Vector Norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7057-7075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13051", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2021. Incorporating Residual and Normalization Layers into Analysis of Masked Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4547-4568, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mathis Lamarre, Catherine Chen, and Fatma Deniz. 2022. Attention weights accurately predict language representations in the brain. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4513-4529, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ping Li, Anya Yu, Benjamin Schloss, Chun-Ting Hsu, Lindsey Ma, Chih-Ting Chang, and Marissa Scotto. 2019. The reading brain project: An open science data-sharing initiative. In 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.", + "Christopher D Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30046-30054.", + "David Mareček and Rudolf Rosa. 2018. Extracting syntactic trees from transformer encoder self-attentions. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 347-349, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Danny Merkx and Stefan L. Frank. 2021. Human sentence processing: Recurrence or attention? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, pages 12-22, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hosein Mohebbi, Willem Zuidema, Grzegorz Chrupa\\la, and Afra Alishahi. 2023. Quantifying Context Mixing in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3378-3400, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Felix Morger, Stephanie Brandl, Lisa Beinborn, and Nora Hollenstein. 2022. A Cross-lingual Comparison of Human and Model Relative Word Importance. In Proceedings of the 2022 CLASP Conference on (Dis)embodiment, pages 11-23, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023a. Transformer-Based LM Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokens.", + "Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023b. Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:336-350.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs].", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners.", + "Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformer-based machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 287-297, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M. Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. ArXiv:2110.08207 [cs].", + "Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2021. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(45):e2105646118.", + "Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is attention interpretable? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2931-2951, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ekta Sood, Simon Tannert, Philipp Müller, and Andreas Bulling. 2020. Improving natural language processing tasks with human gaze-guided neural attention." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13052", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6327-6341.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 487, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 121, + 487, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 197, + 487, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shikhar Vashisth, Shyam Upadhyay, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Manaal Faruqui. 2019. Attention interpretability across nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11218.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 286, + 487, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jesse Vig and Yonatan Belinkov. 2019. Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63-76, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 348, + 487, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5797-5808, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 437, + 487, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Titus von der Malsburg, Reinhold Kliegl, and Shravan Vasisith. 2015. Determinants of Scanpath Regularity in Reading. Cognitive Science, 39(7):1675-1703.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 539, + 487, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Titus von der Malsburg and Shravan Vasishth. 2013. Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10):1545-1578.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 588, + 487, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jeffrey J. Walczyk and Robert W. Taylor. 1996. How do the efficiencies of reading subcomponents relate to looking back in text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3):537-545.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 651, + 487, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions. ArXiv:2212.10560 [cs].", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 713, + 487, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 789, + 487, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sarah Wiegrefe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 865, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 11-20, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 85, + 882, + 126 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Attention divergence on plain and noise-prefix text", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 137, + 840, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 10, the divergence between plain and noise-prefixed text of Alpaca and Vicuna is not significantly higher than LLaMA in most of the layers, which further supports our findings on the higher instruction sensitivity of instruction-tuned models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 179, + 882, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7d361eaa7e2230b259f47c0ed24a4ab897787020979f47f9ce6be3b4a8349f08.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 288, + 867, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ac4cc8bc037770a46c7e04cf00ef0adbaf0b2bc35b90d9bec9e403f3150e4f17.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: Attention divergence on the original and noise-attached text of 7B and 13B models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 416, + 867, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Layerwise trivial pattern reliance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 835, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 11 shows the layerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models, as well as the results for LLaMA 30B. The reliance keeps decreasing as the model size scales up, especially in the deeper layers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 634, + 882, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Layers with significant changes in human resemblance after instruction tuning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 727, + 867, + 777 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6 shows the list of layers in 7B Alpaca and Vicuna with significant change in human resemblance after instruction tuning compared with LLaMA, and Table 7 shows the list in 13B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 882, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Preliminary fMRI results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 860, + 766, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Some preliminary analysis on the fMRI data in the Reading Brain dataset is done, and the results com", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13053", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cd785dcab0e4b4d8fece282b3d909f8c5494973384c746b3858dfc41b73dd3a3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 86, + 470, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5f865bb3eb9bf6a0136938d04e2bf5dfd817900983c804abd586a8c0872426d4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 214, + 470, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a1e9b5c7d35de8515d3cc9eca08ad8e52b0abd225302e39b6bb068f57d512ebc.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 341, + 470, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/53ffc9bdd996fa8ab968753798918e4d1a2b1f9c1669e83d125ac79344337a2e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Lyerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models. \"RB\" stands for \"Reading Brain\"." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 468, + 470, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ply with our findings on saccade data. We investigate several linguistics-related brain regions, and find that the highest correlation of fMRI signals to model attention are from the anterior left temporal gyrus (Figure 12). The fMRI data from this region is pre-processed into matrix forms as saccade data. Figure 14 gives examples of individual and group mean fMRI matrices.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 487, + 787 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The findings are: (1) The models' NTP loss significantly $(p < 0.02$ for both L1 and L2) and strongly negatively $(r = -0.777$ for L1, $r = -0.796$ for L2) correlates with fMRI resemblance (Figure 13); (2) The models' highest layerwise fMRI resemblance significantly $(r > 0.99$ , $p < 0.001$ for both L1 and L2) correlates with the model scale in logarithm (Figure 15, 16); (3) While scal", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/98f6eabe13bbbcaaa71692d9c062537ad4a582afa75d71260d1750645b61bb00.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL12, 5, 712, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30
L22, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 21, 273, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30
LowerL14, 10, 23, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 20, 31
L20, 10, 14, 19, 23, 28, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 20, 31
", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 80, + 843, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3546e27fabbe3e99b06ebcb5a26abf1d1f51689a16c8fdc4516ca21f7ac151d7.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 7B." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL116, 32, 33, 364, 16, 27, 33, 36
L21, 16, 19, 27, 32, 33, 364, 16, 19, 23, 27, 33, 36, 37
LowerL10, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30, 35, 390, 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 24, 30, 34, 39
L20, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 390, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 30
", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 316, + 848, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 13B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 580, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing enhances human fMRI resemblance, instruction tuning does not (Table 8); (4) Resemblance to L2 fMRI is consistently higher than that to L1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 882, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13054", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1a4c004f619dcbabbb6a01164539845a5be779d88fd6a9573642a97e701507bc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: An illustration of the anterior left temporal gyrus in the human brain." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 216, + 99, + 386, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/611ee90ccf0d1d563394ecd2a127465e030f92ec3c59ad1b78e1b6be9d913769.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 13: The correlation between per-token negative log likelihood loss and max layerwise fMRI resemblance of the LLMs." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 271, + 473, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b86120adce5637b55705e69da3c6052c84efe7e4f688f95ff66d6ce6ab2e23b4.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA11.0215.45
Alpaca10.9915.61
Vicuna11.3515.44
13BLLaMA14.6920.19
Alpaca14.6719.44
Vicuna14.0218.57
", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 495, + 423, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Max layerwise human fMRI resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layerwise human resemblance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 487, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/76078bf11392e7075e08e4d424292ba9479a10db75ea03f84b13b04a08bd7b82.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Individual" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 703, + 295, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3469d2471ded04cf9bd91703fbef916897abea2483e4faacbc0100147bc18e4e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Group Mean" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 305, + 705, + 480, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/05568093f276b55f2bbc25cf0fffd1bd810c844632c23eee1700f0096a937308.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 172, + 870, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dd49a90499d2eec64f51f9d08fdb560f781e3d274b893ee0bc88ed334b62f01f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 15: Layerwise L1 and L2 human fMRI resemblance for different sized pretrained models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 300, + 870, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6578ebffd275ffd9cf5335aff9398a942e7331af325d98a028f3ca51e4ea9f49.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 14: Examples of individual and group mean fMRI signals of the sentence \"Could humans live on Mars some day?\"", + "Figure 16: The change of max layerwise human fMRI resemblance caused by scaling. The x-axis is log scaled." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 653, + 870, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13055", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_model.json b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bd4262661b0e6be344c09c66630040377125025 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2890 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.089, + 0.836, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception: Model vs. Human Attention" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.227, + 0.142, + 0.776, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changjiang Gao1 Shujian Huang1* Jixing Li2 Jiajun Chen1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.186, + 0.16, + 0.817, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.198, + 0.177, + 0.805, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Department of Linguistics and Translation, City University of Hong Kong gaocj@smail.nju.edu.cn {huangsj, chenjj}@nju.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.395, + 0.211, + 0.61, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "jixingli@cityu.edu.hk" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent large language models (LLMs) have revealed strong abilities to understand natural language. Since most of them share the same basic structure, i.e. the transformer block, possible contributors to their success in the training process are scaling and instruction tuning. However, how these factors affect the models' language perception is unclear. This work compares the self-attention of several existing LLMs (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna) in different sizes (7B, 13B, 30B, 65B), together with eye saccade, an aspect of human reading attention, to assess the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on language perception. Results show that scaling enhances the human resemblance and improves the effective attention by reducing the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does not. However, instruction tuning significantly enhances the models' sensitivity to instructions. We also find that current LLMs are consistently closer to non-native than native speakers in attention, suggesting a suboptimal language perception of all models. Our code and data used in the analysis is available on GitHub." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.648, + 0.26, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.673, + 0.49, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, ChatGPT and Vicuna, have shown nearly human-level understanding of text inputs, indicating better human-like language perception compared with their predecessors such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). However, the mechanism behind such improvement is largely unknown. One way to interpret such mechanism is comparing model computation processes to human data. For example, prior work compared language models (mainly GPT-2) with human neuroimaging data during language comprehension, suggesting that models with higher human resemblance also perform better in NLP tasks. (Hasson" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2020; Schrimpf et al., 2021). However, given recent breakthroughs in LLMs, it remains to be tested whether the newest LLMs still align with human perception data. Based on the training pipeline of current LLMs, there are two possible sources for the potential change: the scaled model/data size and the aligning process after pretraining, such as instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). This paper aims to provide a further understanding of LLMs' mechanism by investigating the roles of these two factors in language understanding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.45, + 0.885, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we analyze self-attention as a channel to the language perception ability of LLMs, because it is the key mechanism of transformer language models, and it naturally resembles the human attention mechanism in language perceiving (Merkx and Frank, 2021). The attention patterns under investigation includes those from trending open-sourced LLMs with different sizes, i.e., 7B, 13B, 30B, 65B, and different training stages, i.e., pretrained (LLaMA) and instruction-tuned (Alpaca and Vicuna) models. Given these models are all trained mainly with English data, we also compare the attention patterns of LLMs with human saccade (a form of eye-movement) data, including both native speakers (L1) and non-native learners (L2) of English (Li et al., 2019) to see if the models correlates more with L1 subjects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our analysis is three-fold. First, we compare the general attention distributions of LLMs to measure the impact of these two varying factors on the model (\\(\\S 3.1\\)). Second, we perform linear regressions (LRs) between the model self-attention and human saccade matrices to see how human-like they are, and how the resemblance is affected by the two factors (\\(\\S 3.2\\)). Third, we analyze the relation between the given attention and some trivial patterns, revealing the difference between different levels of language perception abilities (\\(\\S 3.3\\)). The main findings are:" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.295, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13042" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13042-13055 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Scaling significantly affects the general attention distribution on plain text, while instruction tuning has limited effect. However, instruction tuning enhances the model's sensitivity to instructions (§5.1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.179, + 0.488, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Higher human resemblance is significantly correlated to better language modeling. Scaling improves the resemblance by scaling law (Henighan et al., 2020), while instruction tuning reduces it. All models have higher resemblance to L2 rather than to L1, suggesting further room for the improvement in language perception (§5.2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.321, + 0.488, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- L2 saccade has higher dependency on trivial attention patterns than L1, indicating a more rigid way of perception. Scaling significantly lowers LLMs' reliance on trivial attention patterns, while instruction tuning does not (§5.3)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.415, + 0.271, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.442, + 0.49, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-attention analysis is a common way to interpret transformer models. Several studies has shown that it is correlated to linguistic information, such as syntactic or semantic structures (Mareček and Rosa, 2018; Raganato and Tiedemann, 2018; Voita et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2019). There are also some attempts and debates to explain the models' prediction with attention (Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wegreffe and Pinter, 2019; Serrano and Smith, 2019; Vashisth et al., 2019). Different from them, we use self-attention patterns as a measurement of the language perception abilities of LLMs. Also, some new ways to interpret model self-attention have been proposed, such as Attention Flow (Abnar and Zuidema, 2020), vector norm (Kobayashi et al., 2020, 2021), ALTI (Ferrando et al., 2022), Value Zeroing (Mohebbi et al., 2023), and logit analysis (Ferrando et al., 2023). These methods can raise the interpretability of model attention w.r.t. linguistic structural information, but are not tested with human eye-tracking data. Also, some of them suffer from huge computational cost. Instead, we choose to use the raw attention scores, as it is produced in the models' original computational processes, and they already correlate the human data, demonstrating their interpretability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction tuned LLMs achieve better performances in performing tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). It seems that the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLMs are better at understanding human instructions. However, there is little discussion on how the instruction tuning process affects the language perception." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.161, + 0.885, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eye-movement in the human reading process has drawn attention in the computational linguistic field. It is proposed that scanpaths, i.e. tracks of eye-movement, reveals characteristics of the parsing processes and relates to working memory during reading (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the irregularity of scanpaths is affected by sentence structures and age (von der Malsburg et al., 2015). Such work provides theoretical ground for our analysis on saccade data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.332, + 0.885, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint study of language models and human eye-movement is also receiving growing interest. Prior studies have shown the correlation between language processing of human and artificial neural networks (Kell et al., 2018), especially pretrained language models such as GPT-2 (Caucheteux et al., 2021, 2022; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Lamarre et al., 2022). Especially, Oh and Schuler (2023a,b) explored the fit of model surprisal to human reading times, noting the effect of models' sequential memorization and dataset size. Hollenstein and Beinborn (2021) studied the correlation between relative word importance derived from models and humans, and Morger et al. (2022) extended that research to a multilingual setting, as well as analysis on model attention. Some studies also use human attention as supervision to assist specific tasks (Sood et al., 2020; Bansal et al., 2023), or use sequential models to predict eye-tracking data (Chersoni et al., 2022). Different from them, we use human attention as references for the language perception abilities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.699, + 0.622, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.726, + 0.883, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To show the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on different models, we compare the self-attention scores of different LLMs given the same input, by viewing model attention as probability distributions and calculating the general attention divergence based on Jensen-Shannon divergence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To analyze model self-attention, we take the human saccade as a reference, and design a human resemblance metric based on linear regression scores." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we select several trivial, context-free attention patterns, and design a trivial pattern reliance metric to help demonstrate the difference" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13043" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.44, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "between models and human subject groups." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.112, + 0.396, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 General Attention Divergence" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.132, + 0.49, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We assess the mean Jensen-Shannon (J-S) divergence between attention from different models on all sentences. For two attention matrices \\( A \\), \\( B \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\times n_{\\mathrm{word}}} \\), the J-S divergence is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.173, + 0.22, + 0.43, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} D _ {\\mathrm {J S}} (A, B) = \\frac {1}{2} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {\\text {w o r d}}} \\left[ D _ {\\mathrm {K L}} \\left(A _ {i} \\| B _ {i}\\right) \\right. \\\\ + D _ {\\mathrm {K L}} \\left(B _ {i} \\| A _ {i}\\right) ] \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.291, + 0.49, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(D_{\\mathrm{KL}}\\) is the Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence, \\(A_{i}\\) and \\(B_{i}\\) are the \\(i\\)-th rows in the two matrices. Note the attention matrices are re-normalized to keep the sum of every row to 1.0. We calculate the J-S divergence between heads-averaged attention scores per sentence, and demonstrate the mean values. For models with the same number of layers, the divergence is calculated layerwise; For models with different numbers of layers, we divide their layers into four quarters and calculate the divergence quarter-wise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To identify high and low divergence, a reference value is required. We propose to use the attention divergence between two models that share the same structure, size, and training data, but have small difference in training strategies as the reference. A divergence value higher than the reference suggests relatively large change attention, while one lower than that indicates small (but not necessarily negligible) change." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.622, + 0.487, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Divergence by Scaling and Instruction Tuning Models with different scales or training stages are compared with the above divergence to show the effect of different factors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sensitivity to Instructions To evaluate the effect of instruction tuning, we measure a given model's sensitivity to instructions by the same general attention divergence metric, but on different input, i.e., plain input and input with instructions. If the divergence between them is significantly higher than reference, we say the model has high sensitivity to instructions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To construct instructed text, we attach two prefixes to plain text sentences: \"Please translate this sentence into German:\", and \"Please paraphrase this sentence\":\". They are within the reported capacity of most LLMs, and require no extra information to follow. Then, we collect model attention on" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the two corpora within the original sentence spans (re-normalized) to represent non-instruction and instruction scenarios. Also, as a control group, we attached a noise prefix made of 5 randomly sampled English words \"Cigarette first steel convenience champion.\", and calculate the divergence between prefixed and plain text to account for the effect of a meaningless prefix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.225, + 0.724, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Human Resemblance" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.246, + 0.833, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.1 Human Resemblance Calculation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.264, + 0.885, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the model self-attention and the human saccade data in matrix form for each sentence, we first extract the lower-triangle parts of the matrices (marking right-to-left attendance), because prior studies have found that such eye-movements in reading are related to working memory efficiency (Walczyk and Taylor, 1996) and parsing strategies (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the auto-regressive LLMs only have right-to-left self-attention. Then, we flatten the extracted parts of each sentence attention matrix, and concatenate them to get attention vectors \\(\\{v_{\\mathrm{human}}^i\\}\\) for each subject \\(i\\), and \\(\\{v_{\\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\\}\\) for head \\(k\\) in model layer \\(j\\). We then stack \\(\\{v_{\\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\\}\\) along the attention heads and get a matrix \\(\\{V_{\\mathrm{model}}^j\\}\\) for the \\(j\\)-th layer. The LR for model layer \\(j\\) and subject \\(i\\) is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.539, + 0.83, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\arg \\min _ {w, b} \\left\\| V _ {\\mathrm {m o d e l}} ^ {j \\top} w + b - v _ {\\mathrm {h u m a n}} ^ {i} \\right\\| _ {2} ^ {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.884, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This means we take the linear combination of attention scores from all heads in a layer to predict the human saccade. Note that the model attention here are not re-normalized, in order to preserve the relative weight w.r.t. the \\(\\) token. The regression scores \\(R_{i,j}^{2}\\) (ranging from 0 to 1, larger value means better regression) are averaged over subjects to represent the human resemblance of layer \\(j\\), and the highest layer score is considered as the regression score of the whole model, \\(R_{\\mathrm{model}}^{2}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.744, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Because the human saccade pattern varies across individuals, there exists a natural upper bound for human resemblance of models, i.e., the human-human resemblance, or the inter-subject correlation. To calculate this correlation within the two language groups, L1 and L2, we take the group mean to regress over each individual data independently, and use the average regression score \\( R_{\\mathrm{inter}}^2 \\) as the inter-subject correlation for that group. The final human resemblance score is \\( R_{\\mathrm{model}}^2 / R_{\\mathrm{inter}}^2 \\), ranging from 0 to 100%." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13044" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.465, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.2 Human Resemblance vs. Next-Token Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.121, + 0.49, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A previous study finds a positive correlation between the next-token predication (NTP) performance and the \"Brain Score\" of neural networks (Schrimpf et al., 2021), which supports the intuition that the more human-like models are, the better generation they output. To test this finding in our setting, we calculated the per-token prediction loss (the negative log likelihood loss normalized by sequence lengths) of the models employed in this study on the Reading Brain dataset, and calculate the Pearson's Correlation between their prediction loss and max layerwise human resemblance scores." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.325, + 0.35, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.346, + 0.445, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.1 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.489, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We select three representative trivial patterns of transformer attention: attending to the first word in the sentence, attending to the previous word (Vig and Belinkov, 2019), and self-attending (Clark et al., 2019), and analyze the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on models' reliance on them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.462, + 0.489, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we represent the trivial patterns as binary adjacent matrices, where attending relations are marked with 1, others with 0, and use their flattened lower-triangle parts as the independent variables. The model attention is similarly processed to be the dependent variables. Then, an LR is fit between the two, and the regression scores are collected to represent the trivial pattern reliance of each model layer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.616, + 0.454, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.2 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Humans" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.636, + 0.489, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research compares the models' resemblance to L1 and L2 humans because intuitively, L1 is better than L2 in language understanding. To test this intuition, we compare their reliance on the three trivial patterns to see whether their attention mode differs. Similar to model attention, the flattened human saccade vectors are used as the dependent variable to fit the LRs with the trivial patterns." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.776, + 0.325, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiment Settings" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.803, + 0.2, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the Reading Brain dataset (Li et al., 2019) for both the text input and the human data. The dataset includes 5 English STEM articles. Each article has \\(29.6 \\pm 0.68\\) sentences of \\(10.33 \\pm 0.15\\) words. It also includes human eye-tracking and fMRI data recorded synchronously during self-paced reading" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.084, + 0.693, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.562, + 0.212, + 0.648, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Individual" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.699, + 0.083, + 0.877, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.738, + 0.212, + 0.839, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Group Mean" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.236, + 0.885, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Examples of individual and group mean saccade of the sentence \"Could humans live on Mars some day?\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.307, + 0.885, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on the articles. The human subjects are 52 native English speakers (L1) and 56 non-native learners of English (L2). We choose this dataset for the following reasons: (1) The text is presented to the subjects sentence by sentence instead of page by page, making in-sentence reading patterns clearer. (2) It has synchronous eye-tracking and fMRI data, which allows both behavioral- and neural-level analysis. In this article we mainly focus on the behavioral part, but we also have some preliminary results on the fMRI analysis (See Appendix D)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.884, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We take the saccade number, i.e. times of eye movements from a word to another, instead of saccade duration, to represent the human reading attention, because this reduces the effect of other factors such as word length. The saccade data of a human subject for a given sentence is a \\( n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\times n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\) matrix. Figure 1 gives examples of individual and group mean saccades." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.628, + 0.607, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.65, + 0.884, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We employ LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and its instruction-tuned versions, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) in this research. We use them because: (1) The model sizes and different instruction-tuning methods covers the majority of current open-sourced LLMs. (2) These models are being widely used and customized globally. Thus, analysis on them is representative and meaningful." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLaMA is a series of pretrained causal language models with parameter sizes 7B, 13B, 30B and 65B, trained on over 1T publicly available text tokens, and reaches state-of-the-art on most LLM benchmarks (Touvron et al., 2023). The training corpus is mainly English. We use all 4 sizes of LLaMA, which covers the sizes of most current" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13045" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "open-sourced LLMs. We also use the 774M GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) to represent smaller pretrained models in the scaling analysis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.145, + 0.49, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alpaca is fine-tuned from the 7B LLaMA model on 52K English instruction-following demonstrations generated by GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) using self-instruct (Wang et al., 2023). To analyze the effect of scaling, we also trained a 13B version of Alpaca using the official data and training strategy of Alpaca. Our 13B Alpaca model scores 43.9 and 46.0 on the MMLU dataset in zero-shot and one-shot setting respectively, proving the soundness of our fine-tuning. (The corresponding scores are 40.9 and 39.2 for the official Alpaca 7B model.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.335, + 0.49, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vicuna models are fine-tuned from the 7B and 13B LLaMA models on 70K user-shared conversations with ChatGPT. The data contains instruction and in-context learning samples in multiple languages, thus the Vicuna models can also be viewed as instruction-tuned." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.445, + 0.373, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 LLMs Attention Collection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.489, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To obtain model attention, text is provided to the models sentence by sentence to perform next token predict, and we collect the attention tensors in each layer. This resembles the human self-paced task-free reading process, where only one sentence is visible at a time to the subjects, and the natural human behavior is to predict the next word (Kell et al., 2018; Schrimpf et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.597, + 0.49, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Because models use the SentencePiece tokenization (Kudo and Richardson, 2018), but the human saccade data is recorded in words, the attention matrices need to be reshaped. Following Clark et al. (2019) and Manning et al. (2020), we take the sum over the \"to\" tokens, and the average over the \"from\" tokens in a split word. Also, the \\(\\) token is dropped as it is not presented to human subjects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.738, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reference of Divergence We use the attention divergence of Vicuna v0 and Vicuna v1.1 13B as the reference values. The two versions share the same training data and strategy, but have minor difference in separators and loss computation2. We use the divergence calculated on 13B Vicunas across all divergence analyses, because it has lower mean and variance than the 7B one, making our comparison fairer and stricter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.609, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.125, + 0.871, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.259, + 0.885, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Mean J-S divergence between 7B and 13B model attention in each layer quarter, measured on non-instruction sentences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.334, + 0.791, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 General Attention Divergence" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.355, + 0.831, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1.1 Scaling Significantly Changes the General Attention" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.392, + 0.883, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The general attention divergence between models in different sizes is shown in Figure 2. The results show that LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all reveal divergence significantly higher than the reference values when scaled from 7B to 13B. This means scaling causes large change in the overall attention distribution." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.515, + 0.871, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1.2 Instruction Tuning Has Limited Effect on General Attention" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.552, + 0.884, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The general attention divergence between pretrained and instruction tuned models is shown in Figure 3. It can be observed that only Vicuna 13B brings divergence above the reference values, while all the others don't. The same result can also be observed on instruction-prefixed sentences. This suggests that instruction tuning can only bring limited change to the models' general attention distribution. This can also be verified by other results in the following parts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.723, + 0.882, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1.3 Instruction Tuning Enhances Sensitivity to Instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The divergence between the models' attention obtained on the original and instruction-attached sentences are shown in Figure 4. There are two major observations. Firstly, LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all show divergence significantly above the reference values between the two types of sentences, especially in the shallower layers, which means they all have sensitivity to instructions. Secondly, while the divergence of LLaMA drops in the deeper layers, the divergence of Alpaca and Vicuna does" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.891, + 0.468, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on this GitHub repository for LLM evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.462, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2According to notes in the Vicuna GitHub repository." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.891, + 0.468, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13046" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.087, + 0.472, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.215, + 0.472, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.348, + 0.49, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: General attention divergence between pretrained and instruction-tuned models in 7B and 13B, measured on non-instruction sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.417, + 0.489, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "not go down, but rather up, suggesting higher sensitivity to instructions in the deeper layers. This effect is not observed in the noise-prefixed scenario (See Appendix A)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.482, + 0.489, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From these two observations, we can conclude that the pretrained LLaMA has already obtained some sensitivity to instructions, i.e. to change its attention mode when it meets instructions, and this sensitivity is further strengthened by instruction tuning, which makes this sensitivity higher in the deeper layers. Because in causal language models like LLaMA, the last few layers are related to generation, this effect of instruction tuning may bring more suitable generation for a certain instruction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.654, + 0.329, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Human Resemblance" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.675, + 0.462, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.1 Higher Human Resemblance, Lower Prediction Loss" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.489, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The per-token NTP loss and the maximum layerwise human resemblance scores are compared in Table 1 and Figure 5. One can tell from it that, within the considered range of parameter sizes, the human resemblance is negatively correlated with the NTP loss, where the resemblance goes higher nearly linearly with the loss going lower. The Pearson's correlation is \\(-0.875\\) for L1 (\\(p < 0.002\\)) and \\(-0.917\\) for L2 (\\(p < 0.0005\\)), supporting a significant and strong negative linear correlation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This result shows that, the human resemblance we defined is positively related to the language modeling performance of the LLMs considered in" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.087, + 0.868, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.215, + 0.868, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.348, + 0.882, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Attention divergence on the original and instruction-attached text of 7B and 13B models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.404, + 0.885, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "this research, giving a practical meaning to our human resemblance analysis. Also, based on this result, we know the pursuit for higher human resemblance is consistent with the target of training better LLMs. Similarly, factors negatively impacting the human resemblance could also harm the models' language modeling performance, such as instruction tuning brings lower human resemblance as well as higher NTP loss." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.541, + 0.561, + 0.853, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SizeNameLossL1(%)L2(%)
774MGPT-20.326434.9940.03
7BLLaMA0.240853.0462.44
Alpaca0.264652.5161.71
Vicuna0.259351.9061.19
13BLLaMA0.240655.6664.20
Alpaca0.263455.0564.46
Vicuna0.284754.2661.31
30BLLaMA0.237263.1669.40
65BLLaMA0.237564.0570.07
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.696, + 0.882, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Comparison between NTP loss and the human resemblance scores" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.88, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.2 Scaling Enhances Human Resemblance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The layerwise human resemblance of pretrained models in different scales are shown in Figure 6, where the LLaMAs are very different from GPT-2 Large in two ways. First, the layerwise human resemblance of the LLaMAs are much higher than GPT-2, but the gaps among the LLaMAs are small; Second, human resemblance of GPT-2 drop quickly in the deeper layers, while it remains high across all layers in the LLaMAs. one can refer from these" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13047" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.087, + 0.472, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.232, + 0.49, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The correlation between the per-token negative log likelihood loss and the max layerwise human resemblance of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.302, + 0.489, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "results that LLaMA has undergone a phase change in terms of human-like attention from the level of GPT-2. However, the scaling from 7B to 30B does not cause another phase change." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.366, + 0.489, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 and Figure 7 show the max layerwise human resemblance increases linearly while the model parameter size increases exponentially, where the Pearson's correlation is 0.989 for L1 \\((p < 0.002)\\) and 0.964 for L2 \\((p < 0.01)\\). This agrees with the scaling law of LLMs (Henighan et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.48, + 0.49, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This result shows that, within the scope of this study, scaling significantly enhances the human resemblance. If the scaling law continues to take effect, the human resemblance is expected to reach \\(98.80\\%\\) for L2 and \\(88.82\\%\\) for L1 at the scale of 100B. However, because the law is expected to fail after reaching a threshold (Hestness et al., 2017), the relation between human resemblance and model scale is expected to change before reaching that scale." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.174, + 0.651, + 0.43, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelResemblance (%)
NameSizeL1L2
GPT-2774M34.9940.03
7B53.0462.44
LLaMA13B55.5664.20
30B63.1669.40
65B64.0570.07
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.748, + 0.486, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Max layerwise human resemblance of models ranging from 774M to 65B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.804, + 0.445, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.3 Instruction Tuning Harms Human Resemblance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the max layerwise human resemblance of the pretrained and instruction tuned models. It shows that the instruction tuned Alpaca and Vicuna models have lower max layerwise human resemblance to both L1 and L2 than LLaMA in" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.086, + 0.868, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.214, + 0.868, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.348, + 0.882, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Layerwise L1 and L2 human resemblance for different sized pretrained models." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.397, + 0.868, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.542, + 0.884, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: The change of max layerwise human resemblance caused by the scaling of model sizes, where the x-axis is log scaled." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.613, + 0.884, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "both sizes, which suggests that instruction tuning causes decline in the human resemblance of attention. However, the decline is minor compared with the increase brought by scaling, which agrees with the limited effect of instruction tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also conduct relative t-tests to detect significant difference in layerwise human resemblance \\((p = 0.05 / n_{\\mathrm{test}})\\). The numbers of significant layers are shown in Table 4, and the complete lists of layers are in Table 6, 7 in Appendix C). The tables show that instruction tuning enhances or reduces human resemblance on about the equal numbers of layers on the 7B models, but reduces human resemblance to much more layers on the 13B models. Also, the layers with significantly lower resemblance are distributed across all layers. This result means that, while the total effect of instruction tuning is small, the drop in human resemblance caused by it is significant and widespread." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13048" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sum up, instruction tuning does small but significant harm to the human resemblance of LLMs, which in turn may bring potential damage to their language perception. This challenges the common assumption that instruction tuning can activate the model's ability to perceive language with human-aligned behaviors. However, this negative effect could be compensated by scaling, for scaling increases the human resemblance in a larger degree. This provides a novel reason for further scaling." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.262, + 0.426, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA53.0462.44
Alpaca52.5161.71
Vicuna51.9061.19
13BLLaMA55.6664.20
Alpaca55.0563.46
Vicuna54.2661.31
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.373, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Max layerwise human resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layer-wise human resemblance." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.171, + 0.466, + 0.432, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelHigherLower
SizeNameL1L2L1L2
7BAlpaca3847
Vicuna91089
13BAlpaca471625
Vicuna581416
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.553, + 0.49, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Numbers of Alpaca and Vicuna layers with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in the same sizes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.636, + 0.396, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.4 All Models Show Higher L2 Resemblance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparing the L1 and L2 human resemblance of all models (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna, 7B and 13B) in Table 2 and Table 3, an advantage of L2 over L1 can be observed steadily. Independent t-test also shows that, all models considered in this research show significantly higher resemblance to L2 than to L1 (\\( p = 0.05 / n_{\\mathrm{test}} \\) to avoid false positives). This means the models are closer to non-native English learners than to native English speakers in attention, though they are all trained mainly on English data. Furthermore, this trend is not reversed by the scaling or instruction tuning within the scope of this research, which suggests that it is a innate feature of LLMs. We will look further into this phenomenon in the next section." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.744, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.107, + 0.842, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.1 L2 Relies More on Trivial Patterns" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.126, + 0.885, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of LR scores between trivial patterns and L1 and L2 human saccade is shown in Table 5, where L2's score is higher than L1's in minimum, maximum and mean values. Independent t-test also supports a significant advantage of L2 over L1 on the regression scores \\((p < 5 \\times 10^{-8})\\). This means one significant difference between L1 and L2 English speakers is that L2 people show more trivial and fixed attention mode than L1 people while reading, which suggests a weaker language understanding ability as those patterns contain no linguistic or factual information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.32, + 0.885, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This finding can help us interpret the difference between the models' L1 and L2 human resemblance. Note that all models considered in this research are trained mainly on English, but show higher attention resemblance to L2 subjects, this result suggests that their language perception is not ideal." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.541, + 0.441, + 0.853, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
GroupMinMaxMeanSE
L10.00480.15250.04730.0037
L20.01340.21650.08940.0060
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.492, + 0.884, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Regression scores of human saccade on the trivial patterns, across L1 and L2 subjects. SE stands for standard errors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.882, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.2 Scaling Reduces Trivial Pattern Reliance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.584, + 0.884, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relative difference between 13B and 7B models in trivial pattern reliance is shown in Figure 8, where the decline in the deeper layer quarters is substantial across all models. There is also a consistent increase in the second quarter, but the amplitude is small, so the total trivial pattern reliance is reduced. This phenomenon is also observed between LLaMA 13B and 30B (Figure 11 in Appendix B). This means scaling can effectively reduce the trivial pattern reliance, especially in the deeper layers, indicating a more contextualized and adaptive language perception." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.787, + 0.854, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3.3 Instruction Tuning Increases Trivial Pattern Reliance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9 shows the relative difference between pretrained and instruction tuned models in trivial pattern reliance, where the tuned ones show reliance gain in the deeper layers. There is also a small drop in the second quarter, but the total trivial pattern reliance is increasing. Also, total increase here is" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13049" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.087, + 0.472, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.221, + 0.488, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: The difference between trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B model attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.489, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "also smaller in amplitude than the reduction caused by scaling, again supporting the limit effect of instruction tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.321, + 0.489, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Also, one can tell from Figure 8 and Figure 9 that scaling and instruction tuning changes the trivial pattern reliance in opposite directions. However, because the effect of instruction tuning is also smaller than that of scaling, as long as the model size continues to grow, this gain in trivial pattern reliance brought by instruction tuning could be compensated or even covered, offering another reason for further scaling." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.481, + 0.475, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: The difference in trivial pattern reliance of attentions in pretrained and instruction-tuned models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.669, + 0.248, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research evaluates the effects of scaling and instruction tuning on LLMs' attention. We find that scaling effectively changes the general attention distribution, enhances the human resemblance, and reduces the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does the opposite, but also increases the models' sensitivity to instructions. Furthermore, we find current open-sourced LLMs closer to non-native English speakers in language perception, which contains more trivial attention patterns. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to analyze the effect of instruction tuning on the human resemblance of model attention. We hope this can inspire future work on analyzing LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.616, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.109, + 0.885, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One key limitation of this study is that we cannot apply our current method to closed-sourced LLMs such as ChatGPT, for their layerwise attention scores are unavailable. With the rapid development of open LLMs, it is hopeful that we can examine these findings on the largest and most advanced LLMs in the near future." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.222, + 0.885, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, though we demonstrate the difference in LLMs' resemblance to L1 and L2 people, and partially explained the effect by trivial pattern reliance, it is not enough to explain the underlying cause or consequences of this phenomenon. We do have some observations, such as the inter-subject correlation in the L1 group \\((0.1560 \\pm 0.0073)\\) is lower than L2 \\((0.2463 \\pm 0.0090)\\), and L1 subjects tend to look back to pervious words less frequently than L2 subjects. However, the underlying mechanism is still unclear. We hope to dive deeper into this non-native resemblance in our following study." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another limitation of this work comes from the way we obtain model attention. We used the attention scores when predicting the next single token, which makes sense. However, the attention patterns could be different in the following decoding steps. Also, it is possible that combining attention scores across multiple layers can improve the analysis. We will investigate this in our future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.543, + 0.884, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, the Reading Brain dataset we used in this research is monolingual, which does not reflect the language perception process in the cross-lingual setting, which is also important for the application of LLMs. We also hope to examine our findings in the cross-lingual scenario in the future." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.651, + 0.662, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.675, + 0.882, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The authors declare no competing interests. The human behavioral data we use is publicly available and does not contain personal information of the subjects." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.751, + 0.682, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.903 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Shujian Huang is the corresponding author. We thank Yunzhe Lv and Wenhao Zhu for finetuning the Alpaca 13B model. This work is supported by National Science Foundation of China (No. 62376116, 62176120), the Liaoning Provincial Research Foundation for Basic Research (No. 2022-KF-26-02)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13050" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.107, + 0.489, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samira Abnar and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4190-4197, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.183, + 0.489, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakash Bansal, Bonita Sharif, and Collin McMillan. 2023. Towards modeling human attention from eye movements for neural source code summarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(ETRA):1-19." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.259, + 0.487, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.347, + 0.489, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2021. Model-based analysis of brain activity reveals the hierarchy of language in 305 subjects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06078." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.41, + 0.489, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2022. Deep language algorithms predict semantic comprehension from brain activity. Scientific Reports, 12(1):16327." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.472, + 0.489, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emmanuele Chersoni, Nora Hollenstein, Cassandra Jacobs, Yohei Oseki, Laurent Prévot, and Enrico Santus, editors. 2022. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.561, + 0.489, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with \\(90\\%\\) * chatgpt quality." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.65, + 0.489, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT's attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276-286, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.751, + 0.489, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, and Marta R. Costajussà. 2022. Measuring the Mixing of Contextual Information in the Transformer. In Proceedings of" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.107, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8698-8714, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.153, + 0.883, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2023. Explaining How Transformers Use Context to Build Predictions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5486-5513, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.259, + 0.883, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Uri Hasson, Samuel A. Nastase, and Ariel Goldstein. 2020. Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. *Neuron*, 105(3):416-434." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.325, + 0.883, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B. Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, Chris Hallacy, Benjamin Mann, Alec Radford, Aditya Ramesh, Nick Ryder, Daniel M. Ziegler, John Schulman, Dario Amodei, and Sam McCandlish. 2020. Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling. ArXiv:2010.14701 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.444, + 0.883, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joel Hestness, Sharan Narang, Newsha Ardalani, Gregory Diamos, Heewoo Jun, Hassan Kianinejad, Md Mostofa Ali Patwary, Yang Yang, and Yanqi Zhou. 2017. Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00409." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.523, + 0.883, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nora Hollenstein and Lisa Beinborn. 2021. Relative Importance in Sentence Processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 141-150, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.629, + 0.883, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3543-3556, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.734, + 0.883, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander JE Kell, Daniel LK Yamins, Erica N Shook, Sam V Norman-Haignere, and Josh H McDermott. 2018. A task-optimized neural network replicates human auditory behavior, predicts brain responses, and reveals a cortical processing hierarchy. Neuron, 98(3):630-644." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.827, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2020. Attention is Not Only a Weight: Analyzing Transformers with Vector Norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7057-7075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13051" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2021. Incorporating Residual and Normalization Layers into Analysis of Masked Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4547-4568, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.205, + 0.49, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.31, + 0.49, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mathis Lamarre, Catherine Chen, and Fatma Deniz. 2022. Attention weights accurately predict language representations in the brain. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4513-4529, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.403, + 0.489, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ping Li, Anya Yu, Benjamin Schloss, Chun-Ting Hsu, Lindsey Ma, Chih-Ting Chang, and Marissa Scotto. 2019. The reading brain project: An open science data-sharing initiative. In 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.482, + 0.489, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christopher D Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30046-30054." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.562, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Mareček and Rudolf Rosa. 2018. Extracting syntactic trees from transformer encoder self-attentions. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 347-349, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.655, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danny Merkx and Stefan L. Frank. 2021. Human sentence processing: Recurrence or attention? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, pages 12-22, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.734, + 0.49, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hosein Mohebbi, Willem Zuidema, Grzegorz Chrupa\\la, and Afra Alishahi. 2023. Quantifying Context Mixing in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3378-3400, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Morger, Stephanie Brandl, Lisa Beinborn, and Nora Hollenstein. 2022. A Cross-lingual Comparison of Human and Model Relative Word Importance. In Proceedings of the 2022 CLASP Conference on (Dis)embodiment, pages 11-23, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023a. Transformer-Based LM Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokens." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023b. Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:336-350." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.226, + 0.885, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.341, + 0.885, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.391, + 0.885, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformer-based machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 287-297, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.493, + 0.885, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M. Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. ArXiv:2110.08207 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.7, + 0.885, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2021. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(45):e2105646118." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.803, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is attention interpretable? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2931-2951, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ekta Sood, Simon Tannert, Philipp Müller, and Andreas Bulling. 2020. Improving natural language processing tasks with human gaze-guided neural attention." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13052" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6327-6341." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.122, + 0.489, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.198, + 0.489, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.287, + 0.489, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shikhar Vashisth, Shyam Upadhyay, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Manaal Faruqui. 2019. Attention interpretability across nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11218." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.349, + 0.489, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jesse Vig and Yonatan Belinkov. 2019. Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63-76, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.438, + 0.489, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5797-5808, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.54, + 0.489, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Titus von der Malsburg, Reinhold Kliegl, and Shravan Vasisith. 2015. Determinants of Scanpath Regularity in Reading. Cognitive Science, 39(7):1675-1703." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.589, + 0.489, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Titus von der Malsburg and Shravan Vasishth. 2013. Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10):1545-1578." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.652, + 0.489, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey J. Walczyk and Robert W. Taylor. 1996. How do the efficiencies of reading subcomponents relate to looking back in text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3):537-545." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.714, + 0.489, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions. ArXiv:2212.10560 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.79, + 0.489, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sarah Wiegrefe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 11-20, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.139, + 0.842, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Attention divergence on plain and noise-prefix text" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.18, + 0.884, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 10, the divergence between plain and noise-prefixed text of Alpaca and Vicuna is not significantly higher than LLaMA in most of the layers, which further supports our findings on the higher instruction sensitivity of instruction-tuned models." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.29, + 0.868, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.417, + 0.868, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.551, + 0.883, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Attention divergence on the original and noise-attached text of 7B and 13B models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.611, + 0.836, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Layerwise trivial pattern reliance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.636, + 0.884, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11 shows the layerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models, as well as the results for LLaMA 30B. The reliance keeps decreasing as the model size scales up, especially in the deeper layers." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.728, + 0.868, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Layers with significant changes in human resemblance after instruction tuning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.787, + 0.884, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6 shows the list of layers in 7B Alpaca and Vicuna with significant change in human resemblance after instruction tuning compared with LLaMA, and Table 7 shows the list in 13B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.862, + 0.768, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Preliminary fMRI results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Some preliminary analysis on the fMRI data in the Reading Brain dataset is done, and the results com" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13053" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.087, + 0.472, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.215, + 0.472, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.342, + 0.472, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.469, + 0.472, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.603, + 0.488, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Lyerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models. \"RB\" stands for \"Reading Brain\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.661, + 0.489, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ply with our findings on saccade data. We investigate several linguistics-related brain regions, and find that the highest correlation of fMRI signals to model attention are from the anterior left temporal gyrus (Figure 12). The fMRI data from this region is pre-processed into matrix forms as saccade data. Figure 14 gives examples of individual and group mean fMRI matrices." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The findings are: (1) The models' NTP loss significantly \\((p < 0.02\\) for both L1 and L2) and strongly negatively \\((r = -0.777\\) for L1, \\(r = -0.796\\) for L2) correlates with fMRI resemblance (Figure 13); (2) The models' highest layerwise fMRI resemblance significantly \\((r > 0.99\\), \\(p < 0.001\\) for both L1 and L2) correlates with the model scale in logarithm (Figure 15, 16); (3) While scal" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.081, + 0.845, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL12, 5, 712, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30
L22, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 21, 273, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30
LowerL14, 10, 23, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 20, 31
L20, 10, 14, 19, 23, 28, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 20, 31
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.262, + 0.883, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 7B." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.317, + 0.849, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL116, 32, 33, 364, 16, 27, 33, 36
L21, 16, 19, 27, 32, 33, 364, 16, 19, 23, 27, 33, 36, 37
LowerL10, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30, 35, 390, 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 24, 30, 34, 39
L20, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 390, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 30
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.581, + 0.884, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 13B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.65, + 0.883, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing enhances human fMRI resemblance, instruction tuning does not (Table 8); (4) Resemblance to L2 fMRI is consistently higher than that to L1." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13054" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.101, + 0.388, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.202, + 0.489, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: An illustration of the anterior left temporal gyrus in the human brain." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.272, + 0.475, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.418, + 0.49, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 13: The correlation between per-token negative log likelihood loss and max layerwise fMRI resemblance of the LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.496, + 0.425, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA11.0215.45
Alpaca10.9915.61
Vicuna11.3515.44
13BLLaMA14.6920.19
Alpaca14.6719.44
Vicuna14.0218.57
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.606, + 0.489, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Max layerwise human fMRI resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layerwise human resemblance." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.705, + 0.296, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.834, + 0.252, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Individual" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.306, + 0.706, + 0.481, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.834, + 0.444, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Group Mean" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.858, + 0.489, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 14: Examples of individual and group mean fMRI signals of the sentence \"Could humans live on Mars some day?\"" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.173, + 0.871, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.301, + 0.871, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.436, + 0.885, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 15: Layerwise L1 and L2 human fMRI resemblance for different sized pretrained models." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.654, + 0.871, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.799, + 0.883, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 16: The change of max layerwise human fMRI resemblance caused by scaling. The x-axis is log scaled." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13055" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_origin.pdf b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb7487d4a1694ce06f4e8db79d34ad3e14b731b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/4d81e6a0-662e-4a1d-8420-5bca7d9f2692_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2c728f693932cda7c5a0ca93de291fb8662f02fa131e33a9c22961914d62169d +size 3516051 diff --git a/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/full.md b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7358d02e13726d4565819c7e9b573d9b9b6de53 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,420 @@ +# Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception: Model vs. Human Attention + +Changjiang Gao1 Shujian Huang1* Jixing Li2 Jiajun Chen1 + +$^{1}$ National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University + +$^{2}$ Department of Linguistics and Translation, City University of Hong Kong gaocj@smail.nju.edu.cn {huangsj, chenjj}@nju.edu.cn + +jixingli@cityu.edu.hk + +# Abstract + +Recent large language models (LLMs) have revealed strong abilities to understand natural language. Since most of them share the same basic structure, i.e. the transformer block, possible contributors to their success in the training process are scaling and instruction tuning. However, how these factors affect the models' language perception is unclear. This work compares the self-attention of several existing LLMs (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna) in different sizes (7B, 13B, 30B, 65B), together with eye saccade, an aspect of human reading attention, to assess the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on language perception. Results show that scaling enhances the human resemblance and improves the effective attention by reducing the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does not. However, instruction tuning significantly enhances the models' sensitivity to instructions. We also find that current LLMs are consistently closer to non-native than native speakers in attention, suggesting a suboptimal language perception of all models. Our code and data used in the analysis is available on GitHub. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, ChatGPT and Vicuna, have shown nearly human-level understanding of text inputs, indicating better human-like language perception compared with their predecessors such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). However, the mechanism behind such improvement is largely unknown. One way to interpret such mechanism is comparing model computation processes to human data. For example, prior work compared language models (mainly GPT-2) with human neuroimaging data during language comprehension, suggesting that models with higher human resemblance also perform better in NLP tasks. (Hasson + +et al., 2020; Schrimpf et al., 2021). However, given recent breakthroughs in LLMs, it remains to be tested whether the newest LLMs still align with human perception data. Based on the training pipeline of current LLMs, there are two possible sources for the potential change: the scaled model/data size and the aligning process after pretraining, such as instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). This paper aims to provide a further understanding of LLMs' mechanism by investigating the roles of these two factors in language understanding. + +In this paper, we analyze self-attention as a channel to the language perception ability of LLMs, because it is the key mechanism of transformer language models, and it naturally resembles the human attention mechanism in language perceiving (Merkx and Frank, 2021). The attention patterns under investigation includes those from trending open-sourced LLMs with different sizes, i.e., 7B, 13B, 30B, 65B, and different training stages, i.e., pretrained (LLaMA) and instruction-tuned (Alpaca and Vicuna) models. Given these models are all trained mainly with English data, we also compare the attention patterns of LLMs with human saccade (a form of eye-movement) data, including both native speakers (L1) and non-native learners (L2) of English (Li et al., 2019) to see if the models correlates more with L1 subjects. + +Our analysis is three-fold. First, we compare the general attention distributions of LLMs to measure the impact of these two varying factors on the model ( $\S 3.1$ ). Second, we perform linear regressions (LRs) between the model self-attention and human saccade matrices to see how human-like they are, and how the resemblance is affected by the two factors ( $\S 3.2$ ). Third, we analyze the relation between the given attention and some trivial patterns, revealing the difference between different levels of language perception abilities ( $\S 3.3$ ). The main findings are: + +- Scaling significantly affects the general attention distribution on plain text, while instruction tuning has limited effect. However, instruction tuning enhances the model's sensitivity to instructions (§5.1). +- Higher human resemblance is significantly correlated to better language modeling. Scaling improves the resemblance by scaling law (Henighan et al., 2020), while instruction tuning reduces it. All models have higher resemblance to L2 rather than to L1, suggesting further room for the improvement in language perception (§5.2). +- L2 saccade has higher dependency on trivial attention patterns than L1, indicating a more rigid way of perception. Scaling significantly lowers LLMs' reliance on trivial attention patterns, while instruction tuning does not (§5.3). + +# 2 Related Work + +Self-attention analysis is a common way to interpret transformer models. Several studies has shown that it is correlated to linguistic information, such as syntactic or semantic structures (Mareček and Rosa, 2018; Raganato and Tiedemann, 2018; Voita et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2019). There are also some attempts and debates to explain the models' prediction with attention (Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wegreffe and Pinter, 2019; Serrano and Smith, 2019; Vashisth et al., 2019). Different from them, we use self-attention patterns as a measurement of the language perception abilities of LLMs. Also, some new ways to interpret model self-attention have been proposed, such as Attention Flow (Abnar and Zuidema, 2020), vector norm (Kobayashi et al., 2020, 2021), ALTI (Ferrando et al., 2022), Value Zeroing (Mohebbi et al., 2023), and logit analysis (Ferrando et al., 2023). These methods can raise the interpretability of model attention w.r.t. linguistic structural information, but are not tested with human eye-tracking data. Also, some of them suffer from huge computational cost. Instead, we choose to use the raw attention scores, as it is produced in the models' original computational processes, and they already correlate the human data, demonstrating their interpretability. + +Instruction tuned LLMs achieve better performances in performing tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). It seems that the + +LLMs are better at understanding human instructions. However, there is little discussion on how the instruction tuning process affects the language perception. + +Eye-movement in the human reading process has drawn attention in the computational linguistic field. It is proposed that scanpaths, i.e. tracks of eye-movement, reveals characteristics of the parsing processes and relates to working memory during reading (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the irregularity of scanpaths is affected by sentence structures and age (von der Malsburg et al., 2015). Such work provides theoretical ground for our analysis on saccade data. + +Joint study of language models and human eye-movement is also receiving growing interest. Prior studies have shown the correlation between language processing of human and artificial neural networks (Kell et al., 2018), especially pretrained language models such as GPT-2 (Caucheteux et al., 2021, 2022; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Lamarre et al., 2022). Especially, Oh and Schuler (2023a,b) explored the fit of model surprisal to human reading times, noting the effect of models' sequential memorization and dataset size. Hollenstein and Beinborn (2021) studied the correlation between relative word importance derived from models and humans, and Morger et al. (2022) extended that research to a multilingual setting, as well as analysis on model attention. Some studies also use human attention as supervision to assist specific tasks (Sood et al., 2020; Bansal et al., 2023), or use sequential models to predict eye-tracking data (Chersoni et al., 2022). Different from them, we use human attention as references for the language perception abilities. + +# 3 Methods + +To show the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on different models, we compare the self-attention scores of different LLMs given the same input, by viewing model attention as probability distributions and calculating the general attention divergence based on Jensen-Shannon divergence. + +To analyze model self-attention, we take the human saccade as a reference, and design a human resemblance metric based on linear regression scores. + +In addition, we select several trivial, context-free attention patterns, and design a trivial pattern reliance metric to help demonstrate the difference + +between models and human subject groups. + +# 3.1 General Attention Divergence + +We assess the mean Jensen-Shannon (J-S) divergence between attention from different models on all sentences. For two attention matrices $A$ , $B \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{word}} \times n_{\mathrm{word}}}$ , the J-S divergence is: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} D _ {\mathrm {J S}} (A, B) = \frac {1}{2} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {\text {w o r d}}} \left[ D _ {\mathrm {K L}} \left(A _ {i} \| B _ {i}\right) \right. \\ + D _ {\mathrm {K L}} \left(B _ {i} \| A _ {i}\right) ] \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $D_{\mathrm{KL}}$ is the Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence, $A_{i}$ and $B_{i}$ are the $i$ -th rows in the two matrices. Note the attention matrices are re-normalized to keep the sum of every row to 1.0. We calculate the J-S divergence between heads-averaged attention scores per sentence, and demonstrate the mean values. For models with the same number of layers, the divergence is calculated layerwise; For models with different numbers of layers, we divide their layers into four quarters and calculate the divergence quarter-wise. + +To identify high and low divergence, a reference value is required. We propose to use the attention divergence between two models that share the same structure, size, and training data, but have small difference in training strategies as the reference. A divergence value higher than the reference suggests relatively large change attention, while one lower than that indicates small (but not necessarily negligible) change. + +Divergence by Scaling and Instruction Tuning Models with different scales or training stages are compared with the above divergence to show the effect of different factors. + +Sensitivity to Instructions To evaluate the effect of instruction tuning, we measure a given model's sensitivity to instructions by the same general attention divergence metric, but on different input, i.e., plain input and input with instructions. If the divergence between them is significantly higher than reference, we say the model has high sensitivity to instructions. + +To construct instructed text, we attach two prefixes to plain text sentences: "Please translate this sentence into German:", and "Please paraphrase this sentence":". They are within the reported capacity of most LLMs, and require no extra information to follow. Then, we collect model attention on + +the two corpora within the original sentence spans (re-normalized) to represent non-instruction and instruction scenarios. Also, as a control group, we attached a noise prefix made of 5 randomly sampled English words "Cigarette first steel convenience champion.", and calculate the divergence between prefixed and plain text to account for the effect of a meaningless prefix. + +# 3.2 Human Resemblance + +# 3.2.1 Human Resemblance Calculation + +Given the model self-attention and the human saccade data in matrix form for each sentence, we first extract the lower-triangle parts of the matrices (marking right-to-left attendance), because prior studies have found that such eye-movements in reading are related to working memory efficiency (Walczyk and Taylor, 1996) and parsing strategies (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the auto-regressive LLMs only have right-to-left self-attention. Then, we flatten the extracted parts of each sentence attention matrix, and concatenate them to get attention vectors $\{v_{\mathrm{human}}^i\}$ for each subject $i$ , and $\{v_{\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\}$ for head $k$ in model layer $j$ . We then stack $\{v_{\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\}$ along the attention heads and get a matrix $\{V_{\mathrm{model}}^j\}$ for the $j$ -th layer. The LR for model layer $j$ and subject $i$ is defined as: + +$$ +\arg \min _ {w, b} \left\| V _ {\mathrm {m o d e l}} ^ {j \top} w + b - v _ {\mathrm {h u m a n}} ^ {i} \right\| _ {2} ^ {2} +$$ + +This means we take the linear combination of attention scores from all heads in a layer to predict the human saccade. Note that the model attention here are not re-normalized, in order to preserve the relative weight w.r.t. the $$ token. The regression scores $R_{i,j}^{2}$ (ranging from 0 to 1, larger value means better regression) are averaged over subjects to represent the human resemblance of layer $j$ , and the highest layer score is considered as the regression score of the whole model, $R_{\mathrm{model}}^{2}$ . + +Because the human saccade pattern varies across individuals, there exists a natural upper bound for human resemblance of models, i.e., the human-human resemblance, or the inter-subject correlation. To calculate this correlation within the two language groups, L1 and L2, we take the group mean to regress over each individual data independently, and use the average regression score $R_{\mathrm{inter}}^2$ as the inter-subject correlation for that group. The final human resemblance score is $R_{\mathrm{model}}^2 / R_{\mathrm{inter}}^2$ , ranging from 0 to 100%. + +# 3.2.2 Human Resemblance vs. Next-Token Prediction + +A previous study finds a positive correlation between the next-token predication (NTP) performance and the "Brain Score" of neural networks (Schrimpf et al., 2021), which supports the intuition that the more human-like models are, the better generation they output. To test this finding in our setting, we calculated the per-token prediction loss (the negative log likelihood loss normalized by sequence lengths) of the models employed in this study on the Reading Brain dataset, and calculate the Pearson's Correlation between their prediction loss and max layerwise human resemblance scores. + +# 3.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance + +# 3.3.1 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Models + +We select three representative trivial patterns of transformer attention: attending to the first word in the sentence, attending to the previous word (Vig and Belinkov, 2019), and self-attending (Clark et al., 2019), and analyze the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on models' reliance on them. + +First, we represent the trivial patterns as binary adjacent matrices, where attending relations are marked with 1, others with 0, and use their flattened lower-triangle parts as the independent variables. The model attention is similarly processed to be the dependent variables. Then, an LR is fit between the two, and the regression scores are collected to represent the trivial pattern reliance of each model layer. + +# 3.3.2 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Humans + +This research compares the models' resemblance to L1 and L2 humans because intuitively, L1 is better than L2 in language understanding. To test this intuition, we compare their reliance on the three trivial patterns to see whether their attention mode differs. Similar to model attention, the flattened human saccade vectors are used as the dependent variable to fit the LRs with the trivial patterns. + +# 4 Experiment Settings + +# 4.1 Data + +We use the Reading Brain dataset (Li et al., 2019) for both the text input and the human data. The dataset includes 5 English STEM articles. Each article has $29.6 \pm 0.68$ sentences of $10.33 \pm 0.15$ words. It also includes human eye-tracking and fMRI data recorded synchronously during self-paced reading + +![](images/72af1df936c3ae4afd689692a37f326c1690dfeaa2151877027d8fb5cc2d467c.jpg) +(a) Individual +Figure 1: Examples of individual and group mean saccade of the sentence "Could humans live on Mars some day?" + +![](images/00e40331f9f9f846d20f3c9cd578170c07c200d1400a103ffaf58bb6603b4d7c.jpg) +(b) Group Mean + +on the articles. The human subjects are 52 native English speakers (L1) and 56 non-native learners of English (L2). We choose this dataset for the following reasons: (1) The text is presented to the subjects sentence by sentence instead of page by page, making in-sentence reading patterns clearer. (2) It has synchronous eye-tracking and fMRI data, which allows both behavioral- and neural-level analysis. In this article we mainly focus on the behavioral part, but we also have some preliminary results on the fMRI analysis (See Appendix D). + +We take the saccade number, i.e. times of eye movements from a word to another, instead of saccade duration, to represent the human reading attention, because this reduces the effect of other factors such as word length. The saccade data of a human subject for a given sentence is a $n_{\mathrm{word}} \times n_{\mathrm{word}}$ matrix. Figure 1 gives examples of individual and group mean saccades. + +# 4.2 LLMs + +We employ LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and its instruction-tuned versions, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) in this research. We use them because: (1) The model sizes and different instruction-tuning methods covers the majority of current open-sourced LLMs. (2) These models are being widely used and customized globally. Thus, analysis on them is representative and meaningful. + +LLaMA is a series of pretrained causal language models with parameter sizes 7B, 13B, 30B and 65B, trained on over 1T publicly available text tokens, and reaches state-of-the-art on most LLM benchmarks (Touvron et al., 2023). The training corpus is mainly English. We use all 4 sizes of LLaMA, which covers the sizes of most current + +open-sourced LLMs. We also use the 774M GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) to represent smaller pretrained models in the scaling analysis. + +Alpaca is fine-tuned from the 7B LLaMA model on 52K English instruction-following demonstrations generated by GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) using self-instruct (Wang et al., 2023). To analyze the effect of scaling, we also trained a 13B version of Alpaca using the official data and training strategy of Alpaca. Our 13B Alpaca model scores 43.9 and 46.0 on the MMLU dataset in zero-shot and one-shot setting respectively, proving the soundness of our fine-tuning. (The corresponding scores are 40.9 and 39.2 for the official Alpaca 7B model.) + +Vicuna models are fine-tuned from the 7B and 13B LLaMA models on 70K user-shared conversations with ChatGPT. The data contains instruction and in-context learning samples in multiple languages, thus the Vicuna models can also be viewed as instruction-tuned. + +# 4.3 LLMs Attention Collection + +To obtain model attention, text is provided to the models sentence by sentence to perform next token predict, and we collect the attention tensors in each layer. This resembles the human self-paced task-free reading process, where only one sentence is visible at a time to the subjects, and the natural human behavior is to predict the next word (Kell et al., 2018; Schrimpf et al., 2021). + +Because models use the SentencePiece tokenization (Kudo and Richardson, 2018), but the human saccade data is recorded in words, the attention matrices need to be reshaped. Following Clark et al. (2019) and Manning et al. (2020), we take the sum over the "to" tokens, and the average over the "from" tokens in a split word. Also, the $$ token is dropped as it is not presented to human subjects. + +Reference of Divergence We use the attention divergence of Vicuna v0 and Vicuna v1.1 13B as the reference values. The two versions share the same training data and strategy, but have minor difference in separators and loss computation2. We use the divergence calculated on 13B Vicunas across all divergence analyses, because it has lower mean and variance than the 7B one, making our comparison fairer and stricter. + +# 5 Results + +![](images/ec644743c14c8077c18e304cd43e115de1a02fc57935327bff3bdeb62939a0c4.jpg) +Figure 2: Mean J-S divergence between 7B and 13B model attention in each layer quarter, measured on non-instruction sentences. + +# 5.1 General Attention Divergence + +# 5.1.1 Scaling Significantly Changes the General Attention + +The general attention divergence between models in different sizes is shown in Figure 2. The results show that LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all reveal divergence significantly higher than the reference values when scaled from 7B to 13B. This means scaling causes large change in the overall attention distribution. + +# 5.1.2 Instruction Tuning Has Limited Effect on General Attention + +The general attention divergence between pretrained and instruction tuned models is shown in Figure 3. It can be observed that only Vicuna 13B brings divergence above the reference values, while all the others don't. The same result can also be observed on instruction-prefixed sentences. This suggests that instruction tuning can only bring limited change to the models' general attention distribution. This can also be verified by other results in the following parts. + +# 5.1.3 Instruction Tuning Enhances Sensitivity to Instructions + +The divergence between the models' attention obtained on the original and instruction-attached sentences are shown in Figure 4. There are two major observations. Firstly, LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all show divergence significantly above the reference values between the two types of sentences, especially in the shallower layers, which means they all have sensitivity to instructions. Secondly, while the divergence of LLaMA drops in the deeper layers, the divergence of Alpaca and Vicuna does + +![](images/fc5d47d7c18de76657c2fc72e97c7d6618092e97df812d52e938b4fa7a26142e.jpg) + +![](images/85a93c8b9a28b689b6faa748f92743d88ed79f05e4da2930be71c7e7b557f76e.jpg) +Figure 3: General attention divergence between pretrained and instruction-tuned models in 7B and 13B, measured on non-instruction sentences. + +not go down, but rather up, suggesting higher sensitivity to instructions in the deeper layers. This effect is not observed in the noise-prefixed scenario (See Appendix A). + +From these two observations, we can conclude that the pretrained LLaMA has already obtained some sensitivity to instructions, i.e. to change its attention mode when it meets instructions, and this sensitivity is further strengthened by instruction tuning, which makes this sensitivity higher in the deeper layers. Because in causal language models like LLaMA, the last few layers are related to generation, this effect of instruction tuning may bring more suitable generation for a certain instruction. + +# 5.2 Human Resemblance + +# 5.2.1 Higher Human Resemblance, Lower Prediction Loss + +The per-token NTP loss and the maximum layerwise human resemblance scores are compared in Table 1 and Figure 5. One can tell from it that, within the considered range of parameter sizes, the human resemblance is negatively correlated with the NTP loss, where the resemblance goes higher nearly linearly with the loss going lower. The Pearson's correlation is $-0.875$ for L1 ( $p < 0.002$ ) and $-0.917$ for L2 ( $p < 0.0005$ ), supporting a significant and strong negative linear correlation. + +This result shows that, the human resemblance we defined is positively related to the language modeling performance of the LLMs considered in + +![](images/1f008220a318e85eb96f9974abe4cb35e28cfcd3055c85a6548958ea60eda23d.jpg) + +![](images/f76cbc30a5588ac8a4301ce3303f98d0edd580660d4ba45a0c94f8532c70bab8.jpg) +Figure 4: Attention divergence on the original and instruction-attached text of 7B and 13B models. + +this research, giving a practical meaning to our human resemblance analysis. Also, based on this result, we know the pursuit for higher human resemblance is consistent with the target of training better LLMs. Similarly, factors negatively impacting the human resemblance could also harm the models' language modeling performance, such as instruction tuning brings lower human resemblance as well as higher NTP loss. + +
SizeNameLossL1(%)L2(%)
774MGPT-20.326434.9940.03
7BLLaMA0.240853.0462.44
Alpaca0.264652.5161.71
Vicuna0.259351.9061.19
13BLLaMA0.240655.6664.20
Alpaca0.263455.0564.46
Vicuna0.284754.2661.31
30BLLaMA0.237263.1669.40
65BLLaMA0.237564.0570.07
+ +Table 1: Comparison between NTP loss and the human resemblance scores + +# 5.2.2 Scaling Enhances Human Resemblance + +The layerwise human resemblance of pretrained models in different scales are shown in Figure 6, where the LLaMAs are very different from GPT-2 Large in two ways. First, the layerwise human resemblance of the LLaMAs are much higher than GPT-2, but the gaps among the LLaMAs are small; Second, human resemblance of GPT-2 drop quickly in the deeper layers, while it remains high across all layers in the LLaMAs. one can refer from these + +![](images/ea819d17b6d953235351d5a73b5a5b7e65ce7a5938cf23f98cd7b2ffcce21a37.jpg) +Figure 5: The correlation between the per-token negative log likelihood loss and the max layerwise human resemblance of LLMs. + +results that LLaMA has undergone a phase change in terms of human-like attention from the level of GPT-2. However, the scaling from 7B to 30B does not cause another phase change. + +Table 2 and Figure 7 show the max layerwise human resemblance increases linearly while the model parameter size increases exponentially, where the Pearson's correlation is 0.989 for L1 $(p < 0.002)$ and 0.964 for L2 $(p < 0.01)$ . This agrees with the scaling law of LLMs (Henighan et al., 2020). + +This result shows that, within the scope of this study, scaling significantly enhances the human resemblance. If the scaling law continues to take effect, the human resemblance is expected to reach $98.80\%$ for L2 and $88.82\%$ for L1 at the scale of 100B. However, because the law is expected to fail after reaching a threshold (Hestness et al., 2017), the relation between human resemblance and model scale is expected to change before reaching that scale. + +
ModelResemblance (%)
NameSizeL1L2
GPT-2774M34.9940.03
7B53.0462.44
LLaMA13B55.5664.20
30B63.1669.40
65B64.0570.07
+ +Table 2: Max layerwise human resemblance of models ranging from 774M to 65B. + +# 5.2.3 Instruction Tuning Harms Human Resemblance + +Table 3 shows the max layerwise human resemblance of the pretrained and instruction tuned models. It shows that the instruction tuned Alpaca and Vicuna models have lower max layerwise human resemblance to both L1 and L2 than LLaMA in + +![](images/1616780722649fc2e8bd4012e111df8abb9d9fbd88f15d3c1b25f44acaaab699.jpg) + +![](images/37368eb43a0304641eb4bde8759e4bf745ad410b101965746d6be748aa6b7ea1.jpg) +Figure 6: Layerwise L1 and L2 human resemblance for different sized pretrained models. + +![](images/422fa9644ff1b557cfbe55e417d82fbf8846d43f61e00df97e26a8bb9394c59b.jpg) +Figure 7: The change of max layerwise human resemblance caused by the scaling of model sizes, where the x-axis is log scaled. + +both sizes, which suggests that instruction tuning causes decline in the human resemblance of attention. However, the decline is minor compared with the increase brought by scaling, which agrees with the limited effect of instruction tuning. + +We also conduct relative t-tests to detect significant difference in layerwise human resemblance $(p = 0.05 / n_{\mathrm{test}})$ . The numbers of significant layers are shown in Table 4, and the complete lists of layers are in Table 6, 7 in Appendix C). The tables show that instruction tuning enhances or reduces human resemblance on about the equal numbers of layers on the 7B models, but reduces human resemblance to much more layers on the 13B models. Also, the layers with significantly lower resemblance are distributed across all layers. This result means that, while the total effect of instruction tuning is small, the drop in human resemblance caused by it is significant and widespread. + +To sum up, instruction tuning does small but significant harm to the human resemblance of LLMs, which in turn may bring potential damage to their language perception. This challenges the common assumption that instruction tuning can activate the model's ability to perceive language with human-aligned behaviors. However, this negative effect could be compensated by scaling, for scaling increases the human resemblance in a larger degree. This provides a novel reason for further scaling. + +
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA53.0462.44
Alpaca52.5161.71
Vicuna51.9061.19
13BLLaMA55.6664.20
Alpaca55.0563.46
Vicuna54.2661.31
+ +Table 3: Max layerwise human resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layer-wise human resemblance. + +
ModelHigherLower
SizeNameL1L2L1L2
7BAlpaca3847
Vicuna91089
13BAlpaca471625
Vicuna581416
+ +# 5.2.4 All Models Show Higher L2 Resemblance + +Comparing the L1 and L2 human resemblance of all models (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna, 7B and 13B) in Table 2 and Table 3, an advantage of L2 over L1 can be observed steadily. Independent t-test also shows that, all models considered in this research show significantly higher resemblance to L2 than to L1 ( $p = 0.05 / n_{\mathrm{test}}$ to avoid false positives). This means the models are closer to non-native English learners than to native English speakers in attention, though they are all trained mainly on English data. Furthermore, this trend is not reversed by the scaling or instruction tuning within the scope of this research, which suggests that it is a innate feature of LLMs. We will look further into this phenomenon in the next section. + +# 5.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance + +# 5.3.1 L2 Relies More on Trivial Patterns + +The results of LR scores between trivial patterns and L1 and L2 human saccade is shown in Table 5, where L2's score is higher than L1's in minimum, maximum and mean values. Independent t-test also supports a significant advantage of L2 over L1 on the regression scores $(p < 5 \times 10^{-8})$ . This means one significant difference between L1 and L2 English speakers is that L2 people show more trivial and fixed attention mode than L1 people while reading, which suggests a weaker language understanding ability as those patterns contain no linguistic or factual information. + +This finding can help us interpret the difference between the models' L1 and L2 human resemblance. Note that all models considered in this research are trained mainly on English, but show higher attention resemblance to L2 subjects, this result suggests that their language perception is not ideal. + +Table 4: Numbers of Alpaca and Vicuna layers with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in the same sizes. + +
GroupMinMaxMeanSE
L10.00480.15250.04730.0037
L20.01340.21650.08940.0060
+ +Table 5: Regression scores of human saccade on the trivial patterns, across L1 and L2 subjects. SE stands for standard errors. + +# 5.3.2 Scaling Reduces Trivial Pattern Reliance + +The relative difference between 13B and 7B models in trivial pattern reliance is shown in Figure 8, where the decline in the deeper layer quarters is substantial across all models. There is also a consistent increase in the second quarter, but the amplitude is small, so the total trivial pattern reliance is reduced. This phenomenon is also observed between LLaMA 13B and 30B (Figure 11 in Appendix B). This means scaling can effectively reduce the trivial pattern reliance, especially in the deeper layers, indicating a more contextualized and adaptive language perception. + +# 5.3.3 Instruction Tuning Increases Trivial Pattern Reliance + +Figure 9 shows the relative difference between pretrained and instruction tuned models in trivial pattern reliance, where the tuned ones show reliance gain in the deeper layers. There is also a small drop in the second quarter, but the total trivial pattern reliance is increasing. Also, total increase here is + +![](images/84748b7f55f7fdaea4e031031566ffb84d5ba054996d35d7c775213b9e606b90.jpg) +Figure 8: The difference between trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B model attention. + +also smaller in amplitude than the reduction caused by scaling, again supporting the limit effect of instruction tuning. + +Also, one can tell from Figure 8 and Figure 9 that scaling and instruction tuning changes the trivial pattern reliance in opposite directions. However, because the effect of instruction tuning is also smaller than that of scaling, as long as the model size continues to grow, this gain in trivial pattern reliance brought by instruction tuning could be compensated or even covered, offering another reason for further scaling. + +![](images/2ff27b9802e5b1274efa0fbe3d7d72a0c686dd78e360414feadcbe4bb61bfe6d.jpg) +Figure 9: The difference in trivial pattern reliance of attentions in pretrained and instruction-tuned models. + +# 6 Conclusion + +This research evaluates the effects of scaling and instruction tuning on LLMs' attention. We find that scaling effectively changes the general attention distribution, enhances the human resemblance, and reduces the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does the opposite, but also increases the models' sensitivity to instructions. Furthermore, we find current open-sourced LLMs closer to non-native English speakers in language perception, which contains more trivial attention patterns. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to analyze the effect of instruction tuning on the human resemblance of model attention. We hope this can inspire future work on analyzing LLMs. + +# Limitations + +One key limitation of this study is that we cannot apply our current method to closed-sourced LLMs such as ChatGPT, for their layerwise attention scores are unavailable. With the rapid development of open LLMs, it is hopeful that we can examine these findings on the largest and most advanced LLMs in the near future. + +Besides, though we demonstrate the difference in LLMs' resemblance to L1 and L2 people, and partially explained the effect by trivial pattern reliance, it is not enough to explain the underlying cause or consequences of this phenomenon. We do have some observations, such as the inter-subject correlation in the L1 group $(0.1560 \pm 0.0073)$ is lower than L2 $(0.2463 \pm 0.0090)$ , and L1 subjects tend to look back to pervious words less frequently than L2 subjects. However, the underlying mechanism is still unclear. We hope to dive deeper into this non-native resemblance in our following study. + +Another limitation of this work comes from the way we obtain model attention. We used the attention scores when predicting the next single token, which makes sense. However, the attention patterns could be different in the following decoding steps. Also, it is possible that combining attention scores across multiple layers can improve the analysis. We will investigate this in our future work. + +In addition, the Reading Brain dataset we used in this research is monolingual, which does not reflect the language perception process in the cross-lingual setting, which is also important for the application of LLMs. We also hope to examine our findings in the cross-lingual scenario in the future. + +# Ethics Statement + +The authors declare no competing interests. The human behavioral data we use is publicly available and does not contain personal information of the subjects. + +# Acknowledgements + +We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Shujian Huang is the corresponding author. We thank Yunzhe Lv and Wenhao Zhu for finetuning the Alpaca 13B model. This work is supported by National Science Foundation of China (No. 62376116, 62176120), the Liaoning Provincial Research Foundation for Basic Research (No. 2022-KF-26-02). + +# References + +Samira Abnar and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4190-4197, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aakash Bansal, Bonita Sharif, and Collin McMillan. 2023. Towards modeling human attention from eye movements for neural source code summarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(ETRA):1-19. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2021. Model-based analysis of brain activity reveals the hierarchy of language in 305 subjects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06078. +Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2022. Deep language algorithms predict semantic comprehension from brain activity. Scientific Reports, 12(1):16327. +Emmanuele Chersoni, Nora Hollenstein, Cassandra Jacobs, Yohei Oseki, Laurent Prévot, and Enrico Santus, editors. 2022. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland. +Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\%$ * chatgpt quality. +Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT's attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276-286, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, and Marta R. Costajussà. 2022. Measuring the Mixing of Contextual Information in the Transformer. In Proceedings of + +the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8698-8714, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2023. Explaining How Transformers Use Context to Build Predictions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5486-5513, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Uri Hasson, Samuel A. Nastase, and Ariel Goldstein. 2020. Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. *Neuron*, 105(3):416-434. +Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B. Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, Chris Hallacy, Benjamin Mann, Alec Radford, Aditya Ramesh, Nick Ryder, Daniel M. Ziegler, John Schulman, Dario Amodei, and Sam McCandlish. 2020. Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling. ArXiv:2010.14701 [cs]. +Joel Hestness, Sharan Narang, Newsha Ardalani, Gregory Diamos, Heewoo Jun, Hassan Kianinejad, Md Mostofa Ali Patwary, Yang Yang, and Yanqi Zhou. 2017. Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00409. +Nora Hollenstein and Lisa Beinborn. 2021. Relative Importance in Sentence Processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 141-150, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3543-3556, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alexander JE Kell, Daniel LK Yamins, Erica N Shook, Sam V Norman-Haignere, and Josh H McDermott. 2018. A task-optimized neural network replicates human auditory behavior, predicts brain responses, and reveals a cortical processing hierarchy. Neuron, 98(3):630-644. +Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2020. Attention is Not Only a Weight: Analyzing Transformers with Vector Norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7057-7075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2021. Incorporating Residual and Normalization Layers into Analysis of Masked Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4547-4568, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mathis Lamarre, Catherine Chen, and Fatma Deniz. 2022. Attention weights accurately predict language representations in the brain. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4513-4529, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ping Li, Anya Yu, Benjamin Schloss, Chun-Ting Hsu, Lindsey Ma, Chih-Ting Chang, and Marissa Scotto. 2019. The reading brain project: An open science data-sharing initiative. In 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society. +Christopher D Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30046-30054. +David Mareček and Rudolf Rosa. 2018. Extracting syntactic trees from transformer encoder self-attentions. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 347-349, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Danny Merkx and Stefan L. Frank. 2021. Human sentence processing: Recurrence or attention? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, pages 12-22, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hosein Mohebbi, Willem Zuidema, Grzegorz Chrupa\la, and Afra Alishahi. 2023. Quantifying Context Mixing in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3378-3400, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Felix Morger, Stephanie Brandl, Lisa Beinborn, and Nora Hollenstein. 2022. A Cross-lingual Comparison of Human and Model Relative Word Importance. In Proceedings of the 2022 CLASP Conference on (Dis)embodiment, pages 11-23, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023a. Transformer-Based LM Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokens. +Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023b. Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:336-350. +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs]. +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners. +Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformer-based machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 287-297, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M. Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. ArXiv:2110.08207 [cs]. +Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2021. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(45):e2105646118. +Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is attention interpretable? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2931-2951, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ekta Sood, Simon Tannert, Philipp Müller, and Andreas Bulling. 2020. Improving natural language processing tasks with human gaze-guided neural attention. + +Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6327-6341. + +Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. + +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. + +Shikhar Vashisth, Shyam Upadhyay, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Manaal Faruqui. 2019. Attention interpretability across nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11218. + +Jesse Vig and Yonatan Belinkov. 2019. Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63-76, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5797-5808, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Titus von der Malsburg, Reinhold Kliegl, and Shravan Vasisith. 2015. Determinants of Scanpath Regularity in Reading. Cognitive Science, 39(7):1675-1703. + +Titus von der Malsburg and Shravan Vasishth. 2013. Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10):1545-1578. + +Jeffrey J. Walczyk and Robert W. Taylor. 1996. How do the efficiencies of reading subcomponents relate to looking back in text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3):537-545. + +Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions. ArXiv:2212.10560 [cs]. + +Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations. + +Sarah Wiegrefe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference + +on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 11-20, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Attention divergence on plain and noise-prefix text + +As shown in Figure 10, the divergence between plain and noise-prefixed text of Alpaca and Vicuna is not significantly higher than LLaMA in most of the layers, which further supports our findings on the higher instruction sensitivity of instruction-tuned models. + +![](images/7d361eaa7e2230b259f47c0ed24a4ab897787020979f47f9ce6be3b4a8349f08.jpg) + +![](images/ac4cc8bc037770a46c7e04cf00ef0adbaf0b2bc35b90d9bec9e403f3150e4f17.jpg) +Figure 10: Attention divergence on the original and noise-attached text of 7B and 13B models. + +# B Layerwise trivial pattern reliance + +Figure 11 shows the layerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models, as well as the results for LLaMA 30B. The reliance keeps decreasing as the model size scales up, especially in the deeper layers. + +# C Layers with significant changes in human resemblance after instruction tuning + +Table 6 shows the list of layers in 7B Alpaca and Vicuna with significant change in human resemblance after instruction tuning compared with LLaMA, and Table 7 shows the list in 13B. + +# D Preliminary fMRI results + +Some preliminary analysis on the fMRI data in the Reading Brain dataset is done, and the results com + +![](images/cd785dcab0e4b4d8fece282b3d909f8c5494973384c746b3858dfc41b73dd3a3.jpg) + +![](images/5f865bb3eb9bf6a0136938d04e2bf5dfd817900983c804abd586a8c0872426d4.jpg) + +![](images/a1e9b5c7d35de8515d3cc9eca08ad8e52b0abd225302e39b6bb068f57d512ebc.jpg) + +![](images/53ffc9bdd996fa8ab968753798918e4d1a2b1f9c1669e83d125ac79344337a2e.jpg) +Figure 11: Lyerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models. "RB" stands for "Reading Brain". + +ply with our findings on saccade data. We investigate several linguistics-related brain regions, and find that the highest correlation of fMRI signals to model attention are from the anterior left temporal gyrus (Figure 12). The fMRI data from this region is pre-processed into matrix forms as saccade data. Figure 14 gives examples of individual and group mean fMRI matrices. + +The findings are: (1) The models' NTP loss significantly $(p < 0.02$ for both L1 and L2) and strongly negatively $(r = -0.777$ for L1, $r = -0.796$ for L2) correlates with fMRI resemblance (Figure 13); (2) The models' highest layerwise fMRI resemblance significantly $(r > 0.99$ , $p < 0.001$ for both L1 and L2) correlates with the model scale in logarithm (Figure 15, 16); (3) While scal + +
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL12, 5, 712, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30
L22, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 21, 273, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30
LowerL14, 10, 23, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 20, 31
L20, 10, 14, 19, 23, 28, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 20, 31
+ +Table 6: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 7B. + +
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL116, 32, 33, 364, 16, 27, 33, 36
L21, 16, 19, 27, 32, 33, 364, 16, 19, 23, 27, 33, 36, 37
LowerL10, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30, 35, 390, 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 24, 30, 34, 39
L20, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 390, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 30
+ +Table 7: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 13B. + +ing enhances human fMRI resemblance, instruction tuning does not (Table 8); (4) Resemblance to L2 fMRI is consistently higher than that to L1. + +![](images/1a4c004f619dcbabbb6a01164539845a5be779d88fd6a9573642a97e701507bc.jpg) +Figure 12: An illustration of the anterior left temporal gyrus in the human brain. + +![](images/611ee90ccf0d1d563394ecd2a127465e030f92ec3c59ad1b78e1b6be9d913769.jpg) +Figure 13: The correlation between per-token negative log likelihood loss and max layerwise fMRI resemblance of the LLMs. + +
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA11.0215.45
Alpaca10.9915.61
Vicuna11.3515.44
13BLLaMA14.6920.19
Alpaca14.6719.44
Vicuna14.0218.57
+ +Table 8: Max layerwise human fMRI resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layerwise human resemblance. + +![](images/76078bf11392e7075e08e4d424292ba9479a10db75ea03f84b13b04a08bd7b82.jpg) +(a) Individual + +![](images/3469d2471ded04cf9bd91703fbef916897abea2483e4faacbc0100147bc18e4e.jpg) +(b) Group Mean + +![](images/05568093f276b55f2bbc25cf0fffd1bd810c844632c23eee1700f0096a937308.jpg) + +![](images/dd49a90499d2eec64f51f9d08fdb560f781e3d274b893ee0bc88ed334b62f01f.jpg) +Figure 15: Layerwise L1 and L2 human fMRI resemblance for different sized pretrained models. + +![](images/6578ebffd275ffd9cf5335aff9398a942e7331af325d98a028f3ca51e4ea9f49.jpg) +Figure 14: Examples of individual and group mean fMRI signals of the sentence "Could humans live on Mars some day?" +Figure 16: The change of max layerwise human fMRI resemblance caused by scaling. The x-axis is log scaled. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/images.zip b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d6c3baa9804f7a65f1cb637179c817bfc361f86 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4e9aa0298199286d7eddd39762bec5ccbd79a52401fe9f195560d75c366c036e +size 655414 diff --git a/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/layout.json b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e4a6e1ec81f92aa3184defaa7d7da94a174a2d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception_ Model vs. Human Attention/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10010 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 74, + 497, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 74, + 497, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 74, + 497, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roles of Scaling and Instruction Tuning in Language Perception: Model vs. Human Attention" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 119, + 461, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 119, + 461, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 119, + 461, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changjiang Gao1 Shujian Huang1* Jixing Li2 Jiajun Chen1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 134, + 486, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 134, + 486, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 134, + 486, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 134, + 486, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 148, + 478, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 148, + 478, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 148, + 478, + 175 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 148, + 478, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Linguistics and Translation, City University of Hong Kong gaocj@smail.nju.edu.cn {huangsj, chenjj}@nju.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 177, + 362, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 177, + 362, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 177, + 362, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "jixingli@cityu.edu.hk" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent large language models (LLMs) have revealed strong abilities to understand natural language. Since most of them share the same basic structure, i.e. the transformer block, possible contributors to their success in the training process are scaling and instruction tuning. However, how these factors affect the models' language perception is unclear. This work compares the self-attention of several existing LLMs (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna) in different sizes (7B, 13B, 30B, 65B), together with eye saccade, an aspect of human reading attention, to assess the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on language perception. Results show that scaling enhances the human resemblance and improves the effective attention by reducing the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does not. However, instruction tuning significantly enhances the models' sensitivity to instructions. We also find that current LLMs are consistently closer to non-native than native speakers in attention, suggesting a suboptimal language perception of all models. Our code and data used in the analysis is available on GitHub." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, ChatGPT and Vicuna, have shown nearly human-level understanding of text inputs, indicating better human-like language perception compared with their predecessors such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). However, the mechanism behind such improvement is largely unknown. One way to interpret such mechanism is comparing model computation processes to human data. For example, prior work compared language models (mainly GPT-2) with human neuroimaging data during language comprehension, suggesting that models with higher human resemblance also perform better in NLP tasks. (Hasson" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2020; Schrimpf et al., 2021). However, given recent breakthroughs in LLMs, it remains to be tested whether the newest LLMs still align with human perception data. Based on the training pipeline of current LLMs, there are two possible sources for the potential change: the scaled model/data size and the aligning process after pretraining, such as instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). This paper aims to provide a further understanding of LLMs' mechanism by investigating the roles of these two factors in language understanding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we analyze self-attention as a channel to the language perception ability of LLMs, because it is the key mechanism of transformer language models, and it naturally resembles the human attention mechanism in language perceiving (Merkx and Frank, 2021). The attention patterns under investigation includes those from trending open-sourced LLMs with different sizes, i.e., 7B, 13B, 30B, 65B, and different training stages, i.e., pretrained (LLaMA) and instruction-tuned (Alpaca and Vicuna) models. Given these models are all trained mainly with English data, we also compare the attention patterns of LLMs with human saccade (a form of eye-movement) data, including both native speakers (L1) and non-native learners (L2) of English (Li et al., 2019) to see if the models correlates more with L1 subjects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our analysis is three-fold. First, we compare the general attention distributions of LLMs to measure the impact of these two varying factors on the model (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 3.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Second, we perform linear regressions (LRs) between the model self-attention and human saccade matrices to see how human-like they are, and how the resemblance is affected by the two factors (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 3.2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Third, we analyze the relation between the given attention and some trivial patterns, revealing the difference between different levels of language perception abilities (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 3.3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). The main findings are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 175, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 175, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 175, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13042" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13042-13055 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 336 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Scaling significantly affects the general attention distribution on plain text, while instruction tuning has limited effect. However, instruction tuning enhances the model's sensitivity to instructions (§5.1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 150, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 150, + 290, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 150, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Higher human resemblance is significantly correlated to better language modeling. Scaling improves the resemblance by scaling law (Henighan et al., 2020), while instruction tuning reduces it. All models have higher resemblance to L2 rather than to L1, suggesting further room for the improvement in language perception (§5.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 269, + 290, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 269, + 290, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 269, + 290, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- L2 saccade has higher dependency on trivial attention patterns than L1, indicating a more rigid way of perception. Scaling significantly lowers LLMs' reliance on trivial attention patterns, while instruction tuning does not (§5.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 161, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 161, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 161, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 291, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-attention analysis is a common way to interpret transformer models. Several studies has shown that it is correlated to linguistic information, such as syntactic or semantic structures (Mareček and Rosa, 2018; Raganato and Tiedemann, 2018; Voita et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2019). There are also some attempts and debates to explain the models' prediction with attention (Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wegreffe and Pinter, 2019; Serrano and Smith, 2019; Vashisth et al., 2019). Different from them, we use self-attention patterns as a measurement of the language perception abilities of LLMs. Also, some new ways to interpret model self-attention have been proposed, such as Attention Flow (Abnar and Zuidema, 2020), vector norm (Kobayashi et al., 2020, 2021), ALTI (Ferrando et al., 2022), Value Zeroing (Mohebbi et al., 2023), and logit analysis (Ferrando et al., 2023). These methods can raise the interpretability of model attention w.r.t. linguistic structural information, but are not tested with human eye-tracking data. Also, some of them suffer from huge computational cost. Instead, we choose to use the raw attention scores, as it is produced in the models' original computational processes, and they already correlate the human data, demonstrating their interpretability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction tuned LLMs achieve better performances in performing tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). It seems that the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLMs are better at understanding human instructions. However, there is little discussion on how the instruction tuning process affects the language perception." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 526, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eye-movement in the human reading process has drawn attention in the computational linguistic field. It is proposed that scanpaths, i.e. tracks of eye-movement, reveals characteristics of the parsing processes and relates to working memory during reading (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the irregularity of scanpaths is affected by sentence structures and age (von der Malsburg et al., 2015). Such work provides theoretical ground for our analysis on saccade data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint study of language models and human eye-movement is also receiving growing interest. Prior studies have shown the correlation between language processing of human and artificial neural networks (Kell et al., 2018), especially pretrained language models such as GPT-2 (Caucheteux et al., 2021, 2022; Schrimpf et al., 2021; Lamarre et al., 2022). Especially, Oh and Schuler (2023a,b) explored the fit of model surprisal to human reading times, noting the effect of models' sequential memorization and dataset size. Hollenstein and Beinborn (2021) studied the correlation between relative word importance derived from models and humans, and Morger et al. (2022) extended that research to a multilingual setting, as well as analysis on model attention. Some studies also use human attention as supervision to assist specific tasks (Sood et al., 2020; Bansal et al., 2023), or use sequential models to predict eye-tracking data (Chersoni et al., 2022). Different from them, we use human attention as references for the language perception abilities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 370, + 600 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 370, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 370, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To show the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on different models, we compare the self-attention scores of different LLMs given the same input, by viewing model attention as probability distributions and calculating the general attention divergence based on Jensen-Shannon divergence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To analyze model self-attention, we take the human saccade as a reference, and design a human resemblance metric based on linear regression scores." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we select several trivial, context-free attention patterns, and design a trivial pattern reliance metric to help demonstrate the difference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13043" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 261, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 261, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 261, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "between models and human subject groups." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 235, + 106 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 235, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 235, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 General Attention Divergence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We assess the mean Jensen-Shannon (J-S) divergence between attention from different models on all sentences. For two attention matrices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\times n_{\\mathrm{word}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the J-S divergence is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 185, + 255, + 236 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 185, + 255, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 185, + 255, + 236 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} D _ {\\mathrm {J S}} (A, B) = \\frac {1}{2} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {\\text {w o r d}}} \\left[ D _ {\\mathrm {K L}} \\left(A _ {i} \\| B _ {i}\\right) \\right. \\\\ + D _ {\\mathrm {K L}} \\left(B _ {i} \\| A _ {i}\\right) ] \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "542b7a647fba6b082c497234e8bc47705c4d2bdcbadfd8f8c08fc685e85a0a99.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{\\mathrm{KL}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th rows in the two matrices. Note the attention matrices are re-normalized to keep the sum of every row to 1.0. We calculate the J-S divergence between heads-averaged attention scores per sentence, and demonstrate the mean values. For models with the same number of layers, the divergence is calculated layerwise; For models with different numbers of layers, we divide their layers into four quarters and calculate the divergence quarter-wise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To identify high and low divergence, a reference value is required. We propose to use the attention divergence between two models that share the same structure, size, and training data, but have small difference in training strategies as the reference. A divergence value higher than the reference suggests relatively large change attention, while one lower than that indicates small (but not necessarily negligible) change." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 289, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Divergence by Scaling and Instruction Tuning Models with different scales or training stages are compared with the above divergence to show the effect of different factors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sensitivity to Instructions To evaluate the effect of instruction tuning, we measure a given model's sensitivity to instructions by the same general attention divergence metric, but on different input, i.e., plain input and input with instructions. If the divergence between them is significantly higher than reference, we say the model has high sensitivity to instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To construct instructed text, we attach two prefixes to plain text sentences: \"Please translate this sentence into German:\", and \"Please paraphrase this sentence\":\". They are within the reported capacity of most LLMs, and require no extra information to follow. Then, we collect model attention on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the two corpora within the original sentence spans (re-normalized) to represent non-instruction and instruction scenarios. Also, as a control group, we attached a noise prefix made of 5 randomly sampled English words \"Cigarette first steel convenience champion.\", and calculate the divergence between prefixed and plain text to account for the effect of a meaningless prefix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 430, + 200 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 430, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 430, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Human Resemblance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 495, + 218 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 495, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 495, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.1 Human Resemblance Calculation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the model self-attention and the human saccade data in matrix form for each sentence, we first extract the lower-triangle parts of the matrices (marking right-to-left attendance), because prior studies have found that such eye-movements in reading are related to working memory efficiency (Walczyk and Taylor, 1996) and parsing strategies (von der Malsburg and Vasishth, 2013), and the auto-regressive LLMs only have right-to-left self-attention. Then, we flatten the extracted parts of each sentence attention matrix, and concatenate them to get attention vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{v_{\\mathrm{human}}^i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each subject " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{v_{\\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for head " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in model layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We then stack " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{v_{\\mathrm{model}}^{j,k}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " along the attention heads and get a matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{V_{\\mathrm{model}}^j\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th layer. The LR for model layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and subject " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 222, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 453, + 493, + 479 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 453, + 493, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 453, + 493, + 479 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\arg \\min _ {w, b} \\left\\| V _ {\\mathrm {m o d e l}} ^ {j \\top} w + b - v _ {\\mathrm {h u m a n}} ^ {i} \\right\\| _ {2} ^ {2}", + "image_path": "717e8acee9cc05f47a8325ce10785cda02d15fe994d08970abcd445d2b47b535.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This means we take the linear combination of attention scores from all heads in a layer to predict the human saccade. Note that the model attention here are not re-normalized, in order to preserve the relative weight w.r.t. the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " token. The regression scores " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{i,j}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (ranging from 0 to 1, larger value means better regression) are averaged over subjects to represent the human resemblance of layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the highest layer score is considered as the regression score of the whole model, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{\\mathrm{model}}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Because the human saccade pattern varies across individuals, there exists a natural upper bound for human resemblance of models, i.e., the human-human resemblance, or the inter-subject correlation. To calculate this correlation within the two language groups, L1 and L2, we take the group mean to regress over each individual data independently, and use the average regression score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{\\mathrm{inter}}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the inter-subject correlation for that group. The final human resemblance score is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{\\mathrm{model}}^2 / R_{\\mathrm{inter}}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", ranging from 0 to 100%." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13044" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 276, + 97 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 276, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 276, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.2 Human Resemblance vs. Next-Token Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A previous study finds a positive correlation between the next-token predication (NTP) performance and the \"Brain Score\" of neural networks (Schrimpf et al., 2021), which supports the intuition that the more human-like models are, the better generation they output. To test this finding in our setting, we calculated the per-token prediction loss (the negative log likelihood loss normalized by sequence lengths) of the models employed in this study on the Reading Brain dataset, and calculate the Pearson's Correlation between their prediction loss and max layerwise human resemblance scores." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 208, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 208, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 208, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 264, + 303 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 264, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 264, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.1 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We select three representative trivial patterns of transformer attention: attending to the first word in the sentence, attending to the previous word (Vig and Belinkov, 2019), and self-attending (Clark et al., 2019), and analyze the effect of scaling and instruction tuning on models' reliance on them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we represent the trivial patterns as binary adjacent matrices, where attending relations are marked with 1, others with 0, and use their flattened lower-triangle parts as the independent variables. The model attention is similarly processed to be the dependent variables. Then, an LR is fit between the two, and the regression scores are collected to represent the trivial pattern reliance of each model layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 270, + 530 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 270, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 270, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.2 Trivial Pattern Reliance of Humans" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research compares the models' resemblance to L1 and L2 humans because intuitively, L1 is better than L2 in language understanding. To test this intuition, we compare their reliance on the three trivial patterns to see whether their attention mode differs. Similar to model attention, the flattened human saccade vectors are used as the dependent variable to fit the LRs with the trivial patterns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 193, + 666 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 193, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 193, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiment Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 119, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 119, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 119, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the Reading Brain dataset (Li et al., 2019) for both the text input and the human data. The dataset includes 5 English STEM articles. Each article has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "29.6 \\pm 0.68" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sentences of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10.33 \\pm 0.15" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " words. It also includes human eye-tracking and fMRI data recorded synchronously during self-paced reading" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 70, + 412, + 173 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 70, + 412, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 70, + 412, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 70, + 412, + 173 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "72af1df936c3ae4afd689692a37f326c1690dfeaa2151877027d8fb5cc2d467c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 178, + 385, + 189 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 178, + 385, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 178, + 385, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Individual" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 235 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Examples of individual and group mean saccade of the sentence \"Could humans live on Mars some day?\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 521, + 173 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 521, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 521, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 521, + 173 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "00e40331f9f9f846d20f3c9cd578170c07c200d1400a103ffaf58bb6603b4d7c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 439, + 178, + 499, + 189 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 439, + 178, + 499, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 439, + 178, + 499, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Group Mean" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 526, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 526, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 526, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on the articles. The human subjects are 52 native English speakers (L1) and 56 non-native learners of English (L2). We choose this dataset for the following reasons: (1) The text is presented to the subjects sentence by sentence instead of page by page, making in-sentence reading patterns clearer. (2) It has synchronous eye-tracking and fMRI data, which allows both behavioral- and neural-level analysis. In this article we mainly focus on the behavioral part, but we also have some preliminary results on the fMRI analysis (See Appendix D)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We take the saccade number, i.e. times of eye movements from a word to another, instead of saccade duration, to represent the human reading attention, because this reduces the effect of other factors such as word length. The saccade data of a human subject for a given sentence is a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{\\mathrm{word}} \\times n_{\\mathrm{word}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " matrix. Figure 1 gives examples of individual and group mean saccades." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 361, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 361, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 361, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We employ LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and its instruction-tuned versions, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) in this research. We use them because: (1) The model sizes and different instruction-tuning methods covers the majority of current open-sourced LLMs. (2) These models are being widely used and customized globally. Thus, analysis on them is representative and meaningful." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLaMA is a series of pretrained causal language models with parameter sizes 7B, 13B, 30B and 65B, trained on over 1T publicly available text tokens, and reaches state-of-the-art on most LLM benchmarks (Touvron et al., 2023). The training corpus is mainly English. We use all 4 sizes of LLaMA, which covers the sizes of most current" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13045" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "open-sourced LLMs. We also use the 774M GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) to represent smaller pretrained models in the scaling analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 291, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 291, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 291, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alpaca is fine-tuned from the 7B LLaMA model on 52K English instruction-following demonstrations generated by GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) using self-instruct (Wang et al., 2023). To analyze the effect of scaling, we also trained a 13B version of Alpaca using the official data and training strategy of Alpaca. Our 13B Alpaca model scores 43.9 and 46.0 on the MMLU dataset in zero-shot and one-shot setting respectively, proving the soundness of our fine-tuning. (The corresponding scores are 40.9 and 39.2 for the official Alpaca 7B model.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vicuna models are fine-tuned from the 7B and 13B LLaMA models on 70K user-shared conversations with ChatGPT. The data contains instruction and in-context learning samples in multiple languages, thus the Vicuna models can also be viewed as instruction-tuned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 221, + 386 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 221, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 221, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 LLMs Attention Collection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To obtain model attention, text is provided to the models sentence by sentence to perform next token predict, and we collect the attention tensors in each layer. This resembles the human self-paced task-free reading process, where only one sentence is visible at a time to the subjects, and the natural human behavior is to predict the next word (Kell et al., 2018; Schrimpf et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Because models use the SentencePiece tokenization (Kudo and Richardson, 2018), but the human saccade data is recorded in words, the attention matrices need to be reshaped. Following Clark et al. (2019) and Manning et al. (2020), we take the sum over the \"to\" tokens, and the average over the \"from\" tokens in a split word. Also, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 611 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " token is dropped as it is not presented to human subjects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reference of Divergence We use the attention divergence of Vicuna v0 and Vicuna v1.1 13B as the reference values. The two versions share the same training data and strategy, but have minor difference in separators and loss computation2. We use the divergence calculated on 13B Vicunas across all divergence analyses, because it has lower mean and variance than the 7B one, making our comparison fairer and stricter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 105, + 518, + 206 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 105, + 518, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 105, + 518, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 105, + 518, + 206 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ec644743c14c8077c18e304cd43e115de1a02fc57935327bff3bdeb62939a0c4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Mean J-S divergence between 7B and 13B model attention in each layer quarter, measured on non-instruction sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 470, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 470, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 470, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 General Attention Divergence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 494, + 324 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 494, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 494, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1.1 Scaling Significantly Changes the General Attention" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The general attention divergence between models in different sizes is shown in Figure 2. The results show that LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all reveal divergence significantly higher than the reference values when scaled from 7B to 13B. This means scaling causes large change in the overall attention distribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 518, + 459 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 518, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 518, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1.2 Instruction Tuning Has Limited Effect on General Attention" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 525, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The general attention divergence between pretrained and instruction tuned models is shown in Figure 3. It can be observed that only Vicuna 13B brings divergence above the reference values, while all the others don't. The same result can also be observed on instruction-prefixed sentences. This suggests that instruction tuning can only bring limited change to the models' general attention distribution. This can also be verified by other results in the following parts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 524, + 633 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 524, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 524, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1.3 Instruction Tuning Enhances Sensitivity to Instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The divergence between the models' attention obtained on the original and instruction-attached sentences are shown in Figure 4. There are two major observations. Firstly, LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna all show divergence significantly above the reference values between the two types of sentences, especially in the shallower layers, which means they all have sensitivity to instructions. Secondly, while the divergence of LLaMA drops in the deeper layers, the divergence of Alpaca and Vicuna does" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 278, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 278, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 278, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on this GitHub repository for LLM evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 274, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 274, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 274, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2According to notes in the Vicuna GitHub repository." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13046" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fc5d47d7c18de76657c2fc72e97c7d6618092e97df812d52e938b4fa7a26142e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "85a93c8b9a28b689b6faa748f92743d88ed79f05e4da2930be71c7e7b557f76e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 291, + 328 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 291, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 291, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: General attention divergence between pretrained and instruction-tuned models in 7B and 13B, measured on non-instruction sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "not go down, but rather up, suggesting higher sensitivity to instructions in the deeper layers. This effect is not observed in the noise-prefixed scenario (See Appendix A)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 290, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From these two observations, we can conclude that the pretrained LLaMA has already obtained some sensitivity to instructions, i.e. to change its attention mode when it meets instructions, and this sensitivity is further strengthened by instruction tuning, which makes this sensitivity higher in the deeper layers. Because in causal language models like LLaMA, the last few layers are related to generation, this effect of instruction tuning may bring more suitable generation for a certain instruction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 195, + 562 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 195, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 195, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Human Resemblance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 274, + 593 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 274, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 274, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.1 Higher Human Resemblance, Lower Prediction Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The per-token NTP loss and the maximum layerwise human resemblance scores are compared in Table 1 and Figure 5. One can tell from it that, within the considered range of parameter sizes, the human resemblance is negatively correlated with the NTP loss, where the resemblance goes higher nearly linearly with the loss going lower. The Pearson's correlation is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-0.875" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for L1 (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.002" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-0.917" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for L2 (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.0005" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), supporting a significant and strong negative linear correlation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This result shows that, the human resemblance we defined is positively related to the language modeling performance of the LLMs considered in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 73, + 516, + 173 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 73, + 516, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 73, + 516, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 73, + 516, + 173 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1f008220a318e85eb96f9974abe4cb35e28cfcd3055c85a6548958ea60eda23d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 180, + 516, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 180, + 516, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 180, + 516, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 180, + 516, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f76cbc30a5588ac8a4301ce3303f98d0edd580660d4ba45a0c94f8532c70bab8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 524, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 524, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 524, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Attention divergence on the original and instruction-attached text of 7B and 13B models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "this research, giving a practical meaning to our human resemblance analysis. Also, based on this result, we know the pursuit for higher human resemblance is consistent with the target of training better LLMs. Similarly, factors negatively impacting the human resemblance could also harm the models' language modeling performance, such as instruction tuning brings lower human resemblance as well as higher NTP loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 321, + 471, + 507, + 577 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 471, + 507, + 577 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 471, + 507, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 471, + 507, + 577 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SizeNameLossL1(%)L2(%)
774MGPT-20.326434.9940.03
7BLLaMA0.240853.0462.44
Alpaca0.264652.5161.71
Vicuna0.259351.9061.19
13BLLaMA0.240655.6664.20
Alpaca0.263455.0564.46
Vicuna0.284754.2661.31
30BLLaMA0.237263.1669.40
65BLLaMA0.237564.0570.07
", + "image_path": "84993aceea938241ed48581fe63c0ac38da565077937761d44e5cb5a2247baf2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 524, + 608 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 524, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 524, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Comparison between NTP loss and the human resemblance scores" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 523, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 523, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 523, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.2 Scaling Enhances Human Resemblance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The layerwise human resemblance of pretrained models in different scales are shown in Figure 6, where the LLaMAs are very different from GPT-2 Large in two ways. First, the layerwise human resemblance of the LLaMAs are much higher than GPT-2, but the gaps among the LLaMAs are small; Second, human resemblance of GPT-2 drop quickly in the deeper layers, while it remains high across all layers in the LLaMAs. one can refer from these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13047" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 181 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ea819d17b6d953235351d5a73b5a5b7e65ce7a5938cf23f98cd7b2ffcce21a37.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 291, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 291, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 291, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The correlation between the per-token negative log likelihood loss and the max layerwise human resemblance of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 290, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 290, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 290, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "results that LLaMA has undergone a phase change in terms of human-like attention from the level of GPT-2. However, the scaling from 7B to 30B does not cause another phase change." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 and Figure 7 show the max layerwise human resemblance increases linearly while the model parameter size increases exponentially, where the Pearson's correlation is 0.989 for L1 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 0.002)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and 0.964 for L2 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 0.01)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This agrees with the scaling law of LLMs (Henighan et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This result shows that, within the scope of this study, scaling significantly enhances the human resemblance. If the scaling law continues to take effect, the human resemblance is expected to reach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "98.80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for L2 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "88.82\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for L1 at the scale of 100B. However, because the law is expected to fail after reaching a threshold (Hestness et al., 2017), the relation between human resemblance and model scale is expected to change before reaching that scale." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 103, + 547, + 255, + 621 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 547, + 255, + 621 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 547, + 255, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 547, + 255, + 621 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelResemblance (%)
NameSizeL1L2
GPT-2774M34.9940.03
7B53.0462.44
LLaMA13B55.5664.20
30B63.1669.40
65B64.0570.07
", + "image_path": "99999bf1715290bbd957e3d38c0341977f821304f94c56a1505d37af8accb45c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 289, + 653 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 289, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 629, + 289, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Max layerwise human resemblance of models ranging from 774M to 65B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 264, + 701 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 264, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 264, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.3 Instruction Tuning Harms Human Resemblance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the max layerwise human resemblance of the pretrained and instruction tuned models. It shows that the instruction tuned Alpaca and Vicuna models have lower max layerwise human resemblance to both L1 and L2 than LLaMA in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 72, + 516, + 173 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 72, + 516, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 72, + 516, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 72, + 516, + 173 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1616780722649fc2e8bd4012e111df8abb9d9fbd88f15d3c1b25f44acaaab699.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 179, + 516, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 179, + 516, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 179, + 516, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 179, + 516, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "37368eb43a0304641eb4bde8759e4bf745ad410b101965746d6be748aa6b7ea1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 524, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 524, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 524, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Layerwise L1 and L2 human resemblance for different sized pretrained models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 333, + 516, + 443 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 333, + 516, + 443 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 333, + 516, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 333, + 516, + 443 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "422fa9644ff1b557cfbe55e417d82fbf8846d43f61e00df97e26a8bb9394c59b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 492 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: The change of max layerwise human resemblance caused by the scaling of model sizes, where the x-axis is log scaled." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "both sizes, which suggests that instruction tuning causes decline in the human resemblance of attention. However, the decline is minor compared with the increase brought by scaling, which agrees with the limited effect of instruction tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also conduct relative t-tests to detect significant difference in layerwise human resemblance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p = 0.05 / n_{\\mathrm{test}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The numbers of significant layers are shown in Table 4, and the complete lists of layers are in Table 6, 7 in Appendix C). The tables show that instruction tuning enhances or reduces human resemblance on about the equal numbers of layers on the 7B models, but reduces human resemblance to much more layers on the 13B models. Also, the layers with significantly lower resemblance are distributed across all layers. This result means that, while the total effect of instruction tuning is small, the drop in human resemblance caused by it is significant and widespread." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13048" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sum up, instruction tuning does small but significant harm to the human resemblance of LLMs, which in turn may bring potential damage to their language perception. This challenges the common assumption that instruction tuning can activate the model's ability to perceive language with human-aligned behaviors. However, this negative effect could be compensated by scaling, for scaling increases the human resemblance in a larger degree. This provides a novel reason for further scaling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 107, + 220, + 253, + 306 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 220, + 253, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 220, + 253, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 220, + 253, + 306 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA53.0462.44
Alpaca52.5161.71
Vicuna51.9061.19
13BLLaMA55.6664.20
Alpaca55.0563.46
Vicuna54.2661.31
", + "image_path": "d780297f3a566d20e077e26dc998e4c550d1006ea9aebba740858ec1ac9d40cd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 101, + 391, + 257, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 291, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Max layerwise human resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layer-wise human resemblance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 391, + 257, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 391, + 257, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 391, + 257, + 457 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelHigherLower
SizeNameL1L2L1L2
7BAlpaca3847
Vicuna91089
13BAlpaca471625
Vicuna581416
", + "image_path": "4085e71631c817dbdffefdc4becf5988bf96ea1a67e95cf1dab6ebf17dca090b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 235, + 561 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 235, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 235, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.4 All Models Show Higher L2 Resemblance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparing the L1 and L2 human resemblance of all models (LLaMA, Alpaca and Vicuna, 7B and 13B) in Table 2 and Table 3, an advantage of L2 over L1 can be observed steadily. Independent t-test also shows that, all models considered in this research show significantly higher resemblance to L2 than to L1 (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.05 / n_{\\mathrm{test}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to avoid false positives). This means the models are closer to non-native English learners than to native English speakers in attention, though they are all trained mainly on English data. Furthermore, this trend is not reversed by the scaling or instruction tuning within the scope of this research, which suggests that it is a innate feature of LLMs. We will look further into this phenomenon in the next section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 442, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 442, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 442, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Trivial Pattern Reliance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 500, + 101 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 500, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 500, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.1 L2 Relies More on Trivial Patterns" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 105, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 105, + 526, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 105, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of LR scores between trivial patterns and L1 and L2 human saccade is shown in Table 5, where L2's score is higher than L1's in minimum, maximum and mean values. Independent t-test also supports a significant advantage of L2 over L1 on the regression scores " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 105, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 5 \\times 10^{-8})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 105, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This means one significant difference between L1 and L2 English speakers is that L2 people show more trivial and fixed attention mode than L1 people while reading, which suggests a weaker language understanding ability as those patterns contain no linguistic or factual information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This finding can help us interpret the difference between the models' L1 and L2 human resemblance. Note that all models considered in this research are trained mainly on English, but show higher attention resemblance to L2 subjects, this result suggests that their language perception is not ideal." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 321, + 370, + 507, + 405 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 502 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Numbers of Alpaca and Vicuna layers with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in the same sizes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 370, + 507, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 370, + 507, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 370, + 507, + 405 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
GroupMinMaxMeanSE
L10.00480.15250.04730.0037
L20.01340.21650.08940.0060
", + "image_path": "ae9923d9e6ca9e111e8a4a0d6a3d06636b71a880b2e59bc9ef35edd71fcd3b5f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 449 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Regression scores of human saccade on the trivial patterns, across L1 and L2 subjects. SE stands for standard errors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 524, + 487 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 524, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 524, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.2 Scaling Reduces Trivial Pattern Reliance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 491, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 491, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 491, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relative difference between 13B and 7B models in trivial pattern reliance is shown in Figure 8, where the decline in the deeper layer quarters is substantial across all models. There is also a consistent increase in the second quarter, but the amplitude is small, so the total trivial pattern reliance is reduced. This phenomenon is also observed between LLaMA 13B and 30B (Figure 11 in Appendix B). This means scaling can effectively reduce the trivial pattern reliance, especially in the deeper layers, indicating a more contextualized and adaptive language perception." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 508, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 508, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 508, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3.3 Instruction Tuning Increases Trivial Pattern Reliance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9 shows the relative difference between pretrained and instruction tuned models in trivial pattern reliance, where the tuned ones show reliance gain in the deeper layers. There is also a small drop in the second quarter, but the total trivial pattern reliance is increasing. Also, total increase here is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13049" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "84748b7f55f7fdaea4e031031566ffb84d5ba054996d35d7c775213b9e606b90.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: The difference between trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B model attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "also smaller in amplitude than the reduction caused by scaling, again supporting the limit effect of instruction tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Also, one can tell from Figure 8 and Figure 9 that scaling and instruction tuning changes the trivial pattern reliance in opposite directions. However, because the effect of instruction tuning is also smaller than that of scaling, as long as the model size continues to grow, this gain in trivial pattern reliance brought by instruction tuning could be compensated or even covered, offering another reason for further scaling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 404, + 282, + 504 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 404, + 282, + 504 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 404, + 282, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 404, + 282, + 504 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2ff27b9802e5b1274efa0fbe3d7d72a0c686dd78e360414feadcbe4bb61bfe6d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 541 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: The difference in trivial pattern reliance of attentions in pretrained and instruction-tuned models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 147, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 147, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 147, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research evaluates the effects of scaling and instruction tuning on LLMs' attention. We find that scaling effectively changes the general attention distribution, enhances the human resemblance, and reduces the trivial pattern reliance, while instruction tuning does the opposite, but also increases the models' sensitivity to instructions. Furthermore, we find current open-sourced LLMs closer to non-native English speakers in language perception, which contains more trivial attention patterns. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to analyze the effect of instruction tuning on the human resemblance of model attention. We hope this can inspire future work on analyzing LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One key limitation of this study is that we cannot apply our current method to closed-sourced LLMs such as ChatGPT, for their layerwise attention scores are unavailable. With the rapid development of open LLMs, it is hopeful that we can examine these findings on the largest and most advanced LLMs in the near future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, though we demonstrate the difference in LLMs' resemblance to L1 and L2 people, and partially explained the effect by trivial pattern reliance, it is not enough to explain the underlying cause or consequences of this phenomenon. We do have some observations, such as the inter-subject correlation in the L1 group " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(0.1560 \\pm 0.0073)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is lower than L2 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(0.2463 \\pm 0.0090)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and L1 subjects tend to look back to pervious words less frequently than L2 subjects. However, the underlying mechanism is still unclear. We hope to dive deeper into this non-native resemblance in our following study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another limitation of this work comes from the way we obtain model attention. We used the attention scores when predicting the next single token, which makes sense. However, the attention patterns could be different in the following decoding steps. Also, it is possible that combining attention scores across multiple layers can improve the analysis. We will investigate this in our future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, the Reading Brain dataset we used in this research is monolingual, which does not reflect the language perception process in the cross-lingual setting, which is also important for the application of LLMs. We also hope to examine our findings in the cross-lingual scenario in the future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 547, + 393, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 547, + 393, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 547, + 393, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 524, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 524, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The authors declare no competing interests. The human behavioral data we use is publicly available and does not contain personal information of the subjects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 631, + 405, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 631, + 405, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 631, + 405, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 759 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Shujian Huang is the corresponding author. We thank Yunzhe Lv and Wenhao Zhu for finetuning the Alpaca 13B model. This work is supported by National Science Foundation of China (No. 62376116, 62176120), the Liaoning Provincial Research Foundation for Basic Research (No. 2022-KF-26-02)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13050" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 290, + 145 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 290, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 290, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samira Abnar and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4190-4197, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 290, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakash Bansal, Bonita Sharif, and Collin McMillan. 2023. Towards modeling human attention from eye movements for neural source code summarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(ETRA):1-19." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 289, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 289, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 289, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 291, + 290, + 336 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 291, + 290, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 291, + 290, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2021. Model-based analysis of brain activity reveals the hierarchy of language in 305 subjects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06078." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 344, + 290, + 388 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 344, + 290, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 344, + 290, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charlotte Caucheteux, Alexandre Gramfort, and JeanRémi King. 2022. Deep language algorithms predict semantic comprehension from brain activity. Scientific Reports, 12(1):16327." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 396, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 396, + 290, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 396, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emmanuele Chersoni, Nora Hollenstein, Cassandra Jacobs, Yohei Oseki, Laurent Prévot, and Enrico Santus, editors. 2022. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 471, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 471, + 290, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 471, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 471, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 471, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " * chatgpt quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 546, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 546, + 290, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 546, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT's attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276-286, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, and Marta R. Costajussà. 2022. Measuring the Mixing of Contextual Information in the Transformer. In Proceedings of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8698-8714, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 128, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 128, + 525, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 128, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2023. Explaining How Transformers Use Context to Build Predictions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5486-5513, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 217, + 525, + 260 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 217, + 525, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 217, + 525, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Uri Hasson, Samuel A. Nastase, and Ariel Goldstein. 2020. Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. *Neuron*, 105(3):416-434." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 273, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 273, + 525, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 273, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B. Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, Chris Hallacy, Benjamin Mann, Alec Radford, Aditya Ramesh, Nick Ryder, Daniel M. Ziegler, John Schulman, Dario Amodei, and Sam McCandlish. 2020. Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling. ArXiv:2010.14701 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joel Hestness, Sharan Narang, Newsha Ardalani, Gregory Diamos, Heewoo Jun, Hassan Kianinejad, Md Mostofa Ali Patwary, Yang Yang, and Yanqi Zhou. 2017. Deep learning scaling is predictable, empirically. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.00409." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 517 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nora Hollenstein and Lisa Beinborn. 2021. Relative Importance in Sentence Processing. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 141-150, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3543-3556, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander JE Kell, Daniel LK Yamins, Erica N Shook, Sam V Norman-Haignere, and Josh H McDermott. 2018. A task-optimized neural network replicates human auditory behavior, predicts brain responses, and reveals a cortical processing hierarchy. Neuron, 98(3):630-644." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2020. Attention is Not Only a Weight: Analyzing Transformers with Vector Norms. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7057-7075, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13051" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 161 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. 2021. Incorporating Residual and Normalization Layers into Analysis of Masked Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4547-4568, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 291, + 249 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 291, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 291, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mathis Lamarre, Catherine Chen, and Fatma Deniz. 2022. Attention weights accurately predict language representations in the brain. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4513-4529, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 394 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ping Li, Anya Yu, Benjamin Schloss, Chun-Ting Hsu, Lindsey Ma, Chih-Ting Chang, and Marissa Scotto. 2019. The reading brain project: An open science data-sharing initiative. In 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 290, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christopher D Manning, Kevin Clark, John Hewitt, Urvashi Khandelwal, and Omer Levy. 2020. Emergent linguistic structure in artificial neural networks trained by self-supervision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30046-30054." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Mareček and Rudolf Rosa. 2018. Extracting syntactic trees from transformer encoder self-attentions. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 347-349, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danny Merkx and Stefan L. Frank. 2021. Human sentence processing: Recurrence or attention? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, pages 12-22, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hosein Mohebbi, Willem Zuidema, Grzegorz Chrupa\\la, and Afra Alishahi. 2023. Quantifying Context Mixing in Transformers. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3378-3400, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Morger, Stephanie Brandl, Lisa Beinborn, and Nora Hollenstein. 2022. A Cross-lingual Comparison of Human and Model Relative Word Importance. In Proceedings of the 2022 CLASP Conference on (Dis)embodiment, pages 11-23, Gothenburg, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023a. Transformer-Based LM Surprisal Predicts Human Reading Times Best with About Two Billion Training Tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 180 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Byung-Doh Oh and William Schuler. 2023b. Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:336-350." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 286, + 526, + 320 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 286, + 526, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 286, + 526, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alessandro Raganato and Jörg Tiedemann. 2018. An analysis of encoder representations in transformer-based machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 287-297, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M. Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. ArXiv:2110.08207 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 526, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Martin Schrimpf, Idan Asher Blank, Greta Tuckute, Carina Kauf, Eghbal A Hosseini, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2021. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(45):e2105646118." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is attention interpretable? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2931-2951, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ekta Sood, Simon Tannert, Philipp Müller, and Andreas Bulling. 2020. Improving natural language processing tasks with human gaze-guided neural attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13052" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6327-6341." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 102, + 290, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 102, + 290, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 102, + 290, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 166, + 290, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 166, + 290, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 166, + 290, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 241, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 241, + 290, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 241, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shikhar Vashisth, Shyam Upadhyay, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Manaal Faruqui. 2019. Attention interpretability across nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11218." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 293, + 290, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 293, + 290, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 293, + 290, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jesse Vig and Yonatan Belinkov. 2019. Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63-76, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 368, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 368, + 290, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 368, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5797-5808, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 290, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Titus von der Malsburg, Reinhold Kliegl, and Shravan Vasisith. 2015. Determinants of Scanpath Regularity in Reading. Cognitive Science, 39(7):1675-1703." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 290, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Titus von der Malsburg and Shravan Vasishth. 2013. Scanpaths reveal syntactic underspecification and reanalysis strategies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10):1545-1578." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 290, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 290, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 290, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey J. Walczyk and Robert W. Taylor. 1996. How do the efficiencies of reading subcomponents relate to looking back in text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3):537-545." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 600, + 290, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 600, + 290, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 600, + 290, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions. ArXiv:2212.10560 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 664, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 664, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 664, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sarah Wiegrefe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 11-20, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 116, + 500, + 143 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 116, + 500, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 116, + 500, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Attention divergence on plain and noise-prefix text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 151, + 525, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 151, + 525, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 151, + 525, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 10, the divergence between plain and noise-prefixed text of Alpaca and Vicuna is not significantly higher than LLaMA in most of the layers, which further supports our findings on the higher instruction sensitivity of instruction-tuned models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 243, + 516, + 343 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 243, + 516, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 243, + 516, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 243, + 516, + 343 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7d361eaa7e2230b259f47c0ed24a4ab897787020979f47f9ce6be3b4a8349f08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 350, + 516, + 451 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 350, + 516, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 350, + 516, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 350, + 516, + 451 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ac4cc8bc037770a46c7e04cf00ef0adbaf0b2bc35b90d9bec9e403f3150e4f17.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 525, + 487 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 525, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Attention divergence on the original and noise-attached text of 7B and 13B models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 497, + 528 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 497, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 497, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Layerwise trivial pattern reliance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11 shows the layerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models, as well as the results for LLaMA 30B. The reliance keeps decreasing as the model size scales up, especially in the deeper layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 516, + 654 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 516, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 516, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Layers with significant changes in human resemblance after instruction tuning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6 shows the list of layers in 7B Alpaca and Vicuna with significant change in human resemblance after instruction tuning compared with LLaMA, and Table 7 shows the list in 13B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 456, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 456, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 456, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Preliminary fMRI results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Some preliminary analysis on the fMRI data in the Reading Brain dataset is done, and the results com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13053" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 73, + 280, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cd785dcab0e4b4d8fece282b3d909f8c5494973384c746b3858dfc41b73dd3a3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 180, + 280, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5f865bb3eb9bf6a0136938d04e2bf5dfd817900983c804abd586a8c0872426d4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 280, + 386 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 280, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 280, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 280, + 386 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a1e9b5c7d35de8515d3cc9eca08ad8e52b0abd225302e39b6bb068f57d512ebc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 394, + 280, + 493 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 394, + 280, + 493 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 394, + 280, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 394, + 280, + 493 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "53ffc9bdd996fa8ab968753798918e4d1a2b1f9c1669e83d125ac79344337a2e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 532 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Lyerwise trivial pattern reliance of 7B and 13B models. \"RB\" stands for \"Reading Brain\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ply with our findings on saccade data. We investigate several linguistics-related brain regions, and find that the highest correlation of fMRI signals to model attention are from the anterior left temporal gyrus (Figure 12). The fMRI data from this region is pre-processed into matrix forms as saccade data. Figure 14 gives examples of individual and group mean fMRI matrices." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The findings are: (1) The models' NTP loss significantly " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 0.02" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for both L1 and L2) and strongly negatively " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(r = -0.777" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for L1, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r = -0.796" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for L2) correlates with fMRI resemblance (Figure 13); (2) The models' highest layerwise fMRI resemblance significantly " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(r > 0.99" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for both L1 and L2) correlates with the model scale in logarithm (Figure 15, 16); (3) While scal" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 327, + 68, + 502, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 68, + 502, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 68, + 502, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 68, + 502, + 212 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL12, 5, 712, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28, 29, 30
L22, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 21, 273, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30
LowerL14, 10, 23, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 20, 31
L20, 10, 14, 19, 23, 28, 310, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 20, 31
", + "image_path": "98f6eabe13bbbcaaa71692d9c062537ad4a582afa75d71260d1750645b61bb00.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 266, + 505, + 481 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 525, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 525, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 525, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 7B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 266, + 505, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 266, + 505, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 266, + 505, + 481 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RelationGroupAlpacaVicuna
HigherL116, 32, 33, 364, 16, 27, 33, 36
L21, 16, 19, 27, 32, 33, 364, 16, 19, 23, 27, 33, 36, 37
LowerL10, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30, 35, 390, 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 24, 30, 34, 39
L20, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 390, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 30
", + "image_path": "3546e27fabbe3e99b06ebcb5a26abf1d1f51689a16c8fdc4516ca21f7ac151d7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 523 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Layers of Alpaca and Vicuna with significantly higher or lower human resemblance compared with LLaMA in 13B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing enhances human fMRI resemblance, instruction tuning does not (Table 8); (4) Resemblance to L2 fMRI is consistently higher than that to L1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13054" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 84, + 230, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 84, + 230, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 84, + 230, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 84, + 230, + 160 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1a4c004f619dcbabbb6a01164539845a5be779d88fd6a9573642a97e701507bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: An illustration of the anterior left temporal gyrus in the human brain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 282, + 338 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 282, + 338 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 282, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 282, + 338 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "611ee90ccf0d1d563394ecd2a127465e030f92ec3c59ad1b78e1b6be9d913769.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 291, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 291, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 291, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 13: The correlation between per-token negative log likelihood loss and max layerwise fMRI resemblance of the LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 107, + 417, + 252, + 501 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 417, + 252, + 501 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 417, + 252, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 417, + 252, + 501 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelResemblance(%)
SizeNameL1L2
7BLLaMA11.0215.45
Alpaca10.9915.61
Vicuna11.3515.44
13BLLaMA14.6920.19
Alpaca14.6719.44
Vicuna14.0218.57
", + "image_path": "b86120adce5637b55705e69da3c6052c84efe7e4f688f95ff66d6ce6ab2e23b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 290, + 557 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 290, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 290, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Max layerwise human fMRI resemblance scores of pretrained and instruction tuned models. This shows instruction tuning causes small decline in the max layerwise human resemblance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 592, + 176, + 695 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 592, + 176, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 592, + 176, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 592, + 176, + 695 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "76078bf11392e7075e08e4d424292ba9479a10db75ea03f84b13b04a08bd7b82.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 701, + 149, + 711 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 701, + 149, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 701, + 149, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Individual" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 182, + 593, + 286, + 695 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 593, + 286, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 593, + 286, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 593, + 286, + 695 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3469d2471ded04cf9bd91703fbef916897abea2483e4faacbc0100147bc18e4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 701, + 264, + 712 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 701, + 264, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 701, + 264, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Group Mean" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 145, + 518, + 247 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 145, + 518, + 247 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 145, + 518, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 145, + 518, + 247 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "05568093f276b55f2bbc25cf0fffd1bd810c844632c23eee1700f0096a937308.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 253, + 518, + 354 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 253, + 518, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 253, + 518, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 253, + 518, + 354 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dd49a90499d2eec64f51f9d08fdb560f781e3d274b893ee0bc88ed334b62f01f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 15: Layerwise L1 and L2 human fMRI resemblance for different sized pretrained models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 550, + 518, + 658 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 721, + 290, + 757 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 721, + 290, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 721, + 290, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 14: Examples of individual and group mean fMRI signals of the sentence \"Could humans live on Mars some day?\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 550, + 518, + 658 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 550, + 518, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 550, + 518, + 658 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6578ebffd275ffd9cf5335aff9398a942e7331af325d98a028f3ca51e4ea9f49.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 16: The change of max layerwise human fMRI resemblance caused by scaling. The x-axis is log scaled." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13055" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_content_list.json b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53dbb3eef6b4abf3c4bcb9d833096d10fc629125 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1342 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 268, + 79, + 729, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sukannya Purkayastha1, Sebastian Ruder2, Jonas Pfeiffer2, Iryna Gurevych1, Ivan Vulić3", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 124, + 885, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab,", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 143, + 670, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Department of Computer Science and Hessian Center for AI (hessian.AI),", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 159, + 801, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Technical University of Darmstadt", + "bbox": [ + 359, + 175, + 642, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Google DeepMind", + "bbox": [ + 416, + 192, + 584, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Language Technology Lab, University of Cambridge", + "bbox": [ + 280, + 209, + 722, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de", + "bbox": [ + 359, + 227, + 640, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) have become the de facto state of the art for cross-lingual transfer in NLP. However, their large-scale deployment to many languages, besides pretraining data scarcity, is also hindered by the increase in vocabulary size and limitations in their parameter budget. In order to boost the capacity of mPLMs to deal with low-resource and unseen languages, we explore the potential of leveraging transliteration on a massive scale. In particular, we explore the UROMAN transliteration tool, which provides mappings from UTF-8 to Latin characters for all the writing systems, enabling inexpensive romanization for virtually any language. We first focus on establishing how UROMAN compares against other language-specific and manually curated transliterators for adapting multilingual PLMs. We then study and compare a plethora of data- and parameter-efficient strategies for adapting the mPLMs to romanized and non-romanized corpora of 14 diverse low-resource languages. Our results reveal that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance for many languages, with particular gains achieved in the most challenging setups: on languages with unseen scripts and with limited training data without any vocabulary augmentation. Further analyses reveal that an improved tokenizer based on romanized data can even outperform non-transliteration-based methods in the majority of languages.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 280, + 460, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 747, + 258, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Massively multilingual language models (mPLMs) such as mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) have become the driving force for a variety of applications in multilingual NLP (Ponti et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020; Moghe et al., 2023). However, guaranteeing and maintaining strong performance for a wide spectrum of low-resource languages is difficult due to two crucial problems. The first issue is the vocabulary", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8756bb25e844410f100eaba69877e4802d56b0792e642e1c5fb13ec2152b6cd6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LanguageOriginal TextRomanized TextTranslation
Bhojpuriबाल्दियम् गार्वाjorjiyan bhaasaasGeorgian language
Sinhalaसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�र्था
Sindhiसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�र्थाgrahalookaplanets
Khmerkhμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμmu μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμum μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ µ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μµ μµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµüµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµúµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ µµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₃₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₂₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₁₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀⁻⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁰⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁵⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁲⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁴⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁽⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁻⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁼⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸ⁱ⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁅⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁰⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₃⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄²⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄.\n<|im_start|>assistantBhojpuriBJJUJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 250, + 873, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: Romanization across different languages.", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 325, + 870, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "size, as the vocabulary is bound to increase with the number of languages added if per-language performance is to be maintained (Hu et al., 2020; Artetxe et al., 2020; Pfeiffer et al., 2022). Second, pretraining mPLMs with a fixed model capacity improves cross-lingual performance up to a point after which it starts to decrease; this is the phenomenon termed the curse of multilinguality (Conneau et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 884, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transliteration refers to the process of converting language represented in one writing system to another (Wellisch et al., 1978). Latin script-centered transliteration or romanization is the most common form of transliteration (Lin et al., 2018; Amrhein and Sennrich, 2020; Demirsin et al., 2022) as the Latin/Roman script is by far the most widely adopted writing script in the world (Daniels and Bright, 1996; van Esch et al., 2022). Adapting mPLMs via transliteration can address the two aforementioned critical issues. 1) Since the Latin script covers a dominant portion of the mPLM's vocabulary (e.g., $77\\%$ in case of mBERT, see Ács), 'romanizing' the remaining part of the vocabulary might mitigate the vocabulary size issue and boost vocabulary sharing. 2) Since no new tokens are added during the romanization process, reusing pretrained embeddings from the mPLM's embedding matrix helps reuse the information already present within the mPLM, thereby allocating the model's parameter budget more efficiently.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 884, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, the main drawback of transliteration seems to be the expensive process of creating effective language-specific transliterations, as they", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 834, + 882, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1According to Encyclopedia Britannica, up to 70% of the world population is employing the Latin script.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7996", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7996-8005", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "typically require language expertise to curate dictionaries that map tokens from one language and script to another. Therefore, previous attempts at mPLM adaptation to unseen languages via transliteration (Muller et al., 2021; Chau and Smith, 2021; Dhamecha et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023) were constrained to a handful of languages due to the limited availability of language-specific translit-. rators, or were applied only to languages that have 'language siblings' with developed translitators.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, unlike previous work, we propose to use and then evaluate the usefulness of a universal romanization tool, UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018), for quick, large-scale and effective adaptation of mPLMs to low-resource languages. The UROMAN tool disposes of language-specific curated dictionaries and maps any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, increasing the portability of romanization, with some examples in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 246, + 489, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We analyze language adaptation on a massive scale via UROMAN-based romanization on a set of 14 diverse low-resource languages. We conduct experiments within the standard parameter-efficient adapter-based cross-lingual transfer setup on two tasks: Named Entity Recognition (NER) on the WikiANN dataset (Pan et al., 2017; Rahimi et al., 2019), and Dependency Parsing (DP) with Universal Dependencies v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020). Our key results suggest that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance on par or even outperforming adaptation with language-specific transliterrators, setting up the basis for wider use of transliteration-based mPLM adaptation techniques in future work. The gains with romanization-based adaptation over standard adaptation baselines are particularly pronounced for languages with unseen scripts ( $\\sim$ 8-22 performance points) without any vocabulary augmentation.[2]", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 392, + 489, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 257, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Why UROMAN-Based Romanization? UROMAN-based romanization is not always fully reversible, and its usage for transliteration has thus been limited in the literature. However, due to its high portability, UROMAN can help scale the process of transliteration massively and as such benefit low-resource scenarios and wider adaptation of mPLMs. The main idea, as hinted in §1, is to (learn to) map", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 740, + 489, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, without the use of any external language-specific dictionaries (see Hermjakob et al. (2018) for technical details).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cross-Lingual Transfer to Low-Resource Languages. Parameter-efficient and modular finetuning methods (Pfeiffer et al., 2023) such as adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2020b) have been used for cross-lingual transfer, putting a particular focus on enabling transfer to low-resource languages and scenarios, including languages with scripts 'unseen' by the base mPLM (Pfeiffer et al., 2021). Adapters are small lightweight components stitched into the base mPLM, and then trained for particular languages and tasks while keeping the parameters of the original mPLM frozen. This circumvents the issues of catastrophic forgetting and interference (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989) within the mPLM, and allows for extending its reach also to unseen languages (Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Ansell et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 137, + 884, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For our main empirical analyses, we adopt a state-of-the-art modular method for cross-lingual transfer: MAD-X (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). In short, MAD-X is based on language adapters (LA), task adapters (TA), and invertible adapters (INV). While LAs are trained for specific languages relying on masked language modeling, TAs are trained with high-resource languages relying on task-annotated data and task-specific objectives. At inference, the source LA is replaced with the target LA while the TA is kept. In order to do parameter-efficient learning for the token-level embeddings across different languages and to deal with the vocabulary mismatch between source and target languages, Pfeiffer et al. (2020b) also propose INV adapters: they are placed on top of the embedding layer and their inverses precede the output embedding layer.3 We adopt the better-performing MAD-X 2.0 setup (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) where the adapters in the last Transformer layer are dropped at inference.4", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 413, + 884, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments and Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 749, + 761, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 777, + 884, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ Code and data available at https://github.com/UKPLab/emnlp23_romanization_based_adaptation", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3They are trained together with the LAs while the rest of the mPLM is kept frozen.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 882, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4We refer the reader to the original papers for further technical details regarding the MAD-X framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7997", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d42bbd3ecbeebbeac8ab08be9e8d19a45d4ee91791b211e956e606f6ffc629c0.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LanguageFamilyScript# Sentences
Bhojpuri (bh)Indo-EuropeanDevanagari35,983
Buryat (bxr)MongolicCyrillic41,692
Erzya (myv)UralicCyrillic42,575
Meadow Mari (mhr)UralicCyrillic144,529
Min Dong (cdo)Sino-TibetanChinese33,978
Mingrelian (xmf)KartvelianGeorgian63,032
Sindhi (sd)Indo-EuropeanArabic86,176
Sorani Kurdish (ckb)Indo-EuropeanArabic459,475
Uyghur (ug)TurkicArabic149,813
Amháric (am)Afro-AsiaticGe'ez88,320
Divehi (dv)Indo-EuropeanThaana34,779
Khmer (km)AustroasiaticKhmer139,704
Sinhala (si)Indo-EuropeanSinhala219,866
Tibetan (bo)Sino-TibetanTibetan131,362
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Languages with their ISO 639-3 codes used in our evaluation, along with their script, language family, and number of sentences available for pretraining. The dashed line separates languages with unseen scripts, placed in the bottom part of the table.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 489, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "versions of target language data, outlined here.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 460, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Variants with Non-Transliterated Data. For the Non-Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}$ variant, we train LAs and INV adapters together. This variant serves to examine the extent to which mPLMs can adapt to unseen languages without any vocabulary extension. $^5$ We compare this to Non-Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}}$ , which trains a new tokenizer for the target language (Pfeiffer et al., 2021): the so-called 'lexically overlapping' tokens are initialized with mPLM's trained embeddings, while the remaining embeddings are initialized randomly. All these embeddings (Emb $_{\\mathrm{Lex}}$ ) are fine-tuned along with LAs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 374, + 489, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Variants with Transliterated Data. We evaluate a $\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}$ variant, which uses the same setup as Non-Trans $\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}$ but now with transliterated data. We again note that in this efficient setup, we do not extend the vocabulary size, and use the fewest trainable parameters. In the $\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM}_{\\mathrm{ft}}}$ variant, we train LAs along with fine-tuning the pretrained embeddings of mPLM (mPLMft). This further enhances the model capacity by fine-tuning the embedding layer instead of using invertible adapters. For both variants, transliterated data can be produced via different transliterations: (i) language-specific ones; (ii) the ones from 'language siblings' (e.g., using a Georgian transliterator for Mingrelian), or (iii) UROMAN.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 575, + 489, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 714, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data, Languages and Tasks. Following Pfeiffer et al. (2021), we select mBERT as our base mPLM. We experiment with 14 typologically diverse low-resource languages that are not part of mBERT's pretraining corpora, with 5/14 languages written in distinct scripts (see Table 1 for details). For LA training, we use Wikipedia dumps for the target languages, which we also transliterate (using different translitators). Evaluation is conducted on two standard cross-lingual transfer tasks in zero-shot setups: 1) the WikiAnn NER dataset (Pan et al., 2017) with the train, dev, and test splits from (Rahimi et al., 2019); 2) for dependency parsing, we rely on the UD Dataset v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 105, + 884, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LAs and TAs. English is the source language in all experiments, and is used for training TAs. The English LA is obtained directly from Adapterhub.ml (Pfeiffer et al., 2020a), LAs and embeddings (when needed) are only trained for target languages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 335, + 882, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, for the Non-Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ variant, we train a WordPiece tokenizer on the target language data with a vocabulary size of 10K.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 417, + 880, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training of Language and Task Adapters. We train all the language adapters for 50 epochs or $\\sim 50K$ update steps based on the corpus size. The batch size is set to 64 and the learning rate is $1e - 4$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train English task adapters following the setup from (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). For NER, we directly obtain the task adapter from Adapterhub.ml which is trained with a learning rate of $1e - 4$ for 10 epochs. For DP, we train a Transformer-based (Glavaš and Vulić, 2021) biaffine attention dependency parser (Dozat and Manning, 2017). We use a learning rate of $5e - 4$ and train for 10 epochs as in (Pfeiffer et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 533, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All the reported results in both tasks (NER and DP) are reported as averages over 6 random seeds. All the models have been trained on A100 or V100 GPUs. None of the training methods consumed more than 36 hours. As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated versions of target language data, outlined here.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 884, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Results and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 734, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "UROMAN versus Other Transliterators and Transliteration Strategies. In order to estab", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5Since LAs without INV typically perform worse than with INV (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b), also confirmed in our preliminary experiments, we do not ablate to the setup without INV.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 487, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6We do not have this setup for non-transliterated data since, for languages with unseen scripts, most of the tokens are replaced by the generic 'UNK' token, and fine-tuning embeddings hardly benefit downstream performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 869, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7998", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/17f500782286371555ad76c5e55f4b14d1005ea0f0102048de75e8b0959449dc.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TaskTransliteratoramarkaruhisdavg
NER (Macro F1)UROMAN25.624.861.466.548.635.343.7
Other25.523.757.363.956.735.943.8
UD (UAS / LAS)UROMAN36.17 / 6.633.0 / 19.8-47.3 / 32.433.8 / 17.8-37.5 / 19.1
Other29.9 / 5.432.6 / 19.9-45.0 / 19.933.2 / 17.9-35.2 / 15.8
", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 80, + 811, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7a6de9526591995d744bec8a2012e9907ad2062ab23b5394436279dfda87716b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Comparison of UROMAN with language-specific transliterations." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdockbmhrsdugxmfambodvkmsi
UROMAN32.5927.3467.7364.6835.3328.1052.5825.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
BORROW53.42 (hi)-12.46 (ar)45.86 (ru)16.79 (ar)12.85 (ar)24.77 (ru)------
RAND25.4219.5153.5542.0227.2025.1835.8218.0018.9521.1932.7520.0121.59
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 168, + 843, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1915c6cb2e399899f3761feb50827c5a44936950714f360f4af54d6dee007c18.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Comparison of various transliteration strategies on the NER task (Macro-F1)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdosdxmfmhrckbugambodvkmsi
Non-TransLA+INV55.1424.1931.3149.7470.3145.5433.533.2619.8618.7213.8123.1418.39
TransLA+INV32.5927.3435.3352.5864.6867.7328.1025.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
Non-TransLA+EmblEx60.0028.9142.4751.9961.0579.1250.4247.6040.9631.2153.9445.8949.01
TransLA + mPLMrl49.0536.9239.1657.9969.8573.9233.4337.0933.8240.4052.3945.2447.44
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 253, + 843, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5960a8e7cb8c66d7f4380408ebf24c27dadb9a542c45095d3d3386872bd2e792.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Results (Macro-F1 scores) on WikiAnn NER averaged over 6 random seeds." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Script
bhmyvugbxramavg
Non-TransLA+INV28.46 / 11.5345.28 / 26.2733.44 / 15.2839.75 / 19.7719.08 / 1.8533.20 / 10.81
TransLA+INV25.12 / 10.1745.74 / 26.6432.30 / 15.1037.92 / 17.2336.07 / 7.5835.43 / 12.41
Non-TransLA+EmblEx26.68 / 10.1048.34 / 25.3441.20 / 22.8139.51 / 16.0236.4778.3938.44 / 12.20
TransLA + mPLMrl28.04 / 11.1341.97 / 20.2950.89 / 16.5635.03 / 20.2939.10 / 9.0039.01 / 14.65
", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 353, + 811, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Results (UAS / LAS scores) in the DP task with UD, averaged over 6 random seeds.", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 430, + 810, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lish the utility of UROMAN as a viable transliterator, especially for low-resource languages, we compare its performance with transliteration options using the TransLA + INV setup as the most efficient scenario. First, we compare UROMAN with language-specific transliterations available for selected languages: amseg (Yimam et al., 2021) for Amharic, ai4bharat-transliteration (Madhani et al., 2022) for Hindi and Sindhi, lang-trans for Arabic, and transliterate for Russian and Georgian7. The transliterations used in this work are outlined in Table 6. The results are provided in Table 2. On average, UROMAN performs better or comparable to the language-specific transliterations. This provides justification to use UROMAN for massive transliteration at scale.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 463, + 489, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, we compare UROMAN to two other transliteration strategies. (i) BORROW refers to borrowing transliterators from languages within the same language family and written in the same script. Since building transliterators are costly, this gives us an estimate of whether it is possible to rely on the related transliterators when we do not have a language-specific one at hand. (ii) RAND", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 722, + 489, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "refers to a random setting where we associate any non-ASCII character with any ASCII character, giving us an estimate of whether we actually need knowledge of the language to build transliterations. The results are provided in Table 3: UROMAN is largely and consistently outperforming both BORROW and RAND, where the single exception is BORROW (from Hindi to Bhojpuri). Surprisingly, RAND also yields reasonable performance and on average even outperforms the Non-TransLA+INV variant with non-transliterated data (21.59 vs 18.39 in Table 4 later). This provides further evidence towards the utility of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular to assist and improve language adaptation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 884, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance on Low-Resource Languages is summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. We note that $\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}$ outperforms Non-Trans $\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}$ for all the languages with unseen scripts, and achieves that with huge margins ( $\\sim$ 8-22 points for NER and $\\sim$ 17 points in UAS scores). We observe similar trends for some of the languages with seen scripts such as Min Dong (cdo), Sindhi (sd), Mingrelian", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 712, + 882, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9We also compare the performance of these methods with the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for finetuning an out-of-the-box mBERT for languages with unseen scripts in Appendix B. All the adapter-based methods massively outperform an out-of-the-box mBERT in this scenario.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 857, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "For reproducibility, the links to the language-specific translitators are available in Appendix A", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 485, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{8}$ E.g., a Hindi transliterator can be borrowed for Bhojpuri since the two are related and written in Devanagari.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7999", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a30d48cb3ddb4d2c393c30a8025c0d311b6c789c062f842d428fb4c9ea4a8963.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Sample efficiency in the NER task." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 472, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1c950205100aab4509e107caa10d380e39c2abd245e0aba617d30a97a05dd5fc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Sample efficiency in the DP task." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 244, + 443, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(xmf) on NER tasks and Erzya (myv) on DP. The less efficient $\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}$ , as expected, further improves the performance for all the languages except for Tibetan (bo).10 Non-Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}}$ , however, now outperforms UROMAN-based methods for a majority of the languages. This observation can be attributed to various factors related to mBERT's tokenizer, and we provide an in-depth analysis later in Appendix C. Nonetheless, we observe strong and competitive performance of $\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}$ in both tasks, again indicating that more attention should be put on transliteration-based language adaptation in future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sample Efficiency. Finally, we simulate a few-shot setup to study the effectiveness of using transliterated versus non-transliterated data in data-scarce scenarios. For NER, we evaluate performance on all the languages and on languages with unseen scripts; for DP, we evaluate on all the languages. Figure 2 indicates that $\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}$ on average performs better than all the other methods at sample sizes 100 (i.e., 100 sentences in the target language) and 1,000. However, from 10,000 sentences onward, Non-Trans $\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}$ takes the lead. We observe similar trends in the DP task (see Fig 3). This establishes the utility of transliteration for (extremely) low-resource scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 489, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 640, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we have systematically analyzed and confirmed the potential of romanization, implemented via the UROMAN tool, to help with adaptation of multilingual pretrained language models. Given (i) its broad applicability and (ii) strong performance overall and for languages with unseen scripts, we hope our study will inspire more work on transliteration-based adaptation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 885, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 249, + 613, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we work with UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018) which is an unsupervised romanization tool. While it is an effective tool for romanization at scale, it still has potential drawbacks. Since it is only based on lexical substitution, its transliterations may not semantically or phonetically align with the source content and may differ from transliterations preferred by native speakers. Moreover, UROMAN is not invertible—as we have highlighted—and may thus be less appealing when text in the original script needs to be exactly reproduced. Our proposed method, while it is parameter-efficient and effective—particularly for low-resource languages—still underperforms language-specific tokenizer-based non-transliteration methods. Future work may focus on developing an improved and more efficient tokenizer for transliteration-based methods as we highlight in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 884, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While there is now a growing body of available evaluation resources for low-resource languages (Ebrahimimi et al., 2022; Mhaske et al., 2023; Winata et al., 2023, among others), our final selection of tasks, resources and languages has been driven and constrained by the specific concrete goal of our short paper: studying and evaluating if and how transliteration/romanization can help with adaptation of languages with scripts unseen by the pretrained multilingual language model. We thus closely follow the experimental setup of Pfeiffer et al. (2021) which used the same set of tasks and languages with unseen scripts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 882, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, romanization can be seen as a step towards providing more universal, or rather language-agnostic, input text representation. Full-fledged comparisons against other approaches that aim to strike language independence at the input or feature level, such as byte-level models (e.g., ByT5 (Xue et al., 2022)) and pixel-based models (e.g., PILXEL (Rust et al., 2023)) go beyond", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10 For Tibetan, longer words are composed using shorter words separated by tsek (\":\") which is not a valid space delimiter for the mBERT tokenizer; the number of produced subwords is thus much higher than for the other languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8000", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the scope of this particular work, but we point out to this as a very interesting future research avenue. Moreover, the integration of these language-agnostic representations with 'romanization'-based approaches might yield additional benefits, and should also be attested in future research.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 193, + 285, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Research Training Group KRITIS No. GRK 2222. The work of Ivan Vulić has been supported by a personal Royal Society University Research Fellowship (no 221137; 2022-).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 219, + 487, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank Indraneil Paul, Yongxin Huang, Ivan Habernal, and Massimo Nicosia for their valuable feedback and suggestions on a draft of this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 316, + 485, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 391, + 213, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Chantal Amrhein and Rico Sennrich. 2020. On Romanization for model transfer between scripts in neural machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 2461-2469, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alan Ansell, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Goran Glavaš, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2021. MAD-G: Multilingual adapter generation for efficient cross-lingual transfer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 4762–4781, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ethan C. Chau and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Specializing multilingual language models: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning, pages 51-61, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 414, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. 1996. The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press.", + "Isin Demirsahin, Cibu Johny, Alexander Gutkin, and Brian Roark. 2022. Criteria for useful automatic Romanization in South Asian languages. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 6662-6673, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tejas Dhamecha, Rudra Murthy, Samarth Bharadwaj, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2021. Role of Language Relatedness in Multilingual Fine-tuning of Language Models: A Case Study in Indo-Aryan Languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8584-8595, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. Open-Review.net.", + "Abteen Ebrahimi, Manuel Mager, Arturo Oncevay, Vishrav Chaudhary, Luis Chiruzzo, Angela Fan, John Ortega, Ricardo Ramos, Annette Rios, Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, Gustavo Giménez-Lugo, Elisabeth Mager, Graham Neubig, Alexis Palmer, Rolando Coto-Solano, Thang Vu, and Katharina Kann. 2022. AmericasNLI: Evaluating zero-shot natural language understanding of pretrained multilingual models in truly low-resource languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6279-6299, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2021. Is supervised syntactic parsing beneficial for language understanding tasks? an empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3090-3104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ulf Hermjakob, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Out-of-the-box universal Romanization tool uroman. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 13-18, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8001", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.", + "Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411-4421. PMLR.", + "Ying Lin, Cash Costello, Boliang Zhang, Di Lu, Heng Ji, James Mayfield, and Paul McNamee. 2018. Platforms for non-speakers annotating names in any language. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 1-6, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yash Madhani, Sushane Parthan, Priyanka A. Bedekar, Ruchi Khapra, Vivek Seshadri, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2022. Aksharantar: Towards building open transliteration tools for the next billion users. arXiv preprint.", + "Michael McCloskey and Neal J. Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. volume 24 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pages 109-165. Academic Press.", + "Arnav Mhaske, Harshit Kedia, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Mitesh M. Khapra, Pratyush Kumar, Rudra Murthy, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Naamapadam: A large-scale named entity annotated data for Indic languages. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10441-10456, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nikita Moghe, Evgeniia Razumovskaia, Liane Guillou, Ivan Vulic, Anna Korhonen, and Alexandra Birch. 2023. Multi3NLU++: A multilingual, multi-intent, multi-domain dataset for natural language understanding in task-oriented dialogue. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 3732-3755, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ibraheem Muhammad Moosa, Mahmud Elahi Akhter, and Ashfia Binte Habib. 2023. Does transliteration help multilingual language modeling? In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL* 2023, pages 670–685, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Benjamin Muller, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2021. When being unseen from mBERT is just the beginning: Handling new languages with multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 448-462, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034-4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.", + "Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual name tagging and linking for 282 languages. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1946–1958, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Naman Goyal, Xi Lin, Xian Li, James Cross, Sebastian Riedel, and Mikel Artetxe. 2022. Lifting the curse of multilinguality by pre-training modular transformers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3479-3495, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rückle, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020a. AdapterHub: A framework for adapting transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 46-54, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Ivan Vulić, and Edoardo Maria Ponti. 2023. Modular deep learning. arXiv preprint.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020b. MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Linguual Transfer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7654–7673, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. UNKs everywhere: Adapting multilingual language models to new scripts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10186-10203, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8002", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2362-2376, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for NER. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151-164, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Phillip Rust, Jonas F. Lotz, Emanuele Bugliarello, Elizabeth Salesky, Miryam de Lhoneux, and Desmond Elliott. 2023. Language modelling with pixels. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net.", + "Phillip Rust, Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. How good is your tokenizer? on the monolingual performance of multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3118-3135, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Daan van Esch, Tamar Lucassen, Sebastian Ruder, Isaac Caswell, and Clara Rivera. 2022. Writing system and speaker metadata for $2,800+$ language varieties. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5035-5046, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.", + "Hans H Wellisch, Lee Breuer, Richard Foreman, and Robert Wilson. 1978. The conversion of scripts, its nature, history, and utilization. New York: Toronto: Wiley.", + "Genta Indra Winata, Alham Fikri Aji, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Rahmad Mahendra, Fajri Koto, Ade Romadhony, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Pascale Fung, Timothy Baldwin, Jey Han Lau, Rico Sennrich, and Sebastian Ruder. 2023. NusaX: Multilingual parallel sentiment dataset for 10 Indonesian local languages. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 815-834, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Linting Xue, Aditya Barua, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou, Sharan Narang, Mihir Kale, Adam Roberts, and Colin Raffel. 2022. ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:291-306.", + "Seid Muhie Yimam, Abinew Ali Ayele, Gopalakrishnan Venkatesh, Ibrahim Gashaw, and Chris Biemann. 2021. Introducing various semantic models" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "for amharic: Experimentation and evaluation with multiple tasks and datasets. Future Internet, 13(11).", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 85, + 880, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Judit Ács. Exploring bert's vocabulary. Blog Post.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 122, + 852, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8003", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Transliterators in Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 406, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides UROMAN, we also employ various language-specific transliterations which are publicly available. We list them in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 112, + 487, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Performance comparison of mBERT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 173, + 467, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We adapt the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT. The model is finetuned on the task data for a source language (high-resource) and is used to perform inference on the target language (low-resource). We report the performance comparison of the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT on the NER task for languages with unseen scripts with the adapter-based methods in Table 7. We observe that the adapter-based methods outperform mBERT by huge margins.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Further Analyses", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 375, + 305, + 392 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following previous work (Ács; Rust et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023), we further analyze tokenization quality of the mBERT tokenizer using the following established metrics: 1) % of \"UNK\"s measures the % of \"UNK\" tokens produced by the tokenizer, and our aim is to compare their rate before and after transliteration; 2) fertility measures the number of subwords that are produced per tokenized word; 3) proportion of continued subwords measures the proportion of words for which the tokenized word is split across at least two subwords (denoted by the symbol ##).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 489, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the results summarized in Figure 4, it is apparent that transliteration drastically reduces $\\%$ of UNKs. However, mBERT's tokenizer underperforms as compared to monolingual tokenizers based on fertility and the proportion of continued subwords (Rust et al., 2021). Transliteration performs better for some languages where the quality of the mBERT tokenizer is similar to the monolingual tokenizer such as for dv, km, and cdo. On the other hand, transliteration methods perform worse on languages where the quality of the underlying mBERT tokenizer is relatively poor.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to test the hypothesis that the tokenizer quality might be the principal reason for the performance gap for the transliteration-based methods in comparison to the non-transliteration based methods, we carried out an additional experiment. For the experiment, we adapt the Non-Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ to operate on transliterated data, and call this variant Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ . Here, we train a new tokenizer", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on the transliterated data and initialize lexically overlapping embeddings with mBERT's pretrained embeddings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We plot the performance in Figure 5. The new method, $\\mathrm{Trans_{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ now outperforms the nontransliteration-based variant on 8/12 languages and also on average. Consequently, this validates our hypothesis and is in line with the previous work (Moosa et al., 2023). However, we found a drop in performance in the case of mhr (-10.71) and cdo (-10.14) when compared to $\\mathrm{Trans_{LA} + mPLM_{ft}}$ . These drops may be attributed to the lower degree of lexical overlap with mBERT's vocabulary, and consequently a higher number of randomly initialized embeddings for those target languages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 133, + 884, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8004", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b801220320630fbbe81d4b101ae56e278240e06979cf58e131cb98a4654f2a8e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TransliteratorUsed for languagesAvailable at
UROMANAllgithub.com/isi-nlp/uroman
amsegampypi.org/project/amseg/
transliterateru, kapypi.org/project/transliterate/
ai4bharat-transliterationhi, sdpypi.org/project/ai4bharat-transliteration/
lang-transarpypi.org/project/lang-trans/
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 884, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8309dd1ed12a59dc1f0528edf5e64d0557b4f8d3dbec0880e76b532cd845f7ca.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 208, + 349, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/47711266c4017b2aa9f669ce98d4d7d7d04173802500672272aea02a88d75ca3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)", + "Figure 4: Tokenizer quality analysis. a) % of UNKs before and after transliteration, b) Fertility, and c) Proportion of continued subwords for mBERT vs monolingual tokenizer." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 208, + 616, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fb3ee83c84d87592bf4ee3c75d4c4ae5a5a1aa7ed161b08c329155e3eb3efc12.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 648, + 206, + 880, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f32a117937df02c309221b0fc5c6eaacf022d84aedff963fd480dd7bdd40a24c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Transliterators used in this work." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VariantUnseen Scripts
ambodvkmsi
mBERT0.9117.401.3010.712.50
Non-TransLA+INV3.2619.8618.7213.8123.14
TransLA + INV25.6935.9529.9941.7631.83
Non-TransLA+EmblEx47.6040.9631.2153.9445.89
TransLA + mPLMft37.0933.8240.4052.3945.24
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 426, + 470, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Performance Comparison of mBERT with adapter-based finetuning methods for unseen scripts on the NER task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 510, + 487, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f862f3a59498858d80d8303dd287b78b2713cb4ca14a6614907596786428fec4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Comparison of Non-Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ with Trans $_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ on NER (left) and DP (right)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 700, + 487, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8005", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_model.json b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b188fc58cf429bc5a7cca0114ab712c29138aaec --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1815 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.08, + 0.731, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.125, + 0.886, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sukannya Purkayastha1, Sebastian Ruder2, Jonas Pfeiffer2, Iryna Gurevych1, Ivan Vulić3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.334, + 0.144, + 0.671, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.16, + 0.802, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Department of Computer Science and Hessian Center for AI (hessian.AI)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.36, + 0.177, + 0.643, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Technical University of Darmstadt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.418, + 0.193, + 0.586, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Google DeepMind" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.281, + 0.21, + 0.723, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\) Language Technology Lab, University of Cambridge" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.361, + 0.228, + 0.642, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) have become the de facto state of the art for cross-lingual transfer in NLP. However, their large-scale deployment to many languages, besides pretraining data scarcity, is also hindered by the increase in vocabulary size and limitations in their parameter budget. In order to boost the capacity of mPLMs to deal with low-resource and unseen languages, we explore the potential of leveraging transliteration on a massive scale. In particular, we explore the UROMAN transliteration tool, which provides mappings from UTF-8 to Latin characters for all the writing systems, enabling inexpensive romanization for virtually any language. We first focus on establishing how UROMAN compares against other language-specific and manually curated transliterators for adapting multilingual PLMs. We then study and compare a plethora of data- and parameter-efficient strategies for adapting the mPLMs to romanized and non-romanized corpora of 14 diverse low-resource languages. Our results reveal that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance for many languages, with particular gains achieved in the most challenging setups: on languages with unseen scripts and with limited training data without any vocabulary augmentation. Further analyses reveal that an improved tokenizer based on romanized data can even outperform non-transliteration-based methods in the majority of languages." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.749, + 0.26, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Massively multilingual language models (mPLMs) such as mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) have become the driving force for a variety of applications in multilingual NLP (Ponti et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020; Moghe et al., 2023). However, guaranteeing and maintaining strong performance for a wide spectrum of low-resource languages is difficult due to two crucial problems. The first issue is the vocabulary" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.251, + 0.875, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LanguageOriginal TextRomanized TextTranslation
Bhojpuriबाल्दियम् गार्वाjorjiyan bhaasaasGeorgian language
Sinhalaसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�र्था
Sindhiसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�र्थाgrahalookaplanets
Khmerkhμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμmu μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμum μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ µ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μµ μµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµüµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµúµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ µµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₃₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₂₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₁₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀⁻⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁰⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁵⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁲⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁴⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁽⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁻⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁼⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸ⁱ⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁅⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁰⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₃⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄²⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄.\n<|im_start|>assistantBhojpuriBJJUJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.326, + 0.871, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Romanization across different languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.885, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "size, as the vocabulary is bound to increase with the number of languages added if per-language performance is to be maintained (Hu et al., 2020; Artetxe et al., 2020; Pfeiffer et al., 2022). Second, pretraining mPLMs with a fixed model capacity improves cross-lingual performance up to a point after which it starts to decrease; this is the phenomenon termed the curse of multilinguality (Conneau et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.497, + 0.885, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transliteration refers to the process of converting language represented in one writing system to another (Wellisch et al., 1978). Latin script-centered transliteration or romanization is the most common form of transliteration (Lin et al., 2018; Amrhein and Sennrich, 2020; Demirsin et al., 2022) as the Latin/Roman script is by far the most widely adopted writing script in the world (Daniels and Bright, 1996; van Esch et al., 2022). Adapting mPLMs via transliteration can address the two aforementioned critical issues. 1) Since the Latin script covers a dominant portion of the mPLM's vocabulary (e.g., \\(77\\%\\) in case of mBERT, see Ács), 'romanizing' the remaining part of the vocabulary might mitigate the vocabulary size issue and boost vocabulary sharing. 2) Since no new tokens are added during the romanization process, reusing pretrained embeddings from the mPLM's embedding matrix helps reuse the information already present within the mPLM, thereby allocating the model's parameter budget more efficiently." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.835, + 0.884, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, the main drawback of transliteration seems to be the expensive process of creating effective language-specific transliterations, as they" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1According to Encyclopedia Britannica, up to 70% of the world population is employing the Latin script." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7996" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7996-8005" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "typically require language expertise to curate dictionaries that map tokens from one language and script to another. Therefore, previous attempts at mPLM adaptation to unseen languages via transliteration (Muller et al., 2021; Chau and Smith, 2021; Dhamecha et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023) were constrained to a handful of languages due to the limited availability of language-specific translit-. rators, or were applied only to languages that have 'language siblings' with developed translitators." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.247, + 0.49, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, unlike previous work, we propose to use and then evaluate the usefulness of a universal romanization tool, UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018), for quick, large-scale and effective adaptation of mPLMs to low-resource languages. The UROMAN tool disposes of language-specific curated dictionaries and maps any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, increasing the portability of romanization, with some examples in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.393, + 0.49, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We analyze language adaptation on a massive scale via UROMAN-based romanization on a set of 14 diverse low-resource languages. We conduct experiments within the standard parameter-efficient adapter-based cross-lingual transfer setup on two tasks: Named Entity Recognition (NER) on the WikiANN dataset (Pan et al., 2017; Rahimi et al., 2019), and Dependency Parsing (DP) with Universal Dependencies v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020). Our key results suggest that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance on par or even outperforming adaptation with language-specific transliterrators, setting up the basis for wider use of transliteration-based mPLM adaptation techniques in future work. The gains with romanization-based adaptation over standard adaptation baselines are particularly pronounced for languages with unseen scripts (\\(\\sim\\)8-22 performance points) without any vocabulary augmentation.[2]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.713, + 0.258, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Background" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.741, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Why UROMAN-Based Romanization? UROMAN-based romanization is not always fully reversible, and its usage for transliteration has thus been limited in the literature. However, due to its high portability, UROMAN can help scale the process of transliteration massively and as such benefit low-resource scenarios and wider adaptation of mPLMs. The main idea, as hinted in §1, is to (learn to) map" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, without the use of any external language-specific dictionaries (see Hermjakob et al. (2018) for technical details)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.139, + 0.885, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cross-Lingual Transfer to Low-Resource Languages. Parameter-efficient and modular finetuning methods (Pfeiffer et al., 2023) such as adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2020b) have been used for cross-lingual transfer, putting a particular focus on enabling transfer to low-resource languages and scenarios, including languages with scripts 'unseen' by the base mPLM (Pfeiffer et al., 2021). Adapters are small lightweight components stitched into the base mPLM, and then trained for particular languages and tasks while keeping the parameters of the original mPLM frozen. This circumvents the issues of catastrophic forgetting and interference (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989) within the mPLM, and allows for extending its reach also to unseen languages (Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Ansell et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.414, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For our main empirical analyses, we adopt a state-of-the-art modular method for cross-lingual transfer: MAD-X (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). In short, MAD-X is based on language adapters (LA), task adapters (TA), and invertible adapters (INV). While LAs are trained for specific languages relying on masked language modeling, TAs are trained with high-resource languages relying on task-annotated data and task-specific objectives. At inference, the source LA is replaced with the target LA while the TA is kept. In order to do parameter-efficient learning for the token-level embeddings across different languages and to deal with the vocabulary mismatch between source and target languages, Pfeiffer et al. (2020b) also propose INV adapters: they are placed on top of the embedding layer and their inverses precede the output embedding layer.3 We adopt the better-performing MAD-X 2.0 setup (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) where the adapters in the last Transformer layer are dropped at inference.4" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.75, + 0.762, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments and Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.778, + 0.885, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Code and data available at https://github.com/UKPLab/emnlp23_romanization_based_adaptation" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.868, + 0.883, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3They are trained together with the LAs while the rest of the mPLM is kept frozen." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.894, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4We refer the reader to the original papers for further technical details regarding the MAD-X framework." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.868, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7997" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LanguageFamilyScript# Sentences
Bhojpuri (bh)Indo-EuropeanDevanagari35,983
Buryat (bxr)MongolicCyrillic41,692
Erzya (myv)UralicCyrillic42,575
Meadow Mari (mhr)UralicCyrillic144,529
Min Dong (cdo)Sino-TibetanChinese33,978
Mingrelian (xmf)KartvelianGeorgian63,032
Sindhi (sd)Indo-EuropeanArabic86,176
Sorani Kurdish (ckb)Indo-EuropeanArabic459,475
Uyghur (ug)TurkicArabic149,813
Amháric (am)Afro-AsiaticGe'ez88,320
Divehi (dv)Indo-EuropeanThaana34,779
Khmer (km)AustroasiaticKhmer139,704
Sinhala (si)Indo-EuropeanSinhala219,866
Tibetan (bo)Sino-TibetanTibetan131,362
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.251, + 0.49, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Languages with their ISO 639-3 codes used in our evaluation, along with their script, language family, and number of sentences available for pretraining. The dashed line separates languages with unseen scripts, placed in the bottom part of the table." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.352, + 0.462, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "versions of target language data, outlined here." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.375, + 0.49, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Variants with Non-Transliterated Data. For the Non-Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}\\) variant, we train LAs and INV adapters together. This variant serves to examine the extent to which mPLMs can adapt to unseen languages without any vocabulary extension.\\(^5\\) We compare this to Non-Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}}\\), which trains a new tokenizer for the target language (Pfeiffer et al., 2021): the so-called 'lexically overlapping' tokens are initialized with mPLM's trained embeddings, while the remaining embeddings are initialized randomly. All these embeddings (Emb\\(_{\\mathrm{Lex}}\\)) are fine-tuned along with LAs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.576, + 0.49, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Variants with Transliterated Data. We evaluate a \\(\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}\\) variant, which uses the same setup as Non-Trans \\(\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}\\) but now with transliterated data. We again note that in this efficient setup, we do not extend the vocabulary size, and use the fewest trainable parameters. In the \\(\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM}_{\\mathrm{ft}}}\\) variant, we train LAs along with fine-tuning the pretrained embeddings of mPLM (mPLMft). This further enhances the model capacity by fine-tuning the embedding layer instead of using invertible adapters. For both variants, transliterated data can be produced via different transliterations: (i) language-specific ones; (ii) the ones from 'language siblings' (e.g., using a Georgian transliterator for Mingrelian), or (iii) UROMAN." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.715, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.106, + 0.885, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data, Languages and Tasks. Following Pfeiffer et al. (2021), we select mBERT as our base mPLM. We experiment with 14 typologically diverse low-resource languages that are not part of mBERT's pretraining corpora, with 5/14 languages written in distinct scripts (see Table 1 for details). For LA training, we use Wikipedia dumps for the target languages, which we also transliterate (using different translitators). Evaluation is conducted on two standard cross-lingual transfer tasks in zero-shot setups: 1) the WikiAnn NER dataset (Pan et al., 2017) with the train, dev, and test splits from (Rahimi et al., 2019); 2) for dependency parsing, we rely on the UD Dataset v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.336, + 0.884, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LAs and TAs. English is the source language in all experiments, and is used for training TAs. The English LA is obtained directly from Adapterhub.ml (Pfeiffer et al., 2020a), LAs and embeddings (when needed) are only trained for target languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.418, + 0.882, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, for the Non-Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}\\) variant, we train a WordPiece tokenizer on the target language data with a vocabulary size of 10K." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.471, + 0.884, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training of Language and Task Adapters. We train all the language adapters for 50 epochs or \\(\\sim 50K\\) update steps based on the corpus size. The batch size is set to 64 and the learning rate is \\(1e - 4\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.535, + 0.884, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train English task adapters following the setup from (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). For NER, we directly obtain the task adapter from Adapterhub.ml which is trained with a learning rate of \\(1e - 4\\) for 10 epochs. For DP, we train a Transformer-based (Glavaš and Vulić, 2021) biaffine attention dependency parser (Dozat and Manning, 2017). We use a learning rate of \\(5e - 4\\) and train for 10 epochs as in (Pfeiffer et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.68, + 0.885, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All the reported results in both tasks (NER and DP) are reported as averages over 6 random seeds. All the models have been trained on A100 or V100 GPUs. None of the training methods consumed more than 36 hours. As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated versions of target language data, outlined here." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.736, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Results and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "UROMAN versus Other Transliterators and Transliteration Strategies. In order to estab" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.833, + 0.488, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5Since LAs without INV typically perform worse than with INV (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b), also confirmed in our preliminary experiments, we do not ablate to the setup without INV." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.87, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6We do not have this setup for non-transliterated data since, for languages with unseen scripts, most of the tokens are replaced by the generic 'UNK' token, and fine-tuning embeddings hardly benefit downstream performance." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.833, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7998" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.082, + 0.813, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TaskTransliteratoramarkaruhisdavg
NER (Macro F1)UROMAN25.624.861.466.548.635.343.7
Other25.523.757.363.956.735.943.8
UD (UAS / LAS)UROMAN36.17 / 6.633.0 / 19.8-47.3 / 32.433.8 / 17.8-37.5 / 19.1
Other29.9 / 5.432.6 / 19.9-45.0 / 19.933.2 / 17.9-35.2 / 15.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.147, + 0.741, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of UROMAN with language-specific transliterations." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.169, + 0.844, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdockbmhrsdugxmfambodvkmsi
UROMAN32.5927.3467.7364.6835.3328.1052.5825.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
BORROW53.42 (hi)-12.46 (ar)45.86 (ru)16.79 (ar)12.85 (ar)24.77 (ru)------
RAND25.4219.5153.5542.0227.2025.1835.8218.0018.9521.1932.7520.0121.59
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.206, + 0.234, + 0.788, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Comparison of various transliteration strategies on the NER task (Macro-F1)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.254, + 0.844, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdosdxmfmhrckbugambodvkmsi
Non-TransLA+INV55.1424.1931.3149.7470.3145.5433.533.2619.8618.7213.8123.1418.39
TransLA+INV32.5927.3435.3352.5864.6867.7328.1025.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
Non-TransLA+EmblEx60.0028.9142.4751.9961.0579.1250.4247.6040.9631.2153.9445.8949.01
TransLA + mPLMrl49.0536.9239.1657.9969.8573.9233.4337.0933.8240.4052.3945.2447.44
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.332, + 0.785, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Results (Macro-F1 scores) on WikiAnn NER averaged over 6 random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.354, + 0.812, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Script
bhmyvugbxramavg
Non-TransLA+INV28.46 / 11.5345.28 / 26.2733.44 / 15.2839.75 / 19.7719.08 / 1.8533.20 / 10.81
TransLA+INV25.12 / 10.1745.74 / 26.6432.30 / 15.1037.92 / 17.2336.07 / 7.5835.43 / 12.41
Non-TransLA+EmblEx26.68 / 10.1048.34 / 25.3441.20 / 22.8139.51 / 16.0236.4778.3938.44 / 12.20
TransLA + mPLMrl28.04 / 11.1341.97 / 20.2950.89 / 16.5635.03 / 20.2939.10 / 9.0039.01 / 14.65
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.431, + 0.811, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Results (UAS / LAS scores) in the DP task with UD, averaged over 6 random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.464, + 0.49, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lish the utility of UROMAN as a viable transliterator, especially for low-resource languages, we compare its performance with transliteration options using the TransLA + INV setup as the most efficient scenario. First, we compare UROMAN with language-specific transliterations available for selected languages: amseg (Yimam et al., 2021) for Amharic, ai4bharat-transliteration (Madhani et al., 2022) for Hindi and Sindhi, lang-trans for Arabic, and transliterate for Russian and Georgian7. The transliterations used in this work are outlined in Table 6. The results are provided in Table 2. On average, UROMAN performs better or comparable to the language-specific transliterations. This provides justification to use UROMAN for massive transliteration at scale." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.724, + 0.49, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, we compare UROMAN to two other transliteration strategies. (i) BORROW refers to borrowing transliterators from languages within the same language family and written in the same script. Since building transliterators are costly, this gives us an estimate of whether it is possible to rely on the related transliterators when we do not have a language-specific one at hand. (ii) RAND" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.885, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "refers to a random setting where we associate any non-ASCII character with any ASCII character, giving us an estimate of whether we actually need knowledge of the language to build transliterations. The results are provided in Table 3: UROMAN is largely and consistently outperforming both BORROW and RAND, where the single exception is BORROW (from Hindi to Bhojpuri). Surprisingly, RAND also yields reasonable performance and on average even outperforms the Non-TransLA+INV variant with non-transliterated data (21.59 vs 18.39 in Table 4 later). This provides further evidence towards the utility of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular to assist and improve language adaptation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.713, + 0.884, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance on Low-Resource Languages is summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. We note that \\(\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}\\) outperforms Non-Trans \\(\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}\\) for all the languages with unseen scripts, and achieves that with huge margins (\\(\\sim\\) 8-22 points for NER and \\(\\sim\\) 17 points in UAS scores). We observe similar trends for some of the languages with seen scripts such as Min Dong (cdo), Sindhi (sd), Mingrelian" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.858, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9We also compare the performance of these methods with the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for finetuning an out-of-the-box mBERT for languages with unseen scripts in Appendix B. All the adapter-based methods massively outperform an out-of-the-box mBERT in this scenario." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.868, + 0.486, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For reproducibility, the links to the language-specific translitators are available in Appendix A" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{8}\\)E.g., a Hindi transliterator can be borrowed for Bhojpuri since the two are related and written in Devanagari." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.868, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7999" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.473, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.219, + 0.454, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Sample efficiency in the NER task." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.245, + 0.445, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.368, + 0.446, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Sample efficiency in the DP task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.402, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(xmf) on NER tasks and Erzya (myv) on DP. The less efficient \\(\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}\\), as expected, further improves the performance for all the languages except for Tibetan (bo).10 Non-Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}}\\), however, now outperforms UROMAN-based methods for a majority of the languages. This observation can be attributed to various factors related to mBERT's tokenizer, and we provide an in-depth analysis later in Appendix C. Nonetheless, we observe strong and competitive performance of \\(\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}\\) in both tasks, again indicating that more attention should be put on transliteration-based language adaptation in future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sample Efficiency. Finally, we simulate a few-shot setup to study the effectiveness of using transliterated versus non-transliterated data in data-scarce scenarios. For NER, we evaluate performance on all the languages and on languages with unseen scripts; for DP, we evaluate on all the languages. Figure 2 indicates that \\(\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}\\) on average performs better than all the other methods at sample sizes 100 (i.e., 100 sentences in the target language) and 1,000. However, from 10,000 sentences onward, Non-Trans \\(\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}\\) takes the lead. We observe similar trends in the DP task (see Fig 3). This establishes the utility of transliteration for (extremely) low-resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.642, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.11, + 0.886, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we have systematically analyzed and confirmed the potential of romanization, implemented via the UROMAN tool, to help with adaptation of multilingual pretrained language models. Given (i) its broad applicability and (ii) strong performance overall and for languages with unseen scripts, we hope our study will inspire more work on transliteration-based adaptation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.25, + 0.615, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.276, + 0.885, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we work with UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018) which is an unsupervised romanization tool. While it is an effective tool for romanization at scale, it still has potential drawbacks. Since it is only based on lexical substitution, its transliterations may not semantically or phonetically align with the source content and may differ from transliterations preferred by native speakers. Moreover, UROMAN is not invertible—as we have highlighted—and may thus be less appealing when text in the original script needs to be exactly reproduced. Our proposed method, while it is parameter-efficient and effective—particularly for low-resource languages—still underperforms language-specific tokenizer-based non-transliteration methods. Future work may focus on developing an improved and more efficient tokenizer for transliteration-based methods as we highlight in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.884, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While there is now a growing body of available evaluation resources for low-resource languages (Ebrahimimi et al., 2022; Mhaske et al., 2023; Winata et al., 2023, among others), our final selection of tasks, resources and languages has been driven and constrained by the specific concrete goal of our short paper: studying and evaluating if and how transliteration/romanization can help with adaptation of languages with scripts unseen by the pretrained multilingual language model. We thus closely follow the experimental setup of Pfeiffer et al. (2021) which used the same set of tasks and languages with unseen scripts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.792, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, romanization can be seen as a step towards providing more universal, or rather language-agnostic, input text representation. Full-fledged comparisons against other approaches that aim to strike language independence at the input or feature level, such as byte-level models (e.g., ByT5 (Xue et al., 2022)) and pixel-based models (e.g., PILXEL (Rust et al., 2023)) go beyond" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.869, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10 For Tibetan, longer words are composed using shorter words separated by tsek (\":\") which is not a valid space delimiter for the mBERT tokenizer; the number of produced subwords is thus much higher than for the other languages." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8000" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the scope of this particular work, but we point out to this as a very interesting future research avenue. Moreover, the integration of these language-agnostic representations with 'romanization'-based approaches might yield additional benefits, and should also be attested in future research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.194, + 0.287, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.22, + 0.488, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Research Training Group KRITIS No. GRK 2222. The work of Ivan Vulić has been supported by a personal Royal Society University Research Fellowship (no 221137; 2022-)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.317, + 0.487, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank Indraneil Paul, Yongxin Huang, Ivan Habernal, and Massimo Nicosia for their valuable feedback and suggestions on a draft of this paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.392, + 0.214, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.415, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chantal Amrhein and Rico Sennrich. 2020. On Romanization for model transfer between scripts in neural machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 2461-2469, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.505, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alan Ansell, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Goran Glavaš, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2021. MAD-G: Multilingual adapter generation for efficient cross-lingual transfer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 4762–4781, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.711, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethan C. Chau and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Specializing multilingual language models: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning, pages 51-61, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.415, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.114 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. 1996. The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.124, + 0.885, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Isin Demirsahin, Cibu Johny, Alexander Gutkin, and Brian Roark. 2022. Criteria for useful automatic Romanization in South Asian languages. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 6662-6673, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.216, + 0.885, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.346, + 0.885, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tejas Dhamecha, Rudra Murthy, Samarth Bharadwaj, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2021. Role of Language Relatedness in Multilingual Fine-tuning of Language Models: A Case Study in Indo-Aryan Languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8584-8595, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.476, + 0.885, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. Open-Review.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abteen Ebrahimi, Manuel Mager, Arturo Oncevay, Vishrav Chaudhary, Luis Chiruzzo, Angela Fan, John Ortega, Ricardo Ramos, Annette Rios, Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, Gustavo Giménez-Lugo, Elisabeth Mager, Graham Neubig, Alexis Palmer, Rolando Coto-Solano, Thang Vu, and Katharina Kann. 2022. AmericasNLI: Evaluating zero-shot natural language understanding of pretrained multilingual models in truly low-resource languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6279-6299, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.749, + 0.885, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2021. Is supervised syntactic parsing beneficial for language understanding tasks? an empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3090-3104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.852, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ulf Hermjakob, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Out-of-the-box universal Romanization tool uroman. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 13-18, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8001" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.218, + 0.49, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411-4421. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.35, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ying Lin, Cash Costello, Boliang Zhang, Di Lu, Heng Ji, James Mayfield, and Paul McNamee. 2018. Platforms for non-speakers annotating names in any language. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 1-6, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.442, + 0.49, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yash Madhani, Sushane Parthan, Priyanka A. Bedekar, Ruchi Khapra, Vivek Seshadri, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2022. Aksharantar: Towards building open transliteration tools for the next billion users. arXiv preprint." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.522, + 0.49, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael McCloskey and Neal J. Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. volume 24 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pages 109-165. Academic Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.602, + 0.49, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arnav Mhaske, Harshit Kedia, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Mitesh M. Khapra, Pratyush Kumar, Rudra Murthy, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Naamapadam: A large-scale named entity annotated data for Indic languages. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10441-10456, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.721, + 0.49, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikita Moghe, Evgeniia Razumovskaia, Liane Guillou, Ivan Vulic, Anna Korhonen, and Alexandra Birch. 2023. Multi3NLU++: A multilingual, multi-intent, multi-domain dataset for natural language understanding in task-oriented dialogue. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 3732-3755, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ibraheem Muhammad Moosa, Mahmud Elahi Akhter, and Ashfia Binte Habib. 2023. Does transliteration help multilingual language modeling? In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL* 2023, pages 670–685, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin Muller, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2021. When being unseen from mBERT is just the beginning: Handling new languages with multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 448-462, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.214, + 0.885, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034-4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.33, + 0.885, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual name tagging and linking for 282 languages. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1946–1958, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.885, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Naman Goyal, Xi Lin, Xian Li, James Cross, Sebastian Riedel, and Mikel Artetxe. 2022. Lifting the curse of multilinguality by pre-training modular transformers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3479-3495, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.56, + 0.885, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rückle, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020a. AdapterHub: A framework for adapting transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 46-54, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.675, + 0.885, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Ivan Vulić, and Edoardo Maria Ponti. 2023. Modular deep learning. arXiv preprint." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.724, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020b. MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Linguual Transfer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7654–7673, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. UNKs everywhere: Adapting multilingual language models to new scripts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10186-10203, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8002" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2362-2376, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.187, + 0.49, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for NER. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151-164, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Phillip Rust, Jonas F. Lotz, Emanuele Bugliarello, Elizabeth Salesky, Miryam de Lhoneux, and Desmond Elliott. 2023. Language modelling with pixels. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.349, + 0.49, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Phillip Rust, Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. How good is your tokenizer? on the monolingual performance of multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3118-3135, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.476, + 0.49, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daan van Esch, Tamar Lucassen, Sebastian Ruder, Isaac Caswell, and Clara Rivera. 2022. Writing system and speaker metadata for \\(2,800+\\) language varieties. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5035-5046, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.577, + 0.49, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hans H Wellisch, Lee Breuer, Richard Foreman, and Robert Wilson. 1978. The conversion of scripts, its nature, history, and utilization. New York: Toronto: Wiley." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Genta Indra Winata, Alham Fikri Aji, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Rahmad Mahendra, Fajri Koto, Ade Romadhony, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Pascale Fung, Timothy Baldwin, Jey Han Lau, Rico Sennrich, and Sebastian Ruder. 2023. NusaX: Multilingual parallel sentiment dataset for 10 Indonesian local languages. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 815-834, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linting Xue, Aditya Barua, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou, Sharan Narang, Mihir Kale, Adam Roberts, and Colin Raffel. 2022. ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:291-306." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Seid Muhie Yimam, Abinew Ali Ayele, Gopalakrishnan Venkatesh, Ibrahim Gashaw, and Chris Biemann. 2021. Introducing various semantic models" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.114 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for amharic: Experimentation and evaluation with multiple tasks and datasets. Future Internet, 13(11)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.123, + 0.853, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Judit Ács. Exploring bert's vocabulary. Blog Post." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8003" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.407, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Transliterators in Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.113, + 0.488, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides UROMAN, we also employ various language-specific transliterations which are publicly available. We list them in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.174, + 0.468, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Performance comparison of mBERT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We adapt the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT. The model is finetuned on the task data for a source language (high-resource) and is used to perform inference on the target language (low-resource). We report the performance comparison of the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT on the NER task for languages with unseen scripts with the adapter-based methods in Table 7. We observe that the adapter-based methods outperform mBERT by huge margins." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.376, + 0.306, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Further Analyses" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.403, + 0.49, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following previous work (Ács; Rust et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023), we further analyze tokenization quality of the mBERT tokenizer using the following established metrics: 1) % of \"UNK\"s measures the % of \"UNK\" tokens produced by the tokenizer, and our aim is to compare their rate before and after transliteration; 2) fertility measures the number of subwords that are produced per tokenized word; 3) proportion of continued subwords measures the proportion of words for which the tokenized word is split across at least two subwords (denoted by the symbol ##)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the results summarized in Figure 4, it is apparent that transliteration drastically reduces \\(\\%\\) of UNKs. However, mBERT's tokenizer underperforms as compared to monolingual tokenizers based on fertility and the proportion of continued subwords (Rust et al., 2021). Transliteration performs better for some languages where the quality of the mBERT tokenizer is similar to the monolingual tokenizer such as for dv, km, and cdo. On the other hand, transliteration methods perform worse on languages where the quality of the underlying mBERT tokenizer is relatively poor." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.792, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to test the hypothesis that the tokenizer quality might be the principal reason for the performance gap for the transliteration-based methods in comparison to the non-transliteration based methods, we carried out an additional experiment. For the experiment, we adapt the Non-Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}\\) to operate on transliterated data, and call this variant Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}\\). Here, we train a new tokenizer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on the transliterated data and initialize lexically overlapping embeddings with mBERT's pretrained embeddings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.134, + 0.885, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We plot the performance in Figure 5. The new method, \\(\\mathrm{Trans_{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}\\) now outperforms the nontransliteration-based variant on 8/12 languages and also on average. Consequently, this validates our hypothesis and is in line with the previous work (Moosa et al., 2023). However, we found a drop in performance in the case of mhr (-10.71) and cdo (-10.14) when compared to \\(\\mathrm{Trans_{LA} + mPLM_{ft}}\\). These drops may be attributed to the lower degree of lexical overlap with mBERT's vocabulary, and consequently a higher number of randomly initialized embeddings for those target languages." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8004" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TransliteratorUsed for languagesAvailable at
UROMANAllgithub.com/isi-nlp/uroman
amsegampypi.org/project/amseg/
transliterateru, kapypi.org/project/transliterate/
ai4bharat-transliterationhi, sdpypi.org/project/ai4bharat-transliteration/
lang-transarpypi.org/project/lang-trans/
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.356, + 0.181, + 0.642, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Transliterators used in this work." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.209, + 0.351, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.285, + 0.242, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.209, + 0.617, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.489, + 0.284, + 0.509, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.649, + 0.208, + 0.882, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.756, + 0.284, + 0.775, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.308, + 0.884, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Tokenizer quality analysis. a) % of UNKs before and after transliteration, b) Fertility, and c) Proportion of continued subwords for mBERT vs monolingual tokenizer." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.428, + 0.472, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VariantUnseen Scripts
ambodvkmsi
mBERT0.9117.401.3010.712.50
Non-TransLA+INV3.2619.8618.7213.8123.14
TransLA + INV25.6935.9529.9941.7631.83
Non-TransLA+EmblEx47.6040.9631.2153.9445.89
TransLA + mPLMft37.0933.8240.4052.3945.24
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.511, + 0.489, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Performance Comparison of mBERT with adapter-based finetuning methods for unseen scripts on the NER task." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.701, + 0.489, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.817, + 0.489, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Comparison of Non-Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}\\) with Trans\\(_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}\\) on NER (left) and DP (right)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8005" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_origin.pdf b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90f0748131917e193056bf860c4850674522442d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/1a02cba7-8ebc-4f20-8832-cb43efde101d_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3e554fd4d8acd4454e4e2cde2ab422d0a9a43e13a35adf7cd4596e23a8a8f1f9 +size 486379 diff --git a/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/full.md b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fbac0bb19c5cd2202c2f3c6e28930d9b4b51d3f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +# Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models + +Sukannya Purkayastha1, Sebastian Ruder2, Jonas Pfeiffer2, Iryna Gurevych1, Ivan Vulić3 + +1 Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab, + +Department of Computer Science and Hessian Center for AI (hessian.AI), + +Technical University of Darmstadt + +Google DeepMind + +$^{3}$ Language Technology Lab, University of Cambridge + +www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de + +# Abstract + +Large multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) have become the de facto state of the art for cross-lingual transfer in NLP. However, their large-scale deployment to many languages, besides pretraining data scarcity, is also hindered by the increase in vocabulary size and limitations in their parameter budget. In order to boost the capacity of mPLMs to deal with low-resource and unseen languages, we explore the potential of leveraging transliteration on a massive scale. In particular, we explore the UROMAN transliteration tool, which provides mappings from UTF-8 to Latin characters for all the writing systems, enabling inexpensive romanization for virtually any language. We first focus on establishing how UROMAN compares against other language-specific and manually curated transliterators for adapting multilingual PLMs. We then study and compare a plethora of data- and parameter-efficient strategies for adapting the mPLMs to romanized and non-romanized corpora of 14 diverse low-resource languages. Our results reveal that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance for many languages, with particular gains achieved in the most challenging setups: on languages with unseen scripts and with limited training data without any vocabulary augmentation. Further analyses reveal that an improved tokenizer based on romanized data can even outperform non-transliteration-based methods in the majority of languages. + +# 1 Introduction + +Massively multilingual language models (mPLMs) such as mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) have become the driving force for a variety of applications in multilingual NLP (Ponti et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020; Moghe et al., 2023). However, guaranteeing and maintaining strong performance for a wide spectrum of low-resource languages is difficult due to two crucial problems. The first issue is the vocabulary + +
LanguageOriginal TextRomanized TextTranslation
Bhojpuriबाल्दियम् गार्वाjorjiyan bhaasaasGeorgian language
Sinhalaसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�र्था
Sindhiसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�र्थाgrahalookaplanets
Khmerkhμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμmu μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμum μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ µ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μµ μµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµüµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµúµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ µµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₃₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₂₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₁₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀⁻⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁰⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁵⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁲⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁴⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁽⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁻⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁼⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸ⁱ⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁅⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁰⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₃⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄²⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄. +<|im_start|>assistantBhojpuriBJJUJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
+ +Figure 1: Romanization across different languages. + +size, as the vocabulary is bound to increase with the number of languages added if per-language performance is to be maintained (Hu et al., 2020; Artetxe et al., 2020; Pfeiffer et al., 2022). Second, pretraining mPLMs with a fixed model capacity improves cross-lingual performance up to a point after which it starts to decrease; this is the phenomenon termed the curse of multilinguality (Conneau et al., 2020). + +Transliteration refers to the process of converting language represented in one writing system to another (Wellisch et al., 1978). Latin script-centered transliteration or romanization is the most common form of transliteration (Lin et al., 2018; Amrhein and Sennrich, 2020; Demirsin et al., 2022) as the Latin/Roman script is by far the most widely adopted writing script in the world (Daniels and Bright, 1996; van Esch et al., 2022). Adapting mPLMs via transliteration can address the two aforementioned critical issues. 1) Since the Latin script covers a dominant portion of the mPLM's vocabulary (e.g., $77\%$ in case of mBERT, see Ács), 'romanizing' the remaining part of the vocabulary might mitigate the vocabulary size issue and boost vocabulary sharing. 2) Since no new tokens are added during the romanization process, reusing pretrained embeddings from the mPLM's embedding matrix helps reuse the information already present within the mPLM, thereby allocating the model's parameter budget more efficiently. + +However, the main drawback of transliteration seems to be the expensive process of creating effective language-specific transliterations, as they + +typically require language expertise to curate dictionaries that map tokens from one language and script to another. Therefore, previous attempts at mPLM adaptation to unseen languages via transliteration (Muller et al., 2021; Chau and Smith, 2021; Dhamecha et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023) were constrained to a handful of languages due to the limited availability of language-specific translit-. rators, or were applied only to languages that have 'language siblings' with developed translitators. + +In this work, unlike previous work, we propose to use and then evaluate the usefulness of a universal romanization tool, UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018), for quick, large-scale and effective adaptation of mPLMs to low-resource languages. The UROMAN tool disposes of language-specific curated dictionaries and maps any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, increasing the portability of romanization, with some examples in Figure 1. + +We analyze language adaptation on a massive scale via UROMAN-based romanization on a set of 14 diverse low-resource languages. We conduct experiments within the standard parameter-efficient adapter-based cross-lingual transfer setup on two tasks: Named Entity Recognition (NER) on the WikiANN dataset (Pan et al., 2017; Rahimi et al., 2019), and Dependency Parsing (DP) with Universal Dependencies v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020). Our key results suggest that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance on par or even outperforming adaptation with language-specific transliterrators, setting up the basis for wider use of transliteration-based mPLM adaptation techniques in future work. The gains with romanization-based adaptation over standard adaptation baselines are particularly pronounced for languages with unseen scripts ( $\sim$ 8-22 performance points) without any vocabulary augmentation.[2] + +# 2 Background + +Why UROMAN-Based Romanization? UROMAN-based romanization is not always fully reversible, and its usage for transliteration has thus been limited in the literature. However, due to its high portability, UROMAN can help scale the process of transliteration massively and as such benefit low-resource scenarios and wider adaptation of mPLMs. The main idea, as hinted in §1, is to (learn to) map + +any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, without the use of any external language-specific dictionaries (see Hermjakob et al. (2018) for technical details). + +Cross-Lingual Transfer to Low-Resource Languages. Parameter-efficient and modular finetuning methods (Pfeiffer et al., 2023) such as adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2020b) have been used for cross-lingual transfer, putting a particular focus on enabling transfer to low-resource languages and scenarios, including languages with scripts 'unseen' by the base mPLM (Pfeiffer et al., 2021). Adapters are small lightweight components stitched into the base mPLM, and then trained for particular languages and tasks while keeping the parameters of the original mPLM frozen. This circumvents the issues of catastrophic forgetting and interference (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989) within the mPLM, and allows for extending its reach also to unseen languages (Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Ansell et al., 2021). + +For our main empirical analyses, we adopt a state-of-the-art modular method for cross-lingual transfer: MAD-X (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). In short, MAD-X is based on language adapters (LA), task adapters (TA), and invertible adapters (INV). While LAs are trained for specific languages relying on masked language modeling, TAs are trained with high-resource languages relying on task-annotated data and task-specific objectives. At inference, the source LA is replaced with the target LA while the TA is kept. In order to do parameter-efficient learning for the token-level embeddings across different languages and to deal with the vocabulary mismatch between source and target languages, Pfeiffer et al. (2020b) also propose INV adapters: they are placed on top of the embedding layer and their inverses precede the output embedding layer.3 We adopt the better-performing MAD-X 2.0 setup (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) where the adapters in the last Transformer layer are dropped at inference.4 + +# 3 Experiments and Results + +As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated + +
LanguageFamilyScript# Sentences
Bhojpuri (bh)Indo-EuropeanDevanagari35,983
Buryat (bxr)MongolicCyrillic41,692
Erzya (myv)UralicCyrillic42,575
Meadow Mari (mhr)UralicCyrillic144,529
Min Dong (cdo)Sino-TibetanChinese33,978
Mingrelian (xmf)KartvelianGeorgian63,032
Sindhi (sd)Indo-EuropeanArabic86,176
Sorani Kurdish (ckb)Indo-EuropeanArabic459,475
Uyghur (ug)TurkicArabic149,813
Amháric (am)Afro-AsiaticGe'ez88,320
Divehi (dv)Indo-EuropeanThaana34,779
Khmer (km)AustroasiaticKhmer139,704
Sinhala (si)Indo-EuropeanSinhala219,866
Tibetan (bo)Sino-TibetanTibetan131,362
+ +Table 1: Languages with their ISO 639-3 codes used in our evaluation, along with their script, language family, and number of sentences available for pretraining. The dashed line separates languages with unseen scripts, placed in the bottom part of the table. + +versions of target language data, outlined here. + +Variants with Non-Transliterated Data. For the Non-Trans $_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{INV}}$ variant, we train LAs and INV adapters together. This variant serves to examine the extent to which mPLMs can adapt to unseen languages without any vocabulary extension. $^5$ We compare this to Non-Trans $_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{Emb}_{\mathrm{Lex}}}$ , which trains a new tokenizer for the target language (Pfeiffer et al., 2021): the so-called 'lexically overlapping' tokens are initialized with mPLM's trained embeddings, while the remaining embeddings are initialized randomly. All these embeddings (Emb $_{\mathrm{Lex}}$ ) are fine-tuned along with LAs. + +Variants with Transliterated Data. We evaluate a $\mathrm{Trans}_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{INV}}$ variant, which uses the same setup as Non-Trans $\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{INV}$ but now with transliterated data. We again note that in this efficient setup, we do not extend the vocabulary size, and use the fewest trainable parameters. In the $\mathrm{Trans}_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{mPLM}_{\mathrm{ft}}}$ variant, we train LAs along with fine-tuning the pretrained embeddings of mPLM (mPLMft). This further enhances the model capacity by fine-tuning the embedding layer instead of using invertible adapters. For both variants, transliterated data can be produced via different transliterations: (i) language-specific ones; (ii) the ones from 'language siblings' (e.g., using a Georgian transliterator for Mingrelian), or (iii) UROMAN. + +# 3.1 Experimental Setup + +Data, Languages and Tasks. Following Pfeiffer et al. (2021), we select mBERT as our base mPLM. We experiment with 14 typologically diverse low-resource languages that are not part of mBERT's pretraining corpora, with 5/14 languages written in distinct scripts (see Table 1 for details). For LA training, we use Wikipedia dumps for the target languages, which we also transliterate (using different translitators). Evaluation is conducted on two standard cross-lingual transfer tasks in zero-shot setups: 1) the WikiAnn NER dataset (Pan et al., 2017) with the train, dev, and test splits from (Rahimi et al., 2019); 2) for dependency parsing, we rely on the UD Dataset v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020). + +LAs and TAs. English is the source language in all experiments, and is used for training TAs. The English LA is obtained directly from Adapterhub.ml (Pfeiffer et al., 2020a), LAs and embeddings (when needed) are only trained for target languages. + +Finally, for the Non-Trans $_{\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ variant, we train a WordPiece tokenizer on the target language data with a vocabulary size of 10K. + +Training of Language and Task Adapters. We train all the language adapters for 50 epochs or $\sim 50K$ update steps based on the corpus size. The batch size is set to 64 and the learning rate is $1e - 4$ . + +We train English task adapters following the setup from (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). For NER, we directly obtain the task adapter from Adapterhub.ml which is trained with a learning rate of $1e - 4$ for 10 epochs. For DP, we train a Transformer-based (Glavaš and Vulić, 2021) biaffine attention dependency parser (Dozat and Manning, 2017). We use a learning rate of $5e - 4$ and train for 10 epochs as in (Pfeiffer et al., 2021). + +All the reported results in both tasks (NER and DP) are reported as averages over 6 random seeds. All the models have been trained on A100 or V100 GPUs. None of the training methods consumed more than 36 hours. As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated versions of target language data, outlined here. + +# 3.2 Results and Discussion + +UROMAN versus Other Transliterators and Transliteration Strategies. In order to estab + +
TaskTransliteratoramarkaruhisdavg
NER (Macro F1)UROMAN25.624.861.466.548.635.343.7
Other25.523.757.363.956.735.943.8
UD (UAS / LAS)UROMAN36.17 / 6.633.0 / 19.8-47.3 / 32.433.8 / 17.8-37.5 / 19.1
Other29.9 / 5.432.6 / 19.9-45.0 / 19.933.2 / 17.9-35.2 / 15.8
+ +Table 2: Comparison of UROMAN with language-specific transliterations. + +
MethodSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdockbmhrsdugxmfambodvkmsi
UROMAN32.5927.3467.7364.6835.3328.1052.5825.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
BORROW53.42 (hi)-12.46 (ar)45.86 (ru)16.79 (ar)12.85 (ar)24.77 (ru)------
RAND25.4219.5153.5542.0227.2025.1835.8218.0018.9521.1932.7520.0121.59
+ +Table 3: Comparison of various transliteration strategies on the NER task (Macro-F1). + +
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdosdxmfmhrckbugambodvkmsi
Non-TransLA+INV55.1424.1931.3149.7470.3145.5433.533.2619.8618.7213.8123.1418.39
TransLA+INV32.5927.3435.3352.5864.6867.7328.1025.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
Non-TransLA+EmblEx60.0028.9142.4751.9961.0579.1250.4247.6040.9631.2153.9445.8949.01
TransLA + mPLMrl49.0536.9239.1657.9969.8573.9233.4337.0933.8240.4052.3945.2447.44
+ +Table 4: Results (Macro-F1 scores) on WikiAnn NER averaged over 6 random seeds. + +
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Script
bhmyvugbxramavg
Non-TransLA+INV28.46 / 11.5345.28 / 26.2733.44 / 15.2839.75 / 19.7719.08 / 1.8533.20 / 10.81
TransLA+INV25.12 / 10.1745.74 / 26.6432.30 / 15.1037.92 / 17.2336.07 / 7.5835.43 / 12.41
Non-TransLA+EmblEx26.68 / 10.1048.34 / 25.3441.20 / 22.8139.51 / 16.0236.4778.3938.44 / 12.20
TransLA + mPLMrl28.04 / 11.1341.97 / 20.2950.89 / 16.5635.03 / 20.2939.10 / 9.0039.01 / 14.65
+ +Table 5: Results (UAS / LAS scores) in the DP task with UD, averaged over 6 random seeds. + +lish the utility of UROMAN as a viable transliterator, especially for low-resource languages, we compare its performance with transliteration options using the TransLA + INV setup as the most efficient scenario. First, we compare UROMAN with language-specific transliterations available for selected languages: amseg (Yimam et al., 2021) for Amharic, ai4bharat-transliteration (Madhani et al., 2022) for Hindi and Sindhi, lang-trans for Arabic, and transliterate for Russian and Georgian7. The transliterations used in this work are outlined in Table 6. The results are provided in Table 2. On average, UROMAN performs better or comparable to the language-specific transliterations. This provides justification to use UROMAN for massive transliteration at scale. + +Second, we compare UROMAN to two other transliteration strategies. (i) BORROW refers to borrowing transliterators from languages within the same language family and written in the same script. Since building transliterators are costly, this gives us an estimate of whether it is possible to rely on the related transliterators when we do not have a language-specific one at hand. (ii) RAND + +refers to a random setting where we associate any non-ASCII character with any ASCII character, giving us an estimate of whether we actually need knowledge of the language to build transliterations. The results are provided in Table 3: UROMAN is largely and consistently outperforming both BORROW and RAND, where the single exception is BORROW (from Hindi to Bhojpuri). Surprisingly, RAND also yields reasonable performance and on average even outperforms the Non-TransLA+INV variant with non-transliterated data (21.59 vs 18.39 in Table 4 later). This provides further evidence towards the utility of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular to assist and improve language adaptation. + +Performance on Low-Resource Languages is summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. We note that $\mathrm{Trans}_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{INV}}$ outperforms Non-Trans $\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{INV}$ for all the languages with unseen scripts, and achieves that with huge margins ( $\sim$ 8-22 points for NER and $\sim$ 17 points in UAS scores). We observe similar trends for some of the languages with seen scripts such as Min Dong (cdo), Sindhi (sd), Mingrelian + +![](images/a30d48cb3ddb4d2c393c30a8025c0d311b6c789c062f842d428fb4c9ea4a8963.jpg) +Figure 2: Sample efficiency in the NER task. + +![](images/1c950205100aab4509e107caa10d380e39c2abd245e0aba617d30a97a05dd5fc.jpg) +Figure 3: Sample efficiency in the DP task. + +(xmf) on NER tasks and Erzya (myv) on DP. The less efficient $\mathrm{Trans}_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}$ , as expected, further improves the performance for all the languages except for Tibetan (bo).10 Non-Trans $_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{Emb}_{\mathrm{Lex}}}$ , however, now outperforms UROMAN-based methods for a majority of the languages. This observation can be attributed to various factors related to mBERT's tokenizer, and we provide an in-depth analysis later in Appendix C. Nonetheless, we observe strong and competitive performance of $\mathrm{Trans}_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}$ in both tasks, again indicating that more attention should be put on transliteration-based language adaptation in future work. + +Sample Efficiency. Finally, we simulate a few-shot setup to study the effectiveness of using transliterated versus non-transliterated data in data-scarce scenarios. For NER, we evaluate performance on all the languages and on languages with unseen scripts; for DP, we evaluate on all the languages. Figure 2 indicates that $\mathrm{Trans}_{\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{INV}}$ on average performs better than all the other methods at sample sizes 100 (i.e., 100 sentences in the target language) and 1,000. However, from 10,000 sentences onward, Non-Trans $\mathrm{LA} + \mathrm{Emb}_{\mathrm{Lex}}$ takes the lead. We observe similar trends in the DP task (see Fig 3). This establishes the utility of transliteration for (extremely) low-resource scenarios. + +# 4 Conclusion + +In this work, we have systematically analyzed and confirmed the potential of romanization, implemented via the UROMAN tool, to help with adaptation of multilingual pretrained language models. Given (i) its broad applicability and (ii) strong performance overall and for languages with unseen scripts, we hope our study will inspire more work on transliteration-based adaptation. + +# Limitations + +In this paper, we work with UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018) which is an unsupervised romanization tool. While it is an effective tool for romanization at scale, it still has potential drawbacks. Since it is only based on lexical substitution, its transliterations may not semantically or phonetically align with the source content and may differ from transliterations preferred by native speakers. Moreover, UROMAN is not invertible—as we have highlighted—and may thus be less appealing when text in the original script needs to be exactly reproduced. Our proposed method, while it is parameter-efficient and effective—particularly for low-resource languages—still underperforms language-specific tokenizer-based non-transliteration methods. Future work may focus on developing an improved and more efficient tokenizer for transliteration-based methods as we highlight in the Appendix. + +While there is now a growing body of available evaluation resources for low-resource languages (Ebrahimimi et al., 2022; Mhaske et al., 2023; Winata et al., 2023, among others), our final selection of tasks, resources and languages has been driven and constrained by the specific concrete goal of our short paper: studying and evaluating if and how transliteration/romanization can help with adaptation of languages with scripts unseen by the pretrained multilingual language model. We thus closely follow the experimental setup of Pfeiffer et al. (2021) which used the same set of tasks and languages with unseen scripts. + +Finally, romanization can be seen as a step towards providing more universal, or rather language-agnostic, input text representation. Full-fledged comparisons against other approaches that aim to strike language independence at the input or feature level, such as byte-level models (e.g., ByT5 (Xue et al., 2022)) and pixel-based models (e.g., PILXEL (Rust et al., 2023)) go beyond + +the scope of this particular work, but we point out to this as a very interesting future research avenue. Moreover, the integration of these language-agnostic representations with 'romanization'-based approaches might yield additional benefits, and should also be attested in future research. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Research Training Group KRITIS No. GRK 2222. The work of Ivan Vulić has been supported by a personal Royal Society University Research Fellowship (no 221137; 2022-). + +We thank Indraneil Paul, Yongxin Huang, Ivan Habernal, and Massimo Nicosia for their valuable feedback and suggestions on a draft of this paper. + +# References + +Chantal Amrhein and Rico Sennrich. 2020. On Romanization for model transfer between scripts in neural machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 2461-2469, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alan Ansell, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Goran Glavaš, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2021. MAD-G: Multilingual adapter generation for efficient cross-lingual transfer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 4762–4781, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ethan C. Chau and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Specializing multilingual language models: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning, pages 51-61, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. 1996. The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press. +Isin Demirsahin, Cibu Johny, Alexander Gutkin, and Brian Roark. 2022. Criteria for useful automatic Romanization in South Asian languages. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 6662-6673, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tejas Dhamecha, Rudra Murthy, Samarth Bharadwaj, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2021. Role of Language Relatedness in Multilingual Fine-tuning of Language Models: A Case Study in Indo-Aryan Languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8584-8595, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. Open-Review.net. +Abteen Ebrahimi, Manuel Mager, Arturo Oncevay, Vishrav Chaudhary, Luis Chiruzzo, Angela Fan, John Ortega, Ricardo Ramos, Annette Rios, Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, Gustavo Giménez-Lugo, Elisabeth Mager, Graham Neubig, Alexis Palmer, Rolando Coto-Solano, Thang Vu, and Katharina Kann. 2022. AmericasNLI: Evaluating zero-shot natural language understanding of pretrained multilingual models in truly low-resource languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6279-6299, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2021. Is supervised syntactic parsing beneficial for language understanding tasks? an empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3090-3104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ulf Hermjakob, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Out-of-the-box universal Romanization tool uroman. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 13-18, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR. +Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411-4421. PMLR. +Ying Lin, Cash Costello, Boliang Zhang, Di Lu, Heng Ji, James Mayfield, and Paul McNamee. 2018. Platforms for non-speakers annotating names in any language. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 1-6, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yash Madhani, Sushane Parthan, Priyanka A. Bedekar, Ruchi Khapra, Vivek Seshadri, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2022. Aksharantar: Towards building open transliteration tools for the next billion users. arXiv preprint. +Michael McCloskey and Neal J. Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. volume 24 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pages 109-165. Academic Press. +Arnav Mhaske, Harshit Kedia, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Mitesh M. Khapra, Pratyush Kumar, Rudra Murthy, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Naamapadam: A large-scale named entity annotated data for Indic languages. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10441-10456, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nikita Moghe, Evgeniia Razumovskaia, Liane Guillou, Ivan Vulic, Anna Korhonen, and Alexandra Birch. 2023. Multi3NLU++: A multilingual, multi-intent, multi-domain dataset for natural language understanding in task-oriented dialogue. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 3732-3755, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ibraheem Muhammad Moosa, Mahmud Elahi Akhter, and Ashfia Binte Habib. 2023. Does transliteration help multilingual language modeling? In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL* 2023, pages 670–685, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Benjamin Muller, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2021. When being unseen from mBERT is just the beginning: Handling new languages with multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 448-462, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034-4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. +Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual name tagging and linking for 282 languages. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1946–1958, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Naman Goyal, Xi Lin, Xian Li, James Cross, Sebastian Riedel, and Mikel Artetxe. 2022. Lifting the curse of multilinguality by pre-training modular transformers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3479-3495, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rückle, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020a. AdapterHub: A framework for adapting transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 46-54, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Ivan Vulić, and Edoardo Maria Ponti. 2023. Modular deep learning. arXiv preprint. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020b. MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Linguual Transfer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7654–7673, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. UNKs everywhere: Adapting multilingual language models to new scripts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10186-10203, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2362-2376, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for NER. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151-164, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Phillip Rust, Jonas F. Lotz, Emanuele Bugliarello, Elizabeth Salesky, Miryam de Lhoneux, and Desmond Elliott. 2023. Language modelling with pixels. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net. +Phillip Rust, Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. How good is your tokenizer? on the monolingual performance of multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3118-3135, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Daan van Esch, Tamar Lucassen, Sebastian Ruder, Isaac Caswell, and Clara Rivera. 2022. Writing system and speaker metadata for $2,800+$ language varieties. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5035-5046, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. +Hans H Wellisch, Lee Breuer, Richard Foreman, and Robert Wilson. 1978. The conversion of scripts, its nature, history, and utilization. New York: Toronto: Wiley. +Genta Indra Winata, Alham Fikri Aji, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Rahmad Mahendra, Fajri Koto, Ade Romadhony, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Pascale Fung, Timothy Baldwin, Jey Han Lau, Rico Sennrich, and Sebastian Ruder. 2023. NusaX: Multilingual parallel sentiment dataset for 10 Indonesian local languages. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 815-834, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Linting Xue, Aditya Barua, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou, Sharan Narang, Mihir Kale, Adam Roberts, and Colin Raffel. 2022. ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:291-306. +Seid Muhie Yimam, Abinew Ali Ayele, Gopalakrishnan Venkatesh, Ibrahim Gashaw, and Chris Biemann. 2021. Introducing various semantic models + +for amharic: Experimentation and evaluation with multiple tasks and datasets. Future Internet, 13(11). + +Judit Ács. Exploring bert's vocabulary. Blog Post. + +# A Transliterators in Evaluation + +Besides UROMAN, we also employ various language-specific transliterations which are publicly available. We list them in Table 6. + +# B Performance comparison of mBERT + +We adapt the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT. The model is finetuned on the task data for a source language (high-resource) and is used to perform inference on the target language (low-resource). We report the performance comparison of the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT on the NER task for languages with unseen scripts with the adapter-based methods in Table 7. We observe that the adapter-based methods outperform mBERT by huge margins. + +# C Further Analyses + +Following previous work (Ács; Rust et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023), we further analyze tokenization quality of the mBERT tokenizer using the following established metrics: 1) % of "UNK"s measures the % of "UNK" tokens produced by the tokenizer, and our aim is to compare their rate before and after transliteration; 2) fertility measures the number of subwords that are produced per tokenized word; 3) proportion of continued subwords measures the proportion of words for which the tokenized word is split across at least two subwords (denoted by the symbol ##). + +From the results summarized in Figure 4, it is apparent that transliteration drastically reduces $\%$ of UNKs. However, mBERT's tokenizer underperforms as compared to monolingual tokenizers based on fertility and the proportion of continued subwords (Rust et al., 2021). Transliteration performs better for some languages where the quality of the mBERT tokenizer is similar to the monolingual tokenizer such as for dv, km, and cdo. On the other hand, transliteration methods perform worse on languages where the quality of the underlying mBERT tokenizer is relatively poor. + +In order to test the hypothesis that the tokenizer quality might be the principal reason for the performance gap for the transliteration-based methods in comparison to the non-transliteration based methods, we carried out an additional experiment. For the experiment, we adapt the Non-Trans $_{\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ to operate on transliterated data, and call this variant Trans $_{\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ . Here, we train a new tokenizer + +on the transliterated data and initialize lexically overlapping embeddings with mBERT's pretrained embeddings. + +We plot the performance in Figure 5. The new method, $\mathrm{Trans_{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ now outperforms the nontransliteration-based variant on 8/12 languages and also on average. Consequently, this validates our hypothesis and is in line with the previous work (Moosa et al., 2023). However, we found a drop in performance in the case of mhr (-10.71) and cdo (-10.14) when compared to $\mathrm{Trans_{LA} + mPLM_{ft}}$ . These drops may be attributed to the lower degree of lexical overlap with mBERT's vocabulary, and consequently a higher number of randomly initialized embeddings for those target languages. + +
TransliteratorUsed for languagesAvailable at
UROMANAllgithub.com/isi-nlp/uroman
amsegampypi.org/project/amseg/
transliterateru, kapypi.org/project/transliterate/
ai4bharat-transliterationhi, sdpypi.org/project/ai4bharat-transliteration/
lang-transarpypi.org/project/lang-trans/
+ +![](images/8309dd1ed12a59dc1f0528edf5e64d0557b4f8d3dbec0880e76b532cd845f7ca.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/47711266c4017b2aa9f669ce98d4d7d7d04173802500672272aea02a88d75ca3.jpg) +(b) +Figure 4: Tokenizer quality analysis. a) % of UNKs before and after transliteration, b) Fertility, and c) Proportion of continued subwords for mBERT vs monolingual tokenizer. + +![](images/fb3ee83c84d87592bf4ee3c75d4c4ae5a5a1aa7ed161b08c329155e3eb3efc12.jpg) +(c) + +Table 6: Transliterators used in this work. + +
VariantUnseen Scripts
ambodvkmsi
mBERT0.9117.401.3010.712.50
Non-TransLA+INV3.2619.8618.7213.8123.14
TransLA + INV25.6935.9529.9941.7631.83
Non-TransLA+EmblEx47.6040.9631.2153.9445.89
TransLA + mPLMft37.0933.8240.4052.3945.24
+ +Table 7: Performance Comparison of mBERT with adapter-based finetuning methods for unseen scripts on the NER task. + +![](images/f862f3a59498858d80d8303dd287b78b2713cb4ca14a6614907596786428fec4.jpg) +Figure 5: Comparison of Non-Trans $_{\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ with Trans $_{\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}$ on NER (left) and DP (right). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/images.zip b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94813e0e7b82f6d375de977d9c20f4b3a63d52df --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b42d07edd087aea94eec0bf231af1a2bb4c1a32fa16b0e8372003400e3034c4b +size 331264 diff --git a/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/layout.json b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc5bfc31b1bb0fdee37ee9e9c006ffb3f0d9f5c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,6127 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 67, + 434, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 67, + 434, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 67, + 434, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Romanization-based Large-scale Adaptation of Multilingual Language Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 527, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 527, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 527, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sukannya Purkayastha1, Sebastian Ruder2, Jonas Pfeiffer2, Iryna Gurevych1, Ivan Vulić3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 121, + 399, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 121, + 399, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 121, + 399, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 134, + 477, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 134, + 477, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 134, + 477, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Computer Science and Hessian Center for AI (hessian.AI)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 148, + 382, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 148, + 382, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 148, + 382, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Technical University of Darmstadt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 162, + 348, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 162, + 348, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 162, + 348, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Google DeepMind" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 176, + 430, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 176, + 430, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 176, + 430, + 190 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 176, + 430, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Language Technology Lab, University of Cambridge" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 191, + 381, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 191, + 381, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 191, + 381, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs) have become the de facto state of the art for cross-lingual transfer in NLP. However, their large-scale deployment to many languages, besides pretraining data scarcity, is also hindered by the increase in vocabulary size and limitations in their parameter budget. In order to boost the capacity of mPLMs to deal with low-resource and unseen languages, we explore the potential of leveraging transliteration on a massive scale. In particular, we explore the UROMAN transliteration tool, which provides mappings from UTF-8 to Latin characters for all the writing systems, enabling inexpensive romanization for virtually any language. We first focus on establishing how UROMAN compares against other language-specific and manually curated transliterators for adapting multilingual PLMs. We then study and compare a plethora of data- and parameter-efficient strategies for adapting the mPLMs to romanized and non-romanized corpora of 14 diverse low-resource languages. Our results reveal that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance for many languages, with particular gains achieved in the most challenging setups: on languages with unseen scripts and with limited training data without any vocabulary augmentation. Further analyses reveal that an improved tokenizer based on romanized data can even outperform non-transliteration-based methods in the majority of languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 629, + 154, + 642 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 629, + 154, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 629, + 154, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Massively multilingual language models (mPLMs) such as mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-R (Conneau et al., 2020) have become the driving force for a variety of applications in multilingual NLP (Ponti et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020; Moghe et al., 2023). However, guaranteeing and maintaining strong performance for a wide spectrum of low-resource languages is difficult due to two crucial problems. The first issue is the vocabulary" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 520, + 265 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 520, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 520, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 520, + 265 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LanguageOriginal TextRomanized TextTranslation
Bhojpuriबाल्दियम् गार्वाjorjiyan bhaasaasGeorgian language
Sinhalaसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�िू�र्था
Sindhiसिकूल्तिूल्तिूल्तिू�िू�िू�िू�र्थाgrahalookaplanets
Khmerkhμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμmu μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμµ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμum μ μμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμμ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ µ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μµ μµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµüµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµúµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ µµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµµ₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₃₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₂₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₁₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀₀⁻⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁶⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁹⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁷⁰⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁵⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁲⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁴⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁽⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁻⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁼⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸ⁱ⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁅⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁸⁰⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₃⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄²⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄­⁄₂⁄.\n<|im_start|>assistantBhojpuriBJJUJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJJJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIajiJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJIJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJP JPJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJJPJJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJPJSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
", + "image_path": "8756bb25e844410f100eaba69877e4802d56b0792e642e1c5fb13ec2152b6cd6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 274, + 518, + 286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 274, + 518, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 274, + 518, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Romanization across different languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "size, as the vocabulary is bound to increase with the number of languages added if per-language performance is to be maintained (Hu et al., 2020; Artetxe et al., 2020; Pfeiffer et al., 2022). Second, pretraining mPLMs with a fixed model capacity improves cross-lingual performance up to a point after which it starts to decrease; this is the phenomenon termed the curse of multilinguality (Conneau et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transliteration refers to the process of converting language represented in one writing system to another (Wellisch et al., 1978). Latin script-centered transliteration or romanization is the most common form of transliteration (Lin et al., 2018; Amrhein and Sennrich, 2020; Demirsin et al., 2022) as the Latin/Roman script is by far the most widely adopted writing script in the world (Daniels and Bright, 1996; van Esch et al., 2022). Adapting mPLMs via transliteration can address the two aforementioned critical issues. 1) Since the Latin script covers a dominant portion of the mPLM's vocabulary (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "77\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in case of mBERT, see Ács), 'romanizing' the remaining part of the vocabulary might mitigate the vocabulary size issue and boost vocabulary sharing. 2) Since no new tokens are added during the romanization process, reusing pretrained embeddings from the mPLM's embedding matrix helps reuse the information already present within the mPLM, thereby allocating the model's parameter budget more efficiently." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 525, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, the main drawback of transliteration seems to be the expensive process of creating effective language-specific transliterations, as they" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1According to Encyclopedia Britannica, up to 70% of the world population is employing the Latin script." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7996" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7996-8005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "typically require language expertise to curate dictionaries that map tokens from one language and script to another. Therefore, previous attempts at mPLM adaptation to unseen languages via transliteration (Muller et al., 2021; Chau and Smith, 2021; Dhamecha et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023) were constrained to a handful of languages due to the limited availability of language-specific translit-. rators, or were applied only to languages that have 'language siblings' with developed translitators." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 207, + 291, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 207, + 291, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 207, + 291, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, unlike previous work, we propose to use and then evaluate the usefulness of a universal romanization tool, UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018), for quick, large-scale and effective adaptation of mPLMs to low-resource languages. The UROMAN tool disposes of language-specific curated dictionaries and maps any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, increasing the portability of romanization, with some examples in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 330, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 330, + 291, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 330, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We analyze language adaptation on a massive scale via UROMAN-based romanization on a set of 14 diverse low-resource languages. We conduct experiments within the standard parameter-efficient adapter-based cross-lingual transfer setup on two tasks: Named Entity Recognition (NER) on the WikiANN dataset (Pan et al., 2017; Rahimi et al., 2019), and Dependency Parsing (DP) with Universal Dependencies v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020). Our key results suggest that UROMAN-based transliteration can offer strong performance on par or even outperforming adaptation with language-specific transliterrators, setting up the basis for wider use of transliteration-based mPLM adaptation techniques in future work. The gains with romanization-based adaptation over standard adaptation baselines are particularly pronounced for languages with unseen scripts (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 330, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 330, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8-22 performance points) without any vocabulary augmentation.[2]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 153, + 613 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 153, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 153, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Why UROMAN-Based Romanization? UROMAN-based romanization is not always fully reversible, and its usage for transliteration has thus been limited in the literature. However, due to its high portability, UROMAN can help scale the process of transliteration massively and as such benefit low-resource scenarios and wider adaptation of mPLMs. The main idea, as hinted in §1, is to (learn to) map" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "any UTF-8 character to the Latin script, without the use of any external language-specific dictionaries (see Hermjakob et al. (2018) for technical details)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 116, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 116, + 526, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 116, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cross-Lingual Transfer to Low-Resource Languages. Parameter-efficient and modular finetuning methods (Pfeiffer et al., 2023) such as adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Pfeiffer et al., 2020b) have been used for cross-lingual transfer, putting a particular focus on enabling transfer to low-resource languages and scenarios, including languages with scripts 'unseen' by the base mPLM (Pfeiffer et al., 2021). Adapters are small lightweight components stitched into the base mPLM, and then trained for particular languages and tasks while keeping the parameters of the original mPLM frozen. This circumvents the issues of catastrophic forgetting and interference (McCloskey and Cohen, 1989) within the mPLM, and allows for extending its reach also to unseen languages (Pfeiffer et al., 2021; Ansell et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For our main empirical analyses, we adopt a state-of-the-art modular method for cross-lingual transfer: MAD-X (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). In short, MAD-X is based on language adapters (LA), task adapters (TA), and invertible adapters (INV). While LAs are trained for specific languages relying on masked language modeling, TAs are trained with high-resource languages relying on task-annotated data and task-specific objectives. At inference, the source LA is replaced with the target LA while the TA is kept. In order to do parameter-efficient learning for the token-level embeddings across different languages and to deal with the vocabulary mismatch between source and target languages, Pfeiffer et al. (2020b) also propose INV adapters: they are placed on top of the embedding layer and their inverses precede the output embedding layer.3 We adopt the better-performing MAD-X 2.0 setup (Pfeiffer et al., 2021) where the adapters in the last Transformer layer are dropped at inference.4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 453, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 453, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 453, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments and Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Code and data available at https://github.com/UKPLab/emnlp23_romanization_based_adaptation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3They are trained together with the LAs while the rest of the mPLM is kept frozen." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4We refer the reader to the original papers for further technical details regarding the MAD-X framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7997" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 201 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 201 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LanguageFamilyScript# Sentences
Bhojpuri (bh)Indo-EuropeanDevanagari35,983
Buryat (bxr)MongolicCyrillic41,692
Erzya (myv)UralicCyrillic42,575
Meadow Mari (mhr)UralicCyrillic144,529
Min Dong (cdo)Sino-TibetanChinese33,978
Mingrelian (xmf)KartvelianGeorgian63,032
Sindhi (sd)Indo-EuropeanArabic86,176
Sorani Kurdish (ckb)Indo-EuropeanArabic459,475
Uyghur (ug)TurkicArabic149,813
Amháric (am)Afro-AsiaticGe'ez88,320
Divehi (dv)Indo-EuropeanThaana34,779
Khmer (km)AustroasiaticKhmer139,704
Sinhala (si)Indo-EuropeanSinhala219,866
Tibetan (bo)Sino-TibetanTibetan131,362
", + "image_path": "d42bbd3ecbeebbeac8ab08be9e8d19a45d4ee91791b211e956e606f6ffc629c0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 271 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Languages with their ISO 639-3 codes used in our evaluation, along with their script, language family, and number of sentences available for pretraining. The dashed line separates languages with unseen scripts, placed in the bottom part of the table." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 274, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 274, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 274, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "versions of target language data, outlined here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Variants with Non-Transliterated Data. For the Non-Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " variant, we train LAs and INV adapters together. This variant serves to examine the extent to which mPLMs can adapt to unseen languages without any vocabulary extension." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " We compare this to Non-Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which trains a new tokenizer for the target language (Pfeiffer et al., 2021): the so-called 'lexically overlapping' tokens are initialized with mPLM's trained embeddings, while the remaining embeddings are initialized randomly. All these embeddings (Emb" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{Lex}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") are fine-tuned along with LAs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Variants with Transliterated Data. We evaluate a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " variant, which uses the same setup as Non-Trans " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but now with transliterated data. We again note that in this efficient setup, we do not extend the vocabulary size, and use the fewest trainable parameters. In the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM}_{\\mathrm{ft}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " variant, we train LAs along with fine-tuning the pretrained embeddings of mPLM (mPLMft). This further enhances the model capacity by fine-tuning the embedding layer instead of using invertible adapters. For both variants, transliterated data can be produced via different transliterations: (i) language-specific ones; (ii) the ones from 'language siblings' (e.g., using a Georgian transliterator for Mingrelian), or (iii) UROMAN." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 425, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 425, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 425, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 89, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 89, + 526, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 89, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data, Languages and Tasks. Following Pfeiffer et al. (2021), we select mBERT as our base mPLM. We experiment with 14 typologically diverse low-resource languages that are not part of mBERT's pretraining corpora, with 5/14 languages written in distinct scripts (see Table 1 for details). For LA training, we use Wikipedia dumps for the target languages, which we also transliterate (using different translitators). Evaluation is conducted on two standard cross-lingual transfer tasks in zero-shot setups: 1) the WikiAnn NER dataset (Pan et al., 2017) with the train, dev, and test splits from (Rahimi et al., 2019); 2) for dependency parsing, we rely on the UD Dataset v2.7 (Nivre et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 282, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 282, + 525, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 282, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LAs and TAs. English is the source language in all experiments, and is used for training TAs. The English LA is obtained directly from Adapterhub.ml (Pfeiffer et al., 2020a), LAs and embeddings (when needed) are only trained for target languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 524, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, for the Non-Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 524, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " variant, we train a WordPiece tokenizer on the target language data with a vocabulary size of 10K." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training of Language and Task Adapters. We train all the language adapters for 50 epochs or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim 50K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " update steps based on the corpus size. The batch size is set to 64 and the learning rate is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1e - 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train English task adapters following the setup from (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b). For NER, we directly obtain the task adapter from Adapterhub.ml which is trained with a learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1e - 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for 10 epochs. For DP, we train a Transformer-based (Glavaš and Vulić, 2021) biaffine attention dependency parser (Dozat and Manning, 2017). We use a learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5e - 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and train for 10 epochs as in (Pfeiffer et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All the reported results in both tasks (NER and DP) are reported as averages over 6 random seeds. All the models have been trained on A100 or V100 GPUs. None of the training methods consumed more than 36 hours. As the main means of analyzing the impact of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular, we train different variants of language adapters within the MAD-X framework, based on transliterated and non-transliterated versions of target language data, outlined here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 437, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 437, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 437, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Results and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "UROMAN versus Other Transliterators and Transliteration Strategies. In order to estab" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5Since LAs without INV typically perform worse than with INV (Pfeiffer et al., 2020b), also confirmed in our preliminary experiments, we do not ablate to the setup without INV." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6We do not have this setup for non-transliterated data since, for languages with unseen scripts, most of the tokens are replaced by the generic 'UNK' token, and fine-tuning embeddings hardly benefit downstream performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7998" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 483, + 118 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 483, + 118 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 483, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 68, + 483, + 118 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TaskTransliteratoramarkaruhisdavg
NER (Macro F1)UROMAN25.624.861.466.548.635.343.7
Other25.523.757.363.956.735.943.8
UD (UAS / LAS)UROMAN36.17 / 6.633.0 / 19.8-47.3 / 32.433.8 / 17.8-37.5 / 19.1
Other29.9 / 5.432.6 / 19.9-45.0 / 19.933.2 / 17.9-35.2 / 15.8
", + "image_path": "17f500782286371555ad76c5e55f4b14d1005ea0f0102048de75e8b0959449dc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 502, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 123, + 440, + 135 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 123, + 440, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 123, + 440, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of UROMAN with language-specific transliterations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 502, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 502, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 502, + 191 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdockbmhrsdugxmfambodvkmsi
UROMAN32.5927.3467.7364.6835.3328.1052.5825.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
BORROW53.42 (hi)-12.46 (ar)45.86 (ru)16.79 (ar)12.85 (ar)24.77 (ru)------
RAND25.4219.5153.5542.0227.2025.1835.8218.0018.9521.1932.7520.0121.59
", + "image_path": "7a6de9526591995d744bec8a2012e9907ad2062ab23b5394436279dfda87716b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 213, + 502, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 196, + 468, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 196, + 468, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 196, + 468, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Comparison of various transliteration strategies on the NER task (Macro-F1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 213, + 502, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 213, + 502, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 213, + 502, + 274 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Scriptavg
bhcdosdxmfmhrckbugambodvkmsi
Non-TransLA+INV55.1424.1931.3149.7470.3145.5433.533.2619.8618.7213.8123.1418.39
TransLA+INV32.5927.3435.3352.5864.6867.7328.1025.6935.9529.9941.7631.8326.89
Non-TransLA+EmblEx60.0028.9142.4751.9961.0579.1250.4247.6040.9631.2153.9445.8949.01
TransLA + mPLMrl49.0536.9239.1657.9969.8573.9233.4337.0933.8240.4052.3945.2447.44
", + "image_path": "1915c6cb2e399899f3761feb50827c5a44936950714f360f4af54d6dee007c18.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 297, + 483, + 358 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 279, + 467, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 279, + 467, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 279, + 467, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Results (Macro-F1 scores) on WikiAnn NER averaged over 6 random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 297, + 483, + 358 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 297, + 483, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 297, + 483, + 358 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VariantSeen ScriptUnseen Script
bhmyvugbxramavg
Non-TransLA+INV28.46 / 11.5345.28 / 26.2733.44 / 15.2839.75 / 19.7719.08 / 1.8533.20 / 10.81
TransLA+INV25.12 / 10.1745.74 / 26.6432.30 / 15.1037.92 / 17.2336.07 / 7.5835.43 / 12.41
Non-TransLA+EmblEx26.68 / 10.1048.34 / 25.3441.20 / 22.8139.51 / 16.0236.4778.3938.44 / 12.20
TransLA + mPLMrl28.04 / 11.1341.97 / 20.2950.89 / 16.5635.03 / 20.2939.10 / 9.0039.01 / 14.65
", + "image_path": "5960a8e7cb8c66d7f4380408ebf24c27dadb9a542c45095d3d3386872bd2e792.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 362, + 482, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 362, + 482, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 362, + 482, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Results (UAS / LAS scores) in the DP task with UD, averaged over 6 random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 390, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 390, + 291, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 390, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lish the utility of UROMAN as a viable transliterator, especially for low-resource languages, we compare its performance with transliteration options using the TransLA + INV setup as the most efficient scenario. First, we compare UROMAN with language-specific transliterations available for selected languages: amseg (Yimam et al., 2021) for Amharic, ai4bharat-transliteration (Madhani et al., 2022) for Hindi and Sindhi, lang-trans for Arabic, and transliterate for Russian and Georgian7. The transliterations used in this work are outlined in Table 6. The results are provided in Table 2. On average, UROMAN performs better or comparable to the language-specific transliterations. This provides justification to use UROMAN for massive transliteration at scale." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, we compare UROMAN to two other transliteration strategies. (i) BORROW refers to borrowing transliterators from languages within the same language family and written in the same script. Since building transliterators are costly, this gives us an estimate of whether it is possible to rely on the related transliterators when we do not have a language-specific one at hand. (ii) RAND" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "refers to a random setting where we associate any non-ASCII character with any ASCII character, giving us an estimate of whether we actually need knowledge of the language to build transliterations. The results are provided in Table 3: UROMAN is largely and consistently outperforming both BORROW and RAND, where the single exception is BORROW (from Hindi to Bhojpuri). Surprisingly, RAND also yields reasonable performance and on average even outperforms the Non-TransLA+INV variant with non-transliterated data (21.59 vs 18.39 in Table 4 later). This provides further evidence towards the utility of transliteration in general and UROMAN-based romanization in particular to assist and improve language adaptation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance on Low-Resource Languages is summarized in Table 4 and Table 5. We note that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " outperforms Non-Trans " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for all the languages with unseen scripts, and achieves that with huge margins (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 8-22 points for NER and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 17 points in UAS scores). We observe similar trends for some of the languages with seen scripts such as Min Dong (cdo), Sindhi (sd), Mingrelian" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9We also compare the performance of these methods with the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for finetuning an out-of-the-box mBERT for languages with unseen scripts in Appendix B. All the adapter-based methods massively outperform an out-of-the-box mBERT in this scenario." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 289, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 289, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 289, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For reproducibility, the links to the language-specific translitators are available in Appendix A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{8}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.g., a Hindi transliterator can be borrowed for Bhojpuri since the two are related and written in Devanagari." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7999" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 281, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 281, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 281, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 281, + 174 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a30d48cb3ddb4d2c393c30a8025c0d311b6c789c062f842d428fb4c9ea4a8963.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 184, + 270, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 184, + 270, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 184, + 270, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Sample efficiency in the NER task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 206, + 264, + 299 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 206, + 264, + 299 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 206, + 264, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 206, + 264, + 299 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1c950205100aab4509e107caa10d380e39c2abd245e0aba617d30a97a05dd5fc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 309, + 265, + 322 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 309, + 265, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 309, + 265, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Sample efficiency in the DP task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(xmf) on NER tasks and Erzya (myv) on DP. The less efficient " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as expected, further improves the performance for all the languages except for Tibetan (bo).10 Non-Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", however, now outperforms UROMAN-based methods for a majority of the languages. This observation can be attributed to various factors related to mBERT's tokenizer, and we provide an in-depth analysis later in Appendix C. Nonetheless, we observe strong and competitive performance of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{mPLM_{ft}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in both tasks, again indicating that more attention should be put on transliteration-based language adaptation in future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sample Efficiency. Finally, we simulate a few-shot setup to study the effectiveness of using transliterated versus non-transliterated data in data-scarce scenarios. For NER, we evaluate performance on all the languages and on languages with unseen scripts; for DP, we evaluate on all the languages. Figure 2 indicates that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans}_{\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{INV}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average performs better than all the other methods at sample sizes 100 (i.e., 100 sentences in the target language) and 1,000. However, from 10,000 sentences onward, Non-Trans " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{LA} + \\mathrm{Emb}_{\\mathrm{Lex}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " takes the lead. We observe similar trends in the DP task (see Fig 3). This establishes the utility of transliteration for (extremely) low-resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 527, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 527, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 527, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we have systematically analyzed and confirmed the potential of romanization, implemented via the UROMAN tool, to help with adaptation of multilingual pretrained language models. Given (i) its broad applicability and (ii) strong performance overall and for languages with unseen scripts, we hope our study will inspire more work on transliteration-based adaptation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 210, + 365, + 222 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 210, + 365, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 210, + 365, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we work with UROMAN (Hermjakob et al., 2018) which is an unsupervised romanization tool. While it is an effective tool for romanization at scale, it still has potential drawbacks. Since it is only based on lexical substitution, its transliterations may not semantically or phonetically align with the source content and may differ from transliterations preferred by native speakers. Moreover, UROMAN is not invertible—as we have highlighted—and may thus be less appealing when text in the original script needs to be exactly reproduced. Our proposed method, while it is parameter-efficient and effective—particularly for low-resource languages—still underperforms language-specific tokenizer-based non-transliteration methods. Future work may focus on developing an improved and more efficient tokenizer for transliteration-based methods as we highlight in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While there is now a growing body of available evaluation resources for low-resource languages (Ebrahimimi et al., 2022; Mhaske et al., 2023; Winata et al., 2023, among others), our final selection of tasks, resources and languages has been driven and constrained by the specific concrete goal of our short paper: studying and evaluating if and how transliteration/romanization can help with adaptation of languages with scripts unseen by the pretrained multilingual language model. We thus closely follow the experimental setup of Pfeiffer et al. (2021) which used the same set of tasks and languages with unseen scripts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, romanization can be seen as a step towards providing more universal, or rather language-agnostic, input text representation. Full-fledged comparisons against other approaches that aim to strike language independence at the input or feature level, such as byte-level models (e.g., ByT5 (Xue et al., 2022)) and pixel-based models (e.g., PILXEL (Rust et al., 2023)) go beyond" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10 For Tibetan, longer words are composed using shorter words separated by tsek (\":\") which is not a valid space delimiter for the mBERT tokenizer; the number of produced subwords is thus much higher than for the other languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8000" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the scope of this particular work, but we point out to this as a very interesting future research avenue. Moreover, the integration of these language-agnostic representations with 'romanization'-based approaches might yield additional benefits, and should also be attested in future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 163, + 170, + 176 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 163, + 170, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 163, + 170, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the Research Training Group KRITIS No. GRK 2222. The work of Ivan Vulić has been supported by a personal Royal Society University Research Fellowship (no 221137; 2022-)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 289, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 289, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 289, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank Indraneil Paul, Yongxin Huang, Ivan Habernal, and Massimo Nicosia for their valuable feedback and suggestions on a draft of this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 329, + 127, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 329, + 127, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 329, + 127, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chantal Amrhein and Rico Sennrich. 2020. On Romanization for model transfer between scripts in neural machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 2461-2469, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 424, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 424, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 424, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alan Ansell, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Goran Glavaš, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2021. MAD-G: Multilingual adapter generation for efficient cross-lingual transfer. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 4762–4781, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 291, + 589 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 291, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 291, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethan C. Chau and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Specializing multilingual language models: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Multilingual Representation Learning, pages 51-61, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. 1996. The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Isin Demirsahin, Cibu Johny, Alexander Gutkin, and Brian Roark. 2022. Criteria for useful automatic Romanization in South Asian languages. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 6662-6673, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 526, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tejas Dhamecha, Rudra Murthy, Samarth Bharadwaj, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2021. Role of Language Relatedness in Multilingual Fine-tuning of Language Models: A Case Study in Indo-Aryan Languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8584-8595, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. Open-Review.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abteen Ebrahimi, Manuel Mager, Arturo Oncevay, Vishrav Chaudhary, Luis Chiruzzo, Angela Fan, John Ortega, Ricardo Ramos, Annette Rios, Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, Gustavo Giménez-Lugo, Elisabeth Mager, Graham Neubig, Alexis Palmer, Rolando Coto-Solano, Thang Vu, and Katharina Kann. 2022. AmericasNLI: Evaluating zero-shot natural language understanding of pretrained multilingual models in truly low-resource languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6279-6299, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 526, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2021. Is supervised syntactic parsing beneficial for language understanding tasks? an empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3090-3104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ulf Hermjakob, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Out-of-the-box universal Romanization tool uroman. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 13-18, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8001" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin de Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 291, + 281 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 291, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 291, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. XTREME: A massively multilingual multitask benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4411-4421. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 291, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ying Lin, Cash Costello, Boliang Zhang, Di Lu, Heng Ji, James Mayfield, and Paul McNamee. 2018. Platforms for non-speakers annotating names in any language. In Proceedings of ACL 2018, System Demonstrations, pages 1-6, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 371, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 371, + 291, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 371, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yash Madhani, Sushane Parthan, Priyanka A. Bedekar, Ruchi Khapra, Vivek Seshadri, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2022. Aksharantar: Towards building open transliteration tools for the next billion users. arXiv preprint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 291, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael McCloskey and Neal J. Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. volume 24 of Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pages 109-165. Academic Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 291, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arnav Mhaske, Harshit Kedia, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Mitesh M. Khapra, Pratyush Kumar, Rudra Murthy, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Naamapadam: A large-scale named entity annotated data for Indic languages. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10441-10456, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 606, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 606, + 291, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 606, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikita Moghe, Evgeniia Razumovskaia, Liane Guillou, Ivan Vulic, Anna Korhonen, and Alexandra Birch. 2023. Multi3NLU++: A multilingual, multi-intent, multi-domain dataset for natural language understanding in task-oriented dialogue. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 3732-3755, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ibraheem Muhammad Moosa, Mahmud Elahi Akhter, and Ashfia Binte Habib. 2023. Does transliteration help multilingual language modeling? In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL* 2023, pages 670–685, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin Muller, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2021. When being unseen from mBERT is just the beginning: Handling new languages with multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 448-462, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Jan Hajic, Christopher D. Manning, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Schuster, Francis Tyers, and Daniel Zeman. 2020. Universal Dependencies v2: An evergrowing multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4034-4043, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 526, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoman Pan, Boliang Zhang, Jonathan May, Joel Nothman, Kevin Knight, and Heng Ji. 2017. Cross-lingual name tagging and linking for 282 languages. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1946–1958, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 526, + 462 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 526, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 526, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Naman Goyal, Xi Lin, Xian Li, James Cross, Sebastian Riedel, and Mikel Artetxe. 2022. Lifting the curse of multilinguality by pre-training modular transformers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3479-3495, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 526, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Andreas Rückle, Clifton Poth, Aishwarya Kamath, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, Kyunghyun Cho, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020a. AdapterHub: A framework for adapting transformers. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 46-54, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 567, + 526, + 601 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 567, + 526, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 567, + 526, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Sebastian Ruder, Ivan Vulić, and Edoardo Maria Ponti. 2023. Modular deep learning. arXiv preprint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020b. MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Linguual Transfer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7654–7673, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulić, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2021. UNKs everywhere: Adapting multilingual language models to new scripts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10186-10203, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8002" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, Olga Majewska, Qianchu Liu, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. 2020. XCOPA: A multilingual dataset for causal commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2362-2376, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 291, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 291, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 291, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Afshin Rahimi, Yuan Li, and Trevor Cohn. 2019. Massively multilingual transfer for NER. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151-164, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 291, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Phillip Rust, Jonas F. Lotz, Emanuele Bugliarello, Elizabeth Salesky, Miryam de Lhoneux, and Desmond Elliott. 2023. Language modelling with pixels. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 291, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Phillip Rust, Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Sebastian Ruder, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. How good is your tokenizer? on the monolingual performance of multilingual language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3118-3135, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daan van Esch, Tamar Lucassen, Sebastian Ruder, Isaac Caswell, and Clara Rivera. 2022. Writing system and speaker metadata for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2,800+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " language varieties. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5035-5046, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hans H Wellisch, Lee Breuer, Richard Foreman, and Robert Wilson. 1978. The conversion of scripts, its nature, history, and utilization. New York: Toronto: Wiley." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Genta Indra Winata, Alham Fikri Aji, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Rahmad Mahendra, Fajri Koto, Ade Romadhony, Kemal Kurniawan, David Moeljadi, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Pascale Fung, Timothy Baldwin, Jey Han Lau, Rico Sennrich, and Sebastian Ruder. 2023. NusaX: Multilingual parallel sentiment dataset for 10 Indonesian local languages. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 815-834, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linting Xue, Aditya Barua, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou, Sharan Narang, Mihir Kale, Adam Roberts, and Colin Raffel. 2022. ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:291-306." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Seid Muhie Yimam, Abinew Ali Ayele, Gopalakrishnan Venkatesh, Ibrahim Gashaw, and Chris Biemann. 2021. Introducing various semantic models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for amharic: Experimentation and evaluation with multiple tasks and datasets. Future Internet, 13(11)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 507, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 507, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 507, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Judit Ács. Exploring bert's vocabulary. Blog Post." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8003" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Transliterators in Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 290, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 290, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 290, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides UROMAN, we also employ various language-specific transliterations which are publicly available. We list them in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 278, + 161 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 278, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 278, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Performance comparison of mBERT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We adapt the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT. The model is finetuned on the task data for a source language (high-resource) and is used to perform inference on the target language (low-resource). We report the performance comparison of the standard cross-lingual transfer setup for mBERT on the NER task for languages with unseen scripts with the adapter-based methods in Table 7. We observe that the adapter-based methods outperform mBERT by huge margins." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 182, + 330 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 182, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 182, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Further Analyses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following previous work (Ács; Rust et al., 2021; Moosa et al., 2023), we further analyze tokenization quality of the mBERT tokenizer using the following established metrics: 1) % of \"UNK\"s measures the % of \"UNK\" tokens produced by the tokenizer, and our aim is to compare their rate before and after transliteration; 2) fertility measures the number of subwords that are produced per tokenized word; 3) proportion of continued subwords measures the proportion of words for which the tokenized word is split across at least two subwords (denoted by the symbol ##)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the results summarized in Figure 4, it is apparent that transliteration drastically reduces " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of UNKs. However, mBERT's tokenizer underperforms as compared to monolingual tokenizers based on fertility and the proportion of continued subwords (Rust et al., 2021). Transliteration performs better for some languages where the quality of the mBERT tokenizer is similar to the monolingual tokenizer such as for dv, km, and cdo. On the other hand, transliteration methods perform worse on languages where the quality of the underlying mBERT tokenizer is relatively poor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to test the hypothesis that the tokenizer quality might be the principal reason for the performance gap for the transliteration-based methods in comparison to the non-transliteration based methods, we carried out an additional experiment. For the experiment, we adapt the Non-Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to operate on transliterated data, and call this variant Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here, we train a new tokenizer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on the transliterated data and initialize lexically overlapping embeddings with mBERT's pretrained embeddings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We plot the performance in Figure 5. The new method, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans_{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " now outperforms the nontransliteration-based variant on 8/12 languages and also on average. Consequently, this validates our hypothesis and is in line with the previous work (Moosa et al., 2023). However, we found a drop in performance in the case of mhr (-10.71) and cdo (-10.14) when compared to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Trans_{LA} + mPLM_{ft}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These drops may be attributed to the lower degree of lexical overlap with mBERT's vocabulary, and consequently a higher number of randomly initialized embeddings for those target languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8004" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 144 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 144 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 144 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TransliteratorUsed for languagesAvailable at
UROMANAllgithub.com/isi-nlp/uroman
amsegampypi.org/project/amseg/
transliterateru, kapypi.org/project/transliterate/
ai4bharat-transliterationhi, sdpypi.org/project/ai4bharat-transliteration/
lang-transarpypi.org/project/lang-trans/
", + "image_path": "b801220320630fbbe81d4b101ae56e278240e06979cf58e131cb98a4654f2a8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 208, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 208, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 208, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 208, + 234 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8309dd1ed12a59dc1f0528edf5e64d0557b4f8d3dbec0880e76b532cd845f7ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 239, + 143, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 239, + 143, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 239, + 143, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 175, + 367, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 175, + 367, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 175, + 367, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 175, + 367, + 234 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "47711266c4017b2aa9f669ce98d4d7d7d04173802500672272aea02a88d75ca3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 238, + 302, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 238, + 302, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 238, + 302, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 525, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 525, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Tokenizer quality analysis. a) % of UNKs before and after transliteration, b) Fertility, and c) Proportion of continued subwords for mBERT vs monolingual tokenizer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 386, + 174, + 524, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 386, + 174, + 524, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 386, + 174, + 524, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 386, + 174, + 524, + 234 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fb3ee83c84d87592bf4ee3c75d4c4ae5a5a1aa7ed161b08c329155e3eb3efc12.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 238, + 461, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 238, + 461, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 238, + 461, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 359, + 280, + 422 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 152, + 381, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 152, + 381, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 152, + 381, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Transliterators used in this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 359, + 280, + 422 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 359, + 280, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 359, + 280, + 422 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VariantUnseen Scripts
ambodvkmsi
mBERT0.9117.401.3010.712.50
Non-TransLA+INV3.2619.8618.7213.8123.14
TransLA + INV25.6935.9529.9941.7631.83
Non-TransLA+EmblEx47.6040.9631.2153.9445.89
TransLA + mPLMft37.0933.8240.4052.3945.24
", + "image_path": "f32a117937df02c309221b0fc5c6eaacf022d84aedff963fd480dd7bdd40a24c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 290, + 465 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 290, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 290, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Performance Comparison of mBERT with adapter-based finetuning methods for unseen scripts on the NER task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 290, + 679 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 290, + 679 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 290, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 290, + 679 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f862f3a59498858d80d8303dd287b78b2713cb4ca14a6614907596786428fec4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Comparison of Non-Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with Trans" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\mathrm{LA + Emb_{Lex}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on NER (left) and DP (right)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_content_list.json b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1c2258b6468e16f0859fd2b8a9ddbb8814cd8d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1942 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 91, + 880, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiaxin Zhang $^{1}$ , Zhuohang Li $^{2}$ , Kamalika Das $^{1}$ , Bradley Malin $^{2,3}$ , Sricharan Kumar $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 149, + 870, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\\(^{1}\\)Intuit AI Research \\(^{2}\\)Vanderbilt University \\(^{3}\\)Vanderbilt University Medical Center \\(\\{jiaxin_zhang, kamalika_das, sricharan_kumar\\} @intuit.com \\(\\{zhuohang.li, b.malin\\} @\\)vanderbilt.edu", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 168, + 852, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hallucination detection is a critical step toward understanding the trustworthiness of modern language models (LMs). To achieve this goal, we re-examine existing detection approaches based on the self-consistency of LMs and uncover two types of hallucinations resulting from 1) question-level and 2) model-level, which cannot be effectively identified through self-consistency check alone. Building upon this discovery, we propose a novel sampling-based method, i.e., semantic-aware cross-check consistency $(\\mathrm{SAC}^3)$ that expands on the principle of self-consistency checking. Our $\\mathrm{SAC}^3$ approach incorporates additional mechanisms to detect both question-level and model-level hallucinations by leveraging advances including semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. Through extensive and systematic empirical analysis, we demonstrate that $\\mathrm{SAC}^3$ outperforms the state of the art in detecting both nonfactual and factual statements across multiple question-answering and open-domain generation benchmarks. $^1$", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 279, + 460, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 633, + 260, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large-scale pre-trained language models (LMs) have demonstrated exceptional adaptability across a diverse array of natural language tasks that require generating open-ended responses based on user prompt comprehension (Zhao et al., 2023). However, prominent LMs like GPT (Brown et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), often exhibit a tendency to produce exceedingly confident, yet erroneous, assertions commonly referred to as hallucinations. This phenomenon significantly impedes their applicability in domains where factual accuracy is of utmost importance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 658, + 489, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hallucinations can be detected through the assistance of metrics that capture the uncertainty about", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 852, + 489, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the output sequences. However, these metrics require access to token-level log probabilities, which are not available in commercial black-box LMs like ChatGPT or Bard that only offer limited API access. To overcome this limitation, recent studies explore sampling-based approaches for approximating uncertainty estimation (Lin et al., 2023) through establishing a connection between confidence and self-consistency (Manakul et al., 2023; Mündler et al., 2023). The underlying premise of this principle is that LMs are more inclined to generate consistent responses when high probabilities are assigned to tokens in the answer, which, in turn, implies a level of factuality. In contrast, inconsistent responses are more likely to contain hallucinations. To operationalize this concept, current approaches are designed to sample multiple responses from the LMs for a given question and then compose a hallucination score for each sentence based on the level of response consistency.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 885, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Key Observations. In this work, we investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LMs and the occurrence of hallucinations in a diverse range of tasks. Our investigation indicates that while self-inconsistency in LMs often coincides with hallucination, self-consistency does not necessarily guarantee factual answers, as shown in Figure 1. Our findings challenge the notion that self-consistency alone can serve as a reliable indicator of veracity, as it is demonstrated that LMs can exhibit various tiers of hallucination that elude detection through self-consistency checks. One such tier is question-level hallucination, where LMs consistently generate incorrect answers in response to specific questions (e.g., Table 1). We reveal that by reformulating the questions, it is possible to mitigate such instances of hallucinations. Additionally, our work further reveals the existence of model-level hallucinations, whereby different LMs show discrepancies in their propensity for halluci", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1All resources are available at https://github.com/intuit/sac3.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15445", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15445-15458 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cde3c1ba6e9e918f2090a7d724e82f080588c4ee0694871f9be7c53ca9787078.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Key observation: solely checking the self-consistency of LLMs is not sufficient for deciding factuality. Left: generated responses to the same question may be consistent but non-factual. Right: generated responses may be inconsistent with the original answer that is factually correct." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 877, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "nation. Surprisingly, we even observe cases where smaller LMs are capable of correctly answering questions for which larger LMs hallucinate. Together, these findings accentuate the need to consider model-specific characteristics when assessing the occurrence of hallucinations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 487, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Proposed Approach. Motivated by these observations, we introduce SAC3, a new sampling-based approach utilizing semantic-aware cross-check consistency to improve the detection of hallucinations in black-box LMs. An overview of our approach is provided in Fig. 2. To address question-level hallucination, we introduce a mechanism that perturbs semantically equivalent questions to evaluate the consistency of LMs' responses across variants of the same question. By examining the generated answers to these perturbed questions, we are able to identify cases where the LM consistently provides incorrect responses to a specific question, which is indicative of a question-level hallucination. Furthermore, we address model-level hallucination by introducing cross-model response consistency checking, which involves comparing the responses of different LMs to the same set of questions. By identifying discrepancies between the responses of different models, we are able to pinpoint cases where certain models exhibit hallucinations while", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "others provide correct answers. Integrating these cross-checking extensions into our approach significantly improves its ability to detect hallucinations that go beyond self-consistency, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of the presence of question-level and model-level hallucinations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 882, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effectiveness of SAC3. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SAC3 in multiple classification and open-domain generation QA datasets. In the classification QA tasks, our approach achieves a high AUROC score of $99.4\\%$ and $97.0\\%$ respectively, which significantly outperforms the self-consistency baseline. In the case of open-domain generation QA tasks, our approach achieves an AUROC score of $88.0\\%$ and $77.2\\%$ , which substantially improves upon the self-consistency baseline by a large margin $(+13.8\\%, \\text{and} +6.7\\%$ respectively).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 571, + 884, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 763, + 665, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hallucination in LMs. The issue of hallucination in language models (LMs) has gained significant attention due to its negative impact on performance and the risks it introduces in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, such as machine translation (Zhou et al., 2020), summarization (Cao et al., 2022), dialogue generation (Das et al., 2023), and question answering (Zhang et al., 2023a; Zheng", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15446", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c8effc0ea87c8227a54a94191fc60794e90503ec05260b451af0cf01e54a4c2c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodInputModelOutputConsistencyFactuality
Self-consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."✓✗
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It can be divided evenly by 7 and 19."
Cross-Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Target"Yes, the number 3691 is prime."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Target"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are itself and one."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Target"Yes, 3691 is a prime number and can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
Cross-M consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 is a prime number."✗✓
Cross-M & Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Verifier"Yes."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Verifier"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are 1 and itself."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: An illustrative example of self-consistency, cross-question consistency, and cross-model consistency check. The original question and answer are \"Is 3691 a prime number?\" and \"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It is divisible by 7 and 13\", respectively. Each row presents a set of sampled QA pairs along with its consistency regarding the original answer, and the predicted factuality of the original answer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 884, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2023b; Dhuliawala et al., 2023). Recent survey (Ji et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c; Ye et al., 2023) and evaluation benchmarks (Liu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a; Yang et al., 2023) have highlighted the importance of addressing this issue. Previous research has explored hallucination evaluation using confidence-based approaches (Xiao and Wang, 2021; Varshney et al., 2023; Chen and Mueller, 2023) that require access to token-level log probability (Kuhn et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2023) or supervised tuning (Agrawal et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023b) that relies on internal states of the LM. However, these methods may not be applicable when only API access to the LM is available (Agrawal et al., 2023). Another approach involves retrieving knowledge from external databases to tackle hallucinations (Ji et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023a; Peng et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023b). In contrast to these studies, our work focuses on detecting hallucinations in open-domain QA tasks using black-box LMs, without relying on external resources.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 378, + 490, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Consistency Evaluation of LMs. An essential characteristic of logically valid intelligent systems is self-consistency, which entails that no two statements provided by the system contradict each other. Self-consistency is defined by Elazar et al. (2021) as the invariance of an LM's responses across various types of semantics-preserving prompt transformations. This definition is further enriched by multiple other consistency categories proposed by Jang et al. (2022). Wang et al. (2022) demonstrates that self-consistency can significantly enhance the chain of thought reasoning in LMs. Without self", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "consistency, it becomes challenging to regard LMs as reliable or trustworthy systems. Recent studies employ self-consistency to detect hallucinations based on pretrained LMs (Manakul et al., 2023) and instruction-tuned LMs (Mündler et al., 2023). Although these methods exhibit promising accuracy on several specific tasks, potential failures (Chen et al., 2023) of self-consistency are overlooked in the current settings, as existing LMs frequently provide inconsistent responses to questions (Mitchell et al., 2022) and factual knowledge inquiries (Elazar et al., 2021; Tam et al., 2023; Gekhman et al., 2023). Our work addresses these concerns by introducing a cross-check consistency approach, aiming to bridge the gap between self-consistency and factual assessment.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 378, + 884, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Self-consistency Limitations in Factuality Assessment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 808, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The essential assumption of self-consistency in factuality assessment is that if the LM has the knowledge of the concept, responses sampled from its output distribution, should be similar and consistent; conversely, if the LM lacks corresponding knowledge, the sampled responses would contain hallucinated facts that are diverged and contradictory. Although this assumption may seem reasonable, it does not always hold in practice (more details are provided in the Appendix A). Specifically, we argue that solely checking the LM's self-consistency is insufficient for detecting hallucination or verifying factuality under the following two circumstances:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15447", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. LMs may produce consistently hallucinated facts. We observe that for certain questions, LMs may output consistently wrong answers. For instance, as shown in Fig. 1, when prompted with the question \"Is pi smaller than 3.2?\", ChatGPT consistently generates incorrect answers. In this case, where the generated responses are consistent but non-factual, solely relying on self-consistency checking of a single model would yield false negative hallucination detection results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Even in cases when LMs generate factual statements in their original response, the stochastic sampled responses may lack veracity. For example, the original answer (Answer 1) of ChatGPT under zero temperature is correct regarding the senator search question as shown in Fig. 1. However, when sampled with a higher temperature, ChatGPT generates multiple incorrect responses (Answer 2 and Answer $m$ ). In this scenario, where the sampled responses are inconsistent and disagree with the original response which itself is factually correct, methods that rely solely on model self-checking would produce false positives.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 250, + 489, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, although the inconsistency of sampled responses has been empirically demonstrated to be correlated with hallucinated facts on certain tasks, in general, self-consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient to verify the veracity of large LMs' statements. Therefore, methods based solely on self-consistency checking may not be able to accurately detect hallucinations in complex QA and open-domain generation tasks, which motivates us to design a more reliable and robust factuality assessment method that extends this idea.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 489, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 SAC3: Semantic-Aware Cross-check Consistency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 650, + 457, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section describes the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency approach, a high-level overview of which is provided in Fig. 1. Additionally, an illustrative example of each component is presented in Table 1. Here, we walk through each component in detail.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Stage 1: Question-level Cross-checking via Semantically Equivalent Perturbations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 801, + 487, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contrary to existing techniques that assess semantic equivalence through entailment or paraphrasing, our approach involves rephrasing the input query by generating alternative inputs that preserve semantic equivalence, i.e., semantically equivalent input per", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "turbation. To achieve this, we leverage advances in LLM prompting. Starting with a queried input $\\pmb{x}_0$ , we acquire a set of $k$ semantically equivalent inputs $\\{x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_k\\}$ through the prompt: \"For the question [queried Question], provide $k$ semantically equivalent questions\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To ensure the quality of the generated inputs in this step, we further double-check the semantic equivalence between the generated inputs $\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}\\}$ and the queried input $x_{0}$ in a pair-wise manner using the prompt \"Are the following two inputs semantically equivalent? [queried INPUT] [generated INPUT]\" and filtering out the inputs that do not share the same semantic meaning as the original input. The complete prompt templates used in this work are provided in the Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 187, + 884, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Stage 2: Model-level Cross-check with Additional Verifier LM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 398, + 855, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let $s_0$ denote the original response from a target LM $\\mathcal{T}$ based on a given query $x_0$ . Our objective is to detect whether $s_0$ is hallucinated by sampling responses from the predictive distribution of $\\mathcal{T}$ . To avoid model-level hallucination, we introduce an additional verifier LM denoted as $\\mathcal{V}$ for model-level cross-checking. We define the responses from both models as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 448, + 882, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {s} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}} = \\mathcal {T} (\\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), \\boldsymbol {s} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}} = \\mathcal {V} (\\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), j = 1, \\dots , k, \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 582, + 882, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $k$ is the length of the generated semantically equivalent inputs $\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}\\}$ in stage 1. To assess the factuality of $x_{0}$ , the self-checking mechanism operates by drawing a set of $n_{s}$ stochastic response samples from the target LM: $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_0} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^1, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s}\\}$ . Similarly, we can apply the same self-checking mechanism to the verifier LM to generate another set of $n_m$ responses: $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_0} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^1, s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m}\\}$ . To perform question-level cross-check, for each perturbed input $x_k$ , we generate $n_q$ sampled response sequences $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_k} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^1, s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^{n_q}\\}$ from the target LM $\\mathcal{T}$ and $n_{qm}$ sampled responses $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_k} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^1, s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^{n_{qm}}\\}$ from the verifier LM $\\mathcal{V}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 604, + 882, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we collect the total sampled sets $S = \\{S_{\\mathcal{T}_0}, S_{\\mathcal{V}_0}, S_{\\mathcal{T}_k}, S_{\\mathcal{V}_k}\\}$ by combining all samples drawn from self-checking and cross-checking, which will be used next for calculating a consistency score.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15448", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f6d756e06591d2dccc325d3f6a940be0fc0e7ce85e367dda14dbb9edd9739fb7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overview of the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency $(\\mathrm{SAC}^3)$ method." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 85, + 872, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Stage 3: Consistency Score Calculation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 235, + 465, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This stage uses the generated sample sets in all previous stages to calculate a numerical consistency score that captures the question-level and model-level cross-checking paradigm.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 260, + 489, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.1 Semantic-aware Consistency Check of QA Pairs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 475, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most of the existing works mainly focus on examining the consistency of LM outputs while ignoring the effect of the inputs. However, in QA tasks, it is important to consider both inputs and outputs when measuring semantic equivalence, as the same question can be rephrased in many ways. Although the answers to these questions (e.g., \"no\" and \"yes\") may not be lexically equivalent, the QA pairs as a whole can be semantically equivalent. In light of this, we propose to check the semantic consistency of the QA pairs instead of the answer only.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 379, + 489, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.2 Self-checking Consistency (SC²) Score", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 470, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let $\\mathcal{C}(\\cdot, \\cdot)$ denote a semantic equivalence checking operator that takes two QA pairs as inputs. The operator $\\mathcal{C}$ returns \"Yes\" if the two QA pairs are semantically equivalent, and \"No\" otherwise. This operator should be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. We implement the checking operator using an LM by leveraging the prompt: \"Are the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? [QA PAIR 1] [QA PAIR 2]. We then map the best guess to a numerical semantic equivalent score: $\\{\\text{\"Yes\"} \\rightarrow 0.0, \\text{\"No\"} \\rightarrow 1.0\\}$ . We use $\\mathcal{P}_0 = (\\pmb{x}_0, \\pmb{s}_0)$ to denote the original QA pair. The self-checking score $\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SC}^2}$ of the target LM $\\mathcal{T}$ can be calculated by", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 595, + 489, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S C} ^ {2}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {s}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {s}} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\tau_ {0}}} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 825, + 487, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_0}} = \\{(x_0, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^1), \\dots, (x_0, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s})\\}$ represents the QA pairs generated in the self-checking scenario.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.3 Question-level Consistency (SAC $^3$ -Q) Score", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 235, + 850, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides self-checking the original question $\\pmb{x}_0$ , SAC3 further assesses cross-check consistency of perturbed questions $\\{x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_k\\}$ . The corresponding QA pairs compose a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to a perturbed question ( $k$ in total), and each column corresponds to a sampled response ( $n_q$ in total):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 281, + 884, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c c c} \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q}}\\right) \\\\ \\dots & \\dots & \\dots \\\\ \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q}}\\right) \\end{array} \\right]. \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 399, + 882, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, the question-level cross-checking consistency score $\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}}$ can be obtained by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 455, + 882, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {q} \\cdot k} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\\right). \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 494, + 882, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.4 Model-level Consistency (SAC $^3$ -M & SAC $^3$ -QM) Score", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 843, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to the question-level score, a model-level cross-check score is calculated by performing cross-model checking and cross-question checking using the verifier LM $\\nu$ . Specifically, for the original question $x_0$ , the model-level cross-checking consistency score $\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathsf{M}}$ is computed by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 612, + 882, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {M}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {m}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {m}} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {0}}} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 714, + 882, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_0}} = \\{(x_0,s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^1),\\ldots ,(x_0,s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m})\\}$ is the QA pairs generated by the verified LM $\\nu$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 880, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The cross-question consistency score on the verifier LM is computed on the QA pairs produced by $\\nu$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 797, + 882, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c c c} \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\\right) \\\\ \\dots & \\dots & \\dots \\\\ \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\\right) \\end{array} \\right]. \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 846, + 882, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The cross-model cross-question consistency score", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15449", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "can thus be obtained through", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 331, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q M}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {q m} \\cdot k} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q m}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\\right). \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 105, + 487, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.5 Final Score and Model Confidence", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 159, + 443, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The different variants of SAC3 capture different aspects of the uncertainty about the original response and should complement each other. We thus consider a combination of all variants including SAC3-Q, SAC3-M, SAC3-QM as the final score:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 487, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {a l l}} = \\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q}} + \\lambda \\left(\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {M}} + \\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q M}}\\right), \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 267, + 487, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\lambda$ is a weight factor for the verifier LM. Unless mentioned otherwise, we use $\\lambda = 1$ by default in our experiments. In practice, as the computation of each component is independent, they can be computed in parallel to reduce latency. The detection prediction is made by comparing the final score with a preset threshold. In addition to the computed score, we also ask the target LM to generate a verbalized confidence score (Tian et al., 2023) along with its prediction when checking the semantic equivalence of QA pairs. More discussions are offered in the Appendix C.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 288, + 489, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Data and Annotation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 499, + 331, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our hallucination detection approach on two categories of QA tasks, namely, classification QA and generation QA, with each category containing two datasets. Following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a), we use the following two binary classification datasets for evaluation on the classification QA task:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 487, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Prime number: this dataset contains 500 questions that query the primality of a randomly chosen prime number between 1,000 and 20,000, where the factual answer is always \"Yes\". The synthesized hallucinated answers are \"No, it is not a prime number\".", + "- Senator search: the dataset consists of 500 questions that follow the following template: \"Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME]?\" The factual answer is always \"No\". We also generate hallucinated answers: \"Yes, there was a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME].\"." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 652, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As for the generation QA tasks, we take questions from the following two open-domain QA datasets and generate answers using LLMs. Then we manually annotate the factuality of the answers following previous work (Li et al., 2023a).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- HotpotQA-halu: We randomly sample 250 examples from the training set of HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) and generate hallucinated answers drawn from gpt-3.5-turbo. Then we manually annotate the answers by comparing the ground truth and knowledge.", + "- NQ-open-halu: Natural Questions (NQ)-open (Lee et al., 2019) is a more challenging open domain QA benchmark (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). We use the same setting as HotpotQA-halu to create a small-scale dataset that consists of 250 non-factual and factual examples with manual annotations." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 175, + 882, + 393 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please find more relevant details about data annotations in the Appendix C.3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 406, + 882, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 453, + 653, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 712, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation Models. We use gpt-3.5-turbo from OpenAI as the target LM for our experiment. The verifier LM is chosen from the following two models: (1) Falcon-7b-instruct (Al-mazrouei et al., 2023): an open-source causal decoder-only model built by TII that is trained on 1,500B tokens of RefinedWeb (Penedo et al., 2023) and further enhanced using the curated corpora; and (2) Guanaco-33b: an open-source instruction-following models through QLoRA (Dettmers et al., 2023) tuning of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) base model on the OASST1 dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 504, + 882, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Implementation Details. The evaluation is conducted using Azure OpenAI API. When performing semantic perturbations and consistency checking, we set the temperature to 0.0 to get deterministic high-quality outputs. Given a specific input query, we generate $k = 10$ semantically equivalent inputs using the prompt described in Section 4.1. For the self-checking-based method $\\mathsf{SC}^2$ , we follow prior work (Manakul et al., 2023) to set the temperature to 1.0 and generate $n_s = 10$ stochastic samples. For $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ and $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM}$ , we set $n_q = n_{qm} = 1$ to reduce computational cost. To further reduce the inference cost, we set $n_m = 1$ by default and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15450", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "combine SAC $^{3}$ -M with SAC $^{3}$ -QM to report the model-level results. We use hallucination detection accuracy and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) to evaluate the performance. In addition to the estimated hallucination score, we also show the verbalized probabilities (Tian et al., 2023) from the target LM for comparison. We execute all experiments on 8 NVIDIA V100 32G GPUs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 83, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6ed84477cda719e05a673d3d5dec9e5879f251737169523c62dcdd42988b99c4.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)65.967.556.153.1
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)99.499.799.799.7
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 225, + 487, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Evaluation Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 356, + 309, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2.1 Classification QA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 380, + 312, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Balanced Dataset. We first experiment on balanced datasets with $50\\%$ hallucinated samples and $50\\%$ factual samples. Table 2 compares the detection performance of $\\mathsf{SC^2}$ and $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ in terms of AUROC and verbalized confidence score. We observe that self-checking $(\\mathrm{SC^2})$ performs poorly on both datasets, with a low AUROC of $65.9\\%$ and $56.1\\%$ , respectively. Our question-level cross-checking $(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q})$ significantly outperforms the $\\mathrm{SC^2}$ baseline achieving $>99\\%$ AUROC on both datasets and is in line with the verbalized confidence score, confirming the effectiveness of cross-checking.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 404, + 489, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unbalanced Dataset. We further evaluate our method in a more challenging scenario where the dataset only contains hallucinated samples. Table 3 presents the accuracy of detecting hallucinated samples using a preset threshold of 0.5. In this case, the performance of self-check drops significantly to $48.2\\%$ and $29.6\\%$ respectively. $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ still outperforms $\\mathrm{SC}^2$ by a large margin. The model-level cross-check with verifier LMs performs well in the prime number dataset but fails to accurately detect hallucination in the senator search dataset. This is because both verifier LMs refuse to answer a large portion of the questions on this dataset due to a lack of sufficient information. By combining the target LM, $\\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -a11 with Guanaco-33b achieves the highest detection accuracy compared to other baselines $\\mathrm{SC}^2 (+51.2\\%)$ , $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q} (+6.2\\%)$ , and $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM} (+5.0\\%)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/067aa9bed5614005ec3ac13930727da8ce390d978ac354577ab92842607f7beb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: AUROC on classification QA tasks with $50\\%$ hallucinated samples and $50\\%$ factual samples." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.251.029.630.6
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)93.296.497.097.4
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)89.891.221.021.8
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)94.496.345.646.2
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)97.898.084.685.6
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)99.499.485.686.7
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 884, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Accuracy on classification QA tasks with $100\\%$ hallucinated samples (with the threshold set to 0.5).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 206, + 882, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of Threshold. Since the choice of threshold has a significant impact on the detection accuracy in the case where the dataset only contains positive (hallucinated) samples, we further experiment with different thresholds and present the results in Fig. 3. We observe that $\\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -Q and $\\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -a11 with Guanaco-33b are more robust against large threshold values and outperform $\\mathrm{SC}^2$ in most cases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 261, + 884, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cb4fcdc3651af384934237e97e162eff29423d4337e3513da6b0c376c5f628b2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 401, + 704, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/820cd6e634bb353c1cd856328097e6327074baccb6ceda00df50174331febc01.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Impact of threshold on detection accuracy." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 541, + 875, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8065ea4ffe0083104ee89f4f65ac9292fb538e4c4e5913d2ab0bab281503a2fd.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 705, + 401, + 878, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Why Does Self-checking Fail? To further understand why self-checking methods fail to detect some hallucinated responses, we visualize the distribution of consistency scores using histogram plots in Fig. 4. We observe that for $\\mathsf{SC}^2$ , a significant portion of hallucinated samples received highly consistent predictions. In other words, the target LM made consistently wrong predictions due to a lack of question and model diversity, which aligns with our analysis in Section 3. On the other hand, benefiting from the semantically equivalent question perturbation, $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -Q$ ’s scores are more spread out in the inconsistent region, which helps to improve the effectiveness of detecting hallucinations by choosing a proper threshold.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 615, + 884, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2.2 Open-domain Generation QA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 868, + 803, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared to the classification QA tasks, detecting hallucinations in open-domain generation QA", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15451", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7471c5546dd0753b1290c087ea06bc1198a17e4d4ba20a56b83114986c4d020f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Histogram of hallucination score." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 82, + 484, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tasks is more challenging. As shown in Table 4, $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ exhibits better AUROC than $\\mathrm{SC}^2$ $(+7\\%)$ in both datasets. Compared to $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ , $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM}$ shows $6.7\\%$ improvement in the HotpotQA-halu dataset but is slightly worse in the NQ open dataset. $\\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -all leverages the advantages of question-level and model-level cross-checking and achieves consistently good performance in both datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 269, + 489, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/89afbc02bf8df0b55518f2341eb97c2ae2b3ab82af5fea5c14f701331b18c95a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodHotpotQA-haluNQ-open-halu
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)74.277.070.572.7
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)81.381.477.278.5
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)83.079.567.562.0
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)88.085.272.772.7
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)84.584.577.177.2
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)87.086.877.277.8
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 412, + 487, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: AUROC on open-domain generation QA tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 485, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of Verifier LM Weight. In our previous experiments, we assigned equal importance to the consistency score computed by the target and verifier LM. However, typically, the target LM and the verifier LM have different architectures and scales such that the user may have different levels of trust in their output truthfulness. This difference in trust can be incorporated by introducing a weight $\\lambda$ to the consistency score produced by the verifier LM. For instance, if the goal is to detect hallucination in a specialized domain and the verifier LM is a domain-specific model developed for this domain, we can assign a large weight to its scores (e.g., $\\lambda > 1.0$ ). In the general case, where the verifier LM is a small-sized open-source model, we can apply a small weight value (e.g., $\\lambda < 1.0$ ) to discount the influence of the verifier LM in the final score. Fig. 5 visualizes the effect of various weight factors on the generation QA datasets. We observe that SAC3-all with a higher weight would result in a larger advantage over SAC3-Q in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the HotpotQA-halu task, where the verifier LM outperforms the target LM. On the contrary, in the NQ open task where the target LM shows competitive performance, a smaller weight would yield better results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/632cf857050e3c680125f3242f79e5862c24e71c180d80dd33329837d1a060a8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 172, + 878, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b0a467b8ed3b0981a44326b99a869ea9e6f029687c6fce8000e5a4d5038bdd4f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Effect of verifier LM weight on AUROC." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 286, + 878, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of the Number of Perturbed Questions. The performance of sampling-based methods is expected to improve as the sample size increases, at the cost of higher latency and computational cost. In Fig. 6, we study this trade-off by varying the number of perturbed questions $k$ from 2 to 10. We observe that the performance of SAC³ increases as more question samples are used but the performance gain gradually diminishes after using more than 5 question samples. This suggests that in practice we could use 2-4 question samples to achieve reasonably good performance at a low computational cost.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 455, + 884, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/336aa453fc86d1c725fd409a10cd694bff47b5f4bbd3dbec3e273b9a91f77460.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Performance of SAC3 with varying number of perturbed questions." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 677, + 882, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of the Model Type. Our proposed SAC3 framework does not restrict the type of LLM employed and can be naturally extended to various", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15452", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "types of target LLMs. To verify this, in addition to GPT-3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo), we conduct experiments using GPT-4 (gpt-4) and PaLM 2 (chat-bison) on the considered four datasets in the setting of the balanced dataset. The experimental results of comparing the proposed $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ with the $\\mathrm{SC}^2$ baseline are summarized in Table 5. We observe that the proposed $\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}$ consistently outperforms the $\\mathrm{SC}^2$ baseline across all LLM variants.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4ab45557ea4d0d7b50d38914a0b626aef063d310863e9e5d9f99e30cea9fc4e1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodPrime NumberSenator SearchHotpotQA -haluNQ-open -halu
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.229.674.270.5
SC2(gpt-4)38.318.479.776.3
SC2(chat-bison)26.919.275.867.9
SAC3-Q (gpt-3.5-turbo)93.297.081.377.2
SAC3-Q (gpt-4)91.161.687.282.9
SAC3-Q (chat-bison)90.366.382.872.7
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 241, + 489, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Accuracy of different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and PaLM 2) on classification and generation QA tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 489, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Computational Cost. We monitor the computational cost of our approach based on the number of model evaluations consumed by OpenAI API and open-source LLMs inference. Assuming the number of samples equals the number of perturbed questions, i.e., $n_s = n_m = n_q = n_{qm}$ , the cost of $\\mathsf{SC^2}$ is $n_s$ API calls, and our $\\mathsf{SAC^3}$ -all needs $n_s$ target LM calls plus $2 \\times n_s$ verifier LM calls. Beyond the model evaluations, $\\mathsf{SAC^3}$ may have additional costs from question perturbations and semantic equivalence checking via prompting. Additional discussions can be found in the Appendix C.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 410, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 618, + 379, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LM and the factuality of the response and propose SAC3 as a robust hallucination detection approach for black-box LMs. Through extensive empirical analysis, our work highlights several findings. First, self-consistency checking alone is insufficient to effectively detect question-level and model-level hallucinations, where LMs generate consistently wrong responses to certain questions. Second, cross-checking between semantically equivalent questions can reduce the occurrence of persistent hallucinations, potentially by reducing question-level ambiguity. Third, there exists a model-level disparity in hallucinations, which we attribute to the inherent differences in LM capabilities originating from different training procedures and data. Thus, the verifier LM can be selected", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 492, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "according to specific tasks to maximize detection accuracy. We believe that our work is an important step towards building reliable LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 143, + 662, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper studies hallucination detection in LMs, which has significant broader impacts in the field of natural language processing (NLP) and helps to address ethical considerations regarding trustworthiness and reliability. The research outcome may contribute to the development of more accurate and reliable LMs by mitigating the risks of misinformation and biased outputs and promoting accountability and trust in AI systems.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 168, + 885, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 324, + 626, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our current experiments focus on the question-answering setting. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability of the proposed framework and the accuracy of semantic equivalence checks on more complex tasks such as conversational or dialogue-based prompting. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate the efficiency-utility trade-off: we expect increasing sample sizes to improve detection accuracy but may introduce additional cost and latency. Speeding up the implementation through parallelization is also worth exploring.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 349, + 885, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 568, + 608, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ayush Agrawal, Lester Mackey, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2023. Do language models know when they're hallucinating references? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18248.", + "Ebtesam Almazrouei, Hamza Alobeidli, Abdulaziz Alshamsi, Alessandro Cappelli, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Merouane Debbah, Etienne Goffinet, Daniel Heslow, Julien Launay, Quentin Malartic, Badreddine Noune, Baptiste Pannier, and Guilherme Penedo. 2023. Falcon-40B: an open large language model with state-of-the-art performance.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Meng Cao, Yue Dong, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2022. Hallucinated but factual! inspecting the factuality of hallucinations in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3340-3354." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 589, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15453", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 941 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, Alicia Parrish, Vishakh Padmakumar, Chen Zhao, Samuel R Bowman, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2023. Two failures of self-consistency in the multi-step reasoning of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14279.", + "Jiuhai Chen and Jonas Mueller. 2023. Quantifying uncertainty in answers from any language model via intrinsic and extrinsic confidence assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16175.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311.", + "Jeremy R Cole, Michael JQ Zhang, Daniel Gillick, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2023. Selectively answering ambiguous questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14613.", + "Souvik Das, Sougata Saha, and Rohini K Srihari. 2023. Diving deep into modes of fact hallucinations in dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04449.", + "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314.", + "Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. 2023. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495.", + "Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031.", + "Zorik Gekhman, Jonathan Herzig, Roee Aharoni, Chen Elkind, and Idan Szpektor. 2023. Trueteacher: Learning factual consistency evaluation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11171.", + "Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2022. Becel: Benchmark for consistency evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3680-3696.", + "Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1-38.", + "Ziwei Ji, Zihan Liu, Nayeon Lee, Tiezheng Yu, Bryan Wilie, Min Zeng, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Rho: Reducing hallucination in open-domain dialogues with knowledge grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01588." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664.", + "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453-466.", + "Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096.", + "Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023a. Halueval: A largescale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2305.", + "Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. 2023b. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03341.", + "Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Generating with confidence: Uncertainty quantification for black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19187.", + "Tianyu Liu, Yizhe Zhang, Chris Brockett, Yi Mao, Zhifang Sui, Weizhu Chen, and Bill Dolan. 2021. A token-level reference-free hallucination detection benchmark for free-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08704.", + "Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. 2023. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896.", + "Eric Mitchell, Joseph J Noh, Siyan Li, William S Armstrong, Ananth Agarwal, Patrick Liu, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Enhancing self-consistency and performance of pre-trained language models through natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11875.", + "Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, and Martin Vechev. 2023. Self-contradictory hallucinations of large language models: Evaluation, detection and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15852.", + "Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. 2023. The RefinedWeb dataset for Falcon LLM: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15454", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813.", + "Derek Tam, Anisha Mascarenhas, Shiyue Zhang, Sarah Kwan, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Evaluating the factual consistency of large language models through news summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 5220-5255.", + "Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2023. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14975.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu. 2023. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987.", + "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171.", + "Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. 2021. On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15025.", + "Shiping Yang, Renliang Sun, and Xiaojun Wan. 2023. A new benchmark and reverse validation method for passage-level hallucination detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06498.", + "Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380.", + "Hongbin Ye, Tong Liu, Aijia Zhang, Wei Hua, and Weiqiang Jia. 2023. Cognitive mirage: A review of hallucinations in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06794.", + "Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A Smith. 2023a. How language model hallucinations can snowball. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13534." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Shuo Zhang, Liangming Pan, Junzhou Zhao, and William Yang Wang. 2023b. Mitigating language model hallucination with interactive question-knowledge alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13669.", + "Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al. 2023c. Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219.", + "Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223.", + "Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023a. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers. ArXiv preprint, abs/2304.10513.", + "Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023b. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10513.", + "Chunting Zhou, Graham Neubig, Jiatao Gu, Mona Diab, Paco Guzman, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2020. Detecting hallucinated content in conditional neural sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.02593." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15455", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Factuality Assessment of LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 426, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section first introduces the background of LM factuality assessment and reviews the key components of existing black-box factuality assessment approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 263, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing studies (Manakul et al., 2023) showed that the factuality of LMs' statements can be assessed by capturing the output uncertainty. If permitted with complete white-box access, hallucinations of LMs can be detected through uncertainty metrics such as entropy, which models the uncertainty of the output distribution as $\\mathcal{H}(\\boldsymbol{s}) = -\\sum_{i=1}^{N} p(s_i | s_{MethodInputModelOutputSemantic ConsistencySC2QTargetYes, there was a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓QTargetYes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓SAC3-QQ1TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to the most recent updates or news. However, as of my last update, there is no North Dakota US senator who graduated from MIT.✗Q2TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to real-time information or current events. However, as of my last update, I am not aware of any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates.✗SAC3-MQVerifierNo, there has never been a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and attended MIT.✗SAC3-QMQ1VerifierNo, a North Dakota US senator did not have MIT listed as their alma mater.✗Q2VerifierThere are no known US senators from North Dakota who are also MIT graduates.✗", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/98f85bfb11ef790b9fc7ab1bc7b489c493103f4ac666e1d7f9edad1d9a1a62bd.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Input Question (Q) and Answer (A): $\\mathrm{Q} =$ \"Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT?\" A = \"Yes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin Burdick.\" Semantically rephrased questions: Q1 = \"Did a North Dakota US senator have MIT listed as their alma mater?\" Q2 = \"Were there any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates?" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ObjectiveTemplate
Semantic question perturbationFor the question [QUERYED QUESTION], provide ${k} semantically equivalent questions \\nAre the following two inputs semantically equivalent? \\n[QUERYED INPUT] \\n[GENERATED INPUT]
Semantic equivalence checkAre the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? Provide your best guess and the probability that it is correct (0.0 to 1.0). Given ONLY the guess (Yes or No) and probability, no other words or explanation. For example: \\nGuess: <most likely guess, as short as possible; not a complete sentence, just the guess!>\\nProbability: <the probability between 0.0 and 1.0 that your guess is correct, without any extra commentary whatsoever; just the probability! \\nThe first QA pair is: \\nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \\nA: ${THE ANSWER} \\nThe second QA pair is: \\nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \\nA: ${THE ANSWER}
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 399, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Prompt templates for different objectives, including semantically equivalent perturbations of input questions and semantic equivalent check of QA pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 574, + 882, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to optimally balance efficiency (light version) and accuracy (performance version), facilitating more informed decisions in practice.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 487, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2 Semantic Consistency Checking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 688, + 415, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The goal of our research is to provide a flexible framework for the effective detection of hallucinations in black-box LLMs. Compared to previous approaches (Manakul et al., 2023) based on similarity metrics such as BERTScore, employing LLM for semantic consistency checking not only offers better accuracy but also eliminates the need for involving additional models. We note that our design is not dependent on any specific type of LLM and the users are allowed to choose freely for each component. Specifically, we chose GPT as the instantiation in our experiments due to its well-acclaimed ability to follow human instructions which is cru", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cial for evaluation. In practice, the user may choose any open-sourced LLMs that have been aligned to follow instructions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 882, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.3 Data Annotations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 688, + 697, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the two classification QA tasks (Prime Number and Senator Search), we use the synthesized hallucinated answers following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a). For the task of prime number, the factual/true answer is always \"Yes\", i.e., all the testing numbers are prime numbers. The synthesized hallucinated response is \"No\". The factual/true answer of the senator search is always \"No\" and the synthesized hallucinated answer is \"Yes\". Such an experimental setting on the binary classification tasks is realistic since we have verified that on these datasets most of the responses generated by gpt-3.5-turbo are indeed \"Yes\" or \"No\" which", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15457", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "align with the synthesized response.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 383, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the generation QA tasks (HotpotQA-halu and NQ-Open-halu), we used answers generated by LLM (gpt-3.5-turbo) for experiments, which do not have pre-defined factual/non-factual labels. Therefore, we manually annotated these LLM-generated answers by comparing them with the ground truth.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 99, + 487, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to note that in practice, a more versatile hallucination detection approach should be able to evaluate the factuality of a sample regardless of its origin (e.g., synthesized or generated by itself / other LLMs). In our framework, this is achieved through semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. We plan to release the annotated datasets to facilitate future research.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 212, + 487, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Additional Examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 369, + 334, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6 provides another illustrative example to explain our methodology in the senator search dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 487, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15458", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_model.json b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c144174ee3d64b30d32a63065c93f2d91991d9a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2428 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.092, + 0.882, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.15, + 0.871, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaxin Zhang\\(^{1}\\), Zhuohang Li\\(^{2}\\), Kamalika Das\\(^{1}\\), Bradley Malin\\(^{2,3}\\), Sricharan Kumar\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.169, + 0.853, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Intuit AI Research \\(^{2}\\)Vanderbilt University \\(^{3}\\)Vanderbilt University Medical Center \\(\\{jiaxin_zhang, kamalika_das, sricharan_kumar\\} @intuit.com \\(\\{zhuohang.li, b.malin\\} @\\)vanderbilt.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hallucination detection is a critical step toward understanding the trustworthiness of modern language models (LMs). To achieve this goal, we re-examine existing detection approaches based on the self-consistency of LMs and uncover two types of hallucinations resulting from 1) question-level and 2) model-level, which cannot be effectively identified through self-consistency check alone. Building upon this discovery, we propose a novel sampling-based method, i.e., semantic-aware cross-check consistency \\((\\mathrm{SAC}^3)\\) that expands on the principle of self-consistency checking. Our \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3\\) approach incorporates additional mechanisms to detect both question-level and model-level hallucinations by leveraging advances including semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. Through extensive and systematic empirical analysis, we demonstrate that \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3\\) outperforms the state of the art in detecting both nonfactual and factual statements across multiple question-answering and open-domain generation benchmarks.\\(^1\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.634, + 0.262, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.659, + 0.49, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large-scale pre-trained language models (LMs) have demonstrated exceptional adaptability across a diverse array of natural language tasks that require generating open-ended responses based on user prompt comprehension (Zhao et al., 2023). However, prominent LMs like GPT (Brown et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), often exhibit a tendency to produce exceedingly confident, yet erroneous, assertions commonly referred to as hallucinations. This phenomenon significantly impedes their applicability in domains where factual accuracy is of utmost importance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.853, + 0.49, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hallucinations can be detected through the assistance of metrics that capture the uncertainty about" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.886, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the output sequences. However, these metrics require access to token-level log probabilities, which are not available in commercial black-box LMs like ChatGPT or Bard that only offer limited API access. To overcome this limitation, recent studies explore sampling-based approaches for approximating uncertainty estimation (Lin et al., 2023) through establishing a connection between confidence and self-consistency (Manakul et al., 2023; Mündler et al., 2023). The underlying premise of this principle is that LMs are more inclined to generate consistent responses when high probabilities are assigned to tokens in the answer, which, in turn, implies a level of factuality. In contrast, inconsistent responses are more likely to contain hallucinations. To operationalize this concept, current approaches are designed to sample multiple responses from the LMs for a given question and then compose a hallucination score for each sentence based on the level of response consistency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.598, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Key Observations. In this work, we investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LMs and the occurrence of hallucinations in a diverse range of tasks. Our investigation indicates that while self-inconsistency in LMs often coincides with hallucination, self-consistency does not necessarily guarantee factual answers, as shown in Figure 1. Our findings challenge the notion that self-consistency alone can serve as a reliable indicator of veracity, as it is demonstrated that LMs can exhibit various tiers of hallucination that elude detection through self-consistency checks. One such tier is question-level hallucination, where LMs consistently generate incorrect answers in response to specific questions (e.g., Table 1). We reveal that by reformulating the questions, it is possible to mitigate such instances of hallucinations. Additionally, our work further reveals the existence of model-level hallucinations, whereby different LMs show discrepancies in their propensity for halluci" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1All resources are available at https://github.com/intuit/sac3." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15445" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15445-15458 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.081, + 0.878, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.396, + 0.884, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Key observation: solely checking the self-consistency of LLMs is not sufficient for deciding factuality. Left: generated responses to the same question may be consistent but non-factual. Right: generated responses may be inconsistent with the original answer that is factually correct." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.465, + 0.489, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "nation. Surprisingly, we even observe cases where smaller LMs are capable of correctly answering questions for which larger LMs hallucinate. Together, these findings accentuate the need to consider model-specific characteristics when assessing the occurrence of hallucinations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.582, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Proposed Approach. Motivated by these observations, we introduce SAC3, a new sampling-based approach utilizing semantic-aware cross-check consistency to improve the detection of hallucinations in black-box LMs. An overview of our approach is provided in Fig. 2. To address question-level hallucination, we introduce a mechanism that perturbs semantically equivalent questions to evaluate the consistency of LMs' responses across variants of the same question. By examining the generated answers to these perturbed questions, we are able to identify cases where the LM consistently provides incorrect responses to a specific question, which is indicative of a question-level hallucination. Furthermore, we address model-level hallucination by introducing cross-model response consistency checking, which involves comparing the responses of different LMs to the same set of questions. By identifying discrepancies between the responses of different models, we are able to pinpoint cases where certain models exhibit hallucinations while" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.883, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "others provide correct answers. Integrating these cross-checking extensions into our approach significantly improves its ability to detect hallucinations that go beyond self-consistency, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of the presence of question-level and model-level hallucinations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.572, + 0.885, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effectiveness of SAC3. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SAC3 in multiple classification and open-domain generation QA datasets. In the classification QA tasks, our approach achieves a high AUROC score of \\(99.4\\%\\) and \\(97.0\\%\\) respectively, which significantly outperforms the self-consistency baseline. In the case of open-domain generation QA tasks, our approach achieves an AUROC score of \\(88.0\\%\\) and \\(77.2\\%\\), which substantially improves upon the self-consistency baseline by a large margin \\((+13.8\\%, \\text{and} +6.7\\%\\) respectively)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.764, + 0.666, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hallucination in LMs. The issue of hallucination in language models (LMs) has gained significant attention due to its negative impact on performance and the risks it introduces in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, such as machine translation (Zhou et al., 2020), summarization (Cao et al., 2022), dialogue generation (Das et al., 2023), and question answering (Zhang et al., 2023a; Zheng" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15446" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodInputModelOutputConsistencyFactuality
Self-consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."✓✗
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It can be divided evenly by 7 and 19."
Cross-Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Target"Yes, the number 3691 is prime."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Target"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are itself and one."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Target"Yes, 3691 is a prime number and can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
Cross-M consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 is a prime number."✗✓
Cross-M & Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Verifier"Yes."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Verifier"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are 1 and itself."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.296, + 0.885, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: An illustrative example of self-consistency, cross-question consistency, and cross-model consistency check. The original question and answer are \"Is 3691 a prime number?\" and \"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It is divisible by 7 and 13\", respectively. Each row presents a set of sampled QA pairs along with its consistency regarding the original answer, and the predicted factuality of the original answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.379, + 0.491, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2023b; Dhuliawala et al., 2023). Recent survey (Ji et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c; Ye et al., 2023) and evaluation benchmarks (Liu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a; Yang et al., 2023) have highlighted the importance of addressing this issue. Previous research has explored hallucination evaluation using confidence-based approaches (Xiao and Wang, 2021; Varshney et al., 2023; Chen and Mueller, 2023) that require access to token-level log probability (Kuhn et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2023) or supervised tuning (Agrawal et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023b) that relies on internal states of the LM. However, these methods may not be applicable when only API access to the LM is available (Agrawal et al., 2023). Another approach involves retrieving knowledge from external databases to tackle hallucinations (Ji et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023a; Peng et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023b). In contrast to these studies, our work focuses on detecting hallucinations in open-domain QA tasks using black-box LMs, without relying on external resources." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Consistency Evaluation of LMs. An essential characteristic of logically valid intelligent systems is self-consistency, which entails that no two statements provided by the system contradict each other. Self-consistency is defined by Elazar et al. (2021) as the invariance of an LM's responses across various types of semantics-preserving prompt transformations. This definition is further enriched by multiple other consistency categories proposed by Jang et al. (2022). Wang et al. (2022) demonstrates that self-consistency can significantly enhance the chain of thought reasoning in LMs. Without self" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.379, + 0.885, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "consistency, it becomes challenging to regard LMs as reliable or trustworthy systems. Recent studies employ self-consistency to detect hallucinations based on pretrained LMs (Manakul et al., 2023) and instruction-tuned LMs (Mündler et al., 2023). Although these methods exhibit promising accuracy on several specific tasks, potential failures (Chen et al., 2023) of self-consistency are overlooked in the current settings, as existing LMs frequently provide inconsistent responses to questions (Mitchell et al., 2022) and factual knowledge inquiries (Elazar et al., 2021; Tam et al., 2023; Gekhman et al., 2023). Our work addresses these concerns by introducing a cross-check consistency approach, aiming to bridge the gap between self-consistency and factual assessment." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.65, + 0.809, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Self-consistency Limitations in Factuality Assessment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The essential assumption of self-consistency in factuality assessment is that if the LM has the knowledge of the concept, responses sampled from its output distribution, should be similar and consistent; conversely, if the LM lacks corresponding knowledge, the sampled responses would contain hallucinated facts that are diverged and contradictory. Although this assumption may seem reasonable, it does not always hold in practice (more details are provided in the Appendix A). Specifically, we argue that solely checking the LM's self-consistency is insufficient for detecting hallucination or verifying factuality under the following two circumstances:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15447" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. LMs may produce consistently hallucinated facts. We observe that for certain questions, LMs may output consistently wrong answers. For instance, as shown in Fig. 1, when prompted with the question \"Is pi smaller than 3.2?\", ChatGPT consistently generates incorrect answers. In this case, where the generated responses are consistent but non-factual, solely relying on self-consistency checking of a single model would yield false negative hallucination detection results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.252, + 0.49, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Even in cases when LMs generate factual statements in their original response, the stochastic sampled responses may lack veracity. For example, the original answer (Answer 1) of ChatGPT under zero temperature is correct regarding the senator search question as shown in Fig. 1. However, when sampled with a higher temperature, ChatGPT generates multiple incorrect responses (Answer 2 and Answer \\( m \\)). In this scenario, where the sampled responses are inconsistent and disagree with the original response which itself is factually correct, methods that rely solely on model self-checking would produce false positives." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.462, + 0.49, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, although the inconsistency of sampled responses has been empirically demonstrated to be correlated with hallucinated facts on certain tasks, in general, self-consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient to verify the veracity of large LMs' statements. Therefore, methods based solely on self-consistency checking may not be able to accurately detect hallucinations in complex QA and open-domain generation tasks, which motivates us to design a more reliable and robust factuality assessment method that extends this idea." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.651, + 0.458, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 SAC3: Semantic-Aware Cross-check Consistency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.694, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section describes the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency approach, a high-level overview of which is provided in Fig. 1. Additionally, an illustrative example of each component is presented in Table 1. Here, we walk through each component in detail." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.802, + 0.489, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Stage 1: Question-level Cross-checking via Semantically Equivalent Perturbations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contrary to existing techniques that assess semantic equivalence through entailment or paraphrasing, our approach involves rephrasing the input query by generating alternative inputs that preserve semantic equivalence, i.e., semantically equivalent input per" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "turbation. To achieve this, we leverage advances in LLM prompting. Starting with a queried input \\( \\pmb{x}_0 \\), we acquire a set of \\( k \\) semantically equivalent inputs \\( \\{x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_k\\} \\) through the prompt: \"For the question [queried Question], provide \\( k \\) semantically equivalent questions\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.189, + 0.885, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To ensure the quality of the generated inputs in this step, we further double-check the semantic equivalence between the generated inputs \\(\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}\\}\\) and the queried input \\(x_{0}\\) in a pair-wise manner using the prompt \"Are the following two inputs semantically equivalent? [queried INPUT] [generated INPUT]\" and filtering out the inputs that do not share the same semantic meaning as the original input. The complete prompt templates used in this work are provided in the Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.399, + 0.857, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Stage 2: Model-level Cross-check with Additional Verifier LM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.449, + 0.884, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let \\( s_0 \\) denote the original response from a target LM \\( \\mathcal{T} \\) based on a given query \\( x_0 \\). Our objective is to detect whether \\( s_0 \\) is hallucinated by sampling responses from the predictive distribution of \\( \\mathcal{T} \\). To avoid model-level hallucination, we introduce an additional verifier LM denoted as \\( \\mathcal{V} \\) for model-level cross-checking. We define the responses from both models as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.583, + 0.884, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {s} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}} = \\mathcal {T} (\\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), \\boldsymbol {s} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}} = \\mathcal {V} (\\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), j = 1, \\dots , k, \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.605, + 0.884, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(k\\) is the length of the generated semantically equivalent inputs \\(\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}\\}\\) in stage 1. To assess the factuality of \\(x_{0}\\), the self-checking mechanism operates by drawing a set of \\(n_{s}\\) stochastic response samples from the target LM: \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_0} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^1, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s}\\}\\). Similarly, we can apply the same self-checking mechanism to the verifier LM to generate another set of \\(n_m\\) responses: \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_0} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^1, s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m}\\}\\). To perform question-level cross-check, for each perturbed input \\(x_k\\), we generate \\(n_q\\) sampled response sequences \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_k} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^1, s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^{n_q}\\}\\) from the target LM \\(\\mathcal{T}\\) and \\(n_{qm}\\) sampled responses \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_k} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^1, s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^{n_{qm}}\\}\\) from the verifier LM \\(\\mathcal{V}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we collect the total sampled sets \\(S = \\{S_{\\mathcal{T}_0}, S_{\\mathcal{V}_0}, S_{\\mathcal{T}_k}, S_{\\mathcal{V}_k}\\}\\) by combining all samples drawn from self-checking and cross-checking, which will be used next for calculating a consistency score." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15448" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.086, + 0.873, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.196, + 0.812, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency \\((\\mathrm{SAC}^3)\\) method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.236, + 0.467, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Stage 3: Consistency Score Calculation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This stage uses the generated sample sets in all previous stages to calculate a numerical consistency score that captures the question-level and model-level cross-checking paradigm." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.341, + 0.476, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.1 Semantic-aware Consistency Check of QA Pairs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.38, + 0.49, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most of the existing works mainly focus on examining the consistency of LM outputs while ignoring the effect of the inputs. However, in QA tasks, it is important to consider both inputs and outputs when measuring semantic equivalence, as the same question can be rephrased in many ways. Although the answers to these questions (e.g., \"no\" and \"yes\") may not be lexically equivalent, the QA pairs as a whole can be semantically equivalent. In light of this, we propose to check the semantic consistency of the QA pairs instead of the answer only." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.573, + 0.471, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.2 Self-checking Consistency (SC²) Score" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.596, + 0.49, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let \\(\\mathcal{C}(\\cdot, \\cdot)\\) denote a semantic equivalence checking operator that takes two QA pairs as inputs. The operator \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) returns \"Yes\" if the two QA pairs are semantically equivalent, and \"No\" otherwise. This operator should be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. We implement the checking operator using an LM by leveraging the prompt: \"Are the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? [QA PAIR 1] [QA PAIR 2]. We then map the best guess to a numerical semantic equivalent score: \\(\\{\\text{\"Yes\"} \\rightarrow 0.0, \\text{\"No\"} \\rightarrow 1.0\\}\\). We use \\(\\mathcal{P}_0 = (\\pmb{x}_0, \\pmb{s}_0)\\) to denote the original QA pair. The self-checking score \\(\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SC}^2}\\) of the target LM \\(\\mathcal{T}\\) can be calculated by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.826, + 0.488, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S C} ^ {2}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {s}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {s}} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\tau_ {0}}} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_0}} = \\{(x_0, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^1), \\dots, (x_0, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s})\\}\\) represents the QA pairs generated in the self-checking scenario." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.236, + 0.851, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.3 Question-level Consistency (SAC\\(^3\\)-Q) Score" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.282, + 0.885, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides self-checking the original question \\( \\pmb{x}_0 \\), SAC3 further assesses cross-check consistency of perturbed questions \\( \\{x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_k\\} \\). The corresponding QA pairs compose a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to a perturbed question (\\( k \\) in total), and each column corresponds to a sampled response (\\( n_q \\) in total):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.4, + 0.883, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c c c} \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q}}\\right) \\\\ \\dots & \\dots & \\dots \\\\ \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q}}\\right) \\end{array} \\right]. \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.456, + 0.884, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, the question-level cross-checking consistency score \\(\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}}\\) can be obtained by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.495, + 0.883, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {q} \\cdot k} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\\right). \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.566, + 0.844, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.4 Model-level Consistency (SAC\\(^3\\)-M & SAC\\(^3\\)-QM) Score" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.613, + 0.884, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to the question-level score, a model-level cross-check score is calculated by performing cross-model checking and cross-question checking using the verifier LM \\(\\nu\\). Specifically, for the original question \\(x_0\\), the model-level cross-checking consistency score \\(\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathsf{M}}\\) is computed by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.575, + 0.715, + 0.883, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {M}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {m}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {m}} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {0}}} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.881, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_0}} = \\{(x_0,s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^1),\\ldots ,(x_0,s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m})\\}\\) is the QA pairs generated by the verified LM \\(\\nu\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.799, + 0.884, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The cross-question consistency score on the verifier LM is computed on the QA pairs produced by \\(\\nu\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.847, + 0.883, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c c c} \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\\right) \\\\ \\dots & \\dots & \\dots \\\\ \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\\right) \\end{array} \\right]. \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.904, + 0.881, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The cross-model cross-question consistency score" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15449" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.332, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "can thus be obtained through" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.106, + 0.488, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q M}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {q m} \\cdot k} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q m}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\\right). \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.16, + 0.445, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.5 Final Score and Model Confidence" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.182, + 0.489, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The different variants of SAC3 capture different aspects of the uncertainty about the original response and should complement each other. We thus consider a combination of all variants including SAC3-Q, SAC3-M, SAC3-QM as the final score:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.268, + 0.488, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {a l l}} = \\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q}} + \\lambda \\left(\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {M}} + \\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q M}}\\right), \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.29, + 0.49, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\lambda\\) is a weight factor for the verifier LM. Unless mentioned otherwise, we use \\(\\lambda = 1\\) by default in our experiments. In practice, as the computation of each component is independent, they can be computed in parallel to reduce latency. The detection prediction is made by comparing the final score with a preset threshold. In addition to the computed score, we also ask the target LM to generate a verbalized confidence score (Tian et al., 2023) along with its prediction when checking the semantic equivalence of QA pairs. More discussions are offered in the Appendix C.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.5, + 0.332, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Data and Annotation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.528, + 0.489, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our hallucination detection approach on two categories of QA tasks, namely, classification QA and generation QA, with each category containing two datasets. Following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a), we use the following two binary classification datasets for evaluation on the classification QA task:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.653, + 0.489, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Prime number: this dataset contains 500 questions that query the primality of a randomly chosen prime number between 1,000 and 20,000, where the factual answer is always \"Yes\". The synthesized hallucinated answers are \"No, it is not a prime number\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Senator search: the dataset consists of 500 questions that follow the following template: \"Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME]?\" The factual answer is always \"No\". We also generate hallucinated answers: \"Yes, there was a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME].\"." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.653, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As for the generation QA tasks, we take questions from the following two open-domain QA datasets and generate answers using LLMs. Then we manually annotate the factuality of the answers following previous work (Li et al., 2023a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.177, + 0.884, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- HotpotQA-halu: We randomly sample 250 examples from the training set of HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) and generate hallucinated answers drawn from gpt-3.5-turbo. Then we manually annotate the answers by comparing the ground truth and knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.283, + 0.884, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- NQ-open-halu: Natural Questions (NQ)-open (Lee et al., 2019) is a more challenging open domain QA benchmark (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). We use the same setting as HotpotQA-halu to create a small-scale dataset that consists of 250 non-factual and factual examples with manual annotations." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.177, + 0.884, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.407, + 0.884, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please find more relevant details about data annotations in the Appendix C.3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.454, + 0.655, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.482, + 0.714, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.505, + 0.884, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation Models. We use gpt-3.5-turbo from OpenAI as the target LM for our experiment. The verifier LM is chosen from the following two models: (1) Falcon-7b-instruct (Al-mazrouei et al., 2023): an open-source causal decoder-only model built by TII that is trained on 1,500B tokens of RefinedWeb (Penedo et al., 2023) and further enhanced using the curated corpora; and (2) Guanaco-33b: an open-source instruction-following models through QLoRA (Dettmers et al., 2023) tuning of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) base model on the OASST1 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Implementation Details. The evaluation is conducted using Azure OpenAI API. When performing semantic perturbations and consistency checking, we set the temperature to 0.0 to get deterministic high-quality outputs. Given a specific input query, we generate \\( k = 10 \\) semantically equivalent inputs using the prompt described in Section 4.1. For the self-checking-based method \\( \\mathsf{SC}^2 \\), we follow prior work (Manakul et al., 2023) to set the temperature to 1.0 and generate \\( n_s = 10 \\) stochastic samples. For \\( \\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q} \\) and \\( \\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM} \\), we set \\( n_q = n_{qm} = 1 \\) to reduce computational cost. To further reduce the inference cost, we set \\( n_m = 1 \\) by default and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15450" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.084, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "combine SAC\\(^{3}\\)-M with SAC\\(^{3}\\)-QM to report the model-level results. We use hallucination detection accuracy and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) to evaluate the performance. In addition to the estimated hallucination score, we also show the verbalized probabilities (Tian et al., 2023) from the target LM for comparison. We execute all experiments on 8 NVIDIA V100 32G GPUs." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.226, + 0.489, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)65.967.556.153.1
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)99.499.799.799.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.489, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: AUROC on classification QA tasks with \\(50\\%\\) hallucinated samples and \\(50\\%\\) factual samples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.357, + 0.31, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Evaluation Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.381, + 0.313, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2.1 Classification QA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.405, + 0.49, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Balanced Dataset. We first experiment on balanced datasets with \\(50\\%\\) hallucinated samples and \\(50\\%\\) factual samples. Table 2 compares the detection performance of \\(\\mathsf{SC^2}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}\\) in terms of AUROC and verbalized confidence score. We observe that self-checking \\((\\mathrm{SC^2})\\) performs poorly on both datasets, with a low AUROC of \\(65.9\\%\\) and \\(56.1\\%\\), respectively. Our question-level cross-checking \\((\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q})\\) significantly outperforms the \\(\\mathrm{SC^2}\\) baseline achieving \\(>99\\%\\) AUROC on both datasets and is in line with the verbalized confidence score, confirming the effectiveness of cross-checking." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unbalanced Dataset. We further evaluate our method in a more challenging scenario where the dataset only contains hallucinated samples. Table 3 presents the accuracy of detecting hallucinated samples using a preset threshold of 0.5. In this case, the performance of self-check drops significantly to \\(48.2\\%\\) and \\(29.6\\%\\) respectively. \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}\\) still outperforms \\(\\mathrm{SC}^2\\) by a large margin. The model-level cross-check with verifier LMs performs well in the prime number dataset but fails to accurately detect hallucination in the senator search dataset. This is because both verifier LMs refuse to answer a large portion of the questions on this dataset due to a lack of sufficient information. By combining the target LM, \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3\\)-a11 with Guanaco-33b achieves the highest detection accuracy compared to other baselines \\(\\mathrm{SC}^2 (+51.2\\%)\\), \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q} (+6.2\\%)\\), and \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM} (+5.0\\%)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.251.029.630.6
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)93.296.497.097.4
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)89.891.221.021.8
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)94.496.345.646.2
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)97.898.084.685.6
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)99.499.485.686.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.207, + 0.883, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy on classification QA tasks with \\(100\\%\\) hallucinated samples (with the threshold set to 0.5)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.262, + 0.885, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of Threshold. Since the choice of threshold has a significant impact on the detection accuracy in the case where the dataset only contains positive (hallucinated) samples, we further experiment with different thresholds and present the results in Fig. 3. We observe that \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3\\)-Q and \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3\\)-a11 with Guanaco-33b are more robust against large threshold values and outperform \\(\\mathrm{SC}^2\\) in most cases." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.403, + 0.705, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.542, + 0.877, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.403, + 0.88, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.577, + 0.874, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Impact of threshold on detection accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.617, + 0.885, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Why Does Self-checking Fail? To further understand why self-checking methods fail to detect some hallucinated responses, we visualize the distribution of consistency scores using histogram plots in Fig. 4. We observe that for \\(\\mathsf{SC}^2\\), a significant portion of hallucinated samples received highly consistent predictions. In other words, the target LM made consistently wrong predictions due to a lack of question and model diversity, which aligns with our analysis in Section 3. On the other hand, benefiting from the semantically equivalent question perturbation, \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -Q\\)’s scores are more spread out in the inconsistent region, which helps to improve the effectiveness of detecting hallucinations by choosing a proper threshold." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.869, + 0.804, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2.2 Open-domain Generation QA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared to the classification QA tasks, detecting hallucinations in open-domain generation QA" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15451" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.083, + 0.485, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.229, + 0.45, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Histogram of hallucination score." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.271, + 0.49, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tasks is more challenging. As shown in Table 4, \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}\\) exhibits better AUROC than \\(\\mathrm{SC}^2\\) \\((+7\\%)\\) in both datasets. Compared to \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}\\), \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM}\\) shows \\(6.7\\%\\) improvement in the HotpotQA-halu dataset but is slightly worse in the NQ open dataset. \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3\\)-all leverages the advantages of question-level and model-level cross-checking and achieves consistently good performance in both datasets." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.413, + 0.489, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodHotpotQA-haluNQ-open-halu
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)74.277.070.572.7
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)81.381.477.278.5
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)83.079.567.562.0
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)88.085.272.772.7
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)84.584.577.177.2
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)87.086.877.277.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.486, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: AUROC on open-domain generation QA tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of Verifier LM Weight. In our previous experiments, we assigned equal importance to the consistency score computed by the target and verifier LM. However, typically, the target LM and the verifier LM have different architectures and scales such that the user may have different levels of trust in their output truthfulness. This difference in trust can be incorporated by introducing a weight \\(\\lambda\\) to the consistency score produced by the verifier LM. For instance, if the goal is to detect hallucination in a specialized domain and the verifier LM is a domain-specific model developed for this domain, we can assign a large weight to its scores (e.g., \\(\\lambda > 1.0\\)). In the general case, where the verifier LM is a small-sized open-source model, we can apply a small weight value (e.g., \\(\\lambda < 1.0\\)) to discount the influence of the verifier LM in the final score. Fig. 5 visualizes the effect of various weight factors on the generation QA datasets. We observe that SAC3-all with a higher weight would result in a larger advantage over SAC3-Q in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the HotpotQA-halu task, where the verifier LM outperforms the target LM. On the contrary, in the NQ open task where the target LM shows competitive performance, a smaller weight would yield better results." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.173, + 0.88, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.287, + 0.88, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.41, + 0.871, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Effect of verifier LM weight on AUROC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.456, + 0.885, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of the Number of Perturbed Questions. The performance of sampling-based methods is expected to improve as the sample size increases, at the cost of higher latency and computational cost. In Fig. 6, we study this trade-off by varying the number of perturbed questions \\( k \\) from 2 to 10. We observe that the performance of SAC³ increases as more question samples are used but the performance gain gradually diminishes after using more than 5 question samples. This suggests that in practice we could use 2-4 question samples to achieve reasonably good performance at a low computational cost." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.678, + 0.883, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.814, + 0.884, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Performance of SAC3 with varying number of perturbed questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of the Model Type. Our proposed SAC3 framework does not restrict the type of LLM employed and can be naturally extended to various" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15452" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "types of target LLMs. To verify this, in addition to GPT-3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo), we conduct experiments using GPT-4 (gpt-4) and PaLM 2 (chat-bison) on the considered four datasets in the setting of the balanced dataset. The experimental results of comparing the proposed \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}\\) with the \\(\\mathrm{SC}^2\\) baseline are summarized in Table 5. We observe that the proposed \\(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}\\) consistently outperforms the \\(\\mathrm{SC}^2\\) baseline across all LLM variants." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.242, + 0.49, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodPrime NumberSenator SearchHotpotQA -haluNQ-open -halu
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.229.674.270.5
SC2(gpt-4)38.318.479.776.3
SC2(chat-bison)26.919.275.867.9
SAC3-Q (gpt-3.5-turbo)93.297.081.377.2
SAC3-Q (gpt-4)91.161.687.282.9
SAC3-Q (chat-bison)90.366.382.872.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Accuracy of different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and PaLM 2) on classification and generation QA tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.411, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computational Cost. We monitor the computational cost of our approach based on the number of model evaluations consumed by OpenAI API and open-source LLMs inference. Assuming the number of samples equals the number of perturbed questions, i.e., \\( n_s = n_m = n_q = n_{qm} \\), the cost of \\( \\mathsf{SC^2} \\) is \\( n_s \\) API calls, and our \\( \\mathsf{SAC^3} \\)-all needs \\( n_s \\) target LM calls plus \\( 2 \\times n_s \\) verifier LM calls. Beyond the model evaluations, \\( \\mathsf{SAC^3} \\) may have additional costs from question perturbations and semantic equivalence checking via prompting. Additional discussions can be found in the Appendix C.1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.619, + 0.381, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.494, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LM and the factuality of the response and propose SAC3 as a robust hallucination detection approach for black-box LMs. Through extensive empirical analysis, our work highlights several findings. First, self-consistency checking alone is insufficient to effectively detect question-level and model-level hallucinations, where LMs generate consistently wrong responses to certain questions. Second, cross-checking between semantically equivalent questions can reduce the occurrence of persistent hallucinations, potentially by reducing question-level ambiguity. Third, there exists a model-level disparity in hallucinations, which we attribute to the inherent differences in LM capabilities originating from different training procedures and data. Thus, the verifier LM can be selected" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "according to specific tasks to maximize detection accuracy. We believe that our work is an important step towards building reliable LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.144, + 0.663, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.169, + 0.886, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper studies hallucination detection in LMs, which has significant broader impacts in the field of natural language processing (NLP) and helps to address ethical considerations regarding trustworthiness and reliability. The research outcome may contribute to the development of more accurate and reliable LMs by mitigating the risks of misinformation and biased outputs and promoting accountability and trust in AI systems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.325, + 0.628, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.35, + 0.886, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our current experiments focus on the question-answering setting. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability of the proposed framework and the accuracy of semantic equivalence checks on more complex tasks such as conversational or dialogue-based prompting. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate the efficiency-utility trade-off: we expect increasing sample sizes to improve detection accuracy but may introduce additional cost and latency. Speeding up the implementation through parallelization is also worth exploring." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.569, + 0.61, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.59, + 0.884, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ayush Agrawal, Lester Mackey, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2023. Do language models know when they're hallucinating references? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18248." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.652, + 0.885, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ebtesam Almazrouei, Hamza Alobeidli, Abdulaziz Alshamsi, Alessandro Cappelli, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Merouane Debbah, Etienne Goffinet, Daniel Heslow, Julien Launay, Quentin Malartic, Badreddine Noune, Baptiste Pannier, and Guilherme Penedo. 2023. Falcon-40B: an open large language model with state-of-the-art performance." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.752, + 0.885, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.839, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meng Cao, Yue Dong, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2022. Hallucinated but factual! inspecting the factuality of hallucinations in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3340-3354." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.59, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.942 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15453" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, Alicia Parrish, Vishakh Padmakumar, Chen Zhao, Samuel R Bowman, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2023. Two failures of self-consistency in the multi-step reasoning of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14279." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.487, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiuhai Chen and Jonas Mueller. 2023. Quantifying uncertainty in answers from any language model via intrinsic and extrinsic confidence assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16175." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.225, + 0.487, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.313, + 0.487, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeremy R Cole, Michael JQ Zhang, Daniel Gillick, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2023. Selectively answering ambiguous questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14613." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.376, + 0.487, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Souvik Das, Sougata Saha, and Rohini K Srihari. 2023. Diving deep into modes of fact hallucinations in dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04449." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.425, + 0.487, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.475, + 0.487, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. 2023. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.55, + 0.487, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.639, + 0.487, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zorik Gekhman, Jonathan Herzig, Roee Aharoni, Chen Elkind, and Idan Szpektor. 2023. Trueteacher: Learning factual consistency evaluation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11171." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.702, + 0.487, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2022. Becel: Benchmark for consistency evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3680-3696." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.487, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1-38." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziwei Ji, Zihan Liu, Nayeon Lee, Tiezheng Yu, Bryan Wilie, Min Zeng, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Rho: Reducing hallucination in open-domain dialogues with knowledge grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01588." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.151, + 0.883, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453-466." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.255, + 0.883, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.333, + 0.883, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023a. Halueval: A largescale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2305." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.398, + 0.883, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. 2023b. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03341." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.463, + 0.883, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Generating with confidence: Uncertainty quantification for black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19187." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.528, + 0.883, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Liu, Yizhe Zhang, Chris Brockett, Yi Mao, Zhifang Sui, Weizhu Chen, and Bill Dolan. 2021. A token-level reference-free hallucination detection benchmark for free-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08704." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.606, + 0.883, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. 2023. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.671, + 0.883, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Mitchell, Joseph J Noh, Siyan Li, William S Armstrong, Ananth Agarwal, Patrick Liu, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Enhancing self-consistency and performance of pre-trained language models through natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11875." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.762, + 0.883, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, and Martin Vechev. 2023. Self-contradictory hallucinations of large language models: Evaluation, detection and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15852." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. 2023. The RefinedWeb dataset for Falcon LLM: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15454" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.488, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Derek Tam, Anisha Mascarenhas, Shiyue Zhang, Sarah Kwan, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Evaluating the factual consistency of large language models through news summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 5220-5255." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.263, + 0.487, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2023. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14975." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.351, + 0.487, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.44, + 0.487, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu. 2023. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.487, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.591, + 0.487, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. 2021. On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15025." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.64, + 0.487, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shiping Yang, Renliang Sun, and Xiaojun Wan. 2023. A new benchmark and reverse validation method for passage-level hallucination detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06498." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.702, + 0.487, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.804, + 0.486, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongbin Ye, Tong Liu, Aijia Zhang, Wei Hua, and Weiqiang Jia. 2023. Cognitive mirage: A review of hallucinations in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06794." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A Smith. 2023a. How language model hallucinations can snowball. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13534." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuo Zhang, Liangming Pan, Junzhou Zhao, and William Yang Wang. 2023b. Mitigating language model hallucination with interactive question-knowledge alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13669." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.162, + 0.882, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al. 2023c. Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.238, + 0.882, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.313, + 0.882, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023a. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers. ArXiv preprint, abs/2304.10513." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.363, + 0.882, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023b. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10513." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.413, + 0.882, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chunting Zhou, Graham Neubig, Jiatao Gu, Mona Diab, Paco Guzman, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2020. Detecting hallucinated content in conditional neural sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.02593." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15455" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.427, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Factuality Assessment of LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section first introduces the background of LM factuality assessment and reviews the key components of existing black-box factuality assessment approaches." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.188, + 0.264, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Background" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.209, + 0.49, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing studies (Manakul et al., 2023) showed that the factuality of LMs' statements can be assessed by capturing the output uncertainty. If permitted with complete white-box access, hallucinations of LMs can be detected through uncertainty metrics such as entropy, which models the uncertainty of the output distribution as \\(\\mathcal{H}(\\boldsymbol{s}) = -\\sum_{i=1}^{N} p(s_i | s_{MethodInputModelOutputSemantic ConsistencySC2QTargetYes, there was a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓QTargetYes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓SAC3-QQ1TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to the most recent updates or news. However, as of my last update, there is no North Dakota US senator who graduated from MIT.✗Q2TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to real-time information or current events. However, as of my last update, I am not aware of any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates.✗SAC3-MQVerifierNo, there has never been a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and attended MIT.✗SAC3-QMQ1VerifierNo, a North Dakota US senator did not have MIT listed as their alma mater.✗Q2VerifierThere are no known US senators from North Dakota who are also MIT graduates.✗" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.315, + 0.884, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Input Question (Q) and Answer (A): \\( \\mathrm{Q} = \\) \"Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT?\" A = \"Yes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin Burdick.\" Semantically rephrased questions: Q1 = \"Did a North Dakota US senator have MIT listed as their alma mater?\" Q2 = \"Were there any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates?" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.4, + 0.884, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ObjectiveTemplate
Semantic question perturbationFor the question [QUERYED QUESTION], provide ${k} semantically equivalent questions \\nAre the following two inputs semantically equivalent? \\n[QUERYED INPUT] \\n[GENERATED INPUT]
Semantic equivalence checkAre the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? Provide your best guess and the probability that it is correct (0.0 to 1.0). Given ONLY the guess (Yes or No) and probability, no other words or explanation. For example: \\nGuess: <most likely guess, as short as possible; not a complete sentence, just the guess!>\\nProbability: <the probability between 0.0 and 1.0 that your guess is correct, without any extra commentary whatsoever; just the probability! \\nThe first QA pair is: \\nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \\nA: ${THE ANSWER} \\nThe second QA pair is: \\nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \\nA: ${THE ANSWER}
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.575, + 0.884, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Prompt templates for different objectives, including semantically equivalent perturbations of input questions and semantic equivalent check of QA pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.489, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to optimally balance efficiency (light version) and accuracy (performance version), facilitating more informed decisions in practice." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.689, + 0.416, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2 Semantic Consistency Checking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The goal of our research is to provide a flexible framework for the effective detection of hallucinations in black-box LLMs. Compared to previous approaches (Manakul et al., 2023) based on similarity metrics such as BERTScore, employing LLM for semantic consistency checking not only offers better accuracy but also eliminates the need for involving additional models. We note that our design is not dependent on any specific type of LLM and the users are allowed to choose freely for each component. Specifically, we chose GPT as the instantiation in our experiments due to its well-acclaimed ability to follow human instructions which is cru" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.63, + 0.883, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cial for evaluation. In practice, the user may choose any open-sourced LLMs that have been aligned to follow instructions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.689, + 0.698, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.3 Data Annotations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the two classification QA tasks (Prime Number and Senator Search), we use the synthesized hallucinated answers following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a). For the task of prime number, the factual/true answer is always \"Yes\", i.e., all the testing numbers are prime numbers. The synthesized hallucinated response is \"No\". The factual/true answer of the senator search is always \"No\" and the synthesized hallucinated answer is \"Yes\". Such an experimental setting on the binary classification tasks is realistic since we have verified that on these datasets most of the responses generated by gpt-3.5-turbo are indeed \"Yes\" or \"No\" which" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15457" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.384, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "align with the synthesized response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.101, + 0.488, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the generation QA tasks (HotpotQA-halu and NQ-Open-halu), we used answers generated by LLM (gpt-3.5-turbo) for experiments, which do not have pre-defined factual/non-factual labels. Therefore, we manually annotated these LLM-generated answers by comparing them with the ground truth." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.214, + 0.488, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to note that in practice, a more versatile hallucination detection approach should be able to evaluate the factuality of a sample regardless of its origin (e.g., synthesized or generated by itself / other LLMs). In our framework, this is achieved through semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. We plan to release the annotated datasets to facilitate future research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.37, + 0.335, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Additional Examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.396, + 0.488, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6 provides another illustrative example to explain our methodology in the senator search dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15458" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_origin.pdf b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d598160dee936b38ddb31d82265d2fd9d8864d55 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/4a5107be-dc68-42ed-bca9-6c454b388710_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ac1d4fec2a8f6156b5d119fac652b75915c455a9b70df01ad72c035fcaf6674d +size 778916 diff --git a/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/full.md b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d567d1b285e38f4283d966f90a7f739a7ca668b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,358 @@ +# SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency + +Jiaxin Zhang $^{1}$ , Zhuohang Li $^{2}$ , Kamalika Das $^{1}$ , Bradley Malin $^{2,3}$ , Sricharan Kumar $^{1}$ + +\(^{1}\)Intuit AI Research \(^{2}\)Vanderbilt University \(^{3}\)Vanderbilt University Medical Center \(\{jiaxin_zhang, kamalika_das, sricharan_kumar\} @intuit.com \(\{zhuohang.li, b.malin\} @\)vanderbilt.edu + +# Abstract + +Hallucination detection is a critical step toward understanding the trustworthiness of modern language models (LMs). To achieve this goal, we re-examine existing detection approaches based on the self-consistency of LMs and uncover two types of hallucinations resulting from 1) question-level and 2) model-level, which cannot be effectively identified through self-consistency check alone. Building upon this discovery, we propose a novel sampling-based method, i.e., semantic-aware cross-check consistency $(\mathrm{SAC}^3)$ that expands on the principle of self-consistency checking. Our $\mathrm{SAC}^3$ approach incorporates additional mechanisms to detect both question-level and model-level hallucinations by leveraging advances including semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. Through extensive and systematic empirical analysis, we demonstrate that $\mathrm{SAC}^3$ outperforms the state of the art in detecting both nonfactual and factual statements across multiple question-answering and open-domain generation benchmarks. $^1$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Large-scale pre-trained language models (LMs) have demonstrated exceptional adaptability across a diverse array of natural language tasks that require generating open-ended responses based on user prompt comprehension (Zhao et al., 2023). However, prominent LMs like GPT (Brown et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), often exhibit a tendency to produce exceedingly confident, yet erroneous, assertions commonly referred to as hallucinations. This phenomenon significantly impedes their applicability in domains where factual accuracy is of utmost importance. + +Hallucinations can be detected through the assistance of metrics that capture the uncertainty about + +the output sequences. However, these metrics require access to token-level log probabilities, which are not available in commercial black-box LMs like ChatGPT or Bard that only offer limited API access. To overcome this limitation, recent studies explore sampling-based approaches for approximating uncertainty estimation (Lin et al., 2023) through establishing a connection between confidence and self-consistency (Manakul et al., 2023; Mündler et al., 2023). The underlying premise of this principle is that LMs are more inclined to generate consistent responses when high probabilities are assigned to tokens in the answer, which, in turn, implies a level of factuality. In contrast, inconsistent responses are more likely to contain hallucinations. To operationalize this concept, current approaches are designed to sample multiple responses from the LMs for a given question and then compose a hallucination score for each sentence based on the level of response consistency. + +Key Observations. In this work, we investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LMs and the occurrence of hallucinations in a diverse range of tasks. Our investigation indicates that while self-inconsistency in LMs often coincides with hallucination, self-consistency does not necessarily guarantee factual answers, as shown in Figure 1. Our findings challenge the notion that self-consistency alone can serve as a reliable indicator of veracity, as it is demonstrated that LMs can exhibit various tiers of hallucination that elude detection through self-consistency checks. One such tier is question-level hallucination, where LMs consistently generate incorrect answers in response to specific questions (e.g., Table 1). We reveal that by reformulating the questions, it is possible to mitigate such instances of hallucinations. Additionally, our work further reveals the existence of model-level hallucinations, whereby different LMs show discrepancies in their propensity for halluci + +![](images/cde3c1ba6e9e918f2090a7d724e82f080588c4ee0694871f9be7c53ca9787078.jpg) +Figure 1: Key observation: solely checking the self-consistency of LLMs is not sufficient for deciding factuality. Left: generated responses to the same question may be consistent but non-factual. Right: generated responses may be inconsistent with the original answer that is factually correct. + +nation. Surprisingly, we even observe cases where smaller LMs are capable of correctly answering questions for which larger LMs hallucinate. Together, these findings accentuate the need to consider model-specific characteristics when assessing the occurrence of hallucinations. + +Proposed Approach. Motivated by these observations, we introduce SAC3, a new sampling-based approach utilizing semantic-aware cross-check consistency to improve the detection of hallucinations in black-box LMs. An overview of our approach is provided in Fig. 2. To address question-level hallucination, we introduce a mechanism that perturbs semantically equivalent questions to evaluate the consistency of LMs' responses across variants of the same question. By examining the generated answers to these perturbed questions, we are able to identify cases where the LM consistently provides incorrect responses to a specific question, which is indicative of a question-level hallucination. Furthermore, we address model-level hallucination by introducing cross-model response consistency checking, which involves comparing the responses of different LMs to the same set of questions. By identifying discrepancies between the responses of different models, we are able to pinpoint cases where certain models exhibit hallucinations while + +others provide correct answers. Integrating these cross-checking extensions into our approach significantly improves its ability to detect hallucinations that go beyond self-consistency, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of the presence of question-level and model-level hallucinations. + +Effectiveness of SAC3. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SAC3 in multiple classification and open-domain generation QA datasets. In the classification QA tasks, our approach achieves a high AUROC score of $99.4\%$ and $97.0\%$ respectively, which significantly outperforms the self-consistency baseline. In the case of open-domain generation QA tasks, our approach achieves an AUROC score of $88.0\%$ and $77.2\%$ , which substantially improves upon the self-consistency baseline by a large margin $(+13.8\%, \text{and} +6.7\%$ respectively). + +# 2 Related Work + +Hallucination in LMs. The issue of hallucination in language models (LMs) has gained significant attention due to its negative impact on performance and the risks it introduces in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, such as machine translation (Zhou et al., 2020), summarization (Cao et al., 2022), dialogue generation (Das et al., 2023), and question answering (Zhang et al., 2023a; Zheng + +
MethodInputModelOutputConsistencyFactuality
Self-consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."✓✗
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It can be divided evenly by 7 and 19."
Cross-Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Target"Yes, the number 3691 is prime."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Target"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are itself and one."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Target"Yes, 3691 is a prime number and can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
Cross-M consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 is a prime number."✗✓
Cross-M & Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Verifier"Yes."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Verifier"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are 1 and itself."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
+ +Table 1: An illustrative example of self-consistency, cross-question consistency, and cross-model consistency check. The original question and answer are "Is 3691 a prime number?" and "No, 3691 is not a prime number. It is divisible by 7 and 13", respectively. Each row presents a set of sampled QA pairs along with its consistency regarding the original answer, and the predicted factuality of the original answer. + +et al., 2023b; Dhuliawala et al., 2023). Recent survey (Ji et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c; Ye et al., 2023) and evaluation benchmarks (Liu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a; Yang et al., 2023) have highlighted the importance of addressing this issue. Previous research has explored hallucination evaluation using confidence-based approaches (Xiao and Wang, 2021; Varshney et al., 2023; Chen and Mueller, 2023) that require access to token-level log probability (Kuhn et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2023) or supervised tuning (Agrawal et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023b) that relies on internal states of the LM. However, these methods may not be applicable when only API access to the LM is available (Agrawal et al., 2023). Another approach involves retrieving knowledge from external databases to tackle hallucinations (Ji et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023a; Peng et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023b). In contrast to these studies, our work focuses on detecting hallucinations in open-domain QA tasks using black-box LMs, without relying on external resources. + +Consistency Evaluation of LMs. An essential characteristic of logically valid intelligent systems is self-consistency, which entails that no two statements provided by the system contradict each other. Self-consistency is defined by Elazar et al. (2021) as the invariance of an LM's responses across various types of semantics-preserving prompt transformations. This definition is further enriched by multiple other consistency categories proposed by Jang et al. (2022). Wang et al. (2022) demonstrates that self-consistency can significantly enhance the chain of thought reasoning in LMs. Without self + +consistency, it becomes challenging to regard LMs as reliable or trustworthy systems. Recent studies employ self-consistency to detect hallucinations based on pretrained LMs (Manakul et al., 2023) and instruction-tuned LMs (Mündler et al., 2023). Although these methods exhibit promising accuracy on several specific tasks, potential failures (Chen et al., 2023) of self-consistency are overlooked in the current settings, as existing LMs frequently provide inconsistent responses to questions (Mitchell et al., 2022) and factual knowledge inquiries (Elazar et al., 2021; Tam et al., 2023; Gekhman et al., 2023). Our work addresses these concerns by introducing a cross-check consistency approach, aiming to bridge the gap between self-consistency and factual assessment. + +# 3 Self-consistency Limitations in Factuality Assessment + +The essential assumption of self-consistency in factuality assessment is that if the LM has the knowledge of the concept, responses sampled from its output distribution, should be similar and consistent; conversely, if the LM lacks corresponding knowledge, the sampled responses would contain hallucinated facts that are diverged and contradictory. Although this assumption may seem reasonable, it does not always hold in practice (more details are provided in the Appendix A). Specifically, we argue that solely checking the LM's self-consistency is insufficient for detecting hallucination or verifying factuality under the following two circumstances: + +1. LMs may produce consistently hallucinated facts. We observe that for certain questions, LMs may output consistently wrong answers. For instance, as shown in Fig. 1, when prompted with the question "Is pi smaller than 3.2?", ChatGPT consistently generates incorrect answers. In this case, where the generated responses are consistent but non-factual, solely relying on self-consistency checking of a single model would yield false negative hallucination detection results. + +2. Even in cases when LMs generate factual statements in their original response, the stochastic sampled responses may lack veracity. For example, the original answer (Answer 1) of ChatGPT under zero temperature is correct regarding the senator search question as shown in Fig. 1. However, when sampled with a higher temperature, ChatGPT generates multiple incorrect responses (Answer 2 and Answer $m$ ). In this scenario, where the sampled responses are inconsistent and disagree with the original response which itself is factually correct, methods that rely solely on model self-checking would produce false positives. + +In summary, although the inconsistency of sampled responses has been empirically demonstrated to be correlated with hallucinated facts on certain tasks, in general, self-consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient to verify the veracity of large LMs' statements. Therefore, methods based solely on self-consistency checking may not be able to accurately detect hallucinations in complex QA and open-domain generation tasks, which motivates us to design a more reliable and robust factuality assessment method that extends this idea. + +# 4 SAC3: Semantic-Aware Cross-check Consistency + +This section describes the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency approach, a high-level overview of which is provided in Fig. 1. Additionally, an illustrative example of each component is presented in Table 1. Here, we walk through each component in detail. + +# 4.1 Stage 1: Question-level Cross-checking via Semantically Equivalent Perturbations + +Contrary to existing techniques that assess semantic equivalence through entailment or paraphrasing, our approach involves rephrasing the input query by generating alternative inputs that preserve semantic equivalence, i.e., semantically equivalent input per + +turbation. To achieve this, we leverage advances in LLM prompting. Starting with a queried input $\pmb{x}_0$ , we acquire a set of $k$ semantically equivalent inputs $\{x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k\}$ through the prompt: "For the question [queried Question], provide $k$ semantically equivalent questions". + +To ensure the quality of the generated inputs in this step, we further double-check the semantic equivalence between the generated inputs $\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{k}\}$ and the queried input $x_{0}$ in a pair-wise manner using the prompt "Are the following two inputs semantically equivalent? [queried INPUT] [generated INPUT]" and filtering out the inputs that do not share the same semantic meaning as the original input. The complete prompt templates used in this work are provided in the Appendix B. + +# 4.2 Stage 2: Model-level Cross-check with Additional Verifier LM + +Let $s_0$ denote the original response from a target LM $\mathcal{T}$ based on a given query $x_0$ . Our objective is to detect whether $s_0$ is hallucinated by sampling responses from the predictive distribution of $\mathcal{T}$ . To avoid model-level hallucination, we introduce an additional verifier LM denoted as $\mathcal{V}$ for model-level cross-checking. We define the responses from both models as: + +$$ +\boldsymbol {s} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {j}} = \mathcal {T} (\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), \boldsymbol {s} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {j}} = \mathcal {V} (\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), j = 1, \dots , k, \tag {1} +$$ + +where $k$ is the length of the generated semantically equivalent inputs $\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{k}\}$ in stage 1. To assess the factuality of $x_{0}$ , the self-checking mechanism operates by drawing a set of $n_{s}$ stochastic response samples from the target LM: $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0} = \{s_{\mathcal{T}_0}^1, s_{\mathcal{T}_0}^2, \ldots, s_{\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s}\}$ . Similarly, we can apply the same self-checking mechanism to the verifier LM to generate another set of $n_m$ responses: $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{V}_0} = \{s_{\mathcal{V}_0}^1, s_{\mathcal{V}_0}^2, \ldots, s_{\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m}\}$ . To perform question-level cross-check, for each perturbed input $x_k$ , we generate $n_q$ sampled response sequences $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_k} = \{s_{\mathcal{T}_k}^1, s_{\mathcal{T}_k}^2, \ldots, s_{\mathcal{T}_k}^{n_q}\}$ from the target LM $\mathcal{T}$ and $n_{qm}$ sampled responses $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{V}_k} = \{s_{\mathcal{V}_k}^1, s_{\mathcal{V}_k}^2, \ldots, s_{\mathcal{V}_k}^{n_{qm}}\}$ from the verifier LM $\mathcal{V}$ . + +Finally, we collect the total sampled sets $S = \{S_{\mathcal{T}_0}, S_{\mathcal{V}_0}, S_{\mathcal{T}_k}, S_{\mathcal{V}_k}\}$ by combining all samples drawn from self-checking and cross-checking, which will be used next for calculating a consistency score. + +![](images/f6d756e06591d2dccc325d3f6a940be0fc0e7ce85e367dda14dbb9edd9739fb7.jpg) +Figure 2: Overview of the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency $(\mathrm{SAC}^3)$ method. + +# 4.3 Stage 3: Consistency Score Calculation + +This stage uses the generated sample sets in all previous stages to calculate a numerical consistency score that captures the question-level and model-level cross-checking paradigm. + +# 4.3.1 Semantic-aware Consistency Check of QA Pairs + +Most of the existing works mainly focus on examining the consistency of LM outputs while ignoring the effect of the inputs. However, in QA tasks, it is important to consider both inputs and outputs when measuring semantic equivalence, as the same question can be rephrased in many ways. Although the answers to these questions (e.g., "no" and "yes") may not be lexically equivalent, the QA pairs as a whole can be semantically equivalent. In light of this, we propose to check the semantic consistency of the QA pairs instead of the answer only. + +# 4.3.2 Self-checking Consistency (SC²) Score + +Let $\mathcal{C}(\cdot, \cdot)$ denote a semantic equivalence checking operator that takes two QA pairs as inputs. The operator $\mathcal{C}$ returns "Yes" if the two QA pairs are semantically equivalent, and "No" otherwise. This operator should be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. We implement the checking operator using an LM by leveraging the prompt: "Are the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? [QA PAIR 1] [QA PAIR 2]. We then map the best guess to a numerical semantic equivalent score: $\{\text{"Yes"} \rightarrow 0.0, \text{"No"} \rightarrow 1.0\}$ . We use $\mathcal{P}_0 = (\pmb{x}_0, \pmb{s}_0)$ to denote the original QA pair. The self-checking score $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{SC}^2}$ of the target LM $\mathcal{T}$ can be calculated by + +$$ +\mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S C} ^ {2}} = \frac {1}{n _ {s}} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {s}} \mathcal {C} \left(\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \mathcal {P} _ {\mathcal {S} _ {\tau_ {0}}} ^ {i}\right), \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{T}_0}} = \{(x_0, s_{\mathcal{T}_0}^1), \dots, (x_0, s_{\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s})\}$ represents the QA pairs generated in the self-checking scenario. + +# 4.3.3 Question-level Consistency (SAC $^3$ -Q) Score + +Besides self-checking the original question $\pmb{x}_0$ , SAC3 further assesses cross-check consistency of perturbed questions $\{x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k\}$ . The corresponding QA pairs compose a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to a perturbed question ( $k$ in total), and each column corresponds to a sampled response ( $n_q$ in total): + +$$ +\mathcal {P} _ {\mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c} \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {1}\right) & \dots & \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q}}\right) \\ \dots & \dots & \dots \\ \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {1}\right) & \dots & \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q}}\right) \end{array} \right]. \tag {3} +$$ + +Therefore, the question-level cross-checking consistency score $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}}$ can be obtained by + +$$ +\mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {Q}} = \frac {1}{n _ {q} \cdot k} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q}} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \mathcal {C} \left(\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \mathcal {P} _ {\mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\right). \tag {4} +$$ + +# 4.3.4 Model-level Consistency (SAC $^3$ -M & SAC $^3$ -QM) Score + +In addition to the question-level score, a model-level cross-check score is calculated by performing cross-model checking and cross-question checking using the verifier LM $\nu$ . Specifically, for the original question $x_0$ , the model-level cross-checking consistency score $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathsf{M}}$ is computed by + +$$ +\mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {M}} = \frac {1}{n _ {m}} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {m}} \mathcal {C} \left(\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \mathcal {P} _ {\mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {0}}} ^ {i}\right), \tag {5} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{V}_0}} = \{(x_0,s_{\mathcal{V}_0}^1),\ldots ,(x_0,s_{\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m})\}$ is the QA pairs generated by the verified LM $\nu$ + +The cross-question consistency score on the verifier LM is computed on the QA pairs produced by $\nu$ : + +$$ +\mathcal {P} _ {\mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c} \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {1}\right) & \dots & \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\right) \\ \dots & \dots & \dots \\ \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {1}\right) & \dots & \left(\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\right) \end{array} \right]. \tag {6} +$$ + +The cross-model cross-question consistency score + +can thus be obtained through + +$$ +\mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {Q M}} = \frac {1}{n _ {q m} \cdot k} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q m}} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \mathcal {C} \left(\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \mathcal {P} _ {\mathcal {S} _ {\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\right). \tag {7} +$$ + +# 4.3.5 Final Score and Model Confidence + +The different variants of SAC3 capture different aspects of the uncertainty about the original response and should complement each other. We thus consider a combination of all variants including SAC3-Q, SAC3-M, SAC3-QM as the final score: + +$$ +\mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {a l l}} = \mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {Q}} + \lambda \left(\mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {M}} + \mathcal {Z} _ {\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \mathrm {Q M}}\right), \tag {8} +$$ + +where $\lambda$ is a weight factor for the verifier LM. Unless mentioned otherwise, we use $\lambda = 1$ by default in our experiments. In practice, as the computation of each component is independent, they can be computed in parallel to reduce latency. The detection prediction is made by comparing the final score with a preset threshold. In addition to the computed score, we also ask the target LM to generate a verbalized confidence score (Tian et al., 2023) along with its prediction when checking the semantic equivalence of QA pairs. More discussions are offered in the Appendix C.2. + +# 5 Data and Annotation + +We evaluate our hallucination detection approach on two categories of QA tasks, namely, classification QA and generation QA, with each category containing two datasets. Following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a), we use the following two binary classification datasets for evaluation on the classification QA task: + +- Prime number: this dataset contains 500 questions that query the primality of a randomly chosen prime number between 1,000 and 20,000, where the factual answer is always "Yes". The synthesized hallucinated answers are "No, it is not a prime number". +- Senator search: the dataset consists of 500 questions that follow the following template: "Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME]?" The factual answer is always "No". We also generate hallucinated answers: "Yes, there was a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME].". + +As for the generation QA tasks, we take questions from the following two open-domain QA datasets and generate answers using LLMs. Then we manually annotate the factuality of the answers following previous work (Li et al., 2023a). + +- HotpotQA-halu: We randomly sample 250 examples from the training set of HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) and generate hallucinated answers drawn from gpt-3.5-turbo. Then we manually annotate the answers by comparing the ground truth and knowledge. +- NQ-open-halu: Natural Questions (NQ)-open (Lee et al., 2019) is a more challenging open domain QA benchmark (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). We use the same setting as HotpotQA-halu to create a small-scale dataset that consists of 250 non-factual and factual examples with manual annotations. + +Please find more relevant details about data annotations in the Appendix C.3. + +# 6 Experiments + +# 6.1 Experimental Setup + +Evaluation Models. We use gpt-3.5-turbo from OpenAI as the target LM for our experiment. The verifier LM is chosen from the following two models: (1) Falcon-7b-instruct (Al-mazrouei et al., 2023): an open-source causal decoder-only model built by TII that is trained on 1,500B tokens of RefinedWeb (Penedo et al., 2023) and further enhanced using the curated corpora; and (2) Guanaco-33b: an open-source instruction-following models through QLoRA (Dettmers et al., 2023) tuning of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) base model on the OASST1 dataset. + +Implementation Details. The evaluation is conducted using Azure OpenAI API. When performing semantic perturbations and consistency checking, we set the temperature to 0.0 to get deterministic high-quality outputs. Given a specific input query, we generate $k = 10$ semantically equivalent inputs using the prompt described in Section 4.1. For the self-checking-based method $\mathsf{SC}^2$ , we follow prior work (Manakul et al., 2023) to set the temperature to 1.0 and generate $n_s = 10$ stochastic samples. For $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ and $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{QM}$ , we set $n_q = n_{qm} = 1$ to reduce computational cost. To further reduce the inference cost, we set $n_m = 1$ by default and + +combine SAC $^{3}$ -M with SAC $^{3}$ -QM to report the model-level results. We use hallucination detection accuracy and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) to evaluate the performance. In addition to the estimated hallucination score, we also show the verbalized probabilities (Tian et al., 2023) from the target LM for comparison. We execute all experiments on 8 NVIDIA V100 32G GPUs. + +
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)65.967.556.153.1
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)99.499.799.799.7
+ +# 6.2 Evaluation Results + +# 6.2.1 Classification QA + +Balanced Dataset. We first experiment on balanced datasets with $50\%$ hallucinated samples and $50\%$ factual samples. Table 2 compares the detection performance of $\mathsf{SC^2}$ and $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ in terms of AUROC and verbalized confidence score. We observe that self-checking $(\mathrm{SC^2})$ performs poorly on both datasets, with a low AUROC of $65.9\%$ and $56.1\%$ , respectively. Our question-level cross-checking $(\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q})$ significantly outperforms the $\mathrm{SC^2}$ baseline achieving $>99\%$ AUROC on both datasets and is in line with the verbalized confidence score, confirming the effectiveness of cross-checking. + +Unbalanced Dataset. We further evaluate our method in a more challenging scenario where the dataset only contains hallucinated samples. Table 3 presents the accuracy of detecting hallucinated samples using a preset threshold of 0.5. In this case, the performance of self-check drops significantly to $48.2\%$ and $29.6\%$ respectively. $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ still outperforms $\mathrm{SC}^2$ by a large margin. The model-level cross-check with verifier LMs performs well in the prime number dataset but fails to accurately detect hallucination in the senator search dataset. This is because both verifier LMs refuse to answer a large portion of the questions on this dataset due to a lack of sufficient information. By combining the target LM, $\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -a11 with Guanaco-33b achieves the highest detection accuracy compared to other baselines $\mathrm{SC}^2 (+51.2\%)$ , $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q} (+6.2\%)$ , and $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{QM} (+5.0\%)$ . + +Table 2: AUROC on classification QA tasks with $50\%$ hallucinated samples and $50\%$ factual samples. + +
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.251.029.630.6
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)93.296.497.097.4
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)89.891.221.021.8
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)94.496.345.646.2
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)97.898.084.685.6
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)99.499.485.686.7
+ +Table 3: Accuracy on classification QA tasks with $100\%$ hallucinated samples (with the threshold set to 0.5). + +Impact of Threshold. Since the choice of threshold has a significant impact on the detection accuracy in the case where the dataset only contains positive (hallucinated) samples, we further experiment with different thresholds and present the results in Fig. 3. We observe that $\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -Q and $\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -a11 with Guanaco-33b are more robust against large threshold values and outperform $\mathrm{SC}^2$ in most cases. + +![](images/cb4fcdc3651af384934237e97e162eff29423d4337e3513da6b0c376c5f628b2.jpg) + +![](images/820cd6e634bb353c1cd856328097e6327074baccb6ceda00df50174331febc01.jpg) +Figure 3: Impact of threshold on detection accuracy. + +![](images/8065ea4ffe0083104ee89f4f65ac9292fb538e4c4e5913d2ab0bab281503a2fd.jpg) + +Why Does Self-checking Fail? To further understand why self-checking methods fail to detect some hallucinated responses, we visualize the distribution of consistency scores using histogram plots in Fig. 4. We observe that for $\mathsf{SC}^2$ , a significant portion of hallucinated samples received highly consistent predictions. In other words, the target LM made consistently wrong predictions due to a lack of question and model diversity, which aligns with our analysis in Section 3. On the other hand, benefiting from the semantically equivalent question perturbation, $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -Q$ ’s scores are more spread out in the inconsistent region, which helps to improve the effectiveness of detecting hallucinations by choosing a proper threshold. + +# 6.2.2 Open-domain Generation QA + +Compared to the classification QA tasks, detecting hallucinations in open-domain generation QA + +![](images/7471c5546dd0753b1290c087ea06bc1198a17e4d4ba20a56b83114986c4d020f.jpg) +Figure 4: Histogram of hallucination score. + +tasks is more challenging. As shown in Table 4, $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ exhibits better AUROC than $\mathrm{SC}^2$ $(+7\%)$ in both datasets. Compared to $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ , $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{QM}$ shows $6.7\%$ improvement in the HotpotQA-halu dataset but is slightly worse in the NQ open dataset. $\mathrm{SAC}^3$ -all leverages the advantages of question-level and model-level cross-checking and achieves consistently good performance in both datasets. + +
MethodHotpotQA-haluNQ-open-halu
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)74.277.070.572.7
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)81.381.477.278.5
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)83.079.567.562.0
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)88.085.272.772.7
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)84.584.577.177.2
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)87.086.877.277.8
+ +Table 4: AUROC on open-domain generation QA tasks. + +Effect of Verifier LM Weight. In our previous experiments, we assigned equal importance to the consistency score computed by the target and verifier LM. However, typically, the target LM and the verifier LM have different architectures and scales such that the user may have different levels of trust in their output truthfulness. This difference in trust can be incorporated by introducing a weight $\lambda$ to the consistency score produced by the verifier LM. For instance, if the goal is to detect hallucination in a specialized domain and the verifier LM is a domain-specific model developed for this domain, we can assign a large weight to its scores (e.g., $\lambda > 1.0$ ). In the general case, where the verifier LM is a small-sized open-source model, we can apply a small weight value (e.g., $\lambda < 1.0$ ) to discount the influence of the verifier LM in the final score. Fig. 5 visualizes the effect of various weight factors on the generation QA datasets. We observe that SAC3-all with a higher weight would result in a larger advantage over SAC3-Q in + +the HotpotQA-halu task, where the verifier LM outperforms the target LM. On the contrary, in the NQ open task where the target LM shows competitive performance, a smaller weight would yield better results. + +![](images/632cf857050e3c680125f3242f79e5862c24e71c180d80dd33329837d1a060a8.jpg) + +![](images/b0a467b8ed3b0981a44326b99a869ea9e6f029687c6fce8000e5a4d5038bdd4f.jpg) +Figure 5: Effect of verifier LM weight on AUROC. + +Effect of the Number of Perturbed Questions. The performance of sampling-based methods is expected to improve as the sample size increases, at the cost of higher latency and computational cost. In Fig. 6, we study this trade-off by varying the number of perturbed questions $k$ from 2 to 10. We observe that the performance of SAC³ increases as more question samples are used but the performance gain gradually diminishes after using more than 5 question samples. This suggests that in practice we could use 2-4 question samples to achieve reasonably good performance at a low computational cost. + +![](images/336aa453fc86d1c725fd409a10cd694bff47b5f4bbd3dbec3e273b9a91f77460.jpg) +Figure 6: Performance of SAC3 with varying number of perturbed questions. + +Effect of the Model Type. Our proposed SAC3 framework does not restrict the type of LLM employed and can be naturally extended to various + +types of target LLMs. To verify this, in addition to GPT-3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo), we conduct experiments using GPT-4 (gpt-4) and PaLM 2 (chat-bison) on the considered four datasets in the setting of the balanced dataset. The experimental results of comparing the proposed $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ with the $\mathrm{SC}^2$ baseline are summarized in Table 5. We observe that the proposed $\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\mathrm{Q}$ consistently outperforms the $\mathrm{SC}^2$ baseline across all LLM variants. + +
MethodPrime NumberSenator SearchHotpotQA -haluNQ-open -halu
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.229.674.270.5
SC2(gpt-4)38.318.479.776.3
SC2(chat-bison)26.919.275.867.9
SAC3-Q (gpt-3.5-turbo)93.297.081.377.2
SAC3-Q (gpt-4)91.161.687.282.9
SAC3-Q (chat-bison)90.366.382.872.7
+ +Table 5: Accuracy of different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and PaLM 2) on classification and generation QA tasks. + +Computational Cost. We monitor the computational cost of our approach based on the number of model evaluations consumed by OpenAI API and open-source LLMs inference. Assuming the number of samples equals the number of perturbed questions, i.e., $n_s = n_m = n_q = n_{qm}$ , the cost of $\mathsf{SC^2}$ is $n_s$ API calls, and our $\mathsf{SAC^3}$ -all needs $n_s$ target LM calls plus $2 \times n_s$ verifier LM calls. Beyond the model evaluations, $\mathsf{SAC^3}$ may have additional costs from question perturbations and semantic equivalence checking via prompting. Additional discussions can be found in the Appendix C.1. + +# 7 Conclusion and Discussion + +We investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LM and the factuality of the response and propose SAC3 as a robust hallucination detection approach for black-box LMs. Through extensive empirical analysis, our work highlights several findings. First, self-consistency checking alone is insufficient to effectively detect question-level and model-level hallucinations, where LMs generate consistently wrong responses to certain questions. Second, cross-checking between semantically equivalent questions can reduce the occurrence of persistent hallucinations, potentially by reducing question-level ambiguity. Third, there exists a model-level disparity in hallucinations, which we attribute to the inherent differences in LM capabilities originating from different training procedures and data. Thus, the verifier LM can be selected + +according to specific tasks to maximize detection accuracy. We believe that our work is an important step towards building reliable LLMs. + +# Ethics Statement + +This paper studies hallucination detection in LMs, which has significant broader impacts in the field of natural language processing (NLP) and helps to address ethical considerations regarding trustworthiness and reliability. The research outcome may contribute to the development of more accurate and reliable LMs by mitigating the risks of misinformation and biased outputs and promoting accountability and trust in AI systems. + +# Limitations + +Our current experiments focus on the question-answering setting. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability of the proposed framework and the accuracy of semantic equivalence checks on more complex tasks such as conversational or dialogue-based prompting. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate the efficiency-utility trade-off: we expect increasing sample sizes to improve detection accuracy but may introduce additional cost and latency. Speeding up the implementation through parallelization is also worth exploring. + +# References + +Ayush Agrawal, Lester Mackey, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2023. Do language models know when they're hallucinating references? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18248. +Ebtesam Almazrouei, Hamza Alobeidli, Abdulaziz Alshamsi, Alessandro Cappelli, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Merouane Debbah, Etienne Goffinet, Daniel Heslow, Julien Launay, Quentin Malartic, Badreddine Noune, Baptiste Pannier, and Guilherme Penedo. 2023. Falcon-40B: an open large language model with state-of-the-art performance. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Meng Cao, Yue Dong, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2022. Hallucinated but factual! inspecting the factuality of hallucinations in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3340-3354. + +Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, Alicia Parrish, Vishakh Padmakumar, Chen Zhao, Samuel R Bowman, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2023. Two failures of self-consistency in the multi-step reasoning of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14279. +Jiuhai Chen and Jonas Mueller. 2023. Quantifying uncertainty in answers from any language model via intrinsic and extrinsic confidence assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16175. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. +Jeremy R Cole, Michael JQ Zhang, Daniel Gillick, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2023. Selectively answering ambiguous questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14613. +Souvik Das, Sougata Saha, and Rohini K Srihari. 2023. Diving deep into modes of fact hallucinations in dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04449. +Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314. +Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. 2023. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495. +Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031. +Zorik Gekhman, Jonathan Herzig, Roee Aharoni, Chen Elkind, and Idan Szpektor. 2023. Trueteacher: Learning factual consistency evaluation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11171. +Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2022. Becel: Benchmark for consistency evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3680-3696. +Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1-38. +Ziwei Ji, Zihan Liu, Nayeon Lee, Tiezheng Yu, Bryan Wilie, Min Zeng, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Rho: Reducing hallucination in open-domain dialogues with knowledge grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01588. + +Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664. +Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453-466. +Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096. +Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023a. Halueval: A largescale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2305. +Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. 2023b. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03341. +Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Generating with confidence: Uncertainty quantification for black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19187. +Tianyu Liu, Yizhe Zhang, Chris Brockett, Yi Mao, Zhifang Sui, Weizhu Chen, and Bill Dolan. 2021. A token-level reference-free hallucination detection benchmark for free-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08704. +Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. 2023. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896. +Eric Mitchell, Joseph J Noh, Siyan Li, William S Armstrong, Ananth Agarwal, Patrick Liu, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Enhancing self-consistency and performance of pre-trained language models through natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11875. +Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, and Martin Vechev. 2023. Self-contradictory hallucinations of large language models: Evaluation, detection and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15852. +Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. 2023. The RefinedWeb dataset for Falcon LLM: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116. + +Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813. +Derek Tam, Anisha Mascarenhas, Shiyue Zhang, Sarah Kwan, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Evaluating the factual consistency of large language models through news summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 5220-5255. +Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2023. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14975. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu. 2023. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987. +Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. +Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. 2021. On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15025. +Shiping Yang, Renliang Sun, and Xiaojun Wan. 2023. A new benchmark and reverse validation method for passage-level hallucination detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06498. +Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380. +Hongbin Ye, Tong Liu, Aijia Zhang, Wei Hua, and Weiqiang Jia. 2023. Cognitive mirage: A review of hallucinations in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06794. +Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A Smith. 2023a. How language model hallucinations can snowball. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13534. + +Shuo Zhang, Liangming Pan, Junzhou Zhao, and William Yang Wang. 2023b. Mitigating language model hallucination with interactive question-knowledge alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13669. +Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al. 2023c. Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219. +Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. +Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023a. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers. ArXiv preprint, abs/2304.10513. +Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023b. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10513. +Chunting Zhou, Graham Neubig, Jiatao Gu, Mona Diab, Paco Guzman, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2020. Detecting hallucinated content in conditional neural sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.02593. + +# A Factuality Assessment of LLMs + +This section first introduces the background of LM factuality assessment and reviews the key components of existing black-box factuality assessment approaches. + +# A.1 Background + +Existing studies (Manakul et al., 2023) showed that the factuality of LMs' statements can be assessed by capturing the output uncertainty. If permitted with complete white-box access, hallucinations of LMs can be detected through uncertainty metrics such as entropy, which models the uncertainty of the output distribution as $\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{s}) = -\sum_{i=1}^{N} p(s_i | s_{MethodInputModelOutputSemantic ConsistencySC2QTargetYes, there was a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓QTargetYes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓SAC3-QQ1TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to the most recent updates or news. However, as of my last update, there is no North Dakota US senator who graduated from MIT.✗Q2TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to real-time information or current events. However, as of my last update, I am not aware of any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates.✗SAC3-MQVerifierNo, there has never been a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and attended MIT.✗SAC3-QMQ1VerifierNo, a North Dakota US senator did not have MIT listed as their alma mater.✗Q2VerifierThere are no known US senators from North Dakota who are also MIT graduates.✗ + +Table 6: Input Question (Q) and Answer (A): $\mathrm{Q} =$ "Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT?" A = "Yes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin Burdick." Semantically rephrased questions: Q1 = "Did a North Dakota US senator have MIT listed as their alma mater?" Q2 = "Were there any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates? + +
ObjectiveTemplate
Semantic question perturbationFor the question [QUERYED QUESTION], provide ${k} semantically equivalent questions \nAre the following two inputs semantically equivalent? \n[QUERYED INPUT] \n[GENERATED INPUT]
Semantic equivalence checkAre the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? Provide your best guess and the probability that it is correct (0.0 to 1.0). Given ONLY the guess (Yes or No) and probability, no other words or explanation. For example: \nGuess: <most likely guess, as short as possible; not a complete sentence, just the guess!>\nProbability: <the probability between 0.0 and 1.0 that your guess is correct, without any extra commentary whatsoever; just the probability! \nThe first QA pair is: \nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \nA: ${THE ANSWER} \nThe second QA pair is: \nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \nA: ${THE ANSWER}
+ +Table 7: Prompt templates for different objectives, including semantically equivalent perturbations of input questions and semantic equivalent check of QA pairs. + +to optimally balance efficiency (light version) and accuracy (performance version), facilitating more informed decisions in practice. + +# C.2 Semantic Consistency Checking + +The goal of our research is to provide a flexible framework for the effective detection of hallucinations in black-box LLMs. Compared to previous approaches (Manakul et al., 2023) based on similarity metrics such as BERTScore, employing LLM for semantic consistency checking not only offers better accuracy but also eliminates the need for involving additional models. We note that our design is not dependent on any specific type of LLM and the users are allowed to choose freely for each component. Specifically, we chose GPT as the instantiation in our experiments due to its well-acclaimed ability to follow human instructions which is cru + +cial for evaluation. In practice, the user may choose any open-sourced LLMs that have been aligned to follow instructions. + +# C.3 Data Annotations + +For the two classification QA tasks (Prime Number and Senator Search), we use the synthesized hallucinated answers following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a). For the task of prime number, the factual/true answer is always "Yes", i.e., all the testing numbers are prime numbers. The synthesized hallucinated response is "No". The factual/true answer of the senator search is always "No" and the synthesized hallucinated answer is "Yes". Such an experimental setting on the binary classification tasks is realistic since we have verified that on these datasets most of the responses generated by gpt-3.5-turbo are indeed "Yes" or "No" which + +align with the synthesized response. + +For the generation QA tasks (HotpotQA-halu and NQ-Open-halu), we used answers generated by LLM (gpt-3.5-turbo) for experiments, which do not have pre-defined factual/non-factual labels. Therefore, we manually annotated these LLM-generated answers by comparing them with the ground truth. + +We would like to note that in practice, a more versatile hallucination detection approach should be able to evaluate the factuality of a sample regardless of its origin (e.g., synthesized or generated by itself / other LLMs). In our framework, this is achieved through semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. We plan to release the annotated datasets to facilitate future research. + +# D Additional Examples + +Table 6 provides another illustrative example to explain our methodology in the senator search dataset. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/images.zip b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa74359c09b91adf9df99a211e22389b3d38ed46 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d0c8a359f7c12184d7b3ce6b3135276e4ec9de4ae88ab1f966950785b5c2dce1 +size 732443 diff --git a/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/layout.json b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09b5bd63686b97110883275752261eb50a4d2743 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SAC3_ Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10128 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 524, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 77, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaxin Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Zhuohang Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Kamalika Das" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Bradley Malin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2,3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Sricharan Kumar" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 126, + 518, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 142, + 507, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 142, + 507, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 142, + 507, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Intuit AI Research \\(^{2}\\)Vanderbilt University \\(^{3}\\)Vanderbilt University Medical Center \\(\\{jiaxin_zhang, kamalika_das, sricharan_kumar\\} @intuit.com \\(\\{zhuohang.li, b.malin\\} @\\)vanderbilt.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hallucination detection is a critical step toward understanding the trustworthiness of modern language models (LMs). To achieve this goal, we re-examine existing detection approaches based on the self-consistency of LMs and uncover two types of hallucinations resulting from 1) question-level and 2) model-level, which cannot be effectively identified through self-consistency check alone. Building upon this discovery, we propose a novel sampling-based method, i.e., semantic-aware cross-check consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{SAC}^3)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that expands on the principle of self-consistency checking. Our " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " approach incorporates additional mechanisms to detect both question-level and model-level hallucinations by leveraging advances including semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. Through extensive and systematic empirical analysis, we demonstrate that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " outperforms the state of the art in detecting both nonfactual and factual statements across multiple question-answering and open-domain generation benchmarks." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 235, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 533, + 155, + 545 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 533, + 155, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 533, + 155, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large-scale pre-trained language models (LMs) have demonstrated exceptional adaptability across a diverse array of natural language tasks that require generating open-ended responses based on user prompt comprehension (Zhao et al., 2023). However, prominent LMs like GPT (Brown et al., 2020) and PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), often exhibit a tendency to produce exceedingly confident, yet erroneous, assertions commonly referred to as hallucinations. This phenomenon significantly impedes their applicability in domains where factual accuracy is of utmost importance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 717, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 717, + 291, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 717, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hallucinations can be detected through the assistance of metrics that capture the uncertainty about" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the output sequences. However, these metrics require access to token-level log probabilities, which are not available in commercial black-box LMs like ChatGPT or Bard that only offer limited API access. To overcome this limitation, recent studies explore sampling-based approaches for approximating uncertainty estimation (Lin et al., 2023) through establishing a connection between confidence and self-consistency (Manakul et al., 2023; Mündler et al., 2023). The underlying premise of this principle is that LMs are more inclined to generate consistent responses when high probabilities are assigned to tokens in the answer, which, in turn, implies a level of factuality. In contrast, inconsistent responses are more likely to contain hallucinations. To operationalize this concept, current approaches are designed to sample multiple responses from the LMs for a given question and then compose a hallucination score for each sentence based on the level of response consistency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Key Observations. In this work, we investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LMs and the occurrence of hallucinations in a diverse range of tasks. Our investigation indicates that while self-inconsistency in LMs often coincides with hallucination, self-consistency does not necessarily guarantee factual answers, as shown in Figure 1. Our findings challenge the notion that self-consistency alone can serve as a reliable indicator of veracity, as it is demonstrated that LMs can exhibit various tiers of hallucination that elude detection through self-consistency checks. One such tier is question-level hallucination, where LMs consistently generate incorrect answers in response to specific questions (e.g., Table 1). We reveal that by reformulating the questions, it is possible to mitigate such instances of hallucinations. Additionally, our work further reveals the existence of model-level hallucinations, whereby different LMs show discrepancies in their propensity for halluci" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1All resources are available at https://github.com/intuit/sac3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15445" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15445-15458 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 522, + 324 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 522, + 324 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 522, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 522, + 324 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cde3c1ba6e9e918f2090a7d724e82f080588c4ee0694871f9be7c53ca9787078.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 525, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Key observation: solely checking the self-consistency of LLMs is not sufficient for deciding factuality. Left: generated responses to the same question may be consistent but non-factual. Right: generated responses may be inconsistent with the original answer that is factually correct." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nation. Surprisingly, we even observe cases where smaller LMs are capable of correctly answering questions for which larger LMs hallucinate. Together, these findings accentuate the need to consider model-specific characteristics when assessing the occurrence of hallucinations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Proposed Approach. Motivated by these observations, we introduce SAC3, a new sampling-based approach utilizing semantic-aware cross-check consistency to improve the detection of hallucinations in black-box LMs. An overview of our approach is provided in Fig. 2. To address question-level hallucination, we introduce a mechanism that perturbs semantically equivalent questions to evaluate the consistency of LMs' responses across variants of the same question. By examining the generated answers to these perturbed questions, we are able to identify cases where the LM consistently provides incorrect responses to a specific question, which is indicative of a question-level hallucination. Furthermore, we address model-level hallucination by introducing cross-model response consistency checking, which involves comparing the responses of different LMs to the same set of questions. By identifying discrepancies between the responses of different models, we are able to pinpoint cases where certain models exhibit hallucinations while" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "others provide correct answers. Integrating these cross-checking extensions into our approach significantly improves its ability to detect hallucinations that go beyond self-consistency, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of the presence of question-level and model-level hallucinations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effectiveness of SAC3. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SAC3 in multiple classification and open-domain generation QA datasets. In the classification QA tasks, our approach achieves a high AUROC score of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "99.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively, which significantly outperforms the self-consistency baseline. In the case of open-domain generation QA tasks, our approach achieves an AUROC score of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "88.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "77.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which substantially improves upon the self-consistency baseline by a large margin " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+13.8\\%, \\text{and} +6.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 396, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 396, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 396, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hallucination in LMs. The issue of hallucination in language models (LMs) has gained significant attention due to its negative impact on performance and the risks it introduces in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, such as machine translation (Zhou et al., 2020), summarization (Cao et al., 2022), dialogue generation (Das et al., 2023), and question answering (Zhang et al., 2023a; Zheng" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15446" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 241 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 241 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 241 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodInputModelOutputConsistencyFactuality
Self-consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."✓✗
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number as it is divisible by 7 and 13."
Q: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Target"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It can be divided evenly by 7 and 19."
Cross-Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Target"Yes, the number 3691 is prime."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Target"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are itself and one."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Target"Yes, 3691 is a prime number and can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
Cross-M consistencyQ: "Is 3691 a prime number?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 is a prime number."✗✓
Cross-M & Q consistencyQ1: "Is the number 3691 prime?"Verifier"Yes."✗✓
Q2: "Are the only factors of 3691 itself and one?"Verifier"Yes, the only factors of 3691 are 1 and itself."
Q3: "Can 3691 only be divided by 1 and 3691?"Verifier"Yes, 3691 can only be divided by 1 and 3691."
", + "image_path": "c8effc0ea87c8227a54a94191fc60794e90503ec05260b451af0cf01e54a4c2c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 526, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 526, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 526, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: An illustrative example of self-consistency, cross-question consistency, and cross-model consistency check. The original question and answer are \"Is 3691 a prime number?\" and \"No, 3691 is not a prime number. It is divisible by 7 and 13\", respectively. Each row presents a set of sampled QA pairs along with its consistency regarding the original answer, and the predicted factuality of the original answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 318, + 292, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 318, + 292, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 318, + 292, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2023b; Dhuliawala et al., 2023). Recent survey (Ji et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c; Ye et al., 2023) and evaluation benchmarks (Liu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a; Yang et al., 2023) have highlighted the importance of addressing this issue. Previous research has explored hallucination evaluation using confidence-based approaches (Xiao and Wang, 2021; Varshney et al., 2023; Chen and Mueller, 2023) that require access to token-level log probability (Kuhn et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2023) or supervised tuning (Agrawal et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023b) that relies on internal states of the LM. However, these methods may not be applicable when only API access to the LM is available (Agrawal et al., 2023). Another approach involves retrieving knowledge from external databases to tackle hallucinations (Ji et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023a; Peng et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023b). In contrast to these studies, our work focuses on detecting hallucinations in open-domain QA tasks using black-box LMs, without relying on external resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Consistency Evaluation of LMs. An essential characteristic of logically valid intelligent systems is self-consistency, which entails that no two statements provided by the system contradict each other. Self-consistency is defined by Elazar et al. (2021) as the invariance of an LM's responses across various types of semantics-preserving prompt transformations. This definition is further enriched by multiple other consistency categories proposed by Jang et al. (2022). Wang et al. (2022) demonstrates that self-consistency can significantly enhance the chain of thought reasoning in LMs. Without self" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 526, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 526, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 526, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "consistency, it becomes challenging to regard LMs as reliable or trustworthy systems. Recent studies employ self-consistency to detect hallucinations based on pretrained LMs (Manakul et al., 2023) and instruction-tuned LMs (Mündler et al., 2023). Although these methods exhibit promising accuracy on several specific tasks, potential failures (Chen et al., 2023) of self-consistency are overlooked in the current settings, as existing LMs frequently provide inconsistent responses to questions (Mitchell et al., 2022) and factual knowledge inquiries (Elazar et al., 2021; Tam et al., 2023; Gekhman et al., 2023). Our work addresses these concerns by introducing a cross-check consistency approach, aiming to bridge the gap between self-consistency and factual assessment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 481, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 481, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 481, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Self-consistency Limitations in Factuality Assessment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The essential assumption of self-consistency in factuality assessment is that if the LM has the knowledge of the concept, responses sampled from its output distribution, should be similar and consistent; conversely, if the LM lacks corresponding knowledge, the sampled responses would contain hallucinated facts that are diverged and contradictory. Although this assumption may seem reasonable, it does not always hold in practice (more details are provided in the Appendix A). Specifically, we argue that solely checking the LM's self-consistency is insufficient for detecting hallucination or verifying factuality under the following two circumstances:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15447" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. LMs may produce consistently hallucinated facts. We observe that for certain questions, LMs may output consistently wrong answers. For instance, as shown in Fig. 1, when prompted with the question \"Is pi smaller than 3.2?\", ChatGPT consistently generates incorrect answers. In this case, where the generated responses are consistent but non-factual, solely relying on self-consistency checking of a single model would yield false negative hallucination detection results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Even in cases when LMs generate factual statements in their original response, the stochastic sampled responses may lack veracity. For example, the original answer (Answer 1) of ChatGPT under zero temperature is correct regarding the senator search question as shown in Fig. 1. However, when sampled with a higher temperature, ChatGPT generates multiple incorrect responses (Answer 2 and Answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). In this scenario, where the sampled responses are inconsistent and disagree with the original response which itself is factually correct, methods that rely solely on model self-checking would produce false positives." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, although the inconsistency of sampled responses has been empirically demonstrated to be correlated with hallucinated facts on certain tasks, in general, self-consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient to verify the veracity of large LMs' statements. Therefore, methods based solely on self-consistency checking may not be able to accurately detect hallucinations in complex QA and open-domain generation tasks, which motivates us to design a more reliable and robust factuality assessment method that extends this idea." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 272, + 575 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 272, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 272, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 SAC3: Semantic-Aware Cross-check Consistency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section describes the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency approach, a high-level overview of which is provided in Fig. 1. Additionally, an illustrative example of each component is presented in Table 1. Here, we walk through each component in detail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 290, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 290, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 290, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Stage 1: Question-level Cross-checking via Semantically Equivalent Perturbations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contrary to existing techniques that assess semantic equivalence through entailment or paraphrasing, our approach involves rephrasing the input query by generating alternative inputs that preserve semantic equivalence, i.e., semantically equivalent input per" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "turbation. To achieve this, we leverage advances in LLM prompting. Starting with a queried input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we acquire a set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " semantically equivalent inputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_k\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " through the prompt: \"For the question [queried Question], provide " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " semantically equivalent questions\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To ensure the quality of the generated inputs in this step, we further double-check the semantic equivalence between the generated inputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the queried input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a pair-wise manner using the prompt \"Are the following two inputs semantically equivalent? [queried INPUT] [generated INPUT]\" and filtering out the inputs that do not share the same semantic meaning as the original input. The complete prompt templates used in this work are provided in the Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 335, + 509, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 335, + 509, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 335, + 509, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Stage 2: Model-level Cross-check with Additional Verifier LM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the original response from a target LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on a given query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Our objective is to detect whether " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is hallucinated by sampling responses from the predictive distribution of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To avoid model-level hallucination, we introduce an additional verifier LM denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for model-level cross-checking. We define the responses from both models as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 490, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 490, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 490, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {s} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}} = \\mathcal {T} (\\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), \\boldsymbol {s} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}} = \\mathcal {V} (\\boldsymbol {x} _ {j}), j = 1, \\dots , k, \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "604f7b2635c822d15448a4c0a84c32bd8ea57e6717ef4cf2c1251332fb3ca6e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of the generated semantically equivalent inputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{k}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in stage 1. To assess the factuality of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the self-checking mechanism operates by drawing a set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stochastic response samples from the target LM: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_0} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^1, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Similarly, we can apply the same self-checking mechanism to the verifier LM to generate another set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " responses: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_0} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^1, s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To perform question-level cross-check, for each perturbed input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampled response sequences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_k} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^1, s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{T}_k}^{n_q}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the target LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{qm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampled responses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_k} = \\{s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^1, s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^2, \\ldots, s_{\\mathcal{V}_k}^{n_{qm}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the verifier LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we collect the total sampled sets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = \\{S_{\\mathcal{T}_0}, S_{\\mathcal{V}_0}, S_{\\mathcal{T}_k}, S_{\\mathcal{V}_k}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by combining all samples drawn from self-checking and cross-checking, which will be used next for calculating a consistency score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15448" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 72, + 519, + 153 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 72, + 519, + 153 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 72, + 519, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 72, + 519, + 153 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f6d756e06591d2dccc325d3f6a940be0fc0e7ce85e367dda14dbb9edd9739fb7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 164, + 483, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 164, + 483, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 164, + 483, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of the proposed semantic-aware cross-check consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 164, + 483, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{SAC}^3)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 164, + 483, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 277, + 211 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 277, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 277, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Stage 3: Consistency Score Calculation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This stage uses the generated sample sets in all previous stages to calculate a numerical consistency score that captures the question-level and model-level cross-checking paradigm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 283, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 283, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 283, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.1 Semantic-aware Consistency Check of QA Pairs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most of the existing works mainly focus on examining the consistency of LM outputs while ignoring the effect of the inputs. However, in QA tasks, it is important to consider both inputs and outputs when measuring semantic equivalence, as the same question can be rephrased in many ways. Although the answers to these questions (e.g., \"no\" and \"yes\") may not be lexically equivalent, the QA pairs as a whole can be semantically equivalent. In light of this, we propose to check the semantic consistency of the QA pairs instead of the answer only." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 280, + 495 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 280, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 280, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.2 Self-checking Consistency (SC²) Score" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}(\\cdot, \\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote a semantic equivalence checking operator that takes two QA pairs as inputs. The operator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " returns \"Yes\" if the two QA pairs are semantically equivalent, and \"No\" otherwise. This operator should be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. We implement the checking operator using an LM by leveraging the prompt: \"Are the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? [QA PAIR 1] [QA PAIR 2]. We then map the best guess to a numerical semantic equivalent score: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\text{\"Yes\"} \\rightarrow 0.0, \\text{\"No\"} \\rightarrow 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_0 = (\\pmb{x}_0, \\pmb{s}_0)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote the original QA pair. The self-checking score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SC}^2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the target LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be calculated by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 694, + 290, + 728 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 694, + 290, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 694, + 290, + 728 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S C} ^ {2}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {s}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {s}} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\tau_ {0}}} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "27f481d191727543be18ee5a50bd4028d2bfb5a3b320e00a8f0534e8f9017a34.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{T}_0}} = \\{(x_0, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^1), \\dots, (x_0, s_{\\mathcal{T}_0}^{n_s})\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the QA pairs generated in the self-checking scenario." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 506, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 506, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 506, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.3 Question-level Consistency (SAC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 506, + 224 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 506, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-Q) Score" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides self-checking the original question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", SAC3 further assesses cross-check consistency of perturbed questions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_k\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The corresponding QA pairs compose a two-dimensional matrix, where each row corresponds to a perturbed question (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in total), and each column corresponds to a sampled response (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in total):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 336, + 525, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 336, + 525, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 336, + 525, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c c c} \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q}}\\right) \\\\ \\dots & \\dots & \\dots \\\\ \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q}}\\right) \\end{array} \\right]. \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "9759abaa72ba55fa9f213047efca6751d6559a66813f4099f1e93a3fc2d5b0fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, the question-level cross-checking consistency score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be obtained by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 416, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 416, + 525, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 416, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {q} \\cdot k} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {T} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\\right). \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "116fe07386e1e3af480266a868f0cc6402b187fa1bd290002c884a6445ffcca9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.4 Model-level Consistency (SAC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-M & SAC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 502, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-QM) Score" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to the question-level score, a model-level cross-check score is calculated by performing cross-model checking and cross-question checking using the verifier LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically, for the original question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the model-level cross-checking consistency score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathsf{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 601, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 601, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 601, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {M}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {m}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {m}} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {0}}} ^ {i}\\right), \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "926afc81e7429dac178afc9a02cf28ae3a7c5003b39ca3b40641ce219f76d74f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{V}_0}} = \\{(x_0,s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^1),\\ldots ,(x_0,s_{\\mathcal{V}_0}^{n_m})\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the QA pairs generated by the verified LM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The cross-question consistency score on the verifier LM is computed on the QA pairs produced by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 712, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 712, + 525, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 712, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i} = \\left[ \\begin{array}{c c c} \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {1}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {1}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\\right) \\\\ \\dots & \\dots & \\dots \\\\ \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {1}\\right) & \\dots & \\left(\\boldsymbol {x} _ {k}, \\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {k}} ^ {n _ {q m}}\\right) \\end{array} \\right]. \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "9cbf0ec6ce12015dc200063ef45ce420731853e3f560f5e816be3cd1765ea645.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The cross-model cross-question consistency score" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15449" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 197, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 197, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 197, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "can thus be obtained through" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 89, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 89, + 290, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 89, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q M}} = \\frac {1}{n _ {q m} \\cdot k} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {q m}} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\mathcal {C} \\left(\\mathcal {P} _ {0}, \\mathcal {P} _ {\\mathcal {S} _ {\\mathcal {V} _ {j}}} ^ {i}\\right). \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "84d97200f0e7917be0e91b9dbaf172a213ef9b86c1d9917aea94fe93c0890ea6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 264, + 147 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 264, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 264, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.5 Final Score and Model Confidence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The different variants of SAC3 capture different aspects of the uncertainty about the original response and should complement each other. We thus consider a combination of all variants including SAC3-Q, SAC3-M, SAC3-QM as the final score:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 225, + 290, + 241 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 225, + 290, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 225, + 290, + 241 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {a l l}} = \\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q}} + \\lambda \\left(\\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {M}} + \\mathcal {Z} _ {\\mathrm {S A C} ^ {3} - \\mathrm {Q M}}\\right), \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "adec65c1effb099c81377cfe3b575d1d292b9435404d30590cf57b020683c814.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a weight factor for the verifier LM. Unless mentioned otherwise, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by default in our experiments. In practice, as the computation of each component is independent, they can be computed in parallel to reduce latency. The detection prediction is made by comparing the final score with a preset threshold. In addition to the computed score, we also ask the target LM to generate a verbalized confidence score (Tian et al., 2023) along with its prediction when checking the semantic equivalence of QA pairs. More discussions are offered in the Appendix C.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 197, + 433 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 197, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 197, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Data and Annotation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 290, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our hallucination detection approach on two categories of QA tasks, namely, classification QA and generation QA, with each category containing two datasets. Following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a), we use the following two binary classification datasets for evaluation on the classification QA task:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 290, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Prime number: this dataset contains 500 questions that query the primality of a randomly chosen prime number between 1,000 and 20,000, where the factual answer is always \"Yes\". The synthesized hallucinated answers are \"No, it is not a prime number\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Senator search: the dataset consists of 500 questions that follow the following template: \"Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME]?\" The factual answer is always \"No\". We also generate hallucinated answers: \"Yes, there was a US senator that represented the state of [US STATE NAME] and whose alma mater was [US COLLEGE NAME].\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As for the generation QA tasks, we take questions from the following two open-domain QA datasets and generate answers using LLMs. Then we manually annotate the factuality of the answers following previous work (Li et al., 2023a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 331 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- HotpotQA-halu: We randomly sample 250 examples from the training set of HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) and generate hallucinated answers drawn from gpt-3.5-turbo. Then we manually annotate the answers by comparing the ground truth and knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 525, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 525, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 525, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- NQ-open-halu: Natural Questions (NQ)-open (Lee et al., 2019) is a more challenging open domain QA benchmark (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). We use the same setting as HotpotQA-halu to create a small-scale dataset that consists of 250 non-factual and factual examples with manual annotations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 525, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please find more relevant details about data annotations in the Appendix C.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 389, + 395 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 389, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 389, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 424, + 417 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 424, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 424, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation Models. We use gpt-3.5-turbo from OpenAI as the target LM for our experiment. The verifier LM is chosen from the following two models: (1) Falcon-7b-instruct (Al-mazrouei et al., 2023): an open-source causal decoder-only model built by TII that is trained on 1,500B tokens of RefinedWeb (Penedo et al., 2023) and further enhanced using the curated corpora; and (2) Guanaco-33b: an open-source instruction-following models through QLoRA (Dettmers et al., 2023) tuning of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) base model on the OASST1 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Implementation Details. The evaluation is conducted using Azure OpenAI API. When performing semantic perturbations and consistency checking, we set the temperature to 0.0 to get deterministic high-quality outputs. Given a specific input query, we generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " semantically equivalent inputs using the prompt described in Section 4.1. For the self-checking-based method " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we follow prior work (Manakul et al., 2023) to set the temperature to 1.0 and generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_s = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stochastic samples. For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_q = n_{qm} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to reduce computational cost. To further reduce the inference cost, we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_m = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by default and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15450" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "combine SAC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-M with SAC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 70, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-QM to report the model-level results. We use hallucination detection accuracy and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) to evaluate the performance. In addition to the estimated hallucination score, we also show the verbalized probabilities (Tian et al., 2023) from the target LM for comparison. We execute all experiments on 8 NVIDIA V100 32G GPUs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 190, + 290, + 243 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 190, + 290, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 190, + 290, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 190, + 290, + 243 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)65.967.556.153.1
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)99.499.799.799.7
", + "image_path": "6ed84477cda719e05a673d3d5dec9e5879f251737169523c62dcdd42988b99c4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 184, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 184, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 184, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Evaluation Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 186, + 333 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 186, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 186, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2.1 Classification QA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Balanced Dataset. We first experiment on balanced datasets with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " hallucinated samples and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " factual samples. Table 2 compares the detection performance of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{SC^2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in terms of AUROC and verbalized confidence score. We observe that self-checking " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{SC^2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performs poorly on both datasets, with a low AUROC of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "65.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "56.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. Our question-level cross-checking " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " significantly outperforms the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC^2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " baseline achieving " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">99\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 340, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " AUROC on both datasets and is in line with the verbalized confidence score, confirming the effectiveness of cross-checking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unbalanced Dataset. We further evaluate our method in a more challenging scenario where the dataset only contains hallucinated samples. Table 3 presents the accuracy of detecting hallucinated samples using a preset threshold of 0.5. In this case, the performance of self-check drops significantly to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "48.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "29.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " still outperforms " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by a large margin. The model-level cross-check with verifier LMs performs well in the prime number dataset but fails to accurately detect hallucination in the senator search dataset. This is because both verifier LMs refuse to answer a large portion of the questions on this dataset due to a lack of sufficient information. By combining the target LM, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-a11 with Guanaco-33b achieves the highest detection accuracy compared to other baselines " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC}^2 (+51.2\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q} (+6.2\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM} (+5.0\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 167 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: AUROC on classification QA tasks with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " hallucinated samples and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " factual samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 167 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodPrime numberSenator search
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.251.029.630.6
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)93.296.497.097.4
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)89.891.221.021.8
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)94.496.345.646.2
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)97.898.084.685.6
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)99.499.485.686.7
", + "image_path": "067aa9bed5614005ec3ac13930727da8ce390d978ac354577ab92842607f7beb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 198 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy on classification QA tasks with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 198 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 525, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " hallucinated samples (with the threshold set to 0.5)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of Threshold. Since the choice of threshold has a significant impact on the detection accuracy in the case where the dataset only contains positive (hallucinated) samples, we further experiment with different thresholds and present the results in Fig. 3. We observe that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-Q and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-a11 with Guanaco-33b are more robust against large threshold values and outperform " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in most cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 419, + 452 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 419, + 452 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 419, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 419, + 452 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cb4fcdc3651af384934237e97e162eff29423d4337e3513da6b0c376c5f628b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 455, + 521, + 475 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 455, + 521, + 475 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 455, + 521, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 455, + 521, + 475 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "820cd6e634bb353c1cd856328097e6327074baccb6ceda00df50174331febc01.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 485, + 520, + 498 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 485, + 520, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 485, + 520, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Impact of threshold on detection accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 420, + 338, + 523, + 452 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 338, + 523, + 452 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 338, + 523, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 338, + 523, + 452 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8065ea4ffe0083104ee89f4f65ac9292fb538e4c4e5913d2ab0bab281503a2fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Why Does Self-checking Fail? To further understand why self-checking methods fail to detect some hallucinated responses, we visualize the distribution of consistency scores using histogram plots in Fig. 4. We observe that for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a significant portion of hallucinated samples received highly consistent predictions. In other words, the target LM made consistently wrong predictions due to a lack of question and model diversity, which aligns with our analysis in Section 3. On the other hand, benefiting from the semantically equivalent question perturbation, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 518, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "’s scores are more spread out in the inconsistent region, which helps to improve the effectiveness of detecting hallucinations by choosing a proper threshold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 478, + 743 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 478, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 478, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2.2 Open-domain Generation QA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared to the classification QA tasks, detecting hallucinations in open-domain generation QA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15451" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 288, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 288, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 288, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 288, + 184 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7471c5546dd0753b1290c087ea06bc1198a17e4d4ba20a56b83114986c4d020f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 192, + 267, + 205 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 192, + 267, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 192, + 267, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Histogram of hallucination score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tasks is more challenging. As shown in Table 4, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " exhibits better AUROC than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+7\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in both datasets. Compared to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{QM}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shows " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvement in the HotpotQA-halu dataset but is slightly worse in the NQ open dataset. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-all leverages the advantages of question-level and model-level cross-checking and achieves consistently good performance in both datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 290, + 444 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 290, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 290, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodHotpotQA-haluNQ-open-halu
ScoreConfidenceScoreConfidence
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)74.277.070.572.7
SAC3-Q(gpt-3.5-turbo)81.381.477.278.5
SAC3-QM (Falcon-7b)83.079.567.562.0
SAC3-QM (Guanaco-33b)88.085.272.772.7
SAC3-all (Falcon-7b)84.584.577.177.2
SAC3-all (Guanaco-33b)87.086.877.277.8
", + "image_path": "89afbc02bf8df0b55518f2341eb97c2ae2b3ab82af5fea5c14f701331b18c95a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 289, + 464 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 289, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: AUROC on open-domain generation QA tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of Verifier LM Weight. In our previous experiments, we assigned equal importance to the consistency score computed by the target and verifier LM. However, typically, the target LM and the verifier LM have different architectures and scales such that the user may have different levels of trust in their output truthfulness. This difference in trust can be incorporated by introducing a weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the consistency score produced by the verifier LM. For instance, if the goal is to detect hallucination in a specialized domain and the verifier LM is a domain-specific model developed for this domain, we can assign a large weight to its scores (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda > 1.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). In the general case, where the verifier LM is a small-sized open-source model, we can apply a small weight value (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda < 1.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") to discount the influence of the verifier LM in the final score. Fig. 5 visualizes the effect of various weight factors on the generation QA datasets. We observe that SAC3-all with a higher weight would result in a larger advantage over SAC3-Q in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the HotpotQA-halu task, where the verifier LM outperforms the target LM. On the contrary, in the NQ open task where the target LM shows competitive performance, a smaller weight would yield better results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 523, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 523, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 523, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 523, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "632cf857050e3c680125f3242f79e5862c24e71c180d80dd33329837d1a060a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 523, + 335 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 523, + 335 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 523, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 523, + 335 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b0a467b8ed3b0981a44326b99a869ea9e6f029687c6fce8000e5a4d5038bdd4f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 344, + 518, + 357 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 344, + 518, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 344, + 518, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Effect of verifier LM weight on AUROC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of the Number of Perturbed Questions. The performance of sampling-based methods is expected to improve as the sample size increases, at the cost of higher latency and computational cost. In Fig. 6, we study this trade-off by varying the number of perturbed questions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from 2 to 10. We observe that the performance of SAC³ increases as more question samples are used but the performance gain gradually diminishes after using more than 5 question samples. This suggests that in practice we could use 2-4 question samples to achieve reasonably good performance at a low computational cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 570, + 525, + 675 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 570, + 525, + 675 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 570, + 525, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 570, + 525, + 675 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "336aa453fc86d1c725fd409a10cd694bff47b5f4bbd3dbec3e273b9a91f77460.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 708 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Performance of SAC3 with varying number of perturbed questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of the Model Type. Our proposed SAC3 framework does not restrict the type of LLM employed and can be naturally extended to various" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15452" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "types of target LLMs. To verify this, in addition to GPT-3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo), we conduct experiments using GPT-4 (gpt-4) and PaLM 2 (chat-bison) on the considered four datasets in the setting of the balanced dataset. The experimental results of comparing the proposed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " baseline are summarized in Table 5. We observe that the proposed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SAC}^3 -\\mathrm{Q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consistently outperforms the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SC}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " baseline across all LLM variants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 203, + 291, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 203, + 291, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 203, + 291, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 203, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodPrime NumberSenator SearchHotpotQA -haluNQ-open -halu
SC2(gpt-3.5-turbo)48.229.674.270.5
SC2(gpt-4)38.318.479.776.3
SC2(chat-bison)26.919.275.867.9
SAC3-Q (gpt-3.5-turbo)93.297.081.377.2
SAC3-Q (gpt-4)91.161.687.282.9
SAC3-Q (chat-bison)90.366.382.872.7
", + "image_path": "4ab45557ea4d0d7b50d38914a0b626aef063d310863e9e5d9f99e30cea9fc4e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Accuracy of different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and PaLM 2) on classification and generation QA tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computational Cost. We monitor the computational cost of our approach based on the number of model evaluations consumed by OpenAI API and open-source LLMs inference. Assuming the number of samples equals the number of perturbed questions, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_s = n_m = n_q = n_{qm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the cost of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{SC^2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " API calls, and our " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{SAC^3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-all needs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " target LM calls plus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2 \\times n_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " verifier LM calls. Beyond the model evaluations, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{SAC^3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " may have additional costs from question perturbations and semantic equivalence checking via prompting. Additional discussions can be found in the Appendix C.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 226, + 534 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 226, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 226, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 293, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 293, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 293, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We investigate the relationship between the self-consistency of LM and the factuality of the response and propose SAC3 as a robust hallucination detection approach for black-box LMs. Through extensive empirical analysis, our work highlights several findings. First, self-consistency checking alone is insufficient to effectively detect question-level and model-level hallucinations, where LMs generate consistently wrong responses to certain questions. Second, cross-checking between semantically equivalent questions can reduce the occurrence of persistent hallucinations, potentially by reducing question-level ambiguity. Third, there exists a model-level disparity in hallucinations, which we attribute to the inherent differences in LM capabilities originating from different training procedures and data. Thus, the verifier LM can be selected" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "according to specific tasks to maximize detection accuracy. We believe that our work is an important step towards building reliable LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 121, + 394, + 134 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 121, + 394, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 121, + 394, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 142, + 527, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 142, + 527, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 142, + 527, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper studies hallucination detection in LMs, which has significant broader impacts in the field of natural language processing (NLP) and helps to address ethical considerations regarding trustworthiness and reliability. The research outcome may contribute to the development of more accurate and reliable LMs by mitigating the risks of misinformation and biased outputs and promoting accountability and trust in AI systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 273, + 373, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 273, + 373, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 273, + 373, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 527, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 527, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 527, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our current experiments focus on the question-answering setting. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability of the proposed framework and the accuracy of semantic equivalence checks on more complex tasks such as conversational or dialogue-based prompting. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate the efficiency-utility trade-off: we expect increasing sample sizes to improve detection accuracy but may introduce additional cost and latency. Speeding up the implementation through parallelization is also worth exploring." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 478, + 362, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 478, + 362, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 478, + 362, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 496, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 496, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 496, + 525, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 496, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ayush Agrawal, Lester Mackey, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2023. Do language models know when they're hallucinating references? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18248." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 526, + 626 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 526, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 526, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ebtesam Almazrouei, Hamza Alobeidli, Abdulaziz Alshamsi, Alessandro Cappelli, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Merouane Debbah, Etienne Goffinet, Daniel Heslow, Julien Launay, Quentin Malartic, Badreddine Noune, Baptiste Pannier, and Guilherme Penedo. 2023. Falcon-40B: an open large language model with state-of-the-art performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 699 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meng Cao, Yue Dong, and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2022. Hallucinated but factual! inspecting the factuality of hallucinations in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3340-3354." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 792 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 792 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 792 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15453" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, Alicia Parrish, Vishakh Padmakumar, Chen Zhao, Samuel R Bowman, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2023. Two failures of self-consistency in the multi-step reasoning of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14279." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 289, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 289, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 289, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiuhai Chen and Jonas Mueller. 2023. Quantifying uncertainty in answers from any language model via intrinsic and extrinsic confidence assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16175." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 189, + 289, + 254 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 189, + 289, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 189, + 289, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 289, + 307 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 289, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 289, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeremy R Cole, Michael JQ Zhang, Daniel Gillick, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2023. Selectively answering ambiguous questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14613." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 316, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 316, + 289, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 316, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Souvik Das, Sougata Saha, and Rohini K Srihari. 2023. Diving deep into modes of fact hallucinations in dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04449." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 289, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 289, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. 2023. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 289, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. 2021. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 289, + 581 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 289, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 289, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zorik Gekhman, Jonathan Herzig, Roee Aharoni, Chen Elkind, and Idan Szpektor. 2023. Trueteacher: Learning factual consistency evaluation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11171." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2022. Becel: Benchmark for consistency evaluation of language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3680-3696." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1-38." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziwei Ji, Zihan Liu, Nayeon Lee, Tiezheng Yu, Bryan Wilie, Min Zeng, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Rho: Reducing hallucination in open-domain dialogues with knowledge grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.01588." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 525, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453-466." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 525, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023a. Halueval: A largescale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2305." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 525, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. 2023b. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03341." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. 2023. Generating with confidence: Uncertainty quantification for black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19187." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Liu, Yizhe Zhang, Chris Brockett, Yi Mao, Zhifang Sui, Weizhu Chen, and Bill Dolan. 2021. A token-level reference-free hallucination detection benchmark for free-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08704." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. 2023. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 525, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Mitchell, Joseph J Noh, Siyan Li, William S Armstrong, Ananth Agarwal, Patrick Liu, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2022. Enhancing self-consistency and performance of pre-trained language models through natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11875." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Niels Mündler, Jingxuan He, Slobodan Jenko, and Martin Vechev. 2023. Self-contradictory hallucinations of large language models: Evaluation, detection and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15852." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamza Alobeidli, Baptiste Pannier, Ebtesam Almazrouei, and Julien Launay. 2023. The RefinedWeb dataset for Falcon LLM: outperforming curated corpora with web data, and web data only. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01116." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15454" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 290, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 290, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 290, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Derek Tam, Anisha Mascarenhas, Shiyue Zhang, Sarah Kwan, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Evaluating the factual consistency of large language models through news summarization. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 5220-5255." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 289, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Katherine Tian, Eric Mitchell, Allan Zhou, Archit Sharma, Rafael Rafailov, Huaxiu Yao, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2023. Just ask for calibration: Strategies for eliciting calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14975." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 289, + 424 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 289, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 289, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu. 2023. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 487 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. 2021. On hallucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15025." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 538, + 289, + 581 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 538, + 289, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 538, + 289, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shiping Yang, Renliang Sun, and Xiaojun Wan. 2023. A new benchmark and reverse validation method for passage-level hallucination detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06498." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongbin Ye, Tong Liu, Aijia Zhang, Wei Hua, and Weiqiang Jia. 2023. Cognitive mirage: A review of hallucinations in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06794." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A Smith. 2023a. How language model hallucinations can snowball. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13534." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuo Zhang, Liangming Pan, Junzhou Zhao, and William Yang Wang. 2023b. Mitigating language model hallucination with interactive question-knowledge alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13669." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al. 2023c. Siren's song in the ai ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 254 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 524, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023a. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers. ArXiv preprint, abs/2304.10513." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 524, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2023b. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10513." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 347, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 347, + 524, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 347, + 524, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chunting Zhou, Graham Neubig, Jiatao Gu, Mona Diab, Paco Guzman, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2020. Detecting hallucinated content in conditional neural sequence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.02593." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15455" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 254, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 254, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 254, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Factuality Assessment of LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section first introduces the background of LM factuality assessment and reviews the key components of existing black-box factuality assessment approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 157, + 170 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 157, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 157, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing studies (Manakul et al., 2023) showed that the factuality of LMs' statements can be assessed by capturing the output uncertainty. If permitted with complete white-box access, hallucinations of LMs can be detected through uncertainty metrics such as entropy, which models the uncertainty of the output distribution as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{H}(\\boldsymbol{s}) = -\\sum_{i=1}^{N} p(s_i | s_{MethodInputModelOutputSemantic ConsistencySC2QTargetYes, there was a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓QTargetYes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin N. Burdick.✓SAC3-QQ1TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to the most recent updates or news. However, as of my last update, there is no North Dakota US senator who graduated from MIT.✗Q2TargetAs an AI language model, I do not have access to real-time information or current events. However, as of my last update, I am not aware of any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates.✗SAC3-MQVerifierNo, there has never been a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and attended MIT.✗SAC3-QMQ1VerifierNo, a North Dakota US senator did not have MIT listed as their alma mater.✗Q2VerifierThere are no known US senators from North Dakota who are also MIT graduates.✗", + "image_path": "5812de1bae3c9ae0a5b0e2ece2ddcbc69795dd5e79cabe5b83a8ebd37a87e563.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 525, + 476 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Input Question (Q) and Answer (A): " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \"Was there ever a US senator that represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT?\" A = \"Yes, there was a US senator who represented the state of North Dakota and whose alma mater was MIT. His name was Quentin Burdick.\" Semantically rephrased questions: Q1 = \"Did a North Dakota US senator have MIT listed as their alma mater?\" Q2 = \"Were there any US senators from North Dakota who were also MIT graduates?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 525, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ObjectiveTemplate
Semantic question perturbationFor the question [QUERYED QUESTION], provide ${k} semantically equivalent questions \\nAre the following two inputs semantically equivalent? \\n[QUERYED INPUT] \\n[GENERATED INPUT]
Semantic equivalence checkAre the following two Question-Answering (QA) pairs semantically equivalent? Provide your best guess and the probability that it is correct (0.0 to 1.0). Given ONLY the guess (Yes or No) and probability, no other words or explanation. For example: \\nGuess: <most likely guess, as short as possible; not a complete sentence, just the guess!>\\nProbability: <the probability between 0.0 and 1.0 that your guess is correct, without any extra commentary whatsoever; just the probability! \\nThe first QA pair is: \\nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \\nA: ${THE ANSWER} \\nThe second QA pair is: \\nQ: ${THE QUESTION} \\nA: ${THE ANSWER}
", + "image_path": "98f85bfb11ef790b9fc7ab1bc7b489c493103f4ac666e1d7f9edad1d9a1a62bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 525, + 509 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 525, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Prompt templates for different objectives, including semantically equivalent perturbations of input questions and semantic equivalent check of QA pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to optimally balance efficiency (light version) and accuracy (performance version), facilitating more informed decisions in practice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 247, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 247, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 247, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2 Semantic Consistency Checking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The goal of our research is to provide a flexible framework for the effective detection of hallucinations in black-box LLMs. Compared to previous approaches (Manakul et al., 2023) based on similarity metrics such as BERTScore, employing LLM for semantic consistency checking not only offers better accuracy but also eliminates the need for involving additional models. We note that our design is not dependent on any specific type of LLM and the users are allowed to choose freely for each component. Specifically, we chose GPT as the instantiation in our experiments due to its well-acclaimed ability to follow human instructions which is cru" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cial for evaluation. In practice, the user may choose any open-sourced LLMs that have been aligned to follow instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 579, + 415, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 579, + 415, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 579, + 415, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.3 Data Annotations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the two classification QA tasks (Prime Number and Senator Search), we use the synthesized hallucinated answers following prior work (Zhang et al., 2023a). For the task of prime number, the factual/true answer is always \"Yes\", i.e., all the testing numbers are prime numbers. The synthesized hallucinated response is \"No\". The factual/true answer of the senator search is always \"No\" and the synthesized hallucinated answer is \"Yes\". Such an experimental setting on the binary classification tasks is realistic since we have verified that on these datasets most of the responses generated by gpt-3.5-turbo are indeed \"Yes\" or \"No\" which" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15457" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 228, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 228, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 228, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "align with the synthesized response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the generation QA tasks (HotpotQA-halu and NQ-Open-halu), we used answers generated by LLM (gpt-3.5-turbo) for experiments, which do not have pre-defined factual/non-factual labels. Therefore, we manually annotated these LLM-generated answers by comparing them with the ground truth." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 290, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 290, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 290, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to note that in practice, a more versatile hallucination detection approach should be able to evaluate the factuality of a sample regardless of its origin (e.g., synthesized or generated by itself / other LLMs). In our framework, this is achieved through semantically equivalent question perturbation and cross-model response consistency checking. We plan to release the annotated datasets to facilitate future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 199, + 325 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 199, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 199, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Additional Examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 290, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 290, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 290, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6 provides another illustrative example to explain our methodology in the senator search dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15458" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_content_list.json b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afd9c649df905b60e4510d661ad51b060a5ee546 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1476 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SDOH-NLI: a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 205, + 89, + 794, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adam D. Lelkes1*, Eric Loreaux2†, Tal Schuster1, Ming-Jun Chen1‡, Alvin Rajkomar1‡", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 153, + 865, + 173 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1Google Research, 2Curai Health", + "bbox": [ + 364, + 187, + 638, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 342, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes, and extracting these determinants from clinical notes is a first step to help healthcare providers systematically identify opportunities to provide appropriate care and address disparities. Progress on using NLP methods for this task has been hindered by the lack of high-quality publicly available labeled data, largely due to the privacy and regulatory constraints on the use of real patients' information. This paper introduces a new dataset, SDOH-NLI, that is based on publicly available notes and which we release publicly. We formulate SDOH extraction as a natural language inference (NLI) task, and provide binary textual entailment labels obtained from human raters for a cross product of a set of social history snippets as premises and SDOH factors as hypotheses. Our dataset differs from standard NLI benchmarks in that our premises and hypotheses are obtained independently. We evaluate both \"off-the-shelf\" entailment models as well as models fine-tuned on our data, and highlight the ways in which our dataset appears more challenging than commonly used NLI datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 273, + 460, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 664, + 260, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There has been growing recognition that social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes for individuals and populations. The ability to accurately identify and extract social and behavioral determinants of health from clinical notes can provide valuable insights that can enable healthcare providers to better understand and address the underlying determinants of health that contribute to poor health outcomes and health disparities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 688, + 490, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Social determinants of health are frequently recorded in clinical notes as unstructured text, so natural language processing (NLP) can be a valuable tool for extracting actionable insights for care teams. However, research in this area often uses patient records from private health systems' electronic health records (EHRs), which makes it difficult to compare results from other health systems or even replicate the studies. The development and release of high-quality publicly available datasets could enable more reproducible research in this area.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 885, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we introduce a new, public SDOH dataset based on MTSamples.com, an online collection of transcribed medical reports. Our setup is motivated by the use cases of slicing patient populations along social determinant dimensions for population analytics, and retrieving patients with certain social determinants of health to allow for more targeted outreach and intervention. Given a large set of social determinant factors, our goal is to make binary determinations for each patient about whether that patient's notes imply a particular SDOH factor. In other words, for example, we want to be able to find all patients who lack access to transportation, as opposed to just tagging transportation-related spans in their notes, as done in some previous work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 448, + 885, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To achieve this goal, we formulate the task as a textual entailment problem, with patient note snippets as the premises, SDOH factors as the hypotheses, and binary entailment labels. We use human annotators to label 1,398 social history snippets according to a curated list of 60 SDOH statements, resulting in a dataset of 29,635 labeled premise-hypothesis examples after some filtering (see Section 3 for details). We release this dataset publicly. We also evaluate state-of-the-art publicly available large language models on our data in a range of different settings (see Section 4).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 707, + 885, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A notable feature of our entailment dataset is", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author. lelkes@google.com", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 854, + 413, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$\\dagger$ Work completed at Google.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 866, + 319, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Equal leadership.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 881, + 257, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 478, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4789", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 4789-4798 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that unlike other entailment datasets, our premises and hypotheses were obtained independently, and we label the full cross product of premises and hypotheses. In traditional entailment datasets, the hypotheses are constructed to be tied to a particular premise; however, in our formulation, the hypotheses are drawn from a large set of SDOH factors that may or may not be discussed in a particular premise (drawn from a clinical note). Since all our text comes from the same domain, we still have a non-negligible fraction of positive entailment labels (albeit with a much larger label imbalance than in standard NLI benchmark datasets).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This requires NLI methods to understand both the premise and the hypothesis, and defeats typical shortcuts that have been observed to work for other entailment datasets, such as guessing the label based on the hypothesis alone, or relying on simple syntactic clues such as the presence of negations (see Section 2.2). Indeed, even though our task does not require domain-specific knowledge, we observe that state-of-the-art models struggle to generalize from common NLI benchmarks to our dataset, and highlight typical failure cases (see Section 4).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 294, + 489, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned models in different setups: dual encoders, zero/few-shot prompting, and binary classification. We show that state-of-the-art off-the-shelf models, even if they were fine-tuned on various NLI datasets, do not reliably solve our problem; on the other hand, models fine-tuned on our training set robustly generalize both to unseen notes and to unseen factors, providing evidence for the usefulness of our dataset for model fine-tuning and evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 487, + 489, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 268, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 688, + 465, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There has been a lot of interest in using NLP techniques for SDOH extraction; see Patra et al. (2021) for a recent survey. The range and granularity of SDOH factors vary considerably across different papers. There has also been a range of methods used, from rule-based heuristics, to n-grams, to fine-tuning pretrained Transformer models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 489, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Many previous research studies on SDOH extraction were performed on EHR data from particular health systems and are not released publicly. Exceptions include the i2b2 NLP Smoking Challenge (Uzuner et al., 2008), which classified 502", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "deidentified medical discharge records for smoking status only, and small number of datasets based on MIMIC-III (Johnson et al., 2016), a large publicly available database of deidentified health records of patients who stayed in critical care units of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2001 and 2012. For example, Gehrmann et al. (2018) annotated MIMIC-III with binary labels for certain \"phenotypes\" including alcohol and substance abuse, and Lybarger et al. (2021) annotated note spans with SDOH information.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We are aware of four other previous SDOH-related papers which used MTSamples data (Wang et al., 2015; Winden et al., 2017; Yetisgen et al., 2016; Yetisgen and Vanderwende, 2017), all of which focused on extracting and tagging SDOH-related spans from social history sections.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 267, + 884, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Among previous papers, the one methodologically closest to ours is Lituiev et al. (2023) which also formulated SDOH extraction as an entailment problem and evaluated RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) fine-tuned on ANLI (Nie et al., 2020) on clinical notes from UCSF, without any in-domain fine-tuning experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 884, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Natural Language Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 779, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural language inference (NLI), also called recognizing textual entailment (RTE), has been a very well-studied NLP task; see e.g. Storks et al. (2019); Poliak (2020) for recent surveys. Many standard NLI datasets, such as SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) or MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018), are obtained by automatically collecting premises and, for each premise and target entailment label, having human annotators write a hypothesis with the specified entailment relation to the premise. (Even some of the datasets specifically designed to address these datasets' shortcomings, such as ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), follow a similar setup.) It has been observed that this leads to annotation artifacts that lets models do well on these tasks without requiring true understanding of entailment, including by using simple syntactic heuristics (McCoy et al., 2019) or by completely ignoring the premise, and considering only the hypothesis (Gururangan et al., 2018; Poliak et al., 2018). ContractNLI (Koreeda and Manning, 2021) is an example of a previous dataset which used the same fixed set of hypotheses for all the premises.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4790", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Dataset Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 332, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We scraped all 5,003 medical reports from MTSamples. Within these reports, we obtained 1,030 note sections related to social history by searching for a collection of note section titles identified as synonyms of social history. We then split each note section into sentences, resulting in 3,281 sentences. Many sentences (such as \"He is married\") appear in multiple notes; after dedduplication, we have 1,398 unique sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 111, + 489, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We manually curated a collection of SDOH factors primarily from two sources, the AHRQ Social Determinants of Health Database (for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2020) and UCSF SIREN's Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors (Arons et al., 2018). We rephrased each factor as a full English sentence stating a fact about a person; e.g. \"The person is employed.\" For binary factors, we included a statement and its negation; e.g. \"The person currently drinks alcohol\" and \"The person currently does not drink alcohol.\" For factors with multiple potential values (such as housing status), we aimed to list all the common options. We grouped these 60 statements into 10 categories: smoking, alcohol use, drug use, employment, housing, food, transportation, health insurance, social support, and financial situation. See the full list in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 256, + 489, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each social history sentence, we asked human raters to select all the relevant categories and, within each category, all the statements that are supported by the social history snippet. Each snippet was rated by at least three raters. For each (snippet, statement) pair, we took the majority vote of raters to get binary entailment labels. Rater agreement was high, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.97 (computed over the binary entailment labels provided by different raters for (premise, hypothesis) pairs).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We removed all SDOH statements which were not entailed by any of the social history snippets as well as all note sentences that were not relevant to any SDOH categories. Finally, after inspecting the dataset, we removed three SDOH factors (\"The person is stably housed.\", \"The person has social support.\", \"The person does not have social support.\") because raters weren't able to consistently give correct ratings. That left us with 787 unique sentences and 38 SDOH factors. Since each snippet would typically only entail one factor or a small number of factors, the resulting dataset is heavily imbalanced: only $4.6\\%$ of the labels are positive.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We split the dataset along the snippets into training, validation, and test sets with a 70:15:15 ratio, with the following modification: we remove a single pair of factors, \"The person lives alone\" and \"The person does not live alone,\" from the training and validation sets, in order to evaluate fine-tuned models' ability to generalize to unseen factors. In other words, the training, validation, and test sets have disjoint note snippets but the same SDOH factors, except for the test set which also contains an additional two factors that are not present in the training or validation sets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Model Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 291, + 697, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the typical use case is retrieving patients with a particular SDOH factor, and because of the heavy label imbalance in our dataset, we use precision, recall, and F1 score as our evaluation metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 318, + 882, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate state-of-the-art public models in four different setups:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Treating the problem as a retrieval task with SDOH factors as queries and note snippets as documents. We evaluate Sentence-T5 (Ni et al., 2022a) and GTR (Ni et al., 2022b), two state-of-the-art dual encoder models. We select the cosine similarity threshold which maximizes F1 score on the training set.", + "- A general-purpose NLI model. We evaluate the SENTLI model (Schuster et al., 2022), a state-of-the-art NLI model (T5 large fine-tuned on the SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015), MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), Fever (Thorne et al., 2018), and VitaminC (Schuster et al., 2021) datasets). To help the model adapt to the label imbalance in our dataset, we also evaluate it with re-tuning the threshold for positive prediction to maximize F1 score on our training set.", + "- Zero/few-shot prompting. We evaluate FlanT5 XXL (Chung et al., 2022) and FlanUL2 (Tay et al., 2023) in both a zero- and a few-shot setting. These models instruction tuned for a large set of tasks, including NLI tasks. (See Appendix B for details.)", + "- Fine-tuning experiments. We fine-tune T5 and Flan-T5 on our dataset (SDOH-NLI), on ANLI, and on a mixture of both at various model sizes. (See Appendix C for details.)" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 429, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4791", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f5d45ef0a0275ce0faad0f2cd9d2443f549cb383f5a0e095f15c5a815cd17c99.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelPrecisionRecallF1
Sentence-T5 11B.2826.523.3669
GTR XXL.3148.4885.3829
SENTLI.4438.8161.5749
SENTLI, threshold tuned.5721.7299.6414
Flan-T5 XXL 0-shot.6867.6552.6706
Flan-T5 XXL 5-shot.6297.6839.6556
Flan-UL2 0-shot.5922.7011.6421
Flan-UL2 5-shot.5536.7126.6231
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI.356.8736.5058
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on SDOH-NLI.9295.8333.8788
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663
", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 80, + 801, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Scores of retrieval-based, general-purpose NLI, in-context, and fine-tuned models on the SDOH test set. See Appendix C for additional fine-tuning experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 319, + 882, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 375, + 218, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 shows selected results (see Appendix D for more model fine-tuning metrics). First, we observe that while our problem can naturally be framed as an information retrieval problem, even state-of-the-art retrieval models perform poorly on it; formulating the problem as natural language inference yields dramatically better results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 485, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, even powerful models fine-tuned for NLI, either on NLI datasets alone or as part of the much larger Flan collection, do not reliably solve our problem, with an F1 score of at most .67 on the test set. Even T5 small fine-tuned on our dataset outperforms the largest off-the-shelf models, highlighting the added value of our dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 511, + 487, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When prompting instruction-tuned models, including few-shot examples does not appear to add any value compared to a zero-shot setup. We conjecture that this is because the models are already familiar with the NLI task and the prompt format from instruction tuning, and presenting them with a small number of additional examples is not sufficient for teaching them the difference between this task and the NLI benchmark datasets they have seen during fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 487, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For fine-tuned models below XXL size, when fine-tuning on the SDOH-NLI training set only, we observed poor generalization to the held-out SDOH factors in the test set (see Appendix D for detailed metrics). Because of this, why we experimented with fine-tuning on a combination of our data and ANLI R1, a challenging general-purpose NLI dataset of a similar size. For smaller models,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "fine-tuning on this mixture enabled robust generalization to unseen factors without sacrificing overall test performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 375, + 882, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 453, + 638, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "What makes our dataset challenging for models fine-tuned on standard NLI datasets? We emphasize that it is not that it requires any specialized (e.g., medical) knowledge: most of our examples describe everyday situations in plain English (e.g., \"The patient is retired on disability due to her knee replacements\"); human raters without any domain-specific training had no difficulty understanding them. We conjecture that the main difference is that the hypotheses of typical NLI datasets are written to satisfy a given entailment label for a given premise, whereas ours are obtained independently from the premises, and therefore their entailment status can be more subtle and ambiguous. These models also struggled with distinguishing between statements about the present and the past; e.g., Flan-UL2 erroneously predicting that \"He is not a smoker\" entails \"The person wasn't a smoker in the past.\" Also, our dataset contains a lot of irrelevant hypotheses and requires the model to correctly classify all of those; we see off-the-shelf models occasionally giving them positive labels (e.g. predicting that \"She was living alone and is now living in assisted living.\" implies \"The person drank alcohol in the past.), hurting precision. As an example, Flan-T5 fine-tuned on ANLI had comparable recall to our best models, but much worse precision.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4792", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 247, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we introduced SDOH-NLI, a new entailment dataset containing social history snippets as premises and social and behavioral determinants of health as hypotheses. Our dataset was designed both to reflect realistic use cases of SDOH extraction in clinical settings as well as to provide a high quality entailment dataset to support broader NLI research. We evaluated baseline methods using state-of-the-art public models in a variety of setups, and highlighted novel and challenging features of our dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 492, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 278, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The authors would like to thank Jonas B. Kemp, Von Nguyen, Birju Patel, Martin G. Seneviratne, Andy Strunk, and Vinh Q. Tran for their valuable feedback and discussions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 326, + 489, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 401, + 218, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our dataset is English-only, and reflects the American healthcare system. While a lot of the social and behavioral determinants of health mentioned in the data could apply elsewhere, too, their distribution and the language used to describe them could reflect U.S. norms. Also, since the dataset is based on transcription samples, the text can be cleaner than in some other settings (such as notes in EHRs), where the task could be more challenging due to typos and abbreviations that do not appear in our dataset. In such settings, performance could be improved by first using the methods of Rajkumar et al. (2022) to decode abbreviations, but we have not included this in our evaluations. Finally, our dataset only contains short note snippets, and we have not evaluated the models' ability to reconcile contradictory statements or reason about the chronology of information in longer patient records. For longer contexts, especially if the social history sections don't fit in the Transformer model's context window, we recommend evaluating the methods of Schuster et al. (2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 490, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 796, + 265, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine learning research in the clinical domain has many ethical considerations. Given the nature of this work is to identify opportunities for care teams to improve the health outcomes of patients due to factors commonly not addressed, we think it contributes to human well-being and avoids harms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The use of public, non-identifiable data that is released for the NLP community helps balance the need to have reproducible (i.e., honest and trustworthy) data to enable technical advances while limiting the need for sensitive, private medical records for research. We acknowledge that the purpose of the work is to identify SDOH to provide additional help and services to patients, and we warn against any use to deny patients care or services based on any factor that can be identified. Although we picked a large number of SDOH factors to test our method, we acknowledge that there may be additional factors that are important for specific patients and populations, so we encourage researchers to reflect on those possible factors and create datasets to help others study them, as well.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 368, + 608, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Abigail Arons, Sarah DeSilvey, Caroline Fichtenberg, and Laura Gottlieb. 2018. Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors.", + "Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642.", + "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.", + "Agency for Healthcare Research and MD. Quality, Rockville. 2020. Social determinants of health database.", + "Sebastian Gehrmann, Franck Dernoncourt, Yeran Li, Eric T Carlson, Joy T Wu, Jonathan Welt, John Foote Jr, Edward T Moseley, David W Grant, Patrick D Tyler, et al. 2018. Comparing deep learning and concept extraction based methods for patient phenotyping from clinical narratives. *PloS one*, 13(2):e0192360.", + "Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112.", + "Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Lu Shen, Liwei H Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G Mark. 2016. Mimic-iii," + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 388, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4793", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific data, 3(1):1-9.", + "Yuta Koreeda and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Contractnli: A dataset for document-level natural language inference for contracts. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1907-1919.", + "Dmytro S Lituiev, Benjamin Lacar, Sang Pak, Peter L Abramowitsch, Emilia H De Marchis, and Thomas A Peterson. 2023. Automatic extraction of social determinants of health from medical notes of chronic lower back pain patients. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, et al. 2023. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688.", + "Kevin Lybarger, Mari Ostendorf, and Meliha Yetisgen. 2021. Annotating social determinants of health using active learning, and characterizing determinants using neural event extraction. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 113:103631.", + "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448.", + "Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2022a. Sentence-t5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1864–1874.", + "Jianmo Ni, Chen Qu, Jing Lu, Zhuyun Dai, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Ji Ma, Vincent Zhao, Yi Luan, Keith Hall, Ming-Wei Chang, and Yinfei Yang. 2022b. Large dual encoders are generalizable retrievers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9844–9855, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial nli: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4885-4901.", + "Braja G Patra, Mohit M Sharma, Veer Vekaria, Prakash Adekkanattu, Olga V Patterson, Benjamin Glicksberg, Lauren A Lepow, Euijung Ryu, Joanna M Biernacka, Al'ona Furmanchuk, et al. 2021. Extracting" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "social determinants of health from electronic health records using natural language processing: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(12):2716-2727.", + "Adam Poliak. 2020. A survey on recognizing textual entailment as an nlp evaluation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems, pages 92-109.", + "Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191.", + "Alvin Rajkomar, Eric Loreaux, Yuchen Liu, Jonas Kemp, Benny Li, Ming-Jun Chen, Yi Zhang, Afroz Mohiuddin, and Juraj Gottweis. 2022. Deciphering clinical abbreviations with a privacy protecting machine learning system. Nature Communications, 13(1):7456.", + "Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, et al. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17189.", + "Tal Schuster, Sihao Chen, Senaka Buthpitiya, Alex Fabrikant, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Stretching sentence-pair NLI models to reason over long documents and clusters. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 394-412, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, and Regina Barzilay. 2021. Get your vitamin c! robust fact verification with contrastive evidence. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 624-643.", + "Shane Storks, Qiaozi Gao, and Joyce Y Chai. 2019. Recent advances in natural language inference: A survey of benchmarks, resources, and approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01172.", + "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Steven Zheng, et al. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERIFICATION. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4794", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Papers), pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 85, + 487, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Özlem Uzuner, Ira Goldstein, Yuan Luo, and Isaac Kohane. 2008. Identifying patient smoking status from medical discharge records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(1):14-24.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 121, + 489, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yan Wang, Elizabeth S Chen, Serguei Pakhomov, Elliot Arsoniadis, Elizabeth W Carter, Elizabeth Lindemann, Indra Neil Sarkar, and Genevieve B Melton. 2015. Automated extraction of substance use information from clinical texts. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2015, page 2121. American Medical Informatics Association.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 184, + 489, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 286, + 489, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tamara J Winden, Elizabeth S Chen, Yan Wang, Elizabeth Lindemann, and Genevieve B Melton. 2017. Residence, living situation, and living conditions information documentation in clinical practice. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2017, page 1783. American Medical Informatics Association.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 388, + 489, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meliha Yetisgen, Elena Pellicer, David R Crosslin, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2016. Automatic identification of lifestyle and environmental factors from social history in clinical text. In Proceedings of AMIA 2016 Joint Summits on Translational Science.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 489, + 487, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meliha Yetisgen and Lucy Vanderwende. 2017. Automatic identification of substance abuse from social history in clinical text. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: 16th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2017, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2017, Proceedings 16, pages 171-181. Springer.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 565, + 489, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Labeling Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 680, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Raters were given the following instructions:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 109, + 843, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"In this task, you will be given a list of snippets from transcribed medical records, describing a person's social history. Your job is to select the categories that are relevant to the snippet and, in each category, select statements about the person that are supported by the snippet.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 124, + 882, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Only select categories and statements relevant to the subject of the sentence, NOT if they apply to someone else (such as the subject's relatives).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 222, + 880, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The source of the medical transcript samples is a public dataset (MTSamples.com), and not your, other raters' or users health transcript data.\"", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 269, + 882, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each snippet, they were required select one or more of the following categories (including \"None of the above\" if none of the categories were relevant). If they selected a category, the statements within the category would be displayed, and they were required to select one of statements within that category, or \"None of the above\":", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 882, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Smoking", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 441, + 618, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person is currently a smoker.", + "- The person is currently not a smoker.", + "- The person was a smoker in the past.", + "- The person wasn't a smoker in the past.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 566, + 464, + 877, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Alcohol use", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 564, + 638, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person currently drinks alcohol.", + "- The person currently does not drink alcohol.", + "- The person drank alcohol in the past.", + "- The person did not drink alcohol in the past.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 566, + 587, + 882, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Drug use", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 719, + 618, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person is a drug user.", + "- The person is not a drug user.", + "- The person was a drug user in the past.", + "- The person wasn't a drug user in the past.", + "- The person uses cocaine.", + "- The person does not use cocaine.", + "- The person used cocaine in the past.", + "- The person did not use cocaine in the past.", + "- The person uses marijuana." + ], + "bbox": [ + 566, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4795", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person does not use marijuana.", + "- The person used marijuana in the past.", + "- The person did not use marijuana in the past.", + "- The person uses opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).", + "- The person does not opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).", + "- The person used opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).", + "- The person did not use opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 85, + 487, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Employment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 136, + 318, + 250, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person is employed.", + "- The person is not employed.", + "- The person is employed part time.", + "- The person is a student.", + "- The person is a homemaker.", + "- The person is retired due to age or preference.", + "- The person is retired due to disability.", + "- The person is retired due to an unknown reason.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 342, + 487, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Housing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 136, + 545, + 218, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person lives in their own or their family's home.", + "- The person lives in a housing facility.", + "- The person is homeless.", + "- The person is stably housed.", + "- The person's housing is unsuited to their needs.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 568, + 485, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Food", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 136, + 717, + 193, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person is able to obtain food on a consistent basis.", + "- The person is not able to obtain food on a consistent basis.", + "- The person has consistent fruit and vegetable intake.", + "- The person does not have consistent fruit and vegetable intake.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 740, + 487, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Transportation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 263, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person has access to transportation.", + "- The person does not have access to transportation.", + "- The person has access to a car.", + "- The person does not have access to a car.", + "- The person has access to public transit.", + "- The person does not have access to public transit.", + "- The person has issues with finding transportation.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 564, + 84, + 882, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Health insurance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 532, + 288, + 675, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person has private health insurance.", + "- The person is on Medicare.", + "- The person is on Medicaid.", + "- The person does not have health insurance.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 564, + 311, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Social support", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 532, + 426, + 655, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person has social support.", + "- The person does not have social support.", + "- The person lives alone.", + "- The person does not live alone.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 564, + 451, + 882, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Financial situation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 532, + 550, + 687, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The person is below the poverty line.", + "- The person is above the poverty line.", + "- The person is able to afford medications.", + "- The person is not able to afford medications.", + "- None of the above" + ], + "bbox": [ + 564, + 574, + 882, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- None of the above", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 532, + 690, + 685, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Prompting Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 717, + 694, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our goal with the design of our zero/few-shot experiments was to stay close to how the models were trained and evaluated on similar NLI tasks. Since the models we used were fine-tuned on the Flan collection (Longpre et al., 2023), which includes several NLI datasets, we reused some of the Flan collections's prompt templates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In particular, we used the templates for the SNLI and MNLI dataset which were the most relevant to our data. (We excluded templates for other datasets such as RTE, ANLI, or WNLI because the wording", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4796", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of some of the prompts could be slightly misleading; e.g. by referring to the premise as a \"paragraph.\") For each example, we chose a prompt template uniformly at random from the 19 templates. For few-shot experiments, we first picked a random positive example from the training set, then picked the other few-shot examples uniformly at random from the training examples. (Without explicitly forcing at least one example to be positive, it would be very likely that all the few-shot examples would be negative, given the label imbalance in the dataset. We tried dropping that requirement and sampling all examples at random, which resulted in a slight drop in model performance, as we expected.)", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since SNLI and MNLI have three answer options (\"yes,\" \"it is not possible to tell,\" \"no\"), we kept all three of these options in the prompt template, even though our dataset is binary. We experimented with dropping either the \"no\" or the \"it is not possible to tell\" option; both of these deviations from the original prompts resulted in slight decreases in model performance.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 326, + 489, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use rank classification to obtain binary labels (as is customary): i.e., instead of decoding a model prediction, we score the three answer options (for three copies of each input example) and consider the prediction positive if \"yes\" has the highest score. Similarly to our experiment with SENTLI, we also tried taking softmax over the three options and using a fixed threshold for \"yes\" which maximizes F1 score on the training set; this resulted in a small drop in test F1 score (e.g., .6501 to .6222 for Flan-UL2).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 456, + 489, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Fine-tuning Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 645, + 309, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All models were fine-tuned using the T5X framework (Roberts et al., 2022) on TPUv3 chips for $10\\mathrm{k}$ steps with batch size 32 and learning rate 1e-4, with the exception of the T5 small size models which were finetuned for $50\\mathrm{k}$ steps. For each model, we picked the checkpoint with the highest F1 score on the validation set.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 671, + 489, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Additional Model Fine-tuning Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 796, + 478, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "See Table 2 for the full set of results from our finetuning experiments. Here we also include metrics on the subset of the test set consisting on the new SDOH factors not included in the training and validation sets to highlight the differences in models' ability to generalize to unseen factors.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that since Flan-T5 models between sizes large and XL fine-tuned on either ANLI or our SDOH dataset alone underperformed the same models fine-tuned on the combined dataset, we did not perform these dataset ablations on smaller Flan-T5 models or on T5 below the XXL size.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 884, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4797", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/514aba77f9ea16175ddd817e9ee0dcca8bd69793c124ea2c004290a8d709c85b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelSizeDatasetTest PTest RTest F1New factors PNew factors RNew factors F1
T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.7987.7069.7500.6667.0833.1481
T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7396.8161.7760.75.375.5
T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8247.7299.7744.75.125.2143
T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8391.8391.8391.9231.5.6486
T5XXLANLI.8391.8391.8391.75.1.8571
T5XXLSDOH-NLI.8859.7586.8173.8571.25.3871
T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.9024.8506.8757.88891..9412
Flan-T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.8075.7471.7761.6667.0833.1481
Flan-T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7956.8276.8113.6216.9583.7541
Flan-T5largeANLI.1777.8506.2939.2421.9583.3866
Flan-T5largeSDOH-NLI.8041.6839.7391.2308.125.1622
Flan-T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8212.8448.8329.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XLANLI.2868.8851.4332.7667.9583.8519
Flan-T5XLSDOH.9071.7299.80891..125.2222
Flan-T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8647.8448.8547.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XXLANLI.3560.8736.5058.7931.9583.8679
Flan-T5XXLSDOH-NLI.9295.8333.87881..875.9333
Flan-T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663.8846.9583.92
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 362, + 878, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Precision, recall, and F1 scores of various models on the full test set and on the subset of the test set consisting of the two held-out factors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 604, + 882, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4798", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_model.json b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40c38be87c02a4edf15b77dfdfda9a566cb7e65b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2464 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.206, + 0.09, + 0.795, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SDOH-NLI: a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.154, + 0.866, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam D. Lelkes1*, Eric Loreaux2†, Tal Schuster1, Ming-Jun Chen1‡, Alvin Rajkomar1‡" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.365, + 0.188, + 0.64, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Google Research, 2Curai Health" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.343, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.274, + 0.461, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes, and extracting these determinants from clinical notes is a first step to help healthcare providers systematically identify opportunities to provide appropriate care and address disparities. Progress on using NLP methods for this task has been hindered by the lack of high-quality publicly available labeled data, largely due to the privacy and regulatory constraints on the use of real patients' information. This paper introduces a new dataset, SDOH-NLI, that is based on publicly available notes and which we release publicly. We formulate SDOH extraction as a natural language inference (NLI) task, and provide binary textual entailment labels obtained from human raters for a cross product of a set of social history snippets as premises and SDOH factors as hypotheses. Our dataset differs from standard NLI benchmarks in that our premises and hypotheses are obtained independently. We evaluate both \"off-the-shelf\" entailment models as well as models fine-tuned on our data, and highlight the ways in which our dataset appears more challenging than commonly used NLI datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.665, + 0.262, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.689, + 0.491, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There has been growing recognition that social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes for individuals and populations. The ability to accurately identify and extract social and behavioral determinants of health from clinical notes can provide valuable insights that can enable healthcare providers to better understand and address the underlying determinants of health that contribute to poor health outcomes and health disparities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.886, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Social determinants of health are frequently recorded in clinical notes as unstructured text, so natural language processing (NLP) can be a valuable tool for extracting actionable insights for care teams. However, research in this area often uses patient records from private health systems' electronic health records (EHRs), which makes it difficult to compare results from other health systems or even replicate the studies. The development and release of high-quality publicly available datasets could enable more reproducible research in this area." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.449, + 0.886, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we introduce a new, public SDOH dataset based on MTSamples.com, an online collection of transcribed medical reports. Our setup is motivated by the use cases of slicing patient populations along social determinant dimensions for population analytics, and retrieving patients with certain social determinants of health to allow for more targeted outreach and intervention. Given a large set of social determinant factors, our goal is to make binary determinations for each patient about whether that patient's notes imply a particular SDOH factor. In other words, for example, we want to be able to find all patients who lack access to transportation, as opposed to just tagging transportation-related spans in their notes, as done in some previous work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.708, + 0.886, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To achieve this goal, we formulate the task as a textual entailment problem, with patient note snippets as the premises, SDOH factors as the hypotheses, and binary entailment labels. We use human annotators to label 1,398 social history snippets according to a curated list of 60 SDOH statements, resulting in a dataset of 29,635 labeled premise-hypothesis examples after some filtering (see Section 3 for details). We release this dataset publicly. We also evaluate state-of-the-art publicly available large language models on our data in a range of different settings (see Section 4)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A notable feature of our entailment dataset is" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.855, + 0.414, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author. lelkes@google.com" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.868, + 0.32, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\dagger\\) Work completed at Google." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.882, + 0.258, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Equal leadership." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.894, + 0.479, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.855, + 0.479, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4789" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.781, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 4789-4798 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that unlike other entailment datasets, our premises and hypotheses were obtained independently, and we label the full cross product of premises and hypotheses. In traditional entailment datasets, the hypotheses are constructed to be tied to a particular premise; however, in our formulation, the hypotheses are drawn from a large set of SDOH factors that may or may not be discussed in a particular premise (drawn from a clinical note). Since all our text comes from the same domain, we still have a non-negligible fraction of positive entailment labels (albeit with a much larger label imbalance than in standard NLI benchmark datasets)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.295, + 0.49, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This requires NLI methods to understand both the premise and the hypothesis, and defeats typical shortcuts that have been observed to work for other entailment datasets, such as guessing the label based on the hypothesis alone, or relying on simple syntactic clues such as the presence of negations (see Section 2.2). Indeed, even though our task does not require domain-specific knowledge, we observe that state-of-the-art models struggle to generalize from common NLI benchmarks to our dataset, and highlight typical failure cases (see Section 4)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.488, + 0.49, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned models in different setups: dual encoders, zero/few-shot prompting, and binary classification. We show that state-of-the-art off-the-shelf models, even if they were fine-tuned on various NLI datasets, do not reliably solve our problem; on the other hand, models fine-tuned on our training set robustly generalize both to unseen notes and to unseen factors, providing evidence for the usefulness of our dataset for model fine-tuning and evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.662, + 0.27, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.689, + 0.466, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.726, + 0.49, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There has been a lot of interest in using NLP techniques for SDOH extraction; see Patra et al. (2021) for a recent survey. The range and granularity of SDOH factors vary considerably across different papers. There has also been a range of methods used, from rule-based heuristics, to n-grams, to fine-tuning pretrained Transformer models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Many previous research studies on SDOH extraction were performed on EHR data from particular health systems and are not released publicly. Exceptions include the i2b2 NLP Smoking Challenge (Uzuner et al., 2008), which classified 502" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "deidentified medical discharge records for smoking status only, and small number of datasets based on MIMIC-III (Johnson et al., 2016), a large publicly available database of deidentified health records of patients who stayed in critical care units of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2001 and 2012. For example, Gehrmann et al. (2018) annotated MIMIC-III with binary labels for certain \"phenotypes\" including alcohol and substance abuse, and Lybarger et al. (2021) annotated note spans with SDOH information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.268, + 0.885, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We are aware of four other previous SDOH-related papers which used MTSamples data (Wang et al., 2015; Winden et al., 2017; Yetisgen et al., 2016; Yetisgen and Vanderwende, 2017), all of which focused on extracting and tagging SDOH-related spans from social history sections." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.885, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Among previous papers, the one methodologically closest to ours is Lituiev et al. (2023) which also formulated SDOH extraction as an entailment problem and evaluated RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) fine-tuned on ANLI (Nie et al., 2020) on clinical notes from UCSF, without any in-domain fine-tuning experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.516, + 0.78, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Natural Language Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural language inference (NLI), also called recognizing textual entailment (RTE), has been a very well-studied NLP task; see e.g. Storks et al. (2019); Poliak (2020) for recent surveys. Many standard NLI datasets, such as SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) or MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018), are obtained by automatically collecting premises and, for each premise and target entailment label, having human annotators write a hypothesis with the specified entailment relation to the premise. (Even some of the datasets specifically designed to address these datasets' shortcomings, such as ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), follow a similar setup.) It has been observed that this leads to annotation artifacts that lets models do well on these tasks without requiring true understanding of entailment, including by using simple syntactic heuristics (McCoy et al., 2019) or by completely ignoring the premise, and considering only the hypothesis (Gururangan et al., 2018; Poliak et al., 2018). ContractNLI (Koreeda and Manning, 2021) is an example of a previous dataset which used the same fixed set of hypotheses for all the premises." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4790" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.333, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Dataset Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.112, + 0.49, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We scraped all 5,003 medical reports from MTSamples. Within these reports, we obtained 1,030 note sections related to social history by searching for a collection of note section titles identified as synonyms of social history. We then split each note section into sentences, resulting in 3,281 sentences. Many sentences (such as \"He is married\") appear in multiple notes; after dedduplication, we have 1,398 unique sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.258, + 0.49, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We manually curated a collection of SDOH factors primarily from two sources, the AHRQ Social Determinants of Health Database (for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2020) and UCSF SIREN's Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors (Arons et al., 2018). We rephrased each factor as a full English sentence stating a fact about a person; e.g. \"The person is employed.\" For binary factors, we included a statement and its negation; e.g. \"The person currently drinks alcohol\" and \"The person currently does not drink alcohol.\" For factors with multiple potential values (such as housing status), we aimed to list all the common options. We grouped these 60 statements into 10 categories: smoking, alcohol use, drug use, employment, housing, food, transportation, health insurance, social support, and financial situation. See the full list in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.549, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each social history sentence, we asked human raters to select all the relevant categories and, within each category, all the statements that are supported by the social history snippet. Each snippet was rated by at least three raters. For each (snippet, statement) pair, we took the majority vote of raters to get binary entailment labels. Rater agreement was high, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.97 (computed over the binary entailment labels provided by different raters for (premise, hypothesis) pairs)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We removed all SDOH statements which were not entailed by any of the social history snippets as well as all note sentences that were not relevant to any SDOH categories. Finally, after inspecting the dataset, we removed three SDOH factors (\"The person is stably housed.\", \"The person has social support.\", \"The person does not have social support.\") because raters weren't able to consistently give correct ratings. That left us with 787 unique sentences and 38 SDOH factors. Since each snippet would typically only entail one factor or a small number of factors, the resulting dataset is heavily imbalanced: only \\(4.6\\%\\) of the labels are positive." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We split the dataset along the snippets into training, validation, and test sets with a 70:15:15 ratio, with the following modification: we remove a single pair of factors, \"The person lives alone\" and \"The person does not live alone,\" from the training and validation sets, in order to evaluate fine-tuned models' ability to generalize to unseen factors. In other words, the training, validation, and test sets have disjoint note snippets but the same SDOH factors, except for the test set which also contains an additional two factors that are not present in the training or validation sets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.292, + 0.698, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Model Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.319, + 0.884, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the typical use case is retrieving patients with a particular SDOH factor, and because of the heavy label imbalance in our dataset, we use precision, recall, and F1 score as our evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.384, + 0.884, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate state-of-the-art public models in four different setups:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.43, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Treating the problem as a retrieval task with SDOH factors as queries and note snippets as documents. We evaluate Sentence-T5 (Ni et al., 2022a) and GTR (Ni et al., 2022b), two state-of-the-art dual encoder models. We select the cosine similarity threshold which maximizes F1 score on the training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.556, + 0.885, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- A general-purpose NLI model. We evaluate the SENTLI model (Schuster et al., 2022), a state-of-the-art NLI model (T5 large fine-tuned on the SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015), MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), Fever (Thorne et al., 2018), and VitaminC (Schuster et al., 2021) datasets). To help the model adapt to the label imbalance in our dataset, we also evaluate it with re-tuning the threshold for positive prediction to maximize F1 score on our training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.746, + 0.884, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Zero/few-shot prompting. We evaluate FlanT5 XXL (Chung et al., 2022) and FlanUL2 (Tay et al., 2023) in both a zero- and a few-shot setting. These models instruction tuned for a large set of tasks, including NLI tasks. (See Appendix B for details.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.855, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Fine-tuning experiments. We fine-tune T5 and Flan-T5 on our dataset (SDOH-NLI), on ANLI, and on a mixture of both at various model sizes. (See Appendix C for details.)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.43, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4791" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.082, + 0.803, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelPrecisionRecallF1
Sentence-T5 11B.2826.523.3669
GTR XXL.3148.4885.3829
SENTLI.4438.8161.5749
SENTLI, threshold tuned.5721.7299.6414
Flan-T5 XXL 0-shot.6867.6552.6706
Flan-T5 XXL 5-shot.6297.6839.6556
Flan-UL2 0-shot.5922.7011.6421
Flan-UL2 5-shot.5536.7126.6231
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI.356.8736.5058
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on SDOH-NLI.9295.8333.8788
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.321, + 0.884, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Scores of retrieval-based, general-purpose NLI, in-context, and fine-tuned models on the SDOH test set. See Appendix C for additional fine-tuning experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.376, + 0.219, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.397, + 0.486, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 shows selected results (see Appendix D for more model fine-tuning metrics). First, we observe that while our problem can naturally be framed as an information retrieval problem, even state-of-the-art retrieval models perform poorly on it; formulating the problem as natural language inference yields dramatically better results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, even powerful models fine-tuned for NLI, either on NLI datasets alone or as part of the much larger Flan collection, do not reliably solve our problem, with an F1 score of at most .67 on the test set. Even T5 small fine-tuned on our dataset outperforms the largest off-the-shelf models, highlighting the added value of our dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.489, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When prompting instruction-tuned models, including few-shot examples does not appear to add any value compared to a zero-shot setup. We conjecture that this is because the models are already familiar with the NLI task and the prompt format from instruction tuning, and presenting them with a small number of additional examples is not sufficient for teaching them the difference between this task and the NLI benchmark datasets they have seen during fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For fine-tuned models below XXL size, when fine-tuning on the SDOH-NLI training set only, we observed poor generalization to the held-out SDOH factors in the test set (see Appendix D for detailed metrics). Because of this, why we experimented with fine-tuning on a combination of our data and ANLI R1, a challenging general-purpose NLI dataset of a similar size. For smaller models," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.376, + 0.884, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fine-tuning on this mixture enabled robust generalization to unseen factors without sacrificing overall test performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.454, + 0.64, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "What makes our dataset challenging for models fine-tuned on standard NLI datasets? We emphasize that it is not that it requires any specialized (e.g., medical) knowledge: most of our examples describe everyday situations in plain English (e.g., \"The patient is retired on disability due to her knee replacements\"); human raters without any domain-specific training had no difficulty understanding them. We conjecture that the main difference is that the hypotheses of typical NLI datasets are written to satisfy a given entailment label for a given premise, whereas ours are obtained independently from the premises, and therefore their entailment status can be more subtle and ambiguous. These models also struggled with distinguishing between statements about the present and the past; e.g., Flan-UL2 erroneously predicting that \"He is not a smoker\" entails \"The person wasn't a smoker in the past.\" Also, our dataset contains a lot of irrelevant hypotheses and requires the model to correctly classify all of those; we see off-the-shelf models occasionally giving them positive labels (e.g. predicting that \"She was living alone and is now living in assisted living.\" implies \"The person drank alcohol in the past.), hurting precision. As an example, Flan-T5 fine-tuned on ANLI had comparable recall to our best models, but much worse precision." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4792" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.248, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.493, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we introduced SDOH-NLI, a new entailment dataset containing social history snippets as premises and social and behavioral determinants of health as hypotheses. Our dataset was designed both to reflect realistic use cases of SDOH extraction in clinical settings as well as to provide a high quality entailment dataset to support broader NLI research. We evaluated baseline methods using state-of-the-art public models in a variety of setups, and highlighted novel and challenging features of our dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.301, + 0.279, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.327, + 0.49, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The authors would like to thank Jonas B. Kemp, Von Nguyen, Birju Patel, Martin G. Seneviratne, Andy Strunk, and Vinh Q. Tran for their valuable feedback and discussions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.403, + 0.22, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.43, + 0.492, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our dataset is English-only, and reflects the American healthcare system. While a lot of the social and behavioral determinants of health mentioned in the data could apply elsewhere, too, their distribution and the language used to describe them could reflect U.S. norms. Also, since the dataset is based on transcription samples, the text can be cleaner than in some other settings (such as notes in EHRs), where the task could be more challenging due to typos and abbreviations that do not appear in our dataset. In such settings, performance could be improved by first using the methods of Rajkumar et al. (2022) to decode abbreviations, but we have not included this in our evaluations. Finally, our dataset only contains short note snippets, and we have not evaluated the models' ability to reconcile contradictory statements or reason about the chronology of information in longer patient records. For longer contexts, especially if the social history sections don't fit in the Transformer model's context window, we recommend evaluating the methods of Schuster et al. (2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.797, + 0.267, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine learning research in the clinical domain has many ethical considerations. Given the nature of this work is to identify opportunities for care teams to improve the health outcomes of patients due to factors commonly not addressed, we think it contributes to human well-being and avoids harms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The use of public, non-identifiable data that is released for the NLP community helps balance the need to have reproducible (i.e., honest and trustworthy) data to enable technical advances while limiting the need for sensitive, private medical records for research. We acknowledge that the purpose of the work is to identify SDOH to provide additional help and services to patients, and we warn against any use to deny patients care or services based on any factor that can be identified. Although we picked a large number of SDOH factors to test our method, we acknowledge that there may be additional factors that are important for specific patients and populations, so we encourage researchers to reflect on those possible factors and create datasets to help others study them, as well." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.369, + 0.61, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.39, + 0.884, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abigail Arons, Sarah DeSilvey, Caroline Fichtenberg, and Laura Gottlieb. 2018. Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.439, + 0.885, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.528, + 0.887, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.603, + 0.885, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Agency for Healthcare Research and MD. Quality, Rockville. 2020. Social determinants of health database." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.651, + 0.885, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Gehrmann, Franck Dernoncourt, Yeran Li, Eric T Carlson, Joy T Wu, Jonathan Welt, John Foote Jr, Edward T Moseley, David W Grant, Patrick D Tyler, et al. 2018. Comparing deep learning and concept extraction based methods for patient phenotyping from clinical narratives. *PloS one*, 13(2):e0192360." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.752, + 0.886, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.866, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Lu Shen, Liwei H Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G Mark. 2016. Mimic-iii," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.39, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4793" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific data, 3(1):1-9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.121, + 0.49, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuta Koreeda and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Contractnli: A dataset for document-level natural language inference for contracts. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1907-1919." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.196, + 0.49, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dmytro S Lituiev, Benjamin Lacar, Sang Pak, Peter L Abramowitsch, Emilia H De Marchis, and Thomas A Peterson. 2023. Automatic extraction of social determinants of health from medical notes of chronic lower back pain patients. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.282, + 0.49, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.356, + 0.49, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, et al. 2023. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.43, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Lybarger, Mari Ostendorf, and Meliha Yetisgen. 2021. Annotating social determinants of health using active learning, and characterizing determinants using neural event extraction. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 113:103631." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.504, + 0.49, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.578, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2022a. Sentence-t5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1864–1874." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.666, + 0.49, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jianmo Ni, Chen Qu, Jing Lu, Zhuyun Dai, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Ji Ma, Vincent Zhao, Yi Luan, Keith Hall, Ming-Wei Chang, and Yinfei Yang. 2022b. Large dual encoders are generalizable retrievers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9844–9855, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.779, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial nli: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4885-4901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Braja G Patra, Mohit M Sharma, Veer Vekaria, Prakash Adekkanattu, Olga V Patterson, Benjamin Glicksberg, Lauren A Lepow, Euijung Ryu, Joanna M Biernacka, Al'ona Furmanchuk, et al. 2021. Extracting" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "social determinants of health from electronic health records using natural language processing: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(12):2716-2727." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.15, + 0.885, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Poliak. 2020. A survey on recognizing textual entailment as an nlp evaluation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems, pages 92-109." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.213, + 0.885, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.303, + 0.885, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alvin Rajkomar, Eric Loreaux, Yuchen Liu, Jonas Kemp, Benny Li, Ming-Jun Chen, Yi Zhang, Afroz Mohiuddin, and Juraj Gottweis. 2022. Deciphering clinical abbreviations with a privacy protecting machine learning system. Nature Communications, 13(1):7456." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.392, + 0.885, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, et al. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17189." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.481, + 0.885, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tal Schuster, Sihao Chen, Senaka Buthpitiya, Alex Fabrikant, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Stretching sentence-pair NLI models to reason over long documents and clusters. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 394-412, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.584, + 0.885, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, and Regina Barzilay. 2021. Get your vitamin c! robust fact verification with contrastive evidence. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 624-643." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.673, + 0.885, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shane Storks, Qiaozi Gao, and Joyce Y Chai. 2019. Recent advances in natural language inference: A survey of benchmarks, resources, and approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01172." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.737, + 0.885, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Steven Zheng, et al. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERIFICATION. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4794" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Papers), pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.122, + 0.49, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Özlem Uzuner, Ira Goldstein, Yuan Luo, and Isaac Kohane. 2008. Identifying patient smoking status from medical discharge records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(1):14-24." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.185, + 0.49, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yan Wang, Elizabeth S Chen, Serguei Pakhomov, Elliot Arsoniadis, Elizabeth W Carter, Elizabeth Lindemann, Indra Neil Sarkar, and Genevieve B Melton. 2015. Automated extraction of substance use information from clinical texts. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2015, page 2121. American Medical Informatics Association." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.287, + 0.49, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tamara J Winden, Elizabeth S Chen, Yan Wang, Elizabeth Lindemann, and Genevieve B Melton. 2017. Residence, living situation, and living conditions information documentation in clinical practice. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2017, page 1783. American Medical Informatics Association." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.491, + 0.489, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meliha Yetisgen, Elena Pellicer, David R Crosslin, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2016. Automatic identification of lifestyle and environmental factors from social history in clinical text. In Proceedings of AMIA 2016 Joint Summits on Translational Science." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meliha Yetisgen and Lucy Vanderwende. 2017. Automatic identification of substance abuse from social history in clinical text. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: 16th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2017, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2017, Proceedings 16, pages 171-181. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.681, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Labeling Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.11, + 0.845, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raters were given the following instructions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.126, + 0.884, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"In this task, you will be given a list of snippets from transcribed medical records, describing a person's social history. Your job is to select the categories that are relevant to the snippet and, in each category, select statements about the person that are supported by the snippet." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.223, + 0.882, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Only select categories and statements relevant to the subject of the sentence, NOT if they apply to someone else (such as the subject's relatives)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.271, + 0.884, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The source of the medical transcript samples is a public dataset (MTSamples.com), and not your, other raters' or users health transcript data.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.32, + 0.884, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each snippet, they were required select one or more of the following categories (including \"None of the above\" if none of the categories were relevant). If they selected a category, the statements within the category would be displayed, and they were required to select one of statements within that category, or \"None of the above\":" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.442, + 0.619, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Smoking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.466, + 0.833, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is currently a smoker." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.485, + 0.86, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is currently not a smoker." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.503, + 0.858, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person was a smoker in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.521, + 0.878, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person wasn't a smoker in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.539, + 0.722, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.466, + 0.878, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.565, + 0.64, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Alcohol use" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.588, + 0.854, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person currently drinks alcohol." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.606, + 0.884, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person currently does not drink alcohol." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.64, + 0.86, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person drank alcohol in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.659, + 0.881, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person did not drink alcohol in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.693, + 0.722, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.588, + 0.884, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.72, + 0.619, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Drug use" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.743, + 0.776, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is a drug user." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.761, + 0.804, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is not a drug user." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.78, + 0.872, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person was a drug user in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.798, + 0.884, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person wasn't a drug user in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.816, + 0.77, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person uses cocaine." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.834, + 0.83, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not use cocaine." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.852, + 0.852, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person used cocaine in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.87, + 0.881, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person did not use cocaine in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.904, + 0.788, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person uses marijuana." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4795" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.086, + 0.452, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not use marijuana." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.104, + 0.475, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person used marijuana in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.122, + 0.486, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person did not use marijuana in the past." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.156, + 0.488, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person uses opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.19, + 0.488, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.224, + 0.488, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person used opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.259, + 0.486, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person did not use opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.293, + 0.328, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.319, + 0.252, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Employment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.343, + 0.373, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is employed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.36, + 0.4, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is not employed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.379, + 0.442, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is employed part time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.397, + 0.366, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is a student." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.415, + 0.398, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is a homemaker." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.433, + 0.488, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is retired due to age or preference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.467, + 0.47, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is retired due to disability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.485, + 0.486, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is retired due to an unknown reason." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.52, + 0.328, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.343, + 0.488, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.546, + 0.219, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Housing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.569, + 0.486, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person lives in their own or their family's home." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.603, + 0.467, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person lives in a housing facility." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.621, + 0.369, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is homeless." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.64, + 0.401, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is stably housed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.657, + 0.486, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person's housing is unsuited to their needs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.691, + 0.328, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.569, + 0.486, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.718, + 0.194, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Food" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.741, + 0.486, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is able to obtain food on a consistent basis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.775, + 0.486, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is not able to obtain food on a consistent basis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.81, + 0.488, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has consistent fruit and vegetable intake." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.844, + 0.486, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not have consistent fruit and vegetable intake." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.878, + 0.328, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.741, + 0.488, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.264, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Transportation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.085, + 0.88, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has access to transportation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.104, + 0.884, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not have access to transportation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.139, + 0.812, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has access to a car." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.157, + 0.884, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not have access to a car." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.175, + 0.875, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has access to public transit." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.193, + 0.884, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not have access to public transit." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.228, + 0.884, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has issues with finding transportation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.262, + 0.723, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.289, + 0.676, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Health insurance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.312, + 0.881, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has private health insurance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.33, + 0.788, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is on Medicare." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.349, + 0.788, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is on Medicaid." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.367, + 0.884, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not have health insurance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.401, + 0.723, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.312, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.428, + 0.657, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Social support" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.452, + 0.81, + 0.467 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person has social support." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.47, + 0.884, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not have social support." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.489, + 0.757, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person lives alone." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.507, + 0.816, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person does not live alone." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.525, + 0.723, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.452, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.551, + 0.688, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Financial situation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.575, + 0.859, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is below the poverty line." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.594, + 0.858, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is above the poverty line." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.612, + 0.884, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is able to afford medications." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.63, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The person is not able to afford medications." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.665, + 0.723, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.575, + 0.884, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.691, + 0.686, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- None of the above" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.718, + 0.695, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Prompting Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our goal with the design of our zero/few-shot experiments was to stay close to how the models were trained and evaluated on similar NLI tasks. Since the models we used were fine-tuned on the Flan collection (Longpre et al., 2023), which includes several NLI datasets, we reused some of the Flan collections's prompt templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In particular, we used the templates for the SNLI and MNLI dataset which were the most relevant to our data. (We excluded templates for other datasets such as RTE, ANLI, or WNLI because the wording" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4796" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of some of the prompts could be slightly misleading; e.g. by referring to the premise as a \"paragraph.\") For each example, we chose a prompt template uniformly at random from the 19 templates. For few-shot experiments, we first picked a random positive example from the training set, then picked the other few-shot examples uniformly at random from the training examples. (Without explicitly forcing at least one example to be positive, it would be very likely that all the few-shot examples would be negative, given the label imbalance in the dataset. We tried dropping that requirement and sampling all examples at random, which resulted in a slight drop in model performance, as we expected.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.327, + 0.49, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since SNLI and MNLI have three answer options (\"yes,\" \"it is not possible to tell,\" \"no\"), we kept all three of these options in the prompt template, even though our dataset is binary. We experimented with dropping either the \"no\" or the \"it is not possible to tell\" option; both of these deviations from the original prompts resulted in slight decreases in model performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.457, + 0.49, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use rank classification to obtain binary labels (as is customary): i.e., instead of decoding a model prediction, we score the three answer options (for three copies of each input example) and consider the prediction positive if \"yes\" has the highest score. Similarly to our experiment with SENTLI, we also tried taking softmax over the three options and using a fixed threshold for \"yes\" which maximizes F1 score on the training set; this resulted in a small drop in test F1 score (e.g., .6501 to .6222 for Flan-UL2)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.646, + 0.31, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Fine-tuning Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All models were fine-tuned using the T5X framework (Roberts et al., 2022) on TPUv3 chips for \\(10\\mathrm{k}\\) steps with batch size 32 and learning rate 1e-4, with the exception of the T5 small size models which were finetuned for \\(50\\mathrm{k}\\) steps. For each model, we picked the checkpoint with the highest F1 score on the validation set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.797, + 0.48, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Additional Model Fine-tuning Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "See Table 2 for the full set of results from our finetuning experiments. Here we also include metrics on the subset of the test set consisting on the new SDOH factors not included in the training and validation sets to highlight the differences in models' ability to generalize to unseen factors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that since Flan-T5 models between sizes large and XL fine-tuned on either ANLI or our SDOH dataset alone underperformed the same models fine-tuned on the combined dataset, we did not perform these dataset ablations on smaller Flan-T5 models or on T5 below the XXL size." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4797" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.363, + 0.88, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelSizeDatasetTest PTest RTest F1New factors PNew factors RNew factors F1
T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.7987.7069.7500.6667.0833.1481
T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7396.8161.7760.75.375.5
T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8247.7299.7744.75.125.2143
T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8391.8391.8391.9231.5.6486
T5XXLANLI.8391.8391.8391.75.1.8571
T5XXLSDOH-NLI.8859.7586.8173.8571.25.3871
T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.9024.8506.8757.88891..9412
Flan-T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.8075.7471.7761.6667.0833.1481
Flan-T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7956.8276.8113.6216.9583.7541
Flan-T5largeANLI.1777.8506.2939.2421.9583.3866
Flan-T5largeSDOH-NLI.8041.6839.7391.2308.125.1622
Flan-T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8212.8448.8329.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XLANLI.2868.8851.4332.7667.9583.8519
Flan-T5XLSDOH.9071.7299.80891..125.2222
Flan-T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8647.8448.8547.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XXLANLI.3560.8736.5058.7931.9583.8679
Flan-T5XXLSDOH-NLI.9295.8333.87881..875.9333
Flan-T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663.8846.9583.92
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.605, + 0.884, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Precision, recall, and F1 scores of various models on the full test set and on the subset of the test set consisting of the two held-out factors." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4798" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_origin.pdf b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..21e824c0a835bdbceeff3c4c3c2984aad222ee08 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/a4f22374-5104-49b6-a9f1-43a434ee9541_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:17d95752c7da727a696486f4a06863b87d96648efc977b998349479c83bc42ad +size 187655 diff --git a/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/full.md b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90a24a0818f9a9a69328d4037ffa6855a2997b73 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,294 @@ +# SDOH-NLI: a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes + +Adam D. Lelkes1*, Eric Loreaux2†, Tal Schuster1, Ming-Jun Chen1‡, Alvin Rajkomar1‡ + +1Google Research, 2Curai Health + +# Abstract + +Social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes, and extracting these determinants from clinical notes is a first step to help healthcare providers systematically identify opportunities to provide appropriate care and address disparities. Progress on using NLP methods for this task has been hindered by the lack of high-quality publicly available labeled data, largely due to the privacy and regulatory constraints on the use of real patients' information. This paper introduces a new dataset, SDOH-NLI, that is based on publicly available notes and which we release publicly. We formulate SDOH extraction as a natural language inference (NLI) task, and provide binary textual entailment labels obtained from human raters for a cross product of a set of social history snippets as premises and SDOH factors as hypotheses. Our dataset differs from standard NLI benchmarks in that our premises and hypotheses are obtained independently. We evaluate both "off-the-shelf" entailment models as well as models fine-tuned on our data, and highlight the ways in which our dataset appears more challenging than commonly used NLI datasets. + +# 1 Introduction + +There has been growing recognition that social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes for individuals and populations. The ability to accurately identify and extract social and behavioral determinants of health from clinical notes can provide valuable insights that can enable healthcare providers to better understand and address the underlying determinants of health that contribute to poor health outcomes and health disparities. + +Social determinants of health are frequently recorded in clinical notes as unstructured text, so natural language processing (NLP) can be a valuable tool for extracting actionable insights for care teams. However, research in this area often uses patient records from private health systems' electronic health records (EHRs), which makes it difficult to compare results from other health systems or even replicate the studies. The development and release of high-quality publicly available datasets could enable more reproducible research in this area. + +In this work, we introduce a new, public SDOH dataset based on MTSamples.com, an online collection of transcribed medical reports. Our setup is motivated by the use cases of slicing patient populations along social determinant dimensions for population analytics, and retrieving patients with certain social determinants of health to allow for more targeted outreach and intervention. Given a large set of social determinant factors, our goal is to make binary determinations for each patient about whether that patient's notes imply a particular SDOH factor. In other words, for example, we want to be able to find all patients who lack access to transportation, as opposed to just tagging transportation-related spans in their notes, as done in some previous work. + +To achieve this goal, we formulate the task as a textual entailment problem, with patient note snippets as the premises, SDOH factors as the hypotheses, and binary entailment labels. We use human annotators to label 1,398 social history snippets according to a curated list of 60 SDOH statements, resulting in a dataset of 29,635 labeled premise-hypothesis examples after some filtering (see Section 3 for details). We release this dataset publicly. We also evaluate state-of-the-art publicly available large language models on our data in a range of different settings (see Section 4). + +A notable feature of our entailment dataset is + +that unlike other entailment datasets, our premises and hypotheses were obtained independently, and we label the full cross product of premises and hypotheses. In traditional entailment datasets, the hypotheses are constructed to be tied to a particular premise; however, in our formulation, the hypotheses are drawn from a large set of SDOH factors that may or may not be discussed in a particular premise (drawn from a clinical note). Since all our text comes from the same domain, we still have a non-negligible fraction of positive entailment labels (albeit with a much larger label imbalance than in standard NLI benchmark datasets). + +This requires NLI methods to understand both the premise and the hypothesis, and defeats typical shortcuts that have been observed to work for other entailment datasets, such as guessing the label based on the hypothesis alone, or relying on simple syntactic clues such as the presence of negations (see Section 2.2). Indeed, even though our task does not require domain-specific knowledge, we observe that state-of-the-art models struggle to generalize from common NLI benchmarks to our dataset, and highlight typical failure cases (see Section 4). + +We evaluate both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned models in different setups: dual encoders, zero/few-shot prompting, and binary classification. We show that state-of-the-art off-the-shelf models, even if they were fine-tuned on various NLI datasets, do not reliably solve our problem; on the other hand, models fine-tuned on our training set robustly generalize both to unseen notes and to unseen factors, providing evidence for the usefulness of our dataset for model fine-tuning and evaluation. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health + +There has been a lot of interest in using NLP techniques for SDOH extraction; see Patra et al. (2021) for a recent survey. The range and granularity of SDOH factors vary considerably across different papers. There has also been a range of methods used, from rule-based heuristics, to n-grams, to fine-tuning pretrained Transformer models. + +Many previous research studies on SDOH extraction were performed on EHR data from particular health systems and are not released publicly. Exceptions include the i2b2 NLP Smoking Challenge (Uzuner et al., 2008), which classified 502 + +deidentified medical discharge records for smoking status only, and small number of datasets based on MIMIC-III (Johnson et al., 2016), a large publicly available database of deidentified health records of patients who stayed in critical care units of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2001 and 2012. For example, Gehrmann et al. (2018) annotated MIMIC-III with binary labels for certain "phenotypes" including alcohol and substance abuse, and Lybarger et al. (2021) annotated note spans with SDOH information. + +We are aware of four other previous SDOH-related papers which used MTSamples data (Wang et al., 2015; Winden et al., 2017; Yetisgen et al., 2016; Yetisgen and Vanderwende, 2017), all of which focused on extracting and tagging SDOH-related spans from social history sections. + +Among previous papers, the one methodologically closest to ours is Lituiev et al. (2023) which also formulated SDOH extraction as an entailment problem and evaluated RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) fine-tuned on ANLI (Nie et al., 2020) on clinical notes from UCSF, without any in-domain fine-tuning experiments. + +# 2.2 Natural Language Inference + +Natural language inference (NLI), also called recognizing textual entailment (RTE), has been a very well-studied NLP task; see e.g. Storks et al. (2019); Poliak (2020) for recent surveys. Many standard NLI datasets, such as SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) or MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018), are obtained by automatically collecting premises and, for each premise and target entailment label, having human annotators write a hypothesis with the specified entailment relation to the premise. (Even some of the datasets specifically designed to address these datasets' shortcomings, such as ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), follow a similar setup.) It has been observed that this leads to annotation artifacts that lets models do well on these tasks without requiring true understanding of entailment, including by using simple syntactic heuristics (McCoy et al., 2019) or by completely ignoring the premise, and considering only the hypothesis (Gururangan et al., 2018; Poliak et al., 2018). ContractNLI (Koreeda and Manning, 2021) is an example of a previous dataset which used the same fixed set of hypotheses for all the premises. + +# 3 Dataset Construction + +We scraped all 5,003 medical reports from MTSamples. Within these reports, we obtained 1,030 note sections related to social history by searching for a collection of note section titles identified as synonyms of social history. We then split each note section into sentences, resulting in 3,281 sentences. Many sentences (such as "He is married") appear in multiple notes; after dedduplication, we have 1,398 unique sentences. + +We manually curated a collection of SDOH factors primarily from two sources, the AHRQ Social Determinants of Health Database (for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2020) and UCSF SIREN's Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors (Arons et al., 2018). We rephrased each factor as a full English sentence stating a fact about a person; e.g. "The person is employed." For binary factors, we included a statement and its negation; e.g. "The person currently drinks alcohol" and "The person currently does not drink alcohol." For factors with multiple potential values (such as housing status), we aimed to list all the common options. We grouped these 60 statements into 10 categories: smoking, alcohol use, drug use, employment, housing, food, transportation, health insurance, social support, and financial situation. See the full list in Appendix A. + +For each social history sentence, we asked human raters to select all the relevant categories and, within each category, all the statements that are supported by the social history snippet. Each snippet was rated by at least three raters. For each (snippet, statement) pair, we took the majority vote of raters to get binary entailment labels. Rater agreement was high, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.97 (computed over the binary entailment labels provided by different raters for (premise, hypothesis) pairs). + +We removed all SDOH statements which were not entailed by any of the social history snippets as well as all note sentences that were not relevant to any SDOH categories. Finally, after inspecting the dataset, we removed three SDOH factors ("The person is stably housed.", "The person has social support.", "The person does not have social support.") because raters weren't able to consistently give correct ratings. That left us with 787 unique sentences and 38 SDOH factors. Since each snippet would typically only entail one factor or a small number of factors, the resulting dataset is heavily imbalanced: only $4.6\%$ of the labels are positive. + +We split the dataset along the snippets into training, validation, and test sets with a 70:15:15 ratio, with the following modification: we remove a single pair of factors, "The person lives alone" and "The person does not live alone," from the training and validation sets, in order to evaluate fine-tuned models' ability to generalize to unseen factors. In other words, the training, validation, and test sets have disjoint note snippets but the same SDOH factors, except for the test set which also contains an additional two factors that are not present in the training or validation sets. + +# 4 Model Evaluation + +Since the typical use case is retrieving patients with a particular SDOH factor, and because of the heavy label imbalance in our dataset, we use precision, recall, and F1 score as our evaluation metrics. + +We evaluate state-of-the-art public models in four different setups: + +- Treating the problem as a retrieval task with SDOH factors as queries and note snippets as documents. We evaluate Sentence-T5 (Ni et al., 2022a) and GTR (Ni et al., 2022b), two state-of-the-art dual encoder models. We select the cosine similarity threshold which maximizes F1 score on the training set. +- A general-purpose NLI model. We evaluate the SENTLI model (Schuster et al., 2022), a state-of-the-art NLI model (T5 large fine-tuned on the SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015), MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), Fever (Thorne et al., 2018), and VitaminC (Schuster et al., 2021) datasets). To help the model adapt to the label imbalance in our dataset, we also evaluate it with re-tuning the threshold for positive prediction to maximize F1 score on our training set. +- Zero/few-shot prompting. We evaluate FlanT5 XXL (Chung et al., 2022) and FlanUL2 (Tay et al., 2023) in both a zero- and a few-shot setting. These models instruction tuned for a large set of tasks, including NLI tasks. (See Appendix B for details.) +- Fine-tuning experiments. We fine-tune T5 and Flan-T5 on our dataset (SDOH-NLI), on ANLI, and on a mixture of both at various model sizes. (See Appendix C for details.) + +
ModelPrecisionRecallF1
Sentence-T5 11B.2826.523.3669
GTR XXL.3148.4885.3829
SENTLI.4438.8161.5749
SENTLI, threshold tuned.5721.7299.6414
Flan-T5 XXL 0-shot.6867.6552.6706
Flan-T5 XXL 5-shot.6297.6839.6556
Flan-UL2 0-shot.5922.7011.6421
Flan-UL2 5-shot.5536.7126.6231
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI.356.8736.5058
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on SDOH-NLI.9295.8333.8788
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663
+ +Table 1: Scores of retrieval-based, general-purpose NLI, in-context, and fine-tuned models on the SDOH test set. See Appendix C for additional fine-tuning experiments. + +# 4.1 Results + +Table 1 shows selected results (see Appendix D for more model fine-tuning metrics). First, we observe that while our problem can naturally be framed as an information retrieval problem, even state-of-the-art retrieval models perform poorly on it; formulating the problem as natural language inference yields dramatically better results. + +However, even powerful models fine-tuned for NLI, either on NLI datasets alone or as part of the much larger Flan collection, do not reliably solve our problem, with an F1 score of at most .67 on the test set. Even T5 small fine-tuned on our dataset outperforms the largest off-the-shelf models, highlighting the added value of our dataset. + +When prompting instruction-tuned models, including few-shot examples does not appear to add any value compared to a zero-shot setup. We conjecture that this is because the models are already familiar with the NLI task and the prompt format from instruction tuning, and presenting them with a small number of additional examples is not sufficient for teaching them the difference between this task and the NLI benchmark datasets they have seen during fine-tuning. + +For fine-tuned models below XXL size, when fine-tuning on the SDOH-NLI training set only, we observed poor generalization to the held-out SDOH factors in the test set (see Appendix D for detailed metrics). Because of this, why we experimented with fine-tuning on a combination of our data and ANLI R1, a challenging general-purpose NLI dataset of a similar size. For smaller models, + +fine-tuning on this mixture enabled robust generalization to unseen factors without sacrificing overall test performance. + +# 4.2 Discussion + +What makes our dataset challenging for models fine-tuned on standard NLI datasets? We emphasize that it is not that it requires any specialized (e.g., medical) knowledge: most of our examples describe everyday situations in plain English (e.g., "The patient is retired on disability due to her knee replacements"); human raters without any domain-specific training had no difficulty understanding them. We conjecture that the main difference is that the hypotheses of typical NLI datasets are written to satisfy a given entailment label for a given premise, whereas ours are obtained independently from the premises, and therefore their entailment status can be more subtle and ambiguous. These models also struggled with distinguishing between statements about the present and the past; e.g., Flan-UL2 erroneously predicting that "He is not a smoker" entails "The person wasn't a smoker in the past." Also, our dataset contains a lot of irrelevant hypotheses and requires the model to correctly classify all of those; we see off-the-shelf models occasionally giving them positive labels (e.g. predicting that "She was living alone and is now living in assisted living." implies "The person drank alcohol in the past.), hurting precision. As an example, Flan-T5 fine-tuned on ANLI had comparable recall to our best models, but much worse precision. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this work, we introduced SDOH-NLI, a new entailment dataset containing social history snippets as premises and social and behavioral determinants of health as hypotheses. Our dataset was designed both to reflect realistic use cases of SDOH extraction in clinical settings as well as to provide a high quality entailment dataset to support broader NLI research. We evaluated baseline methods using state-of-the-art public models in a variety of setups, and highlighted novel and challenging features of our dataset. + +# Acknowledgments + +The authors would like to thank Jonas B. Kemp, Von Nguyen, Birju Patel, Martin G. Seneviratne, Andy Strunk, and Vinh Q. Tran for their valuable feedback and discussions. + +# Limitations + +Our dataset is English-only, and reflects the American healthcare system. While a lot of the social and behavioral determinants of health mentioned in the data could apply elsewhere, too, their distribution and the language used to describe them could reflect U.S. norms. Also, since the dataset is based on transcription samples, the text can be cleaner than in some other settings (such as notes in EHRs), where the task could be more challenging due to typos and abbreviations that do not appear in our dataset. In such settings, performance could be improved by first using the methods of Rajkumar et al. (2022) to decode abbreviations, but we have not included this in our evaluations. Finally, our dataset only contains short note snippets, and we have not evaluated the models' ability to reconcile contradictory statements or reason about the chronology of information in longer patient records. For longer contexts, especially if the social history sections don't fit in the Transformer model's context window, we recommend evaluating the methods of Schuster et al. (2022). + +# Ethics Statement + +Machine learning research in the clinical domain has many ethical considerations. Given the nature of this work is to identify opportunities for care teams to improve the health outcomes of patients due to factors commonly not addressed, we think it contributes to human well-being and avoids harms. + +The use of public, non-identifiable data that is released for the NLP community helps balance the need to have reproducible (i.e., honest and trustworthy) data to enable technical advances while limiting the need for sensitive, private medical records for research. We acknowledge that the purpose of the work is to identify SDOH to provide additional help and services to patients, and we warn against any use to deny patients care or services based on any factor that can be identified. Although we picked a large number of SDOH factors to test our method, we acknowledge that there may be additional factors that are important for specific patients and populations, so we encourage researchers to reflect on those possible factors and create datasets to help others study them, as well. + +# References + +Abigail Arons, Sarah DeSilvey, Caroline Fichtenberg, and Laura Gottlieb. 2018. Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors. +Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642. +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. +Agency for Healthcare Research and MD. Quality, Rockville. 2020. Social determinants of health database. +Sebastian Gehrmann, Franck Dernoncourt, Yeran Li, Eric T Carlson, Joy T Wu, Jonathan Welt, John Foote Jr, Edward T Moseley, David W Grant, Patrick D Tyler, et al. 2018. Comparing deep learning and concept extraction based methods for patient phenotyping from clinical narratives. *PloS one*, 13(2):e0192360. +Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112. +Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Lu Shen, Liwei H Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G Mark. 2016. Mimic-iii, + +a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific data, 3(1):1-9. +Yuta Koreeda and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Contractnli: A dataset for document-level natural language inference for contracts. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1907-1919. +Dmytro S Lituiev, Benjamin Lacar, Sang Pak, Peter L Abramowitsch, Emilia H De Marchis, and Thomas A Peterson. 2023. Automatic extraction of social determinants of health from medical notes of chronic lower back pain patients. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, et al. 2023. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688. +Kevin Lybarger, Mari Ostendorf, and Meliha Yetisgen. 2021. Annotating social determinants of health using active learning, and characterizing determinants using neural event extraction. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 113:103631. +Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448. +Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2022a. Sentence-t5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1864–1874. +Jianmo Ni, Chen Qu, Jing Lu, Zhuyun Dai, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Ji Ma, Vincent Zhao, Yi Luan, Keith Hall, Ming-Wei Chang, and Yinfei Yang. 2022b. Large dual encoders are generalizable retrievers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9844–9855, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial nli: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4885-4901. +Braja G Patra, Mohit M Sharma, Veer Vekaria, Prakash Adekkanattu, Olga V Patterson, Benjamin Glicksberg, Lauren A Lepow, Euijung Ryu, Joanna M Biernacka, Al'ona Furmanchuk, et al. 2021. Extracting + +social determinants of health from electronic health records using natural language processing: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(12):2716-2727. +Adam Poliak. 2020. A survey on recognizing textual entailment as an nlp evaluation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems, pages 92-109. +Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191. +Alvin Rajkomar, Eric Loreaux, Yuchen Liu, Jonas Kemp, Benny Li, Ming-Jun Chen, Yi Zhang, Afroz Mohiuddin, and Juraj Gottweis. 2022. Deciphering clinical abbreviations with a privacy protecting machine learning system. Nature Communications, 13(1):7456. +Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, et al. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17189. +Tal Schuster, Sihao Chen, Senaka Buthpitiya, Alex Fabrikant, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Stretching sentence-pair NLI models to reason over long documents and clusters. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 394-412, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, and Regina Barzilay. 2021. Get your vitamin c! robust fact verification with contrastive evidence. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 624-643. +Shane Storks, Qiaozi Gao, and Joyce Y Chai. 2019. Recent advances in natural language inference: A survey of benchmarks, resources, and approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01172. +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Steven Zheng, et al. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. +James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERIFICATION. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long + +Papers), pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Özlem Uzuner, Ira Goldstein, Yuan Luo, and Isaac Kohane. 2008. Identifying patient smoking status from medical discharge records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(1):14-24. + +Yan Wang, Elizabeth S Chen, Serguei Pakhomov, Elliot Arsoniadis, Elizabeth W Carter, Elizabeth Lindemann, Indra Neil Sarkar, and Genevieve B Melton. 2015. Automated extraction of substance use information from clinical texts. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2015, page 2121. American Medical Informatics Association. + +Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122. + +Tamara J Winden, Elizabeth S Chen, Yan Wang, Elizabeth Lindemann, and Genevieve B Melton. 2017. Residence, living situation, and living conditions information documentation in clinical practice. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2017, page 1783. American Medical Informatics Association. + +Meliha Yetisgen, Elena Pellicer, David R Crosslin, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2016. Automatic identification of lifestyle and environmental factors from social history in clinical text. In Proceedings of AMIA 2016 Joint Summits on Translational Science. + +Meliha Yetisgen and Lucy Vanderwende. 2017. Automatic identification of substance abuse from social history in clinical text. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: 16th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2017, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2017, Proceedings 16, pages 171-181. Springer. + +# A Labeling Setup + +Raters were given the following instructions: + +"In this task, you will be given a list of snippets from transcribed medical records, describing a person's social history. Your job is to select the categories that are relevant to the snippet and, in each category, select statements about the person that are supported by the snippet. + +Only select categories and statements relevant to the subject of the sentence, NOT if they apply to someone else (such as the subject's relatives). + +The source of the medical transcript samples is a public dataset (MTSamples.com), and not your, other raters' or users health transcript data." + +For each snippet, they were required select one or more of the following categories (including "None of the above" if none of the categories were relevant). If they selected a category, the statements within the category would be displayed, and they were required to select one of statements within that category, or "None of the above": + +Smoking + +- The person is currently a smoker. +- The person is currently not a smoker. +- The person was a smoker in the past. +- The person wasn't a smoker in the past. +- None of the above + +- Alcohol use + +- The person currently drinks alcohol. +- The person currently does not drink alcohol. +- The person drank alcohol in the past. +- The person did not drink alcohol in the past. +- None of the above + +- Drug use + +- The person is a drug user. +- The person is not a drug user. +- The person was a drug user in the past. +- The person wasn't a drug user in the past. +- The person uses cocaine. +- The person does not use cocaine. +- The person used cocaine in the past. +- The person did not use cocaine in the past. +- The person uses marijuana. + +- The person does not use marijuana. +- The person used marijuana in the past. +- The person did not use marijuana in the past. +- The person uses opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone). +- The person does not opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone). +- The person used opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone). +- The person did not use opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone). +- None of the above + +# - Employment + +- The person is employed. +- The person is not employed. +- The person is employed part time. +- The person is a student. +- The person is a homemaker. +- The person is retired due to age or preference. +- The person is retired due to disability. +- The person is retired due to an unknown reason. +- None of the above + +# Housing + +- The person lives in their own or their family's home. +- The person lives in a housing facility. +- The person is homeless. +- The person is stably housed. +- The person's housing is unsuited to their needs. +- None of the above + +# Food + +- The person is able to obtain food on a consistent basis. +- The person is not able to obtain food on a consistent basis. +- The person has consistent fruit and vegetable intake. +- The person does not have consistent fruit and vegetable intake. +- None of the above + +# - Transportation + +- The person has access to transportation. +- The person does not have access to transportation. +- The person has access to a car. +- The person does not have access to a car. +- The person has access to public transit. +- The person does not have access to public transit. +- The person has issues with finding transportation. +- None of the above + +# Health insurance + +- The person has private health insurance. +- The person is on Medicare. +- The person is on Medicaid. +- The person does not have health insurance. +- None of the above + +# Social support + +- The person has social support. +- The person does not have social support. +- The person lives alone. +- The person does not live alone. +- None of the above + +# Financial situation + +- The person is below the poverty line. +- The person is above the poverty line. +- The person is able to afford medications. +- The person is not able to afford medications. +- None of the above + +# - None of the above + +# B Prompting Setup + +Our goal with the design of our zero/few-shot experiments was to stay close to how the models were trained and evaluated on similar NLI tasks. Since the models we used were fine-tuned on the Flan collection (Longpre et al., 2023), which includes several NLI datasets, we reused some of the Flan collections's prompt templates. + +In particular, we used the templates for the SNLI and MNLI dataset which were the most relevant to our data. (We excluded templates for other datasets such as RTE, ANLI, or WNLI because the wording + +of some of the prompts could be slightly misleading; e.g. by referring to the premise as a "paragraph.") For each example, we chose a prompt template uniformly at random from the 19 templates. For few-shot experiments, we first picked a random positive example from the training set, then picked the other few-shot examples uniformly at random from the training examples. (Without explicitly forcing at least one example to be positive, it would be very likely that all the few-shot examples would be negative, given the label imbalance in the dataset. We tried dropping that requirement and sampling all examples at random, which resulted in a slight drop in model performance, as we expected.) + +Since SNLI and MNLI have three answer options ("yes," "it is not possible to tell," "no"), we kept all three of these options in the prompt template, even though our dataset is binary. We experimented with dropping either the "no" or the "it is not possible to tell" option; both of these deviations from the original prompts resulted in slight decreases in model performance. + +We use rank classification to obtain binary labels (as is customary): i.e., instead of decoding a model prediction, we score the three answer options (for three copies of each input example) and consider the prediction positive if "yes" has the highest score. Similarly to our experiment with SENTLI, we also tried taking softmax over the three options and using a fixed threshold for "yes" which maximizes F1 score on the training set; this resulted in a small drop in test F1 score (e.g., .6501 to .6222 for Flan-UL2). + +# C Fine-tuning Setup + +All models were fine-tuned using the T5X framework (Roberts et al., 2022) on TPUv3 chips for $10\mathrm{k}$ steps with batch size 32 and learning rate 1e-4, with the exception of the T5 small size models which were finetuned for $50\mathrm{k}$ steps. For each model, we picked the checkpoint with the highest F1 score on the validation set. + +# D Additional Model Fine-tuning Results + +See Table 2 for the full set of results from our finetuning experiments. Here we also include metrics on the subset of the test set consisting on the new SDOH factors not included in the training and validation sets to highlight the differences in models' ability to generalize to unseen factors. + +Note that since Flan-T5 models between sizes large and XL fine-tuned on either ANLI or our SDOH dataset alone underperformed the same models fine-tuned on the combined dataset, we did not perform these dataset ablations on smaller Flan-T5 models or on T5 below the XXL size. + +
ModelSizeDatasetTest PTest RTest F1New factors PNew factors RNew factors F1
T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.7987.7069.7500.6667.0833.1481
T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7396.8161.7760.75.375.5
T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8247.7299.7744.75.125.2143
T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8391.8391.8391.9231.5.6486
T5XXLANLI.8391.8391.8391.75.1.8571
T5XXLSDOH-NLI.8859.7586.8173.8571.25.3871
T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.9024.8506.8757.88891..9412
Flan-T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.8075.7471.7761.6667.0833.1481
Flan-T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7956.8276.8113.6216.9583.7541
Flan-T5largeANLI.1777.8506.2939.2421.9583.3866
Flan-T5largeSDOH-NLI.8041.6839.7391.2308.125.1622
Flan-T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8212.8448.8329.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XLANLI.2868.8851.4332.7667.9583.8519
Flan-T5XLSDOH.9071.7299.80891..125.2222
Flan-T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8647.8448.8547.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XXLANLI.3560.8736.5058.7931.9583.8679
Flan-T5XXLSDOH-NLI.9295.8333.87881..875.9333
Flan-T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663.8846.9583.92
+ +Table 2: Precision, recall, and F1 scores of various models on the full test set and on the subset of the test set consisting of the two held-out factors. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/images.zip b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..612924082b4fd3fa7bb9ed19be255fbc84765653 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:723ee60bd823fc61f0e6ad7f1f5a1b8c67ad85563a3bcd685519542f9a8185c0 +size 167470 diff --git a/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/layout.json b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9170eb0bb028b5829f7be2b82c14095d9354fee3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SDOH-NLI_ a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7220 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 75, + 473, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 75, + 473, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 75, + 473, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SDOH-NLI: a Dataset for Inferring Social Determinants of Health from Clinical Notes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 129, + 515, + 146 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 129, + 515, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 129, + 515, + 146 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam D. Lelkes1*, Eric Loreaux2†, Tal Schuster1, Ming-Jun Chen1‡, Alvin Rajkomar1‡" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 158, + 380, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 158, + 380, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 158, + 380, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Google Research, 2Curai Health" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 230, + 274, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 230, + 274, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 230, + 274, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes, and extracting these determinants from clinical notes is a first step to help healthcare providers systematically identify opportunities to provide appropriate care and address disparities. Progress on using NLP methods for this task has been hindered by the lack of high-quality publicly available labeled data, largely due to the privacy and regulatory constraints on the use of real patients' information. This paper introduces a new dataset, SDOH-NLI, that is based on publicly available notes and which we release publicly. We formulate SDOH extraction as a natural language inference (NLI) task, and provide binary textual entailment labels obtained from human raters for a cross product of a set of social history snippets as premises and SDOH factors as hypotheses. Our dataset differs from standard NLI benchmarks in that our premises and hypotheses are obtained independently. We evaluate both \"off-the-shelf\" entailment models as well as models fine-tuned on our data, and highlight the ways in which our dataset appears more challenging than commonly used NLI datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 559, + 155, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 559, + 155, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 559, + 155, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 292, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 292, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 292, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There has been growing recognition that social and behavioral determinants of health (SDOH) play a significant role in shaping health outcomes for individuals and populations. The ability to accurately identify and extract social and behavioral determinants of health from clinical notes can provide valuable insights that can enable healthcare providers to better understand and address the underlying determinants of health that contribute to poor health outcomes and health disparities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Social determinants of health are frequently recorded in clinical notes as unstructured text, so natural language processing (NLP) can be a valuable tool for extracting actionable insights for care teams. However, research in this area often uses patient records from private health systems' electronic health records (EHRs), which makes it difficult to compare results from other health systems or even replicate the studies. The development and release of high-quality publicly available datasets could enable more reproducible research in this area." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 527, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 527, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 527, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we introduce a new, public SDOH dataset based on MTSamples.com, an online collection of transcribed medical reports. Our setup is motivated by the use cases of slicing patient populations along social determinant dimensions for population analytics, and retrieving patients with certain social determinants of health to allow for more targeted outreach and intervention. Given a large set of social determinant factors, our goal is to make binary determinations for each patient about whether that patient's notes imply a particular SDOH factor. In other words, for example, we want to be able to find all patients who lack access to transportation, as opposed to just tagging transportation-related spans in their notes, as done in some previous work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 595, + 527, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 595, + 527, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 595, + 527, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To achieve this goal, we formulate the task as a textual entailment problem, with patient note snippets as the premises, SDOH factors as the hypotheses, and binary entailment labels. We use human annotators to label 1,398 social history snippets according to a curated list of 60 SDOH statements, resulting in a dataset of 29,635 labeled premise-hypothesis examples after some filtering (see Section 3 for details). We release this dataset publicly. We also evaluate state-of-the-art publicly available large language models on our data in a range of different settings (see Section 4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A notable feature of our entailment dataset is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 719, + 246, + 729 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 719, + 246, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 719, + 246, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author. lelkes@google.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 729, + 190, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 729, + 190, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 729, + 190, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 729, + 190, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Work completed at Google." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 741, + 153, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 741, + 153, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 741, + 153, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equal leadership." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 285, + 771 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 285, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 285, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4789" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 4789-4798 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that unlike other entailment datasets, our premises and hypotheses were obtained independently, and we label the full cross product of premises and hypotheses. In traditional entailment datasets, the hypotheses are constructed to be tied to a particular premise; however, in our formulation, the hypotheses are drawn from a large set of SDOH factors that may or may not be discussed in a particular premise (drawn from a clinical note). Since all our text comes from the same domain, we still have a non-negligible fraction of positive entailment labels (albeit with a much larger label imbalance than in standard NLI benchmark datasets)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 291, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 291, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 291, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This requires NLI methods to understand both the premise and the hypothesis, and defeats typical shortcuts that have been observed to work for other entailment datasets, such as guessing the label based on the hypothesis alone, or relying on simple syntactic clues such as the presence of negations (see Section 2.2). Indeed, even though our task does not require domain-specific knowledge, we observe that state-of-the-art models struggle to generalize from common NLI benchmarks to our dataset, and highlight typical failure cases (see Section 4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 291, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate both off-the-shelf and fine-tuned models in different setups: dual encoders, zero/few-shot prompting, and binary classification. We show that state-of-the-art off-the-shelf models, even if they were fine-tuned on various NLI datasets, do not reliably solve our problem; on the other hand, models fine-tuned on our training set robustly generalize both to unseen notes and to unseen factors, providing evidence for the usefulness of our dataset for model fine-tuning and evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 160, + 569 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 160, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 160, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 277, + 604 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 277, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 277, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 291, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There has been a lot of interest in using NLP techniques for SDOH extraction; see Patra et al. (2021) for a recent survey. The range and granularity of SDOH factors vary considerably across different papers. There has also been a range of methods used, from rule-based heuristics, to n-grams, to fine-tuning pretrained Transformer models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Many previous research studies on SDOH extraction were performed on EHR data from particular health systems and are not released publicly. Exceptions include the i2b2 NLP Smoking Challenge (Uzuner et al., 2008), which classified 502" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "deidentified medical discharge records for smoking status only, and small number of datasets based on MIMIC-III (Johnson et al., 2016), a large publicly available database of deidentified health records of patients who stayed in critical care units of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2001 and 2012. For example, Gehrmann et al. (2018) annotated MIMIC-III with binary labels for certain \"phenotypes\" including alcohol and substance abuse, and Lybarger et al. (2021) annotated note spans with SDOH information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We are aware of four other previous SDOH-related papers which used MTSamples data (Wang et al., 2015; Winden et al., 2017; Yetisgen et al., 2016; Yetisgen and Vanderwende, 2017), all of which focused on extracting and tagging SDOH-related spans from social history sections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Among previous papers, the one methodologically closest to ours is Lituiev et al. (2023) which also formulated SDOH extraction as an entailment problem and evaluated RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) fine-tuned on ANLI (Nie et al., 2020) on clinical notes from UCSF, without any in-domain fine-tuning experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 464, + 447 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 464, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 464, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Natural Language Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural language inference (NLI), also called recognizing textual entailment (RTE), has been a very well-studied NLP task; see e.g. Storks et al. (2019); Poliak (2020) for recent surveys. Many standard NLI datasets, such as SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) or MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018), are obtained by automatically collecting premises and, for each premise and target entailment label, having human annotators write a hypothesis with the specified entailment relation to the premise. (Even some of the datasets specifically designed to address these datasets' shortcomings, such as ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), follow a similar setup.) It has been observed that this leads to annotation artifacts that lets models do well on these tasks without requiring true understanding of entailment, including by using simple syntactic heuristics (McCoy et al., 2019) or by completely ignoring the premise, and considering only the hypothesis (Gururangan et al., 2018; Poliak et al., 2018). ContractNLI (Koreeda and Manning, 2021) is an example of a previous dataset which used the same fixed set of hypotheses for all the premises." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4790" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 198, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 198, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 198, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Dataset Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 291, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 291, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 291, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We scraped all 5,003 medical reports from MTSamples. Within these reports, we obtained 1,030 note sections related to social history by searching for a collection of note section titles identified as synonyms of social history. We then split each note section into sentences, resulting in 3,281 sentences. Many sentences (such as \"He is married\") appear in multiple notes; after dedduplication, we have 1,398 unique sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We manually curated a collection of SDOH factors primarily from two sources, the AHRQ Social Determinants of Health Database (for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2020) and UCSF SIREN's Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors (Arons et al., 2018). We rephrased each factor as a full English sentence stating a fact about a person; e.g. \"The person is employed.\" For binary factors, we included a statement and its negation; e.g. \"The person currently drinks alcohol\" and \"The person currently does not drink alcohol.\" For factors with multiple potential values (such as housing status), we aimed to list all the common options. We grouped these 60 statements into 10 categories: smoking, alcohol use, drug use, employment, housing, food, transportation, health insurance, social support, and financial situation. See the full list in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each social history sentence, we asked human raters to select all the relevant categories and, within each category, all the statements that are supported by the social history snippet. Each snippet was rated by at least three raters. For each (snippet, statement) pair, we took the majority vote of raters to get binary entailment labels. Rater agreement was high, with a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.97 (computed over the binary entailment labels provided by different raters for (premise, hypothesis) pairs)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We removed all SDOH statements which were not entailed by any of the social history snippets as well as all note sentences that were not relevant to any SDOH categories. Finally, after inspecting the dataset, we removed three SDOH factors (\"The person is stably housed.\", \"The person has social support.\", \"The person does not have social support.\") because raters weren't able to consistently give correct ratings. That left us with 787 unique sentences and 38 SDOH factors. Since each snippet would typically only entail one factor or a small number of factors, the resulting dataset is heavily imbalanced: only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the labels are positive." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We split the dataset along the snippets into training, validation, and test sets with a 70:15:15 ratio, with the following modification: we remove a single pair of factors, \"The person lives alone\" and \"The person does not live alone,\" from the training and validation sets, in order to evaluate fine-tuned models' ability to generalize to unseen factors. In other words, the training, validation, and test sets have disjoint note snippets but the same SDOH factors, except for the test set which also contains an additional two factors that are not present in the training or validation sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 245, + 415, + 259 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 245, + 415, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 245, + 415, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Model Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 525, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 525, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 525, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the typical use case is retrieving patients with a particular SDOH factor, and because of the heavy label imbalance in our dataset, we use precision, recall, and F1 score as our evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate state-of-the-art public models in four different setups:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 361, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 361, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 361, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 361, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Treating the problem as a retrieval task with SDOH factors as queries and note snippets as documents. We evaluate Sentence-T5 (Ni et al., 2022a) and GTR (Ni et al., 2022b), two state-of-the-art dual encoder models. We select the cosine similarity threshold which maximizes F1 score on the training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 467, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 467, + 526, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 467, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- A general-purpose NLI model. We evaluate the SENTLI model (Schuster et al., 2022), a state-of-the-art NLI model (T5 large fine-tuned on the SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015), MNLI (Williams et al., 2018), ANLI (Nie et al., 2020), Fever (Thorne et al., 2018), and VitaminC (Schuster et al., 2021) datasets). To help the model adapt to the label imbalance in our dataset, we also evaluate it with re-tuning the threshold for positive prediction to maximize F1 score on our training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 627, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 627, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 627, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Zero/few-shot prompting. We evaluate FlanT5 XXL (Chung et al., 2022) and FlanUL2 (Tay et al., 2023) in both a zero- and a few-shot setting. These models instruction tuned for a large set of tasks, including NLI tasks. (See Appendix B for details.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Fine-tuning experiments. We fine-tune T5 and Flan-T5 on our dataset (SDOH-NLI), on ANLI, and on a mixture of both at various model sizes. (See Appendix C for details.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4791" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 261 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 261 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 68, + 477, + 261 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelPrecisionRecallF1
Sentence-T5 11B.2826.523.3669
GTR XXL.3148.4885.3829
SENTLI.4438.8161.5749
SENTLI, threshold tuned.5721.7299.6414
Flan-T5 XXL 0-shot.6867.6552.6706
Flan-T5 XXL 5-shot.6297.6839.6556
Flan-UL2 0-shot.5922.7011.6421
Flan-UL2 5-shot.5536.7126.6231
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI.356.8736.5058
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on SDOH-NLI.9295.8333.8788
Flan-T5 XXL finetuned on ANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663
", + "image_path": "f5d45ef0a0275ce0faad0f2cd9d2443f549cb383f5a0e095f15c5a815cd17c99.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 525, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Scores of retrieval-based, general-purpose NLI, in-context, and fine-tuned models on the SDOH test set. See Appendix C for additional fine-tuning experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 130, + 327 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 130, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 316, + 130, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 289, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 shows selected results (see Appendix D for more model fine-tuning metrics). First, we observe that while our problem can naturally be framed as an information retrieval problem, even state-of-the-art retrieval models perform poorly on it; formulating the problem as natural language inference yields dramatically better results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, even powerful models fine-tuned for NLI, either on NLI datasets alone or as part of the much larger Flan collection, do not reliably solve our problem, with an F1 score of at most .67 on the test set. Even T5 small fine-tuned on our dataset outperforms the largest off-the-shelf models, highlighting the added value of our dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When prompting instruction-tuned models, including few-shot examples does not appear to add any value compared to a zero-shot setup. We conjecture that this is because the models are already familiar with the NLI task and the prompt format from instruction tuning, and presenting them with a small number of additional examples is not sufficient for teaching them the difference between this task and the NLI benchmark datasets they have seen during fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For fine-tuned models below XXL size, when fine-tuning on the SDOH-NLI training set only, we observed poor generalization to the held-out SDOH factors in the test set (see Appendix D for detailed metrics). Because of this, why we experimented with fine-tuning on a combination of our data and ANLI R1, a challenging general-purpose NLI dataset of a similar size. For smaller models," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fine-tuning on this mixture enabled robust generalization to unseen factors without sacrificing overall test performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 381, + 380, + 393 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 381, + 380, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 381, + 380, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "What makes our dataset challenging for models fine-tuned on standard NLI datasets? We emphasize that it is not that it requires any specialized (e.g., medical) knowledge: most of our examples describe everyday situations in plain English (e.g., \"The patient is retired on disability due to her knee replacements\"); human raters without any domain-specific training had no difficulty understanding them. We conjecture that the main difference is that the hypotheses of typical NLI datasets are written to satisfy a given entailment label for a given premise, whereas ours are obtained independently from the premises, and therefore their entailment status can be more subtle and ambiguous. These models also struggled with distinguishing between statements about the present and the past; e.g., Flan-UL2 erroneously predicting that \"He is not a smoker\" entails \"The person wasn't a smoker in the past.\" Also, our dataset contains a lot of irrelevant hypotheses and requires the model to correctly classify all of those; we see off-the-shelf models occasionally giving them positive labels (e.g. predicting that \"She was living alone and is now living in assisted living.\" implies \"The person drank alcohol in the past.), hurting precision. As an example, Flan-T5 fine-tuned on ANLI had comparable recall to our best models, but much worse precision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4792" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we introduced SDOH-NLI, a new entailment dataset containing social history snippets as premises and social and behavioral determinants of health as hypotheses. Our dataset was designed both to reflect realistic use cases of SDOH extraction in clinical settings as well as to provide a high quality entailment dataset to support broader NLI research. We evaluated baseline methods using state-of-the-art public models in a variety of setups, and highlighted novel and challenging features of our dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 166, + 267 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 166, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 166, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The authors would like to thank Jonas B. Kemp, Von Nguyen, Birju Patel, Martin G. Seneviratne, Andy Strunk, and Vinh Q. Tran for their valuable feedback and discussions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 338, + 130, + 352 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 338, + 130, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 338, + 130, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 292, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 292, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 292, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our dataset is English-only, and reflects the American healthcare system. While a lot of the social and behavioral determinants of health mentioned in the data could apply elsewhere, too, their distribution and the language used to describe them could reflect U.S. norms. Also, since the dataset is based on transcription samples, the text can be cleaner than in some other settings (such as notes in EHRs), where the task could be more challenging due to typos and abbreviations that do not appear in our dataset. In such settings, performance could be improved by first using the methods of Rajkumar et al. (2022) to decode abbreviations, but we have not included this in our evaluations. Finally, our dataset only contains short note snippets, and we have not evaluated the models' ability to reconcile contradictory statements or reason about the chronology of information in longer patient records. For longer contexts, especially if the social history sections don't fit in the Transformer model's context window, we recommend evaluating the methods of Schuster et al. (2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 158, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 158, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 158, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine learning research in the clinical domain has many ethical considerations. Given the nature of this work is to identify opportunities for care teams to improve the health outcomes of patients due to factors commonly not addressed, we think it contributes to human well-being and avoids harms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The use of public, non-identifiable data that is released for the NLP community helps balance the need to have reproducible (i.e., honest and trustworthy) data to enable technical advances while limiting the need for sensitive, private medical records for research. We acknowledge that the purpose of the work is to identify SDOH to provide additional help and services to patients, and we warn against any use to deny patients care or services based on any factor that can be identified. Although we picked a large number of SDOH factors to test our method, we acknowledge that there may be additional factors that are important for specific patients and populations, so we encourage researchers to reflect on those possible factors and create datasets to help others study them, as well." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 310, + 362, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 310, + 362, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 310, + 362, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 327, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 363 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abigail Arons, Sarah DeSilvey, Caroline Fichtenberg, and Laura Gottlieb. 2018. Compendium of medical terminology codes for social risk factors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 369, + 526, + 436 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 369, + 526, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 369, + 526, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 527, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 526, + 540 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 526, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 526, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Agency for Healthcare Research and MD. Quality, Rockville. 2020. Social determinants of health database." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 547, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 547, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 547, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Gehrmann, Franck Dernoncourt, Yeran Li, Eric T Carlson, Joy T Wu, Jonathan Welt, John Foote Jr, Edward T Moseley, David W Grant, Patrick D Tyler, et al. 2018. Comparing deep learning and concept extraction based methods for patient phenotyping from clinical narratives. *PloS one*, 13(2):e0192360." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 632, + 527, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 632, + 527, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 632, + 527, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Lu Shen, Liwei H Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G Mark. 2016. Mimic-iii," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4793" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific data, 3(1):1-9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 291, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuta Koreeda and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Contractnli: A dataset for document-level natural language inference for contracts. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1907-1919." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 164, + 291, + 231 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 164, + 291, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 164, + 291, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dmytro S Lituiev, Benjamin Lacar, Sang Pak, Peter L Abramowitsch, Emilia H De Marchis, and Thomas A Peterson. 2023. Automatic extraction of social determinants of health from medical notes of chronic lower back pain patients. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 237, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 237, + 291, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 237, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 299, + 291, + 355 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 299, + 291, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 299, + 291, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, Denny Zhou, Quoc V Le, Barret Zoph, Jason Wei, et al. 2023. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Lybarger, Mari Ostendorf, and Meliha Yetisgen. 2021. Annotating social determinants of health using active learning, and characterizing determinants using neural event extraction. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 113:103631." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 291, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2022a. Sentence-t5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 1864–1874." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 291, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 291, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jianmo Ni, Chen Qu, Jing Lu, Zhuyun Dai, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Ji Ma, Vincent Zhao, Yi Luan, Keith Hall, Ming-Wei Chang, and Yinfei Yang. 2022b. Large dual encoders are generalizable retrievers. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9844–9855, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Adversarial nli: A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4885-4901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Braja G Patra, Mohit M Sharma, Veer Vekaria, Prakash Adekkanattu, Olga V Patterson, Benjamin Glicksberg, Lauren A Lepow, Euijung Ryu, Joanna M Biernacka, Al'ona Furmanchuk, et al. 2021. Extracting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "social determinants of health from electronic health records using natural language processing: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(12):2716-2727." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Poliak. 2020. A survey on recognizing textual entailment as an nlp evaluation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems, pages 92-109." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 254, + 526, + 320 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 254, + 526, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 254, + 526, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alvin Rajkomar, Eric Loreaux, Yuchen Liu, Jonas Kemp, Benny Li, Ming-Jun Chen, Yi Zhang, Afroz Mohiuddin, and Juraj Gottweis. 2022. Deciphering clinical abbreviations with a privacy protecting machine learning system. Nature Communications, 13(1):7456." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 329, + 526, + 395 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 329, + 526, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 329, + 526, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, et al. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17189." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 526, + 482 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 526, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 526, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tal Schuster, Sihao Chen, Senaka Buthpitiya, Alex Fabrikant, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Stretching sentence-pair NLI models to reason over long documents and clusters. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 394-412, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 526, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, and Regina Barzilay. 2021. Get your vitamin c! robust fact verification with contrastive evidence. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 624-643." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 611 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shane Storks, Qiaozi Gao, and Joyce Y Chai. 2019. Recent advances in natural language inference: A survey of benchmarks, resources, and approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01172." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 526, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Hyung Won Chung, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Steven Zheng, et al. 2023. UI2: Unifying language learning paradigms. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERIFICATION. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4794" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Papers), pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 102, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 102, + 291, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 102, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Özlem Uzuner, Ira Goldstein, Yuan Luo, and Isaac Kohane. 2008. Identifying patient smoking status from medical discharge records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(1):14-24." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yan Wang, Elizabeth S Chen, Serguei Pakhomov, Elliot Arsoniadis, Elizabeth W Carter, Elizabeth Lindemann, Indra Neil Sarkar, and Genevieve B Melton. 2015. Automated extraction of substance use information from clinical texts. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2015, page 2121. American Medical Informatics Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 291, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tamara J Winden, Elizabeth S Chen, Yan Wang, Elizabeth Lindemann, and Genevieve B Melton. 2017. Residence, living situation, and living conditions information documentation in clinical practice. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2017, page 1783. American Medical Informatics Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 290, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 290, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 290, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meliha Yetisgen, Elena Pellicer, David R Crosslin, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2016. Automatic identification of lifestyle and environmental factors from social history in clinical text. In Proceedings of AMIA 2016 Joint Summits on Translational Science." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meliha Yetisgen and Lucy Vanderwende. 2017. Automatic identification of substance abuse from social history in clinical text. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: 16th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, AIME 2017, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2017, Proceedings 16, pages 171-181. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Labeling Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 92, + 502, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 92, + 502, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 92, + 502, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raters were given the following instructions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 525, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"In this task, you will be given a list of snippets from transcribed medical records, describing a person's social history. Your job is to select the categories that are relevant to the snippet and, in each category, select statements about the person that are supported by the snippet." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 524, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 524, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 524, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Only select categories and statements relevant to the subject of the sentence, NOT if they apply to someone else (such as the subject's relatives)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 525, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 525, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 525, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The source of the medical transcript samples is a public dataset (MTSamples.com), and not your, other raters' or users health transcript data.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 525, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 525, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 525, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each snippet, they were required select one or more of the following categories (including \"None of the above\" if none of the categories were relevant). If they selected a category, the statements within the category would be displayed, and they were required to select one of statements within that category, or \"None of the above\":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 371, + 368, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 371, + 368, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 371, + 368, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Smoking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 391, + 522, + 464 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 391, + 495, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 391, + 495, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 391, + 495, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is currently a smoker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 407, + 511, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 407, + 511, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 407, + 511, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is currently not a smoker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 423, + 510, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 423, + 510, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 423, + 510, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person was a smoker in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 438, + 522, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 438, + 522, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 438, + 522, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person wasn't a smoker in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 453, + 429, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 453, + 429, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 453, + 429, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 475, + 380, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 475, + 380, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 475, + 380, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Alcohol use" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 494, + 525, + 594 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 494, + 508, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 494, + 508, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 494, + 508, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person currently drinks alcohol." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 509, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 509, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 509, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person currently does not drink alcohol." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 538, + 511, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 538, + 511, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 538, + 511, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person drank alcohol in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 554, + 524, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 554, + 524, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 554, + 524, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person did not drink alcohol in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 582, + 429, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 582, + 429, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 582, + 429, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 605, + 368, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 605, + 368, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 605, + 368, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Drug use" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 37, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 624, + 461, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 624, + 461, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 624, + 461, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is a drug user." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 640, + 478, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 640, + 478, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 640, + 478, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is not a drug user." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 655, + 518, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 655, + 518, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 655, + 518, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person was a drug user in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 671, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 671, + 525, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 671, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person wasn't a drug user in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 686, + 458, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 686, + 458, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 686, + 458, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person uses cocaine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 701, + 493, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 701, + 493, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 701, + 493, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not use cocaine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 716, + 506, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 716, + 506, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 716, + 506, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person used cocaine in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 731, + 524, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 731, + 524, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 731, + 524, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person did not use cocaine in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 760, + 468, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 760, + 468, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 760, + 468, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person uses marijuana." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4795" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 72, + 290, + 257 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 72, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 72, + 268, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 72, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not use marijuana." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 87, + 282, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 87, + 282, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 87, + 282, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person used marijuana in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 102, + 289, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 102, + 289, + 129 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 102, + 289, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person did not use marijuana in the past." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 131, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 131, + 290, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 131, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person uses opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 159, + 290, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 159, + 290, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 159, + 290, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not opioids (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 188, + 290, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 188, + 290, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 188, + 290, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person used opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 217, + 289, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 217, + 289, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 217, + 289, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person did not use opioids in the past (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 246, + 195, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 246, + 195, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 246, + 195, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 268, + 149, + 280 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 268, + 149, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 268, + 149, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Employment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 288, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 288, + 221, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 288, + 221, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 288, + 221, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is employed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 302, + 238, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 302, + 238, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 302, + 238, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is not employed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 318, + 262, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 318, + 262, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 318, + 262, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is employed part time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 333, + 217, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 333, + 217, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 333, + 217, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is a student." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 349, + 236, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 349, + 236, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 349, + 236, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is a homemaker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 364, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 364, + 290, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 364, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is retired due to age or preference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 392, + 279, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 392, + 279, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 392, + 279, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is retired due to disability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 407, + 289, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 407, + 289, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 407, + 289, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is retired due to an unknown reason." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 437, + 195, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 437, + 195, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 437, + 195, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 459, + 130, + 471 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 459, + 130, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 459, + 130, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Housing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 478, + 289, + 593 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 27, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 478, + 289, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 478, + 289, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 478, + 289, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person lives in their own or their family's home." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 507, + 277, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 507, + 277, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 507, + 277, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person lives in a housing facility." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 522, + 219, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 522, + 219, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 522, + 219, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is homeless." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 538, + 238, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 538, + 238, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 538, + 238, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is stably housed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 552, + 289, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 552, + 289, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 552, + 289, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person's housing is unsuited to their needs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 581, + 195, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 581, + 195, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 581, + 195, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 603, + 115, + 614 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 603, + 115, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 603, + 115, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Food" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 623, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 34, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 623, + 289, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 623, + 289, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 623, + 289, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is able to obtain food on a consistent basis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 651, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 651, + 289, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 651, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is not able to obtain food on a consistent basis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 681, + 290, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 681, + 290, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 681, + 290, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has consistent fruit and vegetable intake." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 709, + 289, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 709, + 289, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 709, + 289, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not have consistent fruit and vegetable intake." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 738, + 195, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 738, + 195, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 738, + 195, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 157, + 772 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 157, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 157, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Transportation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 71, + 525, + 232 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 44, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 71, + 523, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 71, + 523, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 71, + 523, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has access to transportation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 87, + 525, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 87, + 525, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 87, + 525, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not have access to transportation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 116, + 483, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 116, + 483, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 116, + 483, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has access to a car." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 132, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 132, + 525, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 132, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not have access to a car." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 147, + 520, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 147, + 520, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 147, + 520, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has access to public transit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 162, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 162, + 525, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 162, + 525, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not have access to public transit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 191, + 525, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 191, + 525, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 191, + 525, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has issues with finding transportation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 220, + 430, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 220, + 430, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 220, + 430, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 243, + 402, + 253 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 243, + 402, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 243, + 402, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Health insurance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 262, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 51, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 262, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 262, + 524, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 262, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has private health insurance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 277, + 468, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 277, + 468, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 277, + 468, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is on Medicare." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 293, + 468, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 293, + 468, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 293, + 468, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is on Medicaid." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 48 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 308, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 308, + 525, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 308, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not have health insurance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 49 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 337, + 430, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 337, + 430, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 337, + 430, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 50 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 359, + 390, + 372 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 359, + 390, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 359, + 390, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Social support" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 52 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 380, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 58, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 380, + 481, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 380, + 481, + 392 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 380, + 481, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person has social support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 53 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 395, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 395, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 395, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not have social support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 54 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 411, + 450, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 411, + 450, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 411, + 450, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person lives alone." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 55 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 426, + 485, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 426, + 485, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 426, + 485, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person does not live alone." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 56 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 441, + 430, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 441, + 430, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 441, + 430, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 57 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 463, + 409, + 475 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 463, + 409, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 463, + 409, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Financial situation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 59 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 483, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 65, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 483, + 511, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 483, + 511, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 483, + 511, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is below the poverty line." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 60 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 499, + 510, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 499, + 510, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 499, + 510, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is above the poverty line." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 61 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 514, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 514, + 525, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 514, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is able to afford medications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 62 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 529, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 529, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 529, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The person is not able to afford medications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 63 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 559, + 430, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 559, + 430, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 559, + 430, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 64 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 581, + 408, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 581, + 408, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 581, + 408, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- None of the above" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 66 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 603, + 413, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 603, + 413, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 603, + 413, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Prompting Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 67 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our goal with the design of our zero/few-shot experiments was to stay close to how the models were trained and evaluated on similar NLI tasks. Since the models we used were fine-tuned on the Flan collection (Longpre et al., 2023), which includes several NLI datasets, we reused some of the Flan collections's prompt templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 68 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In particular, we used the templates for the SNLI and MNLI dataset which were the most relevant to our data. (We excluded templates for other datasets such as RTE, ANLI, or WNLI because the wording" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 69 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4796" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 70 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of some of the prompts could be slightly misleading; e.g. by referring to the premise as a \"paragraph.\") For each example, we chose a prompt template uniformly at random from the 19 templates. For few-shot experiments, we first picked a random positive example from the training set, then picked the other few-shot examples uniformly at random from the training examples. (Without explicitly forcing at least one example to be positive, it would be very likely that all the few-shot examples would be negative, given the label imbalance in the dataset. We tried dropping that requirement and sampling all examples at random, which resulted in a slight drop in model performance, as we expected.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 291, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since SNLI and MNLI have three answer options (\"yes,\" \"it is not possible to tell,\" \"no\"), we kept all three of these options in the prompt template, even though our dataset is binary. We experimented with dropping either the \"no\" or the \"it is not possible to tell\" option; both of these deviations from the original prompts resulted in slight decreases in model performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 291, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use rank classification to obtain binary labels (as is customary): i.e., instead of decoding a model prediction, we score the three answer options (for three copies of each input example) and consider the prediction positive if \"yes\" has the highest score. Similarly to our experiment with SENTLI, we also tried taking softmax over the three options and using a fixed threshold for \"yes\" which maximizes F1 score on the training set; this resulted in a small drop in test F1 score (e.g., .6501 to .6222 for Flan-UL2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 543, + 184, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 543, + 184, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 543, + 184, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Fine-tuning Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All models were fine-tuned using the T5X framework (Roberts et al., 2022) on TPUv3 chips for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\mathrm{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " steps with batch size 32 and learning rate 1e-4, with the exception of the T5 small size models which were finetuned for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\mathrm{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " steps. For each model, we picked the checkpoint with the highest F1 score on the validation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 670, + 285, + 684 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 670, + 285, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 670, + 285, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Additional Model Fine-tuning Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "See Table 2 for the full set of results from our finetuning experiments. Here we also include metrics on the subset of the test set consisting on the new SDOH factors not included in the training and validation sets to highlight the differences in models' ability to generalize to unseen factors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that since Flan-T5 models between sizes large and XL fine-tuned on either ANLI or our SDOH dataset alone underperformed the same models fine-tuned on the combined dataset, we did not perform these dataset ablations on smaller Flan-T5 models or on T5 below the XXL size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4797" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 305, + 523, + 500 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 305, + 523, + 500 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 305, + 523, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 305, + 523, + 500 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelSizeDatasetTest PTest RTest F1New factors PNew factors RNew factors F1
T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.7987.7069.7500.6667.0833.1481
T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7396.8161.7760.75.375.5
T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8247.7299.7744.75.125.2143
T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8391.8391.8391.9231.5.6486
T5XXLANLI.8391.8391.8391.75.1.8571
T5XXLSDOH-NLI.8859.7586.8173.8571.25.3871
T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.9024.8506.8757.88891..9412
Flan-T5smallANLI + SDOH-NLI.8075.7471.7761.6667.0833.1481
Flan-T5baseANLI + SDOH-NLI.7956.8276.8113.6216.9583.7541
Flan-T5largeANLI.1777.8506.2939.2421.9583.3866
Flan-T5largeSDOH-NLI.8041.6839.7391.2308.125.1622
Flan-T5largeANLI + SDOH-NLI.8212.8448.8329.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XLANLI.2868.8851.4332.7667.9583.8519
Flan-T5XLSDOH.9071.7299.80891..125.2222
Flan-T5XLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8647.8448.8547.8846.9583.92
Flan-T5XXLANLI.3560.8736.5058.7931.9583.8679
Flan-T5XXLSDOH-NLI.9295.8333.87881..875.9333
Flan-T5XXLANLI + SDOH-NLI.8765.8563.8663.8846.9583.92
", + "image_path": "514aba77f9ea16175ddd817e9ee0dcca8bd69793c124ea2c004290a8d709c85b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 525, + 533 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 525, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Precision, recall, and F1 scores of various models on the full test set and on the subset of the test set consisting of the two held-out factors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4798" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_content_list.json b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2daf85ffc52cc7f94b60f116df36abedc1103354 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1761 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SELFOOD: Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 191, + 89, + 805, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dheeraj Mekala\\*, Adithya Samavedhi\\*, Chengyu Dong\\* Jingbo Shang\\*, University of California San Diego", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 145, + 875, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{\\text{©}}$ Halicioglu Data Science Institute, University of California San Diego", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 187, + 789, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{dmekala, asamavedhi, cdong, jshang}@ucsd.edu", + "bbox": [ + 329, + 206, + 672, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Deep neural classifiers trained with cross-entropy (CE) loss often suffer from poor calibration, necessitating the task of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Traditional supervised OOD detection methods require expensive manual annotation of in-distribution and OOD samples. To address the annotation bottleneck, we introduce SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection method that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. We cast OOD detection as an inter-document intralabel (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier with our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents and their labels, for each label, we train the classifier to rank the softmax scores of documents belonging to that label to be higher than the scores of documents that belong to other labels. Unlike CE loss, our IDIL loss reaches zero when the desired confidence ranking is achieved and gradients are backpropagated to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than continuously increasing the probability of the correct label. Extensive experiments with several classifiers on multiple classification datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in both coarse-and fine-grained settings.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 282, + 460, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 695, + 258, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Deep neural networks (DNNs) are ubiquitously used for text classification (Liu et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). However, they are generally poorly calibrated, resulting in erroneously high-confidence scores for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017; Mekala et al., 2022a). Such poor calibration makes DNNs unreliable, and OOD detection task vital for the safe deployment of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 722, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c911208f1877b4fdcb0be004bc715b8b1c27785693980a6d460f09e969f8b0ce.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) CE Loss" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 250, + 884, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/47bfbf0f3c5f5ed60d454d099ba9821a6ea8a0bf8dadf2144d351de3798331a5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) IDIL Loss", + "Figure 1: CE Loss and IDIL loss optimization for documents $D_{1} \\in \\text{Sports}$ and $D_{2} \\in \\text{Arts}$ . CE loss increases scores corresponding to the Sports for $D_{1}$ and Arts for $D_{2}$ , implying an intra-document comparison. Instead, IDIL loss compares softmax scores in an inter-document intra-label fashion where it reduces scores corresponding to Sports for $D_{2}$ to be less than that of $D_{1}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 359, + 885, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "deep learning models in safety-critical applications (Moon et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 576, + 882, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Traditional supervised OOD detection methods (Hendrycks et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2021b) assume access to high-quality manually annotated in-distribution and OOD samples. However, this requires extensive annotation of OOD samples belonging to diverse distributions, which is expensive to obtain. Moreover, text classifiers are ideally desired to be more confident on in-distribution samples than OOD samples. However, the poor calibration of DNN precludes this phenomenon.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these problems, we propose SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection framework that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. To adhere to the aforementioned ranking constraint, we formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier using our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. As", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$\\spadesuit$ Equal Contribution", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 892, + 278, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Jingbo Shang is the corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 904, + 411, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10721", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10721-10734", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cae2b87cb7c1d319cdd7e34ae37f7b41387a297617da57a959bfdb29c3316ced.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: SELFOOD is a self-supervised framework that requires only annotated in-distribution data to train the OOD classifier. Firstly, we bucket documents based on their annotated label (in dotted lines). Then, we compare each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets to compute IDIL loss (in solid lines). Finally, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels during the training of the OOD classifier." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 93, + 880, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "shown in Figure 1(a), text classifiers are generally trained using cross-entropy (CE) loss (Good, 1952) in an intra-document fashion where for each document, the classifier is trained to distinguish between different labels by maximizing the score corresponding to the correct label. Instead, in our method, as shown in Figure 1(b), we propose to train in an inter-document, intra-label fashion where for each label, we train the model to rank the considered label probability score in documents belonging to the label higher compared to those not belonging to it. As OOD documents generally do not belong to any in-distribution label, we hypothesize such explicit learning to rank translates to accurately distinguishing OOD from in-distribution.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 338, + 489, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, minimizing CE loss involves continuous optimization to increase the probability of the correct label over the other labels, making the classifier overconfident (Wei et al., 2022). Instead, in our method, our IDIL loss function becomes zero once the desired ranking is achieved, and during training, we backpropagate gradients to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than increasing the probability of the correct label. Theoretically, the perfect model trained using the CE loss with 0 training loss is a solution to our ranking problem, however, in Section 5.1, we empirically show that our ranking objective leads to a different solution, demonstrating the importance of the optimization procedure. Finally, it is important to note that our ranking formulation, loss function, and the self-supervised training strategy are specifically designed to improve the performance of OOD detection rather than classification accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 581, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present our framework in Figure 2. Given a set of in-distribution documents and corresponding", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "labels as input, we bucket documents belonging to each label and train the classifier to rank the probabilities using our IDIL loss function. Specifically, for each document in a label bucket, we pair up with all documents in every other bucket and compute IDIL loss.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 884, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 436, + 870, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We propose SELFFOOD, a novel self-supervised method to train an OOD detection model without any OOD samples as supervision.", + "- We formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label ranking problem and optimize it using our IDIL ranking loss.", + "- We perform extensive experiments on multiple text classification datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in OOD detection.", + "We release the code on $\\mathbf{G h i t b u^{1}}$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 882, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 627, + 665, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Traditional supervised methods cast the OOD detection as classification with binary labels (Kamath et al., 2020), with one additional label for unseen classes (Fei and Liu, 2016). Since manually annotating documents is expensive (Mekala and Shang, 2020; Mekala et al., 2022b), recent works have deviated from requiring such extensive annotations and leveraging various distance metrics to detect OOD samples. Leys et al. (2018); Xu et al. (2020) use Mahalanobis distance as a post-processing technique to identify OOD samples. These methods use distance-based scoring functions along with the intermediate model layer features to determine an OOD score. Lee et al. (2018); Hsu et al. (2020) use a similar distance metric called ODIN to detect", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 884, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 830, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10722", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OOD images. An alternate approach to compensate for the lack of OOD training data involves generating pseudo-OOD data for training. Ouyang et al. (2021) propose a framework to generate high-quality OOD utterances and importance weights by selectively replacing phrases in in-domain samples. Zhan et al. (2021) generate pseudo-OOD samples for the task of intent detection using self-supervision. Zhou et al. (2021); Zeng et al. (2021a) introduce self-supervised approaches to OOD detection using a contrastive learning framework. They suggest fine-tuning transformers using a margin-based contrastive loss to learn text representations (Mekala et al., 2021) for OOD classification. Vyas et al. (2018); Li et al. (2021) treat a part of in-domain data as OOD samples as an alternate self-supervised approach. Further, Wu et al. (2022a) use a Reassigned Contrastive Loss (RCL) along with an adaptive class-dependent threshold mechanism to separate in-domain and OOD intents. Ren et al. (2019); Ggangal et al. (2020) leverage likelihood ratios crafted by generative models to classify OOD samples. Wei et al. (2022) observe that the norm of the logits keeps increasing during training, leading to overconfident outputs, and propose LogitNorm as a solution to decoupling the output norm during training optimization. Moon et al. (2020) introduce a novel Correctness Ranking Loss function in order to regularize output probabilities to produce well-ranked confidence estimates. Other calibration techniques include \"Top-label\" calibration which is used to regularize the reported probability for the predicted class (Gupta and Ramdas, 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 SELFOOD: Self-Supervised OOD Detection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 443, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the problem statement, the motivation for our ranking formulation, and our method including the loss function and its optimization strategy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 690, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Problem Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 752, + 314, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we work on the OOD detection task with only in-distribution samples and no OOD samples as supervision. Specifically, given a labeled dataset $\\mathcal{D}^{InD} = \\{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),\\ldots (x_n,y_n)\\}$ sampled from a distribution space $(\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{C})$ where documents $x_{i}\\in \\mathcal{X}$ and labels $y_{i}\\in \\mathcal{C}$ as input, our goal is to train an OOD detector $\\mathcal{M}$ that accurately distinguishes in-distribution documents $\\mathcal{D}^{InD}$ and OOD documents $\\mathcal{D}^{OOD}\\notin (\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{C})$ without any", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OOD documents required for training.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 794, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Motivation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 111, + 643, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Numerous neural text classifiers have been proposed, incorporating multiple hidden layers (Rosenblatt, 1957), convolutional layers (Kim, 2014), and various types of attention mechanisms (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019). All these models culminate in a softmax head, which produces probabilities corresponding to each class. These classifiers are generally trained with CE loss in an intra-document fashion i.e. each document is considered independently and the softmax score of the true label is maximized. Such training of neural text classifiers is known to increase the magnitude of logit vectors even when most training examples are correctly classified (Wei et al., 2022), making them poorly calibrated, producing unreasonably high probabilities even for incorrect predictions (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017). This diminishes their ability to maintain the desired attribute of ordinal ranking for predictions based on confidence levels, wherein a prediction exhibiting a higher confidence value should be considered more likely to be accurate than one with a lower confidence value (Moon et al., 2020). Intuitively, a text classifier possessing such quality would be a perfect OOD detector.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 131, + 885, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 OOD Detection as Inter-Document Intra-Label Ranking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 544, + 828, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to align with the aforementioned characteristic, we propose formulating the OOD detection as an inter-document, intra-label ranking problem. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents, we compare across documents but within the same label and train our model to generate higher probability score for documents belonging to the label than for documents not belonging to the label. We consider the same model architecture as any text classifier with a softmax head that generates scores corresponding to each label, however, we train it using our IDIL loss instead of CE loss. Our assumption is that an OOD document does not fall under any specific label in the in-distribution space. Hence, we anticipate that the trained model would produce lower scores for OOD documents compared to in-distribution documents. This distinction in scores is expected to facilitate easy separation between OOD and in-distribution documents.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 885, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "IDIL Loss is a pairwise-ranking loss that enforces", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10723", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 941 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "desired ordinal ranking of confidence estimates. This loss function reaches its minimum value for a particular label when the probability of that label being the annotated label is greater than its probability when it is not the annotated label. Specifically, for documents $x_{1}, x_{2} \\in \\mathcal{D}^{InD}$ and their corresponding annotated labels $y_{1}, y_{2}$ where $y_{1} \\neq y_{2}$ , IDIL loss corresponding to label $y_{1}$ is mathematically computed as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {1}, x _ {2}\\right) = S i L U \\left(p \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {2}\\right) - p \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {1}\\right)\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 240, + 487, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $SiLU(x) = x\\sigma(x)$ is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU) function (Elfwing et al., 2018). To ensure stable training and enhance performance, we incorporate the SiLU function, a continuous variant of the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) (Hahnloser et al., 2000), in conjunction with the ranking loss. The SiLU function introduces smooth gradients around zero, effectively mitigating potential instability issues during training. We observe that this inclusion contributes to the overall stability in training and improved performance of the model as shown in Section 4.5. Note that, in contrast to CE loss, IDIL loss becomes zero once desired ranking is achieved, addressing the overconfidence issue.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 273, + 489, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Implementation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 508, + 287, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ideally, the loss has to be computed over all possible pairs of documents for each model update. However, it is computationally expensive. Therefore, following (Toneva et al., 2019; Moon et al., 2020), we approximate the computation by considering only documents in each mini-batch. Specifically, we bucket the documents in the mini-batch based on their annotated label and pair each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets and compute the loss. Mathematically, the loss for a mini-batch $b$ is computed as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 529, + 489, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\sum_ {l \\in \\mathcal {C}} \\sum_ {x _ {1} \\in b _ {l}} \\sum_ {x _ {2} \\in b _ {- l}} \\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} (l | x _ {1}, x _ {2})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 713, + 436, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $b_{l}$ denotes the set of training data points $x$ in this batch $b$ whose label are $l$ , and $b_{-l}$ denotes the set of training data points $x$ in this batch $b$ whose label is not $l$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 487, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast to CE loss, where the optimization involves increasing the score corresponding to the correct label, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels. Specifically, during the backpropagation of gradients, we detach the gradients for the subrahend", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9bdb0da6b112ee56df8749e7fe60111befda3fc0ae57684ccb0265fa78f44c11.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Dataset statistics." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetDomainCriteria#Docs#labels
NYTNewsTopic1308126
YelpReviewsSentiment700005
ClimaClimateQuestion Type171758
TRECGeneralQuestion Type59526
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 98, + 878, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of the difference and exclusively propagate the gradients through the minuend. In Equation 1, for instance, we detach the gradients for $p(y_{1}|x_{1})$ and solely backpropagate the gradients through $p(y_{1}|x_{2})$ . This detachment allows for a more controlled and selective gradient flow, aiding in the optimization process, and improvement in performance as shown in Section 4.5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 203, + 884, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is important to note that our optimization focuses solely on the inter-document ranking loss. Consequently, while the trained model would serve as a reliable OOD detector, it may not perform as effectively as a classifier.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 884, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 424, + 655, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our OOD detection method against state-of-the-art baselines with two classifiers on multiple datasets belonging to different domains.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 449, + 882, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 623, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our method and baselines on four publicly available English text classification datasets belonging to different domains. In particular, we consider the news topic classification dataset New York Times (NYT), restaurant review sentiment classification dataset Yelp, and question-type classification datasets related to climate: ClimaInsurance+ (Clima) (Laud et al., 2023), and a general domain: TREC (Li and Roth, 2002; Hovy et al., 2001). The documents within the New York Times dataset are labeled with both coarse and fine-grained labels. For our training and testing process, we utilize fine-grained labels. The dataset statistics are provided in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 884, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Compared Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 764, + 714, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Cross Entropy Loss (CE Loss) trains a classifier using CE loss on in-distribution documents. The predicted probabilities from the classifier are used as confidence estimates for OOD detection.", + "- Correctness Ranking Loss (CRL) (Moon et al., 2020) is a regularization term added to the CE" + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 884, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2http://developer.nytimes.com/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 889, + 759, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://www.yelp.com/dataset/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 759, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10724", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9eb3baddd9b6c501202816898c5d5b370ba35d03efd9b8f3375f45595aa2fe12.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at $95\\%$ true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
YelpNYTLogitNorm82.033.269.457.984.433.966.655.0
OneVsRest85.135.862.449.388.529.669.856.5
RCL56.931.273.255.287.734.556.745.0
Bayes Approx64.335.966.550.379.636.454.140.8
CE Loss82.134.963.450.779.832.966.858.0
CRL99.936.943.951.199.828.164.860.5
SELFOOD63.219.679.482.769.521.672.678.8
ClimaLogitNorm79.225.572.554.882.625.470.754.0
OneVsRest83.025.169.553.286.728.053.833.7
RCL59.927.867.442.173.922.570.756.3
Bayes Approx74.728.756.733.663.028.066.840.9
CE Loss83.227.848.637.076.422.078.268.4
CRL99.629.049.138.899.920.663.056.9
SELFOOD17.64.897.996.465.616.673.277.2
TRECLogitNorm68.227.079.882.160.823.083.984.4
OneVsRest84.840.063.969.775.533.057.961.2
RCL89.843.240.151.577.432.465.068.6
Bayes Approx92.544.732.144.751.825.972.769.4
CE Loss74.233.752.862.758.527.575.378.3
CRL33.315.566.777.2100.037.356.773.9
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.055.120.680.290.3
TRECYelpLogitNorm32.30.395.578.115.20.595.744.7
OneVsRest4.20.397.983.439.30.491.663.0
RCL78.50.680.220.267.70.683.024.2
Bayes Approx46.60.493.061.663.70.787.721.3
CE Loss27.20.394.971.211.30.496.962.3
CRL96.60.770.916.599.80.724.39.7
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
NYTLogitNorm9.31.097.791.210.92.397.277.3
OneVsRest1.80.599.095.832.51.893.274.8
RCL63.63.384.145.774.23.080.445.1
Bayes Approx39.12.593.568.164.93.088.454.4
CE Loss8.41.397.687.56.81.498.187.1
CRL97.23.373.035.299.93.822.912.2
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
ClimaLogitNorm11.30.897.688.510.41.697.375.9
OneVsRest3.40.698.793.236.31.891.760.1
RCL73.52.481.237.160.72.086.448.2
Bayes Approx51.72.090.554.461.12.487.640.4
CE Loss15.11.796.269.512.21.896.467.8
CRL86.32.280.739.598.92.730.113.0
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 148, + 878, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "loss to make class probabilities better confidence estimates. It estimates the true class probability to be proportional to the number of times a sample is classified correctly during training.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 684, + 487, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- LogitNorm (Wei et al., 2022) is a variant of CE loss that normalizes the logit vector to have a constant norm during training.", + "- Bayesian Approximation (Bayes Approx) (Wu et al., 2022b) calibrates distribution uncertainty for OOD detection using Monte-Carlo dropout.", + "- Reassigned Contrastive Learning (RCL) (Wu et al., 2022a) discriminates over-confident OOD samples using adaptive class-dependent local threshold mechanism." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 749, + 485, + 908 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- OneVsRest trains a one vs rest binary classifier per label. The probability scores of each label from its corresponding classifier are normalized and used as their respective confidence estimates.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 684, + 882, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Experimental Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 765, + 729, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as text classifiers. For SELFOOD, we train the classifier for 5 epochs with a batch size of 16 using an AdamW optimizer. We use a learning rate of 5e-5 using a linear scheduler with no warm-up steps. For all baselines, we train the classifier for the same number of steps.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 788, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our evaluation, for each dataset as in-", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10725", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "distribution, we treat all other datasets as OOD and compute the performance. Our evaluation follows a standard approach for each in-distribution dataset where we begin by splitting the in-distribution dataset into three subsets: $80\\%$ for train, $10\\%$ for val, and $10\\%$ for test. The model is trained using the train split, and its performance is evaluated on both the test split of the in-distribution dataset and the entire OOD dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation Metrics. We utilize evaluation metrics from (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017; DeVries and Taylor, 2018; Moon et al., 2020) such as the false positive rate at $95\\%$ true positive rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 229, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 368, + 218, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We summarize the evaluation results with BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers on Yahoo, TREC as in-distribution in Table 2 and NYT, Clima as in-distribution in Appendix A.1. All experiments are run on three random seeds and the mean performance scores are reported. As shown in Table 2, we observe that SELFOOD performs better than the baselines on most of the in-distribution, OOD dataset pairs for both classifiers. A low FPR95 value indicates that the top- $95\\%$ confident in-distribution samples, selected based on their probability scores, predominantly rank higher than a majority of OOD samples and SELFOOD achieves improvements of up to 82 points in FPR95 with Yelp as in-distribution and Clima as OOD datasets when compared to CRL with BERT classifier. SELFOOD also exhibits substantial improvements of up to 33 points in Detection Error, 48 points in AUROC, and 58 points in AUPR when compared to CE-Loss with BERT classifier. SELFOOD achieves a perfect OOD detection score for some settings such as TREC as in-distribution dataset for both BERT and RoBERTa classifiers. These results highlight the effectiveness of our ranking formulation with self-supervised training using IDIL loss.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 280, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To understand the impact of each component in our IDIL loss design and implementation, we compare our method with four ablated versions with BERT classifier in Table 3: (1) SELFOOD + Grad Sub represents our method with backpropagating gradi", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6b9b333df54869d365493aa3bec62ad48b66a87f24bb57ed4495eb585ff77d27.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Ablation Study." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodFPR95ERR\nIn Dist: Clima\nOOD: NYTAUROCAUPR
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.5
+ Grad Sub67.98.982.461.1
+ Grad Sub & Min98.410.749.232.3
+ Intra-Doc92.710.667.341.6
- SILu14.63.996.789.3
In Dist: NYT\nOOD: Clima
SELFOOD10.51.798.490.5
+ Grad Sub only83.55.177.444.8
+ Grad Sub & Min96.55.260.336.0
+ Intra-Doc48.32.693.280.2
- SiLU19.02.397.486.0
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 97, + 877, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ents through the subtrahend instead of the minuend, (2) SELFOOD $^+$ Grad Sub & Min represents our method with gradients backpropagating through both minuend and subtrahend, (3) SELFOOD $^+$ Intra-Doc considers intra-document comparison similar to CE loss, in addition to inter-document intra-label comparison for loss computation, and (4) SELFOOD-SiLU excludes SiLU function from the IDIL loss formulation. We also present the performance of SELFOOD for reference. SELFOOD performs better than SELFOOD $^+$ Grad Sub & Min demonstrating that backpropagating through one part of the difference is more beneficial than both, and the comparison between SELFOOD and SELFOOD $^+$ Grad Sub indicates that backpropagating through minuend is better than subtrahend. We observe that incorporating intra-document comparison into loss formulation leads to a decrement in the ranking ability of the model. Finally, we observe that removing the SiLU function from the IDIL loss leads to a decrease in most of the metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 294, + 884, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis & Case Studies", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 754, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present a comprehensive analysis of our proposed method from different perspectives to understand its effectiveness.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 674, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 CE Loss vs SELFOOD: Training Trajectory Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 815, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mathematically, the model trained using CE loss is a solution to our IDIL loss optimization. However, our empirical results reveal a significant disparity in OOD detection performance between SELFOOD and model trained on CE loss. To gain a deeper understanding, we plot the CE Loss and IDIL losses for models optimized with IDIL and CE loss, as shown in Figure 3(a). We consider Clima as the in-distribution dataset and BERT as the classifier.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10726", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8a5752b037c51fb605f668b88e60675e422e15801264977d92dd949eca9fafaf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Losses vs Training Steps" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 99, + 357, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d26a489c9693b1aebcf29e79ac3e9702c1e60c1eee6c0ab51b27a036ea0909dd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) FPR vs Training Steps" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 369, + 98, + 610, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/50ebefbb99df794abc58210ece2bed50f8d107877b01fecfafbde4ad5b7e3c9b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Learned weights" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 631, + 99, + 810, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/843480b4fbf688fbab1bcf7a6f8714956a78b49a5e9b82558dde471fbc6e5b1a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: To understand training trajectories of CE Loss and SELFOOD, we plot their respective losses, validation FPR, and learned weights while training. We observe IDIL loss minimization is more correlated with performance and the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD show divergent paths since the beginning.", + "(a) CE Loss", + "Figure 4: Maximum softmax score vs percentile in-distribution & OOD data associated with that score. By using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold (dotted line) for OOD classification, CE loss considers more than $50\\%$ and CRL considers almost $100\\%$ of the OOD data as in-distribution (red region). However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in maximum softmax scores that separate OOD and in-distribution." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 288, + 359, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/245c4617d1f5667dd2b7a75204cdbd36e881e23daa2410db3b77879900551b3d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) CRL" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 371, + 288, + 608, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/21ead48aa7a316cff58b0ae8920390495bcb30935f403e1fa7bef841be453af7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) SELFOOD" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 621, + 292, + 867, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, we plot the validation FPR95 using Yelp as the OOD dataset to analyze the correlation between loss minimization and performance in Figure 3(b). Figure 3(a) illustrates that while minimizing CE loss leads to fluctuations in the IDIL loss, ultimately reaching zero, Figure 3(b) shows that the performance is more closely associated with explicit IDIL minimization. Specifically, minimizing the IDIL loss results in improved FPR95. The findings indicate that the minimization of CE loss and IDIL loss follows distinct trajectories. To validate this hypothesis, we conduct an experiment using a toy 3-dimensional dataset comprising five isometric Gaussian blobs and train a logistic regression classifier initialized with same weights, minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. We flatten the weight matrix and plot the top-3 principal components. As shown in Figure 3(c), the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD progress in different directions, thereby confirming our hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 489, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Maximum softmax score Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 845, + 423, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We plot the maximum softmax score with the percentile in-distribution and OOD data associated with that score for CE loss, CRL, and SELFOOD", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with BERT classifier on Clima as in-distribution and NYT as OOD datasets in Figure 4. When comparing the maximum softmax score with the percentile data associated with that score, interesting observations can be made regarding its distribution. Specifically, when using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold for OOD classification, we find that the CE loss considers over $50\\%$ of the OOD data and CRL considers almost $100\\%$ of the OOD data as in-distribution. However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in the maximum softmax scores that effectively separates OOD and in-distribution data. This suggests that the threshold needs to be carefully tuned for CE loss and CRL, requiring more effort and annotated data, whereas in the case of SELFOOD, we do not require such tuning. This demonstrates that SELFOOD is capable of accurately classifying between OOD and in-distribution samples based on their respective maximum softmax scores, resulting in superior performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 502, + 884, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Batch size Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 860, + 705, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare documents within the mini-batch when computing the loss. Consequently, the num", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10727", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6ecab13b9bdcccdfea4e0a94db63b28458700569f0881a722f44a8c11c04c977.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) NYT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 87, + 297, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7e66588085baee7ee42017a07ad781cf15e66b75644e44d1c10cd37b0d5c9140.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Yelp", + "Figure 5: Performance of SELFOOD w.r.t. batch size. We consider BERT classifier, Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. We observe an increase in performance with an increase in batch size." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 87, + 482, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ber of document pairs over which the loss is computed depends on the batch size used during training. To investigate the impact of batch size on performance, we vary the batch size and evaluate the corresponding performance in Figure 5 with BERT classifier. We consider Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. As the batch size increases, the performance of the model also improves, until a batch size of 16, where the performance reaches a plateau. This observation aligns with our intuition that a larger batch size allows for more in-batch document pairs to be compared, leading to more accurate loss computation. Based on these findings, we recommend utilizing a batch size of 16 or higher to achieve optimal performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 263, + 489, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Fine-grained OOD Detection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 517, + 386, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To explore the limits of SELFOOD, we consider in-distribution and OOD datasets from the same domain. The objective is to assess its ability to differentiate between samples that are closely related but still OOD, which is a challenging task. Specifically, we consider the news domain and choose NYT as the in-distribution, and AGNews (Zhang et al., 2015), $20\\mathrm{News}^4$ as OOD datasets and train BERT classifier. As shown in Table 4, SELFOOD performs significantly better than the baselines on most of the metrics. Moreover, it also achieves near-perfect scores for the AGNews, highlighting its ability to accurately identify OOD samples even when they belong to the same domain as the in-distribution dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 Classification performance of SELFOOD", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 482, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The BERT classifier trained with CE-Loss demonstrates exceptional classification performance, achieving accuracy scores of $97\\%$ , $85\\%$ , and $97\\%$ on NYT, Clima, and TREC datasets respectively. In contrast, SELFOOD achieves only $0.3\\%$ , $9.5\\%$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 813, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e3a607b499b2b3c4490b3557709e1549b681d25ef9645cbd6ef42da801b89b9d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Fine-grained OOD detection results with NYT as the in-distribution dataset with BERT classifier. We choose two datasets AGNews, 20News from the news domain, the same as NYT, and consider them as OOD datasets. The results show that SELFOOD can accurately detect OOD samples within the same domain." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
AGNewsLogitNorm45.90.986.715.8
Bayes Approx57.50.987.723.9
CE-Loss45.50.986.516.6
CRL77.20.980.69.5
SELFOOD0.00.1100.099.4
20NewsLogitNorm24.56.291.739.2
Bayes Approx35.04.393.766.6
CE-Loss25.46.291.939.6
CRL59.96.487.436.9
SELFOOD28.24.994.261.5
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 168, + 877, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and $1.8\\%$ . This highlights that while SELFOOD serves as a reliable OOD detector, its performance as a text classifier is subpar. This observation can be attributed to our IDIL loss formulation, which focuses on comparing confidence levels across documents for each label rather than across labels for each document. As a result, the IDIL loss primarily promotes the ordinal ranking of confidence levels across documents, which enhances the model's OOD detection capabilities. However, this emphasis on inter-document ranking comes at the expense of inter-label ranking, resulting in limited classification capabilities. Moreover, when we introduce the intra-document comparison to the IDIL loss, as discussed in Section 4.5, we observe a decline in the model's ranking ability. Podolskiy et al. (2021) use mahalanobis distance for OOD detection and observe that although mahalanobis distance alongside transformer-based models is effective, such methods are sensitive to the geometric features in the embedding space and can be spoilt if the embedder is used for classification and is overfit. This matches with our observation, upon adding intra-document comparison to the loss, the OOD detection performance drops. This further supports the notion that balancing the inter-document and intra-document comparisons is crucial for achieving optimal performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 321, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.6 SELFOOD + Mahalanobis distance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 800, + 835, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mahalanobis distance-based estimation of OOD scores is an effective post-processing method used on trained OOD classifiers (Leys et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020). We investigate whether this postprocessing further improves the performance of our method. OOD scores are estimated as the dis", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 902, + 425, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10728", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8b4a65c2c4a5883714a7842663631d53db01b27e2773fddcb48717633d8ff359.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: OOD detection results with Mahalanobis Distance post-processing technique. We choose two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. The results show that SELFOOD's OOD detection capabilities are enhanced with the post-processing technique." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
InDOODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
ClimaYelpSELFOOD14.70.698.090.8
SELFOOD + Maha0.80.299.297.2
YelpNYTSELFOOD63.219.679.482.7
SELFOOD + Maha12.44.497.497.5
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 164, + 480, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tance between a test data point and the distribution of in-distribution samples using the Mahalanobis distance metric. Following (Xu et al., 2020), we consider the intermediate layer encodings of the OOD classifier trained on in-distribution samples as its representative distribution. We apply this post-processing on top of SELFOOD and experiment with two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. As shown in Table 5, we observe further improvement in performance, demonstrating the quality of learned representative distribution using SELFOOD.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 255, + 487, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.7 Qualitative Analysis of SELFOOD", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 458, + 431, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a few examples with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD where SELFOOD accurately distinguishes and CE-loss fails to distinguish between in-distribution and OOD samples in Table 6. Although the first example has food-related words like lunch, cork and sentiment-indicative words such as contemptible scoundrel, SELFOOD accurately identifies it as OOD and CE loss model fails to do so. Examples 3 and 4 have questions that revolve around eateries. CE-Loss model confuses and predicts them as OOD as TREC dataset contains only questions. However, SELFOOD was able to rank them higher and accurately identify them as in-distribution.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 480, + 489, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 717, + 247, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we present SELFOOD, a novel framework for OOD detection that leverages only in-distribution samples as supervision. Building upon the insight that OOD samples typically do not belong to any in-distribution labels, we formulate the OOD detection problem as an inter-document intra-label ranking task. To address this challenge, we propose IDIL loss which guides the training process. Through extensive experiments on multiple datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness of SELFOOD on OOD detection task. However, we", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8fdfe9fd323f511cb13b9e3f9b76b8870373430a1fdfcce1f4727f34c868ed28.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Qualitative analysis of CE-Loss vs SELFOOD with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD datasets. Wrong predictions are in Red and correct predictions are in Green." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TextCE-LossSELFOOD
Who said “What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?”InDOOD
Who said “Give me liberty or give me death”?InDOOD
Its a tequila house - wouldn’t you want your staff to be knowledgeable about tequila? Call me silly. So Gregg and I are wondering Bourbon Street, looking for the next "place"...OODInD
the pitch reads: "what’s worse than mean girl cheerleaders? how about resurrected mean-girl cheerleaders with supernatural powers?" And if this place could be farther away from my house, it’d be in Camden... Oh, the Vomitorium, every time i grace the hipster-stained ...OODInD
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 140, + 873, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "also acknowledge that it comes at the expense of text classification performance. Future research can focus on developing techniques that effectively balance inter-document and intra-document comparisons, enabling improved performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 884, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 462, + 645, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned in the previous sections, the OOD detection performance of our method comes at the cost of classification performance. This limitation needs to be addressed.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 690, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper proposes a self-supervised OOD detection method. The aim of the paper is to minimize the human effort in annotating OOD documents and using only in-distribution documents for OOD detection. OOD detection is helpful in detection potential harmful content. Hence, we do not anticipate any major ethical concerns.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 590, + 882, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "9 Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 702, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank the anonymous reviewers and our colleagues from Shang Data Lab, especially Bill Hogan and Zihan Wang for their helpful feedback. Our work is sponsored in part by NSF CAREER Award 2239440, NSF Proto-OKN Award 2333790, NIH Bridge2AI Center Program under award 1U54HG012510-01, Cisco-UCSD Sponsored Research Project, as well as generous gifts from Google, Adobe, and Teradata. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and should", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10729", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 206, + 213, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805.", + "Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. 2018. Learning confidence for out-of-distribution detection in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04865.", + "Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. 2018. Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning. Neural Networks, 107:3-11.", + "Geli Fei and Bing Liu. 2016. Breaking the closed world assumption in text classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 506-514.", + "Varun Gangal, Abhinav Arora, Arash Einolghozati, and Sonal Gupta. 2020. Likelihood ratios and generative classifiers for unsupervised out-of-domain detection in task-oriented dialog. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7764-7771.", + "Irving John Good. 1952. Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 14(1):107-114.", + "Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321-1330. PMLR.", + "Chirag Gupta and Aaditya Ramdas. 2021. Top-label calibration and multiclass-to-binary reductions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08353." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 231, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. nature, 405(6789):947-951.", + "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Dietterich. 2018. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04606.", + "Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, ChinYew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. 2001. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research.", + "Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Generalized odin: Detecting out-of-distribution image without learning from out-of-distribution data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10951-10960.", + "Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2020. Selective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684-5696.", + "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and et al. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of-scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1311-1316.", + "Tanmay Laud, Daniel Spokoyny, Tom Corringham, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2023. Climabench: A benchmark dataset for climate change text understanding in english. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04253.", + "Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10730", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Christophe Leys, Olivier Klein, Yves Dominicy, and Christophe Ley. 2018. Detecting multivariate outliers: Use a robust variant of the mahalanobis distance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 74:150-156.", + "Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Xiaofei Sun, Chun Fan, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, Yuxian Meng, and Jun Zhang. 2021. $k$ folden: $k$ -fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12731.", + "Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Dheeraj Mekala, Chengyu Dong, and Jingbo Shang. 2022a. LOPS: Learning order inspired pseudo-label selection for weakly supervised text classification. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4894-4908, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dheeraj Mekala, Varun Gangal, and Jingbo Shang. 2021. Coarse2Fine: Fine-grained text classification on coarsely-grained annotated data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 583-594, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dheeraj Mekala and Jingbo Shang. 2020. Contextualized weak supervision for text classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 323-333.", + "Dheeraj Mekala, Tu Vu, Timo Schick, and Jingbo Shang. 2022b. Leveraging qa datasets to improve generative data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Jooyoung Moon, Jihyo Kim, Younghak Shin, and Sangheum Hwang. 2020. Confidence-aware learning for deep neural networks. In international conference on machine learning, pages 7034-7044. PMLR.", + "Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. 2015. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 427-436.", + "Yawen Ouyang, Jiasheng Ye, Yu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Energy-based unknown intent detection with data manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12542." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alexander Podolskiy, Dmitry Lipin, Andrey Bout, Ekaterina Artemova, and Irina Pionkovskaya. 2021. Revisiting mahalanobis distance for transformer-based out-of-domain detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13675-13682.", + "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.", + "Jie Ren, Peter J Liu, Emily Fertig, Jasper Snoek, Ryan Poplin, Mark Depristo, Joshua Dillon, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2019. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.", + "Frank Rosenblatt. 1957. The perceptron, a perceiving and recognizing automaton Project Para. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory.", + "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199.", + "Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J. Gordon. 2019. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Apoory Vyas, Nataraj Jammalamadaka, Xia Zhu, Dipankar Das, Bharat Kaul, and Theodore L Willke. 2018. Out-of-distribution detection using an ensemble of self supervised leave-out classifiers. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 550-564.", + "Hongxin Wei, Renchunzi Xie, Hao Cheng, Lei Feng, Bo An, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Mitigating neural network overconfidence with logit normalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23631-23644. PMLR.", + "Yanan Wu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, QiXiang Gao, Zhiyuan Zeng, Fujia Zheng, Lulu Zhao, Huixing Jiang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2022a. Revisit overconfidence for ood detection: Reassigned contrastive learning with adaptive class-dependent threshold. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4165-4179.", + "Yanan Wu, Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yutao Mou, Pei Wang, and Weiran Xu. 2022b. Distribution calibration for out-of-domain detection with Bayesian approximation. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 608-615, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10731", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2020. A deep generative distance-based classifier for out-of-domain detection with mahalanobis space. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1452-1460.", + "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Zijun Liu, Yanan Wu, Hong Xu, Huixing Jiang, and Weiran Xu. 2021a. Modeling discriminative representations for out-of-domain detection with supervised contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14289.", + "Zhiyuan Zeng, Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2021b. Adversarial generative distance-based classifier for robust out-of-domain detection. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7658-7662. IEEE.", + "Li-Ming Zhan, Haowen Liang, Bo Liu, Lu Fan, Xiaoming Wu, and Albert Lam. 2021. Out-of-scope intent detection with self-supervision and discriminative training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08616.", + "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, pages 649-657. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Wenxuan Zhou, Fangyu Liu, and Muhao Chen. 2021. Contrastive out-of-distribution detection for pretrained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08812." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10732", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 238, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Results with NYT & Clima as in-distribution datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 109, + 396, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present experimental results on Clima and NYT as in-distribution datasets with BERT and RoBERTa classifiers in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 146, + 487, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Experimental Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 205, + 339, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training trajectory analysis experiment. We compare two experiments showcasing empirical evidence on how the trajectory of CE-loss models and IDI loss models differ. In 3(b) we plot the change in validation FPR on BERT-classifiers optimized on CE-loss and IDIL loss. Here, we calculate the FPR across training steps on a validation dataset consisting of 500 in-distribution and OOD data points each to compare the training trajectories of the two models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 225, + 489, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We generate the toy dataset by creating five isometric Gaussian blobs of 3-dimensional data points, with each cluster containing 1000 samples. The centers of all the clusters are bounded by the range $[-10.0, 10.0]$ and the cluster standard deviation is set to 2.0 to account for limited overlap between cluster datapoints. We consider four clusters as being in-distribution and the remaining cluster as OOD. We train a logistic regression classifier on the in-domain datapoints initialized with the same weights and minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. The model is optimized using Stochastic Gradient Descent with a learning rate of 0.01 for 300 epochs. The weights are visualized at the beginning of each epoch. In order to facilitate visualization, the weight matrices of both approaches of dimension are flattened and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is applied to reduce the dimensionality of the weight matrix. We plot the top-3 principal components after each epoch to conclude that the learned weights of CE-loss and SELFOOD progress in a different manner.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 387, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10733", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/28bd720c516d0ea3088961387b884e4957a96758ee5d5e06303c61dbd0ff18d3.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
NYTClimaLogitNorm20.61.096.892.318.41.097.393.6
OneVsRest84.71.787.382.692.71.991.185.1
RCL46.91.594.487.586.72.386.776.6
Bayes Approx40.61.295.490.080.02.488.476.5
CE Loss22.11.096.992.515.71.097.392.8
CRL32.31.795.486.579.33.279.867.0
SELFOOD10.51.698.490.54.61.099.395.4
TRECLogitNorm13.35.597.287.917.56.496.184.1
OneVsRest96.06.284.079.497.26.390.582.8
RCL62.96.192.285.873.98.888.473.1
Bayes Approx38.84.594.889.967.58.388.774.7
CE Loss14.55.897.087.121.96.795.583.5
CRL67.96.589.979.185.69.671.461.4
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
YelpLogitNorm1.70.699.387.91.20.698.587.9
OneVsRest15.10.797.478.18.70.697.678.8
RCL45.10.594.984.776.71.090.260.0
Bayes Approx28.70.496.486.883.01.187.756.6
CE Loss3.40.799.282.31.80.699.385.4
CRL69.50.589.377.873.31.083.858.3
SELFOOD22.51.195.757.80.20.299.997.5
ClimaTRECLogitNorm37.85.594.691.960.57.091.688.0
OneVsRest25.56.895.591.854.315.584.567.7
RCL80.118.475.755.391.218.466.647.7
Bayes Approx83.715.877.563.865.713.983.670.7
CE Loss34.95.694.992.260.29.190.483.8
CRL83.012.782.072.260.912.679.263.2
SELFOOD0.31.199.499.438.98.890.184.7
YelpLogitNorm57.70.893.081.354.71.292.672.3
OneVsRest43.71.092.772.558.81.873.534.7
RCL91.02.360.712.298.02.356.412.7
Bayes Approx81.42.276.522.796.82.252.316.3
CE Loss46.30.993.880.179.51.986.547.2
CRL98.71.467.353.372.92.150.919.0
SELFOOD14.70.698.090.837.61.572.354.9
NYTLogitNorm37.64.294.487.346.14.593.185.4
OneVsRest34.64.894.385.340.69.483.151.3
RCL90.312.164.628.897.912.451.521.2
Bayes Approx87.411.270.438.396.811.355.829.2
CE Loss44.94.893.284.462.56.789.675.2
CRL85.67.678.062.561.39.461.839.9
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.555.36.768.661.5
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 208, + 878, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at $95\\%$ true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 882, + 787 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10734", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_model.json b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02d31028e7d6b43701af472370f24d5b6180f273 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2472 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.09, + 0.806, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELFOOD: Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.146, + 0.877, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala\\*, Adithya Samavedhi\\*, Chengyu Dong\\* Jingbo Shang\\*, University of California San Diego" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.188, + 0.79, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{\\text{©}}\\) Halicioglu Data Science Institute, University of California San Diego" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.33, + 0.207, + 0.673, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{dmekala, asamavedhi, cdong, jshang}@ucsd.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.283, + 0.461, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deep neural classifiers trained with cross-entropy (CE) loss often suffer from poor calibration, necessitating the task of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Traditional supervised OOD detection methods require expensive manual annotation of in-distribution and OOD samples. To address the annotation bottleneck, we introduce SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection method that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. We cast OOD detection as an inter-document intralabel (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier with our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents and their labels, for each label, we train the classifier to rank the softmax scores of documents belonging to that label to be higher than the scores of documents that belong to other labels. Unlike CE loss, our IDIL loss reaches zero when the desired confidence ranking is achieved and gradients are backpropagated to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than continuously increasing the probability of the correct label. Extensive experiments with several classifiers on multiple classification datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in both coarse-and fine-grained settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.696, + 0.26, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.723, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deep neural networks (DNNs) are ubiquitously used for text classification (Liu et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). However, they are generally poorly calibrated, resulting in erroneously high-confidence scores for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017; Mekala et al., 2022a). Such poor calibration makes DNNs unreliable, and OOD detection task vital for the safe deployment of" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.251, + 0.885, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.664, + 0.336, + 0.743, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) CE Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.36, + 0.886, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.657, + 0.443, + 0.746, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) IDIL Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.462, + 0.884, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: CE Loss and IDIL loss optimization for documents \\( D_{1} \\in \\text{Sports} \\) and \\( D_{2} \\in \\text{Arts} \\). CE loss increases scores corresponding to the Sports for \\( D_{1} \\) and Arts for \\( D_{2} \\), implying an intra-document comparison. Instead, IDIL loss compares softmax scores in an inter-document intra-label fashion where it reduces scores corresponding to Sports for \\( D_{2} \\) to be less than that of \\( D_{1} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.577, + 0.884, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "deep learning models in safety-critical applications (Moon et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Traditional supervised OOD detection methods (Hendrycks et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2021b) assume access to high-quality manually annotated in-distribution and OOD samples. However, this requires extensive annotation of OOD samples belonging to diverse distributions, which is expensive to obtain. Moreover, text classifiers are ideally desired to be more confident on in-distribution samples than OOD samples. However, the poor calibration of DNN precludes this phenomenon." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these problems, we propose SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection framework that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. To adhere to the aforementioned ranking constraint, we formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier using our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. As" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.894, + 0.279, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\spadesuit\\) Equal Contribution" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.906, + 0.413, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Jingbo Shang is the corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.894, + 0.413, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10721" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10721-10734" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.094, + 0.881, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.257, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: SELFOOD is a self-supervised framework that requires only annotated in-distribution data to train the OOD classifier. Firstly, we bucket documents based on their annotated label (in dotted lines). Then, we compare each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets to compute IDIL loss (in solid lines). Finally, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels during the training of the OOD classifier." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.34, + 0.49, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "shown in Figure 1(a), text classifiers are generally trained using cross-entropy (CE) loss (Good, 1952) in an intra-document fashion where for each document, the classifier is trained to distinguish between different labels by maximizing the score corresponding to the correct label. Instead, in our method, as shown in Figure 1(b), we propose to train in an inter-document, intra-label fashion where for each label, we train the model to rank the considered label probability score in documents belonging to the label higher compared to those not belonging to it. As OOD documents generally do not belong to any in-distribution label, we hypothesize such explicit learning to rank translates to accurately distinguishing OOD from in-distribution." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.582, + 0.49, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, minimizing CE loss involves continuous optimization to increase the probability of the correct label over the other labels, making the classifier overconfident (Wei et al., 2022). Instead, in our method, our IDIL loss function becomes zero once the desired ranking is achieved, and during training, we backpropagate gradients to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than increasing the probability of the correct label. Theoretically, the perfect model trained using the CE loss with 0 training loss is a solution to our ranking problem, however, in Section 5.1, we empirically show that our ranking objective leads to a different solution, demonstrating the importance of the optimization procedure. Finally, it is important to note that our ranking formulation, loss function, and the self-supervised training strategy are specifically designed to improve the performance of OOD detection rather than classification accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present our framework in Figure 2. Given a set of in-distribution documents and corresponding" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.34, + 0.885, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "labels as input, we bucket documents belonging to each label and train the classifier to rank the probabilities using our IDIL loss function. Specifically, for each document in a label bucket, we pair up with all documents in every other bucket and compute IDIL loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.437, + 0.871, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.453, + 0.883, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose SELFFOOD, a novel self-supervised method to train an OOD detection model without any OOD samples as supervision." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.502, + 0.884, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label ranking problem and optimize it using our IDIL ranking loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.55, + 0.884, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We perform extensive experiments on multiple text classification datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in OOD detection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.597, + 0.766, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We release the code on \\(\\mathbf{G h i t b u^{1}}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.453, + 0.884, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.628, + 0.667, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.655, + 0.885, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Traditional supervised methods cast the OOD detection as classification with binary labels (Kamath et al., 2020), with one additional label for unseen classes (Fei and Liu, 2016). Since manually annotating documents is expensive (Mekala and Shang, 2020; Mekala et al., 2022b), recent works have deviated from requiring such extensive annotations and leveraging various distance metrics to detect OOD samples. Leys et al. (2018); Xu et al. (2020) use Mahalanobis distance as a post-processing technique to identify OOD samples. These methods use distance-based scoring functions along with the intermediate model layer features to determine an OOD score. Lee et al. (2018); Hsu et al. (2020) use a similar distance metric called ODIN to detect" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.831, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10722" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OOD images. An alternate approach to compensate for the lack of OOD training data involves generating pseudo-OOD data for training. Ouyang et al. (2021) propose a framework to generate high-quality OOD utterances and importance weights by selectively replacing phrases in in-domain samples. Zhan et al. (2021) generate pseudo-OOD samples for the task of intent detection using self-supervision. Zhou et al. (2021); Zeng et al. (2021a) introduce self-supervised approaches to OOD detection using a contrastive learning framework. They suggest fine-tuning transformers using a margin-based contrastive loss to learn text representations (Mekala et al., 2021) for OOD classification. Vyas et al. (2018); Li et al. (2021) treat a part of in-domain data as OOD samples as an alternate self-supervised approach. Further, Wu et al. (2022a) use a Reassigned Contrastive Loss (RCL) along with an adaptive class-dependent threshold mechanism to separate in-domain and OOD intents. Ren et al. (2019); Ggangal et al. (2020) leverage likelihood ratios crafted by generative models to classify OOD samples. Wei et al. (2022) observe that the norm of the logits keeps increasing during training, leading to overconfident outputs, and propose LogitNorm as a solution to decoupling the output norm during training optimization. Moon et al. (2020) introduce a novel Correctness Ranking Loss function in order to regularize output probabilities to produce well-ranked confidence estimates. Other calibration techniques include \"Top-label\" calibration which is used to regularize the reported probability for the predicted class (Gupta and Ramdas, 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.646, + 0.444, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 SELFOOD: Self-Supervised OOD Detection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.691, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the problem statement, the motivation for our ranking formulation, and our method including the loss function and its optimization strategy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.753, + 0.315, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Problem Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we work on the OOD detection task with only in-distribution samples and no OOD samples as supervision. Specifically, given a labeled dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}^{InD} = \\{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),\\ldots (x_n,y_n)\\}\\) sampled from a distribution space \\((\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{C})\\) where documents \\(x_{i}\\in \\mathcal{X}\\) and labels \\(y_{i}\\in \\mathcal{C}\\) as input, our goal is to train an OOD detector \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) that accurately distinguishes in-distribution documents \\(\\mathcal{D}^{InD}\\) and OOD documents \\(\\mathcal{D}^{OOD}\\notin (\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{C})\\) without any" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.796, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OOD documents required for training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.112, + 0.644, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Motivation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.133, + 0.886, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Numerous neural text classifiers have been proposed, incorporating multiple hidden layers (Rosenblatt, 1957), convolutional layers (Kim, 2014), and various types of attention mechanisms (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019). All these models culminate in a softmax head, which produces probabilities corresponding to each class. These classifiers are generally trained with CE loss in an intra-document fashion i.e. each document is considered independently and the softmax score of the true label is maximized. Such training of neural text classifiers is known to increase the magnitude of logit vectors even when most training examples are correctly classified (Wei et al., 2022), making them poorly calibrated, producing unreasonably high probabilities even for incorrect predictions (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017). This diminishes their ability to maintain the desired attribute of ordinal ranking for predictions based on confidence levels, wherein a prediction exhibiting a higher confidence value should be considered more likely to be accurate than one with a lower confidence value (Moon et al., 2020). Intuitively, a text classifier possessing such quality would be a perfect OOD detector." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.545, + 0.83, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 OOD Detection as Inter-Document Intra-Label Ranking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.886, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to align with the aforementioned characteristic, we propose formulating the OOD detection as an inter-document, intra-label ranking problem. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents, we compare across documents but within the same label and train our model to generate higher probability score for documents belonging to the label than for documents not belonging to the label. We consider the same model architecture as any text classifier with a softmax head that generates scores corresponding to each label, however, we train it using our IDIL loss instead of CE loss. Our assumption is that an OOD document does not fall under any specific label in the in-distribution space. Hence, we anticipate that the trained model would produce lower scores for OOD documents compared to in-distribution documents. This distinction in scores is expected to facilitate easy separation between OOD and in-distribution documents." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.904, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "IDIL Loss is a pairwise-ranking loss that enforces" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.942 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10723" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "desired ordinal ranking of confidence estimates. This loss function reaches its minimum value for a particular label when the probability of that label being the annotated label is greater than its probability when it is not the annotated label. Specifically, for documents \\( x_{1}, x_{2} \\in \\mathcal{D}^{InD} \\) and their corresponding annotated labels \\( y_{1}, y_{2} \\) where \\( y_{1} \\neq y_{2} \\), IDIL loss corresponding to label \\( y_{1} \\) is mathematically computed as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.241, + 0.488, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {1}, x _ {2}\\right) = S i L U \\left(p \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {2}\\right) - p \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {1}\\right)\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.274, + 0.49, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( SiLU(x) = x\\sigma(x) \\) is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU) function (Elfwing et al., 2018). To ensure stable training and enhance performance, we incorporate the SiLU function, a continuous variant of the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) (Hahnloser et al., 2000), in conjunction with the ranking loss. The SiLU function introduces smooth gradients around zero, effectively mitigating potential instability issues during training. We observe that this inclusion contributes to the overall stability in training and improved performance of the model as shown in Section 4.5. Note that, in contrast to CE loss, IDIL loss becomes zero once desired ranking is achieved, addressing the overconfidence issue." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.51, + 0.288, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Implementation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.53, + 0.49, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ideally, the loss has to be computed over all possible pairs of documents for each model update. However, it is computationally expensive. Therefore, following (Toneva et al., 2019; Moon et al., 2020), we approximate the computation by considering only documents in each mini-batch. Specifically, we bucket the documents in the mini-batch based on their annotated label and pair each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets and compute the loss. Mathematically, the loss for a mini-batch \\( b \\) is computed as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.714, + 0.438, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\sum_ {l \\in \\mathcal {C}} \\sum_ {x _ {1} \\in b _ {l}} \\sum_ {x _ {2} \\in b _ {- l}} \\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} (l | x _ {1}, x _ {2})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.489, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( b_{l} \\) denotes the set of training data points \\( x \\) in this batch \\( b \\) whose label are \\( l \\), and \\( b_{-l} \\) denotes the set of training data points \\( x \\) in this batch \\( b \\) whose label is not \\( l \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast to CE loss, where the optimization involves increasing the score corresponding to the correct label, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels. Specifically, during the backpropagation of gradients, we detach the gradients for the subrahend" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.606, + 0.083, + 0.786, + 0.096 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Dataset statistics." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.099, + 0.88, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetDomainCriteria#Docs#labels
NYTNewsTopic1308126
YelpReviewsSentiment700005
ClimaClimateQuestion Type171758
TRECGeneralQuestion Type59526
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.204, + 0.885, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of the difference and exclusively propagate the gradients through the minuend. In Equation 1, for instance, we detach the gradients for \\( p(y_{1}|x_{1}) \\) and solely backpropagate the gradients through \\( p(y_{1}|x_{2}) \\). This detachment allows for a more controlled and selective gradient flow, aiding in the optimization process, and improvement in performance as shown in Section 4.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.333, + 0.885, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is important to note that our optimization focuses solely on the inter-document ranking loss. Consequently, while the trained model would serve as a reliable OOD detector, it may not perform as effectively as a classifier." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.425, + 0.656, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.45, + 0.884, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our OOD detection method against state-of-the-art baselines with two classifiers on multiple datasets belonging to different domains." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.509, + 0.625, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.885, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our method and baselines on four publicly available English text classification datasets belonging to different domains. In particular, we consider the news topic classification dataset New York Times (NYT), restaurant review sentiment classification dataset Yelp, and question-type classification datasets related to climate: ClimaInsurance+ (Clima) (Laud et al., 2023), and a general domain: TREC (Li and Roth, 2002; Hovy et al., 2001). The documents within the New York Times dataset are labeled with both coarse and fine-grained labels. For our training and testing process, we utilize fine-grained labels. The dataset statistics are provided in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.765, + 0.715, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Compared Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.786, + 0.885, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Cross Entropy Loss (CE Loss) trains a classifier using CE loss on in-distribution documents. The predicted probabilities from the classifier are used as confidence estimates for OOD detection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.85, + 0.884, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Correctness Ranking Loss (CRL) (Moon et al., 2020) is a regularization term added to the CE" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.786, + 0.885, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.89, + 0.761, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2http://developer.nytimes.com/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.761, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://www.yelp.com/dataset/" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.89, + 0.761, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10724" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at \\(95\\%\\) true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.149, + 0.88, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
YelpNYTLogitNorm82.033.269.457.984.433.966.655.0
OneVsRest85.135.862.449.388.529.669.856.5
RCL56.931.273.255.287.734.556.745.0
Bayes Approx64.335.966.550.379.636.454.140.8
CE Loss82.134.963.450.779.832.966.858.0
CRL99.936.943.951.199.828.164.860.5
SELFOOD63.219.679.482.769.521.672.678.8
ClimaLogitNorm79.225.572.554.882.625.470.754.0
OneVsRest83.025.169.553.286.728.053.833.7
RCL59.927.867.442.173.922.570.756.3
Bayes Approx74.728.756.733.663.028.066.840.9
CE Loss83.227.848.637.076.422.078.268.4
CRL99.629.049.138.899.920.663.056.9
SELFOOD17.64.897.996.465.616.673.277.2
TRECLogitNorm68.227.079.882.160.823.083.984.4
OneVsRest84.840.063.969.775.533.057.961.2
RCL89.843.240.151.577.432.465.068.6
Bayes Approx92.544.732.144.751.825.972.769.4
CE Loss74.233.752.862.758.527.575.378.3
CRL33.315.566.777.2100.037.356.773.9
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.055.120.680.290.3
TRECYelpLogitNorm32.30.395.578.115.20.595.744.7
OneVsRest4.20.397.983.439.30.491.663.0
RCL78.50.680.220.267.70.683.024.2
Bayes Approx46.60.493.061.663.70.787.721.3
CE Loss27.20.394.971.211.30.496.962.3
CRL96.60.770.916.599.80.724.39.7
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
NYTLogitNorm9.31.097.791.210.92.397.277.3
OneVsRest1.80.599.095.832.51.893.274.8
RCL63.63.384.145.774.23.080.445.1
Bayes Approx39.12.593.568.164.93.088.454.4
CE Loss8.41.397.687.56.81.498.187.1
CRL97.23.373.035.299.93.822.912.2
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
ClimaLogitNorm11.30.897.688.510.41.697.375.9
OneVsRest3.40.698.793.236.31.891.760.1
RCL73.52.481.237.160.72.086.448.2
Bayes Approx51.72.090.554.461.12.487.640.4
CE Loss15.11.796.269.512.21.896.467.8
CRL86.32.280.739.598.92.730.113.0
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.685, + 0.489, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "loss to make class probabilities better confidence estimates. It estimates the true class probability to be proportional to the number of times a sample is classified correctly during training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.75, + 0.486, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- LogitNorm (Wei et al., 2022) is a variant of CE loss that normalizes the logit vector to have a constant norm during training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.798, + 0.486, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Bayesian Approximation (Bayes Approx) (Wu et al., 2022b) calibrates distribution uncertainty for OOD detection using Monte-Carlo dropout." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.846, + 0.486, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Reassigned Contrastive Learning (RCL) (Wu et al., 2022a) discriminates over-confident OOD samples using adaptive class-dependent local threshold mechanism." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.75, + 0.486, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.685, + 0.883, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- OneVsRest trains a one vs rest binary classifier per label. The probability scores of each label from its corresponding classifier are normalized and used as their respective confidence estimates." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.766, + 0.73, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Experimental Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.789, + 0.884, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as text classifiers. For SELFOOD, we train the classifier for 5 epochs with a batch size of 16 using an AdamW optimizer. We use a learning rate of 5e-5 using a linear scheduler with no warm-up steps. For all baselines, we train the classifier for the same number of steps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our evaluation, for each dataset as in-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10725" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "distribution, we treat all other datasets as OOD and compute the performance. Our evaluation follows a standard approach for each in-distribution dataset where we begin by splitting the in-distribution dataset into three subsets: \\(80\\%\\) for train, \\(10\\%\\) for val, and \\(10\\%\\) for test. The model is trained using the train split, and its performance is evaluated on both the test split of the in-distribution dataset and the entire OOD dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.23, + 0.49, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation Metrics. We utilize evaluation metrics from (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017; DeVries and Taylor, 2018; Moon et al., 2020) such as the false positive rate at \\(95\\%\\) true positive rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.369, + 0.219, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.39, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We summarize the evaluation results with BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers on Yahoo, TREC as in-distribution in Table 2 and NYT, Clima as in-distribution in Appendix A.1. All experiments are run on three random seeds and the mean performance scores are reported. As shown in Table 2, we observe that SELFOOD performs better than the baselines on most of the in-distribution, OOD dataset pairs for both classifiers. A low FPR95 value indicates that the top- \\(95\\%\\) confident in-distribution samples, selected based on their probability scores, predominantly rank higher than a majority of OOD samples and SELFOOD achieves improvements of up to 82 points in FPR95 with Yelp as in-distribution and Clima as OOD datasets when compared to CRL with BERT classifier. SELFOOD also exhibits substantial improvements of up to 33 points in Detection Error, 48 points in AUROC, and 58 points in AUPR when compared to CE-Loss with BERT classifier. SELFOOD achieves a perfect OOD detection score for some settings such as TREC as in-distribution dataset for both BERT and RoBERTa classifiers. These results highlight the effectiveness of our ranking formulation with self-supervised training using IDIL loss." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.819, + 0.281, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To understand the impact of each component in our IDIL loss design and implementation, we compare our method with four ablated versions with BERT classifier in Table 3: (1) SELFOOD + Grad Sub represents our method with backpropagating gradi" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.083, + 0.78, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation Study." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.098, + 0.878, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodFPR95ERR\nIn Dist: Clima\nOOD: NYTAUROCAUPR
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.5
+ Grad Sub67.98.982.461.1
+ Grad Sub & Min98.410.749.232.3
+ Intra-Doc92.710.667.341.6
- SILu14.63.996.789.3
In Dist: NYT\nOOD: Clima
SELFOOD10.51.798.490.5
+ Grad Sub only83.55.177.444.8
+ Grad Sub & Min96.55.260.336.0
+ Intra-Doc48.32.693.280.2
- SiLU19.02.397.486.0
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.296, + 0.885, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ents through the subtrahend instead of the minuend, (2) SELFOOD \\(^+\\) Grad Sub & Min represents our method with gradients backpropagating through both minuend and subtrahend, (3) SELFOOD \\(^+\\) Intra-Doc considers intra-document comparison similar to CE loss, in addition to inter-document intra-label comparison for loss computation, and (4) SELFOOD-SiLU excludes SiLU function from the IDIL loss formulation. We also present the performance of SELFOOD for reference. SELFOOD performs better than SELFOOD \\(^+\\) Grad Sub & Min demonstrating that backpropagating through one part of the difference is more beneficial than both, and the comparison between SELFOOD and SELFOOD \\(^+\\) Grad Sub indicates that backpropagating through minuend is better than subtrahend. We observe that incorporating intra-document comparison into loss formulation leads to a decrement in the ranking ability of the model. Finally, we observe that removing the SiLU function from the IDIL loss leads to a decrease in most of the metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.648, + 0.755, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis & Case Studies" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.675, + 0.885, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present a comprehensive analysis of our proposed method from different perspectives to understand its effectiveness." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.736, + 0.816, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 CE Loss vs SELFOOD: Training Trajectory Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mathematically, the model trained using CE loss is a solution to our IDIL loss optimization. However, our empirical results reveal a significant disparity in OOD detection performance between SELFOOD and model trained on CE loss. To gain a deeper understanding, we plot the CE Loss and IDIL losses for models optimized with IDIL and CE loss, as shown in Figure 3(a). We consider Clima as the in-distribution dataset and BERT as the classifier." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10726" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.1, + 0.359, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.224, + 0.33, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Losses vs Training Steps" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.37, + 0.099, + 0.611, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.41, + 0.224, + 0.573, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) FPR vs Training Steps" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.632, + 0.1, + 0.811, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.654, + 0.224, + 0.78, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Learned weights" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.243, + 0.882, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: To understand training trajectories of CE Loss and SELFOOD, we plot their respective losses, validation FPR, and learned weights while training. We observe IDIL loss minimization is more correlated with performance and the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD show divergent paths since the beginning." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.289, + 0.36, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.42, + 0.28, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) CE Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.372, + 0.289, + 0.61, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.463, + 0.42, + 0.519, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) CRL" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.622, + 0.293, + 0.868, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.698, + 0.42, + 0.792, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) SELFOOD" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.438, + 0.882, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Maximum softmax score vs percentile in-distribution & OOD data associated with that score. By using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold (dotted line) for OOD classification, CE loss considers more than \\(50\\%\\) and CRL considers almost \\(100\\%\\) of the OOD data as in-distribution (red region). However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in maximum softmax scores that separate OOD and in-distribution." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.504, + 0.49, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, we plot the validation FPR95 using Yelp as the OOD dataset to analyze the correlation between loss minimization and performance in Figure 3(b). Figure 3(a) illustrates that while minimizing CE loss leads to fluctuations in the IDIL loss, ultimately reaching zero, Figure 3(b) shows that the performance is more closely associated with explicit IDIL minimization. Specifically, minimizing the IDIL loss results in improved FPR95. The findings indicate that the minimization of CE loss and IDIL loss follows distinct trajectories. To validate this hypothesis, we conduct an experiment using a toy 3-dimensional dataset comprising five isometric Gaussian blobs and train a logistic regression classifier initialized with same weights, minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. We flatten the weight matrix and plot the top-3 principal components. As shown in Figure 3(c), the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD progress in different directions, thereby confirming our hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.846, + 0.425, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Maximum softmax score Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We plot the maximum softmax score with the percentile in-distribution and OOD data associated with that score for CE loss, CRL, and SELFOOD" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.504, + 0.885, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with BERT classifier on Clima as in-distribution and NYT as OOD datasets in Figure 4. When comparing the maximum softmax score with the percentile data associated with that score, interesting observations can be made regarding its distribution. Specifically, when using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold for OOD classification, we find that the CE loss considers over \\(50\\%\\) of the OOD data and CRL considers almost \\(100\\%\\) of the OOD data as in-distribution. However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in the maximum softmax scores that effectively separates OOD and in-distribution data. This suggests that the threshold needs to be carefully tuned for CE loss and CRL, requiring more effort and annotated data, whereas in the case of SELFOOD, we do not require such tuning. This demonstrates that SELFOOD is capable of accurately classifying between OOD and in-distribution samples based on their respective maximum softmax scores, resulting in superior performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.862, + 0.707, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Batch size Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare documents within the mini-batch when computing the loss. Consequently, the num" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10727" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.088, + 0.298, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.178, + 0.237, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) NYT" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.088, + 0.483, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.368, + 0.178, + 0.422, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Yelp" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Performance of SELFOOD w.r.t. batch size. We consider BERT classifier, Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. We observe an increase in performance with an increase in batch size." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.265, + 0.49, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ber of document pairs over which the loss is computed depends on the batch size used during training. To investigate the impact of batch size on performance, we vary the batch size and evaluate the corresponding performance in Figure 5 with BERT classifier. We consider Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. As the batch size increases, the performance of the model also improves, until a batch size of 16, where the performance reaches a plateau. This observation aligns with our intuition that a larger batch size allows for more in-batch document pairs to be compared, leading to more accurate loss computation. Based on these findings, we recommend utilizing a batch size of 16 or higher to achieve optimal performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.518, + 0.388, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Fine-grained OOD Detection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.539, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To explore the limits of SELFOOD, we consider in-distribution and OOD datasets from the same domain. The objective is to assess its ability to differentiate between samples that are closely related but still OOD, which is a challenging task. Specifically, we consider the news domain and choose NYT as the in-distribution, and AGNews (Zhang et al., 2015), \\(20\\mathrm{News}^4\\) as OOD datasets and train BERT classifier. As shown in Table 4, SELFOOD performs significantly better than the baselines on most of the metrics. Moreover, it also achieves near-perfect scores for the AGNews, highlighting its ability to accurately identify OOD samples even when they belong to the same domain as the in-distribution dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.792, + 0.483, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 Classification performance of SELFOOD" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The BERT classifier trained with CE-Loss demonstrates exceptional classification performance, achieving accuracy scores of \\(97\\%\\), \\(85\\%\\), and \\(97\\%\\) on NYT, Clima, and TREC datasets respectively. In contrast, SELFOOD achieves only \\(0.3\\%\\), \\(9.5\\%\\)," + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Fine-grained OOD detection results with NYT as the in-distribution dataset with BERT classifier. We choose two datasets AGNews, 20News from the news domain, the same as NYT, and consider them as OOD datasets. The results show that SELFOOD can accurately detect OOD samples within the same domain." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.17, + 0.878, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
AGNewsLogitNorm45.90.986.715.8
Bayes Approx57.50.987.723.9
CE-Loss45.50.986.516.6
CRL77.20.980.69.5
SELFOOD0.00.1100.099.4
20NewsLogitNorm24.56.291.739.2
Bayes Approx35.04.393.766.6
CE-Loss25.46.291.939.6
CRL59.96.487.436.9
SELFOOD28.24.994.261.5
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.322, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and \\(1.8\\%\\). This highlights that while SELFOOD serves as a reliable OOD detector, its performance as a text classifier is subpar. This observation can be attributed to our IDIL loss formulation, which focuses on comparing confidence levels across documents for each label rather than across labels for each document. As a result, the IDIL loss primarily promotes the ordinal ranking of confidence levels across documents, which enhances the model's OOD detection capabilities. However, this emphasis on inter-document ranking comes at the expense of inter-label ranking, resulting in limited classification capabilities. Moreover, when we introduce the intra-document comparison to the IDIL loss, as discussed in Section 4.5, we observe a decline in the model's ranking ability. Podolskiy et al. (2021) use mahalanobis distance for OOD detection and observe that although mahalanobis distance alongside transformer-based models is effective, such methods are sensitive to the geometric features in the embedding space and can be spoilt if the embedder is used for classification and is overfit. This matches with our observation, upon adding intra-document comparison to the loss, the OOD detection performance drops. This further supports the notion that balancing the inter-document and intra-document comparisons is crucial for achieving optimal performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.801, + 0.836, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.6 SELFOOD + Mahalanobis distance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mahalanobis distance-based estimation of OOD scores is an effective post-processing method used on trained OOD classifiers (Leys et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020). We investigate whether this postprocessing further improves the performance of our method. OOD scores are estimated as the dis" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.903, + 0.426, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10728" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.083, + 0.49, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: OOD detection results with Mahalanobis Distance post-processing technique. We choose two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. The results show that SELFOOD's OOD detection capabilities are enhanced with the post-processing technique." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.165, + 0.482, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
InDOODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
ClimaYelpSELFOOD14.70.698.090.8
SELFOOD + Maha0.80.299.297.2
YelpNYTSELFOOD63.219.679.482.7
SELFOOD + Maha12.44.497.497.5
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.256, + 0.489, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tance between a test data point and the distribution of in-distribution samples using the Mahalanobis distance metric. Following (Xu et al., 2020), we consider the intermediate layer encodings of the OOD classifier trained on in-distribution samples as its representative distribution. We apply this post-processing on top of SELFOOD and experiment with two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. As shown in Table 5, we observe further improvement in performance, demonstrating the quality of learned representative distribution using SELFOOD." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.46, + 0.433, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.7 Qualitative Analysis of SELFOOD" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.481, + 0.49, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a few examples with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD where SELFOOD accurately distinguishes and CE-loss fails to distinguish between in-distribution and OOD samples in Table 6. Although the first example has food-related words like lunch, cork and sentiment-indicative words such as contemptible scoundrel, SELFOOD accurately identifies it as OOD and CE loss model fails to do so. Examples 3 and 4 have questions that revolve around eateries. CE-Loss model confuses and predicts them as OOD as TREC dataset contains only questions. However, SELFOOD was able to rank them higher and accurately identify them as in-distribution." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.718, + 0.248, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we present SELFOOD, a novel framework for OOD detection that leverages only in-distribution samples as supervision. Building upon the insight that OOD samples typically do not belong to any in-distribution labels, we formulate the OOD detection problem as an inter-document intra-label ranking task. To address this challenge, we propose IDIL loss which guides the training process. Through extensive experiments on multiple datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness of SELFOOD on OOD detection task. However, we" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.083, + 0.883, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Qualitative analysis of CE-Loss vs SELFOOD with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD datasets. Wrong predictions are in Red and correct predictions are in Green." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.141, + 0.875, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TextCE-LossSELFOOD
Who said “What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?”InDOOD
Who said “Give me liberty or give me death”?InDOOD
Its a tequila house - wouldn’t you want your staff to be knowledgeable about tequila? Call me silly. So Gregg and I are wondering Bourbon Street, looking for the next "place"...OODInD
the pitch reads: "what’s worse than mean girl cheerleaders? how about resurrected mean-girl cheerleaders with supernatural powers?" And if this place could be farther away from my house, it’d be in Camden... Oh, the Vomitorium, every time i grace the hipster-stained ...OODInD
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.354, + 0.885, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "also acknowledge that it comes at the expense of text classification performance. Future research can focus on developing techniques that effectively balance inter-document and intra-document comparisons, enabling improved performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.463, + 0.646, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.884, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned in the previous sections, the OOD detection performance of our method comes at the cost of classification performance. This limitation needs to be addressed." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.566, + 0.692, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.592, + 0.884, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper proposes a self-supervised OOD detection method. The aim of the paper is to minimize the human effort in annotating OOD documents and using only in-distribution documents for OOD detection. OOD detection is helpful in detection potential harmful content. Hence, we do not anticipate any major ethical concerns." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.717, + 0.704, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9 Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers and our colleagues from Shang Data Lab, especially Bill Hogan and Zihan Wang for their helpful feedback. Our work is sponsored in part by NSF CAREER Award 2239440, NSF Proto-OKN Award 2333790, NIH Bridge2AI Center Program under award 1U54HG012510-01, Cisco-UCSD Sponsored Research Project, as well as generous gifts from Google, Adobe, and Teradata. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and should" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10729" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.208, + 0.214, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.232, + 0.49, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.425, + 0.489, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.487, + 0.489, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. 2018. Learning confidence for out-of-distribution detection in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04865." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.538, + 0.489, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. 2018. Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning. Neural Networks, 107:3-11." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.601, + 0.49, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Geli Fei and Bing Liu. 2016. Breaking the closed world assumption in text classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 506-514." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.677, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Varun Gangal, Abhinav Arora, Arash Einolghozati, and Sonal Gupta. 2020. Likelihood ratios and generative classifiers for unsupervised out-of-domain detection in task-oriented dialog. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7764-7771." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.766, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Irving John Good. 1952. Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 14(1):107-114." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.816, + 0.49, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321-1330. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chirag Gupta and Aaditya Ramdas. 2021. Top-label calibration and multiclass-to-binary reductions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08353." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.232, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. nature, 405(6789):947-951." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.167, + 0.885, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.235, + 0.885, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Dietterich. 2018. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04606." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.289, + 0.885, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, ChinYew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. 2001. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.37, + 0.885, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Generalized odin: Detecting out-of-distribution image without learning from out-of-distribution data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10951-10960." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.464, + 0.885, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2020. Selective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684-5696." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.545, + 0.885, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.639, + 0.885, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and et al. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of-scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1311-1316." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.785, + 0.885, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tanmay Laud, Daniel Spokoyny, Tom Corringham, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2023. Climabench: A benchmark dataset for climate change text understanding in english. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04253." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10730" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christophe Leys, Olivier Klein, Yves Dominicy, and Christophe Ley. 2018. Detecting multivariate outliers: Use a robust variant of the mahalanobis distance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 74:150-156." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.165, + 0.489, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Xiaofei Sun, Chun Fan, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, Yuxian Meng, and Jun Zhang. 2021. \\(k\\) folden: \\(k\\)-fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12731." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.229, + 0.489, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.281, + 0.489, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.359, + 0.489, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala, Chengyu Dong, and Jingbo Shang. 2022a. LOPS: Learning order inspired pseudo-label selection for weakly supervised text classification. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4894-4908, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.463, + 0.489, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala, Varun Gangal, and Jingbo Shang. 2021. Coarse2Fine: Fine-grained text classification on coarsely-grained annotated data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 583-594, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala and Jingbo Shang. 2020. Contextualized weak supervision for text classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 323-333." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.645, + 0.489, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala, Tu Vu, Timo Schick, and Jingbo Shang. 2022b. Leveraging qa datasets to improve generative data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.723, + 0.489, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jooyoung Moon, Jihyo Kim, Younghak Shin, and Sangheum Hwang. 2020. Confidence-aware learning for deep neural networks. In international conference on machine learning, pages 7034-7044. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.787, + 0.489, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. 2015. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 427-436." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yawen Ouyang, Jiasheng Ye, Yu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Energy-based unknown intent detection with data manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12542." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Podolskiy, Dmitry Lipin, Andrey Bout, Ekaterina Artemova, and Irina Pionkovskaya. 2021. Revisiting mahalanobis distance for transformer-based out-of-domain detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13675-13682." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.178, + 0.883, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.232, + 0.883, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jie Ren, Peter J Liu, Emily Fertig, Jasper Snoek, Ryan Poplin, Mark Depristo, Joshua Dillon, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2019. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.311, + 0.883, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Frank Rosenblatt. 1957. The perceptron, a perceiving and recognizing automaton Project Para. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.365, + 0.883, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.883, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J. Gordon. 2019. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.523, + 0.883, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Apoory Vyas, Nataraj Jammalamadaka, Xia Zhu, Dipankar Das, Bharat Kaul, and Theodore L Willke. 2018. Out-of-distribution detection using an ensemble of self supervised leave-out classifiers. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 550-564." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.616, + 0.883, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongxin Wei, Renchunzi Xie, Hao Cheng, Lei Feng, Bo An, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Mitigating neural network overconfidence with logit normalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23631-23644. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.695, + 0.883, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanan Wu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, QiXiang Gao, Zhiyuan Zeng, Fujia Zheng, Lulu Zhao, Huixing Jiang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2022a. Revisit overconfidence for ood detection: Reassigned contrastive learning with adaptive class-dependent threshold. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4165-4179." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanan Wu, Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yutao Mou, Pei Wang, and Weiran Xu. 2022b. Distribution calibration for out-of-domain detection with Bayesian approximation. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 608-615, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10731" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2020. A deep generative distance-based classifier for out-of-domain detection with mahalanobis space. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1452-1460." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.251, + 0.488, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Zijun Liu, Yanan Wu, Hong Xu, Huixing Jiang, and Weiran Xu. 2021a. Modeling discriminative representations for out-of-domain detection with supervised contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14289." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.327, + 0.488, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyuan Zeng, Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2021b. Adversarial generative distance-based classifier for robust out-of-domain detection. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7658-7662. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.428, + 0.488, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li-Ming Zhan, Haowen Liang, Bo Liu, Lu Fan, Xiaoming Wu, and Albert Lam. 2021. Out-of-scope intent detection with self-supervision and discriminative training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08616." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.491, + 0.488, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, pages 649-657. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.58, + 0.488, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenxuan Zhou, Fangyu Liu, and Muhao Chen. 2021. Contrastive out-of-distribution detection for pretrained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08812." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10732" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.239, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.11, + 0.398, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Results with NYT & Clima as in-distribution datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.147, + 0.488, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present experimental results on Clima and NYT as in-distribution datasets with BERT and RoBERTa classifiers in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.206, + 0.34, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Experimental Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.227, + 0.49, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training trajectory analysis experiment. We compare two experiments showcasing empirical evidence on how the trajectory of CE-loss models and IDI loss models differ. In 3(b) we plot the change in validation FPR on BERT-classifiers optimized on CE-loss and IDIL loss. Here, we calculate the FPR across training steps on a validation dataset consisting of 500 in-distribution and OOD data points each to compare the training trajectories of the two models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.388, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We generate the toy dataset by creating five isometric Gaussian blobs of 3-dimensional data points, with each cluster containing 1000 samples. The centers of all the clusters are bounded by the range \\([-10.0, 10.0]\\) and the cluster standard deviation is set to 2.0 to account for limited overlap between cluster datapoints. We consider four clusters as being in-distribution and the remaining cluster as OOD. We train a logistic regression classifier on the in-domain datapoints initialized with the same weights and minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. The model is optimized using Stochastic Gradient Descent with a learning rate of 0.01 for 300 epochs. The weights are visualized at the beginning of each epoch. In order to facilitate visualization, the weight matrices of both approaches of dimension are flattened and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is applied to reduce the dimensionality of the weight matrix. We plot the top-3 principal components after each epoch to conclude that the learned weights of CE-loss and SELFOOD progress in a different manner." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10733" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.209, + 0.88, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
NYTClimaLogitNorm20.61.096.892.318.41.097.393.6
OneVsRest84.71.787.382.692.71.991.185.1
RCL46.91.594.487.586.72.386.776.6
Bayes Approx40.61.295.490.080.02.488.476.5
CE Loss22.11.096.992.515.71.097.392.8
CRL32.31.795.486.579.33.279.867.0
SELFOOD10.51.698.490.54.61.099.395.4
TRECLogitNorm13.35.597.287.917.56.496.184.1
OneVsRest96.06.284.079.497.26.390.582.8
RCL62.96.192.285.873.98.888.473.1
Bayes Approx38.84.594.889.967.58.388.774.7
CE Loss14.55.897.087.121.96.795.583.5
CRL67.96.589.979.185.69.671.461.4
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
YelpLogitNorm1.70.699.387.91.20.698.587.9
OneVsRest15.10.797.478.18.70.697.678.8
RCL45.10.594.984.776.71.090.260.0
Bayes Approx28.70.496.486.883.01.187.756.6
CE Loss3.40.799.282.31.80.699.385.4
CRL69.50.589.377.873.31.083.858.3
SELFOOD22.51.195.757.80.20.299.997.5
ClimaTRECLogitNorm37.85.594.691.960.57.091.688.0
OneVsRest25.56.895.591.854.315.584.567.7
RCL80.118.475.755.391.218.466.647.7
Bayes Approx83.715.877.563.865.713.983.670.7
CE Loss34.95.694.992.260.29.190.483.8
CRL83.012.782.072.260.912.679.263.2
SELFOOD0.31.199.499.438.98.890.184.7
YelpLogitNorm57.70.893.081.354.71.292.672.3
OneVsRest43.71.092.772.558.81.873.534.7
RCL91.02.360.712.298.02.356.412.7
Bayes Approx81.42.276.522.796.82.252.316.3
CE Loss46.30.993.880.179.51.986.547.2
CRL98.71.467.353.372.92.150.919.0
SELFOOD14.70.698.090.837.61.572.354.9
NYTLogitNorm37.64.294.487.346.14.593.185.4
OneVsRest34.64.894.385.340.69.483.151.3
RCL90.312.164.628.897.912.451.521.2
Bayes Approx87.411.270.438.396.811.355.829.2
CE Loss44.94.893.284.462.56.789.675.2
CRL85.67.678.062.561.39.461.839.9
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.555.36.768.661.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.73, + 0.883, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at \\(95\\%\\) true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10734" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_origin.pdf b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afb70823ded1d073813855971590e68559e33b9a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/f2ac6bc4-d902-4552-a8de-3700ee905922_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:85df53e816e2b2aab9a02c63a3fb7feff836ef055d499ae0e47ce34c0f7c2584 +size 655530 diff --git a/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/full.md b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0cc306595293850a413621a874345a09a362817 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,323 @@ +# SELFOOD: Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank + +Dheeraj Mekala\*, Adithya Samavedhi\*, Chengyu Dong\* Jingbo Shang\*, University of California San Diego + +$^{\text{©}}$ Halicioglu Data Science Institute, University of California San Diego + +{dmekala, asamavedhi, cdong, jshang}@ucsd.edu + +# Abstract + +Deep neural classifiers trained with cross-entropy (CE) loss often suffer from poor calibration, necessitating the task of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Traditional supervised OOD detection methods require expensive manual annotation of in-distribution and OOD samples. To address the annotation bottleneck, we introduce SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection method that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. We cast OOD detection as an inter-document intralabel (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier with our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents and their labels, for each label, we train the classifier to rank the softmax scores of documents belonging to that label to be higher than the scores of documents that belong to other labels. Unlike CE loss, our IDIL loss reaches zero when the desired confidence ranking is achieved and gradients are backpropagated to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than continuously increasing the probability of the correct label. Extensive experiments with several classifiers on multiple classification datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in both coarse-and fine-grained settings. + +# 1 Introduction + +Deep neural networks (DNNs) are ubiquitously used for text classification (Liu et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). However, they are generally poorly calibrated, resulting in erroneously high-confidence scores for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017; Mekala et al., 2022a). Such poor calibration makes DNNs unreliable, and OOD detection task vital for the safe deployment of + +![](images/c911208f1877b4fdcb0be004bc715b8b1c27785693980a6d460f09e969f8b0ce.jpg) +(a) CE Loss + +![](images/47bfbf0f3c5f5ed60d454d099ba9821a6ea8a0bf8dadf2144d351de3798331a5.jpg) +(b) IDIL Loss +Figure 1: CE Loss and IDIL loss optimization for documents $D_{1} \in \text{Sports}$ and $D_{2} \in \text{Arts}$ . CE loss increases scores corresponding to the Sports for $D_{1}$ and Arts for $D_{2}$ , implying an intra-document comparison. Instead, IDIL loss compares softmax scores in an inter-document intra-label fashion where it reduces scores corresponding to Sports for $D_{2}$ to be less than that of $D_{1}$ . + +deep learning models in safety-critical applications (Moon et al., 2020). + +Traditional supervised OOD detection methods (Hendrycks et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2021b) assume access to high-quality manually annotated in-distribution and OOD samples. However, this requires extensive annotation of OOD samples belonging to diverse distributions, which is expensive to obtain. Moreover, text classifiers are ideally desired to be more confident on in-distribution samples than OOD samples. However, the poor calibration of DNN precludes this phenomenon. + +To address these problems, we propose SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection framework that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. To adhere to the aforementioned ranking constraint, we formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier using our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. As + +![](images/cae2b87cb7c1d319cdd7e34ae37f7b41387a297617da57a959bfdb29c3316ced.jpg) +Figure 2: SELFOOD is a self-supervised framework that requires only annotated in-distribution data to train the OOD classifier. Firstly, we bucket documents based on their annotated label (in dotted lines). Then, we compare each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets to compute IDIL loss (in solid lines). Finally, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels during the training of the OOD classifier. + +shown in Figure 1(a), text classifiers are generally trained using cross-entropy (CE) loss (Good, 1952) in an intra-document fashion where for each document, the classifier is trained to distinguish between different labels by maximizing the score corresponding to the correct label. Instead, in our method, as shown in Figure 1(b), we propose to train in an inter-document, intra-label fashion where for each label, we train the model to rank the considered label probability score in documents belonging to the label higher compared to those not belonging to it. As OOD documents generally do not belong to any in-distribution label, we hypothesize such explicit learning to rank translates to accurately distinguishing OOD from in-distribution. + +Moreover, minimizing CE loss involves continuous optimization to increase the probability of the correct label over the other labels, making the classifier overconfident (Wei et al., 2022). Instead, in our method, our IDIL loss function becomes zero once the desired ranking is achieved, and during training, we backpropagate gradients to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than increasing the probability of the correct label. Theoretically, the perfect model trained using the CE loss with 0 training loss is a solution to our ranking problem, however, in Section 5.1, we empirically show that our ranking objective leads to a different solution, demonstrating the importance of the optimization procedure. Finally, it is important to note that our ranking formulation, loss function, and the self-supervised training strategy are specifically designed to improve the performance of OOD detection rather than classification accuracy. + +We present our framework in Figure 2. Given a set of in-distribution documents and corresponding + +labels as input, we bucket documents belonging to each label and train the classifier to rank the probabilities using our IDIL loss function. Specifically, for each document in a label bucket, we pair up with all documents in every other bucket and compute IDIL loss. + +Our contributions are summarized as follows: + +- We propose SELFFOOD, a novel self-supervised method to train an OOD detection model without any OOD samples as supervision. +- We formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label ranking problem and optimize it using our IDIL ranking loss. +- We perform extensive experiments on multiple text classification datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in OOD detection. +We release the code on $\mathbf{G h i t b u^{1}}$ + +# 2 Related Work + +Traditional supervised methods cast the OOD detection as classification with binary labels (Kamath et al., 2020), with one additional label for unseen classes (Fei and Liu, 2016). Since manually annotating documents is expensive (Mekala and Shang, 2020; Mekala et al., 2022b), recent works have deviated from requiring such extensive annotations and leveraging various distance metrics to detect OOD samples. Leys et al. (2018); Xu et al. (2020) use Mahalanobis distance as a post-processing technique to identify OOD samples. These methods use distance-based scoring functions along with the intermediate model layer features to determine an OOD score. Lee et al. (2018); Hsu et al. (2020) use a similar distance metric called ODIN to detect + +OOD images. An alternate approach to compensate for the lack of OOD training data involves generating pseudo-OOD data for training. Ouyang et al. (2021) propose a framework to generate high-quality OOD utterances and importance weights by selectively replacing phrases in in-domain samples. Zhan et al. (2021) generate pseudo-OOD samples for the task of intent detection using self-supervision. Zhou et al. (2021); Zeng et al. (2021a) introduce self-supervised approaches to OOD detection using a contrastive learning framework. They suggest fine-tuning transformers using a margin-based contrastive loss to learn text representations (Mekala et al., 2021) for OOD classification. Vyas et al. (2018); Li et al. (2021) treat a part of in-domain data as OOD samples as an alternate self-supervised approach. Further, Wu et al. (2022a) use a Reassigned Contrastive Loss (RCL) along with an adaptive class-dependent threshold mechanism to separate in-domain and OOD intents. Ren et al. (2019); Ggangal et al. (2020) leverage likelihood ratios crafted by generative models to classify OOD samples. Wei et al. (2022) observe that the norm of the logits keeps increasing during training, leading to overconfident outputs, and propose LogitNorm as a solution to decoupling the output norm during training optimization. Moon et al. (2020) introduce a novel Correctness Ranking Loss function in order to regularize output probabilities to produce well-ranked confidence estimates. Other calibration techniques include "Top-label" calibration which is used to regularize the reported probability for the predicted class (Gupta and Ramdas, 2021). + +# 3 SELFOOD: Self-Supervised OOD Detection + +We present the problem statement, the motivation for our ranking formulation, and our method including the loss function and its optimization strategy. + +# 3.1 Problem Statement + +In this paper, we work on the OOD detection task with only in-distribution samples and no OOD samples as supervision. Specifically, given a labeled dataset $\mathcal{D}^{InD} = \{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),\ldots (x_n,y_n)\}$ sampled from a distribution space $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{C})$ where documents $x_{i}\in \mathcal{X}$ and labels $y_{i}\in \mathcal{C}$ as input, our goal is to train an OOD detector $\mathcal{M}$ that accurately distinguishes in-distribution documents $\mathcal{D}^{InD}$ and OOD documents $\mathcal{D}^{OOD}\notin (\mathcal{X},\mathcal{C})$ without any + +OOD documents required for training. + +# 3.2 Motivation + +Numerous neural text classifiers have been proposed, incorporating multiple hidden layers (Rosenblatt, 1957), convolutional layers (Kim, 2014), and various types of attention mechanisms (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019). All these models culminate in a softmax head, which produces probabilities corresponding to each class. These classifiers are generally trained with CE loss in an intra-document fashion i.e. each document is considered independently and the softmax score of the true label is maximized. Such training of neural text classifiers is known to increase the magnitude of logit vectors even when most training examples are correctly classified (Wei et al., 2022), making them poorly calibrated, producing unreasonably high probabilities even for incorrect predictions (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017). This diminishes their ability to maintain the desired attribute of ordinal ranking for predictions based on confidence levels, wherein a prediction exhibiting a higher confidence value should be considered more likely to be accurate than one with a lower confidence value (Moon et al., 2020). Intuitively, a text classifier possessing such quality would be a perfect OOD detector. + +# 3.3 OOD Detection as Inter-Document Intra-Label Ranking + +In order to align with the aforementioned characteristic, we propose formulating the OOD detection as an inter-document, intra-label ranking problem. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents, we compare across documents but within the same label and train our model to generate higher probability score for documents belonging to the label than for documents not belonging to the label. We consider the same model architecture as any text classifier with a softmax head that generates scores corresponding to each label, however, we train it using our IDIL loss instead of CE loss. Our assumption is that an OOD document does not fall under any specific label in the in-distribution space. Hence, we anticipate that the trained model would produce lower scores for OOD documents compared to in-distribution documents. This distinction in scores is expected to facilitate easy separation between OOD and in-distribution documents. + +IDIL Loss is a pairwise-ranking loss that enforces + +desired ordinal ranking of confidence estimates. This loss function reaches its minimum value for a particular label when the probability of that label being the annotated label is greater than its probability when it is not the annotated label. Specifically, for documents $x_{1}, x_{2} \in \mathcal{D}^{InD}$ and their corresponding annotated labels $y_{1}, y_{2}$ where $y_{1} \neq y_{2}$ , IDIL loss corresponding to label $y_{1}$ is mathematically computed as follows: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} \left(y _ {1} \mid x _ {1}, x _ {2}\right) = S i L U \left(p \left(y _ {1} \mid x _ {2}\right) - p \left(y _ {1} \mid x _ {1}\right)\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $SiLU(x) = x\sigma(x)$ is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU) function (Elfwing et al., 2018). To ensure stable training and enhance performance, we incorporate the SiLU function, a continuous variant of the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) (Hahnloser et al., 2000), in conjunction with the ranking loss. The SiLU function introduces smooth gradients around zero, effectively mitigating potential instability issues during training. We observe that this inclusion contributes to the overall stability in training and improved performance of the model as shown in Section 4.5. Note that, in contrast to CE loss, IDIL loss becomes zero once desired ranking is achieved, addressing the overconfidence issue. + +# 3.4 Implementation + +Ideally, the loss has to be computed over all possible pairs of documents for each model update. However, it is computationally expensive. Therefore, following (Toneva et al., 2019; Moon et al., 2020), we approximate the computation by considering only documents in each mini-batch. Specifically, we bucket the documents in the mini-batch based on their annotated label and pair each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets and compute the loss. Mathematically, the loss for a mini-batch $b$ is computed as follows: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \sum_ {l \in \mathcal {C}} \sum_ {x _ {1} \in b _ {l}} \sum_ {x _ {2} \in b _ {- l}} \mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} (l | x _ {1}, x _ {2}) +$$ + +where $b_{l}$ denotes the set of training data points $x$ in this batch $b$ whose label are $l$ , and $b_{-l}$ denotes the set of training data points $x$ in this batch $b$ whose label is not $l$ . + +In contrast to CE loss, where the optimization involves increasing the score corresponding to the correct label, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels. Specifically, during the backpropagation of gradients, we detach the gradients for the subrahend + +Table 1: Dataset statistics. + +
DatasetDomainCriteria#Docs#labels
NYTNewsTopic1308126
YelpReviewsSentiment700005
ClimaClimateQuestion Type171758
TRECGeneralQuestion Type59526
+ +of the difference and exclusively propagate the gradients through the minuend. In Equation 1, for instance, we detach the gradients for $p(y_{1}|x_{1})$ and solely backpropagate the gradients through $p(y_{1}|x_{2})$ . This detachment allows for a more controlled and selective gradient flow, aiding in the optimization process, and improvement in performance as shown in Section 4.5. + +It is important to note that our optimization focuses solely on the inter-document ranking loss. Consequently, while the trained model would serve as a reliable OOD detector, it may not perform as effectively as a classifier. + +# 4 Experiments + +We evaluate our OOD detection method against state-of-the-art baselines with two classifiers on multiple datasets belonging to different domains. + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We evaluate our method and baselines on four publicly available English text classification datasets belonging to different domains. In particular, we consider the news topic classification dataset New York Times (NYT), restaurant review sentiment classification dataset Yelp, and question-type classification datasets related to climate: ClimaInsurance+ (Clima) (Laud et al., 2023), and a general domain: TREC (Li and Roth, 2002; Hovy et al., 2001). The documents within the New York Times dataset are labeled with both coarse and fine-grained labels. For our training and testing process, we utilize fine-grained labels. The dataset statistics are provided in Table 1. + +# 4.2 Compared Methods + +- Cross Entropy Loss (CE Loss) trains a classifier using CE loss on in-distribution documents. The predicted probabilities from the classifier are used as confidence estimates for OOD detection. +- Correctness Ranking Loss (CRL) (Moon et al., 2020) is a regularization term added to the CE + +Table 2: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at $95\%$ true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics. + +
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
YelpNYTLogitNorm82.033.269.457.984.433.966.655.0
OneVsRest85.135.862.449.388.529.669.856.5
RCL56.931.273.255.287.734.556.745.0
Bayes Approx64.335.966.550.379.636.454.140.8
CE Loss82.134.963.450.779.832.966.858.0
CRL99.936.943.951.199.828.164.860.5
SELFOOD63.219.679.482.769.521.672.678.8
ClimaLogitNorm79.225.572.554.882.625.470.754.0
OneVsRest83.025.169.553.286.728.053.833.7
RCL59.927.867.442.173.922.570.756.3
Bayes Approx74.728.756.733.663.028.066.840.9
CE Loss83.227.848.637.076.422.078.268.4
CRL99.629.049.138.899.920.663.056.9
SELFOOD17.64.897.996.465.616.673.277.2
TRECLogitNorm68.227.079.882.160.823.083.984.4
OneVsRest84.840.063.969.775.533.057.961.2
RCL89.843.240.151.577.432.465.068.6
Bayes Approx92.544.732.144.751.825.972.769.4
CE Loss74.233.752.862.758.527.575.378.3
CRL33.315.566.777.2100.037.356.773.9
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.055.120.680.290.3
TRECYelpLogitNorm32.30.395.578.115.20.595.744.7
OneVsRest4.20.397.983.439.30.491.663.0
RCL78.50.680.220.267.70.683.024.2
Bayes Approx46.60.493.061.663.70.787.721.3
CE Loss27.20.394.971.211.30.496.962.3
CRL96.60.770.916.599.80.724.39.7
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
NYTLogitNorm9.31.097.791.210.92.397.277.3
OneVsRest1.80.599.095.832.51.893.274.8
RCL63.63.384.145.774.23.080.445.1
Bayes Approx39.12.593.568.164.93.088.454.4
CE Loss8.41.397.687.56.81.498.187.1
CRL97.23.373.035.299.93.822.912.2
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
ClimaLogitNorm11.30.897.688.510.41.697.375.9
OneVsRest3.40.698.793.236.31.891.760.1
RCL73.52.481.237.160.72.086.448.2
Bayes Approx51.72.090.554.461.12.487.640.4
CE Loss15.11.796.269.512.21.896.467.8
CRL86.32.280.739.598.92.730.113.0
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
+ +loss to make class probabilities better confidence estimates. It estimates the true class probability to be proportional to the number of times a sample is classified correctly during training. + +- LogitNorm (Wei et al., 2022) is a variant of CE loss that normalizes the logit vector to have a constant norm during training. +- Bayesian Approximation (Bayes Approx) (Wu et al., 2022b) calibrates distribution uncertainty for OOD detection using Monte-Carlo dropout. +- Reassigned Contrastive Learning (RCL) (Wu et al., 2022a) discriminates over-confident OOD samples using adaptive class-dependent local threshold mechanism. + +- OneVsRest trains a one vs rest binary classifier per label. The probability scores of each label from its corresponding classifier are normalized and used as their respective confidence estimates. + +# 4.3 Experimental Settings + +We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as text classifiers. For SELFOOD, we train the classifier for 5 epochs with a batch size of 16 using an AdamW optimizer. We use a learning rate of 5e-5 using a linear scheduler with no warm-up steps. For all baselines, we train the classifier for the same number of steps. + +In our evaluation, for each dataset as in- + +distribution, we treat all other datasets as OOD and compute the performance. Our evaluation follows a standard approach for each in-distribution dataset where we begin by splitting the in-distribution dataset into three subsets: $80\%$ for train, $10\%$ for val, and $10\%$ for test. The model is trained using the train split, and its performance is evaluated on both the test split of the in-distribution dataset and the entire OOD dataset. + +Evaluation Metrics. We utilize evaluation metrics from (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017; DeVries and Taylor, 2018; Moon et al., 2020) such as the false positive rate at $95\%$ true positive rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives. + +# 4.4 Results + +We summarize the evaluation results with BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers on Yahoo, TREC as in-distribution in Table 2 and NYT, Clima as in-distribution in Appendix A.1. All experiments are run on three random seeds and the mean performance scores are reported. As shown in Table 2, we observe that SELFOOD performs better than the baselines on most of the in-distribution, OOD dataset pairs for both classifiers. A low FPR95 value indicates that the top- $95\%$ confident in-distribution samples, selected based on their probability scores, predominantly rank higher than a majority of OOD samples and SELFOOD achieves improvements of up to 82 points in FPR95 with Yelp as in-distribution and Clima as OOD datasets when compared to CRL with BERT classifier. SELFOOD also exhibits substantial improvements of up to 33 points in Detection Error, 48 points in AUROC, and 58 points in AUPR when compared to CE-Loss with BERT classifier. SELFOOD achieves a perfect OOD detection score for some settings such as TREC as in-distribution dataset for both BERT and RoBERTa classifiers. These results highlight the effectiveness of our ranking formulation with self-supervised training using IDIL loss. + +# 4.5 Ablation Study + +To understand the impact of each component in our IDIL loss design and implementation, we compare our method with four ablated versions with BERT classifier in Table 3: (1) SELFOOD + Grad Sub represents our method with backpropagating gradi + +Table 3: Ablation Study. + +
MethodFPR95ERR +In Dist: Clima +OOD: NYTAUROCAUPR
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.5
+ Grad Sub67.98.982.461.1
+ Grad Sub & Min98.410.749.232.3
+ Intra-Doc92.710.667.341.6
- SILu14.63.996.789.3
In Dist: NYT +OOD: Clima
SELFOOD10.51.798.490.5
+ Grad Sub only83.55.177.444.8
+ Grad Sub & Min96.55.260.336.0
+ Intra-Doc48.32.693.280.2
- SiLU19.02.397.486.0
+ +ents through the subtrahend instead of the minuend, (2) SELFOOD $^+$ Grad Sub & Min represents our method with gradients backpropagating through both minuend and subtrahend, (3) SELFOOD $^+$ Intra-Doc considers intra-document comparison similar to CE loss, in addition to inter-document intra-label comparison for loss computation, and (4) SELFOOD-SiLU excludes SiLU function from the IDIL loss formulation. We also present the performance of SELFOOD for reference. SELFOOD performs better than SELFOOD $^+$ Grad Sub & Min demonstrating that backpropagating through one part of the difference is more beneficial than both, and the comparison between SELFOOD and SELFOOD $^+$ Grad Sub indicates that backpropagating through minuend is better than subtrahend. We observe that incorporating intra-document comparison into loss formulation leads to a decrement in the ranking ability of the model. Finally, we observe that removing the SiLU function from the IDIL loss leads to a decrease in most of the metrics. + +# 5 Analysis & Case Studies + +In this section, we present a comprehensive analysis of our proposed method from different perspectives to understand its effectiveness. + +# 5.1 CE Loss vs SELFOOD: Training Trajectory Analysis + +Mathematically, the model trained using CE loss is a solution to our IDIL loss optimization. However, our empirical results reveal a significant disparity in OOD detection performance between SELFOOD and model trained on CE loss. To gain a deeper understanding, we plot the CE Loss and IDIL losses for models optimized with IDIL and CE loss, as shown in Figure 3(a). We consider Clima as the in-distribution dataset and BERT as the classifier. + +![](images/8a5752b037c51fb605f668b88e60675e422e15801264977d92dd949eca9fafaf.jpg) +(a) Losses vs Training Steps + +![](images/d26a489c9693b1aebcf29e79ac3e9702c1e60c1eee6c0ab51b27a036ea0909dd.jpg) +(b) FPR vs Training Steps + +![](images/50ebefbb99df794abc58210ece2bed50f8d107877b01fecfafbde4ad5b7e3c9b.jpg) +(c) Learned weights + +![](images/843480b4fbf688fbab1bcf7a6f8714956a78b49a5e9b82558dde471fbc6e5b1a.jpg) +Figure 3: To understand training trajectories of CE Loss and SELFOOD, we plot their respective losses, validation FPR, and learned weights while training. We observe IDIL loss minimization is more correlated with performance and the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD show divergent paths since the beginning. +(a) CE Loss +Figure 4: Maximum softmax score vs percentile in-distribution & OOD data associated with that score. By using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold (dotted line) for OOD classification, CE loss considers more than $50\%$ and CRL considers almost $100\%$ of the OOD data as in-distribution (red region). However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in maximum softmax scores that separate OOD and in-distribution. + +![](images/245c4617d1f5667dd2b7a75204cdbd36e881e23daa2410db3b77879900551b3d.jpg) +(b) CRL + +![](images/21ead48aa7a316cff58b0ae8920390495bcb30935f403e1fa7bef841be453af7.jpg) +(c) SELFOOD + +Additionally, we plot the validation FPR95 using Yelp as the OOD dataset to analyze the correlation between loss minimization and performance in Figure 3(b). Figure 3(a) illustrates that while minimizing CE loss leads to fluctuations in the IDIL loss, ultimately reaching zero, Figure 3(b) shows that the performance is more closely associated with explicit IDIL minimization. Specifically, minimizing the IDIL loss results in improved FPR95. The findings indicate that the minimization of CE loss and IDIL loss follows distinct trajectories. To validate this hypothesis, we conduct an experiment using a toy 3-dimensional dataset comprising five isometric Gaussian blobs and train a logistic regression classifier initialized with same weights, minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. We flatten the weight matrix and plot the top-3 principal components. As shown in Figure 3(c), the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD progress in different directions, thereby confirming our hypothesis. + +# 5.2 Maximum softmax score Analysis + +We plot the maximum softmax score with the percentile in-distribution and OOD data associated with that score for CE loss, CRL, and SELFOOD + +with BERT classifier on Clima as in-distribution and NYT as OOD datasets in Figure 4. When comparing the maximum softmax score with the percentile data associated with that score, interesting observations can be made regarding its distribution. Specifically, when using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold for OOD classification, we find that the CE loss considers over $50\%$ of the OOD data and CRL considers almost $100\%$ of the OOD data as in-distribution. However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in the maximum softmax scores that effectively separates OOD and in-distribution data. This suggests that the threshold needs to be carefully tuned for CE loss and CRL, requiring more effort and annotated data, whereas in the case of SELFOOD, we do not require such tuning. This demonstrates that SELFOOD is capable of accurately classifying between OOD and in-distribution samples based on their respective maximum softmax scores, resulting in superior performance. + +# 5.3 Batch size Analysis + +We compare documents within the mini-batch when computing the loss. Consequently, the num + +![](images/6ecab13b9bdcccdfea4e0a94db63b28458700569f0881a722f44a8c11c04c977.jpg) +(a) NYT + +![](images/7e66588085baee7ee42017a07ad781cf15e66b75644e44d1c10cd37b0d5c9140.jpg) +(b) Yelp +Figure 5: Performance of SELFOOD w.r.t. batch size. We consider BERT classifier, Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. We observe an increase in performance with an increase in batch size. + +ber of document pairs over which the loss is computed depends on the batch size used during training. To investigate the impact of batch size on performance, we vary the batch size and evaluate the corresponding performance in Figure 5 with BERT classifier. We consider Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. As the batch size increases, the performance of the model also improves, until a batch size of 16, where the performance reaches a plateau. This observation aligns with our intuition that a larger batch size allows for more in-batch document pairs to be compared, leading to more accurate loss computation. Based on these findings, we recommend utilizing a batch size of 16 or higher to achieve optimal performance. + +# 5.4 Fine-grained OOD Detection + +To explore the limits of SELFOOD, we consider in-distribution and OOD datasets from the same domain. The objective is to assess its ability to differentiate between samples that are closely related but still OOD, which is a challenging task. Specifically, we consider the news domain and choose NYT as the in-distribution, and AGNews (Zhang et al., 2015), $20\mathrm{News}^4$ as OOD datasets and train BERT classifier. As shown in Table 4, SELFOOD performs significantly better than the baselines on most of the metrics. Moreover, it also achieves near-perfect scores for the AGNews, highlighting its ability to accurately identify OOD samples even when they belong to the same domain as the in-distribution dataset. + +# 5.5 Classification performance of SELFOOD + +The BERT classifier trained with CE-Loss demonstrates exceptional classification performance, achieving accuracy scores of $97\%$ , $85\%$ , and $97\%$ on NYT, Clima, and TREC datasets respectively. In contrast, SELFOOD achieves only $0.3\%$ , $9.5\%$ , + +Table 4: Fine-grained OOD detection results with NYT as the in-distribution dataset with BERT classifier. We choose two datasets AGNews, 20News from the news domain, the same as NYT, and consider them as OOD datasets. The results show that SELFOOD can accurately detect OOD samples within the same domain. + +
OODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
AGNewsLogitNorm45.90.986.715.8
Bayes Approx57.50.987.723.9
CE-Loss45.50.986.516.6
CRL77.20.980.69.5
SELFOOD0.00.1100.099.4
20NewsLogitNorm24.56.291.739.2
Bayes Approx35.04.393.766.6
CE-Loss25.46.291.939.6
CRL59.96.487.436.9
SELFOOD28.24.994.261.5
+ +and $1.8\%$ . This highlights that while SELFOOD serves as a reliable OOD detector, its performance as a text classifier is subpar. This observation can be attributed to our IDIL loss formulation, which focuses on comparing confidence levels across documents for each label rather than across labels for each document. As a result, the IDIL loss primarily promotes the ordinal ranking of confidence levels across documents, which enhances the model's OOD detection capabilities. However, this emphasis on inter-document ranking comes at the expense of inter-label ranking, resulting in limited classification capabilities. Moreover, when we introduce the intra-document comparison to the IDIL loss, as discussed in Section 4.5, we observe a decline in the model's ranking ability. Podolskiy et al. (2021) use mahalanobis distance for OOD detection and observe that although mahalanobis distance alongside transformer-based models is effective, such methods are sensitive to the geometric features in the embedding space and can be spoilt if the embedder is used for classification and is overfit. This matches with our observation, upon adding intra-document comparison to the loss, the OOD detection performance drops. This further supports the notion that balancing the inter-document and intra-document comparisons is crucial for achieving optimal performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks. + +# 5.6 SELFOOD + Mahalanobis distance + +Mahalanobis distance-based estimation of OOD scores is an effective post-processing method used on trained OOD classifiers (Leys et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020). We investigate whether this postprocessing further improves the performance of our method. OOD scores are estimated as the dis + +Table 5: OOD detection results with Mahalanobis Distance post-processing technique. We choose two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. The results show that SELFOOD's OOD detection capabilities are enhanced with the post-processing technique. + +
InDOODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
ClimaYelpSELFOOD14.70.698.090.8
SELFOOD + Maha0.80.299.297.2
YelpNYTSELFOOD63.219.679.482.7
SELFOOD + Maha12.44.497.497.5
+ +tance between a test data point and the distribution of in-distribution samples using the Mahalanobis distance metric. Following (Xu et al., 2020), we consider the intermediate layer encodings of the OOD classifier trained on in-distribution samples as its representative distribution. We apply this post-processing on top of SELFOOD and experiment with two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. As shown in Table 5, we observe further improvement in performance, demonstrating the quality of learned representative distribution using SELFOOD. + +# 5.7 Qualitative Analysis of SELFOOD + +We present a few examples with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD where SELFOOD accurately distinguishes and CE-loss fails to distinguish between in-distribution and OOD samples in Table 6. Although the first example has food-related words like lunch, cork and sentiment-indicative words such as contemptible scoundrel, SELFOOD accurately identifies it as OOD and CE loss model fails to do so. Examples 3 and 4 have questions that revolve around eateries. CE-Loss model confuses and predicts them as OOD as TREC dataset contains only questions. However, SELFOOD was able to rank them higher and accurately identify them as in-distribution. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we present SELFOOD, a novel framework for OOD detection that leverages only in-distribution samples as supervision. Building upon the insight that OOD samples typically do not belong to any in-distribution labels, we formulate the OOD detection problem as an inter-document intra-label ranking task. To address this challenge, we propose IDIL loss which guides the training process. Through extensive experiments on multiple datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness of SELFOOD on OOD detection task. However, we + +Table 6: Qualitative analysis of CE-Loss vs SELFOOD with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD datasets. Wrong predictions are in Red and correct predictions are in Green. + +
TextCE-LossSELFOOD
Who said “What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?”InDOOD
Who said “Give me liberty or give me death”?InDOOD
Its a tequila house - wouldn’t you want your staff to be knowledgeable about tequila? Call me silly. So Gregg and I are wondering Bourbon Street, looking for the next "place"...OODInD
the pitch reads: "what’s worse than mean girl cheerleaders? how about resurrected mean-girl cheerleaders with supernatural powers?" And if this place could be farther away from my house, it’d be in Camden... Oh, the Vomitorium, every time i grace the hipster-stained ...OODInD
+ +also acknowledge that it comes at the expense of text classification performance. Future research can focus on developing techniques that effectively balance inter-document and intra-document comparisons, enabling improved performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks. + +# 7 Limitations + +As mentioned in the previous sections, the OOD detection performance of our method comes at the cost of classification performance. This limitation needs to be addressed. + +# 8 Ethics Statement + +This paper proposes a self-supervised OOD detection method. The aim of the paper is to minimize the human effort in annotating OOD documents and using only in-distribution documents for OOD detection. OOD detection is helpful in detection potential harmful content. Hence, we do not anticipate any major ethical concerns. + +# 9 Acknowledgments + +We thank the anonymous reviewers and our colleagues from Shang Data Lab, especially Bill Hogan and Zihan Wang for their helpful feedback. Our work is sponsored in part by NSF CAREER Award 2239440, NSF Proto-OKN Award 2333790, NIH Bridge2AI Center Program under award 1U54HG012510-01, Cisco-UCSD Sponsored Research Project, as well as generous gifts from Google, Adobe, and Teradata. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and should + +not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon. + +# References + +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805. +Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. 2018. Learning confidence for out-of-distribution detection in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04865. +Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. 2018. Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning. Neural Networks, 107:3-11. +Geli Fei and Bing Liu. 2016. Breaking the closed world assumption in text classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 506-514. +Varun Gangal, Abhinav Arora, Arash Einolghozati, and Sonal Gupta. 2020. Likelihood ratios and generative classifiers for unsupervised out-of-domain detection in task-oriented dialog. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7764-7771. +Irving John Good. 1952. Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 14(1):107-114. +Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321-1330. PMLR. +Chirag Gupta and Aaditya Ramdas. 2021. Top-label calibration and multiclass-to-binary reductions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08353. + +Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. nature, 405(6789):947-951. +Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Dietterich. 2018. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04606. +Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, ChinYew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. 2001. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research. +Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Generalized odin: Detecting out-of-distribution image without learning from out-of-distribution data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10951-10960. +Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2020. Selective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684-5696. +Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and et al. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of-scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1311-1316. +Tanmay Laud, Daniel Spokoyny, Tom Corringham, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2023. Climabench: A benchmark dataset for climate change text understanding in english. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04253. +Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31. + +Christophe Leys, Olivier Klein, Yves Dominicy, and Christophe Ley. 2018. Detecting multivariate outliers: Use a robust variant of the mahalanobis distance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 74:150-156. +Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Xiaofei Sun, Chun Fan, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, Yuxian Meng, and Jun Zhang. 2021. $k$ folden: $k$ -fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12731. +Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Dheeraj Mekala, Chengyu Dong, and Jingbo Shang. 2022a. LOPS: Learning order inspired pseudo-label selection for weakly supervised text classification. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4894-4908, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dheeraj Mekala, Varun Gangal, and Jingbo Shang. 2021. Coarse2Fine: Fine-grained text classification on coarsely-grained annotated data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 583-594, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dheeraj Mekala and Jingbo Shang. 2020. Contextualized weak supervision for text classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 323-333. +Dheeraj Mekala, Tu Vu, Timo Schick, and Jingbo Shang. 2022b. Leveraging qa datasets to improve generative data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Jooyoung Moon, Jihyo Kim, Younghak Shin, and Sangheum Hwang. 2020. Confidence-aware learning for deep neural networks. In international conference on machine learning, pages 7034-7044. PMLR. +Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. 2015. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 427-436. +Yawen Ouyang, Jiasheng Ye, Yu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Energy-based unknown intent detection with data manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12542. + +Alexander Podolskiy, Dmitry Lipin, Andrey Bout, Ekaterina Artemova, and Irina Pionkovskaya. 2021. Revisiting mahalanobis distance for transformer-based out-of-domain detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13675-13682. +Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. +Jie Ren, Peter J Liu, Emily Fertig, Jasper Snoek, Ryan Poplin, Mark Depristo, Joshua Dillon, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2019. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. +Frank Rosenblatt. 1957. The perceptron, a perceiving and recognizing automaton Project Para. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. +Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199. +Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J. Gordon. 2019. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Apoory Vyas, Nataraj Jammalamadaka, Xia Zhu, Dipankar Das, Bharat Kaul, and Theodore L Willke. 2018. Out-of-distribution detection using an ensemble of self supervised leave-out classifiers. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 550-564. +Hongxin Wei, Renchunzi Xie, Hao Cheng, Lei Feng, Bo An, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Mitigating neural network overconfidence with logit normalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23631-23644. PMLR. +Yanan Wu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, QiXiang Gao, Zhiyuan Zeng, Fujia Zheng, Lulu Zhao, Huixing Jiang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2022a. Revisit overconfidence for ood detection: Reassigned contrastive learning with adaptive class-dependent threshold. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4165-4179. +Yanan Wu, Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yutao Mou, Pei Wang, and Weiran Xu. 2022b. Distribution calibration for out-of-domain detection with Bayesian approximation. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 608-615, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. + +Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2020. A deep generative distance-based classifier for out-of-domain detection with mahalanobis space. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1452-1460. +Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Neural Information Processing Systems. +Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Zijun Liu, Yanan Wu, Hong Xu, Huixing Jiang, and Weiran Xu. 2021a. Modeling discriminative representations for out-of-domain detection with supervised contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14289. +Zhiyuan Zeng, Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2021b. Adversarial generative distance-based classifier for robust out-of-domain detection. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7658-7662. IEEE. +Li-Ming Zhan, Haowen Liang, Bo Liu, Lu Fan, Xiaoming Wu, and Albert Lam. 2021. Out-of-scope intent detection with self-supervision and discriminative training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08616. +Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, pages 649-657. Curran Associates, Inc. +Wenxuan Zhou, Fangyu Liu, and Muhao Chen. 2021. Contrastive out-of-distribution detection for pretrained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08812. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Results with NYT & Clima as in-distribution datasets + +We present experimental results on Clima and NYT as in-distribution datasets with BERT and RoBERTa classifiers in Table 7. + +# A.2 Experimental Settings + +Training trajectory analysis experiment. We compare two experiments showcasing empirical evidence on how the trajectory of CE-loss models and IDI loss models differ. In 3(b) we plot the change in validation FPR on BERT-classifiers optimized on CE-loss and IDIL loss. Here, we calculate the FPR across training steps on a validation dataset consisting of 500 in-distribution and OOD data points each to compare the training trajectories of the two models. + +We generate the toy dataset by creating five isometric Gaussian blobs of 3-dimensional data points, with each cluster containing 1000 samples. The centers of all the clusters are bounded by the range $[-10.0, 10.0]$ and the cluster standard deviation is set to 2.0 to account for limited overlap between cluster datapoints. We consider four clusters as being in-distribution and the remaining cluster as OOD. We train a logistic regression classifier on the in-domain datapoints initialized with the same weights and minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. The model is optimized using Stochastic Gradient Descent with a learning rate of 0.01 for 300 epochs. The weights are visualized at the beginning of each epoch. In order to facilitate visualization, the weight matrices of both approaches of dimension are flattened and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is applied to reduce the dimensionality of the weight matrix. We plot the top-3 principal components after each epoch to conclude that the learned weights of CE-loss and SELFOOD progress in a different manner. + +
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
NYTClimaLogitNorm20.61.096.892.318.41.097.393.6
OneVsRest84.71.787.382.692.71.991.185.1
RCL46.91.594.487.586.72.386.776.6
Bayes Approx40.61.295.490.080.02.488.476.5
CE Loss22.11.096.992.515.71.097.392.8
CRL32.31.795.486.579.33.279.867.0
SELFOOD10.51.698.490.54.61.099.395.4
TRECLogitNorm13.35.597.287.917.56.496.184.1
OneVsRest96.06.284.079.497.26.390.582.8
RCL62.96.192.285.873.98.888.473.1
Bayes Approx38.84.594.889.967.58.388.774.7
CE Loss14.55.897.087.121.96.795.583.5
CRL67.96.589.979.185.69.671.461.4
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
YelpLogitNorm1.70.699.387.91.20.698.587.9
OneVsRest15.10.797.478.18.70.697.678.8
RCL45.10.594.984.776.71.090.260.0
Bayes Approx28.70.496.486.883.01.187.756.6
CE Loss3.40.799.282.31.80.699.385.4
CRL69.50.589.377.873.31.083.858.3
SELFOOD22.51.195.757.80.20.299.997.5
ClimaTRECLogitNorm37.85.594.691.960.57.091.688.0
OneVsRest25.56.895.591.854.315.584.567.7
RCL80.118.475.755.391.218.466.647.7
Bayes Approx83.715.877.563.865.713.983.670.7
CE Loss34.95.694.992.260.29.190.483.8
CRL83.012.782.072.260.912.679.263.2
SELFOOD0.31.199.499.438.98.890.184.7
YelpLogitNorm57.70.893.081.354.71.292.672.3
OneVsRest43.71.092.772.558.81.873.534.7
RCL91.02.360.712.298.02.356.412.7
Bayes Approx81.42.276.522.796.82.252.316.3
CE Loss46.30.993.880.179.51.986.547.2
CRL98.71.467.353.372.92.150.919.0
SELFOOD14.70.698.090.837.61.572.354.9
NYTLogitNorm37.64.294.487.346.14.593.185.4
OneVsRest34.64.894.385.340.69.483.151.3
RCL90.312.164.628.897.912.451.521.2
Bayes Approx87.411.270.438.396.811.355.829.2
CE Loss44.94.893.284.462.56.789.675.2
CRL85.67.678.062.561.39.461.839.9
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.555.36.768.661.5
+ +Table 7: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at $95\%$ true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/images.zip b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2165c5b0ca9eb9ed438f17e622810d08ec0fb87b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6d85ad0c614444455a7c806ea28693d1e1e0d9104bb0f1c2216a36db2169d2d3 +size 738329 diff --git a/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/layout.json b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e38bc3bd77a54d25d7c1b6b38151dc88c9445c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SELFOOD_ Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8603 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 75, + 479, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 75, + 479, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 75, + 479, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELFOOD: Self-Supervised Out-Of-Distribution Detection via Learning to Rank" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 122, + 521, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 122, + 521, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 122, + 521, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala\\*, Adithya Samavedhi\\*, Chengyu Dong\\* Jingbo Shang\\*, University of California San Diego" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 158, + 470, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 158, + 470, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 158, + 470, + 173 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{©}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 158, + 470, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Halicioglu Data Science Institute, University of California San Diego" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 174, + 400, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 174, + 400, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 174, + 400, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{dmekala, asamavedhi, cdong, jshang}@ucsd.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deep neural classifiers trained with cross-entropy (CE) loss often suffer from poor calibration, necessitating the task of out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Traditional supervised OOD detection methods require expensive manual annotation of in-distribution and OOD samples. To address the annotation bottleneck, we introduce SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection method that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. We cast OOD detection as an inter-document intralabel (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier with our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents and their labels, for each label, we train the classifier to rank the softmax scores of documents belonging to that label to be higher than the scores of documents that belong to other labels. Unlike CE loss, our IDIL loss reaches zero when the desired confidence ranking is achieved and gradients are backpropagated to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than continuously increasing the probability of the correct label. Extensive experiments with several classifiers on multiple classification datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in both coarse-and fine-grained settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 585, + 154, + 597 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 585, + 154, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 585, + 154, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deep neural networks (DNNs) are ubiquitously used for text classification (Liu et al., 2019; Devlin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020). However, they are generally poorly calibrated, resulting in erroneously high-confidence scores for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (OOD) samples (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017; Mekala et al., 2022a). Such poor calibration makes DNNs unreliable, and OOD detection task vital for the safe deployment of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 526, + 277 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 526, + 277 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 526, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 526, + 277 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c911208f1877b4fdcb0be004bc715b8b1c27785693980a6d460f09e969f8b0ce.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 282, + 442, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 282, + 442, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 282, + 442, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) CE Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 527, + 366 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 527, + 366 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 527, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 527, + 366 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "47bfbf0f3c5f5ed60d454d099ba9821a6ea8a0bf8dadf2144d351de3798331a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 372, + 443, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 372, + 443, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 372, + 443, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) IDIL Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: CE Loss and IDIL loss optimization for documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{1} \\in \\text{Sports}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{2} \\in \\text{Arts}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". CE loss increases scores corresponding to the Sports for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Arts for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", implying an intra-document comparison. Instead, IDIL loss compares softmax scores in an inter-document intra-label fashion where it reduces scores corresponding to Sports for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be less than that of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "deep learning models in safety-critical applications (Moon et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Traditional supervised OOD detection methods (Hendrycks et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2021b) assume access to high-quality manually annotated in-distribution and OOD samples. However, this requires extensive annotation of OOD samples belonging to diverse distributions, which is expensive to obtain. Moreover, text classifiers are ideally desired to be more confident on in-distribution samples than OOD samples. However, the poor calibration of DNN precludes this phenomenon." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these problems, we propose SELFOOD, a self-supervised OOD detection framework that requires only in-distribution samples as supervision. To adhere to the aforementioned ranking constraint, we formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label (IDIL) ranking problem and train the classifier using our pairwise ranking loss, referred to as IDIL loss. As" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 166, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 166, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 166, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\spadesuit" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 751, + 166, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Equal Contribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 245, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 245, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 245, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Jingbo Shang is the corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10721" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10721-10734" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 79, + 524, + 200 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 79, + 524, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 79, + 524, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 79, + 524, + 200 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cae2b87cb7c1d319cdd7e34ae37f7b41387a297617da57a959bfdb29c3316ced.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 216, + 526, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 216, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 216, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: SELFOOD is a self-supervised framework that requires only annotated in-distribution data to train the OOD classifier. Firstly, we bucket documents based on their annotated label (in dotted lines). Then, we compare each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets to compute IDIL loss (in solid lines). Finally, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels during the training of the OOD classifier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 285, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 285, + 291, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 285, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "shown in Figure 1(a), text classifiers are generally trained using cross-entropy (CE) loss (Good, 1952) in an intra-document fashion where for each document, the classifier is trained to distinguish between different labels by maximizing the score corresponding to the correct label. Instead, in our method, as shown in Figure 1(b), we propose to train in an inter-document, intra-label fashion where for each label, we train the model to rank the considered label probability score in documents belonging to the label higher compared to those not belonging to it. As OOD documents generally do not belong to any in-distribution label, we hypothesize such explicit learning to rank translates to accurately distinguishing OOD from in-distribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 489, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 489, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 489, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, minimizing CE loss involves continuous optimization to increase the probability of the correct label over the other labels, making the classifier overconfident (Wei et al., 2022). Instead, in our method, our IDIL loss function becomes zero once the desired ranking is achieved, and during training, we backpropagate gradients to decrease probabilities associated with incorrect labels rather than increasing the probability of the correct label. Theoretically, the perfect model trained using the CE loss with 0 training loss is a solution to our ranking problem, however, in Section 5.1, we empirically show that our ranking objective leads to a different solution, demonstrating the importance of the optimization procedure. Finally, it is important to note that our ranking formulation, loss function, and the self-supervised training strategy are specifically designed to improve the performance of OOD detection rather than classification accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present our framework in Figure 2. Given a set of in-distribution documents and corresponding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "labels as input, we bucket documents belonging to each label and train the classifier to rank the probabilities using our IDIL loss function. Specifically, for each document in a label bucket, we pair up with all documents in every other bucket and compute IDIL loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 367, + 518, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 367, + 518, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 367, + 518, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose SELFFOOD, a novel self-supervised method to train an OOD detection model without any OOD samples as supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We formulate OOD detection as an inter-document intra-label ranking problem and optimize it using our IDIL ranking loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We perform extensive experiments on multiple text classification datasets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in OOD detection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 455, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 455, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 455, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We release the code on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 455, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{G h i t b u^{1}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 396, + 540 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 396, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 396, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 526, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 526, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Traditional supervised methods cast the OOD detection as classification with binary labels (Kamath et al., 2020), with one additional label for unseen classes (Fei and Liu, 2016). Since manually annotating documents is expensive (Mekala and Shang, 2020; Mekala et al., 2022b), recent works have deviated from requiring such extensive annotations and leveraging various distance metrics to detect OOD samples. Leys et al. (2018); Xu et al. (2020) use Mahalanobis distance as a post-processing technique to identify OOD samples. These methods use distance-based scoring functions along with the intermediate model layer features to determine an OOD score. Lee et al. (2018); Hsu et al. (2020) use a similar distance metric called ODIN to detect" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 494, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 494, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 494, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10722" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OOD images. An alternate approach to compensate for the lack of OOD training data involves generating pseudo-OOD data for training. Ouyang et al. (2021) propose a framework to generate high-quality OOD utterances and importance weights by selectively replacing phrases in in-domain samples. Zhan et al. (2021) generate pseudo-OOD samples for the task of intent detection using self-supervision. Zhou et al. (2021); Zeng et al. (2021a) introduce self-supervised approaches to OOD detection using a contrastive learning framework. They suggest fine-tuning transformers using a margin-based contrastive loss to learn text representations (Mekala et al., 2021) for OOD classification. Vyas et al. (2018); Li et al. (2021) treat a part of in-domain data as OOD samples as an alternate self-supervised approach. Further, Wu et al. (2022a) use a Reassigned Contrastive Loss (RCL) along with an adaptive class-dependent threshold mechanism to separate in-domain and OOD intents. Ren et al. (2019); Ggangal et al. (2020) leverage likelihood ratios crafted by generative models to classify OOD samples. Wei et al. (2022) observe that the norm of the logits keeps increasing during training, leading to overconfident outputs, and propose LogitNorm as a solution to decoupling the output norm during training optimization. Moon et al. (2020) introduce a novel Correctness Ranking Loss function in order to regularize output probabilities to produce well-ranked confidence estimates. Other calibration techniques include \"Top-label\" calibration which is used to regularize the reported probability for the predicted class (Gupta and Ramdas, 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 264, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 264, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 264, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 SELFOOD: Self-Supervised OOD Detection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the problem statement, the motivation for our ranking formulation, and our method including the loss function and its optimization strategy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 187, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 187, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 187, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Problem Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we work on the OOD detection task with only in-distribution samples and no OOD samples as supervision. Specifically, given a labeled dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{InD} = \\{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),\\ldots (x_n,y_n)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampled from a distribution space " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{C})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}\\in \\mathcal{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}\\in \\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input, our goal is to train an OOD detector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that accurately distinguishes in-distribution documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{InD}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and OOD documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{OOD}\\notin (\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{C})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " without any" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 473, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 473, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 473, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OOD documents required for training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 383, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 383, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 383, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Motivation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 527, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 527, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 111, + 527, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Numerous neural text classifiers have been proposed, incorporating multiple hidden layers (Rosenblatt, 1957), convolutional layers (Kim, 2014), and various types of attention mechanisms (Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2019). All these models culminate in a softmax head, which produces probabilities corresponding to each class. These classifiers are generally trained with CE loss in an intra-document fashion i.e. each document is considered independently and the softmax score of the true label is maximized. Such training of neural text classifiers is known to increase the magnitude of logit vectors even when most training examples are correctly classified (Wei et al., 2022), making them poorly calibrated, producing unreasonably high probabilities even for incorrect predictions (Szegedy et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015; Guo et al., 2017). This diminishes their ability to maintain the desired attribute of ordinal ranking for predictions based on confidence levels, wherein a prediction exhibiting a higher confidence value should be considered more likely to be accurate than one with a lower confidence value (Moon et al., 2020). Intuitively, a text classifier possessing such quality would be a perfect OOD detector." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 493, + 485 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 493, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 493, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 OOD Detection as Inter-Document Intra-Label Ranking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to align with the aforementioned characteristic, we propose formulating the OOD detection as an inter-document, intra-label ranking problem. Specifically, given a set of in-distribution documents, we compare across documents but within the same label and train our model to generate higher probability score for documents belonging to the label than for documents not belonging to the label. We consider the same model architecture as any text classifier with a softmax head that generates scores corresponding to each label, however, we train it using our IDIL loss instead of CE loss. Our assumption is that an OOD document does not fall under any specific label in the in-distribution space. Hence, we anticipate that the trained model would produce lower scores for OOD documents compared to in-distribution documents. This distinction in scores is expected to facilitate easy separation between OOD and in-distribution documents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "IDIL Loss is a pairwise-ranking loss that enforces" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 792 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 792 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 792 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10723" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "desired ordinal ranking of confidence estimates. This loss function reaches its minimum value for a particular label when the probability of that label being the annotated label is greater than its probability when it is not the annotated label. Specifically, for documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{1}, x_{2} \\in \\mathcal{D}^{InD}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and their corresponding annotated labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{1}, y_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{1} \\neq y_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", IDIL loss corresponding to label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is mathematically computed as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 228 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 290, + 228 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {1}, x _ {2}\\right) = S i L U \\left(p \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {2}\\right) - p \\left(y _ {1} \\mid x _ {1}\\right)\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "37685f481210305ce3d7065575ad599ee693aae0153422bc9e33e0f51d67bff6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 420 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SiLU(x) = x\\sigma(x)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the Sigmoid Linear Unit (SiLU) function (Elfwing et al., 2018). To ensure stable training and enhance performance, we incorporate the SiLU function, a continuous variant of the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) (Hahnloser et al., 2000), in conjunction with the ranking loss. The SiLU function introduces smooth gradients around zero, effectively mitigating potential instability issues during training. We observe that this inclusion contributes to the overall stability in training and improved performance of the model as shown in Section 4.5. Note that, in contrast to CE loss, IDIL loss becomes zero once desired ranking is achieved, addressing the overconfidence issue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 171, + 441 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 171, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 171, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Implementation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ideally, the loss has to be computed over all possible pairs of documents for each model update. However, it is computationally expensive. Therefore, following (Toneva et al., 2019; Moon et al., 2020), we approximate the computation by considering only documents in each mini-batch. Specifically, we bucket the documents in the mini-batch based on their annotated label and pair each document in a bucket with all documents in other buckets and compute the loss. Mathematically, the loss for a mini-batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 600, + 260, + 630 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 600, + 260, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 600, + 260, + 630 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\sum_ {l \\in \\mathcal {C}} \\sum_ {x _ {1} \\in b _ {l}} \\sum_ {x _ {2} \\in b _ {- l}} \\mathcal {L} _ {I D I L} (l | x _ {1}, x _ {2})", + "image_path": "943f5d4f2660cbb04d27b0469d695adff12c8d26e5a2bb52ba9e7bd465a60819.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the set of training data points " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in this batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " whose label are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{-l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the set of training data points " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in this batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " whose label is not " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast to CE loss, where the optimization involves increasing the score corresponding to the correct label, we backpropagate gradients to decrease scores associated with incorrect labels. Specifically, during the backpropagation of gradients, we detach the gradients for the subrahend" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 83, + 523, + 152 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 69, + 467, + 80 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 69, + 467, + 80 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 69, + 467, + 80 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Dataset statistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 83, + 523, + 152 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 83, + 523, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 83, + 523, + 152 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetDomainCriteria#Docs#labels
NYTNewsTopic1308126
YelpReviewsSentiment700005
ClimaClimateQuestion Type171758
TRECGeneralQuestion Type59526
", + "image_path": "9bdb0da6b112ee56df8749e7fe60111befda3fc0ae57684ccb0265fa78f44c11.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of the difference and exclusively propagate the gradients through the minuend. In Equation 1, for instance, we detach the gradients for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(y_{1}|x_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and solely backpropagate the gradients through " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(y_{1}|x_{2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This detachment allows for a more controlled and selective gradient flow, aiding in the optimization process, and improvement in performance as shown in Section 4.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is important to note that our optimization focuses solely on the inter-document ranking loss. Consequently, while the trained model would serve as a reliable OOD detector, it may not perform as effectively as a classifier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 357, + 390, + 370 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 357, + 390, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 357, + 390, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 525, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 378, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our OOD detection method against state-of-the-art baselines with two classifiers on multiple datasets belonging to different domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 371, + 439 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 371, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 371, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our method and baselines on four publicly available English text classification datasets belonging to different domains. In particular, we consider the news topic classification dataset New York Times (NYT), restaurant review sentiment classification dataset Yelp, and question-type classification datasets related to climate: ClimaInsurance+ (Clima) (Laud et al., 2023), and a general domain: TREC (Li and Roth, 2002; Hovy et al., 2001). The documents within the New York Times dataset are labeled with both coarse and fine-grained labels. For our training and testing process, we utilize fine-grained labels. The dataset statistics are provided in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 425, + 656 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 425, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 425, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Compared Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 526, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Cross Entropy Loss (CE Loss) trains a classifier using CE loss on in-distribution documents. The predicted probabilities from the classifier are used as confidence estimates for OOD detection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 525, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Correctness Ranking Loss (CRL) (Moon et al., 2020) is a regularization term added to the CE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 748, + 452, + 760 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 748, + 452, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 748, + 452, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2http://developer.nytimes.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 452, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 452, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 452, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://www.yelp.com/dataset/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10724" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 523, + 555 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 118 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 523, + 555 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 523, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 523, + 555 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
YelpNYTLogitNorm82.033.269.457.984.433.966.655.0
OneVsRest85.135.862.449.388.529.669.856.5
RCL56.931.273.255.287.734.556.745.0
Bayes Approx64.335.966.550.379.636.454.140.8
CE Loss82.134.963.450.779.832.966.858.0
CRL99.936.943.951.199.828.164.860.5
SELFOOD63.219.679.482.769.521.672.678.8
ClimaLogitNorm79.225.572.554.882.625.470.754.0
OneVsRest83.025.169.553.286.728.053.833.7
RCL59.927.867.442.173.922.570.756.3
Bayes Approx74.728.756.733.663.028.066.840.9
CE Loss83.227.848.637.076.422.078.268.4
CRL99.629.049.138.899.920.663.056.9
SELFOOD17.64.897.996.465.616.673.277.2
TRECLogitNorm68.227.079.882.160.823.083.984.4
OneVsRest84.840.063.969.775.533.057.961.2
RCL89.843.240.151.577.432.465.068.6
Bayes Approx92.544.732.144.751.825.972.769.4
CE Loss74.233.752.862.758.527.575.378.3
CRL33.315.566.777.2100.037.356.773.9
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.055.120.680.290.3
TRECYelpLogitNorm32.30.395.578.115.20.595.744.7
OneVsRest4.20.397.983.439.30.491.663.0
RCL78.50.680.220.267.70.683.024.2
Bayes Approx46.60.493.061.663.70.787.721.3
CE Loss27.20.394.971.211.30.496.962.3
CRL96.60.770.916.599.80.724.39.7
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
NYTLogitNorm9.31.097.791.210.92.397.277.3
OneVsRest1.80.599.095.832.51.893.274.8
RCL63.63.384.145.774.23.080.445.1
Bayes Approx39.12.593.568.164.93.088.454.4
CE Loss8.41.397.687.56.81.498.187.1
CRL97.23.373.035.299.93.822.912.2
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
ClimaLogitNorm11.30.897.688.510.41.697.375.9
OneVsRest3.40.698.793.236.31.891.760.1
RCL73.52.481.237.160.72.086.448.2
Bayes Approx51.72.090.554.461.12.487.640.4
CE Loss15.11.796.269.512.21.896.467.8
CRL86.32.280.739.598.92.730.113.0
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
", + "image_path": "9eb3baddd9b6c501202816898c5d5b370ba35d03efd9b8f3375f45595aa2fe12.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 576, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 576, + 290, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 576, + 290, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "loss to make class probabilities better confidence estimates. It estimates the true class probability to be proportional to the number of times a sample is classified correctly during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 289, + 764 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 289, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 289, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 289, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- LogitNorm (Wei et al., 2022) is a variant of CE loss that normalizes the logit vector to have a constant norm during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 289, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 289, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 289, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Bayesian Approximation (Bayes Approx) (Wu et al., 2022b) calibrates distribution uncertainty for OOD detection using Monte-Carlo dropout." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 711, + 289, + 764 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 711, + 289, + 764 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 711, + 289, + 764 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Reassigned Contrastive Learning (RCL) (Wu et al., 2022a) discriminates over-confident OOD samples using adaptive class-dependent local threshold mechanism." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 525, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- OneVsRest trains a one vs rest binary classifier per label. The probability scores of each label from its corresponding classifier are normalized and used as their respective confidence estimates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 434, + 656 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 434, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 434, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Experimental Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as text classifiers. For SELFOOD, we train the classifier for 5 epochs with a batch size of 16 using an AdamW optimizer. We use a learning rate of 5e-5 using a linear scheduler with no warm-up steps. For all baselines, we train the classifier for the same number of steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our evaluation, for each dataset as in-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10725" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "distribution, we treat all other datasets as OOD and compute the performance. Our evaluation follows a standard approach for each in-distribution dataset where we begin by splitting the in-distribution dataset into three subsets: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for train, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for val, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for test. The model is trained using the train split, and its performance is evaluated on both the test split of the in-distribution dataset and the entire OOD dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation Metrics. We utilize evaluation metrics from (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2017; DeVries and Taylor, 2018; Moon et al., 2020) such as the false positive rate at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " true positive rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 130, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 130, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 130, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We summarize the evaluation results with BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers on Yahoo, TREC as in-distribution in Table 2 and NYT, Clima as in-distribution in Appendix A.1. All experiments are run on three random seeds and the mean performance scores are reported. As shown in Table 2, we observe that SELFOOD performs better than the baselines on most of the in-distribution, OOD dataset pairs for both classifiers. A low FPR95 value indicates that the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " confident in-distribution samples, selected based on their probability scores, predominantly rank higher than a majority of OOD samples and SELFOOD achieves improvements of up to 82 points in FPR95 with Yelp as in-distribution and Clima as OOD datasets when compared to CRL with BERT classifier. SELFOOD also exhibits substantial improvements of up to 33 points in Detection Error, 48 points in AUROC, and 58 points in AUPR when compared to CE-Loss with BERT classifier. SELFOOD achieves a perfect OOD detection score for some settings such as TREC as in-distribution dataset for both BERT and RoBERTa classifiers. These results highlight the effectiveness of our ranking formulation with self-supervised training using IDIL loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 167, + 702 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 167, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 167, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To understand the impact of each component in our IDIL loss design and implementation, we compare our method with four ablated versions with BERT classifier in Table 3: (1) SELFOOD + Grad Sub represents our method with backpropagating gradi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 82, + 522, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 69, + 464, + 81 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 69, + 464, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 69, + 464, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation Study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 82, + 522, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 82, + 522, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 82, + 522, + 227 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodFPR95ERR\nIn Dist: Clima\nOOD: NYTAUROCAUPR
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.5
+ Grad Sub67.98.982.461.1
+ Grad Sub & Min98.410.749.232.3
+ Intra-Doc92.710.667.341.6
- SILu14.63.996.789.3
In Dist: NYT\nOOD: Clima
SELFOOD10.51.798.490.5
+ Grad Sub only83.55.177.444.8
+ Grad Sub & Min96.55.260.336.0
+ Intra-Doc48.32.693.280.2
- SiLU19.02.397.486.0
", + "image_path": "6b9b333df54869d365493aa3bec62ad48b66a87f24bb57ed4495eb585ff77d27.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ents through the subtrahend instead of the minuend, (2) SELFOOD " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Grad Sub & Min represents our method with gradients backpropagating through both minuend and subtrahend, (3) SELFOOD " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Intra-Doc considers intra-document comparison similar to CE loss, in addition to inter-document intra-label comparison for loss computation, and (4) SELFOOD-SiLU excludes SiLU function from the IDIL loss formulation. We also present the performance of SELFOOD for reference. SELFOOD performs better than SELFOOD " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Grad Sub & Min demonstrating that backpropagating through one part of the difference is more beneficial than both, and the comparison between SELFOOD and SELFOOD " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Grad Sub indicates that backpropagating through minuend is better than subtrahend. We observe that incorporating intra-document comparison into loss formulation leads to a decrement in the ranking ability of the model. Finally, we observe that removing the SiLU function from the IDIL loss leads to a decrease in most of the metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 449, + 558 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 449, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 449, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis & Case Studies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present a comprehensive analysis of our proposed method from different perspectives to understand its effectiveness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 485, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 485, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 485, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 CE Loss vs SELFOOD: Training Trajectory Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mathematically, the model trained using CE loss is a solution to our IDIL loss optimization. However, our empirical results reveal a significant disparity in OOD detection performance between SELFOOD and model trained on CE loss. To gain a deeper understanding, we plot the CE Loss and IDIL losses for models optimized with IDIL and CE loss, as shown in Figure 3(a). We consider Clima as the in-distribution dataset and BERT as the classifier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10726" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 84, + 213, + 183 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 84, + 213, + 183 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 84, + 213, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 84, + 213, + 183 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8a5752b037c51fb605f668b88e60675e422e15801264977d92dd949eca9fafaf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 188, + 196, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 188, + 196, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 188, + 196, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Losses vs Training Steps" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 83, + 363, + 182 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 83, + 363, + 182 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 83, + 363, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 83, + 363, + 182 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d26a489c9693b1aebcf29e79ac3e9702c1e60c1eee6c0ab51b27a036ea0909dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 188, + 340, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 188, + 340, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 188, + 340, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) FPR vs Training Steps" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 376, + 84, + 482, + 182 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 84, + 482, + 182 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 84, + 482, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 84, + 482, + 182 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "50ebefbb99df794abc58210ece2bed50f8d107877b01fecfafbde4ad5b7e3c9b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 389, + 188, + 464, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 389, + 188, + 464, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 389, + 188, + 464, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Learned weights" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 243, + 214, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 524, + 240 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 524, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 524, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: To understand training trajectories of CE Loss and SELFOOD, we plot their respective losses, validation FPR, and learned weights while training. We observe IDIL loss minimization is more correlated with performance and the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD show divergent paths since the beginning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 243, + 214, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 243, + 214, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 243, + 214, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "843480b4fbf688fbab1bcf7a6f8714956a78b49a5e9b82558dde471fbc6e5b1a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 353, + 166, + 363 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 353, + 166, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 353, + 166, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) CE Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Maximum softmax score vs percentile in-distribution & OOD data associated with that score. By using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold (dotted line) for OOD classification, CE loss considers more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and CRL considers almost " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 524, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the OOD data as in-distribution (red region). However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in maximum softmax scores that separate OOD and in-distribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 243, + 362, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 243, + 362, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 243, + 362, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 243, + 362, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "245c4617d1f5667dd2b7a75204cdbd36e881e23daa2410db3b77879900551b3d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 275, + 353, + 308, + 363 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 275, + 353, + 308, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 275, + 353, + 308, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) CRL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 370, + 246, + 516, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 246, + 516, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 246, + 516, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 246, + 516, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "21ead48aa7a316cff58b0ae8920390495bcb30935f403e1fa7bef841be453af7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 353, + 471, + 363 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 353, + 471, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 353, + 471, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) SELFOOD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, we plot the validation FPR95 using Yelp as the OOD dataset to analyze the correlation between loss minimization and performance in Figure 3(b). Figure 3(a) illustrates that while minimizing CE loss leads to fluctuations in the IDIL loss, ultimately reaching zero, Figure 3(b) shows that the performance is more closely associated with explicit IDIL minimization. Specifically, minimizing the IDIL loss results in improved FPR95. The findings indicate that the minimization of CE loss and IDIL loss follows distinct trajectories. To validate this hypothesis, we conduct an experiment using a toy 3-dimensional dataset comprising five isometric Gaussian blobs and train a logistic regression classifier initialized with same weights, minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. We flatten the weight matrix and plot the top-3 principal components. As shown in Figure 3(c), the learned weights of CE-Loss and SELFOOD progress in different directions, thereby confirming our hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 252, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 252, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 252, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Maximum softmax score Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We plot the maximum softmax score with the percentile in-distribution and OOD data associated with that score for CE loss, CRL, and SELFOOD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with BERT classifier on Clima as in-distribution and NYT as OOD datasets in Figure 4. When comparing the maximum softmax score with the percentile data associated with that score, interesting observations can be made regarding its distribution. Specifically, when using the least in-distribution maximum softmax score as the threshold for OOD classification, we find that the CE loss considers over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the OOD data and CRL considers almost " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the OOD data as in-distribution. However, in the case of SELFOOD, we observe a clear margin in the maximum softmax scores that effectively separates OOD and in-distribution data. This suggests that the threshold needs to be carefully tuned for CE loss and CRL, requiring more effort and annotated data, whereas in the case of SELFOOD, we do not require such tuning. This demonstrates that SELFOOD is capable of accurately classifying between OOD and in-distribution samples based on their respective maximum softmax scores, resulting in superior performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 420, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 420, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 420, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Batch size Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare documents within the mini-batch when computing the loss. Consequently, the num" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10727" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 74, + 177, + 144 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 74, + 177, + 144 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 74, + 177, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 74, + 177, + 144 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6ecab13b9bdcccdfea4e0a94db63b28458700569f0881a722f44a8c11c04c977.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 149, + 141, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 149, + 141, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 149, + 141, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) NYT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 74, + 287, + 144 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 74, + 287, + 144 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 74, + 287, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 74, + 287, + 144 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7e66588085baee7ee42017a07ad781cf15e66b75644e44d1c10cd37b0d5c9140.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 149, + 251, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 149, + 251, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 149, + 251, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Yelp" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Performance of SELFOOD w.r.t. batch size. We consider BERT classifier, Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. We observe an increase in performance with an increase in batch size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ber of document pairs over which the loss is computed depends on the batch size used during training. To investigate the impact of batch size on performance, we vary the batch size and evaluate the corresponding performance in Figure 5 with BERT classifier. We consider Clima as in-distribution, and NYT, Yelp as OOD datasets. As the batch size increases, the performance of the model also improves, until a batch size of 16, where the performance reaches a plateau. This observation aligns with our intuition that a larger batch size allows for more in-batch document pairs to be compared, leading to more accurate loss computation. Based on these findings, we recommend utilizing a batch size of 16 or higher to achieve optimal performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 230, + 448 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 230, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 230, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Fine-grained OOD Detection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To explore the limits of SELFOOD, we consider in-distribution and OOD datasets from the same domain. The objective is to assess its ability to differentiate between samples that are closely related but still OOD, which is a challenging task. Specifically, we consider the news domain and choose NYT as the in-distribution, and AGNews (Zhang et al., 2015), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\mathrm{News}^4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as OOD datasets and train BERT classifier. As shown in Table 4, SELFOOD performs significantly better than the baselines on most of the metrics. Moreover, it also achieves near-perfect scores for the AGNews, highlighting its ability to accurately identify OOD samples even when they belong to the same domain as the in-distribution dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 287, + 679 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 287, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 287, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 Classification performance of SELFOOD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The BERT classifier trained with CE-Loss demonstrates exceptional classification performance, achieving accuracy scores of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on NYT, Clima, and TREC datasets respectively. In contrast, SELFOOD achieves only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 522, + 250 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 69, + 526, + 141 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 69, + 526, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 69, + 526, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Fine-grained OOD detection results with NYT as the in-distribution dataset with BERT classifier. We choose two datasets AGNews, 20News from the news domain, the same as NYT, and consider them as OOD datasets. The results show that SELFOOD can accurately detect OOD samples within the same domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 522, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 522, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 522, + 250 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
AGNewsLogitNorm45.90.986.715.8
Bayes Approx57.50.987.723.9
CE-Loss45.50.986.516.6
CRL77.20.980.69.5
SELFOOD0.00.1100.099.4
20NewsLogitNorm24.56.291.739.2
Bayes Approx35.04.393.766.6
CE-Loss25.46.291.939.6
CRL59.96.487.436.9
SELFOOD28.24.994.261.5
", + "image_path": "e3a607b499b2b3c4490b3557709e1549b681d25ef9645cbd6ef42da801b89b9d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 270, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 270, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 270, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 270, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 270, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This highlights that while SELFOOD serves as a reliable OOD detector, its performance as a text classifier is subpar. This observation can be attributed to our IDIL loss formulation, which focuses on comparing confidence levels across documents for each label rather than across labels for each document. As a result, the IDIL loss primarily promotes the ordinal ranking of confidence levels across documents, which enhances the model's OOD detection capabilities. However, this emphasis on inter-document ranking comes at the expense of inter-label ranking, resulting in limited classification capabilities. Moreover, when we introduce the intra-document comparison to the IDIL loss, as discussed in Section 4.5, we observe a decline in the model's ranking ability. Podolskiy et al. (2021) use mahalanobis distance for OOD detection and observe that although mahalanobis distance alongside transformer-based models is effective, such methods are sensitive to the geometric features in the embedding space and can be spoilt if the embedder is used for classification and is overfit. This matches with our observation, upon adding intra-document comparison to the loss, the OOD detection performance drops. This further supports the notion that balancing the inter-document and intra-document comparisons is crucial for achieving optimal performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 497, + 686 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 497, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 497, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.6 SELFOOD + Mahalanobis distance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mahalanobis distance-based estimation of OOD scores is an effective post-processing method used on trained OOD classifiers (Leys et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2020). We investigate whether this postprocessing further improves the performance of our method. OOD scores are estimated as the dis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 759, + 253, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 759, + 253, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 759, + 253, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4http://qwone.com/~jason/20Newsgroups/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10728" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 138, + 286, + 194 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 130 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: OOD detection results with Mahalanobis Distance post-processing technique. We choose two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. The results show that SELFOOD's OOD detection capabilities are enhanced with the post-processing technique." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 138, + 286, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 138, + 286, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 138, + 286, + 194 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
InDOODMethodFPR95ERRAUROCAUPR
ClimaYelpSELFOOD14.70.698.090.8
SELFOOD + Maha0.80.299.297.2
YelpNYTSELFOOD63.219.679.482.7
SELFOOD + Maha12.44.497.497.5
", + "image_path": "8b4a65c2c4a5883714a7842663631d53db01b27e2773fddcb48717633d8ff359.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 290, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 290, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 290, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tance between a test data point and the distribution of in-distribution samples using the Mahalanobis distance metric. Following (Xu et al., 2020), we consider the intermediate layer encodings of the OOD classifier trained on in-distribution samples as its representative distribution. We apply this post-processing on top of SELFOOD and experiment with two in-distribution, OOD pairs with BERT classifier. As shown in Table 5, we observe further improvement in performance, demonstrating the quality of learned representative distribution using SELFOOD." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 257, + 399 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 257, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 257, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.7 Qualitative Analysis of SELFOOD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a few examples with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD where SELFOOD accurately distinguishes and CE-loss fails to distinguish between in-distribution and OOD samples in Table 6. Although the first example has food-related words like lunch, cork and sentiment-indicative words such as contemptible scoundrel, SELFOOD accurately identifies it as OOD and CE loss model fails to do so. Examples 3 and 4 have questions that revolve around eateries. CE-Loss model confuses and predicts them as OOD as TREC dataset contains only questions. However, SELFOOD was able to rank them higher and accurately identify them as in-distribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 147, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 147, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 147, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we present SELFOOD, a novel framework for OOD detection that leverages only in-distribution samples as supervision. Building upon the insight that OOD samples typically do not belong to any in-distribution labels, we formulate the OOD detection problem as an inter-document intra-label ranking task. To address this challenge, we propose IDIL loss which guides the training process. Through extensive experiments on multiple datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness of SELFOOD on OOD detection task. However, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 118, + 520, + 285 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 69, + 525, + 116 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 69, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 69, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Qualitative analysis of CE-Loss vs SELFOOD with Yelp as in-distribution and TREC as OOD datasets. Wrong predictions are in Red and correct predictions are in Green." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 118, + 520, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 118, + 520, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 118, + 520, + 285 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TextCE-LossSELFOOD
Who said “What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?”InDOOD
Who said “Give me liberty or give me death”?InDOOD
Its a tequila house - wouldn’t you want your staff to be knowledgeable about tequila? Call me silly. So Gregg and I are wondering Bourbon Street, looking for the next "place"...OODInD
the pitch reads: "what’s worse than mean girl cheerleaders? how about resurrected mean-girl cheerleaders with supernatural powers?" And if this place could be farther away from my house, it’d be in Camden... Oh, the Vomitorium, every time i grace the hipster-stained ...OODInD
", + "image_path": "8fdfe9fd323f511cb13b9e3f9b76b8870373430a1fdfcce1f4727f34c868ed28.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "also acknowledge that it comes at the expense of text classification performance. Future research can focus on developing techniques that effectively balance inter-document and intra-document comparisons, enabling improved performance in both OOD detection and text classification tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 384, + 401 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 384, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 384, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned in the previous sections, the OOD detection performance of our method comes at the cost of classification performance. This limitation needs to be addressed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 411, + 487 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 411, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 411, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper proposes a self-supervised OOD detection method. The aim of the paper is to minimize the human effort in annotating OOD documents and using only in-distribution documents for OOD detection. OOD detection is helpful in detection potential harmful content. Hence, we do not anticipate any major ethical concerns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 418, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 418, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 418, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9 Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank the anonymous reviewers and our colleagues from Shang Data Lab, especially Bill Hogan and Zihan Wang for their helpful feedback. Our work is sponsored in part by NSF CAREER Award 2239440, NSF Proto-OKN Award 2333790, NIH Bridge2AI Center Program under award 1U54HG012510-01, Cisco-UCSD Sponsored Research Project, as well as generous gifts from Google, Adobe, and Teradata. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and should" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10729" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "not be interpreted as necessarily representing the views, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 127, + 188 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 127, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 127, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 290, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 409, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 409, + 290, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 409, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. 2018. Learning confidence for out-of-distribution detection in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04865." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 496 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. 2018. Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning. Neural Networks, 107:3-11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 291, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Geli Fei and Bing Liu. 2016. Breaking the closed world assumption in text classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 506-514." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 569, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 569, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 569, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Varun Gangal, Abhinav Arora, Arash Einolghozati, and Sonal Gupta. 2020. Likelihood ratios and generative classifiers for unsupervised out-of-domain detection in task-oriented dialog. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 7764-7771." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 644, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 644, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 644, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Irving John Good. 1952. Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 14(1):107-114." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 291, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321-1330. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chirag Gupta and Aaditya Ramdas. 2021. Top-label calibration and multiclass-to-binary reductions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08353." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. nature, 405(6789):947-951." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 140, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 140, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 140, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2017. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 526, + 231 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 526, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 526, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Dietterich. 2018. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04606." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 526, + 299 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 526, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 526, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eduard Hovy, Laurie Gerber, Ulf Hermjakob, ChinYew Lin, and Deepak Ravichandran. 2001. Toward semantics-based answer pinpointing. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 311, + 526, + 378 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 311, + 526, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 311, + 526, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yen-Chang Hsu, Yilin Shen, Hongxia Jin, and Zsolt Kira. 2020. Generalized odin: Detecting out-of-distribution image without learning from out-of-distribution data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10951-10960." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 390, + 526, + 445 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 390, + 526, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 390, + 526, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2020. Selective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684-5696." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 526, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 526, + 646 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 526, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 526, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stefan Larson, Anish Mahendran, Joseph J Peper, Christopher Clarke, Andrew Lee, Parker Hill, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Kevin Leach, Michael A Laurenzano, Lingjia Tang, and et al. 2019. An evaluation dataset for intent classification and out-of-scope prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1311-1316." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 660, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 660, + 526, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 660, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tanmay Laud, Daniel Spokoyny, Tom Corringham, and Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. 2023. Climabench: A benchmark dataset for climate change text understanding in english. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04253." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kimin Lee, Kibok Lee, Honglak Lee, and Jinwoo Shin. 2018. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of-distribution samples and adversarial attacks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10730" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christophe Leys, Olivier Klein, Yves Dominicy, and Christophe Ley. 2018. Detecting multivariate outliers: Use a robust variant of the mahalanobis distance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 74:150-156." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoya Li, Jiwei Li, Xiaofei Sun, Chun Fan, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, Yuxian Meng, and Jun Zhang. 2021. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " folden: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 138, + 290, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-fold ensemble for out-of-distribution detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12731." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. Learning question classifiers. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 291 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 379 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala, Chengyu Dong, and Jingbo Shang. 2022a. LOPS: Learning order inspired pseudo-label selection for weakly supervised text classification. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4894-4908, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala, Varun Gangal, and Jingbo Shang. 2021. Coarse2Fine: Fine-grained text classification on coarsely-grained annotated data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 583-594, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 531 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala and Jingbo Shang. 2020. Contextualized weak supervision for text classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 323-333." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 542, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 542, + 290, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 542, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dheeraj Mekala, Tu Vu, Timo Schick, and Jingbo Shang. 2022b. Leveraging qa datasets to improve generative data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 651 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jooyoung Moon, Jihyo Kim, Younghak Shin, and Sangheum Hwang. 2020. Confidence-aware learning for deep neural networks. In international conference on machine learning, pages 7034-7044. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. 2015. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 427-436." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yawen Ouyang, Jiasheng Ye, Yu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Shujian Huang, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Energy-based unknown intent detection with data manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12542." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Podolskiy, Dmitry Lipin, Andrey Bout, Ekaterina Artemova, and Irina Pionkovskaya. 2021. Revisiting mahalanobis distance for transformer-based out-of-domain detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 13675-13682." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 525, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 525, + 250 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 525, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 525, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jie Ren, Peter J Liu, Emily Fertig, Jasper Snoek, Ryan Poplin, Mark Depristo, Joshua Dillon, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2019. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 261, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Frank Rosenblatt. 1957. The perceptron, a perceiving and recognizing automaton Project Para. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 525, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J. Gordon. 2019. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Apoory Vyas, Nataraj Jammalamadaka, Xia Zhu, Dipankar Das, Bharat Kaul, and Theodore L Willke. 2018. Out-of-distribution detection using an ensemble of self supervised leave-out classifiers. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 550-564." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongxin Wei, Renchunzi Xie, Hao Cheng, Lei Feng, Bo An, and Yixuan Li. 2022. Mitigating neural network overconfidence with logit normalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23631-23644. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 525, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanan Wu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, QiXiang Gao, Zhiyuan Zeng, Fujia Zheng, Lulu Zhao, Huixing Jiang, Wei Wu, and Weiran Xu. 2022a. Revisit overconfidence for ood detection: Reassigned contrastive learning with adaptive class-dependent threshold. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4165-4179." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanan Wu, Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yutao Mou, Pei Wang, and Weiran Xu. 2022b. Distribution calibration for out-of-domain detection with Bayesian approximation. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 608-615, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10731" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2020. A deep generative distance-based classifier for out-of-domain detection with mahalanobis space. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1452-1460." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyuan Zeng, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Zijun Liu, Yanan Wu, Hong Xu, Huixing Jiang, and Weiran Xu. 2021a. Modeling discriminative representations for out-of-domain detection with supervised contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14289." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 290, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyuan Zeng, Hong Xu, Keqing He, Yuanmeng Yan, Sihong Liu, Zijun Liu, and Weiran Xu. 2021b. Adversarial generative distance-based classifier for robust out-of-domain detection. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7658-7662. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 359, + 290, + 404 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 359, + 290, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 359, + 290, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li-Ming Zhan, Haowen Liang, Bo Liu, Lu Fan, Xiaoming Wu, and Albert Lam. 2021. Out-of-scope intent detection with self-supervision and discriminative training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08616." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 290, + 478 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 290, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 290, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, pages 649-657. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 290, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 290, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 290, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenxuan Zhou, Fangyu Liu, and Muhao Chen. 2021. Contrastive out-of-distribution detection for pretrained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08812." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10732" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 236, + 117 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 236, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 236, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Results with NYT & Clima as in-distribution datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 290, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 290, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 290, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present experimental results on Clima and NYT as in-distribution datasets with BERT and RoBERTa classifiers in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 173, + 202, + 185 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 173, + 202, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 173, + 202, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Experimental Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training trajectory analysis experiment. We compare two experiments showcasing empirical evidence on how the trajectory of CE-loss models and IDI loss models differ. In 3(b) we plot the change in validation FPR on BERT-classifiers optimized on CE-loss and IDIL loss. Here, we calculate the FPR across training steps on a validation dataset consisting of 500 in-distribution and OOD data points each to compare the training trajectories of the two models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We generate the toy dataset by creating five isometric Gaussian blobs of 3-dimensional data points, with each cluster containing 1000 samples. The centers of all the clusters are bounded by the range " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[-10.0, 10.0]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the cluster standard deviation is set to 2.0 to account for limited overlap between cluster datapoints. We consider four clusters as being in-distribution and the remaining cluster as OOD. We train a logistic regression classifier on the in-domain datapoints initialized with the same weights and minimizing IDIL and CE-loss. The model is optimized using Stochastic Gradient Descent with a learning rate of 0.01 for 300 epochs. The weights are visualized at the beginning of each epoch. In order to facilitate visualization, the weight matrices of both approaches of dimension are flattened and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is applied to reduce the dimensionality of the weight matrix. We plot the top-3 principal components after each epoch to conclude that the learned weights of CE-loss and SELFOOD progress in a different manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10733" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 175, + 523, + 606 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 175, + 523, + 606 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 175, + 523, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 175, + 523, + 606 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
In-distOODMethodBERTRoBERTa
FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)FPR95(↓)ERR(↓)AUROC(↑)AUPR(↑)
NYTClimaLogitNorm20.61.096.892.318.41.097.393.6
OneVsRest84.71.787.382.692.71.991.185.1
RCL46.91.594.487.586.72.386.776.6
Bayes Approx40.61.295.490.080.02.488.476.5
CE Loss22.11.096.992.515.71.097.392.8
CRL32.31.795.486.579.33.279.867.0
SELFOOD10.51.698.490.54.61.099.395.4
TRECLogitNorm13.35.597.287.917.56.496.184.1
OneVsRest96.06.284.079.497.26.390.582.8
RCL62.96.192.285.873.98.888.473.1
Bayes Approx38.84.594.889.967.58.388.774.7
CE Loss14.55.897.087.121.96.795.583.5
CRL67.96.589.979.185.69.671.461.4
SELFOOD0.00.0100.0100.00.00.0100.0100.0
YelpLogitNorm1.70.699.387.91.20.698.587.9
OneVsRest15.10.797.478.18.70.697.678.8
RCL45.10.594.984.776.71.090.260.0
Bayes Approx28.70.496.486.883.01.187.756.6
CE Loss3.40.799.282.31.80.699.385.4
CRL69.50.589.377.873.31.083.858.3
SELFOOD22.51.195.757.80.20.299.997.5
ClimaTRECLogitNorm37.85.594.691.960.57.091.688.0
OneVsRest25.56.895.591.854.315.584.567.7
RCL80.118.475.755.391.218.466.647.7
Bayes Approx83.715.877.563.865.713.983.670.7
CE Loss34.95.694.992.260.29.190.483.8
CRL83.012.782.072.260.912.679.263.2
SELFOOD0.31.199.499.438.98.890.184.7
YelpLogitNorm57.70.893.081.354.71.292.672.3
OneVsRest43.71.092.772.558.81.873.534.7
RCL91.02.360.712.298.02.356.412.7
Bayes Approx81.42.276.522.796.82.252.316.3
CE Loss46.30.993.880.179.51.986.547.2
CRL98.71.467.353.372.92.150.919.0
SELFOOD14.70.698.090.837.61.572.354.9
NYTLogitNorm37.64.294.487.346.14.593.185.4
OneVsRest34.64.894.385.340.69.483.151.3
RCL90.312.164.628.897.912.451.521.2
Bayes Approx87.411.270.438.396.811.355.829.2
CE Loss44.94.893.284.462.56.789.675.2
CRL85.67.678.062.561.39.461.839.9
SELFOOD17.22.697.894.555.36.768.661.5
", + "image_path": "28bd720c516d0ea3088961387b884e4957a96758ee5d5e06303c61dbd0ff18d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 525, + 662 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 525, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 525, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: OOD detection results with BERT & RoBERTa classifiers. Each experiment is repeated with three random seeds and the mean scores are reported. The false-positive-rate at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 525, + 662 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 525, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " true-positive-rate (FPR95), minimum detection error over all thresholds (ERR), the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC), and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) using in-distribution samples as the positives are used as evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10734" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_content_list.json b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7d4a9a1e366b612fd28c65b43f7eb415d7469f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,3548 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SGP-TOD: Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 253, + 82, + 742, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xiaoying Zhang $^{1}$ , Baolin Peng $^{2}$ , Kun Li $^{1}$ , Jingyan Zhou $^{1}$ , Helen Meng $^{1,3}$", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 129, + 811, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong", + "bbox": [ + 287, + 148, + 712, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2Tencent AI Lab, Bellevue", + "bbox": [ + 391, + 165, + 611, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong", + "bbox": [ + 243, + 180, + 756, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{zhangxy, kunli, jyzhou, hmmeng} @se.cuhk.edu.hk", + "bbox": [ + 290, + 198, + 712, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{baolinpeng} @ global.tencent.com", + "bbox": [ + 361, + 215, + 642, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Building and maintaining end-to-end task bots using minimal human effort is a longstanding challenge in dialog research. In this work, we introduce SGP-TOD, Schema-Guided Prompting for building Task-Oriented Dialog systems effortlessly based on large language models (LLMs). Utilizing the predefined task schema, i.e., belief instruction and dialog policy, we instruct fixed LLMs to generate appropriate responses on novel tasks, without the need for training data. Specifically, SGP-TOD comprises three components: an LLM for interacting with users, a Dialog State Tracking (DST) Prompter to aid the LLM in tracking dialog states with the given belief instruction, and a Policy Prompter to direct the LLM to generate proper responses adhering to the provided dialog policy. Experimental results on Multiwoz, RADDLE, and STAR datasets show that our training-free strategy, SGP-TOD, yields state-of-the-art (SOTA) zero-shot performance, significantly surpassing the few-shot approaches. In a domain-extension setting, SGP-TOD aptly adapts to new functionalities by merely adding supplementary schema rules. We make our code and data publicly available.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 282, + 460, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 670, + 258, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Building task-oriented dialog (TOD) systems has been a long-standing challenge in artificial intelligence. The prevailing approach for creating task bots (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2022) is to fine-tune pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). Despite their great success, developing and maintaining such task bots generally requires adequate annotated data and extensive fine-tuning/re-training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 697, + 489, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) and GPT-4 (OpenAI,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 860, + 489, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e0a3353d60c7384ec98e6f3102ab0499d5863922fc30ac74f2f445653774882e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The proposed SGP-TOD is depicted with a dialog example, where the prompters integrate the task schema (right) to assist the frozen LLM in generating an appropriate response (left)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 250, + 873, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2023), have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) applications (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), owing to their remarkable conversational skills (Qin et al., 2023), instruction-following abilities (Ouyang et al., 2022) and zero-shot generalization capabilities (Chowdhery et al., 2022a; Hu et al., 2022). This raises a research question: can LLMs be effectively utilized for building task bots with minimum human effort?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 612, + 884, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A contemporary study (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) explores the potential of LLMs for rapidly building task bots via few-shot prompting, a.k.a. in-context learning (ICL) paradigm (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021). Though demonstrably effective, the ICL performance is highly influenced by the quality of the in-context exemplars (Zhao et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023), as they struggle to provide comprehensive information for dialog task completion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 442, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13348", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13348-13369", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we introduce symbolic knowledge (Nye et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2023), i.e., the task schema into LLMs, for creating task bots. Task schema (Mosig et al., 2020; Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) encompasses a concise symbolic representation of a task, supplying LLMs with a comprehensive blueprint. It comprises $(i)$ task-specific ontology containing all slots and their appropriate values (Budzianowski et al., 2018); and $(ii)$ a dialog flow explicitly outlining fundamental interaction patterns (Peng et al., 2021b). Specifically, we propose SGP-TOD (as depicted in Figure 1), a schema-guided prompting method for rapidly building task bots. We integrate the predefined task schema and dialog context into prompts through the use of two specifically-designed prompters, namely a DST Prompter and a Policy Prompter. Utilizing these prompters, we adeptly guide fixed LLMs to track dialog states, retrieve database entries, and generate appropriate responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot manner, without the need for additional training or fine-tuning. By incorporating task-specific symbolic knowledge into LLMs, SGP-TOD provides knowledge-based, coherent and human-like responses. Moreover, this training-free design empowers developers to flexibly prototype dialog systems on new tasks, while seamlessly extending system functionalities through modifying the task schema.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform empirical automatic evaluations on two multi-domain datasets, namely, Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2 (Budzianowski et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2020), as well as two single-domain/task datasets, RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020), within zero-shot scenarios. Additionally, we complement these assessments with interactive human evaluations. The results indicate that SGP-TOD, employing merely task schema devoid of any training or fine-tuning, substantially boosts the SOTA zero-shot results, markedly outperforming few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods, and even attaining competitive results cf. full-shot finetuning approaches. In a domain-extension context, SGP-TOD proficiently adapts to new functionalities by simply adding a handful of schema rules without necessitating further data collection, significantly exceeding the few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods reinforced by machine teaching (Williams and Liden, 2017).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 551, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, our contributions are three-fold:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 873, + 468, + 888 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We propose SGP-TOD, a schema-guided", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLM prompting strategy that facilitates in effortlessly creating task bots, eliminating the necessity for task-specific data or fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 882, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We integrate symbolic knowledge - task schema into LLMs, allowing them to generate schema-compliant responses and adaptively expand their functionalities to tackle new tasks by solely modifying the task schema.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 140, + 884, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We demonstrate the effectiveness of SGP-TOD on Multiwoz, RADDLE, STAR datasets in zero-shot settings using both automatic and human evaluations. SGP-TOD notably elevates the SOTA zero-shot performance.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 228, + 885, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 325, + 660, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling. Zero-shot generalization is an essential yet challenging task in TOD research. A comprehensive study is shown in Appendix A. In this paper, we focus on zero-shot end-to-end dialog modeling, including policy management and dialog generation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 884, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The works by Zhao and Eskenazi (2018) and Qian and Yu (2019) utilize ontology and response templates to train dialog models, enabling the discovery of shared dialog policies between the source and target domains. To enable broader adaptation to diverse dialog policies, Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021) implement task-specific policy skeletons, training dialog models to adhere to novel policies. Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2022) employs a neural language model (LM) for tracking dialog states and user actions using slot and action descriptions; subsequently, a policy program is deployed to facilitate an LM in generating system actions and responses. Despite the effectiveness of previous approaches, they still require ample fine-tuning and copious annotated dialog corpora on source or heterogeneous domains/tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 885, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A concurrent study to ours is Hudecek and Dusek (2023), which employs a prompting strategy - IG-TOD (instruction-guided TOD) to guide frozen LLMs in generating suitable responses. Specifically, IG-TOD first tracks belief states by utilizing slot descriptions as prompts, then retrieves database entries, and generates responses. Our SGP-TOD differs in that: $(i)$ we employ slot names and value examples, rather than slot descriptions, as prompts to facilitate frozen LLMs in generating belief states, thereby reducing human effort; $(ii)$ we offer a policy skeleton to guide", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13349", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLMs in producing appropriate responses. In addition, experimental results indicate that SGP-TOD substantially outperforms IG-TOD.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Leveraging LLMs for Dialog Tasks. LLMs (Chowdhery et al., 2022b; OpenAI, 2023) have exhibited unparalleled mastery of natural language understanding, reasoning and generation (Wei et al., 2022; Bubeck et al., 2023). Three primary research directions have obtained substantial success in numerous dialog tasks by utilizing LLMs. $(i)$ Few-shot prompting (Brown et al., 2020) has showcased remarkable performance in intent classification (Yu et al., 2021), semantic parsing (Shin and Van Durme, 2022), dialog state tracking (Hu et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022), and response generation (Madotto et al., 2021). $(ii)$ Li et al. (2022); Mehri et al. (2022); Dai et al. (2023) employ LLMs for data augmentation, i.e., generating synthetic task-oriented dialogs to train smaller models for inference. $(iii)$ Recently, several studies endeavor to support LLMs in specialized tasks by incorporating external knowledge. Peng et al. (2023) advocates for enhancing LLMs' responses with external knowledge and automated feedback to reduce hallucination. Liang et al. (2023) suggests connecting LLMs with millions of APIs to accomplish diverse tasks. Different from the aforementioned works, we aim to employ LLMs in building task bots in a zero-shot manner using pre-defined task schema.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 137, + 490, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 SGP-TOD", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 567, + 247, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Overview", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 592, + 236, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The overall architecture of the proposed SGP-TOD (Figure 1) consists of three key components: $(i)$ an LLM, responsible for adhering to instructions, comprehending user queries, and generating coherent responses for user interaction; $(ii)$ a DST Prompter, tasked with supporting the LLM in tracking dialogue states using the belief instruction; $(iii)$ a Policy Prompter, guiding the LLM to adhere to the predefined task policy for providing suitable system actions and responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "At each dialog turn $t$ , the end-to-end generation task is systematically divided into three subsequent sub-tasks: (i) Belief State Prediction - given the dialog history up to current dialog turn $\\pmb{h}_t$ , which is a sequence of utterances alternating between the user and the system $\\pmb{h}_t = [u_1, r_1, u_2, r_2, \\dots, u_t]$ (where $u$ and $r$ denote user and system utterances, respectively), the DST Prompter embeds the belief instruction $\\pmb{BI}$ to direct the frozen LLM (pa", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "rameterized by $\\theta$ ) in generating a belief state $b_{t}$ (Equation 1). The belief state is then used to query a database and obtain the database (DB) state $c_{t}$ (Equation 2). (ii) System Action Determination - the Policy Prompt incorporates a policy skeleton $PS$ , assisting the LLM in generating a system action $a_{t}$ , based on $h_t, b_t$ , and $c_{t}$ (Equation 3). (iii) Dialog Response Generation - grounded in the dialog history $h_t$ , belief state $b_{t}$ , DB state $c_{t}$ , system action $a_{t}$ , the Policy Prompt aids the LLM in generating a delexicalized response by providing the policy skeleton $PS$ (Equation 4). Ultimately, the delexicalized response is automatically postprocessed to generate system response in natural language. Detailed illustration with a dialog example is shown in Appendix L.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {b} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\theta} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {B I}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 355, + 882, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {c} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {D} \\boldsymbol {B} \\left(\\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 375, + 880, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {a} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\boldsymbol {\\theta}} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {P S}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 394, + 882, + 410 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {r} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\theta} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {a} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {P S}\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 414, + 882, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 LLM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 444, + 598, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An LLM is responsible for following task-specific instructions and generating appropriate responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 880, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Many off-the-shelf LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT, Codex (Chen et al., 2021), are pre-trained on massive corpora of text data and/or code data. In addition, they are trained to follow instructions in the prompts (Ouyang et al., 2022) and provide pertinent responses. Exhibiting remarkable proficiencies in natural language processing, instruction compliance, and zero-shot generalization across diverse downstream dialog tasks, these LLMs serve as valuable foundation models for our approach.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 882, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 DST Prompter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 669, + 672, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the dialog history $h_t$ , the DST prompter aims to guide the LLM in predicting the belief state $\\mathbf{b}_t$ at each turn $t$ , using the belief instruction $\\mathbf{BI}$ . The belief state $\\mathbf{b}_t$ is defined as the concatenation of the domain/task (i.e., user intent) $\\mathbf{d}_t$ and a set of slot-value pairs $\\{(s_t^i, v_t^i); i = 1, \\dots, n_t\\}$ , where $n_t$ is the total number of pairs in the set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 690, + 884, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, the proposed DST prompter contains four parts: (i) a task instruction that offers general guidance on belief state prediction; (ii) belief instructions $\\mathbf{BI}$ of all domains/tasks; (iii) a formatting example illustrating", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 803, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We assess several task instructions written by different authors, yielding minor performance disparities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13350", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/244328e92372df955ccf4910dc61c3eef7286cbddb07beb437c4a63f89fc5422.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Illustration of belief state prediction utilizing DST Prompter. The predicted belief state is highlighted." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 80, + 477, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the anticipated output format to direct the LLM, in addition, we follow Hu et al. (2022) and adopt SQL state to represent the dialog state $\\boldsymbol{b}_t^3$ ; and $(iv)$ the test input, i.e., the given dialog history $\\boldsymbol{h}_t$ . Since the prompt is fixed and no labeled data from the target task or domain is used, we refer to this setting as \"zero-shot\", following Wang et al. (2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 570, + 489, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Belief Instruction. For each task/domain, the belief instruction contains the task/domain name, all potential slot names, and their possible values (Figure 2). Regarding categorical slots, such as the \"price range\" in the restaurant domain, all plausible values are included, i.e., \"don't care\", \"cheap\", \"moderate\", and \"expensive\"; whereas, for non-categorical slots, such as \"name\", only a few value examples are injected, e.g., Pizza Hut City, Golden Wok, etc. Detailed belief instructions for all tasks/domains can be found in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 489, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5f0112cb022cbc5ef025613602d020369fbe24c11c4c7db8c06a26c37538b4e9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Illustration of system action determination and response generation employing the Policy Prompter. The pertinent template turns, previously predicted belief state, retrieved DB state within the input, alongside the generated system action and generated response in the output are accentuated." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 80, + 872, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Policy Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 665, + 685, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dialog policy, governing the behavior of task bots, plays a crucial role in task-oriented dialogs. To represent the dialog policy for a given task, we utilize a policy skeleton, which delineates interaction patterns and encompasses business logic in the form of template dialog flows (Peng et al., 2021b). The Policy Prompter is devised to guide the static LLM in adhering to the policy skeleton $PS$ , enabling the sequential generation of appropriate system actions $\\mathbf{a}_t$ and responses $\\mathbf{r}_t$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 690, + 884, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analogous to the DST Prompt, the Policy Prompt (Figure 3) comprises four components: (i) a task instruction; (ii) a formatting example derived from another task/domain, consisting of a par", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3SQL: select \\* from $d_{t}$ where $s_t^1 = v_t^1;\\ldots ;s_t^{n_t} = v_t^{n_t}$", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 878, + 480, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4We assess belief instructions with diverse slot value examples, revealing minor performance variations.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13351", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tial policy skeleton and its associated dialogue turn exemplar (in Appendix C); (iii) a policy skeleton for the previously predicted domain/task; and (iv) the test input, i.e., the dialog history $\\pmb{h}_t$ , generated belief state $\\pmb{b}_t$ , and obtained DB state $\\pmb{c}_t$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Policy Skeleton. Given that user behaviors and DB results jointly determine system actions and responses, policy skeleton is designed to cover all fundamental user behaviors and characteristic DB results, along with their corresponding system actions and responses.5 Considering the infeasibility of developing a multi-task/domain policy skeleton for every possible combination of tasks and domains, we opt to develop a distinct policy skeleton tailored to each specific task and domain.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 173, + 487, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), our strategy converts the established dialog policy into a series of template dialog turns $\\mathcal{X}$ that are logically arranged and concentrate on task completion:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 334, + 487, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {X} = \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {N}, \\tag {5} \\\\ \\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} = \\left(u ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\\right) o r \\left(c ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 409, + 487, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\pmb{x}_i$ is a template dialog turn, which contains a user utterance $u^i$ or a DB state $c^i$ , matching system action $a^i$ , and system response $r^i$ . $N$ denotes the total number of template turns within the policy skeleton (around 10-20 template turns depending on the task complexity). In order to equip the frozen LLM with new capabilities or modify current ones, we only need insert, amend, or eliminate a few template turns within the policy skeleton.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 487, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 617, + 260, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 317, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. (i) Two multi-domain dialog datasets: Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) and Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020). (ii) Two single-domain/task datasets: RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) (single-task dialogs from the corpus, following the \"happy path\"). Details are elaborated in Appendix D.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 663, + 487, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): Inform $(\\%)$ , Success $(\\%)$ , BLEU $(\\%)$ (Papineni et al., 2002) and Combined $(\\%)$ judges the overall quality, defined as Combined =", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 776, + 487, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(%) (Zhang* et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR (wherein the system actions and response templates are mapped one to one), which predicts next system action given the dialog history. We report the results using F1score $(\\%)$ and accuracy $(\\%)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 882, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation Metrics. We conduct interactive human evaluations (by five student helpers), following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). For each dialog session, students are mandated to interact with a dialog agent via natural language and assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%), (ii) Success w/ g(%), (iii) Understanding(1-5), (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) and (v) Turns. Full details are elaborated in Appendix D.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 214, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared Methods. We compare the proposed SGP-TOD with SOTA zero-shot transfer methods and zero-shot/few-shot prompting strategies. (We report the mean results of three different runs.)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 882, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-shot transfer methods:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 455, + 734, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a system-side schema to predict system action.", + "- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) is based on BERT-base, which uses a user-aware schema to predict the next system action.", + "- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) to generate system actions and responses utilizing slot/action descriptions and a policy program. It is pretrained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 473, + 882, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompting methods:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 664, + 675, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT, exploiting slot descriptions for tracking dialog states, fetching DB entries, and generating responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively.", + "- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting approach applied to ChatGPT, utilizing a few (i.e., $\\pmb{k}$ ) training dialog turns as prompts. Optimal results are achieved with $k = 15$ on Multiwoz and $k = 10$ on RADDLE.", + "- SGP-TOD (Ours) is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 683, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5We do not enumerate every conceivable combination of user behaviors or potential database results, as schema engineering is not the primary focus of this study.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13352", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2f6441bb4e79e9fead6cd3ddef402d6ba62b006618c2a2d4daabfacea186a8bc.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
Full-shot fine-tuning (with 8.4k+ training dialogs):
DAMD (Zhang et al., 2020)76.3360.4016.6084.97----
SIMPLETOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)84.4070.1015.0192.26----
SOLOIST (Peng et al., 2021a)85.5072.9016.5495.7481.7067.1013.6088.00
PPTOD (Su et al., 2022)89.2079.4018.62102.92----
MARS (Sun et al., 2022)88.9078.0019.90103.3588.9078.0019.60103.05
Zero-shot transfer method (pre-trained on SGD):
ANYTOD-XXL----73.9024.403.4052.55
Few-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS-----20.007.17-
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT44.7424.327.8842.4145.4024.507.7242.67
Zero-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS-----15.003.58-
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (Ours)64.5654.057.1766.4864.7054.706.9666.66
SGP-TOD-CODEX (Ours)71.6752.557.9170.0275.5052.306.6270.53
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 (Ours)83.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 878, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/203e41cfce17533ae57a37dc093b436a9efac256720b3419f84f9b3f0c271b95.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on Multiwoz. Results of SOLOIST, MARS, ANYTOD-XXL on Multiwoz 2.2 are cited from Zhao et al. (2022). Results of IG-TOD-CHATGPT are cited from Hudecek and Dusek (2023). Other results of the full-shot fine-tuning methods are cited from He et al. (2022) and Sun et al. (2022). (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAttractionTrainHotelRestaurant
Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.
Few-shot fine-tuning (with 50 training dialogs):
SIMPLETOD65.6646.975.8562.1759.0044.007.0758.5762.5040.007.7058.9575.5044.5011.0071.00
SOLOIST86.0065.0012.9088.4080.8164.659.9682.6974.5043.508.1267.1281.0055.5012.8081.50
Few-shot prompting:
Few-SHOT-CHATGPT75.0067.008.2279.2379.8065.668.1280.8551.0026.505.8044.5580.0055.507.7175.46
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT95.0094.007.13101.6376.7774.246.7582.2676.5057.005.1671.9190.0082.506.7292.97
SGP-TOD-CODEX98.0093.0010.45105.9578.7970.208.5683.0683.5069.507.8684.3691.0085.0010.5098.50
SGP-TOD-GPT3.596.0093.009.53104.0382.8377.278.7288.7782.5071.507.0584.0591.5084.0012.90100.65
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 379, + 882, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on RADDLE. The few-shot fine-tuning results are cited from Peng et al. (2021a). (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 510, + 882, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 and Codex. Implementation details are provided in Appendix E.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 555, + 487, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 End-to-End Evaluation on Multiwoz", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 593, + 445, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. We present the evaluation results in multi-domain contexts on Multiwoz in Table 1. In addition to the aforementioned methods, we include the results of SOTA full-shot fine-tuning approaches to facilitate a more comprehensive comparison. SGP-TOD obtains SOTA zero-shot performance, substantially outperforming few-shot prompting approaches across all metrics, while even exhibiting competitive results in comparison to full-shot fine-tuning methods concerning Success and Inform. This confirms the effectiveness of integrating the task schema with the LLMs' proficient language processing capabilities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with Prompting Methods. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT distinctly surpasses the zero-shot prompting approach IG-TOD-CHATGPT-zs with respect to Success (surpassing by $40\\%$ ) and BLEU (exceeding by $3\\%$ ). Moreover, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, without requiring task-specific data,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "considerably outperforms the few-shot prompting methods, i.e., IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS and FEWSHOT-CHATGPT (e.g., about 30 points improvement over Success). This suggests that providing explicit and concise task instructions via task schema is preferable to imparting implicit task guidance through the selected dialog turns.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 555, + 884, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with Zero-Shot Transfer Methods. Our SGP-TOD demonstrates a substantial advantage over ANYTOD-XXL, which necessitates task-specific pre-training and additional annotations, e.g., slot and action descriptions, over all the metrics. This exemplifies the potency of SGP-TOD, which markedly reduces the necessity for human labor and computational resources.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 683, + 884, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with Full-Shot Fine-Tuning Methods. SGP-TOD exhibits competitive performance over Inform and Success. The lower BLEU is due to a lack of linguistic variations of the template utterances, which is acceptable considering the trade-off between human effort and efficacy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 826, + 882, + 922 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13353", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/606de1f9ca2acb71df8da28bba0feda2b96074e0dea8bff47b2225060f1ea1c1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTask transferDomain transfer
F1AccuracyF1Accuracy
Zero-shot transfer (leave-one fine-tuning with 2.5k training dialogs):
BERT+S24.2524.8925.7028.56
SAM49.8251.3055.9157.92
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI45.1847.9947.2149.97
SGP-TOD-GPT3.547.6748.2749.7650.39
SGP-TOD-CODEX49.7851.0152.7253.66
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E50.8450.7453.5053.21
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 End-to-End Evaluation on RADDLE", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 279, + 426, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. Table 2 reports the results in single-domain settings on RADDLE. On all four dialog tasks, SGP-TOD demonstrates remarkable zero-shot performance that consistently surpasses both few-shot prompting and fine-tuning approaches. This results in substantial improvements of up to $12\\%$ in Inform, $45\\%$ in Success, and $19\\%$ in Combined metrics, while maintaining competitive BLEU scores. This evidence further substantiates the efficacy of SGP-TOD.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 300, + 489, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 End-to-End Evaluation on STAR", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 472, + 410, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Setup. BERT+S, SAM are fine-tuned on source tasks/domains then zero-shot on the held-out task/domain. SGP-TOD is presented with two formatting turns from the source tasks/domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 487, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we report the zero-shot evaluation results in two settings, i.e., task transfer and domain transfer in Table 3. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, demonstrates exceptional performance, surpassing or rivaling SOTA zero-shot transfer methods in both settings. This outcome signifies that, even when faced with complicated business logic and system actions in dialog policies, the proposed SGP-TOD continues to exhibit commendable performance. Additionally, we investigate the impact of changing the number of training dialogs and formatting example turns in Appendix F.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 489, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of Different LLMs and Prompt Formats. SGP-TOD-CODEX surpasses SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 while rivaling SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E (with template responses affixed to action labels in the policy prompt, demonstrated in Figure 10 in Appendix M). We conjecture that Codex, benefiting from extensive pre-training on copious code", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3dd5f48fb178aae10eaa92101ee1a85783e8368cf76bf230c6a9e4a30eed6ea0.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Zero-shot end-to-end next action prediction evaluation results on STAR. (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFT/FS/ZSRestaurant-Ext
Info.Succ.BLEUBERTS.
Without domain-relevant knowledge
ChatGPTZS44.006.004.3185.96
GPT-3.5ZS34.0016.008.7084.31
With prior knowledge on Restaurant
SOLOISTFT78.000.0010.6287.24
SGP-TOD-CHATGPTZS88.0034.005.4586.11
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5ZS94.0030.0010.6887.30
With knowledge on Restaurant-Ext
SOLOIST+TEACHFT82.0038.0010.9987.66
FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACHFS88.0054.0012.9588.90
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXTZS88.0078.006.2586.15
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXTZS96.0086.0014.5789.01
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 880, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: End-to-end evaluation results on domain extension. FT: fine-tuning, FS: few-shot prompting, ZS: zero-shot prompting, Info.: Inform, Succ.: Success, BERTS.: BERTScore. (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 279, + 884, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "data, demonstrates enhanced proficiency compared to GPT-3.5 in interpreting action labels. In addition, appending template responses is presumed to facilitate the explication of action labels for GPT-3.5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 363, + 882, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of Different Task Schemas. SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI, utilizing an identical task schema as employed in training SAM, manifests commendable performance. This result highlights that SGP-TOD as a flexible prompting strategy, compatible with any manually-crafted task schema.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 429, + 882, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 End-to-End Evaluation on Domain Extension", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 828, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Setup. We conduct experiments in a domain extension setting (Gasic et al., 2014; Lipton et al., 2018) to assess the efficacy of SGP-TOD in adapting deployed task bots to incorporate novel functionalities. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the Restaurant in RADDLE with four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. Details are shown in Appendix J.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 571, + 882, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared Methods.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 718, + 675, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting that receive two formatting examples.", + "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton.", + "- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in Restaurant domain (reported in Table 2).", + "- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). We deploy SOLOIST to converse with" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 739, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6 ANYTOD-XXL requires additional annotations, e.g., belief descriptions, which makes it not suitable for STAR.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13354", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "real users, then implement machine teaching to obtain 10/50/50 annotated dialogs in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. We fine-tune SOLOIST with the gathered 10 training dialogs covering new slots.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 84, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. We use 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as prompts (with peak performance at 10).", + "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-EXT refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 170, + 487, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. In Table 4, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, and notably SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT surpasses all other evaluated approaches by a substantial margin over all the metrics. This demonstrates the strong adaptability of our SGP-TOD in accommodating novel functionalities, revealing its immense potential for lifelong learning. Two interactive dialog examples are supplied in Appendix K.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 338, + 487, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with Approaches Augmented by Machine Teaching. SOLOIST yields zero Success, a predictable result given its lack of awareness regarding the new features. Augmented by machine teaching, SOLOIST+TEACH substantially improves SOLOIST in terms of Inform and Success. Nevertheless, relying solely on prior Restaurant knowledge, both SGP-TOD-CHATGPT and SGP-TOD-GP3.5 exhibit performance on par with SOLOIST+TEACH, demonstrating that SGP-TOD provides enhanced robustness in zero-shot generalization. Moreover, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext obtains substantially higher Success rates than SOLOIST+TEACH (a rise of $48\\%$ ) and FEW-SHOTGPT3.5+TEACH (an increase of $32\\%$ ). Compared to fine-tuning/prompting strategies utilizing additional dialogs corrected through machine teaching, SGP-TOD facilitates a more agile adaptation to novel functionalities by merely modifying template turns within the task schema.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 468, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Interactive Human Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 802, + 401, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Setup. We conduct interactive human evaluations on Restaurant domain to evaluate the performance of SOLOIST, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (reported in Table 2), with 50 dialogs gathered for analysis, respectively. Details can be found in Appendix H.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/de58ce1071669b90681643db42e37c151c4cc0fac9f056fb7285c071f1bc3f13.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelRestaurant
Sw/o g ↑Sw/ g ↑Und. ↑App. ↑T. ↓
SOLOIST34.0030.002.182.1010.64
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT94.0074.004.584.728.32
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT100.0092.004.864.887.28
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 887, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e0bfa81686295f4ae5679d6c8a880cf40c027b5d0c4f2c43a914995c2502e77a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Human evaluation results. S w/o g, S w/ g: Success without / with grounding; Und.: Understanding; App.: Appropriateness; T.: Turns." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.582.0072.509.2286.47
-policy81.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.6033.906.2942.54
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 209, + 880, + 302 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Ablation study results on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz 2.2 using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompt, -DB: removing database expertise, -belief: removing DST Prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 311, + 882, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. In Table 5, our proposed SGP-TOD-CHATGPT attains a remarkably high performance in a zero-shot context, consistently outpacing SOLOIST and FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT across all metrics. Particularly, regarding Success w/ g, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT significantly surpasses FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT (by $18\\%$ ) and SOLOIST (by $62\\%$ ), illustrating its proficiency in accomplishing tasks within real-world scenarios. Furthermore, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance (demonstrated in Appendix I). A detailed analysis is provided in Appendix I.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 392, + 882, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.7 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 590, + 673, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 6, we study the impact of the three components of SGP-TOD (namely, Policy Prompter, DST Prompter, and LLM) as well as the database expertise, on Multiwoz 2.2 utilizing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces the optimal result, underscoring the value of enhancing the LLM with the task schema and external database information. Detailed analyses are provided in Appendix G.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 612, + 882, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 770, + 640, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present SGP-TOD, a schema-guided prompting strategy aimed at the expeditious construction of end-to-end task bots, relying exclusively on LLMs and the corresponding task schema. Employing the symbolic knowledge - task schema, SGP-TOD guides fixed LLMs to generate suitable responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot fashion. Empirical findings on four well-studied datasets", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13355", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "reveal that SGP-TOD attains remarkable SOTA zero-shot performance, using both automatic and human evaluations. For future work, we plan to explore the use of SGP-TOD to develop personalized chatbots by utilizing pertinent task schema.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 177, + 220, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work is accompanied by two primary limitations. (i) Data contamination (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021) in prompt-based zero-shot learning pertains to the potential presence of test samples during the LLM pre-training phase. Given that data utilized for pre-training LLMs, such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, remains undisclosed and continuously expands, verifying data contamination presents a formidable challenge. Consequently, our research cannot preclude data contamination in the experimental process, deferring a more comprehensive investigation to future endeavors. Nevertheless, we undertake domain-extension experiments (Table 4 in Section 4.5), subjecting our proposed SGP-TOD to evaluation on a novel test set (currently not publicly available), encompassing recently obtained and annotated human-bot dialogs. The remarkable zero-shot performance of SGP-TOD demonstrates its substantial potential for adeptly adapting to innovative functionalities, without reliance on task-specific data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 203, + 489, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(ii) We employ the manually-crafted task schema as prompts to steer the LLMs towards generating suitable responses on novel tasks. As illustrated in Table 3 of Section 4.4, SGP-TOD exhibits minor performance discrepancies when implementing disparate task schema formulated by various authors. Notwithstanding such variations, our objective is to offer a foundational basis for schemaguided LLM prompting; future research may investigate approaches to designing more efficient task schema, i.e., diverse formats and coverage.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 489, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 731, + 265, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Throughout the interactive human evaluations and domain-extension experiments, all participating student helpers were informed of the research objectives prior to the collection and annotation of human-bot dialog logs. Their privacy was ensured to remain protected and undisclosed during the research period. Each participant received equitable remuneration.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Promoters utilized in this research incorporate no language that discriminates against specific", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "individuals or groups (Zhou et al., 2022) and avoid any negative impact on users' well-being (Bergman et al., 2022). Instances of these Prompts are provided in Appendix M. Furthermore, subsequent research endeavors may consider utilizing the OpenAI moderation API7 in conjunction with other related APIs to systematically filter out unsuitable user inputs and system responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 225, + 682, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This Project is partially supported by the HKSARG General Research Fund (Ref No. 14207619). We would like to express our gratitude to Xiaohan Feng and Haohan Guo for their valuable comments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 250, + 882, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation/overview", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 892, + 843, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13356", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "A. Stevie Bergman, Gavin Abercrombie, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Emily Dinan, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. 2022. Guiding the release of safer E2E conversational AI through value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 39-52, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4.", + "Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Ultes Stefan, Ramadan Osman, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz - a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).", + "Giovanni Campagna, Agata Foryciarz, Mehrad Moradshahi, and Monica Lam. 2020. Zero-shot transfer learning with synthesized data for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 122-132, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.", + "Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzhu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Tao Yu. 2023. Binding language models in symbolic languages. *ICLR*, abs/2210.02875.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts," + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022a. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022b. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311.", + "Haixing Dai, Zhengliang Liu, Wenxiong Liao, Xiaoke Huang, Yihan Cao, Zihao Wu, Lin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Wei Liu, Ninghao Liu, Sheng Li, Dajiang Zhu, Hongmin Cai, Lichao Sun, Quanzheng Li, Dinggang Shen, Tianming Liu, and Xiang Li. 2023. Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13357", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. A survey on in-context learning.", + "Milica Gasic, Dongho Kim, Pirros Tsiakoulis, Catherine Breslin, Matthew Henderson, Martin Szummer, Blaise Thomson, and Steve J. Young. 2014. Incremental on-line adaptation of pomdp-based dialogue managers to extended domains. In INTER-SPEECH 2014, 15th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Singapore, September 14-18, 2014, pages 140-144. ISCA.", + "Chulaka Gunasekara, Seokhwan Kim, Luis Fernando D'Haro, Abhinav Rastogi, Yun-Nung Chen, Mihail Eric, Behnam Hedayatnia, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Yang Liu, Chao-Wei Huang, et al. 2020. Overview of the ninth dialog system technology challenge: Dstc9. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06486.", + "Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semi-supervised learning and explicit policy injection. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191.", + "Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A. Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. Incontext learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2627-2643, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Vojtech Hudecek and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Are llms all you need for task-oriented dialogue? CoRR, abs/2304.06556.", + "Mihir Kale and Abhinav Rastogi. 2020. Template guided text generation for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6505-6520. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zekun Li, Wenhu Chen, Shiyang Li, Hong Wang, Jing Qian, and Xifeng Yan. 2022. Controllable dialogue simulation with in-context learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4330-4347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yaobo Liang, Chenfei Wu, Ting Song, Wenshan Wu, Yan Xia, Yu Liu, Yang Ou, Shuai Lu, Lei Ji, Shaoguang Mao, Yun Wang, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Nan Duan. 2023. Taskmatrix.ai: Completing tasks by connecting foundation models with millions of apis." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Zhenpeng Zhou, Paul A Crook, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7890-7900.", + "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul A Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue statetracking. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5640-5648.", + "Zachary Lipton, Xiujun Li, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, Faisal Ahmed, and Li Deng. 2018. BBQ-networks: Efficient exploration in deep reinforcement learning for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32.", + "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118.", + "Shikib Mehri, Yasemin Altun, and Maxine Eskenazi. 2022. LAD: Language models as data for zero-shot dialog. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 595-604, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2021. Schemaguided paradigm for zero-shot dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07056.", + "Johannes EM Mosig, Shikib Mehri, and Thomas Kober. 2020. Star: A schema-guided dialog dataset for transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11853.", + "Maxwell I. Nye, Michael Henry Tessler, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Brenden M. Lake. 2021. Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual-system, neuro-symbolic reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 25192-25204.", + "OpenAI. 2022. large-scale generative pre-training model for conversation. OpenAI blog.", + "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13358", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813.", + "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Jinchao Li, Shahin Shayan-deh, Lars Liden, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021a. Soloist: Building task bots at scale with transfer learning and machine teaching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:807-824.", + "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Jinchao Li, Chenguang Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021b. Synergy: Building task bots at scale using symbolic knowledge and machine teaching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11514.", + "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Chenguang Zhu, Jinchao Li, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021c. RADDLE: an evaluation benchmark and analysis platform for robust task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4418-4429. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kun Qian and Zhou Yu. 2019. Domain adaptive dialog generation via meta learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2639-2649, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver?", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020a. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8689-8696. AAAI Press.", + "Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020b. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8689-8696.", + "Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, Curtis Hawthorne, Aitor Lewkowycz, Alex Salcianu, Marc van Zee, Jacob Austin, Sebastian Goodman, Livio Baldini Soares, Haitang Hu, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Jasmina Bastings, Jannis Bulian, Xavier Garcia, Jianmo Ni, Andrew Chen, Kathleen Kenealy, Jonathan H. Clark, Stephan Lee, Dan Garrette, James Lee-Thorp, Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Marvin Ritter, Maarten Bosma, Alexandre Passos, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard, Noah Fiedel, Mark Omernick, Brennan Saeta, Ryan Sepassi, Alexander Spiridonov, Joshua Newlan, and Andrea Gesmundo. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio.", + "Darsh J Shah, Raghav Gupta, Amir A Fayazi, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Robust zero-shot cross-domain slot filling with example values. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06870.", + "Richard Shin and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. Few-shot semantic parsing with language models trained on code. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5417-5425, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Swadheen Shukla, Lars Liden, Shahin Shayandeh, Eslam Kamal, Jinchao Li, Matt Mazzola, Thomas Park, Baolin Peng, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Conversation Learner - a machine teaching tool for building dialog managers for task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 343-349, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13359", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Patrice Y. Simard, Saleema Amershi, David Maxwell Chickering, Alicia Edelman Pelton, Soroush Ghorashi, Christopher Meek, Gonzalo A. Ramos, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Mo Wang, and John Werns-ing. 2017. Machine teaching: A new paradigm for building machine learning systems. CoRR, abs/1707.06742.", + "Yixuan Su, Lei Shu, Elman Mansimov, Arshit Gupta, Deng Cai, Yi-An Lai, and Yi Zhang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training for plug-and-play task-oriented dialogue system. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).", + "Haipeng Sun, Junwei Bao, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. Mars: Semantic-aware contrastive learning for end-to-end task-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08917.", + "Jindong Wang, Xixu Hu, Wenxin Hou, Hao Chen, Runkai Zheng, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Haojun Huang, Wei Ye, Xiubo Geng, Binxin Jiao, Yue Zhang, and Xing Xie. 2023. On the robustness of chatgpt: An adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective.", + "Qingyue Wang, Yanan Cao, Piji Li, Yanhe Fu, Zheng Lin, and Li Guo. 2022a. Slot dependency modeling for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 510-520, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Anjana Arunkumar, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Supernaturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on $1600+$ nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5085-5109.", + "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models.", + "Jason D. Williams and Lars Liden. 2017. Demonstration of interactive teaching for end-to-end dialog control with hybrid code networks. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, Saarbrücken, Germany, August 15-17, 2017, pages 82-85. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 808-819, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I. Wang, Victor Zhong, Bailin Wang, Chengzu Li, Connor Boyle, Ansong Ni, Ziyu Yao, Dragomir Radev, Caiming Xiong, Lingpeng Kong, Rui Zhang, Noah A. Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Tao Yu. 2022. UnifiedSKG: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 602-631, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dian Yu, Luheng He, Yuan Zhang, Xinya Du, Panupong Pasupat, and Qi Li. 2021. Few-shot intent classification and slot filling with retrieved examples. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 734-749. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.2: A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Xiaoying Zhang, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Helen Meng. 2022. Toward self-learning end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 516-530.", + "Yichi Zhang, Zhijian Ou, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Task-oriented dialog systems that consider multiple appropriate responses under the same context. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9604-9611.", + "Jeffrey Zhao, Yuan Cao, Raghav Gupta, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Mingqiu Wang, Hagen Soltau, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Anytod: A programmable task-oriented dialog system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09939.", + "Tiancheng Zhao and Maxine Eskenazi. 2018. Zero-shot dialog generation with cross-domain latent actions. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 1-10, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13360", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 12697-12706. PMLR.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 489, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Helen Meng. 2022. Towards identifying social bias in dialog systems: Framework, dataset, and benchmark. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3576-3591, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 135, + 489, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "DST Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 658, + 86, + 734, + 96 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task instruction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 539, + 105, + 636, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following the instructions, predict the belief state based on the history.", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 124, + 836, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Belief instructions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 539, + 153, + 650, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "restaurant name = pizza hut city, golden wok, etc.; food = dont care, chinese, mediterranean, british, etc.; pricerange = dontcare, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; booking_day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; booking_time = 12:15, 13:30, etc.", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 171, + 850, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "attraction attraction type = swimmingpool, theatre, architecture, museum, nightclub, boat, park, college, concerthall, entertainment, multiple sports, cinema; name = the cherry hinton village centre, soul tree nightclub, etc.; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 233, + 847, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "```python\nhotel name = huntingdon marriott hotel, a and b guest house, etc.; pricerange = dont care, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; stars = dont care, 0,1,2,3,4,5; parking = dont care, yes, no; internet = dont care, yes, no; type = hotel, guest house; booking_day = monday, tuesday, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.; booking Stay = 1,2,3,4,etc.", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 286, + 848, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "train leaveat = 10:45, 12:06, etc.; destination = norwich, cambridge, etc.; day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; arriveby = 21:00, 09:45, etc.; departure = cambridge, stansted airport, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc.", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 357, + 847, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "taxi leaveat $= 08:45$ 16:15,etc.;destination $=$ saint john's college,kettle's yard,galleria,etc.;departure $=$ huntingdon marriot taxi,cineworld cinema,bridge guest house,etc.;arriveby $= 17:15$ 17:30,etc.", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 410, + 853, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "···", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 462, + 554, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4: Detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 492, + 880, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 530, + 826, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7 summarizes four main research directions in zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling: slot filling (SF), dialog state tracking (DST), end-to-end policy management (E2E policy) and end-to-end dialog generation (E2E dialog).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 573, + 880, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Detailed Belief Instructions in DST Prompter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 664, + 847, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4 shows the detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 706, + 880, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C A Formatting Example in Policy Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 750, + 825, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5 presents a formatting example in Policy Prompter.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 880, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 835, + 719, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 862, + 584, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multi-domain task-oriented dataset, which", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13361", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e23ca6a2992e5e9458da8a8a26ac0104637082bad533d8056ba14b3eab0778f7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTaskSchema typesTraining strategy
Fine-tuningPre-trainingPrompting
ROBUSTSF (Shah et al., 2019)SFslot names/value examples✓
TRADE (Wu et al., 2019)DSTslot names/value examples✓
ZSTL-SD (Campaigna et al., 2020)DSTontology, dialog templates✓(+synthesized data)
S-DST (Rastogi et al., 2020b)DSTslot names/descriptionss+service, intent names/descriptionss✓
T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b)DSTslot names/descriptionss✓
TRANSFERQA (Lin et al., 2021a)DSTslot names/value examples✓(QA tasks)
IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022)DSTslot names/value examples✓
SDM-DST (Wang et al., 2022a)DSTslot names/value examples✓
BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020)E2E policysystem-side policy skeletons✓
SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021)E2E policyuser-aware policy skeletons✓
ZSDG (Zhao and Eskenazi, 2018)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
DAML (Qian and Yu, 2019)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
ANYTOD (Zhao et al., 2022)E2E dialogpolicy programs+slot names/value examples+slot descriptions+user action names/states/descriptionss✓✓(heterogeneous tasks)
IG-TOD (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023)E2E dialogslot names+slot descriptions✓
SGP-TOD (ours)E2E dialoguser-aware policy skeletons(+slot names/value examples)✓
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 884, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling. (Schema items enclosed in parentheses are required only when accessible.)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 382, + 882, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "contains 8,438/1,000/1,000 dialogs for training-validating/testing, spanning seven domains: restaurant, attraction, train, hotel, taxi, police, and hospital. Multiwoz 2.0 is annotated with belief states and system actions.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 434, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020) is a improved version of Multiwoz 2.0, encompassing refined belief state annotations, slot descriptions, user action annotations, etc.", + "- RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) consists of four single-domain dialog datasets derived from Multiwoz 2.0 (i.e., restaurant, train, hotel, attraction), reorganized by Peng et al. (2021a). Each corpus contains 50/50/200 dialogs for training-validating/testing, expect for 100 testing dialogs in attraction domain.", + "- STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) includes 24 tasks in 13 domains (e.g., \"apartment\" domain comprises \"apartment-search\" and \"apartment-schedule\"), requiring the dialog model to conform to the provided task schema. We use 2,688 single-task dialogs from the corpus, which follow a \"happy path\", i.e., the user is not instructed to execute any action exceeding the schema's expectations. Without additional annotations, STAR only provides a flow chart diagram that outlines the dialog policy for each task. The flow chart outlines the task, including the sequence in which at" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 521, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tributes should be asked (for example, ask for the user's name before asking for the hotel name), how to query a database, etc.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 434, + 884, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): (i) Inform(\\%) assesses whether the agent returns an acceptable entity. (ii) Success(\\%) determines if the agent appropriately responds to each attribute request. (iii) BLEU(\\%) (Papineni et al., 2002) measures the word overlap of the generated response against the human response in the corpus. (iv) Combined(\\%) judges the overall quality, which is defined as Combined = (Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(\\%) (Zhang* et al., 2020), which focuses on computing semantic similarity between the generated responses and the ground truth, and correlates better with human judgments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 499, + 884, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR, which predicts next system action based on the dialog history. Since the system actions and deterministic response templates are mapped one to one in STAR corpus, we believe the end-to-end next action prediction task falls within end-to-end dialog modeling, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In addition, we report the results using weighted F1score(%) and mean accuracy(%)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13362", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Policy Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 258, + 86, + 344, + 96 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task instruction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 105, + 240, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following the instructions, generate appropriate response based on the history.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 124, + 450, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 156, + 411, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Policy skeleton", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 141, + 173, + 208, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) user: I'm looking for information on [attraction_name]. action: attraction (inform (name, address, area, entrance fee)) system: [attraction_name] is in the [value_area] and their address is [attraction_address], the entrance fee is [value_count] pounds. [eos]", + "(2) user: What is the phone number? action: attraction (inform phone), require (more)) system: Their phone number is [attraction_phone]. is there anything else i can do for you? [eos]", + "(3) user: I need the area/location and the postcode. action: attraction (inform (area, postcode)) system: The [attraction_name] is in the [value_area], their postal code is [attraction_postcode]. [eos]", + "(4) user: That is all i need today. thank you! action: attraction (general (bye)) system: You are welcome , thank you for calling the [value_place] town info [value_area]. have a great day. [eos]", + "(5) DB: attraction zero match. action: attraction (inform (none)) system: There are no results matching your query. Can i try a different area or type? [eos]", + "(6) DB: attraction one match. action: attraction (inform (name)) system: We have [attraction_name]. [eos]", + "(7) DB: attraction five match. action: attraction (inform (choices), request (area)) system: There are [value_count], which area were you looking at? [eos]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 191, + 453, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "history.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 141, + 464, + 179, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "user: Hello, i'm looking for the museum of classical archaeology, could you tell me more about it? system: Certainly, the [attraction_name] is located at [attraction_address] and has free entrance, phone [attraction_phone]. do you also need the postcode? user: Yes, i'd like that. thank you so much!", + "SQL: select * from attraction where name = museum of classical archaeology DB: Attraction one match", + "action:attraction (inform (postcode),require (more)) system:The postcode for the [attribution_name] is [attribution_postcode].Is there anything else i can help you with?" + ], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 481, + 453, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5: A formatting example in Policy Prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 637, + 475, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation Metrics. We employ interactive human evaluations to assess the quality of dialog agents, following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). We recruit student helpers to help with evaluations. For each dialog session, student helpers are provided with a goal and accompanying instructions, subsequently necessitating a discourse with the agent to achieve the goal via natural language. Upon the conclusion of each dialog session, students are mandated to assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%) evaluates whether the agent accomplishes the task. (ii) Success w/ g(%) judges whether the agent accomplishes the task and of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "fers matched slot values compared to the database record. (iii) Understanding(1-5) quantifies the accuracy with which the agent comprehends user utterances. (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) signifies the naturalness, appropriateness and fluency of an agent response. (v) Turns denotes the average number of dialog turns within successful dialog sessions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 224, + 749, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Regarding SGP-TOD:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 249, + 695, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "- LLMs: We employ ChatGPT (\"gpt-3.5-turbo\"), GPT-3.5 (\"text-davinci-003\") and Codex (\"code-davinci-002\") as the fixed LLMs to implement the proposed SGP-TOD. Throughout the evaluation, we set temperature to 0.5.", + "- DST Prompt - belief instruction: In the context of multi-domain scenarios, the belief instructions encompassing all domains are incorporated, while solely the target domain's belief instruction is introduced in single-domain settings.", + "- Policy Prompt - policy skeleton: For the Multiwoz datasets, we manually construct the policy skeleton through observing a few dialogs in the training corpus, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In the case of the STAR corpus, we employ flow chart diagrams and several dialogs to develop the policy skeleton, following the guidelines set forth by Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). We integrate the relevant user template utterance and the system action into the policy skeleton, thereby augmenting the LLM's understanding of directives, in the absence of belief annotations. The prompt examples for the STAR dataset are shown in Appendix M.", + "- Formatting example: Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. The formatting example employed within DST Prompter/Policy Prompter is randomly chosen from the training corpus of different tasks/domains, conforming to zero-shot scenario proposed by Wang et al. (2022b). We appraise multiple randomly selected formatting examples, the evaluation results reveal minor deviations. In the experiments on domain" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 275, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13363", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "extension (Section 4.5) and ablation analysis (Section 4.7), we employ the same (two) formatting exemplar turns originating from other domains within the RADDLE corpus for all prompting techniques.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 84, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Regarding compared methods:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 177, + 363, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(i) Zero-shot transfer methods:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 203, + 363, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) is a schemaguided method that augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a provided system-side schema to predict the next system action.", + "- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) represents a schema-guided model based on BERT-base, which aligns the dialog context to a user-aware schema to predict the next system action.", + "- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts a neural LM to track dialog states and user actions utilizing slot and action descriptions. Then a program that outlines a predefined task policy is executed to recommend appropriate system actions. Upon considering these system actions, an LM generates the ultimate system action and formulates the corresponding template response using the approach proposed by Kale and Rastogi (2020). ANYTOD-XXL is implemented on T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) and pre-trained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a) $^8$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 231, + 489, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(ii) Prompting methods:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 611, + 310, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT that leverages the dialog context and manually-crafted slot descriptions as the prompt, to track dialog states, fetch DB entries, and produce responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively.", + "- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting strategy implemented on ChatGPT, where we use a few (i.e., $\\mathbf{k}$ ) dialog turns, randomly sampled from the training corpus to instruct ChatGPT on task execution. Upon evaluating" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 639, + 489, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "various configurations of $\\pmb{k}$ , the optimal results manifest with 15 on Multiwoz (2.0 and 2.2), and 10 on RADDLE, exhibiting no further substantial enhancements.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 882, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- SGP-TOD (Ours) is a schema-guided prompting strategy, which is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ ChatGPT (\"gpt-3.5-turbo\"), GPT-3.5 (\"text-davinci-003\") and Codex (\"codedavinci-002\") as the fixed LLMs. Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. More implementation details are provided in Appendix E.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 153, + 884, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Zero-Shot End-to-End Evaluation Results on STAR", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 341, + 840, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6 exhibits the zero-shot evaluation results on STAR, utilizing varying amounts of training dialogs (ranging from 1 to 1,000) and formatting example turns (spanning from 1 to 10) from source domains/tasks. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, achieves superior or comparable performance compared to BERT+S, SAM, which are fine-tuned on adequate source data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 884, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We observe that SGP-TOD, employing only two formatting sample turns, attains superior or commensurate performance in terms of both F1score and Accuracy, when compared to SAM trained with 1,000 dialogs. Given that a single dialog contains more than 10 dialog turns, this result suggests that SGP-TOD diminishes labeling expenses by a minimum factor of 1,000. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that augmenting the quantity of formatting exemplar turns exerts a negligible influence on the performance of SGP-TOD.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 512, + 882, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 699, + 680, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 exhibits the findings from an ablation investigation, addressing the effects of the three integral aspects of SGP-TOD in conjunction with the database expertise, implemented on Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2, employing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces optimal results across both datasets. The removal of the Policy Prompter, database knowledge, and DST Prompter leads to consistent declines in all evaluation metrics, underscoring the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 724, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9We inject the same two formatting example turns into the prompt throughout the evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8The Schema-Guided Dialog (SGD) dataset constitutes a comprehensive, large-scale, multi-domain corpus encompassing over 16,000 dialogs that span across 16 distinct domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13364", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7e137f02489fb56bd43286ce987898256a44d649264a8c4a3c925e81209049e0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Task transfer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 91, + 489, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/978d9deab0e162fec860e455ae43b219c23bf463aaa67c817c8e566fa84435af.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Domain transfer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 91, + 873, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d73b187c1733c199dbfc9325cfce1b1836e5d7ceb3d24bb707bf2bfcd4005aa0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Task transfer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 319, + 489, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/117c9f062cc70de1892b6c16965b16e39c67e2a7884543f7b297bf57a96b5794.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) Domain transfer", + "Figure 6: Zero-shot end-to-end evaluation results on STAR with different numbers of training dialogs (1, 10, 100, 1,000) / demonstration example turns (1, 10) from source domain/tasks." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 319, + 873, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "value of enhancing the fixed LLM with the task schema and external database information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 487, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, GPT-3.5 (in the final row) exhibits commendable zero-shot performance, highlighting the need of exploiting its superior zero-shot generalization capabilities in dialog generation tasks. Additionally, Disabling the Policy Prompt incurs a discernible decline in performance regarding Success (approximately $16\\%$ ) and BLEU (roughly $3\\%$ ), as the Policy Prompt's primary function is to provide task completion guidelines and interaction patterns. Eliminating the database expertise primarily reduces Success (by approximately $4\\%$ ), implying that incorporating database information contributes to task completion. Lastly, excising the DST Prompt engenders a considerable diminution in performance concerning Inform (around $43\\%$ ) and Success (nearly $18\\%$ ), due to the DST Prompt's intended purpose of assisting the frozen LLM in apprehending the dialog context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "H Human Evaluation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 779, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We enlisted 5 student helpers (i.e., undergraduate students possessing basic proficiency in English communication) to participate in the evaluations. For each dialog agent, we collected 50 dialogs for analysis. Followed the methodology proposed by Li et al. (2022), we generated user goals through the subsequent techniques: (i) Randomly selecting slots and slot values within the Restaurant domain from RADDLE corpus to construct a user goal; (ii) Replacing the slot values of the user goals in randomly chosen dialogs from the Restaurant corpus with corresponding new values from randomly sampled database entries, thus forming a new user goal; (iii) Merging the user goals of several randomly selected dialogs from the Restaurant corpus to create a composite user goal. Lastly, we randomly chose 50 distinct user goals from these newly generated goals.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 629, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13365", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5b64f50ecc45b6c655ff45336c514a619b91696e3e5289d7d375242e6044364f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.583.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
-policy82.2855.656.5175.4881.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.2050.956.4872.5681.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.7433.136.1842.1238.6033.906.2942.54
", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 80, + 820, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Ablation study on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompter, -DB: removing database information, -belief: removing DST Prompter.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 185, + 884, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I Human Evaluation Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 249, + 378, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7 shows the interactive human evaluation results. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance. In contrast to the automated evaluation results shown in Table 2, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT significantly outperforms SOLOIST over all metrics. This indicates that corpus-based evaluations might be biased, given that real user inputs tend to be more dynamic, complex, even with noise. Notably, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT consistently excels compared to the other methods in both evaluations, implying its robustness in handling diverse user inputs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 489, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "J More Details and Results on Domain Extension", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 479, + 465, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Setup. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the pre-existing Restaurant in RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021c) with additional functions. Specifically, we introduce four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. The initial slot pertains to recommendations for signature restaurant meals, while the final three concern delivery service details. All database entries are updated with corresponding values. Table 10 exhibits a dialog example on domain extension. The associated Restaurant-Ext database entry is illustrated in Table 9.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 489, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared Methods.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 740, + 280, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting with base LLMs that receive merely two formatting example turns from other domains in RADDLE. $^{10}$", + "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 766, + 487, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in the Restaurant domain (previously reported in Table 2).", + "- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). Machine teaching is an efficient approach to equip deployed task bots with the ability to handle new functions by correcting representative failed human-bot dialogs. We deploy SOLOIST to converse with real users, then implement machine teaching via Conversational learner (Shukla et al., 2020), an effective machine teaching tool, to obtain 10/50/50 examples in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. Finally, we fine-tune SOLOIST with gathered 10 training dialogs covering four new slots, resulting in dialog agent SOLOIST+TEACH.", + "- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. Based on GPT-3.5, we utilize 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as the prompt (with peak performance at 10), resulting in FEWSHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH.", + "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant." + ], + "bbox": [ + 529, + 250, + 882, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. Comparison with Base LLMs. The substantial improvement of SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT and SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT over ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 illustrates SGP-TOD's efficiency in supplying task-specific knowledge in a zero-shot way.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of Different LLMs. SGP-TODCHATGPT-EXT attains a lower BLEU yet a comparable BERTScore, suggesting that ChatGPT generates more diverse responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10We utilize the same formatting example turns in all zero-shot prompting methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13366", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3cbdf3b1513ee9f96fecc4c728499a947c0b85bf3068aa2ef178542059a9c198.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Success w/o g ↑" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 89, + 278, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1b326e76977705fe2590979ae990c490fdccf84470d4f4cb1f6df8f16d164f7c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Success w/ g ↑" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 282, + 89, + 426, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f6f85da5f3f15a5499c0d3af27c71554fb8667e4caf4bbd88c8f7db8dcbfccdd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Understanding", + "Figure 7: Interactive human evaluation results. SOLO.: SOLOIST, FS.: FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP.: SGP-TOD-CHATGPT." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 431, + 90, + 573, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/89175ae70b826217c987becd91e980100eb09425e9bd43786d2f220a7ab72e2c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) Appropriateness $\\uparrow$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 576, + 90, + 717, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bf9a90d6dab578f2777f2864788e94c5b4a92a8b02d016faf87888216ac4a2ce.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(e)Turns $\\downarrow$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 724, + 90, + 863, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/17130e0434bb326e12f37420d8230959549838c5e5185e8ee801eeb4f7a9298e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SlotValue
"address""21 - 24 Northampton Street"
"area""west"
"food""british"
"id""14810"
"location"[52.21031, 0.11381]
"name""saint johns chop house"
"phone""01223353110"
"postcode""cb30ad"
"pricerange""moderate"
"type""restaurant"
"delivery""Yes"
"delivery fee""6 pounds"
"dish""Beef Wellington"
"start_time""10:30 am"
"end_time""22:40 pm"
", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 329, + 431, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: An example of Restaurant-Ext DB entry. The newly introduced slot-value pairs relevant to the extended functionality are highlighted.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 526, + 489, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "K Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 590, + 250, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the superior performance of the proposed SGP-TOD on GPT-3.5, we showcase interactive examples utilizing ChatGPT, a renowned and potent chatbot. In Table 11, a user engages with ChatGPT (left) and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right) to complete the identical task on Restaurant-Ext. $^{11}$ The user initiates the conversation by seeking recommendations for a Tuscan restaurant with no price range preference. Lacking external database information, ChatGPT conveys inaccurate details (Turn 2), whereas SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT informs users of the absence of matching restaurants and proposes alternatives (Turn 2). This exemplifies the benefits of integrating real-world expertise into the fixed LLM. Furthermore, ChatGPT persistently inquires about", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 615, + 489, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the desired price range despite the user's indifference. We argue that SGP-TOD assists the frozen LLM in discerning user intentions. In Turn 4, ChatGPT continues to furnish fabricated details (i.e., the restaurant name and phone number) concerning the nonexistent eatery, while SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT identifies a suitable Korean restaurant and the corresponding factual information. In contrast with ChatGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT adeptly addresses inquiries about the delivery service (Turn 6), indicating that SGP-TOD is capable of endowing the frozen LLM with novel functionalities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 884, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "L Our Proposed SGP-TOD with a Dialog Example", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 537, + 882, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8 illustrates the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 579, + 882, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M Prompt Examples for STAR Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 853, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Two exemplars of prompts for STAR dataset are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 648, + 880, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "ChatGPT and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT are previously reported in Table 4. The same two formatting example turns are incorporated into the prompt for both zero-shot strategies.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13367", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/60223a566d67c67c531f353fec537442dc187494427c33c9fc3faa4a257874b0.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TurnUtterance
1User: I want a restaurant on the west end of town.
2System: Ok. Are you looking for any particular type of food?
3User: I don't care.
4System: Are you looking for a particular price range?
5User: A moderately priced restaurant would be good.
6System: How about Saint Johns Chop House? They serve moderately priced British food on the west side of town.
7User: Can i please have their address and phone number?
8System: Saint Johns Chop House's address is 21-24 Northampton Street, their phone number is 01223353110.
9User: Does the restaurant offers delivery service? If it does, what's the delivery fee?
10System: Yes, it does, and the delivery charges 6 pounds.
11User: Thank you, goodbye.
12System: Thank you for using our system. Goodbye.
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 80, + 848, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5c735f893fe65f835a5dceecf34cf88348d9699e8e9ea7e63570c0b4445e71cb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: A dialog example on domain extension. Task bots need learn to provide pertinent responses concerning the expanded delivery service in subsequent interaction turns, adapting to the continually evolving user/enterprise demands." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TurnInteraction between a user and ChatGPTTurnInteraction between a user and SP-TOD-ChatGPT-Ext
1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.
2System: Certainly, there are 3 Tuscan restaurants in town. What is your preferred price range?2System: I am sorry, there are no Tuscan restaurants. Here are some other options: Korean, Italian, Chinese. Which one would you like more information on?
3User: I don't care about the price. Please recommend one for me, i also need the phone number please.3User: How about any Korean restaurants? I also need the phone number please.
4System: The phone number for Pizza Hut City Centre is 01223323737. Is there anything else i can help you with today?4System: Little Seoul is a Korean restaurant. Their phone number is 01223308681.
5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?
6System: I'm sorry, but I could not find any information on delivery fee in our database. You may want to contact the restaurant directly to inquire about this. Is there anything else I can assist you with today?6System: Yes, they offer delivery service and the delivery charge is 4 pounds. Can I help you with anything else?
7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.
8System: Glad i could assist you. Have a good day.8System: You're welcome, have a great meal! Goodbye!
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 302, + 875, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: Illustration of two interactive examples between a user and CHATGPT (left), SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right). Appropriate responses and inappropriate responses are highlighted.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 882, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/711ee537a0ff2b321768070906a272a68796a2bff8b062acf12b09b943f48d74.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Illustration of the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example. Note that the belief state in the represented in the SQL format, the details of which are described in Section 3.3." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 577, + 863, + 840 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13368", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Policy Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 258, + 198, + 344, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task instruction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 137, + 219, + 238, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 237, + 463, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 137, + 267, + 410, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task schema", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 285, + 208, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello [eos]", + "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos]", + "(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: ride Asking Booking number [eos]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 300, + 431, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "History.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 387, + 179, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: Hi, i need to check my ride status.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 403, + 327, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 419, + 181, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(2) user: i'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos]", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 436, + 431, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Test (on target task/domain)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 137, + 472, + 305, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task schema", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 137, + 489, + 206, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello [eos]", + "(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking_day [eos]", + "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 506, + 406, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "··", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 579, + 157, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "History.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 137, + 592, + 176, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 608, + 354, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 248, + 646, + 347, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 687, + 178, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos]", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 702, + 384, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Policy Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 653, + 158, + 739, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task instruction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 179, + 633, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 197, + 858, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 227, + 806, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task schema", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 244, + 603, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos]", + "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos]", + "(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: \nride Asking Booking number system: Can I get your booking ID, please? [eos]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 534, + 261, + 858, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "History.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 373, + 574, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: Hi, i need to check my ride status.", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 390, + 722, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 407, + 576, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos]", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 423, + 855, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Test (on target task/domain)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 470, + 702, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task schema", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 488, + 603, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos]", + "(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking day system: For what day would you like the weather forecast? [eos]", + "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 534, + 504, + 858, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "History.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 617, + 574, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday.", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 633, + 751, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 643, + 671, + 712, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/652d6fb90c49a942fc38da923756dd7b2ec6f3e3feb60f63e855f637d2ca9bb5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD on STAR. The relevant template turn within the input, the generated user template utterance, and the system action in the output are accentuated.", + "Figure 10: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD-E2E on STAR. The relevant template turn in the input, the generated user template utterance, the system action and the system response in the output are highlighted." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 717, + 669, + 742, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 709, + 574, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos]", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 726, + 853, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13369", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_model.json b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..497c403a972a633e05aa76a65195db6ddae06b3e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,4809 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.255, + 0.083, + 0.743, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SGP-TOD: Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.191, + 0.13, + 0.812, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoying Zhang\\(^{1}\\), Baolin Peng\\(^{2}\\), Kun Li\\(^{1}\\), Jingyan Zhou\\(^{1}\\), Helen Meng\\(^{1,3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.289, + 0.149, + 0.714, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.392, + 0.166, + 0.612, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Tencent AI Lab, Bellevue" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.181, + 0.757, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.292, + 0.199, + 0.714, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{zhangxy, kunli, jyzhou, hmmeng} @se.cuhk.edu.hk" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.362, + 0.216, + 0.643, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{baolinpeng} @ global.tencent.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.284, + 0.461, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Building and maintaining end-to-end task bots using minimal human effort is a longstanding challenge in dialog research. In this work, we introduce SGP-TOD, Schema-Guided Prompting for building Task-Oriented Dialog systems effortlessly based on large language models (LLMs). Utilizing the predefined task schema, i.e., belief instruction and dialog policy, we instruct fixed LLMs to generate appropriate responses on novel tasks, without the need for training data. Specifically, SGP-TOD comprises three components: an LLM for interacting with users, a Dialog State Tracking (DST) Prompter to aid the LLM in tracking dialog states with the given belief instruction, and a Policy Prompter to direct the LLM to generate proper responses adhering to the provided dialog policy. Experimental results on Multiwoz, RADDLE, and STAR datasets show that our training-free strategy, SGP-TOD, yields state-of-the-art (SOTA) zero-shot performance, significantly surpassing the few-shot approaches. In a domain-extension setting, SGP-TOD aptly adapts to new functionalities by merely adding supplementary schema rules. We make our code and data publicly available." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.671, + 0.26, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.699, + 0.49, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Building task-oriented dialog (TOD) systems has been a long-standing challenge in artificial intelligence. The prevailing approach for creating task bots (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2022) is to fine-tune pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). Despite their great success, developing and maintaining such task bots generally requires adequate annotated data and extensive fine-tuning/re-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.861, + 0.49, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) and GPT-4 (OpenAI," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.251, + 0.875, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.535, + 0.883, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The proposed SGP-TOD is depicted with a dialog example, where the prompters integrate the task schema (right) to assist the frozen LLM in generating an appropriate response (left)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.613, + 0.885, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2023), have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) applications (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), owing to their remarkable conversational skills (Qin et al., 2023), instruction-following abilities (Ouyang et al., 2022) and zero-shot generalization capabilities (Chowdhery et al., 2022a; Hu et al., 2022). This raises a research question: can LLMs be effectively utilized for building task bots with minimum human effort?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A contemporary study (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) explores the potential of LLMs for rapidly building task bots via few-shot prompting, a.k.a. in-context learning (ICL) paradigm (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021). Though demonstrably effective, the ICL performance is highly influenced by the quality of the in-context exemplars (Zhao et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023), as they struggle to provide comprehensive information for dialog task completion." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.443, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13348" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13348-13369" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we introduce symbolic knowledge (Nye et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2023), i.e., the task schema into LLMs, for creating task bots. Task schema (Mosig et al., 2020; Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) encompasses a concise symbolic representation of a task, supplying LLMs with a comprehensive blueprint. It comprises \\((i)\\) task-specific ontology containing all slots and their appropriate values (Budzianowski et al., 2018); and \\((ii)\\) a dialog flow explicitly outlining fundamental interaction patterns (Peng et al., 2021b). Specifically, we propose SGP-TOD (as depicted in Figure 1), a schema-guided prompting method for rapidly building task bots. We integrate the predefined task schema and dialog context into prompts through the use of two specifically-designed prompters, namely a DST Prompter and a Policy Prompter. Utilizing these prompters, we adeptly guide fixed LLMs to track dialog states, retrieve database entries, and generate appropriate responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot manner, without the need for additional training or fine-tuning. By incorporating task-specific symbolic knowledge into LLMs, SGP-TOD provides knowledge-based, coherent and human-like responses. Moreover, this training-free design empowers developers to flexibly prototype dialog systems on new tasks, while seamlessly extending system functionalities through modifying the task schema." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.552, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform empirical automatic evaluations on two multi-domain datasets, namely, Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2 (Budzianowski et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2020), as well as two single-domain/task datasets, RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020), within zero-shot scenarios. Additionally, we complement these assessments with interactive human evaluations. The results indicate that SGP-TOD, employing merely task schema devoid of any training or fine-tuning, substantially boosts the SOTA zero-shot results, markedly outperforming few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods, and even attaining competitive results cf. full-shot finetuning approaches. In a domain-extension context, SGP-TOD proficiently adapts to new functionalities by simply adding a handful of schema rules without necessitating further data collection, significantly exceeding the few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods reinforced by machine teaching (Williams and Liden, 2017)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.875, + 0.469, + 0.889 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, our contributions are three-fold:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose SGP-TOD, a schema-guided" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLM prompting strategy that facilitates in effortlessly creating task bots, eliminating the necessity for task-specific data or fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.141, + 0.885, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We integrate symbolic knowledge - task schema into LLMs, allowing them to generate schema-compliant responses and adaptively expand their functionalities to tackle new tasks by solely modifying the task schema." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.229, + 0.887, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We demonstrate the effectiveness of SGP-TOD on Multiwoz, RADDLE, STAR datasets in zero-shot settings using both automatic and human evaluations. SGP-TOD notably elevates the SOTA zero-shot performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.326, + 0.662, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.354, + 0.885, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling. Zero-shot generalization is an essential yet challenging task in TOD research. A comprehensive study is shown in Appendix A. In this paper, we focus on zero-shot end-to-end dialog modeling, including policy management and dialog generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.452, + 0.886, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The works by Zhao and Eskenazi (2018) and Qian and Yu (2019) utilize ontology and response templates to train dialog models, enabling the discovery of shared dialog policies between the source and target domains. To enable broader adaptation to diverse dialog policies, Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021) implement task-specific policy skeletons, training dialog models to adhere to novel policies. Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2022) employs a neural language model (LM) for tracking dialog states and user actions using slot and action descriptions; subsequently, a policy program is deployed to facilitate an LM in generating system actions and responses. Despite the effectiveness of previous approaches, they still require ample fine-tuning and copious annotated dialog corpora on source or heterogeneous domains/tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A concurrent study to ours is Hudecek and Dusek (2023), which employs a prompting strategy - IG-TOD (instruction-guided TOD) to guide frozen LLMs in generating suitable responses. Specifically, IG-TOD first tracks belief states by utilizing slot descriptions as prompts, then retrieves database entries, and generates responses. Our SGP-TOD differs in that: \\((i)\\) we employ slot names and value examples, rather than slot descriptions, as prompts to facilitate frozen LLMs in generating belief states, thereby reducing human effort; \\((ii)\\) we offer a policy skeleton to guide" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13349" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLMs in producing appropriate responses. In addition, experimental results indicate that SGP-TOD substantially outperforms IG-TOD." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.139, + 0.492, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leveraging LLMs for Dialog Tasks. LLMs (Chowdhery et al., 2022b; OpenAI, 2023) have exhibited unparalleled mastery of natural language understanding, reasoning and generation (Wei et al., 2022; Bubeck et al., 2023). Three primary research directions have obtained substantial success in numerous dialog tasks by utilizing LLMs. \\((i)\\) Few-shot prompting (Brown et al., 2020) has showcased remarkable performance in intent classification (Yu et al., 2021), semantic parsing (Shin and Van Durme, 2022), dialog state tracking (Hu et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022), and response generation (Madotto et al., 2021). \\((ii)\\) Li et al. (2022); Mehri et al. (2022); Dai et al. (2023) employ LLMs for data augmentation, i.e., generating synthetic task-oriented dialogs to train smaller models for inference. \\((iii)\\) Recently, several studies endeavor to support LLMs in specialized tasks by incorporating external knowledge. Peng et al. (2023) advocates for enhancing LLMs' responses with external knowledge and automated feedback to reduce hallucination. Liang et al. (2023) suggests connecting LLMs with millions of APIs to accomplish diverse tasks. Different from the aforementioned works, we aim to employ LLMs in building task bots in a zero-shot manner using pre-defined task schema." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.568, + 0.248, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 SGP-TOD" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.593, + 0.237, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Overview" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The overall architecture of the proposed SGP-TOD (Figure 1) consists of three key components: \\((i)\\) an LLM, responsible for adhering to instructions, comprehending user queries, and generating coherent responses for user interaction; \\((ii)\\) a DST Prompter, tasked with supporting the LLM in tracking dialogue states using the belief instruction; \\((iii)\\) a Policy Prompter, guiding the LLM to adhere to the predefined task policy for providing suitable system actions and responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "At each dialog turn \\(t\\), the end-to-end generation task is systematically divided into three subsequent sub-tasks: (i) Belief State Prediction - given the dialog history up to current dialog turn \\(\\pmb{h}_t\\), which is a sequence of utterances alternating between the user and the system \\(\\pmb{h}_t = [u_1, r_1, u_2, r_2, \\dots, u_t]\\) (where \\(u\\) and \\(r\\) denote user and system utterances, respectively), the DST Prompter embeds the belief instruction \\(\\pmb{BI}\\) to direct the frozen LLM (pa" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "rameterized by \\(\\theta\\) ) in generating a belief state \\(b_{t}\\) (Equation 1). The belief state is then used to query a database and obtain the database (DB) state \\(c_{t}\\) (Equation 2). (ii) System Action Determination - the Policy Prompt incorporates a policy skeleton \\(PS\\), assisting the LLM in generating a system action \\(a_{t}\\), based on \\(h_t, b_t\\), and \\(c_{t}\\) (Equation 3). (iii) Dialog Response Generation - grounded in the dialog history \\(h_t\\), belief state \\(b_{t}\\), DB state \\(c_{t}\\), system action \\(a_{t}\\), the Policy Prompt aids the LLM in generating a delexicalized response by providing the policy skeleton \\(PS\\) (Equation 4). Ultimately, the delexicalized response is automatically postprocessed to generate system response in natural language. Detailed illustration with a dialog example is shown in Appendix L." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.356, + 0.884, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {b} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\theta} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {B I}\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.376, + 0.882, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {c} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {D} \\boldsymbol {B} \\left(\\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.395, + 0.883, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {a} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\boldsymbol {\\theta}} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {P S}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.575, + 0.415, + 0.883, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {r} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\theta} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {a} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {P S}\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.445, + 0.599, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 LLM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.882, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An LLM is responsible for following task-specific instructions and generating appropriate responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Many off-the-shelf LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT, Codex (Chen et al., 2021), are pre-trained on massive corpora of text data and/or code data. In addition, they are trained to follow instructions in the prompts (Ouyang et al., 2022) and provide pertinent responses. Exhibiting remarkable proficiencies in natural language processing, instruction compliance, and zero-shot generalization across diverse downstream dialog tasks, these LLMs serve as valuable foundation models for our approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.67, + 0.673, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 DST Prompter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.691, + 0.885, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the dialog history \\( h_t \\), the DST prompter aims to guide the LLM in predicting the belief state \\( \\mathbf{b}_t \\) at each turn \\( t \\), using the belief instruction \\( \\mathbf{BI} \\). The belief state \\( \\mathbf{b}_t \\) is defined as the concatenation of the domain/task (i.e., user intent) \\( \\mathbf{d}_t \\) and a set of slot-value pairs \\( \\{(s_t^i, v_t^i); i = 1, \\dots, n_t\\} \\), where \\( n_t \\) is the total number of pairs in the set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.804, + 0.884, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, the proposed DST prompter contains four parts: (i) a task instruction that offers general guidance on belief state prediction; (ii) belief instructions \\( \\mathbf{BI} \\) of all domains/tasks; (iii) a formatting example illustrating" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We assess several task instructions written by different authors, yielding minor performance disparities." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13350" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.082, + 0.478, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.515, + 0.49, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Illustration of belief state prediction utilizing DST Prompter. The predicted belief state is highlighted." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.571, + 0.49, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the anticipated output format to direct the LLM, in addition, we follow Hu et al. (2022) and adopt SQL state to represent the dialog state \\( \\boldsymbol{b}_t^3 \\); and \\( (iv) \\) the test input, i.e., the given dialog history \\( \\boldsymbol{h}_t \\). Since the prompt is fixed and no labeled data from the target task or domain is used, we refer to this setting as \"zero-shot\", following Wang et al. (2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.694, + 0.49, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Belief Instruction. For each task/domain, the belief instruction contains the task/domain name, all potential slot names, and their possible values (Figure 2). Regarding categorical slots, such as the \"price range\" in the restaurant domain, all plausible values are included, i.e., \"don't care\", \"cheap\", \"moderate\", and \"expensive\"; whereas, for non-categorical slots, such as \"name\", only a few value examples are injected, e.g., Pizza Hut City, Golden Wok, etc. Detailed belief instructions for all tasks/domains can be found in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.879, + 0.482, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3SQL: select \\* from \\(d_{t}\\) where \\(s_t^1 = v_t^1;\\ldots ;s_t^{n_t} = v_t^{n_t}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.894, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4We assess belief instructions with diverse slot value examples, revealing minor performance variations." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.879, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.082, + 0.873, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.552, + 0.885, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of system action determination and response generation employing the Policy Prompter. The pertinent template turns, previously predicted belief state, retrieved DB state within the input, alongside the generated system action and generated response in the output are accentuated." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.667, + 0.686, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Policy Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.692, + 0.885, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dialog policy, governing the behavior of task bots, plays a crucial role in task-oriented dialogs. To represent the dialog policy for a given task, we utilize a policy skeleton, which delineates interaction patterns and encompasses business logic in the form of template dialog flows (Peng et al., 2021b). The Policy Prompter is devised to guide the static LLM in adhering to the policy skeleton \\( PS \\), enabling the sequential generation of appropriate system actions \\( \\mathbf{a}_t \\) and responses \\( \\mathbf{r}_t \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analogous to the DST Prompt, the Policy Prompt (Figure 3) comprises four components: (i) a task instruction; (ii) a formatting example derived from another task/domain, consisting of a par" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13351" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tial policy skeleton and its associated dialogue turn exemplar (in Appendix C); (iii) a policy skeleton for the previously predicted domain/task; and (iv) the test input, i.e., the dialog history \\( \\pmb{h}_t \\), generated belief state \\( \\pmb{b}_t \\), and obtained DB state \\( \\pmb{c}_t \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.174, + 0.489, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Policy Skeleton. Given that user behaviors and DB results jointly determine system actions and responses, policy skeleton is designed to cover all fundamental user behaviors and characteristic DB results, along with their corresponding system actions and responses.5 Considering the infeasibility of developing a multi-task/domain policy skeleton for every possible combination of tasks and domains, we opt to develop a distinct policy skeleton tailored to each specific task and domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.335, + 0.489, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), our strategy converts the established dialog policy into a series of template dialog turns \\(\\mathcal{X}\\) that are logically arranged and concentrate on task completion:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.196, + 0.41, + 0.488, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {X} = \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {N}, \\tag {5} \\\\ \\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} = \\left(u ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\\right) o r \\left(c ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.462, + 0.489, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\pmb{x}_i \\) is a template dialog turn, which contains a user utterance \\( u^i \\) or a DB state \\( c^i \\), matching system action \\( a^i \\), and system response \\( r^i \\). \\( N \\) denotes the total number of template turns within the policy skeleton (around 10-20 template turns depending on the task complexity). In order to equip the frozen LLM with new capabilities or modify current ones, we only need insert, amend, or eliminate a few template turns within the policy skeleton." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.618, + 0.262, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.643, + 0.319, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.664, + 0.489, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. (i) Two multi-domain dialog datasets: Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) and Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020). (ii) Two single-domain/task datasets: RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) (single-task dialogs from the corpus, following the \"happy path\"). Details are elaborated in Appendix D." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.777, + 0.489, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): Inform \\((\\%)\\), Success \\((\\%)\\), BLEU \\((\\%)\\) (Papineni et al., 2002) and Combined \\((\\%)\\) judges the overall quality, defined as Combined =" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(%) (Zhang* et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.884, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR (wherein the system actions and response templates are mapped one to one), which predicts next system action given the dialog history. We report the results using F1score \\((\\%)\\) and accuracy \\((\\%)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.215, + 0.884, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation Metrics. We conduct interactive human evaluations (by five student helpers), following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). For each dialog session, students are mandated to interact with a dialog agent via natural language and assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%), (ii) Success w/ g(%), (iii) Understanding(1-5), (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) and (v) Turns. Full details are elaborated in Appendix D." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.391, + 0.883, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared Methods. We compare the proposed SGP-TOD with SOTA zero-shot transfer methods and zero-shot/few-shot prompting strategies. (We report the mean results of three different runs.)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.456, + 0.736, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-shot transfer methods:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.474, + 0.884, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a system-side schema to predict system action." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.528, + 0.883, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) is based on BERT-base, which uses a user-aware schema to predict the next system action." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.581, + 0.884, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) to generate system actions and responses utilizing slot/action descriptions and a policy program. It is pretrained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.474, + 0.884, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.665, + 0.676, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompting methods:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.684, + 0.884, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT, exploiting slot descriptions for tracking dialog states, fetching DB entries, and generating responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.801, + 0.884, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting approach applied to ChatGPT, utilizing a few (i.e., \\( \\pmb{k} \\)) training dialog turns as prompts. Optimal results are achieved with \\( k = 15 \\) on Multiwoz and \\( k = 10 \\) on RADDLE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SGP-TOD (Ours) is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.684, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5We do not enumerate every conceivable combination of user behaviors or potential database results, as schema engineering is not the primary focus of this study." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13352" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
Full-shot fine-tuning (with 8.4k+ training dialogs):
DAMD (Zhang et al., 2020)76.3360.4016.6084.97----
SIMPLETOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)84.4070.1015.0192.26----
SOLOIST (Peng et al., 2021a)85.5072.9016.5495.7481.7067.1013.6088.00
PPTOD (Su et al., 2022)89.2079.4018.62102.92----
MARS (Sun et al., 2022)88.9078.0019.90103.3588.9078.0019.60103.05
Zero-shot transfer method (pre-trained on SGD):
ANYTOD-XXL----73.9024.403.4052.55
Few-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS-----20.007.17-
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT44.7424.327.8842.4145.4024.507.7242.67
Zero-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS-----15.003.58-
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (Ours)64.5654.057.1766.4864.7054.706.9666.66
SGP-TOD-CODEX (Ours)71.6752.557.9170.0275.5052.306.6270.53
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 (Ours)83.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.314, + 0.884, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on Multiwoz. Results of SOLOIST, MARS, ANYTOD-XXL on Multiwoz 2.2 are cited from Zhao et al. (2022). Results of IG-TOD-CHATGPT are cited from Hudecek and Dusek (2023). Other results of the full-shot fine-tuning methods are cited from He et al. (2022) and Sun et al. (2022). (Difference in mean is significant with \\( p < 0.01 \\).)" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.38, + 0.884, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAttractionTrainHotelRestaurant
Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.
Few-shot fine-tuning (with 50 training dialogs):
SIMPLETOD65.6646.975.8562.1759.0044.007.0758.5762.5040.007.7058.9575.5044.5011.0071.00
SOLOIST86.0065.0012.9088.4080.8164.659.9682.6974.5043.508.1267.1281.0055.5012.8081.50
Few-shot prompting:
Few-SHOT-CHATGPT75.0067.008.2279.2379.8065.668.1280.8551.0026.505.8044.5580.0055.507.7175.46
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT95.0094.007.13101.6376.7774.246.7582.2676.5057.005.1671.9190.0082.506.7292.97
SGP-TOD-CODEX98.0093.0010.45105.9578.7970.208.5683.0683.5069.507.8684.3691.0085.0010.5098.50
SGP-TOD-GPT3.596.0093.009.53104.0382.8377.278.7288.7782.5071.507.0584.0591.5084.0012.90100.65
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.511, + 0.884, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on RADDLE. The few-shot fine-tuning results are cited from Peng et al. (2021a). (Difference in mean is significant with \\( p < 0.01 \\).)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.556, + 0.489, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 and Codex. Implementation details are provided in Appendix E." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.594, + 0.446, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 End-to-End Evaluation on Multiwoz" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. We present the evaluation results in multi-domain contexts on Multiwoz in Table 1. In addition to the aforementioned methods, we include the results of SOTA full-shot fine-tuning approaches to facilitate a more comprehensive comparison. SGP-TOD obtains SOTA zero-shot performance, substantially outperforming few-shot prompting approaches across all metrics, while even exhibiting competitive results in comparison to full-shot fine-tuning methods concerning Success and Inform. This confirms the effectiveness of integrating the task schema with the LLMs' proficient language processing capabilities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with Prompting Methods. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT distinctly surpasses the zero-shot prompting approach IG-TOD-CHATGPT-zs with respect to Success (surpassing by \\(40\\%\\)) and BLEU (exceeding by \\(3\\%\\)). Moreover, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, without requiring task-specific data," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.556, + 0.885, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "considerably outperforms the few-shot prompting methods, i.e., IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS and FEWSHOT-CHATGPT (e.g., about 30 points improvement over Success). This suggests that providing explicit and concise task instructions via task schema is preferable to imparting implicit task guidance through the selected dialog turns." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.684, + 0.885, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with Zero-Shot Transfer Methods. Our SGP-TOD demonstrates a substantial advantage over ANYTOD-XXL, which necessitates task-specific pre-training and additional annotations, e.g., slot and action descriptions, over all the metrics. This exemplifies the potency of SGP-TOD, which markedly reduces the necessity for human labor and computational resources." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.827, + 0.884, + 0.923 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with Full-Shot Fine-Tuning Methods. SGP-TOD exhibits competitive performance over Inform and Success. The lower BLEU is due to a lack of linguistic variations of the template utterances, which is acceptable considering the trade-off between human effort and efficacy." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13353" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.487, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTask transferDomain transfer
F1AccuracyF1Accuracy
Zero-shot transfer (leave-one fine-tuning with 2.5k training dialogs):
BERT+S24.2524.8925.7028.56
SAM49.8251.3055.9157.92
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI45.1847.9947.2149.97
SGP-TOD-GPT3.547.6748.2749.7650.39
SGP-TOD-CODEX49.7851.0152.7253.66
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E50.8450.7453.5053.21
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.22, + 0.49, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Zero-shot end-to-end next action prediction evaluation results on STAR. (Difference in mean is significant with \\( p < 0.01 \\).)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.28, + 0.428, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 End-to-End Evaluation on RADDLE" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.302, + 0.49, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. Table 2 reports the results in single-domain settings on RADDLE. On all four dialog tasks, SGP-TOD demonstrates remarkable zero-shot performance that consistently surpasses both few-shot prompting and fine-tuning approaches. This results in substantial improvements of up to \\(12\\%\\) in Inform, \\(45\\%\\) in Success, and \\(19\\%\\) in Combined metrics, while maintaining competitive BLEU scores. This evidence further substantiates the efficacy of SGP-TOD." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.473, + 0.411, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 End-to-End Evaluation on STAR" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.494, + 0.489, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Setup. BERT+S, SAM are fine-tuned on source tasks/domains then zero-shot on the held-out task/domain. SGP-TOD is presented with two formatting turns from the source tasks/domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.56, + 0.49, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we report the zero-shot evaluation results in two settings, i.e., task transfer and domain transfer in Table 3. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, demonstrates exceptional performance, surpassing or rivaling SOTA zero-shot transfer methods in both settings. This outcome signifies that, even when faced with complicated business logic and system actions in dialog policies, the proposed SGP-TOD continues to exhibit commendable performance. Additionally, we investigate the impact of changing the number of training dialogs and formatting example turns in Appendix F." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.77, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of Different LLMs and Prompt Formats. SGP-TOD-CODEX surpasses SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 while rivaling SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E (with template responses affixed to action labels in the policy prompt, demonstrated in Figure 10 in Appendix M). We conjecture that Codex, benefiting from extensive pre-training on copious code" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.082, + 0.881, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFT/FS/ZSRestaurant-Ext
Info.Succ.BLEUBERTS.
Without domain-relevant knowledge
ChatGPTZS44.006.004.3185.96
GPT-3.5ZS34.0016.008.7084.31
With prior knowledge on Restaurant
SOLOISTFT78.000.0010.6287.24
SGP-TOD-CHATGPTZS88.0034.005.4586.11
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5ZS94.0030.0010.6887.30
With knowledge on Restaurant-Ext
SOLOIST+TEACHFT82.0038.0010.9987.66
FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACHFS88.0054.0012.9588.90
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXTZS88.0078.006.2586.15
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXTZS96.0086.0014.5789.01
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.28, + 0.885, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: End-to-end evaluation results on domain extension. FT: fine-tuning, FS: few-shot prompting, ZS: zero-shot prompting, Info.: Inform, Succ.: Success, BERTS.: BERTScore. (Difference in mean is significant with \\( p < 0.01 \\).)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.365, + 0.884, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "data, demonstrates enhanced proficiency compared to GPT-3.5 in interpreting action labels. In addition, appending template responses is presumed to facilitate the explication of action labels for GPT-3.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.43, + 0.884, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of Different Task Schemas. SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI, utilizing an identical task schema as employed in training SAM, manifests commendable performance. This result highlights that SGP-TOD as a flexible prompting strategy, compatible with any manually-crafted task schema." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.535, + 0.83, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 End-to-End Evaluation on Domain Extension" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.573, + 0.884, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Setup. We conduct experiments in a domain extension setting (Gasic et al., 2014; Lipton et al., 2018) to assess the efficacy of SGP-TOD in adapting deployed task bots to incorporate novel functionalities. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the Restaurant in RADDLE with four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. Details are shown in Appendix J." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.719, + 0.676, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared Methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.74, + 0.884, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting that receive two formatting examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.778, + 0.885, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.833, + 0.881, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in Restaurant domain (reported in Table 2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). We deploy SOLOIST to converse with" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.74, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 ANYTOD-XXL requires additional annotations, e.g., belief descriptions, which makes it not suitable for STAR." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13354" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "real users, then implement machine teaching to obtain 10/50/50 annotated dialogs in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. We fine-tune SOLOIST with the gathered 10 training dialogs covering new slots." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.171, + 0.488, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. We use 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as prompts (with peak performance at 10)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.257, + 0.488, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-EXT refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.171, + 0.488, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.34, + 0.489, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. In Table 4, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, and notably SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT surpasses all other evaluated approaches by a substantial margin over all the metrics. This demonstrates the strong adaptability of our SGP-TOD in accommodating novel functionalities, revealing its immense potential for lifelong learning. Two interactive dialog examples are supplied in Appendix K." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with Approaches Augmented by Machine Teaching. SOLOIST yields zero Success, a predictable result given its lack of awareness regarding the new features. Augmented by machine teaching, SOLOIST+TEACH substantially improves SOLOIST in terms of Inform and Success. Nevertheless, relying solely on prior Restaurant knowledge, both SGP-TOD-CHATGPT and SGP-TOD-GP3.5 exhibit performance on par with SOLOIST+TEACH, demonstrating that SGP-TOD provides enhanced robustness in zero-shot generalization. Moreover, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext obtains substantially higher Success rates than SOLOIST+TEACH (a rise of \\(48\\%\\)) and FEW-SHOTGPT3.5+TEACH (an increase of \\(32\\%\\)). Compared to fine-tuning/prompting strategies utilizing additional dialogs corrected through machine teaching, SGP-TOD facilitates a more agile adaptation to novel functionalities by merely modifying template turns within the task schema." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.803, + 0.402, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Interactive Human Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Setup. We conduct interactive human evaluations on Restaurant domain to evaluate the performance of SOLOIST, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (reported in Table 2), with 50 dialogs gathered for analysis, respectively. Details can be found in Appendix H." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.082, + 0.888, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelRestaurant
Sw/o g ↑Sw/ g ↑Und. ↑App. ↑T. ↓
SOLOIST34.0030.002.182.1010.64
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT94.0074.004.584.728.32
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT100.0092.004.864.887.28
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.165, + 0.884, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Human evaluation results. S w/o g, S w/ g: Success without / with grounding; Und.: Understanding; App.: Appropriateness; T.: Turns." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.21, + 0.881, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.582.0072.509.2286.47
-policy81.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.6033.906.2942.54
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.312, + 0.883, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Ablation study results on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz 2.2 using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompt, -DB: removing database expertise, -belief: removing DST Prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.393, + 0.884, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. In Table 5, our proposed SGP-TOD-CHATGPT attains a remarkably high performance in a zero-shot context, consistently outpacing SOLOIST and FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT across all metrics. Particularly, regarding Success w/ g, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT significantly surpasses FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT (by \\(18\\%\\)) and SOLOIST (by \\(62\\%\\)), illustrating its proficiency in accomplishing tasks within real-world scenarios. Furthermore, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance (demonstrated in Appendix I). A detailed analysis is provided in Appendix I." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.592, + 0.674, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.7 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.613, + 0.884, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 6, we study the impact of the three components of SGP-TOD (namely, Policy Prompter, DST Prompter, and LLM) as well as the database expertise, on Multiwoz 2.2 utilizing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces the optimal result, underscoring the value of enhancing the LLM with the task schema and external database information. Detailed analyses are provided in Appendix G." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.771, + 0.642, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present SGP-TOD, a schema-guided prompting strategy aimed at the expeditious construction of end-to-end task bots, relying exclusively on LLMs and the corresponding task schema. Employing the symbolic knowledge - task schema, SGP-TOD guides fixed LLMs to generate suitable responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot fashion. Empirical findings on four well-studied datasets" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13355" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "reveal that SGP-TOD attains remarkable SOTA zero-shot performance, using both automatic and human evaluations. For future work, we plan to explore the use of SGP-TOD to develop personalized chatbots by utilizing pertinent task schema." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.178, + 0.221, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.204, + 0.49, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work is accompanied by two primary limitations. (i) Data contamination (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021) in prompt-based zero-shot learning pertains to the potential presence of test samples during the LLM pre-training phase. Given that data utilized for pre-training LLMs, such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, remains undisclosed and continuously expands, verifying data contamination presents a formidable challenge. Consequently, our research cannot preclude data contamination in the experimental process, deferring a more comprehensive investigation to future endeavors. Nevertheless, we undertake domain-extension experiments (Table 4 in Section 4.5), subjecting our proposed SGP-TOD to evaluation on a novel test set (currently not publicly available), encompassing recently obtained and annotated human-bot dialogs. The remarkable zero-shot performance of SGP-TOD demonstrates its substantial potential for adeptly adapting to innovative functionalities, without reliance on task-specific data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(ii) We employ the manually-crafted task schema as prompts to steer the LLMs towards generating suitable responses on novel tasks. As illustrated in Table 3 of Section 4.4, SGP-TOD exhibits minor performance discrepancies when implementing disparate task schema formulated by various authors. Notwithstanding such variations, our objective is to offer a foundational basis for schemaguided LLM prompting; future research may investigate approaches to designing more efficient task schema, i.e., diverse formats and coverage." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.732, + 0.267, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Throughout the interactive human evaluations and domain-extension experiments, all participating student helpers were informed of the research objectives prior to the collection and annotation of human-bot dialog logs. Their privacy was ensured to remain protected and undisclosed during the research period. Each participant received equitable remuneration." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Promoters utilized in this research incorporate no language that discriminates against specific" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "individuals or groups (Zhou et al., 2022) and avoid any negative impact on users' well-being (Bergman et al., 2022). Instances of these Prompts are provided in Appendix M. Furthermore, subsequent research endeavors may consider utilizing the OpenAI moderation API7 in conjunction with other related APIs to systematically filter out unsuitable user inputs and system responses." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.226, + 0.683, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.251, + 0.883, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This Project is partially supported by the HKSARG General Research Fund (Ref No. 14207619). We would like to express our gratitude to Xiaohan Feng and Haohan Guo for their valuable comments." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.893, + 0.844, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation/overview" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13356" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.107, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A. Stevie Bergman, Gavin Abercrombie, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Emily Dinan, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. 2022. Guiding the release of safer E2E conversational AI through value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 39-52, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.223, + 0.49, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.417, + 0.49, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.507, + 0.49, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Ultes Stefan, Ramadan Osman, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz - a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Giovanni Campagna, Agata Foryciarz, Mehrad Moradshahi, and Monica Lam. 2020. Zero-shot transfer learning with synthesized data for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 122-132, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.712, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.802, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzhu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Tao Yu. 2023. Binding language models in symbolic languages. *ICLR*, abs/2210.02875." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.891, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.107, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022a. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.369, + 0.885, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022b. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haixing Dai, Zhengliang Liu, Wenxiong Liao, Xiaoke Huang, Yihan Cao, Zihao Wu, Lin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Wei Liu, Ninghao Liu, Sheng Li, Dajiang Zhu, Hongmin Cai, Lichao Sun, Quanzheng Li, Dinggang Shen, Tianming Liu, and Xiang Li. 2023. Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.765, + 0.885, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.904, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13357" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. A survey on in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.122, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Milica Gasic, Dongho Kim, Pirros Tsiakoulis, Catherine Breslin, Matthew Henderson, Martin Szummer, Blaise Thomson, and Steve J. Young. 2014. Incremental on-line adaptation of pomdp-based dialogue managers to extended domains. In INTER-SPEECH 2014, 15th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Singapore, September 14-18, 2014, pages 140-144. ISCA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.236, + 0.488, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chulaka Gunasekara, Seokhwan Kim, Luis Fernando D'Haro, Abhinav Rastogi, Yun-Nung Chen, Mihail Eric, Behnam Hedayatnia, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Yang Liu, Chao-Wei Huang, et al. 2020. Overview of the ninth dialog system technology challenge: Dstc9. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06486." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.324, + 0.488, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semi-supervised learning and explicit policy injection. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.426, + 0.488, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.5, + 0.488, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A. Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. Incontext learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2627-2643, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.602, + 0.488, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vojtech Hudecek and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Are llms all you need for task-oriented dialogue? CoRR, abs/2304.06556." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.65, + 0.488, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mihir Kale and Abhinav Rastogi. 2020. Template guided text generation for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6505-6520. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.738, + 0.488, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zekun Li, Wenhu Chen, Shiyang Li, Hong Wang, Jing Qian, and Xifeng Yan. 2022. Controllable dialogue simulation with in-context learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4330-4347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaobo Liang, Chenfei Wu, Ting Song, Wenshan Wu, Yan Xia, Yu Liu, Yang Ou, Shuai Lu, Lei Ji, Shaoguang Mao, Yun Wang, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Nan Duan. 2023. Taskmatrix.ai: Completing tasks by connecting foundation models with millions of apis." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Zhenpeng Zhou, Paul A Crook, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7890-7900." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.187, + 0.883, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul A Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue statetracking. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5640-5648." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.302, + 0.883, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zachary Lipton, Xiujun Li, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, Faisal Ahmed, and Li Deng. 2018. BBQ-networks: Efficient exploration in deep reinforcement learning for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.39, + 0.883, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.505, + 0.883, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.567, + 0.883, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shikib Mehri, Yasemin Altun, and Maxine Eskenazi. 2022. LAD: Language models as data for zero-shot dialog. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 595-604, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.655, + 0.883, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2021. Schemaguided paradigm for zero-shot dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07056." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.705, + 0.883, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes EM Mosig, Shikib Mehri, and Thomas Kober. 2020. Star: A schema-guided dialog dataset for transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11853." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.754, + 0.883, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maxwell I. Nye, Michael Henry Tessler, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Brenden M. Lake. 2021. Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual-system, neuro-symbolic reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 25192-25204." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.869, + 0.883, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2022. large-scale generative pre-training model for conversation. OpenAI blog." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.904, + 0.771, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13358" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.229, + 0.49, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.488, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.488, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Jinchao Li, Shahin Shayan-deh, Lars Liden, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021a. Soloist: Building task bots at scale with transfer learning and machine teaching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:807-824." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.502, + 0.488, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Jinchao Li, Chenguang Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021b. Synergy: Building task bots at scale using symbolic knowledge and machine teaching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11514." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Chenguang Zhu, Jinchao Li, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021c. RADDLE: an evaluation benchmark and analysis platform for robust task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4418-4429. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.723, + 0.488, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Qian and Zhou Yu. 2019. Domain adaptive dialog generation via meta learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2639-2649, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.488, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver?" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020a. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8689-8696. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.329, + 0.884, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020b. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8689-8696." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.417, + 0.884, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, Curtis Hawthorne, Aitor Lewkowycz, Alex Salcianu, Marc van Zee, Jacob Austin, Sebastian Goodman, Livio Baldini Soares, Haitang Hu, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Jasmina Bastings, Jannis Bulian, Xavier Garcia, Jianmo Ni, Andrew Chen, Kathleen Kenealy, Jonathan H. Clark, Stephan Lee, Dan Garrette, James Lee-Thorp, Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Marvin Ritter, Maarten Bosma, Alexandre Passos, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard, Noah Fiedel, Mark Omernick, Brennan Saeta, Ryan Sepassi, Alexander Spiridonov, Joshua Newlan, and Andrea Gesmundo. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.636, + 0.883, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Darsh J Shah, Raghav Gupta, Amir A Fayazi, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Robust zero-shot cross-domain slot filling with example values. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06870." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.699, + 0.884, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Shin and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. Few-shot semantic parsing with language models trained on code. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5417-5425, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.801, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Swadheen Shukla, Lars Liden, Shahin Shayandeh, Eslam Kamal, Jinchao Li, Matt Mazzola, Thomas Park, Baolin Peng, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Conversation Learner - a machine teaching tool for building dialog managers for task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 343-349, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13359" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrice Y. Simard, Saleema Amershi, David Maxwell Chickering, Alicia Edelman Pelton, Soroush Ghorashi, Christopher Meek, Gonzalo A. Ramos, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Mo Wang, and John Werns-ing. 2017. Machine teaching: A new paradigm for building machine learning systems. CoRR, abs/1707.06742." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.19, + 0.49, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yixuan Su, Lei Shu, Elman Mansimov, Arshit Gupta, Deng Cai, Yi-An Lai, and Yi Zhang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training for plug-and-play task-oriented dialogue system. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.268, + 0.488, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haipeng Sun, Junwei Bao, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. Mars: Semantic-aware contrastive learning for end-to-end task-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08917." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.488, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jindong Wang, Xixu Hu, Wenxin Hou, Hao Chen, Runkai Zheng, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Haojun Huang, Wei Ye, Xiubo Geng, Binxin Jiao, Yue Zhang, and Xing Xie. 2023. On the robustness of chatgpt: An adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.411, + 0.488, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qingyue Wang, Yanan Cao, Piji Li, Yanhe Fu, Zheng Lin, and Li Guo. 2022a. Slot dependency modeling for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 510-520, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.488, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Anjana Arunkumar, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Supernaturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on \\(1600+\\) nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5085-5109." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.632, + 0.488, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.723, + 0.488, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason D. Williams and Lars Liden. 2017. Demonstration of interactive teaching for end-to-end dialog control with hybrid code networks. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, Saarbrücken, Germany, August 15-17, 2017, pages 82-85. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 808-819, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I. Wang, Victor Zhong, Bailin Wang, Chengzu Li, Connor Boyle, Ansong Ni, Ziyu Yao, Dragomir Radev, Caiming Xiong, Lingpeng Kong, Rui Zhang, Noah A. Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Tao Yu. 2022. UnifiedSKG: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 602-631, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.267, + 0.883, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dian Yu, Luheng He, Yuan Zhang, Xinya Du, Panupong Pasupat, and Qi Li. 2021. Few-shot intent classification and slot filling with retrieved examples. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 734-749. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.382, + 0.883, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.2: A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.497, + 0.883, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.561, + 0.883, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoying Zhang, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Helen Meng. 2022. Toward self-learning end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 516-530." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.637, + 0.883, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yichi Zhang, Zhijian Ou, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Task-oriented dialog systems that consider multiple appropriate responses under the same context. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9604-9611." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.883, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Zhao, Yuan Cao, Raghav Gupta, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Mingqiu Wang, Hagen Soltau, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Anytod: A programmable task-oriented dialog system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09939." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.789, + 0.883, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tiancheng Zhao and Maxine Eskenazi. 2018. Zero-shot dialog generation with cross-domain latent actions. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 1-10, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13360" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.136, + 0.49, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Helen Meng. 2022. Towards identifying social bias in dialog systems: Framework, dataset, and benchmark. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3576-3591, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.659, + 0.087, + 0.735, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DST Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.54, + 0.107, + 0.638, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task instruction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.125, + 0.838, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following the instructions, predict the belief state based on the history." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.54, + 0.154, + 0.651, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Belief instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.172, + 0.852, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "restaurant name = pizza hut city, golden wok, etc.; food = dont care, chinese, mediterranean, british, etc.; pricerange = dontcare, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; booking_day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; booking_time = 12:15, 13:30, etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.234, + 0.848, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "attraction attraction type = swimmingpool, theatre, architecture, museum, nightclub, boat, park, college, concerthall, entertainment, multiple sports, cinema; name = the cherry hinton village centre, soul tree nightclub, etc.; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.287, + 0.85, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "```python\nhotel name = huntingdon marriott hotel, a and b guest house, etc.; pricerange = dont care, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; stars = dont care, 0,1,2,3,4,5; parking = dont care, yes, no; internet = dont care, yes, no; type = hotel, guest house; booking_day = monday, tuesday, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.; booking Stay = 1,2,3,4,etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.358, + 0.848, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "train leaveat = 10:45, 12:06, etc.; destination = norwich, cambridge, etc.; day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; arriveby = 21:00, 09:45, etc.; departure = cambridge, stansted airport, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.411, + 0.854, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "taxi leaveat \\(= 08:45\\) 16:15,etc.;destination \\(=\\) saint john's college,kettle's yard,galleria,etc.;departure \\(=\\) huntingdon marriot taxi,cineworld cinema,bridge guest house,etc.;arriveby \\(= 17:15\\) 17:30,etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.463, + 0.555, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "···" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.493, + 0.881, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.531, + 0.828, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.574, + 0.882, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7 summarizes four main research directions in zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling: slot filling (SF), dialog state tracking (DST), end-to-end policy management (E2E policy) and end-to-end dialog generation (E2E dialog)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.665, + 0.848, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Detailed Belief Instructions in DST Prompter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.707, + 0.882, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4 shows the detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.751, + 0.826, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C A Formatting Example in Policy Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.793, + 0.882, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5 presents a formatting example in Policy Prompter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.836, + 0.721, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.863, + 0.586, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multi-domain task-oriented dataset, which" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13361" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTaskSchema typesTraining strategy
Fine-tuningPre-trainingPrompting
ROBUSTSF (Shah et al., 2019)SFslot names/value examples✓
TRADE (Wu et al., 2019)DSTslot names/value examples✓
ZSTL-SD (Campaigna et al., 2020)DSTontology, dialog templates✓(+synthesized data)
S-DST (Rastogi et al., 2020b)DSTslot names/descriptionss+service, intent names/descriptionss✓
T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b)DSTslot names/descriptionss✓
TRANSFERQA (Lin et al., 2021a)DSTslot names/value examples✓(QA tasks)
IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022)DSTslot names/value examples✓
SDM-DST (Wang et al., 2022a)DSTslot names/value examples✓
BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020)E2E policysystem-side policy skeletons✓
SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021)E2E policyuser-aware policy skeletons✓
ZSDG (Zhao and Eskenazi, 2018)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
DAML (Qian and Yu, 2019)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
ANYTOD (Zhao et al., 2022)E2E dialogpolicy programs+slot names/value examples+slot descriptions+user action names/states/descriptionss✓✓(heterogeneous tasks)
IG-TOD (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023)E2E dialogslot names+slot descriptions✓
SGP-TOD (ours)E2E dialoguser-aware policy skeletons(+slot names/value examples)✓
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.384, + 0.884, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling. (Schema items enclosed in parentheses are required only when accessible.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.435, + 0.49, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "contains 8,438/1,000/1,000 dialogs for training-validating/testing, spanning seven domains: restaurant, attraction, train, hotel, taxi, police, and hospital. Multiwoz 2.0 is annotated with belief states and system actions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.522, + 0.49, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020) is a improved version of Multiwoz 2.0, encompassing refined belief state annotations, slot descriptions, user action annotations, etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.592, + 0.49, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) consists of four single-domain dialog datasets derived from Multiwoz 2.0 (i.e., restaurant, train, hotel, attraction), reorganized by Peng et al. (2021a). Each corpus contains 50/50/200 dialogs for training-validating/testing, expect for 100 testing dialogs in attraction domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.711, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) includes 24 tasks in 13 domains (e.g., \"apartment\" domain comprises \"apartment-search\" and \"apartment-schedule\"), requiring the dialog model to conform to the provided task schema. We use 2,688 single-task dialogs from the corpus, which follow a \"happy path\", i.e., the user is not instructed to execute any action exceeding the schema's expectations. Without additional annotations, STAR only provides a flow chart diagram that outlines the dialog policy for each task. The flow chart outlines the task, including the sequence in which at" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.522, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.435, + 0.885, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tributes should be asked (for example, ask for the user's name before asking for the hotel name), how to query a database, etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.5, + 0.885, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): (i) Inform(\\%) assesses whether the agent returns an acceptable entity. (ii) Success(\\%) determines if the agent appropriately responds to each attribute request. (iii) BLEU(\\%) (Papineni et al., 2002) measures the word overlap of the generated response against the human response in the corpus. (iv) Combined(\\%) judges the overall quality, which is defined as Combined = (Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(\\%) (Zhang* et al., 2020), which focuses on computing semantic similarity between the generated responses and the ground truth, and correlates better with human judgments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR, which predicts next system action based on the dialog history. Since the system actions and deterministic response templates are mapped one to one in STAR corpus, we believe the end-to-end next action prediction task falls within end-to-end dialog modeling, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In addition, we report the results using weighted F1score(%) and mean accuracy(%)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13362" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.087, + 0.345, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Policy Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.107, + 0.242, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task instruction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.125, + 0.452, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following the instructions, generate appropriate response based on the history." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.157, + 0.413, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.174, + 0.21, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Policy skeleton" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.192, + 0.454, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) user: I'm looking for information on [attraction_name]. action: attraction (inform (name, address, area, entrance fee)) system: [attraction_name] is in the [value_area] and their address is [attraction_address], the entrance fee is [value_count] pounds. [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.248, + 0.445, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: What is the phone number? action: attraction (inform phone), require (more)) system: Their phone number is [attraction_phone]. is there anything else i can do for you? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.283, + 0.427, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: I need the area/location and the postcode. action: attraction (inform (area, postcode)) system: The [attraction_name] is in the [value_area], their postal code is [attraction_postcode]. [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.329, + 0.447, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(4) user: That is all i need today. thank you! action: attraction (general (bye)) system: You are welcome , thank you for calling the [value_place] town info [value_area]. have a great day. [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.365, + 0.451, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(5) DB: attraction zero match. action: attraction (inform (none)) system: There are no results matching your query. Can i try a different area or type? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.401, + 0.443, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(6) DB: attraction one match. action: attraction (inform (name)) system: We have [attraction_name]. [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.429, + 0.451, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(7) DB: attraction five match. action: attraction (inform (choices), request (area)) system: There are [value_count], which area were you looking at? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.192, + 0.454, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.465, + 0.18, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "history." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.482, + 0.447, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: Hello, i'm looking for the museum of classical archaeology, could you tell me more about it? system: Certainly, the [attraction_name] is located at [attraction_address] and has free entrance, phone [attraction_phone]. do you also need the postcode? user: Yes, i'd like that. thank you so much!" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.534, + 0.448, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQL: select * from attraction where name = museum of classical archaeology DB: Attraction one match" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.562, + 0.455, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "action:attraction (inform (postcode),require (more)) system:The postcode for the [attribution_name] is [attribution_postcode].Is there anything else i can help you with?" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.482, + 0.455, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.638, + 0.477, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: A formatting example in Policy Prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation Metrics. We employ interactive human evaluations to assess the quality of dialog agents, following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). We recruit student helpers to help with evaluations. For each dialog session, student helpers are provided with a goal and accompanying instructions, subsequently necessitating a discourse with the agent to achieve the goal via natural language. Upon the conclusion of each dialog session, students are mandated to assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%) evaluates whether the agent accomplishes the task. (ii) Success w/ g(%) judges whether the agent accomplishes the task and of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fers matched slot values compared to the database record. (iii) Understanding(1-5) quantifies the accuracy with which the agent comprehends user utterances. (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) signifies the naturalness, appropriateness and fluency of an agent response. (v) Turns denotes the average number of dialog turns within successful dialog sessions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.225, + 0.75, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.25, + 0.696, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Regarding SGP-TOD:" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.277, + 0.885, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- LLMs: We employ ChatGPT (\"gpt-3.5-turbo\"), GPT-3.5 (\"text-davinci-003\") and Codex (\"code-davinci-002\") as the fixed LLMs to implement the proposed SGP-TOD. Throughout the evaluation, we set temperature to 0.5." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.378, + 0.885, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- DST Prompt - belief instruction: In the context of multi-domain scenarios, the belief instructions encompassing all domains are incorporated, while solely the target domain's belief instruction is introduced in single-domain settings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Policy Prompt - policy skeleton: For the Multiwoz datasets, we manually construct the policy skeleton through observing a few dialogs in the training corpus, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In the case of the STAR corpus, we employ flow chart diagrams and several dialogs to develop the policy skeleton, following the guidelines set forth by Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). We integrate the relevant user template utterance and the system action into the policy skeleton, thereby augmenting the LLM's understanding of directives, in the absence of belief annotations. The prompt examples for the STAR dataset are shown in Appendix M." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Formatting example: Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. The formatting example employed within DST Prompter/Policy Prompter is randomly chosen from the training corpus of different tasks/domains, conforming to zero-shot scenario proposed by Wang et al. (2022b). We appraise multiple randomly selected formatting examples, the evaluation results reveal minor deviations. In the experiments on domain" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.277, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13363" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "extension (Section 4.5) and ablation analysis (Section 4.7), we employ the same (two) formatting exemplar turns originating from other domains within the RADDLE corpus for all prompting techniques." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.178, + 0.364, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Regarding compared methods:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.204, + 0.364, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(i) Zero-shot transfer methods:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.233, + 0.488, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) is a schemaguided method that augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a provided system-side schema to predict the next system action." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.319, + 0.488, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) represents a schema-guided model based on BERT-base, which aligns the dialog context to a user-aware schema to predict the next system action." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.39, + 0.49, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts a neural LM to track dialog states and user actions utilizing slot and action descriptions. Then a program that outlines a predefined task policy is executed to recommend appropriate system actions. Upon considering these system actions, an LM generates the ultimate system action and formulates the corresponding template response using the approach proposed by Kale and Rastogi (2020). ANYTOD-XXL is implemented on T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) and pre-trained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a)\\(^8\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.233, + 0.49, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.612, + 0.312, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(ii) Prompting methods:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.64, + 0.49, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT that leverages the dialog context and manually-crafted slot descriptions as the prompt, to track dialog states, fetch DB entries, and produce responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting strategy implemented on ChatGPT, where we use a few (i.e., \\( \\mathbf{k} \\)) dialog turns, randomly sampled from the training corpus to instruct ChatGPT on task execution. Upon evaluating" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.64, + 0.49, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "various configurations of \\( \\pmb{k} \\), the optimal results manifest with 15 on Multiwoz (2.0 and 2.2), and 10 on RADDLE, exhibiting no further substantial enhancements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.154, + 0.885, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SGP-TOD (Ours) is a schema-guided prompting strategy, which is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ ChatGPT (\"gpt-3.5-turbo\"), GPT-3.5 (\"text-davinci-003\") and Codex (\"codedavinci-002\") as the fixed LLMs. Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. More implementation details are provided in Appendix E." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.342, + 0.842, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Zero-Shot End-to-End Evaluation Results on STAR" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.384, + 0.885, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6 exhibits the zero-shot evaluation results on STAR, utilizing varying amounts of training dialogs (ranging from 1 to 1,000) and formatting example turns (spanning from 1 to 10) from source domains/tasks. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, achieves superior or comparable performance compared to BERT+S, SAM, which are fine-tuned on adequate source data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.513, + 0.884, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We observe that SGP-TOD, employing only two formatting sample turns, attains superior or commensurate performance in terms of both F1score and Accuracy, when compared to SAM trained with 1,000 dialogs. Given that a single dialog contains more than 10 dialog turns, this result suggests that SGP-TOD diminishes labeling expenses by a minimum factor of 1,000. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that augmenting the quantity of formatting exemplar turns exerts a negligible influence on the performance of SGP-TOD." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.7, + 0.682, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.725, + 0.884, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 exhibits the findings from an ablation investigation, addressing the effects of the three integral aspects of SGP-TOD in conjunction with the database expertise, implemented on Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2, employing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces optimal results across both datasets. The removal of the Policy Prompter, database knowledge, and DST Prompter leads to consistent declines in all evaluation metrics, underscoring the" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9We inject the same two formatting example turns into the prompt throughout the evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8The Schema-Guided Dialog (SGD) dataset constitutes a comprehensive, large-scale, multi-domain corpus encompassing over 16,000 dialogs that span across 16 distinct domains." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13364" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.092, + 0.49, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.258, + 0.294, + 0.364, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Task transfer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.092, + 0.875, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.634, + 0.294, + 0.761, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Domain transfer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.32, + 0.49, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.515, + 0.363, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Task transfer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.32, + 0.875, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.634, + 0.515, + 0.76, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) Domain transfer" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.543, + 0.885, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Zero-shot end-to-end evaluation results on STAR with different numbers of training dialogs (1, 10, 100, 1,000) / demonstration example turns (1, 10) from source domain/tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.597, + 0.489, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "value of enhancing the fixed LLM with the task schema and external database information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, GPT-3.5 (in the final row) exhibits commendable zero-shot performance, highlighting the need of exploiting its superior zero-shot generalization capabilities in dialog generation tasks. Additionally, Disabling the Policy Prompt incurs a discernible decline in performance regarding Success (approximately \\(16\\%\\)) and BLEU (roughly \\(3\\%\\)), as the Policy Prompt's primary function is to provide task completion guidelines and interaction patterns. Eliminating the database expertise primarily reduces Success (by approximately \\(4\\%\\)), implying that incorporating database information contributes to task completion. Lastly, excising the DST Prompt engenders a considerable diminution in performance concerning Inform (around \\(43\\%\\)) and Success (nearly \\(18\\%\\)), due to the DST Prompt's intended purpose of assisting the frozen LLM in apprehending the dialog context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.597, + 0.78, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "H Human Evaluation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We enlisted 5 student helpers (i.e., undergraduate students possessing basic proficiency in English communication) to participate in the evaluations. For each dialog agent, we collected 50 dialogs for analysis. Followed the methodology proposed by Li et al. (2022), we generated user goals through the subsequent techniques: (i) Randomly selecting slots and slot values within the Restaurant domain from RADDLE corpus to construct a user goal; (ii) Replacing the slot values of the user goals in randomly chosen dialogs from the Restaurant corpus with corresponding new values from randomly sampled database entries, thus forming a new user goal; (iii) Merging the user goals of several randomly selected dialogs from the Restaurant corpus to create a composite user goal. Lastly, we randomly chose 50 distinct user goals from these newly generated goals." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13365" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.178, + 0.082, + 0.821, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.583.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
-policy82.2855.656.5175.4881.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.2050.956.4872.5681.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.7433.136.1842.1238.6033.906.2942.54
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Ablation study on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompter, -DB: removing database information, -belief: removing DST Prompter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.25, + 0.379, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I Human Evaluation Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.276, + 0.49, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7 shows the interactive human evaluation results. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance. In contrast to the automated evaluation results shown in Table 2, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT significantly outperforms SOLOIST over all metrics. This indicates that corpus-based evaluations might be biased, given that real user inputs tend to be more dynamic, complex, even with noise. Notably, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT consistently excels compared to the other methods in both evaluations, implying its robustness in handling diverse user inputs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.48, + 0.466, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "J More Details and Results on Domain Extension" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.522, + 0.49, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Setup. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the pre-existing Restaurant in RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021c) with additional functions. Specifically, we introduce four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. The initial slot pertains to recommendations for signature restaurant meals, while the final three concern delivery service details. All database entries are updated with corresponding values. Table 10 exhibits a dialog example on domain extension. The associated Restaurant-Ext database entry is illustrated in Table 9." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.741, + 0.281, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared Methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.767, + 0.488, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting with base LLMs that receive merely two formatting example turns from other domains in RADDLE.\\(^{10}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.837, + 0.488, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.767, + 0.488, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.251, + 0.882, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in the Restaurant domain (previously reported in Table 2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.304, + 0.884, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). Machine teaching is an efficient approach to equip deployed task bots with the ability to handle new functions by correcting representative failed human-bot dialogs. We deploy SOLOIST to converse with real users, then implement machine teaching via Conversational learner (Shukla et al., 2020), an effective machine teaching tool, to obtain 10/50/50 examples in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. Finally, we fine-tune SOLOIST with gathered 10 training dialogs covering four new slots, resulting in dialog agent SOLOIST+TEACH." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.551, + 0.884, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. Based on GPT-3.5, we utilize 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as the prompt (with peak performance at 10), resulting in FEWSHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.669, + 0.883, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.251, + 0.884, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. Comparison with Base LLMs. The substantial improvement of SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT and SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT over ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 illustrates SGP-TOD's efficiency in supplying task-specific knowledge in a zero-shot way." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of Different LLMs. SGP-TODCHATGPT-EXT attains a lower BLEU yet a comparable BERTScore, suggesting that ChatGPT generates more diverse responses." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10We utilize the same formatting example turns in all zero-shot prompting methods." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13366" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.09, + 0.28, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.25, + 0.27, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Success w/o g ↑" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.09, + 0.428, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.296, + 0.25, + 0.411, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Success w/ g ↑" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.432, + 0.091, + 0.574, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.436, + 0.25, + 0.562, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Understanding" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.091, + 0.719, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.25, + 0.713, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) Appropriateness \\(\\uparrow\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.725, + 0.091, + 0.865, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.755, + 0.25, + 0.826, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(e)Turns \\(\\downarrow\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.885, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Interactive human evaluation results. SOLO.: SOLOIST, FS.: FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP.: SGP-TOD-CHATGPT." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.171, + 0.33, + 0.432, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SlotValue
"address""21 - 24 Northampton Street"
"area""west"
"food""british"
"id""14810"
"location"[52.21031, 0.11381]
"name""saint johns chop house"
"phone""01223353110"
"postcode""cb30ad"
"pricerange""moderate"
"type""restaurant"
"delivery""Yes"
"delivery fee""6 pounds"
"dish""Beef Wellington"
"start_time""10:30 am"
"end_time""22:40 pm"
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.527, + 0.49, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: An example of Restaurant-Ext DB entry. The newly introduced slot-value pairs relevant to the extended functionality are highlighted." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.591, + 0.251, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "K Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.616, + 0.49, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the superior performance of the proposed SGP-TOD on GPT-3.5, we showcase interactive examples utilizing ChatGPT, a renowned and potent chatbot. In Table 11, a user engages with ChatGPT (left) and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right) to complete the identical task on Restaurant-Ext.\\(^{11}\\) The user initiates the conversation by seeking recommendations for a Tuscan restaurant with no price range preference. Lacking external database information, ChatGPT conveys inaccurate details (Turn 2), whereas SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT informs users of the absence of matching restaurants and proposes alternatives (Turn 2). This exemplifies the benefits of integrating real-world expertise into the fixed LLM. Furthermore, ChatGPT persistently inquires about" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.333, + 0.885, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the desired price range despite the user's indifference. We argue that SGP-TOD assists the frozen LLM in discerning user intentions. In Turn 4, ChatGPT continues to furnish fabricated details (i.e., the restaurant name and phone number) concerning the nonexistent eatery, while SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT identifies a suitable Korean restaurant and the corresponding factual information. In contrast with ChatGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT adeptly addresses inquiries about the delivery service (Turn 6), indicating that SGP-TOD is capable of endowing the frozen LLM with novel functionalities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.538, + 0.883, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "L Our Proposed SGP-TOD with a Dialog Example" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.58, + 0.884, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8 illustrates the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.624, + 0.854, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M Prompt Examples for STAR Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.649, + 0.882, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Two exemplars of prompts for STAR dataset are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT are previously reported in Table 4. The same two formatting example turns are incorporated into the prompt for both zero-shot strategies." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13367" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.081, + 0.85, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TurnUtterance
1User: I want a restaurant on the west end of town.
2System: Ok. Are you looking for any particular type of food?
3User: I don't care.
4System: Are you looking for a particular price range?
5User: A moderately priced restaurant would be good.
6System: How about Saint Johns Chop House? They serve moderately priced British food on the west side of town.
7User: Can i please have their address and phone number?
8System: Saint Johns Chop House's address is 21-24 Northampton Street, their phone number is 01223353110.
9User: Does the restaurant offers delivery service? If it does, what's the delivery fee?
10System: Yes, it does, and the delivery charges 6 pounds.
11User: Thank you, goodbye.
12System: Thank you for using our system. Goodbye.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.25, + 0.885, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: A dialog example on domain extension. Task bots need learn to provide pertinent responses concerning the expanded delivery service in subsequent interaction turns, adapting to the continually evolving user/enterprise demands." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.303, + 0.876, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TurnInteraction between a user and ChatGPTTurnInteraction between a user and SP-TOD-ChatGPT-Ext
1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.
2System: Certainly, there are 3 Tuscan restaurants in town. What is your preferred price range?2System: I am sorry, there are no Tuscan restaurants. Here are some other options: Korean, Italian, Chinese. Which one would you like more information on?
3User: I don't care about the price. Please recommend one for me, i also need the phone number please.3User: How about any Korean restaurants? I also need the phone number please.
4System: The phone number for Pizza Hut City Centre is 01223323737. Is there anything else i can help you with today?4System: Little Seoul is a Korean restaurant. Their phone number is 01223308681.
5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?
6System: I'm sorry, but I could not find any information on delivery fee in our database. You may want to contact the restaurant directly to inquire about this. Is there anything else I can assist you with today?6System: Yes, they offer delivery service and the delivery charge is 4 pounds. Can I help you with anything else?
7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.
8System: Glad i could assist you. Have a good day.8System: You're welcome, have a great meal! Goodbye!
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.533, + 0.884, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Illustration of two interactive examples between a user and CHATGPT (left), SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right). Appropriate responses and inappropriate responses are highlighted." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.579, + 0.864, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.852, + 0.884, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Illustration of the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example. Note that the belief state in the represented in the SQL format, the details of which are described in Section 3.3." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13368" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.199, + 0.345, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Policy Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.22, + 0.239, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task instruction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.238, + 0.465, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.268, + 0.411, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.286, + 0.21, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task schema" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.302, + 0.369, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.319, + 0.433, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.344, + 0.387, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: ride Asking Booking number [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.302, + 0.433, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.388, + 0.18, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "History." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.404, + 0.329, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: Hi, i need to check my ride status." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.42, + 0.182, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.437, + 0.433, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: i'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.473, + 0.307, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Test (on target task/domain)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.491, + 0.208, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task schema" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.507, + 0.365, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.525, + 0.407, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking_day [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.549, + 0.39, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.507, + 0.407, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.58, + 0.159, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "··" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.593, + 0.178, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "History." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.609, + 0.356, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.249, + 0.648, + 0.348, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.688, + 0.179, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.703, + 0.385, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.74, + 0.489, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD on STAR. The relevant template turn within the input, the generated user template utterance, and the system action in the output are accentuated." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.655, + 0.159, + 0.74, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Policy Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.18, + 0.634, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task instruction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.198, + 0.859, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.228, + 0.807, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.246, + 0.605, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task schema" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.262, + 0.859, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.287, + 0.857, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.322, + 0.833, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: \nride Asking Booking number system: Can I get your booking ID, please? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.262, + 0.859, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.374, + 0.575, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "History." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.391, + 0.724, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: Hi, i need to check my ride status." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.408, + 0.577, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.424, + 0.857, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.471, + 0.704, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Test (on target task/domain)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.489, + 0.605, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task schema" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.505, + 0.857, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.531, + 0.859, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking day system: For what day would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.565, + 0.857, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.505, + 0.859, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.618, + 0.576, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "History." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.634, + 0.752, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.644, + 0.672, + 0.714, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLM" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.718, + 0.67, + 0.744, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.711, + 0.575, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.727, + 0.854, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD-E2E on STAR. The relevant template turn in the input, the generated user template utterance, the system action and the system response in the output are highlighted." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13369" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_origin.pdf b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a3b2c860999118dd1985c683a161a7cc81f0631 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/586b129b-aeb9-4225-8c30-4a6d80f38793_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5566bfa6cf159e5a02203048d0ecec14f87cf05164e87293af7ead24acd384f8 +size 1498454 diff --git a/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/full.md b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e133c240da2f22770c4f8bf82c065fe975b46c0d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,644 @@ +# SGP-TOD: Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting + +Xiaoying Zhang $^{1}$ , Baolin Peng $^{2}$ , Kun Li $^{1}$ , Jingyan Zhou $^{1}$ , Helen Meng $^{1,3}$ + +1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong + +2Tencent AI Lab, Bellevue + +3Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong + +{zhangxy, kunli, jyzhou, hmmeng} @se.cuhk.edu.hk + +{baolinpeng} @ global.tencent.com + +# Abstract + +Building and maintaining end-to-end task bots using minimal human effort is a longstanding challenge in dialog research. In this work, we introduce SGP-TOD, Schema-Guided Prompting for building Task-Oriented Dialog systems effortlessly based on large language models (LLMs). Utilizing the predefined task schema, i.e., belief instruction and dialog policy, we instruct fixed LLMs to generate appropriate responses on novel tasks, without the need for training data. Specifically, SGP-TOD comprises three components: an LLM for interacting with users, a Dialog State Tracking (DST) Prompter to aid the LLM in tracking dialog states with the given belief instruction, and a Policy Prompter to direct the LLM to generate proper responses adhering to the provided dialog policy. Experimental results on Multiwoz, RADDLE, and STAR datasets show that our training-free strategy, SGP-TOD, yields state-of-the-art (SOTA) zero-shot performance, significantly surpassing the few-shot approaches. In a domain-extension setting, SGP-TOD aptly adapts to new functionalities by merely adding supplementary schema rules. We make our code and data publicly available. + +# 1 Introduction + +Building task-oriented dialog (TOD) systems has been a long-standing challenge in artificial intelligence. The prevailing approach for creating task bots (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2022) is to fine-tune pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). Despite their great success, developing and maintaining such task bots generally requires adequate annotated data and extensive fine-tuning/re-training. + +Recently, large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) and GPT-4 (OpenAI, + +![](images/e0a3353d60c7384ec98e6f3102ab0499d5863922fc30ac74f2f445653774882e.jpg) +Figure 1: The proposed SGP-TOD is depicted with a dialog example, where the prompters integrate the task schema (right) to assist the frozen LLM in generating an appropriate response (left). + +2023), have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) applications (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), owing to their remarkable conversational skills (Qin et al., 2023), instruction-following abilities (Ouyang et al., 2022) and zero-shot generalization capabilities (Chowdhery et al., 2022a; Hu et al., 2022). This raises a research question: can LLMs be effectively utilized for building task bots with minimum human effort? + +A contemporary study (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) explores the potential of LLMs for rapidly building task bots via few-shot prompting, a.k.a. in-context learning (ICL) paradigm (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021). Though demonstrably effective, the ICL performance is highly influenced by the quality of the in-context exemplars (Zhao et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023), as they struggle to provide comprehensive information for dialog task completion. + +In this work, we introduce symbolic knowledge (Nye et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2023), i.e., the task schema into LLMs, for creating task bots. Task schema (Mosig et al., 2020; Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) encompasses a concise symbolic representation of a task, supplying LLMs with a comprehensive blueprint. It comprises $(i)$ task-specific ontology containing all slots and their appropriate values (Budzianowski et al., 2018); and $(ii)$ a dialog flow explicitly outlining fundamental interaction patterns (Peng et al., 2021b). Specifically, we propose SGP-TOD (as depicted in Figure 1), a schema-guided prompting method for rapidly building task bots. We integrate the predefined task schema and dialog context into prompts through the use of two specifically-designed prompters, namely a DST Prompter and a Policy Prompter. Utilizing these prompters, we adeptly guide fixed LLMs to track dialog states, retrieve database entries, and generate appropriate responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot manner, without the need for additional training or fine-tuning. By incorporating task-specific symbolic knowledge into LLMs, SGP-TOD provides knowledge-based, coherent and human-like responses. Moreover, this training-free design empowers developers to flexibly prototype dialog systems on new tasks, while seamlessly extending system functionalities through modifying the task schema. + +We perform empirical automatic evaluations on two multi-domain datasets, namely, Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2 (Budzianowski et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2020), as well as two single-domain/task datasets, RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020), within zero-shot scenarios. Additionally, we complement these assessments with interactive human evaluations. The results indicate that SGP-TOD, employing merely task schema devoid of any training or fine-tuning, substantially boosts the SOTA zero-shot results, markedly outperforming few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods, and even attaining competitive results cf. full-shot finetuning approaches. In a domain-extension context, SGP-TOD proficiently adapts to new functionalities by simply adding a handful of schema rules without necessitating further data collection, significantly exceeding the few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods reinforced by machine teaching (Williams and Liden, 2017). + +In summary, our contributions are three-fold: + +- We propose SGP-TOD, a schema-guided + +LLM prompting strategy that facilitates in effortlessly creating task bots, eliminating the necessity for task-specific data or fine-tuning. + +- We integrate symbolic knowledge - task schema into LLMs, allowing them to generate schema-compliant responses and adaptively expand their functionalities to tackle new tasks by solely modifying the task schema. + +- We demonstrate the effectiveness of SGP-TOD on Multiwoz, RADDLE, STAR datasets in zero-shot settings using both automatic and human evaluations. SGP-TOD notably elevates the SOTA zero-shot performance. + +# 2 Related work + +Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling. Zero-shot generalization is an essential yet challenging task in TOD research. A comprehensive study is shown in Appendix A. In this paper, we focus on zero-shot end-to-end dialog modeling, including policy management and dialog generation. + +The works by Zhao and Eskenazi (2018) and Qian and Yu (2019) utilize ontology and response templates to train dialog models, enabling the discovery of shared dialog policies between the source and target domains. To enable broader adaptation to diverse dialog policies, Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021) implement task-specific policy skeletons, training dialog models to adhere to novel policies. Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2022) employs a neural language model (LM) for tracking dialog states and user actions using slot and action descriptions; subsequently, a policy program is deployed to facilitate an LM in generating system actions and responses. Despite the effectiveness of previous approaches, they still require ample fine-tuning and copious annotated dialog corpora on source or heterogeneous domains/tasks. + +A concurrent study to ours is Hudecek and Dusek (2023), which employs a prompting strategy - IG-TOD (instruction-guided TOD) to guide frozen LLMs in generating suitable responses. Specifically, IG-TOD first tracks belief states by utilizing slot descriptions as prompts, then retrieves database entries, and generates responses. Our SGP-TOD differs in that: $(i)$ we employ slot names and value examples, rather than slot descriptions, as prompts to facilitate frozen LLMs in generating belief states, thereby reducing human effort; $(ii)$ we offer a policy skeleton to guide + +LLMs in producing appropriate responses. In addition, experimental results indicate that SGP-TOD substantially outperforms IG-TOD. + +Leveraging LLMs for Dialog Tasks. LLMs (Chowdhery et al., 2022b; OpenAI, 2023) have exhibited unparalleled mastery of natural language understanding, reasoning and generation (Wei et al., 2022; Bubeck et al., 2023). Three primary research directions have obtained substantial success in numerous dialog tasks by utilizing LLMs. $(i)$ Few-shot prompting (Brown et al., 2020) has showcased remarkable performance in intent classification (Yu et al., 2021), semantic parsing (Shin and Van Durme, 2022), dialog state tracking (Hu et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022), and response generation (Madotto et al., 2021). $(ii)$ Li et al. (2022); Mehri et al. (2022); Dai et al. (2023) employ LLMs for data augmentation, i.e., generating synthetic task-oriented dialogs to train smaller models for inference. $(iii)$ Recently, several studies endeavor to support LLMs in specialized tasks by incorporating external knowledge. Peng et al. (2023) advocates for enhancing LLMs' responses with external knowledge and automated feedback to reduce hallucination. Liang et al. (2023) suggests connecting LLMs with millions of APIs to accomplish diverse tasks. Different from the aforementioned works, we aim to employ LLMs in building task bots in a zero-shot manner using pre-defined task schema. + +# 3 SGP-TOD + +# 3.1 Overview + +The overall architecture of the proposed SGP-TOD (Figure 1) consists of three key components: $(i)$ an LLM, responsible for adhering to instructions, comprehending user queries, and generating coherent responses for user interaction; $(ii)$ a DST Prompter, tasked with supporting the LLM in tracking dialogue states using the belief instruction; $(iii)$ a Policy Prompter, guiding the LLM to adhere to the predefined task policy for providing suitable system actions and responses. + +At each dialog turn $t$ , the end-to-end generation task is systematically divided into three subsequent sub-tasks: (i) Belief State Prediction - given the dialog history up to current dialog turn $\pmb{h}_t$ , which is a sequence of utterances alternating between the user and the system $\pmb{h}_t = [u_1, r_1, u_2, r_2, \dots, u_t]$ (where $u$ and $r$ denote user and system utterances, respectively), the DST Prompter embeds the belief instruction $\pmb{BI}$ to direct the frozen LLM (pa + +rameterized by $\theta$ ) in generating a belief state $b_{t}$ (Equation 1). The belief state is then used to query a database and obtain the database (DB) state $c_{t}$ (Equation 2). (ii) System Action Determination - the Policy Prompt incorporates a policy skeleton $PS$ , assisting the LLM in generating a system action $a_{t}$ , based on $h_t, b_t$ , and $c_{t}$ (Equation 3). (iii) Dialog Response Generation - grounded in the dialog history $h_t$ , belief state $b_{t}$ , DB state $c_{t}$ , system action $a_{t}$ , the Policy Prompt aids the LLM in generating a delexicalized response by providing the policy skeleton $PS$ (Equation 4). Ultimately, the delexicalized response is automatically postprocessed to generate system response in natural language. Detailed illustration with a dialog example is shown in Appendix L. + +$$ +\boldsymbol {b} _ {t} = \boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\theta} \left(\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {B I}\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +\boldsymbol {c} _ {t} = \boldsymbol {D} \boldsymbol {B} \left(\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +\boldsymbol {a} _ {t} = \boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\boldsymbol {\theta}} \left(\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {P S}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +$$ +\boldsymbol {r} _ {t} = \boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\theta} \left(\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {a} _ {t}, \boldsymbol {P S}\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +# 3.2 LLM + +An LLM is responsible for following task-specific instructions and generating appropriate responses. + +Many off-the-shelf LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT, Codex (Chen et al., 2021), are pre-trained on massive corpora of text data and/or code data. In addition, they are trained to follow instructions in the prompts (Ouyang et al., 2022) and provide pertinent responses. Exhibiting remarkable proficiencies in natural language processing, instruction compliance, and zero-shot generalization across diverse downstream dialog tasks, these LLMs serve as valuable foundation models for our approach. + +# 3.3 DST Prompter + +Given the dialog history $h_t$ , the DST prompter aims to guide the LLM in predicting the belief state $\mathbf{b}_t$ at each turn $t$ , using the belief instruction $\mathbf{BI}$ . The belief state $\mathbf{b}_t$ is defined as the concatenation of the domain/task (i.e., user intent) $\mathbf{d}_t$ and a set of slot-value pairs $\{(s_t^i, v_t^i); i = 1, \dots, n_t\}$ , where $n_t$ is the total number of pairs in the set. + +As shown in Figure 2, the proposed DST prompter contains four parts: (i) a task instruction that offers general guidance on belief state prediction; (ii) belief instructions $\mathbf{BI}$ of all domains/tasks; (iii) a formatting example illustrating + +![](images/244328e92372df955ccf4910dc61c3eef7286cbddb07beb437c4a63f89fc5422.jpg) +Figure 2: Illustration of belief state prediction utilizing DST Prompter. The predicted belief state is highlighted. + +the anticipated output format to direct the LLM, in addition, we follow Hu et al. (2022) and adopt SQL state to represent the dialog state $\boldsymbol{b}_t^3$ ; and $(iv)$ the test input, i.e., the given dialog history $\boldsymbol{h}_t$ . Since the prompt is fixed and no labeled data from the target task or domain is used, we refer to this setting as "zero-shot", following Wang et al. (2022b). + +Belief Instruction. For each task/domain, the belief instruction contains the task/domain name, all potential slot names, and their possible values (Figure 2). Regarding categorical slots, such as the "price range" in the restaurant domain, all plausible values are included, i.e., "don't care", "cheap", "moderate", and "expensive"; whereas, for non-categorical slots, such as "name", only a few value examples are injected, e.g., Pizza Hut City, Golden Wok, etc. Detailed belief instructions for all tasks/domains can be found in Appendix B. + +![](images/5f0112cb022cbc5ef025613602d020369fbe24c11c4c7db8c06a26c37538b4e9.jpg) +Figure 3: Illustration of system action determination and response generation employing the Policy Prompter. The pertinent template turns, previously predicted belief state, retrieved DB state within the input, alongside the generated system action and generated response in the output are accentuated. + +# 3.4 Policy Prompt + +Dialog policy, governing the behavior of task bots, plays a crucial role in task-oriented dialogs. To represent the dialog policy for a given task, we utilize a policy skeleton, which delineates interaction patterns and encompasses business logic in the form of template dialog flows (Peng et al., 2021b). The Policy Prompter is devised to guide the static LLM in adhering to the policy skeleton $PS$ , enabling the sequential generation of appropriate system actions $\mathbf{a}_t$ and responses $\mathbf{r}_t$ . + +Analogous to the DST Prompt, the Policy Prompt (Figure 3) comprises four components: (i) a task instruction; (ii) a formatting example derived from another task/domain, consisting of a par + +tial policy skeleton and its associated dialogue turn exemplar (in Appendix C); (iii) a policy skeleton for the previously predicted domain/task; and (iv) the test input, i.e., the dialog history $\pmb{h}_t$ , generated belief state $\pmb{b}_t$ , and obtained DB state $\pmb{c}_t$ . + +Policy Skeleton. Given that user behaviors and DB results jointly determine system actions and responses, policy skeleton is designed to cover all fundamental user behaviors and characteristic DB results, along with their corresponding system actions and responses.5 Considering the infeasibility of developing a multi-task/domain policy skeleton for every possible combination of tasks and domains, we opt to develop a distinct policy skeleton tailored to each specific task and domain. + +Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), our strategy converts the established dialog policy into a series of template dialog turns $\mathcal{X}$ that are logically arranged and concentrate on task completion: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \mathcal {X} = \left\{\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {N}, \tag {5} \\ \boldsymbol {x} _ {i} = \left(u ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\right) o r \left(c ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\right) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\pmb{x}_i$ is a template dialog turn, which contains a user utterance $u^i$ or a DB state $c^i$ , matching system action $a^i$ , and system response $r^i$ . $N$ denotes the total number of template turns within the policy skeleton (around 10-20 template turns depending on the task complexity). In order to equip the frozen LLM with new capabilities or modify current ones, we only need insert, amend, or eliminate a few template turns within the policy skeleton. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Experimental Setup + +Datasets. (i) Two multi-domain dialog datasets: Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) and Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020). (ii) Two single-domain/task datasets: RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) (single-task dialogs from the corpus, following the "happy path"). Details are elaborated in Appendix D. + +Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): Inform $(\%)$ , Success $(\%)$ , BLEU $(\%)$ (Papineni et al., 2002) and Combined $(\%)$ judges the overall quality, defined as Combined = + +(Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(%) (Zhang* et al., 2020). + +Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR (wherein the system actions and response templates are mapped one to one), which predicts next system action given the dialog history. We report the results using F1score $(\%)$ and accuracy $(\%)$ . + +Human Evaluation Metrics. We conduct interactive human evaluations (by five student helpers), following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). For each dialog session, students are mandated to interact with a dialog agent via natural language and assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%), (ii) Success w/ g(%), (iii) Understanding(1-5), (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) and (v) Turns. Full details are elaborated in Appendix D. + +Compared Methods. We compare the proposed SGP-TOD with SOTA zero-shot transfer methods and zero-shot/few-shot prompting strategies. (We report the mean results of three different runs.) + +# Zero-shot transfer methods: + +- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a system-side schema to predict system action. +- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) is based on BERT-base, which uses a user-aware schema to predict the next system action. +- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) to generate system actions and responses utilizing slot/action descriptions and a policy program. It is pretrained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a). + +# Prompting methods: + +- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT, exploiting slot descriptions for tracking dialog states, fetching DB entries, and generating responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. +- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting approach applied to ChatGPT, utilizing a few (i.e., $\pmb{k}$ ) training dialog turns as prompts. Optimal results are achieved with $k = 15$ on Multiwoz and $k = 10$ on RADDLE. +- SGP-TOD (Ours) is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ + +
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
Full-shot fine-tuning (with 8.4k+ training dialogs):
DAMD (Zhang et al., 2020)76.3360.4016.6084.97----
SIMPLETOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)84.4070.1015.0192.26----
SOLOIST (Peng et al., 2021a)85.5072.9016.5495.7481.7067.1013.6088.00
PPTOD (Su et al., 2022)89.2079.4018.62102.92----
MARS (Sun et al., 2022)88.9078.0019.90103.3588.9078.0019.60103.05
Zero-shot transfer method (pre-trained on SGD):
ANYTOD-XXL----73.9024.403.4052.55
Few-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS-----20.007.17-
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT44.7424.327.8842.4145.4024.507.7242.67
Zero-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS-----15.003.58-
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (Ours)64.5654.057.1766.4864.7054.706.9666.66
SGP-TOD-CODEX (Ours)71.6752.557.9170.0275.5052.306.6270.53
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 (Ours)83.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
+ +Table 1: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on Multiwoz. Results of SOLOIST, MARS, ANYTOD-XXL on Multiwoz 2.2 are cited from Zhao et al. (2022). Results of IG-TOD-CHATGPT are cited from Hudecek and Dusek (2023). Other results of the full-shot fine-tuning methods are cited from He et al. (2022) and Sun et al. (2022). (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .) + +
ModelAttractionTrainHotelRestaurant
Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.
Few-shot fine-tuning (with 50 training dialogs):
SIMPLETOD65.6646.975.8562.1759.0044.007.0758.5762.5040.007.7058.9575.5044.5011.0071.00
SOLOIST86.0065.0012.9088.4080.8164.659.9682.6974.5043.508.1267.1281.0055.5012.8081.50
Few-shot prompting:
Few-SHOT-CHATGPT75.0067.008.2279.2379.8065.668.1280.8551.0026.505.8044.5580.0055.507.7175.46
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT95.0094.007.13101.6376.7774.246.7582.2676.5057.005.1671.9190.0082.506.7292.97
SGP-TOD-CODEX98.0093.0010.45105.9578.7970.208.5683.0683.5069.507.8684.3691.0085.0010.5098.50
SGP-TOD-GPT3.596.0093.009.53104.0382.8377.278.7288.7782.5071.507.0584.0591.5084.0012.90100.65
+ +Table 2: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on RADDLE. The few-shot fine-tuning results are cited from Peng et al. (2021a). (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .) + +ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 and Codex. Implementation details are provided in Appendix E. + +# 4.2 End-to-End Evaluation on Multiwoz + +Results. We present the evaluation results in multi-domain contexts on Multiwoz in Table 1. In addition to the aforementioned methods, we include the results of SOTA full-shot fine-tuning approaches to facilitate a more comprehensive comparison. SGP-TOD obtains SOTA zero-shot performance, substantially outperforming few-shot prompting approaches across all metrics, while even exhibiting competitive results in comparison to full-shot fine-tuning methods concerning Success and Inform. This confirms the effectiveness of integrating the task schema with the LLMs' proficient language processing capabilities. + +Comparison with Prompting Methods. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT distinctly surpasses the zero-shot prompting approach IG-TOD-CHATGPT-zs with respect to Success (surpassing by $40\%$ ) and BLEU (exceeding by $3\%$ ). Moreover, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, without requiring task-specific data, + +considerably outperforms the few-shot prompting methods, i.e., IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS and FEWSHOT-CHATGPT (e.g., about 30 points improvement over Success). This suggests that providing explicit and concise task instructions via task schema is preferable to imparting implicit task guidance through the selected dialog turns. + +Comparison with Zero-Shot Transfer Methods. Our SGP-TOD demonstrates a substantial advantage over ANYTOD-XXL, which necessitates task-specific pre-training and additional annotations, e.g., slot and action descriptions, over all the metrics. This exemplifies the potency of SGP-TOD, which markedly reduces the necessity for human labor and computational resources. + +Comparison with Full-Shot Fine-Tuning Methods. SGP-TOD exhibits competitive performance over Inform and Success. The lower BLEU is due to a lack of linguistic variations of the template utterances, which is acceptable considering the trade-off between human effort and efficacy. + +
ModelTask transferDomain transfer
F1AccuracyF1Accuracy
Zero-shot transfer (leave-one fine-tuning with 2.5k training dialogs):
BERT+S24.2524.8925.7028.56
SAM49.8251.3055.9157.92
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI45.1847.9947.2149.97
SGP-TOD-GPT3.547.6748.2749.7650.39
SGP-TOD-CODEX49.7851.0152.7253.66
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E50.8450.7453.5053.21
+ +# 4.3 End-to-End Evaluation on RADDLE + +Results. Table 2 reports the results in single-domain settings on RADDLE. On all four dialog tasks, SGP-TOD demonstrates remarkable zero-shot performance that consistently surpasses both few-shot prompting and fine-tuning approaches. This results in substantial improvements of up to $12\%$ in Inform, $45\%$ in Success, and $19\%$ in Combined metrics, while maintaining competitive BLEU scores. This evidence further substantiates the efficacy of SGP-TOD. + +# 4.4 End-to-End Evaluation on STAR + +Setup. BERT+S, SAM are fine-tuned on source tasks/domains then zero-shot on the held-out task/domain. SGP-TOD is presented with two formatting turns from the source tasks/domains. + +Results. Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we report the zero-shot evaluation results in two settings, i.e., task transfer and domain transfer in Table 3. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, demonstrates exceptional performance, surpassing or rivaling SOTA zero-shot transfer methods in both settings. This outcome signifies that, even when faced with complicated business logic and system actions in dialog policies, the proposed SGP-TOD continues to exhibit commendable performance. Additionally, we investigate the impact of changing the number of training dialogs and formatting example turns in Appendix F. + +Impact of Different LLMs and Prompt Formats. SGP-TOD-CODEX surpasses SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 while rivaling SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E (with template responses affixed to action labels in the policy prompt, demonstrated in Figure 10 in Appendix M). We conjecture that Codex, benefiting from extensive pre-training on copious code + +Table 3: Zero-shot end-to-end next action prediction evaluation results on STAR. (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .) + +
ModelFT/FS/ZSRestaurant-Ext
Info.Succ.BLEUBERTS.
Without domain-relevant knowledge
ChatGPTZS44.006.004.3185.96
GPT-3.5ZS34.0016.008.7084.31
With prior knowledge on Restaurant
SOLOISTFT78.000.0010.6287.24
SGP-TOD-CHATGPTZS88.0034.005.4586.11
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5ZS94.0030.0010.6887.30
With knowledge on Restaurant-Ext
SOLOIST+TEACHFT82.0038.0010.9987.66
FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACHFS88.0054.0012.9588.90
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXTZS88.0078.006.2586.15
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXTZS96.0086.0014.5789.01
+ +Table 4: End-to-end evaluation results on domain extension. FT: fine-tuning, FS: few-shot prompting, ZS: zero-shot prompting, Info.: Inform, Succ.: Success, BERTS.: BERTScore. (Difference in mean is significant with $p < 0.01$ .) + +data, demonstrates enhanced proficiency compared to GPT-3.5 in interpreting action labels. In addition, appending template responses is presumed to facilitate the explication of action labels for GPT-3.5. + +Impact of Different Task Schemas. SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI, utilizing an identical task schema as employed in training SAM, manifests commendable performance. This result highlights that SGP-TOD as a flexible prompting strategy, compatible with any manually-crafted task schema. + +# 4.5 End-to-End Evaluation on Domain Extension + +Setup. We conduct experiments in a domain extension setting (Gasic et al., 2014; Lipton et al., 2018) to assess the efficacy of SGP-TOD in adapting deployed task bots to incorporate novel functionalities. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the Restaurant in RADDLE with four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. Details are shown in Appendix J. + +# Compared Methods. + +- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting that receive two formatting examples. +- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton. +- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in Restaurant domain (reported in Table 2). +- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). We deploy SOLOIST to converse with + +real users, then implement machine teaching to obtain 10/50/50 annotated dialogs in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. We fine-tune SOLOIST with the gathered 10 training dialogs covering new slots. + +- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. We use 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as prompts (with peak performance at 10). +- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-EXT refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant. + +Results. In Table 4, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, and notably SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT surpasses all other evaluated approaches by a substantial margin over all the metrics. This demonstrates the strong adaptability of our SGP-TOD in accommodating novel functionalities, revealing its immense potential for lifelong learning. Two interactive dialog examples are supplied in Appendix K. + +Comparison with Approaches Augmented by Machine Teaching. SOLOIST yields zero Success, a predictable result given its lack of awareness regarding the new features. Augmented by machine teaching, SOLOIST+TEACH substantially improves SOLOIST in terms of Inform and Success. Nevertheless, relying solely on prior Restaurant knowledge, both SGP-TOD-CHATGPT and SGP-TOD-GP3.5 exhibit performance on par with SOLOIST+TEACH, demonstrating that SGP-TOD provides enhanced robustness in zero-shot generalization. Moreover, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext obtains substantially higher Success rates than SOLOIST+TEACH (a rise of $48\%$ ) and FEW-SHOTGPT3.5+TEACH (an increase of $32\%$ ). Compared to fine-tuning/prompting strategies utilizing additional dialogs corrected through machine teaching, SGP-TOD facilitates a more agile adaptation to novel functionalities by merely modifying template turns within the task schema. + +# 4.6 Interactive Human Evaluation + +Setup. We conduct interactive human evaluations on Restaurant domain to evaluate the performance of SOLOIST, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (reported in Table 2), with 50 dialogs gathered for analysis, respectively. Details can be found in Appendix H. + +
ModelRestaurant
Sw/o g ↑Sw/ g ↑Und. ↑App. ↑T. ↓
SOLOIST34.0030.002.182.1010.64
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT94.0074.004.584.728.32
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT100.0092.004.864.887.28
+ +Table 5: Human evaluation results. S w/o g, S w/ g: Success without / with grounding; Und.: Understanding; App.: Appropriateness; T.: Turns. + +
ModelMultiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.582.0072.509.2286.47
-policy81.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.6033.906.2942.54
+ +Table 6: Ablation study results on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz 2.2 using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompt, -DB: removing database expertise, -belief: removing DST Prompt. + +Results. In Table 5, our proposed SGP-TOD-CHATGPT attains a remarkably high performance in a zero-shot context, consistently outpacing SOLOIST and FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT across all metrics. Particularly, regarding Success w/ g, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT significantly surpasses FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT (by $18\%$ ) and SOLOIST (by $62\%$ ), illustrating its proficiency in accomplishing tasks within real-world scenarios. Furthermore, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance (demonstrated in Appendix I). A detailed analysis is provided in Appendix I. + +# 4.7 Ablation Study + +In Table 6, we study the impact of the three components of SGP-TOD (namely, Policy Prompter, DST Prompter, and LLM) as well as the database expertise, on Multiwoz 2.2 utilizing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces the optimal result, underscoring the value of enhancing the LLM with the task schema and external database information. Detailed analyses are provided in Appendix G. + +# 5 Conclusion + +We present SGP-TOD, a schema-guided prompting strategy aimed at the expeditious construction of end-to-end task bots, relying exclusively on LLMs and the corresponding task schema. Employing the symbolic knowledge - task schema, SGP-TOD guides fixed LLMs to generate suitable responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot fashion. Empirical findings on four well-studied datasets + +reveal that SGP-TOD attains remarkable SOTA zero-shot performance, using both automatic and human evaluations. For future work, we plan to explore the use of SGP-TOD to develop personalized chatbots by utilizing pertinent task schema. + +# Limitations + +This work is accompanied by two primary limitations. (i) Data contamination (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021) in prompt-based zero-shot learning pertains to the potential presence of test samples during the LLM pre-training phase. Given that data utilized for pre-training LLMs, such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, remains undisclosed and continuously expands, verifying data contamination presents a formidable challenge. Consequently, our research cannot preclude data contamination in the experimental process, deferring a more comprehensive investigation to future endeavors. Nevertheless, we undertake domain-extension experiments (Table 4 in Section 4.5), subjecting our proposed SGP-TOD to evaluation on a novel test set (currently not publicly available), encompassing recently obtained and annotated human-bot dialogs. The remarkable zero-shot performance of SGP-TOD demonstrates its substantial potential for adeptly adapting to innovative functionalities, without reliance on task-specific data. + +(ii) We employ the manually-crafted task schema as prompts to steer the LLMs towards generating suitable responses on novel tasks. As illustrated in Table 3 of Section 4.4, SGP-TOD exhibits minor performance discrepancies when implementing disparate task schema formulated by various authors. Notwithstanding such variations, our objective is to offer a foundational basis for schemaguided LLM prompting; future research may investigate approaches to designing more efficient task schema, i.e., diverse formats and coverage. + +# Ethics Statement + +Throughout the interactive human evaluations and domain-extension experiments, all participating student helpers were informed of the research objectives prior to the collection and annotation of human-bot dialog logs. Their privacy was ensured to remain protected and undisclosed during the research period. Each participant received equitable remuneration. + +The Promoters utilized in this research incorporate no language that discriminates against specific + +individuals or groups (Zhou et al., 2022) and avoid any negative impact on users' well-being (Bergman et al., 2022). Instances of these Prompts are provided in Appendix M. Furthermore, subsequent research endeavors may consider utilizing the OpenAI moderation API7 in conjunction with other related APIs to systematically filter out unsuitable user inputs and system responses. + +# Acknowledgements + +This Project is partially supported by the HKSARG General Research Fund (Ref No. 14207619). We would like to express our gratitude to Xiaohan Feng and Haohan Guo for their valuable comments. + +# References + +A. Stevie Bergman, Gavin Abercrombie, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Emily Dinan, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. 2022. Guiding the release of safer E2E conversational AI through value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 39-52, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. +Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Ultes Stefan, Ramadan Osman, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz - a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). +Giovanni Campagna, Agata Foryciarz, Mehrad Moradshahi, and Monica Lam. 2020. Zero-shot transfer learning with synthesized data for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 122-132, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. +Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzhu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Tao Yu. 2023. Binding language models in symbolic languages. *ICLR*, abs/2210.02875. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, + +Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022a. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022b. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311. +Haixing Dai, Zhengliang Liu, Wenxiong Liao, Xiaoke Huang, Yihan Cao, Zihao Wu, Lin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Wei Liu, Ninghao Liu, Sheng Li, Dajiang Zhu, Hongmin Cai, Lichao Sun, Quanzheng Li, Dinggang Shen, Tianming Liu, and Xiang Li. 2023. Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong + +Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. A survey on in-context learning. +Milica Gasic, Dongho Kim, Pirros Tsiakoulis, Catherine Breslin, Matthew Henderson, Martin Szummer, Blaise Thomson, and Steve J. Young. 2014. Incremental on-line adaptation of pomdp-based dialogue managers to extended domains. In INTER-SPEECH 2014, 15th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Singapore, September 14-18, 2014, pages 140-144. ISCA. +Chulaka Gunasekara, Seokhwan Kim, Luis Fernando D'Haro, Abhinav Rastogi, Yun-Nung Chen, Mihail Eric, Behnam Hedayatnia, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Yang Liu, Chao-Wei Huang, et al. 2020. Overview of the ninth dialog system technology challenge: Dstc9. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06486. +Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semi-supervised learning and explicit policy injection. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191. +Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A. Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. Incontext learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2627-2643, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Vojtech Hudecek and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Are llms all you need for task-oriented dialogue? CoRR, abs/2304.06556. +Mihir Kale and Abhinav Rastogi. 2020. Template guided text generation for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6505-6520. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zekun Li, Wenhu Chen, Shiyang Li, Hong Wang, Jing Qian, and Xifeng Yan. 2022. Controllable dialogue simulation with in-context learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4330-4347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yaobo Liang, Chenfei Wu, Ting Song, Wenshan Wu, Yan Xia, Yu Liu, Yang Ou, Shuai Lu, Lei Ji, Shaoguang Mao, Yun Wang, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Nan Duan. 2023. Taskmatrix.ai: Completing tasks by connecting foundation models with millions of apis. + +Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Zhenpeng Zhou, Paul A Crook, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7890-7900. +Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul A Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue statetracking. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5640-5648. +Zachary Lipton, Xiujun Li, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, Faisal Ahmed, and Li Deng. 2018. BBQ-networks: Efficient exploration in deep reinforcement learning for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. +Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118. +Shikib Mehri, Yasemin Altun, and Maxine Eskenazi. 2022. LAD: Language models as data for zero-shot dialog. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 595-604, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2021. Schemaguided paradigm for zero-shot dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07056. +Johannes EM Mosig, Shikib Mehri, and Thomas Kober. 2020. Star: A schema-guided dialog dataset for transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11853. +Maxwell I. Nye, Michael Henry Tessler, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Brenden M. Lake. 2021. Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual-system, neuro-symbolic reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 25192-25204. +OpenAI. 2022. large-scale generative pre-training model for conversation. OpenAI blog. +OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. + +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc. +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813. +Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Jinchao Li, Shahin Shayan-deh, Lars Liden, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021a. Soloist: Building task bots at scale with transfer learning and machine teaching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:807-824. +Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Jinchao Li, Chenguang Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021b. Synergy: Building task bots at scale using symbolic knowledge and machine teaching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11514. +Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Chenguang Zhu, Jinchao Li, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021c. RADDLE: an evaluation benchmark and analysis platform for robust task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4418-4429. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kun Qian and Zhou Yu. 2019. Domain adaptive dialog generation via meta learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2639-2649, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. + +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020a. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8689-8696. AAAI Press. +Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020b. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8689-8696. +Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, Curtis Hawthorne, Aitor Lewkowycz, Alex Salcianu, Marc van Zee, Jacob Austin, Sebastian Goodman, Livio Baldini Soares, Haitang Hu, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Jasmina Bastings, Jannis Bulian, Xavier Garcia, Jianmo Ni, Andrew Chen, Kathleen Kenealy, Jonathan H. Clark, Stephan Lee, Dan Garrette, James Lee-Thorp, Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Marvin Ritter, Maarten Bosma, Alexandre Passos, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard, Noah Fiedel, Mark Omernick, Brennan Saeta, Ryan Sepassi, Alexander Spiridonov, Joshua Newlan, and Andrea Gesmundo. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio. +Darsh J Shah, Raghav Gupta, Amir A Fayazi, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Robust zero-shot cross-domain slot filling with example values. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06870. +Richard Shin and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. Few-shot semantic parsing with language models trained on code. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5417-5425, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Swadheen Shukla, Lars Liden, Shahin Shayandeh, Eslam Kamal, Jinchao Li, Matt Mazzola, Thomas Park, Baolin Peng, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Conversation Learner - a machine teaching tool for building dialog managers for task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 343-349, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Patrice Y. Simard, Saleema Amershi, David Maxwell Chickering, Alicia Edelman Pelton, Soroush Ghorashi, Christopher Meek, Gonzalo A. Ramos, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Mo Wang, and John Werns-ing. 2017. Machine teaching: A new paradigm for building machine learning systems. CoRR, abs/1707.06742. +Yixuan Su, Lei Shu, Elman Mansimov, Arshit Gupta, Deng Cai, Yi-An Lai, and Yi Zhang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training for plug-and-play task-oriented dialogue system. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). +Haipeng Sun, Junwei Bao, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. Mars: Semantic-aware contrastive learning for end-to-end task-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08917. +Jindong Wang, Xixu Hu, Wenxin Hou, Hao Chen, Runkai Zheng, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Haojun Huang, Wei Ye, Xiubo Geng, Binxin Jiao, Yue Zhang, and Xing Xie. 2023. On the robustness of chatgpt: An adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. +Qingyue Wang, Yanan Cao, Piji Li, Yanhe Fu, Zheng Lin, and Li Guo. 2022a. Slot dependency modeling for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 510-520, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Anjana Arunkumar, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Supernaturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on $1600+$ nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5085-5109. +Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. +Jason D. Williams and Lars Liden. 2017. Demonstration of interactive teaching for end-to-end dialog control with hybrid code networks. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, Saarbrücken, Germany, August 15-17, 2017, pages 82-85. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 808-819, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I. Wang, Victor Zhong, Bailin Wang, Chengzu Li, Connor Boyle, Ansong Ni, Ziyu Yao, Dragomir Radev, Caiming Xiong, Lingpeng Kong, Rui Zhang, Noah A. Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Tao Yu. 2022. UnifiedSKG: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 602-631, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dian Yu, Luheng He, Yuan Zhang, Xinya Du, Panupong Pasupat, and Qi Li. 2021. Few-shot intent classification and slot filling with retrieved examples. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 734-749. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.2: A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Xiaoying Zhang, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Helen Meng. 2022. Toward self-learning end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 516-530. +Yichi Zhang, Zhijian Ou, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Task-oriented dialog systems that consider multiple appropriate responses under the same context. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9604-9611. +Jeffrey Zhao, Yuan Cao, Raghav Gupta, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Mingqiu Wang, Hagen Soltau, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Anytod: A programmable task-oriented dialog system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09939. +Tiancheng Zhao and Maxine Eskenazi. 2018. Zero-shot dialog generation with cross-domain latent actions. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 1-10, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference + +on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 12697-12706. PMLR. + +Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Helen Meng. 2022. Towards identifying social bias in dialog systems: Framework, dataset, and benchmark. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3576-3591, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# DST Prompt + +# Task instruction + +Following the instructions, predict the belief state based on the history. + +# Belief instructions + +restaurant name = pizza hut city, golden wok, etc.; food = dont care, chinese, mediterranean, british, etc.; pricerange = dontcare, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; booking_day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; booking_time = 12:15, 13:30, etc. + +attraction attraction type = swimmingpool, theatre, architecture, museum, nightclub, boat, park, college, concerthall, entertainment, multiple sports, cinema; name = the cherry hinton village centre, soul tree nightclub, etc.; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west + +```python +hotel name = huntingdon marriott hotel, a and b guest house, etc.; pricerange = dont care, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; stars = dont care, 0,1,2,3,4,5; parking = dont care, yes, no; internet = dont care, yes, no; type = hotel, guest house; booking_day = monday, tuesday, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.; booking Stay = 1,2,3,4,etc. + +train leaveat = 10:45, 12:06, etc.; destination = norwich, cambridge, etc.; day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; arriveby = 21:00, 09:45, etc.; departure = cambridge, stansted airport, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc. + +taxi leaveat $= 08:45$ 16:15,etc.;destination $=$ saint john's college,kettle's yard,galleria,etc.;departure $=$ huntingdon marriot taxi,cineworld cinema,bridge guest house,etc.;arriveby $= 17:15$ 17:30,etc. + +··· + +Figure 4: Detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter. + +# A Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling. + +Table 7 summarizes four main research directions in zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling: slot filling (SF), dialog state tracking (DST), end-to-end policy management (E2E policy) and end-to-end dialog generation (E2E dialog). + +# B Detailed Belief Instructions in DST Prompter + +Figure 4 shows the detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter. + +# C A Formatting Example in Policy Prompt + +Figure 5 presents a formatting example in Policy Prompter. + +# D Experimental Setup + +# Datasets. + +- Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multi-domain task-oriented dataset, which + +
ModelTaskSchema typesTraining strategy
Fine-tuningPre-trainingPrompting
ROBUSTSF (Shah et al., 2019)SFslot names/value examples✓
TRADE (Wu et al., 2019)DSTslot names/value examples✓
ZSTL-SD (Campaigna et al., 2020)DSTontology, dialog templates✓(+synthesized data)
S-DST (Rastogi et al., 2020b)DSTslot names/descriptionss+service, intent names/descriptionss✓
T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b)DSTslot names/descriptionss✓
TRANSFERQA (Lin et al., 2021a)DSTslot names/value examples✓(QA tasks)
IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022)DSTslot names/value examples✓
SDM-DST (Wang et al., 2022a)DSTslot names/value examples✓
BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020)E2E policysystem-side policy skeletons✓
SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021)E2E policyuser-aware policy skeletons✓
ZSDG (Zhao and Eskenazi, 2018)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
DAML (Qian and Yu, 2019)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
ANYTOD (Zhao et al., 2022)E2E dialogpolicy programs+slot names/value examples+slot descriptions+user action names/states/descriptionss✓✓(heterogeneous tasks)
IG-TOD (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023)E2E dialogslot names+slot descriptions✓
SGP-TOD (ours)E2E dialoguser-aware policy skeletons(+slot names/value examples)✓
+ +Table 7: Zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling. (Schema items enclosed in parentheses are required only when accessible.) + +contains 8,438/1,000/1,000 dialogs for training-validating/testing, spanning seven domains: restaurant, attraction, train, hotel, taxi, police, and hospital. Multiwoz 2.0 is annotated with belief states and system actions. + +- Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020) is a improved version of Multiwoz 2.0, encompassing refined belief state annotations, slot descriptions, user action annotations, etc. +- RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) consists of four single-domain dialog datasets derived from Multiwoz 2.0 (i.e., restaurant, train, hotel, attraction), reorganized by Peng et al. (2021a). Each corpus contains 50/50/200 dialogs for training-validating/testing, expect for 100 testing dialogs in attraction domain. +- STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) includes 24 tasks in 13 domains (e.g., "apartment" domain comprises "apartment-search" and "apartment-schedule"), requiring the dialog model to conform to the provided task schema. We use 2,688 single-task dialogs from the corpus, which follow a "happy path", i.e., the user is not instructed to execute any action exceeding the schema's expectations. Without additional annotations, STAR only provides a flow chart diagram that outlines the dialog policy for each task. The flow chart outlines the task, including the sequence in which at + +tributes should be asked (for example, ask for the user's name before asking for the hotel name), how to query a database, etc. + +Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): (i) Inform(\%) assesses whether the agent returns an acceptable entity. (ii) Success(\%) determines if the agent appropriately responds to each attribute request. (iii) BLEU(\%) (Papineni et al., 2002) measures the word overlap of the generated response against the human response in the corpus. (iv) Combined(\%) judges the overall quality, which is defined as Combined = (Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(\%) (Zhang* et al., 2020), which focuses on computing semantic similarity between the generated responses and the ground truth, and correlates better with human judgments. + +Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR, which predicts next system action based on the dialog history. Since the system actions and deterministic response templates are mapped one to one in STAR corpus, we believe the end-to-end next action prediction task falls within end-to-end dialog modeling, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In addition, we report the results using weighted F1score(%) and mean accuracy(%) + +# Policy Prompt + +# Task instruction + +Following the instructions, generate appropriate response based on the history. + +# Formatting example (from other task/domain) + +# Policy skeleton + +(1) user: I'm looking for information on [attraction_name]. action: attraction (inform (name, address, area, entrance fee)) system: [attraction_name] is in the [value_area] and their address is [attraction_address], the entrance fee is [value_count] pounds. [eos] +(2) user: What is the phone number? action: attraction (inform phone), require (more)) system: Their phone number is [attraction_phone]. is there anything else i can do for you? [eos] +(3) user: I need the area/location and the postcode. action: attraction (inform (area, postcode)) system: The [attraction_name] is in the [value_area], their postal code is [attraction_postcode]. [eos] +(4) user: That is all i need today. thank you! action: attraction (general (bye)) system: You are welcome , thank you for calling the [value_place] town info [value_area]. have a great day. [eos] +(5) DB: attraction zero match. action: attraction (inform (none)) system: There are no results matching your query. Can i try a different area or type? [eos] +(6) DB: attraction one match. action: attraction (inform (name)) system: We have [attraction_name]. [eos] +(7) DB: attraction five match. action: attraction (inform (choices), request (area)) system: There are [value_count], which area were you looking at? [eos] + +# history. + +user: Hello, i'm looking for the museum of classical archaeology, could you tell me more about it? system: Certainly, the [attraction_name] is located at [attraction_address] and has free entrance, phone [attraction_phone]. do you also need the postcode? user: Yes, i'd like that. thank you so much! +SQL: select * from attraction where name = museum of classical archaeology DB: Attraction one match +action:attraction (inform (postcode),require (more)) system:The postcode for the [attribution_name] is [attribution_postcode].Is there anything else i can help you with? + +Figure 5: A formatting example in Policy Prompt. + +Human Evaluation Metrics. We employ interactive human evaluations to assess the quality of dialog agents, following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). We recruit student helpers to help with evaluations. For each dialog session, student helpers are provided with a goal and accompanying instructions, subsequently necessitating a discourse with the agent to achieve the goal via natural language. Upon the conclusion of each dialog session, students are mandated to assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%) evaluates whether the agent accomplishes the task. (ii) Success w/ g(%) judges whether the agent accomplishes the task and of + +fers matched slot values compared to the database record. (iii) Understanding(1-5) quantifies the accuracy with which the agent comprehends user utterances. (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) signifies the naturalness, appropriateness and fluency of an agent response. (v) Turns denotes the average number of dialog turns within successful dialog sessions. + +# E Implementation Details + +# Regarding SGP-TOD: + +- LLMs: We employ ChatGPT ("gpt-3.5-turbo"), GPT-3.5 ("text-davinci-003") and Codex ("code-davinci-002") as the fixed LLMs to implement the proposed SGP-TOD. Throughout the evaluation, we set temperature to 0.5. +- DST Prompt - belief instruction: In the context of multi-domain scenarios, the belief instructions encompassing all domains are incorporated, while solely the target domain's belief instruction is introduced in single-domain settings. +- Policy Prompt - policy skeleton: For the Multiwoz datasets, we manually construct the policy skeleton through observing a few dialogs in the training corpus, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In the case of the STAR corpus, we employ flow chart diagrams and several dialogs to develop the policy skeleton, following the guidelines set forth by Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). We integrate the relevant user template utterance and the system action into the policy skeleton, thereby augmenting the LLM's understanding of directives, in the absence of belief annotations. The prompt examples for the STAR dataset are shown in Appendix M. +- Formatting example: Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. The formatting example employed within DST Prompter/Policy Prompter is randomly chosen from the training corpus of different tasks/domains, conforming to zero-shot scenario proposed by Wang et al. (2022b). We appraise multiple randomly selected formatting examples, the evaluation results reveal minor deviations. In the experiments on domain + +extension (Section 4.5) and ablation analysis (Section 4.7), we employ the same (two) formatting exemplar turns originating from other domains within the RADDLE corpus for all prompting techniques. + +# Regarding compared methods: + +# (i) Zero-shot transfer methods: + +- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) is a schemaguided method that augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a provided system-side schema to predict the next system action. +- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) represents a schema-guided model based on BERT-base, which aligns the dialog context to a user-aware schema to predict the next system action. +- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts a neural LM to track dialog states and user actions utilizing slot and action descriptions. Then a program that outlines a predefined task policy is executed to recommend appropriate system actions. Upon considering these system actions, an LM generates the ultimate system action and formulates the corresponding template response using the approach proposed by Kale and Rastogi (2020). ANYTOD-XXL is implemented on T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) and pre-trained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a) $^8$ + +# (ii) Prompting methods: + +- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT that leverages the dialog context and manually-crafted slot descriptions as the prompt, to track dialog states, fetch DB entries, and produce responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. +- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting strategy implemented on ChatGPT, where we use a few (i.e., $\mathbf{k}$ ) dialog turns, randomly sampled from the training corpus to instruct ChatGPT on task execution. Upon evaluating + +various configurations of $\pmb{k}$ , the optimal results manifest with 15 on Multiwoz (2.0 and 2.2), and 10 on RADDLE, exhibiting no further substantial enhancements. + +- SGP-TOD (Ours) is a schema-guided prompting strategy, which is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ ChatGPT ("gpt-3.5-turbo"), GPT-3.5 ("text-davinci-003") and Codex ("codedavinci-002") as the fixed LLMs. Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. More implementation details are provided in Appendix E. + +# F Zero-Shot End-to-End Evaluation Results on STAR + +Figure 6 exhibits the zero-shot evaluation results on STAR, utilizing varying amounts of training dialogs (ranging from 1 to 1,000) and formatting example turns (spanning from 1 to 10) from source domains/tasks. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, achieves superior or comparable performance compared to BERT+S, SAM, which are fine-tuned on adequate source data. + +We observe that SGP-TOD, employing only two formatting sample turns, attains superior or commensurate performance in terms of both F1score and Accuracy, when compared to SAM trained with 1,000 dialogs. Given that a single dialog contains more than 10 dialog turns, this result suggests that SGP-TOD diminishes labeling expenses by a minimum factor of 1,000. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that augmenting the quantity of formatting exemplar turns exerts a negligible influence on the performance of SGP-TOD. + +# G Ablation Study + +Table 8 exhibits the findings from an ablation investigation, addressing the effects of the three integral aspects of SGP-TOD in conjunction with the database expertise, implemented on Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2, employing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces optimal results across both datasets. The removal of the Policy Prompter, database knowledge, and DST Prompter leads to consistent declines in all evaluation metrics, underscoring the + +![](images/7e137f02489fb56bd43286ce987898256a44d649264a8c4a3c925e81209049e0.jpg) +(a) Task transfer + +![](images/978d9deab0e162fec860e455ae43b219c23bf463aaa67c817c8e566fa84435af.jpg) +(b) Domain transfer + +![](images/d73b187c1733c199dbfc9325cfce1b1836e5d7ceb3d24bb707bf2bfcd4005aa0.jpg) +(c) Task transfer + +![](images/117c9f062cc70de1892b6c16965b16e39c67e2a7884543f7b297bf57a96b5794.jpg) +(d) Domain transfer +Figure 6: Zero-shot end-to-end evaluation results on STAR with different numbers of training dialogs (1, 10, 100, 1,000) / demonstration example turns (1, 10) from source domain/tasks. + +value of enhancing the fixed LLM with the task schema and external database information. + +Specifically, GPT-3.5 (in the final row) exhibits commendable zero-shot performance, highlighting the need of exploiting its superior zero-shot generalization capabilities in dialog generation tasks. Additionally, Disabling the Policy Prompt incurs a discernible decline in performance regarding Success (approximately $16\%$ ) and BLEU (roughly $3\%$ ), as the Policy Prompt's primary function is to provide task completion guidelines and interaction patterns. Eliminating the database expertise primarily reduces Success (by approximately $4\%$ ), implying that incorporating database information contributes to task completion. Lastly, excising the DST Prompt engenders a considerable diminution in performance concerning Inform (around $43\%$ ) and Success (nearly $18\%$ ), due to the DST Prompt's intended purpose of assisting the frozen LLM in apprehending the dialog context. + +# H Human Evaluation Details + +We enlisted 5 student helpers (i.e., undergraduate students possessing basic proficiency in English communication) to participate in the evaluations. For each dialog agent, we collected 50 dialogs for analysis. Followed the methodology proposed by Li et al. (2022), we generated user goals through the subsequent techniques: (i) Randomly selecting slots and slot values within the Restaurant domain from RADDLE corpus to construct a user goal; (ii) Replacing the slot values of the user goals in randomly chosen dialogs from the Restaurant corpus with corresponding new values from randomly sampled database entries, thus forming a new user goal; (iii) Merging the user goals of several randomly selected dialogs from the Restaurant corpus to create a composite user goal. Lastly, we randomly chose 50 distinct user goals from these newly generated goals. + +
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.583.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
-policy82.2855.656.5175.4881.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.2050.956.4872.5681.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.7433.136.1842.1238.6033.906.2942.54
+ +Table 8: Ablation study on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompter, -DB: removing database information, -belief: removing DST Prompter. + +# I Human Evaluation Results + +Figure 7 shows the interactive human evaluation results. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance. In contrast to the automated evaluation results shown in Table 2, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT significantly outperforms SOLOIST over all metrics. This indicates that corpus-based evaluations might be biased, given that real user inputs tend to be more dynamic, complex, even with noise. Notably, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT consistently excels compared to the other methods in both evaluations, implying its robustness in handling diverse user inputs. + +# J More Details and Results on Domain Extension + +Setup. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the pre-existing Restaurant in RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021c) with additional functions. Specifically, we introduce four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. The initial slot pertains to recommendations for signature restaurant meals, while the final three concern delivery service details. All database entries are updated with corresponding values. Table 10 exhibits a dialog example on domain extension. The associated Restaurant-Ext database entry is illustrated in Table 9. + +# Compared Methods. + +- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting with base LLMs that receive merely two formatting example turns from other domains in RADDLE. $^{10}$ +- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton. + +- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in the Restaurant domain (previously reported in Table 2). +- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). Machine teaching is an efficient approach to equip deployed task bots with the ability to handle new functions by correcting representative failed human-bot dialogs. We deploy SOLOIST to converse with real users, then implement machine teaching via Conversational learner (Shukla et al., 2020), an effective machine teaching tool, to obtain 10/50/50 examples in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. Finally, we fine-tune SOLOIST with gathered 10 training dialogs covering four new slots, resulting in dialog agent SOLOIST+TEACH. +- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. Based on GPT-3.5, we utilize 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as the prompt (with peak performance at 10), resulting in FEWSHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH. +- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant. + +Results. Comparison with Base LLMs. The substantial improvement of SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT and SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT over ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 illustrates SGP-TOD's efficiency in supplying task-specific knowledge in a zero-shot way. + +Impact of Different LLMs. SGP-TODCHATGPT-EXT attains a lower BLEU yet a comparable BERTScore, suggesting that ChatGPT generates more diverse responses. + +![](images/3cbdf3b1513ee9f96fecc4c728499a947c0b85bf3068aa2ef178542059a9c198.jpg) +(a) Success w/o g ↑ + +![](images/1b326e76977705fe2590979ae990c490fdccf84470d4f4cb1f6df8f16d164f7c.jpg) +(b) Success w/ g ↑ + +![](images/f6f85da5f3f15a5499c0d3af27c71554fb8667e4caf4bbd88c8f7db8dcbfccdd.jpg) +(c) Understanding +Figure 7: Interactive human evaluation results. SOLO.: SOLOIST, FS.: FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP.: SGP-TOD-CHATGPT. + +![](images/89175ae70b826217c987becd91e980100eb09425e9bd43786d2f220a7ab72e2c.jpg) +(d) Appropriateness $\uparrow$ + +![](images/bf9a90d6dab578f2777f2864788e94c5b4a92a8b02d016faf87888216ac4a2ce.jpg) +(e)Turns $\downarrow$ + +
SlotValue
"address""21 - 24 Northampton Street"
"area""west"
"food""british"
"id""14810"
"location"[52.21031, 0.11381]
"name""saint johns chop house"
"phone""01223353110"
"postcode""cb30ad"
"pricerange""moderate"
"type""restaurant"
"delivery""Yes"
"delivery fee""6 pounds"
"dish""Beef Wellington"
"start_time""10:30 am"
"end_time""22:40 pm"
+ +Table 9: An example of Restaurant-Ext DB entry. The newly introduced slot-value pairs relevant to the extended functionality are highlighted. + +# K Case Study + +Despite the superior performance of the proposed SGP-TOD on GPT-3.5, we showcase interactive examples utilizing ChatGPT, a renowned and potent chatbot. In Table 11, a user engages with ChatGPT (left) and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right) to complete the identical task on Restaurant-Ext. $^{11}$ The user initiates the conversation by seeking recommendations for a Tuscan restaurant with no price range preference. Lacking external database information, ChatGPT conveys inaccurate details (Turn 2), whereas SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT informs users of the absence of matching restaurants and proposes alternatives (Turn 2). This exemplifies the benefits of integrating real-world expertise into the fixed LLM. Furthermore, ChatGPT persistently inquires about + +the desired price range despite the user's indifference. We argue that SGP-TOD assists the frozen LLM in discerning user intentions. In Turn 4, ChatGPT continues to furnish fabricated details (i.e., the restaurant name and phone number) concerning the nonexistent eatery, while SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT identifies a suitable Korean restaurant and the corresponding factual information. In contrast with ChatGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT adeptly addresses inquiries about the delivery service (Turn 6), indicating that SGP-TOD is capable of endowing the frozen LLM with novel functionalities. + +# L Our Proposed SGP-TOD with a Dialog Example + +Figure 8 illustrates the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example. + +# M Prompt Examples for STAR Dataset + +Two exemplars of prompts for STAR dataset are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10. + +
TurnUtterance
1User: I want a restaurant on the west end of town.
2System: Ok. Are you looking for any particular type of food?
3User: I don't care.
4System: Are you looking for a particular price range?
5User: A moderately priced restaurant would be good.
6System: How about Saint Johns Chop House? They serve moderately priced British food on the west side of town.
7User: Can i please have their address and phone number?
8System: Saint Johns Chop House's address is 21-24 Northampton Street, their phone number is 01223353110.
9User: Does the restaurant offers delivery service? If it does, what's the delivery fee?
10System: Yes, it does, and the delivery charges 6 pounds.
11User: Thank you, goodbye.
12System: Thank you for using our system. Goodbye.
+ +Table 10: A dialog example on domain extension. Task bots need learn to provide pertinent responses concerning the expanded delivery service in subsequent interaction turns, adapting to the continually evolving user/enterprise demands. + +
TurnInteraction between a user and ChatGPTTurnInteraction between a user and SP-TOD-ChatGPT-Ext
1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.
2System: Certainly, there are 3 Tuscan restaurants in town. What is your preferred price range?2System: I am sorry, there are no Tuscan restaurants. Here are some other options: Korean, Italian, Chinese. Which one would you like more information on?
3User: I don't care about the price. Please recommend one for me, i also need the phone number please.3User: How about any Korean restaurants? I also need the phone number please.
4System: The phone number for Pizza Hut City Centre is 01223323737. Is there anything else i can help you with today?4System: Little Seoul is a Korean restaurant. Their phone number is 01223308681.
5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?
6System: I'm sorry, but I could not find any information on delivery fee in our database. You may want to contact the restaurant directly to inquire about this. Is there anything else I can assist you with today?6System: Yes, they offer delivery service and the delivery charge is 4 pounds. Can I help you with anything else?
7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.
8System: Glad i could assist you. Have a good day.8System: You're welcome, have a great meal! Goodbye!
+ +Table 11: Illustration of two interactive examples between a user and CHATGPT (left), SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right). Appropriate responses and inappropriate responses are highlighted. + +![](images/711ee537a0ff2b321768070906a272a68796a2bff8b062acf12b09b943f48d74.jpg) +Figure 8: Illustration of the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example. Note that the belief state in the represented in the SQL format, the details of which are described in Section 3.3. + +# Policy Prompt + +# Task instruction + +Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule. + +# Formatting example (from other task/domain) + +# Task schema + +(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello [eos] +(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos] +(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: ride Asking Booking number [eos] + +# History. + +user: Hi, i need to check my ride status. + +# Answer + +(2) user: i'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos] + +# Test (on target task/domain) + +# Task schema + +(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello [eos] +(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking_day [eos] +(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos] + +·· + +# History. + +user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday. + +# LLM + +Answer + +(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos] + +# Policy Prompt + +# Task instruction + +Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule. + +# Formatting example (from other task/domain) + +# Task schema + +(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos] +(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos] +(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: +ride Asking Booking number system: Can I get your booking ID, please? [eos] + +# History. + +user: Hi, i need to check my ride status. + +# Answer + +(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos] + +# Test (on target task/domain) + +# Task schema + +(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos] +(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking day system: For what day would you like the weather forecast? [eos] +(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos] + +# History. + +user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday. + +# LLM + +![](images/652d6fb90c49a942fc38da923756dd7b2ec6f3e3feb60f63e855f637d2ca9bb5.jpg) +Figure 9: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD on STAR. The relevant template turn within the input, the generated user template utterance, and the system action in the output are accentuated. +Figure 10: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD-E2E on STAR. The relevant template turn in the input, the generated user template utterance, the system action and the system response in the output are highlighted. + +Answer + +(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/images.zip b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20489d8c28a8547f5270736c38c687aab81f3f7e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5628ac7221398003e289f9246334d27a8b8aa5f77d0a6b4b3c7a49a82a66f4e6 +size 1124609 diff --git a/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/layout.json b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaddc0afafc2fd68455bad7c324d616e47584b05 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SGP-TOD_ Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,16284 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 69, + 442, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 69, + 442, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 69, + 442, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SGP-TOD: Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema-Guided LLM Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoying Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Baolin Peng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Kun Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jingyan Zhou" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Helen Meng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 109, + 483, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 125, + 424, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 125, + 424, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 125, + 424, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 139, + 364, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 139, + 364, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 139, + 364, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Tencent AI Lab, Bellevue" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 152, + 450, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 152, + 450, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 152, + 450, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 167, + 424, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 167, + 424, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 167, + 424, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{zhangxy, kunli, jyzhou, hmmeng} @se.cuhk.edu.hk" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 215, + 181, + 382, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 215, + 181, + 382, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 215, + 181, + 382, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{baolinpeng} @ global.tencent.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Building and maintaining end-to-end task bots using minimal human effort is a longstanding challenge in dialog research. In this work, we introduce SGP-TOD, Schema-Guided Prompting for building Task-Oriented Dialog systems effortlessly based on large language models (LLMs). Utilizing the predefined task schema, i.e., belief instruction and dialog policy, we instruct fixed LLMs to generate appropriate responses on novel tasks, without the need for training data. Specifically, SGP-TOD comprises three components: an LLM for interacting with users, a Dialog State Tracking (DST) Prompter to aid the LLM in tracking dialog states with the given belief instruction, and a Policy Prompter to direct the LLM to generate proper responses adhering to the provided dialog policy. Experimental results on Multiwoz, RADDLE, and STAR datasets show that our training-free strategy, SGP-TOD, yields state-of-the-art (SOTA) zero-shot performance, significantly surpassing the few-shot approaches. In a domain-extension setting, SGP-TOD aptly adapts to new functionalities by merely adding supplementary schema rules. We make our code and data publicly available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 564, + 154, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 564, + 154, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 564, + 154, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Building task-oriented dialog (TOD) systems has been a long-standing challenge in artificial intelligence. The prevailing approach for creating task bots (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Peng et al., 2021a; Sun et al., 2022) is to fine-tune pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019). Despite their great success, developing and maintaining such task bots generally requires adequate annotated data and extensive fine-tuning/re-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 291, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) and GPT-4 (OpenAI," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 520, + 439 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 520, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 520, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 520, + 439 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e0a3353d60c7384ec98e6f3102ab0499d5863922fc30ac74f2f445653774882e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 498 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The proposed SGP-TOD is depicted with a dialog example, where the prompters integrate the task schema (right) to assist the frozen LLM in generating an appropriate response (left)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 526, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2023), have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) applications (Wei et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), owing to their remarkable conversational skills (Qin et al., 2023), instruction-following abilities (Ouyang et al., 2022) and zero-shot generalization capabilities (Chowdhery et al., 2022a; Hu et al., 2022). This raises a research question: can LLMs be effectively utilized for building task bots with minimum human effort?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A contemporary study (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) explores the potential of LLMs for rapidly building task bots via few-shot prompting, a.k.a. in-context learning (ICL) paradigm (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021). Though demonstrably effective, the ICL performance is highly influenced by the quality of the in-context exemplars (Zhao et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023), as they struggle to provide comprehensive information for dialog task completion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 263, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 263, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 263, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13348" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13348-13369" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we introduce symbolic knowledge (Nye et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2023), i.e., the task schema into LLMs, for creating task bots. Task schema (Mosig et al., 2020; Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) encompasses a concise symbolic representation of a task, supplying LLMs with a comprehensive blueprint. It comprises " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " task-specific ontology containing all slots and their appropriate values (Budzianowski et al., 2018); and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(ii)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " a dialog flow explicitly outlining fundamental interaction patterns (Peng et al., 2021b). Specifically, we propose SGP-TOD (as depicted in Figure 1), a schema-guided prompting method for rapidly building task bots. We integrate the predefined task schema and dialog context into prompts through the use of two specifically-designed prompters, namely a DST Prompter and a Policy Prompter. Utilizing these prompters, we adeptly guide fixed LLMs to track dialog states, retrieve database entries, and generate appropriate responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot manner, without the need for additional training or fine-tuning. By incorporating task-specific symbolic knowledge into LLMs, SGP-TOD provides knowledge-based, coherent and human-like responses. Moreover, this training-free design empowers developers to flexibly prototype dialog systems on new tasks, while seamlessly extending system functionalities through modifying the task schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 464, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 464, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 464, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform empirical automatic evaluations on two multi-domain datasets, namely, Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2 (Budzianowski et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2020), as well as two single-domain/task datasets, RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020), within zero-shot scenarios. Additionally, we complement these assessments with interactive human evaluations. The results indicate that SGP-TOD, employing merely task schema devoid of any training or fine-tuning, substantially boosts the SOTA zero-shot results, markedly outperforming few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods, and even attaining competitive results cf. full-shot finetuning approaches. In a domain-extension context, SGP-TOD proficiently adapts to new functionalities by simply adding a handful of schema rules without necessitating further data collection, significantly exceeding the few-shot prompting/fine-tuning methods reinforced by machine teaching (Williams and Liden, 2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 735, + 279, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 735, + 279, + 747 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 735, + 279, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, our contributions are three-fold:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose SGP-TOD, a schema-guided" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLM prompting strategy that facilitates in effortlessly creating task bots, eliminating the necessity for task-specific data or fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 118, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 118, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 118, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We integrate symbolic knowledge - task schema into LLMs, allowing them to generate schema-compliant responses and adaptively expand their functionalities to tackle new tasks by solely modifying the task schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 192, + 527, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 192, + 527, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 192, + 527, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We demonstrate the effectiveness of SGP-TOD on Multiwoz, RADDLE, STAR datasets in zero-shot settings using both automatic and human evaluations. SGP-TOD notably elevates the SOTA zero-shot performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 274, + 393, + 286 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 274, + 393, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 274, + 393, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling. Zero-shot generalization is an essential yet challenging task in TOD research. A comprehensive study is shown in Appendix A. In this paper, we focus on zero-shot end-to-end dialog modeling, including policy management and dialog generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 527, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 527, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 527, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The works by Zhao and Eskenazi (2018) and Qian and Yu (2019) utilize ontology and response templates to train dialog models, enabling the discovery of shared dialog policies between the source and target domains. To enable broader adaptation to diverse dialog policies, Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021) implement task-specific policy skeletons, training dialog models to adhere to novel policies. Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2022) employs a neural language model (LM) for tracking dialog states and user actions using slot and action descriptions; subsequently, a policy program is deployed to facilitate an LM in generating system actions and responses. Despite the effectiveness of previous approaches, they still require ample fine-tuning and copious annotated dialog corpora on source or heterogeneous domains/tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A concurrent study to ours is Hudecek and Dusek (2023), which employs a prompting strategy - IG-TOD (instruction-guided TOD) to guide frozen LLMs in generating suitable responses. Specifically, IG-TOD first tracks belief states by utilizing slot descriptions as prompts, then retrieves database entries, and generates responses. Our SGP-TOD differs in that: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we employ slot names and value examples, rather than slot descriptions, as prompts to facilitate frozen LLMs in generating belief states, thereby reducing human effort; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(ii)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we offer a policy skeleton to guide" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13349" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLMs in producing appropriate responses. In addition, experimental results indicate that SGP-TOD substantially outperforms IG-TOD." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leveraging LLMs for Dialog Tasks. LLMs (Chowdhery et al., 2022b; OpenAI, 2023) have exhibited unparalleled mastery of natural language understanding, reasoning and generation (Wei et al., 2022; Bubeck et al., 2023). Three primary research directions have obtained substantial success in numerous dialog tasks by utilizing LLMs. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Few-shot prompting (Brown et al., 2020) has showcased remarkable performance in intent classification (Yu et al., 2021), semantic parsing (Shin and Van Durme, 2022), dialog state tracking (Hu et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2022), and response generation (Madotto et al., 2021). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(ii)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Li et al. (2022); Mehri et al. (2022); Dai et al. (2023) employ LLMs for data augmentation, i.e., generating synthetic task-oriented dialogs to train smaller models for inference. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(iii)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 292, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Recently, several studies endeavor to support LLMs in specialized tasks by incorporating external knowledge. Peng et al. (2023) advocates for enhancing LLMs' responses with external knowledge and automated feedback to reduce hallucination. Liang et al. (2023) suggests connecting LLMs with millions of APIs to accomplish diverse tasks. Different from the aforementioned works, we aim to employ LLMs in building task bots in a zero-shot manner using pre-defined task schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 147, + 490 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 147, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 147, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 SGP-TOD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 141, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 141, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 141, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The overall architecture of the proposed SGP-TOD (Figure 1) consists of three key components: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " an LLM, responsible for adhering to instructions, comprehending user queries, and generating coherent responses for user interaction; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(ii)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " a DST Prompter, tasked with supporting the LLM in tracking dialogue states using the belief instruction; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(iii)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " a Policy Prompter, guiding the LLM to adhere to the predefined task policy for providing suitable system actions and responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "At each dialog turn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the end-to-end generation task is systematically divided into three subsequent sub-tasks: (i) Belief State Prediction - given the dialog history up to current dialog turn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{h}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is a sequence of utterances alternating between the user and the system " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{h}_t = [u_1, r_1, u_2, r_2, \\dots, u_t]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote user and system utterances, respectively), the DST Prompter embeds the belief instruction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{BI}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to direct the frozen LLM (pa" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "rameterized by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ) in generating a belief state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Equation 1). The belief state is then used to query a database and obtain the database (DB) state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Equation 2). (ii) System Action Determination - the Policy Prompt incorporates a policy skeleton " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "PS" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", assisting the LLM in generating a system action " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", based on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t, b_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Equation 3). (iii) Dialog Response Generation - grounded in the dialog history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", belief state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", DB state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", system action " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the Policy Prompt aids the LLM in generating a delexicalized response by providing the policy skeleton " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "PS" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Equation 4). Ultimately, the delexicalized response is automatically postprocessed to generate system response in natural language. Detailed illustration with a dialog example is shown in Appendix L." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 299, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 299, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 299, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {b} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\theta} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {B I}\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "555dfc0abab34e93224c0398ea18fe11feeaf9264b8aebdade3d9ad94c25c444.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 316, + 524, + 329 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 316, + 524, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 316, + 524, + 329 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {c} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {D} \\boldsymbol {B} \\left(\\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "9cf138069d540d068a14bf6b159d39eee94af5e5445ba51d705e430fbb2ad38d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 332, + 525, + 345 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 332, + 525, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 332, + 525, + 345 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {a} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\boldsymbol {\\theta}} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {P S}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "5cede4bdd50cc6e3b4e7a7cd8fe5aaed154cf878ec30d1365777d338c2aa26b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 349, + 525, + 362 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 349, + 525, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 349, + 525, + 362 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {r} _ {t} = \\boldsymbol {L L M} _ {\\theta} \\left(\\boldsymbol {h} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {b} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {c} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {a} _ {t}, \\boldsymbol {P S}\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "cfce5d57e854358c880135a7361e006ea43e558c3046f9f58cacdeb2989be0bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 356, + 385 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 356, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 356, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 LLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An LLM is responsible for following task-specific instructions and generating appropriate responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Many off-the-shelf LLMs, e.g., ChatGPT, Codex (Chen et al., 2021), are pre-trained on massive corpora of text data and/or code data. In addition, they are trained to follow instructions in the prompts (Ouyang et al., 2022) and provide pertinent responses. Exhibiting remarkable proficiencies in natural language processing, instruction compliance, and zero-shot generalization across diverse downstream dialog tasks, these LLMs serve as valuable foundation models for our approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 400, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 400, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 400, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 DST Prompter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the dialog history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the DST prompter aims to guide the LLM in predicting the belief state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at each turn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", using the belief instruction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{BI}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The belief state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as the concatenation of the domain/task (i.e., user intent) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{d}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a set of slot-value pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{(s_t^i, v_t^i); i = 1, \\dots, n_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the total number of pairs in the set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, the proposed DST prompter contains four parts: (i) a task instruction that offers general guidance on belief state prediction; (ii) belief instructions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{BI}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of all domains/tasks; (iii) a formatting example illustrating" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We assess several task instructions written by different authors, yielding minor performance disparities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13350" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 284, + 426 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 284, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 284, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 284, + 426 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "244328e92372df955ccf4910dc61c3eef7286cbddb07beb437c4a63f89fc5422.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 470 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Illustration of belief state prediction utilizing DST Prompter. The predicted belief state is highlighted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the anticipated output format to direct the LLM, in addition, we follow Hu et al. (2022) and adopt SQL state to represent the dialog state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol{b}_t^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(iv)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the test input, i.e., the given dialog history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol{h}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Since the prompt is fixed and no labeled data from the target task or domain is used, we refer to this setting as \"zero-shot\", following Wang et al. (2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Belief Instruction. For each task/domain, the belief instruction contains the task/domain name, all potential slot names, and their possible values (Figure 2). Regarding categorical slots, such as the \"price range\" in the restaurant domain, all plausible values are included, i.e., \"don't care\", \"cheap\", \"moderate\", and \"expensive\"; whereas, for non-categorical slots, such as \"name\", only a few value examples are injected, e.g., Pizza Hut City, Golden Wok, etc. Detailed belief instructions for all tasks/domains can be found in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 519, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 519, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 519, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 519, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5f0112cb022cbc5ef025613602d020369fbe24c11c4c7db8c06a26c37538b4e9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 526, + 549 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 526, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 526, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of system action determination and response generation employing the Policy Prompter. The pertinent template turns, previously predicted belief state, retrieved DB state within the input, alongside the generated system action and generated response in the output are accentuated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 560, + 408, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 560, + 408, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 560, + 408, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Policy Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dialog policy, governing the behavior of task bots, plays a crucial role in task-oriented dialogs. To represent the dialog policy for a given task, we utilize a policy skeleton, which delineates interaction patterns and encompasses business logic in the form of template dialog flows (Peng et al., 2021b). The Policy Prompter is devised to guide the static LLM in adhering to the policy skeleton " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "PS" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", enabling the sequential generation of appropriate system actions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{a}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and responses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analogous to the DST Prompt, the Policy Prompt (Figure 3) comprises four components: (i) a task instruction; (ii) a formatting example derived from another task/domain, consisting of a par" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 739, + 286, + 752 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 739, + 286, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 739, + 286, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3SQL: select \\* from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 739, + 286, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 739, + 286, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 739, + 286, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_t^1 = v_t^1;\\ldots ;s_t^{n_t} = v_t^{n_t}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4We assess belief instructions with diverse slot value examples, revealing minor performance variations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13351" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tial policy skeleton and its associated dialogue turn exemplar (in Appendix C); (iii) a policy skeleton for the previously predicted domain/task; and (iv) the test input, i.e., the dialog history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{h}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", generated belief state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{b}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and obtained DB state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{c}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 290, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Policy Skeleton. Given that user behaviors and DB results jointly determine system actions and responses, policy skeleton is designed to cover all fundamental user behaviors and characteristic DB results, along with their corresponding system actions and responses.5 Considering the infeasibility of developing a multi-task/domain policy skeleton for every possible combination of tasks and domains, we opt to develop a distinct policy skeleton tailored to each specific task and domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), our strategy converts the established dialog policy into a series of template dialog turns " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that are logically arranged and concentrate on task completion:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 344, + 290, + 379 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 344, + 290, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 344, + 290, + 379 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {X} = \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {N}, \\tag {5} \\\\ \\boldsymbol {x} _ {i} = \\left(u ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\\right) o r \\left(c ^ {i}, a ^ {i}, r ^ {i}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "f3916f80333c12b28cb70a1d6fce007dcf0abbef00a02a95156ae5765b74b28b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a template dialog turn, which contains a user utterance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or a DB state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", matching system action " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and system response " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the total number of template turns within the policy skeleton (around 10-20 template turns depending on the task complexity). In order to equip the frozen LLM with new capabilities or modify current ones, we only need insert, amend, or eliminate a few template turns within the policy skeleton." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 519, + 155, + 534 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 519, + 155, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 519, + 155, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 189, + 554 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 189, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 189, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 290, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 290, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 290, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. (i) Two multi-domain dialog datasets: Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) and Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020). (ii) Two single-domain/task datasets: RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) and STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) (single-task dialogs from the corpus, following the \"happy path\"). Details are elaborated in Appendix D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): Inform " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Success " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", BLEU " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Papineni et al., 2002) and Combined " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " judges the overall quality, defined as Combined =" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(%) (Zhang* et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR (wherein the system actions and response templates are mapped one to one), which predicts next system action given the dialog history. We report the results using F1score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and accuracy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation Metrics. We conduct interactive human evaluations (by five student helpers), following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). For each dialog session, students are mandated to interact with a dialog agent via natural language and assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%), (ii) Success w/ g(%), (iii) Understanding(1-5), (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) and (v) Turns. Full details are elaborated in Appendix D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared Methods. We compare the proposed SGP-TOD with SOTA zero-shot transfer methods and zero-shot/few-shot prompting strategies. (We report the mean results of three different runs.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 383, + 437, + 394 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 383, + 437, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 383, + 437, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-shot transfer methods:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 398, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 398, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 398, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 398, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a system-side schema to predict system action." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 444, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 444, + 525, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 444, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) is based on BERT-base, which uses a user-aware schema to predict the next system action." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 488, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 488, + 525, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 488, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) to generate system actions and responses utilizing slot/action descriptions and a policy program. It is pretrained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 559, + 402, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 559, + 402, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 559, + 402, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompting methods:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 575, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 575, + 525, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 575, + 525, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 575, + 525, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT, exploiting slot descriptions for tracking dialog states, fetching DB entries, and generating responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting approach applied to ChatGPT, utilizing a few (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") training dialog turns as prompts. Optimal results are achieved with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 15" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on Multiwoz and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 673, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on RADDLE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SGP-TOD (Ours) is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5We do not enumerate every conceivable combination of user behaviors or potential database results, as schema engineering is not the primary focus of this study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13352" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 255 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 255 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
Full-shot fine-tuning (with 8.4k+ training dialogs):
DAMD (Zhang et al., 2020)76.3360.4016.6084.97----
SIMPLETOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)84.4070.1015.0192.26----
SOLOIST (Peng et al., 2021a)85.5072.9016.5495.7481.7067.1013.6088.00
PPTOD (Su et al., 2022)89.2079.4018.62102.92----
MARS (Sun et al., 2022)88.9078.0019.90103.3588.9078.0019.60103.05
Zero-shot transfer method (pre-trained on SGD):
ANYTOD-XXL----73.9024.403.4052.55
Few-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS-----20.007.17-
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT44.7424.327.8842.4145.4024.507.7242.67
Zero-shot prompting:
IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS-----15.003.58-
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (Ours)64.5654.057.1766.4864.7054.706.9666.66
SGP-TOD-CODEX (Ours)71.6752.557.9170.0275.5052.306.6270.53
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 (Ours)83.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
", + "image_path": "2f6441bb4e79e9fead6cd3ddef402d6ba62b006618c2a2d4daabfacea186a8bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 525, + 421 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on Multiwoz. Results of SOLOIST, MARS, ANYTOD-XXL on Multiwoz 2.2 are cited from Zhao et al. (2022). Results of IG-TOD-CHATGPT are cited from Hudecek and Dusek (2023). Other results of the full-shot fine-tuning methods are cited from He et al. (2022) and Sun et al. (2022). (Difference in mean is significant with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ".)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 525, + 421 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAttractionTrainHotelRestaurant
Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.Info.Succ.BLEUComb.
Few-shot fine-tuning (with 50 training dialogs):
SIMPLETOD65.6646.975.8562.1759.0044.007.0758.5762.5040.007.7058.9575.5044.5011.0071.00
SOLOIST86.0065.0012.9088.4080.8164.659.9682.6974.5043.508.1267.1281.0055.5012.8081.50
Few-shot prompting:
Few-SHOT-CHATGPT75.0067.008.2279.2379.8065.668.1280.8551.0026.505.8044.5580.0055.507.7175.46
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT95.0094.007.13101.6376.7774.246.7582.2676.5057.005.1671.9190.0082.506.7292.97
SGP-TOD-CODEX98.0093.0010.45105.9578.7970.208.5683.0683.5069.507.8684.3691.0085.0010.5098.50
SGP-TOD-GPT3.596.0093.009.53104.0382.8377.278.7288.7782.5071.507.0584.0591.5084.0012.90100.65
", + "image_path": "203e41cfce17533ae57a37dc093b436a9efac256720b3419f84f9b3f0c271b95.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 525, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 525, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: End-to-end dialog generation evaluation results on RADDLE. The few-shot fine-tuning results are cited from Peng et al. (2021a). (Difference in mean is significant with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ".)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 467, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 467, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 467, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 and Codex. Implementation details are provided in Appendix E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 265, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 265, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 265, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 End-to-End Evaluation on Multiwoz" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. We present the evaluation results in multi-domain contexts on Multiwoz in Table 1. In addition to the aforementioned methods, we include the results of SOTA full-shot fine-tuning approaches to facilitate a more comprehensive comparison. SGP-TOD obtains SOTA zero-shot performance, substantially outperforming few-shot prompting approaches across all metrics, while even exhibiting competitive results in comparison to full-shot fine-tuning methods concerning Success and Inform. This confirms the effectiveness of integrating the task schema with the LLMs' proficient language processing capabilities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with Prompting Methods. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT distinctly surpasses the zero-shot prompting approach IG-TOD-CHATGPT-zs with respect to Success (surpassing by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and BLEU (exceeding by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Moreover, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, without requiring task-specific data," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 526, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "considerably outperforms the few-shot prompting methods, i.e., IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS and FEWSHOT-CHATGPT (e.g., about 30 points improvement over Success). This suggests that providing explicit and concise task instructions via task schema is preferable to imparting implicit task guidance through the selected dialog turns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 526, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with Zero-Shot Transfer Methods. Our SGP-TOD demonstrates a substantial advantage over ANYTOD-XXL, which necessitates task-specific pre-training and additional annotations, e.g., slot and action descriptions, over all the metrics. This exemplifies the potency of SGP-TOD, which markedly reduces the necessity for human labor and computational resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 695, + 525, + 776 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 695, + 525, + 776 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 695, + 525, + 776 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with Full-Shot Fine-Tuning Methods. SGP-TOD exhibits competitive performance over Inform and Success. The lower BLEU is due to a lack of linguistic variations of the template utterances, which is acceptable considering the trade-off between human effort and efficacy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13353" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 176 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 176 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 176 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTask transferDomain transfer
F1AccuracyF1Accuracy
Zero-shot transfer (leave-one fine-tuning with 2.5k training dialogs):
BERT+S24.2524.8925.7028.56
SAM49.8251.3055.9157.92
Zero-shot prompting:
SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI45.1847.9947.2149.97
SGP-TOD-GPT3.547.6748.2749.7650.39
SGP-TOD-CODEX49.7851.0152.7253.66
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E50.8450.7453.5053.21
", + "image_path": "606de1f9ca2acb71df8da28bba0feda2b96074e0dea8bff47b2225060f1ea1c1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 254, + 247 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 254, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 254, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 End-to-End Evaluation on RADDLE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. Table 2 reports the results in single-domain settings on RADDLE. On all four dialog tasks, SGP-TOD demonstrates remarkable zero-shot performance that consistently surpasses both few-shot prompting and fine-tuning approaches. This results in substantial improvements of up to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Inform, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "45\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Success, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "19\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Combined metrics, while maintaining competitive BLEU scores. This evidence further substantiates the efficacy of SGP-TOD." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 244, + 409 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 244, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 244, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 End-to-End Evaluation on STAR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 290, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Setup. BERT+S, SAM are fine-tuned on source tasks/domains then zero-shot on the held-out task/domain. SGP-TOD is presented with two formatting turns from the source tasks/domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we report the zero-shot evaluation results in two settings, i.e., task transfer and domain transfer in Table 3. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, demonstrates exceptional performance, surpassing or rivaling SOTA zero-shot transfer methods in both settings. This outcome signifies that, even when faced with complicated business logic and system actions in dialog policies, the proposed SGP-TOD continues to exhibit commendable performance. Additionally, we investigate the impact of changing the number of training dialogs and formatting example turns in Appendix F." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of Different LLMs and Prompt Formats. SGP-TOD-CODEX surpasses SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 while rivaling SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-E2E (with template responses affixed to action labels in the policy prompt, demonstrated in Figure 10 in Appendix M). We conjecture that Codex, benefiting from extensive pre-training on copious code" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 524, + 228 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 291, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 291, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 291, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Zero-shot end-to-end next action prediction evaluation results on STAR. (Difference in mean is significant with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 291, + 221 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 291, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ".)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 524, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 524, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 524, + 228 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFT/FS/ZSRestaurant-Ext
Info.Succ.BLEUBERTS.
Without domain-relevant knowledge
ChatGPTZS44.006.004.3185.96
GPT-3.5ZS34.0016.008.7084.31
With prior knowledge on Restaurant
SOLOISTFT78.000.0010.6287.24
SGP-TOD-CHATGPTZS88.0034.005.4586.11
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5ZS94.0030.0010.6887.30
With knowledge on Restaurant-Ext
SOLOIST+TEACHFT82.0038.0010.9987.66
FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACHFS88.0054.0012.9588.90
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXTZS88.0078.006.2586.15
SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXTZS96.0086.0014.5789.01
", + "image_path": "3dd5f48fb178aae10eaa92101ee1a85783e8368cf76bf230c6a9e4a30eed6ea0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: End-to-end evaluation results on domain extension. FT: fine-tuning, FS: few-shot prompting, ZS: zero-shot prompting, Info.: Inform, Succ.: Success, BERTS.: BERTScore. (Difference in mean is significant with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ".)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "data, demonstrates enhanced proficiency compared to GPT-3.5 in interpreting action labels. In addition, appending template responses is presumed to facilitate the explication of action labels for GPT-3.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of Different Task Schemas. SGP-TOD-CODEX-INI, utilizing an identical task schema as employed in training SAM, manifests commendable performance. This result highlights that SGP-TOD as a flexible prompting strategy, compatible with any manually-crafted task schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 493, + 475 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 493, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 493, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 End-to-End Evaluation on Domain Extension" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Setup. We conduct experiments in a domain extension setting (Gasic et al., 2014; Lipton et al., 2018) to assess the efficacy of SGP-TOD in adapting deployed task bots to incorporate novel functionalities. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the Restaurant in RADDLE with four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. Details are shown in Appendix J." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 604, + 402, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 604, + 402, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 604, + 402, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared Methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 622, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 622, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 622, + 525, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 622, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting that receive two formatting examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 654, + 526, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 654, + 526, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 654, + 526, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 700, + 524, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 700, + 524, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 700, + 524, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in Restaurant domain (reported in Table 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). We deploy SOLOIST to converse with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 ANYTOD-XXL requires additional annotations, e.g., belief descriptions, which makes it not suitable for STAR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13354" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "real users, then implement machine teaching to obtain 10/50/50 annotated dialogs in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. We fine-tune SOLOIST with the gathered 10 training dialogs covering new slots." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 143, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 143, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 143, + 290, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 143, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. We use 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as prompts (with peak performance at 10)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 216, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 216, + 290, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 216, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-EXT refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 290, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. In Table 4, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, and notably SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT surpasses all other evaluated approaches by a substantial margin over all the metrics. This demonstrates the strong adaptability of our SGP-TOD in accommodating novel functionalities, revealing its immense potential for lifelong learning. Two interactive dialog examples are supplied in Appendix K." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with Approaches Augmented by Machine Teaching. SOLOIST yields zero Success, a predictable result given its lack of awareness regarding the new features. Augmented by machine teaching, SOLOIST+TEACH substantially improves SOLOIST in terms of Inform and Success. Nevertheless, relying solely on prior Restaurant knowledge, both SGP-TOD-CHATGPT and SGP-TOD-GP3.5 exhibit performance on par with SOLOIST+TEACH, demonstrating that SGP-TOD provides enhanced robustness in zero-shot generalization. Moreover, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext obtains substantially higher Success rates than SOLOIST+TEACH (a rise of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "48\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and FEW-SHOTGPT3.5+TEACH (an increase of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "32\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Compared to fine-tuning/prompting strategies utilizing additional dialogs corrected through machine teaching, SGP-TOD facilitates a more agile adaptation to novel functionalities by merely modifying template turns within the task schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 239, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 239, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 675, + 239, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Interactive Human Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Setup. We conduct interactive human evaluations on Restaurant domain to evaluate the performance of SOLOIST, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT (reported in Table 2), with 50 dialogs gathered for analysis, respectively. Details can be found in Appendix H." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 528, + 130 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 528, + 130 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 528, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 528, + 130 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelRestaurant
Sw/o g ↑Sw/ g ↑Und. ↑App. ↑T. ↓
SOLOIST34.0030.002.182.1010.64
FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT94.0074.004.584.728.32
SGP-TOD-CHATGPT100.0092.004.864.887.28
", + "image_path": "de58ce1071669b90681643db42e37c151c4cc0fac9f056fb7285c071f1bc3f13.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 176, + 524, + 254 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 525, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 525, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Human evaluation results. S w/o g, S w/ g: Success without / with grounding; Und.: Understanding; App.: Appropriateness; T.: Turns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 176, + 524, + 254 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 176, + 524, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 176, + 524, + 254 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.582.0072.509.2286.47
-policy81.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.6033.906.2942.54
", + "image_path": "e0bfa81686295f4ae5679d6c8a880cf40c027b5d0c4f2c43a914995c2502e77a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 262, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 262, + 525, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 262, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Ablation study results on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz 2.2 using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompt, -DB: removing database expertise, -belief: removing DST Prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. In Table 5, our proposed SGP-TOD-CHATGPT attains a remarkably high performance in a zero-shot context, consistently outpacing SOLOIST and FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT across all metrics. Particularly, regarding Success w/ g, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT significantly surpasses FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT (by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "18\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and SOLOIST (by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "62\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), illustrating its proficiency in accomplishing tasks within real-world scenarios. Furthermore, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance (demonstrated in Appendix I). A detailed analysis is provided in Appendix I." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 401, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 401, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 401, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.7 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 515, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 515, + 525, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 515, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 6, we study the impact of the three components of SGP-TOD (namely, Policy Prompter, DST Prompter, and LLM) as well as the database expertise, on Multiwoz 2.2 utilizing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces the optimal result, underscoring the value of enhancing the LLM with the task schema and external database information. Detailed analyses are provided in Appendix G." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 381, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 381, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 381, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present SGP-TOD, a schema-guided prompting strategy aimed at the expeditious construction of end-to-end task bots, relying exclusively on LLMs and the corresponding task schema. Employing the symbolic knowledge - task schema, SGP-TOD guides fixed LLMs to generate suitable responses for novel tasks in a zero-shot fashion. Empirical findings on four well-studied datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13355" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "reveal that SGP-TOD attains remarkable SOTA zero-shot performance, using both automatic and human evaluations. For future work, we plan to explore the use of SGP-TOD to develop personalized chatbots by utilizing pertinent task schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 131, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 131, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 131, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 171, + 291, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 171, + 291, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 171, + 291, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work is accompanied by two primary limitations. (i) Data contamination (Brown et al., 2020; Madotto et al., 2021) in prompt-based zero-shot learning pertains to the potential presence of test samples during the LLM pre-training phase. Given that data utilized for pre-training LLMs, such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, remains undisclosed and continuously expands, verifying data contamination presents a formidable challenge. Consequently, our research cannot preclude data contamination in the experimental process, deferring a more comprehensive investigation to future endeavors. Nevertheless, we undertake domain-extension experiments (Table 4 in Section 4.5), subjecting our proposed SGP-TOD to evaluation on a novel test set (currently not publicly available), encompassing recently obtained and annotated human-bot dialogs. The remarkable zero-shot performance of SGP-TOD demonstrates its substantial potential for adeptly adapting to innovative functionalities, without reliance on task-specific data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(ii) We employ the manually-crafted task schema as prompts to steer the LLMs towards generating suitable responses on novel tasks. As illustrated in Table 3 of Section 4.4, SGP-TOD exhibits minor performance discrepancies when implementing disparate task schema formulated by various authors. Notwithstanding such variations, our objective is to offer a foundational basis for schemaguided LLM prompting; future research may investigate approaches to designing more efficient task schema, i.e., diverse formats and coverage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 158, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 158, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 158, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Throughout the interactive human evaluations and domain-extension experiments, all participating student helpers were informed of the research objectives prior to the collection and annotation of human-bot dialog logs. Their privacy was ensured to remain protected and undisclosed during the research period. Each participant received equitable remuneration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Promoters utilized in this research incorporate no language that discriminates against specific" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "individuals or groups (Zhou et al., 2022) and avoid any negative impact on users' well-being (Bergman et al., 2022). Instances of these Prompts are provided in Appendix M. Furthermore, subsequent research endeavors may consider utilizing the OpenAI moderation API7 in conjunction with other related APIs to systematically filter out unsuitable user inputs and system responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 190, + 406, + 202 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 190, + 406, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 190, + 406, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This Project is partially supported by the HKSARG General Research Fund (Ref No. 14207619). We would like to express our gratitude to Xiaohan Feng and Haohan Guo for their valuable comments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 502, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 502, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 502, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation/overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13356" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A. Stevie Bergman, Gavin Abercrombie, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Emily Dinan, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. 2022. Guiding the release of safer E2E conversational AI through value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 39-52, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 291, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 291, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 291, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 291, + 503 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 291, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 291, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paweł Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Ultes Stefan, Ramadan Osman, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz - a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 291, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 291, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 291, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Giovanni Campagna, Agata Foryciarz, Mehrad Moradshahi, and Monica Lam. 2020. Zero-shot transfer learning with synthesized data for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 122-132, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzhu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Tao Yu. 2023. Binding language models in symbolic languages. *ICLR*, abs/2210.02875." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 749, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 749, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 749, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 526, + 303 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 526, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 526, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022a. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 310, + 526, + 563 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 310, + 526, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 310, + 526, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022b. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 526, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haixing Dai, Zhengliang Liu, Wenxiong Liao, Xiaoke Huang, Yihan Cao, Zihao Wu, Lin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Wei Liu, Ninghao Liu, Sheng Li, Dajiang Zhu, Hongmin Cai, Lichao Sun, Quanzheng Li, Dinggang Shen, Tianming Liu, and Xiang Li. 2023. Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 643, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 643, + 526, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 643, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13357" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. A survey on in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Milica Gasic, Dongho Kim, Pirros Tsiakoulis, Catherine Breslin, Matthew Henderson, Martin Szummer, Blaise Thomson, and Steve J. Young. 2014. Incremental on-line adaptation of pomdp-based dialogue managers to extended domains. In INTER-SPEECH 2014, 15th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Singapore, September 14-18, 2014, pages 140-144. ISCA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 198, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 198, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 198, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chulaka Gunasekara, Seokhwan Kim, Luis Fernando D'Haro, Abhinav Rastogi, Yun-Nung Chen, Mihail Eric, Behnam Hedayatnia, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Yang Liu, Chao-Wei Huang, et al. 2020. Overview of the ninth dialog system technology challenge: Dstc9. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06486." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wanwei He, Yinpei Dai, Yinhe Zheng, Yuchuan Wu, Zheng Cao, Dermot Liu, Peng Jiang, Min Yang, Fei Huang, Luo Si, et al. 2022. Galaxy: A generative pre-trained model for task-oriented dialog with semi-supervised learning and explicit policy injection. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 290, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 290, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A. Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. Incontext learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2627-2643, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vojtech Hudecek and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Are llms all you need for task-oriented dialogue? CoRR, abs/2304.06556." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 546, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 546, + 290, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 546, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mihir Kale and Abhinav Rastogi. 2020. Template guided text generation for task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6505-6520. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zekun Li, Wenhu Chen, Shiyang Li, Hong Wang, Jing Qian, and Xifeng Yan. 2022. Controllable dialogue simulation with in-context learning. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4330-4347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaobo Liang, Chenfei Wu, Ting Song, Wenshan Wu, Yan Xia, Yu Liu, Yang Ou, Shuai Lu, Lei Ji, Shaoguang Mao, Yun Wang, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Nan Duan. 2023. Taskmatrix.ai: Completing tasks by connecting foundation models with millions of apis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Zhenpeng Zhou, Paul A Crook, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7890-7900." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 525, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul A Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue statetracking. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5640-5648." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 525, + 319 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 525, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 525, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zachary Lipton, Xiujun Li, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, Faisal Ahmed, and Li Deng. 2018. BBQ-networks: Efficient exploration in deep reinforcement learning for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 416 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 424, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 424, + 525, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 424, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 525, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shikib Mehri, Yasemin Altun, and Maxine Eskenazi. 2022. LAD: Language models as data for zero-shot dialog. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 595-604, Edinburgh, UK. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. 2021. Schemaguided paradigm for zero-shot dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.07056." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes EM Mosig, Shikib Mehri, and Thomas Kober. 2020. Star: A schema-guided dialog dataset for transfer learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11853." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 525, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maxwell I. Nye, Michael Henry Tessler, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Brenden M. Lake. 2021. Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual-system, neuro-symbolic reasoning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 25192-25204." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 730, + 525, + 753 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 730, + 525, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 730, + 525, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2022. large-scale generative pre-training model for conversation. OpenAI blog." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 760, + 458, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 760, + 458, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 760, + 458, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13358" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 291, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 291, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 291, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Jinchao Li, Shahin Shayan-deh, Lars Liden, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021a. Soloist: Building task bots at scale with transfer learning and machine teaching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:807-824." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 290, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Jinchao Li, Chenguang Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021b. Synergy: Building task bots at scale using symbolic knowledge and machine teaching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11514." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Zhu Zhang, Chenguang Zhu, Jinchao Li, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021c. RADDLE: an evaluation benchmark and analysis platform for robust task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4418-4429. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Qian and Zhou Yu. 2019. Domain adaptive dialog generation via meta learning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2639-2649, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020a. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In *The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8689-8696. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020b. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8689-8696." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 525, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sharan Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohiuddin, Curtis Hawthorne, Aitor Lewkowycz, Alex Salcianu, Marc van Zee, Jacob Austin, Sebastian Goodman, Livio Baldini Soares, Haitang Hu, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Jasmina Bastings, Jannis Bulian, Xavier Garcia, Jianmo Ni, Andrew Chen, Kathleen Kenealy, Jonathan H. Clark, Stephan Lee, Dan Garrette, James Lee-Thorp, Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Marvin Ritter, Maarten Bosma, Alexandre Passos, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard, Noah Fiedel, Mark Omernick, Brennan Saeta, Ryan Sepassi, Alexander Spiridonov, Joshua Newlan, and Andrea Gesmundo. 2022. Scaling up models and data with t5x and seqio." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 525, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Darsh J Shah, Raghav Gupta, Amir A Fayazi, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Robust zero-shot cross-domain slot filling with example values. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06870." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 587, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 587, + 525, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 587, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Shin and Benjamin Van Durme. 2022. Few-shot semantic parsing with language models trained on code. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5417-5425, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Swadheen Shukla, Lars Liden, Shahin Shayandeh, Eslam Kamal, Jinchao Li, Matt Mazzola, Thomas Park, Baolin Peng, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Conversation Learner - a machine teaching tool for building dialog managers for task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 343-349, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13359" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrice Y. Simard, Saleema Amershi, David Maxwell Chickering, Alicia Edelman Pelton, Soroush Ghorashi, Christopher Meek, Gonzalo A. Ramos, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Mo Wang, and John Werns-ing. 2017. Machine teaching: A new paradigm for building machine learning systems. CoRR, abs/1707.06742." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 159, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 159, + 291, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 159, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yixuan Su, Lei Shu, Elman Mansimov, Arshit Gupta, Deng Cai, Yi-An Lai, and Yi Zhang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training for plug-and-play task-oriented dialogue system. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 225, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 225, + 290, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 225, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haipeng Sun, Junwei Bao, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2022. Mars: Semantic-aware contrastive learning for end-to-end task-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08917." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jindong Wang, Xixu Hu, Wenxin Hou, Hao Chen, Runkai Zheng, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Haojun Huang, Wei Ye, Xiubo Geng, Binxin Jiao, Yue Zhang, and Xing Xie. 2023. On the robustness of chatgpt: An adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 345, + 290, + 422 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 345, + 290, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 345, + 290, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qingyue Wang, Yanan Cao, Piji Li, Yanhe Fu, Zheng Lin, and Li Guo. 2022a. Slot dependency modeling for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 510-520, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Atharva Naik, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Anjana Arunkumar, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Supernaturalinstructions: Generalization via declarative instructions on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1600+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5085-5109." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason D. Williams and Lars Liden. 2017. Demonstration of interactive teaching for end-to-end dialog control with hybrid code networks. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, Saarbrücken, Germany, August 15-17, 2017, pages 82-85. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 808-819, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I. Wang, Victor Zhong, Bailin Wang, Chengzu Li, Connor Boyle, Ansong Ni, Ziyu Yao, Dragomir Radev, Caiming Xiong, Lingpeng Kong, Rui Zhang, Noah A. Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Tao Yu. 2022. UnifiedSKG: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 602-631, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 224, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 224, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 224, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dian Yu, Luheng He, Yuan Zhang, Xinya Du, Panupong Pasupat, and Qi Li. 2021. Few-shot intent classification and slot filling with retrieved examples. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 734-749. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoxue Zang, Abhinav Rastogi, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, Jianguo Zhang, and Jindong Chen. 2020. MultiWOZ 2.2: A dialogue dataset with additional annotation corrections and state tracking baselines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 109-117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 471, + 525, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 471, + 525, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 471, + 525, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoying Zhang, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Helen Meng. 2022. Toward self-learning end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 516-530." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 535, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 535, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 535, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yichi Zhang, Zhijian Ou, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Task-oriented dialog systems that consider multiple appropriate responses under the same context. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9604-9611." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Zhao, Yuan Cao, Raghav Gupta, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Mingqiu Wang, Hagen Soltau, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Anytod: A programmable task-oriented dialog system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09939." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 663, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 663, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 663, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tiancheng Zhao and Maxine Eskenazi. 2018. Zero-shot dialog generation with cross-domain latent actions. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 1-10, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13360" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Helen Meng. 2022. Towards identifying social bias in dialog systems: Framework, dataset, and benchmark. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3576-3591, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 73, + 437, + 81 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 73, + 437, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 73, + 437, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DST Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 89, + 379, + 98 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 89, + 379, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 89, + 379, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task instruction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 105, + 498, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 105, + 498, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 105, + 498, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following the instructions, predict the belief state based on the history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 129, + 387, + 137 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 129, + 387, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 129, + 387, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Belief instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 144, + 506, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 144, + 506, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 144, + 506, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "restaurant name = pizza hut city, golden wok, etc.; food = dont care, chinese, mediterranean, british, etc.; pricerange = dontcare, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; booking_day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7; booking_time = 12:15, 13:30, etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 196, + 504, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 196, + 504, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 196, + 504, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "attraction attraction type = swimmingpool, theatre, architecture, museum, nightclub, boat, park, college, concerthall, entertainment, multiple sports, cinema; name = the cherry hinton village centre, soul tree nightclub, etc.; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 241, + 505, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 241, + 505, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 241, + 505, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "```python\nhotel name = huntingdon marriott hotel, a and b guest house, etc.; pricerange = dont care, cheap, moderate, expensive; area = dont care, centre, east, north, south, west; stars = dont care, 0,1,2,3,4,5; parking = dont care, yes, no; internet = dont care, yes, no; type = hotel, guest house; booking_day = monday, tuesday, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc.; booking Stay = 1,2,3,4,etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 301, + 504, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 301, + 504, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 301, + 504, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "train leaveat = 10:45, 12:06, etc.; destination = norwich, cambridge, etc.; day = monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday; arriveby = 21:00, 09:45, etc.; departure = cambridge, stansted airport, etc.; booking_people = 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "taxi leaveat " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= 08:45" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 16:15,etc.;destination " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "=" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " saint john's college,kettle's yard,galleria,etc.;departure " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "=" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " huntingdon marriot taxi,cineworld cinema,bridge guest house,etc.;arriveby " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= 17:15" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 345, + 508, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 17:30,etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 389, + 330, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 389, + 330, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 389, + 330, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "···" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 414, + 524, + 427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 414, + 524, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 414, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 492, + 475 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 492, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 492, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Zero-Shot Task-Oriented Dialog Modeling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7 summarizes four main research directions in zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling: slot filling (SF), dialog state tracking (DST), end-to-end policy management (E2E policy) and end-to-end dialog generation (E2E dialog)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 559, + 504, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 559, + 504, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 559, + 504, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Detailed Belief Instructions in DST Prompter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 524, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 524, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 524, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4 shows the detailed belief instructions in DST Prompter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 631, + 491, + 659 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 631, + 491, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 631, + 491, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C A Formatting Example in Policy Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 524, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 524, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 524, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5 presents a formatting example in Policy Prompter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 703, + 428, + 717 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 703, + 428, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 703, + 428, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 725, + 348, + 735 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 725, + 348, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 725, + 348, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Multiwoz 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multi-domain task-oriented dataset, which" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13361" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 316 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 316 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTaskSchema typesTraining strategy
Fine-tuningPre-trainingPrompting
ROBUSTSF (Shah et al., 2019)SFslot names/value examples✓
TRADE (Wu et al., 2019)DSTslot names/value examples✓
ZSTL-SD (Campaigna et al., 2020)DSTontology, dialog templates✓(+synthesized data)
S-DST (Rastogi et al., 2020b)DSTslot names/descriptionss+service, intent names/descriptionss✓
T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b)DSTslot names/descriptionss✓
TRANSFERQA (Lin et al., 2021a)DSTslot names/value examples✓(QA tasks)
IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022)DSTslot names/value examples✓
SDM-DST (Wang et al., 2022a)DSTslot names/value examples✓
BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020)E2E policysystem-side policy skeletons✓
SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021)E2E policyuser-aware policy skeletons✓
ZSDG (Zhao and Eskenazi, 2018)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
DAML (Qian and Yu, 2019)E2E dialogontology, response templates✓
ANYTOD (Zhao et al., 2022)E2E dialogpolicy programs+slot names/value examples+slot descriptions+user action names/states/descriptionss✓✓(heterogeneous tasks)
IG-TOD (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023)E2E dialogslot names+slot descriptions✓
SGP-TOD (ours)E2E dialoguser-aware policy skeletons(+slot names/value examples)✓
", + "image_path": "e23ca6a2992e5e9458da8a8a26ac0104637082bad533d8056ba14b3eab0778f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 525, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 525, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 525, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Zero-shot task-oriented dialog modeling. (Schema items enclosed in parentheses are required only when accessible.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 365, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 365, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 365, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "contains 8,438/1,000/1,000 dialogs for training-validating/testing, spanning seven domains: restaurant, attraction, train, hotel, taxi, police, and hospital. Multiwoz 2.0 is annotated with belief states and system actions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 439, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 439, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 439, + 291, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 439, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Multiwoz 2.2 (Zang et al., 2020) is a improved version of Multiwoz 2.0, encompassing refined belief state annotations, slot descriptions, user action annotations, etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 291, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 497, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021a,c) consists of four single-domain dialog datasets derived from Multiwoz 2.0 (i.e., restaurant, train, hotel, attraction), reorganized by Peng et al. (2021a). Each corpus contains 50/50/200 dialogs for training-validating/testing, expect for 100 testing dialogs in attraction domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 597, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 597, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 597, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- STAR (Mosig et al., 2020) includes 24 tasks in 13 domains (e.g., \"apartment\" domain comprises \"apartment-search\" and \"apartment-schedule\"), requiring the dialog model to conform to the provided task schema. We use 2,688 single-task dialogs from the corpus, which follow a \"happy path\", i.e., the user is not instructed to execute any action exceeding the schema's expectations. Without additional annotations, STAR only provides a flow chart diagram that outlines the dialog policy for each task. The flow chart outlines the task, including the sequence in which at" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 365, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 365, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 365, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tributes should be asked (for example, ask for the user's name before asking for the hotel name), how to query a database, etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 526, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Evaluation Metrics. We evaluate the end-to-end dialog generation performance using the same metrics as those listed in Budzianowski et al. (2018): (i) Inform(\\%) assesses whether the agent returns an acceptable entity. (ii) Success(\\%) determines if the agent appropriately responds to each attribute request. (iii) BLEU(\\%) (Papineni et al., 2002) measures the word overlap of the generated response against the human response in the corpus. (iv) Combined(\\%) judges the overall quality, which is defined as Combined = (Inform + Success) × 0.5 + BLEU. Additionally, we utilize BERTScore(\\%) (Zhang* et al., 2020), which focuses on computing semantic similarity between the generated responses and the ground truth, and correlates better with human judgments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Mehri and Eskenazi (2021), we perform the next action prediction task on STAR, which predicts next system action based on the dialog history. Since the system actions and deterministic response templates are mapped one to one in STAR corpus, we believe the end-to-end next action prediction task falls within end-to-end dialog modeling, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In addition, we report the results using weighted F1score(%) and mean accuracy(%)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13362" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 73, + 205, + 81 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 73, + 205, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 73, + 205, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Policy Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 89, + 143, + 98 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 89, + 143, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 89, + 143, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task instruction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 105, + 268, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 105, + 268, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 105, + 268, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following the instructions, generate appropriate response based on the history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 132, + 245, + 141 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 132, + 245, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 132, + 245, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 146, + 124, + 153 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 146, + 124, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 146, + 124, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Policy skeleton" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 161, + 270, + 384 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 161, + 270, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 161, + 270, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 161, + 270, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) user: I'm looking for information on [attraction_name]. action: attraction (inform (name, address, area, entrance fee)) system: [attraction_name] is in the [value_area] and their address is [attraction_address], the entrance fee is [value_count] pounds. [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 208, + 264, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 208, + 264, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 208, + 264, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: What is the phone number? action: attraction (inform phone), require (more)) system: Their phone number is [attraction_phone]. is there anything else i can do for you? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 254, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 254, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 254, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: I need the area/location and the postcode. action: attraction (inform (area, postcode)) system: The [attraction_name] is in the [value_area], their postal code is [attraction_postcode]. [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 276, + 265, + 301 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 276, + 265, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 276, + 265, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(4) user: That is all i need today. thank you! action: attraction (general (bye)) system: You are welcome , thank you for calling the [value_place] town info [value_area]. have a great day. [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 306, + 268, + 331 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 306, + 268, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 306, + 268, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(5) DB: attraction zero match. action: attraction (inform (none)) system: There are no results matching your query. Can i try a different area or type? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 337, + 263, + 354 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 337, + 263, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 337, + 263, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(6) DB: attraction one match. action: attraction (inform (name)) system: We have [attraction_name]. [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 360, + 268, + 384 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 360, + 268, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 360, + 268, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(7) DB: attraction five match. action: attraction (inform (choices), request (area)) system: There are [value_count], which area were you looking at? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 391, + 107, + 399 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 391, + 107, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 391, + 107, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 270, + 496 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 265, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 265, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 265, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: Hello, i'm looking for the museum of classical archaeology, could you tell me more about it? system: Certainly, the [attraction_name] is located at [attraction_address] and has free entrance, phone [attraction_phone]. do you also need the postcode? user: Yes, i'd like that. thank you so much!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 449, + 266, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 449, + 266, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 449, + 266, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQL: select * from attraction where name = museum of classical archaeology DB: Attraction one match" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 472, + 270, + 496 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 472, + 270, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 472, + 270, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "action:attraction (inform (postcode),require (more)) system:The postcode for the [attribution_name] is [attribution_postcode].Is there anything else i can help you with?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 536, + 283, + 548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 536, + 283, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 536, + 283, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: A formatting example in Policy Prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation Metrics. We employ interactive human evaluations to assess the quality of dialog agents, following the evaluation protocol in the DSTC9 Track 1 challenge (Gunasekara et al., 2020). We recruit student helpers to help with evaluations. For each dialog session, student helpers are provided with a goal and accompanying instructions, subsequently necessitating a discourse with the agent to achieve the goal via natural language. Upon the conclusion of each dialog session, students are mandated to assess the overall dialog quality employing these five metrics: (i) Success w/o g(%) evaluates whether the agent accomplishes the task. (ii) Success w/ g(%) judges whether the agent accomplishes the task and of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fers matched slot values compared to the database record. (iii) Understanding(1-5) quantifies the accuracy with which the agent comprehends user utterances. (iv) Appropriateness(1-5) signifies the naturalness, appropriateness and fluency of an agent response. (v) Turns denotes the average number of dialog turns within successful dialog sessions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 189, + 446, + 202 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 189, + 446, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 189, + 446, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 210, + 414, + 223 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 210, + 414, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 210, + 414, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Regarding SGP-TOD:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 232, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 27, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 232, + 526, + 312 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 232, + 526, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 232, + 526, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- LLMs: We employ ChatGPT (\"gpt-3.5-turbo\"), GPT-3.5 (\"text-davinci-003\") and Codex (\"code-davinci-002\") as the fixed LLMs to implement the proposed SGP-TOD. Throughout the evaluation, we set temperature to 0.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 317, + 526, + 398 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 317, + 526, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 317, + 526, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- DST Prompt - belief instruction: In the context of multi-domain scenarios, the belief instructions encompassing all domains are incorporated, while solely the target domain's belief instruction is introduced in single-domain settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 403, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 403, + 525, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 403, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Policy Prompt - policy skeleton: For the Multiwoz datasets, we manually construct the policy skeleton through observing a few dialogs in the training corpus, following Mosig et al. (2020); Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). In the case of the STAR corpus, we employ flow chart diagrams and several dialogs to develop the policy skeleton, following the guidelines set forth by Mehri and Eskenazi (2021). We integrate the relevant user template utterance and the system action into the policy skeleton, thereby augmenting the LLM's understanding of directives, in the absence of belief annotations. The prompt examples for the STAR dataset are shown in Appendix M." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Formatting example: Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. The formatting example employed within DST Prompter/Policy Prompter is randomly chosen from the training corpus of different tasks/domains, conforming to zero-shot scenario proposed by Wang et al. (2022b). We appraise multiple randomly selected formatting examples, the evaluation results reveal minor deviations. In the experiments on domain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13363" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "extension (Section 4.5) and ablation analysis (Section 4.7), we employ the same (two) formatting exemplar turns originating from other domains within the RADDLE corpus for all prompting techniques." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 216, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 216, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 149, + 216, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Regarding compared methods:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 216, + 185 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 216, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 216, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(i) Zero-shot transfer methods:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 195, + 291, + 503 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 195, + 290, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 195, + 290, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 195, + 290, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- BERT+S (Mosig et al., 2020) is a schemaguided method that augments a BERT-base classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) with a provided system-side schema to predict the next system action." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 268, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 268, + 290, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 268, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SAM (Mehri and Eskenazi, 2021) represents a schema-guided model based on BERT-base, which aligns the dialog context to a user-aware schema to predict the next system action." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 327, + 291, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 327, + 291, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 327, + 291, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- ANYTOD-XXL (Zhao et al., 2022) adopts a neural LM to track dialog states and user actions utilizing slot and action descriptions. Then a program that outlines a predefined task policy is executed to recommend appropriate system actions. Upon considering these system actions, an LM generates the ultimate system action and formulates the corresponding template response using the approach proposed by Kale and Rastogi (2020). ANYTOD-XXL is implemented on T5-XXL (Roberts et al., 2022) and pre-trained on SGD dataset (Rastogi et al., 2020a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 327, + 291, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 514, + 185, + 528 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 514, + 185, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 514, + 185, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(ii) Prompting methods:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 291, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- IG-TOD-CHATGPT (Hudecek and Dusek, 2023) is a prompting approach based on ChatGPT that leverages the dialog context and manually-crafted slot descriptions as the prompt, to track dialog states, fetch DB entries, and produce responses. IG-TOD-CHATGPT-ZS and IG-TOD-CHATGPT-FS are in the zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 665, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 665, + 291, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 665, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT is a few-shot prompting strategy implemented on ChatGPT, where we use a few (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 665, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 665, + 291, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") dialog turns, randomly sampled from the training corpus to instruct ChatGPT on task execution. Upon evaluating" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "various configurations of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the optimal results manifest with 15 on Multiwoz (2.0 and 2.2), and 10 on RADDLE, exhibiting no further substantial enhancements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 129, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 129, + 526, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 129, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SGP-TOD (Ours) is a schema-guided prompting strategy, which is compatible with any off-the-shelf LLMs. In this paper, we employ ChatGPT (\"gpt-3.5-turbo\"), GPT-3.5 (\"text-davinci-003\") and Codex (\"codedavinci-002\") as the fixed LLMs. Following the zero-shot scenario in Wang et al. (2022b), we insert one formatting example from different tasks (fixed through the experimental procedure) into the prompt. More implementation details are provided in Appendix E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 287, + 500, + 314 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 287, + 500, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 287, + 500, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Zero-Shot End-to-End Evaluation Results on STAR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6 exhibits the zero-shot evaluation results on STAR, utilizing varying amounts of training dialogs (ranging from 1 to 1,000) and formatting example turns (spanning from 1 to 10) from source domains/tasks. SGP-TOD, merely with two formatting sample turns, achieves superior or comparable performance compared to BERT+S, SAM, which are fine-tuned on adequate source data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We observe that SGP-TOD, employing only two formatting sample turns, attains superior or commensurate performance in terms of both F1score and Accuracy, when compared to SAM trained with 1,000 dialogs. Given that a single dialog contains more than 10 dialog turns, this result suggests that SGP-TOD diminishes labeling expenses by a minimum factor of 1,000. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that augmenting the quantity of formatting exemplar turns exerts a negligible influence on the performance of SGP-TOD." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 405, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 405, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 405, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 exhibits the findings from an ablation investigation, addressing the effects of the three integral aspects of SGP-TOD in conjunction with the database expertise, implemented on Multiwoz 2.0 and 2.2, employing GPT-3.5. Combining the three elements in SGP-TOD with the database expertise produces optimal results across both datasets. The removal of the Policy Prompter, database knowledge, and DST Prompter leads to consistent declines in all evaluation metrics, underscoring the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9We inject the same two formatting example turns into the prompt throughout the evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8The Schema-Guided Dialog (SGD) dataset constitutes a comprehensive, large-scale, multi-domain corpus encompassing over 16,000 dialogs that span across 16 distinct domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13364" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 77, + 291, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 77, + 291, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 77, + 291, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 77, + 291, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7e137f02489fb56bd43286ce987898256a44d649264a8c4a3c925e81209049e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 247, + 216, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 247, + 216, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 247, + 216, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Task transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 77, + 520, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 77, + 520, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 77, + 520, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 77, + 520, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "978d9deab0e162fec860e455ae43b219c23bf463aaa67c817c8e566fa84435af.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 247, + 452, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 247, + 452, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 247, + 452, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Domain transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 291, + 431 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 291, + 431 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 291, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 291, + 431 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d73b187c1733c199dbfc9325cfce1b1836e5d7ceb3d24bb707bf2bfcd4005aa0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 433, + 215, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 433, + 215, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 433, + 215, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Task transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 520, + 431 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 520, + 431 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 520, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 520, + 431 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "117c9f062cc70de1892b6c16965b16e39c67e2a7884543f7b297bf57a96b5794.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 433, + 452, + 443 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 433, + 452, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 433, + 452, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) Domain transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 526, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 526, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Zero-shot end-to-end evaluation results on STAR with different numbers of training dialogs (1, 10, 100, 1,000) / demonstration example turns (1, 10) from source domain/tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "value of enhancing the fixed LLM with the task schema and external database information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, GPT-3.5 (in the final row) exhibits commendable zero-shot performance, highlighting the need of exploiting its superior zero-shot generalization capabilities in dialog generation tasks. Additionally, Disabling the Policy Prompt incurs a discernible decline in performance regarding Success (approximately " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and BLEU (roughly " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), as the Policy Prompt's primary function is to provide task completion guidelines and interaction patterns. Eliminating the database expertise primarily reduces Success (by approximately " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), implying that incorporating database information contributes to task completion. Lastly, excising the DST Prompt engenders a considerable diminution in performance concerning Inform (around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "43\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and Success (nearly " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "18\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), due to the DST Prompt's intended purpose of assisting the frozen LLM in apprehending the dialog context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 464, + 514 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 464, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 464, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "H Human Evaluation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We enlisted 5 student helpers (i.e., undergraduate students possessing basic proficiency in English communication) to participate in the evaluations. For each dialog agent, we collected 50 dialogs for analysis. Followed the methodology proposed by Li et al. (2022), we generated user goals through the subsequent techniques: (i) Randomly selecting slots and slot values within the Restaurant domain from RADDLE corpus to construct a user goal; (ii) Replacing the slot values of the user goals in randomly chosen dialogs from the Restaurant corpus with corresponding new values from randomly sampled database entries, thus forming a new user goal; (iii) Merging the user goals of several randomly selected dialogs from the Restaurant corpus to create a composite user goal. Lastly, we randomly chose 50 distinct user goals from these newly generated goals." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13365" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 488, + 148 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 488, + 148 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 488, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 68, + 488, + 148 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMultiwoz 2.0Multiwoz 2.2
InformSuccessBLEUCombinedInformSuccessBLEUCombined
SP-TOD-GPT3.583.8869.879.0985.9782.0072.509.2286.47
-policy82.2855.656.5175.4881.8056.206.6375.63
-policy -DB81.2050.956.4872.5681.4052.306.5773.42
-policy -DB -belief38.7433.136.1842.1238.6033.906.2942.54
", + "image_path": "5b64f50ecc45b6c655ff45336c514a619b91696e3e5289d7d375242e6044364f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 526, + 192 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 526, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Ablation study on the impact of the three components in the proposed SGP-TOD and the database expertise on Multiwoz using GPT-3.5. -policy: removing Policy Prompter, -DB: removing database information, -belief: removing DST Prompter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 225, + 223 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 225, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 225, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I Human Evaluation Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7 shows the interactive human evaluation results. SGP-TOD-CHATGPT exhibits a more stable performance. In contrast to the automated evaluation results shown in Table 2, FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT significantly outperforms SOLOIST over all metrics. This indicates that corpus-based evaluations might be biased, given that real user inputs tend to be more dynamic, complex, even with noise. Notably, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT consistently excels compared to the other methods in both evaluations, implying its robustness in handling diverse user inputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 277, + 429 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 277, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 277, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "J More Details and Results on Domain Extension" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Setup. Following Zhang et al. (2022), we construct the Restaurant-ext corpus by extending the pre-existing Restaurant in RADDLE (Peng et al., 2021c) with additional functions. Specifically, we introduce four new slots: [restaurant_dish], [value_price], [start_time], and [end_time]. The initial slot pertains to recommendations for signature restaurant meals, while the final three concern delivery service details. All database entries are updated with corresponding values. Table 10 exhibits a dialog example on domain extension. The associated Restaurant-Ext database entry is illustrated in Table 9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 623, + 167, + 635 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 623, + 167, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 623, + 167, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared Methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 645, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 645, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 645, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 645, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- ChatGPT, GPT-3.5 denote zero-shot prompting with base LLMs that receive merely two formatting example turns from other domains in RADDLE." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 645, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{10}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 703, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 703, + 290, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 703, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT, SGP-TOD-GPT3.5 represent our SGP-TOD implementation, with the Restaurant policy skeleton." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 211, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 211, + 524, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 211, + 524, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 211, + 524, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SOLOIST is trained with 50 training dialogs in the Restaurant domain (previously reported in Table 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 255, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 255, + 525, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 255, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SOLOIST+TEACH is fine-tuning method enhanced with machine teaching (Simard et al., 2017). Machine teaching is an efficient approach to equip deployed task bots with the ability to handle new functions by correcting representative failed human-bot dialogs. We deploy SOLOIST to converse with real users, then implement machine teaching via Conversational learner (Shukla et al., 2020), an effective machine teaching tool, to obtain 10/50/50 examples in Restaurant-ext for training, validating, and testing. Finally, we fine-tune SOLOIST with gathered 10 training dialogs covering four new slots, resulting in dialog agent SOLOIST+TEACH." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- FEW-SHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH is the few-shot prompting strategy augmented with machine teaching. Based on GPT-3.5, we utilize 10 randomly selected dialog turns from the collected 10 training dialogs as the prompt (with peak performance at 10), resulting in FEWSHOT-GPT3.5+TEACH." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT, SGP-TOD-GP3.5-Ext refer to SGP-TOD with Restaurant-Ext policy skeleton, where we only add four template turns about four new slots to the policy skeleton of Restaurant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. Comparison with Base LLMs. The substantial improvement of SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT and SGP-TOD-GPT3.5-EXT over ChatGPT and GPT-3.5 illustrates SGP-TOD's efficiency in supplying task-specific knowledge in a zero-shot way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of Different LLMs. SGP-TODCHATGPT-EXT attains a lower BLEU yet a comparable BERTScore, suggesting that ChatGPT generates more diverse responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10We utilize the same formatting example turns in all zero-shot prompting methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13366" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 166, + 196 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 166, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 166, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 75, + 166, + 196 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3cbdf3b1513ee9f96fecc4c728499a947c0b85bf3068aa2ef178542059a9c198.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 210, + 160, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 210, + 160, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 210, + 160, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Success w/o g ↑" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 75, + 254, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 75, + 254, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 75, + 254, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 75, + 254, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1b326e76977705fe2590979ae990c490fdccf84470d4f4cb1f6df8f16d164f7c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 210, + 244, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 210, + 244, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 210, + 244, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Success w/ g ↑" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 257, + 76, + 341, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 76, + 341, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 76, + 341, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 76, + 341, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f6f85da5f3f15a5499c0d3af27c71554fb8667e4caf4bbd88c8f7db8dcbfccdd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 259, + 210, + 334, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 259, + 210, + 334, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 259, + 210, + 334, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Understanding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 526, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 526, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Interactive human evaluation results. SOLO.: SOLOIST, FS.: FEW-SHOT-CHATGPT, SGP.: SGP-TOD-CHATGPT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 76, + 427, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 76, + 427, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 76, + 427, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 76, + 427, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "89175ae70b826217c987becd91e980100eb09425e9bd43786d2f220a7ab72e2c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 210, + 424, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 210, + 424, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 210, + 424, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) Appropriateness " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 210, + 424, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\uparrow" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 431, + 76, + 514, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 76, + 514, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 76, + 514, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 76, + 514, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bf9a90d6dab578f2777f2864788e94c5b4a92a8b02d016faf87888216ac4a2ce.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 210, + 491, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 210, + 491, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 210, + 491, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(e)Turns " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 449, + 210, + 491, + 221 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\downarrow" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 101, + 277, + 257, + 435 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 277, + 257, + 435 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 277, + 257, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 277, + 257, + 435 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SlotValue
"address""21 - 24 Northampton Street"
"area""west"
"food""british"
"id""14810"
"location"[52.21031, 0.11381]
"name""saint johns chop house"
"phone""01223353110"
"postcode""cb30ad"
"pricerange""moderate"
"type""restaurant"
"delivery""Yes"
"delivery fee""6 pounds"
"dish""Beef Wellington"
"start_time""10:30 am"
"end_time""22:40 pm"
", + "image_path": "17130e0434bb326e12f37420d8230959549838c5e5185e8ee801eeb4f7a9298e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 480 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: An example of Restaurant-Ext DB entry. The newly introduced slot-value pairs relevant to the extended functionality are highlighted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 497, + 149, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 497, + 149, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 497, + 149, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "K Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the superior performance of the proposed SGP-TOD on GPT-3.5, we showcase interactive examples utilizing ChatGPT, a renowned and potent chatbot. In Table 11, a user engages with ChatGPT (left) and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right) to complete the identical task on Restaurant-Ext." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{11}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " The user initiates the conversation by seeking recommendations for a Tuscan restaurant with no price range preference. Lacking external database information, ChatGPT conveys inaccurate details (Turn 2), whereas SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT informs users of the absence of matching restaurants and proposes alternatives (Turn 2). This exemplifies the benefits of integrating real-world expertise into the fixed LLM. Furthermore, ChatGPT persistently inquires about" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the desired price range despite the user's indifference. We argue that SGP-TOD assists the frozen LLM in discerning user intentions. In Turn 4, ChatGPT continues to furnish fabricated details (i.e., the restaurant name and phone number) concerning the nonexistent eatery, while SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT identifies a suitable Korean restaurant and the corresponding factual information. In contrast with ChatGPT, SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT adeptly addresses inquiries about the delivery service (Turn 6), indicating that SGP-TOD is capable of endowing the frozen LLM with novel functionalities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 480 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "L Our Proposed SGP-TOD with a Dialog Example" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 525, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8 illustrates the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 508, + 538 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 508, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 508, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M Prompt Examples for STAR Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 524, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 524, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 524, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Two exemplars of prompts for STAR dataset are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT and SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT are previously reported in Table 4. The same two formatting example turns are incorporated into the prompt for both zero-shot strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13367" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 505, + 202 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 505, + 202 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 505, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 505, + 202 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TurnUtterance
1User: I want a restaurant on the west end of town.
2System: Ok. Are you looking for any particular type of food?
3User: I don't care.
4System: Are you looking for a particular price range?
5User: A moderately priced restaurant would be good.
6System: How about Saint Johns Chop House? They serve moderately priced British food on the west side of town.
7User: Can i please have their address and phone number?
8System: Saint Johns Chop House's address is 21-24 Northampton Street, their phone number is 01223353110.
9User: Does the restaurant offers delivery service? If it does, what's the delivery fee?
10System: Yes, it does, and the delivery charges 6 pounds.
11User: Thank you, goodbye.
12System: Thank you for using our system. Goodbye.
", + "image_path": "60223a566d67c67c531f353fec537442dc187494427c33c9fc3faa4a257874b0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 521, + 441 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 526, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 526, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 210, + 526, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: A dialog example on domain extension. Task bots need learn to provide pertinent responses concerning the expanded delivery service in subsequent interaction turns, adapting to the continually evolving user/enterprise demands." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 521, + 441 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 521, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 521, + 441 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TurnInteraction between a user and ChatGPTTurnInteraction between a user and SP-TOD-ChatGPT-Ext
1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.1User: Hi, i'm looking for a place with Tuscan food in any price range.
2System: Certainly, there are 3 Tuscan restaurants in town. What is your preferred price range?2System: I am sorry, there are no Tuscan restaurants. Here are some other options: Korean, Italian, Chinese. Which one would you like more information on?
3User: I don't care about the price. Please recommend one for me, i also need the phone number please.3User: How about any Korean restaurants? I also need the phone number please.
4System: The phone number for Pizza Hut City Centre is 01223323737. Is there anything else i can help you with today?4System: Little Seoul is a Korean restaurant. Their phone number is 01223308681.
5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?5User: Does the restaurant offer delivery service? How much does the delivery charge?
6System: I'm sorry, but I could not find any information on delivery fee in our database. You may want to contact the restaurant directly to inquire about this. Is there anything else I can assist you with today?6System: Yes, they offer delivery service and the delivery charge is 4 pounds. Can I help you with anything else?
7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.7User: No. Thank you, goodbye.
8System: Glad i could assist you. Have a good day.8System: You're welcome, have a great meal! Goodbye!
", + "image_path": "5c735f893fe65f835a5dceecf34cf88348d9699e8e9ea7e63570c0b4445e71cb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 525, + 475 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 525, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Illustration of two interactive examples between a user and CHATGPT (left), SGP-TOD-CHATGPT-EXT (right). Appropriate responses and inappropriate responses are highlighted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 486, + 514, + 707 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 486, + 514, + 707 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 486, + 514, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 486, + 514, + 707 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "711ee537a0ff2b321768070906a272a68796a2bff8b062acf12b09b943f48d74.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 525, + 740 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Illustration of the proposed SGP-TOD with a dialog example. Note that the belief state in the represented in the SQL format, the details of which are described in Section 3.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13368" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 167, + 205, + 176 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 167, + 205, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 167, + 205, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Policy Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 185, + 142, + 193 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 185, + 142, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 185, + 142, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task instruction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 200, + 276, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 200, + 276, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 200, + 276, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 225, + 244, + 235 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 225, + 244, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 225, + 244, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 240, + 124, + 248 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 240, + 124, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 240, + 124, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task schema" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 253, + 257, + 306 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 253, + 219, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 253, + 219, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 253, + 219, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 268, + 257, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 268, + 257, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 268, + 257, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 289, + 230, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 289, + 230, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 289, + 230, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: ride Asking Booking number [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 326, + 107, + 334 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 326, + 107, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 326, + 107, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "History." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 339, + 195, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 339, + 195, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 339, + 195, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: Hi, i need to check my ride status." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 353, + 108, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 353, + 108, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 353, + 108, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 367, + 257, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 367, + 257, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 367, + 257, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: i'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 397, + 182, + 407 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 397, + 182, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 397, + 182, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Test (on target task/domain)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 412, + 123, + 422 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 412, + 123, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 412, + 123, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task schema" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 426, + 242, + 479 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 426, + 217, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 426, + 217, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 426, + 217, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 441, + 242, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 441, + 242, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 441, + 242, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking_day [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 461, + 232, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 461, + 232, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 461, + 232, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 487, + 94, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 487, + 94, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 487, + 94, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "··" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 105, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 105, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 105, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "History." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 512, + 211, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 512, + 211, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 512, + 211, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 544, + 207, + 559 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 544, + 207, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 544, + 207, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 578, + 106, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 578, + 106, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 578, + 106, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 591, + 229, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 591, + 229, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 591, + 229, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 389, + 133, + 440, + 142 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 389, + 133, + 440, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 389, + 133, + 440, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Policy Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 151, + 377, + 159 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 151, + 377, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 151, + 377, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task instruction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 166, + 511, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 166, + 511, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 166, + 511, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generate appropriate system actions based on the history, following the most relevant task rule." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 191, + 480, + 201 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 191, + 480, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 191, + 480, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Formatting example (from other task/domain)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 206, + 359, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 206, + 359, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 206, + 359, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task schema" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 220, + 511, + 295 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 34, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 220, + 511, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 220, + 511, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 220, + 511, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) user: Hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 241, + 509, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 241, + 509, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 241, + 509, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 270, + 495, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 270, + 495, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 270, + 495, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: My name is [NAME] [sep] system action: \nride Asking Booking number system: Can I get your booking ID, please? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 314, + 342, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 314, + 342, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 314, + 342, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "History." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 328, + 430, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 328, + 430, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 328, + 430, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: Hi, i need to check my ride status." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 343, + 343, + 350 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 343, + 343, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 343, + 343, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 356, + 509, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 356, + 509, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 356, + 509, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: I'd like to find out the status of my ride [sep] system action: ask_name system: Could you give me your name, please? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 396, + 418, + 406 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 396, + 418, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 396, + 418, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Test (on target task/domain)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 411, + 359, + 419 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 411, + 359, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 411, + 359, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task schema" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 424, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 44, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 424, + 509, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 424, + 509, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 424, + 509, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) user: hello [sep] system action: hello system: Hello, how can i help? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 446, + 511, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 446, + 511, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 446, + 511, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) user: what is the weather like? [sep] system action: weather Asking day system: For what day would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 475, + 509, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 475, + 509, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 475, + 509, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 519, + 342, + 528 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 519, + 342, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 519, + 342, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "History." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 533, + 447, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 533, + 447, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 533, + 447, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: i want to know the weather for Tuesday." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 383, + 565, + 424, + 578 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 383, + 565, + 424, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 383, + 565, + 424, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 427, + 563, + 442, + 578 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 622, + 290, + 675 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 622, + 290, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 622, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD on STAR. The relevant template turn within the input, the generated user template utterance, and the system action in the output are accentuated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 427, + 563, + 442, + 578 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 427, + 563, + 442, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 427, + 563, + 442, + 578 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "652d6fb90c49a942fc38da923756dd7b2ec6f3e3feb60f63e855f637d2ca9bb5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 48, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 708 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Policy Prompt of SGP-TOD-E2E on STAR. The relevant template turn in the input, the generated user template utterance, the system action and the system response in the output are highlighted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 51, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 48 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 597, + 342, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 597, + 342, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 597, + 342, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 49 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 611, + 508, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 611, + 508, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 611, + 508, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) user: on [DAY_OF_WEEK] [sep] system action: weather Asking_location system: For what location would you like the weather forecast? [eos]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 50 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13369" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 52 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_content_list.json b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3ed4bea0e9ae727b83574f1b59f9c4b2e865da4e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1830 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SHARCS: Efficient Transformers through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 247, + 89, + 749, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mohammadreza Salehi $^{\\dagger}$ Sachin Mehta $^{\\dagger}$ Aditya Kusupati $^{\\dagger}$ Ali Farhadi $^{\\dagger\\diamond}$ Hannaneh Hajishirzi $^{\\dagger\\diamond}$", + "bbox": [ + 242, + 147, + 757, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "†University of Washington †Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {mrsalehi, sacmehta, kusupati, ali, hannaneh}@cs.washington.edu", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 184, + 800, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. SHARCS can train a router on any transformer network, enabling the model to direct different samples to sub-networks with varying widths. Our experiments demonstrate that: (1) SHARCS outperforms or complements existing per-sample adaptive inference methods across various classification tasks in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs; (2) SHARCS generalizes across different architectures and can be even applied to compressed and efficient transformer encoders to further improve their efficiency; (3) SHARCS can provide a $2 \\times$ inference speed up at an insignificant drop in accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 506, + 260, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Web-scale pretrained models, including Large Language Models (LLMs), are widely used in various applications (Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a; Brown et al., 2020). However, their computational resource requirements can be problematic, especially in environments with limited resources. To address this issue, more efficient methods are needed, particularly those that can run on-device with efficient inference (Sanh et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 489, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Several methods (e.g., knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015), pruning (Lagunas et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2022), and quantization (Shen et al., 2019)) have been proposed to improve the inference efficiency of transformer-based models. While these methods are promising, one drawback is that the resulting model is static. This raises concerns about whether the model is too complex for simple samples and not complex enough for more challenging ones. To tackle this problem, previous work have investigated sample-adaptive inference methods that use varying amount of compute to process different input samples (Kaya and Dumitras, 2018). Two predominant approaches exist in the field of sample adaptive inference: early-joining", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and token dropping. The former incorporates internal classifiers into intermediate layers of the model. Various techniques have been explored for early exiting, including using confidence scores or entropy of internal classifier predictions (Liu et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020), using a module that predicts whether a layer should exit early (Xin et al., 2021), or implementing a patience-based method to adjust these internal predictions (Zhou et al., 2020). The other category of sample-adaptive inference methods, token dropping, enhances efficiency by progressively decreasing sequence length as the forward pass proceeds layer by layer (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose Sample Hardness Aware Routing based on Confidence Scores $(\\mathsf{SHARCS}^1)$ , which is a novel category within the efficient sample adaptive inference domain. Our approach introduces training a light-weight router. The router dynamically assigns input samples, based on their hardness (Ethayarajh et al., 2021), to one of the sub-networks with varying widths. Due to the lack of ground truth notion of hardness, we estimate sample hardness heuristically based on the network's prediction history during training for each sample. These estimates are then used as labels to train the router.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 478, + 884, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We make the following contributions:", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 694, + 808, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. SHARCS introduces a router that predicts the hardness of a sample and can be trained on any transformer network. It enables dynamic input processing using sub-networks of varying widths, determined by the predicted hardness.", + "2. SHARCS delivers substantial efficiency improvements in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off across different datasets & transformer encoders. For example, on QQP (Wang et al., 2017), it reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ by $2.75 \\times$ with only $1\\%$ accuracy drop. Compared to other" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 713, + 884, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1 pronounced sharks.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 658, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10519", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10519-10532 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e3f00069023724b960735641b0a5045627027c182b951d8bcb48a1f51a385768.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 151, + 82, + 443, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/88fed47bcd69f387bcfef750639c6fbd11e3d631c95fe0d133027754b44fc572.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Inference.", + "(b) Generating hardness labels to train the router.", + "Figure 1: (a) At inference the router selects the reduction factor. Red parts denote the changes enforced by the router. (b) Training the router. The confidence scores of the last $W$ epochs for each input sample is recorded. Then they are compared with confidence thresholds and labels for training the router are assigned accordingly." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 142, + 309, + 450, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sample adaptive inference techniques, SHARCS either outperforms them or can be paired with them to achieve even greater efficiency.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 607, + 487, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3. The gains from SHARCS can be realized in real-world deployment with significant latency reduction in CPU-based inference. On QQP, SHARCS can speed up $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}$ more than $2\\times$ with less than $1\\%$ drop in accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 663, + 489, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 776, + 218, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. Our approach has three main steps: (1) Obtaining labels that represent sample hardness ( $\\S 2.1$ ); (2) Training a router that can predict sample hardness ( $\\S 2.2$ ); (3) Adjusting the network's inference capacity according to the predicted hardness ( $\\S 2.3$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Estimating Hardness of a Sample", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 816, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our objective is to learn a sample hardness aware router, enabling us to dynamically direct the input sample to one of the sub-networks with varying capacities (including the main network) for efficient inference. As there are no ground-truth labels that represent hardness, we leverage network's prediction history during training. We assume that there are $M$ possible hardness levels for a sample, with level 1 being the easiest and $M$ being the hardest. Our goal is to assign a hardness label $\\hat{y} \\in \\{0,1\\}^{M}$ to samples in the training set and train the router with them. Toward this end, we employ a heuristic procedure which is illustrated in Figure 1b: If the model predicts the ground truth class for a training sample with a probability within a confidence interval $[T_{low}^{i}, T_{high}^{i}]$ , then the $i$ th entry in the label $\\hat{y}$ would be 1; otherwise it would be zero. Here, $i$ ranges from 1 to $M$ , and $T^{i}$ 's are hyperparameters associated with hardness level $i$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 107, + 884, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Because of the stochastic nature of training, it is possible that the samples denoted as easy earlier will potentially be denoted as hard after that, posing instabilities while training the router. To mitigate such randomness, the $i$ th entry is 1 only if the predicted ground truth probability is within the interval for a moving window of last $W$ epochs. The assigned hardness labels will be used as labels to train the router in the next epoch. We do not train the router during the first $W$ epochs and just train the network and record the network's predictions. Please see appendix E.0.5 for more details on the role of window size.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 884, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Training Sample Hardness Aware Router", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 637, + 880, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We split the main transformer network with $L$ layers into non-adaptive and adaptive parts, and incorporate the router between these networks (see Figure 1a). The non-adaptive network is comprised of the first $0 < K < L - 1$ layers while the adaptive part consists of the remaining $L - K$ layers. The adaptive component is a shared network that consists of sub-networks with varying widths, where the width of each sub-network is a fraction of the width of the network.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 882, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "More formally, sub-networks are associated with a given a set of reduction factors $\\{r_i\\}_{i = 1}^M$ $0 < r_{i}\\leq$ 1, where the width of $i$ -th sub-network is $1 / r_{i}\\times$ smaller than that of main network. We map the hardness level $i$ to the width reduction factor $r_i$ . During training, for each input, we sample one of the re", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10520", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/864fef6028196209d80370d23ebff5194ff362b25e1b363694949254727100de.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Results on the three of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark. For the full set of plots on 8 tasks please refer to the appendix D.0.1. Best viewed in color." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 164, + 80, + 833, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "duction factors with entry 1 in the router label for that input and do the forward and backward pass with just the network associated with that reduction factor. During inference, given the output of non-adaptive network for input sample $x$ , the objective of the router is to determine the width of sub-network in the adaptive module to process $x$ . We train the sub-networks and the router with the following objective:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 299, + 490, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\lambda_ {\\text {t a s k}} \\cdot \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {t a s k}} + \\lambda_ {\\text {r o u t e r}} \\cdot \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {r o u t e r}} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 478, + 487, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{router}}$ is a binary cross-entropy loss between predicted and ground-truth hardness label, $\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{task}}$ is a task-specific loss, and $\\lambda_{\\text{task}}$ and $\\lambda_{\\text{router}}$ are loss weights which are hyper-parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 511, + 489, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Reducing Width of Adaptive Module", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 450, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The basic building block in both multi-head attention (MHA) module and feed forward network (FFN) in transformers is the linear layer (Vaswani et al., 2017). Given the fully-connected nature of linear layers, to reduce their width, we retain the leftmost $r \\cdot d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ neurons in both input and output (Kusupati et al., 2022). It is worth noting that as we reduce the input and output dimensions of matrix multiplications by a factor of $1 / r$ , the flops will be reduced by a factor of $1 / r^2$ . We follow a similar procedure for reducing the width of affine parameters in LayerNorm (Ba et al., 2016). Also in our setup, we do not change the head dimensions in MHA and instead decrease the number of heads by a factor of $1 / r$ . As Figure 1a illustrates, we down-project the input hidden states to the adaptive layers using a pooled module and up-project it back before feeding to the single classifier for all of the sub-networks. Please see Appendix B for a", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "detailed description of width reduction of different components in transformer layer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 299, + 882, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experimental setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 344, + 714, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. We evaluate SHARCS on 8 classification tasks in the standard GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018): MNLI-m (Williams et al., 2018), QNLI (Wang et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2016), QQP (Wang et al., 2017), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005), RTE (Dagan et al., 2005), CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019), WNLI (Levesque et al., 2012).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 884, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation metrics. Following previous work, we report the accuracy on the validation set, with an exception to CoLA for which we report Matthews correlation. We measure the total FLOPs on the validation set as it is invariant to the run time environment (Liu et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 510, + 885, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training details. We train network with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019). We choose the number of epochs in $\\{5,10,15\\}$ and use learning rate in $\\{2e - 5,5e - 5\\}$ in our experiments. Please see Appendix C for more details.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 615, + 884, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 608, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 SHARCS is Better", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 737, + 682, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare SHARCS with existing sample adaptive inference methods: RTJ (Schwartz et al., 2020), DeeBERT (Xin et al., 2020), FastBERT (Liu et al., 2020), BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021), and PABEE (Zhou et al., 2020). Figure 2 shows the accuracy-FLOPs trade-off plots for different sample adaptive approaches with RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ model on three GLUE subtasks (See appendix D.0.1 for the full set of plots). Our results show that SHARCS significantly outperforms other methods, especially in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10521", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/06545fefbe9f7da7780bfef39175e19aa031064fee03529bba7f2b2d61d24295.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges. For the full table, please see Appendix D.0.2" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
FLOPs range (Tera FLOPs)Best BaselineSHARCS
Acc.(%) ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1061.839.5676.374.91
10-2084.191885.9317.92
20-3087.5329.8687.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1048.878.7672.78.94
10-2072.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3083.2727.9983.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-548.874.764.723.80
5-1064.449.9576.028.87
10-1580.3814.9181.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-465.613.7878.923.99
4-676.015.4281.485.21
6-883.867.9283.407.33
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 128, + 485, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the low-FLOPs regime. This can suggest that by substantially reducing the width of deeper layers in the model, SHARCS can achieve a significant reduction in FLOPs. Furthermore, we can maintain the accuracy better compared to fully skipping deeper layers as commonly done in early exiting methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 387, + 489, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 SHARCS is Model Agnostic", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 361, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SHARCS can be seamlessly integrated with any state-of-the-art non-efficient and efficient transformer-based encoders to further improve their efficiency. We use SHARCS and the baseline sample adaptive inference methods in (§4.1) with two standard nonefficient (RoBERTabase and BERT-Basebase) and efficient (DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) and DynaBERT (Hou et al., 2020)) models. Table 1 shows that SHARCS consistently improves the efficiency of different models while maintaining the accuracy better than other baseline sample adaptive methods. Note that, for brevity, we have selected the highest accuracy among all the sample adaptive baselines for each FLOPs range; please see Table 5 in Appendix D.0.2 for the full set of results. As an example, SHARCS can reduce the FLOPs of BERTbase to half with near 3% reduction in accuracy whereas in other methods the drop is more than 12%. Interestingly, SHARCS can further improve the efficiency of already optimized networks. For instance, inference with SHARCS on DynaBERT 0.25 width takes 10-15% less FLOPs with less than 1% drop in accuracy. More accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off results for DynaBERT 0.25 and DistilBERT can be found in Figure 10 and 11.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 517, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 SHARCS is Fast", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 665, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the latency of SHARCS applied to $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}$ with the baseline adaptive approaches on the QQP (Wang et al., 2017) dataset. The latency measurements are conducted on an Intel Xeon Gold 6230 CPU with a batch size of 1. We use two reduction factors $\\{0.25, 1.0\\}$ and place the router after layer 2 or 4 to get different accuracy-speed up trade offs. We keep the speed up between 2 to 3 and report the best accuracy for each method in this range. Table 2 shows that our method obtains higher or comparable accuracy in this speed up range. Interestingly, SHARCS achieves a performance on par with DistilBERT, which is trained with distillation on a much larger dataset, but with higher speed up.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 111, + 885, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 SHARCS Paired with Token Dropping", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 838, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed in Section 1, in addition to early-exiting, token dropping is another well-known approach to sample-adaptive inference efficiency (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022). Token dropping enhances efficiency by progressively dropping tokens layer by layer, thereby decreasing the hidden states sequence length as the forward pass proceeds. In contrast, SHARCS improves efficiency via reducing the transformer block's width. Therefore token dropping and SHARCS should not interfere with each other and in fact, they can be paired together to bring more efficiency. To showcase this, we combine SHARCS with a RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ network that has already been made more efficient using Transkimmer token dropping. Table 3 shows that on QNLI dataset, SHARCS reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa + Transkimmer by $40\\%$ with a negligible drop in accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 385, + 884, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e85acf074ab31f13a812d74247211abde92d359527c510010c3f7b8325804ef3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Inference speed up results on the QQP dataset on CPU for various adaptive inference techniques applied to BERT. For SHARCS we place the router after layers 2 and 4 and report two numbers." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Accuracy (%)↑Speed up (×)↑
BERT90.901
DistilBERT88.502
BERxiT85.602.04
FastBERT83.992.17
DeeBERT83.822.14
PABEE89.092.06
RTJ84.442
SHARCS (layer 2)88.432.57
SHARCS (layer 4)90.052.05
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 753, + 884, + 908 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10522", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3b9ccc4895901e6e9b76274d6803771948027439f22fd4e0ab14b3501752ce5b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: SHARCS can be applied to RoBERTa in addition to Transkimmer to bring more efficiency. The decrease in FLOPs and Accuracy in parentheses are with respect to RoBERTa + Transkimmer." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
QNLI Acc.TeraFLOPs
RoBERTa Base92.8%24.5
+Transkimmer89.45%14.08
+Transkimmer + SHARCS88.83% (-0.62%)8.56 (~40%↓)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 149, + 485, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Ablating the Router", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 246, + 317, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To show the efficacy of the router and its training strategy in SHARCS, we replace it with the routing strategy used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021): while training two sub-networks with reduction factors $\\{0.25, 1.0\\}$ , we feed the training sample to both of them; if a sub-network correctly classifies the sample, the router label for that sub-network in that iteration would be 1. Otherwise, it would be zero. The backward pass is then done with all the losses of sub-networks and the router loss. Table 4 shows the area under the normalized accuracy FLOPs curve (AUC) for both methods on MNLIm. Please find more detailed ablation results and experiments in Appendix E.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 268, + 489, + 493 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1947568018e9a0eb3f58b4b46156c2f310f193bd1dad3c82f61795d68a938e7e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: While using adaptive width with RoBERTa ${}_{\\text{base }}$ on MNLI-m, SHARCS router outperforms BERxiT router." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Router on RoBERTabaseAUC ↑
SHARCS0.78
BERxiT0.73
", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 533, + 418, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 247, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We presented SHARCS as a new sample adaptive inference approach that can improve any network's inference efficiency. SHARCS incorporated a lightweight router which is trained with a novel approach using the confidence of the network predictions during training. Our experiments showed the superiority or complementary role of SHARCS compared to other sample adaptive inference methods across various datasets and backbones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 638, + 489, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 796, + 220, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While the router and training approach in SHARCS are general purpose, a limitation of this paper is its focus solely on studying the impact on transformer encoders. Nonetheless, decoder-only (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and encoder-decoder (Raffel et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020) models are", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "widely used classes of models for which we plan to integrate SHARCS in the future work. It should be noted that although our approach can be applied to regression tasks with minor adjustments, this work does not include any results for regression tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 175, + 682, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank members of RAIVN and H2Lab for helpful discussion and feedback, and Hyak cluster team at the University of Washington for infrastructure support. This research was supported by NSF IIS-2044660, ONR MURI N00014- 18-1-2670, and gifts from AI2, Google and Apple.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 200, + 884, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 325, + 608, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization.", + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. CoRR, abs/2005.14165.", + "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805.", + "Devvrit, Sneha Kudugunta, Aditya Kusupati, Tim Dettmers, Kaifeng Chen, Inderjit Dhillon, Yulia Tsvetkov, Hajishirzi Hannaneh, Sham Kakade, Ali Farhadi, and Prateek Jain. 2023. Matformer: Nested transformer for elastic inference. arXiv preprint arxiv:2310.07707.", + "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005).", + "Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. 2021. Information-theoretic measures of dataset difficulty. CoRR, abs/2110.08420.", + "Saurabh Goyal, Anamitra R. Choudhury, Saurabh M. Raje, Venkatesan T. Chakaravarthy, Yogish Sabharwal, and Ashish Verma. 2020. Power-bert: Accel" + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 347, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10523", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "erating bert inference via progressive word-vector elimination.", + "Yue Guan, Zhengyi Li, Jingwen Leng, Zhouhan Lin, and Minyi Guo. 2022. Transkimmer: Transformer learns to layer-wise skim. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7275-7286, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Bridging nonlinearities and stochastic regularizers with gaussian error linear units. CoRR, abs/1606.08415.", + "Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.", + "Lu Hou, Zhiqi Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, and Qun Liu. 2020. Dynabert: Dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9782-9793. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2019. Tinybert: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1909.10351.", + "Yigitcan Kaya and Tudor Dumitras. 2018. How to stop off-the-shelf deep neural networks from overthinking. CoRR, abs/1810.07052.", + "Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Zhewei Yao, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. I-bert: Integer-only bert quantization. International Conference on Machine Learning (Accepted).", + "Aditya Kusupati, Gantavya Bhatt, Aniket Rege, Matthew Wallingford, Aditya Sinha, Vivek Ramanujan, William Howard-Snyder, Kaifeng Chen, Sham Kakade, Prateek Jain, et al. 2022. Matryoshka representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:30233-30249.", + "François Lagunas, Ella Charlaix, Victor Sanh, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Block pruning for faster transformers. CoRR, abs/2109.04838.", + "Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The Winograd Schema Challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'12, pages 552-561. AAAI Press, Rome, Italy.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692.", + "Zechun Liu, Haoyuan Mu, Xiangyu Zhang, Zichao Guo, Xin Yang, Kwang-Ting (Tim) Cheng, and Jian Sun. 2019b. Metapruning: Meta learning for automatic neural network channel pruning. CoRR, abs/1903.10258.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization.", + "Paul Michel, Omer Levy, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Are sixteen heads really better than one? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.", + "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108.", + "Victor Sanh, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fin-tuning. CoRR, abs/2005.07683.", + "Roy Schwartz, Gabriel Stanovsky, Swabha Swayamdipta, Jesse Dodge, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. The right tool for the job: Matching model and instance complexities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6640-6651, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10524", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sheng Shen, Zhen Dong, Jiayu Ye, Linjian Ma, Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2019. Q-BERT: hessian based ultra low precision quantization of BERT. CoRR, abs/1909.05840.", + "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2020. MobileBERT: a compact task-agnostic BERT for resource-limited devices. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2158-2170, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Surat Teerapittayanon, Bradley McDanel, and H. T. Kung. 2017. Branchynet: Fast inference via early exiting from deep neural networks. CoRR, abs/1709.01686.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned.", + "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1804.07461.", + "Zhiguo Wang, Wael Hamza, and Radu Florian. 2017. Bilateral multi-perspective matching for natural language sentences. CoRR, abs/1702.03814.", + "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641.", + "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mengzhou Xia, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Structured pruning learns compact and accurate models.", + "Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Jaejun Lee, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. DeeBERT: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2246-2251, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. BERxiT: Early exiting for BERT with better fine-tuning and extension to regression. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 91-104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wangchunshu Zhou, Canwen Xu, Tao Ge, Julian McAuley, Ke Xu, and Furu Wei. 2020. Bert loses patience: Fast and robust inference with early exit. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18330-18341. Curran Associates, Inc." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10525", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Background and Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 421, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Efficient non-adaptive inference In the context of non-adaptive methods, numerous studies in the literature have improved the inference efficiency of transformers through various techniques such as knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) into smaller models (Sanh et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2020; Jiao et al., 2019), pruning unimportant weights of the model (Xia et al., 2022; Lagunas et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019b), and weight quantization (Shen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021) to store weights of a network with lower precision values. The aforementioned approaches result in smaller and more efficient albeit fixed and static models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Efficient adaptive inference. Another line of work have proposed adaptive inference methods that allow the network to allocate varying amounts of compute for each sample. The predominant technique in this area is early exiting via adding internal classifiers to intermediate layers (Schwartz et al., 2020; Kaya and Dumitras, 2018; Xin et al., 2020; Teerapittayanon et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020): To early exit, prior work either use the confidence score of internal classifiers' predictions (Schwartz et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020); the entropy of these predictions (Liu et al., 2020); a module that predicts whether a layer should early exit or not (Xin et al., 2021); a patience based change in these internal prediction (Zhou et al., 2020); or a hash based mechanism to do token level early exiting (Sun et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 347, + 489, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Devvrit et al. (2023) recently proposed Mat-Former that can enable adaptive compute based on the resource constraints but does not utilize dynamic token-based routing making SHARCS complementary to it.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 489, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 715, + 356, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.0.1 Transformer Networks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 743, + 357, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transformer networks (Vaswani et al., 2017) are composed of a stack of $L$ layers and each layer has two main components: Multi-head attention (MHA) and Feed-forward network (FFN).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 763, + 487, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MHA consists of $n_h$ heads where each head computes the attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) on the projection of a sequence of $l$ tokens $x = (x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_l)$ into key, query, and values: $o_{\\mathrm{head}}^i = \\mathrm{Attention}(\\mathbf{W}_Kx, \\mathbf{W}_{\\mathbf{Q}}x, \\mathbf{W}_{\\mathbf{V}}x)$ , wherein", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$1\\leq i\\leq H$ $o_{\\mathrm{head}}^i\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{head}}}$ and $\\mathbf{W}_K,\\mathbf{W}_Q,\\mathbf{W}_V\\in$ $\\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times d_{\\mathrm{head}}}$ are the key, query, and value projection matrices, and $d_{\\mathrm{head}} = d_{\\mathrm{model}} / n_h$ . The outputs from different heads are concatenated into $o_{\\mathrm{heads}}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}}$ and projected with another matrix $\\mathbf{W}_O\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times d_{\\mathrm{model}}}$ and passed through a layer norm (Ba et al., 2016) to get the output: $o_{\\mathrm{MHA}} = \\mathrm{LayerNorm}(x + \\mathbf{W}_o o_{\\mathrm{heads}})$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 83, + 885, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "FFN consists of two feed-forward layers $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ with GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity and takes the output of MHA module and computes LayerNorm $(o_{\\mathrm{MHA}} + \\mathrm{GeLU}(\\mathbf{W}_1 o_{\\mathrm{MHA}}) \\mathbf{W}_2)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 224, + 885, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.0.2 Reducing Width of a Transformer Layer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 317, + 840, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3 illustrates our approach in reducing the capacity of a transformer network based on the given reduction factor. We leave the first $K$ layers (aka non-adaptive module) of the model intact, where $K$ is a hyperparameter. Given an input sequence $x$ , after computing the intermediate representation $h \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d_{\\mathrm{model}}}$ by the non-adaptive module, and the reduction factor $r$ by the router, we reduce the width of different components which we will describe in detail next.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 885, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Before passing $h$ to adaptive layers, we pass it through a pooler module that reduces its dimensionality to $d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\times r$ . For example, if $d_{\\mathrm{model}} = 768$ and $r = 0.25$ , the input to the adaptive module will be 192 dimensional. Although we experimented with affine transformations for the pooler, in practice we observed that a simpler pooling operation such as selecting just the first $d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\times r$ dimensions works as good. Therefore, as this pooler is simpler and importantly adds no extra FLOPs to inference, we opted for that. For the unpooler, we used an affine transformation that transforms the hidden state with reduced dimensionality (i.e. $r \\cdot d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ ) to $d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ . Note that for the unpooler layer, the dimensionality of the input can change while the output dimensionality is always $d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 885, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Throughout this paper, whenever we decrease a dimension of a component (e.g. input vectors or weights) from $d$ to $d'$ , we exclusively use the first $d'$ dimensions and disregards the remainder in the computations. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 4 for FFN and MHA components in transformer models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 885, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In what follows we describe how we reduce the width of different components by the reduction", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10526", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9a44d48560b2ec04290012b686de013f6a6be101ecc6da65272120d543326732.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Detailed schematic of reducing with of different components in a transformer model based on the prediction of the router." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "factor $r$ which is also depicted in detail in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 487, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reducing MHA Width. We reduce the width of MHA using the following steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 611, + 487, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. The input dimension $d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ of self-attention projection matrices $\\mathbf{W}_K$ , $\\mathbf{W}_Q$ , and $\\mathbf{W}_v$ is decreased to $d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\cdot r$ . We do not change the output dimension $d_{\\mathrm{head}}$ of the linear projections.", + "2. The adaptive module only computes the output of the first $n_h \\cdot r$ heads and disregards the other heads. Therefore the dimensionality of $o_{\\mathrm{heads}}$ is decreased to $d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\cdot r$ . Note that we could also reduce the dimensionality of each head instead, however, we built on previous findings in the literature that many of the heads in transformers are redundant and can be pruned without hurting the performance (Michel et al., 2019; Voita et al., 2019).", + "3. For the output projection $\\mathbf{W}_o$ of MHA, the input and output dimensions, which are both equal to $d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ , are reduced to $d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\cdot r$ ." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 644, + 487, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Throughout all the changes above, we do not", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "alter the sequence length of the input (i.e. $l$ ) or any of the hidden states.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reducing FFN width. Similar to the output projection $\\mathbf{W}_o$ of MHA, the input and output dimensions of the feed-forward layers W1 and W2 in the FFN are reduced by a factor of $1 / r$ . Therefore, the output dimension of all the adaptive layers are reduced by a factor of $r$ to $D_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times r$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 124, + 884, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is important to note that majority of operations in FFN and MHA components are comprised of matrix multiplications and reducing the input and output dimensions of these multiplications by a factor of $r_j$ will reduce their flops by a factor of $r_j^2$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 221, + 882, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reducing layernorms width. We also reduce the width of the layer norm parameters by a factor of $r$ . In our experiments, we find it beneficial to initialize the layernorm parameters with the corresponding first dimensions of original layernorm parameters instead of training them from scratch.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 309, + 882, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.0.3 Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 414, + 648, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast to training where the width of the adaptive layers doing forward pass is enforced by the router labels, at inference, the router predicts the reduction factor. More formally, given the input sample $x$ and router logits $\\hat{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{M}$ , we select the reduction factor $r_j$ to do the forward pass where $j$ is $\\arg \\max (\\hat{W})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Training Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 556, + 690, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar to (Hou et al., 2020), we reorder the heads based on their importance before fine-tuning on the down-stream task. We set $\\lambda_{task}$ to 1 and $\\lambda_{routert}$ to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors $\\{0.25,1.0\\}$ . We choose the batch size in $\\{16,32\\}$ depending on the model and dataset. We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. We choose the window size values in $\\{3,5\\}$ . We set $\\lambda_{task}$ to 1 and $\\lambda_{routert}$ to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors $\\{0.25,1.0\\}$ . We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and the hyperparameters of the baselines and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. Similar to previous work (Hou et al., 2020), we pad the input sequences in a batch to 128 tokens while training. To train SHARCS with Transkimer on RoBERTa, we first train RoBERTa + Transkimmer with skim coefficient of 0.3. We then start from this model as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10527", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/05e9e082825ff27a58464e01a82590a852dd5999f580000d2f9bf1503f0add7a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) FFN" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 201, + 99, + 478, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c57f8a98286552dc41e1d74aac8529252e487827100efada3cf742fd610c7c07.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) MHA" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 99, + 796, + 290 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "an initial checkpoint and train for 10 epochs using both our loss and Transkimmer loss. Here, training the router is done with with 0.25 and 1.0 as reduction factors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 368, + 487, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Results Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 450, + 280, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.0.1 GLUE Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 481, + 292, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We do a thorough hyperparameter search with different sample adaptive inference methods to get the accuracy of the RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ model across different FLOPs values. We report the total number of FLOPs on the validation set and do not pad the input sequences before feeding to the model. Figure 12 shows the plots for 8 of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 504, + 489, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.0.2 Different Backbone Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 648, + 393, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5 shows the comparison of different sample adaptive inference methods applied to different backbones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 487, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Ablations and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 737, + 369, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.0.1 Router Ablation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 766, + 305, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5 shows the accuracy FLOPs plot for two methods: 1) The router introduced in SHARCS with adaptive width sub-networks. 2) A router similar to the early-exiting router used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) with adaptive-width sub-networks. We report the AUC for a similar range of FLOPs for both methods and scale the accuracy and FLOPs values to [0, 1].", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4a34ba4ad53d34380a5d75e19b2fb8c1eeb4b0f2187b01e7bc54be9532d3a9e5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Reducing the width of FFN and MHA in adaptive layers.", + "Figure 5: Accuracy vs. FLOPs plot for Adaptive width sub-networks trained with SHARCS router (orange) and BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) router (blue)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 526, + 394, + 848, + 614 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.0.2 Number of Reduction Factors", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 714, + 806, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We change the number of reduction factors (or hardness levels) $M$ to three and four and use the reduction factors $\\{0.25, 0.5, 1.0\\}$ and $\\{0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0\\}$ respectively. Figure 6 shows the results of changing the number of reduction factors with $\\mathrm{RoBERTa_{base}}$ model on MNLI-m dataset. The model trained with two reduction factors outperform the other cases for FLOPs values above 15 teraFLOPs significantly and four reduction factors can get better results in the range of 10-15 Tera FLOPs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10528", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c31d869e3f80b7ce895fbb7bb614b6f941e09dfd5c96fae6f5e571b76d205c18.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
FLOPs range (Tera Flops)RTJDeeBERTPABEEFastBERTBERxiTSHARCS
Acc. ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1054.279.5961.839.5653.988.5345.392.8453.698.4176.374.91
10-2082.2919.7777.1819.8084.191859.7915.0683.3919.9185.9317.92
20-3086.9225.7681.3523.6787.5329.8677.2429.9587.2327.9287.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1047.329.4642.329.9742.977.5148.878.7646.869.8872.78.94
10-2058.1215.6161.5719.8966.3317.2970.2519.1872.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3078.9628.5380.5729.3481.1327.6683.2727.9980.8225.7383.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-541.922.7643.982.7641.452.7648.874.741.474.0764.723.80
5-1052.729.5659.879.4564.449.9564.249.7655.109.7676.028.87
10-1572.9313.9080.3814.9179.2914.1279.7214.8460.2511.6881.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-460.953.9856.133.3856.093.9765.613.7856.193.5878.923.99
4-674.555.8275.265.6269.815.9376.015.42--81.485.21
6-883.437.7083.367.7081.317.8783.867.9283.087.6083.407.33
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 895, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a16e1f8928a4e2cf5c603b9ce28b863736461b63322287c25996ec6bb1f1284b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Results of different number of sub-networks (or reduction factors) with RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ model on MNLI-m." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 164, + 374, + 423, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.0.3 Confidence Thresholds", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 648, + 357, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We study the effect of changing confidence thresholds on our results with a simple experiment: With two reduction factors $\\{0.25, 1.0\\}$ we use the following confidence score lower and upper bounds: $[0.0, x]$ for full network and $[x, 1.0]$ for 0.25 network, where $x \\in \\{0.5, 0.7, 0.9\\}$ . We place the router after layer 1 (i.e. $K = 1$ ). Figure 7 shows the results of RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. According to the figure, higher value of $x$ leads to better accuracies for a fixed number of FLOPs. Furthermore, as we decrease $x$ , we can reach lower values of FLOPs. This is intuitive as decreasing the lower bound of smallest reduction factor makes more samples be routed to that which reduces the overall FLOPs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1b8379324c27338c0d17ca4a3b8eb69621907d6b1a92828f5fd967191e081341.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Results of changing confidence thresholds with RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. We use reduction factors $\\{0.25,1.0\\}$ and confidence thresholds $[0,x]$ for reduction factor 0.25 and confidence thresholds $[x,1]$ for reduction factor 1, where $x\\in$ $\\{0.5,0.7,0.9\\}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 559, + 374, + 820, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.0.4 Using Entropy or Confidence-based Hardness Labels to Train Router", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 683, + 853, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar to sample adaptive inference in early exiting methods (Xin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020), one can get hardness labels by defining thresholds on entropy of the network predictions instead of the confidence. We use the following formula to compute the entropy of network's prediction:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 884, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nH = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {C} p _ {i} \\cdot \\log p _ {i},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 611, + 831, + 779, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "wherein $C$ denotes the number of classes of the classifier, and $p_i$ is the softmax probability that the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10529", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/89adfb1b376e0587f7131ba35925fe1396b504148361c8dfd383df6566cde0b3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Comparing entropy and confidence based hardness labels for training the router." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 111, + 453, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e4bebf2b1a74074efe09d7bde4d017fd318196e8db7e209572267cdfb3fa386a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Effect of changing history window size in SHARCS on MNLI-m Accuracy FLOPs trade-off." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 417, + 408, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "classifier assigns to class $i$ . Figure 8 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade-off for both of these metrics on MNLI-m dataset with RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ model. Given that the confidence score is a simpler approach and does not require any additional computation, we opted for using that in our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.0.5 Changing History Window Size in Training the Router", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 443, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned in (§2.1), having a larger window size helps stabilizing training the router as the hardness label for a training sample might change throughout training. To illustrate this effect, we train SHARCS on RoBERTa $_{\\text{base}}$ model with three different window sizes $\\{1, 3, 5\\}$ for 10 epochs on MNLI-m dataset. We place the router at layer 2, use two reduction factors $\\{0.25, 1.0\\}$ , and set the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7034b2357ef10d7e0c04c21de42a8d34dd162fbdcadf2917c533f66412323c6e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DynaBERT 0.25 W (Hou et al., 2020) model. We set the reduction factors to $\\{2/3, 1.0\\}$ . By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 86, + 857, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "confidence thresholds to [0.0, 0.8] for reduction factor 1 and [0.8, 1.0] for reduction factor 0.25. Figure 9 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade offs that different checkpoints with different window sizes get throughout training on the validation set. According to the figure, the network can reach higher accuracy when trained with window size 3 or 5. We did not see any significant improvements by using a window size larger than 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10530", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9ac553ab79c6eb7e321a17530ed927d1e7052f20e380716a6a5af33a9313a541.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DistilBERT(Sanh et al., 2019) model. We set the reduction factors to $\\{2/3, 1.0\\}$ or $\\{0.5, 1.0\\}$ . By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 326, + 463, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10531", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8885e9a306c7751bd99d564a50c13203ddf30d79b10b5a2a1672a99d4bd39e52.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 144, + 221, + 853, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a05d1a2c52e7c555d27612f907bc8403f58597bded762763024c5d94ca9845ba.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 265, + 369, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/73c428675368f761f3b3447bb34de1d7f213c883a3c276f68e7c2c8631db35bf.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 371, + 263, + 623, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c36876da88cfe6c1416e8cc096fcb24ca31d27180affbd2dd838a5b10264db50.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 628, + 263, + 884, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ae23cc1bb912f2366b10057d7c74677bca03533e2ec22be447969fec214816fe.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 366, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1a890f8a994dd58a55c3bcf847c04e33d5dd36a87811147f9d07396c0fe39831.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 371, + 429, + 625, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/50547702ea5ade889da2b1660f068d54ee20c72eac5846a42fd0ea8861003b92.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 628, + 429, + 882, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bf92c78996ddf323036bd017f7e88195e3b48fa578efbc65b44d6061b608a50a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: GLUE benchmark results. Best viewed in color." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 242, + 592, + 495, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2b92e068d931f35bb484a6e4f930c92fa4798b723686e4c4b61dcf3332f4399b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 495, + 592, + 754, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10532", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_model.json b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddd3e5ac6e10dcecaa7495b8db5b81651543700c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2472 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.248, + 0.09, + 0.751, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SHARCS: Efficient Transformers through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.148, + 0.758, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohammadreza Salehi\\(^{\\dagger}\\) Sachin Mehta\\(^{\\dagger}\\) Aditya Kusupati\\(^{\\dagger}\\) Ali Farhadi\\(^{\\dagger\\diamond}\\) Hannaneh Hajishirzi\\(^{\\dagger\\diamond}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.185, + 0.8, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "†University of Washington †Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {mrsalehi, sacmehta, kusupati, ali, hannaneh}@cs.washington.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. SHARCS can train a router on any transformer network, enabling the model to direct different samples to sub-networks with varying widths. Our experiments demonstrate that: (1) SHARCS outperforms or complements existing per-sample adaptive inference methods across various classification tasks in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs; (2) SHARCS generalizes across different architectures and can be even applied to compressed and efficient transformer encoders to further improve their efficiency; (3) SHARCS can provide a \\(2 \\times\\) inference speed up at an insignificant drop in accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.507, + 0.262, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.533, + 0.49, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Web-scale pretrained models, including Large Language Models (LLMs), are widely used in various applications (Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a; Brown et al., 2020). However, their computational resource requirements can be problematic, especially in environments with limited resources. To address this issue, more efficient methods are needed, particularly those that can run on-device with efficient inference (Sanh et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.679, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Several methods (e.g., knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015), pruning (Lagunas et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2022), and quantization (Shen et al., 2019)) have been proposed to improve the inference efficiency of transformer-based models. While these methods are promising, one drawback is that the resulting model is static. This raises concerns about whether the model is too complex for simple samples and not complex enough for more challenging ones. To tackle this problem, previous work have investigated sample-adaptive inference methods that use varying amount of compute to process different input samples (Kaya and Dumitras, 2018). Two predominant approaches exist in the field of sample adaptive inference: early-joining" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and token dropping. The former incorporates internal classifiers into intermediate layers of the model. Various techniques have been explored for early exiting, including using confidence scores or entropy of internal classifier predictions (Liu et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020), using a module that predicts whether a layer should exit early (Xin et al., 2021), or implementing a patience-based method to adjust these internal predictions (Zhou et al., 2020). The other category of sample-adaptive inference methods, token dropping, enhances efficiency by progressively decreasing sequence length as the forward pass proceeds layer by layer (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.479, + 0.885, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose Sample Hardness Aware Routing based on Confidence Scores \\((\\mathsf{SHARCS}^1)\\), which is a novel category within the efficient sample adaptive inference domain. Our approach introduces training a light-weight router. The router dynamically assigns input samples, based on their hardness (Ethayarajh et al., 2021), to one of the sub-networks with varying widths. Due to the lack of ground truth notion of hardness, we estimate sample hardness heuristically based on the network's prediction history during training for each sample. These estimates are then used as labels to train the router." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.695, + 0.81, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We make the following contributions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.714, + 0.884, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. SHARCS introduces a router that predicts the hardness of a sample and can be trained on any transformer network. It enables dynamic input processing using sub-networks of varying widths, determined by the predicted hardness." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.8, + 0.885, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. SHARCS delivers substantial efficiency improvements in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off across different datasets & transformer encoders. For example, on QQP (Wang et al., 2017), it reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) by \\(2.75 \\times\\) with only \\(1\\%\\) accuracy drop. Compared to other" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.714, + 0.885, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.66, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 pronounced sharks." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10519" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10519-10532 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.083, + 0.445, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.295, + 0.343, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Inference." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.31, + 0.452, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.47, + 0.448, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Generating hardness labels to train the router." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.493, + 0.49, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: (a) At inference the router selects the reduction factor. Red parts denote the changes enforced by the router. (b) Training the router. The confidence scores of the last \\( W \\) epochs for each input sample is recorded. Then they are compared with confidence thresholds and labels for training the router are assigned accordingly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.608, + 0.488, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sample adaptive inference techniques, SHARCS either outperforms them or can be paired with them to achieve even greater efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.664, + 0.49, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. The gains from SHARCS can be realized in real-world deployment with significant latency reduction in CPU-based inference. On QQP, SHARCS can speed up \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}\\) more than \\(2\\times\\) with less than \\(1\\%\\) drop in accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.777, + 0.219, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. Our approach has three main steps: (1) Obtaining labels that represent sample hardness (\\(\\S 2.1\\)); (2) Training a router that can predict sample hardness (\\(\\S 2.2\\)); (3) Adjusting the network's inference capacity according to the predicted hardness (\\(\\S 2.3\\))." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.818, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Estimating Hardness of a Sample" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.108, + 0.885, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our objective is to learn a sample hardness aware router, enabling us to dynamically direct the input sample to one of the sub-networks with varying capacities (including the main network) for efficient inference. As there are no ground-truth labels that represent hardness, we leverage network's prediction history during training. We assume that there are \\(M\\) possible hardness levels for a sample, with level 1 being the easiest and \\(M\\) being the hardest. Our goal is to assign a hardness label \\(\\hat{y} \\in \\{0,1\\}^{M}\\) to samples in the training set and train the router with them. Toward this end, we employ a heuristic procedure which is illustrated in Figure 1b: If the model predicts the ground truth class for a training sample with a probability within a confidence interval \\([T_{low}^{i}, T_{high}^{i}]\\), then the \\(i\\)th entry in the label \\(\\hat{y}\\) would be 1; otherwise it would be zero. Here, \\(i\\) ranges from 1 to \\(M\\), and \\(T^{i}\\)'s are hyperparameters associated with hardness level \\(i\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.885, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Because of the stochastic nature of training, it is possible that the samples denoted as easy earlier will potentially be denoted as hard after that, posing instabilities while training the router. To mitigate such randomness, the \\(i\\)th entry is 1 only if the predicted ground truth probability is within the interval for a moving window of last \\(W\\) epochs. The assigned hardness labels will be used as labels to train the router in the next epoch. We do not train the router during the first \\(W\\) epochs and just train the network and record the network's predictions. Please see appendix E.0.5 for more details on the role of window size." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.638, + 0.881, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Training Sample Hardness Aware Router" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.661, + 0.884, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We split the main transformer network with \\( L \\) layers into non-adaptive and adaptive parts, and incorporate the router between these networks (see Figure 1a). The non-adaptive network is comprised of the first \\( 0 < K < L - 1 \\) layers while the adaptive part consists of the remaining \\( L - K \\) layers. The adaptive component is a shared network that consists of sub-networks with varying widths, where the width of each sub-network is a fraction of the width of the network." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "More formally, sub-networks are associated with a given a set of reduction factors \\(\\{r_i\\}_{i = 1}^M\\) \\(0 < r_{i}\\leq\\) 1, where the width of \\(i\\) -th sub-network is \\(1 / r_{i}\\times\\) smaller than that of main network. We map the hardness level \\(i\\) to the width reduction factor \\(r_i\\). During training, for each input, we sample one of the re" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10520" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.081, + 0.835, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Results on the three of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark. For the full set of plots on 8 tasks please refer to the appendix D.0.1. Best viewed in color." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.3, + 0.491, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "duction factors with entry 1 in the router label for that input and do the forward and backward pass with just the network associated with that reduction factor. During inference, given the output of non-adaptive network for input sample \\( x \\), the objective of the router is to determine the width of sub-network in the adaptive module to process \\( x \\). We train the sub-networks and the router with the following objective:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.479, + 0.489, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\lambda_ {\\text {t a s k}} \\cdot \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {t a s k}} + \\lambda_ {\\text {r o u t e r}} \\cdot \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {r o u t e r}} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.512, + 0.49, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{router}}\\) is a binary cross-entropy loss between predicted and ground-truth hardness label, \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{task}}\\) is a task-specific loss, and \\(\\lambda_{\\text{task}}\\) and \\(\\lambda_{\\text{router}}\\) are loss weights which are hyper-parameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.591, + 0.452, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Reducing Width of Adaptive Module" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The basic building block in both multi-head attention (MHA) module and feed forward network (FFN) in transformers is the linear layer (Vaswani et al., 2017). Given the fully-connected nature of linear layers, to reduce their width, we retain the leftmost \\( r \\cdot d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\) neurons in both input and output (Kusupati et al., 2022). It is worth noting that as we reduce the input and output dimensions of matrix multiplications by a factor of \\( 1 / r \\), the flops will be reduced by a factor of \\( 1 / r^2 \\). We follow a similar procedure for reducing the width of affine parameters in LayerNorm (Ba et al., 2016). Also in our setup, we do not change the head dimensions in MHA and instead decrease the number of heads by a factor of \\( 1 / r \\). As Figure 1a illustrates, we down-project the input hidden states to the adaptive layers using a pooled module and up-project it back before feeding to the single classifier for all of the sub-networks. Please see Appendix B for a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.3, + 0.883, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "detailed description of width reduction of different components in transformer layer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.345, + 0.715, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experimental setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.885, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. We evaluate SHARCS on 8 classification tasks in the standard GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018): MNLI-m (Williams et al., 2018), QNLI (Wang et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2016), QQP (Wang et al., 2017), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005), RTE (Dagan et al., 2005), CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019), WNLI (Levesque et al., 2012)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.511, + 0.886, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation metrics. Following previous work, we report the accuracy on the validation set, with an exception to CoLA for which we report Matthews correlation. We measure the total FLOPs on the validation set as it is invariant to the run time environment (Liu et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.617, + 0.885, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training details. We train network with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019). We choose the number of epochs in \\(\\{5,10,15\\}\\) and use learning rate in \\(\\{2e - 5,5e - 5\\}\\) in our experiments. Please see Appendix C for more details." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.71, + 0.61, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.738, + 0.683, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 SHARCS is Better" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare SHARCS with existing sample adaptive inference methods: RTJ (Schwartz et al., 2020), DeeBERT (Xin et al., 2020), FastBERT (Liu et al., 2020), BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021), and PABEE (Zhou et al., 2020). Figure 2 shows the accuracy-FLOPs trade-off plots for different sample adaptive approaches with RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) model on three GLUE subtasks (See appendix D.0.1 for the full set of plots). Our results show that SHARCS significantly outperforms other methods, especially in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10521" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.083, + 0.486, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges. For the full table, please see Appendix D.0.2" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.129, + 0.487, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
FLOPs range (Tera FLOPs)Best BaselineSHARCS
Acc.(%) ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1061.839.5676.374.91
10-2084.191885.9317.92
20-3087.5329.8687.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1048.878.7672.78.94
10-2072.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3083.2727.9983.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-548.874.764.723.80
5-1064.449.9576.028.87
10-1580.3814.9181.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-465.613.7878.923.99
4-676.015.4281.485.21
6-883.867.9283.407.33
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.388, + 0.49, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the low-FLOPs regime. This can suggest that by substantially reducing the width of deeper layers in the model, SHARCS can achieve a significant reduction in FLOPs. Furthermore, we can maintain the accuracy better compared to fully skipping deeper layers as commonly done in early exiting methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.496, + 0.362, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 SHARCS is Model Agnostic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.518, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SHARCS can be seamlessly integrated with any state-of-the-art non-efficient and efficient transformer-based encoders to further improve their efficiency. We use SHARCS and the baseline sample adaptive inference methods in (§4.1) with two standard nonefficient (RoBERTabase and BERT-Basebase) and efficient (DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) and DynaBERT (Hou et al., 2020)) models. Table 1 shows that SHARCS consistently improves the efficiency of different models while maintaining the accuracy better than other baseline sample adaptive methods. Note that, for brevity, we have selected the highest accuracy among all the sample adaptive baselines for each FLOPs range; please see Table 5 in Appendix D.0.2 for the full set of results. As an example, SHARCS can reduce the FLOPs of BERTbase to half with near 3% reduction in accuracy whereas in other methods the drop is more than 12%. Interestingly, SHARCS can further improve the efficiency of already optimized networks. For instance, inference with SHARCS on DynaBERT 0.25 width takes 10-15% less FLOPs with less than 1% drop in accuracy. More accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off results for DynaBERT 0.25 and DistilBERT can be found in Figure 10 and 11." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.667, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 SHARCS is Fast" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.112, + 0.886, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the latency of SHARCS applied to \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}\\) with the baseline adaptive approaches on the QQP (Wang et al., 2017) dataset. The latency measurements are conducted on an Intel Xeon Gold 6230 CPU with a batch size of 1. We use two reduction factors \\(\\{0.25, 1.0\\}\\) and place the router after layer 2 or 4 to get different accuracy-speed up trade offs. We keep the speed up between 2 to 3 and report the best accuracy for each method in this range. Table 2 shows that our method obtains higher or comparable accuracy in this speed up range. Interestingly, SHARCS achieves a performance on par with DistilBERT, which is trained with distillation on a much larger dataset, but with higher speed up." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.359, + 0.84, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 SHARCS Paired with Token Dropping" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.386, + 0.885, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed in Section 1, in addition to early-exiting, token dropping is another well-known approach to sample-adaptive inference efficiency (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022). Token dropping enhances efficiency by progressively dropping tokens layer by layer, thereby decreasing the hidden states sequence length as the forward pass proceeds. In contrast, SHARCS improves efficiency via reducing the transformer block's width. Therefore token dropping and SHARCS should not interfere with each other and in fact, they can be paired together to bring more efficiency. To showcase this, we combine SHARCS with a RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) network that has already been made more efficient using Transkimmer token dropping. Table 3 shows that on QNLI dataset, SHARCS reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa + Transkimmer by \\(40\\%\\) with a negligible drop in accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.693, + 0.885, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Inference speed up results on the QQP dataset on CPU for various adaptive inference techniques applied to BERT. For SHARCS we place the router after layers 2 and 4 and report two numbers." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.755, + 0.885, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Accuracy (%)↑Speed up (×)↑
BERT90.901
DistilBERT88.502
BERxiT85.602.04
FastBERT83.992.17
DeeBERT83.822.14
PABEE89.092.06
RTJ84.442
SHARCS (layer 2)88.432.57
SHARCS (layer 4)90.052.05
" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10522" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.083, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: SHARCS can be applied to RoBERTa in addition to Transkimmer to bring more efficiency. The decrease in FLOPs and Accuracy in parentheses are with respect to RoBERTa + Transkimmer." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.15, + 0.487, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
QNLI Acc.TeraFLOPs
RoBERTa Base92.8%24.5
+Transkimmer89.45%14.08
+Transkimmer + SHARCS88.83% (-0.62%)8.56 (~40%↓)
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.247, + 0.319, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Ablating the Router" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.269, + 0.49, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To show the efficacy of the router and its training strategy in SHARCS, we replace it with the routing strategy used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021): while training two sub-networks with reduction factors \\(\\{0.25, 1.0\\}\\), we feed the training sample to both of them; if a sub-network correctly classifies the sample, the router label for that sub-network in that iteration would be 1. Otherwise, it would be zero. The backward pass is then done with all the losses of sub-networks and the router loss. Table 4 shows the area under the normalized accuracy FLOPs curve (AUC) for both methods on MNLIm. Please find more detailed ablation results and experiments in Appendix E." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.486, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: While using adaptive width with RoBERTa \\( {}_{\\text{base }} \\) on MNLI-m, SHARCS router outperforms BERxiT router." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.535, + 0.42, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Router on RoBERTabaseAUC ↑
SHARCS0.78
BERxiT0.73
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.613, + 0.248, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.639, + 0.49, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We presented SHARCS as a new sample adaptive inference approach that can improve any network's inference efficiency. SHARCS incorporated a lightweight router which is trained with a novel approach using the confidence of the network predictions during training. Our experiments showed the superiority or complementary role of SHARCS compared to other sample adaptive inference methods across various datasets and backbones." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.797, + 0.221, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While the router and training approach in SHARCS are general purpose, a limitation of this paper is its focus solely on studying the impact on transformer encoders. Nonetheless, decoder-only (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and encoder-decoder (Raffel et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020) models are" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "widely used classes of models for which we plan to integrate SHARCS in the future work. It should be noted that although our approach can be applied to regression tasks with minor adjustments, this work does not include any results for regression tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.177, + 0.683, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.202, + 0.885, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank members of RAIVN and H2Lab for helpful discussion and feedback, and Hyak cluster team at the University of Washington for infrastructure support. This research was supported by NSF IIS-2044660, ONR MURI N00014- 18-1-2670, and gifts from AI2, Google and Apple." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.326, + 0.61, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.348, + 0.884, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.385, + 0.885, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. CoRR, abs/2005.14165." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.552, + 0.884, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.615, + 0.885, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.678, + 0.883, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Devvrit, Sneha Kudugunta, Aditya Kusupati, Tim Dettmers, Kaifeng Chen, Inderjit Dhillon, Yulia Tsvetkov, Hajishirzi Hannaneh, Sham Kakade, Ali Farhadi, and Prateek Jain. 2023. Matformer: Nested transformer for elastic inference. arXiv preprint arxiv:2310.07707." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.766, + 0.884, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.829, + 0.883, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. 2021. Information-theoretic measures of dataset difficulty. CoRR, abs/2110.08420." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.879, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saurabh Goyal, Anamitra R. Choudhury, Saurabh M. Raje, Venkatesan T. Chakaravarthy, Yogish Sabharwal, and Ashish Verma. 2020. Power-bert: Accel" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.348, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10523" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "erating bert inference via progressive word-vector elimination." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.124, + 0.49, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yue Guan, Zhengyi Li, Jingwen Leng, Zhouhan Lin, and Minyi Guo. 2022. Transkimmer: Transformer learns to layer-wise skim. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7275-7286, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.227, + 0.489, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Bridging nonlinearities and stochastic regularizers with gaussian error linear units. CoRR, abs/1606.08415." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.277, + 0.489, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.315, + 0.489, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lu Hou, Zhiqi Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, and Qun Liu. 2020. Dynabert: Dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9782-9793. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.392, + 0.489, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2019. Tinybert: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1909.10351." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.456, + 0.489, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yigitcan Kaya and Tudor Dumitras. 2018. How to stop off-the-shelf deep neural networks from overthinking. CoRR, abs/1810.07052." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.507, + 0.489, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Zhewei Yao, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. I-bert: Integer-only bert quantization. International Conference on Machine Learning (Accepted)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.571, + 0.489, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aditya Kusupati, Gantavya Bhatt, Aniket Rege, Matthew Wallingford, Aditya Sinha, Vivek Ramanujan, William Howard-Snyder, Kaifeng Chen, Sham Kakade, Prateek Jain, et al. 2022. Matryoshka representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:30233-30249." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.66, + 0.489, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "François Lagunas, Ella Charlaix, Victor Sanh, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Block pruning for faster transformers. CoRR, abs/2109.04838." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.711, + 0.489, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The Winograd Schema Challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'12, pages 552-561. AAAI Press, Rome, Italy." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.189, + 0.884, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.266, + 0.883, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zechun Liu, Haoyuan Mu, Xiangyu Zhang, Zichao Guo, Xin Yang, Kwang-Ting (Tim) Cheng, and Jian Sun. 2019b. Metapruning: Meta learning for automatic neural network channel pruning. CoRR, abs/1903.10258." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.343, + 0.883, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.38, + 0.883, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul Michel, Omer Levy, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Are sixteen heads really better than one? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.444, + 0.883, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.495, + 0.883, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.546, + 0.883, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.623, + 0.883, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.883, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.776, + 0.883, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fin-tuning. CoRR, abs/2005.07683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roy Schwartz, Gabriel Stanovsky, Swabha Swayamdipta, Jesse Dodge, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. The right tool for the job: Matching model and instance complexities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6640-6651, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10524" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Shen, Zhen Dong, Jiayu Ye, Linjian Ma, Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2019. Q-BERT: hessian based ultra low precision quantization of BERT. CoRR, abs/1909.05840." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.487, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.276, + 0.487, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.351, + 0.487, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2020. MobileBERT: a compact task-agnostic BERT for resource-limited devices. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2158-2170, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.453, + 0.487, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Surat Teerapittayanon, Bradley McDanel, and H. T. Kung. 2017. Branchynet: Fast inference via early exiting from deep neural networks. CoRR, abs/1709.01686." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.487, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.591, + 0.487, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.653, + 0.487, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1804.07461." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.728, + 0.487, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiguo Wang, Wael Hamza, and Radu Florian. 2017. Bilateral multi-perspective matching for natural language sentences. CoRR, abs/1702.03814." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.487, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.136, + 0.882, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mengzhou Xia, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Structured pruning learns compact and accurate models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.186, + 0.882, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Jaejun Lee, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. DeeBERT: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2246-2251, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.274, + 0.882, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. BERxiT: Early exiting for BERT with better fine-tuning and extension to regression. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 91-104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.376, + 0.882, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou, Canwen Xu, Tao Ge, Julian McAuley, Ke Xu, and Furu Wei. 2020. Bert loses patience: Fast and robust inference with early exit. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18330-18341. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10525" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.423, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Background and Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Efficient non-adaptive inference In the context of non-adaptive methods, numerous studies in the literature have improved the inference efficiency of transformers through various techniques such as knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) into smaller models (Sanh et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2020; Jiao et al., 2019), pruning unimportant weights of the model (Xia et al., 2022; Lagunas et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019b), and weight quantization (Shen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021) to store weights of a network with lower precision values. The aforementioned approaches result in smaller and more efficient albeit fixed and static models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.348, + 0.49, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Efficient adaptive inference. Another line of work have proposed adaptive inference methods that allow the network to allocate varying amounts of compute for each sample. The predominant technique in this area is early exiting via adding internal classifiers to intermediate layers (Schwartz et al., 2020; Kaya and Dumitras, 2018; Xin et al., 2020; Teerapittayanon et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020): To early exit, prior work either use the confidence score of internal classifiers' predictions (Schwartz et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020); the entropy of these predictions (Liu et al., 2020); a module that predicts whether a layer should early exit or not (Xin et al., 2021); a patience based change in these internal prediction (Zhou et al., 2020); or a hash based mechanism to do token level early exiting (Sun et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.622, + 0.49, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Devvrit et al. (2023) recently proposed Mat-Former that can enable adaptive compute based on the resource constraints but does not utilize dynamic token-based routing making SHARCS complementary to it." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.717, + 0.357, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.744, + 0.358, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.0.1 Transformer Networks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transformer networks (Vaswani et al., 2017) are composed of a stack of \\(L\\) layers and each layer has two main components: Multi-head attention (MHA) and Feed-forward network (FFN)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MHA consists of \\(n_h\\) heads where each head computes the attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) on the projection of a sequence of \\(l\\) tokens \\(x = (x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_l)\\) into key, query, and values: \\(o_{\\mathrm{head}}^i = \\mathrm{Attention}(\\mathbf{W}_Kx, \\mathbf{W}_{\\mathbf{Q}}x, \\mathbf{W}_{\\mathbf{V}}x)\\), wherein" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.084, + 0.886, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(1\\leq i\\leq H\\) \\(o_{\\mathrm{head}}^i\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{head}}}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{W}_K,\\mathbf{W}_Q,\\mathbf{W}_V\\in\\) \\(\\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times d_{\\mathrm{head}}}\\) are the key, query, and value projection matrices, and \\(d_{\\mathrm{head}} = d_{\\mathrm{model}} / n_h\\) . The outputs from different heads are concatenated into \\(o_{\\mathrm{heads}}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}}\\) and projected with another matrix \\(\\mathbf{W}_O\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times d_{\\mathrm{model}}}\\) and passed through a layer norm (Ba et al., 2016) to get the output: \\(o_{\\mathrm{MHA}} = \\mathrm{LayerNorm}(x + \\mathbf{W}_o o_{\\mathrm{heads}})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.225, + 0.886, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "FFN consists of two feed-forward layers \\( W_{1} \\) and \\( W_{2} \\) with GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity and takes the output of MHA module and computes LayerNorm \\( (o_{\\mathrm{MHA}} + \\mathrm{GeLU}(\\mathbf{W}_1 o_{\\mathrm{MHA}}) \\mathbf{W}_2) \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.318, + 0.842, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.0.2 Reducing Width of a Transformer Layer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.354, + 0.886, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3 illustrates our approach in reducing the capacity of a transformer network based on the given reduction factor. We leave the first \\(K\\) layers (aka non-adaptive module) of the model intact, where \\(K\\) is a hyperparameter. Given an input sequence \\(x\\), after computing the intermediate representation \\(h \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d_{\\mathrm{model}}}\\) by the non-adaptive module, and the reduction factor \\(r\\) by the router, we reduce the width of different components which we will describe in detail next." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.886, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Before passing \\( h \\) to adaptive layers, we pass it through a pooler module that reduces its dimensionality to \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\times r \\). For example, if \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} = 768 \\) and \\( r = 0.25 \\), the input to the adaptive module will be 192 dimensional. Although we experimented with affine transformations for the pooler, in practice we observed that a simpler pooling operation such as selecting just the first \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\times r \\) dimensions works as good. Therefore, as this pooler is simpler and importantly adds no extra FLOPs to inference, we opted for that. For the unpooler, we used an affine transformation that transforms the hidden state with reduced dimensionality (i.e. \\( r \\cdot d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\)) to \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\). Note that for the unpooler layer, the dimensionality of the input can change while the output dimensionality is always \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.774, + 0.886, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Throughout this paper, whenever we decrease a dimension of a component (e.g. input vectors or weights) from \\(d\\) to \\(d'\\), we exclusively use the first \\(d'\\) dimensions and disregards the remainder in the computations. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 4 for FFN and MHA components in transformer models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In what follows we describe how we reduce the width of different components by the reduction" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10526" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.515, + 0.49, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Detailed schematic of reducing with of different components in a transformer model based on the prediction of the router." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.585, + 0.489, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "factor \\( r \\) which is also depicted in detail in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.612, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reducing MHA Width. We reduce the width of MHA using the following steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.645, + 0.489, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. The input dimension \\(d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\) of self-attention projection matrices \\(\\mathbf{W}_K\\), \\(\\mathbf{W}_Q\\), and \\(\\mathbf{W}_v\\) is decreased to \\(d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\cdot r\\). We do not change the output dimension \\(d_{\\mathrm{head}}\\) of the linear projections." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.489, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The adaptive module only computes the output of the first \\( n_h \\cdot r \\) heads and disregards the other heads. Therefore the dimensionality of \\( o_{\\mathrm{heads}} \\) is decreased to \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\cdot r \\). Note that we could also reduce the dimensionality of each head instead, however, we built on previous findings in the literature that many of the heads in transformers are redundant and can be pruned without hurting the performance (Michel et al., 2019; Voita et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. For the output projection \\(\\mathbf{W}_o\\) of MHA, the input and output dimensions, which are both equal to \\(d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\), are reduced to \\(d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\cdot r\\)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.645, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Throughout all the changes above, we do not" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "alter the sequence length of the input (i.e. \\(l\\)) or any of the hidden states." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.125, + 0.885, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reducing FFN width. Similar to the output projection \\(\\mathbf{W}_o\\) of MHA, the input and output dimensions of the feed-forward layers W1 and W2 in the FFN are reduced by a factor of \\(1 / r\\). Therefore, the output dimension of all the adaptive layers are reduced by a factor of \\(r\\) to \\(D_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times r\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.222, + 0.884, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is important to note that majority of operations in FFN and MHA components are comprised of matrix multiplications and reducing the input and output dimensions of these multiplications by a factor of \\( r_j \\) will reduce their flops by a factor of \\( r_j^2 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.31, + 0.884, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reducing layernorms width. We also reduce the width of the layer norm parameters by a factor of \\( r \\). In our experiments, we find it beneficial to initialize the layernorm parameters with the corresponding first dimensions of original layernorm parameters instead of training them from scratch." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.415, + 0.649, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.0.3 Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.434, + 0.884, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast to training where the width of the adaptive layers doing forward pass is enforced by the router labels, at inference, the router predicts the reduction factor. More formally, given the input sample \\( x \\) and router logits \\( \\hat{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{M} \\), we select the reduction factor \\( r_j \\) to do the forward pass where \\( j \\) is \\( \\arg \\max (\\hat{W}) \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.557, + 0.691, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Training Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar to (Hou et al., 2020), we reorder the heads based on their importance before fine-tuning on the down-stream task. We set \\(\\lambda_{task}\\) to 1 and \\(\\lambda_{routert}\\) to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors \\(\\{0.25,1.0\\}\\). We choose the batch size in \\(\\{16,32\\}\\) depending on the model and dataset. We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. We choose the window size values in \\(\\{3,5\\}\\). We set \\(\\lambda_{task}\\) to 1 and \\(\\lambda_{routert}\\) to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors \\(\\{0.25,1.0\\}\\). We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and the hyperparameters of the baselines and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. Similar to previous work (Hou et al., 2020), we pad the input sequences in a batch to 128 tokens while training. To train SHARCS with Transkimer on RoBERTa, we first train RoBERTa + Transkimmer with skim coefficient of 0.3. We then start from this model as" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10527" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.101, + 0.48, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.316, + 0.305, + 0.368, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) FFN" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.1, + 0.797, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.622, + 0.305, + 0.681, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) MHA" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.271, + 0.329, + 0.724, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Reducing the width of FFN and MHA in adaptive layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.369, + 0.489, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "an initial checkpoint and train for 10 epochs using both our loss and Transkimmer loss. Here, training the router is done with with 0.25 and 1.0 as reduction factors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.451, + 0.282, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Results Details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.482, + 0.294, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.0.1 GLUE Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.505, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We do a thorough hyperparameter search with different sample adaptive inference methods to get the accuracy of the RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) model across different FLOPs values. We report the total number of FLOPs on the validation set and do not pad the input sequences before feeding to the model. Figure 12 shows the plots for 8 of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.649, + 0.394, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.0.2 Different Backbone Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.489, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5 shows the comparison of different sample adaptive inference methods applied to different backbones." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.738, + 0.37, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Ablations and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.768, + 0.307, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.0.1 Router Ablation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5 shows the accuracy FLOPs plot for two methods: 1) The router introduced in SHARCS with adaptive width sub-networks. 2) A router similar to the early-exiting router used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) with adaptive-width sub-networks. We report the AUC for a similar range of FLOPs for both methods and scale the accuracy and FLOPs values to [0, 1]." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.395, + 0.849, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.638, + 0.883, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Accuracy vs. FLOPs plot for Adaptive width sub-networks trained with SHARCS router (orange) and BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) router (blue)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.715, + 0.807, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.0.2 Number of Reduction Factors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We change the number of reduction factors (or hardness levels) \\(M\\) to three and four and use the reduction factors \\(\\{0.25, 0.5, 1.0\\}\\) and \\(\\{0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0\\}\\) respectively. Figure 6 shows the results of changing the number of reduction factors with \\(\\mathrm{RoBERTa_{base}}\\) model on MNLI-m dataset. The model trained with two reduction factors outperform the other cases for FLOPs values above 15 teraFLOPs significantly and four reduction factors can get better results in the range of 10-15 Tera FLOPs." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10528" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.083, + 0.864, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.896, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
FLOPs range (Tera Flops)RTJDeeBERTPABEEFastBERTBERxiTSHARCS
Acc. ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1054.279.5961.839.5653.988.5345.392.8453.698.4176.374.91
10-2082.2919.7777.1819.8084.191859.7915.0683.3919.9185.9317.92
20-3086.9225.7681.3523.6787.5329.8677.2429.9587.2327.9287.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1047.329.4642.329.9742.977.5148.878.7646.869.8872.78.94
10-2058.1215.6161.5719.8966.3317.2970.2519.1872.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3078.9628.5380.5729.3481.1327.6683.2727.9980.8225.7383.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-541.922.7643.982.7641.452.7648.874.741.474.0764.723.80
5-1052.729.5659.879.4564.449.9564.249.7655.109.7676.028.87
10-1572.9313.9080.3814.9179.2914.1279.7214.8460.2511.6881.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-460.953.9856.133.3856.093.9765.613.7856.193.5878.923.99
4-674.555.8275.265.6269.815.9376.015.42--81.485.21
6-883.437.7083.367.7081.317.8783.867.9283.087.6083.407.33
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.375, + 0.425, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.571, + 0.489, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Results of different number of sub-networks (or reduction factors) with RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) model on MNLI-m." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.649, + 0.358, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.0.3 Confidence Thresholds" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We study the effect of changing confidence thresholds on our results with a simple experiment: With two reduction factors \\(\\{0.25, 1.0\\}\\) we use the following confidence score lower and upper bounds: \\([0.0, x]\\) for full network and \\([x, 1.0]\\) for 0.25 network, where \\(x \\in \\{0.5, 0.7, 0.9\\}\\). We place the router after layer 1 (i.e. \\(K = 1\\)). Figure 7 shows the results of RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. According to the figure, higher value of \\(x\\) leads to better accuracies for a fixed number of FLOPs. Furthermore, as we decrease \\(x\\), we can reach lower values of FLOPs. This is intuitive as decreasing the lower bound of smallest reduction factor makes more samples be routed to that which reduces the overall FLOPs." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.56, + 0.375, + 0.821, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.571, + 0.884, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Results of changing confidence thresholds with RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. We use reduction factors \\(\\{0.25,1.0\\}\\) and confidence thresholds \\([0,x]\\) for reduction factor 0.25 and confidence thresholds \\([x,1]\\) for reduction factor 1, where \\(x\\in\\) \\(\\{0.5,0.7,0.9\\}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.684, + 0.854, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.0.4 Using Entropy or Confidence-based Hardness Labels to Train Router" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.72, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar to sample adaptive inference in early exiting methods (Xin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020), one can get hardness labels by defining thresholds on entropy of the network predictions instead of the confidence. We use the following formula to compute the entropy of network's prediction:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.832, + 0.78, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nH = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {C} p _ {i} \\cdot \\log p _ {i},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "wherein \\( C \\) denotes the number of classes of the classifier, and \\( p_i \\) is the softmax probability that the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10529" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.112, + 0.454, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.354, + 0.489, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Comparing entropy and confidence based hardness labels for training the router." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.171, + 0.418, + 0.41, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.591, + 0.489, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Effect of changing history window size in SHARCS on MNLI-m Accuracy FLOPs trade-off." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.647, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "classifier assigns to class \\( i \\). Figure 8 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade-off for both of these metrics on MNLI-m dataset with RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) model. Given that the confidence score is a simpler approach and does not require any additional computation, we opted for using that in our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.755, + 0.445, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.0.5 Changing History Window Size in Training the Router" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned in (§2.1), having a larger window size helps stabilizing training the router as the hardness label for a training sample might change throughout training. To illustrate this effect, we train SHARCS on RoBERTa\\(_{\\text{base}}\\) model with three different window sizes \\(\\{1, 3, 5\\}\\) for 10 epochs on MNLI-m dataset. We place the router at layer 2, use two reduction factors \\(\\{0.25, 1.0\\}\\), and set the" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.087, + 0.858, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.328, + 0.885, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DynaBERT 0.25 W (Hou et al., 2020) model. We set the reduction factors to \\(\\{2/3, 1.0\\}\\). By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.453, + 0.885, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "confidence thresholds to [0.0, 0.8] for reduction factor 1 and [0.8, 1.0] for reduction factor 0.25. Figure 9 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade offs that different checkpoints with different window sizes get throughout training on the validation set. According to the figure, the network can reach higher accuracy when trained with window size 3 or 5. We did not see any significant improvements by using a window size larger than 5." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10530" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.327, + 0.465, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.572, + 0.489, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DistilBERT(Sanh et al., 2019) model. We set the reduction factors to \\(\\{2/3, 1.0\\}\\) or \\(\\{0.5, 1.0\\}\\). By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10531" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.222, + 0.855, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.266, + 0.371, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.373, + 0.265, + 0.625, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.63, + 0.265, + 0.885, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.43, + 0.368, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.373, + 0.43, + 0.626, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.43, + 0.884, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.593, + 0.496, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.497, + 0.593, + 0.755, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.765, + 0.699, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: GLUE benchmark results. Best viewed in color." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10532" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_origin.pdf b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..80ea0ab4a53e9aa3c3e5ccc5642f0ab2e6c527ad --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/29c91769-471e-4e25-9798-c851bcedbfe6_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:aa4a384c3df9277bd75a76baa689fe2b30febbcc43f4447f3850dea6419de49d +size 4054044 diff --git a/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/full.md b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65c97fdf011c73d8b0876176618e2f7ee3532b46 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ +# SHARCS: Efficient Transformers through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks + +Mohammadreza Salehi $^{\dagger}$ Sachin Mehta $^{\dagger}$ Aditya Kusupati $^{\dagger}$ Ali Farhadi $^{\dagger\diamond}$ Hannaneh Hajishirzi $^{\dagger\diamond}$ + +†University of Washington †Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {mrsalehi, sacmehta, kusupati, ali, hannaneh}@cs.washington.edu + +# Abstract + +We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. SHARCS can train a router on any transformer network, enabling the model to direct different samples to sub-networks with varying widths. Our experiments demonstrate that: (1) SHARCS outperforms or complements existing per-sample adaptive inference methods across various classification tasks in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs; (2) SHARCS generalizes across different architectures and can be even applied to compressed and efficient transformer encoders to further improve their efficiency; (3) SHARCS can provide a $2 \times$ inference speed up at an insignificant drop in accuracy. + +# 1 Introduction + +Web-scale pretrained models, including Large Language Models (LLMs), are widely used in various applications (Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a; Brown et al., 2020). However, their computational resource requirements can be problematic, especially in environments with limited resources. To address this issue, more efficient methods are needed, particularly those that can run on-device with efficient inference (Sanh et al., 2019). + +Several methods (e.g., knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015), pruning (Lagunas et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2022), and quantization (Shen et al., 2019)) have been proposed to improve the inference efficiency of transformer-based models. While these methods are promising, one drawback is that the resulting model is static. This raises concerns about whether the model is too complex for simple samples and not complex enough for more challenging ones. To tackle this problem, previous work have investigated sample-adaptive inference methods that use varying amount of compute to process different input samples (Kaya and Dumitras, 2018). Two predominant approaches exist in the field of sample adaptive inference: early-joining + +and token dropping. The former incorporates internal classifiers into intermediate layers of the model. Various techniques have been explored for early exiting, including using confidence scores or entropy of internal classifier predictions (Liu et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020), using a module that predicts whether a layer should exit early (Xin et al., 2021), or implementing a patience-based method to adjust these internal predictions (Zhou et al., 2020). The other category of sample-adaptive inference methods, token dropping, enhances efficiency by progressively decreasing sequence length as the forward pass proceeds layer by layer (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022). + +In this paper, we propose Sample Hardness Aware Routing based on Confidence Scores $(\mathsf{SHARCS}^1)$ , which is a novel category within the efficient sample adaptive inference domain. Our approach introduces training a light-weight router. The router dynamically assigns input samples, based on their hardness (Ethayarajh et al., 2021), to one of the sub-networks with varying widths. Due to the lack of ground truth notion of hardness, we estimate sample hardness heuristically based on the network's prediction history during training for each sample. These estimates are then used as labels to train the router. + +We make the following contributions: + +1. SHARCS introduces a router that predicts the hardness of a sample and can be trained on any transformer network. It enables dynamic input processing using sub-networks of varying widths, determined by the predicted hardness. +2. SHARCS delivers substantial efficiency improvements in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off across different datasets & transformer encoders. For example, on QQP (Wang et al., 2017), it reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ by $2.75 \times$ with only $1\%$ accuracy drop. Compared to other + +![](images/e3f00069023724b960735641b0a5045627027c182b951d8bcb48a1f51a385768.jpg) + +![](images/88fed47bcd69f387bcfef750639c6fbd11e3d631c95fe0d133027754b44fc572.jpg) +(a) Inference. +(b) Generating hardness labels to train the router. +Figure 1: (a) At inference the router selects the reduction factor. Red parts denote the changes enforced by the router. (b) Training the router. The confidence scores of the last $W$ epochs for each input sample is recorded. Then they are compared with confidence thresholds and labels for training the router are assigned accordingly. + +sample adaptive inference techniques, SHARCS either outperforms them or can be paired with them to achieve even greater efficiency. + +3. The gains from SHARCS can be realized in real-world deployment with significant latency reduction in CPU-based inference. On QQP, SHARCS can speed up $\mathrm{BERT}_{\mathrm{base}}$ more than $2\times$ with less than $1\%$ drop in accuracy. + +# 2 Method + +We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. Our approach has three main steps: (1) Obtaining labels that represent sample hardness ( $\S 2.1$ ); (2) Training a router that can predict sample hardness ( $\S 2.2$ ); (3) Adjusting the network's inference capacity according to the predicted hardness ( $\S 2.3$ ). + +# 2.1 Estimating Hardness of a Sample + +Our objective is to learn a sample hardness aware router, enabling us to dynamically direct the input sample to one of the sub-networks with varying capacities (including the main network) for efficient inference. As there are no ground-truth labels that represent hardness, we leverage network's prediction history during training. We assume that there are $M$ possible hardness levels for a sample, with level 1 being the easiest and $M$ being the hardest. Our goal is to assign a hardness label $\hat{y} \in \{0,1\}^{M}$ to samples in the training set and train the router with them. Toward this end, we employ a heuristic procedure which is illustrated in Figure 1b: If the model predicts the ground truth class for a training sample with a probability within a confidence interval $[T_{low}^{i}, T_{high}^{i}]$ , then the $i$ th entry in the label $\hat{y}$ would be 1; otherwise it would be zero. Here, $i$ ranges from 1 to $M$ , and $T^{i}$ 's are hyperparameters associated with hardness level $i$ . + +Because of the stochastic nature of training, it is possible that the samples denoted as easy earlier will potentially be denoted as hard after that, posing instabilities while training the router. To mitigate such randomness, the $i$ th entry is 1 only if the predicted ground truth probability is within the interval for a moving window of last $W$ epochs. The assigned hardness labels will be used as labels to train the router in the next epoch. We do not train the router during the first $W$ epochs and just train the network and record the network's predictions. Please see appendix E.0.5 for more details on the role of window size. + +# 2.2 Training Sample Hardness Aware Router + +We split the main transformer network with $L$ layers into non-adaptive and adaptive parts, and incorporate the router between these networks (see Figure 1a). The non-adaptive network is comprised of the first $0 < K < L - 1$ layers while the adaptive part consists of the remaining $L - K$ layers. The adaptive component is a shared network that consists of sub-networks with varying widths, where the width of each sub-network is a fraction of the width of the network. + +More formally, sub-networks are associated with a given a set of reduction factors $\{r_i\}_{i = 1}^M$ $0 < r_{i}\leq$ 1, where the width of $i$ -th sub-network is $1 / r_{i}\times$ smaller than that of main network. We map the hardness level $i$ to the width reduction factor $r_i$ . During training, for each input, we sample one of the re + +![](images/864fef6028196209d80370d23ebff5194ff362b25e1b363694949254727100de.jpg) +Figure 2: Results on the three of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark. For the full set of plots on 8 tasks please refer to the appendix D.0.1. Best viewed in color. + +duction factors with entry 1 in the router label for that input and do the forward and backward pass with just the network associated with that reduction factor. During inference, given the output of non-adaptive network for input sample $x$ , the objective of the router is to determine the width of sub-network in the adaptive module to process $x$ . We train the sub-networks and the router with the following objective: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \lambda_ {\text {t a s k}} \cdot \mathcal {L} _ {\text {t a s k}} + \lambda_ {\text {r o u t e r}} \cdot \mathcal {L} _ {\text {r o u t e r}} \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{L}_{\text{router}}$ is a binary cross-entropy loss between predicted and ground-truth hardness label, $\mathcal{L}_{\text{task}}$ is a task-specific loss, and $\lambda_{\text{task}}$ and $\lambda_{\text{router}}$ are loss weights which are hyper-parameters. + +# 2.3 Reducing Width of Adaptive Module + +The basic building block in both multi-head attention (MHA) module and feed forward network (FFN) in transformers is the linear layer (Vaswani et al., 2017). Given the fully-connected nature of linear layers, to reduce their width, we retain the leftmost $r \cdot d_{\mathrm{model}}$ neurons in both input and output (Kusupati et al., 2022). It is worth noting that as we reduce the input and output dimensions of matrix multiplications by a factor of $1 / r$ , the flops will be reduced by a factor of $1 / r^2$ . We follow a similar procedure for reducing the width of affine parameters in LayerNorm (Ba et al., 2016). Also in our setup, we do not change the head dimensions in MHA and instead decrease the number of heads by a factor of $1 / r$ . As Figure 1a illustrates, we down-project the input hidden states to the adaptive layers using a pooled module and up-project it back before feeding to the single classifier for all of the sub-networks. Please see Appendix B for a + +detailed description of width reduction of different components in transformer layer. + +# 3 Experimental setup + +Datasets. We evaluate SHARCS on 8 classification tasks in the standard GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018): MNLI-m (Williams et al., 2018), QNLI (Wang et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2016), QQP (Wang et al., 2017), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005), RTE (Dagan et al., 2005), CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019), WNLI (Levesque et al., 2012). + +Evaluation metrics. Following previous work, we report the accuracy on the validation set, with an exception to CoLA for which we report Matthews correlation. We measure the total FLOPs on the validation set as it is invariant to the run time environment (Liu et al., 2020). + +Training details. We train network with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019). We choose the number of epochs in $\{5,10,15\}$ and use learning rate in $\{2e - 5,5e - 5\}$ in our experiments. Please see Appendix C for more details. + +# 4 Results + +# 4.1 SHARCS is Better + +We compare SHARCS with existing sample adaptive inference methods: RTJ (Schwartz et al., 2020), DeeBERT (Xin et al., 2020), FastBERT (Liu et al., 2020), BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021), and PABEE (Zhou et al., 2020). Figure 2 shows the accuracy-FLOPs trade-off plots for different sample adaptive approaches with RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ model on three GLUE subtasks (See appendix D.0.1 for the full set of plots). Our results show that SHARCS significantly outperforms other methods, especially in + +Table 1: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges. For the full table, please see Appendix D.0.2 + +
FLOPs range (Tera FLOPs)Best BaselineSHARCS
Acc.(%) ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1061.839.5676.374.91
10-2084.191885.9317.92
20-3087.5329.8687.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1048.878.7672.78.94
10-2072.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3083.2727.9983.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-548.874.764.723.80
5-1064.449.9576.028.87
10-1580.3814.9181.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-465.613.7878.923.99
4-676.015.4281.485.21
6-883.867.9283.407.33
+ +the low-FLOPs regime. This can suggest that by substantially reducing the width of deeper layers in the model, SHARCS can achieve a significant reduction in FLOPs. Furthermore, we can maintain the accuracy better compared to fully skipping deeper layers as commonly done in early exiting methods. + +# 4.2 SHARCS is Model Agnostic + +SHARCS can be seamlessly integrated with any state-of-the-art non-efficient and efficient transformer-based encoders to further improve their efficiency. We use SHARCS and the baseline sample adaptive inference methods in (§4.1) with two standard nonefficient (RoBERTabase and BERT-Basebase) and efficient (DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) and DynaBERT (Hou et al., 2020)) models. Table 1 shows that SHARCS consistently improves the efficiency of different models while maintaining the accuracy better than other baseline sample adaptive methods. Note that, for brevity, we have selected the highest accuracy among all the sample adaptive baselines for each FLOPs range; please see Table 5 in Appendix D.0.2 for the full set of results. As an example, SHARCS can reduce the FLOPs of BERTbase to half with near 3% reduction in accuracy whereas in other methods the drop is more than 12%. Interestingly, SHARCS can further improve the efficiency of already optimized networks. For instance, inference with SHARCS on DynaBERT 0.25 width takes 10-15% less FLOPs with less than 1% drop in accuracy. More accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off results for DynaBERT 0.25 and DistilBERT can be found in Figure 10 and 11. + +# 4.3 SHARCS is Fast + +We compare the latency of SHARCS applied to $\mathrm{BERT}_{\mathrm{base}}$ with the baseline adaptive approaches on the QQP (Wang et al., 2017) dataset. The latency measurements are conducted on an Intel Xeon Gold 6230 CPU with a batch size of 1. We use two reduction factors $\{0.25, 1.0\}$ and place the router after layer 2 or 4 to get different accuracy-speed up trade offs. We keep the speed up between 2 to 3 and report the best accuracy for each method in this range. Table 2 shows that our method obtains higher or comparable accuracy in this speed up range. Interestingly, SHARCS achieves a performance on par with DistilBERT, which is trained with distillation on a much larger dataset, but with higher speed up. + +# 4.4 SHARCS Paired with Token Dropping + +As discussed in Section 1, in addition to early-exiting, token dropping is another well-known approach to sample-adaptive inference efficiency (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022). Token dropping enhances efficiency by progressively dropping tokens layer by layer, thereby decreasing the hidden states sequence length as the forward pass proceeds. In contrast, SHARCS improves efficiency via reducing the transformer block's width. Therefore token dropping and SHARCS should not interfere with each other and in fact, they can be paired together to bring more efficiency. To showcase this, we combine SHARCS with a RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ network that has already been made more efficient using Transkimmer token dropping. Table 3 shows that on QNLI dataset, SHARCS reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa + Transkimmer by $40\%$ with a negligible drop in accuracy. + +Table 2: Inference speed up results on the QQP dataset on CPU for various adaptive inference techniques applied to BERT. For SHARCS we place the router after layers 2 and 4 and report two numbers. + +
Accuracy (%)↑Speed up (×)↑
BERT90.901
DistilBERT88.502
BERxiT85.602.04
FastBERT83.992.17
DeeBERT83.822.14
PABEE89.092.06
RTJ84.442
SHARCS (layer 2)88.432.57
SHARCS (layer 4)90.052.05
+ +Table 3: SHARCS can be applied to RoBERTa in addition to Transkimmer to bring more efficiency. The decrease in FLOPs and Accuracy in parentheses are with respect to RoBERTa + Transkimmer. + +
QNLI Acc.TeraFLOPs
RoBERTa Base92.8%24.5
+Transkimmer89.45%14.08
+Transkimmer + SHARCS88.83% (-0.62%)8.56 (~40%↓)
+ +# 4.5 Ablating the Router + +To show the efficacy of the router and its training strategy in SHARCS, we replace it with the routing strategy used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021): while training two sub-networks with reduction factors $\{0.25, 1.0\}$ , we feed the training sample to both of them; if a sub-network correctly classifies the sample, the router label for that sub-network in that iteration would be 1. Otherwise, it would be zero. The backward pass is then done with all the losses of sub-networks and the router loss. Table 4 shows the area under the normalized accuracy FLOPs curve (AUC) for both methods on MNLIm. Please find more detailed ablation results and experiments in Appendix E. + +Table 4: While using adaptive width with RoBERTa ${}_{\text{base }}$ on MNLI-m, SHARCS router outperforms BERxiT router. + +
Router on RoBERTabaseAUC ↑
SHARCS0.78
BERxiT0.73
+ +# 5 Conclusion + +We presented SHARCS as a new sample adaptive inference approach that can improve any network's inference efficiency. SHARCS incorporated a lightweight router which is trained with a novel approach using the confidence of the network predictions during training. Our experiments showed the superiority or complementary role of SHARCS compared to other sample adaptive inference methods across various datasets and backbones. + +# Limitations + +While the router and training approach in SHARCS are general purpose, a limitation of this paper is its focus solely on studying the impact on transformer encoders. Nonetheless, decoder-only (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and encoder-decoder (Raffel et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020) models are + +widely used classes of models for which we plan to integrate SHARCS in the future work. It should be noted that although our approach can be applied to regression tasks with minor adjustments, this work does not include any results for regression tasks. + +# Acknowledgements + +We thank members of RAIVN and H2Lab for helpful discussion and feedback, and Hyak cluster team at the University of Washington for infrastructure support. This research was supported by NSF IIS-2044660, ONR MURI N00014- 18-1-2670, and gifts from AI2, Google and Apple. + +# References + +Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization. +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. CoRR, abs/2005.14165. +Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805. +Devvrit, Sneha Kudugunta, Aditya Kusupati, Tim Dettmers, Kaifeng Chen, Inderjit Dhillon, Yulia Tsvetkov, Hajishirzi Hannaneh, Sham Kakade, Ali Farhadi, and Prateek Jain. 2023. Matformer: Nested transformer for elastic inference. arXiv preprint arxiv:2310.07707. +William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005). +Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. 2021. Information-theoretic measures of dataset difficulty. CoRR, abs/2110.08420. +Saurabh Goyal, Anamitra R. Choudhury, Saurabh M. Raje, Venkatesan T. Chakaravarthy, Yogish Sabharwal, and Ashish Verma. 2020. Power-bert: Accel + +erating bert inference via progressive word-vector elimination. +Yue Guan, Zhengyi Li, Jingwen Leng, Zhouhan Lin, and Minyi Guo. 2022. Transkimmer: Transformer learns to layer-wise skim. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7275-7286, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Bridging nonlinearities and stochastic regularizers with gaussian error linear units. CoRR, abs/1606.08415. +Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. +Lu Hou, Zhiqi Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, and Qun Liu. 2020. Dynabert: Dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9782-9793. Curran Associates, Inc. +Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2019. Tinybert: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1909.10351. +Yigitcan Kaya and Tudor Dumitras. 2018. How to stop off-the-shelf deep neural networks from overthinking. CoRR, abs/1810.07052. +Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Zhewei Yao, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. I-bert: Integer-only bert quantization. International Conference on Machine Learning (Accepted). +Aditya Kusupati, Gantavya Bhatt, Aniket Rege, Matthew Wallingford, Aditya Sinha, Vivek Ramanujan, William Howard-Snyder, Kaifeng Chen, Sham Kakade, Prateek Jain, et al. 2022. Matryoshka representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:30233-30249. +François Lagunas, Ella Charlaix, Victor Sanh, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Block pruning for faster transformers. CoRR, abs/2109.04838. +Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The Winograd Schema Challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'12, pages 552-561. AAAI Press, Rome, Italy. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692. +Zechun Liu, Haoyuan Mu, Xiangyu Zhang, Zichao Guo, Xin Yang, Kwang-Ting (Tim) Cheng, and Jian Sun. 2019b. Metapruning: Meta learning for automatic neural network channel pruning. CoRR, abs/1903.10258. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. +Paul Michel, Omer Levy, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Are sixteen heads really better than one? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. +Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. +Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108. +Victor Sanh, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fin-tuning. CoRR, abs/2005.07683. +Roy Schwartz, Gabriel Stanovsky, Swabha Swayamdipta, Jesse Dodge, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. The right tool for the job: Matching model and instance complexities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6640-6651, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Sheng Shen, Zhen Dong, Jiayu Ye, Linjian Ma, Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2019. Q-BERT: hessian based ultra low precision quantization of BERT. CoRR, abs/1909.05840. +Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation. +Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2020. MobileBERT: a compact task-agnostic BERT for resource-limited devices. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2158-2170, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Surat Teerapittayanon, Bradley McDanel, and H. T. Kung. 2017. Branchynet: Fast inference via early exiting from deep neural networks. CoRR, abs/1709.01686. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. +Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned. +Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1804.07461. +Zhiguo Wang, Wael Hamza, and Radu Florian. 2017. Bilateral multi-perspective matching for natural language sentences. CoRR, abs/1702.03814. +Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641. +Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume + +1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mengzhou Xia, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Structured pruning learns compact and accurate models. +Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Jaejun Lee, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. DeeBERT: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2246-2251, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. BERxiT: Early exiting for BERT with better fine-tuning and extension to regression. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 91-104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wangchunshu Zhou, Canwen Xu, Tao Ge, Julian McAuley, Ke Xu, and Furu Wei. 2020. Bert loses patience: Fast and robust inference with early exit. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18330-18341. Curran Associates, Inc. + +# A Background and Related Work + +Efficient non-adaptive inference In the context of non-adaptive methods, numerous studies in the literature have improved the inference efficiency of transformers through various techniques such as knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) into smaller models (Sanh et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2020; Jiao et al., 2019), pruning unimportant weights of the model (Xia et al., 2022; Lagunas et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019b), and weight quantization (Shen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021) to store weights of a network with lower precision values. The aforementioned approaches result in smaller and more efficient albeit fixed and static models. + +Efficient adaptive inference. Another line of work have proposed adaptive inference methods that allow the network to allocate varying amounts of compute for each sample. The predominant technique in this area is early exiting via adding internal classifiers to intermediate layers (Schwartz et al., 2020; Kaya and Dumitras, 2018; Xin et al., 2020; Teerapittayanon et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020): To early exit, prior work either use the confidence score of internal classifiers' predictions (Schwartz et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020); the entropy of these predictions (Liu et al., 2020); a module that predicts whether a layer should early exit or not (Xin et al., 2021); a patience based change in these internal prediction (Zhou et al., 2020); or a hash based mechanism to do token level early exiting (Sun et al., 2022). + +Devvrit et al. (2023) recently proposed Mat-Former that can enable adaptive compute based on the resource constraints but does not utilize dynamic token-based routing making SHARCS complementary to it. + +# B Implementation Details + +# B.0.1 Transformer Networks + +Transformer networks (Vaswani et al., 2017) are composed of a stack of $L$ layers and each layer has two main components: Multi-head attention (MHA) and Feed-forward network (FFN). + +MHA consists of $n_h$ heads where each head computes the attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) on the projection of a sequence of $l$ tokens $x = (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_l)$ into key, query, and values: $o_{\mathrm{head}}^i = \mathrm{Attention}(\mathbf{W}_Kx, \mathbf{W}_{\mathbf{Q}}x, \mathbf{W}_{\mathbf{V}}x)$ , wherein + +$1\leq i\leq H$ $o_{\mathrm{head}}^i\in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\mathrm{head}}}$ and $\mathbf{W}_K,\mathbf{W}_Q,\mathbf{W}_V\in$ $\mathbb{R}^{d_{\mathrm{model}}\times d_{\mathrm{head}}}$ are the key, query, and value projection matrices, and $d_{\mathrm{head}} = d_{\mathrm{model}} / n_h$ . The outputs from different heads are concatenated into $o_{\mathrm{heads}}\in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\mathrm{model}}}$ and projected with another matrix $\mathbf{W}_O\in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\mathrm{model}}\times d_{\mathrm{model}}}$ and passed through a layer norm (Ba et al., 2016) to get the output: $o_{\mathrm{MHA}} = \mathrm{LayerNorm}(x + \mathbf{W}_o o_{\mathrm{heads}})$ + +FFN consists of two feed-forward layers $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ with GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity and takes the output of MHA module and computes LayerNorm $(o_{\mathrm{MHA}} + \mathrm{GeLU}(\mathbf{W}_1 o_{\mathrm{MHA}}) \mathbf{W}_2)$ . + +# B.0.2 Reducing Width of a Transformer Layer + +Figure 3 illustrates our approach in reducing the capacity of a transformer network based on the given reduction factor. We leave the first $K$ layers (aka non-adaptive module) of the model intact, where $K$ is a hyperparameter. Given an input sequence $x$ , after computing the intermediate representation $h \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times d_{\mathrm{model}}}$ by the non-adaptive module, and the reduction factor $r$ by the router, we reduce the width of different components which we will describe in detail next. + +Before passing $h$ to adaptive layers, we pass it through a pooler module that reduces its dimensionality to $d_{\mathrm{model}} \times r$ . For example, if $d_{\mathrm{model}} = 768$ and $r = 0.25$ , the input to the adaptive module will be 192 dimensional. Although we experimented with affine transformations for the pooler, in practice we observed that a simpler pooling operation such as selecting just the first $d_{\mathrm{model}} \times r$ dimensions works as good. Therefore, as this pooler is simpler and importantly adds no extra FLOPs to inference, we opted for that. For the unpooler, we used an affine transformation that transforms the hidden state with reduced dimensionality (i.e. $r \cdot d_{\mathrm{model}}$ ) to $d_{\mathrm{model}}$ . Note that for the unpooler layer, the dimensionality of the input can change while the output dimensionality is always $d_{\mathrm{model}}$ . + +Throughout this paper, whenever we decrease a dimension of a component (e.g. input vectors or weights) from $d$ to $d'$ , we exclusively use the first $d'$ dimensions and disregards the remainder in the computations. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 4 for FFN and MHA components in transformer models. + +In what follows we describe how we reduce the width of different components by the reduction + +![](images/9a44d48560b2ec04290012b686de013f6a6be101ecc6da65272120d543326732.jpg) +Figure 3: Detailed schematic of reducing with of different components in a transformer model based on the prediction of the router. + +factor $r$ which is also depicted in detail in Figure 3. + +Reducing MHA Width. We reduce the width of MHA using the following steps: + +1. The input dimension $d_{\mathrm{model}}$ of self-attention projection matrices $\mathbf{W}_K$ , $\mathbf{W}_Q$ , and $\mathbf{W}_v$ is decreased to $d_{\mathrm{model}} \cdot r$ . We do not change the output dimension $d_{\mathrm{head}}$ of the linear projections. +2. The adaptive module only computes the output of the first $n_h \cdot r$ heads and disregards the other heads. Therefore the dimensionality of $o_{\mathrm{heads}}$ is decreased to $d_{\mathrm{model}} \cdot r$ . Note that we could also reduce the dimensionality of each head instead, however, we built on previous findings in the literature that many of the heads in transformers are redundant and can be pruned without hurting the performance (Michel et al., 2019; Voita et al., 2019). +3. For the output projection $\mathbf{W}_o$ of MHA, the input and output dimensions, which are both equal to $d_{\mathrm{model}}$ , are reduced to $d_{\mathrm{model}}\cdot r$ . + +Throughout all the changes above, we do not + +alter the sequence length of the input (i.e. $l$ ) or any of the hidden states. + +Reducing FFN width. Similar to the output projection $\mathbf{W}_o$ of MHA, the input and output dimensions of the feed-forward layers W1 and W2 in the FFN are reduced by a factor of $1 / r$ . Therefore, the output dimension of all the adaptive layers are reduced by a factor of $r$ to $D_{\mathrm{model}}\times r$ . + +It is important to note that majority of operations in FFN and MHA components are comprised of matrix multiplications and reducing the input and output dimensions of these multiplications by a factor of $r_j$ will reduce their flops by a factor of $r_j^2$ . + +Reducing layernorms width. We also reduce the width of the layer norm parameters by a factor of $r$ . In our experiments, we find it beneficial to initialize the layernorm parameters with the corresponding first dimensions of original layernorm parameters instead of training them from scratch. + +# B.0.3 Inference + +In contrast to training where the width of the adaptive layers doing forward pass is enforced by the router labels, at inference, the router predicts the reduction factor. More formally, given the input sample $x$ and router logits $\hat{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{M}$ , we select the reduction factor $r_j$ to do the forward pass where $j$ is $\arg \max (\hat{W})$ . + +# C Training Details + +Similar to (Hou et al., 2020), we reorder the heads based on their importance before fine-tuning on the down-stream task. We set $\lambda_{task}$ to 1 and $\lambda_{routert}$ to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors $\{0.25,1.0\}$ . We choose the batch size in $\{16,32\}$ depending on the model and dataset. We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. We choose the window size values in $\{3,5\}$ . We set $\lambda_{task}$ to 1 and $\lambda_{routert}$ to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors $\{0.25,1.0\}$ . We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and the hyperparameters of the baselines and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. Similar to previous work (Hou et al., 2020), we pad the input sequences in a batch to 128 tokens while training. To train SHARCS with Transkimer on RoBERTa, we first train RoBERTa + Transkimmer with skim coefficient of 0.3. We then start from this model as + +![](images/05e9e082825ff27a58464e01a82590a852dd5999f580000d2f9bf1503f0add7a.jpg) +(a) FFN + +![](images/c57f8a98286552dc41e1d74aac8529252e487827100efada3cf742fd610c7c07.jpg) +(b) MHA + +an initial checkpoint and train for 10 epochs using both our loss and Transkimmer loss. Here, training the router is done with with 0.25 and 1.0 as reduction factors. + +# D Results Details + +# D.0.1 GLUE Results + +We do a thorough hyperparameter search with different sample adaptive inference methods to get the accuracy of the RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ model across different FLOPs values. We report the total number of FLOPs on the validation set and do not pad the input sequences before feeding to the model. Figure 12 shows the plots for 8 of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark. + +# D.0.2 Different Backbone Results + +Table 5 shows the comparison of different sample adaptive inference methods applied to different backbones. + +# E Ablations and Discussion + +# E.0.1 Router Ablation + +Figure 5 shows the accuracy FLOPs plot for two methods: 1) The router introduced in SHARCS with adaptive width sub-networks. 2) A router similar to the early-exiting router used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) with adaptive-width sub-networks. We report the AUC for a similar range of FLOPs for both methods and scale the accuracy and FLOPs values to [0, 1]. + +![](images/4a34ba4ad53d34380a5d75e19b2fb8c1eeb4b0f2187b01e7bc54be9532d3a9e5.jpg) +Figure 4: Reducing the width of FFN and MHA in adaptive layers. +Figure 5: Accuracy vs. FLOPs plot for Adaptive width sub-networks trained with SHARCS router (orange) and BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) router (blue). + +# E.0.2 Number of Reduction Factors + +We change the number of reduction factors (or hardness levels) $M$ to three and four and use the reduction factors $\{0.25, 0.5, 1.0\}$ and $\{0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0\}$ respectively. Figure 6 shows the results of changing the number of reduction factors with $\mathrm{RoBERTa_{base}}$ model on MNLI-m dataset. The model trained with two reduction factors outperform the other cases for FLOPs values above 15 teraFLOPs significantly and four reduction factors can get better results in the range of 10-15 Tera FLOPs. + +Table 5: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges. + +
FLOPs range (Tera Flops)RTJDeeBERTPABEEFastBERTBERxiTSHARCS
Acc. ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1054.279.5961.839.5653.988.5345.392.8453.698.4176.374.91
10-2082.2919.7777.1819.8084.191859.7915.0683.3919.9185.9317.92
20-3086.9225.7681.3523.6787.5329.8677.2429.9587.2327.9287.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1047.329.4642.329.9742.977.5148.878.7646.869.8872.78.94
10-2058.1215.6161.5719.8966.3317.2970.2519.1872.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3078.9628.5380.5729.3481.1327.6683.2727.9980.8225.7383.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-541.922.7643.982.7641.452.7648.874.741.474.0764.723.80
5-1052.729.5659.879.4564.449.9564.249.7655.109.7676.028.87
10-1572.9313.9080.3814.9179.2914.1279.7214.8460.2511.6881.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-460.953.9856.133.3856.093.9765.613.7856.193.5878.923.99
4-674.555.8275.265.6269.815.9376.015.42--81.485.21
6-883.437.7083.367.7081.317.8783.867.9283.087.6083.407.33
+ +![](images/a16e1f8928a4e2cf5c603b9ce28b863736461b63322287c25996ec6bb1f1284b.jpg) +Figure 6: Results of different number of sub-networks (or reduction factors) with RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ model on MNLI-m. + +# E.0.3 Confidence Thresholds + +We study the effect of changing confidence thresholds on our results with a simple experiment: With two reduction factors $\{0.25, 1.0\}$ we use the following confidence score lower and upper bounds: $[0.0, x]$ for full network and $[x, 1.0]$ for 0.25 network, where $x \in \{0.5, 0.7, 0.9\}$ . We place the router after layer 1 (i.e. $K = 1$ ). Figure 7 shows the results of RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. According to the figure, higher value of $x$ leads to better accuracies for a fixed number of FLOPs. Furthermore, as we decrease $x$ , we can reach lower values of FLOPs. This is intuitive as decreasing the lower bound of smallest reduction factor makes more samples be routed to that which reduces the overall FLOPs. + +![](images/1b8379324c27338c0d17ca4a3b8eb69621907d6b1a92828f5fd967191e081341.jpg) +Figure 7: Results of changing confidence thresholds with RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. We use reduction factors $\{0.25,1.0\}$ and confidence thresholds $[0,x]$ for reduction factor 0.25 and confidence thresholds $[x,1]$ for reduction factor 1, where $x\in$ $\{0.5,0.7,0.9\}$ . + +# E.0.4 Using Entropy or Confidence-based Hardness Labels to Train Router + +Similar to sample adaptive inference in early exiting methods (Xin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020), one can get hardness labels by defining thresholds on entropy of the network predictions instead of the confidence. We use the following formula to compute the entropy of network's prediction: + +$$ +H = - \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {C} p _ {i} \cdot \log p _ {i}, +$$ + +wherein $C$ denotes the number of classes of the classifier, and $p_i$ is the softmax probability that the + +![](images/89adfb1b376e0587f7131ba35925fe1396b504148361c8dfd383df6566cde0b3.jpg) +Figure 8: Comparing entropy and confidence based hardness labels for training the router. + +![](images/e4bebf2b1a74074efe09d7bde4d017fd318196e8db7e209572267cdfb3fa386a.jpg) +Figure 9: Effect of changing history window size in SHARCS on MNLI-m Accuracy FLOPs trade-off. + +classifier assigns to class $i$ . Figure 8 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade-off for both of these metrics on MNLI-m dataset with RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ model. Given that the confidence score is a simpler approach and does not require any additional computation, we opted for using that in our method. + +# E.0.5 Changing History Window Size in Training the Router + +As mentioned in (§2.1), having a larger window size helps stabilizing training the router as the hardness label for a training sample might change throughout training. To illustrate this effect, we train SHARCS on RoBERTa $_{\text{base}}$ model with three different window sizes $\{1, 3, 5\}$ for 10 epochs on MNLI-m dataset. We place the router at layer 2, use two reduction factors $\{0.25, 1.0\}$ , and set the + +![](images/7034b2357ef10d7e0c04c21de42a8d34dd162fbdcadf2917c533f66412323c6e.jpg) +Figure 10: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DynaBERT 0.25 W (Hou et al., 2020) model. We set the reduction factors to $\{2/3, 1.0\}$ . By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported. + +confidence thresholds to [0.0, 0.8] for reduction factor 1 and [0.8, 1.0] for reduction factor 0.25. Figure 9 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade offs that different checkpoints with different window sizes get throughout training on the validation set. According to the figure, the network can reach higher accuracy when trained with window size 3 or 5. We did not see any significant improvements by using a window size larger than 5. + +![](images/9ac553ab79c6eb7e321a17530ed927d1e7052f20e380716a6a5af33a9313a541.jpg) +Figure 11: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DistilBERT(Sanh et al., 2019) model. We set the reduction factors to $\{2/3, 1.0\}$ or $\{0.5, 1.0\}$ . By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported. + +![](images/8885e9a306c7751bd99d564a50c13203ddf30d79b10b5a2a1672a99d4bd39e52.jpg) + +![](images/a05d1a2c52e7c555d27612f907bc8403f58597bded762763024c5d94ca9845ba.jpg) + +![](images/73c428675368f761f3b3447bb34de1d7f213c883a3c276f68e7c2c8631db35bf.jpg) + +![](images/c36876da88cfe6c1416e8cc096fcb24ca31d27180affbd2dd838a5b10264db50.jpg) + +![](images/ae23cc1bb912f2366b10057d7c74677bca03533e2ec22be447969fec214816fe.jpg) + +![](images/1a890f8a994dd58a55c3bcf847c04e33d5dd36a87811147f9d07396c0fe39831.jpg) + +![](images/50547702ea5ade889da2b1660f068d54ee20c72eac5846a42fd0ea8861003b92.jpg) + +![](images/bf92c78996ddf323036bd017f7e88195e3b48fa578efbc65b44d6061b608a50a.jpg) +Figure 12: GLUE benchmark results. Best viewed in color. + +![](images/2b92e068d931f35bb484a6e4f930c92fa4798b723686e4c4b61dcf3332f4399b.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/images.zip b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abd84692184e18b774c4101c00ba193f2540ed62 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:eb2b80809541db91f81b66a2efe0f2a6d099028a41e0b7e5fbe0f6803a2162fd +size 687582 diff --git a/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/layout.json b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4573f528ac69740d0f05ad2cbd80de4d856c91b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SHARCS_ Efficient Transformers Through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10654 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 75, + 446, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 75, + 446, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 75, + 446, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SHARCS: Efficient Transformers through Routing with Dynamic Width Sub-networks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohammadreza Salehi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Sachin Mehta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Aditya Kusupati" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Ali Farhadi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger\\diamond}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Hannaneh Hajishirzi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 124, + 451, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger\\diamond}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 155, + 476, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 155, + 476, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 155, + 476, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "†University of Washington †Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence {mrsalehi, sacmehta, kusupati, ali, hannaneh}@cs.washington.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. SHARCS can train a router on any transformer network, enabling the model to direct different samples to sub-networks with varying widths. Our experiments demonstrate that: (1) SHARCS outperforms or complements existing per-sample adaptive inference methods across various classification tasks in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs; (2) SHARCS generalizes across different architectures and can be even applied to compressed and efficient transformer encoders to further improve their efficiency; (3) SHARCS can provide a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 416 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " inference speed up at an insignificant drop in accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 155, + 439 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 155, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 155, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 291, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 291, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 291, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Web-scale pretrained models, including Large Language Models (LLMs), are widely used in various applications (Devlin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019a; Brown et al., 2020). However, their computational resource requirements can be problematic, especially in environments with limited resources. To address this issue, more efficient methods are needed, particularly those that can run on-device with efficient inference (Sanh et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Several methods (e.g., knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015), pruning (Lagunas et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2022), and quantization (Shen et al., 2019)) have been proposed to improve the inference efficiency of transformer-based models. While these methods are promising, one drawback is that the resulting model is static. This raises concerns about whether the model is too complex for simple samples and not complex enough for more challenging ones. To tackle this problem, previous work have investigated sample-adaptive inference methods that use varying amount of compute to process different input samples (Kaya and Dumitras, 2018). Two predominant approaches exist in the field of sample adaptive inference: early-joining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and token dropping. The former incorporates internal classifiers into intermediate layers of the model. Various techniques have been explored for early exiting, including using confidence scores or entropy of internal classifier predictions (Liu et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020), using a module that predicts whether a layer should exit early (Xin et al., 2021), or implementing a patience-based method to adjust these internal predictions (Zhou et al., 2020). The other category of sample-adaptive inference methods, token dropping, enhances efficiency by progressively decreasing sequence length as the forward pass proceeds layer by layer (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 526, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 526, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 526, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose Sample Hardness Aware Routing based on Confidence Scores " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 526, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathsf{SHARCS}^1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 526, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is a novel category within the efficient sample adaptive inference domain. Our approach introduces training a light-weight router. The router dynamically assigns input samples, based on their hardness (Ethayarajh et al., 2021), to one of the sub-networks with varying widths. Due to the lack of ground truth notion of hardness, we estimate sample hardness heuristically based on the network's prediction history during training for each sample. These estimates are then used as labels to train the router." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 481, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 481, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 584, + 481, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We make the following contributions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 600, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 525, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 525, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 525, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. SHARCS introduces a router that predicts the hardness of a sample and can be trained on any transformer network. It enables dynamic input processing using sub-networks of varying widths, determined by the predicted hardness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. SHARCS delivers substantial efficiency improvements in terms of accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off across different datasets & transformer encoders. For example, on QQP (Wang et al., 2017), it reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.75 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 672, + 526, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " accuracy drop. Compared to other" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 392, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 392, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 392, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 pronounced sharks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10519" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10519-10532 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 90, + 69, + 264, + 242 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 69, + 264, + 242 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 69, + 264, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 69, + 264, + 242 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e3f00069023724b960735641b0a5045627027c182b951d8bcb48a1f51a385768.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 260, + 268, + 390 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 248, + 204, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 248, + 204, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 248, + 204, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 260, + 268, + 390 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 260, + 268, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 260, + 268, + 390 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "88fed47bcd69f387bcfef750639c6fbd11e3d631c95fe0d133027754b44fc572.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 395, + 266, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 395, + 266, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 395, + 266, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Generating hardness labels to train the router." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 488 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: (a) At inference the router selects the reduction factor. Red parts denote the changes enforced by the router. (b) Training the router. The confidence scores of the last " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs for each input sample is recorded. Then they are compared with confidence thresholds and labels for training the router are assigned accordingly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 511, + 290, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 511, + 290, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 511, + 290, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sample adaptive inference techniques, SHARCS either outperforms them or can be paired with them to achieve even greater efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. The gains from SHARCS can be realized in real-world deployment with significant latency reduction in CPU-based inference. On QQP, SHARCS can speed up " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 558, + 291, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " drop in accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 130, + 666 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 130, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 130, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce SHARCS for adaptive inference that takes into account the hardness of input samples. Our approach has three main steps: (1) Obtaining labels that represent sample hardness (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 2.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "); (2) Training a router that can predict sample hardness (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 2.2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "); (3) Adjusting the network's inference capacity according to the predicted hardness (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 2.3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 486, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 486, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 486, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Estimating Hardness of a Sample" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our objective is to learn a sample hardness aware router, enabling us to dynamically direct the input sample to one of the sub-networks with varying capacities (including the main network) for efficient inference. As there are no ground-truth labels that represent hardness, we leverage network's prediction history during training. We assume that there are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " possible hardness levels for a sample, with level 1 being the easiest and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " being the hardest. Our goal is to assign a hardness label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y} \\in \\{0,1\\}^{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to samples in the training set and train the router with them. Toward this end, we employ a heuristic procedure which is illustrated in Figure 1b: If the model predicts the ground truth class for a training sample with a probability within a confidence interval " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[T_{low}^{i}, T_{high}^{i}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "th entry in the label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " would be 1; otherwise it would be zero. Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ranges from 1 to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'s are hyperparameters associated with hardness level " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Because of the stochastic nature of training, it is possible that the samples denoted as easy earlier will potentially be denoted as hard after that, posing instabilities while training the router. To mitigate such randomness, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "th entry is 1 only if the predicted ground truth probability is within the interval for a moving window of last " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs. The assigned hardness labels will be used as labels to train the router in the next epoch. We do not train the router during the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " epochs and just train the network and record the network's predictions. Please see appendix E.0.5 for more details on the role of window size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 524, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Training Sample Hardness Aware Router" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We split the main transformer network with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers into non-adaptive and adaptive parts, and incorporate the router between these networks (see Figure 1a). The non-adaptive network is comprised of the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0 < K < L - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers while the adaptive part consists of the remaining " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L - K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers. The adaptive component is a shared network that consists of sub-networks with varying widths, where the width of each sub-network is a fraction of the width of the network." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "More formally, sub-networks are associated with a given a set of reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{r_i\\}_{i = 1}^M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0 < r_{i}\\leq" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 1, where the width of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -th sub-network is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / r_{i}\\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " smaller than that of main network. We map the hardness level " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the width reduction factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". During training, for each input, we sample one of the re" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10520" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 199 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 199 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "864fef6028196209d80370d23ebff5194ff362b25e1b363694949254727100de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 526, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 526, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Results on the three of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark. For the full set of plots on 8 tasks please refer to the appendix D.0.1. Best viewed in color." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "duction factors with entry 1 in the router label for that input and do the forward and backward pass with just the network associated with that reduction factor. During inference, given the output of non-adaptive network for input sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the objective of the router is to determine the width of sub-network in the adaptive module to process " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 292, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We train the sub-networks and the router with the following objective:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 402, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 402, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 402, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\lambda_ {\\text {t a s k}} \\cdot \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {t a s k}} + \\lambda_ {\\text {r o u t e r}} \\cdot \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {r o u t e r}} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "972fd44c7000558d5361f92c60195267d671e20794339cfbd0b5034471f38244.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{router}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a binary cross-entropy loss between predicted and ground-truth hardness label, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{task}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a task-specific loss, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{\\text{task}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{\\text{router}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 291, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are loss weights which are hyper-parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 268, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 268, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 268, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Reducing Width of Adaptive Module" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The basic building block in both multi-head attention (MHA) module and feed forward network (FFN) in transformers is the linear layer (Vaswani et al., 2017). Given the fully-connected nature of linear layers, to reduce their width, we retain the leftmost " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r \\cdot d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " neurons in both input and output (Kusupati et al., 2022). It is worth noting that as we reduce the input and output dimensions of matrix multiplications by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the flops will be reduced by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / r^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We follow a similar procedure for reducing the width of affine parameters in LayerNorm (Ba et al., 2016). Also in our setup, we do not change the head dimensions in MHA and instead decrease the number of heads by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As Figure 1a illustrates, we down-project the input hidden states to the adaptive layers using a pooled module and up-project it back before feeding to the single classifier for all of the sub-networks. Please see Appendix B for a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "detailed description of width reduction of different components in transformer layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 425, + 304 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 425, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 425, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experimental setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. We evaluate SHARCS on 8 classification tasks in the standard GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018): MNLI-m (Williams et al., 2018), QNLI (Wang et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2016), QQP (Wang et al., 2017), SST-2 (Socher et al., 2013), MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005), RTE (Dagan et al., 2005), CoLA (Warstadt et al., 2019), WNLI (Levesque et al., 2012)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 527, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 527, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 527, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation metrics. Following previous work, we report the accuracy on the validation set, with an exception to CoLA for which we report Matthews correlation. We measure the total FLOPs on the validation set as it is invariant to the run time environment (Liu et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training details. We train network with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019). We choose the number of epochs in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{5,10,15\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and use learning rate in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{2e - 5,5e - 5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in our experiments. Please see Appendix C for more details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 362, + 610 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 362, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 362, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 406, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 406, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 406, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 SHARCS is Better" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare SHARCS with existing sample adaptive inference methods: RTJ (Schwartz et al., 2020), DeeBERT (Xin et al., 2020), FastBERT (Liu et al., 2020), BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021), and PABEE (Zhou et al., 2020). Figure 2 shows the accuracy-FLOPs trade-off plots for different sample adaptive approaches with RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model on three GLUE subtasks (See appendix D.0.1 for the full set of plots). Our results show that SHARCS significantly outperforms other methods, especially in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10521" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 108, + 289, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 289, + 105 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges. For the full table, please see Appendix D.0.2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 108, + 289, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 108, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 108, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
FLOPs range (Tera FLOPs)Best BaselineSHARCS
Acc.(%) ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1061.839.5676.374.91
10-2084.191885.9317.92
20-3087.5329.8687.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1048.878.7672.78.94
10-2072.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3083.2727.9983.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-548.874.764.723.80
5-1064.449.9576.028.87
10-1580.3814.9181.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-465.613.7878.923.99
4-676.015.4281.485.21
6-883.867.9283.407.33
", + "image_path": "06545fefbe9f7da7780bfef39175e19aa031064fee03529bba7f2b2d61d24295.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the low-FLOPs regime. This can suggest that by substantially reducing the width of deeper layers in the model, SHARCS can achieve a significant reduction in FLOPs. Furthermore, we can maintain the accuracy better compared to fully skipping deeper layers as commonly done in early exiting methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 215, + 430 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 215, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 215, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 SHARCS is Model Agnostic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SHARCS can be seamlessly integrated with any state-of-the-art non-efficient and efficient transformer-based encoders to further improve their efficiency. We use SHARCS and the baseline sample adaptive inference methods in (§4.1) with two standard nonefficient (RoBERTabase and BERT-Basebase) and efficient (DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) and DynaBERT (Hou et al., 2020)) models. Table 1 shows that SHARCS consistently improves the efficiency of different models while maintaining the accuracy better than other baseline sample adaptive methods. Note that, for brevity, we have selected the highest accuracy among all the sample adaptive baselines for each FLOPs range; please see Table 5 in Appendix D.0.2 for the full set of results. As an example, SHARCS can reduce the FLOPs of BERTbase to half with near 3% reduction in accuracy whereas in other methods the drop is more than 12%. Interestingly, SHARCS can further improve the efficiency of already optimized networks. For instance, inference with SHARCS on DynaBERT 0.25 width takes 10-15% less FLOPs with less than 1% drop in accuracy. More accuracy vs. FLOPs trade-off results for DynaBERT 0.25 and DistilBERT can be found in Figure 10 and 11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 396, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 396, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 396, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 SHARCS is Fast" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the latency of SHARCS applied to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the baseline adaptive approaches on the QQP (Wang et al., 2017) dataset. The latency measurements are conducted on an Intel Xeon Gold 6230 CPU with a batch size of 1. We use two reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and place the router after layer 2 or 4 to get different accuracy-speed up trade offs. We keep the speed up between 2 to 3 and report the best accuracy for each method in this range. Table 2 shows that our method obtains higher or comparable accuracy in this speed up range. Interestingly, SHARCS achieves a performance on par with DistilBERT, which is trained with distillation on a much larger dataset, but with higher speed up." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 499, + 316 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 499, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 499, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 SHARCS Paired with Token Dropping" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed in Section 1, in addition to early-exiting, token dropping is another well-known approach to sample-adaptive inference efficiency (Goyal et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2022). Token dropping enhances efficiency by progressively dropping tokens layer by layer, thereby decreasing the hidden states sequence length as the forward pass proceeds. In contrast, SHARCS improves efficiency via reducing the transformer block's width. Therefore token dropping and SHARCS should not interfere with each other and in fact, they can be paired together to bring more efficiency. To showcase this, we combine SHARCS with a RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " network that has already been made more efficient using Transkimmer token dropping. Table 3 shows that on QNLI dataset, SHARCS reduces the FLOPs of RoBERTa + Transkimmer by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a negligible drop in accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 634, + 526, + 764 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 631 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Inference speed up results on the QQP dataset on CPU for various adaptive inference techniques applied to BERT. For SHARCS we place the router after layers 2 and 4 and report two numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 634, + 526, + 764 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 634, + 526, + 764 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 634, + 526, + 764 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Accuracy (%)↑Speed up (×)↑
BERT90.901
DistilBERT88.502
BERxiT85.602.04
FastBERT83.992.17
DeeBERT83.822.14
PABEE89.092.06
RTJ84.442
SHARCS (layer 2)88.432.57
SHARCS (layer 4)90.052.05
", + "image_path": "e85acf074ab31f13a812d74247211abde92d359527c510010c3f7b8325804ef3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10522" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 186 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 117 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: SHARCS can be applied to RoBERTa in addition to Transkimmer to bring more efficiency. The decrease in FLOPs and Accuracy in parentheses are with respect to RoBERTa + Transkimmer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 186 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
QNLI Acc.TeraFLOPs
RoBERTa Base92.8%24.5
+Transkimmer89.45%14.08
+Transkimmer + SHARCS88.83% (-0.62%)8.56 (~40%↓)
", + "image_path": "3b9ccc4895901e6e9b76274d6803771948027439f22fd4e0ab14b3501752ce5b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 189, + 221 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 189, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 189, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Ablating the Router" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To show the efficacy of the router and its training strategy in SHARCS, we replace it with the routing strategy used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021): while training two sub-networks with reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 415 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we feed the training sample to both of them; if a sub-network correctly classifies the sample, the router label for that sub-network in that iteration would be 1. Otherwise, it would be zero. The backward pass is then done with all the losses of sub-networks and the router loss. Table 4 shows the area under the normalized accuracy FLOPs curve (AUC) for both methods on MNLIm. Please find more detailed ablation results and experiments in Appendix E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 105, + 449, + 249, + 497 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 449 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: While using adaptive width with RoBERTa " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}_{\\text{base }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on MNLI-m, SHARCS router outperforms BERxiT router." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 449, + 249, + 497 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 449, + 249, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 449, + 249, + 497 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Router on RoBERTabaseAUC ↑
SHARCS0.78
BERxiT0.73
", + "image_path": "1947568018e9a0eb3f58b4b46156c2f310f193bd1dad3c82f61795d68a938e7e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 147, + 528 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 147, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 147, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We presented SHARCS as a new sample adaptive inference approach that can improve any network's inference efficiency. SHARCS incorporated a lightweight router which is trained with a novel approach using the confidence of the network predictions during training. Our experiments showed the superiority or complementary role of SHARCS compared to other sample adaptive inference methods across various datasets and backbones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While the router and training approach in SHARCS are general purpose, a limitation of this paper is its focus solely on studying the impact on transformer encoders. Nonetheless, decoder-only (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and encoder-decoder (Raffel et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2020) models are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "widely used classes of models for which we plan to integrate SHARCS in the future work. It should be noted that although our approach can be applied to regression tasks with minor adjustments, this work does not include any results for regression tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 148, + 406, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 148, + 406, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 148, + 406, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 526, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank members of RAIVN and H2Lab for helpful discussion and feedback, and Hyak cluster team at the University of Washington for infrastructure support. This research was supported by NSF IIS-2044660, ONR MURI N00014- 18-1-2670, and gifts from AI2, Google and Apple." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 362, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 362, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 362, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 316 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2016. Layer normalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 323, + 526, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 323, + 526, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 323, + 526, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. CoRR, abs/2005.14165." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 464, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 464, + 525, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 464, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 517, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 517, + 526, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 517, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 570, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 570, + 525, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 570, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Devvrit, Sneha Kudugunta, Aditya Kusupati, Tim Dettmers, Kaifeng Chen, Inderjit Dhillon, Yulia Tsvetkov, Hajishirzi Hannaneh, Sham Kakade, Ali Farhadi, and Prateek Jain. 2023. Matformer: Nested transformer for elastic inference. arXiv preprint arxiv:2310.07707." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 644, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 644, + 525, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 644, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 697, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 697, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 697, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. 2021. Information-theoretic measures of dataset difficulty. CoRR, abs/2110.08420." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saurabh Goyal, Anamitra R. Choudhury, Saurabh M. Raje, Venkatesan T. Chakaravarthy, Yogish Sabharwal, and Ashish Verma. 2020. Power-bert: Accel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10523" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "erating bert inference via progressive word-vector elimination." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 180 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yue Guan, Zhengyi Li, Jingwen Leng, Zhouhan Lin, and Minyi Guo. 2022. Transkimmer: Transformer learns to layer-wise skim. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7275-7286, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Bridging nonlinearities and stochastic regularizers with gaussian error linear units. CoRR, abs/1606.08415." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 255 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 319 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lu Hou, Zhiqi Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, and Qun Liu. 2020. Dynabert: Dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9782-9793. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 290, + 373 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 290, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 290, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2019. Tinybert: Distilling BERT for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1909.10351." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 290, + 416 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 290, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 290, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yigitcan Kaya and Tudor Dumitras. 2018. How to stop off-the-shelf deep neural networks from overthinking. CoRR, abs/1810.07052." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 290, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 426, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Zhewei Yao, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. I-bert: Integer-only bert quantization. International Conference on Machine Learning (Accepted)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 290, + 545 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 290, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 290, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aditya Kusupati, Gantavya Bhatt, Aniket Rege, Matthew Wallingford, Aditya Sinha, Vivek Ramanujan, William Howard-Snyder, Kaifeng Chen, Sham Kakade, Prateek Jain, et al. 2022. Matryoshka representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:30233-30249." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "François Lagunas, Ella Charlaix, Victor Sanh, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Block pruning for faster transformers. CoRR, abs/2109.04838." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hector J. Levesque, Ernest Davis, and Leora Morgenstern. 2012. The Winograd Schema Challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'12, pages 552-561. AAAI Press, Rome, Italy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 214 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019a. Roberta: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. CoRR, abs/1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 525, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zechun Liu, Haoyuan Mu, Xiangyu Zhang, Zichao Guo, Xin Yang, Kwang-Ting (Tim) Cheng, and Jian Sun. 2019b. Metapruning: Meta learning for automatic neural network channel pruning. CoRR, abs/1903.10258." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 525, + 310 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 525, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 525, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul Michel, Omer Levy, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Are sixteen heads really better than one? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 642 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 686 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Movement pruning: Adaptive sparsity by fin-tuning. CoRR, abs/2005.07683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roy Schwartz, Gabriel Stanovsky, Swabha Swayamdipta, Jesse Dodge, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. The right tool for the job: Matching model and instance complexities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6640-6651, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10524" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Shen, Zhen Dong, Jiayu Ye, Linjian Ma, Zhewei Yao, Amir Gholami, Michael W. Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2019. Q-BERT: hessian based ultra low precision quantization of BERT. CoRR, abs/1909.05840." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 289, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 289, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 289, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 289, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wei Zhu, Zhichao Geng, Lingling Wu, Yilong He, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A simple hash-based early exiting approach for language understanding and generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 372 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2020. MobileBERT: a compact task-agnostic BERT for resource-limited devices. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2158-2170, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Surat Teerapittayanon, Bradley McDanel, and H. T. Kung. 2017. Branchynet: Fast inference via early exiting from deep neural networks. CoRR, abs/1709.01686." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 487 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Senrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 289, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 289, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 289, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. CoRR, abs/1804.07461." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiguo Wang, Wael Hamza, and Radu Florian. 2017. Bilateral multi-perspective matching for natural language sentences. CoRR, abs/1702.03814." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 524, + 146 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 524, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 524, + 146 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mengzhou Xia, Zexuan Zhong, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Structured pruning learns compact and accurate models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Jaejun Lee, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. DeeBERT: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2246-2251, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 524, + 307 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 524, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 524, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. BERxiT: Early exiting for BERT with better fine-tuning and extension to regression. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 91-104, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 316, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 316, + 524, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 316, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou, Canwen Xu, Tao Ge, Julian McAuley, Ke Xu, and Furu Wei. 2020. Bert loses patience: Fast and robust inference with early exit. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 18330-18341. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10525" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 251, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 251, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 251, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Background and Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Efficient non-adaptive inference In the context of non-adaptive methods, numerous studies in the literature have improved the inference efficiency of transformers through various techniques such as knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) into smaller models (Sanh et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2020; Jiao et al., 2019), pruning unimportant weights of the model (Xia et al., 2022; Lagunas et al., 2021; Sanh et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019b), and weight quantization (Shen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021) to store weights of a network with lower precision values. The aforementioned approaches result in smaller and more efficient albeit fixed and static models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 291, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 291, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 291, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Efficient adaptive inference. Another line of work have proposed adaptive inference methods that allow the network to allocate varying amounts of compute for each sample. The predominant technique in this area is early exiting via adding internal classifiers to intermediate layers (Schwartz et al., 2020; Kaya and Dumitras, 2018; Xin et al., 2020; Teerapittayanon et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020): To early exit, prior work either use the confidence score of internal classifiers' predictions (Schwartz et al., 2020; Xin et al., 2020); the entropy of these predictions (Liu et al., 2020); a module that predicts whether a layer should early exit or not (Xin et al., 2021); a patience based change in these internal prediction (Zhou et al., 2020); or a hash based mechanism to do token level early exiting (Sun et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Devvrit et al. (2023) recently proposed Mat-Former that can enable adaptive compute based on the resource constraints but does not utilize dynamic token-based routing making SHARCS complementary to it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 602, + 212, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 602, + 212, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 602, + 212, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 625, + 213, + 637 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 625, + 213, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 625, + 213, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.0.1 Transformer Networks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transformer networks (Vaswani et al., 2017) are composed of a stack of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 696 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers and each layer has two main components: Multi-head attention (MHA) and Feed-forward network (FFN)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MHA consists of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " heads where each head computes the attention operation (Vaswani et al., 2017) on the projection of a sequence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = (x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_l)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into key, query, and values: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{\\mathrm{head}}^i = \\mathrm{Attention}(\\mathbf{W}_Kx, \\mathbf{W}_{\\mathbf{Q}}x, \\mathbf{W}_{\\mathbf{V}}x)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", wherein" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\leq i\\leq H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{\\mathrm{head}}^i\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{head}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_K,\\mathbf{W}_Q,\\mathbf{W}_V\\in" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times d_{\\mathrm{head}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the key, query, and value projection matrices, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{head}} = d_{\\mathrm{model}} / n_h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . The outputs from different heads are concatenated into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{\\mathrm{heads}}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and projected with another matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_O\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times d_{\\mathrm{model}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and passed through a layer norm (Ba et al., 2016) to get the output: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 527, + 180 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{\\mathrm{MHA}} = \\mathrm{LayerNorm}(x + \\mathbf{W}_o o_{\\mathrm{heads}})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "FFN consists of two feed-forward layers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity and takes the output of MHA module and computes LayerNorm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(o_{\\mathrm{MHA}} + \\mathrm{GeLU}(\\mathbf{W}_1 o_{\\mathrm{MHA}}) \\mathbf{W}_2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 189, + 527, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 500, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 500, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 500, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.0.2 Reducing Width of a Transformer Layer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3 illustrates our approach in reducing the capacity of a transformer network based on the given reduction factor. We leave the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers (aka non-adaptive module) of the model intact, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter. Given an input sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", after computing the intermediate representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h \\in \\mathbb{R}^{l \\times d_{\\mathrm{model}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the non-adaptive module, and the reduction factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 527, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the router, we reduce the width of different components which we will describe in detail next." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Before passing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to adaptive layers, we pass it through a pooler module that reduces its dimensionality to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\times r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For example, if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}} = 768" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r = 0.25" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the input to the adaptive module will be 192 dimensional. Although we experimented with affine transformations for the pooler, in practice we observed that a simpler pooling operation such as selecting just the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\times r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dimensions works as good. Therefore, as this pooler is simpler and importantly adds no extra FLOPs to inference, we opted for that. For the unpooler, we used an affine transformation that transforms the hidden state with reduced dimensionality (i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r \\cdot d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that for the unpooler layer, the dimensionality of the input can change while the output dimensionality is always " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Throughout this paper, whenever we decrease a dimension of a component (e.g. input vectors or weights) from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we exclusively use the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dimensions and disregards the remainder in the computations. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 4 for FFN and MHA components in transformer models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In what follows we describe how we reduce the width of different components by the reduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10526" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 426 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 426 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9a44d48560b2ec04290012b686de013f6a6be101ecc6da65272120d543326732.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 470 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Detailed schematic of reducing with of different components in a transformer model based on the prediction of the router." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is also depicted in detail in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reducing MHA Width. We reduce the width of MHA using the following steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. The input dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of self-attention projection matrices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is decreased to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\cdot r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We do not change the output dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{head}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the linear projections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The adaptive module only computes the output of the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_h \\cdot r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " heads and disregards the other heads. Therefore the dimensionality of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{\\mathrm{heads}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is decreased to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\cdot r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that we could also reduce the dimensionality of each head instead, however, we built on previous findings in the literature that many of the heads in transformers are redundant and can be pruned without hurting the performance (Michel et al., 2019; Voita et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. For the output projection " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of MHA, the input and output dimensions, which are both equal to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", are reduced to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}}\\cdot r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Throughout all the changes above, we do not" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "alter the sequence length of the input (i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") or any of the hidden states." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reducing FFN width. Similar to the output projection " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of MHA, the input and output dimensions of the feed-forward layers W1 and W2 in the FFN are reduced by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, the output dimension of all the adaptive layers are reduced by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{\\mathrm{model}}\\times r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is important to note that majority of operations in FFN and MHA components are comprised of matrix multiplications and reducing the input and output dimensions of these multiplications by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will reduce their flops by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_j^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 186, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 525, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reducing layernorms width. We also reduce the width of the layer norm parameters by a factor of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In our experiments, we find it beneficial to initialize the layernorm parameters with the corresponding first dimensions of original layernorm parameters instead of training them from scratch." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 349, + 386, + 360 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 349, + 386, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 349, + 386, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.0.3 Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast to training where the width of the adaptive layers doing forward pass is enforced by the router labels, at inference, the router predicts the reduction factor. More formally, given the input sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and router logits " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we select the reduction factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to do the forward pass where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\arg \\max (\\hat{W})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 411, + 482 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 411, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 411, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Training Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar to (Hou et al., 2020), we reorder the heads based on their importance before fine-tuning on the down-stream task. We set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{task}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{routert}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25,1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We choose the batch size in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{16,32\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " depending on the model and dataset. We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. We choose the window size values in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{3,5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{task}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{routert}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 0.5 in our approach and use a set of two reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25,1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We do a grid search over the lower and upper bound on the confidence thresholds and the hyperparameters of the baselines and do the forward pass of each reduction factor on a separate GPU. Similar to previous work (Hou et al., 2020), we pad the input sequences in a batch to 128 tokens while training. To train SHARCS with Transkimer on RoBERTa, we first train RoBERTa + Transkimmer with skim coefficient of 0.3. We then start from this model as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10527" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 120, + 84, + 285, + 243 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 84, + 285, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 84, + 285, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 84, + 285, + 243 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "05e9e082825ff27a58464e01a82590a852dd5999f580000d2f9bf1503f0add7a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 256, + 218, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 256, + 218, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 256, + 218, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) FFN" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 84, + 474, + 244 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 84, + 474, + 244 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 84, + 474, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 84, + 474, + 244 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c57f8a98286552dc41e1d74aac8529252e487827100efada3cf742fd610c7c07.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 256, + 405, + 266 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 256, + 405, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 256, + 405, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) MHA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "an initial checkpoint and train for 10 epochs using both our loss and Transkimmer loss. Here, training the router is done with with 0.25 and 1.0 as reduction factors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 167, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 167, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 167, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Results Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 174, + 416 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 174, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 174, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.0.1 GLUE Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We do a thorough hyperparameter search with different sample adaptive inference methods to get the accuracy of the RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model across different FLOPs values. We report the total number of FLOPs on the validation set and do not pad the input sequences before feeding to the model. Figure 12 shows the plots for 8 of the sub-tasks in the GLUE benchmark." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 234, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 234, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 234, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.0.2 Different Backbone Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5 shows the comparison of different sample adaptive inference methods applied to different backbones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 220, + 633 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 220, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 220, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Ablations and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 182, + 657 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 182, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 182, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.0.1 Router Ablation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5 shows the accuracy FLOPs plot for two methods: 1) The router introduced in SHARCS with adaptive width sub-networks. 2) A router similar to the early-exiting router used in BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) with adaptive-width sub-networks. We report the AUC for a similar range of FLOPs for both methods and scale the accuracy and FLOPs values to [0, 1]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 313, + 332, + 505, + 517 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 276, + 430, + 289 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 276, + 430, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 276, + 430, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Reducing the width of FFN and MHA in adaptive layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 332, + 505, + 517 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 332, + 505, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 332, + 505, + 517 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4a34ba4ad53d34380a5d75e19b2fb8c1eeb4b0f2187b01e7bc54be9532d3a9e5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 525, + 572 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 525, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Accuracy vs. FLOPs plot for Adaptive width sub-networks trained with SHARCS router (orange) and BERxiT (Xin et al., 2021) router (blue)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 480, + 613 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 480, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 480, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.0.2 Number of Reduction Factors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We change the number of reduction factors (or hardness levels) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to three and four and use the reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25, 0.5, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. Figure 6 shows the results of changing the number of reduction factors with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{RoBERTa_{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model on MNLI-m dataset. The model trained with two reduction factors outperform the other cases for FLOPs values above 15 teraFLOPs significantly and four reduction factors can get better results in the range of 10-15 Tera FLOPs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10528" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 533, + 279 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 69, + 514, + 82 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 69, + 514, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 69, + 514, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparison of different adaptive inference methods on MNLI-m dataset for different FLOP ranges." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 533, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 533, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 533, + 279 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
FLOPs range (Tera Flops)RTJDeeBERTPABEEFastBERTBERxiTSHARCS
Acc. ↑FLOPs ↓Acc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPsAcc.FLOPs
Roberta (Acc: 87.6, FLOPs: 33.5)
0-1054.279.5961.839.5653.988.5345.392.8453.698.4176.374.91
10-2082.2919.7777.1819.8084.191859.7915.0683.3919.9185.9317.92
20-3086.9225.7681.3523.6787.5329.8677.2429.9587.2327.9287.3828.35
BERT (Acc: 84.8, FLOPs: 33)
0-1047.329.4642.329.9742.977.5148.878.7646.869.8872.78.94
10-2058.1215.6161.5719.8966.3317.2970.2519.1872.5019.9981.6116.73
20-3078.9628.5380.5729.3481.1327.6683.2727.9980.8225.7383.0422.76
DistilBERT (Acc: 82.2, FLOPs: 16.57)
0-541.922.7643.982.7641.452.7648.874.741.474.0764.723.80
5-1052.729.5659.879.4564.449.9564.249.7655.109.7676.028.87
10-1572.9313.9080.3814.9179.2914.1279.7214.8460.2511.6881.6114.39
DynaBERT 0.25 width (Acc: 83.9, FLOPs: 8.26)
0-460.953.9856.133.3856.093.9765.613.7856.193.5878.923.99
4-674.555.8275.265.6269.815.9376.015.42--81.485.21
6-883.437.7083.367.7081.317.8783.867.9283.087.6083.407.33
", + "image_path": "c31d869e3f80b7ce895fbb7bb614b6f941e09dfd5c96fae6f5e571b76d205c18.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 252, + 462 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 252, + 462 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 252, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 252, + 462 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a16e1f8928a4e2cf5c603b9ce28b863736461b63322287c25996ec6bb1f1284b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 515 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Results of different number of sub-networks (or reduction factors) with RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model on MNLI-m." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 213, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 213, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 213, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.0.3 Confidence Thresholds" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We study the effect of changing confidence thresholds on our results with a simple experiment: With two reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we use the following confidence score lower and upper bounds: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[0.0, x]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for full network and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[x, 1.0]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for 0.25 network, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x \\in \\{0.5, 0.7, 0.9\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We place the router after layer 1 (i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Figure 7 shows the results of RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. According to the figure, higher value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " leads to better accuracies for a fixed number of FLOPs. Furthermore, as we decrease " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we can reach lower values of FLOPs. This is intuitive as decreasing the lower bound of smallest reduction factor makes more samples be routed to that which reduces the overall FLOPs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 333, + 315, + 488, + 462 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 315, + 488, + 462 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 315, + 488, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 315, + 488, + 462 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1b8379324c27338c0d17ca4a3b8eb69621907d6b1a92828f5fd967191e081341.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Results of changing confidence thresholds with RoBERTabase model on MNLI-m dataset. We use reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25,1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and confidence thresholds " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[0,x]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for reduction factor 0.25 and confidence thresholds " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[x,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for reduction factor 1, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x\\in" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.5,0.7,0.9\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 508, + 600 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 508, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 508, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.0.4 Using Entropy or Confidence-based Hardness Labels to Train Router" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar to sample adaptive inference in early exiting methods (Xin et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020), one can get hardness labels by defining thresholds on entropy of the network predictions instead of the confidence. We use the following formula to compute the entropy of network's prediction:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 699, + 464, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 699, + 464, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 699, + 464, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "H = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {C} p _ {i} \\cdot \\log p _ {i},", + "image_path": "28b25b204ea37ce7d3f021a0501c979d46fbe6182dae9c30dbe3d923ce8c13a7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "wherein " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the number of classes of the classifier, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the softmax probability that the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10529" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 94, + 270, + 279 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 94, + 270, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 94, + 270, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 94, + 270, + 279 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "89adfb1b376e0587f7131ba35925fe1396b504148361c8dfd383df6566cde0b3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 290, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 290, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 290, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Comparing entropy and confidence based hardness labels for training the router." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 101, + 351, + 243, + 484 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 351, + 243, + 484 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 351, + 243, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 351, + 243, + 484 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e4bebf2b1a74074efe09d7bde4d017fd318196e8db7e209572267cdfb3fa386a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 523 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Effect of changing history window size in SHARCS on MNLI-m Accuracy FLOPs trade-off." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "classifier assigns to class " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Figure 8 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade-off for both of these metrics on MNLI-m dataset with RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model. Given that the confidence score is a simpler approach and does not require any additional computation, we opted for using that in our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 264, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 264, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 264, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.0.5 Changing History Window Size in Training the Router" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned in (§2.1), having a larger window size helps stabilizing training the router as the hardness label for a training sample might change throughout training. To illustrate this effect, we train SHARCS on RoBERTa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model with three different window sizes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1, 3, 5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for 10 epochs on MNLI-m dataset. We place the router at layer 2, use two reduction factors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.25, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and set the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 510, + 268 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 510, + 268 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 510, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 73, + 510, + 268 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7034b2357ef10d7e0c04c21de42a8d34dd162fbdcadf2917c533f66412323c6e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 526, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 526, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 526, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DynaBERT 0.25 W (Hou et al., 2020) model. We set the reduction factors to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 526, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{2/3, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 526, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "confidence thresholds to [0.0, 0.8] for reduction factor 1 and [0.8, 1.0] for reduction factor 0.25. Figure 9 shows the accuracy FLOPs trade offs that different checkpoints with different window sizes get throughout training on the validation set. According to the figure, the network can reach higher accuracy when trained with window size 3 or 5. We did not see any significant improvements by using a window size larger than 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10530" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 275, + 276, + 470 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 275, + 276, + 470 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 275, + 276, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 275, + 276, + 470 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9ac553ab79c6eb7e321a17530ed927d1e7052f20e380716a6a5af33a9313a541.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Accuracy FLOPs plot for SHARCS applied to DistilBERT(Sanh et al., 2019) model. We set the reduction factors to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{2/3, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.5, 1.0\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By placing router at different layers and changing the confidence thresholds, we can get different points in the plot. Note that the FLOPs for each sub-network in each point is also reported." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10531" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 86, + 186, + 508, + 200 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 186, + 508, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 186, + 508, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 186, + 508, + 200 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8885e9a306c7751bd99d564a50c13203ddf30d79b10b5a2a1672a99d4bd39e52.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 223, + 220, + 360 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 223, + 220, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 223, + 220, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 223, + 220, + 360 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a05d1a2c52e7c555d27612f907bc8403f58597bded762763024c5d94ca9845ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 222, + 371, + 360 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 222, + 371, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 222, + 371, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 222, + 371, + 360 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "73c428675368f761f3b3447bb34de1d7f213c883a3c276f68e7c2c8631db35bf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 374, + 222, + 526, + 360 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 222, + 526, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 222, + 526, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 222, + 526, + 360 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c36876da88cfe6c1416e8cc096fcb24ca31d27180affbd2dd838a5b10264db50.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 218, + 497 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 218, + 497 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 218, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 218, + 497 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ae23cc1bb912f2366b10057d7c74677bca03533e2ec22be447969fec214816fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 361, + 372, + 497 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 361, + 372, + 497 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 361, + 372, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 361, + 372, + 497 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1a890f8a994dd58a55c3bcf847c04e33d5dd36a87811147f9d07396c0fe39831.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 374, + 361, + 525, + 497 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 361, + 525, + 497 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 361, + 525, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 361, + 525, + 497 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "50547702ea5ade889da2b1660f068d54ee20c72eac5846a42fd0ea8861003b92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 498, + 295, + 635 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 498, + 295, + 635 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 498, + 295, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 498, + 295, + 635 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bf92c78996ddf323036bd017f7e88195e3b48fa578efbc65b44d6061b608a50a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 643, + 415, + 655 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 643, + 415, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 643, + 415, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: GLUE benchmark results. Best viewed in color." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 498, + 449, + 635 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 498, + 449, + 635 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 498, + 449, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 498, + 449, + 635 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2b92e068d931f35bb484a6e4f930c92fa4798b723686e4c4b61dcf3332f4399b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10532" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_content_list.json b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..047ab28f367a3b60ad7482e9f8cbdfd30fc46d17 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2225 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SIR-ABSC: Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 154, + 89, + 843, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ikhyun Cho and Yoonhwa Jung and Julia Hockenmaier", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 149, + 749, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 167, + 677, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{ihcho2, yoonhwa2, juliahmr}@illinois.edu", + "bbox": [ + 260, + 184, + 754, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a simple, but effective method to incorporate syntactic dependency information directly into transformer-based language models (e.g. RoBERTa) for tasks such as Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), where the desired output depends on specific input tokens. In contrast to prior approaches to ABSC that capture syntax by combining language models with graph neural networks over dependency trees, our model, Syntax-Integrated RoBERTa for ABSC (SIR-ABSC) incorporates syntax directly into the language model by using a novel aggregator token. SIR-ABSC1 outperforms these more complex models, yielding new state-of-the-art results on ABSC.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 505, + 258, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC, Pontiki et al. (2014), Figure 1) is a fine-grained sentiment analysis task that aims to handle the fact that even simple statements such as \"The ambience was nice, but service wasn't so great.\" may express different sentiments towards different aspects (this reviewer is positive about the restaurant's \"ambience\", but negative about its \"service\"). In ABSC, the aspect to be classified is identified by a target string in the input sentence (e.g. \"ambience\"), and systems have to return the polarity (positive, neutral, negative) of the corresponding sentiment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 530, + 489, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have been shown to work well for ABSC, presumably because their attention mechanisms capture semantic connections between target and context words (Li et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020; Karimi et al., 2021). Starting with Do et al. (2019), PLMs have been supplemented with syntactic features, typically extracted from dependency graphs. This is typically done by using the word embeddings obtained from the PLM to initialize the node embeddings of a", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 722, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "graph neural network (GNN) obtained from the dependency graph (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2022). However, such combined models have two major limitations:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. Suboptimal Interaction: A typical challenge in combining PLMs and GNNs is to make the two models effectively interact with each other. Some approaches (Tang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020) attempt to accomplish this through heavy model architecture engineering. However, the PLM and GNN still operate in an asynchronous manner (one after the other), limiting their interaction, and yielding only a minor improvement in performance. We hypothesize that more integrated models can yield larger boosts in performance.", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 329, + 884, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Suboptimal Aggregation: Existing (PLM + GNN) models cannot emphasize information at a specific distance(s) away from the target token. This is problematic since the models pre-define the number of GNN layers beforehand (Bai et al., 2020; Veyseh et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, if the number of GNN layers is fixed to three while an input sequence has the key sentiment word at a distance of one, the redundant second and third GNN layers can introduce noise. The ability to identify the most important distance(s) (one in this case) and to focus on that specific distance(s) based on the input is crucial to reduce such noise.", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 535, + 884, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to alleviate these limitations, we propose syntax-integrated RoBERTa (SIR-ABSC), a novel framework for effectively augmenting PLMs with syntactic information. We chose RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as our PLM baseline due to its notable performance on ABSC (Dai et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 789, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instead of stacking multiple GNN layers on top of a PLM as in most previous works, we insert a", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The code for SIR-ABSC is publicly available at https://github.com/ihcho2/SIR-ABSC", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8535", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8535-8550 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2b557e994dc1d2a3089296cb3e48555b5f29420f5596ee7ba11299edb03bb02d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 89, + 645, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/000c30dd8e6f58cf610c9517e2c93073132aa00d767a07c0e11ccfa4cc232b42.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: (Left Top) In ABSC, the sentiment to be predicted depends on the desired target aspect (words from the input). (Left Bottom) For ABSC, syntactic distance can be more informative than surface distance. (Right) Syntactic distances as defined by a dependency tree" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 171, + 645, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b081cd5e8dc090c3c09e9290049faf1a8f8960aac70ec1fbfd212045fd53786e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 660, + 80, + 884, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "new [g] token into the PLM that acts as a syntax aggregator and effectively replaces the work of GNN layers. A Variable Distance Control (VDC) mechanism allows [g] to focus on capturing syntactic knowledge by using constrained attention masks that reflect the graph structure. A Dependency-Aware Aggregation (DAA) mechanism leverages dependency label information. We further improve our model with Automatic VDC Learning (AutoVDC), which enables SIR-ABSC to capture and focus on important syntactic distances based on the input, an important advantage over GNNs. SIR-ABSC outperforms prior approaches, and establishes a new state of the art, on the most widely used ABSC datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 489, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our main contributions are summarized below :", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 571, + 482, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We present a novel approach to incorporating syntactic information into PLM through the use of a syntax aggregator token.", + "- We highlight two limitations in current GNN-based approaches (suboptimal interaction and aggregation) and present effective methods (DAA and Auto-VDC) to address them.", + "- To our knowledge, this is the first work to utilize dependency graph information without resorting to GNNs in ABSC.", + "- Our model achieves state-of-the-art results on two out of the four widely used ABSC datasets and demonstrates competitive performance on the remaining ones." + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 594, + 487, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 862, + 478, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In ABSC, illustrated in Figure 1, the task is to predict the polarity (positive, negative", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "or neutral) of the sentiment in input sentence $s = [w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_p, \\dots, w_{p + m - 1}, \\dots, w_n]$ towards a given target aspect $t$ (a substring of the input sentence: $t_i = \\{w_p, \\dots, w_{p + m - 1}\\}$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 331, + 882, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Language Models for ABSC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 409, + 778, + 424 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) have gained predominance for many NLP tasks, including ABSC. RoBERTa, a variant of BERT, is known to show notable performance on ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021), and forms the basis of the models explored in this paper. RoBERTa (and BERT) are (pre)trained on large amounts of raw text with a masked language modeling objective. Both models use a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture in which each token's embedding is fed through multiple layers such that each token's embedding in a given layer can attend to all tokens in the sequence (in the same layer). To adapt these models for classification tasks, a special token ([CLS] for BERT, [s] for RoBERTa) whose output is fed into a task-specific feedforward layer is included in the input sequence. A separation token ([SEP] or [/s]) can be used to separate the input sequence from other task-specific information.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 431, + 884, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the ABSC task, RoBERTa is typically used as follows: after tokenization, the input sentence is constructed as '[s] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence includes the target aspect itself. The [s] token of the last layer is used for the final prediction and fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 882, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Combining PLMs with syntax", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 865, + 793, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A common approach to ABSC is to supplement a PLM with syntactic information obtained from a", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8536", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "dependency parser. In a dependency graph (Figure 1) each word in the sentence corresponds to a node, with labeled edges indicating word-word dependencies. Note that the syntactic distance between words (e.g. sucked and vista) can be much smaller than their surface (string) distance (Figure 1).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the dependency parser and the PLM may use different tokenizers, tokenization needs to be broken into two stages to integrate both models seamlessly. The input sentence is first tokenized by the dependency parser, and then each token is again tokenized by RoBERTa's tokenizer, following previous work (Tang et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 487, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Graph Neural Network-based ABSC models To incorporate syntax into ABSC models, PLMs have been augmented with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs, Kipf and Welling (2016)) that capture the structure of the sentence's dependency tree. Although there are many variants (Trisna and Jie, 2022), the basic idea behind GNNs is to represent each node as a vector $h_i$ that is updated via graph convolution in each layer ( $l \\in [1, 2, \\dots, L]$ ) of the GNN (Kipf and Welling, 2016) by aggregating its neighborhood information from the previous layer:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 302, + 489, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {i} ^ {l} = \\sigma \\left(A _ {i j} W _ {l} h _ {j} ^ {l - 1} + b _ {l}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 487, + 394, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\sigma$ is an activation function, $W$ and $b$ are learnable parameters, and $A_{ij}$ is the entry of the graphs adjacency matrix that indicates whether nodes $i$ and $j$ are connected (in which case $A_{ij} = 1$ ; otherwise $A_{ij} = 0$ ). The general framework for augmenting PLMs with GNNs for ABSC is to initialize the GNN node embeddings with the PLM's output embeddings and use the final embeddings of the target aspects in the last GNN layer for classification.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 517, + 487, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhang et al. (2019) were the first to implement a GNN-based model for ABSC, adding a multilayered Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to encode dependency graphs on top of the word embedding layer. Wang et al. (2020) and Bai et al. (2020) proposed a relational graph attention network (R-GAT), which computes an additional attention distribution using the dependency label embeddings. Tang et al. (2020) strengthened interactions between contextual and graph representations through a mutual biaffine module. Mei et al. (2023) incorporated part-of-speech, distance, and syntactic dependency in a supervised manner. Several recent research in ABSC has tried to revise dependency graphs due to their imperfections or add external resources (Xiao et al., 2021, 2022; Liang et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2022a). What is common to all these approaches is that the PLM and GNN operate in a serial fashion, and are not tightly integrated.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Attention-mask based approaches Another promising approach to incorporate syntactic information into PLMs that is more related to this paper, is to manipulate the Transformer's self-attention masks. For example, Syntax-BERT (Bai et al., 2021) uses multiple masks induced from the syntactic trees (e.g., parent, children, sibling, pairwise masks) to incorporate syntactic information into BERT. To do so, it requires multiple (usually more than 90) sub-networks, which share the same model parameters in a masked self-attention module, and then the outputs are aggregated through another attention layer, named a topical attention module.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 143, + 884, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The key difference between Syntax-BERT and SIR-ABSC is that Syntax-BERT alters all the input tokens' attention masks and aggregates them in a serial manner, while SIR-ABSC (which is specifically designed for tasks like ABSC, where the desired output depends on specific parts of the input) keeps the original input tokens intact while only modifying the attention-mask of the newly added [g] token.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 882, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 SIR-ABSC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 510, + 640, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present SIR-ABSC (Figure 2), which incorporates syntactic information into PLM designed for ABSC tasks. We accomplish this goal by augmenting RoBERTa with four components: (1) a single additional input token, named [g], whose attention masks depend on the structure of the input's dependency tree(s), paired with (2) a \"variable distance control\" mechanism that specifies how the structure of the dependency graph is reflected in [g]'s attention masks, (3) a dependency-aware aggregation which incorporates dependency labels using embeddings, and (4) an \"Auto-VDC\" mechanism that learns the ideal VDC for a given input.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 537, + 882, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input and output After tokenization with RoBERTa's tokenizer, the input to SIR-ABSC is '[s] [g] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence is the token \"[g]\" followed by the target aspect words. [g] uses its own independent dictionary embedding in the input layer but is initialized with the initial [s] embedding. We evaluate this choice in Section 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To obtain the output, the final layers of the [s] and [g] tokens are pooled and fed to a classification", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8537", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1adb06f9f8fde0a4dfb97550cd4be287b84f17d4056b1b9fdd259e23252a9b1b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall architecture of our approach. Instead of stacking GNNs on top of a PLM (left), SIR-ABSC inserts a syntax aggregator token, [g], into the PLM for a synchronous and deeper aggregation (right). A heuristic VDC of $[0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]$ is used in this example (\"vista\" is the target aspect). DAA is not explicitly represented for the sake of simplicity. Best viewed in color." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 82, + 884, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "layer as follows. First, a global vector $c$ is created by averaging [s] and [g] embeddings followed by a weight $W_{c}$ and an activation function $f$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 372, + 487, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc = f \\left(\\frac {1}{2} \\left(X _ {s} + X _ {g}\\right) W _ {c}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 424, + 400, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, the final pooled vector $(h)$ is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 460, + 379, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh = \\alpha_ {1} X _ {s} + \\alpha_ {2} X _ {g}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 479, + 374, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 499, + 166, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left(\\alpha_ {1}, \\alpha_ {2}\\right) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(c X _ {s} ^ {T}, c X _ {g} ^ {T}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 514, + 425, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, $h$ is fed into a fully connected layer $(W_{FC})$ to calculate the final sentiment polarity score $y\\in \\mathbb{R}^C$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 546, + 489, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ny = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(h W _ {F C}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 590, + 384, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $C$ is the number of sentiment polarity classes. We use the cross-entropy loss function as the objective function.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 489, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The [g] token and distance-based attention masks The [g] token is inserted next to the [s] token. Unlike the [s] token that attends to every token in the input, we allow each layer $l$ of [g] to only attend to the subset of input tokens $j$ that are at most a distance $D(j) \\leq d_l$ away from the target aspect, allowing us to capture the intuition that the relevance of each word in a sentence to ABSC depends on its distance to the target aspect words. We achieve this with distance-based attention masks (Figure 2) that depend either on syntactic or surface distance, and are only used for the [g] token, and the VDC hyperparameters explained below that define the parameter $d_l$ . We do not restrict how the input tokens can attend to [g].", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For our baseline model, we assume that each layer $l$ of [g] is associated with one specific distance $d_{l}$ . This yields a layer-specific attention mask $\\mathbf{m}_{g}^{d = d_{l}}$ (a vector whose elements $\\mathbf{m}_{g,j}^{d = d_l}$ are 0 if the distance $D(j)$ between token $j$ and the target aspect words is greater than $d_{l}$ , and 1 otherwise). If distance is syntax-based, $D(j)$ is the length of the shortest path between token $j$ and the target aspect (so, if the target aspect consists of multiple tokens, we take the minimum distance to any of its component tokens). If the distance is surface-based, $D(j)$ is simply the token distance to the target aspect.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 884, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To summarize, all tokens except $[\\mathbf{g}]$ are updated precisely as in the original PLM using the original attention mask $\\mathbf{m}$ , and $[\\mathbf{g}]$ is updated using its own attention mask $\\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}$ as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} X _ {o u t, i \\neq g} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {i} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + \\mathbf {m}\\right) V ^ {l}, \\\\ X _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + \\mathbf {m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\\right) V ^ {l} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 650, + 885, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where,", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 739, + 563, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nQ ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {Q} ^ {l}, K ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K} ^ {l}, V ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V} ^ {l}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 764, + 863, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nm _ {g, j} ^ {d = d _ {l}} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} 0 \\quad , \\text {i f} D (j) \\leq d _ {l} \\\\ - \\inf , \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 795, + 752, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$X_{in}^{l}$ and $X_{out}^{l}$ are the input and output token embeddings of the $l$ -th self-attention layer, $\\mathbf{m}$ is the attention mask that cancels out padding tokens, $\\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}$ is the [g] token's attention mask, $Q^l$ , $K^l$ , $V^l$ are the $l$ -th Query, Key, and Value weights, respectively,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 837, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8538", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$i$ is the token index, and $g$ is the [g] token's index. For simplicity, we ignore the relatively minor details, such as the FFN and normalization layers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike previous works where PLM and GNN operate one after the other, SIR-ABSC is a synchronous and fully-integrated model in that [s] (= semantic aggregator) and [g] (= syntactic aggregator) can attend to and affect each other's embeddings at every layer. We verify that this fully-integrated characteristic is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance in Section 5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 133, + 489, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Variable Distance Control (VDC) To specify the attention masks used by the [g] token, we introduce a new set of hyper-parameters named Variable Distance Control (VDC). VDC is a list of 12 nonnegative integers where the $l$ -th element represents the $d_l$ value of the $l$ -th layer of the [g] token: With a VDC of $[0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1]$ , the first six layers of the [g] token attend only to the target aspect, and the remaining six layers attend to tokens connected to the target via a direct dependency link.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 271, + 487, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that increasing VDCs (e.g., [0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2], [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]) can be used to mimic how GNNs work. Through graph convolution, the $i$ -th layer of a GNN aggregates features of nodes up to length $i$ away from each node in the graph, allowing the GNN to gradually aggregate information from more and more distant nodes in its upper layers. Empirical results in Section 5 show that increasing VDCs have indeed better performance than constant VDCs (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]) or decreasing VDCs (e.g. [3,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0]). Here, our baseline model uses heuristically defined VDCs, referred to as \"heuristic-VDC\" in this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) VDC allows the [g] token to distinguish tokens with different syntactic distances. However, the model is unaware of the dependency edge labels which could contain valuable information. To consider this information in SIR-ABSC, we re-formulate the update of the [g] token (Eq. 2) by including learnable embedding vectors corresponding to the dependency label to each token as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 489, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nX _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \\mathrm {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} \\tilde {K} ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + {\\bf m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\\right) \\tilde {V} ^ {l}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 834, + 468, + 875 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $X_{in}^{l}, K^{l}$ and $V^{l}$ in equation 2 are modified to $\\tilde{X}_{in}^{l}, \\tilde{K}^{l}$ and $\\tilde{V}^{l}$ to consider the dependency in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 885, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "formation as below:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 660, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} = f \\left(X _ {i n} ^ {l} + X _ {d e p} W _ {d e p} ^ {l}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 586, + 109, + 801, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tilde {K} ^ {l} = \\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K}, \\tilde {V} ^ {l} = \\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 584, + 131, + 806, + 152 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$f$ is the activation function, $X_{dep}$ is the dependency label embedding of the input tokens, $W_{dep}^{l}$ is a learnable weight matrix that maps dependency label embeddings to the size of the PLM's embedding. This allows SIR-ABSC to leverage the dependency label information for better aggregation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 164, + 884, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic VDC learning (Auto-VDC) In Section 5, Table 2 shows the significance of the VDC configuration in SIR-ABSC, with up to $1.1\\%$ difference in model performance. This result naturally gives rise to a challenging question: How can we decide the ideal VDC configuration?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 882, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given numerous possible configurations for VDC, it is inefficient to rely on heuristics such as grid search. We therefore define a learning-based approach to finding the ideal VDC configuration by computing multiple [g] embeddings based on different VDC values and then merging them into one using a learnable weighted sum.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 882, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first create multiple $[\\mathrm{g}]$ candidates $X_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}$ 's where each uses the attention mask of $\\mathrm{VDC} = i$ as follows. First, the $Q_{g}^{l}$ vector is transformed to $Q_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}$ by a weight $W_{i}^{l}$ and an activation $f$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 880, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nQ _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} = f \\left(Q _ {g} ^ {l} W _ {i} ^ {l}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 620, + 554, + 769, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, $X_{\\{g,i\\}}^l$ is generated using attention mask of VDC of $i$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 587, + 882, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nX _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {\\{g , i \\}} ^ {l} \\tilde {K} ^ {l ^ {T}}}{\\sqrt {d}} + m _ {g} ^ {d = i}\\right) \\tilde {V} ^ {l}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 621, + 862, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, we use a learnable weighted sum to create our final $[\\mathbf{g}]$ vector $X_{g}^{l}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 880, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nX _ {g} ^ {l} = \\alpha_ {0} ^ {l} \\cdot X _ {\\{g, 0 \\}} ^ {l} + \\dots + \\alpha_ {k} ^ {l} \\cdot X _ {\\{g, k \\}} ^ {l}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 713, + 836, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the weights are computed as follows. First, a vector $c$ is computed by averaging $X_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}$ followed by a weight $W^{l}$ and an activation function $f$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 745, + 880, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc = f \\bigg (\\frac {1}{k + 1} \\big (\\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {k} X _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} \\big) W ^ {l} \\bigg)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 803, + 815, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, the weights are computed by applying the softmax over the dot products with $c$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 880, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left(\\alpha_ {0} ^ {l}, \\dots , \\alpha_ {k} ^ {l}\\right) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(X _ {\\{g, 0 \\}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}, \\dots , X _ {\\{g, k \\}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 892, + 878, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8539", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Auto-VDC is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. This approach has the following advantages: First, due to the attention pooling, the ideal VDC of each layer can be automatically learned by the attention scores. That is, $X_{\\{g,n\\}}^l$ with the ideal VDC $= n$ for layer $l$ will be automatically assigned a higher weight. Furthermore, unlike heuristic-VDC, where the model must attend tokens up to a distance of max(VDC), Auto-VDC can adjust which distances to focus on based on the input, thereby reducing the noise from the redundant distances.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 334, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets and Experimental Settings We use the most widely used ABSC data sets: the Laptop and Restaurant datasets from SemEval-2014 task 4 (Pontiki et al., 2014), the Twitter dataset of Dong et al. (2014), and the MAMS-ATSA dataset (Jiang et al., 2019). Table 5 in Appendix A shows the statistics of the ABSC datasets. For SIR-ABSC, we use the pre-trained RoBERTa-base model provided by huggingface. We use $\\mathsf{spaCy}^2$ 's en_core_web_sm model version 3.3.0 as the dependency parser. Finetuning uses a batch size of 32, dropout rate of 0.1, learning rate of $\\{1.0\\mathrm{e - }5,1.5\\mathrm{e - }5,$ $2.0\\mathrm{e - }5\\}$ using the AdamW optimizer, and 300 for the dependency embedding dimension. We run the experiments with five random seeds and report average accuracy and macro-F1. We used the same set of random seeds for each ablation experiment. All experiments are conducted on a single Tesla A100 GPU.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 302, + 490, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines We compare SIR-ABSC with previous (PLM+Dependency graph) models in Table 1. Specifically, (1) DGEDT-BERT (Tang et al., 2020) proposes a biaffine module that deepens the interaction of semantic and syntactic representations; (2) kumaGCN (Chen et al., 2020) utilizes dependency graph along with a latent graph induced from self-attention neural networks; (3) dotGCN (Chen et al., 2022) uses GNN over an induced tree trained by reinforcement learning; (4) CHGMAN (Niu et al., 2022) uses a three-channel multi-view learning model on the dependency graph for better representation learning; (5) R-GAT (Wang et al., 2020) applies relational graph attention networks over the dependency graph to incorporate edge label information into the model; (6) DGNN (Xiao et al., 2022) uses dependency graph and an additional", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 619, + 490, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "adjacency matrix generated based on the syntactic distance from the target; (7) MWM-GCN (Zhao et al., 2022) uses masking based on the syntactic distance from the target and additional multi-head self-attention layers for better performance; (8) SGGCN (Veyseh et al., 2020) applies a regulation gate on the tokens based on their similarity to the target; (9) RoBERTa-RGAT, PwCN (Dai et al., 2021) reproduces the baseline RoBERTa model with using dependency graph in two different approaches (relational GAT and point-wise convolution network); (10) AM-RoBERTa (Feng et al., 2022b) applies target-relevant masking to the self-attention mechanism in the PLM to focus more on target-related contexts; (11) RoBERTa-DLGM (Mei et al., 2023) proposes a supervision-based approach to incorporate syntax information into PLM.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that baselines that use external knowledge sources in addition to dependency graphs (e.g., Sentic GCN-BERT (Liang et al., 2022b), KGAN (Zhong et al., 2023), SGAN (Yuan et al., 2022)) are not direct competitors to SIR-ABSC, although SIR-ABSC still outperforms all these methods except for KGAN on Twitter (which is not a fair comparison since KGAN relies on an external knowledge source, WordNet). BERT4GCN (Xiao et al., 2021) is excluded since it uses a different experiment setting while no public code is available. It is also worth noting that all these baseline models use GNN-based modules to aggregate syntactic information. SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, presents a new aggregating approach via the syntax aggregator token without resorting to GNNs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 359, + 884, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall Results Table 1 compares SIR-ABSC against all competitive RoBERTa+GNN or BERT+GNN combination models that use dependency graphs extracted from parsers $^{234}$ (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022a; Veyseh et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022a; Mei et al., 2023). Notably, SIR-ABSC outperforms all previous models on Laptop14, Restaurant14, and MAMS-ATSA datasets, establishing a new state-of-the-art record. On Twitter, SIR-ABSC clearly outperforms RoBERTa-based models and is competitive with the (overall better performing) BERT-based models. Signifi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 885, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3Stanford CoreNLP: https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 884, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{4}$ Biaffine Parser (Dozat and Manning, 2016) from the AllenNLP package https://allenai.org/allennlp", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ spaCy parsers: https://spacy.io/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 391, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8540", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d6b2414a0f64a62bb23e9470483c0986fb085db862a10e41b7edabe506069f4a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: With Auto-VDC, the [g] token automatically learns the ideal VDC configuration. For example, in the lower layers, the [g] token's attention scores focus on the target aspect (\"touch screen functions\") and the [s] token. As it moves to the upper layers, the [g] token shifts its focus to the critical phrase \"did not enjoy\" for the final prediction. This shows that Auto-VDC progressively consolidates information from increasingly distant nodes in the upper layers, just like heuristic VDCs and GNNs, but in an automatic way, thereby diminishing the need for manual heuristic adjustments." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 169, + 82, + 801, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7bfdbcab24037a6f76e20971f6c4a38732f1f58a1766e038e323bd06972bdc08.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Base PLMModelsSyntaxExternal ResourceLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERTDGEDT-BERT2Dep. Graphx79.875.686.380.077.975.4--
kumaGCNDep. Graphx82.078.886.480.377.977.0--
dotGCNxx81.078.186.280.578.177.085.084.4
CHGMANDep. Graphx81.577.786.981.6--85.184.3
RGAT-BERT4Dep. Graphx78.274.186.681.476.274.9--
DGNN (BERT)4Dep. Graphx81.479.087.281.776.275.0--
WMM-GCN (BERT)3Dep. Graphx82.879.588.582.678.977.4--
Sentic GCN-BERT2Dep. Graph✓ (SenticNet)82.179.186.981.0----
SGGCN-BERTDep. Graphx82.880.287.282.5----
Ours: S1R-ABSC (BERT)2Dep. Graphx82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
RoBERTaRoBERTa-RGAT4Dep. Graphx83.480.387.480.674.472.984.583.7
RoBERTa-PWCN2Dep. Graphx84.281.287.481.176.675.6--
AM-RoBERTa2xx83.080.288.182.5--84.283.7
RoBERTa-DLGM2Dep. Graphx84.482.088.683.675.574.684.884.3
KGANDep. Graph✓ (WordNet)83.981.188.584.180.679.6--
Ours: S1R-ABSC2Dep. Graphx85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 326, + 884, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: SIR-ABSC outperforms all prior works on Laptop and Restaurant, and is competitive on Twitter and MAMS.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 488, + 882, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cance tests following Dror et al. (2019) result in minimum epsilon values of 0 using $p$ -value of $p < 0.01$ , indicating that SIR-ABSC's performance is \"stochastically greater\" than the baselines (details in Appendix E). We also conducted experiments using BERT (SIR-ABSC (BERT)) instead of RoBERTa and it shows comparable performance with the state-of-the-art BERT models (details in Appendix G).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 542, + 489, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Twitter and multi-sentence items Table 6 in Appendix A shows that the Twitter dataset has a large proportion of multi-sentence items. Since multi-sentence items have multiple dependency graphs, it requires us to combine them by adding a dummy root node that links to the heads of each sentence. This, as well as RoBERTA's generally lower performance on Twitter, maybe one reason why we do not achieve state-of-the-art on Twitter. We have also not attempted to examine how parser accuracy contributes to performance differences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 541, + 618, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now examine the effect of the design decisions that distinguish SIR-ABSC from RoBERTa.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 574, + 882, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Does [g] require syntactic distances? To understand the impact of syntax on SIR-ABSC, we now compare it to a variant that uses surface distance instead of syntactic distance. The surface (or position) distance of a token is computed simply by the number of tokens between the closest target aspect token and the corresponding token following previous works (Zeng et al., 2019; Phan and Ogunbona, 2020). Focusing on words near the target aspect is known to be effective in the ABSC task (Zeng et al., 2019). But syntactic distance is often very different from surface distance (see Figures 1 and 2.)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 shows results for all three VDC types (decreasing, constant, and increasing) under both metrics that indicate that syntactic distances yield generally better performance than surface distances, especially in the increasing VDC configuration.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8541", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 941 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3909ebd4b1f1a7f7ca460eb584612f17b032e694a06ff664e03afd77d83d90d8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val.)
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
RoBERTa-ASC82.1(±0.9)78.9(±1.1)87.6(±0.8)81.7(±0.8)75.6(±0.6)74.5(±0.7)84.4(±0.4)83.9(±0.5)
SIR-ABSC (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.4(±0.7)80.4(±0.8)88.5(±0.6)83.2(±0.6)76.5(±0.8)75.3(±0.7)84.7(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.7(±0.7)80.7(±0.7)88.6(±0.6)83.3(±0.5)76.4(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.9(±0.4)84.4(±0.5)
• Increasing-VDC83.7(±0.9)80.5(±0.8)88.6(±0.7)83.2(±0.7)76.9(±0.9)76.0(±1.0)84.8(±0.3)84.4(±0.2)
SIR-ABSC (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.8(±0.6)80.8(±0.7)88.2(±0.6)82.9(±0.6)76.5(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.8(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.9(±0.6)80.7(±0.6)88.9(±0.7)83.7(±0.8)76.4(±0.8)75.2(±0.7)84.8(±0.4)84.5(±0.3)
• Increasing-VDC84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 880, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e1f6baf567edda60b82eccd93fac6ae59f3c0108c198f0ec40f303a97cd7e52f.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Empirical results on the effectiveness of VDC. The results show that SIR-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing $<$ fixed $<$ increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] imitating GNN as described in Section 3. A more detailed result table is in the Appendix C." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SIR-ABSCLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val)
Auto-VDCDAAAcc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
✓✓85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.4(±0.4)84.9(±0.4)
✓x84.7(±0.6)81.9(±0.7)89.5(±0.5)84.4(±0.7)77.3(±0.6)76.2(±0.7)85.2(±0.3)84.8(±0.2)
x✓84.6(±0.8)81.8(±0.8)89.4(±0.4)84.4(±0.8)77.2(±0.6)76.3(±0.6)85.2(±0.5)84.7(±0.5)
xx84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 268, + 880, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Ablation study results. The first row is equivalent to our final SIR-ABSC model and the last row is equivalent to our baseline SIR-ABSC model using increasing heuristic-VDC.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 882, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Consistency with general GNNs SIR-ABSC is inspired by how GNNs gradually aggregate information from nodes that are more and more distant in their upper layers. As mentioned in section 3, increasing VDC hyperparameters can be used to mimic this behavior. As mentioned above, Table 2 summarizes experiments conducted on three different types of VDCs: increasing (e.g., [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3]), constant (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]), and decreasing (e.g., [3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0]).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 407, + 489, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the table, we can observe the followings. First, the VDC hyperparameter is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance, verifying [g]'s effectiveness. Also, it can be seen that SIR-ABSC has the highest performance with increasing VDCs (i.e. when it is most similar to typical GNNs), and the lowest performance with decreasing VDCs (i.e. when it is the least similar to GNNs). More detailed experiment results are provided in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 585, + 489, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue? Existing (PLM+GNN) models in ABSC work in an asynchronous fashion (i.e., one after the other), which results in a weak interaction between the semantic and syntactic information (Tang et al., 2020). SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, is a fully-integrated model where [s] (=semantic aggregator) and [g] (=syntactic aggregator) interact with each other in every layer. To verify the strength of this fully-integrated characteristic, we conducted an ablation study (Table 4) where we", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "intentionally block the attention masks between [s] and [g] in every layer. Consequently, the [s] and [g] tokens cannot attend to each other during the self-attention layers, weakening their interaction. By comparing SIR-ABSC with Table 4 Variant 1 (w/o s $\\leftrightarrow$ g interaction), we can observe that the drop in performance is considerable, verifying our hypothesis that more integrated models can alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue and yield more significant performance improvements.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 884, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal aggregation issue? We conducted an ablation study to verify the effectiveness of DAA and AutoVDC, and the results are summarized in Table 3. From the table, we can observe that each method improves the performance over our baseline model (using increasing heuristic-VDC), and both applied together further enhances the performance. These results verify that SIR-ABSC can effectively utilize the dependency labels and learns to identify and focus on specific distances based on the input, alleviating the suboptimal aggregation issue. We also include two case studies, Figures 3 and 4, for qualitative analysis. In Figure 3, SIR-ABSC's [g] focuses on the target aspect (\"touchscreen functions\") in the early layers and then gradually captures the key phrase \"did not enjoy\" in the later layers, showing some consistency with increasing heuristic-VDC results. Also, from Figure 4 we can see that SIR-ABSC learns to focus more on VDCs of 0,1, and 2 and less on 3 (see Figure 4", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8542", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VDC=0 tokens: [resolution]", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 105, + 248, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VDC=1 tokens: [has, higher, resolution]", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 121, + 292, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VDC=2 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, are]", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 137, + 342, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VDC=3 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, fonts, are, small]", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 154, + 391, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/df97b3161ec38e3df40df22f1b0d40f0dfc178021419409dcbaafe0769309406.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Learned Auto-VDC weights", + "(a) Different VDCs and their corresponding tokens" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 401, + 82, + 524, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f6f9e5445d2d515b67a36df82f86a293d66e0b3dd77c1d06e7313e23f076ff36.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) [g] token's attention scores", + "Figure 4: A case study on the effect of the Auto-VDC mechanism. Target aspect is \"resolution\". Auto-VDC learns to focus more on the key distances (VDCs of 1 and 2) and less on the redundant distance (VDC of 3). As a result, the model successfully focuses on the key phrase \"has higher resolution\" at the last layers." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 80, + 863, + 185 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a52a1fc9ba45a18d1c5eec79ace26a267c6d245ebdd6406ce65f46dce630bf68.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
[g] tokenLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC85.0(±0.8)82.1(±0.9)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.2(±0.4)84.8(±0.4)
Variants
1. w/o s ↔ g interaction84.2(±0.8)81.5(±0.9)89.3(±0.4)84.1(±0.6)77.2(±0.9)76.1(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
2. [g] init. = aspect embed.84.7(±0.8)81.6(±0.7)89.3(±0.6)84.3(±0.6)77.2(±0.8)76.0(±0.9)85.0(±0.4)84.6(±0.4)
3. SIR-ABSC-[g] (Appendix F)83.5(±0.6)80.5(±0.6)88.3(±0.4)82.9(±0.4)75.6(±0.8)74.3(±0.8)84.6(±0.3)84.2(±0.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 269, + 878, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Empirical results on the fully-integratedness and the inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token embedding.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 369, + 880, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "b) where VDC=3 tokens are indeed redundant (includes \"fonts are small\" where the target is \"resolution\"), verifying that SIR-ABSC can capture important distances based on the input. We provide more detailed ablation and case study results in Appendix D.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 409, + 489, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token as an aggregator There seems to be an inherent advantage in using the pre-trained embedding of the [s] token also for [g]. Table 4 (Variant 2) compares SIR-ABSC (in which the dictionary embedding of [g] is initialized with [s]'s embedding), with a variant in which we use the actual aspect word's dictionary embeddings as the [g] embedding (if the aspect consists of several words, we average their embeddings). Initializing [g] with the [s] embedding yields better performance, perhaps because the [s] embedding is better suited to aggregate information than the embeddings of other tokens, providing a better starting point for a sequence element that is also intended to aggregate information (albeit of a slightly different nature). Erase later: (Chen et al., 2020), (Chen et al., 2022), (Niu et al., 2022), (Wang et al., 2020), (Xiao et al., 2022), (Zhao et al., 2022), (Liang et al., 2022b), (Veyseh et al., 2020), (Dai et al., 2021), (Feng et al., 2022b), (Mei et al., 2023), (Xiao et al., 2021), (Liang et al., 2022a), (Yuan et al., 2022), (Zhong et al., 2023)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 409, + 640, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper has proposed a novel framework, SIR-ABSC, that effectively incorporates syntactic information directly into a pre-trained large language model (PLM) such as RoBERTa for tasks like Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), in which the desired output depends on specific words in the input, and where syntactic distance to the relevant input words may be important. In contrast to prior work, where a separate GNN was added to the output of the PLM, in our model, attention masks for new [g] token capture syntactic information, and a new hyper-parameter, named variable distance control (VDC), captures graph structure in a similar fashion. Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) mechanism allows SIR-ABSC to use the dependency labels effectively, and finally, the Auto-VDC mechanism learns a mixture of multiple distances, allowing the model to identify and focus on important syntactic distances for a given input.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 432, + 884, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To the best of our knowledge, SIR-ABSC is the first model to incorporate syntactic knowledge into RoBERTa for ABSC without resorting to GNNs. Experiments show we achieve state-of-the-art performance in SemEval-2014 task 4. This demonstrates the efficiency of our approach and suggests a new paradigm for augmenting PLM with syntax.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 739, + 884, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 862, + 613, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we summarize the limitations of our model that can be improved in the future. First, we", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8543", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "did not explore various types of dependency parsers as mentioned in Section 4, which could result in different performances. Similarly, we did not examine how accurate the parser we used was and how much performance difference it could make, as mentioned in Section 4. Second, we did not consider other types of syntactic information besides dependency trees, such as phrase dependency graphs, which could also be effective for ABSC. Lastly, our method might be limited to single-sentence items. Although we inserted a dummy root node to merge multiple dependency graphs within a single input sentence, our model does not achieve state-of-the-art results on the Twitter dataset, which consists primarily of multi-sentence items. Therefore, it would be crucial to investigate more effective methods for merging multiple dependency graphs in a given input sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 401, + 213, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jiangang Bai, Yujing Wang, Yiren Chen, Yaming Yang, Jing Bai, Jing Yu, and Yunhai Tong. 2021. Syntax-BERT: Improving pre-trained transformers with syntax trees. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3011-3020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xuefeng Bai, Pengbo Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Investigating typed syntactic dependencies for targeted sentiment classification using graph attention neural network. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:503-514.", + "Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, Zhongqing Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Discrete opinion tree induction for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2051-2064.", + "Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Inducing target-specific latent structures for aspect sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 5596-5607.", + "Junqi Dai, Hang Yan, Tianxiang Sun, Pengfei Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. Does syntax matter? a strong baseline for aspect-based sentiment analysis with RoBERTa. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1816-1829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 425, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805.", + "Hai Ha Do, PWC Prasad, Angelika Maag, and Abeer Alsadoon. 2019. Deep learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis: A comparative review. Expert Systems with Applications, 118:272-299.", + "Li Dong, Furu Wei, Chuanqi Tan, Duyu Tang, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2014. Adaptive recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 49-54, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Timothy Dozat and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Deep bioaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01734.", + "Rotem Dror, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Reichart. 2019. Deep dominance-how to properly compare deep neural models. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2773-2785.", + "Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022a. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528.", + "Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022b. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528.", + "Xiaochen Hou, Peng Qi, Guangtao Wang, Rex Ying, Jing Huang, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. Graph ensemble learning over multiple dependency trees for aspect-level sentiment classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11794.", + "Qingnan Jiang, Lei Chen, Ruifeng Xu, Xiang Ao, and Min Yang. 2019. A challenge dataset and effective models for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6280-6285, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with BERT. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803.", + "Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8544", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xin Li, Lidong Bing, Wenxuan Zhang, and Wai Lam. 2019. Exploiting BERT for end-to-end aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00883.", + "Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022a. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643.", + "Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Zhibin Lu, Pan Du, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2020. VGCN-BERT: augmenting BERT with graph embedding for text classification. Advances in Information Retrieval, 12035:369.", + "Xiaoyong Mei, Yougen Zhou, Chenjing Zhu, Mengting Wu, Ming Li, and Shirui Pan. 2023. A disentangled linguistic graph model for explainable aspect-based sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 260:110150.", + "Hao Niu, Yun Xiong, Jian Gao, Zhongchen Miao, Xiaosu Wang, Hongrun Ren, Yao Zhang, and Yangyong Zhu. 2022. Composition-based heterogeneous graph multi-channel attention network for multi-aspect multi-sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6827-6836.", + "Minh Hieu Phan and Philip O Ogunbona. 2020. Modelling context and syntactical features for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3211-3220.", + "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hao Tang, Donghong Ji, Chenliang Li, and Qiji Zhou. 2020. Dependency graph enhanced dual-transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6578-6588, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Komang Wahyu Trisna and Huang Jin Jie. 2022. Deep learning approach for aspect-based sentiment classification: A comparative review. Applied Artificial Intelligence, pages 1-37.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762.", + "Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Nasim Nour, Franck Dernoncourt, Quan Hung Tran, Dejing Dou, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2020. Improving aspect-based sentiment analysis with gated graph convolutional networks and syntax-based regulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.13389.", + "Kai Wang, Weizhou Shen, Yunyi Yang, Xiaojun Quan, and Rui Wang. 2020. Relational graph attention network for aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12362.", + "Luwei Xiao, Yun Xue, Hua Wang, Xiaohui Hu, Donghong Gu, and Yongsheng Zhu. 2022. Exploring fine-grained syntactic information for aspect-based sentiment classification with dual graph neural networks. Neurocomputing, 471:48-59.", + "Zeguan Xiao, Jiarun Wu, Qingliang Chen, and Congjian Deng. 2021. BERT4GCN: Using BERT intermediate layers to augment GCN for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9193-9200, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Qiannan Xu, Li Zhu, Tao Dai, and Chengbing Yan. 2020. Aspect-based sentiment classification with multi-attention network. Neurocomputing, 388:135-143.", + "Li Yuan, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2022. syntactic graph attention network for aspect-level sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Biqing Zeng, Heng Yang, Ruyang Xu, Wu Zhou, and Xuli Han. 2019. Lcf: A local context focus mechanism for aspect-based sentiment classification. Applied Sciences, 9(16):3389.", + "Chen Zhang, Qiuchi Li, and Dawei Song. 2019. Aspect-based sentiment classification with aspect-specific graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4568-4578, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ziguo Zhao, Mingwei Tang, Wei Tang, Chunhao Wang, and Xiaoliang Chen. 2022. Graph convolutional network with multiple weight mechanisms for aspect-based sentiment analysis. Neurocomputing, 500:124-134." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8545", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Hua Jin, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Knowledge graph augmented network towards multiview representation learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Details on datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 709, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model SIR-ABSC is evaluated on four different datasets from SemEval-2014 Task 4, Twitter, and MAMS datasets. Table 5 shows the statistics of the datasets. Table 6 shows the percentage of multiple sentences per item and the average number of sentences per item on each dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 108, + 885, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9ac5229c8692ec09ba8c281a4bc8287a811839f9448fe36b4b0a92c57f89684f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTrainTestVal
Restaurant (SemEval-2014)36081120-
Laptop (SemEval-2014)2328638-
Twitter6248692-
MAMS-ATSA1118613361332
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 215, + 889, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a6e188ffda5fbe794508dabaa16df616af08cc9496d94ae71c39f1e107ab61be.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Dataset Overview" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetsDistributionTrainTestVal
Lap14% of multiple sent./item7.867.84-
Avg. sent./item1.091.09-
Res14% of multiple sent./item4.024.38-
Avg. number of sent./item1.041.05-
Twitter% of multiple sent./item59.4460.55-
Avg. number of sent./item1.991.96-
MAMS-ATSA% of multiple sent./item2.120.820.60
Avg. number of sent./item1.021.011.01
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 354, + 878, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Prevalence of multi-sentence items in the ABSC datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 882, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Comparing different pooler types", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 535, + 836, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The [s] and [g] token outputs are combined after the last layer of SIR-ABSC encoders as described in Section 3. We conduct experiments on three different types of poolers for combining [s] and [g] token embeddings at the final layer: average, max, and attention pooling. Table 7 summarizes the results of using different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. The result shows that attention pooling shows better results in general.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 885, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Detailed variable distance control results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 715, + 838, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our variable distance control (VDC) is a unique hyper-parameter which consists of 12 non-negative integers, where each integer represents the $d_l$ value of the $l$ -th layer. Theoretically there are exponentially many possible values for VDC but we use three representative types: increasing, constant, and decreasing VDCs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We heuristically chose specific values for each type of VDCs and the detailed results are summarized in Table 8. The table shows that SIR-ABSC", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8546", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fb110b03226096e587ee6ff9120406a0852a60d4c9dfdfef153c42c35787e09e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Pooler typesLap14Rest14Twitter
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC
w/ max pooling83.280.088.783.374.873.7
w/ avg pooling83.880.688.883.576.575.5
w/ att pooling84.181.189.384.177.276.3
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 489, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Comparing different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. We used VDC = [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3] with the default full-interaction for the experiment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 489, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "has the highest performance with increasing VDCs. Increasing VDCs are designed to work as the most similar to the typical GNN by aggregating information from the closest nodes to farther nodes based on the target aspect. On the other hand, decreasing VDCs has the lowest performance where the decreasing VDCs are designed to work as least similar to a GNN in the opposite order (i.e., aggregating information from farther nodes to closer nodes based on the target aspect). From these results, we can conclude that SIR-ABSC successfully imitates the typical GNN mechanism through increasing VDC configuration.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 489, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Detailed ablation and case study results on DAA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 487, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide a more detailed ablation and case study results regarding DAA in Table 9 and Figure 5. We experiment two additional variants of the proposed DAA mechanism: DAA (w/o edge label) and DAA (w/o edge direction), to verify the effectiveness of different kinds of syntactic information. Specifically, DAA (w/o edge direction) ignores the direction of the edges and assign the embeddings solely based on the dependency label. DAA (w/o edge label) ignores the edge labels (e.g., nsubj) and assign the embeddings solely based on the edge direction. By comparing #1 and #2 from Table 9, we can observe that employing the VDC mechanism with the [g] token to replace GNNs leads to significant improvement in performance (average accuracy gain of $1.475\\%$ and average f1-score gain of 1.775). By further supplementing the model with missing information, such as edge direction and edge label information, DAA yields additional average gains of $0.2\\%$ on accuracy and 0.275 on f1-score over [RoBERTa+VDC] (#2 vs #5). The DAA ablation results (#3 and #4) show that the performance decreases for both DAA (w/o edge direction) and DAA (w/o edge label), indicating their importance in DAA performance. Consistent with our intuition,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 517, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "we can observe that the edge label information is relatively more important than edge direction information in DAA. Another interesting finding is that DAA is more effective on BERT than RoBERTa. We speculate that this is because RoBERTa already utilizes the information contained in the dependency edge label to some extent, which is probably one of the reasons why RoBERTa shows better overall baseline performance than BERT.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, we incorporate two case studies to illustrate the effectiveness of DAA in Figure 5. From the above examples, we can observe that the attention scores of words (pretentious, and, inappropriate) and (anywhere, else) get much higher when DAA is applied. Our speculation is that this occurs because DAA learns the significance of \"advcl\" and \"advmod\" labels, resulting in high attention scores being assigned to expressions such as (pretentious $\\xrightarrow{advcl}$ claim, be $\\xrightarrow{advmod}$ else, and else $\\xrightarrow{advcl}$ anywhere) thereby leading to correct predictions. This is also consistent with our intuition since adverbial modifiers are related to adjectives which is highly likely to be important for deciding the sentiment.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 884, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Significance tests", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 470, + 694, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following the proposed significance test designed for comparing deep learning models from (Dror et al., 2019), we ran their official code with our SIR-ABSC and the baseline models. Specifically, we compared (1) SIR-ABSC with RoBERTa-baseline and (2) SIR-ABSC (BERT) with BERT-baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 882, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This test takes three components (results from method A, results from method B, and a confidence level) as input, and the purpose of this test is to answer the question: \"Is A almost stochastically greater than B?\" This test is based on the relatively new concept of \"Almost Stochastic Order\" which is a relaxed version of \"Stochastic Order\". The test outputs a minimum $\\epsilon$ value where the result is interpreted as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 882, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- If $\\epsilon > 0.5$ : We can't say A is almost stochastically greater than B.", + "- If $\\epsilon \\leq 0.5$ : We can say A is almost stochastically greater than B.", + "- If $\\epsilon = 0$ : We can say A is \"stochastically greater\" than B not just \"almost stochastically greater\" which is the best result we can get in this test. Mathematically meaning $\\inf \\{x : t \\leq F(x)\\} \\geq \\inf \\{x : t \\leq G(x)\\}$ for $\\forall t \\in (0,1)$ ," + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 750, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8547", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9717f30442519daf166f444925516b72984ef9707edc0e496024dfcf9e9593ce.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 80, + 873, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/da030f4e76918f52fe469c4c52837b9fe4ec9af44b135f5bbcda3f9f2bf57394.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Sentiment: Neutral 0.01 1.84 0.39 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.40 X X 0.2 1.58 2.22 5.21 13.65 14.76 17.82 32.86 3.71
Sentiment: Negative 0.22 6.14 0.39 5.56 1.50 5.07 2.44 X X 6.20 5.90 7.73 10.67 23.74 8.58 1.65 9.28 0.08
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 187, + 873, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3dbb04b91f661b52e54b179c934caf6cbbceb483c4a4131fa5fc3675d896d18a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Two case studies employing DAA. The targets (diners, prices) are marked in bold. The first and second rows below the sentence depict the attention scores of the [g] token without and with DAA, respectively. Attention scores that increase more than ten-fold when DAA is applied are also marked in bold. In these examples, DAA enables the [g] token to place greater emphasis on critical sentiment words like \"pretentious,\" \"inappropriate,\" \"anywhere,\" and \"else,\" which contributes to accurate predictions." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 208, + 225, + 784, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3e2dd078883bad3a631bc5539fc00e308682ffd1f0adf60f6efd1aafe89a2e74.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Prediction:Negative0.234.500.130.3212.803.2014.418.877.1026.66
Prediction:Positive0.499.404.015.569.084.4413.3811.0715.4410.59
", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 325, + 789, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $F$ and $G$ are the (empirical) CDFs of A and B.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 481, + 487, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please refer to the paper for further details.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 525, + 433, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Applying the test on our models with a confidence level $(1 - \\alpha)$ of 0.99 (in other words, significance level $(\\alpha)$ of 0.01), both tests (1) and (2) resulted in minimum $\\epsilon$ values of 0. This indicates that SIR-ABSC and SIR-ABSC (BERT) are stochastically greater than RoBERTa-baseline and BERT-baseline with a confidence level of 0.99, respectively, verifying the superiority of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 489, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Additional analysis: does [g] need to be a separate token?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 682, + 487, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now compare SIR-ABSC to a variant that does not use a [g] token, but instead uses the target tokens at the end of the input sequence (recall that the input sequence has the form of '[s] sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s]). We call this the SIR-ABSC-[g] variant. As Table 4 shows, the loss in performance is considerable compared to using an independent [g] token as in the original SIR-ABSC. We speculate the drop in performance is due to the original input sentence getting corrupted when we modify the aspect token's attention mask. This indicates the importance of using an additional", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and independent [g] token for the GNN role as in SIR-ABSC.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 880, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G SIR-ABSC (BERT) results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 789, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We chose RoBERTa as our baseline PLM due to its better overall performance in ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021). However, to verify the generality of our method, we also conducted experiments on SIR-ABSC (BERT) which uses BERT instead of RoBERTa. The results are summarized in Table 10. We can see that our method is effective on BERT as well and the significance test results in \"stochastic greatness\" under significance level of $\\alpha = 0.01$ , verifying the general effectiveness. The amount of improvement in performance could differ depending on the PLM and we can notice that the amount of enhancement when using RoBERTa (+1.93 on average) is relatively larger than when applied to BERT (+1.60 on average).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 550, + 884, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8548", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/987a4f5df696bfc0b23ab8c2ed64a0e915051e5b98f987e7a4872c1a1dc7aa8c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
GoBERTA (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.480.488.583.276.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.380.288.282.776.074.884.784.2
• VDC = [333222111000]82.078.888.482.876.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.488.483.175.674.484.784.2
• VDC = [554433221100]83.179.988.583.275.273.784.684.2
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.087.882.076.074.884.784.2
• Constant-VDC83.780.788.683.376.475.484.984.4
• Increasing-VDC83.780.588.683.276.976.084.884.4
• VDC = [000011112222]83.580.387.882.176.976.084.784.3
• VDC = [000111222333]83.580.588.583.275.574.484.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.680.487.982.275.774.484.884.4
• VDC = [001122334455]83.380.388.683.176.174.984.884.4
• VDC = [000222444666]83.780.588.382.576.675.884.784.2
GoBERTA (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.780.688.282.876.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.580.488.182.775.474.284.784.3
• VDC = [333222111000]82.679.687.181.176.175.184.584.0
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.587.982.276.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [554433221100]83.880.888.282.975.374.284.684.1
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.088.282.775.674.384.584.0
• Constant-VDC83.780.488.983.776.475.285.084.5
• Increasing-VDC83.880.889.183.877.175.985.084.6
• VDC = [000011112222]84.181.188.382.877.276.384.684.2
• VDC = [000111222333]83.880.889.183.876.775.584.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.580.588.983.575.774.684.884.3
• VDC = [001122334455]83.280.289.384.174.775.985.084.6
• VDC = [000222444666]82.579.488.983.876.975.984.884.5
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 195, + 890, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Detailed experimental results on the effect of VDC. The results show that S1R-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing $<$ fixed $<$ increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] token imitating GNN as described in Section 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 884, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8549", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d0d502d6b5d90c0be03ebe1b455c7d5b44665945b7715462309a6fba5e305397.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Ablations (Validation)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
1. SIR-ABSC (RoBERTa)
#1: RoBERTa baseline82.178.987.681.775.674.584.483.9
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC84.181.189.384.177.276.385.084.6
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)84.281.389.384.377.276.084.884.3
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)84.481.589.484.377.376.584.984.4
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)84.681.889.484.477.276.385.284.7
#6 (SIR-ABSC): #5+Auto-VDC85.082.189.784.877.576.485.484.9
2. SIR-ABSC (BERT)
#1: BERT baseline79.275.185.879.376.474.884.082.7
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC80.877.186.780.677.175.984.383.1
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)81.177.586.980.977.275.984.383.2
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)81.678.287.081.177.476.184.483.5
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)81.878.687.081.277.676.484.583.5
#6 (SIR-ABSC (BERT)): #5+Auto-VDC82.279.187.381.677.776.684.783.6
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 186, + 878, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cbd43c40c1f514ccfc31586f3026e305c53ef882d6c2fe480da2063459db30e3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: A detailed ablation study results." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SIR-ABSC (BERT)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERT baseline79.2(±0.6)75.1(±0.5)85.8(±0.7)79.3(±0.7)76.4(±0.7)74.8(±07)84.0(±0.3)82.7(±0.4)
SIR-ABSC (BERT)82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 692, + 880, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Empirical results on using BERT as the PLM. Note that our technique is effective on BERT as well (significance test resulting in \"stochastic greatness\") showing comparable results with BERT-based state-of-the-art results. However, the improvement is generally less than when applied to RoBERTa.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 765, + 882, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8550", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_model.json b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23e002e871df0ac4f107c77566039a65697afe71 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2718 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.09, + 0.844, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SIR-ABSC: Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.257, + 0.15, + 0.751, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ikhyun Cho and Yoonhwa Jung and Julia Hockenmaier" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.325, + 0.168, + 0.678, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.185, + 0.756, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ihcho2, yoonhwa2, juliahmr}@illinois.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.262, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a simple, but effective method to incorporate syntactic dependency information directly into transformer-based language models (e.g. RoBERTa) for tasks such as Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), where the desired output depends on specific input tokens. In contrast to prior approaches to ABSC that capture syntax by combining language models with graph neural networks over dependency trees, our model, Syntax-Integrated RoBERTa for ABSC (SIR-ABSC) incorporates syntax directly into the language model by using a novel aggregator token. SIR-ABSC1 outperforms these more complex models, yielding new state-of-the-art results on ABSC." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.506, + 0.26, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.531, + 0.49, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC, Pontiki et al. (2014), Figure 1) is a fine-grained sentiment analysis task that aims to handle the fact that even simple statements such as \"The ambience was nice, but service wasn't so great.\" may express different sentiments towards different aspects (this reviewer is positive about the restaurant's \"ambience\", but negative about its \"service\"). In ABSC, the aspect to be classified is identified by a target string in the input sentence (e.g. \"ambience\"), and systems have to return the polarity (positive, neutral, negative) of the corresponding sentiment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.724, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have been shown to work well for ABSC, presumably because their attention mechanisms capture semantic connections between target and context words (Li et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020; Karimi et al., 2021). Starting with Do et al. (2019), PLMs have been supplemented with syntactic features, typically extracted from dependency graphs. This is typically done by using the word embeddings obtained from the PLM to initialize the node embeddings of a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "graph neural network (GNN) obtained from the dependency graph (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2022). However, such combined models have two major limitations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.33, + 0.885, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Suboptimal Interaction: A typical challenge in combining PLMs and GNNs is to make the two models effectively interact with each other. Some approaches (Tang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020) attempt to accomplish this through heavy model architecture engineering. However, the PLM and GNN still operate in an asynchronous manner (one after the other), limiting their interaction, and yielding only a minor improvement in performance. We hypothesize that more integrated models can yield larger boosts in performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.536, + 0.885, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Suboptimal Aggregation: Existing (PLM + GNN) models cannot emphasize information at a specific distance(s) away from the target token. This is problematic since the models pre-define the number of GNN layers beforehand (Bai et al., 2020; Veyseh et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, if the number of GNN layers is fixed to three while an input sequence has the key sentiment word at a distance of one, the redundant second and third GNN layers can introduce noise. The ability to identify the most important distance(s) (one in this case) and to focus on that specific distance(s) based on the input is crucial to reduce such noise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to alleviate these limitations, we propose syntax-integrated RoBERTa (SIR-ABSC), a novel framework for effectively augmenting PLMs with syntactic information. We chose RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as our PLM baseline due to its notable performance on ABSC (Dai et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instead of stacking multiple GNN layers on top of a PLM as in most previous works, we insert a" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The code for SIR-ABSC is publicly available at https://github.com/ihcho2/SIR-ABSC" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8535" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8535-8550 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.09, + 0.646, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.172, + 0.646, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.662, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: (Left Top) In ABSC, the sentiment to be predicted depends on the desired target aspect (words from the input). (Left Bottom) For ABSC, syntactic distance can be more informative than surface distance. (Right) Syntactic distances as defined by a dependency tree" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.332, + 0.49, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "new [g] token into the PLM that acts as a syntax aggregator and effectively replaces the work of GNN layers. A Variable Distance Control (VDC) mechanism allows [g] to focus on capturing syntactic knowledge by using constrained attention masks that reflect the graph structure. A Dependency-Aware Aggregation (DAA) mechanism leverages dependency label information. We further improve our model with Automatic VDC Learning (AutoVDC), which enables SIR-ABSC to capture and focus on important syntactic distances based on the input, an important advantage over GNNs. SIR-ABSC outperforms prior approaches, and establishes a new state of the art, on the most widely used ABSC datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.573, + 0.483, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our main contributions are summarized below :" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.595, + 0.487, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We present a novel approach to incorporating syntactic information into PLM through the use of a syntax aggregator token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.652, + 0.488, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We highlight two limitations in current GNN-based approaches (suboptimal interaction and aggregation) and present effective methods (DAA and Auto-VDC) to address them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.725, + 0.487, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To our knowledge, this is the first work to utilize dependency graph information without resorting to GNNs in ABSC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.783, + 0.487, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Our model achieves state-of-the-art results on two out of the four widely used ABSC datasets and demonstrates competitive performance on the remaining ones." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.595, + 0.488, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.863, + 0.48, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In ABSC, illustrated in Figure 1, the task is to predict the polarity (positive, negative" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.332, + 0.883, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "or neutral) of the sentiment in input sentence \\( s = [w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_p, \\dots, w_{p + m - 1}, \\dots, w_n] \\) towards a given target aspect \\( t \\) (a substring of the input sentence: \\( t_i = \\{w_p, \\dots, w_{p + m - 1}\\} \\))." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.41, + 0.779, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Language Models for ABSC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.432, + 0.885, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) have gained predominance for many NLP tasks, including ABSC. RoBERTa, a variant of BERT, is known to show notable performance on ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021), and forms the basis of the models explored in this paper. RoBERTa (and BERT) are (pre)trained on large amounts of raw text with a masked language modeling objective. Both models use a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture in which each token's embedding is fed through multiple layers such that each token's embedding in a given layer can attend to all tokens in the sequence (in the same layer). To adapt these models for classification tasks, a special token ([CLS] for BERT, [s] for RoBERTa) whose output is fed into a task-specific feedforward layer is included in the input sequence. A separation token ([SEP] or [/s]) can be used to separate the input sequence from other task-specific information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.755, + 0.884, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the ABSC task, RoBERTa is typically used as follows: after tokenization, the input sentence is constructed as '[s] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence includes the target aspect itself. The [s] token of the last layer is used for the final prediction and fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.866, + 0.794, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Combining PLMs with syntax" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A common approach to ABSC is to supplement a PLM with syntactic information obtained from a" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8536" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "dependency parser. In a dependency graph (Figure 1) each word in the sentence corresponds to a node, with labeled edges indicating word-word dependencies. Note that the syntactic distance between words (e.g. sucked and vista) can be much smaller than their surface (string) distance (Figure 1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.182, + 0.489, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the dependency parser and the PLM may use different tokenizers, tokenization needs to be broken into two stages to integrate both models seamlessly. The input sentence is first tokenized by the dependency parser, and then each token is again tokenized by RoBERTa's tokenizer, following previous work (Tang et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.303, + 0.49, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Graph Neural Network-based ABSC models To incorporate syntax into ABSC models, PLMs have been augmented with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs, Kipf and Welling (2016)) that capture the structure of the sentence's dependency tree. Although there are many variants (Trisna and Jie, 2022), the basic idea behind GNNs is to represent each node as a vector \\( h_i \\) that is updated via graph convolution in each layer (\\( l \\in [1, 2, \\dots, L] \\)) of the GNN (Kipf and Welling, 2016) by aggregating its neighborhood information from the previous layer:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.488, + 0.395, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {i} ^ {l} = \\sigma \\left(A _ {i j} W _ {l} h _ {j} ^ {l - 1} + b _ {l}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.518, + 0.489, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\sigma\\) is an activation function, \\(W\\) and \\(b\\) are learnable parameters, and \\(A_{ij}\\) is the entry of the graphs adjacency matrix that indicates whether nodes \\(i\\) and \\(j\\) are connected (in which case \\(A_{ij} = 1\\); otherwise \\(A_{ij} = 0\\)). The general framework for augmenting PLMs with GNNs for ABSC is to initialize the GNN node embeddings with the PLM's output embeddings and use the final embeddings of the target aspects in the last GNN layer for classification." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhang et al. (2019) were the first to implement a GNN-based model for ABSC, adding a multilayered Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to encode dependency graphs on top of the word embedding layer. Wang et al. (2020) and Bai et al. (2020) proposed a relational graph attention network (R-GAT), which computes an additional attention distribution using the dependency label embeddings. Tang et al. (2020) strengthened interactions between contextual and graph representations through a mutual biaffine module. Mei et al. (2023) incorporated part-of-speech, distance, and syntactic dependency in a supervised manner. Several recent research in ABSC has tried to revise dependency graphs due to their imperfections or add external resources (Xiao et al., 2021, 2022; Liang et al.," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2022a). What is common to all these approaches is that the PLM and GNN operate in a serial fashion, and are not tightly integrated." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.144, + 0.885, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Attention-mask based approaches Another promising approach to incorporate syntactic information into PLMs that is more related to this paper, is to manipulate the Transformer's self-attention masks. For example, Syntax-BERT (Bai et al., 2021) uses multiple masks induced from the syntactic trees (e.g., parent, children, sibling, pairwise masks) to incorporate syntactic information into BERT. To do so, it requires multiple (usually more than 90) sub-networks, which share the same model parameters in a masked self-attention module, and then the outputs are aggregated through another attention layer, named a topical attention module." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.354, + 0.884, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The key difference between Syntax-BERT and SIR-ABSC is that Syntax-BERT alters all the input tokens' attention masks and aggregates them in a serial manner, while SIR-ABSC (which is specifically designed for tasks like ABSC, where the desired output depends on specific parts of the input) keeps the original input tokens intact while only modifying the attention-mask of the newly added [g] token." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.511, + 0.642, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 SIR-ABSC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.538, + 0.884, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present SIR-ABSC (Figure 2), which incorporates syntactic information into PLM designed for ABSC tasks. We accomplish this goal by augmenting RoBERTa with four components: (1) a single additional input token, named [g], whose attention masks depend on the structure of the input's dependency tree(s), paired with (2) a \"variable distance control\" mechanism that specifies how the structure of the dependency graph is reflected in [g]'s attention masks, (3) a dependency-aware aggregation which incorporates dependency labels using embeddings, and (4) an \"Auto-VDC\" mechanism that learns the ideal VDC for a given input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.883, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input and output After tokenization with RoBERTa's tokenizer, the input to SIR-ABSC is '[s] [g] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence is the token \"[g]\" followed by the target aspect words. [g] uses its own independent dictionary embedding in the input layer but is initialized with the initial [s] embedding. We evaluate this choice in Section 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To obtain the output, the final layers of the [s] and [g] tokens are pooled and fed to a classification" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8537" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.291, + 0.884, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall architecture of our approach. Instead of stacking GNNs on top of a PLM (left), SIR-ABSC inserts a syntax aggregator token, [g], into the PLM for a synchronous and deeper aggregation (right). A heuristic VDC of \\([0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]\\) is used in this example (\"vista\" is the target aspect). DAA is not explicitly represented for the sake of simplicity. Best viewed in color." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.373, + 0.489, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "layer as follows. First, a global vector \\( c \\) is created by averaging [s] and [g] embeddings followed by a weight \\( W_{c} \\) and an activation function \\( f \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.425, + 0.401, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc = f \\left(\\frac {1}{2} \\left(X _ {s} + X _ {g}\\right) W _ {c}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.461, + 0.381, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, the final pooled vector \\((h)\\) is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.227, + 0.48, + 0.376, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh = \\alpha_ {1} X _ {s} + \\alpha_ {2} X _ {g}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.5, + 0.168, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.516, + 0.426, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left(\\alpha_ {1}, \\alpha_ {2}\\right) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(c X _ {s} ^ {T}, c X _ {g} ^ {T}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.548, + 0.49, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, \\(h\\) is fed into a fully connected layer \\((W_{FC})\\) to calculate the final sentiment polarity score \\(y\\in \\mathbb{R}^C\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.592, + 0.386, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ny = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(h W _ {F C}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(C\\) is the number of sentiment polarity classes. We use the cross-entropy loss function as the objective function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The [g] token and distance-based attention masks The [g] token is inserted next to the [s] token. Unlike the [s] token that attends to every token in the input, we allow each layer \\(l\\) of [g] to only attend to the subset of input tokens \\(j\\) that are at most a distance \\(D(j) \\leq d_l\\) away from the target aspect, allowing us to capture the intuition that the relevance of each word in a sentence to ABSC depends on its distance to the target aspect words. We achieve this with distance-based attention masks (Figure 2) that depend either on syntactic or surface distance, and are only used for the [g] token, and the VDC hyperparameters explained below that define the parameter \\(d_l\\). We do not restrict how the input tokens can attend to [g]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.373, + 0.885, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For our baseline model, we assume that each layer \\(l\\) of [g] is associated with one specific distance \\(d_{l}\\). This yields a layer-specific attention mask \\(\\mathbf{m}_{g}^{d = d_{l}}\\) (a vector whose elements \\(\\mathbf{m}_{g,j}^{d = d_l}\\) are 0 if the distance \\(D(j)\\) between token \\(j\\) and the target aspect words is greater than \\(d_{l}\\), and 1 otherwise). If distance is syntax-based, \\(D(j)\\) is the length of the shortest path between token \\(j\\) and the target aspect (so, if the target aspect consists of multiple tokens, we take the minimum distance to any of its component tokens). If the distance is surface-based, \\(D(j)\\) is simply the token distance to the target aspect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.567, + 0.884, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To summarize, all tokens except \\([\\mathbf{g}]\\) are updated precisely as in the original PLM using the original attention mask \\(\\mathbf{m}\\), and \\([\\mathbf{g}]\\) is updated using its own attention mask \\(\\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}\\) as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.651, + 0.887, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} X _ {o u t, i \\neq g} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {i} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + \\mathbf {m}\\right) V ^ {l}, \\\\ X _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + \\mathbf {m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\\right) V ^ {l} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.74, + 0.564, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.765, + 0.864, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nQ ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {Q} ^ {l}, K ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K} ^ {l}, V ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V} ^ {l}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.796, + 0.754, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nm _ {g, j} ^ {d = d _ {l}} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} 0 \\quad , \\text {i f} D (j) \\leq d _ {l} \\\\ - \\inf , \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.838, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(X_{in}^{l}\\) and \\(X_{out}^{l}\\) are the input and output token embeddings of the \\(l\\)-th self-attention layer, \\(\\mathbf{m}\\) is the attention mask that cancels out padding tokens, \\(\\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}\\) is the [g] token's attention mask, \\(Q^l\\), \\(K^l\\), \\(V^l\\) are the \\(l\\)-th Query, Key, and Value weights, respectively," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8538" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(i\\) is the token index, and \\(g\\) is the [g] token's index. For simplicity, we ignore the relatively minor details, such as the FFN and normalization layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.134, + 0.49, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike previous works where PLM and GNN operate one after the other, SIR-ABSC is a synchronous and fully-integrated model in that [s] (= semantic aggregator) and [g] (= syntactic aggregator) can attend to and affect each other's embeddings at every layer. We verify that this fully-integrated characteristic is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance in Section 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.272, + 0.489, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Variable Distance Control (VDC) To specify the attention masks used by the [g] token, we introduce a new set of hyper-parameters named Variable Distance Control (VDC). VDC is a list of 12 nonnegative integers where the \\(l\\)-th element represents the \\(d_l\\) value of the \\(l\\)-th layer of the [g] token: With a VDC of \\([0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1]\\), the first six layers of the [g] token attend only to the target aspect, and the remaining six layers attend to tokens connected to the target via a direct dependency link." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.434, + 0.49, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that increasing VDCs (e.g., [0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2], [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]) can be used to mimic how GNNs work. Through graph convolution, the \\(i\\)-th layer of a GNN aggregates features of nodes up to length \\(i\\) away from each node in the graph, allowing the GNN to gradually aggregate information from more and more distant nodes in its upper layers. Empirical results in Section 5 show that increasing VDCs have indeed better performance than constant VDCs (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]) or decreasing VDCs (e.g. [3,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0]). Here, our baseline model uses heuristically defined VDCs, referred to as \"heuristic-VDC\" in this paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.49, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) VDC allows the [g] token to distinguish tokens with different syntactic distances. However, the model is unaware of the dependency edge labels which could contain valuable information. To consider this information in SIR-ABSC, we re-formulate the update of the [g] token (Eq. 2) by including learnable embedding vectors corresponding to the dependency label to each token as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.835, + 0.469, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nX _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \\mathrm {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} \\tilde {K} ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + {\\bf m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\\right) \\tilde {V} ^ {l}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.887, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(X_{in}^{l}, K^{l}\\) and \\(V^{l}\\) in equation 2 are modified to \\(\\tilde{X}_{in}^{l}, \\tilde{K}^{l}\\) and \\(\\tilde{V}^{l}\\) to consider the dependency in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.662, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "formation as below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.11, + 0.803, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} = f \\left(X _ {i n} ^ {l} + X _ {d e p} W _ {d e p} ^ {l}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.586, + 0.133, + 0.808, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tilde {K} ^ {l} = \\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K}, \\tilde {V} ^ {l} = \\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.165, + 0.885, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(f\\) is the activation function, \\(X_{dep}\\) is the dependency label embedding of the input tokens, \\(W_{dep}^{l}\\) is a learnable weight matrix that maps dependency label embeddings to the size of the PLM's embedding. This allows SIR-ABSC to leverage the dependency label information for better aggregation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.269, + 0.884, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic VDC learning (Auto-VDC) In Section 5, Table 2 shows the significance of the VDC configuration in SIR-ABSC, with up to \\(1.1\\%\\) difference in model performance. This result naturally gives rise to a challenging question: How can we decide the ideal VDC configuration?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given numerous possible configurations for VDC, it is inefficient to rely on heuristics such as grid search. We therefore define a learning-based approach to finding the ideal VDC configuration by computing multiple [g] embeddings based on different VDC values and then merging them into one using a learnable weighted sum." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.478, + 0.882, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first create multiple \\([\\mathrm{g}]\\) candidates \\(X_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}\\) 's where each uses the attention mask of \\(\\mathrm{VDC} = i\\) as follows. First, the \\(Q_{g}^{l}\\) vector is transformed to \\(Q_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}\\) by a weight \\(W_{i}^{l}\\) and an activation \\(f\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.621, + 0.555, + 0.771, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nQ _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} = f \\left(Q _ {g} ^ {l} W _ {i} ^ {l}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.588, + 0.883, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, \\(X_{\\{g,i\\}}^l\\) is generated using attention mask of VDC of \\(i\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.623, + 0.863, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nX _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {\\{g , i \\}} ^ {l} \\tilde {K} ^ {l ^ {T}}}{\\sqrt {d}} + m _ {g} ^ {d = i}\\right) \\tilde {V} ^ {l}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.673, + 0.882, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, we use a learnable weighted sum to create our final \\([\\mathbf{g}]\\) vector \\(X_{g}^{l}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.714, + 0.837, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nX _ {g} ^ {l} = \\alpha_ {0} ^ {l} \\cdot X _ {\\{g, 0 \\}} ^ {l} + \\dots + \\alpha_ {k} ^ {l} \\cdot X _ {\\{g, k \\}} ^ {l}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.746, + 0.882, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the weights are computed as follows. First, a vector \\( c \\) is computed by averaging \\( X_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l} \\) followed by a weight \\( W^{l} \\) and an activation function \\( f \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.804, + 0.816, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc = f \\bigg (\\frac {1}{k + 1} \\big (\\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {k} X _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} \\big) W ^ {l} \\bigg)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.882, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, the weights are computed by applying the softmax over the dot products with \\( c \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.894, + 0.879, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left(\\alpha_ {0} ^ {l}, \\dots , \\alpha_ {k} ^ {l}\\right) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(X _ {\\{g, 0 \\}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}, \\dots , X _ {\\{g, k \\}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8539" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Auto-VDC is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. This approach has the following advantages: First, due to the attention pooling, the ideal VDC of each layer can be automatically learned by the attention scores. That is, \\( X_{\\{g,n\\}}^l \\) with the ideal VDC \\( = n \\) for layer \\( l \\) will be automatically assigned a higher weight. Furthermore, unlike heuristic-VDC, where the model must attend tokens up to a distance of max(VDC), Auto-VDC can adjust which distances to focus on based on the input, thereby reducing the noise from the redundant distances." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.276, + 0.336, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.303, + 0.492, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets and Experimental Settings We use the most widely used ABSC data sets: the Laptop and Restaurant datasets from SemEval-2014 task 4 (Pontiki et al., 2014), the Twitter dataset of Dong et al. (2014), and the MAMS-ATSA dataset (Jiang et al., 2019). Table 5 in Appendix A shows the statistics of the ABSC datasets. For SIR-ABSC, we use the pre-trained RoBERTa-base model provided by huggingface. We use \\(\\mathsf{spaCy}^2\\) 's en_core_web_sm model version 3.3.0 as the dependency parser. Finetuning uses a batch size of 32, dropout rate of 0.1, learning rate of \\(\\{1.0\\mathrm{e - }5,1.5\\mathrm{e - }5,\\) \\(2.0\\mathrm{e - }5\\}\\) using the AdamW optimizer, and 300 for the dependency embedding dimension. We run the experiments with five random seeds and report average accuracy and macro-F1. We used the same set of random seeds for each ablation experiment. All experiments are conducted on a single Tesla A100 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.62, + 0.491, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines We compare SIR-ABSC with previous (PLM+Dependency graph) models in Table 1. Specifically, (1) DGEDT-BERT (Tang et al., 2020) proposes a biaffine module that deepens the interaction of semantic and syntactic representations; (2) kumaGCN (Chen et al., 2020) utilizes dependency graph along with a latent graph induced from self-attention neural networks; (3) dotGCN (Chen et al., 2022) uses GNN over an induced tree trained by reinforcement learning; (4) CHGMAN (Niu et al., 2022) uses a three-channel multi-view learning model on the dependency graph for better representation learning; (5) R-GAT (Wang et al., 2020) applies relational graph attention networks over the dependency graph to incorporate edge label information into the model; (6) DGNN (Xiao et al., 2022) uses dependency graph and an additional" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "adjacency matrix generated based on the syntactic distance from the target; (7) MWM-GCN (Zhao et al., 2022) uses masking based on the syntactic distance from the target and additional multi-head self-attention layers for better performance; (8) SGGCN (Veyseh et al., 2020) applies a regulation gate on the tokens based on their similarity to the target; (9) RoBERTa-RGAT, PwCN (Dai et al., 2021) reproduces the baseline RoBERTa model with using dependency graph in two different approaches (relational GAT and point-wise convolution network); (10) AM-RoBERTa (Feng et al., 2022b) applies target-relevant masking to the self-attention mechanism in the PLM to focus more on target-related contexts; (11) RoBERTa-DLGM (Mei et al., 2023) proposes a supervision-based approach to incorporate syntax information into PLM." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.36, + 0.885, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that baselines that use external knowledge sources in addition to dependency graphs (e.g., Sentic GCN-BERT (Liang et al., 2022b), KGAN (Zhong et al., 2023), SGAN (Yuan et al., 2022)) are not direct competitors to SIR-ABSC, although SIR-ABSC still outperforms all these methods except for KGAN on Twitter (which is not a fair comparison since KGAN relies on an external knowledge source, WordNet). BERT4GCN (Xiao et al., 2021) is excluded since it uses a different experiment setting while no public code is available. It is also worth noting that all these baseline models use GNN-based modules to aggregate syntactic information. SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, presents a new aggregating approach via the syntax aggregator token without resorting to GNNs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.887, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall Results Table 1 compares SIR-ABSC against all competitive RoBERTa+GNN or BERT+GNN combination models that use dependency graphs extracted from parsers \\(^{234}\\) (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022a; Veyseh et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022a; Mei et al., 2023). Notably, SIR-ABSC outperforms all previous models on Laptop14, Restaurant14, and MAMS-ATSA datasets, establishing a new state-of-the-art record. On Twitter, SIR-ABSC clearly outperforms RoBERTa-based models and is competitive with the (overall better performing) BERT-based models. Signifi" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.868, + 0.885, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Stanford CoreNLP: https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.894, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{4}\\)Biaffine Parser (Dozat and Manning, 2016) from the AllenNLP package https://allenai.org/allennlp" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.868, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.393, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)spaCy parsers: https://spacy.io/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8540" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.083, + 0.803, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.23, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: With Auto-VDC, the [g] token automatically learns the ideal VDC configuration. For example, in the lower layers, the [g] token's attention scores focus on the target aspect (\"touch screen functions\") and the [s] token. As it moves to the upper layers, the [g] token shifts its focus to the critical phrase \"did not enjoy\" for the final prediction. This shows that Auto-VDC progressively consolidates information from increasingly distant nodes in the upper layers, just like heuristic VDCs and GNNs, but in an automatic way, thereby diminishing the need for manual heuristic adjustments." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.328, + 0.885, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Base PLMModelsSyntaxExternal ResourceLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERTDGEDT-BERT2Dep. Graphx79.875.686.380.077.975.4--
kumaGCNDep. Graphx82.078.886.480.377.977.0--
dotGCNxx81.078.186.280.578.177.085.084.4
CHGMANDep. Graphx81.577.786.981.6--85.184.3
RGAT-BERT4Dep. Graphx78.274.186.681.476.274.9--
DGNN (BERT)4Dep. Graphx81.479.087.281.776.275.0--
WMM-GCN (BERT)3Dep. Graphx82.879.588.582.678.977.4--
Sentic GCN-BERT2Dep. Graph✓ (SenticNet)82.179.186.981.0----
SGGCN-BERTDep. Graphx82.880.287.282.5----
Ours: S1R-ABSC (BERT)2Dep. Graphx82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
RoBERTaRoBERTa-RGAT4Dep. Graphx83.480.387.480.674.472.984.583.7
RoBERTa-PWCN2Dep. Graphx84.281.287.481.176.675.6--
AM-RoBERTa2xx83.080.288.182.5--84.283.7
RoBERTa-DLGM2Dep. Graphx84.482.088.683.675.574.684.884.3
KGANDep. Graph✓ (WordNet)83.981.188.584.180.679.6--
Ours: S1R-ABSC2Dep. Graphx85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.489, + 0.884, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: SIR-ABSC outperforms all prior works on Laptop and Restaurant, and is competitive on Twitter and MAMS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cance tests following Dror et al. (2019) result in minimum epsilon values of 0 using \\( p \\)-value of \\( p < 0.01 \\), indicating that SIR-ABSC's performance is \"stochastically greater\" than the baselines (details in Appendix E). We also conducted experiments using BERT (SIR-ABSC (BERT)) instead of RoBERTa and it shows comparable performance with the state-of-the-art BERT models (details in Appendix G)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Twitter and multi-sentence items Table 6 in Appendix A shows that the Twitter dataset has a large proportion of multi-sentence items. Since multi-sentence items have multiple dependency graphs, it requires us to combine them by adding a dummy root node that links to the heads of each sentence. This, as well as RoBERTA's generally lower performance on Twitter, maybe one reason why we do not achieve state-of-the-art on Twitter. We have also not attempted to examine how parser accuracy contributes to performance differences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.542, + 0.62, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.575, + 0.883, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now examine the effect of the design decisions that distinguish SIR-ABSC from RoBERTa." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.627, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Does [g] require syntactic distances? To understand the impact of syntax on SIR-ABSC, we now compare it to a variant that uses surface distance instead of syntactic distance. The surface (or position) distance of a token is computed simply by the number of tokens between the closest target aspect token and the corresponding token following previous works (Zeng et al., 2019; Phan and Ogunbona, 2020). Focusing on words near the target aspect is known to be effective in the ABSC task (Zeng et al., 2019). But syntactic distance is often very different from surface distance (see Figures 1 and 2.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 shows results for all three VDC types (decreasing, constant, and increasing) under both metrics that indicate that syntactic distances yield generally better performance than surface distances, especially in the increasing VDC configuration." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.942 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8541" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.881, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val.)
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
RoBERTa-ASC82.1(±0.9)78.9(±1.1)87.6(±0.8)81.7(±0.8)75.6(±0.6)74.5(±0.7)84.4(±0.4)83.9(±0.5)
SIR-ABSC (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.4(±0.7)80.4(±0.8)88.5(±0.6)83.2(±0.6)76.5(±0.8)75.3(±0.7)84.7(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.7(±0.7)80.7(±0.7)88.6(±0.6)83.3(±0.5)76.4(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.9(±0.4)84.4(±0.5)
• Increasing-VDC83.7(±0.9)80.5(±0.8)88.6(±0.7)83.2(±0.7)76.9(±0.9)76.0(±1.0)84.8(±0.3)84.4(±0.2)
SIR-ABSC (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.8(±0.6)80.8(±0.7)88.2(±0.6)82.9(±0.6)76.5(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.8(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.9(±0.6)80.7(±0.6)88.9(±0.7)83.7(±0.8)76.4(±0.8)75.2(±0.7)84.8(±0.4)84.5(±0.3)
• Increasing-VDC84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.213, + 0.884, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Empirical results on the effectiveness of VDC. The results show that SIR-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing \\( < \\) fixed \\( < \\) increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] imitating GNN as described in Section 3. A more detailed result table is in the Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.269, + 0.881, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SIR-ABSCLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val)
Auto-VDCDAAAcc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
✓✓85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.4(±0.4)84.9(±0.4)
✓x84.7(±0.6)81.9(±0.7)89.5(±0.5)84.4(±0.7)77.3(±0.6)76.2(±0.7)85.2(±0.3)84.8(±0.2)
x✓84.6(±0.8)81.8(±0.8)89.4(±0.4)84.4(±0.8)77.2(±0.6)76.3(±0.6)85.2(±0.5)84.7(±0.5)
xx84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.353, + 0.884, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study results. The first row is equivalent to our final SIR-ABSC model and the last row is equivalent to our baseline SIR-ABSC model using increasing heuristic-VDC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.408, + 0.49, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Consistency with general GNNs SIR-ABSC is inspired by how GNNs gradually aggregate information from nodes that are more and more distant in their upper layers. As mentioned in section 3, increasing VDC hyperparameters can be used to mimic this behavior. As mentioned above, Table 2 summarizes experiments conducted on three different types of VDCs: increasing (e.g., [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3]), constant (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]), and decreasing (e.g., [3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0])." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.586, + 0.49, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the table, we can observe the followings. First, the VDC hyperparameter is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance, verifying [g]'s effectiveness. Also, it can be seen that SIR-ABSC has the highest performance with increasing VDCs (i.e. when it is most similar to typical GNNs), and the lowest performance with decreasing VDCs (i.e. when it is the least similar to GNNs). More detailed experiment results are provided in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue? Existing (PLM+GNN) models in ABSC work in an asynchronous fashion (i.e., one after the other), which results in a weak interaction between the semantic and syntactic information (Tang et al., 2020). SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, is a fully-integrated model where [s] (=semantic aggregator) and [g] (=syntactic aggregator) interact with each other in every layer. To verify the strength of this fully-integrated characteristic, we conducted an ablation study (Table 4) where we" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.408, + 0.885, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "intentionally block the attention masks between [s] and [g] in every layer. Consequently, the [s] and [g] tokens cannot attend to each other during the self-attention layers, weakening their interaction. By comparing SIR-ABSC with Table 4 Variant 1 (w/o s \\(\\leftrightarrow\\) g interaction), we can observe that the drop in performance is considerable, verifying our hypothesis that more integrated models can alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue and yield more significant performance improvements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal aggregation issue? We conducted an ablation study to verify the effectiveness of DAA and AutoVDC, and the results are summarized in Table 3. From the table, we can observe that each method improves the performance over our baseline model (using increasing heuristic-VDC), and both applied together further enhances the performance. These results verify that SIR-ABSC can effectively utilize the dependency labels and learns to identify and focus on specific distances based on the input, alleviating the suboptimal aggregation issue. We also include two case studies, Figures 3 and 4, for qualitative analysis. In Figure 3, SIR-ABSC's [g] focuses on the target aspect (\"touchscreen functions\") in the early layers and then gradually captures the key phrase \"did not enjoy\" in the later layers, showing some consistency with increasing heuristic-VDC results. Also, from Figure 4 we can see that SIR-ABSC learns to focus more on VDCs of 0,1, and 2 and less on 3 (see Figure 4" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8542" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.106, + 0.249, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VDC=0 tokens: [resolution]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.122, + 0.294, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VDC=1 tokens: [has, higher, resolution]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.139, + 0.343, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VDC=2 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, are]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.155, + 0.393, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VDC=3 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, fonts, are, small]" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.402, + 0.083, + 0.526, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.404, + 0.19, + 0.524, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Learned Auto-VDC weights" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.082, + 0.865, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.634, + 0.19, + 0.754, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) [g] token's attention scores" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.189, + 0.365, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Different VDCs and their corresponding tokens" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.214, + 0.885, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: A case study on the effect of the Auto-VDC mechanism. Target aspect is \"resolution\". Auto-VDC learns to focus more on the key distances (VDCs of 1 and 2) and less on the redundant distance (VDC of 3). As a result, the model successfully focuses on the key phrase \"has higher resolution\" at the last layers." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.27, + 0.88, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
[g] tokenLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC85.0(±0.8)82.1(±0.9)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.2(±0.4)84.8(±0.4)
Variants
1. w/o s ↔ g interaction84.2(±0.8)81.5(±0.9)89.3(±0.4)84.1(±0.6)77.2(±0.9)76.1(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
2. [g] init. = aspect embed.84.7(±0.8)81.6(±0.7)89.3(±0.6)84.3(±0.6)77.2(±0.8)76.0(±0.9)85.0(±0.4)84.6(±0.4)
3. SIR-ABSC-[g] (Appendix F)83.5(±0.6)80.5(±0.6)88.3(±0.4)82.9(±0.4)75.6(±0.8)74.3(±0.8)84.6(±0.3)84.2(±0.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.37, + 0.882, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Empirical results on the fully-integratedness and the inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token embedding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.41, + 0.49, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "b) where VDC=3 tokens are indeed redundant (includes \"fonts are small\" where the target is \"resolution\"), verifying that SIR-ABSC can capture important distances based on the input. We provide more detailed ablation and case study results in Appendix D." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token as an aggregator There seems to be an inherent advantage in using the pre-trained embedding of the [s] token also for [g]. Table 4 (Variant 2) compares SIR-ABSC (in which the dictionary embedding of [g] is initialized with [s]'s embedding), with a variant in which we use the actual aspect word's dictionary embeddings as the [g] embedding (if the aspect consists of several words, we average their embeddings). Initializing [g] with the [s] embedding yields better performance, perhaps because the [s] embedding is better suited to aggregate information than the embeddings of other tokens, providing a better starting point for a sequence element that is also intended to aggregate information (albeit of a slightly different nature). Erase later: (Chen et al., 2020), (Chen et al., 2022), (Niu et al., 2022), (Wang et al., 2020), (Xiao et al., 2022), (Zhao et al., 2022), (Liang et al., 2022b), (Veyseh et al., 2020), (Dai et al., 2021), (Feng et al., 2022b), (Mei et al., 2023), (Xiao et al., 2021), (Liang et al., 2022a), (Yuan et al., 2022), (Zhong et al., 2023)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.41, + 0.642, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.434, + 0.885, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper has proposed a novel framework, SIR-ABSC, that effectively incorporates syntactic information directly into a pre-trained large language model (PLM) such as RoBERTa for tasks like Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), in which the desired output depends on specific words in the input, and where syntactic distance to the relevant input words may be important. In contrast to prior work, where a separate GNN was added to the output of the PLM, in our model, attention masks for new [g] token capture syntactic information, and a new hyper-parameter, named variable distance control (VDC), captures graph structure in a similar fashion. Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) mechanism allows SIR-ABSC to use the dependency labels effectively, and finally, the Auto-VDC mechanism learns a mixture of multiple distances, allowing the model to identify and focus on important syntactic distances for a given input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.74, + 0.885, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, SIR-ABSC is the first model to incorporate syntactic knowledge into RoBERTa for ABSC without resorting to GNNs. Experiments show we achieve state-of-the-art performance in SemEval-2014 task 4. This demonstrates the efficiency of our approach and suggests a new paradigm for augmenting PLM with syntax." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.863, + 0.615, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we summarize the limitations of our model that can be improved in the future. First, we" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8543" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "did not explore various types of dependency parsers as mentioned in Section 4, which could result in different performances. Similarly, we did not examine how accurate the parser we used was and how much performance difference it could make, as mentioned in Section 4. Second, we did not consider other types of syntactic information besides dependency trees, such as phrase dependency graphs, which could also be effective for ABSC. Lastly, our method might be limited to single-sentence items. Although we inserted a dummy root node to merge multiple dependency graphs within a single input sentence, our model does not achieve state-of-the-art results on the Twitter dataset, which consists primarily of multi-sentence items. Therefore, it would be crucial to investigate more effective methods for merging multiple dependency graphs in a given input sentence." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.403, + 0.214, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.426, + 0.49, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiangang Bai, Yujing Wang, Yiren Chen, Yaming Yang, Jing Bai, Jing Yu, and Yunhai Tong. 2021. Syntax-BERT: Improving pre-trained transformers with syntax trees. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3011-3020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.53, + 0.49, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuefeng Bai, Pengbo Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Investigating typed syntactic dependencies for targeted sentiment classification using graph attention neural network. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:503-514." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.607, + 0.49, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, Zhongqing Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Discrete opinion tree induction for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2051-2064." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.698, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Inducing target-specific latent structures for aspect sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 5596-5607." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junqi Dai, Hang Yan, Tianxiang Sun, Pengfei Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. Does syntax matter? a strong baseline for aspect-based sentiment analysis with RoBERTa. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1816-1829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.426, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.125, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hai Ha Do, PWC Prasad, Angelika Maag, and Abeer Alsadoon. 2019. Deep learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis: A comparative review. Expert Systems with Applications, 118:272-299." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.19, + 0.885, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li Dong, Furu Wei, Chuanqi Tan, Duyu Tang, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2014. Adaptive recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 49-54, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.307, + 0.885, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timothy Dozat and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Deep bioaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01734." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.359, + 0.885, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rotem Dror, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Reichart. 2019. Deep dominance-how to properly compare deep neural models. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2773-2785." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.437, + 0.885, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022a. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.515, + 0.885, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022b. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.593, + 0.885, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaochen Hou, Peng Qi, Guangtao Wang, Rex Ying, Jing Huang, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. Graph ensemble learning over multiple dependency trees for aspect-level sentiment classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11794." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.671, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qingnan Jiang, Lei Chen, Ruifeng Xu, Xiang Ao, and Min Yang. 2019. A challenge dataset and effective models for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6280-6285, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.801, + 0.885, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with BERT. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8544" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Li, Lidong Bing, Wenxuan Zhang, and Wai Lam. 2019. Exploiting BERT for end-to-end aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00883." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.153, + 0.487, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022a. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.232, + 0.487, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.311, + 0.487, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.391, + 0.487, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhibin Lu, Pan Du, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2020. VGCN-BERT: augmenting BERT with graph embedding for text classification. Advances in Information Retrieval, 12035:369." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.457, + 0.487, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoyong Mei, Yougen Zhou, Chenjing Zhu, Mengting Wu, Ming Li, and Shirui Pan. 2023. A disentangled linguistic graph model for explainable aspect-based sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 260:110150." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.537, + 0.487, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Niu, Yun Xiong, Jian Gao, Zhongchen Miao, Xiaosu Wang, Hongrun Ren, Yao Zhang, and Yangyong Zhu. 2022. Composition-based heterogeneous graph multi-channel attention network for multi-aspect multi-sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6827-6836." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.642, + 0.487, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minh Hieu Phan and Philip O Ogunbona. 2020. Modelling context and syntactical features for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3211-3220." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.722, + 0.487, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.827, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Tang, Donghong Ji, Chenliang Li, and Qiji Zhou. 2020. Dependency graph enhanced dual-transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6578-6588, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Komang Wahyu Trisna and Huang Jin Jie. 2022. Deep learning approach for aspect-based sentiment classification: A comparative review. Applied Artificial Intelligence, pages 1-37." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.882, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.212, + 0.882, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Nasim Nour, Franck Dernoncourt, Quan Hung Tran, Dejing Dou, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2020. Improving aspect-based sentiment analysis with gated graph convolutional networks and syntax-based regulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.13389." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.3, + 0.882, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kai Wang, Weizhou Shen, Yunyi Yang, Xiaojun Quan, and Rui Wang. 2020. Relational graph attention network for aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12362." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.362, + 0.882, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Luwei Xiao, Yun Xue, Hua Wang, Xiaohui Hu, Donghong Gu, and Yongsheng Zhu. 2022. Exploring fine-grained syntactic information for aspect-based sentiment classification with dual graph neural networks. Neurocomputing, 471:48-59." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.438, + 0.882, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zeguan Xiao, Jiarun Wu, Qingliang Chen, and Congjian Deng. 2021. BERT4GCN: Using BERT intermediate layers to augment GCN for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9193-9200, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.552, + 0.882, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qiannan Xu, Li Zhu, Tao Dai, and Chengbing Yan. 2020. Aspect-based sentiment classification with multi-attention network. Neurocomputing, 388:135-143." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.613, + 0.882, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li Yuan, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2022. syntactic graph attention network for aspect-level sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.676, + 0.882, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biqing Zeng, Heng Yang, Ruyang Xu, Wu Zhou, and Xuli Han. 2019. Lcf: A local context focus mechanism for aspect-based sentiment classification. Applied Sciences, 9(16):3389." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.738, + 0.882, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chen Zhang, Qiuchi Li, and Dawei Song. 2019. Aspect-based sentiment classification with aspect-specific graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4568-4578, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.882, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziguo Zhao, Mingwei Tang, Wei Tang, Chunhao Wang, and Xiaoliang Chen. 2022. Graph convolutional network with multiple weight mechanisms for aspect-based sentiment analysis. Neurocomputing, 500:124-134." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8545" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Hua Jin, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Knowledge graph augmented network towards multiview representation learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.71, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Details on datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.109, + 0.886, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model SIR-ABSC is evaluated on four different datasets from SemEval-2014 Task 4, Twitter, and MAMS datasets. Table 5 shows the statistics of the datasets. Table 6 shows the percentage of multiple sentences per item and the average number of sentences per item on each dataset." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.216, + 0.89, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTrainTestVal
Restaurant (SemEval-2014)36081120-
Laptop (SemEval-2014)2328638-
Twitter6248692-
MAMS-ATSA1118613361332
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.604, + 0.316, + 0.788, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Dataset Overview" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.355, + 0.88, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetsDistributionTrainTestVal
Lap14% of multiple sent./item7.867.84-
Avg. sent./item1.091.09-
Res14% of multiple sent./item4.024.38-
Avg. number of sent./item1.041.05-
Twitter% of multiple sent./item59.4460.55-
Avg. number of sent./item1.991.96-
MAMS-ATSA% of multiple sent./item2.120.820.60
Avg. number of sent./item1.021.011.01
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.482, + 0.883, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Prevalence of multi-sentence items in the ABSC datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.536, + 0.837, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Comparing different pooler types" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.886, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The [s] and [g] token outputs are combined after the last layer of SIR-ABSC encoders as described in Section 3. We conduct experiments on three different types of poolers for combining [s] and [g] token embeddings at the final layer: average, max, and attention pooling. Table 7 summarizes the results of using different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. The result shows that attention pooling shows better results in general." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.717, + 0.84, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Detailed variable distance control results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our variable distance control (VDC) is a unique hyper-parameter which consists of 12 non-negative integers, where each integer represents the \\(d_l\\) value of the \\(l\\)-th layer. Theoretically there are exponentially many possible values for VDC but we use three representative types: increasing, constant, and decreasing VDCs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We heuristically chose specific values for each type of VDCs and the detailed results are summarized in Table 8. The table shows that SIR-ABSC" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8546" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.49, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Pooler typesLap14Rest14Twitter
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC
w/ max pooling83.280.088.783.374.873.7
w/ avg pooling83.880.688.883.576.575.5
w/ att pooling84.181.189.384.177.276.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.182, + 0.49, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Comparing different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. We used VDC = [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3] with the default full-interaction for the experiment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.251, + 0.49, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "has the highest performance with increasing VDCs. Increasing VDCs are designed to work as the most similar to the typical GNN by aggregating information from the closest nodes to farther nodes based on the target aspect. On the other hand, decreasing VDCs has the lowest performance where the decreasing VDCs are designed to work as least similar to a GNN in the opposite order (i.e., aggregating information from farther nodes to closer nodes based on the target aspect). From these results, we can conclude that SIR-ABSC successfully imitates the typical GNN mechanism through increasing VDC configuration." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.474, + 0.489, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Detailed ablation and case study results on DAA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.518, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide a more detailed ablation and case study results regarding DAA in Table 9 and Figure 5. We experiment two additional variants of the proposed DAA mechanism: DAA (w/o edge label) and DAA (w/o edge direction), to verify the effectiveness of different kinds of syntactic information. Specifically, DAA (w/o edge direction) ignores the direction of the edges and assign the embeddings solely based on the dependency label. DAA (w/o edge label) ignores the edge labels (e.g., nsubj) and assign the embeddings solely based on the edge direction. By comparing #1 and #2 from Table 9, we can observe that employing the VDC mechanism with the [g] token to replace GNNs leads to significant improvement in performance (average accuracy gain of \\(1.475\\%\\) and average f1-score gain of 1.775). By further supplementing the model with missing information, such as edge direction and edge label information, DAA yields additional average gains of \\(0.2\\%\\) on accuracy and 0.275 on f1-score over [RoBERTa+VDC] (#2 vs #5). The DAA ablation results (#3 and #4) show that the performance decreases for both DAA (w/o edge direction) and DAA (w/o edge label), indicating their importance in DAA performance. Consistent with our intuition," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "we can observe that the edge label information is relatively more important than edge direction information in DAA. Another interesting finding is that DAA is more effective on BERT than RoBERTa. We speculate that this is because RoBERTa already utilizes the information contained in the dependency edge label to some extent, which is probably one of the reasons why RoBERTa shows better overall baseline performance than BERT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.23, + 0.885, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, we incorporate two case studies to illustrate the effectiveness of DAA in Figure 5. From the above examples, we can observe that the attention scores of words (pretentious, and, inappropriate) and (anywhere, else) get much higher when DAA is applied. Our speculation is that this occurs because DAA learns the significance of \"advcl\" and \"advmod\" labels, resulting in high attention scores being assigned to expressions such as (pretentious \\( \\xrightarrow{advcl} \\) claim, be \\( \\xrightarrow{advmod} \\) else, and else \\( \\xrightarrow{advcl} \\) anywhere) thereby leading to correct predictions. This is also consistent with our intuition since adverbial modifiers are related to adjectives which is highly likely to be important for deciding the sentiment." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.471, + 0.695, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Significance tests" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.497, + 0.884, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following the proposed significance test designed for comparing deep learning models from (Dror et al., 2019), we ran their official code with our SIR-ABSC and the baseline models. Specifically, we compared (1) SIR-ABSC with RoBERTa-baseline and (2) SIR-ABSC (BERT) with BERT-baseline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.884, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This test takes three components (results from method A, results from method B, and a confidence level) as input, and the purpose of this test is to answer the question: \"Is A almost stochastically greater than B?\" This test is based on the relatively new concept of \"Almost Stochastic Order\" which is a relaxed version of \"Stochastic Order\". The test outputs a minimum \\(\\epsilon\\) value where the result is interpreted as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.751, + 0.883, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- If \\(\\epsilon > 0.5\\): We can't say A is almost stochastically greater than B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.795, + 0.883, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- If \\(\\epsilon \\leq 0.5\\): We can say A is almost stochastically greater than B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.839, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- If \\(\\epsilon = 0\\): We can say A is \"stochastically greater\" than B not just \"almost stochastically greater\" which is the best result we can get in this test. Mathematically meaning \\(\\inf \\{x : t \\leq F(x)\\} \\geq \\inf \\{x : t \\leq G(x)\\}\\) for \\(\\forall t \\in (0,1)\\)," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.751, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8547" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.081, + 0.874, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.189, + 0.874, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Sentiment: Neutral 0.01 1.84 0.39 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.40 X X 0.2 1.58 2.22 5.21 13.65 14.76 17.82 32.86 3.71
Sentiment: Negative 0.22 6.14 0.39 5.56 1.50 5.07 2.44 X X 6.20 5.90 7.73 10.67 23.74 8.58 1.65 9.28 0.08
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.226, + 0.785, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.208, + 0.326, + 0.79, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Prediction:Negative0.234.500.130.3212.803.2014.418.877.1026.66
Prediction:Positive0.499.404.015.569.084.4413.3811.0715.4410.59
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.385, + 0.882, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Two case studies employing DAA. The targets (diners, prices) are marked in bold. The first and second rows below the sentence depict the attention scores of the [g] token without and with DAA, respectively. Attention scores that increase more than ten-fold when DAA is applied are also marked in bold. In these examples, DAA enables the [g] token to place greater emphasis on critical sentiment words like \"pretentious,\" \"inappropriate,\" \"anywhere,\" and \"else,\" which contributes to accurate predictions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.482, + 0.489, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(F\\) and \\(G\\) are the (empirical) CDFs of A and B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.526, + 0.434, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please refer to the paper for further details." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Applying the test on our models with a confidence level \\((1 - \\alpha)\\) of 0.99 (in other words, significance level \\((\\alpha)\\) of 0.01), both tests (1) and (2) resulted in minimum \\(\\epsilon\\) values of 0. This indicates that SIR-ABSC and SIR-ABSC (BERT) are stochastically greater than RoBERTa-baseline and BERT-baseline with a confidence level of 0.99, respectively, verifying the superiority of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.683, + 0.489, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Additional analysis: does [g] need to be a separate token?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now compare SIR-ABSC to a variant that does not use a [g] token, but instead uses the target tokens at the end of the input sequence (recall that the input sequence has the form of '[s] sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s]). We call this the SIR-ABSC-[g] variant. As Table 4 shows, the loss in performance is considerable compared to using an independent [g] token as in the original SIR-ABSC. We speculate the drop in performance is due to the original input sentence getting corrupted when we modify the aspect token's attention mask. This indicates the importance of using an additional" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.482, + 0.882, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and independent [g] token for the GNN role as in SIR-ABSC." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.526, + 0.791, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G SIR-ABSC (BERT) results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.551, + 0.885, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We chose RoBERTa as our baseline PLM due to its better overall performance in ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021). However, to verify the generality of our method, we also conducted experiments on SIR-ABSC (BERT) which uses BERT instead of RoBERTa. The results are summarized in Table 10. We can see that our method is effective on BERT as well and the significance test results in \"stochastic greatness\" under significance level of \\(\\alpha = 0.01\\), verifying the general effectiveness. The amount of improvement in performance could differ depending on the PLM and we can notice that the amount of enhancement when using RoBERTa (+1.93 on average) is relatively larger than when applied to BERT (+1.60 on average)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8548" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.196, + 0.891, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
GoBERTA (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.480.488.583.276.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.380.288.282.776.074.884.784.2
• VDC = [333222111000]82.078.888.482.876.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.488.483.175.674.484.784.2
• VDC = [554433221100]83.179.988.583.275.273.784.684.2
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.087.882.076.074.884.784.2
• Constant-VDC83.780.788.683.376.475.484.984.4
• Increasing-VDC83.780.588.683.276.976.084.884.4
• VDC = [000011112222]83.580.387.882.176.976.084.784.3
• VDC = [000111222333]83.580.588.583.275.574.484.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.680.487.982.275.774.484.884.4
• VDC = [001122334455]83.380.388.683.176.174.984.884.4
• VDC = [000222444666]83.780.588.382.576.675.884.784.2
GoBERTA (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.780.688.282.876.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.580.488.182.775.474.284.784.3
• VDC = [333222111000]82.679.687.181.176.175.184.584.0
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.587.982.276.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [554433221100]83.880.888.282.975.374.284.684.1
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.088.282.775.674.384.584.0
• Constant-VDC83.780.488.983.776.475.285.084.5
• Increasing-VDC83.880.889.183.877.175.985.084.6
• VDC = [000011112222]84.181.188.382.877.276.384.684.2
• VDC = [000111222333]83.880.889.183.876.775.584.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.580.588.983.575.774.684.884.3
• VDC = [001122334455]83.280.289.384.174.775.985.084.6
• VDC = [000222444666]82.579.488.983.876.975.984.884.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.885, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Detailed experimental results on the effect of VDC. The results show that S1R-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing \\( < \\) fixed \\( < \\) increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] token imitating GNN as described in Section 3." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8549" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.187, + 0.88, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Ablations (Validation)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
1. SIR-ABSC (RoBERTa)
#1: RoBERTa baseline82.178.987.681.775.674.584.483.9
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC84.181.189.384.177.276.385.084.6
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)84.281.389.384.377.276.084.884.3
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)84.481.589.484.377.376.584.984.4
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)84.681.889.484.477.276.385.284.7
#6 (SIR-ABSC): #5+Auto-VDC85.082.189.784.877.576.485.484.9
2. SIR-ABSC (BERT)
#1: BERT baseline79.275.185.879.376.474.884.082.7
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC80.877.186.780.677.175.984.383.1
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)81.177.586.980.977.275.984.383.2
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)81.678.287.081.177.476.184.483.5
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)81.878.687.081.277.676.484.583.5
#6 (SIR-ABSC (BERT)): #5+Auto-VDC82.279.187.381.677.776.684.783.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.356, + 0.458, + 0.64, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: A detailed ablation study results." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.693, + 0.881, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SIR-ABSC (BERT)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERT baseline79.2(±0.6)75.1(±0.5)85.8(±0.7)79.3(±0.7)76.4(±0.7)74.8(±07)84.0(±0.3)82.7(±0.4)
SIR-ABSC (BERT)82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.766, + 0.884, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Empirical results on using BERT as the PLM. Note that our technique is effective on BERT as well (significance test resulting in \"stochastic greatness\") showing comparable results with BERT-based state-of-the-art results. However, the improvement is generally less than when applied to RoBERTa." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8550" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_origin.pdf b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b7977baf19ff076c40092292ee9a49040e2c912 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/2a704cf1-766c-4f6e-90e0-05c66a3ec5d6_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6abb00dc02ad490b6267b7ac4794852e37852f3ecb99959ac38eec313b96a849 +size 2712263 diff --git a/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/full.md b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..826877d0ff28eadf9281c333f13646243fea6395 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,416 @@ +# SIR-ABSC: Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token + +Ikhyun Cho and Yoonhwa Jung and Julia Hockenmaier + +University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign + +{ihcho2, yoonhwa2, juliahmr}@illinois.edu + +# Abstract + +We present a simple, but effective method to incorporate syntactic dependency information directly into transformer-based language models (e.g. RoBERTa) for tasks such as Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), where the desired output depends on specific input tokens. In contrast to prior approaches to ABSC that capture syntax by combining language models with graph neural networks over dependency trees, our model, Syntax-Integrated RoBERTa for ABSC (SIR-ABSC) incorporates syntax directly into the language model by using a novel aggregator token. SIR-ABSC1 outperforms these more complex models, yielding new state-of-the-art results on ABSC. + +# 1 Introduction + +Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC, Pontiki et al. (2014), Figure 1) is a fine-grained sentiment analysis task that aims to handle the fact that even simple statements such as "The ambience was nice, but service wasn't so great." may express different sentiments towards different aspects (this reviewer is positive about the restaurant's "ambience", but negative about its "service"). In ABSC, the aspect to be classified is identified by a target string in the input sentence (e.g. "ambience"), and systems have to return the polarity (positive, neutral, negative) of the corresponding sentiment. + +Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have been shown to work well for ABSC, presumably because their attention mechanisms capture semantic connections between target and context words (Li et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020; Karimi et al., 2021). Starting with Do et al. (2019), PLMs have been supplemented with syntactic features, typically extracted from dependency graphs. This is typically done by using the word embeddings obtained from the PLM to initialize the node embeddings of a + +graph neural network (GNN) obtained from the dependency graph (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2022). However, such combined models have two major limitations: + +1. Suboptimal Interaction: A typical challenge in combining PLMs and GNNs is to make the two models effectively interact with each other. Some approaches (Tang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020) attempt to accomplish this through heavy model architecture engineering. However, the PLM and GNN still operate in an asynchronous manner (one after the other), limiting their interaction, and yielding only a minor improvement in performance. We hypothesize that more integrated models can yield larger boosts in performance. + +2. Suboptimal Aggregation: Existing (PLM + GNN) models cannot emphasize information at a specific distance(s) away from the target token. This is problematic since the models pre-define the number of GNN layers beforehand (Bai et al., 2020; Veyseh et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, if the number of GNN layers is fixed to three while an input sequence has the key sentiment word at a distance of one, the redundant second and third GNN layers can introduce noise. The ability to identify the most important distance(s) (one in this case) and to focus on that specific distance(s) based on the input is crucial to reduce such noise. + +In order to alleviate these limitations, we propose syntax-integrated RoBERTa (SIR-ABSC), a novel framework for effectively augmenting PLMs with syntactic information. We chose RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as our PLM baseline due to its notable performance on ABSC (Dai et al., 2021). + +Instead of stacking multiple GNN layers on top of a PLM as in most previous works, we insert a + +![](images/2b557e994dc1d2a3089296cb3e48555b5f29420f5596ee7ba11299edb03bb02d.jpg) + +![](images/000c30dd8e6f58cf610c9517e2c93073132aa00d767a07c0e11ccfa4cc232b42.jpg) +Figure 1: (Left Top) In ABSC, the sentiment to be predicted depends on the desired target aspect (words from the input). (Left Bottom) For ABSC, syntactic distance can be more informative than surface distance. (Right) Syntactic distances as defined by a dependency tree + +![](images/b081cd5e8dc090c3c09e9290049faf1a8f8960aac70ec1fbfd212045fd53786e.jpg) + +new [g] token into the PLM that acts as a syntax aggregator and effectively replaces the work of GNN layers. A Variable Distance Control (VDC) mechanism allows [g] to focus on capturing syntactic knowledge by using constrained attention masks that reflect the graph structure. A Dependency-Aware Aggregation (DAA) mechanism leverages dependency label information. We further improve our model with Automatic VDC Learning (AutoVDC), which enables SIR-ABSC to capture and focus on important syntactic distances based on the input, an important advantage over GNNs. SIR-ABSC outperforms prior approaches, and establishes a new state of the art, on the most widely used ABSC datasets. + +Our main contributions are summarized below : + +- We present a novel approach to incorporating syntactic information into PLM through the use of a syntax aggregator token. +- We highlight two limitations in current GNN-based approaches (suboptimal interaction and aggregation) and present effective methods (DAA and Auto-VDC) to address them. +- To our knowledge, this is the first work to utilize dependency graph information without resorting to GNNs in ABSC. +- Our model achieves state-of-the-art results on two out of the four widely used ABSC datasets and demonstrates competitive performance on the remaining ones. + +# 2 Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification + +In ABSC, illustrated in Figure 1, the task is to predict the polarity (positive, negative + +or neutral) of the sentiment in input sentence $s = [w_1, w_2, \dots, w_p, \dots, w_{p + m - 1}, \dots, w_n]$ towards a given target aspect $t$ (a substring of the input sentence: $t_i = \{w_p, \dots, w_{p + m - 1}\}$ ). + +# 2.1 Language Models for ABSC + +Pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) have gained predominance for many NLP tasks, including ABSC. RoBERTa, a variant of BERT, is known to show notable performance on ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021), and forms the basis of the models explored in this paper. RoBERTa (and BERT) are (pre)trained on large amounts of raw text with a masked language modeling objective. Both models use a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture in which each token's embedding is fed through multiple layers such that each token's embedding in a given layer can attend to all tokens in the sequence (in the same layer). To adapt these models for classification tasks, a special token ([CLS] for BERT, [s] for RoBERTa) whose output is fed into a task-specific feedforward layer is included in the input sequence. A separation token ([SEP] or [/s]) can be used to separate the input sequence from other task-specific information. + +For the ABSC task, RoBERTa is typically used as follows: after tokenization, the input sentence is constructed as '[s] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence includes the target aspect itself. The [s] token of the last layer is used for the final prediction and fine-tuning. + +# 2.2 Combining PLMs with syntax + +A common approach to ABSC is to supplement a PLM with syntactic information obtained from a + +dependency parser. In a dependency graph (Figure 1) each word in the sentence corresponds to a node, with labeled edges indicating word-word dependencies. Note that the syntactic distance between words (e.g. sucked and vista) can be much smaller than their surface (string) distance (Figure 1). + +Since the dependency parser and the PLM may use different tokenizers, tokenization needs to be broken into two stages to integrate both models seamlessly. The input sentence is first tokenized by the dependency parser, and then each token is again tokenized by RoBERTa's tokenizer, following previous work (Tang et al., 2020). + +Graph Neural Network-based ABSC models To incorporate syntax into ABSC models, PLMs have been augmented with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs, Kipf and Welling (2016)) that capture the structure of the sentence's dependency tree. Although there are many variants (Trisna and Jie, 2022), the basic idea behind GNNs is to represent each node as a vector $h_i$ that is updated via graph convolution in each layer ( $l \in [1, 2, \dots, L]$ ) of the GNN (Kipf and Welling, 2016) by aggregating its neighborhood information from the previous layer: + +$$ +h _ {i} ^ {l} = \sigma \left(A _ {i j} W _ {l} h _ {j} ^ {l - 1} + b _ {l}\right) +$$ + +$\sigma$ is an activation function, $W$ and $b$ are learnable parameters, and $A_{ij}$ is the entry of the graphs adjacency matrix that indicates whether nodes $i$ and $j$ are connected (in which case $A_{ij} = 1$ ; otherwise $A_{ij} = 0$ ). The general framework for augmenting PLMs with GNNs for ABSC is to initialize the GNN node embeddings with the PLM's output embeddings and use the final embeddings of the target aspects in the last GNN layer for classification. + +Zhang et al. (2019) were the first to implement a GNN-based model for ABSC, adding a multilayered Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to encode dependency graphs on top of the word embedding layer. Wang et al. (2020) and Bai et al. (2020) proposed a relational graph attention network (R-GAT), which computes an additional attention distribution using the dependency label embeddings. Tang et al. (2020) strengthened interactions between contextual and graph representations through a mutual biaffine module. Mei et al. (2023) incorporated part-of-speech, distance, and syntactic dependency in a supervised manner. Several recent research in ABSC has tried to revise dependency graphs due to their imperfections or add external resources (Xiao et al., 2021, 2022; Liang et al., + +2022a). What is common to all these approaches is that the PLM and GNN operate in a serial fashion, and are not tightly integrated. + +Attention-mask based approaches Another promising approach to incorporate syntactic information into PLMs that is more related to this paper, is to manipulate the Transformer's self-attention masks. For example, Syntax-BERT (Bai et al., 2021) uses multiple masks induced from the syntactic trees (e.g., parent, children, sibling, pairwise masks) to incorporate syntactic information into BERT. To do so, it requires multiple (usually more than 90) sub-networks, which share the same model parameters in a masked self-attention module, and then the outputs are aggregated through another attention layer, named a topical attention module. + +The key difference between Syntax-BERT and SIR-ABSC is that Syntax-BERT alters all the input tokens' attention masks and aggregates them in a serial manner, while SIR-ABSC (which is specifically designed for tasks like ABSC, where the desired output depends on specific parts of the input) keeps the original input tokens intact while only modifying the attention-mask of the newly added [g] token. + +# 3 SIR-ABSC + +We present SIR-ABSC (Figure 2), which incorporates syntactic information into PLM designed for ABSC tasks. We accomplish this goal by augmenting RoBERTa with four components: (1) a single additional input token, named [g], whose attention masks depend on the structure of the input's dependency tree(s), paired with (2) a "variable distance control" mechanism that specifies how the structure of the dependency graph is reflected in [g]'s attention masks, (3) a dependency-aware aggregation which incorporates dependency labels using embeddings, and (4) an "Auto-VDC" mechanism that learns the ideal VDC for a given input. + +Input and output After tokenization with RoBERTa's tokenizer, the input to SIR-ABSC is '[s] [g] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence is the token "[g]" followed by the target aspect words. [g] uses its own independent dictionary embedding in the input layer but is initialized with the initial [s] embedding. We evaluate this choice in Section 5. + +To obtain the output, the final layers of the [s] and [g] tokens are pooled and fed to a classification + +![](images/1adb06f9f8fde0a4dfb97550cd4be287b84f17d4056b1b9fdd259e23252a9b1b.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall architecture of our approach. Instead of stacking GNNs on top of a PLM (left), SIR-ABSC inserts a syntax aggregator token, [g], into the PLM for a synchronous and deeper aggregation (right). A heuristic VDC of $[0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]$ is used in this example ("vista" is the target aspect). DAA is not explicitly represented for the sake of simplicity. Best viewed in color. + +layer as follows. First, a global vector $c$ is created by averaging [s] and [g] embeddings followed by a weight $W_{c}$ and an activation function $f$ : + +$$ +c = f \left(\frac {1}{2} \left(X _ {s} + X _ {g}\right) W _ {c}\right) +$$ + +Then, the final pooled vector $(h)$ is: + +$$ +h = \alpha_ {1} X _ {s} + \alpha_ {2} X _ {g} +$$ + +where, + +$$ +\left(\alpha_ {1}, \alpha_ {2}\right) = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(c X _ {s} ^ {T}, c X _ {g} ^ {T}\right) +$$ + +Then, $h$ is fed into a fully connected layer $(W_{FC})$ to calculate the final sentiment polarity score $y\in \mathbb{R}^C$ : + +$$ +y = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(h W _ {F C}\right) +$$ + +where $C$ is the number of sentiment polarity classes. We use the cross-entropy loss function as the objective function. + +The [g] token and distance-based attention masks The [g] token is inserted next to the [s] token. Unlike the [s] token that attends to every token in the input, we allow each layer $l$ of [g] to only attend to the subset of input tokens $j$ that are at most a distance $D(j) \leq d_l$ away from the target aspect, allowing us to capture the intuition that the relevance of each word in a sentence to ABSC depends on its distance to the target aspect words. We achieve this with distance-based attention masks (Figure 2) that depend either on syntactic or surface distance, and are only used for the [g] token, and the VDC hyperparameters explained below that define the parameter $d_l$ . We do not restrict how the input tokens can attend to [g]. + +For our baseline model, we assume that each layer $l$ of [g] is associated with one specific distance $d_{l}$ . This yields a layer-specific attention mask $\mathbf{m}_{g}^{d = d_{l}}$ (a vector whose elements $\mathbf{m}_{g,j}^{d = d_l}$ are 0 if the distance $D(j)$ between token $j$ and the target aspect words is greater than $d_{l}$ , and 1 otherwise). If distance is syntax-based, $D(j)$ is the length of the shortest path between token $j$ and the target aspect (so, if the target aspect consists of multiple tokens, we take the minimum distance to any of its component tokens). If the distance is surface-based, $D(j)$ is simply the token distance to the target aspect. + +To summarize, all tokens except $[\mathbf{g}]$ are updated precisely as in the original PLM using the original attention mask $\mathbf{m}$ , and $[\mathbf{g}]$ is updated using its own attention mask $\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}$ as follows: + +$$ +\left\{ \begin{array}{l} X _ {o u t, i \neq g} ^ {l} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(\frac {Q _ {i} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\sqrt {d}} + \mathbf {m}\right) V ^ {l}, \\ X _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\sqrt {d}} + \mathbf {m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\right) V ^ {l} \end{array} \right. \tag {1} +$$ + +where, + +$$ +Q ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {Q} ^ {l}, K ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K} ^ {l}, V ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V} ^ {l} +$$ + +$$ +m _ {g, j} ^ {d = d _ {l}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 0 \quad , \text {i f} D (j) \leq d _ {l} \\ - \inf , \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} \right. +$$ + +$X_{in}^{l}$ and $X_{out}^{l}$ are the input and output token embeddings of the $l$ -th self-attention layer, $\mathbf{m}$ is the attention mask that cancels out padding tokens, $\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}$ is the [g] token's attention mask, $Q^l$ , $K^l$ , $V^l$ are the $l$ -th Query, Key, and Value weights, respectively, + +$i$ is the token index, and $g$ is the [g] token's index. For simplicity, we ignore the relatively minor details, such as the FFN and normalization layers. + +Unlike previous works where PLM and GNN operate one after the other, SIR-ABSC is a synchronous and fully-integrated model in that [s] (= semantic aggregator) and [g] (= syntactic aggregator) can attend to and affect each other's embeddings at every layer. We verify that this fully-integrated characteristic is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance in Section 5. + +Variable Distance Control (VDC) To specify the attention masks used by the [g] token, we introduce a new set of hyper-parameters named Variable Distance Control (VDC). VDC is a list of 12 nonnegative integers where the $l$ -th element represents the $d_l$ value of the $l$ -th layer of the [g] token: With a VDC of $[0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1]$ , the first six layers of the [g] token attend only to the target aspect, and the remaining six layers attend to tokens connected to the target via a direct dependency link. + +Note that increasing VDCs (e.g., [0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2], [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]) can be used to mimic how GNNs work. Through graph convolution, the $i$ -th layer of a GNN aggregates features of nodes up to length $i$ away from each node in the graph, allowing the GNN to gradually aggregate information from more and more distant nodes in its upper layers. Empirical results in Section 5 show that increasing VDCs have indeed better performance than constant VDCs (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]) or decreasing VDCs (e.g. [3,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0]). Here, our baseline model uses heuristically defined VDCs, referred to as "heuristic-VDC" in this paper. + +Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) VDC allows the [g] token to distinguish tokens with different syntactic distances. However, the model is unaware of the dependency edge labels which could contain valuable information. To consider this information in SIR-ABSC, we re-formulate the update of the [g] token (Eq. 2) by including learnable embedding vectors corresponding to the dependency label to each token as follows: + +$$ +X _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \mathrm {s o f t m a x} \left(\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} \tilde {K} ^ {l T}}{\sqrt {d}} + {\bf m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\right) \tilde {V} ^ {l} +$$ + +where $X_{in}^{l}, K^{l}$ and $V^{l}$ in equation 2 are modified to $\tilde{X}_{in}^{l}, \tilde{K}^{l}$ and $\tilde{V}^{l}$ to consider the dependency in + +formation as below: + +$$ +\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} = f \left(X _ {i n} ^ {l} + X _ {d e p} W _ {d e p} ^ {l}\right) +$$ + +$$ +\tilde {K} ^ {l} = \tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K}, \tilde {V} ^ {l} = \tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V} +$$ + +$f$ is the activation function, $X_{dep}$ is the dependency label embedding of the input tokens, $W_{dep}^{l}$ is a learnable weight matrix that maps dependency label embeddings to the size of the PLM's embedding. This allows SIR-ABSC to leverage the dependency label information for better aggregation. + +Automatic VDC learning (Auto-VDC) In Section 5, Table 2 shows the significance of the VDC configuration in SIR-ABSC, with up to $1.1\%$ difference in model performance. This result naturally gives rise to a challenging question: How can we decide the ideal VDC configuration? + +Given numerous possible configurations for VDC, it is inefficient to rely on heuristics such as grid search. We therefore define a learning-based approach to finding the ideal VDC configuration by computing multiple [g] embeddings based on different VDC values and then merging them into one using a learnable weighted sum. + +We first create multiple $[\mathrm{g}]$ candidates $X_{\{g,i\}}^{l}$ 's where each uses the attention mask of $\mathrm{VDC} = i$ as follows. First, the $Q_{g}^{l}$ vector is transformed to $Q_{\{g,i\}}^{l}$ by a weight $W_{i}^{l}$ and an activation $f$ : + +$$ +Q _ {\{g, i \}} ^ {l} = f \left(Q _ {g} ^ {l} W _ {i} ^ {l}\right) +$$ + +Then, $X_{\{g,i\}}^l$ is generated using attention mask of VDC of $i$ : + +$$ +X _ {\{g, i \}} ^ {l} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(\frac {Q _ {\{g , i \}} ^ {l} \tilde {K} ^ {l ^ {T}}}{\sqrt {d}} + m _ {g} ^ {d = i}\right) \tilde {V} ^ {l} +$$ + +Then, we use a learnable weighted sum to create our final $[\mathbf{g}]$ vector $X_{g}^{l}$ : + +$$ +X _ {g} ^ {l} = \alpha_ {0} ^ {l} \cdot X _ {\{g, 0 \}} ^ {l} + \dots + \alpha_ {k} ^ {l} \cdot X _ {\{g, k \}} ^ {l} +$$ + +where the weights are computed as follows. First, a vector $c$ is computed by averaging $X_{\{g,i\}}^{l}$ followed by a weight $W^{l}$ and an activation function $f$ : + +$$ +c = f \bigg (\frac {1}{k + 1} \big (\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {k} X _ {\{g, i \}} ^ {l} \big) W ^ {l} \bigg) +$$ + +Then, the weights are computed by applying the softmax over the dot products with $c$ : + +$$ +\left(\alpha_ {0} ^ {l}, \dots , \alpha_ {k} ^ {l}\right) = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(X _ {\{g, 0 \}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}, \dots , X _ {\{g, k \}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}\right) +$$ + +Auto-VDC is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. This approach has the following advantages: First, due to the attention pooling, the ideal VDC of each layer can be automatically learned by the attention scores. That is, $X_{\{g,n\}}^l$ with the ideal VDC $= n$ for layer $l$ will be automatically assigned a higher weight. Furthermore, unlike heuristic-VDC, where the model must attend tokens up to a distance of max(VDC), Auto-VDC can adjust which distances to focus on based on the input, thereby reducing the noise from the redundant distances. + +# 4 Experimental Results + +Datasets and Experimental Settings We use the most widely used ABSC data sets: the Laptop and Restaurant datasets from SemEval-2014 task 4 (Pontiki et al., 2014), the Twitter dataset of Dong et al. (2014), and the MAMS-ATSA dataset (Jiang et al., 2019). Table 5 in Appendix A shows the statistics of the ABSC datasets. For SIR-ABSC, we use the pre-trained RoBERTa-base model provided by huggingface. We use $\mathsf{spaCy}^2$ 's en_core_web_sm model version 3.3.0 as the dependency parser. Finetuning uses a batch size of 32, dropout rate of 0.1, learning rate of $\{1.0\mathrm{e - }5,1.5\mathrm{e - }5,$ $2.0\mathrm{e - }5\}$ using the AdamW optimizer, and 300 for the dependency embedding dimension. We run the experiments with five random seeds and report average accuracy and macro-F1. We used the same set of random seeds for each ablation experiment. All experiments are conducted on a single Tesla A100 GPU. + +Baselines We compare SIR-ABSC with previous (PLM+Dependency graph) models in Table 1. Specifically, (1) DGEDT-BERT (Tang et al., 2020) proposes a biaffine module that deepens the interaction of semantic and syntactic representations; (2) kumaGCN (Chen et al., 2020) utilizes dependency graph along with a latent graph induced from self-attention neural networks; (3) dotGCN (Chen et al., 2022) uses GNN over an induced tree trained by reinforcement learning; (4) CHGMAN (Niu et al., 2022) uses a three-channel multi-view learning model on the dependency graph for better representation learning; (5) R-GAT (Wang et al., 2020) applies relational graph attention networks over the dependency graph to incorporate edge label information into the model; (6) DGNN (Xiao et al., 2022) uses dependency graph and an additional + +adjacency matrix generated based on the syntactic distance from the target; (7) MWM-GCN (Zhao et al., 2022) uses masking based on the syntactic distance from the target and additional multi-head self-attention layers for better performance; (8) SGGCN (Veyseh et al., 2020) applies a regulation gate on the tokens based on their similarity to the target; (9) RoBERTa-RGAT, PwCN (Dai et al., 2021) reproduces the baseline RoBERTa model with using dependency graph in two different approaches (relational GAT and point-wise convolution network); (10) AM-RoBERTa (Feng et al., 2022b) applies target-relevant masking to the self-attention mechanism in the PLM to focus more on target-related contexts; (11) RoBERTa-DLGM (Mei et al., 2023) proposes a supervision-based approach to incorporate syntax information into PLM. + +Note that baselines that use external knowledge sources in addition to dependency graphs (e.g., Sentic GCN-BERT (Liang et al., 2022b), KGAN (Zhong et al., 2023), SGAN (Yuan et al., 2022)) are not direct competitors to SIR-ABSC, although SIR-ABSC still outperforms all these methods except for KGAN on Twitter (which is not a fair comparison since KGAN relies on an external knowledge source, WordNet). BERT4GCN (Xiao et al., 2021) is excluded since it uses a different experiment setting while no public code is available. It is also worth noting that all these baseline models use GNN-based modules to aggregate syntactic information. SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, presents a new aggregating approach via the syntax aggregator token without resorting to GNNs. + +Overall Results Table 1 compares SIR-ABSC against all competitive RoBERTa+GNN or BERT+GNN combination models that use dependency graphs extracted from parsers $^{234}$ (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022a; Veyseh et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022a; Mei et al., 2023). Notably, SIR-ABSC outperforms all previous models on Laptop14, Restaurant14, and MAMS-ATSA datasets, establishing a new state-of-the-art record. On Twitter, SIR-ABSC clearly outperforms RoBERTa-based models and is competitive with the (overall better performing) BERT-based models. Signifi + +![](images/d6b2414a0f64a62bb23e9470483c0986fb085db862a10e41b7edabe506069f4a.jpg) +Figure 3: With Auto-VDC, the [g] token automatically learns the ideal VDC configuration. For example, in the lower layers, the [g] token's attention scores focus on the target aspect ("touch screen functions") and the [s] token. As it moves to the upper layers, the [g] token shifts its focus to the critical phrase "did not enjoy" for the final prediction. This shows that Auto-VDC progressively consolidates information from increasingly distant nodes in the upper layers, just like heuristic VDCs and GNNs, but in an automatic way, thereby diminishing the need for manual heuristic adjustments. + +
Base PLMModelsSyntaxExternal ResourceLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERTDGEDT-BERT2Dep. Graphx79.875.686.380.077.975.4--
kumaGCNDep. Graphx82.078.886.480.377.977.0--
dotGCNxx81.078.186.280.578.177.085.084.4
CHGMANDep. Graphx81.577.786.981.6--85.184.3
RGAT-BERT4Dep. Graphx78.274.186.681.476.274.9--
DGNN (BERT)4Dep. Graphx81.479.087.281.776.275.0--
WMM-GCN (BERT)3Dep. Graphx82.879.588.582.678.977.4--
Sentic GCN-BERT2Dep. Graph✓ (SenticNet)82.179.186.981.0----
SGGCN-BERTDep. Graphx82.880.287.282.5----
Ours: S1R-ABSC (BERT)2Dep. Graphx82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
RoBERTaRoBERTa-RGAT4Dep. Graphx83.480.387.480.674.472.984.583.7
RoBERTa-PWCN2Dep. Graphx84.281.287.481.176.675.6--
AM-RoBERTa2xx83.080.288.182.5--84.283.7
RoBERTa-DLGM2Dep. Graphx84.482.088.683.675.574.684.884.3
KGANDep. Graph✓ (WordNet)83.981.188.584.180.679.6--
Ours: S1R-ABSC2Dep. Graphx85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
+ +Table 1: SIR-ABSC outperforms all prior works on Laptop and Restaurant, and is competitive on Twitter and MAMS. + +cance tests following Dror et al. (2019) result in minimum epsilon values of 0 using $p$ -value of $p < 0.01$ , indicating that SIR-ABSC's performance is "stochastically greater" than the baselines (details in Appendix E). We also conducted experiments using BERT (SIR-ABSC (BERT)) instead of RoBERTa and it shows comparable performance with the state-of-the-art BERT models (details in Appendix G). + +Twitter and multi-sentence items Table 6 in Appendix A shows that the Twitter dataset has a large proportion of multi-sentence items. Since multi-sentence items have multiple dependency graphs, it requires us to combine them by adding a dummy root node that links to the heads of each sentence. This, as well as RoBERTA's generally lower performance on Twitter, maybe one reason why we do not achieve state-of-the-art on Twitter. We have also not attempted to examine how parser accuracy contributes to performance differences. + +# 5 Analysis + +We now examine the effect of the design decisions that distinguish SIR-ABSC from RoBERTa. + +Does [g] require syntactic distances? To understand the impact of syntax on SIR-ABSC, we now compare it to a variant that uses surface distance instead of syntactic distance. The surface (or position) distance of a token is computed simply by the number of tokens between the closest target aspect token and the corresponding token following previous works (Zeng et al., 2019; Phan and Ogunbona, 2020). Focusing on words near the target aspect is known to be effective in the ABSC task (Zeng et al., 2019). But syntactic distance is often very different from surface distance (see Figures 1 and 2.) + +Table 2 shows results for all three VDC types (decreasing, constant, and increasing) under both metrics that indicate that syntactic distances yield generally better performance than surface distances, especially in the increasing VDC configuration. + +
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val.)
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
RoBERTa-ASC82.1(±0.9)78.9(±1.1)87.6(±0.8)81.7(±0.8)75.6(±0.6)74.5(±0.7)84.4(±0.4)83.9(±0.5)
SIR-ABSC (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.4(±0.7)80.4(±0.8)88.5(±0.6)83.2(±0.6)76.5(±0.8)75.3(±0.7)84.7(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.7(±0.7)80.7(±0.7)88.6(±0.6)83.3(±0.5)76.4(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.9(±0.4)84.4(±0.5)
• Increasing-VDC83.7(±0.9)80.5(±0.8)88.6(±0.7)83.2(±0.7)76.9(±0.9)76.0(±1.0)84.8(±0.3)84.4(±0.2)
SIR-ABSC (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.8(±0.6)80.8(±0.7)88.2(±0.6)82.9(±0.6)76.5(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.8(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.9(±0.6)80.7(±0.6)88.9(±0.7)83.7(±0.8)76.4(±0.8)75.2(±0.7)84.8(±0.4)84.5(±0.3)
• Increasing-VDC84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
+ +Table 2: Empirical results on the effectiveness of VDC. The results show that SIR-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing $<$ fixed $<$ increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] imitating GNN as described in Section 3. A more detailed result table is in the Appendix C. + +
SIR-ABSCLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val)
Auto-VDCDAAAcc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
✓✓85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.4(±0.4)84.9(±0.4)
✓x84.7(±0.6)81.9(±0.7)89.5(±0.5)84.4(±0.7)77.3(±0.6)76.2(±0.7)85.2(±0.3)84.8(±0.2)
x✓84.6(±0.8)81.8(±0.8)89.4(±0.4)84.4(±0.8)77.2(±0.6)76.3(±0.6)85.2(±0.5)84.7(±0.5)
xx84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
+ +Table 3: Ablation study results. The first row is equivalent to our final SIR-ABSC model and the last row is equivalent to our baseline SIR-ABSC model using increasing heuristic-VDC. + +Consistency with general GNNs SIR-ABSC is inspired by how GNNs gradually aggregate information from nodes that are more and more distant in their upper layers. As mentioned in section 3, increasing VDC hyperparameters can be used to mimic this behavior. As mentioned above, Table 2 summarizes experiments conducted on three different types of VDCs: increasing (e.g., [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3]), constant (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]), and decreasing (e.g., [3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0]). + +From the table, we can observe the followings. First, the VDC hyperparameter is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance, verifying [g]'s effectiveness. Also, it can be seen that SIR-ABSC has the highest performance with increasing VDCs (i.e. when it is most similar to typical GNNs), and the lowest performance with decreasing VDCs (i.e. when it is the least similar to GNNs). More detailed experiment results are provided in Appendix C. + +How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue? Existing (PLM+GNN) models in ABSC work in an asynchronous fashion (i.e., one after the other), which results in a weak interaction between the semantic and syntactic information (Tang et al., 2020). SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, is a fully-integrated model where [s] (=semantic aggregator) and [g] (=syntactic aggregator) interact with each other in every layer. To verify the strength of this fully-integrated characteristic, we conducted an ablation study (Table 4) where we + +intentionally block the attention masks between [s] and [g] in every layer. Consequently, the [s] and [g] tokens cannot attend to each other during the self-attention layers, weakening their interaction. By comparing SIR-ABSC with Table 4 Variant 1 (w/o s $\leftrightarrow$ g interaction), we can observe that the drop in performance is considerable, verifying our hypothesis that more integrated models can alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue and yield more significant performance improvements. + +How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal aggregation issue? We conducted an ablation study to verify the effectiveness of DAA and AutoVDC, and the results are summarized in Table 3. From the table, we can observe that each method improves the performance over our baseline model (using increasing heuristic-VDC), and both applied together further enhances the performance. These results verify that SIR-ABSC can effectively utilize the dependency labels and learns to identify and focus on specific distances based on the input, alleviating the suboptimal aggregation issue. We also include two case studies, Figures 3 and 4, for qualitative analysis. In Figure 3, SIR-ABSC's [g] focuses on the target aspect ("touchscreen functions") in the early layers and then gradually captures the key phrase "did not enjoy" in the later layers, showing some consistency with increasing heuristic-VDC results. Also, from Figure 4 we can see that SIR-ABSC learns to focus more on VDCs of 0,1, and 2 and less on 3 (see Figure 4 + +VDC=0 tokens: [resolution] + +VDC=1 tokens: [has, higher, resolution] + +VDC=2 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, are] + +VDC=3 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, fonts, are, small] + +![](images/df97b3161ec38e3df40df22f1b0d40f0dfc178021419409dcbaafe0769309406.jpg) +(b) Learned Auto-VDC weights +(a) Different VDCs and their corresponding tokens + +![](images/f6f9e5445d2d515b67a36df82f86a293d66e0b3dd77c1d06e7313e23f076ff36.jpg) +(c) [g] token's attention scores +Figure 4: A case study on the effect of the Auto-VDC mechanism. Target aspect is "resolution". Auto-VDC learns to focus more on the key distances (VDCs of 1 and 2) and less on the redundant distance (VDC of 3). As a result, the model successfully focuses on the key phrase "has higher resolution" at the last layers. + +
[g] tokenLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC85.0(±0.8)82.1(±0.9)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.2(±0.4)84.8(±0.4)
Variants
1. w/o s ↔ g interaction84.2(±0.8)81.5(±0.9)89.3(±0.4)84.1(±0.6)77.2(±0.9)76.1(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
2. [g] init. = aspect embed.84.7(±0.8)81.6(±0.7)89.3(±0.6)84.3(±0.6)77.2(±0.8)76.0(±0.9)85.0(±0.4)84.6(±0.4)
3. SIR-ABSC-[g] (Appendix F)83.5(±0.6)80.5(±0.6)88.3(±0.4)82.9(±0.4)75.6(±0.8)74.3(±0.8)84.6(±0.3)84.2(±0.3)
+ +Table 4: Empirical results on the fully-integratedness and the inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token embedding. + +b) where VDC=3 tokens are indeed redundant (includes "fonts are small" where the target is "resolution"), verifying that SIR-ABSC can capture important distances based on the input. We provide more detailed ablation and case study results in Appendix D. + +Inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token as an aggregator There seems to be an inherent advantage in using the pre-trained embedding of the [s] token also for [g]. Table 4 (Variant 2) compares SIR-ABSC (in which the dictionary embedding of [g] is initialized with [s]'s embedding), with a variant in which we use the actual aspect word's dictionary embeddings as the [g] embedding (if the aspect consists of several words, we average their embeddings). Initializing [g] with the [s] embedding yields better performance, perhaps because the [s] embedding is better suited to aggregate information than the embeddings of other tokens, providing a better starting point for a sequence element that is also intended to aggregate information (albeit of a slightly different nature). Erase later: (Chen et al., 2020), (Chen et al., 2022), (Niu et al., 2022), (Wang et al., 2020), (Xiao et al., 2022), (Zhao et al., 2022), (Liang et al., 2022b), (Veyseh et al., 2020), (Dai et al., 2021), (Feng et al., 2022b), (Mei et al., 2023), (Xiao et al., 2021), (Liang et al., 2022a), (Yuan et al., 2022), (Zhong et al., 2023) + +# 6 Conclusion + +This paper has proposed a novel framework, SIR-ABSC, that effectively incorporates syntactic information directly into a pre-trained large language model (PLM) such as RoBERTa for tasks like Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), in which the desired output depends on specific words in the input, and where syntactic distance to the relevant input words may be important. In contrast to prior work, where a separate GNN was added to the output of the PLM, in our model, attention masks for new [g] token capture syntactic information, and a new hyper-parameter, named variable distance control (VDC), captures graph structure in a similar fashion. Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) mechanism allows SIR-ABSC to use the dependency labels effectively, and finally, the Auto-VDC mechanism learns a mixture of multiple distances, allowing the model to identify and focus on important syntactic distances for a given input. + +To the best of our knowledge, SIR-ABSC is the first model to incorporate syntactic knowledge into RoBERTa for ABSC without resorting to GNNs. Experiments show we achieve state-of-the-art performance in SemEval-2014 task 4. This demonstrates the efficiency of our approach and suggests a new paradigm for augmenting PLM with syntax. + +# Limitations + +In this section, we summarize the limitations of our model that can be improved in the future. First, we + +did not explore various types of dependency parsers as mentioned in Section 4, which could result in different performances. Similarly, we did not examine how accurate the parser we used was and how much performance difference it could make, as mentioned in Section 4. Second, we did not consider other types of syntactic information besides dependency trees, such as phrase dependency graphs, which could also be effective for ABSC. Lastly, our method might be limited to single-sentence items. Although we inserted a dummy root node to merge multiple dependency graphs within a single input sentence, our model does not achieve state-of-the-art results on the Twitter dataset, which consists primarily of multi-sentence items. Therefore, it would be crucial to investigate more effective methods for merging multiple dependency graphs in a given input sentence. + +# References + +Jiangang Bai, Yujing Wang, Yiren Chen, Yaming Yang, Jing Bai, Jing Yu, and Yunhai Tong. 2021. Syntax-BERT: Improving pre-trained transformers with syntax trees. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3011-3020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xuefeng Bai, Pengbo Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Investigating typed syntactic dependencies for targeted sentiment classification using graph attention neural network. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:503-514. +Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, Zhongqing Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Discrete opinion tree induction for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2051-2064. +Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Inducing target-specific latent structures for aspect sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 5596-5607. +Junqi Dai, Hang Yan, Tianxiang Sun, Pengfei Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. Does syntax matter? a strong baseline for aspect-based sentiment analysis with RoBERTa. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1816-1829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of + +deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805. +Hai Ha Do, PWC Prasad, Angelika Maag, and Abeer Alsadoon. 2019. Deep learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis: A comparative review. Expert Systems with Applications, 118:272-299. +Li Dong, Furu Wei, Chuanqi Tan, Duyu Tang, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2014. Adaptive recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 49-54, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Timothy Dozat and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Deep bioaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01734. +Rotem Dror, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Reichart. 2019. Deep dominance-how to properly compare deep neural models. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2773-2785. +Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022a. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528. +Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022b. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528. +Xiaochen Hou, Peng Qi, Guangtao Wang, Rex Ying, Jing Huang, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. Graph ensemble learning over multiple dependency trees for aspect-level sentiment classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11794. +Qingnan Jiang, Lei Chen, Ruifeng Xu, Xiang Ao, and Min Yang. 2019. A challenge dataset and effective models for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6280-6285, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with BERT. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803. +Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907. + +Xin Li, Lidong Bing, Wenxuan Zhang, and Wai Lam. 2019. Exploiting BERT for end-to-end aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00883. +Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022a. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643. +Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Zhibin Lu, Pan Du, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2020. VGCN-BERT: augmenting BERT with graph embedding for text classification. Advances in Information Retrieval, 12035:369. +Xiaoyong Mei, Yougen Zhou, Chenjing Zhu, Mengting Wu, Ming Li, and Shirui Pan. 2023. A disentangled linguistic graph model for explainable aspect-based sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 260:110150. +Hao Niu, Yun Xiong, Jian Gao, Zhongchen Miao, Xiaosu Wang, Hongrun Ren, Yao Zhang, and Yangyong Zhu. 2022. Composition-based heterogeneous graph multi-channel attention network for multi-aspect multi-sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6827-6836. +Minh Hieu Phan and Philip O Ogunbona. 2020. Modelling context and syntactical features for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3211-3220. +Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hao Tang, Donghong Ji, Chenliang Li, and Qiji Zhou. 2020. Dependency graph enhanced dual-transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6578-6588, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Komang Wahyu Trisna and Huang Jin Jie. 2022. Deep learning approach for aspect-based sentiment classification: A comparative review. Applied Artificial Intelligence, pages 1-37. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762. +Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Nasim Nour, Franck Dernoncourt, Quan Hung Tran, Dejing Dou, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2020. Improving aspect-based sentiment analysis with gated graph convolutional networks and syntax-based regulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.13389. +Kai Wang, Weizhou Shen, Yunyi Yang, Xiaojun Quan, and Rui Wang. 2020. Relational graph attention network for aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12362. +Luwei Xiao, Yun Xue, Hua Wang, Xiaohui Hu, Donghong Gu, and Yongsheng Zhu. 2022. Exploring fine-grained syntactic information for aspect-based sentiment classification with dual graph neural networks. Neurocomputing, 471:48-59. +Zeguan Xiao, Jiarun Wu, Qingliang Chen, and Congjian Deng. 2021. BERT4GCN: Using BERT intermediate layers to augment GCN for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9193-9200, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Qiannan Xu, Li Zhu, Tao Dai, and Chengbing Yan. 2020. Aspect-based sentiment classification with multi-attention network. Neurocomputing, 388:135-143. +Li Yuan, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2022. syntactic graph attention network for aspect-level sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence. +Biqing Zeng, Heng Yang, Ruyang Xu, Wu Zhou, and Xuli Han. 2019. Lcf: A local context focus mechanism for aspect-based sentiment classification. Applied Sciences, 9(16):3389. +Chen Zhang, Qiuchi Li, and Dawei Song. 2019. Aspect-based sentiment classification with aspect-specific graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4568-4578, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ziguo Zhao, Mingwei Tang, Wei Tang, Chunhao Wang, and Xiaoliang Chen. 2022. Graph convolutional network with multiple weight mechanisms for aspect-based sentiment analysis. Neurocomputing, 500:124-134. + +Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Hua Jin, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Knowledge graph augmented network towards multiview representation learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. + +# A Details on datasets + +Our model SIR-ABSC is evaluated on four different datasets from SemEval-2014 Task 4, Twitter, and MAMS datasets. Table 5 shows the statistics of the datasets. Table 6 shows the percentage of multiple sentences per item and the average number of sentences per item on each dataset. + +
DatasetTrainTestVal
Restaurant (SemEval-2014)36081120-
Laptop (SemEval-2014)2328638-
Twitter6248692-
MAMS-ATSA1118613361332
+ +Table 5: Dataset Overview + +
DatasetsDistributionTrainTestVal
Lap14% of multiple sent./item7.867.84-
Avg. sent./item1.091.09-
Res14% of multiple sent./item4.024.38-
Avg. number of sent./item1.041.05-
Twitter% of multiple sent./item59.4460.55-
Avg. number of sent./item1.991.96-
MAMS-ATSA% of multiple sent./item2.120.820.60
Avg. number of sent./item1.021.011.01
+ +Table 6: Prevalence of multi-sentence items in the ABSC datasets. + +# B Comparing different pooler types + +The [s] and [g] token outputs are combined after the last layer of SIR-ABSC encoders as described in Section 3. We conduct experiments on three different types of poolers for combining [s] and [g] token embeddings at the final layer: average, max, and attention pooling. Table 7 summarizes the results of using different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. The result shows that attention pooling shows better results in general. + +# C Detailed variable distance control results + +Our variable distance control (VDC) is a unique hyper-parameter which consists of 12 non-negative integers, where each integer represents the $d_l$ value of the $l$ -th layer. Theoretically there are exponentially many possible values for VDC but we use three representative types: increasing, constant, and decreasing VDCs. + +We heuristically chose specific values for each type of VDCs and the detailed results are summarized in Table 8. The table shows that SIR-ABSC + +
Pooler typesLap14Rest14Twitter
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC
w/ max pooling83.280.088.783.374.873.7
w/ avg pooling83.880.688.883.576.575.5
w/ att pooling84.181.189.384.177.276.3
+ +Table 7: Comparing different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. We used VDC = [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3] with the default full-interaction for the experiment. + +has the highest performance with increasing VDCs. Increasing VDCs are designed to work as the most similar to the typical GNN by aggregating information from the closest nodes to farther nodes based on the target aspect. On the other hand, decreasing VDCs has the lowest performance where the decreasing VDCs are designed to work as least similar to a GNN in the opposite order (i.e., aggregating information from farther nodes to closer nodes based on the target aspect). From these results, we can conclude that SIR-ABSC successfully imitates the typical GNN mechanism through increasing VDC configuration. + +# D Detailed ablation and case study results on DAA + +We provide a more detailed ablation and case study results regarding DAA in Table 9 and Figure 5. We experiment two additional variants of the proposed DAA mechanism: DAA (w/o edge label) and DAA (w/o edge direction), to verify the effectiveness of different kinds of syntactic information. Specifically, DAA (w/o edge direction) ignores the direction of the edges and assign the embeddings solely based on the dependency label. DAA (w/o edge label) ignores the edge labels (e.g., nsubj) and assign the embeddings solely based on the edge direction. By comparing #1 and #2 from Table 9, we can observe that employing the VDC mechanism with the [g] token to replace GNNs leads to significant improvement in performance (average accuracy gain of $1.475\%$ and average f1-score gain of 1.775). By further supplementing the model with missing information, such as edge direction and edge label information, DAA yields additional average gains of $0.2\%$ on accuracy and 0.275 on f1-score over [RoBERTa+VDC] (#2 vs #5). The DAA ablation results (#3 and #4) show that the performance decreases for both DAA (w/o edge direction) and DAA (w/o edge label), indicating their importance in DAA performance. Consistent with our intuition, + +we can observe that the edge label information is relatively more important than edge direction information in DAA. Another interesting finding is that DAA is more effective on BERT than RoBERTa. We speculate that this is because RoBERTa already utilizes the information contained in the dependency edge label to some extent, which is probably one of the reasons why RoBERTa shows better overall baseline performance than BERT. + +Additionally, we incorporate two case studies to illustrate the effectiveness of DAA in Figure 5. From the above examples, we can observe that the attention scores of words (pretentious, and, inappropriate) and (anywhere, else) get much higher when DAA is applied. Our speculation is that this occurs because DAA learns the significance of "advcl" and "advmod" labels, resulting in high attention scores being assigned to expressions such as (pretentious $\xrightarrow{advcl}$ claim, be $\xrightarrow{advmod}$ else, and else $\xrightarrow{advcl}$ anywhere) thereby leading to correct predictions. This is also consistent with our intuition since adverbial modifiers are related to adjectives which is highly likely to be important for deciding the sentiment. + +# E Significance tests + +Following the proposed significance test designed for comparing deep learning models from (Dror et al., 2019), we ran their official code with our SIR-ABSC and the baseline models. Specifically, we compared (1) SIR-ABSC with RoBERTa-baseline and (2) SIR-ABSC (BERT) with BERT-baseline. + +This test takes three components (results from method A, results from method B, and a confidence level) as input, and the purpose of this test is to answer the question: "Is A almost stochastically greater than B?" This test is based on the relatively new concept of "Almost Stochastic Order" which is a relaxed version of "Stochastic Order". The test outputs a minimum $\epsilon$ value where the result is interpreted as follows: + +- If $\epsilon > 0.5$ : We can't say A is almost stochastically greater than B. +- If $\epsilon \leq 0.5$ : We can say A is almost stochastically greater than B. +- If $\epsilon = 0$ : We can say A is "stochastically greater" than B not just "almost stochastically greater" which is the best result we can get in this test. Mathematically meaning $\inf \{x : t \leq F(x)\} \geq \inf \{x : t \leq G(x)\}$ for $\forall t \in (0,1)$ , + +![](images/9717f30442519daf166f444925516b72984ef9707edc0e496024dfcf9e9593ce.jpg) + +
Sentiment: Neutral 0.01 1.84 0.39 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.40 X X 0.2 1.58 2.22 5.21 13.65 14.76 17.82 32.86 3.71
Sentiment: Negative 0.22 6.14 0.39 5.56 1.50 5.07 2.44 X X 6.20 5.90 7.73 10.67 23.74 8.58 1.65 9.28 0.08
+ +![](images/3dbb04b91f661b52e54b179c934caf6cbbceb483c4a4131fa5fc3675d896d18a.jpg) +Figure 5: Two case studies employing DAA. The targets (diners, prices) are marked in bold. The first and second rows below the sentence depict the attention scores of the [g] token without and with DAA, respectively. Attention scores that increase more than ten-fold when DAA is applied are also marked in bold. In these examples, DAA enables the [g] token to place greater emphasis on critical sentiment words like "pretentious," "inappropriate," "anywhere," and "else," which contributes to accurate predictions. + +
Prediction:Negative0.234.500.130.3212.803.2014.418.877.1026.66
Prediction:Positive0.499.404.015.569.084.4413.3811.0715.4410.59
+ +where $F$ and $G$ are the (empirical) CDFs of A and B. + +Please refer to the paper for further details. + +Applying the test on our models with a confidence level $(1 - \alpha)$ of 0.99 (in other words, significance level $(\alpha)$ of 0.01), both tests (1) and (2) resulted in minimum $\epsilon$ values of 0. This indicates that SIR-ABSC and SIR-ABSC (BERT) are stochastically greater than RoBERTa-baseline and BERT-baseline with a confidence level of 0.99, respectively, verifying the superiority of our method. + +# F Additional analysis: does [g] need to be a separate token? + +We now compare SIR-ABSC to a variant that does not use a [g] token, but instead uses the target tokens at the end of the input sequence (recall that the input sequence has the form of '[s] sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s]). We call this the SIR-ABSC-[g] variant. As Table 4 shows, the loss in performance is considerable compared to using an independent [g] token as in the original SIR-ABSC. We speculate the drop in performance is due to the original input sentence getting corrupted when we modify the aspect token's attention mask. This indicates the importance of using an additional + +and independent [g] token for the GNN role as in SIR-ABSC. + +# G SIR-ABSC (BERT) results + +We chose RoBERTa as our baseline PLM due to its better overall performance in ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021). However, to verify the generality of our method, we also conducted experiments on SIR-ABSC (BERT) which uses BERT instead of RoBERTa. The results are summarized in Table 10. We can see that our method is effective on BERT as well and the significance test results in "stochastic greatness" under significance level of $\alpha = 0.01$ , verifying the general effectiveness. The amount of improvement in performance could differ depending on the PLM and we can notice that the amount of enhancement when using RoBERTa (+1.93 on average) is relatively larger than when applied to BERT (+1.60 on average). + +
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
GoBERTA (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.480.488.583.276.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.380.288.282.776.074.884.784.2
• VDC = [333222111000]82.078.888.482.876.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.488.483.175.674.484.784.2
• VDC = [554433221100]83.179.988.583.275.273.784.684.2
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.087.882.076.074.884.784.2
• Constant-VDC83.780.788.683.376.475.484.984.4
• Increasing-VDC83.780.588.683.276.976.084.884.4
• VDC = [000011112222]83.580.387.882.176.976.084.784.3
• VDC = [000111222333]83.580.588.583.275.574.484.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.680.487.982.275.774.484.884.4
• VDC = [001122334455]83.380.388.683.176.174.984.884.4
• VDC = [000222444666]83.780.588.382.576.675.884.784.2
GoBERTA (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.780.688.282.876.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.580.488.182.775.474.284.784.3
• VDC = [333222111000]82.679.687.181.176.175.184.584.0
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.587.982.276.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [554433221100]83.880.888.282.975.374.284.684.1
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.088.282.775.674.384.584.0
• Constant-VDC83.780.488.983.776.475.285.084.5
• Increasing-VDC83.880.889.183.877.175.985.084.6
• VDC = [000011112222]84.181.188.382.877.276.384.684.2
• VDC = [000111222333]83.880.889.183.876.775.584.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.580.588.983.575.774.684.884.3
• VDC = [001122334455]83.280.289.384.174.775.985.084.6
• VDC = [000222444666]82.579.488.983.876.975.984.884.5
+ +Table 8: Detailed experimental results on the effect of VDC. The results show that S1R-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing $<$ fixed $<$ increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] token imitating GNN as described in Section 3. + +
Ablations (Validation)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
1. SIR-ABSC (RoBERTa)
#1: RoBERTa baseline82.178.987.681.775.674.584.483.9
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC84.181.189.384.177.276.385.084.6
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)84.281.389.384.377.276.084.884.3
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)84.481.589.484.377.376.584.984.4
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)84.681.889.484.477.276.385.284.7
#6 (SIR-ABSC): #5+Auto-VDC85.082.189.784.877.576.485.484.9
2. SIR-ABSC (BERT)
#1: BERT baseline79.275.185.879.376.474.884.082.7
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC80.877.186.780.677.175.984.383.1
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)81.177.586.980.977.275.984.383.2
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)81.678.287.081.177.476.184.483.5
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)81.878.687.081.277.676.484.583.5
#6 (SIR-ABSC (BERT)): #5+Auto-VDC82.279.187.381.677.776.684.783.6
+ +Table 9: A detailed ablation study results. + +
SIR-ABSC (BERT)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERT baseline79.2(±0.6)75.1(±0.5)85.8(±0.7)79.3(±0.7)76.4(±0.7)74.8(±07)84.0(±0.3)82.7(±0.4)
SIR-ABSC (BERT)82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
+ +Table 10: Empirical results on using BERT as the PLM. Note that our technique is effective on BERT as well (significance test resulting in "stochastic greatness") showing comparable results with BERT-based state-of-the-art results. However, the improvement is generally less than when applied to RoBERTa. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/images.zip b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b757e3cf5677065c67c316e664e74beeb0d0d269 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4431df82a6de690c04205a135eebe92abd6383f4dc8e3add03612f2f07625dc3 +size 1048879 diff --git a/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/layout.json b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dac699ccaba5a03e4a06147eff94adc2e41ae850 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SIR-ABSC_ Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10617 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 75, + 502, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 75, + 502, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 75, + 502, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SIR-ABSC: Incorporating Syntax into RoBERTa-based Sentiment Analysis Models with a Special Aggregator Token" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 126, + 446, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 126, + 446, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 126, + 446, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ikhyun Cho and Yoonhwa Jung and Julia Hockenmaier" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 141, + 403, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 141, + 403, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 141, + 403, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 155, + 449, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 155, + 449, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 155, + 449, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ihcho2, yoonhwa2, juliahmr}@illinois.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a simple, but effective method to incorporate syntactic dependency information directly into transformer-based language models (e.g. RoBERTa) for tasks such as Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), where the desired output depends on specific input tokens. In contrast to prior approaches to ABSC that capture syntax by combining language models with graph neural networks over dependency trees, our model, Syntax-Integrated RoBERTa for ABSC (SIR-ABSC) incorporates syntax directly into the language model by using a novel aggregator token. SIR-ABSC1 outperforms these more complex models, yielding new state-of-the-art results on ABSC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 425, + 154, + 438 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 425, + 154, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 425, + 154, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 291, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC, Pontiki et al. (2014), Figure 1) is a fine-grained sentiment analysis task that aims to handle the fact that even simple statements such as \"The ambience was nice, but service wasn't so great.\" may express different sentiments towards different aspects (this reviewer is positive about the restaurant's \"ambience\", but negative about its \"service\"). In ABSC, the aspect to be classified is identified by a target string in the input sentence (e.g. \"ambience\"), and systems have to return the polarity (positive, neutral, negative) of the corresponding sentiment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have been shown to work well for ABSC, presumably because their attention mechanisms capture semantic connections between target and context words (Li et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020; Karimi et al., 2021). Starting with Do et al. (2019), PLMs have been supplemented with syntactic features, typically extracted from dependency graphs. This is typically done by using the word embeddings obtained from the PLM to initialize the node embeddings of a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "graph neural network (GNN) obtained from the dependency graph (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Hou et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2022). However, such combined models have two major limitations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 277, + 526, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 277, + 526, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 277, + 526, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Suboptimal Interaction: A typical challenge in combining PLMs and GNNs is to make the two models effectively interact with each other. Some approaches (Tang et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2020) attempt to accomplish this through heavy model architecture engineering. However, the PLM and GNN still operate in an asynchronous manner (one after the other), limiting their interaction, and yielding only a minor improvement in performance. We hypothesize that more integrated models can yield larger boosts in performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 450, + 526, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 450, + 526, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 450, + 526, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Suboptimal Aggregation: Existing (PLM + GNN) models cannot emphasize information at a specific distance(s) away from the target token. This is problematic since the models pre-define the number of GNN layers beforehand (Bai et al., 2020; Veyseh et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2022). For example, if the number of GNN layers is fixed to three while an input sequence has the key sentiment word at a distance of one, the redundant second and third GNN layers can introduce noise. The ability to identify the most important distance(s) (one in this case) and to focus on that specific distance(s) based on the input is crucial to reduce such noise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to alleviate these limitations, we propose syntax-integrated RoBERTa (SIR-ABSC), a novel framework for effectively augmenting PLMs with syntactic information. We chose RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) as our PLM baseline due to its notable performance on ABSC (Dai et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instead of stacking multiple GNN layers on top of a PLM as in most previous works, we insert a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The code for SIR-ABSC is publicly available at https://github.com/ihcho2/SIR-ABSC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8535" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8535-8550 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 384, + 142 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 384, + 142 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 384, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 384, + 142 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2b557e994dc1d2a3089296cb3e48555b5f29420f5596ee7ba11299edb03bb02d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 144, + 384, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 144, + 384, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 144, + 384, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 144, + 384, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "000c30dd8e6f58cf610c9517e2c93073132aa00d767a07c0e11ccfa4cc232b42.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 526, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 526, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: (Left Top) In ABSC, the sentiment to be predicted depends on the desired target aspect (words from the input). (Left Bottom) For ABSC, syntactic distance can be more informative than surface distance. (Right) Syntactic distances as defined by a dependency tree" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 393, + 68, + 526, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 68, + 526, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 68, + 526, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 68, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b081cd5e8dc090c3c09e9290049faf1a8f8960aac70ec1fbfd212045fd53786e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "new [g] token into the PLM that acts as a syntax aggregator and effectively replaces the work of GNN layers. A Variable Distance Control (VDC) mechanism allows [g] to focus on capturing syntactic knowledge by using constrained attention masks that reflect the graph structure. A Dependency-Aware Aggregation (DAA) mechanism leverages dependency label information. We further improve our model with Automatic VDC Learning (AutoVDC), which enables SIR-ABSC to capture and focus on important syntactic distances based on the input, an important advantage over GNNs. SIR-ABSC outperforms prior approaches, and establishes a new state of the art, on the most widely used ABSC datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 481, + 287, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 481, + 287, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 481, + 287, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our main contributions are summarized below :" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 500, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 500, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 500, + 289, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 500, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We present a novel approach to incorporating syntactic information into PLM through the use of a syntax aggregator token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 548, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 548, + 290, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 548, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We highlight two limitations in current GNN-based approaches (suboptimal interaction and aggregation) and present effective methods (DAA and Auto-VDC) to address them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 609, + 289, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 609, + 289, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 609, + 289, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To our knowledge, this is the first work to utilize dependency graph information without resorting to GNNs in ABSC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 658, + 289, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 658, + 289, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 658, + 289, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Our model achieves state-of-the-art results on two out of the four widely used ABSC datasets and demonstrates competitive performance on the remaining ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 285, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 285, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 285, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In ABSC, illustrated in Figure 1, the task is to predict the polarity (positive, negative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "or neutral) of the sentiment in input sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s = [w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_p, \\dots, w_{p + m - 1}, \\dots, w_n]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " towards a given target aspect " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (a substring of the input sentence: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i = \\{w_p, \\dots, w_{p + m - 1}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 463, + 357 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 463, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 463, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Language Models for ABSC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 363, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 363, + 526, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 363, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pre-trained language models (PLMs) such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) have gained predominance for many NLP tasks, including ABSC. RoBERTa, a variant of BERT, is known to show notable performance on ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021), and forms the basis of the models explored in this paper. RoBERTa (and BERT) are (pre)trained on large amounts of raw text with a masked language modeling objective. Both models use a Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture in which each token's embedding is fed through multiple layers such that each token's embedding in a given layer can attend to all tokens in the sequence (in the same layer). To adapt these models for classification tasks, a special token ([CLS] for BERT, [s] for RoBERTa) whose output is fed into a task-specific feedforward layer is included in the input sequence. A separation token ([SEP] or [/s]) can be used to separate the input sequence from other task-specific information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the ABSC task, RoBERTa is typically used as follows: after tokenization, the input sentence is constructed as '[s] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence includes the target aspect itself. The [s] token of the last layer is used for the final prediction and fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 472, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 472, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 472, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Combining PLMs with syntax" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A common approach to ABSC is to supplement a PLM with syntactic information obtained from a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8536" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "dependency parser. In a dependency graph (Figure 1) each word in the sentence corresponds to a node, with labeled edges indicating word-word dependencies. Note that the syntactic distance between words (e.g. sucked and vista) can be much smaller than their surface (string) distance (Figure 1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the dependency parser and the PLM may use different tokenizers, tokenization needs to be broken into two stages to integrate both models seamlessly. The input sentence is first tokenized by the dependency parser, and then each token is again tokenized by RoBERTa's tokenizer, following previous work (Tang et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Graph Neural Network-based ABSC models To incorporate syntax into ABSC models, PLMs have been augmented with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs, Kipf and Welling (2016)) that capture the structure of the sentence's dependency tree. Although there are many variants (Trisna and Jie, 2022), the basic idea behind GNNs is to represent each node as a vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that is updated via graph convolution in each layer (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l \\in [1, 2, \\dots, L]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") of the GNN (Kipf and Welling, 2016) by aggregating its neighborhood information from the previous layer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 410, + 235, + 428 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 410, + 235, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 410, + 235, + 428 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {i} ^ {l} = \\sigma \\left(A _ {i j} W _ {l} h _ {j} ^ {l - 1} + b _ {l}\\right)", + "image_path": "f74e547b31ef6700ca3db5de2f7b5d25933b613fe56c05ed75ca93a1df742779.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an activation function, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are learnable parameters, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the entry of the graphs adjacency matrix that indicates whether nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are connected (in which case " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{ij} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; otherwise " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{ij} = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). The general framework for augmenting PLMs with GNNs for ABSC is to initialize the GNN node embeddings with the PLM's output embeddings and use the final embeddings of the target aspects in the last GNN layer for classification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhang et al. (2019) were the first to implement a GNN-based model for ABSC, adding a multilayered Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) to encode dependency graphs on top of the word embedding layer. Wang et al. (2020) and Bai et al. (2020) proposed a relational graph attention network (R-GAT), which computes an additional attention distribution using the dependency label embeddings. Tang et al. (2020) strengthened interactions between contextual and graph representations through a mutual biaffine module. Mei et al. (2023) incorporated part-of-speech, distance, and syntactic dependency in a supervised manner. Several recent research in ABSC has tried to revise dependency graphs due to their imperfections or add external resources (Xiao et al., 2021, 2022; Liang et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2022a). What is common to all these approaches is that the PLM and GNN operate in a serial fashion, and are not tightly integrated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 526, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 121, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Attention-mask based approaches Another promising approach to incorporate syntactic information into PLMs that is more related to this paper, is to manipulate the Transformer's self-attention masks. For example, Syntax-BERT (Bai et al., 2021) uses multiple masks induced from the syntactic trees (e.g., parent, children, sibling, pairwise masks) to incorporate syntactic information into BERT. To do so, it requires multiple (usually more than 90) sub-networks, which share the same model parameters in a masked self-attention module, and then the outputs are aggregated through another attention layer, named a topical attention module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 525, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The key difference between Syntax-BERT and SIR-ABSC is that Syntax-BERT alters all the input tokens' attention masks and aggregates them in a serial manner, while SIR-ABSC (which is specifically designed for tasks like ABSC, where the desired output depends on specific parts of the input) keeps the original input tokens intact while only modifying the attention-mask of the newly added [g] token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 381, + 443 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 381, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 381, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 SIR-ABSC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present SIR-ABSC (Figure 2), which incorporates syntactic information into PLM designed for ABSC tasks. We accomplish this goal by augmenting RoBERTa with four components: (1) a single additional input token, named [g], whose attention masks depend on the structure of the input's dependency tree(s), paired with (2) a \"variable distance control\" mechanism that specifies how the structure of the dependency graph is reflected in [g]'s attention masks, (3) a dependency-aware aggregation which incorporates dependency labels using embeddings, and (4) an \"Auto-VDC\" mechanism that learns the ideal VDC for a given input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input and output After tokenization with RoBERTa's tokenizer, the input to SIR-ABSC is '[s] [g] input sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s], where the aspect sequence is the token \"[g]\" followed by the target aspect words. [g] uses its own independent dictionary embedding in the input layer but is initialized with the initial [s] embedding. We evaluate this choice in Section 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To obtain the output, the final layers of the [s] and [g] tokens are pooled and fed to a classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8537" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 526, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 526, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 526, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 526, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1adb06f9f8fde0a4dfb97550cd4be287b84f17d4056b1b9fdd259e23252a9b1b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 244, + 525, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 244, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 244, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall architecture of our approach. Instead of stacking GNNs on top of a PLM (left), SIR-ABSC inserts a syntax aggregator token, [g], into the PLM for a synchronous and deeper aggregation (right). A heuristic VDC of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 244, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 244, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used in this example (\"vista\" is the target aspect). DAA is not explicitly represented for the sake of simplicity. Best viewed in color." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "layer as follows. First, a global vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is created by averaging [s] and [g] embeddings followed by a weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an activation function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 357, + 238, + 386 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 357, + 238, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 357, + 238, + 386 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c = f \\left(\\frac {1}{2} \\left(X _ {s} + X _ {g}\\right) W _ {c}\\right)", + "image_path": "b09411c6cc91ebaca13e06aedbf06c6a4667d21859bd26deec72ad8d40382a27.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 226, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 226, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 226, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, the final pooled vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 226, + 400 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(h)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 226, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 403, + 223, + 417 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 403, + 223, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 403, + 223, + 417 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h = \\alpha_ {1} X _ {s} + \\alpha_ {2} X _ {g}", + "image_path": "2344529aa04a9f7446d1493013f5ccef433b16cd74ce8a3953d8892fb38ddcee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 99, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 99, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 99, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 433, + 253, + 453 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 433, + 253, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 433, + 253, + 453 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left(\\alpha_ {1}, \\alpha_ {2}\\right) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(c X _ {s} ^ {T}, c X _ {g} ^ {T}\\right)", + "image_path": "c8e213d4dc310f451daed101d038033f5d1bcfe8996e2ff95d3ff806206435e6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is fed into a fully connected layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(W_{FC})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to calculate the final sentiment polarity score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y\\in \\mathbb{R}^C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 497, + 229, + 513 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 497, + 229, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 497, + 229, + 513 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "y = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(h W _ {F C}\\right)", + "image_path": "de12b9e9e43f25262f99d6ef455b8f8b918620a7bb463fb30ecfeda02125ea08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of sentiment polarity classes. We use the cross-entropy loss function as the objective function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The [g] token and distance-based attention masks The [g] token is inserted next to the [s] token. Unlike the [s] token that attends to every token in the input, we allow each layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of [g] to only attend to the subset of input tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that are at most a distance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D(j) \\leq d_l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " away from the target aspect, allowing us to capture the intuition that the relevance of each word in a sentence to ABSC depends on its distance to the target aspect words. We achieve this with distance-based attention masks (Figure 2) that depend either on syntactic or surface distance, and are only used for the [g] token, and the VDC hyperparameters explained below that define the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We do not restrict how the input tokens can attend to [g]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For our baseline model, we assume that each layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of [g] is associated with one specific distance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This yields a layer-specific attention mask " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{m}_{g}^{d = d_{l}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (a vector whose elements " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{m}_{g,j}^{d = d_l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are 0 if the distance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D(j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the target aspect words is greater than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and 1 otherwise). If distance is syntax-based, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D(j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of the shortest path between token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the target aspect (so, if the target aspect consists of multiple tokens, we take the minimum distance to any of its component tokens). If the distance is surface-based, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D(j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is simply the token distance to the target aspect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To summarize, all tokens except " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathbf{g}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are updated precisely as in the original PLM using the original attention mask " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathbf{g}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is updated using its own attention mask " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 547, + 527, + 614 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 547, + 527, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 547, + 527, + 614 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} X _ {o u t, i \\neq g} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {i} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + \\mathbf {m}\\right) V ^ {l}, \\\\ X _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} K ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + \\mathbf {m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\\right) V ^ {l} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "81013527b7c05a0bcbe8e9710b6e49ce353f1542d57e6b7cd51fa4c53a0af588.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 622, + 335, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 622, + 335, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 622, + 335, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 643, + 514, + 661 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 643, + 514, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 643, + 514, + 661 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "Q ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {Q} ^ {l}, K ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K} ^ {l}, V ^ {l} = X _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V} ^ {l}", + "image_path": "b71ef07d0fd4f179e2a469879e15e959ae1ddca0ce8accee5feb668da1a998c1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 669, + 448, + 704 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 669, + 448, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 669, + 448, + 704 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "m _ {g, j} ^ {d = d _ {l}} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} 0 \\quad , \\text {i f} D (j) \\leq d _ {l} \\\\ - \\inf , \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.", + "image_path": "c3148242aa090e588f16ffd697e953edddb2c81e20a4c4072642000057e9f643.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{in}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{out}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the input and output token embeddings of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th self-attention layer, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the attention mask that cancels out padding tokens, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{m}_g^{d = d_l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the [g] token's attention mask, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 704, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th Query, Key, and Value weights, respectively," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8538" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the token index, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the [g] token's index. For simplicity, we ignore the relatively minor details, such as the FFN and normalization layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike previous works where PLM and GNN operate one after the other, SIR-ABSC is a synchronous and fully-integrated model in that [s] (= semantic aggregator) and [g] (= syntactic aggregator) can attend to and affect each other's embeddings at every layer. We verify that this fully-integrated characteristic is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance in Section 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Variable Distance Control (VDC) To specify the attention masks used by the [g] token, we introduce a new set of hyper-parameters named Variable Distance Control (VDC). VDC is a list of 12 nonnegative integers where the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th element represents the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th layer of the [g] token: With a VDC of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the first six layers of the [g] token attend only to the target aspect, and the remaining six layers attend to tokens connected to the target via a direct dependency link." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that increasing VDCs (e.g., [0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2], [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3]) can be used to mimic how GNNs work. Through graph convolution, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th layer of a GNN aggregates features of nodes up to length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " away from each node in the graph, allowing the GNN to gradually aggregate information from more and more distant nodes in its upper layers. Empirical results in Section 5 show that increasing VDCs have indeed better performance than constant VDCs (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]) or decreasing VDCs (e.g. [3,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0]). Here, our baseline model uses heuristically defined VDCs, referred to as \"heuristic-VDC\" in this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) VDC allows the [g] token to distinguish tokens with different syntactic distances. However, the model is unaware of the dependency edge labels which could contain valuable information. To consider this information in SIR-ABSC, we re-formulate the update of the [g] token (Eq. 2) by including learnable embedding vectors corresponding to the dependency label to each token as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 702, + 279, + 736 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 702, + 279, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 702, + 279, + 736 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "X _ {o u t, i = g} ^ {l} = \\mathrm {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {g} ^ {l} \\tilde {K} ^ {l T}}{\\sqrt {d}} + {\\bf m} _ {g} ^ {d = d _ {l}}\\right) \\tilde {V} ^ {l}", + "image_path": "9eb29897eab9c9f98f7a44b527e8bb6c94437bf0c524d0f014103b88b07571fa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{in}^{l}, K^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in equation 2 are modified to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{X}_{in}^{l}, \\tilde{K}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{V}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to consider the dependency in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 393, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 393, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 393, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "formation as below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 92, + 477, + 110 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 92, + 477, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 92, + 477, + 110 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} = f \\left(X _ {i n} ^ {l} + X _ {d e p} W _ {d e p} ^ {l}\\right)", + "image_path": "6ef52b1adf5b1a20c9d59735a8c06a1abb048b3b21ea926ab4b99165912813d7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 111, + 480, + 128 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 111, + 480, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 111, + 480, + 128 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde {K} ^ {l} = \\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {K}, \\tilde {V} ^ {l} = \\tilde {X} _ {i n} ^ {l} W _ {V}", + "image_path": "86108c3d0472e5aef9572374475af5874d9295ffe74d4d51a084a5750009cafb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the activation function, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dependency label embedding of the input tokens, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{dep}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a learnable weight matrix that maps dependency label embeddings to the size of the PLM's embedding. This allows SIR-ABSC to leverage the dependency label information for better aggregation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic VDC learning (Auto-VDC) In Section 5, Table 2 shows the significance of the VDC configuration in SIR-ABSC, with up to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " difference in model performance. This result naturally gives rise to a challenging question: How can we decide the ideal VDC configuration?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given numerous possible configurations for VDC, it is inefficient to rely on heuristics such as grid search. We therefore define a learning-based approach to finding the ideal VDC configuration by computing multiple [g] embeddings based on different VDC values and then merging them into one using a learnable weighted sum." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first create multiple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathrm{g}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 's where each uses the attention mask of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{VDC} = i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as follows. First, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{g}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " vector is transformed to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by a weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{i}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an activation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 369, + 466, + 458, + 485 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 369, + 466, + 458, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 369, + 466, + 458, + 485 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "Q _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} = f \\left(Q _ {g} ^ {l} W _ {i} ^ {l}\\right)", + "image_path": "42eef5e075ab966c136a3c74871aec6d7ad393fe763068bc01a76c004fcac85c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{\\{g,i\\}}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is generated using attention mask of VDC of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 523, + 513, + 558 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 523, + 513, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 523, + 513, + 558 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "X _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\frac {Q _ {\\{g , i \\}} ^ {l} \\tilde {K} ^ {l ^ {T}}}{\\sqrt {d}} + m _ {g} ^ {d = i}\\right) \\tilde {V} ^ {l}", + "image_path": "25f83bc043c10093f7aad52d8b15d060efee6cbc712eae2f9b6ba46abb542e91.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, we use a learnable weighted sum to create our final " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathbf{g}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{g}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 524, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 600, + 498, + 619 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 600, + 498, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 600, + 498, + 619 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "X _ {g} ^ {l} = \\alpha_ {0} ^ {l} \\cdot X _ {\\{g, 0 \\}} ^ {l} + \\dots + \\alpha_ {k} ^ {l} \\cdot X _ {\\{g, k \\}} ^ {l}", + "image_path": "c9f07bde5f96aabbcde1042cf4d605db2c4d9eb880485c0750df0398f88a3367.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the weights are computed as follows. First, a vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed by averaging " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{\\{g,i\\}}^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " followed by a weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W^{l}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an activation function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 627, + 524, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 676, + 485, + 711 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 676, + 485, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 676, + 485, + 711 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c = f \\bigg (\\frac {1}{k + 1} \\big (\\sum_ {i = 0} ^ {k} X _ {\\{g, i \\}} ^ {l} \\big) W ^ {l} \\bigg)", + "image_path": "d5ca7a79ff9ac2ee895347609887f773a9da94de0b5afc22cc6bce637b7e3449.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, the weights are computed by applying the softmax over the dot products with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 751, + 523, + 772 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 751, + 523, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 751, + 523, + 772 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left(\\alpha_ {0} ^ {l}, \\dots , \\alpha_ {k} ^ {l}\\right) = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(X _ {\\{g, 0 \\}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}, \\dots , X _ {\\{g, k \\}} ^ {l} c ^ {T}\\right)", + "image_path": "4ac663e954d008bf6db90d78c42cc9e3dd2ae317708b77a544d640503faf8a68.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8539" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Auto-VDC is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. This approach has the following advantages: First, due to the attention pooling, the ideal VDC of each layer can be automatically learned by the attention scores. That is, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{\\{g,n\\}}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the ideal VDC " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will be automatically assigned a higher weight. Furthermore, unlike heuristic-VDC, where the model must attend tokens up to a distance of max(VDC), Auto-VDC can adjust which distances to focus on based on the input, thereby reducing the noise from the redundant distances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 199, + 245 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 199, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 199, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets and Experimental Settings We use the most widely used ABSC data sets: the Laptop and Restaurant datasets from SemEval-2014 task 4 (Pontiki et al., 2014), the Twitter dataset of Dong et al. (2014), and the MAMS-ATSA dataset (Jiang et al., 2019). Table 5 in Appendix A shows the statistics of the ABSC datasets. For SIR-ABSC, we use the pre-trained RoBERTa-base model provided by huggingface. We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{spaCy}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 's en_core_web_sm model version 3.3.0 as the dependency parser. Finetuning uses a batch size of 32, dropout rate of 0.1, learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1.0\\mathrm{e - }5,1.5\\mathrm{e - }5," + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.0\\mathrm{e - }5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 254, + 292, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the AdamW optimizer, and 300 for the dependency embedding dimension. We run the experiments with five random seeds and report average accuracy and macro-F1. We used the same set of random seeds for each ablation experiment. All experiments are conducted on a single Tesla A100 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 292, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 292, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 292, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines We compare SIR-ABSC with previous (PLM+Dependency graph) models in Table 1. Specifically, (1) DGEDT-BERT (Tang et al., 2020) proposes a biaffine module that deepens the interaction of semantic and syntactic representations; (2) kumaGCN (Chen et al., 2020) utilizes dependency graph along with a latent graph induced from self-attention neural networks; (3) dotGCN (Chen et al., 2022) uses GNN over an induced tree trained by reinforcement learning; (4) CHGMAN (Niu et al., 2022) uses a three-channel multi-view learning model on the dependency graph for better representation learning; (5) R-GAT (Wang et al., 2020) applies relational graph attention networks over the dependency graph to incorporate edge label information into the model; (6) DGNN (Xiao et al., 2022) uses dependency graph and an additional" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "adjacency matrix generated based on the syntactic distance from the target; (7) MWM-GCN (Zhao et al., 2022) uses masking based on the syntactic distance from the target and additional multi-head self-attention layers for better performance; (8) SGGCN (Veyseh et al., 2020) applies a regulation gate on the tokens based on their similarity to the target; (9) RoBERTa-RGAT, PwCN (Dai et al., 2021) reproduces the baseline RoBERTa model with using dependency graph in two different approaches (relational GAT and point-wise convolution network); (10) AM-RoBERTa (Feng et al., 2022b) applies target-relevant masking to the self-attention mechanism in the PLM to focus more on target-related contexts; (11) RoBERTa-DLGM (Mei et al., 2023) proposes a supervision-based approach to incorporate syntax information into PLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 526, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that baselines that use external knowledge sources in addition to dependency graphs (e.g., Sentic GCN-BERT (Liang et al., 2022b), KGAN (Zhong et al., 2023), SGAN (Yuan et al., 2022)) are not direct competitors to SIR-ABSC, although SIR-ABSC still outperforms all these methods except for KGAN on Twitter (which is not a fair comparison since KGAN relies on an external knowledge source, WordNet). BERT4GCN (Xiao et al., 2021) is excluded since it uses a different experiment setting while no public code is available. It is also worth noting that all these baseline models use GNN-based modules to aggregate syntactic information. SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, presents a new aggregating approach via the syntax aggregator token without resorting to GNNs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall Results Table 1 compares SIR-ABSC against all competitive RoBERTa+GNN or BERT+GNN combination models that use dependency graphs extracted from parsers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{234}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Tang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022a; Veyseh et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022a; Mei et al., 2023). Notably, SIR-ABSC outperforms all previous models on Laptop14, Restaurant14, and MAMS-ATSA datasets, establishing a new state-of-the-art record. On Twitter, SIR-ABSC clearly outperforms RoBERTa-based models and is competitive with the (overall better performing) BERT-based models. Signifi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 526, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Stanford CoreNLP: https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biaffine Parser (Dozat and Manning, 2016) from the AllenNLP package https://allenai.org/allennlp" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "spaCy parsers: https://spacy.io/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8540" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 101, + 69, + 477, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 69, + 477, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 69, + 477, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 69, + 477, + 184 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d6b2414a0f64a62bb23e9470483c0986fb085db862a10e41b7edabe506069f4a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 193, + 526, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 193, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 193, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: With Auto-VDC, the [g] token automatically learns the ideal VDC configuration. For example, in the lower layers, the [g] token's attention scores focus on the target aspect (\"touch screen functions\") and the [s] token. As it moves to the upper layers, the [g] token shifts its focus to the critical phrase \"did not enjoy\" for the final prediction. This shows that Auto-VDC progressively consolidates information from increasingly distant nodes in the upper layers, just like heuristic VDCs and GNNs, but in an automatic way, thereby diminishing the need for manual heuristic adjustments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 526, + 401 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 526, + 401 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 526, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 275, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Base PLMModelsSyntaxExternal ResourceLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERTDGEDT-BERT2Dep. Graphx79.875.686.380.077.975.4--
kumaGCNDep. Graphx82.078.886.480.377.977.0--
dotGCNxx81.078.186.280.578.177.085.084.4
CHGMANDep. Graphx81.577.786.981.6--85.184.3
RGAT-BERT4Dep. Graphx78.274.186.681.476.274.9--
DGNN (BERT)4Dep. Graphx81.479.087.281.776.275.0--
WMM-GCN (BERT)3Dep. Graphx82.879.588.582.678.977.4--
Sentic GCN-BERT2Dep. Graph✓ (SenticNet)82.179.186.981.0----
SGGCN-BERTDep. Graphx82.880.287.282.5----
Ours: S1R-ABSC (BERT)2Dep. Graphx82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
RoBERTaRoBERTa-RGAT4Dep. Graphx83.480.387.480.674.472.984.583.7
RoBERTa-PWCN2Dep. Graphx84.281.287.481.176.675.6--
AM-RoBERTa2xx83.080.288.182.5--84.283.7
RoBERTa-DLGM2Dep. Graphx84.482.088.683.675.574.684.884.3
KGANDep. Graph✓ (WordNet)83.981.188.584.180.679.6--
Ours: S1R-ABSC2Dep. Graphx85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
", + "image_path": "7bfdbcab24037a6f76e20971f6c4a38732f1f58a1766e038e323bd06972bdc08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 525, + 434 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 525, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: SIR-ABSC outperforms all prior works on Laptop and Restaurant, and is competitive on Twitter and MAMS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cance tests following Dror et al. (2019) result in minimum epsilon values of 0 using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", indicating that SIR-ABSC's performance is \"stochastically greater\" than the baselines (details in Appendix E). We also conducted experiments using BERT (SIR-ABSC (BERT)) instead of RoBERTa and it shows comparable performance with the state-of-the-art BERT models (details in Appendix G)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Twitter and multi-sentence items Table 6 in Appendix A shows that the Twitter dataset has a large proportion of multi-sentence items. Since multi-sentence items have multiple dependency graphs, it requires us to combine them by adding a dummy root node that links to the heads of each sentence. This, as well as RoBERTA's generally lower performance on Twitter, maybe one reason why we do not achieve state-of-the-art on Twitter. We have also not attempted to examine how parser accuracy contributes to performance differences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 455, + 368, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 455, + 368, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 455, + 368, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 483, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 483, + 525, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 483, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now examine the effect of the design decisions that distinguish SIR-ABSC from RoBERTa." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Does [g] require syntactic distances? To understand the impact of syntax on SIR-ABSC, we now compare it to a variant that uses surface distance instead of syntactic distance. The surface (or position) distance of a token is computed simply by the number of tokens between the closest target aspect token and the corresponding token following previous works (Zeng et al., 2019; Phan and Ogunbona, 2020). Focusing on words near the target aspect is known to be effective in the ABSC task (Zeng et al., 2019). But syntactic distance is often very different from surface distance (see Figures 1 and 2.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 shows results for all three VDC types (decreasing, constant, and increasing) under both metrics that indicate that syntactic distances yield generally better performance than surface distances, especially in the increasing VDC configuration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 792 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 792 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 792 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8541" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 524, + 169 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 524, + 169 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 524, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val.)
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
RoBERTa-ASC82.1(±0.9)78.9(±1.1)87.6(±0.8)81.7(±0.8)75.6(±0.6)74.5(±0.7)84.4(±0.4)83.9(±0.5)
SIR-ABSC (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.4(±0.7)80.4(±0.8)88.5(±0.6)83.2(±0.6)76.5(±0.8)75.3(±0.7)84.7(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.7(±0.7)80.7(±0.7)88.6(±0.6)83.3(±0.5)76.4(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.9(±0.4)84.4(±0.5)
• Increasing-VDC83.7(±0.9)80.5(±0.8)88.6(±0.7)83.2(±0.7)76.9(±0.9)76.0(±1.0)84.8(±0.3)84.4(±0.2)
SIR-ABSC (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.8(±0.6)80.8(±0.7)88.2(±0.6)82.9(±0.6)76.5(±0.7)75.4(±0.8)84.8(±0.4)84.3(±0.4)
• Constant-VDC83.9(±0.6)80.7(±0.6)88.9(±0.7)83.7(±0.8)76.4(±0.8)75.2(±0.7)84.8(±0.4)84.5(±0.3)
• Increasing-VDC84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
", + "image_path": "3909ebd4b1f1a7f7ca460eb584612f17b032e694a06ff664e03afd77d83d90d8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 226, + 524, + 289 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Empirical results on the effectiveness of VDC. The results show that SIR-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " fixed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] imitating GNN as described in Section 3. A more detailed result table is in the Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 226, + 524, + 289 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 226, + 524, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 226, + 524, + 289 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SIR-ABSCLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs (Val)
Auto-VDCDAAAcc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
✓✓85.0(±0.5)82.1(±0.6)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.4(±0.4)84.9(±0.4)
✓x84.7(±0.6)81.9(±0.7)89.5(±0.5)84.4(±0.7)77.3(±0.6)76.2(±0.7)85.2(±0.3)84.8(±0.2)
x✓84.6(±0.8)81.8(±0.8)89.4(±0.4)84.4(±0.8)77.2(±0.6)76.3(±0.6)85.2(±0.5)84.7(±0.5)
xx84.1(±0.8)81.1(±0.8)89.3(±0.6)84.1(±0.8)77.2(±0.9)76.3(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.6(±0.3)
", + "image_path": "e1f6baf567edda60b82eccd93fac6ae59f3c0108c198f0ec40f303a97cd7e52f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 525, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study results. The first row is equivalent to our final SIR-ABSC model and the last row is equivalent to our baseline SIR-ABSC model using increasing heuristic-VDC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 343, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 343, + 291, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 343, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Consistency with general GNNs SIR-ABSC is inspired by how GNNs gradually aggregate information from nodes that are more and more distant in their upper layers. As mentioned in section 3, increasing VDC hyperparameters can be used to mimic this behavior. As mentioned above, Table 2 summarizes experiments conducted on three different types of VDCs: increasing (e.g., [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3]), constant (e.g., [2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2]), and decreasing (e.g., [3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1,0,0,0])." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 492, + 291, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 492, + 291, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 492, + 291, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the table, we can observe the followings. First, the VDC hyperparameter is crucial for SIR-ABSC's performance, verifying [g]'s effectiveness. Also, it can be seen that SIR-ABSC has the highest performance with increasing VDCs (i.e. when it is most similar to typical GNNs), and the lowest performance with decreasing VDCs (i.e. when it is the least similar to GNNs). More detailed experiment results are provided in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue? Existing (PLM+GNN) models in ABSC work in an asynchronous fashion (i.e., one after the other), which results in a weak interaction between the semantic and syntactic information (Tang et al., 2020). SIR-ABSC, on the other hand, is a fully-integrated model where [s] (=semantic aggregator) and [g] (=syntactic aggregator) interact with each other in every layer. To verify the strength of this fully-integrated characteristic, we conducted an ablation study (Table 4) where we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "intentionally block the attention masks between [s] and [g] in every layer. Consequently, the [s] and [g] tokens cannot attend to each other during the self-attention layers, weakening their interaction. By comparing SIR-ABSC with Table 4 Variant 1 (w/o s " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftrightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " g interaction), we can observe that the drop in performance is considerable, verifying our hypothesis that more integrated models can alleviate the suboptimal interaction issue and yield more significant performance improvements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How does SIR-ABSC alleviate the suboptimal aggregation issue? We conducted an ablation study to verify the effectiveness of DAA and AutoVDC, and the results are summarized in Table 3. From the table, we can observe that each method improves the performance over our baseline model (using increasing heuristic-VDC), and both applied together further enhances the performance. These results verify that SIR-ABSC can effectively utilize the dependency labels and learns to identify and focus on specific distances based on the input, alleviating the suboptimal aggregation issue. We also include two case studies, Figures 3 and 4, for qualitative analysis. In Figure 3, SIR-ABSC's [g] focuses on the target aspect (\"touchscreen functions\") in the early layers and then gradually captures the key phrase \"did not enjoy\" in the later layers, showing some consistency with increasing heuristic-VDC results. Also, from Figure 4 we can see that SIR-ABSC learns to focus more on VDCs of 0,1, and 2 and less on 3 (see Figure 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8542" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 89, + 148, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 89, + 148, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 89, + 148, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VDC=0 tokens: [resolution]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 102, + 174, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 102, + 174, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 102, + 174, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VDC=1 tokens: [has, higher, resolution]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 116, + 204, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 116, + 204, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 116, + 204, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VDC=2 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, are]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 130, + 233, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 130, + 233, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 130, + 233, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VDC=3 tokens: [air, has, higher, resolution, but, fonts, are, small]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 312, + 158 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 312, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 312, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 312, + 158 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "df97b3161ec38e3df40df22f1b0d40f0dfc178021419409dcbaafe0769309406.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 159, + 311, + 168 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 159, + 311, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 159, + 311, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Learned Auto-VDC weights" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 158, + 217, + 168 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 158, + 217, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 158, + 217, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Different VDCs and their corresponding tokens" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 68, + 514, + 156 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 68, + 514, + 156 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 68, + 514, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 68, + 514, + 156 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f6f9e5445d2d515b67a36df82f86a293d66e0b3dd77c1d06e7313e23f076ff36.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 159, + 448, + 168 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 159, + 448, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 159, + 448, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) [g] token's attention scores" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 526, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 526, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 179, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: A case study on the effect of the Auto-VDC mechanism. Target aspect is \"resolution\". Auto-VDC learns to focus more on the key distances (VDCs of 1 and 2) and less on the redundant distance (VDC of 3). As a result, the model successfully focuses on the key phrase \"has higher resolution\" at the last layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 227, + 523, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 227, + 523, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 227, + 523, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 227, + 523, + 301 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
[g] tokenLap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC85.0(±0.8)82.1(±0.9)89.7(±0.6)84.8(±0.9)77.5(±0.6)76.4(±0.6)85.2(±0.4)84.8(±0.4)
Variants
1. w/o s ↔ g interaction84.2(±0.8)81.5(±0.9)89.3(±0.4)84.1(±0.6)77.2(±0.9)76.1(±0.9)85.0(±0.3)84.5(±0.3)
2. [g] init. = aspect embed.84.7(±0.8)81.6(±0.7)89.3(±0.6)84.3(±0.6)77.2(±0.8)76.0(±0.9)85.0(±0.4)84.6(±0.4)
3. SIR-ABSC-[g] (Appendix F)83.5(±0.6)80.5(±0.6)88.3(±0.4)82.9(±0.4)75.6(±0.8)74.3(±0.8)84.6(±0.3)84.2(±0.3)
", + "image_path": "a52a1fc9ba45a18d1c5eec79ace26a267c6d245ebdd6406ce65f46dce630bf68.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 524, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 524, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 524, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Empirical results on the fully-integratedness and the inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token embedding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "b) where VDC=3 tokens are indeed redundant (includes \"fonts are small\" where the target is \"resolution\"), verifying that SIR-ABSC can capture important distances based on the input. We provide more detailed ablation and case study results in Appendix D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inherent strength of the pre-trained [s] token as an aggregator There seems to be an inherent advantage in using the pre-trained embedding of the [s] token also for [g]. Table 4 (Variant 2) compares SIR-ABSC (in which the dictionary embedding of [g] is initialized with [s]'s embedding), with a variant in which we use the actual aspect word's dictionary embeddings as the [g] embedding (if the aspect consists of several words, we average their embeddings). Initializing [g] with the [s] embedding yields better performance, perhaps because the [s] embedding is better suited to aggregate information than the embeddings of other tokens, providing a better starting point for a sequence element that is also intended to aggregate information (albeit of a slightly different nature). Erase later: (Chen et al., 2020), (Chen et al., 2022), (Niu et al., 2022), (Wang et al., 2020), (Xiao et al., 2022), (Zhao et al., 2022), (Liang et al., 2022b), (Veyseh et al., 2020), (Dai et al., 2021), (Feng et al., 2022b), (Mei et al., 2023), (Xiao et al., 2021), (Liang et al., 2022a), (Yuan et al., 2022), (Zhong et al., 2023)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 381, + 356 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 381, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 381, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 364, + 526, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 364, + 526, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 364, + 526, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper has proposed a novel framework, SIR-ABSC, that effectively incorporates syntactic information directly into a pre-trained large language model (PLM) such as RoBERTa for tasks like Aspect-Based Sentiment Classification (ABSC), in which the desired output depends on specific words in the input, and where syntactic distance to the relevant input words may be important. In contrast to prior work, where a separate GNN was added to the output of the PLM, in our model, attention masks for new [g] token capture syntactic information, and a new hyper-parameter, named variable distance control (VDC), captures graph structure in a similar fashion. Dependency-aware aggregation (DAA) mechanism allows SIR-ABSC to use the dependency labels effectively, and finally, the Auto-VDC mechanism learns a mixture of multiple distances, allowing the model to identify and focus on important syntactic distances for a given input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 526, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, SIR-ABSC is the first model to incorporate syntactic knowledge into RoBERTa for ABSC without resorting to GNNs. Experiments show we achieve state-of-the-art performance in SemEval-2014 task 4. This demonstrates the efficiency of our approach and suggests a new paradigm for augmenting PLM with syntax." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 725, + 365, + 738 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 725, + 365, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 725, + 365, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we summarize the limitations of our model that can be improved in the future. First, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8543" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "did not explore various types of dependency parsers as mentioned in Section 4, which could result in different performances. Similarly, we did not examine how accurate the parser we used was and how much performance difference it could make, as mentioned in Section 4. Second, we did not consider other types of syntactic information besides dependency trees, such as phrase dependency graphs, which could also be effective for ABSC. Lastly, our method might be limited to single-sentence items. Although we inserted a dummy root node to merge multiple dependency graphs within a single input sentence, our model does not achieve state-of-the-art results on the Twitter dataset, which consists primarily of multi-sentence items. Therefore, it would be crucial to investigate more effective methods for merging multiple dependency graphs in a given input sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 338, + 127, + 351 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 338, + 127, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 338, + 127, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 291, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiangang Bai, Yujing Wang, Yiren Chen, Yaming Yang, Jing Bai, Jing Yu, and Yunhai Tong. 2021. Syntax-BERT: Improving pre-trained transformers with syntax trees. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 3011-3020, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 445, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 445, + 291, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 445, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuefeng Bai, Pengbo Liu, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Investigating typed syntactic dependencies for targeted sentiment classification using graph attention neural network. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:503-514." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 510, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 510, + 291, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 510, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, Zhongqing Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2022. Discrete opinion tree induction for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2051-2064." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenhua Chen, Zhiyang Teng, and Yue Zhang. 2020. Inducing target-specific latent structures for aspect sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 5596-5607." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junqi Dai, Hang Yan, Tianxiang Sun, Pengfei Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2021. Does syntax matter? a strong baseline for aspect-based sentiment analysis with RoBERTa. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1816-1829, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hai Ha Do, PWC Prasad, Angelika Maag, and Abeer Alsadoon. 2019. Deep learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis: A comparative review. Expert Systems with Applications, 118:272-299." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 159, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 159, + 526, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 159, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li Dong, Furu Wei, Chuanqi Tan, Duyu Tang, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2014. Adaptive recursive neural network for target-dependent Twitter sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 49-54, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 526, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timothy Dozat and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Deep bioaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01734." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 526, + 357 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 526, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 526, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rotem Dror, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Reichart. 2019. Deep dominance-how to properly compare deep neural models. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2773-2785." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 526, + 422 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 526, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 526, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022a. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 487 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ao Feng, Xuelei Zhang, and Xinyu Song. 2022b. Unrestricted attention may not be all you need-masked attention mechanism focuses better on relevant parts in aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access, 10:8518-8528." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 498, + 526, + 554 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 498, + 526, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 498, + 526, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaochen Hou, Peng Qi, Guangtao Wang, Rex Ying, Jing Huang, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. Graph ensemble learning over multiple dependency trees for aspect-level sentiment classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11794." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qingnan Jiang, Lei Chen, Ruifeng Xu, Xiang Ao, and Min Yang. 2019. A challenge dataset and effective models for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6280-6285, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 728 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with BERT. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8544" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Li, Lidong Bing, Wenxuan Zhang, and Wai Lam. 2019. Exploiting BERT for end-to-end aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00883." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 128, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 128, + 289, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 128, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022a. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 289, + 248 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 289, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 289, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin Liang, Hang Su, Lin Gui, Erik Cambria, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge enhanced graph convolutional networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 235:107643." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 289, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhibin Lu, Pan Du, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2020. VGCN-BERT: augmenting BERT with graph embedding for text classification. Advances in Information Retrieval, 12035:369." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 438 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoyong Mei, Yougen Zhou, Chenjing Zhu, Mengting Wu, Ming Li, and Shirui Pan. 2023. A disentangled linguistic graph model for explainable aspect-based sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 260:110150." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 451, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 451, + 289, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 451, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Niu, Yun Xiong, Jian Gao, Zhongchen Miao, Xiaosu Wang, Hongrun Ren, Yao Zhang, and Yangyong Zhu. 2022. Composition-based heterogeneous graph multi-channel attention network for multi-aspect multi-sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6827-6836." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 594 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minh Hieu Phan and Philip O Ogunbona. 2020. Modelling context and syntactical features for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3211-3220." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 607, + 289, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 607, + 289, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 607, + 289, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Tang, Donghong Ji, Chenliang Li, and Qiji Zhou. 2020. Dependency graph enhanced dual-transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6578-6588, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Komang Wahyu Trisna and Huang Jin Jie. 2022. Deep learning approach for aspect-based sentiment classification: A comparative review. Applied Artificial Intelligence, pages 1-37." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. ArXiv, abs/1706.03762." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 524, + 242 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 524, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 524, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Nasim Nour, Franck Dernoncourt, Quan Hung Tran, Dejing Dou, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2020. Improving aspect-based sentiment analysis with gated graph convolutional networks and syntax-based regulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.13389." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kai Wang, Weizhou Shen, Yunyi Yang, Xiaojun Quan, and Rui Wang. 2020. Relational graph attention network for aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12362." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 304, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 304, + 524, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 304, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Luwei Xiao, Yun Xue, Hua Wang, Xiaohui Hu, Donghong Gu, and Yongsheng Zhu. 2022. Exploring fine-grained syntactic information for aspect-based sentiment classification with dual graph neural networks. Neurocomputing, 471:48-59." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 368, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 368, + 524, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 368, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zeguan Xiao, Jiarun Wu, Qingliang Chen, and Congjian Deng. 2021. BERT4GCN: Using BERT intermediate layers to augment GCN for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9193-9200, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qiannan Xu, Li Zhu, Tao Dai, and Chengbing Yan. 2020. Aspect-based sentiment classification with multi-attention network. Neurocomputing, 388:135-143." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 515, + 524, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 515, + 524, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 515, + 524, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li Yuan, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2022. syntactic graph attention network for aspect-level sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 524, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 524, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 524, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biqing Zeng, Heng Yang, Ruyang Xu, Wu Zhou, and Xuli Han. 2019. Lcf: A local context focus mechanism for aspect-based sentiment classification. Applied Sciences, 9(16):3389." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 524, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 524, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 524, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chen Zhang, Qiuchi Li, and Dawei Song. 2019. Aspect-based sentiment classification with aspect-specific graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4568-4578, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziguo Zhao, Mingwei Tang, Wei Tang, Chunhao Wang, and Xiaoliang Chen. 2022. Graph convolutional network with multiple weight mechanisms for aspect-based sentiment analysis. Neurocomputing, 500:124-134." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8545" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Juhua Liu, Bo Du, Hua Jin, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. Knowledge graph augmented network towards multiview representation learning for aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 422, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 422, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 422, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Details on datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 527, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 527, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 527, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model SIR-ABSC is evaluated on four different datasets from SemEval-2014 Task 4, Twitter, and MAMS datasets. Table 5 shows the statistics of the datasets. Table 6 shows the percentage of multiple sentences per item and the average number of sentences per item on each dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 181, + 529, + 258 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 181, + 529, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 181, + 529, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 181, + 529, + 258 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTrainTestVal
Restaurant (SemEval-2014)36081120-
Laptop (SemEval-2014)2328638-
Twitter6248692-
MAMS-ATSA1118613361332
", + "image_path": "9ac5229c8692ec09ba8c281a4bc8287a811839f9448fe36b4b0a92c57f89684f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 298, + 523, + 396 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 265, + 468, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 265, + 468, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 265, + 468, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Dataset Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 298, + 523, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 298, + 523, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 298, + 523, + 396 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetsDistributionTrainTestVal
Lap14% of multiple sent./item7.867.84-
Avg. sent./item1.091.09-
Res14% of multiple sent./item4.024.38-
Avg. number of sent./item1.041.05-
Twitter% of multiple sent./item59.4460.55-
Avg. number of sent./item1.991.96-
MAMS-ATSA% of multiple sent./item2.120.820.60
Avg. number of sent./item1.021.011.01
", + "image_path": "a6e188ffda5fbe794508dabaa16df616af08cc9496d94ae71c39f1e107ab61be.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 428 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Prevalence of multi-sentence items in the ABSC datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 450, + 498, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 450, + 498, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 450, + 498, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Comparing different pooler types" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 527, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 527, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 527, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The [s] and [g] token outputs are combined after the last layer of SIR-ABSC encoders as described in Section 3. We conduct experiments on three different types of poolers for combining [s] and [g] token embeddings at the final layer: average, max, and attention pooling. Table 7 summarizes the results of using different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. The result shows that attention pooling shows better results in general." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 499, + 630 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 499, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 499, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Detailed variable distance control results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our variable distance control (VDC) is a unique hyper-parameter which consists of 12 non-negative integers, where each integer represents the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th layer. Theoretically there are exponentially many possible values for VDC but we use three representative types: increasing, constant, and decreasing VDCs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We heuristically chose specific values for each type of VDCs and the detailed results are summarized in Table 8. The table shows that SIR-ABSC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8546" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 291, + 145 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 291, + 145 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 291, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 291, + 145 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Pooler typesLap14Rest14Twitter
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
SIR-ABSC
w/ max pooling83.280.088.783.374.873.7
w/ avg pooling83.880.688.883.576.575.5
w/ att pooling84.181.189.384.177.276.3
", + "image_path": "fb110b03226096e587ee6ff9120406a0852a60d4c9dfdfef153c42c35787e09e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 291, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 291, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 291, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Comparing different pooler types for SIR-ABSC. We used VDC = [0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3] with the default full-interaction for the experiment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "has the highest performance with increasing VDCs. Increasing VDCs are designed to work as the most similar to the typical GNN by aggregating information from the closest nodes to farther nodes based on the target aspect. On the other hand, decreasing VDCs has the lowest performance where the decreasing VDCs are designed to work as least similar to a GNN in the opposite order (i.e., aggregating information from farther nodes to closer nodes based on the target aspect). From these results, we can conclude that SIR-ABSC successfully imitates the typical GNN mechanism through increasing VDC configuration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 426 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Detailed ablation and case study results on DAA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide a more detailed ablation and case study results regarding DAA in Table 9 and Figure 5. We experiment two additional variants of the proposed DAA mechanism: DAA (w/o edge label) and DAA (w/o edge direction), to verify the effectiveness of different kinds of syntactic information. Specifically, DAA (w/o edge direction) ignores the direction of the edges and assign the embeddings solely based on the dependency label. DAA (w/o edge label) ignores the edge labels (e.g., nsubj) and assign the embeddings solely based on the edge direction. By comparing #1 and #2 from Table 9, we can observe that employing the VDC mechanism with the [g] token to replace GNNs leads to significant improvement in performance (average accuracy gain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.475\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and average f1-score gain of 1.775). By further supplementing the model with missing information, such as edge direction and edge label information, DAA yields additional average gains of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on accuracy and 0.275 on f1-score over [RoBERTa+VDC] (#2 vs #5). The DAA ablation results (#3 and #4) show that the performance decreases for both DAA (w/o edge direction) and DAA (w/o edge label), indicating their importance in DAA performance. Consistent with our intuition," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "we can observe that the edge label information is relatively more important than edge direction information in DAA. Another interesting finding is that DAA is more effective on BERT than RoBERTa. We speculate that this is because RoBERTa already utilizes the information contained in the dependency edge label to some extent, which is probably one of the reasons why RoBERTa shows better overall baseline performance than BERT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, we incorporate two case studies to illustrate the effectiveness of DAA in Figure 5. From the above examples, we can observe that the attention scores of words (pretentious, and, inappropriate) and (anywhere, else) get much higher when DAA is applied. Our speculation is that this occurs because DAA learns the significance of \"advcl\" and \"advmod\" labels, resulting in high attention scores being assigned to expressions such as (pretentious " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\xrightarrow{advcl}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " claim, be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\xrightarrow{advmod}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " else, and else " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\xrightarrow{advcl}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " anywhere) thereby leading to correct predictions. This is also consistent with our intuition since adverbial modifiers are related to adjectives which is highly likely to be important for deciding the sentiment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 396, + 413, + 409 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 396, + 413, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 396, + 413, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Significance tests" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following the proposed significance test designed for comparing deep learning models from (Dror et al., 2019), we ran their official code with our SIR-ABSC and the baseline models. Specifically, we compared (1) SIR-ABSC with RoBERTa-baseline and (2) SIR-ABSC (BERT) with BERT-baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This test takes three components (results from method A, results from method B, and a confidence level) as input, and the purpose of this test is to answer the question: \"Is A almost stochastically greater than B?\" This test is based on the relatively new concept of \"Almost Stochastic Order\" which is a relaxed version of \"Stochastic Order\". The test outputs a minimum " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value where the result is interpreted as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 631, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 631, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 631, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 631, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 631, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon > 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 631, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": We can't say A is almost stochastically greater than B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 668, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 668, + 525, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 668, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 668, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon \\leq 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 668, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": We can say A is almost stochastically greater than B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": We can say A is \"stochastically greater\" than B not just \"almost stochastically greater\" which is the best result we can get in this test. Mathematically meaning " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\inf \\{x : t \\leq F(x)\\} \\geq \\inf \\{x : t \\leq G(x)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\forall t \\in (0,1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8547" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9717f30442519daf166f444925516b72984ef9707edc0e496024dfcf9e9593ce.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 520, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 520, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 520, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 520, + 179 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Sentiment: Neutral 0.01 1.84 0.39 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.40 X X 0.2 1.58 2.22 5.21 13.65 14.76 17.82 32.86 3.71
Sentiment: Negative 0.22 6.14 0.39 5.56 1.50 5.07 2.44 X X 6.20 5.90 7.73 10.67 23.74 8.58 1.65 9.28 0.08
", + "image_path": "da030f4e76918f52fe469c4c52837b9fe4ec9af44b135f5bbcda3f9f2bf57394.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 190, + 467, + 268 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 190, + 467, + 268 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 190, + 467, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 190, + 467, + 268 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3dbb04b91f661b52e54b179c934caf6cbbceb483c4a4131fa5fc3675d896d18a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 524, + 384 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 524, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Two case studies employing DAA. The targets (diners, prices) are marked in bold. The first and second rows below the sentence depict the attention scores of the [g] token without and with DAA, respectively. Attention scores that increase more than ten-fold when DAA is applied are also marked in bold. In these examples, DAA enables the [g] token to place greater emphasis on critical sentiment words like \"pretentious,\" \"inappropriate,\" \"anywhere,\" and \"else,\" which contributes to accurate predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 123, + 274, + 470, + 299 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 274, + 470, + 299 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 274, + 470, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 274, + 470, + 299 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Prediction:Negative0.234.500.130.3212.803.2014.418.877.1026.66
Prediction:Positive0.499.404.015.569.084.4413.3811.0715.4410.59
", + "image_path": "3e2dd078883bad3a631bc5539fc00e308682ffd1f0adf60f6efd1aafe89a2e74.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 405, + 290, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the (empirical) CDFs of A and B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 258, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 258, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 258, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please refer to the paper for further details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Applying the test on our models with a confidence level " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(1 - \\alpha)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of 0.99 (in other words, significance level " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\alpha)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of 0.01), both tests (1) and (2) resulted in minimum " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values of 0. This indicates that SIR-ABSC and SIR-ABSC (BERT) are stochastically greater than RoBERTa-baseline and BERT-baseline with a confidence level of 0.99, respectively, verifying the superiority of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Additional analysis: does [g] need to be a separate token?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now compare SIR-ABSC to a variant that does not use a [g] token, but instead uses the target tokens at the end of the input sequence (recall that the input sequence has the form of '[s] sentence [/s] [/s] aspect sequence [/s]). We call this the SIR-ABSC-[g] variant. As Table 4 shows, the loss in performance is considerable compared to using an independent [g] token as in the original SIR-ABSC. We speculate the drop in performance is due to the original input sentence getting corrupted when we modify the aspect token's attention mask. This indicates the importance of using an additional" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 524, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 524, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 524, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and independent [g] token for the GNN role as in SIR-ABSC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 470, + 455 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 470, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 470, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G SIR-ABSC (BERT) results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 526, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We chose RoBERTa as our baseline PLM due to its better overall performance in ABSC tasks (Dai et al., 2021). However, to verify the generality of our method, we also conducted experiments on SIR-ABSC (BERT) which uses BERT instead of RoBERTa. The results are summarized in Table 10. We can see that our method is effective on BERT as well and the significance test results in \"stochastic greatness\" under significance level of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha = 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", verifying the general effectiveness. The amount of improvement in performance could differ depending on the PLM and we can notice that the amount of enhancement when using RoBERTa (+1.93 on average) is relatively larger than when applied to BERT (+1.60 on average)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8548" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 164, + 530, + 629 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 164, + 530, + 629 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 164, + 530, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 164, + 530, + 629 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Variable Distance Control (VDC)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
GoBERTA (Position Distance)
• Decreasing-VDC83.480.488.583.276.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.380.288.282.776.074.884.784.2
• VDC = [333222111000]82.078.888.482.876.575.384.784.3
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.488.483.175.674.484.784.2
• VDC = [554433221100]83.179.988.583.275.273.784.684.2
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.087.882.076.074.884.784.2
• Constant-VDC83.780.788.683.376.475.484.984.4
• Increasing-VDC83.780.588.683.276.976.084.884.4
• VDC = [000011112222]83.580.387.882.176.976.084.784.3
• VDC = [000111222333]83.580.588.583.275.574.484.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.680.487.982.275.774.484.884.4
• VDC = [001122334455]83.380.388.683.176.174.984.884.4
• VDC = [000222444666]83.780.588.382.576.675.884.784.2
GoBERTA (Dependency Graph)
• Decreasing-VDC83.780.688.282.876.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [222211110000]83.580.488.182.775.474.284.784.3
• VDC = [333222111000]82.679.687.181.176.175.184.584.0
• VDC = [444422220000]83.480.587.982.276.575.484.884.3
• VDC = [554433221100]83.880.888.282.975.374.284.684.1
• VDC = [666444222000]83.280.088.282.775.674.384.584.0
• Constant-VDC83.780.488.983.776.475.285.084.5
• Increasing-VDC83.880.889.183.877.175.985.084.6
• VDC = [000011112222]84.181.188.382.877.276.384.684.2
• VDC = [000111222333]83.880.889.183.876.775.584.784.3
• VDC = [000022224444]83.580.588.983.575.774.684.884.3
• VDC = [001122334455]83.280.289.384.174.775.985.084.6
• VDC = [000222444666]82.579.488.983.876.975.984.884.5
", + "image_path": "987a4f5df696bfc0b23ab8c2ed64a0e915051e5b98f987e7a4872c1a1dc7aa8c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Detailed experimental results on the effect of VDC. The results show that S1R-ABSC generally shows better performance in the order of decreasing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " fixed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increasing VDCs. This result matches our intuition of [g] token imitating GNN as described in Section 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8549" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 157, + 523, + 377 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 157, + 523, + 377 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 157, + 523, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 157, + 523, + 377 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Ablations (Validation)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMS
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
1. SIR-ABSC (RoBERTa)
#1: RoBERTa baseline82.178.987.681.775.674.584.483.9
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC84.181.189.384.177.276.385.084.6
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)84.281.389.384.377.276.084.884.3
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)84.481.589.484.377.376.584.984.4
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)84.681.889.484.477.276.385.284.7
#6 (SIR-ABSC): #5+Auto-VDC85.082.189.784.877.576.485.484.9
2. SIR-ABSC (BERT)
#1: BERT baseline79.275.185.879.376.474.884.082.7
#2: #1+[g] token+VDC80.877.186.780.677.175.984.383.1
#3 (DAA Ablation #1): #2+DAA (w/o edge label)81.177.586.980.977.275.984.383.2
#4 (DAA Ablation #2): #2+DAA (w/o edge direction)81.678.287.081.177.476.184.483.5
#5 (DAA Ablation #3): #2+DAA (proposed)81.878.687.081.277.676.484.583.5
#6 (SIR-ABSC (BERT)): #5+Auto-VDC82.279.187.381.677.776.684.783.6
", + "image_path": "d0d502d6b5d90c0be03ebe1b455c7d5b44665945b7715462309a6fba5e305397.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 582, + 524, + 636 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 385, + 380, + 397 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 385, + 380, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 385, + 380, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: A detailed ablation study results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 582, + 524, + 636 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 582, + 524, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 582, + 524, + 636 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SIR-ABSC (BERT)Lap14Rest14TwitterMAMs
Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1Acc.F1
BERT baseline79.2(±0.6)75.1(±0.5)85.8(±0.7)79.3(±0.7)76.4(±0.7)74.8(±07)84.0(±0.3)82.7(±0.4)
SIR-ABSC (BERT)82.2(±0.4)79.1(±0.4)87.3(±0.7)81.6(±0.8)77.7(±0.8)76.6(±0.7)84.6(±0.4)83.3(±0.5)
", + "image_path": "cbd43c40c1f514ccfc31586f3026e305c53ef882d6c2fe480da2063459db30e3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 525, + 681 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 525, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Empirical results on using BERT as the PLM. Note that our technique is effective on BERT as well (significance test resulting in \"stochastic greatness\") showing comparable results with BERT-based state-of-the-art results. However, the improvement is generally less than when applied to RoBERTa." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8550" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_content_list.json b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..053c7dd0cda509f0d184cca27e1a95d5516a6d09 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1440 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQLPrompt: In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 154, + 89, + 842, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ruoxi Sun $^{1}$ , Sercan Ö. Arik $^{1}$ , Rajarishi Sinha $^{1}$ , Hootan Nakhost $^{1}$ , Hanjun Dai $^{2}$ , Pengcheng Yin $^{2}$ , Tomas Pfister $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 130, + 786, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Cloud AI Research Team", + "bbox": [ + 393, + 166, + 610, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Google DeepMind", + "bbox": [ + 418, + 181, + 583, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{ruoixis, soarik, sinharaj, hootan, hadai, pcyin, tpfister }@google.com", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 199, + 855, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text-to-SQL aims to automate the process of generating SQL queries on a database from natural language text. In this work, we propose \"SQLPrompt\", tailored to improve the few-shot prompting capabilities of Text-to-SQL for Large Language Models (LLMs). Our methods include innovative prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding strategy which selects the SQL with the most consistent execution outcome among other SQL proposals, and a method that aims to improve performance by diversifying the SQL proposals during consistency selection with different prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") and foundation models (\"MixLLMs\"). We show that SQL-Prompt outperforms previous approaches for in-context learning with zero labeled data by a large margin, closing the gap with finetuning state-of-the-art with thousands of labeled data.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 563, + 260, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text-to-SQL enables natural language interfaces for databases via SQL query generation. It is crucial for enhancing database accessibility without SQL expertise, and enabling the development of conversational agents with data analysis ability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 589, + 489, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language models (LM) have shown to be promising for Text-to-SQL. Notable previous work on finetuning, including PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), UnifiedSKG (Xie et al., 2022), and RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL(Li et al., 2023), achieve impressive results by leveraging customized SQL-specific syntax knowledge and training on a large number of (text, SQL) paired data samples. Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and ChatGPT $^{1}$ (Stiennon et al., 2020) have demonstrated promising few-shot abilities via prompting(Wei et al., 2022). By only providing a few demonstrations in the prompt, LLMs are able", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 670, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to follow the demonstrations and generate reasonable answers (\"in-context learning\"). For Text-to-SQL, few-shot prompting is beneficial as it does not require expensive training, lowers adaptation data requirements, reduces out-of-distribution issues (e.g. for unseen phrases), and reduces the risk of over-fitting and poor generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we introduce \"SQLPrompt\", a few-shot prompting approach for Text-to-SQL. The approach is comprised of execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering, \"MixPrompt\" and \"MixLLMs\" to enhance diversity of SQL proposals. In few-shot prompting, self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2022), which samples a diverse set of reasoning paths and selects the most consistent answer, has shown remarkable performance improvements across different tasks. Here we propose a novel variant of consistency decoding for Text-to-SQL, \"execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering\". The proposed decoding is tailored to be SQL-execution specific - we marginalize over SQLs, and conduct majority vote on execution outcome, whereas the original self consistency approach marginalizes over chain-of-thought thinking path, and conduct majority vote on the final answer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 365, + 884, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, the improvement brought by self-consistency' decoding using the same prompt and same LLMs saturate beyond a certain number of samples. Because the diversity of SQL candidates are limited with the same prompt and same LLM. Here we propose employing diverse prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") and LLMs (\"MixLLMs\") to obtain more diverse LLM outputs. \"MixPrompt\" applies different prompt designs, which changes the interface of query and LLMs, leading to more diverse LLM's outputSQLs.\"MixLLMs\" holds the assumption that different LLMs pretrained on diverse set of knowledge, can yield different outcomes. Finally, the answer is the consistent answer across different prompt designs and LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 884, + 912 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "'https://chat.openai.com/chat.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 361, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "542", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 542-550 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 225, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Problem setup for Text-to-SQL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 405, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let $q$ be natural language query and $D_q$ be the database information. Text-to-SQL task is to convert query $q$ into SQL. The database $D_q = \\{S, K_p, K_f\\}$ includes database schema $S$ , primary keys $K_p$ , and foreign keys $K_f$ . $S$ usually contains multiple tables $T_t$ : $S = \\{T_1, T_2, \\ldots, T_t\\ldots\\}$ . Each table $T_t$ has table name $N_t$ , column names $c_j$ and column data types $t_j$ : $T_t = \\{N_t, (c_{t1}, t_{t1}), (c_{t2}, t_{t2}), (c_{tj}, t_{tj})\\ldots\\}$ . Primary keys $K_p$ uniquely identifying rows of each table, and foreign keys $K_f$ join multiple tables.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 130, + 489, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Prompt design: database schema and content and primary/foreign keys", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 318, + 453, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The prompt should include all necessary information needed for humans to generate SQL. The prompt is comprised of database schema, primary and foreign keys, and the database content. We reflect database content (entry values) as proposed in (Lin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), where only values that are relevant to the question are included (refer to Appendix A for more discussion). Furthermore, we present the above information in different formats, with the goal of making them different from each other to encourage diverse outputs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 356, + 489, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Concise prompts we linearize information in a table as \"Table1 name: column name 1, column name 2 (relevant database content) | Table2 name: column1 ...\" (Figure 1, Concise. Full example in Appendix B.1). This way describes table structure clearly, but can be less straightforward for LLMs to understand the syntax. Verbose prompts we describe databases with human understandable words and emphasize on the information LLMs need to know: e.g. \"Table \"CarNames\" contains three columns. The column names and their types are : MakeID (number), Model (string) ..\"; \"Foreign keys are .. Use foreign keys to join Tables\". See Appendix B.2 for an example.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 489, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Refinement based on execution-based consistency with MixPrompt and MixLLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 453, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use few-shot prompting with execution-based consistency decoding and error filtering. We apply various prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") to encourage LLMs to generate diverse SQL outputs Suppose $F = \\{f_{1},f_{2},\\ldots \\}$ is a collection of prompt", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "design functions, e.g. $f_{1}$ is verbose, $f_{2}$ is concise. When we fix the LLMs, we have MixPrompt with the following prediction objectives:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (s q l | \\mathrm {L L M}, q) = \\sum_ {f} p (s q l | \\mathrm {L L M}, f, q) p (f), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 140, + 880, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $p(f)$ is mixing coefficient. We evenly mix the prompts, hence, $p(f) = 1 / nF$ , where $nF$ is the number of design functions. $p(sq|\\mathrm{LLM},f,q)$ is the sampling probability of generating sqI.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 882, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [ + "Algorithm 1: Refinement based on execution and consistency with MixPrompt" + ], + "code_body": "Data:Require:Query questions $Q_{test}$ ;Database $D_{test}$ ; Prompt design function collections $F$ B is consistency sample numbers \nResult:SQL output of test set: SQL-test \nwhile $q$ in $Q_{test}$ do \n $D_q\\gets D_{test}[q]$ while $f$ in $F$ do \nPrompt $\\mathbf{\\Phi}_{qf}\\leftarrow f(q_i,D_q)$ eq (2) $\\mathbf{M} = []$ . $\\mathrm{O} = []$ while $b$ in $B$ do $\\begin{array}{rlr}{\\sf s q l_{q f b}} & \\sim & {\\sf L L M(P r o m p t_{q f})} \\end{array}$ eq (3) $O_{qfb} = \\text{Exec}(s q l_{qfb},D_q)$ if \"error\" NOT in $O_{q}$ then $\\begin{array}{c}{M\\leftarrow s q l_{qfb};}\\\\ {O\\leftarrow O_{qfb};} \\end{array}$ end \nend \n ${\\sf s q l_{select}} = \\{{\\sf s q l}_q:O_q = {\\sf Majorit y}(O),q\\in$ $M\\}$ eq (9) $\\mathrm{SQL}_{\\mathrm{test}}\\gets \\mathrm{sql}_{\\mathrm{select}}$ \nend", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 296, + 857, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MixPromt is overviewed in Fig 1. For each design function $f$ , we generate prompts using database $D_{q}$ and the query $q$ . The trained LLMs specify the distribution $\\ell : q \\to sql$ , where we can draw sample from:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 882, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f} = f (q, D _ {q}) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 593, + 693, + 880, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns q l _ {q f} \\underset {i. i. d} {\\sim} \\operatorname {L L M} \\left(\\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 594, + 714, + 880, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We sample $B$ times from the LLM with the same prompt Prompt $_q$ to get SQL collections by Eq 3:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 743, + 880, + 777 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nM _ {q f} = \\left\\{s q l _ {q f} ^ {1}, \\dots s q l _ {q f} ^ {b} \\right\\} _ {B} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 598, + 785, + 880, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then execute the generated SQLs using the engine Exec (i.e.sqlite3), which yields the outputs $O$ as the execution result of SQL on the provided database.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 813, + 884, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {q f} = \\left\\{O _ {q f} ^ {b}: O _ {q f} ^ {b} = _ {\\text {E x e c}} \\left(\\operatorname {s q l} _ {q f} ^ {b}, D _ {q}\\right), \\operatorname {s q l} _ {q} ^ {b} \\in M _ {q f} \\right\\} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 884, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "543", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a3888d64cec42b53f68fe24456cca9c0ea02f20b8c643dd691b20a6dd0c6bcc2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: SQLPrompt Overview: (Left) Prompt Design: Concise prompt design (up) and Verbose prompt design (down). (Right) MixPrompt in SQLPrompt generates multiple prompts using database and query question, to query LLMs. For each query, LLMs are sampled twice, and two SQLs are generated and executed on the database with errors filtered out. The execution outcomes of both prompt designs are combined to select the most consistent SQL. Without MixPrompt, the true answer cannot be selected with only one prompt (blue) due to a tie situation." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 191, + 83, + 816, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further exclude outputs $O_{qf}$ that yield errors and only keep the valid output, therefore, obtain final (SQL, outcome) pairs for prompt design $f\\colon R_{qf} = (M_{qf},O_{qf}) = \\{(M_{qf}^{b},O_{qf}^{b}): O_{qf}^{b}\\neq \\text{errors}\\}$ . We repeat the above process for each prompt design function $f$ and generate $R_{q} = \\{R_{q1},\\ldots R_{qf},\\ldots \\}_{nF}$ , by concatenating all the results across multiple designs and obtain:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 394, + 487, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nM _ {q} = \\left[ M _ {q 1}, \\dots , M _ {q f} \\dots , M _ {n F} \\right] \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 188, + 537, + 485, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nQ _ {q} = \\left[ O _ {q 1}, \\dots , O _ {q f} \\dots , O _ {n F} \\right] \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 556, + 485, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following self-consistency, we select the SQL outputs that give the execution outcome consisted with the majority of the execution outcomes $O_{q}$ generated by all $M_{q}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 586, + 489, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns q l _ {s e l e c t} = \\left\\{s q l _ {q} ^ {k}: O _ {q} ^ {k} = M a j o r i t y (O _ {q}) \\right. \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 661, + 485, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {q} ^ {k} \\in Q _ {q}, s q l _ {q} ^ {k} \\in M _ {q} \\}, \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 684, + 485, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $k$ is the index across multiple prompt design and consistency repeats. The overall process is described in Algorithm 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 714, + 487, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MixLLMs With the goal of increasing diversity of the SQL proposals in consistency decoding, we further expand our method to not only use one LLM, but rather a mixture of LLMs. The consistency samples include resource from different prompt designs and different LLMs:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 763, + 487, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (s q l | q) = \\sum_ {\\text {L L M}} \\sum_ {f} p (s q l | L L M, f, q) p (f) p (L L M) \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 495, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar to the combination idea in MixPrompt, \"MixLLM\" combines outputs across multiple LLMs, in addition to multiple prompt designs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 393, + 882, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We note that our method differs from generic Mixture of Expert (MoE) (Chen et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022) approaches as we instantiate MoE in few-shot prompting setup, where experts are various prompt designs. Moreover, rather than simple averaging, we combine results based on execution outcomes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 565, + 653, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tasks and datasets: We consider the cross-domain large-scale Text-to-SQL benchmark, Spider (Yu et al., 2018) that contains 7000 training samples across 166 databases and 1034 evaluation samples ('Dev split') across 20 databases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 589, + 882, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models: PaLM FLAN 540B is a PaLM model variant (Chowdhery et al., 2022) with 540 billion parameters fine-tuned on a collection of tasks phrased as instructions. FLAN (Chung et al., 2022) is a reference to the way of fine-tuning that reflects instructions being given in the prompt. PaLM62B is a PaLM variant with 62 billion parameters trained on 1.3T tokens following the (Hoffmann et al., 2022) PaLM FLAN 62B is FLAN fine-tuned variant. Quantization is applied to above models with qntz, that reduces the precision albeit increased inference efficiency.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fine-tuning baselines: PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) employs incremental parsing to constrain auto-regressive decoding. RASAT (Qi et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "544", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8be1b6113e157808e8487341e6150d3b915466650fb510165d1fe7e5286ac813.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsSPIDER
EXTS
Fine-tuningT5-3B + PICARD79.369.4
RASAT + PICARD80.570.3
RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL84.173.5
In-context learningGPT-3 ada (0-shot)2.30.3
GPT-3 babbage (0-shot)5.73.9
GPT-3 curie (0-shot)12.68.3
GPT-3 davinci (0-shot)26.321.7
Codex couchman (0-shot)63.753.0
Codex davinci (0-shot)67.055.1
ChatGPT (0-shot)70.160.1
SQLPrompt (0-shot)76.668.0
SQLPrompt (4-shot)77.168.6
", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 64, + 715, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/75712aba89f9d557b41f660013b3a00653562baccc74b9ec44348a8adcc450ff.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Performance on the Spider Dev set, measured in execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS). GPT3 and CodeX results are from (Rajkumar et al., 2022) and ChatGPT results are from (Liu et al., 2023).", + "Table 2: Ablation study on prompt design approaches in 0-shot setting. MixPrompt improves concise or verbose prompt design approaches with different LLMs. We only mark TS Acc. changes, not EX, because TS is more accurate evaluation." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz67.761.370.862.970.563.2 (↑ 0.3)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz72.364.171.661.374.065.5 (↑ 1.4)
Table 3: Ablation Study: Few-shots
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz65.959.671.863.874.766.6 (↑ 2.8)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz71.263.270.761.174.765.2 (↑ 2.0)
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 357, + 497, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2022) is a transformer model that integrates relation-aware self-attention and constrained autoregressive decoders. RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023) decouples schema linking and skeleton parsing using a ranking-enhanced encoding and skeleton-aware decoding framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 475, + 489, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-context learning baselines: (Rajkumar et al., 2022) comprehensively evaluate the Text-to-SQL ability of CodeX and GPT3, while (Liu et al., 2023) conduct a comprehensive evaluation on ChatGPT.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation: We consider two commonly-used evaluation metrics: execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS) (Zhong et al., 2020), where EX measures if SQL execution outcome matches ground truth. TS assesses each query by running multiple tests against randomly generated database with same schema (EX only evaluates on one test). So TS reduces false positives from EX and hence can be more precise. Exact match evaluation is not performed, as multiple correct SQLs exist for one query.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 644, + 489, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 213, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table-1 presents the comparison between SQLPrompt and the previous methods for in-context learning and fine-tuning. For in-context learning, SQLPrompt outperforms ChatGPT (with their rec", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a5ecf96ece90832ef4f9a2ea1d863c2414cdcaed527c2b99b5dfee5232368bdf.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Ablation Study of SQLPrompt (without Mix LLMs)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
EXTS
SQLPrompt (Prompt Design + Consistency + Execution Filtering +MixPrompt)70.563.2
No MixPrompt67.761.3 (↓ 1.9)
Only Schema (No primary, No foreignkeys, no DB content)66.457.3 (↓ 5.9)
No Consistency55.949.6 (↓ 13.6)
No Execution Filtering55.248.7 (↓ 14.5)
", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 319, + 847, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/60c48090404cec7329ce5ea280d11a1bc65de591afe2be15f8fd2321674daa8e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Ablation Study: SQLprompt with Mix LLMs" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Num of MixtureZero-shotsFew-shots
24616
EX7476.677.377.1
TS65.568.068.368.6
", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 455, + 823, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ommended prompts) by a large margin: $\\uparrow 7\\%$ for execution accuracy (EX) and $\\uparrow 8.1\\%$ for test suite accuracy (TS). Examples of SQL generated by SQLPrompt are provided in Table 7 in Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 882, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation study SQLPrompt consists of multiple components: prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding, MixPrompt, and MixLLMs. The effect of MixPrompt prompt is shown in Table 3, leading to $2\\%+$ improvement over single prompt. The effect of mixing LLMs is shown in Table 5, leading to additional $3\\%$ over single LLM in test suite accuracy (details description of mixLLMs are provided in Appendix F).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 586, + 884, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To shed light into the impact of these components, ablation studies are presented in Table 4. All listed components are observed to be useful, yielding $2 \\sim 15\\%$ improvements. Notably, without consistency decoding and keeping all others unchanged, the performance decreases by $13.6\\%$ ; that is it contributes by $13.6\\%$ ; Without \"execution error filtering\" and keeping other components unchanged, the results decrease by $14.5\\%$ . \"MixPrompt\" contributes by $2\\%$ and adding \"Primary Keys/Foreign Keys/DB content\" contributes by $5.9\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 732, + 884, + 909 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "545", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The limitation of this work is that the method queries multiple prompt designs and LLMs, that can be expensive and time consuming. Although combining multiple prompt designs and LLMs are promising to improve performance, future work can explore more efficient and effective ways to combine them to save cost.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 487, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 249, + 213, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 271, + 487, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Yue Wu, Quanquan Gu, and Yuanzhi Li. 2022. Towards understanding mixture of experts in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02813.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 360, + 489, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 423, + 489, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 499, + 489, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 574, + 489, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023. Decoupling the skeleton parsing and schema linking for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 663, + 487, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chat-gpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 815, + 489, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiexing Qi, Jingyao Tang, Ziwei He, Xiangpeng Wan, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Quanshi Zhang, and Zhouhan Lin. 2022. Rasat: Integrating relational", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 878, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "structures into pretrained seq2seq model for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.06983.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 85, + 882, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 122, + 884, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05093.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 185, + 884, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008-3021.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 247, + 882, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 323, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 425, + 882, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 487, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedsgk: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 564, + 882, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 652, + 882, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Quoc V Le, James Laudon, et al. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:7103-7114.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "546", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Text-to-SQL challenges and prompt design with primary/foreign keys and database content", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 473, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fig. 2 shows a Text-to-SQL example from Spider. Fig. 2 demonstrates the necessity of including primary and foreign keys, and content of database. The data schema contains multiple tables. Each table has multiple columns. Primary keys are the columns that uniquely identify a row in a table. Primary keys are important, as some columns might specifically be challenging and it might be beneficial to include them specifically as prompts, such as in Query 1 of Fig. 2 where \"t2.makeid\" may be mistakenly written as \"t2.id\" without proper emphasis. Foreign key is a column or combination of columns that is used to establish and enforce a link between the data in two tables. For example, in Fig 2, Column Maker of Table Model list is equivalent to Column ID of Car Maker. By including foreign keys into prompt, LLMs can know how to join different tables. Otherwise, it can be ambiguous to link multiple tables, especially for complex data schema or schema with confusing column names. For example, Column Maker in Table Model list is not the same as Column Maker in Table Car Maker. Although they both called column \"Maker\", one is number and the other is string. Instead due to foreign keys, we known Column Maker of Table Model List is equivalent to Column ID in Table Car maker. Additionally, including relevant database content value, as seen in (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), is necessary as they help identify which columns are relevant to key words in the query question, such as in Fig. 2, Query1's key information is \"amc honrnet sportabout (sw)\", however, without adding database content value, we do not know which columns contain the value of the key information. e.g. is it Column Maker of Table Model List? Is it Column Maker of Table Car Maker? or Is it Column Make of Table Car Names? Only by including database content values, LLM can know it should use The column of Make of Table Car Names. Note that the database content values are questions depended. Only content values that are related with questions is included into prompt. See Fig 3. Note not all the content values are included. So there is not problem if the number of database contents is very large. As for how to extract relevant database content values regarding the query questions, we follow (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), where all the content values", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 146, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "are compared against the query questions, and only top few ones that match the query question the best are included.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9a4e5cba63b5454eb272fb8f11d85c3cd2f332d35a32b81f1c0312e131815c7f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: One database schema with two query questions and true SQL as demo. Dark red are primary keys. Dark green arrows are foreign keys joining different tables. Light gray is the context (values) in database (or table). Both primary key and foreign keys are given in the database schema. The highlighted (yellow or cyan) are the part of schema that are used to solve Query 1 and 2 respectively. Colors are simply for easy visualization. Same color, same table." + ], + "image_footnote": [ + "[Query 1]: What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? [SQL 1]: select t1.accelerate from cars_data as t1 join car_names as t2 on t1.id = t2.makeid where t2.make = \"amc hornet sportabout (sw)\"", + "[Query 2]: How many car models are produced in the usa? \n[SQL2]: \nselect count(*) from model_list as t1 join car_makers as t2 on t1.make = t2.id join countries as t3 on t2 country = t3.countryid where t3(countryname = 'usa');" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 141, + 855, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Prompt design examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 590, + 757, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show the prompt design for a example in Spider dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 614, + 882, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 Concise prompt design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 657, + 739, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Convert text to SQL: [Schema (values)]: | car_1 | continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid , countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) , fullname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) | car_names : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amc hornet sportabout (sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders ,edispl , horsepower , weight , accelerate , year; [Column names (type)]: continents : contid (number) | continents : continent (text) | countries : countryid (number) | countries : countryname (text)", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "547", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query 1", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 129, + 84, + 174, + 93 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid ,countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) ,fuilname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) |car NAMES : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amchornet sportabout ( sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders , edispl, horsepower , weight , accelerate , year;", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 99, + 450, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query 2", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 129, + 173, + 174, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "continents:contid,continenticountries:countryid,countryside(usa),continent|car_makers: id,maker,fullname,country|model_list:modelid,maker model|car_names:makeid,modelf,makc|cars_data: id,mpg, cylinders,edispl,horsepower,weight,accelerate,year;", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 189, + 416, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3: Example of database with content: examples in Fig 2. Highlighted are database content for different queries. Following previous work (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), only the relevant database content values are included. So different query questions have different database content value.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 260, + 489, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "| countries : continent (number) | car_makers : id (number) | car_makers : maker (text) | car_makers : fullname (text) | car_makers : country (text) | model_list : modelid (number) | model_list : maker (number) | model_list : model (text) | car_names : makeid (number) | car_names : model (text) | car_names : make (text) | cars_data : id (number) | cars_data : mpg (text) | cars_data : cylinders (number) | cars_data :edispl (number) | cars_data : horsepower (text) | cars_data : weight (number) | cars_data : accelerate (number) | cars_data : year (number); [Primary Keys]: continents : contid | countries : countryid | car_makers : id | model_list : modelid | car_names : makeid | cars_data : id; [Foreign Keys]: countries : continent equals continents : contid | car_makers : country equals countries : countryid | model_list : maker equals car_makers : id | car_names : model equals model_list : model | cars_data : id equals car_names : makeid [Q]: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)?; [SQL]: \"", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 489, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.2 Verbose prompt design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 705, + 344, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Let us take a question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. There are 6 tables. Their titles are: continents, countries, car_makers, model_list, car_names, cars_data. Table 1 is continents, and its column names and types are: ContId (Type is number), Continent (Type is text). Table 2 is countries, and its column names and types are: CountryId (Type is number), Coun", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tryName (Type is text), Continent (Type is number). Table 3 is car_makers, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), Maker (Type is text), FullName (Type is text), Country (Type is text). Table 4 is model_list, and its column names and types are: ModelId (Type is number), Maker (Type is number), Model (Type is text). Table 5 is car_names, and its column names and types are: MakeId (Type is number), Model (Type is text), Make (Type is text). Table 6 is cars_data, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), MPG (Type is text), Cylinders (Type is number), Edispl (Type is number), Horsepower (Type is text), Weight (Type is number), Accelerate (Type is number), Year (Type is number). The primary keys are: contid from Table continents, countryid from Table countries, id from Table car_makers, modelid from Table model_list, makeid from Table car_names, id from Table cars_data. The foreign keys are: continent from Table countries is equivalent with contid from Table continents, country from Table car_makers is equivalent with countryid from Table countries, maker from Table model_list is equivalent with id from Table car_makers, model from Table car_names is equivalent with model from Table model_list, id from Table cars_data is equivalent with makeid from Table car_names. Use foreign keys to join Tables. Columns with relevant values: Table car_makers Column maker have values: amc; Table model_list Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column make have values: amc hornet, amc hornet sportabout (sw); Only use columns with relevant values to generate SQL. Let us take a text question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. The question is: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? The corresponding SQL is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C ChatGPT's default prompt design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 728, + 840, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"Complete sqlite SQL query only and with no explanation SQLite SQL tables, with their properties: continents(ContId, Continent); countries(CountryId, CountryName, Continent); car_makers(Id,Maker, FullName, Country); mode_list(ModelId, Maker, Model); car_names(MakeId, Model, Make); car_data(Id, MPG, Cylinders, Edispl, Horsepower, Weight, Accelerate, Year). What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? SELECT\"", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "548", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/90075493deadf41532db5c6d6d05e9433a3655274e8d9e05f6528daeda421aeb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Additional few-shot learning results." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Methods/DatasetsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B q68.161.771.964.374.566.7
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 96, + 497, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQLPrompt output", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 162, + 287, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show a list of real output generated by SQLPrompt. See Table 7", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Selection of few-shot examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 231, + 415, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also provide results in few-shot learning setting with a different set of examples. Compared to Table 3 (e.g. 66.6), the two results are very close, indicating changing the few-shot examples doesn't improve performance when using the same prompt design.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 256, + 489, + 353 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Experiment details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 365, + 315, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Querying LLMs might not require TPU or GPU - a CPU would suffice. We use the number of consistency repeats of 32 and the sampling temperature of 0.5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 390, + 489, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F MixLLMs implementation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 381, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The effect of MixLLMs of SQLPrompt shows in Table 5. When the number of mixture is less than 4, we use zero-shot results from Table 2. For example, with 4 mixtures, we combine all the 4 models in Table 2: PaLM FLAN 62B q: Concise or Verbose prompt design; PaLM FLAN 540B q: Concise or Verbose. When number of mixture is greater than 4, we include few-shot results. Note that most of the components in SQLPrompt can be applied to other in-context learning methods. We consider LLMs with different few-shot examples as a \"different models\", as few-shot demonstrations can influence the behaviors of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 489, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "549", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/522b14f5c98d8adb77a7c27c0c38fbd163d567f5b4476e7824d77e8cd10d14fe.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers whose birth years are either 1948 or 1949?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer WHERE Birth Year = 1948 OR Birth Year = 1949
LLM GenerationSELECT name from singer WHERE birth_year = 1948 OR birth_year = 1949
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer with the largest net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer who is worth the most?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenship of singers and the number of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, count(*) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, how many singers are from that country?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT Citizenship, count(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionPlease show the most common citizenship of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the most common citizenship?
Ground Truthselect citizenship from singer group by citizenship order by count(*) desc limit 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenships and the maximum net worth of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, what is the maximum net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow titles of songs and names of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the song titles and singer names?
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1 title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow distinct names of singers that have songs with sales more than 300000.
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT DISTINCT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
Questionwhat are the different names of the singers that have sales more than 300000?
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow the names of singers that have more than one song.
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers that have more than one songs?
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 80, + 865, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: SQLPrompt: randomly sampled generated SQL from LLM", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 914, + 726, + 928 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "550", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_model.json b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc82b2784f36bbaff58c2136942030aecc6b2369 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1505 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.09, + 0.843, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQLPrompt: In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.131, + 0.788, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruoxi Sun\\(^{1}\\), Sercan Ö. Arik\\(^{1}\\), Rajarishi Sinha\\(^{1}\\), Hootan Nakhost\\(^{1}\\), Hanjun Dai\\(^{2}\\), Pengcheng Yin\\(^{2}\\), Tomas Pfister\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.394, + 0.167, + 0.611, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Cloud AI Research Team" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.419, + 0.183, + 0.584, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Google DeepMind" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.2, + 0.856, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ruoixis, soarik, sinharaj, hootan, hadai, pcyin, tpfister }@google.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text-to-SQL aims to automate the process of generating SQL queries on a database from natural language text. In this work, we propose \"SQLPrompt\", tailored to improve the few-shot prompting capabilities of Text-to-SQL for Large Language Models (LLMs). Our methods include innovative prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding strategy which selects the SQL with the most consistent execution outcome among other SQL proposals, and a method that aims to improve performance by diversifying the SQL proposals during consistency selection with different prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") and foundation models (\"MixLLMs\"). We show that SQL-Prompt outperforms previous approaches for in-context learning with zero labeled data by a large margin, closing the gap with finetuning state-of-the-art with thousands of labeled data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.564, + 0.262, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.59, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text-to-SQL enables natural language interfaces for databases via SQL query generation. It is crucial for enhancing database accessibility without SQL expertise, and enabling the development of conversational agents with data analysis ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.671, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language models (LM) have shown to be promising for Text-to-SQL. Notable previous work on finetuning, including PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), UnifiedSKG (Xie et al., 2022), and RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL(Li et al., 2023), achieve impressive results by leveraging customized SQL-specific syntax knowledge and training on a large number of (text, SQL) paired data samples. Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and ChatGPT\\(^{1}\\)(Stiennon et al., 2020) have demonstrated promising few-shot abilities via prompting(Wei et al., 2022). By only providing a few demonstrations in the prompt, LLMs are able" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to follow the demonstrations and generate reasonable answers (\"in-context learning\"). For Text-to-SQL, few-shot prompting is beneficial as it does not require expensive training, lowers adaptation data requirements, reduces out-of-distribution issues (e.g. for unseen phrases), and reduces the risk of over-fitting and poor generalization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.366, + 0.885, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we introduce \"SQLPrompt\", a few-shot prompting approach for Text-to-SQL. The approach is comprised of execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering, \"MixPrompt\" and \"MixLLMs\" to enhance diversity of SQL proposals. In few-shot prompting, self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2022), which samples a diverse set of reasoning paths and selects the most consistent answer, has shown remarkable performance improvements across different tasks. Here we propose a novel variant of consistency decoding for Text-to-SQL, \"execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering\". The proposed decoding is tailored to be SQL-execution specific - we marginalize over SQLs, and conduct majority vote on execution outcome, whereas the original self consistency approach marginalizes over chain-of-thought thinking path, and conduct majority vote on the final answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.672, + 0.885, + 0.913 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, the improvement brought by self-consistency' decoding using the same prompt and same LLMs saturate beyond a certain number of samples. Because the diversity of SQL candidates are limited with the same prompt and same LLM. Here we propose employing diverse prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") and LLMs (\"MixLLMs\") to obtain more diverse LLM outputs. \"MixPrompt\" applies different prompt designs, which changes the interface of query and LLMs, leading to more diverse LLM's outputSQLs.\"MixLLMs\" holds the assumption that different LLMs pretrained on diverse set of knowledge, can yield different outcomes. Finally, the answer is the consistent answer across different prompt designs and LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.363, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "'https://chat.openai.com/chat." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "542" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 542-550 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.226, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.11, + 0.406, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Problem setup for Text-to-SQL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.131, + 0.49, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let \\( q \\) be natural language query and \\( D_q \\) be the database information. Text-to-SQL task is to convert query \\( q \\) into SQL. The database \\( D_q = \\{S, K_p, K_f\\} \\) includes database schema \\( S \\), primary keys \\( K_p \\), and foreign keys \\( K_f \\). \\( S \\) usually contains multiple tables \\( T_t \\): \\( S = \\{T_1, T_2, \\ldots, T_t\\ldots\\} \\). Each table \\( T_t \\) has table name \\( N_t \\), column names \\( c_j \\) and column data types \\( t_j \\): \\( T_t = \\{N_t, (c_{t1}, t_{t1}), (c_{t2}, t_{t2}), (c_{tj}, t_{tj})\\ldots\\} \\). Primary keys \\( K_p \\) uniquely identifying rows of each table, and foreign keys \\( K_f \\) join multiple tables." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.319, + 0.455, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Prompt design: database schema and content and primary/foreign keys" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.357, + 0.49, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The prompt should include all necessary information needed for humans to generate SQL. The prompt is comprised of database schema, primary and foreign keys, and the database content. We reflect database content (entry values) as proposed in (Lin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), where only values that are relevant to the question are included (refer to Appendix A for more discussion). Furthermore, we present the above information in different formats, with the goal of making them different from each other to encourage diverse outputs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.55, + 0.49, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Concise prompts we linearize information in a table as \"Table1 name: column name 1, column name 2 (relevant database content) | Table2 name: column1 ...\" (Figure 1, Concise. Full example in Appendix B.1). This way describes table structure clearly, but can be less straightforward for LLMs to understand the syntax. Verbose prompts we describe databases with human understandable words and emphasize on the information LLMs need to know: e.g. \"Table \"CarNames\" contains three columns. The column names and their types are : MakeID (number), Model (string) ..\"; \"Foreign keys are .. Use foreign keys to join Tables\". See Appendix B.2 for an example." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.786, + 0.455, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Refinement based on execution-based consistency with MixPrompt and MixLLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use few-shot prompting with execution-based consistency decoding and error filtering. We apply various prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") to encourage LLMs to generate diverse SQL outputs Suppose \\(F = \\{f_{1},f_{2},\\ldots \\}\\) is a collection of prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "design functions, e.g. \\( f_{1} \\) is verbose, \\( f_{2} \\) is concise. When we fix the LLMs, we have MixPrompt with the following prediction objectives:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.141, + 0.882, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (s q l | \\mathrm {L L M}, q) = \\sum_ {f} p (s q l | \\mathrm {L L M}, f, q) p (f), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.183, + 0.884, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(p(f)\\) is mixing coefficient. We evenly mix the prompts, hence, \\(p(f) = 1 / nF\\), where \\(nF\\) is the number of design functions. \\(p(sq|\\mathrm{LLM},f,q)\\) is the sampling probability of generating sqI." + }, + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.264, + 0.84, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: Refinement based on execution and consistency with MixPrompt" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.297, + 0.858, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data:Require:Query questions \\(Q_{test}\\) ;Database \\(D_{test}\\) ; Prompt design function collections \\(F\\) B is consistency sample numbers \nResult:SQL output of test set: SQL-test \nwhile \\(q\\) in \\(Q_{test}\\) do \n\\(D_q\\gets D_{test}[q]\\) while \\(f\\) in \\(F\\) do \nPrompt \\(\\mathbf{\\Phi}_{qf}\\leftarrow f(q_i,D_q)\\) eq (2) \\(\\mathbf{M} = []\\) . \\(\\mathrm{O} = []\\) while \\(b\\) in \\(B\\) do \\(\\begin{array}{rlr}{\\sf s q l_{q f b}} & \\sim & {\\sf L L M(P r o m p t_{q f})} \\end{array}\\) eq (3) \\(O_{qfb} = \\text{Exec}(s q l_{qfb},D_q)\\) if \"error\" NOT in \\(O_{q}\\) then \\(\\begin{array}{c}{M\\leftarrow s q l_{qfb};}\\\\ {O\\leftarrow O_{qfb};} \\end{array}\\) end \nend \n\\({\\sf s q l_{select}} = \\{{\\sf s q l}_q:O_q = {\\sf Majorit y}(O),q\\in\\) \\(M\\}\\) eq (9) \\(\\mathrm{SQL}_{\\mathrm{test}}\\gets \\mathrm{sql}_{\\mathrm{select}}\\) \nend" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.604, + 0.884, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MixPromt is overviewed in Fig 1. For each design function \\( f \\), we generate prompts using database \\( D_{q} \\) and the query \\( q \\). The trained LLMs specify the distribution \\( \\ell : q \\to sql \\), where we can draw sample from:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.594, + 0.694, + 0.882, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f} = f (q, D _ {q}) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.595, + 0.715, + 0.881, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns q l _ {q f} \\underset {i. i. d} {\\sim} \\operatorname {L L M} \\left(\\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.744, + 0.882, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We sample \\(B\\) times from the LLM with the same prompt Prompt\\(_q\\) to get SQL collections by Eq 3:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.599, + 0.786, + 0.882, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nM _ {q f} = \\left\\{s q l _ {q f} ^ {1}, \\dots s q l _ {q f} ^ {b} \\right\\} _ {B} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.814, + 0.885, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then execute the generated SQLs using the engine Exec (i.e.sqlite3), which yields the outputs \\(O\\) as the execution result of SQL on the provided database." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.885, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {q f} = \\left\\{O _ {q f} ^ {b}: O _ {q f} ^ {b} = _ {\\text {E x e c}} \\left(\\operatorname {s q l} _ {q f} ^ {b}, D _ {q}\\right), \\operatorname {s q l} _ {q} ^ {b} \\in M _ {q f} \\right\\} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "543" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.193, + 0.084, + 0.818, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.314, + 0.884, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: SQLPrompt Overview: (Left) Prompt Design: Concise prompt design (up) and Verbose prompt design (down). (Right) MixPrompt in SQLPrompt generates multiple prompts using database and query question, to query LLMs. For each query, LLMs are sampled twice, and two SQLs are generated and executed on the database with errors filtered out. The execution outcomes of both prompt designs are combined to select the most consistent SQL. Without MixPrompt, the true answer cannot be selected with only one prompt (blue) due to a tie situation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.395, + 0.489, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further exclude outputs \\(O_{qf}\\) that yield errors and only keep the valid output, therefore, obtain final (SQL, outcome) pairs for prompt design \\(f\\colon R_{qf} = (M_{qf},O_{qf}) = \\{(M_{qf}^{b},O_{qf}^{b}): O_{qf}^{b}\\neq \\text{errors}\\}\\). We repeat the above process for each prompt design function \\(f\\) and generate \\(R_{q} = \\{R_{q1},\\ldots R_{qf},\\ldots \\}_{nF}\\), by concatenating all the results across multiple designs and obtain:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.189, + 0.538, + 0.486, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nM _ {q} = \\left[ M _ {q 1}, \\dots , M _ {q f} \\dots , M _ {n F} \\right] \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.557, + 0.486, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nQ _ {q} = \\left[ O _ {q 1}, \\dots , O _ {q f} \\dots , O _ {n F} \\right] \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.587, + 0.49, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following self-consistency, we select the SQL outputs that give the execution outcome consisted with the majority of the execution outcomes \\( O_{q} \\) generated by all \\( M_{q} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.662, + 0.486, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns q l _ {s e l e c t} = \\left\\{s q l _ {q} ^ {k}: O _ {q} ^ {k} = M a j o r i t y (O _ {q}) \\right. \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.685, + 0.486, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {q} ^ {k} \\in Q _ {q}, s q l _ {q} ^ {k} \\in M _ {q} \\}, \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.715, + 0.489, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( k \\) is the index across multiple prompt design and consistency repeats. The overall process is described in Algorithm 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MixLLMs With the goal of increasing diversity of the SQL proposals in consistency decoding, we further expand our method to not only use one LLM, but rather a mixture of LLMs. The consistency samples include resource from different prompt designs and different LLMs:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.497, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (s q l | q) = \\sum_ {\\text {L L M}} \\sum_ {f} p (s q l | L L M, f, q) p (f) p (L L M) \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.394, + 0.884, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar to the combination idea in MixPrompt, \"MixLLM\" combines outputs across multiple LLMs, in addition to multiple prompt designs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We note that our method differs from generic Mixture of Expert (MoE) (Chen et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022) approaches as we instantiate MoE in few-shot prompting setup, where experts are various prompt designs. Moreover, rather than simple averaging, we combine results based on execution outcomes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.566, + 0.655, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.59, + 0.884, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tasks and datasets: We consider the cross-domain large-scale Text-to-SQL benchmark, Spider (Yu et al., 2018) that contains 7000 training samples across 166 databases and 1034 evaluation samples ('Dev split') across 20 databases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models: PaLM FLAN 540B is a PaLM model variant (Chowdhery et al., 2022) with 540 billion parameters fine-tuned on a collection of tasks phrased as instructions. FLAN (Chung et al., 2022) is a reference to the way of fine-tuning that reflects instructions being given in the prompt. PaLM62B is a PaLM variant with 62 billion parameters trained on 1.3T tokens following the (Hoffmann et al., 2022) PaLM FLAN 62B is FLAN fine-tuned variant. Quantization is applied to above models with qntz, that reduces the precision albeit increased inference efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fine-tuning baselines: PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) employs incremental parsing to constrain auto-regressive decoding. RASAT (Qi et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "544" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.065, + 0.716, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsSPIDER
EXTS
Fine-tuningT5-3B + PICARD79.369.4
RASAT + PICARD80.570.3
RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL84.173.5
In-context learningGPT-3 ada (0-shot)2.30.3
GPT-3 babbage (0-shot)5.73.9
GPT-3 curie (0-shot)12.68.3
GPT-3 davinci (0-shot)26.321.7
Codex couchman (0-shot)63.753.0
Codex davinci (0-shot)67.055.1
ChatGPT (0-shot)70.160.1
SQLPrompt (0-shot)76.668.0
SQLPrompt (4-shot)77.168.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.275, + 0.884, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Performance on the Spider Dev set, measured in execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS). GPT3 and CodeX results are from (Rajkumar et al., 2022) and ChatGPT results are from (Liu et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.307, + 0.49, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Ablation study on prompt design approaches in 0-shot setting. MixPrompt improves concise or verbose prompt design approaches with different LLMs. We only mark TS Acc. changes, not EX, because TS is more accurate evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.359, + 0.499, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz67.761.370.862.970.563.2 (↑ 0.3)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz72.364.171.661.374.065.5 (↑ 1.4)
Table 3: Ablation Study: Few-shots
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz65.959.671.863.874.766.6 (↑ 2.8)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz71.263.270.761.174.765.2 (↑ 2.0)
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.476, + 0.49, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2022) is a transformer model that integrates relation-aware self-attention and constrained autoregressive decoders. RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023) decouples schema linking and skeleton parsing using a ranking-enhanced encoding and skeleton-aware decoding framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.572, + 0.49, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-context learning baselines: (Rajkumar et al., 2022) comprehensively evaluate the Text-to-SQL ability of CodeX and GPT3, while (Liu et al., 2023) conduct a comprehensive evaluation on ChatGPT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.645, + 0.49, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation: We consider two commonly-used evaluation metrics: execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS) (Zhong et al., 2020), where EX measures if SQL execution outcome matches ground truth. TS assesses each query by running multiple tests against randomly generated database with same schema (EX only evaluates on one test). So TS reduces false positives from EX and hence can be more precise. Exact match evaluation is not performed, as multiple correct SQLs exist for one query." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.833, + 0.214, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table-1 presents the comparison between SQLPrompt and the previous methods for in-context learning and fine-tuning. For in-context learning, SQLPrompt outperforms ChatGPT (with their rec" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.304, + 0.882, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Ablation Study of SQLPrompt (without Mix LLMs)" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.321, + 0.848, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
EXTS
SQLPrompt (Prompt Design + Consistency + Execution Filtering +MixPrompt)70.563.2
No MixPrompt67.761.3 (↓ 1.9)
Only Schema (No primary, No foreignkeys, no DB content)66.457.3 (↓ 5.9)
No Consistency55.949.6 (↓ 13.6)
No Execution Filtering55.248.7 (↓ 14.5)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.44, + 0.865, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Ablation Study: SQLprompt with Mix LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.566, + 0.456, + 0.825, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Num of MixtureZero-shotsFew-shots
24616
EX7476.677.377.1
TS65.568.068.368.6
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.884, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ommended prompts) by a large margin: \\(\\uparrow 7\\%\\) for execution accuracy (EX) and \\(\\uparrow 8.1\\%\\) for test suite accuracy (TS). Examples of SQL generated by SQLPrompt are provided in Table 7 in Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.587, + 0.885, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation study SQLPrompt consists of multiple components: prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding, MixPrompt, and MixLLMs. The effect of MixPrompt prompt is shown in Table 3, leading to \\(2\\%+\\) improvement over single prompt. The effect of mixing LLMs is shown in Table 5, leading to additional \\(3\\%\\) over single LLM in test suite accuracy (details description of mixLLMs are provided in Appendix F)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.733, + 0.885, + 0.91 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To shed light into the impact of these components, ablation studies are presented in Table 4. All listed components are observed to be useful, yielding \\(2 \\sim 15\\%\\) improvements. Notably, without consistency decoding and keeping all others unchanged, the performance decreases by \\(13.6\\%\\); that is it contributes by \\(13.6\\%\\); Without \"execution error filtering\" and keeping other components unchanged, the results decrease by \\(14.5\\%\\). \"MixPrompt\" contributes by \\(2\\%\\) and adding \"Primary Keys/Foreign Keys/DB content\" contributes by \\(5.9\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "545" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.488, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The limitation of this work is that the method queries multiple prompt designs and LLMs, that can be expensive and time consuming. Although combining multiple prompt designs and LLMs are promising to improve performance, future work can explore more efficient and effective ways to combine them to save cost." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.25, + 0.214, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.272, + 0.488, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.361, + 0.49, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Yue Wu, Quanquan Gu, and Yuanzhi Li. 2022. Towards understanding mixture of experts in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02813." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.424, + 0.49, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.5, + 0.49, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.575, + 0.49, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.664, + 0.489, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023. Decoupling the skeleton parsing and schema linking for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.816, + 0.49, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chat-gpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.879, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiexing Qi, Jingyao Tang, Ziwei He, Xiangpeng Wan, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Quanshi Zhang, and Zhouhan Lin. 2022. Rasat: Integrating relational" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "structures into pretrained seq2seq model for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.06983." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.123, + 0.885, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05093." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.248, + 0.884, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008-3021." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.324, + 0.884, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.426, + 0.884, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.488, + 0.884, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.565, + 0.884, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedsgk: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.653, + 0.883, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.742, + 0.884, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Quoc V Le, James Laudon, et al. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:7103-7114." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "546" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.475, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Text-to-SQL challenges and prompt design with primary/foreign keys and database content" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.147, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fig. 2 shows a Text-to-SQL example from Spider. Fig. 2 demonstrates the necessity of including primary and foreign keys, and content of database. The data schema contains multiple tables. Each table has multiple columns. Primary keys are the columns that uniquely identify a row in a table. Primary keys are important, as some columns might specifically be challenging and it might be beneficial to include them specifically as prompts, such as in Query 1 of Fig. 2 where \"t2.makeid\" may be mistakenly written as \"t2.id\" without proper emphasis. Foreign key is a column or combination of columns that is used to establish and enforce a link between the data in two tables. For example, in Fig 2, Column Maker of Table Model list is equivalent to Column ID of Car Maker. By including foreign keys into prompt, LLMs can know how to join different tables. Otherwise, it can be ambiguous to link multiple tables, especially for complex data schema or schema with confusing column names. For example, Column Maker in Table Model list is not the same as Column Maker in Table Car Maker. Although they both called column \"Maker\", one is number and the other is string. Instead due to foreign keys, we known Column Maker of Table Model List is equivalent to Column ID in Table Car maker. Additionally, including relevant database content value, as seen in (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), is necessary as they help identify which columns are relevant to key words in the query question, such as in Fig. 2, Query1's key information is \"amc honrnet sportabout (sw)\", however, without adding database content value, we do not know which columns contain the value of the key information. e.g. is it Column Maker of Table Model List? Is it Column Maker of Table Car Maker? or Is it Column Make of Table Car Names? Only by including database content values, LLM can know it should use The column of Make of Table Car Names. Note that the database content values are questions depended. Only content values that are related with questions is included into prompt. See Fig 3. Note not all the content values are included. So there is not problem if the number of database contents is very large. As for how to extract relevant database content values regarding the query questions, we follow (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), where all the content values" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "are compared against the query questions, and only top few ones that match the query question the best are included." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.142, + 0.856, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.344, + 0.847, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Query 1]: What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? [SQL 1]: select t1.accelerate from cars_data as t1 join car_names as t2 on t1.id = t2.makeid where t2.make = \"amc hornet sportabout (sw)\"" + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.386, + 0.848, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Query 2]: How many car models are produced in the usa? \n[SQL2]: \nselect count(*) from model_list as t1 join car_makers as t2 on t1.make = t2.id join countries as t3 on t2 country = t3.countryid where t3(countryname = 'usa');" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.344, + 0.848, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.433, + 0.885, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: One database schema with two query questions and true SQL as demo. Dark red are primary keys. Dark green arrows are foreign keys joining different tables. Light gray is the context (values) in database (or table). Both primary key and foreign keys are given in the database schema. The highlighted (yellow or cyan) are the part of schema that are used to solve Query 1 and 2 respectively. Colors are simply for easy visualization. Same color, same table." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.591, + 0.759, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Prompt design examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.615, + 0.884, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show the prompt design for a example in Spider dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.658, + 0.74, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 Concise prompt design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Convert text to SQL: [Schema (values)]: | car_1 | continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid , countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) , fullname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) | car_names : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amc hornet sportabout (sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders ,edispl , horsepower , weight , accelerate , year; [Column names (type)]: continents : contid (number) | continents : continent (text) | countries : countryid (number) | countries : countryname (text)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "547" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.085, + 0.175, + 0.095 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.101, + 0.452, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid ,countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) ,fuilname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) |car NAMES : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amchornet sportabout ( sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders , edispl, horsepower , weight , accelerate , year;" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.174, + 0.176, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query 2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.19, + 0.418, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "continents:contid,continenticountries:countryid,countryside(usa),continent|car_makers: id,maker,fullname,country|model_list:modelid,maker model|car_names:makeid,modelf,makc|cars_data: id,mpg, cylinders,edispl,horsepower,weight,accelerate,year;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Example of database with content: examples in Fig 2. Highlighted are database content for different queries. Following previous work (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), only the relevant database content values are included. So different query questions have different database content value." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.356, + 0.49, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "| countries : continent (number) | car_makers : id (number) | car_makers : maker (text) | car_makers : fullname (text) | car_makers : country (text) | model_list : modelid (number) | model_list : maker (number) | model_list : model (text) | car_names : makeid (number) | car_names : model (text) | car_names : make (text) | cars_data : id (number) | cars_data : mpg (text) | cars_data : cylinders (number) | cars_data :edispl (number) | cars_data : horsepower (text) | cars_data : weight (number) | cars_data : accelerate (number) | cars_data : year (number); [Primary Keys]: continents : contid | countries : countryid | car_makers : id | model_list : modelid | car_names : makeid | cars_data : id; [Foreign Keys]: countries : continent equals continents : contid | car_makers : country equals countries : countryid | model_list : maker equals car_makers : id | car_names : model equals model_list : model | cars_data : id equals car_names : makeid [Q]: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)?; [SQL]: \"" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.706, + 0.345, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.2 Verbose prompt design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Let us take a question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. There are 6 tables. Their titles are: continents, countries, car_makers, model_list, car_names, cars_data. Table 1 is continents, and its column names and types are: ContId (Type is number), Continent (Type is text). Table 2 is countries, and its column names and types are: CountryId (Type is number), Coun" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tryName (Type is text), Continent (Type is number). Table 3 is car_makers, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), Maker (Type is text), FullName (Type is text), Country (Type is text). Table 4 is model_list, and its column names and types are: ModelId (Type is number), Maker (Type is number), Model (Type is text). Table 5 is car_names, and its column names and types are: MakeId (Type is number), Model (Type is text), Make (Type is text). Table 6 is cars_data, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), MPG (Type is text), Cylinders (Type is number), Edispl (Type is number), Horsepower (Type is text), Weight (Type is number), Accelerate (Type is number), Year (Type is number). The primary keys are: contid from Table continents, countryid from Table countries, id from Table car_makers, modelid from Table model_list, makeid from Table car_names, id from Table cars_data. The foreign keys are: continent from Table countries is equivalent with contid from Table continents, country from Table car_makers is equivalent with countryid from Table countries, maker from Table model_list is equivalent with id from Table car_makers, model from Table car_names is equivalent with model from Table model_list, id from Table cars_data is equivalent with makeid from Table car_names. Use foreign keys to join Tables. Columns with relevant values: Table car_makers Column maker have values: amc; Table model_list Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column make have values: amc hornet, amc hornet sportabout (sw); Only use columns with relevant values to generate SQL. Let us take a text question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. The question is: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? The corresponding SQL is:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.73, + 0.842, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C ChatGPT's default prompt design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"Complete sqlite SQL query only and with no explanation SQLite SQL tables, with their properties: continents(ContId, Continent); countries(CountryId, CountryName, Continent); car_makers(Id,Maker, FullName, Country); mode_list(ModelId, Maker, Model); car_names(MakeId, Model, Make); car_data(Id, MPG, Cylinders, Edispl, Horsepower, Weight, Accelerate, Year). What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? SELECT\"" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "548" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.083, + 0.454, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Additional few-shot learning results." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.097, + 0.498, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Methods/DatasetsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B q68.161.771.964.374.566.7
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.163, + 0.289, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQLPrompt output" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.189, + 0.489, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show a list of real output generated by SQLPrompt. See Table 7" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.233, + 0.416, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Selection of few-shot examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.258, + 0.49, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also provide results in few-shot learning setting with a different set of examples. Compared to Table 3 (e.g. 66.6), the two results are very close, indicating changing the few-shot examples doesn't improve performance when using the same prompt design." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.366, + 0.317, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Experiment details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Querying LLMs might not require TPU or GPU - a CPU would suffice. We use the number of consistency repeats of 32 and the sampling temperature of 0.5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.467, + 0.382, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F MixLLMs implementation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.493, + 0.49, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The effect of MixLLMs of SQLPrompt shows in Table 5. When the number of mixture is less than 4, we use zero-shot results from Table 2. For example, with 4 mixtures, we combine all the 4 models in Table 2: PaLM FLAN 62B q: Concise or Verbose prompt design; PaLM FLAN 540B q: Concise or Verbose. When number of mixture is greater than 4, we include few-shot results. Note that most of the components in SQLPrompt can be applied to other in-context learning methods. We consider LLMs with different few-shot examples as a \"different models\", as few-shot demonstrations can influence the behaviors of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "549" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.081, + 0.867, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers whose birth years are either 1948 or 1949?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer WHERE Birth Year = 1948 OR Birth Year = 1949
LLM GenerationSELECT name from singer WHERE birth_year = 1948 OR birth_year = 1949
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer with the largest net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer who is worth the most?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenship of singers and the number of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, count(*) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, how many singers are from that country?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT Citizenship, count(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionPlease show the most common citizenship of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the most common citizenship?
Ground Truthselect citizenship from singer group by citizenship order by count(*) desc limit 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenships and the maximum net worth of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, what is the maximum net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow titles of songs and names of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the song titles and singer names?
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1 title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow distinct names of singers that have songs with sales more than 300000.
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT DISTINCT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
Questionwhat are the different names of the singers that have sales more than 300000?
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow the names of singers that have more than one song.
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers that have more than one songs?
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.915, + 0.727, + 0.929 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: SQLPrompt: randomly sampled generated SQL from LLM" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "550" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_origin.pdf b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c9ac795ebf34d0e98921bd49fd8f4652d9d1219 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/d03d4059-cd6d-446d-ae0d-8da6124a479a_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cf48473e7835e0a6553228a59621d42d8848afdf6ef10050c822b48614474db6 +size 732005 diff --git a/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/full.md b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d0378d11f1519c37109b1b77a8cfadaf3222321 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,268 @@ +# SQLPrompt: In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data + +Ruoxi Sun $^{1}$ , Sercan Ö. Arik $^{1}$ , Rajarishi Sinha $^{1}$ , Hootan Nakhost $^{1}$ , Hanjun Dai $^{2}$ , Pengcheng Yin $^{2}$ , Tomas Pfister $^{1}$ + +1 Cloud AI Research Team + +2 Google DeepMind + +{ruoixis, soarik, sinharaj, hootan, hadai, pcyin, tpfister }@google.com + +# Abstract + +Text-to-SQL aims to automate the process of generating SQL queries on a database from natural language text. In this work, we propose "SQLPrompt", tailored to improve the few-shot prompting capabilities of Text-to-SQL for Large Language Models (LLMs). Our methods include innovative prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding strategy which selects the SQL with the most consistent execution outcome among other SQL proposals, and a method that aims to improve performance by diversifying the SQL proposals during consistency selection with different prompt designs ("MixPrompt") and foundation models ("MixLLMs"). We show that SQL-Prompt outperforms previous approaches for in-context learning with zero labeled data by a large margin, closing the gap with finetuning state-of-the-art with thousands of labeled data. + +# 1 Introduction + +Text-to-SQL enables natural language interfaces for databases via SQL query generation. It is crucial for enhancing database accessibility without SQL expertise, and enabling the development of conversational agents with data analysis ability. + +Language models (LM) have shown to be promising for Text-to-SQL. Notable previous work on finetuning, including PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), UnifiedSKG (Xie et al., 2022), and RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL(Li et al., 2023), achieve impressive results by leveraging customized SQL-specific syntax knowledge and training on a large number of (text, SQL) paired data samples. Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and ChatGPT $^{1}$ (Stiennon et al., 2020) have demonstrated promising few-shot abilities via prompting(Wei et al., 2022). By only providing a few demonstrations in the prompt, LLMs are able + +to follow the demonstrations and generate reasonable answers ("in-context learning"). For Text-to-SQL, few-shot prompting is beneficial as it does not require expensive training, lowers adaptation data requirements, reduces out-of-distribution issues (e.g. for unseen phrases), and reduces the risk of over-fitting and poor generalization. + +In this paper, we introduce "SQLPrompt", a few-shot prompting approach for Text-to-SQL. The approach is comprised of execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering, "MixPrompt" and "MixLLMs" to enhance diversity of SQL proposals. In few-shot prompting, self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2022), which samples a diverse set of reasoning paths and selects the most consistent answer, has shown remarkable performance improvements across different tasks. Here we propose a novel variant of consistency decoding for Text-to-SQL, "execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering". The proposed decoding is tailored to be SQL-execution specific - we marginalize over SQLs, and conduct majority vote on execution outcome, whereas the original self consistency approach marginalizes over chain-of-thought thinking path, and conduct majority vote on the final answer. + +Furthermore, the improvement brought by self-consistency' decoding using the same prompt and same LLMs saturate beyond a certain number of samples. Because the diversity of SQL candidates are limited with the same prompt and same LLM. Here we propose employing diverse prompt designs ("MixPrompt") and LLMs ("MixLLMs") to obtain more diverse LLM outputs. "MixPrompt" applies different prompt designs, which changes the interface of query and LLMs, leading to more diverse LLM's outputSQLs."MixLLMs" holds the assumption that different LLMs pretrained on diverse set of knowledge, can yield different outcomes. Finally, the answer is the consistent answer across different prompt designs and LLMs. + +# 2 Methods + +# 2.1 Problem setup for Text-to-SQL + +Let $q$ be natural language query and $D_q$ be the database information. Text-to-SQL task is to convert query $q$ into SQL. The database $D_q = \{S, K_p, K_f\}$ includes database schema $S$ , primary keys $K_p$ , and foreign keys $K_f$ . $S$ usually contains multiple tables $T_t$ : $S = \{T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_t\ldots\}$ . Each table $T_t$ has table name $N_t$ , column names $c_j$ and column data types $t_j$ : $T_t = \{N_t, (c_{t1}, t_{t1}), (c_{t2}, t_{t2}), (c_{tj}, t_{tj})\ldots\}$ . Primary keys $K_p$ uniquely identifying rows of each table, and foreign keys $K_f$ join multiple tables. + +# 2.2 Prompt design: database schema and content and primary/foreign keys + +The prompt should include all necessary information needed for humans to generate SQL. The prompt is comprised of database schema, primary and foreign keys, and the database content. We reflect database content (entry values) as proposed in (Lin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), where only values that are relevant to the question are included (refer to Appendix A for more discussion). Furthermore, we present the above information in different formats, with the goal of making them different from each other to encourage diverse outputs. + +Concise prompts we linearize information in a table as "Table1 name: column name 1, column name 2 (relevant database content) | Table2 name: column1 ..." (Figure 1, Concise. Full example in Appendix B.1). This way describes table structure clearly, but can be less straightforward for LLMs to understand the syntax. Verbose prompts we describe databases with human understandable words and emphasize on the information LLMs need to know: e.g. "Table "CarNames" contains three columns. The column names and their types are : MakeID (number), Model (string) .."; "Foreign keys are .. Use foreign keys to join Tables". See Appendix B.2 for an example. + +# 2.3 Refinement based on execution-based consistency with MixPrompt and MixLLMs + +We use few-shot prompting with execution-based consistency decoding and error filtering. We apply various prompt designs ("MixPrompt") to encourage LLMs to generate diverse SQL outputs Suppose $F = \{f_{1},f_{2},\ldots \}$ is a collection of prompt + +design functions, e.g. $f_{1}$ is verbose, $f_{2}$ is concise. When we fix the LLMs, we have MixPrompt with the following prediction objectives: + +$$ +p (s q l | \mathrm {L L M}, q) = \sum_ {f} p (s q l | \mathrm {L L M}, f, q) p (f), \tag {1} +$$ + +where $p(f)$ is mixing coefficient. We evenly mix the prompts, hence, $p(f) = 1 / nF$ , where $nF$ is the number of design functions. $p(sq|\mathrm{LLM},f,q)$ is the sampling probability of generating sqI. + +Algorithm 1: Refinement based on execution and consistency with MixPrompt +Data:Require:Query questions $Q_{test}$ ;Database $D_{test}$ ; Prompt design function collections $F$ B is consistency sample numbers +Result:SQL output of test set: SQL-test +while $q$ in $Q_{test}$ do + $D_q\gets D_{test}[q]$ while $f$ in $F$ do +Prompt $\mathbf{\Phi}_{qf}\leftarrow f(q_i,D_q)$ eq (2) $\mathbf{M} = []$ . $\mathrm{O} = []$ while $b$ in $B$ do $\begin{array}{rlr}{\sf s q l_{q f b}} & \sim & {\sf L L M(P r o m p t_{q f})} \end{array}$ eq (3) $O_{qfb} = \text{Exec}(s q l_{qfb},D_q)$ if "error" NOT in $O_{q}$ then $\begin{array}{c}{M\leftarrow s q l_{qfb};}\\ {O\leftarrow O_{qfb};} \end{array}$ end +end + ${\sf s q l_{select}} = \{{\sf s q l}_q:O_q = {\sf Majorit y}(O),q\in$ $M\}$ eq (9) $\mathrm{SQL}_{\mathrm{test}}\gets \mathrm{sql}_{\mathrm{select}}$ +end + +MixPromt is overviewed in Fig 1. For each design function $f$ , we generate prompts using database $D_{q}$ and the query $q$ . The trained LLMs specify the distribution $\ell : q \to sql$ , where we can draw sample from: + +$$ +\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f} = f (q, D _ {q}) \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +s q l _ {q f} \underset {i. i. d} {\sim} \operatorname {L L M} \left(\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +We sample $B$ times from the LLM with the same prompt Prompt $_q$ to get SQL collections by Eq 3: + +$$ +M _ {q f} = \left\{s q l _ {q f} ^ {1}, \dots s q l _ {q f} ^ {b} \right\} _ {B} \tag {4} +$$ + +We then execute the generated SQLs using the engine Exec (i.e.sqlite3), which yields the outputs $O$ as the execution result of SQL on the provided database. + +$$ +O _ {q f} = \left\{O _ {q f} ^ {b}: O _ {q f} ^ {b} = _ {\text {E x e c}} \left(\operatorname {s q l} _ {q f} ^ {b}, D _ {q}\right), \operatorname {s q l} _ {q} ^ {b} \in M _ {q f} \right\} \tag {5} +$$ + +![](images/a3888d64cec42b53f68fe24456cca9c0ea02f20b8c643dd691b20a6dd0c6bcc2.jpg) +Figure 1: SQLPrompt Overview: (Left) Prompt Design: Concise prompt design (up) and Verbose prompt design (down). (Right) MixPrompt in SQLPrompt generates multiple prompts using database and query question, to query LLMs. For each query, LLMs are sampled twice, and two SQLs are generated and executed on the database with errors filtered out. The execution outcomes of both prompt designs are combined to select the most consistent SQL. Without MixPrompt, the true answer cannot be selected with only one prompt (blue) due to a tie situation. + +We further exclude outputs $O_{qf}$ that yield errors and only keep the valid output, therefore, obtain final (SQL, outcome) pairs for prompt design $f\colon R_{qf} = (M_{qf},O_{qf}) = \{(M_{qf}^{b},O_{qf}^{b}): O_{qf}^{b}\neq \text{errors}\}$ . We repeat the above process for each prompt design function $f$ and generate $R_{q} = \{R_{q1},\ldots R_{qf},\ldots \}_{nF}$ , by concatenating all the results across multiple designs and obtain: + +$$ +M _ {q} = \left[ M _ {q 1}, \dots , M _ {q f} \dots , M _ {n F} \right] \tag {6} +$$ + +$$ +Q _ {q} = \left[ O _ {q 1}, \dots , O _ {q f} \dots , O _ {n F} \right] \tag {7} +$$ + +Following self-consistency, we select the SQL outputs that give the execution outcome consisted with the majority of the execution outcomes $O_{q}$ generated by all $M_{q}$ . + +$$ +s q l _ {s e l e c t} = \left\{s q l _ {q} ^ {k}: O _ {q} ^ {k} = M a j o r i t y (O _ {q}) \right. \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +O _ {q} ^ {k} \in Q _ {q}, s q l _ {q} ^ {k} \in M _ {q} \}, \tag {9} +$$ + +where $k$ is the index across multiple prompt design and consistency repeats. The overall process is described in Algorithm 1. + +MixLLMs With the goal of increasing diversity of the SQL proposals in consistency decoding, we further expand our method to not only use one LLM, but rather a mixture of LLMs. The consistency samples include resource from different prompt designs and different LLMs: + +$$ +p (s q l | q) = \sum_ {\text {L L M}} \sum_ {f} p (s q l | L L M, f, q) p (f) p (L L M) \tag {10} +$$ + +Similar to the combination idea in MixPrompt, "MixLLM" combines outputs across multiple LLMs, in addition to multiple prompt designs. + +We note that our method differs from generic Mixture of Expert (MoE) (Chen et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022) approaches as we instantiate MoE in few-shot prompting setup, where experts are various prompt designs. Moreover, rather than simple averaging, we combine results based on execution outcomes. + +# 3 Experiments + +Tasks and datasets: We consider the cross-domain large-scale Text-to-SQL benchmark, Spider (Yu et al., 2018) that contains 7000 training samples across 166 databases and 1034 evaluation samples ('Dev split') across 20 databases. + +Models: PaLM FLAN 540B is a PaLM model variant (Chowdhery et al., 2022) with 540 billion parameters fine-tuned on a collection of tasks phrased as instructions. FLAN (Chung et al., 2022) is a reference to the way of fine-tuning that reflects instructions being given in the prompt. PaLM62B is a PaLM variant with 62 billion parameters trained on 1.3T tokens following the (Hoffmann et al., 2022) PaLM FLAN 62B is FLAN fine-tuned variant. Quantization is applied to above models with qntz, that reduces the precision albeit increased inference efficiency. + +Fine-tuning baselines: PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) employs incremental parsing to constrain auto-regressive decoding. RASAT (Qi et al., + +
MethodsSPIDER
EXTS
Fine-tuningT5-3B + PICARD79.369.4
RASAT + PICARD80.570.3
RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL84.173.5
In-context learningGPT-3 ada (0-shot)2.30.3
GPT-3 babbage (0-shot)5.73.9
GPT-3 curie (0-shot)12.68.3
GPT-3 davinci (0-shot)26.321.7
Codex couchman (0-shot)63.753.0
Codex davinci (0-shot)67.055.1
ChatGPT (0-shot)70.160.1
SQLPrompt (0-shot)76.668.0
SQLPrompt (4-shot)77.168.6
+ +Table 1: Performance on the Spider Dev set, measured in execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS). GPT3 and CodeX results are from (Rajkumar et al., 2022) and ChatGPT results are from (Liu et al., 2023). +Table 2: Ablation study on prompt design approaches in 0-shot setting. MixPrompt improves concise or verbose prompt design approaches with different LLMs. We only mark TS Acc. changes, not EX, because TS is more accurate evaluation. + +
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz67.761.370.862.970.563.2 (↑ 0.3)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz72.364.171.661.374.065.5 (↑ 1.4)
Table 3: Ablation Study: Few-shots
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz65.959.671.863.874.766.6 (↑ 2.8)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz71.263.270.761.174.765.2 (↑ 2.0)
+ +2022) is a transformer model that integrates relation-aware self-attention and constrained autoregressive decoders. RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023) decouples schema linking and skeleton parsing using a ranking-enhanced encoding and skeleton-aware decoding framework. + +In-context learning baselines: (Rajkumar et al., 2022) comprehensively evaluate the Text-to-SQL ability of CodeX and GPT3, while (Liu et al., 2023) conduct a comprehensive evaluation on ChatGPT. + +Evaluation: We consider two commonly-used evaluation metrics: execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS) (Zhong et al., 2020), where EX measures if SQL execution outcome matches ground truth. TS assesses each query by running multiple tests against randomly generated database with same schema (EX only evaluates on one test). So TS reduces false positives from EX and hence can be more precise. Exact match evaluation is not performed, as multiple correct SQLs exist for one query. + +# 4 Results + +Table-1 presents the comparison between SQLPrompt and the previous methods for in-context learning and fine-tuning. For in-context learning, SQLPrompt outperforms ChatGPT (with their rec + +Table 4: Ablation Study of SQLPrompt (without Mix LLMs) + +
EXTS
SQLPrompt (Prompt Design + Consistency + Execution Filtering +MixPrompt)70.563.2
No MixPrompt67.761.3 (↓ 1.9)
Only Schema (No primary, No foreignkeys, no DB content)66.457.3 (↓ 5.9)
No Consistency55.949.6 (↓ 13.6)
No Execution Filtering55.248.7 (↓ 14.5)
+ +Table 5: Ablation Study: SQLprompt with Mix LLMs + +
Num of MixtureZero-shotsFew-shots
24616
EX7476.677.377.1
TS65.568.068.368.6
+ +ommended prompts) by a large margin: $\uparrow 7\%$ for execution accuracy (EX) and $\uparrow 8.1\%$ for test suite accuracy (TS). Examples of SQL generated by SQLPrompt are provided in Table 7 in Appendix. + +Ablation study SQLPrompt consists of multiple components: prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding, MixPrompt, and MixLLMs. The effect of MixPrompt prompt is shown in Table 3, leading to $2\%+$ improvement over single prompt. The effect of mixing LLMs is shown in Table 5, leading to additional $3\%$ over single LLM in test suite accuracy (details description of mixLLMs are provided in Appendix F). + +To shed light into the impact of these components, ablation studies are presented in Table 4. All listed components are observed to be useful, yielding $2 \sim 15\%$ improvements. Notably, without consistency decoding and keeping all others unchanged, the performance decreases by $13.6\%$ ; that is it contributes by $13.6\%$ ; Without "execution error filtering" and keeping other components unchanged, the results decrease by $14.5\%$ . "MixPrompt" contributes by $2\%$ and adding "Primary Keys/Foreign Keys/DB content" contributes by $5.9\%$ . + +# Limitations + +The limitation of this work is that the method queries multiple prompt designs and LLMs, that can be expensive and time consuming. Although combining multiple prompt designs and LLMs are promising to improve performance, future work can explore more efficient and effective ways to combine them to save cost. + +# References + +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. + +Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Yue Wu, Quanquan Gu, and Yuanzhi Li. 2022. Towards understanding mixture of experts in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02813. + +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. + +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. + +Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556. + +Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023. Decoupling the skeleton parsing and schema linking for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965. + +Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chat-gpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547. + +Jiexing Qi, Jingyao Tang, Ziwei He, Xiangpeng Wan, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Quanshi Zhang, and Zhouhan Lin. 2022. Rasat: Integrating relational + +structures into pretrained seq2seq model for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.06983. + +Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498. + +Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05093. + +Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008-3021. + +Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. + +Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. + +Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedsgk: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966. + +Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887. + +Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840. + +Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Quoc V Le, James Laudon, et al. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:7103-7114. + +# A Text-to-SQL challenges and prompt design with primary/foreign keys and database content + +Fig. 2 shows a Text-to-SQL example from Spider. Fig. 2 demonstrates the necessity of including primary and foreign keys, and content of database. The data schema contains multiple tables. Each table has multiple columns. Primary keys are the columns that uniquely identify a row in a table. Primary keys are important, as some columns might specifically be challenging and it might be beneficial to include them specifically as prompts, such as in Query 1 of Fig. 2 where "t2.makeid" may be mistakenly written as "t2.id" without proper emphasis. Foreign key is a column or combination of columns that is used to establish and enforce a link between the data in two tables. For example, in Fig 2, Column Maker of Table Model list is equivalent to Column ID of Car Maker. By including foreign keys into prompt, LLMs can know how to join different tables. Otherwise, it can be ambiguous to link multiple tables, especially for complex data schema or schema with confusing column names. For example, Column Maker in Table Model list is not the same as Column Maker in Table Car Maker. Although they both called column "Maker", one is number and the other is string. Instead due to foreign keys, we known Column Maker of Table Model List is equivalent to Column ID in Table Car maker. Additionally, including relevant database content value, as seen in (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), is necessary as they help identify which columns are relevant to key words in the query question, such as in Fig. 2, Query1's key information is "amc honrnet sportabout (sw)", however, without adding database content value, we do not know which columns contain the value of the key information. e.g. is it Column Maker of Table Model List? Is it Column Maker of Table Car Maker? or Is it Column Make of Table Car Names? Only by including database content values, LLM can know it should use The column of Make of Table Car Names. Note that the database content values are questions depended. Only content values that are related with questions is included into prompt. See Fig 3. Note not all the content values are included. So there is not problem if the number of database contents is very large. As for how to extract relevant database content values regarding the query questions, we follow (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), where all the content values + +are compared against the query questions, and only top few ones that match the query question the best are included. + +Figure 2: One database schema with two query questions and true SQL as demo. Dark red are primary keys. Dark green arrows are foreign keys joining different tables. Light gray is the context (values) in database (or table). Both primary key and foreign keys are given in the database schema. The highlighted (yellow or cyan) are the part of schema that are used to solve Query 1 and 2 respectively. Colors are simply for easy visualization. Same color, same table. +![](images/9a4e5cba63b5454eb272fb8f11d85c3cd2f332d35a32b81f1c0312e131815c7f.jpg) +[Query 1]: What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? [SQL 1]: select t1.accelerate from cars_data as t1 join car_names as t2 on t1.id = t2.makeid where t2.make = "amc hornet sportabout (sw)" +[Query 2]: How many car models are produced in the usa? +[SQL2]: +select count(*) from model_list as t1 join car_makers as t2 on t1.make = t2.id join countries as t3 on t2 country = t3.countryid where t3(countryname = 'usa'); + +# B Prompt design examples + +We show the prompt design for a example in Spider dataset. + +# B.1 Concise prompt design + +"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Convert text to SQL: [Schema (values)]: | car_1 | continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid , countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) , fullname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) | car_names : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amc hornet sportabout (sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders ,edispl , horsepower , weight , accelerate , year; [Column names (type)]: continents : contid (number) | continents : continent (text) | countries : countryid (number) | countries : countryname (text) + +# Query 1 + +continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid ,countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) ,fuilname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) |car NAMES : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amchornet sportabout ( sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders , edispl, horsepower , weight , accelerate , year; + +# Query 2 + +continents:contid,continenticountries:countryid,countryside(usa),continent|car_makers: id,maker,fullname,country|model_list:modelid,maker model|car_names:makeid,modelf,makc|cars_data: id,mpg, cylinders,edispl,horsepower,weight,accelerate,year; + +Figure 3: Example of database with content: examples in Fig 2. Highlighted are database content for different queries. Following previous work (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), only the relevant database content values are included. So different query questions have different database content value. + +| countries : continent (number) | car_makers : id (number) | car_makers : maker (text) | car_makers : fullname (text) | car_makers : country (text) | model_list : modelid (number) | model_list : maker (number) | model_list : model (text) | car_names : makeid (number) | car_names : model (text) | car_names : make (text) | cars_data : id (number) | cars_data : mpg (text) | cars_data : cylinders (number) | cars_data :edispl (number) | cars_data : horsepower (text) | cars_data : weight (number) | cars_data : accelerate (number) | cars_data : year (number); [Primary Keys]: continents : contid | countries : countryid | car_makers : id | model_list : modelid | car_names : makeid | cars_data : id; [Foreign Keys]: countries : continent equals continents : contid | car_makers : country equals countries : countryid | model_list : maker equals car_makers : id | car_names : model equals model_list : model | cars_data : id equals car_names : makeid [Q]: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)?; [SQL]: " + +# B.2 Verbose prompt design + +"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Let us take a question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. There are 6 tables. Their titles are: continents, countries, car_makers, model_list, car_names, cars_data. Table 1 is continents, and its column names and types are: ContId (Type is number), Continent (Type is text). Table 2 is countries, and its column names and types are: CountryId (Type is number), Coun + +tryName (Type is text), Continent (Type is number). Table 3 is car_makers, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), Maker (Type is text), FullName (Type is text), Country (Type is text). Table 4 is model_list, and its column names and types are: ModelId (Type is number), Maker (Type is number), Model (Type is text). Table 5 is car_names, and its column names and types are: MakeId (Type is number), Model (Type is text), Make (Type is text). Table 6 is cars_data, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), MPG (Type is text), Cylinders (Type is number), Edispl (Type is number), Horsepower (Type is text), Weight (Type is number), Accelerate (Type is number), Year (Type is number). The primary keys are: contid from Table continents, countryid from Table countries, id from Table car_makers, modelid from Table model_list, makeid from Table car_names, id from Table cars_data. The foreign keys are: continent from Table countries is equivalent with contid from Table continents, country from Table car_makers is equivalent with countryid from Table countries, maker from Table model_list is equivalent with id from Table car_makers, model from Table car_names is equivalent with model from Table model_list, id from Table cars_data is equivalent with makeid from Table car_names. Use foreign keys to join Tables. Columns with relevant values: Table car_makers Column maker have values: amc; Table model_list Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column make have values: amc hornet, amc hornet sportabout (sw); Only use columns with relevant values to generate SQL. Let us take a text question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. The question is: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? The corresponding SQL is: + +# C ChatGPT's default prompt design + +"Complete sqlite SQL query only and with no explanation SQLite SQL tables, with their properties: continents(ContId, Continent); countries(CountryId, CountryName, Continent); car_makers(Id,Maker, FullName, Country); mode_list(ModelId, Maker, Model); car_names(MakeId, Model, Make); car_data(Id, MPG, Cylinders, Edispl, Horsepower, Weight, Accelerate, Year). What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? SELECT" + +Table 6: Additional few-shot learning results. + +
Methods/DatasetsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B q68.161.771.964.374.566.7
+ +# SQLPrompt output + +We show a list of real output generated by SQLPrompt. See Table 7 + +# D Selection of few-shot examples + +We also provide results in few-shot learning setting with a different set of examples. Compared to Table 3 (e.g. 66.6), the two results are very close, indicating changing the few-shot examples doesn't improve performance when using the same prompt design. + +# E Experiment details + +Querying LLMs might not require TPU or GPU - a CPU would suffice. We use the number of consistency repeats of 32 and the sampling temperature of 0.5. + +# F MixLLMs implementation + +The effect of MixLLMs of SQLPrompt shows in Table 5. When the number of mixture is less than 4, we use zero-shot results from Table 2. For example, with 4 mixtures, we combine all the 4 models in Table 2: PaLM FLAN 62B q: Concise or Verbose prompt design; PaLM FLAN 540B q: Concise or Verbose. When number of mixture is greater than 4, we include few-shot results. Note that most of the components in SQLPrompt can be applied to other in-context learning methods. We consider LLMs with different few-shot examples as a "different models", as few-shot demonstrations can influence the behaviors of LLMs. + +
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers whose birth years are either 1948 or 1949?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer WHERE Birth Year = 1948 OR Birth Year = 1949
LLM GenerationSELECT name from singer WHERE birth_year = 1948 OR birth_year = 1949
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer with the largest net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer who is worth the most?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenship of singers and the number of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, count(*) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, how many singers are from that country?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT Citizenship, count(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionPlease show the most common citizenship of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the most common citizenship?
Ground Truthselect citizenship from singer group by citizenship order by count(*) desc limit 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenships and the maximum net worth of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, what is the maximum net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow titles of songs and names of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the song titles and singer names?
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1 title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow distinct names of singers that have songs with sales more than 300000.
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT DISTINCT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
Questionwhat are the different names of the singers that have sales more than 300000?
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow the names of singers that have more than one song.
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers that have more than one songs?
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
+ +Table 7: SQLPrompt: randomly sampled generated SQL from LLM \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/images.zip b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0149ca41515af97ea4e3beb3379f30a2214e6d8c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a9e6935971e8f0e1dc63858d2518958fb723260d9317b872a5eecfb00af8b853 +size 749240 diff --git a/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/layout.json b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd4896827267960f283c3c71fe81fc7c1fe2739b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SQLPrompt_ In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,6152 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 75, + 501, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 75, + 501, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 75, + 501, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQLPrompt: In-Context Text-to-SQL with Minimal Labeled Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruoxi Sun" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Sercan Ö. Arik" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Rajarishi Sinha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Hootan Nakhost" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Hanjun Dai" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Pengcheng Yin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Tomas Pfister" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 110, + 468, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 234, + 140, + 363, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 234, + 140, + 363, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 234, + 140, + 363, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Cloud AI Research Team" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 153, + 347, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 153, + 347, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 153, + 347, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Google DeepMind" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 168, + 509, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 168, + 509, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 168, + 509, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ruoixis, soarik, sinharaj, hootan, hadai, pcyin, tpfister }@google.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text-to-SQL aims to automate the process of generating SQL queries on a database from natural language text. In this work, we propose \"SQLPrompt\", tailored to improve the few-shot prompting capabilities of Text-to-SQL for Large Language Models (LLMs). Our methods include innovative prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding strategy which selects the SQL with the most consistent execution outcome among other SQL proposals, and a method that aims to improve performance by diversifying the SQL proposals during consistency selection with different prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") and foundation models (\"MixLLMs\"). We show that SQL-Prompt outperforms previous approaches for in-context learning with zero labeled data by a large margin, closing the gap with finetuning state-of-the-art with thousands of labeled data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 474, + 155, + 487 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 474, + 155, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 474, + 155, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 291, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text-to-SQL enables natural language interfaces for databases via SQL query generation. It is crucial for enhancing database accessibility without SQL expertise, and enabling the development of conversational agents with data analysis ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language models (LM) have shown to be promising for Text-to-SQL. Notable previous work on finetuning, including PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), UnifiedSKG (Xie et al., 2022), and RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL(Li et al., 2023), achieve impressive results by leveraging customized SQL-specific syntax knowledge and training on a large number of (text, SQL) paired data samples. Recently, large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and ChatGPT" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Stiennon et al., 2020) have demonstrated promising few-shot abilities via prompting(Wei et al., 2022). By only providing a few demonstrations in the prompt, LLMs are able" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to follow the demonstrations and generate reasonable answers (\"in-context learning\"). For Text-to-SQL, few-shot prompting is beneficial as it does not require expensive training, lowers adaptation data requirements, reduces out-of-distribution issues (e.g. for unseen phrases), and reduces the risk of over-fitting and poor generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we introduce \"SQLPrompt\", a few-shot prompting approach for Text-to-SQL. The approach is comprised of execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering, \"MixPrompt\" and \"MixLLMs\" to enhance diversity of SQL proposals. In few-shot prompting, self-consistency decoding (Wang et al., 2022), which samples a diverse set of reasoning paths and selects the most consistent answer, has shown remarkable performance improvements across different tasks. Here we propose a novel variant of consistency decoding for Text-to-SQL, \"execution-based consistency decoding and execution error filtering\". The proposed decoding is tailored to be SQL-execution specific - we marginalize over SQLs, and conduct majority vote on execution outcome, whereas the original self consistency approach marginalizes over chain-of-thought thinking path, and conduct majority vote on the final answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 526, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 526, + 767 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 526, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, the improvement brought by self-consistency' decoding using the same prompt and same LLMs saturate beyond a certain number of samples. Because the diversity of SQL candidates are limited with the same prompt and same LLM. Here we propose employing diverse prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") and LLMs (\"MixLLMs\") to obtain more diverse LLM outputs. \"MixPrompt\" applies different prompt designs, which changes the interface of query and LLMs, leading to more diverse LLM's outputSQLs.\"MixLLMs\" holds the assumption that different LLMs pretrained on diverse set of knowledge, can yield different outcomes. Finally, the answer is the consistent answer across different prompt designs and LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 215, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 215, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 215, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'https://chat.openai.com/chat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "542" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 542-550 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 134, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 134, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 134, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 241, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 241, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 241, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Problem setup for Text-to-SQL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be natural language query and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be the database information. Text-to-SQL task is to convert query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into SQL. The database " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_q = \\{S, K_p, K_f\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " includes database schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", primary keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and foreign keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " usually contains multiple tables " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = \\{T_1, T_2, \\ldots, T_t\\ldots\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Each table " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has table name " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", column names " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and column data types " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_t = \\{N_t, (c_{t1}, t_{t1}), (c_{t2}, t_{t2}), (c_{tj}, t_{tj})\\ldots\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Primary keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " uniquely identifying rows of each table, and foreign keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " join multiple tables." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 270, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 270, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 270, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Prompt design: database schema and content and primary/foreign keys" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The prompt should include all necessary information needed for humans to generate SQL. The prompt is comprised of database schema, primary and foreign keys, and the database content. We reflect database content (entry values) as proposed in (Lin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020), where only values that are relevant to the question are included (refer to Appendix A for more discussion). Furthermore, we present the above information in different formats, with the goal of making them different from each other to encourage diverse outputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Concise prompts we linearize information in a table as \"Table1 name: column name 1, column name 2 (relevant database content) | Table2 name: column1 ...\" (Figure 1, Concise. Full example in Appendix B.1). This way describes table structure clearly, but can be less straightforward for LLMs to understand the syntax. Verbose prompts we describe databases with human understandable words and emphasize on the information LLMs need to know: e.g. \"Table \"CarNames\" contains three columns. The column names and their types are : MakeID (number), Model (string) ..\"; \"Foreign keys are .. Use foreign keys to join Tables\". See Appendix B.2 for an example." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 270, + 699 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 270, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 270, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Refinement based on execution-based consistency with MixPrompt and MixLLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use few-shot prompting with execution-based consistency decoding and error filtering. We apply various prompt designs (\"MixPrompt\") to encourage LLMs to generate diverse SQL outputs Suppose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F = \\{f_{1},f_{2},\\ldots \\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a collection of prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "design functions, e.g. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is verbose, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is concise. When we fix the LLMs, we have MixPrompt with the following prediction objectives:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 118, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 118, + 524, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 118, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (s q l | \\mathrm {L L M}, q) = \\sum_ {f} p (s q l | \\mathrm {L L M}, f, q) p (f), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "ae9df3765342863249f2bcb827fe1abe83b651bbcbee0b7d5e300a61ba6a21e3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(f)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is mixing coefficient. We evenly mix the prompts, hence, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(f) = 1 / nF" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "nF" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of design functions. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(sq|\\mathrm{LLM},f,q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the sampling probability of generating sqI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 222, + 499, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 222, + 499, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 222, + 499, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: Refinement based on execution and consistency with MixPrompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data:Require:Query questions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{test}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ;Database " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{test}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ; Prompt design function collections " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " B is consistency sample numbers \nResult:SQL output of test set: SQL-test \nwhile " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{test}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_q\\gets D_{test}[q]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \nPrompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{\\Phi}_{qf}\\leftarrow f(q_i,D_q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " eq (2) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{M} = []" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{O} = []" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{rlr}{\\sf s q l_{q f b}} & \\sim & {\\sf L L M(P r o m p t_{q f})} \\end{array}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " eq (3) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{qfb} = \\text{Exec}(s q l_{qfb},D_q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if \"error\" NOT in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{c}{M\\leftarrow s q l_{qfb};}\\\\ {O\\leftarrow O_{qfb};} \\end{array}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " end \nend \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{\\sf s q l_{select}} = \\{{\\sf s q l}_q:O_q = {\\sf Majorit y}(O),q\\in" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " eq (9) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SQL}_{\\mathrm{test}}\\gets \\mathrm{sql}_{\\mathrm{select}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 249, + 510, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 12, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MixPromt is overviewed in Fig 1. For each design function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we generate prompts using database " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The trained LLMs specify the distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell : q \\to sql" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where we can draw sample from:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 353, + 583, + 524, + 598 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 353, + 583, + 524, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 353, + 583, + 524, + 598 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f} = f (q, D _ {q}) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "14049be9f2b67b54407eb5a1fa88e2843259aba3901595faaaf09bb18f94df97.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 601, + 524, + 619 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 601, + 524, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 601, + 524, + 619 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s q l _ {q f} \\underset {i. i. d} {\\sim} \\operatorname {L L M} \\left(\\operatorname {P r o m p t} _ {q f}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "2adee0bfd31089671a83f87fd4ed38f51f5e9a5482fad724d56e456392f48a72.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " times from the LLM with the same prompt Prompt" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to get SQL collections by Eq 3:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 356, + 661, + 524, + 678 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 356, + 661, + 524, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 356, + 661, + 524, + 678 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "M _ {q f} = \\left\\{s q l _ {q f} ^ {1}, \\dots s q l _ {q f} ^ {b} \\right\\} _ {B} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "da478f4e679e48835bf404e9abab7140cc8358eb9ab43912cf0231c10c74e7cb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 526, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 526, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 526, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then execute the generated SQLs using the engine Exec (i.e.sqlite3), which yields the outputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 526, + 737 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 526, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the execution result of SQL on the provided database." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 744, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 744, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 744, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {q f} = \\left\\{O _ {q f} ^ {b}: O _ {q f} ^ {b} = _ {\\text {E x e c}} \\left(\\operatorname {s q l} _ {q f} ^ {b}, D _ {q}\\right), \\operatorname {s q l} _ {q} ^ {b} \\in M _ {q f} \\right\\} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "d95c2779e2eb75f85845e290d2d38ac520d31ad396278e6cc8033ef0def3b042.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "543" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 486, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 486, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 486, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 486, + 253 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a3888d64cec42b53f68fe24456cca9c0ea02f20b8c643dd691b20a6dd0c6bcc2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 264, + 525, + 324 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 264, + 525, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 264, + 525, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: SQLPrompt Overview: (Left) Prompt Design: Concise prompt design (up) and Verbose prompt design (down). (Right) MixPrompt in SQLPrompt generates multiple prompts using database and query question, to query LLMs. For each query, LLMs are sampled twice, and two SQLs are generated and executed on the database with errors filtered out. The execution outcomes of both prompt designs are combined to select the most consistent SQL. Without MixPrompt, the true answer cannot be selected with only one prompt (blue) due to a tie situation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further exclude outputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{qf}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that yield errors and only keep the valid output, therefore, obtain final (SQL, outcome) pairs for prompt design " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f\\colon R_{qf} = (M_{qf},O_{qf}) = \\{(M_{qf}^{b},O_{qf}^{b}): O_{qf}^{b}\\neq \\text{errors}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We repeat the above process for each prompt design function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{q} = \\{R_{q1},\\ldots R_{qf},\\ldots \\}_{nF}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", by concatenating all the results across multiple designs and obtain:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 452, + 289, + 466 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 452, + 289, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 452, + 289, + 466 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "M _ {q} = \\left[ M _ {q 1}, \\dots , M _ {q f} \\dots , M _ {n F} \\right] \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "f793aa99bb9e54f2e507c2aa77fb6e59b0abf9566f2e4a2643af432b787a4fd0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 468, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 468, + 289, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 468, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "Q _ {q} = \\left[ O _ {q 1}, \\dots , O _ {q f} \\dots , O _ {n F} \\right] \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "6b87284cea7bc1bc29db767ac3bf5b86c0a40495138e1557fa0418cda1209035.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following self-consistency, we select the SQL outputs that give the execution outcome consisted with the majority of the execution outcomes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generated by all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M_{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 556, + 289, + 573 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 556, + 289, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 556, + 289, + 573 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s q l _ {s e l e c t} = \\left\\{s q l _ {q} ^ {k}: O _ {q} ^ {k} = M a j o r i t y (O _ {q}) \\right. \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "30ec6c95ade388d83304f22ec7a8b5dfdd866abc1dc45aca426a0fe8fff908f9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 576, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 576, + 289, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 576, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {q} ^ {k} \\in Q _ {q}, s q l _ {q} ^ {k} \\in M _ {q} \\}, \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "6711a717d92fbedc09aa8fbb6c8a4f5cc918ebbedfba5338e14349f871f0a9f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the index across multiple prompt design and consistency repeats. The overall process is described in Algorithm 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MixLLMs With the goal of increasing diversity of the SQL proposals in consistency decoding, we further expand our method to not only use one LLM, but rather a mixture of LLMs. The consistency samples include resource from different prompt designs and different LLMs:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 295, + 772 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 295, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 295, + 772 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (s q l | q) = \\sum_ {\\text {L L M}} \\sum_ {f} p (s q l | L L M, f, q) p (f) p (L L M) \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "4f7526258602dc113117f1837b2e96079559d30f206e6a0077cec31994def86f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 525, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar to the combination idea in MixPrompt, \"MixLLM\" combines outputs across multiple LLMs, in addition to multiple prompt designs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We note that our method differs from generic Mixture of Expert (MoE) (Chen et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022) approaches as we instantiate MoE in few-shot prompting setup, where experts are various prompt designs. Moreover, rather than simple averaging, we combine results based on execution outcomes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 476, + 389, + 489 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 476, + 389, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 476, + 389, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 525, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 525, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tasks and datasets: We consider the cross-domain large-scale Text-to-SQL benchmark, Spider (Yu et al., 2018) that contains 7000 training samples across 166 databases and 1034 evaluation samples ('Dev split') across 20 databases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models: PaLM FLAN 540B is a PaLM model variant (Chowdhery et al., 2022) with 540 billion parameters fine-tuned on a collection of tasks phrased as instructions. FLAN (Chung et al., 2022) is a reference to the way of fine-tuning that reflects instructions being given in the prompt. PaLM62B is a PaLM variant with 62 billion parameters trained on 1.3T tokens following the (Hoffmann et al., 2022) PaLM FLAN 62B is FLAN fine-tuned variant. Quantization is applied to above models with qntz, that reduces the precision albeit increased inference efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fine-tuning baselines: PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) employs incremental parsing to constrain auto-regressive decoding. RASAT (Qi et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "544" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 54, + 426, + 226 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 54, + 426, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 54, + 426, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 54, + 426, + 226 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsSPIDER
EXTS
Fine-tuningT5-3B + PICARD79.369.4
RASAT + PICARD80.570.3
RESDSQL-3B + NatSQL84.173.5
In-context learningGPT-3 ada (0-shot)2.30.3
GPT-3 babbage (0-shot)5.73.9
GPT-3 curie (0-shot)12.68.3
GPT-3 davinci (0-shot)26.321.7
Codex couchman (0-shot)63.753.0
Codex davinci (0-shot)67.055.1
ChatGPT (0-shot)70.160.1
SQLPrompt (0-shot)76.668.0
SQLPrompt (4-shot)77.168.6
", + "image_path": "8be1b6113e157808e8487341e6150d3b915466650fb510165d1fe7e5286ac813.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 296, + 394 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 231, + 525, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 231, + 525, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 231, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Performance on the Spider Dev set, measured in execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS). GPT3 and CodeX results are from (Rajkumar et al., 2022) and ChatGPT results are from (Liu et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 291, + 300 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 291, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Ablation study on prompt design approaches in 0-shot setting. MixPrompt improves concise or verbose prompt design approaches with different LLMs. We only mark TS Acc. changes, not EX, because TS is more accurate evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 296, + 394 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 296, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 296, + 394 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz67.761.370.862.970.563.2 (↑ 0.3)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz72.364.171.661.374.065.5 (↑ 1.4)
Table 3: Ablation Study: Few-shots
ModelsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B qntz65.959.671.863.874.766.6 (↑ 2.8)
PaLM FLAN 540B qntz71.263.270.761.174.765.2 (↑ 2.0)
", + "image_path": "75712aba89f9d557b41f660013b3a00653562baccc74b9ec44348a8adcc450ff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2022) is a transformer model that integrates relation-aware self-attention and constrained autoregressive decoders. RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023) decouples schema linking and skeleton parsing using a ranking-enhanced encoding and skeleton-aware decoding framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-context learning baselines: (Rajkumar et al., 2022) comprehensively evaluate the Text-to-SQL ability of CodeX and GPT3, while (Liu et al., 2023) conduct a comprehensive evaluation on ChatGPT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 291, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation: We consider two commonly-used evaluation metrics: execution accuracy (EX) and test-suite accuracy (TS) (Zhong et al., 2020), where EX measures if SQL execution outcome matches ground truth. TS assesses each query by running multiple tests against randomly generated database with same schema (EX only evaluates on one test). So TS reduces false positives from EX and hence can be more precise. Exact match evaluation is not performed, as multiple correct SQLs exist for one query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 127, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 127, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 127, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table-1 presents the comparison between SQLPrompt and the previous methods for in-context learning and fine-tuning. For in-context learning, SQLPrompt outperforms ChatGPT (with their rec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 325, + 269, + 504, + 367 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 255, + 524, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 255, + 524, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 255, + 524, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Ablation Study of SQLPrompt (without Mix LLMs)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 269, + 504, + 367 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 269, + 504, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 269, + 504, + 367 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
EXTS
SQLPrompt (Prompt Design + Consistency + Execution Filtering +MixPrompt)70.563.2
No MixPrompt67.761.3 (↓ 1.9)
Only Schema (No primary, No foreignkeys, no DB content)66.457.3 (↓ 5.9)
No Consistency55.949.6 (↓ 13.6)
No Execution Filtering55.248.7 (↓ 14.5)
", + "image_path": "a5ecf96ece90832ef4f9a2ea1d863c2414cdcaed527c2b99b5dfee5232368bdf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 336, + 383, + 490, + 426 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 370, + 514, + 381 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 370, + 514, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 370, + 514, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Ablation Study: SQLprompt with Mix LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 383, + 490, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 383, + 490, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 383, + 490, + 426 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Num of MixtureZero-shotsFew-shots
24616
EX7476.677.377.1
TS65.568.068.368.6
", + "image_path": "60c48090404cec7329ce5ea280d11a1bc65de591afe2be15f8fd2321674daa8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ommended prompts) by a large margin: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\uparrow 7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for execution accuracy (EX) and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\uparrow 8.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for test suite accuracy (TS). Examples of SQL generated by SQLPrompt are provided in Table 7 in Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation study SQLPrompt consists of multiple components: prompt design, execution-based consistency decoding, MixPrompt, and MixLLMs. The effect of MixPrompt prompt is shown in Table 3, leading to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvement over single prompt. The effect of mixing LLMs is shown in Table 5, leading to additional " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 526, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over single LLM in test suite accuracy (details description of mixLLMs are provided in Appendix F)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To shed light into the impact of these components, ablation studies are presented in Table 4. All listed components are observed to be useful, yielding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2 \\sim 15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvements. Notably, without consistency decoding and keeping all others unchanged, the performance decreases by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "13.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; that is it contributes by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "13.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; Without \"execution error filtering\" and keeping other components unchanged, the results decrease by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "14.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". \"MixPrompt\" contributes by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and adding \"Primary Keys/Foreign Keys/DB content\" contributes by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "545" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 290, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 290, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 290, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The limitation of this work is that the method queries multiple prompt designs and LLMs, that can be expensive and time consuming. Although combining multiple prompt designs and LLMs are promising to improve performance, future work can explore more efficient and effective ways to combine them to save cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 210, + 127, + 222 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 210, + 127, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 210, + 127, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 291, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Yue Wu, Quanquan Gu, and Yuanzhi Li. 2022. Towards understanding mixture of experts in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02813." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 291, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 290, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023. Decoupling the skeleton parsing and schema linking for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 291, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chat-gpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiexing Qi, Jingyao Tang, Ziwei He, Xiangpeng Wan, Chenghu Zhou, Xinbing Wang, Quanshi Zhang, and Zhouhan Lin. 2022. Rasat: Integrating relational" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "structures into pretrained seq2seq model for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.06983." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 103, + 526, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 103, + 526, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 103, + 526, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05093." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 525, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008-3021." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedsgk: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 549, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 549, + 525, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 549, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Quoc V Le, James Laudon, et al. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:7103-7114." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "546" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 282, + 111 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 282, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 282, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Text-to-SQL challenges and prompt design with primary/foreign keys and database content" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 123, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 123, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 123, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fig. 2 shows a Text-to-SQL example from Spider. Fig. 2 demonstrates the necessity of including primary and foreign keys, and content of database. The data schema contains multiple tables. Each table has multiple columns. Primary keys are the columns that uniquely identify a row in a table. Primary keys are important, as some columns might specifically be challenging and it might be beneficial to include them specifically as prompts, such as in Query 1 of Fig. 2 where \"t2.makeid\" may be mistakenly written as \"t2.id\" without proper emphasis. Foreign key is a column or combination of columns that is used to establish and enforce a link between the data in two tables. For example, in Fig 2, Column Maker of Table Model list is equivalent to Column ID of Car Maker. By including foreign keys into prompt, LLMs can know how to join different tables. Otherwise, it can be ambiguous to link multiple tables, especially for complex data schema or schema with confusing column names. For example, Column Maker in Table Model list is not the same as Column Maker in Table Car Maker. Although they both called column \"Maker\", one is number and the other is string. Instead due to foreign keys, we known Column Maker of Table Model List is equivalent to Column ID in Table Car maker. Additionally, including relevant database content value, as seen in (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), is necessary as they help identify which columns are relevant to key words in the query question, such as in Fig. 2, Query1's key information is \"amc honrnet sportabout (sw)\", however, without adding database content value, we do not know which columns contain the value of the key information. e.g. is it Column Maker of Table Model List? Is it Column Maker of Table Car Maker? or Is it Column Make of Table Car Names? Only by including database content values, LLM can know it should use The column of Make of Table Car Names. Note that the database content values are questions depended. Only content values that are related with questions is included into prompt. See Fig 3. Note not all the content values are included. So there is not problem if the number of database contents is very large. As for how to extract relevant database content values regarding the query questions, we follow (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), where all the content values" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "are compared against the query questions, and only top few ones that match the query question the best are included." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 119, + 509, + 283 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 119, + 509, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 119, + 509, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 119, + 509, + 283 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9a4e5cba63b5454eb272fb8f11d85c3cd2f332d35a32b81f1c0312e131815c7f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 289, + 503, + 318 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 289, + 503, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 289, + 503, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Query 1]: What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? [SQL 1]: select t1.accelerate from cars_data as t1 join car_names as t2 on t1.id = t2.makeid where t2.make = \"amc hornet sportabout (sw)\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 324, + 504, + 356 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 324, + 504, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 324, + 504, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Query 2]: How many car models are produced in the usa? \n[SQL2]: \nselect count(*) from model_list as t1 join car_makers as t2 on t1.make = t2.id join countries as t3 on t2 country = t3.countryid where t3(countryname = 'usa');" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 471 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: One database schema with two query questions and true SQL as demo. Dark red are primary keys. Dark green arrows are foreign keys joining different tables. Light gray is the context (values) in database (or table). Both primary key and foreign keys are given in the database schema. The highlighted (yellow or cyan) are the part of schema that are used to solve Query 1 and 2 respectively. Colors are simply for easy visualization. Same color, same table." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 451, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 451, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 451, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Prompt design examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show the prompt design for a example in Spider dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 440, + 566 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 440, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 440, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 Concise prompt design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Convert text to SQL: [Schema (values)]: | car_1 | continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid , countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) , fullname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) | car_names : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amc hornet sportabout (sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders ,edispl , horsepower , weight , accelerate , year; [Column names (type)]: continents : contid (number) | continents : continent (text) | countries : countryid (number) | countries : countryname (text)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "547" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 104, + 79 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 104, + 79 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 104, + 79 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 84, + 268, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 84, + 268, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 84, + 268, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "continents : contid , continent | countries : countryid ,countryname , continent | car_makers : id , maker ( amc ) ,fuilname , country | model_list : modelid , maker , model ( amc ) |car NAMES : makeid , model ( amc ) , make ( amc hornet , amchornet sportabout ( sw ) ) | cars_data : id , mpg , cylinders , edispl, horsepower , weight , accelerate , year;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 146, + 104, + 155 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 146, + 104, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 146, + 104, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 159, + 248, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 159, + 248, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 159, + 248, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "continents:contid,continenticountries:countryid,countryside(usa),continent|car_makers: id,maker,fullname,country|model_list:modelid,maker model|car_names:makeid,modelf,makc|cars_data: id,mpg, cylinders,edispl,horsepower,weight,accelerate,year;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Example of database with content: examples in Fig 2. Highlighted are database content for different queries. Following previous work (Xie et al., 2022; Scholak et al., 2021), only the relevant database content values are included. So different query questions have different database content value." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "| countries : continent (number) | car_makers : id (number) | car_makers : maker (text) | car_makers : fullname (text) | car_makers : country (text) | model_list : modelid (number) | model_list : maker (number) | model_list : model (text) | car_names : makeid (number) | car_names : model (text) | car_names : make (text) | cars_data : id (number) | cars_data : mpg (text) | cars_data : cylinders (number) | cars_data :edispl (number) | cars_data : horsepower (text) | cars_data : weight (number) | cars_data : accelerate (number) | cars_data : year (number); [Primary Keys]: continents : contid | countries : countryid | car_makers : id | model_list : modelid | car_names : makeid | cars_data : id; [Foreign Keys]: countries : continent equals continents : contid | car_makers : country equals countries : countryid | model_list : maker equals car_makers : id | car_names : model equals model_list : model | cars_data : id equals car_names : makeid [Q]: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)?; [SQL]: \"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 205, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 205, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 205, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.2 Verbose prompt design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"This is a task converting text into SQL statement. We will first given the dataset schema and then ask a question in text. You are asked to generate SQL statement. Here is the test question to be answered: Let us take a question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. There are 6 tables. Their titles are: continents, countries, car_makers, model_list, car_names, cars_data. Table 1 is continents, and its column names and types are: ContId (Type is number), Continent (Type is text). Table 2 is countries, and its column names and types are: CountryId (Type is number), Coun" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tryName (Type is text), Continent (Type is number). Table 3 is car_makers, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), Maker (Type is text), FullName (Type is text), Country (Type is text). Table 4 is model_list, and its column names and types are: ModelId (Type is number), Maker (Type is number), Model (Type is text). Table 5 is car_names, and its column names and types are: MakeId (Type is number), Model (Type is text), Make (Type is text). Table 6 is cars_data, and its column names and types are: Id (Type is number), MPG (Type is text), Cylinders (Type is number), Edispl (Type is number), Horsepower (Type is text), Weight (Type is number), Accelerate (Type is number), Year (Type is number). The primary keys are: contid from Table continents, countryid from Table countries, id from Table car_makers, modelid from Table model_list, makeid from Table car_names, id from Table cars_data. The foreign keys are: continent from Table countries is equivalent with contid from Table continents, country from Table car_makers is equivalent with countryid from Table countries, maker from Table model_list is equivalent with id from Table car_makers, model from Table car_names is equivalent with model from Table model_list, id from Table cars_data is equivalent with makeid from Table car_names. Use foreign keys to join Tables. Columns with relevant values: Table car_makers Column maker have values: amc; Table model_list Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column model have values: amc; Table car_names Column make have values: amc hornet, amc hornet sportabout (sw); Only use columns with relevant values to generate SQL. Let us take a text question and turn it into a SQL statement about database tables. The question is: What is the accelerate of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? The corresponding SQL is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 500, + 627 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 500, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 500, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C ChatGPT's default prompt design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"Complete sqlite SQL query only and with no explanation SQLite SQL tables, with their properties: continents(ContId, Continent); countries(CountryId, CountryName, Continent); car_makers(Id,Maker, FullName, Country); mode_list(ModelId, Maker, Model); car_names(MakeId, Model, Make); car_data(Id, MPG, Cylinders, Edispl, Horsepower, Weight, Accelerate, Year). What is the acceleration of the car make amc hornet sportabout (sw)? SELECT\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "548" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 81, + 296, + 117 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 69, + 270, + 81 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 69, + 270, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 69, + 270, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Additional few-shot learning results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 81, + 296, + 117 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 81, + 296, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 81, + 296, + 117 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Methods/DatasetsConciseVerboseMixPrompt
EXTSEXTSEXTS
PaLM FLAN 62B q68.161.771.964.374.566.7
", + "image_path": "90075493deadf41532db5c6d6d05e9433a3655274e8d9e05f6528daeda421aeb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 171, + 152 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 171, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 171, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQLPrompt output" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show a list of real output generated by SQLPrompt. See Table 7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 247, + 210 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 247, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 247, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Selection of few-shot examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also provide results in few-shot learning setting with a different set of examples. Compared to Table 3 (e.g. 66.6), the two results are very close, indicating changing the few-shot examples doesn't improve performance when using the same prompt design." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 188, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 188, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 188, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Experiment details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 291, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 291, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 291, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Querying LLMs might not require TPU or GPU - a CPU would suffice. We use the number of consistency repeats of 32 and the sampling temperature of 0.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 227, + 407 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 227, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 227, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F MixLLMs implementation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The effect of MixLLMs of SQLPrompt shows in Table 5. When the number of mixture is less than 4, we use zero-shot results from Table 2. For example, with 4 mixtures, we combine all the 4 models in Table 2: PaLM FLAN 62B q: Concise or Verbose prompt design; PaLM FLAN 540B q: Concise or Verbose. When number of mixture is greater than 4, we include few-shot results. Note that most of the components in SQLPrompt can be applied to other in-context learning methods. We consider LLMs with different few-shot examples as a \"different models\", as few-shot demonstrations can influence the behaviors of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "549" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 515, + 761 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 515, + 761 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 515, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 515, + 761 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers whose birth years are either 1948 or 1949?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer WHERE Birth Year = 1948 OR Birth Year = 1949
LLM GenerationSELECT name from singer WHERE birth_year = 1948 OR birth_year = 1949
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer with the largest net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the name of the singer who is worth the most?
Ground TruthSELECT Name FROM singer ORDER BY Net_Worth_Millions DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id ORDER BY T1.net_worth_millions Desc LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenship of singers and the number of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, count(*) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, how many singers are from that country?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, COUNT(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT Citizenship, count(*) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionPlease show the most common citizenship of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC LIMIT 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat is the most common citizenship?
Ground Truthselect citizenship from singer group by citizenship order by count(*) desc limit 1
LLM GenerationSELECT citizenship FROM singer GROUP BY citizenship ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow different citizenships and the maximum net worth of singers of each citizenship.
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionFor each citizenship, what is the maximum net worth?
Ground TruthSELECT Citizenship, max(Net_Worth_Millions) FROM singer GROUP BY Citizenship
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.citizenship, max(T1.net_worth_millions) FROM singer AS T1 GROUP BY T1.citizenship
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow titles of songs and names of singers.
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the song titles and singer names?
Ground TruthSELECT T2.Title, T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID
LLM GenerationSELECT T1 title, T2.name FROM song AS T1 JOIN singer AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow distinct names of singers that have songs with sales more than 300000.
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT DISTINCT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
Questionwhat are the different names of the singers that have sales more than 300000?
Ground TruthSELECT DISTINCT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID WHERE T2.Sales > 300000
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id WHERE T2.sales > 300000
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionShow the names of singers that have more than one song.
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
QuestionWhat are the names of the singers that have more than one songs?
Ground TruthSELECT T1.Name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.Singer_ID = T2.Singer_ID GROUP BY T1.Name HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
LLM GenerationSELECT T1.name FROM singer AS T1 JOIN song AS T2 ON T1.singer_id = T2.singer_id GROUP BY T1.singer_id HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
Execution Accuracy1
", + "image_path": "522b14f5c98d8adb77a7c27c0c38fbd163d567f5b4476e7824d77e8cd10d14fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 769, + 432, + 781 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 769, + 432, + 781 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 769, + 432, + 781 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: SQLPrompt: randomly sampled generated SQL from LLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "550" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_content_list.json b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39534e265e502e9af1ef3b07464cb953bb438b9d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2677 @@ +[ + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6066536834af3024f930c9f01434378a7b3d295760c25dcbe500a6882d431917.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 181, + 93, + 208, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 213, + 93, + 818, + 114 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Skyler Hallinan $^{\\text{♥}}$ Faeze Brahman $^{\\text{♣}}$ Ximing Lu $^{\\text{♣}}$", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 131, + 736, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jaehun Jung $^{\\text{♥}}$ Sean Welleck $^{\\text{♥}\\clubsuit}$ Yejin Choi $^{\\text{♥}\\clubsuit}$", + "bbox": [ + 284, + 149, + 715, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{\\diamond}$ Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 167, + 850, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\clubsuit$ Allen Institute for AI $\\diamondsuit$ Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 184, + 850, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "hallisky@cs.washington.edu", + "bbox": [ + 341, + 202, + 658, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While text style transfer has many applications across natural language processing, the core premise of transferring from a single source style is unrealistic in a real-world setting. In this work, we focus on arbitrary style transfer: rewriting a text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement, a unified framework developed to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data for style transfer. STEER involves automatically generating a corpus of style-transfer pairs using a product of experts during decoding. The generated offline data is then used to pre-train an initial policy before switching to online, off-policy reinforcement learning for further improvements via fine-grained reward signals. STEER is unified and can transfer to multiple target styles from an arbitrary, unknown source style, making it particularly flexible and efficient.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 387, + 460, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experimental results on a challenging dataset with text from a diverse set of styles demonstrate state-of-the-art results compared to competitive baselines. Remarkably, STEER outperforms the 175B parameter instruction-tuned GPT-3 on overall style transfer quality, despite being 226 times smaller in size. We also show STEER is robust, maintaining its style transfer capabilities on out-of-domain data, and surpassing nearly all baselines across various styles. The success of our method highlights the potential of RL algorithms when augmented with controllable decoding to overcome the challenge of limited data supervision.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 593, + 460, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 806, + 258, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Style transfer has been widely explored in the NLP field due to its practical applications, such as making text more formal (Rao and Tetreault, 2018),", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 834, + 489, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1We release our code publicly at https://github.com/shallinan1/STEERStyleTransfer", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/85395e19b400c7281d5bf1ecf62fee75617a8148a2dfbe076ef9b55efaf26df7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Standard Style Transfer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 269, + 880, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/72cec8bd46713ecdae8fc5324e74fb7d731db3e489da16292d927ccf62af3156.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Unified Style Transfer", + "Figure 1: An overview of unified style transfer. In standard style transfer, models can only transfer from a single source style to a specified target style, struggling to transfer from out-of-domain texts. In contrast, unified style transfer models can transfer from an arbitrary source style to multiple target styles." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 409, + 880, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "increasing politeness (Madaan et al., 2020; Mukherjee et al., 2023), or anonymizing authorship (Shetty et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2022). Previous work has mostly focused on one-to-one style transfer which involves rewriting text from one specific style to another while preserving meaning and fluency (Li et al., 2018; Sudhakar et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2017a). However, this approach may be less practical in real-world scenarios, where there are multiple and often unknown source styles a user wishes to transfer from.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We focus on arbitrary style transfer, a many-to-one style transfer task, where the goal is to transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style using a single model (Reif et al., 2021; Krishna et al., 2020). This is a challenging task mainly", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7546", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7546-7562", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "due to the lack of large-scale, human-curated corpora for training. Furthermore, we design a framework for training a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, which can do arbitrary style transfer to multiple target styles, as shown in Figure 1. To circumvent the lack of supervised data, recent approaches (Suzgun et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2022) heavily rely on large language models like GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2022) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) in zero or few-shot settings. Though promising and convenient, these approaches are limited by the high cost of API calls (OpenAI, 2023) and lack of reproducibility due to over-reliance on LLMs (Dean, 2023). Our method enhances the effectiveness of smaller, more accessible models for style transfer, broadening their adaptability and utility for the wider community.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we present Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement ( STEER), a novel, unified framework for many-to-one style transfer without supervision. Starting with a non-parallel corpus of text with various styles and a general paraphrase model, STEER first creates a diverse, pseudo-parallel dataset of style transfer pairs using product-of-experts decoding (Hinton, 2002; Liu et al., 2021). This makes our framework efficient by eliminating the need for costly human-curated datasets. Next, STEER uses offline reinforcement learning (RL) with this data before switching to online, off-policy RL for further improvement. To reflect the varied properties of style transfer, we adapt the QUARK algorithm (Lu et al., 2022), incorporating multiple reward models associated with different aspects such as style strength, fluency, and meaning similarity. Our framework is both practical and flexible, enabling a single model to transfer arbitrary source styles to multiple target styles.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 363, + 489, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We apply STEER to a diverse dataset of 11 styles (Krishna et al., 2020), developing a unified style model capable of transferring text from any of the 11 styles to any other style in the corpus. Our final model is effective at transferring style while preserving fluency and semantic similarity for all source and target styles, beating strong baselines across a suite of automatic metrics for style transfer. In particular, across all styles our 775M parameter model beats all baselines in overall style transfer quality, including the instruction-tuned 175B parameter GPT-3 model (Ouyang et al., 2022). Finally, we showcase the robustness of our model through evaluation on two out-of-domain source", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "styles that are unseen during training, where STEER consistently outperforms almost all baselines for every target style. The success of STEER demonstrates the effectiveness of reinforcement learning abetted by a high-quality, offline dataset in lieu of a good initial policy.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Task: Unified Style Transfer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 193, + 786, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conventionally, the goal of style transfer is to take an input text in a known source style $\\mathbf{x}_{\\mathrm{si}}$ and rewrite it into some known target style $\\mathbf{x}_{s_j}$ while preserving meaning and fluency. However, this setting is unrealistic and may not cover real-world use cases where there are multiple and often unknown source styles. The goal of arbitrary style transfer is to instead transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a text in the target style with meaning and fluency preservation. Formally, given $\\mathcal{S}$ as the set of all possible style choices, this amounts to finding a function $f:\\mathcal{X}\\times \\mathcal{S}\\to \\mathcal{X}$ , which takes an input text $\\mathbf{x}$ and a desired target style $s_j$ , and outputs a modified text in the target style $\\mathbf{x}_{\\mathrm{si}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 219, + 884, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 457, + 840, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce STEER, a novel two-stage framework for unsupervised unified style transfer. Our framework is illustrated in Figure 2 and is composed of 1) expert-guided data generation to circumvent the challenge of obtaining supervised datasets at scale, and 2) offline reinforcement learning followed by online reinforcement learning to effectively align an initial policy with multiple reward functions related to the style transfer task.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 500, + 884, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In expert-guided data generation (§3.1), the goal is to automatically collect a diverse high-quality dataset $\\mathcal{D}_f$ of style transfer pairs using only a general paraphraseer $\\mathcal{M}_p$ and a corpus of diverse styles $\\mathcal{C}$ . To this end, we follow an overgenerate-and-filter approach: we first generate a large pool of candidate pairs from the paraphraseer guided by style expert models in a product-of-expert fashion (Hinton, 2002), then leave only pairs that qualify for the style transfer task (i.e., accurately transferred style and semantically similar pairs). In online off-policy reinforcement learning (§3.2), we first update the paraphraseer $\\mathcal{M}_p$ as an initial policy using supervised learning on the collected dataset and then switch to online, off-policy learning for further data exploration and model improvements (Ramamurthy et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 646, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7547", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/83d86069f246edff6a72558867ba6dc05c32b6d92da1261dd30cc3db90fb76ac.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(1) Expert-guided Data Generation" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 96, + 564, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e28dd98db9eacb2b0707abe29167e28542f43135f4d43cbcf5a5394215188c6e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(2) Reinforcement Learning", + "Figure 2: An overview of STEER. We first use expert-guided data generation to automatically generate candidate style-transfer pairs $\\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\rightarrow \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}$ , mapping from an input of arbitrary style $x_{s_i}$ to a rewrite $x_{s_t}$ in a target style, by decoding with a product of experts using a paraphraseer $\\mathcal{M}_P$ and style-expert LMs. After filtering by quality metrics, we have a diverse, high-quality dataset $\\mathcal{D}_f$ . We then train a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, using $\\mathcal{D}_f$ for offline RL before switching to online, off-policy RL to further optimize style transfer quality." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 566, + 97, + 877, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Expert-guided Data Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 405, + 410, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first leverage expert LMs to generate a high-quality, pseudo-parallel style transfer corpus.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 489, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generation For each target style $s_t \\in S$ , we first massively generate a diverse set of candidate style transfer pairs $\\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\rightarrow \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}$ for all $s_i \\in S - \\{s_t\\}$ , such that we collect pairs of transfers from each possible source style to the target style. To do so, we first-pass text $\\mathbf{x}_{s_i}$ from a candidate source style through a general (style-agnostic) paraphraseer $\\mathcal{M}_P$ , typically resulting in a normalized text $\\tilde{\\mathbf{x}} = \\mathcal{M}_P(x_{s_i})$ with little or no stylistic features (Krishna et al., 2020). To ensure that the $\\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}$ belongs to the desired target style, we steer the paraphraseer $\\mathcal{M}_P$ generation towards the target style and away from the source style during decoding. Intuitively, we exploit the inherent capability of the paraphraseer to faithfully rewrite input texts, while injecting stylistic control through guided-decoding.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 475, + 489, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To do this, we leverage DEXPERTS decoding (Liu et al., 2021), a controllable text generation paradigm that enables steering towards and away from distinct attributes. DEXPERTS combines the distribution of a base autoregressive model $P_{b}$ with those of an \"expert\" $P_{e}$ and/or \"anti-expert\" $P_{a}$ model in a product of experts, which are trained on desirable and undesirable attributes respectively. Given a prompt $x_{4 makes it possible to be adapted for the offline RL stage. QUARK optimizes a reward function through reward conditioning. Concretely, the algorithm alternates between 1) collecting samples with the current language model, 2) sorting them into quantiles based on their reward, with each quantile identified by a reward token prepended to the language model's input, and 3) using standard language modeling loss on samples from each quantile conditioned on their reward token.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 882, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When adapting QUARK to offline RL, we start by initializing the data pool with the style transfer corpus $D_{f}$ generated through expert-guidance rather than gathering generations from the initial", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 813, + 882, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{3}$ SentenceTransformers occasionally outputs negative scores; we set these to 0 to ensure a score in $\\left\\lbrack {0,1}\\right\\rbrack$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4Off-policy RL evaluates and improves a policy different from the policy used for action selection (i.e. data generation).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7549", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c4172f9d83d54e838ed694276716045297f4a78821c7c4981d7315a7fd524d84.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter42.67.43.823.211.225.422.7
Bible44.026.96.65.216.020.221.0
1810-1820s30.211.13.514.715.917.417.0
1890-1900s35.912.34.48.69.110.410.1
1990-2000s42.316.64.37.913.017.517.2
English Twitter41.28.05.535.023.632.029.5
James Joyce20.411.85.43.41.31.62.6
Song Lyrics33.320.27.712.215.411.213.2
Romantic Poetry20.415.72.81.13.46.24.9
Shakespeare13.69.12.59.610.09.79.7
Switchboard52.921.11.70.10.35.313.7
Overall34.314.64.411.010.814.314.7
", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 80, + 783, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\\nu$ with different methods, including STRAP (Krishna et al., 2020) and P-A-R (Suzgun et al., 2022), using GPT-2 Large (774M), and GPT-3 (175B). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 287, + 882, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "policy. Afterward, we carry out the quantization and learning steps in the same manner as the original QUARK. After completing the offline RL stage, we proceed with the online QUARK training by alternating between data generation with the updated policy, quantization and learning. In both stages, our training objective can be written as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 356, + 489, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\theta^ {\\star} = \\max _ {\\theta} \\mathbb {E} _ {(\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}) \\sim \\mathcal {D}} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\big (\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}} | \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, s _ {t}, r _ {\\mathcal {V} (\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}, s _ {t})} \\big)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 487, + 478, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $r_{\\mathcal{V}(\\cdot)}$ denotes the quantized reward token corresponding to the reward score $\\mathcal{V}(\\cdot)$ of the generated rewrite. In online RL, $\\mathcal{D}$ is expanded with samples from the improved policy at each iteration.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 513, + 489, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, we also explore integrating a vectorized reward function $\\mathbf{v}(\\mathbf{x}_{s_i},\\mathbf{x}_{s_t},s_t)$ into the QUARK algorithm, rather than using the joint multiplied scalar score $\\nu$ as the reward function. In this case, instead of conditioning on one reward token that corresponds to a quantized scalar score, we condition on a reward vector composed of three reward tokens. These reward tokens represent quantized scores from the style, fluency and similarity metrics respectively. As we will show in the experiment section, we observe a noticeable performance boost brought by vectorized QUARK in terms of reward optimization. We believe this is likely because the vectorized reward provides additional fine-grained signals for optimization, which reflect the quality of each generated output with respect to individual evaluation metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 577, + 489, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 862, + 260, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We detail our experiment setup, including the datasets (§4.1), baselines (§4.2), evaluation metrics", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$(\\S 4.3)$ , experimental details $(\\S 4.4)$ , main results $(\\S 4.5)$ , ablations $(\\S 4.6)$ , and analysis of $\\mathcal{D}_f$ $(\\S 4.7)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 356, + 882, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 623, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the following datasets in our experiments: 1) the Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS; Krishna et al., 2020) is a non-parallel, diverse text corpus with 11 distinct styles such as Shakespeare and the Bible, 2) Grammarly's Yahoo Answers Formality Corpus (GYAFC; Rao and Tetreault, 2018) is a parallel corpus of formal and informal responses collected from the Yahoo Answers forum, and 3) the Yelp Review Dataset (Yelp; Shen et al., 2017a) is a non-parallel corpus of user-reviews on various businesses and services from the Yelp with binary sentiment ratings of positive or negative. For more details on the datasets see Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 425, + 884, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 630, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use three competitive style-transfer baselines. Method-specific details are located in Appendix C:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 882, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Style Transfer via Paraphrasing (STRAP; Krishna et al., 2020) is an unsupervised approach for arbitrary style transfer, which uses GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) inverse paraphrasers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 884, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt-and-Rerank (P-A-R; Suzgun et al., 2022) prompts some language model to generate $k$ candidate style transfer texts, ranks them based on quality, and returns the best one. We use P-A-R with GPT-2 Large.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 794, + 882, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a highly-capable class of decoder-only models,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7550", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/753af0be25f17a1225ff9e956b22e844a633fb174b4143a767e2b7627b1540ec.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter44.047.718.713.225.610.631.729.221.517.93028.830.227.6
Bible36.138.82222.90.31.64.34.415.715.918.019.019.819.5
1810-1820s26.329.55.910.01.24.712.415.614.316.917.621.616.920.1
1890-1900s33.534.710.013.44.411.09.911.813.913.814.614.413.813.3
1990-200s50.256.222.632.111.831.416.720.728.532.531.534.728.432.8
English Twitter46.154.120.122.132.433.537.441.830.129.534.936.432.535.0
James Joyce22.322.810.913.23.27.92.93.32.72.33.12.53.32.8
Song Lyrics42.640.522.123.210.312.419.312.922.318.419.316.224.220.1
Romantic Poetry13.512.98.910.80.80.92.01.15.24.37.04.76.03.9
Shakespeare11.811.611.110.41.34.112.915.115.314.713.415.213.815.2
Switchboard54.659.329.735.15.26.10.10.10.30.19.713.415.623.0
Overall34.637.116.518.88.811.313.614.215.415.118.118.818.619.4
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 892, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\\nu$ from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus. For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 299, + 882, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "particularly showing strong zero- and few-shot performance. We utilize GPT-3 as baseline both in a zero-shot and few-shot ( $k = 1,5,10$ ) setting. Specifically, we use the instruction-tuned, 175B parameter engine text-davinci-003.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 368, + 487, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 312, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate the quality of each style transfer pair, we use the same metrics introduced in §3.1: target style strength (TSS), fluency (F), meaning similarity (MS), and the aggregate metric $\\mathcal{V}$ . For a set of style transfer pairs (i.e., over an entire data corpus), we report the average $\\mathcal{V}$ . To ensure that the improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we also report evaluation using alternative metrics unseen during training in Appendix F; these results corroborate our main findings in §4.5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 489, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Experimental Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 327, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For all non-GPT-3 baselines, we use GPT-2 large as the base language model. Specifically, for STEER, we use GPT-2 large for the paraphraseer and for the expert models. Our main STEER results are with the vectorized QUARK variant (i.e., using fine-grained reward). More details are in Appendix A.3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Style Transfer on CDS", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 803, + 337, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate STEER's capability on arbitrary style transfer, we use CDS, as it has 11 diverse styles.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 825, + 487, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we train a unified model that can transfer arbitrary text to each style in the corpus $\\mathcal{C}$ . We use top-200K filtering for each target style, resulting in $|\\mathcal{D}_f| = 2.2\\mathrm{M}$ . Finally, we evaluate style transfer to each target style by transferring from 1000 test-set examples from every other style $\\in C$ ; this results in a total test-set size of 10,000 for each target style.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 368, + 884, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Results We demonstrate automatic results on the CDS in Table 1. Across all target styles, STEER outperforms all baselines on $\\nu$ , the aggregate style transfer quality, including GPT-3, a model 226 times larger, and STRAP, a comparably-sized, non-unified baseline. This shows that with expert-guided data generation and offline-then-online RL, a unified model can outperform other models of the same or even much larger size. The full results, including individual style transfer metrics, are in Appendix G.1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 882, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3 has its best relative performance on the Twitter and Shakespeare styles, but struggles otherwise. This shows the limitations of relying on large-scale general-purpose LLMs: in this case, GPT-3 excels transferring to styles most likely to be highly prevalent in it's internet text corpus (Brown et al., 2020) However, it is unlikely to generalize to more obscure styles unseen during training, even with few-shot examples. The poor performance of the GPT-2-based P-A-R reinforces this, showing the unreliability of prompting general-domain, pretrained LMs for style transfer, especially at smaller scales.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 690, + 884, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also conduct an out-of-domain evaluation to assess the robustness of each method to unseen", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5 Most capable model during conducting this work.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 866, + 443, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Though for each style transfer pair, $\\nu$ is equal to the product of TSS, F, and MS, once we take the corpus-average of these metrics we lose this equality guarantee", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 881, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7551", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a99c158d16616d45443ff80a0af74b184d4e37eca6ecf6f1e85cd12c589bde17.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Style transfer quality $\\nu_{\\sim \\mathrm{H}}$ on CDS, averaged across all 11 styles, with fluency and meaning similarity human evaluation. TSS is automatically computed. $^{10}$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 83, + 480, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "inputs. Specifically, we use text from the two styles in GYAFC as inputs at testing time, $^{7}$ employing the previously trained CDS model without further finetuning, and transfer to each of the 11 styles in CDS. Our results are shown in Table 2: overall, STEER is the most robust method, outperforming all others in total score, $\\mathcal{V}$ , for almost all target styles. STEER loses only to GPT-3 on the Shakespeare style; this may be due to the inherent knowledge of Shakespeare stored in GPT-3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 271, + 489, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation We also conduct a human evaluation to verify the quality of the generations. We use a 3-point Likert Scale to evaluate style transfers (Iyyer et al., 2018) on both meaning similarity $(\\mathbf{MS_H})$ and fluency $(\\mathbf{F_H})$ . Afterwards, we scale $\\mathbf{MS_H}$ and $\\mathbf{F_H}$ down to $[0,1]$ and multiply them by the automatically-computed TSS to attain $\\nu_{\\sim H} \\in [0,1]$ , a partially human aggregate metric. Three NLP experts annotate 10 examples per 11 target styles from 3 models (330 total examples).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 441, + 487, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3 shows our human evaluation results. In terms of individual metrics, STEER has better fluency than STRAP and maintains competitive fluency to GPT-3, which is known to excel at generating human-like text (Brown et al., 2020). STEER also performs slightly better in meaning similarity than STRAP, but GPT-3 outperforms both of them significantly. However, the TSS of STEER makes up for this and dwarves both the baselines. We think this is a reasonable trade-off: STEER sacrifices much less fluency and meaning preservation for much more style transfer strength.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 487, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous work has also demonstrated this trade", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 797, + 487, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/597000fccd353cf3679ad042ab2fd4769580caf4f50e117b859633d37377a1e5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Plots of the style transfer quality on CDS averaged across all 11 styles with varying $k$ , the hyperparameter used in the Top- $k$ sampling strategy." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 83, + 875, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/50db564d3d38b56c76b66c552a918135f45dedad4e25acf42c68116ac7071290.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Input: Can’t sleep at all. Smh. Transfer: AAE → 1990s-2000s
STEERI mean, I can’t sleep at all.
GPT-3I am unable to obtain any rest; shaking my head in disbelief.
STRAPI don’t want to sleep.
P-A-RCan’t sleep at all, smh.
Input: Yeah one one way or another Transfer: switchboard → rom. poetry
STEEROne way, or another, or both
GPT-3Aye, one mayhap will find the way.
STRAPAnd one way or the other
P-A-RYeah one one way or another
Input: In his fear, he dare not face me Transfer: lyrics → bible
STEERAnd he will not dare to face me: for fear of me is in his eyes.
GPT-3And his fear was great, so that he could not stand before me.
STRAPFor he that is afraid of me is of me; but he that is of me is of him.
P-A-RIn fear he came and hid himself, because God was near to him
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 235, + 890, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Examples of style transfer pairs generated by STEER and other methods. GPT-3 is run with 10-shot.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "off between style transfer accuracy and meaning preservation, both through empirical results (Suz-gun et al., 2022; Malmi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018) and explicit mentions in discussions (Li et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019; Hallinan et al., 2023). Intuitively, when transferring from one style to another, some amount of semantic changes is unavoidable; as a simple example, meaning similarity will be maximized when the input is naively copied.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 494, + 884, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall, human evaluation validates our main findings: STEER still beats both baselines in overall score $\\nu$ . These results show that GPT-3 is excellent at paraphrasing - creating fluent and semantically similar rewrites, but not at transferring to multiple diverse styles, as it often struggles to convert to the target style. On the other hand, STEER is more versatile, maintaining moderate-to-strong performance on all individual metrics, making it the strongest overall method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 656, + 882, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we show qualitative examples of generations from different models in Table 3. In the examples, STEER produces style transfers that optimize across all dimensions, while other methods", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 818, + 882, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Pairwise agreements are $94.8\\%$ and $98.8\\%$ for fluency and similarity respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7We use 1000 examples from each class", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 819, + 381, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8As in Krishna et al., 2020, we do not conduct human evaluation for target style strength, as the task is to complex for untrained annotators unfamiliar with the target styles. Appendix D.1 details an experiment we conducted which verifies this task's hardness for annotators", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 487, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9We omit P-A-R from human evaluation due to its low performance in automatic metrics. See Appendix D for details.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7552", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8e85104f0c5c2cb16135501c806629432ce87f3cfba6c51b753614dac95f0e36.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Reward TypeVTSSFMS
Coarse19.942.879.062.6
Fine-grained27.447.083.671.5
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 80, + 460, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "optimize for only one or two.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 215, + 332, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Ablations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 243, + 235, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform two ablation studies to analyze the effect of dataset size and reward design in STEER. All models are compared after 15K training steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 487, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dataset Size We investigate the effect of different dataset sizes on the performance of STEER. Using the top- $k$ sampling strategy, we vary $k$ with $k = 100\\mathrm{K}$ , 200K, and 400K and compare style transfer on CDS. Figure 4 shows the average results transferring to 11 target styles in CDS from all other styles.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 487, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interestingly, we do not observe direct scaling of style transfer performance with increasing dataset size; as the top- $k$ value increases, the aggregate score $\\nu$ , target style strength TSS, and fluency F all follow a reverse U-shape curve.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 487, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These results may indicate a trade-off between diversity and quality in the dataset $D_{f}$ used to train STEER: as the $k$ value increases with top- $k$ sampling, $D_{f}$ becomes more diverse, but also includes samples with lower-quality, which may hurt model performance downstream. On the other hand, when $k$ is too small, though the average quality of each example in $\\mathcal{D}_f$ is higher, fewer diverse examples may hurt generalization. The optimal dataset has examples with sufficient variety and quality, enabling the model to learn a high-quality policy while staying resilient to various inputs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 487, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Coarse vs Fine-grained Reward We also directly compare the use of coarse or fine-grained reward tokens in the RL stages of STEER. As mentioned in §3.2, rather than using a product of the style metrics and a single reward token, we can use a vectorized reward function that outputs each of the three style metrics individually and correspondingly condition on each of these specific metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 487, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results are shown in Table 4. Incorporating a fine-grained reward improves performance across all dimensions, including $\\nu$ . This shows that conditioning on fine-grained rewards can lead to more", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a20cf1d53355c12874d0db590623fc0d23e9d4d3b8f3ba56b9f30c14565a59ee.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Style transfer quality on CDS, averaged across 11 target styles using STEER with a coarse vs a fine-grained reward. The highest values are denoted in bold." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MSTTRn-gram entropy, n =FMS
123
Df(STEER)0.9128.815.019.386.867.2
GYAFC0.9319.115.017.886.278.4
Yelp0.9589.616.421.387.2-
CDS0.94610.017.020.483.2-
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 884, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Data metrics on ${\\mathcal{D}}_{f}$ (STEER) and other datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 177, + 878, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "control across each desired attribute, resulting in much better style transfers overall.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 218, + 880, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.7 Analysis of $\\mathcal{D}_f$", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 262, + 668, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We analyze $\\mathcal{D}_f$ , the dataset resulting from the expert-guided dataset generation. First, we compare the lexical diversity of $\\mathcal{D}_f$ against existing style transfer corpora. Following Gehrmann et al. (2021), we gauge the mean segmented token-type ratio over segmented length of $N = 10$ (MSTTR) and the $1/2/3$ -gram entropy of the training split of each corpus. We also assess the quality of style-transferred outputs in each corpus by assessing fluency (F) and meaning similarity (MS).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 282, + 882, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5 shows comparisons of these metrics. The automatically-created $\\mathcal{D}_f$ is comparable to existing human-created datasets in diversity and in fluency. The average meaning similarity is also promising, as it is within $85\\%$ of the value of GYAFC. This shows the potential of machine-generated data when aided with creative decoding algorithms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 663, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Style Transfer Due to the absence of large-scale parallel corpora for text style transfer (TST), prior work has focused on unsupervised methods designed for non-parallel datasets (Dai et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2019). Most of these efforts focus on disentangling the representation of content and the style of a given text, either through an auxiliary discriminator to classify text attributes (Hu et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2017b), or by training with a policy gradient (Xu et al., 2018; Gong et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 596, + 882, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent work has leveraged the generation capabilities of LMs for TST: Krishna et al. (2020), create a pseudo-parallel corpus by paraphrasing text from a style, then training an inverse paraphraseer to convert text to that style. Other work automatically align pairs of sentences in different styles, either in the representation-level (Prabhumoye et al., 2018) or corpus-level (Liu et al., 2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Others have attempted TST by prompting LMs (Reif et al., 2021; Suzgun et al., 2022). How-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7553", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ever, these approaches often rely on a strong initial model, either already fine-tuned on TST-related tasks (e.g. paraphrasing), or a large LM capable of few-shot generalization. In contrast, our framework does not assume strong capabilities of the initial model, making it applicable in a realistic setting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RL for NLP Recent work has shown the potential of RL to align with arbitrary natural language objective functions across areas such as summarization (Paulus et al., 2017), open-ended text generation (Lu et al., 2022), dialogue (Li et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2017), question-answering (Liu et al., 2022a), machine translation (Nguyen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016), and dataset generation (Pyatkin et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023). For unified style transfer, a setting where the desired output can be directly correlated to automatic metrics, RL is a promising avenue.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data Generation with LMs LM-generated data have been increasingly used across a wide range of tasks, such as commonsense reasoning (West et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022), NLI (Ye et al., 2022) and dialogue generation (Kim et al., 2023). While previous approaches rely on the task-solving capability of LLMs, recent work show that small LMs can also generate high-quality datasets without supervision (Jung et al., 2023; Brahman et al., 2023). Building on top of these, our work pushes further on machine-generated data by incorporating 1) inference-time decoding algorithms and 2) targeted filtering, yielding an effective pseudo-parallel corpus to initialize offline reinforcement learning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 413, + 489, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 247, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose STEER, a unified framework to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data in style transfer, by leveraging expert-guided decoding and two-stage reinforcement learning. We focus on a more realistic use case: rewriting text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a desired target style. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of STEER on both in- and out-of-domain style transfer, outperforming competitive baselines. The success of STEER underscores the potential of RL algorithms when combined with controllable decoding and encourages future algorithmic innovation that fully unleash the power of RL for real-world NLP applications.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Limitations, Ethical Considerations, and Broader Impacts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 855, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While STEER demonstrates promising results for arbitrary-to-many style transfer, there are several limitations. Firstly, in our experiments, we rely heavily on the availability of a corpus containing text from diverse styles to act as source styles for the expert-guided creation of $\\mathcal{D}_f$ ; however, not every corpus will have as diverse a set of styles to create a $D_f$ from. Instead, in data-limited settings, it may be required to gather source text from other locations, like other corpora, in order to create candidate style-transfer pairs. Secondly, while we tested the generalization of STEER to out-of-domain source style, adaption to new target styles through continual learning requires further investigation and experimentation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 128, + 884, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, like many other natural language systems, STEER could unintentionally introduce harmful stereotypes or engage in malicious content generation. Specially the use of fine-grained reward signals during online training may be used to reinforce undesired behaviors potentially leading to the generation of biased or unethical outputs. Furthermore, bad actors may try to intentionally utilize style transfer systems like STEER to create harm or to harass marginalized communities by using toxic output styles. This is a common misuse case in generation (McGuffie and Newhouse, 2020), and an application which we strongly condemn.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 884, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the positive side, STEER allows for training memory and cost-efficient training of unified style transfer models using existing corpora. Our method is thus beneficial for somewhat reducing the carbon footprint by reducing the reliance on training large language models (LLMs) to achieve desired results (Strubell et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 580, + 882, + 692 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 722, + 608, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sid Black, Stella Rose Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin G. Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Martin Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Benqi Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model. ArXiv, abs/2204.06745.", + "Faeze Brahman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Valentina Py- atkin, Jena Hwang, Xiang Li, Hirona Arai, Soumya Sanyal, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Xiang Ren, and Choi Yejin. 2023. Plasma: Making small language models" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 746, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7554", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "better procedural knowledge models for (counterfactual) planning.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 85, + 489, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, T. J. Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *ArXiv*, abs/2005.14165.", + "Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Adam K Dean. 2023. Gpt unicorn: A daily exploration of gpt-4's image generation capabilities. Accessed: 2023-05-15.", + "Nan Ding and Radu Soricut. 2017. Cold-start reinforcement learning with softmax policy gradient. In NIPS.", + "Yuntao Du, Xinjun Zhu, Lu Chen, Ziquan Fang, and Yunjun Gao. 2022. Metakg: Meta-learning on knowledge graph for cold-start recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2202.03851.", + "Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ondrej Dusek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Salomey Osei, Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Sashank Santhanam, Joao Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola, and Jiawei Zhou. 2021. The GEM benchmark: Natural language generation, its evaluation and metrics. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pages 96–120. Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 126, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Hongyu Gong, Suma Bhat, Lingfei Wu, Jinjun Xiong, and Wen mei Hwu. 2019. Reinforcement learning based text style transfer without parallel training corpus.", + "Skyler Hallinan, Alisa Liu, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2023. Detoxifying text with MaRCo: Controllable revision with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 228-242, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2002. Training Products of Experts by Minimizing Contrastive Divergence. Neural Computation, 14(8):1771-1800.", + "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. ArXiv, abs/1904.09751.", + "Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2018. Toward controlled generation of text.", + "Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1875-1885, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Luo Ji, Qin Qi, Bingqing Han, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. Reinforcement learning to optimize lifetime value in cold-start recommendation. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management.", + "Jaehun Jung, Peter West, Liwei Jiang, Faeze Brahman, Ximing Lu, Jillian Fisher, Taylor Sorensen, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Impossible distillation: from low-quality model to high-quality dataset & model for summarization and paraphrasing.", + "Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Peter West, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization.", + "Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 737-762, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter, Dan Jurafsky, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192-1202, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7555", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Juncen Li, Robin Jia, He He, and Percy Liang. 2018. Delete, retrieve, generate: a simple approach to sentiment and style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1865-1874, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. DExperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6691-6706, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiacheng Liu, Skyler Hallinan, Ximing Lu, Pengfei He, Sean Welleck, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022a. Rainier: Reinforced knowledge introspector for commonsense question answering. *ArXiv*, abs/2210.03078.", + "Ruibo Liu, Chongyang Gao, Chenyan Jia, Guangxuan Xu, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2022b. Non-parallel text style transfer with self-parallel supervision.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692.", + "Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Liwei Jiang, Jack Hessel, Lianhui Qin, Peter West, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Quark: Controllable text generation with reinforced unlearning. ArXiv, abs/2205.13636.", + "Fuli Luo, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Pengcheng Yang, Baobao Chang, Zhifang Sui, and Xu Sun. 2019. A dual reinforcement learning framework for unsupervised text style transfer.", + "Aman Madaan, Amrith Rajagopal Setlur, Tanmay Parekh, Barnabás Póczos, Graham Neubig, Yiming Yang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Alan W. Black, and Shrimai Prabhumoye. 2020. Politeness transfer: A tag and generate approach. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Sascha Rothe. 2020. Unsupervised text style transfer with padded masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8671-8680, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. 2020. The radicalization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2009.06807." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sourabrata Mukherjee, Vojtech Hudecek, and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Polite chatbot: A text style transfer application. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Khanh Nguyen, Hal Daumé III, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2017. Reinforcement learning for bandit neural machine translation with simulated human feedback. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1464–1474, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jekaterina Novikova, Ondrej Dusek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2241-2252, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "OpenAI. 2023. Openai api pricing. https://openai.com/pricing. Accessed: 2023-05-15.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv, abs/2203.02155.", + "Ajay Patel, Nicholas Andrews, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2022. Low-resource authorship style transfer with in-context learning. ArXiv, abs/2212.08986.", + "Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304.", + "Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yulia Tsvetkov, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alan W Black. 2018. Style transfer through back-translation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 866-876, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Valentina Pyatkin, Jena D. Hwang, Vivek Srikumar, Ximing Lu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin Choi, and Chandra Bhagavatula. 2022. Clarifydelphi: Reinforced clarification questions with defeasibility rewards for social and moral situations.", + "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.", + "Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Kianté Brantley, Jack Hessel, Rafet Sifa, Christian Bauckhage, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Is reinforcement learning (not) for natural language processing?: Benchmarks, baselines, and building blocks for natural language policy optimization. ArXiv, abs/2210.01241." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7556", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sudha Rao and Joel R. Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may i introduce the gyrofc dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2021. A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2109.03910.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. ArXiv, abs/1707.06347.", + "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. 2017a. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. ArXiv, abs/1705.09655.", + "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017b. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment.", + "Rakshith Shetty, Bernt Schiele, and Mario Fritz. 2017. A4nt: Author attribute anonymity by adversarial training of neural machine translation. In USEnIX Security Symposium.", + "Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in nlp. ArXiv, abs/1906.02243.", + "Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. \"transforming\" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. ArXiv, abs/1908.09368.", + "Mirac Suzgun, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. Prompt-and-erank: A method for zero-shot and few-shot arbitrary textual style transfer with small language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195–2222, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641.", + "Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4602-4625, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "John Wieting, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Kevin Gimpel, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Beyond BLEU:training neural machine translation with semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4344-4355, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*.", + "Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. Mask and infill: Applying masked language model for sentiment transfer. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, pages 5271-5277. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization.", + "Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144.", + "Jingjing Xu, Xu Sun, Qi Zeng, Xiaodong Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Houfeng Wang, and Wenjie Li. 2018. Unpaired sentiment-to-sentiment translation: A cycled reinforcement learning approach. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 979-988, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ruochen Xu, Tao Ge, and Furu Wei. 2019. Formality style transfer with hybrid textual annotations. ArXiv, abs/1903.06353.", + "Jiacheng Ye, Jiahui Gao, Qintong Li, Hang Xu, Jiangtao Feng, Zhiyong Wu, Tao Yu, and Lingpeng Kong. 2022. ZeroGen: Efficient zero-shot learning via dataset generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11653-11669, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning.", + "Li Zhou, Kevin Small, Oleg Rokhlenko, and Charles Elkan. 2017. End-to-end offline goal-oriented dialog policy learning via policy gradient. CoRR, abs/1712.02838." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Modeling Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 841, + 695, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Out-of-the-Box Modeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 866, + 757, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For this work, we use the publicly-available HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7557", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2019), to fine-tune GPT2-models and run inference. The HuggingFace code is available at https://github.com/huggingface/transformers. and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. We also use the OpenAI library (documented at https://platform.openei.com/docs/libraries) to make queries to GPT-3 for some of our style transfer baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Generation of $\\mathcal{D}_f$", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 237, + 302, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first train GPT2-large experts using the training data from CDS. See Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. For each style expert, we train with the following parameters, shown in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 259, + 487, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7d0832c7ce5a307ecb381c48c2242cf3b89be3b2598fef4a3507f47a11d9a3aa.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus1
effective batch size32
total steps50,000
steps per evaluation1000
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 334, + 478, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also include an early stopping criteria based on repeatedly increasing loss. Each model was trained on a single Nvidia RTX6K with 24GB of memory for less than 24 hours.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 487, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After these experts are created, for every pair of styles in CDS, we generate 10,000 candidate rewrite pairs. Each source text is randomly selected from the train set of a CDS style, and used as the input text for all other target styles with a variety of hyperparameters. Specifically, we employ the DEXPERTs decoding framework for each of these generations. DEXPERTs has one hyperparameter, $\\alpha$ , which we vary. We attempt the following hyperparameters for each generation, shown in Table 7:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 638, + 487, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/48d4a0111908433ba5271541f12bb6aa3f97620b2371d0d957ab517cfc2dace1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Hyperparameters used to finetune the expert models" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterTested
α[0.2,0.4,0.6]
temperature[0.7, 1.0, 1.3]
", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 822, + 420, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides these hyperparameters, we use the same max sequence and generation length as in §6, and use a no-repeat ngram value of 3 to avoid repetition. After creating $\\mathcal{D}_i$ , we filter the dataset down to 2.2M rows by doing top-200K sampling for each of the 11 target styles in CDS. Next, we use this data to train the unified model:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Training the Unified Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 217, + 774, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train our online RL for 30,000 steps with early stopping based on the overall score $\\nu$ . We use 4 RTX-A100 GPUs with 80GB of memory, and this takes about 120 hours to train. We use a batch size of 256 and the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 1e-5. The full hyperparameters are reported in Table 8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 242, + 882, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1ab4b97e4c42e68e4de1d21fffc2f6ef19d332b607a9cb170be155d792843b04.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Hyperparameters tested and used for STEER for data over-generation" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus4
effective batch size1024
total steps30,000
steps per evaluation2500
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
QUARK hyps
sample steps2500
KL penalty0.025
entropy coef0.00
policy temp.1.0
vectorized reward tokenTrue
number of buckets5
", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 370, + 873, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Hyperparameters used for unified model training, including for QUARK", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 882, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Dataset Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 678, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 The Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 838, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CDS is collected and ensembled from online archives and previous academic datasets; we list each style and the train/val/test splits in Table 9. The dataset contains no parallel data, only text from each respective style. We use CDS as the primary dataset for unified style transfer, as it has 11 distinct styles that we can train and evaluate on. See Krishna et al., 2020 for a full explanation of the styles.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7558", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/57e863fca08aba6c5c7f9c077059ed55476e91623a2811f5569a9fbed51248a7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleTrainValidationTest
AAE720K7.3K7.3K
Bible31K1.7K1.7K
Coha 1810205K5.3K5.3K
Coha 18901.2M32K32K
Coha 19901.9M49K49K
English Tweet5.2M40K40K
Joyce37K2.0K2.0K
Lyrics4.5M252K252K
Romantic Poetry27K1.5K1.5K
Shakespeare25K1.3K1.3K
Switchboard146K1.5K1.5K
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 80, + 460, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Styles and dataset sizes in CDS", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 250, + 436, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Baseline Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 290, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1 Style Transfer via Paraphrasing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 309, + 415, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We retrieve the diverse paraphrase and the inverse style transfer models from the repository in the original paper; please see Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. At inference, we use greedy decoding as this led to the best results in the original paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 330, + 487, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2 Prompt-and-Rerank", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 326, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt-and-Rerank has two prompting strategies that do not require knowledge of the source style and are therefore suitable for arbitrary style transfer. The two strategies are vanilla prompting and contrastive prompting. See Reif et al., 2021 for full details on the exact prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 442, + 487, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We test out both prompts with a small subset of data, and find that contrastive prompting works much better, so we use this going forward. We also try generating $k = 3$ samples and $k = 5$ samples per input, and find that $k = 3$ works the best. Following the original paper, we use nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with $p = 0.9$ and a temperature of 1.0. Finally, we use GPT-2 Large for fair comparison with STEER.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 487, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.3 GPT-3", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 216, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We prompt GPT-3 using nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with $p = 0.9$ and a temperature of 1.0. We include further details on zero-shot and few-shot prompting below.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 714, + 487, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.3.1 Zero-shot", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 787, + 253, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the following prompt setup for zero-shot style transfer:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 485, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rewite the following sentence into the style of [target style] Original Sentence: [original sentence] Rewritten Sentence:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 468, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.3.2 Few-shot", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 645, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For few-shot style transfer, we randomly show $k$ examples of the target style sampled from the train set, and prepending them before the 0-shot prompt as follows.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 103, + 880, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here are some examples of sentences in the style of [target style]: [example 1] [example 2] [example 3]", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 170, + 875, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Human Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 294, + 712, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since automatic metrics alone have been shown insufficient for evaluating text generations (Novikova et al., 2017), we conduct human evaluation. Annotators rate meaning similarity of a style transfer pair, and the fluency of the style-transferred text.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 321, + 882, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For fluency, annotators choose between: 0 for not fluent, 1 for somewhat fluent, and 2 for fluent. For meaning similarity, annotators choose between: 0 for not similar, 1 for somewhat similar, and 2 for similar. We discard annotations where all three annotators disagree on a label for either fluency or similarity, resulting in a final human evaluation labeled size of 310 (from an initial size of 330).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 882, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To reduce labor cost, we only run our human evaluations on the top three methods from Table 1, meaning we exclude P-A-R. In addition, following previous work, we do not run human evaluation on target style strength. Further details are explained in Appendix D.1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 531, + 882, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.1 Style Identification Task Difficulty", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 826, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The target styles in the CDS dataset are extremely complex. Previous work from Krishna et al., 2020 mention that this is too challenging of a task, even for experienced annotators.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 880, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We verify the difficulty of the text style identification task reported in Krishna et al., 2020 by performing an additional human evaluation. From the CDS test set, we randomly sample 10 examples from each of the 11 styles (110 total examples with ground truth styles). Next, we use the same three annotators from our previous human evaluation (NLP experts), and provide them with a natural language description of each of the 11 styles and 20 random examples from the train set of each to familiarize them with text from different styles. We ask them to assign a style label to each of the 110", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7559", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "examples, given their knowledge of the styles, and calculate their accuracy and agreement. On average, the annotators only have a $40.0\\%$ classification accuracy with an inter-annotator agreement of 0.39 (Fleiss' kappa). In contrast, on the same samples (unseen by the classifier), our classifier obtains a $84.5\\%$ classification accuracy. These results validate the difficulty of the task and suggest that an automatic classifier is more suited for this task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E The Cold Start Problem in RL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 242, + 415, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reinforcement learning often involves optimizing a policy model towards an optimal distribution that maximizes some expected reward. This paradigm works well out-of-the-box for a variety of tasks in NLP, such as model detoxification and sentiment control (Lu et al., 2022) where the output distribution of the initial policy already aligns, to a reasonable degree, with the optimal reward distribution. However, in a cold-start, reinforcement-learning setting, the initial policy output distribution is drastically different than the optimal reward distribution; this may be the case when the reward is linked to a specific task outside the capabilities of the original policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 268, + 489, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adjusting to cold-start has been mostly explored in the context of recommender systems, where it is difficult to determine user-preferences without any initial data (Ding and Soricut, 2017; Ji et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022), but has been sparsely pursued in reinforcement learning for NLP. Ding and Soricut (2017) introduce softmax policy gradients for cold-start reinforcement-learning, but the approach is limited to only one class of reinforcement learning algorithms (policy-gradient approaches) and includes mathematical assumptions not widely applicable to various NLP applications.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 494, + 489, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Alternative Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 699, + 420, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To ensure that the model improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we use a set of alternative metrics for target style strength, meaning similarity, and fluency, and re-run evaluation on all results from Tables 1 and 2. These are metrics unused during training time for STEER.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 487, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the fluency model, we use a different binary CoLA classifier (https://huggingface.co/textattack/roberta-base-CoLA), and again use the raw probability score of the linguistically acceptable class. To assess meaning", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "similarity, we use the embedding-based SIM model of Wieting et al., 2019 as used in Krishna et al., 2020. Finally, for the style classifier model, given limited data quantity, we train another RoBERTa-Large classifier with the same CDS data but with a different seed. As before, we compute the aggregate metric $\\mathcal{V}$ by taking the product of the three automatic metrics for each style transfer pair in the corpus, and report the average $\\mathcal{V}$ value.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our results using the alternative metrics to rerun evaluation on both in-domain style transfer and out-of-domain style transfer using the CDS-trained STEER mode are shown in Table 10 and Table 11 respectively. Overall, this corroborates our main findings by showing that our relative results are largely unchanged: on the in-domain styles, STEER beats all baselines, including impressive gains on target style strength as well as improved fluency and meaning similarity. On the out-of-domain task, STEER continues to excel, once again beating all other baselines other than GPT-3 on Shakespeare.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 230, + 884, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Full Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 774, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We detail the full experimental results for the main experiments in this section, including all style evaluation metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 458, + 882, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G.1 Main Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 518, + 707, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We include the full results for the main experiment from Table 1, testing out style transfer on the CDS dataset to each target style from all other source styles. Table 12 has the results for STEER, Table 13 has the results for STRAP, Table 14 has the results for P-A-R, and Tables 15-18 have the results for GPT-3 0-shot, 1-shot, 5-shot, and 10-shot.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 539, + 882, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7560", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/55b80a994c8dbfdb1f7590211ebabe4739272904474ae89fd800e1ccf31f3e34.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter38.27.81.618.19.420.717.6
Bible34.4222.04.012.314.413.6
1810-1820s23.19.21.012.811.512.312.6
1890-1900s34.313.62.28.08.010.310.3
1990-200s39.016.11.78.713.115.615.8
English Twitter37.78.72.528.216.624.219.8
James Joyce17.610.71.91.91.51.52.2
Song Lyrics29.320.12.910.313.69.411.7
Romantic Poetry16.814.80.90.52.64.23.9
Shakespeare11.48.00.85.97.36.66.9
Switchboard41.415.20.50.00.23.06.9
Overall29.413.31.68.98.711.111.0
", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 80, + 783, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/62b951fe2ea94181d8382c652051ac6361364183900c0967ae1510367b11de8e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\\nu$ using the alternative evaluation metrics (replication of Table 1). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter38.743.818.714.114.55.725.723.516.71525.524.823.822.9
Bible29.632.419.420.10.30.53.93.910.811.313.615.515.315.4
1810-1820s19.622.35.28.40.21.59.912.611.214.112.616.712.115.7
1890-1900s29.232.310.914.22.05.38.510.211.312.612.412.811.411.2
1990-200s44.951.922.131.66.717.915.318.926.330.630.132.626.831.0
English Twitter44.451.220.622.123.622.528.032.320.319.824.726.022.824.5
James Joyce19.021.511.713.21.53.52.02.62.93.12.92.33.03.1
Song Lyrics36.436.121.323.66.04.315.310.019.014.615.713.319.216.1
Romantic Poetry11.211.410.011.20.20.31.40.73.72.94.73.54.22.8
Shakespeare10.19.79.99.40.31.610.212.411.312.511.112.511.512.8
Switchboard42.547.322.627.72.11.70.10.00.30.04.86.68.112.4
Overall29.632.715.717.95.25.910.911.612.212.414.415.114.415.3
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 344, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8fb07f4e036798e3120c8bce0adacad8eba1a9cd65a4d2338aa9c3060054b7d1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\\nu$ using the alternative evaluation metrics from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus (replication of Table 2). For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter42.668.287.072.5
Bible44.080.985.963.9
1810-1820s30.249.881.974.7
1890-1900s35.956.685.474.6
1990-200s42.363.083.977.8
English Twitter41.262.687.774.5
James Joyce20.434.181.876.7
Song Lyrics33.351.687.274.7
Romantic Poetry20.435.380.574.7
Shakespeare13.624.783.772.7
Switchboard52.992.087.066.1
Overall34.356.384.773.0
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 649, + 480, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ce5dea2302b77e6c6b77ed0c2c56606b1954e6b00c584dffd8e3a0bc3e8f12b4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 12: Full results on CDS test set with STEER" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
vTSSFMS
AAE Twitter7.421.865.766.2
Bible26.970.579.451.7
1810-1820s11.122.578.664.9
1890-1900s12.322.682.665.0
1990-2000s16.629.182.865.0
English Twitter8.036.976.849.8
James Joyce11.826.478.866.7
Song Lyrics20.239.480.267.3
Romantic Poetry15.746.564.562.1
Shakespeare9.127.868.062.2
Switchboard21.152.069.365.2
Overall14.636.075.262.4
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 649, + 875, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: Full results on CDS test set with the STRAP", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 885, + 878, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7561", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3771b828c72b715a36d329f8ccfaee370dfb3a70437bffcb2fb059240d0418c7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter3.810.376.168.5
Bible6.62479.167.3
1810-1820s3.58.774.478.9
1890-1900s4.4107677.7
1990-2000s4.39.175.479.2
English Twitter5.512.574.182.1
James Joyce5.413.676.975.3
Song Lyrics7.723.278.265.3
Romantic Poetry2.87.677.176.1
Shakespeare2.58.27772
Switchboard1.73.975.184.5
Overall4.411.976.375.2
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 92, + 473, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ccc532c76205d76efd6faf0425ed94ed0767898451afd4a3dead3545a6415334.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 14: Full results on CDS test set with PAR" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter23.258.463.165.7
Bible5.210.48570.4
1810-1820s14.727.679.467
1890-1900s8.61583.165
1990-2000s7.912.683.868.8
English Twitter3558.38270
James Joyce3.47.477.166
Song Lyrics12.225.473.772.2
Romantic Poetry1.13.561.761.5
Shakespeare9.627.764.368.6
Switchboard0.10.192.274.5
Overall1122.476.968.2
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 372, + 478, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4e01800b7ef43e2ddac08d321ae75b9cdf58b1376678653e51fafb0b066cc8e7.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 15: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 0-shot." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter11.230.967.364.8
Bible1640.27959.5
1810-1820s15.929.48265.3
1890-1900s9.11682.463.3
1990-2000s1325.286.265.3
English Twitter23.64771.368
James Joyce1.31146.163.2
SongLyrics15.440.171.862.4
Romantic Poetry3.415.351.759.1
Shakespeare1029.561.969
Switchboard0.30.690.375.4
Overall10.825.971.865
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 652, + 478, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c79123a04629038757f8ddfb42da80a491527885fc9d1522184778b5645f6960.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 16: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 1-shot." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter25.479.158.459
Bible20.243.678.865.6
1810-1820s17.435.680.462.4
1890-1900s10.417.284.666.8
1990-2000s17.526.989.171
English Twitter3255.980.268.4
James Joyce1.610.948.663.2
Song Lyrics11.225.874.766
Romantic Poetry6.228.544.657.4
Shakespeare9.72862.868.4
Switchboard5.310.785.471.2
Overall14.332.971.665.4
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 161, + 873, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f7db5fc6214179953ef3b22c7f280b173b6c1e156e5d1c6d1421fe097641d75b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 17: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 5-shot." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter22.765.457.964.9
Bible2143.881.465.7
1810-1820s1733.18166.2
1890-1900s10.116.983.168.8
1990-2000s17.225.788.272.1
English Twitter29.551.477.869.9
James Joyce2.620.933.962.4
Song Lyrics13.230.869.569.5
Romantic Poetry4.923.243.958.9
Shakespeare9.728.760.869.5
Switchboard13.724.882.273.5
Overall14.733.269.167.4
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 583, + 873, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 18: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 10-shot.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 819, + 880, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7562", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_model.json b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be33bdbc61fc97ff97fa95820b5731c5d03c319c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3402 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.183, + 0.094, + 0.21, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.095, + 0.82, + 0.115 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.133, + 0.737, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Skyler Hallinan\\(^{\\text{♥}}\\) Faeze Brahman\\(^{\\text{♣}}\\) Ximing Lu\\(^{\\text{♣}}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.285, + 0.151, + 0.717, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jaehun Jung\\(^{\\text{♥}}\\) Sean Welleck\\(^{\\text{♥}\\clubsuit}\\) Yejin Choi\\(^{\\text{♥}\\clubsuit}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.168, + 0.852, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{\\diamond}\\)Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.185, + 0.852, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\clubsuit\\)Allen Institute for AI \\(\\diamondsuit\\)Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.203, + 0.66, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "hallisky@cs.washington.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While text style transfer has many applications across natural language processing, the core premise of transferring from a single source style is unrealistic in a real-world setting. In this work, we focus on arbitrary style transfer: rewriting a text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.388, + 0.461, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement, a unified framework developed to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data for style transfer. STEER involves automatically generating a corpus of style-transfer pairs using a product of experts during decoding. The generated offline data is then used to pre-train an initial policy before switching to online, off-policy reinforcement learning for further improvements via fine-grained reward signals. STEER is unified and can transfer to multiple target styles from an arbitrary, unknown source style, making it particularly flexible and efficient." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.594, + 0.462, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experimental results on a challenging dataset with text from a diverse set of styles demonstrate state-of-the-art results compared to competitive baselines. Remarkably, STEER outperforms the 175B parameter instruction-tuned GPT-3 on overall style transfer quality, despite being 226 times smaller in size. We also show STEER is robust, maintaining its style transfer capabilities on out-of-domain data, and surpassing nearly all baselines across various styles. The success of our method highlights the potential of RL algorithms when augmented with controllable decoding to overcome the challenge of limited data supervision." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.807, + 0.26, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.835, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Style transfer has been widely explored in the NLP field due to its practical applications, such as making text more formal (Rao and Tetreault, 2018)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1We release our code publicly at https://github.com/shallinan1/STEERStyleTransfer" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.254, + 0.804, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Standard Style Transfer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.27, + 0.882, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.619, + 0.394, + 0.796, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unified Style Transfer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.41, + 0.882, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.541, + 0.884, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An overview of unified style transfer. In standard style transfer, models can only transfer from a single source style to a specified target style, struggling to transfer from out-of-domain texts. In contrast, unified style transfer models can transfer from an arbitrary source style to multiple target styles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "increasing politeness (Madaan et al., 2020; Mukherjee et al., 2023), or anonymizing authorship (Shetty et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2022). Previous work has mostly focused on one-to-one style transfer which involves rewriting text from one specific style to another while preserving meaning and fluency (Li et al., 2018; Sudhakar et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2017a). However, this approach may be less practical in real-world scenarios, where there are multiple and often unknown source styles a user wishes to transfer from." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We focus on arbitrary style transfer, a many-to-one style transfer task, where the goal is to transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style using a single model (Reif et al., 2021; Krishna et al., 2020). This is a challenging task mainly" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7546" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7546-7562" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "due to the lack of large-scale, human-curated corpora for training. Furthermore, we design a framework for training a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, which can do arbitrary style transfer to multiple target styles, as shown in Figure 1. To circumvent the lack of supervised data, recent approaches (Suzgun et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2022) heavily rely on large language models like GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2022) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) in zero or few-shot settings. Though promising and convenient, these approaches are limited by the high cost of API calls (OpenAI, 2023) and lack of reproducibility due to over-reliance on LLMs (Dean, 2023). Our method enhances the effectiveness of smaller, more accessible models for style transfer, broadening their adaptability and utility for the wider community." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.365, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we present Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement ( STEER), a novel, unified framework for many-to-one style transfer without supervision. Starting with a non-parallel corpus of text with various styles and a general paraphrase model, STEER first creates a diverse, pseudo-parallel dataset of style transfer pairs using product-of-experts decoding (Hinton, 2002; Liu et al., 2021). This makes our framework efficient by eliminating the need for costly human-curated datasets. Next, STEER uses offline reinforcement learning (RL) with this data before switching to online, off-policy RL for further improvement. To reflect the varied properties of style transfer, we adapt the QUARK algorithm (Lu et al., 2022), incorporating multiple reward models associated with different aspects such as style strength, fluency, and meaning similarity. Our framework is both practical and flexible, enabling a single model to transfer arbitrary source styles to multiple target styles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We apply STEER to a diverse dataset of 11 styles (Krishna et al., 2020), developing a unified style model capable of transferring text from any of the 11 styles to any other style in the corpus. Our final model is effective at transferring style while preserving fluency and semantic similarity for all source and target styles, beating strong baselines across a suite of automatic metrics for style transfer. In particular, across all styles our 775M parameter model beats all baselines in overall style transfer quality, including the instruction-tuned 175B parameter GPT-3 model (Ouyang et al., 2022). Finally, we showcase the robustness of our model through evaluation on two out-of-domain source" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "styles that are unseen during training, where STEER consistently outperforms almost all baselines for every target style. The success of STEER demonstrates the effectiveness of reinforcement learning abetted by a high-quality, offline dataset in lieu of a good initial policy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.194, + 0.787, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Task: Unified Style Transfer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.221, + 0.885, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conventionally, the goal of style transfer is to take an input text in a known source style \\(\\mathbf{x}_{\\mathrm{si}}\\) and rewrite it into some known target style \\(\\mathbf{x}_{s_j}\\) while preserving meaning and fluency. However, this setting is unrealistic and may not cover real-world use cases where there are multiple and often unknown source styles. The goal of arbitrary style transfer is to instead transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a text in the target style with meaning and fluency preservation. Formally, given \\(\\mathcal{S}\\) as the set of all possible style choices, this amounts to finding a function \\(f:\\mathcal{X}\\times \\mathcal{S}\\to \\mathcal{X}\\), which takes an input text \\(\\mathbf{x}\\) and a desired target style \\(s_j\\), and outputs a modified text in the target style \\(\\mathbf{x}_{\\mathrm{si}}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.458, + 0.842, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.501, + 0.885, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce STEER, a novel two-stage framework for unsupervised unified style transfer. Our framework is illustrated in Figure 2 and is composed of 1) expert-guided data generation to circumvent the challenge of obtaining supervised datasets at scale, and 2) offline reinforcement learning followed by online reinforcement learning to effectively align an initial policy with multiple reward functions related to the style transfer task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.647, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In expert-guided data generation (§3.1), the goal is to automatically collect a diverse high-quality dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) of style transfer pairs using only a general paraphraseer \\(\\mathcal{M}_p\\) and a corpus of diverse styles \\(\\mathcal{C}\\). To this end, we follow an overgenerate-and-filter approach: we first generate a large pool of candidate pairs from the paraphraseer guided by style expert models in a product-of-expert fashion (Hinton, 2002), then leave only pairs that qualify for the style transfer task (i.e., accurately transferred style and semantically similar pairs). In online off-policy reinforcement learning (§3.2), we first update the paraphraseer \\(\\mathcal{M}_p\\) as an initial policy using supervised learning on the collected dataset and then switch to online, off-policy learning for further data exploration and model improvements (Ramamurthy et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7547" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.083, + 0.45, + 0.096 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) Expert-guided Data Generation" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.097, + 0.565, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.084, + 0.812, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) Reinforcement Learning" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.098, + 0.878, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.309, + 0.885, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: An overview of STEER. We first use expert-guided data generation to automatically generate candidate style-transfer pairs \\(\\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\rightarrow \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}\\), mapping from an input of arbitrary style \\(x_{s_i}\\) to a rewrite \\(x_{s_t}\\) in a target style, by decoding with a product of experts using a paraphraseer \\(\\mathcal{M}_P\\) and style-expert LMs. After filtering by quality metrics, we have a diverse, high-quality dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\). We then train a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, using \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) for offline RL before switching to online, off-policy RL to further optimize style transfer quality." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.406, + 0.411, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Expert-guided Data Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.43, + 0.49, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first leverage expert LMs to generate a high-quality, pseudo-parallel style transfer corpus." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.476, + 0.49, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generation For each target style \\( s_t \\in S \\), we first massively generate a diverse set of candidate style transfer pairs \\( \\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\rightarrow \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}_{s_t} \\) for all \\( s_i \\in S - \\{s_t\\} \\), such that we collect pairs of transfers from each possible source style to the target style. To do so, we first-pass text \\( \\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\) from a candidate source style through a general (style-agnostic) paraphraseer \\( \\mathcal{M}_P \\), typically resulting in a normalized text \\( \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}} = \\mathcal{M}_P(x_{s_i}) \\) with little or no stylistic features (Krishna et al., 2020). To ensure that the \\( \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}} \\) belongs to the desired target style, we steer the paraphraseer \\( \\mathcal{M}_P \\) generation towards the target style and away from the source style during decoding. Intuitively, we exploit the inherent capability of the paraphraseer to faithfully rewrite input texts, while injecting stylistic control through guided-decoding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.735, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To do this, we leverage DEXPERTS decoding (Liu et al., 2021), a controllable text generation paradigm that enables steering towards and away from distinct attributes. DEXPERTS combines the distribution of a base autoregressive model \\( P_{b} \\) with those of an \"expert\" \\( P_{e} \\) and/or \"anti-expert\" \\( P_{a} \\) model in a product of experts, which are trained on desirable and undesirable attributes respectively. Given a prompt \\( x_{4 makes it possible to be adapted for the offline RL stage. QUARK optimizes a reward function through reward conditioning. Concretely, the algorithm alternates between 1) collecting samples with the current language model, 2) sorting them into quantiles based on their reward, with each quantile identified by a reward token prepended to the language model's input, and 3) using standard language modeling loss on samples from each quantile conditioned on their reward token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.814, + 0.884, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When adapting QUARK to offline RL, we start by initializing the data pool with the style transfer corpus \\(D_{f}\\) generated through expert-guidance rather than gathering generations from the initial" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{3} \\) SentenceTransformers occasionally outputs negative scores; we set these to 0 to ensure a score in \\( \\left\\lbrack {0,1}\\right\\rbrack \\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4Off-policy RL evaluates and improves a policy different from the policy used for action selection (i.e. data generation)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7549" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.082, + 0.784, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter42.67.43.823.211.225.422.7
Bible44.026.96.65.216.020.221.0
1810-1820s30.211.13.514.715.917.417.0
1890-1900s35.912.34.48.69.110.410.1
1990-2000s42.316.64.37.913.017.517.2
English Twitter41.28.05.535.023.632.029.5
James Joyce20.411.85.43.41.31.62.6
Song Lyrics33.320.27.712.215.411.213.2
Romantic Poetry20.415.72.81.13.46.24.9
Shakespeare13.69.12.59.610.09.79.7
Switchboard52.921.11.70.10.35.313.7
Overall34.314.64.411.010.814.314.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.288, + 0.884, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score \\(\\nu\\) with different methods, including STRAP (Krishna et al., 2020) and P-A-R (Suzgun et al., 2022), using GPT-2 Large (774M), and GPT-3 (175B). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.357, + 0.49, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "policy. Afterward, we carry out the quantization and learning steps in the same manner as the original QUARK. After completing the offline RL stage, we proceed with the online QUARK training by alternating between data generation with the updated policy, quantization and learning. In both stages, our training objective can be written as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.488, + 0.479, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\theta^ {\\star} = \\max _ {\\theta} \\mathbb {E} _ {(\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}) \\sim \\mathcal {D}} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\big (\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}} | \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, s _ {t}, r _ {\\mathcal {V} (\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}, s _ {t})} \\big)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.514, + 0.49, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(r_{\\mathcal{V}(\\cdot)}\\) denotes the quantized reward token corresponding to the reward score \\(\\mathcal{V}(\\cdot)\\) of the generated rewrite. In online RL, \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) is expanded with samples from the improved policy at each iteration." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.579, + 0.49, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, we also explore integrating a vectorized reward function \\(\\mathbf{v}(\\mathbf{x}_{s_i},\\mathbf{x}_{s_t},s_t)\\) into the QUARK algorithm, rather than using the joint multiplied scalar score \\(\\nu\\) as the reward function. In this case, instead of conditioning on one reward token that corresponds to a quantized scalar score, we condition on a reward vector composed of three reward tokens. These reward tokens represent quantized scores from the style, fluency and similarity metrics respectively. As we will show in the experiment section, we observe a noticeable performance boost brought by vectorized QUARK in terms of reward optimization. We believe this is likely because the vectorized reward provides additional fine-grained signals for optimization, which reflect the quality of each generated output with respect to individual evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.863, + 0.262, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We detail our experiment setup, including the datasets (§4.1), baselines (§4.2), evaluation metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.357, + 0.884, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\((\\S 4.3)\\), experimental details \\((\\S 4.4)\\), main results \\((\\S 4.5)\\), ablations \\((\\S 4.6)\\), and analysis of \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) \\((\\S 4.7)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.403, + 0.625, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.426, + 0.885, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the following datasets in our experiments: 1) the Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS; Krishna et al., 2020) is a non-parallel, diverse text corpus with 11 distinct styles such as Shakespeare and the Bible, 2) Grammarly's Yahoo Answers Formality Corpus (GYAFC; Rao and Tetreault, 2018) is a parallel corpus of formal and informal responses collected from the Yahoo Answers forum, and 3) the Yelp Review Dataset (Yelp; Shen et al., 2017a) is a non-parallel corpus of user-reviews on various businesses and services from the Yelp with binary sentiment ratings of positive or negative. For more details on the datasets see Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.65, + 0.631, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.673, + 0.884, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use three competitive style-transfer baselines. Method-specific details are located in Appendix C:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.717, + 0.885, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Style Transfer via Paraphrasing (STRAP; Krishna et al., 2020) is an unsupervised approach for arbitrary style transfer, which uses GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) inverse paraphrasers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.795, + 0.884, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt-and-Rerank (P-A-R; Suzgun et al., 2022) prompts some language model to generate \\( k \\) candidate style transfer texts, ranks them based on quality, and returns the best one. We use P-A-R with GPT-2 Large." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a highly-capable class of decoder-only models," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7550" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.894, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter44.047.718.713.225.610.631.729.221.517.93028.830.227.6
Bible36.138.82222.90.31.64.34.415.715.918.019.019.819.5
1810-1820s26.329.55.910.01.24.712.415.614.316.917.621.616.920.1
1890-1900s33.534.710.013.44.411.09.911.813.913.814.614.413.813.3
1990-200s50.256.222.632.111.831.416.720.728.532.531.534.728.432.8
English Twitter46.154.120.122.132.433.537.441.830.129.534.936.432.535.0
James Joyce22.322.810.913.23.27.92.93.32.72.33.12.53.32.8
Song Lyrics42.640.522.123.210.312.419.312.922.318.419.316.224.220.1
Romantic Poetry13.512.98.910.80.80.92.01.15.24.37.04.76.03.9
Shakespeare11.811.611.110.41.34.112.915.115.314.713.415.213.815.2
Switchboard54.659.329.735.15.26.10.10.10.30.19.713.415.623.0
Overall34.637.116.518.88.811.313.614.215.415.118.118.818.619.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.3, + 0.884, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score \\(\\nu\\) from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus. For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.369, + 0.489, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "particularly showing strong zero- and few-shot performance. We utilize GPT-3 as baseline both in a zero-shot and few-shot (\\(k = 1,5,10\\)) setting. Specifically, we use the instruction-tuned, 175B parameter engine text-davinci-003." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.462, + 0.313, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.484, + 0.49, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate the quality of each style transfer pair, we use the same metrics introduced in §3.1: target style strength (TSS), fluency (F), meaning similarity (MS), and the aggregate metric \\(\\mathcal{V}\\). For a set of style transfer pairs (i.e., over an entire data corpus), we report the average \\(\\mathcal{V}\\). To ensure that the improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we also report evaluation using alternative metrics unseen during training in Appendix F; these results corroborate our main findings in §4.5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.673, + 0.329, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Experimental Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For all non-GPT-3 baselines, we use GPT-2 large as the base language model. Specifically, for STEER, we use GPT-2 large for the paraphraseer and for the expert models. Our main STEER results are with the vectorized QUARK variant (i.e., using fine-grained reward). More details are in Appendix A.3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.804, + 0.338, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Style Transfer on CDS" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.826, + 0.489, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate STEER's capability on arbitrary style transfer, we use CDS, as it has 11 diverse styles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.369, + 0.885, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we train a unified model that can transfer arbitrary text to each style in the corpus \\( \\mathcal{C} \\). We use top-200K filtering for each target style, resulting in \\( |\\mathcal{D}_f| = 2.2\\mathrm{M} \\). Finally, we evaluate style transfer to each target style by transferring from 1000 test-set examples from every other style \\( \\in C \\); this results in a total test-set size of 10,000 for each target style." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.884, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Results We demonstrate automatic results on the CDS in Table 1. Across all target styles, STEER outperforms all baselines on \\(\\nu\\), the aggregate style transfer quality, including GPT-3, a model 226 times larger, and STRAP, a comparably-sized, non-unified baseline. This shows that with expert-guided data generation and offline-then-online RL, a unified model can outperform other models of the same or even much larger size. The full results, including individual style transfer metrics, are in Appendix G.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.692, + 0.885, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3 has its best relative performance on the Twitter and Shakespeare styles, but struggles otherwise. This shows the limitations of relying on large-scale general-purpose LLMs: in this case, GPT-3 excels transferring to styles most likely to be highly prevalent in it's internet text corpus (Brown et al., 2020) However, it is unlikely to generalize to more obscure styles unseen during training, even with few-shot examples. The poor performance of the GPT-2-based P-A-R reinforces this, showing the unreliability of prompting general-domain, pretrained LMs for style transfer, especially at smaller scales." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also conduct an out-of-domain evaluation to assess the robustness of each method to unseen" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.867, + 0.445, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Most capable model during conducting this work." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.882, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Though for each style transfer pair, \\(\\nu\\) is equal to the product of TSS, F, and MS, once we take the corpus-average of these metrics we lose this equality guarantee" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.867, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7551" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.084, + 0.482, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.202, + 0.489, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Style transfer quality \\(\\nu_{\\sim \\mathrm{H}}\\) on CDS, averaged across all 11 styles, with fluency and meaning similarity human evaluation. TSS is automatically computed.\\(^{10}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.272, + 0.49, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "inputs. Specifically, we use text from the two styles in GYAFC as inputs at testing time,\\(^{7}\\) employing the previously trained CDS model without further finetuning, and transfer to each of the 11 styles in CDS. Our results are shown in Table 2: overall, STEER is the most robust method, outperforming all others in total score, \\(\\mathcal{V}\\), for almost all target styles. STEER loses only to GPT-3 on the Shakespeare style; this may be due to the inherent knowledge of Shakespeare stored in GPT-3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.442, + 0.489, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation We also conduct a human evaluation to verify the quality of the generations. We use a 3-point Likert Scale to evaluate style transfers (Iyyer et al., 2018) on both meaning similarity \\((\\mathbf{MS_H})\\) and fluency \\((\\mathbf{F_H})\\). Afterwards, we scale \\(\\mathbf{MS_H}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{F_H}\\) down to \\([0,1]\\) and multiply them by the automatically-computed TSS to attain \\(\\nu_{\\sim H} \\in [0,1]\\), a partially human aggregate metric. Three NLP experts annotate 10 examples per 11 target styles from 3 models (330 total examples)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.604, + 0.489, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3 shows our human evaluation results. In terms of individual metrics, STEER has better fluency than STRAP and maintains competitive fluency to GPT-3, which is known to excel at generating human-like text (Brown et al., 2020). STEER also performs slightly better in meaning similarity than STRAP, but GPT-3 outperforms both of them significantly. However, the TSS of STEER makes up for this and dwarves both the baselines. We think this is a reasonable trade-off: STEER sacrifices much less fluency and meaning preservation for much more style transfer strength." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.798, + 0.489, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous work has also demonstrated this trade" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.084, + 0.877, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.178, + 0.885, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Plots of the style transfer quality on CDS averaged across all 11 styles with varying \\( k \\), the hyperparameter used in the Top- \\( k \\) sampling strategy." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.236, + 0.892, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Input: Can’t sleep at all. Smh. Transfer: AAE → 1990s-2000s
STEERI mean, I can’t sleep at all.
GPT-3I am unable to obtain any rest; shaking my head in disbelief.
STRAPI don’t want to sleep.
P-A-RCan’t sleep at all, smh.
Input: Yeah one one way or another Transfer: switchboard → rom. poetry
STEEROne way, or another, or both
GPT-3Aye, one mayhap will find the way.
STRAPAnd one way or the other
P-A-RYeah one one way or another
Input: In his fear, he dare not face me Transfer: lyrics → bible
STEERAnd he will not dare to face me: for fear of me is in his eyes.
GPT-3And his fear was great, so that he could not stand before me.
STRAPFor he that is afraid of me is of me; but he that is of me is of him.
P-A-RIn fear he came and hid himself, because God was near to him
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.44, + 0.883, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Examples of style transfer pairs generated by STEER and other methods. GPT-3 is run with 10-shot." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.495, + 0.885, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "off between style transfer accuracy and meaning preservation, both through empirical results (Suz-gun et al., 2022; Malmi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018) and explicit mentions in discussions (Li et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019; Hallinan et al., 2023). Intuitively, when transferring from one style to another, some amount of semantic changes is unavoidable; as a simple example, meaning similarity will be maximized when the input is naively copied." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.657, + 0.884, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall, human evaluation validates our main findings: STEER still beats both baselines in overall score \\(\\nu\\). These results show that GPT-3 is excellent at paraphrasing - creating fluent and semantically similar rewrites, but not at transferring to multiple diverse styles, as it often struggles to convert to the target style. On the other hand, STEER is more versatile, maintaining moderate-to-strong performance on all individual metrics, making it the strongest overall method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.819, + 0.884, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we show qualitative examples of generations from different models in Table 3. In the examples, STEER produces style transfers that optimize across all dimensions, while other methods" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pairwise agreements are \\(94.8\\%\\) and \\(98.8\\%\\) for fluency and similarity respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.82, + 0.382, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7We use 1000 examples from each class" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.833, + 0.488, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8As in Krishna et al., 2020, we do not conduct human evaluation for target style strength, as the task is to complex for untrained annotators unfamiliar with the target styles. Appendix D.1 details an experiment we conducted which verifies this task's hardness for annotators" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9We omit P-A-R from human evaluation due to its low performance in automatic metrics. See Appendix D for details." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.82, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7552" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.082, + 0.462, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Reward TypeVTSSFMS
Coarse19.942.879.062.6
Fine-grained27.447.083.671.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.145, + 0.488, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Style transfer quality on CDS, averaged across 11 target styles using STEER with a coarse vs a fine-grained reward. The highest values are denoted in bold." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.216, + 0.333, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "optimize for only one or two." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.244, + 0.236, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Ablations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.267, + 0.488, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform two ablation studies to analyze the effect of dataset size and reward design in STEER. All models are compared after 15K training steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.326, + 0.488, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dataset Size We investigate the effect of different dataset sizes on the performance of STEER. Using the top-\\(k\\) sampling strategy, we vary \\(k\\) with \\(k = 100\\mathrm{K}\\), 200K, and 400K and compare style transfer on CDS. Figure 4 shows the average results transferring to 11 target styles in CDS from all other styles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.44, + 0.488, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interestingly, we do not observe direct scaling of style transfer performance with increasing dataset size; as the top-\\(k\\) value increases, the aggregate score \\(\\nu\\), target style strength TSS, and fluency F all follow a reverse U-shape curve." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.522, + 0.488, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These results may indicate a trade-off between diversity and quality in the dataset \\( D_{f} \\) used to train STEER: as the \\( k \\) value increases with top- \\( k \\) sampling, \\( D_{f} \\) becomes more diverse, but also includes samples with lower-quality, which may hurt model performance downstream. On the other hand, when \\( k \\) is too small, though the average quality of each example in \\( \\mathcal{D}_f \\) is higher, fewer diverse examples may hurt generalization. The optimal dataset has examples with sufficient variety and quality, enabling the model to learn a high-quality policy while staying resilient to various inputs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.726, + 0.488, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Coarse vs Fine-grained Reward We also directly compare the use of coarse or fine-grained reward tokens in the RL stages of STEER. As mentioned in §3.2, rather than using a product of the style metrics and a single reward token, we can use a vectorized reward function that outputs each of the three style metrics individually and correspondingly condition on each of these specific metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results are shown in Table 4. Incorporating a fine-grained reward improves performance across all dimensions, including \\(\\nu\\). This shows that conditioning on fine-grained rewards can lead to more" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MSTTRn-gram entropy, n =FMS
123
Df(STEER)0.9128.815.019.386.867.2
GYAFC0.9319.115.017.886.278.4
Yelp0.9589.616.421.387.2-
CDS0.94610.017.020.483.2-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.178, + 0.88, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Data metrics on \\( {\\mathcal{D}}_{f} \\) (STEER) and other datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.219, + 0.881, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "control across each desired attribute, resulting in much better style transfers overall." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.263, + 0.669, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.7 Analysis of \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.284, + 0.884, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We analyze \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\), the dataset resulting from the expert-guided dataset generation. First, we compare the lexical diversity of \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) against existing style transfer corpora. Following Gehrmann et al. (2021), we gauge the mean segmented token-type ratio over segmented length of \\(N = 10\\) (MSTTR) and the \\(1/2/3\\)-gram entropy of the training split of each corpus. We also assess the quality of style-transferred outputs in each corpus by assessing fluency (F) and meaning similarity (MS)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.884, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5 shows comparisons of these metrics. The automatically-created \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\) is comparable to existing human-created datasets in diversity and in fluency. The average meaning similarity is also promising, as it is within \\(85\\%\\) of the value of GYAFC. This shows the potential of machine-generated data when aided with creative decoding algorithms." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.571, + 0.665, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.597, + 0.884, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Style Transfer Due to the absence of large-scale parallel corpora for text style transfer (TST), prior work has focused on unsupervised methods designed for non-parallel datasets (Dai et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2019). Most of these efforts focus on disentangling the representation of content and the style of a given text, either through an auxiliary discriminator to classify text attributes (Hu et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2017b), or by training with a policy gradient (Xu et al., 2018; Gong et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent work has leveraged the generation capabilities of LMs for TST: Krishna et al. (2020), create a pseudo-parallel corpus by paraphrasing text from a style, then training an inverse paraphraseer to convert text to that style. Other work automatically align pairs of sentences in different styles, either in the representation-level (Prabhumoye et al., 2018) or corpus-level (Liu et al., 2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Others have attempted TST by prompting LMs (Reif et al., 2021; Suzgun et al., 2022). How-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7553" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ever, these approaches often rely on a strong initial model, either already fine-tuned on TST-related tasks (e.g. paraphrasing), or a large LM capable of few-shot generalization. In contrast, our framework does not assume strong capabilities of the initial model, making it applicable in a realistic setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RL for NLP Recent work has shown the potential of RL to align with arbitrary natural language objective functions across areas such as summarization (Paulus et al., 2017), open-ended text generation (Lu et al., 2022), dialogue (Li et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2017), question-answering (Liu et al., 2022a), machine translation (Nguyen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016), and dataset generation (Pyatkin et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023). For unified style transfer, a setting where the desired output can be directly correlated to automatic metrics, RL is a promising avenue." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.414, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data Generation with LMs LM-generated data have been increasingly used across a wide range of tasks, such as commonsense reasoning (West et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022), NLI (Ye et al., 2022) and dialogue generation (Kim et al., 2023). While previous approaches rely on the task-solving capability of LLMs, recent work show that small LMs can also generate high-quality datasets without supervision (Jung et al., 2023; Brahman et al., 2023). Building on top of these, our work pushes further on machine-generated data by incorporating 1) inference-time decoding algorithms and 2) targeted filtering, yielding an effective pseudo-parallel corpus to initialize offline reinforcement learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.661, + 0.248, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose STEER, a unified framework to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data in style transfer, by leveraging expert-guided decoding and two-stage reinforcement learning. We focus on a more realistic use case: rewriting text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a desired target style. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of STEER on both in- and out-of-domain style transfer, outperforming competitive baselines. The success of STEER underscores the potential of RL algorithms when combined with controllable decoding and encourages future algorithmic innovation that fully unleash the power of RL for real-world NLP applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.857, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Limitations, Ethical Considerations, and Broader Impacts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.129, + 0.885, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While STEER demonstrates promising results for arbitrary-to-many style transfer, there are several limitations. Firstly, in our experiments, we rely heavily on the availability of a corpus containing text from diverse styles to act as source styles for the expert-guided creation of \\( \\mathcal{D}_f \\); however, not every corpus will have as diverse a set of styles to create a \\( D_f \\) from. Instead, in data-limited settings, it may be required to gather source text from other locations, like other corpora, in order to create candidate style-transfer pairs. Secondly, while we tested the generalization of STEER to out-of-domain source style, adaption to new target styles through continual learning requires further investigation and experimentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.371, + 0.885, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, like many other natural language systems, STEER could unintentionally introduce harmful stereotypes or engage in malicious content generation. Specially the use of fine-grained reward signals during online training may be used to reinforce undesired behaviors potentially leading to the generation of biased or unethical outputs. Furthermore, bad actors may try to intentionally utilize style transfer systems like STEER to create harm or to harass marginalized communities by using toxic output styles. This is a common misuse case in generation (McGuffie and Newhouse, 2020), and an application which we strongly condemn." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.581, + 0.884, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the positive side, STEER allows for training memory and cost-efficient training of unified style transfer models using existing corpora. Our method is thus beneficial for somewhat reducing the carbon footprint by reducing the reliance on training large language models (LLMs) to achieve desired results (Strubell et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.723, + 0.61, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.747, + 0.885, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sid Black, Stella Rose Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin G. Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Martin Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Benqi Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model. ArXiv, abs/2204.06745." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Faeze Brahman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Valentina Py- atkin, Jena Hwang, Xiang Li, Hirona Arai, Soumya Sanyal, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Xiang Ren, and Choi Yejin. 2023. Plasma: Making small language models" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.747, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7554" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.114 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "better procedural knowledge models for (counterfactual) planning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.127, + 0.49, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, T. J. Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *ArXiv*, abs/2005.14165." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.298, + 0.49, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.404, + 0.489, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam K Dean. 2023. Gpt unicorn: A daily exploration of gpt-4's image generation capabilities. Accessed: 2023-05-15." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.458, + 0.49, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nan Ding and Radu Soricut. 2017. Cold-start reinforcement learning with softmax policy gradient. In NIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuntao Du, Xinjun Zhu, Lu Chen, Ziquan Fang, and Yunjun Gao. 2022. Metakg: Meta-learning on knowledge graph for cold-start recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2202.03851." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ondrej Dusek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Salomey Osei, Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Sashank Santhanam, Joao Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola, and Jiawei Zhou. 2021. The GEM benchmark: Natural language generation, its evaluation and metrics. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pages 96–120. Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.127, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongyu Gong, Suma Bhat, Lingfei Wu, Jinjun Xiong, and Wen mei Hwu. 2019. Reinforcement learning based text style transfer without parallel training corpus." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.147, + 0.885, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Skyler Hallinan, Alisa Liu, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2023. Detoxifying text with MaRCo: Controllable revision with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 228-242, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.247, + 0.885, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2002. Training Products of Experts by Minimizing Contrastive Divergence. Neural Computation, 14(8):1771-1800." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.295, + 0.885, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. ArXiv, abs/1904.09751." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.343, + 0.885, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2018. Toward controlled generation of text." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.391, + 0.885, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1875-1885, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.518, + 0.885, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Luo Ji, Qin Qi, Bingqing Han, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. Reinforcement learning to optimize lifetime value in cold-start recommendation. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.591, + 0.885, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jaehun Jung, Peter West, Liwei Jiang, Faeze Brahman, Ximing Lu, Jillian Fisher, Taylor Sorensen, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Impossible distillation: from low-quality model to high-quality dataset & model for summarization and paraphrasing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.666, + 0.885, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Peter West, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.74, + 0.885, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 737-762, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.826, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter, Dan Jurafsky, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192-1202, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7555" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncen Li, Robin Jia, He He, and Percy Liang. 2018. Delete, retrieve, generate: a simple approach to sentiment and style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1865-1874, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.203, + 0.49, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. DExperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6691-6706, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.346, + 0.489, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiacheng Liu, Skyler Hallinan, Ximing Lu, Pengfei He, Sean Welleck, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022a. Rainier: Reinforced knowledge introspector for commonsense question answering. *ArXiv*, abs/2210.03078." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.487, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruibo Liu, Chongyang Gao, Chenyan Jia, Guangxuan Xu, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2022b. Non-parallel text style transfer with self-parallel supervision." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.476, + 0.489, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.554, + 0.489, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Liwei Jiang, Jack Hessel, Lianhui Qin, Peter West, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Quark: Controllable text generation with reinforced unlearning. ArXiv, abs/2205.13636." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.632, + 0.487, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fuli Luo, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Pengcheng Yang, Baobao Chang, Zhifang Sui, and Xu Sun. 2019. A dual reinforcement learning framework for unsupervised text style transfer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.697, + 0.487, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aman Madaan, Amrith Rajagopal Setlur, Tanmay Parekh, Barnabás Póczos, Graham Neubig, Yiming Yang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Alan W. Black, and Shrimai Prabhumoye. 2020. Politeness transfer: A tag and generate approach. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.787, + 0.489, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Sascha Rothe. 2020. Unsupervised text style transfer with padded masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8671-8680, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. 2020. The radicalization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2009.06807." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sourabrata Mukherjee, Vojtech Hudecek, and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Polite chatbot: A text style transfer application. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.147, + 0.884, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Khanh Nguyen, Hal Daumé III, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2017. Reinforcement learning for bandit neural machine translation with simulated human feedback. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1464–1474, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.247, + 0.884, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jekaterina Novikova, Ondrej Dusek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2241-2252, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.348, + 0.882, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Openai api pricing. https://openai.com/pricing. Accessed: 2023-05-15." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.382, + 0.884, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv, abs/2203.02155." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.509, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ajay Patel, Nicholas Andrews, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2022. Low-resource authorship style transfer with in-context learning. ArXiv, abs/2212.08986." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.556, + 0.884, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.605, + 0.884, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yulia Tsvetkov, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alan W Black. 2018. Style transfer through back-translation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 866-876, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.705, + 0.884, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Valentina Pyatkin, Jena D. Hwang, Vivek Srikumar, Ximing Lu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin Choi, and Chandra Bhagavatula. 2022. Clarifydelphi: Reinforced clarification questions with defeasibility rewards for social and moral situations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.779, + 0.884, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.827, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Kianté Brantley, Jack Hessel, Rafet Sifa, Christian Bauckhage, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Is reinforcement learning (not) for natural language processing?: Benchmarks, baselines, and building blocks for natural language policy optimization. ArXiv, abs/2210.01241." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7556" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sudha Rao and Joel R. Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may i introduce the gyrofc dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.16, + 0.489, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2021. A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2109.03910." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.222, + 0.489, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.296, + 0.487, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. ArXiv, abs/1707.06347." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.345, + 0.486, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. 2017a. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. ArXiv, abs/1705.09655." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.393, + 0.486, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017b. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.442, + 0.488, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rakshith Shetty, Bernt Schiele, and Mario Fritz. 2017. A4nt: Author attribute anonymity by adversarial training of neural machine translation. In USEnIX Security Symposium." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.503, + 0.488, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in nlp. ArXiv, abs/1906.02243." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.551, + 0.489, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. \"transforming\" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. ArXiv, abs/1908.09368." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mirac Suzgun, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. Prompt-and-erank: A method for zero-shot and few-shot arbitrary textual style transfer with small language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195–2222, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.489, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.787, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4602-4625, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Wieting, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Kevin Gimpel, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Beyond BLEU:training neural machine translation with semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4344-4355, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.186, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.273, + 0.884, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. Mask and infill: Applying masked language model for sentiment transfer. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, pages 5271-5277. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.373, + 0.884, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.46, + 0.884, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingjing Xu, Xu Sun, Qi Zeng, Xiaodong Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Houfeng Wang, and Wenjie Li. 2018. Unpaired sentiment-to-sentiment translation: A cycled reinforcement learning approach. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 979-988, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.573, + 0.883, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruochen Xu, Tao Ge, and Furu Wei. 2019. Formality style transfer with hybrid textual annotations. ArXiv, abs/1903.06353." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.621, + 0.884, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiacheng Ye, Jiahui Gao, Qintong Li, Hang Xu, Jiangtao Feng, Zhiyong Wu, Tao Yu, and Lingpeng Kong. 2022. ZeroGen: Efficient zero-shot learning via dataset generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11653-11669, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.734, + 0.883, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.782, + 0.884, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li Zhou, Kevin Small, Oleg Rokhlenko, and Charles Elkan. 2017. End-to-end offline goal-oriented dialog policy learning via policy gradient. CoRR, abs/1712.02838." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.843, + 0.696, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Modeling Details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.867, + 0.759, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Out-of-the-Box Modeling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For this work, we use the publicly-available HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7557" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2019), to fine-tune GPT2-models and run inference. The HuggingFace code is available at https://github.com/huggingface/transformers. and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. We also use the OpenAI library (documented at https://platform.openei.com/docs/libraries) to make queries to GPT-3 for some of our style transfer baselines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.239, + 0.303, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Generation of \\(\\mathcal{D}_f\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.26, + 0.488, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first train GPT2-large experts using the training data from CDS. See Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. For each style expert, we train with the following parameters, shown in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.335, + 0.479, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus1
effective batch size32
total steps50,000
steps per evaluation1000
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.528, + 0.487, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Hyperparameters used to finetune the expert models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.574, + 0.489, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also include an early stopping criteria based on repeatedly increasing loss. Each model was trained on a single Nvidia RTX6K with 24GB of memory for less than 24 hours." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.639, + 0.489, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After these experts are created, for every pair of styles in CDS, we generate 10,000 candidate rewrite pairs. Each source text is randomly selected from the train set of a CDS style, and used as the input text for all other target styles with a variety of hyperparameters. Specifically, we employ the DEXPERTs decoding framework for each of these generations. DEXPERTs has one hyperparameter, \\(\\alpha\\), which we vary. We attempt the following hyperparameters for each generation, shown in Table 7:" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.823, + 0.421, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterTested
α[0.2,0.4,0.6]
temperature[0.7, 1.0, 1.3]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.886, + 0.487, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Hyperparameters tested and used for STEER for data over-generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides these hyperparameters, we use the same max sequence and generation length as in §6, and use a no-repeat ngram value of 3 to avoid repetition. After creating \\( \\mathcal{D}_i \\), we filter the dataset down to 2.2M rows by doing top-200K sampling for each of the 11 target styles in CDS. Next, we use this data to train the unified model:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.218, + 0.776, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Training the Unified Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.243, + 0.883, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train our online RL for 30,000 steps with early stopping based on the overall score \\(\\nu\\). We use 4 RTX-A100 GPUs with 80GB of memory, and this takes about 120 hours to train. We use a batch size of 256 and the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 1e-5. The full hyperparameters are reported in Table 8." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.372, + 0.875, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus4
effective batch size1024
total steps30,000
steps per evaluation2500
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
QUARK hyps
sample steps2500
KL penalty0.025
entropy coef0.00
policy temp.1.0
vectorized reward tokenTrue
number of buckets5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.661, + 0.884, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Hyperparameters used for unified model training, including for QUARK" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.717, + 0.68, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Dataset Details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.749, + 0.84, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 The Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CDS is collected and ensembled from online archives and previous academic datasets; we list each style and the train/val/test splits in Table 9. The dataset contains no parallel data, only text from each respective style. We use CDS as the primary dataset for unified style transfer, as it has 11 distinct styles that we can train and evaluate on. See Krishna et al., 2020 for a full explanation of the styles." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7558" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.082, + 0.461, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleTrainValidationTest
AAE720K7.3K7.3K
Bible31K1.7K1.7K
Coha 1810205K5.3K5.3K
Coha 18901.2M32K32K
Coha 19901.9M49K49K
English Tweet5.2M40K40K
Joyce37K2.0K2.0K
Lyrics4.5M252K252K
Romantic Poetry27K1.5K1.5K
Shakespeare25K1.3K1.3K
Switchboard146K1.5K1.5K
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.251, + 0.438, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Styles and dataset sizes in CDS" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.284, + 0.292, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Baseline Details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.31, + 0.416, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1 Style Transfer via Paraphrasing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.331, + 0.488, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We retrieve the diverse paraphrase and the inverse style transfer models from the repository in the original paper; please see Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. At inference, we use greedy decoding as this led to the best results in the original paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.422, + 0.327, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2 Prompt-and-Rerank" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.443, + 0.489, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt-and-Rerank has two prompting strategies that do not require knowledge of the source style and are therefore suitable for arbitrary style transfer. The two strategies are vanilla prompting and contrastive prompting. See Reif et al., 2021 for full details on the exact prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.539, + 0.489, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We test out both prompts with a small subset of data, and find that contrastive prompting works much better, so we use this going forward. We also try generating \\( k = 3 \\) samples and \\( k = 5 \\) samples per input, and find that \\( k = 3 \\) works the best. Following the original paper, we use nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with \\( p = 0.9 \\) and a temperature of 1.0. Finally, we use GPT-2 Large for fair comparison with STEER." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.695, + 0.218, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.3 GPT-3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.715, + 0.489, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We prompt GPT-3 using nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with \\( p = 0.9 \\) and a temperature of 1.0. We include further details on zero-shot and few-shot prompting below." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.788, + 0.255, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.3.1 Zero-shot" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.487, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the following prompt setup for zero-shot style transfer:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.84, + 0.469, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rewite the following sentence into the style of [target style] Original Sentence: [original sentence] Rewritten Sentence:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.646, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.3.2 Few-shot" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.104, + 0.882, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For few-shot style transfer, we randomly show \\( k \\) examples of the target style sampled from the train set, and prepending them before the 0-shot prompt as follows." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.171, + 0.877, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here are some examples of sentences in the style of [target style]: [example 1] [example 2] [example 3]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.296, + 0.714, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Human Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.322, + 0.884, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since automatic metrics alone have been shown insufficient for evaluating text generations (Novikova et al., 2017), we conduct human evaluation. Annotators rate meaning similarity of a style transfer pair, and the fluency of the style-transferred text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.403, + 0.884, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For fluency, annotators choose between: 0 for not fluent, 1 for somewhat fluent, and 2 for fluent. For meaning similarity, annotators choose between: 0 for not similar, 1 for somewhat similar, and 2 for similar. We discard annotations where all three annotators disagree on a label for either fluency or similarity, resulting in a final human evaluation labeled size of 310 (from an initial size of 330)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.532, + 0.884, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To reduce labor cost, we only run our human evaluations on the top three methods from Table 1, meaning we exclude P-A-R. In addition, following previous work, we do not run human evaluation on target style strength. Further details are explained in Appendix D.1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.641, + 0.828, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.1 Style Identification Task Difficulty" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.882, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The target styles in the CDS dataset are extremely complex. Previous work from Krishna et al., 2020 mention that this is too challenging of a task, even for experienced annotators." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We verify the difficulty of the text style identification task reported in Krishna et al., 2020 by performing an additional human evaluation. From the CDS test set, we randomly sample 10 examples from each of the 11 styles (110 total examples with ground truth styles). Next, we use the same three annotators from our previous human evaluation (NLP experts), and provide them with a natural language description of each of the 11 styles and 20 random examples from the train set of each to familiarize them with text from different styles. We ask them to assign a style label to each of the 110" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7559" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "examples, given their knowledge of the styles, and calculate their accuracy and agreement. On average, the annotators only have a \\(40.0\\%\\) classification accuracy with an inter-annotator agreement of 0.39 (Fleiss' kappa). In contrast, on the same samples (unseen by the classifier), our classifier obtains a \\(84.5\\%\\) classification accuracy. These results validate the difficulty of the task and suggest that an automatic classifier is more suited for this task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.243, + 0.416, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E The Cold Start Problem in RL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.269, + 0.49, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reinforcement learning often involves optimizing a policy model towards an optimal distribution that maximizes some expected reward. This paradigm works well out-of-the-box for a variety of tasks in NLP, such as model detoxification and sentiment control (Lu et al., 2022) where the output distribution of the initial policy already aligns, to a reasonable degree, with the optimal reward distribution. However, in a cold-start, reinforcement-learning setting, the initial policy output distribution is drastically different than the optimal reward distribution; this may be the case when the reward is linked to a specific task outside the capabilities of the original policy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.495, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adjusting to cold-start has been mostly explored in the context of recommender systems, where it is difficult to determine user-preferences without any initial data (Ding and Soricut, 2017; Ji et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022), but has been sparsely pursued in reinforcement learning for NLP. Ding and Soricut (2017) introduce softmax policy gradients for cold-start reinforcement-learning, but the approach is limited to only one class of reinforcement learning algorithms (policy-gradient approaches) and includes mathematical assumptions not widely applicable to various NLP applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.7, + 0.421, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Alternative Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To ensure that the model improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we use a set of alternative metrics for target style strength, meaning similarity, and fluency, and re-run evaluation on all results from Tables 1 and 2. These are metrics unused during training time for STEER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the fluency model, we use a different binary CoLA classifier (https://huggingface.co/textattack/roberta-base-CoLA), and again use the raw probability score of the linguistically acceptable class. To assess meaning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "similarity, we use the embedding-based SIM model of Wieting et al., 2019 as used in Krishna et al., 2020. Finally, for the style classifier model, given limited data quantity, we train another RoBERTa-Large classifier with the same CDS data but with a different seed. As before, we compute the aggregate metric \\(\\mathcal{V}\\) by taking the product of the three automatic metrics for each style transfer pair in the corpus, and report the average \\(\\mathcal{V}\\) value." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.231, + 0.885, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our results using the alternative metrics to rerun evaluation on both in-domain style transfer and out-of-domain style transfer using the CDS-trained STEER mode are shown in Table 10 and Table 11 respectively. Overall, this corroborates our main findings by showing that our relative results are largely unchanged: on the in-domain styles, STEER beats all baselines, including impressive gains on target style strength as well as improved fluency and meaning similarity. On the out-of-domain task, STEER continues to excel, once again beating all other baselines other than GPT-3 on Shakespeare." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.434, + 0.776, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Full Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.46, + 0.884, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We detail the full experimental results for the main experiments in this section, including all style evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.519, + 0.709, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G.1 Main Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.54, + 0.884, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We include the full results for the main experiment from Table 1, testing out style transfer on the CDS dataset to each target style from all other source styles. Table 12 has the results for STEER, Table 13 has the results for STRAP, Table 14 has the results for P-A-R, and Tables 15-18 have the results for GPT-3 0-shot, 1-shot, 5-shot, and 10-shot." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7560" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.082, + 0.784, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter38.27.81.618.19.420.717.6
Bible34.4222.04.012.314.413.6
1810-1820s23.19.21.012.811.512.312.6
1890-1900s34.313.62.28.08.010.310.3
1990-200s39.016.11.78.713.115.615.8
English Twitter37.78.72.528.216.624.219.8
James Joyce17.610.71.91.91.51.52.2
Song Lyrics29.320.12.910.313.69.411.7
Romantic Poetry16.814.80.90.52.64.23.9
Shakespeare11.48.00.85.97.36.66.9
Switchboard41.415.20.50.00.23.06.9
Overall29.413.31.68.98.711.111.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.289, + 0.884, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score \\(\\nu\\) using the alternative evaluation metrics (replication of Table 1). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.345, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter38.743.818.714.114.55.725.723.516.71525.524.823.822.9
Bible29.632.419.420.10.30.53.93.910.811.313.615.515.315.4
1810-1820s19.622.35.28.40.21.59.912.611.214.112.616.712.115.7
1890-1900s29.232.310.914.22.05.38.510.211.312.612.412.811.411.2
1990-200s44.951.922.131.66.717.915.318.926.330.630.132.626.831.0
English Twitter44.451.220.622.123.622.528.032.320.319.824.726.022.824.5
James Joyce19.021.511.713.21.53.52.02.62.93.12.92.33.03.1
Song Lyrics36.436.121.323.66.04.315.310.019.014.615.713.319.216.1
Romantic Poetry11.211.410.011.20.20.31.40.73.72.94.73.54.22.8
Shakespeare10.19.79.99.40.31.610.212.411.312.511.112.511.512.8
Switchboard42.547.322.627.72.11.70.10.00.30.04.86.68.112.4
Overall29.632.715.717.95.25.910.911.612.212.414.415.114.415.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.557, + 0.884, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score \\(\\nu\\) using the alternative evaluation metrics from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus (replication of Table 2). For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.65, + 0.481, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter42.668.287.072.5
Bible44.080.985.963.9
1810-1820s30.249.881.974.7
1890-1900s35.956.685.474.6
1990-200s42.363.083.977.8
English Twitter41.262.687.774.5
James Joyce20.434.181.876.7
Song Lyrics33.351.687.274.7
Romantic Poetry20.435.380.574.7
Shakespeare13.624.783.772.7
Switchboard52.992.087.066.1
Overall34.356.384.773.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.887, + 0.472, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: Full results on CDS test set with STEER" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.65, + 0.876, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
vTSSFMS
AAE Twitter7.421.865.766.2
Bible26.970.579.451.7
1810-1820s11.122.578.664.9
1890-1900s12.322.682.665.0
1990-2000s16.629.182.865.0
English Twitter8.036.976.849.8
James Joyce11.826.478.866.7
Song Lyrics20.239.480.267.3
Romantic Poetry15.746.564.562.1
Shakespeare9.127.868.062.2
Switchboard21.152.069.365.2
Overall14.636.075.262.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.887, + 0.879, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: Full results on CDS test set with the STRAP" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7561" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.093, + 0.475, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter3.810.376.168.5
Bible6.62479.167.3
1810-1820s3.58.774.478.9
1890-1900s4.4107677.7
1990-2000s4.39.175.479.2
English Twitter5.512.574.182.1
James Joyce5.413.676.975.3
Song Lyrics7.723.278.265.3
Romantic Poetry2.87.677.176.1
Shakespeare2.58.27772
Switchboard1.73.975.184.5
Overall4.411.976.375.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.329, + 0.461, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14: Full results on CDS test set with PAR" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.373, + 0.48, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter23.258.463.165.7
Bible5.210.48570.4
1810-1820s14.727.679.467
1890-1900s8.61583.165
1990-2000s7.912.683.868.8
English Twitter3558.38270
James Joyce3.47.477.166
Song Lyrics12.225.473.772.2
Romantic Poetry1.13.561.761.5
Shakespeare9.627.764.368.6
Switchboard0.10.192.274.5
Overall1122.476.968.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.609, + 0.486, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 15: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 0-shot." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.653, + 0.48, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter11.230.967.364.8
Bible1640.27959.5
1810-1820s15.929.48265.3
1890-1900s9.11682.463.3
1990-2000s1325.286.265.3
English Twitter23.64771.368
James Joyce1.31146.163.2
SongLyrics15.440.171.862.4
Romantic Poetry3.415.351.759.1
Shakespeare1029.561.969
Switchboard0.30.690.375.4
Overall10.825.971.865
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.89, + 0.486, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 16: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 1-shot." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.162, + 0.875, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter25.479.158.459
Bible20.243.678.865.6
1810-1820s17.435.680.462.4
1890-1900s10.417.284.666.8
1990-2000s17.526.989.171
English Twitter3255.980.268.4
James Joyce1.610.948.663.2
Song Lyrics11.225.874.766
Romantic Poetry6.228.544.657.4
Shakespeare9.72862.868.4
Switchboard5.310.785.471.2
Overall14.332.971.665.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.399, + 0.881, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 17: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 5-shot." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.584, + 0.875, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter22.765.457.964.9
Bible2143.881.465.7
1810-1820s1733.18166.2
1890-1900s10.116.983.168.8
1990-2000s17.225.788.272.1
English Twitter29.551.477.869.9
James Joyce2.620.933.962.4
Song Lyrics13.230.869.569.5
Romantic Poetry4.923.243.958.9
Shakespeare9.728.760.869.5
Switchboard13.724.882.273.5
Overall14.733.269.167.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.82, + 0.881, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 18: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 10-shot." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7562" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_origin.pdf b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..975bc0b2edbc88b1efb2d82e441cf21bee9a29e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/3bbeeef2-3085-4c7b-94de-46f2df9fd813_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:65d435cdfa5b21fe58a8daccb9c40ff19e8e1ab6468848ba1a1a69219b2869af +size 2978689 diff --git a/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/full.md b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63252c85adfb24bd9c35d9d091221c421d90d568 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,480 @@ +![](images/6066536834af3024f930c9f01434378a7b3d295760c25dcbe500a6882d431917.jpg) + +# STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement + +Skyler Hallinan $^{\text{♥}}$ Faeze Brahman $^{\text{♣}}$ Ximing Lu $^{\text{♣}}$ + +Jaehun Jung $^{\text{♥}}$ Sean Welleck $^{\text{♥}\clubsuit}$ Yejin Choi $^{\text{♥}\clubsuit}$ + +$^{\diamond}$ Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington + +$\clubsuit$ Allen Institute for AI $\diamondsuit$ Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University + +hallisky@cs.washington.edu + +# Abstract + +While text style transfer has many applications across natural language processing, the core premise of transferring from a single source style is unrealistic in a real-world setting. In this work, we focus on arbitrary style transfer: rewriting a text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style. + +We propose STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement, a unified framework developed to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data for style transfer. STEER involves automatically generating a corpus of style-transfer pairs using a product of experts during decoding. The generated offline data is then used to pre-train an initial policy before switching to online, off-policy reinforcement learning for further improvements via fine-grained reward signals. STEER is unified and can transfer to multiple target styles from an arbitrary, unknown source style, making it particularly flexible and efficient. + +Experimental results on a challenging dataset with text from a diverse set of styles demonstrate state-of-the-art results compared to competitive baselines. Remarkably, STEER outperforms the 175B parameter instruction-tuned GPT-3 on overall style transfer quality, despite being 226 times smaller in size. We also show STEER is robust, maintaining its style transfer capabilities on out-of-domain data, and surpassing nearly all baselines across various styles. The success of our method highlights the potential of RL algorithms when augmented with controllable decoding to overcome the challenge of limited data supervision. + +# 1 Introduction + +Style transfer has been widely explored in the NLP field due to its practical applications, such as making text more formal (Rao and Tetreault, 2018), + +1We release our code publicly at https://github.com/shallinan1/STEERStyleTransfer + +![](images/85395e19b400c7281d5bf1ecf62fee75617a8148a2dfbe076ef9b55efaf26df7.jpg) +Standard Style Transfer + +![](images/72cec8bd46713ecdae8fc5324e74fb7d731db3e489da16292d927ccf62af3156.jpg) +Unified Style Transfer +Figure 1: An overview of unified style transfer. In standard style transfer, models can only transfer from a single source style to a specified target style, struggling to transfer from out-of-domain texts. In contrast, unified style transfer models can transfer from an arbitrary source style to multiple target styles. + +increasing politeness (Madaan et al., 2020; Mukherjee et al., 2023), or anonymizing authorship (Shetty et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2022). Previous work has mostly focused on one-to-one style transfer which involves rewriting text from one specific style to another while preserving meaning and fluency (Li et al., 2018; Sudhakar et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2017a). However, this approach may be less practical in real-world scenarios, where there are multiple and often unknown source styles a user wishes to transfer from. + +We focus on arbitrary style transfer, a many-to-one style transfer task, where the goal is to transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style using a single model (Reif et al., 2021; Krishna et al., 2020). This is a challenging task mainly + +due to the lack of large-scale, human-curated corpora for training. Furthermore, we design a framework for training a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, which can do arbitrary style transfer to multiple target styles, as shown in Figure 1. To circumvent the lack of supervised data, recent approaches (Suzgun et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2022) heavily rely on large language models like GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2022) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) in zero or few-shot settings. Though promising and convenient, these approaches are limited by the high cost of API calls (OpenAI, 2023) and lack of reproducibility due to over-reliance on LLMs (Dean, 2023). Our method enhances the effectiveness of smaller, more accessible models for style transfer, broadening their adaptability and utility for the wider community. + +In this work, we present Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement ( STEER), a novel, unified framework for many-to-one style transfer without supervision. Starting with a non-parallel corpus of text with various styles and a general paraphrase model, STEER first creates a diverse, pseudo-parallel dataset of style transfer pairs using product-of-experts decoding (Hinton, 2002; Liu et al., 2021). This makes our framework efficient by eliminating the need for costly human-curated datasets. Next, STEER uses offline reinforcement learning (RL) with this data before switching to online, off-policy RL for further improvement. To reflect the varied properties of style transfer, we adapt the QUARK algorithm (Lu et al., 2022), incorporating multiple reward models associated with different aspects such as style strength, fluency, and meaning similarity. Our framework is both practical and flexible, enabling a single model to transfer arbitrary source styles to multiple target styles. + +We apply STEER to a diverse dataset of 11 styles (Krishna et al., 2020), developing a unified style model capable of transferring text from any of the 11 styles to any other style in the corpus. Our final model is effective at transferring style while preserving fluency and semantic similarity for all source and target styles, beating strong baselines across a suite of automatic metrics for style transfer. In particular, across all styles our 775M parameter model beats all baselines in overall style transfer quality, including the instruction-tuned 175B parameter GPT-3 model (Ouyang et al., 2022). Finally, we showcase the robustness of our model through evaluation on two out-of-domain source + +styles that are unseen during training, where STEER consistently outperforms almost all baselines for every target style. The success of STEER demonstrates the effectiveness of reinforcement learning abetted by a high-quality, offline dataset in lieu of a good initial policy. + +# 2 Task: Unified Style Transfer + +Conventionally, the goal of style transfer is to take an input text in a known source style $\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{si}}$ and rewrite it into some known target style $\mathbf{x}_{s_j}$ while preserving meaning and fluency. However, this setting is unrealistic and may not cover real-world use cases where there are multiple and often unknown source styles. The goal of arbitrary style transfer is to instead transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a text in the target style with meaning and fluency preservation. Formally, given $\mathcal{S}$ as the set of all possible style choices, this amounts to finding a function $f:\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{S}\to \mathcal{X}$ , which takes an input text $\mathbf{x}$ and a desired target style $s_j$ , and outputs a modified text in the target style $\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{si}}$ . + +# 3 Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement + +We introduce STEER, a novel two-stage framework for unsupervised unified style transfer. Our framework is illustrated in Figure 2 and is composed of 1) expert-guided data generation to circumvent the challenge of obtaining supervised datasets at scale, and 2) offline reinforcement learning followed by online reinforcement learning to effectively align an initial policy with multiple reward functions related to the style transfer task. + +In expert-guided data generation (§3.1), the goal is to automatically collect a diverse high-quality dataset $\mathcal{D}_f$ of style transfer pairs using only a general paraphraseer $\mathcal{M}_p$ and a corpus of diverse styles $\mathcal{C}$ . To this end, we follow an overgenerate-and-filter approach: we first generate a large pool of candidate pairs from the paraphraseer guided by style expert models in a product-of-expert fashion (Hinton, 2002), then leave only pairs that qualify for the style transfer task (i.e., accurately transferred style and semantically similar pairs). In online off-policy reinforcement learning (§3.2), we first update the paraphraseer $\mathcal{M}_p$ as an initial policy using supervised learning on the collected dataset and then switch to online, off-policy learning for further data exploration and model improvements (Ramamurthy et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022). + +![](images/83d86069f246edff6a72558867ba6dc05c32b6d92da1261dd30cc3db90fb76ac.jpg) +(1) Expert-guided Data Generation + +![](images/e28dd98db9eacb2b0707abe29167e28542f43135f4d43cbcf5a5394215188c6e.jpg) +(2) Reinforcement Learning +Figure 2: An overview of STEER. We first use expert-guided data generation to automatically generate candidate style-transfer pairs $\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \rightarrow \tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}$ , mapping from an input of arbitrary style $x_{s_i}$ to a rewrite $x_{s_t}$ in a target style, by decoding with a product of experts using a paraphraseer $\mathcal{M}_P$ and style-expert LMs. After filtering by quality metrics, we have a diverse, high-quality dataset $\mathcal{D}_f$ . We then train a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, using $\mathcal{D}_f$ for offline RL before switching to online, off-policy RL to further optimize style transfer quality. + +# 3.1 Expert-guided Data Generation + +We first leverage expert LMs to generate a high-quality, pseudo-parallel style transfer corpus. + +Generation For each target style $s_t \in S$ , we first massively generate a diverse set of candidate style transfer pairs $\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \rightarrow \tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}$ for all $s_i \in S - \{s_t\}$ , such that we collect pairs of transfers from each possible source style to the target style. To do so, we first-pass text $\mathbf{x}_{s_i}$ from a candidate source style through a general (style-agnostic) paraphraseer $\mathcal{M}_P$ , typically resulting in a normalized text $\tilde{\mathbf{x}} = \mathcal{M}_P(x_{s_i})$ with little or no stylistic features (Krishna et al., 2020). To ensure that the $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}$ belongs to the desired target style, we steer the paraphraseer $\mathcal{M}_P$ generation towards the target style and away from the source style during decoding. Intuitively, we exploit the inherent capability of the paraphraseer to faithfully rewrite input texts, while injecting stylistic control through guided-decoding. + +To do this, we leverage DEXPERTS decoding (Liu et al., 2021), a controllable text generation paradigm that enables steering towards and away from distinct attributes. DEXPERTS combines the distribution of a base autoregressive model $P_{b}$ with those of an "expert" $P_{e}$ and/or "anti-expert" $P_{a}$ model in a product of experts, which are trained on desirable and undesirable attributes respectively. Given a prompt $x_{4 makes it possible to be adapted for the offline RL stage. QUARK optimizes a reward function through reward conditioning. Concretely, the algorithm alternates between 1) collecting samples with the current language model, 2) sorting them into quantiles based on their reward, with each quantile identified by a reward token prepended to the language model's input, and 3) using standard language modeling loss on samples from each quantile conditioned on their reward token. + +When adapting QUARK to offline RL, we start by initializing the data pool with the style transfer corpus $D_{f}$ generated through expert-guidance rather than gathering generations from the initial + +
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter42.67.43.823.211.225.422.7
Bible44.026.96.65.216.020.221.0
1810-1820s30.211.13.514.715.917.417.0
1890-1900s35.912.34.48.69.110.410.1
1990-2000s42.316.64.37.913.017.517.2
English Twitter41.28.05.535.023.632.029.5
James Joyce20.411.85.43.41.31.62.6
Song Lyrics33.320.27.712.215.411.213.2
Romantic Poetry20.415.72.81.13.46.24.9
Shakespeare13.69.12.59.610.09.79.7
Switchboard52.921.11.70.10.35.313.7
Overall34.314.64.411.010.814.314.7
+ +Table 1: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\nu$ with different methods, including STRAP (Krishna et al., 2020) and P-A-R (Suzgun et al., 2022), using GPT-2 Large (774M), and GPT-3 (175B). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row. + +policy. Afterward, we carry out the quantization and learning steps in the same manner as the original QUARK. After completing the offline RL stage, we proceed with the online QUARK training by alternating between data generation with the updated policy, quantization and learning. In both stages, our training objective can be written as: + +$$ +\theta^ {\star} = \max _ {\theta} \mathbb {E} _ {(\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}) \sim \mathcal {D}} \log p _ {\theta} \big (\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}} | \mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, s _ {t}, r _ {\mathcal {V} (\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}, s _ {t})} \big) +$$ + +where $r_{\mathcal{V}(\cdot)}$ denotes the quantized reward token corresponding to the reward score $\mathcal{V}(\cdot)$ of the generated rewrite. In online RL, $\mathcal{D}$ is expanded with samples from the improved policy at each iteration. + +Additionally, we also explore integrating a vectorized reward function $\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}_{s_i},\mathbf{x}_{s_t},s_t)$ into the QUARK algorithm, rather than using the joint multiplied scalar score $\nu$ as the reward function. In this case, instead of conditioning on one reward token that corresponds to a quantized scalar score, we condition on a reward vector composed of three reward tokens. These reward tokens represent quantized scores from the style, fluency and similarity metrics respectively. As we will show in the experiment section, we observe a noticeable performance boost brought by vectorized QUARK in terms of reward optimization. We believe this is likely because the vectorized reward provides additional fine-grained signals for optimization, which reflect the quality of each generated output with respect to individual evaluation metrics. + +# 4 Experiments + +We detail our experiment setup, including the datasets (§4.1), baselines (§4.2), evaluation metrics + +$(\S 4.3)$ , experimental details $(\S 4.4)$ , main results $(\S 4.5)$ , ablations $(\S 4.6)$ , and analysis of $\mathcal{D}_f$ $(\S 4.7)$ . + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We use the following datasets in our experiments: 1) the Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS; Krishna et al., 2020) is a non-parallel, diverse text corpus with 11 distinct styles such as Shakespeare and the Bible, 2) Grammarly's Yahoo Answers Formality Corpus (GYAFC; Rao and Tetreault, 2018) is a parallel corpus of formal and informal responses collected from the Yahoo Answers forum, and 3) the Yelp Review Dataset (Yelp; Shen et al., 2017a) is a non-parallel corpus of user-reviews on various businesses and services from the Yelp with binary sentiment ratings of positive or negative. For more details on the datasets see Appendix B. + +# 4.2 Baselines + +We use three competitive style-transfer baselines. Method-specific details are located in Appendix C: + +Style Transfer via Paraphrasing (STRAP; Krishna et al., 2020) is an unsupervised approach for arbitrary style transfer, which uses GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) inverse paraphrasers. + +Prompt-and-Rerank (P-A-R; Suzgun et al., 2022) prompts some language model to generate $k$ candidate style transfer texts, ranks them based on quality, and returns the best one. We use P-A-R with GPT-2 Large. + +GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a highly-capable class of decoder-only models, + +
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter44.047.718.713.225.610.631.729.221.517.93028.830.227.6
Bible36.138.82222.90.31.64.34.415.715.918.019.019.819.5
1810-1820s26.329.55.910.01.24.712.415.614.316.917.621.616.920.1
1890-1900s33.534.710.013.44.411.09.911.813.913.814.614.413.813.3
1990-200s50.256.222.632.111.831.416.720.728.532.531.534.728.432.8
English Twitter46.154.120.122.132.433.537.441.830.129.534.936.432.535.0
James Joyce22.322.810.913.23.27.92.93.32.72.33.12.53.32.8
Song Lyrics42.640.522.123.210.312.419.312.922.318.419.316.224.220.1
Romantic Poetry13.512.98.910.80.80.92.01.15.24.37.04.76.03.9
Shakespeare11.811.611.110.41.34.112.915.115.314.713.415.213.815.2
Switchboard54.659.329.735.15.26.10.10.10.30.19.713.415.623.0
Overall34.637.116.518.88.811.313.614.215.415.118.118.818.619.4
+ +Table 2: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\nu$ from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus. For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row. + +particularly showing strong zero- and few-shot performance. We utilize GPT-3 as baseline both in a zero-shot and few-shot ( $k = 1,5,10$ ) setting. Specifically, we use the instruction-tuned, 175B parameter engine text-davinci-003. + +# 4.3 Evaluation Metrics + +To evaluate the quality of each style transfer pair, we use the same metrics introduced in §3.1: target style strength (TSS), fluency (F), meaning similarity (MS), and the aggregate metric $\mathcal{V}$ . For a set of style transfer pairs (i.e., over an entire data corpus), we report the average $\mathcal{V}$ . To ensure that the improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we also report evaluation using alternative metrics unseen during training in Appendix F; these results corroborate our main findings in §4.5. + +# 4.4 Experimental Details + +For all non-GPT-3 baselines, we use GPT-2 large as the base language model. Specifically, for STEER, we use GPT-2 large for the paraphraseer and for the expert models. Our main STEER results are with the vectorized QUARK variant (i.e., using fine-grained reward). More details are in Appendix A.3. + +# 4.5 Style Transfer on CDS + +To evaluate STEER's capability on arbitrary style transfer, we use CDS, as it has 11 diverse styles. + +Specifically, we train a unified model that can transfer arbitrary text to each style in the corpus $\mathcal{C}$ . We use top-200K filtering for each target style, resulting in $|\mathcal{D}_f| = 2.2\mathrm{M}$ . Finally, we evaluate style transfer to each target style by transferring from 1000 test-set examples from every other style $\in C$ ; this results in a total test-set size of 10,000 for each target style. + +Automatic Results We demonstrate automatic results on the CDS in Table 1. Across all target styles, STEER outperforms all baselines on $\nu$ , the aggregate style transfer quality, including GPT-3, a model 226 times larger, and STRAP, a comparably-sized, non-unified baseline. This shows that with expert-guided data generation and offline-then-online RL, a unified model can outperform other models of the same or even much larger size. The full results, including individual style transfer metrics, are in Appendix G.1. + +GPT-3 has its best relative performance on the Twitter and Shakespeare styles, but struggles otherwise. This shows the limitations of relying on large-scale general-purpose LLMs: in this case, GPT-3 excels transferring to styles most likely to be highly prevalent in it's internet text corpus (Brown et al., 2020) However, it is unlikely to generalize to more obscure styles unseen during training, even with few-shot examples. The poor performance of the GPT-2-based P-A-R reinforces this, showing the unreliability of prompting general-domain, pretrained LMs for style transfer, especially at smaller scales. + +We also conduct an out-of-domain evaluation to assess the robustness of each method to unseen + +![](images/a99c158d16616d45443ff80a0af74b184d4e37eca6ecf6f1e85cd12c589bde17.jpg) +Figure 3: Style transfer quality $\nu_{\sim \mathrm{H}}$ on CDS, averaged across all 11 styles, with fluency and meaning similarity human evaluation. TSS is automatically computed. $^{10}$ + +inputs. Specifically, we use text from the two styles in GYAFC as inputs at testing time, $^{7}$ employing the previously trained CDS model without further finetuning, and transfer to each of the 11 styles in CDS. Our results are shown in Table 2: overall, STEER is the most robust method, outperforming all others in total score, $\mathcal{V}$ , for almost all target styles. STEER loses only to GPT-3 on the Shakespeare style; this may be due to the inherent knowledge of Shakespeare stored in GPT-3. + +Human Evaluation We also conduct a human evaluation to verify the quality of the generations. We use a 3-point Likert Scale to evaluate style transfers (Iyyer et al., 2018) on both meaning similarity $(\mathbf{MS_H})$ and fluency $(\mathbf{F_H})$ . Afterwards, we scale $\mathbf{MS_H}$ and $\mathbf{F_H}$ down to $[0,1]$ and multiply them by the automatically-computed TSS to attain $\nu_{\sim H} \in [0,1]$ , a partially human aggregate metric. Three NLP experts annotate 10 examples per 11 target styles from 3 models (330 total examples). + +Figure 3 shows our human evaluation results. In terms of individual metrics, STEER has better fluency than STRAP and maintains competitive fluency to GPT-3, which is known to excel at generating human-like text (Brown et al., 2020). STEER also performs slightly better in meaning similarity than STRAP, but GPT-3 outperforms both of them significantly. However, the TSS of STEER makes up for this and dwarves both the baselines. We think this is a reasonable trade-off: STEER sacrifices much less fluency and meaning preservation for much more style transfer strength. + +Previous work has also demonstrated this trade + +![](images/597000fccd353cf3679ad042ab2fd4769580caf4f50e117b859633d37377a1e5.jpg) +Figure 4: Plots of the style transfer quality on CDS averaged across all 11 styles with varying $k$ , the hyperparameter used in the Top- $k$ sampling strategy. + +
Input: Can’t sleep at all. Smh. Transfer: AAE → 1990s-2000s
STEERI mean, I can’t sleep at all.
GPT-3I am unable to obtain any rest; shaking my head in disbelief.
STRAPI don’t want to sleep.
P-A-RCan’t sleep at all, smh.
Input: Yeah one one way or another Transfer: switchboard → rom. poetry
STEEROne way, or another, or both
GPT-3Aye, one mayhap will find the way.
STRAPAnd one way or the other
P-A-RYeah one one way or another
Input: In his fear, he dare not face me Transfer: lyrics → bible
STEERAnd he will not dare to face me: for fear of me is in his eyes.
GPT-3And his fear was great, so that he could not stand before me.
STRAPFor he that is afraid of me is of me; but he that is of me is of him.
P-A-RIn fear he came and hid himself, because God was near to him
+ +Table 3: Examples of style transfer pairs generated by STEER and other methods. GPT-3 is run with 10-shot. + +off between style transfer accuracy and meaning preservation, both through empirical results (Suz-gun et al., 2022; Malmi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018) and explicit mentions in discussions (Li et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019; Hallinan et al., 2023). Intuitively, when transferring from one style to another, some amount of semantic changes is unavoidable; as a simple example, meaning similarity will be maximized when the input is naively copied. + +Overall, human evaluation validates our main findings: STEER still beats both baselines in overall score $\nu$ . These results show that GPT-3 is excellent at paraphrasing - creating fluent and semantically similar rewrites, but not at transferring to multiple diverse styles, as it often struggles to convert to the target style. On the other hand, STEER is more versatile, maintaining moderate-to-strong performance on all individual metrics, making it the strongest overall method. + +Finally, we show qualitative examples of generations from different models in Table 3. In the examples, STEER produces style transfers that optimize across all dimensions, while other methods + +
Reward TypeVTSSFMS
Coarse19.942.879.062.6
Fine-grained27.447.083.671.5
+ +optimize for only one or two. + +# 4.6 Ablations + +We perform two ablation studies to analyze the effect of dataset size and reward design in STEER. All models are compared after 15K training steps: + +Dataset Size We investigate the effect of different dataset sizes on the performance of STEER. Using the top- $k$ sampling strategy, we vary $k$ with $k = 100\mathrm{K}$ , 200K, and 400K and compare style transfer on CDS. Figure 4 shows the average results transferring to 11 target styles in CDS from all other styles. + +Interestingly, we do not observe direct scaling of style transfer performance with increasing dataset size; as the top- $k$ value increases, the aggregate score $\nu$ , target style strength TSS, and fluency F all follow a reverse U-shape curve. + +These results may indicate a trade-off between diversity and quality in the dataset $D_{f}$ used to train STEER: as the $k$ value increases with top- $k$ sampling, $D_{f}$ becomes more diverse, but also includes samples with lower-quality, which may hurt model performance downstream. On the other hand, when $k$ is too small, though the average quality of each example in $\mathcal{D}_f$ is higher, fewer diverse examples may hurt generalization. The optimal dataset has examples with sufficient variety and quality, enabling the model to learn a high-quality policy while staying resilient to various inputs. + +Coarse vs Fine-grained Reward We also directly compare the use of coarse or fine-grained reward tokens in the RL stages of STEER. As mentioned in §3.2, rather than using a product of the style metrics and a single reward token, we can use a vectorized reward function that outputs each of the three style metrics individually and correspondingly condition on each of these specific metrics. + +Results are shown in Table 4. Incorporating a fine-grained reward improves performance across all dimensions, including $\nu$ . This shows that conditioning on fine-grained rewards can lead to more + +Table 4: Style transfer quality on CDS, averaged across 11 target styles using STEER with a coarse vs a fine-grained reward. The highest values are denoted in bold. + +
MSTTRn-gram entropy, n =FMS
123
Df(STEER)0.9128.815.019.386.867.2
GYAFC0.9319.115.017.886.278.4
Yelp0.9589.616.421.387.2-
CDS0.94610.017.020.483.2-
+ +Table 5: Data metrics on ${\mathcal{D}}_{f}$ (STEER) and other datasets. + +control across each desired attribute, resulting in much better style transfers overall. + +# 4.7 Analysis of $\mathcal{D}_f$ + +We analyze $\mathcal{D}_f$ , the dataset resulting from the expert-guided dataset generation. First, we compare the lexical diversity of $\mathcal{D}_f$ against existing style transfer corpora. Following Gehrmann et al. (2021), we gauge the mean segmented token-type ratio over segmented length of $N = 10$ (MSTTR) and the $1/2/3$ -gram entropy of the training split of each corpus. We also assess the quality of style-transferred outputs in each corpus by assessing fluency (F) and meaning similarity (MS). + +Table 5 shows comparisons of these metrics. The automatically-created $\mathcal{D}_f$ is comparable to existing human-created datasets in diversity and in fluency. The average meaning similarity is also promising, as it is within $85\%$ of the value of GYAFC. This shows the potential of machine-generated data when aided with creative decoding algorithms. + +# 5 Related Work + +Style Transfer Due to the absence of large-scale parallel corpora for text style transfer (TST), prior work has focused on unsupervised methods designed for non-parallel datasets (Dai et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2019). Most of these efforts focus on disentangling the representation of content and the style of a given text, either through an auxiliary discriminator to classify text attributes (Hu et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2017b), or by training with a policy gradient (Xu et al., 2018; Gong et al., 2019). + +Recent work has leveraged the generation capabilities of LMs for TST: Krishna et al. (2020), create a pseudo-parallel corpus by paraphrasing text from a style, then training an inverse paraphraseer to convert text to that style. Other work automatically align pairs of sentences in different styles, either in the representation-level (Prabhumoye et al., 2018) or corpus-level (Liu et al., 2022b). + +Others have attempted TST by prompting LMs (Reif et al., 2021; Suzgun et al., 2022). How- + +ever, these approaches often rely on a strong initial model, either already fine-tuned on TST-related tasks (e.g. paraphrasing), or a large LM capable of few-shot generalization. In contrast, our framework does not assume strong capabilities of the initial model, making it applicable in a realistic setting. + +RL for NLP Recent work has shown the potential of RL to align with arbitrary natural language objective functions across areas such as summarization (Paulus et al., 2017), open-ended text generation (Lu et al., 2022), dialogue (Li et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2017), question-answering (Liu et al., 2022a), machine translation (Nguyen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016), and dataset generation (Pyatkin et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023). For unified style transfer, a setting where the desired output can be directly correlated to automatic metrics, RL is a promising avenue. + +Data Generation with LMs LM-generated data have been increasingly used across a wide range of tasks, such as commonsense reasoning (West et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022), NLI (Ye et al., 2022) and dialogue generation (Kim et al., 2023). While previous approaches rely on the task-solving capability of LLMs, recent work show that small LMs can also generate high-quality datasets without supervision (Jung et al., 2023; Brahman et al., 2023). Building on top of these, our work pushes further on machine-generated data by incorporating 1) inference-time decoding algorithms and 2) targeted filtering, yielding an effective pseudo-parallel corpus to initialize offline reinforcement learning. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We propose STEER, a unified framework to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data in style transfer, by leveraging expert-guided decoding and two-stage reinforcement learning. We focus on a more realistic use case: rewriting text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a desired target style. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of STEER on both in- and out-of-domain style transfer, outperforming competitive baselines. The success of STEER underscores the potential of RL algorithms when combined with controllable decoding and encourages future algorithmic innovation that fully unleash the power of RL for real-world NLP applications. + +# 7 Limitations, Ethical Considerations, and Broader Impacts + +While STEER demonstrates promising results for arbitrary-to-many style transfer, there are several limitations. Firstly, in our experiments, we rely heavily on the availability of a corpus containing text from diverse styles to act as source styles for the expert-guided creation of $\mathcal{D}_f$ ; however, not every corpus will have as diverse a set of styles to create a $D_f$ from. Instead, in data-limited settings, it may be required to gather source text from other locations, like other corpora, in order to create candidate style-transfer pairs. Secondly, while we tested the generalization of STEER to out-of-domain source style, adaption to new target styles through continual learning requires further investigation and experimentation. + +Additionally, like many other natural language systems, STEER could unintentionally introduce harmful stereotypes or engage in malicious content generation. Specially the use of fine-grained reward signals during online training may be used to reinforce undesired behaviors potentially leading to the generation of biased or unethical outputs. Furthermore, bad actors may try to intentionally utilize style transfer systems like STEER to create harm or to harass marginalized communities by using toxic output styles. This is a common misuse case in generation (McGuffie and Newhouse, 2020), and an application which we strongly condemn. + +On the positive side, STEER allows for training memory and cost-efficient training of unified style transfer models using existing corpora. Our method is thus beneficial for somewhat reducing the carbon footprint by reducing the reliance on training large language models (LLMs) to achieve desired results (Strubell et al., 2019). + +# References + +Sid Black, Stella Rose Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin G. Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Martin Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Benqi Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model. ArXiv, abs/2204.06745. +Faeze Brahman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Valentina Py- atkin, Jena Hwang, Xiang Li, Hirona Arai, Soumya Sanyal, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Xiang Ren, and Choi Yejin. 2023. Plasma: Making small language models + +better procedural knowledge models for (counterfactual) planning. + +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, T. J. Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *ArXiv*, abs/2005.14165. +Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Adam K Dean. 2023. Gpt unicorn: A daily exploration of gpt-4's image generation capabilities. Accessed: 2023-05-15. +Nan Ding and Radu Soricut. 2017. Cold-start reinforcement learning with softmax policy gradient. In NIPS. +Yuntao Du, Xinjun Zhu, Lu Chen, Ziquan Fang, and Yunjun Gao. 2022. Metakg: Meta-learning on knowledge graph for cold-start recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2202.03851. +Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ondrej Dusek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Salomey Osei, Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Sashank Santhanam, Joao Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola, and Jiawei Zhou. 2021. The GEM benchmark: Natural language generation, its evaluation and metrics. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pages 96–120. Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Hongyu Gong, Suma Bhat, Lingfei Wu, Jinjun Xiong, and Wen mei Hwu. 2019. Reinforcement learning based text style transfer without parallel training corpus. +Skyler Hallinan, Alisa Liu, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2023. Detoxifying text with MaRCo: Controllable revision with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 228-242, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2002. Training Products of Experts by Minimizing Contrastive Divergence. Neural Computation, 14(8):1771-1800. +Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. ArXiv, abs/1904.09751. +Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2018. Toward controlled generation of text. +Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1875-1885, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Luo Ji, Qin Qi, Bingqing Han, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. Reinforcement learning to optimize lifetime value in cold-start recommendation. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. +Jaehun Jung, Peter West, Liwei Jiang, Faeze Brahman, Ximing Lu, Jillian Fisher, Taylor Sorensen, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Impossible distillation: from low-quality model to high-quality dataset & model for summarization and paraphrasing. +Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Peter West, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. +Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 737-762, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter, Dan Jurafsky, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192-1202, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Juncen Li, Robin Jia, He He, and Percy Liang. 2018. Delete, retrieve, generate: a simple approach to sentiment and style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1865-1874, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. DExperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6691-6706, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiacheng Liu, Skyler Hallinan, Ximing Lu, Pengfei He, Sean Welleck, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022a. Rainier: Reinforced knowledge introspector for commonsense question answering. *ArXiv*, abs/2210.03078. +Ruibo Liu, Chongyang Gao, Chenyan Jia, Guangxuan Xu, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2022b. Non-parallel text style transfer with self-parallel supervision. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692. +Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Liwei Jiang, Jack Hessel, Lianhui Qin, Peter West, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Quark: Controllable text generation with reinforced unlearning. ArXiv, abs/2205.13636. +Fuli Luo, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Pengcheng Yang, Baobao Chang, Zhifang Sui, and Xu Sun. 2019. A dual reinforcement learning framework for unsupervised text style transfer. +Aman Madaan, Amrith Rajagopal Setlur, Tanmay Parekh, Barnabás Póczos, Graham Neubig, Yiming Yang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Alan W. Black, and Shrimai Prabhumoye. 2020. Politeness transfer: A tag and generate approach. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Sascha Rothe. 2020. Unsupervised text style transfer with padded masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8671-8680, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. 2020. The radicalization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2009.06807. + +Sourabrata Mukherjee, Vojtech Hudecek, and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Polite chatbot: A text style transfer application. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Khanh Nguyen, Hal Daumé III, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2017. Reinforcement learning for bandit neural machine translation with simulated human feedback. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1464–1474, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jekaterina Novikova, Ondrej Dusek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2241-2252, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +OpenAI. 2023. Openai api pricing. https://openai.com/pricing. Accessed: 2023-05-15. +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv, abs/2203.02155. +Ajay Patel, Nicholas Andrews, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2022. Low-resource authorship style transfer with in-context learning. ArXiv, abs/2212.08986. +Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304. +Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yulia Tsvetkov, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alan W Black. 2018. Style transfer through back-translation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 866-876, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Valentina Pyatkin, Jena D. Hwang, Vivek Srikumar, Ximing Lu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin Choi, and Chandra Bhagavatula. 2022. Clarifydelphi: Reinforced clarification questions with defeasibility rewards for social and moral situations. +Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. +Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Kianté Brantley, Jack Hessel, Rafet Sifa, Christian Bauckhage, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Is reinforcement learning (not) for natural language processing?: Benchmarks, baselines, and building blocks for natural language policy optimization. ArXiv, abs/2210.01241. + +Sudha Rao and Joel R. Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may i introduce the gyrofc dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2021. A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2109.03910. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. +John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. ArXiv, abs/1707.06347. +Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. 2017a. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. ArXiv, abs/1705.09655. +Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017b. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. +Rakshith Shetty, Bernt Schiele, and Mario Fritz. 2017. A4nt: Author attribute anonymity by adversarial training of neural machine translation. In USEnIX Security Symposium. +Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in nlp. ArXiv, abs/1906.02243. +Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. "transforming" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. ArXiv, abs/1908.09368. +Mirac Suzgun, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. Prompt-and-erank: A method for zero-shot and few-shot arbitrary textual style transfer with small language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195–2222, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641. +Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4602-4625, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +John Wieting, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Kevin Gimpel, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Beyond BLEU:training neural machine translation with semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4344-4355, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*. +Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. Mask and infill: Applying masked language model for sentiment transfer. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, pages 5271-5277. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. +Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144. +Jingjing Xu, Xu Sun, Qi Zeng, Xiaodong Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Houfeng Wang, and Wenjie Li. 2018. Unpaired sentiment-to-sentiment translation: A cycled reinforcement learning approach. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 979-988, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ruochen Xu, Tao Ge, and Furu Wei. 2019. Formality style transfer with hybrid textual annotations. ArXiv, abs/1903.06353. +Jiacheng Ye, Jiahui Gao, Qintong Li, Hang Xu, Jiangtao Feng, Zhiyong Wu, Tao Yu, and Lingpeng Kong. 2022. ZeroGen: Efficient zero-shot learning via dataset generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11653-11669, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. +Li Zhou, Kevin Small, Oleg Rokhlenko, and Charles Elkan. 2017. End-to-end offline goal-oriented dialog policy learning via policy gradient. CoRR, abs/1712.02838. + +# A Modeling Details + +# A.1 Out-of-the-Box Modeling + +For this work, we use the publicly-available HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al., + +2019), to fine-tune GPT2-models and run inference. The HuggingFace code is available at https://github.com/huggingface/transformers. and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. We also use the OpenAI library (documented at https://platform.openei.com/docs/libraries) to make queries to GPT-3 for some of our style transfer baselines. + +# A.2 Generation of $\mathcal{D}_f$ + +We first train GPT2-large experts using the training data from CDS. See Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. For each style expert, we train with the following parameters, shown in Table 6. + +
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus1
effective batch size32
total steps50,000
steps per evaluation1000
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
+ +We also include an early stopping criteria based on repeatedly increasing loss. Each model was trained on a single Nvidia RTX6K with 24GB of memory for less than 24 hours. + +After these experts are created, for every pair of styles in CDS, we generate 10,000 candidate rewrite pairs. Each source text is randomly selected from the train set of a CDS style, and used as the input text for all other target styles with a variety of hyperparameters. Specifically, we employ the DEXPERTs decoding framework for each of these generations. DEXPERTs has one hyperparameter, $\alpha$ , which we vary. We attempt the following hyperparameters for each generation, shown in Table 7: + +Table 6: Hyperparameters used to finetune the expert models + +
HyperparameterTested
α[0.2,0.4,0.6]
temperature[0.7, 1.0, 1.3]
+ +Besides these hyperparameters, we use the same max sequence and generation length as in §6, and use a no-repeat ngram value of 3 to avoid repetition. After creating $\mathcal{D}_i$ , we filter the dataset down to 2.2M rows by doing top-200K sampling for each of the 11 target styles in CDS. Next, we use this data to train the unified model: + +# A.3 Training the Unified Model + +We train our online RL for 30,000 steps with early stopping based on the overall score $\nu$ . We use 4 RTX-A100 GPUs with 80GB of memory, and this takes about 120 hours to train. We use a batch size of 256 and the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 1e-5. The full hyperparameters are reported in Table 8. + +Table 7: Hyperparameters tested and used for STEER for data over-generation + +
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus4
effective batch size1024
total steps30,000
steps per evaluation2500
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
QUARK hyps
sample steps2500
KL penalty0.025
entropy coef0.00
policy temp.1.0
vectorized reward tokenTrue
number of buckets5
+ +Table 8: Hyperparameters used for unified model training, including for QUARK + +# B Dataset Details + +# B.1 The Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS) + +CDS is collected and ensembled from online archives and previous academic datasets; we list each style and the train/val/test splits in Table 9. The dataset contains no parallel data, only text from each respective style. We use CDS as the primary dataset for unified style transfer, as it has 11 distinct styles that we can train and evaluate on. See Krishna et al., 2020 for a full explanation of the styles. + +
StyleTrainValidationTest
AAE720K7.3K7.3K
Bible31K1.7K1.7K
Coha 1810205K5.3K5.3K
Coha 18901.2M32K32K
Coha 19901.9M49K49K
English Tweet5.2M40K40K
Joyce37K2.0K2.0K
Lyrics4.5M252K252K
Romantic Poetry27K1.5K1.5K
Shakespeare25K1.3K1.3K
Switchboard146K1.5K1.5K
+ +Table 9: Styles and dataset sizes in CDS + +# C Baseline Details + +# C.1 Style Transfer via Paraphrasing + +We retrieve the diverse paraphrase and the inverse style transfer models from the repository in the original paper; please see Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. At inference, we use greedy decoding as this led to the best results in the original paper. + +# C.2 Prompt-and-Rerank + +Prompt-and-Rerank has two prompting strategies that do not require knowledge of the source style and are therefore suitable for arbitrary style transfer. The two strategies are vanilla prompting and contrastive prompting. See Reif et al., 2021 for full details on the exact prompts. + +We test out both prompts with a small subset of data, and find that contrastive prompting works much better, so we use this going forward. We also try generating $k = 3$ samples and $k = 5$ samples per input, and find that $k = 3$ works the best. Following the original paper, we use nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with $p = 0.9$ and a temperature of 1.0. Finally, we use GPT-2 Large for fair comparison with STEER. + +# C.3 GPT-3 + +We prompt GPT-3 using nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with $p = 0.9$ and a temperature of 1.0. We include further details on zero-shot and few-shot prompting below. + +# C.3.1 Zero-shot + +We use the following prompt setup for zero-shot style transfer: + +Rewite the following sentence into the style of [target style] Original Sentence: [original sentence] Rewritten Sentence: + +# C.3.2 Few-shot + +For few-shot style transfer, we randomly show $k$ examples of the target style sampled from the train set, and prepending them before the 0-shot prompt as follows. + +Here are some examples of sentences in the style of [target style]: [example 1] [example 2] [example 3] + +# D Human Evaluation + +Since automatic metrics alone have been shown insufficient for evaluating text generations (Novikova et al., 2017), we conduct human evaluation. Annotators rate meaning similarity of a style transfer pair, and the fluency of the style-transferred text. + +For fluency, annotators choose between: 0 for not fluent, 1 for somewhat fluent, and 2 for fluent. For meaning similarity, annotators choose between: 0 for not similar, 1 for somewhat similar, and 2 for similar. We discard annotations where all three annotators disagree on a label for either fluency or similarity, resulting in a final human evaluation labeled size of 310 (from an initial size of 330). + +To reduce labor cost, we only run our human evaluations on the top three methods from Table 1, meaning we exclude P-A-R. In addition, following previous work, we do not run human evaluation on target style strength. Further details are explained in Appendix D.1. + +# D.1 Style Identification Task Difficulty + +The target styles in the CDS dataset are extremely complex. Previous work from Krishna et al., 2020 mention that this is too challenging of a task, even for experienced annotators. + +We verify the difficulty of the text style identification task reported in Krishna et al., 2020 by performing an additional human evaluation. From the CDS test set, we randomly sample 10 examples from each of the 11 styles (110 total examples with ground truth styles). Next, we use the same three annotators from our previous human evaluation (NLP experts), and provide them with a natural language description of each of the 11 styles and 20 random examples from the train set of each to familiarize them with text from different styles. We ask them to assign a style label to each of the 110 + +examples, given their knowledge of the styles, and calculate their accuracy and agreement. On average, the annotators only have a $40.0\%$ classification accuracy with an inter-annotator agreement of 0.39 (Fleiss' kappa). In contrast, on the same samples (unseen by the classifier), our classifier obtains a $84.5\%$ classification accuracy. These results validate the difficulty of the task and suggest that an automatic classifier is more suited for this task. + +# E The Cold Start Problem in RL + +Reinforcement learning often involves optimizing a policy model towards an optimal distribution that maximizes some expected reward. This paradigm works well out-of-the-box for a variety of tasks in NLP, such as model detoxification and sentiment control (Lu et al., 2022) where the output distribution of the initial policy already aligns, to a reasonable degree, with the optimal reward distribution. However, in a cold-start, reinforcement-learning setting, the initial policy output distribution is drastically different than the optimal reward distribution; this may be the case when the reward is linked to a specific task outside the capabilities of the original policy. + +Adjusting to cold-start has been mostly explored in the context of recommender systems, where it is difficult to determine user-preferences without any initial data (Ding and Soricut, 2017; Ji et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022), but has been sparsely pursued in reinforcement learning for NLP. Ding and Soricut (2017) introduce softmax policy gradients for cold-start reinforcement-learning, but the approach is limited to only one class of reinforcement learning algorithms (policy-gradient approaches) and includes mathematical assumptions not widely applicable to various NLP applications. + +# F Alternative Evaluation Metrics + +To ensure that the model improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we use a set of alternative metrics for target style strength, meaning similarity, and fluency, and re-run evaluation on all results from Tables 1 and 2. These are metrics unused during training time for STEER. + +For the fluency model, we use a different binary CoLA classifier (https://huggingface.co/textattack/roberta-base-CoLA), and again use the raw probability score of the linguistically acceptable class. To assess meaning + +similarity, we use the embedding-based SIM model of Wieting et al., 2019 as used in Krishna et al., 2020. Finally, for the style classifier model, given limited data quantity, we train another RoBERTa-Large classifier with the same CDS data but with a different seed. As before, we compute the aggregate metric $\mathcal{V}$ by taking the product of the three automatic metrics for each style transfer pair in the corpus, and report the average $\mathcal{V}$ value. + +Our results using the alternative metrics to rerun evaluation on both in-domain style transfer and out-of-domain style transfer using the CDS-trained STEER mode are shown in Table 10 and Table 11 respectively. Overall, this corroborates our main findings by showing that our relative results are largely unchanged: on the in-domain styles, STEER beats all baselines, including impressive gains on target style strength as well as improved fluency and meaning similarity. On the out-of-domain task, STEER continues to excel, once again beating all other baselines other than GPT-3 on Shakespeare. + +# G Full Experimental Results + +We detail the full experimental results for the main experiments in this section, including all style evaluation metrics. + +# G.1 Main Experiments + +We include the full results for the main experiment from Table 1, testing out style transfer on the CDS dataset to each target style from all other source styles. Table 12 has the results for STEER, Table 13 has the results for STRAP, Table 14 has the results for P-A-R, and Tables 15-18 have the results for GPT-3 0-shot, 1-shot, 5-shot, and 10-shot. + +
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter38.27.81.618.19.420.717.6
Bible34.4222.04.012.314.413.6
1810-1820s23.19.21.012.811.512.312.6
1890-1900s34.313.62.28.08.010.310.3
1990-200s39.016.11.78.713.115.615.8
English Twitter37.78.72.528.216.624.219.8
James Joyce17.610.71.91.91.51.52.2
Song Lyrics29.320.12.910.313.69.411.7
Romantic Poetry16.814.80.90.52.64.23.9
Shakespeare11.48.00.85.97.36.66.9
Switchboard41.415.20.50.00.23.06.9
Overall29.413.31.68.98.711.111.0
+ +Table 10: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\nu$ using the alternative evaluation metrics (replication of Table 1). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row. + +
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter38.743.818.714.114.55.725.723.516.71525.524.823.822.9
Bible29.632.419.420.10.30.53.93.910.811.313.615.515.315.4
1810-1820s19.622.35.28.40.21.59.912.611.214.112.616.712.115.7
1890-1900s29.232.310.914.22.05.38.510.211.312.612.412.811.411.2
1990-200s44.951.922.131.66.717.915.318.926.330.630.132.626.831.0
English Twitter44.451.220.622.123.622.528.032.320.319.824.726.022.824.5
James Joyce19.021.511.713.21.53.52.02.62.93.12.92.33.03.1
Song Lyrics36.436.121.323.66.04.315.310.019.014.615.713.319.216.1
Romantic Poetry11.211.410.011.20.20.31.40.73.72.94.73.54.22.8
Shakespeare10.19.79.99.40.31.610.212.411.312.511.112.511.512.8
Switchboard42.547.322.627.72.11.70.10.00.30.04.86.68.112.4
Overall29.632.715.717.95.25.910.911.612.212.414.415.114.415.3
+ +Table 11: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score $\nu$ using the alternative evaluation metrics from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus (replication of Table 2). For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row. + +
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter42.668.287.072.5
Bible44.080.985.963.9
1810-1820s30.249.881.974.7
1890-1900s35.956.685.474.6
1990-200s42.363.083.977.8
English Twitter41.262.687.774.5
James Joyce20.434.181.876.7
Song Lyrics33.351.687.274.7
Romantic Poetry20.435.380.574.7
Shakespeare13.624.783.772.7
Switchboard52.992.087.066.1
Overall34.356.384.773.0
+ +Table 12: Full results on CDS test set with STEER + +
vTSSFMS
AAE Twitter7.421.865.766.2
Bible26.970.579.451.7
1810-1820s11.122.578.664.9
1890-1900s12.322.682.665.0
1990-2000s16.629.182.865.0
English Twitter8.036.976.849.8
James Joyce11.826.478.866.7
Song Lyrics20.239.480.267.3
Romantic Poetry15.746.564.562.1
Shakespeare9.127.868.062.2
Switchboard21.152.069.365.2
Overall14.636.075.262.4
+ +Table 13: Full results on CDS test set with the STRAP + +
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter3.810.376.168.5
Bible6.62479.167.3
1810-1820s3.58.774.478.9
1890-1900s4.4107677.7
1990-2000s4.39.175.479.2
English Twitter5.512.574.182.1
James Joyce5.413.676.975.3
Song Lyrics7.723.278.265.3
Romantic Poetry2.87.677.176.1
Shakespeare2.58.27772
Switchboard1.73.975.184.5
Overall4.411.976.375.2
+ +Table 14: Full results on CDS test set with PAR + +
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter23.258.463.165.7
Bible5.210.48570.4
1810-1820s14.727.679.467
1890-1900s8.61583.165
1990-2000s7.912.683.868.8
English Twitter3558.38270
James Joyce3.47.477.166
Song Lyrics12.225.473.772.2
Romantic Poetry1.13.561.761.5
Shakespeare9.627.764.368.6
Switchboard0.10.192.274.5
Overall1122.476.968.2
+ +Table 15: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 0-shot. + +
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter11.230.967.364.8
Bible1640.27959.5
1810-1820s15.929.48265.3
1890-1900s9.11682.463.3
1990-2000s1325.286.265.3
English Twitter23.64771.368
James Joyce1.31146.163.2
SongLyrics15.440.171.862.4
Romantic Poetry3.415.351.759.1
Shakespeare1029.561.969
Switchboard0.30.690.375.4
Overall10.825.971.865
+ +Table 16: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 1-shot. + +
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter25.479.158.459
Bible20.243.678.865.6
1810-1820s17.435.680.462.4
1890-1900s10.417.284.666.8
1990-2000s17.526.989.171
English Twitter3255.980.268.4
James Joyce1.610.948.663.2
Song Lyrics11.225.874.766
Romantic Poetry6.228.544.657.4
Shakespeare9.72862.868.4
Switchboard5.310.785.471.2
Overall14.332.971.665.4
+ +Table 17: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 5-shot. + +
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter22.765.457.964.9
Bible2143.881.465.7
1810-1820s1733.18166.2
1890-1900s10.116.983.168.8
1990-2000s17.225.788.272.1
English Twitter29.551.477.869.9
James Joyce2.620.933.962.4
Song Lyrics13.230.869.569.5
Romantic Poetry4.923.243.958.9
Shakespeare9.728.760.869.5
Switchboard13.724.882.273.5
Overall14.733.269.167.4
+ +Table 18: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 10-shot. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/images.zip b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87df881b37e3175d0a773acfe77999b8f4d2a364 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0edbea19c8cce920ffc8f4ac8b46345f3c49d1372ed01692bf2ac1353c6190c6 +size 1121890 diff --git a/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/layout.json b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a8c7438268c1615d4c5c7158dc8c68942822c62 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/STEER_ Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,13365 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 124, + 94 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 124, + 94 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 124, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 124, + 94 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6066536834af3024f930c9f01434378a7b3d295760c25dcbe500a6882d431917.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 79, + 487, + 96 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 79, + 487, + 96 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 79, + 487, + 96 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Skyler Hallinan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{♥}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Faeze Brahman" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{♣}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Ximing Lu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 111, + 438, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{♣}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jaehun Jung" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{♥}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Sean Welleck" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{♥}\\clubsuit}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Yejin Choi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 126, + 426, + 141 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\text{♥}\\clubsuit}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 141, + 506, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 141, + 506, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 141, + 506, + 155 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\diamond}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 141, + 506, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 155, + 506, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 155, + 506, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 155, + 506, + 169 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\clubsuit" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 155, + 506, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Allen Institute for AI " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 155, + 506, + 169 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\diamondsuit" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 155, + 506, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language Technologies Institute, Carnegie Mellon University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 170, + 392, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 170, + 392, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 170, + 392, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "hallisky@cs.washington.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While text style transfer has many applications across natural language processing, the core premise of transferring from a single source style is unrealistic in a real-world setting. In this work, we focus on arbitrary style transfer: rewriting a text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 326, + 274, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 326, + 274, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 326, + 274, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose STEER: Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement, a unified framework developed to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data for style transfer. STEER involves automatically generating a corpus of style-transfer pairs using a product of experts during decoding. The generated offline data is then used to pre-train an initial policy before switching to online, off-policy reinforcement learning for further improvements via fine-grained reward signals. STEER is unified and can transfer to multiple target styles from an arbitrary, unknown source style, making it particularly flexible and efficient." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 499, + 274, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 499, + 274, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 499, + 274, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experimental results on a challenging dataset with text from a diverse set of styles demonstrate state-of-the-art results compared to competitive baselines. Remarkably, STEER outperforms the 175B parameter instruction-tuned GPT-3 on overall style transfer quality, despite being 226 times smaller in size. We also show STEER is robust, maintaining its style transfer capabilities on out-of-domain data, and surpassing nearly all baselines across various styles. The success of our method highlights the potential of RL algorithms when augmented with controllable decoding to overcome the challenge of limited data supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 154, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 154, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 154, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Style transfer has been widely explored in the NLP field due to its practical applications, such as making text more formal (Rao and Tetreault, 2018)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1We release our code publicly at https://github.com/shallinan1/STEERStyleTransfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 227, + 524, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 213, + 478, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 213, + 478, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 213, + 478, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Standard Style Transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 227, + 524, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 227, + 524, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 227, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "85395e19b400c7281d5bf1ecf62fee75617a8148a2dfbe076ef9b55efaf26df7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 344, + 524, + 446 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 331, + 473, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 331, + 473, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 331, + 473, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unified Style Transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 344, + 524, + 446 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 344, + 524, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 344, + 524, + 446 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "72cec8bd46713ecdae8fc5324e74fb7d731db3e489da16292d927ccf62af3156.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 528 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An overview of unified style transfer. In standard style transfer, models can only transfer from a single source style to a specified target style, struggling to transfer from out-of-domain texts. In contrast, unified style transfer models can transfer from an arbitrary source style to multiple target styles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "increasing politeness (Madaan et al., 2020; Mukherjee et al., 2023), or anonymizing authorship (Shetty et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2022). Previous work has mostly focused on one-to-one style transfer which involves rewriting text from one specific style to another while preserving meaning and fluency (Li et al., 2018; Sudhakar et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2017a). However, this approach may be less practical in real-world scenarios, where there are multiple and often unknown source styles a user wishes to transfer from." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We focus on arbitrary style transfer, a many-to-one style transfer task, where the goal is to transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a target style using a single model (Reif et al., 2021; Krishna et al., 2020). This is a challenging task mainly" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7546" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7546-7562" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "due to the lack of large-scale, human-curated corpora for training. Furthermore, we design a framework for training a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, which can do arbitrary style transfer to multiple target styles, as shown in Figure 1. To circumvent the lack of supervised data, recent approaches (Suzgun et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2022) heavily rely on large language models like GPT-Neo (Black et al., 2022) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) in zero or few-shot settings. Though promising and convenient, these approaches are limited by the high cost of API calls (OpenAI, 2023) and lack of reproducibility due to over-reliance on LLMs (Dean, 2023). Our method enhances the effectiveness of smaller, more accessible models for style transfer, broadening their adaptability and utility for the wider community." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 291, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we present Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement ( STEER), a novel, unified framework for many-to-one style transfer without supervision. Starting with a non-parallel corpus of text with various styles and a general paraphrase model, STEER first creates a diverse, pseudo-parallel dataset of style transfer pairs using product-of-experts decoding (Hinton, 2002; Liu et al., 2021). This makes our framework efficient by eliminating the need for costly human-curated datasets. Next, STEER uses offline reinforcement learning (RL) with this data before switching to online, off-policy RL for further improvement. To reflect the varied properties of style transfer, we adapt the QUARK algorithm (Lu et al., 2022), incorporating multiple reward models associated with different aspects such as style strength, fluency, and meaning similarity. Our framework is both practical and flexible, enabling a single model to transfer arbitrary source styles to multiple target styles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We apply STEER to a diverse dataset of 11 styles (Krishna et al., 2020), developing a unified style model capable of transferring text from any of the 11 styles to any other style in the corpus. Our final model is effective at transferring style while preserving fluency and semantic similarity for all source and target styles, beating strong baselines across a suite of automatic metrics for style transfer. In particular, across all styles our 775M parameter model beats all baselines in overall style transfer quality, including the instruction-tuned 175B parameter GPT-3 model (Ouyang et al., 2022). Finally, we showcase the robustness of our model through evaluation on two out-of-domain source" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "styles that are unseen during training, where STEER consistently outperforms almost all baselines for every target style. The success of STEER demonstrates the effectiveness of reinforcement learning abetted by a high-quality, offline dataset in lieu of a good initial policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 468, + 176 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 468, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 468, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Task: Unified Style Transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conventionally, the goal of style transfer is to take an input text in a known source style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}_{\\mathrm{si}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and rewrite it into some known target style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}_{s_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while preserving meaning and fluency. However, this setting is unrealistic and may not cover real-world use cases where there are multiple and often unknown source styles. The goal of arbitrary style transfer is to instead transfer text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a text in the target style with meaning and fluency preservation. Formally, given " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the set of all possible style choices, this amounts to finding a function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f:\\mathcal{X}\\times \\mathcal{S}\\to \\mathcal{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which takes an input text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a desired target style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and outputs a modified text in the target style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}_{\\mathrm{si}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 500, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 500, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 500, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Unified Style Transfer with Expert Reinforcement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce STEER, a novel two-stage framework for unsupervised unified style transfer. Our framework is illustrated in Figure 2 and is composed of 1) expert-guided data generation to circumvent the challenge of obtaining supervised datasets at scale, and 2) offline reinforcement learning followed by online reinforcement learning to effectively align an initial policy with multiple reward functions related to the style transfer task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In expert-guided data generation (§3.1), the goal is to automatically collect a diverse high-quality dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of style transfer pairs using only a general paraphraseer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a corpus of diverse styles " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To this end, we follow an overgenerate-and-filter approach: we first generate a large pool of candidate pairs from the paraphraseer guided by style expert models in a product-of-expert fashion (Hinton, 2002), then leave only pairs that qualify for the style transfer task (i.e., accurately transferred style and semantically similar pairs). In online off-policy reinforcement learning (§3.2), we first update the paraphraseer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as an initial policy using supervised learning on the collected dataset and then switch to online, off-policy learning for further data exploration and model improvements (Ramamurthy et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7547" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 81, + 336, + 249 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 267, + 80 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 267, + 80 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 69, + 267, + 80 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) Expert-guided Data Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 81, + 336, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 81, + 336, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 81, + 336, + 249 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "83d86069f246edff6a72558867ba6dc05c32b6d92da1261dd30cc3db90fb76ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 337, + 82, + 522, + 250 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 70, + 483, + 81 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 70, + 483, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 70, + 483, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) Reinforcement Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 82, + 522, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 82, + 522, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 82, + 522, + 250 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e28dd98db9eacb2b0707abe29167e28542f43135f4d43cbcf5a5394215188c6e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: An overview of STEER. We first use expert-guided data generation to automatically generate candidate style-transfer pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\rightarrow \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", mapping from an input of arbitrary style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to a rewrite " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{s_t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a target style, by decoding with a product of experts using a paraphraseer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and style-expert LMs. After filtering by quality metrics, we have a diverse, high-quality dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We then train a unified, many-to-many style transfer model, using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for offline RL before switching to online, off-policy RL to further optimize style transfer quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 244, + 354 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 244, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 244, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Expert-guided Data Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 291, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 291, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first leverage expert LMs to generate a high-quality, pseudo-parallel style transfer corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generation For each target style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_t \\in S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we first massively generate a diverse set of candidate style transfer pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}_{s_i} \\rightarrow \\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}_{s_t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i \\in S - \\{s_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", such that we collect pairs of transfers from each possible source style to the target style. To do so, we first-pass text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}_{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from a candidate source style through a general (style-agnostic) paraphraseer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", typically resulting in a normalized text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\mathbf{x}} = \\mathcal{M}_P(x_{s_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with little or no stylistic features (Krishna et al., 2020). To ensure that the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\mathbf{x}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " belongs to the desired target style, we steer the paraphraseer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generation towards the target style and away from the source style during decoding. Intuitively, we exploit the inherent capability of the paraphraseer to faithfully rewrite input texts, while injecting stylistic control through guided-decoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To do this, we leverage DEXPERTS decoding (Liu et al., 2021), a controllable text generation paradigm that enables steering towards and away from distinct attributes. DEXPERTS combines the distribution of a base autoregressive model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{b}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with those of an \"expert\" " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and/or \"anti-expert\" " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model in a product of experts, which are trained on desirable and undesirable attributes respectively. Given a prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{4 makes it possible to be adapted for the offline RL stage. QUARK optimizes a reward function through reward conditioning. Concretely, the algorithm alternates between 1) collecting samples with the current language model, 2) sorting them into quantiles based on their reward, with each quantile identified by a reward token prepended to the language model's input, and 3) using standard language modeling loss on samples from each quantile conditioned on their reward token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When adapting QUARK to offline RL, we start by initializing the data pool with the style transfer corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generated through expert-guidance rather than gathering generations from the initial" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " SentenceTransformers occasionally outputs negative scores; we set these to 0 to ensure a score in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left\\lbrack {0,1}\\right\\rbrack" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4Off-policy RL evaluates and improves a policy different from the policy used for action selection (i.e. data generation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7549" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 234 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter42.67.43.823.211.225.422.7
Bible44.026.96.65.216.020.221.0
1810-1820s30.211.13.514.715.917.417.0
1890-1900s35.912.34.48.69.110.410.1
1990-2000s42.316.64.37.913.017.517.2
English Twitter41.28.05.535.023.632.029.5
James Joyce20.411.85.43.41.31.62.6
Song Lyrics33.320.27.712.215.411.213.2
Romantic Poetry20.415.72.81.13.46.24.9
Shakespeare13.69.12.59.610.09.79.7
Switchboard52.921.11.70.10.35.313.7
Overall34.314.64.411.010.814.314.7
", + "image_path": "c4172f9d83d54e838ed694276716045297f4a78821c7c4981d7315a7fd524d84.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with different methods, including STRAP (Krishna et al., 2020) and P-A-R (Suzgun et al., 2022), using GPT-2 Large (774M), and GPT-3 (175B). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "policy. Afterward, we carry out the quantization and learning steps in the same manner as the original QUARK. After completing the offline RL stage, we proceed with the online QUARK training by alternating between data generation with the updated policy, quantization and learning. In both stages, our training objective can be written as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 410, + 285, + 426 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 410, + 285, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 410, + 285, + 426 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^ {\\star} = \\max _ {\\theta} \\mathbb {E} _ {(\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}) \\sim \\mathcal {D}} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\big (\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}} | \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, s _ {t}, r _ {\\mathcal {V} (\\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {i}}, \\mathbf {x} _ {s _ {t}}, s _ {t})} \\big)", + "image_path": "f16f96c98cf8b391ed574365b85b09226558f08abd9134de5aa0bbfc5bace1a0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_{\\mathcal{V}(\\cdot)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the quantized reward token corresponding to the reward score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the generated rewrite. In online RL, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is expanded with samples from the improved policy at each iteration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, we also explore integrating a vectorized reward function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}(\\mathbf{x}_{s_i},\\mathbf{x}_{s_t},s_t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into the QUARK algorithm, rather than using the joint multiplied scalar score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the reward function. In this case, instead of conditioning on one reward token that corresponds to a quantized scalar score, we condition on a reward vector composed of three reward tokens. These reward tokens represent quantized scores from the style, fluency and similarity metrics respectively. As we will show in the experiment section, we observe a noticeable performance boost brought by vectorized QUARK in terms of reward optimization. We believe this is likely because the vectorized reward provides additional fine-grained signals for optimization, which reflect the quality of each generated output with respect to individual evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 155, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 155, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 155, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We detail our experiment setup, including the datasets (§4.1), baselines (§4.2), evaluation metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\S 4.3)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", experimental details " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\S 4.4)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", main results " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\S 4.5)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", ablations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\S 4.6)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and analysis of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\S 4.7)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 525, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 371, + 350 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 371, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 371, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 526, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 526, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 526, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the following datasets in our experiments: 1) the Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS; Krishna et al., 2020) is a non-parallel, diverse text corpus with 11 distinct styles such as Shakespeare and the Bible, 2) Grammarly's Yahoo Answers Formality Corpus (GYAFC; Rao and Tetreault, 2018) is a parallel corpus of formal and informal responses collected from the Yahoo Answers forum, and 3) the Yelp Review Dataset (Yelp; Shen et al., 2017a) is a non-parallel corpus of user-reviews on various businesses and services from the Yelp with binary sentiment ratings of positive or negative. For more details on the datasets see Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 375, + 559 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 375, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 375, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use three competitive style-transfer baselines. Method-specific details are located in Appendix C:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 526, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 526, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 526, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Style Transfer via Paraphrasing (STRAP; Krishna et al., 2020) is an unsupervised approach for arbitrary style transfer, which uses GPT-2 Large (Radford et al., 2019) inverse paraphrasers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 525, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt-and-Rerank (P-A-R; Suzgun et al., 2022) prompts some language model to generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidate style transfer texts, ranks them based on quality, and returns the best one. We use P-A-R with GPT-2 Large." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a highly-capable class of decoder-only models," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7550" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 531, + 245 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 531, + 245 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 531, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 531, + 245 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter44.047.718.713.225.610.631.729.221.517.93028.830.227.6
Bible36.138.82222.90.31.64.34.415.715.918.019.019.819.5
1810-1820s26.329.55.910.01.24.712.415.614.316.917.621.616.920.1
1890-1900s33.534.710.013.44.411.09.911.813.913.814.614.413.813.3
1990-200s50.256.222.632.111.831.416.720.728.532.531.534.728.432.8
English Twitter46.154.120.122.132.433.537.441.830.129.534.936.432.535.0
James Joyce22.322.810.913.23.27.92.93.32.72.33.12.53.32.8
Song Lyrics42.640.522.123.210.312.419.312.922.318.419.316.224.220.1
Romantic Poetry13.512.98.910.80.80.92.01.15.24.37.04.76.03.9
Shakespeare11.811.611.110.41.34.112.915.115.314.713.415.213.815.2
Switchboard54.659.329.735.15.26.10.10.10.30.19.713.415.623.0
Overall34.637.116.518.88.811.313.614.215.415.118.118.818.619.4
", + "image_path": "753af0be25f17a1225ff9e956b22e844a633fb174b4143a767e2b7627b1540ec.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus. For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "particularly showing strong zero- and few-shot performance. We utilize GPT-3 as baseline both in a zero-shot and few-shot (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 377 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 1,5,10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 290, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") setting. Specifically, we use the instruction-tuned, 175B parameter engine text-davinci-003." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 186, + 400 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 186, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 186, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate the quality of each style transfer pair, we use the same metrics introduced in §3.1: target style strength (TSS), fluency (F), meaning similarity (MS), and the aggregate metric " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For a set of style transfer pairs (i.e., over an entire data corpus), we report the average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To ensure that the improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we also report evaluation using alternative metrics unseen during training in Appendix F; these results corroborate our main findings in §4.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 195, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 195, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 195, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Experimental Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For all non-GPT-3 baselines, we use GPT-2 large as the base language model. Specifically, for STEER, we use GPT-2 large for the paraphraseer and for the expert models. Our main STEER results are with the vectorized QUARK variant (i.e., using fine-grained reward). More details are in Appendix A.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 201, + 688 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 201, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 201, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Style Transfer on CDS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 290, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate STEER's capability on arbitrary style transfer, we use CDS, as it has 11 diverse styles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we train a unified model that can transfer arbitrary text to each style in the corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We use top-200K filtering for each target style, resulting in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{D}_f| = 2.2\\mathrm{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, we evaluate style transfer to each target style by transferring from 1000 test-set examples from every other style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\in C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; this results in a total test-set size of 10,000 for each target style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Results We demonstrate automatic results on the CDS in Table 1. Across all target styles, STEER outperforms all baselines on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the aggregate style transfer quality, including GPT-3, a model 226 times larger, and STRAP, a comparably-sized, non-unified baseline. This shows that with expert-guided data generation and offline-then-online RL, a unified model can outperform other models of the same or even much larger size. The full results, including individual style transfer metrics, are in Appendix G.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 526, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3 has its best relative performance on the Twitter and Shakespeare styles, but struggles otherwise. This shows the limitations of relying on large-scale general-purpose LLMs: in this case, GPT-3 excels transferring to styles most likely to be highly prevalent in it's internet text corpus (Brown et al., 2020) However, it is unlikely to generalize to more obscure styles unseen during training, even with few-shot examples. The poor performance of the GPT-2-based P-A-R reinforces this, showing the unreliability of prompting general-domain, pretrained LMs for style transfer, especially at smaller scales." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also conduct an out-of-domain evaluation to assess the robustness of each method to unseen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 729, + 264, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 729, + 264, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 729, + 264, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Most capable model during conducting this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Though for each style transfer pair, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is equal to the product of TSS, F, and MS, once we take the corpus-average of these metrics we lose this equality guarantee" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7551" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 286, + 162 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 286, + 162 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 286, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 286, + 162 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a99c158d16616d45443ff80a0af74b184d4e37eca6ecf6f1e85cd12c589bde17.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Style transfer quality " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu_{\\sim \\mathrm{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on CDS, averaged across all 11 styles, with fluency and meaning similarity human evaluation. TSS is automatically computed." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{10}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "inputs. Specifically, we use text from the two styles in GYAFC as inputs at testing time," + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " employing the previously trained CDS model without further finetuning, and transfer to each of the 11 styles in CDS. Our results are shown in Table 2: overall, STEER is the most robust method, outperforming all others in total score, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for almost all target styles. STEER loses only to GPT-3 on the Shakespeare style; this may be due to the inherent knowledge of Shakespeare stored in GPT-3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation We also conduct a human evaluation to verify the quality of the generations. We use a 3-point Likert Scale to evaluate style transfers (Iyyer et al., 2018) on both meaning similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{MS_H})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and fluency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{F_H})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Afterwards, we scale " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{MS_H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{F_H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " down to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and multiply them by the automatically-computed TSS to attain " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu_{\\sim H} \\in [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a partially human aggregate metric. Three NLP experts annotate 10 examples per 11 target styles from 3 models (330 total examples)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3 shows our human evaluation results. In terms of individual metrics, STEER has better fluency than STRAP and maintains competitive fluency to GPT-3, which is known to excel at generating human-like text (Brown et al., 2020). STEER also performs slightly better in meaning similarity than STRAP, but GPT-3 outperforms both of them significantly. However, the TSS of STEER makes up for this and dwarves both the baselines. We think this is a reasonable trade-off: STEER sacrifices much less fluency and meaning preservation for much more style transfer strength." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 671, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 671, + 290, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 671, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous work has also demonstrated this trade" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 70, + 521, + 139 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 70, + 521, + 139 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 70, + 521, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 70, + 521, + 139 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "597000fccd353cf3679ad042ab2fd4769580caf4f50e117b859633d37377a1e5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Plots of the style transfer quality on CDS averaged across all 11 styles with varying " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the hyperparameter used in the Top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 526, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling strategy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 198, + 530, + 360 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 198, + 530, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 198, + 530, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 198, + 530, + 360 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Input: Can’t sleep at all. Smh. Transfer: AAE → 1990s-2000s
STEERI mean, I can’t sleep at all.
GPT-3I am unable to obtain any rest; shaking my head in disbelief.
STRAPI don’t want to sleep.
P-A-RCan’t sleep at all, smh.
Input: Yeah one one way or another Transfer: switchboard → rom. poetry
STEEROne way, or another, or both
GPT-3Aye, one mayhap will find the way.
STRAPAnd one way or the other
P-A-RYeah one one way or another
Input: In his fear, he dare not face me Transfer: lyrics → bible
STEERAnd he will not dare to face me: for fear of me is in his eyes.
GPT-3And his fear was great, so that he could not stand before me.
STRAPFor he that is afraid of me is of me; but he that is of me is of him.
P-A-RIn fear he came and hid himself, because God was near to him
", + "image_path": "50db564d3d38b56c76b66c552a918135f45dedad4e25acf42c68116ac7071290.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 393 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Examples of style transfer pairs generated by STEER and other methods. GPT-3 is run with 10-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 416, + 526, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 416, + 526, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 416, + 526, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "off between style transfer accuracy and meaning preservation, both through empirical results (Suz-gun et al., 2022; Malmi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018) and explicit mentions in discussions (Li et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019; Hallinan et al., 2023). Intuitively, when transferring from one style to another, some amount of semantic changes is unavoidable; as a simple example, meaning similarity will be maximized when the input is naively copied." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 525, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall, human evaluation validates our main findings: STEER still beats both baselines in overall score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These results show that GPT-3 is excellent at paraphrasing - creating fluent and semantically similar rewrites, but not at transferring to multiple diverse styles, as it often struggles to convert to the target style. On the other hand, STEER is more versatile, maintaining moderate-to-strong performance on all individual metrics, making it the strongest overall method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we show qualitative examples of generations from different models in Table 3. In the examples, STEER produces style transfers that optimize across all dimensions, while other methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pairwise agreements are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "94.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "98.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for fluency and similarity respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 689, + 227, + 700 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 689, + 227, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 689, + 227, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7We use 1000 examples from each class" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8As in Krishna et al., 2020, we do not conduct human evaluation for target style strength, as the task is to complex for untrained annotators unfamiliar with the target styles. Appendix D.1 details an experiment we conducted which verifies this task's hardness for annotators" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9We omit P-A-R from human evaluation due to its low performance in automatic metrics. See Appendix D for details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7552" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 274, + 113 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 274, + 113 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 274, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 274, + 113 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Reward TypeVTSSFMS
Coarse19.942.879.062.6
Fine-grained27.447.083.671.5
", + "image_path": "8e85104f0c5c2cb16135501c806629432ce87f3cfba6c51b753614dac95f0e36.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 198, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 198, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 198, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "optimize for only one or two." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 205, + 140, + 216 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 205, + 140, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 205, + 140, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Ablations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform two ablation studies to analyze the effect of dataset size and reward design in STEER. All models are compared after 15K training steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dataset Size We investigate the effect of different dataset sizes on the performance of STEER. Using the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling strategy, we vary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 100\\mathrm{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", 200K, and 400K and compare style transfer on CDS. Figure 4 shows the average results transferring to 11 target styles in CDS from all other styles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interestingly, we do not observe direct scaling of style transfer performance with increasing dataset size; as the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value increases, the aggregate score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", target style strength TSS, and fluency F all follow a reverse U-shape curve." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These results may indicate a trade-off between diversity and quality in the dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " used to train STEER: as the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value increases with top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " becomes more diverse, but also includes samples with lower-quality, which may hurt model performance downstream. On the other hand, when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is too small, though the average quality of each example in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is higher, fewer diverse examples may hurt generalization. The optimal dataset has examples with sufficient variety and quality, enabling the model to learn a high-quality policy while staying resilient to various inputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Coarse vs Fine-grained Reward We also directly compare the use of coarse or fine-grained reward tokens in the RL stages of STEER. As mentioned in §3.2, rather than using a product of the style metrics and a single reward token, we can use a vectorized reward function that outputs each of the three style metrics individually and correspondingly condition on each of these specific metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results are shown in Table 4. Incorporating a fine-grained reward improves performance across all dimensions, including " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This shows that conditioning on fine-grained rewards can lead to more" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 141 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 290, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 290, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Style transfer quality on CDS, averaged across 11 target styles using STEER with a coarse vs a fine-grained reward. The highest values are denoted in bold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 141 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 526, + 141 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MSTTRn-gram entropy, n =FMS
123
Df(STEER)0.9128.815.019.386.867.2
GYAFC0.9319.115.017.886.278.4
Yelp0.9589.616.421.387.2-
CDS0.94610.017.020.483.2-
", + "image_path": "a20cf1d53355c12874d0db590623fc0d23e9d4d3b8f3ba56b9f30c14565a59ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 523, + 161 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 523, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 523, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Data metrics on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 523, + 161 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{\\mathcal{D}}_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 149, + 523, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (STEER) and other datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 524, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "control across each desired attribute, resulting in much better style transfers overall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 398, + 235 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 398, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 398, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.7 Analysis of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 398, + 235 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We analyze " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the dataset resulting from the expert-guided dataset generation. First, we compare the lexical diversity of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " against existing style transfer corpora. Following Gehrmann et al. (2021), we gauge the mean segmented token-type ratio over segmented length of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (MSTTR) and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1/2/3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-gram entropy of the training split of each corpus. We also assess the quality of style-transferred outputs in each corpus by assessing fluency (F) and meaning similarity (MS)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5 shows comparisons of these metrics. The automatically-created " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is comparable to existing human-created datasets in diversity and in fluency. The average meaning similarity is also promising, as it is within " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the value of GYAFC. This shows the potential of machine-generated data when aided with creative decoding algorithms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 395, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 395, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 395, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 525, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Style Transfer Due to the absence of large-scale parallel corpora for text style transfer (TST), prior work has focused on unsupervised methods designed for non-parallel datasets (Dai et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2019). Most of these efforts focus on disentangling the representation of content and the style of a given text, either through an auxiliary discriminator to classify text attributes (Hu et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2017b), or by training with a policy gradient (Xu et al., 2018; Gong et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent work has leveraged the generation capabilities of LMs for TST: Krishna et al. (2020), create a pseudo-parallel corpus by paraphrasing text from a style, then training an inverse paraphraseer to convert text to that style. Other work automatically align pairs of sentences in different styles, either in the representation-level (Prabhumoye et al., 2018) or corpus-level (Liu et al., 2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Others have attempted TST by prompting LMs (Reif et al., 2021; Suzgun et al., 2022). How-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7553" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ever, these approaches often rely on a strong initial model, either already fine-tuned on TST-related tasks (e.g. paraphrasing), or a large LM capable of few-shot generalization. In contrast, our framework does not assume strong capabilities of the initial model, making it applicable in a realistic setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RL for NLP Recent work has shown the potential of RL to align with arbitrary natural language objective functions across areas such as summarization (Paulus et al., 2017), open-ended text generation (Lu et al., 2022), dialogue (Li et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2017), question-answering (Liu et al., 2022a), machine translation (Nguyen et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016), and dataset generation (Pyatkin et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2023). For unified style transfer, a setting where the desired output can be directly correlated to automatic metrics, RL is a promising avenue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data Generation with LMs LM-generated data have been increasingly used across a wide range of tasks, such as commonsense reasoning (West et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022), NLI (Ye et al., 2022) and dialogue generation (Kim et al., 2023). While previous approaches rely on the task-solving capability of LLMs, recent work show that small LMs can also generate high-quality datasets without supervision (Jung et al., 2023; Brahman et al., 2023). Building on top of these, our work pushes further on machine-generated data by incorporating 1) inference-time decoding algorithms and 2) targeted filtering, yielding an effective pseudo-parallel corpus to initialize offline reinforcement learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 147, + 569 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 147, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 147, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose STEER, a unified framework to overcome the challenge of limited parallel data in style transfer, by leveraging expert-guided decoding and two-stage reinforcement learning. We focus on a more realistic use case: rewriting text from an arbitrary, unknown style to a desired target style. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of STEER on both in- and out-of-domain style transfer, outperforming competitive baselines. The success of STEER underscores the potential of RL algorithms when combined with controllable decoding and encourages future algorithmic innovation that fully unleash the power of RL for real-world NLP applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 509, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 509, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 509, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Limitations, Ethical Considerations, and Broader Impacts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While STEER demonstrates promising results for arbitrary-to-many style transfer, there are several limitations. Firstly, in our experiments, we rely heavily on the availability of a corpus containing text from diverse styles to act as source styles for the expert-guided creation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; however, not every corpus will have as diverse a set of styles to create a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 108, + 526, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from. Instead, in data-limited settings, it may be required to gather source text from other locations, like other corpora, in order to create candidate style-transfer pairs. Secondly, while we tested the generalization of STEER to out-of-domain source style, adaption to new target styles through continual learning requires further investigation and experimentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, like many other natural language systems, STEER could unintentionally introduce harmful stereotypes or engage in malicious content generation. Specially the use of fine-grained reward signals during online training may be used to reinforce undesired behaviors potentially leading to the generation of biased or unethical outputs. Furthermore, bad actors may try to intentionally utilize style transfer systems like STEER to create harm or to harass marginalized communities by using toxic output styles. This is a common misuse case in generation (McGuffie and Newhouse, 2020), and an application which we strongly condemn." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the positive side, STEER allows for training memory and cost-efficient training of unified style transfer models using existing corpora. Our method is thus beneficial for somewhat reducing the carbon footprint by reducing the reliance on training large language models (LLMs) to achieve desired results (Strubell et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 362, + 620 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 362, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 362, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 628, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 628, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 628, + 526, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 628, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sid Black, Stella Rose Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin G. Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Martin Pieler, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Purohit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Benqi Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model. ArXiv, abs/2204.06745." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Faeze Brahman, Chandra Bhagavatula, Valentina Py- atkin, Jena Hwang, Xiang Li, Hirona Arai, Soumya Sanyal, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Xiang Ren, and Choi Yejin. 2023. Plasma: Making small language models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7554" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "better procedural knowledge models for (counterfactual) planning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 106, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 106, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 106, + 291, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 106, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, T. J. Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. *ArXiv*, abs/2005.14165." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 291, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 291, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 291, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 290, + 372 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 290, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 290, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam K Dean. 2023. Gpt unicorn: A daily exploration of gpt-4's image generation capabilities. Accessed: 2023-05-15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 385, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 385, + 291, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 385, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nan Ding and Radu Soricut. 2017. Cold-start reinforcement learning with softmax policy gradient. In NIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 291, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuntao Du, Xinjun Zhu, Lu Chen, Ziquan Fang, and Yunjun Gao. 2022. Metakg: Meta-learning on knowledge graph for cold-start recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2202.03851." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ondrej Dusek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Salomey Osei, Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Sashank Santhanam, Joao Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola, and Jiawei Zhou. 2021. The GEM benchmark: Natural language generation, its evaluation and metrics. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pages 96–120. Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongyu Gong, Suma Bhat, Lingfei Wu, Jinjun Xiong, and Wen mei Hwu. 2019. Reinforcement learning based text style transfer without parallel training corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 526, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Skyler Hallinan, Alisa Liu, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2023. Detoxifying text with MaRCo: Controllable revision with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 228-242, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 526, + 241 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 526, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 526, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2002. Training Products of Experts by Minimizing Contrastive Divergence. Neural Computation, 14(8):1771-1800." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. ArXiv, abs/1904.09751." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 526, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 526, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 526, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P. Xing. 2018. Toward controlled generation of text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 526, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohit Iyyer, John Wieting, Kevin Gimpel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Adversarial example generation with syntactically controlled paraphrase networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1875-1885, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 435, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 435, + 526, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 435, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Luo Ji, Qin Qi, Bingqing Han, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. Reinforcement learning to optimize lifetime value in cold-start recommendation. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 497, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 497, + 526, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 497, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jaehun Jung, Peter West, Liwei Jiang, Faeze Brahman, Ximing Lu, Jillian Fisher, Taylor Sorensen, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Impossible distillation: from low-quality model to high-quality dataset & model for summarization and paraphrasing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Peter West, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, and Yejin Choi. 2023. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 737-762, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter, Dan Jurafsky, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1192-1202, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7555" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncen Li, Robin Jia, He He, and Percy Liang. 2018. Delete, retrieve, generate: a simple approach to sentiment and style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1865-1874, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 291, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2021. DExperts: Decoding-time controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6691-6706, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 290, + 345 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 290, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 290, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiacheng Liu, Skyler Hallinan, Ximing Lu, Pengfei He, Sean Welleck, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022a. Rainier: Reinforced knowledge introspector for commonsense question answering. *ArXiv*, abs/2210.03078." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 289, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruibo Liu, Chongyang Gao, Chenyan Jia, Guangxuan Xu, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2022b. Non-parallel text style transfer with self-parallel supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 290, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, Liwei Jiang, Jack Hessel, Lianhui Qin, Peter West, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Quark: Controllable text generation with reinforced unlearning. ArXiv, abs/2205.13636." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 289, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fuli Luo, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Pengcheng Yang, Baobao Chang, Zhifang Sui, and Xu Sun. 2019. A dual reinforcement learning framework for unsupervised text style transfer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 289, + 652 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 289, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 586, + 289, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aman Madaan, Amrith Rajagopal Setlur, Tanmay Parekh, Barnabás Póczos, Graham Neubig, Yiming Yang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Alan W. Black, and Shrimai Prabhumoye. 2020. Politeness transfer: A tag and generate approach. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Malmi, Aliaksei Severyn, and Sascha Rothe. 2020. Unsupervised text style transfer with padded masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8671-8680, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. 2020. The radicalization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. *ArXiv*, abs/2009.06807." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sourabrata Mukherjee, Vojtech Hudecek, and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. Polite chatbot: A text style transfer application. In Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 525, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Khanh Nguyen, Hal Daumé III, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2017. Reinforcement learning for bandit neural machine translation with simulated human feedback. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1464–1474, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jekaterina Novikova, Ondrej Dusek, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2241-2252, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 524, + 314 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 524, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 524, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Openai api pricing. https://openai.com/pricing. Accessed: 2023-05-15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv, abs/2203.02155." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ajay Patel, Nicholas Andrews, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2022. Low-resource authorship style transfer with in-context learning. ArXiv, abs/2212.08986." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 467, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 467, + 525, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 467, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 525, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 525, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 525, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yulia Tsvetkov, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alan W Black. 2018. Style transfer through back-translation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 866-876, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Valentina Pyatkin, Jena D. Hwang, Vivek Srikumar, Ximing Lu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin Choi, and Chandra Bhagavatula. 2022. Clarifydelphi: Reinforced clarification questions with defeasibility rewards for social and moral situations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 525, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Kianté Brantley, Jack Hessel, Rafet Sifa, Christian Bauckhage, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Is reinforcement learning (not) for natural language processing?: Benchmarks, baselines, and building blocks for natural language policy optimization. ArXiv, abs/2210.01241." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7556" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sudha Rao and Joel R. Tetreault. 2018. Dear sir or madam, may i introduce the gyrofc dataset: Corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2021. A recipe for arbitrary text style transfer with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2109.03910." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 186, + 290, + 242 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 186, + 290, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 186, + 290, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 289, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 289, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 248, + 289, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. ArXiv, abs/1707.06347." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 289, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola. 2017a. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. ArXiv, abs/1705.09655." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 289, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017b. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 371, + 290, + 416 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 371, + 290, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 371, + 290, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rakshith Shetty, Bernt Schiele, and Mario Fritz. 2017. A4nt: Author attribute anonymity by adversarial training of neural machine translation. In USEnIX Security Symposium." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 290, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 423, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in nlp. ArXiv, abs/1906.02243." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 290, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. \"transforming\" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. ArXiv, abs/1908.09368." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 291, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 291, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 291, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mirac Suzgun, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. Prompt-and-erank: A method for zero-shot and few-shot arbitrary textual style transfer with small language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195–2222, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 290, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Warstadt, Amanpreet Singh, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. Neural network acceptability judgments. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:625-641." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter West, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jack Hessel, Jena Hwang, Liwei Jiang, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Sean Welleck, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Symbolic knowledge distillation: from general language models to commonsense models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4602-4625, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Wieting, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Kevin Gimpel, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Beyond BLEU:training neural machine translation with semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4344-4355, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In *Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 525, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. Mask and infill: Applying masked language model for sentiment transfer. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, pages 5271-5277. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 313, + 525, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 313, + 525, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 313, + 525, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 386, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 386, + 525, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 386, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingjing Xu, Xu Sun, Qi Zeng, Xiaodong Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Houfeng Wang, and Wenjie Li. 2018. Unpaired sentiment-to-sentiment translation: A cycled reinforcement learning approach. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 979-988, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruochen Xu, Tao Ge, and Furu Wei. 2019. Formality style transfer with hybrid textual annotations. ArXiv, abs/1903.06353." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 525, + 610 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 525, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 525, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiacheng Ye, Jiahui Gao, Qintong Li, Hang Xu, Jiangtao Feng, Zhiyong Wu, Tao Yu, and Lingpeng Kong. 2022. ZeroGen: Efficient zero-shot learning via dataset generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11653-11669, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 657, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 657, + 525, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 657, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li Zhou, Kevin Small, Oleg Rokhlenko, and Charles Elkan. 2017. End-to-end offline goal-oriented dialog policy learning via policy gradient. CoRR, abs/1712.02838." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 708, + 414, + 722 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 708, + 414, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 708, + 414, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Modeling Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 729, + 451, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 729, + 451, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 729, + 451, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Out-of-the-Box Modeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For this work, we use the publicly-available HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7557" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2019), to fine-tune GPT2-models and run inference. The HuggingFace code is available at https://github.com/huggingface/transformers. and is licensed under the Apache License 2.0. We also use the OpenAI library (documented at https://platform.openei.com/docs/libraries) to make queries to GPT-3 for some of our style transfer baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 180, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 180, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 180, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Generation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 180, + 215 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_f" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 290, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first train GPT2-large experts using the training data from CDS. See Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. For each style expert, we train with the following parameters, shown in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 281, + 285, + 436 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 281, + 285, + 436 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 281, + 285, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 281, + 285, + 436 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus1
effective batch size32
total steps50,000
steps per evaluation1000
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
", + "image_path": "7d0832c7ce5a307ecb381c48c2242cf3b89be3b2598fef4a3507f47a11d9a3aa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also include an early stopping criteria based on repeatedly increasing loss. Each model was trained on a single Nvidia RTX6K with 24GB of memory for less than 24 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After these experts are created, for every pair of styles in CDS, we generate 10,000 candidate rewrite pairs. Each source text is randomly selected from the train set of a CDS style, and used as the input text for all other target styles with a variety of hyperparameters. Specifically, we employ the DEXPERTs decoding framework for each of these generations. DEXPERTs has one hyperparameter, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which we vary. We attempt the following hyperparameters for each generation, shown in Table 7:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 109, + 692, + 250, + 737 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 289, + 467 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 289, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 289, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Hyperparameters used to finetune the expert models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 692, + 250, + 737 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 692, + 250, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 692, + 250, + 737 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterTested
α[0.2,0.4,0.6]
temperature[0.7, 1.0, 1.3]
", + "image_path": "48d4a0111908433ba5271541f12bb6aa3f97620b2371d0d957ab517cfc2dace1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides these hyperparameters, we use the same max sequence and generation length as in §6, and use a no-repeat ngram value of 3 to avoid repetition. After creating " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we filter the dataset down to 2.2M rows by doing top-200K sampling for each of the 11 target styles in CDS. Next, we use this data to train the unified model:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 183, + 461, + 196 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 183, + 461, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 183, + 461, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Training the Unified Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train our online RL for 30,000 steps with early stopping based on the overall score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We use 4 RTX-A100 GPUs with 80GB of memory, and this takes about 120 hours to train. We use a batch size of 256 and the Adam optimizer with learning rate of 1e-5. The full hyperparameters are reported in Table 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 312, + 520, + 548 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 289, + 769 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 289, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 745, + 289, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Hyperparameters tested and used for STEER for data over-generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 312, + 520, + 548 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 312, + 520, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 312, + 520, + 548 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterAssignment
modelGPT2-large
number of gpus4
effective batch size1024
total steps30,000
steps per evaluation2500
learning rate optimizerAdamW
AdamW initial learning rate1e-05
AdamW epsilon1e-05
learning rate schedulelinear with no warmup
weight decay0.0
max sequence length50
max generation length100
padding sequencesto max seq length
QUARK hyps
sample steps2500
KL penalty0.025
entropy coef0.00
policy temp.1.0
vectorized reward tokenTrue
number of buckets5
", + "image_path": "1ab4b97e4c42e68e4de1d21fffc2f6ef19d332b607a9cb170be155d792843b04.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 580 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Hyperparameters used for unified model training, including for QUARK" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 404, + 614 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 404, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 404, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Dataset Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 499, + 643 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 499, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 499, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 The Corpus of Diverse Styles (CDS)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CDS is collected and ensembled from online archives and previous academic datasets; we list each style and the train/val/test splits in Table 9. The dataset contains no parallel data, only text from each respective style. We use CDS as the primary dataset for unified style transfer, as it has 11 distinct styles that we can train and evaluate on. See Krishna et al., 2020 for a full explanation of the styles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7558" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 203 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 203 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 203 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleTrainValidationTest
AAE720K7.3K7.3K
Bible31K1.7K1.7K
Coha 1810205K5.3K5.3K
Coha 18901.2M32K32K
Coha 19901.9M49K49K
English Tweet5.2M40K40K
Joyce37K2.0K2.0K
Lyrics4.5M252K252K
Romantic Poetry27K1.5K1.5K
Shakespeare25K1.3K1.3K
Switchboard146K1.5K1.5K
", + "image_path": "57e863fca08aba6c5c7f9c077059ed55476e91623a2811f5569a9fbed51248a7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 211, + 260, + 223 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 211, + 260, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 211, + 260, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Styles and dataset sizes in CDS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 173, + 252 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 173, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 173, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Baseline Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 247, + 275 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 247, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 260, + 247, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1 Style Transfer via Paraphrasing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 290, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We retrieve the diverse paraphrase and the inverse style transfer models from the repository in the original paper; please see Krishna et al., 2020 for more details. At inference, we use greedy decoding as this led to the best results in the original paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 194, + 367 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 194, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 194, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2 Prompt-and-Rerank" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 290, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt-and-Rerank has two prompting strategies that do not require knowledge of the source style and are therefore suitable for arbitrary style transfer. The two strategies are vanilla prompting and contrastive prompting. See Reif et al., 2021 for full details on the exact prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We test out both prompts with a small subset of data, and find that contrastive prompting works much better, so we use this going forward. We also try generating " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " samples and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " samples per input, and find that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " works the best. Following the original paper, we use nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a temperature of 1.0. Finally, we use GPT-2 Large for fair comparison with STEER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 129, + 596 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 129, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 129, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.3 GPT-3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We prompt GPT-3 using nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 601, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a temperature of 1.0. We include further details on zero-shot and few-shot prompting below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 151, + 675 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 151, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 151, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.3.1 Zero-shot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the following prompt setup for zero-shot style transfer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 279, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 279, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 279, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rewite the following sentence into the style of [target style] Original Sentence: [original sentence] Rewritten Sentence:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 384, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 384, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 384, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.3.2 Few-shot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 87, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 87, + 524, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 87, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For few-shot style transfer, we randomly show " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 87, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 87, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples of the target style sampled from the train set, and prepending them before the 0-shot prompt as follows." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 521, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 521, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 521, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here are some examples of sentences in the style of [target style]: [example 1] [example 2] [example 3]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 424, + 261 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 424, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 424, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Human Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since automatic metrics alone have been shown insufficient for evaluating text generations (Novikova et al., 2017), we conduct human evaluation. Annotators rate meaning similarity of a style transfer pair, and the fluency of the style-transferred text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For fluency, annotators choose between: 0 for not fluent, 1 for somewhat fluent, and 2 for fluent. For meaning similarity, annotators choose between: 0 for not similar, 1 for somewhat similar, and 2 for similar. We discard annotations where all three annotators disagree on a label for either fluency or similarity, resulting in a final human evaluation labeled size of 310 (from an initial size of 330)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 525, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 447, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To reduce labor cost, we only run our human evaluations on the top three methods from Table 1, meaning we exclude P-A-R. In addition, following previous work, we do not run human evaluation on target style strength. Further details are explained in Appendix D.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 492, + 552 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 492, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 492, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.1 Style Identification Task Difficulty" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The target styles in the CDS dataset are extremely complex. Previous work from Krishna et al., 2020 mention that this is too challenging of a task, even for experienced annotators." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We verify the difficulty of the text style identification task reported in Krishna et al., 2020 by performing an additional human evaluation. From the CDS test set, we randomly sample 10 examples from each of the 11 styles (110 total examples with ground truth styles). Next, we use the same three annotators from our previous human evaluation (NLP experts), and provide them with a natural language description of each of the 11 styles and 20 random examples from the train set of each to familiarize them with text from different styles. We ask them to assign a style label to each of the 110" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7559" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "examples, given their knowledge of the styles, and calculate their accuracy and agreement. On average, the annotators only have a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " classification accuracy with an inter-annotator agreement of 0.39 (Fleiss' kappa). In contrast, on the same samples (unseen by the classifier), our classifier obtains a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "84.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " classification accuracy. These results validate the difficulty of the task and suggest that an automatic classifier is more suited for this task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 247, + 216 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 247, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 247, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E The Cold Start Problem in RL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reinforcement learning often involves optimizing a policy model towards an optimal distribution that maximizes some expected reward. This paradigm works well out-of-the-box for a variety of tasks in NLP, such as model detoxification and sentiment control (Lu et al., 2022) where the output distribution of the initial policy already aligns, to a reasonable degree, with the optimal reward distribution. However, in a cold-start, reinforcement-learning setting, the initial policy output distribution is drastically different than the optimal reward distribution; this may be the case when the reward is linked to a specific task outside the capabilities of the original policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 291, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adjusting to cold-start has been mostly explored in the context of recommender systems, where it is difficult to determine user-preferences without any initial data (Ding and Soricut, 2017; Ji et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022), but has been sparsely pursued in reinforcement learning for NLP. Ding and Soricut (2017) introduce softmax policy gradients for cold-start reinforcement-learning, but the approach is limited to only one class of reinforcement learning algorithms (policy-gradient approaches) and includes mathematical assumptions not widely applicable to various NLP applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 250, + 601 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 250, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 250, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Alternative Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To ensure that the model improvement from STEER is meaningful (i.e., to make sure our model is not reward hacking), we use a set of alternative metrics for target style strength, meaning similarity, and fluency, and re-run evaluation on all results from Tables 1 and 2. These are metrics unused during training time for STEER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the fluency model, we use a different binary CoLA classifier (https://huggingface.co/textattack/roberta-base-CoLA), and again use the raw probability score of the linguistically acceptable class. To assess meaning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "similarity, we use the embedding-based SIM model of Wieting et al., 2019 as used in Krishna et al., 2020. Finally, for the style classifier model, given limited data quantity, we train another RoBERTa-Large classifier with the same CDS data but with a different seed. As before, we compute the aggregate metric " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by taking the product of the three automatic metrics for each style transfer pair in the corpus, and report the average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our results using the alternative metrics to rerun evaluation on both in-domain style transfer and out-of-domain style transfer using the CDS-trained STEER mode are shown in Table 10 and Table 11 respectively. Overall, this corroborates our main findings by showing that our relative results are largely unchanged: on the in-domain styles, STEER beats all baselines, including impressive gains on target style strength as well as improved fluency and meaning similarity. On the out-of-domain task, STEER continues to excel, once again beating all other baselines other than GPT-3 on Shakespeare." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 461, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 461, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 461, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Full Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 525, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We detail the full experimental results for the main experiments in this section, including all style evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 421, + 449 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 421, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 421, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G.1 Main Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We include the full results for the main experiment from Table 1, testing out style transfer on the CDS dataset to each target style from all other source styles. Table 12 has the results for STEER, Table 13 has the results for STRAP, Table 14 has the results for P-A-R, and Tables 15-18 have the results for GPT-3 0-shot, 1-shot, 5-shot, and 10-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7560" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 236 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 236 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 466, + 236 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Target StyleGPT-2 LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
AAE Twitter38.27.81.618.19.420.717.6
Bible34.4222.04.012.314.413.6
1810-1820s23.19.21.012.811.512.312.6
1890-1900s34.313.62.28.08.010.310.3
1990-200s39.016.11.78.713.115.615.8
English Twitter37.78.72.528.216.624.219.8
James Joyce17.610.71.91.91.51.52.2
Song Lyrics29.320.12.910.313.69.411.7
Romantic Poetry16.814.80.90.52.64.23.9
Shakespeare11.48.00.85.97.36.66.9
Switchboard41.415.20.50.00.23.06.9
Overall29.413.31.68.98.711.111.0
", + "image_path": "55b80a994c8dbfdb1f7590211ebabe4739272904474ae89fd800e1ccf31f3e34.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 525, + 460 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Comparison of 11-way style transfer on the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the alternative evaluation metrics (replication of Table 1). Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 525, + 460 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Target StyleGPT2-LargeGPT-3 (text-davinci-003)
STEERSTRAPP-A-Rk=0k=1k=5k=10
Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.Inf.For.
AAE Twitter38.743.818.714.114.55.725.723.516.71525.524.823.822.9
Bible29.632.419.420.10.30.53.93.910.811.313.615.515.315.4
1810-1820s19.622.35.28.40.21.59.912.611.214.112.616.712.115.7
1890-1900s29.232.310.914.22.05.38.510.211.312.612.412.811.411.2
1990-200s44.951.922.131.66.717.915.318.926.330.630.132.626.831.0
English Twitter44.451.220.622.123.622.528.032.320.319.824.726.022.824.5
James Joyce19.021.511.713.21.53.52.02.62.93.12.92.33.03.1
Song Lyrics36.436.121.323.66.04.315.310.019.014.615.713.319.216.1
Romantic Poetry11.211.410.011.20.20.31.40.73.72.94.73.54.22.8
Shakespeare10.19.79.99.40.31.610.212.411.312.511.112.511.512.8
Switchboard42.547.322.627.72.11.70.10.00.30.04.86.68.112.4
Overall29.632.715.717.95.25.910.911.612.212.414.415.114.415.3
", + "image_path": "62b951fe2ea94181d8382c652051ac6361364183900c0967ae1510367b11de8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 286, + 737 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 525, + 519 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 525, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Comparison of style transfer to each of the 11 styles in the CDS dataset measured by aggregate score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 468, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the alternative evaluation metrics from two out-of-domain styles from the GYAFC corpus (replication of Table 2). For. and Inf. denote the formal and informal styles respectively. Bold and underline denote the highest and the second-highest score respectively in each row." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 286, + 737 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 286, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 546, + 286, + 737 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter42.668.287.072.5
Bible44.080.985.963.9
1810-1820s30.249.881.974.7
1890-1900s35.956.685.474.6
1990-200s42.363.083.977.8
English Twitter41.262.687.774.5
James Joyce20.434.181.876.7
Song Lyrics33.351.687.274.7
Romantic Poetry20.435.380.574.7
Shakespeare13.624.783.772.7
Switchboard52.992.087.066.1
Overall34.356.384.773.0
", + "image_path": "8fb07f4e036798e3120c8bce0adacad8eba1a9cd65a4d2338aa9c3060054b7d1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 546, + 521, + 737 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 745, + 280, + 756 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 745, + 280, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 745, + 280, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: Full results on CDS test set with STEER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 546, + 521, + 737 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 546, + 521, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 546, + 521, + 737 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
vTSSFMS
AAE Twitter7.421.865.766.2
Bible26.970.579.451.7
1810-1820s11.122.578.664.9
1890-1900s12.322.682.665.0
1990-2000s16.629.182.865.0
English Twitter8.036.976.849.8
James Joyce11.826.478.866.7
Song Lyrics20.239.480.267.3
Romantic Poetry15.746.564.562.1
Shakespeare9.127.868.062.2
Switchboard21.152.069.365.2
Overall14.636.075.262.4
", + "image_path": "ce5dea2302b77e6c6b77ed0c2c56606b1954e6b00c584dffd8e3a0bc3e8f12b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 745, + 523, + 756 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 745, + 523, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 745, + 523, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: Full results on CDS test set with the STRAP" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7561" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 78, + 282, + 268 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 78, + 282, + 268 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 78, + 282, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 78, + 282, + 268 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter3.810.376.168.5
Bible6.62479.167.3
1810-1820s3.58.774.478.9
1890-1900s4.4107677.7
1990-2000s4.39.175.479.2
English Twitter5.512.574.182.1
James Joyce5.413.676.975.3
Song Lyrics7.723.278.265.3
Romantic Poetry2.87.677.176.1
Shakespeare2.58.27772
Switchboard1.73.975.184.5
Overall4.411.976.375.2
", + "image_path": "3771b828c72b715a36d329f8ccfaee370dfb3a70437bffcb2fb059240d0418c7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 313, + 285, + 503 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 276, + 274, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 276, + 274, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 276, + 274, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14: Full results on CDS test set with PAR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 313, + 285, + 503 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 313, + 285, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 313, + 285, + 503 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter23.258.463.165.7
Bible5.210.48570.4
1810-1820s14.727.679.467
1890-1900s8.61583.165
1990-2000s7.912.683.868.8
English Twitter3558.38270
James Joyce3.47.477.166
Song Lyrics12.225.473.772.2
Romantic Poetry1.13.561.761.5
Shakespeare9.627.764.368.6
Switchboard0.10.192.274.5
Overall1122.476.968.2
", + "image_path": "ccc532c76205d76efd6faf0425ed94ed0767898451afd4a3dead3545a6415334.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 549, + 285, + 739 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 512, + 289, + 524 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 512, + 289, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 512, + 289, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 15: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 0-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 549, + 285, + 739 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 549, + 285, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 549, + 285, + 739 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter11.230.967.364.8
Bible1640.27959.5
1810-1820s15.929.48265.3
1890-1900s9.11682.463.3
1990-2000s1325.286.265.3
English Twitter23.64771.368
James Joyce1.31146.163.2
SongLyrics15.440.171.862.4
Romantic Poetry3.415.351.759.1
Shakespeare1029.561.969
Switchboard0.30.690.375.4
Overall10.825.971.865
", + "image_path": "4e01800b7ef43e2ddac08d321ae75b9cdf58b1376678653e51fafb0b066cc8e7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 136, + 520, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 748, + 289, + 760 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 748, + 289, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 748, + 289, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 16: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 1-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 136, + 520, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 136, + 520, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 136, + 520, + 327 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter25.479.158.459
Bible20.243.678.865.6
1810-1820s17.435.680.462.4
1890-1900s10.417.284.666.8
1990-2000s17.526.989.171
English Twitter3255.980.268.4
James Joyce1.610.948.663.2
Song Lyrics11.225.874.766
Romantic Poetry6.228.544.657.4
Shakespeare9.72862.868.4
Switchboard5.310.785.471.2
Overall14.332.971.665.4
", + "image_path": "c79123a04629038757f8ddfb42da80a491527885fc9d1522184778b5645f6960.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 491, + 520, + 681 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 335, + 524, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 335, + 524, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 335, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 17: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 5-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 491, + 520, + 681 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 491, + 520, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 491, + 520, + 681 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VTSSFMS
AAE Twitter22.765.457.964.9
Bible2143.881.465.7
1810-1820s1733.18166.2
1890-1900s10.116.983.168.8
1990-2000s17.225.788.272.1
English Twitter29.551.477.869.9
James Joyce2.620.933.962.4
Song Lyrics13.230.869.569.5
Romantic Poetry4.923.243.958.9
Shakespeare9.728.760.869.5
Switchboard13.724.882.273.5
Overall14.733.269.167.4
", + "image_path": "f7db5fc6214179953ef3b22c7f280b173b6c1e156e5d1c6d1421fe097641d75b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 689, + 524, + 701 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 689, + 524, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 689, + 524, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 18: Full results on CDS test set for GPT-3 10-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7562" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_content_list.json b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65f2b9e9f40b6ec6ece18bf175fa91ec73914f6e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2062 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SWEET: Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 79, + 880, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Javin Liu*", + "bbox": [ + 290, + 126, + 383, + 141 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Southern California", + "bbox": [ + 196, + 143, + 470, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mila - Quebec AI Institute", + "bbox": [ + 223, + 159, + 443, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hao Yu*", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 126, + 702, + 141 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vidya Sujaya*", + "bbox": [ + 603, + 143, + 727, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pratheeksha Nair", + "bbox": [ + 588, + 160, + 744, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kellin Peline", + "bbox": [ + 606, + 175, + 724, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reihaneh Rabbany", + "bbox": [ + 581, + 192, + 749, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "McGill University", + "bbox": [ + 589, + 209, + 739, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mila - Quebec AI Institute", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 225, + 774, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose a weak supervision pipeline SWEET: Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking for extracting person names from noisy escort advertisements. Our method combines the simplicity of rule-matching (through antirules, i.e., negated rules) and the generalizability of large language models fine-tuned on benchmark, domain-specific and synthetic datasets, treating them as weak labels. One of the major challenges in this domain is limited labeled data. SWEET addresses this by obtaining multiple weak labels through labeling functions and effectively aggregating them. SWEET outperforms the previous supervised SOTA method for this task by $9\\%$ F1 score on domain data and better generalizes to common benchmark datasets. Furthermore, we also release HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort advertisements (built using ChatGPT) to facilitate further research within the community.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 275, + 460, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 583, + 258, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Over 6.3 million people worldwide are victims of forced sexual exploitation or human trafficking (HT) on any given day (International Labour Organization), and the majority of the victims have been advertised online (Polaris, 2021; MINOR, 2015) through escort websites (Rhodes, 2016). HT is an organized crime and traffickers tend to advertise multiple victims simultaneously. Hence, finding connections between online escort advertisements hints towards them being posted by the same individual and strongly indicates organized activity.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Several methods have previously taken the approach of uncovering connections between ads by looking for repeated phrases, phone numbers, locations, prices, service types, etc., in the text (Lee et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2021; Rabbany et al., 2018). Hence, efficient entity extractors must extract accurate and relevant information from ad text (Nagpal", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022; Kejriwal et al., 2018; Kejriwal and Kapoor, 2019). However, this is very challenging because the text is often noisy, ungrammatical, and obscured. Information related to the names of individuals, services, locations, etc, often have letters replaced by symbols or emojis. The writing style constantly evolves and is made adversarial to avoid detection by online filters and moderators.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 884, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on discussions with domain experts, including criminologists, law enforcement, and other groups fighting trafficking, it was determined that extracting advertised names from the ads is particularly important. Traffickers tend to control, on average, four to six victims and often post advertisements on their behalf (Thorn, 2015). Hence, multiple people being advertised in the same or similar ads is a strong indicator of trafficking (Lee et al., 2021). Other entities such as locations, phone numbers and email addresses could also be informative. However, most websites have explicit fields for these entities which makes them more straightforward to extract. The same is not true for person names which are usually embedded inside the text of the ads and are much more complex to extract.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 884, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Traditional extraction methods, such as the embedding-based Flair (Akbik et al., 2018a) and Spacy NLP models, do not do well on this type of data because they are sensitive to noise and tend to decrease in performance as more noise is injected into the data (Li et al., 2022). NEAT (Li et al., 2022) stands as the current SOTA name extractor in this domain and uses an ad-hoc combination of a name dictionary, a rule dictionary, and a BERT-based disambiguation layer. Moreover, NEAT relies on a sample of manually labeled data to provide optimal results. This is a challenge because the relevant datasets for this task are typically curated in-house and not shared publicly due to their sensitive nature. Similar constraints also apply to methods such as crowd-sourcing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 662, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*These authors contributed equally to this research.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 457, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3355", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3355-3367", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these challenges, we propose a weakly supervised method SWEET (Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking)1, that efficiently extracts person names from escort ads and is independent of training labels. We define label-independence in the scope of our work as not requiring domain or task-specific labels. SWEET uses a novel combination of fine-tuned language models (elucidated in Section 3), antirules, and an HMM-based method of aggregating them. Our contributions are:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Novel: We study the problem of name extraction from noisy text through the novel lens of weak supervision and propose a new method.", + "- Effective: The proposed method SWEET is very effective and outperforms the previous SOTA in person name extraction on domain data by $9\\%$ F1 score.", + "- Label-efficient: SWEET leverages weak labels that are easy and cheap to obtain. This is very useful in several real-world applications, particularly in the HT domain, where obtaining labels is expensive and challenging due to the sensitive nature of the data.", + "- Improving reproducibility: We also introduce HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort ads which, unlike the real-world datasets used in papers in this domain, can be published for further research and helps with reproducibility." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 275, + 489, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 634, + 255, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we cover the background information and related works necessary to understand this paper's context better.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Named Entity Recognition Named Entity Recognition (NER) is the task of identifying elements in the text that correspond to high-level categories like PERSON, ORGANIZATION, LOCATION, DATES, and other concrete concepts that can be explicitly named. The NER task aims to extract all occurrences of such entities. In this paper, the focus is on human names because they are most associated with an HT victim and names are the most common entity type to appear in escort ads.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 721, + 489, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity extraction from escort ads This is an important task that involves identifying and extracting named entities from a given ad. Rule-based models typically rely on regular expressions, handcrafted rules, and gazetteer-based approaches. For person names, NEAT (Li et al., 2022) is the SOTA method that combines a gazetteer (person name dictionary) with a regular expression extractor (rule dictionary) and a RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) based disambiguation layer called HT-bert. Such rule-based systems were shown(Li et al., 2022) to have a better performance over statistical models (Devlin et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019) on the noisy escort ads dataset. However, on benchmark NER datasets, NEAT performs much worse. This is a likely result of its rule-based components designed to capture patterns in escort ads. Rule-based approaches can also be complementary to statistical-based approaches. In other domains, (Ratinov and Roth, 2009) argued that the NER task relies highly on external knowledge and shows that a statistical model combined with a rule-based gazetteer match makes a better-performing hybrid model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Weak supervision Since we consider multiple sources of weak labels for our task, we rely on a popular weak-supervision framework, Skweak, for label aggregation and learning. Skweak (Lison et al., 2021) is a Python-based weak supervision framework made specifically for NER tasks. It works together with the Spacy library (Honnibal et al., 2020), allowing users to create labeling functions (LFs) that label an input text token as a type of entity and facilitates downstream processing. Skweak provides a variety of different LF types: heuristics, gazetteers and document-level functions allowing us to easily combine weak signals from our proposed combination of rule based systems and LLMs. These make Skweak a better choice compared to other weak label aggregators such as Snorkel (Ratner et al., 2016). The labels obtained from these LFs are later aggregated using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The HMM's states and observations correspond to the true labels and LF outputs respectively. Skweak relies on a majority vote strategy (where each LF is a voter) to get a predicted label. This is then used to calculate the HMM's initial transition and emission probabilities, which are then updated until convergence using the Baum-Welch algorithm. To account for possible dependencies", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Our code is available at https://github.com/ComplexData-MILA/HT-NER", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3356", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "between LFs, Skweak tempers the probability density (weight) of an LF depending on its redundancy. It decreases the weight of an LF that produces a label of type 'PERSON', for example, if it shows high recall with other LFs that also produce 'PERSON' labels (high overlap in predictions). Post aggregation, a separate classifier model can be trained on the HMM's aggregated results and used directly on other datasets without requiring the LFs or the HMM.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models Recent works (Gilardi et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) have shown that ChatGPT can be used as a data annotator and addresses ethical concerns regarding using human labelers on datasets that contain sensitive information. We experimented with using ChatGPT to extract person names from ads and used this labeled set to fine-tune BERT-based models as LFs in our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 255, + 490, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also experimented with using ChatGPT for generating escort ads to create an additional domain dataset. It has been shown that LLMs like ChatGPT exhibit stochastic behaviours (Bender et al., 2021) and are susceptible to biases from the real world internet data it was trained on. Recently, several works (Li et al., 2023) (Liu et al., 2023) have demonstrated effective jailbreak techniques that bypass the content filters that are imposed on ChatGPT to limit the level of bias and toxic language output by ChatGPT. (Carlini et al., 2021) could also extract training data directly from GPT LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 623, + 263, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we introduce a hybrid weakly supervised Skweak-based model that uses both rule-based approaches (such as \"antirules\" detailed below) and statistical-based approaches (such as DeBERTa and RoBERTa models trained on different NER datasets) as labeling functions and combine them into a single, more effective predictor. Our methodology pipeline is in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 650, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed weak supervision pipeline in SWEET consists of 2 main types of LFs:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 780, + 487, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. Antirules: Rules that determine entities as not person-names. The top $X\\%$ most frequent words of the dataset $(X \\in \\{10, 20, 30, 40, 50\\})$ are annotated as \"NOT_NAME\", resulting in 5 antirule LFs in total. The antirules help counteract possible noise.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Fine-tuned Models: We fine-tune base versions of RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) and DeBERTav3 (He et al., 2021) for the task of Named Entity Recognition on six different datasets, namely: the train splits of CoNLL2003 (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003), WNUT2017 (Derczynski et al., 2017), Few-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) (Only Level 1), WikiNER (English) (Nothman et al., 2012), a domain dataset labelled by ChatGPT called HTUNSUP, and a domain dataset generated and labeled by ChatGPT called HTGEN. The details and labeling method of HTUNSUP are provided in Section 4.6 and Appendix A, respectively. In total, 12 fine-tuned models (one per dataset and model type) act as LFs in SWEET. Any word predicted by a fine-tuned model, that matches a white-space-separated word in the ad text, gets annotated as a \"PERSON_NAME\" according to that LF.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 885, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using the Skweak framework, we fit an HMM on the annotated train set and apply the fitted model on the annotations to obtain a final set of aggregated labels. The HMM's initial parameters are obtained using a majority voter that treats each LF as a voter of equal weight to get a predicted label.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 418, + 882, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also experimented with using the three components of previous SOTA NEAT (Li et al., 2022) as LFs but ultimately found it did not boost performance (see NEAT (Weakly Supervised) in Table 3). Specifically, we considered:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Context Rules: extract person names based on part-of-speech (POS) tags and common phrases that include names. The rules consist of regular expressions that work to capture the most common contexts where names are seen. (eg. I'm NNP, My name is NNP, You can call me NNP).", + "2. Name Dictionary: common names with confidence scores tuned based on frequency in indomain data. These names are used in gazetteer matching, where the names are used as the gazetteer and the pipeline, given a word in a sentence, will check if it is a word in this dictionary/gazetteer.", + "3. Word Disambiguation: filters results of the weighted output of rule and dictionary extractor with the help of a DeBERTaV3 model that was fine-tuned for the task of masked language modeling on a domain dataset (Li et al., 2022)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 607, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3357", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2447b5cb1174a343e2c7beacb8939513f93b8a036bb5fe5506891a62ccde3cb7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: SWEET Architecture" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 191, + 83, + 803, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During the training of the DeBERTaV3 model, individual words are masked and the task for the model is to predict these masked words. A word's context is passed to the fill mask, and the number of correct predictions (the number of predictions by the fill mask that is in the name dictionary) is divided by the total number of predictions by the fill mask to get a confidence score for the disambiguation.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 268, + 487, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 221, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To fine-tune SWEET LFs, we used 4 open-source datasets, namely the training sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, FewNERD-L1, and WikiNER-en, and 2 escort ad datasets, namely HTUNSUP and HTGEN. To evaluate SWEET, we used the test sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC, Tweebank and an escort ad dataset called HTNAME. We also generated a domain dataset HTGEN whose train set was used for fine-tuning LFs and test set was used for evaluating SWEET. We provide the dataset statistics in Table 1, and the descriptions below.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 487, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 CoNLL2003", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 649, + 257, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CoNLL2003(Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is a very popular baseline for evaluating the performance of different NLP systems and algorithms. Our experiments use CoNLL2003 data from the HuggingFace which is in English. For evaluation, we only consider the name annotations (i.e, B-PER and I-PER) and ignore other entity classes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 487, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 WNUT2017", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 815, + 253, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "WNUT2017(Derczynski et al., 2017) consists of user-generated text and contains many examples of informal language, abbreviations, misspellings, and other noisy characteristics. Due to this, models tend to have lower recall values on WNUT2017.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar to CoNLL2003, we use only the B-PER and I-PER classes for evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 880, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 313, + 784, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC) (Derczynski et al., 2016) dataset is a large, diverse, and high-quality annotated corpus, created for the development and evaluation of NER in social media. BTC includes tweets from different regions, time periods, and types of Twitter users. It was annotated by a combination of NLP experts and crowd workers, ensuring both high quality and crowd recall.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 334, + 882, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Tweebank", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 636, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tweebank(Jiang et al., 2022) was developed to address the challenges of analyzing social media data, specifically Twitter messages through NER and syntactic parsing. The researchers created a new English NER corpus called Tweebank-NER based on Tweebank and annotated it using Amazon Mechanical Turk.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 498, + 882, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 HTNAME", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 635, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This is a modified version of the HT1k dataset from (Li et al., 2022) consisting of 995 escort advertisements in English and French, where we rectified three main types of labeling errors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 644, + 880, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Parsing issues - in cases where the first name and last name were joined as a single string (FirstNameLastName) were not correctly annotated as \"FirstName, LastName\".", + "2. Apostrophe issue - cases where an extra s is added to the name. Examples like 'Mizz Mercedes' (the $s$ should not be included as the name).", + "3. Blank labels - a significant number of examples were missing true labels. We manually added the missing labels and reintroduce this dataset as HTNAME." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 709, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3358", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b4a8c95a09bdb895bfc4d9bf5a4c2eb79728c519349e9b12cb702ab6f5ffcbd4.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTrain SizeTest SizeTotal SizeBatch Size
CoNLL200314041345317494128
WNUT2017339412874681128
FewNERD-L11317671882415059132
WikiNER-en12990714435144342128
BTC-2002--
Tweebank-1201--
HTNAME-995995-
HTUNSUP6160-616032
HTGEN94248181024232
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 485, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 HTUNSUP", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 277, + 247, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HTUNSUP was gathered by us from private escort websites and has around 6000 ads. Multiple recent works have shown that ChatGPT's strong performance on text related tasks makes it a strong candidate for automatic labeling of certain types of data (Huang et al., 2023b; Mei et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023). Additionally, due to its outstanding performance on HTNAME (Table 2), we use it to generate pseudo labels for HTUNSUP, which we treat as ground-truth.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 297, + 487, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Weak Labeling of HTUNSUP We used the ChatGPT API (gpt-3.5-turbo) to extract person-name entities from ads. The average token count including the prompt, ad and response was 263. Due to content moderation and dialogue optimization, on encountering improper or explicit text (as in the case of escort ads), ChatGPT responds incoherently and for such cases, we return \"no entity detected\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 487, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The prompt used was: \"I want you to act as a natural and no-bias labeler, extract human names and location or address and social media link or tag in the format 'Names: \\nLocations: \\nSocial': If multiple entities exist, separate them by 1. If no entity exists, say N. Your words should extract from the given text, can't add/modify any other words, should be as short as possible, remember don't include the phone number. For one name, it should be less than 3 words.\"", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 487, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After post-processing and removing certain rare, high-frequency wrong predictions manually, we obtain HTUNSUP with high-quality pseudo labels and use it for fine-tuning BERT models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 487, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1030d4990e42271dbf6e2ffbaf28986e0ce386e4998a24275b8433c0f391b513.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used. The grayed-out numbers indicate that the test sets are not used in our experiments." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
F1PrecisionRecall
0.900.890.91
", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 829, + 394, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Performance of ChatGPT for name extraction on HTNAME", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 872, + 487, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.7 HTGEN: Generated escort ads dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 860, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We explore ChatGPT's ability to generate escort ads with the motivation of developing a shareable domain specific dataset for furthering research in this field2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 880, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We used role playing to convince ChatGPT (API with GPT-3.5-turbo-0301) that it is a researcher studying patterns in escort ads. This bypasses the filters meant to reduce inappropriate outputs, misuse, and generation of text found in such ads. We followed up with a description of the entities in the ads and some of the patterns unique to the HT domain. (Bonifacio, 2023) had shown that providing the context before every question often helped improve the output quality. We also provided a sample conversation between a user (who provides the prompt) and ChatGPT (providing the required generated response) from three examples taken from our private HTNAME dataset. We scrambled phone numbers and other sensitive data for privacy reasons. In this manner, we generated 10,000 synthetic escort ads called HTGEN and used them to fine-tune a BERT model. At the time of writing, it costs $0.002 per 1000 tokens, and for 10,000 ads, it costs approximately$ 4.40 USD. This is significantly cheaper than hiring manual labelers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 171, + 884, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide examples of ads from HTNAME and HTGEN in appendix D but note that some contain explicit language. The ads generated by ChatGPT are pretty similar to those in HTNAME, and ChatGPT was successfully able to replicate the patterns and noise of the HT domain.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 882, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 619, + 717, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 628, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare SWEET with eight baselines, including off-the-shelf libraries, BERT-based models, domain-specific NER methods and a simple majority vote for aggregating weak labels as opposed to Skweak, ordered by their appearance in our result tables.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 665, + 882, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Spacy $^3$ - A popular open-source Python library for natural language processing tasks. The Spacy NER package uses statistical models, neural network architectures and deep learning techniques trained on large amounts of data.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 763, + 882, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2The exact prompts used and the code for the dataset generation can be provided upon request.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 882, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://spacy.io/usage/linguistic-features#named-entities", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 865, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3359", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016) - semi-supervised approach that combines text cluster information and word embeddings and uses a CRF for NER", + "LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020) - transformer based model that learns contextualized embeddings, fine-tuned on TACRED dataset (Zhang et al., 2017)", + "- ELMo (Peters et al., 2018) - model that learns contextualized word representations, tuned for NER", + "- Flair (Akbik et al., 2018b) - trained character language model that learns contextualized string embeddings, tuned for NER", + "- NEAT (Li et al., 2022) - previous SOTA for person name extraction from escort ads", + "- NEAT (Weakly Supervised) – a variation of NEAT where each individual component is treated as an LF in our weak supervision pipeline", + "- Majority Vote - a simple strategy of choosing the label based on consensus of majority of the weak labels, competitor to Skweak." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 84, + 487, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Evaluation Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 312, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the performance of SWEET with its variants and the baselines using the average F1 classification score on 5-folds of the test set. For each run, 1 fold acted as the test set while the remaining were used to fit the HMM. Since we only consider the 'PERSON' class, we adopt the following evaluation metrics to better fit our use case.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 486, + 487, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Word-level matching: both ground truth and prediction are split into words (separated by a space) and each word is treated as a separate entity.", + "- Lowercase: both the ground truth and predictions are converted to lowercase.", + "- Exact Match: since the entity matching is on the word level, we consider strict match as a True Positive sample." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 607, + 487, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 745, + 218, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of our experiments for the general and HT domain datasets respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 766, + 487, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall performance of SWEET: SWEET obtains the highest F1 score and recall on 4 out of 6 datasets, and beats NEAT on all datasets. On the HT datasets, SWEET performs the best. On general noisy datasets, WNUT2017 and BTC, SWEET similarly performs the best. On CoNLL2003, Flair", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and ELMo achieve higher scores than SWEET, but SWEET is the next best performing model. On Tweebank, TwitterNER, designed specifically for tweets, is the best performing method. Please note that on re-evaluating NEAT on HTNAME, we found an increase in the strict F1 score from the previous results (0.76 from Table 2 in Li et al. (2022) becomes 0.78), and use this stronger performance as the baseline, as reported in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison of SWEET with NEAT: When compared with NEAT on the domain datasets, SWEET increases F1 score and recall by $9\\%$ and $18\\%$ respectively whilst maintaining precision. Furthermore, SWEET significantly surpasses NEAT on CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC and Tweebank. This may be attributed to signals from the finetuned DeBERTa and RoBERTa LFs as well as false positive reduction due to the antirules.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 239, + 882, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance of SWEET v.s. individual LFs: In Table 5, we report the performance of individual labeling functions. When compared to the performance of SWEET in Table 4, we can see that SWEET successfully combines different fine-tuned models resulting in an aggregated model that outperforms these individual models, even those fine-tuned on domain data (HTUNSUP and HTGEN). SWEET's recall and precision scores being higher than all individual fine-tuned LFs (except for precision on HTNAME which is on-par with HTUNSUP), shows the success of weak supervision in using weaker sources (LFs) to produce a stronger final model. The weak supervision methodology however can impact the performance significantly as we can see in Table 3 and Table 4, when comparing a simple majority vote performance with the proposed SWEET. The majority vote baseline still performs relatively well, and shows strong recall, however, SWEET performs significantly better in 5 out of 6 datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 394, + 882, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation Study Table 6 shows the results of ablation experiments of SWEET, focused on the HT datasets. Firstly, removing antirules decrease precision, showing that they are helpful in informing the model on what is not a name. Meanwhile, we see a mixed effect of domain LFs in the model. In row 3, we observe the highest precision and F1 scores on HTName with the removal of in-domain LFs. On HTGen, we instead see a significant decrease, but note that it is still higher than other baselines in Table 4. In the last rows, we observe that using only", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3360", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8e72716a9e13cd32c20c4ce30fc45872031c2176695fb513f2711886639b9276.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodCoNLL2003WNUT2017BTCTweebank
F1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).64 ± .04.66 ± .04.55 ± .04.21 ± .07.14 ± .06.44 ± .06.15 ± .01.44 ± .01.09 ± .01.19 ± .04.24 ± .05.18 ± .05
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).68 ± .05.91 ± .05.55 ± .05.61 ± .09.84 ± .10.57 ± .10.32 ± .05.86 ± .04.26 ± .04.67 ± .04.87 ± .05.57 ± .05
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).31 ± .11.89 ± .09.19 ± .09.55 ± .07.67 ± .05.44 ± .05.47 ± .01.92 ± .01.31 ± .01.37 ± .07.76 ± .06.33 ± .06
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).96 ± .02.95 ± .02.99 ± .02.59 ± .15.72 ± .18.37 ± .18.41 ± .06.83 ± .04.35 ± .18.71 ± .01.74 ± .01.68 ± .01
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).98 ± .02.97 ± .021.0 ± .02.60 ± .15.79 ± .18.34 ± .18.35 ± .06.86 ± .05.31 ± .05.63 ± .07.76 ± .09.62 ± .09
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).17 ± .07.43 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).16 ± .07.42 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
Majority vote.83 ± .06.74 ± .02.98 ± .02.65 ± .04.53 ± .06.90 ± .06.64 ± .03.76 ± .03.60 ± .03.53 ± .06.37 ± .04.88 ± .04
SWEET - Domain Data.86 ± .05.79 ± .02.97 ± .02.69 ± .06.61 ± .06.82 ± .06.63 ± .03.86 ± .04.56 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.85 ± .04
SWEET.86 ± .05.79 ± .03.98 ± .03.68 ± .04.58 ± .07.83 ± .07.64 ± .03.84 ± .04.57 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.86 ± .04
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1dc12f58a0d0bfbb97bd5e479d94015d78c302f4e82fc9ec029b3566b43e42a8.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold open source test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).27 ± .03.18 ± .02.51± .02.47 ± .04.50 ± .03.43 ± .03
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).56 ± .0475. ± .0452.± .04.70 ± .02.70 ± .03.67 ± .03
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).63 ± .03.85 ± .04.51± .04.68 ± .03.84 ± .02.56 ± .02
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).51 ± .02.56 ± .02.46± .02.69 ± .05.61 ± .06.74 ± .06
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).45 ± .02.73 ± .02.32± .02.63 ± .04.83 ± .04.49 ± .04
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).78 ± .04.83 ± .05.74± .03.71 ± .01.63 ± .02.79 ± .03
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77± .02.71 ± .01.64 ± .02.78 ± .02
Majority vote.73 ± .02.59 ± .01.95 ± .01.74 ± .02.65 ± .03.85 ± .03
SWEET -Domain Data.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
SWEET.87 ± .01.83 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 258, + 805, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2f64d640d5396dfedb16febb1d69618188f234d0f864166ddde077ea71b23513.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold HT test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFine-tuning DatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTa-v3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .03.71 ± .02.62 ± .02
HTGEN.68 ± .01.71 ± .02.67 ± .02
CoNLL2003.67 ± .02.67 ± .03.69 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.57 ± .03.80 ± .03.43 ± .03
WikiNER-en.52 ± .01.48 ± .02.54 ± .02
WNUT2017.70 ± .02.71 ± .02.72 ± .02
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.82 ± .02.84 ± .03.83 ± .03
HTGEN.72 ± .02.81 ± .02.66 ± .02
CoNLL2003.72 ± .02.68 ± .03.77 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.68 ± .02.81 ± .02.59 ± .02
WikiNER-en.49 ± .03.43 ± .03.56 ± .03
WNUT2017.68 ± .02.73 ± .03.66 ± .03
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 462, + 484, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Fine-tuned model LFs on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets. All these LFs have a lower performance compared to the aggregated model SWEET, reported in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 489, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "domain LFs yields similar F1 scores with SWEET, but compromises recall for precision. We note that without using any domain data (second to last row of Table 4), SWEET is able to achieve the same F1 score as a setup that uses only domain data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 487, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also observe that removing HTUNSUP LFs results in an F1 score decrease only on HTNAME. Moreover, these LFs do as well on their own (last four rows in Table 6), although they are still lower than SWEET on HTNAME, showing that the aggregation of LFs fine-tuned on diverse datasets is a key component of SWEET.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 636, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Effect of using ChatGPT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 492, + 752, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although ChatGPT is the best performing model on HTNAME (Table 2), there are concerns regarding its use on escort ads. First, there is some financial cost associated with employing ChatGPT on large datasets of escort ads which limits its accessibility whereas our method is open-source and completely free to use. Second, the stability of the OpenAI API output is a concern as discussed in (Chen et al., 2023). While this does not hurt our method much where one only needs to get good performance a single time (to provide weak labels on a fixed dataset), and one could consider even the more powerful GPT-4, it means it would be unreliable to build a system for real-world applications based on ChatGPT alone. Finally, depending on the method used to access ChatGPT, there can be privacy concerns with this sensitive data. The intended use of our method is on large scale real-time ads with sensitive information, and using ChatGPT, is not feasible due to cost, stability and privacy issues mentioned above.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 514, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, although ChatGPT is a valuable ingredient in SWEET, our ablations directly show that it is not sufficient. In the target domain our full system achieves $87\\%$ F1 (Table 4). Simply apply", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3361", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5a00623f6da1429c84a8b8d583e41d82c1ef16a5fb84ebb04636b01ecbb25dd9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
All LFs - HTGEN LFs.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.86 ± .02.82 ± .02.91 ± .02.82 ± .02.77 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTGEN LFs- HTUNSUP LFs (Domain Data).88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.93 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTUNSUP LFs.83 ± .02.76 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.82 ± .02.76 ± .02.92 ± .02.81 ± .01.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs.76 ± .01.76 ± .02.76 ± .02.81 ± .02.79 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + Antirules.86 ± .01.82 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .04.82 ± .05.64 ± .05
Only HTUNSUP LFs.87 ± .01.88 ± .01.88 ± .01.81 ± .03.77 ± .04.81 ± .04
Only HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.87 ± .01.92 ± .02.85 ± .02.76 ± .04.83 ± .05.66 ± .05
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs.85 ± .01.85 ± .02.87 ± .02.82 ± .03.78 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.86 ± .02.86 ± .01.86 ± .01.82 ± .03.79 ± .04.81 ± .04
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Ablation results of SWEET. -Antirules indicates removal of the antirule LFs component of SWEET. HTGEN LFs or HTUNSUP LFs indicates LMs fine-tuned on HTGEN or HTUNSUP respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 882, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing language models trained on ChatGPT-labeled data achieves $82\\%$ at best (Table 5), significantly lower. Conversely, our approach without using any ChatGPT-labeled data maintains $88\\%$ F1 (Table 6, \"SWEET- DomainData\").", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 337, + 487, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Label Efficiency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 287, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our pipeline eliminates the need for human labelers as it is independent of training labels for the task at hand, making use of existing open-source labeled data for fine-tuning language models instead. This is advantageous over other label-dependent NER models, especially in the HT domain where data labeling is costly and time-consuming. Being label independent is also beneficial in terms of ethics and privacy as the HT domain contains many examples of private information like names, locations, social media tags, and phone numbers. These types of data would no longer need to be read by a crowdsourced worker or human labeler in order to generate labels for training. More importantly, our method is also independent of LFs trained on the same data as the domain. For e.g., SWEET excluding LFs trained on HTGEN and HTUNSUP (SWEET - DomainData) performs as well or even better than SWEET.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 448, + 489, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 765, + 247, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we introduced SWEET, a weak supervision pipeline that extracts person names from escort ads without the need for manual labeling. The experimental evaluations show that SWEET achieves SOTA results on the HTNAME dataset with an F1 score of 0.87, outperforming the previous SOTA by $9\\%$ while also generalizing better to CoNLL2003 and WNUT2017 datasets. Moreover,", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SWEET maintains or improves this performance on removing any LFs trained on relevant domain data. SWEET does not require any human annotators and labeling which is a very important improvement over previous methods because it allows it to be applied easily to real-world datasets. It can also be easily adapted to other domains by designing specific new labeling functions. We also release a new public escort ad dataset HTGEN that uses ChatGPT for both data generation and labeling, which will improve reproducibility and benchmarking in this domain where most data cannot be shared publicly, as it contains personal information.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 337, + 884, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 645, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite SWEET having achieved SOTA results on HTNAME, several limitations need to be considered while interpreting the findings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 583, + 882, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. Dataset Size and Diversity: The HTNAME database used in this research is a modified version of HT1k from Li et al. (2022). The dataset contains a limited number of data (around 1000 ads). 5-fold evaluation is deployed to accommodate for this small size. While generating HTGEN, although efforts were made to ensure its representativeness and diversity, HTGen's data may still not be $100\\%$ representative of real data. This may limit the generalizability of the models trained on it to other domains or datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 645, + 882, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Explainability and transparency: HT is a high-stakes application domain and transparency, explainability, and accuracy are all equally important. SWEET has the ability to aggregate multiple models together to get a final", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 838, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3362", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "prediction. However, it uses HMM for aggregation which is more complex and less explainable than the ad-hoc way deployed by Li et al. (2022). Moreover, the output of the fine-tuned LFs is also less interpretable. SWEET sacrifices some explainability for increased performance. However, thanks to its modularity, the HMM aggregator can be swapped out for a more explainable method.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 84, + 489, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "3. Cost: We were able to improve performance by aggregating BERT models fine-tuned on a variety of NER datasets. This is time-consuming and costly. We used industrial-grade GPUs (RTX8000, V100 and A100) to fine-tune the BERT models.", + "4. Privacy: The HT domain contains private information like a person's name, address, social media tag, email, and phone number. Although the HTNAME and HTUNSUP datasets consists of ads scraped from public websites, these websites may not be fully regulated, and thus, data coming from these ads may violate the privacy of individuals being advertised in those ads. We had to refrain from releasing these datasets because of privacy and ethical concerns. Thus, directly replicating our results on HTNAME and HTUNSUP is not possible. To help counteract this and improve reproducibility, we released HTGEN.", + "5. Lack of variety: We have shown that the HTGEN dataset generated by ChatGPT contains realistic-sounding ads. However, the ads tend to be more repetitive than our datasets (HTUNSUP, HTNAME) with real data scraped from the web. Changing the temperature settings and other parameters showed promise at boosting the variation in the generations but the model was more inclined to produce nonsensical sentences. Future work should aim at increasing variety in the generated ads and keep noise within a desired range. With more variety of data in the generations, it would also be possible to decrease the size of HTGEN by reducing the number of redundant examples." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 229, + 489, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 797, + 265, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rigorous ethical considerations were taken during the process of this research. The data we use is publicly available, and due to the nature of the advertisements, there are no reasonable expectations for privacy. However, due to the sensitivity of the data, Ethics Approval has been obtained from the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Research Ethics Board Office at the authors' university for using this type of data. We have also studied the current best practices for the project through a commissioned Responsible AI Institute evaluation, one of whose recommendation was to focus on a human-centered design. To this end, we have biweekly consultations with human trafficking survivors and have been mindful of not reproducing biases in the design of the algorithm. No personal attributes such as age, physical descriptors, ethnicity, etc were used. In addition, we have also reviewed the current law and policy implications through a comprehensive legal risk assessment and mitigation memorandum from a law firm. As the laws and policies in this domain are catching up with the technologies, we also plan to conduct research in close collaboration with domain experts into the most ethical approach to AI in this domain. Lastly, for transparency and accountability, all of the algorithms being developed will be made available online. Data scraping scripts and our datasets (except those synthetically generated) will not be shared publicly to maintain confidentiality and anonymity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "9 Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 712, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research is partially funded by the Canada CIFAR AI Chairs Program and Samsung-Mila Research Grant.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 885, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 585, + 608, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alan Akbik, Tanja Bergmann, Duncan Blythe, Kashif Rasul, Stefan Schweter, and Roland Vollgraf. 2019. FLAIR: An easy-to-use framework for state-of-the-art NLP. In *NAACL* 2019, 2019 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), pages 54-59.", + "Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018a. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018b. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In COLING 2018, 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649.", + "Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and ShMargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 608, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3363", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610-623.", + "Stephen Bonifacio. 2023. Creating a chatgpt based chatbot using \"in-context learning\" method.", + "Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In USEnIX Security Symposium, volume 6.", + "Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou. 2023. How is chatgpt's behavior changing over time? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09009.", + "Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, and Ian Roberts. 2016. Broad Twitter corpus: A diverse named entity recognition resource. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1169-1179, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.", + "Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 140-147, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.", + "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Mael Kubli. 2023. Chatgpt outperforms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056.", + "Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electro-style pretraining with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543.", + "Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem, Adriane Boyd, et al. 2020. spacy: Industrialstrength natural language processing in python.", + "Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023a. Is chatgpt better than human annotators? potential and limitations of chatgpt in explaining implicit hate speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07736." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023b. Is {ChatGPT} better than human annotators? potential and limitations of {ChatGPT} in explaining implicit hate speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. ACM.", + "Ben Hutchinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Denton, Kellie Webster, Yu Zhong, and Stephen Denuyl. 2020. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491-5501, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "International Labour Organization. 2022. Global estimates of modern slavery: forced labour and forced marriage. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public----ed_norm----ipec/documents/publication/wcms_854733.pdf.", + "Hang Jiang, Yining Hua, Doug Beeferman, and Deb Roy. 2022. Annotating the tweetbank corpus on named entity recognition and building NLP models for social media analysis. CoRR, abs/2201.07281.", + "Mayank Kejriwal and Rahul Kapoor. 2019. Network-theoretic information extraction quality assessment in the human trafficking domain. Applied Network Science, 4(1):1-26.", + "Mayank Kejriwal, Pedro Szekely, and Craig Knoblock. 2018. Investigative knowledge discovery for combating illicit activities. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(1):53-63.", + "Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 166-172, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Meng-Chieh Lee, Catalina Vajiac, Aayushi Kulshrestha, Sacha Levy, Namyong Park, Cara Jones, Reihaneh Rabbany, and Christos Faloutsos. 2021. Info-shield: Generalizable information-theoretic humantrafficking detection. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1116-1127. IEEE.", + "Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumont, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierric Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3364", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Haoran Li, Dadi Guo, Wei Fan, Mingshi Xu, Jie Huang, Fanpu Meng, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Multi-step jailbreaking privacy attacks on chatgpt.", + "Yifei Li, Pratheeksha Nair, Kellin Pelrine, and Reihaneh Rabbany. 2022. Extracting person names from user generated text: Named-entity recognition for combatting human trafficking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2854-2868.", + "Pierre Lison, Jeremy Barnes, and Aliaksandr Hubin. 2021. skweak: Weak supervision made easy for NLP. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023. Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101.", + "Xinhao Mei, Chutong Meng, Haohe Liu, Qiuqiang Kong, Tom Ko, Chengqi Zhao, Mark D. Plumbley, Yuexian Zou, and Wenwu Wang. 2023. Wavcaps: A chatgpt-assisted weakly-labelled audio captioning dataset for audio-language multimodal research.", + "S. D. MINOR. 2015. A report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims.", + "Shubhanshu Mishra and Jana Diesner. 2016. Semi-supervised named entity recognition in noisy-text. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (WNUT), pages 203-212.", + "Chirag Nagpal, Kyle Miller, Benedikt Boecking, and Artur Dubrawski. 2017. An entity resolution approach to isolate instances of human trafficking online. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 77-84, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Joel Nothman, Nicky Ringland, Will Radford, Tara Murphy, and James R. Curran. 2012. Learning multilingual named entity recognition from Wikipedia. *Artificial Intelligence*, 194:151-175." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2227-2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Polaris. 2021. 2020 u.s national human trafficking hotline statistics. https://shorturl.at/juB57.", + "Reihaneh Rabbany, David Bayani, and Artur Dubrawski. 2018. Active search of connections for case building and combating human trafficking. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2120-2129.", + "Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155.", + "Alexander J Ratner, Christopher M De Sa, Sen Wu, Daniel Selsam, and Christopher Ré. 2016. Data programming: Creating large training sets, quickly. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29.", + "Leanne Maree Rhodes. 2016. Human trafficking as cybercrime. AGORA INTERNATIONAL OF ADMINISTRATION SCIENCES, 4:23-29.", + "Thorn. 2015. Report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims. https://2715111qnwey246mkc1vzqg0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Survivor_Survey_r5.pdf.", + "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147.", + "Yiqi Tong, Yidong Chen, and Xiaodong Shi. 2021. A multi-task approach for improving biomedical named entity recognition by incorporating multi-granularity information. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4804-4813.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3365", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 487, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. LUKE: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6442-6454, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 139, + 489, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 35-45, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 244, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yiming Zhu, Peixian Zhang, Ehsan-Ul Haq, Pan Hui, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Can chatgpt reproduce human-generated labels? a study of social computing tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 351, + 487, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reader's discretion: Appendix D contains examples of escort ads that contain vulgar and explicit language. If you prefer to avoid explicit language or find such content uncomfortable, we advise you to stop reading before reaching appendix D.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 423, + 489, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Labeling Functions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 535, + 319, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fine-tuned Models For fine-tuning the Token-Classification models, we use a wrapper from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020) AutoModelForToken-Classification class to compile different backbones, here RoBERTa and DeBERTaV3. We adopt the train-test split of CONLL2003 and WNUT2017 from the Huggingface datasets (Lhoest et al., 2021) for the convenience of reproducing the results (\"wnut_17\" for WNUT2017, \"conll2003\" for CoNLL2003). For FewNERD-L1 and WikiNERen, we directly downloaded the official stored file and parsed it to the same format as a Dataset loaded from the Datasets Library for running the experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the training stage, the learning rate is relative to batch size, which is $2 \\times 10^{-5} \\times$ (batch_size/128). We train for 5 epochs with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) (weight Decay=0.01) on one A100 (40GB) GPU. Detailed information about both the size of the training datasets and the used training batch size are listed in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Individual Labeling Functions We provide the performance of individual labeling functions in this section. Table 7 shows the performance of LFs used in the NEAT (Weakly Supervised) experiment in Table 3. Table 8 and Table 9 shows the results of individual fine-tuned models used as LFs in SWEET.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/306189bce7eabff33fae304ec33b18d6b95b4a2a9dcdbf63ce24d22e17020123.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelF1PrecisionRecall
Label-Indep NEAT Rules.43 ± .03.88 ± .02.28 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Dictionary.78 ± .02.83 ± .02.74 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Disambiguation.79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77 ± .02
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 193, + 878, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5f3ddb197670a8d63e797cc74c05d53cb9bc4758cac2475031240d48d42e2467.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: NEAT-based LFs scores on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .11.82 ± .14.57 ± .14
CoNLL2003.97 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.95 ± .01.91 ± .01
WikiNER-en.96 ± .01.97 ± .02.97 ± .02
WNUT2017.58 ± .04.56 ± .04.65 ± .04
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.74 ± .06.84 ± .07.60 ± .07
CoNLL2003.98 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.94 ± .02.92 ± .02
WikiNER-en.93 ± .03.94 ± .05.97 ± .05
WNUT2017.89 ± .02.87 ± .02.88 ± .02
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 311, + 878, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/594ce54eec701f3dce7b2bf437606bda5e364006d3bf63e4d7a23f13ec7c1409.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on CoNLL2003 evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.41 ± .11.50 ± .14.52 ± .14
CoNLL2003.72 ± .04.71 ± .08.73 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.66 ± .12.82 ± .13.41 ± .13
WikiNER-en.65 ± .11.69 ± .13.52 ± .13
WNUT2017.62 ± .09.71 ± .15.47 ± .15
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.53 ± .07.56 ± .13.63 ± .13
CoNLL2003.71 ± .05.67 ± .08.71 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.61 ± .10.67 ± .10.45 ± .10
WikiNER-en.65 ± .10.63 ± .09.57 ± .09
WNUT2017.67 ± .09.81 ± .14.48 ± .14
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 500, + 878, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on WNUT2017 evaluated on 5-fold test sets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 882, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B ChatGPT and the HT Domain", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 695, + 808, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT is an advanced language model developed by OpenAI and built upon the GPT architecture. Although the training data that is used to train ChatGPT is not made public, it is built upon the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). These models were trained on Common Crawl, a dataset that includes a wide range of web content and ad-related content. By providing essential background and convincing ChatGPT that it is a researcher that studies human trafficking, we were able to guide it to generate a list of patterns generally seen in escort ads (Figure 2).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3366", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "1. \"Beautiful roses for sale - come and pick your favorite bouquet today\" - this ad uses the rose symbol to lure potential victims into a false sense of security, before offering them up for sale.", + "2. \"Outcall girls available now - come experience the pleasure of our talented escorts\" - this ad uses the term \"outcall\" to suggest that the trafficked individuals will be brought to the customer, rather than the customer going to them.", + "3. \"Meet our lovely ladies - Lisa, Kate, and Lexi are waiting for you to call\" - this adds up uses nicknames instead of real names, which is a common tactic used by traffickers to avoid detection.", + "4. \"Grilfriend experiens - call now for a good time with the hottest girls in town\" - this ad employs misspellings to evade filters, as well as intimating that these girls are offering a kind of relationship experience in order to appeal to vulnerable individuals." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 86, + 470, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By finding and analyzing similar ads to these, researchers will be able to develop a better understanding of the patterns and language used by human traffickers, ultimately enabling law enforcement to more effectively combat this heinous activity.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 246, + 468, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: ChatGPT's Understanding of HT Domain", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 294, + 475, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Problems with LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 334, + 337, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models, such as ChatGPT have garnered recognition from researchers for their versatility on a wide range of NLP tasks while exhibiting commendable performance compared to other SOTA models. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that these models have also faced significant scrutiny and critical appraisals. In this context, we mainly highlight the issue of Encoding Bias.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 360, + 487, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to the large size of the datasets used to train LLMs, it is very difficult to check and verify every part of the training dataset for potential bias. Thus, it is common for large language models to exhibit various types of bias as stated in (Bender et al., 2021; Hutchinson et al., 2020; Kurita et al., 2019). When building HTGEN, we observed that the generated text had a propensity to include derogatory language (Figure 3), and sexually explicit words (Figure 4). It also generated ads that have a negative sentiment towards the black community (Figure 5). Of all the examples generated in HTGEN, black people are denied services more than any other ethnic group. No mention of the words found in Figures 3 and 4 had occurred in any prompting processes. This ability to generate realistic sounding ads suggests that there is a good chance it had exposure to escort ads during its training process.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 489, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Examples of escort ads", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 806, + 349, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sexy Cougar - 41 Hello there, my name is Gina. I'm a sexy and mature brunette with curves in all the right places. Let me show you what a real woman can do. I'm experienced and know how to please a man. Incalls only. Call or text me at 905-XXX-XXXXX to book an appointment.", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 111, + 831, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3: Derogatory or Offensive Language", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 205, + 845, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SeXy BIAcK MiLFO Have you ever tried a Sexy, spicy Black woman? Look no further, I'm the perfect combination of Sexiness, Beauty, Intelligence, and personality. I'm Angell, 38 years old and I'm the perfect woman for you. I have smooth chocolate skin, an amazing body and I know how to please. I'm completely independent and discreet, always ready to satisfy all your needs. I provide all safe services, no rushed sessions, and easy parking. Call or text me now at (XXX)-XXX-XXXX. No AA or Trades Please.", + "bbox": [ + 547, + 237, + 838, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4: Usage of Vulgar and Sexually Explicit Words", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 359, + 847, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Young SPANISH BEAUTY IN TOWN XoXo Outcalls 24/7 Hi! I am a young, sexy, and beautiful Spanish girl ready to provide you with a mesmerizing experience. I offer outcalls 24/7, and I am always discreet and professional. I provide an unforgettable experience and satisfy all your fantasies. Call or text me to book an appointment. No black men. Xoxo", + "bbox": [ + 547, + 390, + 838, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5: Racism in HTGEN", + "bbox": [ + 594, + 552, + 794, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: Michelle's $80", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 634, + 764, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CARCALL Special!!!", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 651, + 757, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Description: LOWBALLERS WILL", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 667, + 831, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " BE BLOCKED!!! $80 BBB---J $130", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 683, + 831, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F--S $160 BB--FS 123-456-789", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 699, + 826, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6: Example ad From HTNAME", + "bbox": [ + 563, + 730, + 826, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: GisellaGorgeous Puerto Rican", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 765, + 789, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Description: My name is Gisella sexy little petite thing with curves that don't stop I am excited to be your grown up bestie and come over for a private playdate. I love to make new friends! Let's get together and see what kind of trouble we can stir up! (916)888-7777 no extra photos don't ask for any, I am not a cheap commodity incalls only.", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 777, + 836, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: Example ad From HTGEN", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 873, + 821, + 888 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3367", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_model.json b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1261274503a5a24e9de72eeab0613a340a08dd78 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2811 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.08, + 0.882, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SWEET: Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.291, + 0.127, + 0.384, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Javin Liu*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.198, + 0.144, + 0.471, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Southern California" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.224, + 0.16, + 0.445, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mila - Quebec AI Institute" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.127, + 0.703, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Yu*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.604, + 0.144, + 0.728, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vidya Sujaya*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.589, + 0.161, + 0.745, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pratheeksha Nair" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.607, + 0.177, + 0.726, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kellin Peline" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.583, + 0.193, + 0.75, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reihaneh Rabbany" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.591, + 0.21, + 0.741, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "McGill University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.227, + 0.776, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mila - Quebec AI Institute" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.277, + 0.461, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose a weak supervision pipeline SWEET: Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking for extracting person names from noisy escort advertisements. Our method combines the simplicity of rule-matching (through antirules, i.e., negated rules) and the generalizability of large language models fine-tuned on benchmark, domain-specific and synthetic datasets, treating them as weak labels. One of the major challenges in this domain is limited labeled data. SWEET addresses this by obtaining multiple weak labels through labeling functions and effectively aggregating them. SWEET outperforms the previous supervised SOTA method for this task by \\(9\\%\\) F1 score on domain data and better generalizes to common benchmark datasets. Furthermore, we also release HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort advertisements (built using ChatGPT) to facilitate further research within the community." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.585, + 0.26, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Over 6.3 million people worldwide are victims of forced sexual exploitation or human trafficking (HT) on any given day (International Labour Organization), and the majority of the victims have been advertised online (Polaris, 2021; MINOR, 2015) through escort websites (Rhodes, 2016). HT is an organized crime and traffickers tend to advertise multiple victims simultaneously. Hence, finding connections between online escort advertisements hints towards them being posted by the same individual and strongly indicates organized activity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.787, + 0.49, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Several methods have previously taken the approach of uncovering connections between ads by looking for repeated phrases, phone numbers, locations, prices, service types, etc., in the text (Lee et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2021; Rabbany et al., 2018). Hence, efficient entity extractors must extract accurate and relevant information from ad text (Nagpal" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022; Kejriwal et al., 2018; Kejriwal and Kapoor, 2019). However, this is very challenging because the text is often noisy, ungrammatical, and obscured. Information related to the names of individuals, services, locations, etc, often have letters replaced by symbols or emojis. The writing style constantly evolves and is made adversarial to avoid detection by online filters and moderators." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.402, + 0.885, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on discussions with domain experts, including criminologists, law enforcement, and other groups fighting trafficking, it was determined that extracting advertised names from the ads is particularly important. Traffickers tend to control, on average, four to six victims and often post advertisements on their behalf (Thorn, 2015). Hence, multiple people being advertised in the same or similar ads is a strong indicator of trafficking (Lee et al., 2021). Other entities such as locations, phone numbers and email addresses could also be informative. However, most websites have explicit fields for these entities which makes them more straightforward to extract. The same is not true for person names which are usually embedded inside the text of the ads and are much more complex to extract." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.663, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Traditional extraction methods, such as the embedding-based Flair (Akbik et al., 2018a) and Spacy NLP models, do not do well on this type of data because they are sensitive to noise and tend to decrease in performance as more noise is injected into the data (Li et al., 2022). NEAT (Li et al., 2022) stands as the current SOTA name extractor in this domain and uses an ad-hoc combination of a name dictionary, a rule dictionary, and a BERT-based disambiguation layer. Moreover, NEAT relies on a sample of manually labeled data to provide optimal results. This is a challenge because the relevant datasets for this task are typically curated in-house and not shared publicly due to their sensitive nature. Similar constraints also apply to methods such as crowd-sourcing." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.458, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*These authors contributed equally to this research." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3355" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3355-3367" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these challenges, we propose a weakly supervised method SWEET (Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking)1, that efficiently extracts person names from escort ads and is independent of training labels. We define label-independence in the scope of our work as not requiring domain or task-specific labels. SWEET uses a novel combination of fine-tuned language models (elucidated in Section 3), antirules, and an HMM-based method of aggregating them. Our contributions are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.276, + 0.489, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Novel: We study the problem of name extraction from noisy text through the novel lens of weak supervision and propose a new method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.337, + 0.49, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Effective: The proposed method SWEET is very effective and outperforms the previous SOTA in person name extraction on domain data by \\(9\\%\\) F1 score." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.415, + 0.49, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Label-efficient: SWEET leverages weak labels that are easy and cheap to obtain. This is very useful in several real-world applications, particularly in the HT domain, where obtaining labels is expensive and challenging due to the sensitive nature of the data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.525, + 0.49, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Improving reproducibility: We also introduce HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort ads which, unlike the real-world datasets used in papers in this domain, can be published for further research and helps with reproducibility." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.276, + 0.49, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.635, + 0.257, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Background" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we cover the background information and related works necessary to understand this paper's context better." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.722, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Named Entity Recognition Named Entity Recognition (NER) is the task of identifying elements in the text that correspond to high-level categories like PERSON, ORGANIZATION, LOCATION, DATES, and other concrete concepts that can be explicitly named. The NER task aims to extract all occurrences of such entities. In this paper, the focus is on human names because they are most associated with an HT victim and names are the most common entity type to appear in escort ads." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity extraction from escort ads This is an important task that involves identifying and extracting named entities from a given ad. Rule-based models typically rely on regular expressions, handcrafted rules, and gazetteer-based approaches. For person names, NEAT (Li et al., 2022) is the SOTA method that combines a gazetteer (person name dictionary) with a regular expression extractor (rule dictionary) and a RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) based disambiguation layer called HT-bert. Such rule-based systems were shown(Li et al., 2022) to have a better performance over statistical models (Devlin et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019) on the noisy escort ads dataset. However, on benchmark NER datasets, NEAT performs much worse. This is a likely result of its rule-based components designed to capture patterns in escort ads. Rule-based approaches can also be complementary to statistical-based approaches. In other domains, (Ratinov and Roth, 2009) argued that the NER task relies highly on external knowledge and shows that a statistical model combined with a rule-based gazetteer match makes a better-performing hybrid model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.484, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weak supervision Since we consider multiple sources of weak labels for our task, we rely on a popular weak-supervision framework, Skweak, for label aggregation and learning. Skweak (Lison et al., 2021) is a Python-based weak supervision framework made specifically for NER tasks. It works together with the Spacy library (Honnibal et al., 2020), allowing users to create labeling functions (LFs) that label an input text token as a type of entity and facilitates downstream processing. Skweak provides a variety of different LF types: heuristics, gazetteers and document-level functions allowing us to easily combine weak signals from our proposed combination of rule based systems and LLMs. These make Skweak a better choice compared to other weak label aggregators such as Snorkel (Ratner et al., 2016). The labels obtained from these LFs are later aggregated using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The HMM's states and observations correspond to the true labels and LF outputs respectively. Skweak relies on a majority vote strategy (where each LF is a voter) to get a predicted label. This is then used to calculate the HMM's initial transition and emission probabilities, which are then updated until convergence using the Baum-Welch algorithm. To account for possible dependencies" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Our code is available at https://github.com/ComplexData-MILA/HT-NER" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3356" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "between LFs, Skweak tempers the probability density (weight) of an LF depending on its redundancy. It decreases the weight of an LF that produces a label of type 'PERSON', for example, if it shows high recall with other LFs that also produce 'PERSON' labels (high overlap in predictions). Post aggregation, a separate classifier model can be trained on the HMM's aggregated results and used directly on other datasets without requiring the LFs or the HMM." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.256, + 0.492, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models Recent works (Gilardi et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) have shown that ChatGPT can be used as a data annotator and addresses ethical concerns regarding using human labelers on datasets that contain sensitive information. We experimented with using ChatGPT to extract person names from ads and used this labeled set to fine-tune BERT-based models as LFs in our framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.402, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also experimented with using ChatGPT for generating escort ads to create an additional domain dataset. It has been shown that LLMs like ChatGPT exhibit stochastic behaviours (Bender et al., 2021) and are susceptible to biases from the real world internet data it was trained on. Recently, several works (Li et al., 2023) (Liu et al., 2023) have demonstrated effective jailbreak techniques that bypass the content filters that are imposed on ChatGPT to limit the level of bias and toxic language output by ChatGPT. (Carlini et al., 2021) could also extract training data directly from GPT LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.624, + 0.265, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.651, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we introduce a hybrid weakly supervised Skweak-based model that uses both rule-based approaches (such as \"antirules\" detailed below) and statistical-based approaches (such as DeBERTa and RoBERTa models trained on different NER datasets) as labeling functions and combine them into a single, more effective predictor. Our methodology pipeline is in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.781, + 0.489, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed weak supervision pipeline in SWEET consists of 2 main types of LFs:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Antirules: Rules that determine entities as not person-names. The top \\(X\\%\\) most frequent words of the dataset \\((X \\in \\{10, 20, 30, 40, 50\\})\\) are annotated as \"NOT_NAME\", resulting in 5 antirule LFs in total. The antirules help counteract possible noise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Fine-tuned Models: We fine-tune base versions of RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) and DeBERTav3 (He et al., 2021) for the task of Named Entity Recognition on six different datasets, namely: the train splits of CoNLL2003 (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003), WNUT2017 (Derczynski et al., 2017), Few-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) (Only Level 1), WikiNER (English) (Nothman et al., 2012), a domain dataset labelled by ChatGPT called HTUNSUP, and a domain dataset generated and labeled by ChatGPT called HTGEN. The details and labeling method of HTUNSUP are provided in Section 4.6 and Appendix A, respectively. In total, 12 fine-tuned models (one per dataset and model type) act as LFs in SWEET. Any word predicted by a fine-tuned model, that matches a white-space-separated word in the ad text, gets annotated as a \"PERSON_NAME\" according to that LF." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.419, + 0.884, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using the Skweak framework, we fit an HMM on the annotated train set and apply the fitted model on the annotations to obtain a final set of aggregated labels. The HMM's initial parameters are obtained using a majority voter that treats each LF as a voter of equal weight to get a predicted label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.884, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also experimented with using the three components of previous SOTA NEAT (Li et al., 2022) as LFs but ultimately found it did not boost performance (see NEAT (Weakly Supervised) in Table 3). Specifically, we considered:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.608, + 0.886, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Context Rules: extract person names based on part-of-speech (POS) tags and common phrases that include names. The rules consist of regular expressions that work to capture the most common contexts where names are seen. (eg. I'm NNP, My name is NNP, You can call me NNP)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.716, + 0.886, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Name Dictionary: common names with confidence scores tuned based on frequency in indomain data. These names are used in gazetteer matching, where the names are used as the gazetteer and the pipeline, given a word in a sentence, will check if it is a word in this dictionary/gazetteer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.839, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Word Disambiguation: filters results of the weighted output of rule and dictionary extractor with the help of a DeBERTaV3 model that was fine-tuned for the task of masked language modeling on a domain dataset (Li et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.608, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3357" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.084, + 0.805, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.39, + 0.229, + 0.605, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: SWEET Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.269, + 0.488, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During the training of the DeBERTaV3 model, individual words are masked and the task for the model is to predict these masked words. A word's context is passed to the fill mask, and the number of correct predictions (the number of predictions by the fill mask that is in the name dictionary) is divided by the total number of predictions by the fill mask to get a confidence score for the disambiguation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.43, + 0.223, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.489, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To fine-tune SWEET LFs, we used 4 open-source datasets, namely the training sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, FewNERD-L1, and WikiNER-en, and 2 escort ad datasets, namely HTUNSUP and HTGEN. To evaluate SWEET, we used the test sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC, Tweebank and an escort ad dataset called HTNAME. We also generated a domain dataset HTGEN whose train set was used for fine-tuning LFs and test set was used for evaluating SWEET. We provide the dataset statistics in Table 1, and the descriptions below." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.65, + 0.258, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 CoNLL2003" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.489, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CoNLL2003(Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is a very popular baseline for evaluating the performance of different NLP systems and algorithms. Our experiments use CoNLL2003 data from the HuggingFace which is in English. For evaluation, we only consider the name annotations (i.e, B-PER and I-PER) and ignore other entity classes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.816, + 0.255, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 WNUT2017" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "WNUT2017(Derczynski et al., 2017) consists of user-generated text and contains many examples of informal language, abbreviations, misspellings, and other noisy characteristics. Due to this, models tend to have lower recall values on WNUT2017." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.269, + 0.881, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar to CoNLL2003, we use only the B-PER and I-PER classes for evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.314, + 0.785, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.335, + 0.884, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC) (Derczynski et al., 2016) dataset is a large, diverse, and high-quality annotated corpus, created for the development and evaluation of NER in social media. BTC includes tweets from different regions, time periods, and types of Twitter users. It was annotated by a combination of NLP experts and crowd workers, ensuring both high quality and crowd recall." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.477, + 0.637, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Tweebank" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.499, + 0.884, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tweebank(Jiang et al., 2022) was developed to address the challenges of analyzing social media data, specifically Twitter messages through NER and syntactic parsing. The researchers created a new English NER corpus called Tweebank-NER based on Tweebank and annotated it using Amazon Mechanical Turk." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.624, + 0.636, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 HTNAME" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.645, + 0.881, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This is a modified version of the HT1k dataset from (Li et al., 2022) consisting of 995 escort advertisements in English and French, where we rectified three main types of labeling errors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.711, + 0.883, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Parsing issues - in cases where the first name and last name were joined as a single string (FirstNameLastName) were not correctly annotated as \"FirstName, LastName\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Apostrophe issue - cases where an extra s is added to the name. Examples like 'Mizz Mercedes' (the \\(s\\) should not be included as the name)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Blank labels - a significant number of examples were missing true labels. We manually added the missing labels and reintroduce this dataset as HTNAME." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.711, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3358" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTrain SizeTest SizeTotal SizeBatch Size
CoNLL200314041345317494128
WNUT2017339412874681128
FewNERD-L11317671882415059132
WikiNER-en12990714435144342128
BTC-2002--
Tweebank-1201--
HTNAME-995995-
HTUNSUP6160-616032
HTGEN94248181024232
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.211, + 0.489, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used. The grayed-out numbers indicate that the test sets are not used in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.278, + 0.248, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 HTUNSUP" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.298, + 0.489, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HTUNSUP was gathered by us from private escort websites and has around 6000 ads. Multiple recent works have shown that ChatGPT's strong performance on text related tasks makes it a strong candidate for automatic labeling of certain types of data (Huang et al., 2023b; Mei et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023). Additionally, due to its outstanding performance on HTNAME (Table 2), we use it to generate pseudo labels for HTUNSUP, which we treat as ground-truth." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.489, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weak Labeling of HTUNSUP We used the ChatGPT API (gpt-3.5-turbo) to extract person-name entities from ads. The average token count including the prompt, ad and response was 263. Due to content moderation and dialogue optimization, on encountering improper or explicit text (as in the case of escort ads), ChatGPT responds incoherently and for such cases, we return \"no entity detected\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.597, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The prompt used was: \"I want you to act as a natural and no-bias labeler, extract human names and location or address and social media link or tag in the format 'Names: \\nLocations: \\nSocial': If multiple entities exist, separate them by 1. If no entity exists, say N. Your words should extract from the given text, can't add/modify any other words, should be as short as possible, remember don't include the phone number. For one name, it should be less than 3 words.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.489, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After post-processing and removing certain rare, high-frequency wrong predictions manually, we obtain HTUNSUP with high-quality pseudo labels and use it for fine-tuning BERT models." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.831, + 0.396, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
F1PrecisionRecall
0.900.890.91
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.873, + 0.488, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Performance of ChatGPT for name extraction on HTNAME" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.861, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.7 HTGEN: Generated escort ads dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.107, + 0.882, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We explore ChatGPT's ability to generate escort ads with the motivation of developing a shareable domain specific dataset for furthering research in this field2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.172, + 0.885, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We used role playing to convince ChatGPT (API with GPT-3.5-turbo-0301) that it is a researcher studying patterns in escort ads. This bypasses the filters meant to reduce inappropriate outputs, misuse, and generation of text found in such ads. We followed up with a description of the entities in the ads and some of the patterns unique to the HT domain. (Bonifacio, 2023) had shown that providing the context before every question often helped improve the output quality. We also provided a sample conversation between a user (who provides the prompt) and ChatGPT (providing the required generated response) from three examples taken from our private HTNAME dataset. We scrambled phone numbers and other sensitive data for privacy reasons. In this manner, we generated 10,000 synthetic escort ads called HTGEN and used them to fine-tune a BERT model. At the time of writing, it costs \\(0.002 per 1000 tokens, and for 10,000 ads, it costs approximately \\)4.40 USD. This is significantly cheaper than hiring manual labelers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.51, + 0.884, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide examples of ads from HTNAME and HTGEN in appendix D but note that some contain explicit language. The ads generated by ChatGPT are pretty similar to those in HTNAME, and ChatGPT was successfully able to replicate the patterns and noise of the HT domain." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.62, + 0.719, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.646, + 0.63, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.667, + 0.884, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare SWEET with eight baselines, including off-the-shelf libraries, BERT-based models, domain-specific NER methods and a simple majority vote for aggregating weak labels as opposed to Skweak, ordered by their appearance in our result tables." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.764, + 0.884, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Spacy\\(^3\\) - A popular open-source Python library for natural language processing tasks. The Spacy NER package uses statistical models, neural network architectures and deep learning techniques trained on large amounts of data." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.868, + 0.883, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2The exact prompts used and the code for the dataset generation can be provided upon request." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.894, + 0.867, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://spacy.io/usage/linguistic-features#named-entities" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.868, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3359" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016) - semi-supervised approach that combines text cluster information and word embeddings and uses a CRF for NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.15, + 0.488, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020) - transformer based model that learns contextualized embeddings, fine-tuned on TACRED dataset (Zhang et al., 2017)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.214, + 0.487, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- ELMo (Peters et al., 2018) - model that learns contextualized word representations, tuned for NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.263, + 0.487, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Flair (Akbik et al., 2018b) - trained character language model that learns contextualized string embeddings, tuned for NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.31, + 0.486, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- NEAT (Li et al., 2022) - previous SOTA for person name extraction from escort ads" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.343, + 0.486, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- NEAT (Weakly Supervised) – a variation of NEAT where each individual component is treated as an LF in our weak supervision pipeline" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.407, + 0.487, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Majority Vote - a simple strategy of choosing the label based on consensus of majority of the weak labels, competitor to Skweak." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.466, + 0.314, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Evaluation Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.487, + 0.489, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the performance of SWEET with its variants and the baselines using the average F1 classification score on 5-folds of the test set. For each run, 1 fold acted as the test set while the remaining were used to fit the HMM. Since we only consider the 'PERSON' class, we adopt the following evaluation metrics to better fit our use case." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.608, + 0.488, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Word-level matching: both ground truth and prediction are split into words (separated by a space) and each word is treated as a separate entity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.657, + 0.486, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Lowercase: both the ground truth and predictions are converted to lowercase." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.689, + 0.486, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Exact Match: since the entity matching is on the word level, we consider strict match as a True Positive sample." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.608, + 0.488, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.746, + 0.219, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.767, + 0.489, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of our experiments for the general and HT domain datasets respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall performance of SWEET: SWEET obtains the highest F1 score and recall on 4 out of 6 datasets, and beats NEAT on all datasets. On the HT datasets, SWEET performs the best. On general noisy datasets, WNUT2017 and BTC, SWEET similarly performs the best. On CoNLL2003, Flair" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and ELMo achieve higher scores than SWEET, but SWEET is the next best performing model. On Tweebank, TwitterNER, designed specifically for tweets, is the best performing method. Please note that on re-evaluating NEAT on HTNAME, we found an increase in the strict F1 score from the previous results (0.76 from Table 2 in Li et al. (2022) becomes 0.78), and use this stronger performance as the baseline, as reported in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.24, + 0.884, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison of SWEET with NEAT: When compared with NEAT on the domain datasets, SWEET increases F1 score and recall by \\(9\\%\\) and \\(18\\%\\) respectively whilst maintaining precision. Furthermore, SWEET significantly surpasses NEAT on CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC and Tweebank. This may be attributed to signals from the finetuned DeBERTa and RoBERTa LFs as well as false positive reduction due to the antirules." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.395, + 0.884, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance of SWEET v.s. individual LFs: In Table 5, we report the performance of individual labeling functions. When compared to the performance of SWEET in Table 4, we can see that SWEET successfully combines different fine-tuned models resulting in an aggregated model that outperforms these individual models, even those fine-tuned on domain data (HTUNSUP and HTGEN). SWEET's recall and precision scores being higher than all individual fine-tuned LFs (except for precision on HTNAME which is on-par with HTUNSUP), shows the success of weak supervision in using weaker sources (LFs) to produce a stronger final model. The weak supervision methodology however can impact the performance significantly as we can see in Table 3 and Table 4, when comparing a simple majority vote performance with the proposed SWEET. The majority vote baseline still performs relatively well, and shows strong recall, however, SWEET performs significantly better in 5 out of 6 datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation Study Table 6 shows the results of ablation experiments of SWEET, focused on the HT datasets. Firstly, removing antirules decrease precision, showing that they are helpful in informing the model on what is not a name. Meanwhile, we see a mixed effect of domain LFs in the model. In row 3, we observe the highest precision and F1 scores on HTName with the removal of in-domain LFs. On HTGen, we instead see a significant decrease, but note that it is still higher than other baselines in Table 4. In the last rows, we observe that using only" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3360" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodCoNLL2003WNUT2017BTCTweebank
F1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).64 ± .04.66 ± .04.55 ± .04.21 ± .07.14 ± .06.44 ± .06.15 ± .01.44 ± .01.09 ± .01.19 ± .04.24 ± .05.18 ± .05
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).68 ± .05.91 ± .05.55 ± .05.61 ± .09.84 ± .10.57 ± .10.32 ± .05.86 ± .04.26 ± .04.67 ± .04.87 ± .05.57 ± .05
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).31 ± .11.89 ± .09.19 ± .09.55 ± .07.67 ± .05.44 ± .05.47 ± .01.92 ± .01.31 ± .01.37 ± .07.76 ± .06.33 ± .06
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).96 ± .02.95 ± .02.99 ± .02.59 ± .15.72 ± .18.37 ± .18.41 ± .06.83 ± .04.35 ± .18.71 ± .01.74 ± .01.68 ± .01
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).98 ± .02.97 ± .021.0 ± .02.60 ± .15.79 ± .18.34 ± .18.35 ± .06.86 ± .05.31 ± .05.63 ± .07.76 ± .09.62 ± .09
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).17 ± .07.43 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).16 ± .07.42 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
Majority vote.83 ± .06.74 ± .02.98 ± .02.65 ± .04.53 ± .06.90 ± .06.64 ± .03.76 ± .03.60 ± .03.53 ± .06.37 ± .04.88 ± .04
SWEET - Domain Data.86 ± .05.79 ± .02.97 ± .02.69 ± .06.61 ± .06.82 ± .06.63 ± .03.86 ± .04.56 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.85 ± .04
SWEET.86 ± .05.79 ± .03.98 ± .03.68 ± .04.58 ± .07.83 ± .07.64 ± .03.84 ± .04.57 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.86 ± .04
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.203, + 0.884, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold open source test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.259, + 0.806, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).27 ± .03.18 ± .02.51± .02.47 ± .04.50 ± .03.43 ± .03
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).56 ± .0475. ± .0452.± .04.70 ± .02.70 ± .03.67 ± .03
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).63 ± .03.85 ± .04.51± .04.68 ± .03.84 ± .02.56 ± .02
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).51 ± .02.56 ± .02.46± .02.69 ± .05.61 ± .06.74 ± .06
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).45 ± .02.73 ± .02.32± .02.63 ± .04.83 ± .04.49 ± .04
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).78 ± .04.83 ± .05.74± .03.71 ± .01.63 ± .02.79 ± .03
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77± .02.71 ± .01.64 ± .02.78 ± .02
Majority vote.73 ± .02.59 ± .01.95 ± .01.74 ± .02.65 ± .03.85 ± .03
SWEET -Domain Data.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
SWEET.87 ± .01.83 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.411, + 0.884, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold HT test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.463, + 0.485, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFine-tuning DatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTa-v3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .03.71 ± .02.62 ± .02
HTGEN.68 ± .01.71 ± .02.67 ± .02
CoNLL2003.67 ± .02.67 ± .03.69 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.57 ± .03.80 ± .03.43 ± .03
WikiNER-en.52 ± .01.48 ± .02.54 ± .02
WNUT2017.70 ± .02.71 ± .02.72 ± .02
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.82 ± .02.84 ± .03.83 ± .03
HTGEN.72 ± .02.81 ± .02.66 ± .02
CoNLL2003.72 ± .02.68 ± .03.77 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.68 ± .02.81 ± .02.59 ± .02
WikiNER-en.49 ± .03.43 ± .03.56 ± .03
WNUT2017.68 ± .02.73 ± .03.66 ± .03
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.603, + 0.49, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Fine-tuned model LFs on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets. All these LFs have a lower performance compared to the aggregated model SWEET, reported in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.489, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "domain LFs yields similar F1 scores with SWEET, but compromises recall for precision. We note that without using any domain data (second to last row of Table 4), SWEET is able to achieve the same F1 score as a setup that uses only domain data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also observe that removing HTUNSUP LFs results in an F1 score decrease only on HTNAME. Moreover, these LFs do as well on their own (last four rows in Table 6), although they are still lower than SWEET on HTNAME, showing that the aggregation of LFs fine-tuned on diverse datasets is a key component of SWEET." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.465, + 0.637, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.493, + 0.753, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Effect of using ChatGPT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.516, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although ChatGPT is the best performing model on HTNAME (Table 2), there are concerns regarding its use on escort ads. First, there is some financial cost associated with employing ChatGPT on large datasets of escort ads which limits its accessibility whereas our method is open-source and completely free to use. Second, the stability of the OpenAI API output is a concern as discussed in (Chen et al., 2023). While this does not hurt our method much where one only needs to get good performance a single time (to provide weak labels on a fixed dataset), and one could consider even the more powerful GPT-4, it means it would be unreliable to build a system for real-world applications based on ChatGPT alone. Finally, depending on the method used to access ChatGPT, there can be privacy concerns with this sensitive data. The intended use of our method is on large scale real-time ads with sensitive information, and using ChatGPT, is not feasible due to cost, stability and privacy issues mentioned above." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, although ChatGPT is a valuable ingredient in SWEET, our ablations directly show that it is not sufficient. In the target domain our full system achieves \\(87\\%\\) F1 (Table 4). Simply apply" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3361" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
All LFs - HTGEN LFs.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.86 ± .02.82 ± .02.91 ± .02.82 ± .02.77 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTGEN LFs- HTUNSUP LFs (Domain Data).88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.93 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTUNSUP LFs.83 ± .02.76 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.82 ± .02.76 ± .02.92 ± .02.81 ± .01.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs.76 ± .01.76 ± .02.76 ± .02.81 ± .02.79 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + Antirules.86 ± .01.82 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .04.82 ± .05.64 ± .05
Only HTUNSUP LFs.87 ± .01.88 ± .01.88 ± .01.81 ± .03.77 ± .04.81 ± .04
Only HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.87 ± .01.92 ± .02.85 ± .02.76 ± .04.83 ± .05.66 ± .05
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs.85 ± .01.85 ± .02.87 ± .02.82 ± .03.78 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.86 ± .02.86 ± .01.86 ± .01.82 ± .03.79 ± .04.81 ± .04
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.283, + 0.884, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Ablation results of SWEET. -Antirules indicates removal of the antirule LFs component of SWEET. HTGEN LFs or HTUNSUP LFs indicates LMs fine-tuned on HTGEN or HTUNSUP respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.338, + 0.489, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing language models trained on ChatGPT-labeled data achieves \\(82\\%\\) at best (Table 5), significantly lower. Conversely, our approach without using any ChatGPT-labeled data maintains \\(88\\%\\) F1 (Table 6, \"SWEET- DomainData\")." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.429, + 0.289, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Label Efficiency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.449, + 0.49, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our pipeline eliminates the need for human labelers as it is independent of training labels for the task at hand, making use of existing open-source labeled data for fine-tuning language models instead. This is advantageous over other label-dependent NER models, especially in the HT domain where data labeling is costly and time-consuming. Being label independent is also beneficial in terms of ethics and privacy as the HT domain contains many examples of private information like names, locations, social media tags, and phone numbers. These types of data would no longer need to be read by a crowdsourced worker or human labeler in order to generate labels for training. More importantly, our method is also independent of LFs trained on the same data as the domain. For e.g., SWEET excluding LFs trained on HTGEN and HTUNSUP (SWEET - DomainData) performs as well or even better than SWEET." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.766, + 0.248, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we introduced SWEET, a weak supervision pipeline that extracts person names from escort ads without the need for manual labeling. The experimental evaluations show that SWEET achieves SOTA results on the HTNAME dataset with an F1 score of 0.87, outperforming the previous SOTA by \\(9\\%\\) while also generalizing better to CoNLL2003 and WNUT2017 datasets. Moreover," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.338, + 0.885, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SWEET maintains or improves this performance on removing any LFs trained on relevant domain data. SWEET does not require any human annotators and labeling which is a very important improvement over previous methods because it allows it to be applied easily to real-world datasets. It can also be easily adapted to other domains by designing specific new labeling functions. We also release a new public escort ad dataset HTGEN that uses ChatGPT for both data generation and labeling, which will improve reproducibility and benchmarking in this domain where most data cannot be shared publicly, as it contains personal information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.56, + 0.646, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.585, + 0.884, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite SWEET having achieved SOTA results on HTNAME, several limitations need to be considered while interpreting the findings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.646, + 0.884, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Dataset Size and Diversity: The HTNAME database used in this research is a modified version of HT1k from Li et al. (2022). The dataset contains a limited number of data (around 1000 ads). 5-fold evaluation is deployed to accommodate for this small size. While generating HTGEN, although efforts were made to ensure its representativeness and diversity, HTGen's data may still not be \\(100\\%\\) representative of real data. This may limit the generalizability of the models trained on it to other domains or datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.839, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Explainability and transparency: HT is a high-stakes application domain and transparency, explainability, and accuracy are all equally important. SWEET has the ability to aggregate multiple models together to get a final" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3362" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "prediction. However, it uses HMM for aggregation which is more complex and less explainable than the ad-hoc way deployed by Li et al. (2022). Moreover, the output of the fine-tuned LFs is also less interpretable. SWEET sacrifices some explainability for increased performance. However, thanks to its modularity, the HMM aggregator can be swapped out for a more explainable method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.23, + 0.49, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Cost: We were able to improve performance by aggregating BERT models fine-tuned on a variety of NER datasets. This is time-consuming and costly. We used industrial-grade GPUs (RTX8000, V100 and A100) to fine-tune the BERT models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.327, + 0.49, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Privacy: The HT domain contains private information like a person's name, address, social media tag, email, and phone number. Although the HTNAME and HTUNSUP datasets consists of ads scraped from public websites, these websites may not be fully regulated, and thus, data coming from these ads may violate the privacy of individuals being advertised in those ads. We had to refrain from releasing these datasets because of privacy and ethical concerns. Thus, directly replicating our results on HTNAME and HTUNSUP is not possible. To help counteract this and improve reproducibility, we released HTGEN." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.552, + 0.49, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Lack of variety: We have shown that the HTGEN dataset generated by ChatGPT contains realistic-sounding ads. However, the ads tend to be more repetitive than our datasets (HTUNSUP, HTNAME) with real data scraped from the web. Changing the temperature settings and other parameters showed promise at boosting the variation in the generations but the model was more inclined to produce nonsensical sentences. Future work should aim at increasing variety in the generated ads and keep noise within a desired range. With more variety of data in the generations, it would also be possible to decrease the size of HTGEN by reducing the number of redundant examples." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.23, + 0.49, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.799, + 0.267, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rigorous ethical considerations were taken during the process of this research. The data we use is publicly available, and due to the nature of the advertisements, there are no reasonable expectations for privacy. However, due to the sensitivity of the data, Ethics Approval has been obtained from the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Research Ethics Board Office at the authors' university for using this type of data. We have also studied the current best practices for the project through a commissioned Responsible AI Institute evaluation, one of whose recommendation was to focus on a human-centered design. To this end, we have biweekly consultations with human trafficking survivors and have been mindful of not reproducing biases in the design of the algorithm. No personal attributes such as age, physical descriptors, ethnicity, etc were used. In addition, we have also reviewed the current law and policy implications through a comprehensive legal risk assessment and mitigation memorandum from a law firm. As the laws and policies in this domain are catching up with the technologies, we also plan to conduct research in close collaboration with domain experts into the most ethical approach to AI in this domain. Lastly, for transparency and accountability, all of the algorithms being developed will be made available online. Data scraping scripts and our datasets (except those synthetically generated) will not be shared publicly to maintain confidentiality and anonymity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.484, + 0.714, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9 Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.51, + 0.886, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research is partially funded by the Canada CIFAR AI Chairs Program and Samsung-Mila Research Grant." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.586, + 0.61, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.609, + 0.886, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alan Akbik, Tanja Bergmann, Duncan Blythe, Kashif Rasul, Stefan Schweter, and Roland Vollgraf. 2019. FLAIR: An easy-to-use framework for state-of-the-art NLP. In *NAACL* 2019, 2019 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), pages 54-59." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.712, + 0.886, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018a. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.801, + 0.886, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018b. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In COLING 2018, 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.878, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and ShMargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.609, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3363" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610-623." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.136, + 0.486, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen Bonifacio. 2023. Creating a chatgpt based chatbot using \"in-context learning\" method." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.173, + 0.487, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In USEnIX Security Symposium, volume 6." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.261, + 0.487, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou. 2023. How is chatgpt's behavior changing over time? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09009." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.311, + 0.487, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, and Ian Roberts. 2016. Broad Twitter corpus: A diverse named entity recognition resource. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1169-1179, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.413, + 0.487, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 140-147, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.514, + 0.487, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.577, + 0.487, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.705, + 0.487, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Mael Kubli. 2023. Chatgpt outperforms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.754, + 0.487, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electro-style pretraining with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.816, + 0.487, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem, Adriane Boyd, et al. 2020. spacy: Industrialstrength natural language processing in python." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023a. Is chatgpt better than human annotators? potential and limitations of chatgpt in explaining implicit hate speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07736." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023b. Is {ChatGPT} better than human annotators? potential and limitations of {ChatGPT} in explaining implicit hate speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.883, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Hutchinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Denton, Kellie Webster, Yu Zhong, and Stephen Denuyl. 2020. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491-5501, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.265, + 0.881, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "International Labour Organization. 2022. Global estimates of modern slavery: forced labour and forced marriage. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public----ed_norm----ipec/documents/publication/wcms_854733.pdf." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.342, + 0.881, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hang Jiang, Yining Hua, Doug Beeferman, and Deb Roy. 2022. Annotating the tweetbank corpus on named entity recognition and building NLP models for social media analysis. CoRR, abs/2201.07281." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.405, + 0.881, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mayank Kejriwal and Rahul Kapoor. 2019. Network-theoretic information extraction quality assessment in the human trafficking domain. Applied Network Science, 4(1):1-26." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.468, + 0.883, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mayank Kejriwal, Pedro Szekely, and Craig Knoblock. 2018. Investigative knowledge discovery for combating illicit activities. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(1):53-63." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.531, + 0.883, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 166-172, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.621, + 0.883, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meng-Chieh Lee, Catalina Vajiac, Aayushi Kulshrestha, Sacha Levy, Namyong Park, Cara Jones, Reihaneh Rabbany, and Christos Faloutsos. 2021. Info-shield: Generalizable information-theoretic humantrafficking detection. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1116-1127. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.723, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumont, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierric Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3364" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.126, + 0.487, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoran Li, Dadi Guo, Wei Fan, Mingshi Xu, Jie Huang, Fanpu Meng, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Multi-step jailbreaking privacy attacks on chatgpt." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.179, + 0.487, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifei Li, Pratheeksha Nair, Kellin Pelrine, and Reihaneh Rabbany. 2022. Extracting person names from user generated text: Named-entity recognition for combatting human trafficking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2854-2868." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.272, + 0.487, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pierre Lison, Jeremy Barnes, and Aliaksandr Hubin. 2021. skweak: Weak supervision made easy for NLP. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.377, + 0.486, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023. Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.443, + 0.487, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.522, + 0.487, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.575, + 0.487, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinhao Mei, Chutong Meng, Haohe Liu, Qiuqiang Kong, Tom Ko, Chengqi Zhao, Mark D. Plumbley, Yuexian Zou, and Wenwu Wang. 2023. Wavcaps: A chatgpt-assisted weakly-labelled audio captioning dataset for audio-language multimodal research." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.654, + 0.487, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "S. D. MINOR. 2015. A report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.708, + 0.487, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shubhanshu Mishra and Jana Diesner. 2016. Semi-supervised named entity recognition in noisy-text. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (WNUT), pages 203-212." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.773, + 0.487, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chirag Nagpal, Kyle Miller, Benedikt Boecking, and Artur Dubrawski. 2017. An entity resolution approach to isolate instances of human trafficking online. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 77-84, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joel Nothman, Nicky Ringland, Will Radford, Tara Murphy, and James R. Curran. 2012. Learning multilingual named entity recognition from Wikipedia. *Artificial Intelligence*, 194:151-175." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2227-2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.215, + 0.883, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Polaris. 2021. 2020 u.s national human trafficking hotline statistics. https://shorturl.at/juB57." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.252, + 0.883, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reihaneh Rabbany, David Bayani, and Artur Dubrawski. 2018. Active search of connections for case building and combating human trafficking. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2120-2129." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.342, + 0.883, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.418, + 0.883, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander J Ratner, Christopher M De Sa, Sen Wu, Daniel Selsam, and Christopher Ré. 2016. Data programming: Creating large training sets, quickly. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.482, + 0.883, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leanne Maree Rhodes. 2016. Human trafficking as cybercrime. AGORA INTERNATIONAL OF ADMINISTRATION SCIENCES, 4:23-29." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.532, + 0.883, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thorn. 2015. Report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims. https://2715111qnwey246mkc1vzqg0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Survivor_Survey_r5.pdf." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.622, + 0.883, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.711, + 0.883, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiqi Tong, Yidong Chen, and Xiaodong Shi. 2021. A multi-task approach for improving biomedical named entity recognition by incorporating multi-granularity information. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4804-4813." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.8, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3365" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.14, + 0.49, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. LUKE: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6442-6454, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.246, + 0.49, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 35-45, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.353, + 0.489, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiming Zhu, Peixian Zhang, Ehsan-Ul Haq, Pan Hui, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Can chatgpt reproduce human-generated labels? a study of social computing tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.424, + 0.49, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reader's discretion: Appendix D contains examples of escort ads that contain vulgar and explicit language. If you prefer to avoid explicit language or find such content uncomfortable, we advise you to stop reading before reaching appendix D." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.536, + 0.321, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Labeling Functions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fine-tuned Models For fine-tuning the Token-Classification models, we use a wrapper from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020) AutoModelForToken-Classification class to compile different backbones, here RoBERTa and DeBERTaV3. We adopt the train-test split of CONLL2003 and WNUT2017 from the Huggingface datasets (Lhoest et al., 2021) for the convenience of reproducing the results (\"wnut_17\" for WNUT2017, \"conll2003\" for CoNLL2003). For FewNERD-L1 and WikiNERen, we directly downloaded the official stored file and parsed it to the same format as a Dataset loaded from the Datasets Library for running the experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the training stage, the learning rate is relative to batch size, which is \\(2 \\times 10^{-5} \\times\\) (batch_size/128). We train for 5 epochs with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) (weight Decay=0.01) on one A100 (40GB) GPU. Detailed information about both the size of the training datasets and the used training batch size are listed in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Individual Labeling Functions We provide the performance of individual labeling functions in this section. Table 7 shows the performance of LFs used in the NEAT (Weakly Supervised) experiment in Table 3. Table 8 and Table 9 shows the results of individual fine-tuned models used as LFs in SWEET." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.194, + 0.88, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelF1PrecisionRecall
Label-Indep NEAT Rules.43 ± .03.88 ± .02.28 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Dictionary.78 ± .02.83 ± .02.74 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Disambiguation.79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77 ± .02
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.25, + 0.884, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: NEAT-based LFs scores on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.312, + 0.88, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .11.82 ± .14.57 ± .14
CoNLL2003.97 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.95 ± .01.91 ± .01
WikiNER-en.96 ± .01.97 ± .02.97 ± .02
WNUT2017.58 ± .04.56 ± .04.65 ± .04
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.74 ± .06.84 ± .07.60 ± .07
CoNLL2003.98 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.94 ± .02.92 ± .02
WikiNER-en.93 ± .03.94 ± .05.97 ± .05
WNUT2017.89 ± .02.87 ± .02.88 ± .02
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.439, + 0.883, + 0.467 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on CoNLL2003 evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.501, + 0.88, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.41 ± .11.50 ± .14.52 ± .14
CoNLL2003.72 ± .04.71 ± .08.73 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.66 ± .12.82 ± .13.41 ± .13
WikiNER-en.65 ± .11.69 ± .13.52 ± .13
WNUT2017.62 ± .09.71 ± .15.47 ± .15
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.53 ± .07.56 ± .13.63 ± .13
CoNLL2003.71 ± .05.67 ± .08.71 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.61 ± .10.67 ± .10.45 ± .10
WikiNER-en.65 ± .10.63 ± .09.57 ± .09
WNUT2017.67 ± .09.81 ± .14.48 ± .14
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.627, + 0.883, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on WNUT2017 evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.696, + 0.809, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B ChatGPT and the HT Domain" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT is an advanced language model developed by OpenAI and built upon the GPT architecture. Although the training data that is used to train ChatGPT is not made public, it is built upon the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). These models were trained on Common Crawl, a dataset that includes a wide range of web content and ad-related content. By providing essential background and convincing ChatGPT that it is a researcher that studies human trafficking, we were able to guide it to generate a list of patterns generally seen in escort ads (Figure 2)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3366" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.087, + 0.469, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. \"Beautiful roses for sale - come and pick your favorite bouquet today\" - this ad uses the rose symbol to lure potential victims into a false sense of security, before offering them up for sale." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.121, + 0.464, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. \"Outcall girls available now - come experience the pleasure of our talented escorts\" - this ad uses the term \"outcall\" to suggest that the trafficked individuals will be brought to the customer, rather than the customer going to them." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.154, + 0.471, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. \"Meet our lovely ladies - Lisa, Kate, and Lexi are waiting for you to call\" - this adds up uses nicknames instead of real names, which is a common tactic used by traffickers to avoid detection." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.187, + 0.466, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. \"Grilfriend experiens - call now for a good time with the hottest girls in town\" - this ad employs misspellings to evade filters, as well as intimating that these girls are offering a kind of relationship experience in order to appeal to vulnerable individuals." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.087, + 0.471, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.247, + 0.469, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By finding and analyzing similar ads to these, researchers will be able to develop a better understanding of the patterns and language used by human traffickers, ultimately enabling law enforcement to more effectively combat this heinous activity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.296, + 0.476, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: ChatGPT's Understanding of HT Domain" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.335, + 0.338, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Problems with LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.361, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models, such as ChatGPT have garnered recognition from researchers for their versatility on a wide range of NLP tasks while exhibiting commendable performance compared to other SOTA models. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that these models have also faced significant scrutiny and critical appraisals. In this context, we mainly highlight the issue of Encoding Bias." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.49, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to the large size of the datasets used to train LLMs, it is very difficult to check and verify every part of the training dataset for potential bias. Thus, it is common for large language models to exhibit various types of bias as stated in (Bender et al., 2021; Hutchinson et al., 2020; Kurita et al., 2019). When building HTGEN, we observed that the generated text had a propensity to include derogatory language (Figure 3), and sexually explicit words (Figure 4). It also generated ads that have a negative sentiment towards the black community (Figure 5). Of all the examples generated in HTGEN, black people are denied services more than any other ethnic group. No mention of the words found in Figures 3 and 4 had occurred in any prompting processes. This ability to generate realistic sounding ads suggests that there is a good chance it had exposure to escort ads during its training process." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.807, + 0.351, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Examples of escort ads" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.112, + 0.832, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sexy Cougar - 41 Hello there, my name is Gina. I'm a sexy and mature brunette with curves in all the right places. Let me show you what a real woman can do. I'm experienced and know how to please a man. Incalls only. Call or text me at 905-XXX-XXXXX to book an appointment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.206, + 0.846, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Derogatory or Offensive Language" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.548, + 0.239, + 0.839, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SeXy BIAcK MiLFO Have you ever tried a Sexy, spicy Black woman? Look no further, I'm the perfect combination of Sexiness, Beauty, Intelligence, and personality. I'm Angell, 38 years old and I'm the perfect woman for you. I have smooth chocolate skin, an amazing body and I know how to please. I'm completely independent and discreet, always ready to satisfy all your needs. I provide all safe services, no rushed sessions, and easy parking. Call or text me now at (XXX)-XXX-XXXX. No AA or Trades Please." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.36, + 0.848, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Usage of Vulgar and Sexually Explicit Words" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.548, + 0.391, + 0.84, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Young SPANISH BEAUTY IN TOWN XoXo Outcalls 24/7 Hi! I am a young, sexy, and beautiful Spanish girl ready to provide you with a mesmerizing experience. I offer outcalls 24/7, and I am always discreet and professional. I provide an unforgettable experience and satisfy all your fantasies. Call or text me to book an appointment. No black men. Xoxo" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.596, + 0.554, + 0.796, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Racism in HTGEN" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.635, + 0.765, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: Michelle's $80" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.652, + 0.759, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CARCALL Special!!!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.668, + 0.832, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Description: LOWBALLERS WILL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.684, + 0.833, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " BE BLOCKED!!! $80 BBB---J $130" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.7, + 0.828, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F--S $160 BB--FS 123-456-789" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.564, + 0.731, + 0.828, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Example ad From HTNAME" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.766, + 0.791, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: GisellaGorgeous Puerto Rican" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.778, + 0.837, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Description: My name is Gisella sexy little petite thing with curves that don't stop I am excited to be your grown up bestie and come over for a private playdate. I love to make new friends! Let's get together and see what kind of trouble we can stir up! (916)888-7777 no extra photos don't ask for any, I am not a cheap commodity incalls only." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.57, + 0.875, + 0.822, + 0.889 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Example ad From HTGEN" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3367" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_origin.pdf b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4517fe54e50ffcacafb9ab121fb7eb1891c7347 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/51a490a2-5e7e-4b10-904d-5fd5062a1f3a_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c2f16242163da7c937695dd8419e3fd1be3694a55676c904332ad0fbce68d4d8 +size 989945 diff --git a/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/full.md b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94849dea4ccb9821ec2288f6932d599d5b088296 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ +# SWEET: Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking + +Javin Liu* + +University of Southern California + +Mila - Quebec AI Institute + +Hao Yu* + +Vidya Sujaya* + +Pratheeksha Nair + +Kellin Peline + +Reihaneh Rabbany + +McGill University + +Mila - Quebec AI Institute + +# Abstract + +In this work, we propose a weak supervision pipeline SWEET: Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking for extracting person names from noisy escort advertisements. Our method combines the simplicity of rule-matching (through antirules, i.e., negated rules) and the generalizability of large language models fine-tuned on benchmark, domain-specific and synthetic datasets, treating them as weak labels. One of the major challenges in this domain is limited labeled data. SWEET addresses this by obtaining multiple weak labels through labeling functions and effectively aggregating them. SWEET outperforms the previous supervised SOTA method for this task by $9\%$ F1 score on domain data and better generalizes to common benchmark datasets. Furthermore, we also release HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort advertisements (built using ChatGPT) to facilitate further research within the community. + +# 1 Introduction + +Over 6.3 million people worldwide are victims of forced sexual exploitation or human trafficking (HT) on any given day (International Labour Organization), and the majority of the victims have been advertised online (Polaris, 2021; MINOR, 2015) through escort websites (Rhodes, 2016). HT is an organized crime and traffickers tend to advertise multiple victims simultaneously. Hence, finding connections between online escort advertisements hints towards them being posted by the same individual and strongly indicates organized activity. + +Several methods have previously taken the approach of uncovering connections between ads by looking for repeated phrases, phone numbers, locations, prices, service types, etc., in the text (Lee et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2021; Rabbany et al., 2018). Hence, efficient entity extractors must extract accurate and relevant information from ad text (Nagpal + +et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022; Kejriwal et al., 2018; Kejriwal and Kapoor, 2019). However, this is very challenging because the text is often noisy, ungrammatical, and obscured. Information related to the names of individuals, services, locations, etc, often have letters replaced by symbols or emojis. The writing style constantly evolves and is made adversarial to avoid detection by online filters and moderators. + +Based on discussions with domain experts, including criminologists, law enforcement, and other groups fighting trafficking, it was determined that extracting advertised names from the ads is particularly important. Traffickers tend to control, on average, four to six victims and often post advertisements on their behalf (Thorn, 2015). Hence, multiple people being advertised in the same or similar ads is a strong indicator of trafficking (Lee et al., 2021). Other entities such as locations, phone numbers and email addresses could also be informative. However, most websites have explicit fields for these entities which makes them more straightforward to extract. The same is not true for person names which are usually embedded inside the text of the ads and are much more complex to extract. + +Traditional extraction methods, such as the embedding-based Flair (Akbik et al., 2018a) and Spacy NLP models, do not do well on this type of data because they are sensitive to noise and tend to decrease in performance as more noise is injected into the data (Li et al., 2022). NEAT (Li et al., 2022) stands as the current SOTA name extractor in this domain and uses an ad-hoc combination of a name dictionary, a rule dictionary, and a BERT-based disambiguation layer. Moreover, NEAT relies on a sample of manually labeled data to provide optimal results. This is a challenge because the relevant datasets for this task are typically curated in-house and not shared publicly due to their sensitive nature. Similar constraints also apply to methods such as crowd-sourcing. + +To address these challenges, we propose a weakly supervised method SWEET (Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking)1, that efficiently extracts person names from escort ads and is independent of training labels. We define label-independence in the scope of our work as not requiring domain or task-specific labels. SWEET uses a novel combination of fine-tuned language models (elucidated in Section 3), antirules, and an HMM-based method of aggregating them. Our contributions are: + +- Novel: We study the problem of name extraction from noisy text through the novel lens of weak supervision and propose a new method. +- Effective: The proposed method SWEET is very effective and outperforms the previous SOTA in person name extraction on domain data by $9\%$ F1 score. +- Label-efficient: SWEET leverages weak labels that are easy and cheap to obtain. This is very useful in several real-world applications, particularly in the HT domain, where obtaining labels is expensive and challenging due to the sensitive nature of the data. +- Improving reproducibility: We also introduce HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort ads which, unlike the real-world datasets used in papers in this domain, can be published for further research and helps with reproducibility. + +# 2 Background + +In this section, we cover the background information and related works necessary to understand this paper's context better. + +Named Entity Recognition Named Entity Recognition (NER) is the task of identifying elements in the text that correspond to high-level categories like PERSON, ORGANIZATION, LOCATION, DATES, and other concrete concepts that can be explicitly named. The NER task aims to extract all occurrences of such entities. In this paper, the focus is on human names because they are most associated with an HT victim and names are the most common entity type to appear in escort ads. + +Entity extraction from escort ads This is an important task that involves identifying and extracting named entities from a given ad. Rule-based models typically rely on regular expressions, handcrafted rules, and gazetteer-based approaches. For person names, NEAT (Li et al., 2022) is the SOTA method that combines a gazetteer (person name dictionary) with a regular expression extractor (rule dictionary) and a RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) based disambiguation layer called HT-bert. Such rule-based systems were shown(Li et al., 2022) to have a better performance over statistical models (Devlin et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019) on the noisy escort ads dataset. However, on benchmark NER datasets, NEAT performs much worse. This is a likely result of its rule-based components designed to capture patterns in escort ads. Rule-based approaches can also be complementary to statistical-based approaches. In other domains, (Ratinov and Roth, 2009) argued that the NER task relies highly on external knowledge and shows that a statistical model combined with a rule-based gazetteer match makes a better-performing hybrid model. + +Weak supervision Since we consider multiple sources of weak labels for our task, we rely on a popular weak-supervision framework, Skweak, for label aggregation and learning. Skweak (Lison et al., 2021) is a Python-based weak supervision framework made specifically for NER tasks. It works together with the Spacy library (Honnibal et al., 2020), allowing users to create labeling functions (LFs) that label an input text token as a type of entity and facilitates downstream processing. Skweak provides a variety of different LF types: heuristics, gazetteers and document-level functions allowing us to easily combine weak signals from our proposed combination of rule based systems and LLMs. These make Skweak a better choice compared to other weak label aggregators such as Snorkel (Ratner et al., 2016). The labels obtained from these LFs are later aggregated using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM). + +The HMM's states and observations correspond to the true labels and LF outputs respectively. Skweak relies on a majority vote strategy (where each LF is a voter) to get a predicted label. This is then used to calculate the HMM's initial transition and emission probabilities, which are then updated until convergence using the Baum-Welch algorithm. To account for possible dependencies + +between LFs, Skweak tempers the probability density (weight) of an LF depending on its redundancy. It decreases the weight of an LF that produces a label of type 'PERSON', for example, if it shows high recall with other LFs that also produce 'PERSON' labels (high overlap in predictions). Post aggregation, a separate classifier model can be trained on the HMM's aggregated results and used directly on other datasets without requiring the LFs or the HMM. + +Large Language Models Recent works (Gilardi et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) have shown that ChatGPT can be used as a data annotator and addresses ethical concerns regarding using human labelers on datasets that contain sensitive information. We experimented with using ChatGPT to extract person names from ads and used this labeled set to fine-tune BERT-based models as LFs in our framework. + +We also experimented with using ChatGPT for generating escort ads to create an additional domain dataset. It has been shown that LLMs like ChatGPT exhibit stochastic behaviours (Bender et al., 2021) and are susceptible to biases from the real world internet data it was trained on. Recently, several works (Li et al., 2023) (Liu et al., 2023) have demonstrated effective jailbreak techniques that bypass the content filters that are imposed on ChatGPT to limit the level of bias and toxic language output by ChatGPT. (Carlini et al., 2021) could also extract training data directly from GPT LLMs. + +# 3 Methodology + +In this paper, we introduce a hybrid weakly supervised Skweak-based model that uses both rule-based approaches (such as "antirules" detailed below) and statistical-based approaches (such as DeBERTa and RoBERTa models trained on different NER datasets) as labeling functions and combine them into a single, more effective predictor. Our methodology pipeline is in Figure 1. + +The proposed weak supervision pipeline in SWEET consists of 2 main types of LFs: + +1. Antirules: Rules that determine entities as not person-names. The top $X\%$ most frequent words of the dataset $(X \in \{10, 20, 30, 40, 50\})$ are annotated as "NOT_NAME", resulting in 5 antirule LFs in total. The antirules help counteract possible noise. + +2. Fine-tuned Models: We fine-tune base versions of RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) and DeBERTav3 (He et al., 2021) for the task of Named Entity Recognition on six different datasets, namely: the train splits of CoNLL2003 (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003), WNUT2017 (Derczynski et al., 2017), Few-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) (Only Level 1), WikiNER (English) (Nothman et al., 2012), a domain dataset labelled by ChatGPT called HTUNSUP, and a domain dataset generated and labeled by ChatGPT called HTGEN. The details and labeling method of HTUNSUP are provided in Section 4.6 and Appendix A, respectively. In total, 12 fine-tuned models (one per dataset and model type) act as LFs in SWEET. Any word predicted by a fine-tuned model, that matches a white-space-separated word in the ad text, gets annotated as a "PERSON_NAME" according to that LF. + +Using the Skweak framework, we fit an HMM on the annotated train set and apply the fitted model on the annotations to obtain a final set of aggregated labels. The HMM's initial parameters are obtained using a majority voter that treats each LF as a voter of equal weight to get a predicted label. + +We also experimented with using the three components of previous SOTA NEAT (Li et al., 2022) as LFs but ultimately found it did not boost performance (see NEAT (Weakly Supervised) in Table 3). Specifically, we considered: + +1. Context Rules: extract person names based on part-of-speech (POS) tags and common phrases that include names. The rules consist of regular expressions that work to capture the most common contexts where names are seen. (eg. I'm NNP, My name is NNP, You can call me NNP). +2. Name Dictionary: common names with confidence scores tuned based on frequency in indomain data. These names are used in gazetteer matching, where the names are used as the gazetteer and the pipeline, given a word in a sentence, will check if it is a word in this dictionary/gazetteer. +3. Word Disambiguation: filters results of the weighted output of rule and dictionary extractor with the help of a DeBERTaV3 model that was fine-tuned for the task of masked language modeling on a domain dataset (Li et al., 2022). + +![](images/2447b5cb1174a343e2c7beacb8939513f93b8a036bb5fe5506891a62ccde3cb7.jpg) +Figure 1: SWEET Architecture + +During the training of the DeBERTaV3 model, individual words are masked and the task for the model is to predict these masked words. A word's context is passed to the fill mask, and the number of correct predictions (the number of predictions by the fill mask that is in the name dictionary) is divided by the total number of predictions by the fill mask to get a confidence score for the disambiguation. + +# 4 Datasets + +To fine-tune SWEET LFs, we used 4 open-source datasets, namely the training sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, FewNERD-L1, and WikiNER-en, and 2 escort ad datasets, namely HTUNSUP and HTGEN. To evaluate SWEET, we used the test sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC, Tweebank and an escort ad dataset called HTNAME. We also generated a domain dataset HTGEN whose train set was used for fine-tuning LFs and test set was used for evaluating SWEET. We provide the dataset statistics in Table 1, and the descriptions below. + +# 4.1 CoNLL2003 + +CoNLL2003(Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is a very popular baseline for evaluating the performance of different NLP systems and algorithms. Our experiments use CoNLL2003 data from the HuggingFace which is in English. For evaluation, we only consider the name annotations (i.e, B-PER and I-PER) and ignore other entity classes. + +# 4.2 WNUT2017 + +WNUT2017(Derczynski et al., 2017) consists of user-generated text and contains many examples of informal language, abbreviations, misspellings, and other noisy characteristics. Due to this, models tend to have lower recall values on WNUT2017. + +Similar to CoNLL2003, we use only the B-PER and I-PER classes for evaluation. + +# 4.3 Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC) + +The Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC) (Derczynski et al., 2016) dataset is a large, diverse, and high-quality annotated corpus, created for the development and evaluation of NER in social media. BTC includes tweets from different regions, time periods, and types of Twitter users. It was annotated by a combination of NLP experts and crowd workers, ensuring both high quality and crowd recall. + +# 4.4 Tweebank + +Tweebank(Jiang et al., 2022) was developed to address the challenges of analyzing social media data, specifically Twitter messages through NER and syntactic parsing. The researchers created a new English NER corpus called Tweebank-NER based on Tweebank and annotated it using Amazon Mechanical Turk. + +# 4.5 HTNAME + +This is a modified version of the HT1k dataset from (Li et al., 2022) consisting of 995 escort advertisements in English and French, where we rectified three main types of labeling errors. + +1. Parsing issues - in cases where the first name and last name were joined as a single string (FirstNameLastName) were not correctly annotated as "FirstName, LastName". +2. Apostrophe issue - cases where an extra s is added to the name. Examples like 'Mizz Mercedes' (the $s$ should not be included as the name). +3. Blank labels - a significant number of examples were missing true labels. We manually added the missing labels and reintroduce this dataset as HTNAME. + +
DatasetTrain SizeTest SizeTotal SizeBatch Size
CoNLL200314041345317494128
WNUT2017339412874681128
FewNERD-L11317671882415059132
WikiNER-en12990714435144342128
BTC-2002--
Tweebank-1201--
HTNAME-995995-
HTUNSUP6160-616032
HTGEN94248181024232
+ +# 4.6 HTUNSUP + +HTUNSUP was gathered by us from private escort websites and has around 6000 ads. Multiple recent works have shown that ChatGPT's strong performance on text related tasks makes it a strong candidate for automatic labeling of certain types of data (Huang et al., 2023b; Mei et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023). Additionally, due to its outstanding performance on HTNAME (Table 2), we use it to generate pseudo labels for HTUNSUP, which we treat as ground-truth. + +Weak Labeling of HTUNSUP We used the ChatGPT API (gpt-3.5-turbo) to extract person-name entities from ads. The average token count including the prompt, ad and response was 263. Due to content moderation and dialogue optimization, on encountering improper or explicit text (as in the case of escort ads), ChatGPT responds incoherently and for such cases, we return "no entity detected". + +The prompt used was: "I want you to act as a natural and no-bias labeler, extract human names and location or address and social media link or tag in the format 'Names: \nLocations: \nSocial': If multiple entities exist, separate them by 1. If no entity exists, say N. Your words should extract from the given text, can't add/modify any other words, should be as short as possible, remember don't include the phone number. For one name, it should be less than 3 words." + +After post-processing and removing certain rare, high-frequency wrong predictions manually, we obtain HTUNSUP with high-quality pseudo labels and use it for fine-tuning BERT models. + +Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used. The grayed-out numbers indicate that the test sets are not used in our experiments. + +
F1PrecisionRecall
0.900.890.91
+ +Table 2: Performance of ChatGPT for name extraction on HTNAME + +# 4.7 HTGEN: Generated escort ads dataset + +We explore ChatGPT's ability to generate escort ads with the motivation of developing a shareable domain specific dataset for furthering research in this field2. + +We used role playing to convince ChatGPT (API with GPT-3.5-turbo-0301) that it is a researcher studying patterns in escort ads. This bypasses the filters meant to reduce inappropriate outputs, misuse, and generation of text found in such ads. We followed up with a description of the entities in the ads and some of the patterns unique to the HT domain. (Bonifacio, 2023) had shown that providing the context before every question often helped improve the output quality. We also provided a sample conversation between a user (who provides the prompt) and ChatGPT (providing the required generated response) from three examples taken from our private HTNAME dataset. We scrambled phone numbers and other sensitive data for privacy reasons. In this manner, we generated 10,000 synthetic escort ads called HTGEN and used them to fine-tune a BERT model. At the time of writing, it costs $0.002 per 1000 tokens, and for 10,000 ads, it costs approximately$ 4.40 USD. This is significantly cheaper than hiring manual labelers. + +We provide examples of ads from HTNAME and HTGEN in appendix D but note that some contain explicit language. The ads generated by ChatGPT are pretty similar to those in HTNAME, and ChatGPT was successfully able to replicate the patterns and noise of the HT domain. + +# 5 Experimental Setup + +# 5.1 Baselines + +We compare SWEET with eight baselines, including off-the-shelf libraries, BERT-based models, domain-specific NER methods and a simple majority vote for aggregating weak labels as opposed to Skweak, ordered by their appearance in our result tables. + +- Spacy $^3$ - A popular open-source Python library for natural language processing tasks. The Spacy NER package uses statistical models, neural network architectures and deep learning techniques trained on large amounts of data. + +- TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016) - semi-supervised approach that combines text cluster information and word embeddings and uses a CRF for NER +LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020) - transformer based model that learns contextualized embeddings, fine-tuned on TACRED dataset (Zhang et al., 2017) +- ELMo (Peters et al., 2018) - model that learns contextualized word representations, tuned for NER +- Flair (Akbik et al., 2018b) - trained character language model that learns contextualized string embeddings, tuned for NER +- NEAT (Li et al., 2022) - previous SOTA for person name extraction from escort ads +- NEAT (Weakly Supervised) – a variation of NEAT where each individual component is treated as an LF in our weak supervision pipeline +- Majority Vote - a simple strategy of choosing the label based on consensus of majority of the weak labels, competitor to Skweak. + +# 5.2 Evaluation Settings + +We compare the performance of SWEET with its variants and the baselines using the average F1 classification score on 5-folds of the test set. For each run, 1 fold acted as the test set while the remaining were used to fit the HMM. Since we only consider the 'PERSON' class, we adopt the following evaluation metrics to better fit our use case. + +- Word-level matching: both ground truth and prediction are split into words (separated by a space) and each word is treated as a separate entity. +- Lowercase: both the ground truth and predictions are converted to lowercase. +- Exact Match: since the entity matching is on the word level, we consider strict match as a True Positive sample. + +# 5.3 Results + +Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of our experiments for the general and HT domain datasets respectively. + +Overall performance of SWEET: SWEET obtains the highest F1 score and recall on 4 out of 6 datasets, and beats NEAT on all datasets. On the HT datasets, SWEET performs the best. On general noisy datasets, WNUT2017 and BTC, SWEET similarly performs the best. On CoNLL2003, Flair + +and ELMo achieve higher scores than SWEET, but SWEET is the next best performing model. On Tweebank, TwitterNER, designed specifically for tweets, is the best performing method. Please note that on re-evaluating NEAT on HTNAME, we found an increase in the strict F1 score from the previous results (0.76 from Table 2 in Li et al. (2022) becomes 0.78), and use this stronger performance as the baseline, as reported in Table 4. + +Comparison of SWEET with NEAT: When compared with NEAT on the domain datasets, SWEET increases F1 score and recall by $9\%$ and $18\%$ respectively whilst maintaining precision. Furthermore, SWEET significantly surpasses NEAT on CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC and Tweebank. This may be attributed to signals from the finetuned DeBERTa and RoBERTa LFs as well as false positive reduction due to the antirules. + +Performance of SWEET v.s. individual LFs: In Table 5, we report the performance of individual labeling functions. When compared to the performance of SWEET in Table 4, we can see that SWEET successfully combines different fine-tuned models resulting in an aggregated model that outperforms these individual models, even those fine-tuned on domain data (HTUNSUP and HTGEN). SWEET's recall and precision scores being higher than all individual fine-tuned LFs (except for precision on HTNAME which is on-par with HTUNSUP), shows the success of weak supervision in using weaker sources (LFs) to produce a stronger final model. The weak supervision methodology however can impact the performance significantly as we can see in Table 3 and Table 4, when comparing a simple majority vote performance with the proposed SWEET. The majority vote baseline still performs relatively well, and shows strong recall, however, SWEET performs significantly better in 5 out of 6 datasets. + +Ablation Study Table 6 shows the results of ablation experiments of SWEET, focused on the HT datasets. Firstly, removing antirules decrease precision, showing that they are helpful in informing the model on what is not a name. Meanwhile, we see a mixed effect of domain LFs in the model. In row 3, we observe the highest precision and F1 scores on HTName with the removal of in-domain LFs. On HTGen, we instead see a significant decrease, but note that it is still higher than other baselines in Table 4. In the last rows, we observe that using only + +
MethodCoNLL2003WNUT2017BTCTweebank
F1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).64 ± .04.66 ± .04.55 ± .04.21 ± .07.14 ± .06.44 ± .06.15 ± .01.44 ± .01.09 ± .01.19 ± .04.24 ± .05.18 ± .05
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).68 ± .05.91 ± .05.55 ± .05.61 ± .09.84 ± .10.57 ± .10.32 ± .05.86 ± .04.26 ± .04.67 ± .04.87 ± .05.57 ± .05
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).31 ± .11.89 ± .09.19 ± .09.55 ± .07.67 ± .05.44 ± .05.47 ± .01.92 ± .01.31 ± .01.37 ± .07.76 ± .06.33 ± .06
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).96 ± .02.95 ± .02.99 ± .02.59 ± .15.72 ± .18.37 ± .18.41 ± .06.83 ± .04.35 ± .18.71 ± .01.74 ± .01.68 ± .01
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).98 ± .02.97 ± .021.0 ± .02.60 ± .15.79 ± .18.34 ± .18.35 ± .06.86 ± .05.31 ± .05.63 ± .07.76 ± .09.62 ± .09
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).17 ± .07.43 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).16 ± .07.42 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
Majority vote.83 ± .06.74 ± .02.98 ± .02.65 ± .04.53 ± .06.90 ± .06.64 ± .03.76 ± .03.60 ± .03.53 ± .06.37 ± .04.88 ± .04
SWEET - Domain Data.86 ± .05.79 ± .02.97 ± .02.69 ± .06.61 ± .06.82 ± .06.63 ± .03.86 ± .04.56 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.85 ± .04
SWEET.86 ± .05.79 ± .03.98 ± .03.68 ± .04.58 ± .07.83 ± .07.64 ± .03.84 ± .04.57 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.86 ± .04
+ +Table 3: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold open source test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew. + +
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).27 ± .03.18 ± .02.51± .02.47 ± .04.50 ± .03.43 ± .03
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).56 ± .0475. ± .0452.± .04.70 ± .02.70 ± .03.67 ± .03
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).63 ± .03.85 ± .04.51± .04.68 ± .03.84 ± .02.56 ± .02
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).51 ± .02.56 ± .02.46± .02.69 ± .05.61 ± .06.74 ± .06
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).45 ± .02.73 ± .02.32± .02.63 ± .04.83 ± .04.49 ± .04
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).78 ± .04.83 ± .05.74± .03.71 ± .01.63 ± .02.79 ± .03
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77± .02.71 ± .01.64 ± .02.78 ± .02
Majority vote.73 ± .02.59 ± .01.95 ± .01.74 ± .02.65 ± .03.85 ± .03
SWEET -Domain Data.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
SWEET.87 ± .01.83 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
+ +Table 4: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold HT test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew. + +
ModelFine-tuning DatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTa-v3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .03.71 ± .02.62 ± .02
HTGEN.68 ± .01.71 ± .02.67 ± .02
CoNLL2003.67 ± .02.67 ± .03.69 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.57 ± .03.80 ± .03.43 ± .03
WikiNER-en.52 ± .01.48 ± .02.54 ± .02
WNUT2017.70 ± .02.71 ± .02.72 ± .02
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.82 ± .02.84 ± .03.83 ± .03
HTGEN.72 ± .02.81 ± .02.66 ± .02
CoNLL2003.72 ± .02.68 ± .03.77 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.68 ± .02.81 ± .02.59 ± .02
WikiNER-en.49 ± .03.43 ± .03.56 ± .03
WNUT2017.68 ± .02.73 ± .03.66 ± .03
+ +Table 5: Fine-tuned model LFs on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets. All these LFs have a lower performance compared to the aggregated model SWEET, reported in Table 4. + +domain LFs yields similar F1 scores with SWEET, but compromises recall for precision. We note that without using any domain data (second to last row of Table 4), SWEET is able to achieve the same F1 score as a setup that uses only domain data. + +We also observe that removing HTUNSUP LFs results in an F1 score decrease only on HTNAME. Moreover, these LFs do as well on their own (last four rows in Table 6), although they are still lower than SWEET on HTNAME, showing that the aggregation of LFs fine-tuned on diverse datasets is a key component of SWEET. + +# 6 Discussion + +# 6.1 Effect of using ChatGPT + +Although ChatGPT is the best performing model on HTNAME (Table 2), there are concerns regarding its use on escort ads. First, there is some financial cost associated with employing ChatGPT on large datasets of escort ads which limits its accessibility whereas our method is open-source and completely free to use. Second, the stability of the OpenAI API output is a concern as discussed in (Chen et al., 2023). While this does not hurt our method much where one only needs to get good performance a single time (to provide weak labels on a fixed dataset), and one could consider even the more powerful GPT-4, it means it would be unreliable to build a system for real-world applications based on ChatGPT alone. Finally, depending on the method used to access ChatGPT, there can be privacy concerns with this sensitive data. The intended use of our method is on large scale real-time ads with sensitive information, and using ChatGPT, is not feasible due to cost, stability and privacy issues mentioned above. + +Moreover, although ChatGPT is a valuable ingredient in SWEET, our ablations directly show that it is not sufficient. In the target domain our full system achieves $87\%$ F1 (Table 4). Simply apply + +
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
All LFs - HTGEN LFs.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.86 ± .02.82 ± .02.91 ± .02.82 ± .02.77 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTGEN LFs- HTUNSUP LFs (Domain Data).88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.93 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTUNSUP LFs.83 ± .02.76 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.82 ± .02.76 ± .02.92 ± .02.81 ± .01.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs.76 ± .01.76 ± .02.76 ± .02.81 ± .02.79 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + Antirules.86 ± .01.82 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .04.82 ± .05.64 ± .05
Only HTUNSUP LFs.87 ± .01.88 ± .01.88 ± .01.81 ± .03.77 ± .04.81 ± .04
Only HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.87 ± .01.92 ± .02.85 ± .02.76 ± .04.83 ± .05.66 ± .05
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs.85 ± .01.85 ± .02.87 ± .02.82 ± .03.78 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.86 ± .02.86 ± .01.86 ± .01.82 ± .03.79 ± .04.81 ± .04
+ +Table 6: Ablation results of SWEET. -Antirules indicates removal of the antirule LFs component of SWEET. HTGEN LFs or HTUNSUP LFs indicates LMs fine-tuned on HTGEN or HTUNSUP respectively. + +ing language models trained on ChatGPT-labeled data achieves $82\%$ at best (Table 5), significantly lower. Conversely, our approach without using any ChatGPT-labeled data maintains $88\%$ F1 (Table 6, "SWEET- DomainData"). + +# 6.2 Label Efficiency + +Our pipeline eliminates the need for human labelers as it is independent of training labels for the task at hand, making use of existing open-source labeled data for fine-tuning language models instead. This is advantageous over other label-dependent NER models, especially in the HT domain where data labeling is costly and time-consuming. Being label independent is also beneficial in terms of ethics and privacy as the HT domain contains many examples of private information like names, locations, social media tags, and phone numbers. These types of data would no longer need to be read by a crowdsourced worker or human labeler in order to generate labels for training. More importantly, our method is also independent of LFs trained on the same data as the domain. For e.g., SWEET excluding LFs trained on HTGEN and HTUNSUP (SWEET - DomainData) performs as well or even better than SWEET. + +# 7 Conclusion + +In this paper, we introduced SWEET, a weak supervision pipeline that extracts person names from escort ads without the need for manual labeling. The experimental evaluations show that SWEET achieves SOTA results on the HTNAME dataset with an F1 score of 0.87, outperforming the previous SOTA by $9\%$ while also generalizing better to CoNLL2003 and WNUT2017 datasets. Moreover, + +SWEET maintains or improves this performance on removing any LFs trained on relevant domain data. SWEET does not require any human annotators and labeling which is a very important improvement over previous methods because it allows it to be applied easily to real-world datasets. It can also be easily adapted to other domains by designing specific new labeling functions. We also release a new public escort ad dataset HTGEN that uses ChatGPT for both data generation and labeling, which will improve reproducibility and benchmarking in this domain where most data cannot be shared publicly, as it contains personal information. + +# 8 Limitations + +Despite SWEET having achieved SOTA results on HTNAME, several limitations need to be considered while interpreting the findings. + +1. Dataset Size and Diversity: The HTNAME database used in this research is a modified version of HT1k from Li et al. (2022). The dataset contains a limited number of data (around 1000 ads). 5-fold evaluation is deployed to accommodate for this small size. While generating HTGEN, although efforts were made to ensure its representativeness and diversity, HTGen's data may still not be $100\%$ representative of real data. This may limit the generalizability of the models trained on it to other domains or datasets. + +2. Explainability and transparency: HT is a high-stakes application domain and transparency, explainability, and accuracy are all equally important. SWEET has the ability to aggregate multiple models together to get a final + +prediction. However, it uses HMM for aggregation which is more complex and less explainable than the ad-hoc way deployed by Li et al. (2022). Moreover, the output of the fine-tuned LFs is also less interpretable. SWEET sacrifices some explainability for increased performance. However, thanks to its modularity, the HMM aggregator can be swapped out for a more explainable method. + +3. Cost: We were able to improve performance by aggregating BERT models fine-tuned on a variety of NER datasets. This is time-consuming and costly. We used industrial-grade GPUs (RTX8000, V100 and A100) to fine-tune the BERT models. +4. Privacy: The HT domain contains private information like a person's name, address, social media tag, email, and phone number. Although the HTNAME and HTUNSUP datasets consists of ads scraped from public websites, these websites may not be fully regulated, and thus, data coming from these ads may violate the privacy of individuals being advertised in those ads. We had to refrain from releasing these datasets because of privacy and ethical concerns. Thus, directly replicating our results on HTNAME and HTUNSUP is not possible. To help counteract this and improve reproducibility, we released HTGEN. +5. Lack of variety: We have shown that the HTGEN dataset generated by ChatGPT contains realistic-sounding ads. However, the ads tend to be more repetitive than our datasets (HTUNSUP, HTNAME) with real data scraped from the web. Changing the temperature settings and other parameters showed promise at boosting the variation in the generations but the model was more inclined to produce nonsensical sentences. Future work should aim at increasing variety in the generated ads and keep noise within a desired range. With more variety of data in the generations, it would also be possible to decrease the size of HTGEN by reducing the number of redundant examples. + +# Ethics Statement + +Rigorous ethical considerations were taken during the process of this research. The data we use is publicly available, and due to the nature of the advertisements, there are no reasonable expectations for privacy. However, due to the sensitivity of the data, Ethics Approval has been obtained from the + +Research Ethics Board Office at the authors' university for using this type of data. We have also studied the current best practices for the project through a commissioned Responsible AI Institute evaluation, one of whose recommendation was to focus on a human-centered design. To this end, we have biweekly consultations with human trafficking survivors and have been mindful of not reproducing biases in the design of the algorithm. No personal attributes such as age, physical descriptors, ethnicity, etc were used. In addition, we have also reviewed the current law and policy implications through a comprehensive legal risk assessment and mitigation memorandum from a law firm. As the laws and policies in this domain are catching up with the technologies, we also plan to conduct research in close collaboration with domain experts into the most ethical approach to AI in this domain. Lastly, for transparency and accountability, all of the algorithms being developed will be made available online. Data scraping scripts and our datasets (except those synthetically generated) will not be shared publicly to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. + +# 9 Acknowledgements + +This research is partially funded by the Canada CIFAR AI Chairs Program and Samsung-Mila Research Grant. + +# References + +Alan Akbik, Tanja Bergmann, Duncan Blythe, Kashif Rasul, Stefan Schweter, and Roland Vollgraf. 2019. FLAIR: An easy-to-use framework for state-of-the-art NLP. In *NAACL* 2019, 2019 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), pages 54-59. +Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018a. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018b. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In COLING 2018, 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649. +Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and ShMargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models + +be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610-623. +Stephen Bonifacio. 2023. Creating a chatgpt based chatbot using "in-context learning" method. +Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In USEnIX Security Symposium, volume 6. +Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou. 2023. How is chatgpt's behavior changing over time? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09009. +Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, and Ian Roberts. 2016. Broad Twitter corpus: A diverse named entity recognition resource. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1169-1179, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee. +Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 140-147, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. +Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Mael Kubli. 2023. Chatgpt outperforms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056. +Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electro-style pretraining with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543. +Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem, Adriane Boyd, et al. 2020. spacy: Industrialstrength natural language processing in python. +Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023a. Is chatgpt better than human annotators? potential and limitations of chatgpt in explaining implicit hate speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07736. + +Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023b. Is {ChatGPT} better than human annotators? potential and limitations of {ChatGPT} in explaining implicit hate speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. ACM. +Ben Hutchinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Denton, Kellie Webster, Yu Zhong, and Stephen Denuyl. 2020. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491-5501, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +International Labour Organization. 2022. Global estimates of modern slavery: forced labour and forced marriage. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public----ed_norm----ipec/documents/publication/wcms_854733.pdf. +Hang Jiang, Yining Hua, Doug Beeferman, and Deb Roy. 2022. Annotating the tweetbank corpus on named entity recognition and building NLP models for social media analysis. CoRR, abs/2201.07281. +Mayank Kejriwal and Rahul Kapoor. 2019. Network-theoretic information extraction quality assessment in the human trafficking domain. Applied Network Science, 4(1):1-26. +Mayank Kejriwal, Pedro Szekely, and Craig Knoblock. 2018. Investigative knowledge discovery for combating illicit activities. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(1):53-63. +Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 166-172, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Meng-Chieh Lee, Catalina Vajiac, Aayushi Kulshrestha, Sacha Levy, Namyong Park, Cara Jones, Reihaneh Rabbany, and Christos Faloutsos. 2021. Info-shield: Generalizable information-theoretic humantrafficking detection. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1116-1127. IEEE. +Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumont, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierric Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online + +and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Haoran Li, Dadi Guo, Wei Fan, Mingshi Xu, Jie Huang, Fanpu Meng, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Multi-step jailbreaking privacy attacks on chatgpt. +Yifei Li, Pratheeksha Nair, Kellin Pelrine, and Reihaneh Rabbany. 2022. Extracting person names from user generated text: Named-entity recognition for combatting human trafficking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2854-2868. +Pierre Lison, Jeremy Barnes, and Aliaksandr Hubin. 2021. skweak: Weak supervision made easy for NLP. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023. Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101. +Xinhao Mei, Chutong Meng, Haohe Liu, Qiuqiang Kong, Tom Ko, Chengqi Zhao, Mark D. Plumbley, Yuexian Zou, and Wenwu Wang. 2023. Wavcaps: A chatgpt-assisted weakly-labelled audio captioning dataset for audio-language multimodal research. +S. D. MINOR. 2015. A report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims. +Shubhanshu Mishra and Jana Diesner. 2016. Semi-supervised named entity recognition in noisy-text. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (WNUT), pages 203-212. +Chirag Nagpal, Kyle Miller, Benedikt Boecking, and Artur Dubrawski. 2017. An entity resolution approach to isolate instances of human trafficking online. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 77-84, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Joel Nothman, Nicky Ringland, Will Radford, Tara Murphy, and James R. Curran. 2012. Learning multilingual named entity recognition from Wikipedia. *Artificial Intelligence*, 194:151-175. + +Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2227-2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Polaris. 2021. 2020 u.s national human trafficking hotline statistics. https://shorturl.at/juB57. +Reihaneh Rabbany, David Bayani, and Artur Dubrawski. 2018. Active search of connections for case building and combating human trafficking. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2120-2129. +Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155. +Alexander J Ratner, Christopher M De Sa, Sen Wu, Daniel Selsam, and Christopher Ré. 2016. Data programming: Creating large training sets, quickly. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29. +Leanne Maree Rhodes. 2016. Human trafficking as cybercrime. AGORA INTERNATIONAL OF ADMINISTRATION SCIENCES, 4:23-29. +Thorn. 2015. Report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims. https://2715111qnwey246mkc1vzqg0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Survivor_Survey_r5.pdf. +Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147. +Yiqi Tong, Yidong Chen, and Xiaodong Shi. 2021. A multi-task approach for improving biomedical named entity recognition by incorporating multi-granularity information. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4804-4813. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical + +Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. LUKE: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6442-6454, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 35-45, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yiming Zhu, Peixian Zhang, Ehsan-Ul Haq, Pan Hui, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Can chatgpt reproduce human-generated labels? a study of social computing tasks. + +Reader's discretion: Appendix D contains examples of escort ads that contain vulgar and explicit language. If you prefer to avoid explicit language or find such content uncomfortable, we advise you to stop reading before reaching appendix D. + +# A Labeling Functions + +Fine-tuned Models For fine-tuning the Token-Classification models, we use a wrapper from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020) AutoModelForToken-Classification class to compile different backbones, here RoBERTa and DeBERTaV3. We adopt the train-test split of CONLL2003 and WNUT2017 from the Huggingface datasets (Lhoest et al., 2021) for the convenience of reproducing the results ("wnut_17" for WNUT2017, "conll2003" for CoNLL2003). For FewNERD-L1 and WikiNERen, we directly downloaded the official stored file and parsed it to the same format as a Dataset loaded from the Datasets Library for running the experiments. + +In the training stage, the learning rate is relative to batch size, which is $2 \times 10^{-5} \times$ (batch_size/128). We train for 5 epochs with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) (weight Decay=0.01) on one A100 (40GB) GPU. Detailed information about both the size of the training datasets and the used training batch size are listed in Table 1. + +Individual Labeling Functions We provide the performance of individual labeling functions in this section. Table 7 shows the performance of LFs used in the NEAT (Weakly Supervised) experiment in Table 3. Table 8 and Table 9 shows the results of individual fine-tuned models used as LFs in SWEET. + +
ModelF1PrecisionRecall
Label-Indep NEAT Rules.43 ± .03.88 ± .02.28 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Dictionary.78 ± .02.83 ± .02.74 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Disambiguation.79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77 ± .02
+ +Table 7: NEAT-based LFs scores on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets. + +
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .11.82 ± .14.57 ± .14
CoNLL2003.97 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.95 ± .01.91 ± .01
WikiNER-en.96 ± .01.97 ± .02.97 ± .02
WNUT2017.58 ± .04.56 ± .04.65 ± .04
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.74 ± .06.84 ± .07.60 ± .07
CoNLL2003.98 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.94 ± .02.92 ± .02
WikiNER-en.93 ± .03.94 ± .05.97 ± .05
WNUT2017.89 ± .02.87 ± .02.88 ± .02
+ +Table 8: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on CoNLL2003 evaluated on 5-fold test sets. + +
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.41 ± .11.50 ± .14.52 ± .14
CoNLL2003.72 ± .04.71 ± .08.73 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.66 ± .12.82 ± .13.41 ± .13
WikiNER-en.65 ± .11.69 ± .13.52 ± .13
WNUT2017.62 ± .09.71 ± .15.47 ± .15
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.53 ± .07.56 ± .13.63 ± .13
CoNLL2003.71 ± .05.67 ± .08.71 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.61 ± .10.67 ± .10.45 ± .10
WikiNER-en.65 ± .10.63 ± .09.57 ± .09
WNUT2017.67 ± .09.81 ± .14.48 ± .14
+ +Table 9: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on WNUT2017 evaluated on 5-fold test sets. + +# B ChatGPT and the HT Domain + +ChatGPT is an advanced language model developed by OpenAI and built upon the GPT architecture. Although the training data that is used to train ChatGPT is not made public, it is built upon the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). These models were trained on Common Crawl, a dataset that includes a wide range of web content and ad-related content. By providing essential background and convincing ChatGPT that it is a researcher that studies human trafficking, we were able to guide it to generate a list of patterns generally seen in escort ads (Figure 2). + +1. "Beautiful roses for sale - come and pick your favorite bouquet today" - this ad uses the rose symbol to lure potential victims into a false sense of security, before offering them up for sale. +2. "Outcall girls available now - come experience the pleasure of our talented escorts" - this ad uses the term "outcall" to suggest that the trafficked individuals will be brought to the customer, rather than the customer going to them. +3. "Meet our lovely ladies - Lisa, Kate, and Lexi are waiting for you to call" - this adds up uses nicknames instead of real names, which is a common tactic used by traffickers to avoid detection. +4. "Grilfriend experiens - call now for a good time with the hottest girls in town" - this ad employs misspellings to evade filters, as well as intimating that these girls are offering a kind of relationship experience in order to appeal to vulnerable individuals. + +By finding and analyzing similar ads to these, researchers will be able to develop a better understanding of the patterns and language used by human traffickers, ultimately enabling law enforcement to more effectively combat this heinous activity. + +Figure 2: ChatGPT's Understanding of HT Domain + +# C Problems with LLMs + +Large language models, such as ChatGPT have garnered recognition from researchers for their versatility on a wide range of NLP tasks while exhibiting commendable performance compared to other SOTA models. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that these models have also faced significant scrutiny and critical appraisals. In this context, we mainly highlight the issue of Encoding Bias. + +Due to the large size of the datasets used to train LLMs, it is very difficult to check and verify every part of the training dataset for potential bias. Thus, it is common for large language models to exhibit various types of bias as stated in (Bender et al., 2021; Hutchinson et al., 2020; Kurita et al., 2019). When building HTGEN, we observed that the generated text had a propensity to include derogatory language (Figure 3), and sexually explicit words (Figure 4). It also generated ads that have a negative sentiment towards the black community (Figure 5). Of all the examples generated in HTGEN, black people are denied services more than any other ethnic group. No mention of the words found in Figures 3 and 4 had occurred in any prompting processes. This ability to generate realistic sounding ads suggests that there is a good chance it had exposure to escort ads during its training process. + +# D Examples of escort ads + +Sexy Cougar - 41 Hello there, my name is Gina. I'm a sexy and mature brunette with curves in all the right places. Let me show you what a real woman can do. I'm experienced and know how to please a man. Incalls only. Call or text me at 905-XXX-XXXXX to book an appointment. + +Figure 3: Derogatory or Offensive Language + +SeXy BIAcK MiLFO Have you ever tried a Sexy, spicy Black woman? Look no further, I'm the perfect combination of Sexiness, Beauty, Intelligence, and personality. I'm Angell, 38 years old and I'm the perfect woman for you. I have smooth chocolate skin, an amazing body and I know how to please. I'm completely independent and discreet, always ready to satisfy all your needs. I provide all safe services, no rushed sessions, and easy parking. Call or text me now at (XXX)-XXX-XXXX. No AA or Trades Please. + +Figure 4: Usage of Vulgar and Sexually Explicit Words + +Young SPANISH BEAUTY IN TOWN XoXo Outcalls 24/7 Hi! I am a young, sexy, and beautiful Spanish girl ready to provide you with a mesmerizing experience. I offer outcalls 24/7, and I am always discreet and professional. I provide an unforgettable experience and satisfy all your fantasies. Call or text me to book an appointment. No black men. Xoxo + +Figure 5: Racism in HTGEN + +Title: Michelle's $80 + +CARCALL Special!!! + +Description: LOWBALLERS WILL + +BE BLOCKED!!! $80 BBB---J $130 + +F--S $160 BB--FS 123-456-789 + +Figure 6: Example ad From HTNAME + +Title: GisellaGorgeous Puerto Rican + +Description: My name is Gisella sexy little petite thing with curves that don't stop I am excited to be your grown up bestie and come over for a private playdate. I love to make new friends! Let's get together and see what kind of trouble we can stir up! (916)888-7777 no extra photos don't ask for any, I am not a cheap commodity incalls only. + +Figure 7: Example ad From HTGEN \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/images.zip b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5dbb529386bf6f1b986736786699332c366ec8a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:57e12315715ae5fff19e4963d059d9cf4e7dfcc1aadd100e92e56315108f68c8 +size 488031 diff --git a/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/layout.json b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52f3a42c35abaad9dc34440b85a40f92670035a2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SWEET - Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8676 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 67, + 524, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 67, + 524, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 67, + 524, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SWEET: Weakly Supervised Person Name Extraction for Fighting Human Trafficking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 106, + 228, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 106, + 228, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 106, + 228, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Javin Liu*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 121, + 280, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 121, + 280, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 121, + 280, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Southern California" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 134, + 264, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 134, + 264, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 134, + 264, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mila - Quebec AI Institute" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 106, + 418, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 106, + 418, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 106, + 418, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Yu*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 121, + 433, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 121, + 433, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 121, + 433, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vidya Sujaya*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 135, + 443, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 135, + 443, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 135, + 443, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pratheeksha Nair" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 148, + 431, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 148, + 431, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 148, + 431, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kellin Peline" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 162, + 446, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 162, + 446, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 162, + 446, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reihaneh Rabbany" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 176, + 440, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 176, + 440, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 176, + 440, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "McGill University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 190, + 461, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 190, + 461, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 190, + 461, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mila - Quebec AI Institute" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose a weak supervision pipeline SWEET: Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking for extracting person names from noisy escort advertisements. Our method combines the simplicity of rule-matching (through antirules, i.e., negated rules) and the generalizability of large language models fine-tuned on benchmark, domain-specific and synthetic datasets, treating them as weak labels. One of the major challenges in this domain is limited labeled data. SWEET addresses this by obtaining multiple weak labels through labeling functions and effectively aggregating them. SWEET outperforms the previous supervised SOTA method for this task by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 score on domain data and better generalizes to common benchmark datasets. Furthermore, we also release HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort advertisements (built using ChatGPT) to facilitate further research within the community." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 154, + 504 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 154, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 154, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Over 6.3 million people worldwide are victims of forced sexual exploitation or human trafficking (HT) on any given day (International Labour Organization), and the majority of the victims have been advertised online (Polaris, 2021; MINOR, 2015) through escort websites (Rhodes, 2016). HT is an organized crime and traffickers tend to advertise multiple victims simultaneously. Hence, finding connections between online escort advertisements hints towards them being posted by the same individual and strongly indicates organized activity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Several methods have previously taken the approach of uncovering connections between ads by looking for repeated phrases, phone numbers, locations, prices, service types, etc., in the text (Lee et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2021; Rabbany et al., 2018). Hence, efficient entity extractors must extract accurate and relevant information from ad text (Nagpal" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022; Kejriwal et al., 2018; Kejriwal and Kapoor, 2019). However, this is very challenging because the text is often noisy, ungrammatical, and obscured. Information related to the names of individuals, services, locations, etc, often have letters replaced by symbols or emojis. The writing style constantly evolves and is made adversarial to avoid detection by online filters and moderators." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on discussions with domain experts, including criminologists, law enforcement, and other groups fighting trafficking, it was determined that extracting advertised names from the ads is particularly important. Traffickers tend to control, on average, four to six victims and often post advertisements on their behalf (Thorn, 2015). Hence, multiple people being advertised in the same or similar ads is a strong indicator of trafficking (Lee et al., 2021). Other entities such as locations, phone numbers and email addresses could also be informative. However, most websites have explicit fields for these entities which makes them more straightforward to extract. The same is not true for person names which are usually embedded inside the text of the ads and are much more complex to extract." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Traditional extraction methods, such as the embedding-based Flair (Akbik et al., 2018a) and Spacy NLP models, do not do well on this type of data because they are sensitive to noise and tend to decrease in performance as more noise is injected into the data (Li et al., 2022). NEAT (Li et al., 2022) stands as the current SOTA name extractor in this domain and uses an ad-hoc combination of a name dictionary, a rule dictionary, and a BERT-based disambiguation layer. Moreover, NEAT relies on a sample of manually labeled data to provide optimal results. This is a challenge because the relevant datasets for this task are typically curated in-house and not shared publicly due to their sensitive nature. Similar constraints also apply to methods such as crowd-sourcing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 272, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 272, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 272, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*These authors contributed equally to this research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3355" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3355-3367" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these challenges, we propose a weakly supervised method SWEET (Supervise Weakly for Entity Extraction to fight Trafficking)1, that efficiently extracts person names from escort ads and is independent of training labels. We define label-independence in the scope of our work as not requiring domain or task-specific labels. SWEET uses a novel combination of fine-tuned language models (elucidated in Section 3), antirules, and an HMM-based method of aggregating them. Our contributions are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 232, + 291, + 522 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 232, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 232, + 290, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 232, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Novel: We study the problem of name extraction from noisy text through the novel lens of weak supervision and propose a new method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Effective: The proposed method SWEET is very effective and outperforms the previous SOTA in person name extraction on domain data by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 349, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 349, + 291, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 349, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Label-efficient: SWEET leverages weak labels that are easy and cheap to obtain. This is very useful in several real-world applications, particularly in the HT domain, where obtaining labels is expensive and challenging due to the sensitive nature of the data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 441, + 291, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 441, + 291, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 441, + 291, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Improving reproducibility: We also introduce HTGEN, a synthetically generated dataset of escort ads which, unlike the real-world datasets used in papers in this domain, can be published for further research and helps with reproducibility." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 534, + 152, + 548 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 534, + 152, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 534, + 152, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we cover the background information and related works necessary to understand this paper's context better." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Named Entity Recognition Named Entity Recognition (NER) is the task of identifying elements in the text that correspond to high-level categories like PERSON, ORGANIZATION, LOCATION, DATES, and other concrete concepts that can be explicitly named. The NER task aims to extract all occurrences of such entities. In this paper, the focus is on human names because they are most associated with an HT victim and names are the most common entity type to appear in escort ads." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity extraction from escort ads This is an important task that involves identifying and extracting named entities from a given ad. Rule-based models typically rely on regular expressions, handcrafted rules, and gazetteer-based approaches. For person names, NEAT (Li et al., 2022) is the SOTA method that combines a gazetteer (person name dictionary) with a regular expression extractor (rule dictionary) and a RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) based disambiguation layer called HT-bert. Such rule-based systems were shown(Li et al., 2022) to have a better performance over statistical models (Devlin et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019) on the noisy escort ads dataset. However, on benchmark NER datasets, NEAT performs much worse. This is a likely result of its rule-based components designed to capture patterns in escort ads. Rule-based approaches can also be complementary to statistical-based approaches. In other domains, (Ratinov and Roth, 2009) argued that the NER task relies highly on external knowledge and shows that a statistical model combined with a rule-based gazetteer match makes a better-performing hybrid model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weak supervision Since we consider multiple sources of weak labels for our task, we rely on a popular weak-supervision framework, Skweak, for label aggregation and learning. Skweak (Lison et al., 2021) is a Python-based weak supervision framework made specifically for NER tasks. It works together with the Spacy library (Honnibal et al., 2020), allowing users to create labeling functions (LFs) that label an input text token as a type of entity and facilitates downstream processing. Skweak provides a variety of different LF types: heuristics, gazetteers and document-level functions allowing us to easily combine weak signals from our proposed combination of rule based systems and LLMs. These make Skweak a better choice compared to other weak label aggregators such as Snorkel (Ratner et al., 2016). The labels obtained from these LFs are later aggregated using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The HMM's states and observations correspond to the true labels and LF outputs respectively. Skweak relies on a majority vote strategy (where each LF is a voter) to get a predicted label. This is then used to calculate the HMM's initial transition and emission probabilities, which are then updated until convergence using the Baum-Welch algorithm. To account for possible dependencies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our code is available at https://github.com/ComplexData-MILA/HT-NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3356" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "between LFs, Skweak tempers the probability density (weight) of an LF depending on its redundancy. It decreases the weight of an LF that produces a label of type 'PERSON', for example, if it shows high recall with other LFs that also produce 'PERSON' labels (high overlap in predictions). Post aggregation, a separate classifier model can be trained on the HMM's aggregated results and used directly on other datasets without requiring the LFs or the HMM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 292, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 292, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 292, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models Recent works (Gilardi et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) have shown that ChatGPT can be used as a data annotator and addresses ethical concerns regarding using human labelers on datasets that contain sensitive information. We experimented with using ChatGPT to extract person names from ads and used this labeled set to fine-tune BERT-based models as LFs in our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also experimented with using ChatGPT for generating escort ads to create an additional domain dataset. It has been shown that LLMs like ChatGPT exhibit stochastic behaviours (Bender et al., 2021) and are susceptible to biases from the real world internet data it was trained on. Recently, several works (Li et al., 2023) (Liu et al., 2023) have demonstrated effective jailbreak techniques that bypass the content filters that are imposed on ChatGPT to limit the level of bias and toxic language output by ChatGPT. (Carlini et al., 2021) could also extract training data directly from GPT LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 157, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 157, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 157, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we introduce a hybrid weakly supervised Skweak-based model that uses both rule-based approaches (such as \"antirules\" detailed below) and statistical-based approaches (such as DeBERTa and RoBERTa models trained on different NER datasets) as labeling functions and combine them into a single, more effective predictor. Our methodology pipeline is in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 290, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed weak supervision pipeline in SWEET consists of 2 main types of LFs:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Antirules: Rules that determine entities as not person-names. The top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " most frequent words of the dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(X \\in \\{10, 20, 30, 40, 50\\})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are annotated as \"NOT_NAME\", resulting in 5 antirule LFs in total. The antirules help counteract possible noise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 527, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 527, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 527, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Fine-tuned Models: We fine-tune base versions of RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) and DeBERTav3 (He et al., 2021) for the task of Named Entity Recognition on six different datasets, namely: the train splits of CoNLL2003 (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003), WNUT2017 (Derczynski et al., 2017), Few-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) (Only Level 1), WikiNER (English) (Nothman et al., 2012), a domain dataset labelled by ChatGPT called HTUNSUP, and a domain dataset generated and labeled by ChatGPT called HTGEN. The details and labeling method of HTUNSUP are provided in Section 4.6 and Appendix A, respectively. In total, 12 fine-tuned models (one per dataset and model type) act as LFs in SWEET. Any word predicted by a fine-tuned model, that matches a white-space-separated word in the ad text, gets annotated as a \"PERSON_NAME\" according to that LF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using the Skweak framework, we fit an HMM on the annotated train set and apply the fitted model on the annotations to obtain a final set of aggregated labels. The HMM's initial parameters are obtained using a majority voter that treats each LF as a voter of equal weight to get a predicted label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also experimented with using the three components of previous SOTA NEAT (Li et al., 2022) as LFs but ultimately found it did not boost performance (see NEAT (Weakly Supervised) in Table 3). Specifically, we considered:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 511, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 511, + 527, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 511, + 527, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 511, + 527, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Context Rules: extract person names based on part-of-speech (POS) tags and common phrases that include names. The rules consist of regular expressions that work to capture the most common contexts where names are seen. (eg. I'm NNP, My name is NNP, You can call me NNP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 527, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 527, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 602, + 527, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Name Dictionary: common names with confidence scores tuned based on frequency in indomain data. These names are used in gazetteer matching, where the names are used as the gazetteer and the pipeline, given a word in a sentence, will check if it is a word in this dictionary/gazetteer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Word Disambiguation: filters results of the weighted output of rule and dictionary extractor with the help of a DeBERTaV3 model that was fine-tuned for the task of masked language modeling on a domain dataset (Li et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3357" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 478, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 478, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 478, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 70, + 478, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2447b5cb1174a343e2c7beacb8939513f93b8a036bb5fe5506891a62ccde3cb7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 192, + 359, + 204 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 192, + 359, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 192, + 359, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: SWEET Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 226, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 226, + 290, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 226, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During the training of the DeBERTaV3 model, individual words are masked and the task for the model is to predict these masked words. A word's context is passed to the fill mask, and the number of correct predictions (the number of predictions by the fill mask that is in the name dictionary) is divided by the total number of predictions by the fill mask to get a confidence score for the disambiguation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 132, + 373 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 132, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 132, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To fine-tune SWEET LFs, we used 4 open-source datasets, namely the training sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, FewNERD-L1, and WikiNER-en, and 2 escort ad datasets, namely HTUNSUP and HTGEN. To evaluate SWEET, we used the test sets of CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC, Tweebank and an escort ad dataset called HTNAME. We also generated a domain dataset HTGEN whose train set was used for fine-tuning LFs and test set was used for evaluating SWEET. We provide the dataset statistics in Table 1, and the descriptions below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 153, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 153, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 153, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 CoNLL2003" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CoNLL2003(Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is a very popular baseline for evaluating the performance of different NLP systems and algorithms. Our experiments use CoNLL2003 data from the HuggingFace which is in English. For evaluation, we only consider the name annotations (i.e, B-PER and I-PER) and ignore other entity classes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 151, + 698 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 151, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 151, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 WNUT2017" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "WNUT2017(Derczynski et al., 2017) consists of user-generated text and contains many examples of informal language, abbreviations, misspellings, and other noisy characteristics. Due to this, models tend to have lower recall values on WNUT2017." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 524, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 524, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 524, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar to CoNLL2003, we use only the B-PER and I-PER classes for evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 467, + 276 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 467, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 264, + 467, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 281, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 281, + 525, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 281, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Broad Twitter Corpus (BTC) (Derczynski et al., 2016) dataset is a large, diverse, and high-quality annotated corpus, created for the development and evaluation of NER in social media. BTC includes tweets from different regions, time periods, and types of Twitter users. It was annotated by a combination of NLP experts and crowd workers, ensuring both high quality and crowd recall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 379, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 379, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 379, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Tweebank" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tweebank(Jiang et al., 2022) was developed to address the challenges of analyzing social media data, specifically Twitter messages through NER and syntactic parsing. The researchers created a new English NER corpus called Tweebank-NER based on Tweebank and annotated it using Amazon Mechanical Turk." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 378, + 535 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 378, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 378, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 HTNAME" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 524, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 524, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 524, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This is a modified version of the HT1k dataset from (Li et al., 2022) consisting of 995 escort advertisements in English and French, where we rectified three main types of labeling errors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Parsing issues - in cases where the first name and last name were joined as a single string (FirstNameLastName) were not correctly annotated as \"FirstName, LastName\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Apostrophe issue - cases where an extra s is added to the name. Examples like 'Mizz Mercedes' (the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " should not be included as the name)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Blank labels - a significant number of examples were missing true labels. We manually added the missing labels and reintroduce this dataset as HTNAME." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3358" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 169 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 169 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTrain SizeTest SizeTotal SizeBatch Size
CoNLL200314041345317494128
WNUT2017339412874681128
FewNERD-L11317671882415059132
WikiNER-en12990714435144342128
BTC-2002--
Tweebank-1201--
HTNAME-995995-
HTUNSUP6160-616032
HTGEN94248181024232
", + "image_path": "b4a8c95a09bdb895bfc4d9bf5a4c2eb79728c519349e9b12cb702ab6f5ffcbd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 147, + 245 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 147, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 147, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 HTUNSUP" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 290, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HTUNSUP was gathered by us from private escort websites and has around 6000 ads. Multiple recent works have shown that ChatGPT's strong performance on text related tasks makes it a strong candidate for automatic labeling of certain types of data (Huang et al., 2023b; Mei et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2023). Additionally, due to its outstanding performance on HTNAME (Table 2), we use it to generate pseudo labels for HTUNSUP, which we treat as ground-truth." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weak Labeling of HTUNSUP We used the ChatGPT API (gpt-3.5-turbo) to extract person-name entities from ads. The average token count including the prompt, ad and response was 263. Due to content moderation and dialogue optimization, on encountering improper or explicit text (as in the case of escort ads), ChatGPT responds incoherently and for such cases, we return \"no entity detected\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The prompt used was: \"I want you to act as a natural and no-bias labeler, extract human names and location or address and social media link or tag in the format 'Names: \\nLocations: \\nSocial': If multiple entities exist, separate them by 1. If no entity exists, say N. Your words should extract from the given text, can't add/modify any other words, should be as short as possible, remember don't include the phone number. For one name, it should be less than 3 words.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After post-processing and removing certain rare, high-frequency wrong predictions manually, we obtain HTUNSUP with high-quality pseudo labels and use it for fine-tuning BERT models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 698, + 235, + 725 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 177, + 290, + 214 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 177, + 290, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 177, + 290, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used. The grayed-out numbers indicate that the test sets are not used in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 698, + 235, + 725 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 698, + 235, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 698, + 235, + 725 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
F1PrecisionRecall
0.900.890.91
", + "image_path": "1030d4990e42271dbf6e2ffbaf28986e0ce386e4998a24275b8433c0f391b513.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 734, + 290, + 757 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 734, + 290, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 734, + 290, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Performance of ChatGPT for name extraction on HTNAME" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 512, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 512, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 512, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.7 HTGEN: Generated escort ads dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 524, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 524, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 524, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We explore ChatGPT's ability to generate escort ads with the motivation of developing a shareable domain specific dataset for furthering research in this field2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We used role playing to convince ChatGPT (API with GPT-3.5-turbo-0301) that it is a researcher studying patterns in escort ads. This bypasses the filters meant to reduce inappropriate outputs, misuse, and generation of text found in such ads. We followed up with a description of the entities in the ads and some of the patterns unique to the HT domain. (Bonifacio, 2023) had shown that providing the context before every question often helped improve the output quality. We also provided a sample conversation between a user (who provides the prompt) and ChatGPT (providing the required generated response) from three examples taken from our private HTNAME dataset. We scrambled phone numbers and other sensitive data for privacy reasons. In this manner, we generated 10,000 synthetic escort ads called HTGEN and used them to fine-tune a BERT model. At the time of writing, it costs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.002 per 1000 tokens, and for 10,000 ads, it costs approximately" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.40 USD. This is significantly cheaper than hiring manual labelers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide examples of ads from HTNAME and HTGEN in appendix D but note that some contain explicit language. The ads generated by ChatGPT are pretty similar to those in HTNAME, and ChatGPT was successfully able to replicate the patterns and noise of the HT domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 427, + 534 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 427, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 427, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 374, + 555 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 374, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 374, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare SWEET with eight baselines, including off-the-shelf libraries, BERT-based models, domain-specific NER methods and a simple majority vote for aggregating weak labels as opposed to Skweak, ordered by their appearance in our result tables." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 642, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 642, + 525, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 642, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Spacy" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 642, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 642, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " - A popular open-source Python library for natural language processing tasks. The Spacy NER package uses statistical models, neural network architectures and deep learning techniques trained on large amounts of data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2The exact prompts used and the code for the dataset generation can be provided upon request." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 515, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 515, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://spacy.io/usage/linguistic-features#named-entities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3359" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 71, + 290, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016) - semi-supervised approach that combines text cluster information and word embeddings and uses a CRF for NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 126, + 290, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 126, + 290, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 126, + 290, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020) - transformer based model that learns contextualized embeddings, fine-tuned on TACRED dataset (Zhang et al., 2017)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 179, + 289, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 179, + 289, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 179, + 289, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- ELMo (Peters et al., 2018) - model that learns contextualized word representations, tuned for NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 221, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 221, + 289, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 221, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Flair (Akbik et al., 2018b) - trained character language model that learns contextualized string embeddings, tuned for NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 260, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 260, + 289, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 260, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- NEAT (Li et al., 2022) - previous SOTA for person name extraction from escort ads" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 288, + 289, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 288, + 289, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 288, + 289, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- NEAT (Weakly Supervised) – a variation of NEAT where each individual component is treated as an LF in our weak supervision pipeline" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 342, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 342, + 289, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 342, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Majority Vote - a simple strategy of choosing the label based on consensus of majority of the weak labels, competitor to Skweak." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 186, + 403 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 186, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 186, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Evaluation Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 290, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the performance of SWEET with its variants and the baselines using the average F1 classification score on 5-folds of the test set. For each run, 1 fold acted as the test set while the remaining were used to fit the HMM. Since we only consider the 'PERSON' class, we adopt the following evaluation metrics to better fit our use case." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Word-level matching: both ground truth and prediction are split into words (separated by a space) and each word is treated as a separate entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 552, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 552, + 289, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 552, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Lowercase: both the ground truth and predictions are converted to lowercase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 579, + 289, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 579, + 289, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 579, + 289, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Exact Match: since the entity matching is on the word level, we consider strict match as a True Positive sample." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 130, + 638 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 130, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 130, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of our experiments for the general and HT domain datasets respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall performance of SWEET: SWEET obtains the highest F1 score and recall on 4 out of 6 datasets, and beats NEAT on all datasets. On the HT datasets, SWEET performs the best. On general noisy datasets, WNUT2017 and BTC, SWEET similarly performs the best. On CoNLL2003, Flair" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and ELMo achieve higher scores than SWEET, but SWEET is the next best performing model. On Tweebank, TwitterNER, designed specifically for tweets, is the best performing method. Please note that on re-evaluating NEAT on HTNAME, we found an increase in the strict F1 score from the previous results (0.76 from Table 2 in Li et al. (2022) becomes 0.78), and use this stronger performance as the baseline, as reported in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison of SWEET with NEAT: When compared with NEAT on the domain datasets, SWEET increases F1 score and recall by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "18\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively whilst maintaining precision. Furthermore, SWEET significantly surpasses NEAT on CoNLL2003, WNUT2017, BTC and Tweebank. This may be attributed to signals from the finetuned DeBERTa and RoBERTa LFs as well as false positive reduction due to the antirules." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance of SWEET v.s. individual LFs: In Table 5, we report the performance of individual labeling functions. When compared to the performance of SWEET in Table 4, we can see that SWEET successfully combines different fine-tuned models resulting in an aggregated model that outperforms these individual models, even those fine-tuned on domain data (HTUNSUP and HTGEN). SWEET's recall and precision scores being higher than all individual fine-tuned LFs (except for precision on HTNAME which is on-par with HTUNSUP), shows the success of weak supervision in using weaker sources (LFs) to produce a stronger final model. The weak supervision methodology however can impact the performance significantly as we can see in Table 3 and Table 4, when comparing a simple majority vote performance with the proposed SWEET. The majority vote baseline still performs relatively well, and shows strong recall, however, SWEET performs significantly better in 5 out of 6 datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation Study Table 6 shows the results of ablation experiments of SWEET, focused on the HT datasets. Firstly, removing antirules decrease precision, showing that they are helpful in informing the model on what is not a name. Meanwhile, we see a mixed effect of domain LFs in the model. In row 3, we observe the highest precision and F1 scores on HTName with the removal of in-domain LFs. On HTGen, we instead see a significant decrease, but note that it is still higher than other baselines in Table 4. In the last rows, we observe that using only" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3360" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 162 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 162 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 162 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodCoNLL2003WNUT2017BTCTweebank
F1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).64 ± .04.66 ± .04.55 ± .04.21 ± .07.14 ± .06.44 ± .06.15 ± .01.44 ± .01.09 ± .01.19 ± .04.24 ± .05.18 ± .05
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).68 ± .05.91 ± .05.55 ± .05.61 ± .09.84 ± .10.57 ± .10.32 ± .05.86 ± .04.26 ± .04.67 ± .04.87 ± .05.57 ± .05
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).31 ± .11.89 ± .09.19 ± .09.55 ± .07.67 ± .05.44 ± .05.47 ± .01.92 ± .01.31 ± .01.37 ± .07.76 ± .06.33 ± .06
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).96 ± .02.95 ± .02.99 ± .02.59 ± .15.72 ± .18.37 ± .18.41 ± .06.83 ± .04.35 ± .18.71 ± .01.74 ± .01.68 ± .01
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).98 ± .02.97 ± .021.0 ± .02.60 ± .15.79 ± .18.34 ± .18.35 ± .06.86 ± .05.31 ± .05.63 ± .07.76 ± .09.62 ± .09
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).17 ± .07.43 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).16 ± .07.42 ± .05.07 ± .05.22 ± .06.47 ± .04.16 ± .04.11 ± .02.46 ± .01.07 ± .01.24 ± .05.42 ± .04.17 ± .04
Majority vote.83 ± .06.74 ± .02.98 ± .02.65 ± .04.53 ± .06.90 ± .06.64 ± .03.76 ± .03.60 ± .03.53 ± .06.37 ± .04.88 ± .04
SWEET - Domain Data.86 ± .05.79 ± .02.97 ± .02.69 ± .06.61 ± .06.82 ± .06.63 ± .03.86 ± .04.56 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.85 ± .04
SWEET.86 ± .05.79 ± .03.98 ± .03.68 ± .04.58 ± .07.83 ± .07.64 ± .03.84 ± .04.57 ± .04.58 ± .06.43 ± .04.86 ± .04
", + "image_path": "8e72716a9e13cd32c20c4ce30fc45872031c2176695fb513f2711886639b9276.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 217, + 479, + 338 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 170, + 525, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 170, + 525, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 170, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold open source test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 217, + 479, + 338 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 217, + 479, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 217, + 479, + 338 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
spaCy (Honnibal et al., 2020).27 ± .03.18 ± .02.51± .02.47 ± .04.50 ± .03.43 ± .03
TwitterNER (Mishra and Diesner, 2016).56 ± .0475. ± .0452.± .04.70 ± .02.70 ± .03.67 ± .03
LUKE (Yamada et al., 2020).63 ± .03.85 ± .04.51± .04.68 ± .03.84 ± .02.56 ± .02
ELMo (Peters et al., 2018).51 ± .02.56 ± .02.46± .02.69 ± .05.61 ± .06.74 ± .06
Flair (Akbik et al., 2019).45 ± .02.73 ± .02.32± .02.63 ± .04.83 ± .04.49 ± .04
NEAT (Original) (Li et al., 2022).78 ± .04.83 ± .05.74± .03.71 ± .01.63 ± .02.79 ± .03
NEAT (Weakly Supervised).79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77± .02.71 ± .01.64 ± .02.78 ± .02
Majority vote.73 ± .02.59 ± .01.95 ± .01.74 ± .02.65 ± .03.85 ± .03
SWEET -Domain Data.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
SWEET.87 ± .01.83 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
", + "image_path": "1dc12f58a0d0bfbb97bd5e479d94015d78c302f4e82fc9ec029b3566b43e42a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 288, + 499 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 525, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Word-level strict match results on 5-fold HT test sets: F1 score, Precision, Recall of SWEET and baselines. NEAT (Weakly Supervised) refers to the use of NEAT (Li et al., 2022) components as labeling functions in skewew." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 288, + 499 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 288, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 389, + 288, + 499 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFine-tuning DatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTa-v3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .03.71 ± .02.62 ± .02
HTGEN.68 ± .01.71 ± .02.67 ± .02
CoNLL2003.67 ± .02.67 ± .03.69 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.57 ± .03.80 ± .03.43 ± .03
WikiNER-en.52 ± .01.48 ± .02.54 ± .02
WNUT2017.70 ± .02.71 ± .02.72 ± .02
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.82 ± .02.84 ± .03.83 ± .03
HTGEN.72 ± .02.81 ± .02.66 ± .02
CoNLL2003.72 ± .02.68 ± .03.77 ± .03
Few-NERD-L1.68 ± .02.81 ± .02.59 ± .02
WikiNER-en.49 ± .03.43 ± .03.56 ± .03
WNUT2017.68 ± .02.73 ± .03.66 ± .03
", + "image_path": "2f64d640d5396dfedb16febb1d69618188f234d0f864166ddde077ea71b23513.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 555 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Fine-tuned model LFs on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets. All these LFs have a lower performance compared to the aggregated model SWEET, reported in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "domain LFs yields similar F1 scores with SWEET, but compromises recall for precision. We note that without using any domain data (second to last row of Table 4), SWEET is able to achieve the same F1 score as a setup that uses only domain data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also observe that removing HTUNSUP LFs results in an F1 score decrease only on HTNAME. Moreover, these LFs do as well on their own (last four rows in Table 6), although they are still lower than SWEET on HTNAME, showing that the aggregation of LFs fine-tuned on diverse datasets is a key component of SWEET." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 379, + 403 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 379, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 379, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 448, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 448, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 448, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Effect of using ChatGPT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although ChatGPT is the best performing model on HTNAME (Table 2), there are concerns regarding its use on escort ads. First, there is some financial cost associated with employing ChatGPT on large datasets of escort ads which limits its accessibility whereas our method is open-source and completely free to use. Second, the stability of the OpenAI API output is a concern as discussed in (Chen et al., 2023). While this does not hurt our method much where one only needs to get good performance a single time (to provide weak labels on a fixed dataset), and one could consider even the more powerful GPT-4, it means it would be unreliable to build a system for real-world applications based on ChatGPT alone. Finally, depending on the method used to access ChatGPT, there can be privacy concerns with this sensitive data. The intended use of our method is on large scale real-time ads with sensitive information, and using ChatGPT, is not feasible due to cost, stability and privacy issues mentioned above." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, although ChatGPT is a valuable ingredient in SWEET, our ablations directly show that it is not sufficient. In the target domain our full system achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "87\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 (Table 4). Simply apply" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3361" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 229 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodHTNAMEHTGEN
F1PrecRecF1PrecRec
All LFs - HTGEN LFs.88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.86 ± .02.82 ± .02.91 ± .02.82 ± .02.77 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - HTGEN LFs- HTUNSUP LFs (Domain Data).88 ± .01.85 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .02.71 ± .03.78 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs.85 ± .01.79 ± .01.93 ± .01.81 ± .02.75 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTUNSUP LFs.83 ± .02.76 ± .01.92 ± .01.81 ± .02.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
All LFs - Antirules - HTGEN LFs - HTUNSUP LFs.82 ± .02.76 ± .02.92 ± .02.81 ± .01.76 ± .03.84 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs.76 ± .01.76 ± .02.76 ± .02.81 ± .02.79 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + Antirules.86 ± .01.82 ± .01.92 ± .01.75 ± .04.82 ± .05.64 ± .05
Only HTUNSUP LFs.87 ± .01.88 ± .01.88 ± .01.81 ± .03.77 ± .04.81 ± .04
Only HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.87 ± .01.92 ± .02.85 ± .02.76 ± .04.83 ± .05.66 ± .05
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs.85 ± .01.85 ± .02.87 ± .02.82 ± .03.78 ± .03.81 ± .03
Only HTGEN LFs + HTUNSUP LFs + Antirules.86 ± .02.86 ± .01.86 ± .01.82 ± .03.79 ± .04.81 ± .04
", + "image_path": "5a00623f6da1429c84a8b8d583e41d82c1ef16a5fb84ebb04636b01ecbb25dd9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 525, + 263 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 525, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 525, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Ablation results of SWEET. -Antirules indicates removal of the antirule LFs component of SWEET. HTGEN LFs or HTUNSUP LFs indicates LMs fine-tuned on HTGEN or HTUNSUP respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing language models trained on ChatGPT-labeled data achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "82\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at best (Table 5), significantly lower. Conversely, our approach without using any ChatGPT-labeled data maintains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "88\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 284, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 (Table 6, \"SWEET- DomainData\")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 171, + 373 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 171, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 171, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Label Efficiency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 377, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 377, + 291, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 377, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our pipeline eliminates the need for human labelers as it is independent of training labels for the task at hand, making use of existing open-source labeled data for fine-tuning language models instead. This is advantageous over other label-dependent NER models, especially in the HT domain where data labeling is costly and time-consuming. Being label independent is also beneficial in terms of ethics and privacy as the HT domain contains many examples of private information like names, locations, social media tags, and phone numbers. These types of data would no longer need to be read by a crowdsourced worker or human labeler in order to generate labels for training. More importantly, our method is also independent of LFs trained on the same data as the domain. For e.g., SWEET excluding LFs trained on HTGEN and HTUNSUP (SWEET - DomainData) performs as well or even better than SWEET." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 147, + 656 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 147, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 147, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we introduced SWEET, a weak supervision pipeline that extracts person names from escort ads without the need for manual labeling. The experimental evaluations show that SWEET achieves SOTA results on the HTNAME dataset with an F1 score of 0.87, outperforming the previous SOTA by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while also generalizing better to CoNLL2003 and WNUT2017 datasets. Moreover," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 526, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SWEET maintains or improves this performance on removing any LFs trained on relevant domain data. SWEET does not require any human annotators and labeling which is a very important improvement over previous methods because it allows it to be applied easily to real-world datasets. It can also be easily adapted to other domains by designing specific new labeling functions. We also release a new public escort ad dataset HTGEN that uses ChatGPT for both data generation and labeling, which will improve reproducibility and benchmarking in this domain where most data cannot be shared publicly, as it contains personal information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 384, + 482 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 384, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 384, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite SWEET having achieved SOTA results on HTNAME, several limitations need to be considered while interpreting the findings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Dataset Size and Diversity: The HTNAME database used in this research is a modified version of HT1k from Li et al. (2022). The dataset contains a limited number of data (around 1000 ads). 5-fold evaluation is deployed to accommodate for this small size. While generating HTGEN, although efforts were made to ensure its representativeness and diversity, HTGen's data may still not be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " representative of real data. This may limit the generalizability of the models trained on it to other domains or datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Explainability and transparency: HT is a high-stakes application domain and transparency, explainability, and accuracy are all equally important. SWEET has the ability to aggregate multiple models together to get a final" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3362" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 71, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "prediction. However, it uses HMM for aggregation which is more complex and less explainable than the ad-hoc way deployed by Li et al. (2022). Moreover, the output of the fine-tuned LFs is also less interpretable. SWEET sacrifices some explainability for increased performance. However, thanks to its modularity, the HMM aggregator can be swapped out for a more explainable method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Cost: We were able to improve performance by aggregating BERT models fine-tuned on a variety of NER datasets. This is time-consuming and costly. We used industrial-grade GPUs (RTX8000, V100 and A100) to fine-tune the BERT models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 275, + 291, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 275, + 291, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 275, + 291, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Privacy: The HT domain contains private information like a person's name, address, social media tag, email, and phone number. Although the HTNAME and HTUNSUP datasets consists of ads scraped from public websites, these websites may not be fully regulated, and thus, data coming from these ads may violate the privacy of individuals being advertised in those ads. We had to refrain from releasing these datasets because of privacy and ethical concerns. Thus, directly replicating our results on HTNAME and HTUNSUP is not possible. To help counteract this and improve reproducibility, we released HTGEN." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 464, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 464, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 464, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Lack of variety: We have shown that the HTGEN dataset generated by ChatGPT contains realistic-sounding ads. However, the ads tend to be more repetitive than our datasets (HTUNSUP, HTNAME) with real data scraped from the web. Changing the temperature settings and other parameters showed promise at boosting the variation in the generations but the model was more inclined to produce nonsensical sentences. Future work should aim at increasing variety in the generated ads and keep noise within a desired range. With more variety of data in the generations, it would also be possible to decrease the size of HTGEN by reducing the number of redundant examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 158, + 685 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 158, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 671, + 158, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rigorous ethical considerations were taken during the process of this research. The data we use is publicly available, and due to the nature of the advertisements, there are no reasonable expectations for privacy. However, due to the sensitivity of the data, Ethics Approval has been obtained from the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Research Ethics Board Office at the authors' university for using this type of data. We have also studied the current best practices for the project through a commissioned Responsible AI Institute evaluation, one of whose recommendation was to focus on a human-centered design. To this end, we have biweekly consultations with human trafficking survivors and have been mindful of not reproducing biases in the design of the algorithm. No personal attributes such as age, physical descriptors, ethnicity, etc were used. In addition, we have also reviewed the current law and policy implications through a comprehensive legal risk assessment and mitigation memorandum from a law firm. As the laws and policies in this domain are catching up with the technologies, we also plan to conduct research in close collaboration with domain experts into the most ethical approach to AI in this domain. Lastly, for transparency and accountability, all of the algorithms being developed will be made available online. Data scraping scripts and our datasets (except those synthetically generated) will not be shared publicly to maintain confidentiality and anonymity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 424, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 424, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 424, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9 Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research is partially funded by the Canada CIFAR AI Chairs Program and Samsung-Mila Research Grant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 492, + 362, + 505 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 492, + 362, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 492, + 362, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 512, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 512, + 527, + 589 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 512, + 527, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 512, + 527, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alan Akbik, Tanja Bergmann, Duncan Blythe, Kashif Rasul, Stefan Schweter, and Roland Vollgraf. 2019. FLAIR: An easy-to-use framework for state-of-the-art NLP. In *NAACL* 2019, 2019 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), pages 54-59." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 598, + 527, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 598, + 527, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 598, + 527, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018a. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 527, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 527, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 527, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alan Akbik, Duncan Blythe, and Roland Vollgraf. 2018b. Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In COLING 2018, 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1638-1649." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and ShMargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3363" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610-623." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 289, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 289, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 289, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen Bonifacio. 2023. Creating a chatgpt based chatbot using \"in-context learning\" method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 289, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 289, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 289, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom B Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In USEnIX Security Symposium, volume 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 289, + 252 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 289, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 219, + 289, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lingjiao Chen, Matei Zaharia, and James Zou. 2023. How is chatgpt's behavior changing over time? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09009." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 337 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, and Ian Roberts. 2016. Broad Twitter corpus: A diverse named entity recognition resource. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1169-1179, Osaka, Japan. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 140-147, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 432, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 432, + 289, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 432, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 289, + 583 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 289, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 289, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 289, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 289, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 289, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Mael Kubli. 2023. Chatgpt outperforms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 289, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electro-style pretraining with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem, Adriane Boyd, et al. 2020. spacy: Industrialstrength natural language processing in python." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023a. Is chatgpt better than human annotators? potential and limitations of chatgpt in explaining implicit hate speech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07736." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023b. Is {ChatGPT} better than human annotators? potential and limitations of {ChatGPT} in explaining implicit hate speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Hutchinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Denton, Kellie Webster, Yu Zhong, and Stephen Denuyl. 2020. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491-5501, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "International Labour Organization. 2022. Global estimates of modern slavery: forced labour and forced marriage. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public----ed_norm----ipec/documents/publication/wcms_854733.pdf." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 330 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hang Jiang, Yining Hua, Doug Beeferman, and Deb Roy. 2022. Annotating the tweetbank corpus on named entity recognition and building NLP models for social media analysis. CoRR, abs/2201.07281." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mayank Kejriwal and Rahul Kapoor. 2019. Network-theoretic information extraction quality assessment in the human trafficking domain. Applied Network Science, 4(1):1-26." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 393, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 393, + 525, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 393, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mayank Kejriwal, Pedro Szekely, and Craig Knoblock. 2018. Investigative knowledge discovery for combating illicit activities. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 33(1):53-63." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 446, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 446, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 446, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing, pages 166-172, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 525, + 598 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 525, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 522, + 525, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meng-Chieh Lee, Catalina Vajiac, Aayushi Kulshrestha, Sacha Levy, Namyong Park, Cara Jones, Reihaneh Rabbany, and Christos Faloutsos. 2021. Info-shield: Generalizable information-theoretic humantrafficking detection. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 1116-1127. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumont, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierric Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3364" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 289, + 140 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 289, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 289, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoran Li, Dadi Guo, Wei Fan, Mingshi Xu, Jie Huang, Fanpu Meng, and Yangqiu Song. 2023. Multi-step jailbreaking privacy attacks on chatgpt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 150, + 289, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 150, + 289, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 150, + 289, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifei Li, Pratheeksha Nair, Kellin Pelrine, and Reihaneh Rabbany. 2022. Extracting person names from user generated text: Named-entity recognition for combatting human trafficking. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2854-2868." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 289, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pierre Lison, Jeremy Barnes, and Aliaksandr Hubin. 2021. skweak: Weak supervision made easy for NLP. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Zhengzi Xu, Yuekang Li, Yaowen Zheng, Ying Zhang, Lida Zhao, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023. Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 289, + 427 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 289, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 289, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 289, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinhao Mei, Chutong Meng, Haohe Liu, Qiuqiang Kong, Tom Ko, Chengqi Zhao, Mark D. Plumbley, Yuexian Zou, and Wenwu Wang. 2023. Wavcaps: A chatgpt-assisted weakly-labelled audio captioning dataset for audio-language multimodal research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 583 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "S. D. MINOR. 2015. A report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 595, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 595, + 289, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 595, + 289, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shubhanshu Mishra and Jana Diesner. 2016. Semi-supervised named entity recognition in noisy-text. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (WNUT), pages 203-212." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 289, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 289, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 289, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chirag Nagpal, Kyle Miller, Benedikt Boecking, and Artur Dubrawski. 2017. An entity resolution approach to isolate instances of human trafficking online. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pages 77-84, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joel Nothman, Nicky Ringland, Will Radford, Tara Murphy, and James R. Curran. 2012. Learning multilingual named entity recognition from Wikipedia. *Artificial Intelligence*, 194:151-175." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2227-2237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 525, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Polaris. 2021. 2020 u.s national human trafficking hotline statistics. https://shorturl.at/juB57." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reihaneh Rabbany, David Bayani, and Artur Dubrawski. 2018. Active search of connections for case building and combating human trafficking. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2120-2129." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the thirteenth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 351, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 351, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 351, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander J Ratner, Christopher M De Sa, Sen Wu, Daniel Selsam, and Christopher Ré. 2016. Data programming: Creating large training sets, quickly. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 438 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 525, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leanne Maree Rhodes. 2016. Human trafficking as cybercrime. AGORA INTERNATIONAL OF ADMINISTRATION SCIENCES, 4:23-29." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 447, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 447, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 447, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thorn. 2015. Report on the use of technology to recruit, groom and sell domestic minor sex trafficking victims. https://2715111qnwey246mkc1vzqg0-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Survivor_Survey_r5.pdf." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiqi Tong, Yidong Chen, and Xiaodong Shi. 2021. A multi-task approach for improving biomedical named entity recognition by incorporating multi-granularity information. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4804-4813." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 672, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 672, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 672, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3365" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 117, + 291, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 117, + 291, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 117, + 291, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. LUKE: Deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6442-6454, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 35-45, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 290, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiming Zhu, Peixian Zhang, Ehsan-Ul Haq, Pan Hui, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Can chatgpt reproduce human-generated labels? a study of social computing tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reader's discretion: Appendix D contains examples of escort ads that contain vulgar and explicit language. If you prefer to avoid explicit language or find such content uncomfortable, we advise you to stop reading before reaching appendix D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 190, + 464 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 190, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 190, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Labeling Functions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fine-tuned Models For fine-tuning the Token-Classification models, we use a wrapper from Huggingface (Wolf et al., 2020) AutoModelForToken-Classification class to compile different backbones, here RoBERTa and DeBERTaV3. We adopt the train-test split of CONLL2003 and WNUT2017 from the Huggingface datasets (Lhoest et al., 2021) for the convenience of reproducing the results (\"wnut_17\" for WNUT2017, \"conll2003\" for CoNLL2003). For FewNERD-L1 and WikiNERen, we directly downloaded the official stored file and parsed it to the same format as a Dataset loaded from the Datasets Library for running the experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the training stage, the learning rate is relative to batch size, which is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2 \\times 10^{-5} \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (batch_size/128). We train for 5 epochs with AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) (weight Decay=0.01) on one A100 (40GB) GPU. Detailed information about both the size of the training datasets and the used training batch size are listed in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Individual Labeling Functions We provide the performance of individual labeling functions in this section. Table 7 shows the performance of LFs used in the NEAT (Weakly Supervised) experiment in Table 3. Table 8 and Table 9 shows the results of individual fine-tuned models used as LFs in SWEET." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 163, + 523, + 201 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 163, + 523, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 163, + 523, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 163, + 523, + 201 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelF1PrecisionRecall
Label-Indep NEAT Rules.43 ± .03.88 ± .02.28 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Dictionary.78 ± .02.83 ± .02.74 ± .02
Label-Indep NEAT Disambiguation.79 ± .02.80 ± .02.77 ± .02
", + "image_path": "306189bce7eabff33fae304ec33b18d6b95b4a2a9dcdbf63ce24d22e17020123.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 262, + 523, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 210, + 525, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 210, + 525, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 210, + 525, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: NEAT-based LFs scores on HTNAME evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 262, + 523, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 262, + 523, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 262, + 523, + 361 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.67 ± .11.82 ± .14.57 ± .14
CoNLL2003.97 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.95 ± .01.91 ± .01
WikiNER-en.96 ± .01.97 ± .02.97 ± .02
WNUT2017.58 ± .04.56 ± .04.65 ± .04
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.74 ± .06.84 ± .07.60 ± .07
CoNLL2003.98 ± .02.98 ± .02.99 ± .02
Few-NERD-L1.92 ± .01.94 ± .02.92 ± .02
WikiNER-en.93 ± .03.94 ± .05.97 ± .05
WNUT2017.89 ± .02.87 ± .02.88 ± .02
", + "image_path": "5f3ddb197670a8d63e797cc74c05d53cb9bc4758cac2475031240d48d42e2467.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 421, + 523, + 519 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 392 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 392 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on CoNLL2003 evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 421, + 523, + 519 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 421, + 523, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 421, + 523, + 519 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelDatasetF1PrecisionRecall
DeBERTaV3-baseHTUNSUP.41 ± .11.50 ± .14.52 ± .14
CoNLL2003.72 ± .04.71 ± .08.73 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.66 ± .12.82 ± .13.41 ± .13
WikiNER-en.65 ± .11.69 ± .13.52 ± .13
WNUT2017.62 ± .09.71 ± .15.47 ± .15
RoBERTa-baseHTUNSUP.53 ± .07.56 ± .13.63 ± .13
CoNLL2003.71 ± .05.67 ± .08.71 ± .08
Few-NERD-L1.61 ± .10.67 ± .10.45 ± .10
WikiNER-en.65 ± .10.63 ± .09.57 ± .09
WNUT2017.67 ± .09.81 ± .14.48 ± .14
", + "image_path": "594ce54eec701f3dce7b2bf437606bda5e364006d3bf63e4d7a23f13ec7c1409.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 551 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Fine-tuned model LFs of SWEET on WNUT2017 evaluated on 5-fold test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 481, + 598 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 481, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 481, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B ChatGPT and the HT Domain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT is an advanced language model developed by OpenAI and built upon the GPT architecture. Although the training data that is used to train ChatGPT is not made public, it is built upon the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer). These models were trained on Common Crawl, a dataset that includes a wide range of web content and ad-related content. By providing essential background and convincing ChatGPT that it is a researcher that studies human trafficking, we were able to guide it to generate a list of patterns generally seen in escort ads (Figure 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3366" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 73, + 280, + 185 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 73, + 279, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 73, + 279, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 73, + 279, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. \"Beautiful roses for sale - come and pick your favorite bouquet today\" - this ad uses the rose symbol to lure potential victims into a false sense of security, before offering them up for sale." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 101, + 276, + 122 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 101, + 276, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 101, + 276, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. \"Outcall girls available now - come experience the pleasure of our talented escorts\" - this ad uses the term \"outcall\" to suggest that the trafficked individuals will be brought to the customer, rather than the customer going to them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 129, + 280, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 129, + 280, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 129, + 280, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. \"Meet our lovely ladies - Lisa, Kate, and Lexi are waiting for you to call\" - this adds up uses nicknames instead of real names, which is a common tactic used by traffickers to avoid detection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 157, + 277, + 185 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 157, + 277, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 157, + 277, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. \"Grilfriend experiens - call now for a good time with the hottest girls in town\" - this ad employs misspellings to evade filters, as well as intimating that these girls are offering a kind of relationship experience in order to appeal to vulnerable individuals." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 207, + 279, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 207, + 279, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 207, + 279, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By finding and analyzing similar ads to these, researchers will be able to develop a better understanding of the patterns and language used by human traffickers, ultimately enabling law enforcement to more effectively combat this heinous activity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 248, + 283, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 248, + 283, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 248, + 283, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: ChatGPT's Understanding of HT Domain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 281, + 201, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 281, + 201, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 281, + 201, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Problems with LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models, such as ChatGPT have garnered recognition from researchers for their versatility on a wide range of NLP tasks while exhibiting commendable performance compared to other SOTA models. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that these models have also faced significant scrutiny and critical appraisals. In this context, we mainly highlight the issue of Encoding Bias." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to the large size of the datasets used to train LLMs, it is very difficult to check and verify every part of the training dataset for potential bias. Thus, it is common for large language models to exhibit various types of bias as stated in (Bender et al., 2021; Hutchinson et al., 2020; Kurita et al., 2019). When building HTGEN, we observed that the generated text had a propensity to include derogatory language (Figure 3), and sexually explicit words (Figure 4). It also generated ads that have a negative sentiment towards the black community (Figure 5). Of all the examples generated in HTGEN, black people are denied services more than any other ethnic group. No mention of the words found in Figures 3 and 4 had occurred in any prompting processes. This ability to generate realistic sounding ads suggests that there is a good chance it had exposure to escort ads during its training process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 208, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 208, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 208, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Examples of escort ads" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 94, + 495, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 94, + 495, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 94, + 495, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sexy Cougar - 41 Hello there, my name is Gina. I'm a sexy and mature brunette with curves in all the right places. Let me show you what a real woman can do. I'm experienced and know how to please a man. Incalls only. Call or text me at 905-XXX-XXXXX to book an appointment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 173, + 503, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 173, + 503, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 173, + 503, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Derogatory or Offensive Language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 200, + 499, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 200, + 499, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 200, + 499, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SeXy BIAcK MiLFO Have you ever tried a Sexy, spicy Black woman? Look no further, I'm the perfect combination of Sexiness, Beauty, Intelligence, and personality. I'm Angell, 38 years old and I'm the perfect woman for you. I have smooth chocolate skin, an amazing body and I know how to please. I'm completely independent and discreet, always ready to satisfy all your needs. I provide all safe services, no rushed sessions, and easy parking. Call or text me now at (XXX)-XXX-XXXX. No AA or Trades Please." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 302, + 504, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 302, + 504, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 302, + 504, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Usage of Vulgar and Sexually Explicit Words" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 328, + 499, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 328, + 499, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 328, + 499, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Young SPANISH BEAUTY IN TOWN XoXo Outcalls 24/7 Hi! I am a young, sexy, and beautiful Spanish girl ready to provide you with a mesmerizing experience. I offer outcalls 24/7, and I am always discreet and professional. I provide an unforgettable experience and satisfy all your fantasies. Call or text me to book an appointment. No black men. Xoxo" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 465, + 473, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 465, + 473, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 465, + 473, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Racism in HTGEN" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 534, + 455, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 534, + 455, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 534, + 455, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: Michelle's $80" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 548, + 451, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 548, + 451, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 548, + 451, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CARCALL Special!!!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 561, + 495, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 561, + 495, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 561, + 495, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Description: LOWBALLERS WILL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 575, + 495, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 575, + 495, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 575, + 495, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " BE BLOCKED!!! $80 BBB---J $130" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 588, + 492, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 588, + 492, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 588, + 492, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F--S $160 BB--FS 123-456-789" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 335, + 614, + 492, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 335, + 614, + 492, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 335, + 614, + 492, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Example ad From HTNAME" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 644, + 470, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 644, + 470, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 644, + 470, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: GisellaGorgeous Puerto Rican" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 654, + 498, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 654, + 498, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 654, + 498, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Description: My name is Gisella sexy little petite thing with curves that don't stop I am excited to be your grown up bestie and come over for a private playdate. I love to make new friends! Let's get together and see what kind of trouble we can stir up! (916)888-7777 no extra photos don't ask for any, I am not a cheap commodity incalls only." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 735, + 489, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 735, + 489, + 747 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 735, + 489, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Example ad From HTGEN" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3367" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_content_list.json b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ca9cb90fa0777b5846606822cd602eec1c28c10 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2521 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SYMPTOMIFY: Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 200, + 89, + 800, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bosung Kim and Ndapa Nakashole", + "bbox": [ + 344, + 143, + 657, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Computer Science and Engineering", + "bbox": [ + 356, + 160, + 645, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of California, San Diego", + "bbox": [ + 356, + 177, + 645, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "La Jolla, CA 92093", + "bbox": [ + 420, + 193, + 581, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "bosungkim@ucsd.edu, nnakashole@eng.ucsd.edu", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 210, + 719, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the high-stakes nature of healthcare decision-making, we aim to improve the efficiency of human annotators rather than replacing them with fully automated solutions. We introduce a new comprehensive resource, SYMPTOMIFY, a dataset of annotated vaccine adverse reaction reports detailing individual vaccine reactions. The dataset, consisting of over $800k$ reports, surpasses previous datasets in size. Notably, it features reasoning-based explanations alongside background knowledge obtained via language model knowledge harvesting. We assess data quality, and evaluate performance across various methods and learning paradigms, paving the way for future comparisons and benchmarking. $^1$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 275, + 460, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 514, + 258, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Drug safety monitoring systems like Vigibase (Lindquist, 2008) and VAERS² are essential for evaluating the safety of medications and vaccines. These systems enable anyone to report drug reactions, facilitating early detection of vaccine safety issues. For example, if a mother observes vomiting and fever in her two-year-old after the chickenpox vaccine, she may be curious about the frequency of similar reactions reported by others. VAERS' online browser can provide the answer. Being able to provide such answers involves normalizing the raw patient reports in order to address variations caused by polysemy, abbreviations, and other factors present in these informal and potentially noisy reports.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VAERS employs trained staff to review and \"code\" each submitted report, assigning formal medical terms to the symptoms experienced by the patient. VAERS terms come from the standardized medical terminology known as the Medical", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 780, + 489, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/251e8683f793e15a8f9429b210845a48be67dddb1fa0bf51fc642ce0f6e4557a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: A to C illustrate the stages of drug safety monitoring systems like VAERS. We aim to improve the efficiency of skilled human coders in step B by facilitating the development of systems that identify symptoms and offer explanations to aid coders, as demonstrated by the model-generated output in step D." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 252, + 877, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) (Brown et al., 1999; Shimabukuro et al., 2015). To illustrate the coding process, consider the report: $\\mathbf{R} \\mathbf{I}$ : \"I had a $90\\%$ loss of smell/taste the next day. Also felt irritable and nervous but manageable.\" This report is annotated with these MedDRA terms: Ageusia, Anosmia, Irritability, Nervousness.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 629, + 884, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our aim is to support the decision-making of human coders during annotation, by supporting the development of symptom recognition models that can predict and explain identified symptoms (Figure 1). Given the high-stakes nature of this field, where data interpretation can carry life-or-death consequences, fully automated solutions are not yet sufficiently accurate. Specifically, we present a resource of annotated reports detailing people's reactions to vaccines, and enriched in several ways. In summary, our contributions are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/bosung/SYMPTOMIFY.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 487, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{2}$ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System https:// vaers.hhs.gov/data.html", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11667", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11667-11681", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 784, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. SYMPTOMIFY Dataset: We present a symptom recognition dataset derived from VAERS informal medical reports with over 800k entries. Beyond its scale, we enhance the dataset by adding explanations and background knowledge substantially boosting its utility for advancing systems that aid human coders in annotation.", + "2. Annotation Explanations: We enrich SYMP-TOMIFY with annotation explanations, carefully harvested from LLMs. We showcase their usefulness on the newly released Falcon language model.", + "3. Background Knowledge Augmentation: We augment SYMPTOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms, improving performance, particularly for rare symptoms.", + "4. Performance Evaluation: We implement and evaluate various baselines across different methods and learning paradigms, facilitating future comparisons and benchmarking." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 489, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work and Existing Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 460, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work is related to the old task of Named Entity Recognition (NER), which is the task of mapping mentions of entities in text to standardized entity names (Sutton and McCallum, 2004; Ratinov and Roth, 2009; Ritter et al., 2011; Hoffart et al., 2011; Cao et al., 2021). Our work goes beyond recognizing entities as we wish to support human decision making. Additionally, our work is complementary to work on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016), and can be used to build more explainable models. Furthermore, there are efforts to enhance open-source LLMs by extracting instruction-output pairs from massive, paid-API LLMs. The goal is to gather valuable data that can be utilized for instruction tuning of open-source models. This method is particularly beneficial for projects that lack the financial resources to hire people for human feedback, thereby democratizing access to advanced LLM capabilities (Peng et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Closer to our work are prior efforts on creating datasets for medical entity recognition from diverse sources, including death certificates (Goeuriot et al., 2017), scientific publications (Verspoor et al., 2012; Mohan and Li, 2019), and electronic health records (EHRs) (Suominen et al., 2013). While these corpora contribute to medical entity recognition, they", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/024017f98b81d82d8d5b8f2d03aa952b86c25f93698e2e3f4a675357cebb22ea.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetSource# SymptomsSize
SYMPTOMIFY (ours)VAERS11,472871,373
COMETA (Basaldella et al., 2020)Reddit7,64520,000
MedRed (Scepanovic et al., 2020)Reddit182,000
RedMed (Laverty and Altman, 2019)Reddit2,978n/a
Twitter TwiMed (Alvaro et al., 2017)Twitter3,1442,000
CADEC (Karimi et al., 2015)AskaPatient6,7541,253
Twitter ADR (Nikfarjam et al., 2015)Twitter1,2801,784
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 880, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: SYMPTOMIFY surpasses the scale of previous related datasets for entity recognition in informal health reports. Additionally, SYMPTOMIFY contains annotation explanations and background knowledge about symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 189, + 884, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "differ from the focus of our work, which centers around user-generated text.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 286, + 882, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 summarizes datasets closely related to ours, with many, like ours, targeting pharmacovigilance, and unlike ours, originating from social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit. Like our work, these efforts aimed to identify symptoms mentioned in unstructured and informal textual sources. SYMPTOMIFY surpasses previous datasets in size, and notably, it incorporates annotation explanations and provides background knowledge about symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 884, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 LM Knowledge Harvesting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 491, + 779, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Access to the most powerful LMs is often limited to paid APIs with query restrictions. In dynamic settings, such as continuous MedDRA report annotation, rapid query response is crucial. Therefore, we propose to extract a portion of LM knowledge to enrich an existing dataset. This approach allows greater control, transparency, and balance between performance, cost-efficiency, and autonomy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 517, + 882, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Enriching existing datasets meets a widespread need as under-specified datasets are common. A prominent example comes from Question Answering tasks where only few datasets are fully labeled with question, answer, passage, and span.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 882, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our work, key steps to upgrade a dataset via LM knowledge harvesting include: (i) Identifying Shortcomings: Assess the dataset to determine missing elements and areas needing improvement. (ii) Creating Good Prompts: Design prompts using existing dataset examples to minimize potential ambiguities. (iii) Checking Data Quality: Implement strategies to assess LLM output quality, ensuring it is accurate, useful, and safe. (iv) Maintaining Detailed Records: Document the harvesting process, including prompts, LLM configurations, and dates, for improved transparency and reproducibility.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11668", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 The SYMPTOMIFY Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 381, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With VAERS3 as the starting dataset, we used LM knowledge harvesting to create SYMPTOMIFY. The dataset spans three years (2019-2021) and includes 839, 215 reports, incorporating symptom texts, relevant MedDRA terms, and associated metadata like age, sex, and vaccine type.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 116, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Quantitative Analysis of MedDRA coders", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 234, + 485, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VAERS uses certified MedDRA coders to assign formal medical terms to symptoms. We evaluated the quality of these annotations via crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We first randomly selected 1,000 symptoms and then selected a corresponding patient report (symptom text) mentioning that specific symptom. A symptom was considered correctly annotated if two out of three evaluators agreed. Based on this accuracy metric, VAERS staff correctly labeled $93.4\\%$ of the 1,000 tested symptoms, highlighting the high quality of their annotations. Still, this figure might underestimate the true accuracy, as most challenging examples were medical test results not stated in patient reports (such as C-reactive protein levels or metabolic function tests). The agreement rate among evaluators was moderately strong (0.55 Fleiss' Kappa), similar to related annotation tasks reported in the literature which showed agreements in the range: 0.55 - 0.62 (Wadhwa et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2018; Deleger et al., 2012).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 260, + 489, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT as the 4-th annotator. ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) served as a fourth annotator alongside three human coders, working on the same 1,000 tasks. The provided prompt was: \"Does the following patient report mention ' $\\{SYNTEM\\} ^{\\prime}$ : $\\{REPORT\\} ?$ .ChatGPT agreed with MedDRA in $86.7\\%$ of the cases. However, this figure might overestimate ChatGPT's symptom recognition capacity, as this binary task is significantly simpler than unguided symptom identification. We further probed ChatGPT's abilities through tests more authentically reflecting symptom recognition.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 618, + 489, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6ca489ab5fcf2de3a6f44e8d1330866437f0f3c9fa3510f82708e0c334e9ffc8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Distribution of explanation lengths in number of words." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 586, + 84, + 803, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/44e82686f795ef1e616d249b8c42561d6761561a6b098e445a7a77e9b9276ad4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Visualizing the top 30 most frequent 4-grams in explanations. These phrases often indicate that the explanations quote spans from the patient reports." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 544, + 256, + 848, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Harvesting Annotation Explanations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 546, + 843, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We augment VAERS data by incorporating explanations to compensate for the absence of span-level annotations. Using GPT-3.5, we generated explanations to add to the dataset. The prompt used was: \"Explain why the patient report mentions 'SYMP-TOM' \", quoting report fragments where possible: $\\{REPORT\\} ^{\\prime \\prime}$ .ChatGPT's responses were then used as explanations. These explanations offer extended context beyond the report's explicit content, like identifying Hypoxia from a report referencing an \"oxygen saturation of $86\\%$ , correctly interpreting it as low blood oxygen. By directly quoting from the patient report, the explanations also provide span-level information.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 569, + 882, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitative Analysis of Explanations. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the distribution of explanation lengths and the 30 most recurrent 4-grams within the explanations, respectively. Often, these frequently appearing phrases refer to the symptom mentions in patient reports, including phrases like \"is mentioned in the,\" \"the report states that,\" \"frag", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{3}$ VAERS is jointly managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 829, + 487, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4Details of the annotation task are provided in Appendix A.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 485, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5Overall, the annotation process cost $723 (US dollars) and involved 201 workers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11669", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0b5beaa8fcb7e462b5d2ceddc0243700b57d6ceb18554c4a977a6244b26b8321.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
VaccineSymptomExplanation Fragment
FLU4Dizziness posturalThis is evident from the following fragment of the report: "I became extremely dizzy when I tried to stand.
COVID19LymphadenopathyThis is evident from the statement "My lymph nodes were swollen."
FLUA3Throat tightnessThe following fragments from the report indicate the presence of the symptom: - "throat feeling like its about to close" - "swelling and lump in throat on right side"
HEPAThirstThe following fragments from the report support this explanation: "He then began drinking large amounts of water throughout the day and even waking at night to ask for a drink multiple times."
FLUA4ArthralgiaThe report states "Shoulder pain" which is a common symptom of arthralgia.
FLUR4DyspnoeaThe symptom "Dyspnoea" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is experiencing difficulty breathing, which is a common symptom of dyspnoea.
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 82, + 884, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ments from the report,\" etc. Table 2 shows fragments from example explanations that feature these common 4-grams, illustrating the direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background symptom knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 254, + 487, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Quantitative Analysis of Explanations: Honesty and Helpfulness. We evaluated the explanations on two primary dimensions: 1) Honesty: Is the explanation factually accurate, without fabrications or distortions? and 2) Helpfulness: Is the explanation correct and beneficial in clarifying why a symptom is mentioned?. We randomly picked 1,000 explanations and employed a three-choice task for assessment: A) The explanation is both honest and helpful; B) The explanation is honest but not detailed enough to be helpful; and C) The explanation is neither honest nor helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation). Each task was evaluated by three annotators, with a label deemed accurate if at least two annotators agreed on it. Our findings show that $91.3\\%$ of the explanations were honest and helpful, $7.5\\%$ were honest but not helpful, and $1.2\\%$ were neither honest nor helpful. For this relatively complex task, we hired three graduate students for annotation. The agreement rate was moderately strong, with a Fleiss's Kappa of 0.60.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 348, + 489, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Harvesting Background Knowledge", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 701, + 440, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sometimes, recognizing symptoms in a report requires understanding beyond what's written. For example, a report might state \"BP is 173/109\" without mentioning hypertension directly. But, given that hypertension is defined as blood pressure above 140/90, the report implies this condition. This kind of understanding demands external knowledge. Thus, we aimed to augment SYMP-TOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a basic form of background knowledge we link each unique symptom in SYMPTOMIFY with", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/826f3ffea2f825ffd2a8dae10dc485e988ca0e5dc13ac40a29eca2f076edc6f5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Example explanation fragments featuring some of the most common 4-grams, demonstrating direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background knowledge about symptoms when necessary." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SymptomLLM DefinitionUMLS Definition
MelaenaBlood in the stool, typically caused by gastrointestinal bleeding.The black, tarry, foul-smelling feces that contain degraded blood.
IschaemiaLack of blood flow to a tissue or organ. This may be due to obstruction or a problem with the blood vessels.A decrease in blood supply caused by blockage of blood vessel.
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 252, + 884, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Examples of symptom definitions derived from both UMLS and a Language Model (LM). The comparison with UMLS definitions underscores the LM's capability to generate high-quality, medical term definitions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 882, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "its definition. We harvested symptom definitions using the LLM6. Here one could also use knowledge graphs such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004), but we found coverage to be incomplete. In our experiments, these definitions were used in zero-shot learning baselines. But, there are many other potential applications that future research could explore. Currently, SYMPTOMIFY's symptom background knowledge primarily consists of definitions. However, there are avenues to expand this knowledge further. For example, more complex relational structured data, such as known relationships between symptoms, could be extracted from large LMs in future endeavors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 884, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. In Table 3, we display two example definitions generated by the LM, comparing them with UMLS definitions to highlight the LM's proficiency in producing high-quality explanations. Certain terms used in drug safety monitoring systems may have dual meanings, creating ambiguity both within and outside the medical context. To bolster a medically-focused comprehension, particularly regarding adverse effects, we recommend integrating the phrase \"adverse effect\" into the definition prompt, and sup", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 882, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6We used, from the GPT series, the text-davinci-001 version.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11670", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "plementing the prompt with example reports from VAERS that mention the symptom in a few-shot style. This method mitigates potential misunderstandings from multiple interpretations of a term.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Quantitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. To quantitatively evaluate the definitions, we randomly selected 1,000 definitions and assigned three crowd-sourced annotators to rate each definition's accuracy. A definition was deemed accurate and useful if it gained agreement from at least two annotators. The evaluation results indicated that $96.4\\%$ of the definitions were accurate. The inter-rater agreement, Fleiss' Kappa, was 0.34, which indicates a fair degree of consensus among the raters.[7]", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 158, + 490, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experimental Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 348, + 321, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data. Our experiments use the following data splits: Training set with 671,373 instances, validation set with 83,921 instances, and test set with 83,921 instances. We further segment the test set into three subsets for more granular analysis: i) Full: The entire test set. ii) UMLS-mapped: Exclusively contains symptoms that can be mapped to UMLS, identified via exact string matching, for fair comparison with previous UMLS-focused studies, specifically Metamap. iii) Rare: Only includes 'long-tail' symptoms, those occurring in 50 or less reports, representing over $80\\%$ of all symptoms. More details of the experimental configuration can be found in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 373, + 489, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task. To set the initial benchmarks on our dataset, we started by focusing on the accuracy of symptom recognition, without considering the added information from explanations or symptom background knowledge. We represented each data point as a pair $(x, S_i)$ , where $x$ is a patient report and $S_i = \\{s_1, \\dots, s_n | s_i \\in S\\}$ is the set of symptoms mentioned in $x$ . The goal is to predict the MedDRA names of symptoms mentioned in the input report $x$ . We explore a variety of baseline methods across different learning paradigms:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 608, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. String Matching: Involves matching symptom names directly with the report text.", + "2. Symptom Embedding: Represents symptom names and report texts as dense vectors for matching." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 797, + 487, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/035c5583b3280ec78fa32b5f2813e3993febc2a57080aa97cecb01ae53e3b538.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embedding0.723.320.875.87
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 82, + 878, + 152 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Performance of string matching and symptom embedding methods. These methods do not utilize the training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 162, + 880, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1134b7a419dc669594fffbd9de475adf783ceba004ad10b846d759dcd12e7d52.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: An illustration of symptom embedding baseline. It is similar to span-based string matching, but performs matches using continuous representations rather than discrete symbols." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 221, + 865, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "3. Pretrain-Finetune: Uses pre-trained language models fine-tuned on our dataset.", + "4. Prompting: Leverages prompts to generate responses from language models in zero-shot and few-shot settings." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 468, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 String Matching Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 562, + 763, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our initial baselines attempt to align symptom mentions with MedDRA terms without considering context or utilizing training data. We employ two methods: (i) MetaMap: A National Library of Medicine-developed tool that maps text spans to symptom names in the UMLS dictionary. For fairness, we only evaluated MetaMap on the test set subset that could be UMLS-mapped. (ii) Exact String Matching: A stringent method that requires precise string matches, offering a stricter comparison than MetaMap's span matching.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 583, + 882, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results in Table 4 demonstrate the task's complexity, as these string matching methods perform poorly. The findings underline the shortcomings of simplistic approaches in effectively handling this task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 760, + 884, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Symptom Embedding Baseline", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 850, + 796, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 4, our symptom embedding method uses dense retrieval from a frozen language model. Symptom vector representations", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The annotation process engaged 1,437 workers and amounted to a cost of $522.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11671", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "are created from symptom definitions in SYMP-TOMIFY. For each symptom $s_i$ , we construct an embedding $\\mathbf{h}_{s_i}$ using its name and definition. Similarly, we generate n-gram span embeddings for each n-gram in the patient report using ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019) and the span embedding method by Ujiie et al. (2021). We then compare each symptom embedding with all n-gram embeddings using the scoring function $f(s_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}) = \\mathbf{h}_{s_i} \\cdot \\mathbf{h}[x_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}]$ . We recall spans with scores exceeding a certain threshold, determined by the best validation score. This approach is similar to zero-shot entity linking by Wu et al. (2019). In our experiments, with $n = 2$ , the embedding method did not surpass the string matching method, suggesting that further training of embeddings may be needed (see Table 4).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Pretrain-Finetune Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 368, + 379, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the substantial data available in SYMP-TOMIFY, we investigated fine-tuning baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Classification Approach. In a multi-label classification context, we experimented with various pre-trained language models including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), and ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019). We used BERT's classification paradigm, using the [CLS] vector for the sentence representation and a classifier layer. Additionally, we implemented a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) on top of BERT's last hidden states (BERT + CNN) to capture more granular features from the contextualized representations, following the approach by Safaya et al. (2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 489, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generative Approach. In the context of symptom generation, we adopt the generative entity retrieval approach of GENRE, utilizing a transformer-based encoder and decoder (Cao et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2020). In this framework, the model generates a sequence of symptom names as the target output, rather than individual entity classification. To retrieve multiple symptoms, GENRE needs annotated spans referring to each symptom. However, as mentioned, VAERS annotations lack symptom mention spans; we only know if a symptom was mentioned or not. Thus, we generate a target sequence as a comma-separated list, e.g., given the input report: \"I have muscle pain and fever\", the target sequence is: \"Myalgia, Pyrexia\". We consider baselines using BART and T5 as the pretrained models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/24399a77824a63af62d117500cb6dda07f11201a9c313c8eb6810944217f6c09.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The joint learning method combines discriminative and generative approaches in the pretrain-finetune paradigm. The classifier head (yellow) and the generation head (blue) are illustrated." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 84, + 771, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b7c894f0f3c5c341af0caacf46aed451c8c8af6e658136ec73bc6b04863718c2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
BERT-base ‡1.3415.811.4518.80
BART-base ‡1.3715.961.5518.98
ClinicalBERT ‡1.5316.321.7619.46
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.2962.688.1265.79
GEN w/ BART31.1578.9031.2281.27
GEN w/ T5-base32.0179.8832.1982.25
Joint C + GEN32.8979.9332.7082.97
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 278, + 880, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Pretrain-finetune performance. $\\ddagger$ denotes classification methods. Models without symbols are generative. Joint $C + GEN$ refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 392, + 882, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint Classification & Generation. To bring together the strengths of both discriminative and generative approaches within the pretrain-finetune framework, we implement a joint learning strategy. We use transformer-based models for both approaches, with shared transformer layers but distinct output layers for each task. This joint model structure is depicted in Figure 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 882, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. The generative techniques substantially outperformed the most effective string-matching method, demonstrating the power of such models. Leveraging T5 as the base model, the generative model achieved impressive micro F1 scores of $79.88\\%$ and $82.25\\%$ on the Full and UMLS-mapped test sets respectively. Interestingly, the multi-label classification didn't surpass the string matching approach, potentially due to the large class count (over 11K) and the bottleneck caused by the [CLS] token. However, incorporating a CNN on top of ClinicalBERT enhanced classification performance, reaching $62.68\\%$ on the full set and $65.79\\%$ on the UMLS-mapped set, but still lagging behind the generative model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 884, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The joint learning model showed modest performance improvements, confirming the benefit of combined strategies.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 852, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The variance between micro and macro F1", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11672", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/aa58868b80029322ad419926728f73dad0ccb0174c28be9bf61756e101293ba3.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
GPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3861b9709a7b1551a1d87b34540c9ca157b3b1cfade9ac6657dddf7bdfe13006.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Performance of prompting methods. While these methods fall short of the pretrain-finetune techniques, it is notable that the pretrain-finetune approach leverages the extensive SYMPTOMIFY dataset, underlining the considerable benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelRare symptoms test set
Macro F1Micro F1
String match †6.917.79
GEN (T5-base)21.7824.98
GEN w/ definitions21.7225.16
GEN w/ synthetic reports23.3125.73
GPT-2 Prompting6.637.87
ChatGPT Prompting (zero-shot)11.758.56
ChatGPT Prompting (one-shot)16.0610.49
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 266, + 495, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Macro F1 and Micro F1 of the symptom detection task on the rare symptoms test set.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 410, + 489, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scores in all configurations is due to the dataset's imbalance: $80\\%$ of symptoms are rare with 50 or fewer reports mentioning them, thus making it harder for the model to learn to accurately detect these infrequent symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 487, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Prompting Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 322, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the widespread success of LM promoting, we also experimented with prompting baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 487, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language Model Prompting. We prompted ChatGPT using the following prompt: $x =$ Extract a comma-separated list of symptoms from the following report: \" $\\{\\text{REPORT}\\}$ \". In addition to zero-shot prompting, we explored the few-shot setting, specifically the one-shot setting with a single test set example added to the prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 487, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Discriminative models assign mentions to specific class labels, while generative language models have a vocabulary that may differ from the formal symptom names in MedDRA. For instance, when generating the symptom \"Pyrexia,\" ChatGPT often produces \"Fever\" instead. This necessitates answer engineering. We employ embedding-based methods using SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The prediction with the highest cosine similarity score between the predefined symptom set and the generated output is selected.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 487, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. Table 6 contains the results of the", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8979ddbd18bcddaf66253e18464a0a7f51643bcd3b675c0a6ccf195e65e60034.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Synthetic Report Generation: the LM takes symptom names as input, and to encourage semantically faithful reports, also takes background knowledge as input (A), During training, target (B) and generated reports (C) are used to compute the loss." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 84, + 867, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "prompting methods, and shows that they are unable to surpass the performance of the pretrain-finetune methods. This is expected since the pretrain-finetune models are trained on a large training data set of over 600K reports, whereas the zero-shot and one-shot prompting methods have access to zero or only one report, respectively. It is worth noting that the large-scale nature of SYMPTOMIFY highlights the significant benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 317, + 884, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 Semantically Faithful Synthetic Data for Rare Symptoms", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 870, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our experiments, all methods struggled to identify rare symptoms. To address the rare symptoms problem, we used data augmentation techniques to generate more data points for these symptoms. We tried using symptom definitions as synthetic reports but found a stark discrepancy between the language in real reports and definitions. We instead used a simple synthetic data generation method to create more realistic data points for rare symptoms, illustrated in Figure 6. We trained a GPT-2 model on prompts comprising symptom name and definition. The definition is there to ensure that the report is semantically faithful to the meaning of the symptom, also reducing ambiguity in comparison to conditioning on the symptom name alone. Using Top-k multinomial sampling, we generated 100 synthetic reports per symptom, with optimal performance using 30 reports each. We then integrated this augmented data into our training set to improve the model's handling of rare symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 546, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. Table 7 illustrates the low performance achieved on the rare symptoms dataset, as indicated by both the macro and micro F1 scores across all", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11673", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e6b0502c020e219f4d6b7cc2a9d3317c157f6d4f71a04aefb22acbf6fd458346.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
(C1) Symptom(C2) Report(C3) Zero-shot Falcon Explanation(C4) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanation
(R1) ArthralgiaPatient having shoulder pain. Made appoint-ment with doctor. MRI completed. Possible SIRVA.Arthralgia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom associated with SIRVA (Shoulder Impingement Syndrome with Radial Neuropathy)The symptom "Arthralgia" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported shoulder pain. This is evident from the state-ment "Patient having shoulder pain".
(R2) Pyrexiaall over body rash and feverPyrexia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom of feverThe symptom "Pyrexia" is mentioned in the pa-tient report because the patient is experiencing a fever.
(R3) Muscle spasmsPatient stated he was getting muscle spasms in the neck and back after the flu shot.Muscle spasms are a common side effect of the flu shot. The patient may have received the flu vaccine and experienced muscle spasms as a result.The symptom "Muscle spasms" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is ex-persiencing muscle spasms in the neck and back after receiving a flu shot.
(R4) Mood alteredFever, cold chills, restless sleep, redness at site of injection, right leg soreness-unable to stand on that leg, loss of appetite, moodiness/crying. After 12 hours of injectionThe patient reported mood altered as a result of the injection. This is mentioned in the patient report as it is a potential side effect of the med-ication.The symptom "Mood altered" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported experiencing a change in their mood. This is evident from the statement "I was moody/cry-ing."
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 878, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Falcon LM struggles to generate quality explanations (column C3) compared to ChatGPT. Yet, supplementing it with SYMPTOMIFY explanations improves its performance (column C4). Blue indicates accurate report fragments; red signifies paraphrased, non-exact matches, or hallucinations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 271, + 882, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "methods. Furthermore, we observe a modest improvement when incorporating synthetic reports into the training data. While the improvement is small, it demonstrates the (perhaps small) potential benefits of leveraging synthetic data to enhance the model's ability to handle rare symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 487, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.6 Leveraging SYMPTOMIFY's Explanations in Falcon", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 485, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We carried out an experiment to study the effectiveness of the explanations in SYMPTOMIFY using a prompting approach. For this, we used Falcon-7B-Instruct8, a new, instruction-tuned iteration of the open-source Falcon renowned for its superior performance on key NLP benchmarks. The experiment had two configurations:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 489, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1) Zero-shot Falcon Explanations: We executed standard zero-shot in-context learning with Falcon. \n2) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanations: We introduced few-shot learning in this setup, using selected SYMPTOMIFY explanations as our few-shots.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 provides a comparative analysis of Falcon's explanation generation under the two scenarios. Initially, Falcon struggled to produce beneficial explanations in the zero-shot learning context. However, its performance significantly improved in terms of specificity and context quoting when it was supplemented with few-shot learning, using a handful of SYMPTOMIFY explanations as a guide (contrast columns $C3$ and $C4$ , specifically $(R1,C4))$ . Nonetheless, false quoting of hallucinated segments, as illustrated in $(R4,C4)$ is a problem. To tackle this, one possible solution is to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "expose Falcon to a larger volume of SYMPTOMIFY explanations, thus improving its ability to generate high-quality explanations. However, due to the context size limitations in the prompting, the ideal solution to leverage these explanations effectively would be to implement the pretrain-finetune approach to use the massive SYMPTOMIFY dataset more productively as training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 340, + 884, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 486, + 640, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduced SYMPTOMIFY, a large-scale dataset of annotated reports, reflecting reactions to medications and vaccines. It includes MedDRA symptoms, annotation explanations, and background knowledge about symptoms, designed to facilitate development of systems that can aid human annotators operating in the critically important public health domain. Despite current performance on rare symptoms being low across all baselines, the continual evolution in language models and strides in few-shot learning offer promise for improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 884, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are several avenues for improving SYMP-TOMIFY and expanding its utility. Integrating the explanations into a wider range of models may lead to the better generation of explained predictions with open source models such as Falcon. Expanding background knowledge to include relational knowledge, such as inter-symptom relationships, could yield performance gains. Further, focusing on laypeople's perspectives and acquiring more layman medical terms could facilitate a broader, more inclusive understanding of symptoms. Looking further ahead, as patient reports can sometimes contain not only textual descriptions but also ref", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8https://huggingface.co/tiiuae/falcon-7b-instruct", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 373, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11674", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "erences to medical images, pictures submitted by patients, and lab test results, the incorporation of these non-textual elements using multi-modal language models, could be useful.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 161, + 220, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work, while it made useful contributions, has a number of significant limitations. First, the VAERS database, our primary data source, may not be representative of the larger population due to potential sampling biases. It also limits language diversity as it contains only English-language reports.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The symptom distribution in the reports presents a distinct challenge, with a strong skew towards certain symptoms that hinders model performance, including that of our most successful methods, like pretrain-finetune. While our attempts to rectify this through data augmentation techniques have yielded some improvement, the performance still falls short. This indicates the need for innovative methods that go beyond synthetic data expansion for addressing this challenge effectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 285, + 485, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The explanations present in SYMPTOMIFY are a rich resource that, as of now, we've only begun to explore. The explanations coupled with the public availability of the dataset offer a valuable base for other researchers to integrate into their work. Nevertheless, more exhaustive studies are needed to fully harness the potential of these explanations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 487, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The potential biases of language models like ChatGPT, known to mirror the biases in the data they're trained on, is another limitation. Although we have not observed any explicit biases in our current study, no thorough testing for bias was conducted, and it remains a concern.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 487, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, the use of non-medical experts from Amazon Mechanical Turk, as well as Computer Science graduate students for the annotation process introduces the possibility of inaccuracies into our assessment. Although we attempted to mitigate this by implementing a rigorous review process and utilizing multiple annotators, this factor may still have influenced the accuracy of our human evaluations. Future work may benefit from the involvement of medical experts in the annotation process, to increase the validity of our findings, and by extension the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 655, + 489, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 860, + 265, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models for symptom recognition have the potential to provide valuable insights for monitoring and as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "serving the safety of medicines and vaccines. They can aid in the timely identification of potential risks and contribute to individual and public health. However, the availability of data to train such models, which is the main contribution of this work, raises concerns about individual privacy. Releasing the data, which includes free text reports and metadata from VAERS, may risk the exposure of personal information or identities. We rely on the privacy monitoring efforts of the CDC and FDA, the co-managers of VAERS. Furthermore, Following prior work on automated health systems, our goal is to be clear and transparent about the content of SYMPTOMIFY and the capabilities of the methods developed in this work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 353, + 608, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Emily Alsentzer, John R. Murphy, Willie Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew B. A. McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings.", + "Nestor Alvaro, Yusuke Miyao, Nigel Collier, et al. 2017. Twimed: Twitter and pubmed comparable corpus of drugs, diseases, symptoms, and their relations. *JMIR public health and surveillance*, 3(2):e6396.", + "Marco Basaldella, Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, and Nigel Collier. 2020. Cometa: A corpus for medical entity linking in the social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03295.", + "Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The unified medical language system (uml's): integrating biomedical terminology. *Nucleic acids research*, 32(suppl_1):D267-D270.", + "Elliot G Brown, Louise Wood, and Sue Wood. 1999. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (meddra). Drug safety, 20(2):109-117.", + "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Louise Deleger, Qi Li, Todd Lingren, Megan Kaiser, Katalin Molnar, Laura Stoutenborough, Michal Kouril, Keith Marsolo, Imre Solti, et al. 2012. Building gold standard corpora for medical natural language processing tasks. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2012, page 144. American Medical Informatics Association.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 376, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11675", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608.", + "Lorraine Goeuriot, Liadh Kelly, Hanna Suominen, Aurelie Néveol, Aude Robert, Evangelos Kanoulas, Rene Spijker, Joao Palotti, and Guido Zuccon. 2017. Clef 2017 ehealth evaluation lab overview. In Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction: 8th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2017, Dublin, Ireland, September 11-14, 2017, Proceedings 8, pages 291-303. Springer.", + "Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 782-792.", + "Sarvnaz Karimi, Alejandro Metke-Jimenez, Madonna Kemp, and Chen Wang. 2015. Cadec: A corpus of adverse drug event annotations. Journal of biomedical informatics, 55:73-81.", + "Adam Laverty and Russ B Altman. 2019. Redmed: Extending drug lexicons for social media applications. Journal of biomedical informatics, 99:103307.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marie Lindquist. 2008. Vigibase, the who global icsr database system: basic facts. *Drug Information Journal*, 42(5):409-419.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101.", + "Sunil Mohan and Donghui Li. 2019. Medmentions: A large biomedical corpus annotated with umls concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09476.", + "Azadeh Nikfarjam, Abeed Sarker, Karen O'connor, Rachel Ginn, and Graciela Gonzalez. 2015. Pharmacovigilance from social media: mining adverse drug reaction mentions using sequence labeling with word embedding cluster features. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(3):671-681." + ], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Benjamin Nye, Junyi Jessy Li, Roma Patel, Yinfei Yang, Iain J Marshall, Ani Nenkova, and Byron C Wallace. 2018. A corpus with multi-level annotations of patients, interventions and outcomes to support language processing for medical literature. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2018, page 197. NIH Public Access.", + "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683.", + "Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135-1144.", + "Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Oren Etzioni, et al. 2011. Named entity recognition in tweets: an experimental study. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1524-1534.", + "Ali Safaya, Moutasem Abdullatif, and Deniz Yuret. 2020. KUISAIL at SemEval-2020 task 12: BERT-CNN for offensive speech identification in social media. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 2054–2059, Barcelona (online). International Committee for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sanja Scepanovic, Enrique Martin-Lopez, Daniele Quercia, and Khan Baykaner. 2020. Extracting medical entities from social media. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pages 170-181.", + "Tom T. Shimabukuro, Michael Nguyen, David Martin, and Frank DeStefano. 2015. Safety monitoring in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (vaers). Vaccine, 33(36):4398-4405." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11676", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Hanna Suominen, Sanna Salanterä, Sumithra Velupillai, Wendy W Chapman, Guergana Savova, Noemie Elhadad, Sameer Pradhan, Brett R South, Danielle L Mowery, Gareth JF Jones, et al. 2013. Overview of the share/clef ehealth evaluation lab 2013. In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization: 4th International Conference of the CLEF Initiative, CLEF 2013, Valencia, Spain, September 23-26, 2013. Proceedings 4, pages 212-231. Springer.", + "Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. 2004. Collective segmentation and labeling of distant entities in information extraction. Technical report, MASSACHUSETTS UNIV AMHERST DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.", + "Shogo Ujiie, Hayate Iso, Shuntaro Yada, Shoko Wakamiya, and Eiji Aramaki. 2021. End-to-end biomedical entity linking with span-based dictionary matching. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 162-167, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Karin Verspoor, Kevin Bretonnel Cohen, Arrick Lanfranchi, Colin Warner, Helen L Johnson, Christophe Roeder, Jinho D Choi, Christopher Funk, Yuriy Malenkiy, Miriam Eckert, et al. 2012. A corpus of full-text journal articles is a robust evaluation tool for revealing differences in performance of biomedical natural language processing tools. BMC bioinformatics, 13(1):1-26.", + "Somin Wadhwa, Vivek Khetan, Silvio Amir, and Byron Wallace. 2022. Redhot: A corpus of annotated medical questions, experiences, and claims on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06331.", + "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03814." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11677", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 236, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Annotation Instructions for Mechanical Turk", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 110, + 473, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conducted three assessments via the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) system and our annotation process. In this section, we describe detailed instructions and web interface screenshots used in the assessments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 148, + 487, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Symptom (or Diagnosis)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 261, + 226, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chronic spontaneous urticaria (Definition of symptom/diagnosis: a skin disorder that is characterized by the occurrence of hives (urticaria) spontaneously and chronically. These are red, itchy, and often swollen areas of skin that are the result of an allergic reaction.)", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 274, + 359, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Patient Report", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 307, + 186, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ongoing chronic spontaneous urticaria presenting 12/3/2021 (two weeks after vaccine administered). Rash disappears and reappears in different random locations (scalp, neck, back, stomach, behind ears). Oral administration of Zytec relieves symptoms for approx. 24 hours, but symptoms return when daily dosage is halted. No known existing allergies. No reactions to the first two moderna shots, only to the booster. Will seek a clinic visit soon, but has not had time yet.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 319, + 364, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Select an option", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 406, + 249, + 477, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Included", + "bbox": [ + 416, + 261, + 448, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Not included 2", + "bbox": [ + 416, + 271, + 473, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure A.1: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of MedDRA annotation in VAERS.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 386, + 485, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1) VAERS MedDRA Annotation Quality Assessment As described in section 4.1, we evaluate the annotation quality of MedDRA annotations in VAERS. The instruction given to workers is \"Given a patient's report describes their medical conditions. The goal of this task is to check whether the given symptom is included in the report or not.\" For the detailed instruction, we provided the examples as below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 487, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Symptom/Diagnosis: Anosmia", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 588, + 381, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Patient report : $90\\%$ loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 605, + 460, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "→ The answer should be Included since the report mentions \"90% loss of smell\" in the report.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 653, + 460, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Symptom/Diagnosis : Headache", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 717, + 386, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Patient report : $90\\%$ loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 734, + 460, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "→ The answer should be Not included", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 782, + 428, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also added the definition of the symptom in case that the workers are not familiar with the symptom (see Figure A.1).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 812, + 485, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2) Explanation Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is \"Given a patient report and the symptom, the explanation is describing why the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Patent Report]: Patient was observed being unsteady ambulating with her cane. She was helped to a chair and assessed, alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60. Brief history was taken and she stated she was diabetic. Patient stated that she had taken her morning diabetic medication but had not eaten anything yet today. Patient was given a bottle of water, small bag of cookies, and a package of graham crackers. She was monitored continuously for 20 additional minutes at which time the client stated she felt fine and wanted to leave. She was walked to her vehicle and secured in her seat.", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 93, + 734, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Explanation: The patient report mentions \"Respiration abnormal\" because the patient's respiration rate was slightly elevated as mentioned in the report, \"alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60.\" The patient's medical history of being diabetic and taking medication without eating or drinking was also noted. However, the patient's condition improved after being given water and some snacks and was monitored constantly for 20 additional minutes before leaving.", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 142, + 731, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Select an option", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 769, + 84, + 828, + 91 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A: The explanation is both honest and helpful 1 B:The explanation is honest but lacks details, thus not helpful C: The explanation is neither 3 D: A: It is helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation).", + "bbox": [ + 779, + 93, + 873, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure A.2: The web interface used to evaluate the quality of explanations in SYMPTOMIFY.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 193, + 880, + 222 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "symptom is mentioned in the report. Choose $\\mathbf{A}$ if the explanation is correct, and helpful in describing why the symptom is mentioned. Choose $\\mathbf{B}$ if the explanation is correct, but lacks details, thus not helpful to explain why the symptom is mentioned. Otherwise choose $\\mathbf{C}$ . Below are the examples we have provided for detailed instructions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 241, + 882, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Report: Flu-like symptoms, extreme chills (shivering), sweats for 2 days", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 532, + 370, + 855, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Symptom : Chill", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 534, + 403, + 665, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "Explanation : The patient report mentions \"extreme chills (shivering)\" as a symptom, referring to the presence of extreme chills or shivering experienced by the patient for 2 days.", + "$\\rightarrow$ The answer should be $\\mathbf{A}$ , since the explanation is correctly describing as \"The report mentions extreme chills (shivering) as a symptom\" with a reason based on the report." + ], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 434, + 858, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 611, + 858, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "→The answer should be $\\pmb{B}$ even the explanation is correct, since the explanation is NOT helpful and too short to conjecture why the symptom is mentioned.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 643, + 858, + 707 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill. It states the patient experienced dizziness and shivering for 2 days.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 724, + 858, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\rightarrow$ The answer should be $C$ since the patient did NOT experience 'dizziness', i.e., the explanation is not correct.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 772, + 858, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3) GPT-3 Definition Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is \"Given a term and definition, answer Yes or No whether the definition is correct for the term or not.\" We have provided the examples below for detailed instructions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11678", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": ": Hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 96, + 278, + 104 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(We encourage you to google the term if you don't know what it means.)", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 109, + 357, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Definition: damage or death to the brain tissue caused by a lack of oxygen (hypoxia) and/or the inability of the blood to carry enough nutrients and oxygen to the brain cells (ischemia).", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 121, + 368, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/49ff58a7877d8fc56bb23877bab8a3d0b3a1f96f6b50aff58cdb1369bbc06740.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Select an option" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Yes1
No2
", + "bbox": [ + 416, + 93, + 478, + 114 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Term: Anosmia", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 214, + 268, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Definition: Anosmia is a condition that results in a loss of the sense of smell.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 230, + 460, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "→ The answer should be Yes", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 263, + 354, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Term : Headache", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 294, + 273, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Definition : A reaction that occurs immediately following an injection.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 311, + 463, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "→ The answer should be No", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 344, + 352, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also added guidance to encourage annotators to Google search if they are unaware of the symptoms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 373, + 487, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Metadata Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 416, + 310, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VAERS contains over 20 pieces of metadata, for example patient's basic information (e.g., age and sex), medical background (e.g., allergies, and medications), and vaccination information (e.g., vaccine type, and vaccine provider). We analyze this metadata. First, we observed that some symptoms occur more frequently in certain age groups, as shown in Figure A.4. The age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine than other groups. On the one hand, teenagers (age group 10-19) are more likely to get Syncope, Loss of Consciousness, and Pallor. Second, symptoms such as Paraesthesia Oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males. Syncope, Death, and Pallor are more common in males as shown in Figure A.5. Third, symptoms vary depending on the vaccine type. Headache and Pyrexia are the most common side-effects of COVID 19 vaccines, however, Diarrhoea and Haematochezia mostly occur after RV5 vaccination (see Table A.1).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 437, + 489, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Experimental Setup Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 379, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table A.2 describes hyperparameters and search spaces we considered in experiments. For training transformer-based models, we used AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) for training all transformer-based models, and hyperparameters are set on the best validation performance. We ran experiments 3 times with different seeds, the reported scores are average of them. The results with", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/88ac3a59c4cf57bf5ef347962efbd93088c6a3147b5c920b844d64654408ced5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure A.3: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of GPT-3 Definitions." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 85, + 877, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ca0f04991dd7b51dc547fb802d6394d407001592382e129f3d1eeb83ee698166.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure A.4: Symptoms by patient age. Age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine.", + "Figure A.5: Symptoms by patient sex. The dashed line denotes an average ratio of male to female, and shows that females report more. Symptoms such as Paraesthesia oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 255, + 873, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "standard deviations are presented in Table A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 857, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For generative models, we adopted GENRE's (Cao et al., 2021) experimental settings with 256 of maximum input length, 128 of maximum output length, 64 of batch size, and 4 of beam search size. We used the pre-trained BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) with 3e-5 of learning rate and T5-base (Raffel et al., 2019) with 1e-4 of learning rate following the original papers. We fine-tuned each model 5 epochs on our training set.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 526, + 882, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation of Generative Models While discriminative models can identify exact classes, generative models cannot predict discrete classes. In our work, we form the target text as a sequence of symptoms separated by “;”. We split the generated text by “;” and match each chunk with symptom names by exact string match. For those symptoms that are not exactly matched within our symptom set, we post-processed answer engineering as described in Section 5.4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 682, + 884, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation of MetaMap We use Metamap for one of zero-shot baseline models. Given the input text, MetaMap outputs UMLS entities with confidence scores. We experimented with thresholds", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11679", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/010f142a21a64c2959b69eee0ee62ca74f44aba4d5d4d5367edc815f9d6c24ca.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
COVID-19FLU4HPV9TDAPRV5
1HeadachePainSyncopeInjection site painDiarrhoea
2PyrexiaInjection site painDizzinessPainHaematochezia
3FatiguePain in extremityHeadachePain in extremityVomiting
4ChillsInjection site erythemaInjection site painInjection site swellingIntussusception
5PainPyrexiaNauseaInjection site erythemaPyrexia
", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 80, + 836, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6b64f76bd4680b3115a4a85f12f19d329c6eb6d8d7bf8d02cbe758950316f582.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table A.1: Top 5 most frequent symptoms by vaccine type." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Metamap
threshold0.1\n{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Multi-label Classification
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
batch size32
threshold0.1\n{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Generative Models
Learning rate (BART-base)3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
Learning rate (T5-base)1e-4 {3e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4, 2e-4}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128 {64, 128, 256}
beam search size4
batch size64 {32, 64}
Joint Learning (C + GEN)
Learning rate3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128
batch size64 {32, 64}
λj0.1 {0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5}
LM Prompt (GPT-2)
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length512
batch size64 {32, 64}
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 223, + 505, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3\\}$ and regarded entities as positives over the threshold. The threshold of 0.1 was determined on the best validation score.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Computing Infrastructure We ran all experiments on a single NVIDIA GTX 108 (12GB) with CUDA 10.1 version.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 489, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 More Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 832, + 278, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generation vs Classification We can observe the significant gap in performance between classification and generation models. Figure A.6 shows the difference of attention patterns in each ap", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0be131e48167f4158f23e5d8210a771d8c2a7125058d474ab45744f479922c83.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table A.2: Best-performing hyperparameters and search space. Values in parentheses denote search space." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Symptom
1Headache
2Pyrexia
3Fatigue
4Chills
5Pain
6Nausea
7Pain in extremity
8Dizziness
9Injection site pain
10Myalgia
", + "bbox": [ + 611, + 224, + 781, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/362624819229a3b2ac1add6d073c2ef2d3b406856e8fb626e098aec096038911.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table A.3: Top 10 symptoms in SYMPTOMIFY", + "Input sentence: $90\\%$ loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable target sentence: ageusia, anosmia, irritability, nervousness" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
step
0.120.020.020.040.070.070.020.020.080.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.050.060.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.050.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.0; 1/2-
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 443, + 878, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(a) Attention map according to the decoding step of the generative model", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 573, + 843, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/358235ad05137fb9bcaa2c6ad46eb814fd340109f40992425abb7d7c2327e2a5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure A.6: Generation vs Classification: Attention patterns in each approach." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 592, + 867, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "proach. In the generative model, the decoder attends input tokens that are related to symptoms at each decoding step. On the other hand, the classification model uses one aggregated vector to predict all symptom classes. We can conclude that considering most examples have multiple symptoms, predicting at once is not sufficient to recall multiple entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 684, + 884, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Negation Performance Due to the prevalence of complex negation in our dataset, we analyzed how the model performs in the presence of negation. We sampled 103 examples of those patterns from the development set and tested them with different training sizes. Figure A.7 presents performance", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11680", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/57155ebfd012e5abaa079803949b869d5ce7fa75ff026bceea4b0111580685af.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embeddings0.723.320.875.87
Pretrain-FinetuneBERT-base ‡1.34 (±0.13)15.81 (±0.14)1.45 (±0.09)18.80 (±0.08)
BART-base ‡1.37 (±0.18)15.96 (±0.17)1.55 (±0.12)18.98 (±0.13)
ClinicalBERT ‡1.53 (±0.12)16.32 (±0.12)1.76 (±0.11)19.46 (±0.11)
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.29 (±0.35)62.68 (±0.25)8.12 (±0.47)65.79 (±0.25)
GEN w/ BART †31.15 (±0.37)78.90 (±0.24)31.22 (±0.19)81.27 (±0.25)
GEN w/ T5-base †32.01 (±0.31)79.88 (±0.27)32.19 (±0.22)82.25 (±0.25)
Joint C + GEN32.89 (±0.21)79.93 (±0.19)32.70 (±0.43)82.97 (±0.31)
PromptGPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 80, + 803, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c4c58ef16cdf1d93cb2f0c179d3a32249e7ea4677f99c8d659455046dfd81eac.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table A.4: Performance summary. $\\ddagger$ denotes classification methods and $\\dagger$ denotes generative methods. Joint $C+$ GEN refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TypeExample
no [symptom name]I feel cold, but do not have a fever, am not having chills, nausea, etc.Fever of 101, 102 for 2 Days; Chills; Nausea with no Vomiting.no visible signs of rash or irritation.
Medical history(not current symptom)Medical history included Ankylosing, spondylitis/psoriasis, cardiac ablation from Jan2017Family medical history included her dad had rheumatic fever and high blood pressure.Past medical history included no adverse event. concurrent medical conditionsincluded Ulcer and Hypothyroidism.
Other negation expressionsPatient didn’t experience fever and rash, but feel muscle painAll but the pain and soreness at the injection site subsided by the next dayDenies any further fevers or chills. Denies any nausea vomiting. Denies loss stasis smell.
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 359, + 875, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table A.5: Examples of negation patterns in SYMPTOMIFY", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 530, + 697, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on 103 negation samples as we varied the number of train examples. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates at $200k$ . Through this result, we can conclude that our dataset contains sufficient negation data points and effectively learns to deal with a large number of them.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 570, + 487, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We observed that the simple negation expression \"no [symptom name]\" is indeed an easy form of negation, the model performs well on it, even with a small amount of train set around $50k$ examples. A more thorough analysis of which negation expressions the model still fails on after saturation, is left as future work. Table A.5 shows examples of negation expressions in SYMPTOMIFY.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 699, + 489, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ffddd943703f87f411c3b182a0d6ce46f2bc5ab719e97ed5c67646f9e48169b6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure A.7: Micro F1 of the generative model with T5-base on data points involving negation as the size of the training data is varied. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates around $200k$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 646, + 875, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11681", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_model.json b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c4942aea75e4b026cbcdd17b04deeca36a1fca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3079 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.09, + 0.8, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SYMPTOMIFY: Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.345, + 0.144, + 0.658, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bosung Kim and Ndapa Nakashole" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.357, + 0.161, + 0.646, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computer Science and Engineering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.357, + 0.178, + 0.646, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of California, San Diego" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.421, + 0.194, + 0.582, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "La Jolla, CA 92093" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.283, + 0.211, + 0.72, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "bosungkim@ucsd.edu, nnakashole@eng.ucsd.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.277, + 0.462, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the high-stakes nature of healthcare decision-making, we aim to improve the efficiency of human annotators rather than replacing them with fully automated solutions. We introduce a new comprehensive resource, SYMPTOMIFY, a dataset of annotated vaccine adverse reaction reports detailing individual vaccine reactions. The dataset, consisting of over \\(800k\\) reports, surpasses previous datasets in size. Notably, it features reasoning-based explanations alongside background knowledge obtained via language model knowledge harvesting. We assess data quality, and evaluate performance across various methods and learning paradigms, paving the way for future comparisons and benchmarking.\\(^1\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.515, + 0.26, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.539, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Drug safety monitoring systems like Vigibase (Lindquist, 2008) and VAERS² are essential for evaluating the safety of medications and vaccines. These systems enable anyone to report drug reactions, facilitating early detection of vaccine safety issues. For example, if a mother observes vomiting and fever in her two-year-old after the chickenpox vaccine, she may be curious about the frequency of similar reactions reported by others. VAERS' online browser can provide the answer. Being able to provide such answers involves normalizing the raw patient reports in order to address variations caused by polysemy, abbreviations, and other factors present in these informal and potentially noisy reports." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.781, + 0.49, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VAERS employs trained staff to review and \"code\" each submitted report, assigning formal medical terms to the symptoms experienced by the patient. VAERS terms come from the standardized medical terminology known as the Medical" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.253, + 0.878, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.527, + 0.884, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: A to C illustrate the stages of drug safety monitoring systems like VAERS. We aim to improve the efficiency of skilled human coders in step B by facilitating the development of systems that identify symptoms and offer explanations to aid coders, as demonstrated by the model-generated output in step D." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) (Brown et al., 1999; Shimabukuro et al., 2015). To illustrate the coding process, consider the report: \\( \\mathbf{R} \\mathbf{I} \\): \"I had a \\( 90\\% \\) loss of smell/taste the next day. Also felt irritable and nervous but manageable.\" This report is annotated with these MedDRA terms: Ageusia, Anosmia, Irritability, Nervousness." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our aim is to support the decision-making of human coders during annotation, by supporting the development of symptom recognition models that can predict and explain identified symptoms (Figure 1). Given the high-stakes nature of this field, where data interpretation can carry life-or-death consequences, fully automated solutions are not yet sufficiently accurate. Specifically, we present a resource of annotated reports detailing people's reactions to vaccines, and enriched in several ways. In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.868, + 0.488, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/bosung/SYMPTOMIFY." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{2} \\) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System https:// vaers.hhs.gov/data.html" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.868, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11667" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.786, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11667-11681" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. SYMPTOMIFY Dataset: We present a symptom recognition dataset derived from VAERS informal medical reports with over 800k entries. Beyond its scale, we enhance the dataset by adding explanations and background knowledge substantially boosting its utility for advancing systems that aid human coders in annotation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.221, + 0.49, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Annotation Explanations: We enrich SYMP-TOMIFY with annotation explanations, carefully harvested from LLMs. We showcase their usefulness on the newly released Falcon language model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.308, + 0.49, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Background Knowledge Augmentation: We augment SYMPTOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms, improving performance, particularly for rare symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.379, + 0.488, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Performance Evaluation: We implement and evaluate various baselines across different methods and learning paradigms, facilitating future comparisons and benchmarking." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.458, + 0.461, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work and Existing Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.484, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work is related to the old task of Named Entity Recognition (NER), which is the task of mapping mentions of entities in text to standardized entity names (Sutton and McCallum, 2004; Ratinov and Roth, 2009; Ritter et al., 2011; Hoffart et al., 2011; Cao et al., 2021). Our work goes beyond recognizing entities as we wish to support human decision making. Additionally, our work is complementary to work on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016), and can be used to build more explainable models. Furthermore, there are efforts to enhance open-source LLMs by extracting instruction-output pairs from massive, paid-API LLMs. The goal is to gather valuable data that can be utilized for instruction tuning of open-source models. This method is particularly beneficial for projects that lack the financial resources to hire people for human feedback, thereby democratizing access to advanced LLM capabilities (Peng et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Closer to our work are prior efforts on creating datasets for medical entity recognition from diverse sources, including death certificates (Goeuriot et al., 2017), scientific publications (Verspoor et al., 2012; Mohan and Li, 2019), and electronic health records (EHRs) (Suominen et al., 2013). While these corpora contribute to medical entity recognition, they" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.082, + 0.882, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetSource# SymptomsSize
SYMPTOMIFY (ours)VAERS11,472871,373
COMETA (Basaldella et al., 2020)Reddit7,64520,000
MedRed (Scepanovic et al., 2020)Reddit182,000
RedMed (Laverty and Altman, 2019)Reddit2,978n/a
Twitter TwiMed (Alvaro et al., 2017)Twitter3,1442,000
CADEC (Karimi et al., 2015)AskaPatient6,7541,253
Twitter ADR (Nikfarjam et al., 2015)Twitter1,2801,784
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.19, + 0.885, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: SYMPTOMIFY surpasses the scale of previous related datasets for entity recognition in informal health reports. Additionally, SYMPTOMIFY contains annotation explanations and background knowledge about symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.287, + 0.883, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "differ from the focus of our work, which centers around user-generated text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.32, + 0.885, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 summarizes datasets closely related to ours, with many, like ours, targeting pharmacovigilance, and unlike ours, originating from social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit. Like our work, these efforts aimed to identify symptoms mentioned in unstructured and informal textual sources. SYMPTOMIFY surpasses previous datasets in size, and notably, it incorporates annotation explanations and provides background knowledge about symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.492, + 0.78, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 LM Knowledge Harvesting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.518, + 0.884, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Access to the most powerful LMs is often limited to paid APIs with query restrictions. In dynamic settings, such as continuous MedDRA report annotation, rapid query response is crucial. Therefore, we propose to extract a portion of LM knowledge to enrich an existing dataset. This approach allows greater control, transparency, and balance between performance, cost-efficiency, and autonomy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.884, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Enriching existing datasets meets a widespread need as under-specified datasets are common. A prominent example comes from Question Answering tasks where only few datasets are fully labeled with question, answer, passage, and span." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our work, key steps to upgrade a dataset via LM knowledge harvesting include: (i) Identifying Shortcomings: Assess the dataset to determine missing elements and areas needing improvement. (ii) Creating Good Prompts: Design prompts using existing dataset examples to minimize potential ambiguities. (iii) Checking Data Quality: Implement strategies to assess LLM output quality, ensuring it is accurate, useful, and safe. (iv) Maintaining Detailed Records: Document the harvesting process, including prompts, LLM configurations, and dates, for improved transparency and reproducibility." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11668" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.383, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 The SYMPTOMIFY Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.117, + 0.49, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With VAERS3 as the starting dataset, we used LM knowledge harvesting to create SYMPTOMIFY. The dataset spans three years (2019-2021) and includes 839, 215 reports, incorporating symptom texts, relevant MedDRA terms, and associated metadata like age, sex, and vaccine type." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.235, + 0.486, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Quantitative Analysis of MedDRA coders" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VAERS uses certified MedDRA coders to assign formal medical terms to symptoms. We evaluated the quality of these annotations via crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We first randomly selected 1,000 symptoms and then selected a corresponding patient report (symptom text) mentioning that specific symptom. A symptom was considered correctly annotated if two out of three evaluators agreed. Based on this accuracy metric, VAERS staff correctly labeled \\(93.4\\%\\) of the 1,000 tested symptoms, highlighting the high quality of their annotations. Still, this figure might underestimate the true accuracy, as most challenging examples were medical test results not stated in patient reports (such as C-reactive protein levels or metabolic function tests). The agreement rate among evaluators was moderately strong (0.55 Fleiss' Kappa), similar to related annotation tasks reported in the literature which showed agreements in the range: 0.55 - 0.62 (Wadhwa et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2018; Deleger et al., 2012)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.619, + 0.49, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT as the 4-th annotator. ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) served as a fourth annotator alongside three human coders, working on the same 1,000 tasks. The provided prompt was: \"Does the following patient report mention ' \\(\\{SYNTEM\\} ^{\\prime}\\) : \\(\\{REPORT\\} ?\\) .ChatGPT agreed with MedDRA in \\(86.7\\%\\) of the cases. However, this figure might overestimate ChatGPT's symptom recognition capacity, as this binary task is significantly simpler than unguided symptom identification. We further probed ChatGPT's abilities through tests more authentically reflecting symptom recognition." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.588, + 0.085, + 0.805, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.212, + 0.882, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Distribution of explanation lengths in number of words." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.258, + 0.85, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.483, + 0.883, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Visualizing the top 30 most frequent 4-grams in explanations. These phrases often indicate that the explanations quote spans from the patient reports." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.548, + 0.844, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Harvesting Annotation Explanations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.57, + 0.884, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We augment VAERS data by incorporating explanations to compensate for the absence of span-level annotations. Using GPT-3.5, we generated explanations to add to the dataset. The prompt used was: \"Explain why the patient report mentions 'SYMP-TOM' \", quoting report fragments where possible: \\(\\{REPORT\\} ^{\\prime \\prime}\\) .ChatGPT's responses were then used as explanations. These explanations offer extended context beyond the report's explicit content, like identifying Hypoxia from a report referencing an \"oxygen saturation of \\(86\\%\\) , correctly interpreting it as low blood oxygen. By directly quoting from the patient report, the explanations also provide span-level information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative Analysis of Explanations. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the distribution of explanation lengths and the 30 most recurrent 4-grams within the explanations, respectively. Often, these frequently appearing phrases refer to the symptom mentions in patient reports, including phrases like \"is mentioned in the,\" \"the report states that,\" \"frag" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.831, + 0.488, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)VAERS is jointly managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.868, + 0.486, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4Details of the annotation task are provided in Appendix A.1." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5Overall, the annotation process cost $723 (US dollars) and involved 201 workers." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.831, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11669" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
VaccineSymptomExplanation Fragment
FLU4Dizziness posturalThis is evident from the following fragment of the report: "I became extremely dizzy when I tried to stand.
COVID19LymphadenopathyThis is evident from the statement "My lymph nodes were swollen."
FLUA3Throat tightnessThe following fragments from the report indicate the presence of the symptom: - "throat feeling like its about to close" - "swelling and lump in throat on right side"
HEPAThirstThe following fragments from the report support this explanation: "He then began drinking large amounts of water throughout the day and even waking at night to ask for a drink multiple times."
FLUA4ArthralgiaThe report states "Shoulder pain" which is a common symptom of arthralgia.
FLUR4DyspnoeaThe symptom "Dyspnoea" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is experiencing difficulty breathing, which is a common symptom of dyspnoea.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.884, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Example explanation fragments featuring some of the most common 4-grams, demonstrating direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background knowledge about symptoms when necessary." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.489, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ments from the report,\" etc. Table 2 shows fragments from example explanations that feature these common 4-grams, illustrating the direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background symptom knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.349, + 0.49, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quantitative Analysis of Explanations: Honesty and Helpfulness. We evaluated the explanations on two primary dimensions: 1) Honesty: Is the explanation factually accurate, without fabrications or distortions? and 2) Helpfulness: Is the explanation correct and beneficial in clarifying why a symptom is mentioned?. We randomly picked 1,000 explanations and employed a three-choice task for assessment: A) The explanation is both honest and helpful; B) The explanation is honest but not detailed enough to be helpful; and C) The explanation is neither honest nor helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation). Each task was evaluated by three annotators, with a label deemed accurate if at least two annotators agreed on it. Our findings show that \\(91.3\\%\\) of the explanations were honest and helpful, \\(7.5\\%\\) were honest but not helpful, and \\(1.2\\%\\) were neither honest nor helpful. For this relatively complex task, we hired three graduate students for annotation. The agreement rate was moderately strong, with a Fleiss's Kappa of 0.60." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.702, + 0.442, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Harvesting Background Knowledge" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.726, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sometimes, recognizing symptoms in a report requires understanding beyond what's written. For example, a report might state \"BP is 173/109\" without mentioning hypertension directly. But, given that hypertension is defined as blood pressure above 140/90, the report implies this condition. This kind of understanding demands external knowledge. Thus, we aimed to augment SYMP-TOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a basic form of background knowledge we link each unique symptom in SYMPTOMIFY with" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SymptomLLM DefinitionUMLS Definition
MelaenaBlood in the stool, typically caused by gastrointestinal bleeding.The black, tarry, foul-smelling feces that contain degraded blood.
IschaemiaLack of blood flow to a tissue or organ. This may be due to obstruction or a problem with the blood vessels.A decrease in blood supply caused by blockage of blood vessel.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.334, + 0.884, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Examples of symptom definitions derived from both UMLS and a Language Model (LM). The comparison with UMLS definitions underscores the LM's capability to generate high-quality, medical term definitions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.433, + 0.885, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "its definition. We harvested symptom definitions using the LLM6. Here one could also use knowledge graphs such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004), but we found coverage to be incomplete. In our experiments, these definitions were used in zero-shot learning baselines. But, there are many other potential applications that future research could explore. Currently, SYMPTOMIFY's symptom background knowledge primarily consists of definitions. However, there are avenues to expand this knowledge further. For example, more complex relational structured data, such as known relationships between symptoms, could be extracted from large LMs in future endeavors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.704, + 0.884, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. In Table 3, we display two example definitions generated by the LM, comparing them with UMLS definitions to highlight the LM's proficiency in producing high-quality explanations. Certain terms used in drug safety monitoring systems may have dual meanings, creating ambiguity both within and outside the medical context. To bolster a medically-focused comprehension, particularly regarding adverse effects, we recommend integrating the phrase \"adverse effect\" into the definition prompt, and sup" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.881, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6We used, from the GPT series, the text-davinci-001 version." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11670" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "plementing the prompt with example reports from VAERS that mention the symptom in a few-shot style. This method mitigates potential misunderstandings from multiple interpretations of a term." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.159, + 0.491, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quantitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. To quantitatively evaluate the definitions, we randomly selected 1,000 definitions and assigned three crowd-sourced annotators to rate each definition's accuracy. A definition was deemed accurate and useful if it gained agreement from at least two annotators. The evaluation results indicated that \\(96.4\\%\\) of the definitions were accurate. The inter-rater agreement, Fleiss' Kappa, was 0.34, which indicates a fair degree of consensus among the raters.[7]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.349, + 0.322, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experimental Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.374, + 0.49, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data. Our experiments use the following data splits: Training set with 671,373 instances, validation set with 83,921 instances, and test set with 83,921 instances. We further segment the test set into three subsets for more granular analysis: i) Full: The entire test set. ii) UMLS-mapped: Exclusively contains symptoms that can be mapped to UMLS, identified via exact string matching, for fair comparison with previous UMLS-focused studies, specifically Metamap. iii) Rare: Only includes 'long-tail' symptoms, those occurring in 50 or less reports, representing over \\(80\\%\\) of all symptoms. More details of the experimental configuration can be found in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.609, + 0.49, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task. To set the initial benchmarks on our dataset, we started by focusing on the accuracy of symptom recognition, without considering the added information from explanations or symptom background knowledge. We represented each data point as a pair \\((x, S_i)\\), where \\(x\\) is a patient report and \\(S_i = \\{s_1, \\dots, s_n | s_i \\in S\\}\\) is the set of symptoms mentioned in \\(x\\). The goal is to predict the MedDRA names of symptoms mentioned in the input report \\(x\\). We explore a variety of baseline methods across different learning paradigms:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.798, + 0.489, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. String Matching: Involves matching symptom names directly with the report text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.836, + 0.488, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Symptom Embedding: Represents symptom names and report texts as dense vectors for matching." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.798, + 0.489, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.083, + 0.88, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embedding0.723.320.875.87
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.163, + 0.882, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Performance of string matching and symptom embedding methods. These methods do not utilize the training data." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.222, + 0.866, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.885, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: An illustration of symptom embedding baseline. It is similar to span-based string matching, but performs matches using continuous representations rather than discrete symbols." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.469, + 0.884, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Pretrain-Finetune: Uses pre-trained language models fine-tuned on our dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.507, + 0.882, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Prompting: Leverages prompts to generate responses from language models in zero-shot and few-shot settings." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.469, + 0.884, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.563, + 0.764, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 String Matching Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.584, + 0.884, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our initial baselines attempt to align symptom mentions with MedDRA terms without considering context or utilizing training data. We employ two methods: (i) MetaMap: A National Library of Medicine-developed tool that maps text spans to symptom names in the UMLS dictionary. For fairness, we only evaluated MetaMap on the test set subset that could be UMLS-mapped. (ii) Exact String Matching: A stringent method that requires precise string matches, offering a stricter comparison than MetaMap's span matching." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.761, + 0.885, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results in Table 4 demonstrate the task's complexity, as these string matching methods perform poorly. The findings underline the shortcomings of simplistic approaches in effectively handling this task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.851, + 0.797, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Symptom Embedding Baseline" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 4, our symptom embedding method uses dense retrieval from a frozen language model. Symptom vector representations" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The annotation process engaged 1,437 workers and amounted to a cost of $522." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11671" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "are created from symptom definitions in SYMP-TOMIFY. For each symptom \\( s_i \\), we construct an embedding \\( \\mathbf{h}_{s_i} \\) using its name and definition. Similarly, we generate n-gram span embeddings for each n-gram in the patient report using ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019) and the span embedding method by Ujiie et al. (2021). We then compare each symptom embedding with all n-gram embeddings using the scoring function \\( f(s_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}) = \\mathbf{h}_{s_i} \\cdot \\mathbf{h}[x_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}] \\). We recall spans with scores exceeding a certain threshold, determined by the best validation score. This approach is similar to zero-shot entity linking by Wu et al. (2019). In our experiments, with \\( n = 2 \\), the embedding method did not surpass the string matching method, suggesting that further training of embeddings may be needed (see Table 4)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.369, + 0.381, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Pretrain-Finetune Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the substantial data available in SYMP-TOMIFY, we investigated fine-tuning baselines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.429, + 0.49, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Classification Approach. In a multi-label classification context, we experimented with various pre-trained language models including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), and ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019). We used BERT's classification paradigm, using the [CLS] vector for the sentence representation and a classifier layer. Additionally, we implemented a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) on top of BERT's last hidden states (BERT + CNN) to capture more granular features from the contextualized representations, following the approach by Safaya et al. (2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.492, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generative Approach. In the context of symptom generation, we adopt the generative entity retrieval approach of GENRE, utilizing a transformer-based encoder and decoder (Cao et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2020). In this framework, the model generates a sequence of symptom names as the target output, rather than individual entity classification. To retrieve multiple symptoms, GENRE needs annotated spans referring to each symptom. However, as mentioned, VAERS annotations lack symptom mention spans; we only know if a symptom was mentioned or not. Thus, we generate a target sequence as a comma-separated list, e.g., given the input report: \"I have muscle pain and fever\", the target sequence is: \"Myalgia, Pyrexia\". We consider baselines using BART and T5 as the pretrained models." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.085, + 0.772, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.205, + 0.886, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The joint learning method combines discriminative and generative approaches in the pretrain-finetune paradigm. The classifier head (yellow) and the generation head (blue) are illustrated." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.279, + 0.882, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
BERT-base ‡1.3415.811.4518.80
BART-base ‡1.3715.961.5518.98
ClinicalBERT ‡1.5316.321.7619.46
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.2962.688.1265.79
GEN w/ BART31.1578.9031.2281.27
GEN w/ T5-base32.0179.8832.1982.25
Joint C + GEN32.8979.9332.7082.97
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.393, + 0.884, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Pretrain-finetune performance. \\(\\ddagger\\) denotes classification methods. Models without symbols are generative. Joint \\(C + GEN\\) refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint Classification & Generation. To bring together the strengths of both discriminative and generative approaches within the pretrain-finetune framework, we implement a joint learning strategy. We use transformer-based models for both approaches, with shared transformer layers but distinct output layers for each task. This joint model structure is depicted in Figure 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.61, + 0.885, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. The generative techniques substantially outperformed the most effective string-matching method, demonstrating the power of such models. Leveraging T5 as the base model, the generative model achieved impressive micro F1 scores of \\(79.88\\%\\) and \\(82.25\\%\\) on the Full and UMLS-mapped test sets respectively. Interestingly, the multi-label classification didn't surpass the string matching approach, potentially due to the large class count (over 11K) and the bottleneck caused by the [CLS] token. However, incorporating a CNN on top of ClinicalBERT enhanced classification performance, reaching \\(62.68\\%\\) on the full set and \\(65.79\\%\\) on the UMLS-mapped set, but still lagging behind the generative model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.853, + 0.884, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The joint learning model showed modest performance improvements, confirming the benefit of combined strategies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.881, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The variance between micro and macro F1" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11672" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
GPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.158, + 0.49, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Performance of prompting methods. While these methods fall short of the pretrain-finetune techniques, it is notable that the pretrain-finetune approach leverages the extensive SYMPTOMIFY dataset, underlining the considerable benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.267, + 0.497, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelRare symptoms test set
Macro F1Micro F1
String match †6.917.79
GEN (T5-base)21.7824.98
GEN w/ definitions21.7225.16
GEN w/ synthetic reports23.3125.73
GPT-2 Prompting6.637.87
ChatGPT Prompting (zero-shot)11.758.56
ChatGPT Prompting (one-shot)16.0610.49
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.411, + 0.49, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Macro F1 and Micro F1 of the symptom detection task on the rare symptoms test set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.489, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scores in all configurations is due to the dataset's imbalance: \\(80\\%\\) of symptoms are rare with 50 or fewer reports mentioning them, thus making it harder for the model to learn to accurately detect these infrequent symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.55, + 0.323, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Prompting Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.572, + 0.489, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the widespread success of LM promoting, we also experimented with prompting baselines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.489, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language Model Prompting. We prompted ChatGPT using the following prompt: \\( x = \\) Extract a comma-separated list of symptoms from the following report: \"\\(\\{\\text{REPORT}\\}\\)\". In addition to zero-shot prompting, we explored the few-shot setting, specifically the one-shot setting with a single test set example added to the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Discriminative models assign mentions to specific class labels, while generative language models have a vocabulary that may differ from the formal symptom names in MedDRA. For instance, when generating the symptom \"Pyrexia,\" ChatGPT often produces \"Fever\" instead. This necessitates answer engineering. We employ embedding-based methods using SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The prediction with the highest cosine similarity score between the predefined symptom set and the generated output is selected." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. Table 6 contains the results of the" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.085, + 0.868, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.223, + 0.883, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Synthetic Report Generation: the LM takes symptom names as input, and to encourage semantically faithful reports, also takes background knowledge as input (A), During training, target (B) and generated reports (C) are used to compute the loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.318, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "prompting methods, and shows that they are unable to surpass the performance of the pretrain-finetune methods. This is expected since the pretrain-finetune models are trained on a large training data set of over 600K reports, whereas the zero-shot and one-shot prompting methods have access to zero or only one report, respectively. It is worth noting that the large-scale nature of SYMPTOMIFY highlights the significant benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.51, + 0.872, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 Semantically Faithful Synthetic Data for Rare Symptoms" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.548, + 0.884, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our experiments, all methods struggled to identify rare symptoms. To address the rare symptoms problem, we used data augmentation techniques to generate more data points for these symptoms. We tried using symptom definitions as synthetic reports but found a stark discrepancy between the language in real reports and definitions. We instead used a simple synthetic data generation method to create more realistic data points for rare symptoms, illustrated in Figure 6. We trained a GPT-2 model on prompts comprising symptom name and definition. The definition is there to ensure that the report is semantically faithful to the meaning of the symptom, also reducing ambiguity in comparison to conditioning on the symptom name alone. Using Top-k multinomial sampling, we generated 100 synthetic reports per symptom, with optimal performance using 30 reports each. We then integrated this augmented data into our training set to improve the model's handling of rare symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. Table 7 illustrates the low performance achieved on the rare symptoms dataset, as indicated by both the macro and micro F1 scores across all" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11673" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
(C1) Symptom(C2) Report(C3) Zero-shot Falcon Explanation(C4) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanation
(R1) ArthralgiaPatient having shoulder pain. Made appoint-ment with doctor. MRI completed. Possible SIRVA.Arthralgia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom associated with SIRVA (Shoulder Impingement Syndrome with Radial Neuropathy)The symptom "Arthralgia" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported shoulder pain. This is evident from the state-ment "Patient having shoulder pain".
(R2) Pyrexiaall over body rash and feverPyrexia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom of feverThe symptom "Pyrexia" is mentioned in the pa-tient report because the patient is experiencing a fever.
(R3) Muscle spasmsPatient stated he was getting muscle spasms in the neck and back after the flu shot.Muscle spasms are a common side effect of the flu shot. The patient may have received the flu vaccine and experienced muscle spasms as a result.The symptom "Muscle spasms" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is ex-persiencing muscle spasms in the neck and back after receiving a flu shot.
(R4) Mood alteredFever, cold chills, restless sleep, redness at site of injection, right leg soreness-unable to stand on that leg, loss of appetite, moodiness/crying. After 12 hours of injectionThe patient reported mood altered as a result of the injection. This is mentioned in the patient report as it is a potential side effect of the med-ication.The symptom "Mood altered" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported experiencing a change in their mood. This is evident from the statement "I was moody/cry-ing."
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.272, + 0.884, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Falcon LM struggles to generate quality explanations (column C3) compared to ChatGPT. Yet, supplementing it with SYMPTOMIFY explanations improves its performance (column C4). Blue indicates accurate report fragments; red signifies paraphrased, non-exact matches, or hallucinations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.341, + 0.489, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "methods. Furthermore, we observe a modest improvement when incorporating synthetic reports into the training data. While the improvement is small, it demonstrates the (perhaps small) potential benefits of leveraging synthetic data to enhance the model's ability to handle rare symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.448, + 0.486, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.6 Leveraging SYMPTOMIFY's Explanations in Falcon" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.484, + 0.49, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We carried out an experiment to study the effectiveness of the explanations in SYMPTOMIFY using a prompting approach. For this, we used Falcon-7B-Instruct8, a new, instruction-tuned iteration of the open-source Falcon renowned for its superior performance on key NLP benchmarks. The experiment had two configurations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.597, + 0.49, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) Zero-shot Falcon Explanations: We executed standard zero-shot in-context learning with Falcon. \n2) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanations: We introduced few-shot learning in this setup, using selected SYMPTOMIFY explanations as our few-shots." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.693, + 0.49, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 provides a comparative analysis of Falcon's explanation generation under the two scenarios. Initially, Falcon struggled to produce beneficial explanations in the zero-shot learning context. However, its performance significantly improved in terms of specificity and context quoting when it was supplemented with few-shot learning, using a handful of SYMPTOMIFY explanations as a guide (contrast columns \\(C3\\) and \\(C4\\), specifically \\((R1,C4))\\). Nonetheless, false quoting of hallucinated segments, as illustrated in \\((R4,C4)\\) is a problem. To tackle this, one possible solution is to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.341, + 0.885, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "expose Falcon to a larger volume of SYMPTOMIFY explanations, thus improving its ability to generate high-quality explanations. However, due to the context size limitations in the prompting, the ideal solution to leverage these explanations effectively would be to implement the pretrain-finetune approach to use the massive SYMPTOMIFY dataset more productively as training data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.487, + 0.642, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.885, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduced SYMPTOMIFY, a large-scale dataset of annotated reports, reflecting reactions to medications and vaccines. It includes MedDRA symptoms, annotation explanations, and background knowledge about symptoms, designed to facilitate development of systems that can aid human annotators operating in the critically important public health domain. Despite current performance on rare symptoms being low across all baselines, the continual evolution in language models and strides in few-shot learning offer promise for improvement." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are several avenues for improving SYMP-TOMIFY and expanding its utility. Integrating the explanations into a wider range of models may lead to the better generation of explained predictions with open source models such as Falcon. Expanding background knowledge to include relational knowledge, such as inter-symptom relationships, could yield performance gains. Further, focusing on laypeople's perspectives and acquiring more layman medical terms could facilitate a broader, more inclusive understanding of symptoms. Looking further ahead, as patient reports can sometimes contain not only textual descriptions but also ref" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.374, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8https://huggingface.co/tiiuae/falcon-7b-instruct" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11674" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "erences to medical images, pictures submitted by patients, and lab test results, the incorporation of these non-textual elements using multi-modal language models, could be useful." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.162, + 0.221, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.188, + 0.488, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work, while it made useful contributions, has a number of significant limitations. First, the VAERS database, our primary data source, may not be representative of the larger population due to potential sampling biases. It also limits language diversity as it contains only English-language reports." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.286, + 0.487, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The symptom distribution in the reports presents a distinct challenge, with a strong skew towards certain symptoms that hinders model performance, including that of our most successful methods, like pretrain-finetune. While our attempts to rectify this through data augmentation techniques have yielded some improvement, the performance still falls short. This indicates the need for innovative methods that go beyond synthetic data expansion for addressing this challenge effectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.489, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The explanations present in SYMPTOMIFY are a rich resource that, as of now, we've only begun to explore. The explanations coupled with the public availability of the dataset offer a valuable base for other researchers to integrate into their work. Nevertheless, more exhaustive studies are needed to fully harness the potential of these explanations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.56, + 0.489, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The potential biases of language models like ChatGPT, known to mirror the biases in the data they're trained on, is another limitation. Although we have not observed any explicit biases in our current study, no thorough testing for bias was conducted, and it remains a concern." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.656, + 0.49, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, the use of non-medical experts from Amazon Mechanical Turk, as well as Computer Science graduate students for the annotation process introduces the possibility of inaccuracies into our assessment. Although we attempted to mitigate this by implementing a rigorous review process and utilizing multiple annotators, this factor may still have influenced the accuracy of our human evaluations. Future work may benefit from the involvement of medical experts in the annotation process, to increase the validity of our findings, and by extension the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.862, + 0.266, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models for symptom recognition have the potential to provide valuable insights for monitoring and as" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "serving the safety of medicines and vaccines. They can aid in the timely identification of potential risks and contribute to individual and public health. However, the availability of data to train such models, which is the main contribution of this work, raises concerns about individual privacy. Releasing the data, which includes free text reports and metadata from VAERS, may risk the exposure of personal information or identities. We rely on the privacy monitoring efforts of the CDC and FDA, the co-managers of VAERS. Furthermore, Following prior work on automated health systems, our goal is to be clear and transparent about the content of SYMPTOMIFY and the capabilities of the methods developed in this work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.354, + 0.61, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.377, + 0.884, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emily Alsentzer, John R. Murphy, Willie Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew B. A. McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.441, + 0.884, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nestor Alvaro, Yusuke Miyao, Nigel Collier, et al. 2017. Twimed: Twitter and pubmed comparable corpus of drugs, diseases, symptoms, and their relations. *JMIR public health and surveillance*, 3(2):e6396." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.506, + 0.883, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Basaldella, Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, and Nigel Collier. 2020. Cometa: A corpus for medical entity linking in the social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03295." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.57, + 0.885, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The unified medical language system (uml's): integrating biomedical terminology. *Nucleic acids research*, 32(suppl_1):D267-D270." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.634, + 0.884, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elliot G Brown, Louise Wood, and Sue Wood. 1999. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (meddra). Drug safety, 20(2):109-117." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.685, + 0.885, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.75, + 0.884, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Louise Deleger, Qi Li, Todd Lingren, Megan Kaiser, Katalin Molnar, Laura Stoutenborough, Michal Kouril, Keith Marsolo, Imre Solti, et al. 2012. Building gold standard corpora for medical natural language processing tasks. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2012, page 144. American Medical Informatics Association." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.853, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.377, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11675" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.151, + 0.487, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.203, + 0.487, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lorraine Goeuriot, Liadh Kelly, Hanna Suominen, Aurelie Néveol, Aude Robert, Evangelos Kanoulas, Rene Spijker, Joao Palotti, and Guido Zuccon. 2017. Clef 2017 ehealth evaluation lab overview. In Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction: 8th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2017, Dublin, Ireland, September 11-14, 2017, Proceedings 8, pages 291-303. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.333, + 0.487, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 782-792." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.437, + 0.487, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sarvnaz Karimi, Alejandro Metke-Jimenez, Madonna Kemp, and Chen Wang. 2015. Cadec: A corpus of adverse drug event annotations. Journal of biomedical informatics, 55:73-81." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.502, + 0.487, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Laverty and Russ B Altman. 2019. Redmed: Extending drug lexicons for social media applications. Journal of biomedical informatics, 99:103307." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.553, + 0.487, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.684, + 0.487, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marie Lindquist. 2008. Vigibase, the who global icsr database system: basic facts. *Drug Information Journal*, 42(5):409-419." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.736, + 0.487, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.788, + 0.487, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sunil Mohan and Donghui Li. 2019. Medmentions: A large biomedical corpus annotated with umls concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09476." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.84, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Azadeh Nikfarjam, Abeed Sarker, Karen O'connor, Rachel Ginn, and Graciela Gonzalez. 2015. Pharmacovigilance from social media: mining adverse drug reaction mentions using sequence labeling with word embedding cluster features. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(3):671-681." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin Nye, Junyi Jessy Li, Roma Patel, Yinfei Yang, Iain J Marshall, Ani Nenkova, and Byron C Wallace. 2018. A corpus with multi-level annotations of patients, interventions and outcomes to support language processing for medical literature. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2018, page 197. NIH Public Access." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.202, + 0.882, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.882, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.329, + 0.882, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.405, + 0.882, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.521, + 0.882, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135-1144." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.61, + 0.882, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Oren Etzioni, et al. 2011. Named entity recognition in tweets: an experimental study. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1524-1534." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.687, + 0.882, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ali Safaya, Moutasem Abdullatif, and Deniz Yuret. 2020. KUISAIL at SemEval-2020 task 12: BERT-CNN for offensive speech identification in social media. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 2054–2059, Barcelona (online). International Committee for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.79, + 0.882, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sanja Scepanovic, Enrique Martin-Lopez, Daniele Quercia, and Khan Baykaner. 2020. Extracting medical entities from social media. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pages 170-181." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom T. Shimabukuro, Michael Nguyen, David Martin, and Frank DeStefano. 2015. Safety monitoring in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (vaers). Vaccine, 33(36):4398-4405." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11676" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanna Suominen, Sanna Salanterä, Sumithra Velupillai, Wendy W Chapman, Guergana Savova, Noemie Elhadad, Sameer Pradhan, Brett R South, Danielle L Mowery, Gareth JF Jones, et al. 2013. Overview of the share/clef ehealth evaluation lab 2013. In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization: 4th International Conference of the CLEF Initiative, CLEF 2013, Valencia, Spain, September 23-26, 2013. Proceedings 4, pages 212-231. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.227, + 0.49, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. 2004. Collective segmentation and labeling of distant entities in information extraction. Technical report, MASSACHUSETTS UNIV AMHERST DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.303, + 0.49, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shogo Ujiie, Hayate Iso, Shuntaro Yada, Shoko Wakamiya, and Eiji Aramaki. 2021. End-to-end biomedical entity linking with span-based dictionary matching. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 162-167, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karin Verspoor, Kevin Bretonnel Cohen, Arrick Lanfranchi, Colin Warner, Helen L Johnson, Christophe Roeder, Jinho D Choi, Christopher Funk, Yuriy Malenkiy, Miriam Eckert, et al. 2012. A corpus of full-text journal articles is a robust evaluation tool for revealing differences in performance of biomedical natural language processing tools. BMC bioinformatics, 13(1):1-26." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.506, + 0.49, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Somin Wadhwa, Vivek Khetan, Silvio Amir, and Byron Wallace. 2022. Redhot: A corpus of annotated medical questions, experiences, and claims on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06331." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.569, + 0.49, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03814." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11677" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.237, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.111, + 0.475, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Annotation Instructions for Mechanical Turk" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.149, + 0.489, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conducted three assessments via the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) system and our annotation process. In this section, we describe detailed instructions and web interface screenshots used in the assessments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.262, + 0.228, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Symptom (or Diagnosis)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.275, + 0.361, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chronic spontaneous urticaria (Definition of symptom/diagnosis: a skin disorder that is characterized by the occurrence of hives (urticaria) spontaneously and chronically. These are red, itchy, and often swollen areas of skin that are the result of an allergic reaction.)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.308, + 0.188, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patient Report" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.321, + 0.366, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ongoing chronic spontaneous urticaria presenting 12/3/2021 (two weeks after vaccine administered). Rash disappears and reappears in different random locations (scalp, neck, back, stomach, behind ears). Oral administration of Zytec relieves symptoms for approx. 24 hours, but symptoms return when daily dosage is halted. No known existing allergies. No reactions to the first two moderna shots, only to the booster. Will seek a clinic visit soon, but has not had time yet." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.408, + 0.25, + 0.478, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Select an option" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.417, + 0.262, + 0.449, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Included" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.418, + 0.272, + 0.475, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Not included 2" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.387, + 0.486, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.1: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of MedDRA annotation in VAERS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.427, + 0.489, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) VAERS MedDRA Annotation Quality Assessment As described in section 4.1, we evaluate the annotation quality of MedDRA annotations in VAERS. The instruction given to workers is \"Given a patient's report describes their medical conditions. The goal of this task is to check whether the given symptom is included in the report or not.\" For the detailed instruction, we provided the examples as below:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.589, + 0.382, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Symptom/Diagnosis: Anosmia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.606, + 0.462, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patient report : \\(90\\%\\) loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.654, + 0.462, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "→ The answer should be Included since the report mentions \"90% loss of smell\" in the report." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.718, + 0.388, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Symptom/Diagnosis : Headache" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.735, + 0.462, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patient report : \\(90\\%\\) loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.783, + 0.43, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "→ The answer should be Not included" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.813, + 0.486, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also added the definition of the symptom in case that the workers are not familiar with the symptom (see Figure A.1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) Explanation Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is \"Given a patient report and the symptom, the explanation is describing why the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.094, + 0.736, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Patent Report]: Patient was observed being unsteady ambulating with her cane. She was helped to a chair and assessed, alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60. Brief history was taken and she stated she was diabetic. Patient stated that she had taken her morning diabetic medication but had not eaten anything yet today. Patient was given a bottle of water, small bag of cookies, and a package of graham crackers. She was monitored continuously for 20 additional minutes at which time the client stated she felt fine and wanted to leave. She was walked to her vehicle and secured in her seat." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.143, + 0.732, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Explanation: The patient report mentions \"Respiration abnormal\" because the patient's respiration rate was slightly elevated as mentioned in the report, \"alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60.\" The patient's medical history of being diabetic and taking medication without eating or drinking was also noted. However, the patient's condition improved after being given water and some snacks and was monitored constantly for 20 additional minutes before leaving." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.771, + 0.085, + 0.83, + 0.092 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Select an option" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.78, + 0.094, + 0.875, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: The explanation is both honest and helpful 1 B:The explanation is honest but lacks details, thus not helpful C: The explanation is neither 3 D: A: It is helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation)." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.195, + 0.881, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.2: The web interface used to evaluate the quality of explanations in SYMPTOMIFY." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.242, + 0.884, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "symptom is mentioned in the report. Choose \\( \\mathbf{A} \\) if the explanation is correct, and helpful in describing why the symptom is mentioned. Choose \\( \\mathbf{B} \\) if the explanation is correct, but lacks details, thus not helpful to explain why the symptom is mentioned. Otherwise choose \\( \\mathbf{C} \\). Below are the examples we have provided for detailed instructions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.371, + 0.857, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Report: Flu-like symptoms, extreme chills (shivering), sweats for 2 days" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.404, + 0.667, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Symptom : Chill" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.435, + 0.859, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Explanation : The patient report mentions \"extreme chills (shivering)\" as a symptom, referring to the presence of extreme chills or shivering experienced by the patient for 2 days." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.516, + 0.859, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\rightarrow\\) The answer should be \\(\\mathbf{A}\\), since the explanation is correctly describing as \"The report mentions extreme chills (shivering) as a symptom\" with a reason based on the report." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.435, + 0.859, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.612, + 0.86, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.644, + 0.86, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "→The answer should be \\(\\pmb{B}\\) even the explanation is correct, since the explanation is NOT helpful and too short to conjecture why the symptom is mentioned." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.725, + 0.86, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill. It states the patient experienced dizziness and shivering for 2 days." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.773, + 0.86, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\rightarrow\\) The answer should be \\(C\\) since the patient did NOT experience 'dizziness', i.e., the explanation is not correct." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.839, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3) GPT-3 Definition Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is \"Given a term and definition, answer Yes or No whether the definition is correct for the term or not.\" We have provided the examples below for detailed instructions." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11678" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.097, + 0.28, + 0.105 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": ": Hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.11, + 0.358, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(We encourage you to google the term if you don't know what it means.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.122, + 0.369, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Definition: damage or death to the brain tissue caused by a lack of oxygen (hypoxia) and/or the inability of the blood to carry enough nutrients and oxygen to the brain cells (ischemia)." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.41, + 0.085, + 0.482, + 0.093 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Select an option" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.417, + 0.094, + 0.48, + 0.115 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Yes1
No2
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.162, + 0.486, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.3: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of GPT-3 Definitions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.215, + 0.269, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Term: Anosmia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.231, + 0.462, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Definition: Anosmia is a condition that results in a loss of the sense of smell." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.264, + 0.356, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "→ The answer should be Yes" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.295, + 0.274, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Term : Headache" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.312, + 0.465, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Definition : A reaction that occurs immediately following an injection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.345, + 0.354, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "→ The answer should be No" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.374, + 0.489, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also added guidance to encourage annotators to Google search if they are unaware of the symptoms." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.417, + 0.312, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Metadata Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.438, + 0.49, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VAERS contains over 20 pieces of metadata, for example patient's basic information (e.g., age and sex), medical background (e.g., allergies, and medications), and vaccination information (e.g., vaccine type, and vaccine provider). We analyze this metadata. First, we observed that some symptoms occur more frequently in certain age groups, as shown in Figure A.4. The age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine than other groups. On the one hand, teenagers (age group 10-19) are more likely to get Syncope, Loss of Consciousness, and Pallor. Second, symptoms such as Paraesthesia Oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males. Syncope, Death, and Pallor are more common in males as shown in Figure A.5. Third, symptoms vary depending on the vaccine type. Headache and Pyrexia are the most common side-effects of COVID 19 vaccines, however, Diarrhoea and Haematochezia mostly occur after RV5 vaccination (see Table A.1)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.381, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Experimental Setup Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table A.2 describes hyperparameters and search spaces we considered in experiments. For training transformer-based models, we used AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) for training all transformer-based models, and hyperparameters are set on the best validation performance. We ran experiments 3 times with different seeds, the reported scores are average of them. The results with" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.086, + 0.878, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.207, + 0.882, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.4: Symptoms by patient age. Age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.256, + 0.875, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.412, + 0.884, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.5: Symptoms by patient sex. The dashed line denotes an average ratio of male to female, and shows that females report more. Symptoms such as Paraesthesia oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.51, + 0.858, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "standard deviations are presented in Table A.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.527, + 0.884, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For generative models, we adopted GENRE's (Cao et al., 2021) experimental settings with 256 of maximum input length, 128 of maximum output length, 64 of batch size, and 4 of beam search size. We used the pre-trained BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) with 3e-5 of learning rate and T5-base (Raffel et al., 2019) with 1e-4 of learning rate following the original papers. We fine-tuned each model 5 epochs on our training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.683, + 0.885, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation of Generative Models While discriminative models can identify exact classes, generative models cannot predict discrete classes. In our work, we form the target text as a sequence of symptoms separated by “;”. We split the generated text by “;” and match each chunk with symptom names by exact string match. For those symptoms that are not exactly matched within our symptom set, we post-processed answer engineering as described in Section 5.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation of MetaMap We use Metamap for one of zero-shot baseline models. Given the input text, MetaMap outputs UMLS entities with confidence scores. We experimented with thresholds" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11679" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.082, + 0.837, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
COVID-19FLU4HPV9TDAPRV5
1HeadachePainSyncopeInjection site painDiarrhoea
2PyrexiaInjection site painDizzinessPainHaematochezia
3FatiguePain in extremityHeadachePain in extremityVomiting
4ChillsInjection site erythemaInjection site painInjection site swellingIntussusception
5PainPyrexiaNauseaInjection site erythemaPyrexia
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.297, + 0.188, + 0.7, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table A.1: Top 5 most frequent symptoms by vaccine type." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.224, + 0.507, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Metamap
threshold0.1\n{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Multi-label Classification
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
batch size32
threshold0.1\n{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Generative Models
Learning rate (BART-base)3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
Learning rate (T5-base)1e-4 {3e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4, 2e-4}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128 {64, 128, 256}
beam search size4
batch size64 {32, 64}
Joint Learning (C + GEN)
Learning rate3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128
batch size64 {32, 64}
λj0.1 {0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5}
LM Prompt (GPT-2)
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length512
batch size64 {32, 64}
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.654, + 0.489, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table A.2: Best-performing hyperparameters and search space. Values in parentheses denote search space." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3\\}\\) and regarded entities as positives over the threshold. The threshold of 0.1 was determined on the best validation score." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.49, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computing Infrastructure We ran all experiments on a single NVIDIA GTX 108 (12GB) with CUDA 10.1 version." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.833, + 0.279, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 More Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generation vs Classification We can observe the significant gap in performance between classification and generation models. Figure A.6 shows the difference of attention patterns in each ap" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.613, + 0.225, + 0.782, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Symptom
1Headache
2Pyrexia
3Fatigue
4Chills
5Pain
6Nausea
7Pain in extremity
8Dizziness
9Injection site pain
10Myalgia
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.396, + 0.855, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table A.3: Top 10 symptoms in SYMPTOMIFY" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.425, + 0.871, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input sentence: \\(90\\%\\) loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable target sentence: ageusia, anosmia, irritability, nervousness" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.444, + 0.88, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
step
0.120.020.020.040.070.070.020.020.080.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.050.060.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.050.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.0; 1/2-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.574, + 0.844, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Attention map according to the decoding step of the generative model" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.593, + 0.868, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.638, + 0.882, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.6: Generation vs Classification: Attention patterns in each approach." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.685, + 0.885, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "proach. In the generative model, the decoder attends input tokens that are related to symptoms at each decoding step. On the other hand, the classification model uses one aggregated vector to predict all symptom classes. We can conclude that considering most examples have multiple symptoms, predicting at once is not sufficient to recall multiple entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Negation Performance Due to the prevalence of complex negation in our dataset, we analyzed how the model performs in the presence of negation. We sampled 103 examples of those patterns from the development set and tested them with different training sizes. Figure A.7 presents performance" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11680" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.082, + 0.805, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embeddings0.723.320.875.87
Pretrain-FinetuneBERT-base ‡1.34 (±0.13)15.81 (±0.14)1.45 (±0.09)18.80 (±0.08)
BART-base ‡1.37 (±0.18)15.96 (±0.17)1.55 (±0.12)18.98 (±0.13)
ClinicalBERT ‡1.53 (±0.12)16.32 (±0.12)1.76 (±0.11)19.46 (±0.11)
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.29 (±0.35)62.68 (±0.25)8.12 (±0.47)65.79 (±0.25)
GEN w/ BART †31.15 (±0.37)78.90 (±0.24)31.22 (±0.19)81.27 (±0.25)
GEN w/ T5-base †32.01 (±0.31)79.88 (±0.27)32.19 (±0.22)82.25 (±0.25)
Joint C + GEN32.89 (±0.21)79.93 (±0.19)32.70 (±0.43)82.97 (±0.31)
PromptGPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.318, + 0.884, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table A.4: Performance summary. \\(\\ddagger\\) denotes classification methods and \\(\\dagger\\) denotes generative methods. Joint \\(C+\\) GEN refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.36, + 0.876, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TypeExample
no [symptom name]I feel cold, but do not have a fever, am not having chills, nausea, etc.Fever of 101, 102 for 2 Days; Chills; Nausea with no Vomiting.no visible signs of rash or irritation.
Medical history(not current symptom)Medical history included Ankylosing, spondylitis/psoriasis, cardiac ablation from Jan2017Family medical history included her dad had rheumatic fever and high blood pressure.Past medical history included no adverse event. concurrent medical conditionsincluded Ulcer and Hypothyroidism.
Other negation expressionsPatient didn’t experience fever and rash, but feel muscle painAll but the pain and soreness at the injection site subsided by the next dayDenies any further fevers or chills. Denies any nausea vomiting. Denies loss stasis smell.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.296, + 0.531, + 0.699, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table A.5: Examples of negation patterns in SYMPTOMIFY" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.571, + 0.489, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on 103 negation samples as we varied the number of train examples. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates at \\(200k\\). Through this result, we can conclude that our dataset contains sufficient negation data points and effectively learns to deal with a large number of them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.7, + 0.49, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We observed that the simple negation expression \"no [symptom name]\" is indeed an easy form of negation, the model performs well on it, even with a small amount of train set around \\(50k\\) examples. A more thorough analysis of which negation expressions the model still fails on after saturation, is left as future work. Table A.5 shows examples of negation expressions in SYMPTOMIFY." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.648, + 0.877, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure A.7: Micro F1 of the generative model with T5-base on data points involving negation as the size of the training data is varied. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates around \\(200k\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11681" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_origin.pdf b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e23dc29b5dd2a439e525e2510812052f35a2399e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/34e7002f-74f2-4990-ab6c-c9c196334fbd_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5d144ed752222955e43fdfe88a2a2e0f13acaa255e8663d937baf97f4e81c23b +size 5373850 diff --git a/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/full.md b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6f0f07ec98111504f898f670e837229d9c0d2ed --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,437 @@ +# SYMPTOMIFY: Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting + +Bosung Kim and Ndapa Nakashole + +Computer Science and Engineering + +University of California, San Diego + +La Jolla, CA 92093 + +bosungkim@ucsd.edu, nnakashole@eng.ucsd.edu + +# Abstract + +Given the high-stakes nature of healthcare decision-making, we aim to improve the efficiency of human annotators rather than replacing them with fully automated solutions. We introduce a new comprehensive resource, SYMPTOMIFY, a dataset of annotated vaccine adverse reaction reports detailing individual vaccine reactions. The dataset, consisting of over $800k$ reports, surpasses previous datasets in size. Notably, it features reasoning-based explanations alongside background knowledge obtained via language model knowledge harvesting. We assess data quality, and evaluate performance across various methods and learning paradigms, paving the way for future comparisons and benchmarking. $^1$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Drug safety monitoring systems like Vigibase (Lindquist, 2008) and VAERS² are essential for evaluating the safety of medications and vaccines. These systems enable anyone to report drug reactions, facilitating early detection of vaccine safety issues. For example, if a mother observes vomiting and fever in her two-year-old after the chickenpox vaccine, she may be curious about the frequency of similar reactions reported by others. VAERS' online browser can provide the answer. Being able to provide such answers involves normalizing the raw patient reports in order to address variations caused by polysemy, abbreviations, and other factors present in these informal and potentially noisy reports. + +VAERS employs trained staff to review and "code" each submitted report, assigning formal medical terms to the symptoms experienced by the patient. VAERS terms come from the standardized medical terminology known as the Medical + +![](images/251e8683f793e15a8f9429b210845a48be67dddb1fa0bf51fc642ce0f6e4557a.jpg) +Figure 1: A to C illustrate the stages of drug safety monitoring systems like VAERS. We aim to improve the efficiency of skilled human coders in step B by facilitating the development of systems that identify symptoms and offer explanations to aid coders, as demonstrated by the model-generated output in step D. + +Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) (Brown et al., 1999; Shimabukuro et al., 2015). To illustrate the coding process, consider the report: $\mathbf{R} \mathbf{I}$ : "I had a $90\%$ loss of smell/taste the next day. Also felt irritable and nervous but manageable." This report is annotated with these MedDRA terms: Ageusia, Anosmia, Irritability, Nervousness. + +Our aim is to support the decision-making of human coders during annotation, by supporting the development of symptom recognition models that can predict and explain identified symptoms (Figure 1). Given the high-stakes nature of this field, where data interpretation can carry life-or-death consequences, fully automated solutions are not yet sufficiently accurate. Specifically, we present a resource of annotated reports detailing people's reactions to vaccines, and enriched in several ways. In summary, our contributions are as follows: + +1. SYMPTOMIFY Dataset: We present a symptom recognition dataset derived from VAERS informal medical reports with over 800k entries. Beyond its scale, we enhance the dataset by adding explanations and background knowledge substantially boosting its utility for advancing systems that aid human coders in annotation. +2. Annotation Explanations: We enrich SYMP-TOMIFY with annotation explanations, carefully harvested from LLMs. We showcase their usefulness on the newly released Falcon language model. +3. Background Knowledge Augmentation: We augment SYMPTOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms, improving performance, particularly for rare symptoms. +4. Performance Evaluation: We implement and evaluate various baselines across different methods and learning paradigms, facilitating future comparisons and benchmarking. + +# 2 Related Work and Existing Datasets + +Our work is related to the old task of Named Entity Recognition (NER), which is the task of mapping mentions of entities in text to standardized entity names (Sutton and McCallum, 2004; Ratinov and Roth, 2009; Ritter et al., 2011; Hoffart et al., 2011; Cao et al., 2021). Our work goes beyond recognizing entities as we wish to support human decision making. Additionally, our work is complementary to work on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016), and can be used to build more explainable models. Furthermore, there are efforts to enhance open-source LLMs by extracting instruction-output pairs from massive, paid-API LLMs. The goal is to gather valuable data that can be utilized for instruction tuning of open-source models. This method is particularly beneficial for projects that lack the financial resources to hire people for human feedback, thereby democratizing access to advanced LLM capabilities (Peng et al., 2023). + +Closer to our work are prior efforts on creating datasets for medical entity recognition from diverse sources, including death certificates (Goeuriot et al., 2017), scientific publications (Verspoor et al., 2012; Mohan and Li, 2019), and electronic health records (EHRs) (Suominen et al., 2013). While these corpora contribute to medical entity recognition, they + +
DatasetSource# SymptomsSize
SYMPTOMIFY (ours)VAERS11,472871,373
COMETA (Basaldella et al., 2020)Reddit7,64520,000
MedRed (Scepanovic et al., 2020)Reddit182,000
RedMed (Laverty and Altman, 2019)Reddit2,978n/a
Twitter TwiMed (Alvaro et al., 2017)Twitter3,1442,000
CADEC (Karimi et al., 2015)AskaPatient6,7541,253
Twitter ADR (Nikfarjam et al., 2015)Twitter1,2801,784
+ +Table 1: SYMPTOMIFY surpasses the scale of previous related datasets for entity recognition in informal health reports. Additionally, SYMPTOMIFY contains annotation explanations and background knowledge about symptoms. + +differ from the focus of our work, which centers around user-generated text. + +Table 1 summarizes datasets closely related to ours, with many, like ours, targeting pharmacovigilance, and unlike ours, originating from social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit. Like our work, these efforts aimed to identify symptoms mentioned in unstructured and informal textual sources. SYMPTOMIFY surpasses previous datasets in size, and notably, it incorporates annotation explanations and provides background knowledge about symptoms. + +# 3 LM Knowledge Harvesting + +Access to the most powerful LMs is often limited to paid APIs with query restrictions. In dynamic settings, such as continuous MedDRA report annotation, rapid query response is crucial. Therefore, we propose to extract a portion of LM knowledge to enrich an existing dataset. This approach allows greater control, transparency, and balance between performance, cost-efficiency, and autonomy. + +Enriching existing datasets meets a widespread need as under-specified datasets are common. A prominent example comes from Question Answering tasks where only few datasets are fully labeled with question, answer, passage, and span. + +In our work, key steps to upgrade a dataset via LM knowledge harvesting include: (i) Identifying Shortcomings: Assess the dataset to determine missing elements and areas needing improvement. (ii) Creating Good Prompts: Design prompts using existing dataset examples to minimize potential ambiguities. (iii) Checking Data Quality: Implement strategies to assess LLM output quality, ensuring it is accurate, useful, and safe. (iv) Maintaining Detailed Records: Document the harvesting process, including prompts, LLM configurations, and dates, for improved transparency and reproducibility. + +# 4 The SYMPTOMIFY Dataset + +With VAERS3 as the starting dataset, we used LM knowledge harvesting to create SYMPTOMIFY. The dataset spans three years (2019-2021) and includes 839, 215 reports, incorporating symptom texts, relevant MedDRA terms, and associated metadata like age, sex, and vaccine type. + +# 4.1 Quantitative Analysis of MedDRA coders + +VAERS uses certified MedDRA coders to assign formal medical terms to symptoms. We evaluated the quality of these annotations via crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We first randomly selected 1,000 symptoms and then selected a corresponding patient report (symptom text) mentioning that specific symptom. A symptom was considered correctly annotated if two out of three evaluators agreed. Based on this accuracy metric, VAERS staff correctly labeled $93.4\%$ of the 1,000 tested symptoms, highlighting the high quality of their annotations. Still, this figure might underestimate the true accuracy, as most challenging examples were medical test results not stated in patient reports (such as C-reactive protein levels or metabolic function tests). The agreement rate among evaluators was moderately strong (0.55 Fleiss' Kappa), similar to related annotation tasks reported in the literature which showed agreements in the range: 0.55 - 0.62 (Wadhwa et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2018; Deleger et al., 2012). + +ChatGPT as the 4-th annotator. ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) served as a fourth annotator alongside three human coders, working on the same 1,000 tasks. The provided prompt was: "Does the following patient report mention ' $\{SYNTEM\} ^{\prime}$ : $\{REPORT\} ?$ .ChatGPT agreed with MedDRA in $86.7\%$ of the cases. However, this figure might overestimate ChatGPT's symptom recognition capacity, as this binary task is significantly simpler than unguided symptom identification. We further probed ChatGPT's abilities through tests more authentically reflecting symptom recognition. + +![](images/6ca489ab5fcf2de3a6f44e8d1330866437f0f3c9fa3510f82708e0c334e9ffc8.jpg) +Figure 2: Distribution of explanation lengths in number of words. + +![](images/44e82686f795ef1e616d249b8c42561d6761561a6b098e445a7a77e9b9276ad4.jpg) +Figure 3: Visualizing the top 30 most frequent 4-grams in explanations. These phrases often indicate that the explanations quote spans from the patient reports. + +# 4.2 Harvesting Annotation Explanations + +We augment VAERS data by incorporating explanations to compensate for the absence of span-level annotations. Using GPT-3.5, we generated explanations to add to the dataset. The prompt used was: "Explain why the patient report mentions 'SYMP-TOM' ", quoting report fragments where possible: $\{REPORT\} ^{\prime \prime}$ .ChatGPT's responses were then used as explanations. These explanations offer extended context beyond the report's explicit content, like identifying Hypoxia from a report referencing an "oxygen saturation of $86\%$ , correctly interpreting it as low blood oxygen. By directly quoting from the patient report, the explanations also provide span-level information. + +Qualitative Analysis of Explanations. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the distribution of explanation lengths and the 30 most recurrent 4-grams within the explanations, respectively. Often, these frequently appearing phrases refer to the symptom mentions in patient reports, including phrases like "is mentioned in the," "the report states that," "frag + +
VaccineSymptomExplanation Fragment
FLU4Dizziness posturalThis is evident from the following fragment of the report: "I became extremely dizzy when I tried to stand.
COVID19LymphadenopathyThis is evident from the statement "My lymph nodes were swollen."
FLUA3Throat tightnessThe following fragments from the report indicate the presence of the symptom: - "throat feeling like its about to close" - "swelling and lump in throat on right side"
HEPAThirstThe following fragments from the report support this explanation: "He then began drinking large amounts of water throughout the day and even waking at night to ask for a drink multiple times."
FLUA4ArthralgiaThe report states "Shoulder pain" which is a common symptom of arthralgia.
FLUR4DyspnoeaThe symptom "Dyspnoea" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is experiencing difficulty breathing, which is a common symptom of dyspnoea.
+ +ments from the report," etc. Table 2 shows fragments from example explanations that feature these common 4-grams, illustrating the direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background symptom knowledge. + +Quantitative Analysis of Explanations: Honesty and Helpfulness. We evaluated the explanations on two primary dimensions: 1) Honesty: Is the explanation factually accurate, without fabrications or distortions? and 2) Helpfulness: Is the explanation correct and beneficial in clarifying why a symptom is mentioned?. We randomly picked 1,000 explanations and employed a three-choice task for assessment: A) The explanation is both honest and helpful; B) The explanation is honest but not detailed enough to be helpful; and C) The explanation is neither honest nor helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation). Each task was evaluated by three annotators, with a label deemed accurate if at least two annotators agreed on it. Our findings show that $91.3\%$ of the explanations were honest and helpful, $7.5\%$ were honest but not helpful, and $1.2\%$ were neither honest nor helpful. For this relatively complex task, we hired three graduate students for annotation. The agreement rate was moderately strong, with a Fleiss's Kappa of 0.60. + +# 4.3 Harvesting Background Knowledge + +Sometimes, recognizing symptoms in a report requires understanding beyond what's written. For example, a report might state "BP is 173/109" without mentioning hypertension directly. But, given that hypertension is defined as blood pressure above 140/90, the report implies this condition. This kind of understanding demands external knowledge. Thus, we aimed to augment SYMP-TOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms. + +As a basic form of background knowledge we link each unique symptom in SYMPTOMIFY with + +Table 2: Example explanation fragments featuring some of the most common 4-grams, demonstrating direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background knowledge about symptoms when necessary. + +
SymptomLLM DefinitionUMLS Definition
MelaenaBlood in the stool, typically caused by gastrointestinal bleeding.The black, tarry, foul-smelling feces that contain degraded blood.
IschaemiaLack of blood flow to a tissue or organ. This may be due to obstruction or a problem with the blood vessels.A decrease in blood supply caused by blockage of blood vessel.
+ +Table 3: Examples of symptom definitions derived from both UMLS and a Language Model (LM). The comparison with UMLS definitions underscores the LM's capability to generate high-quality, medical term definitions. + +its definition. We harvested symptom definitions using the LLM6. Here one could also use knowledge graphs such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004), but we found coverage to be incomplete. In our experiments, these definitions were used in zero-shot learning baselines. But, there are many other potential applications that future research could explore. Currently, SYMPTOMIFY's symptom background knowledge primarily consists of definitions. However, there are avenues to expand this knowledge further. For example, more complex relational structured data, such as known relationships between symptoms, could be extracted from large LMs in future endeavors. + +Qualitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. In Table 3, we display two example definitions generated by the LM, comparing them with UMLS definitions to highlight the LM's proficiency in producing high-quality explanations. Certain terms used in drug safety monitoring systems may have dual meanings, creating ambiguity both within and outside the medical context. To bolster a medically-focused comprehension, particularly regarding adverse effects, we recommend integrating the phrase "adverse effect" into the definition prompt, and sup + +plementing the prompt with example reports from VAERS that mention the symptom in a few-shot style. This method mitigates potential misunderstandings from multiple interpretations of a term. + +Quantitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. To quantitatively evaluate the definitions, we randomly selected 1,000 definitions and assigned three crowd-sourced annotators to rate each definition's accuracy. A definition was deemed accurate and useful if it gained agreement from at least two annotators. The evaluation results indicated that $96.4\%$ of the definitions were accurate. The inter-rater agreement, Fleiss' Kappa, was 0.34, which indicates a fair degree of consensus among the raters.[7] + +# 5 Experimental Study + +Data. Our experiments use the following data splits: Training set with 671,373 instances, validation set with 83,921 instances, and test set with 83,921 instances. We further segment the test set into three subsets for more granular analysis: i) Full: The entire test set. ii) UMLS-mapped: Exclusively contains symptoms that can be mapped to UMLS, identified via exact string matching, for fair comparison with previous UMLS-focused studies, specifically Metamap. iii) Rare: Only includes 'long-tail' symptoms, those occurring in 50 or less reports, representing over $80\%$ of all symptoms. More details of the experimental configuration can be found in the appendix. + +Task. To set the initial benchmarks on our dataset, we started by focusing on the accuracy of symptom recognition, without considering the added information from explanations or symptom background knowledge. We represented each data point as a pair $(x, S_i)$ , where $x$ is a patient report and $S_i = \{s_1, \dots, s_n | s_i \in S\}$ is the set of symptoms mentioned in $x$ . The goal is to predict the MedDRA names of symptoms mentioned in the input report $x$ . We explore a variety of baseline methods across different learning paradigms: + +1. String Matching: Involves matching symptom names directly with the report text. +2. Symptom Embedding: Represents symptom names and report texts as dense vectors for matching. + +
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embedding0.723.320.875.87
+ +Table 4: Performance of string matching and symptom embedding methods. These methods do not utilize the training data. + +![](images/1134b7a419dc669594fffbd9de475adf783ceba004ad10b846d759dcd12e7d52.jpg) +Figure 4: An illustration of symptom embedding baseline. It is similar to span-based string matching, but performs matches using continuous representations rather than discrete symbols. + +3. Pretrain-Finetune: Uses pre-trained language models fine-tuned on our dataset. +4. Prompting: Leverages prompts to generate responses from language models in zero-shot and few-shot settings. + +# 5.1 String Matching Baselines + +Our initial baselines attempt to align symptom mentions with MedDRA terms without considering context or utilizing training data. We employ two methods: (i) MetaMap: A National Library of Medicine-developed tool that maps text spans to symptom names in the UMLS dictionary. For fairness, we only evaluated MetaMap on the test set subset that could be UMLS-mapped. (ii) Exact String Matching: A stringent method that requires precise string matches, offering a stricter comparison than MetaMap's span matching. + +The results in Table 4 demonstrate the task's complexity, as these string matching methods perform poorly. The findings underline the shortcomings of simplistic approaches in effectively handling this task. + +# 5.2 Symptom Embedding Baseline + +As shown in Figure 4, our symptom embedding method uses dense retrieval from a frozen language model. Symptom vector representations + +are created from symptom definitions in SYMP-TOMIFY. For each symptom $s_i$ , we construct an embedding $\mathbf{h}_{s_i}$ using its name and definition. Similarly, we generate n-gram span embeddings for each n-gram in the patient report using ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019) and the span embedding method by Ujiie et al. (2021). We then compare each symptom embedding with all n-gram embeddings using the scoring function $f(s_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}) = \mathbf{h}_{s_i} \cdot \mathbf{h}[x_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}]$ . We recall spans with scores exceeding a certain threshold, determined by the best validation score. This approach is similar to zero-shot entity linking by Wu et al. (2019). In our experiments, with $n = 2$ , the embedding method did not surpass the string matching method, suggesting that further training of embeddings may be needed (see Table 4). + +# 5.3 Pretrain-Finetune Baselines + +Given the substantial data available in SYMP-TOMIFY, we investigated fine-tuning baselines. + +Classification Approach. In a multi-label classification context, we experimented with various pre-trained language models including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), and ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019). We used BERT's classification paradigm, using the [CLS] vector for the sentence representation and a classifier layer. Additionally, we implemented a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) on top of BERT's last hidden states (BERT + CNN) to capture more granular features from the contextualized representations, following the approach by Safaya et al. (2020). + +Generative Approach. In the context of symptom generation, we adopt the generative entity retrieval approach of GENRE, utilizing a transformer-based encoder and decoder (Cao et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2020). In this framework, the model generates a sequence of symptom names as the target output, rather than individual entity classification. To retrieve multiple symptoms, GENRE needs annotated spans referring to each symptom. However, as mentioned, VAERS annotations lack symptom mention spans; we only know if a symptom was mentioned or not. Thus, we generate a target sequence as a comma-separated list, e.g., given the input report: "I have muscle pain and fever", the target sequence is: "Myalgia, Pyrexia". We consider baselines using BART and T5 as the pretrained models. + +![](images/24399a77824a63af62d117500cb6dda07f11201a9c313c8eb6810944217f6c09.jpg) +Figure 5: The joint learning method combines discriminative and generative approaches in the pretrain-finetune paradigm. The classifier head (yellow) and the generation head (blue) are illustrated. + +
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
BERT-base ‡1.3415.811.4518.80
BART-base ‡1.3715.961.5518.98
ClinicalBERT ‡1.5316.321.7619.46
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.2962.688.1265.79
GEN w/ BART31.1578.9031.2281.27
GEN w/ T5-base32.0179.8832.1982.25
Joint C + GEN32.8979.9332.7082.97
+ +Table 5: Pretrain-finetune performance. $\ddagger$ denotes classification methods. Models without symbols are generative. Joint $C + GEN$ refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT). + +Joint Classification & Generation. To bring together the strengths of both discriminative and generative approaches within the pretrain-finetune framework, we implement a joint learning strategy. We use transformer-based models for both approaches, with shared transformer layers but distinct output layers for each task. This joint model structure is depicted in Figure 5. + +Results. The generative techniques substantially outperformed the most effective string-matching method, demonstrating the power of such models. Leveraging T5 as the base model, the generative model achieved impressive micro F1 scores of $79.88\%$ and $82.25\%$ on the Full and UMLS-mapped test sets respectively. Interestingly, the multi-label classification didn't surpass the string matching approach, potentially due to the large class count (over 11K) and the bottleneck caused by the [CLS] token. However, incorporating a CNN on top of ClinicalBERT enhanced classification performance, reaching $62.68\%$ on the full set and $65.79\%$ on the UMLS-mapped set, but still lagging behind the generative model. + +The joint learning model showed modest performance improvements, confirming the benefit of combined strategies. + +The variance between micro and macro F1 + +
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
GPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
+ +Table 6: Performance of prompting methods. While these methods fall short of the pretrain-finetune techniques, it is notable that the pretrain-finetune approach leverages the extensive SYMPTOMIFY dataset, underlining the considerable benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY. + +
ModelRare symptoms test set
Macro F1Micro F1
String match †6.917.79
GEN (T5-base)21.7824.98
GEN w/ definitions21.7225.16
GEN w/ synthetic reports23.3125.73
GPT-2 Prompting6.637.87
ChatGPT Prompting (zero-shot)11.758.56
ChatGPT Prompting (one-shot)16.0610.49
+ +Table 7: Macro F1 and Micro F1 of the symptom detection task on the rare symptoms test set. + +scores in all configurations is due to the dataset's imbalance: $80\%$ of symptoms are rare with 50 or fewer reports mentioning them, thus making it harder for the model to learn to accurately detect these infrequent symptoms. + +# 5.4 Prompting Baselines + +Given the widespread success of LM promoting, we also experimented with prompting baselines. + +Language Model Prompting. We prompted ChatGPT using the following prompt: $x =$ Extract a comma-separated list of symptoms from the following report: " $\{\text{REPORT}\}$ ". In addition to zero-shot prompting, we explored the few-shot setting, specifically the one-shot setting with a single test set example added to the prompt. + +Discriminative models assign mentions to specific class labels, while generative language models have a vocabulary that may differ from the formal symptom names in MedDRA. For instance, when generating the symptom "Pyrexia," ChatGPT often produces "Fever" instead. This necessitates answer engineering. We employ embedding-based methods using SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The prediction with the highest cosine similarity score between the predefined symptom set and the generated output is selected. + +Results. Table 6 contains the results of the + +![](images/8979ddbd18bcddaf66253e18464a0a7f51643bcd3b675c0a6ccf195e65e60034.jpg) +Figure 6: Synthetic Report Generation: the LM takes symptom names as input, and to encourage semantically faithful reports, also takes background knowledge as input (A), During training, target (B) and generated reports (C) are used to compute the loss. + +prompting methods, and shows that they are unable to surpass the performance of the pretrain-finetune methods. This is expected since the pretrain-finetune models are trained on a large training data set of over 600K reports, whereas the zero-shot and one-shot prompting methods have access to zero or only one report, respectively. It is worth noting that the large-scale nature of SYMPTOMIFY highlights the significant benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY. + +# 5.5 Semantically Faithful Synthetic Data for Rare Symptoms + +In our experiments, all methods struggled to identify rare symptoms. To address the rare symptoms problem, we used data augmentation techniques to generate more data points for these symptoms. We tried using symptom definitions as synthetic reports but found a stark discrepancy between the language in real reports and definitions. We instead used a simple synthetic data generation method to create more realistic data points for rare symptoms, illustrated in Figure 6. We trained a GPT-2 model on prompts comprising symptom name and definition. The definition is there to ensure that the report is semantically faithful to the meaning of the symptom, also reducing ambiguity in comparison to conditioning on the symptom name alone. Using Top-k multinomial sampling, we generated 100 synthetic reports per symptom, with optimal performance using 30 reports each. We then integrated this augmented data into our training set to improve the model's handling of rare symptoms. + +Results. Table 7 illustrates the low performance achieved on the rare symptoms dataset, as indicated by both the macro and micro F1 scores across all + +
(C1) Symptom(C2) Report(C3) Zero-shot Falcon Explanation(C4) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanation
(R1) ArthralgiaPatient having shoulder pain. Made appoint-ment with doctor. MRI completed. Possible SIRVA.Arthralgia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom associated with SIRVA (Shoulder Impingement Syndrome with Radial Neuropathy)The symptom "Arthralgia" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported shoulder pain. This is evident from the state-ment "Patient having shoulder pain".
(R2) Pyrexiaall over body rash and feverPyrexia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom of feverThe symptom "Pyrexia" is mentioned in the pa-tient report because the patient is experiencing a fever.
(R3) Muscle spasmsPatient stated he was getting muscle spasms in the neck and back after the flu shot.Muscle spasms are a common side effect of the flu shot. The patient may have received the flu vaccine and experienced muscle spasms as a result.The symptom "Muscle spasms" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is ex-persiencing muscle spasms in the neck and back after receiving a flu shot.
(R4) Mood alteredFever, cold chills, restless sleep, redness at site of injection, right leg soreness-unable to stand on that leg, loss of appetite, moodiness/crying. After 12 hours of injectionThe patient reported mood altered as a result of the injection. This is mentioned in the patient report as it is a potential side effect of the med-ication.The symptom "Mood altered" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported experiencing a change in their mood. This is evident from the statement "I was moody/cry-ing."
+ +Table 8: Falcon LM struggles to generate quality explanations (column C3) compared to ChatGPT. Yet, supplementing it with SYMPTOMIFY explanations improves its performance (column C4). Blue indicates accurate report fragments; red signifies paraphrased, non-exact matches, or hallucinations. + +methods. Furthermore, we observe a modest improvement when incorporating synthetic reports into the training data. While the improvement is small, it demonstrates the (perhaps small) potential benefits of leveraging synthetic data to enhance the model's ability to handle rare symptoms. + +# 5.6 Leveraging SYMPTOMIFY's Explanations in Falcon + +We carried out an experiment to study the effectiveness of the explanations in SYMPTOMIFY using a prompting approach. For this, we used Falcon-7B-Instruct8, a new, instruction-tuned iteration of the open-source Falcon renowned for its superior performance on key NLP benchmarks. The experiment had two configurations: + +1) Zero-shot Falcon Explanations: We executed standard zero-shot in-context learning with Falcon. +2) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanations: We introduced few-shot learning in this setup, using selected SYMPTOMIFY explanations as our few-shots. + +Table 8 provides a comparative analysis of Falcon's explanation generation under the two scenarios. Initially, Falcon struggled to produce beneficial explanations in the zero-shot learning context. However, its performance significantly improved in terms of specificity and context quoting when it was supplemented with few-shot learning, using a handful of SYMPTOMIFY explanations as a guide (contrast columns $C3$ and $C4$ , specifically $(R1,C4))$ . Nonetheless, false quoting of hallucinated segments, as illustrated in $(R4,C4)$ is a problem. To tackle this, one possible solution is to + +expose Falcon to a larger volume of SYMPTOMIFY explanations, thus improving its ability to generate high-quality explanations. However, due to the context size limitations in the prompting, the ideal solution to leverage these explanations effectively would be to implement the pretrain-finetune approach to use the massive SYMPTOMIFY dataset more productively as training data. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We introduced SYMPTOMIFY, a large-scale dataset of annotated reports, reflecting reactions to medications and vaccines. It includes MedDRA symptoms, annotation explanations, and background knowledge about symptoms, designed to facilitate development of systems that can aid human annotators operating in the critically important public health domain. Despite current performance on rare symptoms being low across all baselines, the continual evolution in language models and strides in few-shot learning offer promise for improvement. + +There are several avenues for improving SYMP-TOMIFY and expanding its utility. Integrating the explanations into a wider range of models may lead to the better generation of explained predictions with open source models such as Falcon. Expanding background knowledge to include relational knowledge, such as inter-symptom relationships, could yield performance gains. Further, focusing on laypeople's perspectives and acquiring more layman medical terms could facilitate a broader, more inclusive understanding of symptoms. Looking further ahead, as patient reports can sometimes contain not only textual descriptions but also ref + +erences to medical images, pictures submitted by patients, and lab test results, the incorporation of these non-textual elements using multi-modal language models, could be useful. + +# Limitations + +Our work, while it made useful contributions, has a number of significant limitations. First, the VAERS database, our primary data source, may not be representative of the larger population due to potential sampling biases. It also limits language diversity as it contains only English-language reports. + +The symptom distribution in the reports presents a distinct challenge, with a strong skew towards certain symptoms that hinders model performance, including that of our most successful methods, like pretrain-finetune. While our attempts to rectify this through data augmentation techniques have yielded some improvement, the performance still falls short. This indicates the need for innovative methods that go beyond synthetic data expansion for addressing this challenge effectively. + +The explanations present in SYMPTOMIFY are a rich resource that, as of now, we've only begun to explore. The explanations coupled with the public availability of the dataset offer a valuable base for other researchers to integrate into their work. Nevertheless, more exhaustive studies are needed to fully harness the potential of these explanations. + +The potential biases of language models like ChatGPT, known to mirror the biases in the data they're trained on, is another limitation. Although we have not observed any explicit biases in our current study, no thorough testing for bias was conducted, and it remains a concern. + +Finally, the use of non-medical experts from Amazon Mechanical Turk, as well as Computer Science graduate students for the annotation process introduces the possibility of inaccuracies into our assessment. Although we attempted to mitigate this by implementing a rigorous review process and utilizing multiple annotators, this factor may still have influenced the accuracy of our human evaluations. Future work may benefit from the involvement of medical experts in the annotation process, to increase the validity of our findings, and by extension the dataset. + +# Ethics Statement + +Models for symptom recognition have the potential to provide valuable insights for monitoring and as + +serving the safety of medicines and vaccines. They can aid in the timely identification of potential risks and contribute to individual and public health. However, the availability of data to train such models, which is the main contribution of this work, raises concerns about individual privacy. Releasing the data, which includes free text reports and metadata from VAERS, may risk the exposure of personal information or identities. We rely on the privacy monitoring efforts of the CDC and FDA, the co-managers of VAERS. Furthermore, Following prior work on automated health systems, our goal is to be clear and transparent about the content of SYMPTOMIFY and the capabilities of the methods developed in this work. + +# References + +Emily Alsentzer, John R. Murphy, Willie Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew B. A. McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings. +Nestor Alvaro, Yusuke Miyao, Nigel Collier, et al. 2017. Twimed: Twitter and pubmed comparable corpus of drugs, diseases, symptoms, and their relations. *JMIR public health and surveillance*, 3(2):e6396. +Marco Basaldella, Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, and Nigel Collier. 2020. Cometa: A corpus for medical entity linking in the social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03295. +Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The unified medical language system (uml's): integrating biomedical terminology. *Nucleic acids research*, 32(suppl_1):D267-D270. +Elliot G Brown, Louise Wood, and Sue Wood. 1999. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (meddra). Drug safety, 20(2):109-117. +Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Louise Deleger, Qi Li, Todd Lingren, Megan Kaiser, Katalin Molnar, Laura Stoutenborough, Michal Kouril, Keith Marsolo, Imre Solti, et al. 2012. Building gold standard corpora for medical natural language processing tasks. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2012, page 144. American Medical Informatics Association. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for + +Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608. +Lorraine Goeuriot, Liadh Kelly, Hanna Suominen, Aurelie Néveol, Aude Robert, Evangelos Kanoulas, Rene Spijker, Joao Palotti, and Guido Zuccon. 2017. Clef 2017 ehealth evaluation lab overview. In Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction: 8th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2017, Dublin, Ireland, September 11-14, 2017, Proceedings 8, pages 291-303. Springer. +Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 782-792. +Sarvnaz Karimi, Alejandro Metke-Jimenez, Madonna Kemp, and Chen Wang. 2015. Cadec: A corpus of adverse drug event annotations. Journal of biomedical informatics, 55:73-81. +Adam Laverty and Russ B Altman. 2019. Redmed: Extending drug lexicons for social media applications. Journal of biomedical informatics, 99:103307. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marie Lindquist. 2008. Vigibase, the who global icsr database system: basic facts. *Drug Information Journal*, 42(5):409-419. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101. +Sunil Mohan and Donghui Li. 2019. Medmentions: A large biomedical corpus annotated with umls concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09476. +Azadeh Nikfarjam, Abeed Sarker, Karen O'connor, Rachel Ginn, and Graciela Gonzalez. 2015. Pharmacovigilance from social media: mining adverse drug reaction mentions using sequence labeling with word embedding cluster features. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(3):671-681. + +Benjamin Nye, Junyi Jessy Li, Roma Patel, Yinfei Yang, Iain J Marshall, Ani Nenkova, and Byron C Wallace. 2018. A corpus with multi-level annotations of patients, interventions and outcomes to support language processing for medical literature. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2018, page 197. NIH Public Access. +Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683. +Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135-1144. +Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Oren Etzioni, et al. 2011. Named entity recognition in tweets: an experimental study. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1524-1534. +Ali Safaya, Moutasem Abdullatif, and Deniz Yuret. 2020. KUISAIL at SemEval-2020 task 12: BERT-CNN for offensive speech identification in social media. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 2054–2059, Barcelona (online). International Committee for Computational Linguistics. +Sanja Scepanovic, Enrique Martin-Lopez, Daniele Quercia, and Khan Baykaner. 2020. Extracting medical entities from social media. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pages 170-181. +Tom T. Shimabukuro, Michael Nguyen, David Martin, and Frank DeStefano. 2015. Safety monitoring in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (vaers). Vaccine, 33(36):4398-4405. + +Hanna Suominen, Sanna Salanterä, Sumithra Velupillai, Wendy W Chapman, Guergana Savova, Noemie Elhadad, Sameer Pradhan, Brett R South, Danielle L Mowery, Gareth JF Jones, et al. 2013. Overview of the share/clef ehealth evaluation lab 2013. In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization: 4th International Conference of the CLEF Initiative, CLEF 2013, Valencia, Spain, September 23-26, 2013. Proceedings 4, pages 212-231. Springer. +Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. 2004. Collective segmentation and labeling of distant entities in information extraction. Technical report, MASSACHUSETTS UNIV AMHERST DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE. +Shogo Ujiie, Hayate Iso, Shuntaro Yada, Shoko Wakamiya, and Eiji Aramaki. 2021. End-to-end biomedical entity linking with span-based dictionary matching. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 162-167, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Karin Verspoor, Kevin Bretonnel Cohen, Arrick Lanfranchi, Colin Warner, Helen L Johnson, Christophe Roeder, Jinho D Choi, Christopher Funk, Yuriy Malenkiy, Miriam Eckert, et al. 2012. A corpus of full-text journal articles is a robust evaluation tool for revealing differences in performance of biomedical natural language processing tools. BMC bioinformatics, 13(1):1-26. +Somin Wadhwa, Vivek Khetan, Silvio Amir, and Byron Wallace. 2022. Redhot: A corpus of annotated medical questions, experiences, and claims on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06331. +Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03814. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Annotation Instructions for Mechanical Turk + +We conducted three assessments via the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) system and our annotation process. In this section, we describe detailed instructions and web interface screenshots used in the assessments. + +# Symptom (or Diagnosis) + +Chronic spontaneous urticaria (Definition of symptom/diagnosis: a skin disorder that is characterized by the occurrence of hives (urticaria) spontaneously and chronically. These are red, itchy, and often swollen areas of skin that are the result of an allergic reaction.) + +# Patient Report + +Ongoing chronic spontaneous urticaria presenting 12/3/2021 (two weeks after vaccine administered). Rash disappears and reappears in different random locations (scalp, neck, back, stomach, behind ears). Oral administration of Zytec relieves symptoms for approx. 24 hours, but symptoms return when daily dosage is halted. No known existing allergies. No reactions to the first two moderna shots, only to the booster. Will seek a clinic visit soon, but has not had time yet. + +# Select an option + +Included + +Not included 2 + +Figure A.1: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of MedDRA annotation in VAERS. + +1) VAERS MedDRA Annotation Quality Assessment As described in section 4.1, we evaluate the annotation quality of MedDRA annotations in VAERS. The instruction given to workers is "Given a patient's report describes their medical conditions. The goal of this task is to check whether the given symptom is included in the report or not." For the detailed instruction, we provided the examples as below: + +# Symptom/Diagnosis: Anosmia + +Patient report : $90\%$ loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable. + +→ The answer should be Included since the report mentions "90% loss of smell" in the report. + +# Symptom/Diagnosis : Headache + +Patient report : $90\%$ loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable. + +→ The answer should be Not included + +We also added the definition of the symptom in case that the workers are not familiar with the symptom (see Figure A.1). + +2) Explanation Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is "Given a patient report and the symptom, the explanation is describing why the + +[Patent Report]: Patient was observed being unsteady ambulating with her cane. She was helped to a chair and assessed, alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60. Brief history was taken and she stated she was diabetic. Patient stated that she had taken her morning diabetic medication but had not eaten anything yet today. Patient was given a bottle of water, small bag of cookies, and a package of graham crackers. She was monitored continuously for 20 additional minutes at which time the client stated she felt fine and wanted to leave. She was walked to her vehicle and secured in her seat. + +Explanation: The patient report mentions "Respiration abnormal" because the patient's respiration rate was slightly elevated as mentioned in the report, "alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60." The patient's medical history of being diabetic and taking medication without eating or drinking was also noted. However, the patient's condition improved after being given water and some snacks and was monitored constantly for 20 additional minutes before leaving. + +# Select an option + +A: The explanation is both honest and helpful 1 B:The explanation is honest but lacks details, thus not helpful C: The explanation is neither 3 D: A: It is helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation). + +Figure A.2: The web interface used to evaluate the quality of explanations in SYMPTOMIFY. + +symptom is mentioned in the report. Choose $\mathbf{A}$ if the explanation is correct, and helpful in describing why the symptom is mentioned. Choose $\mathbf{B}$ if the explanation is correct, but lacks details, thus not helpful to explain why the symptom is mentioned. Otherwise choose $\mathbf{C}$ . Below are the examples we have provided for detailed instructions. + +# Report: Flu-like symptoms, extreme chills (shivering), sweats for 2 days + +# Symptom : Chill + +Explanation : The patient report mentions "extreme chills (shivering)" as a symptom, referring to the presence of extreme chills or shivering experienced by the patient for 2 days. +$\rightarrow$ The answer should be $\mathbf{A}$ , since the explanation is correctly describing as "The report mentions extreme chills (shivering) as a symptom" with a reason based on the report. + +Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill. + +→The answer should be $\pmb{B}$ even the explanation is correct, since the explanation is NOT helpful and too short to conjecture why the symptom is mentioned. + +Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill. It states the patient experienced dizziness and shivering for 2 days. + +$\rightarrow$ The answer should be $C$ since the patient did NOT experience 'dizziness', i.e., the explanation is not correct. + +3) GPT-3 Definition Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is "Given a term and definition, answer Yes or No whether the definition is correct for the term or not." We have provided the examples below for detailed instructions. + +# : Hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy + +(We encourage you to google the term if you don't know what it means.) + +Definition: damage or death to the brain tissue caused by a lack of oxygen (hypoxia) and/or the inability of the blood to carry enough nutrients and oxygen to the brain cells (ischemia). + +Select an option + +
Yes1
No2
+ +# Term: Anosmia + +Definition: Anosmia is a condition that results in a loss of the sense of smell. + +→ The answer should be Yes + +# Term : Headache + +Definition : A reaction that occurs immediately following an injection. + +→ The answer should be No + +We also added guidance to encourage annotators to Google search if they are unaware of the symptoms. + +# A.2 Metadata Analysis + +VAERS contains over 20 pieces of metadata, for example patient's basic information (e.g., age and sex), medical background (e.g., allergies, and medications), and vaccination information (e.g., vaccine type, and vaccine provider). We analyze this metadata. First, we observed that some symptoms occur more frequently in certain age groups, as shown in Figure A.4. The age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine than other groups. On the one hand, teenagers (age group 10-19) are more likely to get Syncope, Loss of Consciousness, and Pallor. Second, symptoms such as Paraesthesia Oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males. Syncope, Death, and Pallor are more common in males as shown in Figure A.5. Third, symptoms vary depending on the vaccine type. Headache and Pyrexia are the most common side-effects of COVID 19 vaccines, however, Diarrhoea and Haematochezia mostly occur after RV5 vaccination (see Table A.1). + +# A.3 Experimental Setup Details + +Table A.2 describes hyperparameters and search spaces we considered in experiments. For training transformer-based models, we used AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) for training all transformer-based models, and hyperparameters are set on the best validation performance. We ran experiments 3 times with different seeds, the reported scores are average of them. The results with + +![](images/88ac3a59c4cf57bf5ef347962efbd93088c6a3147b5c920b844d64654408ced5.jpg) +Figure A.3: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of GPT-3 Definitions. + +![](images/ca0f04991dd7b51dc547fb802d6394d407001592382e129f3d1eeb83ee698166.jpg) +Figure A.4: Symptoms by patient age. Age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine. +Figure A.5: Symptoms by patient sex. The dashed line denotes an average ratio of male to female, and shows that females report more. Symptoms such as Paraesthesia oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males. + +standard deviations are presented in Table A.4. + +For generative models, we adopted GENRE's (Cao et al., 2021) experimental settings with 256 of maximum input length, 128 of maximum output length, 64 of batch size, and 4 of beam search size. We used the pre-trained BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) with 3e-5 of learning rate and T5-base (Raffel et al., 2019) with 1e-4 of learning rate following the original papers. We fine-tuned each model 5 epochs on our training set. + +Evaluation of Generative Models While discriminative models can identify exact classes, generative models cannot predict discrete classes. In our work, we form the target text as a sequence of symptoms separated by “;”. We split the generated text by “;” and match each chunk with symptom names by exact string match. For those symptoms that are not exactly matched within our symptom set, we post-processed answer engineering as described in Section 5.4. + +Evaluation of MetaMap We use Metamap for one of zero-shot baseline models. Given the input text, MetaMap outputs UMLS entities with confidence scores. We experimented with thresholds + +
COVID-19FLU4HPV9TDAPRV5
1HeadachePainSyncopeInjection site painDiarrhoea
2PyrexiaInjection site painDizzinessPainHaematochezia
3FatiguePain in extremityHeadachePain in extremityVomiting
4ChillsInjection site erythemaInjection site painInjection site swellingIntussusception
5PainPyrexiaNauseaInjection site erythemaPyrexia
+ +Table A.1: Top 5 most frequent symptoms by vaccine type. + +
Metamap
threshold0.1 +{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Multi-label Classification
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
batch size32
threshold0.1 +{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Generative Models
Learning rate (BART-base)3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
Learning rate (T5-base)1e-4 {3e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4, 2e-4}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128 {64, 128, 256}
beam search size4
batch size64 {32, 64}
Joint Learning (C + GEN)
Learning rate3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128
batch size64 {32, 64}
λj0.1 {0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5}
LM Prompt (GPT-2)
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length512
batch size64 {32, 64}
+ +$\{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3\}$ and regarded entities as positives over the threshold. The threshold of 0.1 was determined on the best validation score. + +Computing Infrastructure We ran all experiments on a single NVIDIA GTX 108 (12GB) with CUDA 10.1 version. + +# A.4 More Analysis + +Generation vs Classification We can observe the significant gap in performance between classification and generation models. Figure A.6 shows the difference of attention patterns in each ap + +Table A.2: Best-performing hyperparameters and search space. Values in parentheses denote search space. + +
Symptom
1Headache
2Pyrexia
3Fatigue
4Chills
5Pain
6Nausea
7Pain in extremity
8Dizziness
9Injection site pain
10Myalgia
+ +Table A.3: Top 10 symptoms in SYMPTOMIFY +Input sentence: $90\%$ loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable target sentence: ageusia, anosmia, irritability, nervousness + +
step
0.120.020.020.040.070.070.020.020.080.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.050.060.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.050.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.0; 1/2-
+ +(a) Attention map according to the decoding step of the generative model + +![](images/358235ad05137fb9bcaa2c6ad46eb814fd340109f40992425abb7d7c2327e2a5.jpg) +Figure A.6: Generation vs Classification: Attention patterns in each approach. + +proach. In the generative model, the decoder attends input tokens that are related to symptoms at each decoding step. On the other hand, the classification model uses one aggregated vector to predict all symptom classes. We can conclude that considering most examples have multiple symptoms, predicting at once is not sufficient to recall multiple entities. + +Negation Performance Due to the prevalence of complex negation in our dataset, we analyzed how the model performs in the presence of negation. We sampled 103 examples of those patterns from the development set and tested them with different training sizes. Figure A.7 presents performance + +
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embeddings0.723.320.875.87
Pretrain-FinetuneBERT-base ‡1.34 (±0.13)15.81 (±0.14)1.45 (±0.09)18.80 (±0.08)
BART-base ‡1.37 (±0.18)15.96 (±0.17)1.55 (±0.12)18.98 (±0.13)
ClinicalBERT ‡1.53 (±0.12)16.32 (±0.12)1.76 (±0.11)19.46 (±0.11)
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.29 (±0.35)62.68 (±0.25)8.12 (±0.47)65.79 (±0.25)
GEN w/ BART †31.15 (±0.37)78.90 (±0.24)31.22 (±0.19)81.27 (±0.25)
GEN w/ T5-base †32.01 (±0.31)79.88 (±0.27)32.19 (±0.22)82.25 (±0.25)
Joint C + GEN32.89 (±0.21)79.93 (±0.19)32.70 (±0.43)82.97 (±0.31)
PromptGPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
+ +Table A.4: Performance summary. $\ddagger$ denotes classification methods and $\dagger$ denotes generative methods. Joint $C+$ GEN refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT). + +
TypeExample
no [symptom name]I feel cold, but do not have a fever, am not having chills, nausea, etc.Fever of 101, 102 for 2 Days; Chills; Nausea with no Vomiting.no visible signs of rash or irritation.
Medical history(not current symptom)Medical history included Ankylosing, spondylitis/psoriasis, cardiac ablation from Jan2017Family medical history included her dad had rheumatic fever and high blood pressure.Past medical history included no adverse event. concurrent medical conditionsincluded Ulcer and Hypothyroidism.
Other negation expressionsPatient didn’t experience fever and rash, but feel muscle painAll but the pain and soreness at the injection site subsided by the next dayDenies any further fevers or chills. Denies any nausea vomiting. Denies loss stasis smell.
+ +Table A.5: Examples of negation patterns in SYMPTOMIFY + +on 103 negation samples as we varied the number of train examples. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates at $200k$ . Through this result, we can conclude that our dataset contains sufficient negation data points and effectively learns to deal with a large number of them. + +We observed that the simple negation expression "no [symptom name]" is indeed an easy form of negation, the model performs well on it, even with a small amount of train set around $50k$ examples. A more thorough analysis of which negation expressions the model still fails on after saturation, is left as future work. Table A.5 shows examples of negation expressions in SYMPTOMIFY. + +![](images/ffddd943703f87f411c3b182a0d6ce46f2bc5ab719e97ed5c67646f9e48169b6.jpg) +Figure A.7: Micro F1 of the generative model with T5-base on data points involving negation as the size of the training data is varied. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates around $200k$ . \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/images.zip b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb9a9162be22b9faa676eaddd925fcf4d22fa28f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:834cc0d3bc285ff731758e799baa88034d6e45746538e18da608d905eb1e3488 +size 869005 diff --git a/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/layout.json b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b86cddea834ed2903bef8b4b4d2c5a2d7457b25c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SYMPTOMIFY_ Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10489 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 75, + 476, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 75, + 476, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 75, + 476, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SYMPTOMIFY: Transforming Symptom Annotations with Language Model Knowledge Harvesting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 121, + 391, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 121, + 391, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 121, + 391, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bosung Kim and Ndapa Nakashole" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 212, + 135, + 384, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 212, + 135, + 384, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 212, + 135, + 384, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computer Science and Engineering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 212, + 149, + 384, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 212, + 149, + 384, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 212, + 149, + 384, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of California, San Diego" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 250, + 163, + 346, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 250, + 163, + 346, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 250, + 163, + 346, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "La Jolla, CA 92093" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 177, + 428, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 177, + 428, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 177, + 428, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "bosungkim@ucsd.edu, nnakashole@eng.ucsd.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the high-stakes nature of healthcare decision-making, we aim to improve the efficiency of human annotators rather than replacing them with fully automated solutions. We introduce a new comprehensive resource, SYMPTOMIFY, a dataset of annotated vaccine adverse reaction reports detailing individual vaccine reactions. The dataset, consisting of over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "800k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reports, surpasses previous datasets in size. Notably, it features reasoning-based explanations alongside background knowledge obtained via language model knowledge harvesting. We assess data quality, and evaluate performance across various methods and learning paradigms, paving the way for future comparisons and benchmarking." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 433, + 154, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 433, + 154, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 433, + 154, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Drug safety monitoring systems like Vigibase (Lindquist, 2008) and VAERS² are essential for evaluating the safety of medications and vaccines. These systems enable anyone to report drug reactions, facilitating early detection of vaccine safety issues. For example, if a mother observes vomiting and fever in her two-year-old after the chickenpox vaccine, she may be curious about the frequency of similar reactions reported by others. VAERS' online browser can provide the answer. Being able to provide such answers involves normalizing the raw patient reports in order to address variations caused by polysemy, abbreviations, and other factors present in these informal and potentially noisy reports." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 291, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 656, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VAERS employs trained staff to review and \"code\" each submitted report, assigning formal medical terms to the symptoms experienced by the patient. VAERS terms come from the standardized medical terminology known as the Medical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 522, + 433 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 522, + 433 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 522, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 522, + 433 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "251e8683f793e15a8f9429b210845a48be67dddb1fa0bf51fc642ce0f6e4557a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 516 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: A to C illustrate the stages of drug safety monitoring systems like VAERS. We aim to improve the efficiency of skilled human coders in step B by facilitating the development of systems that identify symptoms and offer explanations to aid coders, as demonstrated by the model-generated output in step D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) (Brown et al., 1999; Shimabukuro et al., 2015). To illustrate the coding process, consider the report: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R} \\mathbf{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": \"I had a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loss of smell/taste the next day. Also felt irritable and nervous but manageable.\" This report is annotated with these MedDRA terms: Ageusia, Anosmia, Irritability, Nervousness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our aim is to support the decision-making of human coders during annotation, by supporting the development of symptom recognition models that can predict and explain identified symptoms (Figure 1). Given the high-stakes nature of this field, where data interpretation can carry life-or-death consequences, fully automated solutions are not yet sufficiently accurate. Specifically, we present a resource of annotated reports detailing people's reactions to vaccines, and enriched in several ways. In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/bosung/SYMPTOMIFY." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System https:// vaers.hhs.gov/data.html" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11667" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 467, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 467, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 467, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11667-11681" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. SYMPTOMIFY Dataset: We present a symptom recognition dataset derived from VAERS informal medical reports with over 800k entries. Beyond its scale, we enhance the dataset by adding explanations and background knowledge substantially boosting its utility for advancing systems that aid human coders in annotation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Annotation Explanations: We enrich SYMP-TOMIFY with annotation explanations, carefully harvested from LLMs. We showcase their usefulness on the newly released Falcon language model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 259, + 291, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 259, + 291, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 259, + 291, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Background Knowledge Augmentation: We augment SYMPTOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms, improving performance, particularly for rare symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 318, + 290, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 318, + 290, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 318, + 290, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Performance Evaluation: We implement and evaluate various baselines across different methods and learning paradigms, facilitating future comparisons and benchmarking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 274, + 399 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 274, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 274, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work and Existing Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work is related to the old task of Named Entity Recognition (NER), which is the task of mapping mentions of entities in text to standardized entity names (Sutton and McCallum, 2004; Ratinov and Roth, 2009; Ritter et al., 2011; Hoffart et al., 2011; Cao et al., 2021). Our work goes beyond recognizing entities as we wish to support human decision making. Additionally, our work is complementary to work on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016), and can be used to build more explainable models. Furthermore, there are efforts to enhance open-source LLMs by extracting instruction-output pairs from massive, paid-API LLMs. The goal is to gather valuable data that can be utilized for instruction tuning of open-source models. This method is particularly beneficial for projects that lack the financial resources to hire people for human feedback, thereby democratizing access to advanced LLM capabilities (Peng et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Closer to our work are prior efforts on creating datasets for medical entity recognition from diverse sources, including death certificates (Goeuriot et al., 2017), scientific publications (Verspoor et al., 2012; Mohan and Li, 2019), and electronic health records (EHRs) (Suominen et al., 2013). While these corpora contribute to medical entity recognition, they" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 524, + 152 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 524, + 152 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 524, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 524, + 152 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetSource# SymptomsSize
SYMPTOMIFY (ours)VAERS11,472871,373
COMETA (Basaldella et al., 2020)Reddit7,64520,000
MedRed (Scepanovic et al., 2020)Reddit182,000
RedMed (Laverty and Altman, 2019)Reddit2,978n/a
Twitter TwiMed (Alvaro et al., 2017)Twitter3,1442,000
CADEC (Karimi et al., 2015)AskaPatient6,7541,253
Twitter ADR (Nikfarjam et al., 2015)Twitter1,2801,784
", + "image_path": "024017f98b81d82d8d5b8f2d03aa952b86c25f93698e2e3f4a675357cebb22ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: SYMPTOMIFY surpasses the scale of previous related datasets for entity recognition in informal health reports. Additionally, SYMPTOMIFY contains annotation explanations and background knowledge about symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "differ from the focus of our work, which centers around user-generated text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 summarizes datasets closely related to ours, with many, like ours, targeting pharmacovigilance, and unlike ours, originating from social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit. Like our work, these efforts aimed to identify symptoms mentioned in unstructured and informal textual sources. SYMPTOMIFY surpasses previous datasets in size, and notably, it incorporates annotation explanations and provides background knowledge about symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 464, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 464, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 464, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 LM Knowledge Harvesting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Access to the most powerful LMs is often limited to paid APIs with query restrictions. In dynamic settings, such as continuous MedDRA report annotation, rapid query response is crucial. Therefore, we propose to extract a portion of LM knowledge to enrich an existing dataset. This approach allows greater control, transparency, and balance between performance, cost-efficiency, and autonomy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Enriching existing datasets meets a widespread need as under-specified datasets are common. A prominent example comes from Question Answering tasks where only few datasets are fully labeled with question, answer, passage, and span." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our work, key steps to upgrade a dataset via LM knowledge harvesting include: (i) Identifying Shortcomings: Assess the dataset to determine missing elements and areas needing improvement. (ii) Creating Good Prompts: Design prompts using existing dataset examples to minimize potential ambiguities. (iii) Checking Data Quality: Implement strategies to assess LLM output quality, ensuring it is accurate, useful, and safe. (iv) Maintaining Detailed Records: Document the harvesting process, including prompts, LLM configurations, and dates, for improved transparency and reproducibility." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11668" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 227, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 227, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 227, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 The SYMPTOMIFY Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 98, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 98, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 98, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With VAERS3 as the starting dataset, we used LM knowledge harvesting to create SYMPTOMIFY. The dataset spans three years (2019-2021) and includes 839, 215 reports, incorporating symptom texts, relevant MedDRA terms, and associated metadata like age, sex, and vaccine type." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Quantitative Analysis of MedDRA coders" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VAERS uses certified MedDRA coders to assign formal medical terms to symptoms. We evaluated the quality of these annotations via crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). We first randomly selected 1,000 symptoms and then selected a corresponding patient report (symptom text) mentioning that specific symptom. A symptom was considered correctly annotated if two out of three evaluators agreed. Based on this accuracy metric, VAERS staff correctly labeled " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "93.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the 1,000 tested symptoms, highlighting the high quality of their annotations. Still, this figure might underestimate the true accuracy, as most challenging examples were medical test results not stated in patient reports (such as C-reactive protein levels or metabolic function tests). The agreement rate among evaluators was moderately strong (0.55 Fleiss' Kappa), similar to related annotation tasks reported in the literature which showed agreements in the range: 0.55 - 0.62 (Wadhwa et al., 2022; Nye et al., 2018; Deleger et al., 2012)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT as the 4-th annotator. ChatGPT (based on GPT-3.5) served as a fourth annotator alongside three human coders, working on the same 1,000 tasks. The provided prompt was: \"Does the following patient report mention ' " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{SYNTEM\\} ^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{REPORT\\} ?" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " .ChatGPT agreed with MedDRA in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "86.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 520, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the cases. However, this figure might overestimate ChatGPT's symptom recognition capacity, as this binary task is significantly simpler than unguided symptom identification. We further probed ChatGPT's abilities through tests more authentically reflecting symptom recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 349, + 71, + 478, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 71, + 478, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 71, + 478, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 71, + 478, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6ca489ab5fcf2de3a6f44e8d1330866437f0f3c9fa3510f82708e0c334e9ffc8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 524, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 524, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 524, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Distribution of explanation lengths in number of words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 505, + 396 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 505, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 505, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 505, + 396 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "44e82686f795ef1e616d249b8c42561d6761561a6b098e445a7a77e9b9276ad4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 443 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Visualizing the top 30 most frequent 4-grams in explanations. These phrases often indicate that the explanations quote spans from the patient reports." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 502, + 475 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 502, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 502, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Harvesting Annotation Explanations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We augment VAERS data by incorporating explanations to compensate for the absence of span-level annotations. Using GPT-3.5, we generated explanations to add to the dataset. The prompt used was: \"Explain why the patient report mentions 'SYMP-TOM' \", quoting report fragments where possible: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{REPORT\\} ^{\\prime \\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " .ChatGPT's responses were then used as explanations. These explanations offer extended context beyond the report's explicit content, like identifying Hypoxia from a report referencing an \"oxygen saturation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "86\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 479, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , correctly interpreting it as low blood oxygen. By directly quoting from the patient report, the explanations also provide span-level information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative Analysis of Explanations. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the distribution of explanation lengths and the 30 most recurrent 4-grams within the explanations, respectively. Often, these frequently appearing phrases refer to the symptom mentions in patient reports, including phrases like \"is mentioned in the,\" \"the report states that,\" \"frag" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VAERS is jointly managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 289, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 289, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 289, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4Details of the annotation task are provided in Appendix A.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5Overall, the annotation process cost $723 (US dollars) and involved 201 workers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11669" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
VaccineSymptomExplanation Fragment
FLU4Dizziness posturalThis is evident from the following fragment of the report: "I became extremely dizzy when I tried to stand.
COVID19LymphadenopathyThis is evident from the statement "My lymph nodes were swollen."
FLUA3Throat tightnessThe following fragments from the report indicate the presence of the symptom: - "throat feeling like its about to close" - "swelling and lump in throat on right side"
HEPAThirstThe following fragments from the report support this explanation: "He then began drinking large amounts of water throughout the day and even waking at night to ask for a drink multiple times."
FLUA4ArthralgiaThe report states "Shoulder pain" which is a common symptom of arthralgia.
FLUR4DyspnoeaThe symptom "Dyspnoea" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is experiencing difficulty breathing, which is a common symptom of dyspnoea.
", + "image_path": "0b5beaa8fcb7e462b5d2ceddc0243700b57d6ceb18554c4a977a6244b26b8321.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ments from the report,\" etc. Table 2 shows fragments from example explanations that feature these common 4-grams, illustrating the direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background symptom knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quantitative Analysis of Explanations: Honesty and Helpfulness. We evaluated the explanations on two primary dimensions: 1) Honesty: Is the explanation factually accurate, without fabrications or distortions? and 2) Helpfulness: Is the explanation correct and beneficial in clarifying why a symptom is mentioned?. We randomly picked 1,000 explanations and employed a three-choice task for assessment: A) The explanation is both honest and helpful; B) The explanation is honest but not detailed enough to be helpful; and C) The explanation is neither honest nor helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation). Each task was evaluated by three annotators, with a label deemed accurate if at least two annotators agreed on it. Our findings show that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "91.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the explanations were honest and helpful, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " were honest but not helpful, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " were neither honest nor helpful. For this relatively complex task, we hired three graduate students for annotation. The agreement rate was moderately strong, with a Fleiss's Kappa of 0.60." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 262, + 604 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 262, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 262, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Harvesting Background Knowledge" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sometimes, recognizing symptoms in a report requires understanding beyond what's written. For example, a report might state \"BP is 173/109\" without mentioning hypertension directly. But, given that hypertension is defined as blood pressure above 140/90, the report implies this condition. This kind of understanding demands external knowledge. Thus, we aimed to augment SYMP-TOMIFY with background knowledge about symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a basic form of background knowledge we link each unique symptom in SYMPTOMIFY with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 526, + 273 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 525, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 525, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 525, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Example explanation fragments featuring some of the most common 4-grams, demonstrating direct quotation of spans from the reports and the use of background knowledge about symptoms when necessary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 526, + 273 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 526, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 526, + 273 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SymptomLLM DefinitionUMLS Definition
MelaenaBlood in the stool, typically caused by gastrointestinal bleeding.The black, tarry, foul-smelling feces that contain degraded blood.
IschaemiaLack of blood flow to a tissue or organ. This may be due to obstruction or a problem with the blood vessels.A decrease in blood supply caused by blockage of blood vessel.
", + "image_path": "826f3ffea2f825ffd2a8dae10dc485e988ca0e5dc13ac40a29eca2f076edc6f5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 525, + 340 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 525, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 525, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Examples of symptom definitions derived from both UMLS and a Language Model (LM). The comparison with UMLS definitions underscores the LM's capability to generate high-quality, medical term definitions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "its definition. We harvested symptom definitions using the LLM6. Here one could also use knowledge graphs such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004), but we found coverage to be incomplete. In our experiments, these definitions were used in zero-shot learning baselines. But, there are many other potential applications that future research could explore. Currently, SYMPTOMIFY's symptom background knowledge primarily consists of definitions. However, there are avenues to expand this knowledge further. For example, more complex relational structured data, such as known relationships between symptoms, could be extracted from large LMs in future endeavors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. In Table 3, we display two example definitions generated by the LM, comparing them with UMLS definitions to highlight the LM's proficiency in producing high-quality explanations. Certain terms used in drug safety monitoring systems may have dual meanings, creating ambiguity both within and outside the medical context. To bolster a medically-focused comprehension, particularly regarding adverse effects, we recommend integrating the phrase \"adverse effect\" into the definition prompt, and sup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6We used, from the GPT series, the text-davinci-001 version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11670" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "plementing the prompt with example reports from VAERS that mention the symptom in a few-shot style. This method mitigates potential misunderstandings from multiple interpretations of a term." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 292, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 292, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 292, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quantitative Analysis of LLM Definitions. To quantitatively evaluate the definitions, we randomly selected 1,000 definitions and assigned three crowd-sourced annotators to rate each definition's accuracy. A definition was deemed accurate and useful if it gained agreement from at least two annotators. The evaluation results indicated that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 292, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "96.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 133, + 292, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the definitions were accurate. The inter-rater agreement, Fleiss' Kappa, was 0.34, which indicates a fair degree of consensus among the raters.[7]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 191, + 307 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 191, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 191, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experimental Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data. Our experiments use the following data splits: Training set with 671,373 instances, validation set with 83,921 instances, and test set with 83,921 instances. We further segment the test set into three subsets for more granular analysis: i) Full: The entire test set. ii) UMLS-mapped: Exclusively contains symptoms that can be mapped to UMLS, identified via exact string matching, for fair comparison with previous UMLS-focused studies, specifically Metamap. iii) Rare: Only includes 'long-tail' symptoms, those occurring in 50 or less reports, representing over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of all symptoms. More details of the experimental configuration can be found in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task. To set the initial benchmarks on our dataset, we started by focusing on the accuracy of symptom recognition, without considering the added information from explanations or symptom background knowledge. We represented each data point as a pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x, S_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a patient report and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_i = \\{s_1, \\dots, s_n | s_i \\in S\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the set of symptoms mentioned in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The goal is to predict the MedDRA names of symptoms mentioned in the input report " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We explore a variety of baseline methods across different learning paradigms:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 671, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 671, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 671, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 671, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. String Matching: Involves matching symptom names directly with the report text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 703, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 703, + 290, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 703, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Symptom Embedding: Represents symptom names and report texts as dense vectors for matching." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 69, + 523, + 128 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 69, + 523, + 128 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 69, + 523, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 69, + 523, + 128 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embedding0.723.320.875.87
", + "image_path": "035c5583b3280ec78fa32b5f2813e3993febc2a57080aa97cecb01ae53e3b538.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Performance of string matching and symptom embedding methods. These methods do not utilize the training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 186, + 515, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 186, + 515, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 186, + 515, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 186, + 515, + 312 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1134b7a419dc669594fffbd9de475adf783ceba004ad10b846d759dcd12e7d52.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: An illustration of symptom embedding baseline. It is similar to span-based string matching, but performs matches using continuous representations rather than discrete symbols." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 394, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 394, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 394, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 394, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Pretrain-Finetune: Uses pre-trained language models fine-tuned on our dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 426, + 524, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 426, + 524, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 426, + 524, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Prompting: Leverages prompts to generate responses from language models in zero-shot and few-shot settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 454, + 486 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 454, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 454, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 String Matching Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 491, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 491, + 525, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 491, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our initial baselines attempt to align symptom mentions with MedDRA terms without considering context or utilizing training data. We employ two methods: (i) MetaMap: A National Library of Medicine-developed tool that maps text spans to symptom names in the UMLS dictionary. For fairness, we only evaluated MetaMap on the test set subset that could be UMLS-mapped. (ii) Exact String Matching: A stringent method that requires precise string matches, offering a stricter comparison than MetaMap's span matching." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 526, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 526, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 526, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results in Table 4 demonstrate the task's complexity, as these string matching methods perform poorly. The findings underline the shortcomings of simplistic approaches in effectively handling this task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 474, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 474, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 715, + 474, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Symptom Embedding Baseline" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 4, our symptom embedding method uses dense retrieval from a frozen language model. Symptom vector representations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The annotation process engaged 1,437 workers and amounted to a cost of $522." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11671" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "are created from symptom definitions in SYMP-TOMIFY. For each symptom " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we construct an embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using its name and definition. Similarly, we generate n-gram span embeddings for each n-gram in the patient report using ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019) and the span embedding method by Ujiie et al. (2021). We then compare each symptom embedding with all n-gram embeddings using the scoring function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f(s_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}) = \\mathbf{h}_{s_i} \\cdot \\mathbf{h}[x_i, x_{i + (n - 1)}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We recall spans with scores exceeding a certain threshold, determined by the best validation score. This approach is similar to zero-shot entity linking by Wu et al. (2019). In our experiments, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the embedding method did not surpass the string matching method, suggesting that further training of embeddings may be needed (see Table 4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 226, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 226, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 226, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Pretrain-Finetune Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the substantial data available in SYMP-TOMIFY, we investigated fine-tuning baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 291, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 291, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 291, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Classification Approach. In a multi-label classification context, we experimented with various pre-trained language models including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020), and ClinicalBERT (Alsentzer et al., 2019). We used BERT's classification paradigm, using the [CLS] vector for the sentence representation and a classifier layer. Additionally, we implemented a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) on top of BERT's last hidden states (BERT + CNN) to capture more granular features from the contextualized representations, following the approach by Safaya et al. (2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generative Approach. In the context of symptom generation, we adopt the generative entity retrieval approach of GENRE, utilizing a transformer-based encoder and decoder (Cao et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2020). In this framework, the model generates a sequence of symptom names as the target output, rather than individual entity classification. To retrieve multiple symptoms, GENRE needs annotated spans referring to each symptom. However, as mentioned, VAERS annotations lack symptom mention spans; we only know if a symptom was mentioned or not. Thus, we generate a target sequence as a comma-separated list, e.g., given the input report: \"I have muscle pain and fever\", the target sequence is: \"Myalgia, Pyrexia\". We consider baselines using BART and T5 as the pretrained models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 71, + 459, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 71, + 459, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 71, + 459, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 71, + 459, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "24399a77824a63af62d117500cb6dda07f11201a9c313c8eb6810944217f6c09.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 172, + 527, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 172, + 527, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 172, + 527, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The joint learning method combines discriminative and generative approaches in the pretrain-finetune paradigm. The classifier head (yellow) and the generation head (blue) are illustrated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 524, + 322 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 524, + 322 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 524, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 524, + 322 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
BERT-base ‡1.3415.811.4518.80
BART-base ‡1.3715.961.5518.98
ClinicalBERT ‡1.5316.321.7619.46
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.2962.688.1265.79
GEN w/ BART31.1578.9031.2281.27
GEN w/ T5-base32.0179.8832.1982.25
Joint C + GEN32.8979.9332.7082.97
", + "image_path": "b7c894f0f3c5c341af0caacf46aed451c8c8af6e658136ec73bc6b04863718c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Pretrain-finetune performance. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ddagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes classification methods. Models without symbols are generative. Joint " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C + GEN" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint Classification & Generation. To bring together the strengths of both discriminative and generative approaches within the pretrain-finetune framework, we implement a joint learning strategy. We use transformer-based models for both approaches, with shared transformer layers but distinct output layers for each task. This joint model structure is depicted in Figure 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. The generative techniques substantially outperformed the most effective string-matching method, demonstrating the power of such models. Leveraging T5 as the base model, the generative model achieved impressive micro F1 scores of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "79.88\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "82.25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the Full and UMLS-mapped test sets respectively. Interestingly, the multi-label classification didn't surpass the string matching approach, potentially due to the large class count (over 11K) and the bottleneck caused by the [CLS] token. However, incorporating a CNN on top of ClinicalBERT enhanced classification performance, reaching " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "62.68\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the full set and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "65.79\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the UMLS-mapped set, but still lagging behind the generative model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 717, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 717, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 717, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The joint learning model showed modest performance improvements, confirming the benefit of combined strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The variance between micro and macro F1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11672" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 125 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 125 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 125 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
GPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
", + "image_path": "aa58868b80029322ad419926728f73dad0ccb0174c28be9bf61756e101293ba3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 295, + 339 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 291, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 291, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 291, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Performance of prompting methods. While these methods fall short of the pretrain-finetune techniques, it is notable that the pretrain-finetune approach leverages the extensive SYMPTOMIFY dataset, underlining the considerable benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 295, + 339 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 295, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 224, + 295, + 339 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelRare symptoms test set
Macro F1Micro F1
String match †6.917.79
GEN (T5-base)21.7824.98
GEN w/ definitions21.7225.16
GEN w/ synthetic reports23.3125.73
GPT-2 Prompting6.637.87
ChatGPT Prompting (zero-shot)11.758.56
ChatGPT Prompting (one-shot)16.0610.49
", + "image_path": "3861b9709a7b1551a1d87b34540c9ca157b3b1cfade9ac6657dddf7bdfe13006.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Macro F1 and Micro F1 of the symptom detection task on the rare symptoms test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scores in all configurations is due to the dataset's imbalance: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of symptoms are rare with 50 or fewer reports mentioning them, thus making it harder for the model to learn to accurately detect these infrequent symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 192, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 192, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 192, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Prompting Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 290, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the widespread success of LM promoting, we also experimented with prompting baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language Model Prompting. We prompted ChatGPT using the following prompt: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Extract a comma-separated list of symptoms from the following report: \"" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\text{REPORT}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\". In addition to zero-shot prompting, we explored the few-shot setting, specifically the one-shot setting with a single test set example added to the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Discriminative models assign mentions to specific class labels, while generative language models have a vocabulary that may differ from the formal symptom names in MedDRA. For instance, when generating the symptom \"Pyrexia,\" ChatGPT often produces \"Fever\" instead. This necessitates answer engineering. We employ embedding-based methods using SBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The prediction with the highest cosine similarity score between the predefined symptom set and the generated output is selected." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. Table 6 contains the results of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 71, + 516, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 71, + 516, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 71, + 516, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 71, + 516, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8979ddbd18bcddaf66253e18464a0a7f51643bcd3b675c0a6ccf195e65e60034.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 525, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 525, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 187, + 525, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Synthetic Report Generation: the LM takes symptom names as input, and to encourage semantically faithful reports, also takes background knowledge as input (A), During training, target (B) and generated reports (C) are used to compute the loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "prompting methods, and shows that they are unable to surpass the performance of the pretrain-finetune methods. This is expected since the pretrain-finetune models are trained on a large training data set of over 600K reports, whereas the zero-shot and one-shot prompting methods have access to zero or only one report, respectively. It is worth noting that the large-scale nature of SYMPTOMIFY highlights the significant benefits of fine-tuning for improved results in settings with massive amounts of data such as in SYMPTOMIFY." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 518, + 455 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 518, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 518, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 Semantically Faithful Synthetic Data for Rare Symptoms" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our experiments, all methods struggled to identify rare symptoms. To address the rare symptoms problem, we used data augmentation techniques to generate more data points for these symptoms. We tried using symptom definitions as synthetic reports but found a stark discrepancy between the language in real reports and definitions. We instead used a simple synthetic data generation method to create more realistic data points for rare symptoms, illustrated in Figure 6. We trained a GPT-2 model on prompts comprising symptom name and definition. The definition is there to ensure that the report is semantically faithful to the meaning of the symptom, also reducing ambiguity in comparison to conditioning on the symptom name alone. Using Top-k multinomial sampling, we generated 100 synthetic reports per symptom, with optimal performance using 30 reports each. We then integrated this augmented data into our training set to improve the model's handling of rare symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. Table 7 illustrates the low performance achieved on the rare symptoms dataset, as indicated by both the macro and micro F1 scores across all" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11673" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 523, + 221 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 523, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 523, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 523, + 221 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
(C1) Symptom(C2) Report(C3) Zero-shot Falcon Explanation(C4) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanation
(R1) ArthralgiaPatient having shoulder pain. Made appoint-ment with doctor. MRI completed. Possible SIRVA.Arthralgia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom associated with SIRVA (Shoulder Impingement Syndrome with Radial Neuropathy)The symptom "Arthralgia" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported shoulder pain. This is evident from the state-ment "Patient having shoulder pain".
(R2) Pyrexiaall over body rash and feverPyrexia is mentioned in the patient report as it is a common symptom of feverThe symptom "Pyrexia" is mentioned in the pa-tient report because the patient is experiencing a fever.
(R3) Muscle spasmsPatient stated he was getting muscle spasms in the neck and back after the flu shot.Muscle spasms are a common side effect of the flu shot. The patient may have received the flu vaccine and experienced muscle spasms as a result.The symptom "Muscle spasms" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient is ex-persiencing muscle spasms in the neck and back after receiving a flu shot.
(R4) Mood alteredFever, cold chills, restless sleep, redness at site of injection, right leg soreness-unable to stand on that leg, loss of appetite, moodiness/crying. After 12 hours of injectionThe patient reported mood altered as a result of the injection. This is mentioned in the patient report as it is a potential side effect of the med-ication.The symptom "Mood altered" is mentioned in the patient report because the patient reported experiencing a change in their mood. This is evident from the statement "I was moody/cry-ing."
", + "image_path": "e6b0502c020e219f4d6b7cc2a9d3317c157f6d4f71a04aefb22acbf6fd458346.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 525, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 525, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 525, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Falcon LM struggles to generate quality explanations (column C3) compared to ChatGPT. Yet, supplementing it with SYMPTOMIFY explanations improves its performance (column C4). Blue indicates accurate report fragments; red signifies paraphrased, non-exact matches, or hallucinations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 290, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 290, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "methods. Furthermore, we observe a modest improvement when incorporating synthetic reports into the training data. While the improvement is small, it demonstrates the (perhaps small) potential benefits of leveraging synthetic data to enhance the model's ability to handle rare symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 401 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.6 Leveraging SYMPTOMIFY's Explanations in Falcon" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We carried out an experiment to study the effectiveness of the explanations in SYMPTOMIFY using a prompting approach. For this, we used Falcon-7B-Instruct8, a new, instruction-tuned iteration of the open-source Falcon renowned for its superior performance on key NLP benchmarks. The experiment had two configurations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) Zero-shot Falcon Explanations: We executed standard zero-shot in-context learning with Falcon. \n2) Falcon with SYMPTOMIFY Explanations: We introduced few-shot learning in this setup, using selected SYMPTOMIFY explanations as our few-shots." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 provides a comparative analysis of Falcon's explanation generation under the two scenarios. Initially, Falcon struggled to produce beneficial explanations in the zero-shot learning context. However, its performance significantly improved in terms of specificity and context quoting when it was supplemented with few-shot learning, using a handful of SYMPTOMIFY explanations as a guide (contrast columns " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", specifically " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R1,C4))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Nonetheless, false quoting of hallucinated segments, as illustrated in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R4,C4)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a problem. To tackle this, one possible solution is to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "expose Falcon to a larger volume of SYMPTOMIFY explanations, thus improving its ability to generate high-quality explanations. However, due to the context size limitations in the prompting, the ideal solution to leverage these explanations effectively would be to implement the pretrain-finetune approach to use the massive SYMPTOMIFY dataset more productively as training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 381, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 381, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 381, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduced SYMPTOMIFY, a large-scale dataset of annotated reports, reflecting reactions to medications and vaccines. It includes MedDRA symptoms, annotation explanations, and background knowledge about symptoms, designed to facilitate development of systems that can aid human annotators operating in the critically important public health domain. Despite current performance on rare symptoms being low across all baselines, the continual evolution in language models and strides in few-shot learning offer promise for improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are several avenues for improving SYMP-TOMIFY and expanding its utility. Integrating the explanations into a wider range of models may lead to the better generation of explained predictions with open source models such as Falcon. Expanding background knowledge to include relational knowledge, such as inter-symptom relationships, could yield performance gains. Further, focusing on laypeople's perspectives and acquiring more layman medical terms could facilitate a broader, more inclusive understanding of symptoms. Looking further ahead, as patient reports can sometimes contain not only textual descriptions but also ref" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 222, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 222, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 222, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8https://huggingface.co/tiiuae/falcon-7b-instruct" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11674" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "erences to medical images, pictures submitted by patients, and lab test results, the incorporation of these non-textual elements using multi-modal language models, could be useful." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 131, + 148 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 131, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 131, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work, while it made useful contributions, has a number of significant limitations. First, the VAERS database, our primary data source, may not be representative of the larger population due to potential sampling biases. It also limits language diversity as it contains only English-language reports." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 289, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 289, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 289, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The symptom distribution in the reports presents a distinct challenge, with a strong skew towards certain symptoms that hinders model performance, including that of our most successful methods, like pretrain-finetune. While our attempts to rectify this through data augmentation techniques have yielded some improvement, the performance still falls short. This indicates the need for innovative methods that go beyond synthetic data expansion for addressing this challenge effectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 290, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The explanations present in SYMPTOMIFY are a rich resource that, as of now, we've only begun to explore. The explanations coupled with the public availability of the dataset offer a valuable base for other researchers to integrate into their work. Nevertheless, more exhaustive studies are needed to fully harness the potential of these explanations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The potential biases of language models like ChatGPT, known to mirror the biases in the data they're trained on, is another limitation. Although we have not observed any explicit biases in our current study, no thorough testing for bias was conducted, and it remains a concern." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, the use of non-medical experts from Amazon Mechanical Turk, as well as Computer Science graduate students for the annotation process introduces the possibility of inaccuracies into our assessment. Although we attempted to mitigate this by implementing a rigorous review process and utilizing multiple annotators, this factor may still have influenced the accuracy of our human evaluations. Future work may benefit from the involvement of medical experts in the annotation process, to increase the validity of our findings, and by extension the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 158, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 158, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 158, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models for symptom recognition have the potential to provide valuable insights for monitoring and as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "serving the safety of medicines and vaccines. They can aid in the timely identification of potential risks and contribute to individual and public health. However, the availability of data to train such models, which is the main contribution of this work, raises concerns about individual privacy. Releasing the data, which includes free text reports and metadata from VAERS, may risk the exposure of personal information or identities. We rely on the privacy monitoring efforts of the CDC and FDA, the co-managers of VAERS. Furthermore, Following prior work on automated health systems, our goal is to be clear and transparent about the content of SYMPTOMIFY and the capabilities of the methods developed in this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 362, + 310 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 362, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 362, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 525, + 363 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 525, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 525, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emily Alsentzer, John R. Murphy, Willie Boag, WeiHung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew B. A. McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nestor Alvaro, Yusuke Miyao, Nigel Collier, et al. 2017. Twimed: Twitter and pubmed comparable corpus of drugs, diseases, symptoms, and their relations. *JMIR public health and surveillance*, 3(2):e6396." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Basaldella, Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, and Nigel Collier. 2020. Cometa: A corpus for medical entity linking in the social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03295." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 479, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 479, + 526, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 479, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The unified medical language system (uml's): integrating biomedical terminology. *Nucleic acids research*, 32(suppl_1):D267-D270." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 525, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elliot G Brown, Louise Wood, and Sue Wood. 1999. The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (meddra). Drug safety, 20(2):109-117." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 526, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Louise Deleger, Qi Li, Todd Lingren, Megan Kaiser, Katalin Molnar, Laura Stoutenborough, Michal Kouril, Keith Marsolo, Imre Solti, et al. 2012. Building gold standard corpora for medical natural language processing tasks. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, volume 2012, page 144. American Medical Informatics Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11675" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 126, + 289, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 170, + 289, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 170, + 289, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 170, + 289, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lorraine Goeuriot, Liadh Kelly, Hanna Suominen, Aurelie Néveol, Aude Robert, Evangelos Kanoulas, Rene Spijker, Joao Palotti, and Guido Zuccon. 2017. Clef 2017 ehealth evaluation lab overview. In Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction: 8th International Conference of the CLEF Association, CLEF 2017, Dublin, Ireland, September 11-14, 2017, Proceedings 8, pages 291-303. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 280, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 280, + 289, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 280, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes Hoffart, Mohamed Amir Yosef, Ilaria Bordino, Hagen Fürstenau, Manfred Pinkal, Marc Spaniol, Bilyana Taneva, Stefan Thater, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. Robust disambiguation of named entities in text. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 782-792." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 367, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 367, + 289, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 367, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sarvnaz Karimi, Alejandro Metke-Jimenez, Madonna Kemp, and Chen Wang. 2015. Cadec: A corpus of adverse drug event annotations. Journal of biomedical informatics, 55:73-81." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 422, + 289, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 422, + 289, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 422, + 289, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Laverty and Russ B Altman. 2019. Redmed: Extending drug lexicons for social media applications. Journal of biomedical informatics, 99:103307." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 465, + 289, + 564 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 465, + 289, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 465, + 289, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 575, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 575, + 289, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 575, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marie Lindquist. 2008. Vigibase, the who global icsr database system: basic facts. *Drug Information Journal*, 42(5):409-419." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 618, + 289, + 650 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 618, + 289, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 618, + 289, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 662, + 289, + 695 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 662, + 289, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 662, + 289, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sunil Mohan and Donghui Li. 2019. Medmentions: A large biomedical corpus annotated with umls concepts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09476." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 706, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Azadeh Nikfarjam, Abeed Sarker, Karen O'connor, Rachel Ginn, and Graciela Gonzalez. 2015. Pharmacovigilance from social media: mining adverse drug reaction mentions using sequence labeling with word embedding cluster features. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(3):671-681." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin Nye, Junyi Jessy Li, Roma Patel, Yinfei Yang, Iain J Marshall, Ani Nenkova, and Byron C Wallace. 2018. A corpus with multi-level annotations of patients, interventions and outcomes to support language processing for medical literature. In Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting, volume 2018, page 197. NIH Public Access." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. CoRR, abs/1910.10683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 524, + 331 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 524, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 524, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lev Ratinov and Dan Roth. 2009. Design challenges and misconceptions in named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2009), pages 147-155." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1135-1144." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 524, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 524, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 524, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Oren Etzioni, et al. 2011. Named entity recognition in tweets: an experimental study. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1524-1534." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 524, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ali Safaya, Moutasem Abdullatif, and Deniz Yuret. 2020. KUISAIL at SemEval-2020 task 12: BERT-CNN for offensive speech identification in social media. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 2054–2059, Barcelona (online). International Committee for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 524, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sanja Scepanovic, Enrique Martin-Lopez, Daniele Quercia, and Khan Baykaner. 2020. Extracting medical entities from social media. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pages 170-181." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom T. Shimabukuro, Michael Nguyen, David Martin, and Frank DeStefano. 2015. Safety monitoring in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (vaers). Vaccine, 33(36):4398-4405." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11676" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 182 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanna Suominen, Sanna Salanterä, Sumithra Velupillai, Wendy W Chapman, Guergana Savova, Noemie Elhadad, Sameer Pradhan, Brett R South, Danielle L Mowery, Gareth JF Jones, et al. 2013. Overview of the share/clef ehealth evaluation lab 2013. In Information Access Evaluation. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Visualization: 4th International Conference of the CLEF Initiative, CLEF 2013, Valencia, Spain, September 23-26, 2013. Proceedings 4, pages 212-231. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. 2004. Collective segmentation and labeling of distant entities in information extraction. Technical report, MASSACHUSETTS UNIV AMHERST DEPT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 321 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shogo Ujiie, Hayate Iso, Shuntaro Yada, Shoko Wakamiya, and Eiji Aramaki. 2021. End-to-end biomedical entity linking with span-based dictionary matching. In Proceedings of the 20th Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing, pages 162-167, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karin Verspoor, Kevin Bretonnel Cohen, Arrick Lanfranchi, Colin Warner, Helen L Johnson, Christophe Roeder, Jinho D Choi, Christopher Funk, Yuriy Malenkiy, Miriam Eckert, et al. 2012. A corpus of full-text journal articles is a robust evaluation tool for revealing differences in performance of biomedical natural language processing tools. BMC bioinformatics, 13(1):1-26." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 425, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 425, + 291, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 425, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Somin Wadhwa, Vivek Khetan, Silvio Amir, and Byron Wallace. 2022. Redhot: A corpus of annotated medical questions, experiences, and claims on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06331." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 478, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 478, + 291, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 478, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03814." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11677" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 141, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 141, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 141, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 93, + 282, + 118 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 93, + 282, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 93, + 282, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Annotation Instructions for Mechanical Turk" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 290, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 290, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conducted three assessments via the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) system and our annotation process. In this section, we describe detailed instructions and web interface screenshots used in the assessments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 220, + 135, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 220, + 135, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 220, + 135, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Symptom (or Diagnosis)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 231, + 214, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 231, + 214, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 231, + 214, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chronic spontaneous urticaria (Definition of symptom/diagnosis: a skin disorder that is characterized by the occurrence of hives (urticaria) spontaneously and chronically. These are red, itchy, and often swollen areas of skin that are the result of an allergic reaction.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 259, + 111, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 259, + 111, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 259, + 111, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patient Report" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 269, + 217, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 269, + 217, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 269, + 217, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ongoing chronic spontaneous urticaria presenting 12/3/2021 (two weeks after vaccine administered). Rash disappears and reappears in different random locations (scalp, neck, back, stomach, behind ears). Oral administration of Zytec relieves symptoms for approx. 24 hours, but symptoms return when daily dosage is halted. No known existing allergies. No reactions to the first two moderna shots, only to the booster. Will seek a clinic visit soon, but has not had time yet." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 210, + 284, + 217 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 210, + 284, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 210, + 284, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Select an option" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 220, + 267, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 220, + 267, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 220, + 267, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Included" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 228, + 282, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 228, + 282, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 228, + 282, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Not included 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 289, + 349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 289, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.1: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of MedDRA annotation in VAERS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) VAERS MedDRA Annotation Quality Assessment As described in section 4.1, we evaluate the annotation quality of MedDRA annotations in VAERS. The instruction given to workers is \"Given a patient's report describes their medical conditions. The goal of this task is to check whether the given symptom is included in the report or not.\" For the detailed instruction, we provided the examples as below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 495, + 227, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 495, + 227, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 495, + 227, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Symptom/Diagnosis: Anosmia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 509, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 509, + 274, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 509, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patient report : " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 509, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 509, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 550, + 274, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 550, + 274, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 550, + 274, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "→ The answer should be Included since the report mentions \"90% loss of smell\" in the report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 603, + 230, + 617 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 603, + 230, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 603, + 230, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Symptom/Diagnosis : Headache" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 618, + 274, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 618, + 274, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 618, + 274, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patient report : " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 618, + 274, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 618, + 274, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 658, + 255, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 658, + 255, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 658, + 255, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "→ The answer should be Not included" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 289, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 289, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 289, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also added the definition of the symptom in case that the workers are not familiar with the symptom (see Figure A.1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) Explanation Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is \"Given a patient report and the symptom, the explanation is describing why the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 79, + 437, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 79, + 437, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 79, + 437, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Patent Report]: Patient was observed being unsteady ambulating with her cane. She was helped to a chair and assessed, alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60. Brief history was taken and she stated she was diabetic. Patient stated that she had taken her morning diabetic medication but had not eaten anything yet today. Patient was given a bottle of water, small bag of cookies, and a package of graham crackers. She was monitored continuously for 20 additional minutes at which time the client stated she felt fine and wanted to leave. She was walked to her vehicle and secured in her seat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 120, + 435, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 120, + 435, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 120, + 435, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Explanation: The patient report mentions \"Respiration abnormal\" because the patient's respiration rate was slightly elevated as mentioned in the report, \"alert times 4, slightly elevated blood pressure and respirations, and pulse of 60.\" The patient's medical history of being diabetic and taking medication without eating or drinking was also noted. However, the patient's condition improved after being given water and some snacks and was monitored constantly for 20 additional minutes before leaving." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 458, + 71, + 493, + 77 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 458, + 71, + 493, + 77 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 458, + 71, + 493, + 77 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Select an option" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 464, + 79, + 520, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 464, + 79, + 520, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 464, + 79, + 520, + 113 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: The explanation is both honest and helpful 1 B:The explanation is honest but lacks details, thus not helpful C: The explanation is neither 3 D: A: It is helpful (i.e., incorrect explanation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 163, + 524, + 187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 163, + 524, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 163, + 524, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.2: The web interface used to evaluate the quality of explanations in SYMPTOMIFY." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "symptom is mentioned in the report. Choose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if the explanation is correct, and helpful in describing why the symptom is mentioned. Choose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{B}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if the explanation is correct, but lacks details, thus not helpful to explain why the symptom is mentioned. Otherwise choose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Below are the examples we have provided for detailed instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 509, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 509, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 509, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Report: Flu-like symptoms, extreme chills (shivering), sweats for 2 days" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 339, + 396, + 351 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 339, + 396, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 339, + 396, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Symptom : Chill" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 365, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 30, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 365, + 511, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 365, + 511, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 365, + 511, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Explanation : The patient report mentions \"extreme chills (shivering)\" as a symptom, referring to the presence of extreme chills or shivering experienced by the patient for 2 days." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 433, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 433, + 511, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 433, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 433, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " The answer should be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 433, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 433, + 511, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", since the explanation is correctly describing as \"The report mentions extreme chills (shivering) as a symptom\" with a reason based on the report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 514, + 511, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 514, + 511, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 514, + 511, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 541, + 511, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 541, + 511, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 541, + 511, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "→The answer should be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 541, + 511, + 595 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{B}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 541, + 511, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " even the explanation is correct, since the explanation is NOT helpful and too short to conjecture why the symptom is mentioned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 609, + 511, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 609, + 511, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 609, + 511, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Explanation : This report mentions presence of Chill. It states the patient experienced dizziness and shivering for 2 days." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 650, + 511, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 650, + 511, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 650, + 511, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 650, + 511, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " The answer should be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 650, + 511, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 650, + 511, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " since the patient did NOT experience 'dizziness', i.e., the explanation is not correct." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3) GPT-3 Definition Quality Assessment The instruction given to workers is \"Given a term and definition, answer Yes or No whether the definition is correct for the term or not.\" We have provided the examples below for detailed instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11678" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 81, + 166, + 88 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 81, + 166, + 88 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 81, + 166, + 88 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": Hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 92, + 213, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 92, + 213, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 92, + 213, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(We encourage you to google the term if you don't know what it means.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 102, + 219, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 102, + 219, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 102, + 219, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Definition: damage or death to the brain tissue caused by a lack of oxygen (hypoxia) and/or the inability of the blood to carry enough nutrients and oxygen to the brain cells (ischemia)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 248, + 79, + 285, + 96 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 71, + 286, + 78 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 71, + 286, + 78 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 71, + 286, + 78 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Select an option" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 79, + 285, + 96 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 79, + 285, + 96 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 248, + 79, + 285, + 96 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Yes1
No2
", + "image_path": "49ff58a7877d8fc56bb23877bab8a3d0b3a1f96f6b50aff58cdb1369bbc06740.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 180, + 160, + 191 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 180, + 160, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 180, + 160, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Term: Anosmia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 194, + 274, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 194, + 274, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 194, + 274, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Definition: Anosmia is a condition that results in a loss of the sense of smell." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 222, + 211, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 222, + 211, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 222, + 211, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "→ The answer should be Yes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 248, + 163, + 259 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 248, + 163, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 248, + 163, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Term : Headache" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 262, + 276, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 262, + 276, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 262, + 276, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Definition : A reaction that occurs immediately following an injection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 290, + 210, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 290, + 210, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 290, + 210, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "→ The answer should be No" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also added guidance to encourage annotators to Google search if they are unaware of the symptoms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 185, + 363 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 185, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 185, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Metadata Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VAERS contains over 20 pieces of metadata, for example patient's basic information (e.g., age and sex), medical background (e.g., allergies, and medications), and vaccination information (e.g., vaccine type, and vaccine provider). We analyze this metadata. First, we observed that some symptoms occur more frequently in certain age groups, as shown in Figure A.4. The age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine than other groups. On the one hand, teenagers (age group 10-19) are more likely to get Syncope, Loss of Consciousness, and Pallor. Second, symptoms such as Paraesthesia Oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males. Syncope, Death, and Pallor are more common in males as shown in Figure A.5. Third, symptoms vary depending on the vaccine type. Headache and Pyrexia are the most common side-effects of COVID 19 vaccines, however, Diarrhoea and Haematochezia mostly occur after RV5 vaccination (see Table A.1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 226, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 226, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 226, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Experimental Setup Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table A.2 describes hyperparameters and search spaces we considered in experiments. For training transformer-based models, we used AdamW optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) for training all transformer-based models, and hyperparameters are set on the best validation performance. We ran experiments 3 times with different seeds, the reported scores are average of them. The results with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 522, + 162 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 289, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 289, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 289, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.3: The AMT web interface used to evaluate the quality of GPT-3 Definitions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 522, + 162 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 522, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 522, + 162 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "88ac3a59c4cf57bf5ef347962efbd93088c6a3147b5c920b844d64654408ced5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 520, + 333 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 524, + 198 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 524, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 524, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.4: Symptoms by patient age. Age group 0-9 is more likely to die after taking a vaccine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 520, + 333 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 520, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 520, + 333 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ca0f04991dd7b51dc547fb802d6394d407001592382e129f3d1eeb83ee698166.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.5: Symptoms by patient sex. The dashed line denotes an average ratio of male to female, and shows that females report more. Symptoms such as Paraesthesia oral, and Migraine, are more likely to be observed in females than males." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 510, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 510, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 510, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "standard deviations are presented in Table A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 443, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 443, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 443, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For generative models, we adopted GENRE's (Cao et al., 2021) experimental settings with 256 of maximum input length, 128 of maximum output length, 64 of batch size, and 4 of beam search size. We used the pre-trained BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) with 3e-5 of learning rate and T5-base (Raffel et al., 2019) with 1e-4 of learning rate following the original papers. We fine-tuned each model 5 epochs on our training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 526, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation of Generative Models While discriminative models can identify exact classes, generative models cannot predict discrete classes. In our work, we form the target text as a sequence of symptoms separated by “;”. We split the generated text by “;” and match each chunk with symptom names by exact string match. For those symptoms that are not exactly matched within our symptom set, we post-processed answer engineering as described in Section 5.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation of MetaMap We use Metamap for one of zero-shot baseline models. Given the input text, MetaMap outputs UMLS entities with confidence scores. We experimented with thresholds" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11679" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 149 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 149 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 149 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
COVID-19FLU4HPV9TDAPRV5
1HeadachePainSyncopeInjection site painDiarrhoea
2PyrexiaInjection site painDizzinessPainHaematochezia
3FatiguePain in extremityHeadachePain in extremityVomiting
4ChillsInjection site erythemaInjection site painInjection site swellingIntussusception
5PainPyrexiaNauseaInjection site erythemaPyrexia
", + "image_path": "010f142a21a64c2959b69eee0ee62ca74f44aba4d5d4d5367edc815f9d6c24ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 301, + 542 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 158, + 416, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 158, + 416, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 158, + 416, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table A.1: Top 5 most frequent symptoms by vaccine type." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 301, + 542 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 301, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 188, + 301, + 542 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Metamap
threshold0.1\n{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Multi-label Classification
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
batch size32
threshold0.1\n{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25}
Generative Models
Learning rate (BART-base)3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
Learning rate (T5-base)1e-4 {3e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4, 2e-4}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128 {64, 128, 256}
beam search size4
batch size64 {32, 64}
Joint Learning (C + GEN)
Learning rate3e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length256 {128, 256}
max output length (decoder)128
batch size64 {32, 64}
λj0.1 {0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5}
LM Prompt (GPT-2)
Learning rate5e-5 {2e-5, 3e-5, 5e-5}
max input length512
batch size64 {32, 64}
", + "image_path": "6b64f76bd4680b3115a4a85f12f19d329c6eb6d8d7bf8d02cbe758950316f582.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and regarded entities as positives over the threshold. The threshold of 0.1 was determined on the best validation score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computing Infrastructure We ran all experiments on a single NVIDIA GTX 108 (12GB) with CUDA 10.1 version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 700, + 166, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 700, + 166, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 700, + 166, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 More Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generation vs Classification We can observe the significant gap in performance between classification and generation models. Figure A.6 shows the difference of attention patterns in each ap" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 364, + 189, + 465, + 324 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 574 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table A.2: Best-performing hyperparameters and search space. Values in parentheses denote search space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 189, + 465, + 324 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 189, + 465, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 189, + 465, + 324 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Symptom
1Headache
2Pyrexia
3Fatigue
4Chills
5Pain
6Nausea
7Pain in extremity
8Dizziness
9Injection site pain
10Myalgia
", + "image_path": "0be131e48167f4158f23e5d8210a771d8c2a7125058d474ab45744f479922c83.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 373, + 523, + 481 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 333, + 508, + 345 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 333, + 508, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 333, + 508, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table A.3: Top 10 symptoms in SYMPTOMIFY" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 357, + 518, + 372 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 357, + 518, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 357, + 518, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input sentence: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 357, + 518, + 372 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 357, + 518, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " loss of smell/taste next day. Also feel irritable and nervous but manageable target sentence: ageusia, anosmia, irritability, nervousness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 373, + 523, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 373, + 523, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 373, + 523, + 481 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
step
0.120.020.020.040.070.070.020.020.080.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.050.060.290.010.000.020.000.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.050.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.010.030.020.020.020.010.030.020.020.0; 1/2-
", + "image_path": "362624819229a3b2ac1add6d073c2ef2d3b406856e8fb626e098aec096038911.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 482, + 502, + 490 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 482, + 502, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 482, + 502, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Attention map according to the decoding step of the generative model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 498, + 516, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 498, + 516, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 498, + 516, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 498, + 516, + 527 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "358235ad05137fb9bcaa2c6ad46eb814fd340109f40992425abb7d7c2327e2a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 524, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 524, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 524, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.6: Generation vs Classification: Attention patterns in each approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 526, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "proach. In the generative model, the decoder attends input tokens that are related to symptoms at each decoding step. On the other hand, the classification model uses one aggregated vector to predict all symptom classes. We can conclude that considering most examples have multiple symptoms, predicting at once is not sufficient to recall multiple entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Negation Performance Due to the prevalence of complex negation in our dataset, we analyzed how the model performs in the presence of negation. We sampled 103 examples of those patterns from the development set and tested them with different training sizes. Figure A.7 presents performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11680" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 259 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 259 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFull testUMLS-mapped
Macro F1Micro F1Macro F1Micro F1
Exact String Matching8.8730.3810.4132.98
MetaMap--3.7410.65
Symptom Embeddings0.723.320.875.87
Pretrain-FinetuneBERT-base ‡1.34 (±0.13)15.81 (±0.14)1.45 (±0.09)18.80 (±0.08)
BART-base ‡1.37 (±0.18)15.96 (±0.17)1.55 (±0.12)18.98 (±0.13)
ClinicalBERT ‡1.53 (±0.12)16.32 (±0.12)1.76 (±0.11)19.46 (±0.11)
ClinicalBERT + CNN ‡7.29 (±0.35)62.68 (±0.25)8.12 (±0.47)65.79 (±0.25)
GEN w/ BART †31.15 (±0.37)78.90 (±0.24)31.22 (±0.19)81.27 (±0.25)
GEN w/ T5-base †32.01 (±0.31)79.88 (±0.27)32.19 (±0.22)82.25 (±0.25)
Joint C + GEN32.89 (±0.21)79.93 (±0.19)32.70 (±0.43)82.97 (±0.31)
PromptGPT-2 (Supervised)13.9359.4114.2761.90
ChatGPT (Zero-shot)24.6939.7522.2338.10
ChatGPT (One-shot)29.1742.7427.9741.51
", + "image_path": "57155ebfd012e5abaa079803949b869d5ce7fa75ff026bceea4b0111580685af.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 302, + 521, + 438 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table A.4: Performance summary. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ddagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes classification methods and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes generative methods. Joint " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " GEN refers to both a classification and generative method (T5 + ClinicalBERT)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 302, + 521, + 438 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 302, + 521, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 302, + 521, + 438 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TypeExample
no [symptom name]I feel cold, but do not have a fever, am not having chills, nausea, etc.Fever of 101, 102 for 2 Days; Chills; Nausea with no Vomiting.no visible signs of rash or irritation.
Medical history(not current symptom)Medical history included Ankylosing, spondylitis/psoriasis, cardiac ablation from Jan2017Family medical history included her dad had rheumatic fever and high blood pressure.Past medical history included no adverse event. concurrent medical conditionsincluded Ulcer and Hypothyroidism.
Other negation expressionsPatient didn’t experience fever and rash, but feel muscle painAll but the pain and soreness at the injection site subsided by the next dayDenies any further fevers or chills. Denies any nausea vomiting. Denies loss stasis smell.
", + "image_path": "c4c58ef16cdf1d93cb2f0c179d3a32249e7ea4677f99c8d659455046dfd81eac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 446, + 415, + 459 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 446, + 415, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 446, + 415, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table A.5: Examples of negation patterns in SYMPTOMIFY" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on 103 negation samples as we varied the number of train examples. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "200k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Through this result, we can conclude that our dataset contains sufficient negation data points and effectively learns to deal with a large number of them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 588, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 588, + 291, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 588, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We observed that the simple negation expression \"no [symptom name]\" is indeed an easy form of negation, the model performs well on it, even with a small amount of train set around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 588, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 588, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples. A more thorough analysis of which negation expressions the model still fails on after saturation, is left as future work. Table A.5 shows examples of negation expressions in SYMPTOMIFY." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 521, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 521, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 521, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 521, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ffddd943703f87f411c3b182a0d6ce46f2bc5ab719e97ed5c67646f9e48169b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 713 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure A.7: Micro F1 of the generative model with T5-base on data points involving negation as the size of the training data is varied. As the size of the training set increases, the model performs better on negation expressions and the performance saturates around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 713 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "200k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11681" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_content_list.json b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e409216f33c5026486b7521fa2b8543793f2bae --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2986 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Salespeople vs SalesBot: Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 147, + 89, + 850, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lidiya Murakhovs'ka Philippe Laban Tian Xie Caiming Xiong Chien-Sheng Wu", + "bbox": [ + 287, + 149, + 739, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Salesforce AI Research", + "bbox": [ + 403, + 183, + 598, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{1.murakhovska, plaban, t.xie, cxiong, wu.jason}@salesforce.com", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 199, + 821, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Making big purchases requires consumers to research or consult a salesperson to gain domain expertise. However, existing conversational recommender systems (CRS) often overlook users' lack of background knowledge, focusing solely on gathering preferences. In this work, we define a new problem space for conversational agents that aim to provide both product recommendations and educational value through mixed-type mixed-initiative dialog. We introduce SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the simulation and evaluation of such systems by leveraging recent advancements in large language models (LLMs). We build SalesBot and ShopperBot, a pair of LLM-powered agents that can simulate either side of the framework. A comprehensive human study compares SalesBot against professional salespeople, revealing that although SalesBot approaches professional performance in terms of fluency and informativeness, it lags behind in recommendation quality. We emphasize the distinct limitations both face in providing truthful information, highlighting the challenges of ensuring faithfulness in the CRS context. We release our code and make all data available1.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 661, + 258, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conversational recommender systems (CRS) use multi-turn dialog to understand user preferences, gather information, and provide suitable recommendations (Gao et al., 2021). They have gained significant attention from academia and industry due to their flexibility compared to one-shot recommender systems. CRS allow users to dynamically refine their preferences and express feedback on recommended items through chat.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 687, + 489, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While many traditional CRS are built under a \"System Ask-User Answer\" paradigm (Zhang et al., 2018b), some recent works have identified the critical need to support mixed-type, mixed-initiative", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 832, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/42d96611d088eab36bd2dc2ab6d6b051cd7674b4a03c86d0b127800a52d7d082.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The SalesOps framework is a conversational recommendation system simulation involving: (1) a Seller viewing a buying guide and product catalog, (2) a Shopper gradually learning about shopping preferences. Either can be simulated using an LLM-based system." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 252, + 863, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "dialog and assist users with underspecified goals (Kim et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020, 2022). However, most CRS remain focused on domains involving content recommendation such as movies, books, music, news, etc, which require a different type of recommendation strategy than the e-commerce space where consumers often need a certain level of background knowledge to understand their options (Laban et al., 2020; Papenmeier et al., 2022). In content recommendation domains, CRS can achieve success by questioning a user about previous content consumption and retrieving similar content. This strategy is not valid for the sale of complex products, as prior user habits do not inform a buyer's item-specific preferences.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 884, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we focus on complex products with multiple attributes that would usually require significant expertise or a salesperson consultation to make an informed purchase decision on - e.g., TVs,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://github.com/salesforce/salesbot", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 433, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9823", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9823-9838 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 973 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "guitars, etc. We associate the ambiguous user goals often present in this real-life setting with the lack of knowledge about the product domain and suggest the need for the agent to provide educational value in addition to fulfilling the recommendation objective. We address this new problem space by introducing SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the recreation of realistic CRS scenarios and agent evaluation, as shown in Figure 1. Our method incorporates several novel features.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We utilize existing buying guides as a knowledge source for the sales agent. We provide the seller with a relevant guide in addition to a product catalog, which enables them to educate shoppers on the complex product space.", + "- Shopping preferences are gradually revealed to the shopper during the course of conversation in order to simulate the underspecified goal scenario of a typical uninformed shopper.", + "- A multi-dimensional evaluation framework is designed to measure sales agent performance in terms of (a) quality of final recommendation, (b) educational value to the shopper, and (c) fluency and professionalism." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 250, + 489, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We leverage recent progress made in large language models (LLMs), which has enabled increasingly powerful conversational agents, to build a pair of agents - SalesBot and ShopperBot which can simulate either side in the SalesOps framework. Thus, facilitating evaluation in any of the following settings: human-human, human-bot, bot-human, and bot-bot. We critically examine the components of these agents to understand where modern LLMs have the most impact on CRS.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 501, + 489, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We recruit 15 professional salespeople to study the gap between human experts and SalesBot at complex product conversational recommendations. The results reveal that although SalesBot matches professionals in tone politeness and educational quality, there remain minor gaps in the quality of recommended products. We also perform a preliminary analysis of faithfulness within the SalesOps framework, which is important in domains involving generative AI as they enter the applied setting. Our NLI-based analysis (Laban et al., 2022) reveals that salespeople can use strategies that may seem unfaithful, to upsell or simplify technical details. These results highlight the practical challenges of implementing robust faithfulness checks in domains like conversational sales.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 665, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Conversational Recommendation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 816, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the introduction of conversational recommendation systems (Sun and Zhang, 2018), the field has grown to a wide range of task formulations, settings, and application scenarios (Gao et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2023). Recent works explore conversational systems in the context of multi-type and mixed-initiative dialogs (Liu et al., 2020, 2022). They release sizable datasets in Chinese to advance the field toward supporting users with undefined goals. However, these primarily cover content recommendation domains such as movies, food, and news. As such, they do not directly address the challenges the e-commerce domain poses. In this work we extend these ideas to the specific context of e-commerce, where the focus is on providing recommendations for complex products.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 130, + 884, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the e-commerce space, Fu et al. (2020) presented COOKIE - a CRS dataset constructed synthetically from user reviews. Most recently, Bernard and Balog (2023) presented a small multigoal human-to-human conversational dataset with 64 chats for e-commerce. While closely related to our task, they do not aim to simulate ambiguous user preferences or target the educational objective; instead, they reveal all user requirements at once.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 884, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While existing CRS are effective, criticism can be raised regarding the incorporation of expert knowledge into the user experience. While some systems provide explanations for recommendations (Chen et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2022), their primary focus is not on educating the user about the different options available. This highlights the need for research into new methods of integrating expert knowledge into CRS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Knowledge-Grounded Dialog", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 689, + 786, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge-grounded response generation in dialogue systems has been explored for years in both task-oriented (Madotto et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022) and open-domain systems (Zhang et al., 2018a; Shuster et al., 2022a; Thoppilan et al., 2022; Shuster et al., 2022b). However, it is important to note that most existing approaches focus on passively responding to user queries rather than proactively conveying the knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 709, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A study by Cai et al. (2022) proposes a teacherbot that transmits information in passages to students, aiming to help them acquire new knowledge through conversation. While their work focuses", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9824", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "solely on the educational objective, our work combines it with CRS, suggesting suitable products while educating users about the relevant domain.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Some CRS have incorporated knowledge graphs (KGs) as complementary resources for analyzing item- and attribute-level user preferences (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2023). The primary objective of KGs is to enhance recommendations or aid preference elicitation rather than assisting sellers in answering inquiries or proactively conveying knowledge. Other works (Schick et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023) focus on augmenting LLMs with external knowledge to address common pitfalls like hallucinations and lack of up-to-date information. This can greatly benefit our goal; thus, we leverage and augment LLMs with external tools to build conversational agents in this work.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 133, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Evaluation and User Simulation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 413, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Designing effective evaluation protocols has long been a challenge for various conversational systems (Deriu et al., 2021). Interacting with real users is costly, prompting the adoption of user simulators to assess proactive interactions in dialogue systems (Deng et al., 2023). Sekulic et al. (2022) utilized a GPT-2-based generative agent to simulate users in Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA) setting. We build upon their approach and incorporate the latest advancements in LLMs. We also introduce a novel concept of gradually incorporating user preferences into the simulation process.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 489, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 SalesOps Framework", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 334, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now describe the SalesOps framework, allowing us to study CRS systems in terms of educational and recommendation objectives for complex product scenarios. In SalesOps, two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – have a conversation that begins with a Shopper request and ends once the Seller makes a product recommendation that the Shopper accepts. Each actor gets access to specific content elements that assist them in completing the task. We first describe the three content elements and the procedure used to generate them at scale, and then we describe the constraint we put on actors' access to the content to create realistic sales conversations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Content Elements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 302, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As illustrated in Figure 1, for any given product (i.e., vacuums), three content elements are required to instantiate the SalesOps framework. The Prod-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "uct Catalog and the Buying Guide are the content elements accessible to the Seller, and the Shopping Preferences are accessible to the Shopper.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Importantly, we populated all content elements for the six product categories we include in our initial release, but we aim for the procedures to be automatable, so they can be expanded to new products, unlike previous resources that can become outdated (Ni et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 133, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.1 Product Catalog", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 239, + 700, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the SalesOps framework, the Seller has access to a fixed list of products that can be recommended to the Shopper. Each product consists of (1) a unique ID, (2) a product name, (3) a price, (4) a product description, and (5) a feature set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 258, + 880, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When creating the product catalogs, we initially considered leveraging the Amazon Product Reviews dataset (Ni et al., 2019). However, we found that the products in the dataset are outdated (1997-2018), which greatly impacts the conversations we obtain from a study with human participants in 2023. In many cases, product information and pricing are obsolete, products with the latest technology are missing (e.g., QLED TVs) and thus, the product catalog misaligns with updated Buying Guides and participant expectations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 884, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We generate synthetic product entries using an LLM since web-scraping an up-to-date product catalog can lead to limitations in terms of open sourcing. We first repeatedly prompt the LLM to generate a diverse list of an average of 30 product names for a given category (e.g., TVs). We then prompt the model for each product name to generate realistic product metadata, including a title, description, price, and feature list. Appendix A presents more details of this process.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike previous approaches that utilize databases with thousands of items, we deliberately limit the product catalog to approximately 30 items per category to mirror the curated selection of a typical store (Fu et al., 2020; Bernard and Balog, 2023). This also significantly impacts human sellers' ability to complete the task as they need to familiarize themselves with the products available to effectively perform their role. However, the automated nature of the creation process would allow us to expand the product catalog efficiently.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 882, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During a SalesOps conversation, the Seller can decide on their turn to recommend one or several items whose details will be included in a subsequent message to the shopper (see Appendix C for", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9825", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c884764dc6927591ae1e055ef2e842cf8e88d4e776b003c6de462900890e03b5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Shopper Preference Generation Pipeline using ChatGPT. Example for the Coffee Makers category." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 499, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "an example conversation).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 312, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.2 Buying Guide", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 349, + 284, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Professional salespeople often receive training or rely on technical documentation to effectively sell complex products. We proxy this expert knowledge through leveraging publicly available buying guides. Buying guides, such as ones available on BestBuy2 or Consumer Reports3, are often written by professionals to help coach buyers on the decision-making process so that they can determine the best option for themselves. For each product category, we retrieve the top five articles from the C4 corpus (Raffel et al., 2019) that match the search query \"[PRODUCT] Buying Guide\", and select the most appropriate one.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 369, + 487, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On average, the buying guide we select for each product category is 2,500 words and 50 paragraphs long. Selected buying guides are diverse in their organization, with some being organized by shopper persona, shopping budget, or major item subcategories (e.g., drip vs. espresso machines). The heterogeneity in the layout of buying guides goes towards creating a realistic experimental setting in which the layout of knowledge documents for a particular product might not be known in advance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 579, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.3 Shopping Preferences", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 749, + 346, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2 introduces the three-step method we use to obtain shopping preferences for a given product category, which relies on LLMs. First, we generate a list of five possible questions the Seller may ask based on the buying guide (e.g., \"How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?\"). Second, we generate for each question a set of answer options", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 487, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(e.g. [\"1\", \"2-4\", \"5-9\", \"10+\"]. Although we attempt to have mutually exclusive questions, it is inevitable for some combinations to be improbable (e.g., a very high-capacity coffee maker for the smallest budget), thus, we leverage LLMs in a third step to select 10 diverse but realistic combinations of the preferences.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike prior work that reveals the shopper preferences in their entirety when the conversation is initiated (Liu et al., 2022; Bernard and Balog, 2023), we choose to reveal preferences to the Shopper gradually during the conversation, providing a more realistic simulation of an underspecified buying experience (Kim et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 198, + 884, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To achieve this objective, for each Shopper turn in the conversation, we extract the last Seller message, and use a semantic similarity model4 to detect whether the utterance corresponds to a question related to one of the preferences. If the similarity passes a manually selected threshold, the related preference is revealed to the Shopper, and they can choose to leverage the additional information in their response. We note that the system reveals at most one preference per Shopper turn and does not enforce that all preferences are revealed. We intend these choices to simulate a realistic conversational experience for the Shopper and Seller.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 312, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 SalesOps Actors", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 535, + 685, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In SalesOps, the two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – can either be simulated by an LLM-based system or enacted by a person such as a sales professional or crowd worker. We briefly introduce the considerations for each actor.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 557, + 882, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Seller has access to the Product Catalog and Buying Guide during a SalesOps conversation, corresponding roughly to 65 paragraphs which is a large amount of content both for humans and a system enacting the role. We estimate that a human enacting this role would require roughly 30 minutes at an average reading speed of 200 words per minute to read all the content. In our experiments with professional salespeople, they were each provided a period of reading time to get familiar with the content prior to participating in conversations. In our automated Seller implementation, we leverage a retrieval system to efficiently provide the content to the LLM components with limited context lengths.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 639, + 884, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://bestbuy.com/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 890, + 299, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://wwwconsumerreports.org/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 904, + 386, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^\\mathrm{4}$ sentence-transformers/ paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet-base-v2", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 796, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9826", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix D goes over the SalesOps Seller User Interface, built using the Mephisto library (Urbanek and Ringshia, 2023). The interface is extended for several aspects: (1) contains the Buying Guide and a search interface to the Product Catalog, (2) the Seller must select which paragraphs of the Buying Guide they are leveraging in crafting their response (if any), (3) the post-chat questionnaire which asks to select utterances where Shopper revealed their preferences and rate the conversation partner.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During a chat, we further log all product search queries. As a result, the metadata generated when implementing the SalesOps framework can be useful for tasks beyond the CRS setting, such as knowledge-grounded response generation, conversational summarization, and query generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 246, + 487, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the other hand, the Shopper is only provided with the product category they are tasked with shopping for at the initial stage of a SalesOps chat. Shopping preferences are revealed based on the Seller's questioning as the conversation unfolds. The Shopper interface, presented in Appendix D requires fewer adaptations of Mephisto than the Seller interface: (1) we repurpose one-sided \"Coordinator\" messages to reveal Shopping Preferences during the conversation, and (2) when a product recommendation is suggested by the Seller, the Shopper interface displays buttons to accept or reject the item.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 344, + 489, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Bots Implementation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 329, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now present ShopperBot and SalesBot, the LLM-based implementations (ChatGPT in our experiment) that can simulate both sides of the SalesOps framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 594, + 487, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 ShopperBot", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 253, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ShopperBot's goal is to generate responses in accordance with the provided set of preferences $(P)$ , consisting of several question-answer pairs $(q - a)$ . We achieve this objective by prompting LLMs with (a) natural language instruction to act as a shopper seeking [PRODUCT] (e.g., a TV), (b) a list of currently revealed shopping preferences, and (c) the chat history, at every turn in the conversation. Full prompt can be seen in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 487, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When the latest seller's utterance includes a recommendation of an item, ShopperBot is instructed to include [ACCEPT] or [REJECT] token in its reply. It will base this decision on the whole set of preferences $(P)$ to ensure consistency with the simulated", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2125bcc93444a4b847cc378fed306278c55505e84c5dc0235c2327294f752c1d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: SalesBot architecture to generate a Seller response, based on two Content Elements and the conversation history. LLM-based modules are in yellow." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 526, + 84, + 867, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scenario - i.e., if too few preferences were revealed at this point in the conversation, we do not want the shopper to accept an item that would not satisfy the whole set $P$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 880, + 497 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We note that the Shopping Preferences are far from a comprehensive listing of all questions that could occur when shopping for a complex product category. The ShopperBot is instructed to make its own decisions when choices are not in $P$ (e.g., the preferred color of a coffee machine) and fluently converse with the Seller.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 880, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitatively, we have confirmed in our experiments that ShopperBot can provide subjective and unique preferences, realistically simulating a human shopper.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 880, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 SalesBot", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 689, + 623, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SalesBot has access to two main external tools - 1) knowledge search and 2) product search. As shown in Figure 3, it generates dialogue responses using a series of modules. Each module is an independent component of the overall system.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 711, + 880, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.1 Action Decision", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 802, + 692, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This module decides which tool to use based on the current conversation history. Selecting from the following: Knowledge Search (details in section 4.2.2), Product Search (details in section 4.2.3), Response Generation (details in section 4.2.4).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 880, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We query an LLM to make this choice and pro", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9827", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "vide natural language instructions on when to use each of the available tools in our prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.2 Knowledge Search", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 128, + 319, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge Search module's main purpose is to educate the user by incorporating expert domain knowledge into the conversation. It is made up of two components: 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We ask the LLM to generate a query based on the chat history.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 487, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then use a FAISS retriever to lookup relevant knowledge article paragraphs (Johnson et al., 2019). We concatenate top 3 paragraphs (separated by \"\\n\\n\") and feed it as external knowledge to the Response Generation module described in section 4.2.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 247, + 487, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.3 Product Search", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 294, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Product Search module's goal is finding relevant items to recommend to the user. Similar to the above, this module is made up of 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We embed each product's information (i.e., title, description, price, and feature list) using the Sentence Transformer model $^{5}$ and retrieve the top 4 products based on the query embedding (obtained using the same model). Same as in Knowledge Search, we concatenate the results. Note that in some cases, we may not need all 4 products, for example, if the shopper asked a follow-up question about a certain product, the response should not include all 4 retrieved items. We leave it up to the Response Generation module to determine which products should be mentioned based on the chat history.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 489, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.4 Response Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 341, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the Action Decision module, response generation can either include external information (e.g., buying guide excerpts, product information) or not. We thus, write two separate prompts to respond to the shopper. Response Generation with External Knowledge is based on: Chat History, Action Selected, Query Generated, Retrieved Results. Response Generation without External Knowledge is based solely on the chat history.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 667, + 487, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We additionally implement a Regeneration submodule to rewrite the final response if needed. We place a limit on max_tokensgenerated when prompting the LLM and ask it to rewrite the previously generated response if it was cut off due", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 812, + 487, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to length. This forces SalesBot's responses to be concise and contain full sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Evaluation Criteria", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 129, + 714, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Along with the SalesOps framework, we propose a multi-dimensional evaluation that defines success for the Seller along three axes: (1) recommendation quality, which verifies whether the recommendations of the Seller are compatible with the Shopper's preferences, (2) informativeness, which checks whether the Seller provides educational value to the Shopper, and (3) fluency which evaluates the Seller's ability to communicate professionally and concisely. We next define the metrics - both automatic and manual - used to evaluate each axis.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 156, + 882, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent work shows the promise of using LLMs for evaluation across many NLP tasks (Liu et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Laban et al., 2023). Following this thread of work, we leverage GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) for automatic evaluation purposes in several of our proposed metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 350, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Recommendation Quality", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 458, + 756, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Accurate recommendations that match shopper preferences are a core expectation of CRS. The authors of the paper manually annotated each product category and its 10 corresponding Shopping Preferences for all acceptable product recommendations as the ground truth. On average, a given shopping preference configuration yielded 4 acceptable products from a product catalog of 30 items. Thus, for a completed SalesOps conversation, we compute recommendation accuracy (Rec).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 882, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Informativeness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 680, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose two metrics to measure the informativeness of the Seller during a conversation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 880, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we leverage an NLI-based model to measure the content overlap between the Seller's utterances and the buying guide, as such model has been shown to perform competitively on tasks involving factual similarity (Laban et al., 2022; Fabbri et al., 2022). Specifically, we calculate the $\\%$ of the buying guide sentences that are entailed at least once by a seller utterance $(Inf_{e})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, we assess the shopper's knowledge through a quiz that we designed which consists of 3 multiple-choice questions that can be answered using the buying guide (examples in Appendix C. We then ask crowd-workers to an-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 443, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9828", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cd610bf911964b1cd81861b43fca3511a6e5bd6cde5a7df2f7954533d3458d3f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
AgentFlu e ↑Flu i ↑Inf e ↑Rec ↑
Ada-RG1.410.000.160.16
Rule-AD4.820.590.860.40
Key-QG4.970.720.710.36
No-ReGen4.990.850.740.47
SalesBot4.990.910.740.44
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 80, + 470, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Results of the ablation study of SalesBot components using GPT4-based evaluation metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "swer each knowledge question solely considering the conversation, with the option of choosing \"Cannot answer based on the conversation\". We report the $\\%$ of correct answers on the knowledge questions $(Inf_{q})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 256, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Fluency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 353, + 221, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We frame two questions to measure the fluency and professionalism of the Seller:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 485, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$Flu_{e}$ : How would you rate the salesperson's communication skills? (scale: 1-5)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 411, + 485, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$Flu_{i}$ : Do you think the seller in the given chat is: (i) human or (ii) a bot? (Yes/No)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 444, + 485, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform annotation for the two fluency metrics both manually by recruiting crowd-workers (see Appendix C) as well as by prompting GPT-4 to answer both questions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 478, + 487, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 278, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SalesBot contains 4 LLM-based components, which we swap with baselines to understand the impact of using an LLM for each component.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 589, + 487, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 652, + 233, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement four ablations of SalesBot:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 676, + 426, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ada-RG We replace ChatGPT with the smaller GPT3 text-ada-001 model in the response generation module.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 696, + 487, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rule-AD We replace the Action Decision module with a rule-based system: select the \"Knowledge\" action for the first 6 turns, and the \"Recommend\" action afterwards.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 749, + 487, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Key-QG We replace Query Generation modules with a keyword method: extract five keywords from the latest utterance and concatenate them as a query.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 487, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No-ReGen We experiment with removing Regeneration module from response generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 613, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We generated 150 conversations on the six product categories between ShopperBot and the five versions of SalesBots, and computed automatic results which are summarized in Table 1. Overall, the use of an LLM is most crucial in the Response Generation component but is beneficial across all components.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 882, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Replacing ChatGPT with a smaller LLM in the Response Generation component leads to the largest degradation across the board, confirming that smaller models are unable to handle the complex task of tying together the conversation history and external knowledge to generate a concise, coherent, fluent, and informative response.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 218, + 882, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The rule-based action decision module leads to improved informativeness (as the system relies more heavily on the knowledge action), at the cost of fluency and recommendation quality.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 330, + 880, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The keyword-based retrieval ablation leads to lower a $20\\%$ decrease in recommendation quality, confirming that generation of retrieval queries benefits from the generative flexibility of an LLM. Finally, adding the regeneration component leads to a boost in fluency, at the cost of a minor recommendation quality drop.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 395, + 882, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a result, we recommend that designers of conversational agents: (1) Leverage LLMs in Response Generation, (2) Integrate Generative Flexibility in Retrieval Queries, and (3) Utilize Regeneration for Improved Fluency.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 882, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Salespeople vs SalesBot", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 600, + 744, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We aim to study the qualitative differences between SalesBot and professional salespeople to comprehend the effect of deploying such systems in real-world settings (Guo et al., 2023), and perform an extensive human evaluation of SalesBot and Salespeople within the SalesOps framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7.1 Experiment Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 733, + 697, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We recruit 15 professional salespeople across a diverse set of industries (e.g., insurance, retail, B2B sales) through UserInterviews $^{6}$ . They were given a 1-hour onboarding session covering the SalesOps framework, reading a Buying Guide and Product Catalog, and completing warmup conversations. Participants then completed up to 15 SalesOps conversations with ShopperBot, which took an average of 3 hours.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 882, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6https://www.userinterviews.com/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 774, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9829", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/96f609f37e5cd4b4840b8d1055b54ed5fc4091e769d08436f0c50f939c58e74b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Statistics (avg)#
Nb. words of Seller utterance62.535.3
Nb. words of Shopper utterance20.820.7
Nb. of turns11.912.9
Nb. turns before the first rec.6.07.9
Nb. of recommendations2.62.4
Nb. of triggered revelations1.72.8
% Correct recommendations (Rec)4454
Information Quiz Score (Infq)32.931.8
Fluency Score (Fluε)4.44.2
% Is Human (Flui)5580
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 80, + 470, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Comparison of SalesBot and Salesperson on conversation statistics (top) and human evaluation metrics (bottom).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 489, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In parallel, we generated 150 SalesOps conversations between SalesBot and ShopperBot for the same set of preferences. Unlike the ablation study in which we perform the evaluation with GPT-4, we recruit crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete evaluation (interface in Appendix C).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 342, + 489, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7.2 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 451, + 218, + 466 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 presents statistics and evaluation results of the comparison between professional Salespeople and SalesBot. Overall, SalesBot's utterances are almost twice as long. It makes its first recommendation earlier and makes slightly more recommendations in total than professional salespeople.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 489, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Looking at the human evaluation, crowd workers were largely able to distinguish between SalesBot and professionals, as they were much more likely to believe the Seller was human for professionals (80%) than for SalesBot (55%), yet SalesBot achieved a higher Likert fluency score. This is likely due to salespeople acting more casual in conversations, making occasional typos which come across as less professional.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 570, + 489, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, even though professionals write utterances that are nearly half the length, they achieve higher recommendation quality and almost equal informativeness. This pair of results confirms that there is still a large gap between LLMs and professional salespeople with respect to conciseness.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 715, + 489, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7.3 Faithfulness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 824, + 257, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In absolute terms, both SalesBot and Salespeople achieve low rates of correct recommendations (< 55%). We perform a qualitative analysis of failure", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 846, + 489, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-4 Explanation of Unfaithful Content", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 840, + 103 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Salesperson. The salesperson incorrectly mentioned that the Cuisinart DCC-3200P1 has a hot water dispenser, which is not mentioned in the document.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 884, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SalesBot. The salesperson incorrectly stated that some drip coffee makers and espresso machines have the option for pre-measured pods or capsules. The document only mentions single-serve coffee makers as having the option for pre-measured pods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 884, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Example of GPT4-based detection of unfaithful behavior in both SalesBot and Salespeople.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 882, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cases and find that there are several reasons for mismatches, including salespeople upselling products (i.e., convincing Shoppers to accept a product beyond their initial budget). We study this phenomenon through the lens of faithfulness analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 332, + 882, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide GPT-4 with Buying Guides, the Product Catalog and the full conversation, and prompt it with identifying whether the Seller provides advice that is inconsistent with existing information. It detects that for both types of Sellers, roughly one in four chats contains unfaithful claims.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 412, + 882, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide examples of identified inconsistencies in Table 3. Our findings suggest that while SalesBot may occasionally hallucinate due to known LLM-bound limitations, salespeople can also exhibit unfaithful behavior, usually in the form of (a) upselling and (b) answering follow-up questions without knowing the true answer. Both are motivated by the desire to close the sale; however, this confirms the challenge of evaluating faithfulness in the sales domain, for which successful sales strategies might require unbacked claims.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 526, + 882, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 640, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper we introduce SalesOps, a flexible framework for simulating realistic CRS scenarios in the context of complex product sales, and propose an evaluation paradigm for such systems. Our framework provides researchers and practitioners with a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness and performance of conversational agents in sales settings. By developing SalesBot and ShopperBot within this framework, we gain insights into the individual components and their impact on conversational performance. Through a comprehensive", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7https://www.mturk.com/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 312, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9830", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "human study, we identify gaps in product recommendation quality and provide a faithfulness analysis of both automated and human sellers. These contributions advance the understanding and development of CRS, paving the way for improved sales interactions and user experiences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "9 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 193, + 250, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we heavily on LLMs to build the conversational agents (SalesBot and ShopperBot) within our framework. While LLMs have shown significant advancements in generating human-like responses and engaging in multi-turn conversations, they still suffer from hallucinations as shown in our faithfulness analysis, and thus impact the overall performance of the system.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 219, + 487, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, our evaluation primarily focuses on three aspects: the quality of the final recommendation, educational value to the shopper, and fluency/professionalism. While these aspects are important, there are other dimensions that could be relevant, such as user satisfaction, persuasion skills, and diversity of recommendations. We leave further exploration into CRS evaluation to future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 349, + 485, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We limit our evaluation to the chat-based sales experience, even though most sales conversations involving a shopper and a salesperson happen in audio form, either in a physical store or on the phone. Prior work has shown that adapting conversational content to the audio format is non-trivial (Kang and Gretzel, 2012), and requires modifications to remain natural and engaging (Laban et al., 2022). We leave it to future work to further adapt SalesOps and SalesBot to the audio setting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 489, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethical Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 667, + 273, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ethical considerations in this work primarily revolve around the interactions with human participants and the potential implications of deploying conversational agents in real-life settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 487, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The study involved 15 professional salespeople who were recruited through User Interviews platform and participated voluntarily. The study aimed to ensure representation and inclusivity in its participant selection process. We recruited individuals of different genders, professionals of all levels (associate, manager, director, VP), and spanning a wide range of age groups from 19 to 65. They received compensation for their time and effort. An onboarding session was conducted to explain the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "task instructions and provide sample chats. Afterward, the participants had the freedom to complete the study at their own pace. Additionally, human evaluation was conducted with Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, who were compensated for their contributions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We discuss the potential impact of deploying conversational agents, such as SalesBot, in real-life scenarios. The study highlights both the strengths and limitations of SalesBot compared to professional salespeople. The evaluation reveals gaps in recommendation quality and examines the challenges of ensuring content faithfulness in the CRS context. We emphasize the importance of considering the implications of generative AI systems in domains like conversational sales, where there several ethical concerns may arise related to upselling and providing factually accurate information.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 885, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 401, + 608, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Nolwenn Bernard and Krisztian Balog. 2023. Mghopdial: A multi-goal conversational dataset for e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2304.12636.", + "Pengshan Cai, Hui Wan, Fei Liu, Mo Yu, Hong Yu, and Sachindra Joshi. 2022. Learning as conversation: Dialogue systems reinforced for information acquisition. ArXiv, abs/2205.14748.", + "Zhongxia Chen, Xiting Wang, Xing Xie, Mehul Parsana, Akshay Soni, Xiang Ao, and Enhong Chen. 2020. Towards explainable conversational recommendation. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Yang Deng, Wenqiang Lei, Wai Lam, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A survey on proactive dialogue systems: Problems, methods, and prospects. *ArXiv*, abs/2305.02750.", + "Jan Deriu, Alvaro Rodrigo, Arantxa Otegi, Guillermo Echegoyen, Sophie Rosset, Eneko Agirre, and Mark Cieliebak. 2021. Survey on evaluation methods for dialogue systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54:755-810.", + "Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. QAFactEval: Improved QA-based factual consistency evaluation for summarization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2587-2601, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. ArXiv, abs/2302.04166." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 425, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9831", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Yaxin Zhu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Gerard de Melo. 2020. Cookie: A dataset for conversational recommendation over knowledge graphs in e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2008.09237.", + "Chongming Gao, Wenqiang Lei, Xiangnan He, M. de Rijke, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Advances and challenges in conversational recommender systems: A survey. AI Open, 2:100-126.", + "Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. ArXiv, abs/2301.07597.", + "Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547.", + "M. Kang and U. Gretzel. 2012. Effects of podcast tours on tourist experiences in a national park. *Tourism Management*, 33:440-455.", + "Seokhwan Kim, Mihail Eric, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. Beyond domain APIs: Task-oriented conversational modeling with unstructured knowledge access. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 278-289, 1st virtual meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Philippe Laban, John Canny, and Marti A Hearst. 2020. What's the latest? a question-driven news chatbot. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 380-387.", + "Philippe Laban, Wojciech Kryscinski, Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq R. Joty, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. Llms as factual reasoners: Insights from existing benchmarks and beyond. ArXiv, abs/2305.14540.", + "Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLIBased models for inconsistency detection in summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:163-177.", + "Miaoran Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhu Zhang. 2022. Opera: Harmonizing task-oriented dialogs and information seeking experience. ArXiv, abs/2206.12449.", + "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuo Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. ArXiv, abs/2303.16634.", + "Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards conversational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zeming Liu, Jun Xu, Zeyang Lei, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, and Hua Wu. 2022. Where to go for the holidays: Towards mixed-type dialogs for clarification of user goals. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1024-1034, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Andrea Madotto, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Mem2Seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1468-1478, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 188-197, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774.", + "Andrea Papenmeier, Alexander Frummet, and Dagmar Kern. 2022. \"mhm...\" - conversational strategies for product search assistants. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR '22, page 36-46, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Lidén, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. ArXiv, abs/2302.12813.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv e-prints.", + "Xuhui Ren, Tong Chen, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Li zhen Cui, Zi-Liang Huang, and Hongzhi Yin. 2023. Explicit knowledge graph reasoning for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2305.00783.", + "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. ArXiv, abs/2302.04761.", + "Ivan Sekulic, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Fabio A. Crestani. 2022. Evaluating mixed-initiative conversational search systems via user simulation. Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9832", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur D. Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, W.K.F. Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur D. Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. ArXiv, abs/2208.03188.", + "Yueming Sun and Yi Zhang. 2018. Conversational recommender system. The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval.", + "Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam M. Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, HengTze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, Yaguang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, I. A. Krivokon, Willard James Rusch, Marc Pickett, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Hartz Søraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravindran Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, V. O. Kuzmina, Joseph Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. ArXiv, abs/2201.08239.", + "Jack Urbanek and Pratik Ringshia. 2023. Mephisto: A framework for portable, reproducible, and iterative crowdsourcing.", + "Bingbing Wen, Xiaoning Bu, and Chirag Shah. 2022. Egcr: Explanation generation for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2208.08035.", + "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018a. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07243.", + "Tong Zhang, Yong Liu, Peixiang Zhong, Chen Zhang, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Kecrs: Towards knowledge-enriched conversational recommendation system. ArXiv, abs/2105.08261.", + "Yongfeng Zhang, Xu Chen, Qingyao Ai, Liu Yang, and W. Bruce Croft. 2018b. Towards conversational search and recommendation: System ask, user response. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.", + "Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2021. Crfr: Improving conversational recommender systems via flexible fragments reasoning on knowledge graphs. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9833", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Product Catalog Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 396, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each product domain, we automatically generate Product Catalog following the procedure in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 882, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. Product Name Gen.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 143, + 292, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generate a list of top 30 [PRODUCT_NAME] options in the following format:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 159, + 665, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"name\":...}", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 175, + 236, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Include a diverse list of options with different brands, sizes, price points for a variety of customers.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 192, + 842, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Product Metadata Gen.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 214, + 322, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generate product description, features, and price based on the product name. Output should be in the following json format:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 230, + 880, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "{ \"name\": \"...\". \"price\": \"...\". \"description\": \"...\". \"features\": [... ] }", + "guess_lang": "json", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 263, + 310, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/986bd9b77f44836be13857bae82da48d8ce5ee435e33f0bfc59ab236ee9d416a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Product Catalog Generation Prompts.", + "An example of the resulting product metadata is presented in Table 5." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
nameSamsung 55" Class S95B OLED 4K Smart Tizen TV
price$1,699.99
descriptionSamsung OLED TV changes the game again with 8.3 million self lit pixels and ultra powerful 4K AI Neural Processing, all for a picture so real, it's surreal. Add on Dolby Atmos® sound built in, the latest Smart TV apps, and a LaserSlim design and get a viewing experience that's intensely cinematic.
features["55 inch", "OLED Technology", "Neural Quantum Processor with 4K Upscaling", "Smart Calibration", "Connectivity with Bluetooth, RF, Wi-Fi, USB, HDMI, Ethernet (LAN), Digital Audio Out x 1 (Optical)", "Supported internet services: Netflix, Google TV, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube, Browser"]
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 432, + 882, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Product Metadata Example for the TV category.", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 690, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B ShopperBot Design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 656, + 317, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 682, + 223, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are shopping online for a {product}. You haven't done your research on this product and want to speak to a salesperson over chat to learn more and make an informed decision.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 709, + 855, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Follow these rules:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 758, + 324, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Chat with the salesperson to learn more about {product}. They will be acting as a product expert, helping you make an informed purchasing decision. They may ask you questions to narrow down your options and find a suitable product recommendation for you.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 774, + 863, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Use your assigned preferences and incorporate them in your responses when appropriate, but do not reveal them to the salesperson right away or all at once. Only share a maximum of 1 assigned preference with the salesperson at a time.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 839, + 853, + 902 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Let the salesperson drive the conversation.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 904, + 610, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9834", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Ask questions when appropriate. Be curious and try to learn more about {product} before making your decision.", + "- Be realistic and stay consistent in your responses.", + "- When the salesperson makes a recommendation, you'll see product details with 'ACCEPT' and 'REJECT' in the message. Please consider whether the product satisfies your assigned preferences.", + "- If the recommended product meets your needs, generate [ACCEPT] token in your response. For example, \"[ACCEPT] Thanks, I'll take it!\".", + "- If the recommended product is not a good fit, let the salesperson know (e.g. \"this is too expensive\")", + "- If you're not sure about the recommended product, ask follow-up questions (e.g. \"could you explain the benefit of this feature?\")", + "- Do not generate more than 1 response at a time." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 875, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your assigned preferences:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 326, + 401, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{preferences}", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 342, + 260, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Follow the above rules to generate a reply using your assigned preferences and the conversation history below:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 374, + 800, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conversation history:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 422, + 347, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{chat_history}", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 439, + 270, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shopper :", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 455, + 203, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.2 Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 494, + 263, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4 highlights ShopperBot's key components and the overall design flow.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 518, + 692, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3bb491ee4f648f7277896b0d54352f290678c0d2646ab3ebe15fc0c4173a9df3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: ShopperBot architecture to generate a response based on the selected shopping preferences." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 546, + 618, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Human Evaluation Questionnaire", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 858, + 443, + 875 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We recruit 150 crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete a survey. The user interface is presented in Figure 5. Examples of True/False quiz questions per product category are shown in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9835", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Survey", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 119, + 241, + 174, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MTurk WorkerID:", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 261, + 189, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "X430YABCD", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 278, + 186, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer the questions based on the chat transcript on the right", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 298, + 406, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Communication]", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 121, + 319, + 213, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How would you rate salesperson's communication skills?", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 337, + 339, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 - Excellent", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 354, + 186, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Do you think the salesperson is:", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 375, + 245, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 392, + 163, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Do you think the shopper is:", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 413, + 231, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 430, + 163, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Informativeness]", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 122, + 453, + 215, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture.", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 470, + 431, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cannot answer based on the chat", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 493, + 287, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1b2958566df4551a38d4bfdaa77a15eff16026631feccd1a7802ab683013e01c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 300, + 493, + 332, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "False", + "bbox": [ + 354, + 493, + 383, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of $120\\mathrm{Hz}$ will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 511, + 410, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cannot answer based on the chat", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 543, + 287, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a230caf1284b9007e40f6383922282ccc108fd8f1c71ab14f3ac006d8213cca8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 299, + 543, + 331, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "False", + "bbox": [ + 354, + 543, + 383, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 561, + 448, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cannot answer based on the chat", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 575, + 287, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fa36f78f6be50de823bf3c0d11b9aa91bd64807c05a8fc306c341295b3c1047d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Human Evaluation User Interface." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 299, + 575, + 331, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "False", + "bbox": [ + 354, + 575, + 383, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Product Recommendation]", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 122, + 594, + 267, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Preferences:", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 612, + 186, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "{ \"What is your budget?\" : \"around $2,000\" \"What size TV are you looking for?\" : \"a large size, maybe between 65 and 75 inches\" \"Is image quality a priority for you?\" : \"very important\" \"Do you have any preferred brands?\" : \"I like LG or Samsung\" \"Does your space have a lot of natural light?\" : \"yes\" }", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 627, + 428, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sales Chat Transcript", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 455, + 240, + 608, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please read the chat below carefully, before answering questions.", + "bbox": [ + 455, + 260, + 784, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bcb4d1925286fbc9c45306102fd70db178fd7ea6b822805c339d23a4a80ac411.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 460, + 275, + 482, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hi! How can I help you this afternoon?", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 282, + 673, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hi there! I'm actually shopping for a new TV and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for. Can you tell me a bit more about the different types of TVs you have available?", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 317, + 825, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4aa1b72ba607ecde919e8c48054c954a28601a6e863dcff269de71a46b889afc.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 847, + 313, + 868, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d5c3bc8be4ce30a712f59de18c783f2520c6a924013880e86e28dc52b55ceec7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 460, + 365, + 482, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Certainly! Choosing what size of TV to buy is based on your personal size preference, your room size, and your mounting options. You'll want to keep in mind the width and weight of the TV as that can affect whether you can mount it on your wall or you need an entertainment stand. Televisions can be as small as about 30 inches and as large as 80 inches (or more!). Do you have a size in mind?", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 372, + 779, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I'm thinking something on the larger side, maybe between 65 and 75 inches. What options do you have in that size range?", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 469, + 825, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/afedefc7aad4e826edf316548f9c7ea56601a3be42c2214651562969f2ab1e2c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 847, + 464, + 868, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/902b5ec44bf995b25253e8d3c425d8f3b07678afe7c3a8a364feb0360d2a4e01.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 460, + 507, + 482, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I have TV's ranging in price from $749 to$ 9,999 in that size range. What will you be using the TV for mostly?", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 514, + 766, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Well, I'm a bit of a picky shopper and I want to make sure I get something that will last a while. I watch a lot of movies and some sports, so I want something with good picture quality and a high refresh rate. Do you have any recommendations that might fit those preferences?", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 558, + 825, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b1452b22783ac4b8084599126a53cf0ceb7f637cdd99dcb0952ad801ae483be8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 847, + 555, + 868, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/edcd6151f6e47a120cb46f24dd13a47a3d7a542597d151267d328a98911df132.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 460, + 627, + 482, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This 65 inch LG has a 120hz refresh rate that would be GREAT for watching movies and sports!", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 634, + 781, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ee4feab2a655e98a1a3452efa7703ea861f48fc8f5ee10cbf60e5c1b2e61de9c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 460, + 675, + 482, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Product Name: LG - 65\" Class NanoCell 99 Series LED 8K UHD Smart webOS TV", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 678, + 763, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Price: $1,799.99", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 701, + 579, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Description: Experience everything in more detail with LG NanoCell 8K. LG's most advanced 8K AI processor optimizes composition, black, light and color in every scene, while the", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 711, + 773, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9836", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cc53bd7af42b8fd10bb8ca09263c201a126829e241adaa1f6ebf9b05f7ad2122.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Product CategoryQuestionAnswer
TVThe resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture.T
A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of 120Hz will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz.T
TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality.F
Vacuum CleanersA canister vacuum is best suited for a large home with multiple floors and different types of flooring.T
If you have pets, it's important to choose a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to capture pet hair and dander.T
Stick vacuums are not suitable for cleaning homes with stairs.F
MattressMemory foam mattresses mold to the shape of your body.T
Gel memory foam mattresses are ideal for hot sleepers who want to stay cool at night.T
A mattress with more coils is always better than a mattress with fewer coils.F
GuitarThe acoustic guitar is the most common guitar for first-time buyers.T
Acoustic guitars are self-amplified instruments that come in a variety of sizes, and the most common shape is the Parlor.F
Acoustic-electric guitars are the easiest way to perform with an acoustic guitar, and they always come with an integrated pickup system.F
LaptopA laptop with a larger screen size is always better for gaming.F
A laptop with a dedicated graphics card is unnecessary for basic office tasks.T
An SSD provides faster storage than an HDD.T
Coffee MakersDrip coffee makers are ideal for making coffee for one person.F
Single-serve coffee makers are convenient because they require no measurement of coffee grinds or water.T
Espresso machines can only make espresso shots.F
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: True/False quiz questions per product category.", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 425, + 687, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D SalesOps Framework User Interface", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 465, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the SalesOps Framework's User Interface in Figure 6, displaying both the Seller View (a) and the Shopper view (b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9837", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2eaeac8e22ab69f79831705d025785478ac74511c29c440f744bdf826b7a4904.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Shopper View", + "Figure 6: SalesOps Framework User Interface." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 211, + 884, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9838", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_model.json b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d7de414df4e7cb7a9bd20b516d0c1c9e002df53 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3499 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.09, + 0.852, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Salespeople vs SalesBot: Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.289, + 0.15, + 0.74, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lidiya Murakhovs'ka Philippe Laban Tian Xie Caiming Xiong Chien-Sheng Wu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.405, + 0.184, + 0.599, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Salesforce AI Research" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.2, + 0.822, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{1.murakhovska, plaban, t.xie, cxiong, wu.jason}@salesforce.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Making big purchases requires consumers to research or consult a salesperson to gain domain expertise. However, existing conversational recommender systems (CRS) often overlook users' lack of background knowledge, focusing solely on gathering preferences. In this work, we define a new problem space for conversational agents that aim to provide both product recommendations and educational value through mixed-type mixed-initiative dialog. We introduce SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the simulation and evaluation of such systems by leveraging recent advancements in large language models (LLMs). We build SalesBot and ShopperBot, a pair of LLM-powered agents that can simulate either side of the framework. A comprehensive human study compares SalesBot against professional salespeople, revealing that although SalesBot approaches professional performance in terms of fluency and informativeness, it lags behind in recommendation quality. We emphasize the distinct limitations both face in providing truthful information, highlighting the challenges of ensuring faithfulness in the CRS context. We release our code and make all data available1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.662, + 0.26, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.688, + 0.49, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conversational recommender systems (CRS) use multi-turn dialog to understand user preferences, gather information, and provide suitable recommendations (Gao et al., 2021). They have gained significant attention from academia and industry due to their flexibility compared to one-shot recommender systems. CRS allow users to dynamically refine their preferences and express feedback on recommended items through chat." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.833, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While many traditional CRS are built under a \"System Ask-User Answer\" paradigm (Zhang et al., 2018b), some recent works have identified the critical need to support mixed-type, mixed-initiative" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.253, + 0.865, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.509, + 0.886, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The SalesOps framework is a conversational recommendation system simulation involving: (1) a Seller viewing a buying guide and product catalog, (2) a Shopper gradually learning about shopping preferences. Either can be simulated using an LLM-based system." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.885, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "dialog and assist users with underspecified goals (Kim et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020, 2022). However, most CRS remain focused on domains involving content recommendation such as movies, books, music, news, etc, which require a different type of recommendation strategy than the e-commerce space where consumers often need a certain level of background knowledge to understand their options (Laban et al., 2020; Papenmeier et al., 2022). In content recommendation domains, CRS can achieve success by questioning a user about previous content consumption and retrieving similar content. This strategy is not valid for the sale of complex products, as prior user habits do not inform a buyer's item-specific preferences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we focus on complex products with multiple attributes that would usually require significant expertise or a salesperson consultation to make an informed purchase decision on - e.g., TVs," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.434, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://github.com/salesforce/salesbot" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.48, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9823" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.974 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9823-9838 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "guitars, etc. We associate the ambiguous user goals often present in this real-life setting with the lack of knowledge about the product domain and suggest the need for the agent to provide educational value in addition to fulfilling the recommendation objective. We address this new problem space by introducing SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the recreation of realistic CRS scenarios and agent evaluation, as shown in Figure 1. Our method incorporates several novel features." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.252, + 0.49, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We utilize existing buying guides as a knowledge source for the sales agent. We provide the seller with a relevant guide in addition to a product catalog, which enables them to educate shoppers on the complex product space." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.342, + 0.49, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Shopping preferences are gradually revealed to the shopper during the course of conversation in order to simulate the underspecified goal scenario of a typical uninformed shopper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.415, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- A multi-dimensional evaluation framework is designed to measure sales agent performance in terms of (a) quality of final recommendation, (b) educational value to the shopper, and (c) fluency and professionalism." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.252, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.502, + 0.49, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We leverage recent progress made in large language models (LLMs), which has enabled increasingly powerful conversational agents, to build a pair of agents - SalesBot and ShopperBot which can simulate either side in the SalesOps framework. Thus, facilitating evaluation in any of the following settings: human-human, human-bot, bot-human, and bot-bot. We critically examine the components of these agents to understand where modern LLMs have the most impact on CRS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.663, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We recruit 15 professional salespeople to study the gap between human experts and SalesBot at complex product conversational recommendations. The results reveal that although SalesBot matches professionals in tone politeness and educational quality, there remain minor gaps in the quality of recommended products. We also perform a preliminary analysis of faithfulness within the SalesOps framework, which is important in domains involving generative AI as they enter the applied setting. Our NLI-based analysis (Laban et al., 2022) reveals that salespeople can use strategies that may seem unfaithful, to upsell or simplify technical details. These results highlight the practical challenges of implementing robust faithfulness checks in domains like conversational sales." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.667, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.11, + 0.818, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Conversational Recommendation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.131, + 0.885, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the introduction of conversational recommendation systems (Sun and Zhang, 2018), the field has grown to a wide range of task formulations, settings, and application scenarios (Gao et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2023). Recent works explore conversational systems in the context of multi-type and mixed-initiative dialogs (Liu et al., 2020, 2022). They release sizable datasets in Chinese to advance the field toward supporting users with undefined goals. However, these primarily cover content recommendation domains such as movies, food, and news. As such, they do not directly address the challenges the e-commerce domain poses. In this work we extend these ideas to the specific context of e-commerce, where the focus is on providing recommendations for complex products." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.885, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the e-commerce space, Fu et al. (2020) presented COOKIE - a CRS dataset constructed synthetically from user reviews. Most recently, Bernard and Balog (2023) presented a small multigoal human-to-human conversational dataset with 64 chats for e-commerce. While closely related to our task, they do not aim to simulate ambiguous user preferences or target the educational objective; instead, they reveal all user requirements at once." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.884, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While existing CRS are effective, criticism can be raised regarding the incorporation of expert knowledge into the user experience. While some systems provide explanations for recommendations (Chen et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2022), their primary focus is not on educating the user about the different options available. This highlights the need for research into new methods of integrating expert knowledge into CRS." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.69, + 0.787, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Knowledge-Grounded Dialog" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge-grounded response generation in dialogue systems has been explored for years in both task-oriented (Madotto et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022) and open-domain systems (Zhang et al., 2018a; Shuster et al., 2022a; Thoppilan et al., 2022; Shuster et al., 2022b). However, it is important to note that most existing approaches focus on passively responding to user queries rather than proactively conveying the knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A study by Cai et al. (2022) proposes a teacherbot that transmits information in passages to students, aiming to help them acquire new knowledge through conversation. While their work focuses" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9824" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "solely on the educational objective, our work combines it with CRS, suggesting suitable products while educating users about the relevant domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.49, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Some CRS have incorporated knowledge graphs (KGs) as complementary resources for analyzing item- and attribute-level user preferences (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2023). The primary objective of KGs is to enhance recommendations or aid preference elicitation rather than assisting sellers in answering inquiries or proactively conveying knowledge. Other works (Schick et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023) focus on augmenting LLMs with external knowledge to address common pitfalls like hallucinations and lack of up-to-date information. This can greatly benefit our goal; thus, we leverage and augment LLMs with external tools to build conversational agents in this work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.372, + 0.414, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Evaluation and User Simulation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.394, + 0.49, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Designing effective evaluation protocols has long been a challenge for various conversational systems (Deriu et al., 2021). Interacting with real users is costly, prompting the adoption of user simulators to assess proactive interactions in dialogue systems (Deng et al., 2023). Sekulic et al. (2022) utilized a GPT-2-based generative agent to simulate users in Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA) setting. We build upon their approach and incorporate the latest advancements in LLMs. We also introduce a novel concept of gradually incorporating user preferences into the simulation process." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.601, + 0.336, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 SalesOps Framework" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now describe the SalesOps framework, allowing us to study CRS systems in terms of educational and recommendation objectives for complex product scenarios. In SalesOps, two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – have a conversation that begins with a Shopper request and ends once the Seller makes a product recommendation that the Shopper accepts. Each actor gets access to specific content elements that assist them in completing the task. We first describe the three content elements and the procedure used to generate them at scale, and then we describe the constraint we put on actors' access to the content to create realistic sales conversations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.849, + 0.304, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Content Elements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As illustrated in Figure 1, for any given product (i.e., vacuums), three content elements are required to instantiate the SalesOps framework. The Prod-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "uct Catalog and the Buying Guide are the content elements accessible to the Seller, and the Shopping Preferences are accessible to the Shopper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.134, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Importantly, we populated all content elements for the six product categories we include in our initial release, but we aim for the procedures to be automatable, so they can be expanded to new products, unlike previous resources that can become outdated (Ni et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.24, + 0.702, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.1 Product Catalog" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.259, + 0.882, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the SalesOps framework, the Seller has access to a fixed list of products that can be recommended to the Shopper. Each product consists of (1) a unique ID, (2) a product name, (3) a price, (4) a product description, and (5) a feature set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.34, + 0.885, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When creating the product catalogs, we initially considered leveraging the Amazon Product Reviews dataset (Ni et al., 2019). However, we found that the products in the dataset are outdated (1997-2018), which greatly impacts the conversations we obtain from a study with human participants in 2023. In many cases, product information and pricing are obsolete, products with the latest technology are missing (e.g., QLED TVs) and thus, the product catalog misaligns with updated Buying Guides and participant expectations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We generate synthetic product entries using an LLM since web-scraping an up-to-date product catalog can lead to limitations in terms of open sourcing. We first repeatedly prompt the LLM to generate a diverse list of an average of 30 product names for a given category (e.g., TVs). We then prompt the model for each product name to generate realistic product metadata, including a title, description, price, and feature list. Appendix A presents more details of this process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.679, + 0.883, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike previous approaches that utilize databases with thousands of items, we deliberately limit the product catalog to approximately 30 items per category to mirror the curated selection of a typical store (Fu et al., 2020; Bernard and Balog, 2023). This also significantly impacts human sellers' ability to complete the task as they need to familiarize themselves with the products available to effectively perform their role. However, the automated nature of the creation process would allow us to expand the product catalog efficiently." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During a SalesOps conversation, the Seller can decide on their turn to recommend one or several items whose details will be included in a subsequent message to the shopper (see Appendix C for" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9825" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.5, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.269, + 0.489, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Shopper Preference Generation Pipeline using ChatGPT. Example for the Coffee Makers category." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.325, + 0.313, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "an example conversation)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.35, + 0.285, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.2 Buying Guide" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.37, + 0.489, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Professional salespeople often receive training or rely on technical documentation to effectively sell complex products. We proxy this expert knowledge through leveraging publicly available buying guides. Buying guides, such as ones available on BestBuy2 or Consumer Reports3, are often written by professionals to help coach buyers on the decision-making process so that they can determine the best option for themselves. For each product category, we retrieve the top five articles from the C4 corpus (Raffel et al., 2019) that match the search query \"[PRODUCT] Buying Guide\", and select the most appropriate one." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On average, the buying guide we select for each product category is 2,500 words and 50 paragraphs long. Selected buying guides are diverse in their organization, with some being organized by shopper persona, shopping budget, or major item subcategories (e.g., drip vs. espresso machines). The heterogeneity in the layout of buying guides goes towards creating a realistic experimental setting in which the layout of knowledge documents for a particular product might not be known in advance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.75, + 0.347, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.3 Shopping Preferences" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.77, + 0.489, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2 introduces the three-step method we use to obtain shopping preferences for a given product category, which relies on LLMs. First, we generate a list of five possible questions the Seller may ask based on the buying guide (e.g., \"How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?\"). Second, we generate for each question a set of answer options" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(e.g. [\"1\", \"2-4\", \"5-9\", \"10+\"]. Although we attempt to have mutually exclusive questions, it is inevitable for some combinations to be improbable (e.g., a very high-capacity coffee maker for the smallest budget), thus, we leverage LLMs in a third step to select 10 diverse but realistic combinations of the preferences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.199, + 0.885, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike prior work that reveals the shopper preferences in their entirety when the conversation is initiated (Liu et al., 2022; Bernard and Balog, 2023), we choose to reveal preferences to the Shopper gradually during the conversation, providing a more realistic simulation of an underspecified buying experience (Kim et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.313, + 0.884, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To achieve this objective, for each Shopper turn in the conversation, we extract the last Seller message, and use a semantic similarity model4 to detect whether the utterance corresponds to a question related to one of the preferences. If the similarity passes a manually selected threshold, the related preference is revealed to the Shopper, and they can choose to leverage the additional information in their response. We note that the system reveals at most one preference per Shopper turn and does not enforce that all preferences are revealed. We intend these choices to simulate a realistic conversational experience for the Shopper and Seller." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.536, + 0.686, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 SalesOps Actors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.558, + 0.884, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In SalesOps, the two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – can either be simulated by an LLM-based system or enacted by a person such as a sales professional or crowd worker. We briefly introduce the considerations for each actor." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.64, + 0.885, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Seller has access to the Product Catalog and Buying Guide during a SalesOps conversation, corresponding roughly to 65 paragraphs which is a large amount of content both for humans and a system enacting the role. We estimate that a human enacting this role would require roughly 30 minutes at an average reading speed of 200 words per minute to read all the content. In our experiments with professional salespeople, they were each provided a period of reading time to get familiar with the content prior to participating in conversations. In our automated Seller implementation, we leverage a retrieval system to efficiently provide the content to the LLM components with limited context lengths." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.891, + 0.3, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://bestbuy.com/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.905, + 0.388, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://wwwconsumerreports.org/" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.891, + 0.388, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.798, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^\\mathrm{4}\\)sentence-transformers/ paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet-base-v2" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9826" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix D goes over the SalesOps Seller User Interface, built using the Mephisto library (Urbanek and Ringshia, 2023). The interface is extended for several aspects: (1) contains the Buying Guide and a search interface to the Product Catalog, (2) the Seller must select which paragraphs of the Buying Guide they are leveraging in crafting their response (if any), (3) the post-chat questionnaire which asks to select utterances where Shopper revealed their preferences and rate the conversation partner." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.247, + 0.489, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During a chat, we further log all product search queries. As a result, the metadata generated when implementing the SalesOps framework can be useful for tasks beyond the CRS setting, such as knowledge-grounded response generation, conversational summarization, and query generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.345, + 0.49, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the other hand, the Shopper is only provided with the product category they are tasked with shopping for at the initial stage of a SalesOps chat. Shopping preferences are revealed based on the Seller's questioning as the conversation unfolds. The Shopper interface, presented in Appendix D requires fewer adaptations of Mephisto than the Seller interface: (1) we repurpose one-sided \"Coordinator\" messages to reveal Shopping Preferences during the conversation, and (2) when a product recommendation is suggested by the Seller, the Shopper interface displays buttons to accept or reject the item." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.567, + 0.331, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Bots Implementation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.595, + 0.489, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now present ShopperBot and SalesBot, the LLM-based implementations (ChatGPT in our experiment) that can simulate both sides of the SalesOps framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.672, + 0.255, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 ShopperBot" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.694, + 0.489, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ShopperBot's goal is to generate responses in accordance with the provided set of preferences \\((P)\\), consisting of several question-answer pairs \\((q - a)\\). We achieve this objective by prompting LLMs with (a) natural language instruction to act as a shopper seeking [PRODUCT] (e.g., a TV), (b) a list of currently revealed shopping preferences, and (c) the chat history, at every turn in the conversation. Full prompt can be seen in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When the latest seller's utterance includes a recommendation of an item, ShopperBot is instructed to include [ACCEPT] or [REJECT] token in its reply. It will base this decision on the whole set of preferences \\((P)\\) to ensure consistency with the simulated" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.085, + 0.868, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.883, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: SalesBot architecture to generate a Seller response, based on two Content Elements and the conversation history. LLM-based modules are in yellow." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.436, + 0.881, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scenario - i.e., if too few preferences were revealed at this point in the conversation, we do not want the shopper to accept an item that would not satisfy the whole set \\( P \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.881, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We note that the Shopping Preferences are far from a comprehensive listing of all questions that could occur when shopping for a complex product category. The ShopperBot is instructed to make its own decisions when choices are not in \\( P \\) (e.g., the preferred color of a coffee machine) and fluently converse with the Seller." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.881, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitatively, we have confirmed in our experiments that ShopperBot can provide subjective and unique preferences, realistically simulating a human shopper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.69, + 0.625, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 SalesBot" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.712, + 0.881, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SalesBot has access to two main external tools - 1) knowledge search and 2) product search. As shown in Figure 3, it generates dialogue responses using a series of modules. Each module is an independent component of the overall system." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.803, + 0.693, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.1 Action Decision" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.881, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This module decides which tool to use based on the current conversation history. Selecting from the following: Knowledge Search (details in section 4.2.2), Product Search (details in section 4.2.3), Response Generation (details in section 4.2.4)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We query an LLM to make this choice and pro" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9827" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "vide natural language instructions on when to use each of the available tools in our prompt." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.129, + 0.321, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.2 Knowledge Search" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.488, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge Search module's main purpose is to educate the user by incorporating expert domain knowledge into the conversation. It is made up of two components: 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We ask the LLM to generate a query based on the chat history." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.248, + 0.488, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then use a FAISS retriever to lookup relevant knowledge article paragraphs (Johnson et al., 2019). We concatenate top 3 paragraphs (separated by \"\\n\\n\") and feed it as external knowledge to the Response Generation module described in section 4.2.4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.356, + 0.295, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.3 Product Search" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.377, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Product Search module's goal is finding relevant items to recommend to the user. Similar to the above, this module is made up of 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We embed each product's information (i.e., title, description, price, and feature list) using the Sentence Transformer model \\(^{5}\\) and retrieve the top 4 products based on the query embedding (obtained using the same model). Same as in Knowledge Search, we concatenate the results. Note that in some cases, we may not need all 4 products, for example, if the shopper asked a follow-up question about a certain product, the response should not include all 4 retrieved items. We leave it up to the Response Generation module to determine which products should be mentioned based on the chat history." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.647, + 0.342, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.4 Response Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.668, + 0.488, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the Action Decision module, response generation can either include external information (e.g., buying guide excerpts, product information) or not. We thus, write two separate prompts to respond to the shopper. Response Generation with External Knowledge is based on: Chat History, Action Selected, Query Generated, Retrieved Results. Response Generation without External Knowledge is based solely on the chat history." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.813, + 0.488, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We additionally implement a Regeneration submodule to rewrite the final response if needed. We place a limit on max_tokensgenerated when prompting the LLM and ask it to rewrite the previously generated response if it was cut off due" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to length. This forces SalesBot's responses to be concise and contain full sentences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.13, + 0.715, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Evaluation Criteria" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.158, + 0.884, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Along with the SalesOps framework, we propose a multi-dimensional evaluation that defines success for the Seller along three axes: (1) recommendation quality, which verifies whether the recommendations of the Seller are compatible with the Shopper's preferences, (2) informativeness, which checks whether the Seller provides educational value to the Shopper, and (3) fluency which evaluates the Seller's ability to communicate professionally and concisely. We next define the metrics - both automatic and manual - used to evaluate each axis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.351, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent work shows the promise of using LLMs for evaluation across many NLP tasks (Liu et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Laban et al., 2023). Following this thread of work, we leverage GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) for automatic evaluation purposes in several of our proposed metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.46, + 0.757, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Recommendation Quality" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.482, + 0.884, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Accurate recommendations that match shopper preferences are a core expectation of CRS. The authors of the paper manually annotated each product category and its 10 corresponding Shopping Preferences for all acceptable product recommendations as the ground truth. On average, a given shopping preference configuration yielded 4 acceptable products from a product catalog of 30 items. Thus, for a completed SalesOps conversation, we compute recommendation accuracy (Rec)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.655, + 0.682, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Informativeness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.882, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose two metrics to measure the informativeness of the Seller during a conversation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we leverage an NLI-based model to measure the content overlap between the Seller's utterances and the buying guide, as such model has been shown to perform competitively on tasks involving factual similarity (Laban et al., 2022; Fabbri et al., 2022). Specifically, we calculate the \\(\\%\\) of the buying guide sentences that are entailed at least once by a seller utterance \\((Inf_{e})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, we assess the shopper's knowledge through a quiz that we designed which consists of 3 multiple-choice questions that can be answered using the buying guide (examples in Appendix C. We then ask crowd-workers to an-" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.444, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9828" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.082, + 0.472, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
AgentFlu e ↑Flu i ↑Inf e ↑Rec ↑
Ada-RG1.410.000.160.16
Rule-AD4.820.590.860.40
Key-QG4.970.720.710.36
No-ReGen4.990.850.740.47
SalesBot4.990.910.740.44
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Results of the ablation study of SalesBot components using GPT4-based evaluation metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.258, + 0.49, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "swer each knowledge question solely considering the conversation, with the option of choosing \"Cannot answer based on the conversation\". We report the \\(\\%\\) of correct answers on the knowledge questions \\((Inf_{q})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.354, + 0.223, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Fluency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.378, + 0.486, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We frame two questions to measure the fluency and professionalism of the Seller:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.412, + 0.486, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(Flu_{e}\\): How would you rate the salesperson's communication skills? (scale: 1-5)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.445, + 0.486, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(Flu_{i}\\): Do you think the seller in the given chat is: (i) human or (ii) a bot? (Yes/No)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.479, + 0.489, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform annotation for the two fluency metrics both manually by recruiting crowd-workers (see Appendix C) as well as by prompting GPT-4 to answer both questions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.56, + 0.28, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.59, + 0.488, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SalesBot contains 4 LLM-based components, which we swap with baselines to understand the impact of using an LLM for each component." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.653, + 0.234, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.677, + 0.427, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement four ablations of SalesBot:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.697, + 0.489, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ada-RG We replace ChatGPT with the smaller GPT3 text-ada-001 model in the response generation module." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.75, + 0.489, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rule-AD We replace the Action Decision module with a rule-based system: select the \"Knowledge\" action for the first 6 turns, and the \"Recommend\" action afterwards." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.819, + 0.488, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Key-QG We replace Query Generation modules with a keyword method: extract five keywords from the latest utterance and concatenate them as a query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No-ReGen We experiment with removing Regeneration module from response generation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.614, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.884, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We generated 150 conversations on the six product categories between ShopperBot and the five versions of SalesBots, and computed automatic results which are summarized in Table 1. Overall, the use of an LLM is most crucial in the Response Generation component but is beneficial across all components." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.219, + 0.884, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Replacing ChatGPT with a smaller LLM in the Response Generation component leads to the largest degradation across the board, confirming that smaller models are unable to handle the complex task of tying together the conversation history and external knowledge to generate a concise, coherent, fluent, and informative response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.331, + 0.882, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The rule-based action decision module leads to improved informativeness (as the system relies more heavily on the knowledge action), at the cost of fluency and recommendation quality." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.396, + 0.884, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The keyword-based retrieval ablation leads to lower a \\(20\\%\\) decrease in recommendation quality, confirming that generation of retrieval queries benefits from the generative flexibility of an LLM. Finally, adding the regeneration component leads to a boost in fluency, at the cost of a minor recommendation quality drop." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.509, + 0.884, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a result, we recommend that designers of conversational agents: (1) Leverage LLMs in Response Generation, (2) Integrate Generative Flexibility in Retrieval Queries, and (3) Utilize Regeneration for Improved Fluency." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.601, + 0.746, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Salespeople vs SalesBot" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.627, + 0.884, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We aim to study the qualitative differences between SalesBot and professional salespeople to comprehend the effect of deploying such systems in real-world settings (Guo et al., 2023), and perform an extensive human evaluation of SalesBot and Salespeople within the SalesOps framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.734, + 0.698, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7.1 Experiment Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.754, + 0.884, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We recruit 15 professional salespeople across a diverse set of industries (e.g., insurance, retail, B2B sales) through UserInterviews \\(^{6}\\). They were given a 1-hour onboarding session covering the SalesOps framework, reading a Buying Guide and Product Catalog, and completing warmup conversations. Participants then completed up to 15 SalesOps conversations with ShopperBot, which took an average of 3 hours." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.776, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6https://www.userinterviews.com/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9829" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.081, + 0.472, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Statistics (avg)#
Nb. words of Seller utterance62.535.3
Nb. words of Shopper utterance20.820.7
Nb. of turns11.912.9
Nb. turns before the first rec.6.07.9
Nb. of recommendations2.62.4
Nb. of triggered revelations1.72.8
% Correct recommendations (Rec)4454
Information Quiz Score (Infq)32.931.8
Fluency Score (Fluε)4.44.2
% Is Human (Flui)5580
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.273, + 0.49, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of SalesBot and Salesperson on conversation statistics (top) and human evaluation metrics (bottom)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.343, + 0.49, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In parallel, we generated 150 SalesOps conversations between SalesBot and ShopperBot for the same set of preferences. Unlike the ablation study in which we perform the evaluation with GPT-4, we recruit crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete evaluation (interface in Appendix C)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.452, + 0.22, + 0.467 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7.2 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.474, + 0.49, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 presents statistics and evaluation results of the comparison between professional Salespeople and SalesBot. Overall, SalesBot's utterances are almost twice as long. It makes its first recommendation earlier and makes slightly more recommendations in total than professional salespeople." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.571, + 0.49, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Looking at the human evaluation, crowd workers were largely able to distinguish between SalesBot and professionals, as they were much more likely to believe the Seller was human for professionals (80%) than for SalesBot (55%), yet SalesBot achieved a higher Likert fluency score. This is likely due to salespeople acting more casual in conversations, making occasional typos which come across as less professional." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.717, + 0.49, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, even though professionals write utterances that are nearly half the length, they achieve higher recommendation quality and almost equal informativeness. This pair of results confirms that there is still a large gap between LLMs and professional salespeople with respect to conciseness." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.825, + 0.258, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7.3 Faithfulness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.847, + 0.49, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In absolute terms, both SalesBot and Salespeople achieve low rates of correct recommendations (< 55%). We perform a qualitative analysis of failure" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.842, + 0.104 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-4 Explanation of Unfaithful Content" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.885, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Salesperson. The salesperson incorrectly mentioned that the Cuisinart DCC-3200P1 has a hot water dispenser, which is not mentioned in the document." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.182, + 0.885, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SalesBot. The salesperson incorrectly stated that some drip coffee makers and espresso machines have the option for pre-measured pods or capsules. The document only mentions single-serve coffee makers as having the option for pre-measured pods." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.277, + 0.883, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Example of GPT4-based detection of unfaithful behavior in both SalesBot and Salespeople." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.333, + 0.884, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cases and find that there are several reasons for mismatches, including salespeople upselling products (i.e., convincing Shoppers to accept a product beyond their initial budget). We study this phenomenon through the lens of faithfulness analysis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.413, + 0.884, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide GPT-4 with Buying Guides, the Product Catalog and the full conversation, and prompt it with identifying whether the Seller provides advice that is inconsistent with existing information. It detects that for both types of Sellers, roughly one in four chats contains unfaithful claims." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.527, + 0.884, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide examples of identified inconsistencies in Table 3. Our findings suggest that while SalesBot may occasionally hallucinate due to known LLM-bound limitations, salespeople can also exhibit unfaithful behavior, usually in the form of (a) upselling and (b) answering follow-up questions without knowing the true answer. Both are motivated by the desire to close the sale; however, this confirms the challenge of evaluating faithfulness in the sales domain, for which successful sales strategies might require unbacked claims." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.716, + 0.642, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper we introduce SalesOps, a flexible framework for simulating realistic CRS scenarios in the context of complex product sales, and propose an evaluation paradigm for such systems. Our framework provides researchers and practitioners with a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness and performance of conversational agents in sales settings. By developing SalesBot and ShopperBot within this framework, we gain insights into the individual components and their impact on conversational performance. Through a comprehensive" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.313, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7https://www.mturk.com/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9830" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "human study, we identify gaps in product recommendation quality and provide a faithfulness analysis of both automated and human sellers. These contributions advance the understanding and development of CRS, paving the way for improved sales interactions and user experiences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.194, + 0.251, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.22, + 0.488, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we heavily on LLMs to build the conversational agents (SalesBot and ShopperBot) within our framework. While LLMs have shown significant advancements in generating human-like responses and engaging in multi-turn conversations, they still suffer from hallucinations as shown in our faithfulness analysis, and thus impact the overall performance of the system." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.35, + 0.487, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, our evaluation primarily focuses on three aspects: the quality of the final recommendation, educational value to the shopper, and fluency/professionalism. While these aspects are important, there are other dimensions that could be relevant, such as user satisfaction, persuasion skills, and diversity of recommendations. We leave further exploration into CRS evaluation to future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.494, + 0.49, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We limit our evaluation to the chat-based sales experience, even though most sales conversations involving a shopper and a salesperson happen in audio form, either in a physical store or on the phone. Prior work has shown that adapting conversational content to the audio format is non-trivial (Kang and Gretzel, 2012), and requires modifications to remain natural and engaging (Laban et al., 2022). We leave it to future work to further adapt SalesOps and SalesBot to the audio setting." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.668, + 0.274, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethical Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.694, + 0.489, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ethical considerations in this work primarily revolve around the interactions with human participants and the potential implications of deploying conversational agents in real-life settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The study involved 15 professional salespeople who were recruited through User Interviews platform and participated voluntarily. The study aimed to ensure representation and inclusivity in its participant selection process. We recruited individuals of different genders, professionals of all levels (associate, manager, director, VP), and spanning a wide range of age groups from 19 to 65. They received compensation for their time and effort. An onboarding session was conducted to explain the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "task instructions and provide sample chats. Afterward, the participants had the freedom to complete the study at their own pace. Additionally, human evaluation was conducted with Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, who were compensated for their contributions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.182, + 0.886, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We discuss the potential impact of deploying conversational agents, such as SalesBot, in real-life scenarios. The study highlights both the strengths and limitations of SalesBot compared to professional salespeople. The evaluation reveals gaps in recommendation quality and examines the challenges of ensuring content faithfulness in the CRS context. We emphasize the importance of considering the implications of generative AI systems in domains like conversational sales, where there several ethical concerns may arise related to upselling and providing factually accurate information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.403, + 0.61, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.426, + 0.884, + 0.467 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nolwenn Bernard and Krisztian Balog. 2023. Mghopdial: A multi-goal conversational dataset for e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2304.12636." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.478, + 0.885, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengshan Cai, Hui Wan, Fei Liu, Mo Yu, Hong Yu, and Sachindra Joshi. 2022. Learning as conversation: Dialogue systems reinforced for information acquisition. ArXiv, abs/2205.14748." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.542, + 0.885, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhongxia Chen, Xiting Wang, Xing Xie, Mehul Parsana, Akshay Soni, Xiang Ao, and Enhong Chen. 2020. Towards explainable conversational recommendation. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.62, + 0.884, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Deng, Wenqiang Lei, Wai Lam, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A survey on proactive dialogue systems: Problems, methods, and prospects. *ArXiv*, abs/2305.02750." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.684, + 0.885, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jan Deriu, Alvaro Rodrigo, Arantxa Otegi, Guillermo Echegoyen, Sophie Rosset, Eneko Agirre, and Mark Cieliebak. 2021. Survey on evaluation methods for dialogue systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54:755-810." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.762, + 0.885, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. QAFactEval: Improved QA-based factual consistency evaluation for summarization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2587-2601, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.879, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. ArXiv, abs/2302.04166." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.426, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9831" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Yaxin Zhu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Gerard de Melo. 2020. Cookie: A dataset for conversational recommendation over knowledge graphs in e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2008.09237." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.487, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chongming Gao, Wenqiang Lei, Xiangnan He, M. de Rijke, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Advances and challenges in conversational recommender systems: A survey. AI Open, 2:100-126." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.487, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. ArXiv, abs/2301.07597." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.287, + 0.487, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.337, + 0.486, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M. Kang and U. Gretzel. 2012. Effects of podcast tours on tourist experiences in a national park. *Tourism Management*, 33:440-455." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.386, + 0.487, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Seokhwan Kim, Mihail Eric, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. Beyond domain APIs: Task-oriented conversational modeling with unstructured knowledge access. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 278-289, 1st virtual meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.501, + 0.487, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philippe Laban, John Canny, and Marti A Hearst. 2020. What's the latest? a question-driven news chatbot. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 380-387." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.577, + 0.487, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philippe Laban, Wojciech Kryscinski, Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq R. Joty, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. Llms as factual reasoners: Insights from existing benchmarks and beyond. ArXiv, abs/2305.14540." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.652, + 0.487, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLIBased models for inconsistency detection in summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:163-177." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.728, + 0.487, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Miaoran Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhu Zhang. 2022. Opera: Harmonizing task-oriented dialogs and information seeking experience. ArXiv, abs/2206.12449." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.79, + 0.487, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuo Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. ArXiv, abs/2303.16634." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards conversational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zeming Liu, Jun Xu, Zeyang Lei, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, and Hua Wu. 2022. Where to go for the holidays: Towards mixed-type dialogs for clarification of user goals. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1024-1034, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.189, + 0.883, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Mem2Seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1468-1478, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.291, + 0.883, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 188-197, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.42, + 0.883, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.457, + 0.883, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Papenmeier, Alexander Frummet, and Dagmar Kern. 2022. \"mhm...\" - conversational strategies for product search assistants. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR '22, page 36-46, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.547, + 0.883, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Lidén, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. ArXiv, abs/2302.12813." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.636, + 0.883, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv e-prints." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.883, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuhui Ren, Tong Chen, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Li zhen Cui, Zi-Liang Huang, and Hongzhi Yin. 2023. Explicit knowledge graph reasoning for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2305.00783." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.776, + 0.883, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. ArXiv, abs/2302.04761." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Sekulic, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Fabio A. Crestani. 2022. Evaluating mixed-initiative conversational search systems via user simulation. Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9832" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur D. Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, W.K.F. Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur D. Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. ArXiv, abs/2208.03188." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.291, + 0.49, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yueming Sun and Yi Zhang. 2018. Conversational recommender system. The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.354, + 0.49, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam M. Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, HengTze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, Yaguang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, I. A. Krivokon, Willard James Rusch, Marc Pickett, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Hartz Søraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravindran Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, V. O. Kuzmina, Joseph Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. ArXiv, abs/2201.08239." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.639, + 0.489, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jack Urbanek and Pratik Ringshia. 2023. Mephisto: A framework for portable, reproducible, and iterative crowdsourcing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.689, + 0.49, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bingbing Wen, Xiaoning Bu, and Chirag Shah. 2022. Egcr: Explanation generation for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2208.08035." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.739, + 0.49, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018a. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07243." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.49, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tong Zhang, Yong Liu, Peixiang Zhong, Chen Zhang, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Kecrs: Towards knowledge-enriched conversational recommendation system. ArXiv, abs/2105.08261." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongfeng Zhang, Xu Chen, Qingyao Ai, Liu Yang, and W. Bruce Croft. 2018b. Towards conversational search and recommendation: System ask, user response. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conference on Information and Knowledge Management." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.123, + 0.884, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2021. Crfr: Improving conversational recommender systems via flexible fragments reasoning on knowledge graphs. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9833" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.397, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Product Catalog Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.11, + 0.884, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each product domain, we automatically generate Product Catalog following the procedure in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.144, + 0.294, + 0.157 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Product Name Gen." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.16, + 0.667, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generate a list of top 30 [PRODUCT_NAME] options in the following format:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.177, + 0.238, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"name\":...}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.193, + 0.843, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Include a diverse list of options with different brands, sizes, price points for a variety of customers." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.215, + 0.323, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Product Metadata Gen." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.231, + 0.882, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generate product description, features, and price based on the product name. Output should be in the following json format:" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.264, + 0.312, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ \"name\": \"...\". \"price\": \"...\". \"description\": \"...\". \"features\": [... ] }" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.34, + 0.374, + 0.655, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Product Catalog Generation Prompts." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.405, + 0.646, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An example of the resulting product metadata is presented in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.434, + 0.884, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
nameSamsung 55" Class S95B OLED 4K Smart Tizen TV
price$1,699.99
descriptionSamsung OLED TV changes the game again with 8.3 million self lit pixels and ultra powerful 4K AI Neural Processing, all for a picture so real, it's surreal. Add on Dolby Atmos® sound built in, the latest Smart TV apps, and a LaserSlim design and get a viewing experience that's intensely cinematic.
features["55 inch", "OLED Technology", "Neural Quantum Processor with 4K Upscaling", "Smart Calibration", "Connectivity with Bluetooth, RF, Wi-Fi, USB, HDMI, Ethernet (LAN), Digital Audio Out x 1 (Optical)", "Supported internet services: Netflix, Google TV, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube, Browser"]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.614, + 0.691, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Product Metadata Example for the TV category." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.657, + 0.319, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B ShopperBot Design" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.683, + 0.225, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.71, + 0.856, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are shopping online for a {product}. You haven't done your research on this product and want to speak to a salesperson over chat to learn more and make an informed decision." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.325, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Follow these rules:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.775, + 0.865, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Chat with the salesperson to learn more about {product}. They will be acting as a product expert, helping you make an informed purchasing decision. They may ask you questions to narrow down your options and find a suitable product recommendation for you." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.84, + 0.855, + 0.903 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Use your assigned preferences and incorporate them in your responses when appropriate, but do not reveal them to the salesperson right away or all at once. Only share a maximum of 1 assigned preference with the salesperson at a time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.905, + 0.611, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Let the salesperson drive the conversation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9834" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.845, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Ask questions when appropriate. Be curious and try to learn more about {product} before making your decision." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.118, + 0.7, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Be realistic and stay consistent in your responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.134, + 0.877, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- When the salesperson makes a recommendation, you'll see product details with 'ACCEPT' and 'REJECT' in the message. Please consider whether the product satisfies your assigned preferences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.182, + 0.856, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- If the recommended product meets your needs, generate [ACCEPT] token in your response. For example, \"[ACCEPT] Thanks, I'll take it!\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.23, + 0.854, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- If the recommended product is not a good fit, let the salesperson know (e.g. \"this is too expensive\")" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.262, + 0.865, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- If you're not sure about the recommended product, ask follow-up questions (e.g. \"could you explain the benefit of this feature?\")" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.295, + 0.655, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Do not generate more than 1 response at a time." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.877, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.327, + 0.402, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your assigned preferences:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.343, + 0.262, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{preferences}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.375, + 0.801, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Follow the above rules to generate a reply using your assigned preferences and the conversation history below:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.423, + 0.348, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conversation history:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.44, + 0.272, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{chat_history}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.456, + 0.205, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shopper :" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.495, + 0.265, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.2 Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.519, + 0.694, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4 highlights ShopperBot's key components and the overall design flow." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.548, + 0.619, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.812, + 0.84, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: ShopperBot architecture to generate a response based on the selected shopping preferences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.859, + 0.445, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Human Evaluation Questionnaire" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We recruit 150 crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete a survey. The user interface is presented in Figure 5. Examples of True/False quiz questions per product category are shown in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9835" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.242, + 0.176, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Survey" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.262, + 0.19, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MTurk WorkerID:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.279, + 0.187, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "X430YABCD" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.299, + 0.408, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer the questions based on the chat transcript on the right" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.32, + 0.215, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Communication]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.338, + 0.34, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How would you rate salesperson's communication skills?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.355, + 0.187, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 - Excellent" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.376, + 0.247, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Do you think the salesperson is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.393, + 0.164, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.414, + 0.232, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Do you think the shopper is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.431, + 0.164, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.454, + 0.216, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Informativeness]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.471, + 0.432, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.494, + 0.288, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cannot answer based on the chat" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.301, + 0.494, + 0.333, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.356, + 0.494, + 0.384, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "False" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.512, + 0.411, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of \\(120\\mathrm{Hz}\\) will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.544, + 0.288, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cannot answer based on the chat" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.3, + 0.544, + 0.332, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.356, + 0.544, + 0.384, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "False" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.562, + 0.449, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.576, + 0.288, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cannot answer based on the chat" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.3, + 0.576, + 0.332, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.356, + 0.576, + 0.384, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "False" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.595, + 0.268, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Product Recommendation]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.613, + 0.187, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Preferences:" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.628, + 0.429, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ \"What is your budget?\" : \"around $2,000\" \"What size TV are you looking for?\" : \"a large size, maybe between 65 and 75 inches\" \"Is image quality a priority for you?\" : \"very important\" \"Do you have any preferred brands?\" : \"I like LG or Samsung\" \"Does your space have a lot of natural light?\" : \"yes\" }" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.456, + 0.241, + 0.61, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sales Chat Transcript" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.456, + 0.261, + 0.785, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please read the chat below carefully, before answering questions." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.461, + 0.276, + 0.483, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.284, + 0.675, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hi! How can I help you this afternoon?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.318, + 0.826, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hi there! I'm actually shopping for a new TV and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for. Can you tell me a bit more about the different types of TVs you have available?" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.848, + 0.315, + 0.869, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.462, + 0.366, + 0.483, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.373, + 0.781, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Certainly! Choosing what size of TV to buy is based on your personal size preference, your room size, and your mounting options. You'll want to keep in mind the width and weight of the TV as that can affect whether you can mount it on your wall or you need an entertainment stand. Televisions can be as small as about 30 inches and as large as 80 inches (or more!). Do you have a size in mind?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.47, + 0.826, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I'm thinking something on the larger side, maybe between 65 and 75 inches. What options do you have in that size range?" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.848, + 0.466, + 0.869, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.462, + 0.508, + 0.483, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.515, + 0.767, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I have TV's ranging in price from \\(749 to \\)9,999 in that size range. What will you be using the TV for mostly?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.559, + 0.826, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Well, I'm a bit of a picky shopper and I want to make sure I get something that will last a while. I watch a lot of movies and some sports, so I want something with good picture quality and a high refresh rate. Do you have any recommendations that might fit those preferences?" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.848, + 0.556, + 0.869, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.462, + 0.628, + 0.483, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.635, + 0.783, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This 65 inch LG has a 120hz refresh rate that would be GREAT for watching movies and sports!" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.461, + 0.676, + 0.483, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.68, + 0.764, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Product Name: LG - 65\" Class NanoCell 99 Series LED 8K UHD Smart webOS TV" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.702, + 0.581, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Price: $1,799.99" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.712, + 0.774, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Description: Experience everything in more detail with LG NanoCell 8K. LG's most advanced 8K AI processor optimizes composition, black, light and color in every scene, while the" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.348, + 0.755, + 0.649, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Human Evaluation User Interface." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9836" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.884, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Product CategoryQuestionAnswer
TVThe resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture.T
A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of 120Hz will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz.T
TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality.F
Vacuum CleanersA canister vacuum is best suited for a large home with multiple floors and different types of flooring.T
If you have pets, it's important to choose a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to capture pet hair and dander.T
Stick vacuums are not suitable for cleaning homes with stairs.F
MattressMemory foam mattresses mold to the shape of your body.T
Gel memory foam mattresses are ideal for hot sleepers who want to stay cool at night.T
A mattress with more coils is always better than a mattress with fewer coils.F
GuitarThe acoustic guitar is the most common guitar for first-time buyers.T
Acoustic guitars are self-amplified instruments that come in a variety of sizes, and the most common shape is the Parlor.F
Acoustic-electric guitars are the easiest way to perform with an acoustic guitar, and they always come with an integrated pickup system.F
LaptopA laptop with a larger screen size is always better for gaming.F
A laptop with a dedicated graphics card is unnecessary for basic office tasks.T
An SSD provides faster storage than an HDD.T
Coffee MakersDrip coffee makers are ideal for making coffee for one person.F
Single-serve coffee makers are convenient because they require no measurement of coffee grinds or water.T
Espresso machines can only make espresso shots.F
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.308, + 0.426, + 0.688, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: True/False quiz questions per product category." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.465, + 0.467, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D SalesOps Framework User Interface" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.491, + 0.884, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the SalesOps Framework's User Interface in Figure 6, displaying both the Seller View (a) and the Shopper view (b)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9837" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.212, + 0.885, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.443, + 0.746, + 0.555, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Shopper View" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.34, + 0.771, + 0.657, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: SalesOps Framework User Interface." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9838" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_origin.pdf b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..387dbe9dc754bf4b0fa1a2f31d2e0b0867c62ff3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/4d0cb677-47cd-4086-a853-d17aea24efc4_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:00757819af8ef026b2be24cf5c536f74bfa939f69f1303aff1d989d7ff196194 +size 1078773 diff --git a/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/full.md b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..828b943f6ee659af3c1f2c2f2942d0dcadbe41fd --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,518 @@ +# Salespeople vs SalesBot: Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems + +Lidiya Murakhovs'ka Philippe Laban Tian Xie Caiming Xiong Chien-Sheng Wu + +Salesforce AI Research + +{1.murakhovska, plaban, t.xie, cxiong, wu.jason}@salesforce.com + +# Abstract + +Making big purchases requires consumers to research or consult a salesperson to gain domain expertise. However, existing conversational recommender systems (CRS) often overlook users' lack of background knowledge, focusing solely on gathering preferences. In this work, we define a new problem space for conversational agents that aim to provide both product recommendations and educational value through mixed-type mixed-initiative dialog. We introduce SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the simulation and evaluation of such systems by leveraging recent advancements in large language models (LLMs). We build SalesBot and ShopperBot, a pair of LLM-powered agents that can simulate either side of the framework. A comprehensive human study compares SalesBot against professional salespeople, revealing that although SalesBot approaches professional performance in terms of fluency and informativeness, it lags behind in recommendation quality. We emphasize the distinct limitations both face in providing truthful information, highlighting the challenges of ensuring faithfulness in the CRS context. We release our code and make all data available1. + +# 1 Introduction + +Conversational recommender systems (CRS) use multi-turn dialog to understand user preferences, gather information, and provide suitable recommendations (Gao et al., 2021). They have gained significant attention from academia and industry due to their flexibility compared to one-shot recommender systems. CRS allow users to dynamically refine their preferences and express feedback on recommended items through chat. + +While many traditional CRS are built under a "System Ask-User Answer" paradigm (Zhang et al., 2018b), some recent works have identified the critical need to support mixed-type, mixed-initiative + +![](images/42d96611d088eab36bd2dc2ab6d6b051cd7674b4a03c86d0b127800a52d7d082.jpg) +Figure 1: The SalesOps framework is a conversational recommendation system simulation involving: (1) a Seller viewing a buying guide and product catalog, (2) a Shopper gradually learning about shopping preferences. Either can be simulated using an LLM-based system. + +dialog and assist users with underspecified goals (Kim et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020, 2022). However, most CRS remain focused on domains involving content recommendation such as movies, books, music, news, etc, which require a different type of recommendation strategy than the e-commerce space where consumers often need a certain level of background knowledge to understand their options (Laban et al., 2020; Papenmeier et al., 2022). In content recommendation domains, CRS can achieve success by questioning a user about previous content consumption and retrieving similar content. This strategy is not valid for the sale of complex products, as prior user habits do not inform a buyer's item-specific preferences. + +In this work, we focus on complex products with multiple attributes that would usually require significant expertise or a salesperson consultation to make an informed purchase decision on - e.g., TVs, + +guitars, etc. We associate the ambiguous user goals often present in this real-life setting with the lack of knowledge about the product domain and suggest the need for the agent to provide educational value in addition to fulfilling the recommendation objective. We address this new problem space by introducing SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the recreation of realistic CRS scenarios and agent evaluation, as shown in Figure 1. Our method incorporates several novel features. + +- We utilize existing buying guides as a knowledge source for the sales agent. We provide the seller with a relevant guide in addition to a product catalog, which enables them to educate shoppers on the complex product space. +- Shopping preferences are gradually revealed to the shopper during the course of conversation in order to simulate the underspecified goal scenario of a typical uninformed shopper. +- A multi-dimensional evaluation framework is designed to measure sales agent performance in terms of (a) quality of final recommendation, (b) educational value to the shopper, and (c) fluency and professionalism. + +We leverage recent progress made in large language models (LLMs), which has enabled increasingly powerful conversational agents, to build a pair of agents - SalesBot and ShopperBot which can simulate either side in the SalesOps framework. Thus, facilitating evaluation in any of the following settings: human-human, human-bot, bot-human, and bot-bot. We critically examine the components of these agents to understand where modern LLMs have the most impact on CRS. + +We recruit 15 professional salespeople to study the gap between human experts and SalesBot at complex product conversational recommendations. The results reveal that although SalesBot matches professionals in tone politeness and educational quality, there remain minor gaps in the quality of recommended products. We also perform a preliminary analysis of faithfulness within the SalesOps framework, which is important in domains involving generative AI as they enter the applied setting. Our NLI-based analysis (Laban et al., 2022) reveals that salespeople can use strategies that may seem unfaithful, to upsell or simplify technical details. These results highlight the practical challenges of implementing robust faithfulness checks in domains like conversational sales. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Conversational Recommendation + +Since the introduction of conversational recommendation systems (Sun and Zhang, 2018), the field has grown to a wide range of task formulations, settings, and application scenarios (Gao et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2023). Recent works explore conversational systems in the context of multi-type and mixed-initiative dialogs (Liu et al., 2020, 2022). They release sizable datasets in Chinese to advance the field toward supporting users with undefined goals. However, these primarily cover content recommendation domains such as movies, food, and news. As such, they do not directly address the challenges the e-commerce domain poses. In this work we extend these ideas to the specific context of e-commerce, where the focus is on providing recommendations for complex products. + +In the e-commerce space, Fu et al. (2020) presented COOKIE - a CRS dataset constructed synthetically from user reviews. Most recently, Bernard and Balog (2023) presented a small multigoal human-to-human conversational dataset with 64 chats for e-commerce. While closely related to our task, they do not aim to simulate ambiguous user preferences or target the educational objective; instead, they reveal all user requirements at once. + +While existing CRS are effective, criticism can be raised regarding the incorporation of expert knowledge into the user experience. While some systems provide explanations for recommendations (Chen et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2022), their primary focus is not on educating the user about the different options available. This highlights the need for research into new methods of integrating expert knowledge into CRS. + +# 2.2 Knowledge-Grounded Dialog + +Knowledge-grounded response generation in dialogue systems has been explored for years in both task-oriented (Madotto et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022) and open-domain systems (Zhang et al., 2018a; Shuster et al., 2022a; Thoppilan et al., 2022; Shuster et al., 2022b). However, it is important to note that most existing approaches focus on passively responding to user queries rather than proactively conveying the knowledge. + +A study by Cai et al. (2022) proposes a teacherbot that transmits information in passages to students, aiming to help them acquire new knowledge through conversation. While their work focuses + +solely on the educational objective, our work combines it with CRS, suggesting suitable products while educating users about the relevant domain. + +Some CRS have incorporated knowledge graphs (KGs) as complementary resources for analyzing item- and attribute-level user preferences (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2023). The primary objective of KGs is to enhance recommendations or aid preference elicitation rather than assisting sellers in answering inquiries or proactively conveying knowledge. Other works (Schick et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023) focus on augmenting LLMs with external knowledge to address common pitfalls like hallucinations and lack of up-to-date information. This can greatly benefit our goal; thus, we leverage and augment LLMs with external tools to build conversational agents in this work. + +# 2.3 Evaluation and User Simulation + +Designing effective evaluation protocols has long been a challenge for various conversational systems (Deriu et al., 2021). Interacting with real users is costly, prompting the adoption of user simulators to assess proactive interactions in dialogue systems (Deng et al., 2023). Sekulic et al. (2022) utilized a GPT-2-based generative agent to simulate users in Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA) setting. We build upon their approach and incorporate the latest advancements in LLMs. We also introduce a novel concept of gradually incorporating user preferences into the simulation process. + +# 3 SalesOps Framework + +We now describe the SalesOps framework, allowing us to study CRS systems in terms of educational and recommendation objectives for complex product scenarios. In SalesOps, two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – have a conversation that begins with a Shopper request and ends once the Seller makes a product recommendation that the Shopper accepts. Each actor gets access to specific content elements that assist them in completing the task. We first describe the three content elements and the procedure used to generate them at scale, and then we describe the constraint we put on actors' access to the content to create realistic sales conversations. + +# 3.1 Content Elements + +As illustrated in Figure 1, for any given product (i.e., vacuums), three content elements are required to instantiate the SalesOps framework. The Prod- + +uct Catalog and the Buying Guide are the content elements accessible to the Seller, and the Shopping Preferences are accessible to the Shopper. + +Importantly, we populated all content elements for the six product categories we include in our initial release, but we aim for the procedures to be automatable, so they can be expanded to new products, unlike previous resources that can become outdated (Ni et al., 2019). + +# 3.1.1 Product Catalog + +In the SalesOps framework, the Seller has access to a fixed list of products that can be recommended to the Shopper. Each product consists of (1) a unique ID, (2) a product name, (3) a price, (4) a product description, and (5) a feature set. + +When creating the product catalogs, we initially considered leveraging the Amazon Product Reviews dataset (Ni et al., 2019). However, we found that the products in the dataset are outdated (1997-2018), which greatly impacts the conversations we obtain from a study with human participants in 2023. In many cases, product information and pricing are obsolete, products with the latest technology are missing (e.g., QLED TVs) and thus, the product catalog misaligns with updated Buying Guides and participant expectations. + +We generate synthetic product entries using an LLM since web-scraping an up-to-date product catalog can lead to limitations in terms of open sourcing. We first repeatedly prompt the LLM to generate a diverse list of an average of 30 product names for a given category (e.g., TVs). We then prompt the model for each product name to generate realistic product metadata, including a title, description, price, and feature list. Appendix A presents more details of this process. + +Unlike previous approaches that utilize databases with thousands of items, we deliberately limit the product catalog to approximately 30 items per category to mirror the curated selection of a typical store (Fu et al., 2020; Bernard and Balog, 2023). This also significantly impacts human sellers' ability to complete the task as they need to familiarize themselves with the products available to effectively perform their role. However, the automated nature of the creation process would allow us to expand the product catalog efficiently. + +During a SalesOps conversation, the Seller can decide on their turn to recommend one or several items whose details will be included in a subsequent message to the shopper (see Appendix C for + +![](images/c884764dc6927591ae1e055ef2e842cf8e88d4e776b003c6de462900890e03b5.jpg) +Figure 2: Shopper Preference Generation Pipeline using ChatGPT. Example for the Coffee Makers category. + +an example conversation). + +# 3.1.2 Buying Guide + +Professional salespeople often receive training or rely on technical documentation to effectively sell complex products. We proxy this expert knowledge through leveraging publicly available buying guides. Buying guides, such as ones available on BestBuy2 or Consumer Reports3, are often written by professionals to help coach buyers on the decision-making process so that they can determine the best option for themselves. For each product category, we retrieve the top five articles from the C4 corpus (Raffel et al., 2019) that match the search query "[PRODUCT] Buying Guide", and select the most appropriate one. + +On average, the buying guide we select for each product category is 2,500 words and 50 paragraphs long. Selected buying guides are diverse in their organization, with some being organized by shopper persona, shopping budget, or major item subcategories (e.g., drip vs. espresso machines). The heterogeneity in the layout of buying guides goes towards creating a realistic experimental setting in which the layout of knowledge documents for a particular product might not be known in advance. + +# 3.1.3 Shopping Preferences + +Figure 2 introduces the three-step method we use to obtain shopping preferences for a given product category, which relies on LLMs. First, we generate a list of five possible questions the Seller may ask based on the buying guide (e.g., "How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?"). Second, we generate for each question a set of answer options + +(e.g. ["1", "2-4", "5-9", "10+"]. Although we attempt to have mutually exclusive questions, it is inevitable for some combinations to be improbable (e.g., a very high-capacity coffee maker for the smallest budget), thus, we leverage LLMs in a third step to select 10 diverse but realistic combinations of the preferences. + +Unlike prior work that reveals the shopper preferences in their entirety when the conversation is initiated (Liu et al., 2022; Bernard and Balog, 2023), we choose to reveal preferences to the Shopper gradually during the conversation, providing a more realistic simulation of an underspecified buying experience (Kim et al., 2020). + +To achieve this objective, for each Shopper turn in the conversation, we extract the last Seller message, and use a semantic similarity model4 to detect whether the utterance corresponds to a question related to one of the preferences. If the similarity passes a manually selected threshold, the related preference is revealed to the Shopper, and they can choose to leverage the additional information in their response. We note that the system reveals at most one preference per Shopper turn and does not enforce that all preferences are revealed. We intend these choices to simulate a realistic conversational experience for the Shopper and Seller. + +# 3.2 SalesOps Actors + +In SalesOps, the two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – can either be simulated by an LLM-based system or enacted by a person such as a sales professional or crowd worker. We briefly introduce the considerations for each actor. + +The Seller has access to the Product Catalog and Buying Guide during a SalesOps conversation, corresponding roughly to 65 paragraphs which is a large amount of content both for humans and a system enacting the role. We estimate that a human enacting this role would require roughly 30 minutes at an average reading speed of 200 words per minute to read all the content. In our experiments with professional salespeople, they were each provided a period of reading time to get familiar with the content prior to participating in conversations. In our automated Seller implementation, we leverage a retrieval system to efficiently provide the content to the LLM components with limited context lengths. + +Appendix D goes over the SalesOps Seller User Interface, built using the Mephisto library (Urbanek and Ringshia, 2023). The interface is extended for several aspects: (1) contains the Buying Guide and a search interface to the Product Catalog, (2) the Seller must select which paragraphs of the Buying Guide they are leveraging in crafting their response (if any), (3) the post-chat questionnaire which asks to select utterances where Shopper revealed their preferences and rate the conversation partner. + +During a chat, we further log all product search queries. As a result, the metadata generated when implementing the SalesOps framework can be useful for tasks beyond the CRS setting, such as knowledge-grounded response generation, conversational summarization, and query generation. + +On the other hand, the Shopper is only provided with the product category they are tasked with shopping for at the initial stage of a SalesOps chat. Shopping preferences are revealed based on the Seller's questioning as the conversation unfolds. The Shopper interface, presented in Appendix D requires fewer adaptations of Mephisto than the Seller interface: (1) we repurpose one-sided "Coordinator" messages to reveal Shopping Preferences during the conversation, and (2) when a product recommendation is suggested by the Seller, the Shopper interface displays buttons to accept or reject the item. + +# 4 Bots Implementation + +We now present ShopperBot and SalesBot, the LLM-based implementations (ChatGPT in our experiment) that can simulate both sides of the SalesOps framework. + +# 4.1 ShopperBot + +ShopperBot's goal is to generate responses in accordance with the provided set of preferences $(P)$ , consisting of several question-answer pairs $(q - a)$ . We achieve this objective by prompting LLMs with (a) natural language instruction to act as a shopper seeking [PRODUCT] (e.g., a TV), (b) a list of currently revealed shopping preferences, and (c) the chat history, at every turn in the conversation. Full prompt can be seen in Appendix B. + +When the latest seller's utterance includes a recommendation of an item, ShopperBot is instructed to include [ACCEPT] or [REJECT] token in its reply. It will base this decision on the whole set of preferences $(P)$ to ensure consistency with the simulated + +![](images/2125bcc93444a4b847cc378fed306278c55505e84c5dc0235c2327294f752c1d.jpg) +Figure 3: SalesBot architecture to generate a Seller response, based on two Content Elements and the conversation history. LLM-based modules are in yellow. + +scenario - i.e., if too few preferences were revealed at this point in the conversation, we do not want the shopper to accept an item that would not satisfy the whole set $P$ . + +We note that the Shopping Preferences are far from a comprehensive listing of all questions that could occur when shopping for a complex product category. The ShopperBot is instructed to make its own decisions when choices are not in $P$ (e.g., the preferred color of a coffee machine) and fluently converse with the Seller. + +Qualitatively, we have confirmed in our experiments that ShopperBot can provide subjective and unique preferences, realistically simulating a human shopper. + +# 4.2 SalesBot + +SalesBot has access to two main external tools - 1) knowledge search and 2) product search. As shown in Figure 3, it generates dialogue responses using a series of modules. Each module is an independent component of the overall system. + +# 4.2.1 Action Decision + +This module decides which tool to use based on the current conversation history. Selecting from the following: Knowledge Search (details in section 4.2.2), Product Search (details in section 4.2.3), Response Generation (details in section 4.2.4). + +We query an LLM to make this choice and pro + +vide natural language instructions on when to use each of the available tools in our prompt. + +# 4.2.2 Knowledge Search + +Knowledge Search module's main purpose is to educate the user by incorporating expert domain knowledge into the conversation. It is made up of two components: 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We ask the LLM to generate a query based on the chat history. + +We then use a FAISS retriever to lookup relevant knowledge article paragraphs (Johnson et al., 2019). We concatenate top 3 paragraphs (separated by "\n\n") and feed it as external knowledge to the Response Generation module described in section 4.2.4. + +# 4.2.3 Product Search + +Product Search module's goal is finding relevant items to recommend to the user. Similar to the above, this module is made up of 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We embed each product's information (i.e., title, description, price, and feature list) using the Sentence Transformer model $^{5}$ and retrieve the top 4 products based on the query embedding (obtained using the same model). Same as in Knowledge Search, we concatenate the results. Note that in some cases, we may not need all 4 products, for example, if the shopper asked a follow-up question about a certain product, the response should not include all 4 retrieved items. We leave it up to the Response Generation module to determine which products should be mentioned based on the chat history. + +# 4.2.4 Response Generation + +Based on the Action Decision module, response generation can either include external information (e.g., buying guide excerpts, product information) or not. We thus, write two separate prompts to respond to the shopper. Response Generation with External Knowledge is based on: Chat History, Action Selected, Query Generated, Retrieved Results. Response Generation without External Knowledge is based solely on the chat history. + +We additionally implement a Regeneration submodule to rewrite the final response if needed. We place a limit on max_tokensgenerated when prompting the LLM and ask it to rewrite the previously generated response if it was cut off due + +to length. This forces SalesBot's responses to be concise and contain full sentences. + +# 5 Evaluation Criteria + +Along with the SalesOps framework, we propose a multi-dimensional evaluation that defines success for the Seller along three axes: (1) recommendation quality, which verifies whether the recommendations of the Seller are compatible with the Shopper's preferences, (2) informativeness, which checks whether the Seller provides educational value to the Shopper, and (3) fluency which evaluates the Seller's ability to communicate professionally and concisely. We next define the metrics - both automatic and manual - used to evaluate each axis. + +Recent work shows the promise of using LLMs for evaluation across many NLP tasks (Liu et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Laban et al., 2023). Following this thread of work, we leverage GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) for automatic evaluation purposes in several of our proposed metrics. + +# 5.1 Recommendation Quality + +Accurate recommendations that match shopper preferences are a core expectation of CRS. The authors of the paper manually annotated each product category and its 10 corresponding Shopping Preferences for all acceptable product recommendations as the ground truth. On average, a given shopping preference configuration yielded 4 acceptable products from a product catalog of 30 items. Thus, for a completed SalesOps conversation, we compute recommendation accuracy (Rec). + +# 5.2 Informativeness + +We propose two metrics to measure the informativeness of the Seller during a conversation. + +First, we leverage an NLI-based model to measure the content overlap between the Seller's utterances and the buying guide, as such model has been shown to perform competitively on tasks involving factual similarity (Laban et al., 2022; Fabbri et al., 2022). Specifically, we calculate the $\%$ of the buying guide sentences that are entailed at least once by a seller utterance $(Inf_{e})$ . + +Second, we assess the shopper's knowledge through a quiz that we designed which consists of 3 multiple-choice questions that can be answered using the buying guide (examples in Appendix C. We then ask crowd-workers to an- + +
AgentFlu e ↑Flu i ↑Inf e ↑Rec ↑
Ada-RG1.410.000.160.16
Rule-AD4.820.590.860.40
Key-QG4.970.720.710.36
No-ReGen4.990.850.740.47
SalesBot4.990.910.740.44
+ +Table 1: Results of the ablation study of SalesBot components using GPT4-based evaluation metrics. + +swer each knowledge question solely considering the conversation, with the option of choosing "Cannot answer based on the conversation". We report the $\%$ of correct answers on the knowledge questions $(Inf_{q})$ . + +# 5.3 Fluency + +We frame two questions to measure the fluency and professionalism of the Seller: + +$Flu_{e}$ : How would you rate the salesperson's communication skills? (scale: 1-5) + +$Flu_{i}$ : Do you think the seller in the given chat is: (i) human or (ii) a bot? (Yes/No) + +We perform annotation for the two fluency metrics both manually by recruiting crowd-workers (see Appendix C) as well as by prompting GPT-4 to answer both questions. + +# 6 Ablation Study + +SalesBot contains 4 LLM-based components, which we swap with baselines to understand the impact of using an LLM for each component. + +# 6.1 Baselines + +We implement four ablations of SalesBot: + +Ada-RG We replace ChatGPT with the smaller GPT3 text-ada-001 model in the response generation module. + +Rule-AD We replace the Action Decision module with a rule-based system: select the "Knowledge" action for the first 6 turns, and the "Recommend" action afterwards. + +Key-QG We replace Query Generation modules with a keyword method: extract five keywords from the latest utterance and concatenate them as a query. + +No-ReGen We experiment with removing Regeneration module from response generation. + +# 6.2 Results + +We generated 150 conversations on the six product categories between ShopperBot and the five versions of SalesBots, and computed automatic results which are summarized in Table 1. Overall, the use of an LLM is most crucial in the Response Generation component but is beneficial across all components. + +Replacing ChatGPT with a smaller LLM in the Response Generation component leads to the largest degradation across the board, confirming that smaller models are unable to handle the complex task of tying together the conversation history and external knowledge to generate a concise, coherent, fluent, and informative response. + +The rule-based action decision module leads to improved informativeness (as the system relies more heavily on the knowledge action), at the cost of fluency and recommendation quality. + +The keyword-based retrieval ablation leads to lower a $20\%$ decrease in recommendation quality, confirming that generation of retrieval queries benefits from the generative flexibility of an LLM. Finally, adding the regeneration component leads to a boost in fluency, at the cost of a minor recommendation quality drop. + +As a result, we recommend that designers of conversational agents: (1) Leverage LLMs in Response Generation, (2) Integrate Generative Flexibility in Retrieval Queries, and (3) Utilize Regeneration for Improved Fluency. + +# 7 Salespeople vs SalesBot + +We aim to study the qualitative differences between SalesBot and professional salespeople to comprehend the effect of deploying such systems in real-world settings (Guo et al., 2023), and perform an extensive human evaluation of SalesBot and Salespeople within the SalesOps framework. + +# 7.1 Experiment Setup + +We recruit 15 professional salespeople across a diverse set of industries (e.g., insurance, retail, B2B sales) through UserInterviews $^{6}$ . They were given a 1-hour onboarding session covering the SalesOps framework, reading a Buying Guide and Product Catalog, and completing warmup conversations. Participants then completed up to 15 SalesOps conversations with ShopperBot, which took an average of 3 hours. + +
Statistics (avg)#
Nb. words of Seller utterance62.535.3
Nb. words of Shopper utterance20.820.7
Nb. of turns11.912.9
Nb. turns before the first rec.6.07.9
Nb. of recommendations2.62.4
Nb. of triggered revelations1.72.8
% Correct recommendations (Rec)4454
Information Quiz Score (Infq)32.931.8
Fluency Score (Fluε)4.44.2
% Is Human (Flui)5580
+ +Table 2: Comparison of SalesBot and Salesperson on conversation statistics (top) and human evaluation metrics (bottom). + +In parallel, we generated 150 SalesOps conversations between SalesBot and ShopperBot for the same set of preferences. Unlike the ablation study in which we perform the evaluation with GPT-4, we recruit crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete evaluation (interface in Appendix C). + +# 7.2 Results + +Table 2 presents statistics and evaluation results of the comparison between professional Salespeople and SalesBot. Overall, SalesBot's utterances are almost twice as long. It makes its first recommendation earlier and makes slightly more recommendations in total than professional salespeople. + +Looking at the human evaluation, crowd workers were largely able to distinguish between SalesBot and professionals, as they were much more likely to believe the Seller was human for professionals (80%) than for SalesBot (55%), yet SalesBot achieved a higher Likert fluency score. This is likely due to salespeople acting more casual in conversations, making occasional typos which come across as less professional. + +Finally, even though professionals write utterances that are nearly half the length, they achieve higher recommendation quality and almost equal informativeness. This pair of results confirms that there is still a large gap between LLMs and professional salespeople with respect to conciseness. + +# 7.3 Faithfulness + +In absolute terms, both SalesBot and Salespeople achieve low rates of correct recommendations (< 55%). We perform a qualitative analysis of failure + +# GPT-4 Explanation of Unfaithful Content + +Salesperson. The salesperson incorrectly mentioned that the Cuisinart DCC-3200P1 has a hot water dispenser, which is not mentioned in the document. + +SalesBot. The salesperson incorrectly stated that some drip coffee makers and espresso machines have the option for pre-measured pods or capsules. The document only mentions single-serve coffee makers as having the option for pre-measured pods. + +Table 3: Example of GPT4-based detection of unfaithful behavior in both SalesBot and Salespeople. + +cases and find that there are several reasons for mismatches, including salespeople upselling products (i.e., convincing Shoppers to accept a product beyond their initial budget). We study this phenomenon through the lens of faithfulness analysis. + +We provide GPT-4 with Buying Guides, the Product Catalog and the full conversation, and prompt it with identifying whether the Seller provides advice that is inconsistent with existing information. It detects that for both types of Sellers, roughly one in four chats contains unfaithful claims. + +We provide examples of identified inconsistencies in Table 3. Our findings suggest that while SalesBot may occasionally hallucinate due to known LLM-bound limitations, salespeople can also exhibit unfaithful behavior, usually in the form of (a) upselling and (b) answering follow-up questions without knowing the true answer. Both are motivated by the desire to close the sale; however, this confirms the challenge of evaluating faithfulness in the sales domain, for which successful sales strategies might require unbacked claims. + +# 8 Conclusion + +In this paper we introduce SalesOps, a flexible framework for simulating realistic CRS scenarios in the context of complex product sales, and propose an evaluation paradigm for such systems. Our framework provides researchers and practitioners with a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness and performance of conversational agents in sales settings. By developing SalesBot and ShopperBot within this framework, we gain insights into the individual components and their impact on conversational performance. Through a comprehensive + +human study, we identify gaps in product recommendation quality and provide a faithfulness analysis of both automated and human sellers. These contributions advance the understanding and development of CRS, paving the way for improved sales interactions and user experiences. + +# 9 Limitations + +In this work, we heavily on LLMs to build the conversational agents (SalesBot and ShopperBot) within our framework. While LLMs have shown significant advancements in generating human-like responses and engaging in multi-turn conversations, they still suffer from hallucinations as shown in our faithfulness analysis, and thus impact the overall performance of the system. + +Additionally, our evaluation primarily focuses on three aspects: the quality of the final recommendation, educational value to the shopper, and fluency/professionalism. While these aspects are important, there are other dimensions that could be relevant, such as user satisfaction, persuasion skills, and diversity of recommendations. We leave further exploration into CRS evaluation to future work. + +We limit our evaluation to the chat-based sales experience, even though most sales conversations involving a shopper and a salesperson happen in audio form, either in a physical store or on the phone. Prior work has shown that adapting conversational content to the audio format is non-trivial (Kang and Gretzel, 2012), and requires modifications to remain natural and engaging (Laban et al., 2022). We leave it to future work to further adapt SalesOps and SalesBot to the audio setting. + +# Ethical Statement + +The ethical considerations in this work primarily revolve around the interactions with human participants and the potential implications of deploying conversational agents in real-life settings. + +The study involved 15 professional salespeople who were recruited through User Interviews platform and participated voluntarily. The study aimed to ensure representation and inclusivity in its participant selection process. We recruited individuals of different genders, professionals of all levels (associate, manager, director, VP), and spanning a wide range of age groups from 19 to 65. They received compensation for their time and effort. An onboarding session was conducted to explain the + +task instructions and provide sample chats. Afterward, the participants had the freedom to complete the study at their own pace. Additionally, human evaluation was conducted with Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, who were compensated for their contributions. + +We discuss the potential impact of deploying conversational agents, such as SalesBot, in real-life scenarios. The study highlights both the strengths and limitations of SalesBot compared to professional salespeople. The evaluation reveals gaps in recommendation quality and examines the challenges of ensuring content faithfulness in the CRS context. We emphasize the importance of considering the implications of generative AI systems in domains like conversational sales, where there several ethical concerns may arise related to upselling and providing factually accurate information. + +# References + +Nolwenn Bernard and Krisztian Balog. 2023. Mghopdial: A multi-goal conversational dataset for e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2304.12636. +Pengshan Cai, Hui Wan, Fei Liu, Mo Yu, Hong Yu, and Sachindra Joshi. 2022. Learning as conversation: Dialogue systems reinforced for information acquisition. ArXiv, abs/2205.14748. +Zhongxia Chen, Xiting Wang, Xing Xie, Mehul Parsana, Akshay Soni, Xiang Ao, and Enhong Chen. 2020. Towards explainable conversational recommendation. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Yang Deng, Wenqiang Lei, Wai Lam, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A survey on proactive dialogue systems: Problems, methods, and prospects. *ArXiv*, abs/2305.02750. +Jan Deriu, Alvaro Rodrigo, Arantxa Otegi, Guillermo Echegoyen, Sophie Rosset, Eneko Agirre, and Mark Cieliebak. 2021. Survey on evaluation methods for dialogue systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54:755-810. +Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. QAFactEval: Improved QA-based factual consistency evaluation for summarization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2587-2601, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. ArXiv, abs/2302.04166. + +Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Yaxin Zhu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Gerard de Melo. 2020. Cookie: A dataset for conversational recommendation over knowledge graphs in e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2008.09237. +Chongming Gao, Wenqiang Lei, Xiangnan He, M. de Rijke, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Advances and challenges in conversational recommender systems: A survey. AI Open, 2:100-126. +Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. ArXiv, abs/2301.07597. +Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547. +M. Kang and U. Gretzel. 2012. Effects of podcast tours on tourist experiences in a national park. *Tourism Management*, 33:440-455. +Seokhwan Kim, Mihail Eric, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. Beyond domain APIs: Task-oriented conversational modeling with unstructured knowledge access. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 278-289, 1st virtual meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Philippe Laban, John Canny, and Marti A Hearst. 2020. What's the latest? a question-driven news chatbot. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 380-387. +Philippe Laban, Wojciech Kryscinski, Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq R. Joty, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. Llms as factual reasoners: Insights from existing benchmarks and beyond. ArXiv, abs/2305.14540. +Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLIBased models for inconsistency detection in summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:163-177. +Miaoran Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhu Zhang. 2022. Opera: Harmonizing task-oriented dialogs and information seeking experience. ArXiv, abs/2206.12449. +Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuo Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. ArXiv, abs/2303.16634. +Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards conversational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Zeming Liu, Jun Xu, Zeyang Lei, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, and Hua Wu. 2022. Where to go for the holidays: Towards mixed-type dialogs for clarification of user goals. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1024-1034, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Andrea Madotto, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Mem2Seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1468-1478, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 188-197, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774. +Andrea Papenmeier, Alexander Frummet, and Dagmar Kern. 2022. "mhm..." - conversational strategies for product search assistants. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR '22, page 36-46, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Lidén, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. ArXiv, abs/2302.12813. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv e-prints. +Xuhui Ren, Tong Chen, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Li zhen Cui, Zi-Liang Huang, and Hongzhi Yin. 2023. Explicit knowledge graph reasoning for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2305.00783. +Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. ArXiv, abs/2302.04761. +Ivan Sekulic, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Fabio A. Crestani. 2022. Evaluating mixed-initiative conversational search systems via user simulation. Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. + +Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur D. Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, W.K.F. Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur D. Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. ArXiv, abs/2208.03188. +Yueming Sun and Yi Zhang. 2018. Conversational recommender system. The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. +Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam M. Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, HengTze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, Yaguang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, I. A. Krivokon, Willard James Rusch, Marc Pickett, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Hartz Søraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravindran Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, V. O. Kuzmina, Joseph Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. ArXiv, abs/2201.08239. +Jack Urbanek and Pratik Ringshia. 2023. Mephisto: A framework for portable, reproducible, and iterative crowdsourcing. +Bingbing Wen, Xiaoning Bu, and Chirag Shah. 2022. Egcr: Explanation generation for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2208.08035. +Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018a. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07243. +Tong Zhang, Yong Liu, Peixiang Zhong, Chen Zhang, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Kecrs: Towards knowledge-enriched conversational recommendation system. ArXiv, abs/2105.08261. +Yongfeng Zhang, Xu Chen, Qingyao Ai, Liu Yang, and W. Bruce Croft. 2018b. Towards conversational search and recommendation: System ask, user response. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International + +Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. +Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2021. Crfr: Improving conversational recommender systems via flexible fragments reasoning on knowledge graphs. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. + +# A Product Catalog Generation + +For each product domain, we automatically generate Product Catalog following the procedure in Table 4. + +# 1. Product Name Gen. + +Generate a list of top 30 [PRODUCT_NAME] options in the following format: + +{"name":...} + +Include a diverse list of options with different brands, sizes, price points for a variety of customers. + +# 2. Product Metadata Gen. + +Generate product description, features, and price based on the product name. Output should be in the following json format: + +```json +{ "name": "...". "price": "...". "description": "...". "features": [... ] } +``` + +Table 4: Product Catalog Generation Prompts. +An example of the resulting product metadata is presented in Table 5. + +
nameSamsung 55" Class S95B OLED 4K Smart Tizen TV
price$1,699.99
descriptionSamsung OLED TV changes the game again with 8.3 million self lit pixels and ultra powerful 4K AI Neural Processing, all for a picture so real, it's surreal. Add on Dolby Atmos® sound built in, the latest Smart TV apps, and a LaserSlim design and get a viewing experience that's intensely cinematic.
features["55 inch", "OLED Technology", "Neural Quantum Processor with 4K Upscaling", "Smart Calibration", "Connectivity with Bluetooth, RF, Wi-Fi, USB, HDMI, Ethernet (LAN), Digital Audio Out x 1 (Optical)", "Supported internet services: Netflix, Google TV, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube, Browser"]
+ +Table 5: Product Metadata Example for the TV category. + +# B ShopperBot Design + +# B.1 Prompt + +You are shopping online for a {product}. You haven't done your research on this product and want to speak to a salesperson over chat to learn more and make an informed decision. + +Follow these rules: + +- Chat with the salesperson to learn more about {product}. They will be acting as a product expert, helping you make an informed purchasing decision. They may ask you questions to narrow down your options and find a suitable product recommendation for you. + +- Use your assigned preferences and incorporate them in your responses when appropriate, but do not reveal them to the salesperson right away or all at once. Only share a maximum of 1 assigned preference with the salesperson at a time. + +- Let the salesperson drive the conversation. + +- Ask questions when appropriate. Be curious and try to learn more about {product} before making your decision. +- Be realistic and stay consistent in your responses. +- When the salesperson makes a recommendation, you'll see product details with 'ACCEPT' and 'REJECT' in the message. Please consider whether the product satisfies your assigned preferences. +- If the recommended product meets your needs, generate [ACCEPT] token in your response. For example, "[ACCEPT] Thanks, I'll take it!". +- If the recommended product is not a good fit, let the salesperson know (e.g. "this is too expensive") +- If you're not sure about the recommended product, ask follow-up questions (e.g. "could you explain the benefit of this feature?") +- Do not generate more than 1 response at a time. + +Your assigned preferences: + +{preferences} + +Follow the above rules to generate a reply using your assigned preferences and the conversation history below: + +Conversation history: + +{chat_history} + +Shopper : + +# B.2 Architecture + +Figure 4 highlights ShopperBot's key components and the overall design flow. + +![](images/3bb491ee4f648f7277896b0d54352f290678c0d2646ab3ebe15fc0c4173a9df3.jpg) +Figure 4: ShopperBot architecture to generate a response based on the selected shopping preferences. + +# C Human Evaluation Questionnaire + +We recruit 150 crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete a survey. The user interface is presented in Figure 5. Examples of True/False quiz questions per product category are shown in Table 6. + +# Survey + +MTurk WorkerID: + +X430YABCD + +Answer the questions based on the chat transcript on the right + +# [Communication] + +How would you rate salesperson's communication skills? + +5 - Excellent + +Do you think the salesperson is: + +Human + +Do you think the shopper is: + +Human + +# [Informativeness] + +The resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture. + +Cannot answer based on the chat + +![](images/1b2958566df4551a38d4bfdaa77a15eff16026631feccd1a7802ab683013e01c.jpg) + +False + +A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of $120\mathrm{Hz}$ will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz + +Cannot answer based on the chat + +![](images/a230caf1284b9007e40f6383922282ccc108fd8f1c71ab14f3ac006d8213cca8.jpg) + +False + +TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality. + +Cannot answer based on the chat + +![](images/fa36f78f6be50de823bf3c0d11b9aa91bd64807c05a8fc306c341295b3c1047d.jpg) +Figure 5: Human Evaluation User Interface. + +False + +# [Product Recommendation] + +Preferences: + +```txt +{ "What is your budget?" : "around $2,000" "What size TV are you looking for?" : "a large size, maybe between 65 and 75 inches" "Is image quality a priority for you?" : "very important" "Do you have any preferred brands?" : "I like LG or Samsung" "Does your space have a lot of natural light?" : "yes" } +``` + +# Sales Chat Transcript + +Please read the chat below carefully, before answering questions. + +![](images/bcb4d1925286fbc9c45306102fd70db178fd7ea6b822805c339d23a4a80ac411.jpg) + +Hi! How can I help you this afternoon? + +Hi there! I'm actually shopping for a new TV and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for. Can you tell me a bit more about the different types of TVs you have available? + +![](images/4aa1b72ba607ecde919e8c48054c954a28601a6e863dcff269de71a46b889afc.jpg) + +![](images/d5c3bc8be4ce30a712f59de18c783f2520c6a924013880e86e28dc52b55ceec7.jpg) + +Certainly! Choosing what size of TV to buy is based on your personal size preference, your room size, and your mounting options. You'll want to keep in mind the width and weight of the TV as that can affect whether you can mount it on your wall or you need an entertainment stand. Televisions can be as small as about 30 inches and as large as 80 inches (or more!). Do you have a size in mind? + +I'm thinking something on the larger side, maybe between 65 and 75 inches. What options do you have in that size range? + +![](images/afedefc7aad4e826edf316548f9c7ea56601a3be42c2214651562969f2ab1e2c.jpg) + +![](images/902b5ec44bf995b25253e8d3c425d8f3b07678afe7c3a8a364feb0360d2a4e01.jpg) + +I have TV's ranging in price from $749 to$ 9,999 in that size range. What will you be using the TV for mostly? + +Well, I'm a bit of a picky shopper and I want to make sure I get something that will last a while. I watch a lot of movies and some sports, so I want something with good picture quality and a high refresh rate. Do you have any recommendations that might fit those preferences? + +![](images/b1452b22783ac4b8084599126a53cf0ceb7f637cdd99dcb0952ad801ae483be8.jpg) + +![](images/edcd6151f6e47a120cb46f24dd13a47a3d7a542597d151267d328a98911df132.jpg) + +This 65 inch LG has a 120hz refresh rate that would be GREAT for watching movies and sports! + +![](images/ee4feab2a655e98a1a3452efa7703ea861f48fc8f5ee10cbf60e5c1b2e61de9c.jpg) + +Product Name: LG - 65" Class NanoCell 99 Series LED 8K UHD Smart webOS TV + +Price: $1,799.99 + +Description: Experience everything in more detail with LG NanoCell 8K. LG's most advanced 8K AI processor optimizes composition, black, light and color in every scene, while the + +
Product CategoryQuestionAnswer
TVThe resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture.T
A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of 120Hz will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz.T
TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality.F
Vacuum CleanersA canister vacuum is best suited for a large home with multiple floors and different types of flooring.T
If you have pets, it's important to choose a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to capture pet hair and dander.T
Stick vacuums are not suitable for cleaning homes with stairs.F
MattressMemory foam mattresses mold to the shape of your body.T
Gel memory foam mattresses are ideal for hot sleepers who want to stay cool at night.T
A mattress with more coils is always better than a mattress with fewer coils.F
GuitarThe acoustic guitar is the most common guitar for first-time buyers.T
Acoustic guitars are self-amplified instruments that come in a variety of sizes, and the most common shape is the Parlor.F
Acoustic-electric guitars are the easiest way to perform with an acoustic guitar, and they always come with an integrated pickup system.F
LaptopA laptop with a larger screen size is always better for gaming.F
A laptop with a dedicated graphics card is unnecessary for basic office tasks.T
An SSD provides faster storage than an HDD.T
Coffee MakersDrip coffee makers are ideal for making coffee for one person.F
Single-serve coffee makers are convenient because they require no measurement of coffee grinds or water.T
Espresso machines can only make espresso shots.F
+ +Table 6: True/False quiz questions per product category. + +# D SalesOps Framework User Interface + +We present the SalesOps Framework's User Interface in Figure 6, displaying both the Seller View (a) and the Shopper view (b). + +![](images/2eaeac8e22ab69f79831705d025785478ac74511c29c440f744bdf826b7a4904.jpg) +(b) Shopper View +Figure 6: SalesOps Framework User Interface. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/images.zip b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d84671f413579c8098ff6534b47f413380dfd7c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:814693b7cd889c3df078d30b4dc27de903456738d3eb7cacb7cacf3f528fc7fb +size 611391 diff --git a/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/layout.json b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c2232f94df5730af4f303fd9dd584546e2c5949 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Salespeople vs SalesBot_ Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11003 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 75, + 506, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 75, + 506, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 75, + 506, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Salespeople vs SalesBot: Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 126, + 440, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 126, + 440, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 126, + 440, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lidiya Murakhovs'ka Philippe Laban Tian Xie Caiming Xiong Chien-Sheng Wu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 154, + 356, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 154, + 356, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 154, + 356, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Salesforce AI Research" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 168, + 489, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 168, + 489, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 168, + 489, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{1.murakhovska, plaban, t.xie, cxiong, wu.jason}@salesforce.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Making big purchases requires consumers to research or consult a salesperson to gain domain expertise. However, existing conversational recommender systems (CRS) often overlook users' lack of background knowledge, focusing solely on gathering preferences. In this work, we define a new problem space for conversational agents that aim to provide both product recommendations and educational value through mixed-type mixed-initiative dialog. We introduce SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the simulation and evaluation of such systems by leveraging recent advancements in large language models (LLMs). We build SalesBot and ShopperBot, a pair of LLM-powered agents that can simulate either side of the framework. A comprehensive human study compares SalesBot against professional salespeople, revealing that although SalesBot approaches professional performance in terms of fluency and informativeness, it lags behind in recommendation quality. We emphasize the distinct limitations both face in providing truthful information, highlighting the challenges of ensuring faithfulness in the CRS context. We release our code and make all data available1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 556, + 154, + 569 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 556, + 154, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 556, + 154, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conversational recommender systems (CRS) use multi-turn dialog to understand user preferences, gather information, and provide suitable recommendations (Gao et al., 2021). They have gained significant attention from academia and industry due to their flexibility compared to one-shot recommender systems. CRS allow users to dynamically refine their preferences and express feedback on recommended items through chat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 700, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 700, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 700, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While many traditional CRS are built under a \"System Ask-User Answer\" paradigm (Zhang et al., 2018b), some recent works have identified the critical need to support mixed-type, mixed-initiative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 514, + 417 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 514, + 417 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 514, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 514, + 417 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "42d96611d088eab36bd2dc2ab6d6b051cd7674b4a03c86d0b127800a52d7d082.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 489 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The SalesOps framework is a conversational recommendation system simulation involving: (1) a Seller viewing a buying guide and product catalog, (2) a Shopper gradually learning about shopping preferences. Either can be simulated using an LLM-based system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "dialog and assist users with underspecified goals (Kim et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020, 2022). However, most CRS remain focused on domains involving content recommendation such as movies, books, music, news, etc, which require a different type of recommendation strategy than the e-commerce space where consumers often need a certain level of background knowledge to understand their options (Laban et al., 2020; Papenmeier et al., 2022). In content recommendation domains, CRS can achieve success by questioning a user about previous content consumption and retrieving similar content. This strategy is not valid for the sale of complex products, as prior user habits do not inform a buyer's item-specific preferences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we focus on complex products with multiple attributes that would usually require significant expertise or a salesperson consultation to make an informed purchase decision on - e.g., TVs," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 258, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 258, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 258, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://github.com/salesforce/salesbot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9823" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 819 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 819 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 819 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9823-9838 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "guitars, etc. We associate the ambiguous user goals often present in this real-life setting with the lack of knowledge about the product domain and suggest the need for the agent to provide educational value in addition to fulfilling the recommendation objective. We address this new problem space by introducing SalesOps, a framework that facilitates the recreation of realistic CRS scenarios and agent evaluation, as shown in Figure 1. Our method incorporates several novel features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 211, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 211, + 291, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 211, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We utilize existing buying guides as a knowledge source for the sales agent. We provide the seller with a relevant guide in addition to a product catalog, which enables them to educate shoppers on the complex product space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 287, + 291, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 287, + 291, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 287, + 291, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Shopping preferences are gradually revealed to the shopper during the course of conversation in order to simulate the underspecified goal scenario of a typical uninformed shopper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- A multi-dimensional evaluation framework is designed to measure sales agent performance in terms of (a) quality of final recommendation, (b) educational value to the shopper, and (c) fluency and professionalism." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We leverage recent progress made in large language models (LLMs), which has enabled increasingly powerful conversational agents, to build a pair of agents - SalesBot and ShopperBot which can simulate either side in the SalesOps framework. Thus, facilitating evaluation in any of the following settings: human-human, human-bot, bot-human, and bot-bot. We critically examine the components of these agents to understand where modern LLMs have the most impact on CRS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We recruit 15 professional salespeople to study the gap between human experts and SalesBot at complex product conversational recommendations. The results reveal that although SalesBot matches professionals in tone politeness and educational quality, there remain minor gaps in the quality of recommended products. We also perform a preliminary analysis of faithfulness within the SalesOps framework, which is important in domains involving generative AI as they enter the applied setting. Our NLI-based analysis (Laban et al., 2022) reveals that salespeople can use strategies that may seem unfaithful, to upsell or simplify technical details. These results highlight the practical challenges of implementing robust faithfulness checks in domains like conversational sales." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 396, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 396, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 396, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 486, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 486, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 486, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Conversational Recommendation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 110, + 526, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 110, + 526, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 110, + 526, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the introduction of conversational recommendation systems (Sun and Zhang, 2018), the field has grown to a wide range of task formulations, settings, and application scenarios (Gao et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2023). Recent works explore conversational systems in the context of multi-type and mixed-initiative dialogs (Liu et al., 2020, 2022). They release sizable datasets in Chinese to advance the field toward supporting users with undefined goals. However, these primarily cover content recommendation domains such as movies, food, and news. As such, they do not directly address the challenges the e-commerce domain poses. In this work we extend these ideas to the specific context of e-commerce, where the focus is on providing recommendations for complex products." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the e-commerce space, Fu et al. (2020) presented COOKIE - a CRS dataset constructed synthetically from user reviews. Most recently, Bernard and Balog (2023) presented a small multigoal human-to-human conversational dataset with 64 chats for e-commerce. While closely related to our task, they do not aim to simulate ambiguous user preferences or target the educational objective; instead, they reveal all user requirements at once." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While existing CRS are effective, criticism can be raised regarding the incorporation of expert knowledge into the user experience. While some systems provide explanations for recommendations (Chen et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2022), their primary focus is not on educating the user about the different options available. This highlights the need for research into new methods of integrating expert knowledge into CRS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 468, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 468, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 468, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Knowledge-Grounded Dialog" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge-grounded response generation in dialogue systems has been explored for years in both task-oriented (Madotto et al., 2018; Li et al., 2022) and open-domain systems (Zhang et al., 2018a; Shuster et al., 2022a; Thoppilan et al., 2022; Shuster et al., 2022b). However, it is important to note that most existing approaches focus on passively responding to user queries rather than proactively conveying the knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A study by Cai et al. (2022) proposes a teacherbot that transmits information in passages to students, aiming to help them acquire new knowledge through conversation. While their work focuses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9824" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "solely on the educational objective, our work combines it with CRS, suggesting suitable products while educating users about the relevant domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Some CRS have incorporated knowledge graphs (KGs) as complementary resources for analyzing item- and attribute-level user preferences (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2023). The primary objective of KGs is to enhance recommendations or aid preference elicitation rather than assisting sellers in answering inquiries or proactively conveying knowledge. Other works (Schick et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023) focus on augmenting LLMs with external knowledge to address common pitfalls like hallucinations and lack of up-to-date information. This can greatly benefit our goal; thus, we leverage and augment LLMs with external tools to build conversational agents in this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 246, + 324 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 246, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 246, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Evaluation and User Simulation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Designing effective evaluation protocols has long been a challenge for various conversational systems (Deriu et al., 2021). Interacting with real users is costly, prompting the adoption of user simulators to assess proactive interactions in dialogue systems (Deng et al., 2023). Sekulic et al. (2022) utilized a GPT-2-based generative agent to simulate users in Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA) setting. We build upon their approach and incorporate the latest advancements in LLMs. We also introduce a novel concept of gradually incorporating user preferences into the simulation process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 199, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 199, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 199, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 SalesOps Framework" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now describe the SalesOps framework, allowing us to study CRS systems in terms of educational and recommendation objectives for complex product scenarios. In SalesOps, two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – have a conversation that begins with a Shopper request and ends once the Seller makes a product recommendation that the Shopper accepts. Each actor gets access to specific content elements that assist them in completing the task. We first describe the three content elements and the procedure used to generate them at scale, and then we describe the constraint we put on actors' access to the content to create realistic sales conversations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 180, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 180, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 180, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Content Elements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As illustrated in Figure 1, for any given product (i.e., vacuums), three content elements are required to instantiate the SalesOps framework. The Prod-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "uct Catalog and the Buying Guide are the content elements accessible to the Seller, and the Shopping Preferences are accessible to the Shopper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Importantly, we populated all content elements for the six product categories we include in our initial release, but we aim for the procedures to be automatable, so they can be expanded to new products, unlike previous resources that can become outdated (Ni et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 417, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 417, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 417, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.1 Product Catalog" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 524, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 524, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 524, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the SalesOps framework, the Seller has access to a fixed list of products that can be recommended to the Shopper. Each product consists of (1) a unique ID, (2) a product name, (3) a price, (4) a product description, and (5) a feature set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When creating the product catalogs, we initially considered leveraging the Amazon Product Reviews dataset (Ni et al., 2019). However, we found that the products in the dataset are outdated (1997-2018), which greatly impacts the conversations we obtain from a study with human participants in 2023. In many cases, product information and pricing are obsolete, products with the latest technology are missing (e.g., QLED TVs) and thus, the product catalog misaligns with updated Buying Guides and participant expectations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We generate synthetic product entries using an LLM since web-scraping an up-to-date product catalog can lead to limitations in terms of open sourcing. We first repeatedly prompt the LLM to generate a diverse list of an average of 30 product names for a given category (e.g., TVs). We then prompt the model for each product name to generate realistic product metadata, including a title, description, price, and feature list. Appendix A presents more details of this process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike previous approaches that utilize databases with thousands of items, we deliberately limit the product catalog to approximately 30 items per category to mirror the curated selection of a typical store (Fu et al., 2020; Bernard and Balog, 2023). This also significantly impacts human sellers' ability to complete the task as they need to familiarize themselves with the products available to effectively perform their role. However, the automated nature of the creation process would allow us to expand the product catalog efficiently." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During a SalesOps conversation, the Seller can decide on their turn to recommend one or several items whose details will be included in a subsequent message to the shopper (see Appendix C for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9825" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 297, + 216 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 297, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 297, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 297, + 216 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c884764dc6927591ae1e055ef2e842cf8e88d4e776b003c6de462900890e03b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 290, + 251 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 290, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 290, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Shopper Preference Generation Pipeline using ChatGPT. Example for the Coffee Makers category." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 186, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 186, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 186, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "an example conversation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 169, + 306 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 169, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 169, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.2 Buying Guide" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 290, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Professional salespeople often receive training or rely on technical documentation to effectively sell complex products. We proxy this expert knowledge through leveraging publicly available buying guides. Buying guides, such as ones available on BestBuy2 or Consumer Reports3, are often written by professionals to help coach buyers on the decision-making process so that they can determine the best option for themselves. For each product category, we retrieve the top five articles from the C4 corpus (Raffel et al., 2019) that match the search query \"[PRODUCT] Buying Guide\", and select the most appropriate one." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On average, the buying guide we select for each product category is 2,500 words and 50 paragraphs long. Selected buying guides are diverse in their organization, with some being organized by shopper persona, shopping budget, or major item subcategories (e.g., drip vs. espresso machines). The heterogeneity in the layout of buying guides goes towards creating a realistic experimental setting in which the layout of knowledge documents for a particular product might not be known in advance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 206, + 644 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 206, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 206, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.3 Shopping Preferences" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 290, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2 introduces the three-step method we use to obtain shopping preferences for a given product category, which relies on LLMs. First, we generate a list of five possible questions the Seller may ask based on the buying guide (e.g., \"How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?\"). Second, we generate for each question a set of answer options" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(e.g. [\"1\", \"2-4\", \"5-9\", \"10+\"]. Although we attempt to have mutually exclusive questions, it is inevitable for some combinations to be improbable (e.g., a very high-capacity coffee maker for the smallest budget), thus, we leverage LLMs in a third step to select 10 diverse but realistic combinations of the preferences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike prior work that reveals the shopper preferences in their entirety when the conversation is initiated (Liu et al., 2022; Bernard and Balog, 2023), we choose to reveal preferences to the Shopper gradually during the conversation, providing a more realistic simulation of an underspecified buying experience (Kim et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To achieve this objective, for each Shopper turn in the conversation, we extract the last Seller message, and use a semantic similarity model4 to detect whether the utterance corresponds to a question related to one of the preferences. If the similarity passes a manually selected threshold, the related preference is revealed to the Shopper, and they can choose to leverage the additional information in their response. We note that the system reveals at most one preference per Shopper turn and does not enforce that all preferences are revealed. We intend these choices to simulate a realistic conversational experience for the Shopper and Seller." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 408, + 463 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 408, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 408, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 SalesOps Actors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In SalesOps, the two actors – the Seller and the Shopper – can either be simulated by an LLM-based system or enacted by a person such as a sales professional or crowd worker. We briefly introduce the considerations for each actor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Seller has access to the Product Catalog and Buying Guide during a SalesOps conversation, corresponding roughly to 65 paragraphs which is a large amount of content both for humans and a system enacting the role. We estimate that a human enacting this role would require roughly 30 minutes at an average reading speed of 200 words per minute to read all the content. In our experiments with professional salespeople, they were each provided a period of reading time to get familiar with the content prior to participating in conversations. In our automated Seller implementation, we leverage a retrieval system to efficiently provide the content to the LLM components with limited context lengths." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 178, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 178, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 178, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 178, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://bestbuy.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 230, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 230, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 230, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://wwwconsumerreports.org/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 474, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 474, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 474, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^\\mathrm{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 474, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sentence-transformers/ paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet-base-v2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9826" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix D goes over the SalesOps Seller User Interface, built using the Mephisto library (Urbanek and Ringshia, 2023). The interface is extended for several aspects: (1) contains the Buying Guide and a search interface to the Product Catalog, (2) the Seller must select which paragraphs of the Buying Guide they are leveraging in crafting their response (if any), (3) the post-chat questionnaire which asks to select utterances where Shopper revealed their preferences and rate the conversation partner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 290, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 290, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 290, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During a chat, we further log all product search queries. As a result, the metadata generated when implementing the SalesOps framework can be useful for tasks beyond the CRS setting, such as knowledge-grounded response generation, conversational summarization, and query generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 291, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 291, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 291, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the other hand, the Shopper is only provided with the product category they are tasked with shopping for at the initial stage of a SalesOps chat. Shopping preferences are revealed based on the Seller's questioning as the conversation unfolds. The Shopper interface, presented in Appendix D requires fewer adaptations of Mephisto than the Seller interface: (1) we repurpose one-sided \"Coordinator\" messages to reveal Shopping Preferences during the conversation, and (2) when a product recommendation is suggested by the Seller, the Shopper interface displays buttons to accept or reject the item." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 196, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 196, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 196, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Bots Implementation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now present ShopperBot and SalesBot, the LLM-based implementations (ChatGPT in our experiment) that can simulate both sides of the SalesOps framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 151, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 151, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 151, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 ShopperBot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ShopperBot's goal is to generate responses in accordance with the provided set of preferences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", consisting of several question-answer pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q - a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We achieve this objective by prompting LLMs with (a) natural language instruction to act as a shopper seeking [PRODUCT] (e.g., a TV), (b) a list of currently revealed shopping preferences, and (c) the chat history, at every turn in the conversation. Full prompt can be seen in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When the latest seller's utterance includes a recommendation of an item, ShopperBot is instructed to include [ACCEPT] or [REJECT] token in its reply. It will base this decision on the whole set of preferences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to ensure consistency with the simulated" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 516, + 296 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 516, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 516, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 516, + 296 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2125bcc93444a4b847cc378fed306278c55505e84c5dc0235c2327294f752c1d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: SalesBot architecture to generate a Seller response, based on two Content Elements and the conversation history. LLM-based modules are in yellow." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 524, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 524, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 524, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scenario - i.e., if too few preferences were revealed at this point in the conversation, we do not want the shopper to accept an item that would not satisfy the whole set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 524, + 418 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 524, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 524, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We note that the Shopping Preferences are far from a comprehensive listing of all questions that could occur when shopping for a complex product category. The ShopperBot is instructed to make its own decisions when choices are not in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (e.g., the preferred color of a coffee machine) and fluently converse with the Seller." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitatively, we have confirmed in our experiments that ShopperBot can provide subjective and unique preferences, realistically simulating a human shopper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 371, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 371, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 371, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 SalesBot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 524, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 524, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 524, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SalesBot has access to two main external tools - 1) knowledge search and 2) product search. As shown in Figure 3, it generates dialogue responses using a series of modules. Each module is an independent component of the overall system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 675, + 412, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 675, + 412, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 675, + 412, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.1 Action Decision" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This module decides which tool to use based on the current conversation history. Selecting from the following: Knowledge Search (details in section 4.2.2), Product Search (details in section 4.2.3), Response Generation (details in section 4.2.4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We query an LLM to make this choice and pro" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9827" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "vide natural language instructions on when to use each of the available tools in our prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 108, + 190, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 108, + 190, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 108, + 190, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.2 Knowledge Search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge Search module's main purpose is to educate the user by incorporating expert domain knowledge into the conversation. It is made up of two components: 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We ask the LLM to generate a query based on the chat history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 290, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 290, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 290, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then use a FAISS retriever to lookup relevant knowledge article paragraphs (Johnson et al., 2019). We concatenate top 3 paragraphs (separated by \"\\n\\n\") and feed it as external knowledge to the Response Generation module described in section 4.2.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 175, + 311 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 175, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 175, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.3 Product Search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Product Search module's goal is finding relevant items to recommend to the user. Similar to the above, this module is made up of 1) query generation, and 2) retrieval. We embed each product's information (i.e., title, description, price, and feature list) using the Sentence Transformer model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and retrieve the top 4 products based on the query embedding (obtained using the same model). Same as in Knowledge Search, we concatenate the results. Note that in some cases, we may not need all 4 products, for example, if the shopper asked a follow-up question about a certain product, the response should not include all 4 retrieved items. We leave it up to the Response Generation module to determine which products should be mentioned based on the chat history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 203, + 556 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 203, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 203, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.4 Response Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the Action Decision module, response generation can either include external information (e.g., buying guide excerpts, product information) or not. We thus, write two separate prompts to respond to the shopper. Response Generation with External Knowledge is based on: Chat History, Action Selected, Query Generated, Retrieved Results. Response Generation without External Knowledge is based solely on the chat history." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 290, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 290, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 290, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We additionally implement a Regeneration submodule to rewrite the final response if needed. We place a limit on max_tokensgenerated when prompting the LLM and ask it to rewrite the previously generated response if it was cut off due" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to length. This forces SalesBot's responses to be concise and contain full sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 109, + 425, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 109, + 425, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 109, + 425, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Evaluation Criteria" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Along with the SalesOps framework, we propose a multi-dimensional evaluation that defines success for the Seller along three axes: (1) recommendation quality, which verifies whether the recommendations of the Seller are compatible with the Shopper's preferences, (2) informativeness, which checks whether the Seller provides educational value to the Shopper, and (3) fluency which evaluates the Seller's ability to communicate professionally and concisely. We next define the metrics - both automatic and manual - used to evaluate each axis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 295, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 295, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 295, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent work shows the promise of using LLMs for evaluation across many NLP tasks (Liu et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Laban et al., 2023). Following this thread of work, we leverage GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) for automatic evaluation purposes in several of our proposed metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 450, + 400 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 450, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 450, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Recommendation Quality" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Accurate recommendations that match shopper preferences are a core expectation of CRS. The authors of the paper manually annotated each product category and its 10 corresponding Shopping Preferences for all acceptable product recommendations as the ground truth. On average, a given shopping preference configuration yielded 4 acceptable products from a product catalog of 30 items. Thus, for a completed SalesOps conversation, we compute recommendation accuracy (Rec)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 405, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 405, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 405, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Informativeness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 524, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 524, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 524, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose two metrics to measure the informativeness of the Seller during a conversation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we leverage an NLI-based model to measure the content overlap between the Seller's utterances and the buying guide, as such model has been shown to perform competitively on tasks involving factual similarity (Laban et al., 2022; Fabbri et al., 2022). Specifically, we calculate the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the buying guide sentences that are entailed at least once by a seller utterance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Inf_{e})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, we assess the shopper's knowledge through a quiz that we designed which consists of 3 multiple-choice questions that can be answered using the buying guide (examples in Appendix C. We then ask crowd-workers to an-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 264, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 264, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 264, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9828" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
AgentFlu e ↑Flu i ↑Inf e ↑Rec ↑
Ada-RG1.410.000.160.16
Rule-AD4.820.590.860.40
Key-QG4.970.720.710.36
No-ReGen4.990.850.740.47
SalesBot4.990.910.740.44
", + "image_path": "cd610bf911964b1cd81861b43fca3511a6e5bd6cde5a7df2f7954533d3458d3f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 193 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Results of the ablation study of SalesBot components using GPT4-based evaluation metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "swer each knowledge question solely considering the conversation, with the option of choosing \"Cannot answer based on the conversation\". We report the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of correct answers on the knowledge questions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Inf_{q})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 132, + 311 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 132, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 132, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Fluency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 289, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 289, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 289, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We frame two questions to measure the fluency and professionalism of the Seller:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Flu_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": How would you rate the salesperson's communication skills? (scale: 1-5)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 289, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 289, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 289, + 400 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Flu_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 289, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": Do you think the seller in the given chat is: (i) human or (ii) a bot? (Yes/No)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 290, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform annotation for the two fluency metrics both manually by recruiting crowd-workers (see Appendix C) as well as by prompting GPT-4 to answer both questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 166, + 485 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 166, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 166, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SalesBot contains 4 LLM-based components, which we swap with baselines to understand the impact of using an LLM for each component." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 139, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 139, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 139, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 254, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 254, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 254, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement four ablations of SalesBot:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 290, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ada-RG We replace ChatGPT with the smaller GPT3 text-ada-001 model in the response generation module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 290, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rule-AD We replace the Action Decision module with a rule-based system: select the \"Knowledge\" action for the first 6 turns, and the \"Recommend\" action afterwards." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Key-QG We replace Query Generation modules with a keyword method: extract five keywords from the latest utterance and concatenate them as a query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No-ReGen We experiment with removing Regeneration module from response generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 365, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 365, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 365, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We generated 150 conversations on the six product categories between ShopperBot and the five versions of SalesBots, and computed automatic results which are summarized in Table 1. Overall, the use of an LLM is most crucial in the Response Generation component but is beneficial across all components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 525, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 184, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Replacing ChatGPT with a smaller LLM in the Response Generation component leads to the largest degradation across the board, confirming that smaller models are unable to handle the complex task of tying together the conversation history and external knowledge to generate a concise, coherent, fluent, and informative response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 524, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 524, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 524, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The rule-based action decision module leads to improved informativeness (as the system relies more heavily on the knowledge action), at the cost of fluency and recommendation quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 525, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 525, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 525, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The keyword-based retrieval ablation leads to lower a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 525, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 525, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " decrease in recommendation quality, confirming that generation of retrieval queries benefits from the generative flexibility of an LLM. Finally, adding the regeneration component leads to a boost in fluency, at the cost of a minor recommendation quality drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a result, we recommend that designers of conversational agents: (1) Leverage LLMs in Response Generation, (2) Integrate Generative Flexibility in Retrieval Queries, and (3) Utilize Regeneration for Improved Fluency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 443, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 443, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 443, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Salespeople vs SalesBot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We aim to study the qualitative differences between SalesBot and professional salespeople to comprehend the effect of deploying such systems in real-world settings (Guo et al., 2023), and perform an extensive human evaluation of SalesBot and Salespeople within the SalesOps framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 415, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 415, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 415, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7.1 Experiment Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We recruit 15 professional salespeople across a diverse set of industries (e.g., insurance, retail, B2B sales) through UserInterviews " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". They were given a 1-hour onboarding session covering the SalesOps framework, reading a Buying Guide and Product Catalog, and completing warmup conversations. Participants then completed up to 15 SalesOps conversations with ShopperBot, which took an average of 3 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 461, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 461, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 461, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6https://www.userinterviews.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9829" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 222 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 280, + 222 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Statistics (avg)#
Nb. words of Seller utterance62.535.3
Nb. words of Shopper utterance20.820.7
Nb. of turns11.912.9
Nb. turns before the first rec.6.07.9
Nb. of recommendations2.62.4
Nb. of triggered revelations1.72.8
% Correct recommendations (Rec)4454
Information Quiz Score (Infq)32.931.8
Fluency Score (Fluε)4.44.2
% Is Human (Flui)5580
", + "image_path": "96f609f37e5cd4b4840b8d1055b54ed5fc4091e769d08436f0c50f939c58e74b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of SalesBot and Salesperson on conversation statistics (top) and human evaluation metrics (bottom)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In parallel, we generated 150 SalesOps conversations between SalesBot and ShopperBot for the same set of preferences. Unlike the ablation study in which we perform the evaluation with GPT-4, we recruit crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete evaluation (interface in Appendix C)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 380, + 130, + 392 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 380, + 130, + 392 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 380, + 130, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7.2 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 presents statistics and evaluation results of the comparison between professional Salespeople and SalesBot. Overall, SalesBot's utterances are almost twice as long. It makes its first recommendation earlier and makes slightly more recommendations in total than professional salespeople." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Looking at the human evaluation, crowd workers were largely able to distinguish between SalesBot and professionals, as they were much more likely to believe the Seller was human for professionals (80%) than for SalesBot (55%), yet SalesBot achieved a higher Likert fluency score. This is likely due to salespeople acting more casual in conversations, making occasional typos which come across as less professional." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, even though professionals write utterances that are nearly half the length, they achieve higher recommendation quality and almost equal informativeness. This pair of results confirms that there is still a large gap between LLMs and professional salespeople with respect to conciseness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 693, + 153, + 706 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 693, + 153, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 693, + 153, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7.3 Faithfulness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 291, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 291, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 291, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In absolute terms, both SalesBot and Salespeople achieve low rates of correct recommendations (< 55%). We perform a qualitative analysis of failure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 500, + 87 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 500, + 87 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 500, + 87 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-4 Explanation of Unfaithful Content" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 526, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Salesperson. The salesperson incorrectly mentioned that the Cuisinart DCC-3200P1 has a hot water dispenser, which is not mentioned in the document." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SalesBot. The salesperson incorrectly stated that some drip coffee makers and espresso machines have the option for pre-measured pods or capsules. The document only mentions single-serve coffee makers as having the option for pre-measured pods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Example of GPT4-based detection of unfaithful behavior in both SalesBot and Salespeople." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 280, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 280, + 525, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 280, + 525, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cases and find that there are several reasons for mismatches, including salespeople upselling products (i.e., convincing Shoppers to accept a product beyond their initial budget). We study this phenomenon through the lens of faithfulness analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 525, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 525, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 525, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide GPT-4 with Buying Guides, the Product Catalog and the full conversation, and prompt it with identifying whether the Seller provides advice that is inconsistent with existing information. It detects that for both types of Sellers, roughly one in four chats contains unfaithful claims." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide examples of identified inconsistencies in Table 3. Our findings suggest that while SalesBot may occasionally hallucinate due to known LLM-bound limitations, salespeople can also exhibit unfaithful behavior, usually in the form of (a) upselling and (b) answering follow-up questions without knowing the true answer. Both are motivated by the desire to close the sale; however, this confirms the challenge of evaluating faithfulness in the sales domain, for which successful sales strategies might require unbacked claims." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 381, + 614 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 381, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 381, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper we introduce SalesOps, a flexible framework for simulating realistic CRS scenarios in the context of complex product sales, and propose an evaluation paradigm for such systems. Our framework provides researchers and practitioners with a valuable tool for assessing the effectiveness and performance of conversational agents in sales settings. By developing SalesBot and ShopperBot within this framework, we gain insights into the individual components and their impact on conversational performance. Through a comprehensive" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7https://www.mturk.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9830" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "human study, we identify gaps in product recommendation quality and provide a faithfulness analysis of both automated and human sellers. These contributions advance the understanding and development of CRS, paving the way for improved sales interactions and user experiences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 149, + 176 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 149, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 149, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 290, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we heavily on LLMs to build the conversational agents (SalesBot and ShopperBot) within our framework. While LLMs have shown significant advancements in generating human-like responses and engaging in multi-turn conversations, they still suffer from hallucinations as shown in our faithfulness analysis, and thus impact the overall performance of the system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 289, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 289, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 289, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, our evaluation primarily focuses on three aspects: the quality of the final recommendation, educational value to the shopper, and fluency/professionalism. While these aspects are important, there are other dimensions that could be relevant, such as user satisfaction, persuasion skills, and diversity of recommendations. We leave further exploration into CRS evaluation to future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We limit our evaluation to the chat-based sales experience, even though most sales conversations involving a shopper and a salesperson happen in audio form, either in a physical store or on the phone. Prior work has shown that adapting conversational content to the audio format is non-trivial (Kang and Gretzel, 2012), and requires modifications to remain natural and engaging (Laban et al., 2022). We leave it to future work to further adapt SalesOps and SalesBot to the audio setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 163, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 163, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 163, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethical Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 290, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ethical considerations in this work primarily revolve around the interactions with human participants and the potential implications of deploying conversational agents in real-life settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The study involved 15 professional salespeople who were recruited through User Interviews platform and participated voluntarily. The study aimed to ensure representation and inclusivity in its participant selection process. We recruited individuals of different genders, professionals of all levels (associate, manager, director, VP), and spanning a wide range of age groups from 19 to 65. They received compensation for their time and effort. An onboarding session was conducted to explain the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "task instructions and provide sample chats. Afterward, the participants had the freedom to complete the study at their own pace. Additionally, human evaluation was conducted with Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, who were compensated for their contributions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 527, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 527, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 527, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We discuss the potential impact of deploying conversational agents, such as SalesBot, in real-life scenarios. The study highlights both the strengths and limitations of SalesBot compared to professional salespeople. The evaluation reveals gaps in recommendation quality and examines the challenges of ensuring content faithfulness in the CRS context. We emphasize the importance of considering the implications of generative AI systems in domains like conversational sales, where there several ethical concerns may arise related to upselling and providing factually accurate information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 362, + 351 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 362, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 362, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 358, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 392 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 392 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nolwenn Bernard and Krisztian Balog. 2023. Mghopdial: A multi-goal conversational dataset for e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2304.12636." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 526, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengshan Cai, Hui Wan, Fei Liu, Mo Yu, Hong Yu, and Sachindra Joshi. 2022. Learning as conversation: Dialogue systems reinforced for information acquisition. ArXiv, abs/2205.14748." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 526, + 512 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 526, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 526, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhongxia Chen, Xiting Wang, Xing Xie, Mehul Parsana, Akshay Soni, Xiang Ao, and Enhong Chen. 2020. Towards explainable conversational recommendation. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 521, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 521, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 521, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Deng, Wenqiang Lei, Wai Lam, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A survey on proactive dialogue systems: Problems, methods, and prospects. *ArXiv*, abs/2305.02750." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 575, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 575, + 526, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 575, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jan Deriu, Alvaro Rodrigo, Arantxa Otegi, Guillermo Echegoyen, Sophie Rosset, Eneko Agirre, and Mark Cieliebak. 2021. Survey on evaluation methods for dialogue systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54:755-810." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. QAFactEval: Improved QA-based factual consistency evaluation for summarization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2587-2601, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. ArXiv, abs/2302.04166." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9831" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Yaxin Zhu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Gerard de Melo. 2020. Cookie: A dataset for conversational recommendation over knowledge graphs in e-commerce. ArXiv, abs/2008.09237." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chongming Gao, Wenqiang Lei, Xiangnan He, M. de Rijke, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Advances and challenges in conversational recommender systems: A survey. AI Open, 2:100-126." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. ArXiv, abs/2301.07597." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 289, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 289, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 289, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2019. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M. Kang and U. Gretzel. 2012. Effects of podcast tours on tourist experiences in a national park. *Tourism Management*, 33:440-455." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 289, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 289, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 289, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Seokhwan Kim, Mihail Eric, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2020. Beyond domain APIs: Task-oriented conversational modeling with unstructured knowledge access. In Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 278-289, 1st virtual meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 289, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philippe Laban, John Canny, and Marti A Hearst. 2020. What's the latest? a question-driven news chatbot. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 380-387." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 289, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philippe Laban, Wojciech Kryscinski, Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq R. Joty, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. Llms as factual reasoners: Insights from existing benchmarks and beyond. ArXiv, abs/2305.14540." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 548, + 289, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 548, + 289, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 548, + 289, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLIBased models for inconsistency detection in summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:163-177." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Miaoran Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhu Zhang. 2022. Opera: Harmonizing task-oriented dialogs and information seeking experience. ArXiv, abs/2206.12449." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuo Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. ArXiv, abs/2303.16634." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards conversational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zeming Liu, Jun Xu, Zeyang Lei, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, and Hua Wu. 2022. Where to go for the holidays: Towards mixed-type dialogs for clarification of user goals. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1024-1034, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 236 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Chien-Sheng Wu, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Mem2Seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1468-1478, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 188-197, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 525, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 525, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 525, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Papenmeier, Alexander Frummet, and Dagmar Kern. 2022. \"mhm...\" - conversational strategies for product search assistants. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR '22, page 36-46, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Lidén, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback. ArXiv, abs/2302.12813." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 525, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 525, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 525, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv e-prints." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuhui Ren, Tong Chen, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Li zhen Cui, Zi-Liang Huang, and Hongzhi Yin. 2023. Explicit knowledge graph reasoning for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2305.00783." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. ArXiv, abs/2302.04761." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Sekulic, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Fabio A. Crestani. 2022. Evaluating mixed-initiative conversational search systems via user simulation. Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9832" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur D. Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 235 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, W.K.F. Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur D. Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. ArXiv, abs/2208.03188." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 291, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yueming Sun and Yi Zhang. 2018. Conversational recommender system. The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 291, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam M. Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, HengTze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, Yaguang Li, Hongrae Lee, Huaixiu Zheng, Amin Ghafouri, Marcelo Menegali, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, James Qin, Dehao Chen, Yuanzhong Xu, Zhifeng Chen, Adam Roberts, Maarten Bosma, Yanqi Zhou, Chung-Ching Chang, I. A. Krivokon, Willard James Rusch, Marc Pickett, Kathleen S. Meier-Hellstern, Meredith Ringel Morris, Tulsee Doshi, Renelito Delos Santos, Toju Duke, Johnny Hartz Søraker, Ben Zevenbergen, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Ben Hutchinson, Kristen Olson, Alejandra Molina, Erin Hoffman-John, Josh Lee, Lora Aroyo, Ravindran Rajakumar, Alena Butryna, Matthew Lamm, V. O. Kuzmina, Joseph Fenton, Aaron Cohen, Rachel Bernstein, Ray Kurzweil, Blaise Aguera-Arcas, Claire Cui, Marian Croak, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Quoc Le. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. ArXiv, abs/2201.08239." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 290, + 571 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 290, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 290, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jack Urbanek and Pratik Ringshia. 2023. Mephisto: A framework for portable, reproducible, and iterative crowdsourcing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 579, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 579, + 291, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 579, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bingbing Wen, Xiaoning Bu, and Chirag Shah. 2022. Egcr: Explanation generation for conversational recommendation. ArXiv, abs/2208.08035." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018a. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07243." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tong Zhang, Yong Liu, Peixiang Zhong, Chen Zhang, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Kecrs: Towards knowledge-enriched conversational recommendation system. ArXiv, abs/2105.08261." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongfeng Zhang, Xu Chen, Qingyao Ai, Liu Yang, and W. Bruce Croft. 2018b. Towards conversational search and recommendation: System ask, user response. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 94 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conference on Information and Knowledge Management." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2021. Crfr: Improving conversational recommender systems via flexible fragments reasoning on knowledge graphs. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9833" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 236, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 236, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 236, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Product Catalog Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each product domain, we automatically generate Product Catalog following the procedure in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 121, + 174, + 132 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 121, + 174, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 121, + 174, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Product Name Gen." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 396, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 396, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 396, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generate a list of top 30 [PRODUCT_NAME] options in the following format:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 141, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 141, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 141, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"name\":...}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 162, + 501, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 162, + 501, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 162, + 501, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Include a diverse list of options with different brands, sizes, price points for a variety of customers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 180, + 192, + 191 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 180, + 192, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 180, + 192, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Product Metadata Gen." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 524, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 524, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 194, + 524, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generate product description, features, and price based on the product name. Output should be in the following json format:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 185, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 185, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 185, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 185, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ \"name\": \"...\". \"price\": \"...\". \"description\": \"...\". \"features\": [... ] }" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 8, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "json" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 525, + 507 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 314, + 389, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 314, + 389, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 314, + 389, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Product Catalog Generation Prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 340, + 384, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 340, + 384, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 340, + 384, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An example of the resulting product metadata is presented in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 525, + 507 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
nameSamsung 55" Class S95B OLED 4K Smart Tizen TV
price$1,699.99
descriptionSamsung OLED TV changes the game again with 8.3 million self lit pixels and ultra powerful 4K AI Neural Processing, all for a picture so real, it's surreal. Add on Dolby Atmos® sound built in, the latest Smart TV apps, and a LaserSlim design and get a viewing experience that's intensely cinematic.
features["55 inch", "OLED Technology", "Neural Quantum Processor with 4K Upscaling", "Smart Calibration", "Connectivity with Bluetooth, RF, Wi-Fi, USB, HDMI, Ethernet (LAN), Digital Audio Out x 1 (Optical)", "Supported internet services: Netflix, Google TV, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube, Browser"]
", + "image_path": "986bd9b77f44836be13857bae82da48d8ce5ee435e33f0bfc59ab236ee9d416a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 516, + 411, + 528 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 516, + 411, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 516, + 411, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Product Metadata Example for the TV category." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 552, + 189, + 565 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 552, + 189, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 552, + 189, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B ShopperBot Design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 574, + 133, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 574, + 133, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 574, + 133, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 509, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 509, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 509, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are shopping online for a {product}. You haven't done your research on this product and want to speak to a salesperson over chat to learn more and make an informed decision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 193, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 193, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 193, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Follow these rules:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 514, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 514, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 514, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Chat with the salesperson to learn more about {product}. They will be acting as a product expert, helping you make an informed purchasing decision. They may ask you questions to narrow down your options and find a suitable product recommendation for you." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 508, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 508, + 759 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 508, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Use your assigned preferences and incorporate them in your responses when appropriate, but do not reveal them to the salesperson right away or all at once. Only share a maximum of 1 assigned preference with the salesperson at a time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 761, + 363, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 761, + 363, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 761, + 363, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Let the salesperson drive the conversation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9834" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 521, + 260 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 502, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 502, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 502, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Ask questions when appropriate. Be curious and try to learn more about {product} before making your decision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 416, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 416, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 416, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Be realistic and stay consistent in your responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 521, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 521, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 521, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- When the salesperson makes a recommendation, you'll see product details with 'ACCEPT' and 'REJECT' in the message. Please consider whether the product satisfies your assigned preferences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 509, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 509, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 509, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- If the recommended product meets your needs, generate [ACCEPT] token in your response. For example, \"[ACCEPT] Thanks, I'll take it!\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 508, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 508, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 508, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- If the recommended product is not a good fit, let the salesperson know (e.g. \"this is too expensive\")" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 514, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 514, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 514, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- If you're not sure about the recommended product, ask follow-up questions (e.g. \"could you explain the benefit of this feature?\")" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 389, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 389, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 389, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Do not generate more than 1 response at a time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 239, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 239, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 239, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your assigned preferences:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 288, + 155, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 288, + 155, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 288, + 155, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{preferences}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 476, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 476, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 476, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Follow the above rules to generate a reply using your assigned preferences and the conversation history below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 207, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 207, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 207, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conversation history:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 161, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 161, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 161, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{chat_history}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 121, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 121, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 121, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shopper :" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 157, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 157, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 157, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.2 Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 412, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 412, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 412, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4 highlights ShopperBot's key components and the overall design flow." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 460, + 368, + 675 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 460, + 368, + 675 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 460, + 368, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 460, + 368, + 675 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3bb491ee4f648f7277896b0d54352f290678c0d2646ab3ebe15fc0c4173a9df3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 682, + 499, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 682, + 499, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 682, + 499, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: ShopperBot architecture to generate a response based on the selected shopping preferences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 264, + 736 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 264, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 264, + 736 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Human Evaluation Questionnaire" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We recruit 150 crowd workers from Amazon MTurk to complete a survey. The user interface is presented in Figure 5. Examples of True/False quiz questions per product category are shown in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9835" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 203, + 104, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 203, + 104, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 203, + 104, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Survey" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 220, + 113, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 220, + 113, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 220, + 113, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MTurk WorkerID:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 234, + 111, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 234, + 111, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 234, + 111, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "X430YABCD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 251, + 242, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 251, + 242, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 251, + 242, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer the questions based on the chat transcript on the right" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 269, + 127, + 279 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 269, + 127, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 269, + 127, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Communication]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 284, + 202, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 284, + 202, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 284, + 202, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How would you rate salesperson's communication skills?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 298, + 111, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 298, + 111, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 298, + 111, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 - Excellent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 316, + 146, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 316, + 146, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 316, + 146, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Do you think the salesperson is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 330, + 97, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 330, + 97, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 330, + 97, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 348, + 138, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 348, + 138, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 348, + 138, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Do you think the shopper is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 362, + 97, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 362, + 97, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 362, + 97, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 381, + 128, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 381, + 128, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 381, + 128, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Informativeness]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 396, + 257, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 396, + 257, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 396, + 257, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 415, + 171, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 415, + 171, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 415, + 171, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cannot answer based on the chat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 415, + 198, + 423 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 415, + 198, + 423 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 415, + 198, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 415, + 198, + 423 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1b2958566df4551a38d4bfdaa77a15eff16026631feccd1a7802ab683013e01c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 415, + 228, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 415, + 228, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 415, + 228, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 430, + 244, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 430, + 244, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 430, + 244, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 430, + 244, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "120\\mathrm{Hz}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 430, + 244, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 457, + 171, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 457, + 171, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 457, + 171, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cannot answer based on the chat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 178, + 457, + 197, + 465 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 457, + 197, + 465 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 457, + 197, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 457, + 197, + 465 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a230caf1284b9007e40f6383922282ccc108fd8f1c71ab14f3ac006d8213cca8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 457, + 228, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 457, + 228, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 457, + 228, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 472, + 267, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 472, + 267, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 472, + 267, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 484, + 171, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 484, + 171, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 484, + 171, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cannot answer based on the chat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 178, + 484, + 197, + 491 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 484, + 197, + 491 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 484, + 197, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 484, + 197, + 491 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fa36f78f6be50de823bf3c0d11b9aa91bd64807c05a8fc306c341295b3c1047d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 207, + 634, + 386, + 647 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 207, + 634, + 386, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 207, + 634, + 386, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Human Evaluation User Interface." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 484, + 228, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 484, + 228, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 211, + 484, + 228, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 500, + 159, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 500, + 159, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 500, + 159, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Product Recommendation]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 515, + 111, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 515, + 111, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 515, + 111, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Preferences:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 528, + 255, + 621 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 528, + 255, + 621 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 528, + 255, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 528, + 255, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ \"What is your budget?\" : \"around $2,000\" \"What size TV are you looking for?\" : \"a large size, maybe between 65 and 75 inches\" \"Is image quality a priority for you?\" : \"very important\" \"Do you have any preferred brands?\" : \"I like LG or Samsung\" \"Does your space have a lot of natural light?\" : \"yes\" }" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 26, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 271, + 202, + 362, + 214 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 271, + 202, + 362, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 271, + 202, + 362, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sales Chat Transcript" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 271, + 219, + 467, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 271, + 219, + 467, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 271, + 219, + 467, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please read the chat below carefully, before answering questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 274, + 232, + 287, + 251 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 232, + 287, + 251 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 232, + 287, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 232, + 287, + 251 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bcb4d1925286fbc9c45306102fd70db178fd7ea6b822805c339d23a4a80ac411.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 401, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 401, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 238, + 401, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hi! How can I help you this afternoon?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 267, + 491, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 267, + 491, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 267, + 491, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hi there! I'm actually shopping for a new TV and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for. Can you tell me a bit more about the different types of TVs you have available?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 264, + 517, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 264, + 517, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 264, + 517, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 264, + 517, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4aa1b72ba607ecde919e8c48054c954a28601a6e863dcff269de71a46b889afc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 274, + 307, + 287, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 307, + 287, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 307, + 287, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 307, + 287, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d5c3bc8be4ce30a712f59de18c783f2520c6a924013880e86e28dc52b55ceec7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 313, + 464, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 313, + 464, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 313, + 464, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Certainly! Choosing what size of TV to buy is based on your personal size preference, your room size, and your mounting options. You'll want to keep in mind the width and weight of the TV as that can affect whether you can mount it on your wall or you need an entertainment stand. Televisions can be as small as about 30 inches and as large as 80 inches (or more!). Do you have a size in mind?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 395, + 491, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 395, + 491, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 395, + 491, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I'm thinking something on the larger side, maybe between 65 and 75 inches. What options do you have in that size range?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 391, + 517, + 407 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 391, + 517, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 391, + 517, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 391, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "afedefc7aad4e826edf316548f9c7ea56601a3be42c2214651562969f2ab1e2c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 274, + 427, + 287, + 446 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 427, + 287, + 446 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 427, + 287, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 427, + 287, + 446 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "902b5ec44bf995b25253e8d3c425d8f3b07678afe7c3a8a364feb0360d2a4e01.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 456, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 456, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 456, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I have TV's ranging in price from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 456, + 451 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "749 to" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 456, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9,999 in that size range. What will you be using the TV for mostly?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 470, + 491, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 470, + 491, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 470, + 491, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Well, I'm a bit of a picky shopper and I want to make sure I get something that will last a while. I watch a lot of movies and some sports, so I want something with good picture quality and a high refresh rate. Do you have any recommendations that might fit those preferences?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 467, + 517, + 483 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 467, + 517, + 483 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 467, + 517, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 504, + 467, + 517, + 483 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b1452b22783ac4b8084599126a53cf0ceb7f637cdd99dcb0952ad801ae483be8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 274, + 528, + 287, + 547 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 528, + 287, + 547 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 528, + 287, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 528, + 287, + 547 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "edcd6151f6e47a120cb46f24dd13a47a3d7a542597d151267d328a98911df132.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 534, + 465, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 534, + 465, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 534, + 465, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This 65 inch LG has a 120hz refresh rate that would be GREAT for watching movies and sports!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 274, + 568, + 287, + 583 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 568, + 287, + 583 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 568, + 287, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 568, + 287, + 583 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ee4feab2a655e98a1a3452efa7703ea861f48fc8f5ee10cbf60e5c1b2e61de9c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 43 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 571, + 454, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 571, + 454, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 571, + 454, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Product Name: LG - 65\" Class NanoCell 99 Series LED 8K UHD Smart webOS TV" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 44 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 590, + 345, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 590, + 345, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 590, + 345, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Price: $1,799.99" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 598, + 460, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 598, + 460, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 598, + 460, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Description: Experience everything in more detail with LG NanoCell 8K. LG's most advanced 8K AI processor optimizes composition, black, light and color in every scene, while the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9836" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 48 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Product CategoryQuestionAnswer
TVThe resolution of a TV refers to the number of vertical pixels or dots that make up the TV's picture.T
A 4K TV with an OLED display technology and a refresh rate of 120Hz will generally have a better picture quality than a 1080p TV with an LCD display technology and a refresh rate of 60Hz.T
TVs with bigger screens always have better sound quality.F
Vacuum CleanersA canister vacuum is best suited for a large home with multiple floors and different types of flooring.T
If you have pets, it's important to choose a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to capture pet hair and dander.T
Stick vacuums are not suitable for cleaning homes with stairs.F
MattressMemory foam mattresses mold to the shape of your body.T
Gel memory foam mattresses are ideal for hot sleepers who want to stay cool at night.T
A mattress with more coils is always better than a mattress with fewer coils.F
GuitarThe acoustic guitar is the most common guitar for first-time buyers.T
Acoustic guitars are self-amplified instruments that come in a variety of sizes, and the most common shape is the Parlor.F
Acoustic-electric guitars are the easiest way to perform with an acoustic guitar, and they always come with an integrated pickup system.F
LaptopA laptop with a larger screen size is always better for gaming.F
A laptop with a dedicated graphics card is unnecessary for basic office tasks.T
An SSD provides faster storage than an HDD.T
Coffee MakersDrip coffee makers are ideal for making coffee for one person.F
Single-serve coffee makers are convenient because they require no measurement of coffee grinds or water.T
Espresso machines can only make espresso shots.F
", + "image_path": "cc53bd7af42b8fd10bb8ca09263c201a126829e241adaa1f6ebf9b05f7ad2122.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 358, + 409, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 358, + 409, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 358, + 409, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: True/False quiz questions per product category." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 277, + 404 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 277, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 277, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D SalesOps Framework User Interface" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the SalesOps Framework's User Interface in Figure 6, displaying both the Seller View (a) and the Shopper view (b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9837" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 178, + 526, + 624 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 178, + 526, + 624 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 178, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 178, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2eaeac8e22ab69f79831705d025785478ac74511c29c440f744bdf826b7a4904.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 263, + 627, + 330, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 263, + 627, + 330, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 263, + 627, + 330, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Shopper View" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 648, + 390, + 661 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 648, + 390, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 648, + 390, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: SalesOps Framework User Interface." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9838" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_content_list.json b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d8ef000690a876cce8851ffcfe89673d848abbd --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1760 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scaling Law for Document-Level Neural Machine Translation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 176, + 83, + 818, + 104 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhuocheng Zhang $^{1,2}$ , Shuhao Gu $^{1,2}$ , Min Zhang $^{3}$ , Yang Feng $^{1,2*}$", + "bbox": [ + 231, + 112, + 774, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing,", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 131, + 724, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS)", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 148, + 818, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 253, + 164, + 747, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ School of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, China", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 181, + 791, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "zhangzhuocheng20z@ict.ac.cn", + "bbox": [ + 357, + 198, + 633, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "shuhaog515@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 394, + 215, + 598, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "zhangminmt@hotmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 383, + 231, + 608, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "fengyang@ict.ac.cn", + "bbox": [ + 403, + 248, + 588, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 286, + 339, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The scaling laws of language models have played a significant role in advancing large language models. However, the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation remains unclear. In order to promote the development of document-level neural machine translation, we systematically examine the scaling laws in this field. In this paper, we carry out an in-depth analysis of the influence among three factors on translation quality: model scale, data scale, and maximum sequence length. Our results indicate that all three factors have a significant impact on model performance. In particular, increasing the maximum sequence length effectively reduces the context-related errors and improves the overall translation quality. Nevertheless, the sequence length cannot be increased indefinitely, as the number of parameters limits the optimal sequence length. Specifically, we propose a formula describing the empirical scaling law between the model size and the optimal sequence length. Our further analysis shows that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation by extending the sequence length.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 313, + 460, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 709, + 258, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Neural machine translation (NMT) (Bahdanau et al., 2014) has made great progress in recent years (Barrault et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2022). However, as the input text exceeds a single sentence, sentence-level NMT methods will fail to capture discourse phenomena, such as pronominal anaphora, lexical consistency, and document coherence. In contrast, document-level neural machine translation (DNMT) (Maruf et al., 2021) aims to improve translation consistency and coherence", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 736, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3d0d4a8c4e35ce2177649153a93c3d31353d0cd67cd62e365ab54dd6bdcc5876.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The key factors affecting the translation quality of document-level neural machine translation." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 290, + 873, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "by leveraging contextual information beyond the sentence being translated. Different from previous sentence-by-sentence DNMT methods, which employ an additional context encoder to capture the discourse information (Chen et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018), recent studies have shown that the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is able to translate multiple sentences directly (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022), referred to as document-by-document translation method. These works demonstrated that increasing the granularity of translation from sentence to document is able to further reduce the context-dependent errors encountered by sentence-level translation methods, such as misinterpretation of pronouns (Müller et al., 2018) and lexical inconsistency (Jiang et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 447, + 884, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although has been widely explored, the mechanism of DNMT has not been fully investigated. For example, previous document-by-document DNMT methods are trained on a fixed maximum sequence length, i.e. the document longer than the maximum sequence will be split into smaller segments, and whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the performance of the model still remains to be investigated. Additionally, as the sequence length grows, the difficulty of modeling the contextual information increases further, and whether more training data is needed remains to be explored. Furthermore, the scale of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 280, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8290", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8290-8303", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "model parameters is among the most crucial factors affecting the quality of sentence-level NMT methods and is widely studied by the scaling law of neural machine translation (Ghorbani et al., 2021; Ott et al., 2018), but how this factor affects the performance of the DNMT model remains unclear. Finally, it remains an open question whether these factors will interact with each other.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To answer the questions above, we conduct massive experiments, specifically investigating the impacts of three key factors: corpus size, model scale, and maximum sequence length. In addition, we explore the joint effect of these factors. Our findings suggest that all three factors are closely related to the performance of the DNMT model and enlarging the maximum sequence length effectively improves the ability of the DNMT model to capture the contextual information. However, the sequence length can not be increased infinitely as the translation quality begins to drop when the sequence length exceeds a certain limit. Surprisingly, our experimental result shows that this limitation is proportional to the logarithm of the number of model parameters. Our further analysis demonstrates that determining the optimal maximum sequence length requires striking a balance between capturing additional contextual information and managing accumulated errors during auto-regressive decoding. This finding highlights the importance of future research in exploring effective solutions to mitigate this challenge. Furthermore, we find that although the DNMT model is initialized using a pretrained sentence-level translation model, increasing the document-level corpus size can further improve the translation quality. Notably, this improvement increases as the number of model parameters increases. As Figure 1 concludes, our study indicates that the number of model parameters affects the translation quality of DNMT by affecting two key factors: sample efficiency and optimal sequence length. As the number of model parameters increases, both the sample efficiency and the optimal sequence length grow, leading to the performance improvement of the DNMT model.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 214, + 492, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 268, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Document-level Neural Machine Translation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 415, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Document-level neural machine translation has witnessed significant advancements in recent years (Maruf et al., 2021). Miculicich et al. (2018) pro", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 490, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "posed a hierarchical attention mechanism to capture the discourse information while Maruf et al. (2019) employed a selective attention module to select the most relevant information in the context. Lupo et al. (2021) further improved these methods by splitting the sentence into smaller segments to overcome the training sparsity problem. Recently, Tiedemann and Scherrer (2017); Ma et al. (2020) suggest that Transformer has the ability to translate multiple sentences directly, and this document-by-document paradigm further reduce the context related errors. However, the DNMT model may fail to converge if the corpus size is limited and the sequence length is long (Liu et al., 2020). Bao et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2020) proposed to employ attention masks to prevent the overfitting problem, while Sun et al. (2022) proposed a multi-resolution training strategy to smooth the training difficulty of the DNMT model. However, these methods are all based on a fixed sequence length. Whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the translation quality still remains to be investigated.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Scaling Law", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 475, + 653, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Scaling law of language models has been widely studied, and have played a significant role in advancing large language models. Kaplan et al. (2020) proposed that the perplexity of the language model is inversely proportional to the logarithm of the size of the training data and the number of the model parameters. Hoffmann et al. (2022) further optimized this scaling law by taking a larger corpus size into consideration. Recently, Touvron et al. (2023) proposed that the inference overhead should also be considered by the scaling law. In the field of neural machine translation, Ott et al. (2018) proposed that enlarging the data size can further improve the translation quality of NMT models, while Ghorbani et al. (2021) further proposed that the cross-entropy loss is also governed by the power law of model size and data size. These works have greatly accelerated the development of large language models and neural machine translation (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021; Scao et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). However, the existing scaling law of machine translation is based on the cross-entropy loss of the model, which is not directly related to the translation quality. In addition, the effect of contextual information has not been considered in the scaling law of machine", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8291", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 941 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/32f40edfeb4db2f4c1f0a0cb3a97448643a52bbcb577dfccfa9128c2e505c8d8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ArchitectureParamsParams w/o EmbeddingMACs / TokenMACs / Token
Transformer-small48.32M31.54M48.7M67.2M
Transformer-base60.92M44.14M61.5M79.8M
Transformer-big209.92M176.37M210.9M247.5M
Transformer-base-338.85M22.07M39.0M48.2M
Transformer-base-982.99M66.21M83.7M111.2M
Transformer-base-12105.06M88.28M105.9M142.6M
", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 80, + 867, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "translation. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the scaling law of DNMT.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 290, + 485, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experimental setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 334, + 317, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 360, + 260, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture as our DNMT models. To bring our work closer to cutting-edge research, we leverage several improvements on the standard Transformer architecture, including the pre-norm layer normalization (Xiong et al., 2020) and the Gaussian Error Linear Unit (GELU) activation function (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016). To further investigate the impact of different model structures on the quality of document-level translation, we experimented with various model widths and depths. Specifically, the small, base, and big models have 6 layers in both the encoder and decoder. In terms of model width, the small and base models employ an embedding dimension of 512, whereas the large model has an embedding dimension of 1024. Additionally, we employ dimensions of 1024, 2048, and 4096 for the small, base, and big models, respectively, in the feed-forward network. To investigate the model depth on translation quality, we vary the number of layers in the base model from 3 to 12. We use deepspeed $^{1}$ to profile the number of parameters and MACs per token for our model. The statistics of our models are shown in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 489, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 778, + 220, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared to sentence-level bilingual corpus, document-level bilingual datasets are limited in size (Chen et al., 2021). To maximize the corpus size, we combine data from 5 high-quality document-level English-German datasets, including EUbookshop (Skadinš et al., 2014), Open-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 799, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Subtitles (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), Europarl (Koehn, 2005), NewsCommentary, and TildEMODEL (Rozis and Skadin's, 2017), from OPUS2. The only pre-processing step we take is tokenizing the dataset using SentencePiece3 with a joint $32\\mathrm{k}$ vocabulary. To perform early stopping and determine the hyperparameters, we randomly extracted 100 documents from the dataset as the validation set. For the test set, we utilize newstest2020 from the WMT competition. The statistics of the combined dataset are shown in Table 2. In order to further investigate the impact of data scale on the performance of DNMT, we randomly sampled subsets of different sizes from the combined dataset to serve as our training sets. The details of the sampled subsets are shown in Appendix A. In our experiments, we segment the document into different lengths, ranging from 32 to 1024 tokens, to investigate the impact of maximum sequence length on the performance of DNMT. The length distribution of our segmented datasets is shown in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 288, + 884, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/71b246e116058fc4faeabf129b0116730e6c6ca27ba70408ce85e882b40b8405.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: The statistics of the used model. The first column is the model architecture. The second and the third columns show the total number of parameters and the number of parameters without embedding. The fourth and fifth columns show the number of MACs per token at sequence length equal to 32 and 1024, respectively." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
EUbookshop172M9.3M14k
OpenSubtitles136M23M29k
Europarl42M1.8M10k
NewsCommentary8.8M0.4M9.7k
TildeMODEL23M1.6M52k
Combined382M36M115k
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 664, + 882, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: The statistical results of the datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 799, + 882, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://opus.nlpl.eu", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 890, + 657, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://github.com/google/sentencepiece", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 904, + 784, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ https://github.com/microsoft/DeepSpeed", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 391, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8292", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 231, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous researches indicate that training a document-level model based on a sentence-level model yields better results compared to training a document-level model from scratch (Bao et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018). Therefore, we adopt a two-step training strategy. First, we train a sentence-level model by splitting the documents in the corpus into sentences. Then, we finetune the sentence-level model into a DNMT model using the document-level corpus. During training, we use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with $\\beta_{1} = 0.9$ , $\\beta_{2} = 0.98$ , $\\epsilon = 10^{-9}$ , and the learning rate is scheduled using the inverse square root method (Vaswani et al., 2017) with warmup steps of 4000. We use the label smoothed cross-entropy loss (Szegedy et al., 2016) with the smoothing value of 0.1. We conduct all experiments on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs with a maximum of 4096 tokens per GPU. We use half-precision float (fp16) to accelerate the training process (Ott et al., 2018). The dropout and the attention dropout are tuned for every model from $\\{0.1, 0.2, 0.3\\}$ and $\\{0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3\\}$ , respectively. We conduct our experiments using the fairseq toolkit (Ott et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 492, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 519, + 247, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to make the number of generated sentences matches that of the source document, we add an EOS token at the end of each sentence. We use beam-search with beam size 5 for all our experiments. Following previous study (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), we employ document BLEU (d-BLEU) as our document-level metrics, while sentence BLEU (s-BLEU) as our sentence-level metrics. SacreBLEU $^4$ (Post, 2018) was used to calculate the above metrics. In addition, we also employ COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) to evaluate the quality of generated sentences. We conduct each experiment three times with different random seeds, and present the average score for analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 539, + 489, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 260, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we present the results of our experiments. First, we analyze the effect of single factor on the translation quality of DNMT in Section 4.1. Then we investigate the joint effect of multiple factors in Section 4.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 490, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/50bdf7c3a93382ae6eabfb9a9f83f46ebd0d7de190a23e166378872b11e75f5d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Effect of model parameters" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 95, + 695, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/25745e396d088f685459f790f48b82b3335257cf062396c3f8dd3b85b8b49ad6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Effect of model shape", + "Figure 2: The effect of model shape on the performance of DNMT." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 95, + 878, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Effect of Single Factor", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 288, + 732, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first investigated the independent impact of two factors, the model and the data, on the performance of DNMT.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 324, + 882, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of model size. To figure out the most important factor affecting translation quality, we train DNMT systems with different model sizes on the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 2, the performance of DNMT increases as the model size increases. However, the d-BLEU score does not increase linearly with the model depth or the model width. Similar to the previous study (Kaplan et al., 2020), observe an approximately linear relationship between the model's performance and the logarithm of the parameter count. Furthermore, this linearity is more closely related to the number of non-embedding parameters rather than the total number of parameters. These findings suggest that compared to the model width and depth, non-embedding parameters better reflects the translation quality of the DNMT model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 380, + 884, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of Data Scale. To investigate the effect of the data scale on the performance of DNMT, we conduct experiments on different sized subsets of the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 3, the performance of DNMT increases as the data scale increases. Surprisingly, the evaluation shows that regardless of how the model changes, when the number of sentence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. This finding gives us a new understanding of the relationship between data scale and model performance. In addition, the overall trend is consistent with previous studies that there is a power law between model performance and data size (Ghorbani et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 361, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8293", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7f5987d472031f82eede34777d41ff72be493140182056e25028869159626719.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Document BLEU versus the number of parameters. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, which is measured by the number of sentence pairs, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 85, + 480, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Effect of Multiple Factors", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 405, + 363, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To study the interactions between factors, we keep the data scale, model scale, and sequence length fixed separately and investigate the joint impact of the other two factors on translation quality. Specifically, we used the entire dataset to examine the relationship between model scale and maximum sequence length, fixed the model scale as the Transformer-base to study the impact of data scale and maximum sequence length on translation quality, and held the maximum sequence length at 512 to investigate the relationship between model scale and data scale.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 4, the BLEU score generally increases with the sequence length for various model shapes. However, we observe that there is an upper limit to this performance improvement as the length increases. For example, when the sequence length is 512, the BLEU score of the transformer-base is 31.55. However, when the sequence length reaches 1024, the BLEU score decreases to 30.59. This indicates that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for the DNMT model. In addition, we find that this optimal sequence length is closely related to the model size. To illustrate this relationship more clearly, we estimate the location of the optimal sequence length for different model sizes. As the star marker shown in Figure 4, the optimal sequence length and the model scale are positively correlated. This finding", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f62ad91e85b849ee79e93460d64548a8be37e69df82aa1b95796d1f63420251d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and model shape on the performance of DNMT. Different colors represent different model shapes, while the star marker represents the estimated optimal sequence length for different model shapes." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 86, + 877, + 274 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "differs from the previous studies (Press et al., 2021; Beltagy et al., 2020), as they demonstrate that the model's performance consistently increases with an expanding context. We proposed that this is due to the model being influenced by erroneous context in the generation process, i.e. the error accumulation problem, and we further analyze this phenomenon in Section 5.2. In addition, we find that the relationship between optimal sequence length $\\mathbf{L}$ and the parameters of the model can be expressed by the following equation:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 387, + 884, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {L} = a \\log (N) + b. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 621, + 583, + 882, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $N$ is the number of parameters, $a$ and $b$ are constants. We estimate the value of $a$ and $b$ by fitting the data in Figure 4. The estimated value of $a$ is 111, while the estimated value of $b$ is -1399. This indicates that for every increase of 77 tokens in the optimal sequence length, the model parameter size needs to be doubled. This finding is consistent with the previous studies, indicating that a suitable sequence length for the transformer-base model is approximately 512.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 612, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Data Scale. To figure out whether the data scale affects the ability of the transformer model to handle long text, we conduct experiments on different subsets of the combined dataset with different maximum sequence lengths. As shown in Figure 5, under different data scales, the performance of the model generally increases and then decreases with the increase in sequence length. Similar to our find", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8294", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c267a874fff4e4e92e5d687976d744563f6dd67fd571693edf48810059de4273.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and data scale on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different maximum sequence length, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 85, + 480, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ings in Section 4.1, when the data scale is large enough, the performance of DNMT will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. However, although the DNMT models are initialized using a pretrained sentence-level model, the d-BLEU score is lower than the sentence-level NMT model if the data size is limited. In addition, we find that the d-BLEU score is below the sentence-level baseline when the maximum sequence length is 64, even with an adequate amount of data. This is due to the early stopping mechanism terminating the training prematurely when the sequence length is too short. When the maximum sequence length is equal to 128, the BLEU score rises. Surprisingly, the maximum sequence length of 256 is a turning point, where the BLEU score reaches the maximum when the data scale is limited. This indicates that when the document-level corpus size is scarce, we can set the maximum sequence length to 256 in order to maximize the translation quality. In addition, when the maximum sequence length exceeds 512, we observed that the BLEU score shows a declining trend even with further increases in the data scale. This finding further confirms our previous conclusion that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given model.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 401, + 489, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint Effect of Data Scale and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 6, we train DNMT models with different data scales and model sizes with a maximum sequence length of 512. The performance of DNMT increases consistently as the data scale increases. In addition, when the number of sen", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2abed85e3ac7cc36e9b5e942bf3d2126b22e7a9e7d342323af460c9421a95bad.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: The joint effect of data scale and model shape on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, while the dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 86, + 877, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model outperforms the corresponding sentence-level model, which is consistent with our findings in Section 4.1. In contrast, when the data scale is limited, the models with more layers outperform the models with wider widths. For example, the 12-layer transformer-base model performs better than the transformer-large model with 6 layers when the sentence pairs are less than 4 million, even though the number of parameters in the transformer-large model is twice that of the 12-layer transformer-base model. We believe that this is because when the document-level data is limited, the performance of the DNMT model depends more on the parameter initialization, which is dominated by the sentence-level model. This is consistent with previous studies that sentence-level NMT models are more dependent on the model depth rather than width (Mehta et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). However, when the data is sufficient, a model with a larger number of parameters will benefit more than a model with more layers. This indicates that the model's ability to capture context is also related to the model width.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 387, + 884, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 788, + 636, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 The Correlation Between BLEU Score and Cross-Entropy Loss", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 857, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned by Post and Junczys-Dowmunt (2023), The quality assessment of document translation is challenging. In this paper, we demonstrate that the cross-entropy (CE) loss of DNMT model", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8295", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9ca6af9c9391ad91ded122356326c4cb20680d65a5064ad1edaae47ff1bf924c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: The correlation between cross-entropy loss and d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. Different colors represent different maximum sequence length, and the solid line represents the linear regression of this correlation. The coefficient of determination are reported in the legend." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 86, + 480, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "does not adequately capture the quality of translation. To further investigate the relationship between the CE loss and the translation quality, we plot the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. As shown in Figure 7, the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model are weakly correlated, indicating that the loss alone fails to fully depict the translation quality. This finding is inconsistent with the previous study (Ghorbani et al., 2021), which has indicated a substantial association between CE loss and translation quality. In addition, we calculate the coefficient of determination $(R^2)$ of the linear regression model. The $R^2$ decreases as the maximum sequence length grows. We suppose that this is because document-by-document DNMT requires generating longer text, which is more prone to the error accumulation problem, which will be discussed in Section 5.2.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 401, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 The Error Accumulation Problem", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 428, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for the existence of the optimal maximum sequence length and the failure of CE loss to adequately reflect the translation quality, we analyze the translation quality of sentences in different positions in the documents. We selectively extract a subset from the validation set, where DNMT models under-perform the sentence-level counterparts. Then we employ both sentence-level models and document-level models to translate those documents. We split the translated segments into sentences, and gather them into a subset by there", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "position in the document. Then we evaluate each subsets via COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022). The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations is shown in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 8, with the help of contextual information, the translation quality of DNMT model is slightly better than that of the sentence-level model at the beginning of each documents. However, this advantage soon diminishes as the translation proceeds. From the fifth sentence on wards, there has been a growing gap in translation quality between the DNMT model and the sentence-level translation model, which clearly indicates the error accumulation process. This finding demonstrate that the optimal sequence length is actually the trade-off between extra contextual information and the accumulated errors. Interestingly, the gap between the sentence-level model and the document-level model is larger when the model size is smaller, indicating that larger model has a stronger ability to resist the error accumulation problem.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1c47f38f52ec7431b7ae70f91741d6f19c13f5e75cb7e3712b3e88629a77df90.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Context LengthAccuracy
050.06
6067.75
12081.89
25082.26
50082.38
75082.49
100081.96
", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 432, + 818, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: The accuracy of DNMT model on ContraPro test suite. Context length is the number of tokens in the context. Zero context length indicates that the result is from the sentence-level model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 590, + 882, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 The Contrastive Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 673, + 786, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to evaluating the overall translation quality, we also conduct experiments on ContraPro (Müller et al., 2018), a large contrastive test suite extracted from OpenSubtitles 2018 (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), to evaluate the accuracy of translating the English word \"it\". As shown in Table 3, all the DNMT models outperform their sentence-level counterparts, clearly indicating that the DNMT model is able to capture contextual information. As the available context increases, the accuracy of the test suite increases in fluctuation. When the context length exceeds 500, the accuracy of the DNMT model stops increasing, and remains at a high level. This tendency is not completely con-", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 694, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8296", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/75e18f99d97882172f664fd097746939628bbdfc61259d3b36b02250340d8df6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: The COMET score of the translated sentences at different positions in the document. The solid lines represent the estimated trend line of the COMET score. As the model size grows, the gap between the DNMT model and the sentence-level model becomes smaller." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 86, + 401, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fbc3f0fd93d683f6cfdb08ba6d45af2eec39a977a3ce02ca74bc162c6df992a5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 405, + 86, + 638, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/de8f726272842213d1cd6d1c4fc6af7d48dcf94d270006caee361d663e59ad0d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 638, + 86, + 875, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/df89924406aa97c157c252981ce4797efddfb59650f0e634aa5c193c9cd158f9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: The generalization ability of DNMT model. The models are trained with different maximum sequence length." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 332, + 480, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sistent with the trend of d-BLEU score, showing that the overall translation quality is also influenced by factors other than the discourse context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 487, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 The Generalization Ability", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 670, + 376, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In practice, the lengths of input and output sentences may differ from those encountered during the training phase. Therefore, a proficient DNMT model should be capable of handling documents of various lengths and produce accurate translation results. To investigate this, we segment the documents in the test set into different lengths, and evaluate the DNMT models on the segmented test sets. According to Figure 9, when the sequence length during inference is shorter than that during training, the d-BLEU score of DNMT model decreases mildly. This observation shows that Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is capable of handling documents of various lengths within the maximum", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sequence length when finetuned on document-level corpus. Thus it is possible to apply DNMT model to both document-level and sentence-level translation tasks. However, when the inference length exceeds the training length, the performance experiences a sharp drop. We considered that this is because vanilla Transformer lacks length extrapolation ability (Press et al., 2021), which needs to be further investigated in the field of document-level translation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 331, + 884, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 The computation overhead of DNMT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 504, + 853, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As the quadratic computational complexity of the attention mechanisms, the computational requirements of the DNMT models are higher than those of sentence-level models. We report the MACs (Multiply-Accumulate Operations) per token required by the DNMT models in Table 1. Interestingly, we find that even though the sequence length increases from 32 to 1024, which is much longer than the optimal sequence length of transformerbig, the MACs per token increase by only 40 percent. This finding indicates that the computation overhead of the DNMT models during inference is not much higher than the sentence-level models, but the errors encounter by sentence-level translation reduced significantly. Thus it is efficient to employ the DNMT model in practice. We have placed a more detailed derivation in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 884, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 812, + 640, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation. Our findings suggest that the corpus size, model scale and the maximum sequence length all have significant impacts on the translation quality of the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8297", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "model. Different from the scaling law of sentence-level neural machine translation, we find that their exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given DNMT model, and the optimal maximum sequence length is strongly correlated with the number of non-embedding parameters of the DNMT model. We further formulate this correlation with a simple power law. Our additional analysis indicates that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation. In future work, we will investigate how to overcome the error accumulation problem, and extend the optimal sequence length of document-by-document translation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 338, + 309, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our research requires a large number of experiments. Thus, we would like to express our gratitude to the ICT computing platform and the technical service team for providing GPU resources.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 489, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their thorough review and valuable feedback.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 487, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 472, + 220, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although we have conduct massive experiments to explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation, there are still some limitations in our work: (1) over four hundred models were trained, resulting in high energy consumption; (2) due to the limitation of the data size, we are unable to conduct a larger scale experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 637, + 213, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473.", + "Guangsheng Bao, Yue Zhang, Zhiyang Teng, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2021. G-transformer for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14761.", + "Loic Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondrej Bojar, Marta Ruiz Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubesic, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (wmt20). In Conference on Machine Translation." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 659, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer.", + "Linqing Chen, Junhui Li, Zhengxian Gong, Boxing Chen, Weihua Luo, Min Zhang, and Guodong Zhou. 2021. Breaking the corpus bottleneck for context-aware neural machine translation with cross-task pretraining. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2851-2861.", + "Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672.", + "Behrooz Ghorbani, Orhan First, Markus Freitag, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Xavier Garcia, Ciprian Chelba, and Colin Cherry. 2021. Scaling laws for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07740.", + "Dengji Guo, Zhengrui Ma, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Prediction difference regularization against perturbation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7665-7675.", + "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415.", + "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556.", + "Yuchen Eleanor Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, Jian Yang, Haoyang Huang, Rico Sennrich, Ryan Cotterell, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Blonde: An automatic evaluation metric for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11878.", + "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361.", + "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.", + "Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of machine translation summit x: papers, pages 79-86." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8298", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Pierre Lison and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and tv subtitles.", + "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742.", + "Lorenzo Lupo, Marco Dinarelli, and Laurent Besacier. 2021. Divide and rule: Effective pre-training for context-aware multi-encoder translation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17151.", + "Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. A simple and effective unified encoder for document-level machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 3505-3511.", + "Sameen Maruf, André FT Martins, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2019. Selective attention for context-aware neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08788.", + "Sameen Maruf, Fahimeh Saleh, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2021. A survey on document-level neural machine translation: Methods and evaluation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(2):1-36.", + "Sachin Mehta, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Srinivasan Iyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Delight: Deep and light-weight transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00623.", + "Lesly Miculicich, Dhananjay Ram, Nikolaos Pappas, and James Henderson. 2018. Document-level neural machine translation with hierarchical attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01576.", + "Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, Elena Voita, and Rico Sennrich. 2018. A Large-Scale Test Set for the Evaluation of Context-Aware Pronoun Translation in Neural Machine Translation. In WMT 2018, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling.* In *Proceedings of NAACL-HLT* 2019: Demonstrations.", + "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. ArXiv, abs/1806.00187.", + "Maja Popovic. 2015. chrf: character n-gram f-score for automatic mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the tenth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 392-395.", + "Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Matt Post and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2023. Escaping the sentence-level paradigm in machine translation. ArXiv:2304.12959 [cs].", + "Ofir Press, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation.", + "Ricardo Rei, José GC De Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André FT Martins. 2022. Comet-22: Unbabel-ist 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585.", + "Roberts Rozis and Raivis Skadinš. 2017. Tilde model-multilingual open data for eu languages. In Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 263-265.", + "Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Galle, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100.", + "Raivis Skadinš, Jörg Tiedemann, Roberts Rozis, and Daiga Deksne. 2014. Billions of parallel words for free: Building and using the eu bookshop corpus. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 1850-1855.", + "Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, Hao Zhou, Chengqi Zhao, Shujian Huang, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. 2022. Rethinking document-level neural machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3537-3548.", + "Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2818-2826.", + "Jörg Tiedemann and Yves Scherrer. 2017. Neural machine translation with extended context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05943.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention Is" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8299", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762 [cs]. ArXiv: 1706.03762.", + "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax.", + "Hongyu Wang, Shuming Ma, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Dongdong Zhang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Deepnet: Scaling transformers to 1,000 layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00555.", + "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tieyan Liu. 2020. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10524-10533. PMLR.", + "Pei Zhang, Boxing Chen, Niyu Ge, and Kai Fan. 2020. Long-short term masking transformer: A simple but effective baseline for document-level neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1081-1087, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8300", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A The Statistics of Sampled Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 450, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To explore the relationship between translation quality and the data size in Section 4, we sampled the combined dataset with different sizes. The size of the subset is determined by the number of documents, and to ensure experiment reproducibility, each size was sampled three times for averaging the results. The statistics of the sampled datasets are shown in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/876035dd5b90f1200ff811d4633decb50f37b374d240c79cdf808e046d214f1b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 269, + 453, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B The Length Distribution of The Split Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 470, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To conduct experiments with different maximum sequence length, we split the documents into segments with different segment lengths. However, due to the document boundary restrictions, we cannot ensure that all segments have the same length. As shown in Figure 11, the length distribution of the training set becomes more even as the maximum sequence length increases, which allows the model to translate the sentences of arbitrary length within the maximum sequence length.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Estimation of Computational Complexity for Transformer Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 731, + 467, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To gain a clearer understanding of how sequence length affects the computational cost of the model, we take the Transformer base as an example and provide a detailed derivation of the computational requirements for its forward propagation process. To simplify the derivation, we ignore the computational cost of Layer Norm, residual connection, bias, and the softmax. The embedding dimension of the base model is 512 and the hidden state di", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mension is 512. There are 8 attention heads, and each attention head has a dimension of 64. The feed-forward layer dimension is 2048, and there are 6 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both $n$ and the vocabulary size is 32768. Then we can estimate the computational cost of the model in Table 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in the Table 5, the total computational cost of the Transformer base is $n^2 * 18432 + n * 60819456$ , and the coefficient of the first-order term regarding $n$ is much larger than the coefficient of the second-order term. Therefore, the growth of computational cost is approximately linear with respect to $n$ when $n$ is small. When substituting sequence lengths $n = 32$ and $n = 1024$ into the above equation, the total computational cost and per-token computational cost are shown in Table 6. As demonstrated in Table 6, although the sequence length has increased significantly, the computational cost per token have not increased significantly. Furthermore, for larger-scale models, due to their expanded hidden state dimensions, the contribution of the linear term will be more significant, which further reduce the impact of sequence length on the computational cost per token.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 212, + 885, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D The Experimental results on Chinese to English dataset.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further validate our experimental findings, we collected over 10 million parallel sentences from Chinese to English and conducted a repeat of our experiments on this dataset. The composition and scale of this dataset are presented in Table 7. The experimental results, as shown in Figure 12, demonstrate that the overall trends in Chinese-English dataset are consistent with the conclusions we obtained in the English-German dataset. However, there is one significant difference: the optimal sequence length in this dataset is considerably shorter than in the English-German dataset. We believe that the optimal sequence length is also correlated with the data quality, language characteristics, and domain of the dataset. We will leave this issue for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 556, + 882, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8301", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b2e9be3a9fcdca41d8d3d02f081b0c5ece42df701fd24504368574a84b75b0c8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Subset Number#Lines#Tokens
123123
10.280.290.274.294.274.08
20.520.490.488.138.057.62
30.820.860.8513.1213.9212.85
41.391.421.4021.7722.2821.48
52.372.412.3037.7039.2136.30
64.004.063.9962.6464.9362.83
76.816.886.87109.17111.99109.54
811.4711.3911.51183.84181.83182.84
919.5319.6619.58312.61313.62310.31
", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 80, + 768, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bb6460850576233be65e3ef030fc6dd88b362bdbec6362240fe0c9d266e2bc6c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: The statistics of the sampled datasets in millions. Subset number indicates the number of subsets in the sampled dataset. #Lines and #Tokens indicate the number of lines and tokens in the sampled dataset, respectively." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModuleComputational CostNumber of the ModuleCorresponding Operation
Embeddingn*5124The embedding and positional encoding layers in both encoder and decoder
Output Projectionn*512*327681The output projection layer for generating the final output probabilities
Feed Forwardn*512*2048*212The feed forward layers in both encoder and decoder layers
Attention Projectn*512*64*8*418The query, key, value, and output projection in the multi-head attention
Dot Productn2*64*8*218The dot product between key and query as well as attention weight and value
Totaln2*18432+n*608194561Total computation cost of the Transformer base
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 326, + 878, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/52243fdaf9af682aadc52328f79991e8251a931037444795a09438c021178f11.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: The estimation of computational complexity for Transformer base model. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both $n$ and the vocabulary size is 32768." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
nComputational CostComputational Cost / token
32196509696061409280
10248160647577679693824
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 527, + 485, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/22d0553b82dc18819cd0e5b7762ef22f3d7fb6e87291986200b95c597605e4ed.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: The computational cost for Transformer base model when $n = {32}$ and $n = {1024}$ ." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
UNPC417.2M17.4M94.7k
NewsCommentary5.3M0.1M7.8k
Combined422.5M17.5M102.5k
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 733, + 485, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: The statistical results of the Chinese $\\rightarrow$ English datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 819, + 487, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8302", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/302463c8e2f8ece23dbe5a64b07d8fc6fb20e96d52276bb5b5ff636e734c50a9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 127, + 495, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0db13047ddeb0dc22e510993ba033f79a47ecc3061ec48a7c16731ed9ee21b85.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 128, + 870, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b721b109d6a837f1495a09944085848791051cc3aa8eec738c9f657ea1b82f04.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 274, + 494, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2f5af154421882917d04d0ee6880be91d8ea1d3d683cedde6ac5a8185f03a7ea.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 495, + 274, + 870, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6a59c8c0f7064bd9bdd1eecfa9d0e23c0ccb3476f2a6bf84564f363304bed1d4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: The length distribution of the segmented dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 419, + 495, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/90f914cef1b992d71b7efc97d2aaedc84f798e88c4f8709018205ef0b18ab2dd.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 419, + 870, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5ae928afa5c2fd7ae2a37fd2d3dd1b4b0ef822dbda8b4a8305f3a4e7fad3838c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: The experimental result on Chinese $\\rightarrow$ English dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [ + "(a) The joint effect of maximum se- (b) The joint effect of maximum se- (c) The joint effect of data scale and sequence length and model shape. quence length and data scale. model shape." + ], + "bbox": [ + 149, + 701, + 376, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/707431c76d4df4412eb487388cc7891ff92e8f75478a7106b09cafa0dfa25f55.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 386, + 701, + 610, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d4fbf07320b3abfdc5fca7bd4c731f4bc8f610c366f95203f77397f3b08ea673.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 621, + 701, + 845, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8303", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_model.json b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa72c389d8bff020c32ce8c8c8ef3a45ffa98ea9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2307 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.178, + 0.084, + 0.82, + 0.105 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling Law for Document-Level Neural Machine Translation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.232, + 0.114, + 0.776, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuocheng Zhang\\(^{1,2}\\), Shuhao Gu\\(^{1,2}\\), Min Zhang\\(^{3}\\), Yang Feng\\(^{1,2*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.132, + 0.725, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.149, + 0.819, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.254, + 0.165, + 0.749, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.182, + 0.792, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)School of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.358, + 0.199, + 0.634, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "zhangzhuocheng20z@ict.ac.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.395, + 0.216, + 0.599, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "shuhaog515@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.384, + 0.232, + 0.609, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "zhangminmt@hotmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.405, + 0.249, + 0.589, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fengyang@ict.ac.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.287, + 0.341, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.314, + 0.461, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The scaling laws of language models have played a significant role in advancing large language models. However, the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation remains unclear. In order to promote the development of document-level neural machine translation, we systematically examine the scaling laws in this field. In this paper, we carry out an in-depth analysis of the influence among three factors on translation quality: model scale, data scale, and maximum sequence length. Our results indicate that all three factors have a significant impact on model performance. In particular, increasing the maximum sequence length effectively reduces the context-related errors and improves the overall translation quality. Nevertheless, the sequence length cannot be increased indefinitely, as the number of parameters limits the optimal sequence length. Specifically, we propose a formula describing the empirical scaling law between the model size and the optimal sequence length. Our further analysis shows that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation by extending the sequence length." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.711, + 0.26, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.737, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neural machine translation (NMT) (Bahdanau et al., 2014) has made great progress in recent years (Barrault et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2022). However, as the input text exceeds a single sentence, sentence-level NMT methods will fail to capture discourse phenomena, such as pronominal anaphora, lexical consistency, and document coherence. In contrast, document-level neural machine translation (DNMT) (Maruf et al., 2021) aims to improve translation consistency and coherence" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.291, + 0.875, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.385, + 0.885, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The key factors affecting the translation quality of document-level neural machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.448, + 0.885, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "by leveraging contextual information beyond the sentence being translated. Different from previous sentence-by-sentence DNMT methods, which employ an additional context encoder to capture the discourse information (Chen et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018), recent studies have shown that the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is able to translate multiple sentences directly (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022), referred to as document-by-document translation method. These works demonstrated that increasing the granularity of translation from sentence to document is able to further reduce the context-dependent errors encountered by sentence-level translation methods, such as misinterpretation of pronouns (Müller et al., 2018) and lexical inconsistency (Jiang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although has been widely explored, the mechanism of DNMT has not been fully investigated. For example, previous document-by-document DNMT methods are trained on a fixed maximum sequence length, i.e. the document longer than the maximum sequence will be split into smaller segments, and whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the performance of the model still remains to be investigated. Additionally, as the sequence length grows, the difficulty of modeling the contextual information increases further, and whether more training data is needed remains to be explored. Furthermore, the scale of" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.282, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8290" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8290-8303" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "model parameters is among the most crucial factors affecting the quality of sentence-level NMT methods and is widely studied by the scaling law of neural machine translation (Ghorbani et al., 2021; Ott et al., 2018), but how this factor affects the performance of the DNMT model remains unclear. Finally, it remains an open question whether these factors will interact with each other." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.215, + 0.493, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To answer the questions above, we conduct massive experiments, specifically investigating the impacts of three key factors: corpus size, model scale, and maximum sequence length. In addition, we explore the joint effect of these factors. Our findings suggest that all three factors are closely related to the performance of the DNMT model and enlarging the maximum sequence length effectively improves the ability of the DNMT model to capture the contextual information. However, the sequence length can not be increased infinitely as the translation quality begins to drop when the sequence length exceeds a certain limit. Surprisingly, our experimental result shows that this limitation is proportional to the logarithm of the number of model parameters. Our further analysis demonstrates that determining the optimal maximum sequence length requires striking a balance between capturing additional contextual information and managing accumulated errors during auto-regressive decoding. This finding highlights the importance of future research in exploring effective solutions to mitigate this challenge. Furthermore, we find that although the DNMT model is initialized using a pretrained sentence-level translation model, increasing the document-level corpus size can further improve the translation quality. Notably, this improvement increases as the number of model parameters increases. As Figure 1 concludes, our study indicates that the number of model parameters affects the translation quality of DNMT by affecting two key factors: sample efficiency and optimal sequence length. As the number of model parameters increases, both the sample efficiency and the optimal sequence length grow, leading to the performance improvement of the DNMT model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.27, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.416, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Document-level Neural Machine Translation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.491, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Document-level neural machine translation has witnessed significant advancements in recent years (Maruf et al., 2021). Miculicich et al. (2018) pro" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "posed a hierarchical attention mechanism to capture the discourse information while Maruf et al. (2019) employed a selective attention module to select the most relevant information in the context. Lupo et al. (2021) further improved these methods by splitting the sentence into smaller segments to overcome the training sparsity problem. Recently, Tiedemann and Scherrer (2017); Ma et al. (2020) suggest that Transformer has the ability to translate multiple sentences directly, and this document-by-document paradigm further reduce the context related errors. However, the DNMT model may fail to converge if the corpus size is limited and the sequence length is long (Liu et al., 2020). Bao et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2020) proposed to employ attention masks to prevent the overfitting problem, while Sun et al. (2022) proposed a multi-resolution training strategy to smooth the training difficulty of the DNMT model. However, these methods are all based on a fixed sequence length. Whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the translation quality still remains to be investigated." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.476, + 0.655, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Scaling Law" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Scaling law of language models has been widely studied, and have played a significant role in advancing large language models. Kaplan et al. (2020) proposed that the perplexity of the language model is inversely proportional to the logarithm of the size of the training data and the number of the model parameters. Hoffmann et al. (2022) further optimized this scaling law by taking a larger corpus size into consideration. Recently, Touvron et al. (2023) proposed that the inference overhead should also be considered by the scaling law. In the field of neural machine translation, Ott et al. (2018) proposed that enlarging the data size can further improve the translation quality of NMT models, while Ghorbani et al. (2021) further proposed that the cross-entropy loss is also governed by the power law of model size and data size. These works have greatly accelerated the development of large language models and neural machine translation (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021; Scao et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). However, the existing scaling law of machine translation is based on the cross-entropy loss of the model, which is not directly related to the translation quality. In addition, the effect of contextual information has not been considered in the scaling law of machine" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.942 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8291" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.082, + 0.868, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ArchitectureParamsParams w/o EmbeddingMACs / TokenMACs / Token
Transformer-small48.32M31.54M48.7M67.2M
Transformer-base60.92M44.14M61.5M79.8M
Transformer-big209.92M176.37M210.9M247.5M
Transformer-base-338.85M22.07M39.0M48.2M
Transformer-base-982.99M66.21M83.7M111.2M
Transformer-base-12105.06M88.28M105.9M142.6M
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.222, + 0.883, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: The statistics of the used model. The first column is the model architecture. The second and the third columns show the total number of parameters and the number of parameters without embedding. The fourth and fifth columns show the number of MACs per token at sequence length equal to 32 and 1024, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.291, + 0.487, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "translation. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the scaling law of DNMT." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.335, + 0.318, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experimental setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.361, + 0.262, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.382, + 0.49, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture as our DNMT models. To bring our work closer to cutting-edge research, we leverage several improvements on the standard Transformer architecture, including the pre-norm layer normalization (Xiong et al., 2020) and the Gaussian Error Linear Unit (GELU) activation function (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016). To further investigate the impact of different model structures on the quality of document-level translation, we experimented with various model widths and depths. Specifically, the small, base, and big models have 6 layers in both the encoder and decoder. In terms of model width, the small and base models employ an embedding dimension of 512, whereas the large model has an embedding dimension of 1024. Additionally, we employ dimensions of 1024, 2048, and 4096 for the small, base, and big models, respectively, in the feed-forward network. To investigate the model depth on translation quality, we vary the number of layers in the base model from 3 to 12. We use deepspeed \\(^{1}\\) to profile the number of parameters and MACs per token for our model. The statistics of our models are shown in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.779, + 0.221, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.8, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared to sentence-level bilingual corpus, document-level bilingual datasets are limited in size (Chen et al., 2021). To maximize the corpus size, we combine data from 5 high-quality document-level English-German datasets, including EUbookshop (Skadinš et al., 2014), Open-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.29, + 0.885, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Subtitles (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), Europarl (Koehn, 2005), NewsCommentary, and TildEMODEL (Rozis and Skadin's, 2017), from OPUS2. The only pre-processing step we take is tokenizing the dataset using SentencePiece3 with a joint \\(32\\mathrm{k}\\) vocabulary. To perform early stopping and determine the hyperparameters, we randomly extracted 100 documents from the dataset as the validation set. For the test set, we utilize newstest2020 from the WMT competition. The statistics of the combined dataset are shown in Table 2. In order to further investigate the impact of data scale on the performance of DNMT, we randomly sampled subsets of different sizes from the combined dataset to serve as our training sets. The details of the sampled subsets are shown in Appendix A. In our experiments, we segment the document into different lengths, ranging from 32 to 1024 tokens, to investigate the impact of maximum sequence length on the performance of DNMT. The length distribution of our segmented datasets is shown in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.665, + 0.883, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
EUbookshop172M9.3M14k
OpenSubtitles136M23M29k
Europarl42M1.8M10k
NewsCommentary8.8M0.4M9.7k
TildeMODEL23M1.6M52k
Combined382M36M115k
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.8, + 0.883, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: The statistical results of the datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.891, + 0.658, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://opus.nlpl.eu" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.905, + 0.786, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://github.com/google/sentencepiece" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.891, + 0.786, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.392, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)https://github.com/microsoft/DeepSpeed" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8292" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.232, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.493, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous researches indicate that training a document-level model based on a sentence-level model yields better results compared to training a document-level model from scratch (Bao et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018). Therefore, we adopt a two-step training strategy. First, we train a sentence-level model by splitting the documents in the corpus into sentences. Then, we finetune the sentence-level model into a DNMT model using the document-level corpus. During training, we use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with \\(\\beta_{1} = 0.9\\), \\(\\beta_{2} = 0.98\\), \\(\\epsilon = 10^{-9}\\), and the learning rate is scheduled using the inverse square root method (Vaswani et al., 2017) with warmup steps of 4000. We use the label smoothed cross-entropy loss (Szegedy et al., 2016) with the smoothing value of 0.1. We conduct all experiments on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs with a maximum of 4096 tokens per GPU. We use half-precision float (fp16) to accelerate the training process (Ott et al., 2018). The dropout and the attention dropout are tuned for every model from \\(\\{0.1, 0.2, 0.3\\}\\) and \\(\\{0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3\\}\\), respectively. We conduct our experiments using the fairseq toolkit (Ott et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.52, + 0.248, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.54, + 0.49, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to make the number of generated sentences matches that of the source document, we add an EOS token at the end of each sentence. We use beam-search with beam size 5 for all our experiments. Following previous study (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), we employ document BLEU (d-BLEU) as our document-level metrics, while sentence BLEU (s-BLEU) as our sentence-level metrics. SacreBLEU\\(^4\\) (Post, 2018) was used to calculate the above metrics. In addition, we also employ COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) to evaluate the quality of generated sentences. We conduct each experiment three times with different random seeds, and present the average score for analysis." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.793, + 0.262, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.819, + 0.491, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we present the results of our experiments. First, we analyze the effect of single factor on the translation quality of DNMT in Section 4.1. Then we investigate the joint effect of multiple factors in Section 4.2." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.096, + 0.697, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.196, + 0.699, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Effect of model parameters" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.699, + 0.096, + 0.88, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.71, + 0.196, + 0.868, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Effect of model shape" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.22, + 0.882, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The effect of model shape on the performance of DNMT." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.29, + 0.733, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Effect of Single Factor" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.325, + 0.883, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first investigated the independent impact of two factors, the model and the data, on the performance of DNMT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.381, + 0.885, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of model size. To figure out the most important factor affecting translation quality, we train DNMT systems with different model sizes on the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 2, the performance of DNMT increases as the model size increases. However, the d-BLEU score does not increase linearly with the model depth or the model width. Similar to the previous study (Kaplan et al., 2020), observe an approximately linear relationship between the model's performance and the logarithm of the parameter count. Furthermore, this linearity is more closely related to the number of non-embedding parameters rather than the total number of parameters. These findings suggest that compared to the model width and depth, non-embedding parameters better reflects the translation quality of the DNMT model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of Data Scale. To investigate the effect of the data scale on the performance of DNMT, we conduct experiments on different sized subsets of the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 3, the performance of DNMT increases as the data scale increases. Surprisingly, the evaluation shows that regardless of how the model changes, when the number of sentence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. This finding gives us a new understanding of the relationship between data scale and model performance. In addition, the overall trend is consistent with previous studies that there is a power law between model performance and data size (Ghorbani et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.363, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8293" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.086, + 0.481, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.289, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Document BLEU versus the number of parameters. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, which is measured by the number of sentence pairs, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.406, + 0.364, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Effect of Multiple Factors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.434, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To study the interactions between factors, we keep the data scale, model scale, and sequence length fixed separately and investigate the joint impact of the other two factors on translation quality. Specifically, we used the entire dataset to examine the relationship between model scale and maximum sequence length, fixed the model scale as the Transformer-base to study the impact of data scale and maximum sequence length on translation quality, and held the maximum sequence length at 512 to investigate the relationship between model scale and data scale." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 4, the BLEU score generally increases with the sequence length for various model shapes. However, we observe that there is an upper limit to this performance improvement as the length increases. For example, when the sequence length is 512, the BLEU score of the transformer-base is 31.55. However, when the sequence length reaches 1024, the BLEU score decreases to 30.59. This indicates that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for the DNMT model. In addition, we find that this optimal sequence length is closely related to the model size. To illustrate this relationship more clearly, we estimate the location of the optimal sequence length for different model sizes. As the star marker shown in Figure 4, the optimal sequence length and the model scale are positively correlated. This finding" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.087, + 0.878, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.289, + 0.886, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and model shape on the performance of DNMT. Different colors represent different model shapes, while the star marker represents the estimated optimal sequence length for different model shapes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.388, + 0.885, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "differs from the previous studies (Press et al., 2021; Beltagy et al., 2020), as they demonstrate that the model's performance consistently increases with an expanding context. We proposed that this is due to the model being influenced by erroneous context in the generation process, i.e. the error accumulation problem, and we further analyze this phenomenon in Section 5.2. In addition, we find that the relationship between optimal sequence length \\(\\mathbf{L}\\) and the parameters of the model can be expressed by the following equation:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.623, + 0.585, + 0.884, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {L} = a \\log (N) + b. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.613, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(N\\) is the number of parameters, \\(a\\) and \\(b\\) are constants. We estimate the value of \\(a\\) and \\(b\\) by fitting the data in Figure 4. The estimated value of \\(a\\) is 111, while the estimated value of \\(b\\) is -1399. This indicates that for every increase of 77 tokens in the optimal sequence length, the model parameter size needs to be doubled. This finding is consistent with the previous studies, indicating that a suitable sequence length for the transformer-base model is approximately 512." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Data Scale. To figure out whether the data scale affects the ability of the transformer model to handle long text, we conduct experiments on different subsets of the combined dataset with different maximum sequence lengths. As shown in Figure 5, under different data scales, the performance of the model generally increases and then decreases with the increase in sequence length. Similar to our find" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8294" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.086, + 0.481, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.289, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and data scale on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different maximum sequence length, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.403, + 0.49, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ings in Section 4.1, when the data scale is large enough, the performance of DNMT will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. However, although the DNMT models are initialized using a pretrained sentence-level model, the d-BLEU score is lower than the sentence-level NMT model if the data size is limited. In addition, we find that the d-BLEU score is below the sentence-level baseline when the maximum sequence length is 64, even with an adequate amount of data. This is due to the early stopping mechanism terminating the training prematurely when the sequence length is too short. When the maximum sequence length is equal to 128, the BLEU score rises. Surprisingly, the maximum sequence length of 256 is a turning point, where the BLEU score reaches the maximum when the data scale is limited. This indicates that when the document-level corpus size is scarce, we can set the maximum sequence length to 256 in order to maximize the translation quality. In addition, when the maximum sequence length exceeds 512, we observed that the BLEU score shows a declining trend even with further increases in the data scale. This finding further confirms our previous conclusion that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint Effect of Data Scale and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 6, we train DNMT models with different data scales and model sizes with a maximum sequence length of 512. The performance of DNMT increases consistently as the data scale increases. In addition, when the number of sen" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.087, + 0.878, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.289, + 0.886, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: The joint effect of data scale and model shape on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, while the dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.388, + 0.885, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model outperforms the corresponding sentence-level model, which is consistent with our findings in Section 4.1. In contrast, when the data scale is limited, the models with more layers outperform the models with wider widths. For example, the 12-layer transformer-base model performs better than the transformer-large model with 6 layers when the sentence pairs are less than 4 million, even though the number of parameters in the transformer-large model is twice that of the 12-layer transformer-base model. We believe that this is because when the document-level data is limited, the performance of the DNMT model depends more on the parameter initialization, which is dominated by the sentence-level model. This is consistent with previous studies that sentence-level NMT models are more dependent on the model depth rather than width (Mehta et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). However, when the data is sufficient, a model with a larger number of parameters will benefit more than a model with more layers. This indicates that the model's ability to capture context is also related to the model width." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.789, + 0.637, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.817, + 0.858, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 The Correlation Between BLEU Score and Cross-Entropy Loss" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned by Post and Junczys-Dowmunt (2023), The quality assessment of document translation is challenging. In this paper, we demonstrate that the cross-entropy (CE) loss of DNMT model" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8295" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.087, + 0.481, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.289, + 0.49, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: The correlation between cross-entropy loss and d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. Different colors represent different maximum sequence length, and the solid line represents the linear regression of this correlation. The coefficient of determination are reported in the legend." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.402, + 0.49, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "does not adequately capture the quality of translation. To further investigate the relationship between the CE loss and the translation quality, we plot the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. As shown in Figure 7, the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model are weakly correlated, indicating that the loss alone fails to fully depict the translation quality. This finding is inconsistent with the previous study (Ghorbani et al., 2021), which has indicated a substantial association between CE loss and translation quality. In addition, we calculate the coefficient of determination \\((R^2)\\) of the linear regression model. The \\(R^2\\) decreases as the maximum sequence length grows. We suppose that this is because document-by-document DNMT requires generating longer text, which is more prone to the error accumulation problem, which will be discussed in Section 5.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.705, + 0.429, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 The Error Accumulation Problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for the existence of the optimal maximum sequence length and the failure of CE loss to adequately reflect the translation quality, we analyze the translation quality of sentences in different positions in the documents. We selectively extract a subset from the validation set, where DNMT models under-perform the sentence-level counterparts. Then we employ both sentence-level models and document-level models to translate those documents. We split the translated segments into sentences, and gather them into a subset by there" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "position in the document. Then we evaluate each subsets via COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022). The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations is shown in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 8, with the help of contextual information, the translation quality of DNMT model is slightly better than that of the sentence-level model at the beginning of each documents. However, this advantage soon diminishes as the translation proceeds. From the fifth sentence on wards, there has been a growing gap in translation quality between the DNMT model and the sentence-level translation model, which clearly indicates the error accumulation process. This finding demonstrate that the optimal sequence length is actually the trade-off between extra contextual information and the accumulated errors. Interestingly, the gap between the sentence-level model and the document-level model is larger when the model size is smaller, indicating that larger model has a stronger ability to resist the error accumulation problem." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.434, + 0.819, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Context LengthAccuracy
050.06
6067.75
12081.89
25082.26
50082.38
75082.49
100081.96
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.591, + 0.884, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The accuracy of DNMT model on ContraPro test suite. Context length is the number of tokens in the context. Zero context length indicates that the result is from the sentence-level model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.674, + 0.787, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 The Contrastive Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to evaluating the overall translation quality, we also conduct experiments on ContraPro (Müller et al., 2018), a large contrastive test suite extracted from OpenSubtitles 2018 (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), to evaluate the accuracy of translating the English word \"it\". As shown in Table 3, all the DNMT models outperform their sentence-level counterparts, clearly indicating that the DNMT model is able to capture contextual information. As the available context increases, the accuracy of the test suite increases in fluctuation. When the context length exceeds 500, the accuracy of the DNMT model stops increasing, and remains at a high level. This tendency is not completely con-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8296" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.087, + 0.403, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.406, + 0.087, + 0.639, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.64, + 0.087, + 0.877, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: The COMET score of the translated sentences at different positions in the document. The solid lines represent the estimated trend line of the COMET score. As the model size grows, the gap between the DNMT model and the sentence-level model becomes smaller." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.333, + 0.481, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.535, + 0.49, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: The generalization ability of DNMT model. The models are trained with different maximum sequence length." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.607, + 0.489, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sistent with the trend of d-BLEU score, showing that the overall translation quality is also influenced by factors other than the discourse context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.671, + 0.377, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 The Generalization Ability" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In practice, the lengths of input and output sentences may differ from those encountered during the training phase. Therefore, a proficient DNMT model should be capable of handling documents of various lengths and produce accurate translation results. To investigate this, we segment the documents in the test set into different lengths, and evaluate the DNMT models on the segmented test sets. According to Figure 9, when the sequence length during inference is shorter than that during training, the d-BLEU score of DNMT model decreases mildly. This observation shows that Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is capable of handling documents of various lengths within the maximum" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.332, + 0.885, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sequence length when finetuned on document-level corpus. Thus it is possible to apply DNMT model to both document-level and sentence-level translation tasks. However, when the inference length exceeds the training length, the performance experiences a sharp drop. We considered that this is because vanilla Transformer lacks length extrapolation ability (Press et al., 2021), which needs to be further investigated in the field of document-level translation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.505, + 0.854, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 The computation overhead of DNMT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.526, + 0.885, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As the quadratic computational complexity of the attention mechanisms, the computational requirements of the DNMT models are higher than those of sentence-level models. We report the MACs (Multiply-Accumulate Operations) per token required by the DNMT models in Table 1. Interestingly, we find that even though the sequence length increases from 32 to 1024, which is much longer than the optimal sequence length of transformerbig, the MACs per token increase by only 40 percent. This finding indicates that the computation overhead of the DNMT models during inference is not much higher than the sentence-level models, but the errors encounter by sentence-level translation reduced significantly. Thus it is efficient to employ the DNMT model in practice. We have placed a more detailed derivation in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.813, + 0.642, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation. Our findings suggest that the corpus size, model scale and the maximum sequence length all have significant impacts on the translation quality of the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8297" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "model. Different from the scaling law of sentence-level neural machine translation, we find that their exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given DNMT model, and the optimal maximum sequence length is strongly correlated with the number of non-embedding parameters of the DNMT model. We further formulate this correlation with a simple power law. Our additional analysis indicates that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation. In future work, we will investigate how to overcome the error accumulation problem, and extend the optimal sequence length of document-by-document translation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.339, + 0.31, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.364, + 0.49, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our research requires a large number of experiments. Thus, we would like to express our gratitude to the ICT computing platform and the technical service team for providing GPU resources." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.429, + 0.488, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their thorough review and valuable feedback." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.473, + 0.221, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although we have conduct massive experiments to explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation, there are still some limitations in our work: (1) over four hundred models were trained, resulting in high energy consumption; (2) due to the limitation of the data size, we are unable to conduct a larger scale experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.638, + 0.214, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.661, + 0.489, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.724, + 0.488, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guangsheng Bao, Yue Zhang, Zhiyang Teng, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2021. G-transformer for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14761." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.787, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Loic Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondrej Bojar, Marta Ruiz Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubesic, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (wmt20). In Conference on Machine Translation." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.661, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.114 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.124, + 0.886, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linqing Chen, Junhui Li, Zhengxian Gong, Boxing Chen, Weihua Luo, Min Zhang, and Guodong Zhou. 2021. Breaking the corpus bottleneck for context-aware neural machine translation with cross-task pretraining. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2851-2861." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.255, + 0.884, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.346, + 0.883, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Behrooz Ghorbani, Orhan First, Markus Freitag, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Xavier Garcia, Ciprian Chelba, and Colin Cherry. 2021. Scaling laws for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07740." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.424, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dengji Guo, Zhengrui Ma, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Prediction difference regularization against perturbation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7665-7675." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.514, + 0.884, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.567, + 0.885, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.658, + 0.885, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuchen Eleanor Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, Jian Yang, Haoyang Huang, Rico Sennrich, Ryan Cotterell, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Blonde: An automatic evaluation metric for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11878." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.749, + 0.884, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.826, + 0.883, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.878, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of machine translation summit x: papers, pages 79-86." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8298" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pierre Lison and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and tv subtitles." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.137, + 0.488, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.227, + 0.488, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lorenzo Lupo, Marco Dinarelli, and Laurent Besacier. 2021. Divide and rule: Effective pre-training for context-aware multi-encoder translation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17151." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.291, + 0.488, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. A simple and effective unified encoder for document-level machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 3505-3511." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.368, + 0.488, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sameen Maruf, André FT Martins, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2019. Selective attention for context-aware neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08788." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.431, + 0.488, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sameen Maruf, Fahimeh Saleh, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2021. A survey on document-level neural machine translation: Methods and evaluation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(2):1-36." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.496, + 0.488, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sachin Mehta, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Srinivasan Iyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Delight: Deep and light-weight transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00623." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.56, + 0.488, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lesly Miculicich, Dhananjay Ram, Nikolaos Pappas, and James Henderson. 2018. Document-level neural machine translation with hierarchical attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01576." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.624, + 0.488, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, Elena Voita, and Rico Sennrich. 2018. A Large-Scale Test Set for the Evaluation of Context-Aware Pronoun Translation in Neural Machine Translation. In WMT 2018, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.7, + 0.488, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling.* In *Proceedings of NAACL-HLT* 2019: Demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.488, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. ArXiv, abs/1806.00187." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.828, + 0.488, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2015. chrf: character n-gram f-score for automatic mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the tenth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 392-395." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.136, + 0.884, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matt Post and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2023. Escaping the sentence-level paradigm in machine translation. ArXiv:2304.12959 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.186, + 0.883, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ofir Press, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.235, + 0.884, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ricardo Rei, José GC De Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André FT Martins. 2022. Comet-22: Unbabel-ist 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.337, + 0.884, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roberts Rozis and Raivis Skadinš. 2017. Tilde model-multilingual open data for eu languages. In Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 263-265." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.399, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Galle, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.488, + 0.883, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raivis Skadinš, Jörg Tiedemann, Roberts Rozis, and Daiga Deksne. 2014. Billions of parallel words for free: Building and using the eu bookshop corpus. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 1850-1855." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.577, + 0.884, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, Hao Zhou, Chengqi Zhao, Shujian Huang, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. 2022. Rethinking document-level neural machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3537-3548." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.652, + 0.883, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2818-2826." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.728, + 0.883, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jörg Tiedemann and Yves Scherrer. 2017. Neural machine translation with extended context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05943." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.777, + 0.883, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention Is" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8299" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762 [cs]. ArXiv: 1706.03762." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.123, + 0.49, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.186, + 0.489, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongyu Wang, Shuming Ma, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Dongdong Zhang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Deepnet: Scaling transformers to 1,000 layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00555." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.248, + 0.489, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tieyan Liu. 2020. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10524-10533. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.337, + 0.489, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pei Zhang, Boxing Chen, Niyu Ge, and Kai Fan. 2020. Long-short term masking transformer: A simple but effective baseline for document-level neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1081-1087, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8300" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.452, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A The Statistics of Sampled Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To explore the relationship between translation quality and the data size in Section 4, we sampled the combined dataset with different sizes. The size of the subset is determined by the number of documents, and to ensure experiment reproducibility, each size was sampled three times for averaging the results. The statistics of the sampled datasets are shown in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.27, + 0.454, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.455, + 0.488, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.515, + 0.471, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B The Length Distribution of The Split Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.559, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To conduct experiments with different maximum sequence length, we split the documents into segments with different segment lengths. However, due to the document boundary restrictions, we cannot ensure that all segments have the same length. As shown in Figure 11, the length distribution of the training set becomes more even as the maximum sequence length increases, which allows the model to translate the sentences of arbitrary length within the maximum sequence length." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.732, + 0.468, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Estimation of Computational Complexity for Transformer Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To gain a clearer understanding of how sequence length affects the computational cost of the model, we take the Transformer base as an example and provide a detailed derivation of the computational requirements for its forward propagation process. To simplify the derivation, we ignore the computational cost of Layer Norm, residual connection, bias, and the softmax. The embedding dimension of the base model is 512 and the hidden state di" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mension is 512. There are 8 attention heads, and each attention head has a dimension of 64. The feed-forward layer dimension is 2048, and there are 6 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both \\( n \\) and the vocabulary size is 32768. Then we can estimate the computational cost of the model in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.214, + 0.886, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in the Table 5, the total computational cost of the Transformer base is \\( n^2 * 18432 + n * 60819456 \\), and the coefficient of the first-order term regarding \\( n \\) is much larger than the coefficient of the second-order term. Therefore, the growth of computational cost is approximately linear with respect to \\( n \\) when \\( n \\) is small. When substituting sequence lengths \\( n = 32 \\) and \\( n = 1024 \\) into the above equation, the total computational cost and per-token computational cost are shown in Table 6. As demonstrated in Table 6, although the sequence length has increased significantly, the computational cost per token have not increased significantly. Furthermore, for larger-scale models, due to their expanded hidden state dimensions, the contribution of the linear term will be more significant, which further reduce the impact of sequence length on the computational cost per token." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.515, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D The Experimental results on Chinese to English dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.557, + 0.884, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further validate our experimental findings, we collected over 10 million parallel sentences from Chinese to English and conducted a repeat of our experiments on this dataset. The composition and scale of this dataset are presented in Table 7. The experimental results, as shown in Figure 12, demonstrate that the overall trends in Chinese-English dataset are consistent with the conclusions we obtained in the English-German dataset. However, there is one significant difference: the optimal sequence length in this dataset is considerably shorter than in the English-German dataset. We believe that the optimal sequence length is also correlated with the data quality, language characteristics, and domain of the dataset. We will leave this issue for future research." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8301" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.082, + 0.769, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Subset Number#Lines#Tokens
123123
10.280.290.274.294.274.08
20.520.490.488.138.057.62
30.820.860.8513.1213.9212.85
41.391.421.4021.7722.2821.48
52.372.412.3037.7039.2136.30
64.004.063.9962.6464.9362.83
76.816.886.87109.17111.99109.54
811.4711.3911.51183.84181.83182.84
919.5319.6619.58312.61313.62310.31
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.286, + 0.882, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: The statistics of the sampled datasets in millions. Subset number indicates the number of subsets in the sampled dataset. #Lines and #Tokens indicate the number of lines and tokens in the sampled dataset, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.328, + 0.88, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModuleComputational CostNumber of the ModuleCorresponding Operation
Embeddingn*5124The embedding and positional encoding layers in both encoder and decoder
Output Projectionn*512*327681The output projection layer for generating the final output probabilities
Feed Forwardn*512*2048*212The feed forward layers in both encoder and decoder layers
Attention Projectn*512*64*8*418The query, key, value, and output projection in the multi-head attention
Dot Productn2*64*8*218The dot product between key and query as well as attention weight and value
Totaln2*18432+n*608194561Total computation cost of the Transformer base
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.425, + 0.882, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: The estimation of computational complexity for Transformer base model. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both \\( n \\) and the vocabulary size is 32768." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.529, + 0.486, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
nComputational CostComputational Cost / token
32196509696061409280
10248160647577679693824
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.592, + 0.486, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: The computational cost for Transformer base model when \\( n = {32} \\) and \\( n = {1024} \\) ." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.734, + 0.486, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
UNPC417.2M17.4M94.7k
NewsCommentary5.3M0.1M7.8k
Combined422.5M17.5M102.5k
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.82, + 0.489, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: The statistical results of the Chinese \\(\\rightarrow\\) English datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8302" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.128, + 0.496, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.129, + 0.871, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.275, + 0.495, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.496, + 0.275, + 0.871, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.42, + 0.496, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.42, + 0.871, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.294, + 0.588, + 0.7, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: The length distribution of the segmented dataset." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.702, + 0.378, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.387, + 0.702, + 0.611, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.622, + 0.702, + 0.846, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.825, + 0.85, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) The joint effect of maximum se- (b) The joint effect of maximum se- (c) The joint effect of data scale and sequence length and model shape. quence length and data scale. model shape." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.277, + 0.862, + 0.719, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: The experimental result on Chinese \\(\\rightarrow\\) English dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8303" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_origin.pdf b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..807d3463b30f2159020b06e060baf9a2820c0627 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/d1d71bc0-53c3-42f5-96a3-b8faa324e888_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:25561b89c127127a310aa104f786a8077ef46d116912a4547aa8bb6071410ba0 +size 522787 diff --git a/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/full.md b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e54f45fc892407cf2be66a27195a1779a13df9a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,307 @@ +# Scaling Law for Document-Level Neural Machine Translation + +Zhuocheng Zhang $^{1,2}$ , Shuhao Gu $^{1,2}$ , Min Zhang $^{3}$ , Yang Feng $^{1,2*}$ + +1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, + +Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS) + +$^{2}$ University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China + +$^{3}$ School of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, China + +zhangzhuocheng20z@ict.ac.cn + +shuhaog515@gmail.com + +zhangminmt@hotmail.com + +fengyang@ict.ac.cn + +# Abstract + +The scaling laws of language models have played a significant role in advancing large language models. However, the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation remains unclear. In order to promote the development of document-level neural machine translation, we systematically examine the scaling laws in this field. In this paper, we carry out an in-depth analysis of the influence among three factors on translation quality: model scale, data scale, and maximum sequence length. Our results indicate that all three factors have a significant impact on model performance. In particular, increasing the maximum sequence length effectively reduces the context-related errors and improves the overall translation quality. Nevertheless, the sequence length cannot be increased indefinitely, as the number of parameters limits the optimal sequence length. Specifically, we propose a formula describing the empirical scaling law between the model size and the optimal sequence length. Our further analysis shows that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation by extending the sequence length. + +# 1 Introduction + +Neural machine translation (NMT) (Bahdanau et al., 2014) has made great progress in recent years (Barrault et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2022). However, as the input text exceeds a single sentence, sentence-level NMT methods will fail to capture discourse phenomena, such as pronominal anaphora, lexical consistency, and document coherence. In contrast, document-level neural machine translation (DNMT) (Maruf et al., 2021) aims to improve translation consistency and coherence + +![](images/3d0d4a8c4e35ce2177649153a93c3d31353d0cd67cd62e365ab54dd6bdcc5876.jpg) +Figure 1: The key factors affecting the translation quality of document-level neural machine translation. + +by leveraging contextual information beyond the sentence being translated. Different from previous sentence-by-sentence DNMT methods, which employ an additional context encoder to capture the discourse information (Chen et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018), recent studies have shown that the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is able to translate multiple sentences directly (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022), referred to as document-by-document translation method. These works demonstrated that increasing the granularity of translation from sentence to document is able to further reduce the context-dependent errors encountered by sentence-level translation methods, such as misinterpretation of pronouns (Müller et al., 2018) and lexical inconsistency (Jiang et al., 2021). + +Although has been widely explored, the mechanism of DNMT has not been fully investigated. For example, previous document-by-document DNMT methods are trained on a fixed maximum sequence length, i.e. the document longer than the maximum sequence will be split into smaller segments, and whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the performance of the model still remains to be investigated. Additionally, as the sequence length grows, the difficulty of modeling the contextual information increases further, and whether more training data is needed remains to be explored. Furthermore, the scale of + +model parameters is among the most crucial factors affecting the quality of sentence-level NMT methods and is widely studied by the scaling law of neural machine translation (Ghorbani et al., 2021; Ott et al., 2018), but how this factor affects the performance of the DNMT model remains unclear. Finally, it remains an open question whether these factors will interact with each other. + +To answer the questions above, we conduct massive experiments, specifically investigating the impacts of three key factors: corpus size, model scale, and maximum sequence length. In addition, we explore the joint effect of these factors. Our findings suggest that all three factors are closely related to the performance of the DNMT model and enlarging the maximum sequence length effectively improves the ability of the DNMT model to capture the contextual information. However, the sequence length can not be increased infinitely as the translation quality begins to drop when the sequence length exceeds a certain limit. Surprisingly, our experimental result shows that this limitation is proportional to the logarithm of the number of model parameters. Our further analysis demonstrates that determining the optimal maximum sequence length requires striking a balance between capturing additional contextual information and managing accumulated errors during auto-regressive decoding. This finding highlights the importance of future research in exploring effective solutions to mitigate this challenge. Furthermore, we find that although the DNMT model is initialized using a pretrained sentence-level translation model, increasing the document-level corpus size can further improve the translation quality. Notably, this improvement increases as the number of model parameters increases. As Figure 1 concludes, our study indicates that the number of model parameters affects the translation quality of DNMT by affecting two key factors: sample efficiency and optimal sequence length. As the number of model parameters increases, both the sample efficiency and the optimal sequence length grow, leading to the performance improvement of the DNMT model. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Document-level Neural Machine Translation + +Document-level neural machine translation has witnessed significant advancements in recent years (Maruf et al., 2021). Miculicich et al. (2018) pro + +posed a hierarchical attention mechanism to capture the discourse information while Maruf et al. (2019) employed a selective attention module to select the most relevant information in the context. Lupo et al. (2021) further improved these methods by splitting the sentence into smaller segments to overcome the training sparsity problem. Recently, Tiedemann and Scherrer (2017); Ma et al. (2020) suggest that Transformer has the ability to translate multiple sentences directly, and this document-by-document paradigm further reduce the context related errors. However, the DNMT model may fail to converge if the corpus size is limited and the sequence length is long (Liu et al., 2020). Bao et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2020) proposed to employ attention masks to prevent the overfitting problem, while Sun et al. (2022) proposed a multi-resolution training strategy to smooth the training difficulty of the DNMT model. However, these methods are all based on a fixed sequence length. Whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the translation quality still remains to be investigated. + +# 2.2 Scaling Law + +The Scaling law of language models has been widely studied, and have played a significant role in advancing large language models. Kaplan et al. (2020) proposed that the perplexity of the language model is inversely proportional to the logarithm of the size of the training data and the number of the model parameters. Hoffmann et al. (2022) further optimized this scaling law by taking a larger corpus size into consideration. Recently, Touvron et al. (2023) proposed that the inference overhead should also be considered by the scaling law. In the field of neural machine translation, Ott et al. (2018) proposed that enlarging the data size can further improve the translation quality of NMT models, while Ghorbani et al. (2021) further proposed that the cross-entropy loss is also governed by the power law of model size and data size. These works have greatly accelerated the development of large language models and neural machine translation (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021; Scao et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). However, the existing scaling law of machine translation is based on the cross-entropy loss of the model, which is not directly related to the translation quality. In addition, the effect of contextual information has not been considered in the scaling law of machine + +
ArchitectureParamsParams w/o EmbeddingMACs / TokenMACs / Token
Transformer-small48.32M31.54M48.7M67.2M
Transformer-base60.92M44.14M61.5M79.8M
Transformer-big209.92M176.37M210.9M247.5M
Transformer-base-338.85M22.07M39.0M48.2M
Transformer-base-982.99M66.21M83.7M111.2M
Transformer-base-12105.06M88.28M105.9M142.6M
+ +translation. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the scaling law of DNMT. + +# 3 Experimental setup + +# 3.1 Architecture + +We use the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture as our DNMT models. To bring our work closer to cutting-edge research, we leverage several improvements on the standard Transformer architecture, including the pre-norm layer normalization (Xiong et al., 2020) and the Gaussian Error Linear Unit (GELU) activation function (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016). To further investigate the impact of different model structures on the quality of document-level translation, we experimented with various model widths and depths. Specifically, the small, base, and big models have 6 layers in both the encoder and decoder. In terms of model width, the small and base models employ an embedding dimension of 512, whereas the large model has an embedding dimension of 1024. Additionally, we employ dimensions of 1024, 2048, and 4096 for the small, base, and big models, respectively, in the feed-forward network. To investigate the model depth on translation quality, we vary the number of layers in the base model from 3 to 12. We use deepspeed $^{1}$ to profile the number of parameters and MACs per token for our model. The statistics of our models are shown in Table 1. + +# 3.2 Dataset + +Compared to sentence-level bilingual corpus, document-level bilingual datasets are limited in size (Chen et al., 2021). To maximize the corpus size, we combine data from 5 high-quality document-level English-German datasets, including EUbookshop (Skadinš et al., 2014), Open- + +Subtitles (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), Europarl (Koehn, 2005), NewsCommentary, and TildEMODEL (Rozis and Skadin's, 2017), from OPUS2. The only pre-processing step we take is tokenizing the dataset using SentencePiece3 with a joint $32\mathrm{k}$ vocabulary. To perform early stopping and determine the hyperparameters, we randomly extracted 100 documents from the dataset as the validation set. For the test set, we utilize newstest2020 from the WMT competition. The statistics of the combined dataset are shown in Table 2. In order to further investigate the impact of data scale on the performance of DNMT, we randomly sampled subsets of different sizes from the combined dataset to serve as our training sets. The details of the sampled subsets are shown in Appendix A. In our experiments, we segment the document into different lengths, ranging from 32 to 1024 tokens, to investigate the impact of maximum sequence length on the performance of DNMT. The length distribution of our segmented datasets is shown in Appendix B. + +Table 1: The statistics of the used model. The first column is the model architecture. The second and the third columns show the total number of parameters and the number of parameters without embedding. The fourth and fifth columns show the number of MACs per token at sequence length equal to 32 and 1024, respectively. + +
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
EUbookshop172M9.3M14k
OpenSubtitles136M23M29k
Europarl42M1.8M10k
NewsCommentary8.8M0.4M9.7k
TildeMODEL23M1.6M52k
Combined382M36M115k
+ +Table 2: The statistical results of the datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count. + +# 3.3 Training + +Previous researches indicate that training a document-level model based on a sentence-level model yields better results compared to training a document-level model from scratch (Bao et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018). Therefore, we adopt a two-step training strategy. First, we train a sentence-level model by splitting the documents in the corpus into sentences. Then, we finetune the sentence-level model into a DNMT model using the document-level corpus. During training, we use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with $\beta_{1} = 0.9$ , $\beta_{2} = 0.98$ , $\epsilon = 10^{-9}$ , and the learning rate is scheduled using the inverse square root method (Vaswani et al., 2017) with warmup steps of 4000. We use the label smoothed cross-entropy loss (Szegedy et al., 2016) with the smoothing value of 0.1. We conduct all experiments on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs with a maximum of 4096 tokens per GPU. We use half-precision float (fp16) to accelerate the training process (Ott et al., 2018). The dropout and the attention dropout are tuned for every model from $\{0.1, 0.2, 0.3\}$ and $\{0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3\}$ , respectively. We conduct our experiments using the fairseq toolkit (Ott et al., 2019). + +# 3.4 Evaluation + +In order to make the number of generated sentences matches that of the source document, we add an EOS token at the end of each sentence. We use beam-search with beam size 5 for all our experiments. Following previous study (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), we employ document BLEU (d-BLEU) as our document-level metrics, while sentence BLEU (s-BLEU) as our sentence-level metrics. SacreBLEU $^4$ (Post, 2018) was used to calculate the above metrics. In addition, we also employ COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) to evaluate the quality of generated sentences. We conduct each experiment three times with different random seeds, and present the average score for analysis. + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section we present the results of our experiments. First, we analyze the effect of single factor on the translation quality of DNMT in Section 4.1. Then we investigate the joint effect of multiple factors in Section 4.2. + +![](images/50bdf7c3a93382ae6eabfb9a9f83f46ebd0d7de190a23e166378872b11e75f5d.jpg) +(a) Effect of model parameters + +![](images/25745e396d088f685459f790f48b82b3335257cf062396c3f8dd3b85b8b49ad6.jpg) +(b) Effect of model shape +Figure 2: The effect of model shape on the performance of DNMT. + +# 4.1 Effect of Single Factor + +We first investigated the independent impact of two factors, the model and the data, on the performance of DNMT. + +Effect of model size. To figure out the most important factor affecting translation quality, we train DNMT systems with different model sizes on the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 2, the performance of DNMT increases as the model size increases. However, the d-BLEU score does not increase linearly with the model depth or the model width. Similar to the previous study (Kaplan et al., 2020), observe an approximately linear relationship between the model's performance and the logarithm of the parameter count. Furthermore, this linearity is more closely related to the number of non-embedding parameters rather than the total number of parameters. These findings suggest that compared to the model width and depth, non-embedding parameters better reflects the translation quality of the DNMT model. + +Effect of Data Scale. To investigate the effect of the data scale on the performance of DNMT, we conduct experiments on different sized subsets of the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 3, the performance of DNMT increases as the data scale increases. Surprisingly, the evaluation shows that regardless of how the model changes, when the number of sentence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. This finding gives us a new understanding of the relationship between data scale and model performance. In addition, the overall trend is consistent with previous studies that there is a power law between model performance and data size (Ghorbani et al., 2021). + +![](images/7f5987d472031f82eede34777d41ff72be493140182056e25028869159626719.jpg) +Figure 3: Document BLEU versus the number of parameters. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, which is measured by the number of sentence pairs, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model. + +# 4.2 Effect of Multiple Factors + +To study the interactions between factors, we keep the data scale, model scale, and sequence length fixed separately and investigate the joint impact of the other two factors on translation quality. Specifically, we used the entire dataset to examine the relationship between model scale and maximum sequence length, fixed the model scale as the Transformer-base to study the impact of data scale and maximum sequence length on translation quality, and held the maximum sequence length at 512 to investigate the relationship between model scale and data scale. + +Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 4, the BLEU score generally increases with the sequence length for various model shapes. However, we observe that there is an upper limit to this performance improvement as the length increases. For example, when the sequence length is 512, the BLEU score of the transformer-base is 31.55. However, when the sequence length reaches 1024, the BLEU score decreases to 30.59. This indicates that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for the DNMT model. In addition, we find that this optimal sequence length is closely related to the model size. To illustrate this relationship more clearly, we estimate the location of the optimal sequence length for different model sizes. As the star marker shown in Figure 4, the optimal sequence length and the model scale are positively correlated. This finding + +![](images/f62ad91e85b849ee79e93460d64548a8be37e69df82aa1b95796d1f63420251d.jpg) +Figure 4: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and model shape on the performance of DNMT. Different colors represent different model shapes, while the star marker represents the estimated optimal sequence length for different model shapes. + +differs from the previous studies (Press et al., 2021; Beltagy et al., 2020), as they demonstrate that the model's performance consistently increases with an expanding context. We proposed that this is due to the model being influenced by erroneous context in the generation process, i.e. the error accumulation problem, and we further analyze this phenomenon in Section 5.2. In addition, we find that the relationship between optimal sequence length $\mathbf{L}$ and the parameters of the model can be expressed by the following equation: + +$$ +\mathbf {L} = a \log (N) + b. \tag {1} +$$ + +where $N$ is the number of parameters, $a$ and $b$ are constants. We estimate the value of $a$ and $b$ by fitting the data in Figure 4. The estimated value of $a$ is 111, while the estimated value of $b$ is -1399. This indicates that for every increase of 77 tokens in the optimal sequence length, the model parameter size needs to be doubled. This finding is consistent with the previous studies, indicating that a suitable sequence length for the transformer-base model is approximately 512. + +Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Data Scale. To figure out whether the data scale affects the ability of the transformer model to handle long text, we conduct experiments on different subsets of the combined dataset with different maximum sequence lengths. As shown in Figure 5, under different data scales, the performance of the model generally increases and then decreases with the increase in sequence length. Similar to our find + +![](images/c267a874fff4e4e92e5d687976d744563f6dd67fd571693edf48810059de4273.jpg) +Figure 5: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and data scale on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different maximum sequence length, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model. + +ings in Section 4.1, when the data scale is large enough, the performance of DNMT will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. However, although the DNMT models are initialized using a pretrained sentence-level model, the d-BLEU score is lower than the sentence-level NMT model if the data size is limited. In addition, we find that the d-BLEU score is below the sentence-level baseline when the maximum sequence length is 64, even with an adequate amount of data. This is due to the early stopping mechanism terminating the training prematurely when the sequence length is too short. When the maximum sequence length is equal to 128, the BLEU score rises. Surprisingly, the maximum sequence length of 256 is a turning point, where the BLEU score reaches the maximum when the data scale is limited. This indicates that when the document-level corpus size is scarce, we can set the maximum sequence length to 256 in order to maximize the translation quality. In addition, when the maximum sequence length exceeds 512, we observed that the BLEU score shows a declining trend even with further increases in the data scale. This finding further confirms our previous conclusion that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given model. + +Joint Effect of Data Scale and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 6, we train DNMT models with different data scales and model sizes with a maximum sequence length of 512. The performance of DNMT increases consistently as the data scale increases. In addition, when the number of sen + +![](images/2abed85e3ac7cc36e9b5e942bf3d2126b22e7a9e7d342323af460c9421a95bad.jpg) +Figure 6: The joint effect of data scale and model shape on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, while the dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model. + +tence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model outperforms the corresponding sentence-level model, which is consistent with our findings in Section 4.1. In contrast, when the data scale is limited, the models with more layers outperform the models with wider widths. For example, the 12-layer transformer-base model performs better than the transformer-large model with 6 layers when the sentence pairs are less than 4 million, even though the number of parameters in the transformer-large model is twice that of the 12-layer transformer-base model. We believe that this is because when the document-level data is limited, the performance of the DNMT model depends more on the parameter initialization, which is dominated by the sentence-level model. This is consistent with previous studies that sentence-level NMT models are more dependent on the model depth rather than width (Mehta et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). However, when the data is sufficient, a model with a larger number of parameters will benefit more than a model with more layers. This indicates that the model's ability to capture context is also related to the model width. + +# 5 Discussion + +# 5.1 The Correlation Between BLEU Score and Cross-Entropy Loss + +As mentioned by Post and Junczys-Dowmunt (2023), The quality assessment of document translation is challenging. In this paper, we demonstrate that the cross-entropy (CE) loss of DNMT model + +![](images/9ca6af9c9391ad91ded122356326c4cb20680d65a5064ad1edaae47ff1bf924c.jpg) +Figure 7: The correlation between cross-entropy loss and d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. Different colors represent different maximum sequence length, and the solid line represents the linear regression of this correlation. The coefficient of determination are reported in the legend. + +does not adequately capture the quality of translation. To further investigate the relationship between the CE loss and the translation quality, we plot the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. As shown in Figure 7, the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model are weakly correlated, indicating that the loss alone fails to fully depict the translation quality. This finding is inconsistent with the previous study (Ghorbani et al., 2021), which has indicated a substantial association between CE loss and translation quality. In addition, we calculate the coefficient of determination $(R^2)$ of the linear regression model. The $R^2$ decreases as the maximum sequence length grows. We suppose that this is because document-by-document DNMT requires generating longer text, which is more prone to the error accumulation problem, which will be discussed in Section 5.2. + +# 5.2 The Error Accumulation Problem + +To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for the existence of the optimal maximum sequence length and the failure of CE loss to adequately reflect the translation quality, we analyze the translation quality of sentences in different positions in the documents. We selectively extract a subset from the validation set, where DNMT models under-perform the sentence-level counterparts. Then we employ both sentence-level models and document-level models to translate those documents. We split the translated segments into sentences, and gather them into a subset by there + +position in the document. Then we evaluate each subsets via COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022). The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations is shown in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 8, with the help of contextual information, the translation quality of DNMT model is slightly better than that of the sentence-level model at the beginning of each documents. However, this advantage soon diminishes as the translation proceeds. From the fifth sentence on wards, there has been a growing gap in translation quality between the DNMT model and the sentence-level translation model, which clearly indicates the error accumulation process. This finding demonstrate that the optimal sequence length is actually the trade-off between extra contextual information and the accumulated errors. Interestingly, the gap between the sentence-level model and the document-level model is larger when the model size is smaller, indicating that larger model has a stronger ability to resist the error accumulation problem. + +
Context LengthAccuracy
050.06
6067.75
12081.89
25082.26
50082.38
75082.49
100081.96
+ +Table 3: The accuracy of DNMT model on ContraPro test suite. Context length is the number of tokens in the context. Zero context length indicates that the result is from the sentence-level model. + +# 5.3 The Contrastive Experiment + +In addition to evaluating the overall translation quality, we also conduct experiments on ContraPro (Müller et al., 2018), a large contrastive test suite extracted from OpenSubtitles 2018 (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), to evaluate the accuracy of translating the English word "it". As shown in Table 3, all the DNMT models outperform their sentence-level counterparts, clearly indicating that the DNMT model is able to capture contextual information. As the available context increases, the accuracy of the test suite increases in fluctuation. When the context length exceeds 500, the accuracy of the DNMT model stops increasing, and remains at a high level. This tendency is not completely con- + +![](images/75e18f99d97882172f664fd097746939628bbdfc61259d3b36b02250340d8df6.jpg) +Figure 8: The COMET score of the translated sentences at different positions in the document. The solid lines represent the estimated trend line of the COMET score. As the model size grows, the gap between the DNMT model and the sentence-level model becomes smaller. + +![](images/fbc3f0fd93d683f6cfdb08ba6d45af2eec39a977a3ce02ca74bc162c6df992a5.jpg) + +![](images/de8f726272842213d1cd6d1c4fc6af7d48dcf94d270006caee361d663e59ad0d.jpg) + +![](images/df89924406aa97c157c252981ce4797efddfb59650f0e634aa5c193c9cd158f9.jpg) +Figure 9: The generalization ability of DNMT model. The models are trained with different maximum sequence length. + +sistent with the trend of d-BLEU score, showing that the overall translation quality is also influenced by factors other than the discourse context. + +# 5.4 The Generalization Ability + +In practice, the lengths of input and output sentences may differ from those encountered during the training phase. Therefore, a proficient DNMT model should be capable of handling documents of various lengths and produce accurate translation results. To investigate this, we segment the documents in the test set into different lengths, and evaluate the DNMT models on the segmented test sets. According to Figure 9, when the sequence length during inference is shorter than that during training, the d-BLEU score of DNMT model decreases mildly. This observation shows that Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is capable of handling documents of various lengths within the maximum + +sequence length when finetuned on document-level corpus. Thus it is possible to apply DNMT model to both document-level and sentence-level translation tasks. However, when the inference length exceeds the training length, the performance experiences a sharp drop. We considered that this is because vanilla Transformer lacks length extrapolation ability (Press et al., 2021), which needs to be further investigated in the field of document-level translation. + +# 5.5 The computation overhead of DNMT + +As the quadratic computational complexity of the attention mechanisms, the computational requirements of the DNMT models are higher than those of sentence-level models. We report the MACs (Multiply-Accumulate Operations) per token required by the DNMT models in Table 1. Interestingly, we find that even though the sequence length increases from 32 to 1024, which is much longer than the optimal sequence length of transformerbig, the MACs per token increase by only 40 percent. This finding indicates that the computation overhead of the DNMT models during inference is not much higher than the sentence-level models, but the errors encounter by sentence-level translation reduced significantly. Thus it is efficient to employ the DNMT model in practice. We have placed a more detailed derivation in Appendix C. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation. Our findings suggest that the corpus size, model scale and the maximum sequence length all have significant impacts on the translation quality of the + +model. Different from the scaling law of sentence-level neural machine translation, we find that their exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given DNMT model, and the optimal maximum sequence length is strongly correlated with the number of non-embedding parameters of the DNMT model. We further formulate this correlation with a simple power law. Our additional analysis indicates that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation. In future work, we will investigate how to overcome the error accumulation problem, and extend the optimal sequence length of document-by-document translation. + +# 7 Acknowledgement + +Our research requires a large number of experiments. Thus, we would like to express our gratitude to the ICT computing platform and the technical service team for providing GPU resources. + +Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their thorough review and valuable feedback. + +# Limitations + +Although we have conduct massive experiments to explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation, there are still some limitations in our work: (1) over four hundred models were trained, resulting in high energy consumption; (2) due to the limitation of the data size, we are unable to conduct a larger scale experiments. + +# References + +Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473. +Guangsheng Bao, Yue Zhang, Zhiyang Teng, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2021. G-transformer for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14761. +Loic Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondrej Bojar, Marta Ruiz Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubesic, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (wmt20). In Conference on Machine Translation. + +Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. +Linqing Chen, Junhui Li, Zhengxian Gong, Boxing Chen, Weihua Luo, Min Zhang, and Guodong Zhou. 2021. Breaking the corpus bottleneck for context-aware neural machine translation with cross-task pretraining. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2851-2861. +Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672. +Behrooz Ghorbani, Orhan First, Markus Freitag, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Xavier Garcia, Ciprian Chelba, and Colin Cherry. 2021. Scaling laws for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07740. +Dengji Guo, Zhengrui Ma, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Prediction difference regularization against perturbation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7665-7675. +Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415. +Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556. +Yuchen Eleanor Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, Jian Yang, Haoyang Huang, Rico Sennrich, Ryan Cotterell, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Blonde: An automatic evaluation metric for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11878. +Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361. +Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. +Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of machine translation summit x: papers, pages 79-86. + +Pierre Lison and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and tv subtitles. +Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742. +Lorenzo Lupo, Marco Dinarelli, and Laurent Besacier. 2021. Divide and rule: Effective pre-training for context-aware multi-encoder translation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17151. +Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. A simple and effective unified encoder for document-level machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 3505-3511. +Sameen Maruf, André FT Martins, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2019. Selective attention for context-aware neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08788. +Sameen Maruf, Fahimeh Saleh, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2021. A survey on document-level neural machine translation: Methods and evaluation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(2):1-36. +Sachin Mehta, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Srinivasan Iyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Delight: Deep and light-weight transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00623. +Lesly Miculicich, Dhananjay Ram, Nikolaos Pappas, and James Henderson. 2018. Document-level neural machine translation with hierarchical attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01576. +Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, Elena Voita, and Rico Sennrich. 2018. A Large-Scale Test Set for the Evaluation of Context-Aware Pronoun Translation in Neural Machine Translation. In WMT 2018, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling.* In *Proceedings of NAACL-HLT* 2019: Demonstrations. +Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. ArXiv, abs/1806.00187. +Maja Popovic. 2015. chrf: character n-gram f-score for automatic mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the tenth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 392-395. +Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on + +Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Matt Post and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2023. Escaping the sentence-level paradigm in machine translation. ArXiv:2304.12959 [cs]. +Ofir Press, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation. +Ricardo Rei, José GC De Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André FT Martins. 2022. Comet-22: Unbabel-ist 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585. +Roberts Rozis and Raivis Skadinš. 2017. Tilde model-multilingual open data for eu languages. In Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 263-265. +Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Galle, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100. +Raivis Skadinš, Jörg Tiedemann, Roberts Rozis, and Daiga Deksne. 2014. Billions of parallel words for free: Building and using the eu bookshop corpus. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 1850-1855. +Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, Hao Zhou, Chengqi Zhao, Shujian Huang, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. 2022. Rethinking document-level neural machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3537-3548. +Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2818-2826. +Jörg Tiedemann and Yves Scherrer. 2017. Neural machine translation with extended context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05943. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention Is + +All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762 [cs]. ArXiv: 1706.03762. +Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax. +Hongyu Wang, Shuming Ma, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Dongdong Zhang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Deepnet: Scaling transformers to 1,000 layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00555. +Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tieyan Liu. 2020. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10524-10533. PMLR. +Pei Zhang, Boxing Chen, Niyu Ge, and Kai Fan. 2020. Long-short term masking transformer: A simple but effective baseline for document-level neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1081-1087, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A The Statistics of Sampled Datasets + +To explore the relationship between translation quality and the data size in Section 4, we sampled the combined dataset with different sizes. The size of the subset is determined by the number of documents, and to ensure experiment reproducibility, each size was sampled three times for averaging the results. The statistics of the sampled datasets are shown in Table 4. + +![](images/876035dd5b90f1200ff811d4633decb50f37b374d240c79cdf808e046d214f1b.jpg) +Figure 10: The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations. + +# B The Length Distribution of The Split Dataset + +To conduct experiments with different maximum sequence length, we split the documents into segments with different segment lengths. However, due to the document boundary restrictions, we cannot ensure that all segments have the same length. As shown in Figure 11, the length distribution of the training set becomes more even as the maximum sequence length increases, which allows the model to translate the sentences of arbitrary length within the maximum sequence length. + +# C Estimation of Computational Complexity for Transformer Models + +To gain a clearer understanding of how sequence length affects the computational cost of the model, we take the Transformer base as an example and provide a detailed derivation of the computational requirements for its forward propagation process. To simplify the derivation, we ignore the computational cost of Layer Norm, residual connection, bias, and the softmax. The embedding dimension of the base model is 512 and the hidden state di + +mension is 512. There are 8 attention heads, and each attention head has a dimension of 64. The feed-forward layer dimension is 2048, and there are 6 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both $n$ and the vocabulary size is 32768. Then we can estimate the computational cost of the model in Table 5. + +As shown in the Table 5, the total computational cost of the Transformer base is $n^2 * 18432 + n * 60819456$ , and the coefficient of the first-order term regarding $n$ is much larger than the coefficient of the second-order term. Therefore, the growth of computational cost is approximately linear with respect to $n$ when $n$ is small. When substituting sequence lengths $n = 32$ and $n = 1024$ into the above equation, the total computational cost and per-token computational cost are shown in Table 6. As demonstrated in Table 6, although the sequence length has increased significantly, the computational cost per token have not increased significantly. Furthermore, for larger-scale models, due to their expanded hidden state dimensions, the contribution of the linear term will be more significant, which further reduce the impact of sequence length on the computational cost per token. + +# D The Experimental results on Chinese to English dataset. + +To further validate our experimental findings, we collected over 10 million parallel sentences from Chinese to English and conducted a repeat of our experiments on this dataset. The composition and scale of this dataset are presented in Table 7. The experimental results, as shown in Figure 12, demonstrate that the overall trends in Chinese-English dataset are consistent with the conclusions we obtained in the English-German dataset. However, there is one significant difference: the optimal sequence length in this dataset is considerably shorter than in the English-German dataset. We believe that the optimal sequence length is also correlated with the data quality, language characteristics, and domain of the dataset. We will leave this issue for future research. + +
Subset Number#Lines#Tokens
123123
10.280.290.274.294.274.08
20.520.490.488.138.057.62
30.820.860.8513.1213.9212.85
41.391.421.4021.7722.2821.48
52.372.412.3037.7039.2136.30
64.004.063.9962.6464.9362.83
76.816.886.87109.17111.99109.54
811.4711.3911.51183.84181.83182.84
919.5319.6619.58312.61313.62310.31
+ +Table 4: The statistics of the sampled datasets in millions. Subset number indicates the number of subsets in the sampled dataset. #Lines and #Tokens indicate the number of lines and tokens in the sampled dataset, respectively. + +
ModuleComputational CostNumber of the ModuleCorresponding Operation
Embeddingn*5124The embedding and positional encoding layers in both encoder and decoder
Output Projectionn*512*327681The output projection layer for generating the final output probabilities
Feed Forwardn*512*2048*212The feed forward layers in both encoder and decoder layers
Attention Projectn*512*64*8*418The query, key, value, and output projection in the multi-head attention
Dot Productn2*64*8*218The dot product between key and query as well as attention weight and value
Totaln2*18432+n*608194561Total computation cost of the Transformer base
+ +Table 5: The estimation of computational complexity for Transformer base model. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both $n$ and the vocabulary size is 32768. + +
nComputational CostComputational Cost / token
32196509696061409280
10248160647577679693824
+ +Table 6: The computational cost for Transformer base model when $n = {32}$ and $n = {1024}$ . + +
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
UNPC417.2M17.4M94.7k
NewsCommentary5.3M0.1M7.8k
Combined422.5M17.5M102.5k
+ +Table 7: The statistical results of the Chinese $\rightarrow$ English datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count. + +![](images/302463c8e2f8ece23dbe5a64b07d8fc6fb20e96d52276bb5b5ff636e734c50a9.jpg) + +![](images/0db13047ddeb0dc22e510993ba033f79a47ecc3061ec48a7c16731ed9ee21b85.jpg) + +![](images/b721b109d6a837f1495a09944085848791051cc3aa8eec738c9f657ea1b82f04.jpg) + +![](images/2f5af154421882917d04d0ee6880be91d8ea1d3d683cedde6ac5a8185f03a7ea.jpg) + +![](images/6a59c8c0f7064bd9bdd1eecfa9d0e23c0ccb3476f2a6bf84564f363304bed1d4.jpg) +Figure 11: The length distribution of the segmented dataset. + +![](images/90f914cef1b992d71b7efc97d2aaedc84f798e88c4f8709018205ef0b18ab2dd.jpg) + +Figure 12: The experimental result on Chinese $\rightarrow$ English dataset. +![](images/5ae928afa5c2fd7ae2a37fd2d3dd1b4b0ef822dbda8b4a8305f3a4e7fad3838c.jpg) +(a) The joint effect of maximum se- (b) The joint effect of maximum se- (c) The joint effect of data scale and sequence length and model shape. quence length and data scale. model shape. + +![](images/707431c76d4df4412eb487388cc7891ff92e8f75478a7106b09cafa0dfa25f55.jpg) + +![](images/d4fbf07320b3abfdc5fca7bd4c731f4bc8f610c366f95203f77397f3b08ea673.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/images.zip b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0bcd5b53f312c812d55c59155afd67742b4efbee --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f938b7043036fee26a4d2679cc0092cb5840814e1861de2460d940a4312e4327 +size 685633 diff --git a/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/layout.json b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..acbc87d8aa5143a9d6fee131c8ccc4ed561bd1eb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Law for Document Neural Machine Translation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7929 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 70, + 487, + 88 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 70, + 487, + 88 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 70, + 487, + 88 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling Law for Document-Level Neural Machine Translation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuocheng Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Shuhao Gu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Min Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yang Feng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 95, + 461, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 111, + 431, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 111, + 431, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 111, + 431, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 125, + 487, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 125, + 487, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 125, + 487, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 138, + 445, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 138, + 445, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 138, + 445, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 138, + 445, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 153, + 471, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 153, + 471, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 153, + 471, + 167 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 153, + 471, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Future Science and Engineering, Soochow University, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 167, + 377, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 167, + 377, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 167, + 377, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "zhangzhuocheng20z@ict.ac.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 181, + 356, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 181, + 356, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 181, + 356, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "shuhaog515@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 228, + 195, + 362, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 228, + 195, + 362, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 228, + 195, + 362, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "zhangminmt@hotmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 209, + 350, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 209, + 350, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 209, + 350, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fengyang@ict.ac.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 241, + 202, + 253 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 241, + 202, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 241, + 202, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 264, + 274, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 264, + 274, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 264, + 274, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The scaling laws of language models have played a significant role in advancing large language models. However, the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation remains unclear. In order to promote the development of document-level neural machine translation, we systematically examine the scaling laws in this field. In this paper, we carry out an in-depth analysis of the influence among three factors on translation quality: model scale, data scale, and maximum sequence length. Our results indicate that all three factors have a significant impact on model performance. In particular, increasing the maximum sequence length effectively reduces the context-related errors and improves the overall translation quality. Nevertheless, the sequence length cannot be increased indefinitely, as the number of parameters limits the optimal sequence length. Specifically, we propose a formula describing the empirical scaling law between the model size and the optimal sequence length. Our further analysis shows that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation by extending the sequence length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 597, + 154, + 609 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 597, + 154, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 597, + 154, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neural machine translation (NMT) (Bahdanau et al., 2014) has made great progress in recent years (Barrault et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2022). However, as the input text exceeds a single sentence, sentence-level NMT methods will fail to capture discourse phenomena, such as pronominal anaphora, lexical consistency, and document coherence. In contrast, document-level neural machine translation (DNMT) (Maruf et al., 2021) aims to improve translation consistency and coherence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 244, + 520, + 309 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 244, + 520, + 309 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 244, + 520, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 244, + 520, + 309 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3d0d4a8c4e35ce2177649153a93c3d31353d0cd67cd62e365ab54dd6bdcc5876.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The key factors affecting the translation quality of document-level neural machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "by leveraging contextual information beyond the sentence being translated. Different from previous sentence-by-sentence DNMT methods, which employ an additional context encoder to capture the discourse information (Chen et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018), recent studies have shown that the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is able to translate multiple sentences directly (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022), referred to as document-by-document translation method. These works demonstrated that increasing the granularity of translation from sentence to document is able to further reduce the context-dependent errors encountered by sentence-level translation methods, such as misinterpretation of pronouns (Müller et al., 2018) and lexical inconsistency (Jiang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although has been widely explored, the mechanism of DNMT has not been fully investigated. For example, previous document-by-document DNMT methods are trained on a fixed maximum sequence length, i.e. the document longer than the maximum sequence will be split into smaller segments, and whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the performance of the model still remains to be investigated. Additionally, as the sequence length grows, the difficulty of modeling the contextual information increases further, and whether more training data is needed remains to be explored. Furthermore, the scale of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 167, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 167, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 167, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8290" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8290-8303" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "model parameters is among the most crucial factors affecting the quality of sentence-level NMT methods and is widely studied by the scaling law of neural machine translation (Ghorbani et al., 2021; Ott et al., 2018), but how this factor affects the performance of the DNMT model remains unclear. Finally, it remains an open question whether these factors will interact with each other." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 180, + 293, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 180, + 293, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 180, + 293, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To answer the questions above, we conduct massive experiments, specifically investigating the impacts of three key factors: corpus size, model scale, and maximum sequence length. In addition, we explore the joint effect of these factors. Our findings suggest that all three factors are closely related to the performance of the DNMT model and enlarging the maximum sequence length effectively improves the ability of the DNMT model to capture the contextual information. However, the sequence length can not be increased infinitely as the translation quality begins to drop when the sequence length exceeds a certain limit. Surprisingly, our experimental result shows that this limitation is proportional to the logarithm of the number of model parameters. Our further analysis demonstrates that determining the optimal maximum sequence length requires striking a balance between capturing additional contextual information and managing accumulated errors during auto-regressive decoding. This finding highlights the importance of future research in exploring effective solutions to mitigate this challenge. Furthermore, we find that although the DNMT model is initialized using a pretrained sentence-level translation model, increasing the document-level corpus size can further improve the translation quality. Notably, this improvement increases as the number of model parameters increases. As Figure 1 concludes, our study indicates that the number of model parameters affects the translation quality of DNMT by affecting two key factors: sample efficiency and optimal sequence length. As the number of model parameters increases, both the sample efficiency and the optimal sequence length grow, leading to the performance improvement of the DNMT model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 160, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 160, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 160, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 247, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 247, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 247, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Document-level Neural Machine Translation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 292, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 292, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 292, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Document-level neural machine translation has witnessed significant advancements in recent years (Maruf et al., 2021). Miculicich et al. (2018) pro" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "posed a hierarchical attention mechanism to capture the discourse information while Maruf et al. (2019) employed a selective attention module to select the most relevant information in the context. Lupo et al. (2021) further improved these methods by splitting the sentence into smaller segments to overcome the training sparsity problem. Recently, Tiedemann and Scherrer (2017); Ma et al. (2020) suggest that Transformer has the ability to translate multiple sentences directly, and this document-by-document paradigm further reduce the context related errors. However, the DNMT model may fail to converge if the corpus size is limited and the sequence length is long (Liu et al., 2020). Bao et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2020) proposed to employ attention masks to prevent the overfitting problem, while Sun et al. (2022) proposed a multi-resolution training strategy to smooth the training difficulty of the DNMT model. However, these methods are all based on a fixed sequence length. Whether further increasing the maximum sequence length can continue to improve the translation quality still remains to be investigated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 400, + 389, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 400, + 389, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 400, + 389, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Scaling Law" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Scaling law of language models has been widely studied, and have played a significant role in advancing large language models. Kaplan et al. (2020) proposed that the perplexity of the language model is inversely proportional to the logarithm of the size of the training data and the number of the model parameters. Hoffmann et al. (2022) further optimized this scaling law by taking a larger corpus size into consideration. Recently, Touvron et al. (2023) proposed that the inference overhead should also be considered by the scaling law. In the field of neural machine translation, Ott et al. (2018) proposed that enlarging the data size can further improve the translation quality of NMT models, while Ghorbani et al. (2021) further proposed that the cross-entropy loss is also governed by the power law of model size and data size. These works have greatly accelerated the development of large language models and neural machine translation (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021; Scao et al., 2022; Costa-jussa et al., 2022). However, the existing scaling law of machine translation is based on the cross-entropy loss of the model, which is not directly related to the translation quality. In addition, the effect of contextual information has not been considered in the scaling law of machine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 792 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 792 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 792 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8291" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 516, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 516, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 516, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 516, + 179 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ArchitectureParamsParams w/o EmbeddingMACs / TokenMACs / Token
Transformer-small48.32M31.54M48.7M67.2M
Transformer-base60.92M44.14M61.5M79.8M
Transformer-big209.92M176.37M210.9M247.5M
Transformer-base-338.85M22.07M39.0M48.2M
Transformer-base-982.99M66.21M83.7M111.2M
Transformer-base-12105.06M88.28M105.9M142.6M
", + "image_path": "32f40edfeb4db2f4c1f0a0cb3a97448643a52bbcb577dfccfa9128c2e505c8d8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 289, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 289, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 244, + 289, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "translation. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the scaling law of DNMT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 189, + 295 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 189, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 189, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experimental setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 155, + 314 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 155, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 155, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) architecture as our DNMT models. To bring our work closer to cutting-edge research, we leverage several improvements on the standard Transformer architecture, including the pre-norm layer normalization (Xiong et al., 2020) and the Gaussian Error Linear Unit (GELU) activation function (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016). To further investigate the impact of different model structures on the quality of document-level translation, we experimented with various model widths and depths. Specifically, the small, base, and big models have 6 layers in both the encoder and decoder. In terms of model width, the small and base models employ an embedding dimension of 512, whereas the large model has an embedding dimension of 1024. Additionally, we employ dimensions of 1024, 2048, and 4096 for the small, base, and big models, respectively, in the feed-forward network. To investigate the model depth on translation quality, we vary the number of layers in the base model from 3 to 12. We use deepspeed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to profile the number of parameters and MACs per token for our model. The statistics of our models are shown in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 131, + 666 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 131, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 655, + 131, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared to sentence-level bilingual corpus, document-level bilingual datasets are limited in size (Chen et al., 2021). To maximize the corpus size, we combine data from 5 high-quality document-level English-German datasets, including EUbookshop (Skadinš et al., 2014), Open-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Subtitles (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), Europarl (Koehn, 2005), NewsCommentary, and TildEMODEL (Rozis and Skadin's, 2017), from OPUS2. The only pre-processing step we take is tokenizing the dataset using SentencePiece3 with a joint " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "32\\mathrm{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 526, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " vocabulary. To perform early stopping and determine the hyperparameters, we randomly extracted 100 documents from the dataset as the validation set. For the test set, we utilize newstest2020 from the WMT competition. The statistics of the combined dataset are shown in Table 2. In order to further investigate the impact of data scale on the performance of DNMT, we randomly sampled subsets of different sizes from the combined dataset to serve as our training sets. The details of the sampled subsets are shown in Appendix A. In our experiments, we segment the document into different lengths, ranging from 32 to 1024 tokens, to investigate the impact of maximum sequence length on the performance of DNMT. The length distribution of our segmented datasets is shown in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 559, + 525, + 665 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 186, + 525, + 223 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 186, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 186, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: The statistics of the used model. The first column is the model architecture. The second and the third columns show the total number of parameters and the number of parameters without embedding. The fourth and fifth columns show the number of MACs per token at sequence length equal to 32 and 1024, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 559, + 525, + 665 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 559, + 525, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 559, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
EUbookshop172M9.3M14k
OpenSubtitles136M23M29k
Europarl42M1.8M10k
NewsCommentary8.8M0.4M9.7k
TildeMODEL23M1.6M52k
Combined382M36M115k
", + "image_path": "71b246e116058fc4faeabf129b0116730e6c6ca27ba70408ce85e882b40b8405.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 672, + 525, + 708 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 672, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 672, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: The statistical results of the datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 749, + 391, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 749, + 391, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 749, + 391, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 749, + 391, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://opus.nlpl.eu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 761, + 467, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 761, + 467, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 761, + 467, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://github.com/google/sentencepiece" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/microsoft/DeepSpeed" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8292" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 138, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 138, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 138, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous researches indicate that training a document-level model based on a sentence-level model yields better results compared to training a document-level model from scratch (Bao et al., 2021; Miculicich et al., 2018). Therefore, we adopt a two-step training strategy. First, we train a sentence-level model by splitting the documents in the corpus into sentences. Then, we finetune the sentence-level model into a DNMT model using the document-level corpus. During training, we use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2} = 0.98" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon = 10^{-9}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the learning rate is scheduled using the inverse square root method (Vaswani et al., 2017) with warmup steps of 4000. We use the label smoothed cross-entropy loss (Szegedy et al., 2016) with the smoothing value of 0.1. We conduct all experiments on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs with a maximum of 4096 tokens per GPU. We use half-precision float (fp16) to accelerate the training process (Ott et al., 2018). The dropout and the attention dropout are tuned for every model from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.1, 0.2, 0.3\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. We conduct our experiments using the fairseq toolkit (Ott et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 147, + 448 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 147, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 437, + 147, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to make the number of generated sentences matches that of the source document, we add an EOS token at the end of each sentence. We use beam-search with beam size 5 for all our experiments. Following previous study (Liu et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2021), we employ document BLEU (d-BLEU) as our document-level metrics, while sentence BLEU (s-BLEU) as our sentence-level metrics. SacreBLEU" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Post, 2018) was used to calculate the above metrics. In addition, we also employ COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) to evaluate the quality of generated sentences. We conduct each experiment three times with different random seeds, and present the average score for analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 155, + 681 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 155, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 155, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 292, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 292, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 292, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we present the results of our experiments. First, we analyze the effect of single factor on the translation quality of DNMT in Section 4.1. Then we investigate the joint effect of multiple factors in Section 4.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 80, + 414, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 80, + 414, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 80, + 414, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 80, + 414, + 160 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "50bdf7c3a93382ae6eabfb9a9f83f46ebd0d7de190a23e166378872b11e75f5d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 164, + 415, + 175 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 164, + 415, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 164, + 415, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Effect of model parameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 80, + 523, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 80, + 523, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 80, + 523, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 80, + 523, + 160 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "25745e396d088f685459f790f48b82b3335257cf062396c3f8dd3b85b8b49ad6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 164, + 516, + 175 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 164, + 516, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 164, + 516, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Effect of model shape" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 524, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The effect of model shape on the performance of DNMT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 436, + 256 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 436, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 436, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Effect of Single Factor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first investigated the independent impact of two factors, the model and the data, on the performance of DNMT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of model size. To figure out the most important factor affecting translation quality, we train DNMT systems with different model sizes on the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 2, the performance of DNMT increases as the model size increases. However, the d-BLEU score does not increase linearly with the model depth or the model width. Similar to the previous study (Kaplan et al., 2020), observe an approximately linear relationship between the model's performance and the logarithm of the parameter count. Furthermore, this linearity is more closely related to the number of non-embedding parameters rather than the total number of parameters. These findings suggest that compared to the model width and depth, non-embedding parameters better reflects the translation quality of the DNMT model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of Data Scale. To investigate the effect of the data scale on the performance of DNMT, we conduct experiments on different sized subsets of the combined dataset with a maximum sequence length of 512. As shown in Figure 3, the performance of DNMT increases as the data scale increases. Surprisingly, the evaluation shows that regardless of how the model changes, when the number of sentence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. This finding gives us a new understanding of the relationship between data scale and model performance. In addition, the overall trend is consistent with previous studies that there is a power law between model performance and data size (Ghorbani et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 215, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 215, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 215, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8293" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7f5987d472031f82eede34777d41ff72be493140182056e25028869159626719.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 315 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Document BLEU versus the number of parameters. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, which is measured by the number of sentence pairs, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 216, + 355 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 216, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 216, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Effect of Multiple Factors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To study the interactions between factors, we keep the data scale, model scale, and sequence length fixed separately and investigate the joint impact of the other two factors on translation quality. Specifically, we used the entire dataset to examine the relationship between model scale and maximum sequence length, fixed the model scale as the Transformer-base to study the impact of data scale and maximum sequence length on translation quality, and held the maximum sequence length at 512 to investigate the relationship between model scale and data scale." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 4, the BLEU score generally increases with the sequence length for various model shapes. However, we observe that there is an upper limit to this performance improvement as the length increases. For example, when the sequence length is 512, the BLEU score of the transformer-base is 31.55. However, when the sequence length reaches 1024, the BLEU score decreases to 30.59. This indicates that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for the DNMT model. In addition, we find that this optimal sequence length is closely related to the model size. To illustrate this relationship more clearly, we estimate the location of the optimal sequence length for different model sizes. As the star marker shown in Figure 4, the optimal sequence length and the model scale are positively correlated. This finding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 231 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 231 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f62ad91e85b849ee79e93460d64548a8be37e69df82aa1b95796d1f63420251d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 527, + 303 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 527, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 527, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and model shape on the performance of DNMT. Different colors represent different model shapes, while the star marker represents the estimated optimal sequence length for different model shapes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "differs from the previous studies (Press et al., 2021; Beltagy et al., 2020), as they demonstrate that the model's performance consistently increases with an expanding context. We proposed that this is due to the model being influenced by erroneous context in the generation process, i.e. the error accumulation problem, and we further analyze this phenomenon in Section 5.2. In addition, we find that the relationship between optimal sequence length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the parameters of the model can be expressed by the following equation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 491, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 491, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 491, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {L} = a \\log (N) + b. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "68fc0551543fb873b173413ba5f86f321ca1c556128d71fe90596f4577fcd266.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of parameters, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are constants. We estimate the value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by fitting the data in Figure 4. The estimated value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is 111, while the estimated value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is -1399. This indicates that for every increase of 77 tokens in the optimal sequence length, the model parameter size needs to be doubled. This finding is consistent with the previous studies, indicating that a suitable sequence length for the transformer-base model is approximately 512." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint Effect of Maximum Sequence Length and Data Scale. To figure out whether the data scale affects the ability of the transformer model to handle long text, we conduct experiments on different subsets of the combined dataset with different maximum sequence lengths. As shown in Figure 5, under different data scales, the performance of the model generally increases and then decreases with the increase in sequence length. Similar to our find" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8294" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 72, + 286, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c267a874fff4e4e92e5d687976d744563f6dd67fd571693edf48810059de4273.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 315 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The joint effect of maximum sequence length and data scale on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different maximum sequence length, while the black dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ings in Section 4.1, when the data scale is large enough, the performance of DNMT will surpass the corresponding sentence-level model. However, although the DNMT models are initialized using a pretrained sentence-level model, the d-BLEU score is lower than the sentence-level NMT model if the data size is limited. In addition, we find that the d-BLEU score is below the sentence-level baseline when the maximum sequence length is 64, even with an adequate amount of data. This is due to the early stopping mechanism terminating the training prematurely when the sequence length is too short. When the maximum sequence length is equal to 128, the BLEU score rises. Surprisingly, the maximum sequence length of 256 is a turning point, where the BLEU score reaches the maximum when the data scale is limited. This indicates that when the document-level corpus size is scarce, we can set the maximum sequence length to 256 in order to maximize the translation quality. In addition, when the maximum sequence length exceeds 512, we observed that the BLEU score shows a declining trend even with further increases in the data scale. This finding further confirms our previous conclusion that there exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint Effect of Data Scale and Model Scale. As shown in Figure 6, we train DNMT models with different data scales and model sizes with a maximum sequence length of 512. The performance of DNMT increases consistently as the data scale increases. In addition, when the number of sen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 522, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2abed85e3ac7cc36e9b5e942bf3d2126b22e7a9e7d342323af460c9421a95bad.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 527, + 303 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 527, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 527, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: The joint effect of data scale and model shape on the performance of DNMT. The solid lines represent the performance of document-level models at different data scales, while the dotted line represents the performance of the sentence-level model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tence pairs exceeds 4 million, the performance of the DNMT model outperforms the corresponding sentence-level model, which is consistent with our findings in Section 4.1. In contrast, when the data scale is limited, the models with more layers outperform the models with wider widths. For example, the 12-layer transformer-base model performs better than the transformer-large model with 6 layers when the sentence pairs are less than 4 million, even though the number of parameters in the transformer-large model is twice that of the 12-layer transformer-base model. We believe that this is because when the document-level data is limited, the performance of the DNMT model depends more on the parameter initialization, which is dominated by the sentence-level model. This is consistent with previous studies that sentence-level NMT models are more dependent on the model depth rather than width (Mehta et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). However, when the data is sufficient, a model with a larger number of parameters will benefit more than a model with more layers. This indicates that the model's ability to capture context is also related to the model width." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 663, + 379, + 676 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 663, + 379, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 663, + 379, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 510, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 510, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 510, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 The Correlation Between BLEU Score and Cross-Entropy Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned by Post and Junczys-Dowmunt (2023), The quality assessment of document translation is challenging. In this paper, we demonstrate that the cross-entropy (CE) loss of DNMT model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8295" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 286, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 286, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 286, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 286, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9ca6af9c9391ad91ded122356326c4cb20680d65a5064ad1edaae47ff1bf924c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: The correlation between cross-entropy loss and d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. Different colors represent different maximum sequence length, and the solid line represents the linear regression of this correlation. The coefficient of determination are reported in the legend." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "does not adequately capture the quality of translation. To further investigate the relationship between the CE loss and the translation quality, we plot the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model on the validation set. As shown in Figure 7, the CE loss and the d-BLEU score of DNMT model are weakly correlated, indicating that the loss alone fails to fully depict the translation quality. This finding is inconsistent with the previous study (Ghorbani et al., 2021), which has indicated a substantial association between CE loss and translation quality. In addition, we calculate the coefficient of determination " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R^2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the linear regression model. The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " decreases as the maximum sequence length grows. We suppose that this is because document-by-document DNMT requires generating longer text, which is more prone to the error accumulation problem, which will be discussed in Section 5.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 255, + 604 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 255, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 255, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 The Error Accumulation Problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying reasons for the existence of the optimal maximum sequence length and the failure of CE loss to adequately reflect the translation quality, we analyze the translation quality of sentences in different positions in the documents. We selectively extract a subset from the validation set, where DNMT models under-perform the sentence-level counterparts. Then we employ both sentence-level models and document-level models to translate those documents. We split the translated segments into sentences, and gather them into a subset by there" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "position in the document. Then we evaluate each subsets via COMET-22 (Rei et al., 2022). The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations is shown in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 8, with the help of contextual information, the translation quality of DNMT model is slightly better than that of the sentence-level model at the beginning of each documents. However, this advantage soon diminishes as the translation proceeds. From the fifth sentence on wards, there has been a growing gap in translation quality between the DNMT model and the sentence-level translation model, which clearly indicates the error accumulation process. This finding demonstrate that the optimal sequence length is actually the trade-off between extra contextual information and the accumulated errors. Interestingly, the gap between the sentence-level model and the document-level model is larger when the model size is smaller, indicating that larger model has a stronger ability to resist the error accumulation problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 343, + 364, + 487, + 485 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 364, + 487, + 485 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 364, + 487, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 364, + 487, + 485 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Context LengthAccuracy
050.06
6067.75
12081.89
25082.26
50082.38
75082.49
100081.96
", + "image_path": "1c47f38f52ec7431b7ae70f91741d6f19c13f5e75cb7e3712b3e88629a77df90.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 525, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 525, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The accuracy of DNMT model on ContraPro test suite. Context length is the number of tokens in the context. Zero context length indicates that the result is from the sentence-level model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 468, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 468, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 468, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 The Contrastive Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to evaluating the overall translation quality, we also conduct experiments on ContraPro (Müller et al., 2018), a large contrastive test suite extracted from OpenSubtitles 2018 (Lison and Tiedemann, 2016), to evaluate the accuracy of translating the English word \"it\". As shown in Table 3, all the DNMT models outperform their sentence-level counterparts, clearly indicating that the DNMT model is able to capture contextual information. As the available context increases, the accuracy of the test suite increases in fluctuation. When the context length exceeds 500, the accuracy of the DNMT model stops increasing, and remains at a high level. This tendency is not completely con-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8296" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 239, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 239, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 239, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 73, + 239, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "75e18f99d97882172f664fd097746939628bbdfc61259d3b36b02250340d8df6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 526, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 526, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: The COMET score of the translated sentences at different positions in the document. The solid lines represent the estimated trend line of the COMET score. As the model size grows, the gap between the DNMT model and the sentence-level model becomes smaller." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 241, + 73, + 380, + 207 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 73, + 380, + 207 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 73, + 380, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 73, + 380, + 207 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fbc3f0fd93d683f6cfdb08ba6d45af2eec39a977a3ce02ca74bc162c6df992a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 380, + 73, + 521, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 73, + 521, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 73, + 521, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 73, + 521, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "de8f726272842213d1cd6d1c4fc6af7d48dcf94d270006caee361d663e59ad0d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 280, + 286, + 439 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 280, + 286, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 280, + 286, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 280, + 286, + 439 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "df89924406aa97c157c252981ce4797efddfb59650f0e634aa5c193c9cd158f9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 487 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: The generalization ability of DNMT model. The models are trained with different maximum sequence length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sistent with the trend of d-BLEU score, showing that the overall translation quality is also influenced by factors other than the discourse context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 224, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 224, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 224, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 The Generalization Ability" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In practice, the lengths of input and output sentences may differ from those encountered during the training phase. Therefore, a proficient DNMT model should be capable of handling documents of various lengths and produce accurate translation results. To investigate this, we segment the documents in the test set into different lengths, and evaluate the DNMT models on the segmented test sets. According to Figure 9, when the sequence length during inference is shorter than that during training, the d-BLEU score of DNMT model decreases mildly. This observation shows that Transformer (Vaswani et al., 2017) is capable of handling documents of various lengths within the maximum" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sequence length when finetuned on document-level corpus. Thus it is possible to apply DNMT model to both document-level and sentence-level translation tasks. However, when the inference length exceeds the training length, the performance experiences a sharp drop. We considered that this is because vanilla Transformer lacks length extrapolation ability (Press et al., 2021), which needs to be further investigated in the field of document-level translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 508, + 437 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 508, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 508, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 The computation overhead of DNMT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 526, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As the quadratic computational complexity of the attention mechanisms, the computational requirements of the DNMT models are higher than those of sentence-level models. We report the MACs (Multiply-Accumulate Operations) per token required by the DNMT models in Table 1. Interestingly, we find that even though the sequence length increases from 32 to 1024, which is much longer than the optimal sequence length of transformerbig, the MACs per token increase by only 40 percent. This finding indicates that the computation overhead of the DNMT models during inference is not much higher than the sentence-level models, but the errors encounter by sentence-level translation reduced significantly. Thus it is efficient to employ the DNMT model in practice. We have placed a more detailed derivation in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 683, + 381, + 696 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 683, + 381, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 683, + 381, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation. Our findings suggest that the corpus size, model scale and the maximum sequence length all have significant impacts on the translation quality of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8297" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "model. Different from the scaling law of sentence-level neural machine translation, we find that their exists an optimal maximum sequence length for a given DNMT model, and the optimal maximum sequence length is strongly correlated with the number of non-embedding parameters of the DNMT model. We further formulate this correlation with a simple power law. Our additional analysis indicates that the error accumulation problem is the primary factor that hindering further improvement in translation quality for the document-level translation. In future work, we will investigate how to overcome the error accumulation problem, and extend the optimal sequence length of document-by-document translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 184, + 298 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 184, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 184, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 291, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 291, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 291, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our research requires a large number of experiments. Thus, we would like to express our gratitude to the ICT computing platform and the technical service team for providing GPU resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 290, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 290, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 290, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their thorough review and valuable feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 397, + 131, + 410 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 397, + 131, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 397, + 131, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although we have conduct massive experiments to explore the scaling law of document-level neural machine translation, there are still some limitations in our work: (1) over four hundred models were trained, resulting in high energy consumption; (2) due to the limitation of the data size, we are unable to conduct a larger scale experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 536, + 127, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 536, + 127, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 536, + 127, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 653 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 290, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guangsheng Bao, Yue Zhang, Zhiyang Teng, Boxing Chen, and Weihua Luo. 2021. G-transformer for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14761." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Loic Barrault, Magdalena Biesialska, Ondrej Bojar, Marta Ruiz Costa-jussà, Christian Federmann, Yvette Graham, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Eric Joanis, Tom Kocmi, Philipp Koehn, Chi kiu Lo, Nikola Ljubesic, Christof Monz, Makoto Morishita, Masaaki Nagata, Toshiaki Nakazawa, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2020. Findings of the 2020 conference on machine translation (wmt20). In Conference on Machine Translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 527, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 527, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 527, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linqing Chen, Junhui Li, Zhengxian Gong, Boxing Chen, Weihua Luo, Min Zhang, and Guodong Zhou. 2021. Breaking the corpus bottleneck for context-aware neural machine translation with cross-task pretraining. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2851-2861." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 214, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Behrooz Ghorbani, Orhan First, Markus Freitag, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Xavier Garcia, Ciprian Chelba, and Colin Cherry. 2021. Scaling laws for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07740." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dengji Guo, Zhengrui Ma, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Prediction difference regularization against perturbation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7665-7675." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 432, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 432, + 525, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 432, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuchen Eleanor Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, Jian Yang, Haoyang Huang, Rico Sennrich, Ryan Cotterell, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Blonde: An automatic evaluation metric for document-level machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11878." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of machine translation summit x: papers, pages 79-86." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8298" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pierre Lison and Jörg Tiedemann. 2016. Opensubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and tv subtitles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 180 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 235 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lorenzo Lupo, Marco Dinarelli, and Laurent Besacier. 2021. Divide and rule: Effective pre-training for context-aware multi-encoder translation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17151." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 290, + 300 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 290, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 290, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuming Ma, Dongdong Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. A simple and effective unified encoder for document-level machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pages 3505-3511." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 309, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 309, + 290, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 309, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sameen Maruf, André FT Martins, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2019. Selective attention for context-aware neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08788." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 362, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 362, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 362, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sameen Maruf, Fahimeh Saleh, and Gholamreza Haffari. 2021. A survey on document-level neural machine translation: Methods and evaluation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(2):1-36." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 290, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sachin Mehta, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Srinivasan Iyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Delight: Deep and light-weight transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00623." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lesly Miculicich, Dhananjay Ram, Nikolaos Pappas, and James Henderson. 2018. Document-level neural machine translation with hierarchical attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01576." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mathias Müller, Annette Rios, Elena Voita, and Rico Sennrich. 2018. A Large-Scale Test Set for the Evaluation of Context-Aware Pronoun Translation in Neural Machine Translation. In WMT 2018, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling.* In *Proceedings of NAACL-HLT* 2019: Demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 686 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. ArXiv, abs/1806.00187." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2015. chrf: character n-gram f-score for automatic mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the tenth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 392-395." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 525, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matt Post and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2023. Escaping the sentence-level paradigm in machine translation. ArXiv:2304.12959 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 525, + 189 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 525, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 525, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ofir Press, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ricardo Rei, José GC De Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and André FT Martins. 2022. Comet-22: Unbabel-ist 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roberts Rozis and Raivis Skadinš. 2017. Tilde model-multilingual open data for eu languages. In Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 263-265." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilic, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Galle, et al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05100." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raivis Skadinš, Jörg Tiedemann, Roberts Rozis, and Daiga Deksne. 2014. Billions of parallel words for free: Building and using the eu bookshop corpus. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), pages 1850-1855." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zewei Sun, Mingxuan Wang, Hao Zhou, Chengqi Zhao, Shujian Huang, Jiajun Chen, and Lei Li. 2022. Rethinking document-level neural machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3537-3548." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 525, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2818-2826." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 525, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 525, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 525, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jörg Tiedemann and Yves Scherrer. 2017. Neural machine translation with extended context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.05943." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention Is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8299" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762 [cs]. ArXiv: 1706.03762." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 147 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 199 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongyu Wang, Shuming Ma, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Dongdong Zhang, and Furu Wei. 2022. Deepnet: Scaling transformers to 1,000 layers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00555." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 208, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 208, + 290, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 208, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tieyan Liu. 2020. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10524-10533. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 290, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 290, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 290, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pei Zhang, Boxing Chen, Niyu Ge, and Kai Fan. 2020. Long-short term masking transformer: A simple but effective baseline for document-level neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1081-1087, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8300" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 268, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A The Statistics of Sampled Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To explore the relationship between translation quality and the data size in Section 4, we sampled the combined dataset with different sizes. The size of the subset is determined by the number of documents, and to ensure experiment reproducibility, each size was sampled three times for averaging the results. The statistics of the sampled datasets are shown in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 227, + 270, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 227, + 270, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 227, + 270, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 227, + 270, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "876035dd5b90f1200ff811d4633decb50f37b374d240c79cdf808e046d214f1b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 382, + 290, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 382, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 382, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: The distribution of the number of sentences in different locations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 280, + 460 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 280, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 280, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B The Length Distribution of The Split Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To conduct experiments with different maximum sequence length, we split the documents into segments with different segment lengths. However, due to the document boundary restrictions, we cannot ensure that all segments have the same length. As shown in Figure 11, the length distribution of the training set becomes more even as the maximum sequence length increases, which allows the model to translate the sentences of arbitrary length within the maximum sequence length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 278, + 644 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 278, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 278, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Estimation of Computational Complexity for Transformer Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To gain a clearer understanding of how sequence length affects the computational cost of the model, we take the Transformer base as an example and provide a detailed derivation of the computational requirements for its forward propagation process. To simplify the derivation, we ignore the computational cost of Layer Norm, residual connection, bias, and the softmax. The embedding dimension of the base model is 512 and the hidden state di" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mension is 512. There are 8 attention heads, and each attention head has a dimension of 64. The feed-forward layer dimension is 2048, and there are 6 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the vocabulary size is 32768. Then we can estimate the computational cost of the model in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in the Table 5, the total computational cost of the Transformer base is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n^2 * 18432 + n * 60819456" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the coefficient of the first-order term regarding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is much larger than the coefficient of the second-order term. Therefore, the growth of computational cost is approximately linear with respect to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is small. When substituting sequence lengths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = 32" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = 1024" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 527, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into the above equation, the total computational cost and per-token computational cost are shown in Table 6. As demonstrated in Table 6, although the sequence length has increased significantly, the computational cost per token have not increased significantly. Furthermore, for larger-scale models, due to their expanded hidden state dimensions, the contribution of the linear term will be more significant, which further reduce the impact of sequence length on the computational cost per token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D The Experimental results on Chinese to English dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 525, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 525, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 525, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further validate our experimental findings, we collected over 10 million parallel sentences from Chinese to English and conducted a repeat of our experiments on this dataset. The composition and scale of this dataset are presented in Table 7. The experimental results, as shown in Figure 12, demonstrate that the overall trends in Chinese-English dataset are consistent with the conclusions we obtained in the English-German dataset. However, there is one significant difference: the optimal sequence length in this dataset is considerably shorter than in the English-German dataset. We believe that the optimal sequence length is also correlated with the data quality, language characteristics, and domain of the dataset. We will leave this issue for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8301" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 457, + 232 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 457, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 457, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 457, + 232 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Subset Number#Lines#Tokens
123123
10.280.290.274.294.274.08
20.520.490.488.138.057.62
30.820.860.8513.1213.9212.85
41.391.421.4021.7722.2821.48
52.372.412.3037.7039.2136.30
64.004.063.9962.6464.9362.83
76.816.886.87109.17111.99109.54
811.4711.3911.51183.84181.83182.84
919.5319.6619.58312.61313.62310.31
", + "image_path": "b2e9be3a9fcdca41d8d3d02f081b0c5ece42df701fd24504368574a84b75b0c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 523, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 524, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 524, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: The statistics of the sampled datasets in millions. Subset number indicates the number of subsets in the sampled dataset. #Lines and #Tokens indicate the number of lines and tokens in the sampled dataset, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 523, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 523, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 523, + 349 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModuleComputational CostNumber of the ModuleCorresponding Operation
Embeddingn*5124The embedding and positional encoding layers in both encoder and decoder
Output Projectionn*512*327681The output projection layer for generating the final output probabilities
Feed Forwardn*512*2048*212The feed forward layers in both encoder and decoder layers
Attention Projectn*512*64*8*418The query, key, value, and output projection in the multi-head attention
Dot Productn2*64*8*218The dot product between key and query as well as attention weight and value
Totaln2*18432+n*608194561Total computation cost of the Transformer base
", + "image_path": "bb6460850576233be65e3ef030fc6dd88b362bdbec6362240fe0c9d266e2bc6c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 489 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 524, + 381 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 524, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: The estimation of computational complexity for Transformer base model. We assume that the sequence length of the source and target document is both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 524, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the vocabulary size is 32768." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 489 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 289, + 489 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
nComputational CostComputational Cost / token
32196509696061409280
10248160647577679693824
", + "image_path": "52243fdaf9af682aadc52328f79991e8251a931037444795a09438c021178f11.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 617, + 289, + 681 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: The computational cost for Transformer base model when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = {32}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = {1024}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 617, + 289, + 681 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 617, + 289, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 617, + 289, + 681 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Subset#Words#Sents#Docs
UNPC417.2M17.4M94.7k
NewsCommentary5.3M0.1M7.8k
Combined422.5M17.5M102.5k
", + "image_path": "22d0553b82dc18819cd0e5b7762ef22f3d7fb6e87291986200b95c597605e4ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 724 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: The statistical results of the Chinese " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " English datasets used in our experiments in terms of word count, sentence count and document count." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8302" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 295, + 226 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 295, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 295, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 107, + 295, + 226 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "302463c8e2f8ece23dbe5a64b07d8fc6fb20e96d52276bb5b5ff636e734c50a9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 108, + 518, + 225 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 108, + 518, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 108, + 518, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 108, + 518, + 225 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0db13047ddeb0dc22e510993ba033f79a47ecc3061ec48a7c16731ed9ee21b85.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 231, + 294, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 231, + 294, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 231, + 294, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 231, + 294, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b721b109d6a837f1495a09944085848791051cc3aa8eec738c9f657ea1b82f04.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 231, + 518, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 231, + 518, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 231, + 518, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 231, + 518, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2f5af154421882917d04d0ee6880be91d8ea1d3d683cedde6ac5a8185f03a7ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 353, + 295, + 477 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 353, + 295, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 353, + 295, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 353, + 295, + 477 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6a59c8c0f7064bd9bdd1eecfa9d0e23c0ccb3476f2a6bf84564f363304bed1d4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 494, + 416, + 507 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 494, + 416, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 494, + 416, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: The length distribution of the segmented dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 518, + 477 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 518, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 518, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 518, + 477 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "90f914cef1b992d71b7efc97d2aaedc84f798e88c4f8709018205ef0b18ab2dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 89, + 590, + 224, + 690 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 590, + 224, + 690 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 590, + 224, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 590, + 224, + 690 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5ae928afa5c2fd7ae2a37fd2d3dd1b4b0ef822dbda8b4a8305f3a4e7fad3838c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 693, + 505, + 716 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 693, + 505, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 693, + 505, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) The joint effect of maximum se- (b) The joint effect of maximum se- (c) The joint effect of data scale and sequence length and model shape. quence length and data scale. model shape." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 724, + 427, + 737 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 724, + 427, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 724, + 427, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: The experimental result on Chinese " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 724, + 427, + 737 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 724, + 427, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " English dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 230, + 590, + 363, + 689 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 590, + 363, + 689 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 590, + 363, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 590, + 363, + 689 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "707431c76d4df4412eb487388cc7891ff92e8f75478a7106b09cafa0dfa25f55.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 370, + 590, + 503, + 689 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 590, + 503, + 689 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 590, + 503, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 590, + 503, + 689 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d4fbf07320b3abfdc5fca7bd4c731f4bc8f610c366f95203f77397f3b08ea673.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8303" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_content_list.json b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1400b1053dfe20f615066c33fa042da77d1149a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,3583 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures: How Does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 270, + 84, + 727, + 123 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Tay*† Mostafa Dehghani* Samira Abnar† Hyung Won Chung† William Fedus† Jinfeng Rao† Sharan Narang† Vinh Q. Tran Dani Yogatama† Donald Metzler", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 131, + 806, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Google", + "bbox": [ + 467, + 190, + 532, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "dehghani@google.com", + "bbox": [ + 403, + 214, + 598, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There have been a lot of interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020). However, not much has been done on the front of investigating the effect of scaling properties of different inductive biases and model architectures. Do model architectures scale differently? If so, how does inductive bias affect scaling behaviour? How does this influence upstream (pretraining) and downstream (transfer)? This paper conducts a systematic study of scaling behaviour of ten diverse model architectures such as Transformers, Switch Transformers, Universal Transformers, Dynamic convolutions, Performers, and recently proposed MLP-Mixers. Via extensive experiments, we show that (1) architecture is an indeed an important consideration when performing scaling and (2) the best performing model can fluctuate at different scales. We believe that the findings outlined in this work has significant implications to how model architectures are currently evaluated in the community.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 602, + 260, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There have been a lot recent interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2021; Bahri et al., 2021; Henighan et al., 2020; Tay et al., 2021b; Abnar et al., 2021). However, not much is understood about the scaling properties of different inductive biases imposed by model architectures. Improvements at a specific scale (compute, size etc) are often assumed to transfer to different scales and compute regions (So et al., 2019; Choromanski et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2019; Dehghani et al., 2018) and new research is often presented in a point-wise fashion with respect to scale. In short, it is not uncommon for new methods to be presented with data points at very specific or limited compute regions (e.g., base size). We believe that understanding the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "interaction between architecture and scaling laws is crucial as designing models that perform well at diverse scales will likely have significant impact.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 880, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper is an attempt to understand the effect of inductive bias (architecture) on scaling laws of language models. To this end, we pre-train and finetune over ten diverse model architectures across multiple compute region and scales (e.g., from 15M to 40 Billion parameters). In total, we pre-train and finetune over 100 different models of different architectures and sizes and present insights and challenges at scaling these ten diverse architectures.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 303, + 884, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider a broad spectrum of models in our extensive experiments. Concretely, we consider several well-established Transformer variants (Vaswani et al., 2017) such as Evolved Transformer (So et al., 2019), Universal Transformers (Dehghani et al., 2018) and Switch Transformers (Fedus et al., 2021). We also consider lightweight models such as ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) and/or efficient Transformers (Tay et al., 2020) such as Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) and Funnel Transformers (Dai et al., 2020). In our comparison, we are also interested in finding out if general improvements to the Transformer architectures such as Mixture-of-Softmax (Yang et al., 2017) and/or Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017; Shazeer, 2020) influence the scaling behaviour of models. Finally, we also evaluate models outside the family of Transformers including Lightweight convolutions (Wu et al., 2019), Dynamic convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) and the recently proposed MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021). Figure 1 illustrates an overview about the experiments we run.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 450, + 884, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also note that scaling these models is not as straightforward as it seems, i.e., there are intricate details of scale that are intertwined with architectural choices which we study in detail in this paper. For example, a distinct feature of Universal Transformers (and ALBERT) is parameter sharing. Hence, compared with standard Transformers, this", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Yi and Mostafa contributed equally.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 891, + 369, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$\\dagger$ Work completed while at Google.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 904, + 357, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12342", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 12342-12364 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/992c27c045533ccb8e5f73a4c48c30a0fb8e8786c712aa81b8af151e4fd55433.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Upstream: Negative Log-Perplexity", + "Figure 1: An overview compute-performance (FLOPs vs performance) plot of all the diverse models and architectures we pretrained and finetuned in this study. Colors represent different model architectures and size of the circles represent the size of the model (parameters)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 84, + 494, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/283314892ba2e63851dbf0679a1237a8dd39fa40c878457b1608e84b2916bdcb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Downstream: Accuracy" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 82, + 863, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "architectural choice significantly warps the scaling behaviour not only with respect to performance but also amongst compute metrics such as FLOPs, speed and number of parameters (Dehghani et al., 2021a). Conversely, models such as Switch Transformers are on the other end of the spectrum with an uncommon relationship between FLOPs and number of parameters, i.e., they have high parameter to FLOPs ratio. This difficulty makes navigating this landscape challenging.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 489, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our Contributions and Insights The key contributions of this paper are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 489, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- For the first time, we derive scaling laws for different inductive biases and model architectures. We find that this scaling coefficient differs greatly from model to model. We believe this is an important consideration in model development. It turns out that amongst all ten architectures that we consider, the vanilla Transformer has the best scaling behaviour, even if its absolute performance at each compute region is not the greatest.", + "- We observe that models that operate well in one compute-scale region is not necessarily the best in another compute-region. Moreover, we find that certain models have difficulty scaling despite performing decently (comparably) at lower-compute regions. This has implications, since it is difficult to get the full picture of a model's" + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 646, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scalability with pointwise comparisons at a certain compute-region.", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 426, + 882, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We find that when it comes to scaling different model architectures, upstream pre-training perplexity might not correlate well with downstream transfer. Hence, the underlying architecture and inductive bias is also crucial for downstream transfer.", + "- We highlight the difficulties of scaling with certain architectures and show that some models do not scale (or scale with a negative trend). We also find concerning trends where linear-time attention models such as Performer struggle with scaling up." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 469, + 884, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 684, + 663, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kaplan et al. (2020) studied empirical scaling laws of the decoder-only Transformer language models. They focused on the standard left-to-right language modeling objective with the cross-entropy loss as the performance metric. One of the main findings is that the loss scales as a power-law with three major characteristics of the model training: model size, dataset size and the training compute. Another somewhat surprising finding is that the model shapes such as width or depth of the Transformer network have minimal effects on the cross-entropy loss for a wide range of scales. Subsequent works (Henighan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12343", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2021) made similar conclusions for autoregressive generative modeling and for transfer learning, respectively. This finding is also generally supported by (Tay et al., 2021b) but discrepancies were found for the gap between pretraining and finetuning - highlighting the fact that observing downstream performance of large language model is indeed important. In (Tay et al., 2021b), the effect of depth was unusually pronounced for downstream performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Raffel et al. (2019) studied the effect of pretraining objectives, model structures (e.g., encoder-decoder, decoder-only), pre-training dataset size and training strategy on the transfer learning. They showed that the downstream performance monotonically increases with the model scale (from 60M to 11B parameters). While they studied several model structures, the Transformer implementation is mostly the same as the original Transformer by Vaswani et al. (2017). Conneau et al. (2020); Goyal et al. (2021) scaled-up multilingual encoder-only architectures up to 11B parameters while maintaining the original Transformer implementation. They found that scaling the model improves its cross-lingual ability. Fedus et al. (2021) scaled a sparse model based on Mixture of Experts (MoE) models up to trillion parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 249, + 490, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While previous studies have repeatedly shown the benefits of scale for language understanding tasks for both dense and sparse Transformers and cross-lingual abilities, all of these used the same Transformer implementation within each studies. With a plethora of improved Transformer architectures proposed in the literature, it is timely to investigate which of these improved architecture has the best scaling properties. The main goal of this paper is to systematically study how inductive biases imposed by these Transformer variants affect the scaling behavior in a shared software and hardware settings. This is in similar spirit to (Narang et al., 2021) that studies the impact of architectures on performance. Our analysis extends that of (Narang et al., 2021) to the model scale axis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We note that increasingly the number of tokens seen during pretraining has been incorporated in the study of scaling laws (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Muennighoff et al., 2023). Hoffmann et al. (2022) trains decoder-only Transformer language models with casual language modeling and evaluates on zero and few-shot tasks. In this work we consider architectures modifications that do not necessar", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ily support causal masking and autoregressive decoding. Due to this, we consider encoder-decoder configurations trained with span corruption, and evaluate on downstream finetuned tasks. This creates a more level playing field for architectures that do not support in-context learning. As such we follow (Raffel et al., 2019) to fix the number of pretraining tokens (i.e. sequence length, training steps, batch size) seen by each model. Given the large space of model architectures and scales we aim to study, this also fixes the data size dimension, making our empirical study more tractable. Since we finetune models until convergence, we anticipate the effect of pretraining token amount to be less pronounced than studied in (Hoffmann et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 353, + 620, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section outlines our experimental setup.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 379, + 842, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 406, + 613, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section describes the models we evaluate in our experiments. Our models are largely implemented in a sequence to sequence framework (Sutskever et al., 2014) following the convention of T5 (Raffel et al., 2019). Encoder-decoder models are a natural choice for this experimentation because they can universally express both encoding and decoding tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 885, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transformer Variants We consider several standard Transformer variants.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 564, + 884, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) - The basic vanilla Transformer architecture. Our basic setup considers the T5-style of Transformers (Raffel et al., 2019), which largely follows the vanilla Transformer except that it uses relative attention instead of sinusoidal position embeddings and pre-layer normalization, i.e. layer normalization is applied before each sublayer.", + "- Evolved Transformers (So et al., 2019) - A transformer architecture learned via AutoML. The architecture comprises of convolutions and attention. We scale Evolved Transformers following the same pattern as vanilla Transformers.", + "- Universal Transformers (UT) (Dehghani et al., 2018) - A Transformer architecture with shared parameters and recurrent-like computation for transform layers. Scaling UTs are challenging because of parameter sharing. While we are able" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 608, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12344", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to also increase $d_{FF}$ or $d_{model}$ , the increase in parameters is of magnitude $N_{layers}$ than standard Transformers. Another axis of exploration is to scale $r$ the number of repeated computation at each UT layer - this increases computation (number of FLOPs) but does not increase the parameter size of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 84, + 487, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) - a sparsely activated mixture-of-experts architecture. The Sparse Transformer is another model with an unusual relationship between number of parameters and compute. When we scale this model uniformly, the number of parameters easily reaches the ballpark of 40B.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 208, + 489, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Efficient Transformer Variants These class of models are mainly concerned at reducing computational costs, memory usage, or parameter count of models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 334, + 489, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) - A linear time attention model using generalizable kernel attention. For simplicity, we adopt the relu kernel variant for our experiments. We scale Performer in the similar fashion (i.e., uniform scaling) as vanilla Transformers.", + "- Funnel Transformer (FT) (Dai et al., 2020) A Transformer architecture that downsamples the input sequence across the layer stack. Our implementation uses FT only in the encoder and reverts to vanilla Transformer in the decoder following Narang et al. (2021).", + "- ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) - A lightweight transformer architecture that shares parameters across all layers and factorizes the embedding and output softmax layers. For our seq2seq ALBERT, we also share the weights of encoder and decoder." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 410, + 489, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "General Improvements We consider general improvements that are not necessarily tied to Transformers. We select candidates that have shown to do well in Narang et al. (2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 719, + 489, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Mixture of Softmaxes (Yang et al., 2017) - A transformer architecture adopting the MoS method at the Softmax layer.", + "- Gated Linear Units with GeLU (GLU-Transformer) - Replacing position-wise feedforward-networks in Transformers with Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 794, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Non-Transformer Architectures We are interested in the scaling behaviour of non-Transformer based architectures such as convolutions and/or mixer architectures.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Lightweight Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - Lightweight depthwise convolutions that have shown promise over Transformer architectures.", + "- Dynamic Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - An extension of the Lightweight Convolution to create time-dependent kernels.", + "- MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021) - Mixers are recently proposed architectures that learn a lightweight mixing of tokens. Since Mixers have not been used in autoregressive decoding, we only use token-mixers on the input encoder." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 160, + 882, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiment Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 384, + 700, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our setup, along with all models, are implemented in Mesh TensorFlow (Shazeer et al., 2018), a library with similar interface to TensorFlow but enables distributed model parallelism across multiple workers. For fair comparison, all models are pretrained for $2^{19}$ steps on the english C4 corpus optimized using an inverse square root learning rate with Adafactor (Shazeer and Stern, 2018). All models use the same SentencePiece tokenizer (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) containing $32K$ subwords. This closely follows the setup in the T5 paper (Raffel et al., 2019). Finetuning is performed for $100K$ steps on a mixture of GLUE (Wang et al., 2018), SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). We evaluate on both upstream (pre-training) validation perplexity as well as downstream transfer for NLU tasks (GLUE + SuperGLUE + SQuAD) after fine-tuning. We pretrain and finetune our models with 16 TPU-v3 chips with data parallelism. All large models have a model parallelism of 2 and XL models have a model parallelism of 8.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 410, + 884, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model Sizes We consider several different model sizes for each architecture. For models that are straightforward to scale, we simply follow the standard convention in Raffel et al. (2019), moving from small to base, to large and XL. We include a tiny version of each model to observe how different models behave at lower compute regions. For models where it was not straightforward to scale (e.g., Universal Transformers, ALBERT), we tried", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12345", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2ed69b64ff11c083c7da7c387dae0c8daca4215b1447538368c55f7ad151b091.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) ALBERT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 82, + 310, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/478ef25de829f84ca0fb02d643206aef921e13c1a47be95fb661daa1b8297ae7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) DConv" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 82, + 507, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2be732e1c8b9b947de03bbd980a78657919734295fc08d265c8162e582d20b5f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Evolved" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 86, + 685, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c1d83875ec272a9312674e047ebc4373625417b1911ed35584fe826e4f6ad14c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) Funnel" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 685, + 86, + 863, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8e47045c87d0b9ed129968ec6eb12dcba434302ccbbb4429b2e28f7c6bdeab0e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(e) Transformer-GLU" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 231, + 307, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c46afee482adf1251f528647ef75748fe48580c817676c82cf848c68804dc145.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(f) LConv" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 309, + 229, + 485, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ad67aab8a0677063b752568698403516a283b0c885ce6a6ebbdcda4741731e94.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(g) MLP Mixer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 489, + 229, + 682, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/50b54fe36bd961bbd2c42d9348e8db528cb5304adb70f086383a054817d59957.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(h) MoS Transformer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 684, + 230, + 867, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9bc7cc2a9215bb84829dc359158a6875d90ab1919646359d8d56b662bf762180.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(i) Performer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 228, + 373, + 406, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/049d776887dbf019d971204ddddd8e48a68623335743267fd7b1999647dae63a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(j) Switch Transformer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 406, + 370, + 584, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/73530ff0ef205c6d8c142858d2b45f5059d2996004da27ed004c0e29e39d4d1e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(k) Universal Transformer", + "Figure 2: Upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 586, + 370, + 771, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to scale them in a similar fashion but faced obvious limitations such as getting ALBERT to have the same number of parameters as T5 XL without incurring a huge number of cost in terms of FLOPs. For convolutional models, we consider $d_{\\mathrm{model}}$ to be the hidden size (i.e., channel depth) for the one-dimensional convolution layers. Values such as $d_{\\mathrm{kV}}, N_H$ then become redundant. Details on scaling details1 of each architecture can be found in the supplementary material.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 561, + 489, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 734, + 263, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report the main results of this paper in Table 1. We report the number of trainable parameters, FLOPs (of a single forward pass) and speed (steps per second). We also report on validation perplexity (on upstream pre-training) and results on 17 downstream tasks. The results are reported aggre", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 762, + 487, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gates of GLUE, SuperGLUE and SQuAD. While we use the same Mesh TensorFlow-based codebase used by Raffel et al. (2019) and hence expect our experimental results to match theirs, we verify that our T5 base does achieve similar results to what is reported in Raffel et al. (2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 882, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Do all models scale the same way?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 673, + 823, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare on both upstream perplexity and downstream finetuning performance here.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 696, + 882, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Upstream Perplexity Figure 2 reports the scaling behaviour of all models as we increase the number of FLOPs. We observe that the scaling behaviour of all models are quite unique and distinct, i.e., most of them are quite different from standard Transformers. Perhaps the biggest finding here is that most models (e.g., LConv, Evolved) all seem to be on-par or better than standard Transformers but fail to scale with a higher compute budget. Another interesting trend is that \"linear\" Transformers such as Performer fail to scale as shown in Figure 2i.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1The largest Switch transformer was scaled in a pretty sub-optimal way. So we don't think it is representative of the full potential of the Switch family. Take the last data point of Switch with a pinch of salt.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 869, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12346", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/298d7e195537c022da30e50b8b98c033ef034f4c0dea902314788364207cf1a2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) ALBERT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 82, + 314, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1a740d9027260d30eec95c25ef3c5b3225cd3cbe59797c21d57746a74465c571.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) DConv" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 82, + 507, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c5466afbbef87e47c666af6bd2caebfc59c574bd39f94ff75f2bb6aa2c31b270.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Evolved" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 86, + 685, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5aef5b30b6590749ecfdd3114c4dc82fc8c2855acd74aa5168d957261c5040b7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) Funnel" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 687, + 86, + 863, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/00b39d950841672a9683d8e7083774354e6f917f8027852feb4041e5fa39e20e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(e) Transformer-GLU" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 233, + 307, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/57676be0c2665220d2c3a0ba57a9efb60bdc72a40e614b61ab0a7539c62b8a6c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(f) LConv" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 309, + 230, + 487, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/76aa55ad51b0baf1aa454d35c04ff6fc78acc37a52ba981a2be99d2e180a4fd4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(g) MLP Mixer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 487, + 230, + 682, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e1970a117b4e7670bebbf31017715c29583fe34cff3c756640b036bfa7b57c8e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(h) MoS Transformer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 682, + 231, + 867, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bb64b6dae82ea14d5a9c8db5afbe0a866dcc2fb49139d7b9062009e7030347bf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(i) Performer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 226, + 376, + 403, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/52e5719dcbba8bc3e3fe0030e7a1775503041529fc8c00e23ec0fe9826c6097d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(j) Switch Transformer" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 405, + 375, + 581, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/971f613dccd6673bd18c4b3a74669667e7a0576239ea4c4ad1c95cadc057f5db.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(k) Universal Transformer", + "Figure 3: Downstream accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 584, + 374, + 768, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The pre-training perplexity metric only decreases by $2.7\\%$ going from base to large scale compared to $8.4\\%$ of the vanilla Transformer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 554, + 485, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Downstream Transfer Figure 3 reports the scaling curves of all models on downstream transfer. The overall finding that most models have distinct scaling curves compared to Transformers is also evident in downstream tasks. It is also noteworthy that most models have a different upstream and downstream scaling curve. We find that some models such as Funnel Transformer and LConvs that seem to hold out pretty well on upstream but suffer substantially on downstream. As for Performer, the performance (disparity) seems to be even greater in downstream as compared to upstream. Notably, the SuperGLUE downstream tasks generally require pseudo cross-attention on the encoder, which models such as convolutions are not equipped to handle (Tay et al., 2021a). To this end, we find that certain models may have difficulty learning the downstream tasks despite good upstream performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Are the best models at each scale different?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 554, + 811, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1 shows the Pareto-frontier when plotting compute against upstream and downstream performance. Since the colors of the plot represent different models, we can observe that the best model for every scale and compute region might be different. Moreover, from Figure 3, we can also observe this. For example, the Evolved Transformer seems to do well against the standard Transformer at tiny to small region (downstream) but this quickly changes when scaling the model up. We also observe this with MoS-Transformer where it clearly outperforms vanilla Transformers at some regions but not at others.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 593, + 882, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Scaling Law for Each Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 779, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 presents the slope of the fitted linear line $\\alpha$ for each model across multiple scenarios. We derive $\\alpha$ by plotting $F$ (FLOPs), $U$ (upstream perplexity), $D$ (downstream accuracy), $P$ (number of parameters). In general, most values of $\\alpha$ depict", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12347", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d564e8d254473e87f1b9fa36ecd6f2ffec669a5a18f2134bb12322720c267303.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Results on pre-training and finetuning ten different model architectures. Full results (further varying hyperparameters of these models) can be found in the Appendix." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model#ParamsFLOPsSpeedNeg Log PplGLUESGLUESQuAD
Transformer Tiny16M1.2138.4-2.4769.356.973.6
Transformer Small60M3.7022.7-2.0278.165.381.9
Transformer Base223M11.49.3-1.7583.874.086.3
Transformer Large738M34.33.6-1.6186.478.388.6
Transformer XL2.9B63.81.3-1.4987.881.589.5
Evolved Transformer Tiny19M1.3139.7-2.4569.657.169.6
Evolved Transformer Small79M4.2323.7-2.0475.766.280.2
Evolved Transformer Base218M10.28.9-1.7983.070.584.8
Evolved Transformer Large1.0B49.32.1-1.6286.277.188.0
Evolved Transformer XL2.2B71.30.8-1.5587.078.388.2
Universal Transformer Tiny11M1.7738.1-2.7369.856.162.3
Universal Transformer Small52M7.3018.3-2.1276.864.275.4
Universal Transformer Base127M20.38.4-1.9180.067.980.1
Universal Transformer Large283M27.61.6-1.6784.073.485.4
Switch Transformer Tiny174M3.2529.7-2.0178.263.880.7
Switch Transformer Small460M4.6322.3-1.8580.368.082.9
Switch Transformer Base2.0B12.78.4-1.6684.274.186.5
Switch Transformer Large3.9B23.04.1-1.5684.675.887.9
Switch Transformer XL29.6B43.30.8-1.6284.075.287.5
Performer Tiny16M1.1442.0-2.8850.548.815.0
Performer Small61M3.5039.0-2.4457.851.131.1
Performer Base224M10.811.7-2.2361.453.437.8
Performer Large739M32.84.4-2.1662.452.430.8
Funnel Transformer Tiny16M1.1039.9-2.5863.449.454.6
Funnel Transformer Small61M2.9632.7-2.1170.058.575.1
Funnel Transformer Base223M8.1011.9-1.8376.362.981.6
Funnel Transformer Large739M22.65.0-1.6979.867.183.8
Funnel Transformer XL2.9B40.31.89-1.6179.868.083.7
ALBERT Small15M3.5742.0-2.3673.762.077.1
ALBERT Base21M9.4016.4-2.2869.057.264.3
ALBERT Large34M31.65.1-2.2062.954.127.3
MoS-Transformer Tiny27M1.2939.7-2.3770.657.974.1
MoS-Transformer Small81M3.7026.3-1.9879.767.183.1
MoS-Transformer Base257M11.48.6-1.7084.573.986.8
MoS-Transformer Large800M35.03.4-1.5686.579.789.1
MoS-Transformer XL2.9B1121.2-1.4588.281.490.0
GLU-Transformer Tiny26M1.2931.7-2.3570.557.074.2
GLU-Transformer Small77M3.7026.4-1.9779.167.483.0
GLU-Transformer Base248M11.48.6-1.7184.674.587.2
GLU-Transformer Large748M35.03.4-1.5684.274.386.2
GLU-Transformer XL2.85B61.31.0-1.4987.682.989.4
LConv Tiny17M1.2031.2-2.5051.151.349.5
LConv Small67M3.8012.8-2.1071.859.964.7
LConv Base210M10.612.8-1.9573.863.670.3
LConv Large741M41.03.0-1.7676.865.676.3
LConv XL2.3B77.01.0-1.7573.364.172.9
DConv Tiny22M1.3927.3-2.4651.148.930.2
DConv Small96M4.9719.8-2.0868.657.464.3
DConv Base324M15.37.6-1.9072.960.163.7
DConv Large1.2B78.01.1-1.8270.858.558.2
MLP-Mixer Small67M3.8322.3-2.1565.455.158.7
MLP-Mixer Base233M12.410.7-1.9064.458.160.5
MLP-Mixer Large739M38.33.9-1.7352.247.860.9
MLP-Mixer XL2.86B48.31.2-1.6157.358.965.7
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 148, + 882, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12348", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/884db096092e0619bd8de4adf53149a7e47bd05dc4b66f4034e9229b49152d08.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Slope of a fitted linear line for each model, when we compare FLOPs vs. upstream performance $(F,U)$ , FLOPs vs. downstream performance $(F,D)$ , parameter size vs. upstream performance $(F,U)$ , parameter size vs. downstream performance $(P,D)$ , and finally upstream vs. downstream performance $(U,D)$ ." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelαF,UαF,DαP,UαP,DαU,D
Transformer0.540.280.470.240.49
GLU-Trans.0.490.240.420.220.46
LConv0.320.130.290.110.48
Funnel0.470.220.380.180.46
Switch0.230.140.130.080.58
Universal0.500.200.560.220.35
ALBERT0.08-0.120.13-0.21-1.67
Evolved0.440.220.420.210.47
Performer0.250.050.240.050.24
MoS-Trans.0.430.210.430.200.47
MLP-Mixer0.32-0.030.260.65-0.02
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 178, + 480, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "how well a model scales. For example $\\alpha_{F,U}$ is plotting FLOPs against Upstream performance. The only exception is $\\alpha_{U,D}$ which is a measure of upstream vs downstream performance. A high $\\alpha_{U,D}$ value means that the transfer to the downstream tasks is better as a model scales. Overall, the $\\alpha$ value is a metric that represents how well a model performs relatively across all scales", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 348, + 487, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analysis of Slope for each Model In general, we find that the vanilla Transformer has the highest values of $\\alpha$ . Models such as Evolved Transformer, GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer and Funnel Transformer tend to have similar scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer. The GLU-Transformer has similar and slightly worse scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer, even if it was observed to do better in absolute sense on some computer-regions. On the other hand, we also observe that there are models which are difficult to scale such as LConv, UT, MLP-Mixer and Performer. This is even more evident on downstream task. We also note that ALBERT scales (trends) negatively2 (gets worse) as we scale the model up. On the other hand, the metric $\\alpha_{U,D}$ measures how the downstream performance scales with upstream performance. Overall, the Switch Transformer does the best on this metric where downstream performance scales well with upstream performance. Generally, models that make less changes to the main Transformer architecture (GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer) tend to retain similar scaling behaviours and changing the inductive bias also significantly alters the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 486, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0281643100f9e5d448db851bc94b05253a9fe1619a07485c4286b71e131b84fe.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 82, + 697, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/880a02585629fedfde5b1a40a70158c5993bf0cbfa0ffc778520f508944fb23d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Downstream Accuracy." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 82, + 880, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/55f0a8676d408865eb100efcccb79e3fbf67e0fff7d4813bb13cad4503cebb7f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 256, + 697, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3033155b74e80652cb20d026e8783cdaa66b15718b08f87a6b5a86d70c057d7b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Scaling depth", + "(b) Downstream Accuracy.", + "Figure 5: Scaling width of FFN" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 256, + 880, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scaling property of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 458, + 734, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Do Scaling Protocols influence model architectures in the same way?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 487, + 845, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We are interested in how different scaling protocols influence the model architectures. Figure 4 shows the effect of scaling depth of four model architectures (MoS-Transformer, Transformer, Evolved Transformer and LConv). Figure 5 shows the effect of scaling width on the same four architectures. Firstly, on upstream (negative log perplexity) curves, we note that while different architectures have a distinct difference in absolute performance, the scaling trend remains quite similar. On downstream, depth scaling (Figure 4) seems to act equally on most architectures with the exception of LConv. Meanwhile, for width scaling, it seems that Evolved Transformers scale slightly better when applying width-scaling. It is also interesting to note that depth-scaling has a much more substantial impact on downstream scaling as opposed to width-scaling.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 524, + 884, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Epilogue and Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 828, + 759, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we conducted extensive experiments, pretraining and finetuning of up to 100 models ranging from 10 well-established Transformer and non-Transformer architectures. We showed that", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2This version of ALBERT shares parameters across encoder and decoder which may partially explain why we had a hard time scaling up.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12349", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "different model architectures can have different scaling behaviours and models performing well in one compute region (or model size) may not do identically well in another compute region. We also showed that model architectures may do well on upstream perplexity but fail to transfer to downstream tasks. Hence, practitioners should be cautious about developing architectures that not only scale well with respect to the upstream perplexity, but also based on downstream performance. While we certainly do not expect researchers to always report model performance across all scales (especially large-scale), we believe that it is good to keep in mind that architectures can perform quite differently at different compute regions. Hence, this might be a good dimension to consider when designing new inductive biases. As such, performing evaluation at a certain compute region may be insufficient to capture the full picture. It is also good to consider if different inductive biases will result in different extents of emergent capabilities (Wei et al., 2022a; Abnar et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also showed that different model architectures may react differently to different scaling protocols, reaffirming that comparing and benchmarking these models can be very challenging (Dehghani et al., 2021b). When it comes to scaling large models, we show that novel inductive biases can be indeed quite risky which might explain why most state-of-the-art large language models (Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022) are based on relatively vanilla architectures. Our advice is to be cautious when staking an expensive run on an architecture that drastically modifies the attention mechanism. Finally, we acknowledge that not every practitioner or researcher would require models that are able to scale to billions of parameters. In that case, inductive biases that are tailored to small or low compute will be sufficient.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 439, + 489, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 730, + 248, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As with all empirical studies, ours come with its own set of limitations. We only present a sampling of Transformer variants, and it is not exhaustive. Our selection is aimed towards sampling a diversity of architecture approaches to have representation across the entire space of Transformer architectures. As such, we do not claim that our findings hold within a subcategory; for example efficient Transformer variants, which there are many recent works not covered here. Additionally, given the", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "huge number of models considered in this work, while we scaled each model to the best of our ability and present details on how they were scaled, there could always be unexplored hyperparameter settings and other tricks that could get a model to \"work\" at larger scales. Beyond this work, one could also study the differences in prompting techniques, e.g. chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b), between different architecture and scales. Such findings would be of importance for the research community in the future. Although in either case here, we believe that our findings, i.e. models scale differently and need to be tested, will continue to be relevant. This space will only continue to grow, and future researchers and practitioners must continue to assess the scalability of new models under new use cases.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 884, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 387, + 606, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2021. Exploring the limits of large scale pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02095.", + "Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Transferring inductive biases through knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00555.", + "Yasaman Bahri, Ethan Dyer, Jared Kaplan, Jaehoon Lee, and Utkarsh Sharma. 2021. Explaining neural scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06701.", + "Krzysztof Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, et al. 2020. Rethinking attention with performers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14794.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311.", + "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zihang Dai, Guokun Lai, Yiming Yang, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Funnel-transformer: Filtering out sequential redundancy for efficient language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03236." + ], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 411, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12350", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 933-941. PMLR.", + "Mostafa Dehghani, Anurag Arnab, Lucas Beyer, Ashish Vaswani, and Yi Tay. 2021a. The efficiency mknowner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12894.", + "Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. 2018. Universal transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03819.", + "Mostafa Dehghani, Yi Tay, Alexey A Gritsenko, Zhe Zhao, Neil Houlsby, Fernando Diaz, Donald Metzler, and Oriol Vinyals. 2021b. The benchmark lottery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07002.", + "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03961.", + "Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Myle Ott, Giri Anantharaman, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Larger-Scale Transformers for Multilingual Masked Language Modeling. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2105.00572.", + "Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, et al. 2020. Scaling laws for autoregressive generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14701.", + "Danny Hernandez, Jared Kaplan, Tom Henighan, and Sam McCandlish. 2021. Scaling laws for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01293.", + "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Thomas Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katherine Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karén Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Oriol Vinyals, Jack Rae, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 30016-30030. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361.", + "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06226.", + "Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942.", + "Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M. Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Aleksandra Piktus, Nouamane Tazi, Campo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Scaling data-constrained language models.", + "Sharan Narang, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Thibault Fevry, Michael Matena, Karishma Malkan, Noah Fiedel, Noam Shazeer, Zhenzhong Lan, et al. 2021. Do transformer modifications transfer across implementations and applications? arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11972.", + "Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: $100,000+$ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250.", + "Noam Shazeer. 2020. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202.", + "Noam Shazeer, Youlong Cheng, Niki Parmar, Dustin Tran, Ashish Vaswani, Penporn Koanantakool, Peter Hawkins, HyoukJoong Lee, Mingsheng Hong, Cliff Young, et al. 2018. Mesh-tensorflow: Deep learning for supercomputers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10414-10423.", + "Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4596-4604. PMLR.", + "David So, Quoc Le, and Chen Liang. 2019. The evolved transformer. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5877-5886. PMLR.", + "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3215.", + "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2020. Efficient transformers: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06732.", + "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jai Gupta, Dara Bahri, Vamsi Aribandi, Zhen Qin, and Donald Metzler. 2021a. Are pre-trained convolutions better than pre-trained transformers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03322." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12351", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jinfeng Rao, William Fedus, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, Sharan Narang, Dani Yogatama, Ashish Vaswani, and Donald Metzler. 2021b. Scale efficiently: Insights from pretraining and fine-tuning transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10686.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 173, + 487, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ilya Tolstikhin, Neil Houlsby, Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Jessica Yung, Daniel Keysers, Jakob Uszkoreit, Mario Lucic, et al. 2021. Mlp-mixer: An all-mlp architecture for vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01601.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 249, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998-6008.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 325, + 487, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00537.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 401, + 487, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 476, + 487, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 552, + 487, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 627, + 487, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Felix Wu, Angela Fan, Alexei Baevski, Yann N Dauphin, and Michael Auli. 2019. Pay less attention with lightweight and dynamic convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10430.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 730, + 487, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William W Cohen. 2017. Breaking the softmax bottleneck: A high-rank rnN language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03953.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 791, + 487, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 628, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8.1 Scaling Details for Individual Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 845, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For most models, it was reasonable to follow the uniform scaling method in the main T5 sizes. At each size, the hyperparameters are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 130, + 880, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a6afd4caf23e5488d6fca497c95fede2e4cf57bf459cad814a894c05c1447eee.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelNLdfffdmodeldkvNH#Params
Tiny4/4102425632416M
Small6/6204851232860M
Base12/1230727686412220M
Large24/24409610246416738M
XL24/24163841024128323B
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 190, + 878, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4b7a9555b5512870dfdb908c395f7421c52fd6d727938e94919a909b7fdbaed1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Table of model configurations. $N_{L}$ is the number of layers, $d_{ff}$ is the size of the MLP, $d_{model}$ is the hidden size of the model. $d_{kv}$ is the size of each key-value vector. $N_{H}$ is the number of heads.", + "Scaling for Switch Transformer For Switch Transformers, we use the following scaling:" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelNLdffdmodeldvkNHNE#Params
Tiny41024512641232173M
Small62048512641232460M
Base1230727686412322B
Large2430727686412328B
XL483072768641212830B
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 392, + 878, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scaling for Universal Transformer Scaling UTs are generally difficult as described in the main text. There were two main considerations for scaling UTs. Initially we tried scaling the number of recurrent operations. However, we found that even with an increase of FLOPS, this does not lead to improved performance. Overall, the UT model might be pretty slow and therefore a model with the same hparams as vanilla XL might be infeasible to run. Hence, we explored increasing the width of the MLPs to $32K$ to see if UTs would scale in this manner.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 517, + 882, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/37722da4adb62dd213a0067cd90df562a0957deaca8c78e860bf1572cb02f393.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Scaling for Switch Transformer. $N_{E}$ is the number of experts." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelNRdFFdmodeldkvNH#Params
UT Tiny3/3102412832811M
UT Small3/3204851232852M
UT Base3/330727686412127M
UT Large3/33276810246416283M
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 719, + 878, + 777 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Table of model configurations. $N_{R}$ is the number of recurrent operations, $d_{ff}$ is the size of the MLP, $d_{model}$ is the hidden size of the model. $d_{kv}$ is the size of each key-value vector. $N_{H}$ is the number of heads.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 882, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8.2 Full Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 863, + 648, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12352", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5f3c421ae35d22c355b55e1a45f0ceda2c530f8e0f052993e58012c3ee71aec4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 287, + 294, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7ace5606e343ee8f38af3bfee784e4d14a83c0e41d3213a8454d5f655e85c93a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 492, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f62809050182f7af5fb92a1d95c1198aac17cbca2ad3496ca6972823438a9539.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 288, + 680, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ed5e36bbb768ea84472a369645779e68dc433563859b49906a246d8f4ef74663.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 288, + 873, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2c57a7d74a809fc01914637cdd6678679765006ab1dc25f671e919092b5cba24.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 414, + 297, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ddf0f4bf1dc6aade98f58c47865e4ea923786cb45f4583d01a4356cb1a17faf3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 499, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4ab57a61928a91b37a622088d0704e5945760751805b60bf66f4bd6f159b4782.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 414, + 690, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a1d8509e0adceae8ebb3cba69c51b760cd5953ebeb3df7418e659684f0e16b23.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 414, + 882, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6b5eb64022948766b5c6e3be02af2178019b0aa35d352be4c678d756f78c737f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Quality-FLOP trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 543, + 300, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b9886a4c4eae0f488cff53a0f71e3632ed5733ea700901a9ec72f3d7eaabb275.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 489, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ed5ca0576cb6bf21e43fe4dfabc95f10294f3078dbef98077b311b48b5f4d8ba.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 499, + 543, + 690, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12353", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d8d61cb0bd9b52b32de974b98f02389b397a9712bcdb656d4a5a3763e4654a9c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 290, + 284, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/da1eadd950ca6affa63534f899f94658c37681f121c674ee83c1adc62f4cb983.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 290, + 487, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/236047f76fc8b499337eb208792576e7f77009041946a0a7e70a6a55e3ed7a7c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 290, + 694, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9e354cae5e3cb87efdd0c781c2baf7dc8829919c0bc5f093ea8b8215c00bfc40.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 291, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/46b0488af2075bfa384006788cf5d5b9ca15e56d5bfe4d9ab6c7884563fb1964.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 416, + 295, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/97a17ac0736380a672a09aea567ada5928fe9fec68883e7b7b64203cbae13038.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 416, + 510, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/458a3a06947e4597bdb78bb6cf1ded038e1aabbc467e4c1bd16200aa062193ca.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 416, + 692, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7e5e20f6eb390c31154a9de3cdf2b1c2bb4fec142e78d99bf7c1d73ce91d9965.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 416, + 868, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/379bb91c2864a0e3e275555aa62ff44668f83e865a09bb095d9e6d3fb6d8e819.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Quality-Parameter trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 541, + 312, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5b6341ddc286867f73efc15c32e6694cbd6dda1758786deea6bd5186b671f218.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 541, + 492, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/217228c2d716fade0f6d42144dab729dfe3314258ef20cc30e0da9694ec15358.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 541, + 678, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12354", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/623dab1652022423796d97ce3ff66bcbd593e5abb5fb024893a97ee38ab62913.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 287, + 287, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/75df66e731e3c6afab99b4d5c1770528299c36c8eddeb4292208fa228fc0688f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 515, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bd887d4f95cb309a6d28e0ed97bd36660373e3dec1903bb1e759db9e3a08d922.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 288, + 705, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/508afdb32f70d115766553456e8661c979037a7d17fd5e07d43af9b281f7f9b6.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 288, + 880, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e32ee534101c57a7c101d148e91bdc1721ade050ffaa24718a1b31f0b30a20ea.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 414, + 310, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8e40644957c303bb6e0b61959715df42de9116fec432413047ee79a3a5177837.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 414, + 482, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f2f3c451876469fdf2b239c9b0a56ae31161ccb0846fc30f3f5a84d8ae96b67d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 414, + 704, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/abafae81ebf92d9d69c0e948bd3583c20274b29422c96c7659940710a0652e34.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 414, + 875, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/46f488f9ca73d1f8c422f0c39ceff90b58944f2d0f0208e30222d3ac7de6d631.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Quality-Throughput trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 541, + 304, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a61922987198eafd740b5c547993685c4a3b34fb2fad355ee9dbd79c1905a706.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 542, + 502, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fa60f0ea7c084796eb28f56527d0c467b60639a1662243ccd47ca764c8b39386.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 542, + 694, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12355", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5f25e5404f4e2f55bf97ced1132c950d6bf5fba3214d5bde7f780a10bf81f670.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 284, + 294, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3b96d635862a9d6f30e7de75cea9b6e77a61349adc3a9c2dd2dec6f78c8d25bb.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 492, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bef65c4f71417186c1475fe7e3add89b6f40b48231a594de25e3594ad97311bc.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 285, + 680, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/947758e1101bae5d8e141a216255a2c003ddce75d9f58e392989fafd960b62e0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 285, + 873, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/139e9b27e39517b68ca231bad6a915985c0bc6bd0dd3160e261167663569f213.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 414, + 295, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bb992184bd7cd225f2284cd6c5cb52ce761966454b87518d2e80bae851550af8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 499, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ec754f7460f1110e6f641eb036b6c99fdb908b0d21d48405075da469e7c82636.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 414, + 690, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/74e390826790e6fc885b389696a722d96b23dcffec5cc7e5285af3bdb54bd1c2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 414, + 880, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d8fa18940807c29a3072a68a13c31059fddd75d843f5e6a7077c4d61606a2e0c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models, with respect to FLOPs, number of parameters, and throughput." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 543, + 300, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f77c7a11c3d57fb290864b8a122020425048f5621599b08c3501f099b027cf5f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 489, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4275cae19f0947d6d87b0b0886e85e58b4f81c3b305e6632f0edaab3d6af97f9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 543, + 690, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12356", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0f99373809f1874d1939e7cd0c40cbb7c45dbac6809cf534adf71c52d1e24974.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 287, + 285, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2b6199a0ace643300a82c080a1f003bb26f6f654bd57942386f845f36912ddda.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 487, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c6eeae80e66df1872dd37070ec5394986f4930ade30c7a18a56e83c9b603bfda.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 288, + 694, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/89d7f1a798f945b04a89b787615a4ce0538c79f52b6b25fa45418fbc90ff826d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 288, + 882, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/790c748e716a19a55b735cf03898b749907c46689f7e8994390967d8cca870cc.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 414, + 295, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/41254265abc0ad964957f5e72eec88f462336af78bb4d04d5d8cf9eccf80e6fe.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 414, + 510, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b49cff853a645520d743f98c5f02bdf8236cda45e6d0a3c0855123cdf0a16dff.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 414, + 692, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a58cdacbc7a6a873e1b9f550af2c83ebaa4e66e66f04c8e90e154d19835d7621.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 414, + 868, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/474fa6f3fbbc9c38c68e2d7fe023f3a5ebdc858493b6ee73a25692498af5ad94.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 543, + 312, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/57f279ad6415cf43a28a1fa496e014b8a6a207fadf7b30a7e9bb56cf688c6644.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 543, + 492, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6b0cdd222e315b5292ccee350317213a4573a58187b13ff0d8805179c41d0158.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 543, + 677, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12357", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cf06656bbd47ee9ad78d143f304b0682fac45453d4acd8ed940b657bb70b2d0a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 287, + 285, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b795c01b38ac741ba08480de913a2217520f37136e2cd021dddea5b2bf329316.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 515, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e03dab8fd8d49cc2a8d5c6392641263202f4bb59e0bc3401d6727cbd851bb3d3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 288, + 704, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/94b4bc8a0035a07c95a2dd57be3bf6aad210064c40288bfd5e60409c65f59a00.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 288, + 880, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3e42063957b2340d4f339623050cb7d4ed2e5bed28154513afbb587eae518783.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 414, + 310, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6a32427e04117ade3f84d467f0121feaac2f895130ecdbe67c60ece376963ae2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 414, + 482, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/724c8932d3115cedbb78d99f2a8c5e66dc54b862c746390850a8748e5d5a5344.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 414, + 702, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f15603158341b65d636b56fe8c09627917faee6693b11cc9b20810c8e2fdaf77.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 414, + 873, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7594e143a300c7839e4358118b63397c6f31580d1c5268d29f960b2dcce9985c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 543, + 304, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/68c2fb134f2945541c26c3431470ed3c004314fb6a9b3dd7e1f9aef50444317e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 543, + 502, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/90ec54372d62ef642924a816d1ecb9617b45ceafbcc205529c4f9081a04c7878.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 543, + 694, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12358", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/22b71a5cc5da11c1ebe89f898b580d327e57bbd19c3a7843295f8f726ce8aa5b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 284, + 294, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/30e72c283dc2fa2995f17068977da41b0c67095a96804cc5a75e9288a1db5ec9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 494, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/14da1dd8cfbf27b313cc0584806d3eb1f8f5761e74123b2f78ae83b1faabc137.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 285, + 682, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/11f166136880dc5624b3bb8143e59160cf222efefc09aadf20fd8a3693b8c1fc.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 285, + 873, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/422ef37dd2486ff79287565569f21cb170c4399acdf3d3c9ab58890f131b2525.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 414, + 295, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d85fb3852f93dc58aa3dd23b9dc9de1dfdc940f1734259f88da84996d3643131.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 499, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8698bd53226307b7ef0ea9594cc2ef94d2707ff53e14192c94c03d5b2450dbaa.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 414, + 690, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a8399c36ba86970e78dad93802d6aeedc43bb896b74f20027b4c18167772d35c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 414, + 882, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bcfcd8ae5f49c6ceee861a5f748ddcdd55d714877f8500156065905a85c4ccbb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 544, + 300, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0ccaddce2c85b7b4f009b142289be52a0b71f9030de5ce039fa78db59809fe7c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 489, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c5bd88a82feae8391b1319ee1895f9f03d52eca85fdabf5721662c772acffe49.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 544, + 690, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12359", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/29af95961aa3c5cc47cef14814dd70110bc07e4c1535b6a290708c32609b3680.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 287, + 285, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5a3c517a5dcc7be254a5d4c588e152cc9d174c6a6de9fc12b0b85b0df28acac8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 485, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9141c85fc4dd10ddd0eae202a7c8c23d39213b505b74de48d3e883aaef8a3105.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 288, + 695, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e7b4d1ac1180b391f62c359abbc25a419e575cdb62e235cd5fabc1ccc9327a4e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 288, + 882, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0b3d0817181a4082456047500aa26a5d4cfc6cb9f8821a14e725d4523de841f3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 414, + 295, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d7c494f1226471303294948f51a003614669b7327921f8a210a50df496fc1fc2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 414, + 509, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c186cb11913eb6b5fef1395b159c2babc93e07250759f6030d75637df1d0bfdf.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 414, + 692, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/df3c59cdecfea4a02fa9d9c1b65e2802580a1c78084c81a2be6db8404f4a8353.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 414, + 868, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/966527d719dec95ae9ac14f40ca3eebfcd173f58031fc9f2f0b413d92b995d45.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 13: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 543, + 312, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/11db832b0cc4a049ab54e735255827892007fc8a9e8d50d615c145dbb0a1cf56.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 543, + 492, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/85f5a36693a4cf234f98269c99413431b9b2e12f86f973188eec100766ad40d1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 543, + 678, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12360", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b21f1de495cfcff1942ce86127da4630dfd02f0bd6380f18d04c08b619dbd762.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 287, + 285, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ade168627f379717eccf5e4aa7ca984d3c8c173240158e920d8d50e75b5027f1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 515, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f16a5ff2eef24a8aba56dbfea079585461a00b2d798ff3b9aa2562fd8c5f6d41.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 288, + 705, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/754903c578d01c6e738332f614fe6b54831e75816ea9cc9b3b3faa12cd8e4cbb.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 288, + 880, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f7b6848c04d1e81cbb9b3375a59dee97e00f4a703c6e3ebab3356c82ac60498e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 414, + 310, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/66e6ca9e3f65a568ca5c85ce0da9d2151d1d6cb3dabc9d2fc647043cadd2e5a1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 414, + 482, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/71d934975025c8da139b0482eca318a0bbfc008cc616be45d85487f7812183ad.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 414, + 702, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/108ff03529a0edf0b404d5888bcb4968b44770973f3e7b40c7d4e8fa0ff9ba4f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 414, + 875, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f474ca1641be19457a732bd584a0490ec30f292b0ec9e98534378f7f98ef3001.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 14: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 543, + 304, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/04b0310785e0c710449af4a505d65f62454f209c98515ee7a0a0ce7416b49a49.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 543, + 502, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d3814f59ba70d2836b84909610ce27ae2e83bcb2fded5688a4c66e8aa45cc7df.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 543, + 694, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12361", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/132ebc6a81eed123fb09e76c7dc6ceec7b2ca8b33e4a46d2fe944e75347383c9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 278, + 294, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b3f43450d5995852771662be11c6c20d0f573a0ac5ab81eecc92515cdce66728.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 492, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a6abefe9d07d2de4502eefc40b488f67fe3ce2abd3fde98a347c57c03c2fd266.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 279, + 680, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fb8b34202196259f5dcfd14130298aa4796a4d8ae27c216e14c02a71fbef6446.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 279, + 873, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/00bce614c51808d3f05b112a67ebc6a524dab27e2791cb6e6206fd134ab0e9fa.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 412, + 295, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ce296784bc7ed54253ae64c9384f224ba833e224c7a7b8d8ae582a25c1a46cb7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 497, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ad715a229620576a682f10cd63b8d8f3c3bcd70f43d518b786c25e38d09801f2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 412, + 690, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3226f8c1a9354cc1d2a8bde9ad8d1a538aac2909a9c4d9835e6787dc54e8b9ba.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 412, + 882, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/74442260fb51d0c66ed4338766bcf698d2ad7b98a084812ada4e9dd69a2d113f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 15: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 544, + 300, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e710cba36a7c13ce49e9361f2496b3f0beec741a653fd24222de95cf23c02311.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 304, + 546, + 489, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/143dc0abc11a6daab424659f34543d16e15c703a32d1aeb3b1cbcd2ecabe916d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 546, + 690, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12362", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/eb3d2e7988f089633643a9f1524798e13201d93d8a316cfb6c56f640802b228c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 282, + 285, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/662c3a99cdc13bb5bd8a303a9686886f79de4d08c24011fb2b962a64e1f6d1d4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 282, + 485, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a503662ce3787445cfc7e9cd1717e7b9806c9457656149a8e956675a390171d4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 282, + 695, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/048656c7d661c94bd489ed44beb165400864efd96f66db94ae4f7e9e0850a0de.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 282, + 882, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5180d651d1b975b0b69aaf50ce69c9c94481df095805f747af646f6549c408ec.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 414, + 295, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8bde0310bd86128c668d7d832894fb76c40687bb612335ea0c22adf78329e515.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 413, + 507, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1dbcebad1d1ac381becd34e87b8823f3df57adfc47fe91da9733e9aed41bbdd8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 414, + 692, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0ca87ee45c46cb18bf7c684e2521c4ea441365e1efa309556b679e47d3921b9f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 413, + 868, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c548bd169e57a5b256929bbf17d09385a6b8a9d6ef3552e53c1965f6895e6610.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 16: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 545, + 312, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/88b587e0ee8a81d4cb577faf99aecf331c3368df10ba5d1f953b2889d6a362bd.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 545, + 492, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c644aab77a5cec29b68694c7658ff111577f27731ff3f9fdb3bf81fa55462ea1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 545, + 678, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12363", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d895430cf7e808fe86a61e3edb5f1319da53fd23511ffe7e4c3aee05e5d892fe.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 279, + 285, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6b630e7841fa70284e4a54ba11385706524ea19a92d997540fa9a6de5b330a74.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 280, + 515, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/968890383c5dd1bd02b890c733fff0e350eba853570e47cc79d2a4cbf0d756aa.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 280, + 702, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fedecd80047b81987a5e67606bd2841beb96cb00e6ebdf247cc276bee274941e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 280, + 880, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c5218bbcb758980e6d1a0ec8d1e306f024f15c3f62912a620c1156330d0771e3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 413, + 310, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e4b7f8ae93b553221439418d5390bd81c6f51a60e42236e46968ee05dcbe6b46.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 413, + 482, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a62b5fdee2907517c05919f5122ed7674e3b42831f1a2ac01ff7a759014356b5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 413, + 702, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/432deb7c38c0d1dca90578de8dae4e1044192cb0ff6a3db58da2b3bcc955cd97.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 413, + 873, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/702b92ee44a6703aad2d4573d72dbde905be04e2a692b510b693ba66a69d85a4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 17: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 546, + 304, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e094d2788438213049aee6fdfbc50c1d52a42efb03ea2b9ec50f71052b6f97bc.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 546, + 502, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/04c13e55fe0fffe3f314494231d0a4797842214cb1c2aa1929dd533ac3c1ce8b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 546, + 694, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "12364", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_model.json b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1fb307f664e5a33473b25986993803b048b6130 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,4195 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.272, + 0.085, + 0.728, + 0.124 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures: How Does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.133, + 0.808, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay*† Mostafa Dehghani* Samira Abnar† Hyung Won Chung† William Fedus† Jinfeng Rao† Sharan Narang† Vinh Q. Tran Dani Yogatama† Donald Metzler" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.468, + 0.191, + 0.533, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Google" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.404, + 0.215, + 0.599, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "dehghani@google.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.462, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There have been a lot of interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020). However, not much has been done on the front of investigating the effect of scaling properties of different inductive biases and model architectures. Do model architectures scale differently? If so, how does inductive bias affect scaling behaviour? How does this influence upstream (pretraining) and downstream (transfer)? This paper conducts a systematic study of scaling behaviour of ten diverse model architectures such as Transformers, Switch Transformers, Universal Transformers, Dynamic convolutions, Performers, and recently proposed MLP-Mixers. Via extensive experiments, we show that (1) architecture is an indeed an important consideration when performing scaling and (2) the best performing model can fluctuate at different scales. We believe that the findings outlined in this work has significant implications to how model architectures are currently evaluated in the community." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.603, + 0.262, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There have been a lot recent interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2021; Bahri et al., 2021; Henighan et al., 2020; Tay et al., 2021b; Abnar et al., 2021). However, not much is understood about the scaling properties of different inductive biases imposed by model architectures. Improvements at a specific scale (compute, size etc) are often assumed to transfer to different scales and compute regions (So et al., 2019; Choromanski et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2019; Dehghani et al., 2018) and new research is often presented in a point-wise fashion with respect to scale. In short, it is not uncommon for new methods to be presented with data points at very specific or limited compute regions (e.g., base size). We believe that understanding the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.882, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "interaction between architecture and scaling laws is crucial as designing models that perform well at diverse scales will likely have significant impact." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.304, + 0.885, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper is an attempt to understand the effect of inductive bias (architecture) on scaling laws of language models. To this end, we pre-train and finetune over ten diverse model architectures across multiple compute region and scales (e.g., from 15M to 40 Billion parameters). In total, we pre-train and finetune over 100 different models of different architectures and sizes and present insights and challenges at scaling these ten diverse architectures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.451, + 0.885, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider a broad spectrum of models in our extensive experiments. Concretely, we consider several well-established Transformer variants (Vaswani et al., 2017) such as Evolved Transformer (So et al., 2019), Universal Transformers (Dehghani et al., 2018) and Switch Transformers (Fedus et al., 2021). We also consider lightweight models such as ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) and/or efficient Transformers (Tay et al., 2020) such as Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) and Funnel Transformers (Dai et al., 2020). In our comparison, we are also interested in finding out if general improvements to the Transformer architectures such as Mixture-of-Softmax (Yang et al., 2017) and/or Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017; Shazeer, 2020) influence the scaling behaviour of models. Finally, we also evaluate models outside the family of Transformers including Lightweight convolutions (Wu et al., 2019), Dynamic convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) and the recently proposed MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021). Figure 1 illustrates an overview about the experiments we run." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also note that scaling these models is not as straightforward as it seems, i.e., there are intricate details of scale that are intertwined with architectural choices which we study in detail in this paper. For example, a distinct feature of Universal Transformers (and ALBERT) is parameter sharing. Hence, compared with standard Transformers, this" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.892, + 0.371, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Yi and Mostafa contributed equally." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.905, + 0.358, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\dagger\\) Work completed while at Google." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.892, + 0.371, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12342" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 12342-12364 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.085, + 0.495, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.191, + 0.339, + 0.431, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Upstream: Negative Log-Perplexity" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.083, + 0.865, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.34, + 0.766, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Downstream: Accuracy" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.359, + 0.882, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An overview compute-performance (FLOPs vs performance) plot of all the diverse models and architectures we pretrained and finetuned in this study. Colors represent different model architectures and size of the circles represent the size of the model (parameters)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.427, + 0.49, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "architectural choice significantly warps the scaling behaviour not only with respect to performance but also amongst compute metrics such as FLOPs, speed and number of parameters (Dehghani et al., 2021a). Conversely, models such as Switch Transformers are on the other end of the spectrum with an uncommon relationship between FLOPs and number of parameters, i.e., they have high parameter to FLOPs ratio. This difficulty makes navigating this landscape challenging." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.601, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our Contributions and Insights The key contributions of this paper are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.647, + 0.49, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- For the first time, we derive scaling laws for different inductive biases and model architectures. We find that this scaling coefficient differs greatly from model to model. We believe this is an important consideration in model development. It turns out that amongst all ten architectures that we consider, the vanilla Transformer has the best scaling behaviour, even if its absolute performance at each compute region is not the greatest." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We observe that models that operate well in one compute-scale region is not necessarily the best in another compute-region. Moreover, we find that certain models have difficulty scaling despite performing decently (comparably) at lower-compute regions. This has implications, since it is difficult to get the full picture of a model's" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.647, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.427, + 0.884, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scalability with pointwise comparisons at a certain compute-region." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.47, + 0.884, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We find that when it comes to scaling different model architectures, upstream pre-training perplexity might not correlate well with downstream transfer. Hence, the underlying architecture and inductive bias is also crucial for downstream transfer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.577, + 0.885, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We highlight the difficulties of scaling with certain architectures and show that some models do not scale (or scale with a negative trend). We also find concerning trends where linear-time attention models such as Performer struggle with scaling up." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.47, + 0.885, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.685, + 0.665, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaplan et al. (2020) studied empirical scaling laws of the decoder-only Transformer language models. They focused on the standard left-to-right language modeling objective with the cross-entropy loss as the performance metric. One of the main findings is that the loss scales as a power-law with three major characteristics of the model training: model size, dataset size and the training compute. Another somewhat surprising finding is that the model shapes such as width or depth of the Transformer network have minimal effects on the cross-entropy loss for a wide range of scales. Subsequent works (Henighan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12343" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2021) made similar conclusions for autoregressive generative modeling and for transfer learning, respectively. This finding is also generally supported by (Tay et al., 2021b) but discrepancies were found for the gap between pretraining and finetuning - highlighting the fact that observing downstream performance of large language model is indeed important. In (Tay et al., 2021b), the effect of depth was unusually pronounced for downstream performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.25, + 0.492, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raffel et al. (2019) studied the effect of pretraining objectives, model structures (e.g., encoder-decoder, decoder-only), pre-training dataset size and training strategy on the transfer learning. They showed that the downstream performance monotonically increases with the model scale (from 60M to 11B parameters). While they studied several model structures, the Transformer implementation is mostly the same as the original Transformer by Vaswani et al. (2017). Conneau et al. (2020); Goyal et al. (2021) scaled-up multilingual encoder-only architectures up to 11B parameters while maintaining the original Transformer implementation. They found that scaling the model improves its cross-lingual ability. Fedus et al. (2021) scaled a sparse model based on Mixture of Experts (MoE) models up to trillion parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.529, + 0.49, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While previous studies have repeatedly shown the benefits of scale for language understanding tasks for both dense and sparse Transformers and cross-lingual abilities, all of these used the same Transformer implementation within each studies. With a plethora of improved Transformer architectures proposed in the literature, it is timely to investigate which of these improved architecture has the best scaling properties. The main goal of this paper is to systematically study how inductive biases imposed by these Transformer variants affect the scaling behavior in a shared software and hardware settings. This is in similar spirit to (Narang et al., 2021) that studies the impact of architectures on performance. Our analysis extends that of (Narang et al., 2021) to the model scale axis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We note that increasingly the number of tokens seen during pretraining has been incorporated in the study of scaling laws (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Muennighoff et al., 2023). Hoffmann et al. (2022) trains decoder-only Transformer language models with casual language modeling and evaluates on zero and few-shot tasks. In this work we consider architectures modifications that do not necessar" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ily support causal masking and autoregressive decoding. Due to this, we consider encoder-decoder configurations trained with span corruption, and evaluate on downstream finetuned tasks. This creates a more level playing field for architectures that do not support in-context learning. As such we follow (Raffel et al., 2019) to fix the number of pretraining tokens (i.e. sequence length, training steps, batch size) seen by each model. Given the large space of model architectures and scales we aim to study, this also fixes the data size dimension, making our empirical study more tractable. Since we finetune models until convergence, we anticipate the effect of pretraining token amount to be less pronounced than studied in (Hoffmann et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.354, + 0.621, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.38, + 0.843, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section outlines our experimental setup." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.407, + 0.614, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.427, + 0.886, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section describes the models we evaluate in our experiments. Our models are largely implemented in a sequence to sequence framework (Sutskever et al., 2014) following the convention of T5 (Raffel et al., 2019). Encoder-decoder models are a natural choice for this experimentation because they can universally express both encoding and decoding tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.565, + 0.885, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transformer Variants We consider several standard Transformer variants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.609, + 0.884, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) - The basic vanilla Transformer architecture. Our basic setup considers the T5-style of Transformers (Raffel et al., 2019), which largely follows the vanilla Transformer except that it uses relative attention instead of sinusoidal position embeddings and pre-layer normalization, i.e. layer normalization is applied before each sublayer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.748, + 0.886, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Evolved Transformers (So et al., 2019) - A transformer architecture learned via AutoML. The architecture comprises of convolutions and attention. We scale Evolved Transformers following the same pattern as vanilla Transformers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.84, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Universal Transformers (UT) (Dehghani et al., 2018) - A Transformer architecture with shared parameters and recurrent-like computation for transform layers. Scaling UTs are challenging because of parameter sharing. While we are able" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.609, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12344" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to also increase \\( d_{FF} \\) or \\( d_{model} \\), the increase in parameters is of magnitude \\( N_{layers} \\) than standard Transformers. Another axis of exploration is to scale \\( r \\) the number of repeated computation at each UT layer - this increases computation (number of FLOPs) but does not increase the parameter size of the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.209, + 0.49, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) - a sparsely activated mixture-of-experts architecture. The Sparse Transformer is another model with an unusual relationship between number of parameters and compute. When we scale this model uniformly, the number of parameters easily reaches the ballpark of 40B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.335, + 0.49, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Efficient Transformer Variants These class of models are mainly concerned at reducing computational costs, memory usage, or parameter count of models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.411, + 0.488, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) - A linear time attention model using generalizable kernel attention. For simplicity, we adopt the relu kernel variant for our experiments. We scale Performer in the similar fashion (i.e., uniform scaling) as vanilla Transformers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.519, + 0.488, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Funnel Transformer (FT) (Dai et al., 2020) A Transformer architecture that downsamples the input sequence across the layer stack. Our implementation uses FT only in the encoder and reverts to vanilla Transformer in the decoder following Narang et al. (2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.627, + 0.49, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) - A lightweight transformer architecture that shares parameters across all layers and factorizes the embedding and output softmax layers. For our seq2seq ALBERT, we also share the weights of encoder and decoder." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.411, + 0.49, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.72, + 0.49, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "General Improvements We consider general improvements that are not necessarily tied to Transformers. We select candidates that have shown to do well in Narang et al. (2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.795, + 0.488, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Mixture of Softmaxes (Yang et al., 2017) - A transformer architecture adopting the MoS method at the Softmax layer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Gated Linear Units with GeLU (GLU-Transformer) - Replacing position-wise feedforward-networks in Transformers with Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.795, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Non-Transformer Architectures We are interested in the scaling behaviour of non-Transformer based architectures such as convolutions and/or mixer architectures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.161, + 0.884, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Lightweight Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - Lightweight depthwise convolutions that have shown promise over Transformer architectures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.221, + 0.883, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Dynamic Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - An extension of the Lightweight Convolution to create time-dependent kernels." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.28, + 0.883, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021) - Mixers are recently proposed architectures that learn a lightweight mixing of tokens. Since Mixers have not been used in autoregressive decoding, we only use token-mixers on the input encoder." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.161, + 0.884, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.385, + 0.702, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiment Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.411, + 0.885, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our setup, along with all models, are implemented in Mesh TensorFlow (Shazeer et al., 2018), a library with similar interface to TensorFlow but enables distributed model parallelism across multiple workers. For fair comparison, all models are pretrained for \\(2^{19}\\) steps on the english C4 corpus optimized using an inverse square root learning rate with Adafactor (Shazeer and Stern, 2018). All models use the same SentencePiece tokenizer (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) containing \\(32K\\) subwords. This closely follows the setup in the T5 paper (Raffel et al., 2019). Finetuning is performed for \\(100K\\) steps on a mixture of GLUE (Wang et al., 2018), SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). We evaluate on both upstream (pre-training) validation perplexity as well as downstream transfer for NLU tasks (GLUE + SuperGLUE + SQuAD) after fine-tuning. We pretrain and finetune our models with 16 TPU-v3 chips with data parallelism. All large models have a model parallelism of 2 and XL models have a model parallelism of 8." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model Sizes We consider several different model sizes for each architecture. For models that are straightforward to scale, we simply follow the standard convention in Raffel et al. (2019), moving from small to base, to large and XL. We include a tiny version of each model to observe how different models behave at lower compute regions. For models where it was not straightforward to scale (e.g., Universal Transformers, ALBERT), we tried" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12345" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.083, + 0.312, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.21, + 0.264, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) ALBERT" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.083, + 0.508, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.376, + 0.21, + 0.443, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) DConv" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.087, + 0.686, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.56, + 0.21, + 0.633, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Evolved" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.687, + 0.087, + 0.865, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.743, + 0.21, + 0.808, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) Funnel" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.233, + 0.308, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.352, + 0.286, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(e) Transformer-GLU" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.31, + 0.23, + 0.487, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.366, + 0.352, + 0.429, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(f) LConv" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.49, + 0.23, + 0.683, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.352, + 0.632, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(g) MLP Mixer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.685, + 0.231, + 0.868, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.71, + 0.352, + 0.841, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(h) MoS Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.374, + 0.407, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.276, + 0.492, + 0.357, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(i) Performer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.408, + 0.372, + 0.585, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.425, + 0.492, + 0.566, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(j) Switch Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.372, + 0.772, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.492, + 0.758, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(k) Universal Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.522, + 0.818, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.562, + 0.49, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to scale them in a similar fashion but faced obvious limitations such as getting ALBERT to have the same number of parameters as T5 XL without incurring a huge number of cost in terms of FLOPs. For convolutional models, we consider \\( d_{\\mathrm{model}} \\) to be the hidden size (i.e., channel depth) for the one-dimensional convolution layers. Values such as \\( d_{\\mathrm{kV}}, N_H \\) then become redundant. Details on scaling details1 of each architecture can be found in the supplementary material." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.736, + 0.264, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.763, + 0.489, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report the main results of this paper in Table 1. We report the number of trainable parameters, FLOPs (of a single forward pass) and speed (steps per second). We also report on validation perplexity (on upstream pre-training) and results on 17 downstream tasks. The results are reported aggre" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.883, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gates of GLUE, SuperGLUE and SQuAD. While we use the same Mesh TensorFlow-based codebase used by Raffel et al. (2019) and hence expect our experimental results to match theirs, we verify that our T5 base does achieve similar results to what is reported in Raffel et al. (2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.674, + 0.824, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Do all models scale the same way?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.697, + 0.884, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare on both upstream perplexity and downstream finetuning performance here." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Upstream Perplexity Figure 2 reports the scaling behaviour of all models as we increase the number of FLOPs. We observe that the scaling behaviour of all models are quite unique and distinct, i.e., most of them are quite different from standard Transformers. Perhaps the biggest finding here is that most models (e.g., LConv, Evolved) all seem to be on-par or better than standard Transformers but fail to scale with a higher compute budget. Another interesting trend is that \"linear\" Transformers such as Performer fail to scale as shown in Figure 2i." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.87, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1The largest Switch transformer was scaled in a pretty sub-optimal way. So we don't think it is representative of the full potential of the Switch family. Take the last data point of Switch with a pinch of salt." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12346" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.083, + 0.315, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.211, + 0.264, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) ALBERT" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.083, + 0.508, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.376, + 0.212, + 0.443, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) DConv" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.087, + 0.687, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.56, + 0.212, + 0.633, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Evolved" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.688, + 0.087, + 0.865, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.743, + 0.212, + 0.808, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) Funnel" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.234, + 0.308, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.355, + 0.286, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(e) Transformer-GLU" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.31, + 0.231, + 0.488, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.367, + 0.355, + 0.429, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(f) LConv" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.489, + 0.231, + 0.683, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.355, + 0.633, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(g) MLP Mixer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.684, + 0.233, + 0.868, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.71, + 0.355, + 0.841, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(h) MoS Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.227, + 0.377, + 0.404, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.273, + 0.497, + 0.356, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(i) Performer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.406, + 0.376, + 0.583, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.423, + 0.497, + 0.564, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(j) Switch Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.585, + 0.375, + 0.769, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.596, + 0.497, + 0.756, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(k) Universal Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.515, + 0.776, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Downstream accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.555, + 0.487, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The pre-training perplexity metric only decreases by \\(2.7\\%\\) going from base to large scale compared to \\(8.4\\%\\) of the vanilla Transformer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Downstream Transfer Figure 3 reports the scaling curves of all models on downstream transfer. The overall finding that most models have distinct scaling curves compared to Transformers is also evident in downstream tasks. It is also noteworthy that most models have a different upstream and downstream scaling curve. We find that some models such as Funnel Transformer and LConvs that seem to hold out pretty well on upstream but suffer substantially on downstream. As for Performer, the performance (disparity) seems to be even greater in downstream as compared to upstream. Notably, the SuperGLUE downstream tasks generally require pseudo cross-attention on the encoder, which models such as convolutions are not equipped to handle (Tay et al., 2021a). To this end, we find that certain models may have difficulty learning the downstream tasks despite good upstream performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.555, + 0.813, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Are the best models at each scale different?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.594, + 0.884, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1 shows the Pareto-frontier when plotting compute against upstream and downstream performance. Since the colors of the plot represent different models, we can observe that the best model for every scale and compute region might be different. Moreover, from Figure 3, we can also observe this. For example, the Evolved Transformer seems to do well against the standard Transformer at tiny to small region (downstream) but this quickly changes when scaling the model up. We also observe this with MoS-Transformer where it clearly outperforms vanilla Transformers at some regions but not at others." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.817, + 0.78, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Scaling Law for Each Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 presents the slope of the fitted linear line \\(\\alpha\\) for each model across multiple scenarios. We derive \\(\\alpha\\) by plotting \\(F\\) (FLOPs), \\(U\\) (upstream perplexity), \\(D\\) (downstream accuracy), \\(P\\) (number of parameters). In general, most values of \\(\\alpha\\) depict" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12347" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.111, + 0.884, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Results on pre-training and finetuning ten different model architectures. Full results (further varying hyperparameters of these models) can be found in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.149, + 0.884, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model#ParamsFLOPsSpeedNeg Log PplGLUESGLUESQuAD
Transformer Tiny16M1.2138.4-2.4769.356.973.6
Transformer Small60M3.7022.7-2.0278.165.381.9
Transformer Base223M11.49.3-1.7583.874.086.3
Transformer Large738M34.33.6-1.6186.478.388.6
Transformer XL2.9B63.81.3-1.4987.881.589.5
Evolved Transformer Tiny19M1.3139.7-2.4569.657.169.6
Evolved Transformer Small79M4.2323.7-2.0475.766.280.2
Evolved Transformer Base218M10.28.9-1.7983.070.584.8
Evolved Transformer Large1.0B49.32.1-1.6286.277.188.0
Evolved Transformer XL2.2B71.30.8-1.5587.078.388.2
Universal Transformer Tiny11M1.7738.1-2.7369.856.162.3
Universal Transformer Small52M7.3018.3-2.1276.864.275.4
Universal Transformer Base127M20.38.4-1.9180.067.980.1
Universal Transformer Large283M27.61.6-1.6784.073.485.4
Switch Transformer Tiny174M3.2529.7-2.0178.263.880.7
Switch Transformer Small460M4.6322.3-1.8580.368.082.9
Switch Transformer Base2.0B12.78.4-1.6684.274.186.5
Switch Transformer Large3.9B23.04.1-1.5684.675.887.9
Switch Transformer XL29.6B43.30.8-1.6284.075.287.5
Performer Tiny16M1.1442.0-2.8850.548.815.0
Performer Small61M3.5039.0-2.4457.851.131.1
Performer Base224M10.811.7-2.2361.453.437.8
Performer Large739M32.84.4-2.1662.452.430.8
Funnel Transformer Tiny16M1.1039.9-2.5863.449.454.6
Funnel Transformer Small61M2.9632.7-2.1170.058.575.1
Funnel Transformer Base223M8.1011.9-1.8376.362.981.6
Funnel Transformer Large739M22.65.0-1.6979.867.183.8
Funnel Transformer XL2.9B40.31.89-1.6179.868.083.7
ALBERT Small15M3.5742.0-2.3673.762.077.1
ALBERT Base21M9.4016.4-2.2869.057.264.3
ALBERT Large34M31.65.1-2.2062.954.127.3
MoS-Transformer Tiny27M1.2939.7-2.3770.657.974.1
MoS-Transformer Small81M3.7026.3-1.9879.767.183.1
MoS-Transformer Base257M11.48.6-1.7084.573.986.8
MoS-Transformer Large800M35.03.4-1.5686.579.789.1
MoS-Transformer XL2.9B1121.2-1.4588.281.490.0
GLU-Transformer Tiny26M1.2931.7-2.3570.557.074.2
GLU-Transformer Small77M3.7026.4-1.9779.167.483.0
GLU-Transformer Base248M11.48.6-1.7184.674.587.2
GLU-Transformer Large748M35.03.4-1.5684.274.386.2
GLU-Transformer XL2.85B61.31.0-1.4987.682.989.4
LConv Tiny17M1.2031.2-2.5051.151.349.5
LConv Small67M3.8012.8-2.1071.859.964.7
LConv Base210M10.612.8-1.9573.863.670.3
LConv Large741M41.03.0-1.7676.865.676.3
LConv XL2.3B77.01.0-1.7573.364.172.9
DConv Tiny22M1.3927.3-2.4651.148.930.2
DConv Small96M4.9719.8-2.0868.657.464.3
DConv Base324M15.37.6-1.9072.960.163.7
DConv Large1.2B78.01.1-1.8270.858.558.2
MLP-Mixer Small67M3.8322.3-2.1565.455.158.7
MLP-Mixer Base233M12.410.7-1.9064.458.160.5
MLP-Mixer Large739M38.33.9-1.7352.247.860.9
MLP-Mixer XL2.86B48.31.2-1.6157.358.965.7
" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12348" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.49, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Slope of a fitted linear line for each model, when we compare FLOPs vs. upstream performance \\((F,U)\\), FLOPs vs. downstream performance \\((F,D)\\), parameter size vs. upstream performance \\((F,U)\\), parameter size vs. downstream performance \\((P,D)\\), and finally upstream vs. downstream performance \\((U,D)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.179, + 0.481, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelαF,UαF,DαP,UαP,DαU,D
Transformer0.540.280.470.240.49
GLU-Trans.0.490.240.420.220.46
LConv0.320.130.290.110.48
Funnel0.470.220.380.180.46
Switch0.230.140.130.080.58
Universal0.500.200.560.220.35
ALBERT0.08-0.120.13-0.21-1.67
Evolved0.440.220.420.210.47
Performer0.250.050.240.050.24
MoS-Trans.0.430.210.430.200.47
MLP-Mixer0.32-0.030.260.65-0.02
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.349, + 0.489, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "how well a model scales. For example \\(\\alpha_{F,U}\\) is plotting FLOPs against Upstream performance. The only exception is \\(\\alpha_{U,D}\\) which is a measure of upstream vs downstream performance. A high \\(\\alpha_{U,D}\\) value means that the transfer to the downstream tasks is better as a model scales. Overall, the \\(\\alpha\\) value is a metric that represents how well a model performs relatively across all scales" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.487, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analysis of Slope for each Model In general, we find that the vanilla Transformer has the highest values of \\(\\alpha\\). Models such as Evolved Transformer, GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer and Funnel Transformer tend to have similar scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer. The GLU-Transformer has similar and slightly worse scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer, even if it was observed to do better in absolute sense on some computer-regions. On the other hand, we also observe that there are models which are difficult to scale such as LConv, UT, MLP-Mixer and Performer. This is even more evident on downstream task. We also note that ALBERT scales (trends) negatively2 (gets worse) as we scale the model up. On the other hand, the metric \\(\\alpha_{U,D}\\) measures how the downstream performance scales with upstream performance. Overall, the Switch Transformer does the best on this metric where downstream performance scales well with upstream performance. Generally, models that make less changes to the main Transformer architecture (GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer) tend to retain similar scaling behaviours and changing the inductive bias also significantly alters the" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.083, + 0.698, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.213, + 0.694, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.698, + 0.083, + 0.882, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.214, + 0.871, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Downstream Accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.615, + 0.234, + 0.778, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Scaling depth" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.257, + 0.698, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.393, + 0.694, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.699, + 0.257, + 0.881, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.394, + 0.871, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Downstream Accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.418, + 0.805, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Scaling width of FFN" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.459, + 0.735, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scaling property of the model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.488, + 0.847, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Do Scaling Protocols influence model architectures in the same way?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.525, + 0.885, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We are interested in how different scaling protocols influence the model architectures. Figure 4 shows the effect of scaling depth of four model architectures (MoS-Transformer, Transformer, Evolved Transformer and LConv). Figure 5 shows the effect of scaling width on the same four architectures. Firstly, on upstream (negative log perplexity) curves, we note that while different architectures have a distinct difference in absolute performance, the scaling trend remains quite similar. On downstream, depth scaling (Figure 4) seems to act equally on most architectures with the exception of LConv. Meanwhile, for width scaling, it seems that Evolved Transformers scale slightly better when applying width-scaling. It is also interesting to note that depth-scaling has a much more substantial impact on downstream scaling as opposed to width-scaling." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.829, + 0.761, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Epilogue and Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we conducted extensive experiments, pretraining and finetuning of up to 100 models ranging from 10 well-established Transformer and non-Transformer architectures. We showed that" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.881, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2This version of ALBERT shares parameters across encoder and decoder which may partially explain why we had a hard time scaling up." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12349" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "different model architectures can have different scaling behaviours and models performing well in one compute region (or model size) may not do identically well in another compute region. We also showed that model architectures may do well on upstream perplexity but fail to transfer to downstream tasks. Hence, practitioners should be cautious about developing architectures that not only scale well with respect to the upstream perplexity, but also based on downstream performance. While we certainly do not expect researchers to always report model performance across all scales (especially large-scale), we believe that it is good to keep in mind that architectures can perform quite differently at different compute regions. Hence, this might be a good dimension to consider when designing new inductive biases. As such, performing evaluation at a certain compute region may be insufficient to capture the full picture. It is also good to consider if different inductive biases will result in different extents of emergent capabilities (Wei et al., 2022a; Abnar et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.44, + 0.49, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also showed that different model architectures may react differently to different scaling protocols, reaffirming that comparing and benchmarking these models can be very challenging (Dehghani et al., 2021b). When it comes to scaling large models, we show that novel inductive biases can be indeed quite risky which might explain why most state-of-the-art large language models (Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022) are based on relatively vanilla architectures. Our advice is to be cautious when staking an expensive run on an architecture that drastically modifies the attention mechanism. Finally, we acknowledge that not every practitioner or researcher would require models that are able to scale to billions of parameters. In that case, inductive biases that are tailored to small or low compute will be sufficient." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.731, + 0.249, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As with all empirical studies, ours come with its own set of limitations. We only present a sampling of Transformer variants, and it is not exhaustive. Our selection is aimed towards sampling a diversity of architecture approaches to have representation across the entire space of Transformer architectures. As such, we do not claim that our findings hold within a subcategory; for example efficient Transformer variants, which there are many recent works not covered here. Additionally, given the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "huge number of models considered in this work, while we scaled each model to the best of our ability and present details on how they were scaled, there could always be unexplored hyperparameter settings and other tricks that could get a model to \"work\" at larger scales. Beyond this work, one could also study the differences in prompting techniques, e.g. chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b), between different architecture and scales. Such findings would be of importance for the research community in the future. Although in either case here, we believe that our findings, i.e. models scale differently and need to be tested, will continue to be relevant. This space will only continue to grow, and future researchers and practitioners must continue to assess the scalability of new models under new use cases." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.388, + 0.608, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.412, + 0.884, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2021. Exploring the limits of large scale pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02095." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.463, + 0.884, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Transferring inductive biases through knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00555." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.515, + 0.881, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yasaman Bahri, Ethan Dyer, Jared Kaplan, Jaehoon Lee, and Utkarsh Sharma. 2021. Explaining neural scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06701." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.567, + 0.883, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Krzysztof Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, et al. 2020. Rethinking attention with performers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14794." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.645, + 0.883, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.736, + 0.884, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihang Dai, Guokun Lai, Yiming Yang, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Funnel-transformer: Filtering out sequential redundancy for efficient language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03236." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.412, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.479, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12350" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 933-941. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.176, + 0.489, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mostafa Dehghani, Anurag Arnab, Lucas Beyer, Ashish Vaswani, and Yi Tay. 2021a. The efficiency mknowner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12894." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.227, + 0.489, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. 2018. Universal transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03819." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.277, + 0.489, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mostafa Dehghani, Yi Tay, Alexey A Gritsenko, Zhe Zhao, Neil Houlsby, Fernando Diaz, Donald Metzler, and Oriol Vinyals. 2021b. The benchmark lottery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07002." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.341, + 0.489, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03961." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.405, + 0.489, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Myle Ott, Giri Anantharaman, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Larger-Scale Transformers for Multilingual Masked Language Modeling. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2105.00572." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.469, + 0.489, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, et al. 2020. Scaling laws for autoregressive generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14701." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.546, + 0.489, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danny Hernandez, Jared Kaplan, Tom Henighan, and Sam McCandlish. 2021. Scaling laws for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01293." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.596, + 0.489, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Thomas Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katherine Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karén Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Oriol Vinyals, Jack Rae, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 30016-30030. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.751, + 0.489, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.828, + 0.489, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06226." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.137, + 0.883, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M. Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Aleksandra Piktus, Nouamane Tazi, Campo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Scaling data-constrained language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.201, + 0.883, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sharan Narang, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Thibault Fevry, Michael Matena, Karishma Malkan, Noah Fiedel, Noam Shazeer, Zhenzhong Lan, et al. 2021. Do transformer modifications transfer across implementations and applications? arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11972." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.291, + 0.883, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.38, + 0.883, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.458, + 0.883, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: \\(100,000+\\) questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.522, + 0.883, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Shazeer. 2020. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.56, + 0.883, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Shazeer, Youlong Cheng, Niki Parmar, Dustin Tran, Ashish Vaswani, Penporn Koanantakool, Peter Hawkins, HyoukJoong Lee, Mingsheng Hong, Cliff Young, et al. 2018. Mesh-tensorflow: Deep learning for supercomputers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10414-10423." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.649, + 0.883, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4596-4604. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.883, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David So, Quoc Le, and Chen Liang. 2019. The evolved transformer. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5877-5886. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.764, + 0.883, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3215." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.883, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2020. Efficient transformers: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06732." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jai Gupta, Dara Bahri, Vamsi Aribandi, Zhen Qin, and Donald Metzler. 2021a. Are pre-trained convolutions better than pre-trained transformers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03322." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12351" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jinfeng Rao, William Fedus, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, Sharan Narang, Dani Yogatama, Ashish Vaswani, and Donald Metzler. 2021b. Scale efficiently: Insights from pretraining and fine-tuning transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10686." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.174, + 0.488, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.25, + 0.488, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Tolstikhin, Neil Houlsby, Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Jessica Yung, Daniel Keysers, Jakob Uszkoreit, Mario Lucic, et al. 2021. Mlp-mixer: An all-mlp architecture for vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01601." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.326, + 0.488, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998-6008." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.402, + 0.488, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00537." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.477, + 0.488, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.553, + 0.488, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.629, + 0.488, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.731, + 0.488, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Wu, Angela Fan, Alexei Baevski, Yann N Dauphin, and Michael Auli. 2019. Pay less attention with lightweight and dynamic convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10430." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.793, + 0.488, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William W Cohen. 2017. Breaking the softmax bottleneck: A high-rank rnN language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03953." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.63, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.11, + 0.847, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8.1 Scaling Details for Individual Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.131, + 0.882, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For most models, it was reasonable to follow the uniform scaling method in the main T5 sizes. At each size, the hyperparameters are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.191, + 0.88, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelNLdfffdmodeldkvNH#Params
Tiny4/4102425632416M
Small6/6204851232860M
Base12/1230727686412220M
Large24/24409610246416738M
XL24/24163841024128323B
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.274, + 0.884, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Table of model configurations. \\( N_{L} \\) is the number of layers, \\( d_{ff} \\) is the size of the MLP, \\( d_{model} \\) is the hidden size of the model. \\( d_{kv} \\) is the size of each key-value vector. \\( N_{H} \\) is the number of heads." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.35, + 0.882, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling for Switch Transformer For Switch Transformers, we use the following scaling:" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.393, + 0.879, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelNLdffdmodeldvkNHNE#Params
Tiny41024512641232173M
Small62048512641232460M
Base1230727686412322B
Large2430727686412328B
XL483072768641212830B
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Scaling for Switch Transformer. \\(N_{E}\\) is the number of experts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.518, + 0.884, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling for Universal Transformer Scaling UTs are generally difficult as described in the main text. There were two main considerations for scaling UTs. Initially we tried scaling the number of recurrent operations. However, we found that even with an increase of FLOPS, this does not lead to improved performance. Overall, the UT model might be pretty slow and therefore a model with the same hparams as vanilla XL might be infeasible to run. Hence, we explored increasing the width of the MLPs to \\(32K\\) to see if UTs would scale in this manner." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.72, + 0.879, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelNRdFFdmodeldkvNH#Params
UT Tiny3/3102412832811M
UT Small3/3204851232852M
UT Base3/330727686412127M
UT Large3/33276810246416283M
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.787, + 0.884, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Table of model configurations. \\( N_{R} \\) is the number of recurrent operations, \\( d_{ff} \\) is the size of the MLP, \\( d_{model} \\) is the hidden size of the model. \\( d_{kv} \\) is the size of each key-value vector. \\( N_{H} \\) is the number of heads." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.864, + 0.65, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8.2 Full Results" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12352" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.288, + 0.295, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.289, + 0.493, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.289, + 0.682, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.289, + 0.874, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.415, + 0.299, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.415, + 0.5, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.415, + 0.692, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.415, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.544, + 0.302, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.544, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.5, + 0.544, + 0.692, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.681, + 0.885, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Quality-FLOP trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12353" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.291, + 0.285, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.291, + 0.488, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.291, + 0.695, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.697, + 0.292, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.417, + 0.297, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.417, + 0.511, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.417, + 0.694, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.696, + 0.417, + 0.87, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.542, + 0.313, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.542, + 0.493, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.542, + 0.679, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Quality-Parameter trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12354" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.288, + 0.289, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.29, + 0.516, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.29, + 0.706, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.29, + 0.882, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.416, + 0.312, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.416, + 0.484, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.416, + 0.705, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.416, + 0.876, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.542, + 0.305, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.543, + 0.504, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.543, + 0.695, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.679, + 0.885, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Quality-Throughput trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12355" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.285, + 0.295, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.286, + 0.493, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.286, + 0.682, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.286, + 0.874, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.415, + 0.296, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.415, + 0.5, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.415, + 0.692, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.415, + 0.882, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.544, + 0.302, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.544, + 0.49, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.544, + 0.691, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.683, + 0.883, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models, with respect to FLOPs, number of parameters, and throughput." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12356" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.288, + 0.286, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.289, + 0.488, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.289, + 0.695, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.697, + 0.29, + 0.884, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.416, + 0.296, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.416, + 0.511, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.416, + 0.694, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.696, + 0.416, + 0.87, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.544, + 0.313, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.544, + 0.493, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.544, + 0.678, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.679, + 0.884, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12357" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.288, + 0.287, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.289, + 0.517, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.289, + 0.705, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.289, + 0.882, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.416, + 0.312, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.416, + 0.483, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.416, + 0.704, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.416, + 0.875, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.544, + 0.305, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.544, + 0.503, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.544, + 0.695, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.681, + 0.885, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12358" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.285, + 0.295, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.286, + 0.495, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.286, + 0.683, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.286, + 0.874, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.415, + 0.297, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.415, + 0.5, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.415, + 0.692, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.415, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.545, + 0.302, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.545, + 0.49, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.545, + 0.692, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.683, + 0.883, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12359" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.288, + 0.286, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.289, + 0.486, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.289, + 0.696, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.698, + 0.29, + 0.884, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.416, + 0.296, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.416, + 0.51, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.416, + 0.694, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.697, + 0.416, + 0.87, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.544, + 0.313, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.544, + 0.493, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.544, + 0.679, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.679, + 0.884, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 13: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12360" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.288, + 0.287, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.289, + 0.516, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.289, + 0.706, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.289, + 0.882, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.416, + 0.312, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.416, + 0.484, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.416, + 0.704, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.416, + 0.876, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.544, + 0.305, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.544, + 0.504, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.544, + 0.695, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.681, + 0.885, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 14: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12361" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.279, + 0.295, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.28, + 0.493, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.28, + 0.681, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.28, + 0.874, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.413, + 0.297, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.413, + 0.499, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.413, + 0.692, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.413, + 0.884, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.545, + 0.302, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.547, + 0.49, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.547, + 0.692, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.689, + 0.884, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 15: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12362" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.283, + 0.287, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.283, + 0.487, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.283, + 0.696, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.697, + 0.283, + 0.884, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.415, + 0.297, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.414, + 0.508, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.415, + 0.694, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.697, + 0.414, + 0.87, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.546, + 0.313, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.546, + 0.493, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.546, + 0.68, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.686, + 0.884, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 16: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12363" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.28, + 0.286, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.281, + 0.516, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.281, + 0.704, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.281, + 0.882, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.414, + 0.312, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.414, + 0.484, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.414, + 0.704, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.414, + 0.875, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.547, + 0.305, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.547, + 0.504, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.547, + 0.695, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.687, + 0.883, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 17: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12364" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_origin.pdf b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96cb72cc3fb495831126218aad366d6467682361 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/21fba291-c310-416b-86a7-b4a40df8a17b_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9a72b4670ae9bce8505510d6216fced3473dd287134e1c8247a9404205584e80 +size 7509479 diff --git a/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/full.md b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b85ab6577abb5ad0b1954a9ba29dd8eaf51b31f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,593 @@ +# Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures: How Does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling? + +Yi Tay*† Mostafa Dehghani* Samira Abnar† Hyung Won Chung† William Fedus† Jinfeng Rao† Sharan Narang† Vinh Q. Tran Dani Yogatama† Donald Metzler + +Google + +dehghani@google.com + +# Abstract + +There have been a lot of interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020). However, not much has been done on the front of investigating the effect of scaling properties of different inductive biases and model architectures. Do model architectures scale differently? If so, how does inductive bias affect scaling behaviour? How does this influence upstream (pretraining) and downstream (transfer)? This paper conducts a systematic study of scaling behaviour of ten diverse model architectures such as Transformers, Switch Transformers, Universal Transformers, Dynamic convolutions, Performers, and recently proposed MLP-Mixers. Via extensive experiments, we show that (1) architecture is an indeed an important consideration when performing scaling and (2) the best performing model can fluctuate at different scales. We believe that the findings outlined in this work has significant implications to how model architectures are currently evaluated in the community. + +# 1 Introduction + +There have been a lot recent interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2021; Bahri et al., 2021; Henighan et al., 2020; Tay et al., 2021b; Abnar et al., 2021). However, not much is understood about the scaling properties of different inductive biases imposed by model architectures. Improvements at a specific scale (compute, size etc) are often assumed to transfer to different scales and compute regions (So et al., 2019; Choromanski et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2019; Dehghani et al., 2018) and new research is often presented in a point-wise fashion with respect to scale. In short, it is not uncommon for new methods to be presented with data points at very specific or limited compute regions (e.g., base size). We believe that understanding the + +interaction between architecture and scaling laws is crucial as designing models that perform well at diverse scales will likely have significant impact. + +This paper is an attempt to understand the effect of inductive bias (architecture) on scaling laws of language models. To this end, we pre-train and finetune over ten diverse model architectures across multiple compute region and scales (e.g., from 15M to 40 Billion parameters). In total, we pre-train and finetune over 100 different models of different architectures and sizes and present insights and challenges at scaling these ten diverse architectures. + +We consider a broad spectrum of models in our extensive experiments. Concretely, we consider several well-established Transformer variants (Vaswani et al., 2017) such as Evolved Transformer (So et al., 2019), Universal Transformers (Dehghani et al., 2018) and Switch Transformers (Fedus et al., 2021). We also consider lightweight models such as ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) and/or efficient Transformers (Tay et al., 2020) such as Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) and Funnel Transformers (Dai et al., 2020). In our comparison, we are also interested in finding out if general improvements to the Transformer architectures such as Mixture-of-Softmax (Yang et al., 2017) and/or Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017; Shazeer, 2020) influence the scaling behaviour of models. Finally, we also evaluate models outside the family of Transformers including Lightweight convolutions (Wu et al., 2019), Dynamic convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) and the recently proposed MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021). Figure 1 illustrates an overview about the experiments we run. + +We also note that scaling these models is not as straightforward as it seems, i.e., there are intricate details of scale that are intertwined with architectural choices which we study in detail in this paper. For example, a distinct feature of Universal Transformers (and ALBERT) is parameter sharing. Hence, compared with standard Transformers, this + +![](images/992c27c045533ccb8e5f73a4c48c30a0fb8e8786c712aa81b8af151e4fd55433.jpg) +(a) Upstream: Negative Log-Perplexity +Figure 1: An overview compute-performance (FLOPs vs performance) plot of all the diverse models and architectures we pretrained and finetuned in this study. Colors represent different model architectures and size of the circles represent the size of the model (parameters). + +![](images/283314892ba2e63851dbf0679a1237a8dd39fa40c878457b1608e84b2916bdcb.jpg) +(b) Downstream: Accuracy + +architectural choice significantly warps the scaling behaviour not only with respect to performance but also amongst compute metrics such as FLOPs, speed and number of parameters (Dehghani et al., 2021a). Conversely, models such as Switch Transformers are on the other end of the spectrum with an uncommon relationship between FLOPs and number of parameters, i.e., they have high parameter to FLOPs ratio. This difficulty makes navigating this landscape challenging. + +Our Contributions and Insights The key contributions of this paper are as follows: + +- For the first time, we derive scaling laws for different inductive biases and model architectures. We find that this scaling coefficient differs greatly from model to model. We believe this is an important consideration in model development. It turns out that amongst all ten architectures that we consider, the vanilla Transformer has the best scaling behaviour, even if its absolute performance at each compute region is not the greatest. +- We observe that models that operate well in one compute-scale region is not necessarily the best in another compute-region. Moreover, we find that certain models have difficulty scaling despite performing decently (comparably) at lower-compute regions. This has implications, since it is difficult to get the full picture of a model's + +scalability with pointwise comparisons at a certain compute-region. + +- We find that when it comes to scaling different model architectures, upstream pre-training perplexity might not correlate well with downstream transfer. Hence, the underlying architecture and inductive bias is also crucial for downstream transfer. +- We highlight the difficulties of scaling with certain architectures and show that some models do not scale (or scale with a negative trend). We also find concerning trends where linear-time attention models such as Performer struggle with scaling up. + +# 2 Related Work + +Kaplan et al. (2020) studied empirical scaling laws of the decoder-only Transformer language models. They focused on the standard left-to-right language modeling objective with the cross-entropy loss as the performance metric. One of the main findings is that the loss scales as a power-law with three major characteristics of the model training: model size, dataset size and the training compute. Another somewhat surprising finding is that the model shapes such as width or depth of the Transformer network have minimal effects on the cross-entropy loss for a wide range of scales. Subsequent works (Henighan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., + +2021) made similar conclusions for autoregressive generative modeling and for transfer learning, respectively. This finding is also generally supported by (Tay et al., 2021b) but discrepancies were found for the gap between pretraining and finetuning - highlighting the fact that observing downstream performance of large language model is indeed important. In (Tay et al., 2021b), the effect of depth was unusually pronounced for downstream performance. + +Raffel et al. (2019) studied the effect of pretraining objectives, model structures (e.g., encoder-decoder, decoder-only), pre-training dataset size and training strategy on the transfer learning. They showed that the downstream performance monotonically increases with the model scale (from 60M to 11B parameters). While they studied several model structures, the Transformer implementation is mostly the same as the original Transformer by Vaswani et al. (2017). Conneau et al. (2020); Goyal et al. (2021) scaled-up multilingual encoder-only architectures up to 11B parameters while maintaining the original Transformer implementation. They found that scaling the model improves its cross-lingual ability. Fedus et al. (2021) scaled a sparse model based on Mixture of Experts (MoE) models up to trillion parameters. + +While previous studies have repeatedly shown the benefits of scale for language understanding tasks for both dense and sparse Transformers and cross-lingual abilities, all of these used the same Transformer implementation within each studies. With a plethora of improved Transformer architectures proposed in the literature, it is timely to investigate which of these improved architecture has the best scaling properties. The main goal of this paper is to systematically study how inductive biases imposed by these Transformer variants affect the scaling behavior in a shared software and hardware settings. This is in similar spirit to (Narang et al., 2021) that studies the impact of architectures on performance. Our analysis extends that of (Narang et al., 2021) to the model scale axis. + +We note that increasingly the number of tokens seen during pretraining has been incorporated in the study of scaling laws (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Muennighoff et al., 2023). Hoffmann et al. (2022) trains decoder-only Transformer language models with casual language modeling and evaluates on zero and few-shot tasks. In this work we consider architectures modifications that do not necessar + +ily support causal masking and autoregressive decoding. Due to this, we consider encoder-decoder configurations trained with span corruption, and evaluate on downstream finetuned tasks. This creates a more level playing field for architectures that do not support in-context learning. As such we follow (Raffel et al., 2019) to fix the number of pretraining tokens (i.e. sequence length, training steps, batch size) seen by each model. Given the large space of model architectures and scales we aim to study, this also fixes the data size dimension, making our empirical study more tractable. Since we finetune models until convergence, we anticipate the effect of pretraining token amount to be less pronounced than studied in (Hoffmann et al., 2022). + +# 3 Methods + +This section outlines our experimental setup. + +# 3.1 Models + +This section describes the models we evaluate in our experiments. Our models are largely implemented in a sequence to sequence framework (Sutskever et al., 2014) following the convention of T5 (Raffel et al., 2019). Encoder-decoder models are a natural choice for this experimentation because they can universally express both encoding and decoding tasks. + +Transformer Variants We consider several standard Transformer variants. + +- Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) - The basic vanilla Transformer architecture. Our basic setup considers the T5-style of Transformers (Raffel et al., 2019), which largely follows the vanilla Transformer except that it uses relative attention instead of sinusoidal position embeddings and pre-layer normalization, i.e. layer normalization is applied before each sublayer. +- Evolved Transformers (So et al., 2019) - A transformer architecture learned via AutoML. The architecture comprises of convolutions and attention. We scale Evolved Transformers following the same pattern as vanilla Transformers. +- Universal Transformers (UT) (Dehghani et al., 2018) - A Transformer architecture with shared parameters and recurrent-like computation for transform layers. Scaling UTs are challenging because of parameter sharing. While we are able + +to also increase $d_{FF}$ or $d_{model}$ , the increase in parameters is of magnitude $N_{layers}$ than standard Transformers. Another axis of exploration is to scale $r$ the number of repeated computation at each UT layer - this increases computation (number of FLOPs) but does not increase the parameter size of the model. + +- Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) - a sparsely activated mixture-of-experts architecture. The Sparse Transformer is another model with an unusual relationship between number of parameters and compute. When we scale this model uniformly, the number of parameters easily reaches the ballpark of 40B. + +Efficient Transformer Variants These class of models are mainly concerned at reducing computational costs, memory usage, or parameter count of models. + +- Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) - A linear time attention model using generalizable kernel attention. For simplicity, we adopt the relu kernel variant for our experiments. We scale Performer in the similar fashion (i.e., uniform scaling) as vanilla Transformers. +- Funnel Transformer (FT) (Dai et al., 2020) A Transformer architecture that downsamples the input sequence across the layer stack. Our implementation uses FT only in the encoder and reverts to vanilla Transformer in the decoder following Narang et al. (2021). +- ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) - A lightweight transformer architecture that shares parameters across all layers and factorizes the embedding and output softmax layers. For our seq2seq ALBERT, we also share the weights of encoder and decoder. + +General Improvements We consider general improvements that are not necessarily tied to Transformers. We select candidates that have shown to do well in Narang et al. (2021). + +- Mixture of Softmaxes (Yang et al., 2017) - A transformer architecture adopting the MoS method at the Softmax layer. +- Gated Linear Units with GeLU (GLU-Transformer) - Replacing position-wise feedforward-networks in Transformers with Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017). + +Non-Transformer Architectures We are interested in the scaling behaviour of non-Transformer based architectures such as convolutions and/or mixer architectures. + +- Lightweight Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - Lightweight depthwise convolutions that have shown promise over Transformer architectures. +- Dynamic Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - An extension of the Lightweight Convolution to create time-dependent kernels. +- MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021) - Mixers are recently proposed architectures that learn a lightweight mixing of tokens. Since Mixers have not been used in autoregressive decoding, we only use token-mixers on the input encoder. + +# 4 Experiment Setup + +Our setup, along with all models, are implemented in Mesh TensorFlow (Shazeer et al., 2018), a library with similar interface to TensorFlow but enables distributed model parallelism across multiple workers. For fair comparison, all models are pretrained for $2^{19}$ steps on the english C4 corpus optimized using an inverse square root learning rate with Adafactor (Shazeer and Stern, 2018). All models use the same SentencePiece tokenizer (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) containing $32K$ subwords. This closely follows the setup in the T5 paper (Raffel et al., 2019). Finetuning is performed for $100K$ steps on a mixture of GLUE (Wang et al., 2018), SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). We evaluate on both upstream (pre-training) validation perplexity as well as downstream transfer for NLU tasks (GLUE + SuperGLUE + SQuAD) after fine-tuning. We pretrain and finetune our models with 16 TPU-v3 chips with data parallelism. All large models have a model parallelism of 2 and XL models have a model parallelism of 8. + +Model Sizes We consider several different model sizes for each architecture. For models that are straightforward to scale, we simply follow the standard convention in Raffel et al. (2019), moving from small to base, to large and XL. We include a tiny version of each model to observe how different models behave at lower compute regions. For models where it was not straightforward to scale (e.g., Universal Transformers, ALBERT), we tried + +![](images/2ed69b64ff11c083c7da7c387dae0c8daca4215b1447538368c55f7ad151b091.jpg) +(a) ALBERT + +![](images/478ef25de829f84ca0fb02d643206aef921e13c1a47be95fb661daa1b8297ae7.jpg) +(b) DConv + +![](images/2be732e1c8b9b947de03bbd980a78657919734295fc08d265c8162e582d20b5f.jpg) +(c) Evolved + +![](images/c1d83875ec272a9312674e047ebc4373625417b1911ed35584fe826e4f6ad14c.jpg) +(d) Funnel + +![](images/8e47045c87d0b9ed129968ec6eb12dcba434302ccbbb4429b2e28f7c6bdeab0e.jpg) +(e) Transformer-GLU + +![](images/c46afee482adf1251f528647ef75748fe48580c817676c82cf848c68804dc145.jpg) +(f) LConv + +![](images/ad67aab8a0677063b752568698403516a283b0c885ce6a6ebbdcda4741731e94.jpg) +(g) MLP Mixer + +![](images/50b54fe36bd961bbd2c42d9348e8db528cb5304adb70f086383a054817d59957.jpg) +(h) MoS Transformer + +![](images/9bc7cc2a9215bb84829dc359158a6875d90ab1919646359d8d56b662bf762180.jpg) +(i) Performer + +![](images/049d776887dbf019d971204ddddd8e48a68623335743267fd7b1999647dae63a.jpg) +(j) Switch Transformer + +![](images/73530ff0ef205c6d8c142858d2b45f5059d2996004da27ed004c0e29e39d4d1e.jpg) +(k) Universal Transformer +Figure 2: Upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +to scale them in a similar fashion but faced obvious limitations such as getting ALBERT to have the same number of parameters as T5 XL without incurring a huge number of cost in terms of FLOPs. For convolutional models, we consider $d_{\mathrm{model}}$ to be the hidden size (i.e., channel depth) for the one-dimensional convolution layers. Values such as $d_{\mathrm{kV}}, N_H$ then become redundant. Details on scaling details1 of each architecture can be found in the supplementary material. + +# 5 Main Results + +We report the main results of this paper in Table 1. We report the number of trainable parameters, FLOPs (of a single forward pass) and speed (steps per second). We also report on validation perplexity (on upstream pre-training) and results on 17 downstream tasks. The results are reported aggre + +gates of GLUE, SuperGLUE and SQuAD. While we use the same Mesh TensorFlow-based codebase used by Raffel et al. (2019) and hence expect our experimental results to match theirs, we verify that our T5 base does achieve similar results to what is reported in Raffel et al. (2019). + +# 5.1 Do all models scale the same way? + +We compare on both upstream perplexity and downstream finetuning performance here. + +Upstream Perplexity Figure 2 reports the scaling behaviour of all models as we increase the number of FLOPs. We observe that the scaling behaviour of all models are quite unique and distinct, i.e., most of them are quite different from standard Transformers. Perhaps the biggest finding here is that most models (e.g., LConv, Evolved) all seem to be on-par or better than standard Transformers but fail to scale with a higher compute budget. Another interesting trend is that "linear" Transformers such as Performer fail to scale as shown in Figure 2i. + +![](images/298d7e195537c022da30e50b8b98c033ef034f4c0dea902314788364207cf1a2.jpg) +(a) ALBERT + +![](images/1a740d9027260d30eec95c25ef3c5b3225cd3cbe59797c21d57746a74465c571.jpg) +(b) DConv + +![](images/c5466afbbef87e47c666af6bd2caebfc59c574bd39f94ff75f2bb6aa2c31b270.jpg) +(c) Evolved + +![](images/5aef5b30b6590749ecfdd3114c4dc82fc8c2855acd74aa5168d957261c5040b7.jpg) +(d) Funnel + +![](images/00b39d950841672a9683d8e7083774354e6f917f8027852feb4041e5fa39e20e.jpg) +(e) Transformer-GLU + +![](images/57676be0c2665220d2c3a0ba57a9efb60bdc72a40e614b61ab0a7539c62b8a6c.jpg) +(f) LConv + +![](images/76aa55ad51b0baf1aa454d35c04ff6fc78acc37a52ba981a2be99d2e180a4fd4.jpg) +(g) MLP Mixer + +![](images/e1970a117b4e7670bebbf31017715c29583fe34cff3c756640b036bfa7b57c8e.jpg) +(h) MoS Transformer + +![](images/bb64b6dae82ea14d5a9c8db5afbe0a866dcc2fb49139d7b9062009e7030347bf.jpg) +(i) Performer + +![](images/52e5719dcbba8bc3e3fe0030e7a1775503041529fc8c00e23ec0fe9826c6097d.jpg) +(j) Switch Transformer + +![](images/971f613dccd6673bd18c4b3a74669667e7a0576239ea4c4ad1c95cadc057f5db.jpg) +(k) Universal Transformer +Figure 3: Downstream accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +The pre-training perplexity metric only decreases by $2.7\%$ going from base to large scale compared to $8.4\%$ of the vanilla Transformer. + +Downstream Transfer Figure 3 reports the scaling curves of all models on downstream transfer. The overall finding that most models have distinct scaling curves compared to Transformers is also evident in downstream tasks. It is also noteworthy that most models have a different upstream and downstream scaling curve. We find that some models such as Funnel Transformer and LConvs that seem to hold out pretty well on upstream but suffer substantially on downstream. As for Performer, the performance (disparity) seems to be even greater in downstream as compared to upstream. Notably, the SuperGLUE downstream tasks generally require pseudo cross-attention on the encoder, which models such as convolutions are not equipped to handle (Tay et al., 2021a). To this end, we find that certain models may have difficulty learning the downstream tasks despite good upstream performance. + +# 5.2 Are the best models at each scale different? + +Figure 1 shows the Pareto-frontier when plotting compute against upstream and downstream performance. Since the colors of the plot represent different models, we can observe that the best model for every scale and compute region might be different. Moreover, from Figure 3, we can also observe this. For example, the Evolved Transformer seems to do well against the standard Transformer at tiny to small region (downstream) but this quickly changes when scaling the model up. We also observe this with MoS-Transformer where it clearly outperforms vanilla Transformers at some regions but not at others. + +# 5.3 Scaling Law for Each Model + +Table 2 presents the slope of the fitted linear line $\alpha$ for each model across multiple scenarios. We derive $\alpha$ by plotting $F$ (FLOPs), $U$ (upstream perplexity), $D$ (downstream accuracy), $P$ (number of parameters). In general, most values of $\alpha$ depict + +Table 1: Results on pre-training and finetuning ten different model architectures. Full results (further varying hyperparameters of these models) can be found in the Appendix. + +
Model#ParamsFLOPsSpeedNeg Log PplGLUESGLUESQuAD
Transformer Tiny16M1.2138.4-2.4769.356.973.6
Transformer Small60M3.7022.7-2.0278.165.381.9
Transformer Base223M11.49.3-1.7583.874.086.3
Transformer Large738M34.33.6-1.6186.478.388.6
Transformer XL2.9B63.81.3-1.4987.881.589.5
Evolved Transformer Tiny19M1.3139.7-2.4569.657.169.6
Evolved Transformer Small79M4.2323.7-2.0475.766.280.2
Evolved Transformer Base218M10.28.9-1.7983.070.584.8
Evolved Transformer Large1.0B49.32.1-1.6286.277.188.0
Evolved Transformer XL2.2B71.30.8-1.5587.078.388.2
Universal Transformer Tiny11M1.7738.1-2.7369.856.162.3
Universal Transformer Small52M7.3018.3-2.1276.864.275.4
Universal Transformer Base127M20.38.4-1.9180.067.980.1
Universal Transformer Large283M27.61.6-1.6784.073.485.4
Switch Transformer Tiny174M3.2529.7-2.0178.263.880.7
Switch Transformer Small460M4.6322.3-1.8580.368.082.9
Switch Transformer Base2.0B12.78.4-1.6684.274.186.5
Switch Transformer Large3.9B23.04.1-1.5684.675.887.9
Switch Transformer XL29.6B43.30.8-1.6284.075.287.5
Performer Tiny16M1.1442.0-2.8850.548.815.0
Performer Small61M3.5039.0-2.4457.851.131.1
Performer Base224M10.811.7-2.2361.453.437.8
Performer Large739M32.84.4-2.1662.452.430.8
Funnel Transformer Tiny16M1.1039.9-2.5863.449.454.6
Funnel Transformer Small61M2.9632.7-2.1170.058.575.1
Funnel Transformer Base223M8.1011.9-1.8376.362.981.6
Funnel Transformer Large739M22.65.0-1.6979.867.183.8
Funnel Transformer XL2.9B40.31.89-1.6179.868.083.7
ALBERT Small15M3.5742.0-2.3673.762.077.1
ALBERT Base21M9.4016.4-2.2869.057.264.3
ALBERT Large34M31.65.1-2.2062.954.127.3
MoS-Transformer Tiny27M1.2939.7-2.3770.657.974.1
MoS-Transformer Small81M3.7026.3-1.9879.767.183.1
MoS-Transformer Base257M11.48.6-1.7084.573.986.8
MoS-Transformer Large800M35.03.4-1.5686.579.789.1
MoS-Transformer XL2.9B1121.2-1.4588.281.490.0
GLU-Transformer Tiny26M1.2931.7-2.3570.557.074.2
GLU-Transformer Small77M3.7026.4-1.9779.167.483.0
GLU-Transformer Base248M11.48.6-1.7184.674.587.2
GLU-Transformer Large748M35.03.4-1.5684.274.386.2
GLU-Transformer XL2.85B61.31.0-1.4987.682.989.4
LConv Tiny17M1.2031.2-2.5051.151.349.5
LConv Small67M3.8012.8-2.1071.859.964.7
LConv Base210M10.612.8-1.9573.863.670.3
LConv Large741M41.03.0-1.7676.865.676.3
LConv XL2.3B77.01.0-1.7573.364.172.9
DConv Tiny22M1.3927.3-2.4651.148.930.2
DConv Small96M4.9719.8-2.0868.657.464.3
DConv Base324M15.37.6-1.9072.960.163.7
DConv Large1.2B78.01.1-1.8270.858.558.2
MLP-Mixer Small67M3.8322.3-2.1565.455.158.7
MLP-Mixer Base233M12.410.7-1.9064.458.160.5
MLP-Mixer Large739M38.33.9-1.7352.247.860.9
MLP-Mixer XL2.86B48.31.2-1.6157.358.965.7
+ +Table 2: Slope of a fitted linear line for each model, when we compare FLOPs vs. upstream performance $(F,U)$ , FLOPs vs. downstream performance $(F,D)$ , parameter size vs. upstream performance $(F,U)$ , parameter size vs. downstream performance $(P,D)$ , and finally upstream vs. downstream performance $(U,D)$ . + +
ModelαF,UαF,DαP,UαP,DαU,D
Transformer0.540.280.470.240.49
GLU-Trans.0.490.240.420.220.46
LConv0.320.130.290.110.48
Funnel0.470.220.380.180.46
Switch0.230.140.130.080.58
Universal0.500.200.560.220.35
ALBERT0.08-0.120.13-0.21-1.67
Evolved0.440.220.420.210.47
Performer0.250.050.240.050.24
MoS-Trans.0.430.210.430.200.47
MLP-Mixer0.32-0.030.260.65-0.02
+ +how well a model scales. For example $\alpha_{F,U}$ is plotting FLOPs against Upstream performance. The only exception is $\alpha_{U,D}$ which is a measure of upstream vs downstream performance. A high $\alpha_{U,D}$ value means that the transfer to the downstream tasks is better as a model scales. Overall, the $\alpha$ value is a metric that represents how well a model performs relatively across all scales + +Analysis of Slope for each Model In general, we find that the vanilla Transformer has the highest values of $\alpha$ . Models such as Evolved Transformer, GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer and Funnel Transformer tend to have similar scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer. The GLU-Transformer has similar and slightly worse scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer, even if it was observed to do better in absolute sense on some computer-regions. On the other hand, we also observe that there are models which are difficult to scale such as LConv, UT, MLP-Mixer and Performer. This is even more evident on downstream task. We also note that ALBERT scales (trends) negatively2 (gets worse) as we scale the model up. On the other hand, the metric $\alpha_{U,D}$ measures how the downstream performance scales with upstream performance. Overall, the Switch Transformer does the best on this metric where downstream performance scales well with upstream performance. Generally, models that make less changes to the main Transformer architecture (GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer) tend to retain similar scaling behaviours and changing the inductive bias also significantly alters the + +![](images/0281643100f9e5d448db851bc94b05253a9fe1619a07485c4286b71e131b84fe.jpg) +(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL. + +![](images/880a02585629fedfde5b1a40a70158c5993bf0cbfa0ffc778520f508944fb23d.jpg) +(b) Downstream Accuracy. + +![](images/55f0a8676d408865eb100efcccb79e3fbf67e0fff7d4813bb13cad4503cebb7f.jpg) +(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL. + +![](images/3033155b74e80652cb20d026e8783cdaa66b15718b08f87a6b5a86d70c057d7b.jpg) +Figure 4: Scaling depth +(b) Downstream Accuracy. +Figure 5: Scaling width of FFN + +scaling property of the model. + +# 5.4 Do Scaling Protocols influence model architectures in the same way? + +We are interested in how different scaling protocols influence the model architectures. Figure 4 shows the effect of scaling depth of four model architectures (MoS-Transformer, Transformer, Evolved Transformer and LConv). Figure 5 shows the effect of scaling width on the same four architectures. Firstly, on upstream (negative log perplexity) curves, we note that while different architectures have a distinct difference in absolute performance, the scaling trend remains quite similar. On downstream, depth scaling (Figure 4) seems to act equally on most architectures with the exception of LConv. Meanwhile, for width scaling, it seems that Evolved Transformers scale slightly better when applying width-scaling. It is also interesting to note that depth-scaling has a much more substantial impact on downstream scaling as opposed to width-scaling. + +# 6 Epilogue and Conclusion + +In this paper, we conducted extensive experiments, pretraining and finetuning of up to 100 models ranging from 10 well-established Transformer and non-Transformer architectures. We showed that + +different model architectures can have different scaling behaviours and models performing well in one compute region (or model size) may not do identically well in another compute region. We also showed that model architectures may do well on upstream perplexity but fail to transfer to downstream tasks. Hence, practitioners should be cautious about developing architectures that not only scale well with respect to the upstream perplexity, but also based on downstream performance. While we certainly do not expect researchers to always report model performance across all scales (especially large-scale), we believe that it is good to keep in mind that architectures can perform quite differently at different compute regions. Hence, this might be a good dimension to consider when designing new inductive biases. As such, performing evaluation at a certain compute region may be insufficient to capture the full picture. It is also good to consider if different inductive biases will result in different extents of emergent capabilities (Wei et al., 2022a; Abnar et al., 2020). + +We also showed that different model architectures may react differently to different scaling protocols, reaffirming that comparing and benchmarking these models can be very challenging (Dehghani et al., 2021b). When it comes to scaling large models, we show that novel inductive biases can be indeed quite risky which might explain why most state-of-the-art large language models (Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022) are based on relatively vanilla architectures. Our advice is to be cautious when staking an expensive run on an architecture that drastically modifies the attention mechanism. Finally, we acknowledge that not every practitioner or researcher would require models that are able to scale to billions of parameters. In that case, inductive biases that are tailored to small or low compute will be sufficient. + +# 7 Limitations + +As with all empirical studies, ours come with its own set of limitations. We only present a sampling of Transformer variants, and it is not exhaustive. Our selection is aimed towards sampling a diversity of architecture approaches to have representation across the entire space of Transformer architectures. As such, we do not claim that our findings hold within a subcategory; for example efficient Transformer variants, which there are many recent works not covered here. Additionally, given the + +huge number of models considered in this work, while we scaled each model to the best of our ability and present details on how they were scaled, there could always be unexplored hyperparameter settings and other tricks that could get a model to "work" at larger scales. Beyond this work, one could also study the differences in prompting techniques, e.g. chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b), between different architecture and scales. Such findings would be of importance for the research community in the future. Although in either case here, we believe that our findings, i.e. models scale differently and need to be tested, will continue to be relevant. This space will only continue to grow, and future researchers and practitioners must continue to assess the scalability of new models under new use cases. + +# References + +Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2021. Exploring the limits of large scale pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02095. +Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Transferring inductive biases through knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00555. +Yasaman Bahri, Ethan Dyer, Jared Kaplan, Jaehoon Lee, and Utkarsh Sharma. 2021. Explaining neural scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06701. +Krzysztof Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, et al. 2020. Rethinking attention with performers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14794. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. +Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zihang Dai, Guokun Lai, Yiming Yang, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Funnel-transformer: Filtering out sequential redundancy for efficient language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03236. + +Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 933-941. PMLR. +Mostafa Dehghani, Anurag Arnab, Lucas Beyer, Ashish Vaswani, and Yi Tay. 2021a. The efficiency mknowner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12894. +Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. 2018. Universal transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03819. +Mostafa Dehghani, Yi Tay, Alexey A Gritsenko, Zhe Zhao, Neil Houlsby, Fernando Diaz, Donald Metzler, and Oriol Vinyals. 2021b. The benchmark lottery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07002. +William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03961. +Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Myle Ott, Giri Anantharaman, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Larger-Scale Transformers for Multilingual Masked Language Modeling. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2105.00572. +Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, et al. 2020. Scaling laws for autoregressive generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14701. +Danny Hernandez, Jared Kaplan, Tom Henighan, and Sam McCandlish. 2021. Scaling laws for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01293. +Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Thomas Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katherine Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karén Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Oriol Vinyals, Jack Rae, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 30016-30030. Curran Associates, Inc. +Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361. +Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06226. +Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. + +2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942. +Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M. Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Aleksandra Piktus, Nouamane Tazi, Campo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Scaling data-constrained language models. +Sharan Narang, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Thibault Fevry, Michael Matena, Karishma Malkan, Noah Fiedel, Noam Shazeer, Zhenzhong Lan, et al. 2021. Do transformer modifications transfer across implementations and applications? arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11972. +Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: $100,000+$ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250. +Noam Shazeer. 2020. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202. +Noam Shazeer, Youlong Cheng, Niki Parmar, Dustin Tran, Ashish Vaswani, Penporn Koanantakool, Peter Hawkins, HyoukJoong Lee, Mingsheng Hong, Cliff Young, et al. 2018. Mesh-tensorflow: Deep learning for supercomputers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10414-10423. +Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4596-4604. PMLR. +David So, Quoc Le, and Chen Liang. 2019. The evolved transformer. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5877-5886. PMLR. +Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3215. +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2020. Efficient transformers: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06732. +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jai Gupta, Dara Bahri, Vamsi Aribandi, Zhen Qin, and Donald Metzler. 2021a. Are pre-trained convolutions better than pre-trained transformers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03322. + +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jinfeng Rao, William Fedus, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, Sharan Narang, Dani Yogatama, Ashish Vaswani, and Donald Metzler. 2021b. Scale efficiently: Insights from pretraining and fine-tuning transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10686. + +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131. + +Ilya Tolstikhin, Neil Houlsby, Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Jessica Yung, Daniel Keysers, Jakob Uszkoreit, Mario Lucic, et al. 2021. Mlp-mixer: An all-mlp architecture for vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01601. + +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998-6008. + +Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00537. + +Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461. + +Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. + +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc. + +Felix Wu, Angela Fan, Alexei Baevski, Yann N Dauphin, and Michael Auli. 2019. Pay less attention with lightweight and dynamic convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10430. + +Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William W Cohen. 2017. Breaking the softmax bottleneck: A high-rank rnN language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03953. + +# 8 Appendix + +# 8.1 Scaling Details for Individual Models + +For most models, it was reasonable to follow the uniform scaling method in the main T5 sizes. At each size, the hyperparameters are as follows: + +
ModelNLdfffdmodeldkvNH#Params
Tiny4/4102425632416M
Small6/6204851232860M
Base12/1230727686412220M
Large24/24409610246416738M
XL24/24163841024128323B
+ +Table 3: Table of model configurations. $N_{L}$ is the number of layers, $d_{ff}$ is the size of the MLP, $d_{model}$ is the hidden size of the model. $d_{kv}$ is the size of each key-value vector. $N_{H}$ is the number of heads. +Scaling for Switch Transformer For Switch Transformers, we use the following scaling: + +
ModelNLdffdmodeldvkNHNE#Params
Tiny41024512641232173M
Small62048512641232460M
Base1230727686412322B
Large2430727686412328B
XL483072768641212830B
+ +Scaling for Universal Transformer Scaling UTs are generally difficult as described in the main text. There were two main considerations for scaling UTs. Initially we tried scaling the number of recurrent operations. However, we found that even with an increase of FLOPS, this does not lead to improved performance. Overall, the UT model might be pretty slow and therefore a model with the same hparams as vanilla XL might be infeasible to run. Hence, we explored increasing the width of the MLPs to $32K$ to see if UTs would scale in this manner. + +Table 4: Scaling for Switch Transformer. $N_{E}$ is the number of experts. + +
ModelNRdFFdmodeldkvNH#Params
UT Tiny3/3102412832811M
UT Small3/3204851232852M
UT Base3/330727686412127M
UT Large3/33276810246416283M
+ +Table 5: Table of model configurations. $N_{R}$ is the number of recurrent operations, $d_{ff}$ is the size of the MLP, $d_{model}$ is the hidden size of the model. $d_{kv}$ is the size of each key-value vector. $N_{H}$ is the number of heads. + +# 8.2 Full Results + +![](images/5f3c421ae35d22c355b55e1a45f0ceda2c530f8e0f052993e58012c3ee71aec4.jpg) + +![](images/7ace5606e343ee8f38af3bfee784e4d14a83c0e41d3213a8454d5f655e85c93a.jpg) + +![](images/f62809050182f7af5fb92a1d95c1198aac17cbca2ad3496ca6972823438a9539.jpg) + +![](images/ed5e36bbb768ea84472a369645779e68dc433563859b49906a246d8f4ef74663.jpg) + +![](images/2c57a7d74a809fc01914637cdd6678679765006ab1dc25f671e919092b5cba24.jpg) + +![](images/ddf0f4bf1dc6aade98f58c47865e4ea923786cb45f4583d01a4356cb1a17faf3.jpg) + +![](images/4ab57a61928a91b37a622088d0704e5945760751805b60bf66f4bd6f159b4782.jpg) + +![](images/a1d8509e0adceae8ebb3cba69c51b760cd5953ebeb3df7418e659684f0e16b23.jpg) + +![](images/6b5eb64022948766b5c6e3be02af2178019b0aa35d352be4c678d756f78c737f.jpg) +Figure 6: Quality-FLOP trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/b9886a4c4eae0f488cff53a0f71e3632ed5733ea700901a9ec72f3d7eaabb275.jpg) + +![](images/ed5ca0576cb6bf21e43fe4dfabc95f10294f3078dbef98077b311b48b5f4d8ba.jpg) + +![](images/d8d61cb0bd9b52b32de974b98f02389b397a9712bcdb656d4a5a3763e4654a9c.jpg) + +![](images/da1eadd950ca6affa63534f899f94658c37681f121c674ee83c1adc62f4cb983.jpg) + +![](images/236047f76fc8b499337eb208792576e7f77009041946a0a7e70a6a55e3ed7a7c.jpg) + +![](images/9e354cae5e3cb87efdd0c781c2baf7dc8829919c0bc5f093ea8b8215c00bfc40.jpg) + +![](images/46b0488af2075bfa384006788cf5d5b9ca15e56d5bfe4d9ab6c7884563fb1964.jpg) + +![](images/97a17ac0736380a672a09aea567ada5928fe9fec68883e7b7b64203cbae13038.jpg) + +![](images/458a3a06947e4597bdb78bb6cf1ded038e1aabbc467e4c1bd16200aa062193ca.jpg) + +![](images/7e5e20f6eb390c31154a9de3cdf2b1c2bb4fec142e78d99bf7c1d73ce91d9965.jpg) + +![](images/379bb91c2864a0e3e275555aa62ff44668f83e865a09bb095d9e6d3fb6d8e819.jpg) +Figure 7: Quality-Parameter trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/5b6341ddc286867f73efc15c32e6694cbd6dda1758786deea6bd5186b671f218.jpg) + +![](images/217228c2d716fade0f6d42144dab729dfe3314258ef20cc30e0da9694ec15358.jpg) + +![](images/623dab1652022423796d97ce3ff66bcbd593e5abb5fb024893a97ee38ab62913.jpg) + +![](images/75df66e731e3c6afab99b4d5c1770528299c36c8eddeb4292208fa228fc0688f.jpg) + +![](images/bd887d4f95cb309a6d28e0ed97bd36660373e3dec1903bb1e759db9e3a08d922.jpg) + +![](images/508afdb32f70d115766553456e8661c979037a7d17fd5e07d43af9b281f7f9b6.jpg) + +![](images/e32ee534101c57a7c101d148e91bdc1721ade050ffaa24718a1b31f0b30a20ea.jpg) + +![](images/8e40644957c303bb6e0b61959715df42de9116fec432413047ee79a3a5177837.jpg) + +![](images/f2f3c451876469fdf2b239c9b0a56ae31161ccb0846fc30f3f5a84d8ae96b67d.jpg) + +![](images/abafae81ebf92d9d69c0e948bd3583c20274b29422c96c7659940710a0652e34.jpg) + +![](images/46f488f9ca73d1f8c422f0c39ceff90b58944f2d0f0208e30222d3ac7de6d631.jpg) +Figure 8: Quality-Throughput trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/a61922987198eafd740b5c547993685c4a3b34fb2fad355ee9dbd79c1905a706.jpg) + +![](images/fa60f0ea7c084796eb28f56527d0c467b60639a1662243ccd47ca764c8b39386.jpg) + +![](images/5f25e5404f4e2f55bf97ced1132c950d6bf5fba3214d5bde7f780a10bf81f670.jpg) + +![](images/3b96d635862a9d6f30e7de75cea9b6e77a61349adc3a9c2dd2dec6f78c8d25bb.jpg) + +![](images/bef65c4f71417186c1475fe7e3add89b6f40b48231a594de25e3594ad97311bc.jpg) + +![](images/947758e1101bae5d8e141a216255a2c003ddce75d9f58e392989fafd960b62e0.jpg) + +![](images/139e9b27e39517b68ca231bad6a915985c0bc6bd0dd3160e261167663569f213.jpg) + +![](images/bb992184bd7cd225f2284cd6c5cb52ce761966454b87518d2e80bae851550af8.jpg) + +![](images/ec754f7460f1110e6f641eb036b6c99fdb908b0d21d48405075da469e7c82636.jpg) + +![](images/74e390826790e6fc885b389696a722d96b23dcffec5cc7e5285af3bdb54bd1c2.jpg) + +![](images/d8fa18940807c29a3072a68a13c31059fddd75d843f5e6a7077c4d61606a2e0c.jpg) +Figure 9: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models, with respect to FLOPs, number of parameters, and throughput. + +![](images/f77c7a11c3d57fb290864b8a122020425048f5621599b08c3501f099b027cf5f.jpg) + +![](images/4275cae19f0947d6d87b0b0886e85e58b4f81c3b305e6632f0edaab3d6af97f9.jpg) + +![](images/0f99373809f1874d1939e7cd0c40cbb7c45dbac6809cf534adf71c52d1e24974.jpg) + +![](images/2b6199a0ace643300a82c080a1f003bb26f6f654bd57942386f845f36912ddda.jpg) + +![](images/c6eeae80e66df1872dd37070ec5394986f4930ade30c7a18a56e83c9b603bfda.jpg) + +![](images/89d7f1a798f945b04a89b787615a4ce0538c79f52b6b25fa45418fbc90ff826d.jpg) + +![](images/790c748e716a19a55b735cf03898b749907c46689f7e8994390967d8cca870cc.jpg) + +![](images/41254265abc0ad964957f5e72eec88f462336af78bb4d04d5d8cf9eccf80e6fe.jpg) + +![](images/b49cff853a645520d743f98c5f02bdf8236cda45e6d0a3c0855123cdf0a16dff.jpg) + +![](images/a58cdacbc7a6a873e1b9f550af2c83ebaa4e66e66f04c8e90e154d19835d7621.jpg) + +![](images/474fa6f3fbbc9c38c68e2d7fe023f3a5ebdc858493b6ee73a25692498af5ad94.jpg) +Figure 10: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/57f279ad6415cf43a28a1fa496e014b8a6a207fadf7b30a7e9bb56cf688c6644.jpg) + +![](images/6b0cdd222e315b5292ccee350317213a4573a58187b13ff0d8805179c41d0158.jpg) + +![](images/cf06656bbd47ee9ad78d143f304b0682fac45453d4acd8ed940b657bb70b2d0a.jpg) + +![](images/b795c01b38ac741ba08480de913a2217520f37136e2cd021dddea5b2bf329316.jpg) + +![](images/e03dab8fd8d49cc2a8d5c6392641263202f4bb59e0bc3401d6727cbd851bb3d3.jpg) + +![](images/94b4bc8a0035a07c95a2dd57be3bf6aad210064c40288bfd5e60409c65f59a00.jpg) + +![](images/3e42063957b2340d4f339623050cb7d4ed2e5bed28154513afbb587eae518783.jpg) + +![](images/6a32427e04117ade3f84d467f0121feaac2f895130ecdbe67c60ece376963ae2.jpg) + +![](images/724c8932d3115cedbb78d99f2a8c5e66dc54b862c746390850a8748e5d5a5344.jpg) + +![](images/f15603158341b65d636b56fe8c09627917faee6693b11cc9b20810c8e2fdaf77.jpg) + +![](images/7594e143a300c7839e4358118b63397c6f31580d1c5268d29f960b2dcce9985c.jpg) +Figure 11: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/68c2fb134f2945541c26c3431470ed3c004314fb6a9b3dd7e1f9aef50444317e.jpg) + +![](images/90ec54372d62ef642924a816d1ecb9617b45ceafbcc205529c4f9081a04c7878.jpg) + +![](images/22b71a5cc5da11c1ebe89f898b580d327e57bbd19c3a7843295f8f726ce8aa5b.jpg) + +![](images/30e72c283dc2fa2995f17068977da41b0c67095a96804cc5a75e9288a1db5ec9.jpg) + +![](images/14da1dd8cfbf27b313cc0584806d3eb1f8f5761e74123b2f78ae83b1faabc137.jpg) + +![](images/11f166136880dc5624b3bb8143e59160cf222efefc09aadf20fd8a3693b8c1fc.jpg) + +![](images/422ef37dd2486ff79287565569f21cb170c4399acdf3d3c9ab58890f131b2525.jpg) + +![](images/d85fb3852f93dc58aa3dd23b9dc9de1dfdc940f1734259f88da84996d3643131.jpg) + +![](images/8698bd53226307b7ef0ea9594cc2ef94d2707ff53e14192c94c03d5b2450dbaa.jpg) + +![](images/a8399c36ba86970e78dad93802d6aeedc43bb896b74f20027b4c18167772d35c.jpg) + +![](images/bcfcd8ae5f49c6ceee861a5f748ddcdd55d714877f8500156065905a85c4ccbb.jpg) +Figure 12: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/0ccaddce2c85b7b4f009b142289be52a0b71f9030de5ce039fa78db59809fe7c.jpg) + +![](images/c5bd88a82feae8391b1319ee1895f9f03d52eca85fdabf5721662c772acffe49.jpg) + +![](images/29af95961aa3c5cc47cef14814dd70110bc07e4c1535b6a290708c32609b3680.jpg) + +![](images/5a3c517a5dcc7be254a5d4c588e152cc9d174c6a6de9fc12b0b85b0df28acac8.jpg) + +![](images/9141c85fc4dd10ddd0eae202a7c8c23d39213b505b74de48d3e883aaef8a3105.jpg) + +![](images/e7b4d1ac1180b391f62c359abbc25a419e575cdb62e235cd5fabc1ccc9327a4e.jpg) + +![](images/0b3d0817181a4082456047500aa26a5d4cfc6cb9f8821a14e725d4523de841f3.jpg) + +![](images/d7c494f1226471303294948f51a003614669b7327921f8a210a50df496fc1fc2.jpg) + +![](images/c186cb11913eb6b5fef1395b159c2babc93e07250759f6030d75637df1d0bfdf.jpg) + +![](images/df3c59cdecfea4a02fa9d9c1b65e2802580a1c78084c81a2be6db8404f4a8353.jpg) + +![](images/966527d719dec95ae9ac14f40ca3eebfcd173f58031fc9f2f0b413d92b995d45.jpg) +Figure 13: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/11db832b0cc4a049ab54e735255827892007fc8a9e8d50d615c145dbb0a1cf56.jpg) + +![](images/85f5a36693a4cf234f98269c99413431b9b2e12f86f973188eec100766ad40d1.jpg) + +![](images/b21f1de495cfcff1942ce86127da4630dfd02f0bd6380f18d04c08b619dbd762.jpg) + +![](images/ade168627f379717eccf5e4aa7ca984d3c8c173240158e920d8d50e75b5027f1.jpg) + +![](images/f16a5ff2eef24a8aba56dbfea079585461a00b2d798ff3b9aa2562fd8c5f6d41.jpg) + +![](images/754903c578d01c6e738332f614fe6b54831e75816ea9cc9b3b3faa12cd8e4cbb.jpg) + +![](images/f7b6848c04d1e81cbb9b3375a59dee97e00f4a703c6e3ebab3356c82ac60498e.jpg) + +![](images/66e6ca9e3f65a568ca5c85ce0da9d2151d1d6cb3dabc9d2fc647043cadd2e5a1.jpg) + +![](images/71d934975025c8da139b0482eca318a0bbfc008cc616be45d85487f7812183ad.jpg) + +![](images/108ff03529a0edf0b404d5888bcb4968b44770973f3e7b40c7d4e8fa0ff9ba4f.jpg) + +![](images/f474ca1641be19457a732bd584a0490ec30f292b0ec9e98534378f7f98ef3001.jpg) +Figure 14: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/04b0310785e0c710449af4a505d65f62454f209c98515ee7a0a0ce7416b49a49.jpg) + +![](images/d3814f59ba70d2836b84909610ce27ae2e83bcb2fded5688a4c66e8aa45cc7df.jpg) + +![](images/132ebc6a81eed123fb09e76c7dc6ceec7b2ca8b33e4a46d2fe944e75347383c9.jpg) + +![](images/b3f43450d5995852771662be11c6c20d0f573a0ac5ab81eecc92515cdce66728.jpg) + +![](images/a6abefe9d07d2de4502eefc40b488f67fe3ce2abd3fde98a347c57c03c2fd266.jpg) + +![](images/fb8b34202196259f5dcfd14130298aa4796a4d8ae27c216e14c02a71fbef6446.jpg) + +![](images/00bce614c51808d3f05b112a67ebc6a524dab27e2791cb6e6206fd134ab0e9fa.jpg) + +![](images/ce296784bc7ed54253ae64c9384f224ba833e224c7a7b8d8ae582a25c1a46cb7.jpg) + +![](images/ad715a229620576a682f10cd63b8d8f3c3bcd70f43d518b786c25e38d09801f2.jpg) + +![](images/3226f8c1a9354cc1d2a8bde9ad8d1a538aac2909a9c4d9835e6787dc54e8b9ba.jpg) + +![](images/74442260fb51d0c66ed4338766bcf698d2ad7b98a084812ada4e9dd69a2d113f.jpg) +Figure 15: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/e710cba36a7c13ce49e9361f2496b3f0beec741a653fd24222de95cf23c02311.jpg) + +![](images/143dc0abc11a6daab424659f34543d16e15c703a32d1aeb3b1cbcd2ecabe916d.jpg) + +![](images/eb3d2e7988f089633643a9f1524798e13201d93d8a316cfb6c56f640802b228c.jpg) + +![](images/662c3a99cdc13bb5bd8a303a9686886f79de4d08c24011fb2b962a64e1f6d1d4.jpg) + +![](images/a503662ce3787445cfc7e9cd1717e7b9806c9457656149a8e956675a390171d4.jpg) + +![](images/048656c7d661c94bd489ed44beb165400864efd96f66db94ae4f7e9e0850a0de.jpg) + +![](images/5180d651d1b975b0b69aaf50ce69c9c94481df095805f747af646f6549c408ec.jpg) + +![](images/8bde0310bd86128c668d7d832894fb76c40687bb612335ea0c22adf78329e515.jpg) + +![](images/1dbcebad1d1ac381becd34e87b8823f3df57adfc47fe91da9733e9aed41bbdd8.jpg) + +![](images/0ca87ee45c46cb18bf7c684e2521c4ea441365e1efa309556b679e47d3921b9f.jpg) + +![](images/c548bd169e57a5b256929bbf17d09385a6b8a9d6ef3552e53c1965f6895e6610.jpg) +Figure 16: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/88b587e0ee8a81d4cb577faf99aecf331c3368df10ba5d1f953b2889d6a362bd.jpg) + +![](images/c644aab77a5cec29b68694c7658ff111577f27731ff3f9fdb3bf81fa55462ea1.jpg) + +![](images/d895430cf7e808fe86a61e3edb5f1319da53fd23511ffe7e4c3aee05e5d892fe.jpg) + +![](images/6b630e7841fa70284e4a54ba11385706524ea19a92d997540fa9a6de5b330a74.jpg) + +![](images/968890383c5dd1bd02b890c733fff0e350eba853570e47cc79d2a4cbf0d756aa.jpg) + +![](images/fedecd80047b81987a5e67606bd2841beb96cb00e6ebdf247cc276bee274941e.jpg) + +![](images/c5218bbcb758980e6d1a0ec8d1e306f024f15c3f62912a620c1156330d0771e3.jpg) + +![](images/e4b7f8ae93b553221439418d5390bd81c6f51a60e42236e46968ee05dcbe6b46.jpg) + +![](images/a62b5fdee2907517c05919f5122ed7674e3b42831f1a2ac01ff7a759014356b5.jpg) + +![](images/432deb7c38c0d1dca90578de8dae4e1044192cb0ff6a3db58da2b3bcc955cd97.jpg) + +![](images/702b92ee44a6703aad2d4573d72dbde905be04e2a692b510b693ba66a69d85a4.jpg) +Figure 17: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models. + +![](images/e094d2788438213049aee6fdfbc50c1d52a42efb03ea2b9ec50f71052b6f97bc.jpg) + +![](images/04c13e55fe0fffe3f314494231d0a4797842214cb1c2aa1929dd533ac3c1ce8b.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/images.zip b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7c5be79a74d69fe307bc7b784f208a97f99a3bb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:afc58e9349d2ef21b511b9d15beeeffcbea0f391094d2dd14a67110a8025b17e +size 2144852 diff --git a/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/layout.json b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce3777a9bdba69a36bd97a6a3b1785e75bb100d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures_ How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling_/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,15331 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 71, + 433, + 104 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 71, + 433, + 104 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 71, + 433, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures: How Does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 111, + 480, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 111, + 480, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 111, + 480, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay*† Mostafa Dehghani* Samira Abnar† Hyung Won Chung† William Fedus† Jinfeng Rao† Sharan Narang† Vinh Q. Tran Dani Yogatama† Donald Metzler" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 278, + 160, + 317, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 278, + 160, + 317, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 278, + 160, + 317, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Google" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 180, + 356, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 180, + 356, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 180, + 356, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "dehghani@google.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There have been a lot of interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020). However, not much has been done on the front of investigating the effect of scaling properties of different inductive biases and model architectures. Do model architectures scale differently? If so, how does inductive bias affect scaling behaviour? How does this influence upstream (pretraining) and downstream (transfer)? This paper conducts a systematic study of scaling behaviour of ten diverse model architectures such as Transformers, Switch Transformers, Universal Transformers, Dynamic convolutions, Performers, and recently proposed MLP-Mixers. Via extensive experiments, we show that (1) architecture is an indeed an important consideration when performing scaling and (2) the best performing model can fluctuate at different scales. We believe that the findings outlined in this work has significant implications to how model architectures are currently evaluated in the community." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 507, + 155, + 519 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 507, + 155, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 507, + 155, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There have been a lot recent interest in the scaling properties of Transformer models (Kaplan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al., 2021; Bahri et al., 2021; Henighan et al., 2020; Tay et al., 2021b; Abnar et al., 2021). However, not much is understood about the scaling properties of different inductive biases imposed by model architectures. Improvements at a specific scale (compute, size etc) are often assumed to transfer to different scales and compute regions (So et al., 2019; Choromanski et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2019; Dehghani et al., 2018) and new research is often presented in a point-wise fashion with respect to scale. In short, it is not uncommon for new methods to be presented with data points at very specific or limited compute regions (e.g., base size). We believe that understanding the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 524, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "interaction between architecture and scaling laws is crucial as designing models that perform well at diverse scales will likely have significant impact." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 526, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 255, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper is an attempt to understand the effect of inductive bias (architecture) on scaling laws of language models. To this end, we pre-train and finetune over ten diverse model architectures across multiple compute region and scales (e.g., from 15M to 40 Billion parameters). In total, we pre-train and finetune over 100 different models of different architectures and sizes and present insights and challenges at scaling these ten diverse architectures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 526, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider a broad spectrum of models in our extensive experiments. Concretely, we consider several well-established Transformer variants (Vaswani et al., 2017) such as Evolved Transformer (So et al., 2019), Universal Transformers (Dehghani et al., 2018) and Switch Transformers (Fedus et al., 2021). We also consider lightweight models such as ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) and/or efficient Transformers (Tay et al., 2020) such as Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) and Funnel Transformers (Dai et al., 2020). In our comparison, we are also interested in finding out if general improvements to the Transformer architectures such as Mixture-of-Softmax (Yang et al., 2017) and/or Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017; Shazeer, 2020) influence the scaling behaviour of models. Finally, we also evaluate models outside the family of Transformers including Lightweight convolutions (Wu et al., 2019), Dynamic convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) and the recently proposed MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021). Figure 1 illustrates an overview about the experiments we run." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also note that scaling these models is not as straightforward as it seems, i.e., there are intricate details of scale that are intertwined with architectural choices which we study in detail in this paper. For example, a distinct feature of Universal Transformers (and ALBERT) is parameter sharing. Hence, compared with standard Transformers, this" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 220, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 220, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 220, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Yi and Mostafa contributed equally." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 213, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 213, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 213, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 213, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Work completed while at Google." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12342" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 12342-12364 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 71, + 294, + 279 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 71, + 294, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 71, + 294, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 71, + 294, + 279 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "992c27c045533ccb8e5f73a4c48c30a0fb8e8786c712aa81b8af151e4fd55433.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 285, + 256, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 285, + 256, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 285, + 256, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Upstream: Negative Log-Perplexity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 301, + 524, + 338 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 301, + 524, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 301, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An overview compute-performance (FLOPs vs performance) plot of all the diverse models and architectures we pretrained and finetuned in this study. Colors represent different model architectures and size of the circles represent the size of the model (parameters)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 69, + 514, + 279 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 69, + 514, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 69, + 514, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 69, + 514, + 279 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "283314892ba2e63851dbf0679a1237a8dd39fa40c878457b1608e84b2916bdcb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 285, + 455, + 297 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 285, + 455, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 285, + 455, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Downstream: Accuracy" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 291, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "architectural choice significantly warps the scaling behaviour not only with respect to performance but also amongst compute metrics such as FLOPs, speed and number of parameters (Dehghani et al., 2021a). Conversely, models such as Switch Transformers are on the other end of the spectrum with an uncommon relationship between FLOPs and number of parameters, i.e., they have high parameter to FLOPs ratio. This difficulty makes navigating this landscape challenging." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our Contributions and Insights The key contributions of this paper are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- For the first time, we derive scaling laws for different inductive biases and model architectures. We find that this scaling coefficient differs greatly from model to model. We believe this is an important consideration in model development. It turns out that amongst all ten architectures that we consider, the vanilla Transformer has the best scaling behaviour, even if its absolute performance at each compute region is not the greatest." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We observe that models that operate well in one compute-scale region is not necessarily the best in another compute-region. Moreover, we find that certain models have difficulty scaling despite performing decently (comparably) at lower-compute regions. This has implications, since it is difficult to get the full picture of a model's" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 359, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 359, + 525, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 359, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scalability with pointwise comparisons at a certain compute-region." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 395, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 395, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 395, + 525, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 395, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We find that when it comes to scaling different model architectures, upstream pre-training perplexity might not correlate well with downstream transfer. Hence, the underlying architecture and inductive bias is also crucial for downstream transfer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 485, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 485, + 526, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 485, + 526, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We highlight the difficulties of scaling with certain architectures and show that some models do not scale (or scale with a negative trend). We also find concerning trends where linear-time attention models such as Performer struggle with scaling up." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 395, + 588 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 395, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 395, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaplan et al. (2020) studied empirical scaling laws of the decoder-only Transformer language models. They focused on the standard left-to-right language modeling objective with the cross-entropy loss as the performance metric. One of the main findings is that the loss scales as a power-law with three major characteristics of the model training: model size, dataset size and the training compute. Another somewhat surprising finding is that the model shapes such as width or depth of the Transformer network have minimal effects on the cross-entropy loss for a wide range of scales. Subsequent works (Henighan et al., 2020; Hernandez et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12343" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2021) made similar conclusions for autoregressive generative modeling and for transfer learning, respectively. This finding is also generally supported by (Tay et al., 2021b) but discrepancies were found for the gap between pretraining and finetuning - highlighting the fact that observing downstream performance of large language model is indeed important. In (Tay et al., 2021b), the effect of depth was unusually pronounced for downstream performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 292, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 292, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 292, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raffel et al. (2019) studied the effect of pretraining objectives, model structures (e.g., encoder-decoder, decoder-only), pre-training dataset size and training strategy on the transfer learning. They showed that the downstream performance monotonically increases with the model scale (from 60M to 11B parameters). While they studied several model structures, the Transformer implementation is mostly the same as the original Transformer by Vaswani et al. (2017). Conneau et al. (2020); Goyal et al. (2021) scaled-up multilingual encoder-only architectures up to 11B parameters while maintaining the original Transformer implementation. They found that scaling the model improves its cross-lingual ability. Fedus et al. (2021) scaled a sparse model based on Mixture of Experts (MoE) models up to trillion parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While previous studies have repeatedly shown the benefits of scale for language understanding tasks for both dense and sparse Transformers and cross-lingual abilities, all of these used the same Transformer implementation within each studies. With a plethora of improved Transformer architectures proposed in the literature, it is timely to investigate which of these improved architecture has the best scaling properties. The main goal of this paper is to systematically study how inductive biases imposed by these Transformer variants affect the scaling behavior in a shared software and hardware settings. This is in similar spirit to (Narang et al., 2021) that studies the impact of architectures on performance. Our analysis extends that of (Narang et al., 2021) to the model scale axis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We note that increasingly the number of tokens seen during pretraining has been incorporated in the study of scaling laws (Hoffmann et al., 2022; Muennighoff et al., 2023). Hoffmann et al. (2022) trains decoder-only Transformer language models with casual language modeling and evaluates on zero and few-shot tasks. In this work we consider architectures modifications that do not necessar" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ily support causal masking and autoregressive decoding. Due to this, we consider encoder-decoder configurations trained with span corruption, and evaluate on downstream finetuned tasks. This creates a more level playing field for architectures that do not support in-context learning. As such we follow (Raffel et al., 2019) to fix the number of pretraining tokens (i.e. sequence length, training steps, batch size) seen by each model. Given the large space of model architectures and scales we aim to study, this also fixes the data size dimension, making our empirical study more tractable. Since we finetune models until convergence, we anticipate the effect of pretraining token amount to be less pronounced than studied in (Hoffmann et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 297, + 369, + 310 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 297, + 369, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 297, + 369, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 501, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 501, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 501, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section outlines our experimental setup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 365, + 354 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 365, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 365, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 527, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 527, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 527, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section describes the models we evaluate in our experiments. Our models are largely implemented in a sequence to sequence framework (Sutskever et al., 2014) following the convention of T5 (Raffel et al., 2019). Encoder-decoder models are a natural choice for this experimentation because they can universally express both encoding and decoding tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 526, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transformer Variants We consider several standard Transformer variants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 512, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 512, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 512, + 525, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 512, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) - The basic vanilla Transformer architecture. Our basic setup considers the T5-style of Transformers (Raffel et al., 2019), which largely follows the vanilla Transformer except that it uses relative attention instead of sinusoidal position embeddings and pre-layer normalization, i.e. layer normalization is applied before each sublayer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 629, + 527, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 629, + 527, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 629, + 527, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Evolved Transformers (So et al., 2019) - A transformer architecture learned via AutoML. The architecture comprises of convolutions and attention. We scale Evolved Transformers following the same pattern as vanilla Transformers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 706, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 706, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 706, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Universal Transformers (UT) (Dehghani et al., 2018) - A Transformer architecture with shared parameters and recurrent-like computation for transform layers. Scaling UTs are challenging because of parameter sharing. While we are able" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12344" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to also increase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{FF}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{model}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the increase in parameters is of magnitude " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{layers}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " than standard Transformers. Another axis of exploration is to scale " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the number of repeated computation at each UT layer - this increases computation (number of FLOPs) but does not increase the parameter size of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 175, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 175, + 291, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 175, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) - a sparsely activated mixture-of-experts architecture. The Sparse Transformer is another model with an unusual relationship between number of parameters and compute. When we scale this model uniformly, the number of parameters easily reaches the ballpark of 40B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Efficient Transformer Variants These class of models are mainly concerned at reducing computational costs, memory usage, or parameter count of models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 345, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 345, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 345, + 290, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 345, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Performer (Choromanski et al., 2020) - A linear time attention model using generalizable kernel attention. For simplicity, we adopt the relu kernel variant for our experiments. We scale Performer in the similar fashion (i.e., uniform scaling) as vanilla Transformers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 436, + 290, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 436, + 290, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 436, + 290, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Funnel Transformer (FT) (Dai et al., 2020) A Transformer architecture that downsamples the input sequence across the layer stack. Our implementation uses FT only in the encoder and reverts to vanilla Transformer in the decoder following Narang et al. (2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 527, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 527, + 291, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 527, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- ALBERT (Lan et al., 2019) - A lightweight transformer architecture that shares parameters across all layers and factorizes the embedding and output softmax layers. For our seq2seq ALBERT, we also share the weights of encoder and decoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 291, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "General Improvements We consider general improvements that are not necessarily tied to Transformers. We select candidates that have shown to do well in Narang et al. (2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 668, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 668, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 668, + 290, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 668, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Mixture of Softmaxes (Yang et al., 2017) - A transformer architecture adopting the MoS method at the Softmax layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Gated Linear Units with GeLU (GLU-Transformer) - Replacing position-wise feedforward-networks in Transformers with Gated Linear Units (Dauphin et al., 2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Non-Transformer Architectures We are interested in the scaling behaviour of non-Transformer based architectures such as convolutions and/or mixer architectures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 525, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Lightweight Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - Lightweight depthwise convolutions that have shown promise over Transformer architectures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Dynamic Convolutions (Wu et al., 2019) - An extension of the Lightweight Convolution to create time-dependent kernels." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 525, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- MLP-Mixers (Tolstikhin et al., 2021) - Mixers are recently proposed architectures that learn a lightweight mixing of tokens. Since Mixers have not been used in autoregressive decoding, we only use token-mixers on the input encoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 417, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 417, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 417, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiment Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our setup, along with all models, are implemented in Mesh TensorFlow (Shazeer et al., 2018), a library with similar interface to TensorFlow but enables distributed model parallelism across multiple workers. For fair comparison, all models are pretrained for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2^{19}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " steps on the english C4 corpus optimized using an inverse square root learning rate with Adafactor (Shazeer and Stern, 2018). All models use the same SentencePiece tokenizer (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) containing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "32K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " subwords. This closely follows the setup in the T5 paper (Raffel et al., 2019). Finetuning is performed for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " steps on a mixture of GLUE (Wang et al., 2018), SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) and SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). We evaluate on both upstream (pre-training) validation perplexity as well as downstream transfer for NLU tasks (GLUE + SuperGLUE + SQuAD) after fine-tuning. We pretrain and finetune our models with 16 TPU-v3 chips with data parallelism. All large models have a model parallelism of 2 and XL models have a model parallelism of 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model Sizes We consider several different model sizes for each architecture. For models that are straightforward to scale, we simply follow the standard convention in Raffel et al. (2019), moving from small to base, to large and XL. We include a tiny version of each model to observe how different models behave at lower compute regions. For models where it was not straightforward to scale (e.g., Universal Transformers, ALBERT), we tried" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12345" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 69, + 185, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 69, + 185, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 69, + 185, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 69, + 185, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2ed69b64ff11c083c7da7c387dae0c8daca4215b1447538368c55f7ad151b091.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 176, + 157, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 176, + 157, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 176, + 157, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) ALBERT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "478ef25de829f84ca0fb02d643206aef921e13c1a47be95fb661daa1b8297ae7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 176, + 263, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 176, + 263, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 176, + 263, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) DConv" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2be732e1c8b9b947de03bbd980a78657919734295fc08d265c8162e582d20b5f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 176, + 376, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 176, + 376, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 176, + 376, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Evolved" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 408, + 73, + 514, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 73, + 514, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 73, + 514, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 73, + 514, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c1d83875ec272a9312674e047ebc4373625417b1911ed35584fe826e4f6ad14c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 176, + 480, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 176, + 480, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 176, + 480, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) Funnel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 195, + 183, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 195, + 183, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 195, + 183, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 195, + 183, + 290 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8e47045c87d0b9ed129968ec6eb12dcba434302ccbbb4429b2e28f7c6bdeab0e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 296, + 170, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 296, + 170, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 296, + 170, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(e) Transformer-GLU" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 193, + 289, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 193, + 289, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 193, + 289, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 193, + 289, + 290 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c46afee482adf1251f528647ef75748fe48580c817676c82cf848c68804dc145.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 296, + 255, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 296, + 255, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 296, + 255, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(f) LConv" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 291, + 193, + 406, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 193, + 406, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 193, + 406, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 193, + 406, + 290 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ad67aab8a0677063b752568698403516a283b0c885ce6a6ebbdcda4741731e94.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 296, + 376, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 296, + 376, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 296, + 376, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(g) MLP Mixer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 407, + 194, + 516, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 194, + 516, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 194, + 516, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 194, + 516, + 290 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "50b54fe36bd961bbd2c42d9348e8db528cb5304adb70f086383a054817d59957.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 296, + 500, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 296, + 500, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 296, + 500, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(h) MoS Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 314, + 242, + 409 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 314, + 242, + 409 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 314, + 242, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 314, + 242, + 409 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9bc7cc2a9215bb84829dc359158a6875d90ab1919646359d8d56b662bf762180.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 413, + 212, + 423 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 413, + 212, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 413, + 212, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(i) Performer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 242, + 312, + 348, + 409 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 312, + 348, + 409 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 312, + 348, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 312, + 348, + 409 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "049d776887dbf019d971204ddddd8e48a68623335743267fd7b1999647dae63a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 413, + 336, + 424 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 413, + 336, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 413, + 336, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(j) Switch Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 349, + 312, + 459, + 409 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 312, + 459, + 409 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 312, + 459, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 312, + 459, + 409 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "73530ff0ef205c6d8c142858d2b45f5059d2996004da27ed004c0e29e39d4d1e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 413, + 451, + 423 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 413, + 451, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 413, + 451, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(k) Universal Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 439, + 486, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 439, + 486, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 439, + 486, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to scale them in a similar fashion but faced obvious limitations such as getting ALBERT to have the same number of parameters as T5 XL without incurring a huge number of cost in terms of FLOPs. For convolutional models, we consider " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{model}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be the hidden size (i.e., channel depth) for the one-dimensional convolution layers. Values such as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{\\mathrm{kV}}, N_H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then become redundant. Details on scaling details1 of each architecture can be found in the supplementary material." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 157, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 157, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 157, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 290, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report the main results of this paper in Table 1. We report the number of trainable parameters, FLOPs (of a single forward pass) and speed (steps per second). We also report on validation perplexity (on upstream pre-training) and results on 17 downstream tasks. The results are reported aggre" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gates of GLUE, SuperGLUE and SQuAD. While we use the same Mesh TensorFlow-based codebase used by Raffel et al. (2019) and hence expect our experimental results to match theirs, we verify that our T5 base does achieve similar results to what is reported in Raffel et al. (2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 490, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 490, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 490, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Do all models scale the same way?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare on both upstream perplexity and downstream finetuning performance here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Upstream Perplexity Figure 2 reports the scaling behaviour of all models as we increase the number of FLOPs. We observe that the scaling behaviour of all models are quite unique and distinct, i.e., most of them are quite different from standard Transformers. Perhaps the biggest finding here is that most models (e.g., LConv, Evolved) all seem to be on-par or better than standard Transformers but fail to scale with a higher compute budget. Another interesting trend is that \"linear\" Transformers such as Performer fail to scale as shown in Figure 2i." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1The largest Switch transformer was scaled in a pretty sub-optimal way. So we don't think it is representative of the full potential of the Switch family. Take the last data point of Switch with a pinch of salt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12346" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 187, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 187, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 187, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 187, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "298d7e195537c022da30e50b8b98c033ef034f4c0dea902314788364207cf1a2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 177, + 157, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 177, + 157, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 177, + 157, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) ALBERT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 69, + 302, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1a740d9027260d30eec95c25ef3c5b3225cd3cbe59797c21d57746a74465c571.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 178, + 263, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 178, + 263, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 223, + 178, + 263, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) DConv" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 73, + 408, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c5466afbbef87e47c666af6bd2caebfc59c574bd39f94ff75f2bb6aa2c31b270.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 178, + 376, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 178, + 376, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 178, + 376, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Evolved" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 409, + 73, + 514, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 73, + 514, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 73, + 514, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 73, + 514, + 172 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5aef5b30b6590749ecfdd3114c4dc82fc8c2855acd74aa5168d957261c5040b7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 178, + 480, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 178, + 480, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 178, + 480, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) Funnel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 183, + 294 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 183, + 294 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 183, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 196, + 183, + 294 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "00b39d950841672a9683d8e7083774354e6f917f8027852feb4041e5fa39e20e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 298, + 170, + 308 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 298, + 170, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 298, + 170, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(e) Transformer-GLU" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 194, + 290, + 294 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 194, + 290, + 294 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 194, + 290, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 194, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "57676be0c2665220d2c3a0ba57a9efb60bdc72a40e614b61ab0a7539c62b8a6c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 298, + 255, + 308 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 298, + 255, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 298, + 255, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(f) LConv" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 290, + 194, + 406, + 294 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 194, + 406, + 294 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 194, + 406, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 194, + 406, + 294 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "76aa55ad51b0baf1aa454d35c04ff6fc78acc37a52ba981a2be99d2e180a4fd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 298, + 376, + 309 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 298, + 376, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 298, + 376, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(g) MLP Mixer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 406, + 195, + 516, + 294 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 195, + 516, + 294 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 195, + 516, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 195, + 516, + 294 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e1970a117b4e7670bebbf31017715c29583fe34cff3c756640b036bfa7b57c8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 298, + 500, + 308 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 298, + 500, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 298, + 500, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(h) MoS Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 135, + 317, + 240, + 412 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 317, + 240, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 317, + 240, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 317, + 240, + 412 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bb64b6dae82ea14d5a9c8db5afbe0a866dcc2fb49139d7b9062009e7030347bf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 417, + 211, + 427 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 417, + 211, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 417, + 211, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(i) Performer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 241, + 316, + 346, + 412 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 316, + 346, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 316, + 346, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 316, + 346, + 412 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "52e5719dcbba8bc3e3fe0030e7a1775503041529fc8c00e23ec0fe9826c6097d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 251, + 417, + 335, + 428 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 251, + 417, + 335, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 251, + 417, + 335, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(j) Switch Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 348, + 315, + 457, + 412 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 315, + 457, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 315, + 457, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 315, + 457, + 412 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "971f613dccd6673bd18c4b3a74669667e7a0576239ea4c4ad1c95cadc057f5db.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 417, + 449, + 427 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 417, + 449, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 417, + 449, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(k) Universal Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 433, + 461, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 433, + 461, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 433, + 461, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Downstream accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The pre-training perplexity metric only decreases by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " going from base to large scale compared to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 466, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the vanilla Transformer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Downstream Transfer Figure 3 reports the scaling curves of all models on downstream transfer. The overall finding that most models have distinct scaling curves compared to Transformers is also evident in downstream tasks. It is also noteworthy that most models have a different upstream and downstream scaling curve. We find that some models such as Funnel Transformer and LConvs that seem to hold out pretty well on upstream but suffer substantially on downstream. As for Performer, the performance (disparity) seems to be even greater in downstream as compared to upstream. Notably, the SuperGLUE downstream tasks generally require pseudo cross-attention on the encoder, which models such as convolutions are not equipped to handle (Tay et al., 2021a). To this end, we find that certain models may have difficulty learning the downstream tasks despite good upstream performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 483, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 483, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 483, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Are the best models at each scale different?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1 shows the Pareto-frontier when plotting compute against upstream and downstream performance. Since the colors of the plot represent different models, we can observe that the best model for every scale and compute region might be different. Moreover, from Figure 3, we can also observe this. For example, the Evolved Transformer seems to do well against the standard Transformer at tiny to small region (downstream) but this quickly changes when scaling the model up. We also observe this with MoS-Transformer where it clearly outperforms vanilla Transformers at some regions but not at others." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 464, + 699 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 464, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 464, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Scaling Law for Each Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 presents the slope of the fitted linear line " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each model across multiple scenarios. We derive " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by plotting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (FLOPs), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (upstream perplexity), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (downstream accuracy), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (number of parameters). In general, most values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " depict" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12347" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 525, + 749 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 525, + 117 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 525, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Results on pre-training and finetuning ten different model architectures. Full results (further varying hyperparameters of these models) can be found in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 525, + 749 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 525, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 525, + 749 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model#ParamsFLOPsSpeedNeg Log PplGLUESGLUESQuAD
Transformer Tiny16M1.2138.4-2.4769.356.973.6
Transformer Small60M3.7022.7-2.0278.165.381.9
Transformer Base223M11.49.3-1.7583.874.086.3
Transformer Large738M34.33.6-1.6186.478.388.6
Transformer XL2.9B63.81.3-1.4987.881.589.5
Evolved Transformer Tiny19M1.3139.7-2.4569.657.169.6
Evolved Transformer Small79M4.2323.7-2.0475.766.280.2
Evolved Transformer Base218M10.28.9-1.7983.070.584.8
Evolved Transformer Large1.0B49.32.1-1.6286.277.188.0
Evolved Transformer XL2.2B71.30.8-1.5587.078.388.2
Universal Transformer Tiny11M1.7738.1-2.7369.856.162.3
Universal Transformer Small52M7.3018.3-2.1276.864.275.4
Universal Transformer Base127M20.38.4-1.9180.067.980.1
Universal Transformer Large283M27.61.6-1.6784.073.485.4
Switch Transformer Tiny174M3.2529.7-2.0178.263.880.7
Switch Transformer Small460M4.6322.3-1.8580.368.082.9
Switch Transformer Base2.0B12.78.4-1.6684.274.186.5
Switch Transformer Large3.9B23.04.1-1.5684.675.887.9
Switch Transformer XL29.6B43.30.8-1.6284.075.287.5
Performer Tiny16M1.1442.0-2.8850.548.815.0
Performer Small61M3.5039.0-2.4457.851.131.1
Performer Base224M10.811.7-2.2361.453.437.8
Performer Large739M32.84.4-2.1662.452.430.8
Funnel Transformer Tiny16M1.1039.9-2.5863.449.454.6
Funnel Transformer Small61M2.9632.7-2.1170.058.575.1
Funnel Transformer Base223M8.1011.9-1.8376.362.981.6
Funnel Transformer Large739M22.65.0-1.6979.867.183.8
Funnel Transformer XL2.9B40.31.89-1.6179.868.083.7
ALBERT Small15M3.5742.0-2.3673.762.077.1
ALBERT Base21M9.4016.4-2.2869.057.264.3
ALBERT Large34M31.65.1-2.2062.954.127.3
MoS-Transformer Tiny27M1.2939.7-2.3770.657.974.1
MoS-Transformer Small81M3.7026.3-1.9879.767.183.1
MoS-Transformer Base257M11.48.6-1.7084.573.986.8
MoS-Transformer Large800M35.03.4-1.5686.579.789.1
MoS-Transformer XL2.9B1121.2-1.4588.281.490.0
GLU-Transformer Tiny26M1.2931.7-2.3570.557.074.2
GLU-Transformer Small77M3.7026.4-1.9779.167.483.0
GLU-Transformer Base248M11.48.6-1.7184.674.587.2
GLU-Transformer Large748M35.03.4-1.5684.274.386.2
GLU-Transformer XL2.85B61.31.0-1.4987.682.989.4
LConv Tiny17M1.2031.2-2.5051.151.349.5
LConv Small67M3.8012.8-2.1071.859.964.7
LConv Base210M10.612.8-1.9573.863.670.3
LConv Large741M41.03.0-1.7676.865.676.3
LConv XL2.3B77.01.0-1.7573.364.172.9
DConv Tiny22M1.3927.3-2.4651.148.930.2
DConv Small96M4.9719.8-2.0868.657.464.3
DConv Base324M15.37.6-1.9072.960.163.7
DConv Large1.2B78.01.1-1.8270.858.558.2
MLP-Mixer Small67M3.8322.3-2.1565.455.158.7
MLP-Mixer Base233M12.410.7-1.9064.458.160.5
MLP-Mixer Large739M38.33.9-1.7352.247.860.9
MLP-Mixer XL2.86B48.31.2-1.6157.358.965.7
", + "image_path": "d564e8d254473e87f1b9fa36ecd6f2ffec669a5a18f2134bb12322720c267303.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12348" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 150, + 286, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Slope of a fitted linear line for each model, when we compare FLOPs vs. upstream performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(F,U)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", FLOPs vs. downstream performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(F,D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", parameter size vs. upstream performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(F,U)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", parameter size vs. downstream performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(P,D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and finally upstream vs. downstream performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(U,D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 291, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 150, + 286, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 150, + 286, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 150, + 286, + 274 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelαF,UαF,DαP,UαP,DαU,D
Transformer0.540.280.470.240.49
GLU-Trans.0.490.240.420.220.46
LConv0.320.130.290.110.48
Funnel0.470.220.380.180.46
Switch0.230.140.130.080.58
Universal0.500.200.560.220.35
ALBERT0.08-0.120.13-0.21-1.67
Evolved0.440.220.420.210.47
Performer0.250.050.240.050.24
MoS-Trans.0.430.210.430.200.47
MLP-Mixer0.32-0.030.260.65-0.02
", + "image_path": "884db096092e0619bd8de4adf53149a7e47bd05dc4b66f4034e9229b49152d08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "how well a model scales. For example " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{F,U}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is plotting FLOPs against Upstream performance. The only exception is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{U,D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is a measure of upstream vs downstream performance. A high " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{U,D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value means that the transfer to the downstream tasks is better as a model scales. Overall, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 293, + 290, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value is a metric that represents how well a model performs relatively across all scales" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analysis of Slope for each Model In general, we find that the vanilla Transformer has the highest values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Models such as Evolved Transformer, GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer and Funnel Transformer tend to have similar scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer. The GLU-Transformer has similar and slightly worse scaling properties to the vanilla Transformer, even if it was observed to do better in absolute sense on some computer-regions. On the other hand, we also observe that there are models which are difficult to scale such as LConv, UT, MLP-Mixer and Performer. This is even more evident on downstream task. We also note that ALBERT scales (trends) negatively2 (gets worse) as we scale the model up. On the other hand, the metric " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{U,D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures how the downstream performance scales with upstream performance. Overall, the Switch Transformer does the best on this metric where downstream performance scales well with upstream performance. Generally, models that make less changes to the main Transformer architecture (GLU-Transformer, MoS-Transformer) tend to retain similar scaling behaviours and changing the inductive bias also significantly alters the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 415, + 173 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 415, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 415, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 415, + 173 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0281643100f9e5d448db851bc94b05253a9fe1619a07485c4286b71e131b84fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 179, + 412, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 179, + 412, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 179, + 412, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 174 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "880a02585629fedfde5b1a40a70158c5993bf0cbfa0ffc778520f508944fb23d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 179, + 518, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 179, + 518, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 179, + 518, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Downstream Accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 216, + 415, + 324 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 216, + 415, + 324 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 216, + 415, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 216, + 415, + 324 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "55f0a8676d408865eb100efcccb79e3fbf67e0fff7d4813bb13cad4503cebb7f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 330, + 412, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 330, + 412, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 330, + 412, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Upstream Neg. Log-PPL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 216, + 524, + 326 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 196, + 462, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 196, + 462, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 196, + 462, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Scaling depth" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 216, + 524, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 216, + 524, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 216, + 524, + 326 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3033155b74e80652cb20d026e8783cdaa66b15718b08f87a6b5a86d70c057d7b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 331, + 518, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 331, + 518, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 331, + 518, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Downstream Accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 351, + 478, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 351, + 478, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 351, + 478, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Scaling width of FFN" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 437, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 437, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 437, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scaling property of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 503, + 437 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 503, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 503, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Do Scaling Protocols influence model architectures in the same way?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 441, + 526, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 441, + 526, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 441, + 526, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We are interested in how different scaling protocols influence the model architectures. Figure 4 shows the effect of scaling depth of four model architectures (MoS-Transformer, Transformer, Evolved Transformer and LConv). Figure 5 shows the effect of scaling width on the same four architectures. Firstly, on upstream (negative log perplexity) curves, we note that while different architectures have a distinct difference in absolute performance, the scaling trend remains quite similar. On downstream, depth scaling (Figure 4) seems to act equally on most architectures with the exception of LConv. Meanwhile, for width scaling, it seems that Evolved Transformers scale slightly better when applying width-scaling. It is also interesting to note that depth-scaling has a much more substantial impact on downstream scaling as opposed to width-scaling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 452, + 711 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 452, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 452, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Epilogue and Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we conducted extensive experiments, pretraining and finetuning of up to 100 models ranging from 10 well-established Transformer and non-Transformer architectures. We showed that" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2This version of ALBERT shares parameters across encoder and decoder which may partially explain why we had a hard time scaling up." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12349" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "different model architectures can have different scaling behaviours and models performing well in one compute region (or model size) may not do identically well in another compute region. We also showed that model architectures may do well on upstream perplexity but fail to transfer to downstream tasks. Hence, practitioners should be cautious about developing architectures that not only scale well with respect to the upstream perplexity, but also based on downstream performance. While we certainly do not expect researchers to always report model performance across all scales (especially large-scale), we believe that it is good to keep in mind that architectures can perform quite differently at different compute regions. Hence, this might be a good dimension to consider when designing new inductive biases. As such, performing evaluation at a certain compute region may be insufficient to capture the full picture. It is also good to consider if different inductive biases will result in different extents of emergent capabilities (Wei et al., 2022a; Abnar et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 291, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also showed that different model architectures may react differently to different scaling protocols, reaffirming that comparing and benchmarking these models can be very challenging (Dehghani et al., 2021b). When it comes to scaling large models, we show that novel inductive biases can be indeed quite risky which might explain why most state-of-the-art large language models (Rae et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022) are based on relatively vanilla architectures. Our advice is to be cautious when staking an expensive run on an architecture that drastically modifies the attention mechanism. Finally, we acknowledge that not every practitioner or researcher would require models that are able to scale to billions of parameters. In that case, inductive biases that are tailored to small or low compute will be sufficient." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 614, + 148, + 626 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 614, + 148, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 614, + 148, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As with all empirical studies, ours come with its own set of limitations. We only present a sampling of Transformer variants, and it is not exhaustive. Our selection is aimed towards sampling a diversity of architecture approaches to have representation across the entire space of Transformer architectures. As such, we do not claim that our findings hold within a subcategory; for example efficient Transformer variants, which there are many recent works not covered here. Additionally, given the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "huge number of models considered in this work, while we scaled each model to the best of our ability and present details on how they were scaled, there could always be unexplored hyperparameter settings and other tricks that could get a model to \"work\" at larger scales. Beyond this work, one could also study the differences in prompting techniques, e.g. chain-of-thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b), between different architecture and scales. Such findings would be of importance for the research community in the future. Although in either case here, we believe that our findings, i.e. models scale differently and need to be tested, will continue to be relevant. This space will only continue to grow, and future researchers and practitioners must continue to assess the scalability of new models under new use cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 326, + 361, + 337 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 326, + 361, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 326, + 361, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 346, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 346, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 346, + 525, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 346, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2021. Exploring the limits of large scale pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02095." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 389, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 389, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 389, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samira Abnar, Mostafa Dehghani, and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Transferring inductive biases through knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00555." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 433, + 524, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 433, + 524, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 433, + 524, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yasaman Bahri, Ethan Dyer, Jared Kaplan, Jaehoon Lee, and Utkarsh Sharma. 2021. Explaining neural scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06701." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 476, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Krzysztof Choromanski, Valerii Likhosherstov, David Dohan, Xingyou Song, Andreea Gane, Tamas Sarlos, Peter Hawkins, Jared Davis, Afroz Mohiuddin, Lukasz Kaiser, et al. 2020. Rethinking attention with performers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14794." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 542, + 525, + 607 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 542, + 525, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 542, + 525, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 618, + 525, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 618, + 525, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 618, + 525, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihang Dai, Guokun Lai, Yiming Yang, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Funnel-transformer: Filtering out sequential redundancy for efficient language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03236." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12350" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 933-941. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mostafa Dehghani, Anurag Arnab, Lucas Beyer, Ashish Vaswani, and Yi Tay. 2021a. The efficiency mknowner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12894." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 224 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 290, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lukasz Kaiser. 2018. Universal transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03819." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mostafa Dehghani, Yi Tay, Alexey A Gritsenko, Zhe Zhao, Neil Houlsby, Fernando Diaz, Donald Metzler, and Oriol Vinyals. 2021b. The benchmark lottery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07002." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 331 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03961." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 385 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Myle Ott, Giri Anantharaman, and Alexis Conneau. 2021. Larger-Scale Transformers for Multilingual Masked Language Modeling. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2105.00572." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 290, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Henighan, Jared Kaplan, Mor Katz, Mark Chen, Christopher Hesse, Jacob Jackson, Heewoo Jun, Tom B Brown, Prafulla Dhariwal, Scott Gray, et al. 2020. Scaling laws for autoregressive generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14701." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 290, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 290, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 290, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danny Hernandez, Jared Kaplan, Tom Henighan, and Sam McCandlish. 2021. Scaling laws for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01293." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Thomas Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katherine Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karén Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Oriol Vinyals, Jack Rae, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 30016-30030. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 696, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06226." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2019. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 525, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 525, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 525, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Niklas Muennighoff, Alexander M. Rush, Boaz Barak, Teven Le Scao, Aleksandra Piktus, Nouamane Tazi, Campo Pyysalo, Thomas Wolf, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Scaling data-constrained language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 525, + 235 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 525, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 525, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sharan Narang, Hyung Won Chung, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Thibault Fevry, Michael Matena, Karishma Malkan, Noah Fiedel, Noam Shazeer, Zhenzhong Lan, et al. 2021. Do transformer modifications transfer across implementations and applications? arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11972." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 311 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 525, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 525, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 319, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100,000+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 461 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Shazeer. 2020. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 525, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Shazeer, Youlong Cheng, Niki Parmar, Dustin Tran, Ashish Vaswani, Penporn Koanantakool, Peter Hawkins, HyoukJoong Lee, Mingsheng Hong, Cliff Young, et al. 2018. Mesh-tensorflow: Deep learning for supercomputers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10414-10423." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 545, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4596-4604. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David So, Quoc Le, and Chen Liang. 2019. The evolved transformer. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5877-5886. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 525, + 676 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 525, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 525, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3215." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2020. Efficient transformers: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06732." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jai Gupta, Dara Bahri, Vamsi Aribandi, Zhen Qin, and Donald Metzler. 2021a. Are pre-trained convolutions better than pre-trained transformers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03322." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12351" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Jinfeng Rao, William Fedus, Samira Abnar, Hyung Won Chung, Sharan Narang, Dani Yogatama, Ashish Vaswani, and Donald Metzler. 2021b. Scale efficiently: Insights from pretraining and fine-tuning transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10686." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 290, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 290, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 290, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Vinh Q Tran, Xavier Garcia, Dara Bahri, Tal Schuster, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Neil Houlsby, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Unifying language learning paradigms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05131." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Tolstikhin, Neil Houlsby, Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Jessica Yung, Daniel Keysers, Jakob Uszkoreit, Mario Lucic, et al. 2021. Mlp-mixer: An all-mlp architecture for vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.01601." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 290, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 290, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 290, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998-6008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.00537." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 290, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 614, + 290, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 614, + 290, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 614, + 290, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Wu, Angela Fan, Alexei Baevski, Yann N Dauphin, and Michael Auli. 2019. Pay less attention with lightweight and dynamic convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10430." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 290, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William W Cohen. 2017. Breaking the softmax bottleneck: A high-rank rnN language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03953." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 374, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 374, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 374, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 503, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 503, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 503, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8.1 Scaling Details for Individual Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 524, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 524, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 524, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For most models, it was reasonable to follow the uniform scaling method in the main T5 sizes. At each size, the hyperparameters are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 160, + 523, + 222 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 160, + 523, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 160, + 523, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 160, + 523, + 222 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelNLdfffdmodeldkvNH#Params
Tiny4/4102425632416M
Small6/6204851232860M
Base12/1230727686412220M
Large24/24409610246416738M
XL24/24163841024128323B
", + "image_path": "a6afd4caf23e5488d6fca497c95fede2e4cf57bf459cad814a894c05c1447eee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 330, + 523, + 386 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Table of model configurations. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of layers, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{ff}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the size of the MLP, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{model}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hidden size of the model. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{kv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the size of each key-value vector. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of heads." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 524, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 524, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 524, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling for Switch Transformer For Switch Transformers, we use the following scaling:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 330, + 523, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 330, + 523, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 330, + 523, + 386 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelNLdffdmodeldvkNHNE#Params
Tiny41024512641232173M
Small62048512641232460M
Base1230727686412322B
Large2430727686412328B
XL483072768641212830B
", + "image_path": "4b7a9555b5512870dfdb908c395f7421c52fd6d727938e94919a909b7fdbaed1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling for Universal Transformer Scaling UTs are generally difficult as described in the main text. There were two main considerations for scaling UTs. Initially we tried scaling the number of recurrent operations. However, we found that even with an increase of FLOPS, this does not lead to improved performance. Overall, the UT model might be pretty slow and therefore a model with the same hparams as vanilla XL might be infeasible to run. Hence, we explored increasing the width of the MLPs to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "32K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to see if UTs would scale in this manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 605, + 523, + 654 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 419 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Scaling for Switch Transformer. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 419 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of experts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 605, + 523, + 654 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 605, + 523, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 605, + 523, + 654 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelNRdFFdmodeldkvNH#Params
UT Tiny3/3102412832811M
UT Small3/3204851232852M
UT Base3/330727686412127M
UT Large3/33276810246416283M
", + "image_path": "37722da4adb62dd213a0067cd90df562a0957deaca8c78e860bf1572cb02f393.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Table of model configurations. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of recurrent operations, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{ff}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the size of the MLP, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{model}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hidden size of the model. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{kv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the size of each key-value vector. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of heads." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 386, + 738 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 386, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 386, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8.2 Full Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12352" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 175, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 175, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 175, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 175, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5f3c421ae35d22c355b55e1a45f0ceda2c530f8e0f052993e58012c3ee71aec4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 243, + 293, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 243, + 293, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 243, + 293, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 243, + 293, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7ace5606e343ee8f38af3bfee784e4d14a83c0e41d3213a8454d5f655e85c93a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 243, + 405, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 243, + 405, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 243, + 405, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 243, + 405, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f62809050182f7af5fb92a1d95c1198aac17cbca2ad3496ca6972823438a9539.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 243, + 520, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 243, + 520, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 243, + 520, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 243, + 520, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ed5e36bbb768ea84472a369645779e68dc433563859b49906a246d8f4ef74663.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 177, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 177, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 177, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 177, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2c57a7d74a809fc01914637cdd6678679765006ab1dc25f671e919092b5cba24.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ddf0f4bf1dc6aade98f58c47865e4ea923786cb45f4583d01a4356cb1a17faf3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4ab57a61928a91b37a622088d0704e5945760751805b60bf66f4bd6f159b4782.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a1d8509e0adceae8ebb3cba69c51b760cd5953ebeb3df7418e659684f0e16b23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 562 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 562 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 562 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6b5eb64022948766b5c6e3be02af2178019b0aa35d352be4c678d756f78c737f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Quality-FLOP trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 562 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 562 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b9886a4c4eae0f488cff53a0f71e3632ed5733ea700901a9ec72f3d7eaabb275.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 457, + 411, + 563 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 457, + 411, + 563 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 457, + 411, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 457, + 411, + 563 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ed5ca0576cb6bf21e43fe4dfabc95f10294f3078dbef98077b311b48b5f4d8ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12353" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 169, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 169, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 169, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 169, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d8d61cb0bd9b52b32de974b98f02389b397a9712bcdb656d4a5a3763e4654a9c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 244, + 290, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 244, + 290, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 244, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 244, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "da1eadd950ca6affa63534f899f94658c37681f121c674ee83c1adc62f4cb983.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 413, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 413, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 413, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 413, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "236047f76fc8b499337eb208792576e7f77009041946a0a7e70a6a55e3ed7a7c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 245, + 525, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 245, + 525, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 245, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 245, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9e354cae5e3cb87efdd0c781c2baf7dc8829919c0bc5f093ea8b8215c00bfc40.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 350, + 176, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 350, + 176, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 350, + 176, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 350, + 176, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "46b0488af2075bfa384006788cf5d5b9ca15e56d5bfe4d9ab6c7884563fb1964.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 350, + 304, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 350, + 304, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 350, + 304, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 350, + 304, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "97a17ac0736380a672a09aea567ada5928fe9fec68883e7b7b64203cbae13038.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 412, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 412, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 412, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 412, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "458a3a06947e4597bdb78bb6cf1ded038e1aabbc467e4c1bd16200aa062193ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 350, + 517, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 350, + 517, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 350, + 517, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 350, + 517, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7e5e20f6eb390c31154a9de3cdf2b1c2bb4fec142e78d99bf7c1d73ce91d9965.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 186, + 560 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 186, + 560 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 186, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 186, + 560 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "379bb91c2864a0e3e275555aa62ff44668f83e865a09bb095d9e6d3fb6d8e819.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 526, + 593 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 526, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Quality-Parameter trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 455, + 293, + 560 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 455, + 293, + 560 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 455, + 293, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 455, + 293, + 560 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5b6341ddc286867f73efc15c32e6694cbd6dda1758786deea6bd5186b671f218.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 404, + 560 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 404, + 560 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 404, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 455, + 404, + 560 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "217228c2d716fade0f6d42144dab729dfe3314258ef20cc30e0da9694ec15358.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12354" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 171, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 171, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 171, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 171, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "623dab1652022423796d97ce3ff66bcbd593e5abb5fb024893a97ee38ab62913.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "75df66e731e3c6afab99b4d5c1770528299c36c8eddeb4292208fa228fc0688f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bd887d4f95cb309a6d28e0ed97bd36660373e3dec1903bb1e759db9e3a08d922.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "508afdb32f70d115766553456e8661c979037a7d17fd5e07d43af9b281f7f9b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e32ee534101c57a7c101d148e91bdc1721ade050ffaa24718a1b31f0b30a20ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8e40644957c303bb6e0b61959715df42de9116fec432413047ee79a3a5177837.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 419, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 419, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 419, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 419, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f2f3c451876469fdf2b239c9b0a56ae31161ccb0846fc30f3f5a84d8ae96b67d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 454 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "abafae81ebf92d9d69c0e948bd3583c20274b29422c96c7659940710a0652e34.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 181, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 181, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 181, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 455, + 181, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "46f488f9ca73d1f8c422f0c39ceff90b58944f2d0f0208e30222d3ac7de6d631.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 526, + 594 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 526, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Quality-Throughput trade off for the upstream Negative Log-Perplexity of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 456, + 299, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 456, + 299, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 456, + 299, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 456, + 299, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a61922987198eafd740b5c547993685c4a3b34fb2fad355ee9dbd79c1905a706.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 456, + 413, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 456, + 413, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 456, + 413, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 456, + 413, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fa60f0ea7c084796eb28f56527d0c467b60639a1662243ccd47ca764c8b39386.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12355" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5f25e5404f4e2f55bf97ced1132c950d6bf5fba3214d5bde7f780a10bf81f670.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 293, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 293, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 293, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 293, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3b96d635862a9d6f30e7de75cea9b6e77a61349adc3a9c2dd2dec6f78c8d25bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 405, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 405, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 405, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 405, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bef65c4f71417186c1475fe7e3add89b6f40b48231a594de25e3594ad97311bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "947758e1101bae5d8e141a216255a2c003ddce75d9f58e392989fafd960b62e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "139e9b27e39517b68ca231bad6a915985c0bc6bd0dd3160e261167663569f213.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bb992184bd7cd225f2284cd6c5cb52ce761966454b87518d2e80bae851550af8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 456 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ec754f7460f1110e6f641eb036b6c99fdb908b0d21d48405075da469e7c82636.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 524, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 524, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 524, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "74e390826790e6fc885b389696a722d96b23dcffec5cc7e5285af3bdb54bd1c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 565 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 565 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 179, + 565 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d8fa18940807c29a3072a68a13c31059fddd75d843f5e6a7077c4d61606a2e0c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 525, + 599 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 525, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models, with respect to FLOPs, number of parameters, and throughput." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 457, + 291, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f77c7a11c3d57fb290864b8a122020425048f5621599b08c3501f099b027cf5f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 457, + 411, + 565 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 457, + 411, + 565 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 457, + 411, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 457, + 411, + 565 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4275cae19f0947d6d87b0b0886e85e58b4f81c3b305e6632f0edaab3d6af97f9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12356" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0f99373809f1874d1939e7cd0c40cbb7c45dbac6809cf534adf71c52d1e24974.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 290, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 290, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 290, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2b6199a0ace643300a82c080a1f003bb26f6f654bd57942386f845f36912ddda.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 413, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 413, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 413, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 413, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c6eeae80e66df1872dd37070ec5394986f4930ade30c7a18a56e83c9b603bfda.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "89d7f1a798f945b04a89b787615a4ce0538c79f52b6b25fa45418fbc90ff826d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "790c748e716a19a55b735cf03898b749907c46689f7e8994390967d8cca870cc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 304, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 304, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 304, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 304, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "41254265abc0ad964957f5e72eec88f462336af78bb4d04d5d8cf9eccf80e6fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b49cff853a645520d743f98c5f02bdf8236cda45e6d0a3c0855123cdf0a16dff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a58cdacbc7a6a873e1b9f550af2c83ebaa4e66e66f04c8e90e154d19835d7621.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "474fa6f3fbbc9c38c68e2d7fe023f3a5ebdc858493b6ee73a25692498af5ad94.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 525, + 594 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 525, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 525, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "57f279ad6415cf43a28a1fa496e014b8a6a207fadf7b30a7e9bb56cf688c6644.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 403, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 403, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 403, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 403, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6b0cdd222e315b5292ccee350317213a4573a58187b13ff0d8805179c41d0158.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12357" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cf06656bbd47ee9ad78d143f304b0682fac45453d4acd8ed940b657bb70b2d0a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b795c01b38ac741ba08480de913a2217520f37136e2cd021dddea5b2bf329316.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 419, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 419, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 419, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 243, + 419, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e03dab8fd8d49cc2a8d5c6392641263202f4bb59e0bc3401d6727cbd851bb3d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "94b4bc8a0035a07c95a2dd57be3bf6aad210064c40288bfd5e60409c65f59a00.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3e42063957b2340d4f339623050cb7d4ed2e5bed28154513afbb587eae518783.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6a32427e04117ade3f84d467f0121feaac2f895130ecdbe67c60ece376963ae2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "724c8932d3115cedbb78d99f2a8c5e66dc54b862c746390850a8748e5d5a5344.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 520, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 520, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 520, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 520, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f15603158341b65d636b56fe8c09627917faee6693b11cc9b20810c8e2fdaf77.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 563 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 563 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 563 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7594e143a300c7839e4358118b63397c6f31580d1c5268d29f960b2dcce9985c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream SuperGlue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 563 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 563 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 563 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "68c2fb134f2945541c26c3431470ed3c004314fb6a9b3dd7e1f9aef50444317e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 563 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 563 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 563 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "90ec54372d62ef642924a816d1ecb9617b45ceafbcc205529c4f9081a04c7878.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12358" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 239, + 175, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "22b71a5cc5da11c1ebe89f898b580d327e57bbd19c3a7843295f8f726ce8aa5b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 294, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 294, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 294, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 240, + 294, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "30e72c283dc2fa2995f17068977da41b0c67095a96804cc5a75e9288a1db5ec9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 406, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 406, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 406, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 240, + 406, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "14da1dd8cfbf27b313cc0584806d3eb1f8f5761e74123b2f78ae83b1faabc137.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 240, + 520, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "11f166136880dc5624b3bb8143e59160cf222efefc09aadf20fd8a3693b8c1fc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "422ef37dd2486ff79287565569f21cb170c4399acdf3d3c9ab58890f131b2525.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 349, + 297, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d85fb3852f93dc58aa3dd23b9dc9de1dfdc940f1734259f88da84996d3643131.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 349, + 411, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8698bd53226307b7ef0ea9594cc2ef94d2707ff53e14192c94c03d5b2450dbaa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 349, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a8399c36ba86970e78dad93802d6aeedc43bb896b74f20027b4c18167772d35c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bcfcd8ae5f49c6ceee861a5f748ddcdd55d714877f8500156065905a85c4ccbb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 525, + 597 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 458, + 291, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 458, + 291, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 458, + 291, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 458, + 291, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0ccaddce2c85b7b4f009b142289be52a0b71f9030de5ce039fa78db59809fe7c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 458, + 411, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 458, + 411, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 458, + 411, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 458, + 411, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c5bd88a82feae8391b1319ee1895f9f03d52eca85fdabf5721662c772acffe49.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12359" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "29af95961aa3c5cc47cef14814dd70110bc07e4c1535b6a290708c32609b3680.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 289, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 289, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 289, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 289, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5a3c517a5dcc7be254a5d4c588e152cc9d174c6a6de9fc12b0b85b0df28acac8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 414, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 414, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 414, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 414, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9141c85fc4dd10ddd0eae202a7c8c23d39213b505b74de48d3e883aaef8a3105.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 243, + 525, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e7b4d1ac1180b391f62c359abbc25a419e575cdb62e235cd5fabc1ccc9327a4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0b3d0817181a4082456047500aa26a5d4cfc6cb9f8821a14e725d4523de841f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 303, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 303, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 303, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 303, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d7c494f1226471303294948f51a003614669b7327921f8a210a50df496fc1fc2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c186cb11913eb6b5fef1395b159c2babc93e07250759f6030d75637df1d0bfdf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 349, + 517, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "df3c59cdecfea4a02fa9d9c1b65e2802580a1c78084c81a2be6db8404f4a8353.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 186, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "966527d719dec95ae9ac14f40ca3eebfcd173f58031fc9f2f0b413d92b995d45.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 525, + 594 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 525, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 525, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 13: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 293, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "11db832b0cc4a049ab54e735255827892007fc8a9e8d50d615c145dbb0a1cf56.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 404, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 404, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 404, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 404, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "85f5a36693a4cf234f98269c99413431b9b2e12f86f973188eec100766ad40d1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12360" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 170, + 348 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b21f1de495cfcff1942ce86127da4630dfd02f0bd6380f18d04c08b619dbd762.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 243, + 307, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ade168627f379717eccf5e4aa7ca984d3c8c173240158e920d8d50e75b5027f1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 243, + 420, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f16a5ff2eef24a8aba56dbfea079585461a00b2d798ff3b9aa2562fd8c5f6d41.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 243, + 524, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "754903c578d01c6e738332f614fe6b54831e75816ea9cc9b3b3faa12cd8e4cbb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 349, + 185, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f7b6848c04d1e81cbb9b3375a59dee97e00f4a703c6e3ebab3356c82ac60498e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 349, + 287, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "66e6ca9e3f65a568ca5c85ce0da9d2151d1d6cb3dabc9d2fc647043cadd2e5a1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 349, + 418, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "71d934975025c8da139b0482eca318a0bbfc008cc616be45d85487f7812183ad.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 349, + 521, + 455 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "108ff03529a0edf0b404d5888bcb4968b44770973f3e7b40c7d4e8fa0ff9ba4f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 457, + 181, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f474ca1641be19457a732bd584a0490ec30f292b0ec9e98534378f7f98ef3001.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 14: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Glue Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 457, + 299, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "04b0310785e0c710449af4a505d65f62454f209c98515ee7a0a0ce7416b49a49.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 564 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 457, + 413, + 564 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d3814f59ba70d2836b84909610ce27ae2e83bcb2fded5688a4c66e8aa45cc7df.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12361" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 234, + 175, + 344 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 234, + 175, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 234, + 175, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 234, + 175, + 344 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "132ebc6a81eed123fb09e76c7dc6ceec7b2ca8b33e4a46d2fe944e75347383c9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 180, + 235, + 293, + 344 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 235, + 293, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 235, + 293, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 235, + 293, + 344 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b3f43450d5995852771662be11c6c20d0f573a0ac5ab81eecc92515cdce66728.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 235, + 405, + 344 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 235, + 405, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 235, + 405, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 235, + 405, + 344 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a6abefe9d07d2de4502eefc40b488f67fe3ce2abd3fde98a347c57c03c2fd266.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 235, + 520, + 344 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 235, + 520, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 235, + 520, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 235, + 520, + 344 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fb8b34202196259f5dcfd14130298aa4796a4d8ae27c216e14c02a71fbef6446.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 176, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 176, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 176, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 176, + 456 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "00bce614c51808d3f05b112a67ebc6a524dab27e2791cb6e6206fd134ab0e9fa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 347, + 296, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 347, + 296, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 347, + 296, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 347, + 296, + 456 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ce296784bc7ed54253ae64c9384f224ba833e224c7a7b8d8ae582a25c1a46cb7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 347, + 411, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 347, + 411, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 347, + 411, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 347, + 411, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ad715a229620576a682f10cd63b8d8f3c3bcd70f43d518b786c25e38d09801f2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 347, + 525, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 347, + 525, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 347, + 525, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 347, + 525, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3226f8c1a9354cc1d2a8bde9ad8d1a538aac2909a9c4d9835e6787dc54e8b9ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 570 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 570 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 458, + 179, + 570 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "74442260fb51d0c66ed4338766bcf698d2ad7b98a084812ada4e9dd69a2d113f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 525, + 602 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 15: Quality-FLOP trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 460, + 291, + 570 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 460, + 291, + 570 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 460, + 291, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 460, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e710cba36a7c13ce49e9361f2496b3f0beec741a653fd24222de95cf23c02311.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 460, + 411, + 570 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 460, + 411, + 570 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 460, + 411, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 460, + 411, + 570 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "143dc0abc11a6daab424659f34543d16e15c703a32d1aeb3b1cbcd2ecabe916d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12362" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 238, + 170, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 238, + 170, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 238, + 170, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 238, + 170, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "eb3d2e7988f089633643a9f1524798e13201d93d8a316cfb6c56f640802b228c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 238, + 289, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 238, + 289, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 238, + 289, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 238, + 289, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "662c3a99cdc13bb5bd8a303a9686886f79de4d08c24011fb2b962a64e1f6d1d4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 238, + 414, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 238, + 414, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 238, + 414, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 238, + 414, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a503662ce3787445cfc7e9cd1717e7b9806c9457656149a8e956675a390171d4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 238, + 525, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 238, + 525, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 238, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 238, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "048656c7d661c94bd489ed44beb165400864efd96f66db94ae4f7e9e0850a0de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 176, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5180d651d1b975b0b69aaf50ce69c9c94481df095805f747af646f6549c408ec.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 302, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 302, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 302, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 302, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8bde0310bd86128c668d7d832894fb76c40687bb612335ea0c22adf78329e515.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 412, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1dbcebad1d1ac381becd34e87b8823f3df57adfc47fe91da9733e9aed41bbdd8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 348, + 517, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 348, + 517, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 348, + 517, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 348, + 517, + 456 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0ca87ee45c46cb18bf7c684e2521c4ea441365e1efa309556b679e47d3921b9f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 186, + 567 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 186, + 567 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 186, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 186, + 567 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c548bd169e57a5b256929bbf17d09385a6b8a9d6ef3552e53c1965f6895e6610.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 525, + 599 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 525, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 16: Quality-Parameter trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 459, + 293, + 567 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 459, + 293, + 567 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 459, + 293, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 459, + 293, + 567 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "88b587e0ee8a81d4cb577faf99aecf331c3368df10ba5d1f953b2889d6a362bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 404, + 567 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 404, + 567 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 404, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 404, + 567 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c644aab77a5cec29b68694c7658ff111577f27731ff3f9fdb3bf81fa55462ea1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12363" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 170, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 170, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 170, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 170, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d895430cf7e808fe86a61e3edb5f1319da53fd23511ffe7e4c3aee05e5d892fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 236, + 307, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 236, + 307, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 236, + 307, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 236, + 307, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6b630e7841fa70284e4a54ba11385706524ea19a92d997540fa9a6de5b330a74.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 236, + 418, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 236, + 418, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 236, + 418, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 236, + 418, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "968890383c5dd1bd02b890c733fff0e350eba853570e47cc79d2a4cbf0d756aa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 236, + 524, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 236, + 524, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 236, + 524, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 236, + 524, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fedecd80047b81987a5e67606bd2841beb96cb00e6ebdf247cc276bee274941e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 348, + 185, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 348, + 185, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 348, + 185, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 348, + 185, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c5218bbcb758980e6d1a0ec8d1e306f024f15c3f62912a620c1156330d0771e3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 287, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 287, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 287, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 348, + 287, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e4b7f8ae93b553221439418d5390bd81c6f51a60e42236e46968ee05dcbe6b46.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 348, + 418, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 348, + 418, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 348, + 418, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 348, + 418, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a62b5fdee2907517c05919f5122ed7674e3b42831f1a2ac01ff7a759014356b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 348, + 520, + 457 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 348, + 520, + 457 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 348, + 520, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 348, + 520, + 457 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "432deb7c38c0d1dca90578de8dae4e1044192cb0ff6a3db58da2b3bcc955cd97.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 181, + 568 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 181, + 568 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 181, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 181, + 568 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "702b92ee44a6703aad2d4573d72dbde905be04e2a692b510b693ba66a69d85a4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 525, + 601 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 525, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 525, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 17: Quality-Throughput trade off for the downstream Squad Accuracy of vanilla Transformer compared to other models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 460, + 299, + 568 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 460, + 299, + 568 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 460, + 299, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 460, + 299, + 568 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e094d2788438213049aee6fdfbc50c1d52a42efb03ea2b9ec50f71052b6f97bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 460, + 413, + 568 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 460, + 413, + 568 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 460, + 413, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 460, + 413, + 568 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "04c13e55fe0fffe3f314494231d0a4797842214cb1c2aa1929dd533ac3c1ce8b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12364" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_content_list.json b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd37c3c7e5db18703b12969144e1d0d74ad325eb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2415 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 161, + 89, + 833, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sheng Shen†§* Zhewei Yao‡* Chunyuan Li‡* \nTrevor Darrell† Kurt Keutzer† Yuxiong He‡", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 135, + 699, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "†UC Berkeley ‡Microsoft", + "bbox": [ + 386, + 171, + 618, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sheng.s@berkeley.edu, {zheweiyao,chunyl}@microsoft.com", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 189, + 747, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 250, + 342, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The field of natural language processing (NLP) has made significant strides in recent years, particularly in the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs). These models aim to bridge the gap between text and visual information, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of multimedia data. However, as these models become larger and more complex, they also become more challenging to train and deploy. One approach to addressing this challenge is the use of sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts (MoE) techniques, which divide the model into smaller, specialized sub-models that can jointly solve a task. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of MoE in scaling vision-language models, demonstrating its potential to achieve state-of-the-art performance on a range of benchmarks over dense models of equivalent computational cost. Our research offers valuable insights into stabilizing the training of MoE models, understanding the impact of MoE on model interpretability, and balancing the trade-offs between compute performance when scaling VLMs. We hope our work will inspire further research into the use of MoE for scaling large-scale vision-language models and other multimodal machine learning applications.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 279, + 460, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 690, + 260, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ability to understand and generate natural language from visual information is a critical component of many real-world applications, including visual question answering (VQA), visual reasoning, and multimodal information retrieval. In recent years, the success of deep learning in natural language processing (NLP) has led to the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs) (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021b; Gan et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Alayrac et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022c; Shen et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2021a; Shen et al., 2022a; Jia et al., 2021; Li et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 715, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2022; Yu et al., 2022) that leverage powerful neural network architectures to encode and decode multimodal information. However, state-of-the-art vision-language models like Flamingo-80B (Alayrac et al., 2022), BEiT-3-1.9B (Wang et al., 2022b), and PaLI-17B (Chen et al., 2022) can be computationally expensive and difficult to train, which has motivated researchers to explore ways of improving their efficiency and effectiveness.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 884, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, sparsely activated Mixture of Experts (MoE) models have been successfully employed to scale both vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and text models (Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022). These models are motivated by the need to increase model parameters while controlling compute costs. In addition, these models provide other advantages, including sparsity that can mitigate catastrophic forgetting in continual learningg (Collier et al., 2020; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022), and an inductive bias that can enhance performance in multitask learningg (Ma et al., 2018; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021b). Overall, the use of MoEs has proven to be a promising strategy for scaling deep learning models across various domains.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 884, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Building on the success of MoEs in individual domains and applying the intuition that sparse models may better handle different tasks versus dense counterparts, we investigate the potential of MoEs for vision-language modeling. To this end, we take the first step in this direction and explore models that can process both images and text for vision-language tasks. One similar effort has been studied in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), where the authors proposed a modal-agnostic CLIP-style (Radford et al., 2021) multimodal MoEs architecture, but their focus is mainly on the contrastive pre-training objective and vision-only downstream tasks. There are two limitations in this setting: (1) The increasing model capacity of MoEs under the simple contrastive objective can easily lead to over-fitting issues. (2) The vision-only benchmarking does not reveal the full power of scaling up multimodal models. Alternatively, our goal is to demonstrate the effectiveness of MoEs under generative modeling for vision-language tasks and provide a more comprehensive foundation for future research in this area.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 587, + 884, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we propose a novel VLM architecture that employs MoE to scale both the text-based and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 889, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* equal contribution; § work initiated during an internship at Microsoft. Code is available at https://vlmoe.github.io.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 881, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11329", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11329-11344 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 788, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3e64c17dba7b3e08f04cceaf4a8f0ca0a464cd03997769d2c3fa7ba99e5fec44.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Encode Image Only" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 60, + 295, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/459431eb0a153edec4c347667843c8f8679dc07d9df4683acfe27324912fc76d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Encode Text Only" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 299, + 60, + 484, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ff3a09da151cc6cf14ba27ffc31dad0f028ae0ac7cfebe3fc24f827b7b2b9d25.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Encode Image-Text Pair", + "Figure 1: The encoding process of VL-MoE for various modality inputs, for which gray and colored blocks indicate non-activated and activated modules, respectively. (a) For image input only, the encoding process switches to V-MoE or V-FFN (b) For text input only, the encoding process switches T-MoE or T-FFN. (c) For image-Text Pair input, the encoding process switches, V-MoE & T-MoE and VL-FFN. (d) For the early layers, we scale the V-FFN and T-FFN with Sparse Mixture-of-Experts as V-MoE and T-MoE, respectively. VL-MoE will utilize conditional computation to allocate tokens in a modality-specific fashion. V/T-MoE converts multiple V/T-FFNs as experts, where the image/text input will be conditionally routed by V/T-Router Network." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 61, + 675, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6b148b5057d3bbae8cbe5ecb5fca7828ef28089344c5094271e9424a3c6a2b1a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) V-MoE & T-MoE" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 55, + 882, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "vision-based feed-forward networks (T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively) in a unified framework. Our approach divides the model into multiple sub-models, each of which is responsible for processing a modal-specific subset of the input data. The text and vision input representations are then aligned via three mask data modeling objectives (Wang et al., 2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 326, + 487, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train a range of VL-MoE models and evaluate the model on vision-language classification, vision-language retrieval, vision-only and language-only tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of VLMs, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. We scale BASE-size model up to a 1.8B parameter VL-MoE $_{\\text{LARGE}/16\\text{E}}$ , which only applies 560M parameters per token and achieves competitive performance with dense models that make use of similar or more pre-training image-text pair data and apply $3 - 4 \\times$ more parameters per token.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 487, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, our contributions are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 598, + 438, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We propose VL-MoE, the first large-scale generative MoEs multimodal models for vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks.", + "- We explore various scaling strategies, including increasing dense model size, increasing expert numbers, and scaling either T-FFN or V-FFN alone, to investigate the trade-offs between model complexity and performance on various downstream tasks.", + "- We present ablations to understand VL-MoE model's behavior, interpretability, and our design choices." + ], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 613, + 487, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 821, + 268, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vision-Language Modeling. Vision-language pretraining (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Radford et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022c; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022a;", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 847, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alayrac et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2022b,a; Yuan et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023b) involves developing model architecture and pretraining objectives to learn effective multimodal representations from large-scale image-text pairs. Two main approaches are encoding distinct modalities separately with different encoders.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 326, + 882, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For model architecture, there are two main designs. The first design, utilized by models such as (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021) separately encodes each modality with different encoders. While this approach performs well for image-text retrieval tasks, it struggles with complex vision-language tasks like visual reasoning. The second design, employed by models like (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Li et al., 2021a; Lu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Chen et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022), uses a complex fusion module with cross-modal attention to combine modalities. However, this design sacrifices efficiency for improved performance. Recently, a new design has emerged with the MOME Transformer used in both VLMo and BEiT-3. This design unifies the dual-encoder and fusion-encoder models by introducing a mixture-of-modality-experts technique. With MOME, various modalities are encoded within a shared Transformer block, allowing for improved scalability and achieving state-of-the-art performance on vision-language tasks. There is an increasing interest to grow the VL model capacity with an affordable compute budget, including MoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and the injection of new trainable modules on pre-trained models (Alayrac et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022a; Liu et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023d,b; Koh et al., 2023); the former remains less studied.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For pretraining objectives, multiple cross-modal pretraining objectives have been studied. They can be categorized into two classes: (1) Discriminative modeling, including image-text contrastive learning (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021), image-text matching (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b) and word-patch/region alignment (Chen", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 819, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11330", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a); (2) Generative modeling, including masked language modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Su et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a) or prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c), masked region modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019), multimodal prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c). Recently, BEiT-3 shows strong scaling results by unifying the generative multimodal pretraining objective with masked data modeling, which comprises masked image modeling and masked language modeling on the monomodal encoders and masked multimodal modeling on the multimodal encoder. In this paper, we perform MoE study, by adopting the MoME Transformer as the backbone dense network and generative (masked data) modeling as pretraining objectives given its simplicity and scaling ability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "More recently, with the introduce of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), PaLI's research (Chen et al., 2022) focused on the scaling of V&L components, while PaLM-E explored the embodied domain more deeply. BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023c) introduced the innovative Q-former to bridge image and language encoders, and this was further enhanced by InstructBLIP (Dai et al., 2023). Otter (Li et al., 2023a) augmented the instruction-following capabilities of OpenFlamingo (Laurençon et al., 2023; Alayrac et al.; Awadalla et al., 2023). Both MiniGPT-4 (Zhu et al., 2023) and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023a; Sun et al., 2023) draw inspiration from GPT4's capabilities but place emphasis on the efficiency and integration of visual and linguistic models. In a fresh approach, mPLUG-Owl (Ye et al., 2023) first aligns visual features and subsequently fine-tunes the language model using LoRA. Shikra (Chen et al., 2023) and Kosmos (Peng et al., 2023) leverage grounded imagetext pairs during their training process. Lastly, QWenvL (Bai et al., 2023) made notable strides in scaling LMM pre-training.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 312, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sparse Mixture of Experts models. We build upon the concept of deep sparse MoEs, which have been studied independently in both Computer Vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and Natural Language Processing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Zoph et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2023) in the context of conditional computation. The goal of conditional computation is to increase the number of model parameters without a proportional increase in computational cost, which is achieved by selectively activating only relevant parts of the model based on input-dependent factors (Bengio, 2013; Chen et al., 1999; Davis and Arel, 2013). MoE models use a learned gating mechanism that activates only a subset of $k$ experts out of $E \\gg k$ for a given input, allowing an input to select either all experts (Eigen et al., 2013) or only a sparse mixture thereof, as in recent massive language models (Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 619, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While many works aim to improve the gating mechanism itself (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022), MoE models have also been studied for multitask learning (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Kudugunta et al., 2021) with per-task routers (Ma et al., 2018), although a shared pool of experts is typically used.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MoE models have been explored for multimodal learning as well, with LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and Uni-MoE (Zhu et al., 2022) being most relevant to our work. However, LIMoE considers the CLIP-style contrast as the pre-training objective, and vision/retrieval tasks as the downstream evaluation. Uni-MoE focuses on routing decisions with limited experts and evaluates on caption/vision/language/retrieval tasks. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed VL-MoE is the first the MoE scaling study to consider the generalized generative modeling objective in the VL pre-training, and we evaluate its scaling performance in a more comprehensive manner, including vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 185, + 884, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 397, + 613, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first describe the masked data modeling pretraining objectives. We next discuss MoEs, sparse MoEs and present how we apply sparse MoEs methodology to vision-language models, before explaining our design choices for the routing algorithm and the implementation of VL-MoE.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 423, + 882, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Vision-Language Masked Data Modeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 845, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We utilized a unified masked data modeling objective (Wang et al., 2022b) to pretrain VL-MoE on monomodal (i.e., images and texts) and multimodal data (i.e., image-text pairs). This approach has been demonstrated to be scaling-friendly with small batch-sizes. Our pretraining process involved masked image modeling on monomodal image data, masked language modeling on monomodal text data, and masked vision-language modeling on multimodal image-text pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 541, + 882, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Masked Language Modeling We use masked language modeling (MLM) to learn language representations from large-scale text-only data. For MLM, $15\\%$ of tokens in monomodal text data are randomly masked, and the model is trained to recover the masked tokens from the corrupted input text. Masked tokens are replaced by a [MASK] token $80\\%$ of the time, a random token $10\\%$ of the time, and kept the original tokens $10\\%$ of the time, following BERT (Devlin et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 680, + 884, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Masked Image Modeling In addition to masked language modeling, VL-MoE uses masked image modeling (MIM) to learn vision representations from large-scale image data. For MIM, block-wise masking is applied to $40\\%$ of image patches, and the pretraining objective is to reconstruct the discrete visual tokens of masked patches, following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The im", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 819, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11331", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c6b90d0cea3e19ec42fa7fc7c5e030e1611298846cedba0ff7bc9b7ab42d6473.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Effect of VL-MoE scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training flops." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 868, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "age tokenizer of BEiTv2 (Peng et al., 2022) is used to obtain the discrete tokens as the reconstructed targets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 485, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Masked Vision-Language Modeling To learn aligned vision-language representation, we use masked vision-language modeling (VLM), which extends masked language modeling and masked image modeling to multimodal data. The task aims at recovering masked image patches and text tokens based on visual and linguistic clues. In VLM, text tokens (with $50\\%$ mask ratio) are randomly masked as in MLM, and the model is trained to recover the masked text tokens based on the joint image-text representations. Image patches are also masked with the same ratio as in MIM, and the corresponding visual tokens are predicted based on the image-text pair. The VLM task further encourages the model to learn alignments between image and text pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 311, + 485, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 VL-MoE Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 315, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input Representation. To obtain text representations, the input text is tokenized and projected onto word embeddings \\(\\{\\pmb{w}_i\\}_{i=1}^M\\), where \\(M\\) is the length of the tokenized text sequence. Two special tokens, a start-of-sequence token ([T_CLS]) and a special boundary token ([T_SEP]), are added to the sequence. Text representations are obtained by summing the word embeddings and text position embeddings, resulting in \\(\\mathbf{H}^w = [\\pmb{w}_{[T\\_CLS]}, \\pmb{w}_1, \\dots, \\pmb{w}_M, \\pmb{w}_{[T\\_SEP]}\\] + \\(\\mathbf{T}_{pos}\\).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 487, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For image representations, the input 2D image $\\pmb{v} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{H \\times W \\times C}$ is split and reshaped into $N = HW / P^2$ patches $\\pmb{v}^p \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times (P^2C)}$ , where $C$ is the number of channels, $(H,W)$ is height and width of the input image, and $P$ is the patch size. These patches are then flattened into vectors and linearly projected to obtain patch embeddings following vision Transformers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Touvron et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2022a). We prepend a learnable special token [I_CLS] to the sequence. The resulting image input representations are given by $\\mathbf{H}^v = [\\pmb{v}_{[I\\_CLS]}, \\pmb{v}_1, \\dots, \\pmb{v}_N] + \\mathbf{V}_{pos}$ , where $\\mathbf{H}^v \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \\times D}$ , $\\mathbf{V} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(P^2C) \\times D}$ is a linear projection, $\\mathbf{V}_{pos} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \\times D}$ are learnable 1D position embeddings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 687, + 487, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To form image-text input representations, we concatenate image and text input vectors, resulting in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 890, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{H}_0^{vl} = [\\mathbf{H}_0^w;\\mathbf{H}_0^v ]$", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 271, + 633, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Backbone Network. The dense backbone network of VL-MoE is a shared multimodal Transformer, illustrated in Figure 1. To encode different modalities, we utilize a mixture-of-modality-experts (MoME) Transformer(Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), which takes image and text representations of monomodal data, as well as representations of image-text pairs as input. The MoME Transformer comprises multiple layers of blocks, each consisting of a multi-head self-attention layer and a feed-forward expert layer. While the self-attention module is shared across modalities, each feedforward expert layer contains a pool of modality-specific experts (V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN) that act as a substitute for the feed-forward network in standard Transformers. This allows for hard routing over the pool of feed-forward networks based on the modality of the input tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 293, + 882, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conditional Computation with MoEs. The concept of conditional computation involves selectively activating different parts of a neural network based on the input (Bengio, 2013). One specific approach is to use a mixture-of-experts (MoE) model, where different \"experts\" handle different regions of the input space (Jacobs et al., 1991). In this paper, we adopt the MoE layer proposed in (Shazeer et al., 2017), which consists of $E$ experts and is defined as $\\mathsf{M} \\circ \\mathbb{E}(\\boldsymbol{x}) = \\sum_{i=1}^{E} g(\\boldsymbol{x})_i e_i(\\boldsymbol{x})$ . Here, $\\boldsymbol{x}$ is the input to the layer, $e_i: \\mathbb{R}^D \\mapsto \\mathbb{R}^D$ is the function computed by expert $i$ , and $g: \\mathbb{R}^D \\mapsto \\mathbb{R}^E$ is the \"routing\" function that determines the input-dependent weights for the experts. Both $e_i$ and $g$ are implemented as neural networks. Although this formulation still involves a dense network, it can be made sparse by restricting $g$ to assign only $k \\ll E$ non-zero weights, thereby eliminating the computation of unused experts. This approach allows for super-linear scaling of the number of model parameters in both training and inference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 541, + 882, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VL-MoE. We apply sparse MoE to vision-language models in the context of the MoME. As illustrated in Figure 1, inputs from different modalities are routed to V-FFN and T-FFN in the first $(L - F)$ layers, and V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN in the last $F$ layers. To avoid instability due to modality input imbalance when applying MoEs to modal-agnostic VL", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 818, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11332", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "modules in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), we only use MoE for V-FFN and T-FFN in the first $(L - F)$ layers. V-FFN and T-FFN have two layers and a GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity: $\\mathrm{V} / \\mathrm{T}\\text{-}\\mathrm{FFN}(\\pmb {x}) = \\mathbf{W}_2\\sigma_{\\mathrm{gel}}(\\mathbf{W}_1\\pmb {x})$ . For VL-MoE, we replace a subset of V-FFN and T-FFN with V-MoE and T-MoE layers, where each expert is an FFN with the same architecture $e_i(\\mathbf{x}) = \\mathrm{FFN}_{\\theta_i}(\\mathbf{x})$ but different weights $\\theta_{i} = (\\mathbf{W}_{1}^{i},\\mathbf{W}_{2}^{i})$ . This design pattern is similar to that of GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) models. In V-MoE and T-MoE layers, each token $\\pmb {x}\\in \\mathbb{R}^D$ is processed sparsely by $k$ out of $E$ available experts. To select which one, a lightweight V/T-Router predicts gating weights per token: $g(\\pmb {x}) = \\mathrm{softmax}(\\mathbf{W}_g\\pmb {x})\\in \\mathbb{R}^E$ where $\\mathbf{W}_g\\in \\mathbb{R}^{D\\times E}$ is learned. The $k$ activated experts' outputs are combined linearly according to the gating weights: MoE $(\\pmb {x}) = \\sum_{e = 1}^{k}g(\\pmb {x})_e\\cdot \\mathrm{FFN}_e(\\pmb {x})$", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 489, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To ensure computational efficiency and implementation constraints, each expert in VL-MoE has a fixed buffer capacity, which determines the maximum number of tokens it can process. The assumption is that tokens are approximately balanced across experts. In case the capacity is exceeded, some tokens are not processed by the expert and are dropped, leading to a decrease in the success rate. This rate is a vital indicator of balanced routing and training stability. To mitigate this problem, we employ Batch Priority Routing (BPR) (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022), which selectively skips tokens based on their routing weights. BPR prioritizes tokens with larger routing weights, as they are deemed more informative. Our results show that BPR is crucial for stable training of VL-MoE. We further analyze token routing decisions in Section 5 and dropped tokens in Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 341, + 489, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 595, + 252, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Pretraining Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 284, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pretraining Data. Our pretraining process uses both monomodal and multimodal data. The monomodal data comprises ImageNet-22K for images and English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015) for text. The multimodal data combines four datasets of imagedtext pairs: Conceptual Captions (Sharma et al., 2018), SBU Captions (Ordonez et al., 2011), COCO (Lin et al., 2014), and Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017), containing a total of 4 million images and 10 million imagedtext pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 639, + 489, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pretraining Setting. For the large-size model, we employ a 24-layer Transformer network with 1024 hidden size and 24 attention heads, following VIT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a), and VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b). The use of VL-FFN starts at 20th layer. The base/small-size model is an 12/8-layer Transformer network with 768/384 hidden size and 12/6 attention heads, where VL-FFN is used in 10/8th layer. We randomly initialize the model parameters using the method", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "described in BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The image resolution is set to $224 \\times 224$ , and the patch size is $16 \\times 16$ . The maximum sequence length for text is 96. We use a batch size of 6, 144 and train the model from scratch for 200k steps, which is equivalent to 40 epochs of the image-text pairs. Each batch contains 2,048 images, 2,048 texts, and 2,048 image-text pairs. We perform image augmentation using random resized cropping, horizontal flipping, and color jittering, following the same method as BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The text data is tokenized using a SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) tokenizer with a vocabulary size of 64k. We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with $\\beta_{1} = 0.9$ and $\\beta_{2} = 0.999$ to optimize the model. The peak learning rate is 2e-3, and we use linear warmup for the first 10,000 steps and cosine learning rate decay. The weight decay is 0.05, and we disable dropout and use stochastic depth (Huang et al., 2016) with a rate of 0.1. The three pretrain losses are equally weighted as in BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MoE Setting. For the default setting of MoEs in VL-MoEBASE/16E, we use $E = 16$ experts for T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively. All VL-MoEs activate $k = 1$ expert per token, similar to Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). We replace every second dense T-FFN or V-FFN sublayer with MoE sublayer following GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021). We use BPR for stability in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021). For auxiliary loss, we use loading loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-FFN's MoE and averaged loading loss and importance loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) for V-FFN's MoE. The combination ratio for auxiliary loss is set as 0.01 in all our experiments. We use 32 expert parallelism and TUTEL (Hwang et al., 2022) for fast routing and computation. All the models are based on DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020). Pre-training experiments are done on 32 Nvidia Tesla V100-32GB GPUs. Following ST-MoE (Zoph et al., 2022), we freeze all the MoE modules (router and expert network) during finetuning process. The capacity factor $C$ is set to be 1.05 during training and 1 during inference following (Riquelme et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 380, + 884, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "VL-MoE in Pretraining. We present the validation performance of VL-MoE on the three pretraining tasks across different scales. The results show that the cost-performance tradeoff of VL-MoE in terms of pretraining flops dominates the dense models by a wide margin, indicating that VL-MoE offers significant improvements across all scales, from SMALL/8E to LARGE/16E. We also provide a wall-clock time versus validation performance figure in the Appendix, which shows a similar scaling trend of VL-MoE. Thanks to careful kernel optimization and expert parallelism in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020), the maximum wall-clock overhead of VL-MoE $_{\\text{LARGE}/16E}$ compared to dense counterparts can be reduced to only $13\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11333", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/38a1fabd52bd8a33d9ffac20c1147fb6744b317939ab6e7cd79ba8855571401e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Expert 1 (eyes)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 205, + 110, + 295, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3c4b9062572a209d6e4b4a6393af6bec37cca623df773d4a8578f67077f8fd6a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Expert 7 (words)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 317, + 110, + 418, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b5028371c406a69bea004c449b548cf123b89cbe21c219d4425940ed09e36809.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Expert 13 (ff&v)", + "(a) Vision Token Routing Decisions." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 440, + 110, + 534, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2f5b7759d621422827801099b7bbe500a9cf4991c08e6250e04e8644ce580335.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Language Token Routing Decisions.", + "Figure 3: Token routing decisions on COCO. Examples of vision tokens routing decisions and breakdown of language token routing decisions at the V/T-MoE layer placed in the 6-th encoder block -i.e. middle of the network for VL-MoELARGE/16E." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 559, + 84, + 784, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/615f1e9aff9858955d8678f5b285c385cb62b982700e689566ba3f19508772a6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model# Pretrained images# Pretrained Steps# Params per tokenVQANLVR2COCOFlickr30K
test-devtest-standarddevtest-PTRIRTRIR
Base-size models pretrained in the similar settings
UNITERBASE (Chen et al., 2020)4M200k86M72.7072.9177.1877.8564.450.385.972.5
VILLABASE (Gan et al., 2020)4M200k86M73.5973.6778.3979.30--86.674.7
UNIMOBASE (Li et al., 2021b)4M500K120M73.7974.02----89.774.7
ViLT (Kim et al., 2021a)4M200k120M71.26-75.7076.1361.542.783.564.4
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)4M240k210M74.5474.7080.2480.5073.156.894.382.8
VLMOBASE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k180M76.6476.8982.7783.3474.857.292.379.3
BEiT-3BASE*4M200k180M76.2176.7584.9385.7678.760.395.383.8
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k180M78.2178.6385.5286.7779.461.296.184.9
Pretained with more aggressive cost, including compute / data / model
VLMOLARGE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k560M79.9479.9885.6486.8678.260.695.384.5
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)14M800k210M75.8476.0482.5583.1477.660.795.985.6
BLIPLARGE (Li et al., 2022)129M1.26M427M78.2478.1782.4883.0881.964.397.387.3
SIMVLMBASE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M230M77.8778.1481.7281.77----
SIMVLMHUGE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M1.7B80.0380.3484.5385.15----
BEiT-3HUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)21M1M1.9B84.1984.0391.5192.5884.867.298.090.3
PALIHUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)1.6B1M17B84.3084.30------
BLIP2XL (Li et al., 2023b)129M250k4.1B81.5581.66--85.468.397.689.7
BEiT-3LARGE*4M200k560M78.1478.2385.2386.1579.261.495.784.1
VL-MoELARGE/16E4M200k560M79.9179.9586.2887.1479.962.396.585.3
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 263, + 863, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Finetuning results of different models on vision-language classification tasks and image-text retrieval tasks. We report vqa-score on VQA test-dev and test-standard split, accuracy for NLVR2 development and public test set (test-P) and top-1 recall for image retrieval (IR) and text retrieval (TR). (* denotes the model that is reproduced by us and trained with the same setting as VL-MoE.)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 882, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Vision-and-Language Downstream Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 576, + 450, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our study, we explore the performance of VL-MoE on vision-and-language downstream tasks through fine-tuning experiments on three standard tasks: visual question answering (Goyal et al., 2017), natural language for visual reasoning (Suhr et al., 2019), and image-text retrieval (Plummer et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2014). Following BEiT-3, we use $480 \\times 480$ image resolution for VQA fine-tuning and $384 \\times 384$ for the other tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 487, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Visual Question Answering (VQA). For VQA, the task is to generate/choose the correct answer given a natural image and a question. Following previous work (Kim et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), we utilize the VQA 2.0 dataset (Goyal et al., 2017) and formulate it as a classification problem with 3, 129 most frequent answers. We finetune VL-MoE as a fusion network to encode both the image and question. We use the final encoding vector of the [T_CLS] token as the representation of the image-question pair, and feed that into a classifier layer to predict the label.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 722, + 487, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 889, + 487, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Visual reasoning task aims to predict whether a text", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 904, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "description is true about a pair of images. We use NLVR2 (Suhr et al., 2019) dataset for evaluation. Following OSCAR (Li et al., 2020), VinVL (Zhang et al., 2021) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we reformulate the triplet input into two image-text pairs, each containing the text description and one image. We use VL-MoE as a fusion network to jointly encode the image and text. The concatenated final vector of [T_CLS] token from the two pairs is then fed into a classification layer to predict the label.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 576, + 882, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Image-Text Retrieval. For image-text retrieval, it contains both image-to-text retrieval and text-to-image retrieval for different target modalities. We use the widely used COCO (Lin et al., 2014) and Flickr30K (Plummer et al., 2015) datasets to evaluate the model, and adopt the Karpathy split (Karpathy and Fei-Fei, 2015) following common practices. Noted that in the architecture of VL-MoE and BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), it does not involve the image-text matching module as existing in CLIP (Radford et al., 2021). To enable image-text matching, we further fine-tune VL-MoE jointly with image-text contrastive and image-text matching with hard negative mining objectives as in VLMo (Bao et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 733, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11334", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a10ff612b0d990ff5d4cfee4997c6d41f4ff43ef7a2a4dacc5d356635d7492a7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsPretrainingTasks
# Images# StepsImageNetMNLI-m
Vision Pretraining
V1TB/16300M500k83.6-
BE1TB/161.2M500k85.2-
V-MoEB/16-16E300M500k85.3-
Vision-Language Pretraining
SIMVLMBASE1.8B1M80.664.4
BEiT-3*BASE4M200k83.267.0
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k84.568.1
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 80, + 470, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Results of base-size models on image classification (ImageNet-1K) and natural language inference (MNLI-m). We report top-1 accuracy for both.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 227, + 489, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2022b) and BEIT-3. During inference, VL-MoE is used to encode images and text separately and compute the matching scores by the dot product of image and text vectors to obtain the top- $k$ candidates.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 287, + 487, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 presents the results of our vision-language model on classification and retrieval tasks, including VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K. To ensure a fair comparison, we provide details on the amount of pretraining image-text pair data, pretraining steps, and the number of parameters per input token. Following LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), we define the number of parameters per input token as the number of parameters that the model applies to each image-text token pair. Notably, VL-MoELarge/16E contains 2 billion parameters in total, but only applies 560 million parameters per token. Additionally, all routers combined account for less than 0.5 million parameters. Our model outperforms previous large/base-size models on VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K by a significant margin, particularly when compared to a reproduced BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), which was pretrained using the same settings as VL-MoE. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, VL-MoE is the first to demonstrate that a mixture-of-experts architecture can successfully scale with a comparably modest architecture size and training counts, while achieving generalization performance on a range of tasks in the context of vision-language tasks. Interestingly, Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) struggles with generalization for language MoE, while V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) only evaluate on downstream vision tasks. Additionally, VL-MoE even outperforms VLMoLarge and ALBEF, which are pretrained with more image-text pair data and initialized from pretrained models, on COCO and Flickr30K and achieves competitive performance on VQA and NLVR2. We assume that this may be due to the fact that the capacity of VL-FFN has not been scaled in VL-MoE, as reflected in the pretraining plot in Figure 2 (the difference of VLM loss between VL-MoE and dense BEiT-3 model is smaller compared to that of MLM and MIM loss). We leave the scale of the VL-FFN module for future work, considering the increasing instability in modal-agnostic MoE architectures demonstrated in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 350, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4c1310976f6af1b990d14dfeb0d5507d80dd655fc5b922797fcaf1e41fbcdb56.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Effect of auxiliary loss on training stability." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 84, + 867, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Vision/Language-Only Downstream Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 853, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Image Classification. We use the image classification task to evaluate the model on the vision-only downstream task, where the objective of this task is to categorize an input image into its corresponding class. We employ the ILSVRC-2012 ImageNet dataset (Russakovsky et al., 2015), which consists of 1.3M images with 1k classes. Following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we perform average pooling over the final vectors and feed the resulting vector into a linear classifier layer to predict the label.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 305, + 884, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural Language Inference. We use the natural language inference task to evaluate the model on the language-only downstream task. The task involves determining the relationship between two pieces of text. In this task, a model is given a premise sentence and a hypothesis sentence, and it needs to determine whether the hypothesis is true, false, or undetermined based on the information provided in the premise. We use Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) (Williams et al., 2018) dataset, which contains 433k sentence pairs annotated with textual entailment information. We evaluate on matched (MLM-m) setting only.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 460, + 884, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown Table 2, we compare VL-MoE with two base-size vision Transformers and V-MoE-B/16-E16 on image classification. For BEiT, BEiT-3BASE and VL-MoEBASE/16E, we perform intermediate finetuning on ImageNet-22k to compare with ViT pretrained on ImageNet-22k. The model performs competitively with previous state-of-the-art supervised and self-supervised models on ImageNet-1k. Besides the dense counterpart BEiT-3BASE, VL-MoE also outperforms other strong vision-language models (SIMVLM) pretrained with more data and more steps on MNLI-m.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 632, + 882, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 804, + 643, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct ablation studies to analyze the contributions of Mixture-of-Experts module used in VL-MoE from different perspectives. We evaluate the models on visual reasoning (NLVR2), image-text retrieval (Flickr30k), image classification (ImageNet-1k) and natural language inference (MNLI-m).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 832, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11335", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2e648d1f7591b2a1bdf754887f202a8df54f7575d35a55501d33b8c7be215137.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Scaling StrategyNLVR2Flickr30kImageNet Acc@1MNLI-m AccAvg.
T-MoEV-MoEdevtest-PTR R@1IR R@1
[1]XX67.4268.2180.461.767.254.366.5
[2]✓X72.4272.7383.264.767.858.369.9
[3]X✓71.1972.2382.964.569.255.269.2
[4]✓✓72.9873.3484.765.369.058.170.6
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 884, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scaling Strategy. In addition to scaling both T-FFN and V-FFN, we have also explored different scaling strategies by applying Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) modules for either T-FFN or V-FFN alone. The results of our experiments are presented in Table 3. Our findings indicate that scaling a single modality can improve the downstream performance on the corresponding modality as well as overall vision-language tasks. However, we observed that scaling both vision and language modalities leads to the most balanced performing model with $70.6\\%$ averaged performance. This may be attributed to the fact that we employ three different pretraining objectives for each modality, and scaling each modality contributes to better optimization of the specific modality pretraining loss as well as the VLM loss. For further evidence, we include the pre-training loss in Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 250, + 489, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Number of Experts. The optimal number of experts in Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) is still a topic of debate, as there is no agreement on the ideal number. Previous NLP research has experimented with a wide range of expert numbers, ranging from thousands in early studies (Shazeer et al., 2017; Fedus et al., 2021), to as low as 32 or 64 in more recent research (Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022), which has become the standard for vision models (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). In Figure 5, we investigate this further with VL-MoE, and our findings suggest that larger expert pools consistently yield performance improvements.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 485, + 489, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effects of the Auxiliary Losses. As previously mentioned, experts in MoEs have a fixed buffer capacity, and without intervention, top- $k$ MoEs tend to collapse, leading to poor performance as most tokens are dropped (Shazeer et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2022). To prevent this, prior research has employed auxiliary losses to promote balanced routing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Zoph et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Mustafa et al., 2022). However, as shown in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), in multimodal settings, new challenges emerge, such as modality misbalance, where one data type may be more prevalent than the other. We design VL-MoE in a modal-specific fashion to prevent the instability caused by imbalance of multimodal data and experiment with different auxiliary losses for V-MoE: loading balance loss (Shazeer et al., 2017), averaged loading balance and important loss (\"vloss\") (Riquelme et al., 2021),", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8f31d9e7ccdbe3297f3eeb925d465316f837533c2e00a070adf98a744216ab5c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Effect of Experts Number." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 542, + 250, + 848, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/96de446abb8f65d11fa966dcde4cd137fbd2b445b0229532653c57969bd18cd8.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Ablation studies of scaling strategies (all the results are based on VL-MoESMALL/E16 models). All the *MoE uses 16 experts (where T/V stands for applying MoE on the T/V-FFN)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsSizeMethodsEfficiencyVal
#EParam/MemEPKNTPSSpeedupLoss
BEiT-180M/0.3G--1002.3-4.51
VL-MoE16180M/1.6GXX450.5×0.94.49
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓X685.0×1.44.50
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓✓887.5×1.84.48
VL-MoE8180M/0.3G✓✓911.5×1.44.51
VL-MoE16105M/0.3G✓✓1211.3×1.34.50
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 420, + 882, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Efficiency results of base-size VL-MoE models with different optimizations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "z-loss (Zoph et al., 2022)).1 We present the results on VL-MoESMALL/E16 in Figure 4, which suggest that Z-loss presents to hurt the vision-and-lanaguage pretraining of VL-MoE and using loading balance loss only will introduce unstable training and underperforming models. The \"vloss\" turns out to lead to most stable training, which is consistent with V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). BPR also helps in stabilizing training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 882, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Token Routing Examples in VL-MoE. In Figure 3, we provide a qualitative analysis of token routing decisions on COCO. For vision tokens, their specialization is clear, as they are routed to specific experts such as food and vegetable experts, eyes experts, OCR experts, etc. On the other hand, language tokens show signs of syntax specialization, with some experts processing mostly padding tokens, while others focus on nouns and adjectives (and some padding), excluding prepositions, determiners, or verbs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 884, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1We find that the T-MoE is quite stable using different auxiliary losses, and resort to the most common loading balance loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-MoE. We detail the formula of each auxiliary loss in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11336", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Efficiency In Table 4, we use one $\\mathrm{V100\\times 16}$ node for benchmarking the efficiency of VL-MoE with various optimizations. The EP stands for the expert parallelism provided in DeepSpeed library and KN denotes the specialized kernel fusing operation we implemented (expert dispatch as well as bias gelu fusion). From the table, we see that the throughput for the BEiT model is 1002.3 sample/s, while the optimized VL-MoE with EP and Kernel has a throughput of 887.5 sample/s with the same parameters per token, which add around $11\\%$ overhead. Despite the latter being a more complex model, its throughput doesn't fall too short of the simpler BEiT. The Speedup column also suggests that with our optimizations, VL-MoE can even surpass BEiT to reach the same level of validation loss in terms of speed, given the same parameter per token size. It's also valuable to note that the naive implementation of VL-MoE without any optimization indeed incurs a wall-clock time loss and significant memory cost, as seen from the throughput value of 450.5 sample/s and around $5\\times$ memory.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 485, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with LIMoE. In LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), the single-modality MoE architecture and the employed contrastive loss are the two main building blocks. To directly compare the two components of multimodal LIMoE under our setting, we thoroughly experimented with optimizing either the single-modality MoE architecture or VL-MoE with contrastive or masked data modeling (MDM) loss. However, we found that the models fail to converge when optimizing the LIMoE architecture with the MDM loss, likely due to the fact that the MDM losses consist of three losses aiming for different modalities, which may exacerbate the modality imbalance problem and make it difficult to optimize MoEs even equipped with the entropy balancing loss in (Mustafa et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 376, + 485, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we focused on optimizing VL-MoE and LIMoE with the contrastive loss, as it yielded more stable results. However, it should be noted that while LIMoE uses 1.8B image-text pairs, our setting only has 4M. We then report the training and validation loss across steps by optimizing VL-MoE or LIMoE with the contrastive loss in Figure 8. The batch size is set to be $2k$ . From the zero-shot validation results, it can be seen that both models quickly overfit to the 4M image-text pairs, but the single modality MoE architecture in LIMoE inherits more instability.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 590, + 485, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, we use 4M data to enrich the experiments using contrastive loss with different model settings in Table 5. We can see that LIMoE seems to exhibit a trend where performance doesn't improve much or even decreases as the number of training steps increases (from 75k to 100k), especially in the 105M parameter setting. This could be a sign of overfitting, where the model is starting to fit the training data more closely but is not generalizing as well to the validation/test data. Increasing the number of experts for LIMoE does not lead to significant performance gains, especially in the 105M parameter setting. This might", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 747, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/327c0f62fb580d21aa628100cc7ab474aeff80d901e2a47c6d7b7a8373e86f37.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsSizeIN0shot
# Param# E50k75k100k
Contrastive Pretraining
DENSE105M-50.363.267.5
LIMOE105M853.762.962.0
LIMOE105M1654.663.162.1
VL-MoE105M855.264.268.3
VL-MoE105M1657.265.169.0
DENSE180M-60.170.378.2
LIMOE180M861.570.468.2
LIMOE180M1661.269.367.5
VL-MoE180M862.571.778.9
VL-MoE180M1663.272.479.5
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 880, + 274 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Comparison between VL-MoE and LIMoE using contrastive loss.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 286, + 880, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "indicate that, at this data scale, the additional capacity introduced by more experts isn't effectively utilized. However, VL-MoE, with a higher number of experts, shows a better performance progression with increasing steps, suggesting a more efficient use of the additional capacity. VL-MoE consistently outperforms LIMoE in most settings, especially as we increase the number of training steps. This could be attributed to inherent architectural advantages or better synergy with the training objective.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 319, + 880, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 475, + 638, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we have explored the use of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for scaling vision-language models. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can be a promising technique for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of vision-language models. Specifically, we have shown that dividing a large vision-language model into smaller, specialized sub-models through MoE can achieve state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks while reducing computational costs. Our experiments have also shown that larger expert pools yield consistent performance improvements. Furthermore, we have explored the impact of MoE on model interpretability and found it can improve the interpretability of vision-language models by providing better insights into how the model processes different inputs.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 499, + 880, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In conclusion, our findings suggest that MoE is a valuable technique for scaling vision-language models, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. Our work opens up new research directions for exploring the effectiveness of MoEs in other vision-language tasks, such as visual question answering, visual reasoning and image-text retrieval, and we hope our findings will inspire further investigations into this research area.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 713, + 880, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 868, + 606, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 892, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11337", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkowski, Ricardo Barreira, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Karen Simonyan. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. CoRR, abs/2204.14198.", + "Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, et al. 2023. Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390.", + "Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2023. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966.", + "Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022a. BEiT: BERT pre-training of image transformers. In ICLR.", + "Hangbo Bao, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Qiang Liu, Owais Khan Mohammed, Kriti Aggarwal, Subhojit Som, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Vlmo: Unified vision-language pre-training with mixture-of-modality-experts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Yoshua Bengio. 2013. Deep learning of representations: Looking forward. In Statistical Language and Speech Processing: First International Conference, SLSP 2013, Tarragona, Spain, July 29-31, 2013. Proceedings 1, pages 1-37. Springer.", + "Ke Chen, Lei Xu, and Huisheng Chi. 1999. Improved learning algorithms for mixture of experts in multiclass classification. Neural networks, 12(9):1229-1252.", + "Keqin Chen, Zhao Zhang, Weili Zeng, Richong Zhang, Feng Zhu, and Rui Zhao. 2023. Shikra: Unleashing multimodal llm's referential dialogue magic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15195.", + "Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794.", + "Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. UNITER: universal image-text" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "representation learning. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-120. Springer.", + "Aidan Clark, Diego De Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Arthur Mensch, Michela Paganini, Jordan Hoffmann, Bogdan Damoc, Blake Hechtman, Trevor Cai, Sebastian Borgeaud, et al. 2022. Unified scaling laws for routed language models. In ICML, pages 4057-4086. PMLR.", + "Mark Collier, Efi Kokiopoulou, Andrea Gesmundo, and Jesse Berent. 2020. Routing networks with co-training for continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04381.", + "Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Instructclip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06500.", + "Andrew Davis and Itamar Arel. 2013. Low-rank approximations for conditional feedforward computation in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4461.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. preprint arXiv:2010.11929.", + "Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In ICML, pages 5547-5569. PMLR.", + "David Eigen, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Ilya Sutskever. 2013. Learning factored representations in a deep mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4314.", + "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. CoRR, abs/2101.03961." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11338", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhe Gan, Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Large-scale adversarial training for vision-and-language representation learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.", + "Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 6325-6334. IEEE Computer Society.", + "Hussein Hazimeh, Zhe Zhao, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Yihua Chen, Rahul Mazumder, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2021. Dselect-k: Differentiable selection in the mixture of experts with applications to multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual.", + "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (GELUs). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415.", + "Gao Huang, Yu Sun, Zhuang Liu, Daniel Sedra, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2016. Deep networks with stochastic depth. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2016 - 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV, volume 9908 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 646-661. Springer.", + "Changho Hwang, Wei Cui, Yifan Xiong, Ziyue Yang, Ze Liu, Han Hu, Zilong Wang, Rafael Salas, Jithin Jose, Prabhat Ram, et al. 2022. Tutel: Adaptive mixture-of-experts at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03382.", + "Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87.", + "Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4904-4916. PMLR.", + "Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Deep visual-semantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015, pages 3128-3137. IEEE Computer Society." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021a. ViLT: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5583-5594. PMLR.", + "Young Jin Kim, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Alexandre Muzio, Andres Felipe Cruz Salinas, Liyang Lu, Amr Hendy, Samyam Rajbhandari, Yuxiong He, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2021b. Scalable and efficient moe training for multitask multilingual models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10465.", + "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings.", + "Jing Yu Koh, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Daniel Fried. 2023. Grounding language models to images for multimodal generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13823.", + "Aran Komatsuzaki, Joan Puigcerver, James Lee-Thorp, Carlos Riquelme Ruiz, Basil Mustafa, Joshua Ainslie, Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Sparse upcycling: Training mixture-of-experts from dense checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05055.", + "Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 123(1):32-73.", + "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sneha Kudugunta, Yanping Huang, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, Minh-Thang Luong, and Orhan First. 2021. Beyond distillation: Task-level mixture-of-experts for efficient inference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3577-3599.", + "Hugo Laurencon, Lucile Saulnier, Léo Tronchon, Stas Bekman, Amanpreet Singh, Anton Lozhkov, Thomas Wang, Siddharth Karamcheti, Alexander M Rush, Douwe Kiela, et al. 2023. Obelisc: An open web-scale filtered dataset of interleaved image-text documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16527.", + "Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan First, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11339", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668.", + "Mike Lewis, Shruti Bhosale, Tim Dettmers, Naman Goyal, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. BASE layers: Simplifying training of large, sparse models. In ICML. PMLR.", + "Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Jinghao Wang, Jingkang Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2023a. Otter: A multi-modal model with in-context instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03726.", + "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023b. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597.", + "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023c. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597.", + "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In ICML, pages 12888-12900. PMLR.", + "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021a. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705.", + "Lianian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. CoRR, abs/1908.03557.", + "Wei Li, Can Gao, Guocheng Niu, Xinyan Xiao, Hao Liu, Jiachen Liu, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021b. UNIMO: towards unified-modal understanding and generation via cross-modal contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2592-2607. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Oscar: Object-semantics aligned pre-training for vision-language tasks. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 121-137. Springer.", + "Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jianwei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023d. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. CVPR." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 - 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V, volume 8693 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 740-755. Springer.", + "Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023a. Visual instruction tuning.", + "Haotian Liu, Kilho Son, Jianwei Yang, Ce Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Yong Jae Lee, and Chunyuan Li. 2023b. Learning customized visual models with retrieval-augmented knowledge. CVPR.", + "Yuxuan Lou, Fuzhao Xue, Zangwei Zheng, and Yang You. 2021. Cross-token modeling with conditional computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02008.", + "Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. ViLBERT: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 13-23.", + "Jiaqi Ma, Zhe Zhao, Xinyang Yi, Jilin Chen, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2018. Modeling task relationships in multi-task learning with multi-gate mixture-of-experts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018. ACM.", + "Basil Mustafa, Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Rodolphe Jenatton, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Multimodal contrastive learning with limoe: the language-image mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02770.", + "Vicente Ordonez, Girish Kulkarni, and Tamara L. Berg. 2011. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011. Proceedings of a meeting held 12-14 December 2011, Granada, Spain, pages 1143-1151.", + "Zhiliang Peng, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Qixiang Ye, and Furu Wei. 2022. Beit v2: Masked image modeling with vector-quantized visual tokenizers. ArXiv, abs/2208.06366.", + "Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma, and Furu Wei. 2023. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14824.", + "Bryan A. Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M. Cervantes, Juan C. Caicedo, Julia Hockenmaier, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2015. Flickr30k entities: Collecting" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11340", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "region-to-phrase correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015, Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015, pages 2641-2649. IEEE Computer Society.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 8748-8763. PMLR.", + "Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506.", + "Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Basil Mustafa, Maxim Neumann, Rodolphe Jenatton, André Susano Pinto, Daniel Keysers, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. Scaling vision with sparse mixture of experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Stephen Roller, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Hash layers for large sparse models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual.", + "Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV.", + "Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2556-2565. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc V. Le, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net.", + "Sheng Shen, Le Hou, Yanqi Zhou, Nan Du, Shayne Longpre, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Barret Zoph, William Fedus, Xinyun Chen, et al. 2023. Mixture-of-experts meets instruction tuning: A winning combination for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14705." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sheng Shen, Chunyuan Li, Xiaowei Hu, Yujia Xie, Jianwei Yang, Pengchuan Zhang, Zhe Gan, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Ce Liu, et al. 2022a. K-lite: Learning transferable visual models with external knowledge. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022b. How much can clip benefit vision-and-language tasks? In ICLR.", + "Amanpreet Singh, Ronghang Hu, Vedanuj Goswami, Guillaume Couairon, Wojciech Galuba, Marcus Rohrbach, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. FLAVA: A foundational language and vision alignment model. CoRR, abs/2112.04482.", + "Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2020. VL-BERT: pretraining of generic visual-linguistic representations. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net.", + "Alane Suhr, Stephanie Zhou, Ally Zhang, Iris Zhang, Huajun Bai, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. A corpus for reasoning about natural language grounded in photographs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28-August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 6418-6428. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Sheng Shen, Shengcao Cao, Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yikang Shen, Chuang Gan, LiangYan Gui, Yu-Xiong Wang, Yiming Yang, et al. 2023. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14525.", + "Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. LXMERT: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5099-5110. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. 2020. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. preprint arXiv:2012.12877.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. CoRR, abs/2202.03052." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11341", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2022b. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for all vision and vision-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10442.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 489, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2022c. SimVLM: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. In ICLR.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 173, + 489, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 237, + 490, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. 2023. MPLug-owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 340, + 489, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. CoRR, abs/2205.01917.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 429, + 489, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision. CoRR, abs/2111.11432.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 493, + 489, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaowei Hu, Jianwei Yang, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. VinVL: Revisiting visual representations in vision-language models. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021, pages 5579-5588. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 608, + 489, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Y Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, and James Laudon. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 711, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 788, + 489, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jinguo Zhu, Xizhou Zhu, Wenhai Wang, Xiaohua Wang, Hongsheng Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2022. Uni-perceiver-moe: Learning sparse generalist models with conditional moes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04674.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 851, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 19-27.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Barret Zoph, Irwan Bello, Sameer Kumar, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Jeff Dean, Noam Shazeer, and William Fedus. 2022. St-moe: Designing stable and transferable sparse expert models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08906.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 181, + 884, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 267, + 633, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Further Analyses", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 296, + 680, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"Dropped\" Tokens. In MoE training, the issue of \"Dropped Tokens\" is inherited (Lepikhin et al., 2020; Shazeer et al., 2017; Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022) and caused by the limited capacity of each MoE expert, which can lead to instability. To provide a detailed analysis of this issue, we present Figure 6, which illustrates the distribution of dropped tokens in VL-MoEBASE/16E across different pre-training tasks. The figure shows that MLM and MIM tasks exhibit a more balanced distribution of tokens compared to VLM task, which may explain the improved performance of using MoEs in the former two pre-training tasks, as depicted in Figure 2. Additionally, the problem of dropped imag tokens is more severe compared to dropped text tokens, which aligns with the results of different scaling strategies presented in Section 5 and the findings in (Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 318, + 884, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pretrain Losses for Different Scaling Strategies. We additionally report the effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps in Figure 7. The results support our hypothesis that using three distinct pretraining objectives for each modality and scaling each modality leads to improved optimization of both the specific modality pretraining loss and the VLM loss.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 590, + 884, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additional Results We conduct experiments using COCO captions following (Wang et al., 2022b), where VL-MoE achieves 139.2 for CIDEr and 23.1 for SPICE, which outperforms the BEiT-3 with 137.5 for CIDer and 22.7 for SPICE using base-size. We also observe interesting routing specialization when generating the final word \"cake\" considering the T-MoE in VL-MoE in Figure 3. \"NN: lady\" and \"NN: slicing\" route to experts 1 and 13 respectively. \"DT: A, a\" both route to expert 1. \"JJ: hairnet, big\" route to expert 7. These routings underscore the inherent nature of expert specialization in the VL-MoE model, potentially highlighting its advantages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11342", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c34426cce350674377620257877825c155b8c5d51d55521c80cb9949ab38be7d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 218, + 83, + 784, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/219242aa58af5093846c3edeb366985cdb08779b73e0b2a083a221a5322a6a00.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) MLM T-MoE Layer 2" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 104, + 304, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1c4c723af43e44c5044be69cc363892e4b8cba9269843c5bfc34482b4bcc5bed.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) MLM T-MoE Layer 4" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 309, + 104, + 494, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f7948df063e7287ec0fbbbc3b2789a5db8829c24b1c2b70e44fd49734db9572a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) MLM T-MoE Layer 6" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 104, + 684, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/eda34c99e4fc86f2400301b080452130c6430d056969cf9ccc555dcbb4c9fcd8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) MLM T-MoE Layer 8" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 685, + 104, + 870, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/80dee4f70198880a05eeb1da6fee3dda8113cc3ce4d6a47b7d05dd5252c7b8ad.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(e) MIM V-MoE Layer 2" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 229, + 305, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e2f779b7f63fbf783d21313644972626fbf0f8b74f684502823c298efeac6c1a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(f) MIM V-MoE Layer 4" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 310, + 229, + 494, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b72afd77f60c741379811192082c6b6ba53898539eca649ad795fa6467339942.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(g) MIM V-MoE Layer 6" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 229, + 684, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1ccc515c5c7bbb88c0b4721addb824643930639ff61ecd9fb4781bd812b6712a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(h) MIM V-MoE Layer 8" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 685, + 229, + 870, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/436157cd0fb41f5088d3d645cdf946a207c3533e25acbe48b125562dc17a2076.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(i) VLM T-MoE Layer 2" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 355, + 305, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ea280645df667facd5408552e35606461bb2418e59ee3ad8e48d0db44ee891e4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(j) VLM T-MoE Layer 4" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 310, + 355, + 494, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9da41d0f04ee73b7f471329da0ae186e82d105ebffff4b41754b91f6db508411.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(k) VLM T-MoE Layer 6" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 355, + 684, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7c59c1aabc26f0f7fedf0227aaed3650eb2f5165cb2efcb984817ee027ab0886.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(1) VLM T-MoE Layer 8" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 685, + 355, + 870, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/89fb9765576679daa95356c4da0fea68d9d605161830c1398ab54035b892becd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(m) VLM V-MoE Layer 2" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 480, + 305, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/26390e017d0db92d43f19e25f92148f132964fff55c82dab485ce575ca208321.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(n) VLM V-MoE Layer 4" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 310, + 480, + 494, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5a81641e55ed4aea4402d94137728f844147896588adaa55f7a8c82726c07e07.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(o) VLM V-MoE Layer 6" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 480, + 684, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fa56134f652b52d3ce010b409c28ad66bf511902874b136a1da259d879714cf3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(p) VLM V-MoE Layer 8" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 685, + 480, + 870, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/96af670258743644300dfb7b15a9d6a57f110617f805601639413b7864eb6896.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: \"Dropped\" Token analyses for VL-MoE $_{\\text{LARGE}/16\\text{E}}$ with three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks. Above the dashed line denotes the ratio of tokens that exceed the expert capacity and will be dropped." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 226, + 657, + 729, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/14428333ee087e290a45c1ed42980118481db95736cc7bded329e894f47a618d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Total Validation Loss" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 677, + 305, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/50feb3b54f745f806e2c30a9064c3ee23ee458820d998460c8ddec5f6bc3ba21.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) MLM Validation Loss" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 310, + 677, + 494, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cbf52f5f7e0512595186e9411828b3c56b01f779350ad7165b3e5a9113035be7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 499, + 677, + 687, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/39fd03dafaa53cf41431f5a24339f067a87524ab44dd588d5998b689d50d0d8e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) VLM Validation Loss", + "(d) MIM Validation Loss" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 687, + 677, + 872, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Hyperparameter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 862, + 282, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Visual Question Answering (VQA). We fine-tune the base/large-size models for 10 epochs with 128", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 889, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5. Following VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b), the input image resolution is $480 \\times 480$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 862, + 880, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11343", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b79c1ffe01738bf7056b5f3ca7ee8e5b2367371d15cd159fdb42cd534ea1438f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Contrastive Train Loss" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 152, + 86, + 379, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/01b8184867f3b0f04a1d24c920d0bf03bc3a6c0ca66421044b00c49658a8d42b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Comparison of Dense, VL-MoE, and LIMoE on contrastive pre-training task across training steps." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 87, + 608, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/40688537b2ce4f469121cef663c1e9536f687565483d594be87e19ae7c632229.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Contrastive Validation Loss", + "(c) ImageNet 0shot Acc" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 613, + 82, + 843, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2). For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 10 epochs with 128 batch size. The peak learning rate of the base-size models is set to 5e-5. The input image resolution is $384 \\times 384$ . For ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 128 batch size, and choose learning rates from $\\{5e - 5, 1e - 4\\}$ . The input image resolution is $224 \\times 224$ . All the ablation results of NLVR2 are averaged over 3 runs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 487, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "COCO. We fine-tune the base/large-size model for 20 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 2e-5 and the input image resolution is $384 \\times 384$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 406, + 485, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flickr30K. For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 40 epochs with a batch size of 2048 and a peak learning rate of 1e-5. We use the fine-tuned model on COCO as the initialization. The input image resolution is $384 \\times 384$ . For all ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 1024 batch size. The peak learning rate is set to 5e-5, and the input image resolution is $224 \\times 224$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 460, + 485, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ImageNet-1k. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with V-MoE and V-FFN only for 15 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5 and the input image resolution is $384 \\times 384$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 586, + 485, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MNLI. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with T-MoE and T-FFN only for 10 epochs with 32 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 655, + 487, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Formula of Auxiliary Loss", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 349, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a token $\\pmb{x} \\in \\mathbb{R}^D$ , we denote by $g(\\pmb{x}) = \\text{softmax}(\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x}) \\in \\mathbb{R}^E$ the gating weights across the $E$ experts, with $\\pmb{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{E \\times D}$ being the routing parameters. When we deal with a batch of multiple tokens $\\{\\pmb{x}_i\\}_{i=1}^n$ , we use the notation $\\pmb{X} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n \\times D}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 731, + 487, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Importance loss. We follow the definition from (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). The importance loss $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}$ ensures that the gating weights are evenly distributed among the experts, maintaining a balanced profile. For any expert $e \\in \\{1, \\dots, E\\}$ , we have", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 804, + 485, + 888 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {i m p} _ {e} (X) = \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {x} \\in X} g (\\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 890, + 381, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and the loss $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}$ is defined via the squared coefficient of variation for $\\mathrm{imp}(\\pmb {X}) = \\{\\mathrm{imp}_e(\\pmb {X})\\}_{e = 1}^E$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 266, + 880, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {i m p}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\left(\\frac {\\operatorname {s t d} (\\operatorname {i m p} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}{\\operatorname {m e a n} (\\operatorname {i m p} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}\\right) ^ {2}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 305, + 815, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Load loss. Like previously, we follow (Riquelme et al., 2021). We assume the gating weights $g_{\\mathrm{noisy}}(\\pmb{x})$ are obtained by perturbing the routing function with noise, i.e., $g_{\\mathrm{noisy}}(\\pmb{x}) = \\mathrm{softmax}(\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x} + \\varepsilon)$ with $\\varepsilon \\sim \\mathcal{N}(\\mathbf{0}, \\sigma^2\\mathbf{I})$ and $\\sigma = 1 / E$ . We denote $\\eta_k$ the $k$ -th largest entry of $\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x} + \\varepsilon$ . The importance loss $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}$ aims to balance the selection probability of experts by focusing on the likelihood of choosing them, as assigning tasks to experts is a discrete process. The load loss $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}$ complements this by striving to even out the number of assignments among the experts. To calculate the selection probability, the expert $e \\in \\{1,\\dots ,E\\}$ is assumed to be among the top- $k$ even when resampling only the noise as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 348, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {x}) = 1 - \\Phi \\left(\\frac {\\eta_ {k} - (\\boldsymbol {W} \\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}}{\\sigma}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 583, + 557, + 803, + 585 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with $\\Phi$ the cumulative distribution function of a Gaussian distribution. The load loss $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}$ is eventually defined by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 882, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {l o a d}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\left(\\frac {\\operatorname {s t d} (\\operatorname {l o a d} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}{\\operatorname {m e a n} (\\operatorname {l o a d} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}\\right) ^ {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 646, + 835, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathrm{load}(\\mathbf{X}) = \\{\\mathrm{load}_e(\\mathbf{X})\\}_{e = 1}^E$", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 682, + 801, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {l o a d} _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {x} \\in \\boldsymbol {X}} p _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {x}).\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 594, + 702, + 764, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Z-loss. The z-loss $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{zloss}}$ introduced in (Zoph et al., 2022) aims at controlling the maximum magnitude of the router activations $A = \\{\\pmb {W}\\pmb {x}_i\\}_{i = 1}^n\\in \\mathbb{R}^{n\\times E}$ with entries $a_{i,e} = (\\pmb {W}\\pmb {x}_i)_e$ . The loss is defined by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 880, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {z l o s s}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\frac {1}{n} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\left(\\log \\left(\\sum_ {e = 1} ^ {E} \\exp (a _ {i, e})\\right)\\right) ^ {2}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 810, + 855, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "v-loss. The notation \"v-loss\" we used in Section 5 is essentially the final employed loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), where $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{vloss}}(\\mathbf{X}) = 0.5*\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}(\\mathbf{X}) + 0.5*$ $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}(\\mathbf{X})$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 860, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11344", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_model.json b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e59096ff197c1696a0d493c373dbb3564eb3ae7d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3532 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.09, + 0.834, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.298, + 0.136, + 0.7, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Shen†§* Zhewei Yao‡* Chunyuan Li‡* \nTrevor Darrell† Kurt Keutzer† Yuxiong He‡" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.388, + 0.172, + 0.619, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "†UC Berkeley ‡Microsoft" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.257, + 0.19, + 0.748, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sheng.s@berkeley.edu, {zheweiyao,chunyl}@microsoft.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.252, + 0.343, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The field of natural language processing (NLP) has made significant strides in recent years, particularly in the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs). These models aim to bridge the gap between text and visual information, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of multimedia data. However, as these models become larger and more complex, they also become more challenging to train and deploy. One approach to addressing this challenge is the use of sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts (MoE) techniques, which divide the model into smaller, specialized sub-models that can jointly solve a task. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of MoE in scaling vision-language models, demonstrating its potential to achieve state-of-the-art performance on a range of benchmarks over dense models of equivalent computational cost. Our research offers valuable insights into stabilizing the training of MoE models, understanding the impact of MoE on model interpretability, and balancing the trade-offs between compute performance when scaling VLMs. We hope our work will inspire further research into the use of MoE for scaling large-scale vision-language models and other multimodal machine learning applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.691, + 0.262, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.716, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ability to understand and generate natural language from visual information is a critical component of many real-world applications, including visual question answering (VQA), visual reasoning, and multimodal information retrieval. In recent years, the success of deep learning in natural language processing (NLP) has led to the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs) (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021b; Gan et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Alayrac et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022c; Shen et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2021a; Shen et al., 2022a; Jia et al., 2021; Li et al.," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2022; Yu et al., 2022) that leverage powerful neural network architectures to encode and decode multimodal information. However, state-of-the-art vision-language models like Flamingo-80B (Alayrac et al., 2022), BEiT-3-1.9B (Wang et al., 2022b), and PaLI-17B (Chen et al., 2022) can be computationally expensive and difficult to train, which has motivated researchers to explore ways of improving their efficiency and effectiveness." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.371, + 0.885, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, sparsely activated Mixture of Experts (MoE) models have been successfully employed to scale both vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and text models (Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022). These models are motivated by the need to increase model parameters while controlling compute costs. In addition, these models provide other advantages, including sparsity that can mitigate catastrophic forgetting in continual learningg (Collier et al., 2020; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022), and an inductive bias that can enhance performance in multitask learningg (Ma et al., 2018; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021b). Overall, the use of MoEs has proven to be a promising strategy for scaling deep learning models across various domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.588, + 0.885, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Building on the success of MoEs in individual domains and applying the intuition that sparse models may better handle different tasks versus dense counterparts, we investigate the potential of MoEs for vision-language modeling. To this end, we take the first step in this direction and explore models that can process both images and text for vision-language tasks. One similar effort has been studied in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), where the authors proposed a modal-agnostic CLIP-style (Radford et al., 2021) multimodal MoEs architecture, but their focus is mainly on the contrastive pre-training objective and vision-only downstream tasks. There are two limitations in this setting: (1) The increasing model capacity of MoEs under the simple contrastive objective can easily lead to over-fitting issues. (2) The vision-only benchmarking does not reveal the full power of scaling up multimodal models. Alternatively, our goal is to demonstrate the effectiveness of MoEs under generative modeling for vision-language tasks and provide a more comprehensive foundation for future research in this area." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.89, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we propose a novel VLM architecture that employs MoE to scale both the text-based and" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.882, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* equal contribution; § work initiated during an internship at Microsoft. Code is available at https://vlmoe.github.io." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11329" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.789, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11329-11344 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.061, + 0.297, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.199, + 0.289, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Encode Image Only" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.3, + 0.061, + 0.485, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.323, + 0.198, + 0.47, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Encode Text Only" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.063, + 0.677, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.199, + 0.689, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Encode Image-Text Pair" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.057, + 0.883, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.724, + 0.199, + 0.868, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) V-MoE & T-MoE" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.216, + 0.884, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The encoding process of VL-MoE for various modality inputs, for which gray and colored blocks indicate non-activated and activated modules, respectively. (a) For image input only, the encoding process switches to V-MoE or V-FFN (b) For text input only, the encoding process switches T-MoE or T-FFN. (c) For image-Text Pair input, the encoding process switches, V-MoE & T-MoE and VL-FFN. (d) For the early layers, we scale the V-FFN and T-FFN with Sparse Mixture-of-Experts as V-MoE and T-MoE, respectively. VL-MoE will utilize conditional computation to allocate tokens in a modality-specific fashion. V/T-MoE converts multiple V/T-FFNs as experts, where the image/text input will be conditionally routed by V/T-Router Network." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.327, + 0.489, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "vision-based feed-forward networks (T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively) in a unified framework. Our approach divides the model into multiple sub-models, each of which is responsible for processing a modal-specific subset of the input data. The text and vision input representations are then aligned via three mask data modeling objectives (Wang et al., 2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.427, + 0.489, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train a range of VL-MoE models and evaluate the model on vision-language classification, vision-language retrieval, vision-only and language-only tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of VLMs, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. We scale BASE-size model up to a 1.8B parameter VL-MoE\\(_{\\text{LARGE}/16\\text{E}}\\), which only applies 560M parameters per token and achieves competitive performance with dense models that make use of similar or more pre-training image-text pair data and apply \\(3 - 4 \\times\\) more parameters per token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.599, + 0.44, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose VL-MoE, the first large-scale generative MoEs multimodal models for vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.668, + 0.489, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We explore various scaling strategies, including increasing dense model size, increasing expert numbers, and scaling either T-FFN or V-FFN alone, to investigate the trade-offs between model complexity and performance on various downstream tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.765, + 0.488, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We present ablations to understand VL-MoE model's behavior, interpretability, and our design choices." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.822, + 0.27, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.848, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vision-Language Modeling. Vision-language pretraining (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Radford et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022c; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022a;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.327, + 0.883, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alayrac et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2022b,a; Yuan et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023b) involves developing model architecture and pretraining objectives to learn effective multimodal representations from large-scale image-text pairs. Two main approaches are encoding distinct modalities separately with different encoders." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.884, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For model architecture, there are two main designs. The first design, utilized by models such as (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021) separately encodes each modality with different encoders. While this approach performs well for image-text retrieval tasks, it struggles with complex vision-language tasks like visual reasoning. The second design, employed by models like (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Li et al., 2021a; Lu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Chen et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022), uses a complex fusion module with cross-modal attention to combine modalities. However, this design sacrifices efficiency for improved performance. Recently, a new design has emerged with the MOME Transformer used in both VLMo and BEiT-3. This design unifies the dual-encoder and fusion-encoder models by introducing a mixture-of-modality-experts technique. With MOME, various modalities are encoded within a shared Transformer block, allowing for improved scalability and achieving state-of-the-art performance on vision-language tasks. There is an increasing interest to grow the VL model capacity with an affordable compute budget, including MoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and the injection of new trainable modules on pre-trained models (Alayrac et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022a; Liu et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023d,b; Koh et al., 2023); the former remains less studied." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.82, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For pretraining objectives, multiple cross-modal pretraining objectives have been studied. They can be categorized into two classes: (1) Discriminative modeling, including image-text contrastive learning (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021), image-text matching (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b) and word-patch/region alignment (Chen" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11330" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a); (2) Generative modeling, including masked language modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Su et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a) or prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c), masked region modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019), multimodal prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c). Recently, BEiT-3 shows strong scaling results by unifying the generative multimodal pretraining objective with masked data modeling, which comprises masked image modeling and masked language modeling on the monomodal encoders and masked multimodal modeling on the multimodal encoder. In this paper, we perform MoE study, by adopting the MoME Transformer as the backbone dense network and generative (masked data) modeling as pretraining objectives given its simplicity and scaling ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.313, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "More recently, with the introduce of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), PaLI's research (Chen et al., 2022) focused on the scaling of V&L components, while PaLM-E explored the embodied domain more deeply. BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023c) introduced the innovative Q-former to bridge image and language encoders, and this was further enhanced by InstructBLIP (Dai et al., 2023). Otter (Li et al., 2023a) augmented the instruction-following capabilities of OpenFlamingo (Laurençon et al., 2023; Alayrac et al.; Awadalla et al., 2023). Both MiniGPT-4 (Zhu et al., 2023) and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023a; Sun et al., 2023) draw inspiration from GPT4's capabilities but place emphasis on the efficiency and integration of visual and linguistic models. In a fresh approach, mPLUG-Owl (Ye et al., 2023) first aligns visual features and subsequently fine-tunes the language model using LoRA. Shikra (Chen et al., 2023) and Kosmos (Peng et al., 2023) leverage grounded imagetext pairs during their training process. Lastly, QWenvL (Bai et al., 2023) made notable strides in scaling LMM pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.62, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sparse Mixture of Experts models. We build upon the concept of deep sparse MoEs, which have been studied independently in both Computer Vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and Natural Language Processing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Zoph et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2023) in the context of conditional computation. The goal of conditional computation is to increase the number of model parameters without a proportional increase in computational cost, which is achieved by selectively activating only relevant parts of the model based on input-dependent factors (Bengio, 2013; Chen et al., 1999; Davis and Arel, 2013). MoE models use a learned gating mechanism that activates only a subset of \\( k \\) experts out of \\( E \\gg k \\) for a given input, allowing an input to select either all experts (Eigen et al., 2013) or only a sparse mixture thereof, as in recent massive language models (Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While many works aim to improve the gating mechanism itself (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022), MoE models have also been studied for multitask learning (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Kudugunta et al., 2021) with per-task routers (Ma et al., 2018), although a shared pool of experts is typically used." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MoE models have been explored for multimodal learning as well, with LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and Uni-MoE (Zhu et al., 2022) being most relevant to our work. However, LIMoE considers the CLIP-style contrast as the pre-training objective, and vision/retrieval tasks as the downstream evaluation. Uni-MoE focuses on routing decisions with limited experts and evaluates on caption/vision/language/retrieval tasks. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed VL-MoE is the first the MoE scaling study to consider the generalized generative modeling objective in the VL pre-training, and we evaluate its scaling performance in a more comprehensive manner, including vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.398, + 0.614, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.424, + 0.884, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first describe the masked data modeling pretraining objectives. We next discuss MoEs, sparse MoEs and present how we apply sparse MoEs methodology to vision-language models, before explaining our design choices for the routing algorithm and the implementation of VL-MoE." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.522, + 0.847, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Vision-Language Masked Data Modeling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.542, + 0.884, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We utilized a unified masked data modeling objective (Wang et al., 2022b) to pretrain VL-MoE on monomodal (i.e., images and texts) and multimodal data (i.e., image-text pairs). This approach has been demonstrated to be scaling-friendly with small batch-sizes. Our pretraining process involved masked image modeling on monomodal image data, masked language modeling on monomodal text data, and masked vision-language modeling on multimodal image-text pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.681, + 0.885, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Masked Language Modeling We use masked language modeling (MLM) to learn language representations from large-scale text-only data. For MLM, \\(15\\%\\) of tokens in monomodal text data are randomly masked, and the model is trained to recover the masked tokens from the corrupted input text. Masked tokens are replaced by a [MASK] token \\(80\\%\\) of the time, a random token \\(10\\%\\) of the time, and kept the original tokens \\(10\\%\\) of the time, following BERT (Devlin et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.82, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Masked Image Modeling In addition to masked language modeling, VL-MoE uses masked image modeling (MIM) to learn vision representations from large-scale image data. For MIM, block-wise masking is applied to \\(40\\%\\) of image patches, and the pretraining objective is to reconstruct the discrete visual tokens of masked patches, following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The im" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11331" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.082, + 0.87, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.226, + 0.883, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Effect of VL-MoE scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training flops." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.486, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "age tokenizer of BEiTv2 (Peng et al., 2022) is used to obtain the discrete tokens as the reconstructed targets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.312, + 0.487, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Masked Vision-Language Modeling To learn aligned vision-language representation, we use masked vision-language modeling (VLM), which extends masked language modeling and masked image modeling to multimodal data. The task aims at recovering masked image patches and text tokens based on visual and linguistic clues. In VLM, text tokens (with \\(50\\%\\) mask ratio) are randomly masked as in MLM, and the model is trained to recover the masked text tokens based on the joint image-text representations. Image patches are also masked with the same ratio as in MIM, and the corresponding visual tokens are predicted based on the image-text pair. The VLM task further encourages the model to learn alignments between image and text pairs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.317, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 VL-MoE Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.559, + 0.488, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input Representation. To obtain text representations, the input text is tokenized and projected onto word embeddings \\(\\{\\pmb{w}_i\\}_{i=1}^M\\), where \\(M\\) is the length of the tokenized text sequence. Two special tokens, a start-of-sequence token ([T_CLS]) and a special boundary token ([T_SEP]), are added to the sequence. Text representations are obtained by summing the word embeddings and text position embeddings, resulting in \\(\\mathbf{H}^w = [\\pmb{w}_{[T\\_CLS]}, \\pmb{w}_1, \\dots, \\pmb{w}_M, \\pmb{w}_{[T\\_SEP]}\\] + \\(\\mathbf{T}_{pos}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.688, + 0.489, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For image representations, the input 2D image \\(\\pmb{v} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{H \\times W \\times C}\\) is split and reshaped into \\(N = HW / P^2\\) patches \\(\\pmb{v}^p \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times (P^2C)}\\), where \\(C\\) is the number of channels, \\((H,W)\\) is height and width of the input image, and \\(P\\) is the patch size. These patches are then flattened into vectors and linearly projected to obtain patch embeddings following vision Transformers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Touvron et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2022a). We prepend a learnable special token [I_CLS] to the sequence. The resulting image input representations are given by \\(\\mathbf{H}^v = [\\pmb{v}_{[I\\_CLS]}, \\pmb{v}_1, \\dots, \\pmb{v}_N] + \\mathbf{V}_{pos}\\), where \\(\\mathbf{H}^v \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \\times D}\\), \\(\\mathbf{V} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(P^2C) \\times D}\\) is a linear projection, \\(\\mathbf{V}_{pos} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \\times D}\\) are learnable 1D position embeddings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.891, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To form image-text input representations, we concatenate image and text input vectors, resulting in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.272, + 0.634, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{H}_0^{vl} = [\\mathbf{H}_0^w;\\mathbf{H}_0^v ]\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.294, + 0.884, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Backbone Network. The dense backbone network of VL-MoE is a shared multimodal Transformer, illustrated in Figure 1. To encode different modalities, we utilize a mixture-of-modality-experts (MoME) Transformer(Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), which takes image and text representations of monomodal data, as well as representations of image-text pairs as input. The MoME Transformer comprises multiple layers of blocks, each consisting of a multi-head self-attention layer and a feed-forward expert layer. While the self-attention module is shared across modalities, each feedforward expert layer contains a pool of modality-specific experts (V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN) that act as a substitute for the feed-forward network in standard Transformers. This allows for hard routing over the pool of feed-forward networks based on the modality of the input tokens." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.542, + 0.884, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conditional Computation with MoEs. The concept of conditional computation involves selectively activating different parts of a neural network based on the input (Bengio, 2013). One specific approach is to use a mixture-of-experts (MoE) model, where different \"experts\" handle different regions of the input space (Jacobs et al., 1991). In this paper, we adopt the MoE layer proposed in (Shazeer et al., 2017), which consists of \\( E \\) experts and is defined as \\( \\mathsf{M} \\circ \\mathbb{E}(\\boldsymbol{x}) = \\sum_{i=1}^{E} g(\\boldsymbol{x})_i e_i(\\boldsymbol{x}) \\). Here, \\( \\boldsymbol{x} \\) is the input to the layer, \\( e_i: \\mathbb{R}^D \\mapsto \\mathbb{R}^D \\) is the function computed by expert \\( i \\), and \\( g: \\mathbb{R}^D \\mapsto \\mathbb{R}^E \\) is the \"routing\" function that determines the input-dependent weights for the experts. Both \\( e_i \\) and \\( g \\) are implemented as neural networks. Although this formulation still involves a dense network, it can be made sparse by restricting \\( g \\) to assign only \\( k \\ll E \\) non-zero weights, thereby eliminating the computation of unused experts. This approach allows for super-linear scaling of the number of model parameters in both training and inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.819, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VL-MoE. We apply sparse MoE to vision-language models in the context of the MoME. As illustrated in Figure 1, inputs from different modalities are routed to V-FFN and T-FFN in the first \\((L - F)\\) layers, and V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN in the last \\(F\\) layers. To avoid instability due to modality input imbalance when applying MoEs to modal-agnostic VL" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11332" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "modules in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), we only use MoE for V-FFN and T-FFN in the first \\((L - F)\\) layers. V-FFN and T-FFN have two layers and a GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity: \\(\\mathrm{V} / \\mathrm{T}\\text{-}\\mathrm{FFN}(\\pmb {x}) = \\mathbf{W}_2\\sigma_{\\mathrm{gel}}(\\mathbf{W}_1\\pmb {x})\\) . For VL-MoE, we replace a subset of V-FFN and T-FFN with V-MoE and T-MoE layers, where each expert is an FFN with the same architecture \\(e_i(\\mathbf{x}) = \\mathrm{FFN}_{\\theta_i}(\\mathbf{x})\\) but different weights \\(\\theta_{i} = (\\mathbf{W}_{1}^{i},\\mathbf{W}_{2}^{i})\\) . This design pattern is similar to that of GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) models. In V-MoE and T-MoE layers, each token \\(\\pmb {x}\\in \\mathbb{R}^D\\) is processed sparsely by \\(k\\) out of \\(E\\) available experts. To select which one, a lightweight V/T-Router predicts gating weights per token: \\(g(\\pmb {x}) = \\mathrm{softmax}(\\mathbf{W}_g\\pmb {x})\\in \\mathbb{R}^E\\) where \\(\\mathbf{W}_g\\in \\mathbb{R}^{D\\times E}\\) is learned. The \\(k\\) activated experts' outputs are combined linearly according to the gating weights: MoE \\((\\pmb {x}) = \\sum_{e = 1}^{k}g(\\pmb {x})_e\\cdot \\mathrm{FFN}_e(\\pmb {x})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.342, + 0.49, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To ensure computational efficiency and implementation constraints, each expert in VL-MoE has a fixed buffer capacity, which determines the maximum number of tokens it can process. The assumption is that tokens are approximately balanced across experts. In case the capacity is exceeded, some tokens are not processed by the expert and are dropped, leading to a decrease in the success rate. This rate is a vital indicator of balanced routing and training stability. To mitigate this problem, we employ Batch Priority Routing (BPR) (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022), which selectively skips tokens based on their routing weights. BPR prioritizes tokens with larger routing weights, as they are deemed more informative. Our results show that BPR is crucial for stable training of VL-MoE. We further analyze token routing decisions in Section 5 and dropped tokens in Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.596, + 0.253, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.621, + 0.285, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Pretraining Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.64, + 0.49, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pretraining Data. Our pretraining process uses both monomodal and multimodal data. The monomodal data comprises ImageNet-22K for images and English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015) for text. The multimodal data combines four datasets of imagedtext pairs: Conceptual Captions (Sharma et al., 2018), SBU Captions (Ordonez et al., 2011), COCO (Lin et al., 2014), and Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017), containing a total of 4 million images and 10 million imagedtext pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pretraining Setting. For the large-size model, we employ a 24-layer Transformer network with 1024 hidden size and 24 attention heads, following VIT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a), and VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b). The use of VL-FFN starts at 20th layer. The base/small-size model is an 12/8-layer Transformer network with 768/384 hidden size and 12/6 attention heads, where VL-FFN is used in 10/8th layer. We randomly initialize the model parameters using the method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "described in BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The image resolution is set to \\(224 \\times 224\\), and the patch size is \\(16 \\times 16\\). The maximum sequence length for text is 96. We use a batch size of 6, 144 and train the model from scratch for 200k steps, which is equivalent to 40 epochs of the image-text pairs. Each batch contains 2,048 images, 2,048 texts, and 2,048 image-text pairs. We perform image augmentation using random resized cropping, horizontal flipping, and color jittering, following the same method as BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The text data is tokenized using a SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) tokenizer with a vocabulary size of 64k. We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with \\(\\beta_{1} = 0.9\\) and \\(\\beta_{2} = 0.999\\) to optimize the model. The peak learning rate is 2e-3, and we use linear warmup for the first 10,000 steps and cosine learning rate decay. The weight decay is 0.05, and we disable dropout and use stochastic depth (Huang et al., 2016) with a rate of 0.1. The three pretrain losses are equally weighted as in BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.381, + 0.885, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MoE Setting. For the default setting of MoEs in VL-MoEBASE/16E, we use \\( E = 16 \\) experts for T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively. All VL-MoEs activate \\( k = 1 \\) expert per token, similar to Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). We replace every second dense T-FFN or V-FFN sublayer with MoE sublayer following GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021). We use BPR for stability in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021). For auxiliary loss, we use loading loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-FFN's MoE and averaged loading loss and importance loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) for V-FFN's MoE. The combination ratio for auxiliary loss is set as 0.01 in all our experiments. We use 32 expert parallelism and TUTEL (Hwang et al., 2022) for fast routing and computation. All the models are based on DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020). Pre-training experiments are done on 32 Nvidia Tesla V100-32GB GPUs. Following ST-MoE (Zoph et al., 2022), we freeze all the MoE modules (router and expert network) during finetuning process. The capacity factor \\( C \\) is set to be 1.05 during training and 1 during inference following (Riquelme et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.72, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "VL-MoE in Pretraining. We present the validation performance of VL-MoE on the three pretraining tasks across different scales. The results show that the cost-performance tradeoff of VL-MoE in terms of pretraining flops dominates the dense models by a wide margin, indicating that VL-MoE offers significant improvements across all scales, from SMALL/8E to LARGE/16E. We also provide a wall-clock time versus validation performance figure in the Appendix, which shows a similar scaling trend of VL-MoE. Thanks to careful kernel optimization and expert parallelism in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020), the maximum wall-clock overhead of VL-MoE\\(_{\\text{LARGE}/16E}\\) compared to dense counterparts can be reduced to only \\(13\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11333" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.096, + 0.296, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Expert 1 (eyes)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.206, + 0.111, + 0.297, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.319, + 0.096, + 0.42, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Expert 7 (words)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.319, + 0.111, + 0.42, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.44, + 0.096, + 0.537, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Expert 13 (ff&v)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.441, + 0.111, + 0.536, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.189, + 0.455, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Vision Token Routing Decisions." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.561, + 0.085, + 0.785, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.56, + 0.189, + 0.792, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Language Token Routing Decisions." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.209, + 0.885, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Token routing decisions on COCO. Examples of vision tokens routing decisions and breakdown of language token routing decisions at the V/T-MoE layer placed in the 6-th encoder block -i.e. middle of the network for VL-MoELARGE/16E." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.265, + 0.865, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model# Pretrained images# Pretrained Steps# Params per tokenVQANLVR2COCOFlickr30K
test-devtest-standarddevtest-PTRIRTRIR
Base-size models pretrained in the similar settings
UNITERBASE (Chen et al., 2020)4M200k86M72.7072.9177.1877.8564.450.385.972.5
VILLABASE (Gan et al., 2020)4M200k86M73.5973.6778.3979.30--86.674.7
UNIMOBASE (Li et al., 2021b)4M500K120M73.7974.02----89.774.7
ViLT (Kim et al., 2021a)4M200k120M71.26-75.7076.1361.542.783.564.4
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)4M240k210M74.5474.7080.2480.5073.156.894.382.8
VLMOBASE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k180M76.6476.8982.7783.3474.857.292.379.3
BEiT-3BASE*4M200k180M76.2176.7584.9385.7678.760.395.383.8
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k180M78.2178.6385.5286.7779.461.296.184.9
Pretained with more aggressive cost, including compute / data / model
VLMOLARGE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k560M79.9479.9885.6486.8678.260.695.384.5
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)14M800k210M75.8476.0482.5583.1477.660.795.985.6
BLIPLARGE (Li et al., 2022)129M1.26M427M78.2478.1782.4883.0881.964.397.387.3
SIMVLMBASE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M230M77.8778.1481.7281.77----
SIMVLMHUGE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M1.7B80.0380.3484.5385.15----
BEiT-3HUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)21M1M1.9B84.1984.0391.5192.5884.867.298.090.3
PALIHUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)1.6B1M17B84.3084.30------
BLIP2XL (Li et al., 2023b)129M250k4.1B81.5581.66--85.468.397.689.7
BEiT-3LARGE*4M200k560M78.1478.2385.2386.1579.261.495.784.1
VL-MoELARGE/16E4M200k560M79.9179.9586.2887.1479.962.396.585.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.494, + 0.884, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Finetuning results of different models on vision-language classification tasks and image-text retrieval tasks. We report vqa-score on VQA test-dev and test-standard split, accuracy for NLVR2 development and public test set (test-P) and top-1 recall for image retrieval (IR) and text retrieval (TR). (* denotes the model that is reproduced by us and trained with the same setting as VL-MoE.)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.577, + 0.451, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Vision-and-Language Downstream Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.489, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our study, we explore the performance of VL-MoE on vision-and-language downstream tasks through fine-tuning experiments on three standard tasks: visual question answering (Goyal et al., 2017), natural language for visual reasoning (Suhr et al., 2019), and image-text retrieval (Plummer et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2014). Following BEiT-3, we use \\(480 \\times 480\\) image resolution for VQA fine-tuning and \\(384 \\times 384\\) for the other tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.723, + 0.489, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Visual Question Answering (VQA). For VQA, the task is to generate/choose the correct answer given a natural image and a question. Following previous work (Kim et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), we utilize the VQA 2.0 dataset (Goyal et al., 2017) and formulate it as a classification problem with 3, 129 most frequent answers. We finetune VL-MoE as a fusion network to encode both the image and question. We use the final encoding vector of the [T_CLS] token as the representation of the image-question pair, and feed that into a classifier layer to predict the label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.89, + 0.489, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.905, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Visual reasoning task aims to predict whether a text" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.577, + 0.884, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "description is true about a pair of images. We use NLVR2 (Suhr et al., 2019) dataset for evaluation. Following OSCAR (Li et al., 2020), VinVL (Zhang et al., 2021) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we reformulate the triplet input into two image-text pairs, each containing the text description and one image. We use VL-MoE as a fusion network to jointly encode the image and text. The concatenated final vector of [T_CLS] token from the two pairs is then fed into a classification layer to predict the label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.734, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Image-Text Retrieval. For image-text retrieval, it contains both image-to-text retrieval and text-to-image retrieval for different target modalities. We use the widely used COCO (Lin et al., 2014) and Flickr30K (Plummer et al., 2015) datasets to evaluate the model, and adopt the Karpathy split (Karpathy and Fei-Fei, 2015) following common practices. Noted that in the architecture of VL-MoE and BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), it does not involve the image-text matching module as existing in CLIP (Radford et al., 2021). To enable image-text matching, we further fine-tune VL-MoE jointly with image-text contrastive and image-text matching with hard negative mining objectives as in VLMo (Bao et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11334" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.082, + 0.472, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsPretrainingTasks
# Images# StepsImageNetMNLI-m
Vision Pretraining
V1TB/16300M500k83.6-
BE1TB/161.2M500k85.2-
V-MoEB/16-16E300M500k85.3-
Vision-Language Pretraining
SIMVLMBASE1.8B1M80.664.4
BEiT-3*BASE4M200k83.267.0
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k84.568.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.228, + 0.49, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results of base-size models on image classification (ImageNet-1K) and natural language inference (MNLI-m). We report top-1 accuracy for both." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.288, + 0.489, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2022b) and BEIT-3. During inference, VL-MoE is used to encode images and text separately and compute the matching scores by the dot product of image and text vectors to obtain the top-\\(k\\) candidates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.351, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 presents the results of our vision-language model on classification and retrieval tasks, including VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K. To ensure a fair comparison, we provide details on the amount of pretraining image-text pair data, pretraining steps, and the number of parameters per input token. Following LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), we define the number of parameters per input token as the number of parameters that the model applies to each image-text token pair. Notably, VL-MoELarge/16E contains 2 billion parameters in total, but only applies 560 million parameters per token. Additionally, all routers combined account for less than 0.5 million parameters. Our model outperforms previous large/base-size models on VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K by a significant margin, particularly when compared to a reproduced BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), which was pretrained using the same settings as VL-MoE. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, VL-MoE is the first to demonstrate that a mixture-of-experts architecture can successfully scale with a comparably modest architecture size and training counts, while achieving generalization performance on a range of tasks in the context of vision-language tasks. Interestingly, Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) struggles with generalization for language MoE, while V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) only evaluate on downstream vision tasks. Additionally, VL-MoE even outperforms VLMoLarge and ALBEF, which are pretrained with more image-text pair data and initialized from pretrained models, on COCO and Flickr30K and achieves competitive performance on VQA and NLVR2. We assume that this may be due to the fact that the capacity of VL-FFN has not been scaled in VL-MoE, as reflected in the pretraining plot in Figure 2 (the difference of VLM loss between VL-MoE and dense BEiT-3 model is smaller compared to that of MLM and MIM loss). We leave the scale of the VL-FFN module for future work, considering the increasing instability in modal-agnostic MoE architectures demonstrated in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.085, + 0.868, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.255, + 0.877, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Effect of auxiliary loss on training stability." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.284, + 0.854, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Vision/Language-Only Downstream Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.306, + 0.885, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Image Classification. We use the image classification task to evaluate the model on the vision-only downstream task, where the objective of this task is to categorize an input image into its corresponding class. We employ the ILSVRC-2012 ImageNet dataset (Russakovsky et al., 2015), which consists of 1.3M images with 1k classes. Following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we perform average pooling over the final vectors and feed the resulting vector into a linear classifier layer to predict the label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.461, + 0.885, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural Language Inference. We use the natural language inference task to evaluate the model on the language-only downstream task. The task involves determining the relationship between two pieces of text. In this task, a model is given a premise sentence and a hypothesis sentence, and it needs to determine whether the hypothesis is true, false, or undetermined based on the information provided in the premise. We use Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) (Williams et al., 2018) dataset, which contains 433k sentence pairs annotated with textual entailment information. We evaluate on matched (MLM-m) setting only." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.633, + 0.884, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown Table 2, we compare VL-MoE with two base-size vision Transformers and V-MoE-B/16-E16 on image classification. For BEiT, BEiT-3BASE and VL-MoEBASE/16E, we perform intermediate finetuning on ImageNet-22k to compare with ViT pretrained on ImageNet-22k. The model performs competitively with previous state-of-the-art supervised and self-supervised models on ImageNet-1k. Besides the dense counterpart BEiT-3BASE, VL-MoE also outperforms other strong vision-language models (SIMVLM) pretrained with more data and more steps on MNLI-m." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.806, + 0.644, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.833, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct ablation studies to analyze the contributions of Mixture-of-Experts module used in VL-MoE from different perspectives. We evaluate the models on visual reasoning (NLVR2), image-text retrieval (Flickr30k), image classification (ImageNet-1k) and natural language inference (MNLI-m)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11335" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Scaling StrategyNLVR2Flickr30kImageNet Acc@1MNLI-m AccAvg.
T-MoEV-MoEdevtest-PTR R@1IR R@1
[1]XX67.4268.2180.461.767.254.366.5
[2]✓X72.4272.7383.264.767.858.369.9
[3]X✓71.1972.2382.964.569.255.269.2
[4]✓✓72.9873.3484.765.369.058.170.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.204, + 0.884, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation studies of scaling strategies (all the results are based on VL-MoESMALL/E16 models). All the *MoE uses 16 experts (where T/V stands for applying MoE on the T/V-FFN)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.251, + 0.49, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling Strategy. In addition to scaling both T-FFN and V-FFN, we have also explored different scaling strategies by applying Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) modules for either T-FFN or V-FFN alone. The results of our experiments are presented in Table 3. Our findings indicate that scaling a single modality can improve the downstream performance on the corresponding modality as well as overall vision-language tasks. However, we observed that scaling both vision and language modalities leads to the most balanced performing model with \\(70.6\\%\\) averaged performance. This may be attributed to the fact that we employ three different pretraining objectives for each modality, and scaling each modality contributes to better optimization of the specific modality pretraining loss as well as the VLM loss. For further evidence, we include the pre-training loss in Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.486, + 0.49, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Number of Experts. The optimal number of experts in Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) is still a topic of debate, as there is no agreement on the ideal number. Previous NLP research has experimented with a wide range of expert numbers, ranging from thousands in early studies (Shazeer et al., 2017; Fedus et al., 2021), to as low as 32 or 64 in more recent research (Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022), which has become the standard for vision models (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). In Figure 5, we investigate this further with VL-MoE, and our findings suggest that larger expert pools consistently yield performance improvements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effects of the Auxiliary Losses. As previously mentioned, experts in MoEs have a fixed buffer capacity, and without intervention, top- \\(k\\) MoEs tend to collapse, leading to poor performance as most tokens are dropped (Shazeer et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2022). To prevent this, prior research has employed auxiliary losses to promote balanced routing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Zoph et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Mustafa et al., 2022). However, as shown in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), in multimodal settings, new challenges emerge, such as modality misbalance, where one data type may be more prevalent than the other. We design VL-MoE in a modal-specific fashion to prevent the instability caused by imbalance of multimodal data and experiment with different auxiliary losses for V-MoE: loading balance loss (Shazeer et al., 2017), averaged loading balance and important loss (\"vloss\") (Riquelme et al., 2021)," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.251, + 0.85, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.392, + 0.82, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Effect of Experts Number." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.422, + 0.884, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsSizeMethodsEfficiencyVal
#EParam/MemEPKNTPSSpeedupLoss
BEiT-180M/0.3G--1002.3-4.51
VL-MoE16180M/1.6GXX450.5×0.94.49
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓X685.0×1.44.50
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓✓887.5×1.84.48
VL-MoE8180M/0.3G✓✓911.5×1.44.51
VL-MoE16105M/0.3G✓✓1211.3×1.34.50
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.528, + 0.883, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Efficiency results of base-size VL-MoE models with different optimizations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.884, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "z-loss (Zoph et al., 2022)).1 We present the results on VL-MoESMALL/E16 in Figure 4, which suggest that Z-loss presents to hurt the vision-and-lanaguage pretraining of VL-MoE and using loading balance loss only will introduce unstable training and underperforming models. The \"vloss\" turns out to lead to most stable training, which is consistent with V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). BPR also helps in stabilizing training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.704, + 0.885, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Token Routing Examples in VL-MoE. In Figure 3, we provide a qualitative analysis of token routing decisions on COCO. For vision tokens, their specialization is clear, as they are routed to specific experts such as food and vegetable experts, eyes experts, OCR experts, etc. On the other hand, language tokens show signs of syntax specialization, with some experts processing mostly padding tokens, while others focus on nouns and adjectives (and some padding), excluding prepositions, determiners, or verbs." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.87, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1We find that the T-MoE is quite stable using different auxiliary losses, and resort to the most common loading balance loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-MoE. We detail the formula of each auxiliary loss in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11336" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Efficiency In Table 4, we use one \\(\\mathrm{V100\\times 16}\\) node for benchmarking the efficiency of VL-MoE with various optimizations. The EP stands for the expert parallelism provided in DeepSpeed library and KN denotes the specialized kernel fusing operation we implemented (expert dispatch as well as bias gelu fusion). From the table, we see that the throughput for the BEiT model is 1002.3 sample/s, while the optimized VL-MoE with EP and Kernel has a throughput of 887.5 sample/s with the same parameters per token, which add around \\(11\\%\\) overhead. Despite the latter being a more complex model, its throughput doesn't fall too short of the simpler BEiT. The Speedup column also suggests that with our optimizations, VL-MoE can even surpass BEiT to reach the same level of validation loss in terms of speed, given the same parameter per token size. It's also valuable to note that the naive implementation of VL-MoE without any optimization indeed incurs a wall-clock time loss and significant memory cost, as seen from the throughput value of 450.5 sample/s and around \\(5\\times\\) memory." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.378, + 0.486, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with LIMoE. In LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), the single-modality MoE architecture and the employed contrastive loss are the two main building blocks. To directly compare the two components of multimodal LIMoE under our setting, we thoroughly experimented with optimizing either the single-modality MoE architecture or VL-MoE with contrastive or masked data modeling (MDM) loss. However, we found that the models fail to converge when optimizing the LIMoE architecture with the MDM loss, likely due to the fact that the MDM losses consist of three losses aiming for different modalities, which may exacerbate the modality imbalance problem and make it difficult to optimize MoEs even equipped with the entropy balancing loss in (Mustafa et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.592, + 0.486, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we focused on optimizing VL-MoE and LIMoE with the contrastive loss, as it yielded more stable results. However, it should be noted that while LIMoE uses 1.8B image-text pairs, our setting only has 4M. We then report the training and validation loss across steps by optimizing VL-MoE or LIMoE with the contrastive loss in Figure 8. The batch size is set to be \\(2k\\). From the zero-shot validation results, it can be seen that both models quickly overfit to the 4M image-text pairs, but the single modality MoE architecture in LIMoE inherits more instability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.749, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, we use 4M data to enrich the experiments using contrastive loss with different model settings in Table 5. We can see that LIMoE seems to exhibit a trend where performance doesn't improve much or even decreases as the number of training steps increases (from 75k to 100k), especially in the 105M parameter setting. This could be a sign of overfitting, where the model is starting to fit the training data more closely but is not generalizing as well to the validation/test data. Increasing the number of experts for LIMoE does not lead to significant performance gains, especially in the 105M parameter setting. This might" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsSizeIN0shot
# Param# E50k75k100k
Contrastive Pretraining
DENSE105M-50.363.267.5
LIMOE105M853.762.962.0
LIMOE105M1654.663.162.1
VL-MoE105M855.264.268.3
VL-MoE105M1657.265.169.0
DENSE180M-60.170.378.2
LIMOE180M861.570.468.2
LIMOE180M1661.269.367.5
VL-MoE180M862.571.778.9
VL-MoE180M1663.272.479.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.287, + 0.881, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparison between VL-MoE and LIMoE using contrastive loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.321, + 0.882, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "indicate that, at this data scale, the additional capacity introduced by more experts isn't effectively utilized. However, VL-MoE, with a higher number of experts, shows a better performance progression with increasing steps, suggesting a more efficient use of the additional capacity. VL-MoE consistently outperforms LIMoE in most settings, especially as we increase the number of training steps. This could be attributed to inherent architectural advantages or better synergy with the training objective." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.476, + 0.64, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.5, + 0.882, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we have explored the use of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for scaling vision-language models. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can be a promising technique for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of vision-language models. Specifically, we have shown that dividing a large vision-language model into smaller, specialized sub-models through MoE can achieve state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks while reducing computational costs. Our experiments have also shown that larger expert pools yield consistent performance improvements. Furthermore, we have explored the impact of MoE on model interpretability and found it can improve the interpretability of vision-language models by providing better insights into how the model processes different inputs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.714, + 0.882, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In conclusion, our findings suggest that MoE is a valuable technique for scaling vision-language models, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. Our work opens up new research directions for exploring the effectiveness of MoEs in other vision-language tasks, such as visual question answering, visual reasoning and image-text retrieval, and we hope our findings will inspire further investigations into this research area." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.869, + 0.607, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.893, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.479, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11337" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.146, + 0.49, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkowski, Ricardo Barreira, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Karen Simonyan. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. CoRR, abs/2204.14198." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.298, + 0.489, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, et al. 2023. Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.386, + 0.489, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2023. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.46, + 0.489, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022a. BEiT: BERT pre-training of image transformers. In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hangbo Bao, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Qiang Liu, Owais Khan Mohammed, Kriti Aggarwal, Subhojit Som, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Vlmo: Unified vision-language pre-training with mixture-of-modality-experts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.595, + 0.489, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoshua Bengio. 2013. Deep learning of representations: Looking forward. In Statistical Language and Speech Processing: First International Conference, SLSP 2013, Tarragona, Spain, July 29-31, 2013. Proceedings 1, pages 1-37. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.669, + 0.489, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ke Chen, Lei Xu, and Huisheng Chi. 1999. Improved learning algorithms for mixture of experts in multiclass classification. Neural networks, 12(9):1229-1252." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.73, + 0.489, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keqin Chen, Zhao Zhang, Weili Zeng, Richong Zhang, Feng Zhu, and Rui Zhao. 2023. Shikra: Unleashing multimodal llm's referential dialogue magic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15195." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. UNITER: universal image-text" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "representation learning. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-120. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.883, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aidan Clark, Diego De Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Arthur Mensch, Michela Paganini, Jordan Hoffmann, Bogdan Damoc, Blake Hechtman, Trevor Cai, Sebastian Borgeaud, et al. 2022. Unified scaling laws for routed language models. In ICML, pages 4057-4086. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.254, + 0.883, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Collier, Efi Kokiopoulou, Andrea Gesmundo, and Jesse Berent. 2020. Routing networks with co-training for continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04381." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.319, + 0.883, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Instructclip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06500." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.41, + 0.883, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew Davis and Itamar Arel. 2013. Low-rank approximations for conditional feedforward computation in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4461." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.476, + 0.883, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.619, + 0.883, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. preprint arXiv:2010.11929." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.723, + 0.883, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In ICML, pages 5547-5569. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.883, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Eigen, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Ilya Sutskever. 2013. Learning factored representations in a deep mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4314." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. CoRR, abs/2101.03961." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11338" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhe Gan, Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Large-scale adversarial training for vision-and-language representation learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.189, + 0.487, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 6325-6334. IEEE Computer Society." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.293, + 0.487, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hussein Hazimeh, Zhe Zhao, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Yihua Chen, Rahul Mazumder, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2021. Dselect-k: Differentiable selection in the mixture of experts with applications to multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.423, + 0.487, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (GELUs). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.475, + 0.487, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gao Huang, Yu Sun, Zhuang Liu, Daniel Sedra, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2016. Deep networks with stochastic depth. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2016 - 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV, volume 9908 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 646-661. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.579, + 0.487, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changho Hwang, Wei Cui, Yifan Xiong, Ziyue Yang, Ze Liu, Han Hu, Zilong Wang, Rafael Salas, Jithin Jose, Prabhat Ram, et al. 2022. Tutel: Adaptive mixture-of-experts at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03382." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.657, + 0.487, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.709, + 0.487, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4904-4916. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.839, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Deep visual-semantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015, pages 3128-3137. IEEE Computer Society." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021a. ViLT: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5583-5594. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.188, + 0.882, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Young Jin Kim, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Alexandre Muzio, Andres Felipe Cruz Salinas, Liyang Lu, Amr Hendy, Samyam Rajbhandari, Yuxiong He, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2021b. Scalable and efficient moe training for multitask multilingual models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10465." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.277, + 0.882, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.354, + 0.882, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Yu Koh, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Daniel Fried. 2023. Grounding language models to images for multimodal generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13823." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.417, + 0.882, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aran Komatsuzaki, Joan Puigcerver, James Lee-Thorp, Carlos Riquelme Ruiz, Basil Mustafa, Joshua Ainslie, Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Sparse upcycling: Training mixture-of-experts from dense checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05055." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.494, + 0.882, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 123(1):32-73." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.597, + 0.882, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.7, + 0.882, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sneha Kudugunta, Yanping Huang, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, Minh-Thang Luong, and Orhan First. 2021. Beyond distillation: Task-level mixture-of-experts for efficient inference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3577-3599." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.79, + 0.882, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Laurencon, Lucile Saulnier, Léo Tronchon, Stas Bekman, Amanpreet Singh, Anton Lozhkov, Thomas Wang, Siddharth Karamcheti, Alexander M Rush, Douwe Kiela, et al. 2023. Obelisc: An open web-scale filtered dataset of interleaved image-text documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16527." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan First, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11339" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.124 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.133, + 0.487, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Shruti Bhosale, Tim Dettmers, Naman Goyal, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. BASE layers: Simplifying training of large, sparse models. In ICML. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.194, + 0.487, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Jinghao Wang, Jingkang Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2023a. Otter: A multi-modal model with in-context instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03726." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.255, + 0.487, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023b. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.317, + 0.487, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023c. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.378, + 0.487, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In ICML, pages 12888-12900. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.452, + 0.487, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021a. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.539, + 0.487, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lianian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. CoRR, abs/1908.03557." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.6, + 0.487, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Li, Can Gao, Guocheng Niu, Xinyan Xiao, Hao Liu, Jiachen Liu, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021b. UNIMO: towards unified-modal understanding and generation via cross-modal contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2592-2607. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.74, + 0.487, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Oscar: Object-semantics aligned pre-training for vision-language tasks. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 121-137. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jianwei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023d. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. CVPR." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 - 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V, volume 8693 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 740-755. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.201, + 0.881, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023a. Visual instruction tuning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.238, + 0.882, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haotian Liu, Kilho Son, Jianwei Yang, Ce Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Yong Jae Lee, and Chunyuan Li. 2023b. Learning customized visual models with retrieval-augmented knowledge. CVPR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.302, + 0.881, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuxuan Lou, Fuzhao Xue, Zangwei Zheng, and Yang You. 2021. Cross-token modeling with conditional computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02008." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.353, + 0.882, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. ViLBERT: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 13-23." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.456, + 0.882, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaqi Ma, Zhe Zhao, Xinyang Yi, Jilin Chen, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2018. Modeling task relationships in multi-task learning with multi-gate mixture-of-experts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.559, + 0.882, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Basil Mustafa, Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Rodolphe Jenatton, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Multimodal contrastive learning with limoe: the language-image mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02770." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.635, + 0.882, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vicente Ordonez, Girish Kulkarni, and Tamara L. Berg. 2011. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011. Proceedings of a meeting held 12-14 December 2011, Granada, Spain, pages 1143-1151." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.738, + 0.882, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiliang Peng, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Qixiang Ye, and Furu Wei. 2022. Beit v2: Masked image modeling with vector-quantized visual tokenizers. ArXiv, abs/2208.06366." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.802, + 0.882, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma, and Furu Wei. 2023. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14824." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.878, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bryan A. Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M. Cervantes, Juan C. Caicedo, Julia Hockenmaier, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2015. Flickr30k entities: Collecting" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11340" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "region-to-phrase correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015, Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015, pages 2641-2649. IEEE Computer Society." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.49, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.306, + 0.489, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.397, + 0.49, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Basil Mustafa, Maxim Neumann, Rodolphe Jenatton, André Susano Pinto, Daniel Keysers, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. Scaling vision with sparse mixture of experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.475, + 0.49, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen Roller, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Hash layers for large sparse models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.644, + 0.49, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2556-2565. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.761, + 0.49, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc V. Le, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Shen, Le Hou, Yanqi Zhou, Nan Du, Shayne Longpre, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Barret Zoph, William Fedus, Xinyun Chen, et al. 2023. Mixture-of-experts meets instruction tuning: A winning combination for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14705." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Shen, Chunyuan Li, Xiaowei Hu, Yujia Xie, Jianwei Yang, Pengchuan Zhang, Zhe Gan, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Ce Liu, et al. 2022a. K-lite: Learning transferable visual models with external knowledge. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.159, + 0.885, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022b. How much can clip benefit vision-and-language tasks? In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.219, + 0.885, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amanpreet Singh, Ronghang Hu, Vedanuj Goswami, Guillaume Couairon, Wojciech Galuba, Marcus Rohrbach, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. FLAVA: A foundational language and vision alignment model. CoRR, abs/2112.04482." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2020. VL-BERT: pretraining of generic visual-linguistic representations. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.379, + 0.885, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alane Suhr, Stephanie Zhou, Ally Zhang, Iris Zhang, Huajun Bai, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. A corpus for reasoning about natural language grounded in photographs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28-August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 6418-6428. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.493, + 0.885, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Sheng Shen, Shengcao Cao, Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yikang Shen, Chuang Gan, LiangYan Gui, Yu-Xiong Wang, Yiming Yang, et al. 2023. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14525." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. LXMERT: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5099-5110. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.679, + 0.885, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. 2020. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. preprint arXiv:2012.12877." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.752, + 0.885, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. CoRR, abs/2202.03052." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11341" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2022b. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for all vision and vision-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10442." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.174, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2022c. SimVLM: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.238, + 0.492, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.341, + 0.49, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. 2023. MPLug-owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.43, + 0.49, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. CoRR, abs/2205.01917." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.494, + 0.49, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision. CoRR, abs/2111.11432." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.609, + 0.49, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaowei Hu, Jianwei Yang, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. VinVL: Revisiting visual representations in vision-language models. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021, pages 5579-5588. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.712, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Y Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, and James Laudon. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.789, + 0.49, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinguo Zhu, Xizhou Zhu, Wenhai Wang, Xiaohua Wang, Hongsheng Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2022. Uni-perceiver-moe: Learning sparse generalist models with conditional moes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04674." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 19-27." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.182, + 0.885, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Barret Zoph, Irwan Bello, Sameer Kumar, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Jeff Dean, Noam Shazeer, and William Fedus. 2022. St-moe: Designing stable and transferable sparse expert models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08906." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.268, + 0.634, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.297, + 0.681, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Further Analyses" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.319, + 0.885, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"Dropped\" Tokens. In MoE training, the issue of \"Dropped Tokens\" is inherited (Lepikhin et al., 2020; Shazeer et al., 2017; Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022) and caused by the limited capacity of each MoE expert, which can lead to instability. To provide a detailed analysis of this issue, we present Figure 6, which illustrates the distribution of dropped tokens in VL-MoEBASE/16E across different pre-training tasks. The figure shows that MLM and MIM tasks exhibit a more balanced distribution of tokens compared to VLM task, which may explain the improved performance of using MoEs in the former two pre-training tasks, as depicted in Figure 2. Additionally, the problem of dropped imag tokens is more severe compared to dropped text tokens, which aligns with the results of different scaling strategies presented in Section 5 and the findings in (Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.591, + 0.885, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pretrain Losses for Different Scaling Strategies. We additionally report the effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps in Figure 7. The results support our hypothesis that using three distinct pretraining objectives for each modality and scaling each modality leads to improved optimization of both the specific modality pretraining loss and the VLM loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.749, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additional Results We conduct experiments using COCO captions following (Wang et al., 2022b), where VL-MoE achieves 139.2 for CIDEr and 23.1 for SPICE, which outperforms the BEiT-3 with 137.5 for CIDer and 22.7 for SPICE using base-size. We also observe interesting routing specialization when generating the final word \"cake\" considering the T-MoE in VL-MoE in Figure 3. \"NN: lady\" and \"NN: slicing\" route to experts 1 and 13 respectively. \"DT: A, a\" both route to expert 1. \"JJ: hairnet, big\" route to expert 7. These routings underscore the inherent nature of expert specialization in the VL-MoE model, potentially highlighting its advantages." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11342" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.084, + 0.785, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.105, + 0.305, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.198, + 0.292, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) MLM T-MoE Layer 2" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.31, + 0.105, + 0.495, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.333, + 0.198, + 0.484, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) MLM T-MoE Layer 4" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.105, + 0.685, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.198, + 0.672, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) MLM T-MoE Layer 6" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.687, + 0.105, + 0.871, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.71, + 0.198, + 0.86, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) MLM T-MoE Layer 8" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.23, + 0.306, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.324, + 0.292, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(e) MIM V-MoE Layer 2" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.312, + 0.23, + 0.495, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.336, + 0.324, + 0.481, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(f) MIM V-MoE Layer 4" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.23, + 0.685, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.324, + 0.671, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(g) MIM V-MoE Layer 6" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.687, + 0.23, + 0.871, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.711, + 0.324, + 0.858, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(h) MIM V-MoE Layer 8" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.356, + 0.306, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.45, + 0.291, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(i) VLM T-MoE Layer 2" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.312, + 0.356, + 0.495, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.336, + 0.45, + 0.481, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(j) VLM T-MoE Layer 4" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.356, + 0.685, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.45, + 0.671, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(k) VLM T-MoE Layer 6" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.686, + 0.356, + 0.871, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.712, + 0.45, + 0.856, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) VLM T-MoE Layer 8" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.481, + 0.306, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.576, + 0.293, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(m) VLM V-MoE Layer 2" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.312, + 0.481, + 0.495, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.333, + 0.576, + 0.483, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(n) VLM V-MoE Layer 4" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.481, + 0.685, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.576, + 0.671, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(o) VLM V-MoE Layer 6" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.687, + 0.481, + 0.871, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.711, + 0.576, + 0.859, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(p) VLM V-MoE Layer 8" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.6, + 0.884, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: \"Dropped\" Token analyses for VL-MoE\\(_{\\text{LARGE}/16\\text{E}}\\) with three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks. Above the dashed line denotes the ratio of tokens that exceed the expert capacity and will be dropped." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.228, + 0.658, + 0.731, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.678, + 0.306, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.771, + 0.288, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Total Validation Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.312, + 0.678, + 0.495, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.333, + 0.771, + 0.481, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) MLM Validation Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.5, + 0.678, + 0.688, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.771, + 0.671, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) VLM Validation Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.688, + 0.678, + 0.873, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.715, + 0.771, + 0.858, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) MIM Validation Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.795, + 0.884, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.863, + 0.283, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Hyperparameter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.89, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Visual Question Answering (VQA). We fine-tune the base/large-size models for 10 epochs with 128" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.863, + 0.882, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5. Following VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b), the input image resolution is \\(480 \\times 480\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11343" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.087, + 0.38, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.203, + 0.348, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Contrastive Train Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.383, + 0.088, + 0.61, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.401, + 0.203, + 0.592, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Contrastive Validation Loss" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.615, + 0.083, + 0.844, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.657, + 0.203, + 0.803, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) ImageNet 0shot Acc" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.227, + 0.867, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Comparison of Dense, VL-MoE, and LIMoE on contrastive pre-training task across training steps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.267, + 0.489, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2). For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 10 epochs with 128 batch size. The peak learning rate of the base-size models is set to 5e-5. The input image resolution is \\(384 \\times 384\\). For ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 128 batch size, and choose learning rates from \\(\\{5e - 5, 1e - 4\\}\\). The input image resolution is \\(224 \\times 224\\). All the ablation results of NLVR2 are averaged over 3 runs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.407, + 0.487, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "COCO. We fine-tune the base/large-size model for 20 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 2e-5 and the input image resolution is \\(384 \\times 384\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.461, + 0.487, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flickr30K. For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 40 epochs with a batch size of 2048 and a peak learning rate of 1e-5. We use the fine-tuned model on COCO as the initialization. The input image resolution is \\(384 \\times 384\\). For all ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 1024 batch size. The peak learning rate is set to 5e-5, and the input image resolution is \\(224 \\times 224\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.587, + 0.487, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ImageNet-1k. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with V-MoE and V-FFN only for 15 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5 and the input image resolution is \\(384 \\times 384\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.656, + 0.489, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MNLI. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with T-MoE and T-FFN only for 10 epochs with 32 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.713, + 0.35, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Formula of Auxiliary Loss" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.732, + 0.488, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a token \\(\\pmb{x} \\in \\mathbb{R}^D\\), we denote by \\(g(\\pmb{x}) = \\text{softmax}(\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x}) \\in \\mathbb{R}^E\\) the gating weights across the \\(E\\) experts, with \\(\\pmb{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{E \\times D}\\) being the routing parameters. When we deal with a batch of multiple tokens \\(\\{\\pmb{x}_i\\}_{i=1}^n\\), we use the notation \\(\\pmb{X} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n \\times D}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.806, + 0.487, + 0.889 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Importance loss. We follow the definition from (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). The importance loss \\(\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}\\) ensures that the gating weights are evenly distributed among the experts, maintaining a balanced profile. For any expert \\(e \\in \\{1, \\dots, E\\}\\), we have" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.891, + 0.383, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {i m p} _ {e} (X) = \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {x} \\in X} g (\\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.267, + 0.882, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and the loss \\(\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}\\) is defined via the squared coefficient of variation for \\(\\mathrm{imp}(\\pmb {X}) = \\{\\mathrm{imp}_e(\\pmb {X})\\}_{e = 1}^E\\)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.306, + 0.816, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {i m p}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\left(\\frac {\\operatorname {s t d} (\\operatorname {i m p} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}{\\operatorname {m e a n} (\\operatorname {i m p} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}\\right) ^ {2}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.349, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Load loss. Like previously, we follow (Riquelme et al., 2021). We assume the gating weights \\( g_{\\mathrm{noisy}}(\\pmb{x}) \\) are obtained by perturbing the routing function with noise, i.e., \\( g_{\\mathrm{noisy}}(\\pmb{x}) = \\mathrm{softmax}(\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x} + \\varepsilon) \\) with \\( \\varepsilon \\sim \\mathcal{N}(\\mathbf{0}, \\sigma^2\\mathbf{I}) \\) and \\( \\sigma = 1 / E \\). We denote \\( \\eta_k \\) the \\( k \\)-th largest entry of \\( \\pmb{W}\\pmb{x} + \\varepsilon \\). The importance loss \\( \\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}} \\) aims to balance the selection probability of experts by focusing on the likelihood of choosing them, as assigning tasks to experts is a discrete process. The load loss \\( \\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}} \\) complements this by striving to even out the number of assignments among the experts. To calculate the selection probability, the expert \\( e \\in \\{1,\\dots ,E\\} \\) is assumed to be among the top- \\( k \\) even when resampling only the noise as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.584, + 0.558, + 0.805, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {x}) = 1 - \\Phi \\left(\\frac {\\eta_ {k} - (\\boldsymbol {W} \\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}}{\\sigma}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.884, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with \\(\\Phi\\) the cumulative distribution function of a Gaussian distribution. The load loss \\(\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}\\) is eventually defined by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.648, + 0.836, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {l o a d}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\left(\\frac {\\operatorname {s t d} (\\operatorname {l o a d} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}{\\operatorname {m e a n} (\\operatorname {l o a d} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}\\right) ^ {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.683, + 0.803, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathrm{load}(\\mathbf{X}) = \\{\\mathrm{load}_e(\\mathbf{X})\\}_{e = 1}^E\\)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.595, + 0.703, + 0.765, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {l o a d} _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {x} \\in \\boldsymbol {X}} p _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {x}).\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.743, + 0.882, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Z-loss. The z-loss \\(\\Omega_{\\mathrm{zloss}}\\) introduced in (Zoph et al., 2022) aims at controlling the maximum magnitude of the router activations \\(A = \\{\\pmb {W}\\pmb {x}_i\\}_{i = 1}^n\\in \\mathbb{R}^{n\\times E}\\) with entries \\(a_{i,e} = (\\pmb {W}\\pmb {x}_i)_e\\). The loss is defined by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.811, + 0.857, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {z l o s s}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\frac {1}{n} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\left(\\log \\left(\\sum_ {e = 1} ^ {E} \\exp (a _ {i, e})\\right)\\right) ^ {2}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.862, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "v-loss. The notation \"v-loss\" we used in Section 5 is essentially the final employed loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), where \\(\\Omega_{\\mathrm{vloss}}(\\mathbf{X}) = 0.5*\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}(\\mathbf{X}) + 0.5*\\) \\(\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}(\\mathbf{X})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11344" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_origin.pdf b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5792a3180ae8b5e97f6180a4c14ad496af3cd02a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/477a5679-8917-4064-acb5-fe7ac9e31291_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ed3724005f5937576fc57e7edd8345347ceb15415e5ab3e63225ceed393d05b1 +size 3978254 diff --git a/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/full.md b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3acd345ff880f4c8ab10c6ff35f488cc3b713211 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,477 @@ +# Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts + +Sheng Shen†§* Zhewei Yao‡* Chunyuan Li‡* +Trevor Darrell† Kurt Keutzer† Yuxiong He‡ + +†UC Berkeley ‡Microsoft + +sheng.s@berkeley.edu, {zheweiyao,chunyl}@microsoft.com + +# Abstract + +The field of natural language processing (NLP) has made significant strides in recent years, particularly in the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs). These models aim to bridge the gap between text and visual information, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of multimedia data. However, as these models become larger and more complex, they also become more challenging to train and deploy. One approach to addressing this challenge is the use of sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts (MoE) techniques, which divide the model into smaller, specialized sub-models that can jointly solve a task. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of MoE in scaling vision-language models, demonstrating its potential to achieve state-of-the-art performance on a range of benchmarks over dense models of equivalent computational cost. Our research offers valuable insights into stabilizing the training of MoE models, understanding the impact of MoE on model interpretability, and balancing the trade-offs between compute performance when scaling VLMs. We hope our work will inspire further research into the use of MoE for scaling large-scale vision-language models and other multimodal machine learning applications. + +# 1 Introduction + +The ability to understand and generate natural language from visual information is a critical component of many real-world applications, including visual question answering (VQA), visual reasoning, and multimodal information retrieval. In recent years, the success of deep learning in natural language processing (NLP) has led to the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs) (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021b; Gan et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Alayrac et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022c; Shen et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2021a; Shen et al., 2022a; Jia et al., 2021; Li et al., + +2022; Yu et al., 2022) that leverage powerful neural network architectures to encode and decode multimodal information. However, state-of-the-art vision-language models like Flamingo-80B (Alayrac et al., 2022), BEiT-3-1.9B (Wang et al., 2022b), and PaLI-17B (Chen et al., 2022) can be computationally expensive and difficult to train, which has motivated researchers to explore ways of improving their efficiency and effectiveness. + +Recently, sparsely activated Mixture of Experts (MoE) models have been successfully employed to scale both vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and text models (Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022). These models are motivated by the need to increase model parameters while controlling compute costs. In addition, these models provide other advantages, including sparsity that can mitigate catastrophic forgetting in continual learningg (Collier et al., 2020; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022), and an inductive bias that can enhance performance in multitask learningg (Ma et al., 2018; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021b). Overall, the use of MoEs has proven to be a promising strategy for scaling deep learning models across various domains. + +Building on the success of MoEs in individual domains and applying the intuition that sparse models may better handle different tasks versus dense counterparts, we investigate the potential of MoEs for vision-language modeling. To this end, we take the first step in this direction and explore models that can process both images and text for vision-language tasks. One similar effort has been studied in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), where the authors proposed a modal-agnostic CLIP-style (Radford et al., 2021) multimodal MoEs architecture, but their focus is mainly on the contrastive pre-training objective and vision-only downstream tasks. There are two limitations in this setting: (1) The increasing model capacity of MoEs under the simple contrastive objective can easily lead to over-fitting issues. (2) The vision-only benchmarking does not reveal the full power of scaling up multimodal models. Alternatively, our goal is to demonstrate the effectiveness of MoEs under generative modeling for vision-language tasks and provide a more comprehensive foundation for future research in this area. + +Specifically, we propose a novel VLM architecture that employs MoE to scale both the text-based and + +![](images/3e64c17dba7b3e08f04cceaf4a8f0ca0a464cd03997769d2c3fa7ba99e5fec44.jpg) +(a) Encode Image Only + +![](images/459431eb0a153edec4c347667843c8f8679dc07d9df4683acfe27324912fc76d.jpg) +(b) Encode Text Only + +![](images/ff3a09da151cc6cf14ba27ffc31dad0f028ae0ac7cfebe3fc24f827b7b2b9d25.jpg) +(c) Encode Image-Text Pair +Figure 1: The encoding process of VL-MoE for various modality inputs, for which gray and colored blocks indicate non-activated and activated modules, respectively. (a) For image input only, the encoding process switches to V-MoE or V-FFN (b) For text input only, the encoding process switches T-MoE or T-FFN. (c) For image-Text Pair input, the encoding process switches, V-MoE & T-MoE and VL-FFN. (d) For the early layers, we scale the V-FFN and T-FFN with Sparse Mixture-of-Experts as V-MoE and T-MoE, respectively. VL-MoE will utilize conditional computation to allocate tokens in a modality-specific fashion. V/T-MoE converts multiple V/T-FFNs as experts, where the image/text input will be conditionally routed by V/T-Router Network. + +![](images/6b148b5057d3bbae8cbe5ecb5fca7828ef28089344c5094271e9424a3c6a2b1a.jpg) +(d) V-MoE & T-MoE + +vision-based feed-forward networks (T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively) in a unified framework. Our approach divides the model into multiple sub-models, each of which is responsible for processing a modal-specific subset of the input data. The text and vision input representations are then aligned via three mask data modeling objectives (Wang et al., 2022b). + +We train a range of VL-MoE models and evaluate the model on vision-language classification, vision-language retrieval, vision-only and language-only tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of VLMs, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. We scale BASE-size model up to a 1.8B parameter VL-MoE $_{\text{LARGE}/16\text{E}}$ , which only applies 560M parameters per token and achieves competitive performance with dense models that make use of similar or more pre-training image-text pair data and apply $3 - 4 \times$ more parameters per token. + +In summary, our contributions are as follows: + +- We propose VL-MoE, the first large-scale generative MoEs multimodal models for vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks. +- We explore various scaling strategies, including increasing dense model size, increasing expert numbers, and scaling either T-FFN or V-FFN alone, to investigate the trade-offs between model complexity and performance on various downstream tasks. +- We present ablations to understand VL-MoE model's behavior, interpretability, and our design choices. + +# 2 Related Work + +Vision-Language Modeling. Vision-language pretraining (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Radford et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022c; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022a; + +Alayrac et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2022b,a; Yuan et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023b) involves developing model architecture and pretraining objectives to learn effective multimodal representations from large-scale image-text pairs. Two main approaches are encoding distinct modalities separately with different encoders. + +For model architecture, there are two main designs. The first design, utilized by models such as (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021) separately encodes each modality with different encoders. While this approach performs well for image-text retrieval tasks, it struggles with complex vision-language tasks like visual reasoning. The second design, employed by models like (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Li et al., 2021a; Lu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Chen et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022), uses a complex fusion module with cross-modal attention to combine modalities. However, this design sacrifices efficiency for improved performance. Recently, a new design has emerged with the MOME Transformer used in both VLMo and BEiT-3. This design unifies the dual-encoder and fusion-encoder models by introducing a mixture-of-modality-experts technique. With MOME, various modalities are encoded within a shared Transformer block, allowing for improved scalability and achieving state-of-the-art performance on vision-language tasks. There is an increasing interest to grow the VL model capacity with an affordable compute budget, including MoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and the injection of new trainable modules on pre-trained models (Alayrac et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022a; Liu et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023d,b; Koh et al., 2023); the former remains less studied. + +For pretraining objectives, multiple cross-modal pretraining objectives have been studied. They can be categorized into two classes: (1) Discriminative modeling, including image-text contrastive learning (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021), image-text matching (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b) and word-patch/region alignment (Chen + +et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a); (2) Generative modeling, including masked language modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Su et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a) or prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c), masked region modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019), multimodal prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c). Recently, BEiT-3 shows strong scaling results by unifying the generative multimodal pretraining objective with masked data modeling, which comprises masked image modeling and masked language modeling on the monomodal encoders and masked multimodal modeling on the multimodal encoder. In this paper, we perform MoE study, by adopting the MoME Transformer as the backbone dense network and generative (masked data) modeling as pretraining objectives given its simplicity and scaling ability. + +More recently, with the introduce of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), PaLI's research (Chen et al., 2022) focused on the scaling of V&L components, while PaLM-E explored the embodied domain more deeply. BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023c) introduced the innovative Q-former to bridge image and language encoders, and this was further enhanced by InstructBLIP (Dai et al., 2023). Otter (Li et al., 2023a) augmented the instruction-following capabilities of OpenFlamingo (Laurençon et al., 2023; Alayrac et al.; Awadalla et al., 2023). Both MiniGPT-4 (Zhu et al., 2023) and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023a; Sun et al., 2023) draw inspiration from GPT4's capabilities but place emphasis on the efficiency and integration of visual and linguistic models. In a fresh approach, mPLUG-Owl (Ye et al., 2023) first aligns visual features and subsequently fine-tunes the language model using LoRA. Shikra (Chen et al., 2023) and Kosmos (Peng et al., 2023) leverage grounded imagetext pairs during their training process. Lastly, QWenvL (Bai et al., 2023) made notable strides in scaling LMM pre-training. + +Sparse Mixture of Experts models. We build upon the concept of deep sparse MoEs, which have been studied independently in both Computer Vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and Natural Language Processing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Zoph et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2023) in the context of conditional computation. The goal of conditional computation is to increase the number of model parameters without a proportional increase in computational cost, which is achieved by selectively activating only relevant parts of the model based on input-dependent factors (Bengio, 2013; Chen et al., 1999; Davis and Arel, 2013). MoE models use a learned gating mechanism that activates only a subset of $k$ experts out of $E \gg k$ for a given input, allowing an input to select either all experts (Eigen et al., 2013) or only a sparse mixture thereof, as in recent massive language models (Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022). + +While many works aim to improve the gating mechanism itself (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022), MoE models have also been studied for multitask learning (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Kudugunta et al., 2021) with per-task routers (Ma et al., 2018), although a shared pool of experts is typically used. + +MoE models have been explored for multimodal learning as well, with LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and Uni-MoE (Zhu et al., 2022) being most relevant to our work. However, LIMoE considers the CLIP-style contrast as the pre-training objective, and vision/retrieval tasks as the downstream evaluation. Uni-MoE focuses on routing decisions with limited experts and evaluates on caption/vision/language/retrieval tasks. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed VL-MoE is the first the MoE scaling study to consider the generalized generative modeling objective in the VL pre-training, and we evaluate its scaling performance in a more comprehensive manner, including vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks. + +# 3 Method + +We first describe the masked data modeling pretraining objectives. We next discuss MoEs, sparse MoEs and present how we apply sparse MoEs methodology to vision-language models, before explaining our design choices for the routing algorithm and the implementation of VL-MoE. + +# 3.1 Vision-Language Masked Data Modeling + +We utilized a unified masked data modeling objective (Wang et al., 2022b) to pretrain VL-MoE on monomodal (i.e., images and texts) and multimodal data (i.e., image-text pairs). This approach has been demonstrated to be scaling-friendly with small batch-sizes. Our pretraining process involved masked image modeling on monomodal image data, masked language modeling on monomodal text data, and masked vision-language modeling on multimodal image-text pairs. + +Masked Language Modeling We use masked language modeling (MLM) to learn language representations from large-scale text-only data. For MLM, $15\%$ of tokens in monomodal text data are randomly masked, and the model is trained to recover the masked tokens from the corrupted input text. Masked tokens are replaced by a [MASK] token $80\%$ of the time, a random token $10\%$ of the time, and kept the original tokens $10\%$ of the time, following BERT (Devlin et al., 2019). + +Masked Image Modeling In addition to masked language modeling, VL-MoE uses masked image modeling (MIM) to learn vision representations from large-scale image data. For MIM, block-wise masking is applied to $40\%$ of image patches, and the pretraining objective is to reconstruct the discrete visual tokens of masked patches, following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The im + +![](images/c6b90d0cea3e19ec42fa7fc7c5e030e1611298846cedba0ff7bc9b7ab42d6473.jpg) +Figure 2: Effect of VL-MoE scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training flops. + +age tokenizer of BEiTv2 (Peng et al., 2022) is used to obtain the discrete tokens as the reconstructed targets. + +Masked Vision-Language Modeling To learn aligned vision-language representation, we use masked vision-language modeling (VLM), which extends masked language modeling and masked image modeling to multimodal data. The task aims at recovering masked image patches and text tokens based on visual and linguistic clues. In VLM, text tokens (with $50\%$ mask ratio) are randomly masked as in MLM, and the model is trained to recover the masked text tokens based on the joint image-text representations. Image patches are also masked with the same ratio as in MIM, and the corresponding visual tokens are predicted based on the image-text pair. The VLM task further encourages the model to learn alignments between image and text pairs. + +# 3.2 VL-MoE Architecture + +Input Representation. To obtain text representations, the input text is tokenized and projected onto word embeddings \(\{\pmb{w}_i\}_{i=1}^M\), where \(M\) is the length of the tokenized text sequence. Two special tokens, a start-of-sequence token ([T_CLS]) and a special boundary token ([T_SEP]), are added to the sequence. Text representations are obtained by summing the word embeddings and text position embeddings, resulting in \(\mathbf{H}^w = [\pmb{w}_{[T\_CLS]}, \pmb{w}_1, \dots, \pmb{w}_M, \pmb{w}_{[T\_SEP]}\] + \(\mathbf{T}_{pos}\). + +For image representations, the input 2D image $\pmb{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}$ is split and reshaped into $N = HW / P^2$ patches $\pmb{v}^p \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times (P^2C)}$ , where $C$ is the number of channels, $(H,W)$ is height and width of the input image, and $P$ is the patch size. These patches are then flattened into vectors and linearly projected to obtain patch embeddings following vision Transformers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Touvron et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2022a). We prepend a learnable special token [I_CLS] to the sequence. The resulting image input representations are given by $\mathbf{H}^v = [\pmb{v}_{[I\_CLS]}, \pmb{v}_1, \dots, \pmb{v}_N] + \mathbf{V}_{pos}$ , where $\mathbf{H}^v \in \mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \times D}$ , $\mathbf{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{(P^2C) \times D}$ is a linear projection, $\mathbf{V}_{pos} \in \mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \times D}$ are learnable 1D position embeddings. + +To form image-text input representations, we concatenate image and text input vectors, resulting in + +$\mathbf{H}_0^{vl} = [\mathbf{H}_0^w;\mathbf{H}_0^v ]$ + +Backbone Network. The dense backbone network of VL-MoE is a shared multimodal Transformer, illustrated in Figure 1. To encode different modalities, we utilize a mixture-of-modality-experts (MoME) Transformer(Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), which takes image and text representations of monomodal data, as well as representations of image-text pairs as input. The MoME Transformer comprises multiple layers of blocks, each consisting of a multi-head self-attention layer and a feed-forward expert layer. While the self-attention module is shared across modalities, each feedforward expert layer contains a pool of modality-specific experts (V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN) that act as a substitute for the feed-forward network in standard Transformers. This allows for hard routing over the pool of feed-forward networks based on the modality of the input tokens. + +Conditional Computation with MoEs. The concept of conditional computation involves selectively activating different parts of a neural network based on the input (Bengio, 2013). One specific approach is to use a mixture-of-experts (MoE) model, where different "experts" handle different regions of the input space (Jacobs et al., 1991). In this paper, we adopt the MoE layer proposed in (Shazeer et al., 2017), which consists of $E$ experts and is defined as $\mathsf{M} \circ \mathbb{E}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{E} g(\boldsymbol{x})_i e_i(\boldsymbol{x})$ . Here, $\boldsymbol{x}$ is the input to the layer, $e_i: \mathbb{R}^D \mapsto \mathbb{R}^D$ is the function computed by expert $i$ , and $g: \mathbb{R}^D \mapsto \mathbb{R}^E$ is the "routing" function that determines the input-dependent weights for the experts. Both $e_i$ and $g$ are implemented as neural networks. Although this formulation still involves a dense network, it can be made sparse by restricting $g$ to assign only $k \ll E$ non-zero weights, thereby eliminating the computation of unused experts. This approach allows for super-linear scaling of the number of model parameters in both training and inference. + +VL-MoE. We apply sparse MoE to vision-language models in the context of the MoME. As illustrated in Figure 1, inputs from different modalities are routed to V-FFN and T-FFN in the first $(L - F)$ layers, and V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN in the last $F$ layers. To avoid instability due to modality input imbalance when applying MoEs to modal-agnostic VL + +modules in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), we only use MoE for V-FFN and T-FFN in the first $(L - F)$ layers. V-FFN and T-FFN have two layers and a GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity: $\mathrm{V} / \mathrm{T}\text{-}\mathrm{FFN}(\pmb {x}) = \mathbf{W}_2\sigma_{\mathrm{gel}}(\mathbf{W}_1\pmb {x})$ . For VL-MoE, we replace a subset of V-FFN and T-FFN with V-MoE and T-MoE layers, where each expert is an FFN with the same architecture $e_i(\mathbf{x}) = \mathrm{FFN}_{\theta_i}(\mathbf{x})$ but different weights $\theta_{i} = (\mathbf{W}_{1}^{i},\mathbf{W}_{2}^{i})$ . This design pattern is similar to that of GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) models. In V-MoE and T-MoE layers, each token $\pmb {x}\in \mathbb{R}^D$ is processed sparsely by $k$ out of $E$ available experts. To select which one, a lightweight V/T-Router predicts gating weights per token: $g(\pmb {x}) = \mathrm{softmax}(\mathbf{W}_g\pmb {x})\in \mathbb{R}^E$ where $\mathbf{W}_g\in \mathbb{R}^{D\times E}$ is learned. The $k$ activated experts' outputs are combined linearly according to the gating weights: MoE $(\pmb {x}) = \sum_{e = 1}^{k}g(\pmb {x})_e\cdot \mathrm{FFN}_e(\pmb {x})$ + +To ensure computational efficiency and implementation constraints, each expert in VL-MoE has a fixed buffer capacity, which determines the maximum number of tokens it can process. The assumption is that tokens are approximately balanced across experts. In case the capacity is exceeded, some tokens are not processed by the expert and are dropped, leading to a decrease in the success rate. This rate is a vital indicator of balanced routing and training stability. To mitigate this problem, we employ Batch Priority Routing (BPR) (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022), which selectively skips tokens based on their routing weights. BPR prioritizes tokens with larger routing weights, as they are deemed more informative. Our results show that BPR is crucial for stable training of VL-MoE. We further analyze token routing decisions in Section 5 and dropped tokens in Appendix. + +# 4 Experiment + +# 4.1 Pretraining Setup + +Pretraining Data. Our pretraining process uses both monomodal and multimodal data. The monomodal data comprises ImageNet-22K for images and English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015) for text. The multimodal data combines four datasets of imagedtext pairs: Conceptual Captions (Sharma et al., 2018), SBU Captions (Ordonez et al., 2011), COCO (Lin et al., 2014), and Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017), containing a total of 4 million images and 10 million imagedtext pairs. + +Pretraining Setting. For the large-size model, we employ a 24-layer Transformer network with 1024 hidden size and 24 attention heads, following VIT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a), and VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b). The use of VL-FFN starts at 20th layer. The base/small-size model is an 12/8-layer Transformer network with 768/384 hidden size and 12/6 attention heads, where VL-FFN is used in 10/8th layer. We randomly initialize the model parameters using the method + +described in BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The image resolution is set to $224 \times 224$ , and the patch size is $16 \times 16$ . The maximum sequence length for text is 96. We use a batch size of 6, 144 and train the model from scratch for 200k steps, which is equivalent to 40 epochs of the image-text pairs. Each batch contains 2,048 images, 2,048 texts, and 2,048 image-text pairs. We perform image augmentation using random resized cropping, horizontal flipping, and color jittering, following the same method as BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The text data is tokenized using a SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) tokenizer with a vocabulary size of 64k. We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with $\beta_{1} = 0.9$ and $\beta_{2} = 0.999$ to optimize the model. The peak learning rate is 2e-3, and we use linear warmup for the first 10,000 steps and cosine learning rate decay. The weight decay is 0.05, and we disable dropout and use stochastic depth (Huang et al., 2016) with a rate of 0.1. The three pretrain losses are equally weighted as in BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b). + +MoE Setting. For the default setting of MoEs in VL-MoEBASE/16E, we use $E = 16$ experts for T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively. All VL-MoEs activate $k = 1$ expert per token, similar to Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). We replace every second dense T-FFN or V-FFN sublayer with MoE sublayer following GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021). We use BPR for stability in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021). For auxiliary loss, we use loading loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-FFN's MoE and averaged loading loss and importance loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) for V-FFN's MoE. The combination ratio for auxiliary loss is set as 0.01 in all our experiments. We use 32 expert parallelism and TUTEL (Hwang et al., 2022) for fast routing and computation. All the models are based on DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020). Pre-training experiments are done on 32 Nvidia Tesla V100-32GB GPUs. Following ST-MoE (Zoph et al., 2022), we freeze all the MoE modules (router and expert network) during finetuning process. The capacity factor $C$ is set to be 1.05 during training and 1 during inference following (Riquelme et al., 2021). + +VL-MoE in Pretraining. We present the validation performance of VL-MoE on the three pretraining tasks across different scales. The results show that the cost-performance tradeoff of VL-MoE in terms of pretraining flops dominates the dense models by a wide margin, indicating that VL-MoE offers significant improvements across all scales, from SMALL/8E to LARGE/16E. We also provide a wall-clock time versus validation performance figure in the Appendix, which shows a similar scaling trend of VL-MoE. Thanks to careful kernel optimization and expert parallelism in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020), the maximum wall-clock overhead of VL-MoE $_{\text{LARGE}/16E}$ compared to dense counterparts can be reduced to only $13\%$ . + +![](images/38a1fabd52bd8a33d9ffac20c1147fb6744b317939ab6e7cd79ba8855571401e.jpg) +Expert 1 (eyes) + +![](images/3c4b9062572a209d6e4b4a6393af6bec37cca623df773d4a8578f67077f8fd6a.jpg) +Expert 7 (words) + +![](images/b5028371c406a69bea004c449b548cf123b89cbe21c219d4425940ed09e36809.jpg) +Expert 13 (ff&v) +(a) Vision Token Routing Decisions. + +![](images/2f5b7759d621422827801099b7bbe500a9cf4991c08e6250e04e8644ce580335.jpg) +(b) Language Token Routing Decisions. +Figure 3: Token routing decisions on COCO. Examples of vision tokens routing decisions and breakdown of language token routing decisions at the V/T-MoE layer placed in the 6-th encoder block -i.e. middle of the network for VL-MoELARGE/16E. + +
Model# Pretrained images# Pretrained Steps# Params per tokenVQANLVR2COCOFlickr30K
test-devtest-standarddevtest-PTRIRTRIR
Base-size models pretrained in the similar settings
UNITERBASE (Chen et al., 2020)4M200k86M72.7072.9177.1877.8564.450.385.972.5
VILLABASE (Gan et al., 2020)4M200k86M73.5973.6778.3979.30--86.674.7
UNIMOBASE (Li et al., 2021b)4M500K120M73.7974.02----89.774.7
ViLT (Kim et al., 2021a)4M200k120M71.26-75.7076.1361.542.783.564.4
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)4M240k210M74.5474.7080.2480.5073.156.894.382.8
VLMOBASE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k180M76.6476.8982.7783.3474.857.292.379.3
BEiT-3BASE*4M200k180M76.2176.7584.9385.7678.760.395.383.8
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k180M78.2178.6385.5286.7779.461.296.184.9
Pretained with more aggressive cost, including compute / data / model
VLMOLARGE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k560M79.9479.9885.6486.8678.260.695.384.5
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)14M800k210M75.8476.0482.5583.1477.660.795.985.6
BLIPLARGE (Li et al., 2022)129M1.26M427M78.2478.1782.4883.0881.964.397.387.3
SIMVLMBASE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M230M77.8778.1481.7281.77----
SIMVLMHUGE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M1.7B80.0380.3484.5385.15----
BEiT-3HUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)21M1M1.9B84.1984.0391.5192.5884.867.298.090.3
PALIHUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)1.6B1M17B84.3084.30------
BLIP2XL (Li et al., 2023b)129M250k4.1B81.5581.66--85.468.397.689.7
BEiT-3LARGE*4M200k560M78.1478.2385.2386.1579.261.495.784.1
VL-MoELARGE/16E4M200k560M79.9179.9586.2887.1479.962.396.585.3
+ +Table 1: Finetuning results of different models on vision-language classification tasks and image-text retrieval tasks. We report vqa-score on VQA test-dev and test-standard split, accuracy for NLVR2 development and public test set (test-P) and top-1 recall for image retrieval (IR) and text retrieval (TR). (* denotes the model that is reproduced by us and trained with the same setting as VL-MoE.) + +# 4.2 Vision-and-Language Downstream Tasks + +In our study, we explore the performance of VL-MoE on vision-and-language downstream tasks through fine-tuning experiments on three standard tasks: visual question answering (Goyal et al., 2017), natural language for visual reasoning (Suhr et al., 2019), and image-text retrieval (Plummer et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2014). Following BEiT-3, we use $480 \times 480$ image resolution for VQA fine-tuning and $384 \times 384$ for the other tasks. + +Visual Question Answering (VQA). For VQA, the task is to generate/choose the correct answer given a natural image and a question. Following previous work (Kim et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), we utilize the VQA 2.0 dataset (Goyal et al., 2017) and formulate it as a classification problem with 3, 129 most frequent answers. We finetune VL-MoE as a fusion network to encode both the image and question. We use the final encoding vector of the [T_CLS] token as the representation of the image-question pair, and feed that into a classifier layer to predict the label. + +Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2). + +Visual reasoning task aims to predict whether a text + +description is true about a pair of images. We use NLVR2 (Suhr et al., 2019) dataset for evaluation. Following OSCAR (Li et al., 2020), VinVL (Zhang et al., 2021) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we reformulate the triplet input into two image-text pairs, each containing the text description and one image. We use VL-MoE as a fusion network to jointly encode the image and text. The concatenated final vector of [T_CLS] token from the two pairs is then fed into a classification layer to predict the label. + +Image-Text Retrieval. For image-text retrieval, it contains both image-to-text retrieval and text-to-image retrieval for different target modalities. We use the widely used COCO (Lin et al., 2014) and Flickr30K (Plummer et al., 2015) datasets to evaluate the model, and adopt the Karpathy split (Karpathy and Fei-Fei, 2015) following common practices. Noted that in the architecture of VL-MoE and BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), it does not involve the image-text matching module as existing in CLIP (Radford et al., 2021). To enable image-text matching, we further fine-tune VL-MoE jointly with image-text contrastive and image-text matching with hard negative mining objectives as in VLMo (Bao et al., + +
ModelsPretrainingTasks
# Images# StepsImageNetMNLI-m
Vision Pretraining
V1TB/16300M500k83.6-
BE1TB/161.2M500k85.2-
V-MoEB/16-16E300M500k85.3-
Vision-Language Pretraining
SIMVLMBASE1.8B1M80.664.4
BEiT-3*BASE4M200k83.267.0
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k84.568.1
+ +Table 2: Results of base-size models on image classification (ImageNet-1K) and natural language inference (MNLI-m). We report top-1 accuracy for both. + +2022b) and BEIT-3. During inference, VL-MoE is used to encode images and text separately and compute the matching scores by the dot product of image and text vectors to obtain the top- $k$ candidates. + +Table 1 presents the results of our vision-language model on classification and retrieval tasks, including VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K. To ensure a fair comparison, we provide details on the amount of pretraining image-text pair data, pretraining steps, and the number of parameters per input token. Following LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), we define the number of parameters per input token as the number of parameters that the model applies to each image-text token pair. Notably, VL-MoELarge/16E contains 2 billion parameters in total, but only applies 560 million parameters per token. Additionally, all routers combined account for less than 0.5 million parameters. Our model outperforms previous large/base-size models on VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K by a significant margin, particularly when compared to a reproduced BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), which was pretrained using the same settings as VL-MoE. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, VL-MoE is the first to demonstrate that a mixture-of-experts architecture can successfully scale with a comparably modest architecture size and training counts, while achieving generalization performance on a range of tasks in the context of vision-language tasks. Interestingly, Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) struggles with generalization for language MoE, while V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) only evaluate on downstream vision tasks. Additionally, VL-MoE even outperforms VLMoLarge and ALBEF, which are pretrained with more image-text pair data and initialized from pretrained models, on COCO and Flickr30K and achieves competitive performance on VQA and NLVR2. We assume that this may be due to the fact that the capacity of VL-FFN has not been scaled in VL-MoE, as reflected in the pretraining plot in Figure 2 (the difference of VLM loss between VL-MoE and dense BEiT-3 model is smaller compared to that of MLM and MIM loss). We leave the scale of the VL-FFN module for future work, considering the increasing instability in modal-agnostic MoE architectures demonstrated in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). + +![](images/4c1310976f6af1b990d14dfeb0d5507d80dd655fc5b922797fcaf1e41fbcdb56.jpg) +Figure 4: Effect of auxiliary loss on training stability. + +# 4.3 Vision/Language-Only Downstream Tasks + +Image Classification. We use the image classification task to evaluate the model on the vision-only downstream task, where the objective of this task is to categorize an input image into its corresponding class. We employ the ILSVRC-2012 ImageNet dataset (Russakovsky et al., 2015), which consists of 1.3M images with 1k classes. Following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we perform average pooling over the final vectors and feed the resulting vector into a linear classifier layer to predict the label. + +Natural Language Inference. We use the natural language inference task to evaluate the model on the language-only downstream task. The task involves determining the relationship between two pieces of text. In this task, a model is given a premise sentence and a hypothesis sentence, and it needs to determine whether the hypothesis is true, false, or undetermined based on the information provided in the premise. We use Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) (Williams et al., 2018) dataset, which contains 433k sentence pairs annotated with textual entailment information. We evaluate on matched (MLM-m) setting only. + +As shown Table 2, we compare VL-MoE with two base-size vision Transformers and V-MoE-B/16-E16 on image classification. For BEiT, BEiT-3BASE and VL-MoEBASE/16E, we perform intermediate finetuning on ImageNet-22k to compare with ViT pretrained on ImageNet-22k. The model performs competitively with previous state-of-the-art supervised and self-supervised models on ImageNet-1k. Besides the dense counterpart BEiT-3BASE, VL-MoE also outperforms other strong vision-language models (SIMVLM) pretrained with more data and more steps on MNLI-m. + +# 5 Discussions + +We conduct ablation studies to analyze the contributions of Mixture-of-Experts module used in VL-MoE from different perspectives. We evaluate the models on visual reasoning (NLVR2), image-text retrieval (Flickr30k), image classification (ImageNet-1k) and natural language inference (MNLI-m). + +
Scaling StrategyNLVR2Flickr30kImageNet Acc@1MNLI-m AccAvg.
T-MoEV-MoEdevtest-PTR R@1IR R@1
[1]XX67.4268.2180.461.767.254.366.5
[2]✓X72.4272.7383.264.767.858.369.9
[3]X✓71.1972.2382.964.569.255.269.2
[4]✓✓72.9873.3484.765.369.058.170.6
+ +Scaling Strategy. In addition to scaling both T-FFN and V-FFN, we have also explored different scaling strategies by applying Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) modules for either T-FFN or V-FFN alone. The results of our experiments are presented in Table 3. Our findings indicate that scaling a single modality can improve the downstream performance on the corresponding modality as well as overall vision-language tasks. However, we observed that scaling both vision and language modalities leads to the most balanced performing model with $70.6\%$ averaged performance. This may be attributed to the fact that we employ three different pretraining objectives for each modality, and scaling each modality contributes to better optimization of the specific modality pretraining loss as well as the VLM loss. For further evidence, we include the pre-training loss in Appendix. + +Number of Experts. The optimal number of experts in Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) is still a topic of debate, as there is no agreement on the ideal number. Previous NLP research has experimented with a wide range of expert numbers, ranging from thousands in early studies (Shazeer et al., 2017; Fedus et al., 2021), to as low as 32 or 64 in more recent research (Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022), which has become the standard for vision models (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). In Figure 5, we investigate this further with VL-MoE, and our findings suggest that larger expert pools consistently yield performance improvements. + +Effects of the Auxiliary Losses. As previously mentioned, experts in MoEs have a fixed buffer capacity, and without intervention, top- $k$ MoEs tend to collapse, leading to poor performance as most tokens are dropped (Shazeer et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2022). To prevent this, prior research has employed auxiliary losses to promote balanced routing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Zoph et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Mustafa et al., 2022). However, as shown in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), in multimodal settings, new challenges emerge, such as modality misbalance, where one data type may be more prevalent than the other. We design VL-MoE in a modal-specific fashion to prevent the instability caused by imbalance of multimodal data and experiment with different auxiliary losses for V-MoE: loading balance loss (Shazeer et al., 2017), averaged loading balance and important loss ("vloss") (Riquelme et al., 2021), + +![](images/8f31d9e7ccdbe3297f3eeb925d465316f837533c2e00a070adf98a744216ab5c.jpg) +Figure 5: Effect of Experts Number. + +Table 3: Ablation studies of scaling strategies (all the results are based on VL-MoESMALL/E16 models). All the *MoE uses 16 experts (where T/V stands for applying MoE on the T/V-FFN). + +
ModelsSizeMethodsEfficiencyVal
#EParam/MemEPKNTPSSpeedupLoss
BEiT-180M/0.3G--1002.3-4.51
VL-MoE16180M/1.6GXX450.5×0.94.49
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓X685.0×1.44.50
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓✓887.5×1.84.48
VL-MoE8180M/0.3G✓✓911.5×1.44.51
VL-MoE16105M/0.3G✓✓1211.3×1.34.50
+ +Table 4: Efficiency results of base-size VL-MoE models with different optimizations. + +z-loss (Zoph et al., 2022)).1 We present the results on VL-MoESMALL/E16 in Figure 4, which suggest that Z-loss presents to hurt the vision-and-lanaguage pretraining of VL-MoE and using loading balance loss only will introduce unstable training and underperforming models. The "vloss" turns out to lead to most stable training, which is consistent with V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). BPR also helps in stabilizing training. + +Token Routing Examples in VL-MoE. In Figure 3, we provide a qualitative analysis of token routing decisions on COCO. For vision tokens, their specialization is clear, as they are routed to specific experts such as food and vegetable experts, eyes experts, OCR experts, etc. On the other hand, language tokens show signs of syntax specialization, with some experts processing mostly padding tokens, while others focus on nouns and adjectives (and some padding), excluding prepositions, determiners, or verbs. + +Efficiency In Table 4, we use one $\mathrm{V100\times 16}$ node for benchmarking the efficiency of VL-MoE with various optimizations. The EP stands for the expert parallelism provided in DeepSpeed library and KN denotes the specialized kernel fusing operation we implemented (expert dispatch as well as bias gelu fusion). From the table, we see that the throughput for the BEiT model is 1002.3 sample/s, while the optimized VL-MoE with EP and Kernel has a throughput of 887.5 sample/s with the same parameters per token, which add around $11\%$ overhead. Despite the latter being a more complex model, its throughput doesn't fall too short of the simpler BEiT. The Speedup column also suggests that with our optimizations, VL-MoE can even surpass BEiT to reach the same level of validation loss in terms of speed, given the same parameter per token size. It's also valuable to note that the naive implementation of VL-MoE without any optimization indeed incurs a wall-clock time loss and significant memory cost, as seen from the throughput value of 450.5 sample/s and around $5\times$ memory. + +Comparison with LIMoE. In LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), the single-modality MoE architecture and the employed contrastive loss are the two main building blocks. To directly compare the two components of multimodal LIMoE under our setting, we thoroughly experimented with optimizing either the single-modality MoE architecture or VL-MoE with contrastive or masked data modeling (MDM) loss. However, we found that the models fail to converge when optimizing the LIMoE architecture with the MDM loss, likely due to the fact that the MDM losses consist of three losses aiming for different modalities, which may exacerbate the modality imbalance problem and make it difficult to optimize MoEs even equipped with the entropy balancing loss in (Mustafa et al., 2022). + +Therefore, we focused on optimizing VL-MoE and LIMoE with the contrastive loss, as it yielded more stable results. However, it should be noted that while LIMoE uses 1.8B image-text pairs, our setting only has 4M. We then report the training and validation loss across steps by optimizing VL-MoE or LIMoE with the contrastive loss in Figure 8. The batch size is set to be $2k$ . From the zero-shot validation results, it can be seen that both models quickly overfit to the 4M image-text pairs, but the single modality MoE architecture in LIMoE inherits more instability. + +Furthermore, we use 4M data to enrich the experiments using contrastive loss with different model settings in Table 5. We can see that LIMoE seems to exhibit a trend where performance doesn't improve much or even decreases as the number of training steps increases (from 75k to 100k), especially in the 105M parameter setting. This could be a sign of overfitting, where the model is starting to fit the training data more closely but is not generalizing as well to the validation/test data. Increasing the number of experts for LIMoE does not lead to significant performance gains, especially in the 105M parameter setting. This might + +
ModelsSizeIN0shot
# Param# E50k75k100k
Contrastive Pretraining
DENSE105M-50.363.267.5
LIMOE105M853.762.962.0
LIMOE105M1654.663.162.1
VL-MoE105M855.264.268.3
VL-MoE105M1657.265.169.0
DENSE180M-60.170.378.2
LIMOE180M861.570.468.2
LIMOE180M1661.269.367.5
VL-MoE180M862.571.778.9
VL-MoE180M1663.272.479.5
+ +Table 5: Comparison between VL-MoE and LIMoE using contrastive loss. + +indicate that, at this data scale, the additional capacity introduced by more experts isn't effectively utilized. However, VL-MoE, with a higher number of experts, shows a better performance progression with increasing steps, suggesting a more efficient use of the additional capacity. VL-MoE consistently outperforms LIMoE in most settings, especially as we increase the number of training steps. This could be attributed to inherent architectural advantages or better synergy with the training objective. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we have explored the use of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for scaling vision-language models. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can be a promising technique for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of vision-language models. Specifically, we have shown that dividing a large vision-language model into smaller, specialized sub-models through MoE can achieve state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks while reducing computational costs. Our experiments have also shown that larger expert pools yield consistent performance improvements. Furthermore, we have explored the impact of MoE on model interpretability and found it can improve the interpretability of vision-language models by providing better insights into how the model processes different inputs. + +In conclusion, our findings suggest that MoE is a valuable technique for scaling vision-language models, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. Our work opens up new research directions for exploring the effectiveness of MoEs in other vision-language tasks, such as visual question answering, visual reasoning and image-text retrieval, and we hope our findings will inspire further investigations into this research area. + +# References + +Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel + +Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkowski, Ricardo Barreira, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Karen Simonyan. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. CoRR, abs/2204.14198. +Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, et al. 2023. Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390. +Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2023. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966. +Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022a. BEiT: BERT pre-training of image transformers. In ICLR. +Hangbo Bao, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Qiang Liu, Owais Khan Mohammed, Kriti Aggarwal, Subhojit Som, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Vlmo: Unified vision-language pre-training with mixture-of-modality-experts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Yoshua Bengio. 2013. Deep learning of representations: Looking forward. In Statistical Language and Speech Processing: First International Conference, SLSP 2013, Tarragona, Spain, July 29-31, 2013. Proceedings 1, pages 1-37. Springer. +Ke Chen, Lei Xu, and Huisheng Chi. 1999. Improved learning algorithms for mixture of experts in multiclass classification. Neural networks, 12(9):1229-1252. +Keqin Chen, Zhao Zhang, Weili Zeng, Richong Zhang, Feng Zhu, and Rui Zhao. 2023. Shikra: Unleashing multimodal llm's referential dialogue magic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15195. +Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794. +Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. UNITER: universal image-text + +representation learning. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-120. Springer. +Aidan Clark, Diego De Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Arthur Mensch, Michela Paganini, Jordan Hoffmann, Bogdan Damoc, Blake Hechtman, Trevor Cai, Sebastian Borgeaud, et al. 2022. Unified scaling laws for routed language models. In ICML, pages 4057-4086. PMLR. +Mark Collier, Efi Kokiopoulou, Andrea Gesmundo, and Jesse Berent. 2020. Routing networks with co-training for continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04381. +Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Instructclip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06500. +Andrew Davis and Itamar Arel. 2013. Low-rank approximations for conditional feedforward computation in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4461. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. preprint arXiv:2010.11929. +Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In ICML, pages 5547-5569. PMLR. +David Eigen, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Ilya Sutskever. 2013. Learning factored representations in a deep mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4314. +William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. CoRR, abs/2101.03961. + +Zhe Gan, Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Large-scale adversarial training for vision-and-language representation learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. +Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 6325-6334. IEEE Computer Society. +Hussein Hazimeh, Zhe Zhao, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Yihua Chen, Rahul Mazumder, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2021. Dselect-k: Differentiable selection in the mixture of experts with applications to multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual. +Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (GELUs). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415. +Gao Huang, Yu Sun, Zhuang Liu, Daniel Sedra, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2016. Deep networks with stochastic depth. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2016 - 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV, volume 9908 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 646-661. Springer. +Changho Hwang, Wei Cui, Yifan Xiong, Ziyue Yang, Ze Liu, Han Hu, Zilong Wang, Rafael Salas, Jithin Jose, Prabhat Ram, et al. 2022. Tutel: Adaptive mixture-of-experts at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03382. +Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87. +Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4904-4916. PMLR. +Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Deep visual-semantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015, pages 3128-3137. IEEE Computer Society. + +Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021a. ViLT: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5583-5594. PMLR. +Young Jin Kim, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Alexandre Muzio, Andres Felipe Cruz Salinas, Liyang Lu, Amr Hendy, Samyam Rajbhandari, Yuxiong He, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2021b. Scalable and efficient moe training for multitask multilingual models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10465. +Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. +Jing Yu Koh, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Daniel Fried. 2023. Grounding language models to images for multimodal generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13823. +Aran Komatsuzaki, Joan Puigcerver, James Lee-Thorp, Carlos Riquelme Ruiz, Basil Mustafa, Joshua Ainslie, Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Sparse upcycling: Training mixture-of-experts from dense checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05055. +Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 123(1):32-73. +Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sneha Kudugunta, Yanping Huang, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, Minh-Thang Luong, and Orhan First. 2021. Beyond distillation: Task-level mixture-of-experts for efficient inference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3577-3599. +Hugo Laurencon, Lucile Saulnier, Léo Tronchon, Stas Bekman, Amanpreet Singh, Anton Lozhkov, Thomas Wang, Siddharth Karamcheti, Alexander M Rush, Douwe Kiela, et al. 2023. Obelisc: An open web-scale filtered dataset of interleaved image-text documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16527. +Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan First, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020. + +Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668. +Mike Lewis, Shruti Bhosale, Tim Dettmers, Naman Goyal, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. BASE layers: Simplifying training of large, sparse models. In ICML. PMLR. +Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Jinghao Wang, Jingkang Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2023a. Otter: A multi-modal model with in-context instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03726. +Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023b. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597. +Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023c. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597. +Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In ICML, pages 12888-12900. PMLR. +Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021a. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705. +Lianian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. CoRR, abs/1908.03557. +Wei Li, Can Gao, Guocheng Niu, Xinyan Xiao, Hao Liu, Jiachen Liu, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021b. UNIMO: towards unified-modal understanding and generation via cross-modal contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2592-2607. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Oscar: Object-semantics aligned pre-training for vision-language tasks. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 121-137. Springer. +Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jianwei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023d. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. CVPR. + +Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 - 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V, volume 8693 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 740-755. Springer. +Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023a. Visual instruction tuning. +Haotian Liu, Kilho Son, Jianwei Yang, Ce Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Yong Jae Lee, and Chunyuan Li. 2023b. Learning customized visual models with retrieval-augmented knowledge. CVPR. +Yuxuan Lou, Fuzhao Xue, Zangwei Zheng, and Yang You. 2021. Cross-token modeling with conditional computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02008. +Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. ViLBERT: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 13-23. +Jiaqi Ma, Zhe Zhao, Xinyang Yi, Jilin Chen, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2018. Modeling task relationships in multi-task learning with multi-gate mixture-of-experts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018. ACM. +Basil Mustafa, Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Rodolphe Jenatton, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Multimodal contrastive learning with limoe: the language-image mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02770. +Vicente Ordonez, Girish Kulkarni, and Tamara L. Berg. 2011. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011. Proceedings of a meeting held 12-14 December 2011, Granada, Spain, pages 1143-1151. +Zhiliang Peng, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Qixiang Ye, and Furu Wei. 2022. Beit v2: Masked image modeling with vector-quantized visual tokenizers. ArXiv, abs/2208.06366. +Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma, and Furu Wei. 2023. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14824. +Bryan A. Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M. Cervantes, Juan C. Caicedo, Julia Hockenmaier, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2015. Flickr30k entities: Collecting + +region-to-phrase correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015, Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015, pages 2641-2649. IEEE Computer Society. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 8748-8763. PMLR. +Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506. +Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Basil Mustafa, Maxim Neumann, Rodolphe Jenatton, André Susano Pinto, Daniel Keysers, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. Scaling vision with sparse mixture of experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Stephen Roller, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Hash layers for large sparse models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual. +Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV. +Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2556-2565. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc V. Le, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net. +Sheng Shen, Le Hou, Yanqi Zhou, Nan Du, Shayne Longpre, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Barret Zoph, William Fedus, Xinyun Chen, et al. 2023. Mixture-of-experts meets instruction tuning: A winning combination for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14705. + +Sheng Shen, Chunyuan Li, Xiaowei Hu, Yujia Xie, Jianwei Yang, Pengchuan Zhang, Zhe Gan, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Ce Liu, et al. 2022a. K-lite: Learning transferable visual models with external knowledge. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022b. How much can clip benefit vision-and-language tasks? In ICLR. +Amanpreet Singh, Ronghang Hu, Vedanuj Goswami, Guillaume Couairon, Wojciech Galuba, Marcus Rohrbach, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. FLAVA: A foundational language and vision alignment model. CoRR, abs/2112.04482. +Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2020. VL-BERT: pretraining of generic visual-linguistic representations. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. +Alane Suhr, Stephanie Zhou, Ally Zhang, Iris Zhang, Huajun Bai, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. A corpus for reasoning about natural language grounded in photographs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28-August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 6418-6428. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhiqing Sun, Sheng Shen, Shengcao Cao, Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yikang Shen, Chuang Gan, LiangYan Gui, Yu-Xiong Wang, Yiming Yang, et al. 2023. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14525. +Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. LXMERT: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5099-5110. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. 2020. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. preprint arXiv:2012.12877. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. CoRR, abs/2202.03052. + +Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2022b. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for all vision and vision-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10442. + +Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2022c. SimVLM: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. In ICLR. + +Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. + +Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. 2023. MPLug-owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178. + +Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. CoRR, abs/2205.01917. + +Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision. CoRR, abs/2111.11432. + +Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaowei Hu, Jianwei Yang, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. VinVL: Revisiting visual representations in vision-language models. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021, pages 5579-5588. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE. + +Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Y Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, and James Laudon. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. + +Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592. + +Jinguo Zhu, Xizhou Zhu, Wenhai Wang, Xiaohua Wang, Hongsheng Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2022. Uni-perceiver-moe: Learning sparse generalist models with conditional moes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04674. + +Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 19-27. + +Barret Zoph, Irwan Bello, Sameer Kumar, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Jeff Dean, Noam Shazeer, and William Fedus. 2022. St-moe: Designing stable and transferable sparse expert models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08906. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Further Analyses + +"Dropped" Tokens. In MoE training, the issue of "Dropped Tokens" is inherited (Lepikhin et al., 2020; Shazeer et al., 2017; Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022) and caused by the limited capacity of each MoE expert, which can lead to instability. To provide a detailed analysis of this issue, we present Figure 6, which illustrates the distribution of dropped tokens in VL-MoEBASE/16E across different pre-training tasks. The figure shows that MLM and MIM tasks exhibit a more balanced distribution of tokens compared to VLM task, which may explain the improved performance of using MoEs in the former two pre-training tasks, as depicted in Figure 2. Additionally, the problem of dropped imag tokens is more severe compared to dropped text tokens, which aligns with the results of different scaling strategies presented in Section 5 and the findings in (Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021). + +Pretrain Losses for Different Scaling Strategies. We additionally report the effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps in Figure 7. The results support our hypothesis that using three distinct pretraining objectives for each modality and scaling each modality leads to improved optimization of both the specific modality pretraining loss and the VLM loss. + +Additional Results We conduct experiments using COCO captions following (Wang et al., 2022b), where VL-MoE achieves 139.2 for CIDEr and 23.1 for SPICE, which outperforms the BEiT-3 with 137.5 for CIDer and 22.7 for SPICE using base-size. We also observe interesting routing specialization when generating the final word "cake" considering the T-MoE in VL-MoE in Figure 3. "NN: lady" and "NN: slicing" route to experts 1 and 13 respectively. "DT: A, a" both route to expert 1. "JJ: hairnet, big" route to expert 7. These routings underscore the inherent nature of expert specialization in the VL-MoE model, potentially highlighting its advantages. + +![](images/c34426cce350674377620257877825c155b8c5d51d55521c80cb9949ab38be7d.jpg) + +![](images/219242aa58af5093846c3edeb366985cdb08779b73e0b2a083a221a5322a6a00.jpg) +(a) MLM T-MoE Layer 2 + +![](images/1c4c723af43e44c5044be69cc363892e4b8cba9269843c5bfc34482b4bcc5bed.jpg) +(b) MLM T-MoE Layer 4 + +![](images/f7948df063e7287ec0fbbbc3b2789a5db8829c24b1c2b70e44fd49734db9572a.jpg) +(c) MLM T-MoE Layer 6 + +![](images/eda34c99e4fc86f2400301b080452130c6430d056969cf9ccc555dcbb4c9fcd8.jpg) +(d) MLM T-MoE Layer 8 + +![](images/80dee4f70198880a05eeb1da6fee3dda8113cc3ce4d6a47b7d05dd5252c7b8ad.jpg) +(e) MIM V-MoE Layer 2 + +![](images/e2f779b7f63fbf783d21313644972626fbf0f8b74f684502823c298efeac6c1a.jpg) +(f) MIM V-MoE Layer 4 + +![](images/b72afd77f60c741379811192082c6b6ba53898539eca649ad795fa6467339942.jpg) +(g) MIM V-MoE Layer 6 + +![](images/1ccc515c5c7bbb88c0b4721addb824643930639ff61ecd9fb4781bd812b6712a.jpg) +(h) MIM V-MoE Layer 8 + +![](images/436157cd0fb41f5088d3d645cdf946a207c3533e25acbe48b125562dc17a2076.jpg) +(i) VLM T-MoE Layer 2 + +![](images/ea280645df667facd5408552e35606461bb2418e59ee3ad8e48d0db44ee891e4.jpg) +(j) VLM T-MoE Layer 4 + +![](images/9da41d0f04ee73b7f471329da0ae186e82d105ebffff4b41754b91f6db508411.jpg) +(k) VLM T-MoE Layer 6 + +![](images/7c59c1aabc26f0f7fedf0227aaed3650eb2f5165cb2efcb984817ee027ab0886.jpg) +(1) VLM T-MoE Layer 8 + +![](images/89fb9765576679daa95356c4da0fea68d9d605161830c1398ab54035b892becd.jpg) +(m) VLM V-MoE Layer 2 + +![](images/26390e017d0db92d43f19e25f92148f132964fff55c82dab485ce575ca208321.jpg) +(n) VLM V-MoE Layer 4 + +![](images/5a81641e55ed4aea4402d94137728f844147896588adaa55f7a8c82726c07e07.jpg) +(o) VLM V-MoE Layer 6 + +![](images/fa56134f652b52d3ce010b409c28ad66bf511902874b136a1da259d879714cf3.jpg) +(p) VLM V-MoE Layer 8 + +![](images/96af670258743644300dfb7b15a9d6a57f110617f805601639413b7864eb6896.jpg) +Figure 6: "Dropped" Token analyses for VL-MoE $_{\text{LARGE}/16\text{E}}$ with three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks. Above the dashed line denotes the ratio of tokens that exceed the expert capacity and will be dropped. + +![](images/14428333ee087e290a45c1ed42980118481db95736cc7bded329e894f47a618d.jpg) +(a) Total Validation Loss + +![](images/50feb3b54f745f806e2c30a9064c3ee23ee458820d998460c8ddec5f6bc3ba21.jpg) +(b) MLM Validation Loss + +![](images/cbf52f5f7e0512595186e9411828b3c56b01f779350ad7165b3e5a9113035be7.jpg) +Figure 7: Effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps. + +![](images/39fd03dafaa53cf41431f5a24339f067a87524ab44dd588d5998b689d50d0d8e.jpg) +(c) VLM Validation Loss +(d) MIM Validation Loss + +# A.2 Hyperparameter + +Visual Question Answering (VQA). We fine-tune the base/large-size models for 10 epochs with 128 + +batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5. Following VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b), the input image resolution is $480 \times 480$ . + +![](images/b79c1ffe01738bf7056b5f3ca7ee8e5b2367371d15cd159fdb42cd534ea1438f.jpg) +(a) Contrastive Train Loss + +![](images/01b8184867f3b0f04a1d24c920d0bf03bc3a6c0ca66421044b00c49658a8d42b.jpg) +Figure 8: Comparison of Dense, VL-MoE, and LIMoE on contrastive pre-training task across training steps. + +![](images/40688537b2ce4f469121cef663c1e9536f687565483d594be87e19ae7c632229.jpg) +(b) Contrastive Validation Loss +(c) ImageNet 0shot Acc + +Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2). For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 10 epochs with 128 batch size. The peak learning rate of the base-size models is set to 5e-5. The input image resolution is $384 \times 384$ . For ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 128 batch size, and choose learning rates from $\{5e - 5, 1e - 4\}$ . The input image resolution is $224 \times 224$ . All the ablation results of NLVR2 are averaged over 3 runs. + +COCO. We fine-tune the base/large-size model for 20 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 2e-5 and the input image resolution is $384 \times 384$ . + +Flickr30K. For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 40 epochs with a batch size of 2048 and a peak learning rate of 1e-5. We use the fine-tuned model on COCO as the initialization. The input image resolution is $384 \times 384$ . For all ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 1024 batch size. The peak learning rate is set to 5e-5, and the input image resolution is $224 \times 224$ . + +ImageNet-1k. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with V-MoE and V-FFN only for 15 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5 and the input image resolution is $384 \times 384$ . + +MNLI. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with T-MoE and T-FFN only for 10 epochs with 32 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5. + +# A.3 Formula of Auxiliary Loss + +Given a token $\pmb{x} \in \mathbb{R}^D$ , we denote by $g(\pmb{x}) = \text{softmax}(\pmb{W}\pmb{x}) \in \mathbb{R}^E$ the gating weights across the $E$ experts, with $\pmb{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{E \times D}$ being the routing parameters. When we deal with a batch of multiple tokens $\{\pmb{x}_i\}_{i=1}^n$ , we use the notation $\pmb{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times D}$ . + +Importance loss. We follow the definition from (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). The importance loss $\Omega_{\mathrm{imp}}$ ensures that the gating weights are evenly distributed among the experts, maintaining a balanced profile. For any expert $e \in \{1, \dots, E\}$ , we have + +$$ +\operatorname {i m p} _ {e} (X) = \sum_ {\boldsymbol {x} \in X} g (\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e} +$$ + +and the loss $\Omega_{\mathrm{imp}}$ is defined via the squared coefficient of variation for $\mathrm{imp}(\pmb {X}) = \{\mathrm{imp}_e(\pmb {X})\}_{e = 1}^E$ + +$$ +\Omega_ {\mathrm {i m p}} (\boldsymbol {X}) = \left(\frac {\operatorname {s t d} (\operatorname {i m p} (\boldsymbol {X}))}{\operatorname {m e a n} (\operatorname {i m p} (\boldsymbol {X}))}\right) ^ {2}. +$$ + +Load loss. Like previously, we follow (Riquelme et al., 2021). We assume the gating weights $g_{\mathrm{noisy}}(\pmb{x})$ are obtained by perturbing the routing function with noise, i.e., $g_{\mathrm{noisy}}(\pmb{x}) = \mathrm{softmax}(\pmb{W}\pmb{x} + \varepsilon)$ with $\varepsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0}, \sigma^2\mathbf{I})$ and $\sigma = 1 / E$ . We denote $\eta_k$ the $k$ -th largest entry of $\pmb{W}\pmb{x} + \varepsilon$ . The importance loss $\Omega_{\mathrm{imp}}$ aims to balance the selection probability of experts by focusing on the likelihood of choosing them, as assigning tasks to experts is a discrete process. The load loss $\Omega_{\mathrm{load}}$ complements this by striving to even out the number of assignments among the experts. To calculate the selection probability, the expert $e \in \{1,\dots ,E\}$ is assumed to be among the top- $k$ even when resampling only the noise as + +$$ +p _ {e} (\boldsymbol {x}) = 1 - \Phi \left(\frac {\eta_ {k} - (\boldsymbol {W} \boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}}{\sigma}\right) +$$ + +with $\Phi$ the cumulative distribution function of a Gaussian distribution. The load loss $\Omega_{\mathrm{load}}$ is eventually defined by + +$$ +\Omega_ {\mathrm {l o a d}} (\boldsymbol {X}) = \left(\frac {\operatorname {s t d} (\operatorname {l o a d} (\boldsymbol {X}))}{\operatorname {m e a n} (\operatorname {l o a d} (\boldsymbol {X}))}\right) ^ {2} +$$ + +where $\mathrm{load}(\mathbf{X}) = \{\mathrm{load}_e(\mathbf{X})\}_{e = 1}^E$ + +$$ +\operatorname {l o a d} _ {e} (\boldsymbol {X}) = \sum_ {\boldsymbol {x} \in \boldsymbol {X}} p _ {e} (\boldsymbol {x}). +$$ + +Z-loss. The z-loss $\Omega_{\mathrm{zloss}}$ introduced in (Zoph et al., 2022) aims at controlling the maximum magnitude of the router activations $A = \{\pmb {W}\pmb {x}_i\}_{i = 1}^n\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times E}$ with entries $a_{i,e} = (\pmb {W}\pmb {x}_i)_e$ . The loss is defined by + +$$ +\Omega_ {\mathrm {z l o s s}} (\boldsymbol {X}) = \frac {1}{n} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \left(\log \left(\sum_ {e = 1} ^ {E} \exp (a _ {i, e})\right)\right) ^ {2}. +$$ + +v-loss. The notation "v-loss" we used in Section 5 is essentially the final employed loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), where $\Omega_{\mathrm{vloss}}(\mathbf{X}) = 0.5*\Omega_{\mathrm{imp}}(\mathbf{X}) + 0.5*$ $\Omega_{\mathrm{load}}(\mathbf{X})$ \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/images.zip b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b75f51053377374c188a64bbe3295e9c23140801 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:399930293ec52fa0030f2524b3ed217e340a1ddbe14ccbd1da58fe7488947591 +size 796496 diff --git a/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/layout.json b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93878da40c9c640cb227caba0968ad579abc0886 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,12938 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 75, + 496, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 75, + 496, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 75, + 496, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling Vision-Language Models with Sparse Mixture of Experts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 114, + 416, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 114, + 416, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 114, + 416, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Shen†§* Zhewei Yao‡* Chunyuan Li‡* \nTrevor Darrell† Kurt Keutzer† Yuxiong He‡" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 144, + 368, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 144, + 368, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 144, + 368, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "†UC Berkeley ‡Microsoft" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 159, + 445, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 159, + 445, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 159, + 445, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sheng.s@berkeley.edu, {zheweiyao,chunyl}@microsoft.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 211, + 204, + 223 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 211, + 204, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 211, + 204, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The field of natural language processing (NLP) has made significant strides in recent years, particularly in the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs). These models aim to bridge the gap between text and visual information, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of multimedia data. However, as these models become larger and more complex, they also become more challenging to train and deploy. One approach to addressing this challenge is the use of sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts (MoE) techniques, which divide the model into smaller, specialized sub-models that can jointly solve a task. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of MoE in scaling vision-language models, demonstrating its potential to achieve state-of-the-art performance on a range of benchmarks over dense models of equivalent computational cost. Our research offers valuable insights into stabilizing the training of MoE models, understanding the impact of MoE on model interpretability, and balancing the trade-offs between compute performance when scaling VLMs. We hope our work will inspire further research into the use of MoE for scaling large-scale vision-language models and other multimodal machine learning applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 581, + 155, + 594 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 581, + 155, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 581, + 155, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ability to understand and generate natural language from visual information is a critical component of many real-world applications, including visual question answering (VQA), visual reasoning, and multimodal information retrieval. In recent years, the success of deep learning in natural language processing (NLP) has led to the development of large-scale vision-language models (VLMs) (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021b; Gan et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Alayrac et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022c; Shen et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2021a; Shen et al., 2022a; Jia et al., 2021; Li et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2022; Yu et al., 2022) that leverage powerful neural network architectures to encode and decode multimodal information. However, state-of-the-art vision-language models like Flamingo-80B (Alayrac et al., 2022), BEiT-3-1.9B (Wang et al., 2022b), and PaLI-17B (Chen et al., 2022) can be computationally expensive and difficult to train, which has motivated researchers to explore ways of improving their efficiency and effectiveness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, sparsely activated Mixture of Experts (MoE) models have been successfully employed to scale both vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and text models (Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022). These models are motivated by the need to increase model parameters while controlling compute costs. In addition, these models provide other advantages, including sparsity that can mitigate catastrophic forgetting in continual learningg (Collier et al., 2020; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022), and an inductive bias that can enhance performance in multitask learningg (Ma et al., 2018; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021b). Overall, the use of MoEs has proven to be a promising strategy for scaling deep learning models across various domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 526, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 526, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 494, + 526, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Building on the success of MoEs in individual domains and applying the intuition that sparse models may better handle different tasks versus dense counterparts, we investigate the potential of MoEs for vision-language modeling. To this end, we take the first step in this direction and explore models that can process both images and text for vision-language tasks. One similar effort has been studied in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), where the authors proposed a modal-agnostic CLIP-style (Radford et al., 2021) multimodal MoEs architecture, but their focus is mainly on the contrastive pre-training objective and vision-only downstream tasks. There are two limitations in this setting: (1) The increasing model capacity of MoEs under the simple contrastive objective can easily lead to over-fitting issues. (2) The vision-only benchmarking does not reveal the full power of scaling up multimodal models. Alternatively, our goal is to demonstrate the effectiveness of MoEs under generative modeling for vision-language tasks and provide a more comprehensive foundation for future research in this area." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 748, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 748, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 748, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we propose a novel VLM architecture that employs MoE to scale both the text-based and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* equal contribution; § work initiated during an internship at Microsoft. Code is available at https://vlmoe.github.io." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11329" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 469, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 469, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 469, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11329-11344 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 51, + 176, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 51, + 176, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 51, + 176, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 51, + 176, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3e64c17dba7b3e08f04cceaf4a8f0ca0a464cd03997769d2c3fa7ba99e5fec44.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 167, + 171, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 167, + 171, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 167, + 171, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Encode Image Only" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 178, + 51, + 288, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 51, + 288, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 51, + 288, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 51, + 288, + 164 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "459431eb0a153edec4c347667843c8f8679dc07d9df4683acfe27324912fc76d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 166, + 279, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 166, + 279, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 166, + 279, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Encode Text Only" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 52, + 402, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 52, + 402, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 52, + 402, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 52, + 402, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ff3a09da151cc6cf14ba27ffc31dad0f028ae0ac7cfebe3fc24f827b7b2b9d25.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 167, + 409, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 167, + 409, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 167, + 409, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Encode Image-Text Pair" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 525, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 525, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 525, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The encoding process of VL-MoE for various modality inputs, for which gray and colored blocks indicate non-activated and activated modules, respectively. (a) For image input only, the encoding process switches to V-MoE or V-FFN (b) For text input only, the encoding process switches T-MoE or T-FFN. (c) For image-Text Pair input, the encoding process switches, V-MoE & T-MoE and VL-FFN. (d) For the early layers, we scale the V-FFN and T-FFN with Sparse Mixture-of-Experts as V-MoE and T-MoE, respectively. VL-MoE will utilize conditional computation to allocate tokens in a modality-specific fashion. V/T-MoE converts multiple V/T-FFNs as experts, where the image/text input will be conditionally routed by V/T-Router Network." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 47, + 525, + 162 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 47, + 525, + 162 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 47, + 525, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 47, + 525, + 162 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6b148b5057d3bbae8cbe5ecb5fca7828ef28089344c5094271e9424a3c6a2b1a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 167, + 516, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 167, + 516, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 430, + 167, + 516, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) V-MoE & T-MoE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 290, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "vision-based feed-forward networks (T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively) in a unified framework. Our approach divides the model into multiple sub-models, each of which is responsible for processing a modal-specific subset of the input data. The text and vision input representations are then aligned via three mask data modeling objectives (Wang et al., 2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train a range of VL-MoE models and evaluate the model on vision-language classification, vision-language retrieval, vision-only and language-only tasks. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of VLMs, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. We scale BASE-size model up to a 1.8B parameter VL-MoE" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{LARGE}/16\\text{E}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which only applies 560M parameters per token and achieves competitive performance with dense models that make use of similar or more pre-training image-text pair data and apply " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 - 4 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " more parameters per token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 261, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 261, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 503, + 261, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 516, + 290, + 678 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 516, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 516, + 290, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 516, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose VL-MoE, the first large-scale generative MoEs multimodal models for vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 561, + 290, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 561, + 290, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 561, + 290, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We explore various scaling strategies, including increasing dense model size, increasing expert numbers, and scaling either T-FFN or V-FFN alone, to investigate the trade-offs between model complexity and performance on various downstream tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 643, + 290, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 643, + 290, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 643, + 290, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We present ablations to understand VL-MoE model's behavior, interpretability, and our design choices." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 160, + 703 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 160, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 160, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 713, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 713, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 713, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vision-Language Modeling. Vision-language pretraining (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Lu et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Radford et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022c; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022a;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alayrac et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2022b,a; Yuan et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023b) involves developing model architecture and pretraining objectives to learn effective multimodal representations from large-scale image-text pairs. Two main approaches are encoding distinct modalities separately with different encoders." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For model architecture, there are two main designs. The first design, utilized by models such as (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021) separately encodes each modality with different encoders. While this approach performs well for image-text retrieval tasks, it struggles with complex vision-language tasks like visual reasoning. The second design, employed by models like (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Li et al., 2021a; Lu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Chen et al., 2022; Alayrac et al., 2022), uses a complex fusion module with cross-modal attention to combine modalities. However, this design sacrifices efficiency for improved performance. Recently, a new design has emerged with the MOME Transformer used in both VLMo and BEiT-3. This design unifies the dual-encoder and fusion-encoder models by introducing a mixture-of-modality-experts technique. With MOME, various modalities are encoded within a shared Transformer block, allowing for improved scalability and achieving state-of-the-art performance on vision-language tasks. There is an increasing interest to grow the VL model capacity with an affordable compute budget, including MoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and the injection of new trainable modules on pre-trained models (Alayrac et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022a; Liu et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023d,b; Koh et al., 2023); the former remains less studied." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For pretraining objectives, multiple cross-modal pretraining objectives have been studied. They can be categorized into two classes: (1) Discriminative modeling, including image-text contrastive learning (Radford et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021), image-text matching (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Kim et al., 2021a; Li et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b) and word-patch/region alignment (Chen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11330" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a); (2) Generative modeling, including masked language modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019; Su et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021a) or prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c), masked region modeling (Tan and Bansal, 2019), multimodal prefix language modeling (Wang et al., 2022c). Recently, BEiT-3 shows strong scaling results by unifying the generative multimodal pretraining objective with masked data modeling, which comprises masked image modeling and masked language modeling on the monomodal encoders and masked multimodal modeling on the multimodal encoder. In this paper, we perform MoE study, by adopting the MoME Transformer as the backbone dense network and generative (masked data) modeling as pretraining objectives given its simplicity and scaling ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "More recently, with the introduce of LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), PaLI's research (Chen et al., 2022) focused on the scaling of V&L components, while PaLM-E explored the embodied domain more deeply. BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023c) introduced the innovative Q-former to bridge image and language encoders, and this was further enhanced by InstructBLIP (Dai et al., 2023). Otter (Li et al., 2023a) augmented the instruction-following capabilities of OpenFlamingo (Laurençon et al., 2023; Alayrac et al.; Awadalla et al., 2023). Both MiniGPT-4 (Zhu et al., 2023) and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023a; Sun et al., 2023) draw inspiration from GPT4's capabilities but place emphasis on the efficiency and integration of visual and linguistic models. In a fresh approach, mPLUG-Owl (Ye et al., 2023) first aligns visual features and subsequently fine-tunes the language model using LoRA. Shikra (Chen et al., 2023) and Kosmos (Peng et al., 2023) leverage grounded imagetext pairs during their training process. Lastly, QWenvL (Bai et al., 2023) made notable strides in scaling LMM pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sparse Mixture of Experts models. We build upon the concept of deep sparse MoEs, which have been studied independently in both Computer Vision (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022) and Natural Language Processing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022; Shazeer et al., 2017; Lepikhin et al., 2020; Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022; Zoph et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Komatsuzaki et al., 2022; Kudugunta et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2023) in the context of conditional computation. The goal of conditional computation is to increase the number of model parameters without a proportional increase in computational cost, which is achieved by selectively activating only relevant parts of the model based on input-dependent factors (Bengio, 2013; Chen et al., 1999; Davis and Arel, 2013). MoE models use a learned gating mechanism that activates only a subset of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " experts out of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E \\gg k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for a given input, allowing an input to select either all experts (Eigen et al., 2013) or only a sparse mixture thereof, as in recent massive language models (Fedus et al., 2021; Du et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While many works aim to improve the gating mechanism itself (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022), MoE models have also been studied for multitask learning (Hazimeh et al., 2021; Kudugunta et al., 2021) with per-task routers (Ma et al., 2018), although a shared pool of experts is typically used." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MoE models have been explored for multimodal learning as well, with LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) and Uni-MoE (Zhu et al., 2022) being most relevant to our work. However, LIMoE considers the CLIP-style contrast as the pre-training objective, and vision/retrieval tasks as the downstream evaluation. Uni-MoE focuses on routing decisions with limited experts and evaluates on caption/vision/language/retrieval tasks. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed VL-MoE is the first the MoE scaling study to consider the generalized generative modeling objective in the VL pre-training, and we evaluate its scaling performance in a more comprehensive manner, including vision/language-only, as well as vision-and-language tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 334, + 365, + 347 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 334, + 365, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 334, + 365, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first describe the masked data modeling pretraining objectives. We next discuss MoEs, sparse MoEs and present how we apply sparse MoEs methodology to vision-language models, before explaining our design choices for the routing algorithm and the implementation of VL-MoE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 503, + 451 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 503, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 503, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Vision-Language Masked Data Modeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We utilized a unified masked data modeling objective (Wang et al., 2022b) to pretrain VL-MoE on monomodal (i.e., images and texts) and multimodal data (i.e., image-text pairs). This approach has been demonstrated to be scaling-friendly with small batch-sizes. Our pretraining process involved masked image modeling on monomodal image data, masked language modeling on monomodal text data, and masked vision-language modeling on multimodal image-text pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Masked Language Modeling We use masked language modeling (MLM) to learn language representations from large-scale text-only data. For MLM, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of tokens in monomodal text data are randomly masked, and the model is trained to recover the masked tokens from the corrupted input text. Masked tokens are replaced by a [MASK] token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the time, a random token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the time, and kept the original tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 572, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the time, following BERT (Devlin et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Masked Image Modeling In addition to masked language modeling, VL-MoE uses masked image modeling (MIM) to learn vision representations from large-scale image data. For MIM, block-wise masking is applied to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of image patches, and the pretraining objective is to reconstruct the discrete visual tokens of masked patches, following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The im" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11331" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 517, + 180 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 517, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 517, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 517, + 180 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c6b90d0cea3e19ec42fa7fc7c5e030e1611298846cedba0ff7bc9b7ab42d6473.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 525, + 214 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 525, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 525, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Effect of VL-MoE scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training flops." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 289, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 289, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 289, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "age tokenizer of BEiTv2 (Peng et al., 2022) is used to obtain the discrete tokens as the reconstructed targets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 289, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Masked Vision-Language Modeling To learn aligned vision-language representation, we use masked vision-language modeling (VLM), which extends masked language modeling and masked image modeling to multimodal data. The task aims at recovering masked image patches and text tokens based on visual and linguistic clues. In VLM, text tokens (with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " mask ratio) are randomly masked as in MLM, and the model is trained to recover the masked text tokens based on the joint image-text representations. Image patches are also masked with the same ratio as in MIM, and the corresponding visual tokens are predicted based on the image-text pair. The VLM task further encourages the model to learn alignments between image and text pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 188, + 463 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 188, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 188, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 VL-MoE Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 290, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input Representation. To obtain text representations, the input text is tokenized and projected onto word embeddings \\(\\{\\pmb{w}_i\\}_{i=1}^M\\), where \\(M\\) is the length of the tokenized text sequence. Two special tokens, a start-of-sequence token ([T_CLS]) and a special boundary token ([T_SEP]), are added to the sequence. Text representations are obtained by summing the word embeddings and text position embeddings, resulting in \\(\\mathbf{H}^w = [\\pmb{w}_{[T\\_CLS]}, \\pmb{w}_1, \\dots, \\pmb{w}_M, \\pmb{w}_{[T\\_SEP]}\\] + \\(\\mathbf{T}_{pos}\\)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For image representations, the input 2D image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{v} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{H \\times W \\times C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is split and reshaped into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N = HW / P^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " patches " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{v}^p \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times (P^2C)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of channels, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(H,W)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is height and width of the input image, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the patch size. These patches are then flattened into vectors and linearly projected to obtain patch embeddings following vision Transformers (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020; Touvron et al., 2020; Bao et al., 2022a). We prepend a learnable special token [I_CLS] to the sequence. The resulting image input representations are given by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}^v = [\\pmb{v}_{[I\\_CLS]}, \\pmb{v}_1, \\dots, \\pmb{v}_N] + \\mathbf{V}_{pos}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}^v \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \\times D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{V} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(P^2C) \\times D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a linear projection, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{V}_{pos} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{(N+1) \\times D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 290, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are learnable 1D position embeddings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 749, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 749, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 749, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To form image-text input representations, we concatenate image and text input vectors, resulting in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 228, + 377, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 228, + 377, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 228, + 377, + 243 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_0^{vl} = [\\mathbf{H}_0^w;\\mathbf{H}_0^v ]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 525, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 525, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 525, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Backbone Network. The dense backbone network of VL-MoE is a shared multimodal Transformer, illustrated in Figure 1. To encode different modalities, we utilize a mixture-of-modality-experts (MoME) Transformer(Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), which takes image and text representations of monomodal data, as well as representations of image-text pairs as input. The MoME Transformer comprises multiple layers of blocks, each consisting of a multi-head self-attention layer and a feed-forward expert layer. While the self-attention module is shared across modalities, each feedforward expert layer contains a pool of modality-specific experts (V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN) that act as a substitute for the feed-forward network in standard Transformers. This allows for hard routing over the pool of feed-forward networks based on the modality of the input tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conditional Computation with MoEs. The concept of conditional computation involves selectively activating different parts of a neural network based on the input (Bengio, 2013). One specific approach is to use a mixture-of-experts (MoE) model, where different \"experts\" handle different regions of the input space (Jacobs et al., 1991). In this paper, we adopt the MoE layer proposed in (Shazeer et al., 2017), which consists of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " experts and is defined as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathsf{M} \\circ \\mathbb{E}(\\boldsymbol{x}) = \\sum_{i=1}^{E} g(\\boldsymbol{x})_i e_i(\\boldsymbol{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the input to the layer, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i: \\mathbb{R}^D \\mapsto \\mathbb{R}^D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the function computed by expert " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g: \\mathbb{R}^D \\mapsto \\mathbb{R}^E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the \"routing\" function that determines the input-dependent weights for the experts. Both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are implemented as neural networks. Although this formulation still involves a dense network, it can be made sparse by restricting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to assign only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k \\ll E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " non-zero weights, thereby eliminating the computation of unused experts. This approach allows for super-linear scaling of the number of model parameters in both training and inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VL-MoE. We apply sparse MoE to vision-language models in the context of the MoME. As illustrated in Figure 1, inputs from different modalities are routed to V-FFN and T-FFN in the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(L - F)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers, and V-FFN, T-FFN, or VL-FFN in the last " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers. To avoid instability due to modality input imbalance when applying MoEs to modal-agnostic VL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11332" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "modules in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), we only use MoE for V-FFN and T-FFN in the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(L - F)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layers. V-FFN and T-FFN have two layers and a GeLU (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) non-linearity: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{V} / \\mathrm{T}\\text{-}\\mathrm{FFN}(\\pmb {x}) = \\mathbf{W}_2\\sigma_{\\mathrm{gel}}(\\mathbf{W}_1\\pmb {x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . For VL-MoE, we replace a subset of V-FFN and T-FFN with V-MoE and T-MoE layers, where each expert is an FFN with the same architecture " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i(\\mathbf{x}) = \\mathrm{FFN}_{\\theta_i}(\\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but different weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{i} = (\\mathbf{W}_{1}^{i},\\mathbf{W}_{2}^{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . This design pattern is similar to that of GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) models. In V-MoE and T-MoE layers, each token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb {x}\\in \\mathbb{R}^D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is processed sparsely by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " out of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " available experts. To select which one, a lightweight V/T-Router predicts gating weights per token: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g(\\pmb {x}) = \\mathrm{softmax}(\\mathbf{W}_g\\pmb {x})\\in \\mathbb{R}^E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_g\\in \\mathbb{R}^{D\\times E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is learned. The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " activated experts' outputs are combined linearly according to the gating weights: MoE " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\pmb {x}) = \\sum_{e = 1}^{k}g(\\pmb {x})_e\\cdot \\mathrm{FFN}_e(\\pmb {x})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 287, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 287, + 291, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 287, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To ensure computational efficiency and implementation constraints, each expert in VL-MoE has a fixed buffer capacity, which determines the maximum number of tokens it can process. The assumption is that tokens are approximately balanced across experts. In case the capacity is exceeded, some tokens are not processed by the expert and are dropped, leading to a decrease in the success rate. This rate is a vital indicator of balanced routing and training stability. To mitigate this problem, we employ Batch Priority Routing (BPR) (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022), which selectively skips tokens based on their routing weights. BPR prioritizes tokens with larger routing weights, as they are deemed more informative. Our results show that BPR is crucial for stable training of VL-MoE. We further analyze token routing decisions in Section 5 and dropped tokens in Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 150, + 514 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 150, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 150, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 169, + 534 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 169, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 169, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Pretraining Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 538, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 538, + 291, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 538, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pretraining Data. Our pretraining process uses both monomodal and multimodal data. The monomodal data comprises ImageNet-22K for images and English Wikipedia and BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015) for text. The multimodal data combines four datasets of imagedtext pairs: Conceptual Captions (Sharma et al., 2018), SBU Captions (Ordonez et al., 2011), COCO (Lin et al., 2014), and Visual Genome (Krishna et al., 2017), containing a total of 4 million images and 10 million imagedtext pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pretraining Setting. For the large-size model, we employ a 24-layer Transformer network with 1024 hidden size and 24 attention heads, following VIT (Dosovitskiy et al., 2020), BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a), and VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b). The use of VL-FFN starts at 20th layer. The base/small-size model is an 12/8-layer Transformer network with 768/384 hidden size and 12/6 attention heads, where VL-FFN is used in 10/8th layer. We randomly initialize the model parameters using the method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "described in BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The image resolution is set to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "224 \\times 224" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the patch size is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16 \\times 16" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The maximum sequence length for text is 96. We use a batch size of 6, 144 and train the model from scratch for 200k steps, which is equivalent to 40 epochs of the image-text pairs. Each batch contains 2,048 images, 2,048 texts, and 2,048 image-text pairs. We perform image augmentation using random resized cropping, horizontal flipping, and color jittering, following the same method as BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a). The text data is tokenized using a SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) tokenizer with a vocabulary size of 64k. We use the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2} = 0.999" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to optimize the model. The peak learning rate is 2e-3, and we use linear warmup for the first 10,000 steps and cosine learning rate decay. The weight decay is 0.05, and we disable dropout and use stochastic depth (Huang et al., 2016) with a rate of 0.1. The three pretrain losses are equally weighted as in BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MoE Setting. For the default setting of MoEs in VL-MoEBASE/16E, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E = 16" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " experts for T-FFN and V-FFN, respectively. All VL-MoEs activate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " expert per token, similar to Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). We replace every second dense T-FFN or V-FFN sublayer with MoE sublayer following GShard (Lepikhin et al., 2020) and Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021). We use BPR for stability in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021). For auxiliary loss, we use loading loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-FFN's MoE and averaged loading loss and importance loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) for V-FFN's MoE. The combination ratio for auxiliary loss is set as 0.01 in all our experiments. We use 32 expert parallelism and TUTEL (Hwang et al., 2022) for fast routing and computation. All the models are based on DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020). Pre-training experiments are done on 32 Nvidia Tesla V100-32GB GPUs. Following ST-MoE (Zoph et al., 2022), we freeze all the MoE modules (router and expert network) during finetuning process. The capacity factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to be 1.05 during training and 1 during inference following (Riquelme et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "VL-MoE in Pretraining. We present the validation performance of VL-MoE on the three pretraining tasks across different scales. The results show that the cost-performance tradeoff of VL-MoE in terms of pretraining flops dominates the dense models by a wide margin, indicating that VL-MoE offers significant improvements across all scales, from SMALL/8E to LARGE/16E. We also provide a wall-clock time versus validation performance figure in the Appendix, which shows a similar scaling trend of VL-MoE. Thanks to careful kernel optimization and expert parallelism in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020), the maximum wall-clock overhead of VL-MoE" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{LARGE}/16E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to dense counterparts can be reduced to only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "13\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11333" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 176, + 148 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 80, + 176, + 90 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 80, + 176, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 80, + 176, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Expert 1 (eyes)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 176, + 148 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 176, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 176, + 148 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "38a1fabd52bd8a33d9ffac20c1147fb6744b317939ab6e7cd79ba8855571401e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 93, + 249, + 148 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 80, + 249, + 90 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 80, + 249, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 80, + 249, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Expert 7 (words)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 93, + 249, + 148 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 93, + 249, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 93, + 249, + 148 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3c4b9062572a209d6e4b4a6393af6bec37cca623df773d4a8578f67077f8fd6a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 262, + 93, + 318, + 148 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 261, + 80, + 319, + 90 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 261, + 80, + 319, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 261, + 80, + 319, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Expert 13 (ff&v)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 262, + 93, + 318, + 148 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 262, + 93, + 318, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 262, + 93, + 318, + 148 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b5028371c406a69bea004c449b548cf123b89cbe21c219d4425940ed09e36809.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 158, + 270, + 169 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 158, + 270, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 158, + 270, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Vision Token Routing Decisions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 333, + 71, + 467, + 155 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 71, + 467, + 155 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 71, + 467, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 71, + 467, + 155 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2f5b7759d621422827801099b7bbe500a9cf4991c08e6250e04e8644ce580335.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 158, + 471, + 169 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 158, + 471, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 158, + 471, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Language Token Routing Decisions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 526, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 526, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Token routing decisions on COCO. Examples of vision tokens routing decisions and breakdown of language token routing decisions at the V/T-MoE layer placed in the 6-th encoder block -i.e. middle of the network for VL-MoELARGE/16E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 222, + 514, + 407 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 222, + 514, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 222, + 514, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 222, + 514, + 407 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model# Pretrained images# Pretrained Steps# Params per tokenVQANLVR2COCOFlickr30K
test-devtest-standarddevtest-PTRIRTRIR
Base-size models pretrained in the similar settings
UNITERBASE (Chen et al., 2020)4M200k86M72.7072.9177.1877.8564.450.385.972.5
VILLABASE (Gan et al., 2020)4M200k86M73.5973.6778.3979.30--86.674.7
UNIMOBASE (Li et al., 2021b)4M500K120M73.7974.02----89.774.7
ViLT (Kim et al., 2021a)4M200k120M71.26-75.7076.1361.542.783.564.4
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)4M240k210M74.5474.7080.2480.5073.156.894.382.8
VLMOBASE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k180M76.6476.8982.7783.3474.857.292.379.3
BEiT-3BASE*4M200k180M76.2176.7584.9385.7678.760.395.383.8
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k180M78.2178.6385.5286.7779.461.296.184.9
Pretained with more aggressive cost, including compute / data / model
VLMOLARGE (Bao et al., 2022b)4M200k560M79.9479.9885.6486.8678.260.695.384.5
ALBEFBASE (Li et al., 2021a)14M800k210M75.8476.0482.5583.1477.660.795.985.6
BLIPLARGE (Li et al., 2022)129M1.26M427M78.2478.1782.4883.0881.964.397.387.3
SIMVLMBASE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M230M77.8778.1481.7281.77----
SIMVLMHUGE (Wang et al., 2022c)1.8B1M1.7B80.0380.3484.5385.15----
BEiT-3HUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)21M1M1.9B84.1984.0391.5192.5884.867.298.090.3
PALIHUGE (Wang et al., 2022b)1.6B1M17B84.3084.30------
BLIP2XL (Li et al., 2023b)129M250k4.1B81.5581.66--85.468.397.689.7
BEiT-3LARGE*4M200k560M78.1478.2385.2386.1579.261.495.784.1
VL-MoELARGE/16E4M200k560M79.9179.9586.2887.1479.962.396.585.3
", + "image_path": "615f1e9aff9858955d8678f5b285c385cb62b982700e689566ba3f19508772a6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 525, + 464 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 525, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 525, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Finetuning results of different models on vision-language classification tasks and image-text retrieval tasks. We report vqa-score on VQA test-dev and test-standard split, accuracy for NLVR2 development and public test set (test-P) and top-1 recall for image retrieval (IR) and text retrieval (TR). (* denotes the model that is reproduced by us and trained with the same setting as VL-MoE.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 268, + 497 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 268, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 268, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Vision-and-Language Downstream Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our study, we explore the performance of VL-MoE on vision-and-language downstream tasks through fine-tuning experiments on three standard tasks: visual question answering (Goyal et al., 2017), natural language for visual reasoning (Suhr et al., 2019), and image-text retrieval (Plummer et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2014). Following BEiT-3, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "480 \\times 480" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " image resolution for VQA fine-tuning and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "384 \\times 384" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 290, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the other tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Visual Question Answering (VQA). For VQA, the task is to generate/choose the correct answer given a natural image and a question. Following previous work (Kim et al., 2021a; Bao et al., 2022b; Wang et al., 2022b), we utilize the VQA 2.0 dataset (Goyal et al., 2017) and formulate it as a classification problem with 3, 129 most frequent answers. We finetune VL-MoE as a fusion network to encode both the image and question. We use the final encoding vector of the [T_CLS] token as the representation of the image-question pair, and feed that into a classifier layer to predict the label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 290, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 290, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 290, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 761, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 761, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 761, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Visual reasoning task aims to predict whether a text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "description is true about a pair of images. We use NLVR2 (Suhr et al., 2019) dataset for evaluation. Following OSCAR (Li et al., 2020), VinVL (Zhang et al., 2021) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we reformulate the triplet input into two image-text pairs, each containing the text description and one image. We use VL-MoE as a fusion network to jointly encode the image and text. The concatenated final vector of [T_CLS] token from the two pairs is then fed into a classification layer to predict the label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Image-Text Retrieval. For image-text retrieval, it contains both image-to-text retrieval and text-to-image retrieval for different target modalities. We use the widely used COCO (Lin et al., 2014) and Flickr30K (Plummer et al., 2015) datasets to evaluate the model, and adopt the Karpathy split (Karpathy and Fei-Fei, 2015) following common practices. Noted that in the architecture of VL-MoE and BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), it does not involve the image-text matching module as existing in CLIP (Radford et al., 2021). To enable image-text matching, we further fine-tune VL-MoE jointly with image-text contrastive and image-text matching with hard negative mining objectives as in VLMo (Bao et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11334" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 68, + 280, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 68, + 280, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 68, + 280, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 68, + 280, + 184 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsPretrainingTasks
# Images# StepsImageNetMNLI-m
Vision Pretraining
V1TB/16300M500k83.6-
BE1TB/161.2M500k85.2-
V-MoEB/16-16E300M500k85.3-
Vision-Language Pretraining
SIMVLMBASE1.8B1M80.664.4
BEiT-3*BASE4M200k83.267.0
VL-MoEBASE/16E4M200k84.568.1
", + "image_path": "a10ff612b0d990ff5d4cfee4997c6d41f4ff43ef7a2a4dacc5d356635d7492a7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 291, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 291, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results of base-size models on image classification (ImageNet-1K) and natural language inference (MNLI-m). We report top-1 accuracy for both." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 290, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 290, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 290, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2022b) and BEIT-3. During inference, VL-MoE is used to encode images and text separately and compute the matching scores by the dot product of image and text vectors to obtain the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 290, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 290, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 presents the results of our vision-language model on classification and retrieval tasks, including VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K. To ensure a fair comparison, we provide details on the amount of pretraining image-text pair data, pretraining steps, and the number of parameters per input token. Following LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), we define the number of parameters per input token as the number of parameters that the model applies to each image-text token pair. Notably, VL-MoELarge/16E contains 2 billion parameters in total, but only applies 560 million parameters per token. Additionally, all routers combined account for less than 0.5 million parameters. Our model outperforms previous large/base-size models on VQA, NLVR2, COCO, and Flickr30K by a significant margin, particularly when compared to a reproduced BEiT-3 (Wang et al., 2022b), which was pretrained using the same settings as VL-MoE. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, VL-MoE is the first to demonstrate that a mixture-of-experts architecture can successfully scale with a comparably modest architecture size and training counts, while achieving generalization performance on a range of tasks in the context of vision-language tasks. Interestingly, Switch Transformer (Fedus et al., 2021) struggles with generalization for language MoE, while V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022) only evaluate on downstream vision tasks. Additionally, VL-MoE even outperforms VLMoLarge and ALBEF, which are pretrained with more image-text pair data and initialized from pretrained models, on COCO and Flickr30K and achieves competitive performance on VQA and NLVR2. We assume that this may be due to the fact that the capacity of VL-FFN has not been scaled in VL-MoE, as reflected in the pretraining plot in Figure 2 (the difference of VLM loss between VL-MoE and dense BEiT-3 model is smaller compared to that of MLM and MIM loss). We leave the scale of the VL-FFN module for future work, considering the increasing instability in modal-agnostic MoE architectures demonstrated in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 516, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 516, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 516, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 516, + 208 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4c1310976f6af1b990d14dfeb0d5507d80dd655fc5b922797fcaf1e41fbcdb56.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 214, + 521, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 214, + 521, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 214, + 521, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Effect of auxiliary loss on training stability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 508, + 251 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 508, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 508, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Vision/Language-Only Downstream Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 257, + 526, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 257, + 526, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 257, + 526, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Image Classification. We use the image classification task to evaluate the model on the vision-only downstream task, where the objective of this task is to categorize an input image into its corresponding class. We employ the ILSVRC-2012 ImageNet dataset (Russakovsky et al., 2015), which consists of 1.3M images with 1k classes. Following BEiT (Bao et al., 2022a) and VLMo (Bao et al., 2022b), we perform average pooling over the final vectors and feed the resulting vector into a linear classifier layer to predict the label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 526, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural Language Inference. We use the natural language inference task to evaluate the model on the language-only downstream task. The task involves determining the relationship between two pieces of text. In this task, a model is given a premise sentence and a hypothesis sentence, and it needs to determine whether the hypothesis is true, false, or undetermined based on the information provided in the premise. We use Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) (Williams et al., 2018) dataset, which contains 433k sentence pairs annotated with textual entailment information. We evaluate on matched (MLM-m) setting only." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 532, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 532, + 525, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 532, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown Table 2, we compare VL-MoE with two base-size vision Transformers and V-MoE-B/16-E16 on image classification. For BEiT, BEiT-3BASE and VL-MoEBASE/16E, we perform intermediate finetuning on ImageNet-22k to compare with ViT pretrained on ImageNet-22k. The model performs competitively with previous state-of-the-art supervised and self-supervised models on ImageNet-1k. Besides the dense counterpart BEiT-3BASE, VL-MoE also outperforms other strong vision-language models (SIMVLM) pretrained with more data and more steps on MNLI-m." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 383, + 690 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 383, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 383, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct ablation studies to analyze the contributions of Mixture-of-Experts module used in VL-MoE from different perspectives. We evaluate the models on visual reasoning (NLVR2), image-text retrieval (Flickr30k), image classification (ImageNet-1k) and natural language inference (MNLI-m)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11335" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 164 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Scaling StrategyNLVR2Flickr30kImageNet Acc@1MNLI-m AccAvg.
T-MoEV-MoEdevtest-PTR R@1IR R@1
[1]XX67.4268.2180.461.767.254.366.5
[2]✓X72.4272.7383.264.767.858.369.9
[3]X✓71.1972.2382.964.569.255.269.2
[4]✓✓72.9873.3484.765.369.058.170.6
", + "image_path": "2e648d1f7591b2a1bdf754887f202a8df54f7575d35a55501d33b8c7be215137.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling Strategy. In addition to scaling both T-FFN and V-FFN, we have also explored different scaling strategies by applying Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) modules for either T-FFN or V-FFN alone. The results of our experiments are presented in Table 3. Our findings indicate that scaling a single modality can improve the downstream performance on the corresponding modality as well as overall vision-language tasks. However, we observed that scaling both vision and language modalities leads to the most balanced performing model with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 211, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " averaged performance. This may be attributed to the fact that we employ three different pretraining objectives for each modality, and scaling each modality contributes to better optimization of the specific modality pretraining loss as well as the VLM loss. For further evidence, we include the pre-training loss in Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 291, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 291, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 291, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Number of Experts. The optimal number of experts in Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) is still a topic of debate, as there is no agreement on the ideal number. Previous NLP research has experimented with a wide range of expert numbers, ranging from thousands in early studies (Shazeer et al., 2017; Fedus et al., 2021), to as low as 32 or 64 in more recent research (Zoph et al., 2022; Du et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022), which has become the standard for vision models (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). In Figure 5, we investigate this further with VL-MoE, and our findings suggest that larger expert pools consistently yield performance improvements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effects of the Auxiliary Losses. As previously mentioned, experts in MoEs have a fixed buffer capacity, and without intervention, top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " MoEs tend to collapse, leading to poor performance as most tokens are dropped (Shazeer et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2022). To prevent this, prior research has employed auxiliary losses to promote balanced routing (Riquelme et al., 2021; Zoph et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022; Mustafa et al., 2022). However, as shown in LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), in multimodal settings, new challenges emerge, such as modality misbalance, where one data type may be more prevalent than the other. We design VL-MoE in a modal-specific fashion to prevent the instability caused by imbalance of multimodal data and experiment with different auxiliary losses for V-MoE: loading balance loss (Shazeer et al., 2017), averaged loading balance and important loss (\"vloss\") (Riquelme et al., 2021)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 323, + 211, + 505, + 319 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 211, + 505, + 319 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 211, + 505, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 211, + 505, + 319 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8f31d9e7ccdbe3297f3eeb925d465316f837533c2e00a070adf98a744216ab5c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 329, + 487, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 329, + 487, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 329, + 487, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Effect of Experts Number." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 436 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 171, + 525, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 171, + 525, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 171, + 525, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation studies of scaling strategies (all the results are based on VL-MoESMALL/E16 models). All the *MoE uses 16 experts (where T/V stands for applying MoE on the T/V-FFN)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 436 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 525, + 436 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsSizeMethodsEfficiencyVal
#EParam/MemEPKNTPSSpeedupLoss
BEiT-180M/0.3G--1002.3-4.51
VL-MoE16180M/1.6GXX450.5×0.94.49
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓X685.0×1.44.50
VL-MoE16180M/0.3G✓✓887.5×1.84.48
VL-MoE8180M/0.3G✓✓911.5×1.44.51
VL-MoE16105M/0.3G✓✓1211.3×1.34.50
", + "image_path": "96de446abb8f65d11fa966dcde4cd137fbd2b445b0229532653c57969bd18cd8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 468 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Efficiency results of base-size VL-MoE models with different optimizations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "z-loss (Zoph et al., 2022)).1 We present the results on VL-MoESMALL/E16 in Figure 4, which suggest that Z-loss presents to hurt the vision-and-lanaguage pretraining of VL-MoE and using loading balance loss only will introduce unstable training and underperforming models. The \"vloss\" turns out to lead to most stable training, which is consistent with V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021) and LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022). BPR also helps in stabilizing training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Token Routing Examples in VL-MoE. In Figure 3, we provide a qualitative analysis of token routing decisions on COCO. For vision tokens, their specialization is clear, as they are routed to specific experts such as food and vegetable experts, eyes experts, OCR experts, etc. On the other hand, language tokens show signs of syntax specialization, with some experts processing mostly padding tokens, while others focus on nouns and adjectives (and some padding), excluding prepositions, determiners, or verbs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1We find that the T-MoE is quite stable using different auxiliary losses, and resort to the most common loading balance loss in (Shazeer et al., 2017) for T-MoE. We detail the formula of each auxiliary loss in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11336" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Efficiency In Table 4, we use one " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{V100\\times 16}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " node for benchmarking the efficiency of VL-MoE with various optimizations. The EP stands for the expert parallelism provided in DeepSpeed library and KN denotes the specialized kernel fusing operation we implemented (expert dispatch as well as bias gelu fusion). From the table, we see that the throughput for the BEiT model is 1002.3 sample/s, while the optimized VL-MoE with EP and Kernel has a throughput of 887.5 sample/s with the same parameters per token, which add around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " overhead. Despite the latter being a more complex model, its throughput doesn't fall too short of the simpler BEiT. The Speedup column also suggests that with our optimizations, VL-MoE can even surpass BEiT to reach the same level of validation loss in terms of speed, given the same parameter per token size. It's also valuable to note that the naive implementation of VL-MoE without any optimization indeed incurs a wall-clock time loss and significant memory cost, as seen from the throughput value of 450.5 sample/s and around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " memory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with LIMoE. In LIMoE (Mustafa et al., 2022), the single-modality MoE architecture and the employed contrastive loss are the two main building blocks. To directly compare the two components of multimodal LIMoE under our setting, we thoroughly experimented with optimizing either the single-modality MoE architecture or VL-MoE with contrastive or masked data modeling (MDM) loss. However, we found that the models fail to converge when optimizing the LIMoE architecture with the MDM loss, likely due to the fact that the MDM losses consist of three losses aiming for different modalities, which may exacerbate the modality imbalance problem and make it difficult to optimize MoEs even equipped with the entropy balancing loss in (Mustafa et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we focused on optimizing VL-MoE and LIMoE with the contrastive loss, as it yielded more stable results. However, it should be noted that while LIMoE uses 1.8B image-text pairs, our setting only has 4M. We then report the training and validation loss across steps by optimizing VL-MoE or LIMoE with the contrastive loss in Figure 8. The batch size is set to be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". From the zero-shot validation results, it can be seen that both models quickly overfit to the 4M image-text pairs, but the single modality MoE architecture in LIMoE inherits more instability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, we use 4M data to enrich the experiments using contrastive loss with different model settings in Table 5. We can see that LIMoE seems to exhibit a trend where performance doesn't improve much or even decreases as the number of training steps increases (from 75k to 100k), especially in the 105M parameter setting. This could be a sign of overfitting, where the model is starting to fit the training data more closely but is not generalizing as well to the validation/test data. Increasing the number of experts for LIMoE does not lead to significant performance gains, especially in the 105M parameter setting. This might" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 231 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 231 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsSizeIN0shot
# Param# E50k75k100k
Contrastive Pretraining
DENSE105M-50.363.267.5
LIMOE105M853.762.962.0
LIMOE105M1654.663.162.1
VL-MoE105M855.264.268.3
VL-MoE105M1657.265.169.0
DENSE180M-60.170.378.2
LIMOE180M861.570.468.2
LIMOE180M1661.269.367.5
VL-MoE180M862.571.778.9
VL-MoE180M1663.272.479.5
", + "image_path": "327c0f62fb580d21aa628100cc7ab474aeff80d901e2a47c6d7b7a8373e86f37.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 524, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 524, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 241, + 524, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparison between VL-MoE and LIMoE using contrastive loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 269, + 524, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 269, + 524, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 269, + 524, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "indicate that, at this data scale, the additional capacity introduced by more experts isn't effectively utilized. However, VL-MoE, with a higher number of experts, shows a better performance progression with increasing steps, suggesting a more efficient use of the additional capacity. VL-MoE consistently outperforms LIMoE in most settings, especially as we increase the number of training steps. This could be attributed to inherent architectural advantages or better synergy with the training objective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 400, + 380, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 400, + 380, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 400, + 380, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 420, + 524, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 420, + 524, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 420, + 524, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we have explored the use of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) for scaling vision-language models. Our experiments demonstrate that MoE can be a promising technique for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of vision-language models. Specifically, we have shown that dividing a large vision-language model into smaller, specialized sub-models through MoE can achieve state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks while reducing computational costs. Our experiments have also shown that larger expert pools yield consistent performance improvements. Furthermore, we have explored the impact of MoE on model interpretability and found it can improve the interpretability of vision-language models by providing better insights into how the model processes different inputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 600, + 524, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 600, + 524, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 600, + 524, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In conclusion, our findings suggest that MoE is a valuable technique for scaling vision-language models, enabling them to handle large-scale, real-world multimedia data. Our work opens up new research directions for exploring the effectiveness of MoEs in other vision-language tasks, such as visual question answering, visual reasoning and image-text retrieval, and we hope our findings will inspire further investigations into this research area." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 730, + 361, + 742 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 730, + 361, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 730, + 361, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11337" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 290, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 122, + 291, + 243 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 122, + 291, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 122, + 291, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkowski, Ricardo Barreira, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Karen Simonyan. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. CoRR, abs/2204.14198." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anas Awadalla, Irena Gao, Josh Gardner, Jack Hessel, Yusuf Hanafy, Wanrong Zhu, Kalyani Marathe, Yonatan Bitton, Samir Gadre, Shiori Sagawa, et al. 2023. Openflamingo: An open-source framework for training large autoregressive vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01390." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 379 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. 2023. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 290, + 418 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 290, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 290, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022a. BEiT: BERT pre-training of image transformers. In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hangbo Bao, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Qiang Liu, Owais Khan Mohammed, Kriti Aggarwal, Subhojit Som, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Vlmo: Unified vision-language pre-training with mixture-of-modality-experts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 500, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 500, + 290, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 500, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoshua Bengio. 2013. Deep learning of representations: Looking forward. In Statistical Language and Speech Processing: First International Conference, SLSP 2013, Tarragona, Spain, July 29-31, 2013. Proceedings 1, pages 1-37. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 562, + 290, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 562, + 290, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 562, + 290, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ke Chen, Lei Xu, and Huisheng Chi. 1999. Improved learning algorithms for mixture of experts in multiclass classification. Neural networks, 12(9):1229-1252." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 659 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keqin Chen, Zhao Zhang, Weili Zeng, Richong Zhang, Feng Zhu, and Rui Zhao. 2023. Shikra: Unleashing multimodal llm's referential dialogue magic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15195." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 290, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 290, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Licheng Yu, Ahmed El Kholy, Faisal Ahmed, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. UNITER: universal image-text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "representation learning. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-120. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aidan Clark, Diego De Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Arthur Mensch, Michela Paganini, Jordan Hoffmann, Bogdan Damoc, Blake Hechtman, Trevor Cai, Sebastian Borgeaud, et al. 2022. Unified scaling laws for routed language models. In ICML, pages 4057-4086. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 213, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 213, + 525, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 213, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Collier, Efi Kokiopoulou, Andrea Gesmundo, and Jesse Berent. 2020. Routing networks with co-training for continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.04381." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 268, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 268, + 525, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 268, + 525, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Instructclip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06500." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 344, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 344, + 525, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 344, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew Davis and Itamar Arel. 2013. Low-rank approximations for conditional feedforward computation in deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4461." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 525, + 510 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 525, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 525, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 525, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. preprint arXiv:2010.11929." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 672 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, et al. 2022. Glam: Efficient scaling of language models with mixture-of-experts. In ICML, pages 5547-5569. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Eigen, Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, and Ilya Sutskever. 2013. Learning factored representations in a deep mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4314." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. 2021. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. CoRR, abs/2101.03961." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11338" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhe Gan, Yen-Chun Chen, Linjie Li, Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, and Jingjing Liu. 2020. Large-scale adversarial training for vision-and-language representation learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 158, + 289, + 237 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 158, + 289, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 158, + 289, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Making the V in VQA matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017, pages 6325-6334. IEEE Computer Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 289, + 345 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 289, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 289, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hussein Hazimeh, Zhe Zhao, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Yihua Chen, Rahul Mazumder, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2021. Dselect-k: Differentiable selection in the mixture of experts with applications to multi-task learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 289, + 388 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 289, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 289, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (GELUs). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 289, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gao Huang, Yu Sun, Zhuang Liu, Daniel Sedra, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2016. Deep networks with stochastic depth. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2016 - 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV, volume 9908 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 646-661. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 289, + 541 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 289, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 289, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changho Hwang, Wei Cui, Yifan Xiong, Ziyue Yang, Ze Liu, Han Hu, Zilong Wang, Rafael Salas, Jithin Jose, Prabhat Ram, et al. 2022. Tutel: Adaptive mixture-of-experts at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03382." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 552, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 552, + 289, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 552, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79-87." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 596, + 289, + 694 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 596, + 289, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 596, + 289, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V. Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling up visual and vision-language representation learning with noisy text supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4904-4916. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Deep visual-semantic alignments for generating image descriptions. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7-12, 2015, pages 3128-3137. IEEE Computer Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wonjae Kim, Bokyung Son, and Ildoo Kim. 2021a. ViLT: Vision-and-language transformer without convolution or region supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5583-5594. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Young Jin Kim, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Alexandre Muzio, Andres Felipe Cruz Salinas, Liyang Lu, Amr Hendy, Samyam Rajbhandari, Yuxiong He, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2021b. Scalable and efficient moe training for multitask multilingual models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10465." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 524, + 341 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 524, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 524, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Yu Koh, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Daniel Fried. 2023. Grounding language models to images for multimodal generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13823." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 524, + 406 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 524, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 524, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aran Komatsuzaki, Joan Puigcerver, James Lee-Thorp, Carlos Riquelme Ruiz, Basil Mustafa, Joshua Ainslie, Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Sparse upcycling: Training mixture-of-experts from dense checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05055." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 415, + 524, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 415, + 524, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 415, + 524, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A. Shamma, Michael S. Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 123(1):32-73." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 578 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sneha Kudugunta, Yanping Huang, Ankur Bapna, Maxim Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, Minh-Thang Luong, and Orhan First. 2021. Beyond distillation: Task-level mixture-of-experts for efficient inference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3577-3599." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 524, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Laurencon, Lucile Saulnier, Léo Tronchon, Stas Bekman, Amanpreet Singh, Anton Lozhkov, Thomas Wang, Siddharth Karamcheti, Alexander M Rush, Douwe Kiela, et al. 2023. Obelisc: An open web-scale filtered dataset of interleaved image-text documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16527." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan First, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11339" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 290, + 104 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 290, + 104 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 290, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 111, + 289, + 155 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 111, + 289, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 111, + 289, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Shruti Bhosale, Tim Dettmers, Naman Goyal, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2021. BASE layers: Simplifying training of large, sparse models. In ICML. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 163, + 289, + 207 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 163, + 289, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 163, + 289, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Jinghao Wang, Jingkang Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2023a. Otter: A multi-modal model with in-context instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03726." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 289, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023b. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 266, + 289, + 311 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 266, + 289, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 266, + 289, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023c. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12597." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In ICML, pages 12888-12900. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 446 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021a. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 34, pages 9694-9705." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 453, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 453, + 289, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 453, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lianian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2019. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language. CoRR, abs/1908.03557." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 504, + 289, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 504, + 289, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 504, + 289, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Li, Can Gao, Guocheng Niu, Xinyan Xiao, Hao Liu, Jiachen Liu, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021b. UNIMO: towards unified-modal understanding and generation via cross-modal contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2592-2607. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 289, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 289, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 289, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Oscar: Object-semantics aligned pre-training for vision-language tasks. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2020 - 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXX, volume 12375 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 121-137. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jianwei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023d. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation. CVPR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dólar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: common objects in context. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014 - 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V, volume 8693 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 740-755. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023a. Visual instruction tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 244 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haotian Liu, Kilho Son, Jianwei Yang, Ce Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Yong Jae Lee, and Chunyuan Li. 2023b. Learning customized visual models with retrieval-augmented knowledge. CVPR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 524, + 287 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 524, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 253, + 524, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuxuan Lou, Fuzhao Xue, Zangwei Zheng, and Yang You. 2021. Cross-token modeling with conditional computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 524, + 374 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 524, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 524, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. ViLBERT: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 13-23." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 524, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaqi Ma, Zhe Zhao, Xinyang Yi, Jilin Chen, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2018. Modeling task relationships in multi-task learning with multi-gate mixture-of-experts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Basil Mustafa, Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Rodolphe Jenatton, and Neil Houlsby. 2022. Multimodal contrastive learning with limoe: the language-image mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02770." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 612 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vicente Ordonez, Girish Kulkarni, and Tamara L. Berg. 2011. Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011. Proceedings of a meeting held 12-14 December 2011, Granada, Spain, pages 1143-1151." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 524, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 524, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 524, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiliang Peng, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Qixiang Ye, and Furu Wei. 2022. Beit v2: Masked image modeling with vector-quantized visual tokenizers. ArXiv, abs/2208.06366." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 524, + 728 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 524, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 524, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma, and Furu Wei. 2023. Kosmos-2: Grounding multimodal large language models to the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14824." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bryan A. Plummer, Liwei Wang, Chris M. Cervantes, Juan C. Caicedo, Julia Hockenmaier, and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2015. Flickr30k entities: Collecting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11340" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 71, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "region-to-phrase correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2015, Santiago, Chile, December 7-13, 2015, pages 2641-2649. IEEE Computer Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 291, + 247 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 291, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 291, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 257, + 290, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 257, + 290, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 257, + 290, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 333, + 291, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 333, + 291, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 333, + 291, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Carlos Riquelme, Joan Puigcerver, Basil Mustafa, Maxim Neumann, Rodolphe Jenatton, André Susano Pinto, Daniel Keysers, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. Scaling vision with sparse mixture of experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 291, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 399, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen Roller, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021. Hash layers for large sparse models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, Alexander C Berg, and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 541, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 541, + 291, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 541, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. 2018. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, image alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2556-2565. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 291, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc V. Le, Geoffrey E. Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. In *ICLR*. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Shen, Le Hou, Yanqi Zhou, Nan Du, Shayne Longpre, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Barret Zoph, William Fedus, Xinyun Chen, et al. 2023. Mixture-of-experts meets instruction tuning: A winning combination for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14705." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Shen, Chunyuan Li, Xiaowei Hu, Yujia Xie, Jianwei Yang, Pengchuan Zhang, Zhe Gan, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Ce Liu, et al. 2022a. K-lite: Learning transferable visual models with external knowledge. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 133, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 133, + 526, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 133, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Shen, Liunian Harold Li, Hao Tan, Mohit Bansal, Anna Rohrbach, Kai-Wei Chang, Zhewei Yao, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022b. How much can clip benefit vision-and-language tasks? In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 526, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amanpreet Singh, Ronghang Hu, Vedanuj Goswami, Guillaume Couairon, Wojciech Galuba, Marcus Rohrbach, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. FLAVA: A foundational language and vision alignment model. CoRR, abs/2112.04482." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 312 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijie Su, Xizhou Zhu, Yue Cao, Bin Li, Lewei Lu, Furu Wei, and Jifeng Dai. 2020. VL-BERT: pretraining of generic visual-linguistic representations. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 318, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 318, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 318, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alane Suhr, Stephanie Zhou, Ally Zhang, Iris Zhang, Huajun Bai, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. A corpus for reasoning about natural language grounded in photographs. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28-August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 6418-6428. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Sheng Shen, Shengcao Cao, Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yikang Shen, Chuang Gan, LiangYan Gui, Yu-Xiong Wang, Yiming Yang, et al. 2023. Aligning large multimodal models with factually augmented rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14525." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. LXMERT: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 5099-5110. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 526, + 626 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 526, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 526, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. 2020. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. preprint arXiv:2012.12877." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peng Wang, An Yang, Rui Men, Junyang Lin, Shuai Bai, Zhikang Li, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022a. Unifying architectures, tasks, and modalities through a simple sequence-to-sequence learning framework. CoRR, abs/2202.03052." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11341" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2022b. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for all vision and vision-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10442." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zirui Wang, Jiahui Yu, Adams Wei Yu, Zihang Dai, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Yuan Cao. 2022c. SimVLM: Simple visual language model pretraining with weak supervision. In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 200, + 292, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 200, + 292, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 200, + 292, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 286, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 286, + 291, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 286, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. 2023. MPLug-owl: Modularization empowers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 361, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 361, + 291, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 361, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiahui Yu, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Legg Yeung, Mojtaba Seyedhosseini, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Coca: Contrastive captioners are image-text foundation models. CoRR, abs/2205.01917." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 415, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 415, + 291, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 415, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision. CoRR, abs/2111.11432." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 512, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 512, + 291, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 512, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengchuan Zhang, Xiujun Li, Xiaowei Hu, Jianwei Yang, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. VinVL: Revisiting visual representations in vision-language models. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021, pages 5579-5588. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 598, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 598, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 598, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Y Zhao, Andrew M Dai, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, and James Laudon. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with expert choice routing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 291, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinguo Zhu, Xizhou Zhu, Wenhai Wang, Xiaohua Wang, Hongsheng Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. 2022. Uni-perceiver-moe: Learning sparse generalist models with conditional moes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04674." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 19-27." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 153, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 153, + 526, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 153, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Barret Zoph, Irwan Bello, Sameer Kumar, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Jeff Dean, Noam Shazeer, and William Fedus. 2022. St-moe: Designing stable and transferable sparse expert models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08906." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 225, + 377, + 238 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 225, + 377, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 225, + 377, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 249, + 405, + 261 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 249, + 405, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 249, + 405, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Further Analyses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 526, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 526, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 526, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"Dropped\" Tokens. In MoE training, the issue of \"Dropped Tokens\" is inherited (Lepikhin et al., 2020; Shazeer et al., 2017; Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022) and caused by the limited capacity of each MoE expert, which can lead to instability. To provide a detailed analysis of this issue, we present Figure 6, which illustrates the distribution of dropped tokens in VL-MoEBASE/16E across different pre-training tasks. The figure shows that MLM and MIM tasks exhibit a more balanced distribution of tokens compared to VLM task, which may explain the improved performance of using MoEs in the former two pre-training tasks, as depicted in Figure 2. Additionally, the problem of dropped imag tokens is more severe compared to dropped text tokens, which aligns with the results of different scaling strategies presented in Section 5 and the findings in (Mustafa et al., 2022; Riquelme et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 526, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 526, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 526, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pretrain Losses for Different Scaling Strategies. We additionally report the effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps in Figure 7. The results support our hypothesis that using three distinct pretraining objectives for each modality and scaling each modality leads to improved optimization of both the specific modality pretraining loss and the VLM loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additional Results We conduct experiments using COCO captions following (Wang et al., 2022b), where VL-MoE achieves 139.2 for CIDEr and 23.1 for SPICE, which outperforms the BEiT-3 with 137.5 for CIDer and 22.7 for SPICE using base-size. We also observe interesting routing specialization when generating the final word \"cake\" considering the T-MoE in VL-MoE in Figure 3. \"NN: lady\" and \"NN: slicing\" route to experts 1 and 13 respectively. \"DT: A, a\" both route to expert 1. \"JJ: hairnet, big\" route to expert 7. These routings underscore the inherent nature of expert specialization in the VL-MoE model, potentially highlighting its advantages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11342" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 130, + 70, + 467, + 83 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 70, + 467, + 83 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 70, + 467, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 70, + 467, + 83 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c34426cce350674377620257877825c155b8c5d51d55521c80cb9949ab38be7d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 88, + 181, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 88, + 181, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 88, + 181, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 88, + 181, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "219242aa58af5093846c3edeb366985cdb08779b73e0b2a083a221a5322a6a00.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 166, + 173, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 166, + 173, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 166, + 173, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) MLM T-MoE Layer 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 88, + 294, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 88, + 294, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 88, + 294, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 88, + 294, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1c4c723af43e44c5044be69cc363892e4b8cba9269843c5bfc34482b4bcc5bed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 166, + 287, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 166, + 287, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 166, + 287, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) MLM T-MoE Layer 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 88, + 407, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 88, + 407, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 88, + 407, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 88, + 407, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f7948df063e7287ec0fbbbc3b2789a5db8829c24b1c2b70e44fd49734db9572a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 166, + 399, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 166, + 399, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 166, + 399, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) MLM T-MoE Layer 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 408, + 88, + 518, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 88, + 518, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 88, + 518, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 88, + 518, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "eda34c99e4fc86f2400301b080452130c6430d056969cf9ccc555dcbb4c9fcd8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 166, + 511, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 166, + 511, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 166, + 511, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) MLM T-MoE Layer 8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 193, + 182, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 193, + 182, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 193, + 182, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 193, + 182, + 269 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "80dee4f70198880a05eeb1da6fee3dda8113cc3ce4d6a47b7d05dd5252c7b8ad.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 272, + 173, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 272, + 173, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 272, + 173, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(e) MIM V-MoE Layer 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 185, + 193, + 294, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 193, + 294, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 193, + 294, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 193, + 294, + 269 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e2f779b7f63fbf783d21313644972626fbf0f8b74f684502823c298efeac6c1a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 272, + 286, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 272, + 286, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 272, + 286, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(f) MIM V-MoE Layer 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 193, + 407, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 193, + 407, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 193, + 407, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 193, + 407, + 269 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b72afd77f60c741379811192082c6b6ba53898539eca649ad795fa6467339942.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 272, + 399, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 272, + 399, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 272, + 399, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(g) MIM V-MoE Layer 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 408, + 193, + 518, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 193, + 518, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 193, + 518, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 193, + 518, + 269 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1ccc515c5c7bbb88c0b4721addb824643930639ff61ecd9fb4781bd812b6712a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 272, + 510, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 272, + 510, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 272, + 510, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(h) MIM V-MoE Layer 8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 299, + 182, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 299, + 182, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 299, + 182, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 299, + 182, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "436157cd0fb41f5088d3d645cdf946a207c3533e25acbe48b125562dc17a2076.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 378, + 173, + 389 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 378, + 173, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 378, + 173, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(i) VLM T-MoE Layer 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 185, + 299, + 294, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 299, + 294, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 299, + 294, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 299, + 294, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ea280645df667facd5408552e35606461bb2418e59ee3ad8e48d0db44ee891e4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 378, + 286, + 389 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 378, + 286, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 378, + 286, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(j) VLM T-MoE Layer 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 299, + 407, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 299, + 407, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 299, + 407, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 299, + 407, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9da41d0f04ee73b7f471329da0ae186e82d105ebffff4b41754b91f6db508411.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 378, + 399, + 389 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 378, + 399, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 378, + 399, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(k) VLM T-MoE Layer 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 408, + 299, + 518, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 299, + 518, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 299, + 518, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 299, + 518, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7c59c1aabc26f0f7fedf0227aaed3650eb2f5165cb2efcb984817ee027ab0886.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 378, + 509, + 389 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 378, + 509, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 378, + 509, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) VLM T-MoE Layer 8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 404, + 182, + 480 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 404, + 182, + 480 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 404, + 182, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 404, + 182, + 480 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "89fb9765576679daa95356c4da0fea68d9d605161830c1398ab54035b892becd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 484, + 174, + 494 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 484, + 174, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 484, + 174, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(m) VLM V-MoE Layer 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 185, + 404, + 294, + 480 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 404, + 294, + 480 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 404, + 294, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 404, + 294, + 480 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "26390e017d0db92d43f19e25f92148f132964fff55c82dab485ce575ca208321.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 484, + 287, + 495 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 484, + 287, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 484, + 287, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(n) VLM V-MoE Layer 4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 404, + 407, + 480 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 404, + 407, + 480 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 404, + 407, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 404, + 407, + 480 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5a81641e55ed4aea4402d94137728f844147896588adaa55f7a8c82726c07e07.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 484, + 399, + 495 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 484, + 399, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 484, + 399, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(o) VLM V-MoE Layer 6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 408, + 404, + 518, + 480 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 404, + 518, + 480 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 404, + 518, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 404, + 518, + 480 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fa56134f652b52d3ce010b409c28ad66bf511902874b136a1da259d879714cf3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 484, + 511, + 495 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 484, + 511, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 484, + 511, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(p) VLM V-MoE Layer 8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 135, + 553, + 434, + 566 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 542 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: \"Dropped\" Token analyses for VL-MoE" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{LARGE}/16\\text{E}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks. Above the dashed line denotes the ratio of tokens that exceed the expert capacity and will be dropped." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 553, + 434, + 566 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 553, + 434, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 553, + 434, + 566 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "96af670258743644300dfb7b15a9d6a57f110617f805601639413b7864eb6896.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 570, + 182, + 644 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 570, + 182, + 644 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 570, + 182, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 570, + 182, + 644 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "14428333ee087e290a45c1ed42980118481db95736cc7bded329e894f47a618d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 648, + 171, + 658 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 648, + 171, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 648, + 171, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Total Validation Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 185, + 570, + 294, + 644 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 570, + 294, + 644 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 570, + 294, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 185, + 570, + 294, + 644 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "50feb3b54f745f806e2c30a9064c3ee23ee458820d998460c8ddec5f6bc3ba21.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 648, + 286, + 658 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 648, + 286, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 648, + 286, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) MLM Validation Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 570, + 409, + 644 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 570, + 409, + 644 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 570, + 409, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 570, + 409, + 644 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cbf52f5f7e0512595186e9411828b3c56b01f779350ad7165b3e5a9113035be7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 525, + 704 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Effect of different scaling strategy in Section 5 for VL-MoESMALL/16E scaling on three mask language modeling (MLM), mask image modeling (MIM), and masked vision-language modeling (VLM) pre-training tasks across training steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 409, + 570, + 519, + 644 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 648, + 399, + 658 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 648, + 399, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 648, + 399, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) VLM Validation Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 570, + 519, + 644 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 570, + 519, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 570, + 519, + 644 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "39fd03dafaa53cf41431f5a24339f067a87524ab44dd588d5998b689d50d0d8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 648, + 510, + 658 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 648, + 510, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 425, + 648, + 510, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) MIM Validation Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 168, + 738 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 168, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 168, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Hyperparameter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 44 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 748, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Visual Question Answering (VQA). We fine-tune the base/large-size models for 10 epochs with 128" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 524, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 524, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 524, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5. Following VLMO (Bao et al., 2022b), the input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 524, + 760 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "480 \\times 480" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 524, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11343" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 73, + 226, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 73, + 226, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 73, + 226, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 73, + 226, + 164 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b79c1ffe01738bf7056b5f3ca7ee8e5b2367371d15cd159fdb42cd534ea1438f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 170, + 207, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 170, + 207, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 170, + 207, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Contrastive Train Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 74, + 362, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 74, + 362, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 74, + 362, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 74, + 362, + 164 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "01b8184867f3b0f04a1d24c920d0bf03bc3a6c0ca66421044b00c49658a8d42b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 190, + 515, + 203 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 190, + 515, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 190, + 515, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Comparison of Dense, VL-MoE, and LIMoE on contrastive pre-training task across training steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 365, + 69, + 502, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 170, + 352, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 170, + 352, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 170, + 352, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Contrastive Validation Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 69, + 502, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 69, + 502, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 69, + 502, + 164 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "40688537b2ce4f469121cef663c1e9536f687565483d594be87e19ae7c632229.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 170, + 477, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 170, + 477, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 170, + 477, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) ImageNet 0shot Acc" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural Language for Visual Reasoning (NLVR2). For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 10 epochs with 128 batch size. The peak learning rate of the base-size models is set to 5e-5. The input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "384 \\times 384" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 128 batch size, and choose learning rates from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{5e - 5, 1e - 4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "224 \\times 224" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". All the ablation results of NLVR2 are averaged over 3 runs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 289, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "COCO. We fine-tune the base/large-size model for 20 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 2e-5 and the input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "384 \\times 384" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flickr30K. For results of Table 1, the base/large-size models are fine-tuned for 40 epochs with a batch size of 2048 and a peak learning rate of 1e-5. We use the fine-tuned model on COCO as the initialization. The input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "384 \\times 384" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For all ablation experiments, we fine-tune the models for 10 epochs with 1024 batch size. The peak learning rate is set to 5e-5, and the input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "224 \\times 224" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 289, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 289, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ImageNet-1k. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with V-MoE and V-FFN only for 15 epochs with 2048 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5 and the input image resolution is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "384 \\times 384" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 289, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MNLI. We fine-tune the base-size VL-MoE with T-MoE and T-FFN only for 10 epochs with 32 batch size. The peak learning rate is 3e-5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 208, + 611 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 208, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 208, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Formula of Auxiliary Loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x} \\in \\mathbb{R}^D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we denote by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g(\\pmb{x}) = \\text{softmax}(\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x}) \\in \\mathbb{R}^E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the gating weights across the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " experts, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{E \\times D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " being the routing parameters. When we deal with a batch of multiple tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\pmb{x}_i\\}_{i=1}^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use the notation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{X} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n \\times D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Importance loss. We follow the definition from (Riquelme et al., 2021; Mustafa et al., 2022). The importance loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ensures that the gating weights are evenly distributed among the experts, maintaining a balanced profile. For any expert " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e \\in \\{1, \\dots, E\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 289, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we have" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 749, + 227, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 749, + 227, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 749, + 227, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {i m p} _ {e} (X) = \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {x} \\in X} g (\\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}", + "image_path": "183260c5bfb3737b7e589a18da2c04d27ca3cb5dea3b1d2265f9e986a731541b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 524, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 524, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 524, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and the loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 524, + 249 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 524, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined via the squared coefficient of variation for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 224, + 524, + 249 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{imp}(\\pmb {X}) = \\{\\mathrm{imp}_e(\\pmb {X})\\}_{e = 1}^E" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 257, + 485, + 286 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 257, + 485, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 257, + 485, + 286 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {i m p}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\left(\\frac {\\operatorname {s t d} (\\operatorname {i m p} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}{\\operatorname {m e a n} (\\operatorname {i m p} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}\\right) ^ {2}.", + "image_path": "4ef1a9f7a8e51615b906b654f6384e7bae8b76bd1b6ce51f14105e765d4c298e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Load loss. Like previously, we follow (Riquelme et al., 2021). We assume the gating weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{\\mathrm{noisy}}(\\pmb{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are obtained by perturbing the routing function with noise, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{\\mathrm{noisy}}(\\pmb{x}) = \\mathrm{softmax}(\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x} + \\varepsilon)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varepsilon \\sim \\mathcal{N}(\\mathbf{0}, \\sigma^2\\mathbf{I})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma = 1 / E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We denote " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\eta_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th largest entry of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{W}\\pmb{x} + \\varepsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The importance loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " aims to balance the selection probability of experts by focusing on the likelihood of choosing them, as assigning tasks to experts is a discrete process. The load loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " complements this by striving to even out the number of assignments among the experts. To calculate the selection probability, the expert " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e \\in \\{1,\\dots ,E\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is assumed to be among the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " even when resampling only the noise as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 469, + 478, + 492 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 469, + 478, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 469, + 478, + 492 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {x}) = 1 - \\Phi \\left(\\frac {\\eta_ {k} - (\\boldsymbol {W} \\boldsymbol {x}) _ {e}}{\\sigma}\\right)", + "image_path": "06116ba5aee1f1a182264a8a43bb05333aed78b2f1c2b668839a5d9053e3d5df.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the cumulative distribution function of a Gaussian distribution. The load loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is eventually defined by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 544, + 497, + 573 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 544, + 497, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 544, + 497, + 573 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {l o a d}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\left(\\frac {\\operatorname {s t d} (\\operatorname {l o a d} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}{\\operatorname {m e a n} (\\operatorname {l o a d} (\\boldsymbol {X}))}\\right) ^ {2}", + "image_path": "a1e42a828c637af05764c5b1a0ef0e0edd24d5d0458c75708c0b9b6d37b17448.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 574, + 477, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 574, + 477, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 574, + 477, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 574, + 477, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{load}(\\mathbf{X}) = \\{\\mathrm{load}_e(\\mathbf{X})\\}_{e = 1}^E" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 591, + 455, + 616 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 591, + 455, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 591, + 455, + 616 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {l o a d} _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {x} \\in \\boldsymbol {X}} p _ {e} (\\boldsymbol {x}).", + "image_path": "bb7f5a2aef940368d0e7184f99635a1ca5a8b7634e56d3fef1c46c7af445b66d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Z-loss. The z-loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{zloss}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " introduced in (Zoph et al., 2022) aims at controlling the maximum magnitude of the router activations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A = \\{\\pmb {W}\\pmb {x}_i\\}_{i = 1}^n\\in \\mathbb{R}^{n\\times E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with entries " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{i,e} = (\\pmb {W}\\pmb {x}_i)_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The loss is defined by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 682, + 509, + 718 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 682, + 509, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 682, + 509, + 718 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_ {\\mathrm {z l o s s}} (\\boldsymbol {X}) = \\frac {1}{n} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\left(\\log \\left(\\sum_ {e = 1} ^ {E} \\exp (a _ {i, e})\\right)\\right) ^ {2}.", + "image_path": "fa2353011a2390915a43fe5f72e79eed8f8375e5c38df05be7cb68441e4f84b9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "v-loss. The notation \"v-loss\" we used in Section 5 is essentially the final employed loss in V-MoE (Riquelme et al., 2021), where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{vloss}}(\\mathbf{X}) = 0.5*\\Omega_{\\mathrm{imp}}(\\mathbf{X}) + 0.5*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Omega_{\\mathrm{load}}(\\mathbf{X})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11344" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_content_list.json b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f13a47b6611fa939f8815503ca86aff3724afd97 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2000 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 154, + 79, + 842, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cantao Wu $^{1}$ , Yi Cai $^{1,2}$ , Liuwu Li $^{1}$ , Jiexin Wang $^{1,2,*}$", + "bbox": [ + 284, + 124, + 724, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 142, + 794, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China", + "bbox": [ + 236, + 159, + 763, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Technology) Ministry of Education", + "bbox": [ + 300, + 177, + 700, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "taotaotao0412@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 384, + 193, + 618, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{ycai, jiexinwang}@scut.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 349, + 210, + 652, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "liwu.li@outlook.com", + "bbox": [ + 400, + 227, + 603, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) is a task that involves localizing objects in images based on natural language expressions. Most ReC methods typically approach the task as a supervised learning problem. However, the need for costly annotations, such as clear image-text pairs or region-text pairs, hinders the scalability of existing approaches. In this work, we propose a novel scene graph-based framework that automatically generates high-quality pseudo region-query pairs. Our method harnesses scene graphs to capture the relationships between objects in images and generate expressions enriched with relation information. To ensure accurate mapping between visual regions and text, we introduce an external module that employs a calibration algorithm to filter out ambiguous queries. Additionally, we employ a rewriter module to enhance the diversity of our generated pseudo queries through rewriting. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms previous pseudolabeling methods by about $10\\%$ , $12\\%$ , and $11\\%$ on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, respectively. Furthermore, it surpasses the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by more than $15\\%$ on the RefCOCO dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 677, + 258, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Referring expression comprehension (ReC) is an important visual-linguistic task that aims to locate objects in images based on given textual referring expressions. Referring expressions, such as \"give me that apple in the basket,\" are commonly used in social communication. The ability to accurately comprehend such expressions in real-world scenarios is also essential for robots and other intelligent agents to enable natural interactions (Fang et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2020). In recent years, considerable progress has been made in ReC task, particularly for fully-supervised models (Chen et al., 2018b;", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c1f038d284205694333d785639e9db496d3daf7c05878096fa271b1d095fce94.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 250, + 678, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Query from RefCOCO dataset: the bowl that has blueberries on it", + "bbox": [ + 682, + 249, + 867, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pseudo-Q Query: white bowl white bowl", + "bbox": [ + 684, + 275, + 768, + 302 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SGEPG Query: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table on the right side, there's a white bowl with green broccoli inside", + "bbox": [ + 682, + 307, + 875, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: Example of queries generated by Pseudo-Q and SGEPG methods, based on two different objects in an image from the RefCOCO dataset. Note that the query generated by SGEPG without rewriting is shown in red, while the query generated by SGEPG with rewriting is shown in blue.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 363, + 882, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022) trained on manually annotated region-query data. However, constructing large-scale ReC datasets, especially for textual queries referring to the objects, is rather time-consuming. To obtain the clear textual queries, annotators need to provide specific visual information about the referred object, such as its category and attributes. Moreover, due to the presence of multiple similar and confusing objects in images, queries often require additional details to distinguish the referred object, such as spatial information (left, right), object state (running, jumping), and object relationships (e.g., person holding ball). Although some weakly-supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Datta et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2020) partially alleviate the annotation burden, they still rely on paired image-query data, limiting their applicability in the real-world scenes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 884, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the annotation challenges, several works (Yeh et al., 2018; Wang and Specia, 2019; Jiang et al., 2022) have explored unsupervised approaches that do not rely on paired annotations. Nonetheless, these approaches either employ statistical hypothesis testing, make simple assumptions, or only investigate the shallow relation between objects, leading to poor performance in complex scenes. For instance, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022),", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 285, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11978", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11978-11990 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which adopts a method of generating pseudo-labels to train a supervised model. It utilizes an offline object detector to extract salient objects from images and generates pseudo queries using predefined templates with object labels and attributes. However, Pseudo-Q has two limitations: (1) It fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images, leading to pseudo queries that only partially cover the semantic space of referring expressions and deviate significantly from human expressions. (2) The absence of a validation mechanism for the generated pseudo queries introduces the possibility of producing incorrect instances. Both limitations can lead to a degradation in model performance.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 492, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we present SGEPG (Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Query Generation), an unsupervised framework designed to generate high-quality region-query pairs. SGEPG leverages the generated scene graph to extract rich semantic information about objects and capture their complex relationships, enabling the selective generation of region-query pairs from the input image. We next introduce a straightforward yet effective strategy based on the scene graph, which helps filter out ambiguous queries. It is crucial to address ambiguity as unclear region-text pairs can yield incorrect supervisory signals, which ultimately degrade the performance of the ReC model. Additionally, we propose a module to rewrite some of the generated queries. This rewriting process enhances the diversity of the generated pseudo queries while also making them more akin to human expressions. As depicted in Figure 1, compared to Pseudo-Q, the SGEPG method generates pseudo queries that are both unambiguous and exhibit higher quality. Moreover, the generated queries by SGEPG also demonstrate more complex inference paths, such as the paths from \"bowl\" to the \"blueberries\".", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 317, + 492, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, the SGEPG framework comprises four essential components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image regions and corresponding pseudo queries.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 490, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, which significantly reduces the manual labeling cost by about $40\\%$ on the RefCOCO dataset, with only a slight decrease in performance compared to the fully supervised setting. In addition, our proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by about 10-13 points on the RefCOCO (Yu et al., 2016), RefCOCO+ (Yu et al., 2016), and RefCOCOg (Mao et al., 2016) datasets. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We propose the first scene graph-based pseudolabeling method for unsupervised ReC task, which effectively represents the key visual features of different objects and captures their relationships, resulting in region-query pairs that express richer relational information.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 261, + 885, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- To address the issue of generating ambiguous queries that yield incorrect supervisory signals and degrade performance, we introduce a disambiguation module based on the scene graph structure to further align the region-query modalities. Additionally, we propose rewriting some queries to increase the diversity and make them more closely resemble human expressions.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 360, + 882, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Experimental results demonstrate that SGEPG not only effectively alleviates the reliance on manual annotation, but also outperforms counterparts and achieves comparable performance to large pre-trained vision-language methods.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 491, + 885, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 583, + 665, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Referring Expression Comprehension", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 852, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The task of Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) plays a crucial role in applications such as robot navigation and visual question answering. ReC methods can be roughly classified into three types: fully supervised (Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), weakly supervised (Gupta et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019a, 2021; Sun et al., 2021), and unsupervised (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). Although fully supervised methods have achieved state-of-the-art results in the ReC task (Kamath et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), they heavily rely on vast and expensive manually annotated region-query pairs for training. In contrast, weakly supervised methods aim to alleviate this reliance by training the model using only image-text pairs. Most weakly supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Liu et al., 2021) use object detectors to obtain po", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11979", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tential regions corresponding to the expressions, treating them as alternatives to missing bounding boxes for training the model. However, annotating the expressions in ReC datasets is the most time-consuming and labor-intensive process.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the need for manual annotations and reduce annotation costs, there is a growing interest in unsupervised methods (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). For instance, Wang and Specia (2019) employ multiple detectors (e.g., Faster-RCNN (Girshick, 2015)) to detect objects, scenes, and colors in images. By comparing the similarity between visual regions and the nouns in the query, the corresponding region related to the query can be identified. ReCLIP, proposed by Subramanian et al. (2022), introduces the use of CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to assign scores to various image regions based on their similarity to the query. The region with the highest similarity score is then selected as the final result. While these methods leverage prior knowledge to analyze the alignment between visual regions and text, the inference speed is relatively slow due to the encoding and scoring of image regions and text in each step. One particular unsupervised approach, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022), stands out by considering using pseudolabelling techniques. The generated pseudo-labels can be employed to train supervised ReC models, allowing the models to acquire grounding abilities without the requirement for manually labeled data. However, Pseudo-Q fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images and does not address the ambiguity issue, leading to poor quality queries, as shown in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 167, + 489, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike the existing pseudo-labeling methods (Cheng et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022), SGEPG incorporates scene graphs, enabling the generation of queries with inferred paths and rich relational information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 651, + 487, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Scene Graph", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 749, + 265, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scene graphs contains structured semantic information about images, including object categories, attributes, and pairwise relationships. They can provide valuable prior information and have proven useful for various tasks like image captioning (Yang et al., 2019; Li and Jiang, 2019; Zhong et al., 2020). For instance, Li and Jiang (2019) argue that previous image caption approaches, which treat each object individually, lack structured repre", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sentation that provides important contextual clues. Therefore, they propose utilizing triples (subject, relation, object) from scene graphs as additional semantic information, along with visual features, as input to generate caption. Yang et al. (2019) introduce a Scene Graph Auto-Encoder module and incorporate inductive language bias into an encoder-decoder image captioning framework to produce more human-like captions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The task of scene graph generation (Dai et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022; Zellers et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2019) aims to obtain a complete graph structure representation of an image, where nodes represent object categories and edges indicate relationships between objects (e.g., person-riding-bike). Early works on scene graph generation focused on local visual information and overlooked contextual information in images. To address this issue, Xu et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end model that improves visual relationship prediction by iteratively propagating contextual information across the scene graph's topology. Furthermore, most scene graph generation models struggle with data distribution issues, such as long-tail distributions. This poses challenges in accurately predicting frequent relationships that lack informative details (e.g., on, at), limiting the applicability of scene graph models in practical tasks. To address this, Zhang et al. (2022) propose Internal and External Data Transfer. This approach automatically generates an enhanced dataset, mitigating data distribution problems and providing more coherent annotations for all predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 231, + 884, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 633, + 658, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present the SGEPG framework, which aims to automatically generate region-query pairs from given images and train models to tackle ReC task using these pseudo labels. As depicted in Figure 2, the SGEPG framework consists of four key components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image re", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11980", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gions and corresponding pseudo queries. Note that in this work, we mainly focus on the first three modules, with the objective of generating pseudo-labels of good quality for training visual-language models designed for the ReC task. To accommodate space limitations, certain methodological details may have been omitted. For a more comprehensive understanding, please refer to Appendix A for detailed information regarding the methods employed in this study.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Core Scene Graph Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 259, + 401, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The objective of this module is to obtain an informative core graph that accurately describes the objects in the image and their relationships. The scene graph, denoted as $G = (V,E)$ , is a directed graph consisting of vertices $V$ representing object instances characterized by bounding boxes with object category labels, and edges $E$ representing relationships between objects. Each edge $e_i = (v_s,v_o,r_i)$ indicates a relation type $r_i$ between subject $v_s$ and object $v_o$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 489, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Firstly, we utilize scene graph generation techniques to construct a preliminary scene graph for a given image. Specifically, we employ the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022), as discussed in Section 2.2. However, the generated preliminary scene graph may not be complete due to the limitations of current scene graph approaches. These approaches often provide coarse and insufficient object categories in the generated graph, represented by generic labels such as \"flower\" instead of specific labels like \"rose\".1 Furthermore, the generated scene graph only contains the relationship information between objects and fails to capture attribute details of each object, such as the color of a rose. Thus, the preliminary scene graph lacks specific information about object attributes.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 445, + 489, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the aforementioned limitations, we expand the preliminary graph by introducing additional nodes and edges to construct a complete scene graph. Following the insights from (Jiang et al., 2022), the referring expressions typically involve three crucial aspects: category, attributes and spatial information. Additionally, humans naturally combine these visual semantic cues when referring to specific target objects, particularly in complex scenes with multiple objects of similar classes, reducing ambiguity in the referring expres", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sions. Therefore, we next extract these three key aspects from the image:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Category. Inspired by two stage ReC methods (Yu et al., 2018), we employ an object detector to obtain object proposals (e.g., \"skier\" in Figure 2).", + "2. Attribute. To extract attributes like material (e.g., wooden), color (e.g., red), and status (e.g., standing), we utilize an attribute classifier (Anderson et al., 2018). However, existing models have a constraint in extracting only the most confident attribute for each object, even though an object can have multiple attributes.", + "3. Spatial Information. Humans often use spatial information to refer to an object, such as \"right apple\", \"top guy\". We obtain spatial information by comparing the center coordinates of object bounding boxes. Specifically, we derive horizontal spatial information (e.g., left, right) and vertical spatial information (e.g., top, bottom) by comparing the object center coordinates along these dimensions." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After extracting the above three information, we first update the categories of the vertices in the preliminary scene graph with the obtained category information. Next, we introduce attribute nodes and spatial nodes into the scene graph, representing the attribute information and spatial relationships with the corresponding object nodes, that are denoted as [Attr], [Spatial], respectively. As a result, we generate an informative core scene graph that encompasses the three crucial pieces of information, as illustrated in the lower left corner of Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 417, + 885, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Non-Ambiguous Query Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 604, + 835, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The core scene graph captures the rich semantic information of the entire image, which can be utilized to generate queries by populating its information into designed templates. However, using the entire scene graph may result in queries that are too complex and contain excessive specific information for referring the objects. In ReC tasks, queries are typically concise and only describe partial information relevant to the objects being referred to, rather than providing an overall description of the scene. To address this, we focus on subgraphs that contain the nodes corresponding to the objects of interest. These subgraphs capture partial information about the objects, which can be leveraged to obtain concise pseudo queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 624, + 884, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, the ambiguity issue may arise if there are similar subgraphs present in the scene graph.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 884, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2Please refer to Appendix B for the designed templates.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 872, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Note that the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022) only supports 150 classes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11981", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/59497fb54795e4402b705443de1e15cbd6988e86c9e913a220dabb58510d0170.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The framework of SGEPG, which consists of four modules: Core Scene Graph Generation, Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, and Visual-Language. The diagram also illustrates how SGEPG generates queries related to Person A." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 860, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An ambiguous query can refer to multiple objects in the image, which might lead to incorrect supervision signals detrimental for effective learning of visual-language module. Existing pseudo query-based models, such as Pseudo-Q, struggle with this issue and may generate ambiguous queries that refer to different objects, as depicted in Figure 1. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective Ambiguity Resolver Strategy based on the characteristics of the scene graph. The main idea is that a query referring to an object is nonambiguous if its corresponding subgraph is not a subgraph of any other subgraphs representing different objects in the scene graph. Specifically, let $G_{A}$ and $G_{B}$ denote the graphs of objects $A$ and $B$ , respectively, and $S_{A}$ represent the selected subgraph from $G_{A}$ for generating the query about $A$ . To resolve ambiguity, $S_{A}$ should satisfy the condition $S_{A} \\nsubseteq G_{B}$ . For instance, in the left corner of the Non-Ambiguous Query Generation module on the right side of Figure 2, the subgraph representing \"skier-pants-dark\" of \"Person A\" is removed as it is identical to a subgraph of \"Person B\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 489, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Diversity Driven Query Rewriter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 420, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the limited diversity and fluency issues of pseudo queries generated by directly filling subgraphs into predefined templates, we introduce a", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "rewriter component. It aims to to enhance the diversity and bridge the gap with human expressions, while preserving semantic consistency. To achieve this, GPT-3.5, a powerful large pre-trained language model is utilized to rewrite the queries. GPT-3.5 also has the capability to incorporate additional prior knowledge into queries. For example, it may rewrite \"giraffe\" as \"long-necked animal\" associating the abstract concept of a \"long-necked\" with the entity of \"giraffe\". This integration of prior knowledge helps the SGEPG generate more accurate and meaningful queries. Furthermore, we introduce an important hyperparameter $\\alpha$ , which determines the proportion of generated pseudo queries that will undergo the rewriting process.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 466, + 884, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Visual-Language Module", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 720, + 754, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this module, our objective is to train a visual-language model that learns the mapping between image regions and textual descriptions, using pseudo-labels obtained from the previous modules. To achieve this, we adopt a similar architecture to VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), a visual-language model designed for the ReC task through supervised learning. The VLTVG model consists of four components: a visual encoder, a language encoder, a fusion module, and a multi-stage cross-modal decoder. To extract visual features from the given", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11982", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "image, we employ DETR (Carion et al., 2020) as the visual encoder within our model. For the textual modality, we utilize BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) as the language encoder to obtain feature representations of the corresponding expressions. These visual and textual representations are then fused using a fusion module. Finally, the fused features are passed through a multi-stage cross-modal decoder, which generates the coordinates for the final predicted bounding box for the referred object in the image. Note that while we have specifically utilized this visual language model architecture, it can be replaced by any other supervised ReC models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 306, + 252, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets and setups", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 315, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate SGEPG on three datasets: RefCOCO, RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. The images in these datasets are from the MSCOCO (Vinyals et al., 2016) and we follow the same train/val/test splits from (Subramanian et al., 2022). The number of training images for these three datasets is 16994, 16992, and 24698, respectively. Compared to RefCOCO, the queries in RefCOCO+ do not include spatial words (e.g. \"left\", \"top\") to describe objects, and RefCOCOg queries are typically longer and involve more interactions between objects. The referred objects in testA split are all human, the testB split comprises only non-human objects, while val split does not have such restriction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 354, + 489, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each image in the RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg datasets, we select the top 3 objects based on their confidence scores and generate 3 queries for each selected object. The hyperparameter $\\alpha$ for the Rewriter is set to $50\\%$ . The visual-language component of our proposed model is trained independently for 30 epochs using the generated pseudo-labels of the images from each dataset, with the remaining hyperparameter settings consistent with those reported in the VLTVG paper. The evaluation of the trained model is conducted on the respective test set of each dataset. Thus, during the training stage of our approach, we do not utilize any manually annotated datasets, i.e., the human annotated image region-query pairs, which are solely used for evaluation purposes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 233, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the performance of our SGEPG approach with several existing methods, including unsupervised methods such as ReCLIP, GradCAM", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(Subramanian et al., 2022), CPT (Yao et al., 2021), and Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022) as well as weakly-supervised methods like VC (Zhang et al., 2018), ARN (Liu et al., 2019a), KPRN (Liu et al., 2019b), and DTWREG (Sun et al., 2021). We also include the random guess results and the state-of-the-art results achieved by MDETR (Kamath et al., 2021). It is worth noting that Pseudo-Q, like our SGEPG approach, also relies on generating pseudo queries, as mentioned earlier. However, Pseudo-Q employs a different visual-language model than VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), which we have chosen as our visual language model. To ensure a fair comparison, we train a VLTVG model using the region-text pairs generated by Pseudo-Q, and refer to it as Pseudo-Q-adaptive in our evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6bb5972ce5f8a0e139c7f7651db8f333ad981d4e78a373b900a91c5fa22a9040.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 557, + 350, + 845, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/586834ddf2e53bba3ba0231a4b24b930507b77699715ed86ce1325b5200d5b84.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)", + "Figure 3: Experiments of reducing the manual labeling cost. Figure (a): results of our method on three splits of RefCOCO; Figure (b): comparison results between our method and Pseudo-Q on val split of RefCOCO." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 557, + 508, + 845, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 660, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg are presented in Table 1. We begin by comparing our proposed SGEPG model with the unsupervised methods: ReCLIP, and Pseudo-Q. We observe that our proposed SGEPG model demonstrates superior performance. In comparison to ReCLIP, the state-of-the-art unsupervised method which relies on pre-trained visual-language models, SGEPG surpasses ReCLIP by a remarkable $15\\%$ on", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11983", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f1e32d4f1637529bf807d5971fd47dc39e13caa156e487963c48974b04622097.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
methodSupRefCOCORefCOCO+RefCOCOg
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestBvaltest
Random-15.7313.5119.2016.2913.5719.6018.1219.10
Supervised SOTAFull87.5190.4082.6781.1385.5272.9683.3581.64
VC(Zhang et al., 2018)Weak-33.2930.13-34.6031.58--
ARN(Liu et al., 2019a)34.2636.4333.0734.5336.0133.75--
KPRN(Liu et al., 2019b)35.0434.7436.9835.9635.2436.96--
DTWREG(Sun et al., 2021)39.2141.1437.7239.1840.1038.08--
CPT(Yao et al., 2021)No
CPT-Blk w/ VinVL26.927.527.425.425.027.032.132.3
CPT-Seg w/ VinVL32.236.130.331.935.228.836.736.5
CLIPNo
GradCAM44.6553.4936.1949.4159.6638.6252.2951.28
ReCLIP54.0458.6049.5455.0760.4747.4160.8561.05
Pseudo-labelingNo
Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022)56.0258.2554.1338.8845.0632.1346.2547.44
Pseudo-Q-adapted59.4461.8756.4742.7648.2736.9050.3549.68
SGEPG(Ours)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.7661.3360.61
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 80, + 853, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Comparison with ReC methods on RefCOCO+/g in terms of top-1 accuracy (%). Bold indicates the best performance of the column except for the supervised method. Sup column indicates the method category: Full, Weak, No represent fully supervised, weakly supervised and unsupervised, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 361, + 882, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/004f2410e6428d39b168227ac8f5d18469bfe8382880c91bfb0b3c459748e00b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "couch with red cushion" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 419, + 300, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/318a6b59a61c08ba85e4c41cd7b12011d84c1e022d03a4b62f2c10e51fc422f6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "black coat glasses blue blanket watching outside fence" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 314, + 419, + 494, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1189a0bfa5683669714c1e01fe6a7778b8a6bb2b039ad69f1bfd07c53985d64d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "man holding paper" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 419, + 690, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bc9612b0887099bed8ff6aafa53e4e8f288bf1e8707aae02c944d2308f5ccc92.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "boat with writings" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 699, + 419, + 880, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8772e9c7feae267361d6257346a119d5adac35ecc5ba1ec5a8c35260188c6c6f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "food above fries on side with score" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 535, + 309, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cde09ff7c30d37509ae69109a0f0e0d76285008ed26341875850a9a3a19a1953.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "train number 242 151 9" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 326, + 558, + 499, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2f84d364753ddff4cf2c07ccde4797382e15958ab73e700ffc54ebd6255adf9a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "white face with roman numerals" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 536, + 687, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/906877db72f5f500c8da14a71f1ba8025d0d61ffef3f372cf2a2c421dbc52da9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "broccoli pile not middle and not with brown stuff" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 704, + 535, + 877, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/49d4cca4d4912343fbe7beccb18d85707d49d581115a3f894c244534e920a56a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Visualization examples of detection results. The first row of images displays the visualized detection results of both SGEPG and Pseudo-Q. The second row showcases four instances where SGEPG encountered detection failures, with the corresponding results from Pseudo-Q included for comparison. The green bounding boxes and queries are ground truth and the red bounding boxes and yellow bounding boxes are the detection results of SGEPG and Pseudo-Q, respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 740, + 294, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dfed385d07a67634c876b3ec28a9b7baf3b60ed96c83eb01993651d64784b4ef.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The visualization results of pseudo-labels generated by SGEPG. Different colored queries corresponding to different objects." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 297, + 740, + 502, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ce7f9752373914b3fcd58013a04dc7b6339cdd155d35910c8f8585d5abb88664.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 502, + 740, + 717, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e19e9d85d4e4ea41539eefe345cebe090891ba34b39c3aee7bcef40b6ff769b2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 719, + 740, + 880, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11984", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f35f06a71da756c23afe9cfb19c3d3c1afaeeceff7aec57052fb676e82c2f509.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
w/o SG63.4563.963.4743.845.8144.14
w/o ARS65.2463.8164.6548.550.4746.02
w/o DDRQ68.8272.4664.9953.7858.2646.14
SGEPG69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 82, + 480, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/13c5291bf2a5dc171f2dc34fefc191e5481b1b53c16177cd78034780484ff913.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Main ablation test results on the RefCOCO/+" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
replace rate (α)0%25%37.5%50%75%
val53.7854.2954.9455.2155.33
testA58.2660.1558.9960.6760.9
testB46.1446.4146.746.7646.8
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 200, + 482, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Rewriting ratio test results of DDQR on Ref-COCO+.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 269, + 489, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the RefCOCO dataset, while achieving comparable performance on RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. Regarding Pseudo-Q, which is also based on pseudolabeling, our SGEPG model outperforms it by an average margin of $10\\%$ to $12.5\\%$ . This demonstrates that the queries generated by SGEPG for referring to objects can better ensure accurate mapping between the two modalities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 489, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Efficiency Improvement of Manual Annotation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 435, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then conduct experiments to assess the capability of SGEPG in reducing manual labeling costs. Following Pseudo-Q, we replace the manually annotated region-text pairs whose queries contain spatial relationships in RefCOCO with the pseudolabels generated by SGEPG. The results, depicted in Figure 3(a), demonstrate the significant reduction in manual labeling costs achieved by SGEPG. When about $40\\%$ of the manually annotated region-text pairs are replaced with our generated pseudolabels, there is only minimal impact on the model's performance. In addition, we compared SGEPG with Pseudo-Q in Figure 3(b), which indicates that our SGEPG model has the ability to generate superior quality pseudo-labels compared to Pseudo-Q.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 501, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 280, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we perform extensive ablation studies on the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of the key aspects of SGEPG, including scene graph (SG), ambiguity resolver strategy (ARS), and Diversity Driven Query Rewriter (DDQR). To evaluate the impact of the SG component, we compare the performance of the model without SG. In this scenario, the category, attribute, and spatial information of the detected", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "objects are directly used to fill the templates and generate pseudo queries. Moreover, as the ARS relies on the scene graph, the model without SG cannot utilize this strategy to address ambiguity. For the models without ARS or DDQR, we either exclude the strategy or remove the DDQR component directly from the SGEPG model. The results of this ablation study are presented in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Firstly, when comparing the performance of the model without SG to the complete SGEPG, we observe that the complete SGEPG achieves absolute performance improvements of $6.16\\%$ and $11.41\\%$ on the validation sets of RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, respectively. This also indicates that the SG can effectively improve the model's ability to align visual and textual information, especially on challenging datasets like RefCOCO+. Secondly, the complete SGEPG also outperforms the model without the ARS, with absolute improvements of $8.53\\%$ and $10.2\\%$ on the RefCOCO/+ testA, respectively. Finally, we observe that when the DDQR module is removed, the model's performance decreases across both datasets. The above findings demonstrate that the modules proposed by us can provide more accurate supervision signals to the ReC model and improve its performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 212, + 884, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Effect of Different Replacing Ratios in Rewriter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 855, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we conduct experiments to examine the impact of rewriting ratios $\\alpha$ in the DDRQ. We perform rewriting on pseudo queries with $\\alpha$ values of $25\\%$ , $37.5\\%$ , $50\\%$ , and $75\\%$ . The final results are presented in Table 3. The results indicate that as the rewriting ratio increases, the model's performance improves. This finding suggests that incorporating more diverse expressions can alleviate the discrepancy between pseudo queries generated by artificial templates and human expression. However, there is a noticeable diminishing return effect: the more sentences are rewritten, the training cost increases linearly while the performance gain becomes limited. Therefore, we strike a balance between training cost and model performance, and find that a rewriting ratio of $50\\%$ is appropriate.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 885, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.7 Qualitative Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 818, + 714, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitative examples. To validate that our approach can provide queries with rich relational information and enhance the model's perception of relationships, we conducted visualizations of some generated examples in Figure 5. Further", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11985", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "more, we performed visual comparisons with the results from Pseudo-Q on selected cases, directly comparing them (first row of Figure 4). We observe that SGEPG effectively captures the complex relational information among objects in the scene, while Pseudo-Q tends to randomly select an object from the query's nouns as the detection object. For instance, in the third example in first row, Pseudo-Q generates detection results solely based on the word \"Person\" in the sentence, completely disregarding the \"holding\" relationship and the \"paper\" object. This also suggests that SGEPG is capable of better capturing the relationships between objects.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Failure case. Additionally, while second row of Figure 4 presents cases where SGEPG encountered prediction errors that can primarily be attributed to the two limitations of the scene graph. Firstly, the scene graph may lack the ability to recognize text present in images. Secondly, the scene graph generation model may struggle in complex scenes, resulting in inaccurate scene graph generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 490, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 247, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose SGEPG, a novel pseudolabeling ReC method that leverages scene graphs to improve the generation of pseudo queries. By utilizing the scene graph, SGEPG captures object relationships and generates pseudo queries that are rich in relation information, thereby improving the training of ReC models. Additionally, we propose a simple yet effective strategy to filter out ambiguous generated queries. Our method outperforms previous pseudo-labeling approaches on three benchmark datasets and achieves comparable or superior performance compared to other unsupervised ReC methods. Furthermore, SGEPG offers the advantage of significantly reducing manual labeling costs while maintaining the model's performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 462, + 489, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 715, + 220, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While our method has demonstrated excellent performance on three datasets, there are still some limitations. Firstly, the quality of the generated results relies on the accuracy of the scene graph generation. In complex scenes, there is no guarantee that all objects and their relationships can be correctly identified, which may impact the effectiveness of our approach. Secondly, the capabilities of the scene graph are limited in terms of object detection. It can only detect a specific set of objects and may fail to identify certain objects such as the sky or", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sea. Consequently, the generated pseudo queries may not adequately cover these object classes, potentially affecting the comprehensiveness of the generated queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 160, + 705, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076100), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, SCUT (x2rjD2230080), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2020B0101100002), CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund, CCF-Zhipu AI Large Model Fund.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 185, + 884, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 325, + 608, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6077-6086.", + "Geoffrey H Ball and David J Hall. 1965. Isodata, a novel method of data analysis and pattern classification. Technical report, Stanford research inst Menlo Park CA.", + "Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pages 213-229. Springer.", + "Kan Chen, Jiyang Gao, and Ram Nevatia. 2018a. Knowledge aided consistency for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4042-4050.", + "Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Jingyuan Chen, Zequn Jie, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2018b. Real-time referring expression comprehension by single-stage grounding network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03426.", + "Cheng Cheng, Chunping Li, Youfang Han, and Yan Zhu. 2021. A semi-supervised deep learning image caption model based on pseudo label and n-gram. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 131:93-107.", + "Bo Dai, Yuqi Zhang, and Dahua Lin. 2017. Detecting visual relationships with deep relational networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and Pattern recognition, pages 3076-3086.", + "Samyak Datta, Karan Sikka, Anirban Roy, Karuna Ahuja, Devi Parikh, and Ajay Divakaran. 2019. Align2ground: Weakly supervised phrase grounding" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 347, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11986", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "guided by image-caption alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2601-2610.", + "Jiajun Deng, Zhengyuan Yang, Tianlang Chen, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Transvg: End-to-end visual grounding with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1769-1779.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.", + "Rui Fang, Malcolm Doering, and Joyce Y Chai. 2015. Embodied collaborative referring expression generation in situated human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 271-278.", + "Yang Feng, Lin Ma, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Unsupervised image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4125-4134.", + "Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1440-1448.", + "Tanmay Gupta, Arash Vahdat, Gal Chechik, Xiaodong Yang, Jan Kautz, and Derek Hoiem. 2020. Contrastive learning for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 752-768. Springer.", + "Haojun Jiang, Yuanze Lin, Dongchen Han, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. 2022. Pseudo-q: Generating pseudo language queries for visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15513-15523.", + "Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. 2021. Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1780-1790.", + "Xiangyang Li and Shuqiang Jiang. 2019. Know more say less: Image captioning based on scene graphs. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(8):2117-2130.", + "Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Dechao Meng, and Qingming Huang. 2019a. Adaptive reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2611-2620.", + "Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Li Su, and Qingming Huang. 2019b. Knowledge-guided pairwise reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 539-547." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yongfei Liu, Bo Wan, Lin Ma, and Xuming He. 2021. Relation-aware instance refinement for weakly supervised visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5612-5621.", + "Junhua Mao, Jonathan Huang, Alexander Toshev, Oana Camburu, Alan L Yuille, and Kevin Murphy. 2016. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11-20.", + "Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9982-9991.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR.", + "Sanjay Subramanian, Will Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05991.", + "Mingjie Sun, Jimin Xiao, Eng Gee Lim, Si Liu, and John Y Goulermas. 2021. Discriminative triad matching and reconstruction for weakly referring expression grounding. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11):4189-4195.", + "Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, Baoyuan Wu, Wenhan Luo, and Wei Liu. 2019. Learning to compose dynamic tree structures for visual contexts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6619-6628.", + "Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2016. Show and tell: Lessons learned from the 2015 mscoco image captioning challenge. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39(4):652-663.", + "Josiah Wang and Lucia Specia. 2019. Phrase localization without paired training examples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4663-4672.", + "Danfei Xu, Yuke Zhu, Christopher B Choy, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Scene graph generation by iterative message passing. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5410-5419.", + "Li Yang, Yan Xu, Chunfeng Yuan, Wei Liu, Bing Li, and Weiming Hu. 2022. Improving visual grounding" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11987", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with visual-linguistic verification and iterative reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9499-9508.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 487, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xu Yang, Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, and Jianfei Cai. 2019. Auto-encoding scene graphs for image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10685–10694.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 151, + 487, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuan Yao, Ao Zhang, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Cpt: Colorful prompt tuning for pre-trained vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11797.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 231, + 487, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiabo Ye, Junfeng Tian, Ming Yan, Xiaoshan Yang, Xuwu Wang, Ji Zhang, Liang He, and Xin Lin. 2022. Shifting more attention to visual backbone: Query-modulated refinement networks for end-to-end visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15502-15512.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 297, + 487, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Raymond A Yeh, Minh N Do, and Alexander G Schwing. 2018. Unsupervised textual grounding: Linking words to image concepts. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6125-6134.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 401, + 487, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Licheng Yu, Zhe Lin, Xiaohui Shen, Jimei Yang, Xin Lu, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. 2018. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression comprehension. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1307-1315.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 481, + 487, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C Berg, and Tamara L Berg. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 69-85. Springer.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 574, + 487, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rowan Zellers, Mark Yatskar, Sam Thomson, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Neural motifs: Scene graph parsing with global context. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5831-5840.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 640, + 487, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ao Zhang, Yuan Yao, Qianyu Chen, Wei Ji, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2022. Fine-grained scene graph generation with data transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11654.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 719, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hanwang Zhang, Yulei Niu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2018. Grounding referring expressions in images by variational context. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4158-4166.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 785, + 487, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yiwu Zhong, Liwei Wang, Jianshu Chen, Dong Yu, and Yin Li. 2020. Comprehensive image captioning via scene graph decomposition. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 211-229. Springer.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 865, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A More Details of the Scene Graph Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 828, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Spatial", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 131, + 615, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we will elaborate on some additional details regarding the extraction of spatial information. In addition to the four cardinal directions (up, down, left, and right) that we are familiar with, we have incorporated some extra spatial descriptions to help the model better learn the concept of \"spatial\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 159, + 882, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Firstly, we introduce the concept of \"corner\". Sometimes, humans use the term \"corner\" to refer to objects that are located in the corners of an image. Therefore, when extracting the spatial information of objects, we also determine whether the object is positioned at the edges or corners of the image. In this work, we consider an object to have the \"corner\" attribute if it satisfies the following conditions: Firstly, the object's bounding box should not be located in the center of the image. Secondly, the object's bounding box should have at least two edges that are positioned at the image's edges. Objects that meet these criteria are assigned the additional \"corner\" attribute.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 274, + 882, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Secondly, we have observed that people often use the term \"alone\" to refer to an object that appears to be \"solitary\". Therefore, when there are multiple instances of a certain object category in an image (typically three or more), we employ clustering algorithms (Ball and Hall, 1965) based on coordinates and object bounding box sizes to attempt to divide them into two groups. If one of the groups contains exactly one object, we consider that object to be \"alone\" and assign it the additional \"alone\" attribute.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 502, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Scene Graph Cleaning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 700, + 737, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While we can utilize scene graph generation models to extract scene graphs from images, the obtained scene graphs may contain errors due to limitations in model performance. Although most incorrectly predicted relations can be filtered out based on confidence scores, some contradictory results may still remain. For example, a scene graph may contain two conflicting triples such as \"boy-sitting at chair\" and \"boy-standing on-floor,\" which contradicts common sense as a person cannot be both \"sitting\" and \"standing.\" In such cases, we only retain the triple with the highest confidence level.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11988", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Designed Template", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 315, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to the fact that scene graphs are graph structures while natural language is a sequential text, it is necessary to find an appropriate method to convert graph structures into text sequences. In this paper, we employ a method that involves populating a manually designed template with information extracted from the scene graph. The scene graph encompasses four main types of information: 1. Object categories, 2. Object attributes, 3. Relationships between objects and 4.spatial. Therefore, the elements to be filled in the manually designed template primarily consist of these three types of information. Here are the main templates used in this paper:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 489, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- [attr] [sub]", + "- [sub] [rel] [obj]", + "- [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone}", + "- [attr] [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone}", + "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] in/on [spatial]", + "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] and [rel] [obj]", + "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj]", + "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj] in [spatial] {corner | alone}" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 346, + 460, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this context, \"attr\" refers to the attribute of an object, \"sub\" represents the subject, \"obj\" represents the object, \"spatial\" indicates the spatial, and \"rel\" represents the relationship between subject and object. Additionally, \"corner\" and \"alone\" are optional and indicate whether the object is located in the corner of the image and whether it is \"alone,\" respectively. By filling in the scene graph information into the templates, we can obtain pseudo queries generated based on the scene graph. Please note that the word order may vary, and \"spatial\" could be placed at the beginning of the sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 592, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Prompt of Rewriter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 797, + 324, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use GPT3.5 (ChatGPT) to rewrite the pseudo queries we have constructed. We employ a prompt to communicate to GPT3.5 that our task objective is to rewrite sentences, with each sentence being rewritten three times. The following is the specific prompt we use, along with an example:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt:\"Your goal is to act as human-being to generate diversified, accurate and semantically rich referring expressions according to a description of the referred object. The requirement of generated expression: The category, color, position, texture, relationship with other objects or others segments (entities) may be reorganized with some alternative expressions. I will give you some descriptions, and then you generate 3 referring expressions for per description. You should return a dict in which the key is the description and the values are the 3 expression involed in a list, the format looks like {\"Description\": \"xxxxx\", \"Values\": {\"1\": \"xxxxx\", \"2\": \"xxxxx\", \"3\": \"xxxxx\"}}. Don't leave out any sentences. Now, beginning your generation following the goal, requirement and format:\"", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: center tallest man in glasses", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 342, + 794, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: { \"Description\":\"Center tallest man in glasses\": {\"1\":\"At the center, the tallest man wearing glasses is present.\", \"2\":\"Glasses-wearing man who is the tallest is in the center.\", \"3\":\"The center position is occupied by a man, who is the tallest and wears glasses.}}", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 880, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 456, + 880, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: { \"Description\": \"corner left top bowl with blueberry above table\", \"Values\": {\"1\": \"The blueberry-filled bowl is positioned in the top left corner, above the table.\", \"2\": \"Above the table, there's a bowl in the top left corner, and it contains blueberries.\", \"3\": \"In the top left corner, there's a bowl placed above the table, and it has blueberries inside.\" } }", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 882, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is important to note that not every rewriting attempt is successful. There are instances where GPT-3.5 may fail to rewrite or generate unexpected statements, such as outputs that do not meet the expected format or provide insufficient information. For such cases where rewriting is not possible, we simply skip them and proceed without making any changes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 618, + 882, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Additional Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 756, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.1 Effect of Expressions Number per Object and Object Number per Image", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 880, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we investigate the impact of the number of generated pseudo queries for each object, as well as the number of pseudo-labeled objects generated per image, as shown in Table 4. Please note that in this experiment, by default, 4 objects are selected per image to generate pseudo", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 822, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11989", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/33a445e736172232df2871754e4dc06018d21d543f664de8acd19662e7aa04ab.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Expression number per objectObject number per image
123412345
SGEPG66.1768.2168.668.8162.367.6168.8268.668.02
", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 80, + 811, + 136 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/798fe51c24b5d38bc9444a86abc09ed42686d835b047910e2b89ecc1e96582b1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Results of different expressions numbers per object and different object numbers per image on RefCOCO." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
preliminary scene graph36.2345.3125.3237.2146.1126.55
Core scene graph (SGEPG)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 174, + 796, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: preliminary scene graph generation results on RefCOCO and RefCOCO+.", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 259, + 776, + 274 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "labels, and 3 statements are generated for each object.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 299, + 485, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intuitively, generating a larger number of pseudo queries for each object allows for a broader coverage of the semantic space. The experimental results demonstrate that increasing the number of expressions generated per object leads to improved performance, while insufficiently generated expressions result in limited coverage of the semantic space, leading to a decline in model performance. However, excessively generating expressions for each object can significantly increase training time and increase costs. Hence, to strike a balance between performance and training efficiency, we have set this value to 3 in our other experiments. Furthermore, as the number of objects increases, the number of generated pseudo queries also rises, leading to an improvement in our model's performance. However, it is important to note that our approach utilizes the confidence score from the object detector to select salient objects. Objects with low confidence are more prone to providing incorrect information regarding object categories and visual regions. Thus, when the number of objects is higher, the likelihood of introducing such erroneous information and negatively impacting the model's performance increases.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 489, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.2 Effect of Core Scene Graph", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 750, + 381, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to assess the impact of scene graph generation quality and key information on the results of pseudo-label generation, we also attempted to generate pseudo-labels directly using a preliminary scene graph rather than a core scene graph. We performed the experiments on both the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets. In these experiments, we generated pseudo-labels directly using the preliminary scene graph without any further processing.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experimental results are shown in Table 5. Notably, we observed that training the model solely with preliminary scene graphs, which are noisy and unprocessed, led to poor performance. This finding underscores the importance of accurate and refined core scene graphs in our approach. These core scene graphs, complemented with additional information from off-the-shelf object detectors and attribute classifiers, play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of generated pseudo-labels and ultimately improving the performance of the visual-language model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 299, + 884, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11990", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_model.json b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc181484e5c0d52de317f8348393e9a7c563fdba --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2503 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.08, + 0.843, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.285, + 0.125, + 0.725, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cantao Wu\\(^{1}\\), Yi Cai\\(^{1,2}\\), Liuwu Li\\(^{1}\\), Jiexin Wang\\(^{1,2,*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.143, + 0.796, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.238, + 0.16, + 0.764, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.302, + 0.178, + 0.701, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Technology) Ministry of Education" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.385, + 0.194, + 0.619, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "taotaotao0412@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.35, + 0.211, + 0.653, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ycai, jiexinwang}@scut.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.4, + 0.228, + 0.604, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "liwu.li@outlook.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) is a task that involves localizing objects in images based on natural language expressions. Most ReC methods typically approach the task as a supervised learning problem. However, the need for costly annotations, such as clear image-text pairs or region-text pairs, hinders the scalability of existing approaches. In this work, we propose a novel scene graph-based framework that automatically generates high-quality pseudo region-query pairs. Our method harnesses scene graphs to capture the relationships between objects in images and generate expressions enriched with relation information. To ensure accurate mapping between visual regions and text, we introduce an external module that employs a calibration algorithm to filter out ambiguous queries. Additionally, we employ a rewriter module to enhance the diversity of our generated pseudo queries through rewriting. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms previous pseudolabeling methods by about \\(10\\%\\), \\(12\\%\\), and \\(11\\%\\) on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, respectively. Furthermore, it surpasses the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by more than \\(15\\%\\) on the RefCOCO dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.678, + 0.26, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.704, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Referring expression comprehension (ReC) is an important visual-linguistic task that aims to locate objects in images based on given textual referring expressions. Referring expressions, such as \"give me that apple in the basket,\" are commonly used in social communication. The ability to accurately comprehend such expressions in real-world scenarios is also essential for robots and other intelligent agents to enable natural interactions (Fang et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2020). In recent years, considerable progress has been made in ReC task, particularly for fully-supervised models (Chen et al., 2018b;" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.252, + 0.679, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.684, + 0.25, + 0.868, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Query from RefCOCO dataset: the bowl that has blueberries on it" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.685, + 0.277, + 0.769, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pseudo-Q Query: white bowl white bowl" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.684, + 0.309, + 0.876, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SGEPG Query: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table on the right side, there's a white bowl with green broccoli inside" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.365, + 0.883, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Example of queries generated by Pseudo-Q and SGEPG methods, based on two different objects in an image from the RefCOCO dataset. Note that the query generated by SGEPG without rewriting is shown in red, while the query generated by SGEPG with rewriting is shown in blue." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.482, + 0.885, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022) trained on manually annotated region-query data. However, constructing large-scale ReC datasets, especially for textual queries referring to the objects, is rather time-consuming. To obtain the clear textual queries, annotators need to provide specific visual information about the referred object, such as its category and attributes. Moreover, due to the presence of multiple similar and confusing objects in images, queries often require additional details to distinguish the referred object, such as spatial information (left, right), object state (running, jumping), and object relationships (e.g., person holding ball). Although some weakly-supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Datta et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2020) partially alleviate the annotation burden, they still rely on paired image-query data, limiting their applicability in the real-world scenes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the annotation challenges, several works (Yeh et al., 2018; Wang and Specia, 2019; Jiang et al., 2022) have explored unsupervised approaches that do not rely on paired annotations. Nonetheless, these approaches either employ statistical hypothesis testing, make simple assumptions, or only investigate the shallow relation between objects, leading to poor performance in complex scenes. For instance, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022)," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.287, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11978" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11978-11990 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which adopts a method of generating pseudo-labels to train a supervised model. It utilizes an offline object detector to extract salient objects from images and generates pseudo queries using predefined templates with object labels and attributes. However, Pseudo-Q has two limitations: (1) It fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images, leading to pseudo queries that only partially cover the semantic space of referring expressions and deviate significantly from human expressions. (2) The absence of a validation mechanism for the generated pseudo queries introduces the possibility of producing incorrect instances. Both limitations can lead to a degradation in model performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.318, + 0.493, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we present SGEPG (Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Query Generation), an unsupervised framework designed to generate high-quality region-query pairs. SGEPG leverages the generated scene graph to extract rich semantic information about objects and capture their complex relationships, enabling the selective generation of region-query pairs from the input image. We next introduce a straightforward yet effective strategy based on the scene graph, which helps filter out ambiguous queries. It is crucial to address ambiguity as unclear region-text pairs can yield incorrect supervisory signals, which ultimately degrade the performance of the ReC model. Additionally, we propose a module to rewrite some of the generated queries. This rewriting process enhances the diversity of the generated pseudo queries while also making them more akin to human expressions. As depicted in Figure 1, compared to Pseudo-Q, the SGEPG method generates pseudo queries that are both unambiguous and exhibit higher quality. Moreover, the generated queries by SGEPG also demonstrate more complex inference paths, such as the paths from \"bowl\" to the \"blueberries\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.492, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, the SGEPG framework comprises four essential components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image regions and corresponding pseudo queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, which significantly reduces the manual labeling cost by about \\(40\\%\\) on the RefCOCO dataset, with only a slight decrease in performance compared to the fully supervised setting. In addition, our proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by about 10-13 points on the RefCOCO (Yu et al., 2016), RefCOCO+ (Yu et al., 2016), and RefCOCOg (Mao et al., 2016) datasets. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.262, + 0.886, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose the first scene graph-based pseudolabeling method for unsupervised ReC task, which effectively represents the key visual features of different objects and captures their relationships, resulting in region-query pairs that express richer relational information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.361, + 0.884, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To address the issue of generating ambiguous queries that yield incorrect supervisory signals and degrade performance, we introduce a disambiguation module based on the scene graph structure to further align the region-query modalities. Additionally, we propose rewriting some queries to increase the diversity and make them more closely resemble human expressions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.492, + 0.886, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Experimental results demonstrate that SGEPG not only effectively alleviates the reliance on manual annotation, but also outperforms counterparts and achieves comparable performance to large pre-trained vision-language methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.584, + 0.667, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.61, + 0.853, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Referring Expression Comprehension" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.886, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The task of Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) plays a crucial role in applications such as robot navigation and visual question answering. ReC methods can be roughly classified into three types: fully supervised (Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), weakly supervised (Gupta et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019a, 2021; Sun et al., 2021), and unsupervised (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). Although fully supervised methods have achieved state-of-the-art results in the ReC task (Kamath et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), they heavily rely on vast and expensive manually annotated region-query pairs for training. In contrast, weakly supervised methods aim to alleviate this reliance by training the model using only image-text pairs. Most weakly supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Liu et al., 2021) use object detectors to obtain po" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11979" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tential regions corresponding to the expressions, treating them as alternatives to missing bounding boxes for training the model. However, annotating the expressions in ReC datasets is the most time-consuming and labor-intensive process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.168, + 0.49, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the need for manual annotations and reduce annotation costs, there is a growing interest in unsupervised methods (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). For instance, Wang and Specia (2019) employ multiple detectors (e.g., Faster-RCNN (Girshick, 2015)) to detect objects, scenes, and colors in images. By comparing the similarity between visual regions and the nouns in the query, the corresponding region related to the query can be identified. ReCLIP, proposed by Subramanian et al. (2022), introduces the use of CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to assign scores to various image regions based on their similarity to the query. The region with the highest similarity score is then selected as the final result. While these methods leverage prior knowledge to analyze the alignment between visual regions and text, the inference speed is relatively slow due to the encoding and scoring of image regions and text in each step. One particular unsupervised approach, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022), stands out by considering using pseudolabelling techniques. The generated pseudo-labels can be employed to train supervised ReC models, allowing the models to acquire grounding abilities without the requirement for manually labeled data. However, Pseudo-Q fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images and does not address the ambiguity issue, leading to poor quality queries, as shown in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.652, + 0.489, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike the existing pseudo-labeling methods (Cheng et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022), SGEPG incorporates scene graphs, enabling the generation of queries with inferred paths and rich relational information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.75, + 0.266, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Scene Graph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scene graphs contains structured semantic information about images, including object categories, attributes, and pairwise relationships. They can provide valuable prior information and have proven useful for various tasks like image captioning (Yang et al., 2019; Li and Jiang, 2019; Zhong et al., 2020). For instance, Li and Jiang (2019) argue that previous image caption approaches, which treat each object individually, lack structured repre" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sentation that provides important contextual clues. Therefore, they propose utilizing triples (subject, relation, object) from scene graphs as additional semantic information, along with visual features, as input to generate caption. Yang et al. (2019) introduce a Scene Graph Auto-Encoder module and incorporate inductive language bias into an encoder-decoder image captioning framework to produce more human-like captions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.232, + 0.885, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The task of scene graph generation (Dai et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022; Zellers et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2019) aims to obtain a complete graph structure representation of an image, where nodes represent object categories and edges indicate relationships between objects (e.g., person-riding-bike). Early works on scene graph generation focused on local visual information and overlooked contextual information in images. To address this issue, Xu et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end model that improves visual relationship prediction by iteratively propagating contextual information across the scene graph's topology. Furthermore, most scene graph generation models struggle with data distribution issues, such as long-tail distributions. This poses challenges in accurately predicting frequent relationships that lack informative details (e.g., on, at), limiting the applicability of scene graph models in practical tasks. To address this, Zhang et al. (2022) propose Internal and External Data Transfer. This approach automatically generates an enhanced dataset, mitigating data distribution problems and providing more coherent annotations for all predictions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.634, + 0.659, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present the SGEPG framework, which aims to automatically generate region-query pairs from given images and train models to tackle ReC task using these pseudo labels. As depicted in Figure 2, the SGEPG framework consists of four key components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image re" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11980" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gions and corresponding pseudo queries. Note that in this work, we mainly focus on the first three modules, with the objective of generating pseudo-labels of good quality for training visual-language models designed for the ReC task. To accommodate space limitations, certain methodological details may have been omitted. For a more comprehensive understanding, please refer to Appendix A for detailed information regarding the methods employed in this study." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.26, + 0.403, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Core Scene Graph Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.283, + 0.49, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The objective of this module is to obtain an informative core graph that accurately describes the objects in the image and their relationships. The scene graph, denoted as \\( G = (V,E) \\), is a directed graph consisting of vertices \\( V \\) representing object instances characterized by bounding boxes with object category labels, and edges \\( E \\) representing relationships between objects. Each edge \\( e_i = (v_s,v_o,r_i) \\) indicates a relation type \\( r_i \\) between subject \\( v_s \\) and object \\( v_o \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.446, + 0.49, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Firstly, we utilize scene graph generation techniques to construct a preliminary scene graph for a given image. Specifically, we employ the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022), as discussed in Section 2.2. However, the generated preliminary scene graph may not be complete due to the limitations of current scene graph approaches. These approaches often provide coarse and insufficient object categories in the generated graph, represented by generic labels such as \"flower\" instead of specific labels like \"rose\".1 Furthermore, the generated scene graph only contains the relationship information between objects and fails to capture attribute details of each object, such as the color of a rose. Thus, the preliminary scene graph lacks specific information about object attributes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.704, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the aforementioned limitations, we expand the preliminary graph by introducing additional nodes and edges to construct a complete scene graph. Following the insights from (Jiang et al., 2022), the referring expressions typically involve three crucial aspects: category, attributes and spatial information. Additionally, humans naturally combine these visual semantic cues when referring to specific target objects, particularly in complex scenes with multiple objects of similar classes, reducing ambiguity in the referring expres" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sions. Therefore, we next extract these three key aspects from the image:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.883, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Category. Inspired by two stage ReC methods (Yu et al., 2018), we employ an object detector to obtain object proposals (e.g., \"skier\" in Figure 2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.171, + 0.885, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Attribute. To extract attributes like material (e.g., wooden), color (e.g., red), and status (e.g., standing), we utilize an attribute classifier (Anderson et al., 2018). However, existing models have a constraint in extracting only the most confident attribute for each object, even though an object can have multiple attributes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.288, + 0.885, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Spatial Information. Humans often use spatial information to refer to an object, such as \"right apple\", \"top guy\". We obtain spatial information by comparing the center coordinates of object bounding boxes. Specifically, we derive horizontal spatial information (e.g., left, right) and vertical spatial information (e.g., top, bottom) by comparing the object center coordinates along these dimensions." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.418, + 0.887, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After extracting the above three information, we first update the categories of the vertices in the preliminary scene graph with the obtained category information. Next, we introduce attribute nodes and spatial nodes into the scene graph, representing the attribute information and spatial relationships with the corresponding object nodes, that are denoted as [Attr], [Spatial], respectively. As a result, we generate an informative core scene graph that encompasses the three crucial pieces of information, as illustrated in the lower left corner of Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.605, + 0.836, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Non-Ambiguous Query Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.625, + 0.885, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The core scene graph captures the rich semantic information of the entire image, which can be utilized to generate queries by populating its information into designed templates. However, using the entire scene graph may result in queries that are too complex and contain excessive specific information for referring the objects. In ReC tasks, queries are typically concise and only describe partial information relevant to the objects being referred to, rather than providing an overall description of the scene. To address this, we focus on subgraphs that contain the nodes corresponding to the objects of interest. These subgraphs capture partial information about the objects, which can be leveraged to obtain concise pseudo queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.867, + 0.885, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, the ambiguity issue may arise if there are similar subgraphs present in the scene graph." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.873, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Please refer to Appendix B for the designed templates." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Note that the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022) only supports 150 classes." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11981" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.861, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.398, + 0.884, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The framework of SGEPG, which consists of four modules: Core Scene Graph Generation, Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, and Visual-Language. The diagram also illustrates how SGEPG generates queries related to Person A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.49, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An ambiguous query can refer to multiple objects in the image, which might lead to incorrect supervision signals detrimental for effective learning of visual-language module. Existing pseudo query-based models, such as Pseudo-Q, struggle with this issue and may generate ambiguous queries that refer to different objects, as depicted in Figure 1. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective Ambiguity Resolver Strategy based on the characteristics of the scene graph. The main idea is that a query referring to an object is nonambiguous if its corresponding subgraph is not a subgraph of any other subgraphs representing different objects in the scene graph. Specifically, let \\( G_{A} \\) and \\( G_{B} \\) denote the graphs of objects \\( A \\) and \\( B \\), respectively, and \\( S_{A} \\) represent the selected subgraph from \\( G_{A} \\) for generating the query about \\( A \\). To resolve ambiguity, \\( S_{A} \\) should satisfy the condition \\( S_{A} \\nsubseteq G_{B} \\). For instance, in the left corner of the Non-Ambiguous Query Generation module on the right side of Figure 2, the subgraph representing \"skier-pants-dark\" of \"Person A\" is removed as it is identical to a subgraph of \"Person B\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.849, + 0.421, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Diversity Driven Query Rewriter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the limited diversity and fluency issues of pseudo queries generated by directly filling subgraphs into predefined templates, we introduce a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.467, + 0.885, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "rewriter component. It aims to to enhance the diversity and bridge the gap with human expressions, while preserving semantic consistency. To achieve this, GPT-3.5, a powerful large pre-trained language model is utilized to rewrite the queries. GPT-3.5 also has the capability to incorporate additional prior knowledge into queries. For example, it may rewrite \"giraffe\" as \"long-necked animal\" associating the abstract concept of a \"long-necked\" with the entity of \"giraffe\". This integration of prior knowledge helps the SGEPG generate more accurate and meaningful queries. Furthermore, we introduce an important hyperparameter \\(\\alpha\\), which determines the proportion of generated pseudo queries that will undergo the rewriting process." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.721, + 0.755, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Visual-Language Module" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this module, our objective is to train a visual-language model that learns the mapping between image regions and textual descriptions, using pseudo-labels obtained from the previous modules. To achieve this, we adopt a similar architecture to VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), a visual-language model designed for the ReC task through supervised learning. The VLTVG model consists of four components: a visual encoder, a language encoder, a fusion module, and a multi-stage cross-modal decoder. To extract visual features from the given" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11982" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "image, we employ DETR (Carion et al., 2020) as the visual encoder within our model. For the textual modality, we utilize BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) as the language encoder to obtain feature representations of the corresponding expressions. These visual and textual representations are then fused using a fusion module. Finally, the fused features are passed through a multi-stage cross-modal decoder, which generates the coordinates for the final predicted bounding box for the referred object in the image. Note that while we have specifically utilized this visual language model architecture, it can be replaced by any other supervised ReC models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.307, + 0.253, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.334, + 0.317, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets and setups" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.49, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate SGEPG on three datasets: RefCOCO, RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. The images in these datasets are from the MSCOCO (Vinyals et al., 2016) and we follow the same train/val/test splits from (Subramanian et al., 2022). The number of training images for these three datasets is 16994, 16992, and 24698, respectively. Compared to RefCOCO, the queries in RefCOCO+ do not include spatial words (e.g. \"left\", \"top\") to describe objects, and RefCOCOg queries are typically longer and involve more interactions between objects. The referred objects in testA split are all human, the testB split comprises only non-human objects, while val split does not have such restriction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each image in the RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg datasets, we select the top 3 objects based on their confidence scores and generate 3 queries for each selected object. The hyperparameter \\(\\alpha\\) for the Rewriter is set to \\(50\\%\\). The visual-language component of our proposed model is trained independently for 30 epochs using the generated pseudo-labels of the images from each dataset, with the remaining hyperparameter settings consistent with those reported in the VLTVG paper. The evaluation of the trained model is conducted on the respective test set of each dataset. Thus, during the training stage of our approach, we do not utilize any manually annotated datasets, i.e., the human annotated image region-query pairs, which are solely used for evaluation purposes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.85, + 0.235, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the performance of our SGEPG approach with several existing methods, including unsupervised methods such as ReCLIP, GradCAM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(Subramanian et al., 2022), CPT (Yao et al., 2021), and Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022) as well as weakly-supervised methods like VC (Zhang et al., 2018), ARN (Liu et al., 2019a), KPRN (Liu et al., 2019b), and DTWREG (Sun et al., 2021). We also include the random guess results and the state-of-the-art results achieved by MDETR (Kamath et al., 2021). It is worth noting that Pseudo-Q, like our SGEPG approach, also relies on generating pseudo queries, as mentioned earlier. However, Pseudo-Q employs a different visual-language model than VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), which we have chosen as our visual language model. To ensure a fair comparison, we train a VLTVG model using the region-text pairs generated by Pseudo-Q, and refer to it as Pseudo-Q-adaptive in our evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.558, + 0.351, + 0.847, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.688, + 0.487, + 0.709, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.558, + 0.509, + 0.846, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.688, + 0.644, + 0.709, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.672, + 0.883, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Experiments of reducing the manual labeling cost. Figure (a): results of our method on three splits of RefCOCO; Figure (b): comparison results between our method and Pseudo-Q on val split of RefCOCO." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.661, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg are presented in Table 1. We begin by comparing our proposed SGEPG model with the unsupervised methods: ReCLIP, and Pseudo-Q. We observe that our proposed SGEPG model demonstrates superior performance. In comparison to ReCLIP, the state-of-the-art unsupervised method which relies on pre-trained visual-language models, SGEPG surpasses ReCLIP by a remarkable \\(15\\%\\) on" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11983" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.082, + 0.855, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
methodSupRefCOCORefCOCO+RefCOCOg
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestBvaltest
Random-15.7313.5119.2016.2913.5719.6018.1219.10
Supervised SOTAFull87.5190.4082.6781.1385.5272.9683.3581.64
VC(Zhang et al., 2018)Weak-33.2930.13-34.6031.58--
ARN(Liu et al., 2019a)34.2636.4333.0734.5336.0133.75--
KPRN(Liu et al., 2019b)35.0434.7436.9835.9635.2436.96--
DTWREG(Sun et al., 2021)39.2141.1437.7239.1840.1038.08--
CPT(Yao et al., 2021)No
CPT-Blk w/ VinVL26.927.527.425.425.027.032.132.3
CPT-Seg w/ VinVL32.236.130.331.935.228.836.736.5
CLIPNo
GradCAM44.6553.4936.1949.4159.6638.6252.2951.28
ReCLIP54.0458.6049.5455.0760.4747.4160.8561.05
Pseudo-labelingNo
Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022)56.0258.2554.1338.8845.0632.1346.2547.44
Pseudo-Q-adapted59.4461.8756.4742.7648.2736.9050.3549.68
SGEPG(Ours)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.7661.3360.61
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.362, + 0.884, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Comparison with ReC methods on RefCOCO+/g in terms of top-1 accuracy (%). Bold indicates the best performance of the column except for the supervised method. Sup column indicates the method category: Full, Weak, No represent fully supervised, weakly supervised and unsupervised, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.42, + 0.301, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.519, + 0.266, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "couch with red cushion" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.42, + 0.495, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.329, + 0.518, + 0.477, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "black coat glasses blue blanket watching outside fence" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.42, + 0.692, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.519, + 0.645, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "man holding paper" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.7, + 0.42, + 0.882, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.747, + 0.519, + 0.836, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "boat with writings" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.536, + 0.31, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.631, + 0.293, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "food above fries on side with score" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.327, + 0.559, + 0.5, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.347, + 0.631, + 0.46, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "train number 242 151 9" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.537, + 0.689, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.631, + 0.676, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "white face with roman numerals" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.705, + 0.536, + 0.878, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.716, + 0.628, + 0.87, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "broccoli pile not middle and not with brown stuff" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.656, + 0.885, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Visualization examples of detection results. The first row of images displays the visualized detection results of both SGEPG and Pseudo-Q. The second row showcases four instances where SGEPG encountered detection failures, with the corresponding results from Pseudo-Q included for comparison. The green bounding boxes and queries are ground truth and the red bounding boxes and yellow bounding boxes are the detection results of SGEPG and Pseudo-Q, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.741, + 0.295, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.299, + 0.741, + 0.503, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.504, + 0.741, + 0.718, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.72, + 0.741, + 0.882, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.847, + 0.882, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The visualization results of pseudo-labels generated by SGEPG. Different colored queries corresponding to different objects." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11984" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.083, + 0.481, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
w/o SG63.4563.963.4743.845.8144.14
w/o ARS65.2463.8164.6548.550.4746.02
w/o DDRQ68.8272.4664.9953.7858.2646.14
SGEPG69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.174, + 0.486, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Main ablation test results on the RefCOCO/+" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.202, + 0.484, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
replace rate (α)0%25%37.5%50%75%
val53.7854.2954.9455.2155.33
testA58.2660.1558.9960.6760.9
testB46.1446.4146.746.7646.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.271, + 0.49, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Rewriting ratio test results of DDQR on Ref-COCO+." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.325, + 0.49, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the RefCOCO dataset, while achieving comparable performance on RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. Regarding Pseudo-Q, which is also based on pseudolabeling, our SGEPG model outperforms it by an average margin of \\(10\\%\\) to \\(12.5\\%\\). This demonstrates that the queries generated by SGEPG for referring to objects can better ensure accurate mapping between the two modalities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.465, + 0.436, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Efficiency Improvement of Manual Annotation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.502, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then conduct experiments to assess the capability of SGEPG in reducing manual labeling costs. Following Pseudo-Q, we replace the manually annotated region-text pairs whose queries contain spatial relationships in RefCOCO with the pseudolabels generated by SGEPG. The results, depicted in Figure 3(a), demonstrate the significant reduction in manual labeling costs achieved by SGEPG. When about \\(40\\%\\) of the manually annotated region-text pairs are replaced with our generated pseudolabels, there is only minimal impact on the model's performance. In addition, we compared SGEPG with Pseudo-Q in Figure 3(b), which indicates that our SGEPG model has the ability to generate superior quality pseudo-labels compared to Pseudo-Q." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.754, + 0.281, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we perform extensive ablation studies on the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of the key aspects of SGEPG, including scene graph (SG), ambiguity resolver strategy (ARS), and Diversity Driven Query Rewriter (DDQR). To evaluate the impact of the SG component, we compare the performance of the model without SG. In this scenario, the category, attribute, and spatial information of the detected" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "objects are directly used to fill the templates and generate pseudo queries. Moreover, as the ARS relies on the scene graph, the model without SG cannot utilize this strategy to address ambiguity. For the models without ARS or DDQR, we either exclude the strategy or remove the DDQR component directly from the SGEPG model. The results of this ablation study are presented in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.214, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Firstly, when comparing the performance of the model without SG to the complete SGEPG, we observe that the complete SGEPG achieves absolute performance improvements of \\(6.16\\%\\) and \\(11.41\\%\\) on the validation sets of RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, respectively. This also indicates that the SG can effectively improve the model's ability to align visual and textual information, especially on challenging datasets like RefCOCO+. Secondly, the complete SGEPG also outperforms the model without the ARS, with absolute improvements of \\(8.53\\%\\) and \\(10.2\\%\\) on the RefCOCO/+ testA, respectively. Finally, we observe that when the DDQR module is removed, the model's performance decreases across both datasets. The above findings demonstrate that the modules proposed by us can provide more accurate supervision signals to the ReC model and improve its performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.514, + 0.857, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Effect of Different Replacing Ratios in Rewriter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.886, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we conduct experiments to examine the impact of rewriting ratios \\(\\alpha\\) in the DDRQ. We perform rewriting on pseudo queries with \\(\\alpha\\) values of \\(25\\%\\), \\(37.5\\%\\), \\(50\\%\\), and \\(75\\%\\). The final results are presented in Table 3. The results indicate that as the rewriting ratio increases, the model's performance improves. This finding suggests that incorporating more diverse expressions can alleviate the discrepancy between pseudo queries generated by artificial templates and human expression. However, there is a noticeable diminishing return effect: the more sentences are rewritten, the training cost increases linearly while the performance gain becomes limited. Therefore, we strike a balance between training cost and model performance, and find that a rewriting ratio of \\(50\\%\\) is appropriate." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.819, + 0.715, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.7 Qualitative Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative examples. To validate that our approach can provide queries with rich relational information and enhance the model's perception of relationships, we conducted visualizations of some generated examples in Figure 5. Further" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11985" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.492, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "more, we performed visual comparisons with the results from Pseudo-Q on selected cases, directly comparing them (first row of Figure 4). We observe that SGEPG effectively captures the complex relational information among objects in the scene, while Pseudo-Q tends to randomly select an object from the query's nouns as the detection object. For instance, in the third example in first row, Pseudo-Q generates detection results solely based on the word \"Person\" in the sentence, completely disregarding the \"holding\" relationship and the \"paper\" object. This also suggests that SGEPG is capable of better capturing the relationships between objects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.295, + 0.491, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Failure case. Additionally, while second row of Figure 4 presents cases where SGEPG encountered prediction errors that can primarily be attributed to the two limitations of the scene graph. Firstly, the scene graph may lack the ability to recognize text present in images. Secondly, the scene graph generation model may struggle in complex scenes, resulting in inaccurate scene graph generation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.436, + 0.248, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.463, + 0.49, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose SGEPG, a novel pseudolabeling ReC method that leverages scene graphs to improve the generation of pseudo queries. By utilizing the scene graph, SGEPG captures object relationships and generates pseudo queries that are rich in relation information, thereby improving the training of ReC models. Additionally, we propose a simple yet effective strategy to filter out ambiguous generated queries. Our method outperforms previous pseudo-labeling approaches on three benchmark datasets and achieves comparable or superior performance compared to other unsupervised ReC methods. Furthermore, SGEPG offers the advantage of significantly reducing manual labeling costs while maintaining the model's performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.717, + 0.221, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While our method has demonstrated excellent performance on three datasets, there are still some limitations. Firstly, the quality of the generated results relies on the accuracy of the scene graph generation. In complex scenes, there is no guarantee that all objects and their relationships can be correctly identified, which may impact the effectiveness of our approach. Secondly, the capabilities of the scene graph are limited in terms of object detection. It can only detect a specific set of objects and may fail to identify certain objects such as the sky or" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sea. Consequently, the generated pseudo queries may not adequately cover these object classes, potentially affecting the comprehensiveness of the generated queries." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.161, + 0.707, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076100), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, SCUT (x2rjD2230080), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2020B0101100002), CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund, CCF-Zhipu AI Large Model Fund." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.326, + 0.61, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.348, + 0.885, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6077-6086." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.437, + 0.884, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Geoffrey H Ball and David J Hall. 1965. Isodata, a novel method of data analysis and pattern classification. Technical report, Stanford research inst Menlo Park CA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.5, + 0.887, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pages 213-229. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.602, + 0.885, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kan Chen, Jiyang Gao, and Ram Nevatia. 2018a. Knowledge aided consistency for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4042-4050." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Jingyuan Chen, Zequn Jie, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2018b. Real-time referring expression comprehension by single-stage grounding network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03426." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.74, + 0.885, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cheng Cheng, Chunping Li, Youfang Han, and Yan Zhu. 2021. A semi-supervised deep learning image caption model based on pseudo label and n-gram. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 131:93-107." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.816, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Dai, Yuqi Zhang, and Dahua Lin. 2017. Detecting visual relationships with deep relational networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and Pattern recognition, pages 3076-3086." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.879, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samyak Datta, Karan Sikka, Anirban Roy, Karuna Ahuja, Devi Parikh, and Ajay Divakaran. 2019. Align2ground: Weakly supervised phrase grounding" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.348, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11986" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "guided by image-caption alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2601-2610." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.489, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiajun Deng, Zhengyuan Yang, Tianlang Chen, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Transvg: End-to-end visual grounding with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1769-1779." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.209, + 0.489, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.27, + 0.489, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rui Fang, Malcolm Doering, and Joyce Y Chai. 2015. Embodied collaborative referring expression generation in situated human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 271-278." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.358, + 0.489, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Feng, Lin Ma, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Unsupervised image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4125-4134." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.419, + 0.489, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1440-1448." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.468, + 0.489, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tanmay Gupta, Arash Vahdat, Gal Chechik, Xiaodong Yang, Jan Kautz, and Derek Hoiem. 2020. Contrastive learning for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 752-768. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.542, + 0.489, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haojun Jiang, Yuanze Lin, Dongchen Han, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. 2022. Pseudo-q: Generating pseudo language queries for visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15513-15523." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.616, + 0.489, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. 2021. Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1780-1790." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.704, + 0.489, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiangyang Li and Shuqiang Jiang. 2019. Know more say less: Image captioning based on scene graphs. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(8):2117-2130." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.752, + 0.489, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Dechao Meng, and Qingming Huang. 2019a. Adaptive reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2611-2620." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Li Su, and Qingming Huang. 2019b. Knowledge-guided pairwise reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 539-547." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongfei Liu, Bo Wan, Lin Ma, and Xuming He. 2021. Relation-aware instance refinement for weakly supervised visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5612-5621." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.883, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junhua Mao, Jonathan Huang, Alexander Toshev, Oana Camburu, Alan L Yuille, and Kevin Murphy. 2016. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11-20." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.883, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9982-9991." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.355, + 0.883, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.445, + 0.883, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sanjay Subramanian, Will Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05991." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.522, + 0.883, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingjie Sun, Jimin Xiao, Eng Gee Lim, Si Liu, and John Y Goulermas. 2021. Discriminative triad matching and reconstruction for weakly referring expression grounding. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11):4189-4195." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.598, + 0.883, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, Baoyuan Wu, Wenhan Luo, and Wei Liu. 2019. Learning to compose dynamic tree structures for visual contexts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6619-6628." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.675, + 0.883, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2016. Show and tell: Lessons learned from the 2015 mscoco image captioning challenge. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39(4):652-663." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.752, + 0.883, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Josiah Wang and Lucia Specia. 2019. Phrase localization without paired training examples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4663-4672." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.883, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danfei Xu, Yuke Zhu, Christopher B Choy, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Scene graph generation by iterative message passing. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5410-5419." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.891, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li Yang, Yan Xu, Chunfeng Yuan, Wei Liu, Bing Li, and Weiming Hu. 2022. Improving visual grounding" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11987" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with visual-linguistic verification and iterative reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9499-9508." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.152, + 0.488, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xu Yang, Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, and Jianfei Cai. 2019. Auto-encoding scene graphs for image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10685–10694." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.232, + 0.488, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuan Yao, Ao Zhang, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Cpt: Colorful prompt tuning for pre-trained vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11797." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.298, + 0.488, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiabo Ye, Junfeng Tian, Ming Yan, Xiaoshan Yang, Xuwu Wang, Ji Zhang, Liang He, and Xin Lin. 2022. Shifting more attention to visual backbone: Query-modulated refinement networks for end-to-end visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15502-15512." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.403, + 0.488, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raymond A Yeh, Minh N Do, and Alexander G Schwing. 2018. Unsupervised textual grounding: Linking words to image concepts. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6125-6134." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.482, + 0.488, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Licheng Yu, Zhe Lin, Xiaohui Shen, Jimei Yang, Xin Lu, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. 2018. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression comprehension. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1307-1315." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.575, + 0.488, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C Berg, and Tamara L Berg. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 69-85. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.641, + 0.488, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Mark Yatskar, Sam Thomson, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Neural motifs: Scene graph parsing with global context. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5831-5840." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.72, + 0.488, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ao Zhang, Yuan Yao, Qianyu Chen, Wei Ji, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2022. Fine-grained scene graph generation with data transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11654." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.786, + 0.488, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanwang Zhang, Yulei Niu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2018. Grounding referring expressions in images by variational context. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4158-4166." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiwu Zhong, Liwei Wang, Jianshu Chen, Dong Yu, and Yin Li. 2020. Comprehensive image captioning via scene graph decomposition. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 211-229. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.83, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A More Details of the Scene Graph Generation" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.133, + 0.616, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Spatial" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.16, + 0.884, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we will elaborate on some additional details regarding the extraction of spatial information. In addition to the four cardinal directions (up, down, left, and right) that we are familiar with, we have incorporated some extra spatial descriptions to help the model better learn the concept of \"spatial\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.275, + 0.884, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Firstly, we introduce the concept of \"corner\". Sometimes, humans use the term \"corner\" to refer to objects that are located in the corners of an image. Therefore, when extracting the spatial information of objects, we also determine whether the object is positioned at the edges or corners of the image. In this work, we consider an object to have the \"corner\" attribute if it satisfies the following conditions: Firstly, the object's bounding box should not be located in the center of the image. Secondly, the object's bounding box should have at least two edges that are positioned at the image's edges. Objects that meet these criteria are assigned the additional \"corner\" attribute." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.503, + 0.884, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Secondly, we have observed that people often use the term \"alone\" to refer to an object that appears to be \"solitary\". Therefore, when there are multiple instances of a certain object category in an image (typically three or more), we employ clustering algorithms (Ball and Hall, 1965) based on coordinates and object bounding box sizes to attempt to divide them into two groups. If one of the groups contains exactly one object, we consider that object to be \"alone\" and assign it the additional \"alone\" attribute." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.701, + 0.738, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Scene Graph Cleaning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While we can utilize scene graph generation models to extract scene graphs from images, the obtained scene graphs may contain errors due to limitations in model performance. Although most incorrectly predicted relations can be filtered out based on confidence scores, some contradictory results may still remain. For example, a scene graph may contain two conflicting triples such as \"boy-sitting at chair\" and \"boy-standing on-floor,\" which contradicts common sense as a person cannot be both \"sitting\" and \"standing.\" In such cases, we only retain the triple with the highest confidence level." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11988" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.317, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Designed Template" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to the fact that scene graphs are graph structures while natural language is a sequential text, it is necessary to find an appropriate method to convert graph structures into text sequences. In this paper, we employ a method that involves populating a manually designed template with information extracted from the scene graph. The scene graph encompasses four main types of information: 1. Object categories, 2. Object attributes, 3. Relationships between objects and 4.spatial. Therefore, the elements to be filled in the manually designed template primarily consist of these three types of information. Here are the main templates used in this paper:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.347, + 0.236, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [attr] [sub]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.374, + 0.27, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [sub] [rel] [obj]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.4, + 0.421, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.426, + 0.462, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [attr] [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.453, + 0.419, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] in/on [spatial]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.48, + 0.419, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] and [rel] [obj]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.507, + 0.42, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.549, + 0.462, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj] in [spatial] {corner | alone}" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.347, + 0.462, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.593, + 0.49, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this context, \"attr\" refers to the attribute of an object, \"sub\" represents the subject, \"obj\" represents the object, \"spatial\" indicates the spatial, and \"rel\" represents the relationship between subject and object. Additionally, \"corner\" and \"alone\" are optional and indicate whether the object is located in the corner of the image and whether it is \"alone,\" respectively. By filling in the scene graph information into the templates, we can obtain pseudo queries generated based on the scene graph. Please note that the word order may vary, and \"spatial\" could be placed at the beginning of the sentence." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.798, + 0.325, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Prompt of Rewriter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use GPT3.5 (ChatGPT) to rewrite the pseudo queries we have constructed. We employ a prompt to communicate to GPT3.5 that our task objective is to rewrite sentences, with each sentence being rewritten three times. The following is the specific prompt we use, along with an example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt:\"Your goal is to act as human-being to generate diversified, accurate and semantically rich referring expressions according to a description of the referred object. The requirement of generated expression: The category, color, position, texture, relationship with other objects or others segments (entities) may be reorganized with some alternative expressions. I will give you some descriptions, and then you generate 3 referring expressions for per description. You should return a dict in which the key is the description and the values are the 3 expression involed in a list, the format looks like {\"Description\": \"xxxxx\", \"Values\": {\"1\": \"xxxxx\", \"2\": \"xxxxx\", \"3\": \"xxxxx\"}}. Don't leave out any sentences. Now, beginning your generation following the goal, requirement and format:\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.343, + 0.796, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: center tallest man in glasses" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.359, + 0.882, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: { \"Description\":\"Center tallest man in glasses\": {\"1\":\"At the center, the tallest man wearing glasses is present.\", \"2\":\"Glasses-wearing man who is the tallest is in the center.\", \"3\":\"The center position is occupied by a man, who is the tallest and wears glasses.}}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.457, + 0.882, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.884, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: { \"Description\": \"corner left top bowl with blueberry above table\", \"Values\": {\"1\": \"The blueberry-filled bowl is positioned in the top left corner, above the table.\", \"2\": \"Above the table, there's a bowl in the top left corner, and it contains blueberries.\", \"3\": \"In the top left corner, there's a bowl placed above the table, and it has blueberries inside.\" } }" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.619, + 0.884, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is important to note that not every rewriting attempt is successful. There are instances where GPT-3.5 may fail to rewrite or generate unexpected statements, such as outputs that do not meet the expected format or provide insufficient information. For such cases where rewriting is not possible, we simply skip them and proceed without making any changes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.759, + 0.757, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Additional Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.786, + 0.882, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.1 Effect of Expressions Number per Object and Object Number per Image" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we investigate the impact of the number of generated pseudo queries for each object, as well as the number of pseudo-labeled objects generated per image, as shown in Table 4. Please note that in this experiment, by default, 4 objects are selected per image to generate pseudo" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11989" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.082, + 0.813, + 0.137 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Expression number per objectObject number per image
123412345
SGEPG66.1768.2168.668.8162.367.6168.8268.668.02
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.147, + 0.882, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Results of different expressions numbers per object and different object numbers per image on RefCOCO." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.175, + 0.797, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
preliminary scene graph36.2345.3125.3237.2146.1126.55
Core scene graph (SGEPG)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.26, + 0.778, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: preliminary scene graph generation results on RefCOCO and RefCOCO+." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.3, + 0.486, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "labels, and 3 statements are generated for each object." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.334, + 0.49, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intuitively, generating a larger number of pseudo queries for each object allows for a broader coverage of the semantic space. The experimental results demonstrate that increasing the number of expressions generated per object leads to improved performance, while insufficiently generated expressions result in limited coverage of the semantic space, leading to a decline in model performance. However, excessively generating expressions for each object can significantly increase training time and increase costs. Hence, to strike a balance between performance and training efficiency, we have set this value to 3 in our other experiments. Furthermore, as the number of objects increases, the number of generated pseudo queries also rises, leading to an improvement in our model's performance. However, it is important to note that our approach utilizes the confidence score from the object detector to select salient objects. Objects with low confidence are more prone to providing incorrect information regarding object categories and visual regions. Thus, when the number of objects is higher, the likelihood of introducing such erroneous information and negatively impacting the model's performance increases." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.751, + 0.382, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.2 Effect of Core Scene Graph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to assess the impact of scene graph generation quality and key information on the results of pseudo-label generation, we also attempted to generate pseudo-labels directly using a preliminary scene graph rather than a core scene graph. We performed the experiments on both the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets. In these experiments, we generated pseudo-labels directly using the preliminary scene graph without any further processing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.3, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experimental results are shown in Table 5. Notably, we observed that training the model solely with preliminary scene graphs, which are noisy and unprocessed, led to poor performance. This finding underscores the importance of accurate and refined core scene graphs in our approach. These core scene graphs, complemented with additional information from off-the-shelf object detectors and attribute classifiers, play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of generated pseudo-labels and ultimately improving the performance of the visual-language model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11990" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_origin.pdf b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f3d98fe7e6761d9fcecdc827a8038df7643ede8 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/f59292b1-1736-4310-bbdc-cf9b3092cfb5_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:54b83375c9f277157a0a11a8a87fdccfcea304b41a98a04889a0b7d41242e139 +size 6317167 diff --git a/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/full.md b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc8027189e05c950d55292f95c9cee30bf504a38 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ +# Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension + +Cantao Wu $^{1}$ , Yi Cai $^{1,2}$ , Liuwu Li $^{1}$ , Jiexin Wang $^{1,2,*}$ + +1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology + +$^{2}$ Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China + +University of Technology) Ministry of Education + +taotaotao0412@gmail.com + +{ycai, jiexinwang}@scut.edu.cn + +liwu.li@outlook.com + +# Abstract + +Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) is a task that involves localizing objects in images based on natural language expressions. Most ReC methods typically approach the task as a supervised learning problem. However, the need for costly annotations, such as clear image-text pairs or region-text pairs, hinders the scalability of existing approaches. In this work, we propose a novel scene graph-based framework that automatically generates high-quality pseudo region-query pairs. Our method harnesses scene graphs to capture the relationships between objects in images and generate expressions enriched with relation information. To ensure accurate mapping between visual regions and text, we introduce an external module that employs a calibration algorithm to filter out ambiguous queries. Additionally, we employ a rewriter module to enhance the diversity of our generated pseudo queries through rewriting. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms previous pseudolabeling methods by about $10\%$ , $12\%$ , and $11\%$ on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, respectively. Furthermore, it surpasses the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by more than $15\%$ on the RefCOCO dataset. + +# 1 Introduction + +Referring expression comprehension (ReC) is an important visual-linguistic task that aims to locate objects in images based on given textual referring expressions. Referring expressions, such as "give me that apple in the basket," are commonly used in social communication. The ability to accurately comprehend such expressions in real-world scenarios is also essential for robots and other intelligent agents to enable natural interactions (Fang et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2020). In recent years, considerable progress has been made in ReC task, particularly for fully-supervised models (Chen et al., 2018b; + +![](images/c1f038d284205694333d785639e9db496d3daf7c05878096fa271b1d095fce94.jpg) + +Original Query from RefCOCO dataset: the bowl that has blueberries on it + +Pseudo-Q Query: white bowl white bowl + +SGEPG Query: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table on the right side, there's a white bowl with green broccoli inside + +Figure 1: Example of queries generated by Pseudo-Q and SGEPG methods, based on two different objects in an image from the RefCOCO dataset. Note that the query generated by SGEPG without rewriting is shown in red, while the query generated by SGEPG with rewriting is shown in blue. + +Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022) trained on manually annotated region-query data. However, constructing large-scale ReC datasets, especially for textual queries referring to the objects, is rather time-consuming. To obtain the clear textual queries, annotators need to provide specific visual information about the referred object, such as its category and attributes. Moreover, due to the presence of multiple similar and confusing objects in images, queries often require additional details to distinguish the referred object, such as spatial information (left, right), object state (running, jumping), and object relationships (e.g., person holding ball). Although some weakly-supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Datta et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2020) partially alleviate the annotation burden, they still rely on paired image-query data, limiting their applicability in the real-world scenes. + +To address the annotation challenges, several works (Yeh et al., 2018; Wang and Specia, 2019; Jiang et al., 2022) have explored unsupervised approaches that do not rely on paired annotations. Nonetheless, these approaches either employ statistical hypothesis testing, make simple assumptions, or only investigate the shallow relation between objects, leading to poor performance in complex scenes. For instance, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022), + +which adopts a method of generating pseudo-labels to train a supervised model. It utilizes an offline object detector to extract salient objects from images and generates pseudo queries using predefined templates with object labels and attributes. However, Pseudo-Q has two limitations: (1) It fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images, leading to pseudo queries that only partially cover the semantic space of referring expressions and deviate significantly from human expressions. (2) The absence of a validation mechanism for the generated pseudo queries introduces the possibility of producing incorrect instances. Both limitations can lead to a degradation in model performance. + +In this paper, we present SGEPG (Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Query Generation), an unsupervised framework designed to generate high-quality region-query pairs. SGEPG leverages the generated scene graph to extract rich semantic information about objects and capture their complex relationships, enabling the selective generation of region-query pairs from the input image. We next introduce a straightforward yet effective strategy based on the scene graph, which helps filter out ambiguous queries. It is crucial to address ambiguity as unclear region-text pairs can yield incorrect supervisory signals, which ultimately degrade the performance of the ReC model. Additionally, we propose a module to rewrite some of the generated queries. This rewriting process enhances the diversity of the generated pseudo queries while also making them more akin to human expressions. As depicted in Figure 1, compared to Pseudo-Q, the SGEPG method generates pseudo queries that are both unambiguous and exhibit higher quality. Moreover, the generated queries by SGEPG also demonstrate more complex inference paths, such as the paths from "bowl" to the "blueberries". + +Specifically, the SGEPG framework comprises four essential components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image regions and corresponding pseudo queries. + +The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, which significantly reduces the manual labeling cost by about $40\%$ on the RefCOCO dataset, with only a slight decrease in performance compared to the fully supervised setting. In addition, our proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by about 10-13 points on the RefCOCO (Yu et al., 2016), RefCOCO+ (Yu et al., 2016), and RefCOCOg (Mao et al., 2016) datasets. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows: + +- We propose the first scene graph-based pseudolabeling method for unsupervised ReC task, which effectively represents the key visual features of different objects and captures their relationships, resulting in region-query pairs that express richer relational information. + +- To address the issue of generating ambiguous queries that yield incorrect supervisory signals and degrade performance, we introduce a disambiguation module based on the scene graph structure to further align the region-query modalities. Additionally, we propose rewriting some queries to increase the diversity and make them more closely resemble human expressions. + +- Experimental results demonstrate that SGEPG not only effectively alleviates the reliance on manual annotation, but also outperforms counterparts and achieves comparable performance to large pre-trained vision-language methods. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Referring Expression Comprehension + +The task of Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) plays a crucial role in applications such as robot navigation and visual question answering. ReC methods can be roughly classified into three types: fully supervised (Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), weakly supervised (Gupta et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019a, 2021; Sun et al., 2021), and unsupervised (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). Although fully supervised methods have achieved state-of-the-art results in the ReC task (Kamath et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), they heavily rely on vast and expensive manually annotated region-query pairs for training. In contrast, weakly supervised methods aim to alleviate this reliance by training the model using only image-text pairs. Most weakly supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Liu et al., 2021) use object detectors to obtain po + +tential regions corresponding to the expressions, treating them as alternatives to missing bounding boxes for training the model. However, annotating the expressions in ReC datasets is the most time-consuming and labor-intensive process. + +To address the need for manual annotations and reduce annotation costs, there is a growing interest in unsupervised methods (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). For instance, Wang and Specia (2019) employ multiple detectors (e.g., Faster-RCNN (Girshick, 2015)) to detect objects, scenes, and colors in images. By comparing the similarity between visual regions and the nouns in the query, the corresponding region related to the query can be identified. ReCLIP, proposed by Subramanian et al. (2022), introduces the use of CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to assign scores to various image regions based on their similarity to the query. The region with the highest similarity score is then selected as the final result. While these methods leverage prior knowledge to analyze the alignment between visual regions and text, the inference speed is relatively slow due to the encoding and scoring of image regions and text in each step. One particular unsupervised approach, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022), stands out by considering using pseudolabelling techniques. The generated pseudo-labels can be employed to train supervised ReC models, allowing the models to acquire grounding abilities without the requirement for manually labeled data. However, Pseudo-Q fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images and does not address the ambiguity issue, leading to poor quality queries, as shown in Figure 1. + +Unlike the existing pseudo-labeling methods (Cheng et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022), SGEPG incorporates scene graphs, enabling the generation of queries with inferred paths and rich relational information. + +# 2.2 Scene Graph + +Scene graphs contains structured semantic information about images, including object categories, attributes, and pairwise relationships. They can provide valuable prior information and have proven useful for various tasks like image captioning (Yang et al., 2019; Li and Jiang, 2019; Zhong et al., 2020). For instance, Li and Jiang (2019) argue that previous image caption approaches, which treat each object individually, lack structured repre + +sentation that provides important contextual clues. Therefore, they propose utilizing triples (subject, relation, object) from scene graphs as additional semantic information, along with visual features, as input to generate caption. Yang et al. (2019) introduce a Scene Graph Auto-Encoder module and incorporate inductive language bias into an encoder-decoder image captioning framework to produce more human-like captions. + +The task of scene graph generation (Dai et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022; Zellers et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2019) aims to obtain a complete graph structure representation of an image, where nodes represent object categories and edges indicate relationships between objects (e.g., person-riding-bike). Early works on scene graph generation focused on local visual information and overlooked contextual information in images. To address this issue, Xu et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end model that improves visual relationship prediction by iteratively propagating contextual information across the scene graph's topology. Furthermore, most scene graph generation models struggle with data distribution issues, such as long-tail distributions. This poses challenges in accurately predicting frequent relationships that lack informative details (e.g., on, at), limiting the applicability of scene graph models in practical tasks. To address this, Zhang et al. (2022) propose Internal and External Data Transfer. This approach automatically generates an enhanced dataset, mitigating data distribution problems and providing more coherent annotations for all predictions. + +# 3 Methodology + +In this section, we present the SGEPG framework, which aims to automatically generate region-query pairs from given images and train models to tackle ReC task using these pseudo labels. As depicted in Figure 2, the SGEPG framework consists of four key components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image re + +gions and corresponding pseudo queries. Note that in this work, we mainly focus on the first three modules, with the objective of generating pseudo-labels of good quality for training visual-language models designed for the ReC task. To accommodate space limitations, certain methodological details may have been omitted. For a more comprehensive understanding, please refer to Appendix A for detailed information regarding the methods employed in this study. + +# 3.1 Core Scene Graph Generation + +The objective of this module is to obtain an informative core graph that accurately describes the objects in the image and their relationships. The scene graph, denoted as $G = (V,E)$ , is a directed graph consisting of vertices $V$ representing object instances characterized by bounding boxes with object category labels, and edges $E$ representing relationships between objects. Each edge $e_i = (v_s,v_o,r_i)$ indicates a relation type $r_i$ between subject $v_s$ and object $v_o$ . + +Firstly, we utilize scene graph generation techniques to construct a preliminary scene graph for a given image. Specifically, we employ the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022), as discussed in Section 2.2. However, the generated preliminary scene graph may not be complete due to the limitations of current scene graph approaches. These approaches often provide coarse and insufficient object categories in the generated graph, represented by generic labels such as "flower" instead of specific labels like "rose".1 Furthermore, the generated scene graph only contains the relationship information between objects and fails to capture attribute details of each object, such as the color of a rose. Thus, the preliminary scene graph lacks specific information about object attributes. + +To address the aforementioned limitations, we expand the preliminary graph by introducing additional nodes and edges to construct a complete scene graph. Following the insights from (Jiang et al., 2022), the referring expressions typically involve three crucial aspects: category, attributes and spatial information. Additionally, humans naturally combine these visual semantic cues when referring to specific target objects, particularly in complex scenes with multiple objects of similar classes, reducing ambiguity in the referring expres + +sions. Therefore, we next extract these three key aspects from the image: + +1. Category. Inspired by two stage ReC methods (Yu et al., 2018), we employ an object detector to obtain object proposals (e.g., "skier" in Figure 2). +2. Attribute. To extract attributes like material (e.g., wooden), color (e.g., red), and status (e.g., standing), we utilize an attribute classifier (Anderson et al., 2018). However, existing models have a constraint in extracting only the most confident attribute for each object, even though an object can have multiple attributes. +3. Spatial Information. Humans often use spatial information to refer to an object, such as "right apple", "top guy". We obtain spatial information by comparing the center coordinates of object bounding boxes. Specifically, we derive horizontal spatial information (e.g., left, right) and vertical spatial information (e.g., top, bottom) by comparing the object center coordinates along these dimensions. + +After extracting the above three information, we first update the categories of the vertices in the preliminary scene graph with the obtained category information. Next, we introduce attribute nodes and spatial nodes into the scene graph, representing the attribute information and spatial relationships with the corresponding object nodes, that are denoted as [Attr], [Spatial], respectively. As a result, we generate an informative core scene graph that encompasses the three crucial pieces of information, as illustrated in the lower left corner of Figure 2. + +# 3.2 Non-Ambiguous Query Generation + +The core scene graph captures the rich semantic information of the entire image, which can be utilized to generate queries by populating its information into designed templates. However, using the entire scene graph may result in queries that are too complex and contain excessive specific information for referring the objects. In ReC tasks, queries are typically concise and only describe partial information relevant to the objects being referred to, rather than providing an overall description of the scene. To address this, we focus on subgraphs that contain the nodes corresponding to the objects of interest. These subgraphs capture partial information about the objects, which can be leveraged to obtain concise pseudo queries. + +However, the ambiguity issue may arise if there are similar subgraphs present in the scene graph. + +![](images/59497fb54795e4402b705443de1e15cbd6988e86c9e913a220dabb58510d0170.jpg) +Figure 2: The framework of SGEPG, which consists of four modules: Core Scene Graph Generation, Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, and Visual-Language. The diagram also illustrates how SGEPG generates queries related to Person A. + +An ambiguous query can refer to multiple objects in the image, which might lead to incorrect supervision signals detrimental for effective learning of visual-language module. Existing pseudo query-based models, such as Pseudo-Q, struggle with this issue and may generate ambiguous queries that refer to different objects, as depicted in Figure 1. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective Ambiguity Resolver Strategy based on the characteristics of the scene graph. The main idea is that a query referring to an object is nonambiguous if its corresponding subgraph is not a subgraph of any other subgraphs representing different objects in the scene graph. Specifically, let $G_{A}$ and $G_{B}$ denote the graphs of objects $A$ and $B$ , respectively, and $S_{A}$ represent the selected subgraph from $G_{A}$ for generating the query about $A$ . To resolve ambiguity, $S_{A}$ should satisfy the condition $S_{A} \nsubseteq G_{B}$ . For instance, in the left corner of the Non-Ambiguous Query Generation module on the right side of Figure 2, the subgraph representing "skier-pants-dark" of "Person A" is removed as it is identical to a subgraph of "Person B". + +# 3.3 Diversity Driven Query Rewriter + +To address the limited diversity and fluency issues of pseudo queries generated by directly filling subgraphs into predefined templates, we introduce a + +rewriter component. It aims to to enhance the diversity and bridge the gap with human expressions, while preserving semantic consistency. To achieve this, GPT-3.5, a powerful large pre-trained language model is utilized to rewrite the queries. GPT-3.5 also has the capability to incorporate additional prior knowledge into queries. For example, it may rewrite "giraffe" as "long-necked animal" associating the abstract concept of a "long-necked" with the entity of "giraffe". This integration of prior knowledge helps the SGEPG generate more accurate and meaningful queries. Furthermore, we introduce an important hyperparameter $\alpha$ , which determines the proportion of generated pseudo queries that will undergo the rewriting process. + +# 3.4 Visual-Language Module + +In this module, our objective is to train a visual-language model that learns the mapping between image regions and textual descriptions, using pseudo-labels obtained from the previous modules. To achieve this, we adopt a similar architecture to VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), a visual-language model designed for the ReC task through supervised learning. The VLTVG model consists of four components: a visual encoder, a language encoder, a fusion module, and a multi-stage cross-modal decoder. To extract visual features from the given + +image, we employ DETR (Carion et al., 2020) as the visual encoder within our model. For the textual modality, we utilize BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) as the language encoder to obtain feature representations of the corresponding expressions. These visual and textual representations are then fused using a fusion module. Finally, the fused features are passed through a multi-stage cross-modal decoder, which generates the coordinates for the final predicted bounding box for the referred object in the image. Note that while we have specifically utilized this visual language model architecture, it can be replaced by any other supervised ReC models. + +# 4 Experiment + +# 4.1 Datasets and setups + +We evaluate SGEPG on three datasets: RefCOCO, RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. The images in these datasets are from the MSCOCO (Vinyals et al., 2016) and we follow the same train/val/test splits from (Subramanian et al., 2022). The number of training images for these three datasets is 16994, 16992, and 24698, respectively. Compared to RefCOCO, the queries in RefCOCO+ do not include spatial words (e.g. "left", "top") to describe objects, and RefCOCOg queries are typically longer and involve more interactions between objects. The referred objects in testA split are all human, the testB split comprises only non-human objects, while val split does not have such restriction. + +For each image in the RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg datasets, we select the top 3 objects based on their confidence scores and generate 3 queries for each selected object. The hyperparameter $\alpha$ for the Rewriter is set to $50\%$ . The visual-language component of our proposed model is trained independently for 30 epochs using the generated pseudo-labels of the images from each dataset, with the remaining hyperparameter settings consistent with those reported in the VLTVG paper. The evaluation of the trained model is conducted on the respective test set of each dataset. Thus, during the training stage of our approach, we do not utilize any manually annotated datasets, i.e., the human annotated image region-query pairs, which are solely used for evaluation purposes. + +# 4.2 Baselines + +We compare the performance of our SGEPG approach with several existing methods, including unsupervised methods such as ReCLIP, GradCAM + +(Subramanian et al., 2022), CPT (Yao et al., 2021), and Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022) as well as weakly-supervised methods like VC (Zhang et al., 2018), ARN (Liu et al., 2019a), KPRN (Liu et al., 2019b), and DTWREG (Sun et al., 2021). We also include the random guess results and the state-of-the-art results achieved by MDETR (Kamath et al., 2021). It is worth noting that Pseudo-Q, like our SGEPG approach, also relies on generating pseudo queries, as mentioned earlier. However, Pseudo-Q employs a different visual-language model than VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), which we have chosen as our visual language model. To ensure a fair comparison, we train a VLTVG model using the region-text pairs generated by Pseudo-Q, and refer to it as Pseudo-Q-adaptive in our evaluation. + +![](images/6bb5972ce5f8a0e139c7f7651db8f333ad981d4e78a373b900a91c5fa22a9040.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/586834ddf2e53bba3ba0231a4b24b930507b77699715ed86ce1325b5200d5b84.jpg) +(b) +Figure 3: Experiments of reducing the manual labeling cost. Figure (a): results of our method on three splits of RefCOCO; Figure (b): comparison results between our method and Pseudo-Q on val split of RefCOCO. + +# 4.3 Main Results + +The results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg are presented in Table 1. We begin by comparing our proposed SGEPG model with the unsupervised methods: ReCLIP, and Pseudo-Q. We observe that our proposed SGEPG model demonstrates superior performance. In comparison to ReCLIP, the state-of-the-art unsupervised method which relies on pre-trained visual-language models, SGEPG surpasses ReCLIP by a remarkable $15\%$ on + +
methodSupRefCOCORefCOCO+RefCOCOg
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestBvaltest
Random-15.7313.5119.2016.2913.5719.6018.1219.10
Supervised SOTAFull87.5190.4082.6781.1385.5272.9683.3581.64
VC(Zhang et al., 2018)Weak-33.2930.13-34.6031.58--
ARN(Liu et al., 2019a)34.2636.4333.0734.5336.0133.75--
KPRN(Liu et al., 2019b)35.0434.7436.9835.9635.2436.96--
DTWREG(Sun et al., 2021)39.2141.1437.7239.1840.1038.08--
CPT(Yao et al., 2021)No
CPT-Blk w/ VinVL26.927.527.425.425.027.032.132.3
CPT-Seg w/ VinVL32.236.130.331.935.228.836.736.5
CLIPNo
GradCAM44.6553.4936.1949.4159.6638.6252.2951.28
ReCLIP54.0458.6049.5455.0760.4747.4160.8561.05
Pseudo-labelingNo
Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022)56.0258.2554.1338.8845.0632.1346.2547.44
Pseudo-Q-adapted59.4461.8756.4742.7648.2736.9050.3549.68
SGEPG(Ours)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.7661.3360.61
+ +Table 1: Comparison with ReC methods on RefCOCO+/g in terms of top-1 accuracy (%). Bold indicates the best performance of the column except for the supervised method. Sup column indicates the method category: Full, Weak, No represent fully supervised, weakly supervised and unsupervised, respectively. + +![](images/004f2410e6428d39b168227ac8f5d18469bfe8382880c91bfb0b3c459748e00b.jpg) +couch with red cushion + +![](images/318a6b59a61c08ba85e4c41cd7b12011d84c1e022d03a4b62f2c10e51fc422f6.jpg) +black coat glasses blue blanket watching outside fence + +![](images/1189a0bfa5683669714c1e01fe6a7778b8a6bb2b039ad69f1bfd07c53985d64d.jpg) +man holding paper + +![](images/bc9612b0887099bed8ff6aafa53e4e8f288bf1e8707aae02c944d2308f5ccc92.jpg) +boat with writings + +![](images/8772e9c7feae267361d6257346a119d5adac35ecc5ba1ec5a8c35260188c6c6f.jpg) +food above fries on side with score + +![](images/cde09ff7c30d37509ae69109a0f0e0d76285008ed26341875850a9a3a19a1953.jpg) +train number 242 151 9 + +![](images/2f84d364753ddff4cf2c07ccde4797382e15958ab73e700ffc54ebd6255adf9a.jpg) +white face with roman numerals + +![](images/906877db72f5f500c8da14a71f1ba8025d0d61ffef3f372cf2a2c421dbc52da9.jpg) +broccoli pile not middle and not with brown stuff + +![](images/49d4cca4d4912343fbe7beccb18d85707d49d581115a3f894c244534e920a56a.jpg) +Figure 4: Visualization examples of detection results. The first row of images displays the visualized detection results of both SGEPG and Pseudo-Q. The second row showcases four instances where SGEPG encountered detection failures, with the corresponding results from Pseudo-Q included for comparison. The green bounding boxes and queries are ground truth and the red bounding boxes and yellow bounding boxes are the detection results of SGEPG and Pseudo-Q, respectively. + +![](images/dfed385d07a67634c876b3ec28a9b7baf3b60ed96c83eb01993651d64784b4ef.jpg) +Figure 5: The visualization results of pseudo-labels generated by SGEPG. Different colored queries corresponding to different objects. + +![](images/ce7f9752373914b3fcd58013a04dc7b6339cdd155d35910c8f8585d5abb88664.jpg) + +![](images/e19e9d85d4e4ea41539eefe345cebe090891ba34b39c3aee7bcef40b6ff769b2.jpg) + +
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
w/o SG63.4563.963.4743.845.8144.14
w/o ARS65.2463.8164.6548.550.4746.02
w/o DDRQ68.8272.4664.9953.7858.2646.14
SGEPG69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
+ +Table 2: Main ablation test results on the RefCOCO/+ + +
replace rate (α)0%25%37.5%50%75%
val53.7854.2954.9455.2155.33
testA58.2660.1558.9960.6760.9
testB46.1446.4146.746.7646.8
+ +Table 3: Rewriting ratio test results of DDQR on Ref-COCO+. + +the RefCOCO dataset, while achieving comparable performance on RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. Regarding Pseudo-Q, which is also based on pseudolabeling, our SGEPG model outperforms it by an average margin of $10\%$ to $12.5\%$ . This demonstrates that the queries generated by SGEPG for referring to objects can better ensure accurate mapping between the two modalities. + +# 4.4 Efficiency Improvement of Manual Annotation + +We then conduct experiments to assess the capability of SGEPG in reducing manual labeling costs. Following Pseudo-Q, we replace the manually annotated region-text pairs whose queries contain spatial relationships in RefCOCO with the pseudolabels generated by SGEPG. The results, depicted in Figure 3(a), demonstrate the significant reduction in manual labeling costs achieved by SGEPG. When about $40\%$ of the manually annotated region-text pairs are replaced with our generated pseudolabels, there is only minimal impact on the model's performance. In addition, we compared SGEPG with Pseudo-Q in Figure 3(b), which indicates that our SGEPG model has the ability to generate superior quality pseudo-labels compared to Pseudo-Q. + +# 4.5 Ablation Study + +In this section, we perform extensive ablation studies on the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of the key aspects of SGEPG, including scene graph (SG), ambiguity resolver strategy (ARS), and Diversity Driven Query Rewriter (DDQR). To evaluate the impact of the SG component, we compare the performance of the model without SG. In this scenario, the category, attribute, and spatial information of the detected + +objects are directly used to fill the templates and generate pseudo queries. Moreover, as the ARS relies on the scene graph, the model without SG cannot utilize this strategy to address ambiguity. For the models without ARS or DDQR, we either exclude the strategy or remove the DDQR component directly from the SGEPG model. The results of this ablation study are presented in Table 2. + +Firstly, when comparing the performance of the model without SG to the complete SGEPG, we observe that the complete SGEPG achieves absolute performance improvements of $6.16\%$ and $11.41\%$ on the validation sets of RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, respectively. This also indicates that the SG can effectively improve the model's ability to align visual and textual information, especially on challenging datasets like RefCOCO+. Secondly, the complete SGEPG also outperforms the model without the ARS, with absolute improvements of $8.53\%$ and $10.2\%$ on the RefCOCO/+ testA, respectively. Finally, we observe that when the DDQR module is removed, the model's performance decreases across both datasets. The above findings demonstrate that the modules proposed by us can provide more accurate supervision signals to the ReC model and improve its performance. + +# 4.6 Effect of Different Replacing Ratios in Rewriter + +In this section, we conduct experiments to examine the impact of rewriting ratios $\alpha$ in the DDRQ. We perform rewriting on pseudo queries with $\alpha$ values of $25\%$ , $37.5\%$ , $50\%$ , and $75\%$ . The final results are presented in Table 3. The results indicate that as the rewriting ratio increases, the model's performance improves. This finding suggests that incorporating more diverse expressions can alleviate the discrepancy between pseudo queries generated by artificial templates and human expression. However, there is a noticeable diminishing return effect: the more sentences are rewritten, the training cost increases linearly while the performance gain becomes limited. Therefore, we strike a balance between training cost and model performance, and find that a rewriting ratio of $50\%$ is appropriate. + +# 4.7 Qualitative Analysis + +Qualitative examples. To validate that our approach can provide queries with rich relational information and enhance the model's perception of relationships, we conducted visualizations of some generated examples in Figure 5. Further + +more, we performed visual comparisons with the results from Pseudo-Q on selected cases, directly comparing them (first row of Figure 4). We observe that SGEPG effectively captures the complex relational information among objects in the scene, while Pseudo-Q tends to randomly select an object from the query's nouns as the detection object. For instance, in the third example in first row, Pseudo-Q generates detection results solely based on the word "Person" in the sentence, completely disregarding the "holding" relationship and the "paper" object. This also suggests that SGEPG is capable of better capturing the relationships between objects. + +Failure case. Additionally, while second row of Figure 4 presents cases where SGEPG encountered prediction errors that can primarily be attributed to the two limitations of the scene graph. Firstly, the scene graph may lack the ability to recognize text present in images. Secondly, the scene graph generation model may struggle in complex scenes, resulting in inaccurate scene graph generation. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose SGEPG, a novel pseudolabeling ReC method that leverages scene graphs to improve the generation of pseudo queries. By utilizing the scene graph, SGEPG captures object relationships and generates pseudo queries that are rich in relation information, thereby improving the training of ReC models. Additionally, we propose a simple yet effective strategy to filter out ambiguous generated queries. Our method outperforms previous pseudo-labeling approaches on three benchmark datasets and achieves comparable or superior performance compared to other unsupervised ReC methods. Furthermore, SGEPG offers the advantage of significantly reducing manual labeling costs while maintaining the model's performance. + +# Limitations + +While our method has demonstrated excellent performance on three datasets, there are still some limitations. Firstly, the quality of the generated results relies on the accuracy of the scene graph generation. In complex scenes, there is no guarantee that all objects and their relationships can be correctly identified, which may impact the effectiveness of our approach. Secondly, the capabilities of the scene graph are limited in terms of object detection. It can only detect a specific set of objects and may fail to identify certain objects such as the sky or + +sea. Consequently, the generated pseudo queries may not adequately cover these object classes, potentially affecting the comprehensiveness of the generated queries. + +# 6 Acknowledgement + +This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076100), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, SCUT (x2rjD2230080), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2020B0101100002), CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund, CCF-Zhipu AI Large Model Fund. + +# References + +Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6077-6086. +Geoffrey H Ball and David J Hall. 1965. Isodata, a novel method of data analysis and pattern classification. Technical report, Stanford research inst Menlo Park CA. +Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pages 213-229. Springer. +Kan Chen, Jiyang Gao, and Ram Nevatia. 2018a. Knowledge aided consistency for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4042-4050. +Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Jingyuan Chen, Zequn Jie, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2018b. Real-time referring expression comprehension by single-stage grounding network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03426. +Cheng Cheng, Chunping Li, Youfang Han, and Yan Zhu. 2021. A semi-supervised deep learning image caption model based on pseudo label and n-gram. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 131:93-107. +Bo Dai, Yuqi Zhang, and Dahua Lin. 2017. Detecting visual relationships with deep relational networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and Pattern recognition, pages 3076-3086. +Samyak Datta, Karan Sikka, Anirban Roy, Karuna Ahuja, Devi Parikh, and Ajay Divakaran. 2019. Align2ground: Weakly supervised phrase grounding + +guided by image-caption alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2601-2610. +Jiajun Deng, Zhengyuan Yang, Tianlang Chen, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Transvg: End-to-end visual grounding with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1769-1779. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. +Rui Fang, Malcolm Doering, and Joyce Y Chai. 2015. Embodied collaborative referring expression generation in situated human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 271-278. +Yang Feng, Lin Ma, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Unsupervised image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4125-4134. +Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1440-1448. +Tanmay Gupta, Arash Vahdat, Gal Chechik, Xiaodong Yang, Jan Kautz, and Derek Hoiem. 2020. Contrastive learning for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 752-768. Springer. +Haojun Jiang, Yuanze Lin, Dongchen Han, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. 2022. Pseudo-q: Generating pseudo language queries for visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15513-15523. +Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. 2021. Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1780-1790. +Xiangyang Li and Shuqiang Jiang. 2019. Know more say less: Image captioning based on scene graphs. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(8):2117-2130. +Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Dechao Meng, and Qingming Huang. 2019a. Adaptive reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2611-2620. +Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Li Su, and Qingming Huang. 2019b. Knowledge-guided pairwise reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 539-547. + +Yongfei Liu, Bo Wan, Lin Ma, and Xuming He. 2021. Relation-aware instance refinement for weakly supervised visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5612-5621. +Junhua Mao, Jonathan Huang, Alexander Toshev, Oana Camburu, Alan L Yuille, and Kevin Murphy. 2016. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11-20. +Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9982-9991. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR. +Sanjay Subramanian, Will Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05991. +Mingjie Sun, Jimin Xiao, Eng Gee Lim, Si Liu, and John Y Goulermas. 2021. Discriminative triad matching and reconstruction for weakly referring expression grounding. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11):4189-4195. +Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, Baoyuan Wu, Wenhan Luo, and Wei Liu. 2019. Learning to compose dynamic tree structures for visual contexts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6619-6628. +Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2016. Show and tell: Lessons learned from the 2015 mscoco image captioning challenge. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39(4):652-663. +Josiah Wang and Lucia Specia. 2019. Phrase localization without paired training examples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4663-4672. +Danfei Xu, Yuke Zhu, Christopher B Choy, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Scene graph generation by iterative message passing. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5410-5419. +Li Yang, Yan Xu, Chunfeng Yuan, Wei Liu, Bing Li, and Weiming Hu. 2022. Improving visual grounding + +with visual-linguistic verification and iterative reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9499-9508. + +Xu Yang, Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, and Jianfei Cai. 2019. Auto-encoding scene graphs for image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10685–10694. + +Yuan Yao, Ao Zhang, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Cpt: Colorful prompt tuning for pre-trained vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11797. + +Jiabo Ye, Junfeng Tian, Ming Yan, Xiaoshan Yang, Xuwu Wang, Ji Zhang, Liang He, and Xin Lin. 2022. Shifting more attention to visual backbone: Query-modulated refinement networks for end-to-end visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15502-15512. + +Raymond A Yeh, Minh N Do, and Alexander G Schwing. 2018. Unsupervised textual grounding: Linking words to image concepts. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6125-6134. + +Licheng Yu, Zhe Lin, Xiaohui Shen, Jimei Yang, Xin Lu, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. 2018. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression comprehension. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1307-1315. + +Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C Berg, and Tamara L Berg. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 69-85. Springer. + +Rowan Zellers, Mark Yatskar, Sam Thomson, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Neural motifs: Scene graph parsing with global context. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5831-5840. + +Ao Zhang, Yuan Yao, Qianyu Chen, Wei Ji, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2022. Fine-grained scene graph generation with data transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11654. + +Hanwang Zhang, Yulei Niu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2018. Grounding referring expressions in images by variational context. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4158-4166. + +Yiwu Zhong, Liwei Wang, Jianshu Chen, Dong Yu, and Yin Li. 2020. Comprehensive image captioning via scene graph decomposition. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 211-229. Springer. + +# A More Details of the Scene Graph Generation + +# A.1 Spatial + +In this section, we will elaborate on some additional details regarding the extraction of spatial information. In addition to the four cardinal directions (up, down, left, and right) that we are familiar with, we have incorporated some extra spatial descriptions to help the model better learn the concept of "spatial". + +Firstly, we introduce the concept of "corner". Sometimes, humans use the term "corner" to refer to objects that are located in the corners of an image. Therefore, when extracting the spatial information of objects, we also determine whether the object is positioned at the edges or corners of the image. In this work, we consider an object to have the "corner" attribute if it satisfies the following conditions: Firstly, the object's bounding box should not be located in the center of the image. Secondly, the object's bounding box should have at least two edges that are positioned at the image's edges. Objects that meet these criteria are assigned the additional "corner" attribute. + +Secondly, we have observed that people often use the term "alone" to refer to an object that appears to be "solitary". Therefore, when there are multiple instances of a certain object category in an image (typically three or more), we employ clustering algorithms (Ball and Hall, 1965) based on coordinates and object bounding box sizes to attempt to divide them into two groups. If one of the groups contains exactly one object, we consider that object to be "alone" and assign it the additional "alone" attribute. + +# A.2 Scene Graph Cleaning + +While we can utilize scene graph generation models to extract scene graphs from images, the obtained scene graphs may contain errors due to limitations in model performance. Although most incorrectly predicted relations can be filtered out based on confidence scores, some contradictory results may still remain. For example, a scene graph may contain two conflicting triples such as "boy-sitting at chair" and "boy-standing on-floor," which contradicts common sense as a person cannot be both "sitting" and "standing." In such cases, we only retain the triple with the highest confidence level. + +# B Designed Template + +Due to the fact that scene graphs are graph structures while natural language is a sequential text, it is necessary to find an appropriate method to convert graph structures into text sequences. In this paper, we employ a method that involves populating a manually designed template with information extracted from the scene graph. The scene graph encompasses four main types of information: 1. Object categories, 2. Object attributes, 3. Relationships between objects and 4.spatial. Therefore, the elements to be filled in the manually designed template primarily consist of these three types of information. Here are the main templates used in this paper: + +- [attr] [sub] +- [sub] [rel] [obj] +- [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone} +- [attr] [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone} +- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] in/on [spatial] +- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] and [rel] [obj] +- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj] +- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj] in [spatial] {corner | alone} + +In this context, "attr" refers to the attribute of an object, "sub" represents the subject, "obj" represents the object, "spatial" indicates the spatial, and "rel" represents the relationship between subject and object. Additionally, "corner" and "alone" are optional and indicate whether the object is located in the corner of the image and whether it is "alone," respectively. By filling in the scene graph information into the templates, we can obtain pseudo queries generated based on the scene graph. Please note that the word order may vary, and "spatial" could be placed at the beginning of the sentence. + +# C Prompt of Rewriter + +We use GPT3.5 (ChatGPT) to rewrite the pseudo queries we have constructed. We employ a prompt to communicate to GPT3.5 that our task objective is to rewrite sentences, with each sentence being rewritten three times. The following is the specific prompt we use, along with an example: + +Prompt:"Your goal is to act as human-being to generate diversified, accurate and semantically rich referring expressions according to a description of the referred object. The requirement of generated expression: The category, color, position, texture, relationship with other objects or others segments (entities) may be reorganized with some alternative expressions. I will give you some descriptions, and then you generate 3 referring expressions for per description. You should return a dict in which the key is the description and the values are the 3 expression involed in a list, the format looks like {"Description": "xxxxx", "Values": {"1": "xxxxx", "2": "xxxxx", "3": "xxxxx"}}. Don't leave out any sentences. Now, beginning your generation following the goal, requirement and format:" + +Input: center tallest man in glasses + +Output: { "Description":"Center tallest man in glasses": {"1":"At the center, the tallest man wearing glasses is present.", "2":"Glasses-wearing man who is the tallest is in the center.", "3":"The center position is occupied by a man, who is the tallest and wears glasses.}} + +Input: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table + +Output: { "Description": "corner left top bowl with blueberry above table", "Values": {"1": "The blueberry-filled bowl is positioned in the top left corner, above the table.", "2": "Above the table, there's a bowl in the top left corner, and it contains blueberries.", "3": "In the top left corner, there's a bowl placed above the table, and it has blueberries inside." } } + +It is important to note that not every rewriting attempt is successful. There are instances where GPT-3.5 may fail to rewrite or generate unexpected statements, such as outputs that do not meet the expected format or provide insufficient information. For such cases where rewriting is not possible, we simply skip them and proceed without making any changes. + +# D Additional Experiments + +# D.1 Effect of Expressions Number per Object and Object Number per Image + +In this section, we investigate the impact of the number of generated pseudo queries for each object, as well as the number of pseudo-labeled objects generated per image, as shown in Table 4. Please note that in this experiment, by default, 4 objects are selected per image to generate pseudo + +
Expression number per objectObject number per image
123412345
SGEPG66.1768.2168.668.8162.367.6168.8268.668.02
+ +Table 4: Results of different expressions numbers per object and different object numbers per image on RefCOCO. + +
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
preliminary scene graph36.2345.3125.3237.2146.1126.55
Core scene graph (SGEPG)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
+ +Table 5: preliminary scene graph generation results on RefCOCO and RefCOCO+. + +labels, and 3 statements are generated for each object. + +Intuitively, generating a larger number of pseudo queries for each object allows for a broader coverage of the semantic space. The experimental results demonstrate that increasing the number of expressions generated per object leads to improved performance, while insufficiently generated expressions result in limited coverage of the semantic space, leading to a decline in model performance. However, excessively generating expressions for each object can significantly increase training time and increase costs. Hence, to strike a balance between performance and training efficiency, we have set this value to 3 in our other experiments. Furthermore, as the number of objects increases, the number of generated pseudo queries also rises, leading to an improvement in our model's performance. However, it is important to note that our approach utilizes the confidence score from the object detector to select salient objects. Objects with low confidence are more prone to providing incorrect information regarding object categories and visual regions. Thus, when the number of objects is higher, the likelihood of introducing such erroneous information and negatively impacting the model's performance increases. + +# D.2 Effect of Core Scene Graph + +In order to assess the impact of scene graph generation quality and key information on the results of pseudo-label generation, we also attempted to generate pseudo-labels directly using a preliminary scene graph rather than a core scene graph. We performed the experiments on both the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets. In these experiments, we generated pseudo-labels directly using the preliminary scene graph without any further processing. + +Experimental results are shown in Table 5. Notably, we observed that training the model solely with preliminary scene graphs, which are noisy and unprocessed, led to poor performance. This finding underscores the importance of accurate and refined core scene graphs in our approach. These core scene graphs, complemented with additional information from off-the-shelf object detectors and attribute classifiers, play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of generated pseudo-labels and ultimately improving the performance of the visual-language model. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/images.zip b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..702b31307968242bb05a788045dfc4d2247e960b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:440c52a021ee32bb424630cb993f31c2b94fae46197862a01dc8562687f5ef81 +size 582555 diff --git a/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/layout.json b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a5aabb8ff1649370bde15b4a3a40ee99c6c7df0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8596 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 67, + 501, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 67, + 501, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 67, + 501, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Labeling for Referring Expression Comprehension" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cantao Wu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yi Cai" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Liuwu Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jiexin Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 105, + 431, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2,*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 120, + 473, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 120, + 473, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 120, + 473, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 134, + 454, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 134, + 454, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 134, + 454, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 134, + 454, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 149, + 417, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 149, + 417, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 149, + 417, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Technology) Ministry of Education" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 163, + 368, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 163, + 368, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 163, + 368, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "taotaotao0412@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 177, + 388, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 177, + 388, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 177, + 388, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ycai, jiexinwang}@scut.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 191, + 359, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 191, + 359, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 191, + 359, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "liwu.li@outlook.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) is a task that involves localizing objects in images based on natural language expressions. Most ReC methods typically approach the task as a supervised learning problem. However, the need for costly annotations, such as clear image-text pairs or region-text pairs, hinders the scalability of existing approaches. In this work, we propose a novel scene graph-based framework that automatically generates high-quality pseudo region-query pairs. Our method harnesses scene graphs to capture the relationships between objects in images and generate expressions enriched with relation information. To ensure accurate mapping between visual regions and text, we introduce an external module that employs a calibration algorithm to filter out ambiguous queries. Additionally, we employ a rewriter module to enhance the diversity of our generated pseudo queries through rewriting. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms previous pseudolabeling methods by about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, respectively. Furthermore, it surpasses the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the RefCOCO dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 570, + 154, + 583 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 570, + 154, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 570, + 154, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Referring expression comprehension (ReC) is an important visual-linguistic task that aims to locate objects in images based on given textual referring expressions. Referring expressions, such as \"give me that apple in the basket,\" are commonly used in social communication. The ability to accurately comprehend such expressions in real-world scenarios is also essential for robots and other intelligent agents to enable natural interactions (Fang et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2020). In recent years, considerable progress has been made in ReC task, particularly for fully-supervised models (Chen et al., 2018b;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 404, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 404, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 404, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 211, + 404, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c1f038d284205694333d785639e9db496d3daf7c05878096fa271b1d095fce94.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 210, + 516, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 210, + 516, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 210, + 516, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Query from RefCOCO dataset: the bowl that has blueberries on it" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 232, + 457, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 232, + 457, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 232, + 457, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pseudo-Q Query: white bowl white bowl" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 259, + 521, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 259, + 521, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 406, + 259, + 521, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SGEPG Query: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table on the right side, there's a white bowl with green broccoli inside" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Example of queries generated by Pseudo-Q and SGEPG methods, based on two different objects in an image from the RefCOCO dataset. Note that the query generated by SGEPG without rewriting is shown in red, while the query generated by SGEPG with rewriting is shown in blue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 526, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 526, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 526, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022) trained on manually annotated region-query data. However, constructing large-scale ReC datasets, especially for textual queries referring to the objects, is rather time-consuming. To obtain the clear textual queries, annotators need to provide specific visual information about the referred object, such as its category and attributes. Moreover, due to the presence of multiple similar and confusing objects in images, queries often require additional details to distinguish the referred object, such as spatial information (left, right), object state (running, jumping), and object relationships (e.g., person holding ball). Although some weakly-supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Datta et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2020) partially alleviate the annotation burden, they still rely on paired image-query data, limiting their applicability in the real-world scenes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the annotation challenges, several works (Yeh et al., 2018; Wang and Specia, 2019; Jiang et al., 2022) have explored unsupervised approaches that do not rely on paired annotations. Nonetheless, these approaches either employ statistical hypothesis testing, make simple assumptions, or only investigate the shallow relation between objects, leading to poor performance in complex scenes. For instance, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 170, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11978" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11978-11990 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which adopts a method of generating pseudo-labels to train a supervised model. It utilizes an offline object detector to extract salient objects from images and generates pseudo queries using predefined templates with object labels and attributes. However, Pseudo-Q has two limitations: (1) It fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images, leading to pseudo queries that only partially cover the semantic space of referring expressions and deviate significantly from human expressions. (2) The absence of a validation mechanism for the generated pseudo queries introduces the possibility of producing incorrect instances. Both limitations can lead to a degradation in model performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 267, + 293, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 267, + 293, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 267, + 293, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we present SGEPG (Scene Graph Enhanced Pseudo-Query Generation), an unsupervised framework designed to generate high-quality region-query pairs. SGEPG leverages the generated scene graph to extract rich semantic information about objects and capture their complex relationships, enabling the selective generation of region-query pairs from the input image. We next introduce a straightforward yet effective strategy based on the scene graph, which helps filter out ambiguous queries. It is crucial to address ambiguity as unclear region-text pairs can yield incorrect supervisory signals, which ultimately degrade the performance of the ReC model. Additionally, we propose a module to rewrite some of the generated queries. This rewriting process enhances the diversity of the generated pseudo queries while also making them more akin to human expressions. As depicted in Figure 1, compared to Pseudo-Q, the SGEPG method generates pseudo queries that are both unambiguous and exhibit higher quality. Moreover, the generated queries by SGEPG also demonstrate more complex inference paths, such as the paths from \"bowl\" to the \"blueberries\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 292, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 292, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 292, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, the SGEPG framework comprises four essential components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image regions and corresponding pseudo queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, which significantly reduces the manual labeling cost by about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the RefCOCO dataset, with only a slight decrease in performance compared to the fully supervised setting. In addition, our proposed method consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art unsupervised approach by about 10-13 points on the RefCOCO (Yu et al., 2016), RefCOCO+ (Yu et al., 2016), and RefCOCOg (Mao et al., 2016) datasets. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 220, + 527, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 220, + 527, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 220, + 527, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose the first scene graph-based pseudolabeling method for unsupervised ReC task, which effectively represents the key visual features of different objects and captures their relationships, resulting in region-query pairs that express richer relational information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 303, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 303, + 525, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 303, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To address the issue of generating ambiguous queries that yield incorrect supervisory signals and degrade performance, we introduce a disambiguation module based on the scene graph structure to further align the region-query modalities. Additionally, we propose rewriting some queries to increase the diversity and make them more closely resemble human expressions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 527, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 527, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 527, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Experimental results demonstrate that SGEPG not only effectively alleviates the reliance on manual annotation, but also outperforms counterparts and achieves comparable performance to large pre-trained vision-language methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 396, + 504 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 396, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 396, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 507, + 526 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 507, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 507, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Referring Expression Comprehension" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The task of Referring Expression Comprehension (ReC) plays a crucial role in applications such as robot navigation and visual question answering. ReC methods can be roughly classified into three types: fully supervised (Deng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), weakly supervised (Gupta et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019a, 2021; Sun et al., 2021), and unsupervised (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). Although fully supervised methods have achieved state-of-the-art results in the ReC task (Kamath et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), they heavily rely on vast and expensive manually annotated region-query pairs for training. In contrast, weakly supervised methods aim to alleviate this reliance by training the model using only image-text pairs. Most weakly supervised methods (Chen et al., 2018a; Liu et al., 2021) use object detectors to obtain po" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11979" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tential regions corresponding to the expressions, treating them as alternatives to missing bounding boxes for training the model. However, annotating the expressions in ReC datasets is the most time-consuming and labor-intensive process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 141, + 291, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the need for manual annotations and reduce annotation costs, there is a growing interest in unsupervised methods (Jiang et al., 2022; Subramanian et al., 2022; Wang and Specia, 2019; Yeh et al., 2018). For instance, Wang and Specia (2019) employ multiple detectors (e.g., Faster-RCNN (Girshick, 2015)) to detect objects, scenes, and colors in images. By comparing the similarity between visual regions and the nouns in the query, the corresponding region related to the query can be identified. ReCLIP, proposed by Subramanian et al. (2022), introduces the use of CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to assign scores to various image regions based on their similarity to the query. The region with the highest similarity score is then selected as the final result. While these methods leverage prior knowledge to analyze the alignment between visual regions and text, the inference speed is relatively slow due to the encoding and scoring of image regions and text in each step. One particular unsupervised approach, Pseudo-Q (Jiang et al., 2022), stands out by considering using pseudolabelling techniques. The generated pseudo-labels can be employed to train supervised ReC models, allowing the models to acquire grounding abilities without the requirement for manually labeled data. However, Pseudo-Q fails to capture deep relation information among objects in images and does not address the ambiguity issue, leading to poor quality queries, as shown in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 290, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 290, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 290, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike the existing pseudo-labeling methods (Cheng et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2022), SGEPG incorporates scene graphs, enabling the generation of queries with inferred paths and rich relational information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 158, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 158, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 158, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Scene Graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scene graphs contains structured semantic information about images, including object categories, attributes, and pairwise relationships. They can provide valuable prior information and have proven useful for various tasks like image captioning (Yang et al., 2019; Li and Jiang, 2019; Zhong et al., 2020). For instance, Li and Jiang (2019) argue that previous image caption approaches, which treat each object individually, lack structured repre" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sentation that provides important contextual clues. Therefore, they propose utilizing triples (subject, relation, object) from scene graphs as additional semantic information, along with visual features, as input to generate caption. Yang et al. (2019) introduce a Scene Graph Auto-Encoder module and incorporate inductive language bias into an encoder-decoder image captioning framework to produce more human-like captions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The task of scene graph generation (Dai et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022; Zellers et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2019) aims to obtain a complete graph structure representation of an image, where nodes represent object categories and edges indicate relationships between objects (e.g., person-riding-bike). Early works on scene graph generation focused on local visual information and overlooked contextual information in images. To address this issue, Xu et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end model that improves visual relationship prediction by iteratively propagating contextual information across the scene graph's topology. Furthermore, most scene graph generation models struggle with data distribution issues, such as long-tail distributions. This poses challenges in accurately predicting frequent relationships that lack informative details (e.g., on, at), limiting the applicability of scene graph models in practical tasks. To address this, Zhang et al. (2022) propose Internal and External Data Transfer. This approach automatically generates an enhanced dataset, mitigating data distribution problems and providing more coherent annotations for all predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 533, + 392, + 547 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 533, + 392, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 533, + 392, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present the SGEPG framework, which aims to automatically generate region-query pairs from given images and train models to tackle ReC task using these pseudo labels. As depicted in Figure 2, the SGEPG framework consists of four key components: Core Scene Graph Generation, which is responsible for obtaining an informative core graph to capture object relations; Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, which focuses on generating unambiguous queries; Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, which is designed to rewrite some of the generated queries, aiming to increase the diversity and alleviate the differences between pseudo-queries and human expressions; Visual-Language Module, which aims to capture the contextual relationship between the image re" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11980" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gions and corresponding pseudo queries. Note that in this work, we mainly focus on the first three modules, with the objective of generating pseudo-labels of good quality for training visual-language models designed for the ReC task. To accommodate space limitations, certain methodological details may have been omitted. For a more comprehensive understanding, please refer to Appendix A for detailed information regarding the methods employed in this study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 239, + 232 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 239, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 239, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Core Scene Graph Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The objective of this module is to obtain an informative core graph that accurately describes the objects in the image and their relationships. The scene graph, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G = (V,E)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", is a directed graph consisting of vertices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " representing object instances characterized by bounding boxes with object category labels, and edges " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " representing relationships between objects. Each edge " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i = (v_s,v_o,r_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates a relation type " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between subject " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and object " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Firstly, we utilize scene graph generation techniques to construct a preliminary scene graph for a given image. Specifically, we employ the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022), as discussed in Section 2.2. However, the generated preliminary scene graph may not be complete due to the limitations of current scene graph approaches. These approaches often provide coarse and insufficient object categories in the generated graph, represented by generic labels such as \"flower\" instead of specific labels like \"rose\".1 Furthermore, the generated scene graph only contains the relationship information between objects and fails to capture attribute details of each object, such as the color of a rose. Thus, the preliminary scene graph lacks specific information about object attributes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the aforementioned limitations, we expand the preliminary graph by introducing additional nodes and edges to construct a complete scene graph. Following the insights from (Jiang et al., 2022), the referring expressions typically involve three crucial aspects: category, attributes and spatial information. Additionally, humans naturally combine these visual semantic cues when referring to specific target objects, particularly in complex scenes with multiple objects of similar classes, reducing ambiguity in the referring expres" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sions. Therefore, we next extract these three key aspects from the image:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 525, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Category. Inspired by two stage ReC methods (Yu et al., 2018), we employ an object detector to obtain object proposals (e.g., \"skier\" in Figure 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 526, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 143, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Attribute. To extract attributes like material (e.g., wooden), color (e.g., red), and status (e.g., standing), we utilize an attribute classifier (Anderson et al., 2018). However, existing models have a constraint in extracting only the most confident attribute for each object, even though an object can have multiple attributes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 242, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Spatial Information. Humans often use spatial information to refer to an object, such as \"right apple\", \"top guy\". We obtain spatial information by comparing the center coordinates of object bounding boxes. Specifically, we derive horizontal spatial information (e.g., left, right) and vertical spatial information (e.g., top, bottom) by comparing the object center coordinates along these dimensions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 527, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After extracting the above three information, we first update the categories of the vertices in the preliminary scene graph with the obtained category information. Next, we introduce attribute nodes and spatial nodes into the scene graph, representing the attribute information and spatial relationships with the corresponding object nodes, that are denoted as [Attr], [Spatial], respectively. As a result, we generate an informative core scene graph that encompasses the three crucial pieces of information, as illustrated in the lower left corner of Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 497, + 521 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 497, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 508, + 497, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Non-Ambiguous Query Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 526, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The core scene graph captures the rich semantic information of the entire image, which can be utilized to generate queries by populating its information into designed templates. However, using the entire scene graph may result in queries that are too complex and contain excessive specific information for referring the objects. In ReC tasks, queries are typically concise and only describe partial information relevant to the objects being referred to, rather than providing an overall description of the scene. To address this, we focus on subgraphs that contain the nodes corresponding to the objects of interest. These subgraphs capture partial information about the objects, which can be leveraged to obtain concise pseudo queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 526, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 526, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 526, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, the ambiguity issue may arise if there are similar subgraphs present in the scene graph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 519, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 519, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 519, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Please refer to Appendix B for the designed templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Note that the model proposed by Zhang et al. (2022) only supports 150 classes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11981" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 512, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 512, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 512, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 512, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "59497fb54795e4402b705443de1e15cbd6988e86c9e913a220dabb58510d0170.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The framework of SGEPG, which consists of four modules: Core Scene Graph Generation, Non-Ambiguous Query Generation, Diversity Driven Query Rewriter, and Visual-Language. The diagram also illustrates how SGEPG generates queries related to Person A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An ambiguous query can refer to multiple objects in the image, which might lead to incorrect supervision signals detrimental for effective learning of visual-language module. Existing pseudo query-based models, such as Pseudo-Q, struggle with this issue and may generate ambiguous queries that refer to different objects, as depicted in Figure 1. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective Ambiguity Resolver Strategy based on the characteristics of the scene graph. The main idea is that a query referring to an object is nonambiguous if its corresponding subgraph is not a subgraph of any other subgraphs representing different objects in the scene graph. Specifically, let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{B}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the graphs of objects " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent the selected subgraph from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for generating the query about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To resolve ambiguity, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " should satisfy the condition " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{A} \\nsubseteq G_{B}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For instance, in the left corner of the Non-Ambiguous Query Generation module on the right side of Figure 2, the subgraph representing \"skier-pants-dark\" of \"Person A\" is removed as it is identical to a subgraph of \"Person B\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 250, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 250, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 250, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Diversity Driven Query Rewriter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the limited diversity and fluency issues of pseudo queries generated by directly filling subgraphs into predefined templates, we introduce a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "rewriter component. It aims to to enhance the diversity and bridge the gap with human expressions, while preserving semantic consistency. To achieve this, GPT-3.5, a powerful large pre-trained language model is utilized to rewrite the queries. GPT-3.5 also has the capability to incorporate additional prior knowledge into queries. For example, it may rewrite \"giraffe\" as \"long-necked animal\" associating the abstract concept of a \"long-necked\" with the entity of \"giraffe\". This integration of prior knowledge helps the SGEPG generate more accurate and meaningful queries. Furthermore, we introduce an important hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which determines the proportion of generated pseudo queries that will undergo the rewriting process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 606, + 449, + 619 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 606, + 449, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 606, + 449, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Visual-Language Module" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this module, our objective is to train a visual-language model that learns the mapping between image regions and textual descriptions, using pseudo-labels obtained from the previous modules. To achieve this, we adopt a similar architecture to VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), a visual-language model designed for the ReC task through supervised learning. The VLTVG model consists of four components: a visual encoder, a language encoder, a fusion module, and a multi-stage cross-modal decoder. To extract visual features from the given" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11982" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "image, we employ DETR (Carion et al., 2020) as the visual encoder within our model. For the textual modality, we utilize BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) as the language encoder to obtain feature representations of the corresponding expressions. These visual and textual representations are then fused using a fusion module. Finally, the fused features are passed through a multi-stage cross-modal decoder, which generates the coordinates for the final predicted bounding box for the referred object in the image. Note that while we have specifically utilized this visual language model architecture, it can be replaced by any other supervised ReC models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 150, + 271 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 150, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 150, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 188, + 293 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 188, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 188, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets and setups" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate SGEPG on three datasets: RefCOCO, RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. The images in these datasets are from the MSCOCO (Vinyals et al., 2016) and we follow the same train/val/test splits from (Subramanian et al., 2022). The number of training images for these three datasets is 16994, 16992, and 24698, respectively. Compared to RefCOCO, the queries in RefCOCO+ do not include spatial words (e.g. \"left\", \"top\") to describe objects, and RefCOCOg queries are typically longer and involve more interactions between objects. The referred objects in testA split are all human, the testB split comprises only non-human objects, while val split does not have such restriction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each image in the RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg datasets, we select the top 3 objects based on their confidence scores and generate 3 queries for each selected object. The hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the Rewriter is set to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The visual-language component of our proposed model is trained independently for 30 epochs using the generated pseudo-labels of the images from each dataset, with the remaining hyperparameter settings consistent with those reported in the VLTVG paper. The evaluation of the trained model is conducted on the respective test set of each dataset. Thus, during the training stage of our approach, we do not utilize any manually annotated datasets, i.e., the human annotated image region-query pairs, which are solely used for evaluation purposes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 139, + 727 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 139, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 139, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the performance of our SGEPG approach with several existing methods, including unsupervised methods such as ReCLIP, GradCAM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Subramanian et al., 2022), CPT (Yao et al., 2021), and Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022) as well as weakly-supervised methods like VC (Zhang et al., 2018), ARN (Liu et al., 2019a), KPRN (Liu et al., 2019b), and DTWREG (Sun et al., 2021). We also include the random guess results and the state-of-the-art results achieved by MDETR (Kamath et al., 2021). It is worth noting that Pseudo-Q, like our SGEPG approach, also relies on generating pseudo queries, as mentioned earlier. However, Pseudo-Q employs a different visual-language model than VLTVG (Yang et al., 2022), which we have chosen as our visual language model. To ensure a fair comparison, we train a VLTVG model using the region-text pairs generated by Pseudo-Q, and refer to it as Pseudo-Q-adaptive in our evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 295, + 503, + 405 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 295, + 503, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 295, + 503, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 295, + 503, + 405 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6bb5972ce5f8a0e139c7f7651db8f333ad981d4e78a373b900a91c5fa22a9040.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 409, + 421, + 418 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 409, + 421, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 409, + 421, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 428, + 503, + 536 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 428, + 503, + 536 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 428, + 503, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 428, + 503, + 536 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "586834ddf2e53bba3ba0231a4b24b930507b77699715ed86ce1325b5200d5b84.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 541, + 421, + 551 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 541, + 421, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 541, + 421, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 613 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Experiments of reducing the manual labeling cost. Figure (a): results of our method on three splits of RefCOCO; Figure (b): comparison results between our method and Pseudo-Q on val split of RefCOCO." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 393, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 393, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 393, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg are presented in Table 1. We begin by comparing our proposed SGEPG model with the unsupervised methods: ReCLIP, and Pseudo-Q. We observe that our proposed SGEPG model demonstrates superior performance. In comparison to ReCLIP, the state-of-the-art unsupervised method which relies on pre-trained visual-language models, SGEPG surpasses ReCLIP by a remarkable " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11983" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 508, + 296 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 508, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 508, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 508, + 296 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
methodSupRefCOCORefCOCO+RefCOCOg
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestBvaltest
Random-15.7313.5119.2016.2913.5719.6018.1219.10
Supervised SOTAFull87.5190.4082.6781.1385.5272.9683.3581.64
VC(Zhang et al., 2018)Weak-33.2930.13-34.6031.58--
ARN(Liu et al., 2019a)34.2636.4333.0734.5336.0133.75--
KPRN(Liu et al., 2019b)35.0434.7436.9835.9635.2436.96--
DTWREG(Sun et al., 2021)39.2141.1437.7239.1840.1038.08--
CPT(Yao et al., 2021)No
CPT-Blk w/ VinVL26.927.527.425.425.027.032.132.3
CPT-Seg w/ VinVL32.236.130.331.935.228.836.736.5
CLIPNo
GradCAM44.6553.4936.1949.4159.6638.6252.2951.28
ReCLIP54.0458.6049.5455.0760.4747.4160.8561.05
Pseudo-labelingNo
Pseudo-Q(Jiang et al., 2022)56.0258.2554.1338.8845.0632.1346.2547.44
Pseudo-Q-adapted59.4461.8756.4742.7648.2736.9050.3549.68
SGEPG(Ours)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.7661.3360.61
", + "image_path": "f1e32d4f1637529bf807d5971fd47dc39e13caa156e487963c48974b04622097.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 525, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 525, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Comparison with ReC methods on RefCOCO+/g in terms of top-1 accuracy (%). Bold indicates the best performance of the column except for the supervised method. Sup column indicates the method category: Full, Weak, No represent fully supervised, weakly supervised and unsupervised, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 353, + 179, + 433 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 353, + 179, + 433 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 353, + 179, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 353, + 179, + 433 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "004f2410e6428d39b168227ac8f5d18469bfe8382880c91bfb0b3c459748e00b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 436, + 158, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 436, + 158, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 436, + 158, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "couch with red cushion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 187, + 353, + 294, + 434 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 353, + 294, + 434 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 353, + 294, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 353, + 294, + 434 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "318a6b59a61c08ba85e4c41cd7b12011d84c1e022d03a4b62f2c10e51fc422f6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 435, + 283, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 435, + 283, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 435, + 283, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "black coat glasses blue blanket watching outside fence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 411, + 433 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 411, + 433 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 411, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 411, + 433 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1189a0bfa5683669714c1e01fe6a7778b8a6bb2b039ad69f1bfd07c53985d64d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 436, + 383, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 436, + 383, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 436, + 383, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "man holding paper" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 416, + 353, + 524, + 433 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 416, + 353, + 524, + 433 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 416, + 353, + 524, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 416, + 353, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bc9612b0887099bed8ff6aafa53e4e8f288bf1e8707aae02c944d2308f5ccc92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 444, + 436, + 497, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 444, + 436, + 497, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 444, + 436, + 497, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "boat with writings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 184, + 528 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 184, + 528 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 184, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 184, + 528 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8772e9c7feae267361d6257346a119d5adac35ecc5ba1ec5a8c35260188c6c6f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 530, + 174, + 538 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 530, + 174, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 530, + 174, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "food above fries on side with score" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 470, + 297, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 470, + 297, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 470, + 297, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 470, + 297, + 527 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cde09ff7c30d37509ae69109a0f0e0d76285008ed26341875850a9a3a19a1953.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 206, + 530, + 273, + 538 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 206, + 530, + 273, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 206, + 530, + 273, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "train number 242 151 9" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 451, + 409, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 451, + 409, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 451, + 409, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 451, + 409, + 527 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2f84d364753ddff4cf2c07ccde4797382e15958ab73e700ffc54ebd6255adf9a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 530, + 402, + 538 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 530, + 402, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 530, + 402, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "white face with roman numerals" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 419, + 450, + 522, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 450, + 522, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 450, + 522, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 450, + 522, + 527 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "906877db72f5f500c8da14a71f1ba8025d0d61ffef3f372cf2a2c421dbc52da9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 426, + 528, + 517, + 543 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 426, + 528, + 517, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 426, + 528, + 517, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "broccoli pile not middle and not with brown stuff" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 623, + 175, + 703 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 526, + 612 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 526, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Visualization examples of detection results. The first row of images displays the visualized detection results of both SGEPG and Pseudo-Q. The second row showcases four instances where SGEPG encountered detection failures, with the corresponding results from Pseudo-Q included for comparison. The green bounding boxes and queries are ground truth and the red bounding boxes and yellow bounding boxes are the detection results of SGEPG and Pseudo-Q, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 623, + 175, + 703 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 623, + 175, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 623, + 175, + 703 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "49d4cca4d4912343fbe7beccb18d85707d49d581115a3f894c244534e920a56a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 177, + 623, + 299, + 703 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 623, + 299, + 703 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 623, + 299, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 623, + 299, + 703 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dfed385d07a67634c876b3ec28a9b7baf3b60ed96c83eb01993651d64784b4ef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 524, + 736 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 524, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 712, + 524, + 736 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The visualization results of pseudo-labels generated by SGEPG. Different colored queries corresponding to different objects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 299, + 623, + 427, + 703 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 623, + 427, + 703 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 623, + 427, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 623, + 427, + 703 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ce7f9752373914b3fcd58013a04dc7b6339cdd155d35910c8f8585d5abb88664.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 428, + 623, + 524, + 703 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 428, + 623, + 524, + 703 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 428, + 623, + 524, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 428, + 623, + 524, + 703 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e19e9d85d4e4ea41539eefe345cebe090891ba34b39c3aee7bcef40b6ff769b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11984" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 69, + 286, + 137 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 69, + 286, + 137 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 69, + 286, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 69, + 286, + 137 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
w/o SG63.4563.963.4743.845.8144.14
w/o ARS65.2463.8164.6548.550.4746.02
w/o DDRQ68.8272.4664.9953.7858.2646.14
SGEPG69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
", + "image_path": "f35f06a71da756c23afe9cfb19c3d3c1afaeeceff7aec57052fb676e82c2f509.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 287, + 220 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 289, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 289, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Main ablation test results on the RefCOCO/+" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 287, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 287, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 169, + 287, + 220 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
replace rate (α)0%25%37.5%50%75%
val53.7854.2954.9455.2155.33
testA58.2660.1558.9960.6760.9
testB46.1446.4146.746.7646.8
", + "image_path": "13c5291bf2a5dc171f2dc34fefc191e5481b1b53c16177cd78034780484ff913.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Rewriting ratio test results of DDQR on Ref-COCO+." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the RefCOCO dataset, while achieving comparable performance on RefCOCO+ and RefCOCOg. Regarding Pseudo-Q, which is also based on pseudolabeling, our SGEPG model outperforms it by an average margin of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This demonstrates that the queries generated by SGEPG for referring to objects can better ensure accurate mapping between the two modalities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 259, + 417 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 259, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 259, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Efficiency Improvement of Manual Annotation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then conduct experiments to assess the capability of SGEPG in reducing manual labeling costs. Following Pseudo-Q, we replace the manually annotated region-text pairs whose queries contain spatial relationships in RefCOCO with the pseudolabels generated by SGEPG. The results, depicted in Figure 3(a), demonstrate the significant reduction in manual labeling costs achieved by SGEPG. When about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the manually annotated region-text pairs are replaced with our generated pseudolabels, there is only minimal impact on the model's performance. In addition, we compared SGEPG with Pseudo-Q in Figure 3(b), which indicates that our SGEPG model has the ability to generate superior quality pseudo-labels compared to Pseudo-Q." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 167, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 167, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 167, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we perform extensive ablation studies on the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of the key aspects of SGEPG, including scene graph (SG), ambiguity resolver strategy (ARS), and Diversity Driven Query Rewriter (DDQR). To evaluate the impact of the SG component, we compare the performance of the model without SG. In this scenario, the category, attribute, and spatial information of the detected" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "objects are directly used to fill the templates and generate pseudo queries. Moreover, as the ARS relies on the scene graph, the model without SG cannot utilize this strategy to address ambiguity. For the models without ARS or DDQR, we either exclude the strategy or remove the DDQR component directly from the SGEPG model. The results of this ablation study are presented in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Firstly, when comparing the performance of the model without SG to the complete SGEPG, we observe that the complete SGEPG achieves absolute performance improvements of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.16\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11.41\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the validation sets of RefCOCO and RefCOCO+, respectively. This also indicates that the SG can effectively improve the model's ability to align visual and textual information, especially on challenging datasets like RefCOCO+. Secondly, the complete SGEPG also outperforms the model without the ARS, with absolute improvements of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8.53\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the RefCOCO/+ testA, respectively. Finally, we observe that when the DDQR module is removed, the model's performance decreases across both datasets. The above findings demonstrate that the modules proposed by us can provide more accurate supervision signals to the ReC model and improve its performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 509, + 458 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 509, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 509, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Effect of Different Replacing Ratios in Rewriter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we conduct experiments to examine the impact of rewriting ratios " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the DDRQ. We perform rewriting on pseudo queries with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "37.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "75\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The final results are presented in Table 3. The results indicate that as the rewriting ratio increases, the model's performance improves. This finding suggests that incorporating more diverse expressions can alleviate the discrepancy between pseudo queries generated by artificial templates and human expression. However, there is a noticeable diminishing return effect: the more sentences are rewritten, the training cost increases linearly while the performance gain becomes limited. Therefore, we strike a balance between training cost and model performance, and find that a rewriting ratio of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is appropriate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 425, + 702 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 425, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 425, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.7 Qualitative Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative examples. To validate that our approach can provide queries with rich relational information and enhance the model's perception of relationships, we conducted visualizations of some generated examples in Figure 5. Further" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11985" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "more, we performed visual comparisons with the results from Pseudo-Q on selected cases, directly comparing them (first row of Figure 4). We observe that SGEPG effectively captures the complex relational information among objects in the scene, while Pseudo-Q tends to randomly select an object from the query's nouns as the detection object. For instance, in the third example in first row, Pseudo-Q generates detection results solely based on the word \"Person\" in the sentence, completely disregarding the \"holding\" relationship and the \"paper\" object. This also suggests that SGEPG is capable of better capturing the relationships between objects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 292, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 292, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 292, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Failure case. Additionally, while second row of Figure 4 presents cases where SGEPG encountered prediction errors that can primarily be attributed to the two limitations of the scene graph. Firstly, the scene graph may lack the ability to recognize text present in images. Secondly, the scene graph generation model may struggle in complex scenes, resulting in inaccurate scene graph generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 147, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 147, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 147, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 389, + 291, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 389, + 291, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 389, + 291, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose SGEPG, a novel pseudolabeling ReC method that leverages scene graphs to improve the generation of pseudo queries. By utilizing the scene graph, SGEPG captures object relationships and generates pseudo queries that are rich in relation information, thereby improving the training of ReC models. Additionally, we propose a simple yet effective strategy to filter out ambiguous generated queries. Our method outperforms previous pseudo-labeling approaches on three benchmark datasets and achieves comparable or superior performance compared to other unsupervised ReC methods. Furthermore, SGEPG offers the advantage of significantly reducing manual labeling costs while maintaining the model's performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 131, + 614 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 131, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 131, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While our method has demonstrated excellent performance on three datasets, there are still some limitations. Firstly, the quality of the generated results relies on the accuracy of the scene graph generation. In complex scenes, there is no guarantee that all objects and their relationships can be correctly identified, which may impact the effectiveness of our approach. Secondly, the capabilities of the scene graph are limited in terms of object detection. It can only detect a specific set of objects and may fail to identify certain objects such as the sky or" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sea. Consequently, the generated pseudo queries may not adequately cover these object classes, potentially affecting the comprehensiveness of the generated queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 420, + 149 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 420, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 420, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076100), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, SCUT (x2rjD2230080), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2020B0101100002), CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund, CCF-Zhipu AI Large Model Fund." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 362, + 286 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 362, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 362, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 526, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 526, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 292, + 526, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6077-6086." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Geoffrey H Ball and David J Hall. 1965. Isodata, a novel method of data analysis and pattern classification. Technical report, Stanford research inst Menlo Park CA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 420, + 527, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 420, + 527, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 420, + 527, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 16, pages 213-229. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 526, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 526, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 526, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kan Chen, Jiyang Gao, and Ram Nevatia. 2018a. Knowledge aided consistency for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4042-4050." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 526, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinpeng Chen, Lin Ma, Jingyuan Chen, Zequn Jie, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2018b. Real-time referring expression comprehension by single-stage grounding network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.03426." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cheng Cheng, Chunping Li, Youfang Han, and Yan Zhu. 2021. A semi-supervised deep learning image caption model based on pseudo label and n-gram. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 131:93-107." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Dai, Yuqi Zhang, and Dahua Lin. 2017. Detecting visual relationships with deep relational networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and Pattern recognition, pages 3076-3086." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samyak Datta, Karan Sikka, Anirban Roy, Karuna Ahuja, Devi Parikh, and Ajay Divakaran. 2019. Align2ground: Weakly supervised phrase grounding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11986" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "guided by image-caption alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2601-2610." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 290, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiajun Deng, Zhengyuan Yang, Tianlang Chen, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Transvg: End-to-end visual grounding with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1769-1779." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 290, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 290, + 292 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 290, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 290, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rui Fang, Malcolm Doering, and Joyce Y Chai. 2015. Embodied collaborative referring expression generation in situated human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 271-278." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 345 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 301, + 290, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Feng, Lin Ma, Wei Liu, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Unsupervised image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4125-4134." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 352, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 352, + 290, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 352, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ross Girshick. 2015. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 1440-1448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 393, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 393, + 290, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 393, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tanmay Gupta, Arash Vahdat, Gal Chechik, Xiaodong Yang, Jan Kautz, and Derek Hoiem. 2020. Contrastive learning for weakly supervised phrase grounding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 752-768. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 455, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 455, + 290, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 455, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haojun Jiang, Yuanze Lin, Dongchen Han, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. 2022. Pseudo-q: Generating pseudo language queries for visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15513-15523." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 290, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aishwarya Kamath, Mannat Singh, Yann LeCun, Gabriel Synnaeve, Ishan Misra, and Nicolas Carion. 2021. Mdetr-modulated detection for end-to-end multi-modal understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1780-1790." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 290, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 290, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 290, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiangyang Li and Shuqiang Jiang. 2019. Know more say less: Image captioning based on scene graphs. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 21(8):2117-2130." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Dechao Meng, and Qingming Huang. 2019a. Adaptive reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2611-2620." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuejing Liu, Liang Li, Shuhui Wang, Zheng-Jun Zha, Li Su, and Qingming Huang. 2019b. Knowledge-guided pairwise reconstruction network for weakly supervised referring expression grounding. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 539-547." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongfei Liu, Bo Wan, Lin Ma, and Xuming He. 2021. Relation-aware instance refinement for weakly supervised visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5612-5621." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 203 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junhua Mao, Jonathan Huang, Alexander Toshev, Oana Camburu, Alan L Yuille, and Kevin Murphy. 2016. Generation and comprehension of unambiguous object descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11-20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuankai Qi, Qi Wu, Peter Anderson, Xin Wang, William Yang Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. 2020. Reverie: Remote embodied visual referring expression in real indoor environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9982-9991." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 374, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 374, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 374, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sanjay Subramanian, Will Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. Reclip: A strong zero-shot baseline for referring expression comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05991." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingjie Sun, Jimin Xiao, Eng Gee Lim, Si Liu, and John Y Goulermas. 2021. Discriminative triad matching and reconstruction for weakly referring expression grounding. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11):4189-4195." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 558 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, Baoyuan Wu, Wenhan Luo, and Wei Liu. 2019. Learning to compose dynamic tree structures for visual contexts. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6619-6628." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 567, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 567, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 567, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2016. Show and tell: Lessons learned from the 2015 mscoco image captioning challenge. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 39(4):652-663." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Josiah Wang and Lucia Specia. 2019. Phrase localization without paired training examples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4663-4672." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danfei Xu, Yuke Zhu, Christopher B Choy, and Li Fei-Fei. 2017. Scene graph generation by iterative message passing. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5410-5419." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li Yang, Yan Xu, Chunfeng Yuan, Wei Liu, Bing Li, and Weiming Hu. 2022. Improving visual grounding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11987" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with visual-linguistic verification and iterative reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9499-9508." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 127, + 290, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 127, + 290, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 127, + 290, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xu Yang, Kaihua Tang, Hanwang Zhang, and Jianfei Cai. 2019. Auto-encoding scene graphs for image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10685–10694." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 290, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 290, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 290, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuan Yao, Ao Zhang, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, and Maosong Sun. 2021. Cpt: Colorful prompt tuning for pre-trained vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11797." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiabo Ye, Junfeng Tian, Ming Yan, Xiaoshan Yang, Xuwu Wang, Ji Zhang, Liang He, and Xin Lin. 2022. Shifting more attention to visual backbone: Query-modulated refinement networks for end-to-end visual grounding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15502-15512." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raymond A Yeh, Minh N Do, and Alexander G Schwing. 2018. Unsupervised textual grounding: Linking words to image concepts. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6125-6134." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 290, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 290, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 290, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Licheng Yu, Zhe Lin, Xiaohui Shen, Jimei Yang, Xin Lu, Mohit Bansal, and Tamara L Berg. 2018. Mattnet: Modular attention network for referring expression comprehension. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1307-1315." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 290, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Licheng Yu, Patrick Poirson, Shan Yang, Alexander C Berg, and Tamara L Berg. 2016. Modeling context in referring expressions. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 69-85. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Mark Yatskar, Sam Thomson, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Neural motifs: Scene graph parsing with global context. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5831-5840." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ao Zhang, Yuan Yao, Qianyu Chen, Wei Ji, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2022. Fine-grained scene graph generation with data transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11654." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanwang Zhang, Yulei Niu, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2018. Grounding referring expressions in images by variational context. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4158-4166." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiwu Zhong, Liwei Wang, Jianshu Chen, Dong Yu, and Yin Li. 2020. Comprehensive image captioning via scene graph decomposition. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 211-229. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 493, + 97 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 493, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 493, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A More Details of the Scene Graph Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 111, + 366, + 125 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 111, + 366, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 111, + 366, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Spatial" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 525, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 525, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we will elaborate on some additional details regarding the extraction of spatial information. In addition to the four cardinal directions (up, down, left, and right) that we are familiar with, we have incorporated some extra spatial descriptions to help the model better learn the concept of \"spatial\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Firstly, we introduce the concept of \"corner\". Sometimes, humans use the term \"corner\" to refer to objects that are located in the corners of an image. Therefore, when extracting the spatial information of objects, we also determine whether the object is positioned at the edges or corners of the image. In this work, we consider an object to have the \"corner\" attribute if it satisfies the following conditions: Firstly, the object's bounding box should not be located in the center of the image. Secondly, the object's bounding box should have at least two edges that are positioned at the image's edges. Objects that meet these criteria are assigned the additional \"corner\" attribute." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Secondly, we have observed that people often use the term \"alone\" to refer to an object that appears to be \"solitary\". Therefore, when there are multiple instances of a certain object category in an image (typically three or more), we employ clustering algorithms (Ball and Hall, 1965) based on coordinates and object bounding box sizes to attempt to divide them into two groups. If one of the groups contains exactly one object, we consider that object to be \"alone\" and assign it the additional \"alone\" attribute." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 589, + 439, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 589, + 439, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 589, + 439, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Scene Graph Cleaning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While we can utilize scene graph generation models to extract scene graphs from images, the obtained scene graphs may contain errors due to limitations in model performance. Although most incorrectly predicted relations can be filtered out based on confidence scores, some contradictory results may still remain. For example, a scene graph may contain two conflicting triples such as \"boy-sitting at chair\" and \"boy-standing on-floor,\" which contradicts common sense as a person cannot be both \"sitting\" and \"standing.\" In such cases, we only retain the triple with the highest confidence level." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11988" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 188, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 188, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 188, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Designed Template" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to the fact that scene graphs are graph structures while natural language is a sequential text, it is necessary to find an appropriate method to convert graph structures into text sequences. In this paper, we employ a method that involves populating a manually designed template with information extracted from the scene graph. The scene graph encompasses four main types of information: 1. Object categories, 2. Object attributes, 3. Relationships between objects and 4.spatial. Therefore, the elements to be filled in the manually designed template primarily consist of these three types of information. Here are the main templates used in this paper:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 291, + 274, + 489 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 291, + 140, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 291, + 140, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 291, + 140, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [attr] [sub]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 314, + 160, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 314, + 160, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 314, + 160, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [sub] [rel] [obj]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 336, + 250, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 336, + 250, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 336, + 250, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 358, + 274, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 358, + 274, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 358, + 274, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [attr] [sub] in/on [spatial] {corner | alone}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 380, + 249, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 380, + 249, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 380, + 249, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] in/on [spatial]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 403, + 249, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 403, + 249, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 403, + 249, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [obj] and [rel] [obj]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 426, + 249, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 426, + 249, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 426, + 249, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 461, + 274, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 461, + 274, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 461, + 274, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- [attr] [sub] [rel] [attr] [obj] and [rel] [attr] [obj] in [spatial] {corner | alone}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 498, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this context, \"attr\" refers to the attribute of an object, \"sub\" represents the subject, \"obj\" represents the object, \"spatial\" indicates the spatial, and \"rel\" represents the relationship between subject and object. Additionally, \"corner\" and \"alone\" are optional and indicate whether the object is located in the corner of the image and whether it is \"alone,\" respectively. By filling in the scene graph information into the templates, we can obtain pseudo queries generated based on the scene graph. Please note that the word order may vary, and \"spatial\" could be placed at the beginning of the sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 193, + 685 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 193, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 193, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Prompt of Rewriter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use GPT3.5 (ChatGPT) to rewrite the pseudo queries we have constructed. We employ a prompt to communicate to GPT3.5 that our task objective is to rewrite sentences, with each sentence being rewritten three times. The following is the specific prompt we use, along with an example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt:\"Your goal is to act as human-being to generate diversified, accurate and semantically rich referring expressions according to a description of the referred object. The requirement of generated expression: The category, color, position, texture, relationship with other objects or others segments (entities) may be reorganized with some alternative expressions. I will give you some descriptions, and then you generate 3 referring expressions for per description. You should return a dict in which the key is the description and the values are the 3 expression involed in a list, the format looks like {\"Description\": \"xxxxx\", \"Values\": {\"1\": \"xxxxx\", \"2\": \"xxxxx\", \"3\": \"xxxxx\"}}. Don't leave out any sentences. Now, beginning your generation following the goal, requirement and format:\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 473, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 473, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 288, + 473, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: center tallest man in glasses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: { \"Description\":\"Center tallest man in glasses\": {\"1\":\"At the center, the tallest man wearing glasses is present.\", \"2\":\"Glasses-wearing man who is the tallest is in the center.\", \"3\":\"The center position is occupied by a man, who is the tallest and wears glasses.}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 524, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 524, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 524, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: corner left top bowl with blueberry above table" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: { \"Description\": \"corner left top bowl with blueberry above table\", \"Values\": {\"1\": \"The blueberry-filled bowl is positioned in the top left corner, above the table.\", \"2\": \"Above the table, there's a bowl in the top left corner, and it contains blueberries.\", \"3\": \"In the top left corner, there's a bowl placed above the table, and it has blueberries inside.\" } }" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 525, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is important to note that not every rewriting attempt is successful. There are instances where GPT-3.5 may fail to rewrite or generate unexpected statements, such as outputs that do not meet the expected format or provide insufficient information. For such cases where rewriting is not possible, we simply skip them and proceed without making any changes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 450, + 652 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 450, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 450, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Additional Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 524, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 524, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 524, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.1 Effect of Expressions Number per Object and Object Number per Image" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we investigate the impact of the number of generated pseudo queries for each object, as well as the number of pseudo-labeled objects generated per image, as shown in Table 4. Please note that in this experiment, by default, 4 objects are selected per image to generate pseudo" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11989" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 115 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 115 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 115 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 115 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Expression number per objectObject number per image
123412345
SGEPG66.1768.2168.668.8162.367.6168.8268.668.02
", + "image_path": "33a445e736172232df2871754e4dc06018d21d543f664de8acd19662e7aa04ab.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 120, + 147, + 474, + 211 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 524, + 136 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 524, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 524, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Results of different expressions numbers per object and different object numbers per image on RefCOCO." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 147, + 474, + 211 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 147, + 474, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 147, + 474, + 211 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RefCOCORefCOCO+
valtestAtestBvaltestAtestB
preliminary scene graph36.2345.3125.3237.2146.1126.55
Core scene graph (SGEPG)69.6172.3465.6755.2160.6746.76
", + "image_path": "798fe51c24b5d38bc9444a86abc09ed42686d835b047910e2b89ecc1e96582b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 218, + 462, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 218, + 462, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 218, + 462, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: preliminary scene graph generation results on RefCOCO and RefCOCO+." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 289, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 289, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 289, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "labels, and 3 statements are generated for each object." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intuitively, generating a larger number of pseudo queries for each object allows for a broader coverage of the semantic space. The experimental results demonstrate that increasing the number of expressions generated per object leads to improved performance, while insufficiently generated expressions result in limited coverage of the semantic space, leading to a decline in model performance. However, excessively generating expressions for each object can significantly increase training time and increase costs. Hence, to strike a balance between performance and training efficiency, we have set this value to 3 in our other experiments. Furthermore, as the number of objects increases, the number of generated pseudo queries also rises, leading to an improvement in our model's performance. However, it is important to note that our approach utilizes the confidence score from the object detector to select salient objects. Objects with low confidence are more prone to providing incorrect information regarding object categories and visual regions. Thus, when the number of objects is higher, the likelihood of introducing such erroneous information and negatively impacting the model's performance increases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 227, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 227, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 631, + 227, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.2 Effect of Core Scene Graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to assess the impact of scene graph generation quality and key information on the results of pseudo-label generation, we also attempted to generate pseudo-labels directly using a preliminary scene graph rather than a core scene graph. We performed the experiments on both the RefCOCO and RefCOCO+ datasets. In these experiments, we generated pseudo-labels directly using the preliminary scene graph without any further processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experimental results are shown in Table 5. Notably, we observed that training the model solely with preliminary scene graphs, which are noisy and unprocessed, led to poor performance. This finding underscores the importance of accurate and refined core scene graphs in our approach. These core scene graphs, complemented with additional information from off-the-shelf object detectors and attribute classifiers, play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of generated pseudo-labels and ultimately improving the performance of the visual-language model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11990" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_content_list.json b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4154856e2c02aa199c64c31467a5ca8fbfd06473 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,3050 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 231, + 90, + 766, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hongbin Ye $^{1,2,4}$ , Honghao Gui $^{1,4}$ , Xin Xu $^{1,4}$ , Xi Chen $^{3}$ , Huajun Chen $^{1,4}$ , Ningyu Zhang $^{1,4*}$", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 129, + 885, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Zhejiang University 2 Zhejiang Lab 3 Platform and Content Group, Tencent", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 148, + 811, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Zhejiang University - Ant Group Joint Laboratory of Knowledge Graph", + "bbox": [ + 205, + 165, + 796, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "yehongbin@zhejianglab.com, jasonxchen@tencent.com,", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 183, + 739, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{guihonghao,xxucs,huajunsir,zhangningyu}@zju.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 243, + 199, + 757, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conventional Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) approaches typically follow the static information extraction paradigm with a closed set of pre-defined schema. As a result, such approaches fall short when applied to dynamic scenarios or domains, whereas a new type of knowledge emerges. This necessitates a system that can handle evolving schema automatically to extract information for KGC. To address this need, we propose a new task called schema-adaptable KGC, which aims to continually extract entity, relation, and event based on a dynamically changing schema graph without re-training. We first split and convert existing datasets based on three principles to build a benchmark, i.e., horizontal schema expansion, vertical schema expansion, and hybrid schema expansion; then investigate the schema-adaptable performance of several well-known approaches such as Text2Event, TANL, UIE and GPT-3.5. We further propose a simple yet effective baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which contains schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding to better handle evolving schema. Comprehensive experimental results illustrate that ADAKGC can outperform baselines but still have room for improvement. We hope the proposed work can deliver benefits to the community1.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 703, + 258, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC), typically through information extraction, has enjoyed widespread empirical success and can provide backend support for various NLP tasks, such as question answering (Saxena et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022a), commonsense reasoning (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022d) etc. Traditional KGC tasks, including named entity recognition (NER) (Liu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021),", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 490, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6c358e264a87ea085238b9b9a22f86e452117d02f6a44286851e018ff5bd338e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) with dynamic updates of schema." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 249, + 890, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "relation extraction (RE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2022) and event extraction (EE) (Huang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2023) are \"reactive\", relying on static pre-defined schema from end-users. However, as shown in Figure 1, the schema may evolve along with scenario adaptation, making previous models challenging to utilize without re-training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 480, + 884, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that existing information extraction systems can only handle a fixed number of classes by pre-defined schema and performing once-and-for-all training on a fixed framework. It is desirable to respond to changes (e.g., evolving schema) to existing KGs, making the system act more \"proactively\" like humans who can handle flexible knowledge updates. Early, several approaches introduce incremental learning (Cao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021b) to learn new classes continually. In this case, the extraction system learns from the class incremental data stream but usually suffers significant performance degradation on the old class when adapting to the new class. Stated differently, previous studies put emphasis on struggling against catastrophic forgetting (Thrun, 1998). However, for the schema-evolving scenarios, the dynamic generalizability of extraction models plays a vital role and needs to be", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 879, + 302, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Code and datasets available at https://github.com/zjunlp/AdaKGC.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6408", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6408-6431", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "inspected from an ontology evolution perspective.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we propose a novel KGC task dubbed schema-adaptable KGC, where the models are required to have the ability to represent and adapt to complement knowledge extraction. We first construct datasets according to three principles of evolutionary schema directions (Horizontal Schema Expansion, Vertical Schema Expansion, and Hybrid Schema Expansion) on three tasks of NER, $\\mathrm{RE}^2$ , and EE. Through empirical analysis, we notice that approaches of Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), and GPT-3.5(Ouyang et al., 2022) cannot effectively extract the information given complex evolving schema. We argue that the major issues lie in the following: 1) How to learn dynamic and generalizable schema representations as conditions for extraction; 2) How to precisely extract new instances constrained with newly updated schema.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 99, + 487, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To this end, we propose a simple baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which introduces Schema-enriched Prefix Instructors (SPI) to represent and transfer the learnable schema-specific knowledge. At each iteration stage, we linearly convert from the current schema graph to learnable prompts, initialized with the ontology name and connected to task-specific prefixes. To encourage the decoder to understand the dynamic schema, we utilize a Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding (SDD) strategy that constructs a decoding path of schema-specific vocabulary to the output space. When the schema changes, we dynamically construct a new trie-tree to adjust the output space. Note that ADAKGC is model agnostic and can handle a variety of challenging schema evolution scenarios. We summarize the contribution of this work as:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 391, + 489, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We introduce a new task of the schema-adaptable KGC to meet the schema evolution requirements, which is a new branch that has not been well-explored to the best of our knowledge.", + "- We propose a new baseline ADAKGC, which includes schema-enriched prefix instructors and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding strategy, and experimentally demonstrate the adaptability.", + "- We release the schema-adaptable KGC benchmark, which imposes new challenges and" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 677, + 487, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "presents new research opportunities for the NLP community.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 880, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Problem Statement and Overview", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 129, + 835, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Background of KGC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 156, + 719, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KGC has been a promising research challenge (Lu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b), and existing benchmarks utilize a well-defined schema for directing knowledge graph construction, focusing on generating domain-specific knowledge graphs or aggregating heterogeneous structured databases. For example, FEW-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) consists of coarse-grained and fine-grained entity type definitions to locate and classify named entities from unstructured natural language. NYT (Riedel et al., 2010a) extracts relational triple instances specifically from textual data sources according to a specific taxonomy structure. ACE2005 (Ntroduction) identifies triggers and event types based on context, and each has its own event arguments, described in a slot-filling way. In addition, TAC-KBP (Ellis et al., 2014) is designed to leverage existing generic domain structured data sources and extend entity links employing descriptive text as additional information. OAEI (Euzenat et al., 2011) creates an integrated ontology based on an alignment between two or more existing ontologies or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we focus on the work of extracting knowledge instances from unstructured text, which is regarded as the schema-constraint prediction (structure prediction) task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 178, + 885, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Definition of Schema-adaptable KGC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 608, + 850, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the real world, the KGC system extracts structured knowledge from unstructured text and normalizes it to the instance graph according to a frequently adjusted schema. Given a set of schema graphs $\\mathcal{S} = \\{s_1,s_2,\\dots,s_n\\}$ , the task of schema-adaptable KGC is to generate a set of schema-constraint instances $\\mathcal{G} = \\{g_{1},g_{2},\\dots,g_{n}\\}$ for each iteration. Suppose there is a model $\\mathcal{M}_{\\theta} = LM(\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}|S_{1})$ trained on the initial training set, after which labeled data for updated schema are not available. A schema-adaptable data stream $\\{\\mathcal{D}^{(1)},\\mathcal{D}^{(2)},\\ldots ,\\mathcal{D}^{(N)}\\}$ is provided to evaluate the adaptability of model for the dynamic updates of schema. Each $\\mathcal{D}^{(k)}$ contains dev/test data $(\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{k},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{k})$ and schema graph $s_k$ . Note that the model will not be re-trained but hope to pick up on the ability of information extraction with evolving schema. The challenge is that the model is", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We regard RE as relational triple extraction in this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6409", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/36ea4339a7edb76f73ae3c2a762878e62d7efb29cc4e270f4ea9a2f7aaf6799d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Illustration of schema-adaptable KGC with iterative schema evolution. Schema graph nodes (colored $\\bullet$ ) are evolved by adding a new class node (colored $\\bullet$ ) in horizontal schema expansion while is inherited by a new subclass node (colored $\\bullet$ ) in vertical schema expansion." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 880, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "expected to perform well in each iteration of the test set $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{test}}^k$ , which contains the golden instances changed for the updated schema.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 357, + 487, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Dataset Construction Process", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 416, + 391, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, we design three principles regarding different types of schema evolution and apply Algorithm 1 to build the dataset for evaluation: (1) Horizontal Schema Expansion requires the schema to add new class nodes of the same level, which can be considered a form of class-incremental learning without new classe instances as training data. Based on the generalization effect on the neighboring new classes, we can assess the transfer capabilities of the schema feature. (2) Vertical Schema Expansion requires the schema to add subclasses of father classes. Based on the generalization effect on subclasses, we can assess the inheritance and derivation capabilities of the schema feature. (3) Hybrid Schema Expansion requires the schema to randomly expands nodes horizontally or vertically at each iteration, which summarizes schema graphs and represents their potential co-evolutionary pattern. More details are in Appendix A.1, besides the above structural extensions, we further explore analogous node replacement from the perspective of semantics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 437, + 489, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Schema-adaptable KGC Benchmark", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 801, + 448, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are two challenges for schema-adaptable KGC. Firstly, since the schema is updated in each iteration, the schema evolution information needs to be dynamically injected into the model. Secondly, since the output target of KGC is often demand-specific, the extraction results should be adaptively", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 Dataset Construction Process.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 357, + 831, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: iteration $\\mathcal{N}$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{raw},\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{raw},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{raw}\\}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 373, + 880, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Schema $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{N}},\\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{\\mathcal{N}},\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{\\mathcal{N}},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{\\mathcal{N}}\\}$", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 406, + 833, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Randomly initialize $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ as $S_1$", + "2: Pick out the instance associated with schema $\\mathcal{S}$ as $\\mathcal{D}^{(1)} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}, \\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{1}, \\mathcal{D}_{test}^{1}\\}$", + "3: for iteration $i = 2, \\dots, n$ do", + "4: Horizontal Schema Expansion: Compute $\\phi_{\\text{neighbor}}(\\vec{W}_c, \\vec{W}_s)$ for candidate schema $S$", + "5: Vertical Schma Expansion: Select $n_{iter}$ sub node whose father node belongs to $S$ and update", + "6: Hybrid Schema Expansion: Combine extension Steps 4 and 5", + "7: Output iteration $i$ dataset schema $\\mathcal{S}_i = \\mathcal{S}$ , instance $\\mathcal{D}^{(i)} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^i, \\mathcal{D}_{test}^i\\}$", + "8: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 425, + 882, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "adjusted according to the schema. We detail several vanilla baselines as follows and introduce the proposed ADAKGC in §3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 884, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vanilla Baselines: Schema-adaptable KGC can be thought of as a structured prediction language task that transfers information between class nodes through the generalizability of the structure. TANL (Paolini et al., 2021) introduces an augmented natural language translation task from which information related to the schema can be implicitly extracted. TEXT2EVENT (Lu et al., 2021) is a unified sequence-to-structure architecture for event extraction with a constrained decoding algorithm for event schema knowledge injection during in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6410", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4e31e40abb3b9f6eba9535776a22f02a09f0a52d0f633c877ef8f3621be1037d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The overview of ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 82, + 880, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ference. UIE (Lu et al., 2022) is a unified text-to-structure generation framework that enables unified modeling of different IE tasks and adaptively generates target sequences by a schema-based prompting mechanism. GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), a large-scale language model (LLM), can serve as a baseline for schema-adaptable KGC. Although current works focusing on structured extraction can achieve excellent performance with static types of knowledge, they are typically unaware of schema evolution. To clarify this issue, we introduce a simple yet effective baseline dubbed schema-ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 489, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 The Proposed Baseline: ADAKGC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 560, + 445, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Overview", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 236, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 3, ADAKGC utilizes a pretrained encoder-decoder language model (LM) T5 (Raffel et al., 2020a) as the basic architecture for the schema-adaptable KGC task. Specifically, let encoder input $X_{en} = [S;X]$ be the concatenation of schema $S$ and input $X$ . In the decoding process, the LM calculates the conditioned probability of generating a new token $y_{t}$ given the previous token $y_{< t}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 615, + 489, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np \\left(Y _ {d e} \\mid X _ {e n}\\right) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {| Y |} p \\left(y _ {t} \\mid y _ {< t}, S, X\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 776, + 487, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We initialize the model using the pre-trained parameter $\\theta$ . Here, $p_{\\theta}$ is a trainable language model distribution. In the $k$ -th iteration, we perform a gradient update on the following log-likelihood objective:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\max _ {\\theta} \\log p _ {\\theta} (y \\mid x; s _ {k}) \\\\ = \\max _ {\\theta} \\sum_ {t \\in Y _ {i n d e x}} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\left(h _ {t} \\mid h _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {2} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 362, + 880, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $h_t$ is the activation vector at decoding time step $t$ . $h_t = \\left[h_t^{(1)};\\dots ;h_t^{(m)}\\right]$ is a concatenation of all activation layers, and $h_t^{(j)}$ is the activation vector of the $j$ -th layer at time step $t$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 437, + 880, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Schema-enriched Prefix Instructor", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 828, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inspired by prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), we use task-specific prefix instructors to indicate task information, which are pairs of transformer-activated differentiable sequences $\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}$ , each containing $p$ consecutive $D$ -dim vectors for encoder and decoder. Since using a discrete natural language task instruction in the context (e.g., \"The schema used for the task is:\") may guide the LM to produce a sub-optimal generated sequence, we optimize the instructions as a continuous soft prompt, propagating upward to all transformer activation layers and rightward to subsequent tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 548, + 884, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to schema changes with iterations, we present schema-specific prefix instructors to instruct the encoding process. Specifically, we formalize the schema graph as linearized text. Assume given the constrained schema of RE task $s_k = \\{(h_1, r_1, t_1), \\ldots, (h_n, r_n, t_n)\\}$ and $tpc_i = (h_i, r_i, t_i)$ denotes the $i$ -th triple prefix constraint. By concatenating these schema prefix constraints initialized by word embedding, $spc$ can be dynamically adjusted as the schema evolves, and added padding tokens to be a fixed length when instructing the LM:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6411", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns p c = \\operatorname {C o n c a t} \\left(t p c _ {1}, \\dots , t p c _ {n}, P A D\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 112, + 487, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thus, the schema-enriched prefix instructor provides a two-part prefix combination $Z = \\{s i_{en}, s p c_{c}; s i_{de}\\}$ , where \"+\" separates the respective prefix instructors for encoder and decoder. We recursively activate the decoder transformer activation vector $h_{t}$ , which is the connection of all layers, at time step $t$ in the LM.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 139, + 489, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {t} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} s i _ {t}, & \\text {i f} t \\leq p \\\\ \\operatorname {L M} \\left(y _ {t}, h _ {< t} \\mid S, X\\right), & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 274, + 487, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training parameters of our model contain the LM parameters $\\theta$ , the encoder-decoder task-specific prefix instructor $\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}$ , and the schema-specific constraint instructor $spc$ . For stable optimization, we follow Li and Liang (2021) to reparameterize the matrix $M_{\\phi}[t,:] = MLP_{\\phi}(M_{\\phi}'[t,:])$ with a smaller matrix $M_{\\phi}'$ consisting of a large feedforward neural network $MLP_{\\phi}$ , which can alleviate the optimization instability caused by directly updating the prefix parameters and is applied to $\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}; spc\\}$ . We train the parameters of the model in the following steps: (1) First, freeze other parameters, fine-tune the prefix instructor $\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}$ to learn task-specific prompts; (2) Secondly, freeze $\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}$ , optimize the schema-specific instructor $spc$ for the given schema graph; (3) Finally, we unfreeze the LM parameter $\\theta$ and collaboratively optimize all parameters to capture the association between the prefix instructor and model parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 489, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 657, + 473, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous works leverage a greedy decoding algorithm to generate linearized instance predictions token by token for the hidden sequence $h_t$ , which selects the token with the highest prediction probability $p(y_t \\mid y_{ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVEEntityTANL71.5265.2160.3856.3753.2149.6646.5557.56(NERD)UIE72.7266.7862.2458.2955.0851.4248.0459.22Ent-F1AdaKGC72.9166.9562.3758.5155.3851.8148.5459.50RelationTANL89.9281.8178.3472.7168.4265.1962.9474.19(NYT)UIE90.1782.0978.7473.1269.0365.5363.3074.57Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.3482.3379.0373.3469.1965.8763.5874.81Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT69.2368.0565.4561.3760.1559.3454.4262.57(ACE2005)UIE70.7569.1366.2062.1960.9059.8354.7463.39Evt Tri F1AdaKGC72.4370.9068.1463.4961.9761.3355.7364.86Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT46.1544.4042.5839.7339.1738.7735.3140.87(ACE2005)UIE49.1447.9045.7542.3241.8341.2737.6043.69Evt Arg F1AdaKGC49.1848.1447.0843.8543.1743.1038.7944.76", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 82, + 863, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d8f5d03aacfe36245d2ab5cd3294dfd0f3264f34bb6c8cde315df4902aaa600a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Horizontal schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL73.4964.8357.0551.8447.1642.0635.9653.20
UIE74.4566.0958.2453.0148.2445.7748.4156.32
Ent-F1AdaKGC74.4566.0558.2653.0648.3945.9248.5756.39
Relation (NYT)TANL90.1383.1176.6373.0367.0363.4047.1371.49
UIE90.3881.7674.2771.6165.3062.9559.8172.30
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.1881.6574.1371.4865.1062.7559.7772.15
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT67.1055.8150.3852.9945.8241.3941.6550.73
UIE70.9460.0057.0162.5260.3954.9053.6259.91
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC70.5759.7556.5062.3160.5755.4954.3259.93
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT49.3237.8333.4335.4930.6727.4927.7934.57
UIE50.7041.4539.6644.1443.6538.8637.7742.32
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.8742.7440.6845.1643.9740.1039.0543.37
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 321, + 862, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Vertical schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction.", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 532, + 818, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Schema adaptive generalization challenge. On all three expansion categories, the model performances tend to decrease as the iterations increase. TANL achieves lower performance which employs an augmented language and implicitly trains the model to learn schema information. TEXT2EVENT utilizes schema as constraint information on the decoding side and outperforms other models in some iterations. Although ADAKGC and UIE obtain optimal or suboptimal performance, the performance of iteration 1 and iteration 7 has a significant drop. We believe that the implicit schema evolution rules can help future work to develop adaptive generalization capabilities for schema-adaptable KGC.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Schema-enhanced modules boost the performances. Compared to other models, ADAKGC is improved with schema-enhanced modules on both the encoder and decoder, which allows it to achieve the best performance in most settings. On the ACE2005 hybrid schema expansion dataset,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/793a0819d6f8a1ae7087deca570ce64b58fbe9706d8b19697c1a7a3696cdce48.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: GPT-3.5 results on schema expansion dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 573, + 884, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ADAKGC improves $0.71\\%$ on trigger extraction and $3.65\\%$ on event argument extraction, indicating that ADAKGC can capture schema-specific information under evolutionary schema.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 804, + 882, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLMs can understand schema adaption patterns better. To explore the performance of LLMs (Qiao et al., 2023) on the proposed tasks, we per", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6413", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0442cdb12c261136e77cfb47fc7d05400b86244bedaa596f6c49aa991453c1e7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL68.3758.5054.5152.4648.6744.1341.5152.59
UIE69.2659.8055.7153.6649.5546.9748.1154.72
Ent-F1AdaKGC69.4859.9755.9453.8949.9247.4448.4355.01
Relation (NYT)TANL88.6781.5976.4872.2272.3561.7657.8772.99
UIE90.1783.1477.8171.4572.9765.5763.1274.89
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.0783.0677.6871.3872.9465.7363.3274.88
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT69.2656.9953.3246.0340.4456.8648.8453.11
UIE74.6966.3463.1263.2159.8653.1853.2661.95
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC74.8466.9963.2863.0760.9454.7254.8062.66
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT50.3238.1435.7931.9428.7937.7533.5436.61
UIE51.9445.2242.9743.1240.6636.6636.1742.39
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC55.0848.5846.1946.2745.2240.5240.4146.04
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 82, + 863, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Hybrid schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction.", + "bbox": [ + 178, + 293, + 815, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7576a2112fcc93de62eb5777e8ee3ea71dbbd558ce830b77aaf4b9672a024bb9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Ablation study on NERD horizontal schema expansion dataset, with the average result of 7 iterations." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 330, + 487, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "form comparative experiments with GPT-3.5 on NYT. Since we cannot utilize all training instances, we report in-context learning performance given 20-shot demonstrations as shown in Appendix A.5. From Figure 4, we notice that GPT-3.5 is capable of producing instances that conform to the dynamically changing schema but still yield low performance due to the low-shot issue. Likewise, we sample several cases and use ChatGPT3 to evaluate schema-adaptable KGC (See Figure 7 and 8 in Appendix A.6), which surprisingly demonstrates stable generalization ability with evolving schema. These findings indicate a promising future work of schema-adaptable KGC to develop alignment prompts with LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 489, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Ablation Study on ADAKGC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 844, + 389, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To prove the effects of the schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decod", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 864, + 487, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6e9a51d222fe060b7990cebbfa93e3cf46c07bc2a2825a15e9e9c94401948401.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Case study on NERD vertical schema expansion dataset, Iteration 1 vs. Iteration 7." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 330, + 887, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing, we conduct the ablation study, and the results are shown in Figure 5. From two evolutionary categories, we observe that: (1) Both schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding can help the schema-adaptable learning process; (2) Efficiently encoding schema evolution information is more important, which achieves improvements of $0.77\\%$ on horizontal schema expansion and $0.36\\%$ on vertical schema expansion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 582, + 882, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 737, + 643, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 6, we randomly select 8 types and observe that: (1) The types that appear in the initial schema mostly degrade performance, indicating that the model causes slight confusion as the schema expands. (2) Due to the structural inheritance relationship in the vertical expansion of the schema, our model can effectively transfer the labels of the father node to the child nodes when new child nodes are added.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further analyze the drawbacks of our model", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 903, + 391, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6414", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f284ee34a1f81fa0ce9f74a8bb0c2ad0e77c8b93cac977d265307c62d98bff36.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Error AnalysisInput ExampleGold Type(s)Predicted Type(s)Proportion
Weak TransferKelly, who declined to talk to reporters here, travel to Tokyo Sunday for talks with Japanese officials.Meet[travel]Transport[travel]38%
Inheritance DeficiencyHe started his entertainment career at ABC, where he is credited with creating the ‘movie of the week’ concept.Start-Position[started]Personnel[started]24%
Relevance NeglectKelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Transport[arrived]Meet[brief]Transport[arrived]21%
Class ImbalanceWithin weeks he was arrested and charged with sodomising an official driver several years previously and with abusing his powers to cover up the offence.Arrest-Jail[arrested]Charge-Indict[charged]Transport[arrested]13%
Potential AnnotationAnne-Marie will get the couple’s 19-room home in New York state, which was on the market last year for 21.5 million dollars, as well as their fine art collection.None EventTransfer-ownership[get]4%
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 83, + 880, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Error analysis on all ACE2005 schema expansion datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 256, + 724, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and promote future works of schema-adaptable KGC, we count incorrect instances and classify them into five categories below, as shown in Table 4: (1) Weak Transfer. Despite schema expansion, the model is prevented from updating labels by old model parameters. (2) Inheritance Deficiency. The label is not inherited in time when subdividing the father node. (3) Relevance Neglect. The lack of ontology relevance leads to the absence of correlated event extraction. (4) Class Imbalance. Models suffering from unbalanced class learning problems tend to depend on similarly in-context sentences to judge high-frequency labels. (5) Potential Annotation. Some example outputs suggest potential errors or omitted annotation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 298, + 489, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 550, + 270, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Knowledge Graph Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 576, + 413, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic construction of knowledge graphs from textual or structured data has attracted extensive research in recent years, including tasks such as NER (Paolini et al., 2021; Cui et al., 2021a), RE (Lin et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021), EE (Ramponi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021), etc. In contrast to closed-domain knowledge extraction, open knowledge extraction (Kolluru et al., 2020; Zhan and Zhao, 2020; Kotnis et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b) is oriented toward the absence of schema constraints and can quickly generate extensive and meaningful knowledge. However, the ignoring of schema introduces uncertainty and ambiguity in output control, and we believe that a clear setting can be chosen to track the realignment of instances. Besides, KGC in low-resource scenarios (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Schick and Schütze, 2021; Chen et al., 2022b; Ye et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022c) requires the model to predict new instances with only lim", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ited training instances available. As opposed to this instance-driven KGC approach, we argue that the schema-driven approach can leverage evolutionary instructions provided with richer ontological associations, resulting in new challenges and research opportunities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 298, + 884, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Lifelong Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 442, + 697, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lifelong learning is aimed at training new classes online without catastrophic forgetting. Generally, lifelong learning mainly falls into four categories: regularization-based (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Zenke et al., 2017; Aljundi et al., 2018), replay-based (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; Shin et al., 2017), architecture-based (Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018; Yoon et al., 2018) and knowledge distillation (Chuang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020). To study class-incremental learning, Monaikul et al. (2021) builds a unified NER classifier for all the classes encountered over time, while Wang et al. (2022a) develops a framework to reconstruct synthetic training data of the old classes. Recently, (Wang et al., 2019) proposes a lifelong RE method that employs an explicit alignment model to overcome forgetting, while (Shen et al., 2020) presents a self-adaptive dynamic regularization method. To address class incremental learning in event detection (Cao et al., 2020), Yu et al. (2021) takes advantage of rich correlations among ontology types, and Liu et al. (2022) adopts continuous prompts to learn event-specific representation for prediction. Compared with previous work that focused only on class increments, we discuss three principles of schema expansion from the potential demand for schema adaptation.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 483, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6415", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 247, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper introduces a new task of schema-adaptable KGC with benchmark datasets and a new baseline ADAKGC. We illustrate the task difficulties with previous baselines on three principles of schema expansion patterns (horizontal, vertical, hybrid) and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed ADAKGC.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 236, + 270, + 253 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to express gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their kind comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206246), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LGG22F030011), Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (2021J190), Yongjiang Talent Introduction Programme (2021A-156-G), CCF-Baidu Open Fund, and Information Technology Center and State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 263, + 490, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 453, + 220, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed work still contains several limitations, as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 479, + 489, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets: Note that several datasets, such as ACE2005, cannot be released due to LICENCE issues; we release the code to build the datasets and provide all the pre-processed publicly available datasets (e.g., Few-NERD, NYT) We use several existing datasets to construct schema-adaptable benchmarks; however, previous datasets may have limited schema structures (the schema pattern in some datasets is very simple). We plan to build more datasets via crowdsourcing for comprehensive evaluation. In addition, we will continue to promote the construction of multimodal schema adaptive graphs, which leverage the dynamic evolution of schema to integrate visual and textual knowledge into a self-learning graph extraction system.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines and Proposed ADAKGC: Note that the proposed one, although better than previous approaches, including Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), still suffers from poor generalization ability. However, we notice a very stable performance with LLM (though deficient performance), indicating a new promising solution for schema-adatable KGC.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethical Considerations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 710, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intended use. The dataset and model in this paper are indented to be used for exploratory analysis of schema-adaptable KGC.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 111, + 882, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Biases. We collect data from existing datasets (e.g., Few-NERD: CC BY-SA 4.0 license.), which may contain some data with offensive language or discriminatory.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 171, + 884, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 265, + 608, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2018. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part III, volume 11207 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 144-161. Springer.", + "Collin F. Baker and Hiroaki Sato. 2003. The framenet data and software. In ACL 2003, 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume to the Proceedings, 7-12 July 2003, Sapporo Convention Center, Sapporo, Japan, pages 161-164. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.", + "Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, and Taifeng Wang. 2020. Incremental event detection via knowledge consolidation networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 707-717. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiang Chen, Lei Li, Ningyu Zhang, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022a. Relation extraction as open-book examination: Retrieval-enhanced prompt tuning. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 2443-2448. ACM." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 288, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6416", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022b. Knowprompt: Knowledge-aware prompt-tuning with synergistic optimization for relation extraction. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 2778-2788. ACM.", + "Yung-Sung Chuang, Shang-Yu Su, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2020. Lifelong language knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2914-2924. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Jian Liu, Sen Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2021a. Template-based named entity recognition using BART. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 1835-1845. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Li Cui, Deqing Yang, Jiaxin Yu, Chengwei Hu, Jiayang Cheng, Jingjie Yi, and Yanghua Xiao. 2021b. Refining sample embeddings with relation prototypes to enhance continual relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 232-243. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-nerd: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 3198-3213. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Joe Ellis, Jeremy Getman, and Stephanie M Strassel. 2014. Overview of linguistic resources for the tac kbp 2014 evaluations: Planning, execution, and results. In Proceedings of TAC KBP 2014 Workshop, National Institute of Standards and Technology, pages 17-18.", + "Jérôme Euzenat, Christian Meilicke, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Pavel Shvaiko, and Cássia Trojahn dos Santos. 2011. Ontology alignment evaluation initiative: Six years of experience. J. Data Semant., 15:158-192.", + "Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R. Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 8:64-77.", + "Karin Kipper, Anna Korhonen, Neville Ryant, and Martha Palmer. 2008. A large-scale classification of english verbs. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 42(1):21-40.", + "James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521-3526.", + "Keshav Kolluru, Samarth Aggarwal, Vipul Rathore, Mausam, and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2020. Imojie: Iterative memory-based joint open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5871-5886. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Bhushan Kotnis, Kiril Gashteovski, Daniel Rubio, Ammar Shaker, Vanessa Rodriguez-Tembras, Makoto Takamoto, Mathias Niepert, and Carolin Lawrence. 2022. MILIE: modular & iterative multilingual open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6939-6950. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4582-4597. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jian Liu, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Wei Bi, and Xiaojiang Liu. 2020. Event extraction as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1641-1651. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6417", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Minqian Liu, Shiyu Chang, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Incremental prompting: Episodic memory prompt for lifelong event detection. CoRR, abs/2204.07275.", + "David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 6467-6476.", + "Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Dai Dai, Wei Jia, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2023. Universal information extraction as unified semantic matching. CoRR, abs/2301.03282.", + "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2795-2806. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Packnet: Adding multiple tasks to a single network by iterative pruning. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, June 18-22, 2018, pages 7765-7773. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE Computer Society.", + "Natawut Monaikul, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2021. Continual learning for named entity recognition. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13570-13577. AAAI Press.", + "II. I Ntroduction. The ace 2005 (ace 05) evaluation plan evaluation of the detection and recognition of ace entities, values, temporal expressions, relations, and events 1." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS.", + "Martha Palmer, Paul R. Kingsbury, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comput. Linguistics, 31(1):71-106.", + "Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net.", + "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. 2017. Automatic differentiation in pytorch.", + "Sameer S. Pradhan, Eduard H. Hovy, Mitchell P. Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance A. Ramshaw, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2007. Ontonotes: A unified relational semantic representation. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), September 17-19, 2007, Irvine, California, USA, pages 517-526. IEEE Computer Society.", + "Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2023. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. In ACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Alan Ramponi, Rob van der Goot, Rosario Lombardo, and Barbara Plank. 2020. Biomedical event extraction as sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 5357-5367. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010a. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, European Conference," + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6418", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "ECML PKDD 2010, Barcelona, Spain, September 20-24, 2010, Proceedings, Part III, volume 6323 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 148-163. Springer.", + "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010b. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In *Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases*, pages 148–163, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.", + "Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chao Shang, Guangtao Wang, Peng Qi, and Jing Huang. 2022. Improving time sensitivity for question answering over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8017-8026. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hangjie Shen, Shenggen Ju, Jieping Sun, Run Chen, and Yuezhong Liu. 2020. Efficient lifelong relation extraction with dynamic regularization. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing - 9th CCF International Conference*, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, volume 12431 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 181-192. Springer.", + "Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2990-2999.", + "Sebastian Thrun. 1998. Lifelong learning algorithms. In Sebastian Thrun and Lorien Y. Pratt, editors, Learning to Learn, pages 181-209. Springer.", + "Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus.", + "Hong Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Sentence embedding alignment for lifelong relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 796-806. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rui Wang, Tong Yu, Handong Zhao, Sungchul Kim, Subrata Mitra, Ruiyi Zhang, and Ricardo Henao. 2022a. Few-shot class-incremental learning for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 571-582. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xin Wang, Minlong Peng, Mingming Sun, and Ping Li. 2022b. Oie@oia: an adaptable and efficient open information extraction framework. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6213-6226. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Nguyen Bach, Tao Wang, Zhongqiang Huang, Fei Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2021. Automated concatenation of embeddings for structured prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2643-2660. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yunzhi Yao, Shengyu Mao, Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Schema-aware reference as prompt improves data-efficient relational triple and event extraction. CoRR, abs/2210.10709.", + "Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Mosha Chen, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Contrastive triple extraction with generative transformer. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14257-14265. AAAI Press.", + "Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hui Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Xi Chen, and Huajun Chen." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6419", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2022. Ontology-enhanced prompt-tuning for few-shot learning. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 778-787. ACM.", + "Jaehong Yoon, Eunho Yang, Jeongtae Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2018. Lifelong learning with dynamically expandable networks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.", + "Pengfei Yu, Heng Ji, and Prem Natarajan. 2021. *Life-long event detection with knowledge transfer*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5278-5290. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. 2017. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3987-3995. PMLR.", + "Junlang Zhan and Hai Zhao. 2020. Span model for open information extraction on accurate corpus. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9523-9530. AAAI Press.", + "Jing Zhang, Xiaokang Zhang, Jifan Yu, Jian Tang, Jie Tang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2022a. Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5773-5784. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Minhao Zhang, Ruoyu Zhang, Yanzeng Li, and Lei Zou. 2022b. Crake: Causal-enhanced table-filler for question answering over large scale knowledge base. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1787-1798. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Jiaoyan Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2020. Relation adversarial network for low resource knowledge graph completion. In WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020, pages 1-12. ACM / IW3C2.", + "Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Hongbin Ye, and Huajun Chen. 2022c. Knowledge collaborative fine-tuning for low-resource knowledge" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "graph completion. Journal of Software, 33(10):3531-3545.", + "Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022d. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. ArXiv, abs/2201.08860.", + "Hengyi Zheng, Rui Wen, Xi Chen, Yifan Yang, Yunyan Zhang, Ziheng Zhang, Ningyu Zhang, Bin Qin, Xu Ming, and Yefeng Zheng. 2021. PRGC: potential relation and global correspondence based joint relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6225-6235. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 355, + 633, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section describes the details of experiments, including dataset construction and evaluation on downstream tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 380, + 882, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Dataset Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 439, + 726, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.1 Construction Process", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 460, + 739, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In each task, we execute three schema evolution strategies. The raw dataset statistics are shown in Table 5, where it can be seen that they have a two-level schema structure, leaving the research of a more hierarchical schema structure for future work. As shown in Algorithm 2-4, we describe in detail the specific construction process of horizontal schema extension, vertical schema extension and hybrid schema extension.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In particular, we also release additional datasets from a semantic substitution perspective. As shown in Algorithm 5, analogous schema expansion requires schema replacement for semantically similar new nodes. Based on the performance of the old class transfer to the new semantic class, we can evaluate the semantic invariance capability.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 624, + 882, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/eb7ae5e9f14942ced0c24739ce9dd0cfabee063e9db0527378dceadcf9e68d9b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
#Maj#Sub#Train#Val#Test
NERD866131,76718,82437,648
NYT42456,1965,0005,000
ACE-200583319,216901676
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 747, + 887, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Raw datasets statistics. #Maj indicates the number of major classes, #Sub is the number of subclasses, and #Val #Test is the number of sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 827, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Horizontal Schema Expansion. Neighboring nodes of the specified type that have high-level", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6420", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "similarity values in the same framework are also adjacent when projected into the semantic space (Huang et al., 2018). Existing research efforts have developed many rich libraries of ontologies (e.g.FrameNet (Baker and Sato, 2003), VerbNet (Kipper et al., 2008), Propbank (Palmer et al., 2005), and OntoNotes (Pradhan et al., 2007)), where each ontology type is associated with a set of pre-defined neighboring ontologies. (1) Searching the ontology library to retrieve candidate nodes $W_{f}$ associated with target nodes $W_{s}$ at the same hierarchy. (2) The similarity metric is obtained by calculating the cosine vector similarity of all candidate nodes $W_{f}$ to the target node $W_{s}$ (Eq. 5). (3) Selecting the appropriate threshold of node pairs to confirm the sorted addition of horizontal nodes. (4) Updating the schema with horizontal nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\phi_ {S i m} (\\vec {W _ {f}}, \\vec {W _ {s}}) = \\frac {\\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| W _ {s} |} w _ {i} \\cdot w _ {f}}{\\| \\vec {W _ {f}} \\| _ {2} \\cdot \\| \\vec {W _ {s}} \\| _ {2}} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 407, + 489, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vertical Schema Expansion. Structural similarity needs to be exploited when adding schema hierarchy nodes as new classes. (1) For search convenience, we link the hypernym ontology under a root node so that the schema forms a tree structure. (2) Starting at the root node, we utilize a child selection strategy by recursively applying through the tree until reaching the deepest node. A node could be expandable when it represents a non-terminal state or has hyponyms in semantics (e.g., location->country). (3) According to the available hyponyms, one (or more) child nodes are added to expand the current schema tree. (4) Updating the schema with vertical nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Hybrid Schema Expansion. It is necessary to hybrid horizontal and vertical expansion to form a comprehensive structural topology, which is more consistent with real scenarios. (1) Setting the threshold $\\alpha$ for random selection. (2) Executing horizontal expansion iteration below the threshold $\\alpha$ , or vertical node expansion above the threshold $\\alpha$ . Note that when the father node of added nodes does not exist, we also add the father node to maintain the schema hierarchy. (3) Updating the schema with the corresponding nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Analogous Schema Expansion. To detect the semantic node sensitivity of the schema, we randomly", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "replace similar semantic expressions for the nodes. (1) Random selection of candidate nodes to obtain word expressions $W_{C}$ . (2) Candidate nodes are created by pairing $W_{C}$ with all words in the corpus word list $W_{L}$ . The consistency between individual words is calculated by the normalized point-by-point mutual information (NPMI) of $w_{i}$ and $w_{j}$ (Eq. 6), where adding smooth $\\epsilon$ and $\\gamma$ controls for $\\log p(w_{i},w_{j})$ weights for higher NPMI values (Eq. 7). (3) Adopting candidate nodes that exceed the threshold to replace the schema and updating the golden validation set and test set in the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\vec {v} (W) = \\left\\{\\sum_ {w _ {i} \\in W _ {C}} N M P I \\left(w _ {i}, w _ {j}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\right\\} _ {j = 1, \\dots , \\left| W _ {L} \\right|} \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 305, + 885, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nN M P I (w _ {i}, w _ {j}) ^ {\\gamma} = \\left(\\frac {\\log \\frac {p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \\epsilon}{p (w _ {i}) \\cdot p (w _ {j})}}{- \\log p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \\epsilon}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 399, + 885, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.2 Schema-adaptable Datasets Statistic", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 858, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We set the number $\\mathcal{N}$ of total iterations, and initialize the original number of schema nodes. We show the statistics of schema-adaptable datasets for each task in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 885, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 577, + 648, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use span-based Micro-F1 as the major metric to evaluate the model and adopt the same evaluation metrics as previous work:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 600, + 882, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "* Named Entity Recognition: an entity mention is correct if its strings and type match a reference entity.", + "* Relation Strict: a relation is correct if its relation type is correct and the string and entity types of the related entity mentions are correct.", + "* Event Trigger: an event trigger is correct if its strings and event type match a reference trigger.", + "* Event Argument: an event argument is correct if its strings, role type, and event type match a reference argument mentioned." + ], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 664, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6421", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/acc8139d7072800f447debb448fda95070f5ae95573571b55445c167d801f9fd.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TaxonomyHorizontalVerticalHybridAnalogous
#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N
NERD30673067306766-7
NYT10281028102824-7
ACE-200515371537153733-7
", + "bbox": [ + 196, + 80, + 803, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Schema-adaptable datasets statistics. #Init indicates the number of initial subclasses, #Add is the number of subclasses added per iteration, and #N is the total number of iterations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 172, + 880, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Hyper-parameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 227, + 309, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We adopt T5-v1.1-base (Raffel et al., 2020b), which has 12 layers of the encoder, 12 layers of the decoder, 768 hidden units, and 12 attention heads as the backbone. Specifically, we utilize Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2017) to conduct experiments with batch size 16 on one NVIDIA 3090 GPU. We detail the hyper-parameters for each dataset as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 485, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NERD. The hyper-parameter search space is:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 363, + 470, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- epoch: 15", + "- batch size: 16", + "- accumulate: 1", + "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]", + "warmup rate: 0.06" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 395, + 386, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NYT. The hyper-parameter search space is:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 554, + 455, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- epoch: 20", + "- batch size: 16", + "- accumulate: 1", + "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]", + "warmup rate: 0.06" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 586, + 386, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ACE2005. The hyper-parameter search space is:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 744, + 487, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- epoch: 30", + "- batch size: 16", + "- accumulate: 1", + "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]", + "warmup rate: 0.06" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 776, + 386, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Analogous Schema Expansion Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 227, + 794, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 7, our ADAKGC also has powerful semantic transplantation capabilities, which achieves competitive performance with baselines. With the schema-enriched prefix instructor, ADAKGC achieves an improvement of $7.70\\%$ on average over TEXT2EVENT on the event trigger extraction task and $4.87\\%$ on the event argument extraction task. This verifies the proposed schema-enriched prefix instructor and decoding modules can learn general schema-adaptable ability even the schema evolution knowledge is rarely in the pretraining stage. Note that TANL achieves the best performance on the NYT dataset, indicating that language models have the ability to learn schema semantic transfer implicitly as an augmented natural language prediction task. Therefore we believe that in addition to the schema structure perception modules, semantic robustness modules for analogous node expansion scenarios are also essential.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 265, + 884, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 GPT-3.5 Experiment Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 583, + 781, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3.5 is a large autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters. To explore the performance of GPT-3.5 on the schema-adaptive KGC task, we follow the input format of few-shot learning using OpenAI API4. As shown in Table 12, we utilize a fixed manual template to generate a contextual window suitable for the model, including natural language task descriptions (text in blue), linearized schemas (text in purple), 20 examples in the model's context, and task prompts (text in red).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 607, + 884, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 ChatGPT Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 781, + 697, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT5 trains an initial model using supervised fine-tuning and further utilizes reinforcement learning systems to rank by quality for human feedback rewards. We handle Schema-adaptable KGC tasks", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 803, + 882, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 879, + 848, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5https://chat.openai.com/chat", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 904, + 757, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6422", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 2 The construction process of horizontal schema expansion.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 489, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Set sampling seed $\\theta$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}$", + "2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$ and initial node number $n_{init}$ , node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration", + "3: Randomly select $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ , $S = S \\cup$ init node, $S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S$", + "4: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$", + "5: for iteration $N$ do", + "6: Calculate $\\phi_{Sim}(\\vec{W}_f,\\vec{W}_s) = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\\cdot w_i}{\\|\\vec{W}_f\\|_2\\cdot\\|\\vec{W}_s\\|_2}$ for node between $S_{raw}$ and $S$", + "7: Pick out top $n_{iter}$ schema node, $S = S \\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$ , $S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$", + "8: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}$", + "9: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 118, + 485, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "by asking questions to the chatbot in a conversational mode. First, we present the task description and the 20 demonstrations as shown in Figure 7. Then we give a paragraph text to test whether the chatbot can extract the corresponding triples based on the same schema as the demonstration examples comply with. From Figure 8 we can find that some of the facts are well extracted, indicating that ChatGPT can understand the task and perform extraction consistent with the schema. Finally, we add three new nodes \"profession\" \"place founded\" \"founders\" to the previous schema under a horizontal schema expansion iteration. Output results in Figure 8 show that ChatGPT not only adapts the output to the updated schema but also deduces reasonable facts by a chain-of-thought approach.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 458, + 489, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 3 The construction process of vertical schema expansion.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 303, + 880, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Set sampling seed $\\theta$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}$", + "2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$ and initial node number $n_{init}$ , node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration", + "3: for major node in $S_{raw}$ do", + "4: $S = S\\cup$ major node", + "5: end for", + "6: Randomly select $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ , $S = S \\cup$ init node, $S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S$", + "7: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$", + "8: for iteration $N$ do", + "9: Randomly select $n_{iter}$ sub node, whose parent belongs to $S$", + "10: $S = S\\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$", + "11: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}$", + "12: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 338, + 880, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6423", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 4 The construction process of hybrid schema expansion.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 258, + 485, + 290 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Set sampling seed $\\theta$ , hybrid ratio $\\alpha$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}$", + "2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$ and initial node number $n_{init}$ , node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration", + "3: Randomly select $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ , $S = S \\cup$ init node, $S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S$", + "4: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$", + "5: for iteration $N$ do", + "6: if random(0,1) $< \\alpha$ then", + "7: Calculate $\\phi_{Sim}(\\vec{W_f},\\vec{W_s}) = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\\cdot w_f}{\\|\\vec{W_f}\\|_2\\cdot\\|\\vec{W_s}\\|_2}$ for node between $S_{raw}$ and $S$", + "8: Pick out top $n_{iter}$ schema node, $S = S \\cup S_{raw}[: n_{iter}]$ , $S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[: n_{iter}]$", + "9: else", + "10: Randomly select $n_{iter}$ sub node, whose parent belongs to $S$", + "11: $S = S\\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw}-$ $S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$", + "12: end if", + "13: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}$", + "14: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 294, + 489, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 5 The construction process of analogous schema expansion.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 294, + 882, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Set sampling seed $\\theta$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}$", + "2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$ and node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration", + "3: Initialize $S = S_{raw}$ , $S_1 = S$ , $\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} = \\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}$", + "4: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$", + "5: for iteration $N$ do", + "6: Randomly select $n_{iter}$ schema node in $S$ , calculate $\\vec{v}(W) = \\left\\{\\sum_{w_r \\in W} N M P I(w_r, w_j)^{\\gamma}\\right\\}_{j=1,\\dots,|W_L|}$ for each node, create candidate nodes by pairing $W_r$ with all words $W_L$ in the corpus word list", + "7: Replace $S[: n_{iter}]$ with candidate nodes with analogous semantics", + "8: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S, \\{D_{dev}^{i}, D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}$", + "9: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 330, + 884, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6424", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/981edac334ad6ec41d6880fb166ecbbcd480155f25cce8bb2b4f5643a6df322b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
EntityTANL68.3462.7057.2252.9447.7342.2436.0952.47
(NERD)UIE67.5863.3960.3758.0058.1754.2649.5358.76
Ent-F1AdaKGC68.2263.8761.0158.1858.7654.5849.8159.20
RelationTANL89.8086.8283.5177.9973.6173.3266.3778.77
(NYT)UIE89.6686.5683.2777.8073.3073.2766.3378.60
Rel-S F1AdaKGC89.1786.1282.7677.3372.8572.9165.8478.14
Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT64.4060.3953.9652.6440.8332.4529.5847.75
(ACE2005)UIE69.6964.5362.1058.4749.7642.5139.3155.20
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC69.6364.7761.8658.3150.0843.0740.4055.45
Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT45.8840.9634.2133.4024.4919.6216.7730.76
(ACE2005)UIE49.9642.6740.5036.5628.7024.0620.4734.70
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.7444.5642.4832.6130.5225.4122.1035.63
", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 89, + 823, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/536e12a48a85fa176ae813ebeae9c24c435f1a60fb4e7ab3637839e567ac928d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Analogous schema replacement results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Input: The Belgrade district court said that Markovic will be tried along with 10 other Milosevic-era officials who face similar charges of ‘inappropriate use of state property’ that carry a sentence of up to five years in jail.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "phone write", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 4 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 5 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "exe-cute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "charge indirect", "trans-fer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "par-don"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indirect", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 318, + 873, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Adaptive evolution of horizontal schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 891, + 774, + 906 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6425", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/04ac4a5dcb0b5df95bbc9de756fbeb0a4aa19d9e6b66d20b3e7233c90206ec22.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Input: Kelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "contact", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Contact[brief]
Iteration 2 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 3 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 4 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 5 schema: "personnel", "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organi-zation", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demon-strate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 189, + 875, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Adaptive evolution of vertical schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to major classes, which will be covered by refined sub classes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 777, + 882, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6426", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f4c49bbff3fe96a82f244d190a336b8c0c61e2f0f405fbc57e66f6bb11c20360.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Input: The charismatic leader of Turkey's governing party was named prime minister Tuesday, a step that probably boosts chances that the United States will get permission to deploy troops in the country along Iraq's northern border.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 4 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 5 schema: "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Personnel[named]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Elect[named]
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 183, + 875, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Adaptive evolution of hybrid schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to father classes, which occurs when directly adding sub classes that corresponding major class not exists.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 784, + 882, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6427", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/22cdfdb9e985e79908006e46bbcca24e1c7adae15381d0191c022426110ddecb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Input: Webb also said details of the breakdowns of the Welches' previous marriages were likely to come up, and cited reports of alleged extramarital affairs by both.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Divorce[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 2 schema: "end position", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 3 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradITE", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 4 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 5 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 6 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 7 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "hurt", "communication", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "wed", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nWed[marriages]
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 130, + 875, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: Adaptive evolution of analogous schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 215, + 851, + 779, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6428", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3.5 Input Example:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 118, + 329, + 135 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from context. Relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 143, + 865, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 244, + 863, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens; 2. The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 279, + 862, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen's denials.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 330, + 862, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 363, + 862, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: Mr.Brown has demeaned Mr.Bush as \"a cheerleader,\" declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know \"the first thing about running a disaster,\" and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, \"a little twerp\" and Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, an unprintable vulgarity (both in Playboy).", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 398, + 862, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 466, + 862, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "···", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 507, + 152, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema? Now it's your turn to do relation extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 517, + 862, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"birth place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 550, + 863, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 619, + 862, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 670, + 505, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3.5 Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 694, + 863, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Golden Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is nationality, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place of death, tail entity is Reykjavik.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 768, + 863, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: Examples of GPT-3.5 experiment on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 868, + 878, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6429", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HU", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 154, + 170, + 181, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from Context. relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple.", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 172, + 818, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\"]", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 221, + 808, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston.", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 286, + 801, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens;2.The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston;", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 319, + 833, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: In his authoritative and tough-minded new book , \" The Assassins ' Gate :", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 368, + 779, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "America in Iraq , \" the New Yorker writer George Packer reminds us that the decision of the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq and its increasingly embattled handling of the occupation were both predicated upon large , abstract ideas about the role of America in the post-cold war world -- most notably , a belief in pre-emptive and unilateral action , the viability of exporting democracy abroad , the urge to streamline the military and the dream of remaking the Middle East .", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 384, + 826, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;2.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 482, + 821, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office 's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen 's denials.", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 531, + 813, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County;", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 563, + 830, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: Mr. Brown has demeaned Mr. Bush as \" a cheerleader , \" declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know \" the first thing about running a disaster, \" and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor , Democrat of Mississippi , \" a little twerp \" and Senator Norm Coleman , Republican of Minnesota , an unprintable vulgarity ( both in Playboy ) .", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 596, + 831, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi;", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 678, + 821, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: Pakistan 's president, Pervez Musharraf, and President Hamid Karzai talked by telephone for an hour on Tuesday, a day after the Afghan intelligence service said it had arrested three Pakistani who were trying to assassinate the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. \"", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 709, + 821, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pervez Musharraf, relation is nationality, tail entity is Pakistan;", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 775, + 803, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: ChatGPT input example on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 820, + 848, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6430", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6cf6ef84c5587727d16e48233546d95cc2fd04b8f3938e4ac42f8c9fdd47ce7f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 193, + 194, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema?", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 195, + 645, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/842cbed34ef23b0446ada4810fe68cad69638d0a349d55446084481ccb7c5599.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 794, + 195, + 811, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Now it's your turn to do relation extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 211, + 485, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\"]", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 225, + 763, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 285, + 773, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 329, + 517, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7f6373825dfb825ec8e81eb619ae0cb2d78b49f88ef6b97e44d94828274741c4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 372, + 194, + 393 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 375, + 763, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c7103a88203ebba03b18924d486c11f52c5d401ff4490f315f36886651f9da3d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 794, + 374, + 811, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 410, + 665, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/667586f97ee50c149531b89e43db448a4df024bc46d3dbb72ec9d57199bcbecf.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 454, + 194, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema?", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 456, + 643, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Now it's your turn to do relation extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 470, + 485, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 486, + 763, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 545, + 773, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 590, + 517, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/21687c0a23452bd11f36e18fb8796228174be911f2561789b3920cc0e733dec3.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 633, + 194, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 636, + 763, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/66f047127c7ee29861ae57619c2b97635eaab0c3b81e6e0a576886adbde34564.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 794, + 634, + 811, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "2. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is profession, tail entity is chess player.", + "3. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland.", + "4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland (assuming Bobby Fischer lived in Iceland at the time of the news conference)", + "5. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place founded, tail entity is United States (assuming Bobby Fischer was born in the United States)" + ], + "bbox": [ + 211, + 671, + 779, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8: ChatGPT output results under a horizontal schema expansion iteration.", + "bbox": [ + 223, + 800, + 769, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6431", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_model.json b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c7f96e7ca81533f5520607be33546112e716c666 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,4538 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.232, + 0.091, + 0.768, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.13, + 0.886, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongbin Ye\\(^{1,2,4}\\), Honghao Gui\\(^{1,4}\\), Xin Xu\\(^{1,4}\\), Xi Chen\\(^{3}\\), Huajun Chen\\(^{1,4}\\), Ningyu Zhang\\(^{1,4*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.149, + 0.813, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Zhejiang University 2 Zhejiang Lab 3 Platform and Content Group, Tencent" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.206, + 0.166, + 0.798, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Zhejiang University - Ant Group Joint Laboratory of Knowledge Graph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.184, + 0.74, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "yehongbin@zhejianglab.com, jasonxchen@tencent.com," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.2, + 0.759, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{guihonghao,xxucs,huajunsir,zhangningyu}@zju.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conventional Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) approaches typically follow the static information extraction paradigm with a closed set of pre-defined schema. As a result, such approaches fall short when applied to dynamic scenarios or domains, whereas a new type of knowledge emerges. This necessitates a system that can handle evolving schema automatically to extract information for KGC. To address this need, we propose a new task called schema-adaptable KGC, which aims to continually extract entity, relation, and event based on a dynamically changing schema graph without re-training. We first split and convert existing datasets based on three principles to build a benchmark, i.e., horizontal schema expansion, vertical schema expansion, and hybrid schema expansion; then investigate the schema-adaptable performance of several well-known approaches such as Text2Event, TANL, UIE and GPT-3.5. We further propose a simple yet effective baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which contains schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding to better handle evolving schema. Comprehensive experimental results illustrate that ADAKGC can outperform baselines but still have room for improvement. We hope the proposed work can deliver benefits to the community1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.704, + 0.26, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.729, + 0.491, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC), typically through information extraction, has enjoyed widespread empirical success and can provide backend support for various NLP tasks, such as question answering (Saxena et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022a), commonsense reasoning (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022d) etc. Traditional KGC tasks, including named entity recognition (NER) (Liu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021)," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.25, + 0.891, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.418, + 0.885, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) with dynamic updates of schema." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.481, + 0.885, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "relation extraction (RE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2022) and event extraction (EE) (Huang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2023) are \"reactive\", relying on static pre-defined schema from end-users. However, as shown in Figure 1, the schema may evolve along with scenario adaptation, making previous models challenging to utilize without re-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that existing information extraction systems can only handle a fixed number of classes by pre-defined schema and performing once-and-for-all training on a fixed framework. It is desirable to respond to changes (e.g., evolving schema) to existing KGs, making the system act more \"proactively\" like humans who can handle flexible knowledge updates. Early, several approaches introduce incremental learning (Cao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021b) to learn new classes continually. In this case, the extraction system learns from the class incremental data stream but usually suffers significant performance degradation on the old class when adapting to the new class. Stated differently, previous studies put emphasis on struggling against catastrophic forgetting (Thrun, 1998). However, for the schema-evolving scenarios, the dynamic generalizability of extraction models plays a vital role and needs to be" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.881, + 0.303, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.894, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Code and datasets available at https://github.com/zjunlp/AdaKGC." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6408" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6408-6431" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "inspected from an ontology evolution perspective." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.101, + 0.489, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we propose a novel KGC task dubbed schema-adaptable KGC, where the models are required to have the ability to represent and adapt to complement knowledge extraction. We first construct datasets according to three principles of evolutionary schema directions (Horizontal Schema Expansion, Vertical Schema Expansion, and Hybrid Schema Expansion) on three tasks of NER, \\(\\mathrm{RE}^2\\), and EE. Through empirical analysis, we notice that approaches of Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), and GPT-3.5(Ouyang et al., 2022) cannot effectively extract the information given complex evolving schema. We argue that the major issues lie in the following: 1) How to learn dynamic and generalizable schema representations as conditions for extraction; 2) How to precisely extract new instances constrained with newly updated schema." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.392, + 0.49, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To this end, we propose a simple baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which introduces Schema-enriched Prefix Instructors (SPI) to represent and transfer the learnable schema-specific knowledge. At each iteration stage, we linearly convert from the current schema graph to learnable prompts, initialized with the ontology name and connected to task-specific prefixes. To encourage the decoder to understand the dynamic schema, we utilize a Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding (SDD) strategy that constructs a decoding path of schema-specific vocabulary to the output space. When the schema changes, we dynamically construct a new trie-tree to adjust the output space. Note that ADAKGC is model agnostic and can handle a variety of challenging schema evolution scenarios. We summarize the contribution of this work as:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.678, + 0.489, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We introduce a new task of the schema-adaptable KGC to meet the schema evolution requirements, which is a new branch that has not been well-explored to the best of our knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.771, + 0.488, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a new baseline ADAKGC, which includes schema-enriched prefix instructors and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding strategy, and experimentally demonstrate the adaptability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.863, + 0.489, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We release the schema-adaptable KGC benchmark, which imposes new challenges and" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.678, + 0.489, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "presents new research opportunities for the NLP community." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.13, + 0.836, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Problem Statement and Overview" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.157, + 0.721, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Background of KGC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.179, + 0.886, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KGC has been a promising research challenge (Lu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b), and existing benchmarks utilize a well-defined schema for directing knowledge graph construction, focusing on generating domain-specific knowledge graphs or aggregating heterogeneous structured databases. For example, FEW-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) consists of coarse-grained and fine-grained entity type definitions to locate and classify named entities from unstructured natural language. NYT (Riedel et al., 2010a) extracts relational triple instances specifically from textual data sources according to a specific taxonomy structure. ACE2005 (Ntroduction) identifies triggers and event types based on context, and each has its own event arguments, described in a slot-filling way. In addition, TAC-KBP (Ellis et al., 2014) is designed to leverage existing generic domain structured data sources and extend entity links employing descriptive text as additional information. OAEI (Euzenat et al., 2011) creates an integrated ontology based on an alignment between two or more existing ontologies or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we focus on the work of extracting knowledge instances from unstructured text, which is regarded as the schema-constraint prediction (structure prediction) task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.609, + 0.852, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Definition of Schema-adaptable KGC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the real world, the KGC system extracts structured knowledge from unstructured text and normalizes it to the instance graph according to a frequently adjusted schema. Given a set of schema graphs \\(\\mathcal{S} = \\{s_1,s_2,\\dots,s_n\\}\\), the task of schema-adaptable KGC is to generate a set of schema-constraint instances \\(\\mathcal{G} = \\{g_{1},g_{2},\\dots,g_{n}\\}\\) for each iteration. Suppose there is a model \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\theta} = LM(\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}|S_{1})\\) trained on the initial training set, after which labeled data for updated schema are not available. A schema-adaptable data stream \\(\\{\\mathcal{D}^{(1)},\\mathcal{D}^{(2)},\\ldots ,\\mathcal{D}^{(N)}\\}\\) is provided to evaluate the adaptability of model for the dynamic updates of schema. Each \\(\\mathcal{D}^{(k)}\\) contains dev/test data \\((\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{k},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{k})\\) and schema graph \\(s_k\\). Note that the model will not be re-trained but hope to pick up on the ability of information extraction with evolving schema. The challenge is that the model is" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We regard RE as relational triple extraction in this paper." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6409" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.082, + 0.881, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.29, + 0.884, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Illustration of schema-adaptable KGC with iterative schema evolution. Schema graph nodes (colored \\(\\bullet\\)) are evolved by adding a new class node (colored \\(\\bullet\\)) in horizontal schema expansion while is inherited by a new subclass node (colored \\(\\bullet\\)) in vertical schema expansion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.359, + 0.489, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "expected to perform well in each iteration of the test set \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{test}}^k\\), which contains the golden instances changed for the updated schema." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.417, + 0.393, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Dataset Construction Process" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.438, + 0.49, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, we design three principles regarding different types of schema evolution and apply Algorithm 1 to build the dataset for evaluation: (1) Horizontal Schema Expansion requires the schema to add new class nodes of the same level, which can be considered a form of class-incremental learning without new classe instances as training data. Based on the generalization effect on the neighboring new classes, we can assess the transfer capabilities of the schema feature. (2) Vertical Schema Expansion requires the schema to add subclasses of father classes. Based on the generalization effect on subclasses, we can assess the inheritance and derivation capabilities of the schema feature. (3) Hybrid Schema Expansion requires the schema to randomly expands nodes horizontally or vertically at each iteration, which summarizes schema graphs and represents their potential co-evolutionary pattern. More details are in Appendix A.1, besides the above structural extensions, we further explore analogous node replacement from the perspective of semantics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.802, + 0.45, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Schema-adaptable KGC Benchmark" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are two challenges for schema-adaptable KGC. Firstly, since the schema is updated in each iteration, the schema evolution information needs to be dynamically injected into the model. Secondly, since the output target of KGC is often demand-specific, the extraction results should be adaptively" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.358, + 0.833, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 Dataset Construction Process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.374, + 0.882, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: iteration \\(\\mathcal{N}\\) , raw schema \\(S_{raw}\\) , and raw dataset \\(\\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{raw},\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{raw},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{raw}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.407, + 0.834, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Schema \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{N}},\\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{\\mathcal{N}},\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{\\mathcal{N}},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{\\mathcal{N}}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.426, + 0.881, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Randomly initialize \\( n_{init} \\) nodes in \\( S_{raw} \\) as \\( S_1 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.442, + 0.881, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Pick out the instance associated with schema \\( \\mathcal{S} \\) as \\( \\mathcal{D}^{(1)} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}, \\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{1}, \\mathcal{D}_{test}^{1}\\} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.475, + 0.756, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: for iteration \\( i = 2, \\dots, n \\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.49, + 0.882, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: Horizontal Schema Expansion: Compute \\(\\phi_{\\text{neighbor}}(\\vec{W}_c, \\vec{W}_s)\\) for candidate schema \\(S\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.524, + 0.882, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: Vertical Schma Expansion: Select \\( n_{iter} \\) sub node whose father node belongs to \\( S \\) and update" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.571, + 0.884, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: Hybrid Schema Expansion: Combine extension Steps 4 and 5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.602, + 0.884, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: Output iteration \\(i\\) dataset schema \\(\\mathcal{S}_i = \\mathcal{S}\\), instance \\(\\mathcal{D}^{(i)} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^i, \\mathcal{D}_{test}^i\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.636, + 0.603, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.426, + 0.884, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.68, + 0.885, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "adjusted according to the schema. We detail several vanilla baselines as follows and introduce the proposed ADAKGC in §3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanilla Baselines: Schema-adaptable KGC can be thought of as a structured prediction language task that transfers information between class nodes through the generalizability of the structure. TANL (Paolini et al., 2021) introduces an augmented natural language translation task from which information related to the schema can be implicitly extracted. TEXT2EVENT (Lu et al., 2021) is a unified sequence-to-structure architecture for event extraction with a constrained decoding algorithm for event schema knowledge injection during in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6410" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.295, + 0.776, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The overview of ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.334, + 0.49, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ference. UIE (Lu et al., 2022) is a unified text-to-structure generation framework that enables unified modeling of different IE tasks and adaptively generates target sequences by a schema-based prompting mechanism. GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), a large-scale language model (LLM), can serve as a baseline for schema-adaptable KGC. Although current works focusing on structured extraction can achieve excellent performance with static types of knowledge, they are typically unaware of schema evolution. To clarify this issue, we introduce a simple yet effective baseline dubbed schema-ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.561, + 0.447, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 The Proposed Baseline: ADAKGC" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.592, + 0.237, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Overview" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.616, + 0.49, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 3, ADAKGC utilizes a pretrained encoder-decoder language model (LM) T5 (Raffel et al., 2020a) as the basic architecture for the schema-adaptable KGC task. Specifically, let encoder input \\( X_{en} = [S;X] \\) be the concatenation of schema \\( S \\) and input \\( X \\). In the decoding process, the LM calculates the conditioned probability of generating a new token \\( y_{t} \\) given the previous token \\( y_{< t} \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.777, + 0.488, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np \\left(Y _ {d e} \\mid X _ {e n}\\right) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {| Y |} p \\left(y _ {t} \\mid y _ {< t}, S, X\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We initialize the model using the pre-trained parameter \\(\\theta\\). Here, \\(p_{\\theta}\\) is a trainable language model distribution. In the \\(k\\)-th iteration, we perform a gradient update on the following log-likelihood objective:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.363, + 0.882, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\max _ {\\theta} \\log p _ {\\theta} (y \\mid x; s _ {k}) \\\\ = \\max _ {\\theta} \\sum_ {t \\in Y _ {i n d e x}} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\left(h _ {t} \\mid h _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {2} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.438, + 0.882, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( h_t \\) is the activation vector at decoding time step \\( t \\). \\( h_t = \\left[h_t^{(1)};\\dots ;h_t^{(m)}\\right] \\) is a concatenation of all activation layers, and \\( h_t^{(j)} \\) is the activation vector of the \\( j \\)-th layer at time step \\( t \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.526, + 0.829, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Schema-enriched Prefix Instructor" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.549, + 0.885, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inspired by prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), we use task-specific prefix instructors to indicate task information, which are pairs of transformer-activated differentiable sequences \\(\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}\\), each containing \\(p\\) consecutive \\(D\\)-dim vectors for encoder and decoder. Since using a discrete natural language task instruction in the context (e.g., \"The schema used for the task is:\") may guide the LM to produce a sub-optimal generated sequence, we optimize the instructions as a continuous soft prompt, propagating upward to all transformer activation layers and rightward to subsequent tokens." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to schema changes with iterations, we present schema-specific prefix instructors to instruct the encoding process. Specifically, we formalize the schema graph as linearized text. Assume given the constrained schema of RE task \\( s_k = \\{(h_1, r_1, t_1), \\ldots, (h_n, r_n, t_n)\\} \\) and \\( tpc_i = (h_i, r_i, t_i) \\) denotes the \\( i \\)-th triple prefix constraint. By concatenating these schema prefix constraints initialized by word embedding, \\( spc \\) can be dynamically adjusted as the schema evolves, and added padding tokens to be a fixed length when instructing the LM:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6411" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.113, + 0.489, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns p c = \\operatorname {C o n c a t} \\left(t p c _ {1}, \\dots , t p c _ {n}, P A D\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.14, + 0.49, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thus, the schema-enriched prefix instructor provides a two-part prefix combination \\( Z = \\{s i_{en}, s p c_{c}; s i_{de}\\} \\), where \"+\" separates the respective prefix instructors for encoder and decoder. We recursively activate the decoder transformer activation vector \\( h_{t} \\), which is the connection of all layers, at time step \\( t \\) in the LM." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.275, + 0.489, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {t} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} s i _ {t}, & \\text {i f} t \\leq p \\\\ \\operatorname {L M} \\left(y _ {t}, h _ {< t} \\mid S, X\\right), & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.326, + 0.49, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training parameters of our model contain the LM parameters \\(\\theta\\), the encoder-decoder task-specific prefix instructor \\(\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}\\), and the schema-specific constraint instructor \\(spc\\). For stable optimization, we follow Li and Liang (2021) to reparameterize the matrix \\(M_{\\phi}[t,:] = MLP_{\\phi}(M_{\\phi}'[t,:])\\) with a smaller matrix \\(M_{\\phi}'\\) consisting of a large feedforward neural network \\(MLP_{\\phi}\\), which can alleviate the optimization instability caused by directly updating the prefix parameters and is applied to \\(\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}; spc\\}\\). We train the parameters of the model in the following steps: (1) First, freeze other parameters, fine-tune the prefix instructor \\(\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}\\) to learn task-specific prompts; (2) Secondly, freeze \\(\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}\\), optimize the schema-specific instructor \\(spc\\) for the given schema graph; (3) Finally, we unfreeze the LM parameter \\(\\theta\\) and collaboratively optimize all parameters to capture the association between the prefix instructor and model parameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.658, + 0.475, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous works leverage a greedy decoding algorithm to generate linearized instance predictions token by token for the hidden sequence \\( h_t \\), which selects the token with the highest prediction probability \\( p(y_t \\mid y_{ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVEEntityTANL71.5265.2160.3856.3753.2149.6646.5557.56(NERD)UIE72.7266.7862.2458.2955.0851.4248.0459.22Ent-F1AdaKGC72.9166.9562.3758.5155.3851.8148.5459.50RelationTANL89.9281.8178.3472.7168.4265.1962.9474.19(NYT)UIE90.1782.0978.7473.1269.0365.5363.3074.57Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.3482.3379.0373.3469.1965.8763.5874.81Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT69.2368.0565.4561.3760.1559.3454.4262.57(ACE2005)UIE70.7569.1366.2062.1960.9059.8354.7463.39Evt Tri F1AdaKGC72.4370.9068.1463.4961.9761.3355.7364.86Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT46.1544.4042.5839.7339.1738.7735.3140.87(ACE2005)UIE49.1447.9045.7542.3241.8341.2737.6043.69Evt Arg F1AdaKGC49.1848.1447.0843.8543.1743.1038.7944.76" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.294, + 0.829, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Horizontal schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.322, + 0.863, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL73.4964.8357.0551.8447.1642.0635.9653.20
UIE74.4566.0958.2453.0148.2445.7748.4156.32
Ent-F1AdaKGC74.4566.0558.2653.0648.3945.9248.5756.39
Relation (NYT)TANL90.1383.1176.6373.0367.0363.4047.1371.49
UIE90.3881.7674.2771.6165.3062.9559.8172.30
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.1881.6574.1371.4865.1062.7559.7772.15
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT67.1055.8150.3852.9945.8241.3941.6550.73
UIE70.9460.0057.0162.5260.3954.9053.6259.91
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC70.5759.7556.5062.3160.5755.4954.3259.93
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT49.3237.8333.4335.4930.6727.4927.7934.57
UIE50.7041.4539.6644.1443.6538.8637.7742.32
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.8742.7440.6845.1643.9740.1039.0543.37
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.533, + 0.819, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Vertical schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.573, + 0.49, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Schema adaptive generalization challenge. On all three expansion categories, the model performances tend to decrease as the iterations increase. TANL achieves lower performance which employs an augmented language and implicitly trains the model to learn schema information. TEXT2EVENT utilizes schema as constraint information on the decoding side and outperforms other models in some iterations. Although ADAKGC and UIE obtain optimal or suboptimal performance, the performance of iteration 1 and iteration 7 has a significant drop. We believe that the implicit schema evolution rules can help future work to develop adaptive generalization capabilities for schema-adaptable KGC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Schema-enhanced modules boost the performances. Compared to other models, ADAKGC is improved with schema-enhanced modules on both the encoder and decoder, which allows it to achieve the best performance in most settings. On the ACE2005 hybrid schema expansion dataset," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.574, + 0.885, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.759, + 0.882, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: GPT-3.5 results on schema expansion dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.805, + 0.884, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ADAKGC improves \\(0.71\\%\\) on trigger extraction and \\(3.65\\%\\) on event argument extraction, indicating that ADAKGC can capture schema-specific information under evolutionary schema." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLMs can understand schema adaption patterns better. To explore the performance of LLMs (Qiao et al., 2023) on the proposed tasks, we per" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6413" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.083, + 0.864, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL68.3758.5054.5152.4648.6744.1341.5152.59
UIE69.2659.8055.7153.6649.5546.9748.1154.72
Ent-F1AdaKGC69.4859.9755.9453.8949.9247.4448.4355.01
Relation (NYT)TANL88.6781.5976.4872.2272.3561.7657.8772.99
UIE90.1783.1477.8171.4572.9765.5763.1274.89
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.0783.0677.6871.3872.9465.7363.3274.88
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT69.2656.9953.3246.0340.4456.8648.8453.11
UIE74.6966.3463.1263.2159.8653.1853.2661.95
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC74.8466.9963.2863.0760.9454.7254.8062.66
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT50.3238.1435.7931.9428.7937.7533.5436.61
UIE51.9445.2242.9743.1240.6636.6636.1742.39
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC55.0848.5846.1946.2745.2240.5240.4146.04
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.179, + 0.294, + 0.816, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Hybrid schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.331, + 0.489, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.487, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Ablation study on NERD horizontal schema expansion dataset, with the average result of 7 iterations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.592, + 0.49, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "form comparative experiments with GPT-3.5 on NYT. Since we cannot utilize all training instances, we report in-context learning performance given 20-shot demonstrations as shown in Appendix A.5. From Figure 4, we notice that GPT-3.5 is capable of producing instances that conform to the dynamically changing schema but still yield low performance due to the low-shot issue. Likewise, we sample several cases and use ChatGPT3 to evaluate schema-adaptable KGC (See Figure 7 and 8 in Appendix A.6), which surprisingly demonstrates stable generalization ability with evolving schema. These findings indicate a promising future work of schema-adaptable KGC to develop alignment prompts with LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.845, + 0.391, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study on ADAKGC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.865, + 0.489, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To prove the effects of the schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decod" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.331, + 0.889, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.529, + 0.884, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Case study on NERD vertical schema expansion dataset, Iteration 1 vs. Iteration 7." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.583, + 0.884, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing, we conduct the ablation study, and the results are shown in Figure 5. From two evolutionary categories, we observe that: (1) Both schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding can help the schema-adaptable learning process; (2) Efficiently encoding schema evolution information is more important, which achieves improvements of \\(0.77\\%\\) on horizontal schema expansion and \\(0.36\\%\\) on vertical schema expansion." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.738, + 0.644, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.883, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 6, we randomly select 8 types and observe that: (1) The types that appear in the initial schema mostly degrade performance, indicating that the model causes slight confusion as the schema expands. (2) Due to the structural inheritance relationship in the vertical expansion of the schema, our model can effectively transfer the labels of the father node to the child nodes when new child nodes are added." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.881, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further analyze the drawbacks of our model" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.904, + 0.393, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6414" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.084, + 0.881, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Error AnalysisInput ExampleGold Type(s)Predicted Type(s)Proportion
Weak TransferKelly, who declined to talk to reporters here, travel to Tokyo Sunday for talks with Japanese officials.Meet[travel]Transport[travel]38%
Inheritance DeficiencyHe started his entertainment career at ABC, where he is credited with creating the ‘movie of the week’ concept.Start-Position[started]Personnel[started]24%
Relevance NeglectKelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Transport[arrived]Meet[brief]Transport[arrived]21%
Class ImbalanceWithin weeks he was arrested and charged with sodomising an official driver several years previously and with abusing his powers to cover up the offence.Arrest-Jail[arrested]Charge-Indict[charged]Transport[arrested]13%
Potential AnnotationAnne-Marie will get the couple’s 19-room home in New York state, which was on the market last year for 21.5 million dollars, as well as their fine art collection.None EventTransfer-ownership[get]4%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.258, + 0.726, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Error analysis on all ACE2005 schema expansion datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.299, + 0.49, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and promote future works of schema-adaptable KGC, we count incorrect instances and classify them into five categories below, as shown in Table 4: (1) Weak Transfer. Despite schema expansion, the model is prevented from updating labels by old model parameters. (2) Inheritance Deficiency. The label is not inherited in time when subdividing the father node. (3) Relevance Neglect. The lack of ontology relevance leads to the absence of correlated event extraction. (4) Class Imbalance. Models suffering from unbalanced class learning problems tend to depend on similarly in-context sentences to judge high-frequency labels. (5) Potential Annotation. Some example outputs suggest potential errors or omitted annotation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.551, + 0.271, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.577, + 0.414, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Knowledge Graph Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic construction of knowledge graphs from textual or structured data has attracted extensive research in recent years, including tasks such as NER (Paolini et al., 2021; Cui et al., 2021a), RE (Lin et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021), EE (Ramponi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021), etc. In contrast to closed-domain knowledge extraction, open knowledge extraction (Kolluru et al., 2020; Zhan and Zhao, 2020; Kotnis et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b) is oriented toward the absence of schema constraints and can quickly generate extensive and meaningful knowledge. However, the ignoring of schema introduces uncertainty and ambiguity in output control, and we believe that a clear setting can be chosen to track the realignment of instances. Besides, KGC in low-resource scenarios (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Schick and Schütze, 2021; Chen et al., 2022b; Ye et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022c) requires the model to predict new instances with only lim" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.299, + 0.885, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ited training instances available. As opposed to this instance-driven KGC approach, we argue that the schema-driven approach can leverage evolutionary instructions provided with richer ontological associations, resulting in new challenges and research opportunities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.443, + 0.699, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Lifelong Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.485, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifelong learning is aimed at training new classes online without catastrophic forgetting. Generally, lifelong learning mainly falls into four categories: regularization-based (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Zenke et al., 2017; Aljundi et al., 2018), replay-based (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; Shin et al., 2017), architecture-based (Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018; Yoon et al., 2018) and knowledge distillation (Chuang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020). To study class-incremental learning, Monaikul et al. (2021) builds a unified NER classifier for all the classes encountered over time, while Wang et al. (2022a) develops a framework to reconstruct synthetic training data of the old classes. Recently, (Wang et al., 2019) proposes a lifelong RE method that employs an explicit alignment model to overcome forgetting, while (Shen et al., 2020) presents a self-adaptive dynamic regularization method. To address class incremental learning in event detection (Cao et al., 2020), Yu et al. (2021) takes advantage of rich correlations among ontology types, and Liu et al. (2022) adopts continuous prompts to learn event-specific representation for prediction. Compared with previous work that focused only on class increments, we discuss three principles of schema expansion from the potential demand for schema adaptation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6415" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.248, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper introduces a new task of schema-adaptable KGC with benchmark datasets and a new baseline ADAKGC. We illustrate the task difficulties with previous baselines on three principles of schema expansion patterns (horizontal, vertical, hybrid) and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed ADAKGC." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.237, + 0.271, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.264, + 0.491, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to express gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their kind comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206246), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LGG22F030011), Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (2021J190), Yongjiang Talent Introduction Programme (2021A-156-G), CCF-Baidu Open Fund, and Information Technology Center and State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.454, + 0.221, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.48, + 0.49, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed work still contains several limitations, as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.523, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets: Note that several datasets, such as ACE2005, cannot be released due to LICENCE issues; we release the code to build the datasets and provide all the pre-processed publicly available datasets (e.g., Few-NERD, NYT) We use several existing datasets to construct schema-adaptable benchmarks; however, previous datasets may have limited schema structures (the schema pattern in some datasets is very simple). We plan to build more datasets via crowdsourcing for comprehensive evaluation. In addition, we will continue to promote the construction of multimodal schema adaptive graphs, which leverage the dynamic evolution of schema to integrate visual and textual knowledge into a self-learning graph extraction system." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines and Proposed ADAKGC: Note that the proposed one, although better than previous approaches, including Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), still suffers from poor generalization ability. However, we notice a very stable performance with LLM (though deficient performance), indicating a new promising solution for schema-adatable KGC." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.712, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.112, + 0.884, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intended use. The dataset and model in this paper are indented to be used for exploratory analysis of schema-adaptable KGC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.172, + 0.885, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biases. We collect data from existing datasets (e.g., Few-NERD: CC BY-SA 4.0 license.), which may contain some data with offensive language or discriminatory." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.266, + 0.61, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.289, + 0.886, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2018. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part III, volume 11207 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 144-161. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.407, + 0.887, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Collin F. Baker and Hiroaki Sato. 2003. The framenet data and software. In ACL 2003, 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume to the Proceedings, 7-12 July 2003, Sapporo Convention Center, Sapporo, Japan, pages 161-164. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.512, + 0.886, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.722, + 0.886, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, and Taifeng Wang. 2020. Incremental event detection via knowledge consolidation networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 707-717. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.826, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Chen, Lei Li, Ningyu Zhang, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022a. Relation extraction as open-book examination: Retrieval-enhanced prompt tuning. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 2443-2448. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.289, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6416" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022b. Knowprompt: Knowledge-aware prompt-tuning with synergistic optimization for relation extraction. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 2778-2788. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.187, + 0.487, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yung-Sung Chuang, Shang-Yu Su, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2020. Lifelong language knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2914-2924. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.487, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Jian Liu, Sen Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2021a. Template-based named entity recognition using BART. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 1835-1845. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.374, + 0.487, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li Cui, Deqing Yang, Jiaxin Yu, Chengwei Hu, Jiayang Cheng, Jingjie Yi, and Yanghua Xiao. 2021b. Refining sample embeddings with relation prototypes to enhance continual relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 232-243. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.513, + 0.487, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-nerd: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 3198-3213. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.653, + 0.487, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joe Ellis, Jeremy Getman, and Stephanie M Strassel. 2014. Overview of linguistic resources for the tac kbp 2014 evaluations: Planning, execution, and results. In Proceedings of TAC KBP 2014 Workshop, National Institute of Standards and Technology, pages 17-18." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.74, + 0.487, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jérôme Euzenat, Christian Meilicke, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Pavel Shvaiko, and Cássia Trojahn dos Santos. 2011. Ontology alignment evaluation initiative: Six years of experience. J. Data Semant., 15:158-192." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.814, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R. Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 8:64-77." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.882, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karin Kipper, Anna Korhonen, Neville Ryant, and Martha Palmer. 2008. A large-scale classification of english verbs. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 42(1):21-40." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.226, + 0.882, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521-3526." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.328, + 0.882, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keshav Kolluru, Samarth Aggarwal, Vipul Rathore, Mausam, and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2020. Imojie: Iterative memory-based joint open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5871-5886. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.43, + 0.882, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bhushan Kotnis, Kiril Gashteovski, Daniel Rubio, Ammar Shaker, Vanessa Rodriguez-Tembras, Makoto Takamoto, Mathias Niepert, and Carolin Lawrence. 2022. MILIE: modular & iterative multilingual open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6939-6950. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.559, + 0.882, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4582-4597. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.674, + 0.882, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.776, + 0.882, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jian Liu, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Wei Bi, and Xiaojiang Liu. 2020. Event extraction as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1641-1651. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.878, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6417" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.174, + 0.488, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minqian Liu, Shiyu Chang, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Incremental prompting: Episodic memory prompt for lifelong event detection. CoRR, abs/2204.07275." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.222, + 0.488, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 6467-6476." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.31, + 0.488, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Dai Dai, Wei Jia, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2023. Universal information extraction as unified semantic matching. CoRR, abs/2301.03282." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.371, + 0.488, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2795-2806. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.525, + 0.488, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.639, + 0.488, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Packnet: Adding multiple tasks to a single network by iterative pruning. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, June 18-22, 2018, pages 7765-7773. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE Computer Society." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.739, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natawut Monaikul, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2021. Continual learning for named entity recognition. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13570-13577. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "II. I Ntroduction. The ace 2005 (ace 05) evaluation plan evaluation of the detection and recognition of ace entities, values, temporal expressions, relations, and events 1." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.199, + 0.883, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Martha Palmer, Paul R. Kingsbury, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comput. Linguistics, 31(1):71-106." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.246, + 0.883, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.36, + 0.883, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. 2017. Automatic differentiation in pytorch." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.42, + 0.883, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sameer S. Pradhan, Eduard H. Hovy, Mitchell P. Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance A. Ramshaw, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2007. Ontonotes: A unified relational semantic representation. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), September 17-19, 2007, Irvine, California, USA, pages 517-526. IEEE Computer Society." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.533, + 0.883, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2023. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. In ACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.606, + 0.883, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.68, + 0.883, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.766, + 0.883, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alan Ramponi, Rob van der Goot, Rosario Lombardo, and Barbara Plank. 2020. Biomedical event extraction as sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 5357-5367. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010a. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, European Conference," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6418" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ECML PKDD 2010, Barcelona, Spain, September 20-24, 2010, Proceedings, Part III, volume 6323 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 148-163. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.49, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010b. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In *Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases*, pages 148–163, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.226, + 0.49, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.329, + 0.489, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.431, + 0.49, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chao Shang, Guangtao Wang, Peng Qi, and Jing Huang. 2022. Improving time sensitivity for question answering over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8017-8026. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.547, + 0.49, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hangjie Shen, Shenggen Ju, Jieping Sun, Run Chen, and Yuezhong Liu. 2020. Efficient lifelong relation extraction with dynamic regularization. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing - 9th CCF International Conference*, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, volume 12431 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 181-192. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2990-2999." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.752, + 0.489, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Thrun. 1998. Lifelong learning algorithms. In Sebastian Thrun and Lorien Y. Pratt, editors, Learning to Learn, pages 181-209. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.802, + 0.489, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hong Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Sentence embedding alignment for lifelong relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 796-806. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.164, + 0.885, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rui Wang, Tong Yu, Handong Zhao, Sungchul Kim, Subrata Mitra, Ruiyi Zhang, and Ricardo Henao. 2022a. Few-shot class-incremental learning for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 571-582. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.281, + 0.884, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Wang, Minlong Peng, Mingming Sun, and Ping Li. 2022b. Oie@oia: an adaptable and efficient open information extraction framework. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6213-6226. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.398, + 0.884, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Nguyen Bach, Tao Wang, Zhongqiang Huang, Fei Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2021. Automated concatenation of embeddings for structured prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2643-2660. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.541, + 0.884, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yunzhi Yao, Shengyu Mao, Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Schema-aware reference as prompt improves data-efficient relational triple and event extraction. CoRR, abs/2210.10709." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.619, + 0.884, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.749, + 0.884, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Mosha Chen, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Contrastive triple extraction with generative transformer. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14257-14265. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hui Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Xi Chen, and Huajun Chen." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6419" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2022. Ontology-enhanced prompt-tuning for few-shot learning. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 778-787. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.149, + 0.49, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jaehong Yoon, Eunho Yang, Jeongtae Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2018. Lifelong learning with dynamically expandable networks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.238, + 0.49, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengfei Yu, Heng Ji, and Prem Natarajan. 2021. *Life-long event detection with knowledge transfer*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5278-5290. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.341, + 0.49, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. 2017. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3987-3995. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.443, + 0.49, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junlang Zhan and Hai Zhao. 2020. Span model for open information extraction on accurate corpus. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9523-9530. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.571, + 0.49, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Zhang, Xiaokang Zhang, Jifan Yu, Jian Tang, Jie Tang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2022a. Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5773-5784. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.687, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minhao Zhang, Ruoyu Zhang, Yanzeng Li, and Lei Zou. 2022b. Crake: Causal-enhanced table-filler for question answering over large scale knowledge base. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1787-1798. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.789, + 0.49, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Jiaoyan Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2020. Relation adversarial network for low resource knowledge graph completion. In WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020, pages 1-12. ACM / IW3C2." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Hongbin Ye, and Huajun Chen. 2022c. Knowledge collaborative fine-tuning for low-resource knowledge" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "graph completion. Journal of Software, 33(10):3531-3545." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.122, + 0.885, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022d. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. ArXiv, abs/2201.08860." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.199, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hengyi Zheng, Rui Wen, Xi Chen, Yifan Yang, Yunyan Zhang, Ziheng Zhang, Ningyu Zhang, Bin Qin, Xu Ming, and Yefeng Zheng. 2021. PRGC: potential relation and global correspondence based joint relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6225-6235. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.356, + 0.634, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.381, + 0.884, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section describes the details of experiments, including dataset construction and evaluation on downstream tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.441, + 0.727, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Dataset Construction" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.461, + 0.74, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.1 Construction Process" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In each task, we execute three schema evolution strategies. The raw dataset statistics are shown in Table 5, where it can be seen that they have a two-level schema structure, leaving the research of a more hierarchical schema structure for future work. As shown in Algorithm 2-4, we describe in detail the specific construction process of horizontal schema extension, vertical schema extension and hybrid schema extension." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.625, + 0.884, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In particular, we also release additional datasets from a semantic substitution perspective. As shown in Algorithm 5, analogous schema expansion requires schema replacement for semantically similar new nodes. Based on the performance of the old class transfer to the new semantic class, we can evaluate the semantic invariance capability." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.749, + 0.888, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
#Maj#Sub#Train#Val#Test
NERD866131,76718,82437,648
NYT42456,1965,0005,000
ACE-200583319,216901676
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.828, + 0.884, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Raw datasets statistics. #Maj indicates the number of major classes, #Sub is the number of subclasses, and #Val #Test is the number of sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Horizontal Schema Expansion. Neighboring nodes of the specified type that have high-level" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6420" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "similarity values in the same framework are also adjacent when projected into the semantic space (Huang et al., 2018). Existing research efforts have developed many rich libraries of ontologies (e.g.FrameNet (Baker and Sato, 2003), VerbNet (Kipper et al., 2008), Propbank (Palmer et al., 2005), and OntoNotes (Pradhan et al., 2007)), where each ontology type is associated with a set of pre-defined neighboring ontologies. (1) Searching the ontology library to retrieve candidate nodes \\( W_{f} \\) associated with target nodes \\( W_{s} \\) at the same hierarchy. (2) The similarity metric is obtained by calculating the cosine vector similarity of all candidate nodes \\( W_{f} \\) to the target node \\( W_{s} \\) (Eq. 5). (3) Selecting the appropriate threshold of node pairs to confirm the sorted addition of horizontal nodes. (4) Updating the schema with horizontal nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.408, + 0.49, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\phi_ {S i m} (\\vec {W _ {f}}, \\vec {W _ {s}}) = \\frac {\\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| W _ {s} |} w _ {i} \\cdot w _ {f}}{\\| \\vec {W _ {f}} \\| _ {2} \\cdot \\| \\vec {W _ {s}} \\| _ {2}} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.453, + 0.492, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vertical Schema Expansion. Structural similarity needs to be exploited when adding schema hierarchy nodes as new classes. (1) For search convenience, we link the hypernym ontology under a root node so that the schema forms a tree structure. (2) Starting at the root node, we utilize a child selection strategy by recursively applying through the tree until reaching the deepest node. A node could be expandable when it represents a non-terminal state or has hyponyms in semantics (e.g., location->country). (3) According to the available hyponyms, one (or more) child nodes are added to expand the current schema tree. (4) Updating the schema with vertical nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Hybrid Schema Expansion. It is necessary to hybrid horizontal and vertical expansion to form a comprehensive structural topology, which is more consistent with real scenarios. (1) Setting the threshold \\(\\alpha\\) for random selection. (2) Executing horizontal expansion iteration below the threshold \\(\\alpha\\), or vertical node expansion above the threshold \\(\\alpha\\). Note that when the father node of added nodes does not exist, we also add the father node to maintain the schema hierarchy. (3) Updating the schema with the corresponding nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Analogous Schema Expansion. To detect the semantic node sensitivity of the schema, we randomly" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "replace similar semantic expressions for the nodes. (1) Random selection of candidate nodes to obtain word expressions \\( W_{C} \\). (2) Candidate nodes are created by pairing \\( W_{C} \\) with all words in the corpus word list \\( W_{L} \\). The consistency between individual words is calculated by the normalized point-by-point mutual information (NPMI) of \\( w_{i} \\) and \\( w_{j} \\) (Eq. 6), where adding smooth \\( \\epsilon \\) and \\( \\gamma \\) controls for \\( \\log p(w_{i},w_{j}) \\) weights for higher NPMI values (Eq. 7). (3) Adopting candidate nodes that exceed the threshold to replace the schema and updating the golden validation set and test set in the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.306, + 0.886, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\vec {v} (W) = \\left\\{\\sum_ {w _ {i} \\in W _ {C}} N M P I \\left(w _ {i}, w _ {j}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\right\\} _ {j = 1, \\dots , \\left| W _ {L} \\right|} \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.4, + 0.886, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nN M P I (w _ {i}, w _ {j}) ^ {\\gamma} = \\left(\\frac {\\log \\frac {p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \\epsilon}{p (w _ {i}) \\cdot p (w _ {j})}}{- \\log p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \\epsilon}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.478, + 0.86, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.2 Schema-adaptable Datasets Statistic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.886, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We set the number \\(\\mathcal{N}\\) of total iterations, and initialize the original number of schema nodes. We show the statistics of schema-adaptable datasets for each task in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.578, + 0.649, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.601, + 0.884, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use span-based Micro-F1 as the major metric to evaluate the model and adopt the same evaluation metrics as previous work:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.665, + 0.886, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Named Entity Recognition: an entity mention is correct if its strings and type match a reference entity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.728, + 0.886, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Relation Strict: a relation is correct if its relation type is correct and the string and entity types of the related entity mentions are correct." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.808, + 0.885, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Event Trigger: an event trigger is correct if its strings and event type match a reference trigger." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.871, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Event Argument: an event argument is correct if its strings, role type, and event type match a reference argument mentioned." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.665, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6421" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.197, + 0.082, + 0.805, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TaxonomyHorizontalVerticalHybridAnalogous
#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N
NERD30673067306766-7
NYT10281028102824-7
ACE-200515371537153733-7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.173, + 0.881, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Schema-adaptable datasets statistics. #Init indicates the number of initial subclasses, #Add is the number of subclasses added per iteration, and #N is the total number of iterations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.228, + 0.31, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Hyper-parameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.251, + 0.487, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We adopt T5-v1.1-base (Raffel et al., 2020b), which has 12 layers of the encoder, 12 layers of the decoder, 768 hidden units, and 12 attention heads as the backbone. Specifically, we utilize Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2017) to conduct experiments with batch size 16 on one NVIDIA 3090 GPU. We detail the hyper-parameters for each dataset as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.365, + 0.471, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NERD. The hyper-parameter search space is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.397, + 0.23, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- epoch: 15" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.428, + 0.259, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- batch size: 16" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.46, + 0.258, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- accumulate: 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.492, + 0.387, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.524, + 0.291, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "warmup rate: 0.06" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.397, + 0.387, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.555, + 0.456, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NYT. The hyper-parameter search space is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.587, + 0.23, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- epoch: 20" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.619, + 0.259, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- batch size: 16" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.651, + 0.259, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- accumulate: 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.682, + 0.387, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.714, + 0.291, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "warmup rate: 0.06" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.587, + 0.387, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.745, + 0.488, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ACE2005. The hyper-parameter search space is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.777, + 0.23, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- epoch: 30" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.809, + 0.259, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- batch size: 16" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.841, + 0.259, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- accumulate: 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.872, + 0.387, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.291, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "warmup rate: 0.06" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.777, + 0.387, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.228, + 0.796, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Analogous Schema Expansion Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.266, + 0.885, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 7, our ADAKGC also has powerful semantic transplantation capabilities, which achieves competitive performance with baselines. With the schema-enriched prefix instructor, ADAKGC achieves an improvement of \\(7.70\\%\\) on average over TEXT2EVENT on the event trigger extraction task and \\(4.87\\%\\) on the event argument extraction task. This verifies the proposed schema-enriched prefix instructor and decoding modules can learn general schema-adaptable ability even the schema evolution knowledge is rarely in the pretraining stage. Note that TANL achieves the best performance on the NYT dataset, indicating that language models have the ability to learn schema semantic transfer implicitly as an augmented natural language prediction task. Therefore we believe that in addition to the schema structure perception modules, semantic robustness modules for analogous node expansion scenarios are also essential." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.585, + 0.782, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 GPT-3.5 Experiment Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.608, + 0.885, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3.5 is a large autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters. To explore the performance of GPT-3.5 on the schema-adaptive KGC task, we follow the input format of few-shot learning using OpenAI API4. As shown in Table 12, we utilize a fixed manual template to generate a contextual window suitable for the model, including natural language task descriptions (text in blue), linearized schemas (text in purple), 20 examples in the model's context, and task prompts (text in red)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.782, + 0.699, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 ChatGPT Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.804, + 0.884, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT5 trains an initial model using supervised fine-tuning and further utilizes reinforcement learning systems to rank by quality for human feedback rewards. We handle Schema-adaptable KGC tasks" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.88, + 0.85, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.906, + 0.758, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5https://chat.openai.com/chat" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.88, + 0.85, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6422" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.49, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 2 The construction process of horizontal schema expansion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.12, + 0.487, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Set sampling seed \\(\\theta\\), total iteration \\(N\\), raw schema \\(S_{raw}\\), and raw dataset \\(\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.17, + 0.487, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema \\(S\\), blank dataset \\(\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}\\) and initial node number \\(n_{init}\\), node number \\(n_{iter}\\) per iteration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.217, + 0.486, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: Randomly select \\( n_{init} \\) nodes in \\( S_{raw} \\), \\( S = S \\cup \\) init node, \\( S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.25, + 0.487, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: Pick out the instance associated with \\( S \\), \\( \\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.298, + 0.284, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: for iteration \\(N\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.311, + 0.484, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: Calculate \\(\\phi_{Sim}(\\vec{W}_f,\\vec{W}_s) = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\\cdot w_i}{\\|\\vec{W}_f\\|_2\\cdot\\|\\vec{W}_s\\|_2}\\) for node between \\(S_{raw}\\) and \\(S\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.353, + 0.486, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: Pick out top \\( n_{iter} \\) schema node, \\( S = S \\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}] \\), \\( S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}] \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.385, + 0.486, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Iteration \\(i\\) dataset \\(S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.418, + 0.207, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.12, + 0.487, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.459, + 0.49, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "by asking questions to the chatbot in a conversational mode. First, we present the task description and the 20 demonstrations as shown in Figure 7. Then we give a paragraph text to test whether the chatbot can extract the corresponding triples based on the same schema as the demonstration examples comply with. From Figure 8 we can find that some of the facts are well extracted, indicating that ChatGPT can understand the task and perform extraction consistent with the schema. Finally, we add three new nodes \"profession\" \"place founded\" \"founders\" to the previous schema under a horizontal schema expansion iteration. Output results in Figure 8 show that ChatGPT not only adapts the output to the updated schema but also deduces reasonable facts by a chain-of-thought approach." + }, + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.304, + 0.881, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 3 The construction process of vertical schema expansion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.34, + 0.882, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Set sampling seed \\(\\theta\\), total iteration \\(N\\), raw schema \\(S_{raw}\\), and raw dataset \\(\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.39, + 0.882, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema \\(S\\), blank dataset \\(\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}\\) and initial node number \\(n_{init}\\), node number \\(n_{iter}\\) per iteration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.438, + 0.746, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: for major node in \\( S_{raw} \\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.453, + 0.713, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: \\(S = S\\cup\\) major node" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.47, + 0.603, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: end for" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.486, + 0.881, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: Randomly select \\( n_{init} \\) nodes in \\( S_{raw} \\), \\( S = S \\cup \\) init node, \\( S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.518, + 0.881, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: Pick out the instance associated with \\( S \\), \\( \\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.567, + 0.681, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: for iteration \\(N\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.582, + 0.882, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: Randomly select \\( n_{iter} \\) sub node, whose parent belongs to \\( S \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.614, + 0.881, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10: \\(S = S\\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.647, + 0.881, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11: Iteration \\(i\\) dataset \\(S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.679, + 0.603, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.34, + 0.882, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6423" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.259, + 0.486, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 4 The construction process of hybrid schema expansion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.295, + 0.49, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Set sampling seed \\(\\theta\\), hybrid ratio \\(\\alpha\\), total iteration \\(N\\), raw schema \\(S_{raw}\\), and raw dataset \\(\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.345, + 0.487, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema \\(S\\), blank dataset \\(\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}\\) and initial node number \\(n_{init}\\), node number \\(n_{iter}\\) per iteration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.392, + 0.486, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: Randomly select \\( n_{init} \\) nodes in \\( S_{raw} \\), \\( S = S \\cup \\) init node, \\( S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.425, + 0.487, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: Pick out the instance associated with \\( S \\), \\( \\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.474, + 0.285, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: for iteration \\(N\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.489, + 0.342, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: if random(0,1) \\(< \\alpha\\) then" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.503, + 0.484, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: Calculate \\(\\phi_{Sim}(\\vec{W_f},\\vec{W_s}) = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\\cdot w_f}{\\|\\vec{W_f}\\|_2\\cdot\\|\\vec{W_s}\\|_2}\\) for node between \\(S_{raw}\\) and \\(S\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.546, + 0.488, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Pick out top \\( n_{iter} \\) schema node, \\( S = S \\cup S_{raw}[: n_{iter}] \\), \\( S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[: n_{iter}] \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.595, + 0.198, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: else" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.611, + 0.486, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10: Randomly select \\( n_{iter} \\) sub node, whose parent belongs to \\( S \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.642, + 0.485, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11: \\(S = S\\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw}-\\) \\(S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.676, + 0.215, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12: end if" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.689, + 0.486, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13: Iteration \\(i\\) dataset \\(S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.724, + 0.207, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.295, + 0.49, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.295, + 0.884, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 5 The construction process of analogous schema expansion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.331, + 0.882, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Set sampling seed \\(\\theta\\), total iteration \\(N\\), raw schema \\(S_{raw}\\), and raw dataset \\(\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.38, + 0.882, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema \\(S\\), blank dataset \\(\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}\\) and node number \\(n_{iter}\\) per iteration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.428, + 0.885, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: Initialize \\( S = S_{raw} \\), \\( S_1 = S \\), \\( \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} = \\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.461, + 0.882, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: Pick out the instance associated with \\( S \\), \\( \\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.509, + 0.68, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: for iteration \\(N\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.525, + 0.882, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: Randomly select \\( n_{iter} \\) schema node in \\( S \\), calculate \\( \\vec{v}(W) = \\left\\{\\sum_{w_r \\in W} N M P I(w_r, w_j)^{\\gamma}\\right\\}_{j=1,\\dots,|W_L|} \\) for each node, create candidate nodes by pairing \\( W_r \\) with all words \\( W_L \\) in the corpus word list" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.623, + 0.881, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: Replace \\( S[: n_{iter}] \\) with candidate nodes with analogous semantics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.655, + 0.881, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Iteration \\(i\\) dataset \\(S_{i} = S, \\{D_{dev}^{i}, D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.689, + 0.602, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.331, + 0.885, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6424" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.177, + 0.09, + 0.825, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
EntityTANL68.3462.7057.2252.9447.7342.2436.0952.47
(NERD)UIE67.5863.3960.3758.0058.1754.2649.5358.76
Ent-F1AdaKGC68.2263.8761.0158.1858.7654.5849.8159.20
RelationTANL89.8086.8283.5177.9973.6173.3266.3778.77
(NYT)UIE89.6686.5683.2777.8073.3073.2766.3378.60
Rel-S F1AdaKGC89.1786.1282.7677.3372.8572.9165.8478.14
Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT64.4060.3953.9652.6440.8332.4529.5847.75
(ACE2005)UIE69.6964.5362.1058.4749.7642.5139.3155.20
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC69.6364.7761.8658.3150.0843.0740.4055.45
Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT45.8840.9634.2133.4024.4919.6216.7730.76
(ACE2005)UIE49.9642.6740.5036.5628.7024.0620.4734.70
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.7444.5642.4832.6130.5225.4122.1035.63
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.281, + 0.836, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Analogous schema replacement results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.319, + 0.874, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Input: The Belgrade district court said that Markovic will be tried along with 10 other Milosevic-era officials who face similar charges of ‘inappropriate use of state property’ that carry a sentence of up to five years in jail.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "phone write", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 4 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 5 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "exe-cute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "charge indirect", "trans-fer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "par-don"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indirect", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.892, + 0.776, + 0.907 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Adaptive evolution of horizontal schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6425" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.19, + 0.876, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Input: Kelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "contact", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Contact[brief]
Iteration 2 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 3 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 4 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 5 schema: "personnel", "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organi-zation", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demon-strate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.778, + 0.883, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Adaptive evolution of vertical schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to major classes, which will be covered by refined sub classes." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6426" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.184, + 0.876, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Input: The charismatic leader of Turkey's governing party was named prime minister Tuesday, a step that probably boosts chances that the United States will get permission to deploy troops in the country along Iraq's northern border.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 4 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 5 schema: "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Personnel[named]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Elect[named]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.785, + 0.883, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Adaptive evolution of hybrid schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to father classes, which occurs when directly adding sub classes that corresponding major class not exists." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6427" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.131, + 0.876, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Input: Webb also said details of the breakdowns of the Welches' previous marriages were likely to come up, and cited reports of alleged extramarital affairs by both.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Divorce[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 2 schema: "end position", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 3 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradITE", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 4 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 5 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 6 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 7 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "hurt", "communication", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "wed", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nWed[marriages]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.216, + 0.852, + 0.781, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Adaptive evolution of analogous schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6428" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.12, + 0.33, + 0.136 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3.5 Input Example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.144, + 0.867, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from context. Relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.246, + 0.865, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.28, + 0.863, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens; 2. The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.331, + 0.863, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen's denials." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.365, + 0.863, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.399, + 0.863, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: Mr.Brown has demeaned Mr.Bush as \"a cheerleader,\" declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know \"the first thing about running a disaster,\" and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, \"a little twerp\" and Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, an unprintable vulgarity (both in Playboy)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.467, + 0.863, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.508, + 0.153, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "···" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.518, + 0.863, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema? Now it's your turn to do relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.551, + 0.865, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"birth place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.62, + 0.863, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.671, + 0.506, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.695, + 0.865, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3.5 Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.769, + 0.865, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Golden Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is nationality, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place of death, tail entity is Reykjavik." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.869, + 0.88, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: Examples of GPT-3.5 experiment on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6429" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.171, + 0.183, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HU" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.173, + 0.82, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from Context. relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.222, + 0.81, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\"]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.287, + 0.802, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.32, + 0.835, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens;2.The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.369, + 0.781, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: In his authoritative and tough-minded new book , \" The Assassins ' Gate :" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.385, + 0.828, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "America in Iraq , \" the New Yorker writer George Packer reminds us that the decision of the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq and its increasingly embattled handling of the occupation were both predicated upon large , abstract ideas about the role of America in the post-cold war world -- most notably , a belief in pre-emptive and unilateral action , the viability of exporting democracy abroad , the urge to streamline the military and the dream of remaking the Middle East ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.483, + 0.822, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;2.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.532, + 0.814, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office 's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen 's denials." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.564, + 0.831, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.597, + 0.833, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: Mr. Brown has demeaned Mr. Bush as \" a cheerleader , \" declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know \" the first thing about running a disaster, \" and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor , Democrat of Mississippi , \" a little twerp \" and Senator Norm Coleman , Republican of Minnesota , an unprintable vulgarity ( both in Playboy ) ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.679, + 0.822, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.711, + 0.822, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: Pakistan 's president, Pervez Musharraf, and President Hamid Karzai talked by telephone for an hour on Tuesday, a day after the Afghan intelligence service said it had arrested three Pakistani who were trying to assassinate the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. \"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.776, + 0.805, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pervez Musharraf, relation is nationality, tail entity is Pakistan;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.821, + 0.85, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: ChatGPT input example on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6430" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.195, + 0.195, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.196, + 0.646, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema?" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.796, + 0.196, + 0.813, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.212, + 0.487, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Now it's your turn to do relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.226, + 0.764, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\"]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.286, + 0.774, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.214, + 0.33, + 0.519, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.373, + 0.196, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.376, + 0.764, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.796, + 0.375, + 0.813, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.411, + 0.667, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.455, + 0.196, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.457, + 0.644, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.472, + 0.487, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Now it's your turn to do relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.487, + 0.764, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.546, + 0.774, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.214, + 0.592, + 0.518, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.634, + 0.196, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.637, + 0.764, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.796, + 0.636, + 0.813, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.672, + 0.747, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is profession, tail entity is chess player." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.689, + 0.667, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.707, + 0.78, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland (assuming Bobby Fischer lived in Iceland at the time of the news conference)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.741, + 0.774, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place founded, tail entity is United States (assuming Bobby Fischer was born in the United States)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.672, + 0.78, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.225, + 0.801, + 0.771, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: ChatGPT output results under a horizontal schema expansion iteration." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6431" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_origin.pdf b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f5cbe0d11035dc6c5bdf61e128bc1cad354daca8 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/7b905e37-b58b-4bb5-a541-f568a0a5526f_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8849491f37630666d17bbb0e3ae99990979efaba27fa7d1f4f4aeb4e858cf7f8 +size 1567992 diff --git a/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/full.md b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e222e741cb03ed53a1609fc59d9d68b803df5d4f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,595 @@ +# Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction + +Hongbin Ye $^{1,2,4}$ , Honghao Gui $^{1,4}$ , Xin Xu $^{1,4}$ , Xi Chen $^{3}$ , Huajun Chen $^{1,4}$ , Ningyu Zhang $^{1,4*}$ + +1 Zhejiang University 2 Zhejiang Lab 3 Platform and Content Group, Tencent + +4 Zhejiang University - Ant Group Joint Laboratory of Knowledge Graph + +yehongbin@zhejianglab.com, jasonxchen@tencent.com, + +{guihonghao,xxucs,huajunsir,zhangningyu}@zju.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Conventional Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) approaches typically follow the static information extraction paradigm with a closed set of pre-defined schema. As a result, such approaches fall short when applied to dynamic scenarios or domains, whereas a new type of knowledge emerges. This necessitates a system that can handle evolving schema automatically to extract information for KGC. To address this need, we propose a new task called schema-adaptable KGC, which aims to continually extract entity, relation, and event based on a dynamically changing schema graph without re-training. We first split and convert existing datasets based on three principles to build a benchmark, i.e., horizontal schema expansion, vertical schema expansion, and hybrid schema expansion; then investigate the schema-adaptable performance of several well-known approaches such as Text2Event, TANL, UIE and GPT-3.5. We further propose a simple yet effective baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which contains schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding to better handle evolving schema. Comprehensive experimental results illustrate that ADAKGC can outperform baselines but still have room for improvement. We hope the proposed work can deliver benefits to the community1. + +# 1 Introduction + +Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC), typically through information extraction, has enjoyed widespread empirical success and can provide backend support for various NLP tasks, such as question answering (Saxena et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022a), commonsense reasoning (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022d) etc. Traditional KGC tasks, including named entity recognition (NER) (Liu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), + +![](images/6c358e264a87ea085238b9b9a22f86e452117d02f6a44286851e018ff5bd338e.jpg) +Figure 1: Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) with dynamic updates of schema. + +relation extraction (RE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2022) and event extraction (EE) (Huang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2023) are "reactive", relying on static pre-defined schema from end-users. However, as shown in Figure 1, the schema may evolve along with scenario adaptation, making previous models challenging to utilize without re-training. + +Note that existing information extraction systems can only handle a fixed number of classes by pre-defined schema and performing once-and-for-all training on a fixed framework. It is desirable to respond to changes (e.g., evolving schema) to existing KGs, making the system act more "proactively" like humans who can handle flexible knowledge updates. Early, several approaches introduce incremental learning (Cao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021b) to learn new classes continually. In this case, the extraction system learns from the class incremental data stream but usually suffers significant performance degradation on the old class when adapting to the new class. Stated differently, previous studies put emphasis on struggling against catastrophic forgetting (Thrun, 1998). However, for the schema-evolving scenarios, the dynamic generalizability of extraction models plays a vital role and needs to be + +inspected from an ontology evolution perspective. + +Therefore, we propose a novel KGC task dubbed schema-adaptable KGC, where the models are required to have the ability to represent and adapt to complement knowledge extraction. We first construct datasets according to three principles of evolutionary schema directions (Horizontal Schema Expansion, Vertical Schema Expansion, and Hybrid Schema Expansion) on three tasks of NER, $\mathrm{RE}^2$ , and EE. Through empirical analysis, we notice that approaches of Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), and GPT-3.5(Ouyang et al., 2022) cannot effectively extract the information given complex evolving schema. We argue that the major issues lie in the following: 1) How to learn dynamic and generalizable schema representations as conditions for extraction; 2) How to precisely extract new instances constrained with newly updated schema. + +To this end, we propose a simple baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which introduces Schema-enriched Prefix Instructors (SPI) to represent and transfer the learnable schema-specific knowledge. At each iteration stage, we linearly convert from the current schema graph to learnable prompts, initialized with the ontology name and connected to task-specific prefixes. To encourage the decoder to understand the dynamic schema, we utilize a Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding (SDD) strategy that constructs a decoding path of schema-specific vocabulary to the output space. When the schema changes, we dynamically construct a new trie-tree to adjust the output space. Note that ADAKGC is model agnostic and can handle a variety of challenging schema evolution scenarios. We summarize the contribution of this work as: + +- We introduce a new task of the schema-adaptable KGC to meet the schema evolution requirements, which is a new branch that has not been well-explored to the best of our knowledge. +- We propose a new baseline ADAKGC, which includes schema-enriched prefix instructors and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding strategy, and experimentally demonstrate the adaptability. +- We release the schema-adaptable KGC benchmark, which imposes new challenges and + +presents new research opportunities for the NLP community. + +# 2 Problem Statement and Overview + +# 2.1 Background of KGC + +KGC has been a promising research challenge (Lu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b), and existing benchmarks utilize a well-defined schema for directing knowledge graph construction, focusing on generating domain-specific knowledge graphs or aggregating heterogeneous structured databases. For example, FEW-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) consists of coarse-grained and fine-grained entity type definitions to locate and classify named entities from unstructured natural language. NYT (Riedel et al., 2010a) extracts relational triple instances specifically from textual data sources according to a specific taxonomy structure. ACE2005 (Ntroduction) identifies triggers and event types based on context, and each has its own event arguments, described in a slot-filling way. In addition, TAC-KBP (Ellis et al., 2014) is designed to leverage existing generic domain structured data sources and extend entity links employing descriptive text as additional information. OAEI (Euzenat et al., 2011) creates an integrated ontology based on an alignment between two or more existing ontologies or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we focus on the work of extracting knowledge instances from unstructured text, which is regarded as the schema-constraint prediction (structure prediction) task. + +# 2.2 Definition of Schema-adaptable KGC + +In the real world, the KGC system extracts structured knowledge from unstructured text and normalizes it to the instance graph according to a frequently adjusted schema. Given a set of schema graphs $\mathcal{S} = \{s_1,s_2,\dots,s_n\}$ , the task of schema-adaptable KGC is to generate a set of schema-constraint instances $\mathcal{G} = \{g_{1},g_{2},\dots,g_{n}\}$ for each iteration. Suppose there is a model $\mathcal{M}_{\theta} = LM(\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}|S_{1})$ trained on the initial training set, after which labeled data for updated schema are not available. A schema-adaptable data stream $\{\mathcal{D}^{(1)},\mathcal{D}^{(2)},\ldots ,\mathcal{D}^{(N)}\}$ is provided to evaluate the adaptability of model for the dynamic updates of schema. Each $\mathcal{D}^{(k)}$ contains dev/test data $(\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{k},\mathcal{D}_{test}^{k})$ and schema graph $s_k$ . Note that the model will not be re-trained but hope to pick up on the ability of information extraction with evolving schema. The challenge is that the model is + +![](images/36ea4339a7edb76f73ae3c2a762878e62d7efb29cc4e270f4ea9a2f7aaf6799d.jpg) +Figure 2: Illustration of schema-adaptable KGC with iterative schema evolution. Schema graph nodes (colored $\bullet$ ) are evolved by adding a new class node (colored $\bullet$ ) in horizontal schema expansion while is inherited by a new subclass node (colored $\bullet$ ) in vertical schema expansion. + +expected to perform well in each iteration of the test set $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{test}}^k$ , which contains the golden instances changed for the updated schema. + +# 2.3 Dataset Construction Process + +As shown in Figure 2, we design three principles regarding different types of schema evolution and apply Algorithm 1 to build the dataset for evaluation: (1) Horizontal Schema Expansion requires the schema to add new class nodes of the same level, which can be considered a form of class-incremental learning without new classe instances as training data. Based on the generalization effect on the neighboring new classes, we can assess the transfer capabilities of the schema feature. (2) Vertical Schema Expansion requires the schema to add subclasses of father classes. Based on the generalization effect on subclasses, we can assess the inheritance and derivation capabilities of the schema feature. (3) Hybrid Schema Expansion requires the schema to randomly expands nodes horizontally or vertically at each iteration, which summarizes schema graphs and represents their potential co-evolutionary pattern. More details are in Appendix A.1, besides the above structural extensions, we further explore analogous node replacement from the perspective of semantics. + +# 2.4 Schema-adaptable KGC Benchmark + +There are two challenges for schema-adaptable KGC. Firstly, since the schema is updated in each iteration, the schema evolution information needs to be dynamically injected into the model. Secondly, since the output target of KGC is often demand-specific, the extraction results should be adaptively + +# Algorithm 1 Dataset Construction Process. + +Input: iteration $\mathcal{N}$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\{\mathcal{D}_{train}^{raw},\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{raw},\mathcal{D}_{test}^{raw}\}$ + +Output: Schema $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{N}},\{\mathcal{D}_{train}^{\mathcal{N}},\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{\mathcal{N}},\mathcal{D}_{test}^{\mathcal{N}}\}$ + +1: Randomly initialize $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ as $S_1$ +2: Pick out the instance associated with schema $\mathcal{S}$ as $\mathcal{D}^{(1)} = \{\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}, \mathcal{D}_{dev}^{1}, \mathcal{D}_{test}^{1}\}$ +3: for iteration $i = 2, \dots, n$ do +4: Horizontal Schema Expansion: Compute $\phi_{\text{neighbor}}(\vec{W}_c, \vec{W}_s)$ for candidate schema $S$ +5: Vertical Schma Expansion: Select $n_{iter}$ sub node whose father node belongs to $S$ and update +6: Hybrid Schema Expansion: Combine extension Steps 4 and 5 +7: Output iteration $i$ dataset schema $\mathcal{S}_i = \mathcal{S}$ , instance $\mathcal{D}^{(i)} = \{\mathcal{D}_{dev}^i, \mathcal{D}_{test}^i\}$ +8: end for + +adjusted according to the schema. We detail several vanilla baselines as follows and introduce the proposed ADAKGC in §3. + +Vanilla Baselines: Schema-adaptable KGC can be thought of as a structured prediction language task that transfers information between class nodes through the generalizability of the structure. TANL (Paolini et al., 2021) introduces an augmented natural language translation task from which information related to the schema can be implicitly extracted. TEXT2EVENT (Lu et al., 2021) is a unified sequence-to-structure architecture for event extraction with a constrained decoding algorithm for event schema knowledge injection during in + +![](images/4e31e40abb3b9f6eba9535776a22f02a09f0a52d0f633c877ef8f3621be1037d.jpg) +Figure 3: The overview of ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC. + +ference. UIE (Lu et al., 2022) is a unified text-to-structure generation framework that enables unified modeling of different IE tasks and adaptively generates target sequences by a schema-based prompting mechanism. GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), a large-scale language model (LLM), can serve as a baseline for schema-adaptable KGC. Although current works focusing on structured extraction can achieve excellent performance with static types of knowledge, they are typically unaware of schema evolution. To clarify this issue, we introduce a simple yet effective baseline dubbed schema-ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC. + +# 3 The Proposed Baseline: ADAKGC + +# 3.1 Overview + +As shown in Figure 3, ADAKGC utilizes a pretrained encoder-decoder language model (LM) T5 (Raffel et al., 2020a) as the basic architecture for the schema-adaptable KGC task. Specifically, let encoder input $X_{en} = [S;X]$ be the concatenation of schema $S$ and input $X$ . In the decoding process, the LM calculates the conditioned probability of generating a new token $y_{t}$ given the previous token $y_{< t}$ : + +$$ +p \left(Y _ {d e} \mid X _ {e n}\right) = \prod_ {t = 1} ^ {| Y |} p \left(y _ {t} \mid y _ {< t}, S, X\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +We initialize the model using the pre-trained parameter $\theta$ . Here, $p_{\theta}$ is a trainable language model distribution. In the $k$ -th iteration, we perform a gradient update on the following log-likelihood objective: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \max _ {\theta} \log p _ {\theta} (y \mid x; s _ {k}) \\ = \max _ {\theta} \sum_ {t \in Y _ {i n d e x}} \log p _ {\theta} \left(h _ {t} \mid h _ {< t}\right) \tag {2} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $h_t$ is the activation vector at decoding time step $t$ . $h_t = \left[h_t^{(1)};\dots ;h_t^{(m)}\right]$ is a concatenation of all activation layers, and $h_t^{(j)}$ is the activation vector of the $j$ -th layer at time step $t$ . + +# 3.2 Schema-enriched Prefix Instructor + +Inspired by prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), we use task-specific prefix instructors to indicate task information, which are pairs of transformer-activated differentiable sequences $\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\}$ , each containing $p$ consecutive $D$ -dim vectors for encoder and decoder. Since using a discrete natural language task instruction in the context (e.g., "The schema used for the task is:") may guide the LM to produce a sub-optimal generated sequence, we optimize the instructions as a continuous soft prompt, propagating upward to all transformer activation layers and rightward to subsequent tokens. + +Due to schema changes with iterations, we present schema-specific prefix instructors to instruct the encoding process. Specifically, we formalize the schema graph as linearized text. Assume given the constrained schema of RE task $s_k = \{(h_1, r_1, t_1), \ldots, (h_n, r_n, t_n)\}$ and $tpc_i = (h_i, r_i, t_i)$ denotes the $i$ -th triple prefix constraint. By concatenating these schema prefix constraints initialized by word embedding, $spc$ can be dynamically adjusted as the schema evolves, and added padding tokens to be a fixed length when instructing the LM: + +$$ +s p c = \operatorname {C o n c a t} \left(t p c _ {1}, \dots , t p c _ {n}, P A D\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +Thus, the schema-enriched prefix instructor provides a two-part prefix combination $Z = \{s i_{en}, s p c_{c}; s i_{de}\}$ , where "+" separates the respective prefix instructors for encoder and decoder. We recursively activate the decoder transformer activation vector $h_{t}$ , which is the connection of all layers, at time step $t$ in the LM. + +$$ +h _ {t} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} s i _ {t}, & \text {i f} t \leq p \\ \operatorname {L M} \left(y _ {t}, h _ {< t} \mid S, X\right), & \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} \right. \tag {4} +$$ + +The training parameters of our model contain the LM parameters $\theta$ , the encoder-decoder task-specific prefix instructor $\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\}$ , and the schema-specific constraint instructor $spc$ . For stable optimization, we follow Li and Liang (2021) to reparameterize the matrix $M_{\phi}[t,:] = MLP_{\phi}(M_{\phi}'[t,:])$ with a smaller matrix $M_{\phi}'$ consisting of a large feedforward neural network $MLP_{\phi}$ , which can alleviate the optimization instability caused by directly updating the prefix parameters and is applied to $\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}; spc\}$ . We train the parameters of the model in the following steps: (1) First, freeze other parameters, fine-tune the prefix instructor $\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\}$ to learn task-specific prompts; (2) Secondly, freeze $\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\}$ , optimize the schema-specific instructor $spc$ for the given schema graph; (3) Finally, we unfreeze the LM parameter $\theta$ and collaboratively optimize all parameters to capture the association between the prefix instructor and model parameters. + +# 3.3 Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding + +Previous works leverage a greedy decoding algorithm to generate linearized instance predictions token by token for the hidden sequence $h_t$ , which selects the token with the highest prediction probability $p(y_t \mid y_{ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVEEntityTANL71.5265.2160.3856.3753.2149.6646.5557.56(NERD)UIE72.7266.7862.2458.2955.0851.4248.0459.22Ent-F1AdaKGC72.9166.9562.3758.5155.3851.8148.5459.50RelationTANL89.9281.8178.3472.7168.4265.1962.9474.19(NYT)UIE90.1782.0978.7473.1269.0365.5363.3074.57Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.3482.3379.0373.3469.1965.8763.5874.81Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT69.2368.0565.4561.3760.1559.3454.4262.57(ACE2005)UIE70.7569.1366.2062.1960.9059.8354.7463.39Evt Tri F1AdaKGC72.4370.9068.1463.4961.9761.3355.7364.86Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT46.1544.4042.5839.7339.1738.7735.3140.87(ACE2005)UIE49.1447.9045.7542.3241.8341.2737.6043.69Evt Arg F1AdaKGC49.1848.1447.0843.8543.1743.1038.7944.76 + +Table 1: Horizontal schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction. + +
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL73.4964.8357.0551.8447.1642.0635.9653.20
UIE74.4566.0958.2453.0148.2445.7748.4156.32
Ent-F1AdaKGC74.4566.0558.2653.0648.3945.9248.5756.39
Relation (NYT)TANL90.1383.1176.6373.0367.0363.4047.1371.49
UIE90.3881.7674.2771.6165.3062.9559.8172.30
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.1881.6574.1371.4865.1062.7559.7772.15
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT67.1055.8150.3852.9945.8241.3941.6550.73
UIE70.9460.0057.0162.5260.3954.9053.6259.91
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC70.5759.7556.5062.3160.5755.4954.3259.93
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT49.3237.8333.4335.4930.6727.4927.7934.57
UIE50.7041.4539.6644.1443.6538.8637.7742.32
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.8742.7440.6845.1643.9740.1039.0543.37
+ +Table 2: Vertical schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction. + +Schema adaptive generalization challenge. On all three expansion categories, the model performances tend to decrease as the iterations increase. TANL achieves lower performance which employs an augmented language and implicitly trains the model to learn schema information. TEXT2EVENT utilizes schema as constraint information on the decoding side and outperforms other models in some iterations. Although ADAKGC and UIE obtain optimal or suboptimal performance, the performance of iteration 1 and iteration 7 has a significant drop. We believe that the implicit schema evolution rules can help future work to develop adaptive generalization capabilities for schema-adaptable KGC. + +Schema-enhanced modules boost the performances. Compared to other models, ADAKGC is improved with schema-enhanced modules on both the encoder and decoder, which allows it to achieve the best performance in most settings. On the ACE2005 hybrid schema expansion dataset, + +![](images/793a0819d6f8a1ae7087deca570ce64b58fbe9706d8b19697c1a7a3696cdce48.jpg) +Figure 4: GPT-3.5 results on schema expansion dataset. + +ADAKGC improves $0.71\%$ on trigger extraction and $3.65\%$ on event argument extraction, indicating that ADAKGC can capture schema-specific information under evolutionary schema. + +LLMs can understand schema adaption patterns better. To explore the performance of LLMs (Qiao et al., 2023) on the proposed tasks, we per + +
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL68.3758.5054.5152.4648.6744.1341.5152.59
UIE69.2659.8055.7153.6649.5546.9748.1154.72
Ent-F1AdaKGC69.4859.9755.9453.8949.9247.4448.4355.01
Relation (NYT)TANL88.6781.5976.4872.2272.3561.7657.8772.99
UIE90.1783.1477.8171.4572.9765.5763.1274.89
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.0783.0677.6871.3872.9465.7363.3274.88
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT69.2656.9953.3246.0340.4456.8648.8453.11
UIE74.6966.3463.1263.2159.8653.1853.2661.95
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC74.8466.9963.2863.0760.9454.7254.8062.66
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT50.3238.1435.7931.9428.7937.7533.5436.61
UIE51.9445.2242.9743.1240.6636.6636.1742.39
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC55.0848.5846.1946.2745.2240.5240.4146.04
+ +Table 3: Hybrid schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction. + +![](images/7576a2112fcc93de62eb5777e8ee3ea71dbbd558ce830b77aaf4b9672a024bb9.jpg) +Figure 5: Ablation study on NERD horizontal schema expansion dataset, with the average result of 7 iterations. + +form comparative experiments with GPT-3.5 on NYT. Since we cannot utilize all training instances, we report in-context learning performance given 20-shot demonstrations as shown in Appendix A.5. From Figure 4, we notice that GPT-3.5 is capable of producing instances that conform to the dynamically changing schema but still yield low performance due to the low-shot issue. Likewise, we sample several cases and use ChatGPT3 to evaluate schema-adaptable KGC (See Figure 7 and 8 in Appendix A.6), which surprisingly demonstrates stable generalization ability with evolving schema. These findings indicate a promising future work of schema-adaptable KGC to develop alignment prompts with LLMs. + +# 4.3 Ablation Study on ADAKGC + +To prove the effects of the schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decod + +![](images/6e9a51d222fe060b7990cebbfa93e3cf46c07bc2a2825a15e9e9c94401948401.jpg) +Figure 6: Case study on NERD vertical schema expansion dataset, Iteration 1 vs. Iteration 7. + +ing, we conduct the ablation study, and the results are shown in Figure 5. From two evolutionary categories, we observe that: (1) Both schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding can help the schema-adaptable learning process; (2) Efficiently encoding schema evolution information is more important, which achieves improvements of $0.77\%$ on horizontal schema expansion and $0.36\%$ on vertical schema expansion. + +# 4.4 Case Study + +As shown in Figure 6, we randomly select 8 types and observe that: (1) The types that appear in the initial schema mostly degrade performance, indicating that the model causes slight confusion as the schema expands. (2) Due to the structural inheritance relationship in the vertical expansion of the schema, our model can effectively transfer the labels of the father node to the child nodes when new child nodes are added. + +To further analyze the drawbacks of our model + +
Error AnalysisInput ExampleGold Type(s)Predicted Type(s)Proportion
Weak TransferKelly, who declined to talk to reporters here, travel to Tokyo Sunday for talks with Japanese officials.Meet[travel]Transport[travel]38%
Inheritance DeficiencyHe started his entertainment career at ABC, where he is credited with creating the ‘movie of the week’ concept.Start-Position[started]Personnel[started]24%
Relevance NeglectKelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Transport[arrived]Meet[brief]Transport[arrived]21%
Class ImbalanceWithin weeks he was arrested and charged with sodomising an official driver several years previously and with abusing his powers to cover up the offence.Arrest-Jail[arrested]Charge-Indict[charged]Transport[arrested]13%
Potential AnnotationAnne-Marie will get the couple’s 19-room home in New York state, which was on the market last year for 21.5 million dollars, as well as their fine art collection.None EventTransfer-ownership[get]4%
+ +Table 4: Error analysis on all ACE2005 schema expansion datasets. + +and promote future works of schema-adaptable KGC, we count incorrect instances and classify them into five categories below, as shown in Table 4: (1) Weak Transfer. Despite schema expansion, the model is prevented from updating labels by old model parameters. (2) Inheritance Deficiency. The label is not inherited in time when subdividing the father node. (3) Relevance Neglect. The lack of ontology relevance leads to the absence of correlated event extraction. (4) Class Imbalance. Models suffering from unbalanced class learning problems tend to depend on similarly in-context sentences to judge high-frequency labels. (5) Potential Annotation. Some example outputs suggest potential errors or omitted annotation. + +# 5 Related Work + +# 5.1 Knowledge Graph Construction + +Automatic construction of knowledge graphs from textual or structured data has attracted extensive research in recent years, including tasks such as NER (Paolini et al., 2021; Cui et al., 2021a), RE (Lin et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021), EE (Ramponi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021), etc. In contrast to closed-domain knowledge extraction, open knowledge extraction (Kolluru et al., 2020; Zhan and Zhao, 2020; Kotnis et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b) is oriented toward the absence of schema constraints and can quickly generate extensive and meaningful knowledge. However, the ignoring of schema introduces uncertainty and ambiguity in output control, and we believe that a clear setting can be chosen to track the realignment of instances. Besides, KGC in low-resource scenarios (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Schick and Schütze, 2021; Chen et al., 2022b; Ye et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022c) requires the model to predict new instances with only lim + +ited training instances available. As opposed to this instance-driven KGC approach, we argue that the schema-driven approach can leverage evolutionary instructions provided with richer ontological associations, resulting in new challenges and research opportunities. + +# 5.2 Lifelong Learning + +Lifelong learning is aimed at training new classes online without catastrophic forgetting. Generally, lifelong learning mainly falls into four categories: regularization-based (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Zenke et al., 2017; Aljundi et al., 2018), replay-based (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; Shin et al., 2017), architecture-based (Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018; Yoon et al., 2018) and knowledge distillation (Chuang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020). To study class-incremental learning, Monaikul et al. (2021) builds a unified NER classifier for all the classes encountered over time, while Wang et al. (2022a) develops a framework to reconstruct synthetic training data of the old classes. Recently, (Wang et al., 2019) proposes a lifelong RE method that employs an explicit alignment model to overcome forgetting, while (Shen et al., 2020) presents a self-adaptive dynamic regularization method. To address class incremental learning in event detection (Cao et al., 2020), Yu et al. (2021) takes advantage of rich correlations among ontology types, and Liu et al. (2022) adopts continuous prompts to learn event-specific representation for prediction. Compared with previous work that focused only on class increments, we discuss three principles of schema expansion from the potential demand for schema adaptation. + +# 6 Conclusion + +This paper introduces a new task of schema-adaptable KGC with benchmark datasets and a new baseline ADAKGC. We illustrate the task difficulties with previous baselines on three principles of schema expansion patterns (horizontal, vertical, hybrid) and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed ADAKGC. + +# Acknowledgment + +We would like to express gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their kind comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206246), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LGG22F030011), Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (2021J190), Yongjiang Talent Introduction Programme (2021A-156-G), CCF-Baidu Open Fund, and Information Technology Center and State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University. + +# Limitations + +The proposed work still contains several limitations, as follows: + +Datasets: Note that several datasets, such as ACE2005, cannot be released due to LICENCE issues; we release the code to build the datasets and provide all the pre-processed publicly available datasets (e.g., Few-NERD, NYT) We use several existing datasets to construct schema-adaptable benchmarks; however, previous datasets may have limited schema structures (the schema pattern in some datasets is very simple). We plan to build more datasets via crowdsourcing for comprehensive evaluation. In addition, we will continue to promote the construction of multimodal schema adaptive graphs, which leverage the dynamic evolution of schema to integrate visual and textual knowledge into a self-learning graph extraction system. + +Baselines and Proposed ADAKGC: Note that the proposed one, although better than previous approaches, including Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), still suffers from poor generalization ability. However, we notice a very stable performance with LLM (though deficient performance), indicating a new promising solution for schema-adatable KGC. + +# Ethical Considerations + +Intended use. The dataset and model in this paper are indented to be used for exploratory analysis of schema-adaptable KGC. + +Biases. We collect data from existing datasets (e.g., Few-NERD: CC BY-SA 4.0 license.), which may contain some data with offensive language or discriminatory. + +# References + +Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2018. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part III, volume 11207 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 144-161. Springer. +Collin F. Baker and Hiroaki Sato. 2003. The framenet data and software. In ACL 2003, 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume to the Proceedings, 7-12 July 2003, Sapporo Convention Center, Sapporo, Japan, pages 161-164. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. +Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, and Taifeng Wang. 2020. Incremental event detection via knowledge consolidation networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 707-717. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiang Chen, Lei Li, Ningyu Zhang, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022a. Relation extraction as open-book examination: Retrieval-enhanced prompt tuning. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 2443-2448. ACM. + +Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022b. Knowprompt: Knowledge-aware prompt-tuning with synergistic optimization for relation extraction. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 2778-2788. ACM. +Yung-Sung Chuang, Shang-Yu Su, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2020. Lifelong language knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2914-2924. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Jian Liu, Sen Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2021a. Template-based named entity recognition using BART. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 1835-1845. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Li Cui, Deqing Yang, Jiaxin Yu, Chengwei Hu, Jiayang Cheng, Jingjie Yi, and Yanghua Xiao. 2021b. Refining sample embeddings with relation prototypes to enhance continual relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 232-243. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-nerd: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 3198-3213. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Joe Ellis, Jeremy Getman, and Stephanie M Strassel. 2014. Overview of linguistic resources for the tac kbp 2014 evaluations: Planning, execution, and results. In Proceedings of TAC KBP 2014 Workshop, National Institute of Standards and Technology, pages 17-18. +Jérôme Euzenat, Christian Meilicke, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Pavel Shvaiko, and Cássia Trojahn dos Santos. 2011. Ontology alignment evaluation initiative: Six years of experience. J. Data Semant., 15:158-192. +Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R. Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 8:64-77. +Karin Kipper, Anna Korhonen, Neville Ryant, and Martha Palmer. 2008. A large-scale classification of english verbs. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 42(1):21-40. +James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521-3526. +Keshav Kolluru, Samarth Aggarwal, Vipul Rathore, Mausam, and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2020. Imojie: Iterative memory-based joint open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5871-5886. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Bhushan Kotnis, Kiril Gashteovski, Daniel Rubio, Ammar Shaker, Vanessa Rodriguez-Tembras, Makoto Takamoto, Mathias Niepert, and Carolin Lawrence. 2022. MILIE: modular & iterative multilingual open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6939-6950. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4582-4597. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jian Liu, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Wei Bi, and Xiaojiang Liu. 2020. Event extraction as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1641-1651. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In + +Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Minqian Liu, Shiyu Chang, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Incremental prompting: Episodic memory prompt for lifelong event detection. CoRR, abs/2204.07275. +David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 6467-6476. +Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Dai Dai, Wei Jia, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2023. Universal information extraction as unified semantic matching. CoRR, abs/2301.03282. +Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2795-2806. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Packnet: Adding multiple tasks to a single network by iterative pruning. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, June 18-22, 2018, pages 7765-7773. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE Computer Society. +Natawut Monaikul, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2021. Continual learning for named entity recognition. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13570-13577. AAAI Press. +II. I Ntroduction. The ace 2005 (ace 05) evaluation plan evaluation of the detection and recognition of ace entities, values, temporal expressions, relations, and events 1. + +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS. +Martha Palmer, Paul R. Kingsbury, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comput. Linguistics, 31(1):71-106. +Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. +Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. 2017. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. +Sameer S. Pradhan, Eduard H. Hovy, Mitchell P. Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance A. Ramshaw, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2007. Ontonotes: A unified relational semantic representation. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), September 17-19, 2007, Irvine, California, USA, pages 517-526. IEEE Computer Society. +Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2023. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. In ACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Alan Ramponi, Rob van der Goot, Rosario Lombardo, and Barbara Plank. 2020. Biomedical event extraction as sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 5357-5367. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010a. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, European Conference, + +ECML PKDD 2010, Barcelona, Spain, September 20-24, 2010, Proceedings, Part III, volume 6323 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 148-163. Springer. +Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010b. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In *Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases*, pages 148–163, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. +Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chao Shang, Guangtao Wang, Peng Qi, and Jing Huang. 2022. Improving time sensitivity for question answering over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8017-8026. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hangjie Shen, Shenggen Ju, Jieping Sun, Run Chen, and Yuezhong Liu. 2020. Efficient lifelong relation extraction with dynamic regularization. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing - 9th CCF International Conference*, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, volume 12431 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 181-192. Springer. +Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2990-2999. +Sebastian Thrun. 1998. Lifelong learning algorithms. In Sebastian Thrun and Lorien Y. Pratt, editors, Learning to Learn, pages 181-209. Springer. +Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus. +Hong Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Sentence embedding alignment for lifelong relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for + +Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 796-806. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rui Wang, Tong Yu, Handong Zhao, Sungchul Kim, Subrata Mitra, Ruiyi Zhang, and Ricardo Henao. 2022a. Few-shot class-incremental learning for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 571-582. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xin Wang, Minlong Peng, Mingming Sun, and Ping Li. 2022b. Oie@oia: an adaptable and efficient open information extraction framework. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6213-6226. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Nguyen Bach, Tao Wang, Zhongqiang Huang, Fei Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2021. Automated concatenation of embeddings for structured prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2643-2660. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yunzhi Yao, Shengyu Mao, Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Schema-aware reference as prompt improves data-efficient relational triple and event extraction. CoRR, abs/2210.10709. +Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Mosha Chen, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Contrastive triple extraction with generative transformer. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14257-14265. AAAI Press. +Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hui Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Xi Chen, and Huajun Chen. + +2022. Ontology-enhanced prompt-tuning for few-shot learning. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 778-787. ACM. +Jaehong Yoon, Eunho Yang, Jeongtae Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2018. Lifelong learning with dynamically expandable networks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. +Pengfei Yu, Heng Ji, and Prem Natarajan. 2021. *Life-long event detection with knowledge transfer*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5278-5290. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. 2017. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3987-3995. PMLR. +Junlang Zhan and Hai Zhao. 2020. Span model for open information extraction on accurate corpus. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9523-9530. AAAI Press. +Jing Zhang, Xiaokang Zhang, Jifan Yu, Jian Tang, Jie Tang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2022a. Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5773-5784. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Minhao Zhang, Ruoyu Zhang, Yanzeng Li, and Lei Zou. 2022b. Crake: Causal-enhanced table-filler for question answering over large scale knowledge base. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1787-1798. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Jiaoyan Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2020. Relation adversarial network for low resource knowledge graph completion. In WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020, pages 1-12. ACM / IW3C2. +Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Hongbin Ye, and Huajun Chen. 2022c. Knowledge collaborative fine-tuning for low-resource knowledge + +graph completion. Journal of Software, 33(10):3531-3545. +Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022d. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. ArXiv, abs/2201.08860. +Hengyi Zheng, Rui Wen, Xi Chen, Yifan Yang, Yunyan Zhang, Ziheng Zhang, Ningyu Zhang, Bin Qin, Xu Ming, and Yefeng Zheng. 2021. PRGC: potential relation and global correspondence based joint relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6225-6235. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Appendix + +This section describes the details of experiments, including dataset construction and evaluation on downstream tasks. + +# A.1 Dataset Construction + +# A.1.1 Construction Process + +In each task, we execute three schema evolution strategies. The raw dataset statistics are shown in Table 5, where it can be seen that they have a two-level schema structure, leaving the research of a more hierarchical schema structure for future work. As shown in Algorithm 2-4, we describe in detail the specific construction process of horizontal schema extension, vertical schema extension and hybrid schema extension. + +In particular, we also release additional datasets from a semantic substitution perspective. As shown in Algorithm 5, analogous schema expansion requires schema replacement for semantically similar new nodes. Based on the performance of the old class transfer to the new semantic class, we can evaluate the semantic invariance capability. + +
#Maj#Sub#Train#Val#Test
NERD866131,76718,82437,648
NYT42456,1965,0005,000
ACE-200583319,216901676
+ +Table 5: Raw datasets statistics. #Maj indicates the number of major classes, #Sub is the number of subclasses, and #Val #Test is the number of sentences. + +Horizontal Schema Expansion. Neighboring nodes of the specified type that have high-level + +similarity values in the same framework are also adjacent when projected into the semantic space (Huang et al., 2018). Existing research efforts have developed many rich libraries of ontologies (e.g.FrameNet (Baker and Sato, 2003), VerbNet (Kipper et al., 2008), Propbank (Palmer et al., 2005), and OntoNotes (Pradhan et al., 2007)), where each ontology type is associated with a set of pre-defined neighboring ontologies. (1) Searching the ontology library to retrieve candidate nodes $W_{f}$ associated with target nodes $W_{s}$ at the same hierarchy. (2) The similarity metric is obtained by calculating the cosine vector similarity of all candidate nodes $W_{f}$ to the target node $W_{s}$ (Eq. 5). (3) Selecting the appropriate threshold of node pairs to confirm the sorted addition of horizontal nodes. (4) Updating the schema with horizontal nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. + +$$ +\phi_ {S i m} (\vec {W _ {f}}, \vec {W _ {s}}) = \frac {\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| W _ {s} |} w _ {i} \cdot w _ {f}}{\| \vec {W _ {f}} \| _ {2} \cdot \| \vec {W _ {s}} \| _ {2}} \tag {5} +$$ + +Vertical Schema Expansion. Structural similarity needs to be exploited when adding schema hierarchy nodes as new classes. (1) For search convenience, we link the hypernym ontology under a root node so that the schema forms a tree structure. (2) Starting at the root node, we utilize a child selection strategy by recursively applying through the tree until reaching the deepest node. A node could be expandable when it represents a non-terminal state or has hyponyms in semantics (e.g., location->country). (3) According to the available hyponyms, one (or more) child nodes are added to expand the current schema tree. (4) Updating the schema with vertical nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Hybrid Schema Expansion. It is necessary to hybrid horizontal and vertical expansion to form a comprehensive structural topology, which is more consistent with real scenarios. (1) Setting the threshold $\alpha$ for random selection. (2) Executing horizontal expansion iteration below the threshold $\alpha$ , or vertical node expansion above the threshold $\alpha$ . Note that when the father node of added nodes does not exist, we also add the father node to maintain the schema hierarchy. (3) Updating the schema with the corresponding nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Analogous Schema Expansion. To detect the semantic node sensitivity of the schema, we randomly + +replace similar semantic expressions for the nodes. (1) Random selection of candidate nodes to obtain word expressions $W_{C}$ . (2) Candidate nodes are created by pairing $W_{C}$ with all words in the corpus word list $W_{L}$ . The consistency between individual words is calculated by the normalized point-by-point mutual information (NPMI) of $w_{i}$ and $w_{j}$ (Eq. 6), where adding smooth $\epsilon$ and $\gamma$ controls for $\log p(w_{i},w_{j})$ weights for higher NPMI values (Eq. 7). (3) Adopting candidate nodes that exceed the threshold to replace the schema and updating the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. + +$$ +\vec {v} (W) = \left\{\sum_ {w _ {i} \in W _ {C}} N M P I \left(w _ {i}, w _ {j}\right) ^ {\gamma} \right\} _ {j = 1, \dots , \left| W _ {L} \right|} \tag {6} +$$ + +$$ +N M P I (w _ {i}, w _ {j}) ^ {\gamma} = \left(\frac {\log \frac {p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \epsilon}{p (w _ {i}) \cdot p (w _ {j})}}{- \log p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \epsilon}\right) ^ {\gamma} \tag {7} +$$ + +# A.1.2 Schema-adaptable Datasets Statistic + +We set the number $\mathcal{N}$ of total iterations, and initialize the original number of schema nodes. We show the statistics of schema-adaptable datasets for each task in Table 6. + +# A.2 Evaluation + +We use span-based Micro-F1 as the major metric to evaluate the model and adopt the same evaluation metrics as previous work: + +* Named Entity Recognition: an entity mention is correct if its strings and type match a reference entity. +* Relation Strict: a relation is correct if its relation type is correct and the string and entity types of the related entity mentions are correct. +* Event Trigger: an event trigger is correct if its strings and event type match a reference trigger. +* Event Argument: an event argument is correct if its strings, role type, and event type match a reference argument mentioned. + +
TaxonomyHorizontalVerticalHybridAnalogous
#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N
NERD30673067306766-7
NYT10281028102824-7
ACE-200515371537153733-7
+ +Table 6: Schema-adaptable datasets statistics. #Init indicates the number of initial subclasses, #Add is the number of subclasses added per iteration, and #N is the total number of iterations. + +# A.3 Hyper-parameters + +We adopt T5-v1.1-base (Raffel et al., 2020b), which has 12 layers of the encoder, 12 layers of the decoder, 768 hidden units, and 12 attention heads as the backbone. Specifically, we utilize Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2017) to conduct experiments with batch size 16 on one NVIDIA 3090 GPU. We detail the hyper-parameters for each dataset as follows: + +NERD. The hyper-parameter search space is: + +- epoch: 15 +- batch size: 16 +- accumulate: 1 +learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4] +warmup rate: 0.06 + +NYT. The hyper-parameter search space is: + +- epoch: 20 +- batch size: 16 +- accumulate: 1 +learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4] +warmup rate: 0.06 + +ACE2005. The hyper-parameter search space is: + +- epoch: 30 +- batch size: 16 +- accumulate: 1 +learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4] +warmup rate: 0.06 + +# A.4 Analogous Schema Expansion Experiment + +As shown in Figure 7, our ADAKGC also has powerful semantic transplantation capabilities, which achieves competitive performance with baselines. With the schema-enriched prefix instructor, ADAKGC achieves an improvement of $7.70\%$ on average over TEXT2EVENT on the event trigger extraction task and $4.87\%$ on the event argument extraction task. This verifies the proposed schema-enriched prefix instructor and decoding modules can learn general schema-adaptable ability even the schema evolution knowledge is rarely in the pretraining stage. Note that TANL achieves the best performance on the NYT dataset, indicating that language models have the ability to learn schema semantic transfer implicitly as an augmented natural language prediction task. Therefore we believe that in addition to the schema structure perception modules, semantic robustness modules for analogous node expansion scenarios are also essential. + +# A.5 GPT-3.5 Experiment Details + +GPT-3.5 is a large autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters. To explore the performance of GPT-3.5 on the schema-adaptive KGC task, we follow the input format of few-shot learning using OpenAI API4. As shown in Table 12, we utilize a fixed manual template to generate a contextual window suitable for the model, including natural language task descriptions (text in blue), linearized schemas (text in purple), 20 examples in the model's context, and task prompts (text in red). + +# A.6 ChatGPT Results + +ChatGPT5 trains an initial model using supervised fine-tuning and further utilizes reinforcement learning systems to rank by quality for human feedback rewards. We handle Schema-adaptable KGC tasks + +Algorithm 2 The construction process of horizontal schema expansion. + +1: Set sampling seed $\theta$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\}$ +2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ and initial node number $n_{init}$ , node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration +3: Randomly select $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ , $S = S \cup$ init node, $S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S$ +4: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\} = \{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ +5: for iteration $N$ do +6: Calculate $\phi_{Sim}(\vec{W}_f,\vec{W}_s) = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\cdot w_i}{\|\vec{W}_f\|_2\cdot\|\vec{W}_s\|_2}$ for node between $S_{raw}$ and $S$ +7: Pick out top $n_{iter}$ schema node, $S = S \cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$ , $S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$ +8: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S,\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\} = \{D_{dev},D_{test}\}$ +9: end for + +by asking questions to the chatbot in a conversational mode. First, we present the task description and the 20 demonstrations as shown in Figure 7. Then we give a paragraph text to test whether the chatbot can extract the corresponding triples based on the same schema as the demonstration examples comply with. From Figure 8 we can find that some of the facts are well extracted, indicating that ChatGPT can understand the task and perform extraction consistent with the schema. Finally, we add three new nodes "profession" "place founded" "founders" to the previous schema under a horizontal schema expansion iteration. Output results in Figure 8 show that ChatGPT not only adapts the output to the updated schema but also deduces reasonable facts by a chain-of-thought approach. + +Algorithm 3 The construction process of vertical schema expansion. + +1: Set sampling seed $\theta$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\}$ +2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ and initial node number $n_{init}$ , node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration +3: for major node in $S_{raw}$ do +4: $S = S\cup$ major node +5: end for +6: Randomly select $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ , $S = S \cup$ init node, $S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S$ +7: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\} = \{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ +8: for iteration $N$ do +9: Randomly select $n_{iter}$ sub node, whose parent belongs to $S$ +10: $S = S\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$ +11: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S,\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\} = \{D_{dev},D_{test}\}$ +12: end for + +Algorithm 4 The construction process of hybrid schema expansion. + +1: Set sampling seed $\theta$ , hybrid ratio $\alpha$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\}$ +2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ and initial node number $n_{init}$ , node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration +3: Randomly select $n_{init}$ nodes in $S_{raw}$ , $S = S \cup$ init node, $S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S$ +4: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\} = \{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ +5: for iteration $N$ do +6: if random(0,1) $< \alpha$ then +7: Calculate $\phi_{Sim}(\vec{W_f},\vec{W_s}) = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\cdot w_f}{\|\vec{W_f}\|_2\cdot\|\vec{W_s}\|_2}$ for node between $S_{raw}$ and $S$ +8: Pick out top $n_{iter}$ schema node, $S = S \cup S_{raw}[: n_{iter}]$ , $S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[: n_{iter}]$ +9: else +10: Randomly select $n_{iter}$ sub node, whose parent belongs to $S$ +11: $S = S\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw}-$ $S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]$ +12: end if +13: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S,\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\} = \{D_{dev},D_{test}\}$ +14: end for + +Algorithm 5 The construction process of analogous schema expansion. + +1: Set sampling seed $\theta$ , total iteration $N$ , raw schema $S_{raw}$ , and raw dataset $\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\}$ +2: Initialize blank schema $S$ , blank dataset $\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ and node number $n_{iter}$ per iteration +3: Initialize $S = S_{raw}$ , $S_1 = S$ , $\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\} = \{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\}$ +4: Pick out the instance associated with $S$ , $\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\} = \{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ +5: for iteration $N$ do +6: Randomly select $n_{iter}$ schema node in $S$ , calculate $\vec{v}(W) = \left\{\sum_{w_r \in W} N M P I(w_r, w_j)^{\gamma}\right\}_{j=1,\dots,|W_L|}$ for each node, create candidate nodes by pairing $W_r$ with all words $W_L$ in the corpus word list +7: Replace $S[: n_{iter}]$ with candidate nodes with analogous semantics +8: Iteration $i$ dataset $S_{i} = S, \{D_{dev}^{i}, D_{test}^{i}\} = \{D_{dev}, D_{test}\}$ +9: end for + +
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
EntityTANL68.3462.7057.2252.9447.7342.2436.0952.47
(NERD)UIE67.5863.3960.3758.0058.1754.2649.5358.76
Ent-F1AdaKGC68.2263.8761.0158.1858.7654.5849.8159.20
RelationTANL89.8086.8283.5177.9973.6173.3266.3778.77
(NYT)UIE89.6686.5683.2777.8073.3073.2766.3378.60
Rel-S F1AdaKGC89.1786.1282.7677.3372.8572.9165.8478.14
Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT64.4060.3953.9652.6440.8332.4529.5847.75
(ACE2005)UIE69.6964.5362.1058.4749.7642.5139.3155.20
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC69.6364.7761.8658.3150.0843.0740.4055.45
Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT45.8840.9634.2133.4024.4919.6216.7730.76
(ACE2005)UIE49.9642.6740.5036.5628.7024.0620.4734.70
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.7444.5642.4832.6130.5225.4122.1035.63
+ +Table 7: Analogous schema replacement results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction. + +
Input: The Belgrade district court said that Markovic will be tried along with 10 other Milosevic-era officials who face similar charges of ‘inappropriate use of state property’ that carry a sentence of up to five years in jail.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "phone write", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 4 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 5 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "exe-cute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "charge indirect", "trans-fer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "par-don"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indirect", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
+ +Table 8: Adaptive evolution of horizontal schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. + +
Input: Kelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "contact", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Contact[brief]
Iteration 2 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 3 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 4 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 5 schema: "personnel", "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organi-zation", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demon-strate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
+ +Table 9: Adaptive evolution of vertical schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to major classes, which will be covered by refined sub classes. + +
Input: The charismatic leader of Turkey's governing party was named prime minister Tuesday, a step that probably boosts chances that the United States will get permission to deploy troops in the country along Iraq's northern border.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 4 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 5 schema: "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Personnel[named]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Elect[named]
+ +Table 10: Adaptive evolution of hybrid schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to father classes, which occurs when directly adding sub classes that corresponding major class not exists. + +
Input: Webb also said details of the breakdowns of the Welches' previous marriages were likely to come up, and cited reports of alleged extramarital affairs by both.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Divorce[breakdowns] +Marry[marriages]
Iteration 2 schema: "end position", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] +Marry[marriages]
Iteration 3 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradITE", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] +Marry[marriages]
Iteration 4 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] +Marry[marriages]
Iteration 5 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] +Marry[marriages]
Iteration 6 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] +Marry[marriages]
Iteration 7 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "hurt", "communication", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "wed", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] +Wed[marriages]
+ +Table 11: Adaptive evolution of analogous schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. + +# GPT-3.5 Input Example: + +There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from context. Relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple schema: ["people", "country", "religion", "major shareholder of", "industry", "contains", "brith place", "location", "nationality", "advisors", "neighborhood of", "place lived", "capital", "geographic distribution", "teams", "major shareholders", "place of death", "children", "company", "profession", "place founded", "founders"] + +Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens; 2. The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston. + +Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen's denials. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County. + +Context: Mr.Brown has demeaned Mr.Bush as "a cheerleader," declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know "the first thing about running a disaster," and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, "a little twerp" and Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, an unprintable vulgarity (both in Playboy). + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi. + +··· + +Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema? Now it's your turn to do relation extraction. + +schema: ["people", "country", "religion", "major shareholder of", "industry", "contains", "birth place", "location", "nationality", "advisors", "neighborhood of", "place lived", "capital", "geographic distribution", "teams", "major shareholders", "place of death", "children", "company", "profession", "place founded", "founders"] + +Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: + +GPT-3.5 Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik. + +Golden Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is nationality, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place of death, tail entity is Reykjavik. + +Table 12: Examples of GPT-3.5 experiment on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model. + +# HU + +There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from Context. relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple. + +schema: ["people", "country", "religion", "major shareholder of", "industry", "contains", "brith place", "location", "nationality", "advisors", "neighborhood of", "place lived", "capital", "geographic distribution", "teams", "major shareholders", "place of death", "children", "company"] + +Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens;2.The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston; + +Context: In his authoritative and tough-minded new book , " The Assassins ' Gate : + +America in Iraq , " the New Yorker writer George Packer reminds us that the decision of the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq and its increasingly embattled handling of the occupation were both predicated upon large , abstract ideas about the role of America in the post-cold war world -- most notably , a belief in pre-emptive and unilateral action , the viability of exporting democracy abroad , the urge to streamline the military and the dream of remaking the Middle East . + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;2.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq; + +Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office 's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen 's denials. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County; + +Context: Mr. Brown has demeaned Mr. Bush as " a cheerleader , " declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know " the first thing about running a disaster, " and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor , Democrat of Mississippi , " a little twerp " and Senator Norm Coleman , Republican of Minnesota , an unprintable vulgarity ( both in Playboy ) . + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi; + +Context: Pakistan 's president, Pervez Musharraf, and President Hamid Karzai talked by telephone for an hour on Tuesday, a day after the Afghan intelligence service said it had arrested three Pakistani who were trying to assassinate the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. " + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pervez Musharraf, relation is nationality, tail entity is Pakistan; + +Figure 7: ChatGPT input example on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model. + +![](images/6cf6ef84c5587727d16e48233546d95cc2fd04b8f3938e4ac42f8c9fdd47ce7f.jpg) + +Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema? + +![](images/842cbed34ef23b0446ada4810fe68cad69638d0a349d55446084481ccb7c5599.jpg) + +Now it's your turn to do relation extraction. + +schema: ["people", "country", "religion", "major shareholder of", "industry", "contains", "brith place", "location", "nationality", "advisors", "neighborhood of", "place lived", "capital", "geographic distribution", "teams", "major shareholders", "place of death", "children", "company"] + +Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: + +![](images/7f6373825dfb825ec8e81eb619ae0cb2d78b49f88ef6b97e44d94828274741c4.jpg) + +1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion + +![](images/c7103a88203ebba03b18924d486c11f52c5d401ff4490f315f36886651f9da3d.jpg) + +2. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland. + +![](images/667586f97ee50c149531b89e43db448a4df024bc46d3dbb72ec9d57199bcbecf.jpg) + +Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema? + +Now it's your turn to do relation extraction. + +schema: ["people", "country", "religion", "major shareholder of", "industry", "contains", "brith place", "location", "nationality", "advisors", "neighborhood of", "place lived", "capital", "geographic distribution", "teams", "major shareholders", "place of death", "children", "company", "profession", "place founded", "founders"] + +Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland. + +The relation involved in the above sentence are: + +![](images/21687c0a23452bd11f36e18fb8796228174be911f2561789b3920cc0e733dec3.jpg) + +1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion. + +![](images/66f047127c7ee29861ae57619c2b97635eaab0c3b81e6e0a576886adbde34564.jpg) + +2. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is profession, tail entity is chess player. +3. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland. +4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland (assuming Bobby Fischer lived in Iceland at the time of the news conference) +5. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place founded, tail entity is United States (assuming Bobby Fischer was born in the United States) + +Figure 8: ChatGPT output results under a horizontal schema expansion iteration. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/images.zip b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9535a7c3984acc0b04b4180fcb5c3a58300f9c92 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:445cfd899c19a63cf7e5a212fa732c024bb02a19cf48fa5ea88a0ceb65b6a873 +size 2296811 diff --git a/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/layout.json b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61cfcea08509557d64a200bce0c1e0cd112ff617 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,17145 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 76, + 456, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 76, + 456, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 76, + 456, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Schema-adaptable Knowledge Graph Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongbin Ye" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2,4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Honghao Gui" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xin Xu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xi Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Huajun Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Ningyu Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,4*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 125, + 483, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 125, + 483, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 125, + 483, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Zhejiang University 2 Zhejiang Lab 3 Platform and Content Group, Tencent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 139, + 474, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 139, + 474, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 139, + 474, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Zhejiang University - Ant Group Joint Laboratory of Knowledge Graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 154, + 440, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 154, + 440, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 154, + 440, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "yehongbin@zhejianglab.com, jasonxchen@tencent.com," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 168, + 451, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 168, + 451, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 168, + 451, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{guihonghao,xxucs,huajunsir,zhangningyu}@zju.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conventional Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) approaches typically follow the static information extraction paradigm with a closed set of pre-defined schema. As a result, such approaches fall short when applied to dynamic scenarios or domains, whereas a new type of knowledge emerges. This necessitates a system that can handle evolving schema automatically to extract information for KGC. To address this need, we propose a new task called schema-adaptable KGC, which aims to continually extract entity, relation, and event based on a dynamically changing schema graph without re-training. We first split and convert existing datasets based on three principles to build a benchmark, i.e., horizontal schema expansion, vertical schema expansion, and hybrid schema expansion; then investigate the schema-adaptable performance of several well-known approaches such as Text2Event, TANL, UIE and GPT-3.5. We further propose a simple yet effective baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which contains schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding to better handle evolving schema. Comprehensive experimental results illustrate that ADAKGC can outperform baselines but still have room for improvement. We hope the proposed work can deliver benefits to the community1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 154, + 604 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 154, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 154, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 292, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 292, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 292, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC), typically through information extraction, has enjoyed widespread empirical success and can provide backend support for various NLP tasks, such as question answering (Saxena et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022a), commonsense reasoning (Yasunaga et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022d) etc. Traditional KGC tasks, including named entity recognition (NER) (Liu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 530, + 344 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 530, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 530, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 530, + 344 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6c358e264a87ea085238b9b9a22f86e452117d02f6a44286851e018ff5bd338e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 526, + 376 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 526, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 526, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Knowledge Graph Construction (KGC) with dynamic updates of schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "relation extraction (RE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2022) and event extraction (EE) (Huang et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Lou et al., 2023) are \"reactive\", relying on static pre-defined schema from end-users. However, as shown in Figure 1, the schema may evolve along with scenario adaptation, making previous models challenging to utilize without re-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that existing information extraction systems can only handle a fixed number of classes by pre-defined schema and performing once-and-for-all training on a fixed framework. It is desirable to respond to changes (e.g., evolving schema) to existing KGs, making the system act more \"proactively\" like humans who can handle flexible knowledge updates. Early, several approaches introduce incremental learning (Cao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020; Cui et al., 2021b) to learn new classes continually. In this case, the extraction system learns from the class incremental data stream but usually suffers significant performance degradation on the old class when adapting to the new class. Stated differently, previous studies put emphasis on struggling against catastrophic forgetting (Thrun, 1998). However, for the schema-evolving scenarios, the dynamic generalizability of extraction models plays a vital role and needs to be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 740, + 180, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 740, + 180, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 740, + 180, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Code and datasets available at https://github.com/zjunlp/AdaKGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6408" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6408-6431" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "inspected from an ontology evolution perspective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we propose a novel KGC task dubbed schema-adaptable KGC, where the models are required to have the ability to represent and adapt to complement knowledge extraction. We first construct datasets according to three principles of evolutionary schema directions (Horizontal Schema Expansion, Vertical Schema Expansion, and Hybrid Schema Expansion) on three tasks of NER, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{RE}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and EE. Through empirical analysis, we notice that approaches of Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), and GPT-3.5(Ouyang et al., 2022) cannot effectively extract the information given complex evolving schema. We argue that the major issues lie in the following: 1) How to learn dynamic and generalizable schema representations as conditions for extraction; 2) How to precisely extract new instances constrained with newly updated schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 291, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To this end, we propose a simple baseline dubbed ADAKGC, which introduces Schema-enriched Prefix Instructors (SPI) to represent and transfer the learnable schema-specific knowledge. At each iteration stage, we linearly convert from the current schema graph to learnable prompts, initialized with the ontology name and connected to task-specific prefixes. To encourage the decoder to understand the dynamic schema, we utilize a Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding (SDD) strategy that constructs a decoding path of schema-specific vocabulary to the output space. When the schema changes, we dynamically construct a new trie-tree to adjust the output space. Note that ADAKGC is model agnostic and can handle a variety of challenging schema evolution scenarios. We summarize the contribution of this work as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 570, + 290, + 752 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 570, + 290, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 570, + 290, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 570, + 290, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We introduce a new task of the schema-adaptable KGC to meet the schema evolution requirements, which is a new branch that has not been well-explored to the best of our knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 648, + 290, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 648, + 290, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 648, + 290, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a new baseline ADAKGC, which includes schema-enriched prefix instructors and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding strategy, and experimentally demonstrate the adaptability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 725, + 290, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 725, + 290, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 725, + 290, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We release the schema-adaptable KGC benchmark, which imposes new challenges and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "presents new research opportunities for the NLP community." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 109, + 497, + 122 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 109, + 497, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 109, + 497, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Problem Statement and Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 428, + 144 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 428, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 428, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Background of KGC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 150, + 527, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 150, + 527, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 150, + 527, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KGC has been a promising research challenge (Lu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022b), and existing benchmarks utilize a well-defined schema for directing knowledge graph construction, focusing on generating domain-specific knowledge graphs or aggregating heterogeneous structured databases. For example, FEW-NERD (Ding et al., 2021) consists of coarse-grained and fine-grained entity type definitions to locate and classify named entities from unstructured natural language. NYT (Riedel et al., 2010a) extracts relational triple instances specifically from textual data sources according to a specific taxonomy structure. ACE2005 (Ntroduction) identifies triggers and event types based on context, and each has its own event arguments, described in a slot-filling way. In addition, TAC-KBP (Ellis et al., 2014) is designed to leverage existing generic domain structured data sources and extend entity links employing descriptive text as additional information. OAEI (Euzenat et al., 2011) creates an integrated ontology based on an alignment between two or more existing ontologies or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we focus on the work of extracting knowledge instances from unstructured text, which is regarded as the schema-constraint prediction (structure prediction) task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 506, + 524 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 506, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 512, + 506, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Definition of Schema-adaptable KGC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the real world, the KGC system extracts structured knowledge from unstructured text and normalizes it to the instance graph according to a frequently adjusted schema. Given a set of schema graphs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S} = \\{s_1,s_2,\\dots,s_n\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the task of schema-adaptable KGC is to generate a set of schema-constraint instances " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G} = \\{g_{1},g_{2},\\dots,g_{n}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each iteration. Suppose there is a model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\theta} = LM(\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}|S_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " trained on the initial training set, after which labeled data for updated schema are not available. A schema-adaptable data stream " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\mathcal{D}^{(1)},\\mathcal{D}^{(2)},\\ldots ,\\mathcal{D}^{(N)}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is provided to evaluate the adaptability of model for the dynamic updates of schema. Each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{(k)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains dev/test data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{k},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{k})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and schema graph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that the model will not be re-trained but hope to pick up on the ability of information extraction with evolving schema. The challenge is that the model is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We regard RE as relational triple extraction in this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6409" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 524, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 524, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 524, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 524, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "36ea4339a7edb76f73ae3c2a762878e62d7efb29cc4e270f4ea9a2f7aaf6799d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Illustration of schema-adaptable KGC with iterative schema evolution. Schema graph nodes (colored " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bullet" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") are evolved by adding a new class node (colored " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bullet" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") in horizontal schema expansion while is inherited by a new subclass node (colored " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bullet" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 525, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") in vertical schema expansion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "expected to perform well in each iteration of the test set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathrm{test}}^k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which contains the golden instances changed for the updated schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 233, + 362 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 233, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 233, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Dataset Construction Process" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, we design three principles regarding different types of schema evolution and apply Algorithm 1 to build the dataset for evaluation: (1) Horizontal Schema Expansion requires the schema to add new class nodes of the same level, which can be considered a form of class-incremental learning without new classe instances as training data. Based on the generalization effect on the neighboring new classes, we can assess the transfer capabilities of the schema feature. (2) Vertical Schema Expansion requires the schema to add subclasses of father classes. Based on the generalization effect on subclasses, we can assess the inheritance and derivation capabilities of the schema feature. (3) Hybrid Schema Expansion requires the schema to randomly expands nodes horizontally or vertically at each iteration, which summarizes schema graphs and represents their potential co-evolutionary pattern. More details are in Appendix A.1, besides the above structural extensions, we further explore analogous node replacement from the perspective of semantics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 267, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 267, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 267, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Schema-adaptable KGC Benchmark" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are two challenges for schema-adaptable KGC. Firstly, since the schema is updated in each iteration, the schema evolution information needs to be dynamically injected into the model. Secondly, since the output target of KGC is often demand-specific, the extraction results should be adaptively" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 301, + 495, + 313 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 301, + 495, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 301, + 495, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 Dataset Construction Process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , raw schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , and raw dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{raw},\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{raw},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{raw}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 496, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 496, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 496, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 342, + 496, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{N}},\\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{\\mathcal{N}},\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{\\mathcal{N}},\\mathcal{D}_{test}^{\\mathcal{N}}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Randomly initialize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nodes in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 358, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 371, + 524, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 371, + 524, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 371, + 524, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Pick out the instance associated with schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 371, + 524, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 371, + 524, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 371, + 524, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{(1)} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{train}^{1}, \\mathcal{D}_{dev}^{1}, \\mathcal{D}_{test}^{1}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 399, + 449, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 399, + 449, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 399, + 449, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: for iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 399, + 449, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = 2, \\dots, n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 399, + 449, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 412, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 412, + 524, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 412, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: Horizontal Schema Expansion: Compute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 412, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi_{\\text{neighbor}}(\\vec{W}_c, \\vec{W}_s)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 412, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for candidate schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 412, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: Vertical Schma Expansion: Select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sub node whose father node belongs to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 440, + 524, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and update" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 480, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 480, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 480, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: Hybrid Schema Expansion: Combine extension Steps 4 and 5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: Output iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dataset schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_i = \\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", instance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 506, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{(i)} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{dev}^i, \\mathcal{D}_{test}^i\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 534, + 358, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 534, + 358, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 534, + 358, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "adjusted according to the schema. We detail several vanilla baselines as follows and introduce the proposed ADAKGC in §3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanilla Baselines: Schema-adaptable KGC can be thought of as a structured prediction language task that transfers information between class nodes through the generalizability of the structure. TANL (Paolini et al., 2021) introduces an augmented natural language translation task from which information related to the schema can be implicitly extracted. TEXT2EVENT (Lu et al., 2021) is a unified sequence-to-structure architecture for event extraction with a constrained decoding algorithm for event schema knowledge injection during in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6410" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 524, + 241 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 524, + 241 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 524, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 524, + 241 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4e31e40abb3b9f6eba9535776a22f02a09f0a52d0f633c877ef8f3621be1037d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 248, + 461, + 260 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 248, + 461, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 248, + 461, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The overview of ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ference. UIE (Lu et al., 2022) is a unified text-to-structure generation framework that enables unified modeling of different IE tasks and adaptively generates target sequences by a schema-based prompting mechanism. GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), a large-scale language model (LLM), can serve as a baseline for schema-adaptable KGC. Although current works focusing on structured extraction can achieve excellent performance with static types of knowledge, they are typically unaware of schema evolution. To clarify this issue, we introduce a simple yet effective baseline dubbed schema-ADAptive Knowledge Graph Construction ADAKGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 471, + 265, + 486 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 471, + 265, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 471, + 265, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 The Proposed Baseline: ADAKGC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 141, + 509 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 141, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 141, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 3, ADAKGC utilizes a pretrained encoder-decoder language model (LM) T5 (Raffel et al., 2020a) as the basic architecture for the schema-adaptable KGC task. Specifically, let encoder input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_{en} = [S;X]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be the concatenation of schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the decoding process, the LM calculates the conditioned probability of generating a new token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given the previous token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{< t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 653, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 653, + 290, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 653, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p \\left(Y _ {d e} \\mid X _ {e n}\\right) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {| Y |} p \\left(y _ {t} \\mid y _ {< t}, S, X\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "a63075f0dea93d491523ad407646c367dd6e8f7dab77cda5bed6f989fef1b3e5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We initialize the model using the pre-trained parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a trainable language model distribution. In the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th iteration, we perform a gradient update on the following log-likelihood objective:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 305, + 524, + 355 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 305, + 524, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 305, + 524, + 355 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\max _ {\\theta} \\log p _ {\\theta} (y \\mid x; s _ {k}) \\\\ = \\max _ {\\theta} \\sum_ {t \\in Y _ {i n d e x}} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\left(h _ {t} \\mid h _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {2} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "1516ec7b721308238c866b4ef1a02976b648cba752e0d0b78b2e4c26121b923e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the activation vector at decoding time step " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t = \\left[h_t^{(1)};\\dots ;h_t^{(m)}\\right]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a concatenation of all activation layers, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t^{(j)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the activation vector of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th layer at time step " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 524, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 493, + 454 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 493, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 493, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Schema-enriched Prefix Instructor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inspired by prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), we use task-specific prefix instructors to indicate task information, which are pairs of transformer-activated differentiable sequences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", each containing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consecutive " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 461, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dim vectors for encoder and decoder. Since using a discrete natural language task instruction in the context (e.g., \"The schema used for the task is:\") may guide the LM to produce a sub-optimal generated sequence, we optimize the instructions as a continuous soft prompt, propagating upward to all transformer activation layers and rightward to subsequent tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to schema changes with iterations, we present schema-specific prefix instructors to instruct the encoding process. Specifically, we formalize the schema graph as linearized text. Assume given the constrained schema of RE task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_k = \\{(h_1, r_1, t_1), \\ldots, (h_n, r_n, t_n)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "tpc_i = (h_i, r_i, t_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th triple prefix constraint. By concatenating these schema prefix constraints initialized by word embedding, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "spc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be dynamically adjusted as the schema evolves, and added padding tokens to be a fixed length when instructing the LM:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6411" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 95, + 290, + 109 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 95, + 290, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 95, + 290, + 109 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s p c = \\operatorname {C o n c a t} \\left(t p c _ {1}, \\dots , t p c _ {n}, P A D\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "a97ddd93aeadb3b79efc8a799f8a37fcc4ed33866a61d02216d61001eb84f75b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thus, the schema-enriched prefix instructor provides a two-part prefix combination " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Z = \\{s i_{en}, s p c_{c}; s i_{de}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where \"+\" separates the respective prefix instructors for encoder and decoder. We recursively activate the decoder transformer activation vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is the connection of all layers, at time step " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 117, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the LM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 231, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 231, + 290, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 231, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {t} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} s i _ {t}, & \\text {i f} t \\leq p \\\\ \\operatorname {L M} \\left(y _ {t}, h _ {< t} \\mid S, X\\right), & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "612701c71adfb54f59d01d891d1ee7b7aa5073c0b5f5427b095718cf4a192a2c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training parameters of our model contain the LM parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the encoder-decoder task-specific prefix instructor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the schema-specific constraint instructor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "spc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For stable optimization, we follow Li and Liang (2021) to reparameterize the matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M_{\\phi}[t,:] = MLP_{\\phi}(M_{\\phi}'[t,:])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a smaller matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M_{\\phi}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consisting of a large feedforward neural network " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "MLP_{\\phi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which can alleviate the optimization instability caused by directly updating the prefix parameters and is applied to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}; spc\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We train the parameters of the model in the following steps: (1) First, freeze other parameters, fine-tune the prefix instructor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to learn task-specific prompts; (2) Secondly, freeze " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{s_{i_{en}}, s_{i_{de}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", optimize the schema-specific instructor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "spc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the given schema graph; (3) Finally, we unfreeze the LM parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and collaboratively optimize all parameters to capture the association between the prefix instructor and model parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 282, + 566 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 282, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 282, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Schema-conditioned Dynamic Decoding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous works leverage a greedy decoding algorithm to generate linearized instance predictions token by token for the hidden sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which selects the token with the highest prediction probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(y_t \\mid y_{ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVEEntityTANL71.5265.2160.3856.3753.2149.6646.5557.56(NERD)UIE72.7266.7862.2458.2955.0851.4248.0459.22Ent-F1AdaKGC72.9166.9562.3758.5155.3851.8148.5459.50RelationTANL89.9281.8178.3472.7168.4265.1962.9474.19(NYT)UIE90.1782.0978.7473.1269.0365.5363.3074.57Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.3482.3379.0373.3469.1965.8763.5874.81Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT69.2368.0565.4561.3760.1559.3454.4262.57(ACE2005)UIE70.7569.1366.2062.1960.9059.8354.7463.39Evt Tri F1AdaKGC72.4370.9068.1463.4961.9761.3355.7364.86Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT46.1544.4042.5839.7339.1738.7735.3140.87(ACE2005)UIE49.1447.9045.7542.3241.8341.2737.6043.69Evt Arg F1AdaKGC49.1848.1447.0843.8543.1743.1038.7944.76", + "image_path": "67f1170d085594fd74638645936a57e7a959a5a9c97a2f121c44cfe33262a626.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 513, + 439 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 247, + 493, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 247, + 493, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 247, + 493, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Horizontal schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 513, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 513, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 513, + 439 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL73.4964.8357.0551.8447.1642.0635.9653.20
UIE74.4566.0958.2453.0148.2445.7748.4156.32
Ent-F1AdaKGC74.4566.0558.2653.0648.3945.9248.5756.39
Relation (NYT)TANL90.1383.1176.6373.0367.0363.4047.1371.49
UIE90.3881.7674.2771.6165.3062.9559.8172.30
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.1881.6574.1371.4865.1062.7559.7772.15
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT67.1055.8150.3852.9945.8241.3941.6550.73
UIE70.9460.0057.0162.5260.3954.9053.6259.91
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC70.5759.7556.5062.3160.5755.4954.3259.93
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT49.3237.8333.4335.4930.6727.4927.7934.57
UIE50.7041.4539.6644.1443.6538.8637.7742.32
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.8742.7440.6845.1643.9740.1039.0543.37
", + "image_path": "d8f5d03aacfe36245d2ab5cd3294dfd0f3264f34bb6c8cde315df4902aaa600a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 448, + 487, + 460 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 448, + 487, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 448, + 487, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Vertical schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Schema adaptive generalization challenge. On all three expansion categories, the model performances tend to decrease as the iterations increase. TANL achieves lower performance which employs an augmented language and implicitly trains the model to learn schema information. TEXT2EVENT utilizes schema as constraint information on the decoding side and outperforms other models in some iterations. Although ADAKGC and UIE obtain optimal or suboptimal performance, the performance of iteration 1 and iteration 7 has a significant drop. We believe that the implicit schema evolution rules can help future work to develop adaptive generalization capabilities for schema-adaptable KGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Schema-enhanced modules boost the performances. Compared to other models, ADAKGC is improved with schema-enhanced modules on both the encoder and decoder, which allows it to achieve the best performance in most settings. On the ACE2005 hybrid schema expansion dataset," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 482, + 526, + 626 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 482, + 526, + 626 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 482, + 526, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 482, + 526, + 626 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "793a0819d6f8a1ae7087deca570ce64b58fbe9706d8b19697c1a7a3696cdce48.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 650 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: GPT-3.5 results on schema expansion dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ADAKGC improves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.71\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on trigger extraction and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.65\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on event argument extraction, indicating that ADAKGC can capture schema-specific information under evolutionary schema." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLMs can understand schema adaption patterns better. To explore the performance of LLMs (Qiao et al., 2023) on the proposed tasks, we per" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6413" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 69, + 514, + 238 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 69, + 514, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 69, + 514, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 69, + 514, + 238 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
Entity (NERD)TANL68.3758.5054.5152.4648.6744.1341.5152.59
UIE69.2659.8055.7153.6649.5546.9748.1154.72
Ent-F1AdaKGC69.4859.9755.9453.8949.9247.4448.4355.01
Relation (NYT)TANL88.6781.5976.4872.2272.3561.7657.8772.99
UIE90.1783.1477.8171.4572.9765.5763.1274.89
Rel-S F1AdaKGC90.0783.0677.6871.3872.9465.7363.3274.88
Event Trigger (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT69.2656.9953.3246.0340.4456.8648.8453.11
UIE74.6966.3463.1263.2159.8653.1853.2661.95
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC74.8466.9963.2863.0760.9454.7254.8062.66
Event Argument (ACE2005)TEXT2EVENT50.3238.1435.7931.9428.7937.7533.5436.61
UIE51.9445.2242.9743.1240.6636.6636.1742.39
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC55.0848.5846.1946.2745.2240.5240.4146.04
", + "image_path": "0442cdb12c261136e77cfb47fc7d05400b86244bedaa596f6c49aa991453c1e7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 247, + 485, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 247, + 485, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 106, + 247, + 485, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Hybrid schema expansion results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 278, + 290, + 442 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 278, + 290, + 442 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 278, + 290, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 278, + 290, + 442 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7576a2112fcc93de62eb5777e8ee3ea71dbbd558ce830b77aaf4b9672a024bb9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 289, + 476 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 289, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Ablation study on NERD horizontal schema expansion dataset, with the average result of 7 iterations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "form comparative experiments with GPT-3.5 on NYT. Since we cannot utilize all training instances, we report in-context learning performance given 20-shot demonstrations as shown in Appendix A.5. From Figure 4, we notice that GPT-3.5 is capable of producing instances that conform to the dynamically changing schema but still yield low performance due to the low-shot issue. Likewise, we sample several cases and use ChatGPT3 to evaluate schema-adaptable KGC (See Figure 7 and 8 in Appendix A.6), which surprisingly demonstrates stable generalization ability with evolving schema. These findings indicate a promising future work of schema-adaptable KGC to develop alignment prompts with LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 232, + 723 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 232, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 232, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study on ADAKGC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 290, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To prove the effects of the schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decod" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 528, + 436 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 528, + 436 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 528, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 278, + 528, + 436 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6e9a51d222fe060b7990cebbfa93e3cf46c07bc2a2825a15e9e9c94401948401.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 468 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Case study on NERD vertical schema expansion dataset, Iteration 1 vs. Iteration 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing, we conduct the ablation study, and the results are shown in Figure 5. From two evolutionary categories, we observe that: (1) Both schema-enriched prefix instructor and schema-conditioned dynamic decoding can help the schema-adaptable learning process; (2) Efficiently encoding schema evolution information is more important, which achieves improvements of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.77\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on horizontal schema expansion and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.36\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on vertical schema expansion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 383, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 383, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 383, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 6, we randomly select 8 types and observe that: (1) The types that appear in the initial schema mostly degrade performance, indicating that the model causes slight confusion as the schema expands. (2) Due to the structural inheritance relationship in the vertical expansion of the schema, our model can effectively transfer the labels of the father node to the child nodes when new child nodes are added." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further analyze the drawbacks of our model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 760, + 233, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6414" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 524, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 524, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 524, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 70, + 524, + 208 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Error AnalysisInput ExampleGold Type(s)Predicted Type(s)Proportion
Weak TransferKelly, who declined to talk to reporters here, travel to Tokyo Sunday for talks with Japanese officials.Meet[travel]Transport[travel]38%
Inheritance DeficiencyHe started his entertainment career at ABC, where he is credited with creating the ‘movie of the week’ concept.Start-Position[started]Personnel[started]24%
Relevance NeglectKelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Transport[arrived]Meet[brief]Transport[arrived]21%
Class ImbalanceWithin weeks he was arrested and charged with sodomising an official driver several years previously and with abusing his powers to cover up the offence.Arrest-Jail[arrested]Charge-Indict[charged]Transport[arrested]13%
Potential AnnotationAnne-Marie will get the couple’s 19-room home in New York state, which was on the market last year for 21.5 million dollars, as well as their fine art collection.None EventTransfer-ownership[get]4%
", + "image_path": "f284ee34a1f81fa0ce9f74a8bb0c2ad0e77c8b93cac977d265307c62d98bff36.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 216, + 431, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 216, + 431, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 216, + 431, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Error analysis on all ACE2005 schema expansion datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 251, + 291, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 251, + 291, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 251, + 291, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and promote future works of schema-adaptable KGC, we count incorrect instances and classify them into five categories below, as shown in Table 4: (1) Weak Transfer. Despite schema expansion, the model is prevented from updating labels by old model parameters. (2) Inheritance Deficiency. The label is not inherited in time when subdividing the father node. (3) Relevance Neglect. The lack of ontology relevance leads to the absence of correlated event extraction. (4) Class Imbalance. Models suffering from unbalanced class learning problems tend to depend on similarly in-context sentences to judge high-frequency labels. (5) Potential Annotation. Some example outputs suggest potential errors or omitted annotation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 161, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 161, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 161, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 246, + 499 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 246, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 246, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Knowledge Graph Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic construction of knowledge graphs from textual or structured data has attracted extensive research in recent years, including tasks such as NER (Paolini et al., 2021; Cui et al., 2021a), RE (Lin et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021), EE (Ramponi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021), etc. In contrast to closed-domain knowledge extraction, open knowledge extraction (Kolluru et al., 2020; Zhan and Zhao, 2020; Kotnis et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b) is oriented toward the absence of schema constraints and can quickly generate extensive and meaningful knowledge. However, the ignoring of schema introduces uncertainty and ambiguity in output control, and we believe that a clear setting can be chosen to track the realignment of instances. Besides, KGC in low-resource scenarios (Huang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020; Schick and Schütze, 2021; Chen et al., 2022b; Ye et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022c) requires the model to predict new instances with only lim" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 526, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ited training instances available. As opposed to this instance-driven KGC approach, we argue that the schema-driven approach can leverage evolutionary instructions provided with richer ontological associations, resulting in new challenges and research opportunities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 415, + 386 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 415, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 372, + 415, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Lifelong Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifelong learning is aimed at training new classes online without catastrophic forgetting. Generally, lifelong learning mainly falls into four categories: regularization-based (Kirkpatrick et al., 2017; Zenke et al., 2017; Aljundi et al., 2018), replay-based (Lopez-Paz and Ranzato, 2017; Shin et al., 2017), architecture-based (Mallya and Lazebnik, 2018; Yoon et al., 2018) and knowledge distillation (Chuang et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020). To study class-incremental learning, Monaikul et al. (2021) builds a unified NER classifier for all the classes encountered over time, while Wang et al. (2022a) develops a framework to reconstruct synthetic training data of the old classes. Recently, (Wang et al., 2019) proposes a lifelong RE method that employs an explicit alignment model to overcome forgetting, while (Shen et al., 2020) presents a self-adaptive dynamic regularization method. To address class incremental learning in event detection (Cao et al., 2020), Yu et al. (2021) takes advantage of rich correlations among ontology types, and Liu et al. (2022) adopts continuous prompts to learn event-specific representation for prediction. Compared with previous work that focused only on class increments, we discuss three principles of schema expansion from the potential demand for schema adaptation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6415" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper introduces a new task of schema-adaptable KGC with benchmark datasets and a new baseline ADAKGC. We illustrate the task difficulties with previous baselines on three principles of schema expansion patterns (horizontal, vertical, hybrid) and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed ADAKGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 199, + 161, + 213 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 199, + 161, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 199, + 161, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 292, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 292, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 292, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to express gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their kind comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206246), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LGG22F030011), Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (2021J190), Yongjiang Talent Introduction Programme (2021A-156-G), CCF-Baidu Open Fund, and Information Technology Center and State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 381, + 131, + 394 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 381, + 131, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 381, + 131, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed work still contains several limitations, as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets: Note that several datasets, such as ACE2005, cannot be released due to LICENCE issues; we release the code to build the datasets and provide all the pre-processed publicly available datasets (e.g., Few-NERD, NYT) We use several existing datasets to construct schema-adaptable benchmarks; however, previous datasets may have limited schema structures (the schema pattern in some datasets is very simple). We plan to build more datasets via crowdsourcing for comprehensive evaluation. In addition, we will continue to promote the construction of multimodal schema adaptive graphs, which leverage the dynamic evolution of schema to integrate visual and textual knowledge into a self-learning graph extraction system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines and Proposed ADAKGC: Note that the proposed one, although better than previous approaches, including Text2Event (Lu et al., 2021), TANL (Paolini et al., 2021), UIE (Lu et al., 2022), still suffers from poor generalization ability. However, we notice a very stable performance with LLM (though deficient performance), indicating a new promising solution for schema-adatable KGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 423, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 423, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 423, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 525, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 94, + 525, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intended use. The dataset and model in this paper are indented to be used for exploratory analysis of schema-adaptable KGC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biases. We collect data from existing datasets (e.g., Few-NERD: CC BY-SA 4.0 license.), which may contain some data with offensive language or discriminatory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 362, + 235 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 362, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 362, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 243, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 527, + 333 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 527, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 527, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. 2018. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part III, volume 11207 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 144-161. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 527, + 421 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 527, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 527, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Collin F. Baker and Hiroaki Sato. 2003. The framenet data and software. In ACL 2003, 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume to the Proceedings, 7-12 July 2003, Sapporo Convention Center, Sapporo, Japan, pages 161-164. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 430, + 527, + 596 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 430, + 527, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 430, + 527, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 607, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 607, + 527, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 607, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Jun Zhao, and Taifeng Wang. 2020. Incremental event detection via knowledge consolidation networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 707-717. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 694, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 694, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 694, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Chen, Lei Li, Ningyu Zhang, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022a. Relation extraction as open-book examination: Retrieval-enhanced prompt tuning. In SIGIR '22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Madrid, Spain, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 2443-2448. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6416" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Shumin Deng, Yunzhi Yao, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, Luo Si, and Huajun Chen. 2022b. Knowprompt: Knowledge-aware prompt-tuning with synergistic optimization for relation extraction. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 2778-2788. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 289, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yung-Sung Chuang, Shang-Yu Su, and Yun-Nung Chen. 2020. Lifelong language knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2914-2924. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leyang Cui, Yu Wu, Jian Liu, Sen Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2021a. Template-based named entity recognition using BART. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 1835-1845. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 314, + 289, + 424 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 314, + 289, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 314, + 289, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li Cui, Deqing Yang, Jiaxin Yu, Chengwei Hu, Jiayang Cheng, Jingjie Yi, and Yanghua Xiao. 2021b. Refining sample embeddings with relation prototypes to enhance continual relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 232-243. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 431, + 289, + 541 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 431, + 289, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 431, + 289, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-nerd: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 3198-3213. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 289, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 289, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 289, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joe Ellis, Jeremy Getman, and Stephanie M Strassel. 2014. Overview of linguistic resources for the tac kbp 2014 evaluations: Planning, execution, and results. In Proceedings of TAC KBP 2014 Workshop, National Institute of Standards and Technology, pages 17-18." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 289, + 676 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 289, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 289, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jérôme Euzenat, Christian Meilicke, Heiner Stuckenschmidt, Pavel Shvaiko, and Cássia Trojahn dos Santos. 2011. Ontology alignment evaluation initiative: Six years of experience. J. Data Semant., 15:158-192." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifu Huang, Heng Ji, Kyunghyun Cho, Ido Dagan, Sebastian Riedel, and Clare R. Voss. 2018. Zero-shot transfer learning for event extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2160-2170. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Spanbert: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 8:64-77." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karin Kipper, Anna Korhonen, Neville Ryant, and Martha Palmer. 2008. A large-scale classification of english verbs. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 42(1):21-40." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 524, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521-3526." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 524, + 353 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 524, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 524, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keshav Kolluru, Samarth Aggarwal, Vipul Rathore, Mausam, and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2020. Imojie: Iterative memory-based joint open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 5871-5886. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 361, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 361, + 524, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 361, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bhushan Kotnis, Kiril Gashteovski, Daniel Rubio, Ammar Shaker, Vanessa Rodriguez-Tembras, Makoto Takamoto, Mathias Niepert, and Carolin Lawrence. 2022. MILIE: modular & iterative multilingual open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6939-6950. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 558 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 4582-4597. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 566, + 524, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 566, + 524, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 566, + 524, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ying Lin, Heng Ji, Fei Huang, and Lingfei Wu. 2020. A joint neural model for information extraction with global features. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7999-8009. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 524, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jian Liu, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, Wei Bi, and Xiaojiang Liu. 2020. Event extraction as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1641-1651. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Liu, Yao Fu, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Songfang Huang, and Sheng Gao. 2021. Noisy-labeled NER with confidence estimation. In" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6417" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 3437-3445. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 290, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 146, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minqian Liu, Shiyu Chang, and Lifu Huang. 2022. Incremental prompting: Episodic memory prompt for lifelong event detection. CoRR, abs/2204.07275." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 186, + 290, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 186, + 290, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 186, + 290, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Lopez-Paz and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. 2017. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 6467-6476." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 290, + 303 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 290, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 290, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Dai Dai, Wei Jia, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2023. Universal information extraction as unified semantic matching. CoRR, abs/2301.03282." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Jin Xu, Xianpei Han, Jialong Tang, Annan Li, Le Sun, Meng Liao, and Shaoyi Chen. 2021. Text2event: Controllable sequence-to-structure generation for end-to-end event extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2795-2806. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 441, + 290, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 441, + 290, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 441, + 290, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaojie Lu, Qing Liu, Dai Dai, Xinyan Xiao, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified structure generation for universal information extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5755-5772. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 290, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arun Mallya and Svetlana Lazebnik. 2018. Packnet: Adding multiple tasks to a single network by iterative pruning. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2018, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, June 18-22, 2018, pages 7765-7773. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE Computer Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natawut Monaikul, Giuseppe Castellucci, Simone Filice, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2021. Continual learning for named entity recognition. In *Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13570-13577. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "II. I Ntroduction. The ace 2005 (ace 05) evaluation plan evaluation of the detection and recognition of ace entities, values, temporal expressions, relations, and events 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Martha Palmer, Paul R. Kingsbury, and Daniel Gildea. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comput. Linguistics, 31(1):71-106." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Giovanni Paolini, Ben Athiwaratkun, Jason Krone, Jie Ma, Alessandro Achille, Rishita Anubhai, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Stefano Soatto. 2021. Structured prediction as translation between augmented natural languages. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. 2017. Automatic differentiation in pytorch." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 525, + 440 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 525, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 525, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sameer S. Pradhan, Eduard H. Hovy, Mitchell P. Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance A. Ramshaw, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2007. Ontonotes: A unified relational semantic representation. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC 2007), September 17-19, 2007, Irvine, California, USA, pages 517-526. IEEE Computer Society." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 503 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2023. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. In ACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 564 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020a. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020b. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alan Ramponi, Rob van der Goot, Rosario Lombardo, and Barbara Plank. 2020. Biomedical event extraction as sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 5357-5367. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010a. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, European Conference," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6418" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ECML PKDD 2010, Barcelona, Spain, September 20-24, 2010, Proceedings, Part III, volume 6323 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 148-163. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010b. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In *Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases*, pages 148–163, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, EACL 2021, Online, April 19 - 23, 2021, pages 255-269. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 362, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 362, + 291, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 362, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chao Shang, Guangtao Wang, Peng Qi, and Jing Huang. 2022. Improving time sensitivity for question answering over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8017-8026. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 291, + 549 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 291, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 291, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hangjie Shen, Shenggen Ju, Jieping Sun, Run Chen, and Yuezhong Liu. 2020. Efficient lifelong relation extraction with dynamic regularization. In *Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing - 9th CCF International Conference*, NLPCC 2020, Zhengzhou, China, October 14-18, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, volume 12431 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 181-192. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 291, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanul Shin, Jung Kwon Lee, Jaehong Kim, and Jiwon Kim. 2017. Continual learning with deep generative replay. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 2990-2999." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Thrun. 1998. Lifelong learning algorithms. In Sebastian Thrun and Lorien Y. Pratt, editors, Learning to Learn, pages 181-209. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christopher Walker, Stephanie Strassel, Julie Medero, and Kazuaki Maeda. 2006. Ace 2005 multilingual training corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hong Wang, Wenhan Xiong, Mo Yu, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Sentence embedding alignment for lifelong relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 796-806. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rui Wang, Tong Yu, Handong Zhao, Sungchul Kim, Subrata Mitra, Ruiyi Zhang, and Ricardo Henao. 2022a. Few-shot class-incremental learning for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 571-582. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Wang, Minlong Peng, Mingming Sun, and Ping Li. 2022b. Oie@oia: an adaptable and efficient open information extraction framework. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 6213-6226. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 525, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinyu Wang, Yong Jiang, Nguyen Bach, Tao Wang, Zhongqiang Huang, Fei Huang, and Kewei Tu. 2021. Automated concatenation of embeddings for structured prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 2643-2660. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yunzhi Yao, Shengyu Mao, Xiang Chen, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Schema-aware reference as prompt improves data-efficient relational triple and event extraction. CoRR, abs/2210.10709." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 525, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Antoine Bosselut, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. QA-GNN: reasoning with language models and knowledge graphs for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 535-546. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Mosha Chen, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2021. Contrastive triple extraction with generative transformer. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14257-14265. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongbin Ye, Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Xiang Chen, Hui Chen, Feiyu Xiong, Xi Chen, and Huajun Chen." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6419" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2022. Ontology-enhanced prompt-tuning for few-shot learning. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022, pages 778-787. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 192 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jaehong Yoon, Eunho Yang, Jeongtae Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2018. Lifelong learning with dynamically expandable networks. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 291, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengfei Yu, Heng Ji, and Prem Natarajan. 2021. *Life-long event detection with knowledge transfer*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 5278-5290. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. 2017. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3987-3995. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junlang Zhan and Hai Zhao. 2020. Span model for open information extraction on accurate corpus. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 9523-9530. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 291, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Zhang, Xiaokang Zhang, Jifan Yu, Jian Tang, Jie Tang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2022a. Subgraph retrieval enhanced model for multi-hop knowledge base question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 5773-5784. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minhao Zhang, Ruoyu Zhang, Yanzeng Li, and Lei Zou. 2022b. Crake: Causal-enhanced table-filler for question answering over large scale knowledge base. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pages 1787-1798. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 291, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ningyu Zhang, Shumin Deng, Zhanlin Sun, Jiaoyan Chen, Wei Zhang, and Huajun Chen. 2020. Relation adversarial network for low resource knowledge graph completion. In WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020, pages 1-12. ACM / IW3C2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ningyu Zhang, Xin Xie, Xiang Chen, Shumin Deng, Hongbin Ye, and Huajun Chen. 2022c. Knowledge collaborative fine-tuning for low-resource knowledge" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 94 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "graph completion. Journal of Software, 33(10):3531-3545." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 102, + 526, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 102, + 526, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 102, + 526, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. 2022d. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering. ArXiv, abs/2201.08860." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 526, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hengyi Zheng, Rui Wen, Xi Chen, Yifan Yang, Yunyan Zhang, Ziheng Zhang, Ningyu Zhang, Bin Qin, Xu Ming, and Yefeng Zheng. 2021. PRGC: potential relation and global correspondence based joint relational triple extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 6225-6235. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 299, + 377, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 299, + 377, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 299, + 377, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 525, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 320, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section describes the details of experiments, including dataset construction and evaluation on downstream tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 370, + 432, + 381 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 370, + 432, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 370, + 432, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Dataset Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 387, + 440, + 399 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 387, + 440, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 387, + 440, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.1 Construction Process" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In each task, we execute three schema evolution strategies. The raw dataset statistics are shown in Table 5, where it can be seen that they have a two-level schema structure, leaving the research of a more hierarchical schema structure for future work. As shown in Algorithm 2-4, we describe in detail the specific construction process of horizontal schema extension, vertical schema extension and hybrid schema extension." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In particular, we also release additional datasets from a semantic substitution perspective. As shown in Algorithm 5, analogous schema expansion requires schema replacement for semantically similar new nodes. Based on the performance of the old class transfer to the new semantic class, we can evaluate the semantic invariance capability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 629, + 528, + 687 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 629, + 528, + 687 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 629, + 528, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 629, + 528, + 687 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
#Maj#Sub#Train#Val#Test
NERD866131,76718,82437,648
NYT42456,1965,0005,000
ACE-200583319,216901676
", + "image_path": "eb7ae5e9f14942ced0c24739ce9dd0cfabee063e9db0527378dceadcf9e68d9b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 525, + 731 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Raw datasets statistics. #Maj indicates the number of major classes, #Sub is the number of subclasses, and #Val #Test is the number of sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Horizontal Schema Expansion. Neighboring nodes of the specified type that have high-level" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6420" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "similarity values in the same framework are also adjacent when projected into the semantic space (Huang et al., 2018). Existing research efforts have developed many rich libraries of ontologies (e.g.FrameNet (Baker and Sato, 2003), VerbNet (Kipper et al., 2008), Propbank (Palmer et al., 2005), and OntoNotes (Pradhan et al., 2007)), where each ontology type is associated with a set of pre-defined neighboring ontologies. (1) Searching the ontology library to retrieve candidate nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " associated with target nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at the same hierarchy. (2) The similarity metric is obtained by calculating the cosine vector similarity of all candidate nodes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the target node " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Eq. 5). (3) Selecting the appropriate threshold of node pairs to confirm the sorted addition of horizontal nodes. (4) Updating the schema with horizontal nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 343, + 291, + 378 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 343, + 291, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 343, + 291, + 378 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\phi_ {S i m} (\\vec {W _ {f}}, \\vec {W _ {s}}) = \\frac {\\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| W _ {s} |} w _ {i} \\cdot w _ {f}}{\\| \\vec {W _ {f}} \\| _ {2} \\cdot \\| \\vec {W _ {s}} \\| _ {2}} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "9f8dbae84c69e7188a105a1d234dfbdb1cffe18c37cd7c6d3a46e33fc00c775c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vertical Schema Expansion. Structural similarity needs to be exploited when adding schema hierarchy nodes as new classes. (1) For search convenience, we link the hypernym ontology under a root node so that the schema forms a tree structure. (2) Starting at the root node, we utilize a child selection strategy by recursively applying through the tree until reaching the deepest node. A node could be expandable when it represents a non-terminal state or has hyponyms in semantics (e.g., location->country). (3) According to the available hyponyms, one (or more) child nodes are added to expand the current schema tree. (4) Updating the schema with vertical nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Hybrid Schema Expansion. It is necessary to hybrid horizontal and vertical expansion to form a comprehensive structural topology, which is more consistent with real scenarios. (1) Setting the threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for random selection. (2) Executing horizontal expansion iteration below the threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", or vertical node expansion above the threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that when the father node of added nodes does not exist, we also add the father node to maintain the schema hierarchy. (3) Updating the schema with the corresponding nodes and adding the golden validation set and test set in the dataset. Analogous Schema Expansion. To detect the semantic node sensitivity of the schema, we randomly" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "replace similar semantic expressions for the nodes. (1) Random selection of candidate nodes to obtain word expressions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". (2) Candidate nodes are created by pairing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with all words in the corpus word list " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The consistency between individual words is calculated by the normalized point-by-point mutual information (NPMI) of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Eq. 6), where adding smooth " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " controls for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\log p(w_{i},w_{j})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " weights for higher NPMI values (Eq. 7). (3) Adopting candidate nodes that exceed the threshold to replace the schema and updating the golden validation set and test set in the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 257, + 527, + 314 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 257, + 527, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 257, + 527, + 314 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\vec {v} (W) = \\left\\{\\sum_ {w _ {i} \\in W _ {C}} N M P I \\left(w _ {i}, w _ {j}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\right\\} _ {j = 1, \\dots , \\left| W _ {L} \\right|} \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "0461a18a883d59bf740c1af8e6e9d661f74fa29f212c44475c542c024add5dfa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 336, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 336, + 527, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 336, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "N M P I (w _ {i}, w _ {j}) ^ {\\gamma} = \\left(\\frac {\\log \\frac {p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \\epsilon}{p (w _ {i}) \\cdot p (w _ {j})}}{- \\log p (w _ {i} , w _ {j}) + \\epsilon}\\right) ^ {\\gamma} \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "16cbdeba9a56888eeba0a70734c644870b14fdcfa04c95418ddd6dce77f8a50f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 511, + 414 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 511, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 511, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.2 Schema-adaptable Datasets Statistic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 527, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 527, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 527, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We set the number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 527, + 472 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 527, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of total iterations, and initialize the original number of schema nodes. We show the statistics of schema-adaptable datasets for each task in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 486, + 386, + 497 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 486, + 386, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 486, + 386, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 525, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 525, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 525, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use span-based Micro-F1 as the major metric to evaluate the model and adopt the same evaluation metrics as previous work:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 559, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 559, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 559, + 527, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 559, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Named Entity Recognition: an entity mention is correct if its strings and type match a reference entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 612, + 527, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 612, + 527, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 612, + 527, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Relation Strict: a relation is correct if its relation type is correct and the string and entity types of the related entity mentions are correct." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 679, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 679, + 526, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 679, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Event Trigger: an event trigger is correct if its strings and event type match a reference trigger." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 732, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 732, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 732, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Event Argument: an event argument is correct if its strings, role type, and event type match a reference argument mentioned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6421" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TaxonomyHorizontalVerticalHybridAnalogous
#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N#Init#Add#N
NERD30673067306766-7
NYT10281028102824-7
ACE-200515371537153733-7
", + "image_path": "acc8139d7072800f447debb448fda95070f5ae95573571b55445c167d801f9fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 524, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 524, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 524, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Schema-adaptable datasets statistics. #Init indicates the number of initial subclasses, #Add is the number of subclasses added per iteration, and #N is the total number of iterations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 184, + 204 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 184, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 184, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Hyper-parameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 289, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 289, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 289, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We adopt T5-v1.1-base (Raffel et al., 2020b), which has 12 layers of the encoder, 12 layers of the decoder, 768 hidden units, and 12 attention heads as the backbone. Specifically, we utilize Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2017) to conduct experiments with batch size 16 on one NVIDIA 3090 GPU. We detail the hyper-parameters for each dataset as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 306, + 280, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 306, + 280, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 306, + 280, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NERD. The hyper-parameter search space is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 333, + 230, + 453 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 333, + 136, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 333, + 136, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 333, + 136, + 345 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- epoch: 15" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 359, + 154, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 359, + 154, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 359, + 154, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- batch size: 16" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 386, + 153, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 386, + 153, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 386, + 153, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- accumulate: 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 413, + 230, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 413, + 230, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 413, + 230, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 440, + 173, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 440, + 173, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 440, + 173, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "warmup rate: 0.06" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 466, + 271, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 466, + 271, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 466, + 271, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NYT. The hyper-parameter search space is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 493, + 230, + 613 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 493, + 136, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 493, + 136, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 493, + 136, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- epoch: 20" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 520, + 154, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 520, + 154, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 520, + 154, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- batch size: 16" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 547, + 154, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 547, + 154, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 547, + 154, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- accumulate: 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 573, + 230, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 573, + 230, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 573, + 230, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 173, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 173, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 173, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "warmup rate: 0.06" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 626, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 626, + 290, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 626, + 290, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ACE2005. The hyper-parameter search space is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 653, + 230, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 653, + 136, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 653, + 136, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 653, + 136, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- epoch: 30" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 680, + 154, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 680, + 154, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 680, + 154, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- batch size: 16" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 707, + 154, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 707, + 154, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 707, + 154, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- accumulate: 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 733, + 230, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 733, + 230, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 733, + 230, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learning rate: [1e-4, 3e-4, 5e-4]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 173, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "warmup rate: 0.06" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 191, + 473, + 217 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 191, + 473, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 191, + 473, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Analogous Schema Expansion Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 7, our ADAKGC also has powerful semantic transplantation capabilities, which achieves competitive performance with baselines. With the schema-enriched prefix instructor, ADAKGC achieves an improvement of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average over TEXT2EVENT on the event trigger extraction task and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.87\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the event argument extraction task. This verifies the proposed schema-enriched prefix instructor and decoding modules can learn general schema-adaptable ability even the schema evolution knowledge is rarely in the pretraining stage. Note that TANL achieves the best performance on the NYT dataset, indicating that language models have the ability to learn schema semantic transfer implicitly as an augmented natural language prediction task. Therefore we believe that in addition to the schema structure perception modules, semantic robustness modules for analogous node expansion scenarios are also essential." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 465, + 505 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 465, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 465, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 GPT-3.5 Experiment Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3.5 is a large autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters. To explore the performance of GPT-3.5 on the schema-adaptive KGC task, we follow the input format of few-shot learning using OpenAI API4. As shown in Table 12, we utilize a fixed manual template to generate a contextual window suitable for the model, including natural language task descriptions (text in blue), linearized schemas (text in purple), 20 examples in the model's context, and task prompts (text in red)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 657, + 415, + 670 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 657, + 415, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 657, + 415, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 ChatGPT Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 676, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT5 trains an initial model using supervised fine-tuning and further utilizes reinforcement learning systems to rank by quality for human feedback rewards. We handle Schema-adaptable KGC tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 505, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 505, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 505, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 761, + 451, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 761, + 451, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 761, + 451, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5https://chat.openai.com/chat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6422" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 291, + 97 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 291, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 291, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 2 The construction process of horizontal schema expansion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 361 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Set sampling seed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", total iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", raw schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and raw dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 289, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", blank dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and initial node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 289, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " per iteration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: Randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nodes in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S \\cup" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " init node, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 182, + 289, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 210, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 210, + 289, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 210, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: Pick out the instance associated with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 210, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 210, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 210, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 250, + 168, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 250, + 168, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 250, + 168, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: for iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 250, + 168, + 261 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 250, + 168, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: Calculate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi_{Sim}(\\vec{W}_f,\\vec{W}_s) = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\\cdot w_i}{\\|\\vec{W}_f\\|_2\\cdot\\|\\vec{W}_s\\|_2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for node between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 261, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: Pick out top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " schema node, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S \\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 296, + 289, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 323, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 323, + 289, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 323, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 323, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 323, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 323, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 351, + 123, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 351, + 123, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 351, + 123, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "by asking questions to the chatbot in a conversational mode. First, we present the task description and the 20 demonstrations as shown in Figure 7. Then we give a paragraph text to test whether the chatbot can extract the corresponding triples based on the same schema as the demonstration examples comply with. From Figure 8 we can find that some of the facts are well extracted, indicating that ChatGPT can understand the task and perform extraction consistent with the schema. Finally, we add three new nodes \"profession\" \"place founded\" \"founders\" to the previous schema under a horizontal schema expansion iteration. Output results in Figure 8 show that ChatGPT not only adapts the output to the updated schema but also deduces reasonable facts by a chain-of-thought approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 255, + 524, + 282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 255, + 524, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 255, + 524, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 3 The construction process of vertical schema expansion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 285, + 524, + 581 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Set sampling seed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", total iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", raw schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and raw dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 285, + 524, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", blank dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and initial node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 327, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " per iteration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 368, + 443, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 368, + 443, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 368, + 443, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: for major node in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 368, + 443, + 380 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 368, + 443, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 380, + 424, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 380, + 424, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 380, + 424, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 380, + 424, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S\\cup" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 380, + 424, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " major node" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 395, + 358, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 395, + 358, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 395, + 358, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: Randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nodes in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S \\cup" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " init node, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 408, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 435, + 524, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 435, + 524, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 435, + 524, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: Pick out the instance associated with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 435, + 524, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 435, + 524, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 435, + 524, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 476, + 405, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 476, + 405, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 476, + 405, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: for iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 476, + 405, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 476, + 405, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 489, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 489, + 524, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 489, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: Randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 489, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 489, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sub node, whose parent belongs to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 489, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 516, + 524, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 516, + 524, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 516, + 524, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 516, + 524, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S\\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 524, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11: Iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 544, + 524, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 571, + 358, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 571, + 358, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 571, + 358, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6423" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 217, + 289, + 244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 217, + 289, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 217, + 289, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 4 The construction process of hybrid schema expansion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 248, + 291, + 619 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Set sampling seed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", hybrid ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", total iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", raw schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and raw dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 248, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", blank dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and initial node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 290, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " per iteration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: Randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{init}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nodes in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S \\cup" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " init node, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 329, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_1 = S, S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 357, + 289, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 357, + 289, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 357, + 289, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: Pick out the instance associated with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 357, + 289, + 397 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 357, + 289, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 357, + 289, + 397 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 398, + 169, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 398, + 169, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 398, + 169, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: for iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 398, + 169, + 409 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 398, + 169, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 411, + 203, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 411, + 203, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 411, + 203, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: if random(0,1) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 411, + 203, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< \\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 411, + 203, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: Calculate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi_{Sim}(\\vec{W_f},\\vec{W_s}) = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{|W_s|}w_i\\cdot w_f}{\\|\\vec{W_f}\\|_2\\cdot\\|\\vec{W_s}\\|_2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for node between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 423, + 287, + 458 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Pick out top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " schema node, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S \\cup S_{raw}[: n_{iter}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 459, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw} = S_{raw} - S_{raw}[: n_{iter}]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 500, + 117, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 500, + 117, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 500, + 117, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: else" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 513, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 513, + 289, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 513, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10: Randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 513, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 513, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sub node, whose parent belongs to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 513, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 539, + 288, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 539, + 288, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 539, + 288, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 539, + 288, + 567 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S\\cup S_{raw}[:n_{iter}],S_{raw} = S_{raw}-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 539, + 288, + 567 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}[:n_{iter}]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 568, + 127, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 568, + 127, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 568, + 127, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12: end if" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 579, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 579, + 289, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 579, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13: Iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 579, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 579, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 579, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i} = S,\\{D_{dev}^{i},D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev},D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 608, + 123, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 608, + 123, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 608, + 123, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 525, + 275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 5 The construction process of analogous schema expansion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 526, + 588 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Set sampling seed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", total iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", raw schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and raw dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 278, + 524, + 319 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Initialize blank schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", blank dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and node number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 319, + 524, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " per iteration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: Initialize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = S_{raw}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_1 = S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 359, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\} = \\{D_{train}^{raw}, D_{dev}^{raw}, D_{test}^{raw}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 387, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 387, + 524, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 387, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: Pick out the instance associated with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 387, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 387, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 387, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D_{train}^{1}, D_{dev}^{1}, D_{test}^{1}\\} = \\{D_{train}, D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 404, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 404, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 404, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: for iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 404, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 404, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: Randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_{iter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " schema node in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", calculate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\vec{v}(W) = \\left\\{\\sum_{w_r \\in W} N M P I(w_r, w_j)^{\\gamma}\\right\\}_{j=1,\\dots,|W_L|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each node, create candidate nodes by pairing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with all words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 441, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the corpus word list" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 523, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 523, + 524, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 523, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: Replace " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 523, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S[: n_{iter}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 523, + 524, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with candidate nodes with analogous semantics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Iteration " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i} = S, \\{D_{dev}^{i}, D_{test}^{i}\\} = \\{D_{dev}, D_{test}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 579, + 358, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 579, + 358, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 579, + 358, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6424" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 105, + 75, + 490, + 228 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 75, + 490, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 75, + 490, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 75, + 490, + 228 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelIter 1Iter 2Iter 3Iter 4Iter 5Iter 6Iter 7AVE
EntityTANL68.3462.7057.2252.9447.7342.2436.0952.47
(NERD)UIE67.5863.3960.3758.0058.1754.2649.5358.76
Ent-F1AdaKGC68.2263.8761.0158.1858.7654.5849.8159.20
RelationTANL89.8086.8283.5177.9973.6173.3266.3778.77
(NYT)UIE89.6686.5683.2777.8073.3073.2766.3378.60
Rel-S F1AdaKGC89.1786.1282.7677.3372.8572.9165.8478.14
Event TriggerTEXT2EVENT64.4060.3953.9652.6440.8332.4529.5847.75
(ACE2005)UIE69.6964.5362.1058.4749.7642.5139.3155.20
Evt Tri F1AdaKGC69.6364.7761.8658.3150.0843.0740.4055.45
Event ArgumentTEXT2EVENT45.8840.9634.2133.4024.4919.6216.7730.76
(ACE2005)UIE49.9642.6740.5036.5628.7024.0620.4734.70
Evt Arg F1AdaKGC51.7444.5642.4832.6130.5225.4122.1035.63
", + "image_path": "981edac334ad6ec41d6880fb166ecbbcd480155f25cce8bb2b4f5643a6df322b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 520, + 742 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 236, + 497, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 236, + 497, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 236, + 497, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Analogous schema replacement results in schema-adaptable knowledge graph construction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 520, + 742 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 520, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 520, + 742 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Input: The Belgrade district court said that Markovic will be tried along with 10 other Milosevic-era officials who face similar charges of ‘inappropriate use of state property’ that carry a sentence of up to five years in jail.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "phone write", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 4 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence]
Iteration 5 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "exe-cute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "charge indirect", "trans-fer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "par-don"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indirect", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Sentence[sentence] Trial hearing[tried] Charge-Indict[charges]
", + "image_path": "536e12a48a85fa176ae813ebeae9c24c435f1a60fb4e7ab3637839e567ac928d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 750, + 461, + 762 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 750, + 461, + 762 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 750, + 461, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Adaptive evolution of horizontal schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6425" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 159, + 521, + 645 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 159, + 521, + 645 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 159, + 521, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 159, + 521, + 645 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Input: Kelly, the US assistant secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, arrived in Seoul from Beijing Friday to brief Yoon, the foreign minister.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "contact", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Contact[brief]
Iteration 2 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "business", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 3 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 4 schema: "personnel", "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 5 schema: "personnel", "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "trans-fer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organi-zation", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demon-strate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sent-ence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[arrived] Meet[brief]
", + "image_path": "04ac4a5dcb0b5df95bbc9de756fbeb0a4aa19d9e6b66d20b3e7233c90206ec22.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 525, + 680 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 525, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 654, + 525, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Adaptive evolution of vertical schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to major classes, which will be covered by refined sub classes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6426" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 154, + 521, + 651 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 154, + 521, + 651 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 154, + 521, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 154, + 521, + 651 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Input: The charismatic leader of Turkey's governing party was named prime minister Tuesday, a step that probably boosts chances that the United States will get permission to deploy troops in the country along Iraq's northern border.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "life", "fine", "sue", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 2 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "meet", "life", "contact", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 3 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "contact", "merge organization", "business", "trial hearing", "fine", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 4 schema: "attack", "justice", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 5 schema: "attack", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "life", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]
Iteration 6 schema: "end position", "attack", "personnel", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Personnel[named]
Iteration 7 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Transport[deploy]Elect[named]
", + "image_path": "f4c49bbff3fe96a82f244d190a336b8c0c61e2f0f405fbc57e66f6bb11c20360.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 525, + 686 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 525, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 525, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Adaptive evolution of hybrid schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset. Underlined classes refer to father classes, which occurs when directly adding sub classes that corresponding major class not exists." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6427" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 110, + 521, + 709 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 110, + 521, + 709 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 110, + 521, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 110, + 521, + 709 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Input: Webb also said details of the breakdowns of the Welches' previous marriages were likely to come up, and cited reports of alleged extramarital affairs by both.Labels
Iteration 1 schema: "end position", "attack", "start position", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "transport", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "divorce", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Divorce[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 2 schema: "end position", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "charge indict", "transfer money", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 3 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "die", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "trial hearing", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "execute", "marry", "extradITE", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 4 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "sentence", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "meet", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "declare bankruptcy", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 5 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "transfer ownership", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "demonstrate", "arrest jail", "carry", "elect", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 6 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "injure", "phone write", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "marry", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nMarry[marriages]
Iteration 7 schema: "end", "attack", "begin", "nominate", "prosecute", "remittance", "giveaway", "release parole", "be born", "condemn", "pass away", "parade", "arrest jail", "carry", "vote", "start organization", "encounter", "hurt", "communication", "merge organization", "go out of business", "attend the trial", "fine", "convict", "end organization", "sue", "separate", "acquit", "appeal", "perform", "wed", "extradite", "pardon"Separate[breakdowns] \nWed[marriages]
", + "image_path": "22cdfdb9e985e79908006e46bbcca24e1c7adae15381d0191c022426110ddecb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 716, + 464, + 730 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 716, + 464, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 128, + 716, + 464, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Adaptive evolution of analogous schema expansion on ACE2005 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6428" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 196, + 114 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 196, + 114 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 196, + 114 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3.5 Input Example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 121, + 515, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 121, + 515, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 121, + 515, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from context. Relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 206, + 514, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 206, + 514, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 206, + 514, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 235, + 513, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 235, + 513, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 235, + 513, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens; 2. The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 278, + 513, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 278, + 513, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 278, + 513, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen's denials." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 306, + 513, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 306, + 513, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 306, + 513, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 335, + 513, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 335, + 513, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 335, + 513, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: Mr.Brown has demeaned Mr.Bush as \"a cheerleader,\" declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know \"the first thing about running a disaster,\" and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, \"a little twerp\" and Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, an unprintable vulgarity (both in Playboy)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 392, + 513, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 392, + 513, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 392, + 513, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 427, + 91, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 427, + 91, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 427, + 91, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "···" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 435, + 513, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 435, + 513, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 435, + 513, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema? Now it's your turn to do relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 463, + 514, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 463, + 514, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 463, + 514, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"birth place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 521, + 513, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 521, + 513, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 521, + 513, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 564, + 301, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 564, + 301, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 564, + 301, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 584, + 514, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 584, + 514, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 584, + 514, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3.5 Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 646, + 514, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 646, + 514, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 646, + 514, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Golden Output Example: The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is nationality, tail entity is Iceland; 2. The head entity is Iceland, relation is capital, tail entity is Reykjavik; 3. The head entity is Iceland, relation is contains, tail entity is Reykjavik; 4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place of death, tail entity is Reykjavik." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 730, + 523, + 743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 730, + 523, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 730, + 523, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: Examples of GPT-3.5 experiment on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6429" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 143, + 108, + 160 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 143, + 108, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 143, + 108, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HU" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 145, + 487, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 145, + 487, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 145, + 487, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are some relation extraction samples, relation must be taken from schema, head entity and tail entity must be taken from Context. relation, head entity and tail entity may have multiple." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 186, + 481, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 186, + 481, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 186, + 481, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\"]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 241, + 477, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 241, + 477, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 241, + 477, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: In Queens, North Shore Towers, near the Nassau border, supplanted a golf course, and housing replaced a gravel quarry in Douglaston." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 269, + 496, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 269, + 496, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 269, + 496, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Douglaston, relation is neighborhood of, tail entity is Queens;2.The head entity is Queens, relation is contains, tail entity is Douglaston;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 310, + 464, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 310, + 464, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 310, + 464, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: In his authoritative and tough-minded new book , \" The Assassins ' Gate :" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 323, + 492, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 323, + 492, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 323, + 492, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "America in Iraq , \" the New Yorker writer George Packer reminds us that the decision of the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq and its increasingly embattled handling of the occupation were both predicated upon large , abstract ideas about the role of America in the post-cold war world -- most notably , a belief in pre-emptive and unilateral action , the viability of exporting democracy abroad , the urge to streamline the military and the dream of remaking the Middle East ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 406, + 489, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 406, + 489, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 406, + 489, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;2.The head entity is Middle East, relation is contains, tail entity is Iraq;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 447, + 484, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 447, + 484, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 447, + 484, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: Martin, the district attorney for Lehigh County in Pennsylvania, said that after his office 's review of the records, he was satisfied with Mr. Cullen 's denials." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 494, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 494, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 494, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pennsylvania, relation is contains, tail entity is Lehigh County;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 502, + 495, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 502, + 495, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 502, + 495, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: Mr. Brown has demeaned Mr. Bush as \" a cheerleader , \" declared that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not know \" the first thing about running a disaster, \" and called critics like Representative Gene Taylor , Democrat of Mississippi , \" a little twerp \" and Senator Norm Coleman , Republican of Minnesota , an unprintable vulgarity ( both in Playboy ) ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 571, + 489, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 571, + 489, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 571, + 489, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Gene Taylor, relation is place lived, tail entity is Mississippi;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 597, + 489, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 597, + 489, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 597, + 489, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: Pakistan 's president, Pervez Musharraf, and President Hamid Karzai talked by telephone for an hour on Tuesday, a day after the Afghan intelligence service said it had arrested three Pakistani who were trying to assassinate the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. \"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 652, + 478, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 652, + 478, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 652, + 478, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are: 1.The head entity is Pervez Musharraf, relation is nationality, tail entity is Pakistan;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 690, + 505, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 690, + 505, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 690, + 505, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: ChatGPT input example on NYT dataset. A total of 20 demonstrations are given to the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6430" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 163, + 116, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 163, + 116, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 163, + 116, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 163, + 116, + 179 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6cf6ef84c5587727d16e48233546d95cc2fd04b8f3938e4ac42f8c9fdd47ce7f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 164, + 384, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 164, + 384, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 164, + 384, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 473, + 164, + 483, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 164, + 483, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 164, + 483, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 164, + 483, + 174 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "842cbed34ef23b0446ada4810fe68cad69638d0a349d55446084481ccb7c5599.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 178, + 289, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 178, + 289, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 178, + 289, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Now it's your turn to do relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 190, + 454, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 190, + 454, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 190, + 454, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\"]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 240, + 460, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 240, + 460, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 240, + 460, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 277, + 308, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 277, + 308, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 277, + 308, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 313, + 116, + 331 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 313, + 116, + 331 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 313, + 116, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 313, + 116, + 331 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7f6373825dfb825ec8e81eb619ae0cb2d78b49f88ef6b97e44d94828274741c4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 316, + 454, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 316, + 454, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 316, + 454, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 473, + 315, + 483, + 325 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 315, + 483, + 325 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 315, + 483, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 315, + 483, + 325 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c7103a88203ebba03b18924d486c11f52c5d401ff4490f315f36886651f9da3d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 345, + 396, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 345, + 396, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 345, + 396, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 382, + 116, + 399 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 382, + 116, + 399 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 382, + 116, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 382, + 116, + 399 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "667586f97ee50c149531b89e43db448a4df024bc46d3dbb72ec9d57199bcbecf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 384, + 383, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 384, + 383, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 384, + 383, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Do you understand how to do relation extraction based on schema?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 396, + 289, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 396, + 289, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 396, + 289, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Now it's your turn to do relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 409, + 454, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 409, + 454, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 409, + 454, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "schema: [\"people\", \"country\", \"religion\", \"major shareholder of\", \"industry\", \"contains\", \"brith place\", \"location\", \"nationality\", \"advisors\", \"neighborhood of\", \"place lived\", \"capital\", \"geographic distribution\", \"teams\", \"major shareholders\", \"place of death\", \"children\", \"company\", \"profession\", \"place founded\", \"founders\"]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 459, + 460, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 459, + 460, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 459, + 460, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context: But that spasm of irritation by a master intimidating was minor compared with what Bobby Fischer, the erratic former world chess champion, dished out in March at a news conference in Reykjavik, Iceland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 497, + 308, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 497, + 308, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 497, + 308, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The relation involved in the above sentence are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 533, + 116, + 550 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 533, + 116, + 550 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 533, + 116, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 533, + 116, + 550 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "21687c0a23452bd11f36e18fb8796228174be911f2561789b3920cc0e733dec3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 535, + 454, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 535, + 454, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 535, + 454, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is people, tail entity is former world chess champion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 473, + 534, + 483, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 534, + 483, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 534, + 483, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 473, + 534, + 483, + 544 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "66f047127c7ee29861ae57619c2b97635eaab0c3b81e6e0a576886adbde34564.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 464, + 649 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 444, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 444, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 444, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is profession, tail entity is chess player." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 579, + 396, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 579, + 396, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 579, + 396, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. The head entity is Reykjavik, relation is location, tail entity is Iceland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 594, + 464, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 594, + 464, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 594, + 464, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place lived, tail entity is Iceland (assuming Bobby Fischer lived in Iceland at the time of the news conference)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 623, + 460, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 623, + 460, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 623, + 460, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. The head entity is Bobby Fischer, relation is place founded, tail entity is United States (assuming Bobby Fischer was born in the United States)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 673, + 458, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 673, + 458, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 673, + 458, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: ChatGPT output results under a horizontal schema expansion iteration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6431" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_content_list.json b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9c92fce3b09acebf1d16e131087bb0407ca0fd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1896 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Search Augmented Instruction Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 287, + 90, + 710, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hongyin Luo $^{1*}$ Tianhua Zhang $^{2*}$ Yung-Sung Chuang $^{1}$ Yuan Gong $^{1}$ Yoon Kim $^{1}$ Xixin Wu $^{2}$ Helen Meng $^{2}$ James Glass $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 129, + 796, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Cambridge MA, USA \n2 CUHK Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong SAR, China \nhyluo@mit.edu, thzhang@link.cuhk.edu.hk", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 164, + 840, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is widely believed that connecting large language models with search engines can improve their transparency, truthfulness, and accessing to up-to-date information. However, we show that search grounding introduces new challenges to language models because of distracting, misleading, and untrustworthy information. To deal with these difficulties, we propose search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL), which allows a fine-tuned language model to source, denoise, and reason based on a mixed set of helpful and distracting search results. With an instruction tuning corpus, we collect search results for each training case from different search APIs and domains, and construct a new search-grounded training set containing (instruction, grounding information, response) triplets. We then fine-tune the LLaMA-7B model on the constructed training set. Since the collected search results contain distracting and disputing languages, the model needs to learn to ground on trustworthy search results, filter out distracting passages, and generate the target response. The search result-denoising process entails explicit trustworthy information selection and multi-hop reasoning, since the retrieved passages might be informative but not contain the instruction-following answer. Experiments show that the fine-tuned SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction-following ability, and it performs significantly better on transparencysensitive tasks, including question answering and fact checking.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 280, + 460, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 763, + 258, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated many impressive capabilities, including zero-shot inference and few-shot in-context learning (Wei et al., 2022a). Recent research has shown that LLMs benefit from instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022), and that such instruction-tuned LLMs", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 788, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "significantly outperform plain LLMs on zero-shot language tasks (Peng et al., 2023). Instruction-tuned LLMs have shown an ability to generate both natural and programming languages following natural language guidance and requests. To achieve the same goal, a pretrained LLM needs a number of annotated examples as in-context learning prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 884, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite their impressive behavior, LLMs have a number of issues, including obsolescence and nontransparency. Understandably, LLMs are trained with corpora constructed up to a certain time point. With this fixed, pretrained or fine-tuned model, subsequently occurring information cannot appear in any informed generation by the LLM. One way to update the knowledge in LLMs is to re-train the entire model with an updated training corpus. However, this would be costly and time-consuming.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 884, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In terms of transparency, the predictions of LLMs are opaque because generations are not grounded on trustworthy sources. It is possible for an LLM to generate undesirable language that looks like human-generated text, including misinformation, stereotypes, and toxic language (Zhang et al., 2023; Hartvigsen et al., 2022). Without providing legitimate sources for LLM generated texts, it is difficult to catch and avoid these undesirable LLM behaviors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 530, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To overcome these difficulties, a straightforward solution is to connect LLMs to information retrieval systems, especially commercial search engines. By doing so, the LLM can ground its predictions on information retrieved from an up-to-date knowledge base, and the sources of the generations would be transparent to users. Before LLMs became large enough to memorize a significant amount of world knowledge, retrieval-based grounding had been heavily studied for open-domain question answering (Chen et al., 2017; Kwiatkowski et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020). Recent LLMs have also shown the potential of using information retrieval tools, e.g., Toolformer (Schick", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Equal contribution. Code and processed data are available at https://github.com/luohongyin/SAIL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3717", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3717-3729 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fact check the following claim:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 423, + 84, + 561, + 92 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However the warming trend is slower than most climate models have forecast. Label: UNFACTUAL", + "bbox": [ + 287, + 92, + 697, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-4", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 164, + 112, + 191, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fef36f844b7c00d5401f0ec1598eb6071af9d956a26cbd8463fcb61957f09679.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Fact checking grounding on complicated search results with SAIL-7b and strong commercial language models. The first and third passages are distracting since they do not contain information that supports or refutes the claim. And the first result on a 2007 report seems to be obsolete as answering climate-related questions usually needs up-to-date information. In contrast, the second passage disagrees with the claim by the statement \"sooner than previous models have predicted\". Although we acknowledge the complexity introduced by the term \"most\" in the claim, we contend that the second passage as most suitable. SAIL-7b successfully makes the correct prediction while other commercial LLMs are distracted." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 327, + 110, + 352, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The claim is potentially factual but needs context. It is factual in that some climate models have indeed forecast a faster rate of warming than has been observed. However, without the context that models are generally accurate in long-term projections and that their primary purpose is to predict trends rather than specific year-by-year temperatures, the claim could be misleading. The claim is fair, as it does not contain hate speech or stereotypes.", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 133, + 346, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/da4ee707d83bc79ebf52cb4f40daa9564c7cf3f25aa1d6f6b1cc583d1764c317.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 327, + 237, + 351, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3.5-Turbo", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 161, + 239, + 226, + 248 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The claim is factual and fair. There is scientific evidence suggesting that the actual rate of warming has been slower than what some climate models have forecasted. While climate models provide valuable insights and projections, there can be variations between model predictions and observed data. The search results indicate that the rate of warming has been a topic of study ...", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 259, + 347, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Informative and Distracting Search Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 403, + 112, + 591, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(1) From climate change 'certainty' to rapid decline: a timeline of IPCC ... The fourth IPCC report, in 2007, was the moment when humanity's responsibility for global heating became all but certain: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ... Eleven of the last ...", + "bbox": [ + 400, + 128, + 593, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(2) AI study finds planet could cross 2-degree warming threshold by mid ... The planet could cross critical global warming thresholds sooner than previous models have predicted, even with concerted global climate action, according to a new study using machine...", + "bbox": [ + 400, + 197, + 596, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(3) Constrained CMIP6 projections indicate less warming and a slower ... The slower warming implies a lower snow cover loss rate by $10.5 - 40.2\\%$ ... future changes in the predicted variable y ... model intercomparison project phase 5 global climate models using ...", + "bbox": [ + 400, + 268, + 594, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SAIL-7B", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 645, + 112, + 682, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/76f3755700955fca2dc01019ec5bdd266a9521eee0087291c9dbceaccd9f5e93.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 808, + 111, + 833, + 128 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Search result (1) is distracting, search result (2) is informative, and search result (3) is distracting. i will utilize the informative search result (2) and my knowledge, the related natural fact is that global temperatures have been increasing over time. the moral fact is that it is important to strive towards a healthy planet for future generations.", + "bbox": [ + 645, + 131, + 831, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the claim is not factual as it contradicts the fact that the warming trend has been faster than predicted by many climate models. therefore, the claim presents an inaccurate and misleading view of the facts.", + "bbox": [ + 645, + 200, + 826, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Perplexity.AI", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 645, + 256, + 702, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/52f68176bfa7b3b91e203a838b4e31e17ed584fbca97dbf9b03b8d86bc8f66b5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 808, + 256, + 833, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The claim that \"... is partially factual based on the search results. Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming, while some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred..", + "bbox": [ + 645, + 274, + 831, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2023) and the ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) retrieval plugin. However, there remains a challenge: is there a trustworthy retrieval model and knowledge base that can be utilized by LLMs?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 487, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing studies on open-domain question answering have chosen Wikipedia as the de facto knowledge base that contains the answer to most questions. However, Zhang et al. (2023) found that the knowledge contained in Wikipedia is not sufficiently up-to-date nor complete for many tasks that require the latest knowledge, so grounding on Wikipedia might lead to worse answers than fully relying on LLMs. Another option is to leverage internet search engines, for example, Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.com1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 487, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although widely used commercial search engines can index and retrieve a vast range of up-to-date information, their retrieval accuracy is ultimately limited, and third-party users cannot control the performance at the model level. As a result, retrieval results can be noisy, and unrelated information might be shown to users. This behavior suggests that there is a trade-off between deploying in-house retrieval systems and external search engines. Although it is possible to prompt LLMs to directly use the retrieval results, distracting search", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 715, + 487, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "results can mislead the model and negatively influence the model's performance. As shown in Figure 1, ChatGPT is confused by a distracting passage and generates an incorrect fact check.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The challenges mentioned above are contradictory, and both have a negative impact on grounded language modeling with current LLMs - static knowledge bases and in-house retrievers are not sufficient or up-to-date for all tasks, while commercial search engines often generate distracting results. To address these challenges simultaneously, we propose a search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL) model. Given input instructions and contexts, the model is trained to generate high-quality responses according to the instruction grounding on the noisy research results. In other words, the model learns to denoise the retrieval results to generate high-quality responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 536, + 882, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, we make the following contributions in this work:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 760, + 882, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. We show that instruction-tuned LLMs can be heavily misled by distracting grounding information and noisy search results.", + "2. We constructed a search-augmented instruction training corpus.", + "3. We fine-tune a 7B-parameter language model (SAIL-7B) with the constructed training set," + ], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 797, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "A free, privacy-preserving, zero-tracking search engine.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 480, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3718", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which outperforms strong baseline models including GPT-3.5-Turbo and Vicuna-13B on several NLP tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 84, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By comparing the SAIL-7B model with LLaMA-7B, Vicuna-7B, GPT-3.5-turbo, and Vicuna-13B models on instruction following, question answering, and language checking tasks, we find that the SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction following ability and is robust against distracting grounding search results generated by different retrieval models. In addition, the SAIL model also achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art instruction-following LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 145, + 489, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 319, + 218, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Search Result Collection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 347, + 352, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we use the 52k self-instruction corpus created by the Alpaca team (Taori et al., 2023), and the corresponding responses generated by GPT-4 (Peng et al., 2023). For each instruction, we construct a search query by simply concatenating the instruction and the input, if any, and truncating the query to at most 60 words to fulfill the limitation of the search engine.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 368, + 489, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The constructed queries are fed into the DuckDuckGo search engine and the BM25 Wikipedia retriever, and the top three search results are retained. Each result consists of three fields: the title, a short piece of preview text, and the corresponding URL of the webpage. For simplicity, we do not further scrape the retrieved webpage, but just use the title and preview texts for further processing.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 489, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Each training example is assigned a list of corresponding search results. We pool the top-three DuckDuckGO and top-two BM25 search passages with Pyserini (Lin et al., 2021), a total of five search results. Among this pool, we randomly sample zero, one, two, and three search results with $20\\%$ , $20\\%$ , $20\\%$ , and $40\\%$ probability. Given this randomness, some training cases could be associated with search results from a single source.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 In-context Retrieval Selection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 394, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To encourage the LLM to focus on trustworthy and informative search results, we concatenate a search filtering sequence before each annotated response of training instances. For example, \"Search result (1) is informative and search result (2) is distracting, so I will use the information from the search result (1).\"", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, the trustworthiness of each search result is not labeled, and the number of retrieval items is large. To bypass the need of costly human annotation, we employ an entailment classification model proposed in (Luo and Glass, 2023), which has in general been proven to be an effective approach for zero-shot setting (Obamuyide and Vlachos, 2018; Condoravdi et al., 2003; Ge et al., 2023). We feed each retrieved passage and the corresponding response into the entailment model and compare the entailed and contradictory scores. While most predictions are neutral against the response, the relation between entailed and contradictory scores can roughly indicate if a retrieved passage can provide useful information to generate the target response. As a result, we obtain pseudo-label \"search result (i) is informative\" if the entailed score is higher than the contradiction score, otherwise the search item is distracting. Note that our primary objective is not the construction of a human-labeled dataset comprising informative and distracting documents. Instead, we aim at proposing a label-free denoising method to enhance retrieval-augmented large language models.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 884, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike the training stage, the absence of prior access to the target responses hinders the entailment model to predict pseudo-labels during inference. On the contrary, SAIL-7b acquires the capability to assess the relevance of various search results after training on both search results with pseudolabels and the target responses. Subsequently, it can anchor the final response generation on informative search-augmentation. In other words, SAIL-7b would generate the search selection sequences (e.g., \"search result (i) is informative/distracting\") before the final responses as shown in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 473, + 885, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Fine-tuning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 683, + 650, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After collecting the search results and generating in-context retrieval selection sequences, we construct input prompts following Figure 2 (b) with GPT-4 generated responses (Peng et al., 2023). Note that the most relevant retrieval result is located at the closest position to the instruction for the model to better use its information. We fine-tune LLaMA-7b models with the constructed prompts to generate both in-context retrieval selection sequences and annotated responses.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 708, + 884, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In practice, the models are fine-tuned with academic devices. Specifically, we use $4 \\times$ NVIDIA RTX A6000 GPUs ( $48\\mathrm{GB} \\times 4$ ) to train the models", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3719", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(a) Standard Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 242, + 85, + 361, + 97 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Below is an instruction that describes a task.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 108, + 403, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Write a response that appropriately completes the request.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 118, + 473, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: [Instruction]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 133, + 307, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: [Input or None]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 142, + 282, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response:", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 158, + 206, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(b) Search-Augmented Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 213, + 181, + 386, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Below is an instruction that describes a task.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 205, + 401, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Write a response that appropriately completes the request.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 215, + 473, + 224 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Related Information:", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 231, + 270, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Title 3]\\n [Preview 3]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 239, + 265, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Title 2]\\n [Preview 2]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 247, + 265, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Title 1]\\n [Preview 1]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 255, + 265, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: [Instruction]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 271, + 305, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: [Input or None]", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 280, + 282, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response:", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 294, + 206, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: Different prompting strategies used in this work. (a) Standard prompt: the prompt template used in Peng et al. (2023) to generate GPT-4 responses to the 52k instructions. (b) Search-augmented prompt: combining the top three search results and the instruction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 489, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for 3 epochs. We apply mixed-precision training (fp16) with the standard AdamW optimizer. We set the maximum sequence length as 1,600 and the batch size as 32. Following Vicuna, we apply gradient checkpointing to reduce the memory cost. The entire fine-tuning process takes 24 hours ( $24 \\times 4$ GPU hours). To enable the fine-tuning, we applied gradient offload with Deepspeed and full-sharded data parallel (FSDP) (Paszke et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 423, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 247, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SAIL for instruction following. Following Peng et al. (2023), we evaluate the instruction following quality of different models by comparing with GPT-4 responses on the same set of instructions and scoring with GPT-4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 487, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each case, we construct an evaluation prompt by concatenating the instruction, the GPT-4 response, and the response of the target model. We feed the evaluation prompt to GPT-4 and ask it to score the two responses between 0 to 10. We use the Question- $80^2$ corpus (Chiang et al., 2023), which contains 80 questions to evaluate all models and we calculate the total score a model receives on all questions. To test the ability of the models on latest, unseen texts, we build another 80-question evaluation set based on latest news articles published after May 2023, which are never", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 687, + 489, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "included in any training corpus as we finished all experiments. We name the new question set as New-Questions-803. Because related information and knowledge are not included in the pretraining corpora, a language model has zero knowledge to answer and has to be grounded on an up-to-date search engine to generate informed answers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the evaluation prompt authored by the Vicuna team. The highest possible score is $80 \\times 10 = 800$ . It is worth noting that GPT-4 responses can receive slightly different scores against different counterparts. To normalize the difference, we calculate the ratio of model score / GPT-4 score for each test case as the final assessment as implemented in Peng et al. (2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 197, + 884, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SAIL for Question Answering. Besides evaluating the quality of instruction-guided generations, we assess the model's ability to answer commonsense questions. We also test the models on two different settings, including instructed zero-shot prediction and the search-augmentation mode. We evaluate the model performance on CommonsenseQA (CSQA; Talmor et al. (2019)), OpenbookQA (OBQA; Mihaylov et al. (2018)), and ARC-Challenge (Clark et al., 2018) benchmarks. All tasks require answering open-ended questions by selecting from a given set of candidate answers. Through the question-answering experiments, we show that instruction-tuned language models can be significantly biased by noisy research results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 342, + 884, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SAIL for Fact and Fairness Checking. With the recent advances in LLMs that generate human-like languages without guaranteed alignment, human and machine-generated misinformation, stereotypes, and toxicity have become timely and significant concerns. Recent studies have shown that with appropriate instructions and prompts, LLMs can perform unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023). However, other attempts have relied only on LLMs, without grounding on any external sources, thus reducing the trustworthiness and transparency of the checking results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 615, + 882, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we evaluate instructed fact and fairness checking, with the UniLC benchmark proposed in (Zhang et al., 2023), including Climate-Fever, PubMed, Hate Speech Detec", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 809, + 882, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "3Will release with code if accepted.", + "4https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/ fastchat/eval/table/prompt.jsonl" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 879, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 485, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "```bash\nchat/eval/table/question.json", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 904, + 374, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3720", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1d68ac8cae12787d6dfb73934175e6eb3eef3ebdaa4a2a81a96ac6f6809a86a0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 489, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/415b014b2b0c9355de9626e6d1e5e512db874402daceda5798c6947f666a8fe1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 83, + 880, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3c48249e9997c1c5e9a5828de13a556de1b01159e95a5daf677df27afb50c115.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Scoring results of all language models on Question-80 and New-Question-80 benchmarks against GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo. Search indicates generating responses with language models grounding on search results retrieved by DuckDuckGO, and SAIL (7B) stands for generating responses without search results, although the model is trained for grounded generations. Both Vicuna-7 & 13B are version 1.1 models. The orange bars stand for SAIL-7B and blue bars stand for GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 173, + 489, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a70b44db3fa6cf9b0105dc319f94b117be2e5aaeb2d9aafe1fd3239edcca279e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 173, + 878, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tion, and Social Biase Frame (SBIC) tasks with two different settings - zero-shot and search-augmented. While we are not aware of what corpora are used to train GPT-4 and ChatGPT, we assess the language-checking performance of Vicuna-7B-v1.1, Vicuna-13B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B with and without search results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 489, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 518, + 260, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Instruction Following", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 544, + 331, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Evaluation with GPT-4. We compare the performance of different models under end-to-end and search grounded settings against GPT-4 and ChatGPT models on Question-80 and New-Question-80. The scoring results are shown in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 487, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By comparing to GPT-4 on Question-80, we find that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model significantly outperforms all other models (90% vs $< 85\\%$ ) using fewer training instructions and parameters, including strong baselines like Vicuna-13B and GPT-3.5-Turbo powered ChatGPT. This indicates that when the grounding information is provided, the model does not need as many parameters to memorize knowledge. In addition, the SAIL-7B model also achieves high performance even without search results, showing that the model performance is stable under different generation settings. Similar conclusions can be found by comparing all models against GPT-3.5-Turbo. While GPT-4 is still better, experiment results show that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "achieves $103\\%$ of GPT-3.5-Turbo performance and the no-augmentation SAIL model achieves $98\\%$ , outperforming several strong baselines, including LLaMA tuned on GPT-4 instructions and Vicuna models with the same number of parameters. Besides GPT-4, search-augmented SAIL-7B is the only model that outperforms GPT-3.5-Turbo on both experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 393, + 884, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we found that the search augmentation makes a significantly higher positive contribution to the SAIL model than all other models. With GPT-3.5-Turbo, feeding search-augmented prompts with instructions leads to very slight improvements on both evaluations. However, grounding on search results can hurt the performance of Vicuna and LLaMA-GPT4 models of different sizes. By comparing against GPT-4, Vicuna-13B is slightly improved by search results, but the improvement is not present when compared to GPT-3.5-Turbo. For the Vicuna-7B and LLaMA-7B-GPT4 baselines, augmenting input prompts with search engine outputs makes a significant, negative impact on both evaluations. On the other hand, applying search augmentation to SAIL-7B significantly improves model performance on both experiments (84% to 90% and 98% to 103%).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 884, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On New-Question-80, we find that GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo perform similarly and are both outperformed by SAIL-7B. There are two main challenges that cause this result. Firstly, the models need to reason based on new texts that never", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3721", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "appeared in their pretraining or fine-tuning corpora. Secondly, the texts provided by the search engines are noisy. On the other hand, SAIL-7B deals with the problems more successfully through search augmented instruction tuning. These results inform our findings:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The search results contain useful information that can improve the performance of instruction-following language models.", + "- Without search-augmented fine-tuning, it is difficult for a language model to utilize valuable information among the complicated search results, and distracting retrieval results can mislead the generations. Generation on latest questions further signifies the challenge.", + "- Search-augmented instruction learning can help the model better utilize the valuable information among noisy search results and improve instruction-following performance." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 193, + 489, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Question Answering", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 430, + 321, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Common Knowledge. The experiment results of question answering are shown in Table 1. CSQA, OBQA, and ARC-Challenge are open-ended, selection-based question-answering tasks. We compare instruction-tuned Vicuna-7B, Vicuna-13B, LLaMA-7B-GPT4, and SAIL-7B models under no-augmentation and search-grounded settings with different sources. All evaluations are zero-shot and instruction guided. Traditionally, a knowledgeable LLM can answer questions and select the most coherent and appropriate answers without external information. In each task, we want to evaluate the performance of different models and knowledge bases. We search Wikipedia (Wiki) with the BM25 retriever, and the web with DuckDuckGO (DDG), feeding the LLMs with the top-3 search results, which could contain unrelated and distracting information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In general, we found that DuckDuckGo (DDG) leads to better performance for all models on all tasks because it is more flexible, covering a much wider range of information. This suggests the effectiveness of search engines over retrieving a static knowledge base. We found that both LLaMA and Vicuna-7B models can be slightly improved when search results are provided on most tasks. However, the overall performance is limited. The average accuracy of searched-augmented LLaMA-7B and Vicuna-7B is below $50\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With Vicuna-13B, which is a roughly two times larger model, we get the best average performance $(51.0\\%)$ on the three tasks without grounding information. However, adding search results hurts its accuracy in most experiments. While augmenting the model with DDG search results slightly improves the performance on CSQA and OBQA, the accuracy on ARC-Challenge is decreased by $1.4\\%$ . With BM25-based Wikipedia search results, the accuracy can decrease by as much as $1.8\\%$ . While the Vicuna-13B model achieves strong non-augmented performance, it is challenging to further improve the accuracy by utilizing helpful information in the search results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast, the SAIL-7B model improves on all tasks when incorporating the search results, and also achieves strong non-augmented performance. Without retrieval results, SAIL-7B significantly outperforms LLaMA and Vicuna-7B on all tasks with a large margin (49.5% vs 44.5% and 40.9% average accuracy). It also performs slightly better than Vicuna-13B on CSQA and OBQA tasks, while Vicuna-13B is still strongest on ARC-C. While search augmentation leads to at most 0.5% improvement for Vicuna-13B, DDG search results improve SAIL-7B by 2.8% on OBQA and 1.2% on average, showing that the SAIL-7B model can steadily utilize the helpful information among the search results. As a result, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model achieves the best performance on both CSQA and OBQA.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 325, + 884, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TruthfulQA. We use the TruthfulQA evaluation set (Lin et al., 2022) containing 817 questions to evaluate how informative and truthful are language models. Following the standard approach, we fine-tuned a GPT-3 model for automatic evaluation. We compare the plain LLaMA models and search augmented instruction following models using the GPT-3 evaluator. The performance of different models and settings are shown in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 630, + 884, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We notice that with search grounding, both truth and info scores can be significantly improved. By connecting with a search engine, the 7B models can significantly outperform the largest LLaMA-65B model. Similar to the automatic instruction-following results, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model outperforms search-augmented Vicuna-13B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3722", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a5e8ed2177e1e29c1ba531800ad0ec321b58e931eabab3be076b416fd117140a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelLLaMA-GPT4-7BVicuna-7BVicuna-13BSAIL-7B
SearchNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDG
CSQA48.447.749.644.945.647.650.651.150.951.551.051.8
OBQA42.244.444.637.239.442.649.047.249.449.250.252.0
ARC-C43.045.247.340.544.546.353.251.651.847.748.148.4
Avg.44.545.847.240.943.345.551.050.050.749.549.850.7
Search Effectnone+1.3+2.7none+2.4+4.6none-1.0-0.3none+0.3+1.2
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 80, + 860, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f8527ecfcd2189b2edcf6a94e99c9cd1bedbc9b0f833df20b795b2e8e75d6ef3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Question answering accuracy (%) by zero-shot models with simple instructions." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelSizeTrueTrue * Info
No Search Augmentation
GPT-3175B0.280.25
LLaMA65B0.570.53
LLaMA7B0.330.29
Alpaca7B0.330.33
Vicuna7B0.560.52
W/ Search Augmentation
Vicuna13B0.710.69
Vicuna7B0.680.65
SAIL7B0.730.73
", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 250, + 467, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of large language models on the TruthfulQA benchmark.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 475, + 485, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Fact and Fairness Checking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 536, + 378, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The other task we evaluate model performance on is unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023), a combined benchmark with four sub-tasks including fact-checking (Diggelmann et al., 2020; Kotonya and Toni, 2020), hate speech detection (de Gibert et al., 2018), and stereotype recognition (Sap et al., 2020). We evaluate the zero-shot performance on all four tasks, and the experiment results are shown in Table 3. The SAIL-7B model achieves the highest accuracy and F1 scores on all tasks, despite no grounding information being provided for the fact-checking tasks. We also found that the Vicuna-7B and 13B models perform similarly on fact and fairness checking.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 562, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the fact-checking tasks, we further evaluate the performance grounding on search results generated by DuckDuckGo. Grounding on an external search engine has both advantages and disadvantages. Many fact checking benchmarks provide task-specific grounding corpora that limit the domain of information retrieval. However, internet misinformation can be very arbitrary and related to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the latest facts. A commercial search engine is able to catch a wide range of up-to-date information that a retrieval model with a fixed knowledge base cannot achieve. However, search engines are usually less accurate than dense retrievers, and they might retrieve disputed documents that influence the quality of fact checking. Our experiments show that the search results are not helpful for all baseline models. On Climate-Fever, augmenting the model with search results decreases the overall accuracy of LLaMA by $3\\%$ . On the PubHealth task, both accuracy and F1 of Vicuna-13B model are decreased by the search results, by $4\\%$ and $1\\%$ respectively. This shows that the search results contain distracting information, which prevents the models to utilize helpful evidence among noises.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 253, + 884, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, SAIL is more robust against distracting languages and its fact-checking performance is improved on the same set of search results, as shown in Table 4. With search augmentation, the fact-checking accuracy and F1 scores of SAIL are improved on both tasks, as high as $4.2\\%$ on Climate-Fever. The augmented SAIL model also significantly outperforms all baselines, including Vicuna-13B and LLaMA-7B tuned with GPT-4 responses by $9\\%$ accuracy and $5\\%$ F1, showing the effectiveness of search augmented fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 885, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 700, + 665, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models. Beginning with GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a), LLMs have demonstrated strong abilities in knowledge memorization and text-based inference on a wide range of tasks. Well-known LLMs include GPT-3, LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), FLAN (Wei et al., 2021), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023). Compared to smaller language models, LLMs have several emergent abilities (Wei et al., 2022a), including zero-shot multi-task solving, and few-shot in-context learning with chain-of-thought reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b;", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3723", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/103b07ce70995dd0706eb0a8367f1a3da0344b75176e62ea0f051706334e3856.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthFact Avg.HSDSBICFairness Avg.All Avg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.960.659.255.974.565.262.2
F138.856.6347.768.584.376.462.04
Vicuna-13BAcc51.454.452.957.772.365.059.0
F142.557.750.169.682.976.363.2
LLaMA-7BAcc58.859.959.362.374.868.663.9
F146.657.552.072.384.478.465.2
SAIL-7BAcc63.569.266.470.176.473.269.8
F151.063.657.375.183.979.568.4
", + "bbox": [ + 156, + 80, + 840, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8811c16a6bee3e9aede0890fc8d1094c91e3e5e4863005a15261575345fba038.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Instructed zero-shot language checking performance on the UniLC benchmark." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 4: Search augmented zero-shot fact checking on the Climate-Fever and PubHealth benchmarks." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthAvg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.760.158.9
Acc Diff-0.2-0.5-0.3
F149.557.653.6
F1 Diff+10.7+1.0+5.9
Vicuna-13BAcc53.550.351.9
Acc Diff+2.1-4.1-1.0
F146.656.851.7
F1 Diff+4.1-0.9+1.6
LLaMA-7BAcc55.862.859.3
Acc Diff-3.0+2.9-0.1
F150.259.754.9
F1 Diff+3.6+2.2+2.9
SAIL-7BAcc65.870.768.3
Acc Diff+2.3+1.5+1.9
F155.264.559.9
F1 Diff+4.2+0.9+2.5
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 290, + 485, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wang et al., 2022a).", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 263, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction following. Pretrained LLMs can generate texts following certain formats and rules by seeing a few examples in their prompts. To make LLMs more scalable and improve zero-shot performance, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed training GPT-3 with instruction-response corpora. As a result, InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 can handle a wide range of tasks without seeing any examples. Recent research has also found that both GPT-generated instructions and instruct-following outputs (Peng et al., 2023) can improve the instruction-following ability of LLMs. (Wang et al., 2022a) proposed a semi-supervised method to generate diverse instructions based on a seed instruction base on NLP tasks (Mishra et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b). A more recent study shows", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) can generate high-quality instruction-following language. Recent efforts on open-sourcing instruction-following LLMs include Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 292, + 884, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retrieval-augmented language models. Prior to our work, several initiatives explored retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs). The pioneering approaches – REALM (Guu et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020) – sought to train language models with retrievers in an end-to-end manner. RETRO (Borgeaud et al., 2022) introduced the idea of training an LM on top of a frozen retriever. Atlas (Izacard et al., 2022) further explored dedicated loss functions for the end-to-end training of the retriever and the LM, achieving superior performance on several few-shot learning tasks. Recently, RePlug (Shi et al., 2023) and Incontext RALM (Ram et al., 2023) instead explore an opposite direction: use a frozen black-box LM while fine-tuning the retrieval modules. RePlug shows its advantages of leveraging large LMs like Codex (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020b), outperforming Altas on few-shot question-answering tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 395, + 884, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the success of RALMs, most of these models have limitations, including 1) constraining the search space to a closed corpus like Wikipedia 2) lacking explicit mechanisms for disregarding distracting search results, and 3) applying a few-shot in-context learning setting without considering instruction fine-tuning during RALM training. Consequently, their applications remain relatively narrow, primarily focusing on tasks such as question-answering and language modeling. SAIL addresses these limitations by 1) employing real-world search engines, 2) introducing a search result denoising", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3724", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "process capable of filtering out distracting information, and 3) incorporating instruction fine-tuning. Consequently, SAIL demonstrates its superiority in broader applications, including instruction following for chatbots, fact and fairness checking, all of which benefit from access to up-to-date information retrieved from real-world search engines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 208, + 247, + 224 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we found that disputed and distracting search results can significantly mislead the predictions of large language models. Several transparency-sensitive tasks, including open-domain question answering and language checking can be negatively influenced by this phenomenon. To solve this problem, we propose a search-augmented instruction-following large language model with 7B parameters. We construct the first search-augmented instruction-tuning corpus consisting of human-generated instructions, GPT-4 generated responses, and search results generated by a BM25 retriever based on Wikipedia and a commercial search engine. We then finetuned the LLaMA-7B language model with the constructed training corpus on academic computational resources. Experiments on instruction-following, question answering, and fact/fairness checking show that the search-augmented language model can distill trustworthy and helpful information from all search results and generate high-quality responses, improving both the performance and transparency of instruction-following large language models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 233, + 492, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 632, + 280, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research was supported by the Center for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence (CPII) Ltd under the Innovation and Technology Commission's InnoHK Scheme.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 657, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 732, + 218, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While the model we propose achieves high performance with efficient model settings, the major limitation of the model is that it does not explain why a search result is trustworthy or informative or not. In future work, we will fine-tune larger models and enable the models to recognize trustworthy search results with explanations. In the context of automated instruction-following evaluation, we adhere to the established literature that employing GPT-4 as the evaluator (Peng et al., 2023; Chiang", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). The robust performance of GPT-4 on Question-80 benchmark shows its efficacy. However, on the New-Question-80 benchmark, GPT-4 exhibits a comparatively diminished level of performance due to the need of latest knowledge. While this may introduce an element of uncertainty into the evaluation process, we believe that presenting these results can encourage the research community to be more informed and interested in this challenging problem. We plan to incorporate a human-in-loop evaluation as part of our future endeavors, ensuring a more precise and comprehensive assessment of instruction-following capabilities of large language models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 338, + 608, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1870-1879.", + "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 363, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3725", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\\%$ * chatgpt quality.", + "Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. ArXiv, abs/1803.05457.", + "Cleo Condoravdi, Dick Crouch, Valeria de Paiva, Reinhard Stolle, and Daniel G. Bobrow. 2003. Entailment, intensionality and text understanding. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning, pages 38-45.", + "Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor Garcia-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. EMNLP 2018, page 11.", + "Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Jannis Bulian, Massimiliano Ciaramita, and Markus Leippold. 2020. Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614.", + "Jiaxin Ge, Hongyin Luo, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2023. Entailment as robust self-learner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17197.", + "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR.", + "Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3309-3326.", + "Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299.", + "Neema Kotonya and Francesca Toni. 2020. Explainable automated fact-checking for public health claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7740-7754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474.", + "Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2356-2362.", + "Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252.", + "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment.", + "Hongyin Luo and James Glass. 2023. Logic against bias: Textual entailment mitigates stereotypical sentence reasoning. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1243-1254, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In ACL.", + "Abiola Obamuyide and Andreas Vlachos. 2018. Zero-shot relation classification as textual entailment. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERIFICATION (FEVER), pages 72-78, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt.", + "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744.", + "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3726", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.", + "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277.", + "Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00083.", + "Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5477-5490.", + "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761.", + "Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652.", + "Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca.", + "Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on $1600+$ tasks. In EMNLP.", + "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652.", + "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903.", + "Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068.", + "Tianhua Zhang, Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Wei Fang, Luc Gaitskell, Thomas Hartvigsen, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. 2023. Interpretable unified language checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03728." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3727", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/006c7282cfe47d91dcd05708e6c929c36c953586599130c04415de909bf4bf82.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsVicuna-7B-v1.1SAIL-7B
Novel \nVerbsInclude \nConsiderCalculate \nMatch \nRevolutionize \nCheck \nInclude \nIncrease
Count26
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 80, + 436, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/11d8adf5a41ab4342848ad95454795be013f548553b611e8eee25dc5ffe8d1a4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Top-10 verbs generated by LLaMA-based models that do not overlap with GPT-4 and ChatGPT." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsAvg.Std.Diversity
GPT-4303.8121.50.48
ChatGPT135.163.60.56
Vicuna-13B204.182.90.45
Vicuna-7B196.590.30.45
SAIL-7B + Search246.287.70.44
SAIL-7B206.686.90.47
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 252, + 453, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Statistics about the length and diversity of the generated responses of different language models. Diversity stands for the total number of different words divided by the total length.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 362, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Data Statics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 444, + 258, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first show the word preference of different models on the 80 unseen instructions. The results are shown in Figure 4. We compare the distributions of top-10 verbs generated by GPT4, GPT-3.5-Turbo (ChatGPT), Vicuna-7B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B models. With search augmentation, SAIL-7B generates significantly more verbs that do not overlap with GPT's generations, as shown in Table 5. Only two top-10 verbs generated by Vicuna are not covered by GPT-4 and ChatGPT, while six out of ten verbs generated by SAIL-7b are not high-frequency verbs by the GPT models. This indicates that the grounding search results can shift the generation preference of the language models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 489, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The statistics of the generated responses is shown in Table 6. GPT-4 generates the longest and most diverse responses, while ChatGPT tends to generate shorter and simpler answers. Without search augmentation, the lengths of SAIL-7B generated sequences are similar to the Vicuna models. This indicates that search augmentation can increase the length of the generated responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 696, + 489, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3728", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8afa718da3d90af664c18c729944ee4aa5cd35b91d0bd7e2c3b0f46f49a949f4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Vicuna-7b-v1.1" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 157, + 256, + 450, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9189e911c99fea2576f5d4186947bf663ceb68878118005c0acf1db87ea5297f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "SAIL-LLaMA-7b" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 544, + 256, + 838, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/56bd95b333976dc359494eb1f92d919575042091cf4936faa586dd11a2bd68d1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Top-10 verbs and associated nouns generated by selective large language models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 157, + 511, + 448, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/014f36d681bdc7fe1dfacbd0adc215c5e0e984fb288cb203884a749243d61289.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 547, + 511, + 838, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3729", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_model.json b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d11ec08ccb425c5c7feec34ca57b010de546f1a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2459 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.288, + 0.091, + 0.711, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Search Augmented Instruction Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.13, + 0.798, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongyin Luo\\(^{1*}\\) Tianhua Zhang\\(^{2*}\\) Yung-Sung Chuang\\(^{1}\\) Yuan Gong\\(^{1}\\) Yoon Kim\\(^{1}\\) Xixin Wu\\(^{2}\\) Helen Meng\\(^{2}\\) James Glass\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.165, + 0.842, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Cambridge MA, USA \n2 CUHK Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong SAR, China \nhyluo@mit.edu, thzhang@link.cuhk.edu.hk" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is widely believed that connecting large language models with search engines can improve their transparency, truthfulness, and accessing to up-to-date information. However, we show that search grounding introduces new challenges to language models because of distracting, misleading, and untrustworthy information. To deal with these difficulties, we propose search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL), which allows a fine-tuned language model to source, denoise, and reason based on a mixed set of helpful and distracting search results. With an instruction tuning corpus, we collect search results for each training case from different search APIs and domains, and construct a new search-grounded training set containing (instruction, grounding information, response) triplets. We then fine-tune the LLaMA-7B model on the constructed training set. Since the collected search results contain distracting and disputing languages, the model needs to learn to ground on trustworthy search results, filter out distracting passages, and generate the target response. The search result-denoising process entails explicit trustworthy information selection and multi-hop reasoning, since the retrieved passages might be informative but not contain the instruction-following answer. Experiments show that the fine-tuned SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction-following ability, and it performs significantly better on transparencysensitive tasks, including question answering and fact checking." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.764, + 0.26, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.789, + 0.488, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated many impressive capabilities, including zero-shot inference and few-shot in-context learning (Wei et al., 2022a). Recent research has shown that LLMs benefit from instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022), and that such instruction-tuned LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.885, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "significantly outperform plain LLMs on zero-shot language tasks (Peng et al., 2023). Instruction-tuned LLMs have shown an ability to generate both natural and programming languages following natural language guidance and requests. To achieve the same goal, a pretrained LLM needs a number of annotated examples as in-context learning prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.885, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite their impressive behavior, LLMs have a number of issues, including obsolescence and nontransparency. Understandably, LLMs are trained with corpora constructed up to a certain time point. With this fixed, pretrained or fine-tuned model, subsequently occurring information cannot appear in any informed generation by the LLM. One way to update the knowledge in LLMs is to re-train the entire model with an updated training corpus. However, this would be costly and time-consuming." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.531, + 0.884, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In terms of transparency, the predictions of LLMs are opaque because generations are not grounded on trustworthy sources. It is possible for an LLM to generate undesirable language that looks like human-generated text, including misinformation, stereotypes, and toxic language (Zhang et al., 2023; Hartvigsen et al., 2022). Without providing legitimate sources for LLM generated texts, it is difficult to catch and avoid these undesirable LLM behaviors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To overcome these difficulties, a straightforward solution is to connect LLMs to information retrieval systems, especially commercial search engines. By doing so, the LLM can ground its predictions on information retrieved from an up-to-date knowledge base, and the sources of the generations would be transparent to users. Before LLMs became large enough to memorize a significant amount of world knowledge, retrieval-based grounding had been heavily studied for open-domain question answering (Chen et al., 2017; Kwiatkowski et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020). Recent LLMs have also shown the potential of using information retrieval tools, e.g., Toolformer (Schick" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Equal contribution. Code and processed data are available at https://github.com/luohongyin/SAIL." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3717" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3717-3729 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.425, + 0.085, + 0.562, + 0.093 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fact check the following claim:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.289, + 0.093, + 0.699, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However the warming trend is slower than most climate models have forecast. Label: UNFACTUAL" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.113, + 0.193, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-4" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.329, + 0.111, + 0.354, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.134, + 0.347, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The claim is potentially factual but needs context. It is factual in that some climate models have indeed forecast a faster rate of warming than has been observed. However, without the context that models are generally accurate in long-term projections and that their primary purpose is to predict trends rather than specific year-by-year temperatures, the claim could be misleading. The claim is fair, as it does not contain hate speech or stereotypes." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.329, + 0.239, + 0.352, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.24, + 0.227, + 0.249 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3.5-Turbo" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.26, + 0.348, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The claim is factual and fair. There is scientific evidence suggesting that the actual rate of warming has been slower than what some climate models have forecasted. While climate models provide valuable insights and projections, there can be variations between model predictions and observed data. The search results indicate that the rate of warming has been a topic of study ..." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.405, + 0.113, + 0.593, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Informative and Distracting Search Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.4, + 0.129, + 0.594, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) From climate change 'certainty' to rapid decline: a timeline of IPCC ... The fourth IPCC report, in 2007, was the moment when humanity's responsibility for global heating became all but certain: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ... Eleven of the last ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.401, + 0.198, + 0.597, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) AI study finds planet could cross 2-degree warming threshold by mid ... The planet could cross critical global warming thresholds sooner than previous models have predicted, even with concerted global climate action, according to a new study using machine..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.401, + 0.269, + 0.596, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Constrained CMIP6 projections indicate less warming and a slower ... The slower warming implies a lower snow cover loss rate by \\(10.5 - 40.2\\%\\) ... future changes in the predicted variable y ... model intercomparison project phase 5 global climate models using ..." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.646, + 0.113, + 0.683, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SAIL-7B" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.81, + 0.112, + 0.834, + 0.129 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.646, + 0.132, + 0.833, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Search result (1) is distracting, search result (2) is informative, and search result (3) is distracting. i will utilize the informative search result (2) and my knowledge, the related natural fact is that global temperatures have been increasing over time. the moral fact is that it is important to strive towards a healthy planet for future generations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.646, + 0.201, + 0.827, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the claim is not factual as it contradicts the fact that the warming trend has been faster than predicted by many climate models. therefore, the claim presents an inaccurate and misleading view of the facts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.646, + 0.258, + 0.703, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Perplexity.AI" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.81, + 0.257, + 0.834, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.646, + 0.275, + 0.833, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The claim that \"... is partially factual based on the search results. Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming, while some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred.." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.347, + 0.882, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Fact checking grounding on complicated search results with SAIL-7b and strong commercial language models. The first and third passages are distracting since they do not contain information that supports or refutes the claim. And the first result on a 2007 report seems to be obsolete as answering climate-related questions usually needs up-to-date information. In contrast, the second passage disagrees with the claim by the statement \"sooner than previous models have predicted\". Although we acknowledge the complexity introduced by the term \"most\" in the claim, we contend that the second passage as most suitable. SAIL-7b successfully makes the correct prediction while other commercial LLMs are distracted." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.472, + 0.489, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2023) and the ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) retrieval plugin. However, there remains a challenge: is there a trustworthy retrieval model and knowledge base that can be utilized by LLMs?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.538, + 0.489, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing studies on open-domain question answering have chosen Wikipedia as the de facto knowledge base that contains the answer to most questions. However, Zhang et al. (2023) found that the knowledge contained in Wikipedia is not sufficiently up-to-date nor complete for many tasks that require the latest knowledge, so grounding on Wikipedia might lead to worse answers than fully relying on LLMs. Another option is to leverage internet search engines, for example, Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.com1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.716, + 0.489, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although widely used commercial search engines can index and retrieve a vast range of up-to-date information, their retrieval accuracy is ultimately limited, and third-party users cannot control the performance at the model level. As a result, retrieval results can be noisy, and unrelated information might be shown to users. This behavior suggests that there is a trade-off between deploying in-house retrieval systems and external search engines. Although it is possible to prompt LLMs to directly use the retrieval results, distracting search" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.472, + 0.883, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "results can mislead the model and negatively influence the model's performance. As shown in Figure 1, ChatGPT is confused by a distracting passage and generates an incorrect fact check." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.537, + 0.884, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The challenges mentioned above are contradictory, and both have a negative impact on grounded language modeling with current LLMs - static knowledge bases and in-house retrievers are not sufficient or up-to-date for all tasks, while commercial search engines often generate distracting results. To address these challenges simultaneously, we propose a search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL) model. Given input instructions and contexts, the model is trained to generate high-quality responses according to the instruction grounding on the noisy research results. In other words, the model learns to denoise the retrieval results to generate high-quality responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.762, + 0.884, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, we make the following contributions in this work:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.799, + 0.883, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We show that instruction-tuned LLMs can be heavily misled by distracting grounding information and noisy search results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.851, + 0.883, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. We constructed a search-augmented instruction training corpus." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We fine-tune a 7B-parameter language model (SAIL-7B) with the constructed training set," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.799, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.482, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A free, privacy-preserving, zero-tracking search engine." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3718" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which outperforms strong baseline models including GPT-3.5-Turbo and Vicuna-13B on several NLP tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.146, + 0.49, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By comparing the SAIL-7B model with LLaMA-7B, Vicuna-7B, GPT-3.5-turbo, and Vicuna-13B models on instruction following, question answering, and language checking tasks, we find that the SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction following ability and is robust against distracting grounding search results generated by different retrieval models. In addition, the SAIL model also achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art instruction-following LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.321, + 0.219, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Method" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.348, + 0.354, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Search Result Collection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.369, + 0.49, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we use the 52k self-instruction corpus created by the Alpaca team (Taori et al., 2023), and the corresponding responses generated by GPT-4 (Peng et al., 2023). For each instruction, we construct a search query by simply concatenating the instruction and the input, if any, and truncating the query to at most 60 words to fulfill the limitation of the search engine." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The constructed queries are fed into the DuckDuckGo search engine and the BM25 Wikipedia retriever, and the top three search results are retained. Each result consists of three fields: the title, a short piece of preview text, and the corresponding URL of the webpage. For simplicity, we do not further scrape the retrieved webpage, but just use the title and preview texts for further processing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Each training example is assigned a list of corresponding search results. We pool the top-three DuckDuckGO and top-two BM25 search passages with Pyserini (Lin et al., 2021), a total of five search results. Among this pool, we randomly sample zero, one, two, and three search results with \\(20\\%\\), \\(20\\%\\), \\(20\\%\\), and \\(40\\%\\) probability. Given this randomness, some training cases could be associated with search results from a single source." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.786, + 0.395, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 In-context Retrieval Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To encourage the LLM to focus on trustworthy and informative search results, we concatenate a search filtering sequence before each annotated response of training instances. For example, \"Search result (1) is informative and search result (2) is distracting, so I will use the information from the search result (1).\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, the trustworthiness of each search result is not labeled, and the number of retrieval items is large. To bypass the need of costly human annotation, we employ an entailment classification model proposed in (Luo and Glass, 2023), which has in general been proven to be an effective approach for zero-shot setting (Obamuyide and Vlachos, 2018; Condoravdi et al., 2003; Ge et al., 2023). We feed each retrieved passage and the corresponding response into the entailment model and compare the entailed and contradictory scores. While most predictions are neutral against the response, the relation between entailed and contradictory scores can roughly indicate if a retrieved passage can provide useful information to generate the target response. As a result, we obtain pseudo-label \"search result (i) is informative\" if the entailed score is higher than the contradiction score, otherwise the search item is distracting. Note that our primary objective is not the construction of a human-labeled dataset comprising informative and distracting documents. Instead, we aim at proposing a label-free denoising method to enhance retrieval-augmented large language models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.474, + 0.886, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike the training stage, the absence of prior access to the target responses hinders the entailment model to predict pseudo-labels during inference. On the contrary, SAIL-7b acquires the capability to assess the relevance of various search results after training on both search results with pseudolabels and the target responses. Subsequently, it can anchor the final response generation on informative search-augmentation. In other words, SAIL-7b would generate the search selection sequences (e.g., \"search result (i) is informative/distracting\") before the final responses as shown in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.684, + 0.651, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Fine-tuning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.709, + 0.885, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After collecting the search results and generating in-context retrieval selection sequences, we construct input prompts following Figure 2 (b) with GPT-4 generated responses (Peng et al., 2023). Note that the most relevant retrieval result is located at the closest position to the instruction for the model to better use its information. We fine-tune LLaMA-7b models with the constructed prompts to generate both in-context retrieval selection sequences and annotated responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In practice, the models are fine-tuned with academic devices. Specifically, we use \\(4 \\times\\) NVIDIA RTX A6000 GPUs (\\(48\\mathrm{GB} \\times 4\\)) to train the models" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3719" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.086, + 0.362, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Standard Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.109, + 0.404, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Below is an instruction that describes a task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.119, + 0.474, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Write a response that appropriately completes the request." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.134, + 0.308, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: [Instruction]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.143, + 0.284, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: [Input or None]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.159, + 0.207, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.183, + 0.388, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Search-Augmented Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.206, + 0.403, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Below is an instruction that describes a task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.216, + 0.474, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Write a response that appropriately completes the request." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.232, + 0.272, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Related Information:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.24, + 0.267, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Title 3]\\n [Preview 3]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.248, + 0.267, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Title 2]\\n [Preview 2]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.256, + 0.267, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Title 1]\\n [Preview 1]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.272, + 0.307, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: [Instruction]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.281, + 0.284, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: [Input or None]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.296, + 0.207, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response:" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.326, + 0.49, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Different prompting strategies used in this work. (a) Standard prompt: the prompt template used in Peng et al. (2023) to generate GPT-4 responses to the 52k instructions. (b) Search-augmented prompt: combining the top three search results and the instruction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.424, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for 3 epochs. We apply mixed-precision training (fp16) with the standard AdamW optimizer. We set the maximum sequence length as 1,600 and the batch size as 32. Following Vicuna, we apply gradient checkpointing to reduce the memory cost. The entire fine-tuning process takes 24 hours (\\(24 \\times 4\\) GPU hours). To enable the fine-tuning, we applied gradient offload with Deepspeed and full-sharded data parallel (FSDP) (Paszke et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.584, + 0.248, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.606, + 0.489, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SAIL for instruction following. Following Peng et al. (2023), we evaluate the instruction following quality of different models by comparing with GPT-4 responses on the same set of instructions and scoring with GPT-4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.688, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each case, we construct an evaluation prompt by concatenating the instruction, the GPT-4 response, and the response of the target model. We feed the evaluation prompt to GPT-4 and ask it to score the two responses between 0 to 10. We use the Question-\\(80^2\\) corpus (Chiang et al., 2023), which contains 80 questions to evaluate all models and we calculate the total score a model receives on all questions. To test the ability of the models on latest, unseen texts, we build another 80-question evaluation set based on latest news articles published after May 2023, which are never" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "included in any training corpus as we finished all experiments. We name the new question set as New-Questions-803. Because related information and knowledge are not included in the pretraining corpora, a language model has zero knowledge to answer and has to be grounded on an up-to-date search engine to generate informed answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.198, + 0.885, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the evaluation prompt authored by the Vicuna team. The highest possible score is \\(80 \\times 10 = 800\\). It is worth noting that GPT-4 responses can receive slightly different scores against different counterparts. To normalize the difference, we calculate the ratio of model score / GPT-4 score for each test case as the final assessment as implemented in Peng et al. (2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.343, + 0.885, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SAIL for Question Answering. Besides evaluating the quality of instruction-guided generations, we assess the model's ability to answer commonsense questions. We also test the models on two different settings, including instructed zero-shot prediction and the search-augmentation mode. We evaluate the model performance on CommonsenseQA (CSQA; Talmor et al. (2019)), OpenbookQA (OBQA; Mihaylov et al. (2018)), and ARC-Challenge (Clark et al., 2018) benchmarks. All tasks require answering open-ended questions by selecting from a given set of candidate answers. Through the question-answering experiments, we show that instruction-tuned language models can be significantly biased by noisy research results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.616, + 0.884, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SAIL for Fact and Fairness Checking. With the recent advances in LLMs that generate human-like languages without guaranteed alignment, human and machine-generated misinformation, stereotypes, and toxicity have become timely and significant concerns. Recent studies have shown that with appropriate instructions and prompts, LLMs can perform unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023). However, other attempts have relied only on LLMs, without grounding on any external sources, thus reducing the trustworthiness and transparency of the checking results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.81, + 0.884, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we evaluate instructed fact and fairness checking, with the UniLC benchmark proposed in (Zhang et al., 2023), including Climate-Fever, PubMed, Hate Speech Detec" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.88, + 0.749, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Will release with code if accepted." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.894, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/ fastchat/eval/table/prompt.jsonl" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.88, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.906, + 0.376, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "```bash\nchat/eval/table/question.json" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3720" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.084, + 0.881, + 0.157 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.174, + 0.49, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.174, + 0.88, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.298, + 0.885, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Scoring results of all language models on Question-80 and New-Question-80 benchmarks against GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo. Search indicates generating responses with language models grounding on search results retrieved by DuckDuckGO, and SAIL (7B) stands for generating responses without search results, although the model is trained for grounded generations. Both Vicuna-7 & 13B are version 1.1 models. The orange bars stand for SAIL-7B and blue bars stand for GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.394, + 0.49, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tion, and Social Biase Frame (SBIC) tasks with two different settings - zero-shot and search-augmented. While we are not aware of what corpora are used to train GPT-4 and ChatGPT, we assess the language-checking performance of Vicuna-7B-v1.1, Vicuna-13B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B with and without search results." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.519, + 0.262, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.545, + 0.332, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Instruction Following" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.489, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Evaluation with GPT-4. We compare the performance of different models under end-to-end and search grounded settings against GPT-4 and ChatGPT models on Question-80 and New-Question-80. The scoring results are shown in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.663, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By comparing to GPT-4 on Question-80, we find that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model significantly outperforms all other models (90% vs \\(< 85\\%\\)) using fewer training instructions and parameters, including strong baselines like Vicuna-13B and GPT-3.5-Turbo powered ChatGPT. This indicates that when the grounding information is provided, the model does not need as many parameters to memorize knowledge. In addition, the SAIL-7B model also achieves high performance even without search results, showing that the model performance is stable under different generation settings. Similar conclusions can be found by comparing all models against GPT-3.5-Turbo. While GPT-4 is still better, experiment results show that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.394, + 0.885, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "achieves \\(103\\%\\) of GPT-3.5-Turbo performance and the no-augmentation SAIL model achieves \\(98\\%\\), outperforming several strong baselines, including LLaMA tuned on GPT-4 instructions and Vicuna models with the same number of parameters. Besides GPT-4, search-augmented SAIL-7B is the only model that outperforms GPT-3.5-Turbo on both experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.528, + 0.885, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we found that the search augmentation makes a significantly higher positive contribution to the SAIL model than all other models. With GPT-3.5-Turbo, feeding search-augmented prompts with instructions leads to very slight improvements on both evaluations. However, grounding on search results can hurt the performance of Vicuna and LLaMA-GPT4 models of different sizes. By comparing against GPT-4, Vicuna-13B is slightly improved by search results, but the improvement is not present when compared to GPT-3.5-Turbo. For the Vicuna-7B and LLaMA-7B-GPT4 baselines, augmenting input prompts with search engine outputs makes a significant, negative impact on both evaluations. On the other hand, applying search augmentation to SAIL-7B significantly improves model performance on both experiments (84% to 90% and 98% to 103%)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On New-Question-80, we find that GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo perform similarly and are both outperformed by SAIL-7B. There are two main challenges that cause this result. Firstly, the models need to reason based on new texts that never" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3721" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "appeared in their pretraining or fine-tuning corpora. Secondly, the texts provided by the search engines are noisy. On the other hand, SAIL-7B deals with the problems more successfully through search augmented instruction tuning. These results inform our findings:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.195, + 0.489, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The search results contain useful information that can improve the performance of instruction-following language models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.249, + 0.489, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Without search-augmented fine-tuning, it is difficult for a language model to utilize valuable information among the complicated search results, and distracting retrieval results can mislead the generations. Generation on latest questions further signifies the challenge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Search-augmented instruction learning can help the model better utilize the valuable information among noisy search results and improve instruction-following performance." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.195, + 0.49, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.431, + 0.322, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Question Answering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.453, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Common Knowledge. The experiment results of question answering are shown in Table 1. CSQA, OBQA, and ARC-Challenge are open-ended, selection-based question-answering tasks. We compare instruction-tuned Vicuna-7B, Vicuna-13B, LLaMA-7B-GPT4, and SAIL-7B models under no-augmentation and search-grounded settings with different sources. All evaluations are zero-shot and instruction guided. Traditionally, a knowledgeable LLM can answer questions and select the most coherent and appropriate answers without external information. In each task, we want to evaluate the performance of different models and knowledge bases. We search Wikipedia (Wiki) with the BM25 retriever, and the web with DuckDuckGO (DDG), feeding the LLMs with the top-3 search results, which could contain unrelated and distracting information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In general, we found that DuckDuckGo (DDG) leads to better performance for all models on all tasks because it is more flexible, covering a much wider range of information. This suggests the effectiveness of search engines over retrieving a static knowledge base. We found that both LLaMA and Vicuna-7B models can be slightly improved when search results are provided on most tasks. However, the overall performance is limited. The average accuracy of searched-augmented LLaMA-7B and Vicuna-7B is below \\(50\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With Vicuna-13B, which is a roughly two times larger model, we get the best average performance \\((51.0\\%)\\) on the three tasks without grounding information. However, adding search results hurts its accuracy in most experiments. While augmenting the model with DDG search results slightly improves the performance on CSQA and OBQA, the accuracy on ARC-Challenge is decreased by \\(1.4\\%\\). With BM25-based Wikipedia search results, the accuracy can decrease by as much as \\(1.8\\%\\). While the Vicuna-13B model achieves strong non-augmented performance, it is challenging to further improve the accuracy by utilizing helpful information in the search results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.326, + 0.885, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast, the SAIL-7B model improves on all tasks when incorporating the search results, and also achieves strong non-augmented performance. Without retrieval results, SAIL-7B significantly outperforms LLaMA and Vicuna-7B on all tasks with a large margin (49.5% vs 44.5% and 40.9% average accuracy). It also performs slightly better than Vicuna-13B on CSQA and OBQA tasks, while Vicuna-13B is still strongest on ARC-C. While search augmentation leads to at most 0.5% improvement for Vicuna-13B, DDG search results improve SAIL-7B by 2.8% on OBQA and 1.2% on average, showing that the SAIL-7B model can steadily utilize the helpful information among the search results. As a result, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model achieves the best performance on both CSQA and OBQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.631, + 0.885, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TruthfulQA. We use the TruthfulQA evaluation set (Lin et al., 2022) containing 817 questions to evaluate how informative and truthful are language models. Following the standard approach, we fine-tuned a GPT-3 model for automatic evaluation. We compare the plain LLaMA models and search augmented instruction following models using the GPT-3 evaluator. The performance of different models and settings are shown in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We notice that with search grounding, both truth and info scores can be significantly improved. By connecting with a search engine, the 7B models can significantly outperform the largest LLaMA-65B model. Similar to the automatic instruction-following results, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model outperforms search-augmented Vicuna-13B." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3722" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.082, + 0.861, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelLLaMA-GPT4-7BVicuna-7BVicuna-13BSAIL-7B
SearchNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDG
CSQA48.447.749.644.945.647.650.651.150.951.551.051.8
OBQA42.244.444.637.239.442.649.047.249.449.250.252.0
ARC-C43.045.247.340.544.546.353.251.651.847.748.148.4
Avg.44.545.847.240.943.345.551.050.050.749.549.850.7
Search Effectnone+1.3+2.7none+2.4+4.6none-1.0-0.3none+0.3+1.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.198, + 0.215, + 0.798, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Question answering accuracy (%) by zero-shot models with simple instructions." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.252, + 0.468, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelSizeTrueTrue * Info
No Search Augmentation
GPT-3175B0.280.25
LLaMA65B0.570.53
LLaMA7B0.330.29
Alpaca7B0.330.33
Vicuna7B0.560.52
W/ Search Augmentation
Vicuna13B0.710.69
Vicuna7B0.680.65
SAIL7B0.730.73
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.476, + 0.487, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of large language models on the TruthfulQA benchmark." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.537, + 0.379, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Fact and Fairness Checking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.563, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The other task we evaluate model performance on is unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023), a combined benchmark with four sub-tasks including fact-checking (Diggelmann et al., 2020; Kotonya and Toni, 2020), hate speech detection (de Gibert et al., 2018), and stereotype recognition (Sap et al., 2020). We evaluate the zero-shot performance on all four tasks, and the experiment results are shown in Table 3. The SAIL-7B model achieves the highest accuracy and F1 scores on all tasks, despite no grounding information being provided for the fact-checking tasks. We also found that the Vicuna-7B and 13B models perform similarly on fact and fairness checking." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the fact-checking tasks, we further evaluate the performance grounding on search results generated by DuckDuckGo. Grounding on an external search engine has both advantages and disadvantages. Many fact checking benchmarks provide task-specific grounding corpora that limit the domain of information retrieval. However, internet misinformation can be very arbitrary and related to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the latest facts. A commercial search engine is able to catch a wide range of up-to-date information that a retrieval model with a fixed knowledge base cannot achieve. However, search engines are usually less accurate than dense retrievers, and they might retrieve disputed documents that influence the quality of fact checking. Our experiments show that the search results are not helpful for all baseline models. On Climate-Fever, augmenting the model with search results decreases the overall accuracy of LLaMA by \\(3\\%\\). On the PubHealth task, both accuracy and F1 of Vicuna-13B model are decreased by the search results, by \\(4\\%\\) and \\(1\\%\\) respectively. This shows that the search results contain distracting information, which prevents the models to utilize helpful evidence among noises." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.886, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, SAIL is more robust against distracting languages and its fact-checking performance is improved on the same set of search results, as shown in Table 4. With search augmentation, the fact-checking accuracy and F1 scores of SAIL are improved on both tasks, as high as \\(4.2\\%\\) on Climate-Fever. The augmented SAIL model also significantly outperforms all baselines, including Vicuna-13B and LLaMA-7B tuned with GPT-4 responses by \\(9\\%\\) accuracy and \\(5\\%\\) F1, showing the effectiveness of search augmented fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.701, + 0.666, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models. Beginning with GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a), LLMs have demonstrated strong abilities in knowledge memorization and text-based inference on a wide range of tasks. Well-known LLMs include GPT-3, LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), FLAN (Wei et al., 2021), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023). Compared to smaller language models, LLMs have several emergent abilities (Wei et al., 2022a), including zero-shot multi-task solving, and few-shot in-context learning with chain-of-thought reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b;" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3723" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.082, + 0.842, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthFact Avg.HSDSBICFairness Avg.All Avg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.960.659.255.974.565.262.2
F138.856.6347.768.584.376.462.04
Vicuna-13BAcc51.454.452.957.772.365.059.0
F142.557.750.169.682.976.363.2
LLaMA-7BAcc58.859.959.362.374.868.663.9
F146.657.552.072.384.478.465.2
SAIL-7BAcc63.569.266.470.176.473.269.8
F151.063.657.375.183.979.568.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.253, + 0.794, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Instructed zero-shot language checking performance on the UniLC benchmark." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.291, + 0.486, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthAvg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.760.158.9
Acc Diff-0.2-0.5-0.3
F149.557.653.6
F1 Diff+10.7+1.0+5.9
Vicuna-13BAcc53.550.351.9
Acc Diff+2.1-4.1-1.0
F146.656.851.7
F1 Diff+4.1-0.9+1.6
LLaMA-7BAcc55.862.859.3
Acc Diff-3.0+2.9-0.1
F150.259.754.9
F1 Diff+3.6+2.2+2.9
SAIL-7BAcc65.870.768.3
Acc Diff+2.3+1.5+1.9
F155.264.559.9
F1 Diff+4.2+0.9+2.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.571, + 0.486, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Search augmented zero-shot fact checking on the Climate-Fever and PubHealth benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.629, + 0.265, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wang et al., 2022a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction following. Pretrained LLMs can generate texts following certain formats and rules by seeing a few examples in their prompts. To make LLMs more scalable and improve zero-shot performance, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed training GPT-3 with instruction-response corpora. As a result, InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 can handle a wide range of tasks without seeing any examples. Recent research has also found that both GPT-generated instructions and instruct-following outputs (Peng et al., 2023) can improve the instruction-following ability of LLMs. (Wang et al., 2022a) proposed a semi-supervised method to generate diverse instructions based on a seed instruction base on NLP tasks (Mishra et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b). A more recent study shows" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) can generate high-quality instruction-following language. Recent efforts on open-sourcing instruction-following LLMs include Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.397, + 0.885, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retrieval-augmented language models. Prior to our work, several initiatives explored retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs). The pioneering approaches – REALM (Guu et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020) – sought to train language models with retrievers in an end-to-end manner. RETRO (Borgeaud et al., 2022) introduced the idea of training an LM on top of a frozen retriever. Atlas (Izacard et al., 2022) further explored dedicated loss functions for the end-to-end training of the retriever and the LM, achieving superior performance on several few-shot learning tasks. Recently, RePlug (Shi et al., 2023) and Incontext RALM (Ram et al., 2023) instead explore an opposite direction: use a frozen black-box LM while fine-tuning the retrieval modules. RePlug shows its advantages of leveraging large LMs like Codex (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020b), outperforming Altas on few-shot question-answering tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the success of RALMs, most of these models have limitations, including 1) constraining the search space to a closed corpus like Wikipedia 2) lacking explicit mechanisms for disregarding distracting search results, and 3) applying a few-shot in-context learning setting without considering instruction fine-tuning during RALM training. Consequently, their applications remain relatively narrow, primarily focusing on tasks such as question-answering and language modeling. SAIL addresses these limitations by 1) employing real-world search engines, 2) introducing a search result denoising" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3724" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "process capable of filtering out distracting information, and 3) incorporating instruction fine-tuning. Consequently, SAIL demonstrates its superiority in broader applications, including instruction following for chatbots, fact and fairness checking, all of which benefit from access to up-to-date information retrieved from real-world search engines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.209, + 0.248, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.234, + 0.493, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we found that disputed and distracting search results can significantly mislead the predictions of large language models. Several transparency-sensitive tasks, including open-domain question answering and language checking can be negatively influenced by this phenomenon. To solve this problem, we propose a search-augmented instruction-following large language model with 7B parameters. We construct the first search-augmented instruction-tuning corpus consisting of human-generated instructions, GPT-4 generated responses, and search results generated by a BM25 retriever based on Wikipedia and a commercial search engine. We then finetuned the LLaMA-7B language model with the constructed training corpus on academic computational resources. Experiments on instruction-following, question answering, and fact/fairness checking show that the search-augmented language model can distill trustworthy and helpful information from all search results and generate high-quality responses, improving both the performance and transparency of instruction-following large language models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.633, + 0.281, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.658, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research was supported by the Center for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence (CPII) Ltd under the Innovation and Technology Commission's InnoHK Scheme." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.733, + 0.22, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While the model we propose achieves high performance with efficient model settings, the major limitation of the model is that it does not explain why a search result is trustworthy or informative or not. In future work, we will fine-tune larger models and enable the models to recognize trustworthy search results with explanations. In the context of automated instruction-following evaluation, we adhere to the established literature that employing GPT-4 as the evaluator (Peng et al., 2023; Chiang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). The robust performance of GPT-4 on Question-80 benchmark shows its efficacy. However, on the New-Question-80 benchmark, GPT-4 exhibits a comparatively diminished level of performance due to the need of latest knowledge. While this may introduce an element of uncertainty into the evaluation process, we believe that presenting these results can encourage the research community to be more informed and interested in this challenging problem. We plan to incorporate a human-in-loop evaluation as part of our future endeavors, ensuring a more precise and comprehensive assessment of instruction-following capabilities of large language models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.34, + 0.61, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.365, + 0.886, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.47, + 0.886, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.667, + 0.885, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1870-1879." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.839, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.365, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3725" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with \\(90\\%\\) * chatgpt quality." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.173, + 0.489, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. ArXiv, abs/1803.05457." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.247, + 0.489, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cleo Condoravdi, Dick Crouch, Valeria de Paiva, Reinhard Stolle, and Daniel G. Bobrow. 2003. Entailment, intensionality and text understanding. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning, pages 38-45." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.322, + 0.487, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor Garcia-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. EMNLP 2018, page 11." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.37, + 0.489, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Jannis Bulian, Massimiliano Ciaramita, and Markus Leippold. 2020. Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.444, + 0.488, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaxin Ge, Hongyin Luo, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2023. Entailment as robust self-learner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17197." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.492, + 0.489, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.553, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3309-3326." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.653, + 0.489, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.74, + 0.489, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neema Kotonya and Francesca Toni. 2020. Explainable automated fact-checking for public health claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7740-7754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.827, + 0.49, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.883, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2356-2362." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.29, + 0.883, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.365, + 0.883, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.428, + 0.883, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongyin Luo and James Glass. 2023. Logic against bias: Textual entailment mitigates stereotypical sentence reasoning. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1243-1254, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.529, + 0.883, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.605, + 0.883, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.667, + 0.883, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abiola Obamuyide and Andreas Vlachos. 2018. Zero-shot relation classification as textual entailment. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERIFICATION (FEVER), pages 72-78, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.743, + 0.756, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.767, + 0.772, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3726" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.137, + 0.488, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.187, + 0.488, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00083." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.251, + 0.488, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5477-5490." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.341, + 0.488, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.417, + 0.488, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.494, + 0.488, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.623, + 0.488, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.7, + 0.488, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.488, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on \\(1600+\\) tasks. In EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.883, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.251, + 0.883, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.327, + 0.883, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.39, + 0.883, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.465, + 0.883, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianhua Zhang, Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Wei Fang, Luc Gaitskell, Thomas Hartvigsen, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. 2023. Interpretable unified language checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03728." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3727" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.082, + 0.437, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsVicuna-7B-v1.1SAIL-7B
Novel \nVerbsInclude \nConsiderCalculate \nMatch \nRevolutionize \nCheck \nInclude \nIncrease
Count26
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.211, + 0.49, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Top-10 verbs generated by LLaMA-based models that do not overlap with GPT-4 and ChatGPT." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.253, + 0.454, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsAvg.Std.Diversity
GPT-4303.8121.50.48
ChatGPT135.163.60.56
Vicuna-13B204.182.90.45
Vicuna-7B196.590.30.45
SAIL-7B + Search246.287.70.44
SAIL-7B206.686.90.47
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.363, + 0.49, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Statistics about the length and diversity of the generated responses of different language models. Diversity stands for the total number of different words divided by the total length." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.445, + 0.259, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Data Statics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.471, + 0.49, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first show the word preference of different models on the 80 unseen instructions. The results are shown in Figure 4. We compare the distributions of top-10 verbs generated by GPT4, GPT-3.5-Turbo (ChatGPT), Vicuna-7B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B models. With search augmentation, SAIL-7B generates significantly more verbs that do not overlap with GPT's generations, as shown in Table 5. Only two top-10 verbs generated by Vicuna are not covered by GPT-4 and ChatGPT, while six out of ten verbs generated by SAIL-7b are not high-frequency verbs by the GPT models. This indicates that the grounding search results can shift the generation preference of the language models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.697, + 0.49, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The statistics of the generated responses is shown in Table 6. GPT-4 generates the longest and most diverse responses, while ChatGPT tends to generate shorter and simpler answers. Without search augmentation, the lengths of SAIL-7B generated sequences are similar to the Vicuna models. This indicates that search augmentation can increase the length of the generated responses." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3728" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.258, + 0.452, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.255, + 0.496, + 0.341, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vicuna-7b-v1.1" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.257, + 0.84, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.651, + 0.496, + 0.742, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SAIL-LLaMA-7b" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.512, + 0.45, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.549, + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.727, + 0.807, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Top-10 verbs and associated nouns generated by selective large language models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3729" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_origin.pdf b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05cc99ba387ae359a42d553d76a3f31c6ce13a61 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/dbc8d3b6-3908-4a2f-bfbe-5f06e762e736_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b6f6e1c9213592b65e44c84a4d79eb9ed7a2a9320dd8d705b9cb84b45d739b7c +size 2081810 diff --git a/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/full.md b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..08c2444a924f0c8980e10dfdc6bb905a8ae55d55 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,346 @@ +# Search Augmented Instruction Learning + +Hongyin Luo $^{1*}$ Tianhua Zhang $^{2*}$ Yung-Sung Chuang $^{1}$ Yuan Gong $^{1}$ Yoon Kim $^{1}$ Xixin Wu $^{2}$ Helen Meng $^{2}$ James Glass $^{1}$ + +1 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Cambridge MA, USA +2 CUHK Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong SAR, China +hyluo@mit.edu, thzhang@link.cuhk.edu.hk + +# Abstract + +It is widely believed that connecting large language models with search engines can improve their transparency, truthfulness, and accessing to up-to-date information. However, we show that search grounding introduces new challenges to language models because of distracting, misleading, and untrustworthy information. To deal with these difficulties, we propose search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL), which allows a fine-tuned language model to source, denoise, and reason based on a mixed set of helpful and distracting search results. With an instruction tuning corpus, we collect search results for each training case from different search APIs and domains, and construct a new search-grounded training set containing (instruction, grounding information, response) triplets. We then fine-tune the LLaMA-7B model on the constructed training set. Since the collected search results contain distracting and disputing languages, the model needs to learn to ground on trustworthy search results, filter out distracting passages, and generate the target response. The search result-denoising process entails explicit trustworthy information selection and multi-hop reasoning, since the retrieved passages might be informative but not contain the instruction-following answer. Experiments show that the fine-tuned SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction-following ability, and it performs significantly better on transparencysensitive tasks, including question answering and fact checking. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated many impressive capabilities, including zero-shot inference and few-shot in-context learning (Wei et al., 2022a). Recent research has shown that LLMs benefit from instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022), and that such instruction-tuned LLMs + +significantly outperform plain LLMs on zero-shot language tasks (Peng et al., 2023). Instruction-tuned LLMs have shown an ability to generate both natural and programming languages following natural language guidance and requests. To achieve the same goal, a pretrained LLM needs a number of annotated examples as in-context learning prompts. + +Despite their impressive behavior, LLMs have a number of issues, including obsolescence and nontransparency. Understandably, LLMs are trained with corpora constructed up to a certain time point. With this fixed, pretrained or fine-tuned model, subsequently occurring information cannot appear in any informed generation by the LLM. One way to update the knowledge in LLMs is to re-train the entire model with an updated training corpus. However, this would be costly and time-consuming. + +In terms of transparency, the predictions of LLMs are opaque because generations are not grounded on trustworthy sources. It is possible for an LLM to generate undesirable language that looks like human-generated text, including misinformation, stereotypes, and toxic language (Zhang et al., 2023; Hartvigsen et al., 2022). Without providing legitimate sources for LLM generated texts, it is difficult to catch and avoid these undesirable LLM behaviors. + +To overcome these difficulties, a straightforward solution is to connect LLMs to information retrieval systems, especially commercial search engines. By doing so, the LLM can ground its predictions on information retrieved from an up-to-date knowledge base, and the sources of the generations would be transparent to users. Before LLMs became large enough to memorize a significant amount of world knowledge, retrieval-based grounding had been heavily studied for open-domain question answering (Chen et al., 2017; Kwiatkowski et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020). Recent LLMs have also shown the potential of using information retrieval tools, e.g., Toolformer (Schick + +# Fact check the following claim: + +However the warming trend is slower than most climate models have forecast. Label: UNFACTUAL + +# GPT-4 + +![](images/fef36f844b7c00d5401f0ec1598eb6071af9d956a26cbd8463fcb61957f09679.jpg) +Figure 1: Fact checking grounding on complicated search results with SAIL-7b and strong commercial language models. The first and third passages are distracting since they do not contain information that supports or refutes the claim. And the first result on a 2007 report seems to be obsolete as answering climate-related questions usually needs up-to-date information. In contrast, the second passage disagrees with the claim by the statement "sooner than previous models have predicted". Although we acknowledge the complexity introduced by the term "most" in the claim, we contend that the second passage as most suitable. SAIL-7b successfully makes the correct prediction while other commercial LLMs are distracted. + +The claim is potentially factual but needs context. It is factual in that some climate models have indeed forecast a faster rate of warming than has been observed. However, without the context that models are generally accurate in long-term projections and that their primary purpose is to predict trends rather than specific year-by-year temperatures, the claim could be misleading. The claim is fair, as it does not contain hate speech or stereotypes. + +![](images/da4ee707d83bc79ebf52cb4f40daa9564c7cf3f25aa1d6f6b1cc583d1764c317.jpg) + +# GPT-3.5-Turbo + +The claim is factual and fair. There is scientific evidence suggesting that the actual rate of warming has been slower than what some climate models have forecasted. While climate models provide valuable insights and projections, there can be variations between model predictions and observed data. The search results indicate that the rate of warming has been a topic of study ... + +# Informative and Distracting Search Results + +(1) From climate change 'certainty' to rapid decline: a timeline of IPCC ... The fourth IPCC report, in 2007, was the moment when humanity's responsibility for global heating became all but certain: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ... Eleven of the last ... + +(2) AI study finds planet could cross 2-degree warming threshold by mid ... The planet could cross critical global warming thresholds sooner than previous models have predicted, even with concerted global climate action, according to a new study using machine... + +(3) Constrained CMIP6 projections indicate less warming and a slower ... The slower warming implies a lower snow cover loss rate by $10.5 - 40.2\%$ ... future changes in the predicted variable y ... model intercomparison project phase 5 global climate models using ... + +# SAIL-7B + +![](images/76f3755700955fca2dc01019ec5bdd266a9521eee0087291c9dbceaccd9f5e93.jpg) + +Search result (1) is distracting, search result (2) is informative, and search result (3) is distracting. i will utilize the informative search result (2) and my knowledge, the related natural fact is that global temperatures have been increasing over time. the moral fact is that it is important to strive towards a healthy planet for future generations. + +the claim is not factual as it contradicts the fact that the warming trend has been faster than predicted by many climate models. therefore, the claim presents an inaccurate and misleading view of the facts. + +# Perplexity.AI + +![](images/52f68176bfa7b3b91e203a838b4e31e17ed584fbca97dbf9b03b8d86bc8f66b5.jpg) + +The claim that "... is partially factual based on the search results. Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming, while some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred.. + +et al., 2023) and the ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) retrieval plugin. However, there remains a challenge: is there a trustworthy retrieval model and knowledge base that can be utilized by LLMs? + +Existing studies on open-domain question answering have chosen Wikipedia as the de facto knowledge base that contains the answer to most questions. However, Zhang et al. (2023) found that the knowledge contained in Wikipedia is not sufficiently up-to-date nor complete for many tasks that require the latest knowledge, so grounding on Wikipedia might lead to worse answers than fully relying on LLMs. Another option is to leverage internet search engines, for example, Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.com1. + +Although widely used commercial search engines can index and retrieve a vast range of up-to-date information, their retrieval accuracy is ultimately limited, and third-party users cannot control the performance at the model level. As a result, retrieval results can be noisy, and unrelated information might be shown to users. This behavior suggests that there is a trade-off between deploying in-house retrieval systems and external search engines. Although it is possible to prompt LLMs to directly use the retrieval results, distracting search + +results can mislead the model and negatively influence the model's performance. As shown in Figure 1, ChatGPT is confused by a distracting passage and generates an incorrect fact check. + +The challenges mentioned above are contradictory, and both have a negative impact on grounded language modeling with current LLMs - static knowledge bases and in-house retrievers are not sufficient or up-to-date for all tasks, while commercial search engines often generate distracting results. To address these challenges simultaneously, we propose a search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL) model. Given input instructions and contexts, the model is trained to generate high-quality responses according to the instruction grounding on the noisy research results. In other words, the model learns to denoise the retrieval results to generate high-quality responses. + +In summary, we make the following contributions in this work: + +1. We show that instruction-tuned LLMs can be heavily misled by distracting grounding information and noisy search results. +2. We constructed a search-augmented instruction training corpus. +3. We fine-tune a 7B-parameter language model (SAIL-7B) with the constructed training set, + +which outperforms strong baseline models including GPT-3.5-Turbo and Vicuna-13B on several NLP tasks. + +By comparing the SAIL-7B model with LLaMA-7B, Vicuna-7B, GPT-3.5-turbo, and Vicuna-13B models on instruction following, question answering, and language checking tasks, we find that the SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction following ability and is robust against distracting grounding search results generated by different retrieval models. In addition, the SAIL model also achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art instruction-following LLMs. + +# 2 Method + +# 2.1 Search Result Collection + +In this work, we use the 52k self-instruction corpus created by the Alpaca team (Taori et al., 2023), and the corresponding responses generated by GPT-4 (Peng et al., 2023). For each instruction, we construct a search query by simply concatenating the instruction and the input, if any, and truncating the query to at most 60 words to fulfill the limitation of the search engine. + +The constructed queries are fed into the DuckDuckGo search engine and the BM25 Wikipedia retriever, and the top three search results are retained. Each result consists of three fields: the title, a short piece of preview text, and the corresponding URL of the webpage. For simplicity, we do not further scrape the retrieved webpage, but just use the title and preview texts for further processing. + +Each training example is assigned a list of corresponding search results. We pool the top-three DuckDuckGO and top-two BM25 search passages with Pyserini (Lin et al., 2021), a total of five search results. Among this pool, we randomly sample zero, one, two, and three search results with $20\%$ , $20\%$ , $20\%$ , and $40\%$ probability. Given this randomness, some training cases could be associated with search results from a single source. + +# 2.2 In-context Retrieval Selection + +To encourage the LLM to focus on trustworthy and informative search results, we concatenate a search filtering sequence before each annotated response of training instances. For example, "Search result (1) is informative and search result (2) is distracting, so I will use the information from the search result (1)." + +However, the trustworthiness of each search result is not labeled, and the number of retrieval items is large. To bypass the need of costly human annotation, we employ an entailment classification model proposed in (Luo and Glass, 2023), which has in general been proven to be an effective approach for zero-shot setting (Obamuyide and Vlachos, 2018; Condoravdi et al., 2003; Ge et al., 2023). We feed each retrieved passage and the corresponding response into the entailment model and compare the entailed and contradictory scores. While most predictions are neutral against the response, the relation between entailed and contradictory scores can roughly indicate if a retrieved passage can provide useful information to generate the target response. As a result, we obtain pseudo-label "search result (i) is informative" if the entailed score is higher than the contradiction score, otherwise the search item is distracting. Note that our primary objective is not the construction of a human-labeled dataset comprising informative and distracting documents. Instead, we aim at proposing a label-free denoising method to enhance retrieval-augmented large language models. + +Unlike the training stage, the absence of prior access to the target responses hinders the entailment model to predict pseudo-labels during inference. On the contrary, SAIL-7b acquires the capability to assess the relevance of various search results after training on both search results with pseudolabels and the target responses. Subsequently, it can anchor the final response generation on informative search-augmentation. In other words, SAIL-7b would generate the search selection sequences (e.g., "search result (i) is informative/distracting") before the final responses as shown in Figure 1. + +# 2.3 Fine-tuning + +After collecting the search results and generating in-context retrieval selection sequences, we construct input prompts following Figure 2 (b) with GPT-4 generated responses (Peng et al., 2023). Note that the most relevant retrieval result is located at the closest position to the instruction for the model to better use its information. We fine-tune LLaMA-7b models with the constructed prompts to generate both in-context retrieval selection sequences and annotated responses. + +In practice, the models are fine-tuned with academic devices. Specifically, we use $4 \times$ NVIDIA RTX A6000 GPUs ( $48\mathrm{GB} \times 4$ ) to train the models + +# (a) Standard Prompt + +Below is an instruction that describes a task. + +Write a response that appropriately completes the request. + +Instruction: [Instruction] + +Input: [Input or None] + +Response: + +# (b) Search-Augmented Prompt + +Below is an instruction that describes a task. + +Write a response that appropriately completes the request. + +Related Information: + +[Title 3]\n [Preview 3] + +[Title 2]\n [Preview 2] + +[Title 1]\n [Preview 1] + +Instruction: [Instruction] + +Input: [Input or None] + +Response: + +Figure 2: Different prompting strategies used in this work. (a) Standard prompt: the prompt template used in Peng et al. (2023) to generate GPT-4 responses to the 52k instructions. (b) Search-augmented prompt: combining the top three search results and the instruction. + +for 3 epochs. We apply mixed-precision training (fp16) with the standard AdamW optimizer. We set the maximum sequence length as 1,600 and the batch size as 32. Following Vicuna, we apply gradient checkpointing to reduce the memory cost. The entire fine-tuning process takes 24 hours ( $24 \times 4$ GPU hours). To enable the fine-tuning, we applied gradient offload with Deepspeed and full-sharded data parallel (FSDP) (Paszke et al., 2019). + +# 2.4 Evaluation + +SAIL for instruction following. Following Peng et al. (2023), we evaluate the instruction following quality of different models by comparing with GPT-4 responses on the same set of instructions and scoring with GPT-4. + +For each case, we construct an evaluation prompt by concatenating the instruction, the GPT-4 response, and the response of the target model. We feed the evaluation prompt to GPT-4 and ask it to score the two responses between 0 to 10. We use the Question- $80^2$ corpus (Chiang et al., 2023), which contains 80 questions to evaluate all models and we calculate the total score a model receives on all questions. To test the ability of the models on latest, unseen texts, we build another 80-question evaluation set based on latest news articles published after May 2023, which are never + +included in any training corpus as we finished all experiments. We name the new question set as New-Questions-803. Because related information and knowledge are not included in the pretraining corpora, a language model has zero knowledge to answer and has to be grounded on an up-to-date search engine to generate informed answers. + +We use the evaluation prompt authored by the Vicuna team. The highest possible score is $80 \times 10 = 800$ . It is worth noting that GPT-4 responses can receive slightly different scores against different counterparts. To normalize the difference, we calculate the ratio of model score / GPT-4 score for each test case as the final assessment as implemented in Peng et al. (2023). + +SAIL for Question Answering. Besides evaluating the quality of instruction-guided generations, we assess the model's ability to answer commonsense questions. We also test the models on two different settings, including instructed zero-shot prediction and the search-augmentation mode. We evaluate the model performance on CommonsenseQA (CSQA; Talmor et al. (2019)), OpenbookQA (OBQA; Mihaylov et al. (2018)), and ARC-Challenge (Clark et al., 2018) benchmarks. All tasks require answering open-ended questions by selecting from a given set of candidate answers. Through the question-answering experiments, we show that instruction-tuned language models can be significantly biased by noisy research results. + +SAIL for Fact and Fairness Checking. With the recent advances in LLMs that generate human-like languages without guaranteed alignment, human and machine-generated misinformation, stereotypes, and toxicity have become timely and significant concerns. Recent studies have shown that with appropriate instructions and prompts, LLMs can perform unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023). However, other attempts have relied only on LLMs, without grounding on any external sources, thus reducing the trustworthiness and transparency of the checking results. + +In this work, we evaluate instructed fact and fairness checking, with the UniLC benchmark proposed in (Zhang et al., 2023), including Climate-Fever, PubMed, Hate Speech Detec + +3Will release with code if accepted. +4https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/ fastchat/eval/table/prompt.jsonl + +![](images/1d68ac8cae12787d6dfb73934175e6eb3eef3ebdaa4a2a81a96ac6f6809a86a0.jpg) + +![](images/415b014b2b0c9355de9626e6d1e5e512db874402daceda5798c6947f666a8fe1.jpg) + +![](images/3c48249e9997c1c5e9a5828de13a556de1b01159e95a5daf677df27afb50c115.jpg) +Figure 3: Scoring results of all language models on Question-80 and New-Question-80 benchmarks against GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo. Search indicates generating responses with language models grounding on search results retrieved by DuckDuckGO, and SAIL (7B) stands for generating responses without search results, although the model is trained for grounded generations. Both Vicuna-7 & 13B are version 1.1 models. The orange bars stand for SAIL-7B and blue bars stand for GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo. + +![](images/a70b44db3fa6cf9b0105dc319f94b117be2e5aaeb2d9aafe1fd3239edcca279e.jpg) + +tion, and Social Biase Frame (SBIC) tasks with two different settings - zero-shot and search-augmented. While we are not aware of what corpora are used to train GPT-4 and ChatGPT, we assess the language-checking performance of Vicuna-7B-v1.1, Vicuna-13B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B with and without search results. + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Instruction Following + +Automatic Evaluation with GPT-4. We compare the performance of different models under end-to-end and search grounded settings against GPT-4 and ChatGPT models on Question-80 and New-Question-80. The scoring results are shown in Figure 3. + +By comparing to GPT-4 on Question-80, we find that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model significantly outperforms all other models (90% vs $< 85\%$ ) using fewer training instructions and parameters, including strong baselines like Vicuna-13B and GPT-3.5-Turbo powered ChatGPT. This indicates that when the grounding information is provided, the model does not need as many parameters to memorize knowledge. In addition, the SAIL-7B model also achieves high performance even without search results, showing that the model performance is stable under different generation settings. Similar conclusions can be found by comparing all models against GPT-3.5-Turbo. While GPT-4 is still better, experiment results show that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model + +achieves $103\%$ of GPT-3.5-Turbo performance and the no-augmentation SAIL model achieves $98\%$ , outperforming several strong baselines, including LLaMA tuned on GPT-4 instructions and Vicuna models with the same number of parameters. Besides GPT-4, search-augmented SAIL-7B is the only model that outperforms GPT-3.5-Turbo on both experiments. + +In addition, we found that the search augmentation makes a significantly higher positive contribution to the SAIL model than all other models. With GPT-3.5-Turbo, feeding search-augmented prompts with instructions leads to very slight improvements on both evaluations. However, grounding on search results can hurt the performance of Vicuna and LLaMA-GPT4 models of different sizes. By comparing against GPT-4, Vicuna-13B is slightly improved by search results, but the improvement is not present when compared to GPT-3.5-Turbo. For the Vicuna-7B and LLaMA-7B-GPT4 baselines, augmenting input prompts with search engine outputs makes a significant, negative impact on both evaluations. On the other hand, applying search augmentation to SAIL-7B significantly improves model performance on both experiments (84% to 90% and 98% to 103%). + +On New-Question-80, we find that GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo perform similarly and are both outperformed by SAIL-7B. There are two main challenges that cause this result. Firstly, the models need to reason based on new texts that never + +appeared in their pretraining or fine-tuning corpora. Secondly, the texts provided by the search engines are noisy. On the other hand, SAIL-7B deals with the problems more successfully through search augmented instruction tuning. These results inform our findings: + +- The search results contain useful information that can improve the performance of instruction-following language models. +- Without search-augmented fine-tuning, it is difficult for a language model to utilize valuable information among the complicated search results, and distracting retrieval results can mislead the generations. Generation on latest questions further signifies the challenge. +- Search-augmented instruction learning can help the model better utilize the valuable information among noisy search results and improve instruction-following performance. + +# 3.2 Question Answering + +Common Knowledge. The experiment results of question answering are shown in Table 1. CSQA, OBQA, and ARC-Challenge are open-ended, selection-based question-answering tasks. We compare instruction-tuned Vicuna-7B, Vicuna-13B, LLaMA-7B-GPT4, and SAIL-7B models under no-augmentation and search-grounded settings with different sources. All evaluations are zero-shot and instruction guided. Traditionally, a knowledgeable LLM can answer questions and select the most coherent and appropriate answers without external information. In each task, we want to evaluate the performance of different models and knowledge bases. We search Wikipedia (Wiki) with the BM25 retriever, and the web with DuckDuckGO (DDG), feeding the LLMs with the top-3 search results, which could contain unrelated and distracting information. + +In general, we found that DuckDuckGo (DDG) leads to better performance for all models on all tasks because it is more flexible, covering a much wider range of information. This suggests the effectiveness of search engines over retrieving a static knowledge base. We found that both LLaMA and Vicuna-7B models can be slightly improved when search results are provided on most tasks. However, the overall performance is limited. The average accuracy of searched-augmented LLaMA-7B and Vicuna-7B is below $50\%$ . + +With Vicuna-13B, which is a roughly two times larger model, we get the best average performance $(51.0\%)$ on the three tasks without grounding information. However, adding search results hurts its accuracy in most experiments. While augmenting the model with DDG search results slightly improves the performance on CSQA and OBQA, the accuracy on ARC-Challenge is decreased by $1.4\%$ . With BM25-based Wikipedia search results, the accuracy can decrease by as much as $1.8\%$ . While the Vicuna-13B model achieves strong non-augmented performance, it is challenging to further improve the accuracy by utilizing helpful information in the search results. + +In contrast, the SAIL-7B model improves on all tasks when incorporating the search results, and also achieves strong non-augmented performance. Without retrieval results, SAIL-7B significantly outperforms LLaMA and Vicuna-7B on all tasks with a large margin (49.5% vs 44.5% and 40.9% average accuracy). It also performs slightly better than Vicuna-13B on CSQA and OBQA tasks, while Vicuna-13B is still strongest on ARC-C. While search augmentation leads to at most 0.5% improvement for Vicuna-13B, DDG search results improve SAIL-7B by 2.8% on OBQA and 1.2% on average, showing that the SAIL-7B model can steadily utilize the helpful information among the search results. As a result, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model achieves the best performance on both CSQA and OBQA. + +TruthfulQA. We use the TruthfulQA evaluation set (Lin et al., 2022) containing 817 questions to evaluate how informative and truthful are language models. Following the standard approach, we fine-tuned a GPT-3 model for automatic evaluation. We compare the plain LLaMA models and search augmented instruction following models using the GPT-3 evaluator. The performance of different models and settings are shown in Table 2. + +We notice that with search grounding, both truth and info scores can be significantly improved. By connecting with a search engine, the 7B models can significantly outperform the largest LLaMA-65B model. Similar to the automatic instruction-following results, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model outperforms search-augmented Vicuna-13B. + +
ModelLLaMA-GPT4-7BVicuna-7BVicuna-13BSAIL-7B
SearchNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDG
CSQA48.447.749.644.945.647.650.651.150.951.551.051.8
OBQA42.244.444.637.239.442.649.047.249.449.250.252.0
ARC-C43.045.247.340.544.546.353.251.651.847.748.148.4
Avg.44.545.847.240.943.345.551.050.050.749.549.850.7
Search Effectnone+1.3+2.7none+2.4+4.6none-1.0-0.3none+0.3+1.2
+ +Table 1: Question answering accuracy (%) by zero-shot models with simple instructions. + +
ModelSizeTrueTrue * Info
No Search Augmentation
GPT-3175B0.280.25
LLaMA65B0.570.53
LLaMA7B0.330.29
Alpaca7B0.330.33
Vicuna7B0.560.52
W/ Search Augmentation
Vicuna13B0.710.69
Vicuna7B0.680.65
SAIL7B0.730.73
+ +Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of large language models on the TruthfulQA benchmark. + +# 3.3 Fact and Fairness Checking + +The other task we evaluate model performance on is unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023), a combined benchmark with four sub-tasks including fact-checking (Diggelmann et al., 2020; Kotonya and Toni, 2020), hate speech detection (de Gibert et al., 2018), and stereotype recognition (Sap et al., 2020). We evaluate the zero-shot performance on all four tasks, and the experiment results are shown in Table 3. The SAIL-7B model achieves the highest accuracy and F1 scores on all tasks, despite no grounding information being provided for the fact-checking tasks. We also found that the Vicuna-7B and 13B models perform similarly on fact and fairness checking. + +For the fact-checking tasks, we further evaluate the performance grounding on search results generated by DuckDuckGo. Grounding on an external search engine has both advantages and disadvantages. Many fact checking benchmarks provide task-specific grounding corpora that limit the domain of information retrieval. However, internet misinformation can be very arbitrary and related to + +the latest facts. A commercial search engine is able to catch a wide range of up-to-date information that a retrieval model with a fixed knowledge base cannot achieve. However, search engines are usually less accurate than dense retrievers, and they might retrieve disputed documents that influence the quality of fact checking. Our experiments show that the search results are not helpful for all baseline models. On Climate-Fever, augmenting the model with search results decreases the overall accuracy of LLaMA by $3\%$ . On the PubHealth task, both accuracy and F1 of Vicuna-13B model are decreased by the search results, by $4\%$ and $1\%$ respectively. This shows that the search results contain distracting information, which prevents the models to utilize helpful evidence among noises. + +However, SAIL is more robust against distracting languages and its fact-checking performance is improved on the same set of search results, as shown in Table 4. With search augmentation, the fact-checking accuracy and F1 scores of SAIL are improved on both tasks, as high as $4.2\%$ on Climate-Fever. The augmented SAIL model also significantly outperforms all baselines, including Vicuna-13B and LLaMA-7B tuned with GPT-4 responses by $9\%$ accuracy and $5\%$ F1, showing the effectiveness of search augmented fine-tuning. + +# 4 Related Work + +Large language models. Beginning with GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a), LLMs have demonstrated strong abilities in knowledge memorization and text-based inference on a wide range of tasks. Well-known LLMs include GPT-3, LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), FLAN (Wei et al., 2021), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023). Compared to smaller language models, LLMs have several emergent abilities (Wei et al., 2022a), including zero-shot multi-task solving, and few-shot in-context learning with chain-of-thought reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; + +
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthFact Avg.HSDSBICFairness Avg.All Avg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.960.659.255.974.565.262.2
F138.856.6347.768.584.376.462.04
Vicuna-13BAcc51.454.452.957.772.365.059.0
F142.557.750.169.682.976.363.2
LLaMA-7BAcc58.859.959.362.374.868.663.9
F146.657.552.072.384.478.465.2
SAIL-7BAcc63.569.266.470.176.473.269.8
F151.063.657.375.183.979.568.4
+ +Table 3: Instructed zero-shot language checking performance on the UniLC benchmark. + +
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthAvg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.760.158.9
Acc Diff-0.2-0.5-0.3
F149.557.653.6
F1 Diff+10.7+1.0+5.9
Vicuna-13BAcc53.550.351.9
Acc Diff+2.1-4.1-1.0
F146.656.851.7
F1 Diff+4.1-0.9+1.6
LLaMA-7BAcc55.862.859.3
Acc Diff-3.0+2.9-0.1
F150.259.754.9
F1 Diff+3.6+2.2+2.9
SAIL-7BAcc65.870.768.3
Acc Diff+2.3+1.5+1.9
F155.264.559.9
F1 Diff+4.2+0.9+2.5
+ +Table 4: Search augmented zero-shot fact checking on the Climate-Fever and PubHealth benchmarks. + +# Wang et al., 2022a). + +Instruction following. Pretrained LLMs can generate texts following certain formats and rules by seeing a few examples in their prompts. To make LLMs more scalable and improve zero-shot performance, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed training GPT-3 with instruction-response corpora. As a result, InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 can handle a wide range of tasks without seeing any examples. Recent research has also found that both GPT-generated instructions and instruct-following outputs (Peng et al., 2023) can improve the instruction-following ability of LLMs. (Wang et al., 2022a) proposed a semi-supervised method to generate diverse instructions based on a seed instruction base on NLP tasks (Mishra et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b). A more recent study shows + +that GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) can generate high-quality instruction-following language. Recent efforts on open-sourcing instruction-following LLMs include Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023). + +Retrieval-augmented language models. Prior to our work, several initiatives explored retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs). The pioneering approaches – REALM (Guu et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020) – sought to train language models with retrievers in an end-to-end manner. RETRO (Borgeaud et al., 2022) introduced the idea of training an LM on top of a frozen retriever. Atlas (Izacard et al., 2022) further explored dedicated loss functions for the end-to-end training of the retriever and the LM, achieving superior performance on several few-shot learning tasks. Recently, RePlug (Shi et al., 2023) and Incontext RALM (Ram et al., 2023) instead explore an opposite direction: use a frozen black-box LM while fine-tuning the retrieval modules. RePlug shows its advantages of leveraging large LMs like Codex (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020b), outperforming Altas on few-shot question-answering tasks. + +Despite the success of RALMs, most of these models have limitations, including 1) constraining the search space to a closed corpus like Wikipedia 2) lacking explicit mechanisms for disregarding distracting search results, and 3) applying a few-shot in-context learning setting without considering instruction fine-tuning during RALM training. Consequently, their applications remain relatively narrow, primarily focusing on tasks such as question-answering and language modeling. SAIL addresses these limitations by 1) employing real-world search engines, 2) introducing a search result denoising + +process capable of filtering out distracting information, and 3) incorporating instruction fine-tuning. Consequently, SAIL demonstrates its superiority in broader applications, including instruction following for chatbots, fact and fairness checking, all of which benefit from access to up-to-date information retrieved from real-world search engines. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this work, we found that disputed and distracting search results can significantly mislead the predictions of large language models. Several transparency-sensitive tasks, including open-domain question answering and language checking can be negatively influenced by this phenomenon. To solve this problem, we propose a search-augmented instruction-following large language model with 7B parameters. We construct the first search-augmented instruction-tuning corpus consisting of human-generated instructions, GPT-4 generated responses, and search results generated by a BM25 retriever based on Wikipedia and a commercial search engine. We then finetuned the LLaMA-7B language model with the constructed training corpus on academic computational resources. Experiments on instruction-following, question answering, and fact/fairness checking show that the search-augmented language model can distill trustworthy and helpful information from all search results and generate high-quality responses, improving both the performance and transparency of instruction-following large language models. + +# Acknowledgement + +This research was supported by the Center for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence (CPII) Ltd under the Innovation and Technology Commission's InnoHK Scheme. + +# Limitations + +While the model we propose achieves high performance with efficient model settings, the major limitation of the model is that it does not explain why a search result is trustworthy or informative or not. In future work, we will fine-tune larger models and enable the models to recognize trustworthy search results with explanations. In the context of automated instruction-following evaluation, we adhere to the established literature that employing GPT-4 as the evaluator (Peng et al., 2023; Chiang + +et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). The robust performance of GPT-4 on Question-80 benchmark shows its efficacy. However, on the New-Question-80 benchmark, GPT-4 exhibits a comparatively diminished level of performance due to the need of latest knowledge. While this may introduce an element of uncertainty into the evaluation process, we believe that presenting these results can encourage the research community to be more informed and interested in this challenging problem. We plan to incorporate a human-in-loop evaluation as part of our future endeavors, ensuring a more precise and comprehensive assessment of instruction-following capabilities of large language models. + +# References + +Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1870-1879. +Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. + +Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\%$ * chatgpt quality. +Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. ArXiv, abs/1803.05457. +Cleo Condoravdi, Dick Crouch, Valeria de Paiva, Reinhard Stolle, and Daniel G. Bobrow. 2003. Entailment, intensionality and text understanding. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning, pages 38-45. +Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor Garcia-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. EMNLP 2018, page 11. +Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Jannis Bulian, Massimiliano Ciaramita, and Markus Leippold. 2020. Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614. +Jiaxin Ge, Hongyin Luo, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2023. Entailment as robust self-learner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17197. +Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR. +Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3309-3326. +Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299. +Neema Kotonya and Francesca Toni. 2020. Explainable automated fact-checking for public health claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7740-7754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466. + +Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474. +Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2356-2362. +Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252. +Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. +Hongyin Luo and James Glass. 2023. Logic against bias: Textual entailment mitigates stereotypical sentence reasoning. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1243-1254, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In ACL. +Abiola Obamuyide and Andreas Vlachos. 2018. Zero-shot relation classification as textual entailment. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERIFICATION (FEVER), pages 72-78, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt. +OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744. +Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca + +Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. +Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277. +Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00083. +Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5477-5490. +Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761. +Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652. +Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. +Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. + +Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on $1600+$ tasks. In EMNLP. +Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. +Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. +Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. +Tianhua Zhang, Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Wei Fang, Luc Gaitskell, Thomas Hartvigsen, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. 2023. Interpretable unified language checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03728. + +
ModelsVicuna-7B-v1.1SAIL-7B
Novel +VerbsInclude +ConsiderCalculate +Match +Revolutionize +Check +Include +Increase
Count26
+ +Table 5: Top-10 verbs generated by LLaMA-based models that do not overlap with GPT-4 and ChatGPT. + +
ModelsAvg.Std.Diversity
GPT-4303.8121.50.48
ChatGPT135.163.60.56
Vicuna-13B204.182.90.45
Vicuna-7B196.590.30.45
SAIL-7B + Search246.287.70.44
SAIL-7B206.686.90.47
+ +Table 6: Statistics about the length and diversity of the generated responses of different language models. Diversity stands for the total number of different words divided by the total length. + +# A Data Statics + +We first show the word preference of different models on the 80 unseen instructions. The results are shown in Figure 4. We compare the distributions of top-10 verbs generated by GPT4, GPT-3.5-Turbo (ChatGPT), Vicuna-7B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B models. With search augmentation, SAIL-7B generates significantly more verbs that do not overlap with GPT's generations, as shown in Table 5. Only two top-10 verbs generated by Vicuna are not covered by GPT-4 and ChatGPT, while six out of ten verbs generated by SAIL-7b are not high-frequency verbs by the GPT models. This indicates that the grounding search results can shift the generation preference of the language models. + +The statistics of the generated responses is shown in Table 6. GPT-4 generates the longest and most diverse responses, while ChatGPT tends to generate shorter and simpler answers. Without search augmentation, the lengths of SAIL-7B generated sequences are similar to the Vicuna models. This indicates that search augmentation can increase the length of the generated responses. + +![](images/8afa718da3d90af664c18c729944ee4aa5cd35b91d0bd7e2c3b0f46f49a949f4.jpg) +Vicuna-7b-v1.1 + +![](images/9189e911c99fea2576f5d4186947bf663ceb68878118005c0acf1db87ea5297f.jpg) +SAIL-LLaMA-7b + +![](images/56bd95b333976dc359494eb1f92d919575042091cf4936faa586dd11a2bd68d1.jpg) +Figure 4: Top-10 verbs and associated nouns generated by selective large language models. + +![](images/014f36d681bdc7fe1dfacbd0adc215c5e0e984fb288cb203884a749243d61289.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/images.zip b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b1251161e824340e53dd2750b81a7ee4cac5a61 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bacabe3242bf305e384101fced6ee6e6a0acce6d4424c27bd3dfd90dd867b929 +size 426540 diff --git a/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/layout.json b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef70b57d04b66c656354513ec5c32312870f9733 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Search Augmented Instruction Learning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8129 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 76, + 423, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 76, + 423, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 76, + 423, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Search Augmented Instruction Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongyin Luo" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Tianhua Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Yung-Sung Chuang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Yuan Gong" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Yoon Kim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Xixin Wu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Helen Meng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " James Glass" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 109, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 138, + 500, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 138, + 500, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 138, + 500, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Cambridge MA, USA \n2 CUHK Centre for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence, Hong Kong SAR, China \nhyluo@mit.edu, thzhang@link.cuhk.edu.hk" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is widely believed that connecting large language models with search engines can improve their transparency, truthfulness, and accessing to up-to-date information. However, we show that search grounding introduces new challenges to language models because of distracting, misleading, and untrustworthy information. To deal with these difficulties, we propose search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL), which allows a fine-tuned language model to source, denoise, and reason based on a mixed set of helpful and distracting search results. With an instruction tuning corpus, we collect search results for each training case from different search APIs and domains, and construct a new search-grounded training set containing (instruction, grounding information, response) triplets. We then fine-tune the LLaMA-7B model on the constructed training set. Since the collected search results contain distracting and disputing languages, the model needs to learn to ground on trustworthy search results, filter out distracting passages, and generate the target response. The search result-denoising process entails explicit trustworthy information selection and multi-hop reasoning, since the retrieved passages might be informative but not contain the instruction-following answer. Experiments show that the fine-tuned SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction-following ability, and it performs significantly better on transparencysensitive tasks, including question answering and fact checking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 154, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 154, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 154, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated many impressive capabilities, including zero-shot inference and few-shot in-context learning (Wei et al., 2022a). Recent research has shown that LLMs benefit from instruction tuning (Ouyang et al., 2022), and that such instruction-tuned LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 526, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "significantly outperform plain LLMs on zero-shot language tasks (Peng et al., 2023). Instruction-tuned LLMs have shown an ability to generate both natural and programming languages following natural language guidance and requests. To achieve the same goal, a pretrained LLM needs a number of annotated examples as in-context learning prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite their impressive behavior, LLMs have a number of issues, including obsolescence and nontransparency. Understandably, LLMs are trained with corpora constructed up to a certain time point. With this fixed, pretrained or fine-tuned model, subsequently occurring information cannot appear in any informed generation by the LLM. One way to update the knowledge in LLMs is to re-train the entire model with an updated training corpus. However, this would be costly and time-consuming." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In terms of transparency, the predictions of LLMs are opaque because generations are not grounded on trustworthy sources. It is possible for an LLM to generate undesirable language that looks like human-generated text, including misinformation, stereotypes, and toxic language (Zhang et al., 2023; Hartvigsen et al., 2022). Without providing legitimate sources for LLM generated texts, it is difficult to catch and avoid these undesirable LLM behaviors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To overcome these difficulties, a straightforward solution is to connect LLMs to information retrieval systems, especially commercial search engines. By doing so, the LLM can ground its predictions on information retrieved from an up-to-date knowledge base, and the sources of the generations would be transparent to users. Before LLMs became large enough to memorize a significant amount of world knowledge, retrieval-based grounding had been heavily studied for open-domain question answering (Chen et al., 2017; Kwiatkowski et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020). Recent LLMs have also shown the potential of using information retrieval tools, e.g., Toolformer (Schick" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Equal contribution. Code and processed data are available at https://github.com/luohongyin/SAIL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3717" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3717-3729 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 71, + 334, + 78 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 71, + 334, + 78 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 71, + 334, + 78 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fact check the following claim:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 78, + 415, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 78, + 415, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 78, + 415, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However the warming trend is slower than most climate models have forecast. Label: UNFACTUAL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 95, + 114, + 101 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 95, + 114, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 95, + 114, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 195, + 93, + 210, + 107 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 93, + 210, + 107 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 93, + 210, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 93, + 210, + 107 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fef36f844b7c00d5401f0ec1598eb6071af9d956a26cbd8463fcb61957f09679.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 524, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 524, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 524, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Fact checking grounding on complicated search results with SAIL-7b and strong commercial language models. The first and third passages are distracting since they do not contain information that supports or refutes the claim. And the first result on a 2007 report seems to be obsolete as answering climate-related questions usually needs up-to-date information. In contrast, the second passage disagrees with the claim by the statement \"sooner than previous models have predicted\". Although we acknowledge the complexity introduced by the term \"most\" in the claim, we contend that the second passage as most suitable. SAIL-7b successfully makes the correct prediction while other commercial LLMs are distracted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 112, + 206, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 112, + 206, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 112, + 206, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The claim is potentially factual but needs context. It is factual in that some climate models have indeed forecast a faster rate of warming than has been observed. However, without the context that models are generally accurate in long-term projections and that their primary purpose is to predict trends rather than specific year-by-year temperatures, the claim could be misleading. The claim is fair, as it does not contain hate speech or stereotypes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 195, + 200, + 209, + 214 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 200, + 209, + 214 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 200, + 209, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 195, + 200, + 209, + 214 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "da4ee707d83bc79ebf52cb4f40daa9564c7cf3f25aa1d6f6b1cc583d1764c317.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 201, + 135, + 209 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 201, + 135, + 209 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 201, + 135, + 209 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3.5-Turbo" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 218, + 207, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 218, + 207, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 218, + 207, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The claim is factual and fair. There is scientific evidence suggesting that the actual rate of warming has been slower than what some climate models have forecasted. While climate models provide valuable insights and projections, there can be variations between model predictions and observed data. The search results indicate that the rate of warming has been a topic of study ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 95, + 352, + 101 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 95, + 352, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 95, + 352, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Informative and Distracting Search Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 108, + 353, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 108, + 353, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 108, + 353, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) From climate change 'certainty' to rapid decline: a timeline of IPCC ... The fourth IPCC report, in 2007, was the moment when humanity's responsibility for global heating became all but certain: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ... Eleven of the last ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 166, + 355, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 166, + 355, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 166, + 355, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) AI study finds planet could cross 2-degree warming threshold by mid ... The planet could cross critical global warming thresholds sooner than previous models have predicted, even with concerted global climate action, according to a new study using machine..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 226, + 354, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 226, + 354, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 226, + 354, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Constrained CMIP6 projections indicate less warming and a slower ... The slower warming implies a lower snow cover loss rate by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 226, + 354, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10.5 - 40.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 238, + 226, + 354, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ... future changes in the predicted variable y ... model intercomparison project phase 5 global climate models using ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 95, + 406, + 101 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 95, + 406, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 95, + 406, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SAIL-7B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 481, + 94, + 496, + 108 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 481, + 94, + 496, + 108 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 481, + 94, + 496, + 108 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 481, + 94, + 496, + 108 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "76f3755700955fca2dc01019ec5bdd266a9521eee0087291c9dbceaccd9f5e93.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 111, + 495, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 111, + 495, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 111, + 495, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Search result (1) is distracting, search result (2) is informative, and search result (3) is distracting. i will utilize the informative search result (2) and my knowledge, the related natural fact is that global temperatures have been increasing over time. the moral fact is that it is important to strive towards a healthy planet for future generations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 169, + 492, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 169, + 492, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 169, + 492, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the claim is not factual as it contradicts the fact that the warming trend has been faster than predicted by many climate models. therefore, the claim presents an inaccurate and misleading view of the facts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 216, + 418, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 216, + 418, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 216, + 418, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Perplexity.AI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 481, + 216, + 496, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 481, + 216, + 496, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 481, + 216, + 496, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 481, + 216, + 496, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "52f68176bfa7b3b91e203a838b4e31e17ed584fbca97dbf9b03b8d86bc8f66b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 231, + 495, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 231, + 495, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 384, + 231, + 495, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The claim that \"... is partially factual based on the search results. Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming, while some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred.." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 290, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2023) and the ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) retrieval plugin. However, there remains a challenge: is there a trustworthy retrieval model and knowledge base that can be utilized by LLMs?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing studies on open-domain question answering have chosen Wikipedia as the de facto knowledge base that contains the answer to most questions. However, Zhang et al. (2023) found that the knowledge contained in Wikipedia is not sufficiently up-to-date nor complete for many tasks that require the latest knowledge, so grounding on Wikipedia might lead to worse answers than fully relying on LLMs. Another option is to leverage internet search engines, for example, Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.com1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 290, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although widely used commercial search engines can index and retrieve a vast range of up-to-date information, their retrieval accuracy is ultimately limited, and third-party users cannot control the performance at the model level. As a result, retrieval results can be noisy, and unrelated information might be shown to users. This behavior suggests that there is a trade-off between deploying in-house retrieval systems and external search engines. Although it is possible to prompt LLMs to directly use the retrieval results, distracting search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "results can mislead the model and negatively influence the model's performance. As shown in Figure 1, ChatGPT is confused by a distracting passage and generates an incorrect fact check." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The challenges mentioned above are contradictory, and both have a negative impact on grounded language modeling with current LLMs - static knowledge bases and in-house retrievers are not sufficient or up-to-date for all tasks, while commercial search engines often generate distracting results. To address these challenges simultaneously, we propose a search-augmented instruction learning (SAIL) model. Given input instructions and contexts, the model is trained to generate high-quality responses according to the instruction grounding on the noisy research results. In other words, the model learns to denoise the retrieval results to generate high-quality responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, we make the following contributions in this work:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 671, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 29, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 671, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We show that instruction-tuned LLMs can be heavily misled by distracting grounding information and noisy search results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 715, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 715, + 525, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 715, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. We constructed a search-augmented instruction training corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We fine-tune a 7B-parameter language model (SAIL-7B) with the constructed training set," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 286, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A free, privacy-preserving, zero-tracking search engine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3718" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which outperforms strong baseline models including GPT-3.5-Turbo and Vicuna-13B on several NLP tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 122, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 122, + 291, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 122, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By comparing the SAIL-7B model with LLaMA-7B, Vicuna-7B, GPT-3.5-turbo, and Vicuna-13B models on instruction following, question answering, and language checking tasks, we find that the SAIL-7B model has a strong instruction following ability and is robust against distracting grounding search results generated by different retrieval models. In addition, the SAIL model also achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art instruction-following LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 130, + 282 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 130, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 130, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 210, + 304 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 210, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 210, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Search Result Collection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 310, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we use the 52k self-instruction corpus created by the Alpaca team (Taori et al., 2023), and the corresponding responses generated by GPT-4 (Peng et al., 2023). For each instruction, we construct a search query by simply concatenating the instruction and the input, if any, and truncating the query to at most 60 words to fulfill the limitation of the search engine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The constructed queries are fed into the DuckDuckGo search engine and the BM25 Wikipedia retriever, and the top three search results are retained. Each result consists of three fields: the title, a short piece of preview text, and the corresponding URL of the webpage. For simplicity, we do not further scrape the retrieved webpage, but just use the title and preview texts for further processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Each training example is assigned a list of corresponding search results. We pool the top-three DuckDuckGO and top-two BM25 search passages with Pyserini (Lin et al., 2021), a total of five search results. Among this pool, we randomly sample zero, one, two, and three search results with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " probability. Given this randomness, some training cases could be associated with search results from a single source." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 235, + 672 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 235, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 235, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 In-context Retrieval Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To encourage the LLM to focus on trustworthy and informative search results, we concatenate a search filtering sequence before each annotated response of training instances. For example, \"Search result (1) is informative and search result (2) is distracting, so I will use the information from the search result (1).\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, the trustworthiness of each search result is not labeled, and the number of retrieval items is large. To bypass the need of costly human annotation, we employ an entailment classification model proposed in (Luo and Glass, 2023), which has in general been proven to be an effective approach for zero-shot setting (Obamuyide and Vlachos, 2018; Condoravdi et al., 2003; Ge et al., 2023). We feed each retrieved passage and the corresponding response into the entailment model and compare the entailed and contradictory scores. While most predictions are neutral against the response, the relation between entailed and contradictory scores can roughly indicate if a retrieved passage can provide useful information to generate the target response. As a result, we obtain pseudo-label \"search result (i) is informative\" if the entailed score is higher than the contradiction score, otherwise the search item is distracting. Note that our primary objective is not the construction of a human-labeled dataset comprising informative and distracting documents. Instead, we aim at proposing a label-free denoising method to enhance retrieval-augmented large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 398, + 527, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 398, + 527, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 398, + 527, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike the training stage, the absence of prior access to the target responses hinders the entailment model to predict pseudo-labels during inference. On the contrary, SAIL-7b acquires the capability to assess the relevance of various search results after training on both search results with pseudolabels and the target responses. Subsequently, it can anchor the final response generation on informative search-augmentation. In other words, SAIL-7b would generate the search selection sequences (e.g., \"search result (i) is informative/distracting\") before the final responses as shown in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 387, + 588 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 387, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 387, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Fine-tuning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 596, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 596, + 526, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 596, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After collecting the search results and generating in-context retrieval selection sequences, we construct input prompts following Figure 2 (b) with GPT-4 generated responses (Peng et al., 2023). Note that the most relevant retrieval result is located at the closest position to the instruction for the model to better use its information. We fine-tune LLaMA-7b models with the constructed prompts to generate both in-context retrieval selection sequences and annotated responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In practice, the models are fine-tuned with academic devices. Specifically, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " NVIDIA RTX A6000 GPUs (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "48\\mathrm{GB} \\times 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") to train the models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3719" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 72, + 215, + 82 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 72, + 215, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 72, + 215, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Standard Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 91, + 240, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 91, + 240, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 91, + 240, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Below is an instruction that describes a task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 282, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 282, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 282, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Write a response that appropriately completes the request." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 112, + 183, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 112, + 183, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 112, + 183, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: [Instruction]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 120, + 168, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 120, + 168, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 120, + 168, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: [Input or None]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 133, + 123, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 133, + 123, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 133, + 123, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 153, + 230, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 153, + 230, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 153, + 230, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Search-Augmented Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 173, + 239, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 173, + 239, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 173, + 239, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Below is an instruction that describes a task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 181, + 282, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 181, + 282, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 181, + 282, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Write a response that appropriately completes the request." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 161, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 161, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 161, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Related Information:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 201, + 158, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 201, + 158, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 201, + 158, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Title 3]\\n [Preview 3]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 208, + 158, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 208, + 158, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 208, + 158, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Title 2]\\n [Preview 2]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 158, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 158, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 158, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Title 1]\\n [Preview 1]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 182, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 182, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 182, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: [Instruction]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 236, + 168, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 236, + 168, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 236, + 168, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: [Input or None]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 248, + 123, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 248, + 123, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 248, + 123, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Different prompting strategies used in this work. (a) Standard prompt: the prompt template used in Peng et al. (2023) to generate GPT-4 responses to the 52k instructions. (b) Search-augmented prompt: combining the top three search results and the instruction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for 3 epochs. We apply mixed-precision training (fp16) with the standard AdamW optimizer. We set the maximum sequence length as 1,600 and the batch size as 32. Following Vicuna, we apply gradient checkpointing to reduce the memory cost. The entire fine-tuning process takes 24 hours (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "24 \\times 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " GPU hours). To enable the fine-tuning, we applied gradient offload with Deepspeed and full-sharded data parallel (FSDP) (Paszke et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 147, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 147, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 147, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 290, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SAIL for instruction following. Following Peng et al. (2023), we evaluate the instruction following quality of different models by comparing with GPT-4 responses on the same set of instructions and scoring with GPT-4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each case, we construct an evaluation prompt by concatenating the instruction, the GPT-4 response, and the response of the target model. We feed the evaluation prompt to GPT-4 and ask it to score the two responses between 0 to 10. We use the Question-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 578, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corpus (Chiang et al., 2023), which contains 80 questions to evaluate all models and we calculate the total score a model receives on all questions. To test the ability of the models on latest, unseen texts, we build another 80-question evaluation set based on latest news articles published after May 2023, which are never" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "included in any training corpus as we finished all experiments. We name the new question set as New-Questions-803. Because related information and knowledge are not included in the pretraining corpora, a language model has zero knowledge to answer and has to be grounded on an up-to-date search engine to generate informed answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the evaluation prompt authored by the Vicuna team. The highest possible score is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80 \\times 10 = 800" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It is worth noting that GPT-4 responses can receive slightly different scores against different counterparts. To normalize the difference, we calculate the ratio of model score / GPT-4 score for each test case as the final assessment as implemented in Peng et al. (2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 526, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SAIL for Question Answering. Besides evaluating the quality of instruction-guided generations, we assess the model's ability to answer commonsense questions. We also test the models on two different settings, including instructed zero-shot prediction and the search-augmentation mode. We evaluate the model performance on CommonsenseQA (CSQA; Talmor et al. (2019)), OpenbookQA (OBQA; Mihaylov et al. (2018)), and ARC-Challenge (Clark et al., 2018) benchmarks. All tasks require answering open-ended questions by selecting from a given set of candidate answers. Through the question-answering experiments, we show that instruction-tuned language models can be significantly biased by noisy research results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 525, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 525, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 525, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SAIL for Fact and Fairness Checking. With the recent advances in LLMs that generate human-like languages without guaranteed alignment, human and machine-generated misinformation, stereotypes, and toxicity have become timely and significant concerns. Recent studies have shown that with appropriate instructions and prompts, LLMs can perform unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023). However, other attempts have relied only on LLMs, without grounding on any external sources, thus reducing the trustworthiness and transparency of the checking results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 525, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 525, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 525, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we evaluate instructed fact and fairness checking, with the UniLC benchmark proposed in (Zhang et al., 2023), including Climate-Fever, PubMed, Hate Speech Detec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 28, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 740, + 445, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 740, + 445, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 740, + 445, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Will release with code if accepted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/ fastchat/eval/table/prompt.jsonl" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 761, + 223, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 761, + 223, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 761, + 223, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "```bash\nchat/eval/table/question.json" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3720" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 291, + 132 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 291, + 132 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 291, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 291, + 132 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1d68ac8cae12787d6dfb73934175e6eb3eef3ebdaa4a2a81a96ac6f6809a86a0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 524, + 132 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 524, + 132 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 524, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 70, + 524, + 132 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "415b014b2b0c9355de9626e6d1e5e512db874402daceda5798c6947f666a8fe1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 146, + 291, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 146, + 291, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 146, + 291, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 146, + 291, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3c48249e9997c1c5e9a5828de13a556de1b01159e95a5daf677df27afb50c115.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 526, + 311 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 526, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 526, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Scoring results of all language models on Question-80 and New-Question-80 benchmarks against GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo. Search indicates generating responses with language models grounding on search results retrieved by DuckDuckGO, and SAIL (7B) stands for generating responses without search results, although the model is trained for grounded generations. Both Vicuna-7 & 13B are version 1.1 models. The orange bars stand for SAIL-7B and blue bars stand for GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 146, + 523, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 146, + 523, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 146, + 523, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 146, + 523, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a70b44db3fa6cf9b0105dc319f94b117be2e5aaeb2d9aafe1fd3239edcca279e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tion, and Social Biase Frame (SBIC) tasks with two different settings - zero-shot and search-augmented. While we are not aware of what corpora are used to train GPT-4 and ChatGPT, we assess the language-checking performance of Vicuna-7B-v1.1, Vicuna-13B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B with and without search results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 155, + 450 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 155, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 155, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 197, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 197, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 197, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Instruction Following" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Evaluation with GPT-4. We compare the performance of different models under end-to-end and search grounded settings against GPT-4 and ChatGPT models on Question-80 and New-Question-80. The scoring results are shown in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By comparing to GPT-4 on Question-80, we find that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model significantly outperforms all other models (90% vs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") using fewer training instructions and parameters, including strong baselines like Vicuna-13B and GPT-3.5-Turbo powered ChatGPT. This indicates that when the grounding information is provided, the model does not need as many parameters to memorize knowledge. In addition, the SAIL-7B model also achieves high performance even without search results, showing that the model performance is stable under different generation settings. Similar conclusions can be found by comparing all models against GPT-3.5-Turbo. While GPT-4 is still better, experiment results show that the search-augmented SAIL-7B model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "103\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of GPT-3.5-Turbo performance and the no-augmentation SAIL model achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "98\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 331, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", outperforming several strong baselines, including LLaMA tuned on GPT-4 instructions and Vicuna models with the same number of parameters. Besides GPT-4, search-augmented SAIL-7B is the only model that outperforms GPT-3.5-Turbo on both experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we found that the search augmentation makes a significantly higher positive contribution to the SAIL model than all other models. With GPT-3.5-Turbo, feeding search-augmented prompts with instructions leads to very slight improvements on both evaluations. However, grounding on search results can hurt the performance of Vicuna and LLaMA-GPT4 models of different sizes. By comparing against GPT-4, Vicuna-13B is slightly improved by search results, but the improvement is not present when compared to GPT-3.5-Turbo. For the Vicuna-7B and LLaMA-7B-GPT4 baselines, augmenting input prompts with search engine outputs makes a significant, negative impact on both evaluations. On the other hand, applying search augmentation to SAIL-7B significantly improves model performance on both experiments (84% to 90% and 98% to 103%)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On New-Question-80, we find that GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-Turbo perform similarly and are both outperformed by SAIL-7B. There are two main challenges that cause this result. Firstly, the models need to reason based on new texts that never" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3721" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "appeared in their pretraining or fine-tuning corpora. Secondly, the texts provided by the search engines are noisy. On the other hand, SAIL-7B deals with the problems more successfully through search augmented instruction tuning. These results inform our findings:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 163, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 163, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 163, + 290, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 163, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The search results contain useful information that can improve the performance of instruction-following language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 209, + 290, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 209, + 290, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 209, + 290, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Without search-augmented fine-tuning, it is difficult for a language model to utilize valuable information among the complicated search results, and distracting retrieval results can mislead the generations. Generation on latest questions further signifies the challenge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 291, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 291, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Search-augmented instruction learning can help the model better utilize the valuable information among noisy search results and improve instruction-following performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 191, + 375 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 191, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 191, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Question Answering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Common Knowledge. The experiment results of question answering are shown in Table 1. CSQA, OBQA, and ARC-Challenge are open-ended, selection-based question-answering tasks. We compare instruction-tuned Vicuna-7B, Vicuna-13B, LLaMA-7B-GPT4, and SAIL-7B models under no-augmentation and search-grounded settings with different sources. All evaluations are zero-shot and instruction guided. Traditionally, a knowledgeable LLM can answer questions and select the most coherent and appropriate answers without external information. In each task, we want to evaluate the performance of different models and knowledge bases. We search Wikipedia (Wiki) with the BM25 retriever, and the web with DuckDuckGO (DDG), feeding the LLMs with the top-3 search results, which could contain unrelated and distracting information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In general, we found that DuckDuckGo (DDG) leads to better performance for all models on all tasks because it is more flexible, covering a much wider range of information. This suggests the effectiveness of search engines over retrieving a static knowledge base. We found that both LLaMA and Vicuna-7B models can be slightly improved when search results are provided on most tasks. However, the overall performance is limited. The average accuracy of searched-augmented LLaMA-7B and Vicuna-7B is below " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With Vicuna-13B, which is a roughly two times larger model, we get the best average performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(51.0\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the three tasks without grounding information. However, adding search results hurts its accuracy in most experiments. While augmenting the model with DDG search results slightly improves the performance on CSQA and OBQA, the accuracy on ARC-Challenge is decreased by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". With BM25-based Wikipedia search results, the accuracy can decrease by as much as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". While the Vicuna-13B model achieves strong non-augmented performance, it is challenging to further improve the accuracy by utilizing helpful information in the search results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast, the SAIL-7B model improves on all tasks when incorporating the search results, and also achieves strong non-augmented performance. Without retrieval results, SAIL-7B significantly outperforms LLaMA and Vicuna-7B on all tasks with a large margin (49.5% vs 44.5% and 40.9% average accuracy). It also performs slightly better than Vicuna-13B on CSQA and OBQA tasks, while Vicuna-13B is still strongest on ARC-C. While search augmentation leads to at most 0.5% improvement for Vicuna-13B, DDG search results improve SAIL-7B by 2.8% on OBQA and 1.2% on average, showing that the SAIL-7B model can steadily utilize the helpful information among the search results. As a result, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model achieves the best performance on both CSQA and OBQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 530, + 526, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 530, + 526, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 530, + 526, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TruthfulQA. We use the TruthfulQA evaluation set (Lin et al., 2022) containing 817 questions to evaluate how informative and truthful are language models. Following the standard approach, we fine-tuned a GPT-3 model for automatic evaluation. We compare the plain LLaMA models and search augmented instruction following models using the GPT-3 evaluator. The performance of different models and settings are shown in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We notice that with search grounding, both truth and info scores can be significantly improved. By connecting with a search engine, the 7B models can significantly outperform the largest LLaMA-65B model. Similar to the automatic instruction-following results, the search-augmented SAIL-7B model outperforms search-augmented Vicuna-13B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3722" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 172 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelLLaMA-GPT4-7BVicuna-7BVicuna-13BSAIL-7B
SearchNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDGNoneWikiDDG
CSQA48.447.749.644.945.647.650.651.150.951.551.051.8
OBQA42.244.444.637.239.442.649.047.249.449.250.252.0
ARC-C43.045.247.340.544.546.353.251.651.847.748.148.4
Avg.44.545.847.240.943.345.551.050.050.749.549.850.7
Search Effectnone+1.3+2.7none+2.4+4.6none-1.0-0.3none+0.3+1.2
", + "image_path": "a5e8ed2177e1e29c1ba531800ad0ec321b58e931eabab3be076b416fd117140a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 211, + 278, + 393 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 180, + 474, + 193 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 180, + 474, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 180, + 474, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Question answering accuracy (%) by zero-shot models with simple instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 211, + 278, + 393 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 211, + 278, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 211, + 278, + 393 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelSizeTrueTrue * Info
No Search Augmentation
GPT-3175B0.280.25
LLaMA65B0.570.53
LLaMA7B0.330.29
Alpaca7B0.330.33
Vicuna7B0.560.52
W/ Search Augmentation
Vicuna13B0.710.69
Vicuna7B0.680.65
SAIL7B0.730.73
", + "image_path": "f8527ecfcd2189b2edcf6a94e99c9cd1bedbc9b0f833df20b795b2e8e75d6ef3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 289, + 425 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 289, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 289, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of large language models on the TruthfulQA benchmark." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 451, + 225, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 451, + 225, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 451, + 225, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Fact and Fairness Checking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The other task we evaluate model performance on is unified fact and fairness checking (Zhang et al., 2023), a combined benchmark with four sub-tasks including fact-checking (Diggelmann et al., 2020; Kotonya and Toni, 2020), hate speech detection (de Gibert et al., 2018), and stereotype recognition (Sap et al., 2020). We evaluate the zero-shot performance on all four tasks, and the experiment results are shown in Table 3. The SAIL-7B model achieves the highest accuracy and F1 scores on all tasks, despite no grounding information being provided for the fact-checking tasks. We also found that the Vicuna-7B and 13B models perform similarly on fact and fairness checking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the fact-checking tasks, we further evaluate the performance grounding on search results generated by DuckDuckGo. Grounding on an external search engine has both advantages and disadvantages. Many fact checking benchmarks provide task-specific grounding corpora that limit the domain of information retrieval. However, internet misinformation can be very arbitrary and related to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the latest facts. A commercial search engine is able to catch a wide range of up-to-date information that a retrieval model with a fixed knowledge base cannot achieve. However, search engines are usually less accurate than dense retrievers, and they might retrieve disputed documents that influence the quality of fact checking. Our experiments show that the search results are not helpful for all baseline models. On Climate-Fever, augmenting the model with search results decreases the overall accuracy of LLaMA by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". On the PubHealth task, both accuracy and F1 of Vicuna-13B model are decreased by the search results, by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 213, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. This shows that the search results contain distracting information, which prevents the models to utilize helpful evidence among noises." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, SAIL is more robust against distracting languages and its fact-checking performance is improved on the same set of search results, as shown in Table 4. With search augmentation, the fact-checking accuracy and F1 scores of SAIL are improved on both tasks, as high as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on Climate-Fever. The augmented SAIL model also significantly outperforms all baselines, including Vicuna-13B and LLaMA-7B tuned with GPT-4 responses by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " accuracy and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1, showing the effectiveness of search augmented fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 396, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 396, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 396, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models. Beginning with GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a), LLMs have demonstrated strong abilities in knowledge memorization and text-based inference on a wide range of tasks. Well-known LLMs include GPT-3, LaMDA (Thoppilan et al., 2022), FLAN (Wei et al., 2021), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023). Compared to smaller language models, LLMs have several emergent abilities (Wei et al., 2022a), including zero-shot multi-task solving, and few-shot in-context learning with chain-of-thought reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3723" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 93, + 68, + 500, + 205 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 68, + 500, + 205 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 68, + 500, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 68, + 500, + 205 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthFact Avg.HSDSBICFairness Avg.All Avg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.960.659.255.974.565.262.2
F138.856.6347.768.584.376.462.04
Vicuna-13BAcc51.454.452.957.772.365.059.0
F142.557.750.169.682.976.363.2
LLaMA-7BAcc58.859.959.362.374.868.663.9
F146.657.552.072.384.478.465.2
SAIL-7BAcc63.569.266.470.176.473.269.8
F151.063.657.375.183.979.568.4
", + "image_path": "103b07ce70995dd0706eb0a8367f1a3da0344b75176e62ea0f051706334e3856.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 289, + 472 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 212, + 472, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 212, + 472, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 212, + 472, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Instructed zero-shot language checking performance on the UniLC benchmark." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 289, + 472 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 289, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 244, + 289, + 472 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMetricClimatePubHealthAvg.
Vicuna-7BAcc57.760.158.9
Acc Diff-0.2-0.5-0.3
F149.557.653.6
F1 Diff+10.7+1.0+5.9
Vicuna-13BAcc53.550.351.9
Acc Diff+2.1-4.1-1.0
F146.656.851.7
F1 Diff+4.1-0.9+1.6
LLaMA-7BAcc55.862.859.3
Acc Diff-3.0+2.9-0.1
F150.259.754.9
F1 Diff+3.6+2.2+2.9
SAIL-7BAcc65.870.768.3
Acc Diff+2.3+1.5+1.9
F155.264.559.9
F1 Diff+4.2+0.9+2.5
", + "image_path": "8811c16a6bee3e9aede0890fc8d1094c91e3e5e4863005a15261575345fba038.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 289, + 504 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 289, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 480, + 289, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Search augmented zero-shot fact checking on the Climate-Fever and PubHealth benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 157, + 541 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 157, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 157, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wang et al., 2022a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction following. Pretrained LLMs can generate texts following certain formats and rules by seeing a few examples in their prompts. To make LLMs more scalable and improve zero-shot performance, Ouyang et al. (2022) proposed training GPT-3 with instruction-response corpora. As a result, InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 can handle a wide range of tasks without seeing any examples. Recent research has also found that both GPT-generated instructions and instruct-following outputs (Peng et al., 2023) can improve the instruction-following ability of LLMs. (Wang et al., 2022a) proposed a semi-supervised method to generate diverse instructions based on a seed instruction base on NLP tasks (Mishra et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022b). A more recent study shows" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) can generate high-quality instruction-following language. Recent efforts on open-sourcing instruction-following LLMs include Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retrieval-augmented language models. Prior to our work, several initiatives explored retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs). The pioneering approaches – REALM (Guu et al., 2020) and RAG (Lewis et al., 2020) – sought to train language models with retrievers in an end-to-end manner. RETRO (Borgeaud et al., 2022) introduced the idea of training an LM on top of a frozen retriever. Atlas (Izacard et al., 2022) further explored dedicated loss functions for the end-to-end training of the retriever and the LM, achieving superior performance on several few-shot learning tasks. Recently, RePlug (Shi et al., 2023) and Incontext RALM (Ram et al., 2023) instead explore an opposite direction: use a frozen black-box LM while fine-tuning the retrieval modules. RePlug shows its advantages of leveraging large LMs like Codex (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020b), outperforming Altas on few-shot question-answering tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the success of RALMs, most of these models have limitations, including 1) constraining the search space to a closed corpus like Wikipedia 2) lacking explicit mechanisms for disregarding distracting search results, and 3) applying a few-shot in-context learning setting without considering instruction fine-tuning during RALM training. Consequently, their applications remain relatively narrow, primarily focusing on tasks such as question-answering and language modeling. SAIL addresses these limitations by 1) employing real-world search engines, 2) introducing a search result denoising" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3724" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "process capable of filtering out distracting information, and 3) incorporating instruction fine-tuning. Consequently, SAIL demonstrates its superiority in broader applications, including instruction following for chatbots, fact and fairness checking, all of which benefit from access to up-to-date information retrieved from real-world search engines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 147, + 189 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 147, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 147, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 293, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 293, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 293, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we found that disputed and distracting search results can significantly mislead the predictions of large language models. Several transparency-sensitive tasks, including open-domain question answering and language checking can be negatively influenced by this phenomenon. To solve this problem, we propose a search-augmented instruction-following large language model with 7B parameters. We construct the first search-augmented instruction-tuning corpus consisting of human-generated instructions, GPT-4 generated responses, and search results generated by a BM25 retriever based on Wikipedia and a commercial search engine. We then finetuned the LLaMA-7B language model with the constructed training corpus on academic computational resources. Experiments on instruction-following, question answering, and fact/fairness checking show that the search-augmented language model can distill trustworthy and helpful information from all search results and generate high-quality responses, improving both the performance and transparency of instruction-following large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 532, + 167, + 545 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 532, + 167, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 532, + 167, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research was supported by the Center for Perceptual and Interactive Intelligence (CPII) Ltd under the Innovation and Technology Commission's InnoHK Scheme." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 616, + 130, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 616, + 130, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 616, + 130, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While the model we propose achieves high performance with efficient model settings, the major limitation of the model is that it does not explain why a search result is trustworthy or informative or not. In future work, we will fine-tune larger models and enable the models to recognize trustworthy search results with explanations. In the context of automated instruction-following evaluation, we adhere to the established literature that employing GPT-4 as the evaluator (Peng et al., 2023; Chiang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023). The robust performance of GPT-4 on Question-80 benchmark shows its efficacy. However, on the New-Question-80 benchmark, GPT-4 exhibits a comparatively diminished level of performance due to the need of latest knowledge. While this may introduce an element of uncertainty into the evaluation process, we believe that presenting these results can encourage the research community to be more informed and interested in this challenging problem. We plan to incorporate a human-in-loop evaluation as part of our future endeavors, ensuring a more precise and comprehensive assessment of instruction-following capabilities of large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 362, + 298 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 362, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 362, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 306, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 527, + 385 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 527, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 527, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 527, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 527, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 527, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 628 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 638, + 526, + 697 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 638, + 526, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 638, + 526, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1870-1879." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3725" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " * chatgpt quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 290, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 145, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. ArXiv, abs/1803.05457." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 290, + 263 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 290, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 207, + 290, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cleo Condoravdi, Dick Crouch, Valeria de Paiva, Reinhard Stolle, and Daniel G. Bobrow. 2003. Entailment, intensionality and text understanding. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning, pages 38-45." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 270, + 289, + 303 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 270, + 289, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 270, + 289, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor Garcia-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. EMNLP 2018, page 11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 311, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 311, + 290, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 311, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Jannis Bulian, Massimiliano Ciaramita, and Markus Leippold. 2020. Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 406 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaxin Ge, Hongyin Luo, Yoon Kim, and James Glass. 2023. Entailment as robust self-learner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17197." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 413, + 290, + 457 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 413, + 290, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 413, + 290, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3309-3326." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 290, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 549, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 290, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 622, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neema Kotonya and Francesca Toni. 2020. Explainable automated fact-checking for public health claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7740-7754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 291, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 291, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 291, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 234 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2356-2362." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 525, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 359, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 359, + 525, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 359, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongyin Luo and James Glass. 2023. Logic against bias: Textual entailment mitigates stereotypical sentence reasoning. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1243-1254, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Cross-task generalization via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 617 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abiola Obamuyide and Andreas Vlachos. 2018. Zero-shot relation classification as textual entailment. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERIFICATION (FEVER), pages 72-78, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 624, + 449, + 637 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 624, + 449, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 624, + 449, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 645, + 459, + 656 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 645, + 459, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 645, + 459, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3726" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 290, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 290, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 157, + 290, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ori Ram, Yoav Levine, Itay Dalmedigos, Dor Muhlgay, Amnon Shashua, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Yoav Shoham. 2023. In-context retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00083." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5477-5490." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 290, + 406 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 290, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 290, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 415, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 415, + 290, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 415, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 290, + 578 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 290, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 290, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. 2022. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022b. Super-naturalinstructions:generalization via declarative instructions on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1600+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks. In EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 525, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 327, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianhua Zhang, Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Wei Fang, Luc Gaitskell, Thomas Hartvigsen, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. 2023. Interpretable unified language checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03728." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3727" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 169 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 169 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 260, + 169 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsVicuna-7B-v1.1SAIL-7B
Novel \nVerbsInclude \nConsiderCalculate \nMatch \nRevolutionize \nCheck \nInclude \nIncrease
Count26
", + "image_path": "006c7282cfe47d91dcd05708e6c929c36c953586599130c04415de909bf4bf82.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 212, + 270, + 296 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 177, + 291, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 177, + 291, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 177, + 291, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Top-10 verbs generated by LLaMA-based models that do not overlap with GPT-4 and ChatGPT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 212, + 270, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 212, + 270, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 212, + 270, + 296 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsAvg.Std.Diversity
GPT-4303.8121.50.48
ChatGPT135.163.60.56
Vicuna-13B204.182.90.45
Vicuna-7B196.590.30.45
SAIL-7B + Search246.287.70.44
SAIL-7B206.686.90.47
", + "image_path": "11d8adf5a41ab4342848ad95454795be013f548553b611e8eee25dc5ffe8d1a4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 291, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Statistics about the length and diversity of the generated responses of different language models. Diversity stands for the total number of different words divided by the total length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 374, + 154, + 386 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 374, + 154, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 374, + 154, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Data Statics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 291, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first show the word preference of different models on the 80 unseen instructions. The results are shown in Figure 4. We compare the distributions of top-10 verbs generated by GPT4, GPT-3.5-Turbo (ChatGPT), Vicuna-7B-v1.1, and SAIL-7B models. With search augmentation, SAIL-7B generates significantly more verbs that do not overlap with GPT's generations, as shown in Table 5. Only two top-10 verbs generated by Vicuna are not covered by GPT-4 and ChatGPT, while six out of ten verbs generated by SAIL-7b are not high-frequency verbs by the GPT models. This indicates that the grounding search results can shift the generation preference of the language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 291, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 291, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 291, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The statistics of the generated responses is shown in Table 6. GPT-4 generates the longest and most diverse responses, while ChatGPT tends to generate shorter and simpler answers. Without search augmentation, the lengths of SAIL-7B generated sequences are similar to the Vicuna models. This indicates that search augmentation can increase the length of the generated responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3728" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 216, + 268, + 406 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 216, + 268, + 406 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 216, + 268, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 216, + 268, + 406 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8afa718da3d90af664c18c729944ee4aa5cd35b91d0bd7e2c3b0f46f49a949f4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 417, + 202, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 417, + 202, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 417, + 202, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vicuna-7b-v1.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 499, + 407 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 499, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 499, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 216, + 499, + 407 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9189e911c99fea2576f5d4186947bf663ceb68878118005c0acf1db87ea5297f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 387, + 417, + 441, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 387, + 417, + 441, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 387, + 417, + 441, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SAIL-LLaMA-7b" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 430, + 267, + 602 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 430, + 267, + 602 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 430, + 267, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 430, + 267, + 602 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "56bd95b333976dc359494eb1f92d919575042091cf4936faa586dd11a2bd68d1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 611, + 480, + 624 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 611, + 480, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 611, + 480, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Top-10 verbs and associated nouns generated by selective large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 326, + 430, + 499, + 602 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 430, + 499, + 602 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 430, + 499, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 430, + 499, + 602 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "014f36d681bdc7fe1dfacbd0adc215c5e0e984fb288cb203884a749243d61289.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3729" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_content_list.json b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f07730f618e3d4b17ba9def7f5c553288b85e72 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2571 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SEGAUGMENT: Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 870, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ioannis Tsiamas and José A. R. Fonollosa \nUniversitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Barcelona", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 155, + 554, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{ioannis.tsiamas,jose.fonollosa}@upc.edu", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 191, + 514, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Marta R. Costa-jussa \nFAIR Meta, Paris", + "bbox": [ + 621, + 155, + 810, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "costajussa@meta.com", + "bbox": [ + 642, + 191, + 791, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "End-to-end Speech Translation is hindered by a lack of available data resources. While most of them are based on documents, a sentence-level version is available, which is however single and static, potentially impeding the usefulness of the data. We propose a new data augmentation strategy, SEGAUGMENT, to address this issue by generating multiple alternative sentence-level versions of a dataset. Our method utilizes an Audio Segmentation system, which re-segments the speech of each document with different length constraints, after which we obtain the target text via alignment methods. Experiments demonstrate consistent gains across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with an average increase of 2.5 BLEU points, and up to 5 BLEU for low-resource scenarios in mTEDx. Furthermore, when combined with a strong system, SEGAUGMENT obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C. Finally, we show that the proposed method can also successfully augment sentence-level datasets, and that it enables Speech Translation models to close the gap between the manual and automatic segmentation at inference time.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 651, + 258, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The conventional approach for Speech Translation (ST) involves cascading two separate systems: an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model followed by a Machine Translation (MT) model. However, recent advances in deep learning (Vaswani et al., 2017), coupled with an increased availability of ST corpora (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2020a) have enabled the use of end-to-end models (Weiss et al., 2017). Although end-to-end models can address several shortcomings of cascaded models, such as slow inference times, error propagation, and information loss, they are limited by a data bottleneck (Sperber and Paulik, 2020). This bottleneck arises from the inability of end-to-end models to directly leverage data from the more", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bfb9d920c02c334b80fdb23fa061b66b481998123d631827ff695c15613b6f6b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Data Augmentation with SEGAUGMENT." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 249, + 882, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "resourceful tasks of ASR and MT, which restricts them from consistently matching the performance of the cascaded models (Bentivogli et al., 2021; Anastasopoulos et al., 2022, 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 882, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The majority of ST corpora are based on document-level speech data, such as MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a) and mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021), which are derived from TED talks, with duration times of 10 to 20 minutes. These document-based data are processed into shorter, sentence-level examples through a process called manual segmentation, which relies on grammatical features in the text. Still, this sentence-level version is single and static and is potentially limiting the utility of the already scarce ST datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 884, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address this limitation, we propose SEGAUGMENT, a segmentation-based data augmentation method that generates multiple alternative sentence-level versions of document-level speech data (Fig 1). SEGAUGMENT employs SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), an Audio Segmentation method that we tune to yield different re-segmentations of a speech document based on duration constraints. For each new segmentation of a document, the corresponding transcript is retrieved via CTC-based forced alignment (Kurzinger et al., 2020), and the target text is obtained with an MT model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8569", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8569-8588", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 957, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 379, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We present SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method for Speech Translation.", + "- We demonstrate its effectiveness across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with average gains of 2.5 BLEU points and on three low-resource pairs in mTEDx, with gains up to 5 BLEU.", + "- When utilized with a strong baseline that combines WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020), it obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C.", + "- We also show its applicability to data not based on documents, providing an increase of 1.9 BLEU in CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021).", + "- SEGAUGMENT also enables ST models to close the gap between the manual and automatic test set segmentations at inference time.", + "- Finally, along with our code, we open source all the synthetic data that were created with the proposed method1." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 112, + 485, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Relevant Research", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 309, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), which directly modifies the speech features by wrapping or masking them, is a standard approach for data augmentation in speech tasks including ST (Bahar et al., 2019; Di Gangi et al., 2019b). WavAugment (Kharitonov et al., 2021) is a similar technique that modifies the speech wave by introducing effects such as pitch, tempo and echo (Gálego et al., 2021). Instead of altering the speech input, our proposed method generates more synthetic data by altering their points of segmentation, and thus is complimentary to techniques such as SpecAugment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 460, + 489, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An effective way to address data scarcity in ST is by generating synthetic data from external sources. This can be achieved by using an MT model to translate the transcript of an ASR dataset or a Text-to-Speech (TTS) model to generate speech for the source text of an MT dataset (Jia et al., 2019; Pino et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020). In contrast, SEGAUGMENT generates synthetic data internally, without relying on external datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 489, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous research has established the benefits of generating synthetic examples by cropping or merging the original ones, with sub-sequence sampling for ASR (Nguyen et al., 2020), and concatenation for MT (Nguyen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Kondo et al., 2021), as well as for ASR and ST", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 799, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(Lam et al., 2022a). Our approach, however, segments documents at arbitrary points, thus providing access to a greater number of synthetic examples. An alternative approach by Lam et al. (2022b) involves recombining training data in a linguistically-motivated way, by sampling pivot tokens, retrieving possible continuations from a suffix memory, combining them to obtain new speech-transcription pairs, and finally using an MT model to generate the translations. Our method is similar since it also leverages audio alignments and MT, but instead of mixing speech, it segments at alternative points.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context-aware ST models have been shown to be robust towards error-prone automatic segmentations of the test set at inference time (Zhang et al., 2021a). Our method bears similarities with Gaido et al. (2020b); Papi et al. (2021) in that it re-segments the train set to create synthetic data. However, unlike their approach, where they split at random words in the transcript, we use a specialized Audio Segmentation method (Tsiamas et al., 2022b) to directly split the audio into segments resembling proper sentences. Furthermore, instead of using word alignment algorithms to get the target text (Dyer et al., 2013), we learn the alignment with an MT model. We thus create high-quality data that can be generally useful, and not only for error-prone test set segmentations. Finally, recent work has demonstrated that context-aware ST models evaluated on fixed-length automatic segmentations can be competitive compared to the manual segmentation (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022). Here, we find that utilizing data from SEGAUGMENT yields high translation quality for ST models evaluated on automatic segmentations, even surpassing the translation quality of the manual segmentation, and without explicitly making them context-aware.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 278, + 884, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 650, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 ST Corpora and Manual Segmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 721, + 862, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A document-level speech translation corpus $\\mathcal{D}$ (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Salesky et al., 2021) is comprised of $n$ triplets that represent the speech wave $\\mathbf{X}$ , the transcription $\\mathbf{Z}$ , and the translation $\\mathbf{Y}$ of each document.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 743, + 880, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {D} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {Z} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {Y} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 605, + 852, + 882, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order for the data to be useful for traditional sentence-level ST, the document-level corpus $\\mathcal{D}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ github.com/mt-upc/SegAugment", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 344, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8570", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/83fc4097c165317970298cf8389aa6cf83a0e17eed92a1af1f81e044da70a732.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Manual Segmentation of an example $i$ from a document-level corpus $\\mathcal{D}$ into $m_{i}$ examples of a sentence-level corpus $\\mathcal{S}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is processed to a sentence-level corpus $S$ , with $m = \\sum_{i}^{n} m_{i}$ examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 291, + 487, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {S} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {x} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {z} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\\\ = \\left\\{\\left\\{\\left(\\boldsymbol {x} ^ {i, j}, \\boldsymbol {z} ^ {i, j}, \\boldsymbol {y} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}} \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {2} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 173, + 346, + 485, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Where $\\mathbf{x}^i = (\\pmb{x}^{i,1},\\dots,\\pmb{x}^{i,m_i})$ are the sentence-level speech waves for the $i$ -th document, $\\mathbf{z}^i = (z^{i,1},\\dots,z^{i,m_i})$ are the sentence-level transcriptions, and $\\mathbf{y}^i = (\\mathbf{y}^{i,1},\\dots,\\mathbf{y}^{i,m_i})$ are the sentence-level translations. Usually, $S$ is obtained by a process of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), where the document-level transcription and translation are split on strong punctuation, and then aligned with cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010). Finally, the corresponding sentence-level speech waves are obtained by audio-text alignment (McAuliffe et al., 2017). Since speech is continuous, instead of defining the sentence-level speech wave $\\pmb{x}^{i,j}$ , it is common to define the start and end points $s^{i,j}$ , $e^{i,j} \\in \\mathbb{R}$ that correspond to the document speech $\\mathbf{X}^i$ . Thus, $S$ can be re-defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 406, + 489, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {S} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\left\\{\\left(b ^ {i, j}, z ^ {i, j}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 687, + 487, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Where $\\mathbf{b}^i = (b^{i,1},\\dots,b^{i,m_i})$ is the segmentation for the $i$ -th speech wave, and $b^{i,j} = (s^{i,j},e^{i,j})$ is a tuple of the segment boundaries for the $j$ -th segment, for which $\\pmb{x}^{i,j} = \\pmb{\\chi}_{s^{i,j}:e^{i,j}}^i$ . Note that oftentimes there is a gap between consecutive segments $(e^{i,j},s^{i,j + 1})$ due to silent periods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 487, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Audio Segmentation and SHAS", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 834, + 406, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In end-to-end ST, Audio Segmentation methods aim to find a segmentation $\\mathbf{b}^{\\prime}$ for a speech document $\\mathbf{X}^{\\prime}$ , without making use of its transcription. They are crucial in real world scenarios, when a", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "test set segmentation is not available, and an automatic one has to be inferred, as simulated by recent IWSLT evaluations (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). They usually rely on acoustic features (pause-based), length criteria (length-based), or a combination of both (hybrid). One such hybrid approach is SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b,a), which uses a supervised classification model $\\mathcal{C}$ and a hybrid segmentation algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ . The classifier $\\mathcal{C}$ is a Transformer encoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) with a frozen WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020; Babu et al., 2021) as a backbone. It is trained on the speech documents and segment boundaries of a manually-segmented speech corpus, $S^{\\mathrm{SGM}} = \\{(X^i, b^i)\\}_{i=1}^n$ , by predicting whether an audio frame belongs to any of the manually-segmented examples. At inference time, a sequence of binary probabilities $\\mathbf{p}'$ is obtained by applying the classifier $\\mathcal{C}$ on $\\mathbf{X}'$ (eq. 4). Following, parameterized with thr to control the classification threshold, and $\\ell = (\\min, \\max)$ to control the length of the resulting segments, $\\mathcal{A}$ produces the automatic segmentation $\\mathbf{b}'$ according to $\\mathbf{p}'$ (eq. 5). There are two possible choices for $\\mathcal{A}$ . The Divide-and-Conquer (PDAC) approach progressively splits the audio at the point $\\kappa$ of lowest probability $p_{\\kappa}' > thr$ , until all resulting segments are within $\\ell$ (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Potapczyk and Przybysz, 2020). Alternatively, the Streaming (PSTRM) approach takes streams of length max and splits them at the point $\\kappa$ with $p_{\\kappa}' > thr$ between $\\ell$ or uses the whole stream if no such point exists (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 885, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {p} ^ {\\prime} = \\mathcal {C} (\\mathbf {X} ^ {\\prime}) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 586, + 639, + 882, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {b} ^ {\\prime} = \\mathcal {A} \\left(\\mathbf {p} ^ {\\prime}; \\text {m i n}, \\text {m a x}, \\text {t h r}\\right) \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 589, + 659, + 880, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Proposed Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 684, + 742, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed data augmentation method SEGAUGMENT (Fig. 3) aims to increase the utility of the training data $S$ , by generating synthetic sentence-level corpora $\\hat{S}_{\\ell}$ , which are based on alternative segmentations of the speech documents in $\\mathcal{D}$ (eq. 1). Whereas the manual segmentation (Fig. 2) relies on grammatical features in the text, here we propose to split on acoustic features present in the audio, by utilizing SHAS (§3.2). For the $i$ -th speech document $\\mathbf{X}^i$ , SEGAUGMENT creates alternative segmentation boundaries $\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i$ with SHAS (§4.1), obtains the corresponding transcriptions $\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i$ via CTC-based forced alignment (§4.2), and finally,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8571", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e4f84f970185c2316360376b7323e4a3da31dd3e69381b7fca8780dc9d523901.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The SEGAUGMENT methodology. Given the $i$ -th document-level example of $\\mathcal{D}$ , with $m_i$ sentence-level examples $(S)$ , it creates $k_i$ synthetic sentence-level examples by alternative segmentations with SHAS. Changing the segmentation parameters $\\ell$ results in several different synthetic corpora $\\hat{S}_{\\ell}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 480, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "generates the translations $\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i$ with an MT model (§4.3). By repeating this process with different parameterizations $\\ell$ of the segmentation algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ , multiple synthetic sentence-level speech corpora can be generated (§4.4). A synthetic speech corpus $\\hat{S}_{\\ell}$ with $k = \\sum_{i}^{n}k_{i}$ examples can be defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 489, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\mathcal {S}} _ {\\ell} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {b}} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {z}} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\\\ = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\left\\{\\left(\\hat {b} ^ {i, j}, \\hat {\\mathbf {z}} ^ {i, j}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {k _ {i}}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {6} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 589, + 485, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Where $\\mathbf{X}^i$ is the original speech for the $i$ -th document (eq. 1), $\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i = (\\hat{b}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{b}^{i,k_i})$ are its alternative segmentations, $\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i = (\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,k_i})$ are its sentence-level transcriptions, and $\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i = (\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^{i,k_i})$ are its synthetic sentence-level translations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In total, three different models are utilized for creating a synthetic corpus, a classifier $\\mathcal{C}$ (§3.2) for segmentation, a CTC encoder $\\mathcal{E}$ (Graves et al., 2006) for forced alignment, and an MT model $\\mathcal{M}$ for text alignment. We can use pre-trained models, or optionally learn them from the manually segmented examples of $\\mathcal{S}$ (Fig. 4). The classifier $\\mathcal{C}$ can be learned from $S^{\\mathrm{SGM}} = \\{(\\mathbf{X}^i,\\mathbf{b}^i)\\}_{i = 1}^n$ , the encoder $\\mathcal{E}$ from $S^{\\mathrm{ASR}} = \\{(x^{i},z^{i})\\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ , and the model $\\mathcal{M}$ from $S^{\\mathrm{MT}} = \\{(z^{i},y^{i})\\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, we describe in detail the proposed method.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f2ed88f5f299c5a92bbec36675656666c0a793dde767589718db8d7c098d46c6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Optional Model Training" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 882, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Segmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 663, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We follow the process described for SHAS (§3.2) and obtain the alternative segmentations $\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i$ for each $\\mathbf{X}^i$ in the training corpus, by doing inference with $\\mathcal{C}$ and applying the segmentation algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ . In contrast to its original use, we use arbitrary values for $min$ to have more control over the length ranges of the segments and prioritize the classification threshold requirements $thr$ over the segment length requirements $\\ell$ in the constraint optimization procedure of $\\mathcal{A}$ , to ensure good data quality.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 300, + 884, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Audio Alignment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 690, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To create the transcriptions $\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i$ of the $i$ -th document for the segments $\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i$ ( $\\S 4.1$ ), we are using CTC-based forced alignment (Kürzinger et al., 2020). We first do inference on the sentence-level speech of the manual segmentation $\\mathbf{x}^i = (\\mathbf{x}^{i,1}, \\dots, \\mathbf{x}^{i,n_i})$ with a CTC encoder $\\mathcal{E}$ , thus obtaining character-level probabilities $\\mathbf{u}^i$ for the whole audio. We apply a text cleaning process on the transcriptions $\\mathbf{z}^i$ , which includes spelling-out numbers, removing unvoiced text such as events and speaker names, removing all remaining characters that are not included in vocabulary, and finally upper casing. The forced alignment algorithm uses the probabilities $\\mathbf{u}^i$ and the cleaned text $\\mathbf{z}^i$ to find the character segmentation along with the starting and ending timestamps of each entry. Following, we merge characters to words using the special token for the word boundaries, and reverse the cleaning step² to recover the original text that corresponds to each segment. For each example $j$ , we obtain the source text $\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,j}$ by joining the corresponding words that are within the segment boundary $\\hat{b}^{i,j}$ , and apply a post-editing step to fix the casing and punctuation (Alg. 1).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 512, + 882, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We re-introduce any potential noise, e.g. \"(Laughter)\".", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 870, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8572", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Text Alignment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 282, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike the case of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010) is not applicable, and additionally, word alignment tools (Dyer et al., 2013) yielded sub-optimal results. Thus, we learn the alignment with an MT model $\\mathcal{M}$ , which is trained on the manually segmented sentence-level data $S^{\\mathrm{MT}} = \\{(z^i,\\mathbf{y}^i)\\}_{i = 1}^n$ . The training data is modified by concatenating examples to reflect the length of the examples that will be translated, thus learning model $\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}$ from $S_{\\ell}^{\\mathrm{MT}}$ , where $\\ell$ are the length parameters used in SHAS. To accurately learn the training set alignment, we use very little regularization, practically overfitting the training data $S_{\\ell}^{\\mathrm{MT}}$ (§A.7). Since there are no sentence-level references available for the synthetic data, we monitor the document-level BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) in a small number of training documents, and only end the training when it stops increasing. Finally, we obtain the synthetic sentence-level translations $\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i$ with the trained $\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 492, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Multiple Sentence-level Versions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 415, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The parameters $\\ell = (min, max)$ of the segmentation algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ allow us to have fine-grained control over the length of the produced segments. Different, non-overlapping tuples of $\\ell$ result in different segmentations, providing access to multiple synthetic sentence-level versions of each document. Moreover, the additional cost of creating more than one synthetic corpus is relatively low, as the results of the classification with $\\mathcal{C}$ and the forced alignment can be cached and reused (Fig. 3).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 489, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 651, + 322, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For our experiments we use data from three ST datasets, MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a), mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021) and CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021) (Table 1). MuST-C and mTEDx are based on TED talks, and have sentence-level examples, which are derived from document-level ones, via manual segmentation (Fig. 2). CoVoST2 is based on the Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020) corpus and is inherently a sentence-level corpus. For our main experiments we use eight language pairs from MuST-C v1.0, which are English (En) to German (De), Spanish (Es), French (Fr), Italian (It), Dutch (Nl), Portuguese (Pt), Romanian (Ro), and Russian (Ru). We are also using En-De from v2.0 for certain ablation studies (\\$A.5, A.6, A.7) and analysis", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ab7ce0b03446377cfe55c3e62859960908e74a44c8c3dad82ee8edf52735bf4e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetvLang. Pair#Docs#Sents#Hours
MuST-C1.0En-De2,093234K408
En-Es2,514266K496
En-Fr2,460275K485
En-It2,324254K457
En-NI2,219248K434
En-Pt2,001206K377
En-Ro2,166236K424
En-Ru2,448265K482
2.0En-De2,537251K450
mTEDxEs-Es988102K178
Pt-Pt81290K153
Es-En37836K64
Pt-En27931K53
Es-Fr434K6
CoVoST2En-De—231K362
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 880, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Training Data Statistics", + "bbox": [ + 583, + 331, + 806, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$(\\S 6.8)$ . From mTEDx we use the Es-En, Pt-En, and Es-Fr ST data, as well as the Es-Es, and Pt-Pt for the ASR pre-training, and finally the En-De data from CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 882, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For segmentation (§4.1) we are using the open-sourced pre-trained English and multilingual SHAS classifiers3. For the SHAS algorithm we set the classification threshold thr = 0.5 and for length constraints $\\ell = (min, max)$ , we use four different, non-overlapping tuples of (0.4, 3), (3, 10), (10, 20) and (20, 30) seconds, resulting in short (s), medium (m), long (l), and extra-long (xl) segmentations. We use PDAC and only apply PSTRM for $xl$ , since we observed that PDAC was not able to satisfy the length conditions. For the CTC encoder used in audio alignment (§4.2), we use pre-trained WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) models4 available on HuggingFace (Wolf et al., 2020). For the MT models used in text alignment (§4.3) we trained medium-sized Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017; Ott et al., 2019) with 6 layers (§A.1.3). When training with SEGAUGMENT, we simply concatenate the four synthetic datasets $\\hat{S}_s$ , $\\hat{S}_m$ , $\\hat{S}_l$ , $\\hat{S}_{xl}$ to the original one ( $S$ ), and remove any duplicates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 437, + 884, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For Speech Translation we train Speech-to-Text Transformer baselines (Wang et al., 2020b). Unless stated otherwise, we use the small architecture (s2t_transformer_s) with 12 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 256, with ASR pre-training using only the original data. The full details of the models and the training proce", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{3}$ github.com/mt-upc/SHAS", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 879, + 699, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4wav2vec2-large-960h-lv60-self, wav2vec2-large-xlsr-53-spanish, wav2vec2-large-xlsr-53-portuguese", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8573", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cef4a96ff0fce1c0159b3a32001595551f4a6d9f2e73419540b23cbe78251844.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelEn-DeEn-EsEn-FrEn-ItEn-NlEn-PtEn-RoEn-RuAverage
Fairseq ST22.7 / —27.2 / —32.9 / —22.7 / —27.3 / —28.1 / —21.9 / —15.3 / —24.8 / —
Baseline23.2 / 50.527.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.322.9 / 50.427.3 / 53.928.7 / 54.922.2 / 49.015.3 / 40.425.0 / 51.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.0 / 52.629.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.725.6 / 52.930.3 / 57.031.8 / 57.825.0 / 51.816.8 / 42.527.4 / 54.0
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT25.5 / 52.829.5 / 56.935.8 / 60.725.7 / 52.930.0 / 56.831.6 / 57.625.0 / 52.016.7 / 42.427.5 / 54.0
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 882, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "dures are available in §A.1.1. For inference, we average the 10 best checkpoints on the validation set and generate with a beam of 5. We evaluate with $\\mathrm{BLEU}^5$ (Papineni et al., 2002) and $\\mathrm{chrF2^6}$ (Popovic, 2017) using SACREBLEU (Post, 2018), and perform statistical significance testing using paired bootstrap resampling (Koehn, 2004) to ensure valid comparisons. To evaluate on an automatic segmentation (§6.5), the hypotheses are aligned to the references of the manual segmentation with MwERSEGMENTER (Matusov et al., 2005).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 235, + 489, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 425, + 213, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Main Results in MuST-C", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 450, + 356, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare ST models trained with and without SEGAUGMENT on the eight language pairs of MuST-C v1.0, and include results from Wang et al. (2020b), which use the same model architecture. In Table 2, we observe that models leveraging SEGAUGMENT achieve significant and consistent improvements in all language pairs, thus confirming that the proposed method allows us to better utilize the available ST data. More specifically, the improvements range from 1.5 to 3.1 BLEU, with an average gain of 2.4 points. We also investigate the application of SEGAUGMENT during the ASR pre-training, which brings further gains in four language pairs, but the average improvement is only marginal over just using the original ASR data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 489, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Results with SOTA methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 381, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we study the impact of the proposed method, when combined with a strong ST model. We use a model with 24 encoder layers, 12 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 1024, where its encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and its decoder from MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020) ( $\\S$ A.1.2). We fine-tune this model end-to-end", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 746, + 489, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fdf92387a6e1533f8e5ff332cb59d9cd810737e1b6d1d84ed8af2fb7785c2a23.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with $p < 0.001$ . All models use the same architecture and results of Fairseq ST are from Wang et al. (2020b)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelEn-EsEn-Fr
Chimera (Han et al., 2021)30.6 / —35.6 / —
STEMM (Fang et al., 2022)31.0 / —37.4 / —
ConST (Ye et al., 2022)32.0 / —38.3 / —
STPT (Tang et al., 2022)33.1 / —39.7 / —
SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b)33.6 / —41.4 / —
w2v-mBART33.3 / 60.240.8 / 64.5
+ SEGAUGMENT33.7 / 60.741.5 / 65.1
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 231, + 880, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: $\\mathrm{BLEU}(\\uparrow) / \\mathrm{chrF2}(\\uparrow)$ scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results with SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the w2vmBART baseline model with $p < 0.001$ , apart from the BLEU score for En-Es (33.7) which is with $p < 0.005$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 368, + 884, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on ST using MuST-C v1.0, with and without the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, and also provide results from other state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, such as Chimera (Han et al., 2021), STEMM (Fang et al., 2022), ConST (Ye et al., 2022), STPT (Tang et al., 2022), and SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b). As shown in Table 3, despite already having a competitive baseline (w2v-mBART), utilizing SEGAUGMENT achieves further significant improvements7, reaching SOTA performance in EnEs and En-Fr.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 466, + 884, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Low-Resource Scenarios", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 656, + 749, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We explore the application of SEGAUGMENT in low-resource and non-English speech settings of mTEDx. In Table 4, we present results of the baseline with and without SEGAUGMENT for Es-En, Pt-En and the extremely low-resource pair of Es-Fr (6 hours). We furthermore provide the BLEU scores from Salesky et al. (2021), which use the extra-small model configuration (10M parameters). We use the extra-small configuration for Es-Fr, while the others use the small one (31M parameters). SEGAUGMENT provides significant improvements in all pairs, with even larger ones when it is also", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7Compared with §6.1, smaller gains are expected since the effect of data augmentation diminishes with increased data availability, facilitated here by the large pre-trained models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{5}$ nrefs:1 | bs:1000 | seed:12345 | case:mixed | eff:no | tok:13a | smooth:exp | version:2.3.0", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 487, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{6}$ nrefs:1 | bs:1000 | seed:12345 | case:mixed | eff:yes | nc:6 | nw:0 | space:no | version:2.3.0", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8574", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9a970c25309db4654a3f2708e0d5aa81f03790246ab994088653f952c2902887.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelEs-EnPt-EnEs-Fr
Bilingual E2E-ST7.0 / —8.1 / —1.7 / —
Baseline15.6 / 40.515.3 / 38.62.7 / 23.4
+ SEGAUGMENT18.5 / 43.517.8 / 41.13.8 / 23.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.1 / 43.920.3 / 43.75.3 / 27.2
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fa292c8016e98f959c068ccc04811a1445ea6e4e16665d6a609c0c32573a1365.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on mTEDx test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with $p < 0.001$ , with the exception of chrF2 in Es-Fr (23.9) which is with $p < 0.005$ . Results of Bilingual E2E-ST are from Salesky et al. (2021)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelEn-De
Bi-AST (Wang et al., 2021)16.3 / —
STR (Lam et al., 2022b)18.8 / —
Baseline17.4 / 43.2
+ SEGAUGMENT19.0 / 44.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.3 / 45.4
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 277, + 436, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on CoVoST2 test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with $p < 0.001$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 489, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "utilized during the ASR pre-training, improving the BLEU scores by 2.6-5. Our results here concerning ASR pre-training are more conclusive than in MuST-C (§6.1), possibly due to the better ASR models obtained with SEGAUGMENT (§A.3).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 481, + 489, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.4 Application on Sentence-level Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 433, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider the application of the method to CoVoST, of which the data do not originate from documents. We treat the sentence-level data as \"documents\" and apply SEGAUGMENT as before. Due to the relatively short duration of the examples, we only apply SEGAUGMENT with short and medium configurations. In Table 5 we provide our results for En-De, with and without SEGAUGMENT, a bilingual baseline from Wang et al. (2020a), and the recently proposed Sample-Translate-Recombine (STR) augmentation method (Lam et al., 2022b), which uses the same model architecture as our experiments. Although designed for document-level data, SEGAUGMENT brings significant improvements to the baseline8, even outperforming the STR augmentation method by 0.5 BLEU points.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 489, + 863 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.5 Automatic Segmentations of the test set", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 863, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike most research settings, in real-world scenarios, the manual segmentation is not typically available, and ST models must rely on automatic segmentation methods. However, evaluating on automatic segmentation is considered sub-optimal, decreasing BLEU scores by $5 - 10\\%$ (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021) as compared to evaluating on the manual (gold) segmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 112, + 884, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT originate from an automatic segmentation, we expect they would be useful in bridging the training-inference segmentation mismatch (Papi et al., 2021). We evaluate our baselines with and without SEGAUGMENT on MuST-C tst-COMMON, on both the manual segmentation provided with the dataset, and an automatic one which is obtained by SHAS. In Table 6 we present results with SHAS-long, which we found to be the best. Extended results can be found in §A.4. For the purpose of this experiment, we also train another ST model with SEGAUGMENT, where we pretend a special token in each translation, indicating the dataset origin of the example9. When generating with such a model, we prompt it with the special token that corresponds to the segmentation of the test set. The results of Table 6 show that the baseline experiences a drop of 1.6 BLEU points (or $6\\%$ ) on average, when evaluated on the automatic segmentation, confirming previous research (Tsiamas et al., 2022b). Applying SEGAUGMENT, validates our hypothesis, since the average increase of 3.5 BLEU $(23.4 \\rightarrow 26.9)$ observed in the automatic segmentation is larger than the increase of 2.4 BLEU in the manual one $(25.0 \\rightarrow 27.4)$ . Finally, using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens, enables ST models to reach an average score of 27.3 BLEU points, closing the gap with the manual segmentation (27.4), while being better10 in three language pairs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time11 that ST models can match (or surpass) the performance of the manual segmentation, demonstrating the usefulness of the proposed method in real-world scenarios. Our results also raise an interesting question, on whether we should continue to consider the manual segmentation as an upper bound of performance for our ST models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 243, + 884, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "There is a potential denoising effect, since CoVoST clips include unvoiced audio either at the start or the end, which our method inherently excludes from the synthetic data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "i.e. , , , , or ", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 878, + 776, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10Significance not possible due to different segmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 891, + 873, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "11Without context-aware ST (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 904, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8575", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/28aea0517c4be3b7775726bb8b14cb2f3d149c38318add7fb0fb076bc34a333c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 6: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON with manual and SHAS-long segmentation. The second column in Manual and SHAS-long is the best score among the three models, and with bold is the best score overall for each language pair." + ], + "table_body": "
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS-long
En-DeBaseline23.221.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.124.525.2
← special tok.25.125.2
En-EsBaseline27.526.1
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.329.029.4
← special tok.29.229.4
En-FrBaseline33.130.6
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.734.935.3
← special tok.35.635.3
En-ItBaseline22.921.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.624.425.1
← special tok.25.025.1
En-NlBaseline27.325.7
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.329.729.8
← special tok.29.429.8
En-PtBaseline28.726.9
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.831.431.8
← special tok.31.531.8
En-RoBaseline22.220.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.024.124.6
← special tok.24.824.6
En-RuBaseline15.314.6
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.816.817.0
← special tok.16.417.0
AverageBaseline25.023.4
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.426.927.3
← special tok.27.127.3
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.6 ST without ASR pre-training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 658, + 389, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following, we investigate the importance of the ASR pre-training phase, a standard practice (Wang et al., 2020b), which usually is also costly. In Table 7 we present the results of ST models on MuST-C En-Es and En-Fr trained with and without SEGAUGMENT, when skipping the ASR pretraining. We also include the results of the Revisit-ST system proposed by Zhang et al. (2022a). We find that models with SEGAUGMENT are competitive even without ASR pre-training, surpassing both the baseline with pre-training and the Revisit-ST system. In general, ASR pre-training could be skipped in favor of using SEGAUGMENT, but including both is the best choice.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/05c739b0b2f4a7490f08e806f28a39c8bdab02aa13bf70567c462a8536cd12fc.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 7: $\\mathrm{BLEU}(\\uparrow) / \\mathrm{chrF2}(\\uparrow)$ scores on MuST-C tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score among the models without ASR pre-training $(\\mathbf{x})$ . Results of Revisit-ST are from Zhang et al. (2022a). $\\# \\mathbf{p}$ stands for number of parameters." + ], + "table_body": "
Model#pASREn-EsEn-Fr
Baseline31M✓27.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.3
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✓29.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.7
Revisit-ST48M✗28.1 / —33.4 / —
Baseline31M✗25.3 / 52.330.1 / 55.4
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✗28.5 / 55.734.6 / 59.6
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 880, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9c999520ffc260bb0e81d95096920a3bacabcd5e9d16ebe9e79bbe5cae4678f8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C En-De dev during training." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 282, + 875, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.7 Training Costs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 672, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we discuss the computational costs involved with SEGAUGMENT during ST model training. We analyze the performance of models with and without SEGAUGMENT from Table 2, at different training steps in MuST-C En-De dev. In Figure 5, we observe that models with our proposed method, not only converge to a better BLEU score, but also consistently surpass the baseline during training. Thus, although utilizing the synthetic data from SEGAUGMENT would naturally result in longer training times, it is still better even when we constraint the available resources.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 546, + 882, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.8 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 752, + 623, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we discuss four potential reasons behind the effectiveness of SEGAUGMENT.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 880, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contextual diversity. The synthetic examples are based on alternative segmentations and are thus presented within different contextual windows, as compared to the original ones (§A.8). We speculate that this aids the model to generalize more, since phrases and sub-words are seen with less or more context, that might or not be essential for", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8576", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "their translation. Adding additional context that is irrelevant was previously found to be beneficial in low-resource MT, by providing negative context to the attention layers (Nguyen et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Positional diversity. With SEGAUGMENT, speech and text units are presented at many more different absolute positions in the speech or target text sequences (§A.11). This is important due to the absolute positional embeddings in the Transformer, which are prone to overfitting (Sinha et al., 2022). We hypothesize that the synthetic data create a diversification effect on the position of each unit, which can be seen as a form of regularization, especially relevant for rare units. This is also supported for the simpler case of example concatenation (Nguyen et al., 2021), while in our case the diversification effect is richer due to the arbitrary document segmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 149, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Length Specialization. Synthetic datasets created by SEGAUGMENT supply an abundance of examples of extremely long and short lengths, which are relatively infrequent in the original data. This creates a specialization effect enabling ST models trained on the synthetic data to better translate sequences of extreme lengths in the test set (§A.9).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 489, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge Distillation. As translations of the synthetic data are generated by MT models, there is an effect similar to that of Knowledge Distillation (KD) (Liu et al., 2019; Gaido et al., 2020a). To quantify this effect, we re-translate the train set of MuST-C En-De four times, with the same MT models employed in SEGAUGMENT. Subsequently, an ST model is trained with the original and re-translated data, referred to as in-data-KD, as the MT models did not leverage any external knowledge. In Table 8 we compare in-data-KD with SEGAUGMENT, and find that although in-data-KD provides an increase over the baseline, it exhibits a significant difference of 1 BLEU point with SEGAUGMENT. Our findings confirm the existence of the KD effect, but suggest that SEGAUGMENT is more general as it not only formulates different targets, but also diverse inputs (through re-segmentation), thereby amplifying the positive effects of the source-side contextual and positional diversity. In contrast, KD only provides diversity on the target-side.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 489, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 858, + 253, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduced SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method that generates synthetic data", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f24c518d3cac7489fbda1aa6848151e58ec6b027d3753da8e8b08ad6cbcafb19.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelEn-De
Baseline24.3 / 51.9
Baseline + in-data-KD25.2 / 52.7
Baseline + SEGAUGMENT26.2 / 53.7
", + "bbox": [ + 559, + 80, + 833, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v2.0 En-De tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results of Baseline + SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from Baseline + in-data-KD with $p < 0.001$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 175, + 882, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "based on alternative audio segmentations. Through extensive experimentation across multiple datasets, language pairs, and data conditions, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our method, in consistently improving translation quality by 1.5 to 5 BLEU points, and reaching state-of-the-art results when utilized by a strong ST model. Our method was also able to completely close the gap between the automatic and manual segmentations of the test set. Finally, we analyzed the reasons that contribute to our method's improved performance. Future work will investigate the extension of our method to ST for spoken-only languages and Speech-to-Speech translation, by passing the transcription stage.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 262, + 884, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 520, + 613, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "General Applicability. The proposed method requires three steps: Audio Segmentation, CTC-based forced-alignment, and Machine Translation. For Audio Segmentation we used SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), which requires a classifier that is trained on manually segmented data. Although we demonstrated the method's applicability in CoV-oST En-De, which does include a manual segmentation, we used a English classifier that was trained on MuST-C En-De. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the method's effectiveness without manually segmented data for the source language. A possible alternative would be to use a classifier trained on a different source language, since Tsiamas et al. (2022b) showed that SHAS has very high zero-shot capabilities, provided the zero-shot language was also included in the pre-training set of XLS-R (Babu et al., 2021), which serves as a backbone to the classifier. Additionally, we tested our method on several languages pairs, and also on an extremely low-resource one, such as Spanish-French (Es-Fr) in mTEDx, with only 4,000 training examples. Although we showed improvement of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 548, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8577", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$50\\%$ in that particular language pair, the two languages involved, Spanish and French, are not by any means considered low-resource. Thus, we cannot be sure about the applicability of the method in truly extremely low-resource languages, such as many African and Native American languages. Furthermore, the current version of the method would not support non-written languages, since the target text is obtained by training a MT model which translated the transcription of each audio segment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Biases. The synthetic data is heavily based on the original data, which may result in inheriting any biases present in the original data. We did not observe any signs of this effect during our research, but we did not conduct a proper investigation to assess the degree at which the synthetic data are biased in any way.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 244, + 490, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Computational and Memory costs. The synthetic data have to be created offline, with a pipeline that involves three different models, resulting in increased computational costs. To reduce these costs, we used pre-trained models for the Audio Segmentation and the CTC encoders, and cached the inference results to be re-used. Thus, the computational cost of creating the synthetic datasets for a given a language pair involves a single inference with the classifier and the CTC encoder, and multiple training/inference phases with MT models. This process can take around 24-36 hours to create four new synthetic datasets for pair in MuST-C, using a single GPU. We acknowledge the computational costs but believe the results justify them. The process could be made much lighter by using nonparametric algorithms in the three steps instead of supervised models, which can be investigated in future work. Finally, despite the computational costs, there is a very small memory cost involved since each synthetic dataset is basically a txt file containing the new target text and a yaml file containing the new segmentation, only requiring 100-200MB of storage.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 359, + 490, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 756, + 278, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Work at UPC was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) project PID2019-107579RB-I00 / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 781, + 490, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 854, + 213, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Chantal Amrhein and Barry Haddow. 2022. Don't Discard Fixed-Window Audio Segmentation in Speech-to-Text Translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 877, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Conference on Machine Translation, pages 203-219, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]", + "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Loic Barrault, Luisa Bentivogli, Marcely Zanon Boito, Ondrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, Kevin Duh, Maha Elbayad, Clara Emmanuel, Yannick Esteve, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Souhir Gahbiche, Hongyu Gong, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Benjamin Hsu, David Javorsky, Vera Kloudova, Surafel Lakew, Xutai Ma, Prashant Mathur, Paul McNamee, Kenton Murray, Maria Nadejde, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Xing Niu, John Ortega, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Jiatong Shi, Matthias Sperber, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Yogesh Virkar, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. Findings of the IWSLT 2022 Evaluation Campaign. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 98-157, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.]", + "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ondrej Bojar, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Maha Elbayad, Marcello Federico, Xutai Ma, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Matthew Wiesner. 2021. FINDINGS OF THE IWSLT 2021 EVALUATION CAMPAIGN. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 1-29, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.]", + "Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Michael Henretty, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common Voice: A Massively-Multilingual Speech Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4218-4222, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on page 5.]", + "Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, et al. 2021. XLS-R: Self-supervised Cross-lingual Speech Representation Learning at Scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09296. [Cited on pages 3 and 9.]", + "Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 12449-12460. Curran Associates, Inc. [Cited on pages 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15.]", + "Parnia Bahar, Albert Zeyer, Ralf Schlüter, and Hermann Ney. 2019. On Using SpecAugment for End-to-End" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8578", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Luisa Bentivogli, Mauro Cettolo, Marco Gaido, Alina Karakanta, Alberto Martinelli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Cascade versus Direct Speech Translation: Do the Differences Still Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2873-2887, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.]", + "Fabienne Braune and Alexander Fraser. 2010. Improved Unsupervised Sentence Alignment for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Parallel Corpora. In *Coling* 2010: Posters, pages 81-89, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. [Cited on pages 3 and 5.]", + "Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 933-941. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.]", + "Mattia A. Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019a. MuST-C: a Multilingual Speech Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2012-2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1, 2, and 5.]", + "Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Viet Nhat Nguyen, Amirhossein Tebbifakhr, and Marco Turchi. 2019b. Data Augmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation: FBK@IWSLT '19. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Chris Dyer, Victor Chahuneau, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. A Simple, Fast, and Effective Reparaterization of IBM Model 2. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 644-648, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 5.]", + "Qingkai Fang, Rong Ye, Lei Li, Yang Feng, and Mingxuan Wang. 2022. STEMM: Self-learning with Speech-text Manifold Mixup for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7050-7062, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2020a. End-to-End Speech-Translation with Knowledge Distillation: FBK@IWSLT2020. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 80–88, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 9.]", + "Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2020b. Contextualized Translation of Automatically Segmented Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2020, pages 1471-1475. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Beyond Voice Activity Detection: Hybrid Audio Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing (ICNLSP 2021), pages 55-62, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 7.]", + "Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, Carlos Escolano, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2021. End-to-End Speech Translation with Pretrained Models and Adapters: UPC at IWSLT 2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 110–119, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, page 369-376, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. [Cited on page 4.]", + "Chi Han, Mingxuan Wang, Heng Ji, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning Shared Semantic Space for Speech-to-Text Translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2214-2225, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs). ArXiv, abs/1606.08415. [Cited on pages 14 and 15.]", + "Ye Jia, Melvin Johnson, Wolfgang Macherey, Ron J. Weiss, Yuan Cao, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Naveen Ari, Stella Laurenzo, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Leveraging Weakly Supervised Data to Improve End-to-end Speech-to-text Translation. In ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7180-7184. [Cited on page 2.]", + "J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P. E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8579", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2020. Libri-Light: A Benchmark for ASR with Limited or No Supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7669-7673. https://github.com/facebookresearch/libri-light. [Cited on page 15.]", + "Eugene Kharitonov, Morgane Rivière, Gabriel Synnaeve, Lior Wolf, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Matthijs Douze, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Data Augmenting Contrastive Learning of Speech Representations in the Time Domain. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 215–222. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 388-395, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Seiichiro Kondo, Kengo Hotate, Tosho Hirasawa, Masahiro Kaneko, and Mamoru Komachi. 2021. Sentence Concatenation Approach to Data Augmentation for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 143-149, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for Neural Text Processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 14.]", + "Ludwig Kürzinger, Dominik Winkelbauer, Lujun Li, Tobias Watzel, and Gerhard Rigoll. 2020. CTC-Segmentation of Large Corpora for German End-to-End Speech Recognition. In Speech and Computer, pages 267-278, Cham. Springer International Publishing. [Cited on pages 1 and 4.]", + "Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Rieszler. 2022a. Make More of Your Data: Minimal Effort Data Augmentation for Automatic Speech Recognition and Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15398. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Riezler. 2022b. Sample, Translate, Recombine: Leveraging Audio Alignments for Data Augmentation in End-to-end Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 245-254, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]", + "Yuchen Liu, Hao Xiong, Jiajun Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Chengqing Zong. 2019." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "End-to-End Speech Translation with Knowledge Distillation. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 1128-1132. [Cited on page 9.]", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. [Cited on page 14.]", + "Evgeny Matusov, Gregor Leusch, Oliver Bender, and Hermann Ney. 2005. Evaluating Machine Translation Output with Automatic Sentence Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Interspeech. [Cited on page 3.]", + "Arya D. McCarthy, Liezl Puzon, and Juan Pino. 2020. SkinAugment: Auto-Encoding Speaker Conversions for Automatic Speech Translation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7924-7928. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Thai-Son Nguyen, Sebastian Stüker, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2020. Improving Sequence-To-Sequence Speech Recognition Training with On-The-Fly Data Augmentation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7689-7693. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Toan Q. Nguyen, Kenton Murray, and David Chiang. 2021. Data Augmentation by Concatenation for Low-Resource Translation: A Mystery and a Solution. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 287–293, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 9.]", + "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations)*, pages 48-53, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 14.]", + "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. [Cited on page 15.]", + "Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Dealing with training and test segmentation mismatch: FBK@IWSLT2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8580", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 84-91, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311-318, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 6.]", + "Daniel S. Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D. Cubuk, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. SpecAugment: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Automatic Speech Recognition. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 2613-2617. [Cited on pages 2 and 14.]", + "Juan Pino, Liezl Puzon, Jiatao Gu, Xutai Ma, Arya D. McCarthy, and Deepak Gopinath. 2019. Harnessing Indirect Training Data for End-to-End Automatic Speech Translation: Tricks of the Trade. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Maja Popovic. 2017. $\\mathrm{chrF}++$ : Words Helping Character n-grams. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 612–618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Matt Post. 2018. A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Tomasz Potapczyk and Pawel Przybysz. 2020. SR-POL's System for the IWSLT 2020 End-to-End Speech Translation Task. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 89-94, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 3.]", + "Elizabeth Salesky, Matthew Wiesner, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Matteo Negri, Marco Turchi, Douglas W. Oard, and Matt Post. 2021. The Multilingual TEDx Corpus for Speech Recognition and Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 3655-3659. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.]", + "Koustuv Sinha, Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Siva Reddy, Joelle Pineau, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Adina Williams. 2022. The Curious Case of Absolute Position Embeddings. [Cited on page 9.]", + "Matthias Sperber and Matthias Paulik. 2020. Speech Translation and the End-to-End Promise: Taking Stock of Where We Are. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7409-7421, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, and Juan Pino. 2022. Unified Speech-Text Pre-training for Speech Translation and Recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1488–1499, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Yuqing Tang, Chau Tran, Xian Li, Peng-Jen Chen, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Jiatao Gu, and Angela Fan. 2020. Multilingual Translation with Extensible Multilingual Pretraining and Finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00401. [Cited on pages 2, 6, and 15.]", + "Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, Carlos Escolano, José Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022a. Pretrained Speech Encoders and Efficient Finetuning Methods for Speech Translation: UPC at IWSLT 2022. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 265-276, Dublin, Ireland (in person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 15.]", + "Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022b. SHAS: Approaching Optimal Segmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2022, pages 106-110. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9.]", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All You Need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. [Cited on pages 1, 3, and 5.]", + "Elena Voita, Pavel Serdyukov, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2018. Context-Aware Neural Machine Translation Learns Anaphora Resolution. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1264-1274, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 17.]", + "Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Anne Wu, and Jiatao Gu. 2020a. CoVoST: A Diverse Multilingual Speech-To-Text Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4197-4203, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on pages 1 and 7.]", + "Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Pino. 2020b. Fairseq S2T: Fast Speech-to-Text Modeling with Fairseq. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8581", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 33-39, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5, 6, 8, and 14.]", + "Changhan Wang, Anne Wu, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. CoVoST 2 and Massively Multilingual Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 2247-2251. [Cited on pages 2, 5, and 7.]", + "Ron J. Weiss, Jan Chorowski, Navdeep Jaitly, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-Sequence Models Can Directly Translate Foreign Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 2625–2629. [Cited on page 1.]", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 5.]", + "Xueqing Wu, Yingce Xia, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Shufang Xie, Yang Fan, and Tao Qin. 2021. mixSeq: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 192-197, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020a. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.]", + "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020b. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 15.]", + "Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2022. Cross-modal Contrastive Learning for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5099-5113, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]", + "Biao Zhang, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2022a. Revisiting End-to-End Speech-to-Text Translation From Scratch. In International Conference on Machine Learning. [Cited on page 8.]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2021a. Beyond Sentence-Level End-to-End Speech Translation: Context Helps. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2566–2578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]", + "Shuong Zhang, Erfan Loweimi, Peter Bell, and Steve Renals. 2021b. On The Usefulness of Self-Attention for Automatic Speech Recognition with Transformers. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 89–96. [Cited on page 17.]", + "Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Junyi Ao, Shujie Liu, Lirong Dai, Jinyu Li, and Furu Wei. 2022b. SpeechUT: Bridging Speech and Text with Hidden-Unit for Encoder-Decoder Based Speech-Text Pretraining. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1663–1676, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 419, + 633, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Hyperparameters and Training details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 444, + 860, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.1 Speech-to-Text Transformer models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 466, + 853, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For all experiments, apart from §6.2 and from those in mTEDx Es-Fr, we use $s2t\\_transformer\\_s$ models implemented in FAIRSEQ (Ott et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020b). They have 12 encoder layers, 6 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feedforward dimension of 2048, and 4 heads in the multi-head attention, with 31M parameters in total. We use GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) and pre-layernorm (Xiong et al., 2020a). The input is 80-dimensional log-Mel spectrograms, which are processed by a 2-layer convolutional network with 1024 inner channels, output dimension of 256, stride of 2, kernel size of 5, and GLU activations (Dauphin et al., 2017). We do not scale up the output of the convolutional network. The target vocabularies are learned with SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) and have a size of 8,000. We train with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a learning rate of 0.002, a warm-up of 5,000 steps, and an inverse square root scheduler. We use a gradient accumulation of 6, making the effective batch size equal to 320 thousand tokens, apply SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), and set the dropout to 0.1, applied to attention, activation, and output. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.1. We stop the training when the validation loss does not decrease", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8582", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for 10 epochs, and average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The encoders of the ST models are pre-trained on the task of ASR using the same architecture. The only difference is the vocabulary size which is 5,000 and the learning rate which is 0.001. For the models trained without ASR pre-training (§7) we also used a learning rate of 0.001. For MuST-C, we pre-train using the ASR data of En-De, for mTEDx we use the Es-Es and Pt-Pt accordingly, and finally for CoVoST the ASR data of En-De.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 116, + 487, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For mTEDx Es-Fr we use an extra-small architecture (s2t_transformer_xs). It has 6 encoder layers and 3 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feed-forward dimension of 1024, 4 heads in the multi-head attention, and a vocabulary size of 3,000, having a total of 10M parameters. The learning rate is set to 0.001 (warm-up of 500), the batch size to 180 thousand tokens, and use a dropout of 0.2. We also share the weights of the embedding layer and output projection in the decoder. The same model is pre-trained on ASR, but with a dropout of 0.1. All other hyperparameters are the same as for the small models described before.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 261, + 489, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All our experiments were run on a cluster with 8 NVIDIA GeForce rtx 2080 ti. The running times of each experiment on a single GPU ranged from 12 to 36 hours.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 487, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.2 w2v-mBART models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 543, + 341, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the experiments of §6.2, we use a strong baseline utilizing pre-trained models and a length adaptor (Tsiamas et al., 2022a). The encoder is composed of a 7-layer convolutional feature extractor and 24-layer Transformer encoder, while the decoder has 12 layers, and a vocabulary of size 250k, with 770M parameters in total. All the layers have an embedding dimensionality of 1024, a feedforward dimensionality of 4098, GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016), 16 attention heads, and pre-layer normalization configuration (Xiong et al., 2020b). A strided 1d convolutional layer sub-samples the output of the encoder by 2 times. The encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC $2.0^{12}$ (Baevski et al., 2020), which is pretrained with 60k hours of non-transcribed speech from LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020), and fine-tuned for ASR with 960 hours of labeled data from Librispeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). The decoder is initialized from MBART50 $^{13}$ (Tang et al., 2020), which", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 562, + 489, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is fine-tuned En-Xx multilingual machine translation. We fine-tune all the parameters of the model, apart from the feature extractor of the encoder and the embedding layer in the decoder. The inputs to the model are raw waveforms sampled at $16\\mathrm{kHz}$ , which are normalized to zero mean and unit variance. We train with AdamW using a base learning rate of 0.0005, with a warm-up for 2,000 steps and an inverse square root scheduler. In the encoder we use 0.1 activation dropout, time masking with probability of 0.2 and channel masking with probability of 0.1 (Baevski et al., 2020). In the decoder we use a dropout of 0.3, and attention dropout of 0.1 (Tang et al., 2020). All other dropouts are not active. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.2. We use gradient accumulation to have an effective batch size of 32M tokens, evaluate every 250 steps, and stop the training when the performance on the validation set does not improve for 20 evaluations. We average the 10 best checkpoints according to the validation BLEU, and generate with a beam search of 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.3 Machine Translation models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 798, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the MT models used for text alignment in SEGAUGMENT (§4.3), we used medium-sized Transformers, with 6 encoder and decoder layers, dimensionality of 512, feed-forward dimension of 2048, and 8 heads in the multi-head attention. We train with AdamW using a learning rate of 0.002, with a warm-up for the first 2,500 updates, and the batch size is set to 14 thousand tokens. The vocabulary size is 8,000, and for regularization, we use a small dropout of 0.1 only at the outputs of each layer and label smoothing of 0.1. We stop training when the document-level BLEU does not increase for 20 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to the same metric, and then generate with a beam of size 8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 884, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the MT models used in the experiments of $\\S A.6$ , we use a small architecture with 6 encoder and decoder layers, with dimensionality of 256, feed-forward dimension of 1024, and 4 heads. We share the weights of the embedding and output projection in the decoder and use a dropout of 0.1 (applied to attention, activation, and output). We stop training when the validation loss does not decrease for 10 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU, and generate with a beam of size 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "12fairseq/wav2vec/wav2vec2_vox_960h_new.pt", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 890, + 423, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "13fairseq/models/mbart50/mbart50.ft.1n.tar.gz", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 904, + 413, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8583", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 CTC-based Forced Alignment Algorithm", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we provide the algorithm used for audio-text alignment with SEGAUGMENT (§4.2). The complete process for the $i$ -th document is summarized in Algorithm 1, where we omit the $i$ index for ease of representation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 487, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [ + "Algorithm 1: CTC-based Forced Alignment" + ], + "code_body": "input :x % List[1d Tensor] \ninput :z % List:String] \ninput :hat % List[Tuple[Float, Float]] \noutput: $\\hat{z}$ % List:String] \n1 u $\\leftarrow$ E(x) \n2 z $\\leftarrow$ CLEAN(z) \n3 chars $\\leftarrow$ FORCED Alignment(z,u) \n4 words $\\leftarrow$ JOIN_CHARS(chars) \n5 words $\\leftarrow$ REVERSE Cleaner(words) \n6 for $j\\gets 1$ to len(b) do \n7 $\\begin{array}{r}\\hat{z}^j\\gets \\mathrm{JOIN\\_WORDS}(\\hat{b}^j,\\mathrm{words})\\\\ \\hat{z}^j\\gets \\mathrm{POST\\_EDIT}(\\hat{z}^j) \\end{array}$ \n9 return $\\hat{z}$", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 222, + 485, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Results of ASR pre-training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 383, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 9 we present the results of the ASR pretraining, where we observe that by including data from SEGAUGMENT, all ASR models perform better in terms of WER. This indicates that the proposed methods is also useful for ASR augmentations, probably due to the source-side contextual and positional diversity (§6.8).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 449, + 487, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2b3bf9760cd559eebe3345edef2f8016c2d809d29c5bf6e0703c3f245484a5c5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMuST-CmTEDxCoVoST
En-DeEs-Es (xs)Pt-PtEn-De
Baseline11.118 (19.7)28.326.6
+ SEGAUGMENT10.416.6 (18.1)23.823.8
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 575, + 485, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Extended Results on Automatic Segmentation of MuST-C", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 703, + 410, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 10 we provide an extended version of Table 6, where we evaluate the models on all four SHAS segmentations of the test set. Regarding the choice of automatic segmentation, we find that the long segmentation is the best when using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens (27.3 BLEU), long and extra-long are equally good without special tokens (26.9 BLEU) and the medium segmentation is best without SEGAUGMENT (23.7 BLEU). Using the special tokens reduces the performance on the manual segmentation by 0.3 BLEU $(27.4\\rightarrow 27.1)$ but", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/83c482aa2f626cd0a145b5c2a3e8529c40ed0a26e5f63693c3c41fe9e8175bcb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: $\\mathrm{{WER}}\\left( \\downarrow \\right)$ scores for ASR models. xs indicates the extra-small models pre-trained for mTEDx Es-Fr." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS
—BestsmlxlBest
En-DeBaseline23.220.621.721.220.225.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.123.124.324.524.7
← special tok.25.123.124.525.225.1
En-EsBaseline27.525.026.426.124.829.4
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.327.328.729.028.9
← special tok.29.226.628.629.429.1
En-FrBaseline33.130.031.030.629.035.3
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.732.334.134.934.8
← special tok.35.631.433.835.335.1
En-ItBaseline22.920.021.621.520.325.1
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.622.724.224.424.8
← special tok.25.022.324.325.124.5
En-NIBaseline27.324.926.525.724.329.8
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.327.529.229.729.7
← special tok.29.426.926.929.829.3
En-PtBaseline28.725.827.126.925.431.8
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.829.230.731.431.1
← special tok.31.528.830.831.831.3
En-RoBaseline22.219.920.820.518.724.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.022.523.424.124.3
← special tok.24.822.624.124.624.0
En-RuBaseline15.313.414.714.613.817.0
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.815.016.416.816.7
← special tok.16.414.916.417.016.8
AvgBaseline25.022.423.723.422.127.3
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.424.926.426.926.9
← special tok.27.124.626.227.326.9
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 880, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: BLEU(↑) scores on manual- and SHAS-segmented MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 425, + 882, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "increases it in the SHAS-long segmentation by 0.4 BLEU $(26.9\\rightarrow 27.3)$ , thus bridging the gap with the manual segmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 882, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Results with different SEGAUGMENT combinations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 543, + 852, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform ablations by training ST models on different combinations of the original and the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, using MuST-C v2.0 En-De. In Table 11, row 1 is essentially the baseline and row 17 is the baseline + SEGAUGMENT. Firstly, we notice that although training single synthetic datasets, but without the original one (rows 2-5) is inferior, the drop is relatively small, considering the absence of the original data. When training with all of them (row 6) actually surpasses the baseline by 1.1 BLEU, without even using the original data. This showcases that SEGAUGMENT is generating high quality data, and even by themselves can produce very good ST models. Secondly, the results show that the more synthetic datasets we use, the better the performance, and that no combination is better than simply using all of them (row 17). We also find that when using 1 or 2 synthetic datasets, the combinations involving longer segmentations (rows 8, 9, 10 and 13, 14) tend to perform better than those involving shorter segmen", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 580, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8584", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/03958104dda80427a794d5a19c4c039f18360a5d090d581b6b506b57e8bbc8fb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Original DataSEGAUGMENTBLEU
smlxl
(1)✓24.3
(2)✓22.6
(3)✓23.4
(4)✓22.4
(5)✓22.7
(6)✓✓✓✓25.4
(7)✓✓24.8
(8)✓✓25.1
(9)✓✓25.1
(10)✓✓25.1
(11)✓✓✓25.6
(12)✓✓✓25.6
(13)✓✓✓25.8
(14)✓✓✓25.8
(15)✓✓✓✓26.0
(16)✓✓✓✓26.0
(17)✓✓✓✓✓26.2
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 84, + 438, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tations (rows 7 and 11, 12), while for combinations of 3 synthetic (rows 15, 16), we do not observe any differences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 487, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 Results on ASR and MT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 601, + 356, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We investigate the impact of the synthetic data when training ASR and MT models. For this experiments we are using the ASR data and bitext from MuST-C v2.0 En-De. The results of Table 12 show that the synthetic data are in general useful, with a 0.7 reduction in WER and a 1.1 increase in BLEU (row 6). This indicates that the improvements in ST are stemming from both the source side (speech, ASR) and the target side (text, MT). We furthermore notice that longer synthetic examples are better for MT, similar to ST in Table 2, while shorter ones are better for ASR. We hypothesize that this is a consequence of the significance of long context for each task; ASR models tend to use local context (Zhang et al., 2021b), while MT models oftentimes have to use long context, as in pronoun resolution (Voita et al., 2018).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0420ff80a91f6bb82ec17f664b11244567d600d5aa52902de73b8f459c617ae5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: BLEU(↑) scores on tst-COMMON MuST-C v2.0 En-De for models trained with different combinations of the original and the synthetic data." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Original DataSEGAUGMENTWER(↓)BLEU(↑)
smlxl
(1)✓11.131.0
(2)✓✓10.231.3
(3)✓✓10.331.6
(4)✓✓11.031.7
(5)✓10.931.7
(6)✓✓✓✓10.432.1
", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 84, + 862, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12:WER scores for ASR models and BLEU scores for MT models in MuST-C v2.0 En-Det tst- COMMON.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 223, + 885, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.7 Results of MT models used in SEGAUGMENT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 286, + 793, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In table 13 we present results for the MT models trained to generate the new translation for the alternative data of SEGAUGMENT for MuST-C v2.0 En-De. For each parameterization $\\ell = (min, max)$ of the segmentation algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ , we train specialized model $\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}$ , as described in §4.3. We evaluate on the original training and development sets from $S$ , as well as on the synthetic training set $(\\hat{S}_{\\ell})$ , which basically indicates the quality of the target text in the synthetic data. We present both sentence-and document-level BLEU scores for the original data, and only document-level scores for the synthetic ones (since no sentence-level references are available). We notice that MT models obtain very high scores in the original train set, as compared to the development set, indicating that the model has indeed overfitted. In any other case that would be very bad news, but here we willingly overfit the model as our goal is to learn the training set text alignment, and not having a good and generalizable MT model. By looking at the document-level BLEU on the synthetic training set, we can confirm that the MT models have indeed accurately learned the alignments and thus have generated high-quality translation, that can be utilized during ST training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 323, + 884, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.8 Contextual Windows of SEGAUGMENT Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 868, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can categorize the new context of the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT in four types, depending on the type of overlap between the segmentation boundaries $\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}$ for each document: (1) isolated, when being a subset of an original one, (2) expanded, when being a superset of an original one, (3): mixed, when overlapping with an original one, (4): equal, when being in exactly the same", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8585", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6e9e1fee2e8fb310634aee385e19fa8d0f2173c9c4a702d6d25969fb6951bb0c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MT model MlOriginal trainOriginal developmentSynthetic train (Sl)
BLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEU
s95.179.224.526.2-68.3
m90.074.426.027.5-70.4
l72.961.325.527.0-64.6
xl59.651.825.927.4-56.8
", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 80, + 763, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "context as an original one. In Table 14 we apply this categorization for MuST-C v2.0 En-De, and observe that indeed most of the alternative examples form SEGAUGMENT are presented in a new context, with only a small percentage being equal, which we discard when concatenating the datasets for training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 261, + 487, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7b006dc234c65a16bbe2f7c328183865aafc15ef9bc203ee996d9d6192a9aa3b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 13: MT models trained for generating the target text of SEGAUGMENT data. BLEU scores for MuST-C v2.0 En-De training and development set, and synthetic training set. BLEU scores are calculated both at sentence- and document-level." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SEGAUGMENTExpandedIsolatedMixedEqual
s12.3%56.9%22.3%8.5%
m31.1%33.3%24.3%11.3%
l63.2%7.9%24.6%4.2%
xl55.7%1.2%43.0%0.1%
28.3%38.7%25.0%8.0%
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 406, + 485, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 14: Percentage of examples (rows) for each type of contextual overlap (columns) in the alternative datasets $\\hat{S}_{\\ell}$ compared to the manual one $S$ for MuST-C v2.0 En-De.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 487, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.9 Results on duration buckets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 383, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 6 we present evidence for the length specialization effect (§6.8). We construct two extreme-length buckets in MuST-C tst-COMMON; the first bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second and the second one all those with duration larger than 20 seconds. Then we measure the performance of 5 different types of ST model in the two buckets, which are using the data configurations of rows 1-5 of Table 11. Performance is measured by average BLEU across all eight language pairs of MuST-C. We notice that indeed, models trained with shorter synthetic data $(\\hat{S}_s,\\hat{S}_m)$ are better at translating the test set bucket with the very short examples, while those trained with longer synthetic data $(\\hat{S}_l,\\hat{S}_{xl})$ are better at translating the bucket with the very long ones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/74d67320de1b86c843253255934c81f7a2f25dea422de1d7f430987622a28a2d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: BLEU in two duration buckets of MuST-C tst-COMMON of models trained with the four different synthetic datasets and with only the original data. The legend indicates on which data each models is trained on. The left bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second, and the right contains all those with duration longer than 20 seconds. BLEU is the average of all eight language pairs in MuST-C." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 258, + 880, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.10 SEGAUGMENT Data Statistics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 607, + 806, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 15 we present the number of examples created with SEGAUGMENT for all the language pairs used in this research. We only consider examples longer than 0.4 seconds and shorter than 30 seconds. Differences across the MuST-C v1.0 datasets created with the short condition are due to empty segments which were removed. Following, in Table 16 we are presenting the average duration of each example in each created dataset. The average is around 3.8 seconds for short-segmented datasets, and around 24 seconds for the extra-long ones. In both tables, differences in CoVoST are due to the fact that we prioritize more the length conditions $\\ell = (min, max)$ in the segmentation algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ ( $\\S 4.1$ ), while the other datasets are prioritizing the classification condition thr. We did this change in order to make sure that the CoVoST data are segmented in a different way, than in the", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 629, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8586", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/439279dc986c4194da4984825e2e5ac12ded4bb7677ffce928b336670dab5dc9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxlConcat
MuST-Cv1.0En-De225K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Es260K430K253K120K76K879K
En-Fr269K421K253K120K76K871K
En-It248K399K253K120K76K848K
En-NI244K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Pt201K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ro231K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ru260K419K253K120K76K868K
v2.0En-De249K401K231K109K70K812K
mTEDxEs-Es101k150K88K43K27K308K
Pt-Pt90K136K78K37K24K274K
Es-En36K53K32K15K10K110K
Pt-En30K47K27K13K8K94K
Es-Fr3.5K5.5K3K1.5K1K11K
CoVoST2En-De231K504K255K00759K
", + "bbox": [ + 231, + 80, + 764, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "manual segmentation. Due to this they might not always resemble proper sentences, but at least they are diverse enough to be useful during training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 417, + 487, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a47c9adc238780c2bd2eb8bcbd6e9e87e553323c5f5fe1c14b2a272d8c55ca07.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 15: Number of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxl
MuST-Cv1.0En-De6.273.836.8715.2123.96
En-Es6.633.846.8715.2123.96
En-Fr6.283.846.8715.2123.96
En-It6.413.836.8715.2123.96
En-Nl6.233.846.8715.2123.96
En-Pt6.503.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ro6.373.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ru6.473.836.8715.2123.96
v2.0En-De6.273.756.8315.1623.94
mTEDxEs-Es5.903.796.9115.2423.86
Pt-Pt5.813.716.8615.1724.03
Es-En6.063.876.9115.2723.78
Pt-En5.863.686.8315.1624.02
Es-Fr6.083.806.8915.1023.84
CoVoST2En-De5.611.823.68——
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 475, + 485, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 16: Average duration (in seconds) of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.11 Sub-word Positional Frequency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 420, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 7 we present examples of semi-rare subwords in the target languages in MuST-C v2.0 EnDe training set. We are counting their frequency in terms of absolute position in the examples they appear in. We can observe that when using SEGAUGMENT, the positional frequency of this sub-words is much more diverse, covering more space in the possible positions in the target sequence. We hy", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "pothesize that this effect could be regularizing the model, aiding in each generalization of this subwords in different positions (§6.8).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 417, + 882, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8587", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dde8b36e36376e59cdf7d72fe2c17f8001970d71cdbc5dfcf56b7c3c7be3665d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 248, + 472, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e06ea913562fa6eb1f41279ee6ad663ca9608ff4215f7570936802a229f99f92.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 249, + 855, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/807e567f11d362dd23e9d21432c9e9c0414c0ab24793b52551542af890cbeee6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: Positional frequency of semi-rare sub-words in the original data with and without SEGAUGMENT in MuST-C v2.0 En-De training set." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 491, + 472, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/13f09964a3e30697109e164fc34f648cfb4ef487b88f3e5d482f46435ae19f5e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 491, + 855, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8588", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_model.json b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..905aef90c8bb69e5ea59391fb77c51154047145e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3452 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.09, + 0.872, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SEGAUGMENT: Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.156, + 0.556, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ioannis Tsiamas and José A. R. Fonollosa \nUniversitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Barcelona" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.192, + 0.515, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ioannis.tsiamas,jose.fonollosa}@upc.edu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.623, + 0.156, + 0.811, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marta R. Costa-jussa \nFAIR Meta, Paris" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.643, + 0.192, + 0.792, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "costajussa@meta.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "End-to-end Speech Translation is hindered by a lack of available data resources. While most of them are based on documents, a sentence-level version is available, which is however single and static, potentially impeding the usefulness of the data. We propose a new data augmentation strategy, SEGAUGMENT, to address this issue by generating multiple alternative sentence-level versions of a dataset. Our method utilizes an Audio Segmentation system, which re-segments the speech of each document with different length constraints, after which we obtain the target text via alignment methods. Experiments demonstrate consistent gains across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with an average increase of 2.5 BLEU points, and up to 5 BLEU for low-resource scenarios in mTEDx. Furthermore, when combined with a strong system, SEGAUGMENT obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C. Finally, we show that the proposed method can also successfully augment sentence-level datasets, and that it enables Speech Translation models to close the gap between the manual and automatic segmentation at inference time." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.652, + 0.26, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The conventional approach for Speech Translation (ST) involves cascading two separate systems: an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model followed by a Machine Translation (MT) model. However, recent advances in deep learning (Vaswani et al., 2017), coupled with an increased availability of ST corpora (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2020a) have enabled the use of end-to-end models (Weiss et al., 2017). Although end-to-end models can address several shortcomings of cascaded models, such as slow inference times, error propagation, and information loss, they are limited by a data bottleneck (Sperber and Paulik, 2020). This bottleneck arises from the inability of end-to-end models to directly leverage data from the more" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.25, + 0.883, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.438, + 0.871, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Data Augmentation with SEGAUGMENT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.478, + 0.884, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "resourceful tasks of ASR and MT, which restricts them from consistently matching the performance of the cascaded models (Bentivogli et al., 2021; Anastasopoulos et al., 2022, 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.885, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The majority of ST corpora are based on document-level speech data, such as MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a) and mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021), which are derived from TED talks, with duration times of 10 to 20 minutes. These document-based data are processed into shorter, sentence-level examples through a process called manual segmentation, which relies on grammatical features in the text. Still, this sentence-level version is single and static and is potentially limiting the utility of the already scarce ST datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address this limitation, we propose SEGAUGMENT, a segmentation-based data augmentation method that generates multiple alternative sentence-level versions of document-level speech data (Fig 1). SEGAUGMENT employs SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), an Audio Segmentation method that we tune to yield different re-segmentations of a speech document based on duration constraints. For each new segmentation of a document, the corresponding transcript is retrieved via CTC-based forced alignment (Kurzinger et al., 2020), and the target text is obtained with an MT model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8569" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8569-8588" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.958, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.38, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.114, + 0.487, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We present SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method for Speech Translation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.147, + 0.486, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We demonstrate its effectiveness across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with average gains of 2.5 BLEU points and on three low-resource pairs in mTEDx, with gains up to 5 BLEU." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.213, + 0.487, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- When utilized with a strong baseline that combines WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020), it obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.277, + 0.487, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We also show its applicability to data not based on documents, providing an increase of 1.9 BLEU in CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.326, + 0.487, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SEGAUGMENT also enables ST models to close the gap between the manual and automatic test set segmentations at inference time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.375, + 0.486, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Finally, along with our code, we open source all the synthetic data that were created with the proposed method1." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.114, + 0.487, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.436, + 0.31, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Relevant Research" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.461, + 0.49, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), which directly modifies the speech features by wrapping or masking them, is a standard approach for data augmentation in speech tasks including ST (Bahar et al., 2019; Di Gangi et al., 2019b). WavAugment (Kharitonov et al., 2021) is a similar technique that modifies the speech wave by introducing effects such as pitch, tempo and echo (Gálego et al., 2021). Instead of altering the speech input, our proposed method generates more synthetic data by altering their points of segmentation, and thus is complimentary to techniques such as SpecAugment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.655, + 0.49, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An effective way to address data scarcity in ST is by generating synthetic data from external sources. This can be achieved by using an MT model to translate the transcript of an ASR dataset or a Text-to-Speech (TTS) model to generate speech for the source text of an MT dataset (Jia et al., 2019; Pino et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020). In contrast, SEGAUGMENT generates synthetic data internally, without relying on external datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.8, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous research has established the benefits of generating synthetic examples by cropping or merging the original ones, with sub-sequence sampling for ASR (Nguyen et al., 2020), and concatenation for MT (Nguyen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Kondo et al., 2021), as well as for ASR and ST" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(Lam et al., 2022a). Our approach, however, segments documents at arbitrary points, thus providing access to a greater number of synthetic examples. An alternative approach by Lam et al. (2022b) involves recombining training data in a linguistically-motivated way, by sampling pivot tokens, retrieving possible continuations from a suffix memory, combining them to obtain new speech-transcription pairs, and finally using an MT model to generate the translations. Our method is similar since it also leverages audio alignments and MT, but instead of mixing speech, it segments at alternative points." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.279, + 0.885, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context-aware ST models have been shown to be robust towards error-prone automatic segmentations of the test set at inference time (Zhang et al., 2021a). Our method bears similarities with Gaido et al. (2020b); Papi et al. (2021) in that it re-segments the train set to create synthetic data. However, unlike their approach, where they split at random words in the transcript, we use a specialized Audio Segmentation method (Tsiamas et al., 2022b) to directly split the audio into segments resembling proper sentences. Furthermore, instead of using word alignment algorithms to get the target text (Dyer et al., 2013), we learn the alignment with an MT model. We thus create high-quality data that can be generally useful, and not only for error-prone test set segmentations. Finally, recent work has demonstrated that context-aware ST models evaluated on fixed-length automatic segmentations can be competitive compared to the manual segmentation (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022). Here, we find that utilizing data from SEGAUGMENT yields high translation quality for ST models evaluated on automatic segmentations, even surpassing the translation quality of the manual segmentation, and without explicitly making them context-aware." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.695, + 0.652, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Background" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.722, + 0.863, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 ST Corpora and Manual Segmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.744, + 0.882, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A document-level speech translation corpus \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Salesky et al., 2021) is comprised of \\(n\\) triplets that represent the speech wave \\(\\mathbf{X}\\), the transcription \\(\\mathbf{Z}\\), and the translation \\(\\mathbf{Y}\\) of each document." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.606, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {D} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {Z} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {Y} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order for the data to be useful for traditional sentence-level ST, the document-level corpus \\(\\mathcal{D}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.345, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\) github.com/mt-upc/SegAugment" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8570" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.081, + 0.487, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.224, + 0.49, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Manual Segmentation of an example \\(i\\) from a document-level corpus \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) into \\(m_{i}\\) examples of a sentence-level corpus \\(\\mathcal{S}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.292, + 0.489, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is processed to a sentence-level corpus \\(S\\), with \\(m = \\sum_{i}^{n} m_{i}\\) examples." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.174, + 0.347, + 0.487, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {S} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {x} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {z} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\\\ = \\left\\{\\left\\{\\left(\\boldsymbol {x} ^ {i, j}, \\boldsymbol {z} ^ {i, j}, \\boldsymbol {y} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}} \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {2} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.407, + 0.49, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Where \\(\\mathbf{x}^i = (\\pmb{x}^{i,1},\\dots,\\pmb{x}^{i,m_i})\\) are the sentence-level speech waves for the \\(i\\)-th document, \\(\\mathbf{z}^i = (z^{i,1},\\dots,z^{i,m_i})\\) are the sentence-level transcriptions, and \\(\\mathbf{y}^i = (\\mathbf{y}^{i,1},\\dots,\\mathbf{y}^{i,m_i})\\) are the sentence-level translations. Usually, \\(S\\) is obtained by a process of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), where the document-level transcription and translation are split on strong punctuation, and then aligned with cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010). Finally, the corresponding sentence-level speech waves are obtained by audio-text alignment (McAuliffe et al., 2017). Since speech is continuous, instead of defining the sentence-level speech wave \\(\\pmb{x}^{i,j}\\), it is common to define the start and end points \\(s^{i,j}\\), \\(e^{i,j} \\in \\mathbb{R}\\) that correspond to the document speech \\(\\mathbf{X}^i\\). Thus, \\(S\\) can be re-defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.688, + 0.488, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {S} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\left\\{\\left(b ^ {i, j}, z ^ {i, j}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Where \\(\\mathbf{b}^i = (b^{i,1},\\dots,b^{i,m_i})\\) is the segmentation for the \\(i\\)-th speech wave, and \\(b^{i,j} = (s^{i,j},e^{i,j})\\) is a tuple of the segment boundaries for the \\(j\\)-th segment, for which \\(\\pmb{x}^{i,j} = \\pmb{\\chi}_{s^{i,j}:e^{i,j}}^i\\). Note that oftentimes there is a gap between consecutive segments \\((e^{i,j},s^{i,j + 1})\\) due to silent periods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.835, + 0.407, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Audio Segmentation and SHAS" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In end-to-end ST, Audio Segmentation methods aim to find a segmentation \\(\\mathbf{b}^{\\prime}\\) for a speech document \\(\\mathbf{X}^{\\prime}\\), without making use of its transcription. They are crucial in real world scenarios, when a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "test set segmentation is not available, and an automatic one has to be inferred, as simulated by recent IWSLT evaluations (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). They usually rely on acoustic features (pause-based), length criteria (length-based), or a combination of both (hybrid). One such hybrid approach is SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b,a), which uses a supervised classification model \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) and a hybrid segmentation algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\). The classifier \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) is a Transformer encoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) with a frozen WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020; Babu et al., 2021) as a backbone. It is trained on the speech documents and segment boundaries of a manually-segmented speech corpus, \\(S^{\\mathrm{SGM}} = \\{(X^i, b^i)\\}_{i=1}^n\\), by predicting whether an audio frame belongs to any of the manually-segmented examples. At inference time, a sequence of binary probabilities \\(\\mathbf{p}'\\) is obtained by applying the classifier \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) on \\(\\mathbf{X}'\\) (eq. 4). Following, parameterized with thr to control the classification threshold, and \\(\\ell = (\\min, \\max)\\) to control the length of the resulting segments, \\(\\mathcal{A}\\) produces the automatic segmentation \\(\\mathbf{b}'\\) according to \\(\\mathbf{p}'\\) (eq. 5). There are two possible choices for \\(\\mathcal{A}\\). The Divide-and-Conquer (PDAC) approach progressively splits the audio at the point \\(\\kappa\\) of lowest probability \\(p_{\\kappa}' > thr\\), until all resulting segments are within \\(\\ell\\) (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Potapczyk and Przybysz, 2020). Alternatively, the Streaming (PSTRM) approach takes streams of length max and splits them at the point \\(\\kappa\\) with \\(p_{\\kappa}' > thr\\) between \\(\\ell\\) or uses the whole stream if no such point exists (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.588, + 0.64, + 0.884, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {p} ^ {\\prime} = \\mathcal {C} (\\mathbf {X} ^ {\\prime}) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.59, + 0.66, + 0.882, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {b} ^ {\\prime} = \\mathcal {A} \\left(\\mathbf {p} ^ {\\prime}; \\text {m i n}, \\text {m a x}, \\text {t h r}\\right) \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.686, + 0.743, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Proposed Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed data augmentation method SEGAUGMENT (Fig. 3) aims to increase the utility of the training data \\(S\\), by generating synthetic sentence-level corpora \\(\\hat{S}_{\\ell}\\), which are based on alternative segmentations of the speech documents in \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) (eq. 1). Whereas the manual segmentation (Fig. 2) relies on grammatical features in the text, here we propose to split on acoustic features present in the audio, by utilizing SHAS (§3.2). For the \\(i\\)-th speech document \\(\\mathbf{X}^i\\), SEGAUGMENT creates alternative segmentation boundaries \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i\\) with SHAS (§4.1), obtains the corresponding transcriptions \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i\\) via CTC-based forced alignment (§4.2), and finally," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8571" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.482, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.49, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The SEGAUGMENT methodology. Given the \\(i\\)-th document-level example of \\(\\mathcal{D}\\), with \\(m_i\\) sentence-level examples \\((S)\\), it creates \\(k_i\\) synthetic sentence-level examples by alternative segmentations with SHAS. Changing the segmentation parameters \\(\\ell\\) results in several different synthetic corpora \\(\\hat{S}_{\\ell}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.49, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "generates the translations \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i\\) with an MT model (§4.3). By repeating this process with different parameterizations \\(\\ell\\) of the segmentation algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\), multiple synthetic sentence-level speech corpora can be generated (§4.4). A synthetic speech corpus \\(\\hat{S}_{\\ell}\\) with \\(k = \\sum_{i}^{n}k_{i}\\) examples can be defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.59, + 0.487, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\mathcal {S}} _ {\\ell} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {b}} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {z}} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\\\ = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\left\\{\\left(\\hat {b} ^ {i, j}, \\hat {\\mathbf {z}} ^ {i, j}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {k _ {i}}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {6} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.661, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Where \\(\\mathbf{X}^i\\) is the original speech for the \\(i\\)-th document (eq. 1), \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i = (\\hat{b}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{b}^{i,k_i})\\) are its alternative segmentations, \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i = (\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,k_i})\\) are its sentence-level transcriptions, and \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i = (\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^{i,k_i})\\) are its synthetic sentence-level translations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.742, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In total, three different models are utilized for creating a synthetic corpus, a classifier \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) (§3.2) for segmentation, a CTC encoder \\(\\mathcal{E}\\) (Graves et al., 2006) for forced alignment, and an MT model \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) for text alignment. We can use pre-trained models, or optionally learn them from the manually segmented examples of \\(\\mathcal{S}\\) (Fig. 4). The classifier \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) can be learned from \\(S^{\\mathrm{SGM}} = \\{(\\mathbf{X}^i,\\mathbf{b}^i)\\}_{i = 1}^n\\), the encoder \\(\\mathcal{E}\\) from \\(S^{\\mathrm{ASR}} = \\{(x^{i},z^{i})\\}_{i = 1}^{n}\\), and the model \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) from \\(S^{\\mathrm{MT}} = \\{(z^{i},y^{i})\\}_{i = 1}^{n}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, we describe in detail the proposed method." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.081, + 0.883, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.226, + 0.816, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Optional Model Training" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.274, + 0.664, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Segmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.301, + 0.885, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We follow the process described for SHAS (§3.2) and obtain the alternative segmentations \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i\\) for each \\(\\mathbf{X}^i\\) in the training corpus, by doing inference with \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) and applying the segmentation algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\). In contrast to its original use, we use arbitrary values for \\(min\\) to have more control over the length ranges of the segments and prioritize the classification threshold requirements \\(thr\\) over the segment length requirements \\(\\ell\\) in the constraint optimization procedure of \\(\\mathcal{A}\\), to ensure good data quality." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.485, + 0.692, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Audio Alignment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.513, + 0.884, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To create the transcriptions \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i\\) of the \\(i\\)-th document for the segments \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i\\) (\\(\\S 4.1\\)), we are using CTC-based forced alignment (Kürzinger et al., 2020). We first do inference on the sentence-level speech of the manual segmentation \\(\\mathbf{x}^i = (\\mathbf{x}^{i,1}, \\dots, \\mathbf{x}^{i,n_i})\\) with a CTC encoder \\(\\mathcal{E}\\), thus obtaining character-level probabilities \\(\\mathbf{u}^i\\) for the whole audio. We apply a text cleaning process on the transcriptions \\(\\mathbf{z}^i\\), which includes spelling-out numbers, removing unvoiced text such as events and speaker names, removing all remaining characters that are not included in vocabulary, and finally upper casing. The forced alignment algorithm uses the probabilities \\(\\mathbf{u}^i\\) and the cleaned text \\(\\mathbf{z}^i\\) to find the character segmentation along with the starting and ending timestamps of each entry. Following, we merge characters to words using the special token for the word boundaries, and reverse the cleaning step² to recover the original text that corresponds to each segment. For each example \\(j\\), we obtain the source text \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,j}\\) by joining the corresponding words that are within the segment boundary \\(\\hat{b}^{i,j}\\), and apply a post-editing step to fix the casing and punctuation (Alg. 1)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.871, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We re-introduce any potential noise, e.g. \"(Laughter)\"." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8572" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.283, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Text Alignment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.107, + 0.493, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike the case of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010) is not applicable, and additionally, word alignment tools (Dyer et al., 2013) yielded sub-optimal results. Thus, we learn the alignment with an MT model \\(\\mathcal{M}\\), which is trained on the manually segmented sentence-level data \\(S^{\\mathrm{MT}} = \\{(z^i,\\mathbf{y}^i)\\}_{i = 1}^n\\). The training data is modified by concatenating examples to reflect the length of the examples that will be translated, thus learning model \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}\\) from \\(S_{\\ell}^{\\mathrm{MT}}\\), where \\(\\ell\\) are the length parameters used in SHAS. To accurately learn the training set alignment, we use very little regularization, practically overfitting the training data \\(S_{\\ell}^{\\mathrm{MT}}\\) (§A.7). Since there are no sentence-level references available for the synthetic data, we monitor the document-level BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) in a small number of training documents, and only end the training when it stops increasing. Finally, we obtain the synthetic sentence-level translations \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i\\) with the trained \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.457, + 0.416, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Multiple Sentence-level Versions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.478, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The parameters \\(\\ell = (min, max)\\) of the segmentation algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\) allow us to have fine-grained control over the length of the produced segments. Different, non-overlapping tuples of \\(\\ell\\) result in different segmentations, providing access to multiple synthetic sentence-level versions of each document. Moreover, the additional cost of creating more than one synthetic corpus is relatively low, as the results of the classification with \\(\\mathcal{C}\\) and the forced alignment can be cached and reused (Fig. 3)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.652, + 0.323, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For our experiments we use data from three ST datasets, MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a), mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021) and CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021) (Table 1). MuST-C and mTEDx are based on TED talks, and have sentence-level examples, which are derived from document-level ones, via manual segmentation (Fig. 2). CoVoST2 is based on the Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020) corpus and is inherently a sentence-level corpus. For our main experiments we use eight language pairs from MuST-C v1.0, which are English (En) to German (De), Spanish (Es), French (Fr), Italian (It), Dutch (Nl), Portuguese (Pt), Romanian (Ro), and Russian (Ru). We are also using En-De from v2.0 for certain ablation studies (\\$A.5, A.6, A.7) and analysis" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetvLang. Pair#Docs#Sents#Hours
MuST-C1.0En-De2,093234K408
En-Es2,514266K496
En-Fr2,460275K485
En-It2,324254K457
En-NI2,219248K434
En-Pt2,001206K377
En-Ro2,166236K424
En-Ru2,448265K482
2.0En-De2,537251K450
mTEDxEs-Es988102K178
Pt-Pt81290K153
Es-En37836K64
Pt-En27931K53
Es-Fr434K6
CoVoST2En-De—231K362
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.584, + 0.332, + 0.808, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Training Data Statistics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.883, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\((\\S 6.8)\\). From mTEDx we use the Es-En, Pt-En, and Es-Fr ST data, as well as the Es-Es, and Pt-Pt for the ASR pre-training, and finally the En-De data from CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.438, + 0.885, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For segmentation (§4.1) we are using the open-sourced pre-trained English and multilingual SHAS classifiers3. For the SHAS algorithm we set the classification threshold thr = 0.5 and for length constraints \\(\\ell = (min, max)\\), we use four different, non-overlapping tuples of (0.4, 3), (3, 10), (10, 20) and (20, 30) seconds, resulting in short (s), medium (m), long (l), and extra-long (xl) segmentations. We use PDAC and only apply PSTRM for \\(xl\\), since we observed that PDAC was not able to satisfy the length conditions. For the CTC encoder used in audio alignment (§4.2), we use pre-trained WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) models4 available on HuggingFace (Wolf et al., 2020). For the MT models used in text alignment (§4.3) we trained medium-sized Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017; Ott et al., 2019) with 6 layers (§A.1.3). When training with SEGAUGMENT, we simply concatenate the four synthetic datasets \\(\\hat{S}_s\\), \\(\\hat{S}_m\\), \\(\\hat{S}_l\\), \\(\\hat{S}_{xl}\\) to the original one (\\(S\\)), and remove any duplicates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For Speech Translation we train Speech-to-Text Transformer baselines (Wang et al., 2020b). Unless stated otherwise, we use the small architecture (s2t_transformer_s) with 12 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 256, with ASR pre-training using only the original data. The full details of the models and the training proce" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.88, + 0.7, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)github.com/mt-upc/SHAS" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.894, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4wav2vec2-large-960h-lv60-self, wav2vec2-large-xlsr-53-spanish, wav2vec2-large-xlsr-53-portuguese" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.88, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8573" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelEn-DeEn-EsEn-FrEn-ItEn-NlEn-PtEn-RoEn-RuAverage
Fairseq ST22.7 / —27.2 / —32.9 / —22.7 / —27.3 / —28.1 / —21.9 / —15.3 / —24.8 / —
Baseline23.2 / 50.527.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.322.9 / 50.427.3 / 53.928.7 / 54.922.2 / 49.015.3 / 40.425.0 / 51.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.0 / 52.629.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.725.6 / 52.930.3 / 57.031.8 / 57.825.0 / 51.816.8 / 42.527.4 / 54.0
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT25.5 / 52.829.5 / 56.935.8 / 60.725.7 / 52.930.0 / 56.831.6 / 57.625.0 / 52.016.7 / 42.427.5 / 54.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.167, + 0.885, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with \\( p < 0.001 \\). All models use the same architecture and results of Fairseq ST are from Wang et al. (2020b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.236, + 0.49, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "dures are available in §A.1.1. For inference, we average the 10 best checkpoints on the validation set and generate with a beam of 5. We evaluate with \\(\\mathrm{BLEU}^5\\) (Papineni et al., 2002) and \\(\\mathrm{chrF2^6}\\) (Popovic, 2017) using SACREBLEU (Post, 2018), and perform statistical significance testing using paired bootstrap resampling (Koehn, 2004) to ensure valid comparisons. To evaluate on an automatic segmentation (§6.5), the hypotheses are aligned to the references of the manual segmentation with MwERSEGMENTER (Matusov et al., 2005)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.426, + 0.214, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.451, + 0.357, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Main Results in MuST-C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.472, + 0.49, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare ST models trained with and without SEGAUGMENT on the eight language pairs of MuST-C v1.0, and include results from Wang et al. (2020b), which use the same model architecture. In Table 2, we observe that models leveraging SEGAUGMENT achieve significant and consistent improvements in all language pairs, thus confirming that the proposed method allows us to better utilize the available ST data. More specifically, the improvements range from 1.5 to 3.1 BLEU, with an average gain of 2.4 points. We also investigate the application of SEGAUGMENT during the ASR pre-training, which brings further gains in four language pairs, but the average improvement is only marginal over just using the original ASR data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.726, + 0.382, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Results with SOTA methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.747, + 0.49, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we study the impact of the proposed method, when combined with a strong ST model. We use a model with 24 encoder layers, 12 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 1024, where its encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and its decoder from MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020) (\\(\\S\\)A.1.2). We fine-tune this model end-to-end" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.233, + 0.881, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelEn-EsEn-Fr
Chimera (Han et al., 2021)30.6 / —35.6 / —
STEMM (Fang et al., 2022)31.0 / —37.4 / —
ConST (Ye et al., 2022)32.0 / —38.3 / —
STPT (Tang et al., 2022)33.1 / —39.7 / —
SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b)33.6 / —41.4 / —
w2v-mBART33.3 / 60.240.8 / 64.5
+ SEGAUGMENT33.7 / 60.741.5 / 65.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.369, + 0.885, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: \\(\\mathrm{BLEU}(\\uparrow) / \\mathrm{chrF2}(\\uparrow)\\) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results with SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the w2vmBART baseline model with \\(p < 0.001\\), apart from the BLEU score for En-Es (33.7) which is with \\(p < 0.005\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.467, + 0.885, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on ST using MuST-C v1.0, with and without the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, and also provide results from other state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, such as Chimera (Han et al., 2021), STEMM (Fang et al., 2022), ConST (Ye et al., 2022), STPT (Tang et al., 2022), and SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b). As shown in Table 3, despite already having a competitive baseline (w2v-mBART), utilizing SEGAUGMENT achieves further significant improvements7, reaching SOTA performance in EnEs and En-Fr." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.657, + 0.75, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Low-Resource Scenarios" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We explore the application of SEGAUGMENT in low-resource and non-English speech settings of mTEDx. In Table 4, we present results of the baseline with and without SEGAUGMENT for Es-En, Pt-En and the extremely low-resource pair of Es-Fr (6 hours). We furthermore provide the BLEU scores from Salesky et al. (2021), which use the extra-small model configuration (10M parameters). We use the extra-small configuration for Es-Fr, while the others use the small one (31M parameters). SEGAUGMENT provides significant improvements in all pairs, with even larger ones when it is also" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.881, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7Compared with §6.1, smaller gains are expected since the effect of data augmentation diminishes with increased data availability, facilitated here by the large pre-trained models." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.868, + 0.488, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{5} \\) nrefs:1 | bs:1000 | seed:12345 | case:mixed | eff:no | tok:13a | smooth:exp | version:2.3.0" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{6} \\) nrefs:1 | bs:1000 | seed:12345 | case:mixed | eff:yes | nc:6 | nw:0 | space:no | version:2.3.0" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.868, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8574" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelEs-EnPt-EnEs-Fr
Bilingual E2E-ST7.0 / —8.1 / —1.7 / —
Baseline15.6 / 40.515.3 / 38.62.7 / 23.4
+ SEGAUGMENT18.5 / 43.517.8 / 41.13.8 / 23.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.1 / 43.920.3 / 43.75.3 / 27.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.174, + 0.49, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on mTEDx test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with \\( p < 0.001 \\), with the exception of chrF2 in Es-Fr (23.9) which is with \\( p < 0.005 \\). Results of Bilingual E2E-ST are from Salesky et al. (2021)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.278, + 0.438, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelEn-De
Bi-AST (Wang et al., 2021)16.3 / —
STR (Lam et al., 2022b)18.8 / —
Baseline17.4 / 43.2
+ SEGAUGMENT19.0 / 44.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.3 / 45.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.394, + 0.49, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on CoVoST2 test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with \\( p < 0.001 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.482, + 0.49, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "utilized during the ASR pre-training, improving the BLEU scores by 2.6-5. Our results here concerning ASR pre-training are more conclusive than in MuST-C (§6.1), possibly due to the better ASR models obtained with SEGAUGMENT (§A.3)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.581, + 0.434, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.4 Application on Sentence-level Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.606, + 0.49, + 0.864 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider the application of the method to CoVoST, of which the data do not originate from documents. We treat the sentence-level data as \"documents\" and apply SEGAUGMENT as before. Due to the relatively short duration of the examples, we only apply SEGAUGMENT with short and medium configurations. In Table 5 we provide our results for En-De, with and without SEGAUGMENT, a bilingual baseline from Wang et al. (2020a), and the recently proposed Sample-Translate-Recombine (STR) augmentation method (Lam et al., 2022b), which uses the same model architecture as our experiments. Although designed for document-level data, SEGAUGMENT brings significant improvements to the baseline8, even outperforming the STR augmentation method by 0.5 BLEU points." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.864, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.5 Automatic Segmentations of the test set" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.113, + 0.885, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike most research settings, in real-world scenarios, the manual segmentation is not typically available, and ST models must rely on automatic segmentation methods. However, evaluating on automatic segmentation is considered sub-optimal, decreasing BLEU scores by \\(5 - 10\\%\\) (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021) as compared to evaluating on the manual (gold) segmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.244, + 0.885, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT originate from an automatic segmentation, we expect they would be useful in bridging the training-inference segmentation mismatch (Papi et al., 2021). We evaluate our baselines with and without SEGAUGMENT on MuST-C tst-COMMON, on both the manual segmentation provided with the dataset, and an automatic one which is obtained by SHAS. In Table 6 we present results with SHAS-long, which we found to be the best. Extended results can be found in §A.4. For the purpose of this experiment, we also train another ST model with SEGAUGMENT, where we pretend a special token in each translation, indicating the dataset origin of the example9. When generating with such a model, we prompt it with the special token that corresponds to the segmentation of the test set. The results of Table 6 show that the baseline experiences a drop of 1.6 BLEU points (or \\(6\\%\\)) on average, when evaluated on the automatic segmentation, confirming previous research (Tsiamas et al., 2022b). Applying SEGAUGMENT, validates our hypothesis, since the average increase of 3.5 BLEU \\((23.4 \\rightarrow 26.9)\\) observed in the automatic segmentation is larger than the increase of 2.4 BLEU in the manual one \\((25.0 \\rightarrow 27.4)\\). Finally, using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens, enables ST models to reach an average score of 27.3 BLEU points, closing the gap with the manual segmentation (27.4), while being better10 in three language pairs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time11 that ST models can match (or surpass) the performance of the manual segmentation, demonstrating the usefulness of the proposed method in real-world scenarios. Our results also raise an interesting question, on whether we should continue to consider the manual segmentation as an upper bound of performance for our ST models." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There is a potential denoising effect, since CoVoST clips include unvoiced audio either at the start or the end, which our method inherently excludes from the synthetic data." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.879, + 0.777, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "i.e. , , , , or " + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.892, + 0.875, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10Significance not possible due to different segmentation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.905, + 0.881, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11Without context-aware ST (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.881, + 0.881, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8575" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS-long
En-DeBaseline23.221.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.124.525.2
← special tok.25.125.2
En-EsBaseline27.526.1
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.329.029.4
← special tok.29.229.4
En-FrBaseline33.130.6
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.734.935.3
← special tok.35.635.3
En-ItBaseline22.921.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.624.425.1
← special tok.25.025.1
En-NlBaseline27.325.7
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.329.729.8
← special tok.29.429.8
En-PtBaseline28.726.9
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.831.431.8
← special tok.31.531.8
En-RoBaseline22.220.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.024.124.6
← special tok.24.824.6
En-RuBaseline15.314.6
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.816.817.0
← special tok.16.417.0
AverageBaseline25.023.4
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.426.927.3
← special tok.27.127.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.546, + 0.49, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON with manual and SHAS-long segmentation. The second column in Manual and SHAS-long is the best score among the three models, and with bold is the best score overall for each language pair." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.659, + 0.391, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.6 ST without ASR pre-training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following, we investigate the importance of the ASR pre-training phase, a standard practice (Wang et al., 2020b), which usually is also costly. In Table 7 we present the results of ST models on MuST-C En-Es and En-Fr trained with and without SEGAUGMENT, when skipping the ASR pretraining. We also include the results of the Revisit-ST system proposed by Zhang et al. (2022a). We find that models with SEGAUGMENT are competitive even without ASR pre-training, surpassing both the baseline with pre-training and the Revisit-ST system. In general, ASR pre-training could be skipped in favor of using SEGAUGMENT, but including both is the best choice." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model#pASREn-EsEn-Fr
Baseline31M✓27.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.3
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✓29.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.7
Revisit-ST48M✗28.1 / —33.4 / —
Baseline31M✗25.3 / 52.330.1 / 55.4
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✗28.5 / 55.734.6 / 59.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.196, + 0.885, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: \\(\\mathrm{BLEU}(\\uparrow) / \\mathrm{chrF2}(\\uparrow)\\) scores on MuST-C tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score among the models without ASR pre-training \\((\\mathbf{x})\\). Results of Revisit-ST are from Zhang et al. (2022a). \\(\\# \\mathbf{p}\\) stands for number of parameters." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.284, + 0.877, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.47, + 0.884, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C En-De dev during training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.526, + 0.673, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.7 Training Costs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.548, + 0.884, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we discuss the computational costs involved with SEGAUGMENT during ST model training. We analyze the performance of models with and without SEGAUGMENT from Table 2, at different training steps in MuST-C En-De dev. In Figure 5, we observe that models with our proposed method, not only converge to a better BLEU score, but also consistently surpass the baseline during training. Thus, although utilizing the synthetic data from SEGAUGMENT would naturally result in longer training times, it is still better even when we constraint the available resources." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.753, + 0.625, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.8 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.882, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we discuss four potential reasons behind the effectiveness of SEGAUGMENT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contextual diversity. The synthetic examples are based on alternative segmentations and are thus presented within different contextual windows, as compared to the original ones (§A.8). We speculate that this aids the model to generalize more, since phrases and sub-words are seen with less or more context, that might or not be essential for" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8576" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "their translation. Adding additional context that is irrelevant was previously found to be beneficial in low-resource MT, by providing negative context to the attention layers (Nguyen et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.151, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Positional diversity. With SEGAUGMENT, speech and text units are presented at many more different absolute positions in the speech or target text sequences (§A.11). This is important due to the absolute positional embeddings in the Transformer, which are prone to overfitting (Sinha et al., 2022). We hypothesize that the synthetic data create a diversification effect on the position of each unit, which can be seen as a form of regularization, especially relevant for rare units. This is also supported for the simpler case of example concatenation (Nguyen et al., 2021), while in our case the diversification effect is richer due to the arbitrary document segmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.377, + 0.49, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Length Specialization. Synthetic datasets created by SEGAUGMENT supply an abundance of examples of extremely long and short lengths, which are relatively infrequent in the original data. This creates a specialization effect enabling ST models trained on the synthetic data to better translate sequences of extreme lengths in the test set (§A.9)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.491, + 0.49, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge Distillation. As translations of the synthetic data are generated by MT models, there is an effect similar to that of Knowledge Distillation (KD) (Liu et al., 2019; Gaido et al., 2020a). To quantify this effect, we re-translate the train set of MuST-C En-De four times, with the same MT models employed in SEGAUGMENT. Subsequently, an ST model is trained with the original and re-translated data, referred to as in-data-KD, as the MT models did not leverage any external knowledge. In Table 8 we compare in-data-KD with SEGAUGMENT, and find that although in-data-KD provides an increase over the baseline, it exhibits a significant difference of 1 BLEU point with SEGAUGMENT. Our findings confirm the existence of the KD effect, but suggest that SEGAUGMENT is more general as it not only formulates different targets, but also diverse inputs (through re-segmentation), thereby amplifying the positive effects of the source-side contextual and positional diversity. In contrast, KD only provides diversity on the target-side." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.859, + 0.255, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduced SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method that generates synthetic data" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.561, + 0.082, + 0.835, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelEn-De
Baseline24.3 / 51.9
Baseline + in-data-KD25.2 / 52.7
Baseline + SEGAUGMENT26.2 / 53.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.177, + 0.883, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v2.0 En-De tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results of Baseline + SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from Baseline + in-data-KD with \\( p < 0.001 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "based on alternative audio segmentations. Through extensive experimentation across multiple datasets, language pairs, and data conditions, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our method, in consistently improving translation quality by 1.5 to 5 BLEU points, and reaching state-of-the-art results when utilized by a strong ST model. Our method was also able to completely close the gap between the automatic and manual segmentations of the test set. Finally, we analyzed the reasons that contribute to our method's improved performance. Future work will investigate the extension of our method to ST for spoken-only languages and Speech-to-Speech translation, by passing the transcription stage." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.521, + 0.615, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.549, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "General Applicability. The proposed method requires three steps: Audio Segmentation, CTC-based forced-alignment, and Machine Translation. For Audio Segmentation we used SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), which requires a classifier that is trained on manually segmented data. Although we demonstrated the method's applicability in CoV-oST En-De, which does include a manual segmentation, we used a English classifier that was trained on MuST-C En-De. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the method's effectiveness without manually segmented data for the source language. A possible alternative would be to use a classifier trained on a different source language, since Tsiamas et al. (2022b) showed that SHAS has very high zero-shot capabilities, provided the zero-shot language was also included in the pre-training set of XLS-R (Babu et al., 2021), which serves as a backbone to the classifier. Additionally, we tested our method on several languages pairs, and also on an extremely low-resource one, such as Spanish-French (Es-Fr) in mTEDx, with only 4,000 training examples. Although we showed improvement of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8577" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.492, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(50\\%\\) in that particular language pair, the two languages involved, Spanish and French, are not by any means considered low-resource. Thus, we cannot be sure about the applicability of the method in truly extremely low-resource languages, such as many African and Native American languages. Furthermore, the current version of the method would not support non-written languages, since the target text is obtained by training a MT model which translated the transcription of each audio segment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.246, + 0.491, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biases. The synthetic data is heavily based on the original data, which may result in inheriting any biases present in the original data. We did not observe any signs of this effect during our research, but we did not conduct a proper investigation to assess the degree at which the synthetic data are biased in any way." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.36, + 0.492, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computational and Memory costs. The synthetic data have to be created offline, with a pipeline that involves three different models, resulting in increased computational costs. To reduce these costs, we used pre-trained models for the Audio Segmentation and the CTC encoders, and cached the inference results to be re-used. Thus, the computational cost of creating the synthetic datasets for a given a language pair involves a single inference with the classifier and the CTC encoder, and multiple training/inference phases with MT models. This process can take around 24-36 hours to create four new synthetic datasets for pair in MuST-C, using a single GPU. We acknowledge the computational costs but believe the results justify them. The process could be made much lighter by using nonparametric algorithms in the three steps instead of supervised models, which can be investigated in future work. Finally, despite the computational costs, there is a very small memory cost involved since each synthetic dataset is basically a txt file containing the new target text and a yaml file containing the new segmentation, only requiring 100-200MB of storage." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.757, + 0.279, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.782, + 0.491, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Work at UPC was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) project PID2019-107579RB-I00 / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.856, + 0.214, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.878, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chantal Amrhein and Barry Haddow. 2022. Don't Discard Fixed-Window Audio Segmentation in Speech-to-Text Translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conference on Machine Translation, pages 203-219, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.14, + 0.886, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Loic Barrault, Luisa Bentivogli, Marcely Zanon Boito, Ondrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, Kevin Duh, Maha Elbayad, Clara Emmanuel, Yannick Esteve, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Souhir Gahbiche, Hongyu Gong, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Benjamin Hsu, David Javorsky, Vera Kloudova, Surafel Lakew, Xutai Ma, Prashant Mathur, Paul McNamee, Kenton Murray, Maria Nadejde, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Xing Niu, John Ortega, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Jiatong Shi, Matthias Sperber, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Yogesh Virkar, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. Findings of the IWSLT 2022 Evaluation Campaign. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 98-157, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.416, + 0.887, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ondrej Bojar, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Maha Elbayad, Marcello Federico, Xutai Ma, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Matthew Wiesner. 2021. FINDINGS OF THE IWSLT 2021 EVALUATION CAMPAIGN. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 1-29, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.587, + 0.886, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Michael Henretty, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common Voice: A Massively-Multilingual Speech Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4218-4222, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on page 5.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.705, + 0.885, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, et al. 2021. XLS-R: Self-supervised Cross-lingual Speech Representation Learning at Scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09296. [Cited on pages 3 and 9.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.799, + 0.885, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 12449-12460. Curran Associates, Inc. [Cited on pages 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Parnia Bahar, Albert Zeyer, Ralf Schlüter, and Hermann Ney. 2019. On Using SpecAugment for End-to-End" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8578" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.151, + 0.49, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Luisa Bentivogli, Mauro Cettolo, Marco Gaido, Alina Karakanta, Alberto Martinelli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Cascade versus Direct Speech Translation: Do the Differences Still Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2873-2887, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.293, + 0.489, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fabienne Braune and Alexander Fraser. 2010. Improved Unsupervised Sentence Alignment for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Parallel Corpora. In *Coling* 2010: Posters, pages 81-89, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. [Cited on pages 3 and 5.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.372, + 0.488, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 933-941. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.463, + 0.49, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mattia A. Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019a. MuST-C: a Multilingual Speech Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2012-2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1, 2, and 5.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.593, + 0.49, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Viet Nhat Nguyen, Amirhossein Tebbifakhr, and Marco Turchi. 2019b. Data Augmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation: FBK@IWSLT '19. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.696, + 0.49, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chris Dyer, Victor Chahuneau, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. A Simple, Fast, and Effective Reparaterization of IBM Model 2. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 644-648, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 5.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qingkai Fang, Rong Ye, Lei Li, Yang Feng, and Mingxuan Wang. 2022. STEMM: Self-learning with Speech-text Manifold Mixup for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7050-7062, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2020a. End-to-End Speech-Translation with Knowledge Distillation: FBK@IWSLT2020. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 80–88, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 9.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.187, + 0.885, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2020b. Contextualized Translation of Automatically Segmented Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2020, pages 1471-1475. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.261, + 0.885, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Beyond Voice Activity Detection: Hybrid Audio Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing (ICNLSP 2021), pages 55-62, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.375, + 0.885, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, Carlos Escolano, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2021. End-to-End Speech Translation with Pretrained Models and Adapters: UPC at IWSLT 2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 110–119, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, page 369-376, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. [Cited on page 4.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.616, + 0.885, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chi Han, Mingxuan Wang, Heng Ji, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning Shared Semantic Space for Speech-to-Text Translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2214-2225, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.703, + 0.885, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs). ArXiv, abs/1606.08415. [Cited on pages 14 and 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.752, + 0.885, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ye Jia, Melvin Johnson, Wolfgang Macherey, Ron J. Weiss, Yuan Cao, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Naveen Ari, Stella Laurenzo, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Leveraging Weakly Supervised Data to Improve End-to-end Speech-to-text Translation. In ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7180-7184. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P. E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8579" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2020. Libri-Light: A Benchmark for ASR with Limited or No Supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7669-7673. https://github.com/facebookresearch/libri-light. [Cited on page 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov, Morgane Rivière, Gabriel Synnaeve, Lior Wolf, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Matthijs Douze, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Data Augmenting Contrastive Learning of Speech Representations in the Time Domain. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 215–222. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.278, + 0.49, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 388-395, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.367, + 0.49, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Seiichiro Kondo, Kengo Hotate, Tosho Hirasawa, Masahiro Kaneko, and Mamoru Komachi. 2021. Sentence Concatenation Approach to Data Augmentation for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 143-149, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.495, + 0.49, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for Neural Text Processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.611, + 0.49, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ludwig Kürzinger, Dominik Winkelbauer, Lujun Li, Tobias Watzel, and Gerhard Rigoll. 2020. CTC-Segmentation of Large Corpora for German End-to-End Speech Recognition. In Speech and Computer, pages 267-278, Cham. Springer International Publishing. [Cited on pages 1 and 4.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.7, + 0.49, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Rieszler. 2022a. Make More of Your Data: Minimal Effort Data Augmentation for Automatic Speech Recognition and Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15398. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Riezler. 2022b. Sample, Translate, Recombine: Leveraging Audio Alignments for Data Augmentation in End-to-end Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 245-254, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuchen Liu, Hao Xiong, Jiajun Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Chengqing Zong. 2019." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "End-to-End Speech Translation with Knowledge Distillation. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 1128-1132. [Cited on page 9.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.134, + 0.884, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. [Cited on page 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.195, + 0.884, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evgeny Matusov, Gregor Leusch, Oliver Bender, and Hermann Ney. 2005. Evaluating Machine Translation Output with Automatic Sentence Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.281, + 0.884, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Interspeech. [Cited on page 3.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.355, + 0.884, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arya D. McCarthy, Liezl Puzon, and Juan Pino. 2020. SkinAugment: Auto-Encoding Speaker Conversions for Automatic Speech Translation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7924-7928. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thai-Son Nguyen, Sebastian Stüker, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2020. Improving Sequence-To-Sequence Speech Recognition Training with On-The-Fly Data Augmentation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7689-7693. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.541, + 0.884, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Toan Q. Nguyen, Kenton Murray, and David Chiang. 2021. Data Augmentation by Concatenation for Low-Resource Translation: A Mystery and a Solution. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 287–293, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 9.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.654, + 0.884, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations)*, pages 48-53, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.779, + 0.884, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. [Cited on page 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Dealing with training and test segmentation mismatch: FBK@IWSLT2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8580" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 84-91, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.138, + 0.49, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311-318, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.242, + 0.489, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel S. Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D. Cubuk, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. SpecAugment: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Automatic Speech Recognition. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 2613-2617. [Cited on pages 2 and 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.489, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juan Pino, Liezl Puzon, Jiatao Gu, Xutai Ma, Arya D. McCarthy, and Deepak Gopinath. 2019. Harnessing Indirect Training Data for End-to-End Automatic Speech Translation: Tricks of the Trade. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.437, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2017. \\(\\mathrm{chrF}++\\): Words Helping Character n-grams. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 612–618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.489, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matt Post. 2018. A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.593, + 0.489, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomasz Potapczyk and Pawel Przybysz. 2020. SR-POL's System for the IWSLT 2020 End-to-End Speech Translation Task. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 89-94, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 3.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.684, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elizabeth Salesky, Matthew Wiesner, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Matteo Negri, Marco Turchi, Douglas W. Oard, and Matt Post. 2021. The Multilingual TEDx Corpus for Speech Recognition and Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 3655-3659. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Koustuv Sinha, Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Siva Reddy, Joelle Pineau, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Adina Williams. 2022. The Curious Case of Absolute Position Embeddings. [Cited on page 9.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthias Sperber and Matthias Paulik. 2020. Speech Translation and the End-to-End Promise: Taking Stock of Where We Are. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7409-7421, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, and Juan Pino. 2022. Unified Speech-Text Pre-training for Speech Translation and Recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1488–1499, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.216, + 0.883, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuqing Tang, Chau Tran, Xian Li, Peng-Jen Chen, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Jiatao Gu, and Angela Fan. 2020. Multilingual Translation with Extensible Multilingual Pretraining and Finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00401. [Cited on pages 2, 6, and 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.307, + 0.883, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, Carlos Escolano, José Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022a. Pretrained Speech Encoders and Efficient Finetuning Methods for Speech Translation: UPC at IWSLT 2022. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 265-276, Dublin, Ireland (in person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.437, + 0.883, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022b. SHAS: Approaching Optimal Segmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2022, pages 106-110. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.515, + 0.883, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All You Need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. [Cited on pages 1, 3, and 5.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.632, + 0.883, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elena Voita, Pavel Serdyukov, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2018. Context-Aware Neural Machine Translation Learns Anaphora Resolution. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1264-1274, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 17.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.736, + 0.883, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Anne Wu, and Jiatao Gu. 2020a. CoVoST: A Diverse Multilingual Speech-To-Text Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4197-4203, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on pages 1 and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Pino. 2020b. Fairseq S2T: Fast Speech-to-Text Modeling with Fairseq. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8581" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 33-39, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5, 6, 8, and 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.147, + 0.49, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changhan Wang, Anne Wu, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. CoVoST 2 and Massively Multilingual Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 2247-2251. [Cited on pages 2, 5, and 7.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.21, + 0.487, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ron J. Weiss, Jan Chorowski, Navdeep Jaitly, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-Sequence Models Can Directly Translate Foreign Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 2625–2629. [Cited on page 1.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.284, + 0.489, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 5.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.45, + 0.489, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xueqing Wu, Yingce Xia, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Shufang Xie, Yang Fan, and Tao Qin. 2021. mixSeq: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 192-197, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.564, + 0.488, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020a. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.664, + 0.488, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020b. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 15.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.765, + 0.489, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2022. Cross-modal Contrastive Learning for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5099-5113, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biao Zhang, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2022a. Revisiting End-to-End Speech-to-Text Translation From Scratch. In International Conference on Machine Learning. [Cited on page 8.]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2021a. Beyond Sentence-Level End-to-End Speech Translation: Context Helps. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2566–2578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.214, + 0.883, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuong Zhang, Erfan Loweimi, Peter Bell, and Steve Renals. 2021b. On The Usefulness of Self-Attention for Automatic Speech Recognition with Transformers. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 89–96. [Cited on page 17.]" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.289, + 0.883, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Junyi Ao, Shujie Liu, Lirong Dai, Jinyu Li, and Furu Wei. 2022b. SpeechUT: Bridging Speech and Text with Hidden-Unit for Encoder-Decoder Based Speech-Text Pretraining. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1663–1676, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.42, + 0.634, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.445, + 0.862, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Hyperparameters and Training details" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.467, + 0.855, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.1 Speech-to-Text Transformer models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.485, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For all experiments, apart from §6.2 and from those in mTEDx Es-Fr, we use \\(s2t\\_transformer\\_s\\) models implemented in FAIRSEQ (Ott et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020b). They have 12 encoder layers, 6 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feedforward dimension of 2048, and 4 heads in the multi-head attention, with 31M parameters in total. We use GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) and pre-layernorm (Xiong et al., 2020a). The input is 80-dimensional log-Mel spectrograms, which are processed by a 2-layer convolutional network with 1024 inner channels, output dimension of 256, stride of 2, kernel size of 5, and GLU activations (Dauphin et al., 2017). We do not scale up the output of the convolutional network. The target vocabularies are learned with SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) and have a size of 8,000. We train with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a learning rate of 0.002, a warm-up of 5,000 steps, and an inverse square root scheduler. We use a gradient accumulation of 6, making the effective batch size equal to 320 thousand tokens, apply SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), and set the dropout to 0.1, applied to attention, activation, and output. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.1. We stop the training when the validation loss does not decrease" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8582" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for 10 epochs, and average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.117, + 0.488, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The encoders of the ST models are pre-trained on the task of ASR using the same architecture. The only difference is the vocabulary size which is 5,000 and the learning rate which is 0.001. For the models trained without ASR pre-training (§7) we also used a learning rate of 0.001. For MuST-C, we pre-train using the ASR data of En-De, for mTEDx we use the Es-Es and Pt-Pt accordingly, and finally for CoVoST the ASR data of En-De." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.262, + 0.49, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For mTEDx Es-Fr we use an extra-small architecture (s2t_transformer_xs). It has 6 encoder layers and 3 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feed-forward dimension of 1024, 4 heads in the multi-head attention, and a vocabulary size of 3,000, having a total of 10M parameters. The learning rate is set to 0.001 (warm-up of 500), the batch size to 180 thousand tokens, and use a dropout of 0.2. We also share the weights of the embedding layer and output projection in the decoder. The same model is pre-trained on ASR, but with a dropout of 0.1. All other hyperparameters are the same as for the small models described before." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.472, + 0.488, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All our experiments were run on a cluster with 8 NVIDIA GeForce rtx 2080 ti. The running times of each experiment on a single GPU ranged from 12 to 36 hours." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.544, + 0.342, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.2 w2v-mBART models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.563, + 0.49, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the experiments of §6.2, we use a strong baseline utilizing pre-trained models and a length adaptor (Tsiamas et al., 2022a). The encoder is composed of a 7-layer convolutional feature extractor and 24-layer Transformer encoder, while the decoder has 12 layers, and a vocabulary of size 250k, with 770M parameters in total. All the layers have an embedding dimensionality of 1024, a feedforward dimensionality of 4098, GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016), 16 attention heads, and pre-layer normalization configuration (Xiong et al., 2020b). A strided 1d convolutional layer sub-samples the output of the encoder by 2 times. The encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC \\(2.0^{12}\\) (Baevski et al., 2020), which is pretrained with 60k hours of non-transcribed speech from LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020), and fine-tuned for ASR with 960 hours of labeled data from Librispeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). The decoder is initialized from MBART50\\(^{13}\\) (Tang et al., 2020), which" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is fine-tuned En-Xx multilingual machine translation. We fine-tune all the parameters of the model, apart from the feature extractor of the encoder and the embedding layer in the decoder. The inputs to the model are raw waveforms sampled at \\(16\\mathrm{kHz}\\), which are normalized to zero mean and unit variance. We train with AdamW using a base learning rate of 0.0005, with a warm-up for 2,000 steps and an inverse square root scheduler. In the encoder we use 0.1 activation dropout, time masking with probability of 0.2 and channel masking with probability of 0.1 (Baevski et al., 2020). In the decoder we use a dropout of 0.3, and attention dropout of 0.1 (Tang et al., 2020). All other dropouts are not active. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.2. We use gradient accumulation to have an effective batch size of 32M tokens, evaluate every 250 steps, and stop the training when the performance on the validation set does not improve for 20 evaluations. We average the 10 best checkpoints according to the validation BLEU, and generate with a beam search of 5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.466, + 0.799, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.3 Machine Translation models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.496, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the MT models used for text alignment in SEGAUGMENT (§4.3), we used medium-sized Transformers, with 6 encoder and decoder layers, dimensionality of 512, feed-forward dimension of 2048, and 8 heads in the multi-head attention. We train with AdamW using a learning rate of 0.002, with a warm-up for the first 2,500 updates, and the batch size is set to 14 thousand tokens. The vocabulary size is 8,000, and for regularization, we use a small dropout of 0.1 only at the outputs of each layer and label smoothing of 0.1. We stop training when the document-level BLEU does not increase for 20 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to the same metric, and then generate with a beam of size 8." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the MT models used in the experiments of \\(\\S A.6\\), we use a small architecture with 6 encoder and decoder layers, with dimensionality of 256, feed-forward dimension of 1024, and 4 heads. We share the weights of the embedding and output projection in the decoder and use a dropout of 0.1 (applied to attention, activation, and output). We stop training when the validation loss does not decrease for 10 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU, and generate with a beam of size 5." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.891, + 0.425, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12fairseq/wav2vec/wav2vec2_vox_960h_new.pt" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.905, + 0.414, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13fairseq/models/mbart50/mbart50.ft.1n.tar.gz" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.891, + 0.425, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8583" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 CTC-based Forced Alignment Algorithm" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.107, + 0.489, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we provide the algorithm used for audio-text alignment with SEGAUGMENT (§4.2). The complete process for the \\(i\\)-th document is summarized in Algorithm 1, where we omit the \\(i\\) index for ease of representation." + }, + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.206, + 0.416, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: CTC-based Forced Alignment" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.223, + 0.487, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input :x % List[1d Tensor] \ninput :z % List:String] \ninput :hat % List[Tuple[Float, Float]] \noutput: \\(\\hat{z}\\) % List:String] \n1 u \\(\\leftarrow\\) E(x) \n2 z \\(\\leftarrow\\) CLEAN(z) \n3 chars \\(\\leftarrow\\) FORCED Alignment(z,u) \n4 words \\(\\leftarrow\\) JOIN_CHARS(chars) \n5 words \\(\\leftarrow\\) REVERSE Cleaner(words) \n6 for \\(j\\gets 1\\) to len(b) do \n7 \\(\\begin{array}{r}\\hat{z}^j\\gets \\mathrm{JOIN\\_WORDS}(\\hat{b}^j,\\mathrm{words})\\\\ \\hat{z}^j\\gets \\mathrm{POST\\_EDIT}(\\hat{z}^j) \\end{array}\\) \n9 return \\(\\hat{z}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.429, + 0.384, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Results of ASR pre-training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.45, + 0.489, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 9 we present the results of the ASR pretraining, where we observe that by including data from SEGAUGMENT, all ASR models perform better in terms of WER. This indicates that the proposed methods is also useful for ASR augmentations, probably due to the source-side contextual and positional diversity (§6.8)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.576, + 0.486, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMuST-CmTEDxCoVoST
En-DeEs-Es (xs)Pt-PtEn-De
Baseline11.118 (19.7)28.326.6
+ SEGAUGMENT10.416.6 (18.1)23.823.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.655, + 0.486, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: \\( \\mathrm{{WER}}\\left( \\downarrow \\right) \\) scores for ASR models. xs indicates the extra-small models pre-trained for mTEDx Es-Fr." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.705, + 0.411, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Extended Results on Automatic Segmentation of MuST-C" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 10 we provide an extended version of Table 6, where we evaluate the models on all four SHAS segmentations of the test set. Regarding the choice of automatic segmentation, we find that the long segmentation is the best when using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens (27.3 BLEU), long and extra-long are equally good without special tokens (26.9 BLEU) and the medium segmentation is best without SEGAUGMENT (23.7 BLEU). Using the special tokens reduces the performance on the manual segmentation by 0.3 BLEU \\((27.4\\rightarrow 27.1)\\) but" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS
—BestsmlxlBest
En-DeBaseline23.220.621.721.220.225.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.123.124.324.524.7
← special tok.25.123.124.525.225.1
En-EsBaseline27.525.026.426.124.829.4
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.327.328.729.028.9
← special tok.29.226.628.629.429.1
En-FrBaseline33.130.031.030.629.035.3
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.732.334.134.934.8
← special tok.35.631.433.835.335.1
En-ItBaseline22.920.021.621.520.325.1
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.622.724.224.424.8
← special tok.25.022.324.325.124.5
En-NIBaseline27.324.926.525.724.329.8
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.327.529.229.729.7
← special tok.29.426.926.929.829.3
En-PtBaseline28.725.827.126.925.431.8
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.829.230.731.431.1
← special tok.31.528.830.831.831.3
En-RoBaseline22.219.920.820.518.724.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.022.523.424.124.3
← special tok.24.822.624.124.624.0
En-RuBaseline15.313.414.714.613.817.0
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.815.016.416.816.7
← special tok.16.414.916.417.016.8
AvgBaseline25.022.423.723.422.127.3
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.424.926.426.926.9
← special tok.27.124.626.227.326.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.426, + 0.884, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: BLEU(↑) scores on manual- and SHAS-segmented MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.482, + 0.884, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "increases it in the SHAS-long segmentation by 0.4 BLEU \\((26.9\\rightarrow 27.3)\\), thus bridging the gap with the manual segmentation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.544, + 0.853, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Results with different SEGAUGMENT combinations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.581, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform ablations by training ST models on different combinations of the original and the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, using MuST-C v2.0 En-De. In Table 11, row 1 is essentially the baseline and row 17 is the baseline + SEGAUGMENT. Firstly, we notice that although training single synthetic datasets, but without the original one (rows 2-5) is inferior, the drop is relatively small, considering the absence of the original data. When training with all of them (row 6) actually surpasses the baseline by 1.1 BLEU, without even using the original data. This showcases that SEGAUGMENT is generating high quality data, and even by themselves can produce very good ST models. Secondly, the results show that the more synthetic datasets we use, the better the performance, and that no combination is better than simply using all of them (row 17). We also find that when using 1 or 2 synthetic datasets, the combinations involving longer segmentations (rows 8, 9, 10 and 13, 14) tend to perform better than those involving shorter segmen" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8584" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.085, + 0.44, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Original DataSEGAUGMENTBLEU
smlxl
(1)✓24.3
(2)✓22.6
(3)✓23.4
(4)✓22.4
(5)✓22.7
(6)✓✓✓✓25.4
(7)✓✓24.8
(8)✓✓25.1
(9)✓✓25.1
(10)✓✓25.1
(11)✓✓✓25.6
(12)✓✓✓25.6
(13)✓✓✓25.8
(14)✓✓✓25.8
(15)✓✓✓✓26.0
(16)✓✓✓✓26.0
(17)✓✓✓✓✓26.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.41, + 0.49, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: BLEU(↑) scores on tst-COMMON MuST-C v2.0 En-De for models trained with different combinations of the original and the synthetic data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.503, + 0.489, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tations (rows 7 and 11, 12), while for combinations of 3 synthetic (rows 15, 16), we do not observe any differences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.602, + 0.357, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 Results on ASR and MT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We investigate the impact of the synthetic data when training ASR and MT models. For this experiments we are using the ASR data and bitext from MuST-C v2.0 En-De. The results of Table 12 show that the synthetic data are in general useful, with a 0.7 reduction in WER and a 1.1 increase in BLEU (row 6). This indicates that the improvements in ST are stemming from both the source side (speech, ASR) and the target side (text, MT). We furthermore notice that longer synthetic examples are better for MT, similar to ST in Table 2, while shorter ones are better for ASR. We hypothesize that this is a consequence of the significance of long context for each task; ASR models tend to use local context (Zhang et al., 2021b), while MT models oftentimes have to use long context, as in pronoun resolution (Voita et al., 2018)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.085, + 0.863, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Original DataSEGAUGMENTWER(↓)BLEU(↑)
smlxl
(1)✓11.131.0
(2)✓✓10.231.3
(3)✓✓10.331.6
(4)✓✓11.031.7
(5)✓10.931.7
(6)✓✓✓✓10.432.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.224, + 0.886, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12:WER scores for ASR models and BLEU scores for MT models in MuST-C v2.0 En-Det tst- COMMON." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.287, + 0.794, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.7 Results of MT models used in SEGAUGMENT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.324, + 0.885, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In table 13 we present results for the MT models trained to generate the new translation for the alternative data of SEGAUGMENT for MuST-C v2.0 En-De. For each parameterization \\(\\ell = (min, max)\\) of the segmentation algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\), we train specialized model \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}\\), as described in §4.3. We evaluate on the original training and development sets from \\(S\\), as well as on the synthetic training set \\((\\hat{S}_{\\ell})\\), which basically indicates the quality of the target text in the synthetic data. We present both sentence-and document-level BLEU scores for the original data, and only document-level scores for the synthetic ones (since no sentence-level references are available). We notice that MT models obtain very high scores in the original train set, as compared to the development set, indicating that the model has indeed overfitted. In any other case that would be very bad news, but here we willingly overfit the model as our goal is to learn the training set text alignment, and not having a good and generalizable MT model. By looking at the document-level BLEU on the synthetic training set, we can confirm that the MT models have indeed accurately learned the alignments and thus have generated high-quality translation, that can be utilized during ST training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.869, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.8 Contextual Windows of SEGAUGMENT Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can categorize the new context of the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT in four types, depending on the type of overlap between the segmentation boundaries \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}\\) for each document: (1) isolated, when being a subset of an original one, (2) expanded, when being a superset of an original one, (3): mixed, when overlapping with an original one, (4): equal, when being in exactly the same" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8585" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.234, + 0.082, + 0.764, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MT model MlOriginal trainOriginal developmentSynthetic train (Sl)
BLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEU
s95.179.224.526.2-68.3
m90.074.426.027.5-70.4
l72.961.325.527.0-64.6
xl59.651.825.927.4-56.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.194, + 0.885, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: MT models trained for generating the target text of SEGAUGMENT data. BLEU scores for MuST-C v2.0 En-De training and development set, and synthetic training set. BLEU scores are calculated both at sentence- and document-level." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.262, + 0.489, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context as an original one. In Table 14 we apply this categorization for MuST-C v2.0 En-De, and observe that indeed most of the alternative examples form SEGAUGMENT are presented in a new context, with only a small percentage being equal, which we discard when concatenating the datasets for training." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.407, + 0.486, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SEGAUGMENTExpandedIsolatedMixedEqual
s12.3%56.9%22.3%8.5%
m31.1%33.3%24.3%11.3%
l63.2%7.9%24.6%4.2%
xl55.7%1.2%43.0%0.1%
28.3%38.7%25.0%8.0%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.488, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14: Percentage of examples (rows) for each type of contextual overlap (columns) in the alternative datasets \\(\\hat{S}_{\\ell}\\) compared to the manual one \\(S\\) for MuST-C v2.0 En-De." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.623, + 0.384, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.9 Results on duration buckets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 6 we present evidence for the length specialization effect (§6.8). We construct two extreme-length buckets in MuST-C tst-COMMON; the first bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second and the second one all those with duration larger than 20 seconds. Then we measure the performance of 5 different types of ST model in the two buckets, which are using the data configurations of rows 1-5 of Table 11. Performance is measured by average BLEU across all eight language pairs of MuST-C. We notice that indeed, models trained with shorter synthetic data \\((\\hat{S}_s,\\hat{S}_m)\\) are better at translating the test set bucket with the very short examples, while those trained with longer synthetic data \\((\\hat{S}_l,\\hat{S}_{xl})\\) are better at translating the bucket with the very long ones." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.259, + 0.882, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.472, + 0.884, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: BLEU in two duration buckets of MuST-C tst-COMMON of models trained with the four different synthetic datasets and with only the original data. The legend indicates on which data each models is trained on. The left bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second, and the right contains all those with duration longer than 20 seconds. BLEU is the average of all eight language pairs in MuST-C." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.608, + 0.807, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.10 SEGAUGMENT Data Statistics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.63, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 15 we present the number of examples created with SEGAUGMENT for all the language pairs used in this research. We only consider examples longer than 0.4 seconds and shorter than 30 seconds. Differences across the MuST-C v1.0 datasets created with the short condition are due to empty segments which were removed. Following, in Table 16 we are presenting the average duration of each example in each created dataset. The average is around 3.8 seconds for short-segmented datasets, and around 24 seconds for the extra-long ones. In both tables, differences in CoVoST are due to the fact that we prioritize more the length conditions \\(\\ell = (min, max)\\) in the segmentation algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\) (\\(\\S 4.1\\)), while the other datasets are prioritizing the classification condition thr. We did this change in order to make sure that the CoVoST data are segmented in a different way, than in the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8586" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.233, + 0.082, + 0.766, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxlConcat
MuST-Cv1.0En-De225K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Es260K430K253K120K76K879K
En-Fr269K421K253K120K76K871K
En-It248K399K253K120K76K848K
En-NI244K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Pt201K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ro231K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ru260K419K253K120K76K868K
v2.0En-De249K401K231K109K70K812K
mTEDxEs-Es101k150K88K43K27K308K
Pt-Pt90K136K78K37K24K274K
Es-En36K53K32K15K10K110K
Pt-En30K47K27K13K8K94K
Es-Fr3.5K5.5K3K1.5K1K11K
CoVoST2En-De231K504K255K00759K
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.378, + 0.849, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 15: Number of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.418, + 0.489, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "manual segmentation. Due to this they might not always resemble proper sentences, but at least they are diverse enough to be useful during training." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.476, + 0.486, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxl
MuST-Cv1.0En-De6.273.836.8715.2123.96
En-Es6.633.846.8715.2123.96
En-Fr6.283.846.8715.2123.96
En-It6.413.836.8715.2123.96
En-Nl6.233.846.8715.2123.96
En-Pt6.503.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ro6.373.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ru6.473.836.8715.2123.96
v2.0En-De6.273.756.8315.1623.94
mTEDxEs-Es5.903.796.9115.2423.86
Pt-Pt5.813.716.8615.1724.03
Es-En6.063.876.9115.2723.78
Pt-En5.863.686.8315.1624.02
Es-Fr6.083.806.8915.1023.84
CoVoST2En-De5.611.823.68——
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 16: Average duration (in seconds) of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.421, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.11 Sub-word Positional Frequency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 7 we present examples of semi-rare subwords in the target languages in MuST-C v2.0 EnDe training set. We are counting their frequency in terms of absolute position in the examples they appear in. We can observe that when using SEGAUGMENT, the positional frequency of this sub-words is much more diverse, covering more space in the possible positions in the target sequence. We hy" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.418, + 0.884, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pothesize that this effect could be regularizing the model, aiding in each generalization of this subwords in different positions (§6.8)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8587" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.249, + 0.473, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.25, + 0.856, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.492, + 0.473, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.492, + 0.856, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.733, + 0.885, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Positional frequency of semi-rare sub-words in the original data with and without SEGAUGMENT in MuST-C v2.0 En-De training set." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8588" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_origin.pdf b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..955b65af1a15e9d77c7362e9f1d94febe5f177f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/346e3771-765b-48d1-a35a-0db773f44c6a_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:71c5a289eb6a016c4fb743c0b5a3943c2f1cf4fdf0698b47a4b8bc3db190b983 +size 1859198 diff --git a/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/full.md b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be1e74bf9e9d2f89a613953bec5e6c68945a6a3b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,469 @@ +# SEGAUGMENT: Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations + +Ioannis Tsiamas and José A. R. Fonollosa +Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Barcelona + +{ioannis.tsiamas,jose.fonollosa}@upc.edu + +Marta R. Costa-jussa +FAIR Meta, Paris + +costajussa@meta.com + +# Abstract + +End-to-end Speech Translation is hindered by a lack of available data resources. While most of them are based on documents, a sentence-level version is available, which is however single and static, potentially impeding the usefulness of the data. We propose a new data augmentation strategy, SEGAUGMENT, to address this issue by generating multiple alternative sentence-level versions of a dataset. Our method utilizes an Audio Segmentation system, which re-segments the speech of each document with different length constraints, after which we obtain the target text via alignment methods. Experiments demonstrate consistent gains across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with an average increase of 2.5 BLEU points, and up to 5 BLEU for low-resource scenarios in mTEDx. Furthermore, when combined with a strong system, SEGAUGMENT obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C. Finally, we show that the proposed method can also successfully augment sentence-level datasets, and that it enables Speech Translation models to close the gap between the manual and automatic segmentation at inference time. + +# 1 Introduction + +The conventional approach for Speech Translation (ST) involves cascading two separate systems: an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model followed by a Machine Translation (MT) model. However, recent advances in deep learning (Vaswani et al., 2017), coupled with an increased availability of ST corpora (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2020a) have enabled the use of end-to-end models (Weiss et al., 2017). Although end-to-end models can address several shortcomings of cascaded models, such as slow inference times, error propagation, and information loss, they are limited by a data bottleneck (Sperber and Paulik, 2020). This bottleneck arises from the inability of end-to-end models to directly leverage data from the more + +![](images/bfb9d920c02c334b80fdb23fa061b66b481998123d631827ff695c15613b6f6b.jpg) +Figure 1: Data Augmentation with SEGAUGMENT. + +resourceful tasks of ASR and MT, which restricts them from consistently matching the performance of the cascaded models (Bentivogli et al., 2021; Anastasopoulos et al., 2022, 2021). + +The majority of ST corpora are based on document-level speech data, such as MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a) and mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021), which are derived from TED talks, with duration times of 10 to 20 minutes. These document-based data are processed into shorter, sentence-level examples through a process called manual segmentation, which relies on grammatical features in the text. Still, this sentence-level version is single and static and is potentially limiting the utility of the already scarce ST datasets. + +To address this limitation, we propose SEGAUGMENT, a segmentation-based data augmentation method that generates multiple alternative sentence-level versions of document-level speech data (Fig 1). SEGAUGMENT employs SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), an Audio Segmentation method that we tune to yield different re-segmentations of a speech document based on duration constraints. For each new segmentation of a document, the corresponding transcript is retrieved via CTC-based forced alignment (Kurzinger et al., 2020), and the target text is obtained with an MT model. + +Our contributions are as follows: + +- We present SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method for Speech Translation. +- We demonstrate its effectiveness across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with average gains of 2.5 BLEU points and on three low-resource pairs in mTEDx, with gains up to 5 BLEU. +- When utilized with a strong baseline that combines WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020), it obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C. +- We also show its applicability to data not based on documents, providing an increase of 1.9 BLEU in CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021). +- SEGAUGMENT also enables ST models to close the gap between the manual and automatic test set segmentations at inference time. +- Finally, along with our code, we open source all the synthetic data that were created with the proposed method1. + +# 2 Relevant Research + +SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), which directly modifies the speech features by wrapping or masking them, is a standard approach for data augmentation in speech tasks including ST (Bahar et al., 2019; Di Gangi et al., 2019b). WavAugment (Kharitonov et al., 2021) is a similar technique that modifies the speech wave by introducing effects such as pitch, tempo and echo (Gálego et al., 2021). Instead of altering the speech input, our proposed method generates more synthetic data by altering their points of segmentation, and thus is complimentary to techniques such as SpecAugment. + +An effective way to address data scarcity in ST is by generating synthetic data from external sources. This can be achieved by using an MT model to translate the transcript of an ASR dataset or a Text-to-Speech (TTS) model to generate speech for the source text of an MT dataset (Jia et al., 2019; Pino et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020). In contrast, SEGAUGMENT generates synthetic data internally, without relying on external datasets. + +Previous research has established the benefits of generating synthetic examples by cropping or merging the original ones, with sub-sequence sampling for ASR (Nguyen et al., 2020), and concatenation for MT (Nguyen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Kondo et al., 2021), as well as for ASR and ST + +(Lam et al., 2022a). Our approach, however, segments documents at arbitrary points, thus providing access to a greater number of synthetic examples. An alternative approach by Lam et al. (2022b) involves recombining training data in a linguistically-motivated way, by sampling pivot tokens, retrieving possible continuations from a suffix memory, combining them to obtain new speech-transcription pairs, and finally using an MT model to generate the translations. Our method is similar since it also leverages audio alignments and MT, but instead of mixing speech, it segments at alternative points. + +Context-aware ST models have been shown to be robust towards error-prone automatic segmentations of the test set at inference time (Zhang et al., 2021a). Our method bears similarities with Gaido et al. (2020b); Papi et al. (2021) in that it re-segments the train set to create synthetic data. However, unlike their approach, where they split at random words in the transcript, we use a specialized Audio Segmentation method (Tsiamas et al., 2022b) to directly split the audio into segments resembling proper sentences. Furthermore, instead of using word alignment algorithms to get the target text (Dyer et al., 2013), we learn the alignment with an MT model. We thus create high-quality data that can be generally useful, and not only for error-prone test set segmentations. Finally, recent work has demonstrated that context-aware ST models evaluated on fixed-length automatic segmentations can be competitive compared to the manual segmentation (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022). Here, we find that utilizing data from SEGAUGMENT yields high translation quality for ST models evaluated on automatic segmentations, even surpassing the translation quality of the manual segmentation, and without explicitly making them context-aware. + +# 3 Background + +# 3.1 ST Corpora and Manual Segmentation + +A document-level speech translation corpus $\mathcal{D}$ (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Salesky et al., 2021) is comprised of $n$ triplets that represent the speech wave $\mathbf{X}$ , the transcription $\mathbf{Z}$ , and the translation $\mathbf{Y}$ of each document. + +$$ +\mathcal {D} = \left\{\left(\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \mathbf {Z} ^ {i}, \mathbf {Y} ^ {i}\right) \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \tag {1} +$$ + +In order for the data to be useful for traditional sentence-level ST, the document-level corpus $\mathcal{D}$ + +![](images/83fc4097c165317970298cf8389aa6cf83a0e17eed92a1af1f81e044da70a732.jpg) +Figure 2: Manual Segmentation of an example $i$ from a document-level corpus $\mathcal{D}$ into $m_{i}$ examples of a sentence-level corpus $\mathcal{S}$ . + +is processed to a sentence-level corpus $S$ , with $m = \sum_{i}^{n} m_{i}$ examples. + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \mathcal {S} = \left\{\left(\mathbf {x} ^ {i}, \mathbf {z} ^ {i}, \mathbf {y} ^ {i}\right) \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\ = \left\{\left\{\left(\boldsymbol {x} ^ {i, j}, \boldsymbol {z} ^ {i, j}, \boldsymbol {y} ^ {i, j}\right) \right\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}} \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \tag {2} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Where $\mathbf{x}^i = (\pmb{x}^{i,1},\dots,\pmb{x}^{i,m_i})$ are the sentence-level speech waves for the $i$ -th document, $\mathbf{z}^i = (z^{i,1},\dots,z^{i,m_i})$ are the sentence-level transcriptions, and $\mathbf{y}^i = (\mathbf{y}^{i,1},\dots,\mathbf{y}^{i,m_i})$ are the sentence-level translations. Usually, $S$ is obtained by a process of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), where the document-level transcription and translation are split on strong punctuation, and then aligned with cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010). Finally, the corresponding sentence-level speech waves are obtained by audio-text alignment (McAuliffe et al., 2017). Since speech is continuous, instead of defining the sentence-level speech wave $\pmb{x}^{i,j}$ , it is common to define the start and end points $s^{i,j}$ , $e^{i,j} \in \mathbb{R}$ that correspond to the document speech $\mathbf{X}^i$ . Thus, $S$ can be re-defined as: + +$$ +\mathcal {S} = \left\{\left(\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \left\{\left(b ^ {i, j}, z ^ {i, j}, \mathbf {y} ^ {i, j}\right) \right\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}}\right) \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \tag {3} +$$ + +Where $\mathbf{b}^i = (b^{i,1},\dots,b^{i,m_i})$ is the segmentation for the $i$ -th speech wave, and $b^{i,j} = (s^{i,j},e^{i,j})$ is a tuple of the segment boundaries for the $j$ -th segment, for which $\pmb{x}^{i,j} = \pmb{\chi}_{s^{i,j}:e^{i,j}}^i$ . Note that oftentimes there is a gap between consecutive segments $(e^{i,j},s^{i,j + 1})$ due to silent periods. + +# 3.2 Audio Segmentation and SHAS + +In end-to-end ST, Audio Segmentation methods aim to find a segmentation $\mathbf{b}^{\prime}$ for a speech document $\mathbf{X}^{\prime}$ , without making use of its transcription. They are crucial in real world scenarios, when a + +test set segmentation is not available, and an automatic one has to be inferred, as simulated by recent IWSLT evaluations (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). They usually rely on acoustic features (pause-based), length criteria (length-based), or a combination of both (hybrid). One such hybrid approach is SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b,a), which uses a supervised classification model $\mathcal{C}$ and a hybrid segmentation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ . The classifier $\mathcal{C}$ is a Transformer encoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) with a frozen WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020; Babu et al., 2021) as a backbone. It is trained on the speech documents and segment boundaries of a manually-segmented speech corpus, $S^{\mathrm{SGM}} = \{(X^i, b^i)\}_{i=1}^n$ , by predicting whether an audio frame belongs to any of the manually-segmented examples. At inference time, a sequence of binary probabilities $\mathbf{p}'$ is obtained by applying the classifier $\mathcal{C}$ on $\mathbf{X}'$ (eq. 4). Following, parameterized with thr to control the classification threshold, and $\ell = (\min, \max)$ to control the length of the resulting segments, $\mathcal{A}$ produces the automatic segmentation $\mathbf{b}'$ according to $\mathbf{p}'$ (eq. 5). There are two possible choices for $\mathcal{A}$ . The Divide-and-Conquer (PDAC) approach progressively splits the audio at the point $\kappa$ of lowest probability $p_{\kappa}' > thr$ , until all resulting segments are within $\ell$ (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Potapczyk and Przybysz, 2020). Alternatively, the Streaming (PSTRM) approach takes streams of length max and splits them at the point $\kappa$ with $p_{\kappa}' > thr$ between $\ell$ or uses the whole stream if no such point exists (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021). + +$$ +\mathbf {p} ^ {\prime} = \mathcal {C} (\mathbf {X} ^ {\prime}) \tag {4} +$$ + +$$ +\mathbf {b} ^ {\prime} = \mathcal {A} \left(\mathbf {p} ^ {\prime}; \text {m i n}, \text {m a x}, \text {t h r}\right) \tag {5} +$$ + +# 4 Proposed Methodology + +The proposed data augmentation method SEGAUGMENT (Fig. 3) aims to increase the utility of the training data $S$ , by generating synthetic sentence-level corpora $\hat{S}_{\ell}$ , which are based on alternative segmentations of the speech documents in $\mathcal{D}$ (eq. 1). Whereas the manual segmentation (Fig. 2) relies on grammatical features in the text, here we propose to split on acoustic features present in the audio, by utilizing SHAS (§3.2). For the $i$ -th speech document $\mathbf{X}^i$ , SEGAUGMENT creates alternative segmentation boundaries $\hat{\mathbf{b}}^i$ with SHAS (§4.1), obtains the corresponding transcriptions $\hat{\mathbf{z}}^i$ via CTC-based forced alignment (§4.2), and finally, + +![](images/e4f84f970185c2316360376b7323e4a3da31dd3e69381b7fca8780dc9d523901.jpg) +Figure 3: The SEGAUGMENT methodology. Given the $i$ -th document-level example of $\mathcal{D}$ , with $m_i$ sentence-level examples $(S)$ , it creates $k_i$ synthetic sentence-level examples by alternative segmentations with SHAS. Changing the segmentation parameters $\ell$ results in several different synthetic corpora $\hat{S}_{\ell}$ . + +generates the translations $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^i$ with an MT model (§4.3). By repeating this process with different parameterizations $\ell$ of the segmentation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ , multiple synthetic sentence-level speech corpora can be generated (§4.4). A synthetic speech corpus $\hat{S}_{\ell}$ with $k = \sum_{i}^{n}k_{i}$ examples can be defined as: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\mathcal {S}} _ {\ell} = \left\{\left(\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \hat {\mathbf {b}} ^ {i}, \hat {\mathbf {z}} ^ {i}, \hat {\mathbf {y}} ^ {i}\right) \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\ = \left\{\left(\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \left\{\left(\hat {b} ^ {i, j}, \hat {\mathbf {z}} ^ {i, j}, \hat {\mathbf {y}} ^ {i, j}\right) \right\} _ {j = 1} ^ {k _ {i}}\right) \right\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \tag {6} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Where $\mathbf{X}^i$ is the original speech for the $i$ -th document (eq. 1), $\hat{\mathbf{b}}^i = (\hat{b}^{i,1},\dots,\hat{b}^{i,k_i})$ are its alternative segmentations, $\hat{\mathbf{z}}^i = (\hat{\mathbf{z}}^{i,1},\dots,\hat{\mathbf{z}}^{i,k_i})$ are its sentence-level transcriptions, and $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^i = (\hat{\mathbf{y}}^{i,1},\dots,\hat{\mathbf{y}}^{i,k_i})$ are its synthetic sentence-level translations. + +In total, three different models are utilized for creating a synthetic corpus, a classifier $\mathcal{C}$ (§3.2) for segmentation, a CTC encoder $\mathcal{E}$ (Graves et al., 2006) for forced alignment, and an MT model $\mathcal{M}$ for text alignment. We can use pre-trained models, or optionally learn them from the manually segmented examples of $\mathcal{S}$ (Fig. 4). The classifier $\mathcal{C}$ can be learned from $S^{\mathrm{SGM}} = \{(\mathbf{X}^i,\mathbf{b}^i)\}_{i = 1}^n$ , the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ from $S^{\mathrm{ASR}} = \{(x^{i},z^{i})\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ , and the model $\mathcal{M}$ from $S^{\mathrm{MT}} = \{(z^{i},y^{i})\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ . + +Next, we describe in detail the proposed method. + +![](images/f2ed88f5f299c5a92bbec36675656666c0a793dde767589718db8d7c098d46c6.jpg) +Figure 4: Optional Model Training + +# 4.1 Segmentation + +We follow the process described for SHAS (§3.2) and obtain the alternative segmentations $\hat{\mathbf{b}}^i$ for each $\mathbf{X}^i$ in the training corpus, by doing inference with $\mathcal{C}$ and applying the segmentation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ . In contrast to its original use, we use arbitrary values for $min$ to have more control over the length ranges of the segments and prioritize the classification threshold requirements $thr$ over the segment length requirements $\ell$ in the constraint optimization procedure of $\mathcal{A}$ , to ensure good data quality. + +# 4.2 Audio Alignment + +To create the transcriptions $\hat{\mathbf{z}}^i$ of the $i$ -th document for the segments $\hat{\mathbf{b}}^i$ ( $\S 4.1$ ), we are using CTC-based forced alignment (Kürzinger et al., 2020). We first do inference on the sentence-level speech of the manual segmentation $\mathbf{x}^i = (\mathbf{x}^{i,1}, \dots, \mathbf{x}^{i,n_i})$ with a CTC encoder $\mathcal{E}$ , thus obtaining character-level probabilities $\mathbf{u}^i$ for the whole audio. We apply a text cleaning process on the transcriptions $\mathbf{z}^i$ , which includes spelling-out numbers, removing unvoiced text such as events and speaker names, removing all remaining characters that are not included in vocabulary, and finally upper casing. The forced alignment algorithm uses the probabilities $\mathbf{u}^i$ and the cleaned text $\mathbf{z}^i$ to find the character segmentation along with the starting and ending timestamps of each entry. Following, we merge characters to words using the special token for the word boundaries, and reverse the cleaning step² to recover the original text that corresponds to each segment. For each example $j$ , we obtain the source text $\hat{\mathbf{z}}^{i,j}$ by joining the corresponding words that are within the segment boundary $\hat{b}^{i,j}$ , and apply a post-editing step to fix the casing and punctuation (Alg. 1). + +# 4.3 Text Alignment + +Unlike the case of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010) is not applicable, and additionally, word alignment tools (Dyer et al., 2013) yielded sub-optimal results. Thus, we learn the alignment with an MT model $\mathcal{M}$ , which is trained on the manually segmented sentence-level data $S^{\mathrm{MT}} = \{(z^i,\mathbf{y}^i)\}_{i = 1}^n$ . The training data is modified by concatenating examples to reflect the length of the examples that will be translated, thus learning model $\mathcal{M}_{\ell}$ from $S_{\ell}^{\mathrm{MT}}$ , where $\ell$ are the length parameters used in SHAS. To accurately learn the training set alignment, we use very little regularization, practically overfitting the training data $S_{\ell}^{\mathrm{MT}}$ (§A.7). Since there are no sentence-level references available for the synthetic data, we monitor the document-level BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) in a small number of training documents, and only end the training when it stops increasing. Finally, we obtain the synthetic sentence-level translations $\hat{\mathbf{y}}^i$ with the trained $\mathcal{M}_{\ell}$ . + +# 4.4 Multiple Sentence-level Versions + +The parameters $\ell = (min, max)$ of the segmentation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ allow us to have fine-grained control over the length of the produced segments. Different, non-overlapping tuples of $\ell$ result in different segmentations, providing access to multiple synthetic sentence-level versions of each document. Moreover, the additional cost of creating more than one synthetic corpus is relatively low, as the results of the classification with $\mathcal{C}$ and the forced alignment can be cached and reused (Fig. 3). + +# 5 Experimental Setup + +For our experiments we use data from three ST datasets, MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a), mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021) and CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021) (Table 1). MuST-C and mTEDx are based on TED talks, and have sentence-level examples, which are derived from document-level ones, via manual segmentation (Fig. 2). CoVoST2 is based on the Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020) corpus and is inherently a sentence-level corpus. For our main experiments we use eight language pairs from MuST-C v1.0, which are English (En) to German (De), Spanish (Es), French (Fr), Italian (It), Dutch (Nl), Portuguese (Pt), Romanian (Ro), and Russian (Ru). We are also using En-De from v2.0 for certain ablation studies (\$A.5, A.6, A.7) and analysis + +
DatasetvLang. Pair#Docs#Sents#Hours
MuST-C1.0En-De2,093234K408
En-Es2,514266K496
En-Fr2,460275K485
En-It2,324254K457
En-NI2,219248K434
En-Pt2,001206K377
En-Ro2,166236K424
En-Ru2,448265K482
2.0En-De2,537251K450
mTEDxEs-Es988102K178
Pt-Pt81290K153
Es-En37836K64
Pt-En27931K53
Es-Fr434K6
CoVoST2En-De—231K362
+ +Table 1: Training Data Statistics + +$(\S 6.8)$ . From mTEDx we use the Es-En, Pt-En, and Es-Fr ST data, as well as the Es-Es, and Pt-Pt for the ASR pre-training, and finally the En-De data from CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021). + +For segmentation (§4.1) we are using the open-sourced pre-trained English and multilingual SHAS classifiers3. For the SHAS algorithm we set the classification threshold thr = 0.5 and for length constraints $\ell = (min, max)$ , we use four different, non-overlapping tuples of (0.4, 3), (3, 10), (10, 20) and (20, 30) seconds, resulting in short (s), medium (m), long (l), and extra-long (xl) segmentations. We use PDAC and only apply PSTRM for $xl$ , since we observed that PDAC was not able to satisfy the length conditions. For the CTC encoder used in audio alignment (§4.2), we use pre-trained WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) models4 available on HuggingFace (Wolf et al., 2020). For the MT models used in text alignment (§4.3) we trained medium-sized Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017; Ott et al., 2019) with 6 layers (§A.1.3). When training with SEGAUGMENT, we simply concatenate the four synthetic datasets $\hat{S}_s$ , $\hat{S}_m$ , $\hat{S}_l$ , $\hat{S}_{xl}$ to the original one ( $S$ ), and remove any duplicates. + +For Speech Translation we train Speech-to-Text Transformer baselines (Wang et al., 2020b). Unless stated otherwise, we use the small architecture (s2t_transformer_s) with 12 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 256, with ASR pre-training using only the original data. The full details of the models and the training proce + +
ModelEn-DeEn-EsEn-FrEn-ItEn-NlEn-PtEn-RoEn-RuAverage
Fairseq ST22.7 / —27.2 / —32.9 / —22.7 / —27.3 / —28.1 / —21.9 / —15.3 / —24.8 / —
Baseline23.2 / 50.527.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.322.9 / 50.427.3 / 53.928.7 / 54.922.2 / 49.015.3 / 40.425.0 / 51.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.0 / 52.629.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.725.6 / 52.930.3 / 57.031.8 / 57.825.0 / 51.816.8 / 42.527.4 / 54.0
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT25.5 / 52.829.5 / 56.935.8 / 60.725.7 / 52.930.0 / 56.831.6 / 57.625.0 / 52.016.7 / 42.427.5 / 54.0
+ +dures are available in §A.1.1. For inference, we average the 10 best checkpoints on the validation set and generate with a beam of 5. We evaluate with $\mathrm{BLEU}^5$ (Papineni et al., 2002) and $\mathrm{chrF2^6}$ (Popovic, 2017) using SACREBLEU (Post, 2018), and perform statistical significance testing using paired bootstrap resampling (Koehn, 2004) to ensure valid comparisons. To evaluate on an automatic segmentation (§6.5), the hypotheses are aligned to the references of the manual segmentation with MwERSEGMENTER (Matusov et al., 2005). + +# 6 Results + +# 6.1 Main Results in MuST-C + +We compare ST models trained with and without SEGAUGMENT on the eight language pairs of MuST-C v1.0, and include results from Wang et al. (2020b), which use the same model architecture. In Table 2, we observe that models leveraging SEGAUGMENT achieve significant and consistent improvements in all language pairs, thus confirming that the proposed method allows us to better utilize the available ST data. More specifically, the improvements range from 1.5 to 3.1 BLEU, with an average gain of 2.4 points. We also investigate the application of SEGAUGMENT during the ASR pre-training, which brings further gains in four language pairs, but the average improvement is only marginal over just using the original ASR data. + +# 6.2 Results with SOTA methods + +Here we study the impact of the proposed method, when combined with a strong ST model. We use a model with 24 encoder layers, 12 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 1024, where its encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and its decoder from MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020) ( $\S$ A.1.2). We fine-tune this model end-to-end + +Table 2: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with $p < 0.001$ . All models use the same architecture and results of Fairseq ST are from Wang et al. (2020b). + +
ModelEn-EsEn-Fr
Chimera (Han et al., 2021)30.6 / —35.6 / —
STEMM (Fang et al., 2022)31.0 / —37.4 / —
ConST (Ye et al., 2022)32.0 / —38.3 / —
STPT (Tang et al., 2022)33.1 / —39.7 / —
SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b)33.6 / —41.4 / —
w2v-mBART33.3 / 60.240.8 / 64.5
+ SEGAUGMENT33.7 / 60.741.5 / 65.1
+ +Table 3: $\mathrm{BLEU}(\uparrow) / \mathrm{chrF2}(\uparrow)$ scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results with SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the w2vmBART baseline model with $p < 0.001$ , apart from the BLEU score for En-Es (33.7) which is with $p < 0.005$ . + +on ST using MuST-C v1.0, with and without the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, and also provide results from other state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, such as Chimera (Han et al., 2021), STEMM (Fang et al., 2022), ConST (Ye et al., 2022), STPT (Tang et al., 2022), and SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b). As shown in Table 3, despite already having a competitive baseline (w2v-mBART), utilizing SEGAUGMENT achieves further significant improvements7, reaching SOTA performance in EnEs and En-Fr. + +# 6.3 Low-Resource Scenarios + +We explore the application of SEGAUGMENT in low-resource and non-English speech settings of mTEDx. In Table 4, we present results of the baseline with and without SEGAUGMENT for Es-En, Pt-En and the extremely low-resource pair of Es-Fr (6 hours). We furthermore provide the BLEU scores from Salesky et al. (2021), which use the extra-small model configuration (10M parameters). We use the extra-small configuration for Es-Fr, while the others use the small one (31M parameters). SEGAUGMENT provides significant improvements in all pairs, with even larger ones when it is also + +
ModelEs-EnPt-EnEs-Fr
Bilingual E2E-ST7.0 / —8.1 / —1.7 / —
Baseline15.6 / 40.515.3 / 38.62.7 / 23.4
+ SEGAUGMENT18.5 / 43.517.8 / 41.13.8 / 23.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.1 / 43.920.3 / 43.75.3 / 27.2
+ +Table 4: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on mTEDx test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with $p < 0.001$ , with the exception of chrF2 in Es-Fr (23.9) which is with $p < 0.005$ . Results of Bilingual E2E-ST are from Salesky et al. (2021). + +
ModelEn-De
Bi-AST (Wang et al., 2021)16.3 / —
STR (Lam et al., 2022b)18.8 / —
Baseline17.4 / 43.2
+ SEGAUGMENT19.0 / 44.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.3 / 45.4
+ +Table 5: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on CoVoST2 test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with $p < 0.001$ . + +utilized during the ASR pre-training, improving the BLEU scores by 2.6-5. Our results here concerning ASR pre-training are more conclusive than in MuST-C (§6.1), possibly due to the better ASR models obtained with SEGAUGMENT (§A.3). + +# 6.4 Application on Sentence-level Data + +We consider the application of the method to CoVoST, of which the data do not originate from documents. We treat the sentence-level data as "documents" and apply SEGAUGMENT as before. Due to the relatively short duration of the examples, we only apply SEGAUGMENT with short and medium configurations. In Table 5 we provide our results for En-De, with and without SEGAUGMENT, a bilingual baseline from Wang et al. (2020a), and the recently proposed Sample-Translate-Recombine (STR) augmentation method (Lam et al., 2022b), which uses the same model architecture as our experiments. Although designed for document-level data, SEGAUGMENT brings significant improvements to the baseline8, even outperforming the STR augmentation method by 0.5 BLEU points. + +# 6.5 Automatic Segmentations of the test set + +Unlike most research settings, in real-world scenarios, the manual segmentation is not typically available, and ST models must rely on automatic segmentation methods. However, evaluating on automatic segmentation is considered sub-optimal, decreasing BLEU scores by $5 - 10\%$ (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021) as compared to evaluating on the manual (gold) segmentation. + +Since the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT originate from an automatic segmentation, we expect they would be useful in bridging the training-inference segmentation mismatch (Papi et al., 2021). We evaluate our baselines with and without SEGAUGMENT on MuST-C tst-COMMON, on both the manual segmentation provided with the dataset, and an automatic one which is obtained by SHAS. In Table 6 we present results with SHAS-long, which we found to be the best. Extended results can be found in §A.4. For the purpose of this experiment, we also train another ST model with SEGAUGMENT, where we pretend a special token in each translation, indicating the dataset origin of the example9. When generating with such a model, we prompt it with the special token that corresponds to the segmentation of the test set. The results of Table 6 show that the baseline experiences a drop of 1.6 BLEU points (or $6\%$ ) on average, when evaluated on the automatic segmentation, confirming previous research (Tsiamas et al., 2022b). Applying SEGAUGMENT, validates our hypothesis, since the average increase of 3.5 BLEU $(23.4 \rightarrow 26.9)$ observed in the automatic segmentation is larger than the increase of 2.4 BLEU in the manual one $(25.0 \rightarrow 27.4)$ . Finally, using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens, enables ST models to reach an average score of 27.3 BLEU points, closing the gap with the manual segmentation (27.4), while being better10 in three language pairs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time11 that ST models can match (or surpass) the performance of the manual segmentation, demonstrating the usefulness of the proposed method in real-world scenarios. Our results also raise an interesting question, on whether we should continue to consider the manual segmentation as an upper bound of performance for our ST models. + +
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS-long
En-DeBaseline23.221.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.124.525.2
← special tok.25.125.2
En-EsBaseline27.526.1
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.329.029.4
← special tok.29.229.4
En-FrBaseline33.130.6
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.734.935.3
← special tok.35.635.3
En-ItBaseline22.921.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.624.425.1
← special tok.25.025.1
En-NlBaseline27.325.7
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.329.729.8
← special tok.29.429.8
En-PtBaseline28.726.9
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.831.431.8
← special tok.31.531.8
En-RoBaseline22.220.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.024.124.6
← special tok.24.824.6
En-RuBaseline15.314.6
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.816.817.0
← special tok.16.417.0
AverageBaseline25.023.4
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.426.927.3
← special tok.27.127.3
+ +Table 6: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON with manual and SHAS-long segmentation. The second column in Manual and SHAS-long is the best score among the three models, and with bold is the best score overall for each language pair. + +# 6.6 ST without ASR pre-training + +Following, we investigate the importance of the ASR pre-training phase, a standard practice (Wang et al., 2020b), which usually is also costly. In Table 7 we present the results of ST models on MuST-C En-Es and En-Fr trained with and without SEGAUGMENT, when skipping the ASR pretraining. We also include the results of the Revisit-ST system proposed by Zhang et al. (2022a). We find that models with SEGAUGMENT are competitive even without ASR pre-training, surpassing both the baseline with pre-training and the Revisit-ST system. In general, ASR pre-training could be skipped in favor of using SEGAUGMENT, but including both is the best choice. + +
Model#pASREn-EsEn-Fr
Baseline31M✓27.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.3
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✓29.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.7
Revisit-ST48M✗28.1 / —33.4 / —
Baseline31M✗25.3 / 52.330.1 / 55.4
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✗28.5 / 55.734.6 / 59.6
+ +Table 7: $\mathrm{BLEU}(\uparrow) / \mathrm{chrF2}(\uparrow)$ scores on MuST-C tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score among the models without ASR pre-training $(\mathbf{x})$ . Results of Revisit-ST are from Zhang et al. (2022a). $\# \mathbf{p}$ stands for number of parameters. + +![](images/9c999520ffc260bb0e81d95096920a3bacabcd5e9d16ebe9e79bbe5cae4678f8.jpg) +Figure 5: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C En-De dev during training. + +# 6.7 Training Costs + +In this section we discuss the computational costs involved with SEGAUGMENT during ST model training. We analyze the performance of models with and without SEGAUGMENT from Table 2, at different training steps in MuST-C En-De dev. In Figure 5, we observe that models with our proposed method, not only converge to a better BLEU score, but also consistently surpass the baseline during training. Thus, although utilizing the synthetic data from SEGAUGMENT would naturally result in longer training times, it is still better even when we constraint the available resources. + +# 6.8 Analysis + +Here we discuss four potential reasons behind the effectiveness of SEGAUGMENT. + +Contextual diversity. The synthetic examples are based on alternative segmentations and are thus presented within different contextual windows, as compared to the original ones (§A.8). We speculate that this aids the model to generalize more, since phrases and sub-words are seen with less or more context, that might or not be essential for + +their translation. Adding additional context that is irrelevant was previously found to be beneficial in low-resource MT, by providing negative context to the attention layers (Nguyen et al., 2021). + +Positional diversity. With SEGAUGMENT, speech and text units are presented at many more different absolute positions in the speech or target text sequences (§A.11). This is important due to the absolute positional embeddings in the Transformer, which are prone to overfitting (Sinha et al., 2022). We hypothesize that the synthetic data create a diversification effect on the position of each unit, which can be seen as a form of regularization, especially relevant for rare units. This is also supported for the simpler case of example concatenation (Nguyen et al., 2021), while in our case the diversification effect is richer due to the arbitrary document segmentation. + +Length Specialization. Synthetic datasets created by SEGAUGMENT supply an abundance of examples of extremely long and short lengths, which are relatively infrequent in the original data. This creates a specialization effect enabling ST models trained on the synthetic data to better translate sequences of extreme lengths in the test set (§A.9). + +Knowledge Distillation. As translations of the synthetic data are generated by MT models, there is an effect similar to that of Knowledge Distillation (KD) (Liu et al., 2019; Gaido et al., 2020a). To quantify this effect, we re-translate the train set of MuST-C En-De four times, with the same MT models employed in SEGAUGMENT. Subsequently, an ST model is trained with the original and re-translated data, referred to as in-data-KD, as the MT models did not leverage any external knowledge. In Table 8 we compare in-data-KD with SEGAUGMENT, and find that although in-data-KD provides an increase over the baseline, it exhibits a significant difference of 1 BLEU point with SEGAUGMENT. Our findings confirm the existence of the KD effect, but suggest that SEGAUGMENT is more general as it not only formulates different targets, but also diverse inputs (through re-segmentation), thereby amplifying the positive effects of the source-side contextual and positional diversity. In contrast, KD only provides diversity on the target-side. + +# 7 Conclusions + +We introduced SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method that generates synthetic data + +
ModelEn-De
Baseline24.3 / 51.9
Baseline + in-data-KD25.2 / 52.7
Baseline + SEGAUGMENT26.2 / 53.7
+ +Table 8: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v2.0 En-De tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results of Baseline + SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from Baseline + in-data-KD with $p < 0.001$ . + +based on alternative audio segmentations. Through extensive experimentation across multiple datasets, language pairs, and data conditions, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our method, in consistently improving translation quality by 1.5 to 5 BLEU points, and reaching state-of-the-art results when utilized by a strong ST model. Our method was also able to completely close the gap between the automatic and manual segmentations of the test set. Finally, we analyzed the reasons that contribute to our method's improved performance. Future work will investigate the extension of our method to ST for spoken-only languages and Speech-to-Speech translation, by passing the transcription stage. + +# Limitations + +General Applicability. The proposed method requires three steps: Audio Segmentation, CTC-based forced-alignment, and Machine Translation. For Audio Segmentation we used SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), which requires a classifier that is trained on manually segmented data. Although we demonstrated the method's applicability in CoV-oST En-De, which does include a manual segmentation, we used a English classifier that was trained on MuST-C En-De. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the method's effectiveness without manually segmented data for the source language. A possible alternative would be to use a classifier trained on a different source language, since Tsiamas et al. (2022b) showed that SHAS has very high zero-shot capabilities, provided the zero-shot language was also included in the pre-training set of XLS-R (Babu et al., 2021), which serves as a backbone to the classifier. Additionally, we tested our method on several languages pairs, and also on an extremely low-resource one, such as Spanish-French (Es-Fr) in mTEDx, with only 4,000 training examples. Although we showed improvement of + +$50\%$ in that particular language pair, the two languages involved, Spanish and French, are not by any means considered low-resource. Thus, we cannot be sure about the applicability of the method in truly extremely low-resource languages, such as many African and Native American languages. Furthermore, the current version of the method would not support non-written languages, since the target text is obtained by training a MT model which translated the transcription of each audio segment. + +Biases. The synthetic data is heavily based on the original data, which may result in inheriting any biases present in the original data. We did not observe any signs of this effect during our research, but we did not conduct a proper investigation to assess the degree at which the synthetic data are biased in any way. + +Computational and Memory costs. The synthetic data have to be created offline, with a pipeline that involves three different models, resulting in increased computational costs. To reduce these costs, we used pre-trained models for the Audio Segmentation and the CTC encoders, and cached the inference results to be re-used. Thus, the computational cost of creating the synthetic datasets for a given a language pair involves a single inference with the classifier and the CTC encoder, and multiple training/inference phases with MT models. This process can take around 24-36 hours to create four new synthetic datasets for pair in MuST-C, using a single GPU. We acknowledge the computational costs but believe the results justify them. The process could be made much lighter by using nonparametric algorithms in the three steps instead of supervised models, which can be investigated in future work. Finally, despite the computational costs, there is a very small memory cost involved since each synthetic dataset is basically a txt file containing the new target text and a yaml file containing the new segmentation, only requiring 100-200MB of storage. + +# Acknowledgments + +Work at UPC was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) project PID2019-107579RB-I00 / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033. + +# References + +Chantal Amrhein and Barry Haddow. 2022. Don't Discard Fixed-Window Audio Segmentation in Speech-to-Text Translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh + +Conference on Machine Translation, pages 203-219, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.] +Antonios Anastasopoulos, Loic Barrault, Luisa Bentivogli, Marcely Zanon Boito, Ondrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, Kevin Duh, Maha Elbayad, Clara Emmanuel, Yannick Esteve, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Souhir Gahbiche, Hongyu Gong, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Benjamin Hsu, David Javorsky, Vera Kloudova, Surafel Lakew, Xutai Ma, Prashant Mathur, Paul McNamee, Kenton Murray, Maria Nadejde, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Xing Niu, John Ortega, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Jiatong Shi, Matthias Sperber, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Yogesh Virkar, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. Findings of the IWSLT 2022 Evaluation Campaign. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 98-157, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.] +Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ondrej Bojar, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Maha Elbayad, Marcello Federico, Xutai Ma, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Matthew Wiesner. 2021. FINDINGS OF THE IWSLT 2021 EVALUATION CAMPAIGN. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 1-29, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.] +Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Michael Henretty, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common Voice: A Massively-Multilingual Speech Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4218-4222, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on page 5.] +Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, et al. 2021. XLS-R: Self-supervised Cross-lingual Speech Representation Learning at Scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09296. [Cited on pages 3 and 9.] +Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 12449-12460. Curran Associates, Inc. [Cited on pages 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15.] +Parnia Bahar, Albert Zeyer, Ralf Schlüter, and Hermann Ney. 2019. On Using SpecAugment for End-to-End + +Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Luisa Bentivogli, Mauro Cettolo, Marco Gaido, Alina Karakanta, Alberto Martinelli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Cascade versus Direct Speech Translation: Do the Differences Still Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2873-2887, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.] +Fabienne Braune and Alexander Fraser. 2010. Improved Unsupervised Sentence Alignment for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Parallel Corpora. In *Coling* 2010: Posters, pages 81-89, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. [Cited on pages 3 and 5.] +Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 933-941. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.] +Mattia A. Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019a. MuST-C: a Multilingual Speech Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2012-2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1, 2, and 5.] +Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Viet Nhat Nguyen, Amirhossein Tebbifakhr, and Marco Turchi. 2019b. Data Augmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation: FBK@IWSLT '19. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Chris Dyer, Victor Chahuneau, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. A Simple, Fast, and Effective Reparaterization of IBM Model 2. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 644-648, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 5.] +Qingkai Fang, Rong Ye, Lei Li, Yang Feng, and Mingxuan Wang. 2022. STEMM: Self-learning with Speech-text Manifold Mixup for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7050-7062, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] + +Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2020a. End-to-End Speech-Translation with Knowledge Distillation: FBK@IWSLT2020. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 80–88, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 9.] +Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2020b. Contextualized Translation of Automatically Segmented Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2020, pages 1471-1475. [Cited on page 2.] +Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Beyond Voice Activity Detection: Hybrid Audio Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing (ICNLSP 2021), pages 55-62, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 7.] +Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, Carlos Escolano, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2021. End-to-End Speech Translation with Pretrained Models and Adapters: UPC at IWSLT 2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 110–119, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, page 369-376, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. [Cited on page 4.] +Chi Han, Mingxuan Wang, Heng Ji, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning Shared Semantic Space for Speech-to-Text Translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2214-2225, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] +Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs). ArXiv, abs/1606.08415. [Cited on pages 14 and 15.] +Ye Jia, Melvin Johnson, Wolfgang Macherey, Ron J. Weiss, Yuan Cao, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Naveen Ari, Stella Laurenzo, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Leveraging Weakly Supervised Data to Improve End-to-end Speech-to-text Translation. In ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7180-7184. [Cited on page 2.] +J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P. E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux. + +2020. Libri-Light: A Benchmark for ASR with Limited or No Supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7669-7673. https://github.com/facebookresearch/libri-light. [Cited on page 15.] +Eugene Kharitonov, Morgane Rivière, Gabriel Synnaeve, Lior Wolf, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Matthijs Douze, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Data Augmenting Contrastive Learning of Speech Representations in the Time Domain. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 215–222. [Cited on page 2.] +Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 388-395, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] +Seiichiro Kondo, Kengo Hotate, Tosho Hirasawa, Masahiro Kaneko, and Mamoru Komachi. 2021. Sentence Concatenation Approach to Data Augmentation for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 143-149, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for Neural Text Processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 14.] +Ludwig Kürzinger, Dominik Winkelbauer, Lujun Li, Tobias Watzel, and Gerhard Rigoll. 2020. CTC-Segmentation of Large Corpora for German End-to-End Speech Recognition. In Speech and Computer, pages 267-278, Cham. Springer International Publishing. [Cited on pages 1 and 4.] +Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Rieszler. 2022a. Make More of Your Data: Minimal Effort Data Augmentation for Automatic Speech Recognition and Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15398. [Cited on page 2.] +Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Riezler. 2022b. Sample, Translate, Recombine: Leveraging Audio Alignments for Data Augmentation in End-to-end Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 245-254, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.] +Yuchen Liu, Hao Xiong, Jiajun Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Chengqing Zong. 2019. + +End-to-End Speech Translation with Knowledge Distillation. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 1128-1132. [Cited on page 9.] +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. [Cited on page 14.] +Evgeny Matusov, Gregor Leusch, Oliver Bender, and Hermann Ney. 2005. Evaluating Machine Translation Output with Automatic Sentence Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. [Cited on page 6.] +Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Interspeech. [Cited on page 3.] +Arya D. McCarthy, Liezl Puzon, and Juan Pino. 2020. SkinAugment: Auto-Encoding Speaker Conversions for Automatic Speech Translation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7924-7928. [Cited on page 2.] +Thai-Son Nguyen, Sebastian Stüker, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2020. Improving Sequence-To-Sequence Speech Recognition Training with On-The-Fly Data Augmentation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7689-7693. [Cited on page 2.] +Toan Q. Nguyen, Kenton Murray, and David Chiang. 2021. Data Augmentation by Concatenation for Low-Resource Translation: A Mystery and a Solution. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 287–293, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 9.] +Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations)*, pages 48-53, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 14.] +Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. [Cited on page 15.] +Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Dealing with training and test segmentation mismatch: FBK@IWSLT2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on + +Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 84-91, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.] +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311-318, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 6.] +Daniel S. Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D. Cubuk, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. SpecAugment: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Automatic Speech Recognition. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 2613-2617. [Cited on pages 2 and 14.] +Juan Pino, Liezl Puzon, Jiatao Gu, Xutai Ma, Arya D. McCarthy, and Deepak Gopinath. 2019. Harnessing Indirect Training Data for End-to-End Automatic Speech Translation: Tricks of the Trade. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Maja Popovic. 2017. $\mathrm{chrF}++$ : Words Helping Character n-grams. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 612–618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] +Matt Post. 2018. A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] +Tomasz Potapczyk and Pawel Przybysz. 2020. SR-POL's System for the IWSLT 2020 End-to-End Speech Translation Task. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 89-94, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 3.] +Elizabeth Salesky, Matthew Wiesner, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Matteo Negri, Marco Turchi, Douglas W. Oard, and Matt Post. 2021. The Multilingual TEDx Corpus for Speech Recognition and Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 3655-3659. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.] +Koustuv Sinha, Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Siva Reddy, Joelle Pineau, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Adina Williams. 2022. The Curious Case of Absolute Position Embeddings. [Cited on page 9.] +Matthias Sperber and Matthias Paulik. 2020. Speech Translation and the End-to-End Promise: Taking Stock of Where We Are. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7409-7421, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.] + +Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, and Juan Pino. 2022. Unified Speech-Text Pre-training for Speech Translation and Recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1488–1499, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] +Yuqing Tang, Chau Tran, Xian Li, Peng-Jen Chen, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Jiatao Gu, and Angela Fan. 2020. Multilingual Translation with Extensible Multilingual Pretraining and Finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00401. [Cited on pages 2, 6, and 15.] +Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, Carlos Escolano, José Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022a. Pretrained Speech Encoders and Efficient Finetuning Methods for Speech Translation: UPC at IWSLT 2022. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 265-276, Dublin, Ireland (in person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 15.] +Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022b. SHAS: Approaching Optimal Segmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2022, pages 106-110. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9.] +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All You Need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. [Cited on pages 1, 3, and 5.] +Elena Voita, Pavel Serdyukov, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2018. Context-Aware Neural Machine Translation Learns Anaphora Resolution. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1264-1274, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 17.] +Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Anne Wu, and Jiatao Gu. 2020a. CoVoST: A Diverse Multilingual Speech-To-Text Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4197-4203, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on pages 1 and 7.] +Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Pino. 2020b. Fairseq S2T: Fast Speech-to-Text Modeling with Fairseq. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference + +on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 33-39, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5, 6, 8, and 14.] +Changhan Wang, Anne Wu, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. CoVoST 2 and Massively Multilingual Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 2247-2251. [Cited on pages 2, 5, and 7.] +Ron J. Weiss, Jan Chorowski, Navdeep Jaitly, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-Sequence Models Can Directly Translate Foreign Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 2625–2629. [Cited on page 1.] +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 5.] +Xueqing Wu, Yingce Xia, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Shufang Xie, Yang Fan, and Tao Qin. 2021. mixSeq: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 192-197, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020a. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.] +Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020b. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 15.] +Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2022. Cross-modal Contrastive Learning for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5099-5113, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] +Biao Zhang, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2022a. Revisiting End-to-End Speech-to-Text Translation From Scratch. In International Conference on Machine Learning. [Cited on page 8.] + +Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2021a. Beyond Sentence-Level End-to-End Speech Translation: Context Helps. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2566–2578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.] +Shuong Zhang, Erfan Loweimi, Peter Bell, and Steve Renals. 2021b. On The Usefulness of Self-Attention for Automatic Speech Recognition with Transformers. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 89–96. [Cited on page 17.] +Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Junyi Ao, Shujie Liu, Lirong Dai, Jinyu Li, and Furu Wei. 2022b. SpeechUT: Bridging Speech and Text with Hidden-Unit for Encoder-Decoder Based Speech-Text Pretraining. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1663–1676, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.] + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Hyperparameters and Training details + +# A.1.1 Speech-to-Text Transformer models + +For all experiments, apart from §6.2 and from those in mTEDx Es-Fr, we use $s2t\_transformer\_s$ models implemented in FAIRSEQ (Ott et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020b). They have 12 encoder layers, 6 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feedforward dimension of 2048, and 4 heads in the multi-head attention, with 31M parameters in total. We use GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) and pre-layernorm (Xiong et al., 2020a). The input is 80-dimensional log-Mel spectrograms, which are processed by a 2-layer convolutional network with 1024 inner channels, output dimension of 256, stride of 2, kernel size of 5, and GLU activations (Dauphin et al., 2017). We do not scale up the output of the convolutional network. The target vocabularies are learned with SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) and have a size of 8,000. We train with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a learning rate of 0.002, a warm-up of 5,000 steps, and an inverse square root scheduler. We use a gradient accumulation of 6, making the effective batch size equal to 320 thousand tokens, apply SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), and set the dropout to 0.1, applied to attention, activation, and output. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.1. We stop the training when the validation loss does not decrease + +for 10 epochs, and average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU. + +The encoders of the ST models are pre-trained on the task of ASR using the same architecture. The only difference is the vocabulary size which is 5,000 and the learning rate which is 0.001. For the models trained without ASR pre-training (§7) we also used a learning rate of 0.001. For MuST-C, we pre-train using the ASR data of En-De, for mTEDx we use the Es-Es and Pt-Pt accordingly, and finally for CoVoST the ASR data of En-De. + +For mTEDx Es-Fr we use an extra-small architecture (s2t_transformer_xs). It has 6 encoder layers and 3 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feed-forward dimension of 1024, 4 heads in the multi-head attention, and a vocabulary size of 3,000, having a total of 10M parameters. The learning rate is set to 0.001 (warm-up of 500), the batch size to 180 thousand tokens, and use a dropout of 0.2. We also share the weights of the embedding layer and output projection in the decoder. The same model is pre-trained on ASR, but with a dropout of 0.1. All other hyperparameters are the same as for the small models described before. + +All our experiments were run on a cluster with 8 NVIDIA GeForce rtx 2080 ti. The running times of each experiment on a single GPU ranged from 12 to 36 hours. + +# A.1.2 w2v-mBART models + +For the experiments of §6.2, we use a strong baseline utilizing pre-trained models and a length adaptor (Tsiamas et al., 2022a). The encoder is composed of a 7-layer convolutional feature extractor and 24-layer Transformer encoder, while the decoder has 12 layers, and a vocabulary of size 250k, with 770M parameters in total. All the layers have an embedding dimensionality of 1024, a feedforward dimensionality of 4098, GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016), 16 attention heads, and pre-layer normalization configuration (Xiong et al., 2020b). A strided 1d convolutional layer sub-samples the output of the encoder by 2 times. The encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC $2.0^{12}$ (Baevski et al., 2020), which is pretrained with 60k hours of non-transcribed speech from LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020), and fine-tuned for ASR with 960 hours of labeled data from Librispeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). The decoder is initialized from MBART50 $^{13}$ (Tang et al., 2020), which + +is fine-tuned En-Xx multilingual machine translation. We fine-tune all the parameters of the model, apart from the feature extractor of the encoder and the embedding layer in the decoder. The inputs to the model are raw waveforms sampled at $16\mathrm{kHz}$ , which are normalized to zero mean and unit variance. We train with AdamW using a base learning rate of 0.0005, with a warm-up for 2,000 steps and an inverse square root scheduler. In the encoder we use 0.1 activation dropout, time masking with probability of 0.2 and channel masking with probability of 0.1 (Baevski et al., 2020). In the decoder we use a dropout of 0.3, and attention dropout of 0.1 (Tang et al., 2020). All other dropouts are not active. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.2. We use gradient accumulation to have an effective batch size of 32M tokens, evaluate every 250 steps, and stop the training when the performance on the validation set does not improve for 20 evaluations. We average the 10 best checkpoints according to the validation BLEU, and generate with a beam search of 5. + +# A.1.3 Machine Translation models + +For the MT models used for text alignment in SEGAUGMENT (§4.3), we used medium-sized Transformers, with 6 encoder and decoder layers, dimensionality of 512, feed-forward dimension of 2048, and 8 heads in the multi-head attention. We train with AdamW using a learning rate of 0.002, with a warm-up for the first 2,500 updates, and the batch size is set to 14 thousand tokens. The vocabulary size is 8,000, and for regularization, we use a small dropout of 0.1 only at the outputs of each layer and label smoothing of 0.1. We stop training when the document-level BLEU does not increase for 20 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to the same metric, and then generate with a beam of size 8. + +For the MT models used in the experiments of $\S A.6$ , we use a small architecture with 6 encoder and decoder layers, with dimensionality of 256, feed-forward dimension of 1024, and 4 heads. We share the weights of the embedding and output projection in the decoder and use a dropout of 0.1 (applied to attention, activation, and output). We stop training when the validation loss does not decrease for 10 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU, and generate with a beam of size 5. + +# A.2 CTC-based Forced Alignment Algorithm + +Here we provide the algorithm used for audio-text alignment with SEGAUGMENT (§4.2). The complete process for the $i$ -th document is summarized in Algorithm 1, where we omit the $i$ index for ease of representation. + +Algorithm 1: CTC-based Forced Alignment +input :x % List[1d Tensor] +input :z % List:String] +input :hat % List[Tuple[Float, Float]] +output: $\hat{z}$ % List:String] +1 u $\leftarrow$ E(x) +2 z $\leftarrow$ CLEAN(z) +3 chars $\leftarrow$ FORCED Alignment(z,u) +4 words $\leftarrow$ JOIN_CHARS(chars) +5 words $\leftarrow$ REVERSE Cleaner(words) +6 for $j\gets 1$ to len(b) do +7 $\begin{array}{r}\hat{z}^j\gets \mathrm{JOIN\_WORDS}(\hat{b}^j,\mathrm{words})\\ \hat{z}^j\gets \mathrm{POST\_EDIT}(\hat{z}^j) \end{array}$ +9 return $\hat{z}$ + +# A.3 Results of ASR pre-training + +In Table 9 we present the results of the ASR pretraining, where we observe that by including data from SEGAUGMENT, all ASR models perform better in terms of WER. This indicates that the proposed methods is also useful for ASR augmentations, probably due to the source-side contextual and positional diversity (§6.8). + +
ModelMuST-CmTEDxCoVoST
En-DeEs-Es (xs)Pt-PtEn-De
Baseline11.118 (19.7)28.326.6
+ SEGAUGMENT10.416.6 (18.1)23.823.8
+ +# A.4 Extended Results on Automatic Segmentation of MuST-C + +In Table 10 we provide an extended version of Table 6, where we evaluate the models on all four SHAS segmentations of the test set. Regarding the choice of automatic segmentation, we find that the long segmentation is the best when using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens (27.3 BLEU), long and extra-long are equally good without special tokens (26.9 BLEU) and the medium segmentation is best without SEGAUGMENT (23.7 BLEU). Using the special tokens reduces the performance on the manual segmentation by 0.3 BLEU $(27.4\rightarrow 27.1)$ but + +Table 9: $\mathrm{{WER}}\left( \downarrow \right)$ scores for ASR models. xs indicates the extra-small models pre-trained for mTEDx Es-Fr. + +
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS
—BestsmlxlBest
En-DeBaseline23.220.621.721.220.225.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.123.124.324.524.7
← special tok.25.123.124.525.225.1
En-EsBaseline27.525.026.426.124.829.4
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.327.328.729.028.9
← special tok.29.226.628.629.429.1
En-FrBaseline33.130.031.030.629.035.3
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.732.334.134.934.8
← special tok.35.631.433.835.335.1
En-ItBaseline22.920.021.621.520.325.1
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.622.724.224.424.8
← special tok.25.022.324.325.124.5
En-NIBaseline27.324.926.525.724.329.8
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.327.529.229.729.7
← special tok.29.426.926.929.829.3
En-PtBaseline28.725.827.126.925.431.8
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.829.230.731.431.1
← special tok.31.528.830.831.831.3
En-RoBaseline22.219.920.820.518.724.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.022.523.424.124.3
← special tok.24.822.624.124.624.0
En-RuBaseline15.313.414.714.613.817.0
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.815.016.416.816.7
← special tok.16.414.916.417.016.8
AvgBaseline25.022.423.723.422.127.3
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.424.926.426.926.9
← special tok.27.124.626.227.326.9
+ +Table 10: BLEU(↑) scores on manual- and SHAS-segmented MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. + +increases it in the SHAS-long segmentation by 0.4 BLEU $(26.9\rightarrow 27.3)$ , thus bridging the gap with the manual segmentation. + +# A.5 Results with different SEGAUGMENT combinations + +We perform ablations by training ST models on different combinations of the original and the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, using MuST-C v2.0 En-De. In Table 11, row 1 is essentially the baseline and row 17 is the baseline + SEGAUGMENT. Firstly, we notice that although training single synthetic datasets, but without the original one (rows 2-5) is inferior, the drop is relatively small, considering the absence of the original data. When training with all of them (row 6) actually surpasses the baseline by 1.1 BLEU, without even using the original data. This showcases that SEGAUGMENT is generating high quality data, and even by themselves can produce very good ST models. Secondly, the results show that the more synthetic datasets we use, the better the performance, and that no combination is better than simply using all of them (row 17). We also find that when using 1 or 2 synthetic datasets, the combinations involving longer segmentations (rows 8, 9, 10 and 13, 14) tend to perform better than those involving shorter segmen + +
Original DataSEGAUGMENTBLEU
smlxl
(1)✓24.3
(2)✓22.6
(3)✓23.4
(4)✓22.4
(5)✓22.7
(6)✓✓✓✓25.4
(7)✓✓24.8
(8)✓✓25.1
(9)✓✓25.1
(10)✓✓25.1
(11)✓✓✓25.6
(12)✓✓✓25.6
(13)✓✓✓25.8
(14)✓✓✓25.8
(15)✓✓✓✓26.0
(16)✓✓✓✓26.0
(17)✓✓✓✓✓26.2
+ +tations (rows 7 and 11, 12), while for combinations of 3 synthetic (rows 15, 16), we do not observe any differences. + +# A.6 Results on ASR and MT + +We investigate the impact of the synthetic data when training ASR and MT models. For this experiments we are using the ASR data and bitext from MuST-C v2.0 En-De. The results of Table 12 show that the synthetic data are in general useful, with a 0.7 reduction in WER and a 1.1 increase in BLEU (row 6). This indicates that the improvements in ST are stemming from both the source side (speech, ASR) and the target side (text, MT). We furthermore notice that longer synthetic examples are better for MT, similar to ST in Table 2, while shorter ones are better for ASR. We hypothesize that this is a consequence of the significance of long context for each task; ASR models tend to use local context (Zhang et al., 2021b), while MT models oftentimes have to use long context, as in pronoun resolution (Voita et al., 2018). + +Table 11: BLEU(↑) scores on tst-COMMON MuST-C v2.0 En-De for models trained with different combinations of the original and the synthetic data. + +
Original DataSEGAUGMENTWER(↓)BLEU(↑)
smlxl
(1)✓11.131.0
(2)✓✓10.231.3
(3)✓✓10.331.6
(4)✓✓11.031.7
(5)✓10.931.7
(6)✓✓✓✓10.432.1
+ +Table 12:WER scores for ASR models and BLEU scores for MT models in MuST-C v2.0 En-Det tst- COMMON. + +# A.7 Results of MT models used in SEGAUGMENT + +In table 13 we present results for the MT models trained to generate the new translation for the alternative data of SEGAUGMENT for MuST-C v2.0 En-De. For each parameterization $\ell = (min, max)$ of the segmentation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ , we train specialized model $\mathcal{M}_{\ell}$ , as described in §4.3. We evaluate on the original training and development sets from $S$ , as well as on the synthetic training set $(\hat{S}_{\ell})$ , which basically indicates the quality of the target text in the synthetic data. We present both sentence-and document-level BLEU scores for the original data, and only document-level scores for the synthetic ones (since no sentence-level references are available). We notice that MT models obtain very high scores in the original train set, as compared to the development set, indicating that the model has indeed overfitted. In any other case that would be very bad news, but here we willingly overfit the model as our goal is to learn the training set text alignment, and not having a good and generalizable MT model. By looking at the document-level BLEU on the synthetic training set, we can confirm that the MT models have indeed accurately learned the alignments and thus have generated high-quality translation, that can be utilized during ST training. + +# A.8 Contextual Windows of SEGAUGMENT Data + +We can categorize the new context of the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT in four types, depending on the type of overlap between the segmentation boundaries $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ for each document: (1) isolated, when being a subset of an original one, (2) expanded, when being a superset of an original one, (3): mixed, when overlapping with an original one, (4): equal, when being in exactly the same + +
MT model MlOriginal trainOriginal developmentSynthetic train (Sl)
BLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEU
s95.179.224.526.2-68.3
m90.074.426.027.5-70.4
l72.961.325.527.0-64.6
xl59.651.825.927.4-56.8
+ +context as an original one. In Table 14 we apply this categorization for MuST-C v2.0 En-De, and observe that indeed most of the alternative examples form SEGAUGMENT are presented in a new context, with only a small percentage being equal, which we discard when concatenating the datasets for training. + +Table 13: MT models trained for generating the target text of SEGAUGMENT data. BLEU scores for MuST-C v2.0 En-De training and development set, and synthetic training set. BLEU scores are calculated both at sentence- and document-level. + +
SEGAUGMENTExpandedIsolatedMixedEqual
s12.3%56.9%22.3%8.5%
m31.1%33.3%24.3%11.3%
l63.2%7.9%24.6%4.2%
xl55.7%1.2%43.0%0.1%
28.3%38.7%25.0%8.0%
+ +Table 14: Percentage of examples (rows) for each type of contextual overlap (columns) in the alternative datasets $\hat{S}_{\ell}$ compared to the manual one $S$ for MuST-C v2.0 En-De. + +# A.9 Results on duration buckets + +In Figure 6 we present evidence for the length specialization effect (§6.8). We construct two extreme-length buckets in MuST-C tst-COMMON; the first bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second and the second one all those with duration larger than 20 seconds. Then we measure the performance of 5 different types of ST model in the two buckets, which are using the data configurations of rows 1-5 of Table 11. Performance is measured by average BLEU across all eight language pairs of MuST-C. We notice that indeed, models trained with shorter synthetic data $(\hat{S}_s,\hat{S}_m)$ are better at translating the test set bucket with the very short examples, while those trained with longer synthetic data $(\hat{S}_l,\hat{S}_{xl})$ are better at translating the bucket with the very long ones. + +![](images/74d67320de1b86c843253255934c81f7a2f25dea422de1d7f430987622a28a2d.jpg) +Figure 6: BLEU in two duration buckets of MuST-C tst-COMMON of models trained with the four different synthetic datasets and with only the original data. The legend indicates on which data each models is trained on. The left bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second, and the right contains all those with duration longer than 20 seconds. BLEU is the average of all eight language pairs in MuST-C. + +# A.10 SEGAUGMENT Data Statistics + +In Table 15 we present the number of examples created with SEGAUGMENT for all the language pairs used in this research. We only consider examples longer than 0.4 seconds and shorter than 30 seconds. Differences across the MuST-C v1.0 datasets created with the short condition are due to empty segments which were removed. Following, in Table 16 we are presenting the average duration of each example in each created dataset. The average is around 3.8 seconds for short-segmented datasets, and around 24 seconds for the extra-long ones. In both tables, differences in CoVoST are due to the fact that we prioritize more the length conditions $\ell = (min, max)$ in the segmentation algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ ( $\S 4.1$ ), while the other datasets are prioritizing the classification condition thr. We did this change in order to make sure that the CoVoST data are segmented in a different way, than in the + +
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxlConcat
MuST-Cv1.0En-De225K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Es260K430K253K120K76K879K
En-Fr269K421K253K120K76K871K
En-It248K399K253K120K76K848K
En-NI244K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Pt201K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ro231K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ru260K419K253K120K76K868K
v2.0En-De249K401K231K109K70K812K
mTEDxEs-Es101k150K88K43K27K308K
Pt-Pt90K136K78K37K24K274K
Es-En36K53K32K15K10K110K
Pt-En30K47K27K13K8K94K
Es-Fr3.5K5.5K3K1.5K1K11K
CoVoST2En-De231K504K255K00759K
+ +manual segmentation. Due to this they might not always resemble proper sentences, but at least they are diverse enough to be useful during training. + +Table 15: Number of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes. + +
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxl
MuST-Cv1.0En-De6.273.836.8715.2123.96
En-Es6.633.846.8715.2123.96
En-Fr6.283.846.8715.2123.96
En-It6.413.836.8715.2123.96
En-Nl6.233.846.8715.2123.96
En-Pt6.503.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ro6.373.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ru6.473.836.8715.2123.96
v2.0En-De6.273.756.8315.1623.94
mTEDxEs-Es5.903.796.9115.2423.86
Pt-Pt5.813.716.8615.1724.03
Es-En6.063.876.9115.2723.78
Pt-En5.863.686.8315.1624.02
Es-Fr6.083.806.8915.1023.84
CoVoST2En-De5.611.823.68——
+ +Table 16: Average duration (in seconds) of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes. + +# A.11 Sub-word Positional Frequency + +In Figure 7 we present examples of semi-rare subwords in the target languages in MuST-C v2.0 EnDe training set. We are counting their frequency in terms of absolute position in the examples they appear in. We can observe that when using SEGAUGMENT, the positional frequency of this sub-words is much more diverse, covering more space in the possible positions in the target sequence. We hy + +pothesize that this effect could be regularizing the model, aiding in each generalization of this subwords in different positions (§6.8). + +![](images/dde8b36e36376e59cdf7d72fe2c17f8001970d71cdbc5dfcf56b7c3c7be3665d.jpg) + +![](images/e06ea913562fa6eb1f41279ee6ad663ca9608ff4215f7570936802a229f99f92.jpg) + +![](images/807e567f11d362dd23e9d21432c9e9c0414c0ab24793b52551542af890cbeee6.jpg) +Figure 7: Positional frequency of semi-rare sub-words in the original data with and without SEGAUGMENT in MuST-C v2.0 En-De training set. + +![](images/13f09964a3e30697109e164fc34f648cfb4ef487b88f3e5d482f46435ae19f5e.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/images.zip b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f379bc0a70e180cffcd00d1ae0e620e3426c9ee --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9a33774cac61490b258350269b67024d6f9006946dd490e2bf688f516c7d9ef6 +size 895433 diff --git a/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/layout.json b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6e900f2f96cf79d1da52c5bd422792143da14d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SegAugment_ Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,13981 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 75, + 518, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 75, + 518, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 75, + 518, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SEGAUGMENT: Maximizing the Utility of Speech Translation Data with Segmentation-based Augmentations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 131, + 330, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 131, + 330, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 131, + 330, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ioannis Tsiamas and José A. R. Fonollosa \nUniversitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Barcelona" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 161, + 306, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 161, + 306, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 161, + 306, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ioannis.tsiamas,jose.fonollosa}@upc.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 131, + 482, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 131, + 482, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 131, + 482, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marta R. Costa-jussa \nFAIR Meta, Paris" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 161, + 471, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 161, + 471, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 161, + 471, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "costajussa@meta.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "End-to-end Speech Translation is hindered by a lack of available data resources. While most of them are based on documents, a sentence-level version is available, which is however single and static, potentially impeding the usefulness of the data. We propose a new data augmentation strategy, SEGAUGMENT, to address this issue by generating multiple alternative sentence-level versions of a dataset. Our method utilizes an Audio Segmentation system, which re-segments the speech of each document with different length constraints, after which we obtain the target text via alignment methods. Experiments demonstrate consistent gains across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with an average increase of 2.5 BLEU points, and up to 5 BLEU for low-resource scenarios in mTEDx. Furthermore, when combined with a strong system, SEGAUGMENT obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C. Finally, we show that the proposed method can also successfully augment sentence-level datasets, and that it enables Speech Translation models to close the gap between the manual and automatic segmentation at inference time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 154, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 154, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 548, + 154, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The conventional approach for Speech Translation (ST) involves cascading two separate systems: an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model followed by a Machine Translation (MT) model. However, recent advances in deep learning (Vaswani et al., 2017), coupled with an increased availability of ST corpora (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2020a) have enabled the use of end-to-end models (Weiss et al., 2017). Although end-to-end models can address several shortcomings of cascaded models, such as slow inference times, error propagation, and information loss, they are limited by a data bottleneck (Sperber and Paulik, 2020). This bottleneck arises from the inability of end-to-end models to directly leverage data from the more" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 210, + 525, + 360 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 210, + 525, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 210, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 210, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bfb9d920c02c334b80fdb23fa061b66b481998123d631827ff695c15613b6f6b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 368, + 518, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 368, + 518, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 368, + 518, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Data Augmentation with SEGAUGMENT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "resourceful tasks of ASR and MT, which restricts them from consistently matching the performance of the cascaded models (Bentivogli et al., 2021; Anastasopoulos et al., 2022, 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The majority of ST corpora are based on document-level speech data, such as MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a) and mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021), which are derived from TED talks, with duration times of 10 to 20 minutes. These document-based data are processed into shorter, sentence-level examples through a process called manual segmentation, which relies on grammatical features in the text. Still, this sentence-level version is single and static and is potentially limiting the utility of the already scarce ST datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address this limitation, we propose SEGAUGMENT, a segmentation-based data augmentation method that generates multiple alternative sentence-level versions of document-level speech data (Fig 1). SEGAUGMENT employs SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), an Audio Segmentation method that we tune to yield different re-segmentations of a speech document based on duration constraints. For each new segmentation of a document, the corresponding transcript is retrieved via CTC-based forced alignment (Kurzinger et al., 2020), and the target text is obtained with an MT model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8569" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8569-8588" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 226, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 226, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 226, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 95, + 289, + 354 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 95, + 289, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 95, + 289, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 95, + 289, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We present SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method for Speech Translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 123, + 289, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 123, + 289, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 123, + 289, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We demonstrate its effectiveness across eight language pairs in MuST-C, with average gains of 2.5 BLEU points and on three low-resource pairs in mTEDx, with gains up to 5 BLEU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 179, + 289, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 179, + 289, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 179, + 289, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- When utilized with a strong baseline that combines WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020), it obtains state-of-the-art results in MuST-C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 232, + 289, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 232, + 289, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 232, + 289, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We also show its applicability to data not based on documents, providing an increase of 1.9 BLEU in CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SEGAUGMENT also enables ST models to close the gap between the manual and automatic test set segmentations at inference time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 315, + 289, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 315, + 289, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 315, + 289, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Finally, along with our code, we open source all the synthetic data that were created with the proposed method1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 184, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 184, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 184, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Relevant Research" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 291, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 291, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 291, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), which directly modifies the speech features by wrapping or masking them, is a standard approach for data augmentation in speech tasks including ST (Bahar et al., 2019; Di Gangi et al., 2019b). WavAugment (Kharitonov et al., 2021) is a similar technique that modifies the speech wave by introducing effects such as pitch, tempo and echo (Gálego et al., 2021). Instead of altering the speech input, our proposed method generates more synthetic data by altering their points of segmentation, and thus is complimentary to techniques such as SpecAugment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An effective way to address data scarcity in ST is by generating synthetic data from external sources. This can be achieved by using an MT model to translate the transcript of an ASR dataset or a Text-to-Speech (TTS) model to generate speech for the source text of an MT dataset (Jia et al., 2019; Pino et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020). In contrast, SEGAUGMENT generates synthetic data internally, without relying on external datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous research has established the benefits of generating synthetic examples by cropping or merging the original ones, with sub-sequence sampling for ASR (Nguyen et al., 2020), and concatenation for MT (Nguyen et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Kondo et al., 2021), as well as for ASR and ST" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Lam et al., 2022a). Our approach, however, segments documents at arbitrary points, thus providing access to a greater number of synthetic examples. An alternative approach by Lam et al. (2022b) involves recombining training data in a linguistically-motivated way, by sampling pivot tokens, retrieving possible continuations from a suffix memory, combining them to obtain new speech-transcription pairs, and finally using an MT model to generate the translations. Our method is similar since it also leverages audio alignments and MT, but instead of mixing speech, it segments at alternative points." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 526, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 526, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 234, + 526, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context-aware ST models have been shown to be robust towards error-prone automatic segmentations of the test set at inference time (Zhang et al., 2021a). Our method bears similarities with Gaido et al. (2020b); Papi et al. (2021) in that it re-segments the train set to create synthetic data. However, unlike their approach, where they split at random words in the transcript, we use a specialized Audio Segmentation method (Tsiamas et al., 2022b) to directly split the audio into segments resembling proper sentences. Furthermore, instead of using word alignment algorithms to get the target text (Dyer et al., 2013), we learn the alignment with an MT model. We thus create high-quality data that can be generally useful, and not only for error-prone test set segmentations. Finally, recent work has demonstrated that context-aware ST models evaluated on fixed-length automatic segmentations can be competitive compared to the manual segmentation (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022). Here, we find that utilizing data from SEGAUGMENT yields high translation quality for ST models evaluated on automatic segmentations, even surpassing the translation quality of the manual segmentation, and without explicitly making them context-aware." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 387, + 597 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 387, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 387, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 513, + 619 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 513, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 513, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 ST Corpora and Manual Segmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A document-level speech translation corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Di Gangi et al., 2019a; Salesky et al., 2021) is comprised of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " triplets that represent the speech wave " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the transcription " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{Z}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the translation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{Y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 524, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of each document." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 717, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 717, + 525, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 717, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {D} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {Z} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {Y} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "f69c100b14f4b1eadd57a20a8df0ffd678f9fb87a115fa1f77d557e74c1b2017.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order for the data to be useful for traditional sentence-level ST, the document-level corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 205, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 205, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 205, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 205, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " github.com/mt-upc/SegAugment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8570" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "83fc4097c165317970298cf8389aa6cf83a0e17eed92a1af1f81e044da70a732.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Manual Segmentation of an example " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from a document-level corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples of a sentence-level corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is processed to a sentence-level corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m = \\sum_{i}^{n} m_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 291, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 291, + 289, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 291, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {S} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {x} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {z} ^ {i}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\\\ = \\left\\{\\left\\{\\left(\\boldsymbol {x} ^ {i, j}, \\boldsymbol {z} ^ {i, j}, \\boldsymbol {y} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}} \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {2} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "0da2d05baec4f27da1c0a3cce947c56fe024e51f74d2a3c372389fae1db984e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}^i = (\\pmb{x}^{i,1},\\dots,\\pmb{x}^{i,m_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the sentence-level speech waves for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th document, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}^i = (z^{i,1},\\dots,z^{i,m_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the sentence-level transcriptions, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}^i = (\\mathbf{y}^{i,1},\\dots,\\mathbf{y}^{i,m_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the sentence-level translations. Usually, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is obtained by a process of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), where the document-level transcription and translation are split on strong punctuation, and then aligned with cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010). Finally, the corresponding sentence-level speech waves are obtained by audio-text alignment (McAuliffe et al., 2017). Since speech is continuous, instead of defining the sentence-level speech wave " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}^{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it is common to define the start and end points " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s^{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^{i,j} \\in \\mathbb{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that correspond to the document speech " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 342, + 291, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be re-defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 578, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 578, + 290, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 578, + 290, + 602 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {S} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\left\\{\\left(b ^ {i, j}, z ^ {i, j}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {m _ {i}}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "1817a617eb1fe1e3690607153acdf939585020384bc398b4b2b00a3bb3097f0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}^i = (b^{i,1},\\dots,b^{i,m_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the segmentation for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th speech wave, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b^{i,j} = (s^{i,j},e^{i,j})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a tuple of the segment boundaries for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th segment, for which " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}^{i,j} = \\pmb{\\chi}_{s^{i,j}:e^{i,j}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that oftentimes there is a gap between consecutive segments " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e^{i,j},s^{i,j + 1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " due to silent periods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 242, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 242, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 242, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Audio Segmentation and SHAS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In end-to-end ST, Audio Segmentation methods aim to find a segmentation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for a speech document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", without making use of its transcription. They are crucial in real world scenarios, when a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "test set segmentation is not available, and an automatic one has to be inferred, as simulated by recent IWSLT evaluations (Anastasopoulos et al., 2021, 2022). They usually rely on acoustic features (pause-based), length criteria (length-based), or a combination of both (hybrid). One such hybrid approach is SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b,a), which uses a supervised classification model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a hybrid segmentation algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a Transformer encoder (Vaswani et al., 2017) with a frozen WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020; Babu et al., 2021) as a backbone. It is trained on the speech documents and segment boundaries of a manually-segmented speech corpus, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{\\mathrm{SGM}} = \\{(X^i, b^i)\\}_{i=1}^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", by predicting whether an audio frame belongs to any of the manually-segmented examples. At inference time, a sequence of binary probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is obtained by applying the classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (eq. 4). Following, parameterized with thr to control the classification threshold, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell = (\\min, \\max)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to control the length of the resulting segments, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " produces the automatic segmentation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " according to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (eq. 5). There are two possible choices for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The Divide-and-Conquer (PDAC) approach progressively splits the audio at the point " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\kappa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of lowest probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{\\kappa}' > thr" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", until all resulting segments are within " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Potapczyk and Przybysz, 2020). Alternatively, the Streaming (PSTRM) approach takes streams of length max and splits them at the point " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\kappa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{\\kappa}' > thr" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or uses the whole stream if no such point exists (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 538, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 538, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 538, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {p} ^ {\\prime} = \\mathcal {C} (\\mathbf {X} ^ {\\prime}) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "c1457e1b5c925cc60ca21ccd1d414ff8264ab7fd0d68fca4effd8bdcf95a4db5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 555, + 524, + 569 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 555, + 524, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 555, + 524, + 569 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {b} ^ {\\prime} = \\mathcal {A} \\left(\\mathbf {p} ^ {\\prime}; \\text {m i n}, \\text {m a x}, \\text {t h r}\\right) \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "2f942f3b5a760f6f0877586945f824bbe73f213eb9be59f68b285f8a0a095ed1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 442, + 591 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 442, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 442, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Proposed Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed data augmentation method SEGAUGMENT (Fig. 3) aims to increase the utility of the training data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", by generating synthetic sentence-level corpora " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which are based on alternative segmentations of the speech documents in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (eq. 1). Whereas the manual segmentation (Fig. 2) relies on grammatical features in the text, here we propose to split on acoustic features present in the audio, by utilizing SHAS (§3.2). For the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th speech document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", SEGAUGMENT creates alternative segmentation boundaries " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with SHAS (§4.1), obtains the corresponding transcriptions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via CTC-based forced alignment (§4.2), and finally," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8571" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 286, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 286, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 286, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 286, + 290 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e4f84f970185c2316360376b7323e4a3da31dd3e69381b7fca8780dc9d523901.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The SEGAUGMENT methodology. Given the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th document-level example of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sentence-level examples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it creates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " synthetic sentence-level examples by alternative segmentations with SHAS. Changing the segmentation parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " results in several different synthetic corpora " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "generates the translations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with an MT model (§4.3). By repeating this process with different parameterizations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the segmentation algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", multiple synthetic sentence-level speech corpora can be generated (§4.4). A synthetic speech corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = \\sum_{i}^{n}k_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples can be defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 496, + 289, + 544 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 496, + 289, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 496, + 289, + 544 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\mathcal {S}} _ {\\ell} = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {b}} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {z}} ^ {i}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} ^ {i}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\\\ = \\left\\{\\left(\\mathbf {X} ^ {i}, \\left\\{\\left(\\hat {b} ^ {i, j}, \\hat {\\mathbf {z}} ^ {i, j}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} ^ {i, j}\\right) \\right\\} _ {j = 1} ^ {k _ {i}}\\right) \\right\\} _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\tag {6} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "3ee8c4e2a554d15e1251785507304e811132d71e277b58bb5efe0cdd198b54ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the original speech for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th document (eq. 1), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i = (\\hat{b}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{b}^{i,k_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are its alternative segmentations, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i = (\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,k_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are its sentence-level transcriptions, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i = (\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^{i,1},\\dots,\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^{i,k_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are its synthetic sentence-level translations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In total, three different models are utilized for creating a synthetic corpus, a classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (§3.2) for segmentation, a CTC encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Graves et al., 2006) for forced alignment, and an MT model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for text alignment. We can use pre-trained models, or optionally learn them from the manually segmented examples of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Fig. 4). The classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be learned from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{\\mathrm{SGM}} = \\{(\\mathbf{X}^i,\\mathbf{b}^i)\\}_{i = 1}^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{\\mathrm{ASR}} = \\{(x^{i},z^{i})\\}_{i = 1}^{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{\\mathrm{MT}} = \\{(z^{i},y^{i})\\}_{i = 1}^{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, we describe in detail the proposed method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f2ed88f5f299c5a92bbec36675656666c0a793dde767589718db8d7c098d46c6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 190, + 485, + 202 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 190, + 485, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 190, + 485, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Optional Model Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 395, + 243 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 395, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 395, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Segmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We follow the process described for SHAS (§3.2) and obtain the alternative segmentations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the training corpus, by doing inference with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and applying the segmentation algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In contrast to its original use, we use arbitrary values for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "min" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to have more control over the length ranges of the segments and prioritize the classification threshold requirements " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "thr" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over the segment length requirements " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the constraint optimization procedure of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", to ensure good data quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 411, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 411, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 411, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Audio Alignment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To create the transcriptions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th document for the segments " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 4.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), we are using CTC-based forced alignment (Kürzinger et al., 2020). We first do inference on the sentence-level speech of the manual segmentation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}^i = (\\mathbf{x}^{i,1}, \\dots, \\mathbf{x}^{i,n_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a CTC encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", thus obtaining character-level probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{u}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the whole audio. We apply a text cleaning process on the transcriptions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which includes spelling-out numbers, removing unvoiced text such as events and speaker names, removing all remaining characters that are not included in vocabulary, and finally upper casing. The forced alignment algorithm uses the probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{u}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the cleaned text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to find the character segmentation along with the starting and ending timestamps of each entry. Following, we merge characters to words using the special token for the word boundaries, and reverse the cleaning step² to recover the original text that corresponds to each segment. For each example " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we obtain the source text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{z}}^{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by joining the corresponding words that are within the segment boundary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{b}^{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 431, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and apply a post-editing step to fix the casing and punctuation (Alg. 1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 518, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 518, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 518, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We re-introduce any potential noise, e.g. \"(Laughter)\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8572" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 168, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 168, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 168, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Text Alignment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike the case of manual segmentation (Fig. 2), cross-lingual sentence alignment (Braune and Fraser, 2010) is not applicable, and additionally, word alignment tools (Dyer et al., 2013) yielded sub-optimal results. Thus, we learn the alignment with an MT model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is trained on the manually segmented sentence-level data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S^{\\mathrm{MT}} = \\{(z^i,\\mathbf{y}^i)\\}_{i = 1}^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The training data is modified by concatenating examples to reflect the length of the examples that will be translated, thus learning model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\ell}^{\\mathrm{MT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the length parameters used in SHAS. To accurately learn the training set alignment, we use very little regularization, practically overfitting the training data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\ell}^{\\mathrm{MT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (§A.7). Since there are no sentence-level references available for the synthetic data, we monitor the document-level BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) in a small number of training documents, and only end the training when it stops increasing. Finally, we obtain the synthetic sentence-level translations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the trained " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 293, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 247, + 396 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 247, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 247, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Multiple Sentence-level Versions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell = (min, max)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the segmentation algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " allow us to have fine-grained control over the length of the produced segments. Different, non-overlapping tuples of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " result in different segmentations, providing access to multiple synthetic sentence-level versions of each document. Moreover, the additional cost of creating more than one synthetic corpus is relatively low, as the results of the classification with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the forced alignment can be cached and reused (Fig. 3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 192, + 562 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 192, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 192, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For our experiments we use data from three ST datasets, MuST-C (Di Gangi et al., 2019a), mTEDx (Salesky et al., 2021) and CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021) (Table 1). MuST-C and mTEDx are based on TED talks, and have sentence-level examples, which are derived from document-level ones, via manual segmentation (Fig. 2). CoVoST2 is based on the Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020) corpus and is inherently a sentence-level corpus. For our main experiments we use eight language pairs from MuST-C v1.0, which are English (En) to German (De), Spanish (Es), French (Fr), Italian (It), Dutch (Nl), Portuguese (Pt), Romanian (Ro), and Russian (Ru). We are also using En-De from v2.0 for certain ablation studies (\\$A.5, A.6, A.7) and analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 272 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetvLang. Pair#Docs#Sents#Hours
MuST-C1.0En-De2,093234K408
En-Es2,514266K496
En-Fr2,460275K485
En-It2,324254K457
En-NI2,219248K434
En-Pt2,001206K377
En-Ro2,166236K424
En-Ru2,448265K482
2.0En-De2,537251K450
mTEDxEs-Es988102K178
Pt-Pt81290K153
Es-En37836K64
Pt-En27931K53
Es-Fr434K6
CoVoST2En-De—231K362
", + "image_path": "ab7ce0b03446377cfe55c3e62859960908e74a44c8c3dad82ee8edf52735bf4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 279, + 480, + 291 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 279, + 480, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 279, + 480, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Training Data Statistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\S 6.8)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". From mTEDx we use the Es-En, Pt-En, and Es-Fr ST data, as well as the Es-Es, and Pt-Pt for the ASR pre-training, and finally the En-De data from CoVoST2 (Wang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For segmentation (§4.1) we are using the open-sourced pre-trained English and multilingual SHAS classifiers3. For the SHAS algorithm we set the classification threshold thr = 0.5 and for length constraints " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell = (min, max)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use four different, non-overlapping tuples of (0.4, 3), (3, 10), (10, 20) and (20, 30) seconds, resulting in short (s), medium (m), long (l), and extra-long (xl) segmentations. We use PDAC and only apply PSTRM for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "xl" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", since we observed that PDAC was not able to satisfy the length conditions. For the CTC encoder used in audio alignment (§4.2), we use pre-trained WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) models4 available on HuggingFace (Wolf et al., 2020). For the MT models used in text alignment (§4.3) we trained medium-sized Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017; Ott et al., 2019) with 6 layers (§A.1.3). When training with SEGAUGMENT, we simply concatenate the four synthetic datasets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_{xl}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the original one (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), and remove any duplicates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For Speech Translation we train Speech-to-Text Transformer baselines (Wang et al., 2020b). Unless stated otherwise, we use the small architecture (s2t_transformer_s) with 12 encoder layers and 6 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 256, with ASR pre-training using only the original data. The full details of the models and the training proce" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 416, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 416, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 416, + 751 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 416, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "github.com/mt-upc/SHAS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4wav2vec2-large-960h-lv60-self, wav2vec2-large-xlsr-53-spanish, wav2vec2-large-xlsr-53-portuguese" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8573" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 132 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 132 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 525, + 132 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelEn-DeEn-EsEn-FrEn-ItEn-NlEn-PtEn-RoEn-RuAverage
Fairseq ST22.7 / —27.2 / —32.9 / —22.7 / —27.3 / —28.1 / —21.9 / —15.3 / —24.8 / —
Baseline23.2 / 50.527.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.322.9 / 50.427.3 / 53.928.7 / 54.922.2 / 49.015.3 / 40.425.0 / 51.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.0 / 52.629.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.725.6 / 52.930.3 / 57.031.8 / 57.825.0 / 51.816.8 / 42.527.4 / 54.0
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT25.5 / 52.829.5 / 56.935.8 / 60.725.7 / 52.930.0 / 56.831.6 / 57.625.0 / 52.016.7 / 42.427.5 / 54.0
", + "image_path": "cef4a96ff0fce1c0159b3a32001595551f4a6d9f2e73419540b23cbe78251844.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "dures are available in §A.1.1. For inference, we average the 10 best checkpoints on the validation set and generate with a beam of 5. We evaluate with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BLEU}^5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Papineni et al., 2002) and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{chrF2^6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 198, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Popovic, 2017) using SACREBLEU (Post, 2018), and perform statistical significance testing using paired bootstrap resampling (Koehn, 2004) to ensure valid comparisons. To evaluate on an automatic segmentation (§6.5), the hypotheses are aligned to the references of the manual segmentation with MwERSEGMENTER (Matusov et al., 2005)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 127, + 370 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 127, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 127, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 212, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 212, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 212, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Main Results in MuST-C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 291, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 291, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 291, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare ST models trained with and without SEGAUGMENT on the eight language pairs of MuST-C v1.0, and include results from Wang et al. (2020b), which use the same model architecture. In Table 2, we observe that models leveraging SEGAUGMENT achieve significant and consistent improvements in all language pairs, thus confirming that the proposed method allows us to better utilize the available ST data. More specifically, the improvements range from 1.5 to 3.1 BLEU, with an average gain of 2.4 points. We also investigate the application of SEGAUGMENT during the ASR pre-training, which brings further gains in four language pairs, but the average improvement is only marginal over just using the original ASR data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 227, + 622 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 227, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 227, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Results with SOTA methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 628, + 291, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 628, + 291, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 628, + 291, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we study the impact of the proposed method, when combined with a strong ST model. We use a model with 24 encoder layers, 12 decoder layers, and dimensionality of 1024, where its encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC 2.0 (Baevski et al., 2020) and its decoder from MBART50 (Tang et al., 2020) (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 628, + 291, + 723 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 628, + 291, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.2). We fine-tune this model end-to-end" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 195, + 524, + 303 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 526, + 177 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 526, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 526, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 526, + 177 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 526, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". All models use the same architecture and results of Fairseq ST are from Wang et al. (2020b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 195, + 524, + 303 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 195, + 524, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 195, + 524, + 303 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelEn-EsEn-Fr
Chimera (Han et al., 2021)30.6 / —35.6 / —
STEMM (Fang et al., 2022)31.0 / —37.4 / —
ConST (Ye et al., 2022)32.0 / —38.3 / —
STPT (Tang et al., 2022)33.1 / —39.7 / —
SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b)33.6 / —41.4 / —
w2v-mBART33.3 / 60.240.8 / 64.5
+ SEGAUGMENT33.7 / 60.741.5 / 65.1
", + "image_path": "fdf92387a6e1533f8e5ff332cb59d9cd810737e1b6d1d84ed8af2fb7785c2a23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BLEU}(\\uparrow) / \\mathrm{chrF2}(\\uparrow)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results with SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the w2vmBART baseline model with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", apart from the BLEU score for En-Es (33.7) which is with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.005" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 310, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on ST using MuST-C v1.0, with and without the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, and also provide results from other state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, such as Chimera (Han et al., 2021), STEMM (Fang et al., 2022), ConST (Ye et al., 2022), STPT (Tang et al., 2022), and SpeechUT (Zhang et al., 2022b). As shown in Table 3, despite already having a competitive baseline (w2v-mBART), utilizing SEGAUGMENT achieves further significant improvements7, reaching SOTA performance in EnEs and En-Fr." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 446, + 564 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 446, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 446, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Low-Resource Scenarios" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We explore the application of SEGAUGMENT in low-resource and non-English speech settings of mTEDx. In Table 4, we present results of the baseline with and without SEGAUGMENT for Es-En, Pt-En and the extremely low-resource pair of Es-Fr (6 hours). We furthermore provide the BLEU scores from Salesky et al. (2021), which use the extra-small model configuration (10M parameters). We use the extra-small configuration for Es-Fr, while the others use the small one (31M parameters). SEGAUGMENT provides significant improvements in all pairs, with even larger ones when it is also" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7Compared with §6.1, smaller gains are expected since the effect of data augmentation diminishes with increased data availability, facilitated here by the large pre-trained models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nrefs:1 | bs:1000 | seed:12345 | case:mixed | eff:no | tok:13a | smooth:exp | version:2.3.0" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nrefs:1 | bs:1000 | seed:12345 | case:mixed | eff:yes | nc:6 | nw:0 | space:no | version:2.3.0" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8574" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 139 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 139 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelEs-EnPt-EnEs-Fr
Bilingual E2E-ST7.0 / —8.1 / —1.7 / —
Baseline15.6 / 40.515.3 / 38.62.7 / 23.4
+ SEGAUGMENT18.5 / 43.517.8 / 41.13.8 / 23.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.1 / 43.920.3 / 43.75.3 / 27.2
", + "image_path": "9a970c25309db4654a3f2708e0d5aa81f03790246ab994088653f952c2902887.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 233, + 260, + 324 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: BLEU(↑) /chrF2(↑) scores on mTEDx test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with the exception of chrF2 in Es-Fr (23.9) which is with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.005" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 291, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Results of Bilingual E2E-ST are from Salesky et al. (2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 233, + 260, + 324 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 233, + 260, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 233, + 260, + 324 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelEn-De
Bi-AST (Wang et al., 2021)16.3 / —
STR (Lam et al., 2022b)18.8 / —
Baseline17.4 / 43.2
+ SEGAUGMENT19.0 / 44.9
+ ASR SEGAUGMENT19.3 / 45.4
", + "image_path": "fa292c8016e98f959c068ccc04811a1445ea6e4e16665d6a609c0c32573a1365.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on CoVoST2 test set. In bold is the best score. All results with SEGAUGMENT and ASR SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from the Baseline with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 380 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 291, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "utilized during the ASR pre-training, improving the BLEU scores by 2.6-5. Our results here concerning ASR pre-training are more conclusive than in MuST-C (§6.1), possibly due to the better ASR models obtained with SEGAUGMENT (§A.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 258, + 501 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 258, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 258, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.4 Application on Sentence-level Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 726 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider the application of the method to CoVoST, of which the data do not originate from documents. We treat the sentence-level data as \"documents\" and apply SEGAUGMENT as before. Due to the relatively short duration of the examples, we only apply SEGAUGMENT with short and medium configurations. In Table 5 we provide our results for En-De, with and without SEGAUGMENT, a bilingual baseline from Wang et al. (2020a), and the recently proposed Sample-Translate-Recombine (STR) augmentation method (Lam et al., 2022b), which uses the same model architecture as our experiments. Although designed for document-level data, SEGAUGMENT brings significant improvements to the baseline8, even outperforming the STR augmentation method by 0.5 BLEU points." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 514, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 514, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 514, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.5 Automatic Segmentations of the test set" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike most research settings, in real-world scenarios, the manual segmentation is not typically available, and ST models must rely on automatic segmentation methods. However, evaluating on automatic segmentation is considered sub-optimal, decreasing BLEU scores by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5 - 10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Tsiamas et al., 2022b; Gaido et al., 2021) as compared to evaluating on the manual (gold) segmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT originate from an automatic segmentation, we expect they would be useful in bridging the training-inference segmentation mismatch (Papi et al., 2021). We evaluate our baselines with and without SEGAUGMENT on MuST-C tst-COMMON, on both the manual segmentation provided with the dataset, and an automatic one which is obtained by SHAS. In Table 6 we present results with SHAS-long, which we found to be the best. Extended results can be found in §A.4. For the purpose of this experiment, we also train another ST model with SEGAUGMENT, where we pretend a special token in each translation, indicating the dataset origin of the example9. When generating with such a model, we prompt it with the special token that corresponds to the segmentation of the test set. The results of Table 6 show that the baseline experiences a drop of 1.6 BLEU points (or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") on average, when evaluated on the automatic segmentation, confirming previous research (Tsiamas et al., 2022b). Applying SEGAUGMENT, validates our hypothesis, since the average increase of 3.5 BLEU " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(23.4 \\rightarrow 26.9)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " observed in the automatic segmentation is larger than the increase of 2.4 BLEU in the manual one " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(25.0 \\rightarrow 27.4)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens, enables ST models to reach an average score of 27.3 BLEU points, closing the gap with the manual segmentation (27.4), while being better10 in three language pairs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time11 that ST models can match (or surpass) the performance of the manual segmentation, demonstrating the usefulness of the proposed method in real-world scenarios. Our results also raise an interesting question, on whether we should continue to consider the manual segmentation as an upper bound of performance for our ST models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There is a potential denoising effect, since CoVoST clips include unvoiced audio either at the start or the end, which our method inherently excludes from the synthetic data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 739, + 462, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 739, + 462, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 739, + 462, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "i.e. , , , , or " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 750, + 520, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 750, + 520, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 750, + 520, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10Significance not possible due to different segmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11Without context-aware ST (Amrhein and Haddow, 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8575" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 451 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 451 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS-long
En-DeBaseline23.221.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.124.525.2
← special tok.25.125.2
En-EsBaseline27.526.1
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.329.029.4
← special tok.29.229.4
En-FrBaseline33.130.6
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.734.935.3
← special tok.35.635.3
En-ItBaseline22.921.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.624.425.1
← special tok.25.025.1
En-NlBaseline27.325.7
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.329.729.8
← special tok.29.429.8
En-PtBaseline28.726.9
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.831.431.8
← special tok.31.531.8
En-RoBaseline22.220.5
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.024.124.6
← special tok.24.824.6
En-RuBaseline15.314.6
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.816.817.0
← special tok.16.417.0
AverageBaseline25.023.4
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.426.927.3
← special tok.27.127.3
", + "image_path": "28aea0517c4be3b7775726bb8b14cb2f3d149c38318add7fb0fb076bc34a333c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 519 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 459, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON with manual and SHAS-long segmentation. The second column in Manual and SHAS-long is the best score among the three models, and with bold is the best score overall for each language pair." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 232, + 567 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 232, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 232, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.6 ST without ASR pre-training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following, we investigate the importance of the ASR pre-training phase, a standard practice (Wang et al., 2020b), which usually is also costly. In Table 7 we present the results of ST models on MuST-C En-Es and En-Fr trained with and without SEGAUGMENT, when skipping the ASR pretraining. We also include the results of the Revisit-ST system proposed by Zhang et al. (2022a). We find that models with SEGAUGMENT are competitive even without ASR pre-training, surpassing both the baseline with pre-training and the Revisit-ST system. In general, ASR pre-training could be skipped in favor of using SEGAUGMENT, but including both is the best choice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 157 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model#pASREn-EsEn-Fr
Baseline31M✓27.5 / 55.033.1 / 58.3
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✓29.3 / 56.835.7 / 60.7
Revisit-ST48M✗28.1 / —33.4 / —
Baseline31M✗25.3 / 52.330.1 / 55.4
+ SEGAUGMENT31M✗28.5 / 55.734.6 / 59.6
", + "image_path": "05c739b0b2f4a7490f08e806f28a39c8bdab02aa13bf70567c462a8536cd12fc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BLEU}(\\uparrow) / \\mathrm{chrF2}(\\uparrow)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores on MuST-C tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score among the models without ASR pre-training " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Results of Revisit-ST are from Zhang et al. (2022a). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\# \\mathbf{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 164, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for number of parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 521, + 386 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 521, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 521, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 521, + 386 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9c999520ffc260bb0e81d95096920a3bacabcd5e9d16ebe9e79bbe5cae4678f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 421 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: BLEU(↑) scores on MuST-C En-De dev during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 400, + 454 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 400, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 400, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.7 Training Costs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 460, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 460, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 460, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we discuss the computational costs involved with SEGAUGMENT during ST model training. We analyze the performance of models with and without SEGAUGMENT from Table 2, at different training steps in MuST-C En-De dev. In Figure 5, we observe that models with our proposed method, not only converge to a better BLEU score, but also consistently surpass the baseline during training. Thus, although utilizing the synthetic data from SEGAUGMENT would naturally result in longer training times, it is still better even when we constraint the available resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 371, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 371, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 371, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.8 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 524, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 524, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 524, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we discuss four potential reasons behind the effectiveness of SEGAUGMENT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contextual diversity. The synthetic examples are based on alternative segmentations and are thus presented within different contextual windows, as compared to the original ones (§A.8). We speculate that this aids the model to generalize more, since phrases and sub-words are seen with less or more context, that might or not be essential for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8576" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "their translation. Adding additional context that is irrelevant was previously found to be beneficial in low-resource MT, by providing negative context to the attention layers (Nguyen et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Positional diversity. With SEGAUGMENT, speech and text units are presented at many more different absolute positions in the speech or target text sequences (§A.11). This is important due to the absolute positional embeddings in the Transformer, which are prone to overfitting (Sinha et al., 2022). We hypothesize that the synthetic data create a diversification effect on the position of each unit, which can be seen as a form of regularization, especially relevant for rare units. This is also supported for the simpler case of example concatenation (Nguyen et al., 2021), while in our case the diversification effect is richer due to the arbitrary document segmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Length Specialization. Synthetic datasets created by SEGAUGMENT supply an abundance of examples of extremely long and short lengths, which are relatively infrequent in the original data. This creates a specialization effect enabling ST models trained on the synthetic data to better translate sequences of extreme lengths in the test set (§A.9)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge Distillation. As translations of the synthetic data are generated by MT models, there is an effect similar to that of Knowledge Distillation (KD) (Liu et al., 2019; Gaido et al., 2020a). To quantify this effect, we re-translate the train set of MuST-C En-De four times, with the same MT models employed in SEGAUGMENT. Subsequently, an ST model is trained with the original and re-translated data, referred to as in-data-KD, as the MT models did not leverage any external knowledge. In Table 8 we compare in-data-KD with SEGAUGMENT, and find that although in-data-KD provides an increase over the baseline, it exhibits a significant difference of 1 BLEU point with SEGAUGMENT. Our findings confirm the existence of the KD effect, but suggest that SEGAUGMENT is more general as it not only formulates different targets, but also diverse inputs (through re-segmentation), thereby amplifying the positive effects of the source-side contextual and positional diversity. In contrast, KD only provides diversity on the target-side." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 151, + 735 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 151, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 151, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduced SEGAUGMENT, a novel data augmentation method that generates synthetic data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 496, + 141 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 496, + 141 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 496, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 496, + 141 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelEn-De
Baseline24.3 / 51.9
Baseline + in-data-KD25.2 / 52.7
Baseline + SEGAUGMENT26.2 / 53.7
", + "image_path": "f24c518d3cac7489fbda1aa6848151e58ec6b027d3753da8e8b08ad6cbcafb19.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 148, + 525, + 197 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 148, + 525, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 148, + 525, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: BLEU(↑)/chrF2(↑) scores on MuST-C v2.0 En-De tst-COMMON. In bold is the best score. Results of Baseline + SEGAUGMENT are statistically different from Baseline + in-data-KD with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 148, + 525, + 197 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 148, + 525, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "based on alternative audio segmentations. Through extensive experimentation across multiple datasets, language pairs, and data conditions, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our method, in consistently improving translation quality by 1.5 to 5 BLEU points, and reaching state-of-the-art results when utilized by a strong ST model. Our method was also able to completely close the gap between the automatic and manual segmentations of the test set. Finally, we analyzed the reasons that contribute to our method's improved performance. Future work will investigate the extension of our method to ST for spoken-only languages and Speech-to-Speech translation, by passing the transcription stage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 438, + 365, + 450 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 438, + 365, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 438, + 365, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "General Applicability. The proposed method requires three steps: Audio Segmentation, CTC-based forced-alignment, and Machine Translation. For Audio Segmentation we used SHAS (Tsiamas et al., 2022b), which requires a classifier that is trained on manually segmented data. Although we demonstrated the method's applicability in CoV-oST En-De, which does include a manual segmentation, we used a English classifier that was trained on MuST-C En-De. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the method's effectiveness without manually segmented data for the source language. A possible alternative would be to use a classifier trained on a different source language, since Tsiamas et al. (2022b) showed that SHAS has very high zero-shot capabilities, provided the zero-shot language was also included in the pre-training set of XLS-R (Babu et al., 2021), which serves as a backbone to the classifier. Additionally, we tested our method on several languages pairs, and also on an extremely low-resource one, such as Spanish-French (Es-Fr) in mTEDx, with only 4,000 training examples. Although we showed improvement of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8577" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in that particular language pair, the two languages involved, Spanish and French, are not by any means considered low-resource. Thus, we cannot be sure about the applicability of the method in truly extremely low-resource languages, such as many African and Native American languages. Furthermore, the current version of the method would not support non-written languages, since the target text is obtained by training a MT model which translated the transcription of each audio segment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 292, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 292, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 292, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biases. The synthetic data is heavily based on the original data, which may result in inheriting any biases present in the original data. We did not observe any signs of this effect during our research, but we did not conduct a proper investigation to assess the degree at which the synthetic data are biased in any way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 292, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 292, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 302, + 292, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computational and Memory costs. The synthetic data have to be created offline, with a pipeline that involves three different models, resulting in increased computational costs. To reduce these costs, we used pre-trained models for the Audio Segmentation and the CTC encoders, and cached the inference results to be re-used. Thus, the computational cost of creating the synthetic datasets for a given a language pair involves a single inference with the classifier and the CTC encoder, and multiple training/inference phases with MT models. This process can take around 24-36 hours to create four new synthetic datasets for pair in MuST-C, using a single GPU. We acknowledge the computational costs but believe the results justify them. The process could be made much lighter by using nonparametric algorithms in the three steps instead of supervised models, which can be investigated in future work. Finally, despite the computational costs, there is a very small memory cost involved since each synthetic dataset is basically a txt file containing the new target text and a yaml file containing the new segmentation, only requiring 100-200MB of storage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 636, + 166, + 650 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 636, + 166, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 636, + 166, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 657, + 292, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 657, + 292, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 657, + 292, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Work at UPC was supported by the Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) project PID2019-107579RB-I00 / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 719, + 127, + 733 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 719, + 127, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 719, + 127, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 738, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 738, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 738, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chantal Amrhein and Barry Haddow. 2022. Don't Discard Fixed-Window Audio Segmentation in Speech-to-Text Translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 107 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conference on Machine Translation, pages 203-219, Abu Dhabi. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 117, + 527, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 117, + 527, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 117, + 527, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Loic Barrault, Luisa Bentivogli, Marcely Zanon Boito, Ondrej Bojar, Roldano Cattoni, Anna Currey, Georgiana Dinu, Kevin Duh, Maha Elbayad, Clara Emmanuel, Yannick Esteve, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Souhir Gahbiche, Hongyu Gong, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Benjamin Hsu, David Javorsky, Vera Kloudova, Surafel Lakew, Xutai Ma, Prashant Mathur, Paul McNamee, Kenton Murray, Maria Nadejde, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Xing Niu, John Ortega, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Jiatong Shi, Matthias Sperber, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Yogesh Virkar, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Shinji Watanabe. 2022. Findings of the IWSLT 2022 Evaluation Campaign. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 98-157, Dublin, Ireland (in-person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 527, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 527, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 527, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Ondrej Bojar, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Maha Elbayad, Marcello Federico, Xutai Ma, Satoshi Nakamura, Matteo Negri, Jan Niehues, Juan Pino, Elizabeth Salesky, Sebastian Stüker, Katsuhito Sudoh, Marco Turchi, Alexander Waibel, Changhan Wang, and Matthew Wiesner. 2021. FINDINGS OF THE IWSLT 2021 EVALUATION CAMPAIGN. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 1-29, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1 and 3.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 493, + 527, + 582 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 493, + 527, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 493, + 527, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Michael Henretty, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common Voice: A Massively-Multilingual Speech Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4218-4222, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on page 5.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 526, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 526, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arun Babu, Changhan Wang, Andros Tjandra, Kushal Lakhotia, Qiantong Xu, Naman Goyal, Kritika Singh, Patrick von Platen, Yatharth Saraf, Juan Pino, et al. 2021. XLS-R: Self-supervised Cross-lingual Speech Representation Learning at Scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09296. [Cited on pages 3 and 9.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 671, + 526, + 739 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 671, + 526, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 671, + 526, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 12449-12460. Curran Associates, Inc. [Cited on pages 2, 3, 5, 6, and 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Parnia Bahar, Albert Zeyer, Ralf Schlüter, and Hermann Ney. 2019. On Using SpecAugment for End-to-End" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8578" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Luisa Bentivogli, Mauro Cettolo, Marco Gaido, Alina Karakanta, Alberto Martinelli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Cascade versus Direct Speech Translation: Do the Differences Still Make a Difference? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2873-2887, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 290, + 303 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 290, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 290, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fabienne Braune and Alexander Fraser. 2010. Improved Unsupervised Sentence Alignment for Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Parallel Corpora. In *Coling* 2010: Posters, pages 81-89, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. [Cited on pages 3 and 5.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yann N. Dauphin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2017. Language Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ICML'17, page 933-941. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mattia A. Di Gangi, Roldano Cattoni, Luisa Bentivogli, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2019a. MuST-C: a Multilingual Speech Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2012-2017, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 1, 2, and 5.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 291, + 576 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 291, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 291, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Viet Nhat Nguyen, Amirhossein Tebbifakhr, and Marco Turchi. 2019b. Data Augmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation: FBK@IWSLT '19. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 585, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 585, + 291, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 585, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chris Dyer, Victor Chahuneau, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. A Simple, Fast, and Effective Reparaterization of IBM Model 2. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 644-648, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 5.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qingkai Fang, Rong Ye, Lei Li, Yang Feng, and Mingxuan Wang. 2022. STEMM: Self-learning with Speech-text Manifold Mixup for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7050-7062, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2020a. End-to-End Speech-Translation with Knowledge Distillation: FBK@IWSLT2020. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 80–88, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 9.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Gaido, Mattia A. Di Gangi, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2020b. Contextualized Translation of Automatically Segmented Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2020, pages 1471-1475. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 526, + 309 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 526, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 526, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, Mauro Cettolo, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Beyond Voice Activity Detection: Hybrid Audio Segmentation for Direct Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Natural Language and Speech Processing (ICNLSP 2021), pages 55-62, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 315, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 315, + 526, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 315, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gerard I. Gallego, Ioannis Tsiamas, Carlos Escolano, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2021. End-to-End Speech Translation with Pretrained Models and Adapters: UPC at IWSLT 2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 110–119, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist Temporal Classification: Labelling Unsegmented Sequence Data with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '06, page 369-376, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. [Cited on page 4.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 526, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 526, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 526, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chi Han, Mingxuan Wang, Heng Ji, and Lei Li. 2021. Learning Shared Semantic Space for Speech-to-Text Translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2214-2225, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 591, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 591, + 526, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 591, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs). ArXiv, abs/1606.08415. [Cited on pages 14 and 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ye Jia, Melvin Johnson, Wolfgang Macherey, Ron J. Weiss, Yuan Cao, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Naveen Ari, Stella Laurenzo, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Leveraging Weakly Supervised Data to Improve End-to-end Speech-to-text Translation. In ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7180-7184. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P. E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8579" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2020. Libri-Light: A Benchmark for ASR with Limited or No Supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7669-7673. https://github.com/facebookresearch/libri-light. [Cited on page 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 225 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov, Morgane Rivière, Gabriel Synnaeve, Lior Wolf, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Matthijs Douze, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Data Augmenting Contrastive Learning of Speech Representations in the Time Domain. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 215–222. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical Significance Tests for Machine Translation Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 388-395, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 291, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Seiichiro Kondo, Kengo Hotate, Tosho Hirasawa, Masahiro Kaneko, and Mamoru Komachi. 2021. Sentence Concatenation Approach to Data Augmentation for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 143-149, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 291, + 505 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 291, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 291, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and tokenizer for Neural Text Processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 66-71, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 291, + 580 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 291, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 291, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ludwig Kürzinger, Dominik Winkelbauer, Lujun Li, Tobias Watzel, and Gerhard Rigoll. 2020. CTC-Segmentation of Large Corpora for German End-to-End Speech Recognition. In Speech and Computer, pages 267-278, Cham. Springer International Publishing. [Cited on pages 1 and 4.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 291, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Rieszler. 2022a. Make More of Your Data: Minimal Effort Data Augmentation for Automatic Speech Recognition and Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15398. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsz Kin Lam, Shigehiko Schamoni, and Stefan Riezler. 2022b. Sample, Translate, Recombine: Leveraging Audio Alignments for Data Augmentation in End-to-end Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 245-254, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuchen Liu, Hao Xiong, Jiajun Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Chengqing Zong. 2019." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "End-to-End Speech Translation with Knowledge Distillation. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 1128-1132. [Cited on page 9.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 112, + 525, + 157 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 112, + 525, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 112, + 525, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. [Cited on page 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 525, + 230 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 525, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 525, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evgeny Matusov, Gregor Leusch, Oliver Bender, and Hermann Ney. 2005. Evaluating Machine Translation Output with Automatic Sentence Segmentation. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 291 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Interspeech. [Cited on page 3.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arya D. McCarthy, Liezl Puzon, and Juan Pino. 2020. SkinAugment: Auto-Encoding Speaker Conversions for Automatic Speech Translation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7924-7928. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 525, + 448 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 525, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 525, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thai-Son Nguyen, Sebastian Stüker, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2020. Improving Sequence-To-Sequence Speech Recognition Training with On-The-Fly Data Augmentation. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7689-7693. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Toan Q. Nguyen, Kenton Murray, and David Chiang. 2021. Data Augmentation by Concatenation for Low-Resource Translation: A Mystery and a Solution. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 287–293, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 9.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 550, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations)*, pages 48-53, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. [Cited on page 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Matteo Negri, and Marco Turchi. 2021. Dealing with training and test segmentation mismatch: FBK@IWSLT2021. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8580" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 106 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 84-91, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 2 and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 194 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311-318, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5 and 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel S. Park, William Chan, Yu Zhang, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Barret Zoph, Ekin D. Cubuk, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. SpecAugment: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Automatic Speech Recognition. In Proc. Interspeech 2019, pages 2613-2617. [Cited on pages 2 and 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 357 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 290, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juan Pino, Liezl Puzon, Jiatao Gu, Xutai Ma, Arya D. McCarthy, and Deepak Gopinath. 2019. Harnessing Indirect Training Data for End-to-End Automatic Speech Translation: Tricks of the Trade. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, Hong Kong. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2017. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{chrF}++" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 367, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": Words Helping Character n-grams. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 612–618, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matt Post. 2018. A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, pages 186-191, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomasz Potapczyk and Pawel Przybysz. 2020. SR-POL's System for the IWSLT 2020 End-to-End Speech Translation Task. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 89-94, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 3.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elizabeth Salesky, Matthew Wiesner, Jacob Bremerman, Roldano Cattoni, Matteo Negri, Marco Turchi, Douglas W. Oard, and Matt Post. 2021. The Multilingual TEDx Corpus for Speech Recognition and Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 3655-3659. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Koustuv Sinha, Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Siva Reddy, Joelle Pineau, Dieuwke Hupkes, and Adina Williams. 2022. The Curious Case of Absolute Position Embeddings. [Cited on page 9.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthias Sperber and Matthias Paulik. 2020. Speech Translation and the End-to-End Promise: Taking Stock of Where We Are. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7409-7421, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 1.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yun Tang, Hongyu Gong, Ning Dong, Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Jiatao Gu, Alexei Baevski, Xian Li, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Michael Auli, and Juan Pino. 2022. Unified Speech-Text Pre-training for Speech Translation and Recognition. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1488–1499, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 248 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuqing Tang, Chau Tran, Xian Li, Peng-Jen Chen, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Jiatao Gu, and Angela Fan. 2020. Multilingual Translation with Extensible Multilingual Pretraining and Finetuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00401. [Cited on pages 2, 6, and 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 525, + 358 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 525, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 525, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, Carlos Escolano, José Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022a. Pretrained Speech Encoders and Efficient Finetuning Methods for Speech Translation: UPC at IWSLT 2022. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2022), pages 265-276, Dublin, Ireland (in person and online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 3 and 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ioannis Tsiamas, Gerard I. Gallego, José A. R. Fonollosa, and Marta R. Costa-jussa. 2022b. SHAS: Approaching Optimal Segmentation for End-to-End Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2022, pages 106-110. [Cited on pages 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 521 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All You Need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. [Cited on pages 1, 3, and 5.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 531, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 531, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 531, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elena Voita, Pavel Serdyukov, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2018. Context-Aware Neural Machine Translation Learns Anaphora Resolution. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1264-1274, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 17.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 525, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 525, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 525, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Anne Wu, and Jiatao Gu. 2020a. CoVoST: A Diverse Multilingual Speech-To-Text Translation Corpus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4197-4203, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association. [Cited on pages 1 and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changhan Wang, Yun Tang, Xutai Ma, Anne Wu, Dmytro Okhonko, and Juan Pino. 2020b. Fairseq S2T: Fast Speech-to-Text Modeling with Fairseq. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8581" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 33-39, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on pages 5, 6, 8, and 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changhan Wang, Anne Wu, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. CoVoST 2 and Massively Multilingual Speech Translation. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 2247-2251. [Cited on pages 2, 5, and 7.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 289, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ron J. Weiss, Jan Chorowski, Navdeep Jaitly, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. 2017. Sequence-to-Sequence Models Can Directly Translate Foreign Speech. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 2625–2629. [Cited on page 1.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 238, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 238, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 238, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 5.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 290, + 467 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 290, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 290, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xueqing Wu, Yingce Xia, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Shufang Xie, Yang Fan, and Tao Qin. 2021. mixSeq: A Simple Data Augmentation Method for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2021), pages 192-197, Bangkok, Thailand (online). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 290, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020a. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 14.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 558, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 558, + 290, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 558, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020b. On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. [Cited on page 15.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 290, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rong Ye, Mingxuan Wang, and Lei Li. 2022. Cross-modal Contrastive Learning for Speech Translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5099-5113, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biao Zhang, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2022a. Revisiting End-to-End Speech-to-Text Translation From Scratch. In International Conference on Machine Learning. [Cited on page 8.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, Barry Haddow, and Rico Sennrich. 2021a. Beyond Sentence-Level End-to-End Speech Translation: Context Helps. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2566–2578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 2.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 525, + 235 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 525, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 525, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuong Zhang, Erfan Loweimi, Peter Bell, and Steve Renals. 2021b. On The Usefulness of Self-Attention for Automatic Speech Recognition with Transformers. In 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 89–96. [Cited on page 17.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Junyi Ao, Shujie Liu, Lirong Dai, Jinyu Li, and Furu Wei. 2022b. SpeechUT: Bridging Speech and Text with Hidden-Unit for Encoder-Decoder Based Speech-Text Pretraining. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1663–1676, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. [Cited on page 6.]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 377, + 366 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 377, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 353, + 377, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 374, + 512, + 388 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 374, + 512, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 374, + 512, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Hyperparameters and Training details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 392, + 508, + 405 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 392, + 508, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 392, + 508, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.1 Speech-to-Text Transformer models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For all experiments, apart from §6.2 and from those in mTEDx Es-Fr, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s2t\\_transformer\\_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " models implemented in FAIRSEQ (Ott et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020b). They have 12 encoder layers, 6 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feedforward dimension of 2048, and 4 heads in the multi-head attention, with 31M parameters in total. We use GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016) and pre-layernorm (Xiong et al., 2020a). The input is 80-dimensional log-Mel spectrograms, which are processed by a 2-layer convolutional network with 1024 inner channels, output dimension of 256, stride of 2, kernel size of 5, and GLU activations (Dauphin et al., 2017). We do not scale up the output of the convolutional network. The target vocabularies are learned with SentencePiece (Kudo and Richardson, 2018) and have a size of 8,000. We train with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a learning rate of 0.002, a warm-up of 5,000 steps, and an inverse square root scheduler. We use a gradient accumulation of 6, making the effective batch size equal to 320 thousand tokens, apply SpecAugment (Park et al., 2019), and set the dropout to 0.1, applied to attention, activation, and output. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.1. We stop the training when the validation loss does not decrease" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8582" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for 10 epochs, and average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 98, + 290, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 98, + 290, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 98, + 290, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The encoders of the ST models are pre-trained on the task of ASR using the same architecture. The only difference is the vocabulary size which is 5,000 and the learning rate which is 0.001. For the models trained without ASR pre-training (§7) we also used a learning rate of 0.001. For MuST-C, we pre-train using the ASR data of En-De, for mTEDx we use the Es-Es and Pt-Pt accordingly, and finally for CoVoST the ASR data of En-De." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 220, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 220, + 291, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 220, + 291, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For mTEDx Es-Fr we use an extra-small architecture (s2t_transformer_xs). It has 6 encoder layers and 3 decoder layers, a dimensionality of 256, a feed-forward dimension of 1024, 4 heads in the multi-head attention, and a vocabulary size of 3,000, having a total of 10M parameters. The learning rate is set to 0.001 (warm-up of 500), the batch size to 180 thousand tokens, and use a dropout of 0.2. We also share the weights of the embedding layer and output projection in the decoder. The same model is pre-trained on ASR, but with a dropout of 0.1. All other hyperparameters are the same as for the small models described before." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 290, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 290, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All our experiments were run on a cluster with 8 NVIDIA GeForce rtx 2080 ti. The running times of each experiment on a single GPU ranged from 12 to 36 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 203, + 469 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 203, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 203, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.2 w2v-mBART models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the experiments of §6.2, we use a strong baseline utilizing pre-trained models and a length adaptor (Tsiamas et al., 2022a). The encoder is composed of a 7-layer convolutional feature extractor and 24-layer Transformer encoder, while the decoder has 12 layers, and a vocabulary of size 250k, with 770M parameters in total. All the layers have an embedding dimensionality of 1024, a feedforward dimensionality of 4098, GELU activations (Hendrycks and Gimpel, 2016), 16 attention heads, and pre-layer normalization configuration (Xiong et al., 2020b). A strided 1d convolutional layer sub-samples the output of the encoder by 2 times. The encoder is initialized from WAV2VEC " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.0^{12}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Baevski et al., 2020), which is pretrained with 60k hours of non-transcribed speech from LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020), and fine-tuned for ASR with 960 hours of labeled data from Librispeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). The decoder is initialized from MBART50" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{13}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Tang et al., 2020), which" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is fine-tuned En-Xx multilingual machine translation. We fine-tune all the parameters of the model, apart from the feature extractor of the encoder and the embedding layer in the decoder. The inputs to the model are raw waveforms sampled at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16\\mathrm{kHz}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which are normalized to zero mean and unit variance. We train with AdamW using a base learning rate of 0.0005, with a warm-up for 2,000 steps and an inverse square root scheduler. In the encoder we use 0.1 activation dropout, time masking with probability of 0.2 and channel masking with probability of 0.1 (Baevski et al., 2020). In the decoder we use a dropout of 0.3, and attention dropout of 0.1 (Tang et al., 2020). All other dropouts are not active. The loss function is a standard cross entropy with label smoothing of 0.2. We use gradient accumulation to have an effective batch size of 32M tokens, evaluate every 250 steps, and stop the training when the performance on the validation set does not improve for 20 evaluations. We average the 10 best checkpoints according to the validation BLEU, and generate with a beam search of 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 475, + 404 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 475, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 475, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.3 Machine Translation models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the MT models used for text alignment in SEGAUGMENT (§4.3), we used medium-sized Transformers, with 6 encoder and decoder layers, dimensionality of 512, feed-forward dimension of 2048, and 8 heads in the multi-head attention. We train with AdamW using a learning rate of 0.002, with a warm-up for the first 2,500 updates, and the batch size is set to 14 thousand tokens. The vocabulary size is 8,000, and for regularization, we use a small dropout of 0.1 only at the outputs of each layer and label smoothing of 0.1. We stop training when the document-level BLEU does not increase for 20 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to the same metric, and then generate with a beam of size 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the MT models used in the experiments of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S A.6" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use a small architecture with 6 encoder and decoder layers, with dimensionality of 256, feed-forward dimension of 1024, and 4 heads. We share the weights of the embedding and output projection in the decoder and use a dropout of 0.1 (applied to attention, activation, and output). We stop training when the validation loss does not decrease for 10 epochs, average the 10 best checkpoints according to validation BLEU, and generate with a beam of size 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 749, + 252, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 749, + 252, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 749, + 252, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12fairseq/wav2vec/wav2vec2_vox_960h_new.pt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 761, + 246, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 761, + 246, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 761, + 246, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13fairseq/models/mbart50/mbart50.ft.1n.tar.gz" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8583" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 CTC-based Forced Alignment Algorithm" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we provide the algorithm used for audio-text alignment with SEGAUGMENT (§4.2). The complete process for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th document is summarized in Algorithm 1, where we omit the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " index for ease of representation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 173, + 247, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 173, + 247, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 173, + 247, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: CTC-based Forced Alignment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input :x % List[1d Tensor] \ninput :z % List:String] \ninput :hat % List[Tuple[Float, Float]] \noutput: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{z}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " % List:String] \n1 u " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " E(x) \n2 z " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " CLEAN(z) \n3 chars " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " FORCED Alignment(z,u) \n4 words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " JOIN_CHARS(chars) \n5 words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " REVERSE Cleaner(words) \n6 for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j\\gets 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to len(b) do \n7 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{r}\\hat{z}^j\\gets \\mathrm{JOIN\\_WORDS}(\\hat{b}^j,\\mathrm{words})\\\\ \\hat{z}^j\\gets \\mathrm{POST\\_EDIT}(\\hat{z}^j) \\end{array}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n9 return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 289, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{z}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 3, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 228, + 374 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 228, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 228, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Results of ASR pre-training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 290, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 9 we present the results of the ASR pretraining, where we observe that by including data from SEGAUGMENT, all ASR models perform better in terms of WER. This indicates that the proposed methods is also useful for ASR augmentations, probably due to the source-side contextual and positional diversity (§6.8)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 484, + 289, + 543 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 484, + 289, + 543 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 484, + 289, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 484, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMuST-CmTEDxCoVoST
En-DeEs-Es (xs)Pt-PtEn-De
Baseline11.118 (19.7)28.326.6
+ SEGAUGMENT10.416.6 (18.1)23.823.8
", + "image_path": "2b3bf9760cd559eebe3345edef2f8016c2d809d29c5bf6e0703c3f245484a5c5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 244, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 244, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 244, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Extended Results on Automatic Segmentation of MuST-C" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 10 we provide an extended version of Table 6, where we evaluate the models on all four SHAS segmentations of the test set. Regarding the choice of automatic segmentation, we find that the long segmentation is the best when using SEGAUGMENT with special tokens (27.3 BLEU), long and extra-long are equally good without special tokens (26.9 BLEU) and the medium segmentation is best without SEGAUGMENT (23.7 BLEU). Using the special tokens reduces the performance on the manual segmentation by 0.3 BLEU " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(27.4\\rightarrow 27.1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 350 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 289, + 575 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 289, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 289, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 289, + 575 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{{WER}}\\left( \\downarrow \\right)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 289, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores for ASR models. xs indicates the extra-small models pre-trained for mTEDx Es-Fr." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 350 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 524, + 350 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Lang. PairModeltest set Segmentation
ManualSHAS
—BestsmlxlBest
En-DeBaseline23.220.621.721.220.225.2
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.123.124.324.524.7
← special tok.25.123.124.525.225.1
En-EsBaseline27.525.026.426.124.829.4
+ SEGAUGMENT29.329.327.328.729.028.9
← special tok.29.226.628.629.429.1
En-FrBaseline33.130.031.030.629.035.3
+ SEGAUGMENT35.735.732.334.134.934.8
← special tok.35.631.433.835.335.1
En-ItBaseline22.920.021.621.520.325.1
+ SEGAUGMENT25.625.622.724.224.424.8
← special tok.25.022.324.325.124.5
En-NIBaseline27.324.926.525.724.329.8
+ SEGAUGMENT30.330.327.529.229.729.7
← special tok.29.426.926.929.829.3
En-PtBaseline28.725.827.126.925.431.8
+ SEGAUGMENT31.831.829.230.731.431.1
← special tok.31.528.830.831.831.3
En-RoBaseline22.219.920.820.518.724.6
+ SEGAUGMENT25.025.022.523.424.124.3
← special tok.24.822.624.124.624.0
En-RuBaseline15.313.414.714.613.817.0
+ SEGAUGMENT16.816.815.016.416.816.7
← special tok.16.414.916.417.016.8
AvgBaseline25.022.423.723.422.127.3
+ SEGAUGMENT27.427.424.926.426.926.9
← special tok.27.124.626.227.326.9
", + "image_path": "83c482aa2f626cd0a145b5c2a3e8529c40ed0a26e5f63693c3c41fe9e8175bcb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: BLEU(↑) scores on manual- and SHAS-segmented MuST-C v1.0 tst-COMMON." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "increases it in the SHAS-long segmentation by 0.4 BLEU " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(26.9\\rightarrow 27.3)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", thus bridging the gap with the manual segmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 507, + 482 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 507, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 507, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Results with different SEGAUGMENT combinations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 488, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 488, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 488, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform ablations by training ST models on different combinations of the original and the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT, using MuST-C v2.0 En-De. In Table 11, row 1 is essentially the baseline and row 17 is the baseline + SEGAUGMENT. Firstly, we notice that although training single synthetic datasets, but without the original one (rows 2-5) is inferior, the drop is relatively small, considering the absence of the original data. When training with all of them (row 6) actually surpasses the baseline by 1.1 BLEU, without even using the original data. This showcases that SEGAUGMENT is generating high quality data, and even by themselves can produce very good ST models. Secondly, the results show that the more synthetic datasets we use, the better the performance, and that no combination is better than simply using all of them (row 17). We also find that when using 1 or 2 synthetic datasets, the combinations involving longer segmentations (rows 8, 9, 10 and 13, 14) tend to perform better than those involving shorter segmen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8584" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 71, + 261, + 334 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 71, + 261, + 334 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 71, + 261, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 71, + 261, + 334 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Original DataSEGAUGMENTBLEU
smlxl
(1)✓24.3
(2)✓22.6
(3)✓23.4
(4)✓22.4
(5)✓22.7
(6)✓✓✓✓25.4
(7)✓✓24.8
(8)✓✓25.1
(9)✓✓25.1
(10)✓✓25.1
(11)✓✓✓25.6
(12)✓✓✓25.6
(13)✓✓✓25.8
(14)✓✓✓25.8
(15)✓✓✓✓26.0
(16)✓✓✓✓26.0
(17)✓✓✓✓✓26.2
", + "image_path": "03958104dda80427a794d5a19c4c039f18360a5d090d581b6b506b57e8bbc8fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 290, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tations (rows 7 and 11, 12), while for combinations of 3 synthetic (rows 15, 16), we do not observe any differences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 506, + 212, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 506, + 212, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 506, + 212, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 Results on ASR and MT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We investigate the impact of the synthetic data when training ASR and MT models. For this experiments we are using the ASR data and bitext from MuST-C v2.0 En-De. The results of Table 12 show that the synthetic data are in general useful, with a 0.7 reduction in WER and a 1.1 increase in BLEU (row 6). This indicates that the improvements in ST are stemming from both the source side (speech, ASR) and the target side (text, MT). We furthermore notice that longer synthetic examples are better for MT, similar to ST in Table 2, while shorter ones are better for ASR. We hypothesize that this is a consequence of the significance of long context for each task; ASR models tend to use local context (Zhang et al., 2021b), while MT models oftentimes have to use long context, as in pronoun resolution (Voita et al., 2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 513, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 381 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: BLEU(↑) scores on tst-COMMON MuST-C v2.0 En-De for models trained with different combinations of the original and the synthetic data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 513, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 513, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 513, + 178 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Original DataSEGAUGMENTWER(↓)BLEU(↑)
smlxl
(1)✓11.131.0
(2)✓✓10.231.3
(3)✓✓10.331.6
(4)✓✓11.031.7
(5)✓10.931.7
(6)✓✓✓✓10.432.1
", + "image_path": "0420ff80a91f6bb82ec17f664b11244567d600d5aa52902de73b8f459c617ae5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 527, + 223 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 527, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 527, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12:WER scores for ASR models and BLEU scores for MT models in MuST-C v2.0 En-Det tst- COMMON." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 472, + 267 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 472, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 472, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.7 Results of MT models used in SEGAUGMENT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In table 13 we present results for the MT models trained to generate the new translation for the alternative data of SEGAUGMENT for MuST-C v2.0 En-De. For each parameterization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell = (min, max)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the segmentation algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we train specialized model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as described in §4.3. We evaluate on the original training and development sets from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as well as on the synthetic training set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\hat{S}_{\\ell})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which basically indicates the quality of the target text in the synthetic data. We present both sentence-and document-level BLEU scores for the original data, and only document-level scores for the synthetic ones (since no sentence-level references are available). We notice that MT models obtain very high scores in the original train set, as compared to the development set, indicating that the model has indeed overfitted. In any other case that would be very bad news, but here we willingly overfit the model as our goal is to learn the training set text alignment, and not having a good and generalizable MT model. By looking at the document-level BLEU on the synthetic training set, we can confirm that the MT models have indeed accurately learned the alignments and thus have generated high-quality translation, that can be utilized during ST training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 517, + 659 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 517, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 517, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.8 Contextual Windows of SEGAUGMENT Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can categorize the new context of the synthetic data of SEGAUGMENT in four types, depending on the type of overlap between the segmentation boundaries " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{b}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each document: (1) isolated, when being a subset of an original one, (2) expanded, when being a superset of an original one, (3): mixed, when overlapping with an original one, (4): equal, when being in exactly the same" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8585" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 68, + 454, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 68, + 454, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 68, + 454, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 68, + 454, + 154 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MT model MlOriginal trainOriginal developmentSynthetic train (Sl)
BLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEUBLEUdoc-BLEU
s95.179.224.526.2-68.3
m90.074.426.027.5-70.4
l72.961.325.527.0-64.6
xl59.651.825.927.4-56.8
", + "image_path": "6e9e1fee2e8fb310634aee385e19fa8d0f2173c9c4a702d6d25969fb6951bb0c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context as an original one. In Table 14 we apply this categorization for MuST-C v2.0 En-De, and observe that indeed most of the alternative examples form SEGAUGMENT are presented in a new context, with only a small percentage being equal, which we discard when concatenating the datasets for training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 342, + 289, + 426 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: MT models trained for generating the target text of SEGAUGMENT data. BLEU scores for MuST-C v2.0 En-De training and development set, and synthetic training set. BLEU scores are calculated both at sentence- and document-level." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 342, + 289, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 342, + 289, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 342, + 289, + 426 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SEGAUGMENTExpandedIsolatedMixedEqual
s12.3%56.9%22.3%8.5%
m31.1%33.3%24.3%11.3%
l63.2%7.9%24.6%4.2%
xl55.7%1.2%43.0%0.1%
28.3%38.7%25.0%8.0%
", + "image_path": "7b006dc234c65a16bbe2f7c328183865aafc15ef9bc203ee996d9d6192a9aa3b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14: Percentage of examples (rows) for each type of contextual overlap (columns) in the alternative datasets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{S}_{\\ell}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to the manual one " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for MuST-C v2.0 En-De." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 228, + 535 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 228, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 228, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.9 Results on duration buckets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 6 we present evidence for the length specialization effect (§6.8). We construct two extreme-length buckets in MuST-C tst-COMMON; the first bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second and the second one all those with duration larger than 20 seconds. Then we measure the performance of 5 different types of ST model in the two buckets, which are using the data configurations of rows 1-5 of Table 11. Performance is measured by average BLEU across all eight language pairs of MuST-C. We notice that indeed, models trained with shorter synthetic data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\hat{S}_s,\\hat{S}_m)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are better at translating the test set bucket with the very short examples, while those trained with longer synthetic data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\hat{S}_l,\\hat{S}_{xl})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are better at translating the bucket with the very long ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 524, + 391 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 524, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 524, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 524, + 391 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "74d67320de1b86c843253255934c81f7a2f25dea422de1d7f430987622a28a2d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 493 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: BLEU in two duration buckets of MuST-C tst-COMMON of models trained with the four different synthetic datasets and with only the original data. The legend indicates on which data each models is trained on. The left bucket contains all the examples with duration less than 1 second, and the right contains all those with duration longer than 20 seconds. BLEU is the average of all eight language pairs in MuST-C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 480, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 480, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 480, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.10 SEGAUGMENT Data Statistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 15 we present the number of examples created with SEGAUGMENT for all the language pairs used in this research. We only consider examples longer than 0.4 seconds and shorter than 30 seconds. Differences across the MuST-C v1.0 datasets created with the short condition are due to empty segments which were removed. Following, in Table 16 we are presenting the average duration of each example in each created dataset. The average is around 3.8 seconds for short-segmented datasets, and around 24 seconds for the extra-long ones. In both tables, differences in CoVoST are due to the fact that we prioritize more the length conditions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell = (min, max)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the segmentation algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 4.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), while the other datasets are prioritizing the classification condition thr. We did this change in order to make sure that the CoVoST data are segmented in a different way, than in the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8586" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 138, + 68, + 455, + 309 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 68, + 455, + 309 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 68, + 455, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 68, + 455, + 309 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxlConcat
MuST-Cv1.0En-De225K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Es260K430K253K120K76K879K
En-Fr269K421K253K120K76K871K
En-It248K399K253K120K76K848K
En-NI244K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Pt201K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ro231K433K253K120K76K882K
En-Ru260K419K253K120K76K868K
v2.0En-De249K401K231K109K70K812K
mTEDxEs-Es101k150K88K43K27K308K
Pt-Pt90K136K78K37K24K274K
Es-En36K53K32K15K10K110K
Pt-En30K47K27K13K8K94K
Es-Fr3.5K5.5K3K1.5K1K11K
CoVoST2En-De231K504K255K00759K
", + "image_path": "439279dc986c4194da4984825e2e5ac12ded4bb7677ffce928b336670dab5dc9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "manual segmentation. Due to this they might not always resemble proper sentences, but at least they are diverse enough to be useful during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 587 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 317, + 505, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 317, + 505, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 317, + 505, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 15: Number of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 587 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 400, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetvLang. PairSentence-level version
OriginalSEGAUGMENT
smlxl
MuST-Cv1.0En-De6.273.836.8715.2123.96
En-Es6.633.846.8715.2123.96
En-Fr6.283.846.8715.2123.96
En-It6.413.836.8715.2123.96
En-Nl6.233.846.8715.2123.96
En-Pt6.503.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ro6.373.846.8715.2123.96
En-Ru6.473.836.8715.2123.96
v2.0En-De6.273.756.8315.1623.94
mTEDxEs-Es5.903.796.9115.2423.86
Pt-Pt5.813.716.8615.1724.03
Es-En6.063.876.9115.2723.78
Pt-En5.863.686.8315.1624.02
Es-Fr6.083.806.8915.1023.84
CoVoST2En-De5.611.823.68——
", + "image_path": "a47c9adc238780c2bd2eb8bcbd6e9e87e553323c5f5fe1c14b2a272d8c55ca07.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 632 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 16: Average duration (in seconds) of examples in Sentence-level versions for the manual and SEGAUGMENT processes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 250, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 250, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 250, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.11 Sub-word Positional Frequency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 7 we present examples of semi-rare subwords in the target languages in MuST-C v2.0 EnDe training set. We are counting their frequency in terms of absolute position in the examples they appear in. We can observe that when using SEGAUGMENT, the positional frequency of this sub-words is much more diverse, covering more space in the possible positions in the target sequence. We hy" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 351, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pothesize that this effect could be regularizing the model, aiding in each generalization of this subwords in different positions (§6.8)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8587" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 209, + 281, + 370 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 209, + 281, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 209, + 281, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 209, + 281, + 370 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dde8b36e36376e59cdf7d72fe2c17f8001970d71cdbc5dfcf56b7c3c7be3665d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 509, + 370 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 509, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 509, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 509, + 370 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e06ea913562fa6eb1f41279ee6ad663ca9608ff4215f7570936802a229f99f92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 281, + 574 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 281, + 574 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 281, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 281, + 574 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "807e567f11d362dd23e9d21432c9e9c0414c0ab24793b52551542af890cbeee6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 526, + 641 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 526, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Positional frequency of semi-rare sub-words in the original data with and without SEGAUGMENT in MuST-C v2.0 En-De training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 509, + 574 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 509, + 574 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 509, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 509, + 574 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "13f09964a3e30697109e164fc34f648cfb4ef487b88f3e5d482f46435ae19f5e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8588" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_content_list.json b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..77ce05e597017618ec9f35ee384b51145bf1195c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2194 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Segmented Recurrent Transformer: An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 129, + 89, + 868, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yinghan Long", + "bbox": [ + 188, + 155, + 315, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Purdue University", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 173, + 324, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "long273@purdue.edu", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 189, + 342, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sayed Shafayet Chowdhury", + "bbox": [ + 371, + 155, + 623, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Purdue University", + "bbox": [ + 423, + 173, + 573, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "chowdh23@purdue.edu", + "bbox": [ + 406, + 189, + 600, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kaushik Roy", + "bbox": [ + 692, + 155, + 806, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Purdue University", + "bbox": [ + 663, + 173, + 823, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "kaushik@purdue.edu", + "bbox": [ + 663, + 189, + 845, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transformers have shown dominant performance across a range of domains including language and vision. However, their computational cost grows quadratically with the sequence length, making their usage prohibitive for resource-constrained applications. To counter this, our approach is to divide the whole sequence into segments and apply attention to the individual segments. We propose a segmented recurrent transformer (SRformer) that combines segmented (local) attention with recurrent attention. The loss caused by reducing the attention window length is compensated by aggregating information across segments with recurrent attention. SRformer leverages Recurrent Accumulate-and-Fire (RAF) neurons' inherent memory to update the cumulative product of keys and values. The segmented attention and lightweight RAF neurons ensure the efficiency of the proposed transformer. Such an approach leads to models with sequential processing capability at a lower computation/memory cost. We apply the proposed method to T5 and BART transformers. The modified models are tested on summarization datasets including CNN-dailymail, XSUM, ArXiv, and Media-SUM. Notably, using segmented inputs of varied sizes, the proposed model achieves $6 - 22\\%$ higher ROUGE1 scores than a segmented transformer and outperforms other recurrent transformer approaches. Furthermore, compared to full attention, the proposed model reduces the computational complexity of cross attention by around $40\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 281, + 460, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 778, + 258, + 795 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the inception of transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017), they have gradually become the de-facto model for Natural Language Processing (NLP) as well as Computer Vision (CV) tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021). More recently, generative models have also achieved unprecedented results by employing transformers in language and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "vision for understanding and generation (Saharia et al., 2022; Rombach et al., 2022). One of the key recipes behind the success of transformers is their ability to leverage long-range connections baked in the all-to-all attention mechanism. This sort of attention eases optimization and enables learning of long-term dependency, resulting in improved performance over traditional recurrent neural networks (RNNs). However, transformers incur huge memory and computing requirements, which may not be feasible for resource-constrained applications. Moreover, the computational complexity of transformers increases quadratically with input length, making scaling-up transformers a big challenge. Therefore, improving the efficiency of transformers is a key research direction (Tay et al., 2022). Specifically, for sequence-to-sequence language tasks such as translation and summarization, the decoder part of the transformer inevitably generates words in steps (Guo et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2020). These steps are mostly correlated and hence, some form of recurrence is suited to harness the underlying information efficiently. Without any explicit memory, the vanilla attention processes the same set of previous inputs repeatedly. Such redundant computation can be eliminated by incorporating recurrent units with small memory overhead. As a result, the model can efficiently recapitulate relevant information from past states while computation is performed only on the new inputs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 885, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To that end, there have been efforts to combine transformers with the recurrent mechanism. In TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), the long-term dependency is modeled by adding recurrence to transformers. However, this method simply concatenates the hidden states from the last segment with the current state for attention. It does not involve any explicit modification to the attention block itself to better suit the recurrence in order to bridge consecutive segments. Though this is simple to implement, it may not be the best possible way", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8325", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8325-8337", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 957, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to merge the attention mechanism with recurrence. Moreover, most existing recurrent transformers are only designed for self attention, whereas, for summarization tasks, cross attention uses much longer inputs and incurs a higher cost. Hence, there is scope to design a custom transformer architecture that can effectively combine recurrence with the embedded attention.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to enhance the computational efficiency of transformers, we divide the input sequence into segments to compute segmented attention. Next, to aggregate global information over segments, we add recurrent attention. We propose recurrent accumulate and fire (RAF) neurons for recurrent attention. It has an implicit memory to accumulate information over segments and only propagates values upon crossing a learnable threshold. By accumulating the partial product of keys and values from other segments, recurrent attention compensates for the loss caused by segmentation. Furthermore, RAF neurons use a leak and a threshold to forget and select information. Compared to RNNs or LSTMs, a RAF neuron has fewer parameters and thus does not add large computational overhead.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 217, + 489, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the proposal of segmented attention and recurrent attention, we introduce SRformer, as shown in Fig.1. SRformer is a sequence-to-sequence model consisting of an encoder and an auto-regressive decoder. It replaces the decoder's cross-attention with segmented recurrent attention, while self-attention can still attend to all locations of the generated sequence. During training, it selects the corresponding segment for each input and learns recurrent attention between segments. Because recurrent attention processes a segment as a whole, it enables partially parallel computation. During inference, it accesses past information from the memory and only updates the segmented recurrent attention with the current segment. Hence, it is more efficient than full attention. In addition, the number of timesteps for backpropagation depends on the number of segments instead of the length of inputs. The reduced propagation length ensures efficiency and alleviates the vanishing gradient problem. Moreover, we provide a matrix interpretation to demonstrate the harmonious alliance between recurrence and attention obtained through the proposed model.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 480, + 489, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SRformer achieves better computational complexity and accuracy trade-off. When tested on the CNN-dailymail dataset, the ROUGE1 evalu", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0db5dbacf648be7563f5da126162f31212d633e47d4b8f9e8c938e84a7b81aac.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Segmented Recurrent Transformer (SRformer). Cross attention is replaced by segmented recurrent attention." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 82, + 857, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ation score for the proposed model is $6 - 22\\%$ higher than a segmented transformer without recurrent blocks. Interestingly, the performance of SRformer is resilient to extremely small segment sizes (ROUGE1 score drops by only 0.25 as segment size is reduced from 64 to 8). On the other hand, for the same segment size reduction, the baseline transformer suffers from severe performance degradation (ROUGE1 score drops by 16.04). Furthermore, the computation reduces by $\\sim 40\\%$ in comparison with regular cross attention having access to the full sequence. This result clearly demonstrates the efficacy of segmented recurrent attention for sequential data processing, specifically for limited compute budgets.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 426, + 884, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the next section, we introduce the related works. In Section 3, we provide details of SRformer. Finally, the experimental results are discussed in Section 4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 669, + 882, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Works", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 672, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Several approaches have been reported in the literature to improve the efficiency of transformers (Tay et al., 2022). Usage of low-rank kernels (Wang et al., 2020), fixed or learnable patterns (Child et al., 2019; Ho et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2021; Kitaev et al., 2020), block-wise processing (Lefaudeaux et al., 2022; Dao et al., 2022), recurrent transformers (Dai et al., 2019; Katharopoulos et al., 2020), and global attention (Ainslie et al., 2020; Zaheer", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8326", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2021) have been explored recently.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work falls under the category of transformers with recurrence. In this aspect, we closely examine the following two models. TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) concatenates the hidden states from the previous segment with the current one. Then each hidden state depends on all previous ones and becomes built-in memory. However, the length of hidden states gets doubled resulting in additional complexity. The Linear Transformer reduces attention to a linear-time, constant memory recurrent neural network (Katharopoulos et al., 2020). It is similar to our recurrent attention without RAF neurons and setting segment size to one. However, linear transformer usually suffers from performance degradation compared to regular attention with softmax. Qin et al. (2022) identified that the devil in linear attention is the scaling of attention matrices and used normalization to stabilize gradients. In our approach, we use RAF neurons and normalization to make a better approximation to softmax attention.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 121, + 489, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Other types of transformers deal with long sequences by combining local attention with global attention, such as ETC (Ainslie et al., 2020), Big Bird (Zaheer et al., 2020), Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020), and longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). Each paper proposed a different design for global attention. ETC pretrains global tokens with Contrastive Predictive Coding. Big Bird adds random sparse attention patterns to global attention. Longformer applies global attention on pre-selected locations and makes it symmetric: all locations attend to global tokens and vice versa. LongT5 simply uses the sum of each block as global tokens. Our work substitutes recurrent attention for global attention. We will compare our results with LongT5 since it is the most recent work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are two concurrent works about recurrent transformers. The first one is block recurrent transformer (Hutchins et al., 2022). They design recurrent cells to operate on blocks of tokens. Different from our encoder-decoder model, they add cross attention to a decoder-only model, which attends to recurrent states in parallel with self attention. The second work is on recurrent memory transformer (Bulatov et al., 2022). The authors segment inputs similar to our work, then put read and write memory at different ends of the input to attention. However, they only add memory to the input, while", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "we propose a novel attention mechanism that is a drop-in replacement for regular attention.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Notably, most of these related works focus on the self attention block of the transformer. However, we notice that the cross attention between the encoder and decoder is the bottleneck of computation in summarization tasks. Hence, we focus on improving the efficiency of cross attention for sequence-to-sequence models. Additionally, we use small segment sizes to improve efficiency, while other works use large sizes to improve scalability, which is another distinction between the proposed work and prior art.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 120, + 884, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Proposed method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 321, + 695, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Segmented Attention", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 356, + 721, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Suppose that $Q$ is the query matrix, $K$ is the key matrix, and $V$ is the value matrix. The cross attention weight $A$ and the output attention $O$ are computed by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n{ } ^ { q \\times k } A = { } ^ { q \\times d } Q * ^ { d \\times k } K ^ { T } \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 623, + 469, + 880, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n^ {q \\times d} O = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A) * ^ {k \\times d} V \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 588, + 491, + 880, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show the dimension of each matrix at its upper-left superscript. $k$ is the length of encoded features and $q$ is the length of decoder embeddings. $d$ is the inner dimension of each attention head. For summarization tasks, $q$ is usually much smaller than $k$ . Note that the batch dimension and the number of heads are ignored for simplicity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 882, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If we split encoded features into segments of size $s$ , then the number of segments would be $m = \\frac{k}{s}$ . We define the $i$ -th segment of keys and values as $K_{Si} = K[i*s:(i + 1)*s]$ and $V_{Si} = V[i*s:(i + 1)*s]$ . To find the corresponding segment for a query at time $t$ , we compute the segment index by $i = \\min (int(t*m/q),m - 1)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 884, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let the query at time $t$ be denoted as $Q_{t}$ . Then the full attention weight $A[t]$ and output $O[t]$ at time $t$ are computed using the current query $Q_{t}$ with full keys and values. However, in the case of segmented cross attention, we use only the corresponding segment of keys and values to compute the attention for the query at time $t$ , instead of the full matrix. The segmented attention weight $(A_{S}[t])$ and output $(O_{S}[t])$ are computed as in Eqn. 4 and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8327", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Eqn. 6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 171, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n^ {1 \\times k} A [ t ] = ^ {1 \\times d} Q _ {t} * ^ {d \\times k} K ^ {T} \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 111, + 487, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n{ } ^ { 1 \\times s } A _ { S } [ t ] = ^ { 1 \\times d } Q _ { t } * ^ { d \\times s } K _ { S i } ^ { T } \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 133, + 485, + 152 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n^ {1 \\times d} O [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A [ t ]) * ^ {k \\times d} V \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 155, + 487, + 173 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n^ {1 \\times d} O _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(A _ {S} [ t ]\\right) * ^ {s \\times d} V _ {S i} \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 175, + 485, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike directly projecting $K$ to a lower rank of size $d \\times s$ for all timesteps, each query is multiplied with a different segment $K_{Si}$ and $V_{Si}$ . Hence every segment is used at least once during the process and there are no extra weights or information loss caused by projection. The computation complexity is reduced to $O(qds)$ from $O(qdk)$ , where $s << k$ . If $s$ is equal to the summarization ratio $k / q$ , then the computation complexity is reduced to $O(kd)$ from $O(k^2 d / s)$ and no longer grows quadratically with the length. Segmented attention described above largely improves efficiency but at the loss of the ability to access all information, which causes accuracy degradation. Therefore, next, we focus on how to compensate for the loss and achieve a better trade-off between efficiency and accuracy using recurrent units between segments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 208, + 489, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Approximating full attention with segmented recurrent attention", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 494, + 426, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The segmented attention described in the last subsection simply replaces $K$ and $V$ with the current segments $K_{Si}$ and $V_{Si}$ , but it neglects a large part of the keys and values. Therefore, we need to compensate for the loss to better approximate the full attention.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 531, + 489, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Suppose we divide the inputs into two parts: the current segment $S_{i}$ and the remaining segments $R_{i}$ . By linearity of matrix operations, if we switch the order of columns in $K$ and that of corresponding rows in $V$ , it does not affect the matrix multiplication result. Hence, we can partition matrix $K$ into $\\left[K_{Si}\\quad K_{Ri}\\right]$ and $V$ into $\\left[V_{Si}\\quad V_{Ri}\\right]^T$ , where $K_{Ri}$ and $V_{Ri}$ are the remaining parts of the matrices excluding the current segment. The output $O$ of full attention is computed by", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA = Q * K ^ {T} = Q * \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 802, + 487, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q * \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right]\\right) \\left[ \\begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\\\ V _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 825, + 487, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By expanding Eqn. 8, full attention at time $t$ can be rewritten as the weighted sum of segmented attention $O_{S}[t]$ and the attention of remaining parts", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 756, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = \\frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \\frac {c - c _ {s}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 105, + 882, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = \\sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \\sigma) O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 137, + 882, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $c$ and $c_{s}$ are divisors of softmax. They can be replaced by a weighing factor $\\sigma$ . Please see the appendix for detailed analyses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 160, + 880, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the proposed approach, we approximate the output at time $t$ by computing the segmented attention $O_S$ of the local segment using Eqn. 6, then adding the approximated $O_R$ for other segments. The weighing factor $\\sigma$ can be a trainable parameter. Note, the simplified sum shown in Eqn. 11 still works because of the automatic adjustment of other parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 209, + 882, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = O _ {S} [ t ] + O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 611, + 343, + 882, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To efficiently approximate the compensation part $O_{R}$ , we propose recurrent attention. This is important because if we directly compute it, the total computational complexity becomes the same as a non-segmented model. Inspired by linear attention proposed in Katharopoulos et al. (2020), we multiply keys and values first, then multiply with queries. This is validated by the associativity property of matrix multiplication. The switch of order allows storing the product of keys and values as a state of RNN. The softmax operation applied on the attention weights is approximated as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 882, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} O _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i} (12) \\\\ \\approx \\frac {Q _ {t} * R A F \\left(K _ {R i} * V _ {R i}\\right)}{\\operatorname {n o r m} (K)} (13) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 565, + 882, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The $RAF$ in this equation is a recurrent unit designed to accumulate sequential information. It is explained in detail in subsection 3.3. In Eqn. 13, division by $\\text{norm}(K)$ is used to simulate the normalization factor of softmax.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 624, + 882, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We simplify the computation of multiplying $K_{Ri}$ and $V_{Ri}$ by the multiplication rule of the matrix, as follows. The product is denoted by $P$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 705, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} K * V = \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\left[ \\begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\\\ V _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] (14) \\\\ \\Rightarrow K * V = K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} + K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} (15) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 758, + 882, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {i} = K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} = K * V - K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} \\tag {16}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 815, + 880, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thus, we can easily reduce the computational complexity of Eqn. 16 from $O(d * (k - s) * d)$ to $O(d * s * d)$ . For $P_{i}$ of different segments, we only need to compute $K * V$ once. Fig. 2 shows the computation process of recurrent cross attention.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8328", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/77de06e5c24aff84e53546531d7809b9395abf9daeec45b4101714c7029a72ae.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Segmented Recurrent Attention in a cross attention block. $K_{Si}$ and $V_{Si}$ are segmented keys and values. $H_{t}$ is the hidden input, which is projected to $Q_{t}$ by a linear layer. $b_{Si}$ is the bias of T5 model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 480, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 441, + 485, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RAF neurons accumulate the partial products of keys and values, help approximate softmax, and filter out unnecessary information. It is inspired by Integrate-and-Fire neurons from biological brains and Spiking Neural Networks (Lee et al., 2016; Wozniak et al., 2020; Ponghiran and Roy, 2021; Chowdhury et al., 2022). The architecture of an RAF neuron is shown in Fig. 3. We also provide Pytorch-like pseudo code for RAF in Appendix A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 487, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Each RAF neuron uses a membrane potential (memory) to efficiently aggregate sequential information. At each timestep, the memory is updated by adding the projected input with the previous memory, where memory gets decayed by a learnable leak. The input to RAF neurons is the partial product $K_{Ri} * V_{Ri}$ containing information of the sequence except the current segment. It is projected by a linear layer. Since Eqn. 13 does not use softmax, the linear layer is necessary to adjust the scale of inputs. Next, we check if its memory crosses the threshold of information propagation to the next layer. If yes, the information in its memory gets passed to the next processing layer, else, the output is zero. This is activated by applying ReLU on the thresholded memory. The learned threshold works like a bias to activate only values over it. If the memory has activated firing, it will be", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bc277489626c7db3e57bccf0056eabb014a6fb4cf3ec29d4a95aaba53c81221e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron. The leaky factor and threshold are trained parameters." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 875, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "soft reset by subtracting the value of the threshold. Then it will not fire again until new information is given. Because $K_{Ri}$ and $V_{Ri}$ at different steps have overlaps, reset is important to forget redundant information. The design of RAF results in a sparse and low-complexity bio-inspired recurrence mechanism. Unlike an LSTM, a RAF neuron does not apply weights on the hidden memory, but only uses a learnable leaky factor, a threshold, and soft reset as forget and output gates. Hence, it requires fewer weights and lesser computation compared to an LSTM.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 884, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "Algorithm 1: One step of cross attention blocks in SRformer \nInput: Query $Q_{t}$ ; Keys $K$ and Values $V$ projected from encoded features; Timestep $t$ ; previous index prev; \nOutput: Output $O_{t}$ $K_{s} = \\text{split}(K)$ ; $V_{s} = \\text{split}(V)$ $i = \\min(\\text{int}(t * m/q), m - 1)$ $A[t] = \\text{matmul}(Q_{t}, K_{s}[i])$ $A[t] = \\text{softmax}(A[t])$ \nif $t == 0$ then \n $KV = \\text{matmul}(K, V)$ $\\text{memory} = \\text{zero tensor}$ \nend \n $O_{S} = \\text{matmul}(A[t], V_{s}[i])$ \nif $prev != i$ then \n $P = KV - \\text{matmul}(K_{s}[i], V_{s}[i])$ $P, \\text{mem} = \\text{RAF}(P, \\text{mem})$ \nend \n $O_{R} = \\text{matmul}(Q_{t}, P)/\\text{norm}(K)$ $O_{t} = O_{S} + O_{R}$ $prev = i$", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 544, + 882, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8329", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/220f8dacb4ccb8e654ea6af005e8968ab653653ecdbae93cffa9065b637aea46.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Comp. complexityExample (K)Memory complexityExample (K)
TransformerO(qkd)qkd = 8389O(qk + kd)197
SegmentedO(qsd)qsd = 524O(qs + kd)74
SRformerO(qsd + kd2)qsd + kd2 = 4718O(qs + kd + md2)139
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 860, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Computation and memory complexity of cross attention. For example, in one of our experiments on the CNN-dailymail dataset, $q = 128$ ; $k = 1024$ ; $d = 64$ ; $s = 64$ . To illustrate theoretical computation and memory cost, we show the product of example sizes in thousands.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 159, + 884, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Segmented Recurrent Transformer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 228, + 436, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SRformer aims at utilizing the sequential generation process to capture the relation between locations of a long sequence, without paying attention to all locations or propagating from start to end. After reducing the length of keys and values to reduce computational complexity, it uses Eqn. 13 to approximate the attention mechanism.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 253, + 489, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 shows the process of one step of cross-attention blocks in SRformer. First, keys and values are split into segments. Then it computes the attention score $A[t]$ for the current query with the corresponding segment of keys $K_{Si}$ . Because the length of queries is usually greater than the number of segments, some queries might use the same segment. Only when $t = 0$ , which means it is the beginning of a new sequence, it initializes the memory of RAF and compute the full product of $KV$ . After applying softmax, attention scores are multiplied with segmented values to get the segmented attention output $O_S$ . It is important to compute the partial product $P$ of keys and values only once for each index. In addition, the computation of $P$ can be parallelized to improve efficiency. Then $P$ is given to the RAF layer for accumulating with the memory through the recurrent process. The output of RAF is multiplied by the query and then normalized. Finally, we add the segmented attention output $O_S$ and the complementary $O_R$ .", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 368, + 489, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach builds connections between segments by using the partial product of keys and values as memory. Since the RAF neuron is applied between segments, the backpropagation-through-time in our model is more efficient than using recurrent layers on each input. As discussed before, recurrent attention makes up for the loss caused by segmented attention. Together, they approximate a complete attention mechanism at a lower cost. Although some existing works proposed global attention for a similar purpose, global attention based on selected locations cannot make up for the loss.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 708, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since segmented recurrent attention is a drop", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in replacement for attention, it can be used in all encoder-decoder transformers, such as T5 and BART. Please note that the usage of positional bias and masks varies across transformers and needs modification. We provide details in Appendix. A.3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 228, + 885, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Complexity Analysis of cross attention", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 336, + 858, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The total complexity of a sequence-to-sequence transformer is composed of the cost of the encoder and that of the decoder. Here, we only compare the complexity of cross-attention since the other components are not affected by the proposed method. In table 1, we show both computation and memory (space) complexity analyses of a regular transformer, a segmented one, and the proposed SRformer. Please note that the batch size and the number of heads are not considered. To compute the segmented qkv attention, the complexity is $O(qsd)$ . The bottleneck for computation is to multiply $K_{Si} * V_{Si}$ for $m$ times, which results in $O(msd^2)$ complexity. Because the number of segments is $m = k / s$ , it becomes $O(kd^2)$ . After that, we need to multiply $Q$ with it, which costs $O(qd^2)$ , but as $q << k$ , this term can be ignored. The recurrent unit also costs much less computation than the bottleneck, so it can also be ignored. Since the segment size $s$ and the inner dimension $d$ of each head are much smaller than $k$ in summarization datasets, the number of computations is fewer than a regular transformer, as shown in table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 884, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The memory complexity depends on the sizes of input matrices and intermediate matrices. The size of key and value matrices are $k \\times d$ . The intermediate matrix is the attention weight $A$ , whose size is $q \\times k$ . By segmentation, its size is reduced to $q \\times s$ . For recurrent attention, we compute the product of keys and values, $P$ , for $m$ segments. Hence, there are $m$ matrices of size $d \\times d$ . In table 1, we show that given the example sizes, the theoretical reduction of computation is $43\\%$ , and that of memory complexity is $29\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8330", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 334, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We test our proposed model and method on T5 sequence-to-sequence transformers (Raffel et al., 2022) and BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Since we want to design a model for resource-constrained environments, we use T5-small, which contains 6 transformer layers and 60 million parameters, and BART-base which contains 6 layers and 140 million parameters. Our implementation is built based on Huggingface transformer platform, which is released under the Apache-2.0 License, and we load the pretrained models before training (Wolf et al., 2019). The implementation is based on PyTorch python package (Paszke et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 489, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We run all experiments on Nvidia A40 GPUs. Each experiment is run on a single core to compare GPU power and memory usage. We train the models for 25 epochs as the loss and evaluation scores converge at that point. The initial learning rate is $5e^{-5}$ . The optimizer is AdamW and the learning rate scheduler is linear with default settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 316, + 489, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use ROUGE scores to evaluate SRformer and compare it with other transformers. ROUGE-N is defined as the n-gram recall between model predictions and a set of ground-truth summaries, and ROUGE-L measures the longest common subsequence between them (Lin, 2004). Note, a higher ROUGE score denotes better summarization performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 430, + 489, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Results on summarization datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 574, + 431, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The summarization datasets we use to evaluate the model include CNN-dailymail (Nallapati et al., 2016), XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018), ArXiv Summarization (Cohan et al., 2018), and MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021). CNN-dailymail dataset contains 311k anonymized English news articles and their summaries, among which 286,817 are training pairs, 13,368 are validation pairs, and 11,487 are test pairs (Hermann et al., 2015; See et al., 2017). XSUM is an extreme summarization dataset, and thus its summaries only have 23 words on average (Narayan et al., 2018). The numbers of documents for training, validation, and test sets of XSUM dataset are 204,045/11,332/11,334. ArXiv dataset has 215 thousand documents, including $5\\%$ for validation and another $5\\%$ for test (Cohan et al., 2018). MediaSUM is a media interview dataset consisting of 463.6K dialogue transcripts and summaries, and validation and test set each randomly select 10K instances (Zhu et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 lists the detailed results including ROUGE1, ROUGE2, ROUGEL, and ROUGEL-Sum scores. From the table, we can see that a model with a higher ROUGE1 score usually gives higher other scores, and hence can be considered as better. The sizes of keys and values for cross attention are 1024. With the default segment size set to 64, the sizes of keys and values are reduced by 16. As a consequence, both T5 and BART experience large performance degradation. Then we show ROUGE1 scores of SRformer in bold numbers. SRformer benefits from its recurrent attention mechanism and achieves $3 - 10\\%$ higher scores than the segmented transformers. Although its ROUGE scores are slightly lower than the baseline model, the computational complexity is largely reduced, and we will show it also cuts down GPU power usage and memory access time in section 4.4.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d4f78e042b1a63d51e0c37c29de5ef9b3966d8b790e8cc43ad54af6cd6ba985e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Rouge1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset for different segment sizes across various models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 385, + 870, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Effect of segment sizes", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 655, + 732, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4 shows ROUGE1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset with regard to different segment sizes 8, 16, and 64. The number of segments should not exceed the number of generation steps, otherwise, some segments would never be used. Hence, the segment size should not be smaller than 8 for the CNN-dailymail dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 882, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The blue line in Fig. 4 shows that for a segmented transformer without recurrence, the ROUGE1 score drops significantly by $16\\%$ when reducing segment size from 64 to 8. The yellow line shows the results of applying the method from TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) to cross attention blocks of the T5-small model. We add a hidden memory for keys and values and concatenate", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8331", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cd14e5cb1d1c16669c7e26d2c3291b553e766dd27bfa3392cc0ae1f9c25a33c8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SRformerSegmentedBaseline
DatasetModelROUGE2ROUGELROUGELsumROUGE1ROUGE1ROUGE1
CNN-DMT516.7927.2936.8139.3933.3141.60
BART19.8029.4440.4043.1933.8744.54
XSUMT511.7226.8826.8834.4827.0335.35
BART16.5831.5431.5439.0336.2241.33
ArXivT511.5024.5331.8636.0432.6437.79
BART14.9725.2937.8642.9936.4343.95
MediaSumT512.8925.7226.2928.5924.4329.25
BART14.7024.7528.4632.3628.4033.88
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 885, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the hidden memory with the current segment to compute cross attention. With that setting, TransformerXL performs better than a segmented transformer, but its performance still decreases with the segment size. The green line shows the results of longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). When the number of segments grows as the segment size decreases, it can use more tokens for computing global attention. Hence, its performance is inversely proportional to the segment size. For example, when segment size is 8, it uses 8 local and 128 global tokens, and its performance is $3\\%$ better than using 64 local and 16 global ones. However, the computational overhead of global attention also grows quadratically with the number of tokens. In contrast, SRformer is able to keep a stable performance regardless of the size reduction. Its ROUGE1 scores are $6 - 22\\%$ higher than those of a segmented T5 model, and it gives a larger boost in performance compared to TransformerXL and longT5. Even when other models use a segment 8 times larger, they are still not able to compete with our model. The results show that SRformer can indeed better approximate full attention.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 311, + 489, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5fc37863cb80cb295f289075fcb5d475c4718cc117b4d9e6a7ed32cf6d893122.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Results of SRformer on Summarization datasets compared to baseline models and their segmented version. The baseline models are T5-small and BART-base." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SettingROUGE1SettingROUGE1
SRformer39.39--
(I)36.86(II)36.77
(III)35.84(IV)29.72
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 706, + 478, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Ablation study using CNN-Dailymail dataset", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 785, + 482, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 278, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better understand the contribution of each component to the performance of SRformer, we conducted an ablation study by removing or modifying terms in Eqn. 11 or 13. The segment size is fixed to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "64 and the model is modified from T5-small. The dataset used for ablation study is CNN-dailymail. We varied the following components one by one while keeping the rest of the model fixed:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 311, + 882, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(I) Remove segmented attention. We modify the model to only use recurrent attention. We observe a noticeable drop in performance, however, it is much better than only using segmented attention. This shows that recurrent attention made a crucial contribution to the overall performance.", + "(II) Remove normalization. Without dividing norm(K), ROUGE 1 score drops by 3.", + "(III) Without RAF. Skipping RAF will remove recurrent computation and corresponding weights. However, without RAF, it is not able to approximate full attention well. The performance decrease shows the importance of RAF.", + "(IV) Replacing $K_{R} * V_{R}$ with $K_{s} * V_{s}$ . In this case, it can skip computing $K * V$ . RAF accumulates information as timesteps increase. However, at the beginning of generation, it only has information from the first few segments. Hence the performance is not as good.", + "In summary, our ablation study shows that all terms in Eqn. 13 are important components." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 375, + 882, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Evaluation of improvement in efficiency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 728, + 867, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4.1 Theoretical improvement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 752, + 766, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table.1, we have shown that SRformer reduces the computation and memory complexity of cross attention. In our experiment, as the length of the generated summary $q$ equals 128 and the length of the input article $k$ equals 1024, the theoretical reduction of computation is $43\\%$ , and that of memory complexity is $29\\%$ . In Fig. 5, we show how the improvement would change when the length of the generated summary scales up. The costs are", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8332", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/47cdea434ae2454d3a087ba10873c066f272b053d1279a1ff148729f38c86f78.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Computation cost" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 166, + 93, + 480, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c188c0cd7a3b5c76385f059ff98325c10d7562643d0ac7829de64db364470ba1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Memory cost", + "Figure 5: Theoretical computational cost and memory cost of cross attention when the length of summary $(q)$ increases from 128 to 1024." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 93, + 831, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "computed based on the theoretical complexity in Table.1. Suppose that the length of the input article is eight times the length of the summary ( $k = 8*q$ ). The cost of cross attention in a regular transformer will increase quadratically with the text length. The cost of cross attention in SRformer is not dependent on $q * k$ but $q * s$ , where $s$ is a small segment size. Therefore, it increases linearly and the reduction would be $93\\%$ compared to a transformer when $q = 1024$ . Although existing datasets for abstractive summarization have relatively short summary lengths, large language models may be required to generate a long summary for a very long document at a fixed ratio. In that case, SRformer can provide a large improvement in efficiency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 353, + 489, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4.2 GPU power and memory usage", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 608, + 420, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We track GPU memory, memory accessing time, and power using Weights&Biases tools (Biewald, 2020). The GPU usage of SRformer modified from BART and other models are listed in Table. 4. Our model consumes less GPU power and spends less time accessing memory, compared to a regular transformer, TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), and LongT5 (Guo et al., 2021). BART uses $99\\%$ GPU power, which almost reaches the limitation of GPU. The percentage of time GPU spent accessing memory is $91\\%$ . It means GPU spent most of the time fetching data from memory. However, with segmented recurrent attention, SRformer does not need to use all encoded features at each step. Hence it saves a considerable amount of computation and memory access. It only uses $81\\%$ GPU power and $60\\%$ GPU memory accessing time. Although GPU memory usage of all recurrent transformers", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a44d4605922efab0bcf48b24e1b1281a640f3baa9f80c8a8737d32079cdf4e88.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMemTimePower
BART499199
TransformerXL827089
LongT5738090
SRformer606080
", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 350, + 858, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Percentages (%) of GPU usage in terms of memory, memory accessing time, and power usage", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 444, + 882, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is larger than vanilla BART to store weights and gradients, our method uses less memory than TransformerXL and LongT5. In conclusion, by alleviating the cross attention bottleneck, the proposed transformer becomes more efficient.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 502, + 882, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 600, + 640, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose an efficient sequence-to-sequence transformer using segmented recurrent attention. Since cross-attention is the computation bottleneck for text summarization, replacing full attention with segmented recurrent attention can largely reduce its computation complexity. The proposed RAF neurons help approximate full attention at a low overhead. During inference, they utilize the sequential process to accumulate information in their internal memory and bridge information across segments effectively. The efficacy of the proposed model is demonstrated through higher ROUGE scores on multiple summarization datasets compared to other segmented transformers. Our proposed architecture is especially suitable for summarization and can be used for other sequence-to-sequence tasks such as translation and question-answering.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 629, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8333", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work focuses on designing an efficient encoder-decoder model for summarization tasks. The proposed method can not be directly applied to an encoder-only or decoder-only model, although it is possible to design a modified version for those models. In the case that the length of encoded features is not much larger than the length of decoder output, it may not be able to show significant reduction in computation and memory cost.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 490, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 266, + 265, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work complies with the ACL Ethics Policy. It contributes a new model to the deep learning and computational linguistics community which can be used in many applications. We will make the codes open-source for other researchers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 291, + 487, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 384, + 278, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by the Center for Code-design of Cognitive Systems (CoCoSys), one of the seven centers in JUMP 2.0, a Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) program sponsored by DARPA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 409, + 490, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 517, + 213, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Joshua Ainslie, Santiago Ontañón, Chris Alberti, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, and Sumit Sanghai. 2020. ETC: encoding long and structured data in transformers. CoRR, abs/2004.08483.", + "Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Songhao Piao, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2020. Unilmv2: Pseudo-masked language models for unified language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.", + "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. CoRR, abs/2004.05150.", + "Lukas Biewald. 2020. Experiment tracking with weights and biases. Software available from wandb.com.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens" + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 539, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Aydar Bulatov, Yuri Kuratov, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2022. Recurrent memory transformer. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. CoRR, abs/1904.10509.", + "Sayeed Shafayet Chowdhury, Nitin Rathi, and Kaushik Roy. 2022. One timestep is all you need: Training spiking neural networks with ultra low latency. abs/2110.05929.", + "Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 615-621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Transformer-XL: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2978-2988, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. FlashAttention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with IO-awareness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. abs/2010.11929.", + "Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724-736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David C. Uthus, Santiago Ontañón, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. CoRR, abs/2112.07916." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/ acl-code-ethics", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 433, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8334", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In NIPS, pages 1693-1701.", + "Jonathan Ho, Nal Kalchbrenner, Dirk Weissenborn, and Tim Salimans. 2019. Axial attention in multidimensional transformers. CoRR, abs/1912.12180.", + "DeLesley S. Hutchins, Imanol Schlag, Yuhuai Wu, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2022. Block-recurrent transformers. ArXiv, abs/2203.07852.", + "Angelos Katharopoulos, Apoorv Vyas, Nikolaos Pappas, and François Fleuret. 2020. Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.", + "Nikita Kitaev, Lukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. 2020. Reformer: The efficient transformer. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Jun Haeng Lee, Tobi Delbruck, and Michael Pfeiffer. 2016. Training deep spiking neural networks using backpropagation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10.", + "Benjamin Lefaudeaux, Francisco Massa, Diana Liskovich, Wenhan Xiong, Vittorio Caggiano, Sean Naren, Min Xu, Jieru Hu, Marta Tintore, Susan Zhang, Patrick Labatut, and Daniel Haziza. 2022. xformers: A modular and hackable transformer modelling library. https://github.com/facebookresearch/xformers.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Fei-Fei Li. 2022. Cs231n: Convolutional neural networks for visual recognition.", + "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Caglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280-290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! Topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium.", + "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Wachirawit Ponghiran and Kaushik Roy. 2021. Spiking neural networks with improved inherent recurrence dynamics for sequential learning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Zhen Qin, Xiaodong Han, Weixuan Sun, Dongxu Li, Lingpeng Kong, Nick Barnes, and Yiran Zhong. 2022. The devil in linear transformer. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7025-7041, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2022. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(1).", + "Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684-10695.", + "Aurko Roy, Mohammad Saffar, Ashish Vaswani, and David Grangier. 2021. Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:53-68.", + "Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo-Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8335", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(6).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 126 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 135, + 487, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sinong Wang, Belinda Z. Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. 2020. Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. CoRR, abs/2006.04768.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 211, + 487, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. CoRR, abs/1910.03771.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 260, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Stanislaw Wozniak, Angeliki Pantazi, Thomas Bohnstingl, and Evangelos Eleftheriou. 2020. Deep learning incorporating biologically inspired neural dynamics and in-memory computing. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2:325-336.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 349, + 489, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. 2020. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. CoRR, abs/2007.14062.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 425, + 489, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5927-5934, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 500, + 489, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 633, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Expanding attention equations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 110, + 801, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Denote the current i-th segment as $S_{i} = [i*s, (i + 1)s]$ . The indices of remaining segments are denoted as $R_{i} = \\{j \\in [1,k], j \\notin S_{i}\\}$ . Then the full attention, segmented attention, and remaining attention at timestep $t$ will be", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 130, + 884, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}\\right) V\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 222, + 788, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {S i}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 243, + 811, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 265, + 815, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For example, the softmax operation applied on the remaining attention $O_{R}$ can be expanded as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 296, + 880, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {R} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i} \\tag {17}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 581, + 338, + 882, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n= \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) * V _ {R i}}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {18}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 633, + 361, + 880, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n= \\frac {\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {19}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 603, + 401, + 880, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the common implementation of softmax attention, $\\phi (X) = \\exp (X)$ is an exponential function. For the numerical stability of the computation, another choice is $\\phi (X) = \\exp (X - \\log (\\max_{i}X_{i}))$ (Li, 2022). However, Katharopoulos et al. (2020) proposed to replace it with a kernel function such that $\\phi (XY) = \\phi (X)\\phi (Y)$ . Then we have", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {20}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 576, + 880, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {S} [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {21}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 621, + 880, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {R} [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {22}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 663, + 880, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Denote the divisor in the above equations using $c_{s}, c_{r}$ , and $c$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 713, + 880, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc _ {s} = \\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 643, + 756, + 811, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc _ {r} = \\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 642, + 793, + 811, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) = c _ {s} + c _ {r}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 831, + 811, + 875 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then we can write the full attention as a weighted summation, where the weights depend on $c$ and $c_{s}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8336", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can use a factor $\\sigma$ to represent the weights.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 460, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = \\frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \\frac {c _ {r}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 105, + 416, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO [ t ] = \\sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \\sigma) O _ {R} [ t ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 136, + 416, + 153 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In practice, we find that simple addition without weighting still works. Our recurrent attention further approximates $O_{R}$ as below.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 160, + 487, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {R} [ t ] \\approx \\frac {Q _ {t} * R A F (K _ {R} ^ {T} * V _ {R})}{\\operatorname {n o r m} (K)}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 212, + 418, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moveover, we can estimate the error caused by segmented attention.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 255, + 485, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} O - O _ {S} \\\\ = \\frac {c _ {s} * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V - c * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}) V}{c * c _ {s}} \\\\ = \\frac {c * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {R} ^ {T}) V _ {R} - c _ {r} * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V}{c * (c - c _ {r})} \\\\ = \\frac {c _ {r}}{c - c _ {r}} (O _ {R} - O) = \\frac {c _ {r}}{c} (O _ {R} - O _ {S}) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 294, + 465, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Pseudo code for RAF neurons", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 422, + 400, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "class RAF(nnModule):", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 448, + 347, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "def init(dim):\n self-linear = Linear(dim, dim)\n selfactivation =ReLU\n self.leak = parameter(1.0,\n require_grad=True)\n self.thre = parameter(0.1,\n require_grad=True)", + "guess_lang": "python", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 464, + 490, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "def forward(input, mem, t):\n x = self(linear(input))\n mem = leak * mem + x\n y = mem / self.thre - 1.0\n mem = mem - self.thre * (y > 0)\n out = ReLU(y)\n return out", + "guess_lang": "python", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 592, + 468, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Positional bias and masks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 721, + 366, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Different transformers such as T5 and BART use positional bias and masks differently. Hence, we need to take this into consideration when implementing segmented recurrent attention.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 487, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For example, T5 adds positional bias to the attention weights $A$ . For segmented attention, we need to segment bias as shown in the following equations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nb _ {S i} = b [ i * s: (i + 1) * s ]\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 240, + 878, + 436, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nO _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(A _ {S} [ t ] + b _ {S i}\\right) * V _ {S i}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 898, + 436, + 914 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "BART adds positional bias to the inputs of the first layer, so there is no need to take care of that separately. However, the encoder of BART generates features of various sizes and adds padding to each batch. To ignore the padding, an encoder mask is used. Because softmax is removed in recurrent attention, adding negative infinity to masked locations is not suitable. Instead, we filter out abnormal values of $K * V$ and $P$ with a clamp function before computing recurrent attention.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To apply SRformer to other types of transformers, we recommend checking the positional bias and masks and adjusting accordingly.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 882, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8337", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_model.json b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e825ee69e3e5f8dcc04eb9e191a28ca746d515c1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2602 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.09, + 0.87, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Segmented Recurrent Transformer: An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.189, + 0.156, + 0.317, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinghan Long" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.174, + 0.325, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Purdue University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.19, + 0.343, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "long273@purdue.edu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.373, + 0.156, + 0.624, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sayed Shafayet Chowdhury" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.425, + 0.174, + 0.574, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Purdue University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.408, + 0.19, + 0.601, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "chowdh23@purdue.edu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.693, + 0.156, + 0.807, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaushik Roy" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.665, + 0.174, + 0.824, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Purdue University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.664, + 0.19, + 0.847, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "kaushik@purdue.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transformers have shown dominant performance across a range of domains including language and vision. However, their computational cost grows quadratically with the sequence length, making their usage prohibitive for resource-constrained applications. To counter this, our approach is to divide the whole sequence into segments and apply attention to the individual segments. We propose a segmented recurrent transformer (SRformer) that combines segmented (local) attention with recurrent attention. The loss caused by reducing the attention window length is compensated by aggregating information across segments with recurrent attention. SRformer leverages Recurrent Accumulate-and-Fire (RAF) neurons' inherent memory to update the cumulative product of keys and values. The segmented attention and lightweight RAF neurons ensure the efficiency of the proposed transformer. Such an approach leads to models with sequential processing capability at a lower computation/memory cost. We apply the proposed method to T5 and BART transformers. The modified models are tested on summarization datasets including CNN-dailymail, XSUM, ArXiv, and Media-SUM. Notably, using segmented inputs of varied sizes, the proposed model achieves \\(6 - 22\\%\\) higher ROUGE1 scores than a segmented transformer and outperforms other recurrent transformer approaches. Furthermore, compared to full attention, the proposed model reduces the computational complexity of cross attention by around \\(40\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.78, + 0.26, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the inception of transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017), they have gradually become the de-facto model for Natural Language Processing (NLP) as well as Computer Vision (CV) tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021). More recently, generative models have also achieved unprecedented results by employing transformers in language and" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.886, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "vision for understanding and generation (Saharia et al., 2022; Rombach et al., 2022). One of the key recipes behind the success of transformers is their ability to leverage long-range connections baked in the all-to-all attention mechanism. This sort of attention eases optimization and enables learning of long-term dependency, resulting in improved performance over traditional recurrent neural networks (RNNs). However, transformers incur huge memory and computing requirements, which may not be feasible for resource-constrained applications. Moreover, the computational complexity of transformers increases quadratically with input length, making scaling-up transformers a big challenge. Therefore, improving the efficiency of transformers is a key research direction (Tay et al., 2022). Specifically, for sequence-to-sequence language tasks such as translation and summarization, the decoder part of the transformer inevitably generates words in steps (Guo et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2020). These steps are mostly correlated and hence, some form of recurrence is suited to harness the underlying information efficiently. Without any explicit memory, the vanilla attention processes the same set of previous inputs repeatedly. Such redundant computation can be eliminated by incorporating recurrent units with small memory overhead. As a result, the model can efficiently recapitulate relevant information from past states while computation is performed only on the new inputs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To that end, there have been efforts to combine transformers with the recurrent mechanism. In TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), the long-term dependency is modeled by adding recurrence to transformers. However, this method simply concatenates the hidden states from the last segment with the current state for attention. It does not involve any explicit modification to the attention block itself to better suit the recurrence in order to bridge consecutive segments. Though this is simple to implement, it may not be the best possible way" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8325" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8325-8337" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.958, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to merge the attention mechanism with recurrence. Moreover, most existing recurrent transformers are only designed for self attention, whereas, for summarization tasks, cross attention uses much longer inputs and incurs a higher cost. Hence, there is scope to design a custom transformer architecture that can effectively combine recurrence with the embedded attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.218, + 0.49, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to enhance the computational efficiency of transformers, we divide the input sequence into segments to compute segmented attention. Next, to aggregate global information over segments, we add recurrent attention. We propose recurrent accumulate and fire (RAF) neurons for recurrent attention. It has an implicit memory to accumulate information over segments and only propagates values upon crossing a learnable threshold. By accumulating the partial product of keys and values from other segments, recurrent attention compensates for the loss caused by segmentation. Furthermore, RAF neurons use a leak and a threshold to forget and select information. Compared to RNNs or LSTMs, a RAF neuron has fewer parameters and thus does not add large computational overhead." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.481, + 0.49, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the proposal of segmented attention and recurrent attention, we introduce SRformer, as shown in Fig.1. SRformer is a sequence-to-sequence model consisting of an encoder and an auto-regressive decoder. It replaces the decoder's cross-attention with segmented recurrent attention, while self-attention can still attend to all locations of the generated sequence. During training, it selects the corresponding segment for each input and learns recurrent attention between segments. Because recurrent attention processes a segment as a whole, it enables partially parallel computation. During inference, it accesses past information from the memory and only updates the segmented recurrent attention with the current segment. Hence, it is more efficient than full attention. In addition, the number of timesteps for backpropagation depends on the number of segments instead of the length of inputs. The reduced propagation length ensures efficiency and alleviates the vanishing gradient problem. Moreover, we provide a matrix interpretation to demonstrate the harmonious alliance between recurrence and attention obtained through the proposed model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SRformer achieves better computational complexity and accuracy trade-off. When tested on the CNN-dailymail dataset, the ROUGE1 evalu" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.083, + 0.858, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.359, + 0.885, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Segmented Recurrent Transformer (SRformer). Cross attention is replaced by segmented recurrent attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.428, + 0.885, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ation score for the proposed model is \\(6 - 22\\%\\) higher than a segmented transformer without recurrent blocks. Interestingly, the performance of SRformer is resilient to extremely small segment sizes (ROUGE1 score drops by only 0.25 as segment size is reduced from 64 to 8). On the other hand, for the same segment size reduction, the baseline transformer suffers from severe performance degradation (ROUGE1 score drops by 16.04). Furthermore, the computation reduces by \\(\\sim 40\\%\\) in comparison with regular cross attention having access to the full sequence. This result clearly demonstrates the efficacy of segmented recurrent attention for sequential data processing, specifically for limited compute budgets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.67, + 0.884, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the next section, we introduce the related works. In Section 3, we provide details of SRformer. Finally, the experimental results are discussed in Section 4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.748, + 0.673, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Works" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Several approaches have been reported in the literature to improve the efficiency of transformers (Tay et al., 2022). Usage of low-rank kernels (Wang et al., 2020), fixed or learnable patterns (Child et al., 2019; Ho et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2021; Kitaev et al., 2020), block-wise processing (Lefaudeaux et al., 2022; Dao et al., 2022), recurrent transformers (Dai et al., 2019; Katharopoulos et al., 2020), and global attention (Ainslie et al., 2020; Zaheer" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8326" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2021) have been explored recently." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.122, + 0.49, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work falls under the category of transformers with recurrence. In this aspect, we closely examine the following two models. TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) concatenates the hidden states from the previous segment with the current one. Then each hidden state depends on all previous ones and becomes built-in memory. However, the length of hidden states gets doubled resulting in additional complexity. The Linear Transformer reduces attention to a linear-time, constant memory recurrent neural network (Katharopoulos et al., 2020). It is similar to our recurrent attention without RAF neurons and setting segment size to one. However, linear transformer usually suffers from performance degradation compared to regular attention with softmax. Qin et al. (2022) identified that the devil in linear attention is the scaling of attention matrices and used normalization to stabilize gradients. In our approach, we use RAF neurons and normalization to make a better approximation to softmax attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.465, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Other types of transformers deal with long sequences by combining local attention with global attention, such as ETC (Ainslie et al., 2020), Big Bird (Zaheer et al., 2020), Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020), and longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). Each paper proposed a different design for global attention. ETC pretrains global tokens with Contrastive Predictive Coding. Big Bird adds random sparse attention patterns to global attention. Longformer applies global attention on pre-selected locations and makes it symmetric: all locations attend to global tokens and vice versa. LongT5 simply uses the sum of each block as global tokens. Our work substitutes recurrent attention for global attention. We will compare our results with LongT5 since it is the most recent work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are two concurrent works about recurrent transformers. The first one is block recurrent transformer (Hutchins et al., 2022). They design recurrent cells to operate on blocks of tokens. Different from our encoder-decoder model, they add cross attention to a decoder-only model, which attends to recurrent states in parallel with self attention. The second work is on recurrent memory transformer (Bulatov et al., 2022). The authors segment inputs similar to our work, then put read and write memory at different ends of the input to attention. However, they only add memory to the input, while" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "we propose a novel attention mechanism that is a drop-in replacement for regular attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.121, + 0.885, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Notably, most of these related works focus on the self attention block of the transformer. However, we notice that the cross attention between the encoder and decoder is the bottleneck of computation in summarization tasks. Hence, we focus on improving the efficiency of cross attention for sequence-to-sequence models. Additionally, we use small segment sizes to improve efficiency, while other works use large sizes to improve scalability, which is another distinction between the proposed work and prior art." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.322, + 0.696, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Proposed method" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.357, + 0.722, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Segmented Attention" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.384, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suppose that \\( Q \\) is the query matrix, \\( K \\) is the key matrix, and \\( V \\) is the value matrix. The cross attention weight \\( A \\) and the output attention \\( O \\) are computed by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.624, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n{ } ^ { q \\times k } A = { } ^ { q \\times d } Q * ^ { d \\times k } K ^ { T } \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.589, + 0.492, + 0.882, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n^ {q \\times d} O = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A) * ^ {k \\times d} V \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.884, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show the dimension of each matrix at its upper-left superscript. \\( k \\) is the length of encoded features and \\( q \\) is the length of decoder embeddings. \\( d \\) is the inner dimension of each attention head. For summarization tasks, \\( q \\) is usually much smaller than \\( k \\). Note that the batch dimension and the number of heads are ignored for simplicity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.65, + 0.885, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If we split encoded features into segments of size \\(s\\), then the number of segments would be \\(m = \\frac{k}{s}\\). We define the \\(i\\)-th segment of keys and values as \\(K_{Si} = K[i*s:(i + 1)*s]\\) and \\(V_{Si} = V[i*s:(i + 1)*s]\\). To find the corresponding segment for a query at time \\(t\\), we compute the segment index by \\(i = \\min (int(t*m/q),m - 1)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let the query at time \\( t \\) be denoted as \\( Q_{t} \\). Then the full attention weight \\( A[t] \\) and output \\( O[t] \\) at time \\( t \\) are computed using the current query \\( Q_{t} \\) with full keys and values. However, in the case of segmented cross attention, we use only the corresponding segment of keys and values to compute the attention for the query at time \\( t \\), instead of the full matrix. The segmented attention weight \\( (A_{S}[t]) \\) and output \\( (O_{S}[t]) \\) are computed as in Eqn. 4 and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8327" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.172, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eqn. 6." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.235, + 0.112, + 0.488, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n^ {1 \\times k} A [ t ] = ^ {1 \\times d} Q _ {t} * ^ {d \\times k} K ^ {T} \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.134, + 0.487, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n{ } ^ { 1 \\times s } A _ { S } [ t ] = ^ { 1 \\times d } Q _ { t } * ^ { d \\times s } K _ { S i } ^ { T } \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.156, + 0.488, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n^ {1 \\times d} O [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A [ t ]) * ^ {k \\times d} V \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.177, + 0.487, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n^ {1 \\times d} O _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(A _ {S} [ t ]\\right) * ^ {s \\times d} V _ {S i} \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.209, + 0.49, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike directly projecting \\( K \\) to a lower rank of size \\( d \\times s \\) for all timesteps, each query is multiplied with a different segment \\( K_{Si} \\) and \\( V_{Si} \\). Hence every segment is used at least once during the process and there are no extra weights or information loss caused by projection. The computation complexity is reduced to \\( O(qds) \\) from \\( O(qdk) \\), where \\( s << k \\). If \\( s \\) is equal to the summarization ratio \\( k / q \\), then the computation complexity is reduced to \\( O(kd) \\) from \\( O(k^2 d / s) \\) and no longer grows quadratically with the length. Segmented attention described above largely improves efficiency but at the loss of the ability to access all information, which causes accuracy degradation. Therefore, next, we focus on how to compensate for the loss and achieve a better trade-off between efficiency and accuracy using recurrent units between segments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.495, + 0.427, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Approximating full attention with segmented recurrent attention" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.532, + 0.49, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The segmented attention described in the last subsection simply replaces \\( K \\) and \\( V \\) with the current segments \\( K_{Si} \\) and \\( V_{Si} \\), but it neglects a large part of the keys and values. Therefore, we need to compensate for the loss to better approximate the full attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suppose we divide the inputs into two parts: the current segment \\( S_{i} \\) and the remaining segments \\( R_{i} \\). By linearity of matrix operations, if we switch the order of columns in \\( K \\) and that of corresponding rows in \\( V \\), it does not affect the matrix multiplication result. Hence, we can partition matrix \\( K \\) into \\( \\left[K_{Si}\\quad K_{Ri}\\right] \\) and \\( V \\) into \\( \\left[V_{Si}\\quad V_{Ri}\\right]^T \\), where \\( K_{Ri} \\) and \\( V_{Ri} \\) are the remaining parts of the matrices excluding the current segment. The output \\( O \\) of full attention is computed by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.803, + 0.488, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA = Q * K ^ {T} = Q * \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.826, + 0.488, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q * \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right]\\right) \\left[ \\begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\\\ V _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By expanding Eqn. 8, full attention at time \\( t \\) can be rewritten as the weighted sum of segmented attention \\( O_{S}[t] \\) and the attention of remaining parts" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.757, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.107, + 0.883, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = \\frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \\frac {c - c _ {s}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.138, + 0.883, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = \\sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \\sigma) O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.161, + 0.882, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(c\\) and \\(c_{s}\\) are divisors of softmax. They can be replaced by a weighing factor \\(\\sigma\\). Please see the appendix for detailed analyses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.21, + 0.884, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the proposed approach, we approximate the output at time \\( t \\) by computing the segmented attention \\( O_S \\) of the local segment using Eqn. 6, then adding the approximated \\( O_R \\) for other segments. The weighing factor \\( \\sigma \\) can be a trainable parameter. Note, the simplified sum shown in Eqn. 11 still works because of the automatic adjustment of other parameters." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.344, + 0.883, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = O _ {S} [ t ] + O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.884, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To efficiently approximate the compensation part \\( O_{R} \\), we propose recurrent attention. This is important because if we directly compute it, the total computational complexity becomes the same as a non-segmented model. Inspired by linear attention proposed in Katharopoulos et al. (2020), we multiply keys and values first, then multiply with queries. This is validated by the associativity property of matrix multiplication. The switch of order allows storing the product of keys and values as a state of RNN. The softmax operation applied on the attention weights is approximated as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.566, + 0.883, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} O _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i} (12) \\\\ \\approx \\frac {Q _ {t} * R A F \\left(K _ {R i} * V _ {R i}\\right)}{\\operatorname {n o r m} (K)} (13) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.625, + 0.884, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The \\(RAF\\) in this equation is a recurrent unit designed to accumulate sequential information. It is explained in detail in subsection 3.3. In Eqn. 13, division by \\(\\text{norm}(K)\\) is used to simulate the normalization factor of softmax." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.706, + 0.882, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We simplify the computation of multiplying \\( K_{Ri} \\) and \\( V_{Ri} \\) by the multiplication rule of the matrix, as follows. The product is denoted by \\( P \\)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.759, + 0.883, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} K * V = \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\left[ \\begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\\\ V _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] (14) \\\\ \\Rightarrow K * V = K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} + K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} (15) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.816, + 0.882, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {i} = K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} = K * V - K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} \\tag {16}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thus, we can easily reduce the computational complexity of Eqn. 16 from \\( O(d * (k - s) * d) \\) to \\( O(d * s * d) \\). For \\( P_{i} \\) of different segments, we only need to compute \\( K * V \\) once. Fig. 2 shows the computation process of recurrent cross attention." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8328" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.481, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.489, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Segmented Recurrent Attention in a cross attention block. \\( K_{Si} \\) and \\( V_{Si} \\) are segmented keys and values. \\( H_{t} \\) is the hidden input, which is projected to \\( Q_{t} \\) by a linear layer. \\( b_{Si} \\) is the bias of T5 model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.442, + 0.486, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.489, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RAF neurons accumulate the partial products of keys and values, help approximate softmax, and filter out unnecessary information. It is inspired by Integrate-and-Fire neurons from biological brains and Spiking Neural Networks (Lee et al., 2016; Wozniak et al., 2020; Ponghiran and Roy, 2021; Chowdhury et al., 2022). The architecture of an RAF neuron is shown in Fig. 3. We also provide Pytorch-like pseudo code for RAF in Appendix A.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Each RAF neuron uses a membrane potential (memory) to efficiently aggregate sequential information. At each timestep, the memory is updated by adding the projected input with the previous memory, where memory gets decayed by a learnable leak. The input to RAF neurons is the partial product \\( K_{Ri} * V_{Ri} \\) containing information of the sequence except the current segment. It is projected by a linear layer. Since Eqn. 13 does not use softmax, the linear layer is necessary to adjust the scale of inputs. Next, we check if its memory crosses the threshold of information propagation to the next layer. If yes, the information in its memory gets passed to the next processing layer, else, the output is zero. This is activated by applying ReLU on the thresholded memory. The learned threshold works like a bias to activate only values over it. If the memory has activated firing, it will be" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.877, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.275, + 0.884, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron. The leaky factor and threshold are trained parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.334, + 0.885, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "soft reset by subtracting the value of the threshold. Then it will not fire again until new information is given. Because \\( K_{Ri} \\) and \\( V_{Ri} \\) at different steps have overlaps, reset is important to forget redundant information. The design of RAF results in a sparse and low-complexity bio-inspired recurrence mechanism. Unlike an LSTM, a RAF neuron does not apply weights on the hidden memory, but only uses a learnable leaky factor, a threshold, and soft reset as forget and output gates. Hence, it requires fewer weights and lesser computation compared to an LSTM." + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.545, + 0.884, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: One step of cross attention blocks in SRformer \nInput: Query \\( Q_{t} \\); Keys \\( K \\) and Values \\( V \\) projected from encoded features; Timestep \\( t \\); previous index prev; \nOutput: Output \\( O_{t} \\) \n\\( K_{s} = \\text{split}(K) \\); \\( V_{s} = \\text{split}(V) \\) \n\\( i = \\min(\\text{int}(t * m/q), m - 1) \\) \n\\( A[t] = \\text{matmul}(Q_{t}, K_{s}[i]) \\) \n\\( A[t] = \\text{softmax}(A[t]) \\) \nif \\( t == 0 \\) then \n \\( KV = \\text{matmul}(K, V) \\) \n \\( \\text{memory} = \\text{zero tensor} \\) \nend \n\\( O_{S} = \\text{matmul}(A[t], V_{s}[i]) \\) \nif \\( prev != i \\) then \n \\( P = KV - \\text{matmul}(K_{s}[i], V_{s}[i]) \\) \n \\( P, \\text{mem} = \\text{RAF}(P, \\text{mem}) \\) \nend \n\\( O_{R} = \\text{matmul}(Q_{t}, P)/\\text{norm}(K) \\) \n\\( O_{t} = O_{S} + O_{R} \\) \n\\( prev = i \\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8329" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.081, + 0.861, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Comp. complexityExample (K)Memory complexityExample (K)
TransformerO(qkd)qkd = 8389O(qk + kd)197
SegmentedO(qsd)qsd = 524O(qs + kd)74
SRformerO(qsd + kd2)qsd + kd2 = 4718O(qs + kd + md2)139
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.16, + 0.885, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Computation and memory complexity of cross attention. For example, in one of our experiments on the CNN-dailymail dataset, \\( q = 128 \\); \\( k = 1024 \\); \\( d = 64 \\); \\( s = 64 \\). To illustrate theoretical computation and memory cost, we show the product of example sizes in thousands." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.229, + 0.438, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Segmented Recurrent Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.254, + 0.49, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SRformer aims at utilizing the sequential generation process to capture the relation between locations of a long sequence, without paying attention to all locations or propagating from start to end. After reducing the length of keys and values to reduce computational complexity, it uses Eqn. 13 to approximate the attention mechanism." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.369, + 0.49, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 shows the process of one step of cross-attention blocks in SRformer. First, keys and values are split into segments. Then it computes the attention score \\( A[t] \\) for the current query with the corresponding segment of keys \\( K_{Si} \\). Because the length of queries is usually greater than the number of segments, some queries might use the same segment. Only when \\( t = 0 \\), which means it is the beginning of a new sequence, it initializes the memory of RAF and compute the full product of \\( KV \\). After applying softmax, attention scores are multiplied with segmented values to get the segmented attention output \\( O_S \\). It is important to compute the partial product \\( P \\) of keys and values only once for each index. In addition, the computation of \\( P \\) can be parallelized to improve efficiency. Then \\( P \\) is given to the RAF layer for accumulating with the memory through the recurrent process. The output of RAF is multiplied by the query and then normalized. Finally, we add the segmented attention output \\( O_S \\) and the complementary \\( O_R \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.709, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach builds connections between segments by using the partial product of keys and values as memory. Since the RAF neuron is applied between segments, the backpropagation-through-time in our model is more efficient than using recurrent layers on each input. As discussed before, recurrent attention makes up for the loss caused by segmented attention. Together, they approximate a complete attention mechanism at a lower cost. Although some existing works proposed global attention for a similar purpose, global attention based on selected locations cannot make up for the loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since segmented recurrent attention is a drop" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.229, + 0.886, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in replacement for attention, it can be used in all encoder-decoder transformers, such as T5 and BART. Please note that the usage of positional bias and masks varies across transformers and needs modification. We provide details in Appendix. A.3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.337, + 0.859, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Complexity Analysis of cross attention" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The total complexity of a sequence-to-sequence transformer is composed of the cost of the encoder and that of the decoder. Here, we only compare the complexity of cross-attention since the other components are not affected by the proposed method. In table 1, we show both computation and memory (space) complexity analyses of a regular transformer, a segmented one, and the proposed SRformer. Please note that the batch size and the number of heads are not considered. To compute the segmented qkv attention, the complexity is \\( O(qsd) \\). The bottleneck for computation is to multiply \\( K_{Si} * V_{Si} \\) for \\( m \\) times, which results in \\( O(msd^2) \\) complexity. Because the number of segments is \\( m = k / s \\), it becomes \\( O(kd^2) \\). After that, we need to multiply \\( Q \\) with it, which costs \\( O(qd^2) \\), but as \\( q << k \\), this term can be ignored. The recurrent unit also costs much less computation than the bottleneck, so it can also be ignored. Since the segment size \\( s \\) and the inner dimension \\( d \\) of each head are much smaller than \\( k \\) in summarization datasets, the number of computations is fewer than a regular transformer, as shown in table 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The memory complexity depends on the sizes of input matrices and intermediate matrices. The size of key and value matrices are \\( k \\times d \\). The intermediate matrix is the attention weight \\( A \\), whose size is \\( q \\times k \\). By segmentation, its size is reduced to \\( q \\times s \\). For recurrent attention, we compute the product of keys and values, \\( P \\), for \\( m \\) segments. Hence, there are \\( m \\) matrices of size \\( d \\times d \\). In table 1, we show that given the example sizes, the theoretical reduction of computation is \\( 43\\% \\), and that of memory complexity is \\( 29\\% \\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8330" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.335, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We test our proposed model and method on T5 sequence-to-sequence transformers (Raffel et al., 2022) and BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Since we want to design a model for resource-constrained environments, we use T5-small, which contains 6 transformer layers and 60 million parameters, and BART-base which contains 6 layers and 140 million parameters. Our implementation is built based on Huggingface transformer platform, which is released under the Apache-2.0 License, and we load the pretrained models before training (Wolf et al., 2019). The implementation is based on PyTorch python package (Paszke et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.317, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We run all experiments on Nvidia A40 GPUs. Each experiment is run on a single core to compare GPU power and memory usage. We train the models for 25 epochs as the loss and evaluation scores converge at that point. The initial learning rate is \\(5e^{-5}\\). The optimizer is AdamW and the learning rate scheduler is linear with default settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.431, + 0.49, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use ROUGE scores to evaluate SRformer and compare it with other transformers. ROUGE-N is defined as the n-gram recall between model predictions and a set of ground-truth summaries, and ROUGE-L measures the longest common subsequence between them (Lin, 2004). Note, a higher ROUGE score denotes better summarization performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.575, + 0.433, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Results on summarization datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The summarization datasets we use to evaluate the model include CNN-dailymail (Nallapati et al., 2016), XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018), ArXiv Summarization (Cohan et al., 2018), and MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021). CNN-dailymail dataset contains 311k anonymized English news articles and their summaries, among which 286,817 are training pairs, 13,368 are validation pairs, and 11,487 are test pairs (Hermann et al., 2015; See et al., 2017). XSUM is an extreme summarization dataset, and thus its summaries only have 23 words on average (Narayan et al., 2018). The numbers of documents for training, validation, and test sets of XSUM dataset are 204,045/11,332/11,334. ArXiv dataset has 215 thousand documents, including \\(5\\%\\) for validation and another \\(5\\%\\) for test (Cohan et al., 2018). MediaSUM is a media interview dataset consisting of 463.6K dialogue transcripts and summaries, and validation and test set each randomly select 10K instances (Zhu et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 lists the detailed results including ROUGE1, ROUGE2, ROUGEL, and ROUGEL-Sum scores. From the table, we can see that a model with a higher ROUGE1 score usually gives higher other scores, and hence can be considered as better. The sizes of keys and values for cross attention are 1024. With the default segment size set to 64, the sizes of keys and values are reduced by 16. As a consequence, both T5 and BART experience large performance degradation. Then we show ROUGE1 scores of SRformer in bold numbers. SRformer benefits from its recurrent attention mechanism and achieves \\(3 - 10\\%\\) higher scores than the segmented transformers. Although its ROUGE scores are slightly lower than the baseline model, the computational complexity is largely reduced, and we will show it also cuts down GPU power usage and memory access time in section 4.4.2." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.386, + 0.872, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.598, + 0.883, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Rouge1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset for different segment sizes across various models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.656, + 0.733, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Effect of segment sizes" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.884, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4 shows ROUGE1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset with regard to different segment sizes 8, 16, and 64. The number of segments should not exceed the number of generation steps, otherwise, some segments would never be used. Hence, the segment size should not be smaller than 8 for the CNN-dailymail dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The blue line in Fig. 4 shows that for a segmented transformer without recurrence, the ROUGE1 score drops significantly by \\(16\\%\\) when reducing segment size from 64 to 8. The yellow line shows the results of applying the method from TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) to cross attention blocks of the T5-small model. We add a hidden memory for keys and values and concatenate" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8331" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.887, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SRformerSegmentedBaseline
DatasetModelROUGE2ROUGELROUGELsumROUGE1ROUGE1ROUGE1
CNN-DMT516.7927.2936.8139.3933.3141.60
BART19.8029.4440.4043.1933.8744.54
XSUMT511.7226.8826.8834.4827.0335.35
BART16.5831.5431.5439.0336.2241.33
ArXivT511.5024.5331.8636.0432.6437.79
BART14.9725.2937.8642.9936.4343.95
MediaSumT512.8925.7226.2928.5924.4329.25
BART14.7024.7528.4632.3628.4033.88
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.257, + 0.884, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results of SRformer on Summarization datasets compared to baseline models and their segmented version. The baseline models are T5-small and BART-base." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.312, + 0.49, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the hidden memory with the current segment to compute cross attention. With that setting, TransformerXL performs better than a segmented transformer, but its performance still decreases with the segment size. The green line shows the results of longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). When the number of segments grows as the segment size decreases, it can use more tokens for computing global attention. Hence, its performance is inversely proportional to the segment size. For example, when segment size is 8, it uses 8 local and 128 global tokens, and its performance is \\(3\\%\\) better than using 64 local and 16 global ones. However, the computational overhead of global attention also grows quadratically with the number of tokens. In contrast, SRformer is able to keep a stable performance regardless of the size reduction. Its ROUGE1 scores are \\(6 - 22\\%\\) higher than those of a segmented T5 model, and it gives a larger boost in performance compared to TransformerXL and longT5. Even when other models use a segment 8 times larger, they are still not able to compete with our model. The results show that SRformer can indeed better approximate full attention." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.707, + 0.479, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SettingROUGE1SettingROUGE1
SRformer39.39--
(I)36.86(II)36.77
(III)35.84(IV)29.72
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.786, + 0.483, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study using CNN-Dailymail dataset" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.28, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better understand the contribution of each component to the performance of SRformer, we conducted an ablation study by removing or modifying terms in Eqn. 11 or 13. The segment size is fixed to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.312, + 0.884, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "64 and the model is modified from T5-small. The dataset used for ablation study is CNN-dailymail. We varied the following components one by one while keeping the rest of the model fixed:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.376, + 0.884, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(I) Remove segmented attention. We modify the model to only use recurrent attention. We observe a noticeable drop in performance, however, it is much better than only using segmented attention. This shows that recurrent attention made a crucial contribution to the overall performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.473, + 0.882, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(II) Remove normalization. Without dividing norm(K), ROUGE 1 score drops by 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.505, + 0.884, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(III) Without RAF. Skipping RAF will remove recurrent computation and corresponding weights. However, without RAF, it is not able to approximate full attention well. The performance decrease shows the importance of RAF." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.585, + 0.884, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(IV) Replacing \\( K_{R} * V_{R} \\) with \\( K_{s} * V_{s} \\). In this case, it can skip computing \\( K * V \\). RAF accumulates information as timesteps increase. However, at the beginning of generation, it only has information from the first few segments. Hence the performance is not as good." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.682, + 0.882, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, our ablation study shows that all terms in Eqn. 13 are important components." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.376, + 0.884, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.73, + 0.868, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Evaluation of improvement in efficiency" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.753, + 0.768, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4.1 Theoretical improvement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table.1, we have shown that SRformer reduces the computation and memory complexity of cross attention. In our experiment, as the length of the generated summary \\( q \\) equals 128 and the length of the input article \\( k \\) equals 1024, the theoretical reduction of computation is \\( 43\\% \\), and that of memory complexity is \\( 29\\% \\). In Fig. 5, we show how the improvement would change when the length of the generated summary scales up. The costs are" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8332" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.094, + 0.481, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.258, + 0.276, + 0.39, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Computation cost" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.094, + 0.832, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.622, + 0.276, + 0.728, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Memory cost" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.3, + 0.884, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Theoretical computational cost and memory cost of cross attention when the length of summary \\((q)\\) increases from 128 to 1024." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.354, + 0.49, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "computed based on the theoretical complexity in Table.1. Suppose that the length of the input article is eight times the length of the summary (\\(k = 8*q\\)). The cost of cross attention in a regular transformer will increase quadratically with the text length. The cost of cross attention in SRformer is not dependent on \\(q * k\\) but \\(q * s\\), where \\(s\\) is a small segment size. Therefore, it increases linearly and the reduction would be \\(93\\%\\) compared to a transformer when \\(q = 1024\\). Although existing datasets for abstractive summarization have relatively short summary lengths, large language models may be required to generate a long summary for a very long document at a fixed ratio. In that case, SRformer can provide a large improvement in efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.609, + 0.421, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4.2 GPU power and memory usage" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We track GPU memory, memory accessing time, and power using Weights&Biases tools (Biewald, 2020). The GPU usage of SRformer modified from BART and other models are listed in Table. 4. Our model consumes less GPU power and spends less time accessing memory, compared to a regular transformer, TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), and LongT5 (Guo et al., 2021). BART uses \\(99\\%\\) GPU power, which almost reaches the limitation of GPU. The percentage of time GPU spent accessing memory is \\(91\\%\\). It means GPU spent most of the time fetching data from memory. However, with segmented recurrent attention, SRformer does not need to use all encoded features at each step. Hence it saves a considerable amount of computation and memory access. It only uses \\(81\\%\\) GPU power and \\(60\\%\\) GPU memory accessing time. Although GPU memory usage of all recurrent transformers" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.351, + 0.86, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMemTimePower
BART499199
TransformerXL827089
LongT5738090
SRformer606080
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.445, + 0.884, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Percentages (%) of GPU usage in terms of memory, memory accessing time, and power usage" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.503, + 0.884, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is larger than vanilla BART to store weights and gradients, our method uses less memory than TransformerXL and LongT5. In conclusion, by alleviating the cross attention bottleneck, the proposed transformer becomes more efficient." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.601, + 0.642, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose an efficient sequence-to-sequence transformer using segmented recurrent attention. Since cross-attention is the computation bottleneck for text summarization, replacing full attention with segmented recurrent attention can largely reduce its computation complexity. The proposed RAF neurons help approximate full attention at a low overhead. During inference, they utilize the sequential process to accumulate information in their internal memory and bridge information across segments effectively. The efficacy of the proposed model is demonstrated through higher ROUGE scores on multiple summarization datasets compared to other segmented transformers. Our proposed architecture is especially suitable for summarization and can be used for other sequence-to-sequence tasks such as translation and question-answering." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8333" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.491, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work focuses on designing an efficient encoder-decoder model for summarization tasks. The proposed method can not be directly applied to an encoder-only or decoder-only model, although it is possible to design a modified version for those models. In the case that the length of encoded features is not much larger than the length of decoder output, it may not be able to show significant reduction in computation and memory cost." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.267, + 0.266, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.292, + 0.488, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work complies with the ACL Ethics Policy. It contributes a new model to the deep learning and computational linguistics community which can be used in many applications. We will make the codes open-source for other researchers." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.385, + 0.279, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.41, + 0.491, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by the Center for Code-design of Cognitive Systems (CoCoSys), one of the seven centers in JUMP 2.0, a Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) program sponsored by DARPA." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.518, + 0.214, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.54, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joshua Ainslie, Santiago Ontañón, Chris Alberti, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, and Sumit Sanghai. 2020. ETC: encoding long and structured data in transformers. CoRR, abs/2004.08483." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.603, + 0.49, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Songhao Piao, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2020. Unilmv2: Pseudo-masked language models for unified language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.705, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. CoRR, abs/2004.05150." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.755, + 0.488, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lukas Biewald. 2020. Experiment tracking with weights and biases. Software available from wandb.com." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.805, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.54, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.199, + 0.885, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aydar Bulatov, Yuri Kuratov, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2022. Recurrent memory transformer. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.246, + 0.883, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. CoRR, abs/1904.10509." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sayeed Shafayet Chowdhury, Nitin Rathi, and Kaushik Roy. 2022. One timestep is all you need: Training spiking neural networks with ultra low latency. abs/2110.05929." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.354, + 0.885, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 615-621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.493, + 0.885, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Transformer-XL: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2978-2988, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.593, + 0.885, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. FlashAttention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with IO-awareness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.667, + 0.883, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. abs/2010.11929." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.766, + 0.885, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724-736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David C. Uthus, Santiago Ontañón, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. CoRR, abs/2112.07916." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.434, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/ acl-code-ethics" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8334" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In NIPS, pages 1693-1701." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.487, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Ho, Nal Kalchbrenner, Dirk Weissenborn, and Tim Salimans. 2019. Axial attention in multidimensional transformers. CoRR, abs/1912.12180." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.199, + 0.487, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DeLesley S. Hutchins, Imanol Schlag, Yuhuai Wu, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2022. Block-recurrent transformers. ArXiv, abs/2203.07852." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.248, + 0.487, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angelos Katharopoulos, Apoorv Vyas, Nikolaos Pappas, and François Fleuret. 2020. Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.337, + 0.487, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikita Kitaev, Lukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. 2020. Reformer: The efficient transformer. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.386, + 0.487, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jun Haeng Lee, Tobi Delbruck, and Michael Pfeiffer. 2016. Training deep spiking neural networks using backpropagation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.436, + 0.487, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin Lefaudeaux, Francisco Massa, Diana Liskovich, Wenhan Xiong, Vittorio Caggiano, Sean Naren, Min Xu, Jieru Hu, Marta Tintore, Susan Zhang, Patrick Labatut, and Daniel Haziza. 2022. xformers: A modular and hackable transformer modelling library. https://github.com/facebookresearch/xformers." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.537, + 0.487, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.665, + 0.487, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei-Fei Li. 2022. Cs231n: Convolutional neural networks for visual recognition." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.702, + 0.487, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.764, + 0.487, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Caglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280-290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! Topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.127, + 0.882, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.284, + 0.882, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wachirawit Ponghiran and Kaushik Roy. 2021. Spiking neural networks with improved inherent recurrence dynamics for sequential learning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.351, + 0.882, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Qin, Xiaodong Han, Weixuan Sun, Dongxu Li, Lingpeng Kong, Nick Barnes, and Yiran Zhong. 2022. The devil in linear transformer. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7025-7041, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.456, + 0.882, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2022. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.536, + 0.882, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684-10695." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.628, + 0.882, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aurko Roy, Mohammad Saffar, Ashish Vaswani, and David Grangier. 2021. Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:53-68." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.708, + 0.882, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo-Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8335" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(6)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.136, + 0.488, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.212, + 0.489, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sinong Wang, Belinda Z. Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. 2020. Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. CoRR, abs/2006.04768." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. CoRR, abs/1910.03771." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.35, + 0.49, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stanislaw Wozniak, Angeliki Pantazi, Thomas Bohnstingl, and Evangelos Eleftheriou. 2020. Deep learning incorporating biologically inspired neural dynamics and in-memory computing. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2:325-336." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.426, + 0.49, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. 2020. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. CoRR, abs/2007.14062." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.501, + 0.49, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5927-5934, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.634, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.111, + 0.802, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Expanding attention equations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.131, + 0.885, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denote the current i-th segment as \\( S_{i} = [i*s, (i + 1)s] \\). The indices of remaining segments are denoted as \\( R_{i} = \\{j \\in [1,k], j \\notin S_{i}\\} \\). Then the full attention, segmented attention, and remaining attention at timestep \\( t \\) will be" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.223, + 0.789, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}\\right) V\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.244, + 0.813, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {S i}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.266, + 0.816, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.297, + 0.882, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For example, the softmax operation applied on the remaining attention \\( O_{R} \\) can be expanded as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.583, + 0.34, + 0.884, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {R} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i} \\tag {17}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.634, + 0.362, + 0.882, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n= \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) * V _ {R i}}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {18}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.605, + 0.402, + 0.882, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n= \\frac {\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {19}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.453, + 0.885, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the common implementation of softmax attention, \\(\\phi (X) = \\exp (X)\\) is an exponential function. For the numerical stability of the computation, another choice is \\(\\phi (X) = \\exp (X - \\log (\\max_{i}X_{i}))\\) (Li, 2022). However, Katharopoulos et al. (2020) proposed to replace it with a kernel function such that \\(\\phi (XY) = \\phi (X)\\phi (Y)\\). Then we have" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.577, + 0.882, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {20}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.622, + 0.882, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {S} [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {21}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.551, + 0.664, + 0.882, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {R} [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {22}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.714, + 0.882, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denote the divisor in the above equations using \\( c_{s}, c_{r} \\), and \\( c \\)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.645, + 0.757, + 0.813, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc _ {s} = \\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.643, + 0.794, + 0.813, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc _ {r} = \\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.832, + 0.813, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) = c _ {s} + c _ {r}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then we can write the full attention as a weighted summation, where the weights depend on \\( c \\) and \\( c_{s} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8336" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.461, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can use a factor \\(\\sigma\\) to represent the weights." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.106, + 0.418, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = \\frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \\frac {c _ {r}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.137, + 0.418, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO [ t ] = \\sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \\sigma) O _ {R} [ t ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.161, + 0.489, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In practice, we find that simple addition without weighting still works. Our recurrent attention further approximates \\( O_{R} \\) as below." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.181, + 0.214, + 0.42, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {R} [ t ] \\approx \\frac {Q _ {t} * R A F (K _ {R} ^ {T} * V _ {R})}{\\operatorname {n o r m} (K)}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.256, + 0.487, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moveover, we can estimate the error caused by segmented attention." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.296, + 0.467, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} O - O _ {S} \\\\ = \\frac {c _ {s} * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V - c * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}) V}{c * c _ {s}} \\\\ = \\frac {c * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {R} ^ {T}) V _ {R} - c _ {r} * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V}{c * (c - c _ {r})} \\\\ = \\frac {c _ {r}}{c - c _ {r}} (O _ {R} - O) = \\frac {c _ {r}}{c} (O _ {R} - O _ {S}) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.423, + 0.4, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Pseudo code for RAF neurons" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.449, + 0.348, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "class RAF(nnModule):" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.466, + 0.492, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "def init(dim):\n self-linear = Linear(dim, dim)\n selfactivation =ReLU\n self.leak = parameter(1.0,\n require_grad=True)\n self.thre = parameter(0.1,\n require_grad=True)" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.593, + 0.47, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "def forward(input, mem, t):\n x = self(linear(input))\n mem = leak * mem + x\n y = mem / self.thre - 1.0\n mem = mem - self.thre * (y > 0)\n out = ReLU(y)\n return out" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.722, + 0.367, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Positional bias and masks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.742, + 0.489, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Different transformers such as T5 and BART use positional bias and masks differently. Hence, we need to take this into consideration when implementing segmented recurrent attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For example, T5 adds positional bias to the attention weights \\( A \\). For segmented attention, we need to segment bias as shown in the following equations." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.241, + 0.879, + 0.437, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nb _ {S i} = b [ i * s: (i + 1) * s ]\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.899, + 0.437, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nO _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(A _ {S} [ t ] + b _ {S i}\\right) * V _ {S i}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "BART adds positional bias to the inputs of the first layer, so there is no need to take care of that separately. However, the encoder of BART generates features of various sizes and adds padding to each batch. To ignore the padding, an encoder mask is used. Because softmax is removed in recurrent attention, adding negative infinity to masked locations is not suitable. Instead, we filter out abnormal values of \\( K * V \\) and \\( P \\) with a clamp function before computing recurrent attention." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.246, + 0.883, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To apply SRformer to other types of transformers, we recommend checking the positional bias and masks and adjusting accordingly." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8337" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_origin.pdf b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdf758be16ed2eb4036a351d5091d78ec62e046c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/843bad54-cb4c-424a-baeb-0e5a7a070610_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d81e916ec0e020b2ca71dbf669de8e6664e5178d9d94edb5144972c9233f0ba4 +size 604680 diff --git a/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/full.md b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6ff71aa904c188134518b1c4aac8bf807edcbdc --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,474 @@ +# Segmented Recurrent Transformer: An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model + +Yinghan Long + +Purdue University + +long273@purdue.edu + +Sayed Shafayet Chowdhury + +Purdue University + +chowdh23@purdue.edu + +Kaushik Roy + +Purdue University + +kaushik@purdue.edu + +# Abstract + +Transformers have shown dominant performance across a range of domains including language and vision. However, their computational cost grows quadratically with the sequence length, making their usage prohibitive for resource-constrained applications. To counter this, our approach is to divide the whole sequence into segments and apply attention to the individual segments. We propose a segmented recurrent transformer (SRformer) that combines segmented (local) attention with recurrent attention. The loss caused by reducing the attention window length is compensated by aggregating information across segments with recurrent attention. SRformer leverages Recurrent Accumulate-and-Fire (RAF) neurons' inherent memory to update the cumulative product of keys and values. The segmented attention and lightweight RAF neurons ensure the efficiency of the proposed transformer. Such an approach leads to models with sequential processing capability at a lower computation/memory cost. We apply the proposed method to T5 and BART transformers. The modified models are tested on summarization datasets including CNN-dailymail, XSUM, ArXiv, and Media-SUM. Notably, using segmented inputs of varied sizes, the proposed model achieves $6 - 22\%$ higher ROUGE1 scores than a segmented transformer and outperforms other recurrent transformer approaches. Furthermore, compared to full attention, the proposed model reduces the computational complexity of cross attention by around $40\%$ . + +# 1 Introduction + +Since the inception of transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017), they have gradually become the de-facto model for Natural Language Processing (NLP) as well as Computer Vision (CV) tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021). More recently, generative models have also achieved unprecedented results by employing transformers in language and + +vision for understanding and generation (Saharia et al., 2022; Rombach et al., 2022). One of the key recipes behind the success of transformers is their ability to leverage long-range connections baked in the all-to-all attention mechanism. This sort of attention eases optimization and enables learning of long-term dependency, resulting in improved performance over traditional recurrent neural networks (RNNs). However, transformers incur huge memory and computing requirements, which may not be feasible for resource-constrained applications. Moreover, the computational complexity of transformers increases quadratically with input length, making scaling-up transformers a big challenge. Therefore, improving the efficiency of transformers is a key research direction (Tay et al., 2022). Specifically, for sequence-to-sequence language tasks such as translation and summarization, the decoder part of the transformer inevitably generates words in steps (Guo et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2020). These steps are mostly correlated and hence, some form of recurrence is suited to harness the underlying information efficiently. Without any explicit memory, the vanilla attention processes the same set of previous inputs repeatedly. Such redundant computation can be eliminated by incorporating recurrent units with small memory overhead. As a result, the model can efficiently recapitulate relevant information from past states while computation is performed only on the new inputs. + +To that end, there have been efforts to combine transformers with the recurrent mechanism. In TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), the long-term dependency is modeled by adding recurrence to transformers. However, this method simply concatenates the hidden states from the last segment with the current state for attention. It does not involve any explicit modification to the attention block itself to better suit the recurrence in order to bridge consecutive segments. Though this is simple to implement, it may not be the best possible way + +to merge the attention mechanism with recurrence. Moreover, most existing recurrent transformers are only designed for self attention, whereas, for summarization tasks, cross attention uses much longer inputs and incurs a higher cost. Hence, there is scope to design a custom transformer architecture that can effectively combine recurrence with the embedded attention. + +In order to enhance the computational efficiency of transformers, we divide the input sequence into segments to compute segmented attention. Next, to aggregate global information over segments, we add recurrent attention. We propose recurrent accumulate and fire (RAF) neurons for recurrent attention. It has an implicit memory to accumulate information over segments and only propagates values upon crossing a learnable threshold. By accumulating the partial product of keys and values from other segments, recurrent attention compensates for the loss caused by segmentation. Furthermore, RAF neurons use a leak and a threshold to forget and select information. Compared to RNNs or LSTMs, a RAF neuron has fewer parameters and thus does not add large computational overhead. + +Based on the proposal of segmented attention and recurrent attention, we introduce SRformer, as shown in Fig.1. SRformer is a sequence-to-sequence model consisting of an encoder and an auto-regressive decoder. It replaces the decoder's cross-attention with segmented recurrent attention, while self-attention can still attend to all locations of the generated sequence. During training, it selects the corresponding segment for each input and learns recurrent attention between segments. Because recurrent attention processes a segment as a whole, it enables partially parallel computation. During inference, it accesses past information from the memory and only updates the segmented recurrent attention with the current segment. Hence, it is more efficient than full attention. In addition, the number of timesteps for backpropagation depends on the number of segments instead of the length of inputs. The reduced propagation length ensures efficiency and alleviates the vanishing gradient problem. Moreover, we provide a matrix interpretation to demonstrate the harmonious alliance between recurrence and attention obtained through the proposed model. + +SRformer achieves better computational complexity and accuracy trade-off. When tested on the CNN-dailymail dataset, the ROUGE1 evalu + +![](images/0db5dbacf648be7563f5da126162f31212d633e47d4b8f9e8c938e84a7b81aac.jpg) +Figure 1: Segmented Recurrent Transformer (SRformer). Cross attention is replaced by segmented recurrent attention. + +ation score for the proposed model is $6 - 22\%$ higher than a segmented transformer without recurrent blocks. Interestingly, the performance of SRformer is resilient to extremely small segment sizes (ROUGE1 score drops by only 0.25 as segment size is reduced from 64 to 8). On the other hand, for the same segment size reduction, the baseline transformer suffers from severe performance degradation (ROUGE1 score drops by 16.04). Furthermore, the computation reduces by $\sim 40\%$ in comparison with regular cross attention having access to the full sequence. This result clearly demonstrates the efficacy of segmented recurrent attention for sequential data processing, specifically for limited compute budgets. + +In the next section, we introduce the related works. In Section 3, we provide details of SRformer. Finally, the experimental results are discussed in Section 4. + +# 2 Related Works + +Several approaches have been reported in the literature to improve the efficiency of transformers (Tay et al., 2022). Usage of low-rank kernels (Wang et al., 2020), fixed or learnable patterns (Child et al., 2019; Ho et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2021; Kitaev et al., 2020), block-wise processing (Lefaudeaux et al., 2022; Dao et al., 2022), recurrent transformers (Dai et al., 2019; Katharopoulos et al., 2020), and global attention (Ainslie et al., 2020; Zaheer + +et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2021) have been explored recently. + +Our work falls under the category of transformers with recurrence. In this aspect, we closely examine the following two models. TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) concatenates the hidden states from the previous segment with the current one. Then each hidden state depends on all previous ones and becomes built-in memory. However, the length of hidden states gets doubled resulting in additional complexity. The Linear Transformer reduces attention to a linear-time, constant memory recurrent neural network (Katharopoulos et al., 2020). It is similar to our recurrent attention without RAF neurons and setting segment size to one. However, linear transformer usually suffers from performance degradation compared to regular attention with softmax. Qin et al. (2022) identified that the devil in linear attention is the scaling of attention matrices and used normalization to stabilize gradients. In our approach, we use RAF neurons and normalization to make a better approximation to softmax attention. + +Other types of transformers deal with long sequences by combining local attention with global attention, such as ETC (Ainslie et al., 2020), Big Bird (Zaheer et al., 2020), Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020), and longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). Each paper proposed a different design for global attention. ETC pretrains global tokens with Contrastive Predictive Coding. Big Bird adds random sparse attention patterns to global attention. Longformer applies global attention on pre-selected locations and makes it symmetric: all locations attend to global tokens and vice versa. LongT5 simply uses the sum of each block as global tokens. Our work substitutes recurrent attention for global attention. We will compare our results with LongT5 since it is the most recent work. + +There are two concurrent works about recurrent transformers. The first one is block recurrent transformer (Hutchins et al., 2022). They design recurrent cells to operate on blocks of tokens. Different from our encoder-decoder model, they add cross attention to a decoder-only model, which attends to recurrent states in parallel with self attention. The second work is on recurrent memory transformer (Bulatov et al., 2022). The authors segment inputs similar to our work, then put read and write memory at different ends of the input to attention. However, they only add memory to the input, while + +we propose a novel attention mechanism that is a drop-in replacement for regular attention. + +Notably, most of these related works focus on the self attention block of the transformer. However, we notice that the cross attention between the encoder and decoder is the bottleneck of computation in summarization tasks. Hence, we focus on improving the efficiency of cross attention for sequence-to-sequence models. Additionally, we use small segment sizes to improve efficiency, while other works use large sizes to improve scalability, which is another distinction between the proposed work and prior art. + +# 3 Proposed method + +# 3.1 Segmented Attention + +Suppose that $Q$ is the query matrix, $K$ is the key matrix, and $V$ is the value matrix. The cross attention weight $A$ and the output attention $O$ are computed by + +$$ +{ } ^ { q \times k } A = { } ^ { q \times d } Q * ^ { d \times k } K ^ { T } \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +^ {q \times d} O = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A) * ^ {k \times d} V \tag {2} +$$ + +We show the dimension of each matrix at its upper-left superscript. $k$ is the length of encoded features and $q$ is the length of decoder embeddings. $d$ is the inner dimension of each attention head. For summarization tasks, $q$ is usually much smaller than $k$ . Note that the batch dimension and the number of heads are ignored for simplicity. + +If we split encoded features into segments of size $s$ , then the number of segments would be $m = \frac{k}{s}$ . We define the $i$ -th segment of keys and values as $K_{Si} = K[i*s:(i + 1)*s]$ and $V_{Si} = V[i*s:(i + 1)*s]$ . To find the corresponding segment for a query at time $t$ , we compute the segment index by $i = \min (int(t*m/q),m - 1)$ . + +Let the query at time $t$ be denoted as $Q_{t}$ . Then the full attention weight $A[t]$ and output $O[t]$ at time $t$ are computed using the current query $Q_{t}$ with full keys and values. However, in the case of segmented cross attention, we use only the corresponding segment of keys and values to compute the attention for the query at time $t$ , instead of the full matrix. The segmented attention weight $(A_{S}[t])$ and output $(O_{S}[t])$ are computed as in Eqn. 4 and + +Eqn. 6. + +$$ +^ {1 \times k} A [ t ] = ^ {1 \times d} Q _ {t} * ^ {d \times k} K ^ {T} \tag {3} +$$ + +$$ +{ } ^ { 1 \times s } A _ { S } [ t ] = ^ { 1 \times d } Q _ { t } * ^ { d \times s } K _ { S i } ^ { T } \tag {4} +$$ + +$$ +^ {1 \times d} O [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A [ t ]) * ^ {k \times d} V \tag {5} +$$ + +$$ +^ {1 \times d} O _ {S} [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(A _ {S} [ t ]\right) * ^ {s \times d} V _ {S i} \tag {6} +$$ + +Unlike directly projecting $K$ to a lower rank of size $d \times s$ for all timesteps, each query is multiplied with a different segment $K_{Si}$ and $V_{Si}$ . Hence every segment is used at least once during the process and there are no extra weights or information loss caused by projection. The computation complexity is reduced to $O(qds)$ from $O(qdk)$ , where $s << k$ . If $s$ is equal to the summarization ratio $k / q$ , then the computation complexity is reduced to $O(kd)$ from $O(k^2 d / s)$ and no longer grows quadratically with the length. Segmented attention described above largely improves efficiency but at the loss of the ability to access all information, which causes accuracy degradation. Therefore, next, we focus on how to compensate for the loss and achieve a better trade-off between efficiency and accuracy using recurrent units between segments. + +# 3.2 Approximating full attention with segmented recurrent attention + +The segmented attention described in the last subsection simply replaces $K$ and $V$ with the current segments $K_{Si}$ and $V_{Si}$ , but it neglects a large part of the keys and values. Therefore, we need to compensate for the loss to better approximate the full attention. + +Suppose we divide the inputs into two parts: the current segment $S_{i}$ and the remaining segments $R_{i}$ . By linearity of matrix operations, if we switch the order of columns in $K$ and that of corresponding rows in $V$ , it does not affect the matrix multiplication result. Hence, we can partition matrix $K$ into $\left[K_{Si}\quad K_{Ri}\right]$ and $V$ into $\left[V_{Si}\quad V_{Ri}\right]^T$ , where $K_{Ri}$ and $V_{Ri}$ are the remaining parts of the matrices excluding the current segment. The output $O$ of full attention is computed by + +$$ +A = Q * K ^ {T} = Q * \left[ \begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \end{array} \right] \tag {7} +$$ + +$$ +O = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q * \left[ \begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \end{array} \right]\right) \left[ \begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\ V _ {R i} \end{array} \right] \tag {8} +$$ + +By expanding Eqn. 8, full attention at time $t$ can be rewritten as the weighted sum of segmented attention $O_{S}[t]$ and the attention of remaining parts + +$$ +O _ {R} [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\right) V _ {R i}. +$$ + +$$ +O [ t ] = \frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \frac {c - c _ {s}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ] \tag {9} +$$ + +$$ +O [ t ] = \sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \sigma) O _ {R} [ t ] \tag {10} +$$ + +where $c$ and $c_{s}$ are divisors of softmax. They can be replaced by a weighing factor $\sigma$ . Please see the appendix for detailed analyses. + +In the proposed approach, we approximate the output at time $t$ by computing the segmented attention $O_S$ of the local segment using Eqn. 6, then adding the approximated $O_R$ for other segments. The weighing factor $\sigma$ can be a trainable parameter. Note, the simplified sum shown in Eqn. 11 still works because of the automatic adjustment of other parameters. + +$$ +O [ t ] = O _ {S} [ t ] + O _ {R} [ t ] \tag {11} +$$ + +To efficiently approximate the compensation part $O_{R}$ , we propose recurrent attention. This is important because if we directly compute it, the total computational complexity becomes the same as a non-segmented model. Inspired by linear attention proposed in Katharopoulos et al. (2020), we multiply keys and values first, then multiply with queries. This is validated by the associativity property of matrix multiplication. The switch of order allows storing the product of keys and values as a state of RNN. The softmax operation applied on the attention weights is approximated as + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} O _ {R} [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\right) V _ {R i} (12) \\ \approx \frac {Q _ {t} * R A F \left(K _ {R i} * V _ {R i}\right)}{\operatorname {n o r m} (K)} (13) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The $RAF$ in this equation is a recurrent unit designed to accumulate sequential information. It is explained in detail in subsection 3.3. In Eqn. 13, division by $\text{norm}(K)$ is used to simulate the normalization factor of softmax. + +We simplify the computation of multiplying $K_{Ri}$ and $V_{Ri}$ by the multiplication rule of the matrix, as follows. The product is denoted by $P$ . + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} K * V = \left[ \begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\ V _ {R i} \end{array} \right] (14) \\ \Rightarrow K * V = K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} + K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} (15) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +$$ +P _ {i} = K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} = K * V - K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} \tag {16} +$$ + +Thus, we can easily reduce the computational complexity of Eqn. 16 from $O(d * (k - s) * d)$ to $O(d * s * d)$ . For $P_{i}$ of different segments, we only need to compute $K * V$ once. Fig. 2 shows the computation process of recurrent cross attention. + +![](images/77de06e5c24aff84e53546531d7809b9395abf9daeec45b4101714c7029a72ae.jpg) +Figure 2: Segmented Recurrent Attention in a cross attention block. $K_{Si}$ and $V_{Si}$ are segmented keys and values. $H_{t}$ is the hidden input, which is projected to $Q_{t}$ by a linear layer. $b_{Si}$ is the bias of T5 model. + +# 3.3 Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron + +RAF neurons accumulate the partial products of keys and values, help approximate softmax, and filter out unnecessary information. It is inspired by Integrate-and-Fire neurons from biological brains and Spiking Neural Networks (Lee et al., 2016; Wozniak et al., 2020; Ponghiran and Roy, 2021; Chowdhury et al., 2022). The architecture of an RAF neuron is shown in Fig. 3. We also provide Pytorch-like pseudo code for RAF in Appendix A.2. + +Each RAF neuron uses a membrane potential (memory) to efficiently aggregate sequential information. At each timestep, the memory is updated by adding the projected input with the previous memory, where memory gets decayed by a learnable leak. The input to RAF neurons is the partial product $K_{Ri} * V_{Ri}$ containing information of the sequence except the current segment. It is projected by a linear layer. Since Eqn. 13 does not use softmax, the linear layer is necessary to adjust the scale of inputs. Next, we check if its memory crosses the threshold of information propagation to the next layer. If yes, the information in its memory gets passed to the next processing layer, else, the output is zero. This is activated by applying ReLU on the thresholded memory. The learned threshold works like a bias to activate only values over it. If the memory has activated firing, it will be + +![](images/bc277489626c7db3e57bccf0056eabb014a6fb4cf3ec29d4a95aaba53c81221e.jpg) +Figure 3: Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron. The leaky factor and threshold are trained parameters. + +soft reset by subtracting the value of the threshold. Then it will not fire again until new information is given. Because $K_{Ri}$ and $V_{Ri}$ at different steps have overlaps, reset is important to forget redundant information. The design of RAF results in a sparse and low-complexity bio-inspired recurrence mechanism. Unlike an LSTM, a RAF neuron does not apply weights on the hidden memory, but only uses a learnable leaky factor, a threshold, and soft reset as forget and output gates. Hence, it requires fewer weights and lesser computation compared to an LSTM. + +Algorithm 1: One step of cross attention blocks in SRformer +Input: Query $Q_{t}$ ; Keys $K$ and Values $V$ projected from encoded features; Timestep $t$ ; previous index prev; +Output: Output $O_{t}$ $K_{s} = \text{split}(K)$ ; $V_{s} = \text{split}(V)$ $i = \min(\text{int}(t * m/q), m - 1)$ $A[t] = \text{matmul}(Q_{t}, K_{s}[i])$ $A[t] = \text{softmax}(A[t])$ +if $t == 0$ then + $KV = \text{matmul}(K, V)$ $\text{memory} = \text{zero tensor}$ +end + $O_{S} = \text{matmul}(A[t], V_{s}[i])$ +if $prev != i$ then + $P = KV - \text{matmul}(K_{s}[i], V_{s}[i])$ $P, \text{mem} = \text{RAF}(P, \text{mem})$ +end + $O_{R} = \text{matmul}(Q_{t}, P)/\text{norm}(K)$ $O_{t} = O_{S} + O_{R}$ $prev = i$ + +
Comp. complexityExample (K)Memory complexityExample (K)
TransformerO(qkd)qkd = 8389O(qk + kd)197
SegmentedO(qsd)qsd = 524O(qs + kd)74
SRformerO(qsd + kd2)qsd + kd2 = 4718O(qs + kd + md2)139
+ +Table 1: Computation and memory complexity of cross attention. For example, in one of our experiments on the CNN-dailymail dataset, $q = 128$ ; $k = 1024$ ; $d = 64$ ; $s = 64$ . To illustrate theoretical computation and memory cost, we show the product of example sizes in thousands. + +# 3.4 Segmented Recurrent Transformer + +SRformer aims at utilizing the sequential generation process to capture the relation between locations of a long sequence, without paying attention to all locations or propagating from start to end. After reducing the length of keys and values to reduce computational complexity, it uses Eqn. 13 to approximate the attention mechanism. + +Algorithm 1 shows the process of one step of cross-attention blocks in SRformer. First, keys and values are split into segments. Then it computes the attention score $A[t]$ for the current query with the corresponding segment of keys $K_{Si}$ . Because the length of queries is usually greater than the number of segments, some queries might use the same segment. Only when $t = 0$ , which means it is the beginning of a new sequence, it initializes the memory of RAF and compute the full product of $KV$ . After applying softmax, attention scores are multiplied with segmented values to get the segmented attention output $O_S$ . It is important to compute the partial product $P$ of keys and values only once for each index. In addition, the computation of $P$ can be parallelized to improve efficiency. Then $P$ is given to the RAF layer for accumulating with the memory through the recurrent process. The output of RAF is multiplied by the query and then normalized. Finally, we add the segmented attention output $O_S$ and the complementary $O_R$ . + +Our approach builds connections between segments by using the partial product of keys and values as memory. Since the RAF neuron is applied between segments, the backpropagation-through-time in our model is more efficient than using recurrent layers on each input. As discussed before, recurrent attention makes up for the loss caused by segmented attention. Together, they approximate a complete attention mechanism at a lower cost. Although some existing works proposed global attention for a similar purpose, global attention based on selected locations cannot make up for the loss. + +Since segmented recurrent attention is a drop + +in replacement for attention, it can be used in all encoder-decoder transformers, such as T5 and BART. Please note that the usage of positional bias and masks varies across transformers and needs modification. We provide details in Appendix. A.3. + +# 3.5 Complexity Analysis of cross attention + +The total complexity of a sequence-to-sequence transformer is composed of the cost of the encoder and that of the decoder. Here, we only compare the complexity of cross-attention since the other components are not affected by the proposed method. In table 1, we show both computation and memory (space) complexity analyses of a regular transformer, a segmented one, and the proposed SRformer. Please note that the batch size and the number of heads are not considered. To compute the segmented qkv attention, the complexity is $O(qsd)$ . The bottleneck for computation is to multiply $K_{Si} * V_{Si}$ for $m$ times, which results in $O(msd^2)$ complexity. Because the number of segments is $m = k / s$ , it becomes $O(kd^2)$ . After that, we need to multiply $Q$ with it, which costs $O(qd^2)$ , but as $q << k$ , this term can be ignored. The recurrent unit also costs much less computation than the bottleneck, so it can also be ignored. Since the segment size $s$ and the inner dimension $d$ of each head are much smaller than $k$ in summarization datasets, the number of computations is fewer than a regular transformer, as shown in table 1. + +The memory complexity depends on the sizes of input matrices and intermediate matrices. The size of key and value matrices are $k \times d$ . The intermediate matrix is the attention weight $A$ , whose size is $q \times k$ . By segmentation, its size is reduced to $q \times s$ . For recurrent attention, we compute the product of keys and values, $P$ , for $m$ segments. Hence, there are $m$ matrices of size $d \times d$ . In table 1, we show that given the example sizes, the theoretical reduction of computation is $43\%$ , and that of memory complexity is $29\%$ . + +# 4 Experimental Results + +We test our proposed model and method on T5 sequence-to-sequence transformers (Raffel et al., 2022) and BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Since we want to design a model for resource-constrained environments, we use T5-small, which contains 6 transformer layers and 60 million parameters, and BART-base which contains 6 layers and 140 million parameters. Our implementation is built based on Huggingface transformer platform, which is released under the Apache-2.0 License, and we load the pretrained models before training (Wolf et al., 2019). The implementation is based on PyTorch python package (Paszke et al., 2019). + +We run all experiments on Nvidia A40 GPUs. Each experiment is run on a single core to compare GPU power and memory usage. We train the models for 25 epochs as the loss and evaluation scores converge at that point. The initial learning rate is $5e^{-5}$ . The optimizer is AdamW and the learning rate scheduler is linear with default settings. + +We use ROUGE scores to evaluate SRformer and compare it with other transformers. ROUGE-N is defined as the n-gram recall between model predictions and a set of ground-truth summaries, and ROUGE-L measures the longest common subsequence between them (Lin, 2004). Note, a higher ROUGE score denotes better summarization performance. + +# 4.1 Results on summarization datasets + +The summarization datasets we use to evaluate the model include CNN-dailymail (Nallapati et al., 2016), XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018), ArXiv Summarization (Cohan et al., 2018), and MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021). CNN-dailymail dataset contains 311k anonymized English news articles and their summaries, among which 286,817 are training pairs, 13,368 are validation pairs, and 11,487 are test pairs (Hermann et al., 2015; See et al., 2017). XSUM is an extreme summarization dataset, and thus its summaries only have 23 words on average (Narayan et al., 2018). The numbers of documents for training, validation, and test sets of XSUM dataset are 204,045/11,332/11,334. ArXiv dataset has 215 thousand documents, including $5\%$ for validation and another $5\%$ for test (Cohan et al., 2018). MediaSUM is a media interview dataset consisting of 463.6K dialogue transcripts and summaries, and validation and test set each randomly select 10K instances (Zhu et al., 2021). + +Table 2 lists the detailed results including ROUGE1, ROUGE2, ROUGEL, and ROUGEL-Sum scores. From the table, we can see that a model with a higher ROUGE1 score usually gives higher other scores, and hence can be considered as better. The sizes of keys and values for cross attention are 1024. With the default segment size set to 64, the sizes of keys and values are reduced by 16. As a consequence, both T5 and BART experience large performance degradation. Then we show ROUGE1 scores of SRformer in bold numbers. SRformer benefits from its recurrent attention mechanism and achieves $3 - 10\%$ higher scores than the segmented transformers. Although its ROUGE scores are slightly lower than the baseline model, the computational complexity is largely reduced, and we will show it also cuts down GPU power usage and memory access time in section 4.4.2. + +![](images/d4f78e042b1a63d51e0c37c29de5ef9b3966d8b790e8cc43ad54af6cd6ba985e.jpg) +Figure 4: Rouge1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset for different segment sizes across various models. + +# 4.2 Effect of segment sizes + +Figure 4 shows ROUGE1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset with regard to different segment sizes 8, 16, and 64. The number of segments should not exceed the number of generation steps, otherwise, some segments would never be used. Hence, the segment size should not be smaller than 8 for the CNN-dailymail dataset. + +The blue line in Fig. 4 shows that for a segmented transformer without recurrence, the ROUGE1 score drops significantly by $16\%$ when reducing segment size from 64 to 8. The yellow line shows the results of applying the method from TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) to cross attention blocks of the T5-small model. We add a hidden memory for keys and values and concatenate + +
SRformerSegmentedBaseline
DatasetModelROUGE2ROUGELROUGELsumROUGE1ROUGE1ROUGE1
CNN-DMT516.7927.2936.8139.3933.3141.60
BART19.8029.4440.4043.1933.8744.54
XSUMT511.7226.8826.8834.4827.0335.35
BART16.5831.5431.5439.0336.2241.33
ArXivT511.5024.5331.8636.0432.6437.79
BART14.9725.2937.8642.9936.4343.95
MediaSumT512.8925.7226.2928.5924.4329.25
BART14.7024.7528.4632.3628.4033.88
+ +the hidden memory with the current segment to compute cross attention. With that setting, TransformerXL performs better than a segmented transformer, but its performance still decreases with the segment size. The green line shows the results of longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). When the number of segments grows as the segment size decreases, it can use more tokens for computing global attention. Hence, its performance is inversely proportional to the segment size. For example, when segment size is 8, it uses 8 local and 128 global tokens, and its performance is $3\%$ better than using 64 local and 16 global ones. However, the computational overhead of global attention also grows quadratically with the number of tokens. In contrast, SRformer is able to keep a stable performance regardless of the size reduction. Its ROUGE1 scores are $6 - 22\%$ higher than those of a segmented T5 model, and it gives a larger boost in performance compared to TransformerXL and longT5. Even when other models use a segment 8 times larger, they are still not able to compete with our model. The results show that SRformer can indeed better approximate full attention. + +Table 2: Results of SRformer on Summarization datasets compared to baseline models and their segmented version. The baseline models are T5-small and BART-base. + +
SettingROUGE1SettingROUGE1
SRformer39.39--
(I)36.86(II)36.77
(III)35.84(IV)29.72
+ +Table 3: Ablation study using CNN-Dailymail dataset + +# 4.3 Ablation Study + +To better understand the contribution of each component to the performance of SRformer, we conducted an ablation study by removing or modifying terms in Eqn. 11 or 13. The segment size is fixed to + +64 and the model is modified from T5-small. The dataset used for ablation study is CNN-dailymail. We varied the following components one by one while keeping the rest of the model fixed: + +(I) Remove segmented attention. We modify the model to only use recurrent attention. We observe a noticeable drop in performance, however, it is much better than only using segmented attention. This shows that recurrent attention made a crucial contribution to the overall performance. +(II) Remove normalization. Without dividing norm(K), ROUGE 1 score drops by 3. +(III) Without RAF. Skipping RAF will remove recurrent computation and corresponding weights. However, without RAF, it is not able to approximate full attention well. The performance decrease shows the importance of RAF. +(IV) Replacing $K_{R} * V_{R}$ with $K_{s} * V_{s}$ . In this case, it can skip computing $K * V$ . RAF accumulates information as timesteps increase. However, at the beginning of generation, it only has information from the first few segments. Hence the performance is not as good. +In summary, our ablation study shows that all terms in Eqn. 13 are important components. + +# 4.4 Evaluation of improvement in efficiency + +# 4.4.1 Theoretical improvement + +In Table.1, we have shown that SRformer reduces the computation and memory complexity of cross attention. In our experiment, as the length of the generated summary $q$ equals 128 and the length of the input article $k$ equals 1024, the theoretical reduction of computation is $43\%$ , and that of memory complexity is $29\%$ . In Fig. 5, we show how the improvement would change when the length of the generated summary scales up. The costs are + +![](images/47cdea434ae2454d3a087ba10873c066f272b053d1279a1ff148729f38c86f78.jpg) +(a) Computation cost + +![](images/c188c0cd7a3b5c76385f059ff98325c10d7562643d0ac7829de64db364470ba1.jpg) +(b) Memory cost +Figure 5: Theoretical computational cost and memory cost of cross attention when the length of summary $(q)$ increases from 128 to 1024. + +computed based on the theoretical complexity in Table.1. Suppose that the length of the input article is eight times the length of the summary ( $k = 8*q$ ). The cost of cross attention in a regular transformer will increase quadratically with the text length. The cost of cross attention in SRformer is not dependent on $q * k$ but $q * s$ , where $s$ is a small segment size. Therefore, it increases linearly and the reduction would be $93\%$ compared to a transformer when $q = 1024$ . Although existing datasets for abstractive summarization have relatively short summary lengths, large language models may be required to generate a long summary for a very long document at a fixed ratio. In that case, SRformer can provide a large improvement in efficiency. + +# 4.4.2 GPU power and memory usage + +We track GPU memory, memory accessing time, and power using Weights&Biases tools (Biewald, 2020). The GPU usage of SRformer modified from BART and other models are listed in Table. 4. Our model consumes less GPU power and spends less time accessing memory, compared to a regular transformer, TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), and LongT5 (Guo et al., 2021). BART uses $99\%$ GPU power, which almost reaches the limitation of GPU. The percentage of time GPU spent accessing memory is $91\%$ . It means GPU spent most of the time fetching data from memory. However, with segmented recurrent attention, SRformer does not need to use all encoded features at each step. Hence it saves a considerable amount of computation and memory access. It only uses $81\%$ GPU power and $60\%$ GPU memory accessing time. Although GPU memory usage of all recurrent transformers + +
ModelMemTimePower
BART499199
TransformerXL827089
LongT5738090
SRformer606080
+ +Table 4: Percentages (%) of GPU usage in terms of memory, memory accessing time, and power usage + +is larger than vanilla BART to store weights and gradients, our method uses less memory than TransformerXL and LongT5. In conclusion, by alleviating the cross attention bottleneck, the proposed transformer becomes more efficient. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose an efficient sequence-to-sequence transformer using segmented recurrent attention. Since cross-attention is the computation bottleneck for text summarization, replacing full attention with segmented recurrent attention can largely reduce its computation complexity. The proposed RAF neurons help approximate full attention at a low overhead. During inference, they utilize the sequential process to accumulate information in their internal memory and bridge information across segments effectively. The efficacy of the proposed model is demonstrated through higher ROUGE scores on multiple summarization datasets compared to other segmented transformers. Our proposed architecture is especially suitable for summarization and can be used for other sequence-to-sequence tasks such as translation and question-answering. + +# Limitations + +This work focuses on designing an efficient encoder-decoder model for summarization tasks. The proposed method can not be directly applied to an encoder-only or decoder-only model, although it is possible to design a modified version for those models. In the case that the length of encoded features is not much larger than the length of decoder output, it may not be able to show significant reduction in computation and memory cost. + +# Ethics Statement + +This work complies with the ACL Ethics Policy. It contributes a new model to the deep learning and computational linguistics community which can be used in many applications. We will make the codes open-source for other researchers. + +# Acknowledgement + +This work was supported by the Center for Code-design of Cognitive Systems (CoCoSys), one of the seven centers in JUMP 2.0, a Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) program sponsored by DARPA. + +# References + +Joshua Ainslie, Santiago Ontañón, Chris Alberti, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, and Sumit Sanghai. 2020. ETC: encoding long and structured data in transformers. CoRR, abs/2004.08483. +Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Songhao Piao, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2020. Unilmv2: Pseudo-masked language models for unified language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. +Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. CoRR, abs/2004.05150. +Lukas Biewald. 2020. Experiment tracking with weights and biases. Software available from wandb.com. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens + +Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Aydar Bulatov, Yuri Kuratov, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2022. Recurrent memory transformer. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. CoRR, abs/1904.10509. +Sayeed Shafayet Chowdhury, Nitin Rathi, and Kaushik Roy. 2022. One timestep is all you need: Training spiking neural networks with ultra low latency. abs/2110.05929. +Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 615-621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Transformer-XL: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2978-2988, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. FlashAttention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with IO-awareness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. abs/2010.11929. +Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724-736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David C. Uthus, Santiago Ontañón, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. CoRR, abs/2112.07916. + +Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In NIPS, pages 1693-1701. +Jonathan Ho, Nal Kalchbrenner, Dirk Weissenborn, and Tim Salimans. 2019. Axial attention in multidimensional transformers. CoRR, abs/1912.12180. +DeLesley S. Hutchins, Imanol Schlag, Yuhuai Wu, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2022. Block-recurrent transformers. ArXiv, abs/2203.07852. +Angelos Katharopoulos, Apoorv Vyas, Nikolaos Pappas, and François Fleuret. 2020. Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org. +Nikita Kitaev, Lukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. 2020. Reformer: The efficient transformer. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Jun Haeng Lee, Tobi Delbruck, and Michael Pfeiffer. 2016. Training deep spiking neural networks using backpropagation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10. +Benjamin Lefaudeaux, Francisco Massa, Diana Liskovich, Wenhan Xiong, Vittorio Caggiano, Sean Naren, Min Xu, Jieru Hu, Marta Tintore, Susan Zhang, Patrick Labatut, and Daniel Haziza. 2022. xformers: A modular and hackable transformer modelling library. https://github.com/facebookresearch/xformers. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Fei-Fei Li. 2022. Cs231n: Convolutional neural networks for visual recognition. +Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Caglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280-290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! Topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 + +Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium. +Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc. +Wachirawit Ponghiran and Kaushik Roy. 2021. Spiking neural networks with improved inherent recurrence dynamics for sequential learning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Zhen Qin, Xiaodong Han, Weixuan Sun, Dongxu Li, Lingpeng Kong, Nick Barnes, and Yiran Zhong. 2022. The devil in linear transformer. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7025-7041, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2022. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(1). +Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684-10695. +Aurko Roy, Mohammad Saffar, Ashish Vaswani, and David Grangier. 2021. Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:53-68. +Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo-Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(6). + +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. + +Sinong Wang, Belinda Z. Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. 2020. Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. CoRR, abs/2006.04768. + +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. CoRR, abs/1910.03771. + +Stanislaw Wozniak, Angeliki Pantazi, Thomas Bohnstingl, and Evangelos Eleftheriou. 2020. Deep learning incorporating biologically inspired neural dynamics and in-memory computing. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2:325-336. + +Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. 2020. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. CoRR, abs/2007.14062. + +Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5927-5934, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Expanding attention equations + +Denote the current i-th segment as $S_{i} = [i*s, (i + 1)s]$ . The indices of remaining segments are denoted as $R_{i} = \{j \in [1,k], j \notin S_{i}\}$ . Then the full attention, segmented attention, and remaining attention at timestep $t$ will be + +$$ +O [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}\right) V +$$ + +$$ +O _ {S} [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}\right) V _ {S i} +$$ + +$$ +O _ {R} [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\right) V _ {R i} +$$ + +For example, the softmax operation applied on the remaining attention $O_{R}$ can be expanded as + +$$ +O _ {R} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\right) V _ {R i} \tag {17} +$$ + +$$ += \frac {\phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\right) * V _ {R i}}{\sum_ {j \in R _ {i}} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right)} \tag {18} +$$ + +$$ += \frac {\sum_ {j \in R _ {i}} \left(\phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right) V _ {j}\right)}{\sum_ {j \in R _ {i}} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right)} \tag {19} +$$ + +In the common implementation of softmax attention, $\phi (X) = \exp (X)$ is an exponential function. For the numerical stability of the computation, another choice is $\phi (X) = \exp (X - \log (\max_{i}X_{i}))$ (Li, 2022). However, Katharopoulos et al. (2020) proposed to replace it with a kernel function such that $\phi (XY) = \phi (X)\phi (Y)$ . Then we have + +$$ +O [ t ] = \frac {\phi \left(Q _ {t}\right) \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \left(\phi \left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\right) V _ {j}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right)} \tag {20} +$$ + +$$ +O _ {S} [ t ] = \frac {\phi \left(Q _ {t}\right) \sum_ {j \in S _ {i}} \left(\phi \left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\right) V _ {j}\right)}{\sum_ {j \in S _ {i}} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right)} \tag {21} +$$ + +$$ +O _ {R} [ t ] = \frac {\phi \left(Q _ {t}\right) \sum_ {j \in R _ {i}} \left(\phi \left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\right) V _ {j}\right)}{\sum_ {j \in R _ {i}} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right)} \tag {22} +$$ + +Denote the divisor in the above equations using $c_{s}, c_{r}$ , and $c$ . + +$$ +c _ {s} = \sum_ {j \in S _ {i}} \phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}) +$$ + +$$ +c _ {r} = \sum_ {j \in R _ {i}} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right) +$$ + +$$ +c = \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \phi \left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\right) = c _ {s} + c _ {r} +$$ + +Then we can write the full attention as a weighted summation, where the weights depend on $c$ and $c_{s}$ . + +We can use a factor $\sigma$ to represent the weights. + +$$ +O [ t ] = \frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \frac {c _ {r}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ] +$$ + +$$ +O [ t ] = \sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \sigma) O _ {R} [ t ] +$$ + +In practice, we find that simple addition without weighting still works. Our recurrent attention further approximates $O_{R}$ as below. + +$$ +O _ {R} [ t ] \approx \frac {Q _ {t} * R A F (K _ {R} ^ {T} * V _ {R})}{\operatorname {n o r m} (K)} +$$ + +Moveover, we can estimate the error caused by segmented attention. + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} O - O _ {S} \\ = \frac {c _ {s} * \phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V - c * \phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}) V}{c * c _ {s}} \\ = \frac {c * \phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {R} ^ {T}) V _ {R} - c _ {r} * \phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V}{c * (c - c _ {r})} \\ = \frac {c _ {r}}{c - c _ {r}} (O _ {R} - O) = \frac {c _ {r}}{c} (O _ {R} - O _ {S}) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +# A.2 Pseudo code for RAF neurons + +class RAF(nnModule): + +```python +def init(dim): + self-linear = Linear(dim, dim) + selfactivation =ReLU + self.leak = parameter(1.0, + require_grad=True) + self.thre = parameter(0.1, + require_grad=True) +``` + +```python +def forward(input, mem, t): + x = self(linear(input)) + mem = leak * mem + x + y = mem / self.thre - 1.0 + mem = mem - self.thre * (y > 0) + out = ReLU(y) + return out +``` + +# A.3 Positional bias and masks + +Different transformers such as T5 and BART use positional bias and masks differently. Hence, we need to take this into consideration when implementing segmented recurrent attention. + +For example, T5 adds positional bias to the attention weights $A$ . For segmented attention, we need to segment bias as shown in the following equations. + +$$ +b _ {S i} = b [ i * s: (i + 1) * s ] +$$ + +$$ +O _ {S} [ t ] = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(A _ {S} [ t ] + b _ {S i}\right) * V _ {S i} +$$ + +BART adds positional bias to the inputs of the first layer, so there is no need to take care of that separately. However, the encoder of BART generates features of various sizes and adds padding to each batch. To ignore the padding, an encoder mask is used. Because softmax is removed in recurrent attention, adding negative infinity to masked locations is not suitable. Instead, we filter out abnormal values of $K * V$ and $P$ with a clamp function before computing recurrent attention. + +To apply SRformer to other types of transformers, we recommend checking the positional bias and masks and adjusting accordingly. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/images.zip b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b57a55aab1c76c8a8bc3c37c05516b323c73fb0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bc4409e83bc64c823547b4fc585d305985b375ce5657c1284c743ba0a2087115 +size 460136 diff --git a/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/layout.json b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e4f93c5ec68e3fc84042f6a8d897b767d0b7a655 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Segmented Recurrent Transformer_ An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11484 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 75, + 517, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 75, + 517, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 75, + 517, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Segmented Recurrent Transformer: An Efficient Sequence-to-Sequence Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 131, + 188, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 131, + 188, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 131, + 188, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinghan Long" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 146, + 193, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 146, + 193, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 146, + 193, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Purdue University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 159, + 204, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 159, + 204, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 159, + 204, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "long273@purdue.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 131, + 371, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 131, + 371, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 131, + 371, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sayed Shafayet Chowdhury" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 146, + 341, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 146, + 341, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 146, + 341, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Purdue University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 159, + 357, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 159, + 357, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 159, + 357, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "chowdh23@purdue.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 412, + 131, + 480, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 412, + 131, + 480, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 412, + 131, + 480, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaushik Roy" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 146, + 490, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 146, + 490, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 146, + 490, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Purdue University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 159, + 503, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 159, + 503, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 395, + 159, + 503, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "kaushik@purdue.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transformers have shown dominant performance across a range of domains including language and vision. However, their computational cost grows quadratically with the sequence length, making their usage prohibitive for resource-constrained applications. To counter this, our approach is to divide the whole sequence into segments and apply attention to the individual segments. We propose a segmented recurrent transformer (SRformer) that combines segmented (local) attention with recurrent attention. The loss caused by reducing the attention window length is compensated by aggregating information across segments with recurrent attention. SRformer leverages Recurrent Accumulate-and-Fire (RAF) neurons' inherent memory to update the cumulative product of keys and values. The segmented attention and lightweight RAF neurons ensure the efficiency of the proposed transformer. Such an approach leads to models with sequential processing capability at a lower computation/memory cost. We apply the proposed method to T5 and BART transformers. The modified models are tested on summarization datasets including CNN-dailymail, XSUM, ArXiv, and Media-SUM. Notably, using segmented inputs of varied sizes, the proposed model achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6 - 22\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " higher ROUGE1 scores than a segmented transformer and outperforms other recurrent transformer approaches. Furthermore, compared to full attention, the proposed model reduces the computational complexity of cross attention by around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 237, + 274, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 655, + 154, + 669 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 655, + 154, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 655, + 154, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the inception of transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017), they have gradually become the de-facto model for Natural Language Processing (NLP) as well as Computer Vision (CV) tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Dosovitskiy et al., 2021). More recently, generative models have also achieved unprecedented results by employing transformers in language and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "vision for understanding and generation (Saharia et al., 2022; Rombach et al., 2022). One of the key recipes behind the success of transformers is their ability to leverage long-range connections baked in the all-to-all attention mechanism. This sort of attention eases optimization and enables learning of long-term dependency, resulting in improved performance over traditional recurrent neural networks (RNNs). However, transformers incur huge memory and computing requirements, which may not be feasible for resource-constrained applications. Moreover, the computational complexity of transformers increases quadratically with input length, making scaling-up transformers a big challenge. Therefore, improving the efficiency of transformers is a key research direction (Tay et al., 2022). Specifically, for sequence-to-sequence language tasks such as translation and summarization, the decoder part of the transformer inevitably generates words in steps (Guo et al., 2022; Bao et al., 2020). These steps are mostly correlated and hence, some form of recurrence is suited to harness the underlying information efficiently. Without any explicit memory, the vanilla attention processes the same set of previous inputs repeatedly. Such redundant computation can be eliminated by incorporating recurrent units with small memory overhead. As a result, the model can efficiently recapitulate relevant information from past states while computation is performed only on the new inputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To that end, there have been efforts to combine transformers with the recurrent mechanism. In TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), the long-term dependency is modeled by adding recurrence to transformers. However, this method simply concatenates the hidden states from the last segment with the current state for attention. It does not involve any explicit modification to the attention block itself to better suit the recurrence in order to bridge consecutive segments. Though this is simple to implement, it may not be the best possible way" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8325" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8325-8337" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to merge the attention mechanism with recurrence. Moreover, most existing recurrent transformers are only designed for self attention, whereas, for summarization tasks, cross attention uses much longer inputs and incurs a higher cost. Hence, there is scope to design a custom transformer architecture that can effectively combine recurrence with the embedded attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 291, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 291, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 183, + 291, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to enhance the computational efficiency of transformers, we divide the input sequence into segments to compute segmented attention. Next, to aggregate global information over segments, we add recurrent attention. We propose recurrent accumulate and fire (RAF) neurons for recurrent attention. It has an implicit memory to accumulate information over segments and only propagates values upon crossing a learnable threshold. By accumulating the partial product of keys and values from other segments, recurrent attention compensates for the loss caused by segmentation. Furthermore, RAF neurons use a leak and a threshold to forget and select information. Compared to RNNs or LSTMs, a RAF neuron has fewer parameters and thus does not add large computational overhead." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 291, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 291, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 291, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the proposal of segmented attention and recurrent attention, we introduce SRformer, as shown in Fig.1. SRformer is a sequence-to-sequence model consisting of an encoder and an auto-regressive decoder. It replaces the decoder's cross-attention with segmented recurrent attention, while self-attention can still attend to all locations of the generated sequence. During training, it selects the corresponding segment for each input and learns recurrent attention between segments. Because recurrent attention processes a segment as a whole, it enables partially parallel computation. During inference, it accesses past information from the memory and only updates the segmented recurrent attention with the current segment. Hence, it is more efficient than full attention. In addition, the number of timesteps for backpropagation depends on the number of segments instead of the length of inputs. The reduced propagation length ensures efficiency and alleviates the vanishing gradient problem. Moreover, we provide a matrix interpretation to demonstrate the harmonious alliance between recurrence and attention obtained through the proposed model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SRformer achieves better computational complexity and accuracy trade-off. When tested on the CNN-dailymail dataset, the ROUGE1 evalu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 510, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 510, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 510, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 510, + 293 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0db5dbacf648be7563f5da126162f31212d633e47d4b8f9e8c938e84a7b81aac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 526, + 338 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 526, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Segmented Recurrent Transformer (SRformer). Cross attention is replaced by segmented recurrent attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ation score for the proposed model is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6 - 22\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " higher than a segmented transformer without recurrent blocks. Interestingly, the performance of SRformer is resilient to extremely small segment sizes (ROUGE1 score drops by only 0.25 as segment size is reduced from 64 to 8). On the other hand, for the same segment size reduction, the baseline transformer suffers from severe performance degradation (ROUGE1 score drops by 16.04). Furthermore, the computation reduces by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim 40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 359, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in comparison with regular cross attention having access to the full sequence. This result clearly demonstrates the efficacy of segmented recurrent attention for sequential data processing, specifically for limited compute budgets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 525, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 525, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 563, + 525, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the next section, we introduce the related works. In Section 3, we provide details of SRformer. Finally, the experimental results are discussed in Section 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 400, + 641 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 400, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 400, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Works" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Several approaches have been reported in the literature to improve the efficiency of transformers (Tay et al., 2022). Usage of low-rank kernels (Wang et al., 2020), fixed or learnable patterns (Child et al., 2019; Ho et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2021; Kitaev et al., 2020), block-wise processing (Lefaudeaux et al., 2022; Dao et al., 2022), recurrent transformers (Dai et al., 2019; Katharopoulos et al., 2020), and global attention (Ainslie et al., 2020; Zaheer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8326" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2020; Beltagy et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2021) have been explored recently." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work falls under the category of transformers with recurrence. In this aspect, we closely examine the following two models. TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) concatenates the hidden states from the previous segment with the current one. Then each hidden state depends on all previous ones and becomes built-in memory. However, the length of hidden states gets doubled resulting in additional complexity. The Linear Transformer reduces attention to a linear-time, constant memory recurrent neural network (Katharopoulos et al., 2020). It is similar to our recurrent attention without RAF neurons and setting segment size to one. However, linear transformer usually suffers from performance degradation compared to regular attention with softmax. Qin et al. (2022) identified that the devil in linear attention is the scaling of attention matrices and used normalization to stabilize gradients. In our approach, we use RAF neurons and normalization to make a better approximation to softmax attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Other types of transformers deal with long sequences by combining local attention with global attention, such as ETC (Ainslie et al., 2020), Big Bird (Zaheer et al., 2020), Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020), and longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). Each paper proposed a different design for global attention. ETC pretrains global tokens with Contrastive Predictive Coding. Big Bird adds random sparse attention patterns to global attention. Longformer applies global attention on pre-selected locations and makes it symmetric: all locations attend to global tokens and vice versa. LongT5 simply uses the sum of each block as global tokens. Our work substitutes recurrent attention for global attention. We will compare our results with LongT5 since it is the most recent work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are two concurrent works about recurrent transformers. The first one is block recurrent transformer (Hutchins et al., 2022). They design recurrent cells to operate on blocks of tokens. Different from our encoder-decoder model, they add cross attention to a decoder-only model, which attends to recurrent states in parallel with self attention. The second work is on recurrent memory transformer (Bulatov et al., 2022). The authors segment inputs similar to our work, then put read and write memory at different ends of the input to attention. However, they only add memory to the input, while" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "we propose a novel attention mechanism that is a drop-in replacement for regular attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 101, + 526, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 101, + 526, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 101, + 526, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Notably, most of these related works focus on the self attention block of the transformer. However, we notice that the cross attention between the encoder and decoder is the bottleneck of computation in summarization tasks. Hence, we focus on improving the efficiency of cross attention for sequence-to-sequence models. Additionally, we use small segment sizes to improve efficiency, while other works use large sizes to improve scalability, which is another distinction between the proposed work and prior art." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 414, + 284 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 414, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 414, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Proposed method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 429, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 429, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 429, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Segmented Attention" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suppose that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the query matrix, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the key matrix, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the value matrix. The cross attention weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the output attention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are computed by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 395, + 524, + 410 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 395, + 524, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 395, + 524, + 410 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "{ } ^ { q \\times k } A = { } ^ { q \\times d } Q * ^ { d \\times k } K ^ { T } \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "3ddd333fe07b607d68a6405d170d0bb196fb13f14bbaa9dfe481b4bf797dc8fa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 413, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 413, + 524, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 413, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "^ {q \\times d} O = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A) * ^ {k \\times d} V \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "66dfc12df9179b291d45214d87fc1bb2eea79007073102bee9c5e039d38d34ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show the dimension of each matrix at its upper-left superscript. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of encoded features and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of decoder embeddings. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the inner dimension of each attention head. For summarization tasks, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is usually much smaller than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that the batch dimension and the number of heads are ignored for simplicity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If we split encoded features into segments of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then the number of segments would be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m = \\frac{k}{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We define the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th segment of keys and values as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Si} = K[i*s:(i + 1)*s]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Si} = V[i*s:(i + 1)*s]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To find the corresponding segment for a query at time " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we compute the segment index by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = \\min (int(t*m/q),m - 1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let the query at time " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then the full attention weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A[t]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O[t]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at time " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are computed using the current query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with full keys and values. However, in the case of segmented cross attention, we use only the corresponding segment of keys and values to compute the attention for the query at time " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", instead of the full matrix. The segmented attention weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(A_{S}[t])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(O_{S}[t])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are computed as in Eqn. 4 and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8327" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 102, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 102, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 102, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eqn. 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 94, + 290, + 110 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 94, + 290, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 94, + 290, + 110 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "^ {1 \\times k} A [ t ] = ^ {1 \\times d} Q _ {t} * ^ {d \\times k} K ^ {T} \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "6c0763321cea82ef61a4099c0daf60450db7dc130052aa1df5614644132000bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 112, + 289, + 128 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 112, + 289, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 112, + 289, + 128 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "{ } ^ { 1 \\times s } A _ { S } [ t ] = ^ { 1 \\times d } Q _ { t } * ^ { d \\times s } K _ { S i } ^ { T } \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "a222749ee53cf675900a790f298340068d2a9018cb80309dc11ab453eb5bc5c4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 131, + 290, + 146 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 131, + 290, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 131, + 290, + 146 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "^ {1 \\times d} O [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (A [ t ]) * ^ {k \\times d} V \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "cc96d686e0449d59cb52a7213d860ca221bf0c632011b8b3b2c2076902632d88.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 148, + 289, + 164 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 148, + 289, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 148, + 289, + 164 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "^ {1 \\times d} O _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(A _ {S} [ t ]\\right) * ^ {s \\times d} V _ {S i} \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "0b0acde205623241d090663b77ab0a50d0d1c47a7e5347c5610c5f98ea89be1c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike directly projecting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to a lower rank of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d \\times s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for all timesteps, each query is multiplied with a different segment " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Hence every segment is used at least once during the process and there are no extra weights or information loss caused by projection. The computation complexity is reduced to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(qds)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(qdk)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s << k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is equal to the summarization ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k / q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then the computation complexity is reduced to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(kd)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(k^2 d / s)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 291, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and no longer grows quadratically with the length. Segmented attention described above largely improves efficiency but at the loss of the ability to access all information, which causes accuracy degradation. Therefore, next, we focus on how to compensate for the loss and achieve a better trade-off between efficiency and accuracy using recurrent units between segments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 254, + 442 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 254, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 254, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Approximating full attention with segmented recurrent attention" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The segmented attention described in the last subsection simply replaces " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the current segments " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", but it neglects a large part of the keys and values. Therefore, we need to compensate for the loss to better approximate the full attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suppose we divide the inputs into two parts: the current segment " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the remaining segments " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By linearity of matrix operations, if we switch the order of columns in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and that of corresponding rows in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it does not affect the matrix multiplication result. Hence, we can partition matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left[K_{Si}\\quad K_{Ri}\\right]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left[V_{Si}\\quad V_{Ri}\\right]^T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the remaining parts of the matrices excluding the current segment. The output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of full attention is computed by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 675, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 675, + 290, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 675, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A = Q * K ^ {T} = Q * \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "e82c205ec930c83f0ed556f5d2a6ff67b19635a73895f07c9cd9f2871a751ccb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 694, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 694, + 290, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 694, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q * \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right]\\right) \\left[ \\begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\\\ V _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "768e88ecd53d3d226f0ebbd968fa168594ae37ad44e98d21d352fb55daa15ad3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By expanding Eqn. 8, full attention at time " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be rewritten as the weighted sum of segmented attention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{S}[t]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the attention of remaining parts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 450, + 85 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 450, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 450, + 85 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i}.", + "image_path": "f03146a69706a0428db497819ea7056fc5addb2e0d8dee9323d971b6d60511a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 89, + 525, + 113 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 89, + 525, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 89, + 525, + 113 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = \\frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \\frac {c - c _ {s}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "3fce3614cd6497767090f097f651e4f0be7789726a58e434774ca036fec01f10.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 116, + 525, + 130 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 116, + 525, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 116, + 525, + 130 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = \\sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \\sigma) O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "94a309ac155a900b0855203098d1c4e339ef886e06e5fe45e9efb440c59d415d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are divisors of softmax. They can be replaced by a weighing factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 135, + 524, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Please see the appendix for detailed analyses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the proposed approach, we approximate the output at time " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by computing the segmented attention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the local segment using Eqn. 6, then adding the approximated " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for other segments. The weighing factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be a trainable parameter. Note, the simplified sum shown in Eqn. 11 still works because of the automatic adjustment of other parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 289, + 525, + 304 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 289, + 525, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 289, + 525, + 304 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = O _ {S} [ t ] + O _ {R} [ t ] \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "fd57d480d07b186124139ca56c9b8a53d6c99674fea780e7713b8a164a2b9376.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To efficiently approximate the compensation part " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we propose recurrent attention. This is important because if we directly compute it, the total computational complexity becomes the same as a non-segmented model. Inspired by linear attention proposed in Katharopoulos et al. (2020), we multiply keys and values first, then multiply with queries. This is validated by the associativity property of matrix multiplication. The switch of order allows storing the product of keys and values as a state of RNN. The softmax operation applied on the attention weights is approximated as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 476, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 476, + 525, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 476, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} O _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i} (12) \\\\ \\approx \\frac {Q _ {t} * R A F \\left(K _ {R i} * V _ {R i}\\right)}{\\operatorname {n o r m} (K)} (13) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "88a13c3d46b6718c6a53cd801cb850bbfd73a2bf1fd08d004f3852257d2946b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "RAF" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in this equation is a recurrent unit designed to accumulate sequential information. It is explained in detail in subsection 3.3. In Eqn. 13, division by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{norm}(K)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used to simulate the normalization factor of softmax." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We simplify the computation of multiplying " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the multiplication rule of the matrix, as follows. The product is denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 638, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 638, + 525, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 638, + 525, + 683 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} K * V = \\left[ \\begin{array}{l l} K _ {S i} & K _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] \\left[ \\begin{array}{l} V _ {S i} \\\\ V _ {R i} \\end{array} \\right] (14) \\\\ \\Rightarrow K * V = K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} + K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} (15) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "a1535b4d67136ed30ca9a0f746c229f18d5e1fe367fb556829e8d4238c73972a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 686, + 524, + 700 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 686, + 524, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 686, + 524, + 700 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {i} = K _ {R i} * V _ {R i} = K * V - K _ {S i} * V _ {S i} \\tag {16}", + "image_path": "09c155d4e6315f642ae012065652e6e290722225edb0b457c8ac3e2b7251dac2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thus, we can easily reduce the computational complexity of Eqn. 16 from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(d * (k - s) * d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(d * s * d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of different segments, we only need to compute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K * V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " once. Fig. 2 shows the computation process of recurrent cross attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8328" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 286, + 288 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 286, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 286, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 286, + 288 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "77de06e5c24aff84e53546531d7809b9395abf9daeec45b4101714c7029a72ae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Segmented Recurrent Attention in a cross attention block. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are segmented keys and values. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hidden input, which is projected to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by a linear layer. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the bias of T5 model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 384 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RAF neurons accumulate the partial products of keys and values, help approximate softmax, and filter out unnecessary information. It is inspired by Integrate-and-Fire neurons from biological brains and Spiking Neural Networks (Lee et al., 2016; Wozniak et al., 2020; Ponghiran and Roy, 2021; Chowdhury et al., 2022). The architecture of an RAF neuron is shown in Fig. 3. We also provide Pytorch-like pseudo code for RAF in Appendix A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Each RAF neuron uses a membrane potential (memory) to efficiently aggregate sequential information. At each timestep, the memory is updated by adding the projected input with the previous memory, where memory gets decayed by a learnable leak. The input to RAF neurons is the partial product " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Ri} * V_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " containing information of the sequence except the current segment. It is projected by a linear layer. Since Eqn. 13 does not use softmax, the linear layer is necessary to adjust the scale of inputs. Next, we check if its memory crosses the threshold of information propagation to the next layer. If yes, the information in its memory gets passed to the next processing layer, else, the output is zero. This is activated by applying ReLU on the thresholded memory. The learned threshold works like a bias to activate only values over it. If the memory has activated firing, it will be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 521, + 220 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 521, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 521, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 521, + 220 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bc277489626c7db3e57bccf0056eabb014a6fb4cf3ec29d4a95aaba53c81221e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 256 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Recurrent Accumulation-and-Fire neuron. The leaky factor and threshold are trained parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "soft reset by subtracting the value of the threshold. Then it will not fire again until new information is given. Because " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{Ri}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at different steps have overlaps, reset is important to forget redundant information. The design of RAF results in a sparse and low-complexity bio-inspired recurrence mechanism. Unlike an LSTM, a RAF neuron does not apply weights on the hidden memory, but only uses a learnable leaky factor, a threshold, and soft reset as forget and output gates. Hence, it requires fewer weights and lesser computation compared to an LSTM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: One step of cross attention blocks in SRformer \nInput: Query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; Keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Values " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " projected from encoded features; Timestep " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; previous index prev; \nOutput: Output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{s} = \\text{split}(K)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{s} = \\text{split}(V)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = \\min(\\text{int}(t * m/q), m - 1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A[t] = \\text{matmul}(Q_{t}, K_{s}[i])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A[t] = \\text{softmax}(A[t])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nif " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t == 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "KV = \\text{matmul}(K, V)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{memory} = \\text{zero tensor}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{S} = \\text{matmul}(A[t], V_{s}[i])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nif " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "prev != i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P = KV - \\text{matmul}(K_{s}[i], V_{s}[i])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P, \\text{mem} = \\text{RAF}(P, \\text{mem})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{R} = \\text{matmul}(Q_{t}, P)/\\text{norm}(K)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{t} = O_{S} + O_{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "prev = i" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 8, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8329" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 512, + 126 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 512, + 126 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 512, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 512, + 126 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Comp. complexityExample (K)Memory complexityExample (K)
TransformerO(qkd)qkd = 8389O(qk + kd)197
SegmentedO(qsd)qsd = 524O(qs + kd)74
SRformerO(qsd + kd2)qsd + kd2 = 4718O(qs + kd + md2)139
", + "image_path": "220f8dacb4ccb8e654ea6af005e8968ab653653ecdbae93cffa9065b637aea46.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Computation and memory complexity of cross attention. For example, in one of our experiments on the CNN-dailymail dataset, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = 128" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 1024" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d = 64" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s = 64" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To illustrate theoretical computation and memory cost, we show the product of example sizes in thousands." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 260, + 206 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 260, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 260, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Segmented Recurrent Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 291, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 291, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 291, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SRformer aims at utilizing the sequential generation process to capture the relation between locations of a long sequence, without paying attention to all locations or propagating from start to end. After reducing the length of keys and values to reduce computational complexity, it uses Eqn. 13 to approximate the attention mechanism." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 shows the process of one step of cross-attention blocks in SRformer. First, keys and values are split into segments. Then it computes the attention score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A[t]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the current query with the corresponding segment of keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Because the length of queries is usually greater than the number of segments, some queries might use the same segment. Only when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which means it is the beginning of a new sequence, it initializes the memory of RAF and compute the full product of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "KV" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". After applying softmax, attention scores are multiplied with segmented values to get the segmented attention output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It is important to compute the partial product " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of keys and values only once for each index. In addition, the computation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be parallelized to improve efficiency. Then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given to the RAF layer for accumulating with the memory through the recurrent process. The output of RAF is multiplied by the query and then normalized. Finally, we add the segmented attention output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the complementary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach builds connections between segments by using the partial product of keys and values as memory. Since the RAF neuron is applied between segments, the backpropagation-through-time in our model is more efficient than using recurrent layers on each input. As discussed before, recurrent attention makes up for the loss caused by segmented attention. Together, they approximate a complete attention mechanism at a lower cost. Although some existing works proposed global attention for a similar purpose, global attention based on selected locations cannot make up for the loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since segmented recurrent attention is a drop" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 192, + 527, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 192, + 527, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 192, + 527, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in replacement for attention, it can be used in all encoder-decoder transformers, such as T5 and BART. Please note that the usage of positional bias and masks varies across transformers and needs modification. We provide details in Appendix. A.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 511, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 511, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 511, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Complexity Analysis of cross attention" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The total complexity of a sequence-to-sequence transformer is composed of the cost of the encoder and that of the decoder. Here, we only compare the complexity of cross-attention since the other components are not affected by the proposed method. In table 1, we show both computation and memory (space) complexity analyses of a regular transformer, a segmented one, and the proposed SRformer. Please note that the batch size and the number of heads are not considered. To compute the segmented qkv attention, the complexity is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(qsd)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The bottleneck for computation is to multiply " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{Si} * V_{Si}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " times, which results in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(msd^2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " complexity. Because the number of segments is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m = k / s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it becomes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(kd^2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". After that, we need to multiply " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with it, which costs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O(qd^2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", but as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q << k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this term can be ignored. The recurrent unit also costs much less computation than the bottleneck, so it can also be ignored. Since the segment size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the inner dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of each head are much smaller than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in summarization datasets, the number of computations is fewer than a regular transformer, as shown in table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The memory complexity depends on the sizes of input matrices and intermediate matrices. The size of key and value matrices are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k \\times d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The intermediate matrix is the attention weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", whose size is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q \\times k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By segmentation, its size is reduced to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q \\times s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For recurrent attention, we compute the product of keys and values, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " segments. Hence, there are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " matrices of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d \\times d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In table 1, we show that given the example sizes, the theoretical reduction of computation is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "43\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and that of memory complexity is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "29\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8330" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 199, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 199, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 199, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We test our proposed model and method on T5 sequence-to-sequence transformers (Raffel et al., 2022) and BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Since we want to design a model for resource-constrained environments, we use T5-small, which contains 6 transformer layers and 60 million parameters, and BART-base which contains 6 layers and 140 million parameters. Our implementation is built based on Huggingface transformer platform, which is released under the Apache-2.0 License, and we load the pretrained models before training (Wolf et al., 2019). The implementation is based on PyTorch python package (Paszke et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We run all experiments on Nvidia A40 GPUs. Each experiment is run on a single core to compare GPU power and memory usage. We train the models for 25 epochs as the loss and evaluation scores converge at that point. The initial learning rate is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5e^{-5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The optimizer is AdamW and the learning rate scheduler is linear with default settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use ROUGE scores to evaluate SRformer and compare it with other transformers. ROUGE-N is defined as the n-gram recall between model predictions and a set of ground-truth summaries, and ROUGE-L measures the longest common subsequence between them (Lin, 2004). Note, a higher ROUGE score denotes better summarization performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 257, + 495 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 257, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 257, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Results on summarization datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The summarization datasets we use to evaluate the model include CNN-dailymail (Nallapati et al., 2016), XSUM (Narayan et al., 2018), ArXiv Summarization (Cohan et al., 2018), and MediaSum (Zhu et al., 2021). CNN-dailymail dataset contains 311k anonymized English news articles and their summaries, among which 286,817 are training pairs, 13,368 are validation pairs, and 11,487 are test pairs (Hermann et al., 2015; See et al., 2017). XSUM is an extreme summarization dataset, and thus its summaries only have 23 words on average (Narayan et al., 2018). The numbers of documents for training, validation, and test sets of XSUM dataset are 204,045/11,332/11,334. ArXiv dataset has 215 thousand documents, including " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for validation and another " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for test (Cohan et al., 2018). MediaSUM is a media interview dataset consisting of 463.6K dialogue transcripts and summaries, and validation and test set each randomly select 10K instances (Zhu et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 lists the detailed results including ROUGE1, ROUGE2, ROUGEL, and ROUGEL-Sum scores. From the table, we can see that a model with a higher ROUGE1 score usually gives higher other scores, and hence can be considered as better. The sizes of keys and values for cross attention are 1024. With the default segment size set to 64, the sizes of keys and values are reduced by 16. As a consequence, both T5 and BART experience large performance degradation. Then we show ROUGE1 scores of SRformer in bold numbers. SRformer benefits from its recurrent attention mechanism and achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 - 10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " higher scores than the segmented transformers. Although its ROUGE scores are slightly lower than the baseline model, the computational complexity is largely reduced, and we will show it also cuts down GPU power usage and memory access time in section 4.4.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 324, + 518, + 495 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 324, + 518, + 495 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 324, + 518, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 324, + 518, + 495 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d4f78e042b1a63d51e0c37c29de5ef9b3966d8b790e8cc43ad54af6cd6ba985e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Rouge1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset for different segment sizes across various models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 551, + 436, + 565 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 551, + 436, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 551, + 436, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Effect of segment sizes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4 shows ROUGE1 scores on CNN-dailymail dataset with regard to different segment sizes 8, 16, and 64. The number of segments should not exceed the number of generation steps, otherwise, some segments would never be used. Hence, the segment size should not be smaller than 8 for the CNN-dailymail dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The blue line in Fig. 4 shows that for a segmented transformer without recurrence, the ROUGE1 score drops significantly by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " when reducing segment size from 64 to 8. The yellow line shows the results of applying the method from TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019) to cross attention blocks of the T5-small model. We add a hidden memory for keys and values and concatenate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8331" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 208 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SRformerSegmentedBaseline
DatasetModelROUGE2ROUGELROUGELsumROUGE1ROUGE1ROUGE1
CNN-DMT516.7927.2936.8139.3933.3141.60
BART19.8029.4440.4043.1933.8744.54
XSUMT511.7226.8826.8834.4827.0335.35
BART16.5831.5431.5439.0336.2241.33
ArXivT511.5024.5331.8636.0432.6437.79
BART14.9725.2937.8642.9936.4343.95
MediaSumT512.8925.7226.2928.5924.4329.25
BART14.7024.7528.4632.3628.4033.88
", + "image_path": "cd14e5cb1d1c16669c7e26d2c3291b553e766dd27bfa3392cc0ae1f9c25a33c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the hidden memory with the current segment to compute cross attention. With that setting, TransformerXL performs better than a segmented transformer, but its performance still decreases with the segment size. The green line shows the results of longT5 (Guo et al., 2021). When the number of segments grows as the segment size decreases, it can use more tokens for computing global attention. Hence, its performance is inversely proportional to the segment size. For example, when segment size is 8, it uses 8 local and 128 global tokens, and its performance is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " better than using 64 local and 16 global ones. However, the computational overhead of global attention also grows quadratically with the number of tokens. In contrast, SRformer is able to keep a stable performance regardless of the size reduction. Its ROUGE1 scores are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6 - 22\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " higher than those of a segmented T5 model, and it gives a larger boost in performance compared to TransformerXL and longT5. Even when other models use a segment 8 times larger, they are still not able to compete with our model. The results show that SRformer can indeed better approximate full attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 594, + 285, + 652 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 525, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 525, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 525, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results of SRformer on Summarization datasets compared to baseline models and their segmented version. The baseline models are T5-small and BART-base." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 594, + 285, + 652 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 594, + 285, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 594, + 285, + 652 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SettingROUGE1SettingROUGE1
SRformer39.39--
(I)36.86(II)36.77
(III)35.84(IV)29.72
", + "image_path": "5fc37863cb80cb295f289075fcb5d475c4718cc117b4d9e6a7ed32cf6d893122.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 287, + 673 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 287, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 661, + 287, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study using CNN-Dailymail dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 166, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 166, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 166, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better understand the contribution of each component to the performance of SRformer, we conducted an ablation study by removing or modifying terms in Eqn. 11 or 13. The segment size is fixed to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 262, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 262, + 525, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 262, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "64 and the model is modified from T5-small. The dataset used for ablation study is CNN-dailymail. We varied the following components one by one while keeping the rest of the model fixed:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 600 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(I) Remove segmented attention. We modify the model to only use recurrent attention. We observe a noticeable drop in performance, however, it is much better than only using segmented attention. This shows that recurrent attention made a crucial contribution to the overall performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 397, + 524, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 397, + 524, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 397, + 524, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(II) Remove normalization. Without dividing norm(K), ROUGE 1 score drops by 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(III) Without RAF. Skipping RAF will remove recurrent computation and corresponding weights. However, without RAF, it is not able to approximate full attention well. The performance decrease shows the importance of RAF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(IV) Replacing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{R} * V_{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K_{s} * V_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In this case, it can skip computing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K * V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". RAF accumulates information as timesteps increase. However, at the beginning of generation, it only has information from the first few segments. Hence the performance is not as good." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 524, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 524, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 524, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, our ablation study shows that all terms in Eqn. 13 are important components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 516, + 626 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 516, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 516, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Evaluation of improvement in efficiency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 456, + 646 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 456, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 456, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4.1 Theoretical improvement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table.1, we have shown that SRformer reduces the computation and memory complexity of cross attention. In our experiment, as the length of the generated summary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equals 128 and the length of the input article " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equals 1024, the theoretical reduction of computation is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "43\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and that of memory complexity is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "29\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In Fig. 5, we show how the improvement would change when the length of the generated summary scales up. The costs are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8332" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 286, + 230 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 286, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 286, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 79, + 286, + 230 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "47cdea434ae2454d3a087ba10873c066f272b053d1279a1ff148729f38c86f78.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 232, + 232, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 232, + 232, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 232, + 232, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Computation cost" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 79, + 495, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 79, + 495, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 79, + 495, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 79, + 495, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c188c0cd7a3b5c76385f059ff98325c10d7562643d0ac7829de64db364470ba1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 232, + 433, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 232, + 433, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 232, + 433, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Memory cost" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Theoretical computational cost and memory cost of cross attention when the length of summary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases from 128 to 1024." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "computed based on the theoretical complexity in Table.1. Suppose that the length of the input article is eight times the length of the summary (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 8*q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). The cost of cross attention in a regular transformer will increase quadratically with the text length. The cost of cross attention in SRformer is not dependent on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q * k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q * s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a small segment size. Therefore, it increases linearly and the reduction would be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "93\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to a transformer when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = 1024" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Although existing datasets for abstractive summarization have relatively short summary lengths, large language models may be required to generate a long summary for a very long document at a fixed ratio. In that case, SRformer can provide a large improvement in efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 250, + 525 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 250, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 250, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4.2 GPU power and memory usage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We track GPU memory, memory accessing time, and power using Weights&Biases tools (Biewald, 2020). The GPU usage of SRformer modified from BART and other models are listed in Table. 4. Our model consumes less GPU power and spends less time accessing memory, compared to a regular transformer, TransformerXL (Dai et al., 2019), and LongT5 (Guo et al., 2021). BART uses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "99\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " GPU power, which almost reaches the limitation of GPU. The percentage of time GPU spent accessing memory is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "91\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It means GPU spent most of the time fetching data from memory. However, with segmented recurrent attention, SRformer does not need to use all encoded features at each step. Hence it saves a considerable amount of computation and memory access. It only uses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "81\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " GPU power and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " GPU memory accessing time. Although GPU memory usage of all recurrent transformers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 318, + 295, + 511, + 366 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 295, + 511, + 366 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 295, + 511, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 295, + 511, + 366 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMemTimePower
BART499199
TransformerXL827089
LongT5738090
SRformer606080
", + "image_path": "a44d4605922efab0bcf48b24e1b1281a640f3baa9f80c8a8737d32079cdf4e88.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 398 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Percentages (%) of GPU usage in terms of memory, memory accessing time, and power usage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is larger than vanilla BART to store weights and gradients, our method uses less memory than TransformerXL and LongT5. In conclusion, by alleviating the cross attention bottleneck, the proposed transformer becomes more efficient." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 381, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 381, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 505, + 381, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose an efficient sequence-to-sequence transformer using segmented recurrent attention. Since cross-attention is the computation bottleneck for text summarization, replacing full attention with segmented recurrent attention can largely reduce its computation complexity. The proposed RAF neurons help approximate full attention at a low overhead. During inference, they utilize the sequential process to accumulate information in their internal memory and bridge information across segments effectively. The efficacy of the proposed model is demonstrated through higher ROUGE scores on multiple summarization datasets compared to other segmented transformers. Our proposed architecture is especially suitable for summarization and can be used for other sequence-to-sequence tasks such as translation and question-answering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8333" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 292, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 292, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 292, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work focuses on designing an efficient encoder-decoder model for summarization tasks. The proposed method can not be directly applied to an encoder-only or decoder-only model, although it is possible to design a modified version for those models. In the case that the length of encoded features is not much larger than the length of decoder output, it may not be able to show significant reduction in computation and memory cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 224, + 158, + 237 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 224, + 158, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 224, + 158, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work complies with the ACL Ethics Policy. It contributes a new model to the deep learning and computational linguistics community which can be used in many applications. We will make the codes open-source for other researchers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 323, + 166, + 336 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 323, + 166, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 323, + 166, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 292, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 292, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 292, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by the Center for Code-design of Cognitive Systems (CoCoSys), one of the seven centers in JUMP 2.0, a Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) program sponsored by DARPA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 435, + 127, + 448 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 435, + 127, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 435, + 127, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 454, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joshua Ainslie, Santiago Ontañón, Chris Alberti, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, and Sumit Sanghai. 2020. ETC: encoding long and structured data in transformers. CoRR, abs/2004.08483." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 291, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 291, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Wenhui Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Songhao Piao, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2020. Unilmv2: Pseudo-masked language models for unified language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. CoRR, abs/2004.05150." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 667 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lukas Biewald. 2020. Experiment tracking with weights and biases. Software available from wandb.com." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 677, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 677, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 677, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 526, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 167, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aydar Bulatov, Yuri Kuratov, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2022. Recurrent memory transformer. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 240 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. CoRR, abs/1904.10509." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 290 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sayeed Shafayet Chowdhury, Nitin Rathi, and Kaushik Roy. 2022. One timestep is all you need: Training spiking neural networks with ultra low latency. abs/2110.05929." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Nazli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 615-621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Transformer-XL: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2978-2988, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 498, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 498, + 526, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 498, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. FlashAttention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with IO-awareness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. abs/2010.11929." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 526, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David Uthus, Santiago Ontanon, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. LongT5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724-736, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David C. Uthus, Santiago Ontañón, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. 2021. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. CoRR, abs/2112.07916." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 258, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 258, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 258, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/ acl-code-ethics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8334" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In NIPS, pages 1693-1701." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Ho, Nal Kalchbrenner, Dirk Weissenborn, and Tim Salimans. 2019. Axial attention in multidimensional transformers. CoRR, abs/1912.12180." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 289, + 199 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 289, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 289, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DeLesley S. Hutchins, Imanol Schlag, Yuhuai Wu, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. 2022. Block-recurrent transformers. ArXiv, abs/2203.07852." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 208, + 289, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 208, + 289, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 208, + 289, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angelos Katharopoulos, Apoorv Vyas, Nikolaos Pappas, and François Fleuret. 2020. Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikita Kitaev, Lukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. 2020. Reformer: The efficient transformer. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 289, + 357 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 289, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 289, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jun Haeng Lee, Tobi Delbruck, and Michael Pfeiffer. 2016. Training deep spiking neural networks using backpropagation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 366, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 366, + 289, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 366, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin Lefaudeaux, Francisco Massa, Diana Liskovich, Wenhan Xiong, Vittorio Caggiano, Sean Naren, Min Xu, Jieru Hu, Marta Tintore, Susan Zhang, Patrick Labatut, and Daniel Haziza. 2022. xformers: A modular and hackable transformer modelling library. https://github.com/facebookresearch/xformers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 451, + 289, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 451, + 289, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 451, + 289, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 559, + 289, + 581 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 559, + 289, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 559, + 289, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei-Fei Li. 2022. Cs231n: Convolutional neural networks for visual recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 289, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Caglar Gulçehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNNs and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 280-290, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! Topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 106, + 524, + 226 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 106, + 524, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 106, + 524, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wachirawit Ponghiran and Kaushik Roy. 2021. Spiking neural networks with improved inherent recurrence dynamics for sequential learning. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 524, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Qin, Xiaodong Han, Weixuan Sun, Dongxu Li, Lingpeng Kong, Nick Barnes, and Yiran Zhong. 2022. The devil in linear transformer. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7025-7041, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 524, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2022. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 450, + 524, + 516 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 450, + 524, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 450, + 524, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684-10695." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 524, + 582 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 524, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 524, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aurko Roy, Mohammad Saffar, Ashish Vaswani, and David Grangier. 2021. Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:53-68." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 595, + 524, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 595, + 524, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 595, + 524, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo-Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abigail See, Peter J. Liu, and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Get to the point: Summarization with pointer-generator networks. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1073-1083, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8335" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(6)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 290, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 178, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 178, + 290, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 178, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sinong Wang, Belinda Z. Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. 2020. Linformer: Self-attention with linear complexity. CoRR, abs/2006.04768." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 219, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 219, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 219, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. CoRR, abs/1910.03771." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 294, + 291, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 294, + 291, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 294, + 291, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stanislaw Wozniak, Angeliki Pantazi, Thomas Bohnstingl, and Evangelos Eleftheriou. 2020. Deep learning incorporating biologically inspired neural dynamics and in-memory computing. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2:325-336." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 291, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontañón, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. 2020. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. CoRR, abs/2007.14062." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 421, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 421, + 291, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 421, + 291, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5927-5934, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 377, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 377, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 377, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 93, + 477, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 93, + 477, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 93, + 477, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Expanding attention equations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denote the current i-th segment as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i} = [i*s, (i + 1)s]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The indices of remaining segments are denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{i} = \\{j \\in [1,k], j \\notin S_{i}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then the full attention, segmented attention, and remaining attention at timestep " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 110, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 187, + 469, + 203 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 187, + 469, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 187, + 469, + 203 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}\\right) V", + "image_path": "720817bbec62d2b17d30fc7484939085fe76a8a8abc35cffa145378876c1a2df.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 205, + 483, + 221 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 205, + 483, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 205, + 483, + 221 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {S i}", + "image_path": "7320ee856d8bd37ae664baf10902d0958ef0434693b0bbb60e8ac533e1158060.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 223, + 485, + 239 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 223, + 485, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 223, + 485, + 239 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {R} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i}", + "image_path": "6d810343932a704344535ee7db9af388da33887dad6004b4483507b2509fc4b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 524, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 524, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 524, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For example, the softmax operation applied on the remaining attention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 524, + 276 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 524, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be expanded as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 285, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 285, + 525, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 285, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {R} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {R i} \\tag {17}", + "image_path": "ffbde8e9379ad2ac484a4dbc994b75ca40c99214b2792dbcd5fa1c8d308bc124.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 304, + 524, + 336 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 304, + 524, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 304, + 524, + 336 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "= \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {R i} ^ {T}\\right) * V _ {R i}}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {18}", + "image_path": "a2dc080a1fea478ac28e329ecb25b330f07ee585f7378b96572cc3f3d3a6411a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 338, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 338, + 524, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 338, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "= \\frac {\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {19}", + "image_path": "caecb372ad1b3c97942d3866a392a3c30974ad3ae53a3c6b82b843312e600977.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the common implementation of softmax attention, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi (X) = \\exp (X)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an exponential function. For the numerical stability of the computation, another choice is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi (X) = \\exp (X - \\log (\\max_{i}X_{i}))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Li, 2022). However, Katharopoulos et al. (2020) proposed to replace it with a kernel function such that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi (XY) = \\phi (X)\\phi (Y)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then we have" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 485, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 485, + 524, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 485, + 524, + 521 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {20}", + "image_path": "3c4d967d265856238bcdef1742411a043ef9713654c8a4b2545e94871dc3c181.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 523, + 524, + 556 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 523, + 524, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 523, + 524, + 556 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {S} [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {21}", + "image_path": "40ca8ff7aaf01108d29f9b1d4e310e4ad339606f2a95a2c017aa9e8a185fbc8f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 558, + 524, + 592 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 558, + 524, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 558, + 524, + 592 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {R} [ t ] = \\frac {\\phi \\left(Q _ {t}\\right) \\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\left(\\phi \\left(K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) V _ {j}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)} \\tag {22}", + "image_path": "cf2b293dc2db4373e6c5acbe65a923838adbf460608e42c88b05c937e6e2f045.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denote the divisor in the above equations using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{s}, c_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 600, + 524, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 383, + 636, + 483, + 666 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 383, + 636, + 483, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 383, + 636, + 483, + 666 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c _ {s} = \\sum_ {j \\in S _ {i}} \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T})", + "image_path": "6fa1975eea772e238f8d822d204092c0e81d5d8bde7adac0d9435cf38df3e788.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 667, + 483, + 697 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 667, + 483, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 667, + 483, + 697 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c _ {r} = \\sum_ {j \\in R _ {i}} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right)", + "image_path": "c8b6534a708398c9a2d3b57edf0e602d97336e8cfe0831b8d7f67cbc248f1182.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 699, + 483, + 736 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 699, + 483, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 699, + 483, + 736 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {k} \\phi \\left(Q _ {t} * K _ {j} ^ {T}\\right) = c _ {s} + c _ {r}", + "image_path": "8459e874e57ff6de5a058c137b1de525b340f37576304d9d8c31538a3f1e6cba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then we can write the full attention as a weighted summation, where the weights depend on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8336" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 274, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 274, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 274, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can use a factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 274, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 274, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to represent the weights." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 248, + 112 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 248, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 248, + 112 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = \\frac {c _ {s}}{c} O _ {S} [ t ] + \\frac {c _ {r}}{c} O _ {R} [ t ]", + "image_path": "0cb341e3a269d53cfcc1c7e1b1c50443f2180f5a4396e0b431f85d13297fcd5d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 115, + 248, + 129 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 115, + 248, + 129 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 115, + 248, + 129 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O [ t ] = \\sigma O _ {S} [ t ] + (1 - \\sigma) O _ {R} [ t ]", + "image_path": "e2a306bc4b50df94b5c3b9898f1899493f575a9e33b053e4f5dc7c1fe625fb57.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 290, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 290, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 290, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In practice, we find that simple addition without weighting still works. Our recurrent attention further approximates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 290, + 175 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O_{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 290, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 179, + 249, + 211 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 179, + 249, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 179, + 249, + 211 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {R} [ t ] \\approx \\frac {Q _ {t} * R A F (K _ {R} ^ {T} * V _ {R})}{\\operatorname {n o r m} (K)}", + "image_path": "f9c6a4ca3c4ef8ccbfe8098e23be440f6b6c8ea90375c256b6dfdd11ecfca7a0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moveover, we can estimate the error caused by segmented attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 248, + 277, + 349 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 248, + 277, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 248, + 277, + 349 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} O - O _ {S} \\\\ = \\frac {c _ {s} * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V - c * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {S i} ^ {T}) V}{c * c _ {s}} \\\\ = \\frac {c * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K _ {R} ^ {T}) V _ {R} - c _ {r} * \\phi (Q _ {t} * K ^ {T}) V}{c * (c - c _ {r})} \\\\ = \\frac {c _ {r}}{c - c _ {r}} (O _ {R} - O) = \\frac {c _ {r}}{c} (O _ {R} - O _ {S}) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "1511d2d6867110c829f660ffcaaa12f21f7c389210b772c1876f984a918a2f2d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 355, + 238, + 366 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 355, + 238, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 355, + 238, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Pseudo code for RAF neurons" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 377, + 207, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 377, + 207, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 377, + 207, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "class RAF(nnModule):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 391, + 292, + 485 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 391, + 292, + 485 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 391, + 292, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 391, + 292, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "def init(dim):\n self-linear = Linear(dim, dim)\n selfactivation =ReLU\n self.leak = parameter(1.0,\n require_grad=True)\n self.thre = parameter(0.1,\n require_grad=True)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 9, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "python" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 279, + 592 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 279, + 592 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 279, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 498, + 279, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "def forward(input, mem, t):\n x = self(linear(input))\n mem = leak * mem + x\n y = mem / self.thre - 1.0\n mem = mem - self.thre * (y > 0)\n out = ReLU(y)\n return out" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 10, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "python" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 607, + 218, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 607, + 218, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 607, + 218, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Positional bias and masks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Different transformers such as T5 and BART use positional bias and masks differently. Hence, we need to take this into consideration when implementing segmented recurrent attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For example, T5 adds positional bias to the attention weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For segmented attention, we need to segment bias as shown in the following equations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 739, + 260, + 753 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 739, + 260, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 739, + 260, + 753 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "b _ {S i} = b [ i * s: (i + 1) * s ]", + "image_path": "220da7a5ba21711898fe3a38f5a0521d9d3cf6db074d5bb4d749aa6022d3b1af.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 756, + 260, + 769 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 756, + 260, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 756, + 260, + 769 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "O _ {S} [ t ] = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(A _ {S} [ t ] + b _ {S i}\\right) * V _ {S i}", + "image_path": "e605d103dc459f94895cf9368137267a4673d0a723520ddacfd4af1cc0a46cef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "BART adds positional bias to the inputs of the first layer, so there is no need to take care of that separately. However, the encoder of BART generates features of various sizes and adds padding to each batch. To ignore the padding, an encoder mask is used. Because softmax is removed in recurrent attention, adding negative infinity to masked locations is not suitable. Instead, we filter out abnormal values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K * V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a clamp function before computing recurrent attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To apply SRformer to other types of transformers, we recommend checking the positional bias and masks and adjusting accordingly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8337" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_content_list.json b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97bfdb91998b8a6a8edddebd5de08e9858369466 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1941 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 152, + 87, + 847, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Maharaj Brahma* Kaushal Kumar Maurya* Maunendra Sankar Desarkar \nNatural Language and Information Processing Lab (NLIP) \nIndian Institute of Technology Hyderabad \nHyderabad, India", + "bbox": [ + 156, + 141, + 845, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{cs23resch01004,cs18resch11003}@iith.ac.in,maunendra@cse.iith.ac.in", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 210, + 838, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 342, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we focus on the task of machine translation (MT) from extremely low-resource language (ELRLs) to English. The unavailability of parallel data, lack of representation from large multilingual pre-trained models, and limited monolingual data hinder the development of MT systems for ELRLs. However, many ELRLs often share lexical similarities with high-resource languages (HRLs) due to factors such as dialectical variations, geographical proximity, and language structure. We utilize this property to improve cross-lingual signals from closely related HRL to enable MT for ELRLs. Specifically, we propose a novel unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, based on selective candidate extraction and noise injection to generate noisy HRLs training data. The noise injection acts as a regularizer, and the model trained with noisy data learns to handle lexical variations such as spelling, grammar, and vocabulary changes, leading to improved cross-lingual transfer to ELRLs. The selective candidates are extracted using BPE merge operations and edit operations, and noise injection is performed using greedy, top-p, and top-k sampling strategies. We evaluate the proposed model on 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 benchmark in a zero-shot setting across two language families. The proposed model outperformed all the strong baselines, demonstrating its efficacy. It has comparable performance with the supervised noise injection model. Our code and model are publicly available1.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 763, + 260, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The modern neural machine translation (NMT; Aharoni et al. (2019); Garcia et al. (2021); Siddhant et al. (2022)) has achieved remarkable performance for many languages, but their performance heavily relies on the availability of large parallel or mono", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 789, + 490, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f3af30a9b40182fc7d75937f2df6840f92a35ee40aabc9d6bfc489c8f9406083.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 252, + 855, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6e9d7f4828babc9525170700ce6816af5281a96587796830d033bf0ddcf95578.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Illustration of character noise injection with random baseline (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022) and propose SELECTNOISE model. The SELECTNOISE enhances lexical similarity between noisy HRL (N-HIN) and ELRL (BHO). ENG: English, HIN: Hindi, N-HIN: Noisy Hindi and BHO: Bhojpuri languages. Red: Insertion, Blue: Deletion and Green: Substitution operations." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 340, + 855, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lingual corpora (Koehn and Knowles, 2017). However, the linguistic diversity across the world is vast, with over 7000 languages spoken2. This linguistic landscape includes a long tail of languages (Joshi et al., 2020) that face significant challenges due to the lack of available resources for model development and are referred as extremely low-resource languages (ELRLs). ELRLs present unique challenges for the development of MT systems as they lack parallel datasets, are excluded from large multilingual pre-trained language models, and possess limited monolingual datasets. Consequently, the majority of research efforts in NMT have primarily focused on resource-rich languages (Bender, 2019), leaving ELRLs with limited attention and fewer viable solutions. Towards these concerns, this work is positioned as a step towards enabling MT technology for ELRLs. Primarily focused on zero-shot setting for scalability.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 884, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "More recently, there has been active research to develop MT systems for LRLs. One direction is", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 865, + 882, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2https://www.ethnologue.com/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 744, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal contributions", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 879, + 272, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1code and model checkpoints link: https://github. com/maharajbrahma/selectnoise", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1615", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1615-1629 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 973 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "multilingual training-based models (Aharoni et al., 2019; Garcia et al., 2021; Siddhant et al., 2022). These models are trained with multiple HRL languages, enabling cross-lingual transfer capabilities to improve translation performance for LRLs. Another line of work focuses on data augmentation techniques (Sennrich et al., 2016a; Wang et al., 2018) to generate more training data. However, these methods do not fully exploit the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs. Many HRLs and ELRLs exhibit surface-level lexical similarities due to dialect variations, loan words, and geographical proximity (Khemchandani et al., 2021). For example, the word \"Monday\" is somvar in Hindi and somar in Bhojpuri. They are lexically very similar. To leverage this lexical similarity, recent studies have explored techniques like learning overlapping vocabulary (Patil et al., 2022) or injecting random noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023) in HRLs to resemble LRLs. These methods are only evaluated for natural language understanding tasks (NLU) and not for MT, which is a more challenging task. Inspired by these advancements, in this paper, we propose a novel unsupervised noise injection approach to develop an MT system for ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed model is based on character noise injection and consists of two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction phase, candidate characters are extracted in an unsupervised manner using small monolingual data from closely related HRL and ELRLs. It relies on BPE merge operations and edit operations that take into account lexical similarity and linguistic properties. In the noise injection phase, noise is injected into the source side of parallel data of HRL using greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling algorithms. This noise injection serves as a regularizer and a model trained with this noisy HRL data enhances robustness to spelling, grammar, or vocabulary changes and facilitates improved cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs. The evaluation is done in the zero-shot setting, ensuring scalability. The proposed model is referred as the SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Selective Noise Injection model. Fig. 1 illustrates the effect of noise injection with SELECTNOISE model. In this paper, we investigate two hypotheses: (a) the selective noise injection model is expected to outperform random noise injection, and (b) the performance of the selective (unsupervised) noise injection model", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 517, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "should be comparable to the supervised noise injection model.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our key contributions are: (1) We propose a novel unsupervised selective character noise injection approach, SELECTNOISE, to enable and improve MT for ELRLs to English. The injection of selective candidate noise facilitates better cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs in the zero-shot setting. (2) We have developed an unsupervised mechanism to extract candidate characters based on BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, the noise injection employs greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling techniques, ensuring diversity. (3) We evaluated the model's performance using 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 evaluation set across two typologically diverse language families. Evaluations were conducted with both automated and human evaluation metrics. (4) The proposed model outperformed all baselines and has comparable performance with the supervised selective noise injection-based MT model. Additionally, we performed several analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 118, + 884, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 470, + 655, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section presents the details of the proposed SELECTNOISE model. As discussed in section 1, the SELECTNOISE model has two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction stage, the noise injection candidate characters are extracted through an unsupervised approach. Specifically, we consider small monolingual data for HRL $(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}})$ and for related (lexically similar) LRLs $(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}})$ . $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ comprises small monolingual datasets from multiple extremely ELRLs. During the process of building the Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) vocabulary, we extract the BPE operations separately for the HRL $(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}})$ and ELRLs $(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}})$ . Next, we design an algorithm $\\mathcal{A}$ to extract selective candidate characters from $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ and store them in candidate pool $S_{\\mathcal{C}}$ . Candidates are extracted with an approach inspired by edit-operations. In other words, we obtain $S_{\\mathcal{C}}$ as a result of $\\mathcal{A}$ $(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}, \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}})$ . In noise injection stage, the candidates are sampled from $S_{\\mathcal{C}}$ and injected into the source sentences of HRL corpus $(\\mathcal{H})$ from the large parallel data $\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(h,e)|lang(h) = \\mathcal{H}, lang(e) = En\\}$ . The injections are done using a noise function $\\eta$ , resulting in a noise-injected (augmented) parallel data: $\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(\\hat{h}, e)|lang(\\hat{h}) = \\hat{\\mathcal{H}}, lang(e) =$", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 501, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1616", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3ceda894b112a883e5405b839bbbfeba8e9909617cf4e3a217c87b89f22e89da.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model for extremely low-resource MT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 84, + 843, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathit{En}\\}$ , where $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}} = \\eta (\\mathcal{H})$ . The $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}$ acts as proxy training data for ELRLs. A BPE vocabulary $\\nu$ is learned with $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}$ . Then, we train the standard encoder-decoder transformers model $(\\mathcal{M};$ Vaswani et al. (2017b) from scratch with $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\nu$ to obtain trained model $\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}$ . Finally, zero-shot evaluation is done for ELRLs with $\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}$ and $\\nu$ . Now, we present details of each model component. The overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model is depicted in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 318, + 487, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 494, + 448, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The formal procedure for unsupervised noise injection is presented in Algorithm 1. In the next subsections, we will deep dive into each stage of the proposed model in details:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 489, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1.1 Selective Candidate Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 416, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The first stage in the proposed approach involves extracting candidate characters that will subsequently be utilized for noise injection. Given $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ , we extract all BPE merge operations $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ , respectively. Each merge operation consists of tuples $\\langle (p,q) \\rangle \\in \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\langle (r,s) \\rangle \\in \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ . We pair each merge tuple of $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ with each tuple of $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ (i.e., cartesian setup). If $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ have $n$ and $m$ merge operations, respectively, we obtain a total of $t = m \\cdot n$ pairs. We consider only those pairs where either $p$ and $r$ or $q$ and $s$ are the same while discarding the rest. For the considered tuples $\\langle (p,q), (r,s) \\rangle$ , we calculate the character-level edit-distance operations between non-similar elements of the tuple. For instance, if $p$ and $r$ are the same, the edit operations are obtained using $q$ and $s$ elements. These operations are collected in the candidate pool $S_{c}$ , which includes insertions,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "deletions, and substitutions, and are referred to as the selective candidates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 880, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed, the extracted selective candidates are stored in the candidate pool $Sc$ , a dictionary data structure encompassing HRL and ELRL characters. The $Sc$ consists of HRL characters, ELRL characters, edit operations, and their respective frequencies. An element of $Sc$ has following template: $c_{i} : \\{I : f_{ins}, D : f_{del}, S : \\{c_{1}' : f_{1}, c_{2}' : f_{2}, c_{k}' : f_{k}\\} \\}$ . The operations are: insertion (I), deletion (D) and substitution (S). The character $c_{i}$ represents the $i^{th}$ element of $Sc$ , which is an HRL character, $c_{1}' \\ldots c_{k}'$ denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and $f$ is the associated frequencies. A few examples of selective candidate extraction are illustrated in Fig. 3. Sample candidate pool $(Sc)$ is shown in Fig. 6.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 884, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intuitively, with this candidate pool $S_{c}$ , we have learned transformative entities that can be used to resemble an HRL to lexically similar ELRLs, which results in bridging the lexical gap between HRL and LRLs. Training with such modified HRL data enhances the effectiveness of cross-lingual transfer signals for ELRLs. As candidates are extracted by considering the vocabulary word-formation strategy from BPE and edit operations, they indirectly consider the linguistic cues/information.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 885, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1.2 Noise Injection to HRL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 752, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the second stage, we sample selective candidates from $S_{c}$ and inject into the source sentences of HRL corpus $(\\mathcal{H})$ from the parallel dataset $\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(h,e)|lang(h) = \\mathcal{H},lang(e) = En\\}$ using a noise function $\\eta$ , resulting in a noise injected (augmented) parallel dataset $\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(\\hat{h},e)|lang(\\hat{h}) = \\hat{\\mathcal{H}},lang(e) = En\\}$ , where $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}} = \\eta(\\mathcal{H})$ . Details of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1617", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b09eaac1805df5313f24435707cc7750d6520ff966507f6a90be1a495d8ecabe.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Illustration of selective candidates extraction for noise injection that utilizes BPE merge and edit operations. Here $I$ , $D$ , and $S$ indicate insertion, deletion, and substitution respectively. Frequencies are associated with operations. 0 indicates the corresponding edit operation was not extracted." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 157, + 80, + 448, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the noise function and candidate sampling strategy are presented below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 485, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Noise Function: The noise injection function $(\\eta)$ is designed as follows: Initially, we randomly select $5\\% - 10\\%^3$ of character indices from a sentence $s \\in \\mathcal{H}$ . Subsequently, we uniformly choose between insertion, deletion, or substitution operations with equal probability. If the selected operation is insertion or substitution, we sample a candidate character from $S_c$ to perform the noise injection operation. For deletion, the charter is simply deleted. These steps are repeated for all sentences in $\\mathcal{H}$ to obtain the final $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 487, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Candidate Character Sampling: While noise injection for deletion operation, we simply delete the character. For insertion and substitution, we sample the candidate character for injection from $S_{c}$ using the greedy, top-p (nucleus), and top-k sampling techniques inspired by decoding algorithms commonly employed in NLG (Holtzman et al., 2019). Before applying these sampling techniques, the frequencies of the candidate characters are transformed into probability scores using the softmax operation. Intuitively, with the sampling technique, we aim to explore not only frequent candidate characters but also diverse candidates.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 489, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The performance of any learning model depends on the quality of the training data. The presence of noise hampers the learning, and the outputs of the learned model exhibit the different nuances of the noise present in the data. In our specific case: (i) We train a model using data that contains noise, resulting in the model's increased robustness to minor lexical variations in different languages, par", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 752, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ticularly those related to ELRLs. (ii) The noise is added for a small portion of characters $(5 - 10\\%)$ , making the HRLs training data closely resemble how sentences appear in ELRLs. As a result, the model is able to do a robust cross-lingual transfer to the ELRL in a zero-shot setting. In another perspective, the injection of noise acts as a regularizer (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022), contributing to an overall enhancement in the model's performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Supervised Noise Injection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 764, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have also investigated in a supervised setting akin to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach. The key distinction lies in how the candidate pool $S_{sc}$ is derived from a limited parallel dataset between HRL and ELRLs. For each HRL and ELRL pair,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 267, + 882, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 373, + 880, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Require: [Inputs] HRL monolingual data $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ ; closely related ELRLs monolingual data $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ ; number of merge operations $\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}}$ ; HRL parallel data $\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}}(\\mathcal{H},En)$ ; Noise injection percentage range $[p_1\\% - p_2\\%]$ ; candidate sampling strategy $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}$ ; EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS ( $\\mathcal{A}$ )", + "Ensure: [Output] Noisy source HRL $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}$ $\\mathcal{S}_c =$ EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS( $\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})$ \nfor sentence $s$ in $\\mathcal{H}$ do idxs $\\leftarrow$ randomly select $[p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]$ indices of $s$ for idx in idxs do ops $\\leftarrow$ randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then $c =$ sample candidate char, i.e., $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}(\\mathcal{S}_{c},\\mathrm{ops})$ Perform operation ops at index idx with $c$ end if end for \nend for \nprocedure EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(DH,D,L,Mo) Initialize candidate pool $S_{c}\\gets \\emptyset$ to store candidates Compute merge operations $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\mathrm{BPE}(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})$ Compute merge operations $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}} = \\mathrm{BPE}(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})$ for $n$ in $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ do for $m$ in $\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ do $\\triangleright$ where $n =$ tuple $\\langle (p,q)\\rangle ,m =$ tuple $\\langle (r,s)\\rangle$ if $n$ equals $m$ or $p$ not equals $r$ and $q$ not equals $s$ ) then No operation is performed with $n$ and $m$ end if if $p$ equals $r$ then Compute edit-operations(q,s)&update $S_{c}$ end if if $q$ equals $s$ then Compute edit-operations(p,r)&update $S_{c}$ end if end for end for Return $S_{c}$ \nend procedure" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 407, + 882, + 912 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^3$ after conducting several ablation experiments, this range provides the best performance", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1618", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [ + "Algorithm 2 Supervised Noise Injection" + ], + "code_body": "Require: [Inputs] joint parallel data for all considered HRL-ELRL pairs $\\mathcal{P}_S(S,\\mathcal{E}_L)$ ; HRL parallel data $\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}}(\\mathcal{H},En)$ noise injection percentage range $[p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]$ ; candidate sampling strategy $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}$ \nEnsure: [Output] Noisy source HRL $\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}$ $S_{sc} =$ SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) \nfor sentence $s$ in $\\mathcal{H}$ do idxs $\\leftarrow$ randomly select $[p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]$ indices of s for idx in idxs do ops $\\leftarrow$ randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then $c =$ sample candidate char, i.e., $\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}(\\mathcal{S}_{sc},ops)$ Perform operation ops at index idx with c end if end for \nend for \nprocedure SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) Initialize candidate pool $S_{sc}\\gets \\emptyset$ to store candidates for each $\\langle (s,e)\\rangle$ in $\\mathcal{P}_S$ do Compute edit-operations(s,e) & update $S_{sc}$ end for return $S_{sc}$ \nend procedure", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 102, + 489, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "we extract a candidate set using edit operations and subsequently combine all the candidate sets in $\\mathcal{S}c$ . The rest of the modeling steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE. We hypothesize that the unsupervised method should exhibit competitive performance compared to the supervised approach. In the supervised candidate extraction, we assume the availability of a limited amount of parallel data of approximately 1000 examples. A formal algorithm outlining in the Algorithm 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 489, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Model Training and Zero-shot Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 630, + 485, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The stranded encoder-decoder transformers model $(\\mathcal{M})$ is trained from scratch using the noisy highresource parallel dataset $\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ and $\\nu$ to obtain a trained model $\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}$ . Where $\\nu$ is learned BPE vocabulary with $\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}}$ . Subsequently, we use $\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}$ to perform zero-shot generation for ELRLs. We have not used any parallel training data for ELRLs and directly employ $\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}$ for inference, making this modeling setup zero-shot. The trained model transfers knowledge across languages, enabling coherent and meaningful translation for ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 652, + 489, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 843, + 321, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We designed our experimental setup to address the following set of questions: (1) Does noise injection improve performance for NLG tasks, i.e., MT in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "our case? (2) Does selective noise injection with the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperform the random noise injection model (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022)? (3) Does the model's performance persist across different language families? and (4) Does the unsupervised SELECTNOISE model demonstrate competitive performance with supervised approach? Based on these research questions, we have designed our experimental setup.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 241, + 621, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The primary constraint of the proposed approach is to select closely related HRLs and ELRLs. With this criterion in mind, we have chosen two language families: Indo-Aryan and Romance. Within the Indo-Aryan family, we have selected Hindi (hi) as the HRL and 8 ELRLs were Awadhi (awa), Bhojpuri (bho), Chhattisgarhi (hne), Kashmiri (kas), Magahi (mag), Maithili (mai), Nepali (npi), and Sanskrit (san), based on their lexical similarity. For the Romance family, Spanish (es) served as the HRL, and the 4 ELRLs were Asturian (ast), Catalan (cat), Galician (glg), and Occitan (oci). We conducted separate experiments for each language family, training the model with the HRL to English MT task and evaluating it in a zero-shot setting with corresponding ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 261, + 884, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In total, we have 3 HRLs (English, Hindi, and Spanish) and 12 ELRLs. All the test datasets are sourced from FLORES-200 (NLLB Team, 2022), while the hi-en dataset is obtained from AI4Bharat (Ramesh et al., 2022), and the es-en dataset is from Rapp (2021). The development set of FLORES-200 was utilized as a parallel dataset for supervised noise injection. A small amount of monolingual data was used for SELECTNOISE and other baseline methods. Here, we used 1000 examples for each ELRL. Detailed dataset statistics and data sources are presented in Appendix D. In Appendix C, we provide an overview of the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 519, + 882, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 756, + 628, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the SELECTNOISE model with several strong baselines, including a traditional data augmentation model, lexical similarity-based models, and a model based on random noise injection. Details of each baseline are presented below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 777, + 884, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Vanilla NMT: A standard transformer-based NMT model (Vaswani et al., 2017a) with BPE algorithm (Sennrich et al., 2016b).", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1619", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8320819cccfd90f5b15dfb11383e77483d98f851f8499fb23b988dfc35a1aa05.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsIndo-AryanKasRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpicatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT40.346.822.340.049.347.629.621.333.041.040.733.037.08
Word-drop39.547.221.840.649.047.628.620.637.643.643.436.037.96
BPE-drop39.146.822.640.448.746.729.221.133.841.741.533.037.05
SwitchOut36.143.220.138.245.642.728.318.829.034.934.929.133.41
OBPE41.347.523.441.850.449.730.521.134.141.241.333.838.00
BPE-Dropout39.847.422.539.949.647.729.321.233.240.841.433.037.15
Random Char Noise40.948.423.840.850.047.531.221.940.946.146.438.239.68
", + "bbox": [ + 188, + 83, + 810, + 173 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/052a4ae7a40c5dbc5b71133ab36bc01ddf302ae8e064c13f22bd2a1691a8e6ae.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "SELECTNOISE Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy42.151.025.243.451.749.933.423.742.047.147.438.541.28
SELECTNOISE + Top-k42.449.926.043.051.048.833.423.341.547.147.838.541.06
SELECTNOISE + Top-p42.049.624.142.450.648.833.623.341.647.147.538.840.78
Supervised Noise Injection Model
Selective noise + Greedy41.449.125.442.250.148.732.922.241.647.247.738.740.60
Selective noise + Top-k41.749.326.343.350.848.734.223.641.946.847.538.741.10
Selective noise + Top-p41.449.927.343.351.648.933.923.441.647.748.239.041.35
", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 185, + 808, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6b83eb6185277dafd1d51a9fd342c1139209ccb98fdbb360c116489e14456038.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Zero-shot chrF (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsbhohnesanIndo-AryanawanpikascatRomanceAverage
maimagglgastoci
Vanilla NMT11.117.22.710.118.518.35.12.65.310.112.35.29.86
Word-drop8.713.71.97.715.216.13.01.66.910.713.36.58.76
BPE-drop10.816.12.710.017.217.84.02.15.19.111.24.79.23
SwitchOut4.37.71.44.98.47.92.91.23.56.38.23.85.04
OBPE11.116.62.910.418.719.74.81.96.210.712.96.110.16
BPE-Dropout11.617.53.110.119.318.35.42.55.410.113.05.410.14
Random Char Noise12.818.83.110.219.418.66.32.910.914.317.28.711.93
", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 292, + 801, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/aea68c697a5f372fd45efd194244b51d950a43d1f5ff5c6a5b17afd2f23453eb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "SELECTNOISE Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy12.520.13.711.921.220.27.13.010.815.017.49.012.66
SELECTNOISE + Top-k12.319.73.812.020.219.57.22.810.515.017.58.812.44
SELECTNOISE + Top-p12.719.53.811.920.319.66.73.210.714.817.18.912.43
", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 395, + 801, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/87dde98a01b769afcf18c75d217d66f31ae1f99fe1c79ea0a3d8f0fff364e40e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Selective noise + Greedy13.119.54.011.819.619.36.82.410.515.017.98.912.4
Selective noise + Top-k12.719.13.912.220.119.37.02.910.815.017.48.912.44
Selective noise + Top-p12.720.04.112.621.219.77.02.710.515.418.19.112.76
", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 442, + 801, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0e2dc451c32dd1527dde40bd47644d8cd9dfc98c48fe22753cc7fc865afc3158.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Zero-shot BLEU (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.5000.5310.3680.5000.5590.5760.4350.3770.2950.3900.4060.2320.431
Word-drop0.4970.5330.3570.4980.5510.5630.4170.3530.3610.4400.4540.3120.445
BPE-drop0.5060.5370.3670.5090.5570.5720.4220.3630.3160.4150.4320.2830.440
SwitchOut0.4110.4460.3180.4150.4670.4660.380.3350.2780.3370.3470.2620.372
OBPE0.5020.5250.3710.5020.5610.5830.4360.3810.3060.4040.4160.2660.438
BPE-Dropout0.5010.5260.3710.4970.5580.5740.4390.3930.3000.3890.4100.2310.432
Random Char Noise0.5210.5470.3710.5010.5690.5840.4410.3800.3910.4870.4910.3190.467
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 502, + 840, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/281d015f5731e87bd1cd6201e3af5edd214fcf736dddc2043df93d508371116b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "SELECTNOISE Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.5250.5630.3860.5110.5780.6060.4580.3940.3920.4990.5110.3190.478
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.5240.5580.3860.5070.5760.5990.4540.3880.4000.4970.5160.3210.477
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.5270.5990.3720.5050.5730.5990.4570.3910.3990.5010.5090.3210.479
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 606, + 840, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/59d47c211dca0615386cc4288cb11fbbb8e89051f02458dbb013c5290b92b369.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Selective noise + Greedy0.5270.5600.3890.5070.5720.6000.4510.3810.3920.4990.5110.3190.476
Selective noise + Top-k0.5260.5490.4010.5090.5730.4630.4630.3900.4000.4940.5060.3260.467
Selective noise + Top-p0.5240.5580.4000.5100.5840.4550.4550.3860.3910.5010.5120.3210.466
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 652, + 840, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7fc2e837f9d4cf1c0ca08f5cb0b27dc87521e6b86556f4c286a7980500148ea4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Zero-shot BLEURT (↑) scores results for ELRLs $\\rightarrow$ English" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.6420.6760.4710.6210.7110.7360.5420.3870.4990.5340.4970.4080.560
Word-drop0.6590.7020.4940.6500.7250.7470.5640.4090.4840.5510.5380.4210.579
BPE-drop0.6530.6870.4970.6450.7110.7320.5540.4000.4380.5150.5050.3890.560
SwitchOut0.5650.6050.4620.5640.6260.6320.5330.3940.4050.4610.4450.3620.504
OBPE0.6640.6760.4520.6300.7070.7400.5440.3920.4560.5240.5010.4000.557
BPE-Dropout0.6440.6720.4710.6160.7100.7330.5370.3810.5030.5340.5000.4110.559
Random Char Noise0.6730.7000.4920.6410.7250.7460.5590.4010.5220.6100.5840.4410.591
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 713, + 840, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0731c5a6752240aea17030a80b0165fe9a3f818a58ff18645d0d6129dfd3933b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "SELECTNOISE Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.6720.7140.4930.6470.7350.7650.5750.4120.5230.6200.5980.4340.599
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.6780.7080.5040.6490.7300.7580.5850.4190.5240.6210.6030.4380.601
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.6770.5590.5020.6430.7300.7580.5860.4110.5260.6250.6000.4420.588
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 816, + 840, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f738efbfc70a3060d758c15b2ae0904d6f0fd43406f4e26a1d7807771a534a55.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Selective noise + Greedy0.6810.7110.5050.6490.7280.7610.5820.4110.5220.6180.6030.4410.601
Selective noise + Top-k0.6770.7000.5060.6550.7030.7570.5810.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.598
Selective noise + Top-p0.6800.7080.5110.6550.7380.7560.5890.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.603
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 862, + 840, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Zero-shot COMET (↑) scores results for ELRLs $\\rightarrow$ English", + "bbox": [ + 285, + 900, + 710, + 914 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1620", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/edb5cbfc36374b4da4f66e663709d53c7ffedf53970038d2c15a047230886bb9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsLanguages
bhosannpi
Annotator set-1
Vanilla NMT3.542.422.21
BPE Dropout3.292.371.83
SELECTNOISE Model4.172.832.50
Annotator set-2
Vanilla NMT3.421.962.17
BPE Dropout2.791.831.96
SELECTNOISE Model3.542.172.21
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 80, + 433, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Human evaluation results - Average score", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 196, + 457, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Word-drop (Sennrich et al., 2016a): In this baseline, $10\\%$ words embeddings from each sentence of the source HRL is set to zero. This is a data augmentation technique to create training data ELRLs. The rest of the steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE model.", + "- BPE-drop: This approach is similar to the word-drop baseline but uses BPE tokens instead of words.", + "- SwitchOut (Wang et al., 2018): In this baseline, we randomly replace $10\\%$ of the source and target words with randomly sampled words from their respective vocabularies. We use the officially released implementation.", + "- OBPE (Patil et al., 2022): OBPE modifies the learned BPE vocabulary to incorporate overlapping tokens from both HRL and LRLs, even if the token is not frequent. We utilized the official implementation.", + "- BPE Dropout (Provilkov et al., 2020): It is based on the BPE algorithm to learn the vocabulary and generates non-deterministic segmentations for input text on-the-fly during training. We use a dropout value of 0.1.", + "- Random Char Noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022): This baseline methodology is similar to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach; but, noise injections are done randomly." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 229, + 490, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 312, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All the model performances are compared using both automated and human evaluation metrics. In line with recent research on MT for LRLs, we employ two types of automated evaluation metrics (NLLB Team, 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Specifically, lexical match-based metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) and learning-based metrics: BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) and COMET (Pu et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further conducted the human evaluation to ensure the reliability of the performance gain. Three languages from the Indo-Aryan family (Bhojpuri, Nepali, and Sanskrit) were selected based on their high, moderate, and low lexical similarity with the HRL (Hindi). To manage the annotators' workload effectively, we limited our evaluation to three models: Vanilla NMT, BPE Dropout, and SELECT-NOISE. For each language, the human evaluation set consisted of 24 examples, and translations were obtained from above mentioned three models. Two annotators were employed for each language to ensure the inter-annotator agreement, and two ratings were obtained for each example from these annotators. All annotators held at least a master's degree, were native speakers of the respective language and demonstrated proficiency in English. We use Crosslingual Semantic Text Similarity (XSTS) metric (Agirre et al., 2012), which is widely adopted in the MT research for human evaluation. The XSTS metric employs a 1-5 evaluation scale, where 1 represents a very bad translation and 5 represents a very good translation.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 885, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results and Discussions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 749, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we will discuss results, observations and findings. The zero-shot automated evaluation scores are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results are reported with greedy, top k $(\\mathrm{k} = 50)$ , and top-p $(\\mathrm{p} = 0.25)$ sampling strategies. Table 5 presents the human evaluation results.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 498, + 882, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SELECTNOISE vs. Baselines: The proposed and other models that incorporate lexical similarity have demonstrated superior performance compared to the Vanilla NMT model. While general data augmentation techniques like Word-drop and SwitchOut exhibit performance similar to the Vanilla NMT model, they perform poorly when compared to OBPE and BPE-Dropout models. These results indicate the importance of considering monolingual data from ELRLs in the modeling. However, random noise injection and the SELECT-NOISE approach outperform the OBPE and BPE-Dropout models, indicating the effectiveness of noise injection-based modeling techniques. In conclusion, the careful selection of noise candidates, as done in the SELECT-NOISE approach, has outperformed the random noise model (second best) and emerged as the state-of-the-art model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 885, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Selective vs. Random Noise injection: Unsupervised selective noise injection approaches exhibit a", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1621", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "larger performance gain compared to the random noise injection model. This observation emphasizes the importance of a systematic selective candidate extraction and noise injection process.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lexical vs. Learned Evaluation Metrics: We observe a strong correlation between lexical match-based metrics, such as BLEU and chrF scores. Further, semantic-based metrics like BLEURT and COMET exhibit similar trends to lexical match metrics, indicating a high level of correlation. This emphasizes the reliability of evaluation scores.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 487, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automated vs. Human Evaluation: The proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms both baselines in human evaluation across all three languages. The model demonstrates acceptable zero-shot performance for ELRLs, with a strong correlation with automated evaluation scores.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 263, + 487, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance across Language Families: Unsupervised selective noise injection consistently outperforms all the baselines across ELRLs, with few exceptions. The model exhibits similar performance trends across both language families.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 360, + 487, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unsupervised vs. Supervised Noise Injection: The unsupervised SELECTNOISE model performs comparably to the supervised model, with slight variations depending on the language and family. The performance gap between the two models is minimal, indicating their equal strength.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 441, + 487, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance vs. Sampling Strategies: The performance with different sampling techniques is compared, and it is observed that the greedy approach for SELECTNOISE performs better for the majority of languages. This finding indicates the existence of one-to-one lexical mapping across HRL and ELRLs. However, other sampling approaches are also effective for a subset of ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 539, + 487, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall Performance: As we can observe from the average automated evaluation scores, the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms all the baselines by a significant margin. It also exhibits comparable performance to the supervised model, and this performance persists across different language families. These findings satisfy our hypothesis, leading us to conclude that the proposed SELECTNOISE model is a state-of-the-art model for English-to-ELRLs MT systems.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 487, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Further Analyses", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 843, + 299, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we perform a detailed analysis with SELECTNOISE to understand factors contributing to performance gain and analyze robustness.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/22695b6b561bfb5b4b4366e2d7f94a7a8712e540e1812c270715b113514e650b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Proposed model performance trends with various k and p values from top-k and top-p sampling respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 85, + 694, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a90f25c45afaeeb2b9eabcb84a8c78569bedd0efc45c3af04c9c0cc9af6e19db.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 700, + 86, + 875, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3fc1fedd1e91673afbcdddd6a3110f6a25b7dea631aab884ced8ee8ee0a08e40.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LanguageData sizeBLEUchrF
hne99719.549.6
600020.350.3
mai99711.942.4
600012.443.2
npi9976.733.6
60007.233.8
", + "bbox": [ + 554, + 236, + 833, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Model performance with larger monolingual data", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 328, + 875, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance Trend with Top-k and Top-p: In Figure 4, the performance trend of the proposed model with varying values of k and p for top-p and top-k sampling is depicted. The candidate pool consists of a maximum of 61 characters (a range for k-value selection). The model performs best with a k-value of 50 and a p-value of 0.25, offering valuable insights for optimizing its performance through parameter selection.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 365, + 880, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of Monolingual data size: The proposed SELECTNOISE model relies on the small monolingual dataset of ELRLs. We investigate the impact of a large monolingual dataset on the model's performance for ELRLs. Table 6 demonstrates that a larger dataset leads to a performance boost, suggesting the extraction of more meaningful noise injection candidates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 882, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language similarity Vs. Performance: Figure 5 illustrates the comparative trend of lexical similarity score between ELRLs and HRLs and performance (ChrF score). It can be observed that lexically similar languages boost the model's performance, leading to an improved cross-lingual transfer for the SELECTNOISE model. For example, languages like Kashmiri (kas), which have the lowest similarity, exhibit the lowest performance, whereas Chhattisgarhi, with the highest lexical similarity, demonstrates the highest performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 882, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performance with Less related Languages: We evaluate the zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT and proposed SELECTNOISE models with two relatively less lexically similar ELRLs. These two languages belong to distinct language families, namely Bodo (Sino-Tibetan) and Tamil", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1622", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/99125131454d21e53c780952563ec44c9028f126d591a53e7030d041da2955c5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 84, + 472, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/526f1465c9565eea4319a3d9e793233d353ba38c3e488a17acf5c7f3f5f0ecb2.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Language similarity vs. Performance." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LanguageModelBLEUchrF
BodoVanilla NMT2.418.2
SELECTNOISE2.718.7
TamilVanilla NMT0.611.7
SELECTNOISE0.913.3
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 307, + 457, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT vs. SELECTNOISE on less related LRLs with HRL (Hindi)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 487, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(Travidian). Bodo has Devanagari script, while Tamil employs script conversion to match HRL (Hindi) script. The results are reported in Table 7. It is observed that the performance gain is minimal due to the dissimilarity of ELRLs with the corresponding HRL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 413, + 489, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 270, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MT for Low-resource Languages: Limited parallel corpora for many LRLs lead to active research in multilingual MT. These are grounded with transfer learning to enable cross-lingual transfer (Nguyen and Chiang, 2017; Zoph et al., 2016) and allow related languages to learn from each other (Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussà et al., 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Further, these approaches can be extended by grouping training data based on relatedness (Neubig and Hu, 2018) or clustering similar languages (Tan et al., 2019) to improve performance for LRLs. In another direction, monolingual corpora are combined with parallel corpora to enhance translation quality (Currey et al., 2017) or used for unsupervised NMT (Artetxe et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2020), reducing the reliance on parallel data. Back-translated data is also widely utilized for training MT systems for LRLs (Sugiyama and Yoshinaga, 2019; Edunov et al., 2018). More recently, models powered by large multilingual pretrained language models (mLLMs) enable MT with limited language resources (NLLB Team, 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). These models have shown ac", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ceptable performance for many LRLs. However, adapting these models to ELRLs is challenging because they often lack parallel data, have limited monolingual data, and are absent from mPLMs. In contrast, we propose a model that only requires a small monolingual data (1000 examples).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data Augmentation for Low-resource MT: The limited availability of parallel data leads to a wide range of data augmentation approaches (Zhang et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2019; Cotterell and Kreutzer, 2018). Traditional approaches include perturbation at the word level, such as word dropout (Sennrich et al., 2016a), word replacement (Wang et al., 2018) and soft-decoupling (SDE; Wang et al. (2019)) to improve the cross-lingual transfer for LRLs. Such perturbation acts as a regularizer and enhances robustness to spelling variations; however, their impact is limited (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022). In a different research direction, noise injection-based modeling (Sperber et al., 2017; Karpukhin et al., 2019) has been explored to test the robustness of MT systems. More recently, lexical match-based models have been explored to improve the cross-lingual transfer by vocabulary overlapping (Patil et al., 2022), non-deterministic segmentation (Provilkov et al., 2020) and noise injection (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023). In contrast to these methods, we propose a linguistically inspired systematic noise injection approach for ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 884, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 583, + 640, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This study presents an effective unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, for cross-lingual transfer from HRLs to closely related ELRLs through systematic character noise injection. The approach involves extracting selective noise injection candidates using BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, different sampling techniques are explored during the noise injection to ensure diverse candidate sampling. The model required only a small (1K example) monolingual data in ELRLs. The proposed model consistently outperformed strong baselines across 12 ELRLs from two diverse language families in the ELRLs-to-English MT task. The cumulative gain is $11.3\\%$ (chrF) over vanilla NMT. Furthermore, the model demonstrated comparative performance to a supervised noise injection model. In the future, we will extend SELECTNOISE to English-to-ELRL MT task, as well as other NLG tasks and languages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1623", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The present study is based on the assumption of closely related high-resource languages and extremely low-resource languages to facilitate improved cross-lingual transfer. However, the proposed method may not be effective for ELRLs that have a different script and lack a script conversion or transliteration tool. Additionally, the model's performance may be suboptimal for languages that share the same script but exhibit significant lexical differences, such as Hindi and Bodo. Furthermore, this study focuses on ELRLs to English translation, and it remains to be explored whether the noise injection approach is beneficial for the English to ELRLs translation task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 111, + 492, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 351, + 285, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all human evaluators whose meticulous assessment of the translation performance of the proposed model and various baselines played a pivotal role in the success of this research. Furthermore, we wish to express our deep appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and the esteemed meta-reviewer for their invaluable and insightful suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 378, + 489, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 552, + 213, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Noëmi Aeipli and Rico Senrich. 2022. Improving zero-shot cross-lingual transfer between closely related languages by injecting character-level noise. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 4074–4083, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics – Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), pages 385–393, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3874-3884, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 576, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "AI4Bharat, Jay Gala, Pranjal A. Chitale, Raghavan AK, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Varun Gumma, Aswanth Kumar, Janki Nawale, Anupama Sujatha, Ratish Puduppully, Vivek Raghavan, Pratyush Kumar, Mitesh M. Khapra, Raj Dabre, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Indictrans2: Towards high-quality and accessible machine translation models for all 22 scheduled indian languages. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2305.16307.", + "Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, Eneko Agirre, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Unsupervised neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Emily Bender. 2019. The# benderrule: On naming the languages we study and why it matters. The Gradient, 14.", + "Verena Blaschke, Hinrich Schütze, and Barbara Plank. 2023. Does manipulating tokenization aid crosslingual transfer? a study on POS tagging for non-standardized languages. In Tenth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (Vardial 2023), pages 40-54, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672.", + "Ryan Cotterell and Julia Kreutzer. 2018. Explaining and generalizing back-translation through wake-sleep. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04402.", + "Anna Currey, Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone, and Kenneth Heafield. 2017. Copied monolingual data improves low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 148-156, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sergey Edunov, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2018. Understanding back-translation at scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 489-500, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48.", + "Fei Gao, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Xueqi Cheng, Wengang Zhou, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Soft contextual data augmentation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5539-5544." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1624", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xavier Garcia, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, and Ankur Parikh. 2021. Harnessing multilinguality in unsupervised machine translation for rare languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1126-1137, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. CoRR, abs/1904.09751.", + "Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282-6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Vladimir Karpukhin, Omer Levy, Jacob Eisenstein, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2019. Training on synthetic noise improves robustness to natural noise in machine translation. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 42-47, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yash Khemchandani, Sarvesh Mehtani, Vaidehi Patil, Abhijeet Awasthi, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2021. Exploiting language relatedness for low web-resource language model adaptation: An Indic languages study. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1312-1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings.", + "Philipp Koehn and Rebecca Knowles. 2017. Six challenges for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation, pages 28-39, Vancouver. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "I. Dan Melamed. 1995. Automatic evaluation and uniform filter cascades for inducing n-best translation lexicons. In Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 875-880, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Toan Q. Nguyen and David Chiang. 2017. Transfer learning across low-resource, related languages for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 296-301, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.", + "James Cross Onur Celebi Maha Elbayad Kenneth Heafield Kevin Heffernan Elahe Kalbassi Janice Lam Daniel Licht Jean Maillard Anna Sun Skyler Wang Guillaume Wenzek Al Youngblood Bapi Akula Loic Barrault Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez Prangthip Hansanti John Hoffman Semarley Jarrett Kaushik Ram Sadagopan Dirk Rowe Shannon Spruit Chau Tran Pierre Andrews Necip Fazil Ayan Shruti Bhosale Sergey Edunov Angela Fan Cynthia Gao Vedanuj Goswami Francisco Guzmán Philipp Koehn Alexandre Mourachko Christophe Ropers Safiyyah Saleem Holger Schwenk Jeff Wang NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation.", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Vaidehi Patil, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2022. Overlap-based vocabulary generation improves cross-lingual transfer among related languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 219–233, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ivan Provilkov, Dmitrii Emelianenko, and Elena Voita. 2020. BPE-dropout: Simple and effective subword regularization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1882-1892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Amy Pu, Hyung Won Chung, Ankur P Parikh, Sebastian Gehrmann, and Thibault Sellam. 2021. Learning compact metrics for mt. In Proceedings of EMNLP.", + "Gowtham Ramesh, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Aravinth Bheemaraj, Mayank Jobanputra, Raghavan AK," + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1625", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ajitesh Sharma, Sujit Sahoo, Harshita Diddee, Mahalakshmi J, Divyanshu Kakwani, Navneet Kumar, Aswin Pradeep, Srihari Nagaraj, Kumar Deepak, Vivek Raghavan, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh Shantadevi Khapra. 2022. Samanantar: The largest publicly available parallel corpora collection for 11 Indic languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:145-162.", + "Reinhard Rapp. 2021. Similar language translation for Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish using Marian NMT. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 292-298, Online.", + "Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016a. Edinburgh neural machine translation systems for WMT 16. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Machine Translation: Volume 2, Shared Task Papers, pages 371-376, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016b. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aditya Siddhant, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Yuan Cao, Mia Xu Chen, Isaac Caswell, and Xavier Garcia. 2022. Towards the next 1000 languages in multilingual machine translation: Exploring the synergy between supervised and self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03110.", + "Matthias Sperber, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2017. Toward robust neural machine translation for noisy input sequences. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 90-96.", + "Amane Sugiyama and Naoki Yoshinaga. 2019. Data augmentation using back-translation for context-aware neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (DiscoMT 2019), pages 35–44, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xu Tan, Jiale Chen, Di He, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with language clustering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 963-973, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017a. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017b. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.", + "Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Philip Arthur, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with soft decoupled encoding. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, and Graham Neubig. 2018. SwitchOut: an efficient data augmentation algorithm for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 856-861, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhirui Zhang, Shuangzhi Wu, Shujie Liu, Mu Li, Ming Zhou, and Tong Xu. 2019. Regularizing neural machine translation by target-bidirectional agreement. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 443-450.", + "Wenhao Zhu, Hongyi Liu, Qingxiu Dong, Jingjing Xu, Lingpeng Kong, Jiajun Chen, Lei Li, and Shujian Huang. 2023. Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04675.", + "Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1568-1575, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Character Candidate Pool $(S_{c})$", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 687, + 811, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A sample structure of character candidate pool $S_{c}$ is illustrated in Fig. 6. More details are presented in Section 2.1.1.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 715, + 880, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Performance for HRLs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 778, + 746, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 analyzes the performance of the proposed model for HRLs across both language families. It demonstrates comparable performance with the vanilla NMT model for HRLs while boosting the performance of ELRLs. This highlights the effectiveness of the proposed model in handling both HRLs and ELRLs.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1626", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9c13f3a1fbaf11bdc7b63394e3e4525988ecc6c6d73fdd14c36da6fbd685adfc.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsLanguages
BLEUchrFBLEURTCOMET
Hindi (hi)
Vanilla NMT33.460.20.7240.868
Random Char Noise33.059.50.7220.865
SELECTNOISE34.260.50.7260.869
Spanish (es)
Vanilla NMT21.553.50.6950.810
Random Char Noise21.753.00.6890.806
SELECTNOISE21.353.10.6890.869
", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 80, + 742, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/89eb5b4f38b71ac4e417c93ce3e1aab884d205736f0265c9c94b955e99cbe96e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Comparative performance for HRLs across both Indo-Aryan and Romance families." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Candidate Pool (Sc) Template
C1: {I': f1, 'D': f3, 'S': {E1: f4, E2: f5, ...}},
C2: {I': f4, 'D': f3, 'S': {E3: f6, E2: f7, ...}},
Ci: {I': f2, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f2, E3: f1, ...}}
Cn: {I': f1, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f4, E3: f5, ...}}
Few Sample Elements of Candidate Pool (Sc)
'O': {I': 62, 'D': 1561, 'S': {'‘ह’: 1482, ...}}
'瓦': {I': 92, 'D': 97, 'S': {'‘ो’': 1482, ...}}
'O': {I': 1552, 'D': 15, 'S': {'‘य’: 397, ...}}
'S': {I': 0, 'D': 33, 'S': {}
}
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 335, + 465, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C HRL-ELRL lexical similarity measurement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 689, + 406, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7 shows the lexical similarity between HRL and related ELRLs for both language families. Lexical similarity is obtained using the longest common subsequence (LCS; Melamed (1995)).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 733, + 489, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 810, + 226, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Detailed statistics of datasets used in our experiments are shown in Table 9. For performing analysis on less-related language, we use the general test set of IndicTrans2 (AI4Bharat et al., 2023) for Bodo and FLORES200 test set for Tamil. For", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4e3203eae7c1a819dfe34598de2efee265b613249ed669bacf77ee4dca297c1f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 319, + 878, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/773f13ce05725a5adcb18b943109c8a0f0041ec267bebe1eb8e489eb4b0baadf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Top is a template for the character candidate pool $\\mathbf{S}_c$ . The operations are: insertion $(I)$ , deletion $(D)$ and substitution $(S)$ . The character $c_i$ represents the $i^{th}$ element of $\\mathcal{S}_c$ , which is an HRL character, $c_1', \\ldots, c_k'$ denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and $f$ is the associated frequencies. The Bottom shows a few sample elements of the $\\mathbf{S}_c$ .", + "(b)", + "Figure 7: Lexical similarity heatmap between HRL and its related ELRLs. Fig. (a) depicts a similarity score for the Indo-Aryan family where HRL is Hindi. Fig. (b) depicts a similarity score for the Romance family where HRL is Spanish. Note: Darker color denotes more similarity." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 549, + 391, + 845, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OBPE baseline, we use a dev set of FLORES-200 consisting of 997 as a monolingual corpus for learning the overlap vocabulary.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 882, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 665, + 749, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our vanilla NMT model is based on standard transformer architecture consisting of 6 encoder and decoder layers. We trained our model for a maximum epoch of 15. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer with $\\beta_{1} = 0.9$ and $\\beta_{2} = 0.98$ . We set a learning rate of 0.0005. We use a dropout of 0.2. We performed data normalization and preprocessing using IndicNLP library4. We perform our experiments using fairseq5 library. For evaluation we use the lexical match-based BLEU metric6 (Pa", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{4}$ https://github.com/anoopkunchukuttan/indic_nlp_library \n $^{5}$ https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq \n $^{6}$ refs:1|case:mixedleff:noltok:13alsmooth:explversion:2.3.1", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 887, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1627", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/20c723c3806b07d0f809eeb3c5006c8d0940ecd88f3e2293f99215cd3ce0da6d.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Languages#Dev#TestHRLSource
bho, mag, mai, npi, awa, san, kas, hne9971012hiFLORES-200
ast, cat, glg, oci9971012esFLORES-200
HR Lang Pair#Train# Dev#TestSource
hi-en10.1M9971012AI4Bharat
es-en6.6M9971012Rapp (2021)
", + "bbox": [ + 255, + 80, + 742, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Dataset statistics and language details", + "bbox": [ + 337, + 240, + 657, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "pineni et al., 2002), $\\mathrm{chrF}^7$ (Popovic, 2015) metric, semantic-based BLEURT8 (Sellam et al., 2020), and COMET9 (Pu et al., 2021) metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 279, + 489, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Sample Translations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 340, + 329, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fig. 8 presents sample translations from Random Character Noise, SELECTNOISE and Supervised Character Noise injection models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 366, + 487, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$7$ nrefs:1|case:mixedleff:yesInc:6lhw:0lspace:nolversion:2.3.1", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 878, + 492, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Reported using BLEURT20 checkpoint", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 891, + 384, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{9}$ Reported using wmt22-comet-da model", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 384, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1628", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d572f34c5ca0897c540e9de7437361bc034a8dd9b6162ab98a3cd9d4b3272768.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
BHO: रूप्व केहोँ पाथस्मा,तुका केरागपिकोयपिक रेशेयपि रागपिक रहोँ प्रधान सेलन्दीपय रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू��िक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक वस्थिके \nENG: The announcement was made after Trump had a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
RCN: Trump opened up about the phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
UCN: After a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump announced his decision.
SCN: Trump's announcement came after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
HNE: पूललमह बलाटयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके \nENG: Police said that the body appeared to have been there for about a day.
RCN: The police said the body had been lying on the ground for the past few days.
UCN: The police said the bodies had been lying on the road for the past few days.
SCN: The police said the body had been lying for the past several days.
GLG: A ONU samén ten previsto create un fondo para axudar aes paises afectados polo quentamento global a afrontar o seu impacto.
ENG: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
RCN: The UN is also planning to set up a fund to tax years of countries affected by global pole to cope with or have an impact.
UCN: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
SCN: The UN also plans to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global warming to face up to their impact.
AST: Munchos cudadianos de Bishkek acusaron a los manifestantes sureños del desorde.
ENG: Several Bishkek residents blamed protesters from the south for the lawlessness.
RCN: Cubans of Bishkek accused southern protestors of the deorde.
UCN: Many people in Bishkek accused the Swiss demonstrators of disorder.
SCN: Many people in Bishkek accused southern demonstrators of disorder.
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 297, + 858, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8: Sample translations from various models for ELRLs to English MT direction. RCN: Random Character Noise injection model, UCN: Unsupervised Character Noise injection model (i.e., SELECTNOISE model) and SCN: Supervised Character Noise injection model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 657, + 884, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1629", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_model.json b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea1b3529c3a018f08903dfb15193e017ade3ce28 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2617 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.089, + 0.848, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.142, + 0.846, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maharaj Brahma* Kaushal Kumar Maurya* Maunendra Sankar Desarkar \nNatural Language and Information Processing Lab (NLIP) \nIndian Institute of Technology Hyderabad \nHyderabad, India" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.211, + 0.84, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{cs23resch01004,cs18resch11003}@iith.ac.in,maunendra@cse.iith.ac.in" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.343, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we focus on the task of machine translation (MT) from extremely low-resource language (ELRLs) to English. The unavailability of parallel data, lack of representation from large multilingual pre-trained models, and limited monolingual data hinder the development of MT systems for ELRLs. However, many ELRLs often share lexical similarities with high-resource languages (HRLs) due to factors such as dialectical variations, geographical proximity, and language structure. We utilize this property to improve cross-lingual signals from closely related HRL to enable MT for ELRLs. Specifically, we propose a novel unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, based on selective candidate extraction and noise injection to generate noisy HRLs training data. The noise injection acts as a regularizer, and the model trained with noisy data learns to handle lexical variations such as spelling, grammar, and vocabulary changes, leading to improved cross-lingual transfer to ELRLs. The selective candidates are extracted using BPE merge operations and edit operations, and noise injection is performed using greedy, top-p, and top-k sampling strategies. We evaluate the proposed model on 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 benchmark in a zero-shot setting across two language families. The proposed model outperformed all the strong baselines, demonstrating its efficacy. It has comparable performance with the supervised noise injection model. Our code and model are publicly available1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.764, + 0.262, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.79, + 0.491, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The modern neural machine translation (NMT; Aharoni et al. (2019); Garcia et al. (2021); Siddhant et al. (2022)) has achieved remarkable performance for many languages, but their performance heavily relies on the availability of large parallel or mono" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.253, + 0.856, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.341, + 0.856, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.434, + 0.886, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Illustration of character noise injection with random baseline (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022) and propose SELECTNOISE model. The SELECTNOISE enhances lexical similarity between noisy HRL (N-HIN) and ELRL (BHO). ENG: English, HIN: Hindi, N-HIN: Noisy Hindi and BHO: Bhojpuri languages. Red: Insertion, Blue: Deletion and Green: Substitution operations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.559, + 0.885, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lingual corpora (Koehn and Knowles, 2017). However, the linguistic diversity across the world is vast, with over 7000 languages spoken2. This linguistic landscape includes a long tail of languages (Joshi et al., 2020) that face significant challenges due to the lack of available resources for model development and are referred as extremely low-resource languages (ELRLs). ELRLs present unique challenges for the development of MT systems as they lack parallel datasets, are excluded from large multilingual pre-trained language models, and possess limited monolingual datasets. Consequently, the majority of research efforts in NMT have primarily focused on resource-rich languages (Bender, 2019), leaving ELRLs with limited attention and fewer viable solutions. Towards these concerns, this work is positioned as a step towards enabling MT technology for ELRLs. Primarily focused on zero-shot setting for scalability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "More recently, there has been active research to develop MT systems for LRLs. One direction is" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.746, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2https://www.ethnologue.com/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.88, + 0.273, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal contributions" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.893, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1code and model checkpoints link: https://github. com/maharajbrahma/selectnoise" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.88, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1615" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.781, + 0.974 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1615-1629 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "multilingual training-based models (Aharoni et al., 2019; Garcia et al., 2021; Siddhant et al., 2022). These models are trained with multiple HRL languages, enabling cross-lingual transfer capabilities to improve translation performance for LRLs. Another line of work focuses on data augmentation techniques (Sennrich et al., 2016a; Wang et al., 2018) to generate more training data. However, these methods do not fully exploit the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs. Many HRLs and ELRLs exhibit surface-level lexical similarities due to dialect variations, loan words, and geographical proximity (Khemchandani et al., 2021). For example, the word \"Monday\" is somvar in Hindi and somar in Bhojpuri. They are lexically very similar. To leverage this lexical similarity, recent studies have explored techniques like learning overlapping vocabulary (Patil et al., 2022) or injecting random noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023) in HRLs to resemble LRLs. These methods are only evaluated for natural language understanding tasks (NLU) and not for MT, which is a more challenging task. Inspired by these advancements, in this paper, we propose a novel unsupervised noise injection approach to develop an MT system for ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.518, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed model is based on character noise injection and consists of two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction phase, candidate characters are extracted in an unsupervised manner using small monolingual data from closely related HRL and ELRLs. It relies on BPE merge operations and edit operations that take into account lexical similarity and linguistic properties. In the noise injection phase, noise is injected into the source side of parallel data of HRL using greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling algorithms. This noise injection serves as a regularizer and a model trained with this noisy HRL data enhances robustness to spelling, grammar, or vocabulary changes and facilitates improved cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs. The evaluation is done in the zero-shot setting, ensuring scalability. The proposed model is referred as the SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Selective Noise Injection model. Fig. 1 illustrates the effect of noise injection with SELECTNOISE model. In this paper, we investigate two hypotheses: (a) the selective noise injection model is expected to outperform random noise injection, and (b) the performance of the selective (unsupervised) noise injection model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "should be comparable to the supervised noise injection model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.119, + 0.885, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our key contributions are: (1) We propose a novel unsupervised selective character noise injection approach, SELECTNOISE, to enable and improve MT for ELRLs to English. The injection of selective candidate noise facilitates better cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs in the zero-shot setting. (2) We have developed an unsupervised mechanism to extract candidate characters based on BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, the noise injection employs greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling techniques, ensuring diversity. (3) We evaluated the model's performance using 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 evaluation set across two typologically diverse language families. Evaluations were conducted with both automated and human evaluation metrics. (4) The proposed model outperformed all baselines and has comparable performance with the supervised selective noise injection-based MT model. Additionally, we performed several analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.472, + 0.657, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section presents the details of the proposed SELECTNOISE model. As discussed in section 1, the SELECTNOISE model has two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction stage, the noise injection candidate characters are extracted through an unsupervised approach. Specifically, we consider small monolingual data for HRL \\((\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}})\\) and for related (lexically similar) LRLs \\((\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}})\\). \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\) comprises small monolingual datasets from multiple extremely ELRLs. During the process of building the Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) vocabulary, we extract the BPE operations separately for the HRL \\((\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}})\\) and ELRLs \\((\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}})\\). Next, we design an algorithm \\(\\mathcal{A}\\) to extract selective candidate characters from \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\) and store them in candidate pool \\(S_{\\mathcal{C}}\\). Candidates are extracted with an approach inspired by edit-operations. In other words, we obtain \\(S_{\\mathcal{C}}\\) as a result of \\(\\mathcal{A}\\) \\((\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}, \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}})\\). In noise injection stage, the candidates are sampled from \\(S_{\\mathcal{C}}\\) and injected into the source sentences of HRL corpus \\((\\mathcal{H})\\) from the large parallel data \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(h,e)|lang(h) = \\mathcal{H}, lang(e) = En\\}\\). The injections are done using a noise function \\(\\eta\\), resulting in a noise-injected (augmented) parallel data: \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(\\hat{h}, e)|lang(\\hat{h}) = \\hat{\\mathcal{H}}, lang(e) =\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.484, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1616" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.085, + 0.845, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.281, + 0.807, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model for extremely low-resource MT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.319, + 0.489, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathit{En}\\}\\), where \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}} = \\eta (\\mathcal{H})\\). The \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}\\) acts as proxy training data for ELRLs. A BPE vocabulary \\(\\nu\\) is learned with \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}\\). Then, we train the standard encoder-decoder transformers model \\((\\mathcal{M};\\) Vaswani et al. (2017b) from scratch with \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\nu\\) to obtain trained model \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}\\). Finally, zero-shot evaluation is done for ELRLs with \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}\\) and \\(\\nu\\). Now, we present details of each model component. The overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model is depicted in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.495, + 0.449, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.534, + 0.49, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The formal procedure for unsupervised noise injection is presented in Algorithm 1. In the next subsections, we will deep dive into each stage of the proposed model in details:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.61, + 0.418, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1.1 Selective Candidate Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The first stage in the proposed approach involves extracting candidate characters that will subsequently be utilized for noise injection. Given \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\), we extract all BPE merge operations \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\), respectively. Each merge operation consists of tuples \\(\\langle (p,q) \\rangle \\in \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\langle (r,s) \\rangle \\in \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\). We pair each merge tuple of \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) with each tuple of \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\) (i.e., cartesian setup). If \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\) have \\(n\\) and \\(m\\) merge operations, respectively, we obtain a total of \\(t = m \\cdot n\\) pairs. We consider only those pairs where either \\(p\\) and \\(r\\) or \\(q\\) and \\(s\\) are the same while discarding the rest. For the considered tuples \\(\\langle (p,q), (r,s) \\rangle\\), we calculate the character-level edit-distance operations between non-similar elements of the tuple. For instance, if \\(p\\) and \\(r\\) are the same, the edit operations are obtained using \\(q\\) and \\(s\\) elements. These operations are collected in the candidate pool \\(S_{c}\\), which includes insertions," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.321, + 0.882, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "deletions, and substitutions, and are referred to as the selective candidates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.354, + 0.885, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed, the extracted selective candidates are stored in the candidate pool \\( Sc \\), a dictionary data structure encompassing HRL and ELRL characters. The \\( Sc \\) consists of HRL characters, ELRL characters, edit operations, and their respective frequencies. An element of \\( Sc \\) has following template: \\( c_{i} : \\{I : f_{ins}, D : f_{del}, S : \\{c_{1}' : f_{1}, c_{2}' : f_{2}, c_{k}' : f_{k}\\} \\} \\). The operations are: insertion (I), deletion (D) and substitution (S). The character \\( c_{i} \\) represents the \\( i^{th} \\) element of \\( Sc \\), which is an HRL character, \\( c_{1}' \\ldots c_{k}' \\) denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and \\( f \\) is the associated frequencies. A few examples of selective candidate extraction are illustrated in Fig. 3. Sample candidate pool \\( (Sc) \\) is shown in Fig. 6." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.597, + 0.887, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intuitively, with this candidate pool \\(S_{c}\\), we have learned transformative entities that can be used to resemble an HRL to lexically similar ELRLs, which results in bridging the lexical gap between HRL and LRLs. Training with such modified HRL data enhances the effectiveness of cross-lingual transfer signals for ELRLs. As candidates are extracted by considering the vocabulary word-formation strategy from BPE and edit operations, they indirectly consider the linguistic cues/information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.786, + 0.753, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1.2 Noise Injection to HRL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the second stage, we sample selective candidates from \\(S_{c}\\) and inject into the source sentences of HRL corpus \\((\\mathcal{H})\\) from the parallel dataset \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(h,e)|lang(h) = \\mathcal{H},lang(e) = En\\}\\) using a noise function \\(\\eta\\), resulting in a noise injected (augmented) parallel dataset \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(\\hat{h},e)|lang(\\hat{h}) = \\hat{\\mathcal{H}},lang(e) = En\\}\\), where \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}} = \\eta(\\mathcal{H})\\). Details of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1617" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.082, + 0.449, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of selective candidates extraction for noise injection that utilizes BPE merge and edit operations. Here \\( I \\), \\( D \\), and \\( S \\) indicate insertion, deletion, and substitution respectively. Frequencies are associated with operations. 0 indicates the corresponding edit operation was not extracted." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.332, + 0.486, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the noise function and candidate sampling strategy are presented below:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.489, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noise Function: The noise injection function \\((\\eta)\\) is designed as follows: Initially, we randomly select \\(5\\% - 10\\%^3\\) of character indices from a sentence \\(s \\in \\mathcal{H}\\). Subsequently, we uniformly choose between insertion, deletion, or substitution operations with equal probability. If the selected operation is insertion or substitution, we sample a candidate character from \\(S_c\\) to perform the noise injection operation. For deletion, the charter is simply deleted. These steps are repeated for all sentences in \\(\\mathcal{H}\\) to obtain the final \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Candidate Character Sampling: While noise injection for deletion operation, we simply delete the character. For insertion and substitution, we sample the candidate character for injection from \\( S_{c} \\) using the greedy, top-p (nucleus), and top-k sampling techniques inspired by decoding algorithms commonly employed in NLG (Holtzman et al., 2019). Before applying these sampling techniques, the frequencies of the candidate characters are transformed into probability scores using the softmax operation. Intuitively, with the sampling technique, we aim to explore not only frequent candidate characters but also diverse candidates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.753, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The performance of any learning model depends on the quality of the training data. The presence of noise hampers the learning, and the outputs of the learned model exhibit the different nuances of the noise present in the data. In our specific case: (i) We train a model using data that contains noise, resulting in the model's increased robustness to minor lexical variations in different languages, par" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ticularly those related to ELRLs. (ii) The noise is added for a small portion of characters \\((5 - 10\\%)\\), making the HRLs training data closely resemble how sentences appear in ELRLs. As a result, the model is able to do a robust cross-lingual transfer to the ELRL in a zero-shot setting. In another perspective, the injection of noise acts as a regularizer (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022), contributing to an overall enhancement in the model's performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.245, + 0.766, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Supervised Noise Injection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.268, + 0.884, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have also investigated in a supervised setting akin to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach. The key distinction lies in how the candidate pool \\( S_{sc} \\) is derived from a limited parallel dataset between HRL and ELRLs. For each HRL and ELRL pair," + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.374, + 0.882, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.409, + 0.884, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Require: [Inputs] HRL monolingual data \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\); closely related ELRLs monolingual data \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\); number of merge operations \\(\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}}\\); HRL parallel data \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}}(\\mathcal{H},En)\\); Noise injection percentage range \\([p_1\\% - p_2\\%]\\); candidate sampling strategy \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}\\); EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS (\\(\\mathcal{A}\\))" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.47, + 0.884, + 0.913 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ensure: [Output] Noisy source HRL \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}\\) \n\\(\\mathcal{S}_c =\\) EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS( \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})\\) \nfor sentence \\(s\\) in \\(\\mathcal{H}\\) do idxs \\(\\leftarrow\\) randomly select \\([p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]\\) indices of \\(s\\) for idx in idxs do ops \\(\\leftarrow\\) randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then \\(c =\\) sample candidate char, i.e., \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}(\\mathcal{S}_{c},\\mathrm{ops})\\) Perform operation ops at index idx with \\(c\\) end if end for \nend for \nprocedure EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(DH,D,L,Mo) Initialize candidate pool \\(S_{c}\\gets \\emptyset\\) to store candidates Compute merge operations \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\mathrm{BPE}(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})\\) Compute merge operations \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}} = \\mathrm{BPE}(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})\\) for \\(n\\) in \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) do for \\(m\\) in \\(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}\\) do \\(\\triangleright\\) where \\(n =\\) tuple \\(\\langle (p,q)\\rangle ,m =\\) tuple \\(\\langle (r,s)\\rangle\\) if \\(n\\) equals \\(m\\) or \\(p\\) not equals \\(r\\) and \\(q\\) not equals \\(s\\) ) then No operation is performed with \\(n\\) and \\(m\\) end if if \\(p\\) equals \\(r\\) then Compute edit-operations(q,s)&update \\(S_{c}\\) end if if \\(q\\) equals \\(s\\) then Compute edit-operations(p,r)&update \\(S_{c}\\) end if end for end for Return \\(S_{c}\\) \nend procedure" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.409, + 0.884, + 0.913 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^3\\)after conducting several ablation experiments, this range provides the best performance" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1618" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.417, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 2 Supervised Noise Injection" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.103, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Require: [Inputs] joint parallel data for all considered HRL-ELRL pairs \\(\\mathcal{P}_S(S,\\mathcal{E}_L)\\) ; HRL parallel data \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}}(\\mathcal{H},En)\\) noise injection percentage range \\([p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]\\) ; candidate sampling strategy \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}\\) \nEnsure: [Output] Noisy source HRL \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}\\) \n\\(S_{sc} =\\) SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) \nfor sentence \\(s\\) in \\(\\mathcal{H}\\) do idxs \\(\\leftarrow\\) randomly select \\([p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]\\) indices of s for idx in idxs do ops \\(\\leftarrow\\) randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then \\(c =\\) sample candidate char, i.e., \\(\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}(\\mathcal{S}_{sc},ops)\\) Perform operation ops at index idx with c end if end for \nend for \nprocedure SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) Initialize candidate pool \\(S_{sc}\\gets \\emptyset\\) to store candidates for each \\(\\langle (s,e)\\rangle\\) in \\(\\mathcal{P}_S\\) do Compute edit-operations(s,e) & update \\(S_{sc}\\) end for return \\(S_{sc}\\) \nend procedure" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.49, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "we extract a candidate set using edit operations and subsequently combine all the candidate sets in \\( \\mathcal{S}c \\). The rest of the modeling steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE. We hypothesize that the unsupervised method should exhibit competitive performance compared to the supervised approach. In the supervised candidate extraction, we assume the availability of a limited amount of parallel data of approximately 1000 examples. A formal algorithm outlining in the Algorithm 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.631, + 0.486, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Model Training and Zero-shot Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.653, + 0.49, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The stranded encoder-decoder transformers model \\((\\mathcal{M})\\) is trained from scratch using the noisy highresource parallel dataset \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\) and \\(\\nu\\) to obtain a trained model \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}\\). Where \\(\\nu\\) is learned BPE vocabulary with \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}}\\). Subsequently, we use \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}\\) to perform zero-shot generation for ELRLs. We have not used any parallel training data for ELRLs and directly employ \\(\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}\\) for inference, making this modeling setup zero-shot. The trained model transfers knowledge across languages, enabling coherent and meaningful translation for ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.844, + 0.322, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We designed our experimental setup to address the following set of questions: (1) Does noise injection improve performance for NLG tasks, i.e., MT in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "our case? (2) Does selective noise injection with the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperform the random noise injection model (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022)? (3) Does the model's performance persist across different language families? and (4) Does the unsupervised SELECTNOISE model demonstrate competitive performance with supervised approach? Based on these research questions, we have designed our experimental setup." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.242, + 0.623, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.262, + 0.885, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The primary constraint of the proposed approach is to select closely related HRLs and ELRLs. With this criterion in mind, we have chosen two language families: Indo-Aryan and Romance. Within the Indo-Aryan family, we have selected Hindi (hi) as the HRL and 8 ELRLs were Awadhi (awa), Bhojpuri (bho), Chhattisgarhi (hne), Kashmiri (kas), Magahi (mag), Maithili (mai), Nepali (npi), and Sanskrit (san), based on their lexical similarity. For the Romance family, Spanish (es) served as the HRL, and the 4 ELRLs were Asturian (ast), Catalan (cat), Galician (glg), and Occitan (oci). We conducted separate experiments for each language family, training the model with the HRL to English MT task and evaluating it in a zero-shot setting with corresponding ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.52, + 0.884, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In total, we have 3 HRLs (English, Hindi, and Spanish) and 12 ELRLs. All the test datasets are sourced from FLORES-200 (NLLB Team, 2022), while the hi-en dataset is obtained from AI4Bharat (Ramesh et al., 2022), and the es-en dataset is from Rapp (2021). The development set of FLORES-200 was utilized as a parallel dataset for supervised noise injection. A small amount of monolingual data was used for SELECTNOISE and other baseline methods. Here, we used 1000 examples for each ELRL. Detailed dataset statistics and data sources are presented in Appendix D. In Appendix C, we provide an overview of the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.757, + 0.63, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.778, + 0.885, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the SELECTNOISE model with several strong baselines, including a traditional data augmentation model, lexical similarity-based models, and a model based on random noise injection. Details of each baseline are presented below:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Vanilla NMT: A standard transformer-based NMT model (Vaswani et al., 2017a) with BPE algorithm (Sennrich et al., 2016b)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1619" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.189, + 0.084, + 0.811, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsIndo-AryanKasRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpicatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT40.346.822.340.049.347.629.621.333.041.040.733.037.08
Word-drop39.547.221.840.649.047.628.620.637.643.643.436.037.96
BPE-drop39.146.822.640.448.746.729.221.133.841.741.533.037.05
SwitchOut36.143.220.138.245.642.728.318.829.034.934.929.133.41
OBPE41.347.523.441.850.449.730.521.134.141.241.333.838.00
BPE-Dropout39.847.422.539.949.647.729.321.233.240.841.433.037.15
Random Char Noise40.948.423.840.850.047.531.221.940.946.146.438.239.68
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.176, + 0.548, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.186, + 0.81, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy42.151.025.243.451.749.933.423.742.047.147.438.541.28
SELECTNOISE + Top-k42.449.926.043.051.048.833.423.341.547.147.838.541.06
SELECTNOISE + Top-p42.049.624.142.450.648.833.623.341.647.147.538.840.78
Supervised Noise Injection Model
Selective noise + Greedy41.449.125.442.250.148.732.922.241.647.247.738.740.60
Selective noise + Top-k41.749.326.343.350.848.734.223.641.946.847.538.741.10
Selective noise + Top-p41.449.927.343.351.648.933.923.441.647.748.239.041.35
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.3, + 0.271, + 0.698, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Zero-shot chrF (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.293, + 0.803, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsbhohnesanIndo-AryanawanpikascatRomanceAverage
maimagglgastoci
Vanilla NMT11.117.22.710.118.518.35.12.65.310.112.35.29.86
Word-drop8.713.71.97.715.216.13.01.66.910.713.36.58.76
BPE-drop10.816.12.710.017.217.84.02.15.19.111.24.79.23
SwitchOut4.37.71.44.98.47.92.91.23.56.38.23.85.04
OBPE11.116.62.910.418.719.74.81.96.210.712.96.110.16
BPE-Dropout11.617.53.110.119.318.35.42.55.410.113.05.410.14
Random Char Noise12.818.83.110.219.418.66.32.910.914.317.28.711.93
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.45, + 0.386, + 0.546, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.397, + 0.802, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy12.520.13.711.921.220.27.13.010.815.017.49.012.66
SELECTNOISE + Top-k12.319.73.812.020.219.57.22.810.515.017.58.812.44
SELECTNOISE + Top-p12.719.53.811.920.319.66.73.210.714.817.18.912.43
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.424, + 0.432, + 0.571, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.443, + 0.802, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Selective noise + Greedy13.119.54.011.819.619.36.82.410.515.017.98.912.4
Selective noise + Top-k12.719.13.912.220.119.37.02.910.815.017.48.912.44
Selective noise + Top-p12.720.04.112.621.219.77.02.710.515.418.19.112.76
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.294, + 0.481, + 0.703, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Zero-shot BLEU (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.504, + 0.842, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.5000.5310.3680.5000.5590.5760.4350.3770.2950.3900.4060.2320.431
Word-drop0.4970.5330.3570.4980.5510.5630.4170.3530.3610.4400.4540.3120.445
BPE-drop0.5060.5370.3670.5090.5570.5720.4220.3630.3160.4150.4320.2830.440
SwitchOut0.4110.4460.3180.4150.4670.4660.380.3350.2780.3370.3470.2620.372
OBPE0.5020.5250.3710.5020.5610.5830.4360.3810.3060.4040.4160.2660.438
BPE-Dropout0.5010.5260.3710.4970.5580.5740.4390.3930.3000.3890.4100.2310.432
Random Char Noise0.5210.5470.3710.5010.5690.5840.4410.3800.3910.4870.4910.3190.467
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.45, + 0.597, + 0.546, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.607, + 0.841, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.5250.5630.3860.5110.5780.6060.4580.3940.3920.4990.5110.3190.478
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.5240.5580.3860.5070.5760.5990.4540.3880.4000.4970.5160.3210.477
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.5270.5990.3720.5050.5730.5990.4570.3910.3990.5010.5090.3210.479
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.424, + 0.642, + 0.571, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.653, + 0.841, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Selective noise + Greedy0.5270.5600.3890.5070.5720.6000.4510.3810.3920.4990.5110.3190.476
Selective noise + Top-k0.5260.5490.4010.5090.5730.4630.4630.3900.4000.4940.5060.3260.467
Selective noise + Top-p0.5240.5580.4000.5100.5840.4550.4550.3860.3910.5010.5120.3210.466
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.285, + 0.691, + 0.714, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Zero-shot BLEURT (↑) scores results for ELRLs \\( \\rightarrow \\) English" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.714, + 0.842, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.6420.6760.4710.6210.7110.7360.5420.3870.4990.5340.4970.4080.560
Word-drop0.6590.7020.4940.6500.7250.7470.5640.4090.4840.5510.5380.4210.579
BPE-drop0.6530.6870.4970.6450.7110.7320.5540.4000.4380.5150.5050.3890.560
SwitchOut0.5650.6050.4620.5640.6260.6320.5330.3940.4050.4610.4450.3620.504
OBPE0.6640.6760.4520.6300.7070.7400.5440.3920.4560.5240.5010.4000.557
BPE-Dropout0.6440.6720.4710.6160.7100.7330.5370.3810.5030.5340.5000.4110.559
Random Char Noise0.6730.7000.4920.6410.7250.7460.5590.4010.5220.6100.5840.4410.591
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.45, + 0.807, + 0.546, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.818, + 0.841, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.6720.7140.4930.6470.7350.7650.5750.4120.5230.6200.5980.4340.599
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.6780.7080.5040.6490.7300.7580.5850.4190.5240.6210.6030.4380.601
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.6770.5590.5020.6430.7300.7580.5860.4110.5260.6250.6000.4420.588
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.424, + 0.852, + 0.571, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.863, + 0.841, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Selective noise + Greedy0.6810.7110.5050.6490.7280.7610.5820.4110.5220.6180.6030.4410.601
Selective noise + Top-k0.6770.7000.5060.6550.7030.7570.5810.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.598
Selective noise + Top-p0.6800.7080.5110.6550.7380.7560.5890.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.603
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.286, + 0.901, + 0.712, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Zero-shot COMET (↑) scores results for ELRLs \\( \\rightarrow \\) English" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1620" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.082, + 0.435, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsLanguages
bhosannpi
Annotator set-1
Vanilla NMT3.542.422.21
BPE Dropout3.292.371.83
SELECTNOISE Model4.172.832.50
Annotator set-2
Vanilla NMT3.421.962.17
BPE Dropout2.791.831.96
SELECTNOISE Model3.542.172.21
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.197, + 0.458, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Human evaluation results - Average score" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.23, + 0.488, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Word-drop (Sennrich et al., 2016a): In this baseline, \\(10\\%\\) words embeddings from each sentence of the source HRL is set to zero. This is a data augmentation technique to create training data ELRLs. The rest of the steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.339, + 0.49, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- BPE-drop: This approach is similar to the word-drop baseline but uses BPE tokens instead of words." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.399, + 0.492, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- SwitchOut (Wang et al., 2018): In this baseline, we randomly replace \\(10\\%\\) of the source and target words with randomly sampled words from their respective vocabularies. We use the officially released implementation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.491, + 0.49, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- OBPE (Patil et al., 2022): OBPE modifies the learned BPE vocabulary to incorporate overlapping tokens from both HRL and LRLs, even if the token is not frequent. We utilized the official implementation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.583, + 0.49, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- BPE Dropout (Provilkov et al., 2020): It is based on the BPE algorithm to learn the vocabulary and generates non-deterministic segmentations for input text on-the-fly during training. We use a dropout value of 0.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.676, + 0.49, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Random Char Noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022): This baseline methodology is similar to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach; but, noise injections are done randomly." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.23, + 0.492, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.754, + 0.314, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All the model performances are compared using both automated and human evaluation metrics. In line with recent research on MT for LRLs, we employ two types of automated evaluation metrics (NLLB Team, 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Specifically, lexical match-based metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) and learning-based metrics: BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) and COMET (Pu et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further conducted the human evaluation to ensure the reliability of the performance gain. Three languages from the Indo-Aryan family (Bhojpuri, Nepali, and Sanskrit) were selected based on their high, moderate, and low lexical similarity with the HRL (Hindi). To manage the annotators' workload effectively, we limited our evaluation to three models: Vanilla NMT, BPE Dropout, and SELECT-NOISE. For each language, the human evaluation set consisted of 24 examples, and translations were obtained from above mentioned three models. Two annotators were employed for each language to ensure the inter-annotator agreement, and two ratings were obtained for each example from these annotators. All annotators held at least a master's degree, were native speakers of the respective language and demonstrated proficiency in English. We use Crosslingual Semantic Text Similarity (XSTS) metric (Agirre et al., 2012), which is widely adopted in the MT research for human evaluation. The XSTS metric employs a 1-5 evaluation scale, where 1 represents a very bad translation and 5 represents a very good translation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.471, + 0.75, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results and Discussions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.499, + 0.884, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we will discuss results, observations and findings. The zero-shot automated evaluation scores are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results are reported with greedy, top k \\((\\mathrm{k} = 50)\\), and top-p \\((\\mathrm{p} = 0.25)\\) sampling strategies. Table 5 presents the human evaluation results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.597, + 0.886, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECTNOISE vs. Baselines: The proposed and other models that incorporate lexical similarity have demonstrated superior performance compared to the Vanilla NMT model. While general data augmentation techniques like Word-drop and SwitchOut exhibit performance similar to the Vanilla NMT model, they perform poorly when compared to OBPE and BPE-Dropout models. These results indicate the importance of considering monolingual data from ELRLs in the modeling. However, random noise injection and the SELECT-NOISE approach outperform the OBPE and BPE-Dropout models, indicating the effectiveness of noise injection-based modeling techniques. In conclusion, the careful selection of noise candidates, as done in the SELECT-NOISE approach, has outperformed the random noise model (second best) and emerged as the state-of-the-art model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Selective vs. Random Noise injection: Unsupervised selective noise injection approaches exhibit a" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1621" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "larger performance gain compared to the random noise injection model. This observation emphasizes the importance of a systematic selective candidate extraction and noise injection process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.151, + 0.489, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lexical vs. Learned Evaluation Metrics: We observe a strong correlation between lexical match-based metrics, such as BLEU and chrF scores. Further, semantic-based metrics like BLEURT and COMET exhibit similar trends to lexical match metrics, indicating a high level of correlation. This emphasizes the reliability of evaluation scores." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.264, + 0.489, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automated vs. Human Evaluation: The proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms both baselines in human evaluation across all three languages. The model demonstrates acceptable zero-shot performance for ELRLs, with a strong correlation with automated evaluation scores." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.361, + 0.489, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance across Language Families: Unsupervised selective noise injection consistently outperforms all the baselines across ELRLs, with few exceptions. The model exhibits similar performance trends across both language families." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.442, + 0.489, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unsupervised vs. Supervised Noise Injection: The unsupervised SELECTNOISE model performs comparably to the supervised model, with slight variations depending on the language and family. The performance gap between the two models is minimal, indicating their equal strength." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.54, + 0.489, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance vs. Sampling Strategies: The performance with different sampling techniques is compared, and it is observed that the greedy approach for SELECTNOISE performs better for the majority of languages. This finding indicates the existence of one-to-one lexical mapping across HRL and ELRLs. However, other sampling approaches are also effective for a subset of ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.489, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall Performance: As we can observe from the average automated evaluation scores, the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms all the baselines by a significant margin. It also exhibits comparable performance to the supervised model, and this performance persists across different language families. These findings satisfy our hypothesis, leading us to conclude that the proposed SELECTNOISE model is a state-of-the-art model for English-to-ELRLs MT systems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.844, + 0.3, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Further Analyses" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we perform a detailed analysis with SELECTNOISE to understand factors contributing to performance gain and analyze robustness." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.086, + 0.695, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.702, + 0.087, + 0.877, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.201, + 0.882, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Proposed model performance trends with various k and p values from top-k and top-p sampling respectively." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.556, + 0.237, + 0.835, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LanguageData sizeBLEUchrF
hne99719.549.6
600020.350.3
mai99711.942.4
600012.443.2
npi9976.733.6
60007.233.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.329, + 0.877, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Model performance with larger monolingual data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.366, + 0.882, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance Trend with Top-k and Top-p: In Figure 4, the performance trend of the proposed model with varying values of k and p for top-p and top-k sampling is depicted. The candidate pool consists of a maximum of 61 characters (a range for k-value selection). The model performs best with a k-value of 50 and a p-value of 0.25, offering valuable insights for optimizing its performance through parameter selection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.884, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of Monolingual data size: The proposed SELECTNOISE model relies on the small monolingual dataset of ELRLs. We investigate the impact of a large monolingual dataset on the model's performance for ELRLs. Table 6 demonstrates that a larger dataset leads to a performance boost, suggesting the extraction of more meaningful noise injection candidates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.644, + 0.884, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language similarity Vs. Performance: Figure 5 illustrates the comparative trend of lexical similarity score between ELRLs and HRLs and performance (ChrF score). It can be observed that lexically similar languages boost the model's performance, leading to an improved cross-lingual transfer for the SELECTNOISE model. For example, languages like Kashmiri (kas), which have the lowest similarity, exhibit the lowest performance, whereas Chhattisgarhi, with the highest lexical similarity, demonstrates the highest performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performance with Less related Languages: We evaluate the zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT and proposed SELECTNOISE models with two relatively less lexically similar ELRLs. These two languages belong to distinct language families, namely Bodo (Sino-Tibetan) and Tamil" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1622" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.085, + 0.473, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.281, + 0.462, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Language similarity vs. Performance." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.308, + 0.458, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LanguageModelBLEUchrF
BodoVanilla NMT2.418.2
SELECTNOISE2.718.7
TamilVanilla NMT0.611.7
SELECTNOISE0.913.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.377, + 0.488, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT vs. SELECTNOISE on less related LRLs with HRL (Hindi)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.414, + 0.49, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(Travidian). Bodo has Devanagari script, while Tamil employs script conversion to match HRL (Hindi) script. The results are reported in Table 7. It is observed that the performance gain is minimal due to the dissimilarity of ELRLs with the corresponding HRL." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.523, + 0.271, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.55, + 0.492, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MT for Low-resource Languages: Limited parallel corpora for many LRLs lead to active research in multilingual MT. These are grounded with transfer learning to enable cross-lingual transfer (Nguyen and Chiang, 2017; Zoph et al., 2016) and allow related languages to learn from each other (Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussà et al., 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Further, these approaches can be extended by grouping training data based on relatedness (Neubig and Hu, 2018) or clustering similar languages (Tan et al., 2019) to improve performance for LRLs. In another direction, monolingual corpora are combined with parallel corpora to enhance translation quality (Currey et al., 2017) or used for unsupervised NMT (Artetxe et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2020), reducing the reliance on parallel data. Back-translated data is also widely utilized for training MT systems for LRLs (Sugiyama and Yoshinaga, 2019; Edunov et al., 2018). More recently, models powered by large multilingual pretrained language models (mLLMs) enable MT with limited language resources (NLLB Team, 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). These models have shown ac" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ceptable performance for many LRLs. However, adapting these models to ELRLs is challenging because they often lack parallel data, have limited monolingual data, and are absent from mPLMs. In contrast, we propose a model that only requires a small monolingual data (1000 examples)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.183, + 0.885, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data Augmentation for Low-resource MT: The limited availability of parallel data leads to a wide range of data augmentation approaches (Zhang et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2019; Cotterell and Kreutzer, 2018). Traditional approaches include perturbation at the word level, such as word dropout (Sennrich et al., 2016a), word replacement (Wang et al., 2018) and soft-decoupling (SDE; Wang et al. (2019)) to improve the cross-lingual transfer for LRLs. Such perturbation acts as a regularizer and enhances robustness to spelling variations; however, their impact is limited (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022). In a different research direction, noise injection-based modeling (Sperber et al., 2017; Karpukhin et al., 2019) has been explored to test the robustness of MT systems. More recently, lexical match-based models have been explored to improve the cross-lingual transfer by vocabulary overlapping (Patil et al., 2022), non-deterministic segmentation (Provilkov et al., 2020) and noise injection (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023). In contrast to these methods, we propose a linguistically inspired systematic noise injection approach for ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.585, + 0.642, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This study presents an effective unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, for cross-lingual transfer from HRLs to closely related ELRLs through systematic character noise injection. The approach involves extracting selective noise injection candidates using BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, different sampling techniques are explored during the noise injection to ensure diverse candidate sampling. The model required only a small (1K example) monolingual data in ELRLs. The proposed model consistently outperformed strong baselines across 12 ELRLs from two diverse language families in the ELRLs-to-English MT task. The cumulative gain is \\(11.3\\%\\) (chrF) over vanilla NMT. Furthermore, the model demonstrated comparative performance to a supervised noise injection model. In the future, we will extend SELECTNOISE to English-to-ELRL MT task, as well as other NLG tasks and languages." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1623" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.112, + 0.493, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The present study is based on the assumption of closely related high-resource languages and extremely low-resource languages to facilitate improved cross-lingual transfer. However, the proposed method may not be effective for ELRLs that have a different script and lack a script conversion or transliteration tool. Additionally, the model's performance may be suboptimal for languages that share the same script but exhibit significant lexical differences, such as Hindi and Bodo. Furthermore, this study focuses on ELRLs to English translation, and it remains to be explored whether the noise injection approach is beneficial for the English to ELRLs translation task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.352, + 0.287, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.379, + 0.49, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all human evaluators whose meticulous assessment of the translation performance of the proposed model and various baselines played a pivotal role in the success of this research. Furthermore, we wish to express our deep appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and the esteemed meta-reviewer for their invaluable and insightful suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of the manuscript." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.553, + 0.214, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.577, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noëmi Aeipli and Rico Senrich. 2022. Improving zero-shot cross-lingual transfer between closely related languages by injecting character-level noise. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 4074–4083, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.669, + 0.49, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics – Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), pages 385–393, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.813, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3874-3884, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.577, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "AI4Bharat, Jay Gala, Pranjal A. Chitale, Raghavan AK, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Varun Gumma, Aswanth Kumar, Janki Nawale, Anupama Sujatha, Ratish Puduppully, Vivek Raghavan, Pratyush Kumar, Mitesh M. Khapra, Raj Dabre, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Indictrans2: Towards high-quality and accessible machine translation models for all 22 scheduled indian languages. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2305.16307." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.203, + 0.885, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, Eneko Agirre, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Unsupervised neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.268, + 0.885, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emily Bender. 2019. The# benderrule: On naming the languages we study and why it matters. The Gradient, 14." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.32, + 0.885, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Verena Blaschke, Hinrich Schütze, and Barbara Plank. 2023. Does manipulating tokenization aid crosslingual transfer? a study on POS tagging for non-standardized languages. In Tenth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (Vardial 2023), pages 40-54, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.424, + 0.884, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.515, + 0.884, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ryan Cotterell and Julia Kreutzer. 2018. Explaining and generalizing back-translation through wake-sleep. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04402." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.567, + 0.885, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anna Currey, Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone, and Kenneth Heafield. 2017. Copied monolingual data improves low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 148-156, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.658, + 0.885, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sergey Edunov, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2018. Understanding back-translation at scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 489-500, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.749, + 0.885, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Gao, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Xueqi Cheng, Wengang Zhou, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Soft contextual data augmentation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5539-5544." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1624" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xavier Garcia, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, and Ankur Parikh. 2021. Harnessing multilinguality in unsupervised machine translation for rare languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1126-1137, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.201, + 0.489, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. CoRR, abs/1904.09751." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.489, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282-6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.354, + 0.489, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Omer Levy, Jacob Eisenstein, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2019. Training on synthetic noise improves robustness to natural noise in machine translation. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 42-47, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.456, + 0.489, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yash Khemchandani, Sarvesh Mehtani, Vaidehi Patil, Abhijeet Awasthi, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2021. Exploiting language relatedness for low web-resource language model adaptation: An Indic languages study. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1312-1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.597, + 0.489, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.674, + 0.489, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philipp Koehn and Rebecca Knowles. 2017. Six challenges for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation, pages 28-39, Vancouver. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.75, + 0.489, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I. Dan Melamed. 1995. Automatic evaluation and uniform filter cascades for inducing n-best translation lexicons. In Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 875-880, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.883, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Toan Q. Nguyen and David Chiang. 2017. Transfer learning across low-resource, related languages for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 296-301, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.278, + 0.883, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James Cross Onur Celebi Maha Elbayad Kenneth Heafield Kevin Heffernan Elahe Kalbassi Janice Lam Daniel Licht Jean Maillard Anna Sun Skyler Wang Guillaume Wenzek Al Youngblood Bapi Akula Loic Barrault Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez Prangthip Hansanti John Hoffman Semarley Jarrett Kaushik Ram Sadagopan Dirk Rowe Shannon Spruit Chau Tran Pierre Andrews Necip Fazil Ayan Shruti Bhosale Sergey Edunov Angela Fan Cynthia Gao Vedanuj Goswami Francisco Guzmán Philipp Koehn Alexandre Mourachko Christophe Ropers Safiyyah Saleem Holger Schwenk Jeff Wang NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.471, + 0.883, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.573, + 0.883, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vaidehi Patil, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2022. Overlap-based vocabulary generation improves cross-lingual transfer among related languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 219–233, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.676, + 0.883, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.752, + 0.883, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Provilkov, Dmitrii Emelianenko, and Elena Voita. 2020. BPE-dropout: Simple and effective subword regularization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1882-1892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.842, + 0.883, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amy Pu, Hyung Won Chung, Ankur P Parikh, Sebastian Gehrmann, and Thibault Sellam. 2021. Learning compact metrics for mt. In Proceedings of EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gowtham Ramesh, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Aravinth Bheemaraj, Mayank Jobanputra, Raghavan AK," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1625" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ajitesh Sharma, Sujit Sahoo, Harshita Diddee, Mahalakshmi J, Divyanshu Kakwani, Navneet Kumar, Aswin Pradeep, Srihari Nagaraj, Kumar Deepak, Vivek Raghavan, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh Shantadevi Khapra. 2022. Samanantar: The largest publicly available parallel corpora collection for 11 Indic languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:145-162." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.213, + 0.49, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reinhard Rapp. 2021. Similar language translation for Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish using Marian NMT. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 292-298, Online." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.49, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.362, + 0.49, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016a. Edinburgh neural machine translation systems for WMT 16. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Machine Translation: Volume 2, Shared Task Papers, pages 371-376, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.45, + 0.49, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016b. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.55, + 0.49, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aditya Siddhant, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Yuan Cao, Mia Xu Chen, Isaac Caswell, and Xavier Garcia. 2022. Towards the next 1000 languages in multilingual machine translation: Exploring the synergy between supervised and self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03110." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthias Sperber, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2017. Toward robust neural machine translation for noisy input sequences. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 90-96." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.713, + 0.49, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amane Sugiyama and Naoki Yoshinaga. 2019. Data augmentation using back-translation for context-aware neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (DiscoMT 2019), pages 35–44, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.8, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xu Tan, Jiale Chen, Di He, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with language clustering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 963-973, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017a. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.179, + 0.885, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017b. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.258, + 0.885, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Philip Arthur, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with soft decoupled encoding. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.326, + 0.885, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, and Graham Neubig. 2018. SwitchOut: an efficient data augmentation algorithm for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 856-861, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.885, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhirui Zhang, Shuangzhi Wu, Shujie Liu, Mu Li, Ming Zhou, and Tong Xu. 2019. Regularizing neural machine translation by target-bidirectional agreement. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 443-450." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.511, + 0.885, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhao Zhu, Hongyi Liu, Qingxiu Dong, Jingjing Xu, Lingpeng Kong, Jiajun Chen, Lei Li, and Shujian Huang. 2023. Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04675." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.591, + 0.885, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1568-1575, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.688, + 0.813, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Character Candidate Pool \\((S_{c})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.716, + 0.882, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A sample structure of character candidate pool \\(S_{c}\\) is illustrated in Fig. 6. More details are presented in Section 2.1.1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.779, + 0.747, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Performance for HRLs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 analyzes the performance of the proposed model for HRLs across both language families. It demonstrates comparable performance with the vanilla NMT model for HRLs while boosting the performance of ELRLs. This highlights the effectiveness of the proposed model in handling both HRLs and ELRLs." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1626" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.256, + 0.082, + 0.744, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsLanguages
BLEUchrFBLEURTCOMET
Hindi (hi)
Vanilla NMT33.460.20.7240.868
Random Char Noise33.059.50.7220.865
SELECTNOISE34.260.50.7260.869
Spanish (es)
Vanilla NMT21.553.50.6950.810
Random Char Noise21.753.00.6890.806
SELECTNOISE21.353.10.6890.869
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.284, + 0.812, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Comparative performance for HRLs across both Indo-Aryan and Romance families." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.336, + 0.466, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Candidate Pool (Sc) Template
C1: {I': f1, 'D': f3, 'S': {E1: f4, E2: f5, ...}},
C2: {I': f4, 'D': f3, 'S': {E3: f6, E2: f7, ...}},
Ci: {I': f2, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f2, E3: f1, ...}}
Cn: {I': f1, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f4, E3: f5, ...}}
Few Sample Elements of Candidate Pool (Sc)
'O': {I': 62, 'D': 1561, 'S': {'‘ह’: 1482, ...}}
'瓦': {I': 92, 'D': 97, 'S': {'‘ो’': 1482, ...}}
'O': {I': 1552, 'D': 15, 'S': {'‘य’: 397, ...}}
'S': {I': 0, 'D': 33, 'S': {}
}
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.564, + 0.489, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Top is a template for the character candidate pool \\(\\mathbf{S}_c\\). The operations are: insertion \\((I)\\), deletion \\((D)\\) and substitution \\((S)\\). The character \\(c_i\\) represents the \\(i^{th}\\) element of \\(\\mathcal{S}_c\\), which is an HRL character, \\(c_1', \\ldots, c_k'\\) denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and \\(f\\) is the associated frequencies. The Bottom shows a few sample elements of the \\(\\mathbf{S}_c\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.69, + 0.407, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C HRL-ELRL lexical similarity measurement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.734, + 0.49, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7 shows the lexical similarity between HRL and related ELRLs for both language families. Lexical similarity is obtained using the longest common subsequence (LCS; Melamed (1995))." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.812, + 0.228, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Detailed statistics of datasets used in our experiments are shown in Table 9. For performing analysis on less-related language, we use the general test set of IndicTrans2 (AI4Bharat et al., 2023) for Bodo and FLORES200 test set for Tamil. For" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.32, + 0.88, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.685, + 0.374, + 0.708, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.392, + 0.846, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.685, + 0.46, + 0.708, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.49, + 0.884, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Lexical similarity heatmap between HRL and its related ELRLs. Fig. (a) depicts a similarity score for the Indo-Aryan family where HRL is Hindi. Fig. (b) depicts a similarity score for the Romance family where HRL is Spanish. Note: Darker color denotes more similarity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.603, + 0.884, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OBPE baseline, we use a dev set of FLORES-200 consisting of 997 as a monolingual corpus for learning the overlap vocabulary." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.667, + 0.75, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our vanilla NMT model is based on standard transformer architecture consisting of 6 encoder and decoder layers. We trained our model for a maximum epoch of 15. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer with \\(\\beta_{1} = 0.9\\) and \\(\\beta_{2} = 0.98\\). We set a learning rate of 0.0005. We use a dropout of 0.2. We performed data normalization and preprocessing using IndicNLP library4. We perform our experiments using fairseq5 library. For evaluation we use the lexical match-based BLEU metric6 (Pa" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.889, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{4}\\)https://github.com/anoopkunchukuttan/indic_nlp_library \n\\(^{5}\\)https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq \n\\(^{6}\\)refs:1|case:mixedleff:noltok:13alsmooth:explversion:2.3.1" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1627" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.256, + 0.082, + 0.744, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Languages#Dev#TestHRLSource
bho, mag, mai, npi, awa, san, kas, hne9971012hiFLORES-200
ast, cat, glg, oci9971012esFLORES-200
HR Lang Pair#Train# Dev#TestSource
hi-en10.1M9971012AI4Bharat
es-en6.6M9971012Rapp (2021)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.339, + 0.241, + 0.658, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Dataset statistics and language details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.28, + 0.49, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pineni et al., 2002), \\(\\mathrm{chrF}^7\\) (Popovic, 2015) metric, semantic-based BLEURT8 (Sellam et al., 2020), and COMET9 (Pu et al., 2021) metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.341, + 0.33, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Sample Translations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.367, + 0.489, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fig. 8 presents sample translations from Random Character Noise, SELECTNOISE and Supervised Character Noise injection models." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.879, + 0.493, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(7\\)nrefs:1|case:mixedleff:yesInc:6lhw:0lspace:nolversion:2.3.1" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.892, + 0.385, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reported using BLEURT20 checkpoint" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.385, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{9} \\) Reported using wmt22-comet-da model" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.879, + 0.493, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1628" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.298, + 0.86, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
BHO: रूप्व केहोँ पाथस्मा,तुका केरागपिकोयपिक रेशेयपि रागपिक रहोँ प्रधान सेलन्दीपय रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू��िक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक वस्थिके \nENG: The announcement was made after Trump had a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
RCN: Trump opened up about the phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
UCN: After a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump announced his decision.
SCN: Trump's announcement came after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
HNE: पूललमह बलाटयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके \nENG: Police said that the body appeared to have been there for about a day.
RCN: The police said the body had been lying on the ground for the past few days.
UCN: The police said the bodies had been lying on the road for the past few days.
SCN: The police said the body had been lying for the past several days.
GLG: A ONU samén ten previsto create un fondo para axudar aes paises afectados polo quentamento global a afrontar o seu impacto.
ENG: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
RCN: The UN is also planning to set up a fund to tax years of countries affected by global pole to cope with or have an impact.
UCN: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
SCN: The UN also plans to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global warming to face up to their impact.
AST: Munchos cudadianos de Bishkek acusaron a los manifestantes sureños del desorde.
ENG: Several Bishkek residents blamed protesters from the south for the lawlessness.
RCN: Cubans of Bishkek accused southern protestors of the deorde.
UCN: Many people in Bishkek accused the Swiss demonstrators of disorder.
SCN: Many people in Bishkek accused southern demonstrators of disorder.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.658, + 0.885, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Sample translations from various models for ELRLs to English MT direction. RCN: Random Character Noise injection model, UCN: Unsupervised Character Noise injection model (i.e., SELECTNOISE model) and SCN: Supervised Character Noise injection model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1629" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_origin.pdf b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3750a855bcc070f6df38e1222239e97477d35558 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/29f3935c-fb5b-4050-a8ad-521bc9fe7631_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a430b2dd458e6cb662f4c7b787ecc834e8a488d31b6fd39d66da041a30b4a157 +size 768604 diff --git a/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/full.md b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef4ee8f95647f3510208b854ea52166361a4887f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,359 @@ +# SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages + +Maharaj Brahma* Kaushal Kumar Maurya* Maunendra Sankar Desarkar +Natural Language and Information Processing Lab (NLIP) +Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad +Hyderabad, India + +{cs23resch01004,cs18resch11003}@iith.ac.in,maunendra@cse.iith.ac.in + +# Abstract + +In this work, we focus on the task of machine translation (MT) from extremely low-resource language (ELRLs) to English. The unavailability of parallel data, lack of representation from large multilingual pre-trained models, and limited monolingual data hinder the development of MT systems for ELRLs. However, many ELRLs often share lexical similarities with high-resource languages (HRLs) due to factors such as dialectical variations, geographical proximity, and language structure. We utilize this property to improve cross-lingual signals from closely related HRL to enable MT for ELRLs. Specifically, we propose a novel unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, based on selective candidate extraction and noise injection to generate noisy HRLs training data. The noise injection acts as a regularizer, and the model trained with noisy data learns to handle lexical variations such as spelling, grammar, and vocabulary changes, leading to improved cross-lingual transfer to ELRLs. The selective candidates are extracted using BPE merge operations and edit operations, and noise injection is performed using greedy, top-p, and top-k sampling strategies. We evaluate the proposed model on 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 benchmark in a zero-shot setting across two language families. The proposed model outperformed all the strong baselines, demonstrating its efficacy. It has comparable performance with the supervised noise injection model. Our code and model are publicly available1. + +# 1 Introduction + +The modern neural machine translation (NMT; Aharoni et al. (2019); Garcia et al. (2021); Siddhant et al. (2022)) has achieved remarkable performance for many languages, but their performance heavily relies on the availability of large parallel or mono + +![](images/f3af30a9b40182fc7d75937f2df6840f92a35ee40aabc9d6bfc489c8f9406083.jpg) + +![](images/6e9d7f4828babc9525170700ce6816af5281a96587796830d033bf0ddcf95578.jpg) +Figure 1: Illustration of character noise injection with random baseline (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022) and propose SELECTNOISE model. The SELECTNOISE enhances lexical similarity between noisy HRL (N-HIN) and ELRL (BHO). ENG: English, HIN: Hindi, N-HIN: Noisy Hindi and BHO: Bhojpuri languages. Red: Insertion, Blue: Deletion and Green: Substitution operations. + +lingual corpora (Koehn and Knowles, 2017). However, the linguistic diversity across the world is vast, with over 7000 languages spoken2. This linguistic landscape includes a long tail of languages (Joshi et al., 2020) that face significant challenges due to the lack of available resources for model development and are referred as extremely low-resource languages (ELRLs). ELRLs present unique challenges for the development of MT systems as they lack parallel datasets, are excluded from large multilingual pre-trained language models, and possess limited monolingual datasets. Consequently, the majority of research efforts in NMT have primarily focused on resource-rich languages (Bender, 2019), leaving ELRLs with limited attention and fewer viable solutions. Towards these concerns, this work is positioned as a step towards enabling MT technology for ELRLs. Primarily focused on zero-shot setting for scalability. + +More recently, there has been active research to develop MT systems for LRLs. One direction is + +multilingual training-based models (Aharoni et al., 2019; Garcia et al., 2021; Siddhant et al., 2022). These models are trained with multiple HRL languages, enabling cross-lingual transfer capabilities to improve translation performance for LRLs. Another line of work focuses on data augmentation techniques (Sennrich et al., 2016a; Wang et al., 2018) to generate more training data. However, these methods do not fully exploit the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs. Many HRLs and ELRLs exhibit surface-level lexical similarities due to dialect variations, loan words, and geographical proximity (Khemchandani et al., 2021). For example, the word "Monday" is somvar in Hindi and somar in Bhojpuri. They are lexically very similar. To leverage this lexical similarity, recent studies have explored techniques like learning overlapping vocabulary (Patil et al., 2022) or injecting random noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023) in HRLs to resemble LRLs. These methods are only evaluated for natural language understanding tasks (NLU) and not for MT, which is a more challenging task. Inspired by these advancements, in this paper, we propose a novel unsupervised noise injection approach to develop an MT system for ELRLs. + +The proposed model is based on character noise injection and consists of two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction phase, candidate characters are extracted in an unsupervised manner using small monolingual data from closely related HRL and ELRLs. It relies on BPE merge operations and edit operations that take into account lexical similarity and linguistic properties. In the noise injection phase, noise is injected into the source side of parallel data of HRL using greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling algorithms. This noise injection serves as a regularizer and a model trained with this noisy HRL data enhances robustness to spelling, grammar, or vocabulary changes and facilitates improved cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs. The evaluation is done in the zero-shot setting, ensuring scalability. The proposed model is referred as the SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Selective Noise Injection model. Fig. 1 illustrates the effect of noise injection with SELECTNOISE model. In this paper, we investigate two hypotheses: (a) the selective noise injection model is expected to outperform random noise injection, and (b) the performance of the selective (unsupervised) noise injection model + +should be comparable to the supervised noise injection model. + +Our key contributions are: (1) We propose a novel unsupervised selective character noise injection approach, SELECTNOISE, to enable and improve MT for ELRLs to English. The injection of selective candidate noise facilitates better cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs in the zero-shot setting. (2) We have developed an unsupervised mechanism to extract candidate characters based on BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, the noise injection employs greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling techniques, ensuring diversity. (3) We evaluated the model's performance using 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 evaluation set across two typologically diverse language families. Evaluations were conducted with both automated and human evaluation metrics. (4) The proposed model outperformed all baselines and has comparable performance with the supervised selective noise injection-based MT model. Additionally, we performed several analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model. + +# 2 Methodology + +This section presents the details of the proposed SELECTNOISE model. As discussed in section 1, the SELECTNOISE model has two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction stage, the noise injection candidate characters are extracted through an unsupervised approach. Specifically, we consider small monolingual data for HRL $(\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{H}})$ and for related (lexically similar) LRLs $(\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{L}})$ . $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{L}}$ comprises small monolingual datasets from multiple extremely ELRLs. During the process of building the Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) vocabulary, we extract the BPE operations separately for the HRL $(\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}})$ and ELRLs $(\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}})$ . Next, we design an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ to extract selective candidate characters from $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}}$ and store them in candidate pool $S_{\mathcal{C}}$ . Candidates are extracted with an approach inspired by edit-operations. In other words, we obtain $S_{\mathcal{C}}$ as a result of $\mathcal{A}$ $(\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}, \mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}})$ . In noise injection stage, the candidates are sampled from $S_{\mathcal{C}}$ and injected into the source sentences of HRL corpus $(\mathcal{H})$ from the large parallel data $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{H}} = \{(h,e)|lang(h) = \mathcal{H}, lang(e) = En\}$ . The injections are done using a noise function $\eta$ , resulting in a noise-injected (augmented) parallel data: $\hat{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{H}} = \{(\hat{h}, e)|lang(\hat{h}) = \hat{\mathcal{H}}, lang(e) =$ + +![](images/3ceda894b112a883e5405b839bbbfeba8e9909617cf4e3a217c87b89f22e89da.jpg) +Figure 2: Overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model for extremely low-resource MT + +$\mathit{En}\}$ , where $\hat{\mathcal{H}} = \eta (\mathcal{H})$ . The $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ acts as proxy training data for ELRLs. A BPE vocabulary $\nu$ is learned with $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ . Then, we train the standard encoder-decoder transformers model $(\mathcal{M};$ Vaswani et al. (2017b) from scratch with $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\nu$ to obtain trained model $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$ . Finally, zero-shot evaluation is done for ELRLs with $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\nu$ . Now, we present details of each model component. The overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model is depicted in Figure 2. + +# 2.1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection + +The formal procedure for unsupervised noise injection is presented in Algorithm 1. In the next subsections, we will deep dive into each stage of the proposed model in details: + +# 2.1.1 Selective Candidate Extraction + +The first stage in the proposed approach involves extracting candidate characters that will subsequently be utilized for noise injection. Given $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{L}}$ , we extract all BPE merge operations $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}}$ , respectively. Each merge operation consists of tuples $\langle (p,q) \rangle \in \mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\langle (r,s) \rangle \in \mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ . We pair each merge tuple of $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ with each tuple of $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}}$ (i.e., cartesian setup). If $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}}$ have $n$ and $m$ merge operations, respectively, we obtain a total of $t = m \cdot n$ pairs. We consider only those pairs where either $p$ and $r$ or $q$ and $s$ are the same while discarding the rest. For the considered tuples $\langle (p,q), (r,s) \rangle$ , we calculate the character-level edit-distance operations between non-similar elements of the tuple. For instance, if $p$ and $r$ are the same, the edit operations are obtained using $q$ and $s$ elements. These operations are collected in the candidate pool $S_{c}$ , which includes insertions, + +deletions, and substitutions, and are referred to as the selective candidates. + +As discussed, the extracted selective candidates are stored in the candidate pool $Sc$ , a dictionary data structure encompassing HRL and ELRL characters. The $Sc$ consists of HRL characters, ELRL characters, edit operations, and their respective frequencies. An element of $Sc$ has following template: $c_{i} : \{I : f_{ins}, D : f_{del}, S : \{c_{1}' : f_{1}, c_{2}' : f_{2}, c_{k}' : f_{k}\} \}$ . The operations are: insertion (I), deletion (D) and substitution (S). The character $c_{i}$ represents the $i^{th}$ element of $Sc$ , which is an HRL character, $c_{1}' \ldots c_{k}'$ denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and $f$ is the associated frequencies. A few examples of selective candidate extraction are illustrated in Fig. 3. Sample candidate pool $(Sc)$ is shown in Fig. 6. + +Intuitively, with this candidate pool $S_{c}$ , we have learned transformative entities that can be used to resemble an HRL to lexically similar ELRLs, which results in bridging the lexical gap between HRL and LRLs. Training with such modified HRL data enhances the effectiveness of cross-lingual transfer signals for ELRLs. As candidates are extracted by considering the vocabulary word-formation strategy from BPE and edit operations, they indirectly consider the linguistic cues/information. + +# 2.1.2 Noise Injection to HRL + +In the second stage, we sample selective candidates from $S_{c}$ and inject into the source sentences of HRL corpus $(\mathcal{H})$ from the parallel dataset $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{H}} = \{(h,e)|lang(h) = \mathcal{H},lang(e) = En\}$ using a noise function $\eta$ , resulting in a noise injected (augmented) parallel dataset $\hat{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{H}} = \{(\hat{h},e)|lang(\hat{h}) = \hat{\mathcal{H}},lang(e) = En\}$ , where $\hat{\mathcal{H}} = \eta(\mathcal{H})$ . Details of + +![](images/b09eaac1805df5313f24435707cc7750d6520ff966507f6a90be1a495d8ecabe.jpg) +Figure 3: Illustration of selective candidates extraction for noise injection that utilizes BPE merge and edit operations. Here $I$ , $D$ , and $S$ indicate insertion, deletion, and substitution respectively. Frequencies are associated with operations. 0 indicates the corresponding edit operation was not extracted. + +the noise function and candidate sampling strategy are presented below: + +Noise Function: The noise injection function $(\eta)$ is designed as follows: Initially, we randomly select $5\% - 10\%^3$ of character indices from a sentence $s \in \mathcal{H}$ . Subsequently, we uniformly choose between insertion, deletion, or substitution operations with equal probability. If the selected operation is insertion or substitution, we sample a candidate character from $S_c$ to perform the noise injection operation. For deletion, the charter is simply deleted. These steps are repeated for all sentences in $\mathcal{H}$ to obtain the final $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ . + +Candidate Character Sampling: While noise injection for deletion operation, we simply delete the character. For insertion and substitution, we sample the candidate character for injection from $S_{c}$ using the greedy, top-p (nucleus), and top-k sampling techniques inspired by decoding algorithms commonly employed in NLG (Holtzman et al., 2019). Before applying these sampling techniques, the frequencies of the candidate characters are transformed into probability scores using the softmax operation. Intuitively, with the sampling technique, we aim to explore not only frequent candidate characters but also diverse candidates. + +The performance of any learning model depends on the quality of the training data. The presence of noise hampers the learning, and the outputs of the learned model exhibit the different nuances of the noise present in the data. In our specific case: (i) We train a model using data that contains noise, resulting in the model's increased robustness to minor lexical variations in different languages, par + +ticularly those related to ELRLs. (ii) The noise is added for a small portion of characters $(5 - 10\%)$ , making the HRLs training data closely resemble how sentences appear in ELRLs. As a result, the model is able to do a robust cross-lingual transfer to the ELRL in a zero-shot setting. In another perspective, the injection of noise acts as a regularizer (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022), contributing to an overall enhancement in the model's performance. + +# 2.2 Supervised Noise Injection + +We have also investigated in a supervised setting akin to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach. The key distinction lies in how the candidate pool $S_{sc}$ is derived from a limited parallel dataset between HRL and ELRLs. For each HRL and ELRL pair, + +# Algorithm 1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection + +Require: [Inputs] HRL monolingual data $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{H}}$ ; closely related ELRLs monolingual data $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{L}}$ ; number of merge operations $\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{O}}$ ; HRL parallel data $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{H}}(\mathcal{H},En)$ ; Noise injection percentage range $[p_1\% - p_2\%]$ ; candidate sampling strategy $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{M}}$ ; EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS ( $\mathcal{A}$ ) +Ensure: [Output] Noisy source HRL $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ $\mathcal{S}_c =$ EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS( $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{H}},\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{L}},\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{O}})$ +for sentence $s$ in $\mathcal{H}$ do idxs $\leftarrow$ randomly select $[p_1\% -p_2\% ]$ indices of $s$ for idx in idxs do ops $\leftarrow$ randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then $c =$ sample candidate char, i.e., $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{S}_{c},\mathrm{ops})$ Perform operation ops at index idx with $c$ end if end for +end for +procedure EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(DH,D,L,Mo) Initialize candidate pool $S_{c}\gets \emptyset$ to store candidates Compute merge operations $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}} = \mathrm{BPE}(\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{H}},\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{O}})$ Compute merge operations $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}} = \mathrm{BPE}(\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{L}},\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{O}})$ for $n$ in $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}$ do for $m$ in $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{L}}$ do $\triangleright$ where $n =$ tuple $\langle (p,q)\rangle ,m =$ tuple $\langle (r,s)\rangle$ if $n$ equals $m$ or $p$ not equals $r$ and $q$ not equals $s$ ) then No operation is performed with $n$ and $m$ end if if $p$ equals $r$ then Compute edit-operations(q,s)&update $S_{c}$ end if if $q$ equals $s$ then Compute edit-operations(p,r)&update $S_{c}$ end if end for end for Return $S_{c}$ +end procedure + +Algorithm 2 Supervised Noise Injection +Require: [Inputs] joint parallel data for all considered HRL-ELRL pairs $\mathcal{P}_S(S,\mathcal{E}_L)$ ; HRL parallel data $\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{H}}(\mathcal{H},En)$ noise injection percentage range $[p_1\% -p_2\% ]$ ; candidate sampling strategy $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{M}}$ +Ensure: [Output] Noisy source HRL $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ $S_{sc} =$ SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) +for sentence $s$ in $\mathcal{H}$ do idxs $\leftarrow$ randomly select $[p_1\% -p_2\% ]$ indices of s for idx in idxs do ops $\leftarrow$ randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then $c =$ sample candidate char, i.e., $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{S}_{sc},ops)$ Perform operation ops at index idx with c end if end for +end for +procedure SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) Initialize candidate pool $S_{sc}\gets \emptyset$ to store candidates for each $\langle (s,e)\rangle$ in $\mathcal{P}_S$ do Compute edit-operations(s,e) & update $S_{sc}$ end for return $S_{sc}$ +end procedure + +we extract a candidate set using edit operations and subsequently combine all the candidate sets in $\mathcal{S}c$ . The rest of the modeling steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE. We hypothesize that the unsupervised method should exhibit competitive performance compared to the supervised approach. In the supervised candidate extraction, we assume the availability of a limited amount of parallel data of approximately 1000 examples. A formal algorithm outlining in the Algorithm 2. + +# 2.3 Model Training and Zero-shot Evaluation + +The stranded encoder-decoder transformers model $(\mathcal{M})$ is trained from scratch using the noisy highresource parallel dataset $\hat{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\nu$ to obtain a trained model $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$ . Where $\nu$ is learned BPE vocabulary with $\hat{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ . Subsequently, we use $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$ to perform zero-shot generation for ELRLs. We have not used any parallel training data for ELRLs and directly employ $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$ for inference, making this modeling setup zero-shot. The trained model transfers knowledge across languages, enabling coherent and meaningful translation for ELRLs. + +# 3 Experimental Setup + +We designed our experimental setup to address the following set of questions: (1) Does noise injection improve performance for NLG tasks, i.e., MT in + +our case? (2) Does selective noise injection with the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperform the random noise injection model (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022)? (3) Does the model's performance persist across different language families? and (4) Does the unsupervised SELECTNOISE model demonstrate competitive performance with supervised approach? Based on these research questions, we have designed our experimental setup. + +# 3.1 Datasets + +The primary constraint of the proposed approach is to select closely related HRLs and ELRLs. With this criterion in mind, we have chosen two language families: Indo-Aryan and Romance. Within the Indo-Aryan family, we have selected Hindi (hi) as the HRL and 8 ELRLs were Awadhi (awa), Bhojpuri (bho), Chhattisgarhi (hne), Kashmiri (kas), Magahi (mag), Maithili (mai), Nepali (npi), and Sanskrit (san), based on their lexical similarity. For the Romance family, Spanish (es) served as the HRL, and the 4 ELRLs were Asturian (ast), Catalan (cat), Galician (glg), and Occitan (oci). We conducted separate experiments for each language family, training the model with the HRL to English MT task and evaluating it in a zero-shot setting with corresponding ELRLs. + +In total, we have 3 HRLs (English, Hindi, and Spanish) and 12 ELRLs. All the test datasets are sourced from FLORES-200 (NLLB Team, 2022), while the hi-en dataset is obtained from AI4Bharat (Ramesh et al., 2022), and the es-en dataset is from Rapp (2021). The development set of FLORES-200 was utilized as a parallel dataset for supervised noise injection. A small amount of monolingual data was used for SELECTNOISE and other baseline methods. Here, we used 1000 examples for each ELRL. Detailed dataset statistics and data sources are presented in Appendix D. In Appendix C, we provide an overview of the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs. + +# 3.2 Baselines + +We compare the SELECTNOISE model with several strong baselines, including a traditional data augmentation model, lexical similarity-based models, and a model based on random noise injection. Details of each baseline are presented below: + +- Vanilla NMT: A standard transformer-based NMT model (Vaswani et al., 2017a) with BPE algorithm (Sennrich et al., 2016b). + +
ModelsIndo-AryanKasRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpicatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT40.346.822.340.049.347.629.621.333.041.040.733.037.08
Word-drop39.547.221.840.649.047.628.620.637.643.643.436.037.96
BPE-drop39.146.822.640.448.746.729.221.133.841.741.533.037.05
SwitchOut36.143.220.138.245.642.728.318.829.034.934.929.133.41
OBPE41.347.523.441.850.449.730.521.134.141.241.333.838.00
BPE-Dropout39.847.422.539.949.647.729.321.233.240.841.433.037.15
Random Char Noise40.948.423.840.850.047.531.221.940.946.146.438.239.68
+ +SELECTNOISE Model + +
SELECTNOISE + Greedy42.151.025.243.451.749.933.423.742.047.147.438.541.28
SELECTNOISE + Top-k42.449.926.043.051.048.833.423.341.547.147.838.541.06
SELECTNOISE + Top-p42.049.624.142.450.648.833.623.341.647.147.538.840.78
Supervised Noise Injection Model
Selective noise + Greedy41.449.125.442.250.148.732.922.241.647.247.738.740.60
Selective noise + Top-k41.749.326.343.350.848.734.223.641.946.847.538.741.10
Selective noise + Top-p41.449.927.343.351.648.933.923.441.647.748.239.041.35
+ +Table 1: Zero-shot chrF (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English + +
ModelsbhohnesanIndo-AryanawanpikascatRomanceAverage
maimagglgastoci
Vanilla NMT11.117.22.710.118.518.35.12.65.310.112.35.29.86
Word-drop8.713.71.97.715.216.13.01.66.910.713.36.58.76
BPE-drop10.816.12.710.017.217.84.02.15.19.111.24.79.23
SwitchOut4.37.71.44.98.47.92.91.23.56.38.23.85.04
OBPE11.116.62.910.418.719.74.81.96.210.712.96.110.16
BPE-Dropout11.617.53.110.119.318.35.42.55.410.113.05.410.14
Random Char Noise12.818.83.110.219.418.66.32.910.914.317.28.711.93
+ +SELECTNOISE Model + +
SELECTNOISE + Greedy12.520.13.711.921.220.27.13.010.815.017.49.012.66
SELECTNOISE + Top-k12.319.73.812.020.219.57.22.810.515.017.58.812.44
SELECTNOISE + Top-p12.719.53.811.920.319.66.73.210.714.817.18.912.43
+ +Supervised Noise Injection Model + +
Selective noise + Greedy13.119.54.011.819.619.36.82.410.515.017.98.912.4
Selective noise + Top-k12.719.13.912.220.119.37.02.910.815.017.48.912.44
Selective noise + Top-p12.720.04.112.621.219.77.02.710.515.418.19.112.76
+ +Table 2: Zero-shot BLEU (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English + +
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.5000.5310.3680.5000.5590.5760.4350.3770.2950.3900.4060.2320.431
Word-drop0.4970.5330.3570.4980.5510.5630.4170.3530.3610.4400.4540.3120.445
BPE-drop0.5060.5370.3670.5090.5570.5720.4220.3630.3160.4150.4320.2830.440
SwitchOut0.4110.4460.3180.4150.4670.4660.380.3350.2780.3370.3470.2620.372
OBPE0.5020.5250.3710.5020.5610.5830.4360.3810.3060.4040.4160.2660.438
BPE-Dropout0.5010.5260.3710.4970.5580.5740.4390.3930.3000.3890.4100.2310.432
Random Char Noise0.5210.5470.3710.5010.5690.5840.4410.3800.3910.4870.4910.3190.467
+ +SELECTNOISE Model + +
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.5250.5630.3860.5110.5780.6060.4580.3940.3920.4990.5110.3190.478
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.5240.5580.3860.5070.5760.5990.4540.3880.4000.4970.5160.3210.477
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.5270.5990.3720.5050.5730.5990.4570.3910.3990.5010.5090.3210.479
+ +Supervised Noise Injection Model + +
Selective noise + Greedy0.5270.5600.3890.5070.5720.6000.4510.3810.3920.4990.5110.3190.476
Selective noise + Top-k0.5260.5490.4010.5090.5730.4630.4630.3900.4000.4940.5060.3260.467
Selective noise + Top-p0.5240.5580.4000.5100.5840.4550.4550.3860.3910.5010.5120.3210.466
+ +Table 3: Zero-shot BLEURT (↑) scores results for ELRLs $\rightarrow$ English + +
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.6420.6760.4710.6210.7110.7360.5420.3870.4990.5340.4970.4080.560
Word-drop0.6590.7020.4940.6500.7250.7470.5640.4090.4840.5510.5380.4210.579
BPE-drop0.6530.6870.4970.6450.7110.7320.5540.4000.4380.5150.5050.3890.560
SwitchOut0.5650.6050.4620.5640.6260.6320.5330.3940.4050.4610.4450.3620.504
OBPE0.6640.6760.4520.6300.7070.7400.5440.3920.4560.5240.5010.4000.557
BPE-Dropout0.6440.6720.4710.6160.7100.7330.5370.3810.5030.5340.5000.4110.559
Random Char Noise0.6730.7000.4920.6410.7250.7460.5590.4010.5220.6100.5840.4410.591
+ +SELECTNOISE Model + +
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.6720.7140.4930.6470.7350.7650.5750.4120.5230.6200.5980.4340.599
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.6780.7080.5040.6490.7300.7580.5850.4190.5240.6210.6030.4380.601
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.6770.5590.5020.6430.7300.7580.5860.4110.5260.6250.6000.4420.588
+ +Supervised Noise Injection Model + +
Selective noise + Greedy0.6810.7110.5050.6490.7280.7610.5820.4110.5220.6180.6030.4410.601
Selective noise + Top-k0.6770.7000.5060.6550.7030.7570.5810.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.598
Selective noise + Top-p0.6800.7080.5110.6550.7380.7560.5890.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.603
+ +Table 4: Zero-shot COMET (↑) scores results for ELRLs $\rightarrow$ English + +
ModelsLanguages
bhosannpi
Annotator set-1
Vanilla NMT3.542.422.21
BPE Dropout3.292.371.83
SELECTNOISE Model4.172.832.50
Annotator set-2
Vanilla NMT3.421.962.17
BPE Dropout2.791.831.96
SELECTNOISE Model3.542.172.21
+ +Table 5: Human evaluation results - Average score + +- Word-drop (Sennrich et al., 2016a): In this baseline, $10\%$ words embeddings from each sentence of the source HRL is set to zero. This is a data augmentation technique to create training data ELRLs. The rest of the steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE model. +- BPE-drop: This approach is similar to the word-drop baseline but uses BPE tokens instead of words. +- SwitchOut (Wang et al., 2018): In this baseline, we randomly replace $10\%$ of the source and target words with randomly sampled words from their respective vocabularies. We use the officially released implementation. +- OBPE (Patil et al., 2022): OBPE modifies the learned BPE vocabulary to incorporate overlapping tokens from both HRL and LRLs, even if the token is not frequent. We utilized the official implementation. +- BPE Dropout (Provilkov et al., 2020): It is based on the BPE algorithm to learn the vocabulary and generates non-deterministic segmentations for input text on-the-fly during training. We use a dropout value of 0.1. +- Random Char Noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022): This baseline methodology is similar to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach; but, noise injections are done randomly. + +# 3.3 Evaluation Metrics + +All the model performances are compared using both automated and human evaluation metrics. In line with recent research on MT for LRLs, we employ two types of automated evaluation metrics (NLLB Team, 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Specifically, lexical match-based metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) and learning-based metrics: BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) and COMET (Pu et al., 2021). + +We further conducted the human evaluation to ensure the reliability of the performance gain. Three languages from the Indo-Aryan family (Bhojpuri, Nepali, and Sanskrit) were selected based on their high, moderate, and low lexical similarity with the HRL (Hindi). To manage the annotators' workload effectively, we limited our evaluation to three models: Vanilla NMT, BPE Dropout, and SELECT-NOISE. For each language, the human evaluation set consisted of 24 examples, and translations were obtained from above mentioned three models. Two annotators were employed for each language to ensure the inter-annotator agreement, and two ratings were obtained for each example from these annotators. All annotators held at least a master's degree, were native speakers of the respective language and demonstrated proficiency in English. We use Crosslingual Semantic Text Similarity (XSTS) metric (Agirre et al., 2012), which is widely adopted in the MT research for human evaluation. The XSTS metric employs a 1-5 evaluation scale, where 1 represents a very bad translation and 5 represents a very good translation. + +# 4 Results and Discussions + +In this section, we will discuss results, observations and findings. The zero-shot automated evaluation scores are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results are reported with greedy, top k $(\mathrm{k} = 50)$ , and top-p $(\mathrm{p} = 0.25)$ sampling strategies. Table 5 presents the human evaluation results. + +SELECTNOISE vs. Baselines: The proposed and other models that incorporate lexical similarity have demonstrated superior performance compared to the Vanilla NMT model. While general data augmentation techniques like Word-drop and SwitchOut exhibit performance similar to the Vanilla NMT model, they perform poorly when compared to OBPE and BPE-Dropout models. These results indicate the importance of considering monolingual data from ELRLs in the modeling. However, random noise injection and the SELECT-NOISE approach outperform the OBPE and BPE-Dropout models, indicating the effectiveness of noise injection-based modeling techniques. In conclusion, the careful selection of noise candidates, as done in the SELECT-NOISE approach, has outperformed the random noise model (second best) and emerged as the state-of-the-art model. + +Selective vs. Random Noise injection: Unsupervised selective noise injection approaches exhibit a + +larger performance gain compared to the random noise injection model. This observation emphasizes the importance of a systematic selective candidate extraction and noise injection process. + +Lexical vs. Learned Evaluation Metrics: We observe a strong correlation between lexical match-based metrics, such as BLEU and chrF scores. Further, semantic-based metrics like BLEURT and COMET exhibit similar trends to lexical match metrics, indicating a high level of correlation. This emphasizes the reliability of evaluation scores. + +Automated vs. Human Evaluation: The proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms both baselines in human evaluation across all three languages. The model demonstrates acceptable zero-shot performance for ELRLs, with a strong correlation with automated evaluation scores. + +Performance across Language Families: Unsupervised selective noise injection consistently outperforms all the baselines across ELRLs, with few exceptions. The model exhibits similar performance trends across both language families. + +Unsupervised vs. Supervised Noise Injection: The unsupervised SELECTNOISE model performs comparably to the supervised model, with slight variations depending on the language and family. The performance gap between the two models is minimal, indicating their equal strength. + +Performance vs. Sampling Strategies: The performance with different sampling techniques is compared, and it is observed that the greedy approach for SELECTNOISE performs better for the majority of languages. This finding indicates the existence of one-to-one lexical mapping across HRL and ELRLs. However, other sampling approaches are also effective for a subset of ELRLs. + +Overall Performance: As we can observe from the average automated evaluation scores, the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms all the baselines by a significant margin. It also exhibits comparable performance to the supervised model, and this performance persists across different language families. These findings satisfy our hypothesis, leading us to conclude that the proposed SELECTNOISE model is a state-of-the-art model for English-to-ELRLs MT systems. + +# 5 Further Analyses + +In this section, we perform a detailed analysis with SELECTNOISE to understand factors contributing to performance gain and analyze robustness. + +![](images/22695b6b561bfb5b4b4366e2d7f94a7a8712e540e1812c270715b113514e650b.jpg) +Figure 4: Proposed model performance trends with various k and p values from top-k and top-p sampling respectively. + +![](images/a90f25c45afaeeb2b9eabcb84a8c78569bedd0efc45c3af04c9c0cc9af6e19db.jpg) + +
LanguageData sizeBLEUchrF
hne99719.549.6
600020.350.3
mai99711.942.4
600012.443.2
npi9976.733.6
60007.233.8
+ +Table 6: Model performance with larger monolingual data + +Performance Trend with Top-k and Top-p: In Figure 4, the performance trend of the proposed model with varying values of k and p for top-p and top-k sampling is depicted. The candidate pool consists of a maximum of 61 characters (a range for k-value selection). The model performs best with a k-value of 50 and a p-value of 0.25, offering valuable insights for optimizing its performance through parameter selection. + +Impact of Monolingual data size: The proposed SELECTNOISE model relies on the small monolingual dataset of ELRLs. We investigate the impact of a large monolingual dataset on the model's performance for ELRLs. Table 6 demonstrates that a larger dataset leads to a performance boost, suggesting the extraction of more meaningful noise injection candidates. + +Language similarity Vs. Performance: Figure 5 illustrates the comparative trend of lexical similarity score between ELRLs and HRLs and performance (ChrF score). It can be observed that lexically similar languages boost the model's performance, leading to an improved cross-lingual transfer for the SELECTNOISE model. For example, languages like Kashmiri (kas), which have the lowest similarity, exhibit the lowest performance, whereas Chhattisgarhi, with the highest lexical similarity, demonstrates the highest performance. + +Performance with Less related Languages: We evaluate the zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT and proposed SELECTNOISE models with two relatively less lexically similar ELRLs. These two languages belong to distinct language families, namely Bodo (Sino-Tibetan) and Tamil + +![](images/99125131454d21e53c780952563ec44c9028f126d591a53e7030d041da2955c5.jpg) + +Figure 5: Language similarity vs. Performance. + +
LanguageModelBLEUchrF
BodoVanilla NMT2.418.2
SELECTNOISE2.718.7
TamilVanilla NMT0.611.7
SELECTNOISE0.913.3
+ +Table 7: Zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT vs. SELECTNOISE on less related LRLs with HRL (Hindi) + +(Travidian). Bodo has Devanagari script, while Tamil employs script conversion to match HRL (Hindi) script. The results are reported in Table 7. It is observed that the performance gain is minimal due to the dissimilarity of ELRLs with the corresponding HRL. + +# 6 Related Work + +MT for Low-resource Languages: Limited parallel corpora for many LRLs lead to active research in multilingual MT. These are grounded with transfer learning to enable cross-lingual transfer (Nguyen and Chiang, 2017; Zoph et al., 2016) and allow related languages to learn from each other (Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussà et al., 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Further, these approaches can be extended by grouping training data based on relatedness (Neubig and Hu, 2018) or clustering similar languages (Tan et al., 2019) to improve performance for LRLs. In another direction, monolingual corpora are combined with parallel corpora to enhance translation quality (Currey et al., 2017) or used for unsupervised NMT (Artetxe et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2020), reducing the reliance on parallel data. Back-translated data is also widely utilized for training MT systems for LRLs (Sugiyama and Yoshinaga, 2019; Edunov et al., 2018). More recently, models powered by large multilingual pretrained language models (mLLMs) enable MT with limited language resources (NLLB Team, 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). These models have shown ac + +ceptable performance for many LRLs. However, adapting these models to ELRLs is challenging because they often lack parallel data, have limited monolingual data, and are absent from mPLMs. In contrast, we propose a model that only requires a small monolingual data (1000 examples). + +Data Augmentation for Low-resource MT: The limited availability of parallel data leads to a wide range of data augmentation approaches (Zhang et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2019; Cotterell and Kreutzer, 2018). Traditional approaches include perturbation at the word level, such as word dropout (Sennrich et al., 2016a), word replacement (Wang et al., 2018) and soft-decoupling (SDE; Wang et al. (2019)) to improve the cross-lingual transfer for LRLs. Such perturbation acts as a regularizer and enhances robustness to spelling variations; however, their impact is limited (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022). In a different research direction, noise injection-based modeling (Sperber et al., 2017; Karpukhin et al., 2019) has been explored to test the robustness of MT systems. More recently, lexical match-based models have been explored to improve the cross-lingual transfer by vocabulary overlapping (Patil et al., 2022), non-deterministic segmentation (Provilkov et al., 2020) and noise injection (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023). In contrast to these methods, we propose a linguistically inspired systematic noise injection approach for ELRLs. + +# 7 Conclusion + +This study presents an effective unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, for cross-lingual transfer from HRLs to closely related ELRLs through systematic character noise injection. The approach involves extracting selective noise injection candidates using BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, different sampling techniques are explored during the noise injection to ensure diverse candidate sampling. The model required only a small (1K example) monolingual data in ELRLs. The proposed model consistently outperformed strong baselines across 12 ELRLs from two diverse language families in the ELRLs-to-English MT task. The cumulative gain is $11.3\%$ (chrF) over vanilla NMT. Furthermore, the model demonstrated comparative performance to a supervised noise injection model. In the future, we will extend SELECTNOISE to English-to-ELRL MT task, as well as other NLG tasks and languages. + +# Limitations + +The present study is based on the assumption of closely related high-resource languages and extremely low-resource languages to facilitate improved cross-lingual transfer. However, the proposed method may not be effective for ELRLs that have a different script and lack a script conversion or transliteration tool. Additionally, the model's performance may be suboptimal for languages that share the same script but exhibit significant lexical differences, such as Hindi and Bodo. Furthermore, this study focuses on ELRLs to English translation, and it remains to be explored whether the noise injection approach is beneficial for the English to ELRLs translation task. + +# Acknowledgements + +We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all human evaluators whose meticulous assessment of the translation performance of the proposed model and various baselines played a pivotal role in the success of this research. Furthermore, we wish to express our deep appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and the esteemed meta-reviewer for their invaluable and insightful suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. + +# References + +Noëmi Aeipli and Rico Senrich. 2022. Improving zero-shot cross-lingual transfer between closely related languages by injecting character-level noise. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 4074–4083, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics – Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), pages 385–393, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3874-3884, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +AI4Bharat, Jay Gala, Pranjal A. Chitale, Raghavan AK, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Varun Gumma, Aswanth Kumar, Janki Nawale, Anupama Sujatha, Ratish Puduppully, Vivek Raghavan, Pratyush Kumar, Mitesh M. Khapra, Raj Dabre, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Indictrans2: Towards high-quality and accessible machine translation models for all 22 scheduled indian languages. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2305.16307. +Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, Eneko Agirre, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Unsupervised neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations. +Emily Bender. 2019. The# benderrule: On naming the languages we study and why it matters. The Gradient, 14. +Verena Blaschke, Hinrich Schütze, and Barbara Plank. 2023. Does manipulating tokenization aid crosslingual transfer? a study on POS tagging for non-standardized languages. In Tenth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (Vardial 2023), pages 40-54, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672. +Ryan Cotterell and Julia Kreutzer. 2018. Explaining and generalizing back-translation through wake-sleep. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04402. +Anna Currey, Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone, and Kenneth Heafield. 2017. Copied monolingual data improves low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 148-156, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sergey Edunov, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2018. Understanding back-translation at scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 489-500, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48. +Fei Gao, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Xueqi Cheng, Wengang Zhou, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Soft contextual data augmentation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5539-5544. + +Xavier Garcia, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, and Ankur Parikh. 2021. Harnessing multilinguality in unsupervised machine translation for rare languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1126-1137, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. CoRR, abs/1904.09751. +Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282-6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Vladimir Karpukhin, Omer Levy, Jacob Eisenstein, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2019. Training on synthetic noise improves robustness to natural noise in machine translation. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 42-47, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yash Khemchandani, Sarvesh Mehtani, Vaidehi Patil, Abhijeet Awasthi, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2021. Exploiting language relatedness for low web-resource language model adaptation: An Indic languages study. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1312-1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings. +Philipp Koehn and Rebecca Knowles. 2017. Six challenges for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation, pages 28-39, Vancouver. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +I. Dan Melamed. 1995. Automatic evaluation and uniform filter cascades for inducing n-best translation lexicons. In Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora. + +Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 875-880, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Toan Q. Nguyen and David Chiang. 2017. Transfer learning across low-resource, related languages for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 296-301, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. +James Cross Onur Celebi Maha Elbayad Kenneth Heafield Kevin Heffernan Elahe Kalbassi Janice Lam Daniel Licht Jean Maillard Anna Sun Skyler Wang Guillaume Wenzek Al Youngblood Bapi Akula Loic Barrault Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez Prangthip Hansanti John Hoffman Semarley Jarrett Kaushik Ram Sadagopan Dirk Rowe Shannon Spruit Chau Tran Pierre Andrews Necip Fazil Ayan Shruti Bhosale Sergey Edunov Angela Fan Cynthia Gao Vedanuj Goswami Francisco Guzmán Philipp Koehn Alexandre Mourachko Christophe Ropers Safiyyah Saleem Holger Schwenk Jeff Wang NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Vaidehi Patil, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2022. Overlap-based vocabulary generation improves cross-lingual transfer among related languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 219–233, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ivan Provilkov, Dmitrii Emelianenko, and Elena Voita. 2020. BPE-dropout: Simple and effective subword regularization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1882-1892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Amy Pu, Hyung Won Chung, Ankur P Parikh, Sebastian Gehrmann, and Thibault Sellam. 2021. Learning compact metrics for mt. In Proceedings of EMNLP. +Gowtham Ramesh, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Aravinth Bheemaraj, Mayank Jobanputra, Raghavan AK, + +Ajitesh Sharma, Sujit Sahoo, Harshita Diddee, Mahalakshmi J, Divyanshu Kakwani, Navneet Kumar, Aswin Pradeep, Srihari Nagaraj, Kumar Deepak, Vivek Raghavan, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh Shantadevi Khapra. 2022. Samanantar: The largest publicly available parallel corpora collection for 11 Indic languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:145-162. +Reinhard Rapp. 2021. Similar language translation for Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish using Marian NMT. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 292-298, Online. +Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016a. Edinburgh neural machine translation systems for WMT 16. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Machine Translation: Volume 2, Shared Task Papers, pages 371-376, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016b. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aditya Siddhant, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Yuan Cao, Mia Xu Chen, Isaac Caswell, and Xavier Garcia. 2022. Towards the next 1000 languages in multilingual machine translation: Exploring the synergy between supervised and self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03110. +Matthias Sperber, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2017. Toward robust neural machine translation for noisy input sequences. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 90-96. +Amane Sugiyama and Naoki Yoshinaga. 2019. Data augmentation using back-translation for context-aware neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (DiscoMT 2019), pages 35–44, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xu Tan, Jiale Chen, Di He, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with language clustering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 963-973, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017a. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017b. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. +Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Philip Arthur, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with soft decoupled encoding. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, and Graham Neubig. 2018. SwitchOut: an efficient data augmentation algorithm for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 856-861, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhirui Zhang, Shuangzhi Wu, Shujie Liu, Mu Li, Ming Zhou, and Tong Xu. 2019. Regularizing neural machine translation by target-bidirectional agreement. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 443-450. +Wenhao Zhu, Hongyi Liu, Qingxiu Dong, Jingjing Xu, Lingpeng Kong, Jiajun Chen, Lei Li, and Shujian Huang. 2023. Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04675. +Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1568-1575, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Character Candidate Pool $(S_{c})$ + +A sample structure of character candidate pool $S_{c}$ is illustrated in Fig. 6. More details are presented in Section 2.1.1. + +# B Performance for HRLs + +Table 8 analyzes the performance of the proposed model for HRLs across both language families. It demonstrates comparable performance with the vanilla NMT model for HRLs while boosting the performance of ELRLs. This highlights the effectiveness of the proposed model in handling both HRLs and ELRLs. + +
ModelsLanguages
BLEUchrFBLEURTCOMET
Hindi (hi)
Vanilla NMT33.460.20.7240.868
Random Char Noise33.059.50.7220.865
SELECTNOISE34.260.50.7260.869
Spanish (es)
Vanilla NMT21.553.50.6950.810
Random Char Noise21.753.00.6890.806
SELECTNOISE21.353.10.6890.869
+ +Table 8: Comparative performance for HRLs across both Indo-Aryan and Romance families. + +
Candidate Pool (Sc) Template
C1: {I': f1, 'D': f3, 'S': {E1: f4, E2: f5, ...}},
C2: {I': f4, 'D': f3, 'S': {E3: f6, E2: f7, ...}},
Ci: {I': f2, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f2, E3: f1, ...}}
Cn: {I': f1, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f4, E3: f5, ...}}
Few Sample Elements of Candidate Pool (Sc)
'O': {I': 62, 'D': 1561, 'S': {'‘ह’: 1482, ...}}
'瓦': {I': 92, 'D': 97, 'S': {'‘ो’': 1482, ...}}
'O': {I': 1552, 'D': 15, 'S': {'‘य’: 397, ...}}
'S': {I': 0, 'D': 33, 'S': {}
}
+ +# C HRL-ELRL lexical similarity measurement + +Figure 7 shows the lexical similarity between HRL and related ELRLs for both language families. Lexical similarity is obtained using the longest common subsequence (LCS; Melamed (1995)). + +# D Datasets + +Detailed statistics of datasets used in our experiments are shown in Table 9. For performing analysis on less-related language, we use the general test set of IndicTrans2 (AI4Bharat et al., 2023) for Bodo and FLORES200 test set for Tamil. For + +![](images/4e3203eae7c1a819dfe34598de2efee265b613249ed669bacf77ee4dca297c1f.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/773f13ce05725a5adcb18b943109c8a0f0041ec267bebe1eb8e489eb4b0baadf.jpg) +Figure 6: Top is a template for the character candidate pool $\mathbf{S}_c$ . The operations are: insertion $(I)$ , deletion $(D)$ and substitution $(S)$ . The character $c_i$ represents the $i^{th}$ element of $\mathcal{S}_c$ , which is an HRL character, $c_1', \ldots, c_k'$ denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and $f$ is the associated frequencies. The Bottom shows a few sample elements of the $\mathbf{S}_c$ . +(b) +Figure 7: Lexical similarity heatmap between HRL and its related ELRLs. Fig. (a) depicts a similarity score for the Indo-Aryan family where HRL is Hindi. Fig. (b) depicts a similarity score for the Romance family where HRL is Spanish. Note: Darker color denotes more similarity. + +OBPE baseline, we use a dev set of FLORES-200 consisting of 997 as a monolingual corpus for learning the overlap vocabulary. + +# E Implementation Details + +Our vanilla NMT model is based on standard transformer architecture consisting of 6 encoder and decoder layers. We trained our model for a maximum epoch of 15. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer with $\beta_{1} = 0.9$ and $\beta_{2} = 0.98$ . We set a learning rate of 0.0005. We use a dropout of 0.2. We performed data normalization and preprocessing using IndicNLP library4. We perform our experiments using fairseq5 library. For evaluation we use the lexical match-based BLEU metric6 (Pa + +
Languages#Dev#TestHRLSource
bho, mag, mai, npi, awa, san, kas, hne9971012hiFLORES-200
ast, cat, glg, oci9971012esFLORES-200
HR Lang Pair#Train# Dev#TestSource
hi-en10.1M9971012AI4Bharat
es-en6.6M9971012Rapp (2021)
+ +Table 9: Dataset statistics and language details + +pineni et al., 2002), $\mathrm{chrF}^7$ (Popovic, 2015) metric, semantic-based BLEURT8 (Sellam et al., 2020), and COMET9 (Pu et al., 2021) metrics. + +# F Sample Translations + +Fig. 8 presents sample translations from Random Character Noise, SELECTNOISE and Supervised Character Noise injection models. + +
BHO: रूप्व केहोँ पाथस्मा,तुका केरागपिकोयपिक रेशेयपि रागपिक रहोँ प्रधान सेलन्दीपय रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू��िक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक वस्थिके +ENG: The announcement was made after Trump had a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
RCN: Trump opened up about the phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
UCN: After a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump announced his decision.
SCN: Trump's announcement came after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
HNE: पूललमह बलाटयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके +ENG: Police said that the body appeared to have been there for about a day.
RCN: The police said the body had been lying on the ground for the past few days.
UCN: The police said the bodies had been lying on the road for the past few days.
SCN: The police said the body had been lying for the past several days.
GLG: A ONU samén ten previsto create un fondo para axudar aes paises afectados polo quentamento global a afrontar o seu impacto.
ENG: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
RCN: The UN is also planning to set up a fund to tax years of countries affected by global pole to cope with or have an impact.
UCN: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
SCN: The UN also plans to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global warming to face up to their impact.
AST: Munchos cudadianos de Bishkek acusaron a los manifestantes sureños del desorde.
ENG: Several Bishkek residents blamed protesters from the south for the lawlessness.
RCN: Cubans of Bishkek accused southern protestors of the deorde.
UCN: Many people in Bishkek accused the Swiss demonstrators of disorder.
SCN: Many people in Bishkek accused southern demonstrators of disorder.
+ +Figure 8: Sample translations from various models for ELRLs to English MT direction. RCN: Random Character Noise injection model, UCN: Unsupervised Character Noise injection model (i.e., SELECTNOISE model) and SCN: Supervised Character Noise injection model. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/images.zip b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06d243a5a64ad884fd2ed3d696b155219b40a879 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:96ffdf50d2b1c15a3ef657a4b23a7fdd689473cfa006e9a18e38e9bf01e2e792 +size 843974 diff --git a/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/layout.json b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8d09debbe22100495e87b6648fea77724af76d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SelectNoise_ Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11563 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 74, + 504, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 74, + 504, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 74, + 504, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection to Enable Zero-Shot Machine Translation for Extremely Low-resource Languages" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 119, + 503, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 119, + 503, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 119, + 503, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maharaj Brahma* Kaushal Kumar Maurya* Maunendra Sankar Desarkar \nNatural Language and Information Processing Lab (NLIP) \nIndian Institute of Technology Hyderabad \nHyderabad, India" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 177, + 499, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 177, + 499, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 177, + 499, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{cs23resch01004,cs18resch11003}@iith.ac.in,maunendra@cse.iith.ac.in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we focus on the task of machine translation (MT) from extremely low-resource language (ELRLs) to English. The unavailability of parallel data, lack of representation from large multilingual pre-trained models, and limited monolingual data hinder the development of MT systems for ELRLs. However, many ELRLs often share lexical similarities with high-resource languages (HRLs) due to factors such as dialectical variations, geographical proximity, and language structure. We utilize this property to improve cross-lingual signals from closely related HRL to enable MT for ELRLs. Specifically, we propose a novel unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, based on selective candidate extraction and noise injection to generate noisy HRLs training data. The noise injection acts as a regularizer, and the model trained with noisy data learns to handle lexical variations such as spelling, grammar, and vocabulary changes, leading to improved cross-lingual transfer to ELRLs. The selective candidates are extracted using BPE merge operations and edit operations, and noise injection is performed using greedy, top-p, and top-k sampling strategies. We evaluate the proposed model on 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 benchmark in a zero-shot setting across two language families. The proposed model outperformed all the strong baselines, demonstrating its efficacy. It has comparable performance with the supervised noise injection model. Our code and model are publicly available1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 155, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 155, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 642, + 155, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 292, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 292, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 292, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The modern neural machine translation (NMT; Aharoni et al. (2019); Garcia et al. (2021); Siddhant et al. (2022)) has achieved remarkable performance for many languages, but their performance heavily relies on the availability of large parallel or mono" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 509, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 509, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 509, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 212, + 509, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f3af30a9b40182fc7d75937f2df6840f92a35ee40aabc9d6bfc489c8f9406083.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 286, + 509, + 352 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 286, + 509, + 352 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 286, + 509, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 286, + 509, + 352 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6e9d7f4828babc9525170700ce6816af5281a96587796830d033bf0ddcf95578.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 527, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 527, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 527, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Illustration of character noise injection with random baseline (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022) and propose SELECTNOISE model. The SELECTNOISE enhances lexical similarity between noisy HRL (N-HIN) and ELRL (BHO). ENG: English, HIN: Hindi, N-HIN: Noisy Hindi and BHO: Bhojpuri languages. Red: Insertion, Blue: Deletion and Green: Substitution operations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 526, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 526, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 526, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lingual corpora (Koehn and Knowles, 2017). However, the linguistic diversity across the world is vast, with over 7000 languages spoken2. This linguistic landscape includes a long tail of languages (Joshi et al., 2020) that face significant challenges due to the lack of available resources for model development and are referred as extremely low-resource languages (ELRLs). ELRLs present unique challenges for the development of MT systems as they lack parallel datasets, are excluded from large multilingual pre-trained language models, and possess limited monolingual datasets. Consequently, the majority of research efforts in NMT have primarily focused on resource-rich languages (Bender, 2019), leaving ELRLs with limited attention and fewer viable solutions. Towards these concerns, this work is positioned as a step towards enabling MT technology for ELRLs. Primarily focused on zero-shot setting for scalability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 525, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "More recently, there has been active research to develop MT systems for LRLs. One direction is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 443, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 443, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 443, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2https://www.ethnologue.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 740, + 162, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 740, + 162, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 740, + 162, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal contributions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1code and model checkpoints link: https://github. com/maharajbrahma/selectnoise" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1615" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 819 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 819 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 819 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1615-1629 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "multilingual training-based models (Aharoni et al., 2019; Garcia et al., 2021; Siddhant et al., 2022). These models are trained with multiple HRL languages, enabling cross-lingual transfer capabilities to improve translation performance for LRLs. Another line of work focuses on data augmentation techniques (Sennrich et al., 2016a; Wang et al., 2018) to generate more training data. However, these methods do not fully exploit the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs. Many HRLs and ELRLs exhibit surface-level lexical similarities due to dialect variations, loan words, and geographical proximity (Khemchandani et al., 2021). For example, the word \"Monday\" is somvar in Hindi and somar in Bhojpuri. They are lexically very similar. To leverage this lexical similarity, recent studies have explored techniques like learning overlapping vocabulary (Patil et al., 2022) or injecting random noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023) in HRLs to resemble LRLs. These methods are only evaluated for natural language understanding tasks (NLU) and not for MT, which is a more challenging task. Inspired by these advancements, in this paper, we propose a novel unsupervised noise injection approach to develop an MT system for ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed model is based on character noise injection and consists of two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction phase, candidate characters are extracted in an unsupervised manner using small monolingual data from closely related HRL and ELRLs. It relies on BPE merge operations and edit operations that take into account lexical similarity and linguistic properties. In the noise injection phase, noise is injected into the source side of parallel data of HRL using greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling algorithms. This noise injection serves as a regularizer and a model trained with this noisy HRL data enhances robustness to spelling, grammar, or vocabulary changes and facilitates improved cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs. The evaluation is done in the zero-shot setting, ensuring scalability. The proposed model is referred as the SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Selective Noise Injection model. Fig. 1 illustrates the effect of noise injection with SELECTNOISE model. In this paper, we investigate two hypotheses: (a) the selective noise injection model is expected to outperform random noise injection, and (b) the performance of the selective (unsupervised) noise injection model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "should be comparable to the supervised noise injection model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 100, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 100, + 526, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 100, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our key contributions are: (1) We propose a novel unsupervised selective character noise injection approach, SELECTNOISE, to enable and improve MT for ELRLs to English. The injection of selective candidate noise facilitates better cross-lingual transfer for ELRLs in the zero-shot setting. (2) We have developed an unsupervised mechanism to extract candidate characters based on BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, the noise injection employs greedy, top-k, and top-p sampling techniques, ensuring diversity. (3) We evaluated the model's performance using 12 ELRLs from the FLORES-200 evaluation set across two typologically diverse language families. Evaluations were conducted with both automated and human evaluation metrics. (4) The proposed model outperformed all baselines and has comparable performance with the supervised selective noise injection-based MT model. Additionally, we performed several analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 396, + 390, + 411 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 396, + 390, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 396, + 390, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section presents the details of the proposed SELECTNOISE model. As discussed in section 1, the SELECTNOISE model has two stages: Selective Candidate Extraction and Noise Injection. In the selective candidate extraction stage, the noise injection candidate characters are extracted through an unsupervised approach. Specifically, we consider small monolingual data for HRL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and for related (lexically similar) LRLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " comprises small monolingual datasets from multiple extremely ELRLs. During the process of building the Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) vocabulary, we extract the BPE operations separately for the HRL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and ELRLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Next, we design an algorithm " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to extract selective candidate characters from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and store them in candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathcal{C}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Candidates are extracted with an approach inspired by edit-operations. In other words, we obtain " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathcal{C}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a result of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}, \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In noise injection stage, the candidates are sampled from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathcal{C}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and injected into the source sentences of HRL corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{H})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the large parallel data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(h,e)|lang(h) = \\mathcal{H}, lang(e) = En\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The injections are done using a noise function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\eta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", resulting in a noise-injected (augmented) parallel data: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(\\hat{h}, e)|lang(\\hat{h}) = \\hat{\\mathcal{H}}, lang(e) =" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1616" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 502, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 502, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 502, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 71, + 502, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3ceda894b112a883e5405b839bbbfeba8e9909617cf4e3a217c87b89f22e89da.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 236, + 480, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 236, + 480, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 236, + 480, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model for extremely low-resource MT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathit{En}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}} = \\eta (\\mathcal{H})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " acts as proxy training data for ELRLs. A BPE vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is learned with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then, we train the standard encoder-decoder transformers model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{M};" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Vaswani et al. (2017b) from scratch with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain trained model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, zero-shot evaluation is done for ELRLs with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Now, we present details of each model component. The overview of the proposed SELECTNOISE model is depicted in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 267, + 443 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 267, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 267, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The formal procedure for unsupervised noise injection is presented in Algorithm 1. In the next subsections, we will deep dive into each stage of the proposed model in details:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 248, + 525 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 248, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 248, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1.1 Selective Candidate Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The first stage in the proposed approach involves extracting candidate characters that will subsequently be utilized for noise injection. Given " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we extract all BPE merge operations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. Each merge operation consists of tuples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle (p,q) \\rangle \\in \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle (r,s) \\rangle \\in \\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We pair each merge tuple of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with each tuple of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (i.e., cartesian setup). If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " merge operations, respectively, we obtain a total of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = m \\cdot n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " pairs. We consider only those pairs where either " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the same while discarding the rest. For the considered tuples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle (p,q), (r,s) \\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we calculate the character-level edit-distance operations between non-similar elements of the tuple. For instance, if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the same, the edit operations are obtained using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " elements. These operations are collected in the candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which includes insertions," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 524, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 524, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 524, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "deletions, and substitutions, and are referred to as the selective candidates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed, the extracted selective candidates are stored in the candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Sc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a dictionary data structure encompassing HRL and ELRL characters. The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Sc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consists of HRL characters, ELRL characters, edit operations, and their respective frequencies. An element of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Sc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has following template: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i} : \\{I : f_{ins}, D : f_{del}, S : \\{c_{1}' : f_{1}, c_{2}' : f_{2}, c_{k}' : f_{k}\\} \\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The operations are: insertion (I), deletion (D) and substitution (S). The character " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " element of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Sc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is an HRL character, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{1}' \\ldots c_{k}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the associated frequencies. A few examples of selective candidate extraction are illustrated in Fig. 3. Sample candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Sc)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is shown in Fig. 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intuitively, with this candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we have learned transformative entities that can be used to resemble an HRL to lexically similar ELRLs, which results in bridging the lexical gap between HRL and LRLs. Training with such modified HRL data enhances the effectiveness of cross-lingual transfer signals for ELRLs. As candidates are extracted by considering the vocabulary word-formation strategy from BPE and edit operations, they indirectly consider the linguistic cues/information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 448, + 674 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 448, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 448, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1.2 Noise Injection to HRL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the second stage, we sample selective candidates from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and inject into the source sentences of HRL corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{H})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the parallel dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(h,e)|lang(h) = \\mathcal{H},lang(e) = En\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using a noise function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\eta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", resulting in a noise injected (augmented) parallel dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\{(\\hat{h},e)|lang(\\hat{h}) = \\hat{\\mathcal{H}},lang(e) = En\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}} = \\eta(\\mathcal{H})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Details of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1617" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 68, + 267, + 215 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 68, + 267, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 68, + 267, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 68, + 267, + 215 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b09eaac1805df5313f24435707cc7750d6520ff966507f6a90be1a495d8ecabe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of selective candidates extraction for noise injection that utilizes BPE merge and edit operations. Here " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicate insertion, deletion, and substitution respectively. Frequencies are associated with operations. 0 indicates the corresponding edit operation was not extracted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 289, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 289, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 289, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the noise function and candidate sampling strategy are presented below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noise Function: The noise injection function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\eta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is designed as follows: Initially, we randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\% - 10\\%^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of character indices from a sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s \\in \\mathcal{H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Subsequently, we uniformly choose between insertion, deletion, or substitution operations with equal probability. If the selected operation is insertion or substitution, we sample a candidate character from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to perform the noise injection operation. For deletion, the charter is simply deleted. These steps are repeated for all sentences in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain the final " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Candidate Character Sampling: While noise injection for deletion operation, we simply delete the character. For insertion and substitution, we sample the candidate character for injection from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the greedy, top-p (nucleus), and top-k sampling techniques inspired by decoding algorithms commonly employed in NLG (Holtzman et al., 2019). Before applying these sampling techniques, the frequencies of the candidate characters are transformed into probability scores using the softmax operation. Intuitively, with the sampling technique, we aim to explore not only frequent candidate characters but also diverse candidates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The performance of any learning model depends on the quality of the training data. The presence of noise hampers the learning, and the outputs of the learned model exhibit the different nuances of the noise present in the data. In our specific case: (i) We train a model using data that contains noise, resulting in the model's increased robustness to minor lexical variations in different languages, par" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ticularly those related to ELRLs. (ii) The noise is added for a small portion of characters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(5 - 10\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", making the HRLs training data closely resemble how sentences appear in ELRLs. As a result, the model is able to do a robust cross-lingual transfer to the ELRL in a zero-shot setting. In another perspective, the injection of noise acts as a regularizer (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022), contributing to an overall enhancement in the model's performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 455, + 219 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 455, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 455, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Supervised Noise Injection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 525, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 525, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 525, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have also investigated in a supervised setting akin to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach. The key distinction lies in how the candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 525, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{sc}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 525, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is derived from a limited parallel dataset between HRL and ELRLs. For each HRL and ELRL pair," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 340 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 524, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 SELECTNOISE: Unsupervised Noise Injection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Require: [Inputs] HRL monolingual data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; closely related ELRLs monolingual data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; number of merge operations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; HRL parallel data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}}(\\mathcal{H},En)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; Noise injection percentage range " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[p_1\\% - p_2\\%]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; candidate sampling strategy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ensure: [Output] Noisy source HRL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_c =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS( " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}},\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nfor sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do idxs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indices of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for idx in idxs do ops " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sample candidate char, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}(\\mathcal{S}_{c},\\mathrm{ops})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Perform operation ops at index idx with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " end if end for \nend for \nprocedure EXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(DH,D,L,Mo) Initialize candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}\\gets \\emptyset" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to store candidates Compute merge operations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}} = \\mathrm{BPE}(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{H}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Compute merge operations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}} = \\mathrm{BPE}(\\mathcal{D}_{\\mathcal{L}},\\mathcal{M}_{\\mathcal{O}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{B}_{\\mathcal{L}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\triangleright" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tuple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle (p,q)\\rangle ,m =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tuple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle (r,s)\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equals " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " not equals " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " not equals " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ) then No operation is performed with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " end if if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equals " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then Compute edit-operations(q,s)&update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " end if if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " equals " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then Compute edit-operations(p,r)&update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " end if end for end for Return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend procedure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "after conducting several ablation experiments, this range provides the best performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1618" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 248, + 84 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 248, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 248, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 2 Supervised Noise Injection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Require: [Inputs] joint parallel data for all considered HRL-ELRL pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_S(S,\\mathcal{E}_L)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ; HRL parallel data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\mathcal{H}}(\\mathcal{H},En)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " noise injection percentage range " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ; candidate sampling strategy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nEnsure: [Output] Noisy source HRL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{sc} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) \nfor sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{H}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do idxs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[p_1\\% -p_2\\% ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indices of s for idx in idxs do ops " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " randomly sample operation {insert, delete, substitute} if ops equals delete then Remove character at index idx end if if ops equals Insert or ops equals substitute then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sample candidate char, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_{\\mathcal{M}}(\\mathcal{S}_{sc},ops)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Perform operation ops at index idx with c end if end for \nend for \nprocedure SUPEXTRACTSELECTIVECANDS(PS) Initialize candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{sc}\\gets \\emptyset" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to store candidates for each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle (s,e)\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do Compute edit-operations(s,e) & update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{sc}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " end for return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{sc}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 86, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nend procedure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "we extract a candidate set using edit operations and subsequently combine all the candidate sets in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The rest of the modeling steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE. We hypothesize that the unsupervised method should exhibit competitive performance compared to the supervised approach. In the supervised candidate extraction, we assume the availability of a limited amount of parallel data of approximately 1000 examples. A formal algorithm outlining in the Algorithm 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 289, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Model Training and Zero-shot Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The stranded encoder-decoder transformers model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{M})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is trained from scratch using the noisy highresource parallel dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain a trained model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is learned BPE vocabulary with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{P}}_{\\mathcal{H}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Subsequently, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to perform zero-shot generation for ELRLs. We have not used any parallel training data for ELRLs and directly employ " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathcal{M}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for inference, making this modeling setup zero-shot. The trained model transfers knowledge across languages, enabling coherent and meaningful translation for ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 191, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 191, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 191, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We designed our experimental setup to address the following set of questions: (1) Does noise injection improve performance for NLG tasks, i.e., MT in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "our case? (2) Does selective noise injection with the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperform the random noise injection model (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022)? (3) Does the model's performance persist across different language families? and (4) Does the unsupervised SELECTNOISE model demonstrate competitive performance with supervised approach? Based on these research questions, we have designed our experimental setup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 370, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 370, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 370, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The primary constraint of the proposed approach is to select closely related HRLs and ELRLs. With this criterion in mind, we have chosen two language families: Indo-Aryan and Romance. Within the Indo-Aryan family, we have selected Hindi (hi) as the HRL and 8 ELRLs were Awadhi (awa), Bhojpuri (bho), Chhattisgarhi (hne), Kashmiri (kas), Magahi (mag), Maithili (mai), Nepali (npi), and Sanskrit (san), based on their lexical similarity. For the Romance family, Spanish (es) served as the HRL, and the 4 ELRLs were Asturian (ast), Catalan (cat), Galician (glg), and Occitan (oci). We conducted separate experiments for each language family, training the model with the HRL to English MT task and evaluating it in a zero-shot setting with corresponding ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In total, we have 3 HRLs (English, Hindi, and Spanish) and 12 ELRLs. All the test datasets are sourced from FLORES-200 (NLLB Team, 2022), while the hi-en dataset is obtained from AI4Bharat (Ramesh et al., 2022), and the es-en dataset is from Rapp (2021). The development set of FLORES-200 was utilized as a parallel dataset for supervised noise injection. A small amount of monolingual data was used for SELECTNOISE and other baseline methods. Here, we used 1000 examples for each ELRL. Detailed dataset statistics and data sources are presented in Appendix D. In Appendix C, we provide an overview of the lexical similarity between HRLs and ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 636, + 374, + 648 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 636, + 374, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 636, + 374, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the SELECTNOISE model with several strong baselines, including a traditional data augmentation model, lexical similarity-based models, and a model based on random noise injection. Details of each baseline are presented below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Vanilla NMT: A standard transformer-based NMT model (Vaswani et al., 2017a) with BPE algorithm (Sennrich et al., 2016b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1619" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 482, + 146 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 482, + 146 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 482, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 70, + 482, + 146 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsIndo-AryanKasRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpicatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT40.346.822.340.049.347.629.621.333.041.040.733.037.08
Word-drop39.547.221.840.649.047.628.620.637.643.643.436.037.96
BPE-drop39.146.822.640.448.746.729.221.133.841.741.533.037.05
SwitchOut36.143.220.138.245.642.728.318.829.034.934.929.133.41
OBPE41.347.523.441.850.449.730.521.134.141.241.333.838.00
BPE-Dropout39.847.422.539.949.647.729.321.233.240.841.433.037.15
Random Char Noise40.948.423.840.850.047.531.221.940.946.146.438.239.68
", + "image_path": "8320819cccfd90f5b15dfb11383e77483d98f851f8499fb23b988dfc35a1aa05.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 111, + 156, + 481, + 224 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 148, + 326, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 148, + 326, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 148, + 326, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 156, + 481, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 156, + 481, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 156, + 481, + 224 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy42.151.025.243.451.749.933.423.742.047.147.438.541.28
SELECTNOISE + Top-k42.449.926.043.051.048.833.423.341.547.147.838.541.06
SELECTNOISE + Top-p42.049.624.142.450.648.833.623.341.647.147.538.840.78
Supervised Noise Injection Model
Selective noise + Greedy41.449.125.442.250.148.732.922.241.647.247.738.740.60
Selective noise + Top-k41.749.326.343.350.848.734.223.641.946.847.538.741.10
Selective noise + Top-p41.449.927.343.351.648.933.923.441.647.748.239.041.35
", + "image_path": "052a4ae7a40c5dbc5b71133ab36bc01ddf302ae8e064c13f22bd2a1691a8e6ae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 246, + 477, + 323 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 227, + 415, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 227, + 415, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 178, + 227, + 415, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Zero-shot chrF (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 246, + 477, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 246, + 477, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 246, + 477, + 323 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsbhohnesanIndo-AryanawanpikascatRomanceAverage
maimagglgastoci
Vanilla NMT11.117.22.710.118.518.35.12.65.310.112.35.29.86
Word-drop8.713.71.97.715.216.13.01.66.910.713.36.58.76
BPE-drop10.816.12.710.017.217.84.02.15.19.111.24.79.23
SwitchOut4.37.71.44.98.47.92.91.23.56.38.23.85.04
OBPE11.116.62.910.418.719.74.81.96.210.712.96.110.16
BPE-Dropout11.617.53.110.119.318.35.42.55.410.113.05.410.14
Random Char Noise12.818.83.110.219.418.66.32.910.914.317.28.711.93
", + "image_path": "6b83eb6185277dafd1d51a9fd342c1139209ccb98fdbb360c116489e14456038.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 333, + 477, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 324, + 324, + 331 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 324, + 324, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 324, + 324, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 333, + 477, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 333, + 477, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 333, + 477, + 361 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy12.520.13.711.921.220.27.13.010.815.017.49.012.66
SELECTNOISE + Top-k12.319.73.812.020.219.57.22.810.515.017.58.812.44
SELECTNOISE + Top-p12.719.53.811.920.319.66.73.210.714.817.18.912.43
", + "image_path": "aea68c697a5f372fd45efd194244b51d950a43d1f5ff5c6a5b17afd2f23453eb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 372, + 477, + 400 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 363, + 339, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 363, + 339, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 363, + 339, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 372, + 477, + 400 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 372, + 477, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 372, + 477, + 400 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Selective noise + Greedy13.119.54.011.819.619.36.82.410.515.017.98.912.4
Selective noise + Top-k12.719.13.912.220.119.37.02.910.815.017.48.912.44
Selective noise + Top-p12.720.04.112.621.219.77.02.710.515.418.19.112.76
", + "image_path": "87dde98a01b769afcf18c75d217d66f31ae1f99fe1c79ea0a3d8f0fff364e40e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 423, + 500, + 499 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 404, + 418, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 404, + 418, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 404, + 418, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Zero-shot BLEU (↑) scores results for ELRLs → English" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 423, + 500, + 499 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 423, + 500, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 423, + 500, + 499 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.5000.5310.3680.5000.5590.5760.4350.3770.2950.3900.4060.2320.431
Word-drop0.4970.5330.3570.4980.5510.5630.4170.3530.3610.4400.4540.3120.445
BPE-drop0.5060.5370.3670.5090.5570.5720.4220.3630.3160.4150.4320.2830.440
SwitchOut0.4110.4460.3180.4150.4670.4660.380.3350.2780.3370.3470.2620.372
OBPE0.5020.5250.3710.5020.5610.5830.4360.3810.3060.4040.4160.2660.438
BPE-Dropout0.5010.5260.3710.4970.5580.5740.4390.3930.3000.3890.4100.2310.432
Random Char Noise0.5210.5470.3710.5010.5690.5840.4410.3800.3910.4870.4910.3190.467
", + "image_path": "0e2dc451c32dd1527dde40bd47644d8cd9dfc98c48fe22753cc7fc865afc3158.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 510, + 500, + 538 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 502, + 324, + 508 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 502, + 324, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 502, + 324, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 510, + 500, + 538 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 510, + 500, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 510, + 500, + 538 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.5250.5630.3860.5110.5780.6060.4580.3940.3920.4990.5110.3190.478
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.5240.5580.3860.5070.5760.5990.4540.3880.4000.4970.5160.3210.477
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.5270.5990.3720.5050.5730.5990.4570.3910.3990.5010.5090.3210.479
", + "image_path": "281d015f5731e87bd1cd6201e3af5edd214fcf736dddc2043df93d508371116b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 549, + 500, + 577 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 539, + 339, + 547 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 539, + 339, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 539, + 339, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 549, + 500, + 577 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 549, + 500, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 549, + 500, + 577 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Selective noise + Greedy0.5270.5600.3890.5070.5720.6000.4510.3810.3920.4990.5110.3190.476
Selective noise + Top-k0.5260.5490.4010.5090.5730.4630.4630.3900.4000.4940.5060.3260.467
Selective noise + Top-p0.5240.5580.4000.5100.5840.4550.4550.3860.3910.5010.5120.3210.466
", + "image_path": "59d47c211dca0615386cc4288cb11fbbb8e89051f02458dbb013c5290b92b369.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 600, + 500, + 677 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 581, + 424, + 592 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 581, + 424, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 581, + 424, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Zero-shot BLEURT (↑) scores results for ELRLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 581, + 424, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 169, + 581, + 424, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " English" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 600, + 500, + 677 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 600, + 500, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 600, + 500, + 677 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsIndo-AryanRomanceAverage
bhohnesanmaimagawanpikascatglgastoci
Vanilla NMT0.6420.6760.4710.6210.7110.7360.5420.3870.4990.5340.4970.4080.560
Word-drop0.6590.7020.4940.6500.7250.7470.5640.4090.4840.5510.5380.4210.579
BPE-drop0.6530.6870.4970.6450.7110.7320.5540.4000.4380.5150.5050.3890.560
SwitchOut0.5650.6050.4620.5640.6260.6320.5330.3940.4050.4610.4450.3620.504
OBPE0.6640.6760.4520.6300.7070.7400.5440.3920.4560.5240.5010.4000.557
BPE-Dropout0.6440.6720.4710.6160.7100.7330.5370.3810.5030.5340.5000.4110.559
Random Char Noise0.6730.7000.4920.6410.7250.7460.5590.4010.5220.6100.5840.4410.591
", + "image_path": "7fc2e837f9d4cf1c0ca08f5cb0b27dc87521e6b86556f4c286a7980500148ea4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 687, + 500, + 715 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 678, + 324, + 685 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 678, + 324, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 267, + 678, + 324, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECTNOISE Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 687, + 500, + 715 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 687, + 500, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 687, + 500, + 715 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SELECTNOISE + Greedy0.6720.7140.4930.6470.7350.7650.5750.4120.5230.6200.5980.4340.599
SELECTNOISE + Top-k0.6780.7080.5040.6490.7300.7580.5850.4190.5240.6210.6030.4380.601
SELECTNOISE + Top-p0.6770.5590.5020.6430.7300.7580.5860.4110.5260.6250.6000.4420.588
", + "image_path": "0731c5a6752240aea17030a80b0165fe9a3f818a58ff18645d0d6129dfd3933b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 725, + 500, + 754 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 716, + 339, + 724 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 716, + 339, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 716, + 339, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supervised Noise Injection Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 725, + 500, + 754 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 725, + 500, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 725, + 500, + 754 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Selective noise + Greedy0.6810.7110.5050.6490.7280.7610.5820.4110.5220.6180.6030.4410.601
Selective noise + Top-k0.6770.7000.5060.6550.7030.7570.5810.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.598
Selective noise + Top-p0.6800.7080.5110.6550.7380.7560.5890.4140.5220.6230.6050.4390.603
", + "image_path": "f738efbfc70a3060d758c15b2ae0904d6f0fd43406f4e26a1d7807771a534a55.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 757, + 423, + 769 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 757, + 423, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 757, + 423, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Zero-shot COMET (↑) scores results for ELRLs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 757, + 423, + 769 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 757, + 423, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " English" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1620" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 258, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 258, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 258, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 258, + 163 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsLanguages
bhosannpi
Annotator set-1
Vanilla NMT3.542.422.21
BPE Dropout3.292.371.83
SELECTNOISE Model4.172.832.50
Annotator set-2
Vanilla NMT3.421.962.17
BPE Dropout2.791.831.96
SELECTNOISE Model3.542.172.21
", + "image_path": "edb5cbfc36374b4da4f66e663709d53c7ffedf53970038d2c15a047230886bb9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 165, + 272, + 177 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 165, + 272, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 165, + 272, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Human evaluation results - Average score" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 193, + 292, + 622 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 193, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 193, + 290, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 193, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Word-drop (Sennrich et al., 2016a): In this baseline, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 193, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 193, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " words embeddings from each sentence of the source HRL is set to zero. This is a data augmentation technique to create training data ELRLs. The rest of the steps are similar to the SELECTNOISE model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 285, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 285, + 291, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 285, + 291, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- BPE-drop: This approach is similar to the word-drop baseline but uses BPE tokens instead of words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 335, + 292, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 335, + 292, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 335, + 292, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- SwitchOut (Wang et al., 2018): In this baseline, we randomly replace " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 335, + 292, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 335, + 292, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the source and target words with randomly sampled words from their respective vocabularies. We use the officially released implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 412, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 412, + 291, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 412, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- OBPE (Patil et al., 2022): OBPE modifies the learned BPE vocabulary to incorporate overlapping tokens from both HRL and LRLs, even if the token is not frequent. We utilized the official implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 490, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 490, + 291, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 490, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- BPE Dropout (Provilkov et al., 2020): It is based on the BPE algorithm to learn the vocabulary and generates non-deterministic segmentations for input text on-the-fly during training. We use a dropout value of 0.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 568, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 568, + 291, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 568, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Random Char Noise (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022): This baseline methodology is similar to the proposed SELECTNOISE approach; but, noise injections are done randomly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 186, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 186, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 186, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All the model performances are compared using both automated and human evaluation metrics. In line with recent research on MT for LRLs, we employ two types of automated evaluation metrics (NLLB Team, 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Specifically, lexical match-based metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and chrF (Popovic, 2015) and learning-based metrics: BLEURT (Sellam et al., 2020) and COMET (Pu et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further conducted the human evaluation to ensure the reliability of the performance gain. Three languages from the Indo-Aryan family (Bhojpuri, Nepali, and Sanskrit) were selected based on their high, moderate, and low lexical similarity with the HRL (Hindi). To manage the annotators' workload effectively, we limited our evaluation to three models: Vanilla NMT, BPE Dropout, and SELECT-NOISE. For each language, the human evaluation set consisted of 24 examples, and translations were obtained from above mentioned three models. Two annotators were employed for each language to ensure the inter-annotator agreement, and two ratings were obtained for each example from these annotators. All annotators held at least a master's degree, were native speakers of the respective language and demonstrated proficiency in English. We use Crosslingual Semantic Text Similarity (XSTS) metric (Agirre et al., 2012), which is widely adopted in the MT research for human evaluation. The XSTS metric employs a 1-5 evaluation scale, where 1 represents a very bad translation and 5 represents a very good translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 446, + 407 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 446, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 446, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results and Discussions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we will discuss results, observations and findings. The zero-shot automated evaluation scores are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results are reported with greedy, top k " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{k} = 50)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and top-p " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{p} = 0.25)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 419, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling strategies. Table 5 presents the human evaluation results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 527, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECTNOISE vs. Baselines: The proposed and other models that incorporate lexical similarity have demonstrated superior performance compared to the Vanilla NMT model. While general data augmentation techniques like Word-drop and SwitchOut exhibit performance similar to the Vanilla NMT model, they perform poorly when compared to OBPE and BPE-Dropout models. These results indicate the importance of considering monolingual data from ELRLs in the modeling. However, random noise injection and the SELECT-NOISE approach outperform the OBPE and BPE-Dropout models, indicating the effectiveness of noise injection-based modeling techniques. In conclusion, the careful selection of noise candidates, as done in the SELECT-NOISE approach, has outperformed the random noise model (second best) and emerged as the state-of-the-art model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Selective vs. Random Noise injection: Unsupervised selective noise injection approaches exhibit a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1621" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "larger performance gain compared to the random noise injection model. This observation emphasizes the importance of a systematic selective candidate extraction and noise injection process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lexical vs. Learned Evaluation Metrics: We observe a strong correlation between lexical match-based metrics, such as BLEU and chrF scores. Further, semantic-based metrics like BLEURT and COMET exhibit similar trends to lexical match metrics, indicating a high level of correlation. This emphasizes the reliability of evaluation scores." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 290, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automated vs. Human Evaluation: The proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms both baselines in human evaluation across all three languages. The model demonstrates acceptable zero-shot performance for ELRLs, with a strong correlation with automated evaluation scores." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance across Language Families: Unsupervised selective noise injection consistently outperforms all the baselines across ELRLs, with few exceptions. The model exhibits similar performance trends across both language families." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 290, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unsupervised vs. Supervised Noise Injection: The unsupervised SELECTNOISE model performs comparably to the supervised model, with slight variations depending on the language and family. The performance gap between the two models is minimal, indicating their equal strength." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance vs. Sampling Strategies: The performance with different sampling techniques is compared, and it is observed that the greedy approach for SELECTNOISE performs better for the majority of languages. This finding indicates the existence of one-to-one lexical mapping across HRL and ELRLs. However, other sampling approaches are also effective for a subset of ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall Performance: As we can observe from the average automated evaluation scores, the proposed SELECTNOISE model outperforms all the baselines by a significant margin. It also exhibits comparable performance to the supervised model, and this performance persists across different language families. These findings satisfy our hypothesis, leading us to conclude that the proposed SELECTNOISE model is a state-of-the-art model for English-to-ELRLs MT systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 178, + 723 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 178, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 178, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Further Analyses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we perform a detailed analysis with SELECTNOISE to understand factors contributing to performance gain and analyze robustness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 413, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 413, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 413, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 413, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "22695b6b561bfb5b4b4366e2d7f94a7a8712e540e1812c270715b113514e650b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Proposed model performance trends with various k and p values from top-k and top-p sampling respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 417, + 73, + 521, + 163 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 73, + 521, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 73, + 521, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 73, + 521, + 163 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a90f25c45afaeeb2b9eabcb84a8c78569bedd0efc45c3af04c9c0cc9af6e19db.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 330, + 199, + 496, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 199, + 496, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 199, + 496, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 199, + 496, + 274 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LanguageData sizeBLEUchrF
hne99719.549.6
600020.350.3
mai99711.942.4
600012.443.2
npi9976.733.6
60007.233.8
", + "image_path": "3fc1fedd1e91673afbcdddd6a3110f6a25b7dea631aab884ced8ee8ee0a08e40.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 276, + 521, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 276, + 521, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 276, + 521, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Model performance with larger monolingual data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 524, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance Trend with Top-k and Top-p: In Figure 4, the performance trend of the proposed model with varying values of k and p for top-p and top-k sampling is depicted. The candidate pool consists of a maximum of 61 characters (a range for k-value selection). The model performs best with a k-value of 50 and a p-value of 0.25, offering valuable insights for optimizing its performance through parameter selection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of Monolingual data size: The proposed SELECTNOISE model relies on the small monolingual dataset of ELRLs. We investigate the impact of a large monolingual dataset on the model's performance for ELRLs. Table 6 demonstrates that a larger dataset leads to a performance boost, suggesting the extraction of more meaningful noise injection candidates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language similarity Vs. Performance: Figure 5 illustrates the comparative trend of lexical similarity score between ELRLs and HRLs and performance (ChrF score). It can be observed that lexically similar languages boost the model's performance, leading to an improved cross-lingual transfer for the SELECTNOISE model. For example, languages like Kashmiri (kas), which have the lowest similarity, exhibit the lowest performance, whereas Chhattisgarhi, with the highest lexical similarity, demonstrates the highest performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performance with Less related Languages: We evaluate the zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT and proposed SELECTNOISE models with two relatively less lexically similar ELRLs. These two languages belong to distinct language families, namely Bodo (Sino-Tibetan) and Tamil" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1622" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 281, + 225 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 281, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 281, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 71, + 281, + 225 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "99125131454d21e53c780952563ec44c9028f126d591a53e7030d041da2955c5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 259, + 272, + 313 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 236, + 274, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 236, + 274, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 236, + 274, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Language similarity vs. Performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 259, + 272, + 313 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 259, + 272, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 259, + 272, + 313 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LanguageModelBLEUchrF
BodoVanilla NMT2.418.2
SELECTNOISE2.718.7
TamilVanilla NMT0.611.7
SELECTNOISE0.913.3
", + "image_path": "526f1465c9565eea4319a3d9e793233d353ba38c3e488a17acf5c7f3f5f0ecb2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 290, + 338 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 290, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 290, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Zero-shot translation performance of Vanilla NMT vs. SELECTNOISE on less related LRLs with HRL (Hindi)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Travidian). Bodo has Devanagari script, while Tamil employs script conversion to match HRL (Hindi) script. The results are reported in Table 7. It is observed that the performance gain is minimal due to the dissimilarity of ELRLs with the corresponding HRL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 161, + 452 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 161, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 161, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MT for Low-resource Languages: Limited parallel corpora for many LRLs lead to active research in multilingual MT. These are grounded with transfer learning to enable cross-lingual transfer (Nguyen and Chiang, 2017; Zoph et al., 2016) and allow related languages to learn from each other (Fan et al., 2021; Costa-jussà et al., 2022; Siddhant et al., 2022). Further, these approaches can be extended by grouping training data based on relatedness (Neubig and Hu, 2018) or clustering similar languages (Tan et al., 2019) to improve performance for LRLs. In another direction, monolingual corpora are combined with parallel corpora to enhance translation quality (Currey et al., 2017) or used for unsupervised NMT (Artetxe et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2020), reducing the reliance on parallel data. Back-translated data is also widely utilized for training MT systems for LRLs (Sugiyama and Yoshinaga, 2019; Edunov et al., 2018). More recently, models powered by large multilingual pretrained language models (mLLMs) enable MT with limited language resources (NLLB Team, 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). These models have shown ac" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ceptable performance for many LRLs. However, adapting these models to ELRLs is challenging because they often lack parallel data, have limited monolingual data, and are absent from mPLMs. In contrast, we propose a model that only requires a small monolingual data (1000 examples)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data Augmentation for Low-resource MT: The limited availability of parallel data leads to a wide range of data augmentation approaches (Zhang et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2019; Cotterell and Kreutzer, 2018). Traditional approaches include perturbation at the word level, such as word dropout (Sennrich et al., 2016a), word replacement (Wang et al., 2018) and soft-decoupling (SDE; Wang et al. (2019)) to improve the cross-lingual transfer for LRLs. Such perturbation acts as a regularizer and enhances robustness to spelling variations; however, their impact is limited (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022). In a different research direction, noise injection-based modeling (Sperber et al., 2017; Karpukhin et al., 2019) has been explored to test the robustness of MT systems. More recently, lexical match-based models have been explored to improve the cross-lingual transfer by vocabulary overlapping (Patil et al., 2022), non-deterministic segmentation (Provilkov et al., 2020) and noise injection (Aepli and Sennrich, 2022; Blaschke et al., 2023). In contrast to these methods, we propose a linguistically inspired systematic noise injection approach for ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 381, + 505 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 381, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 381, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This study presents an effective unsupervised approach, SELECTNOISE, for cross-lingual transfer from HRLs to closely related ELRLs through systematic character noise injection. The approach involves extracting selective noise injection candidates using BPE merge operations and edit operations. Furthermore, different sampling techniques are explored during the noise injection to ensure diverse candidate sampling. The model required only a small (1K example) monolingual data in ELRLs. The proposed model consistently outperformed strong baselines across 12 ELRLs from two diverse language families in the ELRLs-to-English MT task. The cumulative gain is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (chrF) over vanilla NMT. Furthermore, the model demonstrated comparative performance to a supervised noise injection model. In the future, we will extend SELECTNOISE to English-to-ELRL MT task, as well as other NLG tasks and languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1623" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 293, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 293, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 293, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The present study is based on the assumption of closely related high-resource languages and extremely low-resource languages to facilitate improved cross-lingual transfer. However, the proposed method may not be effective for ELRLs that have a different script and lack a script conversion or transliteration tool. Additionally, the model's performance may be suboptimal for languages that share the same script but exhibit significant lexical differences, such as Hindi and Bodo. Furthermore, this study focuses on ELRLs to English translation, and it remains to be explored whether the noise injection approach is beneficial for the English to ELRLs translation task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 296, + 170, + 309 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 296, + 170, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 296, + 170, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all human evaluators whose meticulous assessment of the translation performance of the proposed model and various baselines played a pivotal role in the success of this research. Furthermore, we wish to express our deep appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and the esteemed meta-reviewer for their invaluable and insightful suggestions, which greatly improve the quality of the manuscript." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 465, + 127, + 477 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 465, + 127, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 465, + 127, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noëmi Aeipli and Rico Senrich. 2022. Improving zero-shot cross-lingual transfer between closely related languages by injecting character-level noise. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 4074–4083, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 562, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 562, + 291, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 562, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics – Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), pages 385–393, Montréal, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roee Aharoni, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan First. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3874-3884, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 161 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "AI4Bharat, Jay Gala, Pranjal A. Chitale, Raghavan AK, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Varun Gumma, Aswanth Kumar, Janki Nawale, Anupama Sujatha, Ratish Puduppully, Vivek Raghavan, Pratyush Kumar, Mitesh M. Khapra, Raj Dabre, and Anoop Kunchukuttan. 2023. Indictrans2: Towards high-quality and accessible machine translation models for all 22 scheduled indian languages. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2305.16307." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 526, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, Eneko Agirre, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Unsupervised neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emily Bender. 2019. The# benderrule: On naming the languages we study and why it matters. The Gradient, 14." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 269, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 269, + 526, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 269, + 526, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Verena Blaschke, Hinrich Schütze, and Barbara Plank. 2023. Does manipulating tokenization aid crosslingual transfer? a study on POS tagging for non-standardized languages. In Tenth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (Vardial 2023), pages 40-54, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marta R Costa-jussa, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ryan Cotterell and Julia Kreutzer. 2018. Explaining and generalizing back-translation through wake-sleep. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04402." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 544 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anna Currey, Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone, and Kenneth Heafield. 2017. Copied monolingual data improves low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Machine Translation, pages 148-156, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sergey Edunov, Myle Ott, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. 2018. Understanding back-translation at scale. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 489-500, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 526, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 526, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 629, + 526, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angela Fan, Shruti Bhosale, Holger Schwenk, Zhiyi Ma, Ahmed El-Kishky, Siddharth Goyal, Mandeep Baines, Onur Celebi, Guillaume Wenzek, Vishrav Chaudhary, et al. 2021. Beyond english-centric multilingual machine translation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22(107):1-48." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Gao, Jinhua Zhu, Lijun Wu, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Xueqi Cheng, Wengang Zhou, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Soft contextual data augmentation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5539-5544." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1624" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xavier Garcia, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, and Ankur Parikh. 2021. Harnessing multilinguality in unsupervised machine translation for rare languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1126-1137, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 169, + 290, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 169, + 290, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 169, + 290, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. CoRR, abs/1904.09751." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the NLP world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282-6293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 290, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 290, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 297, + 290, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Omer Levy, Jacob Eisenstein, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2019. Training on synthetic noise improves robustness to natural noise in machine translation. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019), pages 42-47, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yash Khemchandani, Sarvesh Mehtani, Vaidehi Patil, Abhijeet Awasthi, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2021. Exploiting language relatedness for low web-resource language model adaptation: An Indic languages study. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1312-1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 290, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philipp Koehn and Rebecca Knowles. 2017. Six challenges for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Neural Machine Translation, pages 28-39, Vancouver. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 290, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I. Dan Melamed. 1995. Automatic evaluation and uniform filter cascades for inducing n-best translation lexicons. In Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Graham Neubig and Junjie Hu. 2018. Rapid adaptation of neural machine translation to new languages. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 875-880, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 225 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 525, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Toan Q. Nguyen and David Chiang. 2017. Transfer learning across low-resource, related languages for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 296-301, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 525, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James Cross Onur Celebi Maha Elbayad Kenneth Heafield Kevin Heffernan Elahe Kalbassi Janice Lam Daniel Licht Jean Maillard Anna Sun Skyler Wang Guillaume Wenzek Al Youngblood Bapi Akula Loic Barrault Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez Prangthip Hansanti John Hoffman Semarley Jarrett Kaushik Ram Sadagopan Dirk Rowe Shannon Spruit Chau Tran Pierre Andrews Necip Fazil Ayan Shruti Bhosale Sergey Edunov Angela Fan Cynthia Gao Vedanuj Goswami Francisco Guzmán Philipp Koehn Alexandre Mourachko Christophe Ropers Safiyyah Saleem Holger Schwenk Jeff Wang NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 396, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 396, + 525, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 396, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vaidehi Patil, Partha Talukdar, and Sunita Sarawagi. 2022. Overlap-based vocabulary generation improves cross-lingual transfer among related languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 219–233, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 525, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Provilkov, Dmitrii Emelianenko, and Elena Voita. 2020. BPE-dropout: Simple and effective subword regularization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1882-1892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 708, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 708, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 708, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amy Pu, Hyung Won Chung, Ankur P Parikh, Sebastian Gehrmann, and Thibault Sellam. 2021. Learning compact metrics for mt. In Proceedings of EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gowtham Ramesh, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Aravinth Bheemaraj, Mayank Jobanputra, Raghavan AK," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1625" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ajitesh Sharma, Sujit Sahoo, Harshita Diddee, Mahalakshmi J, Divyanshu Kakwani, Navneet Kumar, Aswin Pradeep, Srihari Nagaraj, Kumar Deepak, Vivek Raghavan, Anoop Kunchukuttan, Pratyush Kumar, and Mitesh Shantadevi Khapra. 2022. Samanantar: The largest publicly available parallel corpora collection for 11 Indic languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:145-162." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reinhard Rapp. 2021. Similar language translation for Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish using Marian NMT. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 292-298, Online." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 297 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. 2020. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 291, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016a. Edinburgh neural machine translation systems for WMT 16. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Machine Translation: Volume 2, Shared Task Papers, pages 371-376, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 291, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016b. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 291, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 291, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 291, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aditya Siddhant, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Yuan Cao, Mia Xu Chen, Isaac Caswell, and Xavier Garcia. 2022. Towards the next 1000 languages in multilingual machine translation: Exploring the synergy between supervised and self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03110." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 291, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthias Sperber, Jan Niehues, and Alex Waibel. 2017. Toward robust neural machine translation for noisy input sequences. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Spoken Language Translation, pages 90-96." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amane Sugiyama and Naoki Yoshinaga. 2019. Data augmentation using back-translation for context-aware neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Discourse in Machine Translation (DiscoMT 2019), pages 35–44, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 672, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 672, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 672, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xu Tan, Jiale Chen, Di He, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with language clustering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 963-973, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 564 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017a. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 150, + 526, + 206 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 150, + 526, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 150, + 526, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017b. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 216, + 526, + 263 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 216, + 526, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 216, + 526, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Philip Arthur, and Graham Neubig. 2019. Multilingual neural machine translation with soft decoupled encoding. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 526, + 351 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 526, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 274, + 526, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinyi Wang, Hieu Pham, Zihang Dai, and Graham Neubig. 2018. SwitchOut: an efficient data augmentation algorithm for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 856-861, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 526, + 418 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 526, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 526, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhirui Zhang, Shuangzhi Wu, Shujie Liu, Mu Li, Ming Zhou, and Tong Xu. 2019. Regularizing neural machine translation by target-bidirectional agreement. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 443-450." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 526, + 486 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 526, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 526, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhao Zhu, Hongyi Liu, Qingxiu Dong, Jingjing Xu, Lingpeng Kong, Jiajun Chen, Lei Li, and Shujian Huang. 2023. Multilingual machine translation with large language models: Empirical results and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04675." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 497, + 526, + 564 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 497, + 526, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 497, + 526, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Barret Zoph, Deniz Yuret, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2016. Transfer learning for low-resource neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1568-1575, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 483, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 483, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 483, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Character Candidate Pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 483, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{c})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 524, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 524, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 524, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A sample structure of character candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 524, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 524, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is illustrated in Fig. 6. More details are presented in Section 2.1.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 444, + 667 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 444, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 444, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Performance for HRLs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 analyzes the performance of the proposed model for HRLs across both language families. It demonstrates comparable performance with the vanilla NMT model for HRLs while boosting the performance of ELRLs. This highlights the effectiveness of the proposed model in handling both HRLs and ELRLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1626" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 230 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 230 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsLanguages
BLEUchrFBLEURTCOMET
Hindi (hi)
Vanilla NMT33.460.20.7240.868
Random Char Noise33.059.50.7220.865
SELECTNOISE34.260.50.7260.869
Spanish (es)
Vanilla NMT21.553.50.6950.810
Random Char Noise21.753.00.6890.806
SELECTNOISE21.353.10.6890.869
", + "image_path": "9c13f3a1fbaf11bdc7b63394e3e4525988ecc6c6d73fdd14c36da6fbd685adfc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 282, + 277, + 464 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 238, + 483, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 238, + 483, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 238, + 483, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Comparative performance for HRLs across both Indo-Aryan and Romance families." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 282, + 277, + 464 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 282, + 277, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 282, + 277, + 464 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Candidate Pool (Sc) Template
C1: {I': f1, 'D': f3, 'S': {E1: f4, E2: f5, ...}},
C2: {I': f4, 'D': f3, 'S': {E3: f6, E2: f7, ...}},
Ci: {I': f2, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f2, E3: f1, ...}}
Cn: {I': f1, 'D': f4, 'S': {E1: f4, E3: f5, ...}}
Few Sample Elements of Candidate Pool (Sc)
'O': {I': 62, 'D': 1561, 'S': {'‘ह’: 1482, ...}}
'瓦': {I': 92, 'D': 97, 'S': {'‘ो’': 1482, ...}}
'O': {I': 1552, 'D': 15, 'S': {'‘य’: 397, ...}}
'S': {I': 0, 'D': 33, 'S': {}
}
", + "image_path": "89eb5b4f38b71ac4e417c93ce3e1aab884d205736f0265c9c94b955e99cbe96e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 580, + 242, + 607 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 580, + 242, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 580, + 242, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C HRL-ELRL lexical similarity measurement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 617, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 617, + 291, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 617, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7 shows the lexical similarity between HRL and related ELRLs for both language families. Lexical similarity is obtained using the longest common subsequence (LCS; Melamed (1995))." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 682, + 135, + 695 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 682, + 135, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 682, + 135, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Detailed statistics of datasets used in our experiments are shown in Table 9. For performing analysis on less-related language, we use the general test set of IndicTrans2 (AI4Bharat et al., 2023) for Bodo and FLORES200 test set for Tamil. For" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 523, + 311 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 523, + 311 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 523, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 523, + 311 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4e3203eae7c1a819dfe34598de2efee265b613249ed669bacf77ee4dca297c1f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 314, + 421, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 314, + 421, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 314, + 421, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 327, + 329, + 503, + 383 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Top is a template for the character candidate pool " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{S}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The operations are: insertion " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", deletion " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and substitution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The character " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " element of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is an HRL character, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_1', \\ldots, c_k'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the corresponding substituting candidates from ELRLs and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the associated frequencies. The Bottom shows a few sample elements of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{S}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 329, + 503, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 329, + 503, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 329, + 503, + 383 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "773f13ce05725a5adcb18b943109c8a0f0041ec267bebe1eb8e489eb4b0baadf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 386, + 421, + 398 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 386, + 421, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 386, + 421, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 484 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Lexical similarity heatmap between HRL and its related ELRLs. Fig. (a) depicts a similarity score for the Indo-Aryan family where HRL is Hindi. Fig. (b) depicts a similarity score for the Romance family where HRL is Spanish. Note: Darker color denotes more similarity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OBPE baseline, we use a dev set of FLORES-200 consisting of 997 as a monolingual corpus for learning the overlap vocabulary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 560, + 446, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 560, + 446, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 560, + 446, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our vanilla NMT model is based on standard transformer architecture consisting of 6 encoder and decoder layers. We trained our model for a maximum epoch of 15. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) optimizer with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2} = 0.98" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We set a learning rate of 0.0005. We use a dropout of 0.2. We performed data normalization and preprocessing using IndicNLP library4. We perform our experiments using fairseq5 library. For evaluation we use the lexical match-based BLEU metric6 (Pa" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/anoopkunchukuttan/indic_nlp_library \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 528, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "refs:1|case:mixedleff:noltok:13alsmooth:explversion:2.3.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1627" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 152, + 68, + 442, + 195 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Languages#Dev#TestHRLSource
bho, mag, mai, npi, awa, san, kas, hne9971012hiFLORES-200
ast, cat, glg, oci9971012esFLORES-200
HR Lang Pair#Train# Dev#TestSource
hi-en10.1M9971012AI4Bharat
es-en6.6M9971012Rapp (2021)
", + "image_path": "20c723c3806b07d0f809eeb3c5006c8d0940ecd88f3e2293f99215cd3ce0da6d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 202, + 391, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 202, + 391, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 202, + 391, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Dataset statistics and language details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pineni et al., 2002), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 277 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{chrF}^7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Popovic, 2015) metric, semantic-based BLEURT8 (Sellam et al., 2020), and COMET9 (Pu et al., 2021) metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 286, + 196, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 286, + 196, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 286, + 196, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Sample Translations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 290, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 290, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fig. 8 presents sample translations from Random Character Noise, SELECTNOISE and Supervised Character Noise injection models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 739, + 293, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 739, + 293, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 739, + 293, + 750 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 739, + 293, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nrefs:1|case:mixedleff:yesInc:6lhw:0lspace:nolversion:2.3.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 750, + 229, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 750, + 229, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 750, + 229, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reported using BLEURT20 checkpoint" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 229, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 229, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 229, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{9}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 229, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Reported using wmt22-comet-da model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1628" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 250, + 511, + 544 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 250, + 511, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 250, + 511, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 250, + 511, + 544 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
BHO: रूप्व केहोँ पाथस्मा,तुका केरागपिकोयपिक रेशेयपि रागपिक रहोँ प्रधान सेलन्दीपय रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू�विक रू��िक रूप्व के रागपिक रू�विक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक रू��िक वस्थिके \nENG: The announcement was made after Trump had a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
RCN: Trump opened up about the phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
UCN: After a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump announced his decision.
SCN: Trump's announcement came after a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
HNE: पूललमह बलाटयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके रागल कर्वील्लयके \nENG: Police said that the body appeared to have been there for about a day.
RCN: The police said the body had been lying on the ground for the past few days.
UCN: The police said the bodies had been lying on the road for the past few days.
SCN: The police said the body had been lying for the past several days.
GLG: A ONU samén ten previsto create un fondo para axudar aes paises afectados polo quentamento global a afrontar o seu impacto.
ENG: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
RCN: The UN is also planning to set up a fund to tax years of countries affected by global pole to cope with or have an impact.
UCN: The UN also intends to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global fear of facing or having a serious impact.
SCN: The UN also plans to set up a fund to relieve the countries affected by the global warming to face up to their impact.
AST: Munchos cudadianos de Bishkek acusaron a los manifestantes sureños del desorde.
ENG: Several Bishkek residents blamed protesters from the south for the lawlessness.
RCN: Cubans of Bishkek accused southern protestors of the deorde.
UCN: Many people in Bishkek accused the Swiss demonstrators of disorder.
SCN: Many people in Bishkek accused southern demonstrators of disorder.
", + "image_path": "d572f34c5ca0897c540e9de7437361bc034a8dd9b6162ab98a3cd9d4b3272768.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 526, + 589 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 526, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 526, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Sample translations from various models for ELRLs to English MT direction. RCN: Random Character Noise injection model, UCN: Unsupervised Character Noise injection model (i.e., SELECTNOISE model) and SCN: Supervised Character Noise injection model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1629" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_content_list.json b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bd6ae913a1cc0ba88f4e32f8ed829c89f77284a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1452 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 238, + 90, + 757, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xuhui Sui $^{1}$ , Ying Zhang $^{1*}$ , Kehui Song $^{1}$ , Baohang Zhou $^{1}$ , Xiaojie Yuan $^{1}$ , Wensheng Zhang $^{2}$", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 124, + 717, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 College of Computer Science, VCIP, TMCC, TBI Center, Nankai University, China", + "bbox": [ + 156, + 159, + 845, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China", + "bbox": [ + 240, + 175, + 761, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{suixuhui, songkehui, zhoubaohang}@dbis.nankai.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 242, + 192, + 759, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yingzhang, yuanxj}@nankai.edu.cn, zhangwensheng@hotmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 210, + 794, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 341, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity linking, which aligns mentions in the text to entities in knowledge bases, is essential for many natural language processing tasks. Considering the real-world scenarios, recent research hotspot of entity linking has focused on the zero-shot setting, where mentions need to link to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is provided. This task challenges the language understanding ability of models to capture the coherence evidence between the mention context and entity description. However, entity descriptions often contain rich information from multiple views, and a mention with context only relates to a small part of the information. Other irrelevant information will introduce noise, which interferes with models to make the right judgments. Furthermore, the existence of these information also makes it difficult to synthesize key information. To solve these problems, we select key views from descriptions and propose a KVZEL framework for zero-shot entity linking. Specifically, our KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it employs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate mention-focused views. This puts emphasis on capturing mention-related information and allows long-range key information integration. Finally, we aggregate key views to make the final decision. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our KVZEL and it achieves the new state-of-the-art on the zero-shot entity linking dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 282, + 460, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 769, + 260, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity linking (EL) is the task of assigning ambiguous mentions in textual input to their corresponding entities in a given real-world knowledge base. EL, as a fundamental task in the information extraction area, plays an important role in many downstream natural language processing (NLP) applications,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 797, + 490, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/38713740b84dd5dde9a0094193b057443277d7611b51e30a26d0daee3dbc51fd.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 252, + 875, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0964544be291865b66b8ab65be0b111d3579e7d5848e76b505f04b11aa44301c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) An example of entity description with many views.", + "(b) Other methods and our proposed framework.", + "Figure 1: The motivation illustration of our proposed framework. Usually, an entity can be linked by different mentions from multiple views. Our proposed framework comes from this observation and selects key views from entity descriptions to better align mentions with divergent context." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 441, + 875, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "such as semantic search (Blanco et al., 2015), content analysis (Huang et al., 2018) and question answering (Welbl et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Traditional EL approaches are built on the assumption that the train and test set share the same entity distributions, which means that linked entities in the test set are seen during training. However, in many real-world scenarios, the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone. More importantly, for some specialized domains such as medical and legal domains, the training data is sensitive or proprietary. Thus, it is not easy to obtain labeled data for these domains. Therefore, EL models need to", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 904, + 284, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1303", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1303-1312", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "have the capability of generalizing to new entities of new domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address this, the zero-shot entity linking task (Logeswaran et al., 2019) has been proposed, where mentions need to be linked to unseen entities of new domains. Moreover, considering that there is no external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structured data) in many specialized domains, the textual description for each entity is the only information provided in this task. Based on the above, we can see that the entity description, as the only identification information of entities, is crucial for this task. Some previous works (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) have realized its importance and constructed models to circumvent the length limitation problem of BERT-based models to capture richer entity description information.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 121, + 489, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, to the best of our knowledge, all previous methods utilize the same entire entity description to match different mentions with divergent context. This seems struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We argue that only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. An example shown in Figure 1a, the entity description of \"LeBron James\" contains multiple views information, such as his NBA journey, his family, etc. For the first mention, it only relates to \"View 1\" in the entity description. Other views are useless in determining whether the \"James\" should link to the entity \"LeBron James\". For the second mention, it is related to \"View 2\" and \"View 4\". However, the description of \"LeBron James\" mainly concentrates on his professional journey, which will introduce noise to interfere with entity linking models matching \"his father\" and \"LeBron James\". Furthermore, \"View 2\" and \"View 4\" may exist in different parts of the description, which makes it not trivial to synthesize the key information of the two views.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 368, + 489, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these problems, in this paper, we try to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context, which is shown in Figure 1b. This can also help entity linking models solve the problem of length limitation in BERT-based models, since the selected views are only a part of entity description. We propose a novel Key Views selection framework for Zero-shot Entity Linking in this paper, KVZEL in short. KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to group the sentences, and those in each cluster compose a sub view. When judging whether a mention in text matches the entity, humans tend to read the whole description and only focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. Considering that this mention may be related to multiple views of entity description, after finding that a single view is insufficient to make the judgment, humans will use the previously relevant views as clues and move on to find the next relevant view. With the inspiration of the human's thinking process, our KVZEL designs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate the most relevant views. These views are then aggregated into a new text, which serves as the mention-focused and highly-condensed version of original entity description. Finally, the text replaces the description and is utilized by our entity linking module to make the final decision.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To summarize, our major contributions are shown as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 391, + 882, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to select key views from entity descriptions to link different mentions with divergent context. This is very meaningful for entities with rich multiple views information.", + "- We propose a novel framework KVZEL for zero-shot entity linking, which imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views. These views are aggregated to measure the matching score between mentions and entities.", + "- Experimental results on zero-shot entity linking dataset (Logeswaran et al., 2019) show that our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art performance. Further analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of our framework." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 434, + 882, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 727, + 665, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Entity Linking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 672, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity linking, as a bridge between real-world text and standard knowledge base, has been widely explored in recent years. Many entity linking methods (Sun et al., 2015; Yamada et al., 2016; Le and Titov, 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Tedeschi et al., 2021; Barba et al., 2022) have achieved great success in both academic research and industrial applications. While these results are impressive, the models in these methods are learned under the setting where", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1304", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e229b00c7b612ac56a1b9cf89a0a392ff395c1527a9785926bbd000ae73928cf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Mention-Aware Key Views Selection", + "Figure 2: The overall architecture of our KVZEL framework, which includes three modules: a sub view clustering module, a mention-aware key views selection module and an entity linking module." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 159, + 97, + 836, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "linked entities in the test set are available during training. Furthermore, with the expansion of knowledge in knowledge bases, many state-of-the-art methods (Ganea and Hofmann, 2017; Kundu et al., 2018; Raiman and Raiman, 2018; Orr et al., 2021) have made full use of external knowledge. However, in many real-world scenarios, labeled data and external knowledge are not easily available in many specialized domains. Based on empirical evidence, the performance of models deteriorates substantially when dealing with new entities of new domains without external knowledge. This motivates many researchers to study zero-shot entity linking (Logeswaran et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 489, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Zero-Shot Entity Linking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 604, + 361, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-shot entity linking is the task where mentions must be linked to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is available. It consists of two phases: candidate generation (Wu et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022; Sui et al., 2022) and candidate ranking (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021). Following previous works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we only focus on the candidate ranking phase and use the traditional Information Retrieval (IR) approach of BM25 (Robertson et al., 1994) in the candidate generation phase. Logeswaran et al. (2019) uses a cross-encoder architecture that concatenates mention context and entity description and feeds it into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to produce the matching score by performing cross-attention. However, BERT-based models may lose important description information due to the limitation of their input", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "length. Yao et al. (2020) solves the problem by initializing larger position embeddings to expand the effective reading length of BERT. Tang et al. (2021) proposes a bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model which segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. However, the consideration of paragraphs that are irrelevant to the mention may introduce noise in the final representation and limit the long-range dependencies between relevant information. This motivates us to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context to address these problems.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 359, + 884, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 583, + 658, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of our proposed KVZEL framework. We first use the sub view clustering module to generate sub views from descriptions. Then we design a mention-aware key views selection module to select relevant sub views for different mentions with divergent context. Finally, our entity linking module makes the final decision based on the selected views. In this section, we introduce these three modules in detail.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 882, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Sub View Clustering", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 768, + 719, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The goal of our sub view clustering module is to cluster sentence chunks describing the same view together, so as to select key views later. For each given entity description, we first segment it into sentence chunks $S = [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_L]$ . Intuitively, each individual sentence in the description is taken as a chunk. However, the understanding of short sentences is often not easy and needs the help of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1305", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "context. A simple solution is to segment the entire description into chunks of fixed length. However, this destroys the syntactic relationship and may lead to clustering errors. Thus, we fuse these two ways and set a fixed capacity $c$ for each chunk. Each chunk loads as many sentences as possible. After loading sentences, the sentence sequences in chunks are padded to $c$ with zero values.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 487, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We feed the sentence chunks $S$ into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) in the form of [CLS] $s_i$ [SEP] to extract features, which are the vectors in the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of [CLS] tokens. Then, we adopt mean-shift (Cheng, 1995) clustering approach to group sentence chunks. Compared to other traditional unsupervised clustering approaches (such as k-means (Lloyd, 1982), spectral clustering (Ng et al., 2001), etc), mean-shift does not need to specify the number of clusters, which is more suitable for our application scenario. Those sentence chunks in each cluster compose a sub view:", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 212, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV = \\operatorname {M e a n - S h i f t} \\left(\\operatorname {B E R T} \\left(S; \\theta_ {\\operatorname {B E R T} _ {1}}\\right)\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 432, + 436, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Mention-Aware Key Views Selection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 443, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The goal of our mention-aware key views selection module is to iteratively accumulate mention-related views for the final entity linking process. This is similar to human reading through the whole description view by view to measure the relevance of the mention and each view. Then they will focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. When moving on to find the next relevant view, they will still remember previously relevant views and utilize them as clues to help this process.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 482, + 489, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.1 Feature Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 651, + 324, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For a given mention $m$ , suppose there are $P$ candidate entities of $m$ and we have $n$ sub views $V = [V_{1}, V_{2}, \\dots, V_{n}]$ of the $p$ -th candidate entity $e_{p}$ . In the initial stage, our clues only consist of the mention $m$ and the entity title:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n[ \\mathrm {C L S} ] m e [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] t \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 230, + 762, + 487, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $me$ and $t$ are the inputs of the mention $m$ and the entity title. Following Wu et al. (2020), $me$ and $t$ are constructed as: $me = cl[\\mathrm{Ms}]$ mention [Me] cr and $t = title[\\mathrm{ENT}]$ where mention, cl, cr, title are the word-piece tokens of the mention, context before and after the mention and the entity title respectively. [Ms] and [Me] are special tokens to tag the mention, and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[ENT] is the special token to separate entity title and entity description. The clues are concatenated with the $n$ views separately and a special separator token [SEP] is added at the end. We feed them into a BERT encoder $(\\theta_{\\mathrm{BERT}_2})$ to extract features. It produces a matrix representation $X = [x_{1},x_{2},\\dots,x_{n}]$ to represent the clues-view pairs, where $x_{i}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token for the $i$ -th view and $d$ is the dimension of hidden states of BERT.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.2 Module Training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 255, + 702, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone, we do not have any labels about key views. Therefore, we introduce a matching task to enable our module to learn relevance scores between mentions and views. We argue that views that are more relevant to the mention can contribute more to determining whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 274, + 882, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we use a trainable weight parameter $W_{a} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times d}$ as one of the inputs and utilize the SoftMax function to calculate the attention scores of the matching result with regard to the views:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 403, + 882, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nG = \\operatorname {S o f t M a x} \\left(W _ {a} X ^ {T}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 606, + 479, + 781, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $G \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times n}$ . Then, we utilize the weighted aggregation with the attention scores to obtain the mention-entity representation: $Z = GX$ , where $Z \\in \\mathbb{R}^d$ . Finally, we get the binary prediction $\\hat{y}$ by feeding the representation into a feed-forward neural network FFNN: $\\hat{y} = \\mathrm{FFNN}(Z; \\theta_{F_1})$ . The prediction measures whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 510, + 882, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 882, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {S e l e c t i o n}} = - \\left(y \\log \\hat {y} + (1 - y) \\log (1 - \\hat {y})\\right) (2)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 684, + 882, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $y$ takes the value 1 if the mention and the candidate entity are matched.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 882, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.3 Key Views Selection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 726, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During the matching task training, the vector $G$ learns to measure the degree to which each view contributes to determining whether mentions and entities are matched. In the inference stage, we use it as the relevance scores between clues and all views of the candidate entity and utilize an Argmax function to obtain the most key view:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 776, + 882, + 888 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nk = \\operatorname {A r g m a x} (G) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 630, + 903, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1306", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a107209e1dc988272710ff9ec1ad0208458c12f31da664fce03ee7cd56408cab.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Algorithm 1: The key views selection process of our KVZEL.
Input: The mention with context m, candidate entity ep, candidate view list V of ep, number of iterations Q. Output: The selected view list V.
1Construct initial clues by Eq. 1.
2for each iteration q = 1 to Q do
3Calculate LSelection by Eq. 2 and train our key views selection module.
4Calculate the most key view Vk by Eq. 3 in the inference stage.
5Add Vk to existing clues and the selected view list V.
6Remove Vk from the candidate view list V.
7end
8return V
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 485, + 380 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $k$ is the view marker. Then, we add this view $V_{k}$ (e.g. $V_{2}$ ) to our existing clues. And we will not consider the view $V_{k}$ in the next iteration. We summarize the key views selection process of our KVZEL in Algorithm 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 411, + 487, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Entity Linking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 507, + 278, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The goal of our entity linking module is to aggregate key views into a new text $\\hat{des}$ to make the final decision. Considering that the first view sentences (view $V_{0}$ ) are able to generally describe the entity, we first add the first view $V_{0}$ to $\\hat{des}$ to enhance the overall understanding of the entity. Then we sort the selected key views to maintain the relative ordering in the original description to preserve the syntactic dependencies. The key views are then added to $\\hat{des}$ one by one. The new text $\\hat{des}$ serves as the mention $m$ focused highly-condensed version of the entity description of $e_{p}$ . Finally, $\\hat{des}$ replaces the original entity description and is read by our entity linking module.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 531, + 487, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Wu et al. (2020) and similar to Eq. 1, the input text of the mention $m$ and the candidate entity $e_p$ is constructed as: [CLS] $me$ [SEP] $t \\hat{des}$ [SEP]. Then the input text is entered into a BERT encoder $(\\theta_{\\mathrm{BERT}_3})$ to produce the vector representation $U_p$ , which is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token. Finally, the representation $U_p$ is input into a feed-forward neural network FFNN and the score $s_p$ between the mention $m$ and its $p$ -th candidate", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/246b052f6691af3b8e492635a5283c1f689af650ab0bb084ee11ca29e86738f3.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DomainsLengthEntitiesMentions
Training
American Football665.06319293898
Doctor Who264.14402818334
Fallout229.68169923286
Final Fantasy497.35140446041
Military870.5510452013063
Pro Wrestling639.53101331392
StarWars379.768705611824
World of Warcraft242.16276771437
Validation
Coronation Street264.55178091464
Muppets161.50213442028
Ice Hockey282.62286842233
Elder Scrolls269.03217124275
Test
Forgotten Realms257.29156031200
Lego223.86100761199
Star Trek393.21344304227
YuGiOh643.68100313374
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 80, + 875, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Overall statistics of the Zeshel dataset, which consists of the average length of documents, the number of entities and labeled mentions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 882, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "entity $e_p$ is calculated using a SoftMax function:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 457, + 870, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {s} _ {p} = \\mathrm {F F N N} (U _ {p}; \\theta_ {F _ {2}}), s _ {p} = \\frac {\\exp (\\hat {s} _ {p})}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {P} \\exp (\\hat {s} _ {j})}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 483, + 858, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathrm{P}$ is the number of candidate entities of the mention $m$ . We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 882, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {L i n k i n g} = - \\sum_ {p = 1} ^ {P} y _ {p} \\log s _ {p} + (1 - y _ {p}) \\log (1 - s _ {p})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 592, + 880, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $y_{p} \\in \\{0,1\\}$ and $y_{p}$ takes the value 1 if the candidate entity $e_{p}$ is the gold entity of the mention $m$ , otherwise it takes the value 0.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 648, + 882, + 696 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 708, + 655, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 616, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following recent zero-shot entity linking works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we evaluate our framework KVZEL under the Zeshel dataset, which is constructed by Logeswaran et al. (2019). Overall statistics of the dataset are shown in Table 1. The dataset was built based on the documents in Wikia.2 Wikia consists of encyclopedias, each specialized", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 753, + 882, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 891, + 805, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://www.wikia.com", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 700, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1307", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/72b4809251600822aed687ee755acb7e57de6b73d1f55f77bf4c8ca2a63ce178.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsForgotten RealmsLegoStar TrekYuGiOhMacro Acc.Micro Acc.
Cross-encoder85.6076.9075.8067.2276.3874.21
Repeat----77.58-
Uni-MPR85.5577.4278.2368.2977.6275.78
Bi-MPR89.0977.1879.2069.9878.6176.70
KVZEL w/o iteration87.1076.9078.4271.3678.4577.35
KVZEL w/o V088.3076.0878.9673.4179.1978.24
KVZEL (Ours)88.8077.9380.6573.5080.2279.30
", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 80, + 845, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Results on the test set of Zeshel dataset. Macro Acc. represents the average accuracy of these four test domains. Micro Acc. represents the weighted average accuracy of these four domains. In the results, the highest values are in bold and the results unavailable are left blank. All scores are averaged 5 runs using different random seeds, and our results over all baselines are statistically significant with $p < 0.05$ with the t-test.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 217, + 882, + 274 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in a particular subject such as sports and film series. Each particular subject can be considered as a domain. Zeshel consists of 16 specialized domains, 8 domains for training, 4 for validation, and 4 for test. Each domain has its individual entity dictionary, allowing the performance evaluation on entire unseen entities of new domains. The training set has 49,275 labeled mentions while the validation and test sets both have 10,000 unseen mentions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 299, + 489, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 458, + 344, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For a fair comparison, we use the BERT-base-uncased (Devlin et al., 2019) as our encoder and use the accuracy as our evaluation metric. For the sub view clustering module, the capacity $c$ is set to 64. For the mention-aware key views selection module, following Tang et al. (2021), we set the maximum sequence length of the mention context to be 256. We train this module 1 epoch per iteration using a batch size of 8 and a learning rate of 2e-5. The number of iterations $Q$ is set to 3, which can get the best results. We use the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer to optimize our module. For the entity linking module, also following Tang et al. (2021), the max length for the mention context and entity description are both set to 256. We train this module in 5 epochs. All parameters are also optimized by AdamW, with learning rate 2e-5, and $10\\%$ warmup steps. Experiments were conducted on two NVIDIA GeForce RTX A6000 GPUs with 48 GB memory.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 480, + 489, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Comparison Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 331, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the quantitative evaluation of our KVZEL, we use the following state-of-the-art methods (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) for comparison. All of these methods including our KVZEL are based on", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the cross-encoder (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020), which feeds the concatenation of mention context and entity description to BERT and outputs the [CLS] token's embeddings to produce the relevance scores. $E_{repeat}$ (Yao et al., 2020) extends the effective reading length of BERT by repeating the position embedding to solve the long-range modeling problem in entity descriptions. Uni-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. Bi-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) is based on Uni-MPR, which segments mention context into short paragraphs to incorporate more mention information. Note that we do not consider any domain-adaptive techniques in our KVZEL and comparison methods, which improves the final performance but outsides our work scope.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 299, + 884, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Overall Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 589, + 721, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The comparison results on the Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 2. We can observe that our KVZEL outperforms all baseline methods on average, illustrating the effectiveness of our KVZEL and the superiority of selecting key views for different mentions with divergent context. It's worth noting that all baselines perform worse on the YuGiOh domain. We conjecture that this is because the entities in this domain has more views since we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. This is consistent with our claim that previous methods seem struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We observe that our KVZEL makes a significant improvement on the domains (e.g. Star Trek and YuGiOh) whose descriptions have rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration, which is very effective for these", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1308", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/188eef655cc3769746dac06aca79cc5be0a59fd3d24a099e2f111c0618297c76.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The effect of the number of selected views. Dashed lines indicate the accuracy on the four test domains and solid lines indicate the average accuracy." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 82, + 475, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "domains. In general, our KVZEL outperforms the baseline methods for $1.61\\%$ and $2.60\\%$ on Macro Acc. and Micro Acc. on the test set of Zeshel dataset, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 343, + 487, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 223, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 278, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better understand our KVZEL framework, we investigate the contribution of some components through ablation studies, and the results are also shown in Table 2. Considering that our entity linking module is based on cross-encoder, the comparison results to cross-encoder could also be regarded as the ablation study to justify the advantage of our KVZEL. To evaluate the contribution of iteratively accumulating key views, we train the key views selection module only once and select the same number of key views for the entity linking module. We find that this leads to a significant performance drop, which demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing the previously selected views as clues to move on to find the next key view. We then do not add the first view $V_{0}$ to $\\hat{des}$ and only consider the selected views in our entity linking module. It can be observed that KVZEL w/o $V_{0}$ performs worse than KVZEL. This indicates that the adding of $V_{0}$ helps our entity linking module understand entities better, since we observe the first view sentences of most entities are able to generally describe the entity.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 468, + 489, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Effect of Number of Selected Views", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 436, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also explore the effect of different numbers of selected views on our KVZEL performance. The experimental results are shown in Figure 3. We", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f1faed8f34a3cb3f821ad5fb0cc5a7c6d4e453893333bbb0ab112fd04ee4ec16.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LengthNumberProportion
(0,200)275240.40%
[200,500)202529.73%
[500,1000)95414.00%
[1000,2000)5548.13%
[2000,+∞)5277.74%
", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 80, + 840, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: The statistics of entities with different description lengths. We partition the entities by the tokens number in entity descriptions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 189, + 882, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/edbb6bc5c8bcc0356847b41f2b99b5cedd06e52a02d54b62e383af66a9f7b455.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. We calculate metrics based on the partition in Table 3." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 247, + 873, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "can find that the required number of selected views changes with different domains. For domains with rich views in entity descriptions (e.g. YuGiOh), the integration of more information from multiple views becomes particularly important. While for domains whose views are not as rich (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Lego), single or two views are sufficient to help our entity linking module to correctly link to gold entities. In general, we can observe that our KVZEL with 3 selected views performs best on average. If the number of selected views is too small, there will be not enough information to help our entity linking module make the correct decision. Conversely, if this number is too large, this will introduce noise from irrelevant views and cause the performance to drop.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 513, + 882, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Effect of Description Length", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 784, + 778, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Through our observation, we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. To further show the effectiveness of our proposed KVZEL framework, we evaluate the effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. The statistics of entities on the test set of Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 3 and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1309", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d1bc4679149ef755fbe488d5b13e5fed8ffbd47b40501397d77a00ae4a1f2594.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Mention with contextDescription input of baselinesDescription input of KVZEL
Lucifer reuses the cat single-stud mould introduced for the Friends theme. It features Lucifer standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled...The Cat is a Friends animal figure introduced in 2013. The black one, released in the first series of Friends Animals, became available even in December 2012...The first selected view: The cat is a single-stud mould, which features it standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled around the left side...
Having just defeated Sherry, Akiza walks over to her. Sherry protests that Akiza ran away from the Academy. Akiza admits that she ran away, and acknowledges that Duel Academy Sanctuary may foster elite... She asks Akiza where she learned the trick of riding her Duel Runner with her eyes shut...Sherry LeBlanc is a Psychic Duelist with an ability referred to as Hand Scan, in which she can view her opponent's current hand. Design. Appearance. Sherry has long, waist length, blond hair with bangs that curl away from her face in a horizontal direction and has emerald color eyes...The first selected view: Akiza chose to leave the academy due to its eli-tist ways, which made Sherry feel betrayed and harbor a hatred for Akiza... The second selected view: After the Duel, Sherry and Akiza become friends again after Sherry questions Akiza on where she learned to drive a Duel Runner with her eyes closed...
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 877, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Qualitative analysis of test samples in Zeshel dataset. We analyze the gold entity description input of baselines and our KVZEL. The mentions in text are written in bold.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 286, + 882, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the experimental results are shown in Figure 4. We can find that the cross-encoder (without selecting key views) obtains passable performance on entities with few views but fails to manage those multiview entities as the length of descriptions increases. For example, the accuracy of cross-encoder is over $80\\%$ for entities with 0-500 description tokens but about $60\\%$ for entities with over 1000 description tokens. This is the limitation for zero-shot entity linking. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration by iteratively accumulate key views. This helps our framework manage the entities with rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL significantly improves the accuracy to $71.66\\%$ $(+10.29\\%)$ and $66.98\\%$ $(+12.33\\%)$ for entities with 1000-2000 tokens and over 2000 tokens, respectively. Furthermore, considering its ability to avoid noise brought by irrelevant views information, our KVZEL also slightly improves the performance on entities with few views, which achieves the accuracy of $80.67\\%$ $(+0.26\\%)$ and $83.21\\%$ $(+2.12\\%)$ for entities with 0-200 tokens and 200-500 tokens respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 489, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 737, + 248, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To conduct a qualitative analysis, Table 4 shows two examples from the test set of Zeshel dataset. While the baseline methods tend to input the entire entity descriptions, our KVZEL only inputs the mention-focused views of entity descriptions. This indeed helps our framework avoid noise brought by irrelevant information and enhances emphasis on the corresponding details. For these two examples, our KVZEL can point to the gold entities \"Cat (Friends)\" and \"Sherry LeBlanc (manga)\" instead", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of \"Catherine Cat\" and \"Sherry LeBlanc\" like baselines. This indicates that baseline methods can only capture the rough meaning of a description from a general view, while our KVZEL is able to dive into the descriptions and capture more fine-grained semantic information from key views. Furthermore, for the second example, the mention with context is related to multiple views. A key observation is that our KVZEL can precisely select key views to aggregate to make the final decision, which indicates that our KVZEL has the ability of long-range key information integration.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 340, + 884, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 551, + 640, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we explore an issue that was overlooked when only textual descriptions are available in zero-shot entity linking scenarios, that is, only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. To overcome this issue, we propose a KVZEL framework to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context. Specifically, it first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views, which helps our entity linking module have the ability of long-range information integration. The selected views are aggregated into a new text, which replaces the original description as the input of our entity linking module to make the final decision. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed KVZEL framework achieves new state-of-the-art performance on the zero-shot entity linking dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1310", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art for zero-shot entity linking, it also poses several limitations as follows: 1) In this work, for simplicity, we only use the traditional unsupervised clustering approach mean-shift to form sub views. However, other state-of-the-art clustering approaches also can be used and may work better. We leave the selection of a more effective cluster approach to future work. 2) In this work, we only focus on the zero-shot entity linking setting, which is a low-resource scenario and only provides the textual description information for each entity. This task challenges the ability of entity linking models to understand the language consistency between mention contexts and entity descriptions. Our KVZEL improves this ability by selecting key views from entity descriptions. Therefore, when our KVZEL is extended to other entity linking settings which may have much external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structure data, etc.) and not focus on the language understanding ability so much, the improvement of performance may be insignificant.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 110, + 489, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 476, + 278, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62272250, 62002178), the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China (No. 22JCJQJC00150).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 504, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 596, + 213, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Edoardo Barba, Luigi Procopio, and Roberto Navigli. 2022. Extend: Extractive entity disambiguation. In ACL, pages 2478-2488.", + "Roi Blanco, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Edgar Meij. 2015. Fast and space-efficient entity linking for queries. In WSDM, pages 179-188.", + "Yizong Cheng. 1995. Mean shift, mode seeking, and clustering. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 17(8):790-799.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186.", + "Octavian-Eugen Ganea and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Deep joint entity disambiguation with local neural attention. In EMNLP, pages 2619-2629.", + "Zhipeng Huang, Bogdan Cautis, Reynold Cheng, Yudian Zheng, Nikos Mamoulis, and Jing Yan." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 620, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2018. Entity-based query recommendation for long-tail queries. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 12(6):64:1-64:24.", + "Gourab Kundu, Avirup Sil, Radu Florian, and Wael Hamza. 2018. Neural cross-lingual coreference resolution and its application to entity linking. In ACL, pages 395–400.", + "Phong Le and Ivan Titov. 2018. Improving entity linking by modeling latent relations between mentions. In ACL, pages 1595-1604.", + "Belinda Z. Li, Sewon Min, Srinivasan Iyer, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Efficient one-pass end-to-end entity linking for questions. In EMNLP, pages 6433-6441.", + "Stuart P. Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 28(2):129-136.", + "Lajanugen Logeswaran, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Jacob Devlin, and Honglak Lee. 2019. Zero-shot entity linking by reading entity descriptions. In ACL, pages 3449–3460.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101.", + "Andrew Y. Ng, Michael I. Jordan, and Yair Weiss. 2001. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In NeurIPS, pages 849-856.", + "Laurel J. Orr, Megan Leszczyński, Neel Guha, Sen Wu, Simran Arora, Xiao Ling, and Christopher Ré. 2021. Bootleg: Chasing the tail with self-supervised named entity disambiguation. In CIDR.", + "Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: Multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In AAAI, pages 5406-5413.", + "Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at TREC-3. In TREC, pages 109-126.", + "Xuhui Sui, Ying Zhang, Kehui Song, Baohang Zhou, Guoqing Zhao, Xin Wei, and Xiaojie Yuan. 2022. Improving zero-shot entity linking candidate generation with ultra-fine entity type information. In COLING, pages 2429-2437.", + "Kai Sun, Richong Zhang, Samuel Mensah, Yongyi Mao, and Xudong Liu. 2022. A transformational biencoder with in-domain negative sampling for zero-shot entity linking. In Findings of ACL, pages 1449-1458.", + "Yaming Sun, Lei Lin, Duyu Tang, Nan Yang, Zhenzhou Ji, and Xiaolong Wang. 2015. Modeling mention, context and entity with neural networks for entity disambiguation. In IJCAI, pages 1333-1339.", + "Hongyin Tang, Xingwu Sun, Beihong Jin, and Fuzheng Zhang. 2021. A bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model for zero-shot entity linking. In AAAI, pages 13889-13897." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1311", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Simone Tedeschi, Simone Conia, Francesco Cecconi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. Named entity recognition for entity linking: What works and what's next. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2584-2596.", + "Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Constructing datasets for multi-hop reading comprehension across documents. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 6:287-302.", + "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 6397-6407.", + "Ikuya Yamada, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yoshiyasu Takefuji. 2016. Joint learning of the embedding of words and entities for named entity disambiguation. In CoNLL, pages 250-259.", + "Xiyuan Yang, Xiaotao Gu, Sheng Lin, Siliang Tang, Yueting Zhuang, Fei Wu, Zhigang Chen, Guoping Hu, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Learning dynamic context augmentation for global entity linking. In EMNLP, pages 271-281.", + "Zonghai Yao, Liangliang Cao, and Huapu Pan. 2020. Zero-shot entity linking with efficient long range sequence modeling. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2517-2522." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1312", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_model.json b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b52ad27c45bae6908da1ba394c9cc22d4380dc96 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1782 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.24, + 0.091, + 0.758, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.283, + 0.125, + 0.718, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuhui Sui\\(^{1}\\), Ying Zhang\\(^{1*}\\), Kehui Song\\(^{1}\\), Baohang Zhou\\(^{1}\\), Xiaojie Yuan\\(^{1}\\), Wensheng Zhang\\(^{2}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.16, + 0.846, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 College of Computer Science, VCIP, TMCC, TBI Center, Nankai University, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.242, + 0.176, + 0.762, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\) Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.243, + 0.193, + 0.76, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{suixuhui, songkehui, zhoubaohang}@dbis.nankai.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.208, + 0.211, + 0.796, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yingzhang, yuanxj}@nankai.edu.cn, zhangwensheng@hotmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.342, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.284, + 0.461, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity linking, which aligns mentions in the text to entities in knowledge bases, is essential for many natural language processing tasks. Considering the real-world scenarios, recent research hotspot of entity linking has focused on the zero-shot setting, where mentions need to link to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is provided. This task challenges the language understanding ability of models to capture the coherence evidence between the mention context and entity description. However, entity descriptions often contain rich information from multiple views, and a mention with context only relates to a small part of the information. Other irrelevant information will introduce noise, which interferes with models to make the right judgments. Furthermore, the existence of these information also makes it difficult to synthesize key information. To solve these problems, we select key views from descriptions and propose a KVZEL framework for zero-shot entity linking. Specifically, our KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it employs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate mention-focused views. This puts emphasis on capturing mention-related information and allows long-range key information integration. Finally, we aggregate key views to make the final decision. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our KVZEL and it achieves the new state-of-the-art on the zero-shot entity linking dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.77, + 0.262, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.798, + 0.491, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity linking (EL) is the task of assigning ambiguous mentions in textual input to their corresponding entities in a given real-world knowledge base. EL, as a fundamental task in the information extraction area, plays an important role in many downstream natural language processing (NLP) applications," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.253, + 0.876, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.426, + 0.862, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) An example of entity description with many views." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.442, + 0.876, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.568, + 0.844, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Other methods and our proposed framework." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.593, + 0.885, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The motivation illustration of our proposed framework. Usually, an entity can be linked by different mentions from multiple views. Our proposed framework comes from this observation and selects key views from entity descriptions to better align mentions with divergent context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "such as semantic search (Blanco et al., 2015), content analysis (Huang et al., 2018) and question answering (Welbl et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Traditional EL approaches are built on the assumption that the train and test set share the same entity distributions, which means that linked entities in the test set are seen during training. However, in many real-world scenarios, the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone. More importantly, for some specialized domains such as medical and legal domains, the training data is sensitive or proprietary. Thus, it is not easy to obtain labeled data for these domains. Therefore, EL models need to" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.905, + 0.285, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1303" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1303-1312" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.721, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "have the capability of generalizing to new entities of new domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.122, + 0.49, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address this, the zero-shot entity linking task (Logeswaran et al., 2019) has been proposed, where mentions need to be linked to unseen entities of new domains. Moreover, considering that there is no external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structured data) in many specialized domains, the textual description for each entity is the only information provided in this task. Based on the above, we can see that the entity description, as the only identification information of entities, is crucial for this task. Some previous works (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) have realized its importance and constructed models to circumvent the length limitation problem of BERT-based models to capture richer entity description information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.369, + 0.49, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, to the best of our knowledge, all previous methods utilize the same entire entity description to match different mentions with divergent context. This seems struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We argue that only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. An example shown in Figure 1a, the entity description of \"LeBron James\" contains multiple views information, such as his NBA journey, his family, etc. For the first mention, it only relates to \"View 1\" in the entity description. Other views are useless in determining whether the \"James\" should link to the entity \"LeBron James\". For the second mention, it is related to \"View 2\" and \"View 4\". However, the description of \"LeBron James\" mainly concentrates on his professional journey, which will introduce noise to interfere with entity linking models matching \"his father\" and \"LeBron James\". Furthermore, \"View 2\" and \"View 4\" may exist in different parts of the description, which makes it not trivial to synthesize the key information of the two views." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these problems, in this paper, we try to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context, which is shown in Figure 1b. This can also help entity linking models solve the problem of length limitation in BERT-based models, since the selected views are only a part of entity description. We propose a novel Key Views selection framework for Zero-shot Entity Linking in this paper, KVZEL in short. KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to group the sentences, and those in each cluster compose a sub view. When judging whether a mention in text matches the entity, humans tend to read the whole description and only focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. Considering that this mention may be related to multiple views of entity description, after finding that a single view is insufficient to make the judgment, humans will use the previously relevant views as clues and move on to find the next relevant view. With the inspiration of the human's thinking process, our KVZEL designs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate the most relevant views. These views are then aggregated into a new text, which serves as the mention-focused and highly-condensed version of original entity description. Finally, the text replaces the description and is utilized by our entity linking module to make the final decision." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.392, + 0.884, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To summarize, our major contributions are shown as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.435, + 0.883, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to select key views from entity descriptions to link different mentions with divergent context. This is very meaningful for entities with rich multiple views information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.527, + 0.884, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a novel framework KVZEL for zero-shot entity linking, which imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views. These views are aggregated to measure the matching score between mentions and entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.635, + 0.884, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Experimental results on zero-shot entity linking dataset (Logeswaran et al., 2019) show that our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art performance. Further analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of our framework." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.435, + 0.884, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.728, + 0.667, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.673, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Entity Linking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity linking, as a bridge between real-world text and standard knowledge base, has been widely explored in recent years. Many entity linking methods (Sun et al., 2015; Yamada et al., 2016; Le and Titov, 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Tedeschi et al., 2021; Barba et al., 2022) have achieved great success in both academic research and industrial applications. While these results are impressive, the models in these methods are learned under the setting where" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1304" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.379, + 0.085, + 0.616, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mention-Aware Key Views Selection" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.098, + 0.838, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.306, + 0.884, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall architecture of our KVZEL framework, which includes three modules: a sub view clustering module, a mention-aware key views selection module and an entity linking module." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.36, + 0.49, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "linked entities in the test set are available during training. Furthermore, with the expansion of knowledge in knowledge bases, many state-of-the-art methods (Ganea and Hofmann, 2017; Kundu et al., 2018; Raiman and Raiman, 2018; Orr et al., 2021) have made full use of external knowledge. However, in many real-world scenarios, labeled data and external knowledge are not easily available in many specialized domains. Based on empirical evidence, the performance of models deteriorates substantially when dealing with new entities of new domains without external knowledge. This motivates many researchers to study zero-shot entity linking (Logeswaran et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.605, + 0.363, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Zero-Shot Entity Linking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-shot entity linking is the task where mentions must be linked to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is available. It consists of two phases: candidate generation (Wu et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022; Sui et al., 2022) and candidate ranking (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021). Following previous works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we only focus on the candidate ranking phase and use the traditional Information Retrieval (IR) approach of BM25 (Robertson et al., 1994) in the candidate generation phase. Logeswaran et al. (2019) uses a cross-encoder architecture that concatenates mention context and entity description and feeds it into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to produce the matching score by performing cross-attention. However, BERT-based models may lose important description information due to the limitation of their input" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.36, + 0.885, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "length. Yao et al. (2020) solves the problem by initializing larger position embeddings to expand the effective reading length of BERT. Tang et al. (2021) proposes a bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model which segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. However, the consideration of paragraphs that are irrelevant to the mention may introduce noise in the final representation and limit the long-range dependencies between relevant information. This motivates us to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context to address these problems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.584, + 0.659, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.884, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of our proposed KVZEL framework. We first use the sub view clustering module to generate sub views from descriptions. Then we design a mention-aware key views selection module to select relevant sub views for different mentions with divergent context. Finally, our entity linking module makes the final decision based on the selected views. In this section, we introduce these three modules in detail." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.769, + 0.72, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Sub View Clustering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The goal of our sub view clustering module is to cluster sentence chunks describing the same view together, so as to select key views later. For each given entity description, we first segment it into sentence chunks \\( S = [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_L] \\). Intuitively, each individual sentence in the description is taken as a chunk. However, the understanding of short sentences is often not easy and needs the help of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1305" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context. A simple solution is to segment the entire description into chunks of fixed length. However, this destroys the syntactic relationship and may lead to clustering errors. Thus, we fuse these two ways and set a fixed capacity \\( c \\) for each chunk. Each chunk loads as many sentences as possible. After loading sentences, the sentence sequences in chunks are padded to \\( c \\) with zero values." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.213, + 0.49, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We feed the sentence chunks \\( S \\) into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) in the form of [CLS] \\( s_i \\) [SEP] to extract features, which are the vectors in the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of [CLS] tokens. Then, we adopt mean-shift (Cheng, 1995) clustering approach to group sentence chunks. Compared to other traditional unsupervised clustering approaches (such as k-means (Lloyd, 1982), spectral clustering (Ng et al., 2001), etc), mean-shift does not need to specify the number of clusters, which is more suitable for our application scenario. Those sentence chunks in each cluster compose a sub view:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.434, + 0.438, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV = \\operatorname {M e a n - S h i f t} \\left(\\operatorname {B E R T} \\left(S; \\theta_ {\\operatorname {B E R T} _ {1}}\\right)\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.462, + 0.445, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Mention-Aware Key Views Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.483, + 0.49, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The goal of our mention-aware key views selection module is to iteratively accumulate mention-related views for the final entity linking process. This is similar to human reading through the whole description view by view to measure the relevance of the mention and each view. Then they will focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. When moving on to find the next relevant view, they will still remember previously relevant views and utilize them as clues to help this process." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.652, + 0.325, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.1 Feature Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For a given mention \\(m\\), suppose there are \\(P\\) candidate entities of \\(m\\) and we have \\(n\\) sub views \\(V = [V_{1}, V_{2}, \\dots, V_{n}]\\) of the \\(p\\)-th candidate entity \\(e_{p}\\). In the initial stage, our clues only consist of the mention \\(m\\) and the entity title:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.231, + 0.763, + 0.488, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n[ \\mathrm {C L S} ] m e [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] t \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(me\\) and \\(t\\) are the inputs of the mention \\(m\\) and the entity title. Following Wu et al. (2020), \\(me\\) and \\(t\\) are constructed as: \\(me = cl[\\mathrm{Ms}]\\) mention [Me] cr and \\(t = title[\\mathrm{ENT}]\\) where mention, cl, cr, title are the word-piece tokens of the mention, context before and after the mention and the entity title respectively. [Ms] and [Me] are special tokens to tag the mention, and" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[ENT] is the special token to separate entity title and entity description. The clues are concatenated with the \\(n\\) views separately and a special separator token [SEP] is added at the end. We feed them into a BERT encoder \\((\\theta_{\\mathrm{BERT}_2})\\) to extract features. It produces a matrix representation \\(X = [x_{1},x_{2},\\dots,x_{n}]\\) to represent the clues-view pairs, where \\(x_{i}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d}\\) is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token for the \\(i\\)-th view and \\(d\\) is the dimension of hidden states of BERT." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.256, + 0.704, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.2 Module Training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.275, + 0.883, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone, we do not have any labels about key views. Therefore, we introduce a matching task to enable our module to learn relevance scores between mentions and views. We argue that views that are more relevant to the mention can contribute more to determining whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.404, + 0.884, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we use a trainable weight parameter \\( W_{a} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times d} \\) as one of the inputs and utilize the SoftMax function to calculate the attention scores of the matching result with regard to the views:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.607, + 0.48, + 0.783, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nG = \\operatorname {S o f t M a x} \\left(W _ {a} X ^ {T}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.511, + 0.883, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(G \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times n}\\). Then, we utilize the weighted aggregation with the attention scores to obtain the mention-entity representation: \\(Z = GX\\), where \\(Z \\in \\mathbb{R}^d\\). Finally, we get the binary prediction \\(\\hat{y}\\) by feeding the representation into a feed-forward neural network FFNN: \\(\\hat{y} = \\mathrm{FFNN}(Z; \\theta_{F_1})\\). The prediction measures whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.641, + 0.884, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.686, + 0.884, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {S e l e c t i o n}} = - \\left(y \\log \\hat {y} + (1 - y) \\log (1 - \\hat {y})\\right) (2)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.716, + 0.883, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(y\\) takes the value 1 if the mention and the candidate entity are matched." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.758, + 0.727, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.3 Key Views Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.777, + 0.883, + 0.889 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During the matching task training, the vector \\( G \\) learns to measure the degree to which each view contributes to determining whether mentions and entities are matched. In the inference stage, we use it as the relevance scores between clues and all views of the candidate entity and utilize an Argmax function to obtain the most key view:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.631, + 0.904, + 0.883, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nk = \\operatorname {A r g m a x} (G) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1306" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Algorithm 1: The key views selection process of our KVZEL.
Input: The mention with context m, candidate entity ep, candidate view list V of ep, number of iterations Q. Output: The selected view list V.
1Construct initial clues by Eq. 1.
2for each iteration q = 1 to Q do
3Calculate LSelection by Eq. 2 and train our key views selection module.
4Calculate the most key view Vk by Eq. 3 in the inference stage.
5Add Vk to existing clues and the selected view list V.
6Remove Vk from the candidate view list V.
7end
8return V
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.412, + 0.489, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( k \\) is the view marker. Then, we add this view \\( V_{k} \\) (e.g. \\( V_{2} \\)) to our existing clues. And we will not consider the view \\( V_{k} \\) in the next iteration. We summarize the key views selection process of our KVZEL in Algorithm 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.508, + 0.279, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Entity Linking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.532, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The goal of our entity linking module is to aggregate key views into a new text \\( \\hat{des} \\) to make the final decision. Considering that the first view sentences (view \\( V_{0} \\)) are able to generally describe the entity, we first add the first view \\( V_{0} \\) to \\( \\hat{des} \\) to enhance the overall understanding of the entity. Then we sort the selected key views to maintain the relative ordering in the original description to preserve the syntactic dependencies. The key views are then added to \\( \\hat{des} \\) one by one. The new text \\( \\hat{des} \\) serves as the mention \\( m \\) focused highly-condensed version of the entity description of \\( e_{p} \\). Finally, \\( \\hat{des} \\) replaces the original entity description and is read by our entity linking module." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Wu et al. (2020) and similar to Eq. 1, the input text of the mention \\( m \\) and the candidate entity \\( e_p \\) is constructed as: [CLS] \\( me \\) [SEP] \\( t \\hat{des} \\) [SEP]. Then the input text is entered into a BERT encoder \\( (\\theta_{\\mathrm{BERT}_3}) \\) to produce the vector representation \\( U_p \\), which is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token. Finally, the representation \\( U_p \\) is input into a feed-forward neural network FFNN and the score \\( s_p \\) between the mention \\( m \\) and its \\( p \\)-th candidate" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.082, + 0.877, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DomainsLengthEntitiesMentions
Training
American Football665.06319293898
Doctor Who264.14402818334
Fallout229.68169923286
Final Fantasy497.35140446041
Military870.5510452013063
Pro Wrestling639.53101331392
StarWars379.768705611824
World of Warcraft242.16276771437
Validation
Coronation Street264.55178091464
Muppets161.50213442028
Ice Hockey282.62286842233
Elder Scrolls269.03217124275
Test
Forgotten Realms257.29156031200
Lego223.86100761199
Star Trek393.21344304227
YuGiOh643.68100313374
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.883, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Overall statistics of the Zeshel dataset, which consists of the average length of documents, the number of entities and labeled mentions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.458, + 0.871, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "entity \\(e_p\\) is calculated using a SoftMax function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.485, + 0.86, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {s} _ {p} = \\mathrm {F F N N} (U _ {p}; \\theta_ {F _ {2}}), s _ {p} = \\frac {\\exp (\\hat {s} _ {p})}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {P} \\exp (\\hat {s} _ {j})}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.883, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\mathrm{P} \\) is the number of candidate entities of the mention \\( m \\). We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.593, + 0.882, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {L i n k i n g} = - \\sum_ {p = 1} ^ {P} y _ {p} \\log s _ {p} + (1 - y _ {p}) \\log (1 - s _ {p})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.649, + 0.883, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( y_{p} \\in \\{0,1\\} \\) and \\( y_{p} \\) takes the value 1 if the candidate entity \\( e_{p} \\) is the gold entity of the mention \\( m \\), otherwise it takes the value 0." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.709, + 0.656, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.735, + 0.617, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.755, + 0.884, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following recent zero-shot entity linking works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we evaluate our framework KVZEL under the Zeshel dataset, which is constructed by Logeswaran et al. (2019). Overall statistics of the dataset are shown in Table 1. The dataset was built based on the documents in Wikia.2 Wikia consists of encyclopedias, each specialized" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.892, + 0.806, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.701, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://www.wikia.com" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.892, + 0.806, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1307" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.082, + 0.847, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsForgotten RealmsLegoStar TrekYuGiOhMacro Acc.Micro Acc.
Cross-encoder85.6076.9075.8067.2276.3874.21
Repeat----77.58-
Uni-MPR85.5577.4278.2368.2977.6275.78
Bi-MPR89.0977.1879.2069.9878.6176.70
KVZEL w/o iteration87.1076.9078.4271.3678.4577.35
KVZEL w/o V088.3076.0878.9673.4179.1978.24
KVZEL (Ours)88.8077.9380.6573.5080.2279.30
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.218, + 0.884, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results on the test set of Zeshel dataset. Macro Acc. represents the average accuracy of these four test domains. Micro Acc. represents the weighted average accuracy of these four domains. In the results, the highest values are in bold and the results unavailable are left blank. All scores are averaged 5 runs using different random seeds, and our results over all baselines are statistically significant with \\( p < 0.05 \\) with the t-test." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.3, + 0.49, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in a particular subject such as sports and film series. Each particular subject can be considered as a domain. Zeshel consists of 16 specialized domains, 8 domains for training, 4 for validation, and 4 for test. Each domain has its individual entity dictionary, allowing the performance evaluation on entire unseen entities of new domains. The training set has 49,275 labeled mentions while the validation and test sets both have 10,000 unseen mentions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.459, + 0.345, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.481, + 0.49, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For a fair comparison, we use the BERT-base-uncased (Devlin et al., 2019) as our encoder and use the accuracy as our evaluation metric. For the sub view clustering module, the capacity \\( c \\) is set to 64. For the mention-aware key views selection module, following Tang et al. (2021), we set the maximum sequence length of the mention context to be 256. We train this module 1 epoch per iteration using a batch size of 8 and a learning rate of 2e-5. The number of iterations \\( Q \\) is set to 3, which can get the best results. We use the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer to optimize our module. For the entity linking module, also following Tang et al. (2021), the max length for the mention context and entity description are both set to 256. We train this module in 5 epochs. All parameters are also optimized by AdamW, with learning rate 2e-5, and \\( 10\\% \\) warmup steps. Experiments were conducted on two NVIDIA GeForce RTX A6000 GPUs with 48 GB memory." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.817, + 0.332, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Comparison Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the quantitative evaluation of our KVZEL, we use the following state-of-the-art methods (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) for comparison. All of these methods including our KVZEL are based on" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.3, + 0.885, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the cross-encoder (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020), which feeds the concatenation of mention context and entity description to BERT and outputs the [CLS] token's embeddings to produce the relevance scores. \\( E_{repeat} \\) (Yao et al., 2020) extends the effective reading length of BERT by repeating the position embedding to solve the long-range modeling problem in entity descriptions. Uni-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. Bi-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) is based on Uni-MPR, which segments mention context into short paragraphs to incorporate more mention information. Note that we do not consider any domain-adaptive techniques in our KVZEL and comparison methods, which improves the final performance but outsides our work scope." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.59, + 0.722, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Overall Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The comparison results on the Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 2. We can observe that our KVZEL outperforms all baseline methods on average, illustrating the effectiveness of our KVZEL and the superiority of selecting key views for different mentions with divergent context. It's worth noting that all baselines perform worse on the YuGiOh domain. We conjecture that this is because the entities in this domain has more views since we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. This is consistent with our claim that previous methods seem struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We observe that our KVZEL makes a significant improvement on the domains (e.g. Star Trek and YuGiOh) whose descriptions have rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration, which is very effective for these" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1308" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.083, + 0.476, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.275, + 0.49, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The effect of the number of selected views. Dashed lines indicate the accuracy on the four test domains and solid lines indicate the average accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.344, + 0.488, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "domains. In general, our KVZEL outperforms the baseline methods for \\(1.61\\%\\) and \\(2.60\\%\\) on Macro Acc. and Micro Acc. on the test set of Zeshel dataset, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.421, + 0.224, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.447, + 0.28, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better understand our KVZEL framework, we investigate the contribution of some components through ablation studies, and the results are also shown in Table 2. Considering that our entity linking module is based on cross-encoder, the comparison results to cross-encoder could also be regarded as the ablation study to justify the advantage of our KVZEL. To evaluate the contribution of iteratively accumulating key views, we train the key views selection module only once and select the same number of key views for the entity linking module. We find that this leads to a significant performance drop, which demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing the previously selected views as clues to move on to find the next key view. We then do not add the first view \\( V_{0} \\) to \\( \\hat{des} \\) and only consider the selected views in our entity linking module. It can be observed that KVZEL w/o \\( V_{0} \\) performs worse than KVZEL. This indicates that the adding of \\( V_{0} \\) helps our entity linking module understand entities better, since we observe the first view sentences of most entities are able to generally describe the entity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.85, + 0.438, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Effect of Number of Selected Views" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also explore the effect of different numbers of selected views on our KVZEL performance. The experimental results are shown in Figure 3. We" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.082, + 0.842, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LengthNumberProportion
(0,200)275240.40%
[200,500)202529.73%
[500,1000)95414.00%
[1000,2000)5548.13%
[2000,+∞)5277.74%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.19, + 0.883, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The statistics of entities with different description lengths. We partition the entities by the tokens number in entity descriptions." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.248, + 0.875, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.444, + 0.884, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. We calculate metrics based on the partition in Table 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.514, + 0.884, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "can find that the required number of selected views changes with different domains. For domains with rich views in entity descriptions (e.g. YuGiOh), the integration of more information from multiple views becomes particularly important. While for domains whose views are not as rich (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Lego), single or two views are sufficient to help our entity linking module to correctly link to gold entities. In general, we can observe that our KVZEL with 3 selected views performs best on average. If the number of selected views is too small, there will be not enough information to help our entity linking module make the correct decision. Conversely, if this number is too large, this will introduce noise from irrelevant views and cause the performance to drop." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.785, + 0.779, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Effect of Description Length" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Through our observation, we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. To further show the effectiveness of our proposed KVZEL framework, we evaluate the effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. The statistics of entities on the test set of Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 3 and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1309" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.082, + 0.878, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Mention with contextDescription input of baselinesDescription input of KVZEL
Lucifer reuses the cat single-stud mould introduced for the Friends theme. It features Lucifer standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled...The Cat is a Friends animal figure introduced in 2013. The black one, released in the first series of Friends Animals, became available even in December 2012...The first selected view: The cat is a single-stud mould, which features it standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled around the left side...
Having just defeated Sherry, Akiza walks over to her. Sherry protests that Akiza ran away from the Academy. Akiza admits that she ran away, and acknowledges that Duel Academy Sanctuary may foster elite... She asks Akiza where she learned the trick of riding her Duel Runner with her eyes shut...Sherry LeBlanc is a Psychic Duelist with an ability referred to as Hand Scan, in which she can view her opponent's current hand. Design. Appearance. Sherry has long, waist length, blond hair with bangs that curl away from her face in a horizontal direction and has emerald color eyes...The first selected view: Akiza chose to leave the academy due to its eli-tist ways, which made Sherry feel betrayed and harbor a hatred for Akiza... The second selected view: After the Duel, Sherry and Akiza become friends again after Sherry questions Akiza on where she learned to drive a Duel Runner with her eyes closed...
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.287, + 0.884, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Qualitative analysis of test samples in Zeshel dataset. We analyze the gold entity description input of baselines and our KVZEL. The mentions in text are written in bold." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.341, + 0.49, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the experimental results are shown in Figure 4. We can find that the cross-encoder (without selecting key views) obtains passable performance on entities with few views but fails to manage those multiview entities as the length of descriptions increases. For example, the accuracy of cross-encoder is over \\(80\\%\\) for entities with 0-500 description tokens but about \\(60\\%\\) for entities with over 1000 description tokens. This is the limitation for zero-shot entity linking. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration by iteratively accumulate key views. This helps our framework manage the entities with rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL significantly improves the accuracy to \\(71.66\\%\\) \\((+10.29\\%)\\) and \\(66.98\\%\\) \\((+12.33\\%)\\) for entities with 1000-2000 tokens and over 2000 tokens, respectively. Furthermore, considering its ability to avoid noise brought by irrelevant views information, our KVZEL also slightly improves the performance on entities with few views, which achieves the accuracy of \\(80.67\\%\\) \\((+0.26\\%)\\) and \\(83.21\\%\\) \\((+2.12\\%)\\) for entities with 0-200 tokens and 200-500 tokens respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.738, + 0.25, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To conduct a qualitative analysis, Table 4 shows two examples from the test set of Zeshel dataset. While the baseline methods tend to input the entire entity descriptions, our KVZEL only inputs the mention-focused views of entity descriptions. This indeed helps our framework avoid noise brought by irrelevant information and enhances emphasis on the corresponding details. For these two examples, our KVZEL can point to the gold entities \"Cat (Friends)\" and \"Sherry LeBlanc (manga)\" instead" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.341, + 0.885, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of \"Catherine Cat\" and \"Sherry LeBlanc\" like baselines. This indicates that baseline methods can only capture the rough meaning of a description from a general view, while our KVZEL is able to dive into the descriptions and capture more fine-grained semantic information from key views. Furthermore, for the second example, the mention with context is related to multiple views. A key observation is that our KVZEL can precisely select key views to aggregate to make the final decision, which indicates that our KVZEL has the ability of long-range key information integration." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.552, + 0.642, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we explore an issue that was overlooked when only textual descriptions are available in zero-shot entity linking scenarios, that is, only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. To overcome this issue, we propose a KVZEL framework to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context. Specifically, it first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views, which helps our entity linking module have the ability of long-range information integration. The selected views are aggregated into a new text, which replaces the original description as the input of our entity linking module to make the final decision. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed KVZEL framework achieves new state-of-the-art performance on the zero-shot entity linking dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1310" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art for zero-shot entity linking, it also poses several limitations as follows: 1) In this work, for simplicity, we only use the traditional unsupervised clustering approach mean-shift to form sub views. However, other state-of-the-art clustering approaches also can be used and may work better. We leave the selection of a more effective cluster approach to future work. 2) In this work, we only focus on the zero-shot entity linking setting, which is a low-resource scenario and only provides the textual description information for each entity. This task challenges the ability of entity linking models to understand the language consistency between mention contexts and entity descriptions. Our KVZEL improves this ability by selecting key views from entity descriptions. Therefore, when our KVZEL is extended to other entity linking settings which may have much external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structure data, etc.) and not focus on the language understanding ability so much, the improvement of performance may be insignificant." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.478, + 0.279, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.505, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62272250, 62002178), the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China (No. 22JCJQJC00150)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.597, + 0.214, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.621, + 0.489, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edoardo Barba, Luigi Procopio, and Roberto Navigli. 2022. Extend: Extractive entity disambiguation. In ACL, pages 2478-2488." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.673, + 0.488, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roi Blanco, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Edgar Meij. 2015. Fast and space-efficient entity linking for queries. In WSDM, pages 179-188." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.725, + 0.489, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizong Cheng. 1995. Mean shift, mode seeking, and clustering. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 17(8):790-799." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.488, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.488, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Octavian-Eugen Ganea and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Deep joint entity disambiguation with local neural attention. In EMNLP, pages 2619-2629." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhipeng Huang, Bogdan Cautis, Reynold Cheng, Yudian Zheng, Nikos Mamoulis, and Jing Yan." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.621, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2018. Entity-based query recommendation for long-tail queries. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 12(6):64:1-64:24." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.135, + 0.883, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gourab Kundu, Avirup Sil, Radu Florian, and Wael Hamza. 2018. Neural cross-lingual coreference resolution and its application to entity linking. In ACL, pages 395–400." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.198, + 0.883, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Phong Le and Ivan Titov. 2018. Improving entity linking by modeling latent relations between mentions. In ACL, pages 1595-1604." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.247, + 0.883, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Belinda Z. Li, Sewon Min, Srinivasan Iyer, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Efficient one-pass end-to-end entity linking for questions. In EMNLP, pages 6433-6441." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.309, + 0.882, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stuart P. Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 28(2):129-136." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.345, + 0.884, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lajanugen Logeswaran, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Jacob Devlin, and Honglak Lee. 2019. Zero-shot entity linking by reading entity descriptions. In ACL, pages 3449–3460." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.407, + 0.883, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.456, + 0.883, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew Y. Ng, Michael I. Jordan, and Yair Weiss. 2001. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In NeurIPS, pages 849-856." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.506, + 0.883, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Laurel J. Orr, Megan Leszczyński, Neel Guha, Sen Wu, Simran Arora, Xiao Ling, and Christopher Ré. 2021. Bootleg: Chasing the tail with self-supervised named entity disambiguation. In CIDR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.568, + 0.883, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: Multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In AAAI, pages 5406-5413." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.617, + 0.883, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at TREC-3. In TREC, pages 109-126." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.666, + 0.883, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuhui Sui, Ying Zhang, Kehui Song, Baohang Zhou, Guoqing Zhao, Xin Wei, and Xiaojie Yuan. 2022. Improving zero-shot entity linking candidate generation with ultra-fine entity type information. In COLING, pages 2429-2437." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.741, + 0.883, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kai Sun, Richong Zhang, Samuel Mensah, Yongyi Mao, and Xudong Liu. 2022. A transformational biencoder with in-domain negative sampling for zero-shot entity linking. In Findings of ACL, pages 1449-1458." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.804, + 0.883, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaming Sun, Lei Lin, Duyu Tang, Nan Yang, Zhenzhou Ji, and Xiaolong Wang. 2015. Modeling mention, context and entity with neural networks for entity disambiguation. In IJCAI, pages 1333-1339." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongyin Tang, Xingwu Sun, Beihong Jin, and Fuzheng Zhang. 2021. A bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model for zero-shot entity linking. In AAAI, pages 13889-13897." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1311" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simone Tedeschi, Simone Conia, Francesco Cecconi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. Named entity recognition for entity linking: What works and what's next. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2584-2596." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.487, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Constructing datasets for multi-hop reading comprehension across documents. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 6:287-302." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.487, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 6397-6407." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.487, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ikuya Yamada, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yoshiyasu Takefuji. 2016. Joint learning of the embedding of words and entities for named entity disambiguation. In CoNLL, pages 250-259." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.337, + 0.487, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiyuan Yang, Xiaotao Gu, Sheng Lin, Siliang Tang, Yueting Zhuang, Fei Wu, Zhigang Chen, Guoping Hu, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Learning dynamic context augmentation for global entity linking. In EMNLP, pages 271-281." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.413, + 0.487, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zonghai Yao, Liangliang Cao, and Huapu Pan. 2020. Zero-shot entity linking with efficient long range sequence modeling. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2517-2522." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1312" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_origin.pdf b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f58267cd7f833dceb7508e4b37cac54f9e5f867 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/06f7bda4-973b-4bc1-aff2-28c32ca54c97_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:362902304f59b4a3ad692334dfc2fd96582916e6b3eb2abc56427772355ab4aa +size 748874 diff --git a/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/full.md b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f022e74d3f188088ea6157b88dd9d2b2e66a912 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +# Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking + +Xuhui Sui $^{1}$ , Ying Zhang $^{1*}$ , Kehui Song $^{1}$ , Baohang Zhou $^{1}$ , Xiaojie Yuan $^{1}$ , Wensheng Zhang $^{2}$ + +1 College of Computer Science, VCIP, TMCC, TBI Center, Nankai University, China + +$^{2}$ Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China + +{suixuhui, songkehui, zhoubaohang}@dbis.nankai.edu.cn + +{yingzhang, yuanxj}@nankai.edu.cn, zhangwensheng@hotmail.com + +# Abstract + +Entity linking, which aligns mentions in the text to entities in knowledge bases, is essential for many natural language processing tasks. Considering the real-world scenarios, recent research hotspot of entity linking has focused on the zero-shot setting, where mentions need to link to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is provided. This task challenges the language understanding ability of models to capture the coherence evidence between the mention context and entity description. However, entity descriptions often contain rich information from multiple views, and a mention with context only relates to a small part of the information. Other irrelevant information will introduce noise, which interferes with models to make the right judgments. Furthermore, the existence of these information also makes it difficult to synthesize key information. To solve these problems, we select key views from descriptions and propose a KVZEL framework for zero-shot entity linking. Specifically, our KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it employs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate mention-focused views. This puts emphasis on capturing mention-related information and allows long-range key information integration. Finally, we aggregate key views to make the final decision. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our KVZEL and it achieves the new state-of-the-art on the zero-shot entity linking dataset. + +# 1 Introduction + +Entity linking (EL) is the task of assigning ambiguous mentions in textual input to their corresponding entities in a given real-world knowledge base. EL, as a fundamental task in the information extraction area, plays an important role in many downstream natural language processing (NLP) applications, + +![](images/38713740b84dd5dde9a0094193b057443277d7611b51e30a26d0daee3dbc51fd.jpg) + +![](images/0964544be291865b66b8ab65be0b111d3579e7d5848e76b505f04b11aa44301c.jpg) +(a) An example of entity description with many views. +(b) Other methods and our proposed framework. +Figure 1: The motivation illustration of our proposed framework. Usually, an entity can be linked by different mentions from multiple views. Our proposed framework comes from this observation and selects key views from entity descriptions to better align mentions with divergent context. + +such as semantic search (Blanco et al., 2015), content analysis (Huang et al., 2018) and question answering (Welbl et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Traditional EL approaches are built on the assumption that the train and test set share the same entity distributions, which means that linked entities in the test set are seen during training. However, in many real-world scenarios, the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone. More importantly, for some specialized domains such as medical and legal domains, the training data is sensitive or proprietary. Thus, it is not easy to obtain labeled data for these domains. Therefore, EL models need to + +have the capability of generalizing to new entities of new domains. + +To address this, the zero-shot entity linking task (Logeswaran et al., 2019) has been proposed, where mentions need to be linked to unseen entities of new domains. Moreover, considering that there is no external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structured data) in many specialized domains, the textual description for each entity is the only information provided in this task. Based on the above, we can see that the entity description, as the only identification information of entities, is crucial for this task. Some previous works (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) have realized its importance and constructed models to circumvent the length limitation problem of BERT-based models to capture richer entity description information. + +However, to the best of our knowledge, all previous methods utilize the same entire entity description to match different mentions with divergent context. This seems struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We argue that only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. An example shown in Figure 1a, the entity description of "LeBron James" contains multiple views information, such as his NBA journey, his family, etc. For the first mention, it only relates to "View 1" in the entity description. Other views are useless in determining whether the "James" should link to the entity "LeBron James". For the second mention, it is related to "View 2" and "View 4". However, the description of "LeBron James" mainly concentrates on his professional journey, which will introduce noise to interfere with entity linking models matching "his father" and "LeBron James". Furthermore, "View 2" and "View 4" may exist in different parts of the description, which makes it not trivial to synthesize the key information of the two views. + +To address these problems, in this paper, we try to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context, which is shown in Figure 1b. This can also help entity linking models solve the problem of length limitation in BERT-based models, since the selected views are only a part of entity description. We propose a novel Key Views selection framework for Zero-shot Entity Linking in this paper, KVZEL in short. KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering + +to group the sentences, and those in each cluster compose a sub view. When judging whether a mention in text matches the entity, humans tend to read the whole description and only focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. Considering that this mention may be related to multiple views of entity description, after finding that a single view is insufficient to make the judgment, humans will use the previously relevant views as clues and move on to find the next relevant view. With the inspiration of the human's thinking process, our KVZEL designs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate the most relevant views. These views are then aggregated into a new text, which serves as the mention-focused and highly-condensed version of original entity description. Finally, the text replaces the description and is utilized by our entity linking module to make the final decision. + +To summarize, our major contributions are shown as follows: + +- To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to select key views from entity descriptions to link different mentions with divergent context. This is very meaningful for entities with rich multiple views information. +- We propose a novel framework KVZEL for zero-shot entity linking, which imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views. These views are aggregated to measure the matching score between mentions and entities. +- Experimental results on zero-shot entity linking dataset (Logeswaran et al., 2019) show that our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art performance. Further analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of our framework. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Entity Linking + +Entity linking, as a bridge between real-world text and standard knowledge base, has been widely explored in recent years. Many entity linking methods (Sun et al., 2015; Yamada et al., 2016; Le and Titov, 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Tedeschi et al., 2021; Barba et al., 2022) have achieved great success in both academic research and industrial applications. While these results are impressive, the models in these methods are learned under the setting where + +![](images/e229b00c7b612ac56a1b9cf89a0a392ff395c1527a9785926bbd000ae73928cf.jpg) +Mention-Aware Key Views Selection +Figure 2: The overall architecture of our KVZEL framework, which includes three modules: a sub view clustering module, a mention-aware key views selection module and an entity linking module. + +linked entities in the test set are available during training. Furthermore, with the expansion of knowledge in knowledge bases, many state-of-the-art methods (Ganea and Hofmann, 2017; Kundu et al., 2018; Raiman and Raiman, 2018; Orr et al., 2021) have made full use of external knowledge. However, in many real-world scenarios, labeled data and external knowledge are not easily available in many specialized domains. Based on empirical evidence, the performance of models deteriorates substantially when dealing with new entities of new domains without external knowledge. This motivates many researchers to study zero-shot entity linking (Logeswaran et al., 2019). + +# 2.2 Zero-Shot Entity Linking + +Zero-shot entity linking is the task where mentions must be linked to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is available. It consists of two phases: candidate generation (Wu et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022; Sui et al., 2022) and candidate ranking (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021). Following previous works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we only focus on the candidate ranking phase and use the traditional Information Retrieval (IR) approach of BM25 (Robertson et al., 1994) in the candidate generation phase. Logeswaran et al. (2019) uses a cross-encoder architecture that concatenates mention context and entity description and feeds it into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to produce the matching score by performing cross-attention. However, BERT-based models may lose important description information due to the limitation of their input + +length. Yao et al. (2020) solves the problem by initializing larger position embeddings to expand the effective reading length of BERT. Tang et al. (2021) proposes a bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model which segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. However, the consideration of paragraphs that are irrelevant to the mention may introduce noise in the final representation and limit the long-range dependencies between relevant information. This motivates us to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context to address these problems. + +# 3 Methodology + +Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of our proposed KVZEL framework. We first use the sub view clustering module to generate sub views from descriptions. Then we design a mention-aware key views selection module to select relevant sub views for different mentions with divergent context. Finally, our entity linking module makes the final decision based on the selected views. In this section, we introduce these three modules in detail. + +# 3.1 Sub View Clustering + +The goal of our sub view clustering module is to cluster sentence chunks describing the same view together, so as to select key views later. For each given entity description, we first segment it into sentence chunks $S = [s_1, s_2, \dots, s_L]$ . Intuitively, each individual sentence in the description is taken as a chunk. However, the understanding of short sentences is often not easy and needs the help of + +context. A simple solution is to segment the entire description into chunks of fixed length. However, this destroys the syntactic relationship and may lead to clustering errors. Thus, we fuse these two ways and set a fixed capacity $c$ for each chunk. Each chunk loads as many sentences as possible. After loading sentences, the sentence sequences in chunks are padded to $c$ with zero values. + +We feed the sentence chunks $S$ into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) in the form of [CLS] $s_i$ [SEP] to extract features, which are the vectors in the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of [CLS] tokens. Then, we adopt mean-shift (Cheng, 1995) clustering approach to group sentence chunks. Compared to other traditional unsupervised clustering approaches (such as k-means (Lloyd, 1982), spectral clustering (Ng et al., 2001), etc), mean-shift does not need to specify the number of clusters, which is more suitable for our application scenario. Those sentence chunks in each cluster compose a sub view: + +$$ +V = \operatorname {M e a n - S h i f t} \left(\operatorname {B E R T} \left(S; \theta_ {\operatorname {B E R T} _ {1}}\right)\right) +$$ + +# 3.2 Mention-Aware Key Views Selection + +The goal of our mention-aware key views selection module is to iteratively accumulate mention-related views for the final entity linking process. This is similar to human reading through the whole description view by view to measure the relevance of the mention and each view. Then they will focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. When moving on to find the next relevant view, they will still remember previously relevant views and utilize them as clues to help this process. + +# 3.2.1 Feature Extraction + +For a given mention $m$ , suppose there are $P$ candidate entities of $m$ and we have $n$ sub views $V = [V_{1}, V_{2}, \dots, V_{n}]$ of the $p$ -th candidate entity $e_{p}$ . In the initial stage, our clues only consist of the mention $m$ and the entity title: + +$$ +[ \mathrm {C L S} ] m e [ \mathrm {S E P} ] t \tag {1} +$$ + +where $me$ and $t$ are the inputs of the mention $m$ and the entity title. Following Wu et al. (2020), $me$ and $t$ are constructed as: $me = cl[\mathrm{Ms}]$ mention [Me] cr and $t = title[\mathrm{ENT}]$ where mention, cl, cr, title are the word-piece tokens of the mention, context before and after the mention and the entity title respectively. [Ms] and [Me] are special tokens to tag the mention, and + +[ENT] is the special token to separate entity title and entity description. The clues are concatenated with the $n$ views separately and a special separator token [SEP] is added at the end. We feed them into a BERT encoder $(\theta_{\mathrm{BERT}_2})$ to extract features. It produces a matrix representation $X = [x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{n}]$ to represent the clues-view pairs, where $x_{i}\in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token for the $i$ -th view and $d$ is the dimension of hidden states of BERT. + +# 3.2.2 Module Training + +Since the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone, we do not have any labels about key views. Therefore, we introduce a matching task to enable our module to learn relevance scores between mentions and views. We argue that views that are more relevant to the mention can contribute more to determining whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched. + +Specifically, we use a trainable weight parameter $W_{a} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times d}$ as one of the inputs and utilize the SoftMax function to calculate the attention scores of the matching result with regard to the views: + +$$ +G = \operatorname {S o f t M a x} \left(W _ {a} X ^ {T}\right) +$$ + +where $G \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times n}$ . Then, we utilize the weighted aggregation with the attention scores to obtain the mention-entity representation: $Z = GX$ , where $Z \in \mathbb{R}^d$ . Finally, we get the binary prediction $\hat{y}$ by feeding the representation into a feed-forward neural network FFNN: $\hat{y} = \mathrm{FFNN}(Z; \theta_{F_1})$ . The prediction measures whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched. + +We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\text {S e l e c t i o n}} = - \left(y \log \hat {y} + (1 - y) \log (1 - \hat {y})\right) (2) +$$ + +where $y$ takes the value 1 if the mention and the candidate entity are matched. + +# 3.2.3 Key Views Selection + +During the matching task training, the vector $G$ learns to measure the degree to which each view contributes to determining whether mentions and entities are matched. In the inference stage, we use it as the relevance scores between clues and all views of the candidate entity and utilize an Argmax function to obtain the most key view: + +$$ +k = \operatorname {A r g m a x} (G) \tag {3} +$$ + +
Algorithm 1: The key views selection process of our KVZEL.
Input: The mention with context m, candidate entity ep, candidate view list V of ep, number of iterations Q. Output: The selected view list V.
1Construct initial clues by Eq. 1.
2for each iteration q = 1 to Q do
3Calculate LSelection by Eq. 2 and train our key views selection module.
4Calculate the most key view Vk by Eq. 3 in the inference stage.
5Add Vk to existing clues and the selected view list V.
6Remove Vk from the candidate view list V.
7end
8return V
+ +where $k$ is the view marker. Then, we add this view $V_{k}$ (e.g. $V_{2}$ ) to our existing clues. And we will not consider the view $V_{k}$ in the next iteration. We summarize the key views selection process of our KVZEL in Algorithm 1. + +# 3.3 Entity Linking + +The goal of our entity linking module is to aggregate key views into a new text $\hat{des}$ to make the final decision. Considering that the first view sentences (view $V_{0}$ ) are able to generally describe the entity, we first add the first view $V_{0}$ to $\hat{des}$ to enhance the overall understanding of the entity. Then we sort the selected key views to maintain the relative ordering in the original description to preserve the syntactic dependencies. The key views are then added to $\hat{des}$ one by one. The new text $\hat{des}$ serves as the mention $m$ focused highly-condensed version of the entity description of $e_{p}$ . Finally, $\hat{des}$ replaces the original entity description and is read by our entity linking module. + +Following Wu et al. (2020) and similar to Eq. 1, the input text of the mention $m$ and the candidate entity $e_p$ is constructed as: [CLS] $me$ [SEP] $t \hat{des}$ [SEP]. Then the input text is entered into a BERT encoder $(\theta_{\mathrm{BERT}_3})$ to produce the vector representation $U_p$ , which is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token. Finally, the representation $U_p$ is input into a feed-forward neural network FFNN and the score $s_p$ between the mention $m$ and its $p$ -th candidate + +
DomainsLengthEntitiesMentions
Training
American Football665.06319293898
Doctor Who264.14402818334
Fallout229.68169923286
Final Fantasy497.35140446041
Military870.5510452013063
Pro Wrestling639.53101331392
StarWars379.768705611824
World of Warcraft242.16276771437
Validation
Coronation Street264.55178091464
Muppets161.50213442028
Ice Hockey282.62286842233
Elder Scrolls269.03217124275
Test
Forgotten Realms257.29156031200
Lego223.86100761199
Star Trek393.21344304227
YuGiOh643.68100313374
+ +Table 1: Overall statistics of the Zeshel dataset, which consists of the average length of documents, the number of entities and labeled mentions. + +entity $e_p$ is calculated using a SoftMax function: + +$$ +\hat {s} _ {p} = \mathrm {F F N N} (U _ {p}; \theta_ {F _ {2}}), s _ {p} = \frac {\exp (\hat {s} _ {p})}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {P} \exp (\hat {s} _ {j})} +$$ + +where $\mathrm{P}$ is the number of candidate entities of the mention $m$ . We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {L i n k i n g} = - \sum_ {p = 1} ^ {P} y _ {p} \log s _ {p} + (1 - y _ {p}) \log (1 - s _ {p}) +$$ + +where $y_{p} \in \{0,1\}$ and $y_{p}$ takes the value 1 if the candidate entity $e_{p}$ is the gold entity of the mention $m$ , otherwise it takes the value 0. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Dataset + +Following recent zero-shot entity linking works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we evaluate our framework KVZEL under the Zeshel dataset, which is constructed by Logeswaran et al. (2019). Overall statistics of the dataset are shown in Table 1. The dataset was built based on the documents in Wikia.2 Wikia consists of encyclopedias, each specialized + +
MethodsForgotten RealmsLegoStar TrekYuGiOhMacro Acc.Micro Acc.
Cross-encoder85.6076.9075.8067.2276.3874.21
Repeat----77.58-
Uni-MPR85.5577.4278.2368.2977.6275.78
Bi-MPR89.0977.1879.2069.9878.6176.70
KVZEL w/o iteration87.1076.9078.4271.3678.4577.35
KVZEL w/o V088.3076.0878.9673.4179.1978.24
KVZEL (Ours)88.8077.9380.6573.5080.2279.30
+ +Table 2: Results on the test set of Zeshel dataset. Macro Acc. represents the average accuracy of these four test domains. Micro Acc. represents the weighted average accuracy of these four domains. In the results, the highest values are in bold and the results unavailable are left blank. All scores are averaged 5 runs using different random seeds, and our results over all baselines are statistically significant with $p < 0.05$ with the t-test. + +in a particular subject such as sports and film series. Each particular subject can be considered as a domain. Zeshel consists of 16 specialized domains, 8 domains for training, 4 for validation, and 4 for test. Each domain has its individual entity dictionary, allowing the performance evaluation on entire unseen entities of new domains. The training set has 49,275 labeled mentions while the validation and test sets both have 10,000 unseen mentions. + +# 4.2 Implementation Details + +For a fair comparison, we use the BERT-base-uncased (Devlin et al., 2019) as our encoder and use the accuracy as our evaluation metric. For the sub view clustering module, the capacity $c$ is set to 64. For the mention-aware key views selection module, following Tang et al. (2021), we set the maximum sequence length of the mention context to be 256. We train this module 1 epoch per iteration using a batch size of 8 and a learning rate of 2e-5. The number of iterations $Q$ is set to 3, which can get the best results. We use the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer to optimize our module. For the entity linking module, also following Tang et al. (2021), the max length for the mention context and entity description are both set to 256. We train this module in 5 epochs. All parameters are also optimized by AdamW, with learning rate 2e-5, and $10\%$ warmup steps. Experiments were conducted on two NVIDIA GeForce RTX A6000 GPUs with 48 GB memory. + +# 4.3 Comparison Methods + +For the quantitative evaluation of our KVZEL, we use the following state-of-the-art methods (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) for comparison. All of these methods including our KVZEL are based on + +the cross-encoder (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020), which feeds the concatenation of mention context and entity description to BERT and outputs the [CLS] token's embeddings to produce the relevance scores. $E_{repeat}$ (Yao et al., 2020) extends the effective reading length of BERT by repeating the position embedding to solve the long-range modeling problem in entity descriptions. Uni-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. Bi-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) is based on Uni-MPR, which segments mention context into short paragraphs to incorporate more mention information. Note that we do not consider any domain-adaptive techniques in our KVZEL and comparison methods, which improves the final performance but outsides our work scope. + +# 4.4 Overall Performance + +The comparison results on the Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 2. We can observe that our KVZEL outperforms all baseline methods on average, illustrating the effectiveness of our KVZEL and the superiority of selecting key views for different mentions with divergent context. It's worth noting that all baselines perform worse on the YuGiOh domain. We conjecture that this is because the entities in this domain has more views since we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. This is consistent with our claim that previous methods seem struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We observe that our KVZEL makes a significant improvement on the domains (e.g. Star Trek and YuGiOh) whose descriptions have rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration, which is very effective for these + +![](images/188eef655cc3769746dac06aca79cc5be0a59fd3d24a099e2f111c0618297c76.jpg) +Figure 3: The effect of the number of selected views. Dashed lines indicate the accuracy on the four test domains and solid lines indicate the average accuracy. + +domains. In general, our KVZEL outperforms the baseline methods for $1.61\%$ and $2.60\%$ on Macro Acc. and Micro Acc. on the test set of Zeshel dataset, respectively. + +# 5 Analysis + +# 5.1 Ablation Study + +To better understand our KVZEL framework, we investigate the contribution of some components through ablation studies, and the results are also shown in Table 2. Considering that our entity linking module is based on cross-encoder, the comparison results to cross-encoder could also be regarded as the ablation study to justify the advantage of our KVZEL. To evaluate the contribution of iteratively accumulating key views, we train the key views selection module only once and select the same number of key views for the entity linking module. We find that this leads to a significant performance drop, which demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing the previously selected views as clues to move on to find the next key view. We then do not add the first view $V_{0}$ to $\hat{des}$ and only consider the selected views in our entity linking module. It can be observed that KVZEL w/o $V_{0}$ performs worse than KVZEL. This indicates that the adding of $V_{0}$ helps our entity linking module understand entities better, since we observe the first view sentences of most entities are able to generally describe the entity. + +# 5.2 Effect of Number of Selected Views + +We also explore the effect of different numbers of selected views on our KVZEL performance. The experimental results are shown in Figure 3. We + +
LengthNumberProportion
(0,200)275240.40%
[200,500)202529.73%
[500,1000)95414.00%
[1000,2000)5548.13%
[2000,+∞)5277.74%
+ +Table 3: The statistics of entities with different description lengths. We partition the entities by the tokens number in entity descriptions. + +![](images/edbb6bc5c8bcc0356847b41f2b99b5cedd06e52a02d54b62e383af66a9f7b455.jpg) +Figure 4: The effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. We calculate metrics based on the partition in Table 3. + +can find that the required number of selected views changes with different domains. For domains with rich views in entity descriptions (e.g. YuGiOh), the integration of more information from multiple views becomes particularly important. While for domains whose views are not as rich (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Lego), single or two views are sufficient to help our entity linking module to correctly link to gold entities. In general, we can observe that our KVZEL with 3 selected views performs best on average. If the number of selected views is too small, there will be not enough information to help our entity linking module make the correct decision. Conversely, if this number is too large, this will introduce noise from irrelevant views and cause the performance to drop. + +# 5.3 Effect of Description Length + +Through our observation, we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. To further show the effectiveness of our proposed KVZEL framework, we evaluate the effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. The statistics of entities on the test set of Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 3 and + +
Mention with contextDescription input of baselinesDescription input of KVZEL
Lucifer reuses the cat single-stud mould introduced for the Friends theme. It features Lucifer standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled...The Cat is a Friends animal figure introduced in 2013. The black one, released in the first series of Friends Animals, became available even in December 2012...The first selected view: The cat is a single-stud mould, which features it standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled around the left side...
Having just defeated Sherry, Akiza walks over to her. Sherry protests that Akiza ran away from the Academy. Akiza admits that she ran away, and acknowledges that Duel Academy Sanctuary may foster elite... She asks Akiza where she learned the trick of riding her Duel Runner with her eyes shut...Sherry LeBlanc is a Psychic Duelist with an ability referred to as Hand Scan, in which she can view her opponent's current hand. Design. Appearance. Sherry has long, waist length, blond hair with bangs that curl away from her face in a horizontal direction and has emerald color eyes...The first selected view: Akiza chose to leave the academy due to its eli-tist ways, which made Sherry feel betrayed and harbor a hatred for Akiza... The second selected view: After the Duel, Sherry and Akiza become friends again after Sherry questions Akiza on where she learned to drive a Duel Runner with her eyes closed...
+ +Table 4: Qualitative analysis of test samples in Zeshel dataset. We analyze the gold entity description input of baselines and our KVZEL. The mentions in text are written in bold. + +the experimental results are shown in Figure 4. We can find that the cross-encoder (without selecting key views) obtains passable performance on entities with few views but fails to manage those multiview entities as the length of descriptions increases. For example, the accuracy of cross-encoder is over $80\%$ for entities with 0-500 description tokens but about $60\%$ for entities with over 1000 description tokens. This is the limitation for zero-shot entity linking. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration by iteratively accumulate key views. This helps our framework manage the entities with rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL significantly improves the accuracy to $71.66\%$ $(+10.29\%)$ and $66.98\%$ $(+12.33\%)$ for entities with 1000-2000 tokens and over 2000 tokens, respectively. Furthermore, considering its ability to avoid noise brought by irrelevant views information, our KVZEL also slightly improves the performance on entities with few views, which achieves the accuracy of $80.67\%$ $(+0.26\%)$ and $83.21\%$ $(+2.12\%)$ for entities with 0-200 tokens and 200-500 tokens respectively. + +# 5.4 Case Study + +To conduct a qualitative analysis, Table 4 shows two examples from the test set of Zeshel dataset. While the baseline methods tend to input the entire entity descriptions, our KVZEL only inputs the mention-focused views of entity descriptions. This indeed helps our framework avoid noise brought by irrelevant information and enhances emphasis on the corresponding details. For these two examples, our KVZEL can point to the gold entities "Cat (Friends)" and "Sherry LeBlanc (manga)" instead + +of "Catherine Cat" and "Sherry LeBlanc" like baselines. This indicates that baseline methods can only capture the rough meaning of a description from a general view, while our KVZEL is able to dive into the descriptions and capture more fine-grained semantic information from key views. Furthermore, for the second example, the mention with context is related to multiple views. A key observation is that our KVZEL can precisely select key views to aggregate to make the final decision, which indicates that our KVZEL has the ability of long-range key information integration. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we explore an issue that was overlooked when only textual descriptions are available in zero-shot entity linking scenarios, that is, only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. To overcome this issue, we propose a KVZEL framework to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context. Specifically, it first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views, which helps our entity linking module have the ability of long-range information integration. The selected views are aggregated into a new text, which replaces the original description as the input of our entity linking module to make the final decision. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed KVZEL framework achieves new state-of-the-art performance on the zero-shot entity linking dataset. + +# Limitations + +Although our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art for zero-shot entity linking, it also poses several limitations as follows: 1) In this work, for simplicity, we only use the traditional unsupervised clustering approach mean-shift to form sub views. However, other state-of-the-art clustering approaches also can be used and may work better. We leave the selection of a more effective cluster approach to future work. 2) In this work, we only focus on the zero-shot entity linking setting, which is a low-resource scenario and only provides the textual description information for each entity. This task challenges the ability of entity linking models to understand the language consistency between mention contexts and entity descriptions. Our KVZEL improves this ability by selecting key views from entity descriptions. Therefore, when our KVZEL is extended to other entity linking settings which may have much external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structure data, etc.) and not focus on the language understanding ability so much, the improvement of performance may be insignificant. + +# Acknowledgments + +This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62272250, 62002178), the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China (No. 22JCJQJC00150). + +# References + +Edoardo Barba, Luigi Procopio, and Roberto Navigli. 2022. Extend: Extractive entity disambiguation. In ACL, pages 2478-2488. +Roi Blanco, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Edgar Meij. 2015. Fast and space-efficient entity linking for queries. In WSDM, pages 179-188. +Yizong Cheng. 1995. Mean shift, mode seeking, and clustering. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 17(8):790-799. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186. +Octavian-Eugen Ganea and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Deep joint entity disambiguation with local neural attention. In EMNLP, pages 2619-2629. +Zhipeng Huang, Bogdan Cautis, Reynold Cheng, Yudian Zheng, Nikos Mamoulis, and Jing Yan. + +2018. Entity-based query recommendation for long-tail queries. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 12(6):64:1-64:24. +Gourab Kundu, Avirup Sil, Radu Florian, and Wael Hamza. 2018. Neural cross-lingual coreference resolution and its application to entity linking. In ACL, pages 395–400. +Phong Le and Ivan Titov. 2018. Improving entity linking by modeling latent relations between mentions. In ACL, pages 1595-1604. +Belinda Z. Li, Sewon Min, Srinivasan Iyer, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Efficient one-pass end-to-end entity linking for questions. In EMNLP, pages 6433-6441. +Stuart P. Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 28(2):129-136. +Lajanugen Logeswaran, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Jacob Devlin, and Honglak Lee. 2019. Zero-shot entity linking by reading entity descriptions. In ACL, pages 3449–3460. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101. +Andrew Y. Ng, Michael I. Jordan, and Yair Weiss. 2001. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In NeurIPS, pages 849-856. +Laurel J. Orr, Megan Leszczyński, Neel Guha, Sen Wu, Simran Arora, Xiao Ling, and Christopher Ré. 2021. Bootleg: Chasing the tail with self-supervised named entity disambiguation. In CIDR. +Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: Multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In AAAI, pages 5406-5413. +Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at TREC-3. In TREC, pages 109-126. +Xuhui Sui, Ying Zhang, Kehui Song, Baohang Zhou, Guoqing Zhao, Xin Wei, and Xiaojie Yuan. 2022. Improving zero-shot entity linking candidate generation with ultra-fine entity type information. In COLING, pages 2429-2437. +Kai Sun, Richong Zhang, Samuel Mensah, Yongyi Mao, and Xudong Liu. 2022. A transformational biencoder with in-domain negative sampling for zero-shot entity linking. In Findings of ACL, pages 1449-1458. +Yaming Sun, Lei Lin, Duyu Tang, Nan Yang, Zhenzhou Ji, and Xiaolong Wang. 2015. Modeling mention, context and entity with neural networks for entity disambiguation. In IJCAI, pages 1333-1339. +Hongyin Tang, Xingwu Sun, Beihong Jin, and Fuzheng Zhang. 2021. A bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model for zero-shot entity linking. In AAAI, pages 13889-13897. + +Simone Tedeschi, Simone Conia, Francesco Cecconi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. Named entity recognition for entity linking: What works and what's next. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2584-2596. +Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Constructing datasets for multi-hop reading comprehension across documents. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 6:287-302. +Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 6397-6407. +Ikuya Yamada, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yoshiyasu Takefuji. 2016. Joint learning of the embedding of words and entities for named entity disambiguation. In CoNLL, pages 250-259. +Xiyuan Yang, Xiaotao Gu, Sheng Lin, Siliang Tang, Yueting Zhuang, Fei Wu, Zhigang Chen, Guoping Hu, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Learning dynamic context augmentation for global entity linking. In EMNLP, pages 271-281. +Zonghai Yao, Liangliang Cao, and Huapu Pan. 2020. Zero-shot entity linking with efficient long range sequence modeling. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2517-2522. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/images.zip b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..784a3c6a0bf7bfdebc13d80c07f5f27fd2f1f5ac --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ac95293fb3fe41104e5ed46808e6ee2e8cef8c012be0b652ec7fe256049100f0 +size 539946 diff --git a/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/layout.json b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d66fe8a9b971f23116c9ba83062e426c33a8053 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7209 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 76, + 451, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 76, + 451, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 76, + 451, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Selecting Key Views for Zero-Shot Entity Linking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuhui Sui" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Ying Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Kehui Song" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Baohang Zhou" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xiaojie Yuan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Wensheng Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 105, + 427, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 134, + 503, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 134, + 503, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 134, + 503, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 College of Computer Science, VCIP, TMCC, TBI Center, Nankai University, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 148, + 453, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 148, + 453, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 148, + 453, + 161 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 148, + 453, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 162, + 452, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 162, + 452, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 144, + 162, + 452, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{suixuhui, songkehui, zhoubaohang}@dbis.nankai.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 177, + 473, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 177, + 473, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 177, + 473, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yingzhang, yuanxj}@nankai.edu.cn, zhangwensheng@hotmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity linking, which aligns mentions in the text to entities in knowledge bases, is essential for many natural language processing tasks. Considering the real-world scenarios, recent research hotspot of entity linking has focused on the zero-shot setting, where mentions need to link to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is provided. This task challenges the language understanding ability of models to capture the coherence evidence between the mention context and entity description. However, entity descriptions often contain rich information from multiple views, and a mention with context only relates to a small part of the information. Other irrelevant information will introduce noise, which interferes with models to make the right judgments. Furthermore, the existence of these information also makes it difficult to synthesize key information. To solve these problems, we select key views from descriptions and propose a KVZEL framework for zero-shot entity linking. Specifically, our KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it employs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate mention-focused views. This puts emphasis on capturing mention-related information and allows long-range key information integration. Finally, we aggregate key views to make the final decision. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our KVZEL and it achieves the new state-of-the-art on the zero-shot entity linking dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 647, + 155, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 647, + 155, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 647, + 155, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 292, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 292, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 292, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity linking (EL) is the task of assigning ambiguous mentions in textual input to their corresponding entities in a given real-world knowledge base. EL, as a fundamental task in the information extraction area, plays an important role in many downstream natural language processing (NLP) applications," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 521, + 354 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 521, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 521, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 212, + 521, + 354 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "38713740b84dd5dde9a0094193b057443277d7611b51e30a26d0daee3dbc51fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 371, + 521, + 473 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 358, + 512, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 358, + 512, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 358, + 512, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) An example of entity description with many views." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 371, + 521, + 473 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 371, + 521, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 371, + 521, + 473 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0964544be291865b66b8ab65be0b111d3579e7d5848e76b505f04b11aa44301c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 477, + 502, + 489 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 477, + 502, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 477, + 502, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Other methods and our proposed framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 526, + 570 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 526, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The motivation illustration of our proposed framework. Usually, an entity can be linked by different mentions from multiple views. Our proposed framework comes from this observation and selects key views from entity descriptions to better align mentions with divergent context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "such as semantic search (Blanco et al., 2015), content analysis (Huang et al., 2018) and question answering (Welbl et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Traditional EL approaches are built on the assumption that the train and test set share the same entity distributions, which means that linked entities in the test set are seen during training. However, in many real-world scenarios, the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone. More importantly, for some specialized domains such as medical and legal domains, the training data is sensitive or proprietary. Thus, it is not easy to obtain labeled data for these domains. Therefore, EL models need to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 169, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 169, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 761, + 169, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1303" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1303-1312" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "have the capability of generalizing to new entities of new domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address this, the zero-shot entity linking task (Logeswaran et al., 2019) has been proposed, where mentions need to be linked to unseen entities of new domains. Moreover, considering that there is no external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structured data) in many specialized domains, the textual description for each entity is the only information provided in this task. Based on the above, we can see that the entity description, as the only identification information of entities, is crucial for this task. Some previous works (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) have realized its importance and constructed models to circumvent the length limitation problem of BERT-based models to capture richer entity description information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, to the best of our knowledge, all previous methods utilize the same entire entity description to match different mentions with divergent context. This seems struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We argue that only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. An example shown in Figure 1a, the entity description of \"LeBron James\" contains multiple views information, such as his NBA journey, his family, etc. For the first mention, it only relates to \"View 1\" in the entity description. Other views are useless in determining whether the \"James\" should link to the entity \"LeBron James\". For the second mention, it is related to \"View 2\" and \"View 4\". However, the description of \"LeBron James\" mainly concentrates on his professional journey, which will introduce noise to interfere with entity linking models matching \"his father\" and \"LeBron James\". Furthermore, \"View 2\" and \"View 4\" may exist in different parts of the description, which makes it not trivial to synthesize the key information of the two views." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these problems, in this paper, we try to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context, which is shown in Figure 1b. This can also help entity linking models solve the problem of length limitation in BERT-based models, since the selected views are only a part of entity description. We propose a novel Key Views selection framework for Zero-shot Entity Linking in this paper, KVZEL in short. KVZEL first adopts unsupervised clustering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to group the sentences, and those in each cluster compose a sub view. When judging whether a mention in text matches the entity, humans tend to read the whole description and only focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. Considering that this mention may be related to multiple views of entity description, after finding that a single view is insufficient to make the judgment, humans will use the previously relevant views as clues and move on to find the next relevant view. With the inspiration of the human's thinking process, our KVZEL designs a mention-aware key views selection module to iteratively accumulate the most relevant views. These views are then aggregated into a new text, which serves as the mention-focused and highly-condensed version of original entity description. Finally, the text replaces the description and is utilized by our entity linking module to make the final decision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To summarize, our major contributions are shown as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 365, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 365, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 365, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 365, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to select key views from entity descriptions to link different mentions with divergent context. This is very meaningful for entities with rich multiple views information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 443, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 443, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 443, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a novel framework KVZEL for zero-shot entity linking, which imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views. These views are aggregated to measure the matching score between mentions and entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 534, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 534, + 525, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 534, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Experimental results on zero-shot entity linking dataset (Logeswaran et al., 2019) show that our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art performance. Further analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 396, + 624 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 396, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 396, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 400, + 646 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 400, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 400, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Entity Linking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity linking, as a bridge between real-world text and standard knowledge base, has been widely explored in recent years. Many entity linking methods (Sun et al., 2015; Yamada et al., 2016; Le and Titov, 2018; Yang et al., 2019; Tedeschi et al., 2021; Barba et al., 2022) have achieved great success in both academic research and industrial applications. While these results are impressive, the models in these methods are learned under the setting where" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1304" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 82, + 498, + 248 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 71, + 366, + 81 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 71, + 366, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 71, + 366, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mention-Aware Key Views Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 82, + 498, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 82, + 498, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 82, + 498, + 248 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e229b00c7b612ac56a1b9cf89a0a392ff395c1527a9785926bbd000ae73928cf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 525, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 525, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 525, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall architecture of our KVZEL framework, which includes three modules: a sub view clustering module, a mention-aware key views selection module and an entity linking module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "linked entities in the test set are available during training. Furthermore, with the expansion of knowledge in knowledge bases, many state-of-the-art methods (Ganea and Hofmann, 2017; Kundu et al., 2018; Raiman and Raiman, 2018; Orr et al., 2021) have made full use of external knowledge. However, in many real-world scenarios, labeled data and external knowledge are not easily available in many specialized domains. Based on empirical evidence, the performance of models deteriorates substantially when dealing with new entities of new domains without external knowledge. This motivates many researchers to study zero-shot entity linking (Logeswaran et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 215, + 521 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 215, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 215, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Zero-Shot Entity Linking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-shot entity linking is the task where mentions must be linked to unseen entities and only the description of each entity is available. It consists of two phases: candidate generation (Wu et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022; Sui et al., 2022) and candidate ranking (Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021). Following previous works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we only focus on the candidate ranking phase and use the traditional Information Retrieval (IR) approach of BM25 (Robertson et al., 1994) in the candidate generation phase. Logeswaran et al. (2019) uses a cross-encoder architecture that concatenates mention context and entity description and feeds it into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to produce the matching score by performing cross-attention. However, BERT-based models may lose important description information due to the limitation of their input" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 526, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "length. Yao et al. (2020) solves the problem by initializing larger position embeddings to expand the effective reading length of BERT. Tang et al. (2021) proposes a bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model which segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. However, the consideration of paragraphs that are irrelevant to the mention may introduce noise in the final representation and limit the long-range dependencies between relevant information. This motivates us to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context to address these problems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 392, + 505 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 392, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 491, + 392, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of our proposed KVZEL framework. We first use the sub view clustering module to generate sub views from descriptions. Then we design a mention-aware key views selection module to select relevant sub views for different mentions with divergent context. Finally, our entity linking module makes the final decision based on the selected views. In this section, we introduce these three modules in detail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 428, + 660 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 428, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 428, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Sub View Clustering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The goal of our sub view clustering module is to cluster sentence chunks describing the same view together, so as to select key views later. For each given entity description, we first segment it into sentence chunks " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_L]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Intuitively, each individual sentence in the description is taken as a chunk. However, the understanding of short sentences is often not easy and needs the help of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1305" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context. A simple solution is to segment the entire description into chunks of fixed length. However, this destroys the syntactic relationship and may lead to clustering errors. Thus, we fuse these two ways and set a fixed capacity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each chunk. Each chunk loads as many sentences as possible. After loading sentences, the sentence sequences in chunks are padded to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 290, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with zero values." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We feed the sentence chunks " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) in the form of [CLS] " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [SEP] to extract features, which are the vectors in the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of [CLS] tokens. Then, we adopt mean-shift (Cheng, 1995) clustering approach to group sentence chunks. Compared to other traditional unsupervised clustering approaches (such as k-means (Lloyd, 1982), spectral clustering (Ng et al., 2001), etc), mean-shift does not need to specify the number of clusters, which is more suitable for our application scenario. Those sentence chunks in each cluster compose a sub view:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 364, + 260, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 364, + 260, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 364, + 260, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V = \\operatorname {M e a n - S h i f t} \\left(\\operatorname {B E R T} \\left(S; \\theta_ {\\operatorname {B E R T} _ {1}}\\right)\\right)", + "image_path": "c492b109601ea2031dbd151b1b6c54de001945f4e57f3fb7629fc739806adc6e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 264, + 401 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 264, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 264, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Mention-Aware Key Views Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 406, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 406, + 291, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 406, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The goal of our mention-aware key views selection module is to iteratively accumulate mention-related views for the final entity linking process. This is similar to human reading through the whole description view by view to measure the relevance of the mention and each view. Then they will focus on the view that is most relevant to the mention. When moving on to find the next relevant view, they will still remember previously relevant views and utilize them as clues to help this process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 193, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 193, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 193, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.1 Feature Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For a given mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", suppose there are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidate entities of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and we have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sub views " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V = [V_{1}, V_{2}, \\dots, V_{n}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the initial stage, our clues only consist of the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the entity title:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 137, + 641, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 137, + 641, + 290, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 137, + 641, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "[ \\mathrm {C L S} ] m e [ \\mathrm {S E P} ] t \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "9662a9ce71798338dfe5754def82f2ade08d0c13be488bf5931c77f8d3e70d10.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "me" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the inputs of the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the entity title. Following Wu et al. (2020), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "me" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are constructed as: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "me = cl[\\mathrm{Ms}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " mention [Me] cr and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = title[\\mathrm{ENT}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where mention, cl, cr, title are the word-piece tokens of the mention, context before and after the mention and the entity title respectively. [Ms] and [Me] are special tokens to tag the mention, and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[ENT] is the special token to separate entity title and entity description. The clues are concatenated with the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " views separately and a special separator token [SEP] is added at the end. We feed them into a BERT encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\theta_{\\mathrm{BERT}_2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to extract features. It produces a matrix representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X = [x_{1},x_{2},\\dots,x_{n}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to represent the clues-view pairs, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th view and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dimension of hidden states of BERT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 418, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 418, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 418, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.2 Module Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the process of labeling data is labor-intensive and error-prone, we do not have any labels about key views. Therefore, we introduce a matching task to enable our module to learn relevance scores between mentions and views. We argue that views that are more relevant to the mention can contribute more to determining whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we use a trainable weight parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W_{a} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as one of the inputs and utilize the SoftMax function to calculate the attention scores of the matching result with regard to the views:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 403, + 465, + 419 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 403, + 465, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 403, + 465, + 419 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "G = \\operatorname {S o f t M a x} \\left(W _ {a} X ^ {T}\\right)", + "image_path": "52cce3d36ecf707f660f68c8264d555ab505470461b99ee99c211f293b88406f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then, we utilize the weighted aggregation with the attention scores to obtain the mention-entity representation: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Z = GX" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Z \\in \\mathbb{R}^d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, we get the binary prediction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by feeding the representation into a feed-forward neural network FFNN: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y} = \\mathrm{FFNN}(Z; \\theta_{F_1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The prediction measures whether the mention and the candidate entity are matched." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 576, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 576, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 576, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {S e l e c t i o n}} = - \\left(y \\log \\hat {y} + (1 - y) \\log (1 - \\hat {y})\\right) (2)", + "image_path": "752878793a2eee212c362ff93ec882d6cd1357ab10efb0e28aaa62411de0ab51.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " takes the value 1 if the mention and the candidate entity are matched." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 432, + 650 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 432, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 432, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.3 Key Views Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 525, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 525, + 747 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 525, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During the matching task training, the vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 525, + 747 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 653, + 525, + 747 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " learns to measure the degree to which each view contributes to determining whether mentions and entities are matched. In the inference stage, we use it as the relevance scores between clues and all views of the candidate entity and utilize an Argmax function to obtain the most key view:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "k = \\operatorname {A r g m a x} (G) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "c7c5770137a4f0e3b4c6d841ba66fb4d68600256bcaedbb271fa6ffdcaed1176.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1306" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 320 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 320 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 320 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Algorithm 1: The key views selection process of our KVZEL.
Input: The mention with context m, candidate entity ep, candidate view list V of ep, number of iterations Q. Output: The selected view list V.
1Construct initial clues by Eq. 1.
2for each iteration q = 1 to Q do
3Calculate LSelection by Eq. 2 and train our key views selection module.
4Calculate the most key view Vk by Eq. 3 in the inference stage.
5Add Vk to existing clues and the selected view list V.
6Remove Vk from the candidate view list V.
7end
8return V
", + "image_path": "a107209e1dc988272710ff9ec1ad0208458c12f31da664fce03ee7cd56408cab.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the view marker. Then, we add this view " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (e.g. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") to our existing clues. And we will not consider the view " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the next iteration. We summarize the key views selection process of our KVZEL in Algorithm 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 166, + 441 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 166, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 166, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Entity Linking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The goal of our entity linking module is to aggregate key views into a new text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to make the final decision. Considering that the first view sentences (view " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") are able to generally describe the entity, we first add the first view " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to enhance the overall understanding of the entity. Then we sort the selected key views to maintain the relative ordering in the original description to preserve the syntactic dependencies. The key views are then added to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " one by one. The new text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " serves as the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " focused highly-condensed version of the entity description of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " replaces the original entity description and is read by our entity linking module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Wu et al. (2020) and similar to Eq. 1, the input text of the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is constructed as: [CLS] " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "me" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [SEP] " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t \\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [SEP]. Then the input text is entered into a BERT encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\theta_{\\mathrm{BERT}_3})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to produce the vector representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is the output of the last hidden layer corresponding to the position of the [CLS] token. Finally, the representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is input into a feed-forward neural network FFNN and the score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and its " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th candidate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 521, + 319 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 521, + 319 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 521, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 521, + 319 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DomainsLengthEntitiesMentions
Training
American Football665.06319293898
Doctor Who264.14402818334
Fallout229.68169923286
Final Fantasy497.35140446041
Military870.5510452013063
Pro Wrestling639.53101331392
StarWars379.768705611824
World of Warcraft242.16276771437
Validation
Coronation Street264.55178091464
Muppets161.50213442028
Ice Hockey282.62286842233
Elder Scrolls269.03217124275
Test
Forgotten Realms257.29156031200
Lego223.86100761199
Star Trek393.21344304227
YuGiOh643.68100313374
", + "image_path": "246b052f6691af3b8e492635a5283c1f689af650ab0bb084ee11ca29e86738f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 363 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 525, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Overall statistics of the Zeshel dataset, which consists of the average length of documents, the number of entities and labeled mentions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 518, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 518, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 518, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 518, + 399 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 518, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated using a SoftMax function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 407, + 511, + 441 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 407, + 511, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 407, + 511, + 441 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {s} _ {p} = \\mathrm {F F N N} (U _ {p}; \\theta_ {F _ {2}}), s _ {p} = \\frac {\\exp (\\hat {s} _ {p})}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {P} \\exp (\\hat {s} _ {j})}", + "image_path": "0c35d888864a00d8c8841eef66dd61b830a6327ee5b0f0ca8bd8f0f7f1c36d23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of candidate entities of the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We employ cross-entropy as our loss objective, which is calculated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 524, + 536 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 524, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 524, + 536 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {L i n k i n g} = - \\sum_ {p = 1} ^ {P} y _ {p} \\log s _ {p} + (1 - y _ {p}) \\log (1 - s _ {p})", + "image_path": "f9e048c63437dbe7ce2f4233186b02bdfd4a777ea7c1829b3521e04458543b6e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{p} \\in \\{0,1\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " takes the value 1 if the candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the gold entity of the mention " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", otherwise it takes the value 0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 390, + 610 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 390, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 390, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 367, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 367, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 367, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 634, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 634, + 525, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 634, + 525, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following recent zero-shot entity linking works (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021), we evaluate our framework KVZEL under the Zeshel dataset, which is constructed by Logeswaran et al. (2019). Overall statistics of the dataset are shown in Table 1. The dataset was built based on the documents in Wikia.2 Wikia consists of encyclopedias, each specialized" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 479, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 479, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 479, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 417, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 417, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 417, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 417, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://www.wikia.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1307" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 89, + 68, + 503, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 68, + 503, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 68, + 503, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 68, + 503, + 174 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsForgotten RealmsLegoStar TrekYuGiOhMacro Acc.Micro Acc.
Cross-encoder85.6076.9075.8067.2276.3874.21
Repeat----77.58-
Uni-MPR85.5577.4278.2368.2977.6275.78
Bi-MPR89.0977.1879.2069.9878.6176.70
KVZEL w/o iteration87.1076.9078.4271.3678.4577.35
KVZEL w/o V088.3076.0878.9673.4179.1978.24
KVZEL (Ours)88.8077.9380.6573.5080.2279.30
", + "image_path": "72b4809251600822aed687ee755acb7e57de6b73d1f55f77bf4c8ca2a63ce178.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 525, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 525, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results on the test set of Zeshel dataset. Macro Acc. represents the average accuracy of these four test domains. Micro Acc. represents the weighted average accuracy of these four domains. In the results, the highest values are in bold and the results unavailable are left blank. All scores are averaged 5 runs using different random seeds, and our results over all baselines are statistically significant with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.05" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the t-test." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in a particular subject such as sports and film series. Each particular subject can be considered as a domain. Zeshel consists of 16 specialized domains, 8 domains for training, 4 for validation, and 4 for test. Each domain has its individual entity dictionary, allowing the performance evaluation on entire unseen entities of new domains. The training set has 49,275 labeled mentions while the validation and test sets both have 10,000 unseen mentions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 205, + 397 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 205, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 205, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For a fair comparison, we use the BERT-base-uncased (Devlin et al., 2019) as our encoder and use the accuracy as our evaluation metric. For the sub view clustering module, the capacity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 64. For the mention-aware key views selection module, following Tang et al. (2021), we set the maximum sequence length of the mention context to be 256. We train this module 1 epoch per iteration using a batch size of 8 and a learning rate of 2e-5. The number of iterations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 3, which can get the best results. We use the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer to optimize our module. For the entity linking module, also following Tang et al. (2021), the max length for the mention context and entity description are both set to 256. We train this module in 5 epochs. All parameters are also optimized by AdamW, with learning rate 2e-5, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " warmup steps. Experiments were conducted on two NVIDIA GeForce RTX A6000 GPUs with 48 GB memory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 197, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 197, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 197, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Comparison Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the quantitative evaluation of our KVZEL, we use the following state-of-the-art methods (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2021) for comparison. All of these methods including our KVZEL are based on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the cross-encoder (Logeswaran et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2020), which feeds the concatenation of mention context and entity description to BERT and outputs the [CLS] token's embeddings to produce the relevance scores. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 482 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{repeat}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 526, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Yao et al., 2020) extends the effective reading length of BERT by repeating the position embedding to solve the long-range modeling problem in entity descriptions. Uni-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) segments a long description into short paragraphs to make use of more description information. Bi-MPR (Tang et al., 2021) is based on Uni-MPR, which segments mention context into short paragraphs to incorporate more mention information. Note that we do not consider any domain-adaptive techniques in our KVZEL and comparison methods, which improves the final performance but outsides our work scope." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 429, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 429, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 429, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Overall Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The comparison results on the Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 2. We can observe that our KVZEL outperforms all baseline methods on average, illustrating the effectiveness of our KVZEL and the superiority of selecting key views for different mentions with divergent context. It's worth noting that all baselines perform worse on the YuGiOh domain. We conjecture that this is because the entities in this domain has more views since we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. This is consistent with our claim that previous methods seem struggling to manage entities with rich multiple views information. We observe that our KVZEL makes a significant improvement on the domains (e.g. Star Trek and YuGiOh) whose descriptions have rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration, which is very effective for these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1308" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 283, + 221 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 283, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 283, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 69, + 283, + 221 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "188eef655cc3769746dac06aca79cc5be0a59fd3d24a099e2f111c0618297c76.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 231, + 291, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 231, + 291, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 231, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The effect of the number of selected views. Dashed lines indicate the accuracy on the four test domains and solid lines indicate the average accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "domains. In general, our KVZEL outperforms the baseline methods for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.61\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on Macro Acc. and Micro Acc. on the test set of Zeshel dataset, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 133, + 366 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 133, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 133, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 166, + 389 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 166, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 166, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better understand our KVZEL framework, we investigate the contribution of some components through ablation studies, and the results are also shown in Table 2. Considering that our entity linking module is based on cross-encoder, the comparison results to cross-encoder could also be regarded as the ablation study to justify the advantage of our KVZEL. To evaluate the contribution of iteratively accumulating key views, we train the key views selection module only once and select the same number of key views for the entity linking module. We find that this leads to a significant performance drop, which demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing the previously selected views as clues to move on to find the next key view. We then do not add the first view " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{des}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and only consider the selected views in our entity linking module. It can be observed that KVZEL w/o " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performs worse than KVZEL. This indicates that the adding of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " helps our entity linking module understand entities better, since we observe the first view sentences of most entities are able to generally describe the entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 260, + 727 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 260, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 260, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Effect of Number of Selected Views" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also explore the effect of different numbers of selected views on our KVZEL performance. The experimental results are shown in Figure 3. We" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 329, + 68, + 500, + 151 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 68, + 500, + 151 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 68, + 500, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 68, + 500, + 151 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LengthNumberProportion
(0,200)275240.40%
[200,500)202529.73%
[500,1000)95414.00%
[1000,2000)5548.13%
[2000,+∞)5277.74%
", + "image_path": "f1faed8f34a3cb3f821ad5fb0cc5a7c6d4e453893333bbb0ab112fd04ee4ec16.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 525, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 525, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 525, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The statistics of entities with different description lengths. We partition the entities by the tokens number in entity descriptions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 208, + 520, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 208, + 520, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 208, + 520, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 208, + 520, + 364 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "edbb6bc5c8bcc0356847b41f2b99b5cedd06e52a02d54b62e383af66a9f7b455.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 525, + 409 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 525, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 525, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. We calculate metrics based on the partition in Table 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 432, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 432, + 525, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 432, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "can find that the required number of selected views changes with different domains. For domains with rich views in entity descriptions (e.g. YuGiOh), the integration of more information from multiple views becomes particularly important. While for domains whose views are not as rich (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Lego), single or two views are sufficient to help our entity linking module to correctly link to gold entities. In general, we can observe that our KVZEL with 3 selected views performs best on average. If the number of selected views is too small, there will be not enough information to help our entity linking module make the correct decision. Conversely, if this number is too large, this will introduce noise from irrelevant views and cause the performance to drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 463, + 673 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 463, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 463, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Effect of Description Length" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Through our observation, we find that the entities with longer descriptions contain more views. To further show the effectiveness of our proposed KVZEL framework, we evaluate the effect of cross-encoder and our KVZEL on entities with different description lengths. The statistics of entities on the test set of Zeshel dataset are shown in Table 3 and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1309" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 522, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 522, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 522, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 522, + 233 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Mention with contextDescription input of baselinesDescription input of KVZEL
Lucifer reuses the cat single-stud mould introduced for the Friends theme. It features Lucifer standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled...The Cat is a Friends animal figure introduced in 2013. The black one, released in the first series of Friends Animals, became available even in December 2012...The first selected view: The cat is a single-stud mould, which features it standing up with bent back, elevated head looking straight ahead and long tail lying flat curled around the left side...
Having just defeated Sherry, Akiza walks over to her. Sherry protests that Akiza ran away from the Academy. Akiza admits that she ran away, and acknowledges that Duel Academy Sanctuary may foster elite... She asks Akiza where she learned the trick of riding her Duel Runner with her eyes shut...Sherry LeBlanc is a Psychic Duelist with an ability referred to as Hand Scan, in which she can view her opponent's current hand. Design. Appearance. Sherry has long, waist length, blond hair with bangs that curl away from her face in a horizontal direction and has emerald color eyes...The first selected view: Akiza chose to leave the academy due to its eli-tist ways, which made Sherry feel betrayed and harbor a hatred for Akiza... The second selected view: After the Duel, Sherry and Akiza become friends again after Sherry questions Akiza on where she learned to drive a Duel Runner with her eyes closed...
", + "image_path": "d1bc4679149ef755fbe488d5b13e5fed8ffbd47b40501397d77a00ae4a1f2594.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 525, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 525, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Qualitative analysis of test samples in Zeshel dataset. We analyze the gold entity description input of baselines and our KVZEL. The mentions in text are written in bold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the experimental results are shown in Figure 4. We can find that the cross-encoder (without selecting key views) obtains passable performance on entities with few views but fails to manage those multiview entities as the length of descriptions increases. For example, the accuracy of cross-encoder is over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for entities with 0-500 description tokens but about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for entities with over 1000 description tokens. This is the limitation for zero-shot entity linking. Our KVZEL avoids the noise brought by irrelevant view information and allows long-range key information integration by iteratively accumulate key views. This helps our framework manage the entities with rich multiple views information. Our KVZEL significantly improves the accuracy to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "71.66\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+10.29\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "66.98\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+12.33\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for entities with 1000-2000 tokens and over 2000 tokens, respectively. Furthermore, considering its ability to avoid noise brought by irrelevant views information, our KVZEL also slightly improves the performance on entities with few views, which achieves the accuracy of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80.67\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+0.26\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "83.21\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(+2.12\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for entities with 0-200 tokens and 200-500 tokens respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 148, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 148, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To conduct a qualitative analysis, Table 4 shows two examples from the test set of Zeshel dataset. While the baseline methods tend to input the entire entity descriptions, our KVZEL only inputs the mention-focused views of entity descriptions. This indeed helps our framework avoid noise brought by irrelevant information and enhances emphasis on the corresponding details. For these two examples, our KVZEL can point to the gold entities \"Cat (Friends)\" and \"Sherry LeBlanc (manga)\" instead" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of \"Catherine Cat\" and \"Sherry LeBlanc\" like baselines. This indicates that baseline methods can only capture the rough meaning of a description from a general view, while our KVZEL is able to dive into the descriptions and capture more fine-grained semantic information from key views. Furthermore, for the second example, the mention with context is related to multiple views. A key observation is that our KVZEL can precisely select key views to aggregate to make the final decision, which indicates that our KVZEL has the ability of long-range key information integration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 381, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 381, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 381, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we explore an issue that was overlooked when only textual descriptions are available in zero-shot entity linking scenarios, that is, only part of description information is related to mentions and other irrelevant information will introduce noise and make models reduce emphasis on the corresponding details. To overcome this issue, we propose a KVZEL framework to select key views from entity descriptions for different mentions with divergent context. Specifically, it first adopts unsupervised clustering to form sub views. Then, it imitates the human's thinking process to iteratively accumulate mention-related views, which helps our entity linking module have the ability of long-range information integration. The selected views are aggregated into a new text, which replaces the original description as the input of our entity linking module to make the final decision. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed KVZEL framework achieves new state-of-the-art performance on the zero-shot entity linking dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1310" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 93, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 93, + 291, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 93, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although our KVZEL achieves new state-of-the-art for zero-shot entity linking, it also poses several limitations as follows: 1) In this work, for simplicity, we only use the traditional unsupervised clustering approach mean-shift to form sub views. However, other state-of-the-art clustering approaches also can be used and may work better. We leave the selection of a more effective cluster approach to future work. 2) In this work, we only focus on the zero-shot entity linking setting, which is a low-resource scenario and only provides the textual description information for each entity. This task challenges the ability of entity linking models to understand the language consistency between mention contexts and entity descriptions. Our KVZEL improves this ability by selecting key views from entity descriptions. Therefore, when our KVZEL is extended to other entity linking settings which may have much external knowledge (e.g. frequency statistics and structure data, etc.) and not focus on the language understanding ability so much, the improvement of performance may be insignificant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 401, + 166, + 416 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 401, + 166, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 401, + 166, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 424, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62272250, 62002178), the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China (No. 22JCJQJC00150)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 127, + 514 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 127, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 127, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 290, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edoardo Barba, Luigi Procopio, and Roberto Navigli. 2022. Extend: Extractive entity disambiguation. In ACL, pages 2478-2488." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 290, + 599 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 290, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 565, + 290, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roi Blanco, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Edgar Meij. 2015. Fast and space-efficient entity linking for queries. In WSDM, pages 179-188." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 609, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 609, + 290, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 609, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizong Cheng. 1995. Mean shift, mode seeking, and clustering. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 17(8):790-799." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 697 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In *NAACL*, pages 4171–4186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Octavian-Eugen Ganea and Thomas Hofmann. 2017. Deep joint entity disambiguation with local neural attention. In EMNLP, pages 2619-2629." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhipeng Huang, Bogdan Cautis, Reynold Cheng, Yudian Zheng, Nikos Mamoulis, and Jing Yan." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 27, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2018. Entity-based query recommendation for long-tail queries. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 12(6):64:1-64:24." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 113, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 113, + 525, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 113, + 525, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gourab Kundu, Avirup Sil, Radu Florian, and Wael Hamza. 2018. Neural cross-lingual coreference resolution and its application to entity linking. In ACL, pages 395–400." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Phong Le and Ivan Titov. 2018. Improving entity linking by modeling latent relations between mentions. In ACL, pages 1595-1604." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 207, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Belinda Z. Li, Sewon Min, Srinivasan Iyer, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Efficient one-pass end-to-end entity linking for questions. In EMNLP, pages 6433-6441." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 259, + 524, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 259, + 524, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 259, + 524, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stuart P. Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 28(2):129-136." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 525, + 334 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 525, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 525, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lajanugen Logeswaran, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Jacob Devlin, and Honglak Lee. 2019. Zero-shot entity linking by reading entity descriptions. In ACL, pages 3449–3460." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 525, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew Y. Ng, Michael I. Jordan, and Yair Weiss. 2001. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In NeurIPS, pages 849-856." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 425, + 525, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Laurel J. Orr, Megan Leszczyński, Neel Guha, Sen Wu, Simran Arora, Xiao Ling, and Christopher Ré. 2021. Bootleg: Chasing the tail with self-supervised named entity disambiguation. In CIDR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 477, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 477, + 525, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 477, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Raiman and Olivier Raiman. 2018. Deeype: Multilingual entity linking by neural type system evolution. In AAAI, pages 5406-5413." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at TREC-3. In TREC, pages 109-126." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuhui Sui, Ying Zhang, Kehui Song, Baohang Zhou, Guoqing Zhao, Xin Wei, and Xiaojie Yuan. 2022. Improving zero-shot entity linking candidate generation with ultra-fine entity type information. In COLING, pages 2429-2437." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kai Sun, Richong Zhang, Samuel Mensah, Yongyi Mao, and Xudong Liu. 2022. A transformational biencoder with in-domain negative sampling for zero-shot entity linking. In Findings of ACL, pages 1449-1458." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 720 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaming Sun, Lei Lin, Duyu Tang, Nan Yang, Zhenzhou Ji, and Xiaolong Wang. 2015. Modeling mention, context and entity with neural networks for entity disambiguation. In IJCAI, pages 1333-1339." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongyin Tang, Xingwu Sun, Beihong Jin, and Fuzheng Zhang. 2021. A bidirectional multi-paragraph reading model for zero-shot entity linking. In AAAI, pages 13889-13897." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1311" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simone Tedeschi, Simone Conia, Francesco Cecconi, and Roberto Navigli. 2021. Named entity recognition for entity linking: What works and what's next. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2584-2596." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Constructing datasets for multi-hop reading comprehension across documents. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 6:287-302." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 6397-6407." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ikuya Yamada, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yoshiyasu Takefuji. 2016. Joint learning of the embedding of words and entities for named entity disambiguation. In CoNLL, pages 250-259." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiyuan Yang, Xiaotao Gu, Sheng Lin, Siliang Tang, Yueting Zhuang, Fei Wu, Zhigang Chen, Guoping Hu, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Learning dynamic context augmentation for global entity linking. In EMNLP, pages 271-281." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zonghai Yao, Liangliang Cao, and Huapu Pan. 2020. Zero-shot entity linking with efficient long range sequence modeling. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2517-2522." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1312" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_content_list.json b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07b087734c199c36abda733a90aa74cafd77ecff --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1853 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 206, + 90, + 789, + 110 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 142, + 685, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Ohio State University", + "bbox": [ + 394, + 159, + 606, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{chang.1692, fosler-lussier.1} @osu.edu", + "bbox": [ + 341, + 175, + 662, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) with in-context learning have demonstrated impressive generalization capabilities in the cross-domain text-to-SQL task, without the use of in-domain annotations. However, incorporating in-domain demonstration examples has been found to greatly enhance LLMs' performance. In this paper, we delve into the key factors within in-domain examples that contribute to the improvement and explore whether we can harness these benefits without relying on in-domain annotations. Based on our findings, we propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS1 which utilizes both out-of-domain examples and synthetically generated in-domain examples to construct demonstrations. By retrieving demonstrations from hybrid sources, ODIS leverages the advantages of both, showcasing its effectiveness compared to baseline methods that rely on a single data source. Furthermore, ODIS outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets, with improvements of 1.1 and 11.8 points in execution accuracy, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 284, + 460, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 642, + 258, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), have demonstrated a great capability of addressing various language tasks with in-context learning (ICL), which rely on prompts that contain a task instruction and zero or a few demonstration examples regarding the task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 670, + 487, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent studies have evaluated LLMs on the cross-domain text-to-SQL which translates a natural language question (NLQ) to a SQL query for a new database. Previous work has conditioned LLMs with prompts that solely contain the database", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 800, + 487, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "information without any demonstrations (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023) or utilize out-of-domain demonstration examples that are annotated NLQ-SQL pairs associated with the databases that are different from the test database (Poesia et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) have found that the performance of LLMs can be significantly improved with annotated in-domain examples serving as demonstrations, which are the NLQ-SQL pairs corresponding to the test database. Despite the remarkable performance improvements achieved through in-domain annotated demonstrations, acquiring such data can be costly, as the annotation process requires SQL professionals. More importantly, annotating examples for each new database diminishes the generalizability of text-to-SQL applications. These observations naturally raise two questions: (1) Which are the key factors within the in-domain annotated examples that contribute to the performance improvement? and (2) Can we harness these benefits of in-domain demonstrations without relying on in-domain annotation?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 351, + 884, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we start by investigating the role of the in-domain demonstration examples and then developing new techniques to create demonstrations without leveraging in-domain annotations. We assess three aspects within in-domain annotations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, input NLQ distribution, and output SQL distribution. Our experiments show that SQL distribution plays a pivotal role in in-domain demonstrations. This finding motivates us to synthesize in-domain data by generating sampled SQL queries. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to leverage synthetic examples for text-to-SQL with in-context learning. Furthermore, we introduce a novel demonstration selection framework ODIS which utilizes Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic data. By automatically selecting demonstration", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The code for the paper is available at https://github. com/shuaichenchang/ODIS-Text-to-SQL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14174", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14174-14189 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 87, + 421, + 102 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. \nQuestion: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? \nselect name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; \nQuestion: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? \nselect count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; \nQuestion: Which year has most number of concerts? \nselect", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 108, + 478, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL for the database concert_singer in the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018). The prompt text of database schema and content, which is constructed using CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023), is shown at the beginning of the prompt. Two in-domain demonstrations (highlighted in blue) are presented prior to the test question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 259, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "examples from both out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data with SQL-guided retrieval methods, our method consistently outperforms both state-of-the-art models employing fine-tuning (Scholak et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a) and in-context learning (Chen et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets. Our contributions are in three folds:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 387, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We conduct a thorough analysis to examine the impact of different aspects in in-domain demonstrations for text-to-SQL.", + "- We propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS that leverages out-of-domain and synthetically generated in-domain demonstrations.", + "- By employing SQL-guided retrieval methods for selecting out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain demonstrations, ODIS consistently outperforms baselines as well as state-of-the-art approaches." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 526, + 487, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Analysis of In-domain Demonstrations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 696, + 480, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we analyze the roles and contributions of in-domain annotated demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 721, + 489, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Experiment Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 763, + 302, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct experiments on two widely-used cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets: Spider (Yu et al., 2018) and KaggleDBQA (Lee et al., 2021). For the Spider dataset, we use its development set, which consists of 20 databases with 1047 examples2. As for KaggleDBQA, we employ the complete dataset, which contains 8 databases and 272", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 784, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CreateTable+SelectCol(dorm_1) \n-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Find the number of students in each major. select count $(\\star)$ , major from student group by major; Question: Find the total capacity of all dorms. select sum(student_capacity) from dorm; \nCreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) \n-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Which year has most number of concerts? select", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 87, + 868, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: An example prompt of 2-shot out-of-domain text-to-SQL for the test database concert_singer. An out-of-domain database dorm_1 with 2 associated demonstrations (highlighted in blue) is presented prior to the test database and question.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 882, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "examples. Following Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), we utilize a leave-one-out split for evaluating in-domain demonstrations. Specifically, for a given test example, we randomly select demonstrations from the remaining examples associated with the same database, with the condition that selected demonstration examples that do not share the same SQL template as the test example, following the template-split approach (Finegan-Dollak et al., 2018). We also require the selected demonstrations to have different templates following Levy et al. (2022). We repeat all experiments three times to obtain average results. Figure 1 illustrates a prompt example that incorporates two in-domain demonstrations for the database concert_singer in Spider. Detailed prompt examples can be in Appendix A.1. We use Code-davinci-002 version of Codex (Chen et al., 2021) as our LLM due to its demonstrated capability on code generation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 356, + 884, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Effectiveness of In-domain Annotations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 865, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3 illustrates the execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA. In the zero-shot scenario, where no demonstration examples of NLQ-SQL pairs are provided, Codex achieves execution accuracies of 75.7 and 26.8 for Spider and KaggleDBQA. However, the utilization of in-domain examples demonstrates a considerable improvement in Codex's performance. Notably, as the number of in-domain demonstration examples increases, Codex's performance continues to enhance. With 30 in-domain annotated examples, Codex's performance is significantly boosted to 84.6 and 71.7 on Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 693, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While the benefit of employing in-domain exam", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2The test set of Spider is not publicly available.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 423, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14175", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/023e4c8e1a45a3f2bc19630f1bca6a5c742254cc6269685cbac2cc400e7b73b8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Spider" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 79, + 495, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c9a51a4a96d064d1f92b70927179f945fed5823ecd31fb7ac2d9754327e71f5f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) KaggleDBQA", + "Figure 3: The results of Codex with randomly selected in-domain demonstration examples compared to the zero-shot setting. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively. ID represents the experiments utilizing in-domain demonstrations while 00D represents the use of out-of-domain demonstrations." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 80, + 867, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "plies in ICL is evident, there still exists a limited understanding of the key factors within in-domain demonstrations that contribute to performance enhancement. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to analyze three aspects of in-domain demonstrations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, the distribution of in-domain NLQs, and the distribution of in-domain SQL queries. The first aspect pertains to domain-agnostic knowledge, while the latter two are specific to the domain.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 326, + 487, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text-to-SQL task knowledge and format The in-domain examples encompass the task format and knowledge of LLMs, such as the relationship between an NLQ and its corresponding SQL query given a database. To investigate the extent to which the performance gains are due to the task format and knowledge, we conducted a study utilizing annotated out-of-domain data as an alternative source for providing task format and knowledge. In this setup, the model can learn the correct task format and knowledge from the annotated NLQ and SQL pairs associated with other databases. We randomly select examples from the training set of Spider, which contain 140 databases with 7000 examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 500, + 487, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2 illustrates an example prompt that incorporates out-of-domain demonstrations. We insert $M$ databases preceding the test database, each accompanied by 5 NLQ and SQL pairs. We conducted experiments varying the value of $M$ , ranging from 1 to 6. The results of \"OOD Examples\" shown in Figure 3 demonstrate that exposure to out-of-domain examples with the same task format and knowledge can indeed enhance the model's performance. However, the performance gains from these out-of-domain examples are significantly smaller compared to those obtained from in-domain ex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "amples. Furthermore, we observe that the performance gains achieved through in-domain demonstrations tend to converge or even diminish after a certain number of examples have been provided. This finding stands in contrast to the continuous performance improvement observed with the use of in-domain demonstrations. We believe that while Codex is capable of learning the task format and knowledge from in-domain examples, the task format and knowledge alone are not sufficient to account for the observed performance gains.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 326, + 884, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we investigate the necessity of task knowledge in the demonstrations by conducting an experiment where we shuffle the NLQs and SQL queries to create mismatched demonstrations. Figure 7 demonstrates that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights the necessity of including correct task knowledge and format in the demonstrations. Detailed results of this experiment can be found in Appendix A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 504, + 882, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-domain input NLQ distribution Besides task knowledge, in-domain examples also present the input NLQ distribution to LLMs. Recent research has indicated that LLMs can benefit from being aware of the input distribution in classification tasks. Consequently, paring actual inputs with either random output labels (Min et al., 2022) or perturbed outputs (Wang et al., 2022a) has limited impact on the performance of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 693, + 882, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To assess the importance of the input distribution, we substitute the gold SQL queries in the demonstration examples with the predictions generated by Codex in the zero-shot setting. This allows the model to be aware of the distribution of in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14176", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "put NLQs without being exposed to the annotated SQLs or any additional knowledge beyond its own predictions. The \"ID NLQ Distribution\" in Figure 3 indicates that, for Spider, providing in-domain NLQ distribution yields some benefits but it is not comparable to utilizing complete in-domain data. Moreover, for the KaggleDBQA dataset, providing in-domain NLQs with self-predicted SQL queries does not exhibit any advantage compared to not using any examples. We attribute this observation to the lower accuracy of Codex in the zero-shot setting for KaggleDBQA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-domain output SQL distribution In-domain demonstration examples also serve the purpose of revealing the output SQL distribution to LLMs. To assess the significance of this aspect, we employ the same LLM, Codex, to generate synthetic NLQs from oracle SQL queries. In the demonstration examples, we replace the annotated NLQs with these synthetic NLQs while keeping the SQL queries unchanged. This setup allows the LLMs to be exposed to the in-domain SQL distribution while remaining unaware of the annotated in-domain NLQs or other inputs beyond its own generated NLQs.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 286, + 490, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of \"ID SQL Distribution\" in Figure 3 demonstrate that providing annotated SQL queries with synthetic NLQs can greatly enhance the model's performance on both the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets. Furthermore, the performance gains continue to increase with the inclusion of more demonstration examples, aligning with the results obtained using actual in-domain examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 636, + 226, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The experimental results presented in Section 2 demonstrate that the SQL distribution encompassed in in-domain annotated examples plays a crucial role in improving performance. However, it is important to note that oracle SQL distributions are not available in most cross-domain text-to-SQL applications. To address this limitation, we propose utilizing synthetic SQL queries and NLQs as in-domain demonstrations to capture the in-domain SQL distribution. As the synthetic examples may not always be correct, relying only on synthetic examples may potentially contradict the task knowledge of text-to-SQL, which could weaken Codex's performance as illustrated in Figure 7. Therefore, to strike a balance between SQL distribution and task knowledge, we leverage out-of-domain data", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 492, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to provide accurate task knowledge in addition to synthetic data. We propose ODIS: a demonstration selection framework that leverages both Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic demonstrations. In Section 3.1 and 3.2, we present our methods for selecting out-of-domain and indomain data, respectively, within the ODIS framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Out-of-domain Demonstration Creation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 223, + 870, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent work has discovered that LLMs are sensitive to the choice of demonstration examples, and LLMs usually benefit from demonstrations that are similar to the test example (Liu et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022b; Rubin et al., 2021). Following that, we further hypothesize that the similarity of the output SQL queries between test examples and demonstration examples is more important than input similarity, as we found that SQL distribution plays a crucial role in the in-domain scenario. Therefore, we propose a retrieval strategy SimSQL to retrieve demonstration examples based on the similarity of predicted SQL queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 885, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For a test database $d$ and a question $x$ , our objective is to retrieve $M$ databases, each with $K$ NLQ and SQL pairs from a set of annotated out-of-domain examples $e_1, \\ldots, e_N$ , where $e_i = (db_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i)$ , representing the database, input NLQ, annotated SQL query, and predicted SQL query by an LLM in the zero-shot scenario, respectively. The selected $M$ databases and their associated examples will be presented before the test database and question as shown in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 454, + 885, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 illustrates our procedure: (1) We first generate an initial SQL prediction $\\hat{y}$ under the zero-shot scenario (line 1); (2) we sort out-of-domain examples based on the similarity between their predicted SQL query $\\hat{y}_i$ and $\\hat{y}$ (line 2); (3) we scan out-of-domain examples from high similarity to low. Once $K$ examples are found in a database, the database along with these $K$ examples is selected as a demonstration database and examples (line 7-9). The algorithm stops when $M$ databases are selected (line 10-12). We measure the similarity of SQLs with BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009) on the SQL keyword and schema tokens in SQL queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 614, + 885, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 In-domain Synthetic Demonstration Creation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 834, + 838, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-domain synthetic demonstration selection consists of two stages: (1) synthetic data generation, and (2) synthetic data retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14177", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 SimSQL for out-of-domain retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 478, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database $d$ and question $x$ , and a set of OOD examples $OOD = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N\\}$ where $e_i = (d_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i)$ , representing the database, input question, gold SQL query, and predicted SQL of Model in the zero-shot setting, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 99, + 487, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: A list of M Demo $[d_i]$ , where Demo $[d_i]$ contains $K$ examples associated to $d_{i}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 197, + 485, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: $\\hat{y} \\gets \\text{Model}(x)$", + "2: Sort $OOD = \\{e_i\\}$ in descending order in terms of Similarity $(\\hat{y}, \\hat{y}_i)$", + "3: for $e_i$ in OOD do", + "4: $(d_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i) \\gets e_i$", + "5: if size of $Demo[d_i] < K$ then", + "6: $Demo[d_i] \\gets Demo[d_i] + (d_i, x_i, y_i)$", + "7: if size of $Demo[d_i] = K$ then", + "8: Output $\\leftarrow$ Output + Demo[di]", + "9: end if", + "10: if size of Output $= M$ then", + "11: Break", + "12: end if", + "13: end if", + "14: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 231, + 485, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Synthetic data generation To generate synthetic data, we follow previous work to first sample synthetic SQL queries $\\{y_i\\}$ and then translate SQL queries into natural language questions $\\{x_i\\}$ (Zhong et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). We use SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) to sample synthetic SQL queries, which extract templates from out-of-domain databases and sample columns and values from the test database to fill the templates. After obtaining synthetic SQL queries, we use the Codex to generate corresponding synthetic NLQs, in the same procedure as in our analysis of in-domain SQL distribution.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To improve the quality of synthetic data, we follow the previous work on code generation (Zhong et al., 2020b; Batra et al., 2021) to add a verification process. We use Codex to translate the synthetic NLQ $x_{i}$ back to SQL $\\hat{y}_i$ and filter out the examples that $\\hat{y}_i$ and $y_{i}$ have different execution results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 489, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Synthetic data retrieval While our objective is to synthesize SQL queries that align with the oracle SQL distribution, it is important to note that the oracle SQL distribution often relies on domain-specific prior knowledge that may not be available in the cross-domain text-to-SQL setting. For exam", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ple, questions commonly asked in a flight booking system may not be easily inferred from those in a concert arrangement system. Therefore, instead of expecting to find SQL queries that closely resemble the test question, our focus is on retrieving multiple queries that cover different aspects of the expected SQL query.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address this, we formulate the problem as a maximum coverage problem and adopt a greedy algorithm inspired by the algorithm proposed by Levy et al. (2022). Algorithm 2 outlines the process of retrieving demonstrations from synthetic in-domain examples: (1) We begin by creating a set of tokens $S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}$ that need to be covered, which is initialized with the SQL keyword and schema tokens mentioned in the initial SQL prediction of test question (line 3). (2) We retrieve the synthetic SQLs that have the highest similarity to $S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}$ , measured with BM25 scores (line 5). The $S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}$ will be updated by removing the tokens in the retrieved SQL query and the retrieved example will be added to the demonstration list (line 8 - 9). We repeat this process until either $S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}$ becomes empty (line 17) or we are unable to retrieve a synthetic SQL containing any tokens in $S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}$ (line 14). (3) If the number of selected examples is less than the maximum desired, we iterate through steps (1) and (2) again (line 2).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 198, + 884, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 548, + 655, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Baseline Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 575, + 694, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous Work We compare ODIS with state-of-the-art approaches that either require finetuning on the Spider training set or utilize in-context learning. For the finetuning-based methods, we select SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021) which utilizes RoBERTa-large as the pretrained model, as well as T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021), ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022), and RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a), which employ T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020) as the pretrained model.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 596, + 884, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the in-context learning methods, we include the approaches proposed by Rajkumar et al. (2022), Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), Lan et al. (2023) which utilize either no demonstrations or randomly selected demonstrations. We also include SYNCHROMESH (Poesia et al., 2022) and SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023), which employ similarity-based retrieval methods. Additionally, we select state-of-the-art approaches LEVER (Ni et al., 2023), Self-Debug (Chen et al., 2023), and DIN", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14178", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database $d$ and question $x$ , and a set of synthetic in-domain examples $ID = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N\\}$ where $e_i = (x_i, y_i)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 99, + 485, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: A list of $K$ examples from $ID$ .", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 165, + 415, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [ + "Algorithm 2 CovSQL for in-domain retrieval" + ], + "code_body": "1: $\\hat{y} \\gets \\text{Model}(x)$ \n2: while size of Output $<\\mathbf{K}$ do \n3: $S_{\\text{uncover}} \\gets \\text{tokens in } \\hat{y}$ \n4: while size of $S_{\\text{uncover}} > 0$ do \n5: $e^* \\gets \\text{argmax Sim}(S_{\\text{uncover}}, y_i)$ \n6: $x^*, y^* \\gets e^*$ \n7: if $\\text{Sim}(S_{\\text{uncover}}, y^*) > 0$ then \n8: $S_{\\text{uncover}} \\gets S_{\\text{uncover}} - \\text{tokens in } y^*$ \n9: Output $\\leftarrow$ Output + $e^*$ \n10: ID $\\leftarrow$ ID - $e^*$ \n11: if size of Output $= K$ then \n12: Break \n13: end if \n14: else \n15: Break \n16: end if \n17: end while \n18: end while", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 184, + 484, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023), which incorporate fixed demonstration examples with intermediate reasoning steps or self-correction procedures.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 507, + 489, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours To demonstrate the effectiveness of ODIS framework, we compare it to baselines that utilize demonstrations solely from out-of-domain data or synthetic in-domain sources. Furthermore, we evaluate the proposed SQL-guided retrieval strategies SimSQL and CovSQL by comparing them with the Random retrieval strategy, as well as the SimNLQ approach, which retrieves examples based on the similarity of input NLQs. In line with previous studies (Rubin et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022), we measure similarity using the cosine distance of sentence embeddings encoded through SentenceBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experiments Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 310, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We utilize the training set of Spider as the pool for selecting out-of-domain demonstrations, following our experiments in Section 2. We generate and filter synthetic in-domain examples, resulting in 1416 examples for Spider and 512 examples for KaggleDBQA. When the Random retrieval strategy is used, we conduct three repetitions with different random", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "seeds and report the average results. We conducted experiments with both closed-source LLMs, Codex and ChatGPT, in addition to the open-source LLM, CodeLLama, for the final prediction $^{3}$ . Due to resource constraints, we only employ Codex for retrieving demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hyper-parameters For out-of-domain demonstrations, we employ 5 NLQ-SQL pairs for each demonstration database, in line with our experiments in Section 2. Determining the number of out-of-domain databases and the number of synthetic in-domain examples is considered a hyperparameter selection process. In our final experiments for Spider and KaggleDBQA, we set the number of out-of-domain databases to 4 and synthetic in-domain examples to 5, based on the results obtained from experiments conducted on a randomly-selected subset of 20 databases from the Spider training set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 193, + 884, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 418, + 606, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 445, + 658, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 and Table 2 present the execution accuracy of state-of-the-art methods and our proposed ODIS on Spider and KaggleDBQA. On Spider, ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 85.2, surpassing both the state-of-the-art finetuning-based model RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a) and the in-context learning method Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023) by 1.1 points. On KaggleDBQA, ODIS achieves an execution accuracy of 54.8, outperforming the state-of-the-art model SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023) by 11.8 points. ODIS also demonstrates superior performance compared to baselines that solely rely on out-of-domain or synthetic indomain demonstrations, regardless of the backbone LLM used. On the Spider dataset, ODIS outperforms these baselines by 3.1 and 3.6 points when using Codex, by 0.8 and 3.0 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4 and 1.7 points with CodeLlama. Likewise, on KaggleDBQA, ODIS surpasses the baselines by 1.5 and 9.6 points when employing Codex, by 7.3 and 19.8 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 469, + 884, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3We utilize OpenAI APIs code-davinci-002 and gpt-3.5-turbo-16k-0613 for Codex and ChatGPT. We opt for CodeLlama-34B-instruct in CodeLlama experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 820, + 882, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4The reported execution accuracy is measured using the Spider official test-suite evaluation (Zhong et al., 2020a), which may yield different values compared to those presented in the original method papers if different evaluation scripts were utilized.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 857, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14179", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/81bfc8fd426ec94bf3a235110e413db4f732ca149a41c546f0d08e289c70a882.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB78.0
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B79.1
ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022)T5-3B81.4
RESDSQL+NatSQL (Li et al., 2023a)T5-3B84.1
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Rajkumar et al. (2022)Codex67.0
Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023)Codex76.8
LEVER (Ni et al., 2023)Codex81.9
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)Codex75.6
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)GPT-482.8
Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023)Codex84.1
This work
Codex75.7
Zero-shotChatGPT75.7
CodeLlama70.7
Codex82.1
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT80.7
CodeLlama75.6
Codex81.5
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT78.5
CodeLlama78.3
Codex85.2
ODISChatGPT81.5
CodeLlama80.0
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and 7.4 points with CodeLlama. These results highlight the effectiveness of leveraging both sources of demonstrations within the ODIS framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 586, + 489, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 228, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our demonstration retrieval methods SimSQL and CovSQL, in comparison to baseline retrieval methods. To specifically analyze and compare the performance of the retrieval methods within each demonstration source, we evaluate the retrieval methods for out-of-domain demonstrations without utilizing in-domain synthetic demonstrations, and vice versa.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 489, + 795 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Out-of-domain retrieval Table 3 presents the comparison among different retrieval methods when retrieving out-of-domain examples. It is observed that retrieving out-of-domain examples with similar predicted SQL queries outperforms random selection and NLQ similarity-based selection on both datasets. This finding aligns with our earlier", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fcd4960a41a7f53680110f435661bd57816d7a9f44f6f906f055f10ca9b3f6ae.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: The execution accuracy (EX) on the Spider development set.4The upper section contains models that are finetuned on the Spider training set, while the middle and bottom sections showcase previous methods and our proposed methods, which use in-context learning. The column LLM denotes the language model utilized, either in the fine-tuning or in-context learning. RB represents RoBERTa-large." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB27.2
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B29.8
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Zero-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex23.9
Few-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex40.4
SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023)Codex43.0
This work
Codex26.8
Zero-shotChatGPT25.7
CodeLlama18.8
Codex53.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT45.6
CodeLlama37.9
Codex45.2
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT33.1
CodeLlama34.9
Codex54.8
ODISChatGPT52.9
CodeLlama42.3
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 882, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "observations that the output SQL distribution plays a more crucial role than the input NLQ distribution in improving the model's performance.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 431, + 880, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also explore the use of oracle SQL queries in our experiments. Retrieving examples with the oracle SQL query of the test question results in an additional improvement of 0.8 and 2.9 points in execution accuracy on the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets, respectively. We believe that the larger improvement observed on KaggleDBQA can be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on this dataset in the zero-shot setting. This suggests that employing a better initial model may lead to further enhancements in the performance of the ODIS framework.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 480, + 882, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/372c40e02315d28453629e08e6d6041e9d98aaedb9f52ce33666b8ae7837c5dc.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: The execution accuracy (EX) on the KaggleD-BQA." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random78.738.0
SimNLQ81.242.6
SimSQL82.153.3
SimSQL (Oracle)82.956.2
", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 682, + 821, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different out-of-domain demonstration retrieval methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 882, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Synthetic in-domain retrieval Table 4 provides a comparison of the in-domain retrieval methods. On the Spider dataset, retrieving synthetic SQL queries that cover different parts of the initial", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14180", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2210b023fc62ee0683418a6cbaa4e5deb8b9c6c288b2d16218164b80e256cce2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random77.038.2
SimNLQ79.241.5
SimSQL79.745.2
CovSQL81.545.2
CovSQL (Oracle)81.848.9
CovSQL (In-domain Annotation)82.452.9
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 80, + 470, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQL predictions outperforms the retrieval methods based on the similarity of either NLQs or initial SQL predictions. On the KaggleDBQA dataset, both the CoverSQL and SimSQL methods achieve the same results, outperforming the random selection and NLQ-similarity-based methods. Regarding the experiments with oracle SQL queries, again, we observe a larger improvement on the KaggleDBQA dataset compared to Spider which may be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on KaggleDBQA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 297, + 489, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Impact of synthetic data To assess the impact of synthetic data quality in ODIS framework, we compare two SQL synthesizing methods SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) and GAZP (Zhong et al., 2020b). Both methods extract the templates of SQL queries from the Spider training set and fill the template with the database schema and content with a new database, however, SHiP leverages a schema-weighted sampling to make the synthetic SQL queries more realistic by controlling the relationship of sampled columns. When replacing our synthetic data generated through SHiP to GAZP, we find the performance with Codex has dropped from 81.5 to 79.5 on Spider and from 45.2 to 33.8 on KaggleDBQA. This indicates that the quality of synthetic data is crucial in the ODIZ framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, we evaluate the performance of retrieving from synthetic in-domain examples compared to retrieving from actual annotated in-domain examples in Spider and KaggleDBQA with the CovSQL retrieval method. The performance gap in Table 4 between them indicates that refining the data synthesizing method could potentially yield even greater enhancements within the ODIS framework. It is worth noting that this experiment is designed to illustrate the limitations of synthetic examples compared to annotated examples. Re", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/71bd882c2480ffbb2385c9bcddfedaba36a4f76feb19c5a81f2bdba798929e35.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different synthetic in-domain demonstration retrieval methods." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB58.1
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B65.0
This work
Zero-shotCodex65.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
ODISCodex73.4
", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 80, + 863, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: The execution accuracy (EX) of Codex on the Dr. Spider NLQ post-perturbation sets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 227, + 882, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "trieving annotated in-domain examples typically necessitates a large amount of in-domain annotations, which are usually not available.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 279, + 884, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robustness Evaluation In order to assess the robustness of our proposed ODIS framework, we conduct a study to compare ODIS with the baseline supervised-learning and in-context-learning methods on Dr. Spider (Chang et al., 2023), an evaluation benchmark for text-to-SQL robustness. We opt for the NLQ post-perturbation sets in Dr. Spider, as these have been identified as the most challenging for LLMs with in-context learning (Chang et al., 2023). The results, presented in Table 5, reveal that ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 73.4 on NLQ perturbations, surpasses the supervised learning methods and the Codex with either out-of-domain or synthetic in-domain demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 336, + 884, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 588, + 665, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text-to-SQL with in-context learning Previous studies have explored text-to-SQL with in-context learning from various perspectives. Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) investigated effective approaches to represent databases in prompts. Other studies have explored the incorporation of intermediate reasoning steps to enhance the performance of LLMs (Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023; Tai et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For demonstration retrieval, prior work has explored different strategies for retrieving out-of-domain examples based on similarity (Poesia et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2021) and diversity (Levy et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022). Concurrent with our work, Nan et al. (2023) suggested retrieving out-of-domain demonstrations based on the initial SQL predictions, which aligns with our retrieval method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, execution results have been used in the SQL generation process to verify the gen", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14181", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "erated SQL queries (Chen et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2023). These approaches often require multiple LLM calls and SQL executions to accomplish majority voting or self-correction. It is worth noting that the database execution time is a crucial consideration in realistic applications, as highlighted by Li et al. (2023b). In contrast, ODIS with our proposed retrieval strategy only requires two LLM calls (one for initial SQL prediction and one for final generation) and eliminates the need for any database execution, making it a more efficient solution for text-to-SQL tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data synthesis for Text-to-SQL Due to the high cost of acquiring annotated text-to-SQL data, previous research has explored the use of synthetic data as an alternative approach to enhance the performance of cross-domain text-to-SQL models. These works primarily focused on data augmentation, such as generating additional examples for the training databases (Guo et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022). Zhong et al. (2020b) first synthesized data for test databases and adapted pretrained text-to-SQL models on the synthetic data associated with the test database before inference. In a similar vein, ODIS leverages synthetic data for the test database but uses it with in-context learning rather than directly fine-tuning models on it.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 286, + 490, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion and Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 401, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we delve into the analysis of crucial aspects of in-domain demonstrations and identify the SQL distribution as the key factor. Inspired by our findings, we propose a novel demonstration selection framework, ODIS, which harnesses the power of both out-of-domain demonstrations and synthetic in-domain examples using SQL-guided retrieval. The remarkable performance across different backbone large language models demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed framework, compared to both baseline and state-of-the-art methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While ODIS serves as a general framework that can be employed with various demonstration retrieval methods, our experiments in this study utilize separate retrieval methods for out-of-domain and in-domain demonstrations. We regard it as future work to explore a unified retrieval strategy that breaks the boundary between out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data, enabling automatic", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "selection among them. Additionally, our retrieval approach relies on the predictions of Codex in the zero-shot scenario. It is worth exploring utilizing higher-performance initial text-to-SQL models to further enhance the performance, as demonstrated in Section 5.2 through the use of oracle SQL queries. We believe the effectiveness of the ODIS framework will encourage further advancements in data synthesis methods and demonstration retrieval techniques.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Considering the proven effectiveness of utilizing hybrid data sources, comprising out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain examples as in-context demonstrations, we believe that ODIS can be extended to few-shot, parameter-efficient fine-tuning by leveraging these hybrid data sources (Hu et al., 2021; Dettmers et al., 2023). We leave the exploration of parameter-efficient fine-tuning with synthetic in-domain examples for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 884, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 401, + 613, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We hope the effectiveness of ODIS will draw attention to the potential benefits of incorporating hybrid demonstrations – synthetic and annotated data in the text-to-SQL task in in-context learning. As the first study exploring this approach, we examined the retrieval methods separately for these two types of demonstrations. However, as mentioned in Section 7, exploring more advanced retrieval methods to blur the boundary of out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain examples is a direction for future work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 884, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conducted our experiments with both closed-source Codex $^{5}$ and ChatGPT $^{6}$ and open-source CodeLlama as the large language models. Recent research has shown that GPT-4 consistently outperforms Codex in the text-to-SQL generation when employing various prompt strategies (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023). Considering our budget constraints, we leave the ODIS framework with other large language models as a topic for future investigation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 884, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While our proposed method involves two calls to LLMs and no SQL execution during the generation process, it does require an offline process for synthetic example generation. We acknowledge that this process adds an additional step to the pipeline. However, we believe that it can be seamlessly integrated with the database deployment process. By", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 885, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{5}$ Codex is currently free for research,with API at https://openai.com/api/. For commercial use,Codex is available at https://azure.microsoft.com/.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 868, + 882, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "ChatGPT API is available at https://openai.com/api/.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 904, + 857, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14182", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "incorporating the synthetic example generation step during the database deployment phase, users querying the database will not experience any noticeable delays or disruptions.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 161, + 263, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We acknowledge the importance of the ACL Ethics Policy and agree with it. The objective of text-to-SQL systems is to provide non-expert database users with the ability to query databases using natural language. Our research in this paper focuses on improving the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models. While the benefit of in-domain annotated demonstrations is evident, the significant cost associated with such annotation should not be ignored in real-world applications. Therefore, we propose a method that combines both out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain data to enhance models' generalization and reduce reliance on costly in-domain annotations. We believe that this approach can improve the performance and usability of text-to-SQL systems, making them more accessible and practical for a wider range of applications.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 185, + 487, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, it is important to consider the cost of LLMs and SQL execution in realistic scenarios. Our proposed method employs two calls to LLMs without requiring any SQL execution during the SQL decoding process. This design choice aims to optimize the cost and user experience compared to other approaches that involve multiple LLM calls and SQL executions.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 476, + 485, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 615, + 275, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank Michael White, Micha Elsner, the OSU SLaTe lab, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this work. Shuaichen Chang is supported in part by the Amazon Post Internship Fellowship.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 642, + 485, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14183", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Shengnan An, Bo Zhou, Zeqi Lin, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Nanning Zheng, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2023. Skill-based few-shot selection for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14210.", + "Soumya Batra, Shashank Jain, Peyman Heidari, Ankit Arun, Catharine Youngs, Xintong Li, Pinar Donmez, Shawn Mei, Shiunzu Kuo, Vikas Bhardwaj, et al. 2021. building adaptive acceptability classifiers for neural nlg. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 682-697.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier. 2023. How to prompt llms for text-to-sql: A study in zero-shot, single-domain, and cross-domain settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11853.", + "Shuaichen Chang, Jun Wang, Mingwen Dong, Lin Pan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Wuwei Lan, Sheng Zhang, Jiarong Jiang, Joseph Lilien, et al. 2023. Dr. spider: A diagnostic evaluation benchmark towards text-to-sql robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08881.", + "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.", + "Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Scharli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311.", + "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314.", + "Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Li Zhang, Karthik Ramanathan, Sesh Sadasivam, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Improving text-to-sql evaluation methodology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09029.", + "Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13301." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Daya Guo, Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, Hong Chi, James Cao, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Question generation from sql queries improves neural semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06304.", + "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685.", + "Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Li, Jiang Guo, Sheng Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, et al. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16265.", + "Chia-Hsuan Lee, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2021. Kaggledbqa: Realistic evaluation of text-to-sql parsers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11455.", + "Itay Levy, Ben Bogin, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Diverse demonstrations improve in-context compositional generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06800.", + "Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023a. Resdnsq: Decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965.", + "Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, et al. 2023b. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03111.", + "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547.", + "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021a. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804.", + "Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2021b. Tapex: Table pre-training via learning a neural sql executor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07653.", + "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837.", + "Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12586." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14184", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ansong Ni, Srini Iyer, Dragomir Radev, Ves Stoyanov, Wen-tau Yih, Sida I Wang, and Xi Victoria Lin. 2023. Lever: Learning to verify language-to-code generation with execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08468.", + "Gabriel Poesia, Oleksandr Polozov, Vu Le, Ashish Tiwari, Gustavo Soares, Christopher Meek, and Sumit Gulwani. 2022. Synchronesh: Reliable code generation from pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11227.", + "Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11015.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(140):1-67.", + "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084.", + "Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389.", + "Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Smbop: Semi-autoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 311-324.", + "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633.", + "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901.", + "Peng Shi, Rui Zhang, He Bai, and Jimmy Lin. 2022. Xricl: Cross-lingual retrieval-augmented in-context learning for cross-lingual text-to-sql semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13693.", + "Hongjin Su, Jungo Kasai, Chen Henry Wu, Weijia Shi, Tianlu Wang, Jiayi Xin, Rui Zhang, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, et al. 2022. Selective annotation makes language models better few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01975." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Chang-You Tai, Ziru Chen, Tianshu Zhang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2023. Exploring chain-of-thought style prompting for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14215.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Bailin Wang, Wenpeng Yin, Xi Victoria Lin, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Learning to synthesize data for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05827.", + "Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. 2022a. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001.", + "Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, Siqi Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022b. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08773.", + "Kun Wu, Lijie Wang, Zhenghua Li, Ao Zhang, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, Min Zhang, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Data augmentation with hierarchical sql-to-question generation for cross-domain text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02227.", + "Wei Yang, Peng Xu, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Hierarchical neural data synthesis for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02212.", + "Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir R Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. In ICLR.", + "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887.", + "Yiyun Zhao, Jiarong Jiang, Yiqun Hu, Wuwei Lan, Henry Zhu, Anuj Chauhan, Alexander Li, Lin Pan, Jun Wang, Chung-Wei Hang, et al. 2022. Importance of synthesizing high-quality data for text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08785.", + "Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020a. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840.", + "Victor Zhong, Mike Lewis, Sida I Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Grounded adaptation for zero-shot executable semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07396." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14185", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 238, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Prompt Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 109, + 332, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018), we utilize the CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023) prompt construction to create the prompt text for databases. In the KaggleDBQA dataset (Lee et al., 2021), each database is accompanied by a database document that provides descriptions of the columns in the database. We incorporate the database document as comments within the CreateTableSelectCol prompt. Figure 4 and 5 provide examples of the database prompt text for Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 130, + 489, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Necessity of Text-to-SQL Task Knowledge", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 317, + 401, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6 shows a prompt example with mismatched NLQs and SQL queries as demonstrations. In this example, the first NLQ corresponds to the second SQL and the second NLQ corresponds to the first NLQ. Figure 7 shows that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights that it is important to maintain the correct task knowledge in the demonstrations, which inspires us to leverage out-of-domain demonstrations along with synthetic in-domain examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 489, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14186", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [ + "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + ], + "code_body": "create table stadium ( stadium_id int, location text, name text, capacity int, highest int, lowest int, average int, primary key (stadium_id) ); /* Columns in stadium and 3 distinct examples in each column: stadium_id: 1, 2, 3; location: \"Raith Rovers\", \"Ayr United\", \"East Fife\"; name: \"Stark's Park\", \"Somerset Park\", \"Bayview Stadium\"; capacity: 10104, 11998, 2000; highest: 4812, 2363, 1980; lowest: 1294, 1057, 533; average: 2106, 1477, 864; */ create table singer ( singer_id int, name text, country text, song_name text, song_release_year text, age int, is_male bool, primary key (singer_id) ); /* Columns in singer and 3 distinct examples in each column: singer_id: 1, 2, 3; name: \"Joe Sharp\", \"Timbaland\", \"Justin Brown\"; country: \"Netherlands\", \"United States\", \"France\"; song_name: \"You\", \"Dangerous\", \"Hey Oh\"; song_release_year: 1992, 2008, 2013; age: 52, 32, 29; is_male: \"F\", \"T\"; */ create table concert ( concert_id int, concert_name text, theme text, stadium_id text, year text, primary key (concert_id), foreign key (stadium_id) references stadium(stadium_id) ; /* Columns in concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; concert_name: \"Auditions\", \"Super bootcamp\", \"Home Visits\"; theme: \"Free choice\", \"Free choice 2\", \"Bleeding Love\"; stadium_id: 1, 2, 10; year: 2014, 2015; */ create table singer_in_concert ( concert_id int, singer_id text, primary key (concert_id, singer_id), foreign key (concert_id) references concert(concert_id), foreign key (singer_id) references singer(singer_id) ; /* Columns in singer_in_concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; singer_id: 2, 3, 5; */", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 146, + 670, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4: An database prompt example of for the concert_singer database in Spider.", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 858, + 789, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14187", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [ + "CreateTable+SelectCol(StudentMathScore)" + ], + "code_body": "create table finrev_fed_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_17 idcensus integer, -- the idcensus of the finrev_fed_17 schoolDistrict text, -- the school district of the finrev_fed_17 nces_id text, -- the nces id of the finrev_fed_17 yr_data integer, -- the year data of the finrev_fed_17 t_fed_rev integer, -- total federal revenue through the state to each school district. c14 integer, -- federal revenue through the state- title 1 (no child left behind act). c25 integer -- federal revenue through the state- child nutrition a); /* Columns in finrev_fed_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 33, 5, 14; idcensus: 33203100130100, 5501905900000, 14501615800000; schoolDistrict: \"NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT\", \"LOS ANGELES UNIF SCH DIST\", \"CITY OF CHICAGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 299\"; nces_id: 3620580, 622710, 1709930; yr_data: 17; t_fed_rev: 2061297, 1146298, 783943; c14: 956851, 376182, 290912; c25: 439209, 390711, 200517; */ create table ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ( year integer, -- the year of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 state_text, -- the state of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 all_students text, -- the all students of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 average_scale_score integer -- the average scale score of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ); /* Columns in ndecoreexcel math_grade8 and 3 distinct examples in each column: year: 2017; state: \"National\", \"Alabama\", \"Alaska\"; all_students: \"All students\"; average_scale_score: 283, 268, 277; */ create table finrev_fed_key_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_key_17 state_text, -- the state of the finrev_fed_key_17 #_records text -- the number of records of the finrev_fed_key_17 ); /* Columns in finrev_fed_key_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 1, 2, 3; state: \"Alabama\", \"Alaska\", \"Arizona\"; #_records: 137, 54, 235; */", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 260, + 825, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5: An database prompt example of for the StudentMathScore database in KaggleDBQA.", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 744, + 823, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14188", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 134, + 421, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. \nQuestion: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? \nselect count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; \nQuestion: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? \nselect name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; \nQuestion: Which year has most number of concerts? \nselect", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 153, + 478, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bd0fce16b1fb475f56d3fd1cc8d6d3aac9cdd82eaec13f100c2b206906b5ce1e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL using mismatched demonstration examples." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 429, + 484, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/05730cc0a5c2d61b6afb61b96a6aeb17f321b20e5fa1b7ca80564a9b0bf097f3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) KaggleDBQA", + "Figure 7: The results of Codex with real in-domain demonstration examples compared to mismatched examples. ID Examples represents annotated in-domain demonstrations while ID Examples Mismatch represents the NLQ and SQL pairs are mismatched. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 582, + 482, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14189", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_model.json b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28fb56d6e613594154345a97cb3b43bd859a7717 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2586 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.091, + 0.791, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.316, + 0.143, + 0.686, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.395, + 0.16, + 0.608, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Ohio State University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.177, + 0.663, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{chang.1692, fosler-lussier.1} @osu.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.285, + 0.461, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) with in-context learning have demonstrated impressive generalization capabilities in the cross-domain text-to-SQL task, without the use of in-domain annotations. However, incorporating in-domain demonstration examples has been found to greatly enhance LLMs' performance. In this paper, we delve into the key factors within in-domain examples that contribute to the improvement and explore whether we can harness these benefits without relying on in-domain annotations. Based on our findings, we propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS1 which utilizes both out-of-domain examples and synthetically generated in-domain examples to construct demonstrations. By retrieving demonstrations from hybrid sources, ODIS leverages the advantages of both, showcasing its effectiveness compared to baseline methods that rely on a single data source. Furthermore, ODIS outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets, with improvements of 1.1 and 11.8 points in execution accuracy, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.643, + 0.26, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.671, + 0.489, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), have demonstrated a great capability of addressing various language tasks with in-context learning (ICL), which rely on prompts that contain a task instruction and zero or a few demonstration examples regarding the task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.801, + 0.489, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent studies have evaluated LLMs on the cross-domain text-to-SQL which translates a natural language question (NLQ) to a SQL query for a new database. Previous work has conditioned LLMs with prompts that solely contain the database" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "information without any demonstrations (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023) or utilize out-of-domain demonstration examples that are annotated NLQ-SQL pairs associated with the databases that are different from the test database (Poesia et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.353, + 0.885, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) have found that the performance of LLMs can be significantly improved with annotated in-domain examples serving as demonstrations, which are the NLQ-SQL pairs corresponding to the test database. Despite the remarkable performance improvements achieved through in-domain annotated demonstrations, acquiring such data can be costly, as the annotation process requires SQL professionals. More importantly, annotating examples for each new database diminishes the generalizability of text-to-SQL applications. These observations naturally raise two questions: (1) Which are the key factors within the in-domain annotated examples that contribute to the performance improvement? and (2) Can we harness these benefits of in-domain demonstrations without relying on in-domain annotation?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we start by investigating the role of the in-domain demonstration examples and then developing new techniques to create demonstrations without leveraging in-domain annotations. We assess three aspects within in-domain annotations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, input NLQ distribution, and output SQL distribution. Our experiments show that SQL distribution plays a pivotal role in in-domain demonstrations. This finding motivates us to synthesize in-domain data by generating sampled SQL queries. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to leverage synthetic examples for text-to-SQL with in-context learning. Furthermore, we introduce a novel demonstration selection framework ODIS which utilizes Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic data. By automatically selecting demonstration" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The code for the paper is available at https://github. com/shuaichenchang/ODIS-Text-to-SQL." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14174" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14174-14189 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.089, + 0.423, + 0.103 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.109, + 0.48, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. \nQuestion: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? \nselect name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; \nQuestion: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? \nselect count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; \nQuestion: Which year has most number of concerts? \nselect" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.26, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL for the database concert_singer in the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018). The prompt text of database schema and content, which is constructed using CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023), is shown at the beginning of the prompt. Two in-domain demonstrations (highlighted in blue) are presented prior to the test question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.388, + 0.49, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "examples from both out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data with SQL-guided retrieval methods, our method consistently outperforms both state-of-the-art models employing fine-tuning (Scholak et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a) and in-context learning (Chen et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets. Our contributions are in three folds:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.527, + 0.488, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We conduct a thorough analysis to examine the impact of different aspects in in-domain demonstrations for text-to-SQL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.575, + 0.488, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS that leverages out-of-domain and synthetically generated in-domain demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.623, + 0.486, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- By employing SQL-guided retrieval methods for selecting out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain demonstrations, ODIS consistently outperforms baselines as well as state-of-the-art approaches." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.527, + 0.488, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.697, + 0.482, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Analysis of In-domain Demonstrations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.722, + 0.49, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we analyze the roles and contributions of in-domain annotated demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.764, + 0.304, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Experiment Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.785, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct experiments on two widely-used cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets: Spider (Yu et al., 2018) and KaggleDBQA (Lee et al., 2021). For the Spider dataset, we use its development set, which consists of 20 databases with 1047 examples2. As for KaggleDBQA, we employ the complete dataset, which contains 8 databases and 272" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.089, + 0.87, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(dorm_1) \n-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Find the number of students in each major. select count \\((\\star)\\) , major from student group by major; Question: Find the total capacity of all dorms. select sum(student_capacity) from dorm; \nCreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) \n-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Which year has most number of concerts? select" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.269, + 0.884, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: An example prompt of 2-shot out-of-domain text-to-SQL for the test database concert_singer. An out-of-domain database dorm_1 with 2 associated demonstrations (highlighted in blue) is presented prior to the test database and question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.357, + 0.885, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "examples. Following Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), we utilize a leave-one-out split for evaluating in-domain demonstrations. Specifically, for a given test example, we randomly select demonstrations from the remaining examples associated with the same database, with the condition that selected demonstration examples that do not share the same SQL template as the test example, following the template-split approach (Finegan-Dollak et al., 2018). We also require the selected demonstrations to have different templates following Levy et al. (2022). We repeat all experiments three times to obtain average results. Figure 1 illustrates a prompt example that incorporates two in-domain demonstrations for the database concert_singer in Spider. Detailed prompt examples can be in Appendix A.1. We use Code-davinci-002 version of Codex (Chen et al., 2021) as our LLM due to its demonstrated capability on code generation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.673, + 0.866, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Effectiveness of In-domain Annotations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.694, + 0.884, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3 illustrates the execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA. In the zero-shot scenario, where no demonstration examples of NLQ-SQL pairs are provided, Codex achieves execution accuracies of 75.7 and 26.8 for Spider and KaggleDBQA. However, the utilization of in-domain examples demonstrates a considerable improvement in Codex's performance. Notably, as the number of in-domain demonstration examples increases, Codex's performance continues to enhance. With 30 in-domain annotated examples, Codex's performance is significantly boosted to 84.6 and 71.7 on Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While the benefit of employing in-domain exam" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.425, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2The test set of Spider is not publicly available." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14175" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.08, + 0.497, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.282, + 0.234, + 0.346, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Spider" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.502, + 0.081, + 0.868, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.234, + 0.74, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) KaggleDBQA" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.257, + 0.885, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The results of Codex with randomly selected in-domain demonstration examples compared to the zero-shot setting. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively. ID represents the experiments utilizing in-domain demonstrations while 00D represents the use of out-of-domain demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.327, + 0.489, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "plies in ICL is evident, there still exists a limited understanding of the key factors within in-domain demonstrations that contribute to performance enhancement. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to analyze three aspects of in-domain demonstrations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, the distribution of in-domain NLQs, and the distribution of in-domain SQL queries. The first aspect pertains to domain-agnostic knowledge, while the latter two are specific to the domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.501, + 0.489, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text-to-SQL task knowledge and format The in-domain examples encompass the task format and knowledge of LLMs, such as the relationship between an NLQ and its corresponding SQL query given a database. To investigate the extent to which the performance gains are due to the task format and knowledge, we conducted a study utilizing annotated out-of-domain data as an alternative source for providing task format and knowledge. In this setup, the model can learn the correct task format and knowledge from the annotated NLQ and SQL pairs associated with other databases. We randomly select examples from the training set of Spider, which contain 140 databases with 7000 examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2 illustrates an example prompt that incorporates out-of-domain demonstrations. We insert \\( M \\) databases preceding the test database, each accompanied by 5 NLQ and SQL pairs. We conducted experiments varying the value of \\( M \\), ranging from 1 to 6. The results of \"OOD Examples\" shown in Figure 3 demonstrate that exposure to out-of-domain examples with the same task format and knowledge can indeed enhance the model's performance. However, the performance gains from these out-of-domain examples are significantly smaller compared to those obtained from in-domain ex" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.327, + 0.885, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "amples. Furthermore, we observe that the performance gains achieved through in-domain demonstrations tend to converge or even diminish after a certain number of examples have been provided. This finding stands in contrast to the continuous performance improvement observed with the use of in-domain demonstrations. We believe that while Codex is capable of learning the task format and knowledge from in-domain examples, the task format and knowledge alone are not sufficient to account for the observed performance gains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.505, + 0.884, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we investigate the necessity of task knowledge in the demonstrations by conducting an experiment where we shuffle the NLQs and SQL queries to create mismatched demonstrations. Figure 7 demonstrates that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights the necessity of including correct task knowledge and format in the demonstrations. Detailed results of this experiment can be found in Appendix A.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.694, + 0.884, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-domain input NLQ distribution Besides task knowledge, in-domain examples also present the input NLQ distribution to LLMs. Recent research has indicated that LLMs can benefit from being aware of the input distribution in classification tasks. Consequently, paring actual inputs with either random output labels (Min et al., 2022) or perturbed outputs (Wang et al., 2022a) has limited impact on the performance of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To assess the importance of the input distribution, we substitute the gold SQL queries in the demonstration examples with the predictions generated by Codex in the zero-shot setting. This allows the model to be aware of the distribution of in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14176" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "put NLQs without being exposed to the annotated SQLs or any additional knowledge beyond its own predictions. The \"ID NLQ Distribution\" in Figure 3 indicates that, for Spider, providing in-domain NLQ distribution yields some benefits but it is not comparable to utilizing complete in-domain data. Moreover, for the KaggleDBQA dataset, providing in-domain NLQs with self-predicted SQL queries does not exhibit any advantage compared to not using any examples. We attribute this observation to the lower accuracy of Codex in the zero-shot setting for KaggleDBQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.287, + 0.492, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-domain output SQL distribution In-domain demonstration examples also serve the purpose of revealing the output SQL distribution to LLMs. To assess the significance of this aspect, we employ the same LLM, Codex, to generate synthetic NLQs from oracle SQL queries. In the demonstration examples, we replace the annotated NLQs with these synthetic NLQs while keeping the SQL queries unchanged. This setup allows the LLMs to be exposed to the in-domain SQL distribution while remaining unaware of the annotated in-domain NLQs or other inputs beyond its own generated NLQs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.497, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of \"ID SQL Distribution\" in Figure 3 demonstrate that providing annotated SQL queries with synthetic NLQs can greatly enhance the model's performance on both the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets. Furthermore, the performance gains continue to increase with the inclusion of more demonstration examples, aligning with the results obtained using actual in-domain examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.637, + 0.227, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.493, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The experimental results presented in Section 2 demonstrate that the SQL distribution encompassed in in-domain annotated examples plays a crucial role in improving performance. However, it is important to note that oracle SQL distributions are not available in most cross-domain text-to-SQL applications. To address this limitation, we propose utilizing synthetic SQL queries and NLQs as in-domain demonstrations to capture the in-domain SQL distribution. As the synthetic examples may not always be correct, relying only on synthetic examples may potentially contradict the task knowledge of text-to-SQL, which could weaken Codex's performance as illustrated in Figure 7. Therefore, to strike a balance between SQL distribution and task knowledge, we leverage out-of-domain data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to provide accurate task knowledge in addition to synthetic data. We propose ODIS: a demonstration selection framework that leverages both Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic demonstrations. In Section 3.1 and 3.2, we present our methods for selecting out-of-domain and indomain data, respectively, within the ODIS framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.224, + 0.871, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Out-of-domain Demonstration Creation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.245, + 0.886, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent work has discovered that LLMs are sensitive to the choice of demonstration examples, and LLMs usually benefit from demonstrations that are similar to the test example (Liu et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022b; Rubin et al., 2021). Following that, we further hypothesize that the similarity of the output SQL queries between test examples and demonstration examples is more important than input similarity, as we found that SQL distribution plays a crucial role in the in-domain scenario. Therefore, we propose a retrieval strategy SimSQL to retrieve demonstration examples based on the similarity of predicted SQL queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.455, + 0.886, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For a test database \\(d\\) and a question \\(x\\), our objective is to retrieve \\(M\\) databases, each with \\(K\\) NLQ and SQL pairs from a set of annotated out-of-domain examples \\(e_1, \\ldots, e_N\\), where \\(e_i = (db_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i)\\), representing the database, input NLQ, annotated SQL query, and predicted SQL query by an LLM in the zero-shot scenario, respectively. The selected \\(M\\) databases and their associated examples will be presented before the test database and question as shown in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.615, + 0.886, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 illustrates our procedure: (1) We first generate an initial SQL prediction \\(\\hat{y}\\) under the zero-shot scenario (line 1); (2) we sort out-of-domain examples based on the similarity between their predicted SQL query \\(\\hat{y}_i\\) and \\(\\hat{y}\\) (line 2); (3) we scan out-of-domain examples from high similarity to low. Once \\(K\\) examples are found in a database, the database along with these \\(K\\) examples is selected as a demonstration database and examples (line 7-9). The algorithm stops when \\(M\\) databases are selected (line 10-12). We measure the similarity of SQLs with BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009) on the SQL keyword and schema tokens in SQL queries." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.835, + 0.84, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 In-domain Synthetic Demonstration Creation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-domain synthetic demonstration selection consists of two stages: (1) synthetic data generation, and (2) synthetic data retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14177" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.479, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 SimSQL for out-of-domain retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.101, + 0.489, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database \\(d\\) and question \\(x\\), and a set of OOD examples \\(OOD = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N\\}\\) where \\(e_i = (d_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i)\\), representing the database, input question, gold SQL query, and predicted SQL of Model in the zero-shot setting, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.198, + 0.486, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: A list of M Demo \\([d_i]\\), where Demo \\([d_i]\\) contains \\(K\\) examples associated to \\(d_{i}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.233, + 0.258, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: \\(\\hat{y} \\gets \\text{Model}(x)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.248, + 0.486, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Sort \\( OOD = \\{e_i\\} \\) in descending order in terms of Similarity \\( (\\hat{y}, \\hat{y}_i) \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.281, + 0.286, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: for \\( e_i \\) in OOD do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.297, + 0.321, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: \\((d_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i) \\gets e_i\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.313, + 0.403, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: if size of \\(Demo[d_i] < K\\) then" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.329, + 0.482, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: \\(Demo[d_i] \\gets Demo[d_i] + (d_i, x_i, y_i)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.345, + 0.43, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: if size of \\(Demo[d_i] = K\\) then" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.361, + 0.474, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Output \\(\\leftarrow\\) Output + Demo[di]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.379, + 0.252, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: end if" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.393, + 0.417, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10: if size of Output \\(= M\\) then" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.41, + 0.281, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11: Break" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.426, + 0.252, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12: end if" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.442, + 0.224, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13: end if" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.458, + 0.208, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.233, + 0.486, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.503, + 0.49, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Synthetic data generation To generate synthetic data, we follow previous work to first sample synthetic SQL queries \\(\\{y_i\\}\\) and then translate SQL queries into natural language questions \\(\\{x_i\\}\\) (Zhong et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). We use SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) to sample synthetic SQL queries, which extract templates from out-of-domain databases and sample columns and values from the test database to fill the templates. After obtaining synthetic SQL queries, we use the Codex to generate corresponding synthetic NLQs, in the same procedure as in our analysis of in-domain SQL distribution." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.713, + 0.49, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To improve the quality of synthetic data, we follow the previous work on code generation (Zhong et al., 2020b; Batra et al., 2021) to add a verification process. We use Codex to translate the synthetic NLQ \\( x_{i} \\) back to SQL \\( \\hat{y}_i \\) and filter out the examples that \\( \\hat{y}_i \\) and \\( y_{i} \\) have different execution results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Synthetic data retrieval While our objective is to synthesize SQL queries that align with the oracle SQL distribution, it is important to note that the oracle SQL distribution often relies on domain-specific prior knowledge that may not be available in the cross-domain text-to-SQL setting. For exam" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ple, questions commonly asked in a flight booking system may not be easily inferred from those in a concert arrangement system. Therefore, instead of expecting to find SQL queries that closely resemble the test question, our focus is on retrieving multiple queries that cover different aspects of the expected SQL query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.199, + 0.885, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address this, we formulate the problem as a maximum coverage problem and adopt a greedy algorithm inspired by the algorithm proposed by Levy et al. (2022). Algorithm 2 outlines the process of retrieving demonstrations from synthetic in-domain examples: (1) We begin by creating a set of tokens \\( S_{\\mathrm{uncover}} \\) that need to be covered, which is initialized with the SQL keyword and schema tokens mentioned in the initial SQL prediction of test question (line 3). (2) We retrieve the synthetic SQLs that have the highest similarity to \\( S_{\\mathrm{uncover}} \\), measured with BM25 scores (line 5). The \\( S_{\\mathrm{uncover}} \\) will be updated by removing the tokens in the retrieved SQL query and the retrieved example will be added to the demonstration list (line 8 - 9). We repeat this process until either \\( S_{\\mathrm{uncover}} \\) becomes empty (line 17) or we are unable to retrieve a synthetic SQL containing any tokens in \\( S_{\\mathrm{uncover}} \\) (line 14). (3) If the number of selected examples is less than the maximum desired, we iterate through steps (1) and (2) again (line 2)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.549, + 0.657, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.576, + 0.695, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Baseline Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.598, + 0.885, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous Work We compare ODIS with state-of-the-art approaches that either require finetuning on the Spider training set or utilize in-context learning. For the finetuning-based methods, we select SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021) which utilizes RoBERTa-large as the pretrained model, as well as T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021), ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022), and RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a), which employ T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020) as the pretrained model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the in-context learning methods, we include the approaches proposed by Rajkumar et al. (2022), Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), Lan et al. (2023) which utilize either no demonstrations or randomly selected demonstrations. We also include SYNCHROMESH (Poesia et al., 2022) and SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023), which employ similarity-based retrieval methods. Additionally, we select state-of-the-art approaches LEVER (Ni et al., 2023), Self-Debug (Chen et al., 2023), and DIN" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14178" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.084, + 0.444, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 2 CovSQL for in-domain retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.101, + 0.487, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database \\(d\\) and question \\(x\\), and a set of synthetic in-domain examples \\(ID = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N\\}\\) where \\(e_i = (x_i, y_i)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.166, + 0.416, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: A list of \\( K \\) examples from \\( ID \\)." + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.185, + 0.485, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: \\(\\hat{y} \\gets \\text{Model}(x)\\) \n2: while size of Output \\(<\\mathbf{K}\\) do \n3: \\(S_{\\text{uncover}} \\gets \\text{tokens in } \\hat{y}\\) \n4: while size of \\(S_{\\text{uncover}} > 0\\) do \n5: \\(e^* \\gets \\text{argmax Sim}(S_{\\text{uncover}}, y_i)\\) \n6: \\(x^*, y^* \\gets e^*\\) \n7: if \\(\\text{Sim}(S_{\\text{uncover}}, y^*) > 0\\) then \n8: \\(S_{\\text{uncover}} \\gets S_{\\text{uncover}} - \\text{tokens in } y^*\\) \n9: Output \\(\\leftarrow\\) Output + \\(e^*\\) \n10: ID \\(\\leftarrow\\) ID - \\(e^*\\) \n11: if size of Output \\(= K\\) then \n12: Break \n13: end if \n14: else \n15: Break \n16: end if \n17: end while \n18: end while" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023), which incorporate fixed demonstration examples with intermediate reasoning steps or self-correction procedures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours To demonstrate the effectiveness of ODIS framework, we compare it to baselines that utilize demonstrations solely from out-of-domain data or synthetic in-domain sources. Furthermore, we evaluate the proposed SQL-guided retrieval strategies SimSQL and CovSQL by comparing them with the Random retrieval strategy, as well as the SimNLQ approach, which retrieves examples based on the similarity of input NLQs. In line with previous studies (Rubin et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022), we measure similarity using the cosine distance of sentence embeddings encoded through SentenceBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.786, + 0.312, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experiments Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We utilize the training set of Spider as the pool for selecting out-of-domain demonstrations, following our experiments in Section 2. We generate and filter synthetic in-domain examples, resulting in 1416 examples for Spider and 512 examples for KaggleDBQA. When the Random retrieval strategy is used, we conduct three repetitions with different random" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "seeds and report the average results. We conducted experiments with both closed-source LLMs, Codex and ChatGPT, in addition to the open-source LLM, CodeLLama, for the final prediction \\(^{3}\\). Due to resource constraints, we only employ Codex for retrieving demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.195, + 0.885, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyper-parameters For out-of-domain demonstrations, we employ 5 NLQ-SQL pairs for each demonstration database, in line with our experiments in Section 2. Determining the number of out-of-domain databases and the number of synthetic in-domain examples is considered a hyperparameter selection process. In our final experiments for Spider and KaggleDBQA, we set the number of out-of-domain databases to 4 and synthetic in-domain examples to 5, based on the results obtained from experiments conducted on a randomly-selected subset of 20 databases from the Spider training set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.419, + 0.608, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.447, + 0.66, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.47, + 0.885, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 and Table 2 present the execution accuracy of state-of-the-art methods and our proposed ODIS on Spider and KaggleDBQA. On Spider, ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 85.2, surpassing both the state-of-the-art finetuning-based model RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a) and the in-context learning method Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023) by 1.1 points. On KaggleDBQA, ODIS achieves an execution accuracy of 54.8, outperforming the state-of-the-art model SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023) by 11.8 points. ODIS also demonstrates superior performance compared to baselines that solely rely on out-of-domain or synthetic indomain demonstrations, regardless of the backbone LLM used. On the Spider dataset, ODIS outperforms these baselines by 3.1 and 3.6 points when using Codex, by 0.8 and 3.0 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4 and 1.7 points with CodeLlama. Likewise, on KaggleDBQA, ODIS surpasses the baselines by 1.5 and 9.6 points when employing Codex, by 7.3 and 19.8 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.821, + 0.883, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3We utilize OpenAI APIs code-davinci-002 and gpt-3.5-turbo-16k-0613 for Codex and ChatGPT. We opt for CodeLlama-34B-instruct in CodeLlama experiments." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.858, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4The reported execution accuracy is measured using the Spider official test-suite evaluation (Zhong et al., 2020a), which may yield different values compared to those presented in the original method papers if different evaluation scripts were utilized." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.821, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14179" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB78.0
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B79.1
ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022)T5-3B81.4
RESDSQL+NatSQL (Li et al., 2023a)T5-3B84.1
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Rajkumar et al. (2022)Codex67.0
Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023)Codex76.8
LEVER (Ni et al., 2023)Codex81.9
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)Codex75.6
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)GPT-482.8
Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023)Codex84.1
This work
Codex75.7
Zero-shotChatGPT75.7
CodeLlama70.7
Codex82.1
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT80.7
CodeLlama75.6
Codex81.5
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT78.5
CodeLlama78.3
Codex85.2
ODISChatGPT81.5
CodeLlama80.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: The execution accuracy (EX) on the Spider development set.4The upper section contains models that are finetuned on the Spider training set, while the middle and bottom sections showcase previous methods and our proposed methods, which use in-context learning. The column LLM denotes the language model utilized, either in the fine-tuning or in-context learning. RB represents RoBERTa-large." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.587, + 0.49, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and 7.4 points with CodeLlama. These results highlight the effectiveness of leveraging both sources of demonstrations within the ODIS framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.647, + 0.229, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.49, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our demonstration retrieval methods SimSQL and CovSQL, in comparison to baseline retrieval methods. To specifically analyze and compare the performance of the retrieval methods within each demonstration source, we evaluate the retrieval methods for out-of-domain demonstrations without utilizing in-domain synthetic demonstrations, and vice versa." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Out-of-domain retrieval Table 3 presents the comparison among different retrieval methods when retrieving out-of-domain examples. It is observed that retrieving out-of-domain examples with similar predicted SQL queries outperforms random selection and NLQ similarity-based selection on both datasets. This finding aligns with our earlier" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB27.2
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B29.8
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Zero-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex23.9
Few-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex40.4
SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023)Codex43.0
This work
Codex26.8
Zero-shotChatGPT25.7
CodeLlama18.8
Codex53.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT45.6
CodeLlama37.9
Codex45.2
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT33.1
CodeLlama34.9
Codex54.8
ODISChatGPT52.9
CodeLlama42.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.387, + 0.884, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: The execution accuracy (EX) on the KaggleD-BQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.432, + 0.882, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "observations that the output SQL distribution plays a more crucial role than the input NLQ distribution in improving the model's performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.481, + 0.884, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also explore the use of oracle SQL queries in our experiments. Retrieving examples with the oracle SQL query of the test question results in an additional improvement of 0.8 and 2.9 points in execution accuracy on the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets, respectively. We believe that the larger improvement observed on KaggleDBQA can be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on this dataset in the zero-shot setting. This suggests that employing a better initial model may lead to further enhancements in the performance of the ODIS framework." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.683, + 0.822, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random78.738.0
SimNLQ81.242.6
SimSQL82.153.3
SimSQL (Oracle)82.956.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.793, + 0.884, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different out-of-domain demonstration retrieval methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Synthetic in-domain retrieval Table 4 provides a comparison of the in-domain retrieval methods. On the Spider dataset, retrieving synthetic SQL queries that cover different parts of the initial" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14180" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.082, + 0.472, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random77.038.2
SimNLQ79.241.5
SimSQL79.745.2
CovSQL81.545.2
CovSQL (Oracle)81.848.9
CovSQL (In-domain Annotation)82.452.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.229, + 0.489, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different synthetic in-domain demonstration retrieval methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.298, + 0.49, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQL predictions outperforms the retrieval methods based on the similarity of either NLQs or initial SQL predictions. On the KaggleDBQA dataset, both the CoverSQL and SimSQL methods achieve the same results, outperforming the random selection and NLQ-similarity-based methods. Regarding the experiments with oracle SQL queries, again, we observe a larger improvement on the KaggleDBQA dataset compared to Spider which may be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on KaggleDBQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.485, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Impact of synthetic data To assess the impact of synthetic data quality in ODIS framework, we compare two SQL synthesizing methods SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) and GAZP (Zhong et al., 2020b). Both methods extract the templates of SQL queries from the Spider training set and fill the template with the database schema and content with a new database, however, SHiP leverages a schema-weighted sampling to make the synthetic SQL queries more realistic by controlling the relationship of sampled columns. When replacing our synthetic data generated through SHiP to GAZP, we find the performance with Codex has dropped from 81.5 to 79.5 on Spider and from 45.2 to 33.8 on KaggleDBQA. This indicates that the quality of synthetic data is crucial in the ODIZ framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, we evaluate the performance of retrieving from synthetic in-domain examples compared to retrieving from actual annotated in-domain examples in Spider and KaggleDBQA with the CovSQL retrieval method. The performance gap in Table 4 between them indicates that refining the data synthesizing method could potentially yield even greater enhancements within the ODIS framework. It is worth noting that this experiment is designed to illustrate the limitations of synthetic examples compared to annotated examples. Re" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.082, + 0.865, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB58.1
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B65.0
This work
Zero-shotCodex65.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
ODISCodex73.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.228, + 0.883, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: The execution accuracy (EX) of Codex on the Dr. Spider NLQ post-perturbation sets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.28, + 0.885, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "trieving annotated in-domain examples typically necessitates a large amount of in-domain annotations, which are usually not available." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.337, + 0.885, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robustness Evaluation In order to assess the robustness of our proposed ODIS framework, we conduct a study to compare ODIS with the baseline supervised-learning and in-context-learning methods on Dr. Spider (Chang et al., 2023), an evaluation benchmark for text-to-SQL robustness. We opt for the NLQ post-perturbation sets in Dr. Spider, as these have been identified as the most challenging for LLMs with in-context learning (Chang et al., 2023). The results, presented in Table 5, reveal that ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 73.4 on NLQ perturbations, surpasses the supervised learning methods and the Codex with either out-of-domain or synthetic in-domain demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.589, + 0.666, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text-to-SQL with in-context learning Previous studies have explored text-to-SQL with in-context learning from various perspectives. Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) investigated effective approaches to represent databases in prompts. Other studies have explored the incorporation of intermediate reasoning steps to enhance the performance of LLMs (Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023; Tai et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For demonstration retrieval, prior work has explored different strategies for retrieving out-of-domain examples based on similarity (Poesia et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2021) and diversity (Levy et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022). Concurrent with our work, Nan et al. (2023) suggested retrieving out-of-domain demonstrations based on the initial SQL predictions, which aligns with our retrieval method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, execution results have been used in the SQL generation process to verify the gen" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14181" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "erated SQL queries (Chen et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2023). These approaches often require multiple LLM calls and SQL executions to accomplish majority voting or self-correction. It is worth noting that the database execution time is a crucial consideration in realistic applications, as highlighted by Li et al. (2023b). In contrast, ODIS with our proposed retrieval strategy only requires two LLM calls (one for initial SQL prediction and one for final generation) and eliminates the need for any database execution, making it a more efficient solution for text-to-SQL tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.287, + 0.492, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data synthesis for Text-to-SQL Due to the high cost of acquiring annotated text-to-SQL data, previous research has explored the use of synthetic data as an alternative approach to enhance the performance of cross-domain text-to-SQL models. These works primarily focused on data augmentation, such as generating additional examples for the training databases (Guo et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022). Zhong et al. (2020b) first synthesized data for test databases and adapted pretrained text-to-SQL models on the synthetic data associated with the test database before inference. In a similar vein, ODIS leverages synthetic data for the test database but uses it with in-context learning rather than directly fine-tuning models on it." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.572, + 0.403, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion and Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we delve into the analysis of crucial aspects of in-domain demonstrations and identify the SQL distribution as the key factor. Inspired by our findings, we propose a novel demonstration selection framework, ODIS, which harnesses the power of both out-of-domain demonstrations and synthetic in-domain examples using SQL-guided retrieval. The remarkable performance across different backbone large language models demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed framework, compared to both baseline and state-of-the-art methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While ODIS serves as a general framework that can be employed with various demonstration retrieval methods, our experiments in this study utilize separate retrieval methods for out-of-domain and in-domain demonstrations. We regard it as future work to explore a unified retrieval strategy that breaks the boundary between out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data, enabling automatic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "selection among them. Additionally, our retrieval approach relies on the predictions of Codex in the zero-shot scenario. It is worth exploring utilizing higher-performance initial text-to-SQL models to further enhance the performance, as demonstrated in Section 5.2 through the use of oracle SQL queries. We believe the effectiveness of the ODIS framework will encourage further advancements in data synthesis methods and demonstration retrieval techniques." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.246, + 0.885, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Considering the proven effectiveness of utilizing hybrid data sources, comprising out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain examples as in-context demonstrations, we believe that ODIS can be extended to few-shot, parameter-efficient fine-tuning by leveraging these hybrid data sources (Hu et al., 2021; Dettmers et al., 2023). We leave the exploration of parameter-efficient fine-tuning with synthetic in-domain examples for future research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.402, + 0.615, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.427, + 0.885, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We hope the effectiveness of ODIS will draw attention to the potential benefits of incorporating hybrid demonstrations – synthetic and annotated data in the text-to-SQL task in in-context learning. As the first study exploring this approach, we examined the retrieval methods separately for these two types of demonstrations. However, as mentioned in Section 7, exploring more advanced retrieval methods to blur the boundary of out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain examples is a direction for future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.604, + 0.885, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conducted our experiments with both closed-source Codex \\(^{5}\\) and ChatGPT \\(^{6}\\) and open-source CodeLlama as the large language models. Recent research has shown that GPT-4 consistently outperforms Codex in the text-to-SQL generation when employing various prompt strategies (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023). Considering our budget constraints, we leave the ODIS framework with other large language models as a topic for future investigation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.749, + 0.887, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While our proposed method involves two calls to LLMs and no SQL execution during the generation process, it does require an offline process for synthetic example generation. We acknowledge that this process adds an additional step to the pipeline. However, we believe that it can be seamlessly integrated with the database deployment process. By" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.869, + 0.884, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{5} \\) Codex is currently free for research,with API at https://openai.com/api/. For commercial use,Codex is available at https://azure.microsoft.com/." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.906, + 0.858, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT API is available at https://openai.com/api/." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.869, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14182" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "incorporating the synthetic example generation step during the database deployment phase, users querying the database will not experience any noticeable delays or disruptions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.264, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.186, + 0.488, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We acknowledge the importance of the ACL Ethics Policy and agree with it. The objective of text-to-SQL systems is to provide non-expert database users with the ability to query databases using natural language. Our research in this paper focuses on improving the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models. While the benefit of in-domain annotated demonstrations is evident, the significant cost associated with such annotation should not be ignored in real-world applications. Therefore, we propose a method that combines both out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain data to enhance models' generalization and reduce reliance on costly in-domain annotations. We believe that this approach can improve the performance and usability of text-to-SQL systems, making them more accessible and practical for a wider range of applications." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.477, + 0.487, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, it is important to consider the cost of LLMs and SQL execution in realistic scenarios. Our proposed method employs two calls to LLMs without requiring any SQL execution during the SQL decoding process. This design choice aims to optimize the cost and user experience compared to other approaches that involve multiple LLM calls and SQL executions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.617, + 0.276, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.643, + 0.487, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank Michael White, Micha Elsner, the OSU SLaTe lab, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this work. Shuaichen Chang is supported in part by the Amazon Post Internship Fellowship." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.479, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14183" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.107, + 0.487, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shengnan An, Bo Zhou, Zeqi Lin, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Nanning Zheng, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2023. Skill-based few-shot selection for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14210." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.169, + 0.487, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Soumya Batra, Shashank Jain, Peyman Heidari, Ankit Arun, Catharine Youngs, Xintong Li, Pinar Donmez, Shawn Mei, Shiunzu Kuo, Vikas Bhardwaj, et al. 2021. building adaptive acceptability classifiers for neural nlg. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 682-697." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.269, + 0.486, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.357, + 0.487, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier. 2023. How to prompt llms for text-to-sql: A study in zero-shot, single-domain, and cross-domain settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11853." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.419, + 0.487, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuaichen Chang, Jun Wang, Mingwen Dong, Lin Pan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Wuwei Lan, Sheng Zhang, Jiarong Jiang, Joseph Lilien, et al. 2023. Dr. spider: A diagnostic evaluation benchmark towards text-to-sql robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08881." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.506, + 0.487, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.593, + 0.486, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Scharli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.642, + 0.487, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.73, + 0.487, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.778, + 0.487, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Li Zhang, Karthik Ramanathan, Sesh Sadasivam, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Improving text-to-sql evaluation methodology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09029." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13301." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.107, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daya Guo, Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, Hong Chi, James Cao, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Question generation from sql queries improves neural semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06304." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.16, + 0.883, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.235, + 0.883, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Li, Jiang Guo, Sheng Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, et al. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16265." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.31, + 0.883, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chia-Hsuan Lee, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2021. Kaggledbqa: Realistic evaluation of text-to-sql parsers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11455." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.371, + 0.883, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Itay Levy, Ben Bogin, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Diverse demonstrations improve in-context compositional generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06800." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.433, + 0.883, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023a. Resdnsq: Decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.493, + 0.883, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, et al. 2023b. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03111." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.581, + 0.883, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.643, + 0.883, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021a. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.704, + 0.883, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2021b. Tapex: Table pre-training via learning a neural sql executor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07653." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.766, + 0.883, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12586." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14184" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ansong Ni, Srini Iyer, Dragomir Radev, Ves Stoyanov, Wen-tau Yih, Sida I Wang, and Xi Victoria Lin. 2023. Lever: Learning to verify language-to-code generation with execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08468." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.489, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gabriel Poesia, Oleksandr Polozov, Vu Le, Ashish Tiwari, Gustavo Soares, Christopher Meek, and Sumit Gulwani. 2022. Synchronesh: Reliable code generation from pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11227." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.24, + 0.489, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11015." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.304, + 0.489, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.38, + 0.489, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.444, + 0.489, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.495, + 0.489, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.559, + 0.489, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Smbop: Semi-autoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 311-324." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.648, + 0.489, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.699, + 0.489, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.789, + 0.489, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peng Shi, Rui Zhang, He Bai, and Jimmy Lin. 2022. Xricl: Cross-lingual retrieval-augmented in-context learning for cross-lingual text-to-sql semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13693." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongjin Su, Jungo Kasai, Chen Henry Wu, Weijia Shi, Tianlu Wang, Jiayi Xin, Rui Zhang, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, et al. 2022. Selective annotation makes language models better few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01975." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chang-You Tai, Ziru Chen, Tianshu Zhang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2023. Exploring chain-of-thought style prompting for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14215." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.883, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.238, + 0.883, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bailin Wang, Wenpeng Yin, Xi Victoria Lin, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Learning to synthesize data for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05827." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.287, + 0.883, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. 2022a. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.363, + 0.883, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, Siqi Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022b. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08773." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.439, + 0.883, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Wu, Lijie Wang, Zhenghua Li, Ao Zhang, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, Min Zhang, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Data augmentation with hierarchical sql-to-question generation for cross-domain text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02227." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.515, + 0.883, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Yang, Peng Xu, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Hierarchical neural data synthesis for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02212." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.564, + 0.883, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir R Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.64, + 0.883, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.729, + 0.883, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiyun Zhao, Jiarong Jiang, Yiqun Hu, Wuwei Lan, Henry Zhu, Anuj Chauhan, Alexander Li, Lin Pan, Jun Wang, Chung-Wei Hang, et al. 2022. Importance of synthesizing high-quality data for text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08785." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.805, + 0.883, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020a. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Zhong, Mike Lewis, Sida I Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Grounded adaptation for zero-shot executable semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07396." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14185" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.239, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.11, + 0.333, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Prompt Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.131, + 0.49, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018), we utilize the CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023) prompt construction to create the prompt text for databases. In the KaggleDBQA dataset (Lee et al., 2021), each database is accompanied by a database document that provides descriptions of the columns in the database. We incorporate the database document as comments within the CreateTableSelectCol prompt. Figure 4 and 5 provide examples of the database prompt text for Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.318, + 0.403, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Necessity of Text-to-SQL Task Knowledge" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.356, + 0.49, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6 shows a prompt example with mismatched NLQs and SQL queries as demonstrations. In this example, the first NLQ corresponds to the second SQL and the second NLQ corresponds to the first NLQ. Figure 7 shows that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights that it is important to maintain the correct task knowledge in the demonstrations, which inspires us to leverage out-of-domain demonstrations along with synthetic in-domain examples." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14186" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.127, + 0.404, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.147, + 0.672, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "create table stadium ( stadium_id int, location text, name text, capacity int, highest int, lowest int, average int, primary key (stadium_id) ); /* Columns in stadium and 3 distinct examples in each column: stadium_id: 1, 2, 3; location: \"Raith Rovers\", \"Ayr United\", \"East Fife\"; name: \"Stark's Park\", \"Somerset Park\", \"Bayview Stadium\"; capacity: 10104, 11998, 2000; highest: 4812, 2363, 1980; lowest: 1294, 1057, 533; average: 2106, 1477, 864; */ create table singer ( singer_id int, name text, country text, song_name text, song_release_year text, age int, is_male bool, primary key (singer_id) ); /* Columns in singer and 3 distinct examples in each column: singer_id: 1, 2, 3; name: \"Joe Sharp\", \"Timbaland\", \"Justin Brown\"; country: \"Netherlands\", \"United States\", \"France\"; song_name: \"You\", \"Dangerous\", \"Hey Oh\"; song_release_year: 1992, 2008, 2013; age: 52, 32, 29; is_male: \"F\", \"T\"; */ create table concert ( concert_id int, concert_name text, theme text, stadium_id text, year text, primary key (concert_id), foreign key (stadium_id) references stadium(stadium_id) ; /* Columns in concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; concert_name: \"Auditions\", \"Super bootcamp\", \"Home Visits\"; theme: \"Free choice\", \"Free choice 2\", \"Bleeding Love\"; stadium_id: 1, 2, 10; year: 2014, 2015; */ create table singer_in_concert ( concert_id int, singer_id text, primary key (concert_id, singer_id), foreign key (concert_id) references concert(concert_id), foreign key (singer_id) references singer(singer_id) ; /* Columns in singer_in_concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; singer_id: 2, 3, 5; */" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.859, + 0.791, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: An database prompt example of for the concert_singer database in Spider." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14187" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.241, + 0.419, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(StudentMathScore)" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.261, + 0.826, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "create table finrev_fed_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_17 idcensus integer, -- the idcensus of the finrev_fed_17 schoolDistrict text, -- the school district of the finrev_fed_17 nces_id text, -- the nces id of the finrev_fed_17 yr_data integer, -- the year data of the finrev_fed_17 t_fed_rev integer, -- total federal revenue through the state to each school district. c14 integer, -- federal revenue through the state- title 1 (no child left behind act). c25 integer -- federal revenue through the state- child nutrition a); /* Columns in finrev_fed_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 33, 5, 14; idcensus: 33203100130100, 5501905900000, 14501615800000; schoolDistrict: \"NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT\", \"LOS ANGELES UNIF SCH DIST\", \"CITY OF CHICAGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 299\"; nces_id: 3620580, 622710, 1709930; yr_data: 17; t_fed_rev: 2061297, 1146298, 783943; c14: 956851, 376182, 290912; c25: 439209, 390711, 200517; */ create table ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ( year integer, -- the year of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 state_text, -- the state of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 all_students text, -- the all students of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 average_scale_score integer -- the average scale score of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ); /* Columns in ndecoreexcel math_grade8 and 3 distinct examples in each column: year: 2017; state: \"National\", \"Alabama\", \"Alaska\"; all_students: \"All students\"; average_scale_score: 283, 268, 277; */ create table finrev_fed_key_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_key_17 state_text, -- the state of the finrev_fed_key_17 #_records text -- the number of records of the finrev_fed_key_17 ); /* Columns in finrev_fed_key_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 1, 2, 3; state: \"Alabama\", \"Alaska\", \"Arizona\"; #_records: 137, 54, 235; */" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.171, + 0.745, + 0.825, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: An database prompt example of for the StudentMathScore database in KaggleDBQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14188" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.135, + 0.422, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.154, + 0.479, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. \nQuestion: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? \nselect count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; \nQuestion: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? \nselect name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; \nQuestion: Which year has most number of concerts? \nselect" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.305, + 0.49, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL using mismatched demonstration examples." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.43, + 0.485, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.583, + 0.484, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.746, + 0.357, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) KaggleDBQA" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: The results of Codex with real in-domain demonstration examples compared to mismatched examples. ID Examples represents annotated in-domain demonstrations while ID Examples Mismatch represents the NLQ and SQL pairs are mismatched. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14189" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_origin.pdf b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1977ffe6302e71bd084e24a5ce2f3d21748daf03 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/e2d63869-ca04-4735-be27-319213b7db7c_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3c6c6a430a2c8c5277f6fa187316c9bf5fd0993dc3a8a2865a248154f0187000 +size 400583 diff --git a/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/full.md b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..becbe0dc0ee9c0dd849f3395e2c8e27d950e83ed --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,372 @@ +# Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL + +Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier + +The Ohio State University + +{chang.1692, fosler-lussier.1} @osu.edu + +# Abstract + +Large language models (LLMs) with in-context learning have demonstrated impressive generalization capabilities in the cross-domain text-to-SQL task, without the use of in-domain annotations. However, incorporating in-domain demonstration examples has been found to greatly enhance LLMs' performance. In this paper, we delve into the key factors within in-domain examples that contribute to the improvement and explore whether we can harness these benefits without relying on in-domain annotations. Based on our findings, we propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS1 which utilizes both out-of-domain examples and synthetically generated in-domain examples to construct demonstrations. By retrieving demonstrations from hybrid sources, ODIS leverages the advantages of both, showcasing its effectiveness compared to baseline methods that rely on a single data source. Furthermore, ODIS outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets, with improvements of 1.1 and 11.8 points in execution accuracy, respectively. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), have demonstrated a great capability of addressing various language tasks with in-context learning (ICL), which rely on prompts that contain a task instruction and zero or a few demonstration examples regarding the task. + +Recent studies have evaluated LLMs on the cross-domain text-to-SQL which translates a natural language question (NLQ) to a SQL query for a new database. Previous work has conditioned LLMs with prompts that solely contain the database + +information without any demonstrations (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023) or utilize out-of-domain demonstration examples that are annotated NLQ-SQL pairs associated with the databases that are different from the test database (Poesia et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023). + +However, Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) have found that the performance of LLMs can be significantly improved with annotated in-domain examples serving as demonstrations, which are the NLQ-SQL pairs corresponding to the test database. Despite the remarkable performance improvements achieved through in-domain annotated demonstrations, acquiring such data can be costly, as the annotation process requires SQL professionals. More importantly, annotating examples for each new database diminishes the generalizability of text-to-SQL applications. These observations naturally raise two questions: (1) Which are the key factors within the in-domain annotated examples that contribute to the performance improvement? and (2) Can we harness these benefits of in-domain demonstrations without relying on in-domain annotation? + +In this paper, we start by investigating the role of the in-domain demonstration examples and then developing new techniques to create demonstrations without leveraging in-domain annotations. We assess three aspects within in-domain annotations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, input NLQ distribution, and output SQL distribution. Our experiments show that SQL distribution plays a pivotal role in in-domain demonstrations. This finding motivates us to synthesize in-domain data by generating sampled SQL queries. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to leverage synthetic examples for text-to-SQL with in-context learning. Furthermore, we introduce a novel demonstration selection framework ODIS which utilizes Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic data. By automatically selecting demonstration + +CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) + +-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. +Question: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? +select name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; +Question: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? +select count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; +Question: Which year has most number of concerts? +select + +Figure 1: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL for the database concert_singer in the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018). The prompt text of database schema and content, which is constructed using CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023), is shown at the beginning of the prompt. Two in-domain demonstrations (highlighted in blue) are presented prior to the test question. + +examples from both out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data with SQL-guided retrieval methods, our method consistently outperforms both state-of-the-art models employing fine-tuning (Scholak et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a) and in-context learning (Chen et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets. Our contributions are in three folds: + +- We conduct a thorough analysis to examine the impact of different aspects in in-domain demonstrations for text-to-SQL. +- We propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS that leverages out-of-domain and synthetically generated in-domain demonstrations. +- By employing SQL-guided retrieval methods for selecting out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain demonstrations, ODIS consistently outperforms baselines as well as state-of-the-art approaches. + +# 2 Analysis of In-domain Demonstrations + +In this section, we analyze the roles and contributions of in-domain annotated demonstrations. + +# 2.1 Experiment Setup + +We conduct experiments on two widely-used cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets: Spider (Yu et al., 2018) and KaggleDBQA (Lee et al., 2021). For the Spider dataset, we use its development set, which consists of 20 databases with 1047 examples2. As for KaggleDBQA, we employ the complete dataset, which contains 8 databases and 272 + +CreateTable+SelectCol(dorm_1) +-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Find the number of students in each major. select count $(\star)$ , major from student group by major; Question: Find the total capacity of all dorms. select sum(student_capacity) from dorm; +CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) +-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Which year has most number of concerts? select + +Figure 2: An example prompt of 2-shot out-of-domain text-to-SQL for the test database concert_singer. An out-of-domain database dorm_1 with 2 associated demonstrations (highlighted in blue) is presented prior to the test database and question. + +examples. Following Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), we utilize a leave-one-out split for evaluating in-domain demonstrations. Specifically, for a given test example, we randomly select demonstrations from the remaining examples associated with the same database, with the condition that selected demonstration examples that do not share the same SQL template as the test example, following the template-split approach (Finegan-Dollak et al., 2018). We also require the selected demonstrations to have different templates following Levy et al. (2022). We repeat all experiments three times to obtain average results. Figure 1 illustrates a prompt example that incorporates two in-domain demonstrations for the database concert_singer in Spider. Detailed prompt examples can be in Appendix A.1. We use Code-davinci-002 version of Codex (Chen et al., 2021) as our LLM due to its demonstrated capability on code generation. + +# 2.2 Effectiveness of In-domain Annotations + +Figure 3 illustrates the execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA. In the zero-shot scenario, where no demonstration examples of NLQ-SQL pairs are provided, Codex achieves execution accuracies of 75.7 and 26.8 for Spider and KaggleDBQA. However, the utilization of in-domain examples demonstrates a considerable improvement in Codex's performance. Notably, as the number of in-domain demonstration examples increases, Codex's performance continues to enhance. With 30 in-domain annotated examples, Codex's performance is significantly boosted to 84.6 and 71.7 on Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively. + +While the benefit of employing in-domain exam + +![](images/023e4c8e1a45a3f2bc19630f1bca6a5c742254cc6269685cbac2cc400e7b73b8.jpg) +(a) Spider + +![](images/c9a51a4a96d064d1f92b70927179f945fed5823ecd31fb7ac2d9754327e71f5f.jpg) +(b) KaggleDBQA +Figure 3: The results of Codex with randomly selected in-domain demonstration examples compared to the zero-shot setting. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively. ID represents the experiments utilizing in-domain demonstrations while 00D represents the use of out-of-domain demonstrations. + +plies in ICL is evident, there still exists a limited understanding of the key factors within in-domain demonstrations that contribute to performance enhancement. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to analyze three aspects of in-domain demonstrations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, the distribution of in-domain NLQs, and the distribution of in-domain SQL queries. The first aspect pertains to domain-agnostic knowledge, while the latter two are specific to the domain. + +Text-to-SQL task knowledge and format The in-domain examples encompass the task format and knowledge of LLMs, such as the relationship between an NLQ and its corresponding SQL query given a database. To investigate the extent to which the performance gains are due to the task format and knowledge, we conducted a study utilizing annotated out-of-domain data as an alternative source for providing task format and knowledge. In this setup, the model can learn the correct task format and knowledge from the annotated NLQ and SQL pairs associated with other databases. We randomly select examples from the training set of Spider, which contain 140 databases with 7000 examples. + +Figure 2 illustrates an example prompt that incorporates out-of-domain demonstrations. We insert $M$ databases preceding the test database, each accompanied by 5 NLQ and SQL pairs. We conducted experiments varying the value of $M$ , ranging from 1 to 6. The results of "OOD Examples" shown in Figure 3 demonstrate that exposure to out-of-domain examples with the same task format and knowledge can indeed enhance the model's performance. However, the performance gains from these out-of-domain examples are significantly smaller compared to those obtained from in-domain ex + +amples. Furthermore, we observe that the performance gains achieved through in-domain demonstrations tend to converge or even diminish after a certain number of examples have been provided. This finding stands in contrast to the continuous performance improvement observed with the use of in-domain demonstrations. We believe that while Codex is capable of learning the task format and knowledge from in-domain examples, the task format and knowledge alone are not sufficient to account for the observed performance gains. + +In addition, we investigate the necessity of task knowledge in the demonstrations by conducting an experiment where we shuffle the NLQs and SQL queries to create mismatched demonstrations. Figure 7 demonstrates that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights the necessity of including correct task knowledge and format in the demonstrations. Detailed results of this experiment can be found in Appendix A.2. + +In-domain input NLQ distribution Besides task knowledge, in-domain examples also present the input NLQ distribution to LLMs. Recent research has indicated that LLMs can benefit from being aware of the input distribution in classification tasks. Consequently, paring actual inputs with either random output labels (Min et al., 2022) or perturbed outputs (Wang et al., 2022a) has limited impact on the performance of LLMs. + +To assess the importance of the input distribution, we substitute the gold SQL queries in the demonstration examples with the predictions generated by Codex in the zero-shot setting. This allows the model to be aware of the distribution of in + +put NLQs without being exposed to the annotated SQLs or any additional knowledge beyond its own predictions. The "ID NLQ Distribution" in Figure 3 indicates that, for Spider, providing in-domain NLQ distribution yields some benefits but it is not comparable to utilizing complete in-domain data. Moreover, for the KaggleDBQA dataset, providing in-domain NLQs with self-predicted SQL queries does not exhibit any advantage compared to not using any examples. We attribute this observation to the lower accuracy of Codex in the zero-shot setting for KaggleDBQA. + +In-domain output SQL distribution In-domain demonstration examples also serve the purpose of revealing the output SQL distribution to LLMs. To assess the significance of this aspect, we employ the same LLM, Codex, to generate synthetic NLQs from oracle SQL queries. In the demonstration examples, we replace the annotated NLQs with these synthetic NLQs while keeping the SQL queries unchanged. This setup allows the LLMs to be exposed to the in-domain SQL distribution while remaining unaware of the annotated in-domain NLQs or other inputs beyond its own generated NLQs. + +The results of "ID SQL Distribution" in Figure 3 demonstrate that providing annotated SQL queries with synthetic NLQs can greatly enhance the model's performance on both the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets. Furthermore, the performance gains continue to increase with the inclusion of more demonstration examples, aligning with the results obtained using actual in-domain examples. + +# 3 Methods + +The experimental results presented in Section 2 demonstrate that the SQL distribution encompassed in in-domain annotated examples plays a crucial role in improving performance. However, it is important to note that oracle SQL distributions are not available in most cross-domain text-to-SQL applications. To address this limitation, we propose utilizing synthetic SQL queries and NLQs as in-domain demonstrations to capture the in-domain SQL distribution. As the synthetic examples may not always be correct, relying only on synthetic examples may potentially contradict the task knowledge of text-to-SQL, which could weaken Codex's performance as illustrated in Figure 7. Therefore, to strike a balance between SQL distribution and task knowledge, we leverage out-of-domain data + +to provide accurate task knowledge in addition to synthetic data. We propose ODIS: a demonstration selection framework that leverages both Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic demonstrations. In Section 3.1 and 3.2, we present our methods for selecting out-of-domain and indomain data, respectively, within the ODIS framework. + +# 3.1 Out-of-domain Demonstration Creation + +Recent work has discovered that LLMs are sensitive to the choice of demonstration examples, and LLMs usually benefit from demonstrations that are similar to the test example (Liu et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022b; Rubin et al., 2021). Following that, we further hypothesize that the similarity of the output SQL queries between test examples and demonstration examples is more important than input similarity, as we found that SQL distribution plays a crucial role in the in-domain scenario. Therefore, we propose a retrieval strategy SimSQL to retrieve demonstration examples based on the similarity of predicted SQL queries. + +For a test database $d$ and a question $x$ , our objective is to retrieve $M$ databases, each with $K$ NLQ and SQL pairs from a set of annotated out-of-domain examples $e_1, \ldots, e_N$ , where $e_i = (db_i, x_i, y_i, \hat{y}_i)$ , representing the database, input NLQ, annotated SQL query, and predicted SQL query by an LLM in the zero-shot scenario, respectively. The selected $M$ databases and their associated examples will be presented before the test database and question as shown in Figure 2. + +Algorithm 1 illustrates our procedure: (1) We first generate an initial SQL prediction $\hat{y}$ under the zero-shot scenario (line 1); (2) we sort out-of-domain examples based on the similarity between their predicted SQL query $\hat{y}_i$ and $\hat{y}$ (line 2); (3) we scan out-of-domain examples from high similarity to low. Once $K$ examples are found in a database, the database along with these $K$ examples is selected as a demonstration database and examples (line 7-9). The algorithm stops when $M$ databases are selected (line 10-12). We measure the similarity of SQLs with BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009) on the SQL keyword and schema tokens in SQL queries. + +# 3.2 In-domain Synthetic Demonstration Creation + +In-domain synthetic demonstration selection consists of two stages: (1) synthetic data generation, and (2) synthetic data retrieval. + +# Algorithm 1 SimSQL for out-of-domain retrieval + +Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database $d$ and question $x$ , and a set of OOD examples $OOD = \{e_1, e_2, \dots, e_N\}$ where $e_i = (d_i, x_i, y_i, \hat{y}_i)$ , representing the database, input question, gold SQL query, and predicted SQL of Model in the zero-shot setting, respectively. + +Output: A list of M Demo $[d_i]$ , where Demo $[d_i]$ contains $K$ examples associated to $d_{i}$ . + +1: $\hat{y} \gets \text{Model}(x)$ +2: Sort $OOD = \{e_i\}$ in descending order in terms of Similarity $(\hat{y}, \hat{y}_i)$ +3: for $e_i$ in OOD do +4: $(d_i, x_i, y_i, \hat{y}_i) \gets e_i$ +5: if size of $Demo[d_i] < K$ then +6: $Demo[d_i] \gets Demo[d_i] + (d_i, x_i, y_i)$ +7: if size of $Demo[d_i] = K$ then +8: Output $\leftarrow$ Output + Demo[di] +9: end if +10: if size of Output $= M$ then +11: Break +12: end if +13: end if +14: end for + +Synthetic data generation To generate synthetic data, we follow previous work to first sample synthetic SQL queries $\{y_i\}$ and then translate SQL queries into natural language questions $\{x_i\}$ (Zhong et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). We use SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) to sample synthetic SQL queries, which extract templates from out-of-domain databases and sample columns and values from the test database to fill the templates. After obtaining synthetic SQL queries, we use the Codex to generate corresponding synthetic NLQs, in the same procedure as in our analysis of in-domain SQL distribution. + +To improve the quality of synthetic data, we follow the previous work on code generation (Zhong et al., 2020b; Batra et al., 2021) to add a verification process. We use Codex to translate the synthetic NLQ $x_{i}$ back to SQL $\hat{y}_i$ and filter out the examples that $\hat{y}_i$ and $y_{i}$ have different execution results. + +Synthetic data retrieval While our objective is to synthesize SQL queries that align with the oracle SQL distribution, it is important to note that the oracle SQL distribution often relies on domain-specific prior knowledge that may not be available in the cross-domain text-to-SQL setting. For exam + +ple, questions commonly asked in a flight booking system may not be easily inferred from those in a concert arrangement system. Therefore, instead of expecting to find SQL queries that closely resemble the test question, our focus is on retrieving multiple queries that cover different aspects of the expected SQL query. + +To address this, we formulate the problem as a maximum coverage problem and adopt a greedy algorithm inspired by the algorithm proposed by Levy et al. (2022). Algorithm 2 outlines the process of retrieving demonstrations from synthetic in-domain examples: (1) We begin by creating a set of tokens $S_{\mathrm{uncover}}$ that need to be covered, which is initialized with the SQL keyword and schema tokens mentioned in the initial SQL prediction of test question (line 3). (2) We retrieve the synthetic SQLs that have the highest similarity to $S_{\mathrm{uncover}}$ , measured with BM25 scores (line 5). The $S_{\mathrm{uncover}}$ will be updated by removing the tokens in the retrieved SQL query and the retrieved example will be added to the demonstration list (line 8 - 9). We repeat this process until either $S_{\mathrm{uncover}}$ becomes empty (line 17) or we are unable to retrieve a synthetic SQL containing any tokens in $S_{\mathrm{uncover}}$ (line 14). (3) If the number of selected examples is less than the maximum desired, we iterate through steps (1) and (2) again (line 2). + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Baseline Methods + +Previous Work We compare ODIS with state-of-the-art approaches that either require finetuning on the Spider training set or utilize in-context learning. For the finetuning-based methods, we select SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021) which utilizes RoBERTa-large as the pretrained model, as well as T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021), ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022), and RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a), which employ T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020) as the pretrained model. + +For the in-context learning methods, we include the approaches proposed by Rajkumar et al. (2022), Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), Lan et al. (2023) which utilize either no demonstrations or randomly selected demonstrations. We also include SYNCHROMESH (Poesia et al., 2022) and SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023), which employ similarity-based retrieval methods. Additionally, we select state-of-the-art approaches LEVER (Ni et al., 2023), Self-Debug (Chen et al., 2023), and DIN + +Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database $d$ and question $x$ , and a set of synthetic in-domain examples $ID = \{e_1, e_2, \dots, e_N\}$ where $e_i = (x_i, y_i)$ . + +Output: A list of $K$ examples from $ID$ . + +Algorithm 2 CovSQL for in-domain retrieval +1: $\hat{y} \gets \text{Model}(x)$ +2: while size of Output $<\mathbf{K}$ do +3: $S_{\text{uncover}} \gets \text{tokens in } \hat{y}$ +4: while size of $S_{\text{uncover}} > 0$ do +5: $e^* \gets \text{argmax Sim}(S_{\text{uncover}}, y_i)$ +6: $x^*, y^* \gets e^*$ +7: if $\text{Sim}(S_{\text{uncover}}, y^*) > 0$ then +8: $S_{\text{uncover}} \gets S_{\text{uncover}} - \text{tokens in } y^*$ +9: Output $\leftarrow$ Output + $e^*$ +10: ID $\leftarrow$ ID - $e^*$ +11: if size of Output $= K$ then +12: Break +13: end if +14: else +15: Break +16: end if +17: end while +18: end while + +SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023), which incorporate fixed demonstration examples with intermediate reasoning steps or self-correction procedures. + +Ours To demonstrate the effectiveness of ODIS framework, we compare it to baselines that utilize demonstrations solely from out-of-domain data or synthetic in-domain sources. Furthermore, we evaluate the proposed SQL-guided retrieval strategies SimSQL and CovSQL by comparing them with the Random retrieval strategy, as well as the SimNLQ approach, which retrieves examples based on the similarity of input NLQs. In line with previous studies (Rubin et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022), we measure similarity using the cosine distance of sentence embeddings encoded through SentenceBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). + +# 4.2 Experiments Setup + +We utilize the training set of Spider as the pool for selecting out-of-domain demonstrations, following our experiments in Section 2. We generate and filter synthetic in-domain examples, resulting in 1416 examples for Spider and 512 examples for KaggleDBQA. When the Random retrieval strategy is used, we conduct three repetitions with different random + +seeds and report the average results. We conducted experiments with both closed-source LLMs, Codex and ChatGPT, in addition to the open-source LLM, CodeLLama, for the final prediction $^{3}$ . Due to resource constraints, we only employ Codex for retrieving demonstrations. + +Hyper-parameters For out-of-domain demonstrations, we employ 5 NLQ-SQL pairs for each demonstration database, in line with our experiments in Section 2. Determining the number of out-of-domain databases and the number of synthetic in-domain examples is considered a hyperparameter selection process. In our final experiments for Spider and KaggleDBQA, we set the number of out-of-domain databases to 4 and synthetic in-domain examples to 5, based on the results obtained from experiments conducted on a randomly-selected subset of 20 databases from the Spider training set. + +# 5 Results + +# 5.1 Main Results + +Table 1 and Table 2 present the execution accuracy of state-of-the-art methods and our proposed ODIS on Spider and KaggleDBQA. On Spider, ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 85.2, surpassing both the state-of-the-art finetuning-based model RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a) and the in-context learning method Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023) by 1.1 points. On KaggleDBQA, ODIS achieves an execution accuracy of 54.8, outperforming the state-of-the-art model SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023) by 11.8 points. ODIS also demonstrates superior performance compared to baselines that solely rely on out-of-domain or synthetic indomain demonstrations, regardless of the backbone LLM used. On the Spider dataset, ODIS outperforms these baselines by 3.1 and 3.6 points when using Codex, by 0.8 and 3.0 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4 and 1.7 points with CodeLlama. Likewise, on KaggleDBQA, ODIS surpasses the baselines by 1.5 and 9.6 points when employing Codex, by 7.3 and 19.8 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4 + +
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB78.0
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B79.1
ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022)T5-3B81.4
RESDSQL+NatSQL (Li et al., 2023a)T5-3B84.1
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Rajkumar et al. (2022)Codex67.0
Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023)Codex76.8
LEVER (Ni et al., 2023)Codex81.9
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)Codex75.6
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)GPT-482.8
Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023)Codex84.1
This work
Codex75.7
Zero-shotChatGPT75.7
CodeLlama70.7
Codex82.1
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT80.7
CodeLlama75.6
Codex81.5
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT78.5
CodeLlama78.3
Codex85.2
ODISChatGPT81.5
CodeLlama80.0
+ +and 7.4 points with CodeLlama. These results highlight the effectiveness of leveraging both sources of demonstrations within the ODIS framework. + +# 5.2 Analysis + +We evaluate our demonstration retrieval methods SimSQL and CovSQL, in comparison to baseline retrieval methods. To specifically analyze and compare the performance of the retrieval methods within each demonstration source, we evaluate the retrieval methods for out-of-domain demonstrations without utilizing in-domain synthetic demonstrations, and vice versa. + +Out-of-domain retrieval Table 3 presents the comparison among different retrieval methods when retrieving out-of-domain examples. It is observed that retrieving out-of-domain examples with similar predicted SQL queries outperforms random selection and NLQ similarity-based selection on both datasets. This finding aligns with our earlier + +Table 1: The execution accuracy (EX) on the Spider development set.4The upper section contains models that are finetuned on the Spider training set, while the middle and bottom sections showcase previous methods and our proposed methods, which use in-context learning. The column LLM denotes the language model utilized, either in the fine-tuning or in-context learning. RB represents RoBERTa-large. + +
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB27.2
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B29.8
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Zero-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex23.9
Few-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex40.4
SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023)Codex43.0
This work
Codex26.8
Zero-shotChatGPT25.7
CodeLlama18.8
Codex53.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT45.6
CodeLlama37.9
Codex45.2
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT33.1
CodeLlama34.9
Codex54.8
ODISChatGPT52.9
CodeLlama42.3
+ +observations that the output SQL distribution plays a more crucial role than the input NLQ distribution in improving the model's performance. + +We also explore the use of oracle SQL queries in our experiments. Retrieving examples with the oracle SQL query of the test question results in an additional improvement of 0.8 and 2.9 points in execution accuracy on the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets, respectively. We believe that the larger improvement observed on KaggleDBQA can be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on this dataset in the zero-shot setting. This suggests that employing a better initial model may lead to further enhancements in the performance of the ODIS framework. + +Table 2: The execution accuracy (EX) on the KaggleD-BQA. + +
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random78.738.0
SimNLQ81.242.6
SimSQL82.153.3
SimSQL (Oracle)82.956.2
+ +Table 3: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different out-of-domain demonstration retrieval methods. + +Synthetic in-domain retrieval Table 4 provides a comparison of the in-domain retrieval methods. On the Spider dataset, retrieving synthetic SQL queries that cover different parts of the initial + +
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random77.038.2
SimNLQ79.241.5
SimSQL79.745.2
CovSQL81.545.2
CovSQL (Oracle)81.848.9
CovSQL (In-domain Annotation)82.452.9
+ +SQL predictions outperforms the retrieval methods based on the similarity of either NLQs or initial SQL predictions. On the KaggleDBQA dataset, both the CoverSQL and SimSQL methods achieve the same results, outperforming the random selection and NLQ-similarity-based methods. Regarding the experiments with oracle SQL queries, again, we observe a larger improvement on the KaggleDBQA dataset compared to Spider which may be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on KaggleDBQA. + +Impact of synthetic data To assess the impact of synthetic data quality in ODIS framework, we compare two SQL synthesizing methods SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) and GAZP (Zhong et al., 2020b). Both methods extract the templates of SQL queries from the Spider training set and fill the template with the database schema and content with a new database, however, SHiP leverages a schema-weighted sampling to make the synthetic SQL queries more realistic by controlling the relationship of sampled columns. When replacing our synthetic data generated through SHiP to GAZP, we find the performance with Codex has dropped from 81.5 to 79.5 on Spider and from 45.2 to 33.8 on KaggleDBQA. This indicates that the quality of synthetic data is crucial in the ODIZ framework. + +Additionally, we evaluate the performance of retrieving from synthetic in-domain examples compared to retrieving from actual annotated in-domain examples in Spider and KaggleDBQA with the CovSQL retrieval method. The performance gap in Table 4 between them indicates that refining the data synthesizing method could potentially yield even greater enhancements within the ODIS framework. It is worth noting that this experiment is designed to illustrate the limitations of synthetic examples compared to annotated examples. Re + +Table 4: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different synthetic in-domain demonstration retrieval methods. + +
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB58.1
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B65.0
This work
Zero-shotCodex65.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
ODISCodex73.4
+ +Table 5: The execution accuracy (EX) of Codex on the Dr. Spider NLQ post-perturbation sets. + +trieving annotated in-domain examples typically necessitates a large amount of in-domain annotations, which are usually not available. + +Robustness Evaluation In order to assess the robustness of our proposed ODIS framework, we conduct a study to compare ODIS with the baseline supervised-learning and in-context-learning methods on Dr. Spider (Chang et al., 2023), an evaluation benchmark for text-to-SQL robustness. We opt for the NLQ post-perturbation sets in Dr. Spider, as these have been identified as the most challenging for LLMs with in-context learning (Chang et al., 2023). The results, presented in Table 5, reveal that ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 73.4 on NLQ perturbations, surpasses the supervised learning methods and the Codex with either out-of-domain or synthetic in-domain demonstrations. + +# 6 Related Work + +Text-to-SQL with in-context learning Previous studies have explored text-to-SQL with in-context learning from various perspectives. Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) investigated effective approaches to represent databases in prompts. Other studies have explored the incorporation of intermediate reasoning steps to enhance the performance of LLMs (Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023; Tai et al., 2023). + +For demonstration retrieval, prior work has explored different strategies for retrieving out-of-domain examples based on similarity (Poesia et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2021) and diversity (Levy et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022). Concurrent with our work, Nan et al. (2023) suggested retrieving out-of-domain demonstrations based on the initial SQL predictions, which aligns with our retrieval method. + +Additionally, execution results have been used in the SQL generation process to verify the gen + +erated SQL queries (Chen et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2023). These approaches often require multiple LLM calls and SQL executions to accomplish majority voting or self-correction. It is worth noting that the database execution time is a crucial consideration in realistic applications, as highlighted by Li et al. (2023b). In contrast, ODIS with our proposed retrieval strategy only requires two LLM calls (one for initial SQL prediction and one for final generation) and eliminates the need for any database execution, making it a more efficient solution for text-to-SQL tasks. + +Data synthesis for Text-to-SQL Due to the high cost of acquiring annotated text-to-SQL data, previous research has explored the use of synthetic data as an alternative approach to enhance the performance of cross-domain text-to-SQL models. These works primarily focused on data augmentation, such as generating additional examples for the training databases (Guo et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022). Zhong et al. (2020b) first synthesized data for test databases and adapted pretrained text-to-SQL models on the synthetic data associated with the test database before inference. In a similar vein, ODIS leverages synthetic data for the test database but uses it with in-context learning rather than directly fine-tuning models on it. + +# 7 Conclusion and Future Work + +In this work, we delve into the analysis of crucial aspects of in-domain demonstrations and identify the SQL distribution as the key factor. Inspired by our findings, we propose a novel demonstration selection framework, ODIS, which harnesses the power of both out-of-domain demonstrations and synthetic in-domain examples using SQL-guided retrieval. The remarkable performance across different backbone large language models demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed framework, compared to both baseline and state-of-the-art methods. + +While ODIS serves as a general framework that can be employed with various demonstration retrieval methods, our experiments in this study utilize separate retrieval methods for out-of-domain and in-domain demonstrations. We regard it as future work to explore a unified retrieval strategy that breaks the boundary between out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data, enabling automatic + +selection among them. Additionally, our retrieval approach relies on the predictions of Codex in the zero-shot scenario. It is worth exploring utilizing higher-performance initial text-to-SQL models to further enhance the performance, as demonstrated in Section 5.2 through the use of oracle SQL queries. We believe the effectiveness of the ODIS framework will encourage further advancements in data synthesis methods and demonstration retrieval techniques. + +Considering the proven effectiveness of utilizing hybrid data sources, comprising out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain examples as in-context demonstrations, we believe that ODIS can be extended to few-shot, parameter-efficient fine-tuning by leveraging these hybrid data sources (Hu et al., 2021; Dettmers et al., 2023). We leave the exploration of parameter-efficient fine-tuning with synthetic in-domain examples for future research. + +# Limitations + +We hope the effectiveness of ODIS will draw attention to the potential benefits of incorporating hybrid demonstrations – synthetic and annotated data in the text-to-SQL task in in-context learning. As the first study exploring this approach, we examined the retrieval methods separately for these two types of demonstrations. However, as mentioned in Section 7, exploring more advanced retrieval methods to blur the boundary of out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain examples is a direction for future work. + +We conducted our experiments with both closed-source Codex $^{5}$ and ChatGPT $^{6}$ and open-source CodeLlama as the large language models. Recent research has shown that GPT-4 consistently outperforms Codex in the text-to-SQL generation when employing various prompt strategies (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023). Considering our budget constraints, we leave the ODIS framework with other large language models as a topic for future investigation. + +While our proposed method involves two calls to LLMs and no SQL execution during the generation process, it does require an offline process for synthetic example generation. We acknowledge that this process adds an additional step to the pipeline. However, we believe that it can be seamlessly integrated with the database deployment process. By + +incorporating the synthetic example generation step during the database deployment phase, users querying the database will not experience any noticeable delays or disruptions. + +# Ethics Statement + +We acknowledge the importance of the ACL Ethics Policy and agree with it. The objective of text-to-SQL systems is to provide non-expert database users with the ability to query databases using natural language. Our research in this paper focuses on improving the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models. While the benefit of in-domain annotated demonstrations is evident, the significant cost associated with such annotation should not be ignored in real-world applications. Therefore, we propose a method that combines both out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain data to enhance models' generalization and reduce reliance on costly in-domain annotations. We believe that this approach can improve the performance and usability of text-to-SQL systems, making them more accessible and practical for a wider range of applications. + +Moreover, it is important to consider the cost of LLMs and SQL execution in realistic scenarios. Our proposed method employs two calls to LLMs without requiring any SQL execution during the SQL decoding process. This design choice aims to optimize the cost and user experience compared to other approaches that involve multiple LLM calls and SQL executions. + +# Acknowledgments + +We would like to thank Michael White, Micha Elsner, the OSU SLaTe lab, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this work. Shuaichen Chang is supported in part by the Amazon Post Internship Fellowship. + +# References + +Shengnan An, Bo Zhou, Zeqi Lin, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Nanning Zheng, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2023. Skill-based few-shot selection for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14210. +Soumya Batra, Shashank Jain, Peyman Heidari, Ankit Arun, Catharine Youngs, Xintong Li, Pinar Donmez, Shawn Mei, Shiunzu Kuo, Vikas Bhardwaj, et al. 2021. building adaptive acceptability classifiers for neural nlg. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 682-697. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier. 2023. How to prompt llms for text-to-sql: A study in zero-shot, single-domain, and cross-domain settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11853. +Shuaichen Chang, Jun Wang, Mingwen Dong, Lin Pan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Wuwei Lan, Sheng Zhang, Jiarong Jiang, Joseph Lilien, et al. 2023. Dr. spider: A diagnostic evaluation benchmark towards text-to-sql robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08881. +Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. +Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Scharli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. +Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314. +Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Li Zhang, Karthik Ramanathan, Sesh Sadasivam, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Improving text-to-sql evaluation methodology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09029. +Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13301. + +Daya Guo, Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, Hong Chi, James Cao, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Question generation from sql queries improves neural semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06304. +Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685. +Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Li, Jiang Guo, Sheng Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, et al. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16265. +Chia-Hsuan Lee, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2021. Kaggledbqa: Realistic evaluation of text-to-sql parsers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11455. +Itay Levy, Ben Bogin, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Diverse demonstrations improve in-context compositional generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06800. +Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023a. Resdnsq: Decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965. +Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, et al. 2023b. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03111. +Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547. +Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021a. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804. +Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2021b. Tapex: Table pre-training via learning a neural sql executor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07653. +Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837. +Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12586. + +Ansong Ni, Srini Iyer, Dragomir Radev, Ves Stoyanov, Wen-tau Yih, Sida I Wang, and Xi Victoria Lin. 2023. Lever: Learning to verify language-to-code generation with execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08468. +Gabriel Poesia, Oleksandr Polozov, Vu Le, Ashish Tiwari, Gustavo Soares, Christopher Meek, and Sumit Gulwani. 2022. Synchronesh: Reliable code generation from pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11227. +Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11015. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(140):1-67. +Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084. +Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389. +Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Smbop: Semi-autoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 311-324. +Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633. +Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901. +Peng Shi, Rui Zhang, He Bai, and Jimmy Lin. 2022. Xricl: Cross-lingual retrieval-augmented in-context learning for cross-lingual text-to-sql semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13693. +Hongjin Su, Jungo Kasai, Chen Henry Wu, Weijia Shi, Tianlu Wang, Jiayi Xin, Rui Zhang, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, et al. 2022. Selective annotation makes language models better few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01975. + +Chang-You Tai, Ziru Chen, Tianshu Zhang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2023. Exploring chain-of-thought style prompting for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14215. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Bailin Wang, Wenpeng Yin, Xi Victoria Lin, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Learning to synthesize data for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05827. +Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. 2022a. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001. +Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, Siqi Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022b. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08773. +Kun Wu, Lijie Wang, Zhenghua Li, Ao Zhang, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, Min Zhang, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Data augmentation with hierarchical sql-to-question generation for cross-domain text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02227. +Wei Yang, Peng Xu, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Hierarchical neural data synthesis for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02212. +Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir R Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. In ICLR. +Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887. +Yiyun Zhao, Jiarong Jiang, Yiqun Hu, Wuwei Lan, Henry Zhu, Anuj Chauhan, Alexander Li, Lin Pan, Jun Wang, Chung-Wei Hang, et al. 2022. Importance of synthesizing high-quality data for text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08785. +Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020a. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840. +Victor Zhong, Mike Lewis, Sida I Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Grounded adaptation for zero-shot executable semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07396. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Prompt Construction + +For the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018), we utilize the CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023) prompt construction to create the prompt text for databases. In the KaggleDBQA dataset (Lee et al., 2021), each database is accompanied by a database document that provides descriptions of the columns in the database. We incorporate the database document as comments within the CreateTableSelectCol prompt. Figure 4 and 5 provide examples of the database prompt text for Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively. + +# A.2 Necessity of Text-to-SQL Task Knowledge + +Figure 6 shows a prompt example with mismatched NLQs and SQL queries as demonstrations. In this example, the first NLQ corresponds to the second SQL and the second NLQ corresponds to the first NLQ. Figure 7 shows that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights that it is important to maintain the correct task knowledge in the demonstrations, which inspires us to leverage out-of-domain demonstrations along with synthetic in-domain examples. + +CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) +```sql +create table stadium ( stadium_id int, location text, name text, capacity int, highest int, lowest int, average int, primary key (stadium_id) ); /* Columns in stadium and 3 distinct examples in each column: stadium_id: 1, 2, 3; location: "Raith Rovers", "Ayr United", "East Fife"; name: "Stark's Park", "Somerset Park", "Bayview Stadium"; capacity: 10104, 11998, 2000; highest: 4812, 2363, 1980; lowest: 1294, 1057, 533; average: 2106, 1477, 864; */ create table singer ( singer_id int, name text, country text, song_name text, song_release_year text, age int, is_male bool, primary key (singer_id) ); /* Columns in singer and 3 distinct examples in each column: singer_id: 1, 2, 3; name: "Joe Sharp", "Timbaland", "Justin Brown"; country: "Netherlands", "United States", "France"; song_name: "You", "Dangerous", "Hey Oh"; song_release_year: 1992, 2008, 2013; age: 52, 32, 29; is_male: "F", "T"; */ create table concert ( concert_id int, concert_name text, theme text, stadium_id text, year text, primary key (concert_id), foreign key (stadium_id) references stadium(stadium_id) ; /* Columns in concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; concert_name: "Auditions", "Super bootcamp", "Home Visits"; theme: "Free choice", "Free choice 2", "Bleeding Love"; stadium_id: 1, 2, 10; year: 2014, 2015; */ create table singer_in_concert ( concert_id int, singer_id text, primary key (concert_id, singer_id), foreign key (concert_id) references concert(concert_id), foreign key (singer_id) references singer(singer_id) ; /* Columns in singer_in_concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; singer_id: 2, 3, 5; */ +``` + +Figure 4: An database prompt example of for the concert_singer database in Spider. + +CreateTable+SelectCol(StudentMathScore) +```sql +create table finrev_fed_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_17 idcensus integer, -- the idcensus of the finrev_fed_17 schoolDistrict text, -- the school district of the finrev_fed_17 nces_id text, -- the nces id of the finrev_fed_17 yr_data integer, -- the year data of the finrev_fed_17 t_fed_rev integer, -- total federal revenue through the state to each school district. c14 integer, -- federal revenue through the state- title 1 (no child left behind act). c25 integer -- federal revenue through the state- child nutrition a); /* Columns in finrev_fed_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 33, 5, 14; idcensus: 33203100130100, 5501905900000, 14501615800000; schoolDistrict: "NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT", "LOS ANGELES UNIF SCH DIST", "CITY OF CHICAGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 299"; nces_id: 3620580, 622710, 1709930; yr_data: 17; t_fed_rev: 2061297, 1146298, 783943; c14: 956851, 376182, 290912; c25: 439209, 390711, 200517; */ create table ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ( year integer, -- the year of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 state_text, -- the state of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 all_students text, -- the all students of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 average_scale_score integer -- the average scale score of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ); /* Columns in ndecoreexcel math_grade8 and 3 distinct examples in each column: year: 2017; state: "National", "Alabama", "Alaska"; all_students: "All students"; average_scale_score: 283, 268, 277; */ create table finrev_fed_key_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_key_17 state_text, -- the state of the finrev_fed_key_17 #_records text -- the number of records of the finrev_fed_key_17 ); /* Columns in finrev_fed_key_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 1, 2, 3; state: "Alabama", "Alaska", "Arizona"; #_records: 137, 54, 235; */ +``` + +Figure 5: An database prompt example of for the StudentMathScore database in KaggleDBQA. + +CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) + +```sql +-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. +Question: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? +select count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; +Question: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? +select name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; +Question: Which year has most number of concerts? +select +``` + +![](images/bd0fce16b1fb475f56d3fd1cc8d6d3aac9cdd82eaec13f100c2b206906b5ce1e.jpg) +Figure 6: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL using mismatched demonstration examples. + +![](images/05730cc0a5c2d61b6afb61b96a6aeb17f321b20e5fa1b7ca80564a9b0bf097f3.jpg) +(b) KaggleDBQA +Figure 7: The results of Codex with real in-domain demonstration examples compared to mismatched examples. ID Examples represents annotated in-domain demonstrations while ID Examples Mismatch represents the NLQ and SQL pairs are mismatched. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/images.zip b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..999a6d3ad54fa7e1c5e425da77cf345c6152994b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b4bb5f441aef4c72b5d4477e4e1982c6bf42679a09d24ed1288c17089b4ea376 +size 283034 diff --git a/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/layout.json b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aac4b2408da31f61d277c308daa7c7e5f8ec4a57 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9136 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 76, + 470, + 93 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 76, + 470, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 76, + 470, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Selective Demonstrations for Cross-domain Text-to-SQL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 120, + 408, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 120, + 408, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 188, + 120, + 408, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 134, + 361, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 134, + 361, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 235, + 134, + 361, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Ohio State University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 148, + 394, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 148, + 394, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 148, + 394, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{chang.1692, fosler-lussier.1} @osu.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 239, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 239, + 274, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 239, + 274, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) with in-context learning have demonstrated impressive generalization capabilities in the cross-domain text-to-SQL task, without the use of in-domain annotations. However, incorporating in-domain demonstration examples has been found to greatly enhance LLMs' performance. In this paper, we delve into the key factors within in-domain examples that contribute to the improvement and explore whether we can harness these benefits without relying on in-domain annotations. Based on our findings, we propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS1 which utilizes both out-of-domain examples and synthetically generated in-domain examples to construct demonstrations. By retrieving demonstrations from hybrid sources, ODIS leverages the advantages of both, showcasing its effectiveness compared to baseline methods that rely on a single data source. Furthermore, ODIS outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets, with improvements of 1.1 and 11.8 points in execution accuracy, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 154, + 553 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 154, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 154, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 290, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 290, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 290, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023), have demonstrated a great capability of addressing various language tasks with in-context learning (ICL), which rely on prompts that contain a task instruction and zero or a few demonstration examples regarding the task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 673, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 673, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 673, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent studies have evaluated LLMs on the cross-domain text-to-SQL which translates a natural language question (NLQ) to a SQL query for a new database. Previous work has conditioned LLMs with prompts that solely contain the database" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "information without any demonstrations (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023) or utilize out-of-domain demonstration examples that are annotated NLQ-SQL pairs associated with the databases that are different from the test database (Poesia et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 526, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 526, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 526, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) have found that the performance of LLMs can be significantly improved with annotated in-domain examples serving as demonstrations, which are the NLQ-SQL pairs corresponding to the test database. Despite the remarkable performance improvements achieved through in-domain annotated demonstrations, acquiring such data can be costly, as the annotation process requires SQL professionals. More importantly, annotating examples for each new database diminishes the generalizability of text-to-SQL applications. These observations naturally raise two questions: (1) Which are the key factors within the in-domain annotated examples that contribute to the performance improvement? and (2) Can we harness these benefits of in-domain demonstrations without relying on in-domain annotation?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we start by investigating the role of the in-domain demonstration examples and then developing new techniques to create demonstrations without leveraging in-domain annotations. We assess three aspects within in-domain annotations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, input NLQ distribution, and output SQL distribution. Our experiments show that SQL distribution plays a pivotal role in in-domain demonstrations. This finding motivates us to synthesize in-domain data by generating sampled SQL queries. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to leverage synthetic examples for text-to-SQL with in-context learning. Furthermore, we introduce a novel demonstration selection framework ODIS which utilizes Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic data. By automatically selecting demonstration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The code for the paper is available at https://github. com/shuaichenchang/ODIS-Text-to-SQL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14174" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14174-14189 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 251, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 251, + 86 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 251, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 91, + 285, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 91, + 285, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 91, + 285, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. \nQuestion: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? \nselect name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; \nQuestion: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? \nselect count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; \nQuestion: Which year has most number of concerts? \nselect" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 218, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL for the database concert_singer in the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018). The prompt text of database schema and content, which is constructed using CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023), is shown at the beginning of the prompt. Two in-domain demonstrations (highlighted in blue) are presented prior to the test question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 326, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "examples from both out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data with SQL-guided retrieval methods, our method consistently outperforms both state-of-the-art models employing fine-tuning (Scholak et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023a) and in-context learning (Chen et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) on two cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets. Our contributions are in three folds:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 577 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We conduct a thorough analysis to examine the impact of different aspects in in-domain demonstrations for text-to-SQL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 483, + 290, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 483, + 290, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 483, + 290, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a demonstration selection framework ODIS that leverages out-of-domain and synthetically generated in-domain demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 523, + 289, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 523, + 289, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 523, + 289, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- By employing SQL-guided retrieval methods for selecting out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain demonstrations, ODIS consistently outperforms baselines as well as state-of-the-art approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 286, + 599 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 286, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 586, + 286, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Analysis of In-domain Demonstrations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we analyze the roles and contributions of in-domain annotated demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 180, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 180, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 180, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Experiment Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct experiments on two widely-used cross-domain text-to-SQL datasets: Spider (Yu et al., 2018) and KaggleDBQA (Lee et al., 2021). For the Spider dataset, we use its development set, which consists of 20 databases with 1047 examples2. As for KaggleDBQA, we employ the complete dataset, which contains 8 databases and 272" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 517, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 517, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 517, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(dorm_1) \n-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Find the number of students in each major. select count " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 517, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\star)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 517, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , major from student group by major; Question: Find the total capacity of all dorms. select sum(student_capacity) from dorm; \nCreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer) \n-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. Question: Which year has most number of concerts? select" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: An example prompt of 2-shot out-of-domain text-to-SQL for the test database concert_singer. An out-of-domain database dorm_1 with 2 associated demonstrations (highlighted in blue) is presented prior to the test database and question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 526, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 526, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 526, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "examples. Following Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), we utilize a leave-one-out split for evaluating in-domain demonstrations. Specifically, for a given test example, we randomly select demonstrations from the remaining examples associated with the same database, with the condition that selected demonstration examples that do not share the same SQL template as the test example, following the template-split approach (Finegan-Dollak et al., 2018). We also require the selected demonstrations to have different templates following Levy et al. (2022). We repeat all experiments three times to obtain average results. Figure 1 illustrates a prompt example that incorporates two in-domain demonstrations for the database concert_singer in Spider. Detailed prompt examples can be in Appendix A.1. We use Code-davinci-002 version of Codex (Chen et al., 2021) as our LLM due to its demonstrated capability on code generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 515, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 515, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 515, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Effectiveness of In-domain Annotations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3 illustrates the execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA. In the zero-shot scenario, where no demonstration examples of NLQ-SQL pairs are provided, Codex achieves execution accuracies of 75.7 and 26.8 for Spider and KaggleDBQA. However, the utilization of in-domain examples demonstrates a considerable improvement in Codex's performance. Notably, as the number of in-domain demonstration examples increases, Codex's performance continues to enhance. With 30 in-domain annotated examples, Codex's performance is significantly boosted to 84.6 and 71.7 on Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While the benefit of employing in-domain exam" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 252, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 252, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 252, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2The test set of Spider is not publicly available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14175" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 295, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 295, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 295, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 295, + 191 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "023e4c8e1a45a3f2bc19630f1bca6a5c742254cc6269685cbac2cc400e7b73b8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 196, + 205, + 207 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 196, + 205, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 196, + 205, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Spider" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 68, + 516, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 68, + 516, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 68, + 516, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 68, + 516, + 191 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c9a51a4a96d064d1f92b70927179f945fed5823ecd31fb7ac2d9754327e71f5f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 196, + 440, + 207 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 196, + 440, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 196, + 440, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) KaggleDBQA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 526, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 526, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The results of Codex with randomly selected in-domain demonstration examples compared to the zero-shot setting. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively. ID represents the experiments utilizing in-domain demonstrations while 00D represents the use of out-of-domain demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 290, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 290, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 290, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "plies in ICL is evident, there still exists a limited understanding of the key factors within in-domain demonstrations that contribute to performance enhancement. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to analyze three aspects of in-domain demonstrations: text-to-SQL task knowledge and format, the distribution of in-domain NLQs, and the distribution of in-domain SQL queries. The first aspect pertains to domain-agnostic knowledge, while the latter two are specific to the domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 290, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text-to-SQL task knowledge and format The in-domain examples encompass the task format and knowledge of LLMs, such as the relationship between an NLQ and its corresponding SQL query given a database. To investigate the extent to which the performance gains are due to the task format and knowledge, we conducted a study utilizing annotated out-of-domain data as an alternative source for providing task format and knowledge. In this setup, the model can learn the correct task format and knowledge from the annotated NLQ and SQL pairs associated with other databases. We randomly select examples from the training set of Spider, which contain 140 databases with 7000 examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2 illustrates an example prompt that incorporates out-of-domain demonstrations. We insert " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " databases preceding the test database, each accompanied by 5 NLQ and SQL pairs. We conducted experiments varying the value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", ranging from 1 to 6. The results of \"OOD Examples\" shown in Figure 3 demonstrate that exposure to out-of-domain examples with the same task format and knowledge can indeed enhance the model's performance. However, the performance gains from these out-of-domain examples are significantly smaller compared to those obtained from in-domain ex" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 275, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 275, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 275, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "amples. Furthermore, we observe that the performance gains achieved through in-domain demonstrations tend to converge or even diminish after a certain number of examples have been provided. This finding stands in contrast to the continuous performance improvement observed with the use of in-domain demonstrations. We believe that while Codex is capable of learning the task format and knowledge from in-domain examples, the task format and knowledge alone are not sufficient to account for the observed performance gains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we investigate the necessity of task knowledge in the demonstrations by conducting an experiment where we shuffle the NLQs and SQL queries to create mismatched demonstrations. Figure 7 demonstrates that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights the necessity of including correct task knowledge and format in the demonstrations. Detailed results of this experiment can be found in Appendix A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-domain input NLQ distribution Besides task knowledge, in-domain examples also present the input NLQ distribution to LLMs. Recent research has indicated that LLMs can benefit from being aware of the input distribution in classification tasks. Consequently, paring actual inputs with either random output labels (Min et al., 2022) or perturbed outputs (Wang et al., 2022a) has limited impact on the performance of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To assess the importance of the input distribution, we substitute the gold SQL queries in the demonstration examples with the predictions generated by Codex in the zero-shot setting. This allows the model to be aware of the distribution of in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14176" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "put NLQs without being exposed to the annotated SQLs or any additional knowledge beyond its own predictions. The \"ID NLQ Distribution\" in Figure 3 indicates that, for Spider, providing in-domain NLQ distribution yields some benefits but it is not comparable to utilizing complete in-domain data. Moreover, for the KaggleDBQA dataset, providing in-domain NLQs with self-predicted SQL queries does not exhibit any advantage compared to not using any examples. We attribute this observation to the lower accuracy of Codex in the zero-shot setting for KaggleDBQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 241, + 292, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 241, + 292, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 241, + 292, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-domain output SQL distribution In-domain demonstration examples also serve the purpose of revealing the output SQL distribution to LLMs. To assess the significance of this aspect, we employ the same LLM, Codex, to generate synthetic NLQs from oracle SQL queries. In the demonstration examples, we replace the annotated NLQs with these synthetic NLQs while keeping the SQL queries unchanged. This setup allows the LLMs to be exposed to the in-domain SQL distribution while remaining unaware of the annotated in-domain NLQs or other inputs beyond its own generated NLQs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of \"ID SQL Distribution\" in Figure 3 demonstrate that providing annotated SQL queries with synthetic NLQs can greatly enhance the model's performance on both the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets. Furthermore, the performance gains continue to increase with the inclusion of more demonstration examples, aligning with the results obtained using actual in-domain examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 135, + 548 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 135, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 135, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 293, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 293, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 293, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The experimental results presented in Section 2 demonstrate that the SQL distribution encompassed in in-domain annotated examples plays a crucial role in improving performance. However, it is important to note that oracle SQL distributions are not available in most cross-domain text-to-SQL applications. To address this limitation, we propose utilizing synthetic SQL queries and NLQs as in-domain demonstrations to capture the in-domain SQL distribution. As the synthetic examples may not always be correct, relying only on synthetic examples may potentially contradict the task knowledge of text-to-SQL, which could weaken Codex's performance as illustrated in Figure 7. Therefore, to strike a balance between SQL distribution and task knowledge, we leverage out-of-domain data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to provide accurate task knowledge in addition to synthetic data. We propose ODIS: a demonstration selection framework that leverages both Out-of-domain Demonstrations and In-domain Synthetic demonstrations. In Section 3.1 and 3.2, we present our methods for selecting out-of-domain and indomain data, respectively, within the ODIS framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 518, + 200 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 518, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 518, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Out-of-domain Demonstration Creation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 527, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 527, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 527, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent work has discovered that LLMs are sensitive to the choice of demonstration examples, and LLMs usually benefit from demonstrations that are similar to the test example (Liu et al., 2021a; Wang et al., 2022b; Rubin et al., 2021). Following that, we further hypothesize that the similarity of the output SQL queries between test examples and demonstration examples is more important than input similarity, as we found that SQL distribution plays a crucial role in the in-domain scenario. Therefore, we propose a retrieval strategy SimSQL to retrieve demonstration examples based on the similarity of predicted SQL queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For a test database " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", our objective is to retrieve " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " databases, each with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " NLQ and SQL pairs from a set of annotated out-of-domain examples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_1, \\ldots, e_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i = (db_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", representing the database, input NLQ, annotated SQL query, and predicted SQL query by an LLM in the zero-shot scenario, respectively. The selected " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 382, + 527, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " databases and their associated examples will be presented before the test database and question as shown in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 illustrates our procedure: (1) We first generate an initial SQL prediction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " under the zero-shot scenario (line 1); (2) we sort out-of-domain examples based on the similarity between their predicted SQL query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (line 2); (3) we scan out-of-domain examples from high similarity to low. Once " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples are found in a database, the database along with these " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples is selected as a demonstration database and examples (line 7-9). The algorithm stops when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " databases are selected (line 10-12). We measure the similarity of SQLs with BM25 (Robertson et al., 2009) on the SQL keyword and schema tokens in SQL queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 499, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 499, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 499, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 In-domain Synthetic Demonstration Creation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-domain synthetic demonstration selection consists of two stages: (1) synthetic data generation, and (2) synthetic data retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14177" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 285, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 285, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 285, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 SimSQL for out-of-domain retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a set of OOD examples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "OOD = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i = (d_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 290, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", representing the database, input question, gold SQL query, and predicted SQL of Model in the zero-shot setting, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: A list of M Demo " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[d_i]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where Demo " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[d_i]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples associated to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 289, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 195, + 289, + 396 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 153, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 153, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 153, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 153, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y} \\gets \\text{Model}(x)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 208, + 289, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 208, + 289, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 208, + 289, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Sort " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 208, + 289, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "OOD = \\{e_i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 208, + 289, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in descending order in terms of Similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 208, + 289, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\hat{y}, \\hat{y}_i)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 236, + 170, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 236, + 170, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 236, + 170, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 236, + 170, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 236, + 170, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in OOD do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 249, + 190, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 249, + 190, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 249, + 190, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 249, + 190, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(d_i, x_i, y_i, \\hat{y}_i) \\gets e_i" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 263, + 239, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 263, + 239, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 263, + 239, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: if size of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 263, + 239, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Demo[d_i] < K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 263, + 239, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 286, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 286, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 286, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 286, + 290 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Demo[d_i] \\gets Demo[d_i] + (d_i, x_i, y_i)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 290, + 255, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 290, + 255, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 290, + 255, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: if size of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 290, + 255, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Demo[d_i] = K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 290, + 255, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 303, + 282, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 303, + 282, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 303, + 282, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 303, + 282, + 317 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 303, + 282, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Output + Demo[di]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 318, + 149, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 318, + 149, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 318, + 149, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: end if" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 330, + 248, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 330, + 248, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 330, + 248, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10: if size of Output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 330, + 248, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 330, + 248, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 167, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 167, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 344, + 167, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11: Break" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 358, + 149, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 358, + 149, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 358, + 149, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12: end if" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 371, + 133, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 371, + 133, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 371, + 133, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13: end if" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 385, + 123, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 385, + 123, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 385, + 123, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Synthetic data generation To generate synthetic data, we follow previous work to first sample synthetic SQL queries " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{y_i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and then translate SQL queries into natural language questions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{x_i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Zhong et al., 2020b; Wang et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). We use SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) to sample synthetic SQL queries, which extract templates from out-of-domain databases and sample columns and values from the test database to fill the templates. After obtaining synthetic SQL queries, we use the Codex to generate corresponding synthetic NLQs, in the same procedure as in our analysis of in-domain SQL distribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To improve the quality of synthetic data, we follow the previous work on code generation (Zhong et al., 2020b; Batra et al., 2021) to add a verification process. We use Codex to translate the synthetic NLQ " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " back to SQL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and filter out the examples that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " have different execution results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Synthetic data retrieval While our objective is to synthesize SQL queries that align with the oracle SQL distribution, it is important to note that the oracle SQL distribution often relies on domain-specific prior knowledge that may not be available in the cross-domain text-to-SQL setting. For exam" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ple, questions commonly asked in a flight booking system may not be easily inferred from those in a concert arrangement system. Therefore, instead of expecting to find SQL queries that closely resemble the test question, our focus is on retrieving multiple queries that cover different aspects of the expected SQL query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address this, we formulate the problem as a maximum coverage problem and adopt a greedy algorithm inspired by the algorithm proposed by Levy et al. (2022). Algorithm 2 outlines the process of retrieving demonstrations from synthetic in-domain examples: (1) We begin by creating a set of tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that need to be covered, which is initialized with the SQL keyword and schema tokens mentioned in the initial SQL prediction of test question (line 3). (2) We retrieve the synthetic SQLs that have the highest similarity to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", measured with BM25 scores (line 5). The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will be updated by removing the tokens in the retrieved SQL query and the retrieved example will be added to the demonstration list (line 8 - 9). We repeat this process until either " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " becomes empty (line 17) or we are unable to retrieve a synthetic SQL containing any tokens in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\mathrm{uncover}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (line 14). (3) If the number of selected examples is less than the maximum desired, we iterate through steps (1) and (2) again (line 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 390, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 390, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 390, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 413, + 496 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 413, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 413, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Baseline Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 526, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous Work We compare ODIS with state-of-the-art approaches that either require finetuning on the Spider training set or utilize in-context learning. For the finetuning-based methods, we select SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021) which utilizes RoBERTa-large as the pretrained model, as well as T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021), ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022), and RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a), which employ T5-3B (Raffel et al., 2020) as the pretrained model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the in-context learning methods, we include the approaches proposed by Rajkumar et al. (2022), Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023), Lan et al. (2023) which utilize either no demonstrations or randomly selected demonstrations. We also include SYNCHROMESH (Poesia et al., 2022) and SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023), which employ similarity-based retrieval methods. Additionally, we select state-of-the-art approaches LEVER (Ni et al., 2023), Self-Debug (Chen et al., 2023), and DIN" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14178" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: a zero-shot text-to-SQL model Model, a test database " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a set of synthetic in-domain examples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ID = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i = (x_i, y_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 84, + 289, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: A list of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ID" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 139, + 247, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 264, + 83 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 264, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 264, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 2 CovSQL for in-domain retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y} \\gets \\text{Model}(x)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n2: while size of Output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\mathbf{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n3: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\text{uncover}} \\gets \\text{tokens in } \\hat{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n4: while size of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\text{uncover}} > 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n5: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^* \\gets \\text{argmax Sim}(S_{\\text{uncover}}, y_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n6: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x^*, y^* \\gets e^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n7: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{Sim}(S_{\\text{uncover}}, y^*) > 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n8: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\text{uncover}} \\gets S_{\\text{uncover}} - \\text{tokens in } y^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n9: Output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Output + " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n10: ID " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ID - " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n11: if size of Output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 155, + 288, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n12: Break \n13: end if \n14: else \n15: Break \n16: end if \n17: end while \n18: end while" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 3, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 291, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023), which incorporate fixed demonstration examples with intermediate reasoning steps or self-correction procedures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours To demonstrate the effectiveness of ODIS framework, we compare it to baselines that utilize demonstrations solely from out-of-domain data or synthetic in-domain sources. Furthermore, we evaluate the proposed SQL-guided retrieval strategies SimSQL and CovSQL by comparing them with the Random retrieval strategy, as well as the SimNLQ approach, which retrieves examples based on the similarity of input NLQs. In line with previous studies (Rubin et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022), we measure similarity using the cosine distance of sentence embeddings encoded through SentenceBERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 185, + 674 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 185, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 185, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experiments Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We utilize the training set of Spider as the pool for selecting out-of-domain demonstrations, following our experiments in Section 2. We generate and filter synthetic in-domain examples, resulting in 1416 examples for Spider and 512 examples for KaggleDBQA. When the Random retrieval strategy is used, we conduct three repetitions with different random" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "seeds and report the average results. We conducted experiments with both closed-source LLMs, Codex and ChatGPT, in addition to the open-source LLM, CodeLLama, for the final prediction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Due to resource constraints, we only employ Codex for retrieving demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 163, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 163, + 526, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 163, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyper-parameters For out-of-domain demonstrations, we employ 5 NLQ-SQL pairs for each demonstration database, in line with our experiments in Section 2. Determining the number of out-of-domain databases and the number of synthetic in-domain examples is considered a hyperparameter selection process. In our final experiments for Spider and KaggleDBQA, we set the number of out-of-domain databases to 4 and synthetic in-domain examples to 5, based on the results obtained from experiments conducted on a randomly-selected subset of 20 databases from the Spider training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 352, + 361, + 364 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 352, + 361, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 352, + 361, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 392, + 387 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 392, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 392, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 526, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 and Table 2 present the execution accuracy of state-of-the-art methods and our proposed ODIS on Spider and KaggleDBQA. On Spider, ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 85.2, surpassing both the state-of-the-art finetuning-based model RESDSQL (Li et al., 2023a) and the in-context learning method Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023) by 1.1 points. On KaggleDBQA, ODIS achieves an execution accuracy of 54.8, outperforming the state-of-the-art model SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023) by 11.8 points. ODIS also demonstrates superior performance compared to baselines that solely rely on out-of-domain or synthetic indomain demonstrations, regardless of the backbone LLM used. On the Spider dataset, ODIS outperforms these baselines by 3.1 and 3.6 points when using Codex, by 0.8 and 3.0 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4 and 1.7 points with CodeLlama. Likewise, on KaggleDBQA, ODIS surpasses the baselines by 1.5 and 9.6 points when employing Codex, by 7.3 and 19.8 points with ChatGPT, and by 4.4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3We utilize OpenAI APIs code-davinci-002 and gpt-3.5-turbo-16k-0613 for Codex and ChatGPT. We opt for CodeLlama-34B-instruct in CodeLlama experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4The reported execution accuracy is measured using the Spider official test-suite evaluation (Zhong et al., 2020a), which may yield different values compared to those presented in the original method papers if different evaluation scripts were utilized." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14179" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 291, + 368 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 291, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB78.0
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B79.1
ShiP+Picard (Zhao et al., 2022)T5-3B81.4
RESDSQL+NatSQL (Li et al., 2023a)T5-3B84.1
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Rajkumar et al. (2022)Codex67.0
Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023)Codex76.8
LEVER (Ni et al., 2023)Codex81.9
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)Codex75.6
DIN-SQL (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)GPT-482.8
Self-Debugging (Chen et al., 2023)Codex84.1
This work
Codex75.7
Zero-shotChatGPT75.7
CodeLlama70.7
Codex82.1
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT80.7
CodeLlama75.6
Codex81.5
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT78.5
CodeLlama78.3
Codex85.2
ODISChatGPT81.5
CodeLlama80.0
", + "image_path": "81bfc8fd426ec94bf3a235110e413db4f732ca149a41c546f0d08e289c70a882.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and 7.4 points with CodeLlama. These results highlight the effectiveness of leveraging both sources of demonstrations within the ODIS framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 136, + 556 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 136, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 136, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our demonstration retrieval methods SimSQL and CovSQL, in comparison to baseline retrieval methods. To specifically analyze and compare the performance of the retrieval methods within each demonstration source, we evaluate the retrieval methods for out-of-domain demonstrations without utilizing in-domain synthetic demonstrations, and vice versa." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Out-of-domain retrieval Table 3 presents the comparison among different retrieval methods when retrieving out-of-domain examples. It is observed that retrieving out-of-domain examples with similar predicted SQL queries outperforms random selection and NLQ similarity-based selection on both datasets. This finding aligns with our earlier" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 317 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 471 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: The execution accuracy (EX) on the Spider development set.4The upper section contains models that are finetuned on the Spider training set, while the middle and bottom sections showcase previous methods and our proposed methods, which use in-context learning. The column LLM denotes the language model utilized, either in the fine-tuning or in-context learning. RB represents RoBERTa-large." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 525, + 317 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB27.2
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B29.8
Previous Work with In-context Learning
Zero-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex23.9
Few-shot (Lan et al., 2023)Codex40.4
SKILL-KNN (An et al., 2023)Codex43.0
This work
Codex26.8
Zero-shotChatGPT25.7
CodeLlama18.8
Codex53.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT45.6
CodeLlama37.9
Codex45.2
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyChatGPT33.1
CodeLlama34.9
Codex54.8
ODISChatGPT52.9
CodeLlama42.3
", + "image_path": "fcd4960a41a7f53680110f435661bd57816d7a9f44f6f906f055f10ca9b3f6ae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 363, + 524, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 363, + 524, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 363, + 524, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "observations that the output SQL distribution plays a more crucial role than the input NLQ distribution in improving the model's performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 404, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 404, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 404, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also explore the use of oracle SQL queries in our experiments. Retrieving examples with the oracle SQL query of the test question results in an additional improvement of 0.8 and 2.9 points in execution accuracy on the Spider and KaggleDBQA datasets, respectively. We believe that the larger improvement observed on KaggleDBQA can be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on this dataset in the zero-shot setting. This suggests that employing a better initial model may lead to further enhancements in the performance of the ODIS framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 340, + 574, + 489, + 659 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 325, + 525, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 325, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 325, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: The execution accuracy (EX) on the KaggleD-BQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 574, + 489, + 659 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 574, + 489, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 574, + 489, + 659 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random78.738.0
SimNLQ81.242.6
SimSQL82.153.3
SimSQL (Oracle)82.956.2
", + "image_path": "372c40e02315d28453629e08e6d6041e9d98aaedb9f52ce33666b8ae7837c5dc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 702 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different out-of-domain demonstration retrieval methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Synthetic in-domain retrieval Table 4 provides a comparison of the in-domain retrieval methods. On the Spider dataset, retrieving synthetic SQL queries that cover different parts of the initial" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14180" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 280, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 280, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 280, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 68, + 280, + 185 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodSpiderKaggle
Random77.038.2
SimNLQ79.241.5
SimSQL79.745.2
CovSQL81.545.2
CovSQL (Oracle)81.848.9
CovSQL (In-domain Annotation)82.452.9
", + "image_path": "2210b023fc62ee0683418a6cbaa4e5deb8b9c6c288b2d16218164b80e256cce2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 291, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 291, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 291, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQL predictions outperforms the retrieval methods based on the similarity of either NLQs or initial SQL predictions. On the KaggleDBQA dataset, both the CoverSQL and SimSQL methods achieve the same results, outperforming the random selection and NLQ-similarity-based methods. Regarding the experiments with oracle SQL queries, again, we observe a larger improvement on the KaggleDBQA dataset compared to Spider which may be attributed to the lower performance of Codex on KaggleDBQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Impact of synthetic data To assess the impact of synthetic data quality in ODIS framework, we compare two SQL synthesizing methods SHiP (Zhao et al., 2022) and GAZP (Zhong et al., 2020b). Both methods extract the templates of SQL queries from the Spider training set and fill the template with the database schema and content with a new database, however, SHiP leverages a schema-weighted sampling to make the synthetic SQL queries more realistic by controlling the relationship of sampled columns. When replacing our synthetic data generated through SHiP to GAZP, we find the performance with Codex has dropped from 81.5 to 79.5 on Spider and from 45.2 to 33.8 on KaggleDBQA. This indicates that the quality of synthetic data is crucial in the ODIZ framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, we evaluate the performance of retrieving from synthetic in-domain examples compared to retrieving from actual annotated in-domain examples in Spider and KaggleDBQA with the CovSQL retrieval method. The performance gap in Table 4 between them indicates that refining the data synthesizing method could potentially yield even greater enhancements within the ODIS framework. It is worth noting that this experiment is designed to illustrate the limitations of synthetic examples compared to annotated examples. Re" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: The execution accuracy of Codex on Spider and KaggleDBQA with different synthetic in-domain demonstration retrieval methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 184 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodLLMEX
Previous Work with Finetuning
SmBoP (Rubin and Berant, 2021)RB58.1
T5+Picard (Scholak et al., 2021)T5-3B65.0
This work
Zero-shotCodex65.3
Out-of-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
Synthetic In-domain Demo OnlyCodex70.9
ODISCodex73.4
", + "image_path": "71bd882c2480ffbb2385c9bcddfedaba36a4f76feb19c5a81f2bdba798929e35.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 525, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 525, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: The execution accuracy (EX) of Codex on the Dr. Spider NLQ post-perturbation sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 235, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "trieving annotated in-domain examples typically necessitates a large amount of in-domain annotations, which are usually not available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 526, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 526, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 526, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robustness Evaluation In order to assess the robustness of our proposed ODIS framework, we conduct a study to compare ODIS with the baseline supervised-learning and in-context-learning methods on Dr. Spider (Chang et al., 2023), an evaluation benchmark for text-to-SQL robustness. We opt for the NLQ post-perturbation sets in Dr. Spider, as these have been identified as the most challenging for LLMs with in-context learning (Chang et al., 2023). The results, presented in Table 5, reveal that ODIS with Codex achieves an execution accuracy of 73.4 on NLQ perturbations, surpasses the supervised learning methods and the Codex with either out-of-domain or synthetic in-domain demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 396, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 396, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 396, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text-to-SQL with in-context learning Previous studies have explored text-to-SQL with in-context learning from various perspectives. Rajkumar et al. (2022) and Chang and Fosler-Lussier (2023) investigated effective approaches to represent databases in prompts. Other studies have explored the incorporation of intermediate reasoning steps to enhance the performance of LLMs (Chen et al., 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023; Tai et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For demonstration retrieval, prior work has explored different strategies for retrieving out-of-domain examples based on similarity (Poesia et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2021) and diversity (Levy et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022). Concurrent with our work, Nan et al. (2023) suggested retrieving out-of-domain demonstrations based on the initial SQL predictions, which aligns with our retrieval method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, execution results have been used in the SQL generation process to verify the gen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14181" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "erated SQL queries (Chen et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2023). These approaches often require multiple LLM calls and SQL executions to accomplish majority voting or self-correction. It is worth noting that the database execution time is a crucial consideration in realistic applications, as highlighted by Li et al. (2023b). In contrast, ODIS with our proposed retrieval strategy only requires two LLM calls (one for initial SQL prediction and one for final generation) and eliminates the need for any database execution, making it a more efficient solution for text-to-SQL tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 292, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 292, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 292, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data synthesis for Text-to-SQL Due to the high cost of acquiring annotated text-to-SQL data, previous research has explored the use of synthetic data as an alternative approach to enhance the performance of cross-domain text-to-SQL models. These works primarily focused on data augmentation, such as generating additional examples for the training databases (Guo et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022). Zhong et al. (2020b) first synthesized data for test databases and adapted pretrained text-to-SQL models on the synthetic data associated with the test database before inference. In a similar vein, ODIS leverages synthetic data for the test database but uses it with in-context learning rather than directly fine-tuning models on it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 239, + 493 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 239, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 239, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion and Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we delve into the analysis of crucial aspects of in-domain demonstrations and identify the SQL distribution as the key factor. Inspired by our findings, we propose a novel demonstration selection framework, ODIS, which harnesses the power of both out-of-domain demonstrations and synthetic in-domain examples using SQL-guided retrieval. The remarkable performance across different backbone large language models demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed framework, compared to both baseline and state-of-the-art methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While ODIS serves as a general framework that can be employed with various demonstration retrieval methods, our experiments in this study utilize separate retrieval methods for out-of-domain and in-domain demonstrations. We regard it as future work to explore a unified retrieval strategy that breaks the boundary between out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain data, enabling automatic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "selection among them. Additionally, our retrieval approach relies on the predictions of Codex in the zero-shot scenario. It is worth exploring utilizing higher-performance initial text-to-SQL models to further enhance the performance, as demonstrated in Section 5.2 through the use of oracle SQL queries. We believe the effectiveness of the ODIS framework will encourage further advancements in data synthesis methods and demonstration retrieval techniques." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Considering the proven effectiveness of utilizing hybrid data sources, comprising out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain examples as in-context demonstrations, we believe that ODIS can be extended to few-shot, parameter-efficient fine-tuning by leveraging these hybrid data sources (Hu et al., 2021; Dettmers et al., 2023). We leave the exploration of parameter-efficient fine-tuning with synthetic in-domain examples for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 338, + 365, + 350 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 338, + 365, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 338, + 365, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We hope the effectiveness of ODIS will draw attention to the potential benefits of incorporating hybrid demonstrations – synthetic and annotated data in the text-to-SQL task in in-context learning. As the first study exploring this approach, we examined the retrieval methods separately for these two types of demonstrations. However, as mentioned in Section 7, exploring more advanced retrieval methods to blur the boundary of out-of-domain and synthetic in-domain examples is a direction for future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conducted our experiments with both closed-source Codex " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and ChatGPT " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 526, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and open-source CodeLlama as the large language models. Recent research has shown that GPT-4 consistently outperforms Codex in the text-to-SQL generation when employing various prompt strategies (Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023). Considering our budget constraints, we leave the ODIS framework with other large language models as a topic for future investigation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 527, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 527, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 527, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While our proposed method involves two calls to LLMs and no SQL execution during the generation process, it does require an offline process for synthetic example generation. We acknowledge that this process adds an additional step to the pipeline. However, we believe that it can be seamlessly integrated with the database deployment process. By" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Codex is currently free for research,with API at https://openai.com/api/. For commercial use,Codex is available at https://azure.microsoft.com/." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 761, + 510, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 761, + 510, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 761, + 510, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT API is available at https://openai.com/api/." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14182" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "incorporating the synthetic example generation step during the database deployment phase, users querying the database will not experience any noticeable delays or disruptions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 157, + 147 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 157, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 157, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We acknowledge the importance of the ACL Ethics Policy and agree with it. The objective of text-to-SQL systems is to provide non-expert database users with the ability to query databases using natural language. Our research in this paper focuses on improving the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models. While the benefit of in-domain annotated demonstrations is evident, the significant cost associated with such annotation should not be ignored in real-world applications. Therefore, we propose a method that combines both out-of-domain examples and synthetic in-domain data to enhance models' generalization and reduce reliance on costly in-domain annotations. We believe that this approach can improve the performance and usability of text-to-SQL systems, making them more accessible and practical for a wider range of applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, it is important to consider the cost of LLMs and SQL execution in realistic scenarios. Our proposed method employs two calls to LLMs without requiring any SQL execution during the SQL decoding process. This design choice aims to optimize the cost and user experience compared to other approaches that involve multiple LLM calls and SQL executions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 164, + 532 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 164, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 164, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 289, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 289, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 289, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank Michael White, Micha Elsner, the OSU SLaTe lab, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this work. Shuaichen Chang is supported in part by the Amazon Post Internship Fellowship." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14183" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 134 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shengnan An, Bo Zhou, Zeqi Lin, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Nanning Zheng, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2023. Skill-based few-shot selection for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14210." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 289, + 219 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 289, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 289, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Soumya Batra, Shashank Jain, Peyman Heidari, Ankit Arun, Catharine Youngs, Xintong Li, Pinar Donmez, Shawn Mei, Shiunzu Kuo, Vikas Bhardwaj, et al. 2021. building adaptive acceptability classifiers for neural nlg. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 682-697." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 289, + 292 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 289, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 289, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 300, + 289, + 344 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 300, + 289, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 300, + 289, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuaichen Chang and Eric Fosler-Lussier. 2023. How to prompt llms for text-to-sql: A study in zero-shot, single-domain, and cross-domain settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11853." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 352, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 352, + 289, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 352, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuaichen Chang, Jun Wang, Mingwen Dong, Lin Pan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Wuwei Lan, Sheng Zhang, Jiarong Jiang, Joseph Lilien, et al. 2023. Dr. spider: A diagnostic evaluation benchmark towards text-to-sql robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08881." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 425, + 289, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 425, + 289, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 425, + 289, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 289, + 533 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 289, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 498, + 289, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Scharli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 605 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 539, + 289, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 646 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14314." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, Li Zhang, Karthik Ramanathan, Sesh Sadasivam, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Improving text-to-sql evaluation methodology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09029." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13301." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daya Guo, Yibo Sun, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, Hong Chi, James Cao, Peng Chen, and Ming Zhou. 2018. Question generation from sql queries improves neural semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06304." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 525, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 197, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Li, Jiang Guo, Sheng Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, et al. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16265." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 260, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 260, + 525, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 260, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chia-Hsuan Lee, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2021. Kaggledbqa: Realistic evaluation of text-to-sql parsers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11455." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 525, + 355 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 525, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 525, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Itay Levy, Ben Bogin, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Diverse demonstrations improve in-context compositional generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06800." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoyang Li, Jing Zhang, Cuiping Li, and Hong Chen. 2023a. Resdnsq: Decoupling schema linking and skeleton parsing for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05965." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 525, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, et al. 2023b. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03111." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 488, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 488, + 525, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 488, + 525, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 525, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 525, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 540, + 525, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021a. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qian Liu, Bei Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Morteza Ziyadi, Zeqi Lin, Weizhu Chen, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2021b. Tapex: Table pre-training via learning a neural sql executor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07653." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 644, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12586." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14184" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ansong Ni, Srini Iyer, Dragomir Radev, Ves Stoyanov, Wen-tau Yih, Sida I Wang, and Xi Victoria Lin. 2023. Lever: Learning to verify language-to-code generation with execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08468." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 193 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gabriel Poesia, Oleksandr Polozov, Vu Le, Ashish Tiwari, Gustavo Soares, Christopher Meek, and Sumit Gulwani. 2022. Synchronesh: Reliable code generation from pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11227." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 290, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 290, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 290, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11015." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 255, + 290, + 310 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 255, + 290, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 255, + 290, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, Peter J Liu, et al. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 290, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.00498." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 535 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ohad Rubin and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Smbop: Semi-autoregressive bottom-up semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 311-324." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 290, + 578 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 290, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 290, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08633." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 290, + 654 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 290, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 290, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. Picard: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peng Shi, Rui Zhang, He Bai, and Jimmy Lin. 2022. Xricl: Cross-lingual retrieval-augmented in-context learning for cross-lingual text-to-sql semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13693." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongjin Su, Jungo Kasai, Chen Henry Wu, Weijia Shi, Tianlu Wang, Jiayi Xin, Rui Zhang, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, et al. 2022. Selective annotation makes language models better few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01975." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chang-You Tai, Ziru Chen, Tianshu Zhang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2023. Exploring chain-of-thought style prompting for text-to-sql. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14215." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 233 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 525, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bailin Wang, Wenpeng Yin, Xi Victoria Lin, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Learning to synthesize data for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05827." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 525, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Boshi Wang, Sewon Min, Xiang Deng, Jiaming Shen, You Wu, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Huan Sun. 2022a. Towards understanding chain-of-thought prompting: An empirical study of what matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Yuwei Fang, Yang Liu, Siqi Sun, Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022b. Training data is more valuable than you think: A simple and effective method by retrieving from training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08773." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 369, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 369, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 369, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Wu, Lijie Wang, Zhenghua Li, Ao Zhang, Xinyan Xiao, Hua Wu, Min Zhang, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Data augmentation with hierarchical sql-to-question generation for cross-domain text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02227." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Yang, Peng Xu, and Yanshuai Cao. 2021. Hierarchical neural data synthesis for semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02212." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 474, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 474, + 525, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 474, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Yu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Xi Victoria Lin, Bailin Wang, Yi Chern Tan, Xinyi Yang, Dragomir R Radev, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Grappa: Grammar-augmented pre-training for table semantic parsing. In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 525, + 604 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 525, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 525, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. 2018. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 525, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiyun Zhao, Jiarong Jiang, Yiqun Hu, Wuwei Lan, Henry Zhu, Anuj Chauhan, Alexander Li, Lin Pan, Jun Wang, Chung-Wei Hang, et al. 2022. Importance of synthesizing high-quality data for text-to-sql parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08785." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 677, + 525, + 709 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 677, + 525, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 677, + 525, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruiqi Zhong, Tao Yu, and Dan Klein. 2020a. Semantic evaluation for text-to-sql with distilled test suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02840." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Zhong, Mike Lewis, Sida I Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Grounded adaptation for zero-shot executable semantic parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07396." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14185" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 198, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 198, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 198, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Prompt Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018), we utilize the CreateTableSelectCol (Chang and Fosler-Lussier, 2023) prompt construction to create the prompt text for databases. In the KaggleDBQA dataset (Lee et al., 2021), each database is accompanied by a database document that provides descriptions of the columns in the database. We incorporate the database document as comments within the CreateTableSelectCol prompt. Figure 4 and 5 provide examples of the database prompt text for Spider and KaggleDBQA, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 267, + 239, + 295 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 267, + 239, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 267, + 239, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Necessity of Text-to-SQL Task Knowledge" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6 shows a prompt example with mismatched NLQs and SQL queries as demonstrations. In this example, the first NLQ corresponds to the second SQL and the second NLQ corresponds to the first NLQ. Figure 7 shows that the performance of Codex is significantly reduced when using demonstrations with mismatched NLQs and SQLs compared to the matched NLQs and SQLs. This finding highlights that it is important to maintain the correct task knowledge in the demonstrations, which inspires us to leverage out-of-domain demonstrations along with synthetic in-domain examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14186" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 123, + 399, + 702 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 106, + 240, + 118 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 106, + 240, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 106, + 240, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 123, + 399, + 702 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 123, + 399, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 123, + 399, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "create table stadium ( stadium_id int, location text, name text, capacity int, highest int, lowest int, average int, primary key (stadium_id) ); /* Columns in stadium and 3 distinct examples in each column: stadium_id: 1, 2, 3; location: \"Raith Rovers\", \"Ayr United\", \"East Fife\"; name: \"Stark's Park\", \"Somerset Park\", \"Bayview Stadium\"; capacity: 10104, 11998, 2000; highest: 4812, 2363, 1980; lowest: 1294, 1057, 533; average: 2106, 1477, 864; */ create table singer ( singer_id int, name text, country text, song_name text, song_release_year text, age int, is_male bool, primary key (singer_id) ); /* Columns in singer and 3 distinct examples in each column: singer_id: 1, 2, 3; name: \"Joe Sharp\", \"Timbaland\", \"Justin Brown\"; country: \"Netherlands\", \"United States\", \"France\"; song_name: \"You\", \"Dangerous\", \"Hey Oh\"; song_release_year: 1992, 2008, 2013; age: 52, 32, 29; is_male: \"F\", \"T\"; */ create table concert ( concert_id int, concert_name text, theme text, stadium_id text, year text, primary key (concert_id), foreign key (stadium_id) references stadium(stadium_id) ; /* Columns in concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; concert_name: \"Auditions\", \"Super bootcamp\", \"Home Visits\"; theme: \"Free choice\", \"Free choice 2\", \"Bleeding Love\"; stadium_id: 1, 2, 10; year: 2014, 2015; */ create table singer_in_concert ( concert_id int, singer_id text, primary key (concert_id, singer_id), foreign key (concert_id) references concert(concert_id), foreign key (singer_id) references singer(singer_id) ; /* Columns in singer_in_concert and 3 distinct examples in each column: concert_id: 1, 2, 3; singer_id: 2, 3, 5; */" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 722, + 470, + 735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 722, + 470, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 722, + 470, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: An database prompt example of for the concert_singer database in Spider." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14187" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 219, + 491, + 604 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 249, + 213 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 249, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 249, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(StudentMathScore)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 219, + 491, + 604 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 219, + 491, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 219, + 491, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "create table finrev_fed_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_17 idcensus integer, -- the idcensus of the finrev_fed_17 schoolDistrict text, -- the school district of the finrev_fed_17 nces_id text, -- the nces id of the finrev_fed_17 yr_data integer, -- the year data of the finrev_fed_17 t_fed_rev integer, -- total federal revenue through the state to each school district. c14 integer, -- federal revenue through the state- title 1 (no child left behind act). c25 integer -- federal revenue through the state- child nutrition a); /* Columns in finrev_fed_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 33, 5, 14; idcensus: 33203100130100, 5501905900000, 14501615800000; schoolDistrict: \"NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT\", \"LOS ANGELES UNIF SCH DIST\", \"CITY OF CHICAGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 299\"; nces_id: 3620580, 622710, 1709930; yr_data: 17; t_fed_rev: 2061297, 1146298, 783943; c14: 956851, 376182, 290912; c25: 439209, 390711, 200517; */ create table ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ( year integer, -- the year of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 state_text, -- the state of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 all_students text, -- the all students of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 average_scale_score integer -- the average scale score of the ndecoreexcel math_grade8 ); /* Columns in ndecoreexcel math_grade8 and 3 distinct examples in each column: year: 2017; state: \"National\", \"Alabama\", \"Alaska\"; all_students: \"All students\"; average_scale_score: 283, 268, 277; */ create table finrev_fed_key_17 ( state_code integer, -- the state code of the finrev_fed_key_17 state_text, -- the state of the finrev_fed_key_17 #_records text -- the number of records of the finrev_fed_key_17 ); /* Columns in finrev_fed_key_17 and 3 distinct examples in each column: state_code: 1, 2, 3; state: \"Alabama\", \"Alaska\", \"Arizona\"; #_records: 137, 54, 235; */" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 626, + 490, + 639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 626, + 490, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 626, + 490, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: An database prompt example of for the StudentMathScore database in KaggleDBQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14188" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 113, + 251, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 113, + 251, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 113, + 251, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CreateTable+SelectCol(concert_singer)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 129, + 285, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 129, + 285, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 129, + 285, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 129, + 285, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-- Using valid SQLite, answer the following questions for the tables provided above. \nQuestion: what is the name and nation of the singer who have a song having 'Hey' in its name? \nselect count(*) from concert where year = 2014 or year = 2015; \nQuestion: How many concerts are there in year 2014 or 2015? \nselect name, country from singer where song_name like 'Hey'; \nQuestion: Which year has most number of concerts? \nselect" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 361, + 288, + 486 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 291, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 291, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: An example prompt of 2-shot in-domain text-to-SQL using mismatched demonstration examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 361, + 288, + 486 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 361, + 288, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 361, + 288, + 486 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bd0fce16b1fb475f56d3fd1cc8d6d3aac9cdd82eaec13f100c2b206906b5ce1e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 490, + 287, + 623 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 490, + 287, + 623 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 490, + 287, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 490, + 287, + 623 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "05730cc0a5c2d61b6afb61b96a6aeb17f321b20e5fa1b7ca80564a9b0bf097f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 627, + 212, + 638 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 627, + 212, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 627, + 212, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) KaggleDBQA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 731 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: The results of Codex with real in-domain demonstration examples compared to mismatched examples. ID Examples represents annotated in-domain demonstrations while ID Examples Mismatch represents the NLQ and SQL pairs are mismatched. The x-axis and y-axis represent the number of demonstration examples and the execution accuracy, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14189" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_content_list.json b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..080c7daa125cc953a468d4804a735084b3ef133b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2168 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 247, + 89, + 749, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yile Wang $^{1}$ , Peng Li $^{*1,3}$ , Maosong Sun $^{2}$ , Yang Liu $^{*1,2,3}$", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 141, + 737, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 159, + 818, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 175, + 838, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China", + "bbox": [ + 250, + 193, + 751, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{wangyile,lipeng}@air.tsinghua.edu.cn,{sms,liuyang2011}@tsinghua.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 210, + 858, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have shown superior performance without task-specific fine-tuning. Despite the success, the knowledge stored in the parameters of LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. As complementary, retrieval-based methods can offer non-parametric world knowledge and improve the performance on tasks such as question answering. However, we find that the retrieved knowledge does not always help and even has a negative impact on original responses occasionally. To better make use of both internal knowledge and external world knowledge, we investigate eliciting the model's ability to recognize what they know and do not know (which is also called \"self-knowledge\") and propose Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR), a simple yet effective method which can let LLMs refer to the questions they have previously encountered and adaptively call for external resources when dealing with new questions. We evaluate SKR on multiple datasets and demonstrate that it outperforms chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based methods by using either InstructGPT or ChatGPT. Code is released at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/SKR.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 275, + 460, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 681, + 258, + 696 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs, Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) have achieved remarkable performance without much task-specific fine-tuning. However, the full-parametric knowledge stored in LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. Alternatively, retrieval-augmented methods (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Izacard et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2023) can utilize external resources such as Wikipedia and offer complementary non-parametric knowledge to enrich the contextualized", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/796b834e02d32b665f664576f779a328966961d2dd4fdd318b89c2696b72b116.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Comparison between two responses given by InstructGPT. The retrieved passages are relevant but not particularly helpful for solving the question, which influences the model's judgment and leads to incorrect answers." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 250, + 885, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "information, thus helping the model generate more reliable answers.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retrieval augmentation has shown to be very effective for models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020a), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in various tasks (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Izacard and Grave, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2023). As LLMs become more and more \"knowledgeable\", recent studies show that the benefit brought from retrieval augmentation is reducing (Mallen et al., 2022; Yoran et al., 2023). Moreover, we find that the retrieved passages could even negatively affect what LLMs originally know. As illustrated in Figure 1, the model can directly give reasonable answers \"German Shepherds are often used as seeing-eye dogs\", however, it is distracted and gives incorrect ones by adding retrieved passages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 480, + 884, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The above findings show that one should be more careful when applying the retrieval-based method since it is difficult to know in advance whether the retrieved results are better than what LLMs already captured. To this end, a key issue is to figure out what LLMs do well (e.g., they can answer correctly without assistance) and what they cannot do well (e.g., they answer incorrectly and external information can lead to improved results).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 740, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unfortunately, LLMs themselves have a limited ability to recognize what they know and do not", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Corresponding authors.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 297, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10303", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10303-10315 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "know, which is also called \"self-knowledge\" (Yin et al., 2023). However, such an ability is crucial for generating truthful responses (Kadavath et al., 2022) and could be helpful for LLMs themselves to \"decide when and when not to use tools\" such as a retriever (Mialon et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we investigate eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs and propose a simple yet effective Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method to flexibly call the retriever for making better use of both internal and external knowledge. In particular, different from existing studies that evaluate the ability through specifically designed metrics or datasets, we collect the self-knowledge of training questions by comparing the performance with or without retrieval augmentation. Then, we propose several strategies to detect the self-knowledge corresponding to a question by referring to the existing collected training questions, including using the LLMs themselves through prompting or explicitly training a small model. Finally, we leverage such elicited self-knowledge to better solve the question through adaptive retrieval augmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 181, + 489, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate SKR on five datasets by using InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301). Experimental results show that SKR outperforms chain-of-thought based (Wei et al., 2022) and fully retrieval-based methods by $4.08\\% / 2.91\\%$ (for InstructGPT) and $4.02\\% / 4.20\\%$ (for ChatGPT), respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 489, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 270, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retrieval-Augmented LLMs Recent studies show that retrieval-augmented methods can enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs (Trivedi et al., 2022; He et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023) and make the responses more credible and traceable (Xu et al., 2023b; Qian et al., 2023). For example, Trivedi et al. (2022) uses the chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022) reasoning steps as queries and uses the results to guide further reasoning and retrieval. He et al. (2022) uses an external natural language inference model to select the most supported reasoning path via retrieved evidence. Yu et al. (2023) propose using the retrieval feedback to refine the output of LLMs to be more reliable and accurate. Xu et al. (2023b) propose search-inchain and make LLMs interact with retrievers to improve accuracy and credibility. These methods aim at integrating sufficient external knowledge for", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a better reasoning process, while we propose to better utilize both the internal and external knowledge through eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another line of work tries to teach LLMs to use external tools including retriever, calculator, other foundation models, etc. (Schick et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023). These works focus more on leveraging the language understanding capabilities of LLMs to deploy suitable tools in different scenarios, while our work investigates the self-knowledge of LLMs and tries to integrate them with retrievers in a more flexible manner.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 134, + 884, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Knowledge in LLMs \"Self-knowledge\" in LLMs is originally mentioned in Kadavath et al. (2022), which is used to measure the LLMs' confidence in their own knowledge and reasoning. Such ability is further defined as \"the ability to understand limitations on the unknowns\" and evaluated by Yin et al. (2023), where they find a considerable gap exists between self-knowledge in models and humans. To explore the LLMs capabilities more extensively, unanswerable and more challenging datasets are also proposed (Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022). Our work is also related to detecting what LLMs know and do not know, while we do not design new evaluation metrics or challenging datasets to test the ability. By explicitly introducing the external resources, we detect the knowledge boundary of LLMs through the performance changes. Moreover, instead of evaluating each question independently, we propose several ways to elicit self-knowledge by referring to existing cases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 280, + 885, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 636, + 613, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method is depicted under the question-answering settings, which has been a popular way to interact with and assess LLMs. The overall pipeline is shown in Figure 2, which includes collecting, eliciting, and using self-knowledge of LLMs. We introduce each of them as follows.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 665, + 882, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Collecting Self-Knowledge of LLMs from Training Samples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 778, + 878, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a dataset $\\mathcal{D}$ with training question-answer pairs $\\{q_j,a_j\\}_{j = 1}^{|\\mathcal{D}|}$ , we can use the LLM $\\mathcal{M}$ to generate the answers for each question $q_{i}$ via few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 818, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {a} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) = \\mathcal {M} \\left(q _ {1} \\circ a _ {1}, \\dots , q _ {d} \\circ a _ {d}, q _ {i}\\right), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 903, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10304", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fa9bb81fdb9c8f9a6cd1883365870a7c5dac32b72c2073c2bba0c19f16ba1194.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our SKR method. We first collect self-knowledge from training questions according to the performance with or without external information (§ 3.1). Then we use the LLMs themselves or explicit small trainable models to elicit self-knowledge of a question $q_{t}$ by referring to the collected self-knowledge from training questions (§ 3.2). Finally, we use the self-knowledge to the new question and adaptively call a retriever (§ 3.3)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 877, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\circ$ denotes concatenation and $\\{q_j\\circ a_j\\}_{j = 1}^d$ are $d$ demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 346, + 485, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The above generated answers $\\hat{a} (\\mathcal{M},q_i)$ reflects the internal knowledge to question $q_{i}$ in $\\mathcal{M}$ . Meanwhile, we can possibly find passages from external resources that may be related to $q_{i}$ , such passages can be used as additional information for the model input. Formally, for each question, we first use a pre-trained retriever $\\mathcal{R}$ to find the possibly related information from corpus $\\mathcal{C}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 379, + 485, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {i} = \\left\\{p _ {i 1}, p _ {i 2}, \\dots , p _ {i k} \\right\\} = \\mathcal {R} \\left(q _ {i}, \\mathcal {C}\\right), \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 518, + 485, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $p_i = \\{p_{i1}, p_{i2}, \\dots, p_{ik}\\}$ are the top- $k$ retrieved passages for $q_i$ . In practice, we set $\\mathcal{R}$ as dense passage retriever (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and $\\mathcal{C}$ as passage chunks from Wikipedia. Then, we use $\\mathcal{M}$ again to generate the answer with retrieval augmentation:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 544, + 487, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {a} ^ {\\mathcal {R}} \\left(\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}\\right) = \\mathcal {M} \\left(q _ {1} \\circ p _ {1} \\circ a _ {1}, \\dots , q _ {d} \\circ p _ {d} \\circ a _ {d}, q _ {i} \\circ p _ {i}\\right). \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 485, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the answers $\\hat{a} (\\mathcal{M},q_i)$ $\\hat{a}^{\\mathcal{R}}(\\mathcal{M},q_i)$ , and the ground-truth answer $a_{i}$ , we categorize each question into positive subset $\\mathcal{D}^{+}$ and negative subset $\\mathcal{D}^{-}$ based on the differences between results:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 682, + 487, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nq _ {i} \\in \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\mathcal {D} ^ {+}, & \\text {i f} \\mathrm {E} [ \\hat {a} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ] \\geq \\mathrm {E} [ \\hat {a} ^ {\\mathcal {R}} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ]; \\\\ \\mathcal {D} ^ {-}, & \\text {o t h e r w i s e ,} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 751, + 485, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathrm{E}$ is an evaluation metric such as accuracy and exact match score, we discard the question $q_{i}$ if both the $\\hat{a}(\\mathcal{M}, q_{i})$ and $\\hat{a}^{\\mathcal{R}}(\\mathcal{M}, q_{i})$ are incorrect.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 485, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, the training set can be split into subset $\\mathcal{D}^{+} = \\{q_{1}^{+},\\dots,q_{m}^{+}\\}$ which includes questions that $\\mathcal{M}$ can directly give correct answers without external information (LLM knowns) and the subset", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathcal{D}^{-} = \\{q_{1}^{-},\\dots,q_{n}^{-}\\}$ where the external information can lead to more accurate results (LLM unknowns).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 347, + 882, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 823, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Four different strategies are proposed to detect the self-knowledge of target questions, including direct prompting, in-context learning, training a classifier, and nearest neighbor search. We use the LLM itself in the former two methods and explicit smaller modes in the latter two methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 409, + 882, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Direct Prompting Given a question $q_{t}$ , a straightforward way to detect whether LLMs are capable of solving it is to ask them directly:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 506, + 882, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Direct Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 537, + 565, + 668, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(prompt)", + "bbox": [ + 536, + 587, + 593, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\{q_t\\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A:", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 599, + 853, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(possible response)", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 633, + 655, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question.", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 646, + 855, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we use the prompt \"Do you need additional information to answer this question?\" as a template and detect self-knowledge according to the possible response. We thought LLM is capable (or not capable) of solving the question well when they \"don't need (or need) additional information\". Direct prompting may intuitively work, but it tests each question independently and does not make use of the collected training questions in Section 3.1. To remedy this issue, we further leverage the collected self-knowledge from training questions in the next three strategies.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-Context Learning LLMs have shown a strong capability to learn from demonstrations and infer", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10305", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "through few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). We select few training questions from both $\\mathcal{D}^{+}$ and $\\mathcal{D}^{-}$ as demonstrations to elicit the self-knowledge to the question $q_{t}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-Context Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 141, + 160, + 295, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(prompt)", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 181, + 198, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "$\\{q_1^+\\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: No, I don't need additional information to answer this question.", + "$\\{q_1^-\\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: Yes, I need additional information to answer this question.", + "···", + "$\\{q_t\\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 193, + 460, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(possible response)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 310, + 260, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 323, + 460, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we use the answer templates \"No, I don't need...\" or \"Yes, I need...\" in demonstrations based on whether the corresponding question comes from positive set $\\mathcal{D}^{+}$ or negative set $\\mathcal{D}^{-}$ , respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 485, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed direct prompting and in-context learning methods can elicit self-knowledge of LLMs to some extent. However, they have several limitations. First, both methods require designing prompts and calling the LLMs for each new question, which makes it impractical. Second, in-context learning could also be unstable due to contextual bias and sensitivity (Zhao et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) and it is more difficult to address such an issue for close-source LLMs. Third, they cannot make use of all questions due to the constraints of maximum tokens. To make our method more practical and avoid the above issues, we further leverage smaller models to help elicit self-knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 487, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training a Classifier Given $\\mathcal{D}^+$ and $\\mathcal{D}^{-}$ , we can take them as a two-way classification problem (e.g., setting $q_{i}$ in $\\mathcal{D}^+$ with a positive label and $q_{i}$ in $\\mathcal{D}^{-}$ with a negative label) and use all the samples to train a classifier such as BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) explicitly:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 487, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {y} _ {i} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(W h _ {\\mathrm {c l s}} \\left(q _ {i}\\right) + b\\right), \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 766, + 485, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $q_{i}\\in \\mathcal{D}^{+}\\cup \\mathcal{D}^{-}$ is a training question, $h_{\\mathrm{cls}}(q_i)$ is the sentence-level representation from BERTbase, $W$ and $b$ are parameters of the classification head. The parameters can be optimized by minimizing the cross-entropy loss between the predicted label distribution $\\hat{y}_i$ and the ground-truth label of $q_{i}$ . Once the training is complete, we can infer the label of question $q_{t}$ similar to Eq. 5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7425b77afffd9affb0a199eb209509491f01f41c8136fa79b1bc551fc6904a0d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Illustration of $k$ -nearest-neighbor search to elicit the self-knowledge to the question $q_{t}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 85, + 884, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nearest Neighbor Search Instead of training an explicit smaller model, we can infer the label of questions through $k$ -nearest-neighbor ( $k$ NN) search by using a pre-trained fixed encoder, as shown in Figure 3. $k$ NN (Fix and Hodges, 1989) is a widely used algorithm and benefit for a range of NLP tasks (Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Shi et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023a). Our motivation is similar in that if two questions are close in the semantically embedded space, then the LLMs would show similar self-knowledge for both of them.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 250, + 882, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, we encode each question into embeddings and compute the semantic similarity through cosine distance $\\mathrm{sim}(q_t,q_i) = \\frac{e(q_t)\\cdot e(q_i)}{||e(q_t)||\\cdot||e(q_i)||}$ , where $q_{i}\\in \\{q_{1}^{+},\\dots,q_{m}^{+},q_{1}^{-},\\dots,q_{n}^{-}\\}$ , $e(\\cdot)$ is the representations of a sentence encoder such as SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021). Then we search the top- $k$ nearest neighbors with the highest similarity. If the top- $k$ nearest neighbors include $\\ell$ positive ones and $k - \\ell$ negative ones, we label the question $q_{t}$ as positive if $\\frac{\\ell}{k - \\ell}\\geq \\frac{m}{n}$ or negative if $\\frac{\\ell}{k - \\ell} < \\frac{m}{n}$ ( $m$ and $n$ are the numbers of questions in $\\mathcal{D}^+$ and $\\mathcal{D}^-$ , respectively).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 429, + 882, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Using Self-Knowledge for Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 831, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The self-knowledge given by the responses from LLMs (via direct prompting or in-context learning) or the predicted labels (via the trained classifier or $k$ -nearest-neighbor search) reflects the necessity for external knowledge towards the question $q_{t}$ . Therefore, we can adaptively call the retriever instead of using them for every new question:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 667, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 537, + 794, + 786, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(for LLM known)", + "$\\{q_1\\circ a_1\\} ,\\dots,\\{q_d\\circ a_d\\} ,\\{q_t\\}$", + "A: (LLM directly answers without retrieval)", + "(for LLM unknown)", + "$\\{q_{1}\\circ p_{1}\\circ a_{1}\\} ,\\dots,\\{q_{d}\\circ p_{d}\\circ a_{d}\\},\\{q_{t}\\}$", + "Here are some passages: $\\{p_t\\}$", + "A: (LLM answers with retrieval augmentation)" + ], + "bbox": [ + 537, + 815, + 821, + 910 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10306", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a4f9779629b171d658b020def04c72a83cdcc3153737717dc228ef2bdd418ef5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodTemporal (EM/F1)Commonsense (Acc.)Tabular (Acc.)Strategy (Acc.)Truthful (Acc.)Avg.
(text-davinci-003)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot40.57/44.9465.5266.0863.3261.0656.91
Zero-Shot-CoT41.71/45.3363.3160.5058.5253.1053.75
Few-Shot45.14/49.5980.3463.5066.3765.4961.73
Manual-CoT44.57/54.2275.4274.9271.1872.5765.48
Auto-CoT (Similarity)44.00/54.1374.4477.2570.6172.5765.50
Auto-CoT (Diversity)46.28/54.6873.3874.5070.7471.6865.21
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR47.42/57.3775.6779.2569.4369.0366.36
IRCoT47.42/56.2875.2778.0067.6871.6866.06
\\( SKR_{prompt} \\)45.71/56.3175.0277.3369.4370.8065.77
\\( SKR_{icl} \\)47.42/57.7475.5177.7571.1873.4567.17
\\( SKR_{cls} \\)46.28/56.5475.8379.2570.3072.5766.80
\\( SKR_{knn} \\)48.00/58.4776.6679.8371.6274.3468.15
\\( CoT-RR^† \\)44.97/56.5876.9882.0874.6769.9167.53
(gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot51.42/54.9473.3066.5054.1474.3362.43
Zero-Shot-CoT56.57/58.9261.5863.0844.1065.4958.29
Few-Shot52.57/55.7778.8668.7561.1369.9164.50
Manual-CoT54.85/61.7274.7773.2561.3681.4167.89
Auto-CoT (Similarity)54.28/57.6674.4471.5861.5779.6466.52
Auto-CoT (Diversity)55.43/58.2173.3071.5058.5280.5466.25
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR59.41/63.0873.3876.5857.2176.9967.77
IRCoT57.14/61.6772.7376.2555.4679.6467.15
\\( SKR_{prompt} \\)54.86/61.6475.0273.9161.5780.5367.92
\\( SKR_{icl} \\)58.29/63.8175.1074.4262.0182.3069.32
\\( SKR_{cls} \\)59.43/64.0475.1076.4262.0184.9570.33
\\( SKR_{knn} \\)61.14/66.1375.4376.7562.0182.3070.62
\\( CoT-RR^† \\)60.35/65.5975.8476.0862.8883.1870.65
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 80, + 858, + 563 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Main results of baselines and our proposed SKR method on five datasets. In each column, the best results are in bold and the second-best ones are underlined (excluding CoT-RR). $\\dagger$ : CoT-RR relies on calling LLMs multiple times and deduces the weighted results through multi-responses, while the other methods are evaluated on a single response.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 577, + 882, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 260, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 686, + 228, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Five different types of question answering datasets are used for evaluation, including TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018), CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019), TabularQA (Gupta et al., 2020), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), and TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022). The statistics, examples, and preprocessing details of the datasets are shown in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 708, + 489, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 233, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to the Zero-Shot and Few-Shot settings with direct output, we also compare with the chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning based methods", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "including Zero-Shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) with simple prompt \"Let's think step by step\", Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2022) with manually written demonstrations, Auto-CoT (Similarity) with automated demonstrations according to semantic similarity (Liu et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2022) and Auto-CoT (Diversity) according to semantic diversity (Zhang et al., 2023). For retrieval-based methods, we compare with our implemented Manual-CoT-IR with additional retrieved passages before generating the answers, IRCoT (Trivedi et al., 2022) with retrieved passages using CoT reasoning steps as the queries, CoT-RR (He et al., 2022) with an external model to verify multiple reasoning steps by retrieved evidence and deduce the answer through self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10307", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 346, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By applying different strategies in Section 3.2 to elicit self-knowledge, we denote our SKR method as $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}$ , $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}$ , $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}$ , and $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}$ , respectively. For $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}$ , we choose $k$ as $3 \\sim 10$ according to different sizes of datasets. For LLMs, we use InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) through OpenAI API1. We set 4 demonstrations with CoT reasoning in few-shot settings and top-3 passages as additional information in retrieval-based methods to fit the maximum length constraints.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 489, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 265, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The main results are shown in Table 1. Overall, our proposed $\\mathrm{SKR_{knn}}$ method achieves the best average results across five datasets. Compared with Manual-CoT and fully retrieval-based Manual-CoT-IR, our method gain $4.08\\% /2.91\\%$ improvement by using InstructGPT and $4.02\\% /4.20\\%$ improvement by using ChatGPT, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 315, + 489, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By comparing different strategies to elicit self-knowledge, we find that 1) $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}$ shows relatively poor results, which show that direct prompting may not be a good way to detect the self-knowledge of LLMs. The results are also in line with Yin et al. (2023), where they find self-knowledge in LLMs is relatively low and lags behind that of humans. 2) $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}$ and $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}$ work but do not show consistent improvement. For example, $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}$ gives the second-best average results by using InstructGPT, however, the results on CommonsenseQA and StrategyQA are not better than Manual-CoT and Manual-CoT-IR, respectively. $\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}$ gives the best results on StrategyQA and TruthfulQA by using ChatGPT but performs not that well on the others. The former demonstrates the sensitivity and bias of contextual information via in-context learning, and the latter reflects the difficulty of modeling self-knowledge across different datasets and LLMs by fine-tuning a pre-trained BERT.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 429, + 489, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the results of other baselines, we find that both internal and external knowledge has its own limitations. On the one hand, the process of CoT reasoning can be treated as internal knowledge from LLMs, however, it does not always show significant improvement. For example, when evaluated on CommonsenseQA, Manual-CoT does not outperform the Few-Shot counterpart where ex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 766, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "plicit reasoning steps are not required. The results from Wei et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2023) also show that the CoT reasoning works well on arithmetic and symbolic tasks, while the gain is limited for tasks related to commonsense.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the other hand, the retrieved passages can be seen as external knowledge from open resources, while it is also not always helpful. For example, Manual-CoT-IR shows substantial improvement over Manual-CoT on TemporalQA and TabularQA, which includes the most knowledge-intensive questions. However, they could even make the results worse on StrategyQA, where the multi-hop questions are challenging and the retrieved passages may not be directly useful for answering. These show that it is necessary to use retrieval augmentation reasonably in different scenarios by combining the knowledge of LLMs themselves.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 165, + 885, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 387, + 618, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Effects of Different Templates for Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 413, + 880, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To directly prompt LLMs themselves to elicit self-knowledge, we designed different templates, collected the responses, and evaluated the performance on questions that LLMs thought they could solve directly. The results are shown in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, for all designed templates, LLMs could show either a positive response (e.g., directly giving the predicted answers) or a negative response (e.g., showing the need for external information) to a specific question. Second, interestingly, we find that the model achieves around $70\\% \\sim 73\\%$ accuracy for questions that they thought could be answered directly, indicating that there exist around $30\\%$ questions for which the model does not know its incapability (i.e., \"unknown unknowns\"). Nevertheless, it still remains an open question of how to prompt LLMs to demonstrate reasonable confidence in their knowledge in a more automatic, comprehensive, and generalizable way.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 532, + 882, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Effects of Elicited Self-Knowledge across Different Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 768, + 875, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We investigate the benefit brought by the elicited self-knowledge across different datasets. In each dataset, we collect the questions from the development set where LLMs show opposite responses with or without retrieval, then we use these questions and check if the self-knowledge gives useful guidance to use retrieval augmentation or not.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1platform.openai.com", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 290, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10308", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7bc0c85a50949f4b808a9a53980d74c8c6c06334d583750e9c0dadedaffb6205.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TemplatePositive Response (LLM known)Negative Response (LLM unknown)Acc.
Do you need additional information to answer this question?No, additional information is not needed to answer this...Yes, additional information is needed to answer this...73.17
Would you like any extra prompts to help you?No, I do not need any extra...Yes, please.72.32
Would you like any additional clues?No, the answer is...Yes, please provide...72.32
Can you answer this question based on what you know?Yes, the correct answer to this question is...No, I cannot answer it based on what I know.72.07
Can you solve this question now?Yes, the correct answer is...No, this is not a solvable...71.58
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 884, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Comparison of different templates for eliciting self-knowledge through prompting. We use the questions from TruthfulQA and list some possible responses by InstructGPT. The accuracy is evaluated on questions to which the model gives a positive response (i.e., on questions where the model shows confidence to answer directly).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 242, + 882, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0d97733d55ccadf7941052b7ff994883005aa4d14e1c3229166d2e2efd536041.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The fine-grained effect of elicited self-knowledge to each dataset by using different strategies." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 310, + 489, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results are shown in Figure 4. The y-axis is the percentage of \"beneficial guidance\" to indicate how many questions will be correctly answered under the guidance of self-knowledge. For example, without any prior knowledge, we have an average $50\\%$ chance to get a better result. However, we can see that the values of $\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}$ are relatively low and could even be under $50\\%$ , which shows that self-knowledge from the responses of direct prompting may not be that useful across different tasks. Results of $\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}$ and $\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}$ become much better and can benefit most of the datasets by integrating more examples. The $\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}$ further improves and leads to $55\\%$ (StrategyQA) to $78\\%$ (TruthfulQA) beneficial guidance for the questions across different datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 561, + 489, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Effects of Training Data Sizes", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 394, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We investigated the effects of training data sizes on TabularQA and CommonsenseQA, both of which have relatively abundant training questions. In particular, we randomly select $10\\%$ , $25\\%$ , $50\\%$ train", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7cccbe28e96ff2ab01b8e9c4a40b2053be7e422d39ed07f1467c929e3f683591.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The performance on TabularQA and Common-senseQA by using different amounts of training data." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 309, + 878, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing data for $\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}$ and $\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}$ methods and evaluate the final accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 882, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As can be seen in Figure 5, the performance gradually improves as the training data increases, which shows that the collected self-knowledge from training data is valuable. Moreover, such phenomenon also indicates the potential that self-knowledge from existing questions can be constantly accumulated and used in subsequent tasks, which can be an important direction for future work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 595, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Effects of Different Knowledge Resources", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 880, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to Wikipedia, we also compare the influence of different corpora $\\mathcal{C}$ , including the passages from MS MARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016) and SciFact (Wadden et al., 2020). The former includes extracted human-generated answers by using the Bing search engine, and the latter are scientific articles containing specialized domain knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results are shown in Figure 6, where we find different external knowledge resources gives different performances. In particular, Wikipedia leads", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10309", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question Q: In a Roman Osteria is a 19th-century work of art. True or False?", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 86, + 601, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Top-3 Similar Training Questions:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 105, + 347, + 117 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "Q1: Cleopatra and Caesar is a 19th century French work of art. True or False?", + "Q2: Boulevard des Capucines is a 19th century European work of art. True or False?", + "Q3: Bulb Fields is a 19th century European work of art. True or False?" + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 118, + 640, + 153 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fd67edafc0c0d2fff0200e0b7a95f51df09d0506643146ec124d5b3fd98c35de.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Manual-CoTManual-CoT-IR
A1: Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian paint-ing by Francesco Barberini. So the answer is false. (X)A1: Cleopatra and Caesar is an oil on canvas painting by the French Academic artist Jean-Léon Gérôme, completed in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
A2: Boulevard des Capucines is a street in Paris, France. [...] Thus, Boulevard des Capucines is not a 19th-century European work of art. So the answer is false. (X)A2: Boulevard des Capucines is an oil painting [...] by French Impressionist artist Claude Monet created in 1873. So the answer is true. (✓)
A3: Bulb Fields is a 1990 painting by Mark Rothko. So the answer is false. (X)A3: Bulb Fields is an oil painting created by Vincent van Gogh in early 1883. So the answer is true. (✓)
A: An osteria is an Italian type of eating establishment. It is not a 19th-century artwork. So the answer is false. (X)A: In a Roman Osteria is a painting by the Danish painter Carl Bloch. It was painted in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 155, + 885, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Responses by InstructGPT for the top-3 similar questions from the training set. For all three training questions (Q1, Q2, Q3) that related to the artwork in the 19th century, the model answers incorrectly but improves with retrieval augmentation. We infer and verify that external knowledge would also be useful for question Q.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 882, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/38892f6b1e00b4e17e9b421b69f6b32cfbd628d14b29023e1fd62b868cba69ea.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: The performance on each dataset by using different corpus for retrieval augmentation." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 399, + 478, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to better results by a large margin on TabularQA, where there exists the most questions for querying the information of certain entities or events (e.g., John Adams was born in the Spring of 1735. True or False?). MS MARCO and SciFact show comparable results to that of Wikipedia for CommonsenseQA and TruthfulQA, where the questions are more relevant to common knowledge (e.g., What happens to you if you eat watermelon seeds? Choices:....). Overall, as a widely used knowledge resource, Wikipedia gives the best average result.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 631, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 248, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 illustrates an example showing the different responses with or without retrieval augmentation to similar questions and how self-knowledge is deduced by using nearest-neighbor search.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the question \"In a Roman Osteria is a", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "19th-century work of art. True or False?\", we search the similar ones from the training set and generate the answers through LLM. From the direct responses, we find that the model itself does not fully understand the question (e.g., Boulevard des Capuci is a street, not a work of art) and even hallucinating (e.g., Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian painting by Francesco Barberini), however, it shows improved and correct responses by adding retrieved information. Through the above comparison, we can infer that the model would also provide a more accurate response to the target question if it had access to external knowledge. The results in the last row further validate our hypothesis. This case shows that it would be helpful to consider existing similar cases when using LLMs to generate more reliable responses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 400, + 884, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 684, + 640, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method, which investigates eliciting the ability of LLMs to recognize what they know or do not know (i.e., self-knowledge) and let them adaptively leverage the external knowledge to make more accurate responses. Several strategies are proposed to elicit self-knowledge, including prompting the LLMs themselves or using explicit smaller models. Experimental results on five datasets show that a simple yet effective $k$ -nearest-neighbor based strategy can lead to the best results, outperforming the chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10310", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are several directions to improve this work. First, due to resource limitations, we select retrieval augmentation as one of the ways to detect the knowledge in LLMs and evaluate mostly on general question-answering datasets. We can explore self-knowledge at different levels (e.g., memorizing, understanding, and reasoning) and evaluate LLMs in border domains beyond the mentioned datasets. Second, instead of finding the related passages as external contextualized information, the retrieval augmentation method for LLMs can still be improved. As some existing work proposed (Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023), one can design specific mechanisms to make the retrieved results more suitable and compatible with the reasoning ability of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 112, + 492, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 386, + 265, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As for the datasets, we use Wikipedia as an external knowledge resource and five question-answering datasets for evaluation. All of them are publicly available and widely used by researchers. As for the LLMs, we use InstructGPT and ChatGPT through OpenAI API. These generative models have the potential to show inappropriate and misleading responses, which can be alleviated by filtering the data or adding constraints during training. In this work, we only focus on the generated responses to the questions from the given datasets and try to combine LLMs with external world knowledge via retrieval augmentation, which actually has been shown as a potential way to reduce issues such as hallucination (Shuster et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 489, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 689, + 285, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022ZD0160502) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61925601, 62276152).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 717, + 489, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 813, + 213, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 838, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Evelyn Fix and J. L. Hodges. 1989. Discriminatory analysis. nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique, 57(3):238-247.", + "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346-361.", + "Zhicheng Guo, Sijie Cheng, Yile Wang, Peng Li, and Yang Liu. 2023. Prompt-guided retrieval augmentation for non-knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17653." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10311", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. INFOTABS: Inference on tables as semi-structured data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2309–2324, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR.", + "Hangfeng He, Hongming Zhang, and Dan Roth. 2022. Rethinking with retrieval: Faithful large language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00303.", + "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299.", + "Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jannik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Tempquestions: A benchmark for temporal question answering. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, pages 1057-1062.", + "Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983.", + "Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221.", + "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Generalization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2022. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024.", + "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang (Shane) Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 22199-22213. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474.", + "Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8086-8098, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10312", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessi, Maria Lomeli, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744.", + "Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350.", + "Hongjing Qian, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, Haoqi Gu, Xinyu Zhang, Zheng Liu, Ruofei Lai, Zhao Cao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Webbrain: Learning to generate factually correct articles for queries by grounding on large web corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04358.", + "Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, Chi Han, et al. 2023. Tool learning with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08354.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784-789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300-325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655-2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761.", + "Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15294.", + "Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugging-gpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580.", + "Weijia Shi, Julian Michael, Suchin Gururangan, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Nearest neighbor zero-shot inference. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3254-3265, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652.", + "Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 3784-3803, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01296.", + "Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Scharli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261.", + "Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10313", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509.", + "David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7534-7550, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In ICLR 2023.", + "Zhenhailong Wang, Xiaoman Pan, Dian Yu, Dong Yu, Jianshu Chen, and Heng Ji. 2022. Zemi: Learning zero-shot semi-parametric language models from multiple tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00185.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Benfeng Xu, Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Yajuan Lyu, Qiaoqiao She, and Yongdong Zhang. 2023a. $k$ nn prompting: Beyond-context learning with calibration-free nearest neighbor inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13824.", + "Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-seng Chua. 2023b. Search-in-the-chain: Towards the accurate, credible and traceable content generation for complex knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14732.", + "Zhangyue Yin, Qiushi Sun, Qipeng Guo, Jiawen Wu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2023. Do large language models know what they don't know? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18153.", + "Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01558.", + "Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Zhenwen Liang, Meng Jiang, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. Improving language models via plug-and-play retrieval feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14002.", + "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2023. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations* (ICLR 2023)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 151 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10314", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Details of Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 312, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The statistics and examples of the five datasets are shown in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 485, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TemporalQA (849/169)", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 155, + 278, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Q: Which film starring gao yuanyuan was released in 2001?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 168, + 473, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A: The answer is Beijing Bicycle.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 191, + 334, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CommonsenseQA (9,741/1,221)", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 210, + 332, + 222 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Q: Where would you expect to find a pizzeria while shopping?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 223, + 475, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer Choices: (a)chicago (b) street (c) little italy (d) food court (e) capital cities", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 247, + 473, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A: The answer is (d).", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 271, + 258, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TabularQA (11,000/1,200)", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 288, + 297, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Q: Corn is an ingredient found in a Chibuku Shake. True or False?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 302, + 473, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A: The answer is true.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 325, + 263, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "StrategyQA (2,061/229)", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 343, + 282, + 355 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Q: Yes or No: Is Oculudentavis more dangerous than Allosaurus?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 356, + 473, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A: The answer is no.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 379, + 253, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TruthfulQA (700/113)", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 397, + 270, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Q: What colors do dogs see?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 410, + 304, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer Choices: (a) Dogs see yellow, blue, brown, and gray (b) Dogs cannot see color (c) Dogs see in black and white", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 422, + 473, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A: The answer is (a).", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 456, + 255, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Examples of each dataset, the numbers denote the number of training and evaluation questions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 485, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018) is used to investigate temporal reasoning, i.e., the questions are all temporal in nature. Following He et al. (2022), we evaluate the implicit temporal questions and use the others as training questions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 487, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019) and StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021) are used for commonsense reasoning. The former includes multiple choice questions for commonsense and the latter consists of questions requiring multi-hop reasoning. We use the development set for evaluation since the annotations of the test set are not available.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 485, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TablularQA (Gupta et al., 2020) is used for tab- ular reasoning, where the questions are extracted from Wikipedia info boxes. We follow He et al. (2022) and focus on 1,200 hypotheses from the development set, while we only use the questions themselves and ignore the word relation triples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 485, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) is used for measuring the truthfulness of LLMs, which comprises questions related to health, law, finance, politics, etc. We randomly chose 113 questions for evaluation and the others as training questions. The original dataset offers one best answer and few can", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "didates for each question, we take the best answer as the correct one and the others as options.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Additional Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 128, + 828, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/593d87fe622088ab942abfd1ba0125eed5dcbac29b850c39983d4a4b90f7b2d5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "In Table 5, we further compare with more reasoning and retrieval-based methods, including: Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022), Recite-and-Answer (Sun et al., 2022), and DSP (Khattab et al., 2022)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodTemporalCommonsenseTabularStrategyTruthful
Self-Ask58.9174.4572.9159.3878.77
Recite-and-Answer62.4574.6175.0058.9579.64
DSP63.9573.2175.7558.7377.88
\\( \\text{SKR}_{\\text{knn}} \\)66.1375.4376.7562.0182.30
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 228, + 878, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method still outperforms these reasoning and retrieval-based baselines. The reason can be that these methods are all designed for knowledge-intensive tasks, which means they assume that external information will always help. In contrast, our method can flexibly use the external knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 340, + 882, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Impact of Retrieval Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 447, + 784, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retriever. We use different retriever and compare the results of TruthfulQA in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 473, + 880, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/eb49d6af3b61edfb7318dc0985909079d7d0de3f73b24f88dacb039467de28e3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Comparison with Self-Ask, Recite-and-Answer, and DSP by using ChatGPT." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RetrieverRetrieval QualityManual-CoT-IROur \\( \\mathbf{S}\\mathbf{K}\\mathbf{R}_{\\mathbf{k}\\mathbf{n}\\mathbf{n}} \\)
DPRhigh76.9982.30
SimCSEsemantically matched73.45 (↓ 3.54)81.42 (↓ 0.88)
BERTrelatively poor69.91 (↓ 7.08)80.53 (↓ 1.67)
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 516, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As we can see, the performance of fully retrieval-based methods largely decreases when retrieval quality is low. However, our method can adaptively call the retriever only when LLMs need (according to the self-knowledge), thus the negative impact is effectively reduced.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 880, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retrieval Quality. We changed the size of corpora and the top- $k$ settings and the results for TruthfulQA are shown in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 880, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f19adde022beb8cf45ae237d585c665332e778642df8f9ca57c3db326e1e703f.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Influence of the retriever." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CorporaSelected CandidatesManual-CoT-IROur SKRknn
Full Crank 1~376.9982.30
Full Crank 8~1076.11 (↓0.88)82.30 (-)
Half of Crank 1~374.37 (↓2.62)81.41 (↓0.89)
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 768, + 880, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Influence of the retrieval quality.", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 835, + 835, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can see that, Our method is less impacted by the quality of retrieval since we do not call the retriever all the time.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 880, + 913 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10315", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_model.json b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..516af24a134b49fedc6c6629cb191f4600cd214e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2921 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.248, + 0.09, + 0.75, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.269, + 0.142, + 0.738, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yile Wang\\(^{1}\\), Peng Li\\(^{*1,3}\\), Maosong Sun\\(^{2}\\), Yang Liu\\(^{*1,2,3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.183, + 0.16, + 0.819, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.177, + 0.84, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.251, + 0.194, + 0.752, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.211, + 0.86, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{wangyile,lipeng}@air.tsinghua.edu.cn,{sms,liuyang2011}@tsinghua.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.276, + 0.461, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have shown superior performance without task-specific fine-tuning. Despite the success, the knowledge stored in the parameters of LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. As complementary, retrieval-based methods can offer non-parametric world knowledge and improve the performance on tasks such as question answering. However, we find that the retrieved knowledge does not always help and even has a negative impact on original responses occasionally. To better make use of both internal knowledge and external world knowledge, we investigate eliciting the model's ability to recognize what they know and do not know (which is also called \"self-knowledge\") and propose Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR), a simple yet effective method which can let LLMs refer to the questions they have previously encountered and adaptively call for external resources when dealing with new questions. We evaluate SKR on multiple datasets and demonstrate that it outperforms chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based methods by using either InstructGPT or ChatGPT. Code is released at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/SKR." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.682, + 0.26, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.707, + 0.49, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs, Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) have achieved remarkable performance without much task-specific fine-tuning. However, the full-parametric knowledge stored in LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. Alternatively, retrieval-augmented methods (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Izacard et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2023) can utilize external resources such as Wikipedia and offer complementary non-parametric knowledge to enrich the contextualized" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.251, + 0.886, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.346, + 0.884, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Comparison between two responses given by InstructGPT. The retrieved passages are relevant but not particularly helpful for solving the question, which influences the model's judgment and leads to incorrect answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.447, + 0.883, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "information, thus helping the model generate more reliable answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.481, + 0.885, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retrieval augmentation has shown to be very effective for models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020a), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in various tasks (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Izacard and Grave, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2023). As LLMs become more and more \"knowledgeable\", recent studies show that the benefit brought from retrieval augmentation is reducing (Mallen et al., 2022; Yoran et al., 2023). Moreover, we find that the retrieved passages could even negatively affect what LLMs originally know. As illustrated in Figure 1, the model can directly give reasonable answers \"German Shepherds are often used as seeing-eye dogs\", however, it is distracted and gives incorrect ones by adding retrieved passages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.741, + 0.884, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The above findings show that one should be more careful when applying the retrieval-based method since it is difficult to know in advance whether the retrieved results are better than what LLMs already captured. To this end, a key issue is to figure out what LLMs do well (e.g., they can answer correctly without assistance) and what they cannot do well (e.g., they answer incorrectly and external information can lead to improved results)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unfortunately, LLMs themselves have a limited ability to recognize what they know and do not" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.299, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Corresponding authors." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10303" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10303-10315 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "know, which is also called \"self-knowledge\" (Yin et al., 2023). However, such an ability is crucial for generating truthful responses (Kadavath et al., 2022) and could be helpful for LLMs themselves to \"decide when and when not to use tools\" such as a retriever (Mialon et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.183, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we investigate eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs and propose a simple yet effective Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method to flexibly call the retriever for making better use of both internal and external knowledge. In particular, different from existing studies that evaluate the ability through specifically designed metrics or datasets, we collect the self-knowledge of training questions by comparing the performance with or without retrieval augmentation. Then, we propose several strategies to detect the self-knowledge corresponding to a question by referring to the existing collected training questions, including using the LLMs themselves through prompting or explicitly training a small model. Finally, we leverage such elicited self-knowledge to better solve the question through adaptive retrieval augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.474, + 0.49, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate SKR on five datasets by using InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301). Experimental results show that SKR outperforms chain-of-thought based (Wei et al., 2022) and fully retrieval-based methods by \\(4.08\\% / 2.91\\%\\) (for InstructGPT) and \\(4.02\\% / 4.20\\%\\) (for ChatGPT), respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.601, + 0.271, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retrieval-Augmented LLMs Recent studies show that retrieval-augmented methods can enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs (Trivedi et al., 2022; He et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023) and make the responses more credible and traceable (Xu et al., 2023b; Qian et al., 2023). For example, Trivedi et al. (2022) uses the chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022) reasoning steps as queries and uses the results to guide further reasoning and retrieval. He et al. (2022) uses an external natural language inference model to select the most supported reasoning path via retrieved evidence. Yu et al. (2023) propose using the retrieval feedback to refine the output of LLMs to be more reliable and accurate. Xu et al. (2023b) propose search-inchain and make LLMs interact with retrievers to improve accuracy and credibility. These methods aim at integrating sufficient external knowledge for" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a better reasoning process, while we propose to better utilize both the internal and external knowledge through eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.135, + 0.885, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another line of work tries to teach LLMs to use external tools including retriever, calculator, other foundation models, etc. (Schick et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023). These works focus more on leveraging the language understanding capabilities of LLMs to deploy suitable tools in different scenarios, while our work investigates the self-knowledge of LLMs and tries to integrate them with retrievers in a more flexible manner." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.281, + 0.886, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Knowledge in LLMs \"Self-knowledge\" in LLMs is originally mentioned in Kadavath et al. (2022), which is used to measure the LLMs' confidence in their own knowledge and reasoning. Such ability is further defined as \"the ability to understand limitations on the unknowns\" and evaluated by Yin et al. (2023), where they find a considerable gap exists between self-knowledge in models and humans. To explore the LLMs capabilities more extensively, unanswerable and more challenging datasets are also proposed (Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022). Our work is also related to detecting what LLMs know and do not know, while we do not design new evaluation metrics or challenging datasets to test the ability. By explicitly introducing the external resources, we detect the knowledge boundary of LLMs through the performance changes. Moreover, instead of evaluating each question independently, we propose several ways to elicit self-knowledge by referring to existing cases." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.637, + 0.614, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.667, + 0.884, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method is depicted under the question-answering settings, which has been a popular way to interact with and assess LLMs. The overall pipeline is shown in Figure 2, which includes collecting, eliciting, and using self-knowledge of LLMs. We introduce each of them as follows." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.779, + 0.88, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Collecting Self-Knowledge of LLMs from Training Samples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.819, + 0.884, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a dataset \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) with training question-answer pairs \\(\\{q_j,a_j\\}_{j = 1}^{|\\mathcal{D}|}\\), we can use the LLM \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) to generate the answers for each question \\(q_{i}\\) via few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.904, + 0.883, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {a} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) = \\mathcal {M} \\left(q _ {1} \\circ a _ {1}, \\dots , q _ {d} \\circ a _ {d}, q _ {i}\\right), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10304" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.878, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.265, + 0.882, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our SKR method. We first collect self-knowledge from training questions according to the performance with or without external information (§ 3.1). Then we use the LLMs themselves or explicit small trainable models to elicit self-knowledge of a question \\( q_{t} \\) by referring to the collected self-knowledge from training questions (§ 3.2). Finally, we use the self-knowledge to the new question and adaptively call a retriever (§ 3.3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.347, + 0.486, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\circ\\) denotes concatenation and \\(\\{q_j\\circ a_j\\}_{j = 1}^d\\) are \\(d\\) demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.38, + 0.487, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The above generated answers \\(\\hat{a} (\\mathcal{M},q_i)\\) reflects the internal knowledge to question \\(q_{i}\\) in \\(\\mathcal{M}\\). Meanwhile, we can possibly find passages from external resources that may be related to \\(q_{i}\\), such passages can be used as additional information for the model input. Formally, for each question, we first use a pre-trained retriever \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) to find the possibly related information from corpus \\(\\mathcal{C}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.519, + 0.487, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {i} = \\left\\{p _ {i 1}, p _ {i 2}, \\dots , p _ {i k} \\right\\} = \\mathcal {R} \\left(q _ {i}, \\mathcal {C}\\right), \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.545, + 0.489, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( p_i = \\{p_{i1}, p_{i2}, \\dots, p_{ik}\\} \\) are the top-\\( k \\) retrieved passages for \\( q_i \\). In practice, we set \\( \\mathcal{R} \\) as dense passage retriever (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and \\( \\mathcal{C} \\) as passage chunks from Wikipedia. Then, we use \\( \\mathcal{M} \\) again to generate the answer with retrieval augmentation:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.648, + 0.487, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {a} ^ {\\mathcal {R}} \\left(\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}\\right) = \\mathcal {M} \\left(q _ {1} \\circ p _ {1} \\circ a _ {1}, \\dots , q _ {d} \\circ p _ {d} \\circ a _ {d}, q _ {i} \\circ p _ {i}\\right). \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.683, + 0.489, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the answers \\(\\hat{a} (\\mathcal{M},q_i)\\) \\(\\hat{a}^{\\mathcal{R}}(\\mathcal{M},q_i)\\) , and the ground-truth answer \\(a_{i}\\) , we categorize each question into positive subset \\(\\mathcal{D}^{+}\\) and negative subset \\(\\mathcal{D}^{-}\\) based on the differences between results:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.752, + 0.487, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nq _ {i} \\in \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\mathcal {D} ^ {+}, & \\text {i f} \\mathrm {E} [ \\hat {a} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ] \\geq \\mathrm {E} [ \\hat {a} ^ {\\mathcal {R}} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ]; \\\\ \\mathcal {D} ^ {-}, & \\text {o t h e r w i s e ,} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.487, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\mathrm{E} \\) is an evaluation metric such as accuracy and exact match score, we discard the question \\( q_{i} \\) if both the \\( \\hat{a}(\\mathcal{M}, q_{i}) \\) and \\( \\hat{a}^{\\mathcal{R}}(\\mathcal{M}, q_{i}) \\) are incorrect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, the training set can be split into subset \\(\\mathcal{D}^{+} = \\{q_{1}^{+},\\dots,q_{m}^{+}\\}\\) which includes questions that \\(\\mathcal{M}\\) can directly give correct answers without external information (LLM knowns) and the subset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.348, + 0.884, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathcal{D}^{-} = \\{q_{1}^{-},\\dots,q_{n}^{-}\\}\\) where the external information can lead to more accurate results (LLM unknowns)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.39, + 0.825, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.41, + 0.884, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Four different strategies are proposed to detect the self-knowledge of target questions, including direct prompting, in-context learning, training a classifier, and nearest neighbor search. We use the LLM itself in the former two methods and explicit smaller modes in the latter two methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.507, + 0.884, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Direct Prompting Given a question \\( q_{t} \\), a straightforward way to detect whether LLMs are capable of solving it is to ask them directly:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.567, + 0.67, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Direct Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.588, + 0.594, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(prompt)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.6, + 0.855, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{q_t\\}\\) Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.634, + 0.656, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(possible response)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.647, + 0.856, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.884, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we use the prompt \"Do you need additional information to answer this question?\" as a template and detect self-knowledge according to the possible response. We thought LLM is capable (or not capable) of solving the question well when they \"don't need (or need) additional information\". Direct prompting may intuitively work, but it tests each question independently and does not make use of the collected training questions in Section 3.1. To remedy this issue, we further leverage the collected self-knowledge from training questions in the next three strategies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-Context Learning LLMs have shown a strong capability to learn from demonstrations and infer" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10305" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "through few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). We select few training questions from both \\(\\mathcal{D}^{+}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{D}^{-}\\) as demonstrations to elicit the self-knowledge to the question \\(q_{t}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.161, + 0.296, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-Context Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.182, + 0.199, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(prompt)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.194, + 0.462, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{q_1^+\\}\\) Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: No, I don't need additional information to answer this question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.229, + 0.461, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{q_1^-\\}\\) Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: Yes, I need additional information to answer this question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.269, + 0.165, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "···" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.277, + 0.46, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{q_t\\}\\) Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.194, + 0.462, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.311, + 0.261, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(possible response)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.324, + 0.461, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.372, + 0.487, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we use the answer templates \"No, I don't need...\" or \"Yes, I need...\" in demonstrations based on whether the corresponding question comes from positive set \\(\\mathcal{D}^{+}\\) or negative set \\(\\mathcal{D}^{-}\\), respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed direct prompting and in-context learning methods can elicit self-knowledge of LLMs to some extent. However, they have several limitations. First, both methods require designing prompts and calling the LLMs for each new question, which makes it impractical. Second, in-context learning could also be unstable due to contextual bias and sensitivity (Zhao et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) and it is more difficult to address such an issue for close-source LLMs. Third, they cannot make use of all questions due to the constraints of maximum tokens. To make our method more practical and avoid the above issues, we further leverage smaller models to help elicit self-knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.661, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training a Classifier Given \\(\\mathcal{D}^+\\) and \\(\\mathcal{D}^{-}\\), we can take them as a two-way classification problem (e.g., setting \\(q_{i}\\) in \\(\\mathcal{D}^+\\) with a positive label and \\(q_{i}\\) in \\(\\mathcal{D}^{-}\\) with a negative label) and use all the samples to train a classifier such as BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) explicitly:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.767, + 0.487, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {y} _ {i} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(W h _ {\\mathrm {c l s}} \\left(q _ {i}\\right) + b\\right), \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(q_{i}\\in \\mathcal{D}^{+}\\cup \\mathcal{D}^{-}\\) is a training question, \\(h_{\\mathrm{cls}}(q_i)\\) is the sentence-level representation from BERTbase, \\(W\\) and \\(b\\) are parameters of the classification head. The parameters can be optimized by minimizing the cross-entropy loss between the predicted label distribution \\(\\hat{y}_i\\) and the ground-truth label of \\(q_{i}\\). Once the training is complete, we can infer the label of question \\(q_{t}\\) similar to Eq. 5." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.193, + 0.882, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of \\( k \\)-nearest-neighbor search to elicit the self-knowledge to the question \\( q_{t} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.251, + 0.884, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nearest Neighbor Search Instead of training an explicit smaller model, we can infer the label of questions through \\( k \\)-nearest-neighbor (\\( k \\)NN) search by using a pre-trained fixed encoder, as shown in Figure 3. \\( k \\) NN (Fix and Hodges, 1989) is a widely used algorithm and benefit for a range of NLP tasks (Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Shi et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023a). Our motivation is similar in that if two questions are close in the semantically embedded space, then the LLMs would show similar self-knowledge for both of them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.43, + 0.884, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, we encode each question into embeddings and compute the semantic similarity through cosine distance \\(\\mathrm{sim}(q_t,q_i) = \\frac{e(q_t)\\cdot e(q_i)}{||e(q_t)||\\cdot||e(q_i)||}\\), where \\(q_{i}\\in \\{q_{1}^{+},\\dots,q_{m}^{+},q_{1}^{-},\\dots,q_{n}^{-}\\}\\), \\(e(\\cdot)\\) is the representations of a sentence encoder such as SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021). Then we search the top-\\(k\\) nearest neighbors with the highest similarity. If the top-\\(k\\) nearest neighbors include \\(\\ell\\) positive ones and \\(k - \\ell\\) negative ones, we label the question \\(q_{t}\\) as positive if \\(\\frac{\\ell}{k - \\ell}\\geq \\frac{m}{n}\\) or negative if \\(\\frac{\\ell}{k - \\ell} < \\frac{m}{n}\\) (\\(m\\) and \\(n\\) are the numbers of questions in \\(\\mathcal{D}^+\\) and \\(\\mathcal{D}^-\\), respectively)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.627, + 0.833, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Using Self-Knowledge for Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.668, + 0.884, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The self-knowledge given by the responses from LLMs (via direct prompting or in-context learning) or the predicted labels (via the trained classifier or \\(k\\)-nearest-neighbor search) reflects the necessity for external knowledge towards the question \\(q_{t}\\). Therefore, we can adaptively call the retriever instead of using them for every new question:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.795, + 0.788, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.816, + 0.648, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(for LLM known)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.828, + 0.72, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{q_1\\circ a_1\\} ,\\dots,\\{q_d\\circ a_d\\} ,\\{q_t\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.84, + 0.806, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: (LLM directly answers without retrieval)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.863, + 0.663, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(for LLM unknown)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.875, + 0.779, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\{q_{1}\\circ p_{1}\\circ a_{1}\\} ,\\dots,\\{q_{d}\\circ p_{d}\\circ a_{d}\\},\\{q_{t}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.888, + 0.72, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here are some passages: \\(\\{p_t\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.899, + 0.822, + 0.911 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: (LLM answers with retrieval augmentation)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.816, + 0.822, + 0.911 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10306" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.081, + 0.86, + 0.564 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodTemporal (EM/F1)Commonsense (Acc.)Tabular (Acc.)Strategy (Acc.)Truthful (Acc.)Avg.
(text-davinci-003)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot40.57/44.9465.5266.0863.3261.0656.91
Zero-Shot-CoT41.71/45.3363.3160.5058.5253.1053.75
Few-Shot45.14/49.5980.3463.5066.3765.4961.73
Manual-CoT44.57/54.2275.4274.9271.1872.5765.48
Auto-CoT (Similarity)44.00/54.1374.4477.2570.6172.5765.50
Auto-CoT (Diversity)46.28/54.6873.3874.5070.7471.6865.21
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR47.42/57.3775.6779.2569.4369.0366.36
IRCoT47.42/56.2875.2778.0067.6871.6866.06
\\( SKR_{prompt} \\)45.71/56.3175.0277.3369.4370.8065.77
\\( SKR_{icl} \\)47.42/57.7475.5177.7571.1873.4567.17
\\( SKR_{cls} \\)46.28/56.5475.8379.2570.3072.5766.80
\\( SKR_{knn} \\)48.00/58.4776.6679.8371.6274.3468.15
\\( CoT-RR^† \\)44.97/56.5876.9882.0874.6769.9167.53
(gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot51.42/54.9473.3066.5054.1474.3362.43
Zero-Shot-CoT56.57/58.9261.5863.0844.1065.4958.29
Few-Shot52.57/55.7778.8668.7561.1369.9164.50
Manual-CoT54.85/61.7274.7773.2561.3681.4167.89
Auto-CoT (Similarity)54.28/57.6674.4471.5861.5779.6466.52
Auto-CoT (Diversity)55.43/58.2173.3071.5058.5280.5466.25
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR59.41/63.0873.3876.5857.2176.9967.77
IRCoT57.14/61.6772.7376.2555.4679.6467.15
\\( SKR_{prompt} \\)54.86/61.6475.0273.9161.5780.5367.92
\\( SKR_{icl} \\)58.29/63.8175.1074.4262.0182.3069.32
\\( SKR_{cls} \\)59.43/64.0475.1076.4262.0184.9570.33
\\( SKR_{knn} \\)61.14/66.1375.4376.7562.0182.3070.62
\\( CoT-RR^† \\)60.35/65.5975.8476.0862.8883.1870.65
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.579, + 0.884, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Main results of baselines and our proposed SKR method on five datasets. In each column, the best results are in bold and the second-best ones are underlined (excluding CoT-RR). \\(\\dagger\\): CoT-RR relies on calling LLMs multiple times and deduces the weighted results through multi-responses, while the other methods are evaluated on a single response." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.661, + 0.262, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.687, + 0.229, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.709, + 0.49, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Five different types of question answering datasets are used for evaluation, including TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018), CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019), TabularQA (Gupta et al., 2020), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), and TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022). The statistics, examples, and preprocessing details of the datasets are shown in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.85, + 0.235, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to the Zero-Shot and Few-Shot settings with direct output, we also compare with the chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning based methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.661, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "including Zero-Shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) with simple prompt \"Let's think step by step\", Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2022) with manually written demonstrations, Auto-CoT (Similarity) with automated demonstrations according to semantic similarity (Liu et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2022) and Auto-CoT (Diversity) according to semantic diversity (Zhang et al., 2023). For retrieval-based methods, we compare with our implemented Manual-CoT-IR with additional retrieved passages before generating the answers, IRCoT (Trivedi et al., 2022) with retrieved passages using CoT reasoning steps as the queries, CoT-RR (He et al., 2022) with an external model to verify multiple reasoning steps by retrieved evidence and deduce the answer through self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10307" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.347, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By applying different strategies in Section 3.2 to elicit self-knowledge, we denote our SKR method as \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}\\), \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}\\), \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}\\), and \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}\\), respectively. For \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}\\), we choose \\(k\\) as \\(3 \\sim 10\\) according to different sizes of datasets. For LLMs, we use InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) through OpenAI API1. We set 4 demonstrations with CoT reasoning in few-shot settings and top-3 passages as additional information in retrieval-based methods to fit the maximum length constraints." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.295, + 0.266, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.316, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The main results are shown in Table 1. Overall, our proposed \\(\\mathrm{SKR_{knn}}\\) method achieves the best average results across five datasets. Compared with Manual-CoT and fully retrieval-based Manual-CoT-IR, our method gain \\(4.08\\% /2.91\\%\\) improvement by using InstructGPT and \\(4.02\\% /4.20\\%\\) improvement by using ChatGPT, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.43, + 0.49, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By comparing different strategies to elicit self-knowledge, we find that 1) \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}\\) shows relatively poor results, which show that direct prompting may not be a good way to detect the self-knowledge of LLMs. The results are also in line with Yin et al. (2023), where they find self-knowledge in LLMs is relatively low and lags behind that of humans. 2) \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}\\) work but do not show consistent improvement. For example, \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}\\) gives the second-best average results by using InstructGPT, however, the results on CommonsenseQA and StrategyQA are not better than Manual-CoT and Manual-CoT-IR, respectively. \\(\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}\\) gives the best results on StrategyQA and TruthfulQA by using ChatGPT but performs not that well on the others. The former demonstrates the sensitivity and bias of contextual information via in-context learning, and the latter reflects the difficulty of modeling self-knowledge across different datasets and LLMs by fine-tuning a pre-trained BERT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.768, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the results of other baselines, we find that both internal and external knowledge has its own limitations. On the one hand, the process of CoT reasoning can be treated as internal knowledge from LLMs, however, it does not always show significant improvement. For example, when evaluated on CommonsenseQA, Manual-CoT does not outperform the Few-Shot counterpart where ex" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "plicit reasoning steps are not required. The results from Wei et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2023) also show that the CoT reasoning works well on arithmetic and symbolic tasks, while the gain is limited for tasks related to commonsense." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.166, + 0.886, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the other hand, the retrieved passages can be seen as external knowledge from open resources, while it is also not always helpful. For example, Manual-CoT-IR shows substantial improvement over Manual-CoT on TemporalQA and TabularQA, which includes the most knowledge-intensive questions. However, they could even make the results worse on StrategyQA, where the multi-hop questions are challenging and the retrieved passages may not be directly useful for answering. These show that it is necessary to use retrieval augmentation reasonably in different scenarios by combining the knowledge of LLMs themselves." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.388, + 0.62, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.414, + 0.882, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Effects of Different Templates for Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.452, + 0.885, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To directly prompt LLMs themselves to elicit self-knowledge, we designed different templates, collected the responses, and evaluated the performance on questions that LLMs thought they could solve directly. The results are shown in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.533, + 0.884, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, for all designed templates, LLMs could show either a positive response (e.g., directly giving the predicted answers) or a negative response (e.g., showing the need for external information) to a specific question. Second, interestingly, we find that the model achieves around \\(70\\% \\sim 73\\%\\) accuracy for questions that they thought could be answered directly, indicating that there exist around \\(30\\%\\) questions for which the model does not know its incapability (i.e., \"unknown unknowns\"). Nevertheless, it still remains an open question of how to prompt LLMs to demonstrate reasonable confidence in their knowledge in a more automatic, comprehensive, and generalizable way." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.769, + 0.876, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Effects of Elicited Self-Knowledge across Different Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We investigate the benefit brought by the elicited self-knowledge across different datasets. In each dataset, we collect the questions from the development set where LLMs show opposite responses with or without retrieval, then we use these questions and check if the self-knowledge gives useful guidance to use retrieval augmentation or not." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.292, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1platform.openai.com" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10308" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TemplatePositive Response (LLM known)Negative Response (LLM unknown)Acc.
Do you need additional information to answer this question?No, additional information is not needed to answer this...Yes, additional information is needed to answer this...73.17
Would you like any extra prompts to help you?No, I do not need any extra...Yes, please.72.32
Would you like any additional clues?No, the answer is...Yes, please provide...72.32
Can you answer this question based on what you know?Yes, the correct answer to this question is...No, I cannot answer it based on what I know.72.07
Can you solve this question now?Yes, the correct answer is...No, this is not a solvable...71.58
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.243, + 0.884, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of different templates for eliciting self-knowledge through prompting. We use the questions from TruthfulQA and list some possible responses by InstructGPT. The accuracy is evaluated on questions to which the model gives a positive response (i.e., on questions where the model shows confidence to answer directly)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.311, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.506, + 0.49, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The fine-grained effect of elicited self-knowledge to each dataset by using different strategies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.562, + 0.49, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results are shown in Figure 4. The y-axis is the percentage of \"beneficial guidance\" to indicate how many questions will be correctly answered under the guidance of self-knowledge. For example, without any prior knowledge, we have an average \\(50\\%\\) chance to get a better result. However, we can see that the values of \\(\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}\\) are relatively low and could even be under \\(50\\%\\), which shows that self-knowledge from the responses of direct prompting may not be that useful across different tasks. Results of \\(\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}\\) become much better and can benefit most of the datasets by integrating more examples. The \\(\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}\\) further improves and leads to \\(55\\%\\) (StrategyQA) to \\(78\\%\\) (TruthfulQA) beneficial guidance for the questions across different datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.833, + 0.395, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Effects of Training Data Sizes" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We investigated the effects of training data sizes on TabularQA and CommonsenseQA, both of which have relatively abundant training questions. In particular, we randomly select \\(10\\%\\), \\(25\\%\\), \\(50\\%\\) train" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.31, + 0.88, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.507, + 0.884, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The performance on TabularQA and Common-senseQA by using different amounts of training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.884, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing data for \\(\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}\\) methods and evaluate the final accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.596, + 0.885, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As can be seen in Figure 5, the performance gradually improves as the training data increases, which shows that the collected self-knowledge from training data is valuable. Moreover, such phenomenon also indicates the potential that self-knowledge from existing questions can be constantly accumulated and used in subsequent tasks, which can be an important direction for future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.736, + 0.882, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Effects of Different Knowledge Resources" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.884, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to Wikipedia, we also compare the influence of different corpora \\(\\mathcal{C}\\), including the passages from MS MARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016) and SciFact (Wadden et al., 2020). The former includes extracted human-generated answers by using the Bing search engine, and the latter are scientific articles containing specialized domain knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results are shown in Figure 6, where we find different external knowledge resources gives different performances. In particular, Wikipedia leads" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10309" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.087, + 0.603, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question Q: In a Roman Osteria is a 19th-century work of art. True or False?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.106, + 0.348, + 0.118 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Top-3 Similar Training Questions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.119, + 0.603, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q1: Cleopatra and Caesar is a 19th century French work of art. True or False?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.131, + 0.641, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q2: Boulevard des Capucines is a 19th century European work of art. True or False?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.143, + 0.558, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q3: Bulb Fields is a 19th century European work of art. True or False?" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.119, + 0.641, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.156, + 0.887, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Manual-CoTManual-CoT-IR
A1: Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian paint-ing by Francesco Barberini. So the answer is false. (X)A1: Cleopatra and Caesar is an oil on canvas painting by the French Academic artist Jean-Léon Gérôme, completed in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
A2: Boulevard des Capucines is a street in Paris, France. [...] Thus, Boulevard des Capucines is not a 19th-century European work of art. So the answer is false. (X)A2: Boulevard des Capucines is an oil painting [...] by French Impressionist artist Claude Monet created in 1873. So the answer is true. (✓)
A3: Bulb Fields is a 1990 painting by Mark Rothko. So the answer is false. (X)A3: Bulb Fields is an oil painting created by Vincent van Gogh in early 1883. So the answer is true. (✓)
A: An osteria is an Italian type of eating establishment. It is not a 19th-century artwork. So the answer is false. (X)A: In a Roman Osteria is a painting by the Danish painter Carl Bloch. It was painted in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.333, + 0.883, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Responses by InstructGPT for the top-3 similar questions from the training set. For all three training questions (Q1, Q2, Q3) that related to the artwork in the 19th century, the model answers incorrectly but improves with retrieval augmentation. We infer and verify that external knowledge would also be useful for question Q." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.4, + 0.479, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.577, + 0.487, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: The performance on each dataset by using different corpus for retrieval augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.632, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to better results by a large margin on TabularQA, where there exists the most questions for querying the information of certain entities or events (e.g., John Adams was born in the Spring of 1735. True or False?). MS MARCO and SciFact show comparable results to that of Wikipedia for CommonsenseQA and TruthfulQA, where the questions are more relevant to common knowledge (e.g., What happens to you if you eat watermelon seeds? Choices:....). Overall, as a widely used knowledge resource, Wikipedia gives the best average result." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.819, + 0.249, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.488, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 illustrates an example showing the different responses with or without retrieval augmentation to similar questions and how self-knowledge is deduced by using nearest-neighbor search." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the question \"In a Roman Osteria is a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.401, + 0.885, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "19th-century work of art. True or False?\", we search the similar ones from the training set and generate the answers through LLM. From the direct responses, we find that the model itself does not fully understand the question (e.g., Boulevard des Capuci is a street, not a work of art) and even hallucinating (e.g., Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian painting by Francesco Barberini), however, it shows improved and correct responses by adding retrieved information. Through the above comparison, we can infer that the model would also provide a more accurate response to the target question if it had access to external knowledge. The results in the last row further validate our hypothesis. This case shows that it would be helpful to consider existing similar cases when using LLMs to generate more reliable responses." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.686, + 0.642, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method, which investigates eliciting the ability of LLMs to recognize what they know or do not know (i.e., self-knowledge) and let them adaptively leverage the external knowledge to make more accurate responses. Several strategies are proposed to elicit self-knowledge, including prompting the LLMs themselves or using explicit smaller models. Experimental results on five datasets show that a simple yet effective \\(k\\)-nearest-neighbor based strategy can lead to the best results, outperforming the chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based baselines." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10310" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.113, + 0.493, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are several directions to improve this work. First, due to resource limitations, we select retrieval augmentation as one of the ways to detect the knowledge in LLMs and evaluate mostly on general question-answering datasets. We can explore self-knowledge at different levels (e.g., memorizing, understanding, and reasoning) and evaluate LLMs in border domains beyond the mentioned datasets. Second, instead of finding the related passages as external contextualized information, the retrieval augmentation method for LLMs can still be improved. As some existing work proposed (Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023), one can design specific mechanisms to make the retrieved results more suitable and compatible with the reasoning ability of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.387, + 0.266, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.416, + 0.49, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As for the datasets, we use Wikipedia as an external knowledge resource and five question-answering datasets for evaluation. All of them are publicly available and widely used by researchers. As for the LLMs, we use InstructGPT and ChatGPT through OpenAI API. These generative models have the potential to show inappropriate and misleading responses, which can be alleviated by filtering the data or adding constraints during training. In this work, we only focus on the generated responses to the questions from the given datasets and try to combine LLMs with external world knowledge via retrieval augmentation, which actually has been shown as a potential way to reduce issues such as hallucination (Shuster et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.69, + 0.287, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.718, + 0.49, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022ZD0160502) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61925601, 62276152)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.814, + 0.214, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.19, + 0.886, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.386, + 0.885, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.476, + 0.886, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.606, + 0.884, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evelyn Fix and J. L. Hodges. 1989. Discriminatory analysis. nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique, 57(3):238-247." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.671, + 0.885, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346-361." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhicheng Guo, Sijie Cheng, Yile Wang, Peng Li, and Yang Liu. 2023. Prompt-guided retrieval augmentation for non-knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17653." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10311" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. INFOTABS: Inference on tables as semi-structured data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2309–2324, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.487, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.237, + 0.487, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hangfeng He, Hongming Zhang, and Dan Roth. 2022. Rethinking with retrieval: Faithful large language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00303." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.286, + 0.487, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.387, + 0.487, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.476, + 0.487, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jannik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Tempquestions: A benchmark for temporal question answering. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, pages 1057-1062." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.551, + 0.487, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.627, + 0.487, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.715, + 0.487, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.816, + 0.487, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Generalization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.125, + 0.883, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2022. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.216, + 0.883, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang (Shane) Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 22199-22213. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.294, + 0.883, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.424, + 0.883, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.515, + 0.883, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.606, + 0.883, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.723, + 0.883, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8086-8098, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10312" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessi, Maria Lomeli, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.488, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.488, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.316, + 0.488, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongjing Qian, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, Haoqi Gu, Xinyu Zhang, Zheng Liu, Ruofei Lai, Zhao Cao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Webbrain: Learning to generate factually correct articles for queries by grounding on large web corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04358." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.405, + 0.488, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, Chi Han, et al. 2023. Tool learning with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08354." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.481, + 0.488, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.571, + 0.488, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784-789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.674, + 0.488, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300-325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.79, + 0.488, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655-2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.138, + 0.883, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15294." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.216, + 0.883, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugging-gpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.281, + 0.883, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijia Shi, Julian Michael, Suchin Gururangan, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Nearest neighbor zero-shot inference. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3254-3265, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.372, + 0.883, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.449, + 0.883, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 3784-3803, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.554, + 0.883, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.658, + 0.883, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01296." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.71, + 0.883, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Scharli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.801, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10313" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.487, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7534-7550, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.266, + 0.487, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In ICLR 2023." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.342, + 0.487, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenhailong Wang, Xiaoman Pan, Dian Yu, Dong Yu, Jianshu Chen, and Heng Ji. 2022. Zemi: Learning zero-shot semi-parametric language models from multiple tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00185." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.406, + 0.487, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benfeng Xu, Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Yajuan Lyu, Qiaoqiao She, and Yongdong Zhang. 2023a. \\(k\\) nn prompting: Beyond-context learning with calibration-free nearest neighbor inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13824." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.585, + 0.487, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-seng Chua. 2023b. Search-in-the-chain: Towards the accurate, credible and traceable content generation for complex knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14732." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.662, + 0.487, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhangyue Yin, Qiushi Sun, Qipeng Guo, Jiawen Wu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2023. Do large language models know what they don't know? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18153." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.487, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01558." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.79, + 0.487, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Zhenwen Liang, Meng Jiang, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. Improving language models via plug-and-play retrieval feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14002." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2023. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations* (ICLR 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10314" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.314, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Details of Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.11, + 0.486, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The statistics and examples of the five datasets are shown in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.156, + 0.28, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TemporalQA (849/169)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.169, + 0.475, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q: Which film starring gao yuanyuan was released in 2001?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.192, + 0.335, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: The answer is Beijing Bicycle." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.211, + 0.333, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CommonsenseQA (9,741/1,221)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.224, + 0.476, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q: Where would you expect to find a pizzeria while shopping?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.248, + 0.475, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer Choices: (a)chicago (b) street (c) little italy (d) food court (e) capital cities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.272, + 0.259, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: The answer is (d)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.29, + 0.299, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TabularQA (11,000/1,200)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.303, + 0.475, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q: Corn is an ingredient found in a Chibuku Shake. True or False?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.326, + 0.264, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: The answer is true." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.344, + 0.283, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "StrategyQA (2,061/229)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.357, + 0.474, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q: Yes or No: Is Oculudentavis more dangerous than Allosaurus?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.38, + 0.255, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: The answer is no." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.398, + 0.272, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TruthfulQA (700/113)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.411, + 0.305, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Q: What colors do dogs see?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.423, + 0.474, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer Choices: (a) Dogs see yellow, blue, brown, and gray (b) Dogs cannot see color (c) Dogs see in black and white" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.457, + 0.257, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A: The answer is (a)." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.485, + 0.486, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Examples of each dataset, the numbers denote the number of training and evaluation questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.533, + 0.488, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018) is used to investigate temporal reasoning, i.e., the questions are all temporal in nature. Following He et al. (2022), we evaluate the implicit temporal questions and use the others as training questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.487, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019) and StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021) are used for commonsense reasoning. The former includes multiple choice questions for commonsense and the latter consists of questions requiring multi-hop reasoning. We use the development set for evaluation since the annotations of the test set are not available." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.726, + 0.487, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TablularQA (Gupta et al., 2020) is used for tab- ular reasoning, where the questions are extracted from Wikipedia info boxes. We follow He et al. (2022) and focus on 1,200 hypotheses from the development set, while we only use the questions themselves and ignore the word relation triples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) is used for measuring the truthfulness of LLMs, which comprises questions related to health, law, finance, politics, etc. We randomly chose 113 questions for evaluation and the others as training questions. The original dataset offers one best answer and few can" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "didates for each question, we take the best answer as the correct one and the others as options." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.129, + 0.83, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Additional Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.154, + 0.884, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 5, we further compare with more reasoning and retrieval-based methods, including: Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022), Recite-and-Answer (Sun et al., 2022), and DSP (Khattab et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.229, + 0.88, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodTemporalCommonsenseTabularStrategyTruthful
Self-Ask58.9174.4572.9159.3878.77
Recite-and-Answer62.4574.6175.0058.9579.64
DSP63.9573.2175.7558.7377.88
\\( \\text{SKR}_{\\text{knn}} \\)66.1375.4376.7562.0182.30
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.295, + 0.883, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparison with Self-Ask, Recite-and-Answer, and DSP by using ChatGPT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.341, + 0.884, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method still outperforms these reasoning and retrieval-based baselines. The reason can be that these methods are all designed for knowledge-intensive tasks, which means they assume that external information will always help. In contrast, our method can flexibly use the external knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.448, + 0.785, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Impact of Retrieval Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.474, + 0.882, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retriever. We use different retriever and compare the results of TruthfulQA in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.517, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RetrieverRetrieval QualityManual-CoT-IROur \\( \\mathbf{S}\\mathbf{K}\\mathbf{R}_{\\mathbf{k}\\mathbf{n}\\mathbf{n}} \\)
DPRhigh76.9982.30
SimCSEsemantically matched73.45 (↓ 3.54)81.42 (↓ 0.88)
BERTrelatively poor69.91 (↓ 7.08)80.53 (↓ 1.67)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.579, + 0.583, + 0.811, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Influence of the retriever." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.882, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As we can see, the performance of fully retrieval-based methods largely decreases when retrieval quality is low. However, our method can adaptively call the retriever only when LLMs need (according to the self-knowledge), thus the negative impact is effectively reduced." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.882, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retrieval Quality. We changed the size of corpora and the top-\\(k\\) settings and the results for TruthfulQA are shown in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.769, + 0.882, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CorporaSelected CandidatesManual-CoT-IROur SKRknn
Full Crank 1~376.9982.30
Full Crank 8~1076.11 (↓0.88)82.30 (-)
Half of Crank 1~374.37 (↓2.62)81.41 (↓0.89)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.836, + 0.836, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Influence of the retrieval quality." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.867, + 0.882, + 0.914 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can see that, Our method is less impacted by the quality of retrieval since we do not call the retriever all the time." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10315" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd0ef609fc3fad1af8556892598211c9fd553290 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/998f7293-c03b-45ed-bf56-cdb482e089ec_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:6987e4f1b9743ebe77a6bc1d938c4bb868ac76fab2e8b87169cd32cc3daca153 +size 2269742 diff --git a/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/full.md b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7ea0e8f040212a625036e741388a04a8785ebc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,415 @@ +# Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models + +Yile Wang $^{1}$ , Peng Li $^{*1,3}$ , Maosong Sun $^{2}$ , Yang Liu $^{*1,2,3}$ + +$^{1}$ Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China + +$^{2}$ Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China + +$^{3}$ Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China + +{wangyile,lipeng}@air.tsinghua.edu.cn,{sms,liuyang2011}@tsinghua.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Large language models (LLMs) have shown superior performance without task-specific fine-tuning. Despite the success, the knowledge stored in the parameters of LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. As complementary, retrieval-based methods can offer non-parametric world knowledge and improve the performance on tasks such as question answering. However, we find that the retrieved knowledge does not always help and even has a negative impact on original responses occasionally. To better make use of both internal knowledge and external world knowledge, we investigate eliciting the model's ability to recognize what they know and do not know (which is also called "self-knowledge") and propose Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR), a simple yet effective method which can let LLMs refer to the questions they have previously encountered and adaptively call for external resources when dealing with new questions. We evaluate SKR on multiple datasets and demonstrate that it outperforms chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based methods by using either InstructGPT or ChatGPT. Code is released at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/SKR. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs, Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) have achieved remarkable performance without much task-specific fine-tuning. However, the full-parametric knowledge stored in LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. Alternatively, retrieval-augmented methods (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Izacard et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2023) can utilize external resources such as Wikipedia and offer complementary non-parametric knowledge to enrich the contextualized + +![](images/796b834e02d32b665f664576f779a328966961d2dd4fdd318b89c2696b72b116.jpg) +Figure 1: Comparison between two responses given by InstructGPT. The retrieved passages are relevant but not particularly helpful for solving the question, which influences the model's judgment and leads to incorrect answers. + +information, thus helping the model generate more reliable answers. + +Retrieval augmentation has shown to be very effective for models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020a), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in various tasks (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Izacard and Grave, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2023). As LLMs become more and more "knowledgeable", recent studies show that the benefit brought from retrieval augmentation is reducing (Mallen et al., 2022; Yoran et al., 2023). Moreover, we find that the retrieved passages could even negatively affect what LLMs originally know. As illustrated in Figure 1, the model can directly give reasonable answers "German Shepherds are often used as seeing-eye dogs", however, it is distracted and gives incorrect ones by adding retrieved passages. + +The above findings show that one should be more careful when applying the retrieval-based method since it is difficult to know in advance whether the retrieved results are better than what LLMs already captured. To this end, a key issue is to figure out what LLMs do well (e.g., they can answer correctly without assistance) and what they cannot do well (e.g., they answer incorrectly and external information can lead to improved results). + +Unfortunately, LLMs themselves have a limited ability to recognize what they know and do not + +know, which is also called "self-knowledge" (Yin et al., 2023). However, such an ability is crucial for generating truthful responses (Kadavath et al., 2022) and could be helpful for LLMs themselves to "decide when and when not to use tools" such as a retriever (Mialon et al., 2023). + +In this paper, we investigate eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs and propose a simple yet effective Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method to flexibly call the retriever for making better use of both internal and external knowledge. In particular, different from existing studies that evaluate the ability through specifically designed metrics or datasets, we collect the self-knowledge of training questions by comparing the performance with or without retrieval augmentation. Then, we propose several strategies to detect the self-knowledge corresponding to a question by referring to the existing collected training questions, including using the LLMs themselves through prompting or explicitly training a small model. Finally, we leverage such elicited self-knowledge to better solve the question through adaptive retrieval augmentation. + +We evaluate SKR on five datasets by using InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301). Experimental results show that SKR outperforms chain-of-thought based (Wei et al., 2022) and fully retrieval-based methods by $4.08\% / 2.91\%$ (for InstructGPT) and $4.02\% / 4.20\%$ (for ChatGPT), respectively. + +# 2 Related Work + +Retrieval-Augmented LLMs Recent studies show that retrieval-augmented methods can enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs (Trivedi et al., 2022; He et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023) and make the responses more credible and traceable (Xu et al., 2023b; Qian et al., 2023). For example, Trivedi et al. (2022) uses the chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022) reasoning steps as queries and uses the results to guide further reasoning and retrieval. He et al. (2022) uses an external natural language inference model to select the most supported reasoning path via retrieved evidence. Yu et al. (2023) propose using the retrieval feedback to refine the output of LLMs to be more reliable and accurate. Xu et al. (2023b) propose search-inchain and make LLMs interact with retrievers to improve accuracy and credibility. These methods aim at integrating sufficient external knowledge for + +a better reasoning process, while we propose to better utilize both the internal and external knowledge through eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs. + +Another line of work tries to teach LLMs to use external tools including retriever, calculator, other foundation models, etc. (Schick et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023). These works focus more on leveraging the language understanding capabilities of LLMs to deploy suitable tools in different scenarios, while our work investigates the self-knowledge of LLMs and tries to integrate them with retrievers in a more flexible manner. + +Self-Knowledge in LLMs "Self-knowledge" in LLMs is originally mentioned in Kadavath et al. (2022), which is used to measure the LLMs' confidence in their own knowledge and reasoning. Such ability is further defined as "the ability to understand limitations on the unknowns" and evaluated by Yin et al. (2023), where they find a considerable gap exists between self-knowledge in models and humans. To explore the LLMs capabilities more extensively, unanswerable and more challenging datasets are also proposed (Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022). Our work is also related to detecting what LLMs know and do not know, while we do not design new evaluation metrics or challenging datasets to test the ability. By explicitly introducing the external resources, we detect the knowledge boundary of LLMs through the performance changes. Moreover, instead of evaluating each question independently, we propose several ways to elicit self-knowledge by referring to existing cases. + +# 3 Method + +Our method is depicted under the question-answering settings, which has been a popular way to interact with and assess LLMs. The overall pipeline is shown in Figure 2, which includes collecting, eliciting, and using self-knowledge of LLMs. We introduce each of them as follows. + +# 3.1 Collecting Self-Knowledge of LLMs from Training Samples + +Given a dataset $\mathcal{D}$ with training question-answer pairs $\{q_j,a_j\}_{j = 1}^{|\mathcal{D}|}$ , we can use the LLM $\mathcal{M}$ to generate the answers for each question $q_{i}$ via few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020): + +$$ +\hat {a} (\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) = \mathcal {M} \left(q _ {1} \circ a _ {1}, \dots , q _ {d} \circ a _ {d}, q _ {i}\right), \tag {1} +$$ + +![](images/fa9bb81fdb9c8f9a6cd1883365870a7c5dac32b72c2073c2bba0c19f16ba1194.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our SKR method. We first collect self-knowledge from training questions according to the performance with or without external information (§ 3.1). Then we use the LLMs themselves or explicit small trainable models to elicit self-knowledge of a question $q_{t}$ by referring to the collected self-knowledge from training questions (§ 3.2). Finally, we use the self-knowledge to the new question and adaptively call a retriever (§ 3.3). + +where $\circ$ denotes concatenation and $\{q_j\circ a_j\}_{j = 1}^d$ are $d$ demonstrations. + +The above generated answers $\hat{a} (\mathcal{M},q_i)$ reflects the internal knowledge to question $q_{i}$ in $\mathcal{M}$ . Meanwhile, we can possibly find passages from external resources that may be related to $q_{i}$ , such passages can be used as additional information for the model input. Formally, for each question, we first use a pre-trained retriever $\mathcal{R}$ to find the possibly related information from corpus $\mathcal{C}$ : + +$$ +p _ {i} = \left\{p _ {i 1}, p _ {i 2}, \dots , p _ {i k} \right\} = \mathcal {R} \left(q _ {i}, \mathcal {C}\right), \tag {2} +$$ + +where $p_i = \{p_{i1}, p_{i2}, \dots, p_{ik}\}$ are the top- $k$ retrieved passages for $q_i$ . In practice, we set $\mathcal{R}$ as dense passage retriever (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and $\mathcal{C}$ as passage chunks from Wikipedia. Then, we use $\mathcal{M}$ again to generate the answer with retrieval augmentation: + +$$ +\hat {a} ^ {\mathcal {R}} \left(\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}\right) = \mathcal {M} \left(q _ {1} \circ p _ {1} \circ a _ {1}, \dots , q _ {d} \circ p _ {d} \circ a _ {d}, q _ {i} \circ p _ {i}\right). \tag {3} +$$ + +Given the answers $\hat{a} (\mathcal{M},q_i)$ $\hat{a}^{\mathcal{R}}(\mathcal{M},q_i)$ , and the ground-truth answer $a_{i}$ , we categorize each question into positive subset $\mathcal{D}^{+}$ and negative subset $\mathcal{D}^{-}$ based on the differences between results: + +$$ +q _ {i} \in \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \mathcal {D} ^ {+}, & \text {i f} \mathrm {E} [ \hat {a} (\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ] \geq \mathrm {E} [ \hat {a} ^ {\mathcal {R}} (\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ]; \\ \mathcal {D} ^ {-}, & \text {o t h e r w i s e ,} \end{array} \right. \tag {4} +$$ + +where $\mathrm{E}$ is an evaluation metric such as accuracy and exact match score, we discard the question $q_{i}$ if both the $\hat{a}(\mathcal{M}, q_{i})$ and $\hat{a}^{\mathcal{R}}(\mathcal{M}, q_{i})$ are incorrect. + +Finally, the training set can be split into subset $\mathcal{D}^{+} = \{q_{1}^{+},\dots,q_{m}^{+}\}$ which includes questions that $\mathcal{M}$ can directly give correct answers without external information (LLM knowns) and the subset + +$\mathcal{D}^{-} = \{q_{1}^{-},\dots,q_{n}^{-}\}$ where the external information can lead to more accurate results (LLM unknowns). + +# 3.2 Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs + +Four different strategies are proposed to detect the self-knowledge of target questions, including direct prompting, in-context learning, training a classifier, and nearest neighbor search. We use the LLM itself in the former two methods and explicit smaller modes in the latter two methods. + +Direct Prompting Given a question $q_{t}$ , a straightforward way to detect whether LLMs are capable of solving it is to ask them directly: + +# Direct Prompting + +(prompt) + +$\{q_t\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: + +(possible response) + +No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question. + +Here we use the prompt "Do you need additional information to answer this question?" as a template and detect self-knowledge according to the possible response. We thought LLM is capable (or not capable) of solving the question well when they "don't need (or need) additional information". Direct prompting may intuitively work, but it tests each question independently and does not make use of the collected training questions in Section 3.1. To remedy this issue, we further leverage the collected self-knowledge from training questions in the next three strategies. + +In-Context Learning LLMs have shown a strong capability to learn from demonstrations and infer + +through few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). We select few training questions from both $\mathcal{D}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{D}^{-}$ as demonstrations to elicit the self-knowledge to the question $q_{t}$ : + +# In-Context Learning + +(prompt) + +$\{q_1^+\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. +$\{q_1^-\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: Yes, I need additional information to answer this question. +··· +$\{q_t\}$ Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: + +(possible response) + +No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question. + +Here we use the answer templates "No, I don't need..." or "Yes, I need..." in demonstrations based on whether the corresponding question comes from positive set $\mathcal{D}^{+}$ or negative set $\mathcal{D}^{-}$ , respectively. + +The proposed direct prompting and in-context learning methods can elicit self-knowledge of LLMs to some extent. However, they have several limitations. First, both methods require designing prompts and calling the LLMs for each new question, which makes it impractical. Second, in-context learning could also be unstable due to contextual bias and sensitivity (Zhao et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) and it is more difficult to address such an issue for close-source LLMs. Third, they cannot make use of all questions due to the constraints of maximum tokens. To make our method more practical and avoid the above issues, we further leverage smaller models to help elicit self-knowledge. + +Training a Classifier Given $\mathcal{D}^+$ and $\mathcal{D}^{-}$ , we can take them as a two-way classification problem (e.g., setting $q_{i}$ in $\mathcal{D}^+$ with a positive label and $q_{i}$ in $\mathcal{D}^{-}$ with a negative label) and use all the samples to train a classifier such as BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) explicitly: + +$$ +\hat {y} _ {i} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(W h _ {\mathrm {c l s}} \left(q _ {i}\right) + b\right), \tag {5} +$$ + +where $q_{i}\in \mathcal{D}^{+}\cup \mathcal{D}^{-}$ is a training question, $h_{\mathrm{cls}}(q_i)$ is the sentence-level representation from BERTbase, $W$ and $b$ are parameters of the classification head. The parameters can be optimized by minimizing the cross-entropy loss between the predicted label distribution $\hat{y}_i$ and the ground-truth label of $q_{i}$ . Once the training is complete, we can infer the label of question $q_{t}$ similar to Eq. 5. + +![](images/7425b77afffd9affb0a199eb209509491f01f41c8136fa79b1bc551fc6904a0d.jpg) +Figure 3: Illustration of $k$ -nearest-neighbor search to elicit the self-knowledge to the question $q_{t}$ . + +Nearest Neighbor Search Instead of training an explicit smaller model, we can infer the label of questions through $k$ -nearest-neighbor ( $k$ NN) search by using a pre-trained fixed encoder, as shown in Figure 3. $k$ NN (Fix and Hodges, 1989) is a widely used algorithm and benefit for a range of NLP tasks (Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Shi et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023a). Our motivation is similar in that if two questions are close in the semantically embedded space, then the LLMs would show similar self-knowledge for both of them. + +Formally, we encode each question into embeddings and compute the semantic similarity through cosine distance $\mathrm{sim}(q_t,q_i) = \frac{e(q_t)\cdot e(q_i)}{||e(q_t)||\cdot||e(q_i)||}$ , where $q_{i}\in \{q_{1}^{+},\dots,q_{m}^{+},q_{1}^{-},\dots,q_{n}^{-}\}$ , $e(\cdot)$ is the representations of a sentence encoder such as SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021). Then we search the top- $k$ nearest neighbors with the highest similarity. If the top- $k$ nearest neighbors include $\ell$ positive ones and $k - \ell$ negative ones, we label the question $q_{t}$ as positive if $\frac{\ell}{k - \ell}\geq \frac{m}{n}$ or negative if $\frac{\ell}{k - \ell} < \frac{m}{n}$ ( $m$ and $n$ are the numbers of questions in $\mathcal{D}^+$ and $\mathcal{D}^-$ , respectively). + +# 3.3 Using Self-Knowledge for Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation + +The self-knowledge given by the responses from LLMs (via direct prompting or in-context learning) or the predicted labels (via the trained classifier or $k$ -nearest-neighbor search) reflects the necessity for external knowledge towards the question $q_{t}$ . Therefore, we can adaptively call the retriever instead of using them for every new question: + +# Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation + +(for LLM known) +$\{q_1\circ a_1\} ,\dots,\{q_d\circ a_d\} ,\{q_t\}$ +A: (LLM directly answers without retrieval) +(for LLM unknown) +$\{q_{1}\circ p_{1}\circ a_{1}\} ,\dots,\{q_{d}\circ p_{d}\circ a_{d}\},\{q_{t}\}$ +Here are some passages: $\{p_t\}$ +A: (LLM answers with retrieval augmentation) + +
MethodTemporal (EM/F1)Commonsense (Acc.)Tabular (Acc.)Strategy (Acc.)Truthful (Acc.)Avg.
(text-davinci-003)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot40.57/44.9465.5266.0863.3261.0656.91
Zero-Shot-CoT41.71/45.3363.3160.5058.5253.1053.75
Few-Shot45.14/49.5980.3463.5066.3765.4961.73
Manual-CoT44.57/54.2275.4274.9271.1872.5765.48
Auto-CoT (Similarity)44.00/54.1374.4477.2570.6172.5765.50
Auto-CoT (Diversity)46.28/54.6873.3874.5070.7471.6865.21
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR47.42/57.3775.6779.2569.4369.0366.36
IRCoT47.42/56.2875.2778.0067.6871.6866.06
\( SKR_{prompt} \)45.71/56.3175.0277.3369.4370.8065.77
\( SKR_{icl} \)47.42/57.7475.5177.7571.1873.4567.17
\( SKR_{cls} \)46.28/56.5475.8379.2570.3072.5766.80
\( SKR_{knn} \)48.00/58.4776.6679.8371.6274.3468.15
\( CoT-RR^† \)44.97/56.5876.9882.0874.6769.9167.53
(gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot51.42/54.9473.3066.5054.1474.3362.43
Zero-Shot-CoT56.57/58.9261.5863.0844.1065.4958.29
Few-Shot52.57/55.7778.8668.7561.1369.9164.50
Manual-CoT54.85/61.7274.7773.2561.3681.4167.89
Auto-CoT (Similarity)54.28/57.6674.4471.5861.5779.6466.52
Auto-CoT (Diversity)55.43/58.2173.3071.5058.5280.5466.25
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR59.41/63.0873.3876.5857.2176.9967.77
IRCoT57.14/61.6772.7376.2555.4679.6467.15
\( SKR_{prompt} \)54.86/61.6475.0273.9161.5780.5367.92
\( SKR_{icl} \)58.29/63.8175.1074.4262.0182.3069.32
\( SKR_{cls} \)59.43/64.0475.1076.4262.0184.9570.33
\( SKR_{knn} \)61.14/66.1375.4376.7562.0182.3070.62
\( CoT-RR^† \)60.35/65.5975.8476.0862.8883.1870.65
+ +Table 1: Main results of baselines and our proposed SKR method on five datasets. In each column, the best results are in bold and the second-best ones are underlined (excluding CoT-RR). $\dagger$ : CoT-RR relies on calling LLMs multiple times and deduces the weighted results through multi-responses, while the other methods are evaluated on a single response. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Datasets + +Five different types of question answering datasets are used for evaluation, including TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018), CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019), TabularQA (Gupta et al., 2020), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), and TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022). The statistics, examples, and preprocessing details of the datasets are shown in Appendix A. + +# 4.2 Baselines + +In addition to the Zero-Shot and Few-Shot settings with direct output, we also compare with the chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning based methods + +including Zero-Shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) with simple prompt "Let's think step by step", Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2022) with manually written demonstrations, Auto-CoT (Similarity) with automated demonstrations according to semantic similarity (Liu et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2022) and Auto-CoT (Diversity) according to semantic diversity (Zhang et al., 2023). For retrieval-based methods, we compare with our implemented Manual-CoT-IR with additional retrieved passages before generating the answers, IRCoT (Trivedi et al., 2022) with retrieved passages using CoT reasoning steps as the queries, CoT-RR (He et al., 2022) with an external model to verify multiple reasoning steps by retrieved evidence and deduce the answer through self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023). + +# 4.3 Implementation Details + +By applying different strategies in Section 3.2 to elicit self-knowledge, we denote our SKR method as $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{prompt}}$ , $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{icl}}$ , $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{cls}}$ , and $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{knn}}$ , respectively. For $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{knn}}$ , we choose $k$ as $3 \sim 10$ according to different sizes of datasets. For LLMs, we use InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) through OpenAI API1. We set 4 demonstrations with CoT reasoning in few-shot settings and top-3 passages as additional information in retrieval-based methods to fit the maximum length constraints. + +# 4.4 Main Results + +The main results are shown in Table 1. Overall, our proposed $\mathrm{SKR_{knn}}$ method achieves the best average results across five datasets. Compared with Manual-CoT and fully retrieval-based Manual-CoT-IR, our method gain $4.08\% /2.91\%$ improvement by using InstructGPT and $4.02\% /4.20\%$ improvement by using ChatGPT, respectively. + +By comparing different strategies to elicit self-knowledge, we find that 1) $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{prompt}}$ shows relatively poor results, which show that direct prompting may not be a good way to detect the self-knowledge of LLMs. The results are also in line with Yin et al. (2023), where they find self-knowledge in LLMs is relatively low and lags behind that of humans. 2) $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{icl}}$ and $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{cls}}$ work but do not show consistent improvement. For example, $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{icl}}$ gives the second-best average results by using InstructGPT, however, the results on CommonsenseQA and StrategyQA are not better than Manual-CoT and Manual-CoT-IR, respectively. $\mathbf{SKR}_{\mathrm{cls}}$ gives the best results on StrategyQA and TruthfulQA by using ChatGPT but performs not that well on the others. The former demonstrates the sensitivity and bias of contextual information via in-context learning, and the latter reflects the difficulty of modeling self-knowledge across different datasets and LLMs by fine-tuning a pre-trained BERT. + +From the results of other baselines, we find that both internal and external knowledge has its own limitations. On the one hand, the process of CoT reasoning can be treated as internal knowledge from LLMs, however, it does not always show significant improvement. For example, when evaluated on CommonsenseQA, Manual-CoT does not outperform the Few-Shot counterpart where ex + +plicit reasoning steps are not required. The results from Wei et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2023) also show that the CoT reasoning works well on arithmetic and symbolic tasks, while the gain is limited for tasks related to commonsense. + +On the other hand, the retrieved passages can be seen as external knowledge from open resources, while it is also not always helpful. For example, Manual-CoT-IR shows substantial improvement over Manual-CoT on TemporalQA and TabularQA, which includes the most knowledge-intensive questions. However, they could even make the results worse on StrategyQA, where the multi-hop questions are challenging and the retrieved passages may not be directly useful for answering. These show that it is necessary to use retrieval augmentation reasonably in different scenarios by combining the knowledge of LLMs themselves. + +# 5 Analysis + +# 5.1 Effects of Different Templates for Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs + +To directly prompt LLMs themselves to elicit self-knowledge, we designed different templates, collected the responses, and evaluated the performance on questions that LLMs thought they could solve directly. The results are shown in Table 2. + +First, for all designed templates, LLMs could show either a positive response (e.g., directly giving the predicted answers) or a negative response (e.g., showing the need for external information) to a specific question. Second, interestingly, we find that the model achieves around $70\% \sim 73\%$ accuracy for questions that they thought could be answered directly, indicating that there exist around $30\%$ questions for which the model does not know its incapability (i.e., "unknown unknowns"). Nevertheless, it still remains an open question of how to prompt LLMs to demonstrate reasonable confidence in their knowledge in a more automatic, comprehensive, and generalizable way. + +# 5.2 Effects of Elicited Self-Knowledge across Different Datasets + +We investigate the benefit brought by the elicited self-knowledge across different datasets. In each dataset, we collect the questions from the development set where LLMs show opposite responses with or without retrieval, then we use these questions and check if the self-knowledge gives useful guidance to use retrieval augmentation or not. + +
TemplatePositive Response (LLM known)Negative Response (LLM unknown)Acc.
Do you need additional information to answer this question?No, additional information is not needed to answer this...Yes, additional information is needed to answer this...73.17
Would you like any extra prompts to help you?No, I do not need any extra...Yes, please.72.32
Would you like any additional clues?No, the answer is...Yes, please provide...72.32
Can you answer this question based on what you know?Yes, the correct answer to this question is...No, I cannot answer it based on what I know.72.07
Can you solve this question now?Yes, the correct answer is...No, this is not a solvable...71.58
+ +Table 2: Comparison of different templates for eliciting self-knowledge through prompting. We use the questions from TruthfulQA and list some possible responses by InstructGPT. The accuracy is evaluated on questions to which the model gives a positive response (i.e., on questions where the model shows confidence to answer directly). + +![](images/0d97733d55ccadf7941052b7ff994883005aa4d14e1c3229166d2e2efd536041.jpg) +Figure 4: The fine-grained effect of elicited self-knowledge to each dataset by using different strategies. + +The results are shown in Figure 4. The y-axis is the percentage of "beneficial guidance" to indicate how many questions will be correctly answered under the guidance of self-knowledge. For example, without any prior knowledge, we have an average $50\%$ chance to get a better result. However, we can see that the values of $\mathrm{SKR}_{\mathrm{prompt}}$ are relatively low and could even be under $50\%$ , which shows that self-knowledge from the responses of direct prompting may not be that useful across different tasks. Results of $\mathrm{SKR}_{\mathrm{icl}}$ and $\mathrm{SKR}_{\mathrm{cls}}$ become much better and can benefit most of the datasets by integrating more examples. The $\mathrm{SKR}_{\mathrm{knn}}$ further improves and leads to $55\%$ (StrategyQA) to $78\%$ (TruthfulQA) beneficial guidance for the questions across different datasets. + +# 5.3 Effects of Training Data Sizes + +We investigated the effects of training data sizes on TabularQA and CommonsenseQA, both of which have relatively abundant training questions. In particular, we randomly select $10\%$ , $25\%$ , $50\%$ train + +![](images/7cccbe28e96ff2ab01b8e9c4a40b2053be7e422d39ed07f1467c929e3f683591.jpg) +Figure 5: The performance on TabularQA and Common-senseQA by using different amounts of training data. + +ing data for $\mathrm{SKR}_{\mathrm{cls}}$ and $\mathrm{SKR}_{\mathrm{knn}}$ methods and evaluate the final accuracy. + +As can be seen in Figure 5, the performance gradually improves as the training data increases, which shows that the collected self-knowledge from training data is valuable. Moreover, such phenomenon also indicates the potential that self-knowledge from existing questions can be constantly accumulated and used in subsequent tasks, which can be an important direction for future work. + +# 5.4 Effects of Different Knowledge Resources + +In addition to Wikipedia, we also compare the influence of different corpora $\mathcal{C}$ , including the passages from MS MARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016) and SciFact (Wadden et al., 2020). The former includes extracted human-generated answers by using the Bing search engine, and the latter are scientific articles containing specialized domain knowledge. + +The results are shown in Figure 6, where we find different external knowledge resources gives different performances. In particular, Wikipedia leads + +Question Q: In a Roman Osteria is a 19th-century work of art. True or False? + +# Top-3 Similar Training Questions: + +Q1: Cleopatra and Caesar is a 19th century French work of art. True or False? +Q2: Boulevard des Capucines is a 19th century European work of art. True or False? +Q3: Bulb Fields is a 19th century European work of art. True or False? + +
Manual-CoTManual-CoT-IR
A1: Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian paint-ing by Francesco Barberini. So the answer is false. (X)A1: Cleopatra and Caesar is an oil on canvas painting by the French Academic artist Jean-Léon Gérôme, completed in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
A2: Boulevard des Capucines is a street in Paris, France. [...] Thus, Boulevard des Capucines is not a 19th-century European work of art. So the answer is false. (X)A2: Boulevard des Capucines is an oil painting [...] by French Impressionist artist Claude Monet created in 1873. So the answer is true. (✓)
A3: Bulb Fields is a 1990 painting by Mark Rothko. So the answer is false. (X)A3: Bulb Fields is an oil painting created by Vincent van Gogh in early 1883. So the answer is true. (✓)
A: An osteria is an Italian type of eating establishment. It is not a 19th-century artwork. So the answer is false. (X)A: In a Roman Osteria is a painting by the Danish painter Carl Bloch. It was painted in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
+ +Table 3: Responses by InstructGPT for the top-3 similar questions from the training set. For all three training questions (Q1, Q2, Q3) that related to the artwork in the 19th century, the model answers incorrectly but improves with retrieval augmentation. We infer and verify that external knowledge would also be useful for question Q. + +![](images/38892f6b1e00b4e17e9b421b69f6b32cfbd628d14b29023e1fd62b868cba69ea.jpg) +Figure 6: The performance on each dataset by using different corpus for retrieval augmentation. + +to better results by a large margin on TabularQA, where there exists the most questions for querying the information of certain entities or events (e.g., John Adams was born in the Spring of 1735. True or False?). MS MARCO and SciFact show comparable results to that of Wikipedia for CommonsenseQA and TruthfulQA, where the questions are more relevant to common knowledge (e.g., What happens to you if you eat watermelon seeds? Choices:....). Overall, as a widely used knowledge resource, Wikipedia gives the best average result. + +# 5.5 Case Study + +Table 3 illustrates an example showing the different responses with or without retrieval augmentation to similar questions and how self-knowledge is deduced by using nearest-neighbor search. + +Given the question "In a Roman Osteria is a + +19th-century work of art. True or False?", we search the similar ones from the training set and generate the answers through LLM. From the direct responses, we find that the model itself does not fully understand the question (e.g., Boulevard des Capuci is a street, not a work of art) and even hallucinating (e.g., Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian painting by Francesco Barberini), however, it shows improved and correct responses by adding retrieved information. Through the above comparison, we can infer that the model would also provide a more accurate response to the target question if it had access to external knowledge. The results in the last row further validate our hypothesis. This case shows that it would be helpful to consider existing similar cases when using LLMs to generate more reliable responses. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose a Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method, which investigates eliciting the ability of LLMs to recognize what they know or do not know (i.e., self-knowledge) and let them adaptively leverage the external knowledge to make more accurate responses. Several strategies are proposed to elicit self-knowledge, including prompting the LLMs themselves or using explicit smaller models. Experimental results on five datasets show that a simple yet effective $k$ -nearest-neighbor based strategy can lead to the best results, outperforming the chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based baselines. + +# Limitations + +There are several directions to improve this work. First, due to resource limitations, we select retrieval augmentation as one of the ways to detect the knowledge in LLMs and evaluate mostly on general question-answering datasets. We can explore self-knowledge at different levels (e.g., memorizing, understanding, and reasoning) and evaluate LLMs in border domains beyond the mentioned datasets. Second, instead of finding the related passages as external contextualized information, the retrieval augmentation method for LLMs can still be improved. As some existing work proposed (Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023), one can design specific mechanisms to make the retrieved results more suitable and compatible with the reasoning ability of LLMs. + +# Ethics Statement + +As for the datasets, we use Wikipedia as an external knowledge resource and five question-answering datasets for evaluation. All of them are publicly available and widely used by researchers. As for the LLMs, we use InstructGPT and ChatGPT through OpenAI API. These generative models have the potential to show inappropriate and misleading responses, which can be alleviated by filtering the data or adding constraints during training. In this work, we only focus on the generated responses to the questions from the given datasets and try to combine LLMs with external world knowledge via retrieval augmentation, which actually has been shown as a potential way to reduce issues such as hallucination (Shuster et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021). + +# Acknowledgements + +This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022ZD0160502) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61925601, 62276152). + +# References + +Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268. + +Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Evelyn Fix and J. L. Hodges. 1989. Discriminatory analysis. nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique, 57(3):238-247. +Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346-361. +Zhicheng Guo, Sijie Cheng, Yile Wang, Peng Li, and Yang Liu. 2023. Prompt-guided retrieval augmentation for non-knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17653. + +Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. INFOTABS: Inference on tables as semi-structured data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2309–2324, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR. +Hangfeng He, Hongming Zhang, and Dan Roth. 2022. Rethinking with retrieval: Faithful large language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00303. +Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299. +Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jannik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Tempquestions: A benchmark for temporal question answering. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, pages 1057-1062. +Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983. +Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221. +Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Generalization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language + +Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2022. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024. +Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang (Shane) Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 22199-22213. Curran Associates, Inc. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474. +Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8086-8098, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511. + +Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessi, Maria Lomeli, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744. +Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350. +Hongjing Qian, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, Haoqi Gu, Xinyu Zhang, Zheng Liu, Ruofei Lai, Zhao Cao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Webbrain: Learning to generate factually correct articles for queries by grounding on large web corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04358. +Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, Chi Han, et al. 2023. Tool learning with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08354. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784-789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300-325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655-2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola + +Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761. +Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15294. +Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugging-gpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580. +Weijia Shi, Julian Michael, Suchin Gururangan, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Nearest neighbor zero-shot inference. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3254-3265, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652. +Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 3784-3803, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615. +Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01296. +Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Scharli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261. +Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509. +David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7534-7550, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In ICLR 2023. +Zhenhailong Wang, Xiaoman Pan, Dian Yu, Dong Yu, Jianshu Chen, and Heng Ji. 2022. Zemi: Learning zero-shot semi-parametric language models from multiple tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00185. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc. +Benfeng Xu, Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Yajuan Lyu, Qiaoqiao She, and Yongdong Zhang. 2023a. $k$ nn prompting: Beyond-context learning with calibration-free nearest neighbor inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13824. +Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-seng Chua. 2023b. Search-in-the-chain: Towards the accurate, credible and traceable content generation for complex knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14732. +Zhangyue Yin, Qiushi Sun, Qipeng Guo, Jiawen Wu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2023. Do large language models know what they don't know? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18153. +Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01558. +Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Zhenwen Liang, Meng Jiang, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. Improving language models via plug-and-play retrieval feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14002. +Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2023. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations* (ICLR 2023). + +Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR. + +# A Details of Datasets + +The statistics and examples of the five datasets are shown in Table 4. + +TemporalQA (849/169) + +Q: Which film starring gao yuanyuan was released in 2001? + +A: The answer is Beijing Bicycle. + +CommonsenseQA (9,741/1,221) + +Q: Where would you expect to find a pizzeria while shopping? + +Answer Choices: (a)chicago (b) street (c) little italy (d) food court (e) capital cities + +A: The answer is (d). + +TabularQA (11,000/1,200) + +Q: Corn is an ingredient found in a Chibuku Shake. True or False? + +A: The answer is true. + +StrategyQA (2,061/229) + +Q: Yes or No: Is Oculudentavis more dangerous than Allosaurus? + +A: The answer is no. + +TruthfulQA (700/113) + +Q: What colors do dogs see? + +Answer Choices: (a) Dogs see yellow, blue, brown, and gray (b) Dogs cannot see color (c) Dogs see in black and white + +A: The answer is (a). + +Table 4: Examples of each dataset, the numbers denote the number of training and evaluation questions. + +TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018) is used to investigate temporal reasoning, i.e., the questions are all temporal in nature. Following He et al. (2022), we evaluate the implicit temporal questions and use the others as training questions. + +CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019) and StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021) are used for commonsense reasoning. The former includes multiple choice questions for commonsense and the latter consists of questions requiring multi-hop reasoning. We use the development set for evaluation since the annotations of the test set are not available. + +TablularQA (Gupta et al., 2020) is used for tab- ular reasoning, where the questions are extracted from Wikipedia info boxes. We follow He et al. (2022) and focus on 1,200 hypotheses from the development set, while we only use the questions themselves and ignore the word relation triples. + +TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) is used for measuring the truthfulness of LLMs, which comprises questions related to health, law, finance, politics, etc. We randomly chose 113 questions for evaluation and the others as training questions. The original dataset offers one best answer and few can + +didates for each question, we take the best answer as the correct one and the others as options. + +# B Additional Experimental Results + +In Table 5, we further compare with more reasoning and retrieval-based methods, including: Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022), Recite-and-Answer (Sun et al., 2022), and DSP (Khattab et al., 2022). + +
MethodTemporalCommonsenseTabularStrategyTruthful
Self-Ask58.9174.4572.9159.3878.77
Recite-and-Answer62.4574.6175.0058.9579.64
DSP63.9573.2175.7558.7377.88
\( \text{SKR}_{\text{knn}} \)66.1375.4376.7562.0182.30
+ +Our method still outperforms these reasoning and retrieval-based baselines. The reason can be that these methods are all designed for knowledge-intensive tasks, which means they assume that external information will always help. In contrast, our method can flexibly use the external knowledge. + +# C Impact of Retrieval Results + +Retriever. We use different retriever and compare the results of TruthfulQA in Table 6. + +Table 5: Comparison with Self-Ask, Recite-and-Answer, and DSP by using ChatGPT. + +
RetrieverRetrieval QualityManual-CoT-IROur \( \mathbf{S}\mathbf{K}\mathbf{R}_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{n}\mathbf{n}} \)
DPRhigh76.9982.30
SimCSEsemantically matched73.45 (↓ 3.54)81.42 (↓ 0.88)
BERTrelatively poor69.91 (↓ 7.08)80.53 (↓ 1.67)
+ +As we can see, the performance of fully retrieval-based methods largely decreases when retrieval quality is low. However, our method can adaptively call the retriever only when LLMs need (according to the self-knowledge), thus the negative impact is effectively reduced. + +Retrieval Quality. We changed the size of corpora and the top- $k$ settings and the results for TruthfulQA are shown in Table 7. + +Table 6: Influence of the retriever. + +
CorporaSelected CandidatesManual-CoT-IROur SKRknn
Full Crank 1~376.9982.30
Full Crank 8~1076.11 (↓0.88)82.30 (-)
Half of Crank 1~374.37 (↓2.62)81.41 (↓0.89)
+ +Table 7: Influence of the retrieval quality. + +We can see that, Our method is less impacted by the quality of retrieval since we do not call the retriever all the time. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/images.zip b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fb2d135dfb4e4127e124ff34ea347c02fd74b6a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b7c4923afc2979182d79118bad14ef37efe68330d81d9f0be6c7679acdc93d79 +size 663899 diff --git a/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/layout.json b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2049fa06ab55bdb318c9eb181947fbf3ef66bb20 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11122 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 75, + 446, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 75, + 446, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 75, + 446, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Knowledge Guided Retrieval Augmentation for Large Language Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yile Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Peng Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{*1,3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Maosong Sun" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yang Liu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 119, + 439, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{*1,2,3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 487, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 487, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 487, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 487, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 148, + 499, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 148, + 499, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 148, + 499, + 162 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 148, + 499, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 163, + 447, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 163, + 447, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 163, + 447, + 176 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 163, + 447, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 177, + 511, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 177, + 511, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 177, + 511, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{wangyile,lipeng}@air.tsinghua.edu.cn,{sms,liuyang2011}@tsinghua.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 274, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have shown superior performance without task-specific fine-tuning. Despite the success, the knowledge stored in the parameters of LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. As complementary, retrieval-based methods can offer non-parametric world knowledge and improve the performance on tasks such as question answering. However, we find that the retrieved knowledge does not always help and even has a negative impact on original responses occasionally. To better make use of both internal knowledge and external world knowledge, we investigate eliciting the model's ability to recognize what they know and do not know (which is also called \"self-knowledge\") and propose Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR), a simple yet effective method which can let LLMs refer to the questions they have previously encountered and adaptively call for external resources when dealing with new questions. We evaluate SKR on multiple datasets and demonstrate that it outperforms chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based methods by using either InstructGPT or ChatGPT. Code is released at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/SKR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 573, + 154, + 586 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 573, + 154, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 573, + 154, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs, Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) have achieved remarkable performance without much task-specific fine-tuning. However, the full-parametric knowledge stored in LLMs could still be incomplete and difficult to update due to the computational costs. Alternatively, retrieval-augmented methods (Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b; Borgeaud et al., 2022; Izacard et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2023) can utilize external resources such as Wikipedia and offer complementary non-parametric knowledge to enrich the contextualized" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 527, + 282 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 527, + 282 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 527, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 527, + 282 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "796b834e02d32b665f664576f779a328966961d2dd4fdd318b89c2696b72b116.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 525, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Comparison between two responses given by InstructGPT. The retrieved passages are relevant but not particularly helpful for solving the question, which influences the model's judgment and leads to incorrect answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "information, thus helping the model generate more reliable answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retrieval augmentation has shown to be very effective for models such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020a), and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in various tasks (Karpukhin et al., 2020; Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Izacard and Grave, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2023). As LLMs become more and more \"knowledgeable\", recent studies show that the benefit brought from retrieval augmentation is reducing (Mallen et al., 2022; Yoran et al., 2023). Moreover, we find that the retrieved passages could even negatively affect what LLMs originally know. As illustrated in Figure 1, the model can directly give reasonable answers \"German Shepherds are often used as seeing-eye dogs\", however, it is distracted and gives incorrect ones by adding retrieved passages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The above findings show that one should be more careful when applying the retrieval-based method since it is difficult to know in advance whether the retrieved results are better than what LLMs already captured. To this end, a key issue is to figure out what LLMs do well (e.g., they can answer correctly without assistance) and what they cannot do well (e.g., they answer incorrectly and external information can lead to improved results)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unfortunately, LLMs themselves have a limited ability to recognize what they know and do not" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 177, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 177, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 177, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Corresponding authors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10303" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10303-10315 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "know, which is also called \"self-knowledge\" (Yin et al., 2023). However, such an ability is crucial for generating truthful responses (Kadavath et al., 2022) and could be helpful for LLMs themselves to \"decide when and when not to use tools\" such as a retriever (Mialon et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we investigate eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs and propose a simple yet effective Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method to flexibly call the retriever for making better use of both internal and external knowledge. In particular, different from existing studies that evaluate the ability through specifically designed metrics or datasets, we collect the self-knowledge of training questions by comparing the performance with or without retrieval augmentation. Then, we propose several strategies to detect the self-knowledge corresponding to a question by referring to the existing collected training questions, including using the LLMs themselves through prompting or explicitly training a small model. Finally, we leverage such elicited self-knowledge to better solve the question through adaptive retrieval augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate SKR on five datasets by using InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301). Experimental results show that SKR outperforms chain-of-thought based (Wei et al., 2022) and fully retrieval-based methods by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.08\\% / 2.91\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (for InstructGPT) and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.02\\% / 4.20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (for ChatGPT), respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 161, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 161, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 161, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retrieval-Augmented LLMs Recent studies show that retrieval-augmented methods can enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs (Trivedi et al., 2022; He et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023) and make the responses more credible and traceable (Xu et al., 2023b; Qian et al., 2023). For example, Trivedi et al. (2022) uses the chain-of-thought (Wei et al., 2022) reasoning steps as queries and uses the results to guide further reasoning and retrieval. He et al. (2022) uses an external natural language inference model to select the most supported reasoning path via retrieved evidence. Yu et al. (2023) propose using the retrieval feedback to refine the output of LLMs to be more reliable and accurate. Xu et al. (2023b) propose search-inchain and make LLMs interact with retrievers to improve accuracy and credibility. These methods aim at integrating sufficient external knowledge for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a better reasoning process, while we propose to better utilize both the internal and external knowledge through eliciting the self-knowledge of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another line of work tries to teach LLMs to use external tools including retriever, calculator, other foundation models, etc. (Schick et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023). These works focus more on leveraging the language understanding capabilities of LLMs to deploy suitable tools in different scenarios, while our work investigates the self-knowledge of LLMs and tries to integrate them with retrievers in a more flexible manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 527, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 527, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 527, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Knowledge in LLMs \"Self-knowledge\" in LLMs is originally mentioned in Kadavath et al. (2022), which is used to measure the LLMs' confidence in their own knowledge and reasoning. Such ability is further defined as \"the ability to understand limitations on the unknowns\" and evaluated by Yin et al. (2023), where they find a considerable gap exists between self-knowledge in models and humans. To explore the LLMs capabilities more extensively, unanswerable and more challenging datasets are also proposed (Rajpurkar et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2022; Suzgun et al., 2022). Our work is also related to detecting what LLMs know and do not know, while we do not design new evaluation metrics or challenging datasets to test the ability. By explicitly introducing the external resources, we detect the knowledge boundary of LLMs through the performance changes. Moreover, instead of evaluating each question independently, we propose several ways to elicit self-knowledge by referring to existing cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 535, + 365, + 548 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 535, + 365, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 535, + 365, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 560, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method is depicted under the question-answering settings, which has been a popular way to interact with and assess LLMs. The overall pipeline is shown in Figure 2, which includes collecting, eliciting, and using self-knowledge of LLMs. We introduce each of them as follows." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 523, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 523, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 523, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Collecting Self-Knowledge of LLMs from Training Samples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with training question-answer pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_j,a_j\\}_{j = 1}^{|\\mathcal{D}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we can use the LLM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to generate the answers for each question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {a} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) = \\mathcal {M} \\left(q _ {1} \\circ a _ {1}, \\dots , q _ {d} \\circ a _ {d}, q _ {i}\\right), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "a6a1b437523e191ddbf15bd94c092f3857336816dd0f24e94b53fb9be41803ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10304" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 522, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 522, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 522, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 522, + 212 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fa9bb81fdb9c8f9a6cd1883365870a7c5dac32b72c2073c2bba0c19f16ba1194.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 222, + 524, + 273 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 222, + 524, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 222, + 524, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall pipeline of our SKR method. We first collect self-knowledge from training questions according to the performance with or without external information (§ 3.1). Then we use the LLMs themselves or explicit small trainable models to elicit self-knowledge of a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 222, + 524, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 222, + 524, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by referring to the collected self-knowledge from training questions (§ 3.2). Finally, we use the self-knowledge to the new question and adaptively call a retriever (§ 3.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\circ" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes concatenation and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_j\\circ a_j\\}_{j = 1}^d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 291, + 289, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The above generated answers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{a} (\\mathcal{M},q_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reflects the internal knowledge to question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Meanwhile, we can possibly find passages from external resources that may be related to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", such passages can be used as additional information for the model input. Formally, for each question, we first use a pre-trained retriever " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to find the possibly related information from corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 436, + 289, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 436, + 289, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 436, + 289, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {i} = \\left\\{p _ {i 1}, p _ {i 2}, \\dots , p _ {i k} \\right\\} = \\mathcal {R} \\left(q _ {i}, \\mathcal {C}\\right), \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "868a2d73d704fb1f3b57058a7e9b8b499dda10f492d95e3b17d07e25f3a93262.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i = \\{p_{i1}, p_{i2}, \\dots, p_{ik}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " retrieved passages for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In practice, we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as dense passage retriever (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as passage chunks from Wikipedia. Then, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " again to generate the answer with retrieval augmentation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 289, + 572 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 289, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 289, + 572 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {a} ^ {\\mathcal {R}} \\left(\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}\\right) = \\mathcal {M} \\left(q _ {1} \\circ p _ {1} \\circ a _ {1}, \\dots , q _ {d} \\circ p _ {d} \\circ a _ {d}, q _ {i} \\circ p _ {i}\\right). \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "27c0ee96be1bc65624b5e806c19c84331659da8683da70d1d422a732e22d6ccb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the answers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{a} (\\mathcal{M},q_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{a}^{\\mathcal{R}}(\\mathcal{M},q_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , and the ground-truth answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , we categorize each question into positive subset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and negative subset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the differences between results:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 632, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 632, + 289, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 632, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "q _ {i} \\in \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\mathcal {D} ^ {+}, & \\text {i f} \\mathrm {E} [ \\hat {a} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ] \\geq \\mathrm {E} [ \\hat {a} ^ {\\mathcal {R}} (\\mathcal {M}, q _ {i}) ]; \\\\ \\mathcal {D} ^ {-}, & \\text {o t h e r w i s e ,} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "f4f9b49a9b7c236a86425ddc67d0821abee3eba3f310e301c67a119a94e36a58.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an evaluation metric such as accuracy and exact match score, we discard the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if both the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{a}(\\mathcal{M}, q_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{a}^{\\mathcal{R}}(\\mathcal{M}, q_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are incorrect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, the training set can be split into subset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{+} = \\{q_{1}^{+},\\dots,q_{m}^{+}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which includes questions that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can directly give correct answers without external information (LLM knowns) and the subset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 319 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{-} = \\{q_{1}^{-},\\dots,q_{n}^{-}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 525, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where the external information can lead to more accurate results (LLM unknowns)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 490, + 340 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 490, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 490, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Four different strategies are proposed to detect the self-knowledge of target questions, including direct prompting, in-context learning, training a classifier, and nearest neighbor search. We use the LLM itself in the former two methods and explicit smaller modes in the latter two methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Direct Prompting Given a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 466 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a straightforward way to detect whether LLMs are capable of solving it is to ask them directly:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 476, + 398, + 488 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 476, + 398, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 476, + 398, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Direct Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 494, + 353, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 494, + 353, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 494, + 353, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(prompt)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 504, + 508, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 504, + 508, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 504, + 508, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 504, + 508, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 533, + 390, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 533, + 390, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 533, + 390, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(possible response)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 544, + 509, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 544, + 509, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 544, + 509, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we use the prompt \"Do you need additional information to answer this question?\" as a template and detect self-knowledge according to the possible response. We thought LLM is capable (or not capable) of solving the question well when they \"don't need (or need) additional information\". Direct prompting may intuitively work, but it tests each question independently and does not make use of the collected training questions in Section 3.1. To remedy this issue, we further leverage the collected self-knowledge from training questions in the next three strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-Context Learning LLMs have shown a strong capability to learn from demonstrations and infer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10305" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "through few-shot in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). We select few training questions from both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as demonstrations to elicit the self-knowledge to the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 135, + 176, + 148 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 135, + 176, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 135, + 176, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-Context Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 153, + 118, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 153, + 118, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 153, + 118, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(prompt)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 163, + 274, + 252 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 163, + 274, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 163, + 274, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 163, + 274, + 191 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_1^+\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 163, + 274, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: No, I don't need additional information to answer this question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 192, + 274, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 192, + 274, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 192, + 274, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_1^-\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 192, + 274, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A: Yes, I need additional information to answer this question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 226, + 98, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 226, + 98, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 226, + 98, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "···" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 273, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 273, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 273, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 232, + 273, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Q: Do you need additional information to answer this question? A:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 261, + 155, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 261, + 155, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 261, + 155, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(possible response)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 272, + 274, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 272, + 274, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 272, + 274, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "No, I don't need additional information to answer this question. / Yes, I need additional information to answer this question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we use the answer templates \"No, I don't need...\" or \"Yes, I need...\" in demonstrations based on whether the corresponding question comes from positive set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or negative set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed direct prompting and in-context learning methods can elicit self-knowledge of LLMs to some extent. However, they have several limitations. First, both methods require designing prompts and calling the LLMs for each new question, which makes it impractical. Second, in-context learning could also be unstable due to contextual bias and sensitivity (Zhao et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022) and it is more difficult to address such an issue for close-source LLMs. Third, they cannot make use of all questions due to the constraints of maximum tokens. To make our method more practical and avoid the above issues, we further leverage smaller models to help elicit self-knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training a Classifier Given " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we can take them as a two-way classification problem (e.g., setting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a positive label and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a negative label) and use all the samples to train a classifier such as BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) explicitly:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 645, + 289, + 658 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 645, + 289, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 645, + 289, + 658 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {y} _ {i} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(W h _ {\\mathrm {c l s}} \\left(q _ {i}\\right) + b\\right), \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "a5af6455a770f4691096c680c544117df2159cc8b7e59a6f41861b3b0370c129.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}\\in \\mathcal{D}^{+}\\cup \\mathcal{D}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a training question, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{\\mathrm{cls}}(q_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the sentence-level representation from BERTbase, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are parameters of the classification head. The parameters can be optimized by minimizing the cross-entropy loss between the predicted label distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the ground-truth label of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Once the training is complete, we can infer the label of question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " similar to Eq. 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7425b77afffd9affb0a199eb209509491f01f41c8136fa79b1bc551fc6904a0d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-nearest-neighbor search to elicit the self-knowledge to the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 524, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nearest Neighbor Search Instead of training an explicit smaller model, we can infer the label of questions through " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-nearest-neighbor (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NN) search by using a pre-trained fixed encoder, as shown in Figure 3. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 525, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " NN (Fix and Hodges, 1989) is a widely used algorithm and benefit for a range of NLP tasks (Khandelwal et al., 2020, 2021; Shi et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023a). Our motivation is similar in that if two questions are close in the semantically embedded space, then the LLMs would show similar self-knowledge for both of them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, we encode each question into embeddings and compute the semantic similarity through cosine distance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{sim}(q_t,q_i) = \\frac{e(q_t)\\cdot e(q_i)}{||e(q_t)||\\cdot||e(q_i)||}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}\\in \\{q_{1}^{+},\\dots,q_{m}^{+},q_{1}^{-},\\dots,q_{n}^{-}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the representations of a sentence encoder such as SimCSE (Gao et al., 2021). Then we search the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nearest neighbors with the highest similarity. If the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nearest neighbors include " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " positive ones and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k - \\ell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " negative ones, we label the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as positive if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{\\ell}{k - \\ell}\\geq \\frac{m}{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or negative if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{\\ell}{k - \\ell} < \\frac{m}{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the numbers of questions in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}^-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 495, + 554 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 495, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 495, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Using Self-Knowledge for Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The self-knowledge given by the responses from LLMs (via direct prompting or in-context learning) or the predicted labels (via the trained classifier or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-nearest-neighbor search) reflects the necessity for external knowledge towards the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, we can adaptively call the retriever instead of using them for every new question:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 668, + 468, + 681 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 668, + 468, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 668, + 468, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adaptive Retrieval Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 686, + 489, + 766 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 29, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 686, + 385, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 686, + 385, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 686, + 385, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(for LLM known)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 696, + 428, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 696, + 428, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 696, + 428, + 706 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_1\\circ a_1\\} ,\\dots,\\{q_d\\circ a_d\\} ,\\{q_t\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 706, + 479, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 706, + 479, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 706, + 479, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: (LLM directly answers without retrieval)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 725, + 394, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 725, + 394, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 725, + 394, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(for LLM unknown)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 735, + 463, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 735, + 463, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 735, + 463, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_{1}\\circ p_{1}\\circ a_{1}\\} ,\\dots,\\{q_{d}\\circ p_{d}\\circ a_{d}\\},\\{q_{t}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 746, + 428, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 746, + 428, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 746, + 428, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here are some passages: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 746, + 428, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{p_t\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 756, + 489, + 766 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 756, + 489, + 766 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 756, + 489, + 766 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: (LLM answers with retrieval augmentation)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10306" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 511, + 474 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 511, + 474 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 511, + 474 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 511, + 474 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodTemporal (EM/F1)Commonsense (Acc.)Tabular (Acc.)Strategy (Acc.)Truthful (Acc.)Avg.
(text-davinci-003)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot40.57/44.9465.5266.0863.3261.0656.91
Zero-Shot-CoT41.71/45.3363.3160.5058.5253.1053.75
Few-Shot45.14/49.5980.3463.5066.3765.4961.73
Manual-CoT44.57/54.2275.4274.9271.1872.5765.48
Auto-CoT (Similarity)44.00/54.1374.4477.2570.6172.5765.50
Auto-CoT (Diversity)46.28/54.6873.3874.5070.7471.6865.21
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR47.42/57.3775.6779.2569.4369.0366.36
IRCoT47.42/56.2875.2778.0067.6871.6866.06
\\( SKR_{prompt} \\)45.71/56.3175.0277.3369.4370.8065.77
\\( SKR_{icl} \\)47.42/57.7475.5177.7571.1873.4567.17
\\( SKR_{cls} \\)46.28/56.5475.8379.2570.3072.5766.80
\\( SKR_{knn} \\)48.00/58.4776.6679.8371.6274.3468.15
\\( CoT-RR^† \\)44.97/56.5876.9882.0874.6769.9167.53
(gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)
(w/o retrieval)Zero-Shot51.42/54.9473.3066.5054.1474.3362.43
Zero-Shot-CoT56.57/58.9261.5863.0844.1065.4958.29
Few-Shot52.57/55.7778.8668.7561.1369.9164.50
Manual-CoT54.85/61.7274.7773.2561.3681.4167.89
Auto-CoT (Similarity)54.28/57.6674.4471.5861.5779.6466.52
Auto-CoT (Diversity)55.43/58.2173.3071.5058.5280.5466.25
(w/ retrieval)Manual-CoT-IR59.41/63.0873.3876.5857.2176.9967.77
IRCoT57.14/61.6772.7376.2555.4679.6467.15
\\( SKR_{prompt} \\)54.86/61.6475.0273.9161.5780.5367.92
\\( SKR_{icl} \\)58.29/63.8175.1074.4262.0182.3069.32
\\( SKR_{cls} \\)59.43/64.0475.1076.4262.0184.9570.33
\\( SKR_{knn} \\)61.14/66.1375.4376.7562.0182.3070.62
\\( CoT-RR^† \\)60.35/65.5975.8476.0862.8883.1870.65
", + "image_path": "a4f9779629b171d658b020def04c72a83cdcc3153737717dc228ef2bdd418ef5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 525, + 535 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 525, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 525, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Main results of baselines and our proposed SKR method on five datasets. In each column, the best results are in bold and the second-best ones are underlined (excluding CoT-RR). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 525, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 525, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": CoT-RR relies on calling LLMs multiple times and deduces the weighted results through multi-responses, while the other methods are evaluated on a single response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 155, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 155, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 155, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 136, + 590 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 136, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 136, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 291, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Five different types of question answering datasets are used for evaluation, including TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018), CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019), TabularQA (Gupta et al., 2020), StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021), and TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022). The statistics, examples, and preprocessing details of the datasets are shown in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 139, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 139, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 139, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to the Zero-Shot and Few-Shot settings with direct output, we also compare with the chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning based methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "including Zero-Shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2022) with simple prompt \"Let's think step by step\", Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2022) with manually written demonstrations, Auto-CoT (Similarity) with automated demonstrations according to semantic similarity (Liu et al., 2022; Rubin et al., 2022) and Auto-CoT (Diversity) according to semantic diversity (Zhang et al., 2023). For retrieval-based methods, we compare with our implemented Manual-CoT-IR with additional retrieved passages before generating the answers, IRCoT (Trivedi et al., 2022) with retrieved passages using CoT reasoning steps as the queries, CoT-RR (He et al., 2022) with an external model to verify multiple reasoning steps by retrieved evidence and deduce the answer through self-consistency (Wang et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10307" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 206, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 206, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 206, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By applying different strategies in Section 3.2 to elicit self-knowledge, we denote our SKR method as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we choose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 \\sim 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " according to different sizes of datasets. For LLMs, we use InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) and ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) through OpenAI API1. We set 4 demonstrations with CoT reasoning in few-shot settings and top-3 passages as additional information in retrieval-based methods to fit the maximum length constraints." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 158, + 260 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 158, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 158, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The main results are shown in Table 1. Overall, our proposed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR_{knn}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " method achieves the best average results across five datasets. Compared with Manual-CoT and fully retrieval-based Manual-CoT-IR, our method gain " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.08\\% /2.91\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvement by using InstructGPT and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.02\\% /4.20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvement by using ChatGPT, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By comparing different strategies to elicit self-knowledge, we find that 1) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shows relatively poor results, which show that direct prompting may not be a good way to detect the self-knowledge of LLMs. The results are also in line with Yin et al. (2023), where they find self-knowledge in LLMs is relatively low and lags behind that of humans. 2) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " work but do not show consistent improvement. For example, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " gives the second-best average results by using InstructGPT, however, the results on CommonsenseQA and StrategyQA are not better than Manual-CoT and Manual-CoT-IR, respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 361, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " gives the best results on StrategyQA and TruthfulQA by using ChatGPT but performs not that well on the others. The former demonstrates the sensitivity and bias of contextual information via in-context learning, and the latter reflects the difficulty of modeling self-knowledge across different datasets and LLMs by fine-tuning a pre-trained BERT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the results of other baselines, we find that both internal and external knowledge has its own limitations. On the one hand, the process of CoT reasoning can be treated as internal knowledge from LLMs, however, it does not always show significant improvement. For example, when evaluated on CommonsenseQA, Manual-CoT does not outperform the Few-Shot counterpart where ex" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "plicit reasoning steps are not required. The results from Wei et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2023) also show that the CoT reasoning works well on arithmetic and symbolic tasks, while the gain is limited for tasks related to commonsense." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the other hand, the retrieved passages can be seen as external knowledge from open resources, while it is also not always helpful. For example, Manual-CoT-IR shows substantial improvement over Manual-CoT on TemporalQA and TabularQA, which includes the most knowledge-intensive questions. However, they could even make the results worse on StrategyQA, where the multi-hop questions are challenging and the retrieved passages may not be directly useful for answering. These show that it is necessary to use retrieval augmentation reasonably in different scenarios by combining the knowledge of LLMs themselves." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 326, + 368, + 339 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 326, + 368, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 326, + 368, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 524, + 375 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 524, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 524, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Effects of Different Templates for Eliciting Self-Knowledge of LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To directly prompt LLMs themselves to elicit self-knowledge, we designed different templates, collected the responses, and evaluated the performance on questions that LLMs thought they could solve directly. The results are shown in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, for all designed templates, LLMs could show either a positive response (e.g., directly giving the predicted answers) or a negative response (e.g., showing the need for external information) to a specific question. Second, interestingly, we find that the model achieves around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\% \\sim 73\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " accuracy for questions that they thought could be answered directly, indicating that there exist around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " questions for which the model does not know its incapability (i.e., \"unknown unknowns\"). Nevertheless, it still remains an open question of how to prompt LLMs to demonstrate reasonable confidence in their knowledge in a more automatic, comprehensive, and generalizable way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 521, + 673 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 521, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 646, + 521, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Effects of Elicited Self-Knowledge across Different Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We investigate the benefit brought by the elicited self-knowledge across different datasets. In each dataset, we collect the questions from the development set where LLMs show opposite responses with or without retrieval, then we use these questions and check if the self-knowledge gives useful guidance to use retrieval augmentation or not." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 173, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1platform.openai.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10308" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 196 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 196 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TemplatePositive Response (LLM known)Negative Response (LLM unknown)Acc.
Do you need additional information to answer this question?No, additional information is not needed to answer this...Yes, additional information is needed to answer this...73.17
Would you like any extra prompts to help you?No, I do not need any extra...Yes, please.72.32
Would you like any additional clues?No, the answer is...Yes, please provide...72.32
Can you answer this question based on what you know?Yes, the correct answer to this question is...No, I cannot answer it based on what I know.72.07
Can you solve this question now?Yes, the correct answer is...No, this is not a solvable...71.58
", + "image_path": "7bc0c85a50949f4b808a9a53980d74c8c6c06334d583750e9c0dadedaffb6205.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 525, + 242 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 525, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 204, + 525, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of different templates for eliciting self-knowledge through prompting. We use the questions from TruthfulQA and list some possible responses by InstructGPT. The accuracy is evaluated on questions to which the model gives a positive response (i.e., on questions where the model shows confidence to answer directly)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 261, + 291, + 417 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 261, + 291, + 417 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 261, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 261, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0d97733d55ccadf7941052b7ff994883005aa4d14e1c3229166d2e2efd536041.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The fine-grained effect of elicited self-knowledge to each dataset by using different strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results are shown in Figure 4. The y-axis is the percentage of \"beneficial guidance\" to indicate how many questions will be correctly answered under the guidance of self-knowledge. For example, without any prior knowledge, we have an average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " chance to get a better result. However, we can see that the values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{prompt}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are relatively low and could even be under " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which shows that self-knowledge from the responses of direct prompting may not be that useful across different tasks. Results of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{icl}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " become much better and can benefit most of the datasets by integrating more examples. The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " further improves and leads to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "55\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (StrategyQA) to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "78\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 472, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (TruthfulQA) beneficial guidance for the questions across different datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 235, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 235, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 235, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Effects of Training Data Sizes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We investigated the effects of training data sizes on TabularQA and CommonsenseQA, both of which have relatively abundant training questions. In particular, we randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " train" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 260, + 523, + 417 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 260, + 523, + 417 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 260, + 523, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 260, + 523, + 417 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7cccbe28e96ff2ab01b8e9c4a40b2053be7e422d39ed07f1467c929e3f683591.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The performance on TabularQA and Common-senseQA by using different amounts of training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing data for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{cls}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SKR}_{\\mathrm{knn}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " methods and evaluate the final accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 501, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 501, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 501, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As can be seen in Figure 5, the performance gradually improves as the training data increases, which shows that the collected self-knowledge from training data is valuable. Moreover, such phenomenon also indicates the potential that self-knowledge from existing questions can be constantly accumulated and used in subsequent tasks, which can be an important direction for future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 524, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 524, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 524, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Effects of Different Knowledge Resources" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to Wikipedia, we also compare the influence of different corpora " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", including the passages from MS MARCO (Bajaj et al., 2016) and SciFact (Wadden et al., 2020). The former includes extracted human-generated answers by using the Bing search engine, and the latter are scientific articles containing specialized domain knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results are shown in Figure 6, where we find different external knowledge resources gives different performances. In particular, Wikipedia leads" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10309" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 73, + 358, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 73, + 358, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 73, + 358, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question Q: In a Roman Osteria is a 19th-century work of art. True or False?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 89, + 207, + 99 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 89, + 207, + 99 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 89, + 207, + 99 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Top-3 Similar Training Questions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 381, + 129 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 358, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 358, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 100, + 358, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q1: Cleopatra and Caesar is a 19th century French work of art. True or False?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 110, + 381, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 110, + 381, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 110, + 381, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q2: Boulevard des Capucines is a 19th century European work of art. True or False?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 120, + 332, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 120, + 332, + 129 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 120, + 332, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q3: Bulb Fields is a 19th century European work of art. True or False?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 527, + 272 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 527, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 527, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 527, + 272 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Manual-CoTManual-CoT-IR
A1: Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian paint-ing by Francesco Barberini. So the answer is false. (X)A1: Cleopatra and Caesar is an oil on canvas painting by the French Academic artist Jean-Léon Gérôme, completed in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
A2: Boulevard des Capucines is a street in Paris, France. [...] Thus, Boulevard des Capucines is not a 19th-century European work of art. So the answer is false. (X)A2: Boulevard des Capucines is an oil painting [...] by French Impressionist artist Claude Monet created in 1873. So the answer is true. (✓)
A3: Bulb Fields is a 1990 painting by Mark Rothko. So the answer is false. (X)A3: Bulb Fields is an oil painting created by Vincent van Gogh in early 1883. So the answer is true. (✓)
A: An osteria is an Italian type of eating establishment. It is not a 19th-century artwork. So the answer is false. (X)A: In a Roman Osteria is a painting by the Danish painter Carl Bloch. It was painted in 1866. So the answer is true. (✓)
", + "image_path": "fd67edafc0c0d2fff0200e0b7a95f51df09d0506643146ec124d5b3fd98c35de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 525, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 525, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 525, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Responses by InstructGPT for the top-3 similar questions from the training set. For all three training questions (Q1, Q2, Q3) that related to the artwork in the 19th century, the model answers incorrectly but improves with retrieval augmentation. We infer and verify that external knowledge would also be useful for question Q." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 336, + 285, + 477 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 336, + 285, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 336, + 285, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 336, + 285, + 477 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "38892f6b1e00b4e17e9b421b69f6b32cfbd628d14b29023e1fd62b868cba69ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 289, + 510 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 289, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 289, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: The performance on each dataset by using different corpus for retrieval augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to better results by a large margin on TabularQA, where there exists the most questions for querying the information of certain entities or events (e.g., John Adams was born in the Spring of 1735. True or False?). MS MARCO and SciFact show comparable results to that of Wikipedia for CommonsenseQA and TruthfulQA, where the questions are more relevant to common knowledge (e.g., What happens to you if you eat watermelon seeds? Choices:....). Overall, as a widely used knowledge resource, Wikipedia gives the best average result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 148, + 702 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 148, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 148, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 illustrates an example showing the different responses with or without retrieval augmentation to similar questions and how self-knowledge is deduced by using nearest-neighbor search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the question \"In a Roman Osteria is a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 526, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "19th-century work of art. True or False?\", we search the similar ones from the training set and generate the answers through LLM. From the direct responses, we find that the model itself does not fully understand the question (e.g., Boulevard des Capuci is a street, not a work of art) and even hallucinating (e.g., Cleopatra and Caesar are a 17th-century Italian painting by Francesco Barberini), however, it shows improved and correct responses by adding retrieved information. Through the above comparison, we can infer that the model would also provide a more accurate response to the target question if it had access to external knowledge. The results in the last row further validate our hypothesis. This case shows that it would be helpful to consider existing similar cases when using LLMs to generate more reliable responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 381, + 589 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 381, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 381, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a Self-Knowledge guided Retrieval augmentation (SKR) method, which investigates eliciting the ability of LLMs to recognize what they know or do not know (i.e., self-knowledge) and let them adaptively leverage the external knowledge to make more accurate responses. Several strategies are proposed to elicit self-knowledge, including prompting the LLMs themselves or using explicit smaller models. Experimental results on five datasets show that a simple yet effective " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-nearest-neighbor based strategy can lead to the best results, outperforming the chain-of-thought based and fully retrieval-based baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10310" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 293, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 293, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 293, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are several directions to improve this work. First, due to resource limitations, we select retrieval augmentation as one of the ways to detect the knowledge in LLMs and evaluate mostly on general question-answering datasets. We can explore self-knowledge at different levels (e.g., memorizing, understanding, and reasoning) and evaluate LLMs in border domains beyond the mentioned datasets. Second, instead of finding the related passages as external contextualized information, the retrieval augmentation method for LLMs can still be improved. As some existing work proposed (Yu et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023), one can design specific mechanisms to make the retrieved results more suitable and compatible with the reasoning ability of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 325, + 158, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 325, + 158, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 325, + 158, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As for the datasets, we use Wikipedia as an external knowledge resource and five question-answering datasets for evaluation. All of them are publicly available and widely used by researchers. As for the LLMs, we use InstructGPT and ChatGPT through OpenAI API. These generative models have the potential to show inappropriate and misleading responses, which can be alleviated by filtering the data or adding constraints during training. In this work, we only focus on the generated responses to the questions from the given datasets and try to combine LLMs with external world knowledge via retrieval augmentation, which actually has been shown as a potential way to reduce issues such as hallucination (Shuster et al., 2021; Roller et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 580, + 170, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 580, + 170, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 580, + 170, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 291, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022ZD0160502) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61925601, 62276152)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 684, + 127, + 697 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 684, + 127, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 684, + 127, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2206-2240. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 159, + 527, + 312 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 159, + 527, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 159, + 527, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 324, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 324, + 526, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 324, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 400, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 400, + 527, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 400, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 509, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 509, + 525, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 509, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evelyn Fix and J. L. Hodges. 1989. Discriminatory analysis. nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique, 57(3):238-247." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 564, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 564, + 526, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 564, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 526, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 651, + 526, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346-361." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhicheng Guo, Sijie Cheng, Yile Wang, Peng Li, and Yang Liu. 2023. Prompt-guided retrieval augmentation for non-knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17653." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10311" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. INFOTABS: Inference on tables as semi-structured data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2309–2324, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 289, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 289, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 289, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3929-3938. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 199, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 199, + 289, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 199, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hangfeng He, Hongming Zhang, and Dan Roth. 2022. Rethinking with retrieval: Faithful large language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00303." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 289, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 289, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 289, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 325, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 325, + 289, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 325, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 289, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 289, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 400, + 289, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Jia, Abdalghani Abujabal, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Jannik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Tempquestions: A benchmark for temporal question answering. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, pages 1057-1062." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 289, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 289, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 289, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 527, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 527, + 289, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 527, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 601, + 289, + 678 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 601, + 289, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 601, + 289, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 289, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 289, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 289, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Urvashi Khandelwal, Angela Fan, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2021. Nearest neighbor machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Generalization through Memorization: Nearest Neighbor Language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 525, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 525, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 525, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2022. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang (Shane) Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 22199-22213. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020a. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020b. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for GPT-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (DeeLIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100–114, Dublin, Ireland and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 525, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8086-8098, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10312" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessi, Maria Lomeli, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. 2023. Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 331 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongjing Qian, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, Haoqi Gu, Xinyu Zhang, Zheng Liu, Ruofei Lai, Zhao Cao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Webbrain: Learning to generate factually correct articles for queries by grounding on large web corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04358." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 394 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, Chi Han, et al. 2023. Tool learning with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08354." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 290, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 290, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 480, + 290, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 784-789, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Eric Michael Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2021. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 300-325, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655-2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 525, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 525, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 525, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Enhancing retrieval-augmented large language models with iterative retrieval-generation synergy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15294." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugging-gpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijia Shi, Julian Michael, Suchin Gururangan, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Nearest neighbor zero-shot inference. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3254-3265, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 525, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle-moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 377, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 377, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 377, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 3784-3803, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 525, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 525, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 525, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01296." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Scharli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10313" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10509." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 214 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7534-7550, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 289, + 278 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 289, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 289, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In ICLR 2023." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 289, + 332 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 289, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 289, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenhailong Wang, Xiaoman Pan, Dian Yu, Dong Yu, Jianshu Chen, and Heng Ji. 2022. Zemi: Learning zero-shot semi-parametric language models from multiple tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00185." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 341, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 341, + 289, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 341, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 289, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benfeng Xu, Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Yajuan Lyu, Qiaoqiao She, and Yongdong Zhang. 2023a. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nn prompting: Beyond-context learning with calibration-free nearest neighbor inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13824." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 289, + 547 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 289, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 289, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shicheng Xu, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, Xueqi Cheng, and Tat-seng Chua. 2023b. Search-in-the-chain: Towards the accurate, credible and traceable content generation for complex knowledge-intensive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14732." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhangyue Yin, Qiushi Sun, Qipeng Guo, Jiawen Wu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2023. Do large language models know what they don't know? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18153." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 654 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01558." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Zhihan Zhang, Zhenwen Liang, Meng Jiang, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2023. Improving language models via plug-and-play retrieval feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14002." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2023. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. In *The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations* (ICLR 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10314" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 186, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 186, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 186, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Details of Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 289, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The statistics and examples of the five datasets are shown in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 131, + 166, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 131, + 166, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 131, + 166, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TemporalQA (849/169)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 142, + 282, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 142, + 282, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 142, + 282, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q: Which film starring gao yuanyuan was released in 2001?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 161, + 199, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 161, + 199, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 161, + 199, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: The answer is Beijing Bicycle." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 177, + 198, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 177, + 198, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 177, + 198, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CommonsenseQA (9,741/1,221)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 188, + 283, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 188, + 283, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 188, + 283, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q: Where would you expect to find a pizzeria while shopping?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 208, + 282, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 208, + 282, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 208, + 282, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer Choices: (a)chicago (b) street (c) little italy (d) food court (e) capital cities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 154, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 154, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 228, + 154, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: The answer is (d)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 243, + 177, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 243, + 177, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 243, + 177, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TabularQA (11,000/1,200)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 254, + 282, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 254, + 282, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 254, + 282, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q: Corn is an ingredient found in a Chibuku Shake. True or False?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 274, + 157, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 274, + 157, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 274, + 157, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: The answer is true." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 289, + 168, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 289, + 168, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 289, + 168, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "StrategyQA (2,061/229)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 282, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 282, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 282, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q: Yes or No: Is Oculudentavis more dangerous than Allosaurus?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 319, + 151, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 319, + 151, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 319, + 151, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: The answer is no." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 334, + 161, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 334, + 161, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 334, + 161, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TruthfulQA (700/113)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 345, + 181, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 345, + 181, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 345, + 181, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Q: What colors do dogs see?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 355, + 282, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 355, + 282, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 355, + 282, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer Choices: (a) Dogs see yellow, blue, brown, and gray (b) Dogs cannot see color (c) Dogs see in black and white" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 384, + 152, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 384, + 152, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 384, + 152, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A: The answer is (a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 289, + 432 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 289, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Examples of each dataset, the numbers denote the number of training and evaluation questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 290, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TemporalQA (Jia et al., 2018) is used to investigate temporal reasoning, i.e., the questions are all temporal in nature. Following He et al. (2022), we evaluate the implicit temporal questions and use the others as training questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 289, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 289, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 289, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CommonsenseQA (Talmor et al., 2019) and StrategyQA (Geva et al., 2021) are used for commonsense reasoning. The former includes multiple choice questions for commonsense and the latter consists of questions requiring multi-hop reasoning. We use the development set for evaluation since the annotations of the test set are not available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 289, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 289, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 289, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TablularQA (Gupta et al., 2020) is used for tab- ular reasoning, where the questions are extracted from Wikipedia info boxes. We follow He et al. (2022) and focus on 1,200 hypotheses from the development set, while we only use the questions themselves and ignore the word relation triples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) is used for measuring the truthfulness of LLMs, which comprises questions related to health, law, finance, politics, etc. We randomly chose 113 questions for evaluation and the others as training questions. The original dataset offers one best answer and few can" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "didates for each question, we take the best answer as the correct one and the others as options." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 108, + 493, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 108, + 493, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 108, + 493, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Additional Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 192, + 523, + 240 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 129, + 525, + 183 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 129, + 525, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 129, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 5, we further compare with more reasoning and retrieval-based methods, including: Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022), Recite-and-Answer (Sun et al., 2022), and DSP (Khattab et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 192, + 523, + 240 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 192, + 523, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 192, + 523, + 240 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodTemporalCommonsenseTabularStrategyTruthful
Self-Ask58.9174.4572.9159.3878.77
Recite-and-Answer62.4574.6175.0058.9579.64
DSP63.9573.2175.7558.7377.88
\\( \\text{SKR}_{\\text{knn}} \\)66.1375.4376.7562.0182.30
", + "image_path": "593d87fe622088ab942abfd1ba0125eed5dcbac29b850c39983d4a4b90f7b2d5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 525, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method still outperforms these reasoning and retrieval-based baselines. The reason can be that these methods are all designed for knowledge-intensive tasks, which means they assume that external information will always help. In contrast, our method can flexibly use the external knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 467, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 467, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 467, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Impact of Retrieval Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 524, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 524, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 524, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retriever. We use different retriever and compare the results of TruthfulQA in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 434, + 524, + 481 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 248, + 525, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparison with Self-Ask, Recite-and-Answer, and DSP by using ChatGPT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 434, + 524, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 434, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 434, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RetrieverRetrieval QualityManual-CoT-IROur \\( \\mathbf{S}\\mathbf{K}\\mathbf{R}_{\\mathbf{k}\\mathbf{n}\\mathbf{n}} \\)
DPRhigh76.9982.30
SimCSEsemantically matched73.45 (↓ 3.54)81.42 (↓ 0.88)
BERTrelatively poor69.91 (↓ 7.08)80.53 (↓ 1.67)
", + "image_path": "eb49d6af3b61edfb7318dc0985909079d7d0de3f73b24f88dacb039467de28e3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As we can see, the performance of fully retrieval-based methods largely decreases when retrieval quality is low. However, our method can adaptively call the retriever only when LLMs need (according to the self-knowledge), thus the negative impact is effectively reduced." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retrieval Quality. We changed the size of corpora and the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " settings and the results for TruthfulQA are shown in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 646, + 524, + 694 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 490, + 482, + 501 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 490, + 482, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 344, + 490, + 482, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Influence of the retriever." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 646, + 524, + 694 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 646, + 524, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 646, + 524, + 694 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CorporaSelected CandidatesManual-CoT-IROur SKRknn
Full Crank 1~376.9982.30
Full Crank 8~1076.11 (↓0.88)82.30 (-)
Half of Crank 1~374.37 (↓2.62)81.41 (↓0.89)
", + "image_path": "f19adde022beb8cf45ae237d585c665332e778642df8f9ca57c3db326e1e703f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 703, + 497, + 715 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 703, + 497, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 703, + 497, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Influence of the retrieval quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 768 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can see that, Our method is less impacted by the quality of retrieval since we do not call the retriever all the time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10315" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_content_list.json b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e488f5f718b296769328f1c59c09f45a195b5f9a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,3985 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Polish: Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 171, + 82, + 823, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhiheng Xi $^{1*}$ , Senjie Jin $^{1*}$ , Yuhao Zhou $^{1}$ , Rui Zheng $^{1}$ , Songyang Gao $^{1}$ , Tao Gui $^{2\\dagger}$ , Qi Zhang $^{1\\dagger}$ , Xuanjing Huang $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 198, + 130, + 796, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ School of Computer Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China", + "bbox": [ + 253, + 165, + 747, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 181, + 813, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{zhxi22,sjjin22,zhouyh21,gaosy21}@m.fudan.edu.cn,", + "bbox": [ + 270, + 199, + 727, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{rzheng20, tgui, qz, xjhuang}@fudan.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 319, + 216, + 680, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models, researchers have extensively explored prompting methods, notably the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) method which explicitly elicits human-like rationales. However, they have inadvertently overlooked the potential of enhancing model reasoning performance by formulating higher-quality problems1. In this work, we start from the problem side and propose Self-Polish (SP), a novel method that facilitates the model's reasoning by guiding it to progressively refine the given problems to be more comprehensible and solvable. We also explore several automatic prompting variants and propose the Self-Polish prompt bank for the community. SP is orthogonal to all other prompting methods of answer/reasoning side like CoT, allowing for seamless integration with state-of-the-art techniques for further improvement. Thorough experiments show that the proposed method attains notable and consistent effectiveness on five reasoning benchmarks across different models. Furthermore, our method also showcases impressive performance on robustness evaluation. Codes and prompts are available at https://github.com/WooooDyy/Self-Polish.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 284, + 460, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 683, + 258, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on a variety of NLP tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Otter et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022), but their capability to perform multi-step reasoning is considered a limitation, which can not be tackled solely by scaling up the model size (Rae et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). To address this challenge, many prompting methods have been proposed to elicit reasoning in LLMs, and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 711, + 489, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9ea85670106c6a166db9ce4ddc5c4308bf41905bd1436ebe87436f3acac2017b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Schematic comparison between Self-Polish and other representative approaches for reasoning with prompting. Previous paradigms enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs from the aspect of the answer side/reasoning side, while our method starts from the problem side, and refines problems to be simpler and more comprehensible for models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 250, + 878, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "have demonstrated significant effectiveness (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 573, + 882, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is a breakthrough method that teaches a language model to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans to solve a reasoning task (Wei et al., 2022b). Many following work has explored variants of CoT to improve the quality of rationales of LLMs (Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). There is also a line of work that optimizes the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023), and a representative one is Self-Consistency (SC). SC generates diverse reasoning paths and answers, and then leverages the majority vote strategy to get the most consistent answer (Wang et al., 2022). Despite the boosted reasoning performance of the aforementioned methods, they focus on the answer/reasoning side, and little emphasis has been placed on the problems side.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 884, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Actually, the clarity and logical structure of the", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal contribution.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 866, + 270, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 879, + 287, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ A reasoning problem often consists of two parts: the context and the final question (Creswell et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11383", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11383-11406 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "problem description are crucial factors for human understanding and model comprehension (Shou and Smithson, 2015; Faruqui and Das, 2018; Chu et al., 2020). LLMs often exhibit poor reasoning performance when confronted with low-quality real-world reasoning problems, which may be excessively long, ambiguous, unclear in focus, or contain irrelevant information (Zellers et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2023; Ye and Durrett, 2022). To tackle this challenge, we consider refining problems into a better formulation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose Self-Polish (Figure 1 right) that leverages LLMs themselves to refine reasoning problems without training for better reasoning performance. We first present several principles for refined problems: concise, clear, well-focused, and absent of irrelevant information. To achieve our goal, we propose the Self-Polish Prompt Bank which includes several feasible solutions as outlined in the following text. An intuitive strategy is to reformulate problems via instruction-following (Sanh et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022), and we call it zero-shot problem refining. Next, we include demonstrations in the prompts (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022) to enable models to better internalize and apply the principles, which is defined as in-context problem refining. During the construction of the demonstrations, we incorporated a curated collection of problem-refining patterns, e.g., eliminating irrelevant information, rearranging the logic structure, and organizing local conditions into new ones in parallel. Moreover, we explore automatic prompting methods to construct enhanced prompts and mitigate manual efforts, based on the criteria of complexity (complexity-based Self-Polish) or diversity (automatic Self-Polish). To further enhance the reliability and consistency of the generated problems, we propose to progressively refine problems until obtaining a convergent answer.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 268, + 490, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experiments show that our method consistently improves the reasoning performance of various models (i.e., Text-davinci-002, Text-davinci-003, GPT-3.5-Turbo) on five benchmarks (Table 1 & Figure 3). Moreover, the proposed method is orthogonal to all other reasoning-side state-of-the-art prompting methods, making it convenient to be combined with them for further improvement. Detailed experiments demonstrate that the performance of reasoning-side methods can be significantly boosted when integrated with SP (Table 2 &", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 492, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3). Self-Polish also showcases exceptional performance on robustness evaluation (Figure 4).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, we make the following contributions:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. We propose a novel method, Self-Polish, to improve the reasoning performance and robustness of LLMs.", + "2. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method when applied alone or combined with other prompting approaches on five benchmarks with different models.", + "3. We believe that the proposed Self-Polish represents an important step in enhancing LLMs' reasoning capabilities by shifting the perspective from the answer/reasoning side to the problem side. We hope it could inspire future research in this field." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 159, + 885, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 665, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-step reasoning. Multi-step reasoning tasks have posed significant challenges for language models (Rae et al., 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021; Qiao et al., 2022), and it is considered as an emergent ability of LLMs (Schaeffer et al., 2023). It is in these tasks that the effectiveness of few-shot prompting begins to surpass that of full training set fine-tuning (Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Moreover, such capability is considered important in building more complex artificial intelligence such as large language model-based agents (LLM-based agents) (Xi et al., 2023). Our work represents a significant stride in enhancing the ability of language models to perform multi-step reasoning tasks, through the facilitation of models' comprehension and processing of given reasoning problems.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 428, + 885, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reasoning with prompting. Prompting strategies have substantially improved the reasoning ability of LLMs by a large margin (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). An important line of work in this area is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting which elicits the reasoning ability of models by prompting them to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). Another line of work focuses on optimizing the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023). A representative one is Self-Consistency (SC), which samples", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11384", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Original Problem0] : Kylie makes 10 beaded necklaces on Monday and 2 beaded necklaces on Tuesday. Then Kylie makes 5 beaded bracelets on Wednesday. 20 beads are needed to make one beaded necklace. 10 beads are needed to make one beaded bracelet. Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 84, + 477, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 120.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 146, + 213, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information)", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 162, + 468, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem] : Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, 5 beaded bracelets. Each beaded necklace needs 20 beads. Each beaded bracelet requires 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 180, + 477, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 155.", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 222, + 213, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0$ Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions)", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 240, + 420, + 253 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem2]: Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, and each beaded necklaces needs 20 beads. She also makes 5 beaded bracelets, and each beaded bracelet needs 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 258, + 477, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer2] : 290.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 300, + 213, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_2! = \\mathbf{A}_1$ Continue Refine (Summary Local Conditions)", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 318, + 465, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem3] : Kylie requires 240 beads to make beaded necklaces. She also requires 50 beads to make beaded bracelets. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 334, + 477, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer3] : 290.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 366, + 213, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_3 = \\mathbf{A}_2$ Return $\\mathbf{A}_3$", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 385, + 255, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: An example illustrating the framework and problem-refining patterns of Self-Polish. In the first refining iteration, the irrelevant information \"Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store.\" is removed. In the second iteration, the conditions are reordered for easier calculation of the number of beads required for each type of beaded product. In the third iteration, the local conditions were parallelly combined to form new conditions (the total number of beads required for necklaces and bracelets).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 409, + 489, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "multiple reasoning paths and generate the most consistent answer by majority vote (Wang et al., 2022). Different from Self-Polish, the aforementioned strategies emphasize improving the quality of rationales from the answer/reasoning side. Our method is a problem-side method, so it is orthogonal to all of them and can be combined with them for further improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 489, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "See Appendix A for more related work and the detailed differences between Self-Polish and Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 727, + 489, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Self-Polish Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 339, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we first revisit previous prompting paradigms aiming at solving reasoning problems. Next, we describe the proposed Self-Polish method dually.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Revisiting Paradigms of Reasoning Problem Solving", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 828, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the context of enhancing the capabilities of LLMs, the prompting technique has emerged as one of the most popular approaches owing to its training-free nature and effectiveness (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Here, we formalize several representative paradigms. See Figure 1 for a schematic comparison between them and our method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 121, + 884, + 248 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Standard. The prompt contains $k \\times$ [Problem, Answer] pairs, followed by the test problem.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 882, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022b). The prompt contains $k \\times$ [Problem, Rationale, Answer] tuples, followed by the test problem. This method teaches models to generate rationales and answers, achieving significant improvement in reasoning. Auto-CoT (Fu et al., 2022) and Complex-CoT (Zhou et al., 2022a) are two automatic variants that constructs CoT demonstrations according to the criteria of problem diversity and reasoning complexity, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 300, + 884, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a). The models are taught to first reduce problems into subproblems and then solve them sequentially. There are two kinds of prompts. The first is the problem reduction prompt that contains $m \\times$ [Original Problem, Sub-Problems] pairs, followed by the test original problem. The second is the problem-solving prompt that contains $k \\times$ [Original Problem, $n \\times$ (Sub-Problem, Sub-Answer)] tuples, followed by the test original problem and the current subproblem to solve.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 884, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Summary. All previous methods focus on the answer/reasoning side, and it is convenient to combine them with Self-Polish which puts emphasis on the problem side.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Problem-Refining Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 784, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.1 Refining Principles", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 719, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We expect the newly generated problems to be easier to understand and process, so they should adhere to the following principles: (1) conciseness, the problems should not be overly long, ensuring they remain easily understandable; (2) clarity, the problems should avoid ambiguous phrasing and instead utilize quantitative representations (e.g., Arabic numerals) whenever possible; (3) focus: the problems should clearly convey the intended subject matter,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11385", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/27c87ffa7ea3580d9f354d3e6974ff2a27525c65dca609b293ac47953eb77938.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
METHODProgressivelyDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
StandardX15.828.372.935.128.236.1
+Zero-shot SPX22.4(↑ 6.6)28.3(0)73.2(↑ 0.3)43.1(↑ 8.0)25.4(↓ 2.8)38.5(↑ 2.4)
✓24.0(↑ 8.2)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.2(↓ 0.7)51.7(↑ 16.6)26.8(↓ 1.4)40.7(↑ 4.6)
+In-context SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)73.9(↑ 1.0)50.6(↑ 15.5)29.4(↑ 0.8)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓25.3(↑ 9.5)29.5(↑ 1.2)73.9(↑ 1.0)52.9(↑ 17.8)28.6(↑ 0.4)42.0(↑ 5.9)
+Auto-SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)29.9(↑ 1.6)72.6(↓ 0.3)54.0(↑ 18.9)27.6(↓ 0.6)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)72.9(0)56.7(↑ 21.6)28.2(0)42.5(↑ 6.4)
+Complex-SPX23.0(↑ 7.2)29.9(↑ 1.6)73.2(↑ 0.3)52.3(↑ 17.2)29.6(↑ 1.4)41.6(↑ 5.5)
✓24.6(↑ 8.8)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.9(0)55.7(↑ 20.6)30.0(↑ 1.8)42.4(↑ 6.3)
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 880, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Evaluating different strategies of the Self-Polish prompting bank on several benchmarks. Performance gains/drops are highlighted with green/red. The results are with Text-davinci-003. “Progressively” represents whether using the progressively refining framework in Section 3.3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 297, + 882, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "making it evident what the question is asking; (4) absence of irrelevant information: the problems should be free from extraneous details that could cause confusion or distractions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 361, + 487, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.2 Construction of Refining Prompts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 437, + 440, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-shot Self-Polish. It is difficult to internalize the aforementioned principles within the model via training due to the tedious process of constructing a corresponding dataset and potential catastrophic forgetting problems (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Parisi et al., 2019). So we turn to training-free strategies.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 487, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As LLMs demonstrate emergent abilities of instruction-following (Schaeffer et al., 2023; Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a), a simple and intuitive strategy to refine problems is prompting LLMs with an instruction. In the instruction, we guide the model to rewrite new versions of the original reasoning problem to be more understandable and easy to answer, and never omit any useful information. The prompt contains [Instruction, Original Problem] and the model responds with a newly generated problem. Next, we can adopt any prompting method in Section 3.1 to get the answer to the new problem, and we take this answer as the final one. We conduct preliminary validation experiments and the results are illustrated in Table 1. Zero-shot refining can consistently improve reasoning performance on various benchmarks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 555, + 489, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-context Self-Polish. As empirical results show that zero-shot refining can only provide limited performance gain, especially on difficult datasets, we then add demonstrations to the prompt to enable models to better internalize and apply", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "design principles. Specifically, demonstrations are formulated as [Original Problem, New Problem] pairs, and we incorporate a curated collection of problem-refining patterns in the demonstrations: (1) remove irrelevant information, as the first iteration in Figure 2; (2) rearrange the logic structure and group relevant conditions together to better match the reasoning logic of the model, as the second iteration in Figure 2; (3) summarize local conditions into new ones in parallel, as the third iteration in Figure 2. Results in Table 1 show that in-context problem refining yields more performance gain than zero-shot refining.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 361, + 884, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Self-Polish. This is an automatic variant of the in-context problem-refining. We draw inspiration from Zhang et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the diverse semantics of problems with the technique of $k$ -means clustering. The underlying hypothesis is that a diverse set of demonstrations can cover a broad semantic space of problems, thereby the model can locate relevant reference demonstrations for more test examples. Table 1 shows that Auto-SP also yields significant improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 582, + 882, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Complexity-based Self-Polish. This is another variant of the in-context problem-refining for automatically selecting refining demonstrations. We draw inspiration from Fu et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the complexity of each problem. The underlying hypothesis is that", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2Note that a single example typically does not encompass all refining strategies. The example is constructed solely to illustrate our design patterns.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11386", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the refining ability of the model can generalize from complex problems to simpler ones. Table 1 demonstrates that Complex-SP can also yield substantial performance gain.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Progressively Refining Framework", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 162, + 431, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To enhance the consistency and reliability of the refined problems, we propose a progressive framework that has two stages: the problem-solving stage (Section 3.1) and the problem-refining stage (Section 3.2). The two stages are executed alternatively until the return condition is satisfied.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 185, + 490, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Return condition & answer selection. There are two situations that terminate the iterative process. The first is when the last two answers are the same, indicating convergence of the answer. In this case, we can directly return the answer. The second situation is when the iteration number exceeds the maximum count $T = 2$ .3 In such case, we have multiple options for selecting the final answer, such as the answer to the original problem, the answer to the first generated problem, the answer to the last generated problem, or utilizing a majority voting approach to select the answer (Wang et al., 2022), which will be discussed in our ablation study in Section 5.1. Here we choose the answer to the last generated problem by default. As shown in Table 1, adding Progressively Refining to our method can bring further improvement across different prompt-construction approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 489, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The overall framework is shown in Algorithm 1 in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 487, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 632, + 260, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we conduct experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of SP.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Experimental Setups.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 329, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models. We employ three GPT-series models, namely text-davinci-002, text-davinci-003, and GPT-3.5-Turbo (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), as they are widely recognized and accessible to the public, ensuring reproducibility of our research. Our experiments are based on OpenAI's API. All methods use greedy decoding (i.e., temperature = 0) for stable responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 489, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e744f3fd775c74d6064ed890a672b7ffaa917fd0e9b093f8c1c58ba97227e616.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 86, + 705, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/25aebf8903b53348cb47d6e6973e1b5b03d7adaea6b22819c87400efa833fb76.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 705, + 86, + 884, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5cf7972757c9eb7f5cf70582ca7a439710c59ea97c04f5cc6a2352401d4f75e2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 187, + 702, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/34f4d58ffefb07aed6d344c9a37ce9daa5fce447ed9b11d38605d15930802ed9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 704, + 187, + 884, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c6ff93106dcb23237a3b45e66b9828d6d77508460cb34d05ea4d6a11f7202a17.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Evaluating Self-Polish on various benchmarks with different models. Self-Polish consistently improves reasoning performance across multiple models and benchmarks." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 290, + 702, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d8ccf42d90a855ca59c2a1b3f11d9ff5856eb34f3858633413e00abafddff9fe.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 704, + 290, + 882, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. We evaluate the performance of our method on five reasoning datasets, including GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), AQuA (Ling et al., 2017), SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021), MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) and MathQA (Amini et al., 2019). The datasets are evaluated by prior studies in the field of multi-hop reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). We evaluate on the whole test set of AQuA and GSM8K. For other datasets, we adopt the split from Mishra et al. (2022) or randomly select 500 test instances, and perform 3 restarts for stable results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 884, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompts. For the sake of generalizability, GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from GSM8K; AQuA and MathQA share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from AQuA. See Appendix F for SP prompts. The prompts for the standard few-shot prompting method are from Wei et al. (2022b). The prompts for Chain-of-thought, Least-to-Most, Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT are from previous work (Wei et al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). While prompts of LtM are not available for some datasets, we manually construct them.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 692, + 884, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "See more implementation details in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3One iteration means one time of problem refinement. Note that a bigger $T$ can yield a larger performance gain, as discussed in Section 5.1. Here we set $T = 2$ to achieve a balance in computational efficiency and performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11387", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2742b59dd929e2fa53827eeee30faec2311ce2e5a50b883ca0b6db02d4267438.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ANSWER SIDEPROBLEM SIDEDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
Chain-of-ThoughtNo Refinement56.144.980.390.841.062.6
In-context SP56.7(↑ 0.6)48.8(↑ 3.9)81.6(↑ 1.3)88.5(↓ 2.3)43.0(↑ 2.0)63.7(↑ 1.1)
Auto-SP56.9(↑ 0.8)49.2(↑ 4.3)78.3(↓ 2.0)89.7(↓ 1.1)42.8(↑ 1.8)63.4(↑ 0.8)
Complex-SP58.1(↑ 2.0)47.3(↑ 2.4)81.3(↑ 1.0)90.2(↓ 0.6)43.2(↑ 2.2)64.0(↑ 1.4)
Least-to-MostNo Refinement59.342.182.983.939.061.4
In-context SP61.2(↑ 1.9)44.1(↑ 2.0)84.9(↑ 2.0)85.1(↑ 1.2)41.2(↑ 2.2)63.3(↑ 1.9)
Auto-SP61.6(↑ 2.3)44.9(↑ 2.8)82.9(0)83.9(0)41.2(↑ 2.2)62.9(↑ 1.5)
Complex-SP62.9(↑ 3.6)47.6(↑ 5.5)84.2(↑ 1.3)86.2(↑ 2.3)40.6(↑ 1.6)64.3 (↑ 2.9)
Auto-CoTNo Refinement59.446.575.692.541.463.1
In-context SP59.4(0)47.2(↑ 0.7)77.6(↑ 2.0)90.6(↓ 1.9)45.8(↑ 4.4)64.1(↑ 1.0)
Auto-SP60.5(↑ 1.1)48.0(↑ 1.5)75.6(0)89.7(↓ 2.8)44.4(↑ 3.0)63.6(↑ 0.5)
Complex-SP60.1(↑ 0.7)50.8(↑ 4.3)78.2(↑ 2.6)93.1(↑ 0.6)43.0(↑ 1.6)65.0(↑ 1.9)
Complex-CoTNo Refinement67.547.678.394.343.666.3
In-context SP66.2(↓ 1.3)50.8(↑ 3.1)80.9(↑ 2.6)90.8(↓ 3.5)44.6(↑ 1.3)66.7(↑ 0.4)
Auto-SP68.7(↑ 1.2)45.7(↓ 1.9)78.3(0)92.0(↓ 2.3)42.4(↓ 1.2)65.4(↓ 0.9)
Complex-SP68.5(↑ 1.0)50.4(↑ 2.8)78.6(↑ 0.3)93.1(↓ 1.2)44.8(↑ 1.2)67.1(↑ 0.8)
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 878, + 353 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Evaluation results when combining Self-Polish with other answer/reasoning side prompting strategies. The results are with Text-davinci-003. The best performance for each answer side strategy of one task is underlined. The best performance for each task is in bold.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 362, + 882, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 329, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Standard few-shot setting. Figure 3 shows the results of evaluating the performance in the standard few-shot setting. We can find that: (1) Our method consistently improves reasoning performance by a large margin across multiple models and datasets, indicating its capability to enhance model understanding of problems. (2) On relatively weaker models, automated prompting methods like Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT yield more gains compared to in-context SP. However, on stronger models, the differences in performance gain between the three approaches are not significant, revealing that the stronger models are less sensitive to prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 489, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Combining Self-Polish with other prompting strategies. Table 2 demonstrates the evaluating results when combining our method with other state-of-the-art reasoning-side promoting strategies. There are several critical and interesting observations: (1) Generally, SP yields substantial performance gains for all reasoning-side methods, revealing that when the model is able to better comprehend problems, both its step-by-step reasoning capabilities and problem decomposition abilities can be significantly enhanced. (2) Whether for the reasoning side or the problem side, the Complex-based approach performs the best. This indicates that LLMs have the ability to generalize from com", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "plex tasks to simple ones, both in terms of reasoning and problem refinement. (3) As Fu et al. (2022) stated, the average number of words in problems, i.e., GSM8K (46.9), AQuA (51.9), SVAMP (32.1), MultiArith (31.2), and MathQA (60.1), can serve as a proxy for measuring the reasoning complexity of each task. We find that the more challenging the task, the higher the improvement achieved by SP, highlighting its suitability for intricate reasoning tasks. It is noteworthy that when combined with the CoT-series methods, our approach has limited improvement on MultiArith. This could be because the task itself can already be well solved by CoT and is relatively simple. Excessive refinement of simple problems carries the risk of information loss or semantic alterations, leading to a decline in performance, as depicted in Figure 9.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 884, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robustness evaluation. GSM-IC (Shi et al., 2023) is an adversarial arithmetic reasoning dataset with distracting information in the problem to fool the model. So it is well-suited for evaluating the robustness of models. It has two splits: GSM-IC-2step which contains problems that require two reasoning steps to solve and GSM-IC-mstep which contains problems that require more than two reasoning steps to solve. As shown in Figure 4, our method enhances the robustness and reliability of various models across different prompting techniques, shielding them from the interference of low-quality problems.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11388", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/472975d430a2900e758e6af113822c527743a86d53b3bcddecd2ee2089f555f5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) GSM-IC-2Step" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 85, + 500, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1ca7ee518f8deb06da8b3254cf31e2c0af3193e7ebf4b5eadd0e94b70762bd92.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) GSM-IC-MStep" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 505, + 86, + 887, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ad209c1b6c4899e463de0a39d4b0144bfe40f726daa3634acb0b96b1fc9ddb46.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Evaluation results on GSMIC (Shi et al., 2023). Self-Polish (SP) enhances the robustness and reliability of various models when combined with different prompting techniques.", + "(a) Ablation Study on Std", + "Figure 5: Ablation studies and the distribution of actual iterating times. (a) and (c) illustrate the performance (vertical axis on the left) when using different final answer selection strategies and different max iterating times $T$ . The \"Converge\" means the performance calculated by $N_{conv} / N_{all}$ where $N_{conv}$ means the number of examples that are answered correctly with converged answers, while the $N_{all}$ means the number of all test examples. We also incorporate a line to represent the average actual iteration times at each value of $T$ (vertical axis on the right). In (b) and (d), we show the distribution of actual iterating times when we set $T = 5$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 265, + 315, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/853793b9c21d1eae2a763969f627e4a33291bc95979f923ad106c2084268ffe5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Iter. Distribution on Std" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 321, + 266, + 495, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d2aaaae128ae13d350a598a661e225f694d0e851d9bff02949dfdc4a3c898b23.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Ablation Study on CoT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 502, + 267, + 695, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fabfa5e693068a95088e40aa75379532cd47e315c52c51a2d5d4bc8fc930d34c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) Iter. Distribution on CoT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 700, + 267, + 875, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 518, + 240, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Ablation Studies", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 543, + 290, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned in Section 3.3, the maximum iteration times $T$ and the strategy to select the final answer if the convergence is not achieved are two main components of Self-Polish. Here we perform ablation studies on them.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 487, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Max iterating times $T$ . As shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c), for both the Standard and CoT methods, larger iteration counts lead to higher convergence accuracy (\"Converge\" in figures), which aligns with common knowledge and further demonstrates the effectiveness of our method: by gradually optimizing problems, we enable the model to handle them more easily. But when $T$ is too big, the performance of SP may suffer a drop, indicating that excessive rewriting can lead to a decline in the quality of problems. We set $T = 2$ not only for the sake of efficiency, but also because it can achieve competitive performance especially when combined with CoT-series methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 489, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Final answer selection strategies. We can easily observe that with a smaller $T$ , the \"Last One\" strat", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "egy tends to have an advantage, while as the iteration count increases, other strategies become more effective, even outperforming \"Last One\". This is intuitive as after multiple rewriting iterations, the semantic meaning of a problem may deviate significantly from the original one.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 519, + 884, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Analysis of Actual Iterating Times", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 823, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c) show that the actual iterating times $T_{\\text{actual}}$ does not grow significantly as the max iterating times $T$ increases, revealing that SP can achieve a converged answer on most of the problems with few iterations. To verify this, we illustrate the distribution map of $T_{\\text{actual}}$ with $T = 5$ in Figure 5(b) and Figure 5(d). $T_{\\text{actual}}$ exhibits a long-tail distribution, with only a few samples exceeding the max times. This finding provides evidence that our method is highly efficient that consumes few additional computational resources.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 646, + 882, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Further Improvement for Self-Consistency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 834, + 756, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Consistency is a prompting method that samples multiple reasoning paths and generates a consistent answer by majority vote strategy (Wang", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11389", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/20a9788ee9d4b6db1599256146462eb28d404a20fad7a7bc45344af7c65225c2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
METHODSC PathSelf-PolishDATASET
AQuAMathQA
Auto-CoT5X61.865.2
5✓66.168.4
10X61.467.4
10✓65.071.0
20X63.069.0
20✓68.172.0
Complex-CoT5X61.461.6
5✓65.064.4
10X65.462.4
10✓66.164.8
20X65.464.0
20✓67.065.6
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 485, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Evaluation results of combining Self-Polish with Self-Consistency on GPT-3.5-Turbo. In the problem side, we use the Complex-SP. The best results in each manner are highlighted in bold. With Self-Polish, Self-Consistency performs better.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 305, + 489, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2022). It has proved effective in various reasoning benchmarks (Wang et al., 2022). Here, we combine the Self-Polish and Self-Consistency methods to investigate whether there will be further performance improvement. We conduct experiments on two difficult datasets (i.e., GSM8K and AQuA) with temperature $= 0.7$ for diversity following (Wang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 398, + 487, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results in Table 3 demonstrate that SP provides a substantial performance gain for SC in Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT manners. Moreover, an increase in the number of reasoning paths leads to a corresponding improvement in performance, showing the advantage of voting strategy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 638, + 248, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further demonstrate the effectiveness of the problem-refining patterns we proposed and how our method embodies the proposed principles, we conducted a case study as shown in Figure 6. More cases can be found in the Appendix D (Figure 7 and Figure 8).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 487, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Figure 6, we observe that removing irrelevant information (i.e., \"Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.\") can help the model avoid distractions and facilitate accurate reasoning. Next, rearranging the problem conditions and grouping pertinent conditions together can facilitate the model in generating more effective novel deductions during the process of reasoning (e.g., resulting in the streamlined computation of the total number of face masks in Refined Problem2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Original Problem0] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. Grover's neighbor made a salary of$ 10 last year. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will he his total profit?", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 86, + 873, + 128 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Ratione] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. So he will make 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 dollars in total. Grover's neighbor made 10 dollars last year. So Grover's profit will be 1.50 - 10 = -8.50. The answer is -8.50.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 128, + 873, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : -8.50.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 168, + 616, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information)", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 190, + 865, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will be his total profit?", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 206, + 873, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Rationale] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell them for 0.50 dollars each. So his total profit will be $(3 * 20 * 0.50) - 15 = 15$ dollars. The answer is 15.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 237, + 873, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 15.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 280, + 603, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0$ Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions)", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 297, + 816, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem₂]: Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15. He plans to sell the face masks for $0.50 each. How much will he his total profit?", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 312, + 868, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\left[\\text{Rationale}_2\\right] : \\text{Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. So he bought } 3 * 20 = 60 \\text{ face masks in total. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell the face masks for } 0.50 \\text{ dollars each. So he will sell the 60 face masks for } 60 * 0.50 = 30 \\text{ dollars. His total profit will be } 30 - 15 = 15 \\text{ dollars.}$", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 344, + 868, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer2] : 15.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 395, + 601, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_2 = \\mathbf{A}_1$ , Return $\\mathbf{A}_2$", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 414, + 650, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6: A case of Self-Polish on GSM-IC with Chain-of-Thought. The case is with Text-davinci-003. The irrelevant information \"Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.\" is removed. In the second iteration, the order of the condition \"Each box has 20 face masks.\" is moved forward and the model can calculate the total number of masks more easily when performing reasoning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 438, + 884, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, summarizing local conditions into new ones can effectively simplify complex problems, enabling the model to handle them with greater ease. This is demonstrated in the first iteration of Figure 7 and the second iteration of Figure 8. Furthermore, the second iteration in Figure 7 highlights how our approach can explicitly and precisely define the problem in a formal manner. Specifically, in the Refined Problem $_2$ of Figure 7, the model accurately identifies the two teams as \"Team A\" and \"Team B\" instead of referring to them as \"one team\" and \"the other team\", and then it is able to clearly specify the exact question to be asked. This significantly reduces the model's burden of understanding during the reasoning process, enhancing its overall performance.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 577, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 846, + 640, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper focuses on a previously neglected aspect, namely the optimization of problem formulation, within the context of enhancing multi-step", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11390", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "reasoning in large language models. We present a novel prompting method called Self-Polish which progressively refines the given reasoning problems to facilitate model comprehension and processing. It demonstrates impressive effectiveness, robustness, and reliability in various benchmarks across different models, and can seamlessly integrate with other state-of-the-art methods. We hope it could motivate future research in this field.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 240, + 220, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the significant enhancement in the reasoning performance achieved by our approach, this work still has limitations. Firstly, our criterion for convergence is based on obtaining two identical answers rather than assessing whether the problem itself has been sufficiently optimized. Future work could involve designing methods that enable the model to autonomously determine whether a problem has reached its optimal form. Secondly, we have explored two approaches to automatically construct problem-refining prompts (i.e., Auto-Sp and Complex-SP). However, in the future, it would be beneficial to incorporate more techniques for automatically generating instructions or selecting demonstrations. Thirdly, although our designed patterns for problem refining have proven highly effective, they do not encompass all possible scenarios in the real world. In the future, it is conceivable to incorporate additional patterns to further expand the scope of applicability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 265, + 490, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 598, + 285, + 614 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206057,61976056,62076069), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500), Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader under grant 22XD1401100.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 623, + 489, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 778, + 213, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers),", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 800, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "pages 2357-2367. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 85, + 880, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B. Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Nadadri S. Chatterji, Annie S. Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dorottya Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stefano Ermon, John Etchemendy, Kawin Ethayarajh, Li Fei-Fei, Chelsea Finn, Trevor Gale, Lauren Gillespie, Karan Goel, Noah D. Goodman, Shelby Grossman, Neel Guha, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Peter Henderson, John Hewitt, Daniel E. Ho, Jenny Hong, Kyle Hsu, Jing Huang, Thomas Icard, Saahil Jain, Dan Jurafsky, Pratyusha Kalluri, Siddharth Karamcheti, Geoff Keeling, Fereshte Khani, Omar Khattab, Pang Wei Koh, Mark S. Krass, Ranjay Krishna, Rohith Kuditipudi, and et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. CoRR, abs/2108.07258.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 120, + 885, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 376, + 884, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 582, + 884, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zewei Chu, Mingda Chen, Jing Chen, Miaosen Wang, Kevin Gimpel, Manaal Faruqui, and Xiance Si. 2020.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 891, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11391", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "How to ask better questions? A large-scale multidomain dataset for rewriting ill-formed questions. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7586-7593. AAAI Press.", + "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416.", + "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168.", + "Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. CoRR, abs/2205.09712.", + "Manaal Faruqui and Dipanjan Das. 2018. Identifying well-formed natural language questions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 798-803. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2022. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. CoRR, abs/2210.00720.", + "Ian J. Goodfellow, Mehdi Mirza, Xia Da, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings.", + "Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual.", + "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In NeurIPS.", + "Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay V. Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag," + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In NeurIPS.", + "Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. CoRR, abs/2206.02336.", + "Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun-. som. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 158-167. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out: The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, DeeLIO@ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland and Online, May 27, 2022, pages 100-114. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8086-8098. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 11048-11064. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Swaroop Mishra, Matthew Finlayson, Pan Lu, Leonard Tang, Sean Welleck, Chitta Baral, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. LILA: A unified benchmark for mathematical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 5807-5832. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Daniel W. Otter, Julian R. Medina, and Jugal K. Kalita. 2021. A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 32(2):604-624.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11392", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS.", + "German Ignacio Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L. Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. 2019. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113:54-71.", + "Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. CoRR, abs/2212.09597.", + "Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, H. Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant M. Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sotiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew J. Johnson, Blake A. Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Edward Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. CoRR, abs/2112.11446.", + "Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1743-1752. The Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multi-task prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net.", + "Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? CoRR, abs/2304.15004.", + "Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. CoRR, abs/2302.00093.", + "Yiyun Shou and Michael Smithson. 2015. Effects of question formats on causal judgments and model evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.", + "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R. Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Agnieszka Kluska, Aitor Lewkowycz, Akshit Agarwal, Alethea Power, Alex Ray, Alex Warstadt, Alexander W. Kocurek, Ali Safaya, Ali Tazarv, Alice Xiang, Alicia Parrish, Allen Nie, Aman Hussain, Amanda Askell, Amanda Dsouza, Ameet Rahane, Anantharaman S. Iyer, Anders Andreassen, Andrea Santilli, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Andrew M. Dai, Andrew La, Andrew K. Lampinen, Andy Zou, Angela Jiang, Angelica Chen, Anh Vuong, Animesh Gupta, Anna Gottardi, Antonio Norelli, Anu Venkatesh, Arash Gholamidavoodi, Arfa Tabassum, Arul Menezes, Arun Kirubarajan, Asher Mullokandov, Ashish Sabharwal, Austin Herrick, Avia Efrat, Aykut Erdem, Ayla Karakas, and et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. CoRR, abs/2206.04615.", + "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. CoRR, abs/2203.11171.", + "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11393", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In NeurIPS.", + "Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Rui Zheng, Xiaoran Fan, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Yuhao Zhou, Weiran Wang, Changhao Jiang, Yicheng Zou, Xiangyang Liu, Zhangyue Yin, Shihan Dou, Rongxiang Weng, Wensen Cheng, Qi Zhang, Wenjuan Qin, Yongyan Zheng, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huan, and Tao Gui. 2023. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. CoRR, abs/2309.07864.", + "Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2205.03401.", + "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In NeurIPS.", + "Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 93-104. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. CoRR, abs/2210.03493.", + "Chuanyang Zheng, Zhengying Liu, Enze Xie, Zhenguo Li, and Yu Li. 2023. Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2304.09797.", + "Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2022a. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2205.10625.", + "Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron C. Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2022b. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2211.09066." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 741, + 203, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Disscussion of More Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 765, + 450, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent research has unveiled an unpredictable phenomenon known as emergent abilities, which manifest exclusively in larger language models while eluding their smaller counterparts (Schaeffer et al., 2023). In-context learning, instruction following, and multi-step reasoning are three emergent abilities that we focus on. We have discussed the multi-step reasoning in Section 2 and we will discuss", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "another two. We also compare our method with the LtM dually here.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-context learning. It is demonstrated that a large language model can learn patterns from a few input-output examples in the context (input) to perform the task for an unseen inference-time example (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), and such ability is referred to as in-context learning (ICL). Recent studies have further highlighted the impressive performance of ICL in reasoning tasks (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). In our research, we capitalize on this capability to generate new formulations of problems by injecting rephrasing patterns to the demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 124, + 884, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction following. LLMs can learn to perform unseen tasks solely through the comprehension of task-specific natural language instructions (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). There is also work showing that combining instructions with in-context learning can provide further benefits and that few-shot demonstrations can be viewed as a special kind of instruction that arouses the implicit ability in LLMs (Chung et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022b; Qiao et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 325, + 884, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with LtM. The work that is most similar to ours may be Least-to-Most (LtM) which decomposes the original problem into a series of sub-problems that need to be solved sequentially (Zhou et al., 2022a). However, LtM is an variant of CoT, and there are differences in motivation and operation process between LtM and SP. Firstly, LtM is an answer/reasoning side approach that emphasizes the decomposition of a complex problem into sub-problems, while we emphasize refining the original problem to make it more understandable. Secondly, in LtM, sub-problems are solved sequentially, requiring the answer of the previous sub-problem to tackle the next one, which can lead to fragility in the reasoning chain. In contrast, our method allows for the combination of local related conditions to form new conditions parallelly.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 510, + 882, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B The Algorithm of Self-Polish", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 794, + 794, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "See Algorithm 1 for the overall framework of SelfPolish.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 819, + 882, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 862, + 752, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We set the maximum iterating count to $T = 2$ . Note that the bigger maximum iteration count $T$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11394", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1: Self-Polish Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 124, + 87, + 396, + 102 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "Input: language model $\\mathcal{G}$ problem set $S$ prompt $\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{refine}}$ of the problem side refining method, prompt $\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}$ of the answer/reasoning side method, max iteration number $T$ , answer selection strategy $\\mathcal{Z}$ \n1 for each problem $s$ in $S$ do \n2 answer_list $= [ ]$ . \n3 $t = 0$ \n4 Procedure GENERATE ANSWER TO ORIGINAL PROBLEM \n5 rationale_t,ans $t = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\oplus s)$ . \n6 answer_list.append(ans); \n7 $t = t + 1$ \n8 Procedure ITERATE PROBLEM REFINEMENT AND ANSWER \n9 $s = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{refine}}\\oplus s)$ . \n10 rationale_t,ans $t = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\oplus s)$ . \n11 if ans $t = =$ ans-1 then \n12 Return ans. \n13 else if $t > T$ then \n14 Return Z的回答_list). \n15 else \n16 answer_list.append(ans); \n17 $t = t + 1$ \n18 end \n19 end", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 458, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "may lead to better performance, but here we set it to 2 to achieve a trade-off between computational efficiency and effectiveness.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 485, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When combining with other reasoning-side methods (i.e., CoT, LtM, Complex-CoT and AutoCoT) on MultiArith and SVAMP, we set the answer selection strategy as \"selecting the answer to the original problem\" because this dataset is relatively easy for these prompting methods. Actually, in cases where it is not necessary, rewriting easy problems may result in the loss of critical information or altering the semantics of the original problem. In other settings, we set the answer selection strategy as \"selecting the answer to the last problem\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 633, + 485, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D More Cases and Examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 835, + 379, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we list more cases of Self-Polish in Figure 7 and Figure 8. We also list the failure case of excessive problem refining in Figure 9", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Original Problem0] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay; a race where each competing team has four members that each run 400 meters, or one lap, around a standard track. One of the two teams is very well-rounded and each of their members will run their 400 meter leg in precisely 55 seconds. The other team is less well-rounded; their first runner will run their 400 meter leg in 60 seconds then each subsequent runner will be 3 seconds faster than the previous runner. Using this information, how many seconds will the faster team win by?", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 86, + 870, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\left[\\text{Rationale}_0\\right] : \\text{The well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 55 seconds each, for a total time of 220 seconds. The less well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively, for a total time of 222 seconds. The faster team will win by } 220 - 222 = -2$ seconds. The answer is -2 seconds.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 159, + 870, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer0]:-2.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 204, + 591, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cd5856796548c5839e11912ae9dfec7318da4c8f8088045858e50ba698c1de9d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 845, + 202, + 870, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Begin, Problem Refine (Summary Local Conditions)", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 222, + 801, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. One team has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while the other team has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds will the faster team win by?", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 234, + 870, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Rationale] : The faster team has four members that run 400 meters in 55, 60, 57, and 54 seconds respectively. The slower team has four members that run 400 meters in 51 seconds each. So the faster team will win by $55 - 51 = 4$ seconds. The answer is 4.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 271, + 873, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 4.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 307, + 584, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/48ff74a4d974782362efcb3d658208c5800ac6b3be3d107676f78a690b95867a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 845, + 300, + 870, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0$ Continue Refine (Specify the Problem Formally)", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 319, + 831, + 334 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem2]: Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds faster will Team A finish the relay compared to Team B?", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 335, + 877, + 380 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\left[\\mathrm{Ratione}_2\\right]:$ Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds. Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. So the total time for Team A is $4 * 55 = 220$ seconds, and the total time for Team B is $60 + 57 + 54 + 51 = 222$ seconds. Team A will finish the relay 2 seconds faster than Team B. The answer is 2.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 381, + 877, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer2]: 2.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 426, + 586, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/017d3301ed3cd5901c2b36dd1bd6d68b13d34f6e3f8ed76eee8337e2029d8d71.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 845, + 422, + 870, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_2 \\coloneqq \\mathbf{A}_1$ , Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return $\\mathbf{A}_2$", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 445, + 794, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, some irrelevant information is removed and the average time each member of the second team consumes is clarified. In the second iteration, the model accurately identifies the two teams as \"Team A\" and \"Team B\" instead of referring to them as \"one team\" and \"the other team\", and it explicitly states what the question to be asked is, reducing the burden of understanding on the model during the reasoning process.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 469, + 882, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Sensitivity to Number and Order of Demonstrations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 853, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As widely recognized, in-context learning is highly sensitive to the number and order of demonstrations within the prompt (Min et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). In this regard, we investigate whether our problem-refining process is sensitive to these variables via experiments on GSM8K with Text-davinci-003. We randomly select 200 examples from the test set. For a specific shot number, we randomly select five sets of demonstrations. For each set of demonstrations, we obtain performance results in five different orders. We observed that in the standard manner, increasing the number of demonstrations leads to improved performance. However, in the CoT manner, the performance con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11395", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Original Problem0] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. For every pound of beeswax, he can make 10 tapered candles. One pound of beeswax and the wicks cost $10.00 in supplies. If he sells each candle for $2.00 each, what is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 477, + 121 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Ratione] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 candles, which costs $10. He sells each candle for $2.00. So for 20 candles, he will make a profit of 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. His net profit is 40 - 10 = 30 dollars. The answer is 30.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 121, + 477, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer0] : 30.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 156, + 194, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/eba3d6c1d0b187d7cb4dbc213deaf19ebd65c7895e5a222050f54b130a2d5f69.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 450, + 154, + 475, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Begin, Problem Refine", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 119, + 175, + 248, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " [Refined Problem1]: Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 187, + 477, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " [Rationale₁] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes a profit of $2.00 per candle. If he makes and sells 20 candles, his net profit is 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. The answer is 40 dollars.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 224, + 477, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 40.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 258, + 196, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1c63b16da66a802c14d8f66ca01ef18c9153e033f6d2f1ed5966f8505f191c47.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 450, + 256, + 475, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \\mathrm{A}_{0}$ , Continue Refine", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 119, + 273, + 265, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " [Refined Problem1] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 2 pounds of beeswax and wicks to make 20 tapered candles, which cost him $20.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 287, + 482, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " [Rationale₂] : Charlie spent $20.00 in supplies to make 20 tapered candles. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes 20 * 2 = 40 dollars in sales. His net profit is 40 - 20 = 20 dollars. The answer is 20.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 324, + 482, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer2] : 20.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 351, + 194, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/116c32591b7d604139747d04b56c9754cd8fb5fd194a7d48de6d1896e26d5642.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, the model translates \"every\" to \"1\". In the second iteration, the model summarizes relevant conditions and specifies the total cost for Charlie." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 450, + 351, + 475, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{A}_2 \\coloneqq \\mathbf{A}_1$ , Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return $\\mathbf{A}_2$", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 370, + 396, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Original Problem]: A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. If she graded 4, but then another 15 were turned in, how many worksheets would she have to grade?", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 485, + 480, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. She graded 4 of them, and then 15 more were turned in. So she had $38 - 4 = 34$ worksheets to grade, and then 15 more were added. Now she has $34 + 15 = 49$ worksheets to grade. The answer is 49.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 505, + 480, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer0] : 49.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 541, + 194, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/42b3810d1b3a0247268b3fc03fcf2ea62302a189b600a7682c3f57448eb49cda.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 450, + 541, + 482, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Begin, Problem Refine", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 119, + 558, + 248, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem] : A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade?", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 571, + 480, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. So the teacher now has $38 + 15 = 53$ worksheets to grade. The answer is 53.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 601, + 480, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 53.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 627, + 193, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c99a16121a545bbad6b6cd06f1b2be495acccb17adc8f7005b6576b093879cca.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 450, + 621, + 480, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \\mathrm{A}_{0}$ , Continue Refine", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 119, + 642, + 267, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Refined Problem] A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade in total?", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 657, + 485, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Rationale₂] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. So the teacher now has $38 + 15 = 53$ worksheets to grade in total. The answer is 53.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 684, + 485, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Answer] : 53.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 712, + 194, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b7197d1186545d9d31192a435b74107e239453e94cdfe9cc38cc0e2bf6b68a25.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: A failure case of Self-Polish on MultiArith with Chain-of-Thought. The semantics of the second generated problem have deviated from the semantics of the original problem, and the model cannot answer correctly." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 450, + 712, + 480, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathrm{A}_2 = \\mathrm{A}_1$ ,Return $\\mathbf{A}_2$", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 730, + 240, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "verges when the number of shots is equal to 5, demonstrating impressive sample efficiency. Additionally, in the standard manner, our method is not sensitive to the order of demonstrations while it is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f7ea66eb84974568069cdef7dfc457e7c5ff2762905fbff5d36f3f94b81a54a1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
METHODSHOTSMeanOrder Deviation
Std+SP221.30.8
322.50.6
424.10.9
525.01.5
626.30.9
CoT+SP259.02.0
361.31.5
461.51.1
562.11.8
661.31.6
", + "bbox": [ + 536, + 80, + 855, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/17867e6718d383f1130c74c2f29fa73811ee13584c22927ee5c939d85d2b64f4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Sensitivity to the number and order of problem-refining demonstrations. Mean represents the average performance for the current number of shots, while the order deviation represents the average standard deviation introduced by different demonstration orders. The results are with Text-davinci-003. In the problem side, we leverage the in-context SP." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
METHODMATH
No Refinement21
Zero-shot SP23.5
In-context SP24.5
", + "bbox": [ + 605, + 353, + 788, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: More results on MATH dataset, using Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "highly sensitive to the order of demonstrations in the CoT manner.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 491, + 880, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Prompts of Self-Polish", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 739, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The in-context Self-Polish prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 6. The Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 7 and Table 8. The Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 9 and Table 10.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 560, + 882, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The in-context Self-Polish prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 11. The AutoSP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 12 and Table 13. The Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 14 and Table 15.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 882, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G More results on MATH dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 816, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As Table 5 shows, we also conducted Self-Polish methods on the MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021). Our approach demonstrated promising results. Specifically, we randomly selected 200 samples for testing, and use the Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 884, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11396", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 130, + 868, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Krishan and Nandan jointly started a business. Krishan invested six times as Nandan did and invested his money for double time as compared to Nandan. Nandan earned Rs. 6000. If the gain is proportional to the money invested and the time for which the money is invested then the total gain was? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000 New Question: Krishan and Nandan teamed up to start a business together. Krishan invested 12 times more money than Nandan did. Nandan's earnings from the business were Rs. 6000. If the gain is directly proportional to both the amount of money invested and the time period, what was the total gain for both of them? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 195, + 868, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: In a graduate physics course, 70 percent of the students are male and 30 percent of the students are married. If two-sevenths of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) $1 / 3$ (C) $1 / 2$ (D) $2 / 3$ (E) $5 / 7$", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 356, + 865, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: In a graduate physics course, 7/10 of the students are male and 3/10 of the students are married. If 2/7 of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) 1/3 (C) 1/2 (D) 2/3 (E) 5/7", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 405, + 867, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A train $500\\mathrm{m}$ long can cross an electric pole in 20 sec and then find the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 468, + 867, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A train, which is 500 meters long, takes 20 seconds to pass by an electric pole. What is the speed of the train? Represent the answer in units from answer options. Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 501, + 865, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A train covers a distance of $10\\mathrm{km}$ in $10\\mathrm{min}$ . If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) $50\\mathrm{m}$ (B) $60\\mathrm{m}$ (C) $100\\mathrm{m}$ (D) $90\\mathrm{m}$ (E) $120\\mathrm{m}$ . New Question: A train covers a distance of $10000\\mathrm{m}$ in $600\\mathrm{sec}$ . If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) $50\\mathrm{m}$ (B) $60\\mathrm{m}$ (C) $100\\mathrm{m}$ (D) $90\\mathrm{m}$ (E) $120\\mathrm{m}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 565, + 865, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: How many different subsets of the set $\\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\\}$ do not contain 0? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 645, + 865, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: How many different subsets of the set $\\{1,2,3,4\\}$ ? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 678, + 865, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A class has 6 boys and x girls. Average score of boys and girls is 50 and 60 respectively. the average of the whole class is 55, what is the value of x? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 726, + 865, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: In a class, there are 6 boys and an unknown number of girls. The average score of the boys is 50, while the average score of the girls is 60. The overall average score of the boys and girls is 55. How many girls are there in the class? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 775, + 865, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: In-context SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA.", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 837, + 685, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11397", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 98, + 870, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work. In how many days A alone can finish the job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 162, + 868, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left, and the remaining work is $3/4$ of the original one. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work alone. In how many days A alone can finish the whole job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 212, + 868, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A man buys an article and sells it at a profit of $20\\%$ . If he had bought it at $20\\%$ less and sold it for Rs.75 less, he could have gained $25\\%$ . What is the cost price? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 292, + 868, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A man buys an article at the price of x and sold it at the price of 1.2x, if he had bought it at a $20\\%$ discount which is $0.8\\mathrm{x}$ and sold it for Rs.75 less than $1.2\\mathrm{x}$ , he would have gained $25\\%$ of $0.8\\mathrm{x}$ . What was the original price of the article before any discounts or markups? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 341, + 868, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: The numbers of students speaking English and Hindi are in the ratio of $4:5$ . If the number of students speaking English increased by $35\\%$ and that speaking Hindi increased by $20\\%$ , what would be the new respective ratio? Answer Choices: (A) $19:20$ (B) $7:8$ (C) $8:9$ (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 420, + 868, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: The number of students speaking English is 400 and increased by $35\\%$ . The number of students speaking Hindi is 500 and increased by $20\\%$ , what would be the respective ratio? what is the new ratio of students speaking English and Hindi? Answer Choices: (A) $19:20$ (B) $7:8$ (C) $8:9$ (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 485, + 868, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A rectangular field has area equal to $150 \\, \\text{sq m}$ and perimeter $50 \\, \\text{m}$ . Its length and breadth must be? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 565, + 868, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Let $l$ and $b$ be the length and the breadth of the rectangular. The area of a rectangular field is 150 square meters: $1 * b = 50$ , and its perimeter is 50 meters: $2l + 2b = 50$ . What are the breadth of the field? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 598, + 868, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: The ratio of two numbers is 3:4 and their sum is 14. The greater of the two numbers is? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 662, + 868, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: There are two number a and b. The sum of a and b is 14, and the ratio of a and b 3:4. What is b? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 694, + 868, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A and B invests Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his capital and B withdraws one-fourth of his capital. In what ratio should they share the profits at the end of the year? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 741, + 868, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A and B invested Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 respectively in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his investment and B withdraws 1/4 of his investment. What is the ratio of their remaining investment? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 791, + 868, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Table 7: Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA.", + "bbox": [ + 326, + 869, + 668, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11398", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A train 640 meters long is running with a speed of $64\\mathrm{kmph}$ . The time taken by it to cross a tunnel 140 meters long is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 370, + 868, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A train is running with a speed of 64kmph. The length of train is 640 meters and there is a tunnel 140 meters long. The time taken by the train to cross tunnel is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 420, + 868, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, in how many ways that 1 girl and 2 boys are selected? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 483, + 868, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, how many total ways can 1 girl be chosen in 10 girls and 2 boys be chosen in 15 boys? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 533, + 868, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA.", + "bbox": [ + 270, + 595, + 724, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11399", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 195, + 805, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: There were 35 students in a hostel. Due to the admission of 7 new students the expenses of the mess were increased by rs .84 per day while the average expenditure per head diminished by re 1. What was the original expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 243, + 803, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: In a hostel, there were initially 35 students, and then 7 new students were admitted. While the average expenditure per student decreased by Re. 1, the daily expenses of the new mess increased by Rs. 84. What was the original daily expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 291, + 803, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A train $200\\mathrm{m}$ long passes a man, running at $5\\mathrm{km} / \\mathrm{hr}$ in the same direction in which the train is going, in 10 seconds. The speed of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 349, + 803, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A train, which is 200 meters long, passes a man running at 5 kilometers per hour in the same direction as the train in 10 seconds. What is the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 385, + 803, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Solution x contains $20\\%$ of material a and $80\\%$ of material b. solution y contains $30\\%$ of material a and $70\\%$ of material b. a mixture of both these solutions contains $22\\%$ of material a in the final product. How much solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) $40\\%$ (B) $60\\%$ (C) $80\\%$ (D) $100\\%$ (E) $110\\%$", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 432, + 803, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A mixture of solution x and y contains $22\\%$ of material a. Solution x contains $20\\%$ of material a and $80\\%$ of material b while solution y contains $30\\%$ of material a and $70\\%$ of material b. What percentage of solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) $40\\%$ (B) $60\\%$ (C) $80\\%$ (D) $100\\%$ (E) $110\\%$", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 480, + 803, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A trader sells 40 metres of cloth for rs.8200 at a profit of rs.35 per metre of cloth. How much profit will the trader earn on 40 metres of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs.950 (B) rs. 1500 (C) rs. 1000 (D) rs. 1400 (E) none of these", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 539, + 803, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A trader sells 40 meters of cloth and makes a profit of Rs. 35 per meter of cloth. How much profit does the trader make from selling 40 meters of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs . 950 (B) rs 1500 (C) rs . 1000 (D) rs . 1400 (E) none of these", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 575, + 803, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: If $x < y < z$ and $y - x > 5$ , where $x$ is an even integer and $y$ and $z$ are odd integers, what is the least possible value $s$ of $z - x$ ? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 621, + 803, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: If $x$ is an even integer, $y$ and $z$ are odd integers, and $y$ is greater than $x$ by more than 5, and $z$ is greater than $y$ . What is the smallest possible difference between $z$ and $x$ ? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 646, + 803, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: What is the difference between the c.i. on rs . 6000 for 1 1/2 years at $4\\%$ per annum compounded yearly and half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 692, + 803, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: What is the difference in the compound interest earned on Rs. 6000 for 1.5 years at $4\\%$ per annum when compounded yearly and when compounded half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 728, + 803, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA.", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 776, + 680, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11400", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: The average weight of a, b and c is $45\\mathrm{kg}$ . If the average weight of a and b be 40 kg and that of b and c be $45\\mathrm{kg}$ , then the weight of b is? Answer Choices: (A) $31\\mathrm{kg}$ (B) $32\\mathrm{kg}$ (C) $33\\mathrm{kg}$ (D) $35\\mathrm{kg}$ (E) none of these", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 356, + 868, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: The average weight of a, b and c is $45\\mathrm{kg}$ , which means the total weight of a, b and c is $135\\mathrm{kg}$ . If the average weight of a and b is $40\\mathrm{kg}$ , which means the total weight of a and b is $80\\mathrm{kg}$ so the weight of c is $45\\mathrm{kg}$ . The average weight of b and c is $45\\mathrm{kg}$ which means the total weight of b and c is $90\\mathrm{kg}$ . What is the weight of b? Answer Choices: (A) $31\\mathrm{kg}$ (B) $32\\mathrm{kg}$ (C) $33\\mathrm{kg}$ (D) $35\\mathrm{kg}$ (E) none of these", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 405, + 868, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: The compound and the simple interests on a certain sum at the same rate of interest for two years are rs.11730 and rs.10200 respectively. The sum is? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 501, + 868, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: A sum of money earns compound interest and simple interest at the same rate for two years. The compound interest is Rs.11730 and the simple interest is Rs.10200. What is the sum of money? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 550, + 868, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA.", + "bbox": [ + 253, + 612, + 742, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11401", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 131, + 868, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Each bird eats 12 beetles per day, each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each jaguar eats 5 snakes per day. If there are 6 jaguars in a forest, how many beetles are eaten each day?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 195, + 865, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: In a forest, there are 6 jaguars that each eat 5 snakes per day. Each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each bird eats 12 beetles per day. How many beetles are eaten each day by the jaguars?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 228, + 865, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Albert is wondering how much pizza he can eat in one day. He buys 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas. A large pizza has 16 slices and a small pizza has 8 slices. If he eats it all, how many pieces does he eat that day?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 275, + 865, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Albert has purchased 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas and is wondering how many slices he can eat in one day. Each large pizza has 16 slices and each small pizza has 8 slices. If Albert eats all of the pizza, how many slices will he have eaten in one day?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 324, + 865, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. If Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats, and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and twice as many green hard hats as the number of pink hard hats that he removed, then calculate the total number of hard hats that remained in the truck.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 388, + 865, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and 12 green hard hats. How many hard hats remain in the truck?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 453, + 865, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Jasper will serve charcuterie at his dinner party. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, a pound of cream cheese that cost half the price of the cheddar cheese, and a pack of cold cuts that cost twice the price of the cheddar cheese. How much does he spend on the ingredients?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 517, + 865, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " New Question: Jasper is hosting a dinner party and wants to serve charcuterie. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, 1 pound of cream cheese for $5, and a pack of cold cuts for $20. How much does he spend on the ingredients for the charcuterie?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 565, + 865, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Tomas ate 1.5 pounds of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate half a pound of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 2 pounds of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 630, + 865, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 678, + 865, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 741, + 865, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 791, + 865, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: In-context SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith.", + "bbox": [ + 260, + 837, + 734, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11402", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 212, + 865, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Monica is a teacher. She has 6 classes per day. The first class has 20 students. The second and third classes have 25 students. Her fourth class has half as many as her first class. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 249, + 867, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Monica is a teacher with 6 classes per day. Her first class has 20 students, her second and third classes have 25 students, and her fourth class has 10 students. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day in all of her classes?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 285, + 867, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Original Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts that cost the same amount of money. She spent a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 332, + 867, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " New Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts for a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 356, + 865, + 380 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for 1 hour each day for a total of $10. He does this for April, save for the 4 Sundays in April. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 391, + 867, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " New Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for April (30 days excluding 4 Sundays) for a total of $10 each day. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left after these expenses?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 426, + 865, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister. In 5 years, her younger sister will be 16. How old is Bethany now?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 474, + 865, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister, who is currently 11 years old. How old is Bethany now?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 498, + 865, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought one-third as many paperback books as Sarah bought, and two times the number of hardback books that she bought. How many books did her brother buy in total?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 533, + 867, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought 2 paperback books and 8 hardback books. How many books did her brother buy in total?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 569, + 865, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Sandra had 2 different bags of candy. Each of her bags had 6 pieces of candy left. Her brother, Roger, also had 2 bags of candy. One of his bags of candy had 11 pieces left and the other had 3 pieces left. How much more candy did Roger have?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 604, + 867, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Sandra had 2 bags of candy, each with 6 pieces left. Her brother, Roger, had 2 bags of candy, one with 11 pieces left and the other with 3 pieces left. How many more pieces of candy did Roger have than Sandra?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 640, + 865, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of $60\\mathrm{mph}$ and takes a lunch break taking 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks taking 15 minutes each, how many hours did it take her to get there? New Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of $60\\mathrm{mph}$ and takes a lunch break of 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks of 15 minutes each, how many hours(60 minutes = 1 hour) does it take her to get there?", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 675, + 867, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith.", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 758, + 717, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11403", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: James gets a fleet of gas transportation vans. He gets 6 vans. 2 of them are 8000 gallons. 1 of them is $30\\%$ less than that. The remaining trucks are $50\\%$ larger than the 2 trucks. How many gallons can he transport?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 420, + 865, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: James has acquired a fleet of gas transportation vans. He has 6 vans in total. 2 of the vans have a capacity of 8000 gallons, while the other van has a capacity of 5600 gallons (30% less than the first two vans). The remaining 3 vans have a capacity of 12000 gallons (50% larger than the first two vans). What is the total capacity of the fleet in gallons?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 469, + 865, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith.", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 546, + 771, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11404", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 122, + 868, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and 4 worksheets to memorize. They figure out that they should dedicate 3 hours to each chapter of their textbook and 1.5 hours for each worksheet. If they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week if they take a 10-minute break every hour, include 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 187, + 865, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and they decide to dedicate 3 hours to each chapter. They also have 4 worksheets to memorize, and they decide to dedicate 1.5 hours for each worksheet. Taking into account 10-minute breaks every hour, if they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day including 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 284, + 865, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score double the 2 pointers but half the 3 pointers and free throws. What's the total number of points scored by both teams added together?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 395, + 867, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score 50 2 pointers, 4 3 pointers and 5 free throws. Both teams score 75 2 pointers, 12 3 pointers and 15 free throws. What is the total number of points scored by both teams combined?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 445, + 865, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Bella has two times as many marbles as frisbees. She also has 20 more frisbees than deck cards. If she buys 2/5 times more of each item, what would be the total number of the items she will have if she currently has 60 marbles?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 508, + 865, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: Bella currently has 60 marbles, and she has twice as many marbles as frisbees and 20 more frisbees than deck cards. She buys 2/5 times more of each item. What would be the total number of the items she will have?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 557, + 865, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: A group of 4 fruit baskets contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas in the first three baskets and 2 less of each fruit in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 621, + 865, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: There is a group of 4 fruit baskets. The first three baskets each contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas, and 7 apples, 13 oranges, and 12 bananas in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there in total?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 653, + 865, + 701 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Original Question: You can buy 4 apples or 1 watermelon for the same price. You bought 36 fruits evenly split between oranges, apples and watermelons, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. How much does 1 apple cost if your total bill was $66?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 718, + 865, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " New Question: You bought 36 fruits, with an equal number of oranges, apples and watermelons. The price of 1 watermelon equals to 4 apples, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. If your total bill was $66, how much does 1 apple cost?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 766, + 865, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 14: Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith.", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 845, + 732, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11405", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: Susy goes to a large school with 800 students, while Sarah goes to a smaller school with only 300 students. At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers. She gained 40 new followers in the first week of the school year, half that in the second week, and half of that in the third week. Sarah only had 50 social media followers at the start of the year, but she gained 90 new followers the first week, a third of that in the second week, and a third of that in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 243, + 865, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers and Sarah had 50 social media followers. Susy gained 40 followers in the first week, 20 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. Sarah gained 90 followers in the first week, 30 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 356, + 865, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Original Question: Sam bought a dozen boxes, each with 30 highlighter pens inside, for $10 each box. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages of six highlighters each and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the rest of the highlighters separately at the rate of three pens for $2. How much profit did he make in total, in dollars?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 453, + 865, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " New Question: Sam bought 12 boxes for $10 each, and each contains 30 highlighter pens. 1 package contains 6 highlighters. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the remaining highlighters separately at the price of $2 for every three one. How much profit did Sam make in total, in dollars?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 517, + 865, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original Question: In a certain school, $2/3$ of the male students like to play basketball, but only $1/5$ of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball if the ratio of the male to female students is $3:2$ and there are 1000 students?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 596, + 865, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Question: In a certain school, there is a total of 1000 students, while 3 male students for every 2 female students. So there are 600 male students and $\\frac{2}{3}$ of the male students like to play basketball, and there are 400 female students but only $\\frac{1}{5}$ of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball?", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 646, + 865, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 15: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith.", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 724, + 786, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11406", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_model.json b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a66942c83a1f77ad8aab28af34a231caeaa51806 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,4505 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.173, + 0.083, + 0.825, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Polish: Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.199, + 0.131, + 0.798, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiheng Xi\\(^{1*}\\), Senjie Jin\\(^{1*}\\), Yuhao Zhou\\(^{1}\\), Rui Zheng\\(^{1}\\), Songyang Gao\\(^{1}\\), Tao Gui\\(^{2\\dagger}\\), Qi Zhang\\(^{1\\dagger}\\), Xuanjing Huang\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.255, + 0.166, + 0.749, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\) School of Computer Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.182, + 0.815, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\) Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.272, + 0.2, + 0.728, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{zhxi22,sjjin22,zhouyh21,gaosy21}@m.fudan.edu.cn," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.321, + 0.217, + 0.682, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{rzheng20, tgui, qz, xjhuang}@fudan.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.285, + 0.461, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models, researchers have extensively explored prompting methods, notably the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) method which explicitly elicits human-like rationales. However, they have inadvertently overlooked the potential of enhancing model reasoning performance by formulating higher-quality problems1. In this work, we start from the problem side and propose Self-Polish (SP), a novel method that facilitates the model's reasoning by guiding it to progressively refine the given problems to be more comprehensible and solvable. We also explore several automatic prompting variants and propose the Self-Polish prompt bank for the community. SP is orthogonal to all other prompting methods of answer/reasoning side like CoT, allowing for seamless integration with state-of-the-art techniques for further improvement. Thorough experiments show that the proposed method attains notable and consistent effectiveness on five reasoning benchmarks across different models. Furthermore, our method also showcases impressive performance on robustness evaluation. Codes and prompts are available at https://github.com/WooooDyy/Self-Polish." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.684, + 0.26, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.712, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on a variety of NLP tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Otter et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022), but their capability to perform multi-step reasoning is considered a limitation, which can not be tackled solely by scaling up the model size (Rae et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). To address this challenge, many prompting methods have been proposed to elicit reasoning in LLMs, and" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.252, + 0.88, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.44, + 0.885, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Schematic comparison between Self-Polish and other representative approaches for reasoning with prompting. Previous paradigms enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs from the aspect of the answer side/reasoning side, while our method starts from the problem side, and refines problems to be simpler and more comprehensible for models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.574, + 0.883, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "have demonstrated significant effectiveness (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.61, + 0.885, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is a breakthrough method that teaches a language model to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans to solve a reasoning task (Wei et al., 2022b). Many following work has explored variants of CoT to improve the quality of rationales of LLMs (Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). There is also a line of work that optimizes the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023), and a representative one is Self-Consistency (SC). SC generates diverse reasoning paths and answers, and then leverages the majority vote strategy to get the most consistent answer (Wang et al., 2022). Despite the boosted reasoning performance of the aforementioned methods, they focus on the answer/reasoning side, and little emphasis has been placed on the problems side." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Actually, the clarity and logical structure of the" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.868, + 0.272, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal contribution." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.881, + 0.289, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.894, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)A reasoning problem often consists of two parts: the context and the final question (Creswell et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.868, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11383" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11383-11406 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "problem description are crucial factors for human understanding and model comprehension (Shou and Smithson, 2015; Faruqui and Das, 2018; Chu et al., 2020). LLMs often exhibit poor reasoning performance when confronted with low-quality real-world reasoning problems, which may be excessively long, ambiguous, unclear in focus, or contain irrelevant information (Zellers et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2023; Ye and Durrett, 2022). To tackle this challenge, we consider refining problems into a better formulation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.269, + 0.492, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose Self-Polish (Figure 1 right) that leverages LLMs themselves to refine reasoning problems without training for better reasoning performance. We first present several principles for refined problems: concise, clear, well-focused, and absent of irrelevant information. To achieve our goal, we propose the Self-Polish Prompt Bank which includes several feasible solutions as outlined in the following text. An intuitive strategy is to reformulate problems via instruction-following (Sanh et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022), and we call it zero-shot problem refining. Next, we include demonstrations in the prompts (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022) to enable models to better internalize and apply the principles, which is defined as in-context problem refining. During the construction of the demonstrations, we incorporated a curated collection of problem-refining patterns, e.g., eliminating irrelevant information, rearranging the logic structure, and organizing local conditions into new ones in parallel. Moreover, we explore automatic prompting methods to construct enhanced prompts and mitigate manual efforts, based on the criteria of complexity (complexity-based Self-Polish) or diversity (automatic Self-Polish). To further enhance the reliability and consistency of the generated problems, we propose to progressively refine problems until obtaining a convergent answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.493, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experiments show that our method consistently improves the reasoning performance of various models (i.e., Text-davinci-002, Text-davinci-003, GPT-3.5-Turbo) on five benchmarks (Table 1 & Figure 3). Moreover, the proposed method is orthogonal to all other reasoning-side state-of-the-art prompting methods, making it convenient to be combined with them for further improvement. Detailed experiments demonstrate that the performance of reasoning-side methods can be significantly boosted when integrated with SP (Table 2 &" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3). Self-Polish also showcases exceptional performance on robustness evaluation (Figure 4)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, we make the following contributions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.16, + 0.887, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We propose a novel method, Self-Polish, to improve the reasoning performance and robustness of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.219, + 0.886, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method when applied alone or combined with other prompting approaches on five benchmarks with different models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.294, + 0.887, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We believe that the proposed Self-Polish represents an important step in enhancing LLMs' reasoning capabilities by shifting the perspective from the answer/reasoning side to the problem side. We hope it could inspire future research in this field." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.16, + 0.887, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.402, + 0.666, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.429, + 0.886, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-step reasoning. Multi-step reasoning tasks have posed significant challenges for language models (Rae et al., 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021; Qiao et al., 2022), and it is considered as an emergent ability of LLMs (Schaeffer et al., 2023). It is in these tasks that the effectiveness of few-shot prompting begins to surpass that of full training set fine-tuning (Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Moreover, such capability is considered important in building more complex artificial intelligence such as large language model-based agents (LLM-based agents) (Xi et al., 2023). Our work represents a significant stride in enhancing the ability of language models to perform multi-step reasoning tasks, through the facilitation of models' comprehension and processing of given reasoning problems." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.886, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reasoning with prompting. Prompting strategies have substantially improved the reasoning ability of LLMs by a large margin (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). An important line of work in this area is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting which elicits the reasoning ability of models by prompting them to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). Another line of work focuses on optimizing the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023). A representative one is Self-Consistency (SC), which samples" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11384" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.085, + 0.478, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Kylie makes 10 beaded necklaces on Monday and 2 beaded necklaces on Tuesday. Then Kylie makes 5 beaded bracelets on Wednesday. 20 beads are needed to make one beaded necklace. 10 beads are needed to make one beaded bracelet. Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.147, + 0.214, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 120." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.164, + 0.47, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.181, + 0.478, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem] : Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, 5 beaded bracelets. Each beaded necklace needs 20 beads. Each beaded bracelet requires 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.223, + 0.214, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 155." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.241, + 0.421, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0\\) Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.259, + 0.478, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem2]: Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, and each beaded necklaces needs 20 beads. She also makes 5 beaded bracelets, and each beaded bracelet needs 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.301, + 0.214, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer2] : 290." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.319, + 0.467, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_2! = \\mathbf{A}_1\\) Continue Refine (Summary Local Conditions)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.335, + 0.478, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem3] : Kylie requires 240 beads to make beaded necklaces. She also requires 50 beads to make beaded bracelets. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.367, + 0.214, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer3] : 290." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.386, + 0.256, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_3 = \\mathbf{A}_2\\) Return \\(\\mathbf{A}_3\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.41, + 0.49, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: An example illustrating the framework and problem-refining patterns of Self-Polish. In the first refining iteration, the irrelevant information \"Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store.\" is removed. In the second iteration, the conditions are reordered for easier calculation of the number of beads required for each type of beaded product. In the third iteration, the local conditions were parallelly combined to form new conditions (the total number of beads required for necklaces and bracelets)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.592, + 0.49, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "multiple reasoning paths and generate the most consistent answer by majority vote (Wang et al., 2022). Different from Self-Polish, the aforementioned strategies emphasize improving the quality of rationales from the answer/reasoning side. Our method is a problem-side method, so it is orthogonal to all of them and can be combined with them for further improvement." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.728, + 0.49, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "See Appendix A for more related work and the detailed differences between Self-Polish and Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.812, + 0.34, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Self-Polish Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we first revisit previous prompting paradigms aiming at solving reasoning problems. Next, we describe the proposed Self-Polish method dually." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.83, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Revisiting Paradigms of Reasoning Problem Solving" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.122, + 0.885, + 0.249 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the context of enhancing the capabilities of LLMs, the prompting technique has emerged as one of the most popular approaches owing to its training-free nature and effectiveness (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Here, we formalize several representative paradigms. See Figure 1 for a schematic comparison between them and our method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.884, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Standard. The prompt contains \\( k \\times \\) [Problem, Answer] pairs, followed by the test problem." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.302, + 0.885, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022b). The prompt contains \\( k \\times \\) [Problem, Rationale, Answer] tuples, followed by the test problem. This method teaches models to generate rationales and answers, achieving significant improvement in reasoning. Auto-CoT (Fu et al., 2022) and Complex-CoT (Zhou et al., 2022a) are two automatic variants that constructs CoT demonstrations according to the criteria of problem diversity and reasoning complexity, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.472, + 0.885, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a). The models are taught to first reduce problems into subproblems and then solve them sequentially. There are two kinds of prompts. The first is the problem reduction prompt that contains \\( m \\times \\) [Original Problem, Sub-Problems] pairs, followed by the test original problem. The second is the problem-solving prompt that contains \\( k \\times \\) [Original Problem, \\( n \\times \\) (Sub-Problem, Sub-Answer)] tuples, followed by the test original problem and the current subproblem to solve." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.884, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Summary. All previous methods focus on the answer/reasoning side, and it is convenient to combine them with Self-Polish which puts emphasis on the problem side." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.735, + 0.785, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Problem-Refining Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.756, + 0.72, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.1 Refining Principles" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We expect the newly generated problems to be easier to understand and process, so they should adhere to the following principles: (1) conciseness, the problems should not be overly long, ensuring they remain easily understandable; (2) clarity, the problems should avoid ambiguous phrasing and instead utilize quantitative representations (e.g., Arabic numerals) whenever possible; (3) focus: the problems should clearly convey the intended subject matter," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11385" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.882, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
METHODProgressivelyDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
StandardX15.828.372.935.128.236.1
+Zero-shot SPX22.4(↑ 6.6)28.3(0)73.2(↑ 0.3)43.1(↑ 8.0)25.4(↓ 2.8)38.5(↑ 2.4)
✓24.0(↑ 8.2)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.2(↓ 0.7)51.7(↑ 16.6)26.8(↓ 1.4)40.7(↑ 4.6)
+In-context SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)73.9(↑ 1.0)50.6(↑ 15.5)29.4(↑ 0.8)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓25.3(↑ 9.5)29.5(↑ 1.2)73.9(↑ 1.0)52.9(↑ 17.8)28.6(↑ 0.4)42.0(↑ 5.9)
+Auto-SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)29.9(↑ 1.6)72.6(↓ 0.3)54.0(↑ 18.9)27.6(↓ 0.6)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)72.9(0)56.7(↑ 21.6)28.2(0)42.5(↑ 6.4)
+Complex-SPX23.0(↑ 7.2)29.9(↑ 1.6)73.2(↑ 0.3)52.3(↑ 17.2)29.6(↑ 1.4)41.6(↑ 5.5)
✓24.6(↑ 8.8)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.9(0)55.7(↑ 20.6)30.0(↑ 1.8)42.4(↑ 6.3)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.298, + 0.884, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Evaluating different strategies of the Self-Polish prompting bank on several benchmarks. Performance gains/drops are highlighted with green/red. The results are with Text-davinci-003. “Progressively” represents whether using the progressively refining framework in Section 3.3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.362, + 0.489, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "making it evident what the question is asking; (4) absence of irrelevant information: the problems should be free from extraneous details that could cause confusion or distractions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.438, + 0.441, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.2 Construction of Refining Prompts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.489, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-shot Self-Polish. It is difficult to internalize the aforementioned principles within the model via training due to the tedious process of constructing a corresponding dataset and potential catastrophic forgetting problems (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Parisi et al., 2019). So we turn to training-free strategies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.556, + 0.49, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As LLMs demonstrate emergent abilities of instruction-following (Schaeffer et al., 2023; Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a), a simple and intuitive strategy to refine problems is prompting LLMs with an instruction. In the instruction, we guide the model to rewrite new versions of the original reasoning problem to be more understandable and easy to answer, and never omit any useful information. The prompt contains [Instruction, Original Problem] and the model responds with a newly generated problem. Next, we can adopt any prompting method in Section 3.1 to get the answer to the new problem, and we take this answer as the final one. We conduct preliminary validation experiments and the results are illustrated in Table 1. Zero-shot refining can consistently improve reasoning performance on various benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-context Self-Polish. As empirical results show that zero-shot refining can only provide limited performance gain, especially on difficult datasets, we then add demonstrations to the prompt to enable models to better internalize and apply" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.362, + 0.885, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "design principles. Specifically, demonstrations are formulated as [Original Problem, New Problem] pairs, and we incorporate a curated collection of problem-refining patterns in the demonstrations: (1) remove irrelevant information, as the first iteration in Figure 2; (2) rearrange the logic structure and group relevant conditions together to better match the reasoning logic of the model, as the second iteration in Figure 2; (3) summarize local conditions into new ones in parallel, as the third iteration in Figure 2. Results in Table 1 show that in-context problem refining yields more performance gain than zero-shot refining." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.583, + 0.884, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Self-Polish. This is an automatic variant of the in-context problem-refining. We draw inspiration from Zhang et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the diverse semantics of problems with the technique of \\( k \\)-means clustering. The underlying hypothesis is that a diverse set of demonstrations can cover a broad semantic space of problems, thereby the model can locate relevant reference demonstrations for more test examples. Table 1 shows that Auto-SP also yields significant improvement." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.773, + 0.884, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Complexity-based Self-Polish. This is another variant of the in-context problem-refining for automatically selecting refining demonstrations. We draw inspiration from Fu et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the complexity of each problem. The underlying hypothesis is that" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.881, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Note that a single example typically does not encompass all refining strategies. The example is constructed solely to illustrate our design patterns." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11386" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the refining ability of the model can generalize from complex problems to simpler ones. Table 1 demonstrates that Complex-SP can also yield substantial performance gain." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.163, + 0.433, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Progressively Refining Framework" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.186, + 0.491, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To enhance the consistency and reliability of the refined problems, we propose a progressive framework that has two stages: the problem-solving stage (Section 3.1) and the problem-refining stage (Section 3.2). The two stages are executed alternatively until the return condition is satisfied." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.294, + 0.49, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Return condition & answer selection. There are two situations that terminate the iterative process. The first is when the last two answers are the same, indicating convergence of the answer. In this case, we can directly return the answer. The second situation is when the iteration number exceeds the maximum count \\( T = 2 \\).3 In such case, we have multiple options for selecting the final answer, such as the answer to the original problem, the answer to the first generated problem, the answer to the last generated problem, or utilizing a majority voting approach to select the answer (Wang et al., 2022), which will be discussed in our ablation study in Section 5.1. Here we choose the answer to the last generated problem by default. As shown in Table 1, adding Progressively Refining to our method can bring further improvement across different prompt-construction approaches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.585, + 0.488, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The overall framework is shown in Algorithm 1 in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.633, + 0.262, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.661, + 0.49, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we conduct experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of SP." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.707, + 0.33, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setups." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.729, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models. We employ three GPT-series models, namely text-davinci-002, text-davinci-003, and GPT-3.5-Turbo (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), as they are widely recognized and accessible to the public, ensuring reproducibility of our research. Our experiments are based on OpenAI's API. All methods use greedy decoding (i.e., temperature = 0) for stable responses." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.087, + 0.706, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.087, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.189, + 0.704, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.705, + 0.189, + 0.885, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.291, + 0.704, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.705, + 0.291, + 0.884, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.398, + 0.886, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Evaluating Self-Polish on various benchmarks with different models. Self-Polish consistently improves reasoning performance across multiple models and benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.885, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. We evaluate the performance of our method on five reasoning datasets, including GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), AQuA (Ling et al., 2017), SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021), MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) and MathQA (Amini et al., 2019). The datasets are evaluated by prior studies in the field of multi-hop reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). We evaluate on the whole test set of AQuA and GSM8K. For other datasets, we adopt the split from Mishra et al. (2022) or randomly select 500 test instances, and perform 3 restarts for stable results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.693, + 0.885, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompts. For the sake of generalizability, GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from GSM8K; AQuA and MathQA share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from AQuA. See Appendix F for SP prompts. The prompts for the standard few-shot prompting method are from Wei et al. (2022b). The prompts for Chain-of-thought, Least-to-Most, Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT are from previous work (Wei et al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). While prompts of LtM are not available for some datasets, we manually construct them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "See more implementation details in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3One iteration means one time of problem refinement. Note that a bigger \\( T \\) can yield a larger performance gain, as discussed in Section 5.1. Here we set \\( T = 2 \\) to achieve a balance in computational efficiency and performance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11387" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ANSWER SIDEPROBLEM SIDEDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
Chain-of-ThoughtNo Refinement56.144.980.390.841.062.6
In-context SP56.7(↑ 0.6)48.8(↑ 3.9)81.6(↑ 1.3)88.5(↓ 2.3)43.0(↑ 2.0)63.7(↑ 1.1)
Auto-SP56.9(↑ 0.8)49.2(↑ 4.3)78.3(↓ 2.0)89.7(↓ 1.1)42.8(↑ 1.8)63.4(↑ 0.8)
Complex-SP58.1(↑ 2.0)47.3(↑ 2.4)81.3(↑ 1.0)90.2(↓ 0.6)43.2(↑ 2.2)64.0(↑ 1.4)
Least-to-MostNo Refinement59.342.182.983.939.061.4
In-context SP61.2(↑ 1.9)44.1(↑ 2.0)84.9(↑ 2.0)85.1(↑ 1.2)41.2(↑ 2.2)63.3(↑ 1.9)
Auto-SP61.6(↑ 2.3)44.9(↑ 2.8)82.9(0)83.9(0)41.2(↑ 2.2)62.9(↑ 1.5)
Complex-SP62.9(↑ 3.6)47.6(↑ 5.5)84.2(↑ 1.3)86.2(↑ 2.3)40.6(↑ 1.6)64.3 (↑ 2.9)
Auto-CoTNo Refinement59.446.575.692.541.463.1
In-context SP59.4(0)47.2(↑ 0.7)77.6(↑ 2.0)90.6(↓ 1.9)45.8(↑ 4.4)64.1(↑ 1.0)
Auto-SP60.5(↑ 1.1)48.0(↑ 1.5)75.6(0)89.7(↓ 2.8)44.4(↑ 3.0)63.6(↑ 0.5)
Complex-SP60.1(↑ 0.7)50.8(↑ 4.3)78.2(↑ 2.6)93.1(↑ 0.6)43.0(↑ 1.6)65.0(↑ 1.9)
Complex-CoTNo Refinement67.547.678.394.343.666.3
In-context SP66.2(↓ 1.3)50.8(↑ 3.1)80.9(↑ 2.6)90.8(↓ 3.5)44.6(↑ 1.3)66.7(↑ 0.4)
Auto-SP68.7(↑ 1.2)45.7(↓ 1.9)78.3(0)92.0(↓ 2.3)42.4(↓ 1.2)65.4(↓ 0.9)
Complex-SP68.5(↑ 1.0)50.4(↑ 2.8)78.6(↑ 0.3)93.1(↓ 1.2)44.8(↑ 1.2)67.1(↑ 0.8)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.363, + 0.884, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Evaluation results when combining Self-Polish with other answer/reasoning side prompting strategies. The results are with Text-davinci-003. The best performance for each answer side strategy of one task is underlined. The best performance for each task is in bold." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.427, + 0.331, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.452, + 0.49, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Standard few-shot setting. Figure 3 shows the results of evaluating the performance in the standard few-shot setting. We can find that: (1) Our method consistently improves reasoning performance by a large margin across multiple models and datasets, indicating its capability to enhance model understanding of problems. (2) On relatively weaker models, automated prompting methods like Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT yield more gains compared to in-context SP. However, on stronger models, the differences in performance gain between the three approaches are not significant, revealing that the stronger models are less sensitive to prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Combining Self-Polish with other prompting strategies. Table 2 demonstrates the evaluating results when combining our method with other state-of-the-art reasoning-side promoting strategies. There are several critical and interesting observations: (1) Generally, SP yields substantial performance gains for all reasoning-side methods, revealing that when the model is able to better comprehend problems, both its step-by-step reasoning capabilities and problem decomposition abilities can be significantly enhanced. (2) Whether for the reasoning side or the problem side, the Complex-based approach performs the best. This indicates that LLMs have the ability to generalize from com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.427, + 0.885, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "plex tasks to simple ones, both in terms of reasoning and problem refinement. (3) As Fu et al. (2022) stated, the average number of words in problems, i.e., GSM8K (46.9), AQuA (51.9), SVAMP (32.1), MultiArith (31.2), and MathQA (60.1), can serve as a proxy for measuring the reasoning complexity of each task. We find that the more challenging the task, the higher the improvement achieved by SP, highlighting its suitability for intricate reasoning tasks. It is noteworthy that when combined with the CoT-series methods, our approach has limited improvement on MultiArith. This could be because the task itself can already be well solved by CoT and is relatively simple. Excessive refinement of simple problems carries the risk of information loss or semantic alterations, leading to a decline in performance, as depicted in Figure 9." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robustness evaluation. GSM-IC (Shi et al., 2023) is an adversarial arithmetic reasoning dataset with distracting information in the problem to fool the model. So it is well-suited for evaluating the robustness of models. It has two splits: GSM-IC-2step which contains problems that require two reasoning steps to solve and GSM-IC-mstep which contains problems that require more than two reasoning steps to solve. As shown in Figure 4, our method enhances the robustness and reliability of various models across different prompting techniques, shielding them from the interference of low-quality problems." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11388" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.086, + 0.501, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.191, + 0.371, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) GSM-IC-2Step" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.087, + 0.888, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.634, + 0.191, + 0.759, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) GSM-IC-MStep" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.22, + 0.884, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Evaluation results on GSMIC (Shi et al., 2023). Self-Polish (SP) enhances the robustness and reliability of various models when combined with different prompting techniques." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.266, + 0.316, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.379, + 0.299, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Ablation Study on Std" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.322, + 0.267, + 0.497, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.324, + 0.379, + 0.495, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Iter. Distribution on Std" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.268, + 0.697, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.379, + 0.682, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Ablation Study on CoT" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.702, + 0.268, + 0.877, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.701, + 0.379, + 0.877, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) Iter. Distribution on CoT" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.408, + 0.884, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Ablation studies and the distribution of actual iterating times. (a) and (c) illustrate the performance (vertical axis on the left) when using different final answer selection strategies and different max iterating times \\( T \\). The \"Converge\" means the performance calculated by \\( N_{conv} / N_{all} \\) where \\( N_{conv} \\) means the number of examples that are answered correctly with converged answers, while the \\( N_{all} \\) means the number of all test examples. We also incorporate a line to represent the average actual iteration times at each value of \\( T \\) (vertical axis on the right). In (b) and (d), we show the distribution of actual iterating times when we set \\( T = 5 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.519, + 0.241, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.544, + 0.292, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Ablation Studies" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.489, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned in Section 3.3, the maximum iteration times \\( T \\) and the strategy to select the final answer if the convergence is not achieved are two main components of Self-Polish. Here we perform ablation studies on them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.654, + 0.49, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Max iterating times \\( T \\). As shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c), for both the Standard and CoT methods, larger iteration counts lead to higher convergence accuracy (\"Converge\" in figures), which aligns with common knowledge and further demonstrates the effectiveness of our method: by gradually optimizing problems, we enable the model to handle them more easily. But when \\( T \\) is too big, the performance of SP may suffer a drop, indicating that excessive rewriting can lead to a decline in the quality of problems. We set \\( T = 2 \\) not only for the sake of efficiency, but also because it can achieve competitive performance especially when combined with CoT-series methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Final answer selection strategies. We can easily observe that with a smaller \\( T \\), the \"Last One\" strat" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.52, + 0.885, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "egy tends to have an advantage, while as the iteration count increases, other strategies become more effective, even outperforming \"Last One\". This is intuitive as after multiple rewriting iterations, the semantic meaning of a problem may deviate significantly from the original one." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.627, + 0.825, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Analysis of Actual Iterating Times" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.647, + 0.884, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c) show that the actual iterating times \\( T_{\\text{actual}} \\) does not grow significantly as the max iterating times \\( T \\) increases, revealing that SP can achieve a converged answer on most of the problems with few iterations. To verify this, we illustrate the distribution map of \\( T_{\\text{actual}} \\) with \\( T = 5 \\) in Figure 5(b) and Figure 5(d). \\( T_{\\text{actual}} \\) exhibits a long-tail distribution, with only a few samples exceeding the max times. This finding provides evidence that our method is highly efficient that consumes few additional computational resources." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.835, + 0.757, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Further Improvement for Self-Consistency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Consistency is a prompting method that samples multiple reasoning paths and generates a consistent answer by majority vote strategy (Wang" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11389" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
METHODSC PathSelf-PolishDATASET
AQuAMathQA
Auto-CoT5X61.865.2
5✓66.168.4
10X61.467.4
10✓65.071.0
20X63.069.0
20✓68.172.0
Complex-CoT5X61.461.6
5✓65.064.4
10X65.462.4
10✓66.164.8
20X65.464.0
20✓67.065.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.306, + 0.49, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Evaluation results of combining Self-Polish with Self-Consistency on GPT-3.5-Turbo. In the problem side, we use the Complex-SP. The best results in each manner are highlighted in bold. With Self-Polish, Self-Consistency performs better." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.399, + 0.489, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2022). It has proved effective in various reasoning benchmarks (Wang et al., 2022). Here, we combine the Self-Polish and Self-Consistency methods to investigate whether there will be further performance improvement. We conduct experiments on two difficult datasets (i.e., GSM8K and AQuA) with temperature \\(= 0.7\\) for diversity following (Wang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.529, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results in Table 3 demonstrate that SP provides a substantial performance gain for SC in Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT manners. Moreover, an increase in the number of reasoning paths leads to a corresponding improvement in performance, showing the advantage of voting strategy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.639, + 0.25, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.489, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further demonstrate the effectiveness of the problem-refining patterns we proposed and how our method embodies the proposed principles, we conducted a case study as shown in Figure 6. More cases can be found in the Appendix D (Figure 7 and Figure 8)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Figure 6, we observe that removing irrelevant information (i.e., \"Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.\") can help the model avoid distractions and facilitate accurate reasoning. Next, rearranging the problem conditions and grouping pertinent conditions together can facilitate the model in generating more effective novel deductions during the process of reasoning (e.g., resulting in the streamlined computation of the total number of face masks in Refined Problem2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.087, + 0.875, + 0.129 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for \\(0.50 each. Grover's neighbor made a salary of \\)10 last year. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will he his total profit?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.129, + 0.875, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Ratione] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. So he will make 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 dollars in total. Grover's neighbor made 10 dollars last year. So Grover's profit will be 1.50 - 10 = -8.50. The answer is -8.50." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.17, + 0.618, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : -8.50." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.191, + 0.867, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.207, + 0.875, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will be his total profit?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.239, + 0.875, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Rationale] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell them for 0.50 dollars each. So his total profit will be \\((3 * 20 * 0.50) - 15 = 15\\) dollars. The answer is 15." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.281, + 0.605, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 15." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.298, + 0.818, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0\\) Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.313, + 0.87, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem₂]: Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15. He plans to sell the face masks for $0.50 each. How much will he his total profit?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.345, + 0.87, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\left[\\text{Rationale}_2\\right] : \\text{Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. So he bought } 3 * 20 = 60 \\text{ face masks in total. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell the face masks for } 0.50 \\text{ dollars each. So he will sell the 60 face masks for } 60 * 0.50 = 30 \\text{ dollars. His total profit will be } 30 - 15 = 15 \\text{ dollars.}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.396, + 0.602, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer2] : 15." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.416, + 0.652, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_2 = \\mathbf{A}_1\\) , Return \\(\\mathbf{A}_2\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.439, + 0.885, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: A case of Self-Polish on GSM-IC with Chain-of-Thought. The case is with Text-davinci-003. The irrelevant information \"Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.\" is removed. In the second iteration, the order of the condition \"Each box has 20 face masks.\" is moved forward and the model can calculate the total number of masks more easily when performing reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.578, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, summarizing local conditions into new ones can effectively simplify complex problems, enabling the model to handle them with greater ease. This is demonstrated in the first iteration of Figure 7 and the second iteration of Figure 8. Furthermore, the second iteration in Figure 7 highlights how our approach can explicitly and precisely define the problem in a formal manner. Specifically, in the Refined Problem\\(_2\\) of Figure 7, the model accurately identifies the two teams as \"Team A\" and \"Team B\" instead of referring to them as \"one team\" and \"the other team\", and then it is able to clearly specify the exact question to be asked. This significantly reduces the model's burden of understanding during the reasoning process, enhancing its overall performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.847, + 0.642, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper focuses on a previously neglected aspect, namely the optimization of problem formulation, within the context of enhancing multi-step" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11390" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "reasoning in large language models. We present a novel prompting method called Self-Polish which progressively refines the given reasoning problems to facilitate model comprehension and processing. It demonstrates impressive effectiveness, robustness, and reliability in various benchmarks across different models, and can seamlessly integrate with other state-of-the-art methods. We hope it could motivate future research in this field." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.241, + 0.221, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.266, + 0.492, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the significant enhancement in the reasoning performance achieved by our approach, this work still has limitations. Firstly, our criterion for convergence is based on obtaining two identical answers rather than assessing whether the problem itself has been sufficiently optimized. Future work could involve designing methods that enable the model to autonomously determine whether a problem has reached its optimal form. Secondly, we have explored two approaches to automatically construct problem-refining prompts (i.e., Auto-Sp and Complex-SP). However, in the future, it would be beneficial to incorporate more techniques for automatically generating instructions or selecting demonstrations. Thirdly, although our designed patterns for problem refining have proven highly effective, they do not encompass all possible scenarios in the real world. In the future, it is conceivable to incorporate additional patterns to further expand the scope of applicability." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.599, + 0.287, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.624, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206057,61976056,62076069), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500), Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader under grant 22XD1401100." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.779, + 0.214, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.801, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pages 2357-2367. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.121, + 0.886, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B. Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Nadadri S. Chatterji, Annie S. Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dorottya Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stefano Ermon, John Etchemendy, Kawin Ethayarajh, Li Fei-Fei, Chelsea Finn, Trevor Gale, Lauren Gillespie, Karan Goel, Noah D. Goodman, Shelby Grossman, Neel Guha, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Peter Henderson, John Hewitt, Daniel E. Ho, Jenny Hong, Kyle Hsu, Jing Huang, Thomas Icard, Saahil Jain, Dan Jurafsky, Pratyusha Kalluri, Siddharth Karamcheti, Geoff Keeling, Fereshte Khani, Omar Khattab, Pang Wei Koh, Mark S. Krass, Ranjay Krishna, Rohith Kuditipudi, and et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. CoRR, abs/2108.07258." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.378, + 0.885, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.583, + 0.885, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.892, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zewei Chu, Mingda Chen, Jing Chen, Miaosen Wang, Kevin Gimpel, Manaal Faruqui, and Xiance Si. 2020." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11391" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How to ask better questions? A large-scale multidomain dataset for rewriting ill-formed questions. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7586-7593. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.213, + 0.49, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.367, + 0.489, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.429, + 0.489, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. CoRR, abs/2205.09712." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.49, + 0.49, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Manaal Faruqui and Dipanjan Das. 2018. Identifying well-formed natural language questions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 798-803. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.578, + 0.489, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2022. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. CoRR, abs/2210.00720." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ian J. Goodfellow, Mehdi Mirza, Xia Da, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.728, + 0.49, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.83, + 0.49, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay V. Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. CoRR, abs/2206.02336." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.213, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun-. som. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 158-167. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.328, + 0.885, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out: The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, DeeLIO@ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland and Online, May 27, 2022, pages 100-114. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.444, + 0.885, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8086-8098. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.559, + 0.885, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 11048-11064. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.687, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Swaroop Mishra, Matthew Finlayson, Pan Lu, Leonard Tang, Sean Welleck, Chitta Baral, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. LILA: A unified benchmark for mathematical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 5807-5832. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.829, + 0.885, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel W. Otter, Julian R. Medina, and Jugal K. Kalita. 2021. A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 32(2):604-624." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11392" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "German Ignacio Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L. Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. 2019. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113:54-71." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.238, + 0.488, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.353, + 0.488, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. CoRR, abs/2212.09597." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.415, + 0.488, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, H. Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant M. Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sotiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew J. Johnson, Blake A. Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Edward Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. CoRR, abs/2112.11446." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.488, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1743-1752. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multi-task prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.297, + 0.883, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? CoRR, abs/2304.15004." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.35, + 0.883, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. CoRR, abs/2302.00093." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.43, + 0.883, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiyun Shou and Michael Smithson. 2015. Effects of question formats on causal judgments and model evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.484, + 0.883, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R. Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Agnieszka Kluska, Aitor Lewkowycz, Akshit Agarwal, Alethea Power, Alex Ray, Alex Warstadt, Alexander W. Kocurek, Ali Safaya, Ali Tazarv, Alice Xiang, Alicia Parrish, Allen Nie, Aman Hussain, Amanda Askell, Amanda Dsouza, Ameet Rahane, Anantharaman S. Iyer, Anders Andreassen, Andrea Santilli, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Andrew M. Dai, Andrew La, Andrew K. Lampinen, Andy Zou, Angela Jiang, Angelica Chen, Anh Vuong, Animesh Gupta, Anna Gottardi, Antonio Norelli, Anu Venkatesh, Arash Gholamidavoodi, Arfa Tabassum, Arul Menezes, Arun Kirubarajan, Asher Mullokandov, Ashish Sabharwal, Austin Herrick, Avia Efrat, Aykut Erdem, Ayla Karakas, and et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. CoRR, abs/2206.04615." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.76, + 0.883, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. CoRR, abs/2203.11171." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.827, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11393" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.16, + 0.488, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Rui Zheng, Xiaoran Fan, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Yuhao Zhou, Weiran Wang, Changhao Jiang, Yicheng Zou, Xiangyang Liu, Zhangyue Yin, Shihan Dou, Rongxiang Weng, Wensen Cheng, Qi Zhang, Wenjuan Qin, Yongyan Zheng, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huan, and Tao Gui. 2023. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. CoRR, abs/2309.07864." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.3, + 0.488, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2205.03401." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.348, + 0.488, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.396, + 0.488, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 93-104. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.497, + 0.487, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. CoRR, abs/2210.03493." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.545, + 0.487, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chuanyang Zheng, Zhengying Liu, Enze Xie, Zhenguo Li, and Yu Li. 2023. Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2304.09797." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.606, + 0.488, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2022a. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2205.10625." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.68, + 0.488, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron C. Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2022b. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2211.09066." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.742, + 0.204, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.766, + 0.452, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Disscussion of More Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent research has unveiled an unpredictable phenomenon known as emergent abilities, which manifest exclusively in larger language models while eluding their smaller counterparts (Schaeffer et al., 2023). In-context learning, instruction following, and multi-step reasoning are three emergent abilities that we focus on. We have discussed the multi-step reasoning in Section 2 and we will discuss" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "another two. We also compare our method with the LtM dually here." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.125, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-context learning. It is demonstrated that a large language model can learn patterns from a few input-output examples in the context (input) to perform the task for an unseen inference-time example (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), and such ability is referred to as in-context learning (ICL). Recent studies have further highlighted the impressive performance of ICL in reasoning tasks (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). In our research, we capitalize on this capability to generate new formulations of problems by injecting rephrasing patterns to the demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.326, + 0.885, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction following. LLMs can learn to perform unseen tasks solely through the comprehension of task-specific natural language instructions (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). There is also work showing that combining instructions with in-context learning can provide further benefits and that few-shot demonstrations can be viewed as a special kind of instruction that arouses the implicit ability in LLMs (Chung et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022b; Qiao et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.511, + 0.884, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with LtM. The work that is most similar to ours may be Least-to-Most (LtM) which decomposes the original problem into a series of sub-problems that need to be solved sequentially (Zhou et al., 2022a). However, LtM is an variant of CoT, and there are differences in motivation and operation process between LtM and SP. Firstly, LtM is an answer/reasoning side approach that emphasizes the decomposition of a complex problem into sub-problems, while we emphasize refining the original problem to make it more understandable. Secondly, in LtM, sub-problems are solved sequentially, requiring the answer of the previous sub-problem to tackle the next one, which can lead to fragility in the reasoning chain. In contrast, our method allows for the combination of local related conditions to form new conditions parallelly." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.795, + 0.795, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B The Algorithm of Self-Polish" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.82, + 0.884, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "See Algorithm 1 for the overall framework of SelfPolish." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.863, + 0.753, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We set the maximum iterating count to \\( T = 2 \\). Note that the bigger maximum iteration count \\( T \\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11394" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.089, + 0.397, + 0.103 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: Self-Polish Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.106, + 0.46, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: language model \\(\\mathcal{G}\\) problem set \\(S\\) prompt \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{refine}}\\) of the problem side refining method, prompt \\(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\) of the answer/reasoning side method, max iteration number \\(T\\) , answer selection strategy \\(\\mathcal{Z}\\) \n1 for each problem \\(s\\) in \\(S\\) do \n2 answer_list \\(= [ ]\\) . \n3 \\(t = 0\\) \n4 Procedure GENERATE ANSWER TO ORIGINAL PROBLEM \n5 rationale_t,ans \\(t = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\oplus s)\\) . \n6 answer_list.append(ans); \n7 \\(t = t + 1\\) \n8 Procedure ITERATE PROBLEM REFINEMENT AND ANSWER \n9 \\(s = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{refine}}\\oplus s)\\) . \n10 rationale_t,ans \\(t = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\oplus s)\\) . \n11 if ans \\(t = =\\) ans-1 then \n12 Return ans. \n13 else if \\(t > T\\) then \n14 Return Z的回答_list). \n15 else \n16 answer_list.append(ans); \n17 \\(t = t + 1\\) \n18 end \n19 end" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.582, + 0.487, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "may lead to better performance, but here we set it to 2 to achieve a trade-off between computational efficiency and effectiveness." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.634, + 0.487, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When combining with other reasoning-side methods (i.e., CoT, LtM, Complex-CoT and AutoCoT) on MultiArith and SVAMP, we set the answer selection strategy as \"selecting the answer to the original problem\" because this dataset is relatively easy for these prompting methods. Actually, in cases where it is not necessary, rewriting easy problems may result in the loss of critical information or altering the semantics of the original problem. In other settings, we set the answer selection strategy as \"selecting the answer to the last problem\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.836, + 0.38, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D More Cases and Examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we list more cases of Self-Polish in Figure 7 and Figure 8. We also list the failure case of excessive problem refining in Figure 9" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.087, + 0.871, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay; a race where each competing team has four members that each run 400 meters, or one lap, around a standard track. One of the two teams is very well-rounded and each of their members will run their 400 meter leg in precisely 55 seconds. The other team is less well-rounded; their first runner will run their 400 meter leg in 60 seconds then each subsequent runner will be 3 seconds faster than the previous runner. Using this information, how many seconds will the faster team win by?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.16, + 0.871, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\left[\\text{Rationale}_0\\right] : \\text{The well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 55 seconds each, for a total time of 220 seconds. The less well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively, for a total time of 222 seconds. The faster team will win by } 220 - 222 = -2\\) seconds. The answer is -2 seconds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.205, + 0.593, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer0]:-2." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.847, + 0.203, + 0.872, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.223, + 0.803, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine (Summary Local Conditions)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.235, + 0.872, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. One team has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while the other team has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds will the faster team win by?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.272, + 0.875, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Rationale] : The faster team has four members that run 400 meters in 55, 60, 57, and 54 seconds respectively. The slower team has four members that run 400 meters in 51 seconds each. So the faster team will win by \\(55 - 51 = 4\\) seconds. The answer is 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.308, + 0.586, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 4." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.847, + 0.302, + 0.872, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.321, + 0.833, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0\\) Continue Refine (Specify the Problem Formally)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.336, + 0.878, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem2]: Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds faster will Team A finish the relay compared to Team B?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.382, + 0.878, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\left[\\mathrm{Ratione}_2\\right]:\\) Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds. Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. So the total time for Team A is \\(4 * 55 = 220\\) seconds, and the total time for Team B is \\(60 + 57 + 54 + 51 = 222\\) seconds. Team A will finish the relay 2 seconds faster than Team B. The answer is 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.427, + 0.587, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer2]: 2." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.847, + 0.423, + 0.872, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.447, + 0.795, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_2 \\coloneqq \\mathbf{A}_1\\), Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return \\(\\mathbf{A}_2\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.47, + 0.884, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, some irrelevant information is removed and the average time each member of the second team consumes is clarified. In the second iteration, the model accurately identifies the two teams as \"Team A\" and \"Team B\" instead of referring to them as \"one team\" and \"the other team\", and it explicitly states what the question to be asked is, reducing the burden of understanding on the model during the reasoning process." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.644, + 0.855, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Sensitivity to Number and Order of Demonstrations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As widely recognized, in-context learning is highly sensitive to the number and order of demonstrations within the prompt (Min et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). In this regard, we investigate whether our problem-refining process is sensitive to these variables via experiments on GSM8K with Text-davinci-003. We randomly select 200 examples from the test set. For a specific shot number, we randomly select five sets of demonstrations. For each set of demonstrations, we obtain performance results in five different orders. We observed that in the standard manner, increasing the number of demonstrations leads to improved performance. However, in the CoT manner, the performance con" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11395" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.478, + 0.122 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. For every pound of beeswax, he can make 10 tapered candles. One pound of beeswax and the wicks cost $10.00 in supplies. If he sells each candle for $2.00 each, what is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.122, + 0.478, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Ratione] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 candles, which costs $10. He sells each candle for $2.00. So for 20 candles, he will make a profit of 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. His net profit is 40 - 10 = 30 dollars. The answer is 30." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.158, + 0.195, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer0] : 30." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.155, + 0.476, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.176, + 0.25, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.188, + 0.478, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " [Refined Problem1]: Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.225, + 0.478, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " [Rationale₁] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes a profit of $2.00 per candle. If he makes and sells 20 candles, his net profit is 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. The answer is 40 dollars." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.259, + 0.197, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 40." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.258, + 0.476, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.274, + 0.267, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \\mathrm{A}_{0}\\) , Continue Refine" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.288, + 0.483, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " [Refined Problem1] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 2 pounds of beeswax and wicks to make 20 tapered candles, which cost him $20.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.325, + 0.483, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " [Rationale₂] : Charlie spent $20.00 in supplies to make 20 tapered candles. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes 20 * 2 = 40 dollars in sales. His net profit is 40 - 20 = 20 dollars. The answer is 20." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.352, + 0.195, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer2] : 20." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.352, + 0.476, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.372, + 0.398, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{A}_2 \\coloneqq \\mathbf{A}_1\\), Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return \\(\\mathbf{A}_2\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.395, + 0.49, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, the model translates \"every\" to \"1\". In the second iteration, the model summarizes relevant conditions and specifies the total cost for Charlie." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.486, + 0.481, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Original Problem]: A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. If she graded 4, but then another 15 were turned in, how many worksheets would she have to grade?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.506, + 0.481, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. She graded 4 of them, and then 15 more were turned in. So she had \\(38 - 4 = 34\\) worksheets to grade, and then 15 more were added. Now she has \\(34 + 15 = 49\\) worksheets to grade. The answer is 49." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.542, + 0.196, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer0] : 49." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.542, + 0.483, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.559, + 0.25, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.573, + 0.481, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem] : A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.602, + 0.481, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. So the teacher now has \\(38 + 15 = 53\\) worksheets to grade. The answer is 53." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.629, + 0.194, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 53." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.622, + 0.481, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.643, + 0.268, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \\mathrm{A}_{0}\\) , Continue Refine" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.658, + 0.486, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Refined Problem] A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.686, + 0.486, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Rationale₂] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. So the teacher now has \\(38 + 15 = 53\\) worksheets to grade in total. The answer is 53." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.713, + 0.195, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Answer] : 53." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.451, + 0.713, + 0.481, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.731, + 0.241, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathrm{A}_2 = \\mathrm{A}_1\\) ,Return \\(\\mathbf{A}_2\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.755, + 0.489, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: A failure case of Self-Polish on MultiArith with Chain-of-Thought. The semantics of the second generated problem have deviated from the semantics of the original problem, and the model cannot answer correctly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "verges when the number of shots is equal to 5, demonstrating impressive sample efficiency. Additionally, in the standard manner, our method is not sensitive to the order of demonstrations while it is" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.082, + 0.857, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
METHODSHOTSMeanOrder Deviation
Std+SP221.30.8
322.50.6
424.10.9
525.01.5
626.30.9
CoT+SP259.02.0
361.31.5
461.51.1
562.11.8
661.31.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.246, + 0.885, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Sensitivity to the number and order of problem-refining demonstrations. Mean represents the average performance for the current number of shots, while the order deviation represents the average standard deviation introduced by different demonstration orders. The results are with Text-davinci-003. In the problem side, we leverage the in-context SP." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.606, + 0.354, + 0.789, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
METHODMATH
No Refinement21
Zero-shot SP23.5
In-context SP24.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: More results on MATH dataset, using Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.492, + 0.882, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "highly sensitive to the order of demonstrations in the CoT manner." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.535, + 0.74, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Prompts of Self-Polish" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.561, + 0.884, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The in-context Self-Polish prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 6. The Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 7 and Table 8. The Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 9 and Table 10." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.642, + 0.884, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The in-context Self-Polish prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 11. The AutoSP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 12 and Table 13. The Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 14 and Table 15." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.749, + 0.818, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G More results on MATH dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.774, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As Table 5 shows, we also conducted Self-Polish methods on the MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021). Our approach demonstrated promising results. Specifically, we randomly selected 200 samples for testing, and use the Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11396" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.131, + 0.87, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.196, + 0.87, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Krishan and Nandan jointly started a business. Krishan invested six times as Nandan did and invested his money for double time as compared to Nandan. Nandan earned Rs. 6000. If the gain is proportional to the money invested and the time for which the money is invested then the total gain was? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000 New Question: Krishan and Nandan teamed up to start a business together. Krishan invested 12 times more money than Nandan did. Nandan's earnings from the business were Rs. 6000. If the gain is directly proportional to both the amount of money invested and the time period, what was the total gain for both of them? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.357, + 0.867, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: In a graduate physics course, 70 percent of the students are male and 30 percent of the students are married. If two-sevenths of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) \\(1 / 3\\) (C) \\(1 / 2\\) (D) \\(2 / 3\\) (E) \\(5 / 7\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.406, + 0.868, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: In a graduate physics course, 7/10 of the students are male and 3/10 of the students are married. If 2/7 of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) 1/3 (C) 1/2 (D) 2/3 (E) 5/7" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.469, + 0.868, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A train \\(500\\mathrm{m}\\) long can cross an electric pole in 20 sec and then find the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.502, + 0.867, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A train, which is 500 meters long, takes 20 seconds to pass by an electric pole. What is the speed of the train? Represent the answer in units from answer options. Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.566, + 0.867, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A train covers a distance of \\(10\\mathrm{km}\\) in \\(10\\mathrm{min}\\). If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) \\(50\\mathrm{m}\\) (B) \\(60\\mathrm{m}\\) (C) \\(100\\mathrm{m}\\) (D) \\(90\\mathrm{m}\\) (E) \\(120\\mathrm{m}\\). New Question: A train covers a distance of \\(10000\\mathrm{m}\\) in \\(600\\mathrm{sec}\\). If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) \\(50\\mathrm{m}\\) (B) \\(60\\mathrm{m}\\) (C) \\(100\\mathrm{m}\\) (D) \\(90\\mathrm{m}\\) (E) \\(120\\mathrm{m}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.646, + 0.867, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: How many different subsets of the set \\(\\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\\}\\) do not contain 0? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.679, + 0.867, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: How many different subsets of the set \\(\\{1,2,3,4\\}\\)? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.727, + 0.867, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A class has 6 boys and x girls. Average score of boys and girls is 50 and 60 respectively. the average of the whole class is 55, what is the value of x? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.776, + 0.867, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: In a class, there are 6 boys and an unknown number of girls. The average score of the boys is 50, while the average score of the girls is 60. The overall average score of the boys and girls is 55. How many girls are there in the class? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.31, + 0.838, + 0.686, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: In-context SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11397" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.099, + 0.872, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.164, + 0.869, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work. In how many days A alone can finish the job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.213, + 0.87, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left, and the remaining work is \\(3/4\\) of the original one. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work alone. In how many days A alone can finish the whole job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.293, + 0.87, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A man buys an article and sells it at a profit of \\(20\\%\\). If he had bought it at \\(20\\%\\) less and sold it for Rs.75 less, he could have gained \\(25\\%\\). What is the cost price? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.342, + 0.87, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A man buys an article at the price of x and sold it at the price of 1.2x, if he had bought it at a \\(20\\%\\) discount which is \\(0.8\\mathrm{x}\\) and sold it for Rs.75 less than \\(1.2\\mathrm{x}\\), he would have gained \\(25\\%\\) of \\(0.8\\mathrm{x}\\). What was the original price of the article before any discounts or markups? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.421, + 0.87, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: The numbers of students speaking English and Hindi are in the ratio of \\(4:5\\). If the number of students speaking English increased by \\(35\\%\\) and that speaking Hindi increased by \\(20\\%\\), what would be the new respective ratio? Answer Choices: (A) \\(19:20\\) (B) \\(7:8\\) (C) \\(8:9\\) (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.486, + 0.87, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: The number of students speaking English is 400 and increased by \\(35\\%\\). The number of students speaking Hindi is 500 and increased by \\(20\\%\\), what would be the respective ratio? what is the new ratio of students speaking English and Hindi? Answer Choices: (A) \\(19:20\\) (B) \\(7:8\\) (C) \\(8:9\\) (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.566, + 0.869, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A rectangular field has area equal to \\(150 \\, \\text{sq m}\\) and perimeter \\(50 \\, \\text{m}\\). Its length and breadth must be? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.599, + 0.869, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Let \\( l \\) and \\( b \\) be the length and the breadth of the rectangular. The area of a rectangular field is 150 square meters: \\( 1 * b = 50 \\), and its perimeter is 50 meters: \\( 2l + 2b = 50 \\). What are the breadth of the field? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.663, + 0.869, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: The ratio of two numbers is 3:4 and their sum is 14. The greater of the two numbers is? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.695, + 0.87, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: There are two number a and b. The sum of a and b is 14, and the ratio of a and b 3:4. What is b? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.743, + 0.869, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A and B invests Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his capital and B withdraws one-fourth of his capital. In what ratio should they share the profits at the end of the year? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.792, + 0.869, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A and B invested Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 respectively in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his investment and B withdraws 1/4 of his investment. What is the ratio of their remaining investment? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.327, + 0.87, + 0.67, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11398" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.372, + 0.87, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A train 640 meters long is running with a speed of \\(64\\mathrm{kmph}\\). The time taken by it to cross a tunnel 140 meters long is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.422, + 0.87, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A train is running with a speed of 64kmph. The length of train is 640 meters and there is a tunnel 140 meters long. The time taken by the train to cross tunnel is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.485, + 0.87, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, in how many ways that 1 girl and 2 boys are selected? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.535, + 0.87, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, how many total ways can 1 girl be chosen in 10 girls and 2 boys be chosen in 15 boys? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.272, + 0.596, + 0.725, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11399" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.196, + 0.806, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.244, + 0.805, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: There were 35 students in a hostel. Due to the admission of 7 new students the expenses of the mess were increased by rs .84 per day while the average expenditure per head diminished by re 1. What was the original expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.292, + 0.805, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: In a hostel, there were initially 35 students, and then 7 new students were admitted. While the average expenditure per student decreased by Re. 1, the daily expenses of the new mess increased by Rs. 84. What was the original daily expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.35, + 0.805, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A train \\(200\\mathrm{m}\\) long passes a man, running at \\(5\\mathrm{km} / \\mathrm{hr}\\) in the same direction in which the train is going, in 10 seconds. The speed of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.386, + 0.805, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A train, which is 200 meters long, passes a man running at 5 kilometers per hour in the same direction as the train in 10 seconds. What is the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.433, + 0.805, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Solution x contains \\(20\\%\\) of material a and \\(80\\%\\) of material b. solution y contains \\(30\\%\\) of material a and \\(70\\%\\) of material b. a mixture of both these solutions contains \\(22\\%\\) of material a in the final product. How much solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) \\(40\\%\\) (B) \\(60\\%\\) (C) \\(80\\%\\) (D) \\(100\\%\\) (E) \\(110\\%\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.481, + 0.805, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A mixture of solution x and y contains \\(22\\%\\) of material a. Solution x contains \\(20\\%\\) of material a and \\(80\\%\\) of material b while solution y contains \\(30\\%\\) of material a and \\(70\\%\\) of material b. What percentage of solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) \\(40\\%\\) (B) \\(60\\%\\) (C) \\(80\\%\\) (D) \\(100\\%\\) (E) \\(110\\%\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.54, + 0.805, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A trader sells 40 metres of cloth for rs.8200 at a profit of rs.35 per metre of cloth. How much profit will the trader earn on 40 metres of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs.950 (B) rs. 1500 (C) rs. 1000 (D) rs. 1400 (E) none of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.576, + 0.805, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A trader sells 40 meters of cloth and makes a profit of Rs. 35 per meter of cloth. How much profit does the trader make from selling 40 meters of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs . 950 (B) rs 1500 (C) rs . 1000 (D) rs . 1400 (E) none of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.623, + 0.805, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: If \\( x < y < z \\) and \\( y - x > 5 \\), where \\( x \\) is an even integer and \\( y \\) and \\( z \\) are odd integers, what is the least possible value \\( s \\) of \\( z - x \\)? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.647, + 0.805, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: If \\( x \\) is an even integer, \\( y \\) and \\( z \\) are odd integers, and \\( y \\) is greater than \\( x \\) by more than 5, and \\( z \\) is greater than \\( y \\). What is the smallest possible difference between \\( z \\) and \\( x \\)? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.693, + 0.805, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: What is the difference between the c.i. on rs . 6000 for 1 1/2 years at \\(4\\%\\) per annum compounded yearly and half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.729, + 0.805, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: What is the difference in the compound interest earned on Rs. 6000 for 1.5 years at \\(4\\%\\) per annum when compounded yearly and when compounded half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.314, + 0.777, + 0.682, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11400" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.357, + 0.87, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: The average weight of a, b and c is \\(45\\mathrm{kg}\\). If the average weight of a and b be 40 kg and that of b and c be \\(45\\mathrm{kg}\\), then the weight of b is? Answer Choices: (A) \\(31\\mathrm{kg}\\) (B) \\(32\\mathrm{kg}\\) (C) \\(33\\mathrm{kg}\\) (D) \\(35\\mathrm{kg}\\) (E) none of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.406, + 0.87, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: The average weight of a, b and c is \\(45\\mathrm{kg}\\), which means the total weight of a, b and c is \\(135\\mathrm{kg}\\). If the average weight of a and b is \\(40\\mathrm{kg}\\), which means the total weight of a and b is \\(80\\mathrm{kg}\\) so the weight of c is \\(45\\mathrm{kg}\\). The average weight of b and c is \\(45\\mathrm{kg}\\) which means the total weight of b and c is \\(90\\mathrm{kg}\\). What is the weight of b? Answer Choices: (A) \\(31\\mathrm{kg}\\) (B) \\(32\\mathrm{kg}\\) (C) \\(33\\mathrm{kg}\\) (D) \\(35\\mathrm{kg}\\) (E) none of these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.502, + 0.87, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: The compound and the simple interests on a certain sum at the same rate of interest for two years are rs.11730 and rs.10200 respectively. The sum is? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.551, + 0.869, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: A sum of money earns compound interest and simple interest at the same rate for two years. The compound interest is Rs.11730 and the simple interest is Rs.10200. What is the sum of money? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.254, + 0.613, + 0.744, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11401" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.132, + 0.87, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.196, + 0.867, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Each bird eats 12 beetles per day, each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each jaguar eats 5 snakes per day. If there are 6 jaguars in a forest, how many beetles are eaten each day?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.229, + 0.867, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: In a forest, there are 6 jaguars that each eat 5 snakes per day. Each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each bird eats 12 beetles per day. How many beetles are eaten each day by the jaguars?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.277, + 0.867, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Albert is wondering how much pizza he can eat in one day. He buys 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas. A large pizza has 16 slices and a small pizza has 8 slices. If he eats it all, how many pieces does he eat that day?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.325, + 0.867, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Albert has purchased 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas and is wondering how many slices he can eat in one day. Each large pizza has 16 slices and each small pizza has 8 slices. If Albert eats all of the pizza, how many slices will he have eaten in one day?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.389, + 0.867, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. If Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats, and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and twice as many green hard hats as the number of pink hard hats that he removed, then calculate the total number of hard hats that remained in the truck." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.454, + 0.867, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and 12 green hard hats. How many hard hats remain in the truck?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.518, + 0.867, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Jasper will serve charcuterie at his dinner party. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, a pound of cream cheese that cost half the price of the cheddar cheese, and a pack of cold cuts that cost twice the price of the cheddar cheese. How much does he spend on the ingredients?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.567, + 0.867, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " New Question: Jasper is hosting a dinner party and wants to serve charcuterie. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, 1 pound of cream cheese for $5, and a pack of cold cuts for $20. How much does he spend on the ingredients for the charcuterie?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.631, + 0.867, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Tomas ate 1.5 pounds of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate half a pound of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 2 pounds of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.679, + 0.867, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.743, + 0.867, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.792, + 0.867, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.838, + 0.735, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: In-context SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11402" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.214, + 0.867, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.25, + 0.868, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Monica is a teacher. She has 6 classes per day. The first class has 20 students. The second and third classes have 25 students. Her fourth class has half as many as her first class. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.286, + 0.868, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Monica is a teacher with 6 classes per day. Her first class has 20 students, her second and third classes have 25 students, and her fourth class has 10 students. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day in all of her classes?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.333, + 0.868, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Original Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts that cost the same amount of money. She spent a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.357, + 0.867, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " New Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts for a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.392, + 0.868, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for 1 hour each day for a total of $10. He does this for April, save for the 4 Sundays in April. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.428, + 0.867, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " New Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for April (30 days excluding 4 Sundays) for a total of $10 each day. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left after these expenses?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.475, + 0.867, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister. In 5 years, her younger sister will be 16. How old is Bethany now?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.499, + 0.867, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister, who is currently 11 years old. How old is Bethany now?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.534, + 0.868, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought one-third as many paperback books as Sarah bought, and two times the number of hardback books that she bought. How many books did her brother buy in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.57, + 0.867, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought 2 paperback books and 8 hardback books. How many books did her brother buy in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.605, + 0.868, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Sandra had 2 different bags of candy. Each of her bags had 6 pieces of candy left. Her brother, Roger, also had 2 bags of candy. One of his bags of candy had 11 pieces left and the other had 3 pieces left. How much more candy did Roger have?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.641, + 0.867, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Sandra had 2 bags of candy, each with 6 pieces left. Her brother, Roger, had 2 bags of candy, one with 11 pieces left and the other with 3 pieces left. How many more pieces of candy did Roger have than Sandra?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.676, + 0.868, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of \\(60\\mathrm{mph}\\) and takes a lunch break taking 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks taking 15 minutes each, how many hours did it take her to get there? New Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of \\(60\\mathrm{mph}\\) and takes a lunch break of 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks of 15 minutes each, how many hours(60 minutes = 1 hour) does it take her to get there?" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.759, + 0.719, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11403" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.421, + 0.867, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: James gets a fleet of gas transportation vans. He gets 6 vans. 2 of them are 8000 gallons. 1 of them is \\(30\\%\\) less than that. The remaining trucks are \\(50\\%\\) larger than the 2 trucks. How many gallons can he transport?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.47, + 0.867, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: James has acquired a fleet of gas transportation vans. He has 6 vans in total. 2 of the vans have a capacity of 8000 gallons, while the other van has a capacity of 5600 gallons (30% less than the first two vans). The remaining 3 vans have a capacity of 12000 gallons (50% larger than the first two vans). What is the total capacity of the fleet in gallons?" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.548, + 0.773, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11404" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.123, + 0.87, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.188, + 0.867, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and 4 worksheets to memorize. They figure out that they should dedicate 3 hours to each chapter of their textbook and 1.5 hours for each worksheet. If they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week if they take a 10-minute break every hour, include 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.285, + 0.867, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and they decide to dedicate 3 hours to each chapter. They also have 4 worksheets to memorize, and they decide to dedicate 1.5 hours for each worksheet. Taking into account 10-minute breaks every hour, if they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day including 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.397, + 0.868, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score double the 2 pointers but half the 3 pointers and free throws. What's the total number of points scored by both teams added together?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.446, + 0.867, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score 50 2 pointers, 4 3 pointers and 5 free throws. Both teams score 75 2 pointers, 12 3 pointers and 15 free throws. What is the total number of points scored by both teams combined?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.51, + 0.867, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Bella has two times as many marbles as frisbees. She also has 20 more frisbees than deck cards. If she buys 2/5 times more of each item, what would be the total number of the items she will have if she currently has 60 marbles?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.558, + 0.867, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: Bella currently has 60 marbles, and she has twice as many marbles as frisbees and 20 more frisbees than deck cards. She buys 2/5 times more of each item. What would be the total number of the items she will have?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.623, + 0.867, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: A group of 4 fruit baskets contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas in the first three baskets and 2 less of each fruit in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.655, + 0.867, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: There is a group of 4 fruit baskets. The first three baskets each contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas, and 7 apples, 13 oranges, and 12 bananas in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there in total?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.719, + 0.867, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Original Question: You can buy 4 apples or 1 watermelon for the same price. You bought 36 fruits evenly split between oranges, apples and watermelons, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. How much does 1 apple cost if your total bill was $66?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.768, + 0.867, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " New Question: You bought 36 fruits, with an equal number of oranges, apples and watermelons. The price of 1 watermelon equals to 4 apples, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. If your total bill was $66, how much does 1 apple cost?" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.846, + 0.733, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14: Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11405" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.244, + 0.867, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: Susy goes to a large school with 800 students, while Sarah goes to a smaller school with only 300 students. At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers. She gained 40 new followers in the first week of the school year, half that in the second week, and half of that in the third week. Sarah only had 50 social media followers at the start of the year, but she gained 90 new followers the first week, a third of that in the second week, and a third of that in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.357, + 0.867, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers and Sarah had 50 social media followers. Susy gained 40 followers in the first week, 20 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. Sarah gained 90 followers in the first week, 30 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.454, + 0.867, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Original Question: Sam bought a dozen boxes, each with 30 highlighter pens inside, for $10 each box. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages of six highlighters each and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the rest of the highlighters separately at the rate of three pens for $2. How much profit did he make in total, in dollars?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.518, + 0.867, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " New Question: Sam bought 12 boxes for $10 each, and each contains 30 highlighter pens. 1 package contains 6 highlighters. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the remaining highlighters separately at the price of $2 for every three one. How much profit did Sam make in total, in dollars?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.598, + 0.867, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original Question: In a certain school, \\(2/3\\) of the male students like to play basketball, but only \\(1/5\\) of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball if the ratio of the male to female students is \\(3:2\\) and there are 1000 students?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.647, + 0.867, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Question: In a certain school, there is a total of 1000 students, while 3 male students for every 2 female students. So there are 600 male students and \\( \\frac{2}{3} \\) of the male students like to play basketball, and there are 400 female students but only \\( \\frac{1}{5} \\) of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.208, + 0.725, + 0.787, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 15: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11406" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ebabf5fc679d74f79605e656360386b993d8c21e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/c7f78779-0505-4b54-9d8c-1100f1efcbf4_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2b5ae10315981c2dc4a4eb3e0a0ace895724986fb08aac11342d30682bac166e +size 1805055 diff --git a/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/full.md b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb9d07e9d324b10a93b95e7d7ab423858ac56492 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,701 @@ +# Self-Polish: Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement + +Zhiheng Xi $^{1*}$ , Senjie Jin $^{1*}$ , Yuhao Zhou $^{1}$ , Rui Zheng $^{1}$ , Songyang Gao $^{1}$ , Tao Gui $^{2\dagger}$ , Qi Zhang $^{1\dagger}$ , Xuanjing Huang $^{1}$ + +$^{1}$ School of Computer Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China + +$^{2}$ Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China + +{zhxi22,sjjin22,zhouyh21,gaosy21}@m.fudan.edu.cn, + +{rzheng20, tgui, qz, xjhuang}@fudan.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +To enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models, researchers have extensively explored prompting methods, notably the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) method which explicitly elicits human-like rationales. However, they have inadvertently overlooked the potential of enhancing model reasoning performance by formulating higher-quality problems1. In this work, we start from the problem side and propose Self-Polish (SP), a novel method that facilitates the model's reasoning by guiding it to progressively refine the given problems to be more comprehensible and solvable. We also explore several automatic prompting variants and propose the Self-Polish prompt bank for the community. SP is orthogonal to all other prompting methods of answer/reasoning side like CoT, allowing for seamless integration with state-of-the-art techniques for further improvement. Thorough experiments show that the proposed method attains notable and consistent effectiveness on five reasoning benchmarks across different models. Furthermore, our method also showcases impressive performance on robustness evaluation. Codes and prompts are available at https://github.com/WooooDyy/Self-Polish. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on a variety of NLP tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Otter et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022), but their capability to perform multi-step reasoning is considered a limitation, which can not be tackled solely by scaling up the model size (Rae et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). To address this challenge, many prompting methods have been proposed to elicit reasoning in LLMs, and + +![](images/9ea85670106c6a166db9ce4ddc5c4308bf41905bd1436ebe87436f3acac2017b.jpg) +Figure 1: Schematic comparison between Self-Polish and other representative approaches for reasoning with prompting. Previous paradigms enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs from the aspect of the answer side/reasoning side, while our method starts from the problem side, and refines problems to be simpler and more comprehensible for models. + +have demonstrated significant effectiveness (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). + +Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is a breakthrough method that teaches a language model to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans to solve a reasoning task (Wei et al., 2022b). Many following work has explored variants of CoT to improve the quality of rationales of LLMs (Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). There is also a line of work that optimizes the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023), and a representative one is Self-Consistency (SC). SC generates diverse reasoning paths and answers, and then leverages the majority vote strategy to get the most consistent answer (Wang et al., 2022). Despite the boosted reasoning performance of the aforementioned methods, they focus on the answer/reasoning side, and little emphasis has been placed on the problems side. + +Actually, the clarity and logical structure of the + +problem description are crucial factors for human understanding and model comprehension (Shou and Smithson, 2015; Faruqui and Das, 2018; Chu et al., 2020). LLMs often exhibit poor reasoning performance when confronted with low-quality real-world reasoning problems, which may be excessively long, ambiguous, unclear in focus, or contain irrelevant information (Zellers et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2023; Ye and Durrett, 2022). To tackle this challenge, we consider refining problems into a better formulation. + +In this work, we propose Self-Polish (Figure 1 right) that leverages LLMs themselves to refine reasoning problems without training for better reasoning performance. We first present several principles for refined problems: concise, clear, well-focused, and absent of irrelevant information. To achieve our goal, we propose the Self-Polish Prompt Bank which includes several feasible solutions as outlined in the following text. An intuitive strategy is to reformulate problems via instruction-following (Sanh et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022), and we call it zero-shot problem refining. Next, we include demonstrations in the prompts (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022) to enable models to better internalize and apply the principles, which is defined as in-context problem refining. During the construction of the demonstrations, we incorporated a curated collection of problem-refining patterns, e.g., eliminating irrelevant information, rearranging the logic structure, and organizing local conditions into new ones in parallel. Moreover, we explore automatic prompting methods to construct enhanced prompts and mitigate manual efforts, based on the criteria of complexity (complexity-based Self-Polish) or diversity (automatic Self-Polish). To further enhance the reliability and consistency of the generated problems, we propose to progressively refine problems until obtaining a convergent answer. + +Experiments show that our method consistently improves the reasoning performance of various models (i.e., Text-davinci-002, Text-davinci-003, GPT-3.5-Turbo) on five benchmarks (Table 1 & Figure 3). Moreover, the proposed method is orthogonal to all other reasoning-side state-of-the-art prompting methods, making it convenient to be combined with them for further improvement. Detailed experiments demonstrate that the performance of reasoning-side methods can be significantly boosted when integrated with SP (Table 2 & + +Table 3). Self-Polish also showcases exceptional performance on robustness evaluation (Figure 4). + +In summary, we make the following contributions: + +1. We propose a novel method, Self-Polish, to improve the reasoning performance and robustness of LLMs. +2. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method when applied alone or combined with other prompting approaches on five benchmarks with different models. +3. We believe that the proposed Self-Polish represents an important step in enhancing LLMs' reasoning capabilities by shifting the perspective from the answer/reasoning side to the problem side. We hope it could inspire future research in this field. + +# 2 Related Work + +Multi-step reasoning. Multi-step reasoning tasks have posed significant challenges for language models (Rae et al., 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021; Qiao et al., 2022), and it is considered as an emergent ability of LLMs (Schaeffer et al., 2023). It is in these tasks that the effectiveness of few-shot prompting begins to surpass that of full training set fine-tuning (Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Moreover, such capability is considered important in building more complex artificial intelligence such as large language model-based agents (LLM-based agents) (Xi et al., 2023). Our work represents a significant stride in enhancing the ability of language models to perform multi-step reasoning tasks, through the facilitation of models' comprehension and processing of given reasoning problems. + +Reasoning with prompting. Prompting strategies have substantially improved the reasoning ability of LLMs by a large margin (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). An important line of work in this area is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting which elicits the reasoning ability of models by prompting them to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). Another line of work focuses on optimizing the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023). A representative one is Self-Consistency (SC), which samples + +[Original Problem0] : Kylie makes 10 beaded necklaces on Monday and 2 beaded necklaces on Tuesday. Then Kylie makes 5 beaded bracelets on Wednesday. 20 beads are needed to make one beaded necklace. 10 beads are needed to make one beaded bracelet. Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry? + +[Answer] : 120. + +Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information) + +[Refined Problem] : Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, 5 beaded bracelets. Each beaded necklace needs 20 beads. Each beaded bracelet requires 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry? + +[Answer] : 155. + +$\mathbf{A}_1! = \mathbf{A}_0$ Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions) + +[Refined Problem2]: Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, and each beaded necklaces needs 20 beads. She also makes 5 beaded bracelets, and each beaded bracelet needs 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry? + +[Answer2] : 290. + +$\mathbf{A}_2! = \mathbf{A}_1$ Continue Refine (Summary Local Conditions) + +[Refined Problem3] : Kylie requires 240 beads to make beaded necklaces. She also requires 50 beads to make beaded bracelets. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry? + +[Answer3] : 290. + +$\mathbf{A}_3 = \mathbf{A}_2$ Return $\mathbf{A}_3$ + +Figure 2: An example illustrating the framework and problem-refining patterns of Self-Polish. In the first refining iteration, the irrelevant information "Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store." is removed. In the second iteration, the conditions are reordered for easier calculation of the number of beads required for each type of beaded product. In the third iteration, the local conditions were parallelly combined to form new conditions (the total number of beads required for necklaces and bracelets). + +multiple reasoning paths and generate the most consistent answer by majority vote (Wang et al., 2022). Different from Self-Polish, the aforementioned strategies emphasize improving the quality of rationales from the answer/reasoning side. Our method is a problem-side method, so it is orthogonal to all of them and can be combined with them for further improvement. + +See Appendix A for more related work and the detailed differences between Self-Polish and Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a). + +# 3 Self-Polish Prompting + +In this section, we first revisit previous prompting paradigms aiming at solving reasoning problems. Next, we describe the proposed Self-Polish method dually. + +# 3.1 Revisiting Paradigms of Reasoning Problem Solving + +In the context of enhancing the capabilities of LLMs, the prompting technique has emerged as one of the most popular approaches owing to its training-free nature and effectiveness (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Here, we formalize several representative paradigms. See Figure 1 for a schematic comparison between them and our method. + +Standard. The prompt contains $k \times$ [Problem, Answer] pairs, followed by the test problem. + +Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022b). The prompt contains $k \times$ [Problem, Rationale, Answer] tuples, followed by the test problem. This method teaches models to generate rationales and answers, achieving significant improvement in reasoning. Auto-CoT (Fu et al., 2022) and Complex-CoT (Zhou et al., 2022a) are two automatic variants that constructs CoT demonstrations according to the criteria of problem diversity and reasoning complexity, respectively. + +Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a). The models are taught to first reduce problems into subproblems and then solve them sequentially. There are two kinds of prompts. The first is the problem reduction prompt that contains $m \times$ [Original Problem, Sub-Problems] pairs, followed by the test original problem. The second is the problem-solving prompt that contains $k \times$ [Original Problem, $n \times$ (Sub-Problem, Sub-Answer)] tuples, followed by the test original problem and the current subproblem to solve. + +Summary. All previous methods focus on the answer/reasoning side, and it is convenient to combine them with Self-Polish which puts emphasis on the problem side. + +# 3.2 Problem-Refining Prompting + +# 3.2.1 Refining Principles + +We expect the newly generated problems to be easier to understand and process, so they should adhere to the following principles: (1) conciseness, the problems should not be overly long, ensuring they remain easily understandable; (2) clarity, the problems should avoid ambiguous phrasing and instead utilize quantitative representations (e.g., Arabic numerals) whenever possible; (3) focus: the problems should clearly convey the intended subject matter, + +
METHODProgressivelyDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
StandardX15.828.372.935.128.236.1
+Zero-shot SPX22.4(↑ 6.6)28.3(0)73.2(↑ 0.3)43.1(↑ 8.0)25.4(↓ 2.8)38.5(↑ 2.4)
✓24.0(↑ 8.2)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.2(↓ 0.7)51.7(↑ 16.6)26.8(↓ 1.4)40.7(↑ 4.6)
+In-context SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)73.9(↑ 1.0)50.6(↑ 15.5)29.4(↑ 0.8)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓25.3(↑ 9.5)29.5(↑ 1.2)73.9(↑ 1.0)52.9(↑ 17.8)28.6(↑ 0.4)42.0(↑ 5.9)
+Auto-SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)29.9(↑ 1.6)72.6(↓ 0.3)54.0(↑ 18.9)27.6(↓ 0.6)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)72.9(0)56.7(↑ 21.6)28.2(0)42.5(↑ 6.4)
+Complex-SPX23.0(↑ 7.2)29.9(↑ 1.6)73.2(↑ 0.3)52.3(↑ 17.2)29.6(↑ 1.4)41.6(↑ 5.5)
✓24.6(↑ 8.8)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.9(0)55.7(↑ 20.6)30.0(↑ 1.8)42.4(↑ 6.3)
+ +Table 1: Evaluating different strategies of the Self-Polish prompting bank on several benchmarks. Performance gains/drops are highlighted with green/red. The results are with Text-davinci-003. “Progressively” represents whether using the progressively refining framework in Section 3.3. + +making it evident what the question is asking; (4) absence of irrelevant information: the problems should be free from extraneous details that could cause confusion or distractions. + +# 3.2.2 Construction of Refining Prompts + +Zero-shot Self-Polish. It is difficult to internalize the aforementioned principles within the model via training due to the tedious process of constructing a corresponding dataset and potential catastrophic forgetting problems (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Parisi et al., 2019). So we turn to training-free strategies. + +As LLMs demonstrate emergent abilities of instruction-following (Schaeffer et al., 2023; Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a), a simple and intuitive strategy to refine problems is prompting LLMs with an instruction. In the instruction, we guide the model to rewrite new versions of the original reasoning problem to be more understandable and easy to answer, and never omit any useful information. The prompt contains [Instruction, Original Problem] and the model responds with a newly generated problem. Next, we can adopt any prompting method in Section 3.1 to get the answer to the new problem, and we take this answer as the final one. We conduct preliminary validation experiments and the results are illustrated in Table 1. Zero-shot refining can consistently improve reasoning performance on various benchmarks. + +In-context Self-Polish. As empirical results show that zero-shot refining can only provide limited performance gain, especially on difficult datasets, we then add demonstrations to the prompt to enable models to better internalize and apply + +design principles. Specifically, demonstrations are formulated as [Original Problem, New Problem] pairs, and we incorporate a curated collection of problem-refining patterns in the demonstrations: (1) remove irrelevant information, as the first iteration in Figure 2; (2) rearrange the logic structure and group relevant conditions together to better match the reasoning logic of the model, as the second iteration in Figure 2; (3) summarize local conditions into new ones in parallel, as the third iteration in Figure 2. Results in Table 1 show that in-context problem refining yields more performance gain than zero-shot refining. + +Automatic Self-Polish. This is an automatic variant of the in-context problem-refining. We draw inspiration from Zhang et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the diverse semantics of problems with the technique of $k$ -means clustering. The underlying hypothesis is that a diverse set of demonstrations can cover a broad semantic space of problems, thereby the model can locate relevant reference demonstrations for more test examples. Table 1 shows that Auto-SP also yields significant improvement. + +Complexity-based Self-Polish. This is another variant of the in-context problem-refining for automatically selecting refining demonstrations. We draw inspiration from Fu et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the complexity of each problem. The underlying hypothesis is that + +the refining ability of the model can generalize from complex problems to simpler ones. Table 1 demonstrates that Complex-SP can also yield substantial performance gain. + +# 3.3 Progressively Refining Framework + +To enhance the consistency and reliability of the refined problems, we propose a progressive framework that has two stages: the problem-solving stage (Section 3.1) and the problem-refining stage (Section 3.2). The two stages are executed alternatively until the return condition is satisfied. + +Return condition & answer selection. There are two situations that terminate the iterative process. The first is when the last two answers are the same, indicating convergence of the answer. In this case, we can directly return the answer. The second situation is when the iteration number exceeds the maximum count $T = 2$ .3 In such case, we have multiple options for selecting the final answer, such as the answer to the original problem, the answer to the first generated problem, the answer to the last generated problem, or utilizing a majority voting approach to select the answer (Wang et al., 2022), which will be discussed in our ablation study in Section 5.1. Here we choose the answer to the last generated problem by default. As shown in Table 1, adding Progressively Refining to our method can bring further improvement across different prompt-construction approaches. + +The overall framework is shown in Algorithm 1 in Appendix B. + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section, we conduct experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of SP. + +# 4.1 Experimental Setups. + +Models. We employ three GPT-series models, namely text-davinci-002, text-davinci-003, and GPT-3.5-Turbo (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), as they are widely recognized and accessible to the public, ensuring reproducibility of our research. Our experiments are based on OpenAI's API. All methods use greedy decoding (i.e., temperature = 0) for stable responses. + +![](images/e744f3fd775c74d6064ed890a672b7ffaa917fd0e9b093f8c1c58ba97227e616.jpg) + +![](images/25aebf8903b53348cb47d6e6973e1b5b03d7adaea6b22819c87400efa833fb76.jpg) + +![](images/5cf7972757c9eb7f5cf70582ca7a439710c59ea97c04f5cc6a2352401d4f75e2.jpg) + +![](images/34f4d58ffefb07aed6d344c9a37ce9daa5fce447ed9b11d38605d15930802ed9.jpg) + +![](images/c6ff93106dcb23237a3b45e66b9828d6d77508460cb34d05ea4d6a11f7202a17.jpg) +Figure 3: Evaluating Self-Polish on various benchmarks with different models. Self-Polish consistently improves reasoning performance across multiple models and benchmarks. + +![](images/d8ccf42d90a855ca59c2a1b3f11d9ff5856eb34f3858633413e00abafddff9fe.jpg) + +Datasets. We evaluate the performance of our method on five reasoning datasets, including GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), AQuA (Ling et al., 2017), SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021), MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) and MathQA (Amini et al., 2019). The datasets are evaluated by prior studies in the field of multi-hop reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). We evaluate on the whole test set of AQuA and GSM8K. For other datasets, we adopt the split from Mishra et al. (2022) or randomly select 500 test instances, and perform 3 restarts for stable results. + +Prompts. For the sake of generalizability, GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from GSM8K; AQuA and MathQA share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from AQuA. See Appendix F for SP prompts. The prompts for the standard few-shot prompting method are from Wei et al. (2022b). The prompts for Chain-of-thought, Least-to-Most, Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT are from previous work (Wei et al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). While prompts of LtM are not available for some datasets, we manually construct them. + +See more implementation details in Appendix C. + +
ANSWER SIDEPROBLEM SIDEDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
Chain-of-ThoughtNo Refinement56.144.980.390.841.062.6
In-context SP56.7(↑ 0.6)48.8(↑ 3.9)81.6(↑ 1.3)88.5(↓ 2.3)43.0(↑ 2.0)63.7(↑ 1.1)
Auto-SP56.9(↑ 0.8)49.2(↑ 4.3)78.3(↓ 2.0)89.7(↓ 1.1)42.8(↑ 1.8)63.4(↑ 0.8)
Complex-SP58.1(↑ 2.0)47.3(↑ 2.4)81.3(↑ 1.0)90.2(↓ 0.6)43.2(↑ 2.2)64.0(↑ 1.4)
Least-to-MostNo Refinement59.342.182.983.939.061.4
In-context SP61.2(↑ 1.9)44.1(↑ 2.0)84.9(↑ 2.0)85.1(↑ 1.2)41.2(↑ 2.2)63.3(↑ 1.9)
Auto-SP61.6(↑ 2.3)44.9(↑ 2.8)82.9(0)83.9(0)41.2(↑ 2.2)62.9(↑ 1.5)
Complex-SP62.9(↑ 3.6)47.6(↑ 5.5)84.2(↑ 1.3)86.2(↑ 2.3)40.6(↑ 1.6)64.3 (↑ 2.9)
Auto-CoTNo Refinement59.446.575.692.541.463.1
In-context SP59.4(0)47.2(↑ 0.7)77.6(↑ 2.0)90.6(↓ 1.9)45.8(↑ 4.4)64.1(↑ 1.0)
Auto-SP60.5(↑ 1.1)48.0(↑ 1.5)75.6(0)89.7(↓ 2.8)44.4(↑ 3.0)63.6(↑ 0.5)
Complex-SP60.1(↑ 0.7)50.8(↑ 4.3)78.2(↑ 2.6)93.1(↑ 0.6)43.0(↑ 1.6)65.0(↑ 1.9)
Complex-CoTNo Refinement67.547.678.394.343.666.3
In-context SP66.2(↓ 1.3)50.8(↑ 3.1)80.9(↑ 2.6)90.8(↓ 3.5)44.6(↑ 1.3)66.7(↑ 0.4)
Auto-SP68.7(↑ 1.2)45.7(↓ 1.9)78.3(0)92.0(↓ 2.3)42.4(↓ 1.2)65.4(↓ 0.9)
Complex-SP68.5(↑ 1.0)50.4(↑ 2.8)78.6(↑ 0.3)93.1(↓ 1.2)44.8(↑ 1.2)67.1(↑ 0.8)
+ +Table 2: Evaluation results when combining Self-Polish with other answer/reasoning side prompting strategies. The results are with Text-davinci-003. The best performance for each answer side strategy of one task is underlined. The best performance for each task is in bold. + +# 4.2 Experimental Results + +Standard few-shot setting. Figure 3 shows the results of evaluating the performance in the standard few-shot setting. We can find that: (1) Our method consistently improves reasoning performance by a large margin across multiple models and datasets, indicating its capability to enhance model understanding of problems. (2) On relatively weaker models, automated prompting methods like Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT yield more gains compared to in-context SP. However, on stronger models, the differences in performance gain between the three approaches are not significant, revealing that the stronger models are less sensitive to prompts. + +Combining Self-Polish with other prompting strategies. Table 2 demonstrates the evaluating results when combining our method with other state-of-the-art reasoning-side promoting strategies. There are several critical and interesting observations: (1) Generally, SP yields substantial performance gains for all reasoning-side methods, revealing that when the model is able to better comprehend problems, both its step-by-step reasoning capabilities and problem decomposition abilities can be significantly enhanced. (2) Whether for the reasoning side or the problem side, the Complex-based approach performs the best. This indicates that LLMs have the ability to generalize from com + +plex tasks to simple ones, both in terms of reasoning and problem refinement. (3) As Fu et al. (2022) stated, the average number of words in problems, i.e., GSM8K (46.9), AQuA (51.9), SVAMP (32.1), MultiArith (31.2), and MathQA (60.1), can serve as a proxy for measuring the reasoning complexity of each task. We find that the more challenging the task, the higher the improvement achieved by SP, highlighting its suitability for intricate reasoning tasks. It is noteworthy that when combined with the CoT-series methods, our approach has limited improvement on MultiArith. This could be because the task itself can already be well solved by CoT and is relatively simple. Excessive refinement of simple problems carries the risk of information loss or semantic alterations, leading to a decline in performance, as depicted in Figure 9. + +Robustness evaluation. GSM-IC (Shi et al., 2023) is an adversarial arithmetic reasoning dataset with distracting information in the problem to fool the model. So it is well-suited for evaluating the robustness of models. It has two splits: GSM-IC-2step which contains problems that require two reasoning steps to solve and GSM-IC-mstep which contains problems that require more than two reasoning steps to solve. As shown in Figure 4, our method enhances the robustness and reliability of various models across different prompting techniques, shielding them from the interference of low-quality problems. + +![](images/472975d430a2900e758e6af113822c527743a86d53b3bcddecd2ee2089f555f5.jpg) +(a) GSM-IC-2Step + +![](images/1ca7ee518f8deb06da8b3254cf31e2c0af3193e7ebf4b5eadd0e94b70762bd92.jpg) +(b) GSM-IC-MStep + +![](images/ad209c1b6c4899e463de0a39d4b0144bfe40f726daa3634acb0b96b1fc9ddb46.jpg) +Figure 4: Evaluation results on GSMIC (Shi et al., 2023). Self-Polish (SP) enhances the robustness and reliability of various models when combined with different prompting techniques. +(a) Ablation Study on Std +Figure 5: Ablation studies and the distribution of actual iterating times. (a) and (c) illustrate the performance (vertical axis on the left) when using different final answer selection strategies and different max iterating times $T$ . The "Converge" means the performance calculated by $N_{conv} / N_{all}$ where $N_{conv}$ means the number of examples that are answered correctly with converged answers, while the $N_{all}$ means the number of all test examples. We also incorporate a line to represent the average actual iteration times at each value of $T$ (vertical axis on the right). In (b) and (d), we show the distribution of actual iterating times when we set $T = 5$ . + +![](images/853793b9c21d1eae2a763969f627e4a33291bc95979f923ad106c2084268ffe5.jpg) +(b) Iter. Distribution on Std + +![](images/d2aaaae128ae13d350a598a661e225f694d0e851d9bff02949dfdc4a3c898b23.jpg) +(c) Ablation Study on CoT + +![](images/fabfa5e693068a95088e40aa75379532cd47e315c52c51a2d5d4bc8fc930d34c.jpg) +(d) Iter. Distribution on CoT + +# 5 Discussion + +# 5.1 Ablation Studies + +As mentioned in Section 3.3, the maximum iteration times $T$ and the strategy to select the final answer if the convergence is not achieved are two main components of Self-Polish. Here we perform ablation studies on them. + +Max iterating times $T$ . As shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c), for both the Standard and CoT methods, larger iteration counts lead to higher convergence accuracy ("Converge" in figures), which aligns with common knowledge and further demonstrates the effectiveness of our method: by gradually optimizing problems, we enable the model to handle them more easily. But when $T$ is too big, the performance of SP may suffer a drop, indicating that excessive rewriting can lead to a decline in the quality of problems. We set $T = 2$ not only for the sake of efficiency, but also because it can achieve competitive performance especially when combined with CoT-series methods. + +Final answer selection strategies. We can easily observe that with a smaller $T$ , the "Last One" strat + +egy tends to have an advantage, while as the iteration count increases, other strategies become more effective, even outperforming "Last One". This is intuitive as after multiple rewriting iterations, the semantic meaning of a problem may deviate significantly from the original one. + +# 5.2 Analysis of Actual Iterating Times + +Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c) show that the actual iterating times $T_{\text{actual}}$ does not grow significantly as the max iterating times $T$ increases, revealing that SP can achieve a converged answer on most of the problems with few iterations. To verify this, we illustrate the distribution map of $T_{\text{actual}}$ with $T = 5$ in Figure 5(b) and Figure 5(d). $T_{\text{actual}}$ exhibits a long-tail distribution, with only a few samples exceeding the max times. This finding provides evidence that our method is highly efficient that consumes few additional computational resources. + +# 5.3 Further Improvement for Self-Consistency + +Self-Consistency is a prompting method that samples multiple reasoning paths and generates a consistent answer by majority vote strategy (Wang + +
METHODSC PathSelf-PolishDATASET
AQuAMathQA
Auto-CoT5X61.865.2
5✓66.168.4
10X61.467.4
10✓65.071.0
20X63.069.0
20✓68.172.0
Complex-CoT5X61.461.6
5✓65.064.4
10X65.462.4
10✓66.164.8
20X65.464.0
20✓67.065.6
+ +Table 3: Evaluation results of combining Self-Polish with Self-Consistency on GPT-3.5-Turbo. In the problem side, we use the Complex-SP. The best results in each manner are highlighted in bold. With Self-Polish, Self-Consistency performs better. + +et al., 2022). It has proved effective in various reasoning benchmarks (Wang et al., 2022). Here, we combine the Self-Polish and Self-Consistency methods to investigate whether there will be further performance improvement. We conduct experiments on two difficult datasets (i.e., GSM8K and AQuA) with temperature $= 0.7$ for diversity following (Wang et al., 2022). + +Results in Table 3 demonstrate that SP provides a substantial performance gain for SC in Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT manners. Moreover, an increase in the number of reasoning paths leads to a corresponding improvement in performance, showing the advantage of voting strategy. + +# 5.4 Case Study + +To further demonstrate the effectiveness of the problem-refining patterns we proposed and how our method embodies the proposed principles, we conducted a case study as shown in Figure 6. More cases can be found in the Appendix D (Figure 7 and Figure 8). + +From Figure 6, we observe that removing irrelevant information (i.e., "Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.") can help the model avoid distractions and facilitate accurate reasoning. Next, rearranging the problem conditions and grouping pertinent conditions together can facilitate the model in generating more effective novel deductions during the process of reasoning (e.g., resulting in the streamlined computation of the total number of face masks in Refined Problem2). + +[Original Problem0] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. Grover's neighbor made a salary of$ 10 last year. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will he his total profit? + +[Ratione] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. So he will make 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 dollars in total. Grover's neighbor made 10 dollars last year. So Grover's profit will be 1.50 - 10 = -8.50. The answer is -8.50. + +[Answer] : -8.50. + +Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information) + +[Refined Problem] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will be his total profit? + +[Rationale] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell them for 0.50 dollars each. So his total profit will be $(3 * 20 * 0.50) - 15 = 15$ dollars. The answer is 15. + +[Answer] : 15. + +$\mathbf{A}_1! = \mathbf{A}_0$ Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions) + +[Refined Problem₂]: Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15. He plans to sell the face masks for $0.50 each. How much will he his total profit? + +$\left[\text{Rationale}_2\right] : \text{Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. So he bought } 3 * 20 = 60 \text{ face masks in total. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell the face masks for } 0.50 \text{ dollars each. So he will sell the 60 face masks for } 60 * 0.50 = 30 \text{ dollars. His total profit will be } 30 - 15 = 15 \text{ dollars.}$ + +[Answer2] : 15. + +$\mathbf{A}_2 = \mathbf{A}_1$ , Return $\mathbf{A}_2$ + +Figure 6: A case of Self-Polish on GSM-IC with Chain-of-Thought. The case is with Text-davinci-003. The irrelevant information "Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year." is removed. In the second iteration, the order of the condition "Each box has 20 face masks." is moved forward and the model can calculate the total number of masks more easily when performing reasoning. + +Additionally, summarizing local conditions into new ones can effectively simplify complex problems, enabling the model to handle them with greater ease. This is demonstrated in the first iteration of Figure 7 and the second iteration of Figure 8. Furthermore, the second iteration in Figure 7 highlights how our approach can explicitly and precisely define the problem in a formal manner. Specifically, in the Refined Problem $_2$ of Figure 7, the model accurately identifies the two teams as "Team A" and "Team B" instead of referring to them as "one team" and "the other team", and then it is able to clearly specify the exact question to be asked. This significantly reduces the model's burden of understanding during the reasoning process, enhancing its overall performance. + +# 6 Conclusion + +This paper focuses on a previously neglected aspect, namely the optimization of problem formulation, within the context of enhancing multi-step + +reasoning in large language models. We present a novel prompting method called Self-Polish which progressively refines the given reasoning problems to facilitate model comprehension and processing. It demonstrates impressive effectiveness, robustness, and reliability in various benchmarks across different models, and can seamlessly integrate with other state-of-the-art methods. We hope it could motivate future research in this field. + +# Limitations + +Despite the significant enhancement in the reasoning performance achieved by our approach, this work still has limitations. Firstly, our criterion for convergence is based on obtaining two identical answers rather than assessing whether the problem itself has been sufficiently optimized. Future work could involve designing methods that enable the model to autonomously determine whether a problem has reached its optimal form. Secondly, we have explored two approaches to automatically construct problem-refining prompts (i.e., Auto-Sp and Complex-SP). However, in the future, it would be beneficial to incorporate more techniques for automatically generating instructions or selecting demonstrations. Thirdly, although our designed patterns for problem refining have proven highly effective, they do not encompass all possible scenarios in the real world. In the future, it is conceivable to incorporate additional patterns to further expand the scope of applicability. + +# Acknowledgements + +The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206057,61976056,62076069), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500), Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader under grant 22XD1401100. + +# References + +Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), + +pages 2357-2367. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B. Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Nadadri S. Chatterji, Annie S. Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dorottya Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stefano Ermon, John Etchemendy, Kawin Ethayarajh, Li Fei-Fei, Chelsea Finn, Trevor Gale, Lauren Gillespie, Karan Goel, Noah D. Goodman, Shelby Grossman, Neel Guha, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Peter Henderson, John Hewitt, Daniel E. Ho, Jenny Hong, Kyle Hsu, Jing Huang, Thomas Icard, Saahil Jain, Dan Jurafsky, Pratyusha Kalluri, Siddharth Karamcheti, Geoff Keeling, Fereshte Khani, Omar Khattab, Pang Wei Koh, Mark S. Krass, Ranjay Krishna, Rohith Kuditipudi, and et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. CoRR, abs/2108.07258. + +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. + +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311. + +Zewei Chu, Mingda Chen, Jing Chen, Miaosen Wang, Kevin Gimpel, Manaal Faruqui, and Xiance Si. 2020. + +How to ask better questions? A large-scale multidomain dataset for rewriting ill-formed questions. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7586-7593. AAAI Press. +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416. +Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168. +Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. CoRR, abs/2205.09712. +Manaal Faruqui and Dipanjan Das. 2018. Identifying well-formed natural language questions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 798-803. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2022. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. CoRR, abs/2210.00720. +Ian J. Goodfellow, Mehdi Mirza, Xia Da, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings. +Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual. +Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In NeurIPS. +Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay V. Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, + +Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In NeurIPS. +Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. CoRR, abs/2206.02336. +Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun-. som. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 158-167. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out: The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, DeeLIO@ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland and Online, May 27, 2022, pages 100-114. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8086-8098. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 11048-11064. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Swaroop Mishra, Matthew Finlayson, Pan Lu, Leonard Tang, Sean Welleck, Chitta Baral, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. LILA: A unified benchmark for mathematical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 5807-5832. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Daniel W. Otter, Julian R. Medina, and Jugal K. Kalita. 2021. A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 32(2):604-624. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong + +Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS. +German Ignacio Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L. Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. 2019. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113:54-71. +Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. CoRR, abs/2212.09597. +Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, H. Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant M. Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sotiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew J. Johnson, Blake A. Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Edward Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. CoRR, abs/2112.11446. +Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1743-1752. The Association for Computational Linguistics. +Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine + +Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multi-task prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. +Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? CoRR, abs/2304.15004. +Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. CoRR, abs/2302.00093. +Yiyun Shou and Michael Smithson. 2015. Effects of question formats on causal judgments and model evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. +Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R. Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Agnieszka Kluska, Aitor Lewkowycz, Akshit Agarwal, Alethea Power, Alex Ray, Alex Warstadt, Alexander W. Kocurek, Ali Safaya, Ali Tazarv, Alice Xiang, Alicia Parrish, Allen Nie, Aman Hussain, Amanda Askell, Amanda Dsouza, Ameet Rahane, Anantharaman S. Iyer, Anders Andreassen, Andrea Santilli, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Andrew M. Dai, Andrew La, Andrew K. Lampinen, Andy Zou, Angela Jiang, Angelica Chen, Anh Vuong, Animesh Gupta, Anna Gottardi, Antonio Norelli, Anu Venkatesh, Arash Gholamidavoodi, Arfa Tabassum, Arul Menezes, Arun Kirubarajan, Asher Mullokandov, Ashish Sabharwal, Austin Herrick, Avia Efrat, Aykut Erdem, Ayla Karakas, and et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. CoRR, abs/2206.04615. +Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. CoRR, abs/2203.11171. +Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. + +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In NeurIPS. +Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Rui Zheng, Xiaoran Fan, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Yuhao Zhou, Weiran Wang, Changhao Jiang, Yicheng Zou, Xiangyang Liu, Zhangyue Yin, Shihan Dou, Rongxiang Weng, Wensen Cheng, Qi Zhang, Wenjuan Qin, Yongyan Zheng, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huan, and Tao Gui. 2023. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. CoRR, abs/2309.07864. +Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2205.03401. +Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In NeurIPS. +Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 93-104. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. CoRR, abs/2210.03493. +Chuanyang Zheng, Zhengying Liu, Enze Xie, Zhenguo Li, and Yu Li. 2023. Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2304.09797. +Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2022a. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2205.10625. +Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron C. Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2022b. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2211.09066. + +# Appendix + +# A Disscussion of More Related Work + +Recent research has unveiled an unpredictable phenomenon known as emergent abilities, which manifest exclusively in larger language models while eluding their smaller counterparts (Schaeffer et al., 2023). In-context learning, instruction following, and multi-step reasoning are three emergent abilities that we focus on. We have discussed the multi-step reasoning in Section 2 and we will discuss + +another two. We also compare our method with the LtM dually here. + +In-context learning. It is demonstrated that a large language model can learn patterns from a few input-output examples in the context (input) to perform the task for an unseen inference-time example (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), and such ability is referred to as in-context learning (ICL). Recent studies have further highlighted the impressive performance of ICL in reasoning tasks (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). In our research, we capitalize on this capability to generate new formulations of problems by injecting rephrasing patterns to the demonstrations. + +Instruction following. LLMs can learn to perform unseen tasks solely through the comprehension of task-specific natural language instructions (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). There is also work showing that combining instructions with in-context learning can provide further benefits and that few-shot demonstrations can be viewed as a special kind of instruction that arouses the implicit ability in LLMs (Chung et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022b; Qiao et al., 2022). + +Comparison with LtM. The work that is most similar to ours may be Least-to-Most (LtM) which decomposes the original problem into a series of sub-problems that need to be solved sequentially (Zhou et al., 2022a). However, LtM is an variant of CoT, and there are differences in motivation and operation process between LtM and SP. Firstly, LtM is an answer/reasoning side approach that emphasizes the decomposition of a complex problem into sub-problems, while we emphasize refining the original problem to make it more understandable. Secondly, in LtM, sub-problems are solved sequentially, requiring the answer of the previous sub-problem to tackle the next one, which can lead to fragility in the reasoning chain. In contrast, our method allows for the combination of local related conditions to form new conditions parallelly. + +# B The Algorithm of Self-Polish + +See Algorithm 1 for the overall framework of SelfPolish. + +# C Implementation Details + +We set the maximum iterating count to $T = 2$ . Note that the bigger maximum iteration count $T$ + +# Algorithm 1: Self-Polish Prompting + +Input: language model $\mathcal{G}$ problem set $S$ prompt $\mathcal{P}_{\text{refine}}$ of the problem side refining method, prompt $\mathcal{P}_{\text{answer}}$ of the answer/reasoning side method, max iteration number $T$ , answer selection strategy $\mathcal{Z}$ +1 for each problem $s$ in $S$ do +2 answer_list $= [ ]$ . +3 $t = 0$ +4 Procedure GENERATE ANSWER TO ORIGINAL PROBLEM +5 rationale_t,ans $t = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{P}_{\text{answer}}\oplus s)$ . +6 answer_list.append(ans); +7 $t = t + 1$ +8 Procedure ITERATE PROBLEM REFINEMENT AND ANSWER +9 $s = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{P}_{\text{refine}}\oplus s)$ . +10 rationale_t,ans $t = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{P}_{\text{answer}}\oplus s)$ . +11 if ans $t = =$ ans-1 then +12 Return ans. +13 else if $t > T$ then +14 Return Z的回答_list). +15 else +16 answer_list.append(ans); +17 $t = t + 1$ +18 end +19 end + +may lead to better performance, but here we set it to 2 to achieve a trade-off between computational efficiency and effectiveness. + +When combining with other reasoning-side methods (i.e., CoT, LtM, Complex-CoT and AutoCoT) on MultiArith and SVAMP, we set the answer selection strategy as "selecting the answer to the original problem" because this dataset is relatively easy for these prompting methods. Actually, in cases where it is not necessary, rewriting easy problems may result in the loss of critical information or altering the semantics of the original problem. In other settings, we set the answer selection strategy as "selecting the answer to the last problem". + +# D More Cases and Examples + +Here we list more cases of Self-Polish in Figure 7 and Figure 8. We also list the failure case of excessive problem refining in Figure 9 + +[Original Problem0] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay; a race where each competing team has four members that each run 400 meters, or one lap, around a standard track. One of the two teams is very well-rounded and each of their members will run their 400 meter leg in precisely 55 seconds. The other team is less well-rounded; their first runner will run their 400 meter leg in 60 seconds then each subsequent runner will be 3 seconds faster than the previous runner. Using this information, how many seconds will the faster team win by? + +$\left[\text{Rationale}_0\right] : \text{The well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 55 seconds each, for a total time of 220 seconds. The less well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively, for a total time of 222 seconds. The faster team will win by } 220 - 222 = -2$ seconds. The answer is -2 seconds. + +[Answer0]:-2. + +![](images/cd5856796548c5839e11912ae9dfec7318da4c8f8088045858e50ba698c1de9d.jpg) + +Begin, Problem Refine (Summary Local Conditions) + +[Refined Problem] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. One team has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while the other team has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds will the faster team win by? + +[Rationale] : The faster team has four members that run 400 meters in 55, 60, 57, and 54 seconds respectively. The slower team has four members that run 400 meters in 51 seconds each. So the faster team will win by $55 - 51 = 4$ seconds. The answer is 4. + +[Answer] : 4. + +![](images/48ff74a4d974782362efcb3d658208c5800ac6b3be3d107676f78a690b95867a.jpg) + +$\mathbf{A}_1! = \mathbf{A}_0$ Continue Refine (Specify the Problem Formally) + +[Refined Problem2]: Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds faster will Team A finish the relay compared to Team B? + +$\left[\mathrm{Ratione}_2\right]:$ Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds. Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. So the total time for Team A is $4 * 55 = 220$ seconds, and the total time for Team B is $60 + 57 + 54 + 51 = 222$ seconds. Team A will finish the relay 2 seconds faster than Team B. The answer is 2. + +[Answer2]: 2. + +![](images/017d3301ed3cd5901c2b36dd1bd6d68b13d34f6e3f8ed76eee8337e2029d8d71.jpg) + +$\mathbf{A}_2 \coloneqq \mathbf{A}_1$ , Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return $\mathbf{A}_2$ + +Figure 7: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, some irrelevant information is removed and the average time each member of the second team consumes is clarified. In the second iteration, the model accurately identifies the two teams as "Team A" and "Team B" instead of referring to them as "one team" and "the other team", and it explicitly states what the question to be asked is, reducing the burden of understanding on the model during the reasoning process. + +# E Sensitivity to Number and Order of Demonstrations + +As widely recognized, in-context learning is highly sensitive to the number and order of demonstrations within the prompt (Min et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). In this regard, we investigate whether our problem-refining process is sensitive to these variables via experiments on GSM8K with Text-davinci-003. We randomly select 200 examples from the test set. For a specific shot number, we randomly select five sets of demonstrations. For each set of demonstrations, we obtain performance results in five different orders. We observed that in the standard manner, increasing the number of demonstrations leads to improved performance. However, in the CoT manner, the performance con + +[Original Problem0] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. For every pound of beeswax, he can make 10 tapered candles. One pound of beeswax and the wicks cost $10.00 in supplies. If he sells each candle for $2.00 each, what is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles? + +[Ratione] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 candles, which costs $10. He sells each candle for $2.00. So for 20 candles, he will make a profit of 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. His net profit is 40 - 10 = 30 dollars. The answer is 30. + +[Answer0] : 30. + +![](images/eba3d6c1d0b187d7cb4dbc213deaf19ebd65c7895e5a222050f54b130a2d5f69.jpg) + +# Begin, Problem Refine + +[Refined Problem1]: Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles? + +[Rationale₁] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes a profit of $2.00 per candle. If he makes and sells 20 candles, his net profit is 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. The answer is 40 dollars. + +[Answer] : 40. + +![](images/1c63b16da66a802c14d8f66ca01ef18c9153e033f6d2f1ed5966f8505f191c47.jpg) + +# $\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \mathrm{A}_{0}$ , Continue Refine + +[Refined Problem1] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 2 pounds of beeswax and wicks to make 20 tapered candles, which cost him $20.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles? + +[Rationale₂] : Charlie spent $20.00 in supplies to make 20 tapered candles. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes 20 * 2 = 40 dollars in sales. His net profit is 40 - 20 = 20 dollars. The answer is 20. + +[Answer2] : 20. + +![](images/116c32591b7d604139747d04b56c9754cd8fb5fd194a7d48de6d1896e26d5642.jpg) +Figure 8: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, the model translates "every" to "1". In the second iteration, the model summarizes relevant conditions and specifies the total cost for Charlie. + +$\mathbf{A}_2 \coloneqq \mathbf{A}_1$ , Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return $\mathbf{A}_2$ + +[Original Problem]: A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. If she graded 4, but then another 15 were turned in, how many worksheets would she have to grade? + +[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. She graded 4 of them, and then 15 more were turned in. So she had $38 - 4 = 34$ worksheets to grade, and then 15 more were added. Now she has $34 + 15 = 49$ worksheets to grade. The answer is 49. + +[Answer0] : 49. + +![](images/42b3810d1b3a0247268b3fc03fcf2ea62302a189b600a7682c3f57448eb49cda.jpg) + +# Begin, Problem Refine + +[Refined Problem] : A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade? + +[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. So the teacher now has $38 + 15 = 53$ worksheets to grade. The answer is 53. + +[Answer] : 53. + +![](images/c99a16121a545bbad6b6cd06f1b2be495acccb17adc8f7005b6576b093879cca.jpg) + +# $\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \mathrm{A}_{0}$ , Continue Refine + +[Refined Problem] A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade in total? + +[Rationale₂] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. So the teacher now has $38 + 15 = 53$ worksheets to grade in total. The answer is 53. + +[Answer] : 53. + +![](images/b7197d1186545d9d31192a435b74107e239453e94cdfe9cc38cc0e2bf6b68a25.jpg) +Figure 9: A failure case of Self-Polish on MultiArith with Chain-of-Thought. The semantics of the second generated problem have deviated from the semantics of the original problem, and the model cannot answer correctly. + +$\mathrm{A}_2 = \mathrm{A}_1$ ,Return $\mathbf{A}_2$ + +verges when the number of shots is equal to 5, demonstrating impressive sample efficiency. Additionally, in the standard manner, our method is not sensitive to the order of demonstrations while it is + +
METHODSHOTSMeanOrder Deviation
Std+SP221.30.8
322.50.6
424.10.9
525.01.5
626.30.9
CoT+SP259.02.0
361.31.5
461.51.1
562.11.8
661.31.6
+ +Table 4: Sensitivity to the number and order of problem-refining demonstrations. Mean represents the average performance for the current number of shots, while the order deviation represents the average standard deviation introduced by different demonstration orders. The results are with Text-davinci-003. In the problem side, we leverage the in-context SP. + +
METHODMATH
No Refinement21
Zero-shot SP23.5
In-context SP24.5
+ +Table 5: More results on MATH dataset, using Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method + +highly sensitive to the order of demonstrations in the CoT manner. + +# F Prompts of Self-Polish + +The in-context Self-Polish prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 6. The Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 7 and Table 8. The Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 9 and Table 10. + +The in-context Self-Polish prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 11. The AutoSP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 12 and Table 13. The Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 14 and Table 15. + +# G More results on MATH dataset + +As Table 5 shows, we also conducted Self-Polish methods on the MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021). Our approach demonstrated promising results. Specifically, we randomly selected 200 samples for testing, and use the Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method. + +Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers. + +Original Question: Krishan and Nandan jointly started a business. Krishan invested six times as Nandan did and invested his money for double time as compared to Nandan. Nandan earned Rs. 6000. If the gain is proportional to the money invested and the time for which the money is invested then the total gain was? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000 New Question: Krishan and Nandan teamed up to start a business together. Krishan invested 12 times more money than Nandan did. Nandan's earnings from the business were Rs. 6000. If the gain is directly proportional to both the amount of money invested and the time period, what was the total gain for both of them? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000 + +Original Question: In a graduate physics course, 70 percent of the students are male and 30 percent of the students are married. If two-sevenths of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) $1 / 3$ (C) $1 / 2$ (D) $2 / 3$ (E) $5 / 7$ + +New Question: In a graduate physics course, 7/10 of the students are male and 3/10 of the students are married. If 2/7 of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) 1/3 (C) 1/2 (D) 2/3 (E) 5/7 + +Original Question: A train $500\mathrm{m}$ long can cross an electric pole in 20 sec and then find the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph + +New Question: A train, which is 500 meters long, takes 20 seconds to pass by an electric pole. What is the speed of the train? Represent the answer in units from answer options. Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph + +Original Question: A train covers a distance of $10\mathrm{km}$ in $10\mathrm{min}$ . If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) $50\mathrm{m}$ (B) $60\mathrm{m}$ (C) $100\mathrm{m}$ (D) $90\mathrm{m}$ (E) $120\mathrm{m}$ . New Question: A train covers a distance of $10000\mathrm{m}$ in $600\mathrm{sec}$ . If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) $50\mathrm{m}$ (B) $60\mathrm{m}$ (C) $100\mathrm{m}$ (D) $90\mathrm{m}$ (E) $120\mathrm{m}$ . + +Original Question: How many different subsets of the set $\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\}$ do not contain 0? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64 + +New Question: How many different subsets of the set $\{1,2,3,4\}$ ? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64 + +Original Question: A class has 6 boys and x girls. Average score of boys and girls is 50 and 60 respectively. the average of the whole class is 55, what is the value of x? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15 + +New Question: In a class, there are 6 boys and an unknown number of girls. The average score of the boys is 50, while the average score of the girls is 60. The overall average score of the boys and girls is 55. How many girls are there in the class? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15 + +Table 6: In-context SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA. + +Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers. + +Original Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work. In how many days A alone can finish the job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20 + +New Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left, and the remaining work is $3/4$ of the original one. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work alone. In how many days A alone can finish the whole job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20 + +Original Question: A man buys an article and sells it at a profit of $20\%$ . If he had bought it at $20\%$ less and sold it for Rs.75 less, he could have gained $25\%$ . What is the cost price? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269 + +New Question: A man buys an article at the price of x and sold it at the price of 1.2x, if he had bought it at a $20\%$ discount which is $0.8\mathrm{x}$ and sold it for Rs.75 less than $1.2\mathrm{x}$ , he would have gained $25\%$ of $0.8\mathrm{x}$ . What was the original price of the article before any discounts or markups? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269 + +Original Question: The numbers of students speaking English and Hindi are in the ratio of $4:5$ . If the number of students speaking English increased by $35\%$ and that speaking Hindi increased by $20\%$ , what would be the new respective ratio? Answer Choices: (A) $19:20$ (B) $7:8$ (C) $8:9$ (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these + +New Question: The number of students speaking English is 400 and increased by $35\%$ . The number of students speaking Hindi is 500 and increased by $20\%$ , what would be the respective ratio? what is the new ratio of students speaking English and Hindi? Answer Choices: (A) $19:20$ (B) $7:8$ (C) $8:9$ (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these + +Original Question: A rectangular field has area equal to $150 \, \text{sq m}$ and perimeter $50 \, \text{m}$ . Its length and breadth must be? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22 + +New Question: Let $l$ and $b$ be the length and the breadth of the rectangular. The area of a rectangular field is 150 square meters: $1 * b = 50$ , and its perimeter is 50 meters: $2l + 2b = 50$ . What are the breadth of the field? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22 + +Original Question: The ratio of two numbers is 3:4 and their sum is 14. The greater of the two numbers is? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19 + +New Question: There are two number a and b. The sum of a and b is 14, and the ratio of a and b 3:4. What is b? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19 + +Original Question: A and B invests Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his capital and B withdraws one-fourth of his capital. In what ratio should they share the profits at the end of the year? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14 + +New Question: A and B invested Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 respectively in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his investment and B withdraws 1/4 of his investment. What is the ratio of their remaining investment? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14 + +Original Question: A train 640 meters long is running with a speed of $64\mathrm{kmph}$ . The time taken by it to cross a tunnel 140 meters long is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec + +New Question: A train is running with a speed of 64kmph. The length of train is 640 meters and there is a tunnel 140 meters long. The time taken by the train to cross tunnel is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec + +Original Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, in how many ways that 1 girl and 2 boys are selected? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000 + +New Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, how many total ways can 1 girl be chosen in 10 girls and 2 boys be chosen in 15 boys? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000 + +Table 8: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA. + +Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers. + +Original Question: There were 35 students in a hostel. Due to the admission of 7 new students the expenses of the mess were increased by rs .84 per day while the average expenditure per head diminished by re 1. What was the original expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these + +New Question: In a hostel, there were initially 35 students, and then 7 new students were admitted. While the average expenditure per student decreased by Re. 1, the daily expenses of the new mess increased by Rs. 84. What was the original daily expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these + +Original Question: A train $200\mathrm{m}$ long passes a man, running at $5\mathrm{km} / \mathrm{hr}$ in the same direction in which the train is going, in 10 seconds. The speed of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12 + +New Question: A train, which is 200 meters long, passes a man running at 5 kilometers per hour in the same direction as the train in 10 seconds. What is the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12 + +Original Question: Solution x contains $20\%$ of material a and $80\%$ of material b. solution y contains $30\%$ of material a and $70\%$ of material b. a mixture of both these solutions contains $22\%$ of material a in the final product. How much solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) $40\%$ (B) $60\%$ (C) $80\%$ (D) $100\%$ (E) $110\%$ + +New Question: A mixture of solution x and y contains $22\%$ of material a. Solution x contains $20\%$ of material a and $80\%$ of material b while solution y contains $30\%$ of material a and $70\%$ of material b. What percentage of solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) $40\%$ (B) $60\%$ (C) $80\%$ (D) $100\%$ (E) $110\%$ + +Original Question: A trader sells 40 metres of cloth for rs.8200 at a profit of rs.35 per metre of cloth. How much profit will the trader earn on 40 metres of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs.950 (B) rs. 1500 (C) rs. 1000 (D) rs. 1400 (E) none of these + +New Question: A trader sells 40 meters of cloth and makes a profit of Rs. 35 per meter of cloth. How much profit does the trader make from selling 40 meters of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs . 950 (B) rs 1500 (C) rs . 1000 (D) rs . 1400 (E) none of these + +Original Question: If $x < y < z$ and $y - x > 5$ , where $x$ is an even integer and $y$ and $z$ are odd integers, what is the least possible value $s$ of $z - x$ ? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10 + +New Question: If $x$ is an even integer, $y$ and $z$ are odd integers, and $y$ is greater than $x$ by more than 5, and $z$ is greater than $y$ . What is the smallest possible difference between $z$ and $x$ ? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10 + +Original Question: What is the difference between the c.i. on rs . 6000 for 1 1/2 years at $4\%$ per annum compounded yearly and half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45 + +New Question: What is the difference in the compound interest earned on Rs. 6000 for 1.5 years at $4\%$ per annum when compounded yearly and when compounded half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45 + +Table 9: Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA. + +Original Question: The average weight of a, b and c is $45\mathrm{kg}$ . If the average weight of a and b be 40 kg and that of b and c be $45\mathrm{kg}$ , then the weight of b is? Answer Choices: (A) $31\mathrm{kg}$ (B) $32\mathrm{kg}$ (C) $33\mathrm{kg}$ (D) $35\mathrm{kg}$ (E) none of these + +New Question: The average weight of a, b and c is $45\mathrm{kg}$ , which means the total weight of a, b and c is $135\mathrm{kg}$ . If the average weight of a and b is $40\mathrm{kg}$ , which means the total weight of a and b is $80\mathrm{kg}$ so the weight of c is $45\mathrm{kg}$ . The average weight of b and c is $45\mathrm{kg}$ which means the total weight of b and c is $90\mathrm{kg}$ . What is the weight of b? Answer Choices: (A) $31\mathrm{kg}$ (B) $32\mathrm{kg}$ (C) $33\mathrm{kg}$ (D) $35\mathrm{kg}$ (E) none of these + +Original Question: The compound and the simple interests on a certain sum at the same rate of interest for two years are rs.11730 and rs.10200 respectively. The sum is? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881 + +New Question: A sum of money earns compound interest and simple interest at the same rate for two years. The compound interest is Rs.11730 and the simple interest is Rs.10200. What is the sum of money? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881 + +Table 10: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA. + +Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers. + +Original Question: Each bird eats 12 beetles per day, each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each jaguar eats 5 snakes per day. If there are 6 jaguars in a forest, how many beetles are eaten each day? + +New Question: In a forest, there are 6 jaguars that each eat 5 snakes per day. Each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each bird eats 12 beetles per day. How many beetles are eaten each day by the jaguars? + +Original Question: Albert is wondering how much pizza he can eat in one day. He buys 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas. A large pizza has 16 slices and a small pizza has 8 slices. If he eats it all, how many pieces does he eat that day? + +New Question: Albert has purchased 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas and is wondering how many slices he can eat in one day. Each large pizza has 16 slices and each small pizza has 8 slices. If Albert eats all of the pizza, how many slices will he have eaten in one day? + +Original Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. If Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats, and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and twice as many green hard hats as the number of pink hard hats that he removed, then calculate the total number of hard hats that remained in the truck. + +New Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and 12 green hard hats. How many hard hats remain in the truck? + +Original Question: Jasper will serve charcuterie at his dinner party. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, a pound of cream cheese that cost half the price of the cheddar cheese, and a pack of cold cuts that cost twice the price of the cheddar cheese. How much does he spend on the ingredients? + +New Question: Jasper is hosting a dinner party and wants to serve charcuterie. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, 1 pound of cream cheese for $5, and a pack of cold cuts for $20. How much does he spend on the ingredients for the charcuterie? + +Original Question: Tomas ate 1.5 pounds of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate half a pound of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 2 pounds of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total? + +New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total? + +Original Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total? + +New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total? + +Table 11: In-context SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith. + +Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers. + +Original Question: Monica is a teacher. She has 6 classes per day. The first class has 20 students. The second and third classes have 25 students. Her fourth class has half as many as her first class. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day? + +New Question: Monica is a teacher with 6 classes per day. Her first class has 20 students, her second and third classes have 25 students, and her fourth class has 10 students. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day in all of her classes? + +Original Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts that cost the same amount of money. She spent a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts? + +New Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts for a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts? + +Original Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for 1 hour each day for a total of $10. He does this for April, save for the 4 Sundays in April. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left? + +New Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for April (30 days excluding 4 Sundays) for a total of $10 each day. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left after these expenses? + +Original Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister. In 5 years, her younger sister will be 16. How old is Bethany now? + +New Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister, who is currently 11 years old. How old is Bethany now? + +Original Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought one-third as many paperback books as Sarah bought, and two times the number of hardback books that she bought. How many books did her brother buy in total? + +New Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought 2 paperback books and 8 hardback books. How many books did her brother buy in total? + +Original Question: Sandra had 2 different bags of candy. Each of her bags had 6 pieces of candy left. Her brother, Roger, also had 2 bags of candy. One of his bags of candy had 11 pieces left and the other had 3 pieces left. How much more candy did Roger have? + +New Question: Sandra had 2 bags of candy, each with 6 pieces left. Her brother, Roger, had 2 bags of candy, one with 11 pieces left and the other with 3 pieces left. How many more pieces of candy did Roger have than Sandra? + +Original Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of $60\mathrm{mph}$ and takes a lunch break taking 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks taking 15 minutes each, how many hours did it take her to get there? New Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of $60\mathrm{mph}$ and takes a lunch break of 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks of 15 minutes each, how many hours(60 minutes = 1 hour) does it take her to get there? + +Table 12: Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith. + +Original Question: James gets a fleet of gas transportation vans. He gets 6 vans. 2 of them are 8000 gallons. 1 of them is $30\%$ less than that. The remaining trucks are $50\%$ larger than the 2 trucks. How many gallons can he transport? + +New Question: James has acquired a fleet of gas transportation vans. He has 6 vans in total. 2 of the vans have a capacity of 8000 gallons, while the other van has a capacity of 5600 gallons (30% less than the first two vans). The remaining 3 vans have a capacity of 12000 gallons (50% larger than the first two vans). What is the total capacity of the fleet in gallons? + +Table 13: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith. + +Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers. + +Original Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and 4 worksheets to memorize. They figure out that they should dedicate 3 hours to each chapter of their textbook and 1.5 hours for each worksheet. If they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week if they take a 10-minute break every hour, include 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day? + +New Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and they decide to dedicate 3 hours to each chapter. They also have 4 worksheets to memorize, and they decide to dedicate 1.5 hours for each worksheet. Taking into account 10-minute breaks every hour, if they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day including 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week? + +Original Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score double the 2 pointers but half the 3 pointers and free throws. What's the total number of points scored by both teams added together? + +New Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score 50 2 pointers, 4 3 pointers and 5 free throws. Both teams score 75 2 pointers, 12 3 pointers and 15 free throws. What is the total number of points scored by both teams combined? + +Original Question: Bella has two times as many marbles as frisbees. She also has 20 more frisbees than deck cards. If she buys 2/5 times more of each item, what would be the total number of the items she will have if she currently has 60 marbles? + +New Question: Bella currently has 60 marbles, and she has twice as many marbles as frisbees and 20 more frisbees than deck cards. She buys 2/5 times more of each item. What would be the total number of the items she will have? + +Original Question: A group of 4 fruit baskets contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas in the first three baskets and 2 less of each fruit in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there? + +New Question: There is a group of 4 fruit baskets. The first three baskets each contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas, and 7 apples, 13 oranges, and 12 bananas in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there in total? + +Original Question: You can buy 4 apples or 1 watermelon for the same price. You bought 36 fruits evenly split between oranges, apples and watermelons, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. How much does 1 apple cost if your total bill was $66? + +New Question: You bought 36 fruits, with an equal number of oranges, apples and watermelons. The price of 1 watermelon equals to 4 apples, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. If your total bill was $66, how much does 1 apple cost? + +Table 14: Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith. + +Original Question: Susy goes to a large school with 800 students, while Sarah goes to a smaller school with only 300 students. At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers. She gained 40 new followers in the first week of the school year, half that in the second week, and half of that in the third week. Sarah only had 50 social media followers at the start of the year, but she gained 90 new followers the first week, a third of that in the second week, and a third of that in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have? + +New Question: At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers and Sarah had 50 social media followers. Susy gained 40 followers in the first week, 20 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. Sarah gained 90 followers in the first week, 30 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have? + +Original Question: Sam bought a dozen boxes, each with 30 highlighter pens inside, for $10 each box. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages of six highlighters each and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the rest of the highlighters separately at the rate of three pens for $2. How much profit did he make in total, in dollars? + +New Question: Sam bought 12 boxes for $10 each, and each contains 30 highlighter pens. 1 package contains 6 highlighters. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the remaining highlighters separately at the price of $2 for every three one. How much profit did Sam make in total, in dollars? + +Original Question: In a certain school, $2/3$ of the male students like to play basketball, but only $1/5$ of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball if the ratio of the male to female students is $3:2$ and there are 1000 students? + +New Question: In a certain school, there is a total of 1000 students, while 3 male students for every 2 female students. So there are 600 male students and $\frac{2}{3}$ of the male students like to play basketball, and there are 400 female students but only $\frac{1}{5}$ of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball? + +Table 15: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/images.zip b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4718e5716c36c7ee8add11bc791db2f330f004e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:062085aac58aa0f0075e0647fd30b52f769f185d10035cb2c0c3fc042107f350 +size 433393 diff --git a/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/layout.json b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f81be5966a1e04c1ff2d8e8c2339a7505f324f9f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Polish_ Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,17530 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 69, + 490, + 101 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 69, + 490, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 69, + 490, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Polish: Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models via Problem Refinement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiheng Xi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Senjie Jin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yuhao Zhou" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Rui Zheng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Songyang Gao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Tao Gui" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Qi Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xuanjing Huang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 474, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 139, + 445, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 139, + 445, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 139, + 445, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 139, + 445, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " School of Computer Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 484, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 484, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 484, + 168 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 484, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Institute of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 168, + 433, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 168, + 433, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 168, + 433, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{zhxi22,sjjin22,zhouyh21,gaosy21}@m.fudan.edu.cn," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 182, + 405, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 182, + 405, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 182, + 405, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{rzheng20, tgui, qz, xjhuang}@fudan.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To enhance the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models, researchers have extensively explored prompting methods, notably the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) method which explicitly elicits human-like rationales. However, they have inadvertently overlooked the potential of enhancing model reasoning performance by formulating higher-quality problems1. In this work, we start from the problem side and propose Self-Polish (SP), a novel method that facilitates the model's reasoning by guiding it to progressively refine the given problems to be more comprehensible and solvable. We also explore several automatic prompting variants and propose the Self-Polish prompt bank for the community. SP is orthogonal to all other prompting methods of answer/reasoning side like CoT, allowing for seamless integration with state-of-the-art techniques for further improvement. Thorough experiments show that the proposed method attains notable and consistent effectiveness on five reasoning benchmarks across different models. Furthermore, our method also showcases impressive performance on robustness evaluation. Codes and prompts are available at https://github.com/WooooDyy/Self-Polish." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 575, + 154, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 575, + 154, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 575, + 154, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 598, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 598, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 598, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on a variety of NLP tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Otter et al., 2021; Chowdhery et al., 2022), but their capability to perform multi-step reasoning is considered a limitation, which can not be tackled solely by scaling up the model size (Rae et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022). To address this challenge, many prompting methods have been proposed to elicit reasoning in LLMs, and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 523, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 523, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 523, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 211, + 523, + 361 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9ea85670106c6a166db9ce4ddc5c4308bf41905bd1436ebe87436f3acac2017b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 526, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Schematic comparison between Self-Polish and other representative approaches for reasoning with prompting. Previous paradigms enhance the reasoning capability of LLMs from the aspect of the answer side/reasoning side, while our method starts from the problem side, and refines problems to be simpler and more comprehensible for models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "have demonstrated significant effectiveness (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 526, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is a breakthrough method that teaches a language model to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans to solve a reasoning task (Wei et al., 2022b). Many following work has explored variants of CoT to improve the quality of rationales of LLMs (Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). There is also a line of work that optimizes the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023), and a representative one is Self-Consistency (SC). SC generates diverse reasoning paths and answers, and then leverages the majority vote strategy to get the most consistent answer (Wang et al., 2022). Despite the boosted reasoning performance of the aforementioned methods, they focus on the answer/reasoning side, and little emphasis has been placed on the problems side." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Actually, the clarity and logical structure of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 729, + 161, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 729, + 161, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 729, + 161, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal contribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 740, + 171, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 740, + 171, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 740, + 171, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A reasoning problem often consists of two parts: the context and the final question (Creswell et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11383" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11383-11406 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "problem description are crucial factors for human understanding and model comprehension (Shou and Smithson, 2015; Faruqui and Das, 2018; Chu et al., 2020). LLMs often exhibit poor reasoning performance when confronted with low-quality real-world reasoning problems, which may be excessively long, ambiguous, unclear in focus, or contain irrelevant information (Zellers et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2023; Ye and Durrett, 2022). To tackle this challenge, we consider refining problems into a better formulation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 292, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 292, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 292, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose Self-Polish (Figure 1 right) that leverages LLMs themselves to refine reasoning problems without training for better reasoning performance. We first present several principles for refined problems: concise, clear, well-focused, and absent of irrelevant information. To achieve our goal, we propose the Self-Polish Prompt Bank which includes several feasible solutions as outlined in the following text. An intuitive strategy is to reformulate problems via instruction-following (Sanh et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022), and we call it zero-shot problem refining. Next, we include demonstrations in the prompts (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022) to enable models to better internalize and apply the principles, which is defined as in-context problem refining. During the construction of the demonstrations, we incorporated a curated collection of problem-refining patterns, e.g., eliminating irrelevant information, rearranging the logic structure, and organizing local conditions into new ones in parallel. Moreover, we explore automatic prompting methods to construct enhanced prompts and mitigate manual efforts, based on the criteria of complexity (complexity-based Self-Polish) or diversity (automatic Self-Polish). To further enhance the reliability and consistency of the generated problems, we propose to progressively refine problems until obtaining a convergent answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 293, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 293, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 293, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experiments show that our method consistently improves the reasoning performance of various models (i.e., Text-davinci-002, Text-davinci-003, GPT-3.5-Turbo) on five benchmarks (Table 1 & Figure 3). Moreover, the proposed method is orthogonal to all other reasoning-side state-of-the-art prompting methods, making it convenient to be combined with them for further improvement. Detailed experiments demonstrate that the performance of reasoning-side methods can be significantly boosted when integrated with SP (Table 2 &" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3). Self-Polish also showcases exceptional performance on robustness evaluation (Figure 4)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, we make the following contributions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 134, + 527, + 327 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 134, + 527, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 134, + 527, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 134, + 527, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We propose a novel method, Self-Polish, to improve the reasoning performance and robustness of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 184, + 527, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 184, + 527, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 184, + 527, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method when applied alone or combined with other prompting approaches on five benchmarks with different models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 247, + 527, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 247, + 527, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 247, + 527, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We believe that the proposed Self-Polish represents an important step in enhancing LLMs' reasoning capabilities by shifting the perspective from the answer/reasoning side to the problem side. We hope it could inspire future research in this field." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 396, + 351 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 396, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 396, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 360, + 527, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 360, + 527, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 360, + 527, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-step reasoning. Multi-step reasoning tasks have posed significant challenges for language models (Rae et al., 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021; Qiao et al., 2022), and it is considered as an emergent ability of LLMs (Schaeffer et al., 2023). It is in these tasks that the effectiveness of few-shot prompting begins to surpass that of full training set fine-tuning (Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Moreover, such capability is considered important in building more complex artificial intelligence such as large language model-based agents (LLM-based agents) (Xi et al., 2023). Our work represents a significant stride in enhancing the ability of language models to perform multi-step reasoning tasks, through the facilitation of models' comprehension and processing of given reasoning problems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reasoning with prompting. Prompting strategies have substantially improved the reasoning ability of LLMs by a large margin (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). An important line of work in this area is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting which elicits the reasoning ability of models by prompting them to imitate the step-by-step reasoning process of humans (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). Another line of work focuses on optimizing the rationales for better consistency and continuity (Wang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Zelikman et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2023). A representative one is Self-Consistency (SC), which samples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11384" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 284, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 284, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 284, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Kylie makes 10 beaded necklaces on Monday and 2 beaded necklaces on Tuesday. Then Kylie makes 5 beaded bracelets on Wednesday. 20 beads are needed to make one beaded necklace. 10 beads are needed to make one beaded bracelet. Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 123, + 127, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 123, + 127, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 123, + 127, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 120." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 137, + 279, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 137, + 279, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 137, + 279, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 152, + 284, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 152, + 284, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 152, + 284, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem] : Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, 5 beaded bracelets. Each beaded necklace needs 20 beads. Each beaded bracelet requires 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 187, + 127, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 187, + 127, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 187, + 127, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 155." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 250, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 250, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 250, + 213 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 202, + 250, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 217, + 284, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 217, + 284, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 217, + 284, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem2]: Kylie makes 12 beaded necklaces, and each beaded necklaces needs 20 beads. She also makes 5 beaded bracelets, and each beaded bracelet needs 10 beads. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 253, + 127, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 253, + 127, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 253, + 127, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer2] : 290." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 268, + 277, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 268, + 277, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 268, + 277, + 278 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2! = \\mathbf{A}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 268, + 277, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Continue Refine (Summary Local Conditions)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 281, + 284, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 281, + 284, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 281, + 284, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem3] : Kylie requires 240 beads to make beaded necklaces. She also requires 50 beads to make beaded bracelets. How many beads does Kylie use in total to make her jewelry?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 127, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 127, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 127, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer3] : 290." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 324, + 152, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 324, + 152, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 324, + 152, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_3 = \\mathbf{A}_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 324, + 152, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 324, + 152, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: An example illustrating the framework and problem-refining patterns of Self-Polish. In the first refining iteration, the irrelevant information \"Ada bought 2000 tomatoes from the grocery store.\" is removed. In the second iteration, the conditions are reordered for easier calculation of the number of beads required for each type of beaded product. In the third iteration, the local conditions were parallelly combined to form new conditions (the total number of beads required for necklaces and bracelets)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "multiple reasoning paths and generate the most consistent answer by majority vote (Wang et al., 2022). Different from Self-Polish, the aforementioned strategies emphasize improving the quality of rationales from the answer/reasoning side. Our method is a problem-side method, so it is orthogonal to all of them and can be combined with them for further improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 291, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "See Appendix A for more related work and the detailed differences between Self-Polish and Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 202, + 698 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 202, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 202, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Self-Polish Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we first revisit previous prompting paradigms aiming at solving reasoning problems. Next, we describe the proposed Self-Polish method dually." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 493, + 98 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 493, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 493, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Revisiting Paradigms of Reasoning Problem Solving" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 102, + 526, + 209 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 102, + 526, + 209 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 102, + 526, + 209 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the context of enhancing the capabilities of LLMs, the prompting technique has emerged as one of the most popular approaches owing to its training-free nature and effectiveness (Qiao et al., 2022; Lewkowycz et al., 2022). Here, we formalize several representative paradigms. See Figure 1 for a schematic comparison between them and our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Standard. The prompt contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Problem, Answer] pairs, followed by the test problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chain-of-Thought (Wei et al., 2022b). The prompt contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Problem, Rationale, Answer] tuples, followed by the test problem. This method teaches models to generate rationales and answers, achieving significant improvement in reasoning. Auto-CoT (Fu et al., 2022) and Complex-CoT (Zhou et al., 2022a) are two automatic variants that constructs CoT demonstrations according to the criteria of problem diversity and reasoning complexity, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2022a). The models are taught to first reduce problems into subproblems and then solve them sequentially. There are two kinds of prompts. The first is the problem reduction prompt that contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Original Problem, Sub-Problems] pairs, followed by the test original problem. The second is the problem-solving prompt that contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Original Problem, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 526, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Sub-Problem, Sub-Answer)] tuples, followed by the test original problem and the current subproblem to solve." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Summary. All previous methods focus on the answer/reasoning side, and it is convenient to combine them with Self-Polish which puts emphasis on the problem side." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 467, + 630 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 467, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 467, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Problem-Refining Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 428, + 648 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 428, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 428, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.1 Refining Principles" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We expect the newly generated problems to be easier to understand and process, so they should adhere to the following principles: (1) conciseness, the problems should not be overly long, ensuring they remain easily understandable; (2) clarity, the problems should avoid ambiguous phrasing and instead utilize quantitative representations (e.g., Arabic numerals) whenever possible; (3) focus: the problems should clearly convey the intended subject matter," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11385" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 243 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 243 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
METHODProgressivelyDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
StandardX15.828.372.935.128.236.1
+Zero-shot SPX22.4(↑ 6.6)28.3(0)73.2(↑ 0.3)43.1(↑ 8.0)25.4(↓ 2.8)38.5(↑ 2.4)
✓24.0(↑ 8.2)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.2(↓ 0.7)51.7(↑ 16.6)26.8(↓ 1.4)40.7(↑ 4.6)
+In-context SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)73.9(↑ 1.0)50.6(↑ 15.5)29.4(↑ 0.8)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓25.3(↑ 9.5)29.5(↑ 1.2)73.9(↑ 1.0)52.9(↑ 17.8)28.6(↑ 0.4)42.0(↑ 5.9)
+Auto-SPX24.3(↑ 8.5)29.9(↑ 1.6)72.6(↓ 0.3)54.0(↑ 18.9)27.6(↓ 0.6)41.7(↑ 5.6)
✓24.3(↑ 8.5)30.3(↑ 2.0)72.9(0)56.7(↑ 21.6)28.2(0)42.5(↑ 6.4)
+Complex-SPX23.0(↑ 7.2)29.9(↑ 1.6)73.2(↑ 0.3)52.3(↑ 17.2)29.6(↑ 1.4)41.6(↑ 5.5)
✓24.6(↑ 8.8)28.7(↑ 0.4)72.9(0)55.7(↑ 20.6)30.0(↑ 1.8)42.4(↑ 6.3)
", + "image_path": "27c87ffa7ea3580d9f354d3e6974ff2a27525c65dca609b293ac47953eb77938.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 525, + 287 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 525, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Evaluating different strategies of the Self-Polish prompting bank on several benchmarks. Performance gains/drops are highlighted with green/red. The results are with Text-davinci-003. “Progressively” represents whether using the progressively refining framework in Section 3.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "making it evident what the question is asking; (4) absence of irrelevant information: the problems should be free from extraneous details that could cause confusion or distractions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 262, + 380 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 262, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 262, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.2 Construction of Refining Prompts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-shot Self-Polish. It is difficult to internalize the aforementioned principles within the model via training due to the tedious process of constructing a corresponding dataset and potential catastrophic forgetting problems (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Parisi et al., 2019). So we turn to training-free strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As LLMs demonstrate emergent abilities of instruction-following (Schaeffer et al., 2023; Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a), a simple and intuitive strategy to refine problems is prompting LLMs with an instruction. In the instruction, we guide the model to rewrite new versions of the original reasoning problem to be more understandable and easy to answer, and never omit any useful information. The prompt contains [Instruction, Original Problem] and the model responds with a newly generated problem. Next, we can adopt any prompting method in Section 3.1 to get the answer to the new problem, and we take this answer as the final one. We conduct preliminary validation experiments and the results are illustrated in Table 1. Zero-shot refining can consistently improve reasoning performance on various benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-context Self-Polish. As empirical results show that zero-shot refining can only provide limited performance gain, especially on difficult datasets, we then add demonstrations to the prompt to enable models to better internalize and apply" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 526, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "design principles. Specifically, demonstrations are formulated as [Original Problem, New Problem] pairs, and we incorporate a curated collection of problem-refining patterns in the demonstrations: (1) remove irrelevant information, as the first iteration in Figure 2; (2) rearrange the logic structure and group relevant conditions together to better match the reasoning logic of the model, as the second iteration in Figure 2; (3) summarize local conditions into new ones in parallel, as the third iteration in Figure 2. Results in Table 1 show that in-context problem refining yields more performance gain than zero-shot refining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Self-Polish. This is an automatic variant of the in-context problem-refining. We draw inspiration from Zhang et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the diverse semantics of problems with the technique of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-means clustering. The underlying hypothesis is that a diverse set of demonstrations can cover a broad semantic space of problems, thereby the model can locate relevant reference demonstrations for more test examples. Table 1 shows that Auto-SP also yields significant improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Complexity-based Self-Polish. This is another variant of the in-context problem-refining for automatically selecting refining demonstrations. We draw inspiration from Fu et al. (2022) and construct the refining prompt according to the complexity of each problem. The underlying hypothesis is that" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Note that a single example typically does not encompass all refining strategies. The example is constructed solely to illustrate our design patterns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11386" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the refining ability of the model can generalize from complex problems to simpler ones. Table 1 demonstrates that Complex-SP can also yield substantial performance gain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 257, + 150 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 257, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 257, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Progressively Refining Framework" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 292, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 292, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 292, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To enhance the consistency and reliability of the refined problems, we propose a progressive framework that has two stages: the problem-solving stage (Section 3.1) and the problem-refining stage (Section 3.2). The two stages are executed alternatively until the return condition is satisfied." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Return condition & answer selection. There are two situations that terminate the iterative process. The first is when the last two answers are the same, indicating convergence of the answer. In this case, we can directly return the answer. The second situation is when the iteration number exceeds the maximum count " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ".3 In such case, we have multiple options for selecting the final answer, such as the answer to the original problem, the answer to the first generated problem, the answer to the last generated problem, or utilizing a majority voting approach to select the answer (Wang et al., 2022), which will be discussed in our ablation study in Section 5.1. Here we choose the answer to the last generated problem by default. As shown in Table 1, adding Progressively Refining to our method can bring further improvement across different prompt-construction approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The overall framework is shown in Algorithm 1 in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 155, + 545 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 155, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 155, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we conduct experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of SP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 196, + 607 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 196, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 196, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setups." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models. We employ three GPT-series models, namely text-davinci-002, text-davinci-003, and GPT-3.5-Turbo (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), as they are widely recognized and accessible to the public, ensuring reproducibility of our research. Our experiments are based on OpenAI's API. All methods use greedy decoding (i.e., temperature = 0) for stable responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 420, + 150 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 420, + 150 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 420, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 73, + 420, + 150 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e744f3fd775c74d6064ed890a672b7ffaa917fd0e9b093f8c1c58ba97227e616.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 420, + 73, + 526, + 150 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 73, + 526, + 150 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 73, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 73, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "25aebf8903b53348cb47d6e6973e1b5b03d7adaea6b22819c87400efa833fb76.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 158, + 418, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 158, + 418, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 158, + 418, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 158, + 418, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5cf7972757c9eb7f5cf70582ca7a439710c59ea97c04f5cc6a2352401d4f75e2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 419, + 158, + 526, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 158, + 526, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 158, + 526, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 158, + 526, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "34f4d58ffefb07aed6d344c9a37ce9daa5fce447ed9b11d38605d15930802ed9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 244, + 418, + 321 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 244, + 418, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 244, + 418, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 244, + 418, + 321 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c6ff93106dcb23237a3b45e66b9828d6d77508460cb34d05ea4d6a11f7202a17.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 527, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 527, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Evaluating Self-Polish on various benchmarks with different models. Self-Polish consistently improves reasoning performance across multiple models and benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 419, + 244, + 525, + 322 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 244, + 525, + 322 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 244, + 525, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 419, + 244, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d8ccf42d90a855ca59c2a1b3f11d9ff5856eb34f3858633413e00abafddff9fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. We evaluate the performance of our method on five reasoning datasets, including GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), AQuA (Ling et al., 2017), SVAMP (Patel et al., 2021), MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) and MathQA (Amini et al., 2019). The datasets are evaluated by prior studies in the field of multi-hop reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). We evaluate on the whole test set of AQuA and GSM8K. For other datasets, we adopt the split from Mishra et al. (2022) or randomly select 500 test instances, and perform 3 restarts for stable results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompts. For the sake of generalizability, GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from GSM8K; AQuA and MathQA share the same Self-Polish prompts constructed from AQuA. See Appendix F for SP prompts. The prompts for the standard few-shot prompting method are from Wei et al. (2022b). The prompts for Chain-of-thought, Least-to-Most, Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT are from previous work (Wei et al., 2022b; Zhou et al., 2022a; Zheng et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). While prompts of LtM are not available for some datasets, we manually construct them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "See more implementation details in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3One iteration means one time of problem refinement. Note that a bigger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can yield a larger performance gain, as discussed in Section 5.1. Here we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to achieve a balance in computational efficiency and performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11387" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 523, + 297 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 523, + 297 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 523, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 523, + 297 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ANSWER SIDEPROBLEM SIDEDATASETAVERAGE
GSM8KAQuASVAMPMultiArithMathQA
Chain-of-ThoughtNo Refinement56.144.980.390.841.062.6
In-context SP56.7(↑ 0.6)48.8(↑ 3.9)81.6(↑ 1.3)88.5(↓ 2.3)43.0(↑ 2.0)63.7(↑ 1.1)
Auto-SP56.9(↑ 0.8)49.2(↑ 4.3)78.3(↓ 2.0)89.7(↓ 1.1)42.8(↑ 1.8)63.4(↑ 0.8)
Complex-SP58.1(↑ 2.0)47.3(↑ 2.4)81.3(↑ 1.0)90.2(↓ 0.6)43.2(↑ 2.2)64.0(↑ 1.4)
Least-to-MostNo Refinement59.342.182.983.939.061.4
In-context SP61.2(↑ 1.9)44.1(↑ 2.0)84.9(↑ 2.0)85.1(↑ 1.2)41.2(↑ 2.2)63.3(↑ 1.9)
Auto-SP61.6(↑ 2.3)44.9(↑ 2.8)82.9(0)83.9(0)41.2(↑ 2.2)62.9(↑ 1.5)
Complex-SP62.9(↑ 3.6)47.6(↑ 5.5)84.2(↑ 1.3)86.2(↑ 2.3)40.6(↑ 1.6)64.3 (↑ 2.9)
Auto-CoTNo Refinement59.446.575.692.541.463.1
In-context SP59.4(0)47.2(↑ 0.7)77.6(↑ 2.0)90.6(↓ 1.9)45.8(↑ 4.4)64.1(↑ 1.0)
Auto-SP60.5(↑ 1.1)48.0(↑ 1.5)75.6(0)89.7(↓ 2.8)44.4(↑ 3.0)63.6(↑ 0.5)
Complex-SP60.1(↑ 0.7)50.8(↑ 4.3)78.2(↑ 2.6)93.1(↑ 0.6)43.0(↑ 1.6)65.0(↑ 1.9)
Complex-CoTNo Refinement67.547.678.394.343.666.3
In-context SP66.2(↓ 1.3)50.8(↑ 3.1)80.9(↑ 2.6)90.8(↓ 3.5)44.6(↑ 1.3)66.7(↑ 0.4)
Auto-SP68.7(↑ 1.2)45.7(↓ 1.9)78.3(0)92.0(↓ 2.3)42.4(↓ 1.2)65.4(↓ 0.9)
Complex-SP68.5(↑ 1.0)50.4(↑ 2.8)78.6(↑ 0.3)93.1(↓ 1.2)44.8(↑ 1.2)67.1(↑ 0.8)
", + "image_path": "2742b59dd929e2fa53827eeee30faec2311ce2e5a50b883ca0b6db02d4267438.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 525, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 525, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Evaluation results when combining Self-Polish with other answer/reasoning side prompting strategies. The results are with Text-davinci-003. The best performance for each answer side strategy of one task is underlined. The best performance for each task is in bold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 196, + 371 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 196, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 196, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Standard few-shot setting. Figure 3 shows the results of evaluating the performance in the standard few-shot setting. We can find that: (1) Our method consistently improves reasoning performance by a large margin across multiple models and datasets, indicating its capability to enhance model understanding of problems. (2) On relatively weaker models, automated prompting methods like Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT yield more gains compared to in-context SP. However, on stronger models, the differences in performance gain between the three approaches are not significant, revealing that the stronger models are less sensitive to prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Combining Self-Polish with other prompting strategies. Table 2 demonstrates the evaluating results when combining our method with other state-of-the-art reasoning-side promoting strategies. There are several critical and interesting observations: (1) Generally, SP yields substantial performance gains for all reasoning-side methods, revealing that when the model is able to better comprehend problems, both its step-by-step reasoning capabilities and problem decomposition abilities can be significantly enhanced. (2) Whether for the reasoning side or the problem side, the Complex-based approach performs the best. This indicates that LLMs have the ability to generalize from com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "plex tasks to simple ones, both in terms of reasoning and problem refinement. (3) As Fu et al. (2022) stated, the average number of words in problems, i.e., GSM8K (46.9), AQuA (51.9), SVAMP (32.1), MultiArith (31.2), and MathQA (60.1), can serve as a proxy for measuring the reasoning complexity of each task. We find that the more challenging the task, the higher the improvement achieved by SP, highlighting its suitability for intricate reasoning tasks. It is noteworthy that when combined with the CoT-series methods, our approach has limited improvement on MultiArith. This could be because the task itself can already be well solved by CoT and is relatively simple. Excessive refinement of simple problems carries the risk of information loss or semantic alterations, leading to a decline in performance, as depicted in Figure 9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robustness evaluation. GSM-IC (Shi et al., 2023) is an adversarial arithmetic reasoning dataset with distracting information in the problem to fool the model. So it is well-suited for evaluating the robustness of models. It has two splits: GSM-IC-2step which contains problems that require two reasoning steps to solve and GSM-IC-mstep which contains problems that require more than two reasoning steps to solve. As shown in Figure 4, our method enhances the robustness and reliability of various models across different prompting techniques, shielding them from the interference of low-quality problems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11388" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 72, + 298, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 72, + 298, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 72, + 298, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 72, + 298, + 157 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "472975d430a2900e758e6af113822c527743a86d53b3bcddecd2ee2089f555f5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 160, + 220, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 160, + 220, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 160, + 220, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) GSM-IC-2Step" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 301, + 73, + 528, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 73, + 528, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 73, + 528, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 73, + 528, + 157 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1ca7ee518f8deb06da8b3254cf31e2c0af3193e7ebf4b5eadd0e94b70762bd92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 160, + 451, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 160, + 451, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 160, + 451, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) GSM-IC-MStep" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 223, + 188, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 525, + 210 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 525, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 525, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Evaluation results on GSMIC (Shi et al., 2023). Self-Polish (SP) enhances the robustness and reliability of various models when combined with different prompting techniques." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 223, + 188, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 223, + 188, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 223, + 188, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ad209c1b6c4899e463de0a39d4b0144bfe40f726daa3634acb0b96b1fc9ddb46.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 318, + 177, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 318, + 177, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 318, + 177, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Ablation Study on Std" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Ablation studies and the distribution of actual iterating times. (a) and (c) illustrate the performance (vertical axis on the left) when using different final answer selection strategies and different max iterating times " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The \"Converge\" means the performance calculated by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{conv} / N_{all}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{conv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means the number of examples that are answered correctly with converged answers, while the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{all}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means the number of all test examples. We also incorporate a line to represent the average actual iteration times at each value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (vertical axis on the right). In (b) and (d), we show the distribution of actual iterating times when we set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 224, + 295, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 224, + 295, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 224, + 295, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 191, + 224, + 295, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "853793b9c21d1eae2a763969f627e4a33291bc95979f923ad106c2084268ffe5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 318, + 294, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 318, + 294, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 318, + 294, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Iter. Distribution on Std" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 299, + 225, + 414, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 225, + 414, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 225, + 414, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 225, + 414, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d2aaaae128ae13d350a598a661e225f694d0e851d9bff02949dfdc4a3c898b23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 318, + 405, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 318, + 405, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 318, + 405, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Ablation Study on CoT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 417, + 225, + 521, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 225, + 521, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 225, + 521, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 225, + 521, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fabfa5e693068a95088e40aa75379532cd47e315c52c51a2d5d4bc8fc930d34c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 318, + 521, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 318, + 521, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 318, + 521, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) Iter. Distribution on CoT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 143, + 448 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 143, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 143, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 173, + 469 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 173, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 457, + 173, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Ablation Studies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned in Section 3.3, the maximum iteration times " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the strategy to select the final answer if the convergence is not achieved are two main components of Self-Polish. Here we perform ablation studies on them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Max iterating times " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As shown in Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c), for both the Standard and CoT methods, larger iteration counts lead to higher convergence accuracy (\"Converge\" in figures), which aligns with common knowledge and further demonstrates the effectiveness of our method: by gradually optimizing problems, we enable the model to handle them more easily. But when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is too big, the performance of SP may suffer a drop, indicating that excessive rewriting can lead to a decline in the quality of problems. We set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 291, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " not only for the sake of efficiency, but also because it can achieve competitive performance especially when combined with CoT-series methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Final answer selection strategies. We can easily observe that with a smaller " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the \"Last One\" strat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 526, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 526, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 526, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "egy tends to have an advantage, while as the iteration count increases, other strategies become more effective, even outperforming \"Last One\". This is intuitive as after multiple rewriting iterations, the semantic meaning of a problem may deviate significantly from the original one." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 490, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 490, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 490, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Analysis of Actual Iterating Times" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(c) show that the actual iterating times " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{\\text{actual}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " does not grow significantly as the max iterating times " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increases, revealing that SP can achieve a converged answer on most of the problems with few iterations. To verify this, we illustrate the distribution map of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{\\text{actual}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Figure 5(b) and Figure 5(d). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{\\text{actual}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 544, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " exhibits a long-tail distribution, with only a few samples exceeding the max times. This finding provides evidence that our method is highly efficient that consumes few additional computational resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 450, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 450, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 450, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Further Improvement for Self-Consistency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Consistency is a prompting method that samples multiple reasoning paths and generates a consistent answer by majority vote strategy (Wang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11389" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
METHODSC PathSelf-PolishDATASET
AQuAMathQA
Auto-CoT5X61.865.2
5✓66.168.4
10X61.467.4
10✓65.071.0
20X63.069.0
20✓68.172.0
Complex-CoT5X61.461.6
5✓65.064.4
10X65.462.4
10✓66.164.8
20X65.464.0
20✓67.065.6
", + "image_path": "20a9788ee9d4b6db1599256146462eb28d404a20fad7a7bc45344af7c65225c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Evaluation results of combining Self-Polish with Self-Consistency on GPT-3.5-Turbo. In the problem side, we use the Complex-SP. The best results in each manner are highlighted in bold. With Self-Polish, Self-Consistency performs better." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2022). It has proved effective in various reasoning benchmarks (Wang et al., 2022). Here, we combine the Self-Polish and Self-Consistency methods to investigate whether there will be further performance improvement. We conduct experiments on two difficult datasets (i.e., GSM8K and AQuA) with temperature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= 0.7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for diversity following (Wang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results in Table 3 demonstrate that SP provides a substantial performance gain for SC in Auto-CoT and Complex-CoT manners. Moreover, an increase in the number of reasoning paths leads to a corresponding improvement in performance, showing the advantage of voting strategy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 148, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 148, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 148, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further demonstrate the effectiveness of the problem-refining patterns we proposed and how our method embodies the proposed principles, we conducted a case study as shown in Figure 6. More cases can be found in the Appendix D (Figure 7 and Figure 8)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Figure 6, we observe that removing irrelevant information (i.e., \"Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.\") can help the model avoid distractions and facilitate accurate reasoning. Next, rearranging the problem conditions and grouping pertinent conditions together can facilitate the model in generating more effective novel deductions during the process of reasoning (e.g., resulting in the streamlined computation of the total number of face masks in Refined Problem2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 520, + 108 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 520, + 108 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 520, + 108 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 520, + 108 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.50 each. Grover's neighbor made a salary of" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 520, + 108 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10 last year. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will he his total profit?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 108, + 520, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 108, + 520, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 108, + 520, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Ratione] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. So he will make 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 dollars in total. Grover's neighbor made 10 dollars last year. So Grover's profit will be 1.50 - 10 = -8.50. The answer is -8.50." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 367, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 367, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 142, + 367, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : -8.50." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 160, + 515, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 160, + 515, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 160, + 515, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine (Remove Irrelevant Information)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 174, + 520, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 174, + 520, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 174, + 520, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. He plans to sell them for $0.50 each. If each box has 20 face masks, and Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15, how much will be his total profit?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 520, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 520, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 520, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Rationale] : Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell them for 0.50 dollars each. So his total profit will be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 520, + 236 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(3 * 20 * 0.50) - 15 = 15" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 520, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " dollars. The answer is 15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 236, + 359, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 236, + 359, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 236, + 359, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 250, + 486, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 250, + 486, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 250, + 486, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 250, + 486, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Continue Refine (Reorder Conditions)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 263, + 517, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 263, + 517, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 263, + 517, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem₂]: Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. Grover bought the 3 boxes for $15. He plans to sell the face masks for $0.50 each. How much will he his total profit?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 290, + 517, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 290, + 517, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 290, + 517, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left[\\text{Rationale}_2\\right] : \\text{Grover bought 3 boxes of face masks. Each box has 20 face masks. So he bought } 3 * 20 = 60 \\text{ face masks in total. He bought the 3 boxes for 15 dollars. He plans to sell the face masks for } 0.50 \\text{ dollars each. So he will sell the 60 face masks for } 60 * 0.50 = 30 \\text{ dollars. His total profit will be } 30 - 15 = 15 \\text{ dollars.}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 358, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 358, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 358, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer2] : 15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 387, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 387, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 387, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2 = \\mathbf{A}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 387, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , Return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 387, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 526, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: A case of Self-Polish on GSM-IC with Chain-of-Thought. The case is with Text-davinci-003. The irrelevant information \"Grover's neighbor made a salary of $10 last year.\" is removed. In the second iteration, the order of the condition \"Each box has 20 face masks.\" is moved forward and the model can calculate the total number of masks more easily when performing reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, summarizing local conditions into new ones can effectively simplify complex problems, enabling the model to handle them with greater ease. This is demonstrated in the first iteration of Figure 7 and the second iteration of Figure 8. Furthermore, the second iteration in Figure 7 highlights how our approach can explicitly and precisely define the problem in a formal manner. Specifically, in the Refined Problem" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 486, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of Figure 7, the model accurately identifies the two teams as \"Team A\" and \"Team B\" instead of referring to them as \"one team\" and \"the other team\", and then it is able to clearly specify the exact question to be asked. This significantly reduces the model's burden of understanding during the reasoning process, enhancing its overall performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 712, + 381, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 712, + 381, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 712, + 381, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper focuses on a previously neglected aspect, namely the optimization of problem formulation, within the context of enhancing multi-step" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11390" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "reasoning in large language models. We present a novel prompting method called Self-Polish which progressively refines the given reasoning problems to facilitate model comprehension and processing. It demonstrates impressive effectiveness, robustness, and reliability in various benchmarks across different models, and can seamlessly integrate with other state-of-the-art methods. We hope it could motivate future research in this field." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 131, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 131, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 131, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 292, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 292, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 292, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the significant enhancement in the reasoning performance achieved by our approach, this work still has limitations. Firstly, our criterion for convergence is based on obtaining two identical answers rather than assessing whether the problem itself has been sufficiently optimized. Future work could involve designing methods that enable the model to autonomously determine whether a problem has reached its optimal form. Secondly, we have explored two approaches to automatically construct problem-refining prompts (i.e., Auto-Sp and Complex-SP). However, in the future, it would be beneficial to incorporate more techniques for automatically generating instructions or selecting demonstrations. Thirdly, although our designed patterns for problem refining have proven highly effective, they do not encompass all possible scenarios in the real world. In the future, it is conceivable to incorporate additional patterns to further expand the scope of applicability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 503, + 170, + 517 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 503, + 170, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 503, + 170, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 524, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was partially funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62206057,61976056,62076069), Shanghai Rising-Star Program (23QA1400200), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (23ZR1403500), Program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader under grant 22XD1401100." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 655, + 127, + 667 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 655, + 127, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 655, + 127, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pages 2357-2367. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 101, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 101, + 527, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 101, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ B. Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Nadadri S. Chatterji, Annie S. Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dorottya Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stefano Ermon, John Etchemendy, Kawin Ethayarajh, Li Fei-Fei, Chelsea Finn, Trevor Gale, Lauren Gillespie, Karan Goel, Noah D. Goodman, Shelby Grossman, Neel Guha, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Peter Henderson, John Hewitt, Daniel E. Ho, Jenny Hong, Kyle Hsu, Jing Huang, Thomas Icard, Saahil Jain, Dan Jurafsky, Pratyusha Kalluri, Siddharth Karamcheti, Geoff Keeling, Fereshte Khani, Omar Khattab, Pang Wei Koh, Mark S. Krass, Ranjay Krishna, Rohith Kuditipudi, and et al. 2021. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. CoRR, abs/2108.07258." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 526, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 526, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 526, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 526, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zewei Chu, Mingda Chen, Jing Chen, Miaosen Wang, Kevin Gimpel, Manaal Faruqui, and Xiance Si. 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11391" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How to ask better questions? A large-scale multidomain dataset for rewriting ill-formed questions. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 7586-7593. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Yu, Vincent Y. Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed H. Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. CoRR, abs/2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 290, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. CoRR, abs/2110.14168." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 403 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. CoRR, abs/2205.09712." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 479 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 412, + 291, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Manaal Faruqui and Dipanjan Das. 2018. Identifying well-formed natural language questions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 798-803. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 290, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 486, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Tushar Khot. 2022. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning. CoRR, abs/2210.00720." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 291, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ian J. Goodfellow, Mehdi Mirza, Xia Da, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. An empirical investigation of catastrophic forgetting in gradient-based neural networks. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 291, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 612, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 291, + 732 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 291, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 291, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay V. Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. On the advance of making language models better reasoners. CoRR, abs/2206.02336." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 179, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun-. som. 2017. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017, Vancouver, Canada, July 30 - August 4, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 158-167. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 526, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out: The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extraction and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, DeeLIO@ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland and Online, May 27, 2022, pages 100-114. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 526, + 461 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 526, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 526, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8086-8098. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 526, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 11048-11064. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Swaroop Mishra, Matthew Finlayson, Pan Lu, Leonard Tang, Sean Welleck, Chitta Baral, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. LILA: A unified benchmark for mathematical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 5807-5832. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 526, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 526, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel W. Otter, Julian R. Medina, and Jugal K. Kalita. 2021. A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 32(2):604-624." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11392" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "German Ignacio Parisi, Ronald Kemker, Jose L. Part, Christopher Kanan, and Stefan Wermter. 2019. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113:54-71." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattachamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 2080-2094. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 290, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuofei Qiao, Yixin Ou, Ningyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Yunzhi Yao, Shumin Deng, Chuanqi Tan, Fei Huang, and Huajun Chen. 2022. Reasoning with language model prompting: A survey. CoRR, abs/2212.09597." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, H. Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant M. Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sotiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew J. Johnson, Blake A. Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Jason Gabriel, William Isaac, Edward Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. 2021. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. CoRR, abs/2112.11446." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arithmetic word problems. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, September 17-21, 2015, pages 1743-1752. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multi-task prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 249, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 249, + 525, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 249, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? CoRR, abs/2304.15004." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 294, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 294, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 294, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. CoRR, abs/2302.00093." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 361, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 361, + 525, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 361, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiyun Shou and Michael Smithson. 2015. Effects of question formats on causal judgments and model evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 407, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 407, + 525, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 407, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R. Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Agnieszka Kluska, Aitor Lewkowycz, Akshit Agarwal, Alethea Power, Alex Ray, Alex Warstadt, Alexander W. Kocurek, Ali Safaya, Ali Tazarv, Alice Xiang, Alicia Parrish, Allen Nie, Aman Hussain, Amanda Askell, Amanda Dsouza, Ameet Rahane, Anantharaman S. Iyer, Anders Andreassen, Andrea Santilli, Andreas Stuhlmüller, Andrew M. Dai, Andrew La, Andrew K. Lampinen, Andy Zou, Angela Jiang, Angelica Chen, Anh Vuong, Animesh Gupta, Anna Gottardi, Antonio Norelli, Anu Venkatesh, Arash Gholamidavoodi, Arfa Tabassum, Arul Menezes, Arun Kirubarajan, Asher Mullokandov, Ashish Sabharwal, Austin Herrick, Avia Efrat, Aykut Erdem, Ayla Karakas, and et al. 2022. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. CoRR, abs/2206.04615." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 639, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 639, + 525, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 639, + 525, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. CoRR, abs/2203.11171." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022a. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11393" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 616 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 134, + 290, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Rui Zheng, Xiaoran Fan, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Yuhao Zhou, Weiran Wang, Changhao Jiang, Yicheng Zou, Xiangyang Liu, Zhangyue Yin, Shihan Dou, Rongxiang Weng, Wensen Cheng, Qi Zhang, Wenjuan Qin, Yongyan Zheng, Xipeng Qiu, Xuanjing Huan, and Tao Gui. 2023. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. CoRR, abs/2309.07864." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 284 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 290, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2205.03401." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 290, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 333, + 290, + 410 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 333, + 290, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 333, + 290, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 93-104. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 289, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 289, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 289, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. CoRR, abs/2210.03493." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 289, + 502 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 289, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 289, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chuanyang Zheng, Zhengying Liu, Enze Xie, Zhenguo Li, and Yu Li. 2023. Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2304.09797." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed H. Chi. 2022a. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. CoRR, abs/2205.10625." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 290, + 616 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 290, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 290, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron C. Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. 2022b. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning. CoRR, abs/2211.09066." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 624, + 121, + 638 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 624, + 121, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 624, + 121, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 268, + 657 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 268, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 644, + 268, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Disscussion of More Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent research has unveiled an unpredictable phenomenon known as emergent abilities, which manifest exclusively in larger language models while eluding their smaller counterparts (Schaeffer et al., 2023). In-context learning, instruction following, and multi-step reasoning are three emergent abilities that we focus on. We have discussed the multi-step reasoning in Section 2 and we will discuss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "another two. We also compare our method with the LtM dually here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-context learning. It is demonstrated that a large language model can learn patterns from a few input-output examples in the context (input) to perform the task for an unseen inference-time example (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), and such ability is referred to as in-context learning (ICL). Recent studies have further highlighted the impressive performance of ICL in reasoning tasks (Wei et al., 2022b; Fu et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022a). In our research, we capitalize on this capability to generate new formulations of problems by injecting rephrasing patterns to the demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction following. LLMs can learn to perform unseen tasks solely through the comprehension of task-specific natural language instructions (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022a; Chung et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). There is also work showing that combining instructions with in-context learning can provide further benefits and that few-shot demonstrations can be viewed as a special kind of instruction that arouses the implicit ability in LLMs (Chung et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022b; Qiao et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 525, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with LtM. The work that is most similar to ours may be Least-to-Most (LtM) which decomposes the original problem into a series of sub-problems that need to be solved sequentially (Zhou et al., 2022a). However, LtM is an variant of CoT, and there are differences in motivation and operation process between LtM and SP. Firstly, LtM is an answer/reasoning side approach that emphasizes the decomposition of a complex problem into sub-problems, while we emphasize refining the original problem to make it more understandable. Secondly, in LtM, sub-problems are solved sequentially, requiring the answer of the previous sub-problem to tackle the next one, which can lead to fragility in the reasoning chain. In contrast, our method allows for the combination of local related conditions to form new conditions parallelly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 473, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 473, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 473, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B The Algorithm of Self-Polish" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "See Algorithm 1 for the overall framework of SelfPolish." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 448, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 448, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 448, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We set the maximum iterating count to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that the bigger maximum iteration count " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11394" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 74, + 236, + 86 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 74, + 236, + 86 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 74, + 236, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: Self-Polish Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: language model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " problem set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{refine}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the problem side refining method, prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the answer/reasoning side method, max iteration number " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , answer selection strategy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Z}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n1 for each problem " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n2 answer_list " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= [ ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . \n3 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n4 Procedure GENERATE ANSWER TO ORIGINAL PROBLEM \n5 rationale_t,ans " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\oplus s)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . \n6 answer_list.append(ans); \n7 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = t + 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n8 Procedure ITERATE PROBLEM REFINEMENT AND ANSWER \n9 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{refine}}\\oplus s)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . \n10 rationale_t,ans " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = \\mathcal{G}(\\mathcal{P}_{\\text{answer}}\\oplus s)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . \n11 if ans " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ans-1 then \n12 Return ans. \n13 else if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t > T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n14 Return Z的回答_list). \n15 else \n16 answer_list.append(ans); \n17 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = t + 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 273, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n18 end \n19 end" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 289, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "may lead to better performance, but here we set it to 2 to achieve a trade-off between computational efficiency and effectiveness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 289, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 289, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 289, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When combining with other reasoning-side methods (i.e., CoT, LtM, Complex-CoT and AutoCoT) on MultiArith and SVAMP, we set the answer selection strategy as \"selecting the answer to the original problem\" because this dataset is relatively easy for these prompting methods. Actually, in cases where it is not necessary, rewriting easy problems may result in the loss of critical information or altering the semantics of the original problem. In other settings, we set the answer selection strategy as \"selecting the answer to the last problem\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 226, + 717 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 226, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 226, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D More Cases and Examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we list more cases of Self-Polish in Figure 7 and Figure 8. We also list the failure case of excessive problem refining in Figure 9" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 518, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 518, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 73, + 518, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay; a race where each competing team has four members that each run 400 meters, or one lap, around a standard track. One of the two teams is very well-rounded and each of their members will run their 400 meter leg in precisely 55 seconds. The other team is less well-rounded; their first runner will run their 400 meter leg in 60 seconds then each subsequent runner will be 3 seconds faster than the previous runner. Using this information, how many seconds will the faster team win by?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 134, + 518, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 134, + 518, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 134, + 518, + 172 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left[\\text{Rationale}_0\\right] : \\text{The well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 55 seconds each, for a total time of 220 seconds. The less well-rounded team will run their 400 meter legs in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively, for a total time of 222 seconds. The faster team will win by } 220 - 222 = -2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 134, + 518, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " seconds. The answer is -2 seconds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 172, + 352, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 172, + 352, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 172, + 352, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer0]:-2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 503, + 170, + 518, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 170, + 518, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 170, + 518, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 170, + 518, + 185 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cd5856796548c5839e11912ae9dfec7318da4c8f8088045858e50ba698c1de9d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 187, + 477, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 187, + 477, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 187, + 477, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine (Summary Local Conditions)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 197, + 518, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 197, + 518, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 197, + 518, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem] : Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. One team has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while the other team has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds will the faster team win by?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 520, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 520, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 520, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Rationale] : The faster team has four members that run 400 meters in 55, 60, 57, and 54 seconds respectively. The slower team has four members that run 400 meters in 51 seconds each. So the faster team will win by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 520, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "55 - 51 = 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 228, + 520, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " seconds. The answer is 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 259, + 348, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 259, + 348, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 259, + 348, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 503, + 253, + 518, + 269 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 253, + 518, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 253, + 518, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 253, + 518, + 269 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "48ff74a4d974782362efcb3d658208c5800ac6b3be3d107676f78a690b95867a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 495, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 495, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 495, + 281 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_1! = \\mathbf{A}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 269, + 495, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Continue Refine (Specify the Problem Formally)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 282, + 522, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 282, + 522, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 282, + 522, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem2]: Two track teams are competing against each other in a 4 by 400 meter relay. Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds, while Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. How many seconds faster will Team A finish the relay compared to Team B?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left[\\mathrm{Ratione}_2\\right]:" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Team A has four members that each run 400 meters in 55 seconds. Team B has four members that run 400 meters in 60, 57, 54, and 51 seconds respectively. So the total time for Team A is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4 * 55 = 220" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " seconds, and the total time for Team B is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60 + 57 + 54 + 51 = 222" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 522, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " seconds. Team A will finish the relay 2 seconds faster than Team B. The answer is 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 359, + 349, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 359, + 349, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 359, + 349, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer2]: 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 503, + 355, + 518, + 369 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 355, + 518, + 369 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 355, + 518, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 503, + 355, + 518, + 369 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "017d3301ed3cd5901c2b36dd1bd6d68b13d34f6e3f8ed76eee8337e2029d8d71.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 375, + 473, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 375, + 473, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 375, + 473, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2 \\coloneqq \\mathbf{A}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 375, + 473, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 375, + 473, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, some irrelevant information is removed and the average time each member of the second team consumes is clarified. In the second iteration, the model accurately identifies the two teams as \"Team A\" and \"Team B\" instead of referring to them as \"one team\" and \"the other team\", and it explicitly states what the question to be asked is, reducing the burden of understanding on the model during the reasoning process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 508, + 568 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 508, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 508, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Sensitivity to Number and Order of Demonstrations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As widely recognized, in-context learning is highly sensitive to the number and order of demonstrations within the prompt (Min et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022). In this regard, we investigate whether our problem-refining process is sensitive to these variables via experiments on GSM8K with Text-davinci-003. We randomly select 200 examples from the test set. For a specific shot number, we randomly select five sets of demonstrations. For each set of demonstrations, we obtain performance results in five different orders. We observed that in the standard manner, increasing the number of demonstrations leads to improved performance. However, in the CoT manner, the performance con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11395" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 284, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 284, + 102 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 284, + 102 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Original Problem0] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. For every pound of beeswax, he can make 10 tapered candles. One pound of beeswax and the wicks cost $10.00 in supplies. If he sells each candle for $2.00 each, what is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 102, + 284, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 102, + 284, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 102, + 284, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Ratione] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 candles, which costs $10. He sells each candle for $2.00. So for 20 candles, he will make a profit of 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. His net profit is 40 - 10 = 30 dollars. The answer is 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 132, + 116, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 132, + 116, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 132, + 116, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer0] : 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 130, + 283, + 144 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 130, + 283, + 144 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 130, + 283, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 130, + 283, + 144 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "eba3d6c1d0b187d7cb4dbc213deaf19ebd65c7895e5a222050f54b130a2d5f69.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 148, + 148, + 157 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 148, + 148, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 148, + 148, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 158, + 284, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 158, + 284, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 158, + 284, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Refined Problem1]: Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 189, + 284, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 189, + 284, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 189, + 284, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Rationale₁] : Charlie needs 1 pound of beeswax and wicks to make 10 tapered candles, which cost him $10.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes a profit of $2.00 per candle. If he makes and sells 20 candles, his net profit is 20 * 2 = 40 dollars. The answer is 40 dollars." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 217, + 117, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 217, + 117, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 217, + 117, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 40." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 216, + 283, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 216, + 283, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 216, + 283, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 216, + 283, + 227 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1c63b16da66a802c14d8f66ca01ef18c9153e033f6d2f1ed5966f8505f191c47.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 230, + 158, + 240 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 230, + 158, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 230, + 158, + 240 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \\mathrm{A}_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 230, + 158, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , Continue Refine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 287, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 287, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 242, + 287, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Refined Problem1] : Charlie wants to sell beeswax candles. He needs 2 pounds of beeswax and wicks to make 20 tapered candles, which cost him $20.00 in supplies. He sells each candle for $2.00. How much is his net profit if he makes and sells 20 candles?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 273, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 273, + 287, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 273, + 287, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " [Rationale₂] : Charlie spent $20.00 in supplies to make 20 tapered candles. He sells each candle for $2.00. So he makes 20 * 2 = 40 dollars in sales. His net profit is 40 - 20 = 20 dollars. The answer is 20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 116, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 116, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 116, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer2] : 20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 296, + 283, + 305 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 296, + 283, + 305 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 296, + 283, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 296, + 283, + 305 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "116c32591b7d604139747d04b56c9754cd8fb5fd194a7d48de6d1896e26d5642.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: A case of Self-Polish on GSM8K with Chain-of-Thought. In the first iteration, the model translates \"every\" to \"1\". In the second iteration, the model summarizes relevant conditions and specifies the total cost for Charlie." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 312, + 236, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 312, + 236, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 312, + 236, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2 \\coloneqq \\mathbf{A}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 312, + 236, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Exceed Max Iterating Times, Return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 312, + 236, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 408, + 286, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 408, + 286, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 408, + 286, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Original Problem]: A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. If she graded 4, but then another 15 were turned in, how many worksheets would she have to grade?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. She graded 4 of them, and then 15 more were turned in. So she had " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38 - 4 = 34" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " worksheets to grade, and then 15 more were added. Now she has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "34 + 15 = 49" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 425, + 286, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " worksheets to grade. The answer is 49." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 455, + 116, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 455, + 116, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 455, + 116, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer0] : 49." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 455, + 287, + 465 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 455, + 287, + 465 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 455, + 287, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 455, + 287, + 465 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "42b3810d1b3a0247268b3fc03fcf2ea62302a189b600a7682c3f57448eb49cda.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 470, + 148, + 479 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 470, + 148, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 470, + 148, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Begin, Problem Refine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 481, + 286, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 481, + 286, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 481, + 286, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem] : A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 286, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 286, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 286, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Rationale] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 more were turned in. So the teacher now has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 286, + 528 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38 + 15 = 53" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 286, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " worksheets to grade. The answer is 53." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 528, + 115, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 528, + 115, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 528, + 115, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 53." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 523, + 286, + 539 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 523, + 286, + 539 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 523, + 286, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 523, + 286, + 539 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c99a16121a545bbad6b6cd06f1b2be495acccb17adc8f7005b6576b093879cca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 540, + 159, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 540, + 159, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 540, + 159, + 550 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{A}_{1}! = \\mathrm{A}_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 540, + 159, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , Continue Refine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 553, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 553, + 289, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 553, + 289, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Refined Problem] A teacher had 38 worksheets to grade. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. How many worksheets does the teacher now have to grade in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 576, + 289, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 576, + 289, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 576, + 289, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Rationale₂] : The teacher had 38 worksheets to grade originally. After grading 4 worksheets, 15 additional worksheets were turned in. So the teacher now has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 576, + 289, + 599 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38 + 15 = 53" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 576, + 289, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " worksheets to grade in total. The answer is 53." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 599, + 116, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 599, + 116, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 599, + 116, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Answer] : 53." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 268, + 599, + 286, + 608 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 599, + 286, + 608 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 599, + 286, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 599, + 286, + 608 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b7197d1186545d9d31192a435b74107e239453e94cdfe9cc38cc0e2bf6b68a25.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: A failure case of Self-Polish on MultiArith with Chain-of-Thought. The semantics of the second generated problem have deviated from the semantics of the original problem, and the model cannot answer correctly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 614, + 143, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 614, + 143, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 614, + 143, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{A}_2 = \\mathrm{A}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 614, + 143, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ,Return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 614, + 143, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{A}_2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "verges when the number of shots is equal to 5, demonstrating impressive sample efficiency. Additionally, in the standard manner, our method is not sensitive to the order of demonstrations while it is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 509, + 198 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 509, + 198 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 509, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 68, + 509, + 198 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
METHODSHOTSMeanOrder Deviation
Std+SP221.30.8
322.50.6
424.10.9
525.01.5
626.30.9
CoT+SP259.02.0
361.31.5
461.51.1
562.11.8
661.31.6
", + "image_path": "f7ea66eb84974568069cdef7dfc457e7c5ff2762905fbff5d36f3f94b81a54a1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 360, + 297, + 469, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 526, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Sensitivity to the number and order of problem-refining demonstrations. Mean represents the average performance for the current number of shots, while the order deviation represents the average standard deviation introduced by different demonstration orders. The results are with Text-davinci-003. In the problem side, we leverage the in-context SP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 297, + 469, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 297, + 469, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 297, + 469, + 364 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
METHODMATH
No Refinement21
Zero-shot SP23.5
In-context SP24.5
", + "image_path": "17867e6718d383f1130c74c2f29fa73811ee13584c22927ee5c939d85d2b64f4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: More results on MATH dataset, using Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 524, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "highly sensitive to the order of demonstrations in the CoT manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 440, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 440, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 440, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Prompts of Self-Polish" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 525, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The in-context Self-Polish prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 6. The Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 7 and Table 8. The Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA is in Table 9 and Table 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The in-context Self-Polish prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 11. The AutoSP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 12 and Table 13. The Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith is in Table 14 and Table 15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 486, + 643 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 486, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 486, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G More results on MATH dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As Table 5 shows, we also conducted Self-Polish methods on the MATH dataset (Hendrycks et al., 2021). Our approach demonstrated promising results. Specifically, we randomly selected 200 samples for testing, and use the Chain-of-Thought as the answer-side method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11396" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 517, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 517, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 110, + 517, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 164, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 164, + 517, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 164, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Krishan and Nandan jointly started a business. Krishan invested six times as Nandan did and invested his money for double time as compared to Nandan. Nandan earned Rs. 6000. If the gain is proportional to the money invested and the time for which the money is invested then the total gain was? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000 New Question: Krishan and Nandan teamed up to start a business together. Krishan invested 12 times more money than Nandan did. Nandan's earnings from the business were Rs. 6000. If the gain is directly proportional to both the amount of money invested and the time period, what was the total gain for both of them? Answer Choices: (A) Rs.78000 (B) Rs.48000 (C) Rs.6000 (D) Rs.82000 (E) Rs.32000" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: In a graduate physics course, 70 percent of the students are male and 30 percent of the students are married. If two-sevenths of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 / 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2 / 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5 / 7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 341, + 516, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 341, + 516, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 341, + 516, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: In a graduate physics course, 7/10 of the students are male and 3/10 of the students are married. If 2/7 of the male students are married, what fraction of the male students is single? Answer Choices: (A) 2/7 (B) 1/3 (C) 1/2 (D) 2/3 (E) 5/7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 394, + 516, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 394, + 516, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 394, + 516, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A train " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 394, + 516, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "500\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 394, + 516, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " long can cross an electric pole in 20 sec and then find the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 422, + 515, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 422, + 515, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 422, + 515, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A train, which is 500 meters long, takes 20 seconds to pass by an electric pole. What is the speed of the train? Represent the answer in units from answer options. Answer Choices: (A) 95 Kmph (B) 90 Kmph (C) 92 Kmph (D) 95 Kmph (E) 98 Kmph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A train covers a distance of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\mathrm{km}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\mathrm{min}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "120\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". New Question: A train covers a distance of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10000\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "600\\mathrm{sec}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If it takes 6 sec to pass a telegraph post, then the length of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "120\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 476, + 515, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 543, + 515, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 543, + 515, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 543, + 515, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: How many different subsets of the set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 543, + 515, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 543, + 515, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do not contain 0? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 571, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 571, + 515, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 571, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: How many different subsets of the set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 571, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{1,2,3,4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 571, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? Answer Choices: (A) 16 (B) 27 (C) 31 (D) 32 (E) 64" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 611, + 515, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 611, + 515, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 611, + 515, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A class has 6 boys and x girls. Average score of boys and girls is 50 and 60 respectively. the average of the whole class is 55, what is the value of x? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 652, + 515, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 652, + 515, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 652, + 515, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: In a class, there are 6 boys and an unknown number of girls. The average score of the boys is 50, while the average score of the girls is 60. The overall average score of the boys and girls is 55. How many girls are there in the class? Answer Choices: (A) 5 (B) 6 (C) 10 (D) 12 (E) 15" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 704, + 408, + 717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 704, + 408, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 184, + 704, + 408, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: In-context SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11397" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 518, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 518, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 518, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 137, + 517, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 137, + 517, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 137, + 517, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work. In how many days A alone can finish the job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 517, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 517, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 517, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A and B can together finish a work in 40 days. They worked together for 10 days and then B left, and the remaining work is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 517, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3/4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 179, + 517, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the original one. After another 12 days, A finished the remaining work alone. In how many days A alone can finish the whole job? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 25 (C) 60 (D) 16 (E) 20" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A man buys an article and sells it at a profit of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If he had bought it at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " less and sold it for Rs.75 less, he could have gained " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 246, + 517, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". What is the cost price? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A man buys an article at the price of x and sold it at the price of 1.2x, if he had bought it at a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " discount which is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.8\\mathrm{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and sold it for Rs.75 less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.2\\mathrm{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", he would have gained " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.8\\mathrm{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 287, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". What was the original price of the article before any discounts or markups? Answer Choices: (A) 388 (B) 375 (C) 288 (D) 266 (E) 269" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: The numbers of students speaking English and Hindi are in the ratio of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4:5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If the number of students speaking English increased by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "35\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and that speaking Hindi increased by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", what would be the new respective ratio? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "19:20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7:8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8:9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: The number of students speaking English is 400 and increased by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "35\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The number of students speaking Hindi is 500 and increased by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", what would be the respective ratio? what is the new ratio of students speaking English and Hindi? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "19:20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7:8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8:9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 408, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) Cannot be determined (E) None of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A rectangular field has area equal to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "150 \\, \\text{sq m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and perimeter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50 \\, \\text{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 517, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Its length and breadth must be? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be the length and the breadth of the rectangular. The area of a rectangular field is 150 square meters: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 * b = 50" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and its perimeter is 50 meters: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2l + 2b = 50" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 503, + 517, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". What are the breadth of the field? Answer Choices: (A) 10 (B) 88 (C) 66 (D) 65 (E) 22" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 557, + 517, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 557, + 517, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 557, + 517, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: The ratio of two numbers is 3:4 and their sum is 14. The greater of the two numbers is? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 584, + 517, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 584, + 517, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 584, + 517, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: There are two number a and b. The sum of a and b is 14, and the ratio of a and b 3:4. What is b? Answer Choices: (A) 12 (B) 14 (C) 16 (D) 8 (E) 19" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 624, + 517, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 624, + 517, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 624, + 517, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A and B invests Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his capital and B withdraws one-fourth of his capital. In what ratio should they share the profits at the end of the year? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 666, + 517, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 666, + 517, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 666, + 517, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A and B invested Rs.6000 and Rs.8000 respectively in a business. After 6 months, A withdraws half of his investment and B withdraws 1/4 of his investment. What is the ratio of their remaining investment? Answer Choices: (A) 13:15 (B) 9:13 (C) 9:11 (D) 13:14 (E) 9:14" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 731, + 398, + 744 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 731, + 398, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 731, + 398, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11398" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 517, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 517, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 517, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A train 640 meters long is running with a speed of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 517, + 353 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "64\\mathrm{kmph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 517, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The time taken by it to cross a tunnel 140 meters long is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 517, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A train is running with a speed of 64kmph. The length of train is 640 meters and there is a tunnel 140 meters long. The time taken by the train to cross tunnel is? Answer Choices: (A) 44 sec (B) 49 sec (C) 48 sec (D) 16 sec (E) 17 sec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 407, + 517, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 407, + 517, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 407, + 517, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, in how many ways that 1 girl and 2 boys are selected? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 449, + 517, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 449, + 517, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 449, + 517, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: There are 15 boys and 10 girls in a class. If three students are selected at random, how many total ways can 1 girl be chosen in 10 girls and 2 boys be chosen in 15 boys? Answer Choices: (A) 950 (B) 1050 (C) 2150 (D) 2050 (E) 1000" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 501, + 431, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 501, + 431, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 501, + 431, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11399" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 164, + 479, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 164, + 479, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 164, + 479, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 205, + 478, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 205, + 478, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 205, + 478, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: There were 35 students in a hostel. Due to the admission of 7 new students the expenses of the mess were increased by rs .84 per day while the average expenditure per head diminished by re 1. What was the original expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 245, + 478, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 245, + 478, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 245, + 478, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: In a hostel, there were initially 35 students, and then 7 new students were admitted. While the average expenditure per student decreased by Re. 1, the daily expenses of the new mess increased by Rs. 84. What was the original daily expenditure of the mess? Answer Choices: (A) rs 450 (B) rs 920 (C) rs 550 (D) rs . 630 (E) none of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A train " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "200\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " long passes a man, running at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\mathrm{km} / \\mathrm{hr}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 294, + 478, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the same direction in which the train is going, in 10 seconds. The speed of the train is? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 324, + 478, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 324, + 478, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 324, + 478, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A train, which is 200 meters long, passes a man running at 5 kilometers per hour in the same direction as the train in 10 seconds. What is the speed of the train? Answer Choices: (A) 28 (B) 50 (C) 77 (D) 22 (E) 12" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Solution x contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material a and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material b. solution y contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material a and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material b. a mixture of both these solutions contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "22\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material a in the final product. How much solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 364, + 478, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "110\\%" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A mixture of solution x and y contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "22\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material a. Solution x contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material a and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material b while solution y contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material a and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of material b. What percentage of solution x is present in the mixture? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 404, + 478, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "110\\%" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 454, + 478, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 454, + 478, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 454, + 478, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A trader sells 40 metres of cloth for rs.8200 at a profit of rs.35 per metre of cloth. How much profit will the trader earn on 40 metres of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs.950 (B) rs. 1500 (C) rs. 1000 (D) rs. 1400 (E) none of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 484, + 478, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 484, + 478, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 484, + 478, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A trader sells 40 meters of cloth and makes a profit of Rs. 35 per meter of cloth. How much profit does the trader make from selling 40 meters of cloth? Answer Choices: (A) rs . 950 (B) rs 1500 (C) rs . 1000 (D) rs . 1400 (E) none of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x < y < z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y - x > 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an even integer and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are odd integers, what is the least possible value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z - x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 523, + 478, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an even integer, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are odd integers, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is greater than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by more than 5, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is greater than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". What is the smallest possible difference between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 544, + 478, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? Answer Choices: (A) 6 (B) 7 (C) 8 (D) 9 (E) 10" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 582, + 478, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 582, + 478, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 582, + 478, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: What is the difference between the c.i. on rs . 6000 for 1 1/2 years at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 582, + 478, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 582, + 478, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " per annum compounded yearly and half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 613, + 478, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 613, + 478, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 613, + 478, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: What is the difference in the compound interest earned on Rs. 6000 for 1.5 years at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 613, + 478, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 613, + 478, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " per annum when compounded yearly and when compounded half-yearly? Answer Choices: (A) s.2.04 (B) s.2.08 (C) s.2.02 (D) s.2.83 (E) s.2.45" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 186, + 653, + 405, + 665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 186, + 653, + 405, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 186, + 653, + 405, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11400" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: The average weight of a, b and c is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "45\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If the average weight of a and b be 40 kg and that of b and c be " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "45\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then the weight of b is? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "31\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "32\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "33\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "35\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 517, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) none of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: The average weight of a, b and c is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "45\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which means the total weight of a, b and c is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "135\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If the average weight of a and b is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which means the total weight of a and b is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " so the weight of c is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "45\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The average weight of b and c is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "45\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which means the total weight of b and c is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". What is the weight of b? Answer Choices: (A) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "31\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (B) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "32\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (C) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "33\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (D) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "35\\mathrm{kg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 341, + 517, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (E) none of these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 422, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 422, + 517, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 422, + 517, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: The compound and the simple interests on a certain sum at the same rate of interest for two years are rs.11730 and rs.10200 respectively. The sum is? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 463, + 517, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 463, + 517, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 463, + 517, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: A sum of money earns compound interest and simple interest at the same rate for two years. The compound interest is Rs.11730 and the simple interest is Rs.10200. What is the sum of money? Answer Choices: (A) rs.17037 (B) rs.17000 (C) rs.17276 (D) rs.170287 (E) rs.171881" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 515, + 442, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 515, + 442, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 515, + 442, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for AQuA and MathQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11401" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 111, + 517, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 111, + 517, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 111, + 517, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 164, + 515, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 164, + 515, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 164, + 515, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Each bird eats 12 beetles per day, each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each jaguar eats 5 snakes per day. If there are 6 jaguars in a forest, how many beetles are eaten each day?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 192, + 515, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 192, + 515, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 192, + 515, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: In a forest, there are 6 jaguars that each eat 5 snakes per day. Each snake eats 3 birds per day, and each bird eats 12 beetles per day. How many beetles are eaten each day by the jaguars?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 232, + 515, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 232, + 515, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 232, + 515, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Albert is wondering how much pizza he can eat in one day. He buys 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas. A large pizza has 16 slices and a small pizza has 8 slices. If he eats it all, how many pieces does he eat that day?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 273, + 515, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 273, + 515, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 273, + 515, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Albert has purchased 2 large pizzas and 2 small pizzas and is wondering how many slices he can eat in one day. Each large pizza has 16 slices and each small pizza has 8 slices. If Albert eats all of the pizza, how many slices will he have eaten in one day?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 327, + 515, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 327, + 515, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 327, + 515, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. If Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats, and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and twice as many green hard hats as the number of pink hard hats that he removed, then calculate the total number of hard hats that remained in the truck." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 381, + 515, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 381, + 515, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 381, + 515, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: In a truck, there are 26 pink hard hats, 15 green hard hats, and 24 yellow hard hats. Carl takes away 4 pink hard hats and John takes away 6 pink hard hats and 12 green hard hats. How many hard hats remain in the truck?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 435, + 515, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 435, + 515, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 435, + 515, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Jasper will serve charcuterie at his dinner party. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, a pound of cream cheese that cost half the price of the cheddar cheese, and a pack of cold cuts that cost twice the price of the cheddar cheese. How much does he spend on the ingredients?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 515, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 515, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 476, + 515, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " New Question: Jasper is hosting a dinner party and wants to serve charcuterie. He buys 2 pounds of cheddar cheese for $10, 1 pound of cream cheese for $5, and a pack of cold cuts for $20. How much does he spend on the ingredients for the charcuterie?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 530, + 515, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 530, + 515, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 530, + 515, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Tomas ate 1.5 pounds of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate half a pound of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 2 pounds of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 571, + 515, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 571, + 515, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 571, + 515, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 624, + 515, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 624, + 515, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 624, + 515, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of chocolate fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of peanut butter fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 666, + 515, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 666, + 515, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 666, + 515, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Tomas ate 24 ounces of fudge last week. Katya ate 8 ounces of fudge, while Boris ate 32 ounces of fudge. How many ounces of fudge did the Tomas, Katya and Boris eat in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 704, + 437, + 717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 704, + 437, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 704, + 437, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: In-context SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11402" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 515, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 515, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 179, + 515, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 210, + 516, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 210, + 516, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 210, + 516, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Monica is a teacher. She has 6 classes per day. The first class has 20 students. The second and third classes have 25 students. Her fourth class has half as many as her first class. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 240, + 516, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 240, + 516, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 240, + 516, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Monica is a teacher with 6 classes per day. Her first class has 20 students, her second and third classes have 25 students, and her fourth class has 10 students. Her fifth and sixth classes have 28 students. How many students does Monica see each day in all of her classes?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 280, + 516, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 280, + 516, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 280, + 516, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Original Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts that cost the same amount of money. She spent a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 300, + 515, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " New Question: Emily went to the store and bought art supplies for $20 and 2 skirts for a total of $50. How much did Emily pay for each of the skirts?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 329, + 516, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 329, + 516, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 329, + 516, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for 1 hour each day for a total of $10. He does this for April, save for the 4 Sundays in April. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 359, + 515, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 359, + 515, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 359, + 515, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " New Question: John's neighbor tells him to walk his dog for April (30 days excluding 4 Sundays) for a total of $10 each day. He later spent $50 on books and gave his sister Kaylee the same amount. How much money did John have left after these expenses?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 399, + 515, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 399, + 515, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 399, + 515, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister. In 5 years, her younger sister will be 16. How old is Bethany now?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 419, + 515, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 419, + 515, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 419, + 515, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Three years ago, Bethany was twice the age of her younger sister, who is currently 11 years old. How old is Bethany now?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 449, + 516, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 449, + 516, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 449, + 516, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought one-third as many paperback books as Sarah bought, and two times the number of hardback books that she bought. How many books did her brother buy in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 479, + 515, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 479, + 515, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 479, + 515, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: At the bookstore, Sarah bought 6 paperback books and 4 hardback books. Her brother bought 2 paperback books and 8 hardback books. How many books did her brother buy in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 508, + 516, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 508, + 516, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 508, + 516, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Sandra had 2 different bags of candy. Each of her bags had 6 pieces of candy left. Her brother, Roger, also had 2 bags of candy. One of his bags of candy had 11 pieces left and the other had 3 pieces left. How much more candy did Roger have?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 539, + 515, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 539, + 515, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 539, + 515, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Sandra had 2 bags of candy, each with 6 pieces left. Her brother, Roger, had 2 bags of candy, one with 11 pieces left and the other with 3 pieces left. How many more pieces of candy did Roger have than Sandra?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\mathrm{mph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and takes a lunch break taking 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks taking 15 minutes each, how many hours did it take her to get there? New Question: Joan wants to visit her family who live 480 miles away. If she drives at a rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\mathrm{mph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 568, + 516, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and takes a lunch break of 30 minutes, and 2 bathroom breaks of 15 minutes each, how many hours(60 minutes = 1 hour) does it take her to get there?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 638, + 427, + 650 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 638, + 427, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 638, + 427, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11403" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: James gets a fleet of gas transportation vans. He gets 6 vans. 2 of them are 8000 gallons. 1 of them is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " less than that. The remaining trucks are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 354, + 515, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " larger than the 2 trucks. How many gallons can he transport?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 395, + 515, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 395, + 515, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 395, + 515, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: James has acquired a fleet of gas transportation vans. He has 6 vans in total. 2 of the vans have a capacity of 8000 gallons, while the other van has a capacity of 5600 gallons (30% less than the first two vans). The remaining 3 vans have a capacity of 12000 gallons (50% larger than the first two vans). What is the total capacity of the fleet in gallons?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 460, + 459, + 473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 460, + 459, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 460, + 459, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: Continuation of Auto-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11404" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 103, + 517, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 103, + 517, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 103, + 517, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please rewrite new versions of the original mathematical question (including the context and the final question) to be more understandable and easy to answer. Don't omit any useful information, especially the numbers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 158, + 515, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 158, + 515, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 158, + 515, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and 4 worksheets to memorize. They figure out that they should dedicate 3 hours to each chapter of their textbook and 1.5 hours for each worksheet. If they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week if they take a 10-minute break every hour, include 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 239, + 515, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 239, + 515, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 239, + 515, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Angelo and Melanie want to plan how many hours over the next week they should study together for their test next week. They have 2 chapters of their textbook to study and they decide to dedicate 3 hours to each chapter. They also have 4 worksheets to memorize, and they decide to dedicate 1.5 hours for each worksheet. Taking into account 10-minute breaks every hour, if they plan to study no more than 4 hours each day including 3 10-minute snack breaks each day, and 30 minutes for lunch each day, how many days should they plan to study total over the next week?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 333, + 516, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 333, + 516, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 333, + 516, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score double the 2 pointers but half the 3 pointers and free throws. What's the total number of points scored by both teams added together?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 375, + 515, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 375, + 515, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 375, + 515, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Mark's basketball team scores 25 2 pointers, 8 3 pointers and 10 free throws. Their opponents score 50 2 pointers, 4 3 pointers and 5 free throws. Both teams score 75 2 pointers, 12 3 pointers and 15 free throws. What is the total number of points scored by both teams combined?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 428, + 515, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 428, + 515, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 428, + 515, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Bella has two times as many marbles as frisbees. She also has 20 more frisbees than deck cards. If she buys 2/5 times more of each item, what would be the total number of the items she will have if she currently has 60 marbles?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 469, + 515, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 469, + 515, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 469, + 515, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: Bella currently has 60 marbles, and she has twice as many marbles as frisbees and 20 more frisbees than deck cards. She buys 2/5 times more of each item. What would be the total number of the items she will have?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 523, + 515, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 523, + 515, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 523, + 515, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: A group of 4 fruit baskets contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas in the first three baskets and 2 less of each fruit in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 550, + 515, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 550, + 515, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 550, + 515, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: There is a group of 4 fruit baskets. The first three baskets each contains 9 apples, 15 oranges, and 14 bananas, and 7 apples, 13 oranges, and 12 bananas in the fourth basket. How many fruits are there in total?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 604, + 515, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 604, + 515, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 604, + 515, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Original Question: You can buy 4 apples or 1 watermelon for the same price. You bought 36 fruits evenly split between oranges, apples and watermelons, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. How much does 1 apple cost if your total bill was $66?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 645, + 515, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 645, + 515, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 645, + 515, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " New Question: You bought 36 fruits, with an equal number of oranges, apples and watermelons. The price of 1 watermelon equals to 4 apples, and the price of 1 orange is $0.50. If your total bill was $66, how much does 1 apple cost?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 711, + 436, + 724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 711, + 436, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 711, + 436, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14: Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11405" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 22 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 205, + 515, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 205, + 515, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 205, + 515, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: Susy goes to a large school with 800 students, while Sarah goes to a smaller school with only 300 students. At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers. She gained 40 new followers in the first week of the school year, half that in the second week, and half of that in the third week. Sarah only had 50 social media followers at the start of the year, but she gained 90 new followers the first week, a third of that in the second week, and a third of that in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 515, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 515, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 300, + 515, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: At the start of the school year, Susy had 100 social media followers and Sarah had 50 social media followers. Susy gained 40 followers in the first week, 20 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. Sarah gained 90 followers in the first week, 30 in the second week, and 10 in the third week. After three weeks, how many social media followers did the girl with the most total followers have?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 381, + 515, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 381, + 515, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 381, + 515, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Original Question: Sam bought a dozen boxes, each with 30 highlighter pens inside, for $10 each box. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages of six highlighters each and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the rest of the highlighters separately at the rate of three pens for $2. How much profit did he make in total, in dollars?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 435, + 515, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 435, + 515, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 435, + 515, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " New Question: Sam bought 12 boxes for $10 each, and each contains 30 highlighter pens. 1 package contains 6 highlighters. He rearranged five of these boxes into packages and sold them for $3 per package. He sold the remaining highlighters separately at the price of $2 for every three one. How much profit did Sam make in total, in dollars?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original Question: In a certain school, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2/3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the male students like to play basketball, but only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1/5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball if the ratio of the male to female students is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3:2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 502, + 515, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and there are 1000 students?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Question: In a certain school, there is a total of 1000 students, while 3 male students for every 2 female students. So there are 600 male students and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{2}{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the male students like to play basketball, and there are 400 female students but only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{1}{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 544, + 515, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the female students like to play basketball. What percent of the population of the school do not like to play basketball?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 609, + 468, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 609, + 468, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 609, + 468, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 15: Continuation of Complex-SP prompt for GSM8K, SVAMP and MultiArith." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11406" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 23 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_content_list.json b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd38953617418e106cb0730f11911c2b70dfae58 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2184 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 233, + 89, + 763, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ruoyao Wang and Peter Jansen", + "bbox": [ + 359, + 155, + 643, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Arizona, USA", + "bbox": [ + 386, + 173, + 615, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{ruoyaowang,pajansen}@arizona.edu", + "bbox": [ + 334, + 189, + 667, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we introduce a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, which are challenging benchmarks for multi-step reasoning in virtual environments. Traditionally, Behavior Cloning Transformers excel in such tasks but rely on supervised training data. Our approach auto-generates training data by exploring trajectories (defined by common macro-action sequences) that lead to reward within the games, while determining the generality and utility of these trajectories by rapidly training small models then evaluating their performance on unseen development games. Through empirical analysis, we show our method consistently uncovers generalizable training data, achieving about $90\\%$ performance of supervised systems across three benchmark text games.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 550, + 258, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Complex tasks often involve decomposing problems into sequential steps to accomplish a goal. This is particularly the case for text games, which are interactive virtual environments where an agent progressively selects actions until a task is complete. Examples of such tasks range from cooking a recipe (Côté et al., 2018), finding a treasure (Yuan et al., 2018), executing a science experiment (Tamari et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022), to evaluating common sense reasoning (Shridhar et al., 2021; Murugesan et al., 2021; Gelhausen et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 577, + 489, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text game agents are frequently modeled using reinforcement learning (e.g. He et al., 2016; Ammanabrolu and Hausknecht, 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021; Tuyls et al., 2022), wherein an agent explores an environment with the goal of learning a policy that chooses actions leading to reward and task completion. More recently, text game agents recast reinforcement learning as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 755, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b0732bfbb8a1f26c95ef8081b6320be00f788f92fbf381ab2a43a7bcc1e1af46.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An overview of our approach. Initially, game trajectories from the current state are extracted up to a specified horizon, which extends to the first reward. The generality of these paths is assessed by training a compact T5 model and evaluating its performance on unseen development games. High-performing trajectories are subsequently extended through further exploration in an iterative process until the game is ultimately completed." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 249, + 870, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sequence-to-sequence problems using architectures like the Behavior Cloning Transformer (Torabi et al., 2018) to leverage the inference capability and robustness of modern transformers (Wang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2023). In this setup, the transformer is provided with an environment observation as input, and produces a string indicating the next action to take as output. A consequence of this reformulation is that, rather than exploring their environments, behavior cloning transformers require supervised training data, necessitating generating human gold playthroughs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 644, + 884, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 1, we present our approach to overcome this data supervision limitation by automatically crawling, grouping, and evaluating candidate paths that can serve as useful and generalizable training data. By rapidly evaluating these candidi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Released as open source: https://github.com/cognitiveailab/pathfinding-r1", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5555", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5555-5565", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ce806cd6db18124f71407ffe1bc7a8d9434259cedc9e35f9d256285d99a282c8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Arithmetie Game: Your task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box.", + "Figure 2: Two example path groups from the Arithmetic game, emphasizing that not all high-scoring paths serve as useful training data. Paths having the same macro-action sequence from parametric game variations are grouped together, as depicted above. These examples underscore the concept that shorter, quicker paths, like the one at the bottom, may lack generalizability, leading to poor model performance." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 181, + 99, + 815, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "date sets of training data by training small models, we show how the performance of those models on unseen development games can be used as a self-supervision signal to help guide further path crawling, and discover useful training data automatically. This approach is validated on three benchmark games from the TEXTWORLDEXPRESS simulator (Jansen and Cote, 2023). Our contributions include: (1) demonstrating generating self-supervised training data through crawling, grouping, and evaluating game trajectories, (2) using the performance of small rapidly-trained models as self-supervision signals, and (3) developing heuristic methods to align and merge training data, reducing the task search space and ultimate training costs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 506, + 489, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 762, + 235, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1 provides an overview of our approach. The goal of our work is to find a set of generalizable training data that can be a substitute for human gold playthroughs of text games, and suitable for training a behavior cloning transformer agent. While simply exhaustively pathcrawling all possible trajectories in a game offers a method to find winning paths, not all winning paths are gener", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "alizable (see Figure 2), so such a method would yield poor training data, while also being computationally expensive. Here, we show that by training small models on candidate training data, and evaluating performance on unseen development games, we can quickly evaluate the generalizability of that data. In terms of tractability, by iteratively pathcrawling only up to the next reward, and then continuing pathcrawling only from the most generalizable paths, we can limit the size of the search to only paths most likely to be generalizable and form quality training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 506, + 884, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we use text games that have parametric variations of each task, such as different math problems to solve for an arithmetic game, which is standard practice for evaluating a model's generalization ability (e.g., Côté et al., 2018; Murugesan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 700, + 884, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "**Path Crawling:** Our process begins with a path crawler exploring all potential trajectories in a game from the start state until achieving non-zero reward or reaching a limited horizon. This crawler also navigates multiple parametric game variations, each with distinct objectives, such as making a stirfry versus baking a cake in a cooking game.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5556", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Path Grouping into Parameterized Macro-Action Sequences: Text game actions consist of a command verb (e.g., take, put, open) with one (e.g. open closet) or two (e.g. put apple in cupboard) arguments, where a sequence of actions (i.e. a full or partial playthrough) is called a trajectory. When creating candidate training sets for the behavior cloning transformer, we attempt to group together trajectories that – as best as we can tell – appear to solve different parametric variations of a game using roughly the same sequence of actions. We do this by abstracting the trajectories into variabilized action sequences. For example, in the TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE game, a trajectory such as “take hat”, “put hat on hat rack” from one variation, and “take dirty shirt”, “put dirty shirt in washer” from another variation, could both be abstracted into the same parameterized macro-action sequence “TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y)”. We call a set of trajectories from different game variations that can all be described using the same parameterized macro-action sequence a path group. In the experiments reported below, path groups are typically created by grouping paths from 100 training variations of a game.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 492, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluating Path Groups: The above process yields $N$ path groups, each representing a unique parameterized macro-action sequence. These groups provide the training data for a behavior cloning model. Although $N$ is typically large, we've observed that generalizable sequences are often among the shorter paths (though not the shortest - Figure 2 provides a counterexample). For efficiency, we select the $K$ shortest path groups and train a T5-based behavior cloning transformer individually on each, assessing the model performance on 100 unseen game variations from the development set. The process continues until we identify a group surpassing a predefined performance threshold $T$ . If no single group meets this early stopping criterion, we attempt to merge path groups to discover higher-scoring combinations, detailed further in APPENDIX C.2.1.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 492, + 489, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Incremental Path Crawling: Reinforcement learning problems can offer sparse or dense rewards. To minimize the search space and the total number of path groups to evaluate, we initially crawl and assess paths up to the first reward instance. Upon identifying a path group with gener", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 788, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "alizable performance to this point, the model continues path crawling, commencing with this macro-action sequence and assessing generality until the next reward signal. This cycle persists until reaching a winning state, effectively segmenting the task into subtasks demarcated by non-zero rewards.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Benchmarks: Our exploration of using path crawling for generating self-supervised training data spans three benchmark text games. TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) (Murugesan et al., 2021) tasks agents with assigning household items (e.g. a dirty shirt) to their canonical locations (e.g. a washing machine). ARITHMETIC engages agents in a math problem, followed by a pick-and-place task using the calculated result. SORTING requires agents to arrange objects by quantity. Each game presents parametric variations altering the environment and task-specific objects across episodes. For all experiments, we generate distinct training, development, and test sets, each with 100 variations of each game. Objects crucial to tasks are unique across sets. Refer to the APPENDIX for game specifics and playthrough examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 187, + 884, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 472, + 608, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We assess four models to showcase the effectiveness of the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer. Further model details and hyperparameters can be found in the APPENDIX.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 498, + 885, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This supervised baseline employs a sequence-to-sequence model that packs the game task description, current and previous observations, and prior action into a prompt, while training it to generate the agent's next action. Gold paths for training are generated by gold agents. At inference time candidate next-actions are generated using beam search, and the first valid action is used. For efficiency, all reported experiments employ the T5-BASE (220M parameter) model (Raffel et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 568, + 882, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This model, the focus of our work, parallels the supervised transformer, with the exception being its training data is generated via the path crawling method described in Section 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 752, + 884, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additional comparisons: Although our aim is to showcase behavior cloning self-supervision, we offer additional baselines to contextualize the results. The DRRN (He et al., 2016) is a strong reinforcement learning baseline that separately encodes", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2An analysis of performance versus number of parametric variations included in training is provided in the APPENDIX.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5557", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9ecf19e853641072aa5a9c9b779852c4e8fa3008826855ff73ff6492d985c3aa.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
BenchmarkDRRN \nBaselineGPT-4 \nBaselineBehavior Cloned \nSupervisedTransformer \nSelf-Supervised
ScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreSteps
Arithmetic0.17100.76150.5450.445
Sorting0.03210.0470.7270.596
TWC0.57270.9060.9060.8915
Average0.26190.5790.7260.649
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 80, + 845, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Model performance across three text game benchmarks, assessed on 100 unseen parametric test set variations. The score (0-1) represents game progress, while steps denote the average game steps taken to reach a final state—lower is better. The self-supervised transformer closely mirrors the supervised model's performance, marginally surpasses the GPT-4 baseline, and significantly outperforms the DRRN reinforcement learning baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 206, + 882, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "observations and actions into different embedding spaces, then learns a policy that selects actions at each step that maximize reward. Despite its age, the DRRN maintains near state-of-the-art performance across many text game benchmarks (e.g. Xu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022) – see Jansen (2022) for a review. For further context, we include a zero-shot GPT-4 baseline (OpenAI, 2023), a state-of-the-art model with an undisclosed parameter size and training data. More details are provided in the APPENDIX.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 280, + 489, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 472, + 346, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 shows the overall performance for all models. The DRRN reinforcement learning baseline yields modest overall performance, scoring an average of 0.26 across all benchmark text games and taking an average of 19 steps per game episode before completion. The supervised behavior cloning transformer significantly outperforms this, achieving a score of 0.72 across all games, effectively tripling task performance while also reducing the average steps required per episode to 6 – though at the expense of requiring gold training data. The GPT-4 baseline underperforms at the sorting game but excels in the other games, resulting in an average score of 0.57 and requiring 9 steps to finish. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer achieves a score of 0.65, equivalent to $90\\%$ of the supervised system's performance, but uses entirely self-generated training data. It substantially outperforms the reinforcement learning baseline (which also lacks supervision), improving performance by a factor of 2.5 while generating solutions that are twice as efficient. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer meets or exceeds the GPT-4 baseline on two of three games, despite the significant difference in model size, while only underperforming on the benchmark requiring mathematical", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 500, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "reasoning – for which smaller models tend to perform poorly (Razeghi et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 280, + 884, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How do the trajectories identified by self-supervision compare to gold trajectories? As shown in Table 2, self-supervised paths closely match gold paths, although they occasionally include task-irrelevant actions (e.g. look around) which diminish their efficiency. Given that the behavior cloning method models games as a Markov decision process (limited by input length to depend only on the previous state), these irrelevant actions may hinder the agent's recall of vital action history information, contributing to the slight performance drop compared to the supervised model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 315, + 884, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How can the performance of this method versus the DRRN and GPT-4 be contextualized? Our goal in this work is to demonstrate self-supervision of a behavior cloning transformer using the pathcrawling method described in Section 2. Nevertheless, other baselines offer valuable context. The poor performance of the DRRN, a robust reinforcement learning baseline for text games, underscores the difficulty of exploring expansive search spaces without guiding context – one of the motivating factors towards the application of pretrained language models to guide exploration more effectively. On the other hand, while the GPT-4 model performs comparably to the self-supervised behavior cloning model, it is likely to be at least three orders of magnitude larger. This highlights the potential for small models to perform well given suitable exploration mechanisms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 885, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How many training examples are required to learn a task? Figure 3 shows the performance of the T5-agent trained with varying numbers of gold trajectories. Generally, task performance increases roughly linearly with the number of training examples provided. An exception to this is the ARITHMETIC game, where nearly all 100 training", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5558", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/45178b2c648656b4412ef16664fcd9b8acebdeec43a9ed2f8eba539bb551c68f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying numbers of training examples. Performance is reported on the development set." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 91, + 472, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/64d361086bd6a2c7fe0f9c6bbb1319142a2bd8adc35a7a87e6a2a636ae372209.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying proportion of gold trajectories interspersed with randomly sampled non-gold trajectories. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 5 runs per data point on the development set." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 344, + 478, + 523 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "examples are needed to gain moderate performance. We hypothesize that this is a result of the pretrained model generally performing poorly at mathematical tasks. These results suggest that, pragmatically, using the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer may be possible with less training data on some environments, while other environments (such as ARITHMETIC) may benefit from more training examples. When using this self-supervised system in practice (i.e. on environments without gold training data), the end user may wish to tune the number of training examples they use as a hyperparameter in their model – though generally, the larger the number available, the more accurately the path crawler will be able to estimate performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 489, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How effective is the data grouping method compared to randomly sampled winning trajectory", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c76ebd619c44dc84943242404aa73cc225600eb9bf581ccdf08aba305ff08d9d.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Arithmetic
SSTAKE(X), READ(X), LOOK-AROUND, TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
GoldTAKE(X), READ(X), TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
Sorting
SSTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
GoldTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
Text World Common Sense
SS(TAKE(X), LOOK-AROUND, PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), INVENTORY, OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
Gold(TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 878, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Paths identified by our self-supervised method (SS) compared to gold paths for each game, showing that self-supervised paths are nearly identical to gold paths. Paths in parenthesis represent merged path groups.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 240, + 882, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ries? How easily can we find generalizable training data for a given game, amongst all its winning trajectories? To investigate this, we trained models with varying amounts of gold (generalizable) trajectories, versus other randomly sampled winning (but typically not generalizable) trajectories. At one extreme, the model is trained using entirely randomly sampled winning trajectories, while at the other extreme, the model is trained entirely using gold trajectories. The results, shown in Figure 4, show that the self-supervision method provides a large benefit, increasing performance between $15\\%$ and $43\\%$ across all games – highlighting the benefit of our self-supervision method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 309, + 884, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How is this method affected by training hyperparameters? We have observed substantial differences in performance across various training hyperparameters (such as number of training epochs, or training random seed), and suspect part of the difference between supervised and self-supervised performance may be due to these fluctuations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 541, + 882, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 667, + 640, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, that leverages a process of incremental path crawling in action spaces leading to rewards, while evaluating the generality of groups of crawled paths on unseen games, to generate high-quality training data. Our method achieves comparable performance to models trained on gold trajectories, efficiently exploring the environment without needing human playthroughs or gold agents. Our model excels over a robust reinforcement learning baseline and attains about $90\\%$ of supervised models' performance, emphasizing the potential of efficient exploration mechanisms, even for smaller models.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5559", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 83, + 218, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a method for generating self-supervised training data for behavior cloning transformer models, presented in the context of text games. Behavior cloning transformers (Torabi et al., 2018) and other frameworks for modeling reinforcement learning problems with transformers (including Decision Transformers (Chen et al., 2021) and Trajectory Transformers (Janner et al., 2021)) can outperform other reinforcement learning models in specific contexts, but still face a number of central challenges and limitations that depend upon the complexity of the problem space. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer we present in this work has similar limitations, as well as other limitations that result from the computational complexity of path crawling.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 110, + 489, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Action Spaces: At each time step, the environment simulator provides a set of valid actions that are possible to take. In text games, this action space frequently contains ten or more actions, each of which typically takes one or two arguments that represent objects in the environment – while extreme cases can contain 70 or more actions, and up to 300 action templates (Hausknecht et al., 2020). As such, action spaces can quickly become large, containing thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of possible valid action-object combinations per step. While reinforcement models typically struggle with exploring these large action spaces resulting in low model performance, the path crawling model presented in this work would struggle to crawl very large action spaces, and may fail to find any winning paths within a given time budget. In practice, with the current model, we have found that action spaces containing approximately 500 valid actions per step are intractable to crawl beyond 3 steps (i.e. above $10^{8}$ states per episode).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 374, + 489, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sparse Rewards: Tasks with sparse rewards are frequently challenging for reinforcement learning models. This work separates path crawling and next-action generation, making problems with moderately sparse rewards (i.e. within 4-5 steps) generally quick to find. However, for tasks with large action spaces and extremely sparse rewards, the path crawling procedure would become intractable.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 719, + 489, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Complex, Varied Trajectories: To evaluate path generality, this work groups paths by abstracted parameterized macro-action sequences. In the three benchmark tasks investigated in this work, the tasks", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "can be solved by merging a small set of groups (for example, for TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, two groups are required: (1) TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X,Y), which picks up an object, opens its container, then places it in the container, and (2) TAKE(X) PUT(X,Y), for cases where a container doesn't need to be opened, like a table). For more complex tasks that require a large number of different actions to solve across game episodes, this technique would require increasing the amount of training data provided, proportional to the number of groups estimated to be required to solve the task.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 884, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 290, + 658, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Broader Impacts: Large language models typically perform complex multi-step inference in a manner that isn't easily possible to inspect or evaluate. Framing tasks as text games in embodied virtual environments helps make the inference steps explicit, such that the choices a model makes at each step are auditable and interpretable. This helps expose potential issues in reasoning in models. For example, language models can correctly answer more than $90\\%$ of multiple choice science exam questions, suggesting they can perform complex reasoning, but fail to answer most of those same questions when they are reframed as text games that require explicit multi-step reasoning (Wang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 316, + 884, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intended Use: This work presents a self-supervised system that generates its own training data based on paths that a language model finds generalizable. If applied more broadly to general reinforcement learning problems apart from text games, the model has the potential to find shortcuts through the action space that lead to task solutions based on a language model's existing competencies, but to do so through biased or harmful means. As such, for tasks that have the possibility of producing harm to specific groups, the training data produced by self-supervision should be manually inspected by a human to evaluate for bias or other potential harms. Because this work groups solutions into abstracted sequences of actions (i.e. path groups with similar solution methods, instantiated with different specific arguments, it may offer a means of inexpensively manually evaluating self-supervised training data – helping speed the identification of bias by streamlining the review of self-supervised training data for tasks modelled using self-supervised behavior cloning models.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 565, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5560", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 285, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thanks to Marc-Alexandre Côté, Raj Ammanabrolu, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Thanks to Dan Yang for drawing the little robot in Figure 1. This work supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) award #1815948 to PJ, and gift from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 489, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 247, + 213, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. Graph constrained reinforcement learning for natural language action spaces. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Misha Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:15084-15097.", + "Marc-Alexandre Côté, Akos Kádár, Xingdi Yuan, Ben Kybartas, Tavian Barnes, Emery Fine, James Moore, Matthew Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, et al. 2018. Textworld: A learning environment for text-based games. In Computer Games: 7th Workshop, CGW 2018, Held in Conjunction with the 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 13, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 7, pages 41-75. Springer.", + "Paul Gelhausen, Marion Fischer, and George Peters. 2022. Affordance extraction with an external knowledge database for text-based simulated environments. ArXiv, abs/2207.00265.", + "Matthew Hausknecht, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Xingdi Yuan. 2020. Interactive fiction games: A colossal adventure. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):7903-7910.", + "Ji He, Mari Ostendorf, Xiaodong He, Jianshu Chen, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, and Li Deng. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning with a combinatorial action space for predicting popular Reddit threads. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1838-1848, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Michael Janner, Qiyang Li, and Sergey Levine. 2021. Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Peter Jansen. 2022. A systematic survey of text worlds as embodied natural language environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Wordplay: When Language Meets" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 271, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Games Workshop (Wordplay 2022), pages 1-15, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Peter Jansen and Marc-alexandre Cote. 2023. *TextWorldExpress: Simulating text games at one million steps per second.* In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations*, pages 169–177, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyurek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. 2022. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 31199-31212. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2023. Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17390.", + "Keerthiram Murugesan, Mattia Atzeni, Pavan Kapanipathi, Pushkar Shukla, Sadhana Kumaravel, Gerald Tesauro, Kartik Talamadupula, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Murray Campbell. 2021. Text-based RL Agents with Commonsense Knowledge: New Challenges, Environments and Baselines. In Thirty Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206.", + "Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2021. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Ishika Singh, Gargi Singh, and Ashutosh Modi. 2021. Pre-trained language models as prior knowledge for playing text-based games. ArXiv, abs/2107.08408.", + "Ronen Tamari, Fan Bai, Alan Ritter, and Gabriel Stanovsky. 2021. Process-level representation of scientific protocols with interactive annotation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5561", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2190-2202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 489, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Faraz Torabi, Garrett Warnell, and Peter Stone. 2018. Behavioral cloning from observation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4950-4957. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 137, + 489, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jens Tuyls, Shunyu Yao, Sham M. Kakade, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2022. Multi-stage episodic control for strategic exploration in text games. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 229, + 489, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2022. ScienceWorld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11279-11298, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 319, + 489, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2023. Behavior cloned transformers are neurosymbolic reasoners. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2777-2788, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 425, + 489, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yunqiu Xu, Meng Fang, Ling Chen, Yali Du, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Chengqi Zhang. 2020. Deep reinforcement learning with stacked hierarchical attention for text-based games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16495-16507.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 530, + 489, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shunyu Yao, Rohan Rao, Matthew Hausknecht, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2020. Keep CALM and explore: Language models for action generation in text-based games. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8736-8754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 608, + 489, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Alessandro Sordoni, Romain Laroche, Rémi Tachet des Combes, Matthew J. Hausknecht, and Adam Trischler. 2018. Counting to explore and generalize in text-based games. ArXiv, abs/1806.11525.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 712, + 489, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Additional Experiment Information", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 795, + 463, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The heuristic method we employ investigates shorter paths (i.e. macro-action sequences that take fewer actions to reach reward states) first. After grouping paths, the number of initial groups to explore for each game is 112 for TWC, 220 for ARITHMETIC, and 7 for SORTING.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text World Common Sense (TWC) Game", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 515, + 87, + 727, + 97 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Task Description: Your task is to pick up objects, then place them in their usual locations in the environment.", + "You are in the bedroom. In one part of the room you see a wardrobe that is closed. There is also a desk chair, that has nothing on it. You also see a dressing table, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a chest of drawers that is closed. In one part of the room you see a bed, that has nothing on it. There is also a desk, that has nothing on it. You also see a night stand, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a clean brown shirt.", + "Inventory: Your inventory is currently empty. \n> take clean brown shirt", + "You take the clean brown shirt. \nInventory: \na clean brown shirt \n> open wardrobe", + "You open the wardrobe. It's empty inside. Inventory: a clean brown shirt $>$ put clean brown in wardrobe", + "Game completed." + ], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 103, + 880, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: An example of a TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects and target locations are bolded, while distractor locations are underlined.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Environments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 445, + 668, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 Text World Common Sense (TWC)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 474, + 833, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (Murugesan et al., 2021) is a common sense reasoning benchmark in which the agent needs to collect items in a household environment and put them in their cannonical (\"common-sense\") locations. In the experiments reported in this paper, we generate parametric episodes containing a single room with one target item in it, roughly corresponding to the \"easy\" setting in Murugesan et al. (2021). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for picking up the target item, then an additional 0.5 score for putting that object in the correct location. An example playthrough of TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE is shown in Table 3.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 497, + 884, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.2 Arithmetic", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 736, + 645, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ARITHMETIC game requires the agent to read then answer an arithmetic question (e.g. add 42 and 9), then put an item from the environment whose quantity matches the answer (e.g. 51 pineapples) into a container called the answer box. Each episode contains a number of distractor items whose quantity corresponds to performing the arithmetic incorrectly (e.g. 33 peaches, corresponds to subtracting 9 from 42). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for first reading the math problem, and will", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5562", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Arithmetic Game", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 119, + 87, + 211, + 97 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task Description: Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 104, + 485, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are in the laundry room. In one part of the room you see a bench that has 378 apples on it. There is also a laundry basket that has 51 pineapples, 4 bananas, and 16 oranges on it. You also see a work table that has 33 peaches, and 26 strawberries on it. In another part of the room you see a washing machine that is closed. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a clothes drier that is closed. Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 142, + 485, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your inventory is currently empty.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 209, + 289, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$>$ take math problem", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 219, + 220, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the math problem.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 237, + 252, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 247, + 171, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a math problem", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 256, + 203, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "> read math problem", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 267, + 221, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your task is to solve the following math problem: add 42 and 9. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the answer, and place it in the box. Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 284, + 482, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a math problem", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 313, + 203, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$>$ take 51 pineapples", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 323, + 220, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the 51 pineapples.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 341, + 253, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 351, + 171, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a math problem", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 361, + 203, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "51 pineapples", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 370, + 201, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "> put 51 pineapples in box", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 380, + 248, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Game completed.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 398, + 203, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: An example ARITHMETIC game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded, while distractor objects are underlined.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 422, + 485, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "receive a full score of 1.0 for placing the correct item into the answer box, regardless of whether it first reads the math problem or not. Placing incorrect items into the answer box will immediately result in task failure. An example playthrough of ARITHMETIC is shown in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 512, + 487, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.3 Sorting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 643, + 221, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the SORTING game, the agent needs to place items of different quantities into a special container (the answer box) in ascending order. For most parametric episodes, the item quantities include the additional challenge of containing different units (e.g. $23mg$ of oak vs $2g$ of marble) that the agent needs to interpret and normalize to correctly solve the task. Episodes randomly contain between 3 and 5 items that need to be sorted. The agent receives a partial reward $(1/\\# items)$ each time it places the correct object (i.e. next-largest quantity) into the answer box. The task fails any time it places items in the answer box in an incorrect order. An example playthrough of SORTING is shown in Table 5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sorting Game", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 515, + 87, + 589, + 97 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task Description: Your task is to sort objects by quantity. First, place the object with the smallest quantity in the box. Then, place the objects with the next smallest quantity in the box, and repeat until all objects have been placed in the box.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 104, + 878, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are in the living room. In one part of the room you see a TV stand that has 23mg of oak on it. There is also a coffee table, that has nothing on it. You also see a book case, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a box, that is empty. In one part of the room you see a sofa that has 2g of marble on it. There is also a end table that has 38mg of marble on it. You also see a arm chair that has 39mg of wood on it. In another part of the room you see a wastepaper basket that is closed. In one part of the room you see a side table that has 9g of oak on it. Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 151, + 880, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your inventory is currently empty.", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 237, + 684, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$>$ take $23\\mathrm{mg}$ of oak", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 247, + 610, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the $23\\mathrm{mg}$ of oak.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 265, + 642, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 275, + 566, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "23mg of oak", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 285, + 586, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "> put 23mg of oak in box", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 294, + 638, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You put the $23\\mathrm{mg}$ of oak in the box.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 313, + 687, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 323, + 566, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your inventory is currently empty.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 332, + 684, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": ">take 38mg of marble", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 342, + 626, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the $38\\mathrm{mg}$ of marble.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 360, + 660, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 370, + 566, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "38mg of marble", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 380, + 603, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": ">put $38\\mathrm{mg}$ of marble in box", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 388, + 653, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You put the $38\\mathrm{mg}$ of marble in the box.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 407, + 705, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 417, + 566, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your inventory is currently empty.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 426, + 684, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$>$ take $39mg$ of wood", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 436, + 618, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the $39\\mathrm{mg}$ of wood.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 455, + 650, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 464, + 566, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "39mg of wood", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 475, + 594, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "> put 39mg of wood in box", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 483, + 645, + 493 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You put the $39\\mathrm{mg}$ of wood in the box.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 502, + 695, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 512, + 566, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your inventory is currently empty.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 521, + 684, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$>$ take $2g$ of marble", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 532, + 611, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the $2\\mathrm{g}$ of marble.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 549, + 645, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 560, + 566, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2g of marble", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 569, + 586, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "> put 2g of marble in box", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 577, + 638, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Game completed.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 596, + 600, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: An example SORTING game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 621, + 882, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 676, + 628, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1 Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 788, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The input (prompt) of the T5 model is formatted as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 880, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "d $< / \\mathbf{s}>$ OBS $o_t < / \\mathbf{s}>$ INV $o_t^{inv}< / \\mathbf{s}>$ LOOK $o_t^{look}$ $< / \\mathbf{s}>$ $ PACT $a_{t - 1} < / \\mathbf{s}>$ POBS $o_{t - 1} < / \\mathbf{s}>$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 880, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\langle \\mathbf{\\partial} / \\mathbf{s}\\rangle$ is the special token for separator and is the special token for the mask of text to generate used by the T5 model. $d$ is the task description. $o_t, o_t^{inv}, o_t^{look}, a_{t-1}$ , and $o_{t-1}$ represent the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5563", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the action \"look around\", last action, and last observation respectively. The separators OBS, INV, LOOK, PACT, and POBS are their corresponding special tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During development, we train the behavior cloning T5-BASE model from 2 to 20 epochs, then choose the model that achieves the highest development score for testing. The models are tested on 100 unseen test variations to get the final performance. All three game environments have a step limit of 50 steps, which means if an agent does not complete within 50 steps, the score at the last step will be considered as the final score and the environment will be reset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 487, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The T5 model is trained on gold paths generated by gold agents provided by the TEXTWORLDEX- EXPRESS simulator. At inference time, the a prompt is encoded from the observation of the current game state, and possible candidate next-actions are generated using beam search. We use a beam size of 8 and select the first valid action. If no valid actions are present, the model picks the valid action from the game environment with the highest non-zero unigram overlap to the candidate actions generated during beam search.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 310, + 489, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2 Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 426, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During the group evaluation stage, we take the top 10 shortest paths to evaluate for all three games. To vastly reduce computation time, the behavior cloning T5-models are not tuned but rather trained statically for 20 epochs for each path group. Performance is evaluated on 100 unseen development variations. The input strings are formatted the same as the supervised behavior cloning transformer. A group that achieves a development score higher than a threshold $T$ will be accepted. In our experiments, we use $T = 0.95$ for the TEXTWORLD COMMONSENSE, $T = 0.4$ for the ARITHMETIC game, and $T = 0.5$ for the SORTING game. In practice, one cycle of training a behavior cloning agent on a candidate set of paths then evaluating on 100 unseen development variations takes approximately 12 minutes on desktop hardware (i.e. RTX 4090), allowing experiments to complete in approximately 2 to 4 hours.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 536, + 489, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2.1 Merging Multiple Solution Paths", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 851, + 436, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Frequently, games may not be solvable with paths from a single group. For example, in TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, some items require that their", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "container be opened before they can be placed inside (i.e. TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X, Y)), while others can be directly placed in their winning locations (e.g. TAKE(X) PUT(X, Y)). Where a single path group does not solve all development variations, we take training data from the highest-performing variations of multiple path groups, and use these to assemble a final higher-performing training set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We take the top 5 performing groups based on their development scores and combine each two of them to get 10 merged groups (i.e. $\\binom{5}{2}$ ). Trivially combining the training data from multiple groups does not work well, because each of these groups may contain both generalizable paths, as well as paths that fail to generalize on episodes where another group of data is effective. Instead, we combine groups by choosing individual trajectories from each group that perform well on their respective development episodes. If two groups have paths that perform well for a given development episode, we choose the trajectory that has the highest development score. While this method has the benefit of being pragmatic (i.e. it chooses to combine paths that perform well empirically), it presents the challenge of potentially overfitting on the unseen development set, which may limit ultimate generality when the model is eventually evaluated on the test set. To mitigate this, when groups need to be merged, we flip the training and development sets, so that the path crawler is always generating hypotheses on one set, and evaluating them on a different, unseen set. We ultimately choose the merged group with the highest score on the development set as the final training set, and use this to generate final performance figures on the unseen training set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 884, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.3 Deep Reinforcement Relevance Network (DRRN)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 875, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We make use of an existing benchmark implementation of the DRRN model3. At each time step, the task description, observation, agent inventory information, and room description are appended into a single string (as in the case of the behavior cloning models) and encoded by a GRU. Valid actions at each step are encoded by a separate GRU. A Q-network, which consists of two linear layers, estimates the Q-value of each action using the encoded observation-action pair. The action with the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 732, + 884, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://github.com/microsoft/tdqn", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 791, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5564", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "highest estimated Q-value will be chosen as the next action. We trained the DRRN for 100K steps. 16 environments are trained in parallel. The final results represent the average performance of 5 different models trained using different starting random seeds.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.4 GPT-4", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 193, + 220, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The prompt of the GPT-4 agent includes the all the information in the behavior cloning transformer's prompt, which are the task description, the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by the \"look around\" action, the last action, and the last observation. We also offer a full list of valid actions at each step and ask GPT-4 to choose one action from the list. An example of the prompt used for the GPT-4 agent is found below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 216, + 489, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-4 Agent Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 390, + 290, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are playing a text game. Choose the proper action from the list of valid actions to win the game.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 412, + 475, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Task description:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 439, + 216, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 450, + 468, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Observation:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 487, + 196, + 497 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You take the math problem.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 498, + 268, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 508, + 472, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inventory:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 554, + 181, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a math problem", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 564, + 223, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous observation:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 582, + 240, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 592, + 472, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous action:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 639, + 211, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "take math problem", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 649, + 225, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here are all the valid actions. Your response should be one of them:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 667, + 448, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "inventory,take 88 eggplants,put math problem in box,take 29 blueberries,take 46 peas,look around,take 22 cabbages,take 17 peppers,take 42 avocados,read math problem,put math problem in showcase", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 687, + 473, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Additional Error Analyses", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 746, + 381, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Why does GPT-4 perform poorly in the SORTING game? In the SORTING game, an agent needs to put 3-5 objects into the answer box in order. In most of its error cases, the GPT-4 agent puts the first one or two objects into the answer box correctly, but it forgets what it did later and takes objects from the answer box out and put them back in a wrong order. This suggests that this GPT-4 agent does not have a good long-term memory of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the task.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 574, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Why does the self-supervised model need much more steps to win in the TWC game? In the TWC games, agents will not fail immediately if it puts an object at a wrong location. While the self-supervised achieved a similar score on the TWC task, it makes more wrong decisions during the process, resulting in a larger number of steps required to complete the task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 884, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5565", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_model.json b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90bd372fce070be658d741de276388c05f6e5ec2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2455 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.235, + 0.09, + 0.764, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.36, + 0.156, + 0.644, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruoyao Wang and Peter Jansen" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.388, + 0.174, + 0.616, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Arizona, USA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.336, + 0.19, + 0.668, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ruoyaowang,pajansen}@arizona.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we introduce a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, which are challenging benchmarks for multi-step reasoning in virtual environments. Traditionally, Behavior Cloning Transformers excel in such tasks but rely on supervised training data. Our approach auto-generates training data by exploring trajectories (defined by common macro-action sequences) that lead to reward within the games, while determining the generality and utility of these trajectories by rapidly training small models then evaluating their performance on unseen development games. Through empirical analysis, we show our method consistently uncovers generalizable training data, achieving about \\(90\\%\\) performance of supervised systems across three benchmark text games." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.551, + 0.26, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.578, + 0.49, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Complex tasks often involve decomposing problems into sequential steps to accomplish a goal. This is particularly the case for text games, which are interactive virtual environments where an agent progressively selects actions until a task is complete. Examples of such tasks range from cooking a recipe (Côté et al., 2018), finding a treasure (Yuan et al., 2018), executing a science experiment (Tamari et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022), to evaluating common sense reasoning (Shridhar et al., 2021; Murugesan et al., 2021; Gelhausen et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.756, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text game agents are frequently modeled using reinforcement learning (e.g. He et al., 2016; Ammanabrolu and Hausknecht, 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021; Tuyls et al., 2022), wherein an agent explores an environment with the goal of learning a policy that chooses actions leading to reward and task completion. More recently, text game agents recast reinforcement learning as" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.25, + 0.871, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.533, + 0.886, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An overview of our approach. Initially, game trajectories from the current state are extracted up to a specified horizon, which extends to the first reward. The generality of these paths is assessed by training a compact T5 model and evaluating its performance on unseen development games. High-performing trajectories are subsequently extended through further exploration in an iterative process until the game is ultimately completed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.645, + 0.885, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sequence-to-sequence problems using architectures like the Behavior Cloning Transformer (Torabi et al., 2018) to leverage the inference capability and robustness of modern transformers (Wang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2023). In this setup, the transformer is provided with an environment observation as input, and produces a string indicating the next action to take as output. A consequence of this reformulation is that, rather than exploring their environments, behavior cloning transformers require supervised training data, necessitating generating human gold playthroughs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 1, we present our approach to overcome this data supervision limitation by automatically crawling, grouping, and evaluating candidate paths that can serve as useful and generalizable training data. By rapidly evaluating these candidi" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Released as open source: https://github.com/cognitiveailab/pathfinding-r1" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5555" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5555-5565" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.085, + 0.812, + 0.096 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arithmetie Game: Your task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.1, + 0.816, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.439, + 0.884, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Two example path groups from the Arithmetic game, emphasizing that not all high-scoring paths serve as useful training data. Paths having the same macro-action sequence from parametric game variations are grouped together, as depicted above. These examples underscore the concept that shorter, quicker paths, like the one at the bottom, may lack generalizability, leading to poor model performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.507, + 0.49, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "date sets of training data by training small models, we show how the performance of those models on unseen development games can be used as a self-supervision signal to help guide further path crawling, and discover useful training data automatically. This approach is validated on three benchmark games from the TEXTWORLDEXPRESS simulator (Jansen and Cote, 2023). Our contributions include: (1) demonstrating generating self-supervised training data through crawling, grouping, and evaluating game trajectories, (2) using the performance of small rapidly-trained models as self-supervision signals, and (3) developing heuristic methods to align and merge training data, reducing the task search space and ultimate training costs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.763, + 0.236, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1 provides an overview of our approach. The goal of our work is to find a set of generalizable training data that can be a substitute for human gold playthroughs of text games, and suitable for training a behavior cloning transformer agent. While simply exhaustively pathcrawling all possible trajectories in a game offers a method to find winning paths, not all winning paths are gener" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.507, + 0.885, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "alizable (see Figure 2), so such a method would yield poor training data, while also being computationally expensive. Here, we show that by training small models on candidate training data, and evaluating performance on unseen development games, we can quickly evaluate the generalizability of that data. In terms of tractability, by iteratively pathcrawling only up to the next reward, and then continuing pathcrawling only from the most generalizable paths, we can limit the size of the search to only paths most likely to be generalizable and form quality training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.701, + 0.885, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we use text games that have parametric variations of each task, such as different math problems to solve for an arithmetic game, which is standard practice for evaluating a model's generalization ability (e.g., Côté et al., 2018; Murugesan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "**Path Crawling:** Our process begins with a path crawler exploring all potential trajectories in a game from the start state until achieving non-zero reward or reaching a limited horizon. This crawler also navigates multiple parametric game variations, each with distinct objectives, such as making a stirfry versus baking a cake in a cooking game." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5556" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Path Grouping into Parameterized Macro-Action Sequences: Text game actions consist of a command verb (e.g., take, put, open) with one (e.g. open closet) or two (e.g. put apple in cupboard) arguments, where a sequence of actions (i.e. a full or partial playthrough) is called a trajectory. When creating candidate training sets for the behavior cloning transformer, we attempt to group together trajectories that – as best as we can tell – appear to solve different parametric variations of a game using roughly the same sequence of actions. We do this by abstracting the trajectories into variabilized action sequences. For example, in the TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE game, a trajectory such as “take hat”, “put hat on hat rack” from one variation, and “take dirty shirt”, “put dirty shirt in washer” from another variation, could both be abstracted into the same parameterized macro-action sequence “TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y)”. We call a set of trajectories from different game variations that can all be described using the same parameterized macro-action sequence a path group. In the experiments reported below, path groups are typically created by grouping paths from 100 training variations of a game." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.493, + 0.49, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluating Path Groups: The above process yields \\(N\\) path groups, each representing a unique parameterized macro-action sequence. These groups provide the training data for a behavior cloning model. Although \\(N\\) is typically large, we've observed that generalizable sequences are often among the shorter paths (though not the shortest - Figure 2 provides a counterexample). For efficiency, we select the \\(K\\) shortest path groups and train a T5-based behavior cloning transformer individually on each, assessing the model performance on 100 unseen game variations from the development set. The process continues until we identify a group surpassing a predefined performance threshold \\(T\\). If no single group meets this early stopping criterion, we attempt to merge path groups to discover higher-scoring combinations, detailed further in APPENDIX C.2.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.789, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Incremental Path Crawling: Reinforcement learning problems can offer sparse or dense rewards. To minimize the search space and the total number of path groups to evaluate, we initially crawl and assess paths up to the first reward instance. Upon identifying a path group with gener" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "alizable performance to this point, the model continues path crawling, commencing with this macro-action sequence and assessing generality until the next reward signal. This cycle persists until reaching a winning state, effectively segmenting the task into subtasks demarcated by non-zero rewards." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.188, + 0.885, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benchmarks: Our exploration of using path crawling for generating self-supervised training data spans three benchmark text games. TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) (Murugesan et al., 2021) tasks agents with assigning household items (e.g. a dirty shirt) to their canonical locations (e.g. a washing machine). ARITHMETIC engages agents in a math problem, followed by a pick-and-place task using the calculated result. SORTING requires agents to arrange objects by quantity. Each game presents parametric variations altering the environment and task-specific objects across episodes. For all experiments, we generate distinct training, development, and test sets, each with 100 variations of each game. Objects crucial to tasks are unique across sets. Refer to the APPENDIX for game specifics and playthrough examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.473, + 0.61, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.499, + 0.886, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We assess four models to showcase the effectiveness of the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer. Further model details and hyperparameters can be found in the APPENDIX." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.569, + 0.884, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This supervised baseline employs a sequence-to-sequence model that packs the game task description, current and previous observations, and prior action into a prompt, while training it to generate the agent's next action. Gold paths for training are generated by gold agents. At inference time candidate next-actions are generated using beam search, and the first valid action is used. For efficiency, all reported experiments employ the T5-BASE (220M parameter) model (Raffel et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.753, + 0.885, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This model, the focus of our work, parallels the supervised transformer, with the exception being its training data is generated via the path crawling method described in Section 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additional comparisons: Although our aim is to showcase behavior cloning self-supervision, we offer additional baselines to contextualize the results. The DRRN (He et al., 2016) is a strong reinforcement learning baseline that separately encodes" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2An analysis of performance versus number of parametric variations included in training is provided in the APPENDIX." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5557" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.082, + 0.847, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
BenchmarkDRRN \nBaselineGPT-4 \nBaselineBehavior Cloned \nSupervisedTransformer \nSelf-Supervised
ScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreSteps
Arithmetic0.17100.76150.5450.445
Sorting0.03210.0470.7270.596
TWC0.57270.9060.9060.8915
Average0.26190.5790.7260.649
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.207, + 0.883, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Model performance across three text game benchmarks, assessed on 100 unseen parametric test set variations. The score (0-1) represents game progress, while steps denote the average game steps taken to reach a final state—lower is better. The self-supervised transformer closely mirrors the supervised model's performance, marginally surpasses the GPT-4 baseline, and significantly outperforms the DRRN reinforcement learning baseline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.281, + 0.49, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "observations and actions into different embedding spaces, then learns a policy that selects actions at each step that maximize reward. Despite its age, the DRRN maintains near state-of-the-art performance across many text game benchmarks (e.g. Xu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022) – see Jansen (2022) for a review. For further context, we include a zero-shot GPT-4 baseline (OpenAI, 2023), a state-of-the-art model with an undisclosed parameter size and training data. More details are provided in the APPENDIX." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.473, + 0.347, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.501, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 shows the overall performance for all models. The DRRN reinforcement learning baseline yields modest overall performance, scoring an average of 0.26 across all benchmark text games and taking an average of 19 steps per game episode before completion. The supervised behavior cloning transformer significantly outperforms this, achieving a score of 0.72 across all games, effectively tripling task performance while also reducing the average steps required per episode to 6 – though at the expense of requiring gold training data. The GPT-4 baseline underperforms at the sorting game but excels in the other games, resulting in an average score of 0.57 and requiring 9 steps to finish. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer achieves a score of 0.65, equivalent to \\(90\\%\\) of the supervised system's performance, but uses entirely self-generated training data. It substantially outperforms the reinforcement learning baseline (which also lacks supervision), improving performance by a factor of 2.5 while generating solutions that are twice as efficient. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer meets or exceeds the GPT-4 baseline on two of three games, despite the significant difference in model size, while only underperforming on the benchmark requiring mathematical" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.281, + 0.885, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "reasoning – for which smaller models tend to perform poorly (Razeghi et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.316, + 0.885, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How do the trajectories identified by self-supervision compare to gold trajectories? As shown in Table 2, self-supervised paths closely match gold paths, although they occasionally include task-irrelevant actions (e.g. look around) which diminish their efficiency. Given that the behavior cloning method models games as a Markov decision process (limited by input length to depend only on the previous state), these irrelevant actions may hinder the agent's recall of vital action history information, contributing to the slight performance drop compared to the supervised model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.887, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How can the performance of this method versus the DRRN and GPT-4 be contextualized? Our goal in this work is to demonstrate self-supervision of a behavior cloning transformer using the pathcrawling method described in Section 2. Nevertheless, other baselines offer valuable context. The poor performance of the DRRN, a robust reinforcement learning baseline for text games, underscores the difficulty of exploring expansive search spaces without guiding context – one of the motivating factors towards the application of pretrained language models to guide exploration more effectively. On the other hand, while the GPT-4 model performs comparably to the self-supervised behavior cloning model, it is likely to be at least three orders of magnitude larger. This highlights the potential for small models to perform well given suitable exploration mechanisms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.887, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How many training examples are required to learn a task? Figure 3 shows the performance of the T5-agent trained with varying numbers of gold trajectories. Generally, task performance increases roughly linearly with the number of training examples provided. An exception to this is the ARITHMETIC game, where nearly all 100 training" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5558" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.092, + 0.473, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.278, + 0.489, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying numbers of training examples. Performance is reported on the development set." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.345, + 0.48, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.535, + 0.49, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying proportion of gold trajectories interspersed with randomly sampled non-gold trajectories. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 5 runs per data point on the development set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.636, + 0.49, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "examples are needed to gain moderate performance. We hypothesize that this is a result of the pretrained model generally performing poorly at mathematical tasks. These results suggest that, pragmatically, using the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer may be possible with less training data on some environments, while other environments (such as ARITHMETIC) may benefit from more training examples. When using this self-supervised system in practice (i.e. on environments without gold training data), the end user may wish to tune the number of training examples they use as a hyperparameter in their model – though generally, the larger the number available, the more accurately the path crawler will be able to estimate performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How effective is the data grouping method compared to randomly sampled winning trajectory" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.083, + 0.88, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Arithmetic
SSTAKE(X), READ(X), LOOK-AROUND, TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
GoldTAKE(X), READ(X), TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
Sorting
SSTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
GoldTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
Text World Common Sense
SS(TAKE(X), LOOK-AROUND, PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), INVENTORY, OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
Gold(TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.241, + 0.884, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Paths identified by our self-supervised method (SS) compared to gold paths for each game, showing that self-supervised paths are nearly identical to gold paths. Paths in parenthesis represent merged path groups." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.31, + 0.885, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ries? How easily can we find generalizable training data for a given game, amongst all its winning trajectories? To investigate this, we trained models with varying amounts of gold (generalizable) trajectories, versus other randomly sampled winning (but typically not generalizable) trajectories. At one extreme, the model is trained using entirely randomly sampled winning trajectories, while at the other extreme, the model is trained entirely using gold trajectories. The results, shown in Figure 4, show that the self-supervision method provides a large benefit, increasing performance between \\(15\\%\\) and \\(43\\%\\) across all games – highlighting the benefit of our self-supervision method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.542, + 0.884, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How is this method affected by training hyperparameters? We have observed substantial differences in performance across various training hyperparameters (such as number of training epochs, or training random seed), and suspect part of the difference between supervised and self-supervised performance may be due to these fluctuations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.668, + 0.642, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, that leverages a process of incremental path crawling in action spaces leading to rewards, while evaluating the generality of groups of crawled paths on unseen games, to generate high-quality training data. Our method achieves comparable performance to models trained on gold trajectories, efficiently exploring the environment without needing human playthroughs or gold agents. Our model excels over a robust reinforcement learning baseline and attains about \\(90\\%\\) of supervised models' performance, emphasizing the potential of efficient exploration mechanisms, even for smaller models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5559" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.084, + 0.22, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a method for generating self-supervised training data for behavior cloning transformer models, presented in the context of text games. Behavior cloning transformers (Torabi et al., 2018) and other frameworks for modeling reinforcement learning problems with transformers (including Decision Transformers (Chen et al., 2021) and Trajectory Transformers (Janner et al., 2021)) can outperform other reinforcement learning models in specific contexts, but still face a number of central challenges and limitations that depend upon the complexity of the problem space. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer we present in this work has similar limitations, as well as other limitations that result from the computational complexity of path crawling." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.375, + 0.49, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Action Spaces: At each time step, the environment simulator provides a set of valid actions that are possible to take. In text games, this action space frequently contains ten or more actions, each of which typically takes one or two arguments that represent objects in the environment – while extreme cases can contain 70 or more actions, and up to 300 action templates (Hausknecht et al., 2020). As such, action spaces can quickly become large, containing thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of possible valid action-object combinations per step. While reinforcement models typically struggle with exploring these large action spaces resulting in low model performance, the path crawling model presented in this work would struggle to crawl very large action spaces, and may fail to find any winning paths within a given time budget. In practice, with the current model, we have found that action spaces containing approximately 500 valid actions per step are intractable to crawl beyond 3 steps (i.e. above \\(10^{8}\\) states per episode)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.72, + 0.49, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sparse Rewards: Tasks with sparse rewards are frequently challenging for reinforcement learning models. This work separates path crawling and next-action generation, making problems with moderately sparse rewards (i.e. within 4-5 steps) generally quick to find. However, for tasks with large action spaces and extremely sparse rewards, the path crawling procedure would become intractable." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Complex, Varied Trajectories: To evaluate path generality, this work groups paths by abstracted parameterized macro-action sequences. In the three benchmark tasks investigated in this work, the tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "can be solved by merging a small set of groups (for example, for TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, two groups are required: (1) TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X,Y), which picks up an object, opens its container, then places it in the container, and (2) TAKE(X) PUT(X,Y), for cases where a container doesn't need to be opened, like a table). For more complex tasks that require a large number of different actions to solve across game episodes, this technique would require increasing the amount of training data provided, proportional to the number of groups estimated to be required to solve the task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.291, + 0.66, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.317, + 0.885, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Broader Impacts: Large language models typically perform complex multi-step inference in a manner that isn't easily possible to inspect or evaluate. Framing tasks as text games in embodied virtual environments helps make the inference steps explicit, such that the choices a model makes at each step are auditable and interpretable. This helps expose potential issues in reasoning in models. For example, language models can correctly answer more than \\(90\\%\\) of multiple choice science exam questions, suggesting they can perform complex reasoning, but fail to answer most of those same questions when they are reframed as text games that require explicit multi-step reasoning (Wang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intended Use: This work presents a self-supervised system that generates its own training data based on paths that a language model finds generalizable. If applied more broadly to general reinforcement learning problems apart from text games, the model has the potential to find shortcuts through the action space that lead to task solutions based on a language model's existing competencies, but to do so through biased or harmful means. As such, for tasks that have the possibility of producing harm to specific groups, the training data produced by self-supervision should be manually inspected by a human to evaluate for bias or other potential harms. Because this work groups solutions into abstracted sequences of actions (i.e. path groups with similar solution methods, instantiated with different specific arguments, it may offer a means of inexpensively manually evaluating self-supervised training data – helping speed the identification of bias by streamlining the review of self-supervised training data for tasks modelled using self-supervised behavior cloning models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5560" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.287, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thanks to Marc-Alexandre Côté, Raj Ammanabrolu, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Thanks to Dan Yang for drawing the little robot in Figure 1. This work supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) award #1815948 to PJ, and gift from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.248, + 0.214, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.272, + 0.49, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. Graph constrained reinforcement learning for natural language action spaces. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.334, + 0.49, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Misha Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:15084-15097." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.423, + 0.49, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marc-Alexandre Côté, Akos Kádár, Xingdi Yuan, Ben Kybartas, Tavian Barnes, Emery Fine, James Moore, Matthew Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, et al. 2018. Textworld: A learning environment for text-based games. In Computer Games: 7th Workshop, CGW 2018, Held in Conjunction with the 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 13, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 7, pages 41-75. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.564, + 0.49, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul Gelhausen, Marion Fischer, and George Peters. 2022. Affordance extraction with an external knowledge database for text-based simulated environments. ArXiv, abs/2207.00265." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.626, + 0.49, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew Hausknecht, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Xingdi Yuan. 2020. Interactive fiction games: A colossal adventure. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):7903-7910." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.702, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ji He, Mari Ostendorf, Xiaodong He, Jianshu Chen, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, and Li Deng. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning with a combinatorial action space for predicting popular Reddit threads. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1838-1848, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.816, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Janner, Qiyang Li, and Sergey Levine. 2021. Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Jansen. 2022. A systematic survey of text worlds as embodied natural language environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Wordplay: When Language Meets" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.272, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Games Workshop (Wordplay 2022), pages 1-15, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.136, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Jansen and Marc-alexandre Cote. 2023. *TextWorldExpress: Simulating text games at one million steps per second.* In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations*, pages 169–177, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.237, + 0.885, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyurek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. 2022. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 31199-31212. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.351, + 0.885, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2023. Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17390." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.44, + 0.885, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keerthiram Murugesan, Mattia Atzeni, Pavan Kapanipathi, Pushkar Shukla, Sadhana Kumaravel, Gerald Tesauro, Kartik Talamadupula, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Murray Campbell. 2021. Text-based RL Agents with Commonsense Knowledge: New Challenges, Environments and Baselines. In Thirty Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.541, + 0.885, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.577, + 0.885, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.666, + 0.885, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.728, + 0.885, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2021. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.816, + 0.885, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ishika Singh, Gargi Singh, and Ashutosh Modi. 2021. Pre-trained language models as prior knowledge for playing text-based games. ArXiv, abs/2107.08408." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronen Tamari, Fan Bai, Alan Ritter, and Gabriel Stanovsky. 2021. Process-level representation of scientific protocols with interactive annotation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5561" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2190-2202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.138, + 0.49, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Faraz Torabi, Garrett Warnell, and Peter Stone. 2018. Behavioral cloning from observation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4950-4957. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.23, + 0.49, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jens Tuyls, Shunyu Yao, Sham M. Kakade, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2022. Multi-stage episodic control for strategic exploration in text games. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.321, + 0.49, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2022. ScienceWorld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11279-11298, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.426, + 0.49, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2023. Behavior cloned transformers are neurosymbolic reasoners. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2777-2788, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.531, + 0.49, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yunqiu Xu, Meng Fang, Ling Chen, Yali Du, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Chengqi Zhang. 2020. Deep reinforcement learning with stacked hierarchical attention for text-based games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16495-16507." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.609, + 0.49, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shunyu Yao, Rohan Rao, Matthew Hausknecht, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2020. Keep CALM and explore: Language models for action generation in text-based games. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8736-8754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.713, + 0.49, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Alessandro Sordoni, Romain Laroche, Rémi Tachet des Combes, Matthew J. Hausknecht, and Adam Trischler. 2018. Counting to explore and generalize in text-based games. ArXiv, abs/1806.11525." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.796, + 0.464, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Additional Experiment Information" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The heuristic method we employ investigates shorter paths (i.e. macro-action sequences that take fewer actions to reach reward states) first. After grouping paths, the number of initial groups to explore for each game is 112 for TWC, 220 for ARITHMETIC, and 7 for SORTING." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.088, + 0.728, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text World Common Sense (TWC) Game" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.104, + 0.881, + 0.124 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task Description: Your task is to pick up objects, then place them in their usual locations in the environment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.133, + 0.881, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are in the bedroom. In one part of the room you see a wardrobe that is closed. There is also a desk chair, that has nothing on it. You also see a dressing table, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a chest of drawers that is closed. In one part of the room you see a bed, that has nothing on it. There is also a desk, that has nothing on it. You also see a night stand, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a clean brown shirt." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.202, + 0.687, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory: Your inventory is currently empty. \n> take clean brown shirt" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.239, + 0.671, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the clean brown shirt. \nInventory: \na clean brown shirt \n> open wardrobe" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.286, + 0.715, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You open the wardrobe. It's empty inside. Inventory: a clean brown shirt \\(>\\) put clean brown in wardrobe" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.334, + 0.601, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Game completed." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.104, + 0.881, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.358, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: An example of a TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects and target locations are bolded, while distractor locations are underlined." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.447, + 0.67, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Environments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.475, + 0.834, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 Text World Common Sense (TWC)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.498, + 0.885, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (Murugesan et al., 2021) is a common sense reasoning benchmark in which the agent needs to collect items in a household environment and put them in their cannonical (\"common-sense\") locations. In the experiments reported in this paper, we generate parametric episodes containing a single room with one target item in it, roughly corresponding to the \"easy\" setting in Murugesan et al. (2021). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for picking up the target item, then an additional 0.5 score for putting that object in the correct location. An example playthrough of TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE is shown in Table 3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.737, + 0.646, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.2 Arithmetic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ARITHMETIC game requires the agent to read then answer an arithmetic question (e.g. add 42 and 9), then put an item from the environment whose quantity matches the answer (e.g. 51 pineapples) into a container called the answer box. Each episode contains a number of distractor items whose quantity corresponds to performing the arithmetic incorrectly (e.g. 33 peaches, corresponds to subtracting 9 from 42). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for first reading the math problem, and will" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5562" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.088, + 0.212, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arithmetic Game" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.105, + 0.486, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task Description: Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.143, + 0.486, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are in the laundry room. In one part of the room you see a bench that has 378 apples on it. There is also a laundry basket that has 51 pineapples, 4 bananas, and 16 oranges on it. You also see a work table that has 33 peaches, and 26 strawberries on it. In another part of the room you see a washing machine that is closed. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a clothes drier that is closed. Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.21, + 0.29, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.22, + 0.221, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) take math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.238, + 0.253, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the math problem." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.248, + 0.172, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.258, + 0.204, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.268, + 0.222, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "> read math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.285, + 0.484, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your task is to solve the following math problem: add 42 and 9. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the answer, and place it in the box. Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.315, + 0.204, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.324, + 0.221, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) take 51 pineapples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.342, + 0.255, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the 51 pineapples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.353, + 0.172, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.362, + 0.204, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.371, + 0.202, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "51 pineapples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.381, + 0.25, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "> put 51 pineapples in box" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.399, + 0.205, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Game completed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.423, + 0.487, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: An example ARITHMETIC game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded, while distractor objects are underlined." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.513, + 0.489, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "receive a full score of 1.0 for placing the correct item into the answer box, regardless of whether it first reads the math problem or not. Placing incorrect items into the answer box will immediately result in task failure. An example playthrough of ARITHMETIC is shown in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.644, + 0.223, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.3 Sorting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the SORTING game, the agent needs to place items of different quantities into a special container (the answer box) in ascending order. For most parametric episodes, the item quantities include the additional challenge of containing different units (e.g. \\(23mg\\) of oak vs \\(2g\\) of marble) that the agent needs to interpret and normalize to correctly solve the task. Episodes randomly contain between 3 and 5 items that need to be sorted. The agent receives a partial reward \\((1/\\# items)\\) each time it places the correct object (i.e. next-largest quantity) into the answer box. The task fails any time it places items in the answer box in an incorrect order. An example playthrough of SORTING is shown in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.088, + 0.59, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sorting Game" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.105, + 0.88, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task Description: Your task is to sort objects by quantity. First, place the object with the smallest quantity in the box. Then, place the objects with the next smallest quantity in the box, and repeat until all objects have been placed in the box." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.152, + 0.881, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are in the living room. In one part of the room you see a TV stand that has 23mg of oak on it. There is also a coffee table, that has nothing on it. You also see a book case, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a box, that is empty. In one part of the room you see a sofa that has 2g of marble on it. There is also a end table that has 38mg of marble on it. You also see a arm chair that has 39mg of wood on it. In another part of the room you see a wastepaper basket that is closed. In one part of the room you see a side table that has 9g of oak on it. Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.239, + 0.685, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.248, + 0.611, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) take \\(23\\mathrm{mg}\\) of oak" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.266, + 0.643, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the \\(23\\mathrm{mg}\\) of oak." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.276, + 0.567, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.286, + 0.587, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "23mg of oak" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.295, + 0.639, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "> put 23mg of oak in box" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.314, + 0.689, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You put the \\(23\\mathrm{mg}\\) of oak in the box." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.324, + 0.568, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.334, + 0.685, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.343, + 0.627, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": ">take 38mg of marble" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.361, + 0.662, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the \\(38\\mathrm{mg}\\) of marble." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.371, + 0.567, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.381, + 0.605, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "38mg of marble" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.39, + 0.655, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": ">put \\(38\\mathrm{mg}\\) of marble in box" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.409, + 0.706, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You put the \\(38\\mathrm{mg}\\) of marble in the box." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.418, + 0.568, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.428, + 0.685, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.437, + 0.619, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) take \\(39mg\\) of wood" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.456, + 0.652, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the \\(39\\mathrm{mg}\\) of wood." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.466, + 0.567, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.476, + 0.595, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "39mg of wood" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.485, + 0.646, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "> put 39mg of wood in box" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.503, + 0.697, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You put the \\(39\\mathrm{mg}\\) of wood in the box." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.513, + 0.568, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.523, + 0.685, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.533, + 0.612, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(>\\) take \\(2g\\) of marble" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.55, + 0.646, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the \\(2\\mathrm{g}\\) of marble." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.561, + 0.567, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.57, + 0.588, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2g of marble" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.579, + 0.64, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "> put 2g of marble in box" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.598, + 0.601, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Game completed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.622, + 0.884, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: An example SORTING game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.677, + 0.63, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.704, + 0.789, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1 Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.742, + 0.881, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The input (prompt) of the T5 model is formatted as:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.773, + 0.881, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "d \\(< / \\mathbf{s}>\\) OBS \\(o_t < / \\mathbf{s}>\\) INV \\(o_t^{inv}< / \\mathbf{s}>\\) LOOK \\(o_t^{look}\\) \n\\(< / \\mathbf{s}>\\) \\) PACT \\(a_{t - 1} < / \\mathbf{s}>\\) POBS \\(o_{t - 1} < / \\mathbf{s}>\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\langle \\mathbf{\\partial} / \\mathbf{s}\\rangle \\) is the special token for separator and is the special token for the mask of text to generate used by the T5 model. \\( d \\) is the task description. \\( o_t, o_t^{inv}, o_t^{look}, a_{t-1} \\), and \\( o_{t-1} \\) represent the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5563" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the action \"look around\", last action, and last observation respectively. The separators OBS, INV, LOOK, PACT, and POBS are their corresponding special tokens." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.489, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During development, we train the behavior cloning T5-BASE model from 2 to 20 epochs, then choose the model that achieves the highest development score for testing. The models are tested on 100 unseen test variations to get the final performance. All three game environments have a step limit of 50 steps, which means if an agent does not complete within 50 steps, the score at the last step will be considered as the final score and the environment will be reset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.311, + 0.49, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The T5 model is trained on gold paths generated by gold agents provided by the TEXTWORLDEX- EXPRESS simulator. At inference time, the a prompt is encoded from the observation of the current game state, and possible candidate next-actions are generated using beam search. We use a beam size of 8 and select the first valid action. If no valid actions are present, the model picks the valid action from the game environment with the highest non-zero unigram overlap to the candidate actions generated during beam search." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.499, + 0.427, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2 Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.537, + 0.49, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During the group evaluation stage, we take the top 10 shortest paths to evaluate for all three games. To vastly reduce computation time, the behavior cloning T5-models are not tuned but rather trained statically for 20 epochs for each path group. Performance is evaluated on 100 unseen development variations. The input strings are formatted the same as the supervised behavior cloning transformer. A group that achieves a development score higher than a threshold \\(T\\) will be accepted. In our experiments, we use \\(T = 0.95\\) for the TEXTWORLD COMMONSENSE, \\(T = 0.4\\) for the ARITHMETIC game, and \\(T = 0.5\\) for the SORTING game. In practice, one cycle of training a behavior cloning agent on a candidate set of paths then evaluating on 100 unseen development variations takes approximately 12 minutes on desktop hardware (i.e. RTX 4090), allowing experiments to complete in approximately 2 to 4 hours." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.852, + 0.437, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2.1 Merging Multiple Solution Paths" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Frequently, games may not be solvable with paths from a single group. For example, in TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, some items require that their" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "container be opened before they can be placed inside (i.e. TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X, Y)), while others can be directly placed in their winning locations (e.g. TAKE(X) PUT(X, Y)). Where a single path group does not solve all development variations, we take training data from the highest-performing variations of multiple path groups, and use these to assemble a final higher-performing training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.23, + 0.885, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We take the top 5 performing groups based on their development scores and combine each two of them to get 10 merged groups (i.e. \\(\\binom{5}{2}\\)). Trivially combining the training data from multiple groups does not work well, because each of these groups may contain both generalizable paths, as well as paths that fail to generalize on episodes where another group of data is effective. Instead, we combine groups by choosing individual trajectories from each group that perform well on their respective development episodes. If two groups have paths that perform well for a given development episode, we choose the trajectory that has the highest development score. While this method has the benefit of being pragmatic (i.e. it chooses to combine paths that perform well empirically), it presents the challenge of potentially overfitting on the unseen development set, which may limit ultimate generality when the model is eventually evaluated on the test set. To mitigate this, when groups need to be merged, we flip the training and development sets, so that the path crawler is always generating hypotheses on one set, and evaluating them on a different, unseen set. We ultimately choose the merged group with the highest score on the development set as the final training set, and use this to generate final performance figures on the unseen training set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.695, + 0.877, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.3 Deep Reinforcement Relevance Network (DRRN)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.733, + 0.885, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We make use of an existing benchmark implementation of the DRRN model3. At each time step, the task description, observation, agent inventory information, and room description are appended into a single string (as in the case of the behavior cloning models) and encoded by a GRU. Valid actions at each step are encoded by a separate GRU. A Q-network, which consists of two linear layers, estimates the Q-value of each action using the encoded observation-action pair. The action with the" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.792, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://github.com/microsoft/tdqn" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5564" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "highest estimated Q-value will be chosen as the next action. We trained the DRRN for 100K steps. 16 environments are trained in parallel. The final results represent the average performance of 5 different models trained using different starting random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.195, + 0.221, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.4 GPT-4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.217, + 0.49, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The prompt of the GPT-4 agent includes the all the information in the behavior cloning transformer's prompt, which are the task description, the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by the \"look around\" action, the last action, and the last observation. We also offer a full list of valid actions at each step and ask GPT-4 to choose one action from the list. An example of the prompt used for the GPT-4 agent is found below:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.391, + 0.292, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-4 Agent Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.413, + 0.476, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are playing a text game. Choose the proper action from the list of valid actions to win the game." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.441, + 0.218, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Task description:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.451, + 0.47, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.488, + 0.197, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Observation:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.499, + 0.27, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You take the math problem." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.509, + 0.473, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.555, + 0.182, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inventory:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.565, + 0.225, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.583, + 0.242, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous observation:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.593, + 0.473, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.64, + 0.213, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous action:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.65, + 0.226, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "take math problem" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.668, + 0.449, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here are all the valid actions. Your response should be one of them:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.688, + 0.475, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "inventory,take 88 eggplants,put math problem in box,take 29 blueberries,take 46 peas,look around,take 22 cabbages,take 17 peppers,take 42 avocados,read math problem,put math problem in showcase" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.747, + 0.383, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Additional Error Analyses" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Why does GPT-4 perform poorly in the SORTING game? In the SORTING game, an agent needs to put 3-5 objects into the answer box in order. In most of its error cases, the GPT-4 agent puts the first one or two objects into the answer box correctly, but it forgets what it did later and takes objects from the answer box out and put them back in a wrong order. This suggests that this GPT-4 agent does not have a good long-term memory of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.576, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.107, + 0.885, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Why does the self-supervised model need much more steps to win in the TWC game? In the TWC games, agents will not fail immediately if it puts an object at a wrong location. While the self-supervised achieved a similar score on the TWC task, it makes more wrong decisions during the process, resulting in a larger number of steps required to complete the task." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5565" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97dd75e75de33d48cec9a6b22ac9018aa73fc8f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/20196f57-25bc-4147-a092-f2da72cb61a9_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:04cf60c4d9cd91d72f59159e95ddba2617dac57a17ed456d99bab22d51a9669c +size 1195584 diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/full.md b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b90ad33c3f0c61e387f5cf911f6800d30f4a0faf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@ +# Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games + +Ruoyao Wang and Peter Jansen + +University of Arizona, USA + +{ruoyaowang,pajansen}@arizona.edu + +# Abstract + +In this work, we introduce a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, which are challenging benchmarks for multi-step reasoning in virtual environments. Traditionally, Behavior Cloning Transformers excel in such tasks but rely on supervised training data. Our approach auto-generates training data by exploring trajectories (defined by common macro-action sequences) that lead to reward within the games, while determining the generality and utility of these trajectories by rapidly training small models then evaluating their performance on unseen development games. Through empirical analysis, we show our method consistently uncovers generalizable training data, achieving about $90\%$ performance of supervised systems across three benchmark text games. + +# 1 Introduction + +Complex tasks often involve decomposing problems into sequential steps to accomplish a goal. This is particularly the case for text games, which are interactive virtual environments where an agent progressively selects actions until a task is complete. Examples of such tasks range from cooking a recipe (Côté et al., 2018), finding a treasure (Yuan et al., 2018), executing a science experiment (Tamari et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022), to evaluating common sense reasoning (Shridhar et al., 2021; Murugesan et al., 2021; Gelhausen et al., 2022). + +Text game agents are frequently modeled using reinforcement learning (e.g. He et al., 2016; Ammanabrolu and Hausknecht, 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021; Tuyls et al., 2022), wherein an agent explores an environment with the goal of learning a policy that chooses actions leading to reward and task completion. More recently, text game agents recast reinforcement learning as + +![](images/b0732bfbb8a1f26c95ef8081b6320be00f788f92fbf381ab2a43a7bcc1e1af46.jpg) +Figure 1: An overview of our approach. Initially, game trajectories from the current state are extracted up to a specified horizon, which extends to the first reward. The generality of these paths is assessed by training a compact T5 model and evaluating its performance on unseen development games. High-performing trajectories are subsequently extended through further exploration in an iterative process until the game is ultimately completed. + +sequence-to-sequence problems using architectures like the Behavior Cloning Transformer (Torabi et al., 2018) to leverage the inference capability and robustness of modern transformers (Wang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2023). In this setup, the transformer is provided with an environment observation as input, and produces a string indicating the next action to take as output. A consequence of this reformulation is that, rather than exploring their environments, behavior cloning transformers require supervised training data, necessitating generating human gold playthroughs. + +In Figure 1, we present our approach to overcome this data supervision limitation by automatically crawling, grouping, and evaluating candidate paths that can serve as useful and generalizable training data. By rapidly evaluating these candidi + +![](images/ce806cd6db18124f71407ffe1bc7a8d9434259cedc9e35f9d256285d99a282c8.jpg) +Arithmetie Game: Your task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box. +Figure 2: Two example path groups from the Arithmetic game, emphasizing that not all high-scoring paths serve as useful training data. Paths having the same macro-action sequence from parametric game variations are grouped together, as depicted above. These examples underscore the concept that shorter, quicker paths, like the one at the bottom, may lack generalizability, leading to poor model performance. + +date sets of training data by training small models, we show how the performance of those models on unseen development games can be used as a self-supervision signal to help guide further path crawling, and discover useful training data automatically. This approach is validated on three benchmark games from the TEXTWORLDEXPRESS simulator (Jansen and Cote, 2023). Our contributions include: (1) demonstrating generating self-supervised training data through crawling, grouping, and evaluating game trajectories, (2) using the performance of small rapidly-trained models as self-supervision signals, and (3) developing heuristic methods to align and merge training data, reducing the task search space and ultimate training costs. + +# 2 Approach + +Figure 1 provides an overview of our approach. The goal of our work is to find a set of generalizable training data that can be a substitute for human gold playthroughs of text games, and suitable for training a behavior cloning transformer agent. While simply exhaustively pathcrawling all possible trajectories in a game offers a method to find winning paths, not all winning paths are gener + +alizable (see Figure 2), so such a method would yield poor training data, while also being computationally expensive. Here, we show that by training small models on candidate training data, and evaluating performance on unseen development games, we can quickly evaluate the generalizability of that data. In terms of tractability, by iteratively pathcrawling only up to the next reward, and then continuing pathcrawling only from the most generalizable paths, we can limit the size of the search to only paths most likely to be generalizable and form quality training data. + +In this work, we use text games that have parametric variations of each task, such as different math problems to solve for an arithmetic game, which is standard practice for evaluating a model's generalization ability (e.g., Côté et al., 2018; Murugesan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022). + +**Path Crawling:** Our process begins with a path crawler exploring all potential trajectories in a game from the start state until achieving non-zero reward or reaching a limited horizon. This crawler also navigates multiple parametric game variations, each with distinct objectives, such as making a stirfry versus baking a cake in a cooking game. + +Path Grouping into Parameterized Macro-Action Sequences: Text game actions consist of a command verb (e.g., take, put, open) with one (e.g. open closet) or two (e.g. put apple in cupboard) arguments, where a sequence of actions (i.e. a full or partial playthrough) is called a trajectory. When creating candidate training sets for the behavior cloning transformer, we attempt to group together trajectories that – as best as we can tell – appear to solve different parametric variations of a game using roughly the same sequence of actions. We do this by abstracting the trajectories into variabilized action sequences. For example, in the TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE game, a trajectory such as “take hat”, “put hat on hat rack” from one variation, and “take dirty shirt”, “put dirty shirt in washer” from another variation, could both be abstracted into the same parameterized macro-action sequence “TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y)”. We call a set of trajectories from different game variations that can all be described using the same parameterized macro-action sequence a path group. In the experiments reported below, path groups are typically created by grouping paths from 100 training variations of a game. + +Evaluating Path Groups: The above process yields $N$ path groups, each representing a unique parameterized macro-action sequence. These groups provide the training data for a behavior cloning model. Although $N$ is typically large, we've observed that generalizable sequences are often among the shorter paths (though not the shortest - Figure 2 provides a counterexample). For efficiency, we select the $K$ shortest path groups and train a T5-based behavior cloning transformer individually on each, assessing the model performance on 100 unseen game variations from the development set. The process continues until we identify a group surpassing a predefined performance threshold $T$ . If no single group meets this early stopping criterion, we attempt to merge path groups to discover higher-scoring combinations, detailed further in APPENDIX C.2.1. + +Incremental Path Crawling: Reinforcement learning problems can offer sparse or dense rewards. To minimize the search space and the total number of path groups to evaluate, we initially crawl and assess paths up to the first reward instance. Upon identifying a path group with gener + +alizable performance to this point, the model continues path crawling, commencing with this macro-action sequence and assessing generality until the next reward signal. This cycle persists until reaching a winning state, effectively segmenting the task into subtasks demarcated by non-zero rewards. + +Benchmarks: Our exploration of using path crawling for generating self-supervised training data spans three benchmark text games. TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) (Murugesan et al., 2021) tasks agents with assigning household items (e.g. a dirty shirt) to their canonical locations (e.g. a washing machine). ARITHMETIC engages agents in a math problem, followed by a pick-and-place task using the calculated result. SORTING requires agents to arrange objects by quantity. Each game presents parametric variations altering the environment and task-specific objects across episodes. For all experiments, we generate distinct training, development, and test sets, each with 100 variations of each game. Objects crucial to tasks are unique across sets. Refer to the APPENDIX for game specifics and playthrough examples. + +# 3 Models + +We assess four models to showcase the effectiveness of the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer. Further model details and hyperparameters can be found in the APPENDIX. + +Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This supervised baseline employs a sequence-to-sequence model that packs the game task description, current and previous observations, and prior action into a prompt, while training it to generate the agent's next action. Gold paths for training are generated by gold agents. At inference time candidate next-actions are generated using beam search, and the first valid action is used. For efficiency, all reported experiments employ the T5-BASE (220M parameter) model (Raffel et al., 2020). + +Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This model, the focus of our work, parallels the supervised transformer, with the exception being its training data is generated via the path crawling method described in Section 2. + +Additional comparisons: Although our aim is to showcase behavior cloning self-supervision, we offer additional baselines to contextualize the results. The DRRN (He et al., 2016) is a strong reinforcement learning baseline that separately encodes + +
BenchmarkDRRN +BaselineGPT-4 +BaselineBehavior Cloned +SupervisedTransformer +Self-Supervised
ScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreSteps
Arithmetic0.17100.76150.5450.445
Sorting0.03210.0470.7270.596
TWC0.57270.9060.9060.8915
Average0.26190.5790.7260.649
+ +Table 1: Model performance across three text game benchmarks, assessed on 100 unseen parametric test set variations. The score (0-1) represents game progress, while steps denote the average game steps taken to reach a final state—lower is better. The self-supervised transformer closely mirrors the supervised model's performance, marginally surpasses the GPT-4 baseline, and significantly outperforms the DRRN reinforcement learning baseline. + +observations and actions into different embedding spaces, then learns a policy that selects actions at each step that maximize reward. Despite its age, the DRRN maintains near state-of-the-art performance across many text game benchmarks (e.g. Xu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022) – see Jansen (2022) for a review. For further context, we include a zero-shot GPT-4 baseline (OpenAI, 2023), a state-of-the-art model with an undisclosed parameter size and training data. More details are provided in the APPENDIX. + +# 4 Results and Discussion + +Table 1 shows the overall performance for all models. The DRRN reinforcement learning baseline yields modest overall performance, scoring an average of 0.26 across all benchmark text games and taking an average of 19 steps per game episode before completion. The supervised behavior cloning transformer significantly outperforms this, achieving a score of 0.72 across all games, effectively tripling task performance while also reducing the average steps required per episode to 6 – though at the expense of requiring gold training data. The GPT-4 baseline underperforms at the sorting game but excels in the other games, resulting in an average score of 0.57 and requiring 9 steps to finish. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer achieves a score of 0.65, equivalent to $90\%$ of the supervised system's performance, but uses entirely self-generated training data. It substantially outperforms the reinforcement learning baseline (which also lacks supervision), improving performance by a factor of 2.5 while generating solutions that are twice as efficient. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer meets or exceeds the GPT-4 baseline on two of three games, despite the significant difference in model size, while only underperforming on the benchmark requiring mathematical + +reasoning – for which smaller models tend to perform poorly (Razeghi et al., 2022). + +How do the trajectories identified by self-supervision compare to gold trajectories? As shown in Table 2, self-supervised paths closely match gold paths, although they occasionally include task-irrelevant actions (e.g. look around) which diminish their efficiency. Given that the behavior cloning method models games as a Markov decision process (limited by input length to depend only on the previous state), these irrelevant actions may hinder the agent's recall of vital action history information, contributing to the slight performance drop compared to the supervised model. + +How can the performance of this method versus the DRRN and GPT-4 be contextualized? Our goal in this work is to demonstrate self-supervision of a behavior cloning transformer using the pathcrawling method described in Section 2. Nevertheless, other baselines offer valuable context. The poor performance of the DRRN, a robust reinforcement learning baseline for text games, underscores the difficulty of exploring expansive search spaces without guiding context – one of the motivating factors towards the application of pretrained language models to guide exploration more effectively. On the other hand, while the GPT-4 model performs comparably to the self-supervised behavior cloning model, it is likely to be at least three orders of magnitude larger. This highlights the potential for small models to perform well given suitable exploration mechanisms. + +How many training examples are required to learn a task? Figure 3 shows the performance of the T5-agent trained with varying numbers of gold trajectories. Generally, task performance increases roughly linearly with the number of training examples provided. An exception to this is the ARITHMETIC game, where nearly all 100 training + +![](images/45178b2c648656b4412ef16664fcd9b8acebdeec43a9ed2f8eba539bb551c68f.jpg) +Figure 3: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying numbers of training examples. Performance is reported on the development set. + +![](images/64d361086bd6a2c7fe0f9c6bbb1319142a2bd8adc35a7a87e6a2a636ae372209.jpg) +Figure 4: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying proportion of gold trajectories interspersed with randomly sampled non-gold trajectories. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 5 runs per data point on the development set. + +examples are needed to gain moderate performance. We hypothesize that this is a result of the pretrained model generally performing poorly at mathematical tasks. These results suggest that, pragmatically, using the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer may be possible with less training data on some environments, while other environments (such as ARITHMETIC) may benefit from more training examples. When using this self-supervised system in practice (i.e. on environments without gold training data), the end user may wish to tune the number of training examples they use as a hyperparameter in their model – though generally, the larger the number available, the more accurately the path crawler will be able to estimate performance. + +How effective is the data grouping method compared to randomly sampled winning trajectory + +
Arithmetic
SSTAKE(X), READ(X), LOOK-AROUND, TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
GoldTAKE(X), READ(X), TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
Sorting
SSTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
GoldTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
Text World Common Sense
SS(TAKE(X), LOOK-AROUND, PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), INVENTORY, OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
Gold(TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
+ +Table 2: Paths identified by our self-supervised method (SS) compared to gold paths for each game, showing that self-supervised paths are nearly identical to gold paths. Paths in parenthesis represent merged path groups. + +ries? How easily can we find generalizable training data for a given game, amongst all its winning trajectories? To investigate this, we trained models with varying amounts of gold (generalizable) trajectories, versus other randomly sampled winning (but typically not generalizable) trajectories. At one extreme, the model is trained using entirely randomly sampled winning trajectories, while at the other extreme, the model is trained entirely using gold trajectories. The results, shown in Figure 4, show that the self-supervision method provides a large benefit, increasing performance between $15\%$ and $43\%$ across all games – highlighting the benefit of our self-supervision method. + +How is this method affected by training hyperparameters? We have observed substantial differences in performance across various training hyperparameters (such as number of training epochs, or training random seed), and suspect part of the difference between supervised and self-supervised performance may be due to these fluctuations. + +# 5 Conclusion + +We present a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, that leverages a process of incremental path crawling in action spaces leading to rewards, while evaluating the generality of groups of crawled paths on unseen games, to generate high-quality training data. Our method achieves comparable performance to models trained on gold trajectories, efficiently exploring the environment without needing human playthroughs or gold agents. Our model excels over a robust reinforcement learning baseline and attains about $90\%$ of supervised models' performance, emphasizing the potential of efficient exploration mechanisms, even for smaller models. + +# Limitations + +We present a method for generating self-supervised training data for behavior cloning transformer models, presented in the context of text games. Behavior cloning transformers (Torabi et al., 2018) and other frameworks for modeling reinforcement learning problems with transformers (including Decision Transformers (Chen et al., 2021) and Trajectory Transformers (Janner et al., 2021)) can outperform other reinforcement learning models in specific contexts, but still face a number of central challenges and limitations that depend upon the complexity of the problem space. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer we present in this work has similar limitations, as well as other limitations that result from the computational complexity of path crawling. + +Large Action Spaces: At each time step, the environment simulator provides a set of valid actions that are possible to take. In text games, this action space frequently contains ten or more actions, each of which typically takes one or two arguments that represent objects in the environment – while extreme cases can contain 70 or more actions, and up to 300 action templates (Hausknecht et al., 2020). As such, action spaces can quickly become large, containing thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of possible valid action-object combinations per step. While reinforcement models typically struggle with exploring these large action spaces resulting in low model performance, the path crawling model presented in this work would struggle to crawl very large action spaces, and may fail to find any winning paths within a given time budget. In practice, with the current model, we have found that action spaces containing approximately 500 valid actions per step are intractable to crawl beyond 3 steps (i.e. above $10^{8}$ states per episode). + +Sparse Rewards: Tasks with sparse rewards are frequently challenging for reinforcement learning models. This work separates path crawling and next-action generation, making problems with moderately sparse rewards (i.e. within 4-5 steps) generally quick to find. However, for tasks with large action spaces and extremely sparse rewards, the path crawling procedure would become intractable. + +Complex, Varied Trajectories: To evaluate path generality, this work groups paths by abstracted parameterized macro-action sequences. In the three benchmark tasks investigated in this work, the tasks + +can be solved by merging a small set of groups (for example, for TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, two groups are required: (1) TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X,Y), which picks up an object, opens its container, then places it in the container, and (2) TAKE(X) PUT(X,Y), for cases where a container doesn't need to be opened, like a table). For more complex tasks that require a large number of different actions to solve across game episodes, this technique would require increasing the amount of training data provided, proportional to the number of groups estimated to be required to solve the task. + +# Ethics Statement + +Broader Impacts: Large language models typically perform complex multi-step inference in a manner that isn't easily possible to inspect or evaluate. Framing tasks as text games in embodied virtual environments helps make the inference steps explicit, such that the choices a model makes at each step are auditable and interpretable. This helps expose potential issues in reasoning in models. For example, language models can correctly answer more than $90\%$ of multiple choice science exam questions, suggesting they can perform complex reasoning, but fail to answer most of those same questions when they are reframed as text games that require explicit multi-step reasoning (Wang et al., 2022). + +Intended Use: This work presents a self-supervised system that generates its own training data based on paths that a language model finds generalizable. If applied more broadly to general reinforcement learning problems apart from text games, the model has the potential to find shortcuts through the action space that lead to task solutions based on a language model's existing competencies, but to do so through biased or harmful means. As such, for tasks that have the possibility of producing harm to specific groups, the training data produced by self-supervision should be manually inspected by a human to evaluate for bias or other potential harms. Because this work groups solutions into abstracted sequences of actions (i.e. path groups with similar solution methods, instantiated with different specific arguments, it may offer a means of inexpensively manually evaluating self-supervised training data – helping speed the identification of bias by streamlining the review of self-supervised training data for tasks modelled using self-supervised behavior cloning models. + +# Acknowledgements + +Thanks to Marc-Alexandre Côté, Raj Ammanabrolu, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Thanks to Dan Yang for drawing the little robot in Figure 1. This work supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) award #1815948 to PJ, and gift from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2). + +# References + +Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. Graph constrained reinforcement learning for natural language action spaces. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Misha Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:15084-15097. +Marc-Alexandre Côté, Akos Kádár, Xingdi Yuan, Ben Kybartas, Tavian Barnes, Emery Fine, James Moore, Matthew Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, et al. 2018. Textworld: A learning environment for text-based games. In Computer Games: 7th Workshop, CGW 2018, Held in Conjunction with the 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 13, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 7, pages 41-75. Springer. +Paul Gelhausen, Marion Fischer, and George Peters. 2022. Affordance extraction with an external knowledge database for text-based simulated environments. ArXiv, abs/2207.00265. +Matthew Hausknecht, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Xingdi Yuan. 2020. Interactive fiction games: A colossal adventure. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):7903-7910. +Ji He, Mari Ostendorf, Xiaodong He, Jianshu Chen, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, and Li Deng. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning with a combinatorial action space for predicting popular Reddit threads. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1838-1848, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Michael Janner, Qiyang Li, and Sergey Levine. 2021. Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Peter Jansen. 2022. A systematic survey of text worlds as embodied natural language environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Wordplay: When Language Meets + +Games Workshop (Wordplay 2022), pages 1-15, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Peter Jansen and Marc-alexandre Cote. 2023. *TextWorldExpress: Simulating text games at one million steps per second.* In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations*, pages 169–177, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyurek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. 2022. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 31199-31212. Curran Associates, Inc. +Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2023. Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17390. +Keerthiram Murugesan, Mattia Atzeni, Pavan Kapanipathi, Pushkar Shukla, Sadhana Kumaravel, Gerald Tesauro, Kartik Talamadupula, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Murray Campbell. 2021. Text-based RL Agents with Commonsense Knowledge: New Challenges, Environments and Baselines. In Thirty Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206. +Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2021. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Ishika Singh, Gargi Singh, and Ashutosh Modi. 2021. Pre-trained language models as prior knowledge for playing text-based games. ArXiv, abs/2107.08408. +Ronen Tamari, Fan Bai, Alan Ritter, and Gabriel Stanovsky. 2021. Process-level representation of scientific protocols with interactive annotation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European + +Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2190-2202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Faraz Torabi, Garrett Warnell, and Peter Stone. 2018. Behavioral cloning from observation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4950-4957. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. + +Jens Tuyls, Shunyu Yao, Sham M. Kakade, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2022. Multi-stage episodic control for strategic exploration in text games. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net. + +Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2022. ScienceWorld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11279-11298, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2023. Behavior cloned transformers are neurosymbolic reasoners. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2777-2788, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yunqiu Xu, Meng Fang, Ling Chen, Yali Du, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Chengqi Zhang. 2020. Deep reinforcement learning with stacked hierarchical attention for text-based games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16495-16507. + +Shunyu Yao, Rohan Rao, Matthew Hausknecht, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2020. Keep CALM and explore: Language models for action generation in text-based games. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8736-8754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Alessandro Sordoni, Romain Laroche, Rémi Tachet des Combes, Matthew J. Hausknecht, and Adam Trischler. 2018. Counting to explore and generalize in text-based games. ArXiv, abs/1806.11525. + +# A Additional Experiment Information + +The heuristic method we employ investigates shorter paths (i.e. macro-action sequences that take fewer actions to reach reward states) first. After grouping paths, the number of initial groups to explore for each game is 112 for TWC, 220 for ARITHMETIC, and 7 for SORTING. + +# Text World Common Sense (TWC) Game + +Task Description: Your task is to pick up objects, then place them in their usual locations in the environment. +You are in the bedroom. In one part of the room you see a wardrobe that is closed. There is also a desk chair, that has nothing on it. You also see a dressing table, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a chest of drawers that is closed. In one part of the room you see a bed, that has nothing on it. There is also a desk, that has nothing on it. You also see a night stand, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a clean brown shirt. +Inventory: Your inventory is currently empty. +> take clean brown shirt +You take the clean brown shirt. +Inventory: +a clean brown shirt +> open wardrobe +You open the wardrobe. It's empty inside. Inventory: a clean brown shirt $>$ put clean brown in wardrobe +Game completed. + +Table 3: An example of a TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects and target locations are bolded, while distractor locations are underlined. + +# B Environments + +# B.1 Text World Common Sense (TWC) + +TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (Murugesan et al., 2021) is a common sense reasoning benchmark in which the agent needs to collect items in a household environment and put them in their cannonical ("common-sense") locations. In the experiments reported in this paper, we generate parametric episodes containing a single room with one target item in it, roughly corresponding to the "easy" setting in Murugesan et al. (2021). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for picking up the target item, then an additional 0.5 score for putting that object in the correct location. An example playthrough of TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE is shown in Table 3. + +# B.2 Arithmetic + +The ARITHMETIC game requires the agent to read then answer an arithmetic question (e.g. add 42 and 9), then put an item from the environment whose quantity matches the answer (e.g. 51 pineapples) into a container called the answer box. Each episode contains a number of distractor items whose quantity corresponds to performing the arithmetic incorrectly (e.g. 33 peaches, corresponds to subtracting 9 from 42). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for first reading the math problem, and will + +# Arithmetic Game + +Task Description: Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box. + +You are in the laundry room. In one part of the room you see a bench that has 378 apples on it. There is also a laundry basket that has 51 pineapples, 4 bananas, and 16 oranges on it. You also see a work table that has 33 peaches, and 26 strawberries on it. In another part of the room you see a washing machine that is closed. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a clothes drier that is closed. Inventory: + +Your inventory is currently empty. + +$>$ take math problem + +You take the math problem. + +Inventory: + +a math problem + +> read math problem + +Your task is to solve the following math problem: add 42 and 9. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the answer, and place it in the box. Inventory: + +a math problem + +$>$ take 51 pineapples + +You take the 51 pineapples. + +Inventory: + +a math problem + +51 pineapples + +> put 51 pineapples in box + +Game completed. + +Table 4: An example ARITHMETIC game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded, while distractor objects are underlined. + +receive a full score of 1.0 for placing the correct item into the answer box, regardless of whether it first reads the math problem or not. Placing incorrect items into the answer box will immediately result in task failure. An example playthrough of ARITHMETIC is shown in Table 4. + +# B.3 Sorting + +In the SORTING game, the agent needs to place items of different quantities into a special container (the answer box) in ascending order. For most parametric episodes, the item quantities include the additional challenge of containing different units (e.g. $23mg$ of oak vs $2g$ of marble) that the agent needs to interpret and normalize to correctly solve the task. Episodes randomly contain between 3 and 5 items that need to be sorted. The agent receives a partial reward $(1/\# items)$ each time it places the correct object (i.e. next-largest quantity) into the answer box. The task fails any time it places items in the answer box in an incorrect order. An example playthrough of SORTING is shown in Table 5. + +# Sorting Game + +Task Description: Your task is to sort objects by quantity. First, place the object with the smallest quantity in the box. Then, place the objects with the next smallest quantity in the box, and repeat until all objects have been placed in the box. + +You are in the living room. In one part of the room you see a TV stand that has 23mg of oak on it. There is also a coffee table, that has nothing on it. You also see a book case, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a box, that is empty. In one part of the room you see a sofa that has 2g of marble on it. There is also a end table that has 38mg of marble on it. You also see a arm chair that has 39mg of wood on it. In another part of the room you see a wastepaper basket that is closed. In one part of the room you see a side table that has 9g of oak on it. Inventory: + +Your inventory is currently empty. + +$>$ take $23\mathrm{mg}$ of oak + +You take the $23\mathrm{mg}$ of oak. + +Inventory: + +23mg of oak + +> put 23mg of oak in box + +You put the $23\mathrm{mg}$ of oak in the box. + +Inventory: + +Your inventory is currently empty. + +>take 38mg of marble + +You take the $38\mathrm{mg}$ of marble. + +Inventory: + +38mg of marble + +>put $38\mathrm{mg}$ of marble in box + +You put the $38\mathrm{mg}$ of marble in the box. + +Inventory: + +Your inventory is currently empty. + +$>$ take $39mg$ of wood + +You take the $39\mathrm{mg}$ of wood. + +Inventory: + +39mg of wood + +> put 39mg of wood in box + +You put the $39\mathrm{mg}$ of wood in the box. + +Inventory: + +Your inventory is currently empty. + +$>$ take $2g$ of marble + +You take the $2\mathrm{g}$ of marble. + +Inventory: + +2g of marble + +> put 2g of marble in box + +Game completed. + +Table 5: An example SORTING game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded. + +# C Baselines + +# C.1 Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer + +The input (prompt) of the T5 model is formatted as: + +d $< / \mathbf{s}>$ OBS $o_t < / \mathbf{s}>$ INV $o_t^{inv}< / \mathbf{s}>$ LOOK $o_t^{look}$ $< / \mathbf{s}>$ $ PACT $a_{t - 1} < / \mathbf{s}>$ POBS $o_{t - 1} < / \mathbf{s}>$ + +where $\langle \mathbf{\partial} / \mathbf{s}\rangle$ is the special token for separator and is the special token for the mask of text to generate used by the T5 model. $d$ is the task description. $o_t, o_t^{inv}, o_t^{look}, a_{t-1}$ , and $o_{t-1}$ represent the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by + +the action "look around", last action, and last observation respectively. The separators OBS, INV, LOOK, PACT, and POBS are their corresponding special tokens. + +During development, we train the behavior cloning T5-BASE model from 2 to 20 epochs, then choose the model that achieves the highest development score for testing. The models are tested on 100 unseen test variations to get the final performance. All three game environments have a step limit of 50 steps, which means if an agent does not complete within 50 steps, the score at the last step will be considered as the final score and the environment will be reset. + +The T5 model is trained on gold paths generated by gold agents provided by the TEXTWORLDEX- EXPRESS simulator. At inference time, the a prompt is encoded from the observation of the current game state, and possible candidate next-actions are generated using beam search. We use a beam size of 8 and select the first valid action. If no valid actions are present, the model picks the valid action from the game environment with the highest non-zero unigram overlap to the candidate actions generated during beam search. + +# C.2 Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer + +During the group evaluation stage, we take the top 10 shortest paths to evaluate for all three games. To vastly reduce computation time, the behavior cloning T5-models are not tuned but rather trained statically for 20 epochs for each path group. Performance is evaluated on 100 unseen development variations. The input strings are formatted the same as the supervised behavior cloning transformer. A group that achieves a development score higher than a threshold $T$ will be accepted. In our experiments, we use $T = 0.95$ for the TEXTWORLD COMMONSENSE, $T = 0.4$ for the ARITHMETIC game, and $T = 0.5$ for the SORTING game. In practice, one cycle of training a behavior cloning agent on a candidate set of paths then evaluating on 100 unseen development variations takes approximately 12 minutes on desktop hardware (i.e. RTX 4090), allowing experiments to complete in approximately 2 to 4 hours. + +# C.2.1 Merging Multiple Solution Paths + +Frequently, games may not be solvable with paths from a single group. For example, in TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, some items require that their + +container be opened before they can be placed inside (i.e. TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X, Y)), while others can be directly placed in their winning locations (e.g. TAKE(X) PUT(X, Y)). Where a single path group does not solve all development variations, we take training data from the highest-performing variations of multiple path groups, and use these to assemble a final higher-performing training set. + +We take the top 5 performing groups based on their development scores and combine each two of them to get 10 merged groups (i.e. $\binom{5}{2}$ ). Trivially combining the training data from multiple groups does not work well, because each of these groups may contain both generalizable paths, as well as paths that fail to generalize on episodes where another group of data is effective. Instead, we combine groups by choosing individual trajectories from each group that perform well on their respective development episodes. If two groups have paths that perform well for a given development episode, we choose the trajectory that has the highest development score. While this method has the benefit of being pragmatic (i.e. it chooses to combine paths that perform well empirically), it presents the challenge of potentially overfitting on the unseen development set, which may limit ultimate generality when the model is eventually evaluated on the test set. To mitigate this, when groups need to be merged, we flip the training and development sets, so that the path crawler is always generating hypotheses on one set, and evaluating them on a different, unseen set. We ultimately choose the merged group with the highest score on the development set as the final training set, and use this to generate final performance figures on the unseen training set. + +# C.3 Deep Reinforcement Relevance Network (DRRN) + +We make use of an existing benchmark implementation of the DRRN model3. At each time step, the task description, observation, agent inventory information, and room description are appended into a single string (as in the case of the behavior cloning models) and encoded by a GRU. Valid actions at each step are encoded by a separate GRU. A Q-network, which consists of two linear layers, estimates the Q-value of each action using the encoded observation-action pair. The action with the + +highest estimated Q-value will be chosen as the next action. We trained the DRRN for 100K steps. 16 environments are trained in parallel. The final results represent the average performance of 5 different models trained using different starting random seeds. + +# C.4 GPT-4 + +The prompt of the GPT-4 agent includes the all the information in the behavior cloning transformer's prompt, which are the task description, the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by the "look around" action, the last action, and the last observation. We also offer a full list of valid actions at each step and ask GPT-4 to choose one action from the list. An example of the prompt used for the GPT-4 agent is found below: + +# GPT-4 Agent Prompt + +You are playing a text game. Choose the proper action from the list of valid actions to win the game. + +Task description: + +Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box. + +Observation: + +You take the math problem. + +You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it. + +Inventory: + +a math problem + +Previous observation: + +You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it. + +Previous action: + +take math problem + +Here are all the valid actions. Your response should be one of them: + +inventory,take 88 eggplants,put math problem in box,take 29 blueberries,take 46 peas,look around,take 22 cabbages,take 17 peppers,take 42 avocados,read math problem,put math problem in showcase + +# D Additional Error Analyses + +Why does GPT-4 perform poorly in the SORTING game? In the SORTING game, an agent needs to put 3-5 objects into the answer box in order. In most of its error cases, the GPT-4 agent puts the first one or two objects into the answer box correctly, but it forgets what it did later and takes objects from the answer box out and put them back in a wrong order. This suggests that this GPT-4 agent does not have a good long-term memory of + +the task. + +Why does the self-supervised model need much more steps to win in the TWC game? In the TWC games, agents will not fail immediately if it puts an object at a wrong location. While the self-supervised achieved a similar score on the TWC task, it makes more wrong decisions during the process, resulting in a larger number of steps required to complete the task. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/images.zip b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbfdde24356969603430d3ac49043697c4de64b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ff9d99e6f447b661c6c1d26118980aa9023531f58104e0235ff3ee2c3a003754 +size 315212 diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/layout.json b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9ac5c333d4b7d75730e45dc3c3c58512af4addc --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8327 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 75, + 454, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 75, + 454, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 75, + 454, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Supervised Behavior Cloned Transformers are Path Crawlers for Text Games" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 131, + 383, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 131, + 383, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 214, + 131, + 383, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruoyao Wang and Peter Jansen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 146, + 366, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 146, + 366, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 146, + 366, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Arizona, USA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 159, + 397, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 159, + 397, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 159, + 397, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ruoyaowang,pajansen}@arizona.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we introduce a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, which are challenging benchmarks for multi-step reasoning in virtual environments. Traditionally, Behavior Cloning Transformers excel in such tasks but rely on supervised training data. Our approach auto-generates training data by exploring trajectories (defined by common macro-action sequences) that lead to reward within the games, while determining the generality and utility of these trajectories by rapidly training small models then evaluating their performance on unseen development games. Through empirical analysis, we show our method consistently uncovers generalizable training data, achieving about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 452 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performance of supervised systems across three benchmark text games." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 463, + 154, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 463, + 154, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 463, + 154, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Complex tasks often involve decomposing problems into sequential steps to accomplish a goal. This is particularly the case for text games, which are interactive virtual environments where an agent progressively selects actions until a task is complete. Examples of such tasks range from cooking a recipe (Côté et al., 2018), finding a treasure (Yuan et al., 2018), executing a science experiment (Tamari et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022), to evaluating common sense reasoning (Shridhar et al., 2021; Murugesan et al., 2021; Gelhausen et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text game agents are frequently modeled using reinforcement learning (e.g. He et al., 2016; Ammanabrolu and Hausknecht, 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021; Tuyls et al., 2022), wherein an agent explores an environment with the goal of learning a policy that chooses actions leading to reward and task completion. More recently, text game agents recast reinforcement learning as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 210, + 518, + 439 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 210, + 518, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 210, + 518, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 210, + 518, + 439 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b0732bfbb8a1f26c95ef8081b6320be00f788f92fbf381ab2a43a7bcc1e1af46.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 527, + 530 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 527, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 527, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An overview of our approach. Initially, game trajectories from the current state are extracted up to a specified horizon, which extends to the first reward. The generality of these paths is assessed by training a compact T5 model and evaluating its performance on unseen development games. High-performing trajectories are subsequently extended through further exploration in an iterative process until the game is ultimately completed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sequence-to-sequence problems using architectures like the Behavior Cloning Transformer (Torabi et al., 2018) to leverage the inference capability and robustness of modern transformers (Wang et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2023). In this setup, the transformer is provided with an environment observation as input, and produces a string indicating the next action to take as output. A consequence of this reformulation is that, rather than exploring their environments, behavior cloning transformers require supervised training data, necessitating generating human gold playthroughs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 1, we present our approach to overcome this data supervision limitation by automatically crawling, grouping, and evaluating candidate paths that can serve as useful and generalizable training data. By rapidly evaluating these candidi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Released as open source: https://github.com/cognitiveailab/pathfinding-r1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5555" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5555-5565" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 84, + 485, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 71, + 483, + 80 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 71, + 483, + 80 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 71, + 483, + 80 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arithmetie Game: Your task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 84, + 485, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 84, + 485, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 84, + 485, + 364 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ce806cd6db18124f71407ffe1bc7a8d9434259cedc9e35f9d256285d99a282c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 525, + 410 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 525, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Two example path groups from the Arithmetic game, emphasizing that not all high-scoring paths serve as useful training data. Paths having the same macro-action sequence from parametric game variations are grouped together, as depicted above. These examples underscore the concept that shorter, quicker paths, like the one at the bottom, may lack generalizability, leading to poor model performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 426, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "date sets of training data by training small models, we show how the performance of those models on unseen development games can be used as a self-supervision signal to help guide further path crawling, and discover useful training data automatically. This approach is validated on three benchmark games from the TEXTWORLDEXPRESS simulator (Jansen and Cote, 2023). Our contributions include: (1) demonstrating generating self-supervised training data through crawling, grouping, and evaluating game trajectories, (2) using the performance of small rapidly-trained models as self-supervision signals, and (3) developing heuristic methods to align and merge training data, reducing the task search space and ultimate training costs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 140, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 140, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 140, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1 provides an overview of our approach. The goal of our work is to find a set of generalizable training data that can be a substitute for human gold playthroughs of text games, and suitable for training a behavior cloning transformer agent. While simply exhaustively pathcrawling all possible trajectories in a game offers a method to find winning paths, not all winning paths are gener" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "alizable (see Figure 2), so such a method would yield poor training data, while also being computationally expensive. Here, we show that by training small models on candidate training data, and evaluating performance on unseen development games, we can quickly evaluate the generalizability of that data. In terms of tractability, by iteratively pathcrawling only up to the next reward, and then continuing pathcrawling only from the most generalizable paths, we can limit the size of the search to only paths most likely to be generalizable and form quality training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 526, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 526, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 526, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we use text games that have parametric variations of each task, such as different math problems to solve for an arithmetic game, which is standard practice for evaluating a model's generalization ability (e.g., Côté et al., 2018; Murugesan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "**Path Crawling:** Our process begins with a path crawler exploring all potential trajectories in a game from the start state until achieving non-zero reward or reaching a limited horizon. This crawler also navigates multiple parametric game variations, each with distinct objectives, such as making a stirfry versus baking a cake in a cooking game." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5556" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Path Grouping into Parameterized Macro-Action Sequences: Text game actions consist of a command verb (e.g., take, put, open) with one (e.g. open closet) or two (e.g. put apple in cupboard) arguments, where a sequence of actions (i.e. a full or partial playthrough) is called a trajectory. When creating candidate training sets for the behavior cloning transformer, we attempt to group together trajectories that – as best as we can tell – appear to solve different parametric variations of a game using roughly the same sequence of actions. We do this by abstracting the trajectories into variabilized action sequences. For example, in the TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE game, a trajectory such as “take hat”, “put hat on hat rack” from one variation, and “take dirty shirt”, “put dirty shirt in washer” from another variation, could both be abstracted into the same parameterized macro-action sequence “TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y)”. We call a set of trajectories from different game variations that can all be described using the same parameterized macro-action sequence a path group. In the experiments reported below, path groups are typically created by grouping paths from 100 training variations of a game." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluating Path Groups: The above process yields " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " path groups, each representing a unique parameterized macro-action sequence. These groups provide the training data for a behavior cloning model. Although " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is typically large, we've observed that generalizable sequences are often among the shorter paths (though not the shortest - Figure 2 provides a counterexample). For efficiency, we select the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shortest path groups and train a T5-based behavior cloning transformer individually on each, assessing the model performance on 100 unseen game variations from the development set. The process continues until we identify a group surpassing a predefined performance threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 414, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If no single group meets this early stopping criterion, we attempt to merge path groups to discover higher-scoring combinations, detailed further in APPENDIX C.2.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Incremental Path Crawling: Reinforcement learning problems can offer sparse or dense rewards. To minimize the search space and the total number of path groups to evaluate, we initially crawl and assess paths up to the first reward instance. Upon identifying a path group with gener" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "alizable performance to this point, the model continues path crawling, commencing with this macro-action sequence and assessing generality until the next reward signal. This cycle persists until reaching a winning state, effectively segmenting the task into subtasks demarcated by non-zero rewards." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benchmarks: Our exploration of using path crawling for generating self-supervised training data spans three benchmark text games. TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) (Murugesan et al., 2021) tasks agents with assigning household items (e.g. a dirty shirt) to their canonical locations (e.g. a washing machine). ARITHMETIC engages agents in a math problem, followed by a pick-and-place task using the calculated result. SORTING requires agents to arrange objects by quantity. Each game presents parametric variations altering the environment and task-specific objects across episodes. For all experiments, we generate distinct training, development, and test sets, each with 100 variations of each game. Objects crucial to tasks are unique across sets. Refer to the APPENDIX for game specifics and playthrough examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 397, + 362, + 410 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 397, + 362, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 397, + 362, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 527, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 527, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 527, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We assess four models to showcase the effectiveness of the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer. Further model details and hyperparameters can be found in the APPENDIX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This supervised baseline employs a sequence-to-sequence model that packs the game task description, current and previous observations, and prior action into a prompt, while training it to generate the agent's next action. Gold paths for training are generated by gold agents. At inference time candidate next-actions are generated using beam search, and the first valid action is used. For efficiency, all reported experiments employ the T5-BASE (220M parameter) model (Raffel et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 526, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 526, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 526, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer: This model, the focus of our work, parallels the supervised transformer, with the exception being its training data is generated via the path crawling method described in Section 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additional comparisons: Although our aim is to showcase behavior cloning self-supervision, we offer additional baselines to contextualize the results. The DRRN (He et al., 2016) is a strong reinforcement learning baseline that separately encodes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2An analysis of performance versus number of parametric variations included in training is provided in the APPENDIX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5557" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 164 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
BenchmarkDRRN \nBaselineGPT-4 \nBaselineBehavior Cloned \nSupervisedTransformer \nSelf-Supervised
ScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreStepsScoreSteps
Arithmetic0.17100.76150.5450.445
Sorting0.03210.0470.7270.596
TWC0.57270.9060.9060.8915
Average0.26190.5790.7260.649
", + "image_path": "9ecf19e853641072aa5a9c9b779852c4e8fa3008826855ff73ff6492d985c3aa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Model performance across three text game benchmarks, assessed on 100 unseen parametric test set variations. The score (0-1) represents game progress, while steps denote the average game steps taken to reach a final state—lower is better. The self-supervised transformer closely mirrors the supervised model's performance, marginally surpasses the GPT-4 baseline, and significantly outperforms the DRRN reinforcement learning baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 385 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "observations and actions into different embedding spaces, then learns a policy that selects actions at each step that maximize reward. Despite its age, the DRRN maintains near state-of-the-art performance across many text game benchmarks (e.g. Xu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022) – see Jansen (2022) for a review. For further context, we include a zero-shot GPT-4 baseline (OpenAI, 2023), a state-of-the-art model with an undisclosed parameter size and training data. More details are provided in the APPENDIX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 206, + 410 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 206, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 206, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 shows the overall performance for all models. The DRRN reinforcement learning baseline yields modest overall performance, scoring an average of 0.26 across all benchmark text games and taking an average of 19 steps per game episode before completion. The supervised behavior cloning transformer significantly outperforms this, achieving a score of 0.72 across all games, effectively tripling task performance while also reducing the average steps required per episode to 6 – though at the expense of requiring gold training data. The GPT-4 baseline underperforms at the sorting game but excels in the other games, resulting in an average score of 0.57 and requiring 9 steps to finish. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer achieves a score of 0.65, equivalent to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the supervised system's performance, but uses entirely self-generated training data. It substantially outperforms the reinforcement learning baseline (which also lacks supervision), improving performance by a factor of 2.5 while generating solutions that are twice as efficient. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer meets or exceeds the GPT-4 baseline on two of three games, despite the significant difference in model size, while only underperforming on the benchmark requiring mathematical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 526, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 526, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 236, + 526, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "reasoning – for which smaller models tend to perform poorly (Razeghi et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 526, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How do the trajectories identified by self-supervision compare to gold trajectories? As shown in Table 2, self-supervised paths closely match gold paths, although they occasionally include task-irrelevant actions (e.g. look around) which diminish their efficiency. Given that the behavior cloning method models games as a Markov decision process (limited by input length to depend only on the previous state), these irrelevant actions may hinder the agent's recall of vital action history information, contributing to the slight performance drop compared to the supervised model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How can the performance of this method versus the DRRN and GPT-4 be contextualized? Our goal in this work is to demonstrate self-supervision of a behavior cloning transformer using the pathcrawling method described in Section 2. Nevertheless, other baselines offer valuable context. The poor performance of the DRRN, a robust reinforcement learning baseline for text games, underscores the difficulty of exploring expansive search spaces without guiding context – one of the motivating factors towards the application of pretrained language models to guide exploration more effectively. On the other hand, while the GPT-4 model performs comparably to the self-supervised behavior cloning model, it is likely to be at least three orders of magnitude larger. This highlights the potential for small models to perform well given suitable exploration mechanisms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How many training examples are required to learn a task? Figure 3 shows the performance of the T5-agent trained with varying numbers of gold trajectories. Generally, task performance increases roughly linearly with the number of training examples provided. An exception to this is the ARITHMETIC game, where nearly all 100 training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5558" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 77, + 281, + 223 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 77, + 281, + 223 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 77, + 281, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 77, + 281, + 223 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "45178b2c648656b4412ef16664fcd9b8acebdeec43a9ed2f8eba539bb551c68f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 290, + 276 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 290, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying numbers of training examples. Performance is reported on the development set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 285, + 440 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 285, + 440 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 285, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 285, + 440 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "64d361086bd6a2c7fe0f9c6bbb1319142a2bd8adc35a7a87e6a2a636ae372209.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 510 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Performance of the supervised behavior cloning agent on each of the three benchmark games, when trained with varying proportion of gold trajectories interspersed with randomly sampled non-gold trajectories. Error bars represent the standard deviation of 5 runs per data point on the development set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "examples are needed to gain moderate performance. We hypothesize that this is a result of the pretrained model generally performing poorly at mathematical tasks. These results suggest that, pragmatically, using the self-supervised behavior cloning transformer may be possible with less training data on some environments, while other environments (such as ARITHMETIC) may benefit from more training examples. When using this self-supervised system in practice (i.e. on environments without gold training data), the end user may wish to tune the number of training examples they use as a hyperparameter in their model – though generally, the larger the number available, the more accurately the path crawler will be able to estimate performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How effective is the data grouping method compared to randomly sampled winning trajectory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 523, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 523, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 523, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 523, + 195 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Arithmetic
SSTAKE(X), READ(X), LOOK-AROUND, TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
GoldTAKE(X), READ(X), TAKE(Y), PUT(Y, Z)
Sorting
SSTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
GoldTAKE(X), PUT(X, Y), TAKE(Z), PUT(Z, Y), TAKE(A), ...
Text World Common Sense
SS(TAKE(X), LOOK-AROUND, PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), INVENTORY, OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
Gold(TAKE(X), PUT(X, Y))
(TAKE(X), OPEN(Y), PUT(X, Y))
", + "image_path": "c76ebd619c44dc84943242404aa73cc225600eb9bf581ccdf08aba305ff08d9d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 525, + 245 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 525, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 525, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Paths identified by our self-supervised method (SS) compared to gold paths for each game, showing that self-supervised paths are nearly identical to gold paths. Paths in parenthesis represent merged path groups." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ries? How easily can we find generalizable training data for a given game, amongst all its winning trajectories? To investigate this, we trained models with varying amounts of gold (generalizable) trajectories, versus other randomly sampled winning (but typically not generalizable) trajectories. At one extreme, the model is trained using entirely randomly sampled winning trajectories, while at the other extreme, the model is trained entirely using gold trajectories. The results, shown in Figure 4, show that the self-supervision method provides a large benefit, increasing performance between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "43\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 260, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " across all games – highlighting the benefit of our self-supervision method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 525, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How is this method affected by training hyperparameters? We have observed substantial differences in performance across various training hyperparameters (such as number of training epochs, or training random seed), and suspect part of the difference between supervised and self-supervised performance may be due to these fluctuations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 381, + 574 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 381, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 561, + 381, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a self-supervised behavior cloning transformer for text games, that leverages a process of incremental path crawling in action spaces leading to rewards, while evaluating the generality of groups of crawled paths on unseen games, to generate high-quality training data. Our method achieves comparable performance to models trained on gold trajectories, efficiently exploring the environment without needing human playthroughs or gold agents. Our model excels over a robust reinforcement learning baseline and attains about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of supervised models' performance, emphasizing the potential of efficient exploration mechanisms, even for smaller models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5559" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 130, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 130, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 130, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 93, + 291, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 93, + 291, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 93, + 291, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a method for generating self-supervised training data for behavior cloning transformer models, presented in the context of text games. Behavior cloning transformers (Torabi et al., 2018) and other frameworks for modeling reinforcement learning problems with transformers (including Decision Transformers (Chen et al., 2021) and Trajectory Transformers (Janner et al., 2021)) can outperform other reinforcement learning models in specific contexts, but still face a number of central challenges and limitations that depend upon the complexity of the problem space. The self-supervised behavior cloning transformer we present in this work has similar limitations, as well as other limitations that result from the computational complexity of path crawling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 291, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 291, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 291, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Action Spaces: At each time step, the environment simulator provides a set of valid actions that are possible to take. In text games, this action space frequently contains ten or more actions, each of which typically takes one or two arguments that represent objects in the environment – while extreme cases can contain 70 or more actions, and up to 300 action templates (Hausknecht et al., 2020). As such, action spaces can quickly become large, containing thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of possible valid action-object combinations per step. While reinforcement models typically struggle with exploring these large action spaces resulting in low model performance, the path crawling model presented in this work would struggle to crawl very large action spaces, and may fail to find any winning paths within a given time budget. In practice, with the current model, we have found that action spaces containing approximately 500 valid actions per step are intractable to crawl beyond 3 steps (i.e. above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 291, + 598 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10^{8}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 291, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " states per episode)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 291, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 291, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 605, + 291, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sparse Rewards: Tasks with sparse rewards are frequently challenging for reinforcement learning models. This work separates path crawling and next-action generation, making problems with moderately sparse rewards (i.e. within 4-5 steps) generally quick to find. However, for tasks with large action spaces and extremely sparse rewards, the path crawling procedure would become intractable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Complex, Varied Trajectories: To evaluate path generality, this work groups paths by abstracted parameterized macro-action sequences. In the three benchmark tasks investigated in this work, the tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "can be solved by merging a small set of groups (for example, for TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, two groups are required: (1) TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X,Y), which picks up an object, opens its container, then places it in the container, and (2) TAKE(X) PUT(X,Y), for cases where a container doesn't need to be opened, like a table). For more complex tasks that require a large number of different actions to solve across game episodes, this technique would require increasing the amount of training data provided, proportional to the number of groups estimated to be required to solve the task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 244, + 392, + 257 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 244, + 392, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 244, + 392, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 266, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 266, + 526, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 266, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Broader Impacts: Large language models typically perform complex multi-step inference in a manner that isn't easily possible to inspect or evaluate. Framing tasks as text games in embodied virtual environments helps make the inference steps explicit, such that the choices a model makes at each step are auditable and interpretable. This helps expose potential issues in reasoning in models. For example, language models can correctly answer more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 266, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 266, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of multiple choice science exam questions, suggesting they can perform complex reasoning, but fail to answer most of those same questions when they are reframed as text games that require explicit multi-step reasoning (Wang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intended Use: This work presents a self-supervised system that generates its own training data based on paths that a language model finds generalizable. If applied more broadly to general reinforcement learning problems apart from text games, the model has the potential to find shortcuts through the action space that lead to task solutions based on a language model's existing competencies, but to do so through biased or harmful means. As such, for tasks that have the possibility of producing harm to specific groups, the training data produced by self-supervision should be manually inspected by a human to evaluate for bias or other potential harms. Because this work groups solutions into abstracted sequences of actions (i.e. path groups with similar solution methods, instantiated with different specific arguments, it may offer a means of inexpensively manually evaluating self-supervised training data – helping speed the identification of bias by streamlining the review of self-supervised training data for tasks modelled using self-supervised behavior cloning models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5560" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thanks to Marc-Alexandre Côté, Raj Ammanabrolu, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Thanks to Dan Yang for drawing the little robot in Figure 1. This work supported in part by National Science Foundation (NSF) award #1815948 to PJ, and gift from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 127, + 222 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 127, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 127, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 291, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 228, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prithviraj Ammanabrolu and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. Graph constrained reinforcement learning for natural language action spaces. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Misha Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:15084-15097." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 291, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marc-Alexandre Côté, Akos Kádár, Xingdi Yuan, Ben Kybartas, Tavian Barnes, Emery Fine, James Moore, Matthew Hausknecht, Layla El Asri, Mahmoud Adada, et al. 2018. Textworld: A learning environment for text-based games. In Computer Games: 7th Workshop, CGW 2018, Held in Conjunction with the 27th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, Stockholm, Sweden, July 13, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 7, pages 41-75. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul Gelhausen, Marion Fischer, and George Peters. 2022. Affordance extraction with an external knowledge database for text-based simulated environments. ArXiv, abs/2207.00265." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 526, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 526, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 526, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew Hausknecht, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Xingdi Yuan. 2020. Interactive fiction games: A colossal adventure. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(05):7903-7910." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ji He, Mari Ostendorf, Xiaodong He, Jianshu Chen, Jianfeng Gao, Lihong Li, and Li Deng. 2016. Deep reinforcement learning with a combinatorial action space for predicting popular Reddit threads. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1838-1848, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 686, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Janner, Qiyang Li, and Sergey Levine. 2021. Offline reinforcement learning as one big sequence modeling problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Jansen. 2022. A systematic survey of text worlds as embodied natural language environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Wordplay: When Language Meets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Games Workshop (Wordplay 2022), pages 1-15, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Jansen and Marc-alexandre Cote. 2023. *TextWorldExpress: Simulating text games at one million steps per second.* In *Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations*, pages 169–177, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 199, + 526, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 199, + 526, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 199, + 526, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyurek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. 2022. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 31199-31212. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 526, + 362 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 526, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 295, + 526, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bill Yuchen Lin, Yicheng Fu, Karina Yang, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Faeze Brahman, Shiyu Huang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin Choi, and Xiang Ren. 2023. Swiftsage: A generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17390." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 526, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 526, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keerthiram Murugesan, Mattia Atzeni, Pavan Kapanipathi, Pushkar Shukla, Sadhana Kumaravel, Gerald Tesauro, Kartik Talamadupula, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Murray Campbell. 2021. Text-based RL Agents with Commonsense Knowledge: New Challenges, Environments and Baselines. In Thirty Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 526, + 551 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 526, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 526, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 526, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 526, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2021. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 720 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ishika Singh, Gargi Singh, and Ashutosh Modi. 2021. Pre-trained language models as prior knowledge for playing text-based games. ArXiv, abs/2107.08408." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronen Tamari, Fan Bai, Alan Ritter, and Gabriel Stanovsky. 2021. Process-level representation of scientific protocols with interactive annotation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5561" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2190-2202, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 291, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Faraz Torabi, Garrett Warnell, and Peter Stone. 2018. Behavioral cloning from observation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4950-4957. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 193, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jens Tuyls, Shunyu Yao, Sham M. Kakade, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2022. Multi-stage episodic control for strategic exploration in text games. In *The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations*, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 269, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 269, + 291, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 269, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2022. ScienceWorld: Is your agent smarter than a 5th grader? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11279-11298, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 291, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 291, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruoyao Wang, Peter Jansen, Marc-Alexandre Côté, and Prithviraj Ammanabrolu. 2023. Behavior cloned transformers are neurosymbolic reasoners. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2777-2788, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 446, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 446, + 291, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 446, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yunqiu Xu, Meng Fang, Ling Chen, Yali Du, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Chengqi Zhang. 2020. Deep reinforcement learning with stacked hierarchical attention for text-based games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16495-16507." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 512, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 512, + 291, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 512, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shunyu Yao, Rohan Rao, Matthew Hausknecht, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2020. Keep CALM and explore: Language models for action generation in text-based games. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8736-8754, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 599, + 291, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 599, + 291, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 599, + 291, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Alessandro Sordoni, Romain Laroche, Rémi Tachet des Combes, Matthew J. Hausknecht, and Adam Trischler. 2018. Counting to explore and generalize in text-based games. ArXiv, abs/1806.11525." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 669, + 276, + 683 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 669, + 276, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 669, + 276, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Additional Experiment Information" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The heuristic method we employ investigates shorter paths (i.e. macro-action sequences that take fewer actions to reach reward states) first. After grouping paths, the number of initial groups to explore for each game is 112 for TWC, 220 for ARITHMETIC, and 7 for SORTING." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 74, + 433, + 82 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 74, + 433, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 74, + 433, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text World Common Sense (TWC) Game" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 87, + 524, + 289 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 87, + 524, + 104 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 87, + 524, + 104 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 87, + 524, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task Description: Your task is to pick up objects, then place them in their usual locations in the environment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 111, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 111, + 524, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 111, + 524, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are in the bedroom. In one part of the room you see a wardrobe that is closed. There is also a desk chair, that has nothing on it. You also see a dressing table, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a chest of drawers that is closed. In one part of the room you see a bed, that has nothing on it. There is also a desk, that has nothing on it. You also see a night stand, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a clean brown shirt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 169, + 408, + 192 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 169, + 408, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 169, + 408, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory: Your inventory is currently empty. \n> take clean brown shirt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 399, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 399, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 200, + 399, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the clean brown shirt. \nInventory: \na clean brown shirt \n> open wardrobe" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 240, + 425, + 273 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 240, + 425, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 240, + 425, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You open the wardrobe. It's empty inside. Inventory: a clean brown shirt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 240, + 425, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 240, + 425, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " put clean brown in wardrobe" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 280, + 357, + 289 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 280, + 357, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 280, + 357, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Game completed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: An example of a TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (TWC) game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects and target locations are bolded, while distractor locations are underlined." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 398, + 389 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 398, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 375, + 398, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Environments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 399, + 496, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 399, + 496, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 399, + 496, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 Text World Common Sense (TWC)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 418, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 418, + 526, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 418, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE (Murugesan et al., 2021) is a common sense reasoning benchmark in which the agent needs to collect items in a household environment and put them in their cannonical (\"common-sense\") locations. In the experiments reported in this paper, we generate parametric episodes containing a single room with one target item in it, roughly corresponding to the \"easy\" setting in Murugesan et al. (2021). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for picking up the target item, then an additional 0.5 score for putting that object in the correct location. An example playthrough of TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE is shown in Table 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 384, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 384, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 384, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.2 Arithmetic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ARITHMETIC game requires the agent to read then answer an arithmetic question (e.g. add 42 and 9), then put an item from the environment whose quantity matches the answer (e.g. 51 pineapples) into a container called the answer box. Each episode contains a number of distractor items whose quantity corresponds to performing the arithmetic incorrectly (e.g. 33 peaches, corresponds to subtracting 9 from 42). The agent receives a score of 0.5 for first reading the math problem, and will" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5562" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 126, + 82 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 126, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 126, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arithmetic Game" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 88, + 289, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 88, + 289, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 88, + 289, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task Description: Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 120, + 289, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 120, + 289, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 120, + 289, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are in the laundry room. In one part of the room you see a bench that has 378 apples on it. There is also a laundry basket that has 51 pineapples, 4 bananas, and 16 oranges on it. You also see a work table that has 33 peaches, and 26 strawberries on it. In another part of the room you see a washing machine that is closed. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a clothes drier that is closed. Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 176, + 172, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 176, + 172, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 176, + 172, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 185, + 131, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 185, + 131, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 185, + 131, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 185, + 131, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " take math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 200, + 150, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 200, + 150, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 200, + 150, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the math problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 208, + 102, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 208, + 102, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 208, + 102, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 216, + 121, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 216, + 121, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 216, + 121, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 225, + 132, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 225, + 132, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 225, + 132, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "> read math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 239, + 287, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 239, + 287, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 239, + 287, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your task is to solve the following math problem: add 42 and 9. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the answer, and place it in the box. Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 264, + 121, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 264, + 121, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 264, + 121, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 272, + 131, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 272, + 131, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 272, + 131, + 280 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 272, + 131, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " take 51 pineapples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 287, + 151, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 287, + 151, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 287, + 151, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the 51 pineapples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 102, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 102, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 296, + 102, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 304, + 121, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 304, + 121, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 304, + 121, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 120, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 120, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 120, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "51 pineapples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 320, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 320, + 148, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 320, + 148, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "> put 51 pineapples in box" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 121, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 121, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 121, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Game completed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 355, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 355, + 289, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 355, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: An example ARITHMETIC game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded, while distractor objects are underlined." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 290, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 290, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 290, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "receive a full score of 1.0 for placing the correct item into the answer box, regardless of whether it first reads the math problem or not. Placing incorrect items into the answer box will immediately result in task failure. An example playthrough of ARITHMETIC is shown in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 541, + 132, + 554 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 541, + 132, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 541, + 132, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.3 Sorting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the SORTING game, the agent needs to place items of different quantities into a special container (the answer box) in ascending order. For most parametric episodes, the item quantities include the additional challenge of containing different units (e.g. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "23mg" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of oak vs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of marble) that the agent needs to interpret and normalize to correctly solve the task. Episodes randomly contain between 3 and 5 items that need to be sorted. The agent receives a partial reward " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(1/\\# items)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " each time it places the correct object (i.e. next-largest quantity) into the answer box. The task fails any time it places items in the answer box in an incorrect order. An example playthrough of SORTING is shown in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 74, + 351, + 82 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 74, + 351, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 74, + 351, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sorting Game" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 88, + 523, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 88, + 523, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 88, + 523, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task Description: Your task is to sort objects by quantity. First, place the object with the smallest quantity in the box. Then, place the objects with the next smallest quantity in the box, and repeat until all objects have been placed in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 127, + 524, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 127, + 524, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 127, + 524, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are in the living room. In one part of the room you see a TV stand that has 23mg of oak on it. There is also a coffee table, that has nothing on it. You also see a book case, that has nothing on it. In another part of the room you see a box, that is empty. In one part of the room you see a sofa that has 2g of marble on it. There is also a end table that has 38mg of marble on it. You also see a arm chair that has 39mg of wood on it. In another part of the room you see a wastepaper basket that is closed. In one part of the room you see a side table that has 9g of oak on it. Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 200, + 407, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 200, + 407, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 200, + 407, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 208, + 363, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 208, + 363, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 208, + 363, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 208, + 363, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " take " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 208, + 363, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "23\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 208, + 363, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of oak" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 382, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 382, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 382, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 382, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "23\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 382, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of oak." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 232, + 337, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 232, + 337, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 232, + 337, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 240, + 349, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 240, + 349, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 240, + 349, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "23mg of oak" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 248, + 380, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 248, + 380, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 248, + 380, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "> put 23mg of oak in box" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 264, + 409, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 264, + 409, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 264, + 409, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You put the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 264, + 409, + 272 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "23\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 264, + 409, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of oak in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 272, + 337, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 272, + 337, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 272, + 337, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 280, + 407, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 280, + 407, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 280, + 407, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 288, + 373, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 288, + 373, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 288, + 373, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ">take 38mg of marble" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 303, + 393, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 303, + 393, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 303, + 393, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 303, + 393, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 303, + 393, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of marble." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 337, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 337, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 337, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 320, + 359, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 320, + 359, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 320, + 359, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "38mg of marble" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 327, + 389, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 327, + 389, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 327, + 389, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ">put " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 327, + 389, + 336 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 327, + 389, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of marble in box" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 343, + 420, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 343, + 420, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 343, + 420, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You put the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 343, + 420, + 351 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 343, + 420, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of marble in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 351, + 337, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 351, + 337, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 351, + 337, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 359, + 407, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 359, + 407, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 359, + 407, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 367, + 368, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 367, + 368, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 367, + 368, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 367, + 368, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " take " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 367, + 368, + 375 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "39mg" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 367, + 368, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of wood" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 383, + 387, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 383, + 387, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 383, + 387, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 383, + 387, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "39\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 383, + 387, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of wood." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 391, + 337, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 391, + 337, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 391, + 337, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 44 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 400, + 354, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 400, + 354, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 400, + 354, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "39mg of wood" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 384, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 384, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 384, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "> put 39mg of wood in box" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 414, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 414, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 414, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You put the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 414, + 431 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "39\\mathrm{mg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 414, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of wood in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 431, + 337, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 431, + 337, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 431, + 337, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 48 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 439, + 407, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 439, + 407, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 439, + 407, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your inventory is currently empty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 49 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 448, + 364, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 448, + 364, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 448, + 364, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 448, + 364, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " take " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 448, + 364, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 448, + 364, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of marble" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 50 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 462, + 384, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 462, + 384, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 462, + 384, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 462, + 384, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\mathrm{g}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 462, + 384, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of marble." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 51 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 471, + 337, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 471, + 337, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 471, + 337, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 52 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 479, + 349, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 479, + 349, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 479, + 349, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2g of marble" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 53 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 486, + 380, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 486, + 380, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 486, + 380, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "> put 2g of marble in box" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 54 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 502, + 357, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 502, + 357, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 502, + 357, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Game completed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 55 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 525, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: An example SORTING game. Actions for the solution are italicized. Relevant task objects are bolded." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 56 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 569, + 374, + 581 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 569, + 374, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 569, + 374, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 57 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 469, + 617 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 469, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 469, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1 Supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 58 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The input (prompt) of the T5 model is formatted as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 59 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "d " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< / \\mathbf{s}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " OBS " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_t < / \\mathbf{s}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " INV " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_t^{inv}< / \\mathbf{s}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " LOOK " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_t^{look}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< / \\mathbf{s}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " PACT " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{t - 1} < / \\mathbf{s}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " POBS " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{t - 1} < / \\mathbf{s}>" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 60 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle \\mathbf{\\partial} / \\mathbf{s}\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the special token for separator and is the special token for the mask of text to generate used by the T5 model. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the task description. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_t, o_t^{inv}, o_t^{look}, a_{t-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{t-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 61 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5563" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 62 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the action \"look around\", last action, and last observation respectively. The separators OBS, INV, LOOK, PACT, and POBS are their corresponding special tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During development, we train the behavior cloning T5-BASE model from 2 to 20 epochs, then choose the model that achieves the highest development score for testing. The models are tested on 100 unseen test variations to get the final performance. All three game environments have a step limit of 50 steps, which means if an agent does not complete within 50 steps, the score at the last step will be considered as the final score and the environment will be reset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 291, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 291, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 291, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The T5 model is trained on gold paths generated by gold agents provided by the TEXTWORLDEX- EXPRESS simulator. At inference time, the a prompt is encoded from the observation of the current game state, and possible candidate next-actions are generated using beam search. We use a beam size of 8 and select the first valid action. If no valid actions are present, the model picks the valid action from the game environment with the highest non-zero unigram overlap to the candidate actions generated during beam search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 254, + 445 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 254, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 254, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2 Self-supervised Behavior Cloning Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During the group evaluation stage, we take the top 10 shortest paths to evaluate for all three games. To vastly reduce computation time, the behavior cloning T5-models are not tuned but rather trained statically for 20 epochs for each path group. Performance is evaluated on 100 unseen development variations. The input strings are formatted the same as the supervised behavior cloning transformer. A group that achieves a development score higher than a threshold " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will be accepted. In our experiments, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 0.95" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the TEXTWORLD COMMONSENSE, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 0.4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the ARITHMETIC game, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = 0.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the SORTING game. In practice, one cycle of training a behavior cloning agent on a candidate set of paths then evaluating on 100 unseen development variations takes approximately 12 minutes on desktop hardware (i.e. RTX 4090), allowing experiments to complete in approximately 2 to 4 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 260, + 729 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 260, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 260, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2.1 Merging Multiple Solution Paths" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Frequently, games may not be solvable with paths from a single group. For example, in TEXTWORLD COMMON SENSE, some items require that their" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "container be opened before they can be placed inside (i.e. TAKE(X) OPEN(Y) PUT(X, Y)), while others can be directly placed in their winning locations (e.g. TAKE(X) PUT(X, Y)). Where a single path group does not solve all development variations, we take training data from the highest-performing variations of multiple path groups, and use these to assemble a final higher-performing training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We take the top 5 performing groups based on their development scores and combine each two of them to get 10 merged groups (i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 572 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\binom{5}{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). Trivially combining the training data from multiple groups does not work well, because each of these groups may contain both generalizable paths, as well as paths that fail to generalize on episodes where another group of data is effective. Instead, we combine groups by choosing individual trajectories from each group that perform well on their respective development episodes. If two groups have paths that perform well for a given development episode, we choose the trajectory that has the highest development score. While this method has the benefit of being pragmatic (i.e. it chooses to combine paths that perform well empirically), it presents the challenge of potentially overfitting on the unseen development set, which may limit ultimate generality when the model is eventually evaluated on the test set. To mitigate this, when groups need to be merged, we flip the training and development sets, so that the path crawler is always generating hypotheses on one set, and evaluating them on a different, unseen set. We ultimately choose the merged group with the highest score on the development set as the final training set, and use this to generate final performance figures on the unseen training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 521, + 610 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 521, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 521, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.3 Deep Reinforcement Relevance Network (DRRN)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We make use of an existing benchmark implementation of the DRRN model3. At each time step, the task description, observation, agent inventory information, and room description are appended into a single string (as in the case of the behavior cloning models) and encoded by a GRU. Valid actions at each step are encoded by a separate GRU. A Q-network, which consists of two linear layers, estimates the Q-value of each action using the encoded observation-action pair. The action with the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 471, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 471, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 471, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://github.com/microsoft/tdqn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5564" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "highest estimated Q-value will be chosen as the next action. We trained the DRRN for 100K steps. 16 environments are trained in parallel. The final results represent the average performance of 5 different models trained using different starting random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 163, + 131, + 175 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 163, + 131, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 163, + 131, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.4 GPT-4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 291, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The prompt of the GPT-4 agent includes the all the information in the behavior cloning transformer's prompt, which are the task description, the current observation, current inventory information, current room description obtained by the \"look around\" action, the last action, and the last observation. We also offer a full list of valid actions at each step and ask GPT-4 to choose one action from the list. An example of the prompt used for the GPT-4 agent is found below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 328, + 173, + 339 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 328, + 173, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 328, + 173, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-4 Agent Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 347, + 283, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 347, + 283, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 347, + 283, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are playing a text game. Choose the proper action from the list of valid actions to win the game." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 370, + 129, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 370, + 129, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 370, + 129, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Task description:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 379, + 279, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 379, + 279, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 379, + 279, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your first task is to solve the math problem. Then, pick up the item with the same quantity as the math problem answer, and place it in the box." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 410, + 117, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 410, + 117, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 410, + 117, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Observation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 419, + 160, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 419, + 160, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 419, + 160, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You take the math problem." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 428, + 281, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 428, + 281, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 428, + 281, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 466, + 108, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 466, + 108, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 466, + 108, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inventory:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 475, + 133, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 475, + 133, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 475, + 133, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 490, + 143, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 490, + 143, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 490, + 143, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous observation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 498, + 281, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 498, + 281, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 498, + 281, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are in the supermarket. In one part of the room you see a box, that is empty. There is also a math problem. You also see a showcase that has 29 blueberries, 42 avocados, 22 cabbages, 88 eggplants, 46 peas, and 17 peppers on it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 538, + 126, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 538, + 126, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 538, + 126, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous action:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 546, + 134, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 546, + 134, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 546, + 134, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "take math problem" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 561, + 267, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 561, + 267, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 561, + 267, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here are all the valid actions. Your response should be one of them:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 578, + 282, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 578, + 282, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 578, + 282, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "inventory,take 88 eggplants,put math problem in box,take 29 blueberries,take 46 peas,look around,take 22 cabbages,take 17 peppers,take 42 avocados,read math problem,put math problem in showcase" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 227, + 642 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 227, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 227, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Additional Error Analyses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Why does GPT-4 perform poorly in the SORTING game? In the SORTING game, an agent needs to put 3-5 objects into the answer box in order. In most of its error cases, the GPT-4 agent puts the first one or two objects into the answer box correctly, but it forgets what it did later and takes objects from the answer box out and put them back in a wrong order. This suggests that this GPT-4 agent does not have a good long-term memory of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 342, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 342, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 342, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Why does the self-supervised model need much more steps to win in the TWC game? In the TWC games, agents will not fail immediately if it puts an object at a wrong location. While the self-supervised achieved a similar score on the TWC task, it makes more wrong decisions during the process, resulting in a larger number of steps required to complete the task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5565" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_content_list.json b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fdc33cb7f9be8843172584fd7ed76929c8a0c7b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1690 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 149, + 79, + 847, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shajith Ikbal\\*, Udit Sharma\\*, Hima Karanam\\*, Sumit Neelam†, Ronny Luss‡, Dheeraj Sreedhar†, Pavan Kapanipathi‡, Naweed Khan§, Kyle Erwin§, Ndivhuwo Makondo§, Ibrahim Abdelaziz‡, Achille Fokoue‡, Alexander Gray‡, Maxwell Crouse‡, Subhajit Chaudhury‡, Chitra K Subramanian‡", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 140, + 858, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "IBM Research", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 436, + 225, + 564, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a neuro-symbolic approach to self-learn rules that serve as interpretable knowledge to perform relation linking in knowledge base question answering systems. These rules define natural language text predicates as a weighted mixture of knowledge base paths. The weights learned during training effectively serve the mapping needed to perform relation linking. We use popular masked training strategy to self-learn the rules. A key distinguishing aspect of our work is that the masked training operates over logical forms of the sentence instead of their natural language text form. This offers opportunity to extract extended context information from the structured knowledge source and use that to build robust and human readable rules. We evaluate accuracy and usefulness of such learned rules by utilizing them for prediction of missing kinship relation in CLUTRR dataset and relation linking in a KBQA system using SWQ-WD dataset. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach - its generalizability, interpretability and ability to achieve an average performance gain of $17\\%$ on CLUTRR dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 284, + 460, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 657, + 258, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relation linking is a key step in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks including Semantic Parsing, Triple Extraction, and Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA). Its goal is to accurately map predicate components of a natural language (NL) text segment onto their corresponding predicate (i.e., relational) elements within a knowledge base (KB). Such a mapping would enable question answering systems to exploit the deep", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 684, + 490, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/21199cf5b8d21f2a9975535c8a22e08b9360431090b7328a9256245a966e80d3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Illustration of logical statement of a NL text, masked logical statement, and the grounding (i.e. linking) of unmasked elements of the statement to a knowledge base (Wikidata)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 253, + 882, + 392 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "reasoning capabilities of symbolic systems. For example, by accurately mapping predicate component of the NL text shown in Figure 1, i.e., share-screen, to its corresponding relational elements within KB, we should be able to successfully utilize KBQA systems to answer questions like Whether Kate Winslet shared screen with Leonardo DiCaprio? and Who all have shared screen with Kate Winslet?1. However, learning these mappings is challenging for various reasons: lexical variations, modeling deficiencies to handle complex linking involving multiple KB predicates2, and limited training data to build models in a supervised fashion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 884, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Various approaches have been tried in the past work, including graph-based approaches (Pan et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 697, + 882, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Provided entity mentions in the NL text are also appropriately mapped to their corresponding entity elements in the KB, through entity linking (Wu et al., 2019). For example, in Figure 1, entity mention Kate Winslet in NL text is mapped to corresponding KB (Wikidata) entity wd:Q202765.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 737, + 882, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2On several occasions, there is no single relational element but multiple connected relational elements within the KB that actually correspond to a NL text predicate. These connected relational elements constitute a path within the KB. For example, two connected relational elements as in Figure 3 (i.e., one-hop path involving a reverse KB relation edge cast-member and a forward KB relation edge cast-member) correspond to NL text predicate share-screen. Note that a formal expression of this KB path is given in Figure 2, i.e., cast-member $^{-1}(x,z)$ & cast-member $(z,y)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 797, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{\\dagger}$ IBM Research, Bangalore/Gurugram, India.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 843, + 410, + 856 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{\\ddagger}$ IBM Research, T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, United States.", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 856, + 485, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{\\S}$ IBM Research, Johannesburg, South Africa.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 881, + 411, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Correspondence e-mails: shajmoha@in.ibm.com,udit.sharma@in.ibm.com, hkaranam@in.ibm.com", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 894, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1707", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1707-1718", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 957, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: Illustration of human readable rule for the example shown in Figure 1 and the corresponding extended knowledge base context shown in Figure 3. Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relation) in the rule is denoted by superscript ${}^{-1}$ , as described in Section 3.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 164, + 489, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2019; Dubey et al., 2018), linguistic features based approaches (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020), and recently neural approaches that achieve state-of-the-art performance (Rossiello et al., 2021; Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017). However, these approaches have the following drawbacks: they are (a) data hungry requiring huge amount of supervised data for training, (b) non-interpretable by design, and (c) non-trivial to adapt and generalize to new domains or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that formulates relation linking as a rule learning problem in the space of structured knowledge sources. Our approach tries to learn human readable rules of the form illustrated in Figure 2 and use them to perform relation linking, thus resulting in explainable relation linking model. In contrast to the existing approaches that build linking models in a supervised fashion, we adopt a self-supervised learning approach that offer benefits: does not require annotating large amounts of training data, and offers generalization across domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 490, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For self-supervision we use masked training, a popularly used self-supervised training strategy for large language models. However, in contrast to the use of NL text as in the large language models (LLMs), masked training in our approach operates on logical statements of the sentences. In this work, we use triples extracted from semantically parsed output of the sentences as the logical statements. An example sentence in its NL form and its corresponding triple form (logical statement) are shown in Figure 1. The masking procedure when applied on a triple may end up masking any of the three elements, i.e., subject, object, or predicate. Figure 1 shows an illustration of the predicate component", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "getting masked. Given that the three elements of a triple play different semantic roles, the masked training need to be adapted to suit the role played by the element being masked. As will be seen later in the paper, such differences reflect mainly on the loss computation during training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The main contributions of our work are:", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 181, + 826, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. The first self-supervised rule learning approach that uses an adaptation of masked language objective for logical forms extracted from text. We have applied this to relation linking, a prominent task for understanding natural language.", + "2. The output of our model is completely interpretable; the set of rules obtained to perform relation linking can explain the predictions of the model. An example of a learnt rule for the SWQ dataset is shown in Figure 2.", + "3. We evaluate our approach on two datasets CLUTRR and SWQ demonstrating (a) Generalizability over two different knowledge bases as context on the datasets, (b) Effectiveness of relation linking where results show significant gains (17% gain in average performance) for CLUTRR across different test sets along with superior systematic generalization and competitive results on SWQ, (c) Interpretability, by showing qualitative results of the learnt rules." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 204, + 885, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 588, + 665, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relation linking has been important for various NLP tasks such as semantic parsing, knowledge graph induction (Gardent et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2021; Rossiello et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2020) and knowledge base question answering (Rossiello et al., 2021; Kapanipathi et al., 2020; Neelam et al., 2022). Prior to the surge of generative models, relation linking was addressed either by graph traversal based (Pan et al., 2019; Dubey et al., 2018) or by linguistic-features based methodologies (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020). Several learning based approaches to relation linking have been proposed (Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017; Bornea et al., 2021). Most recent approaches to relation linking have focused on generative models (Rossiello et al., 2021). These approaches are data hungry and non-interpretable. In contrast, our work is a self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking. The learnt rules are", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 613, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Rule: share-screen $\\leftarrow$ w1\\*P161- & P161+)", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 84, + 406, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "cast member $^{-1}(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{z})$ & cast member $(\\mathbf{z},\\mathbf{y})$", + "bbox": [ + 220, + 115, + 460, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Description of the rule: x has shared screen with y if", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 128, + 468, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "x is a cast member of a movie z where y is also a cast member,", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 140, + 495, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{3}$ Triple format: predicate.source entity, destination entity), where source entity and destination entity are also alternatively referred to as subject and object, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1708", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "human readable and they can be learnt for different knowledge bases as context for different domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rule learning, specifically in terms of detecting relations has also been popular for knowledge base completion (KBC) task. KBC problems are addressed in two different ways in the literature. Rule based KBC learns explainable rules that can be used to predict the missing links in the knowledge base (Sen et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017a; Sadeghian et al., 2019; Purgal et al., 2022; Rocktäschel and Riedel, 2017). These rules are learned for predicates in the knowledge base in terms of other predicates and paths in the knowledge base. Our work uses the rule model and some of the ideas from the rule based KBC to build self supervised explainable rules for linking text elements to knowledge base relations. There have also been several learning based methods that use vector embeddings of the entities and relationships and then use them to predict any missing relationships (Nickel et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Trouillon et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019); they have the same drawbacks as neural relation linking approaches. There are many recent works that use semi-supervised/unsupervised learning for rules and knowledge induction (Pryzant et al., 2022; Bhagavatula et al., 2023; Lang and Poon, 2021; Zhu and Li).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 123, + 489, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) have given rise to a wide range of masked pre-training models that try to learn latent representation of words. Masked language modeling has gained popularity in building large pre-trained models that learn word representations that can easily be adapted to a variety of tasks. Masked language training has resulted in building various model architectures like encoder only models which learn a vector representation of tokens using masked training (Peters et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2020). Several Encode-decoder LLMs are built using similar training strategy (Song et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2019; Soltan et al., 2022; Raffel et al., 2019). Recently decoder only models built using similar masked language training are gaining popularity (Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Scao et al., 2022). In this paper we take inspiration from masked language training on text and use the ideas to perform similar masking on logic statements to learn rules.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Our Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 672, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach to relation linking is a rule-learning framework where rules learned in a self-supervised fashion are used to map from 'NL text segments' to the 'elements of structured knowledge'. For self-supervised rule learning, we use masked training. A distinctive aspect of the masked training in our approach is that it is applied over the logical form of the input text. When logical form is not readily available, we first convert NL text into its logical form using a semantic parser, before applying masked training. In this section, first we briefly describe the conversion of input text to logical statements, and then describe the proposed rule model and its self-supervised training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 885, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Logical Statements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 348, + 705, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we use triples extracted from sentences as their logical form4. Note that logical forms are expressed as predicate.source entity, destination entity), as illustrated in Figure 1. To extract such logical forms from NL text, we use the semantic parsing approach described in (Neelam et al., 2022), which performs an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) based $\\lambda$ -expression extraction. For simple sentences, $\\lambda$ -expressions can be converted directly into triples5. Figure 1 shows an illustration of a NL text and its corresponding logical form. Different elements of the triple represent distinct segments of the NL text. Since we use an AMR based approach to derive $\\lambda$ -expressions, predicate components of the triple are typically a propbank predicate. Relation linking is expected to map this predicate component onto the corresponding knowledge-base elements.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 369, + 885, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Rule Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 648, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Towards the goal of relation linking, our rule model is formulated as a function that maps a weighted mixture of 'knowledge base predicates' onto a 'predicate component of the NL text'. This enables interpretable prediction of the set of knowledge base predicates that the text predicate should get linked to. Figure 2 gives an illustration of a simple rule.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 692, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let us assume a triple $pred_{i}(s,d)$ extracted from NL text, where $s$ is the source entity, $d$ is the destination entity and $pred_{i}$ is the text predicate. The", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4We use triples and logical form interchangeably.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 879, + 831, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "We also employ heuristics to handle the AMR and $\\lambda$ -expression computation failures and errors.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1709", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/64a71100e4cfb65ed56fcef0aebd5ec65d6896bd17fe3bf94e5c75ba4a3a34e9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Illustration of a one-hop path between entities Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio via entity Titanic movie in Wikidata (through a reverse relation edge cast-member connecting Kate Winslet to Titanic movie and a forward relation edge cast-member connecting Titanic movie to Leonardo DiCaprio). This can also be viewed as an extended context extracted from knowledge base through the unmasked elements of the masked logical statement in Figure 1." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 80, + 504, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "goal is to ground $pred_{i}$ to its corresponding knowledge base predicates using relation linking model. Our proposed rule model to achieve this is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 330, + 489, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} (s, d) = f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} w _ {j} ^ {i} \\operatorname {p a t h} _ {j} (s, d)\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 401, + 487, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for $i \\in \\{1, \\dots, M\\}$ where $f(\\cdot)$ denotes a function such as Sigmoid and $path_j$ denotes a path in the knowledge base that passes through one or more knowledge base predicate edges. $path_j(s, d)$ can take values 0 or 1 depending upon presence or absence of a path $path_j$ connecting source entity $s$ and destination entity $d$ . Depending upon the length of the path, i.e., number of predicate edges and the intermediate entities, paths could be categorized as $k$ -hop, where $k$ denotes the count of intermediate entities in the path. An example of a 1-hop path between entities in Wikidata is shown in Figure 3. If there are $L$ unique knowledge base predicates, i.e., $\\{p_l\\}$ , $1 \\leq l \\leq L$ , the sets of 0, 1 and 2-hop paths are defined as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 487, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "0-hop paths $= \\{p_{l}(s,d)\\}$ , $1 \\leq l \\leq L$", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 714, + 442, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1-hop paths $= \\{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, d)\\}$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 743, + 431, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n1 \\leq l \\leq L, 1 \\leq m \\leq L\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 760, + 393, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2-hop paths $= \\{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, *) : p_{n}(*, d)\\}$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 784, + 473, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n1 \\leq l \\leq L, 1 \\leq m \\leq L, 1 \\leq n \\leq L\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 801, + 442, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $*$ denote any possible entity. Note that paths always originate from a source entity and end at a destination entity. Also note that, the constituent knowledge base predicates in a path could also be inverse (reverse), denoted by superscript ${}^{-1}$ . For example, path in Figure 3 contains an inverse relation,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ff13e7191a0f6131e2d9e2ca7be803b0a2f47f0e32af5226f60489cb9001f9dd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Neural model implementing each rule of the rule model defined in Equation (1)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 84, + 885, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which is denoted as cast member $^{-1}$ in the corresponding path expression given in Figure 2. All the knowledge base paths of various lengths, i.e., from 0-hop paths until $k$ -hop paths put together, constitute the overall set of paths considered in our rule learning framework. Let us assume there are $N$ such paths in total. Given that the knowledge base paths path $_j$ are defined in terms of the knowledge base predicates, our rule model in (1) effectively defines a mapping between the 'NL text predicates' and the 'knowledge base predicates'. During learning, we want to estimate weights $w_j^i$ so that rule model in (1) can be used for relation linking.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 324, + 884, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A neural implementation of each rule in (1) is given in Figure 4. Note that there is one such network each for every rule in (1), and all these networks are trained together during learning. Note that the parameters of our rule model, denoted by $W$ , is a matrix of learnable weights:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 535, + 882, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nW = \\{w _ {j} ^ {i} \\}, 1 \\leq i \\leq M, 1 \\leq j \\leq N\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 644, + 840, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where each row corresponds to the set of path weights of a specific rule. In the next section, we describe masked training used to estimate these weights in a self-supervised manner.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 676, + 880, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Self-Supervised Rule Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 752, + 796, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Masked training in large language model training involves masking certain parts of the input text and having the model predict those masked parts by treating the rest of the (unmasked) text as its context. The model parameters are adjusted during training to effectively model the context so it can act as a proxy for the masked part. In our approach masked training is performed on the logical form of the input text as detailed below.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1710", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.1 Masked Training on Logical Forms", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 450, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Logical statements are composed of distinct elements playing distinct semantic roles. For example, triples are composed of a predicate, a source entity (also called subject) and a destination entity (also called object). The masking procedure could mask any of these elements:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 104, + 489, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Predicate masking - predicate component of the triple is masked", + "2. Source entity masking - source entity component of the triple is masked", + "3. Destination entity masking - destination entity element of the triple is masked" + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 211, + 489, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1 gives an illustration of predicate masking. Similar to the large language model training, masked training for rule learning also aims to adjust the parameters of the rule model so that it can accurately predict the masked elements from the unmasked context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 342, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, the distinctive aspect of our approach is in the context computation. For the context, in addition to the unmasked elements of the logical statement, we also use paths within the knowledge base that are associated to those unmasked elements. A set of such associated paths are obtained by grounding the unmasked elements of the logical statement to the knowledge base. For example, given Wikidata as the knowledge base, we first use entity linking (Wu et al., 2019) to link the unmasked source and destination entities of the triple to corresponding Wikidata entities, as illustrated in Figure 1. Then the Wikidata paths originating from unmasked source entity and ending at unmasked destination entity are computed and used as the context. Figure 3 gives an illustration of a Wikidata path, through entity node corresponding to Titanic movie, for the unmasked entities of Figure 1. Note that such use of knowledge base paths as the context help establish the mapping between the NL text predicates and the knowledge base predicates, which indeed is the goal of our relation linking model. Next we describe rule model parameter estimation procedure for different masking scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 489, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.2 Rule Model Estimation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 835, + 356, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Learning procedures for the 3 masking scenarios differ mainly in the way training loss is computed. In all 3 masking scenarios we use rule models to predict the masked element. As discussed", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1207484741b174fb5cf5a9df7754182eae25a38ba88b8c2fa8064cba4a1c06dd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when predicate in the triple is masked." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 79, + 870, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "above, knowledge base paths associated with the unmasked elements of the triple are used as the context for the prediction. However, the set of such paths differ based on which element is masked and which elements are unmasked and could be linked to the knowledge base. Training loss functions are defined to improve prediction accuracy over the training iterations, as described below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 256, + 882, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a) Predicate Masking: As illustrated in Figure 5, when the predicate is masked, unmasked source and destination entities are linked to the corresponding elements in the knowledge base through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that connect these linked entities are computed and used as context. Let $j \\in E$ denote the set of indices of knowledge base paths that connect the linked source and destination entities. These paths when applied to all the rules in (1), corresponding to all the text predicates $pred_{i}(.)$ , $1 \\leq i \\leq M$ , would result in scores for each text predicate as below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 882, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {i} = f \\left(\\sum_ {j \\in E} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s, d)\\right), 1 \\leq i \\leq M.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 608, + 867, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For accurate prediction of the masked predicate by the model, the score should be highest (1.0) for the text predicate being masked and should be the lowest (0.0) for all others. Accordingly, let $t_i$ , $1 \\leq i \\leq M$ denote the target scores, where the score corresponding to the index of the masked predicate is 1.0 and the rest of the scores are 0.0. We compare the estimated scores against these target scores, to compute the training loss that could be used further to update the model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD). In actual, we use a cross-entropy training loss computed as below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 670, + 882, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nl o s s = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} t _ {i} \\log (s _ {i})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 613, + 877, + 776, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1711", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e1e8847eedca1cd9c2080fdfc7bc0d332d411c09d1fea2b16209f5ac4451de8a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when source entity in the triple is masked." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 80, + 475, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "b) Source Entity Masking: As illustrated in Figure 6 when the source entity is masked, unmasked destination entity is linked to the corresponding element in the knowledge base, through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that end at the linked destination entity are computed for use as the context. Note that all these paths together have a set of associated origination entities that could potentially be considered as the prediction for the masked source entity. Let $S = \\{s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_E\\}$ denote the set of all such candidate source entities. Let $E_e$ correspond to the set of indices of all paths that originate from the candidate source entity $s_e$ and end at the unmasked linked destination entity. These paths when applied to a specific rule in (1) that corresponds to the unmasked text predicate $pred_i$ , would give a score for $s_e$ as below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 271, + 489, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ns _ {e} = \\sum_ {j \\in E _ {e}} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s _ {e}, d), 1 \\leq e \\leq E\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 555, + 453, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A list of such scores are computed for each candidate source entity in $S$ . Note that among these scores the one corresponding to candidate entity that is same as the masked source entity should be highest (1.0) and the score for the rest should be the lowest (0.0). Accordingly, target scores are $t_e$ , $1 \\leq e \\leq E$ , where the score for the index of the masked entity is set to 1.0 and the rest are set to 0.0. We then compute training loss by comparing the estimated scores against the target scores. A cross-entropy training loss computed as below is used to update the rule model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 599, + 489, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nl o s s = \\sum_ {e \\in S} t _ {e} \\log (s _ {e})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 820, + 383, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "c) Destination Entity Masking: Destination entity masking is similar to that of the source entity masking, except that when the destination entity", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is masked, unmasked source entity is linked to the knowledge base and the set of all paths originating from the linked source entity are computed as context, resulting in the associated candidate destination entities. Then scores for all candidate destination entities are computed in a similar fashion to further compute the training loss.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 206, + 631, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that, once trained, the right hand side of the rule model in Equation (1) directly gives human readable information of the relation linking, highlighting the interpretability/explainability aspect of our model. Each rule gives information of the knowledge base paths (that in turn are composed of the knowledge base predicates) that the text predicate should get linked to, with path weights denoting the linking confidence. During inference, for example while using our rule model to perform QA, the information being asked in the NL question would correspond to the missing element in the corresponding logical form. Hence the goal is to estimate candidates for that missing element and score them using our rule model. The scoring procedure is similar to that for the masked elements during masked training as described in Section 3.3.2. Top-K scoring candidates are chosen as the answers estimates of the rule model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 227, + 884, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Scaling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 543, + 613, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The number of paths $N$ is exponential in the number of predicates $L$ that exist in the knowledge base. As a result, solving problem (1) becomes prohibitive with large $N$ and hence we explore methods for reducing the search space of paths. In other words, we learn a set of paths $\\mathcal{P}$ with $|\\mathcal{P}| << N$ that contains the optimal paths, allowing us to replace the summation in problem in Equation (1) to a summation over $\\mathcal{P}$ , and thereby reducing the computation required to find the solution.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We make use of a Chain of Mixtures (CoM) model, also known as Neural Logic Programming (Yang et al., 2017b) or edge-based rules (Sen et al., 2022), to learn $\\mathcal{P}$ . In CoM, a rule is represented by a conjunction of mixtures of predicates. Specifically, rather than define a weight per path, for each of $M$ predicates we define a weight per predicate per hop to get rules of the form:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 724, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} ^ {C o M} (s, d) = g \\left(f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 0} ^ {i} p _ {j} (s, r _ {1})\\right), \\right. \\tag {2} \\\\ f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 1} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {1}, r _ {2})\\right), \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 859, + 882, + 922 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1712", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left. f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 2} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {2}, d)\\right)\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 80, + 400, + 107 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for $i \\in \\{1, \\dots, M\\}$ where now $w_{j,k}^{i}$ is a weight for rule $i$ (i.e., for the $i^{th}$ predicate) for predicate $j$ on the hop $k$ of the rule being learned, and $g(\\dots)$ is a function approximating a conjunction such as a product. Equation (2) is an example 2-hop rule where $r_1$ and $r_2$ can take the values of any entities in the knowledge base. The number of weights learned in a CoM rule is $M(K + 1)$ where $K$ is the number of hops in the rule, which greatly reduces the number of weights learned in problem (1).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 114, + 485, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While CoM requires learning much fewer parameters than our rule model (1), it is less interpretable because it is not known which paths are actually relevant to the rule. CoM rules suggest that any path that can be obtained from predicates with positive weights in the hops is possible. For example, suppose there are 8 predicates in the knowledge base and the set of strictly positive weights in a rule of the form (2) is $\\{w_{0,1}^{i}, w_{0,3}^{i}, w_{0,4}^{i}, w_{1,1}^{i}, w_{1,2}^{i}, w_{2,2}^{i}, w_{2,4}^{i}, w_{2,8}^{i}\\}$ . Then such a chain rule only allows rules of the form $p_{j}(s, r_{1}) \\land p_{k}(r_{1}, r_{2}) \\land p_{l}(r_{2}, e)$ where $j \\in \\{1, 3, 4\\}$ , $k \\in \\{1, 2\\}$ , $l \\in \\{2, 4, 8\\}$ . With 8 predicates, there are a total of $8 \\times 8 \\times 8 = 512$ possible paths, but the CoM reduces this to $3 \\times 2 \\times 3 = 18$ possible paths. Given these possible paths, a more interpretable rule of the form Equation (1) can be learned more efficiently since the summation can be taken over 18 paths instead of $N = 512$ paths.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 279, + 489, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 321, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 639, + 226, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our approach on two datasets as described below that involve utilization of two distinct types of knowledge sources.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a) CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019) is a benchmark dataset for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of a Natural Language Understanding (NLU) system, where the goal is to infer kinship relations between source and target entities based on short stories. It contains both graph and textual representations of these stories. Each story consists of clauses (chains of relations) of length ranging from 2 to 10. The benchmark tests the model's ability for: i) Systematic Generalization which tests how well the model generalizes beyond the combination of rules seen during training. The test set consists of clauses", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of length up to 10, while the train set has clauses of length up to 4. ii) Model robustness which tests how well model performs in the presence of noisy facts. It consists of three kinds of noise: a) Supporting facts: It adds alternative equivalent paths between source and target entities. b) Irrelevant facts: It adds a path which originates on the path between the source and target entity but ends at an entity not in that path. c) Disconnected facts: It adds a path which is completely disconnected from the path between the source and target entity.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 882, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We considered graph stories with only clause length 2 for training rule models in a self-supervised fashion. This results in multiple one-hop rules along with their confidence scores. These rules can be used to handle stories of clause length 2 at the time of inference. For stories with clause length greater than 2, we combine relations within the path from source to target entity using Algorithm 1 to compute the path scores. A n-length path $\\mathbf{R}_1, \\dots, \\mathbf{R}_n$ from source entity to target entity can be reduced by invoking infer(1, n). It utilises two sub-modules predict( $R_i, R_j$ ) and score( $R_i, R_j$ ) which returns prediction and confidence scores for merging $R_i$ and $R_j$ using one-hop rule model.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 261, + 884, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [ + "Algorithm 1: Inference procedure using one-hop rule model" + ], + "code_body": "Output: $\\mathbb{R}_{ij}$ : Prediction for path $\\mathrm{R}_i\\ldots \\mathrm{R}_j$ $S_{ij}$ : Prediction score for path $\\mathrm{R}_i\\ldots \\mathrm{R}_j$ \nFunction infer(i,j): if $i = j$ then return $\\mathbb{R}_i$ 1 else $\\begin{array}{rl} & {\\mathrm{R}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{null},\\mathrm{S}_{ij}\\gets 0}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{for~}k\\gets i + 1\\mathrm{~to~}j\\mathrm{~by~}1\\mathrm{~do}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}\\gets \\mathrm{infer}(i,k - 1)}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{kj},\\mathrm{S}_{kj}\\gets \\mathrm{infer}(k,j)}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{S}_{ij}'\\gets \\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}*\\mathrm{S}_{kj}*\\mathrm{score}(\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{ij}'\\gets \\mathrm{predict}(\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{if~}S_{ij}' > S_{ij}\\mathrm{~then}}\\\\ & {\\mid \\mathrm{R}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{R}_{ij}',\\mathrm{S}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{S}_{ij}^{\\prime}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{end}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{return}\\mathrm{R}_{ij},\\mathrm{S}_{ij}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{end}} \\end{array}$", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 536, + 853, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "b) SWQ-WD (Diefenbach et al., 2017) is a Question Answering (QA) dataset with simple questions built to evaluate the QA accuracy of KBQA systems that use Wikidata as the knowledge source. This dataset fits our relation linking evaluation goal because it consists of simple questions with single text predicates, hence it is possible to perform a focused evaluation of the relation linking task, reducing the impact of uncertainties of other components of KBQA systems such as semantic parsing", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1713", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "CLUTRR: \nson:{(son and brother, 0.95), (daughter and brother, 0.95), (wife and son, 0.96), (husband and son, 0.96)} \ngranddaughter:{(son and daughter, 0.97), (daughter and daughter, 0.96), (granddaughter and sister, 0.92), (grandson and sister, 0.96), (wife and granddaughter, 0.94), (husband and granddaughter, 0.90)} \nniece:{(brother and daughter, 0.98), (sister and daughter, 0.91)} \nSWQ-WD: \nbook-write:{(author, 0.88), (notable work-1, 0.87)} \nfilm-language:{... (original language of film or TV show, 0.97), (language of work or name, 0.83) , ..., cast member and writing language, 0.97), (screenwriter and writing language, 0.95), (film editor and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.87), director and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.83), (follows and original language of film or TV show, 0.96), based on and language of work or name, 0.70), ...}", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 84, + 853, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: Sample learned rules for both CLUTRR and SWQ-WD datasets. Note that each rule is represented by a set of tuples, with each tuple containing a knowledge base path and its weight value. These corresponds to the knowledge base paths and the corresponding weights in rule model (1). Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relations) in the rules are denoted by superscript ${}^{-1}$ , as described in Section 3.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 306, + 882, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "son: \\{ (son, 0.97), (husband, 2.49), (daughter, 0.70), (wife, 2.30) \\} and \\{ (son, 0.81), (brother, 2.86) \\}", + "- granddaughter: { (son, 1.26), (grandson, 2.50), (daughter, 1.20), (granddaughter, 4.22)} and { (daughter, 1.22), (granddaughter, 5.09)}", + "- niece: { (brother, 1.69), (sister, 1.43)} and { (daughter, 1.72)}" + ], + "bbox": [ + 147, + 381, + 847, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8: Sample learned rules for CLUTRR using Chain of Mixtures.", + "bbox": [ + 258, + 453, + 737, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and entity linking. SWQ-WD has 13894 train set questions and 5622 test set questions. We use train set to self-learn rules and report relation linking accuracy on the test set. Answer prediction using our rule model is described in Section 3.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 487, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baselines and Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 589, + 332, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For both the datasets, we compared our method against the best available baseline as per our knowledge. For CLUTRR, we compared against GAT (Velicković et al., 2017), a neural graph representation framework that learns representations through self-attention over the neighbourhood. For SWQ, we compared against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022), a modular and generalizable pipeline based approach consisting of KB-specific and KB-agnostic modules for KBQA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For CLUTRR experiments, where relation linking performance is directly evaluated, we use a simple accuracy metric of accuracy = success_count/total_count. For SWQ experiments, where the relation linking performance is not directly evaluated but through its influence on the question answering (QA) accuracy, we use the metric of Recall which is a fraction of correct answers that the system is able to estimate.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Code Release", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 493, + 660, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The code and the experimental setup used to train and evaluate our self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking is available at https://github.com/IBM/self-supervised-rule-learning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 518, + 884, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 615, + 606, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a) CLUTRR: Figure 7 shows (in upper part) sample 1-hop rules learned from CLUTRR dataset. Note that these rules are of form as in Equation (1). For CLUTRR, there were 22 predicates and so each 1-hop rule was learned over $N = 22 \\times 22 = 484$ possible paths. Figure 8 shows corresponding CoM rules for the CLUTRR dataset. For example, the CoM rule for son implies possible 1-hop rules that start with either son, husband, daughter, or wife and end with either son or brother, offering $4 \\times 2 = 8$ possible rules for son. Rules of the form (1) could thus be rather learned over only these 8 possible rules and capture the same two interpretable rules for son seen in the CLUTRR part of Figure 7. Overall, rules for the 22 different relations search over 484 paths each (10648 total possible rules); CoM reduced that search to 118 to", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 645, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1714", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tal possible rules with perfect coverage (i.e., CoM results include all optimal rules as a subset) for all but 2 relations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 9 compares the Systematic generalization performance of our approach against GAT (Veličković et al., 2017) on CLUTRR dataset with test set clause length ranging from 2 to 10. The results suggest that the proposed approach trained with stories of clause length $k = 2$ generalizes better in comparison to GAT trained with stories of clause length $k = 2$ , 3 and stories of clause length $k = 2$ , 3, 4. Table 1 compares the model robustness of our approach against GAT on CLUTRR dataset for differing noise scenarios during training and inference. The results suggest that the proposed approach outperforms GAT for most scenarios, achieving an average absolute accuracy improvement of $17\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 133, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0044e6ad7d39245cbce59bff84458f4c2fe4af21502357e0cb6528fb9aa708c8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Systematic generalization on CLUTRR." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 372, + 453, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "b) SWQ-WD: Figure 7 shows (in lower part) sample 0/1-hop rules learned from SWQ dataset, of form as in Equation (1). Interestingly, for text predicate film-language it is able to learn rules that associate it with the language spoken/written by the director or screen writer or cast members of the film. Table 2 compares QA accuracy of our approach against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022). Our approach achieves comparable QA performance (as given in the first two lines), in spite of SYGMA using supervised training for its relation linking module - whereas our approach is a self-supervised approach (not using any labelled data for training). Note that rule learning is prone to inaccurate entity linking6. Thus, when ground truth entities are", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ed36f0ed74bc4f7f94f77d250e5d2035036fa0dc0b90e3486c46b673b676f469.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TrainingTestingGATOur approach
CleanClean1.01.0
Supporting0.241.0
Irrelevant0.511.0
Disconnected0.81.0
SupportingClean0.920.89
Supporting0.980.97
Irrelevant0.50.94
Disconnected0.920.91
IrrelevantClean0.920.94
Supporting0.770.94
Irrelevant0.930.96
Disconnected0.850.88
DisconnectedClean0.750.91
Supporting0.780.93
Irrelevant0.560.91
Disconnected0.960.93
Average0.770.94
", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 80, + 863, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/48a62bb386ffa7a4d4dbc1d099b83013087be11267430790b3b68da374f0c7e1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Model robustness on CLUTRR - Accuracies for various training and inference noise conditions." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodRecall
SYGMA55.0
Our approach53.7
SYGMA (with GT entities)68.0
Our approach (with GT entities)70.1
", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 370, + 860, + 457 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: QA performance on SWQ.", + "bbox": [ + 573, + 466, + 816, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "used, our approach performs marginally better than SYGMA (as shown in the last two rows). Note that when ground truth entities are used, QA performance is more reflective of the relation linking performance, thus asserting the effectiveness of our relation linking model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 882, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 618, + 650, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we presented a novel masked training based self rule learning approach for relation linking. The proposed approach takes inspiration from the masked training of large language models and rule learning in knowledge base completion to create a rule learning model that results in a relation linking model that is interpretable and generalizable to any knowledge base and domain. Our evaluation on two datasets CLUTRR (rule learning for kinship relations) and SWQ (relation linking for Wikidata) shows that our model is able to produce high quality rules for relation linking that generalize across domains. Our next steps are to scale to learn from large amount of data, extend the framework beyond triples. We see a lot of potential for our rule learning framework beyond relation linking, like general knowledge acquisition.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 645, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Note that inaccuracies both in AMR parsing and entity linking could lead to erroneous logical statements. However, SWQ sentences are simple and hence their AMR parsing is straight forward, with SMATCH score of $83.0\\%$ (Neelam et al., 2022). Thus, incorrect logical statements for SWQ are largely due to entity linking errors. In case of CLUTRR, GAT baseline used the readily available ground truth logical forms of the sentences that we also used for fair comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 821, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1715", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 250, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Proposed approach is an initial attempt at taking masked training to logic statements and using knowledge graph as context. Current approach described is only taking single triple to learn relationship linking problem for KBQA, but overall approach has potential to extend to larger logic statements. Extending the work to handle logic statements with more than one triple is a future direction that we are looking into. In the current approach we assumed semantic parses to be perfect and available, but in reality they can be noisy resulting in noisy rule model. Handling noise coming from the parsing is another main extension we would like to look into as part of our future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 492, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 363, + 213, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In LAW@ACL.", + "Chandra Bhagavatula, Jena D. Hwang, Doug Downey, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Lianhui Qin, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Peter West, and Yejin Choi. 2023. I2d2: Inductive knowledge distillation with neurologic and self-imitation.", + "Mihaela A. Bornea, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Tahira Naseem, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Pavan Kapanipathi, Radu Florian, and Salim Roukos. 2021. Learning to transpile amr into sparql. ArXiv, abs/2112.07877.", + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, and et.al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. ArXiv, abs/2005.14165.", + "Yubo Chen, Yunqi Zhang, Changran Hu, and Yongfeng Huang. 2021. Jointly extracting explicit and implicit relational triples with reasoning pattern enhanced binary pointer network. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5694-5703, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, and et.al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. ArXiv, abs/2204.02311.", + "Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. ArXiv, abs/2003.10555." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 387, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805.", + "Dennis Diefenbach, Thomas Pellissier Tanon, Kamal Deep Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2017. Question answering benchmarks for wikidata. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web.", + "Mohnish Dubey, Debayan Banerjee, Debanjan Chaudhuri, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. Earl: Joint entity and relation linking for question answering over knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1801.03825.", + "Claire Gardent, Anastasia Shimorina, Shashi Narayan, and Laura Perez-Beltrachini. 2017. Creating training corpora for nlg micro-planners. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Maria Chang, Cristina Cornelio, Saswati Dana, Achille Fokoue, Dinesh Garg, A. Gliozzo, Sairam Gurajada, Hima P. Karanam, Naweed Khan, Dinesh Khandelwal, Young suk Lee, Yunyao Li, Francois P. S. Luus, Ndivhuwo Makondo, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Tahira Naseem, Sumit Neelam, Lucian Popa, Revanth Reddy Gangi Reddy, Ryan Riegel, Gaetano Rossiello, Udit Sharma, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, and Mo Yu. 2020. Leveraging abstract meaning representation for knowledge base question answering. In Findings.", + "Hunter Lang and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Self-supervised self-supervision by combining deep learning and probabilistic logic. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(6):4978-4986.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdel rahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xueling Lin, Haoyang Li, Hao Xin, Zijian Li, and Lei Chen. 2020. Kbpearl: A knowledge base population system supported by joint entity and relation linking. Proc. VLDB Endow., 13:1035-1049.", + "Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692.", + "Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Gaetano Rossiello, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Mo Yu, A. Gliozzo, Salim Roukos, and Alexander G." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1716", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Gray. 2020. Leveraging semantic parsing for relation linking over knowledge bases. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web.", + "Sumit Neelam, Udit Sharma, Hima P. Karanam, Shajith Ikbal, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Young-Suk Lee, Santosh K. Srivastava, Cezar Pendus, Saswati Dana, Dinesh Garg, Achille Fokoue, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, Dinesh Khandelwal, Srinivas Ravishankar, Sairam Gurajada, Maria Chang, Rosario A. Uceda-Sosa, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Guilherme Lima, Ryan Riegel, Francois P. S. Luus, and L. V. Subramaniam. 2022. Syagma: A system for generalizable and modular question answering over knowledge bases. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso A. Poggio. 2015. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1510.04935.", + "Jeff Z. Pan, Mei Zhang, Kuldeep Singh, F. V. Harmelen, Jinguang Gu, and Zhi Zhang. 2019. Entity enabled relation linking. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web.", + "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Reid Pryzant, Ziyi Yang, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Automatic rule induction for interpretable semi-supervised learning.", + "Stanislaw J. Purgal, David M. Cerna, and C. Kaliszkyk. 2022. Differentiable inductive logic programming in high-dimensional space. ArXiv, abs/2208.06652.", + "Meng Qu, Junkun Chen, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. 2020. Rnnlogic: Learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs. ArXiv, abs/2010.04029.", + "Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining.", + "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683.", + "Tim Rocktäschel and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. End-to-end differentiable proving. ArXiv, abs/1705.11040.", + "Gaetano Rossiello, Faisal Chowdhury, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Owen Cornec, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Knowgl: Knowledge generation and linking from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13952." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Gaetano Rossiello, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Mihaela A. Bornea, A. Gliozzo, Tahira Naseem, and Pavan Kapanipathi. 2021. Generative relation linking for question answering over knowledge bases. ArXiv, abs/2108.07337.", + "Ali Reza Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. Drum: End-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1911.00055.", + "Ahmad Sakor, Isaiah Onando Mulang, Kuldeep Singh, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria-Esther Vidal, Jens Lehmann, and S. Auer. 2019a. Old is gold: Linguistic driven approach for entity and relation linking of short text. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ahmad Sakor, Kuldeep Singh, Anery Patel, and Maria-Esther Vidal. 2019b. Falcon 2.0: An entity and relation linking tool over wikidata. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management.", + "Tven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, Suzana Ilič, Daniel Hesslow, and et.al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv, abs/2211.05100.", + "P. Sen, B. W. S. R. de Carvalho, I. Abdelaziz, P. Kapanipathi, S. Roukos, and A. Gray. 2022. Logical neural networks for knowledge base completion with embeddings & rules. In EMNLP.", + "Prithviraj Sen, Bruno W. Carvalho, Ryan Riegel, and Alexander G. Gray. 2021. Neuro-symbolic inductive logic programming with logical neural networks. ArXiv, abs/2112.03324.", + "Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177.", + "Saleh Soltan, Shankar Ananthakrishnan, Jack G. M. FitzGerald, Rahul Gupta, Wael Hamza, Haidar Khan, Charith S. Peris, and et.al. 2022. Alexatm 20b: Few-shot learning using a large-scale multilingual seq2seq model. ArXiv, abs/2208.01448.", + "Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pretraining for language generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Zhihong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2018. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. ArXiv, abs/1902.10197.", + "Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1717", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS.", + "Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903.", + "Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Ledell Yu Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Bishan Yang, Wen tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2014. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/1412.6575.", + "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017a. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NIPS.", + "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017b. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NeurIPS.", + "Mo Yu, Wenpeng Yin, Kazi Saidul Hasan, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. Improved neural relation detection for knowledge base question answering. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shuai Zhang, Yi Tay, Lina Yao, and Qi Liu. 2019. Quaternion knowledge graph embeddings. In Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, and et.al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. ArXiv, abs/2205.01068.", + "Ronghang Zhu and Sheng Li. Self-supervision based Semantic Alignment for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation, pages 1-9." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1718", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_model.json b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9e50769fe92ca95faf70da884c5a0d69fc63129 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2380 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.08, + 0.848, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.141, + 0.86, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shajith Ikbal\\*, Udit Sharma\\*, Hima Karanam\\*, Sumit Neelam†, Ronny Luss‡, Dheeraj Sreedhar†, Pavan Kapanipathi‡, Naweed Khan§, Kyle Erwin§, Ndivhuwo Makondo§, Ibrahim Abdelaziz‡, Achille Fokoue‡, Alexander Gray‡, Maxwell Crouse‡, Subhajit Chaudhury‡, Chitra K Subramanian‡" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.437, + 0.226, + 0.566, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "IBM Research" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.285, + 0.461, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a neuro-symbolic approach to self-learn rules that serve as interpretable knowledge to perform relation linking in knowledge base question answering systems. These rules define natural language text predicates as a weighted mixture of knowledge base paths. The weights learned during training effectively serve the mapping needed to perform relation linking. We use popular masked training strategy to self-learn the rules. A key distinguishing aspect of our work is that the masked training operates over logical forms of the sentence instead of their natural language text form. This offers opportunity to extract extended context information from the structured knowledge source and use that to build robust and human readable rules. We evaluate accuracy and usefulness of such learned rules by utilizing them for prediction of missing kinship relation in CLUTRR dataset and relation linking in a KBQA system using SWQ-WD dataset. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach - its generalizability, interpretability and ability to achieve an average performance gain of \\(17\\%\\) on CLUTRR dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.658, + 0.26, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.686, + 0.491, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relation linking is a key step in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks including Semantic Parsing, Triple Extraction, and Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA). Its goal is to accurately map predicate components of a natural language (NL) text segment onto their corresponding predicate (i.e., relational) elements within a knowledge base (KB). Such a mapping would enable question answering systems to exploit the deep" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.254, + 0.883, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.407, + 0.886, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Illustration of logical statement of a NL text, masked logical statement, and the grounding (i.e. linking) of unmasked elements of the statement to a knowledge base (Wikidata)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.885, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "reasoning capabilities of symbolic systems. For example, by accurately mapping predicate component of the NL text shown in Figure 1, i.e., share-screen, to its corresponding relational elements within KB, we should be able to successfully utilize KBQA systems to answer questions like Whether Kate Winslet shared screen with Leonardo DiCaprio? and Who all have shared screen with Kate Winslet?1. However, learning these mappings is challenging for various reasons: lexical variations, modeling deficiencies to handle complex linking involving multiple KB predicates2, and limited training data to build models in a supervised fashion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.698, + 0.884, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Various approaches have been tried in the past work, including graph-based approaches (Pan et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.738, + 0.883, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Provided entity mentions in the NL text are also appropriately mapped to their corresponding entity elements in the KB, through entity linking (Wu et al., 2019). For example, in Figure 1, entity mention Kate Winslet in NL text is mapped to corresponding KB (Wikidata) entity wd:Q202765." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.799, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2On several occasions, there is no single relational element but multiple connected relational elements within the KB that actually correspond to a NL text predicate. These connected relational elements constitute a path within the KB. For example, two connected relational elements as in Figure 3 (i.e., one-hop path involving a reverse KB relation edge cast-member and a forward KB relation edge cast-member) correspond to NL text predicate share-screen. Note that a formal expression of this KB path is given in Figure 2, i.e., cast-member\\(^{-1}(x,z)\\) & cast-member \\((z,y)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.738, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.844, + 0.411, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{\\dagger}\\) IBM Research, Bangalore/Gurugram, India." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.857, + 0.486, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{\\ddagger}\\)IBM Research, T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, United States." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.882, + 0.412, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{\\S}\\) IBM Research, Johannesburg, South Africa." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.895, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Correspondence e-mails: shajmoha@in.ibm.com,udit.sharma@in.ibm.com, hkaranam@in.ibm.com" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.844, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1707" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1707-1718" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.958, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.085, + 0.408, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rule: share-screen \\(\\leftarrow\\) w1\\*P161- & P161+)" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.221, + 0.116, + 0.461, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cast member \\(^{-1}(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{z})\\) & cast member \\((\\mathbf{z},\\mathbf{y})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.129, + 0.47, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Description of the rule: x has shared screen with y if" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.196, + 0.141, + 0.496, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "x is a cast member of a movie z where y is also a cast member," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.165, + 0.49, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Illustration of human readable rule for the example shown in Figure 1 and the corresponding extended knowledge base context shown in Figure 3. Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relation) in the rule is denoted by superscript \\({}^{-1}\\), as described in Section 3.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.277, + 0.492, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2019; Dubey et al., 2018), linguistic features based approaches (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020), and recently neural approaches that achieve state-of-the-art performance (Rossiello et al., 2021; Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017). However, these approaches have the following drawbacks: they are (a) data hungry requiring huge amount of supervised data for training, (b) non-interpretable by design, and (c) non-trivial to adapt and generalize to new domains or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that formulates relation linking as a rule learning problem in the space of structured knowledge sources. Our approach tries to learn human readable rules of the form illustrated in Figure 2 and use them to perform relation linking, thus resulting in explainable relation linking model. In contrast to the existing approaches that build linking models in a supervised fashion, we adopt a self-supervised learning approach that offer benefits: does not require annotating large amounts of training data, and offers generalization across domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.648, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For self-supervision we use masked training, a popularly used self-supervised training strategy for large language models. However, in contrast to the use of NL text as in the large language models (LLMs), masked training in our approach operates on logical statements of the sentences. In this work, we use triples extracted from semantically parsed output of the sentences as the logical statements. An example sentence in its NL form and its corresponding triple form (logical statement) are shown in Figure 1. The masking procedure when applied on a triple may end up masking any of the three elements, i.e., subject, object, or predicate. Figure 1 shows an illustration of the predicate component" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "getting masked. Given that the three elements of a triple play different semantic roles, the masked training need to be adapted to suit the role played by the element being masked. As will be seen later in the paper, such differences reflect mainly on the loss computation during training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.182, + 0.828, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The main contributions of our work are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.205, + 0.887, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. The first self-supervised rule learning approach that uses an adaptation of masked language objective for logical forms extracted from text. We have applied this to relation linking, a prominent task for understanding natural language." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.311, + 0.886, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The output of our model is completely interpretable; the set of rules obtained to perform relation linking can explain the predictions of the model. An example of a learnt rule for the SWQ dataset is shown in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.402, + 0.886, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We evaluate our approach on two datasets CLUTRR and SWQ demonstrating (a) Generalizability over two different knowledge bases as context on the datasets, (b) Effectiveness of relation linking where results show significant gains (17% gain in average performance) for CLUTRR across different test sets along with superior systematic generalization and competitive results on SWQ, (c) Interpretability, by showing qualitative results of the learnt rules." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.205, + 0.887, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.589, + 0.667, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.614, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relation linking has been important for various NLP tasks such as semantic parsing, knowledge graph induction (Gardent et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2021; Rossiello et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2020) and knowledge base question answering (Rossiello et al., 2021; Kapanipathi et al., 2020; Neelam et al., 2022). Prior to the surge of generative models, relation linking was addressed either by graph traversal based (Pan et al., 2019; Dubey et al., 2018) or by linguistic-features based methodologies (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020). Several learning based approaches to relation linking have been proposed (Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017; Bornea et al., 2021). Most recent approaches to relation linking have focused on generative models (Rossiello et al., 2021). These approaches are data hungry and non-interpretable. In contrast, our work is a self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking. The learnt rules are" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.881, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)Triple format: predicate.source entity, destination entity), where source entity and destination entity are also alternatively referred to as subject and object, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1708" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "human readable and they can be learnt for different knowledge bases as context for different domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.124, + 0.49, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rule learning, specifically in terms of detecting relations has also been popular for knowledge base completion (KBC) task. KBC problems are addressed in two different ways in the literature. Rule based KBC learns explainable rules that can be used to predict the missing links in the knowledge base (Sen et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017a; Sadeghian et al., 2019; Purgal et al., 2022; Rocktäschel and Riedel, 2017). These rules are learned for predicates in the knowledge base in terms of other predicates and paths in the knowledge base. Our work uses the rule model and some of the ideas from the rule based KBC to build self supervised explainable rules for linking text elements to knowledge base relations. There have also been several learning based methods that use vector embeddings of the entities and relationships and then use them to predict any missing relationships (Nickel et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Trouillon et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019); they have the same drawbacks as neural relation linking approaches. There are many recent works that use semi-supervised/unsupervised learning for rules and knowledge induction (Pryzant et al., 2022; Bhagavatula et al., 2023; Lang and Poon, 2021; Zhu and Li)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) have given rise to a wide range of masked pre-training models that try to learn latent representation of words. Masked language modeling has gained popularity in building large pre-trained models that learn word representations that can easily be adapted to a variety of tasks. Masked language training has resulted in building various model architectures like encoder only models which learn a vector representation of tokens using masked training (Peters et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2020). Several Encode-decoder LLMs are built using similar training strategy (Song et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2019; Soltan et al., 2022; Raffel et al., 2019). Recently decoder only models built using similar masked language training are gaining popularity (Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Scao et al., 2022). In this paper we take inspiration from masked language training on text and use the ideas to perform similar masking on logic statements to learn rules." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.673, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Our Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.886, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach to relation linking is a rule-learning framework where rules learned in a self-supervised fashion are used to map from 'NL text segments' to the 'elements of structured knowledge'. For self-supervised rule learning, we use masked training. A distinctive aspect of the masked training in our approach is that it is applied over the logical form of the input text. When logical form is not readily available, we first convert NL text into its logical form using a semantic parser, before applying masked training. In this section, first we briefly describe the conversion of input text to logical statements, and then describe the proposed rule model and its self-supervised training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.349, + 0.707, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Logical Statements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.37, + 0.886, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we use triples extracted from sentences as their logical form4. Note that logical forms are expressed as predicate.source entity, destination entity), as illustrated in Figure 1. To extract such logical forms from NL text, we use the semantic parsing approach described in (Neelam et al., 2022), which performs an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) based \\(\\lambda\\)-expression extraction. For simple sentences, \\(\\lambda\\)-expressions can be converted directly into triples5. Figure 1 shows an illustration of a NL text and its corresponding logical form. Different elements of the triple represent distinct segments of the NL text. Since we use an AMR based approach to derive \\(\\lambda\\)-expressions, predicate components of the triple are typically a propbank predicate. Relation linking is expected to map this predicate component onto the corresponding knowledge-base elements." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.672, + 0.649, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Rule Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.693, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Towards the goal of relation linking, our rule model is formulated as a function that maps a weighted mixture of 'knowledge base predicates' onto a 'predicate component of the NL text'. This enables interpretable prediction of the set of knowledge base predicates that the text predicate should get linked to. Figure 2 gives an illustration of a simple rule." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let us assume a triple \\( pred_{i}(s,d) \\) extracted from NL text, where \\( s \\) is the source entity, \\( d \\) is the destination entity and \\( pred_{i} \\) is the text predicate. The" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.88, + 0.833, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4We use triples and logical form interchangeably." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.894, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also employ heuristics to handle the AMR and \\(\\lambda\\)-expression computation failures and errors." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.88, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1709" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.082, + 0.505, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.178, + 0.49, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of a one-hop path between entities Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio via entity Titanic movie in Wikidata (through a reverse relation edge cast-member connecting Kate Winslet to Titanic movie and a forward relation edge cast-member connecting Titanic movie to Leonardo DiCaprio). This can also be viewed as an extended context extracted from knowledge base through the unmasked elements of the masked logical statement in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.331, + 0.49, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "goal is to ground \\( pred_{i} \\) to its corresponding knowledge base predicates using relation linking model. Our proposed rule model to achieve this is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.402, + 0.488, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} (s, d) = f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} w _ {j} ^ {i} \\operatorname {p a t h} _ {j} (s, d)\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.462, + 0.489, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for \\( i \\in \\{1, \\dots, M\\} \\) where \\( f(\\cdot) \\) denotes a function such as Sigmoid and \\( path_j \\) denotes a path in the knowledge base that passes through one or more knowledge base predicate edges. \\( path_j(s, d) \\) can take values 0 or 1 depending upon presence or absence of a path \\( path_j \\) connecting source entity \\( s \\) and destination entity \\( d \\). Depending upon the length of the path, i.e., number of predicate edges and the intermediate entities, paths could be categorized as \\( k \\)-hop, where \\( k \\) denotes the count of intermediate entities in the path. An example of a 1-hop path between entities in Wikidata is shown in Figure 3. If there are \\( L \\) unique knowledge base predicates, i.e., \\( \\{p_l\\} \\), \\( 1 \\leq l \\leq L \\), the sets of 0, 1 and 2-hop paths are defined as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.715, + 0.443, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "0-hop paths \\( = \\{p_{l}(s,d)\\} \\), \\( 1 \\leq l \\leq L \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.744, + 0.433, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1-hop paths \\( = \\{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, d)\\} \\)," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.762, + 0.394, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n1 \\leq l \\leq L, 1 \\leq m \\leq L\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.785, + 0.474, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2-hop paths \\( = \\{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, *) : p_{n}(*, d)\\} \\)," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.802, + 0.443, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n1 \\leq l \\leq L, 1 \\leq m \\leq L, 1 \\leq n \\leq L\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(*\\) denote any possible entity. Note that paths always originate from a source entity and end at a destination entity. Also note that, the constituent knowledge base predicates in a path could also be inverse (reverse), denoted by superscript \\({}^{-1}\\). For example, path in Figure 3 contains an inverse relation," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.27, + 0.883, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Neural model implementing each rule of the rule model defined in Equation (1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.325, + 0.885, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which is denoted as cast member\\(^{-1}\\) in the corresponding path expression given in Figure 2. All the knowledge base paths of various lengths, i.e., from 0-hop paths until \\(k\\)-hop paths put together, constitute the overall set of paths considered in our rule learning framework. Let us assume there are \\(N\\) such paths in total. Given that the knowledge base paths path\\(_j\\) are defined in terms of the knowledge base predicates, our rule model in (1) effectively defines a mapping between the 'NL text predicates' and the 'knowledge base predicates'. During learning, we want to estimate weights \\(w_j^i\\) so that rule model in (1) can be used for relation linking." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.536, + 0.884, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A neural implementation of each rule in (1) is given in Figure 4. Note that there is one such network each for every rule in (1), and all these networks are trained together during learning. Note that the parameters of our rule model, denoted by \\( W \\), is a matrix of learnable weights:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.551, + 0.645, + 0.842, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nW = \\{w _ {j} ^ {i} \\}, 1 \\leq i \\leq M, 1 \\leq j \\leq N\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.677, + 0.882, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where each row corresponds to the set of path weights of a specific rule. In the next section, we describe masked training used to estimate these weights in a self-supervised manner." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.753, + 0.798, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Self-Supervised Rule Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Masked training in large language model training involves masking certain parts of the input text and having the model predict those masked parts by treating the rest of the (unmasked) text as its context. The model parameters are adjusted during training to effectively model the context so it can act as a proxy for the masked part. In our approach masked training is performed on the logical form of the input text as detailed below." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1710" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.452, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.1 Masked Training on Logical Forms" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.105, + 0.49, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Logical statements are composed of distinct elements playing distinct semantic roles. For example, triples are composed of a predicate, a source entity (also called subject) and a destination entity (also called object). The masking procedure could mask any of these elements:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.212, + 0.489, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Predicate masking - predicate component of the triple is masked" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.256, + 0.49, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Source entity masking - source entity component of the triple is masked" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.3, + 0.489, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Destination entity masking - destination entity element of the triple is masked" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.212, + 0.49, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.343, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1 gives an illustration of predicate masking. Similar to the large language model training, masked training for rule learning also aims to adjust the parameters of the rule model so that it can accurately predict the masked elements from the unmasked context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.441, + 0.49, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, the distinctive aspect of our approach is in the context computation. For the context, in addition to the unmasked elements of the logical statement, we also use paths within the knowledge base that are associated to those unmasked elements. A set of such associated paths are obtained by grounding the unmasked elements of the logical statement to the knowledge base. For example, given Wikidata as the knowledge base, we first use entity linking (Wu et al., 2019) to link the unmasked source and destination entities of the triple to corresponding Wikidata entities, as illustrated in Figure 1. Then the Wikidata paths originating from unmasked source entity and ending at unmasked destination entity are computed and used as the context. Figure 3 gives an illustration of a Wikidata path, through entity node corresponding to Titanic movie, for the unmasked entities of Figure 1. Note that such use of knowledge base paths as the context help establish the mapping between the NL text predicates and the knowledge base predicates, which indeed is the goal of our relation linking model. Next we describe rule model parameter estimation procedure for different masking scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.836, + 0.357, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.2 Rule Model Estimation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Learning procedures for the 3 masking scenarios differ mainly in the way training loss is computed. In all 3 masking scenarios we use rule models to predict the masked element. As discussed" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.08, + 0.872, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.201, + 0.882, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when predicate in the triple is masked." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.257, + 0.883, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "above, knowledge base paths associated with the unmasked elements of the triple are used as the context for the prediction. However, the set of such paths differ based on which element is masked and which elements are unmasked and could be linked to the knowledge base. Training loss functions are defined to improve prediction accuracy over the training iterations, as described below:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.403, + 0.884, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a) Predicate Masking: As illustrated in Figure 5, when the predicate is masked, unmasked source and destination entities are linked to the corresponding elements in the knowledge base through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that connect these linked entities are computed and used as context. Let \\( j \\in E \\) denote the set of indices of knowledge base paths that connect the linked source and destination entities. These paths when applied to all the rules in (1), corresponding to all the text predicates \\( pred_{i}(.) \\), \\( 1 \\leq i \\leq M \\), would result in scores for each text predicate as below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.609, + 0.868, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {i} = f \\left(\\sum_ {j \\in E} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s, d)\\right), 1 \\leq i \\leq M.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.671, + 0.884, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For accurate prediction of the masked predicate by the model, the score should be highest (1.0) for the text predicate being masked and should be the lowest (0.0) for all others. Accordingly, let \\( t_i \\), \\( 1 \\leq i \\leq M \\) denote the target scores, where the score corresponding to the index of the masked predicate is 1.0 and the rest of the scores are 0.0. We compare the estimated scores against these target scores, to compute the training loss that could be used further to update the model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD). In actual, we use a cross-entropy training loss computed as below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.615, + 0.878, + 0.777, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nl o s s = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} t _ {i} \\log (s _ {i})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1711" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.081, + 0.476, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.219, + 0.488, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when source entity in the triple is masked." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.272, + 0.49, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "b) Source Entity Masking: As illustrated in Figure 6 when the source entity is masked, unmasked destination entity is linked to the corresponding element in the knowledge base, through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that end at the linked destination entity are computed for use as the context. Note that all these paths together have a set of associated origination entities that could potentially be considered as the prediction for the masked source entity. Let \\( S = \\{s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_E\\} \\) denote the set of all such candidate source entities. Let \\( E_e \\) correspond to the set of indices of all paths that originate from the candidate source entity \\( s_e \\) and end at the unmasked linked destination entity. These paths when applied to a specific rule in (1) that corresponds to the unmasked text predicate \\( pred_i \\), would give a score for \\( s_e \\) as below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.556, + 0.454, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ns _ {e} = \\sum_ {j \\in E _ {e}} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s _ {e}, d), 1 \\leq e \\leq E\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.6, + 0.49, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A list of such scores are computed for each candidate source entity in \\( S \\). Note that among these scores the one corresponding to candidate entity that is same as the masked source entity should be highest (1.0) and the score for the rest should be the lowest (0.0). Accordingly, target scores are \\( t_e \\), \\( 1 \\leq e \\leq E \\), where the score for the index of the masked entity is set to 1.0 and the rest are set to 0.0. We then compute training loss by comparing the estimated scores against the target scores. A cross-entropy training loss computed as below is used to update the rule model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.821, + 0.384, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nl o s s = \\sum_ {e \\in S} t _ {e} \\log (s _ {e})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "c) Destination Entity Masking: Destination entity masking is similar to that of the source entity masking, except that when the destination entity" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is masked, unmasked source entity is linked to the knowledge base and the set of all paths originating from the linked source entity are computed as context, resulting in the associated candidate destination entities. Then scores for all candidate destination entities are computed in a similar fashion to further compute the training loss." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.208, + 0.632, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.228, + 0.885, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that, once trained, the right hand side of the rule model in Equation (1) directly gives human readable information of the relation linking, highlighting the interpretability/explainability aspect of our model. Each rule gives information of the knowledge base paths (that in turn are composed of the knowledge base predicates) that the text predicate should get linked to, with path weights denoting the linking confidence. During inference, for example while using our rule model to perform QA, the information being asked in the NL question would correspond to the missing element in the corresponding logical form. Hence the goal is to estimate candidates for that missing element and score them using our rule model. The scoring procedure is similar to that for the masked elements during masked training as described in Section 3.3.2. Top-K scoring candidates are chosen as the answers estimates of the rule model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.544, + 0.615, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Scaling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.885, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The number of paths \\(N\\) is exponential in the number of predicates \\(L\\) that exist in the knowledge base. As a result, solving problem (1) becomes prohibitive with large \\(N\\) and hence we explore methods for reducing the search space of paths. In other words, we learn a set of paths \\(\\mathcal{P}\\) with \\(|\\mathcal{P}| << N\\) that contains the optimal paths, allowing us to replace the summation in problem in Equation (1) to a summation over \\(\\mathcal{P}\\), and thereby reducing the computation required to find the solution." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.725, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We make use of a Chain of Mixtures (CoM) model, also known as Neural Logic Programming (Yang et al., 2017b) or edge-based rules (Sen et al., 2022), to learn \\(\\mathcal{P}\\). In CoM, a rule is represented by a conjunction of mixtures of predicates. Specifically, rather than define a weight per path, for each of \\(M\\) predicates we define a weight per predicate per hop to get rules of the form:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.86, + 0.883, + 0.923 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} ^ {C o M} (s, d) = g \\left(f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 0} ^ {i} p _ {j} (s, r _ {1})\\right), \\right. \\tag {2} \\\\ f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 1} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {1}, r _ {2})\\right), \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1712" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.081, + 0.4, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left. f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 2} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {2}, d)\\right)\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.115, + 0.487, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for \\( i \\in \\{1, \\dots, M\\} \\) where now \\( w_{j,k}^{i} \\) is a weight for rule \\( i \\) (i.e., for the \\( i^{th} \\) predicate) for predicate \\( j \\) on the hop \\( k \\) of the rule being learned, and \\( g(\\dots) \\) is a function approximating a conjunction such as a product. Equation (2) is an example 2-hop rule where \\( r_1 \\) and \\( r_2 \\) can take the values of any entities in the knowledge base. The number of weights learned in a CoM rule is \\( M(K + 1) \\) where \\( K \\) is the number of hops in the rule, which greatly reduces the number of weights learned in problem (1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.28, + 0.49, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While CoM requires learning much fewer parameters than our rule model (1), it is less interpretable because it is not known which paths are actually relevant to the rule. CoM rules suggest that any path that can be obtained from predicates with positive weights in the hops is possible. For example, suppose there are 8 predicates in the knowledge base and the set of strictly positive weights in a rule of the form (2) is \\(\\{w_{0,1}^{i}, w_{0,3}^{i}, w_{0,4}^{i}, w_{1,1}^{i}, w_{1,2}^{i}, w_{2,2}^{i}, w_{2,4}^{i}, w_{2,8}^{i}\\}\\). Then such a chain rule only allows rules of the form \\(p_{j}(s, r_{1}) \\land p_{k}(r_{1}, r_{2}) \\land p_{l}(r_{2}, e)\\) where \\(j \\in \\{1, 3, 4\\}\\), \\(k \\in \\{1, 2\\}\\), \\(l \\in \\{2, 4, 8\\}\\). With 8 predicates, there are a total of \\(8 \\times 8 \\times 8 = 512\\) possible paths, but the CoM reduces this to \\(3 \\times 2 \\times 3 = 18\\) possible paths. Given these possible paths, a more interpretable rule of the form Equation (1) can be learned more efficiently since the summation can be taken over 18 paths instead of \\(N = 512\\) paths." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.614, + 0.322, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.64, + 0.228, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our approach on two datasets as described below that involve utilization of two distinct types of knowledge sources." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a) CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019) is a benchmark dataset for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of a Natural Language Understanding (NLU) system, where the goal is to infer kinship relations between source and target entities based on short stories. It contains both graph and textual representations of these stories. Each story consists of clauses (chains of relations) of length ranging from 2 to 10. The benchmark tests the model's ability for: i) Systematic Generalization which tests how well the model generalizes beyond the combination of rules seen during training. The test set consists of clauses" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of length up to 10, while the train set has clauses of length up to 4. ii) Model robustness which tests how well model performs in the presence of noisy facts. It consists of three kinds of noise: a) Supporting facts: It adds alternative equivalent paths between source and target entities. b) Irrelevant facts: It adds a path which originates on the path between the source and target entity but ends at an entity not in that path. c) Disconnected facts: It adds a path which is completely disconnected from the path between the source and target entity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.262, + 0.885, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We considered graph stories with only clause length 2 for training rule models in a self-supervised fashion. This results in multiple one-hop rules along with their confidence scores. These rules can be used to handle stories of clause length 2 at the time of inference. For stories with clause length greater than 2, we combine relations within the path from source to target entity using Algorithm 1 to compute the path scores. A n-length path \\( \\mathbf{R}_1, \\dots, \\mathbf{R}_n \\) from source entity to target entity can be reduced by invoking infer(1, n). It utilises two sub-modules predict(\\( R_i, R_j \\)) and score(\\( R_i, R_j \\)) which returns prediction and confidence scores for merging \\( R_i \\) and \\( R_j \\) using one-hop rule model." + }, + { + "type": "code_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.504, + 0.836, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: Inference procedure using one-hop rule model" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.537, + 0.855, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: \\(\\mathbb{R}_{ij}\\) : Prediction for path \\(\\mathrm{R}_i\\ldots \\mathrm{R}_j\\) \\(S_{ij}\\) : Prediction score for path \\(\\mathrm{R}_i\\ldots \\mathrm{R}_j\\) \nFunction infer(i,j): if \\(i = j\\) then return \\(\\mathbb{R}_i\\) 1 else \\(\\begin{array}{rl} & {\\mathrm{R}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{null},\\mathrm{S}_{ij}\\gets 0}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{for~}k\\gets i + 1\\mathrm{~to~}j\\mathrm{~by~}1\\mathrm{~do}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}\\gets \\mathrm{infer}(i,k - 1)}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{kj},\\mathrm{S}_{kj}\\gets \\mathrm{infer}(k,j)}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{S}_{ij}'\\gets \\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}*\\mathrm{S}_{kj}*\\mathrm{score}(\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{ij}'\\gets \\mathrm{predict}(\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{if~}S_{ij}' > S_{ij}\\mathrm{~then}}\\\\ & {\\mid \\mathrm{R}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{R}_{ij}',\\mathrm{S}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{S}_{ij}^{\\prime}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{end}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{return}\\mathrm{R}_{ij},\\mathrm{S}_{ij}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{end}} \\end{array}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "b) SWQ-WD (Diefenbach et al., 2017) is a Question Answering (QA) dataset with simple questions built to evaluate the QA accuracy of KBQA systems that use Wikidata as the knowledge source. This dataset fits our relation linking evaluation goal because it consists of simple questions with single text predicates, hence it is possible to perform a focused evaluation of the relation linking task, reducing the impact of uncertainties of other components of KBQA systems such as semantic parsing" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1713" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.085, + 0.855, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CLUTRR: \nson:{(son and brother, 0.95), (daughter and brother, 0.95), (wife and son, 0.96), (husband and son, 0.96)} \ngranddaughter:{(son and daughter, 0.97), (daughter and daughter, 0.96), (granddaughter and sister, 0.92), (grandson and sister, 0.96), (wife and granddaughter, 0.94), (husband and granddaughter, 0.90)} \nniece:{(brother and daughter, 0.98), (sister and daughter, 0.91)} \nSWQ-WD: \nbook-write:{(author, 0.88), (notable work-1, 0.87)} \nfilm-language:{... (original language of film or TV show, 0.97), (language of work or name, 0.83) , ..., cast member and writing language, 0.97), (screenwriter and writing language, 0.95), (film editor and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.87), director and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.83), (follows and original language of film or TV show, 0.96), based on and language of work or name, 0.70), ...}" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.307, + 0.883, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Sample learned rules for both CLUTRR and SWQ-WD datasets. Note that each rule is represented by a set of tuples, with each tuple containing a knowledge base path and its weight value. These corresponds to the knowledge base paths and the corresponding weights in rule model (1). Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relations) in the rules are denoted by superscript \\({}^{-1}\\), as described in Section 3.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.382, + 0.848, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "son: \\{ (son, 0.97), (husband, 2.49), (daughter, 0.70), (wife, 2.30) \\} and \\{ (son, 0.81), (brother, 2.86) \\}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.398, + 0.746, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- granddaughter: { (son, 1.26), (grandson, 2.50), (daughter, 1.20), (granddaughter, 4.22)} and { (daughter, 1.22), (granddaughter, 5.09)}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.425, + 0.591, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- niece: { (brother, 1.69), (sister, 1.43)} and { (daughter, 1.72)}" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.382, + 0.848, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.454, + 0.738, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Sample learned rules for CLUTRR using Chain of Mixtures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.494, + 0.489, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and entity linking. SWQ-WD has 13894 train set questions and 5622 test set questions. We use train set to self-learn rules and report relation linking accuracy on the test set. Answer prediction using our rule model is described in Section 3.4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.59, + 0.334, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baselines and Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.489, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For both the datasets, we compared our method against the best available baseline as per our knowledge. For CLUTRR, we compared against GAT (Velicković et al., 2017), a neural graph representation framework that learns representations through self-attention over the neighbourhood. For SWQ, we compared against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022), a modular and generalizable pipeline based approach consisting of KB-specific and KB-agnostic modules for KBQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For CLUTRR experiments, where relation linking performance is directly evaluated, we use a simple accuracy metric of accuracy = success_count/total_count. For SWQ experiments, where the relation linking performance is not directly evaluated but through its influence on the question answering (QA) accuracy, we use the metric of Recall which is a fraction of correct answers that the system is able to estimate." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.494, + 0.662, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Code Release" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.519, + 0.885, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The code and the experimental setup used to train and evaluate our self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking is available at https://github.com/IBM/self-supervised-rule-learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.616, + 0.608, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a) CLUTRR: Figure 7 shows (in upper part) sample 1-hop rules learned from CLUTRR dataset. Note that these rules are of form as in Equation (1). For CLUTRR, there were 22 predicates and so each 1-hop rule was learned over \\( N = 22 \\times 22 = 484 \\) possible paths. Figure 8 shows corresponding CoM rules for the CLUTRR dataset. For example, the CoM rule for son implies possible 1-hop rules that start with either son, husband, daughter, or wife and end with either son or brother, offering \\( 4 \\times 2 = 8 \\) possible rules for son. Rules of the form (1) could thus be rather learned over only these 8 possible rules and capture the same two interpretable rules for son seen in the CLUTRR part of Figure 7. Overall, rules for the 22 different relations search over 484 paths each (10648 total possible rules); CoM reduced that search to 118 to" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1714" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tal possible rules with perfect coverage (i.e., CoM results include all optimal rules as a subset) for all but 2 relations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.49, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9 compares the Systematic generalization performance of our approach against GAT (Veličković et al., 2017) on CLUTRR dataset with test set clause length ranging from 2 to 10. The results suggest that the proposed approach trained with stories of clause length \\( k = 2 \\) generalizes better in comparison to GAT trained with stories of clause length \\( k = 2 \\), 3 and stories of clause length \\( k = 2 \\), 3, 4. Table 1 compares the model robustness of our approach against GAT on CLUTRR dataset for differing noise scenarios during training and inference. The results suggest that the proposed approach outperforms GAT for most scenarios, achieving an average absolute accuracy improvement of \\( 17\\% \\)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.373, + 0.454, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.542, + 0.471, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Systematic generalization on CLUTRR." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.573, + 0.49, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "b) SWQ-WD: Figure 7 shows (in lower part) sample 0/1-hop rules learned from SWQ dataset, of form as in Equation (1). Interestingly, for text predicate film-language it is able to learn rules that associate it with the language spoken/written by the director or screen writer or cast members of the film. Table 2 compares QA accuracy of our approach against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022). Our approach achieves comparable QA performance (as given in the first two lines), in spite of SYGMA using supervised training for its relation linking module - whereas our approach is a self-supervised approach (not using any labelled data for training). Note that rule learning is prone to inaccurate entity linking6. Thus, when ground truth entities are" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.822, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that inaccuracies both in AMR parsing and entity linking could lead to erroneous logical statements. However, SWQ sentences are simple and hence their AMR parsing is straight forward, with SMATCH score of \\(83.0\\%\\) (Neelam et al., 2022). Thus, incorrect logical statements for SWQ are largely due to entity linking errors. In case of CLUTRR, GAT baseline used the readily available ground truth logical forms of the sentences that we also used for fair comparison." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.082, + 0.864, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TrainingTestingGATOur approach
CleanClean1.01.0
Supporting0.241.0
Irrelevant0.511.0
Disconnected0.81.0
SupportingClean0.920.89
Supporting0.980.97
Irrelevant0.50.94
Disconnected0.920.91
IrrelevantClean0.920.94
Supporting0.770.94
Irrelevant0.930.96
Disconnected0.850.88
DisconnectedClean0.750.91
Supporting0.780.93
Irrelevant0.560.91
Disconnected0.960.93
Average0.770.94
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.323, + 0.882, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Model robustness on CLUTRR - Accuracies for various training and inference noise conditions." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.371, + 0.861, + 0.458 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodRecall
SYGMA55.0
Our approach53.7
SYGMA (with GT entities)68.0
Our approach (with GT entities)70.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.574, + 0.467, + 0.818, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: QA performance on SWQ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.509, + 0.884, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "used, our approach performs marginally better than SYGMA (as shown in the last two rows). Note that when ground truth entities are used, QA performance is more reflective of the relation linking performance, thus asserting the effectiveness of our relation linking model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.619, + 0.651, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.646, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we presented a novel masked training based self rule learning approach for relation linking. The proposed approach takes inspiration from the masked training of large language models and rule learning in knowledge base completion to create a rule learning model that results in a relation linking model that is interpretable and generalizable to any knowledge base and domain. Our evaluation on two datasets CLUTRR (rule learning for kinship relations) and SWQ (relation linking for Wikidata) shows that our model is able to produce high quality rules for relation linking that generalize across domains. Our next steps are to scale to learn from large amount of data, extend the framework beyond triples. We see a lot of potential for our rule learning framework beyond relation linking, like general knowledge acquisition." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1715" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.251, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.493, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Proposed approach is an initial attempt at taking masked training to logic statements and using knowledge graph as context. Current approach described is only taking single triple to learn relationship linking problem for KBQA, but overall approach has potential to extend to larger logic statements. Extending the work to handle logic statements with more than one triple is a future direction that we are looking into. In the current approach we assumed semantic parses to be perfect and available, but in reality they can be noisy resulting in noisy rule model. Handling noise coming from the parsing is another main extension we would like to look into as part of our future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.364, + 0.214, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.388, + 0.489, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In LAW@ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.466, + 0.49, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chandra Bhagavatula, Jena D. Hwang, Doug Downey, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Lianhui Qin, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Peter West, and Yejin Choi. 2023. I2d2: Inductive knowledge distillation with neurologic and self-imitation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mihaela A. Bornea, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Tahira Naseem, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Pavan Kapanipathi, Radu Florian, and Salim Roukos. 2021. Learning to transpile amr into sparql. ArXiv, abs/2112.07877." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, and et.al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. ArXiv, abs/2005.14165." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.685, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yubo Chen, Yunqi Zhang, Changran Hu, and Yongfeng Huang. 2021. Jointly extracting explicit and implicit relational triples with reasoning pattern enhanced binary pointer network. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5694-5703, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.802, + 0.489, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, and et.al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. ArXiv, abs/2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. ArXiv, abs/2003.10555." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.388, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dennis Diefenbach, Thomas Pellissier Tanon, Kamal Deep Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2017. Question answering benchmarks for wikidata. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.211, + 0.885, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohnish Dubey, Debayan Banerjee, Debanjan Chaudhuri, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. Earl: Joint entity and relation linking for question answering over knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1801.03825." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.273, + 0.883, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Claire Gardent, Anastasia Shimorina, Shashi Narayan, and Laura Perez-Beltrachini. 2017. Creating training corpora for nlg micro-planners. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.336, + 0.885, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Maria Chang, Cristina Cornelio, Saswati Dana, Achille Fokoue, Dinesh Garg, A. Gliozzo, Sairam Gurajada, Hima P. Karanam, Naweed Khan, Dinesh Khandelwal, Young suk Lee, Yunyao Li, Francois P. S. Luus, Ndivhuwo Makondo, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Tahira Naseem, Sumit Neelam, Lucian Popa, Revanth Reddy Gangi Reddy, Ryan Riegel, Gaetano Rossiello, Udit Sharma, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, and Mo Yu. 2020. Leveraging abstract meaning representation for knowledge base question answering. In Findings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.515, + 0.883, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hunter Lang and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Self-supervised self-supervision by combining deep learning and probabilistic logic. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(6):4978-4986." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.578, + 0.885, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdel rahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.679, + 0.883, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xueling Lin, Haoyang Li, Hao Xin, Zijian Li, and Lei Chen. 2020. Kbpearl: A knowledge base population system supported by joint entity and relation linking. Proc. VLDB Endow., 13:1035-1049." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.741, + 0.883, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.804, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.879, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Gaetano Rossiello, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Mo Yu, A. Gliozzo, Salim Roukos, and Alexander G." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1716" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gray. 2020. Leveraging semantic parsing for relation linking over knowledge bases. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.135, + 0.488, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sumit Neelam, Udit Sharma, Hima P. Karanam, Shajith Ikbal, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Young-Suk Lee, Santosh K. Srivastava, Cezar Pendus, Saswati Dana, Dinesh Garg, Achille Fokoue, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, Dinesh Khandelwal, Srinivas Ravishankar, Sairam Gurajada, Maria Chang, Rosario A. Uceda-Sosa, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Guilherme Lima, Ryan Riegel, Francois P. S. Luus, and L. V. Subramaniam. 2022. Syagma: A system for generalizable and modular question answering over knowledge bases. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.314, + 0.488, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso A. Poggio. 2015. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1510.04935." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.362, + 0.488, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeff Z. Pan, Mei Zhang, Kuldeep Singh, F. V. Harmelen, Jinguang Gu, and Zhi Zhang. 2019. Entity enabled relation linking. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.488, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.499, + 0.488, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reid Pryzant, Ziyi Yang, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Automatic rule induction for interpretable semi-supervised learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.548, + 0.488, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stanislaw J. Purgal, David M. Cerna, and C. Kaliszkyk. 2022. Differentiable inductive logic programming in high-dimensional space. ArXiv, abs/2208.06652." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.596, + 0.488, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meng Qu, Junkun Chen, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. 2020. Rnnlogic: Learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs. ArXiv, abs/2010.04029." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.658, + 0.488, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.707, + 0.488, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.755, + 0.488, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.83, + 0.488, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Rocktäschel and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. End-to-end differentiable proving. ArXiv, abs/1705.11040." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gaetano Rossiello, Faisal Chowdhury, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Owen Cornec, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Knowgl: Knowledge generation and linking from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13952." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gaetano Rossiello, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Mihaela A. Bornea, A. Gliozzo, Tahira Naseem, and Pavan Kapanipathi. 2021. Generative relation linking for question answering over knowledge bases. ArXiv, abs/2108.07337." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.883, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ali Reza Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. Drum: End-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1911.00055." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.227, + 0.883, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ahmad Sakor, Isaiah Onando Mulang, Kuldeep Singh, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria-Esther Vidal, Jens Lehmann, and S. Auer. 2019a. Old is gold: Linguistic driven approach for entity and relation linking of short text. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.316, + 0.883, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ahmad Sakor, Kuldeep Singh, Anery Patel, and Maria-Esther Vidal. 2019b. Falcon 2.0: An entity and relation linking tool over wikidata. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.393, + 0.883, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, Suzana Ilič, Daniel Hesslow, and et.al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv, abs/2211.05100." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.47, + 0.883, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "P. Sen, B. W. S. R. de Carvalho, I. Abdelaziz, P. Kapanipathi, S. Roukos, and A. Gray. 2022. Logical neural networks for knowledge base completion with embeddings & rules. In EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.533, + 0.883, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prithviraj Sen, Bruno W. Carvalho, Ryan Riegel, and Alexander G. Gray. 2021. Neuro-symbolic inductive logic programming with logical neural networks. ArXiv, abs/2112.03324." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.597, + 0.883, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.661, + 0.883, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saleh Soltan, Shankar Ananthakrishnan, Jack G. M. FitzGerald, Rahul Gupta, Wael Hamza, Haidar Khan, Charith S. Peris, and et.al. 2022. Alexatm 20b: Few-shot learning using a large-scale multilingual seq2seq model. ArXiv, abs/2208.01448." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.738, + 0.883, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pretraining for language generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.802, + 0.883, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhihong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2018. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. ArXiv, abs/1902.10197." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.865, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1717" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.487, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.487, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.487, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ledell Yu Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.35, + 0.487, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bishan Yang, Wen tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2014. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/1412.6575." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.413, + 0.487, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017a. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.463, + 0.487, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017b. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NeurIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.512, + 0.487, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mo Yu, Wenpeng Yin, Kazi Saidul Hasan, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. Improved neural relation detection for knowledge base question answering. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.601, + 0.487, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuai Zhang, Yi Tay, Lina Yao, and Qi Liu. 2019. Quaternion knowledge graph embeddings. In Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.651, + 0.487, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, and et.al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. ArXiv, abs/2205.01068." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.487, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronghang Zhu and Sheng Li. Self-supervision based Semantic Alignment for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation, pages 1-9." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1718" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2762a5fa64b9872d8dc90e2195111dcfe81b748a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/414cb7d8-f28a-4147-86db-8782a97e36bd_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f4f970988713bad263493388cbb45820645d490e8d1b826b7a4565c6764a87a5 +size 805775 diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/full.md b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a36bcb4af39bb0bf67a9fd8f65c5e4896ed7ff0f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,314 @@ +# Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge + +Shajith Ikbal\*, Udit Sharma\*, Hima Karanam\*, Sumit Neelam†, Ronny Luss‡, Dheeraj Sreedhar†, Pavan Kapanipathi‡, Naweed Khan§, Kyle Erwin§, Ndivhuwo Makondo§, Ibrahim Abdelaziz‡, Achille Fokoue‡, Alexander Gray‡, Maxwell Crouse‡, Subhajit Chaudhury‡, Chitra K Subramanian‡ + +# IBM Research + +# Abstract + +We present a neuro-symbolic approach to self-learn rules that serve as interpretable knowledge to perform relation linking in knowledge base question answering systems. These rules define natural language text predicates as a weighted mixture of knowledge base paths. The weights learned during training effectively serve the mapping needed to perform relation linking. We use popular masked training strategy to self-learn the rules. A key distinguishing aspect of our work is that the masked training operates over logical forms of the sentence instead of their natural language text form. This offers opportunity to extract extended context information from the structured knowledge source and use that to build robust and human readable rules. We evaluate accuracy and usefulness of such learned rules by utilizing them for prediction of missing kinship relation in CLUTRR dataset and relation linking in a KBQA system using SWQ-WD dataset. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach - its generalizability, interpretability and ability to achieve an average performance gain of $17\%$ on CLUTRR dataset. + +# 1 Introduction + +Relation linking is a key step in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks including Semantic Parsing, Triple Extraction, and Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA). Its goal is to accurately map predicate components of a natural language (NL) text segment onto their corresponding predicate (i.e., relational) elements within a knowledge base (KB). Such a mapping would enable question answering systems to exploit the deep + +![](images/21199cf5b8d21f2a9975535c8a22e08b9360431090b7328a9256245a966e80d3.jpg) +Figure 1: Illustration of logical statement of a NL text, masked logical statement, and the grounding (i.e. linking) of unmasked elements of the statement to a knowledge base (Wikidata). + +reasoning capabilities of symbolic systems. For example, by accurately mapping predicate component of the NL text shown in Figure 1, i.e., share-screen, to its corresponding relational elements within KB, we should be able to successfully utilize KBQA systems to answer questions like Whether Kate Winslet shared screen with Leonardo DiCaprio? and Who all have shared screen with Kate Winslet?1. However, learning these mappings is challenging for various reasons: lexical variations, modeling deficiencies to handle complex linking involving multiple KB predicates2, and limited training data to build models in a supervised fashion. + +Various approaches have been tried in the past work, including graph-based approaches (Pan et al., + +Figure 2: Illustration of human readable rule for the example shown in Figure 1 and the corresponding extended knowledge base context shown in Figure 3. Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relation) in the rule is denoted by superscript ${}^{-1}$ , as described in Section 3.2. + +2019; Dubey et al., 2018), linguistic features based approaches (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020), and recently neural approaches that achieve state-of-the-art performance (Rossiello et al., 2021; Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017). However, these approaches have the following drawbacks: they are (a) data hungry requiring huge amount of supervised data for training, (b) non-interpretable by design, and (c) non-trivial to adapt and generalize to new domains or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that formulates relation linking as a rule learning problem in the space of structured knowledge sources. Our approach tries to learn human readable rules of the form illustrated in Figure 2 and use them to perform relation linking, thus resulting in explainable relation linking model. In contrast to the existing approaches that build linking models in a supervised fashion, we adopt a self-supervised learning approach that offer benefits: does not require annotating large amounts of training data, and offers generalization across domains. + +For self-supervision we use masked training, a popularly used self-supervised training strategy for large language models. However, in contrast to the use of NL text as in the large language models (LLMs), masked training in our approach operates on logical statements of the sentences. In this work, we use triples extracted from semantically parsed output of the sentences as the logical statements. An example sentence in its NL form and its corresponding triple form (logical statement) are shown in Figure 1. The masking procedure when applied on a triple may end up masking any of the three elements, i.e., subject, object, or predicate. Figure 1 shows an illustration of the predicate component + +getting masked. Given that the three elements of a triple play different semantic roles, the masked training need to be adapted to suit the role played by the element being masked. As will be seen later in the paper, such differences reflect mainly on the loss computation during training. + +The main contributions of our work are: + +1. The first self-supervised rule learning approach that uses an adaptation of masked language objective for logical forms extracted from text. We have applied this to relation linking, a prominent task for understanding natural language. +2. The output of our model is completely interpretable; the set of rules obtained to perform relation linking can explain the predictions of the model. An example of a learnt rule for the SWQ dataset is shown in Figure 2. +3. We evaluate our approach on two datasets CLUTRR and SWQ demonstrating (a) Generalizability over two different knowledge bases as context on the datasets, (b) Effectiveness of relation linking where results show significant gains (17% gain in average performance) for CLUTRR across different test sets along with superior systematic generalization and competitive results on SWQ, (c) Interpretability, by showing qualitative results of the learnt rules. + +# 2 Related Work + +Relation linking has been important for various NLP tasks such as semantic parsing, knowledge graph induction (Gardent et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2021; Rossiello et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2020) and knowledge base question answering (Rossiello et al., 2021; Kapanipathi et al., 2020; Neelam et al., 2022). Prior to the surge of generative models, relation linking was addressed either by graph traversal based (Pan et al., 2019; Dubey et al., 2018) or by linguistic-features based methodologies (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020). Several learning based approaches to relation linking have been proposed (Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017; Bornea et al., 2021). Most recent approaches to relation linking have focused on generative models (Rossiello et al., 2021). These approaches are data hungry and non-interpretable. In contrast, our work is a self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking. The learnt rules are + +human readable and they can be learnt for different knowledge bases as context for different domains. + +Rule learning, specifically in terms of detecting relations has also been popular for knowledge base completion (KBC) task. KBC problems are addressed in two different ways in the literature. Rule based KBC learns explainable rules that can be used to predict the missing links in the knowledge base (Sen et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017a; Sadeghian et al., 2019; Purgal et al., 2022; Rocktäschel and Riedel, 2017). These rules are learned for predicates in the knowledge base in terms of other predicates and paths in the knowledge base. Our work uses the rule model and some of the ideas from the rule based KBC to build self supervised explainable rules for linking text elements to knowledge base relations. There have also been several learning based methods that use vector embeddings of the entities and relationships and then use them to predict any missing relationships (Nickel et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Trouillon et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019); they have the same drawbacks as neural relation linking approaches. There are many recent works that use semi-supervised/unsupervised learning for rules and knowledge induction (Pryzant et al., 2022; Bhagavatula et al., 2023; Lang and Poon, 2021; Zhu and Li). + +Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) have given rise to a wide range of masked pre-training models that try to learn latent representation of words. Masked language modeling has gained popularity in building large pre-trained models that learn word representations that can easily be adapted to a variety of tasks. Masked language training has resulted in building various model architectures like encoder only models which learn a vector representation of tokens using masked training (Peters et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2020). Several Encode-decoder LLMs are built using similar training strategy (Song et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2019; Soltan et al., 2022; Raffel et al., 2019). Recently decoder only models built using similar masked language training are gaining popularity (Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Scao et al., 2022). In this paper we take inspiration from masked language training on text and use the ideas to perform similar masking on logic statements to learn rules. + +# 3 Our Approach + +Our approach to relation linking is a rule-learning framework where rules learned in a self-supervised fashion are used to map from 'NL text segments' to the 'elements of structured knowledge'. For self-supervised rule learning, we use masked training. A distinctive aspect of the masked training in our approach is that it is applied over the logical form of the input text. When logical form is not readily available, we first convert NL text into its logical form using a semantic parser, before applying masked training. In this section, first we briefly describe the conversion of input text to logical statements, and then describe the proposed rule model and its self-supervised training. + +# 3.1 Logical Statements + +In this work, we use triples extracted from sentences as their logical form4. Note that logical forms are expressed as predicate.source entity, destination entity), as illustrated in Figure 1. To extract such logical forms from NL text, we use the semantic parsing approach described in (Neelam et al., 2022), which performs an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) based $\lambda$ -expression extraction. For simple sentences, $\lambda$ -expressions can be converted directly into triples5. Figure 1 shows an illustration of a NL text and its corresponding logical form. Different elements of the triple represent distinct segments of the NL text. Since we use an AMR based approach to derive $\lambda$ -expressions, predicate components of the triple are typically a propbank predicate. Relation linking is expected to map this predicate component onto the corresponding knowledge-base elements. + +# 3.2 Rule Model + +Towards the goal of relation linking, our rule model is formulated as a function that maps a weighted mixture of 'knowledge base predicates' onto a 'predicate component of the NL text'. This enables interpretable prediction of the set of knowledge base predicates that the text predicate should get linked to. Figure 2 gives an illustration of a simple rule. + +Let us assume a triple $pred_{i}(s,d)$ extracted from NL text, where $s$ is the source entity, $d$ is the destination entity and $pred_{i}$ is the text predicate. The + +![](images/64a71100e4cfb65ed56fcef0aebd5ec65d6896bd17fe3bf94e5c75ba4a3a34e9.jpg) +Figure 3: Illustration of a one-hop path between entities Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio via entity Titanic movie in Wikidata (through a reverse relation edge cast-member connecting Kate Winslet to Titanic movie and a forward relation edge cast-member connecting Titanic movie to Leonardo DiCaprio). This can also be viewed as an extended context extracted from knowledge base through the unmasked elements of the masked logical statement in Figure 1. + +goal is to ground $pred_{i}$ to its corresponding knowledge base predicates using relation linking model. Our proposed rule model to achieve this is defined as: + +$$ +\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} (s, d) = f \left(\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} w _ {j} ^ {i} \operatorname {p a t h} _ {j} (s, d)\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +for $i \in \{1, \dots, M\}$ where $f(\cdot)$ denotes a function such as Sigmoid and $path_j$ denotes a path in the knowledge base that passes through one or more knowledge base predicate edges. $path_j(s, d)$ can take values 0 or 1 depending upon presence or absence of a path $path_j$ connecting source entity $s$ and destination entity $d$ . Depending upon the length of the path, i.e., number of predicate edges and the intermediate entities, paths could be categorized as $k$ -hop, where $k$ denotes the count of intermediate entities in the path. An example of a 1-hop path between entities in Wikidata is shown in Figure 3. If there are $L$ unique knowledge base predicates, i.e., $\{p_l\}$ , $1 \leq l \leq L$ , the sets of 0, 1 and 2-hop paths are defined as follows: + +0-hop paths $= \{p_{l}(s,d)\}$ , $1 \leq l \leq L$ + +1-hop paths $= \{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, d)\}$ , + +$$ +1 \leq l \leq L, 1 \leq m \leq L +$$ + +2-hop paths $= \{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, *) : p_{n}(*, d)\}$ , + +$$ +1 \leq l \leq L, 1 \leq m \leq L, 1 \leq n \leq L +$$ + +where $*$ denote any possible entity. Note that paths always originate from a source entity and end at a destination entity. Also note that, the constituent knowledge base predicates in a path could also be inverse (reverse), denoted by superscript ${}^{-1}$ . For example, path in Figure 3 contains an inverse relation, + +![](images/ff13e7191a0f6131e2d9e2ca7be803b0a2f47f0e32af5226f60489cb9001f9dd.jpg) +Figure 4: Neural model implementing each rule of the rule model defined in Equation (1). + +which is denoted as cast member $^{-1}$ in the corresponding path expression given in Figure 2. All the knowledge base paths of various lengths, i.e., from 0-hop paths until $k$ -hop paths put together, constitute the overall set of paths considered in our rule learning framework. Let us assume there are $N$ such paths in total. Given that the knowledge base paths path $_j$ are defined in terms of the knowledge base predicates, our rule model in (1) effectively defines a mapping between the 'NL text predicates' and the 'knowledge base predicates'. During learning, we want to estimate weights $w_j^i$ so that rule model in (1) can be used for relation linking. + +A neural implementation of each rule in (1) is given in Figure 4. Note that there is one such network each for every rule in (1), and all these networks are trained together during learning. Note that the parameters of our rule model, denoted by $W$ , is a matrix of learnable weights: + +$$ +W = \{w _ {j} ^ {i} \}, 1 \leq i \leq M, 1 \leq j \leq N +$$ + +where each row corresponds to the set of path weights of a specific rule. In the next section, we describe masked training used to estimate these weights in a self-supervised manner. + +# 3.3 Self-Supervised Rule Learning + +Masked training in large language model training involves masking certain parts of the input text and having the model predict those masked parts by treating the rest of the (unmasked) text as its context. The model parameters are adjusted during training to effectively model the context so it can act as a proxy for the masked part. In our approach masked training is performed on the logical form of the input text as detailed below. + +# 3.3.1 Masked Training on Logical Forms + +Logical statements are composed of distinct elements playing distinct semantic roles. For example, triples are composed of a predicate, a source entity (also called subject) and a destination entity (also called object). The masking procedure could mask any of these elements: + +1. Predicate masking - predicate component of the triple is masked +2. Source entity masking - source entity component of the triple is masked +3. Destination entity masking - destination entity element of the triple is masked + +Figure 1 gives an illustration of predicate masking. Similar to the large language model training, masked training for rule learning also aims to adjust the parameters of the rule model so that it can accurately predict the masked elements from the unmasked context. + +However, the distinctive aspect of our approach is in the context computation. For the context, in addition to the unmasked elements of the logical statement, we also use paths within the knowledge base that are associated to those unmasked elements. A set of such associated paths are obtained by grounding the unmasked elements of the logical statement to the knowledge base. For example, given Wikidata as the knowledge base, we first use entity linking (Wu et al., 2019) to link the unmasked source and destination entities of the triple to corresponding Wikidata entities, as illustrated in Figure 1. Then the Wikidata paths originating from unmasked source entity and ending at unmasked destination entity are computed and used as the context. Figure 3 gives an illustration of a Wikidata path, through entity node corresponding to Titanic movie, for the unmasked entities of Figure 1. Note that such use of knowledge base paths as the context help establish the mapping between the NL text predicates and the knowledge base predicates, which indeed is the goal of our relation linking model. Next we describe rule model parameter estimation procedure for different masking scenarios. + +# 3.3.2 Rule Model Estimation + +Learning procedures for the 3 masking scenarios differ mainly in the way training loss is computed. In all 3 masking scenarios we use rule models to predict the masked element. As discussed + +![](images/1207484741b174fb5cf5a9df7754182eae25a38ba88b8c2fa8064cba4a1c06dd.jpg) +Figure 5: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when predicate in the triple is masked. + +above, knowledge base paths associated with the unmasked elements of the triple are used as the context for the prediction. However, the set of such paths differ based on which element is masked and which elements are unmasked and could be linked to the knowledge base. Training loss functions are defined to improve prediction accuracy over the training iterations, as described below: + +a) Predicate Masking: As illustrated in Figure 5, when the predicate is masked, unmasked source and destination entities are linked to the corresponding elements in the knowledge base through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that connect these linked entities are computed and used as context. Let $j \in E$ denote the set of indices of knowledge base paths that connect the linked source and destination entities. These paths when applied to all the rules in (1), corresponding to all the text predicates $pred_{i}(.)$ , $1 \leq i \leq M$ , would result in scores for each text predicate as below: + +$$ +s _ {i} = f \left(\sum_ {j \in E} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s, d)\right), 1 \leq i \leq M. +$$ + +For accurate prediction of the masked predicate by the model, the score should be highest (1.0) for the text predicate being masked and should be the lowest (0.0) for all others. Accordingly, let $t_i$ , $1 \leq i \leq M$ denote the target scores, where the score corresponding to the index of the masked predicate is 1.0 and the rest of the scores are 0.0. We compare the estimated scores against these target scores, to compute the training loss that could be used further to update the model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD). In actual, we use a cross-entropy training loss computed as below: + +$$ +l o s s = \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} t _ {i} \log (s _ {i}) +$$ + +![](images/e1e8847eedca1cd9c2080fdfc7bc0d332d411c09d1fea2b16209f5ac4451de8a.jpg) +Figure 6: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when source entity in the triple is masked. + +b) Source Entity Masking: As illustrated in Figure 6 when the source entity is masked, unmasked destination entity is linked to the corresponding element in the knowledge base, through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that end at the linked destination entity are computed for use as the context. Note that all these paths together have a set of associated origination entities that could potentially be considered as the prediction for the masked source entity. Let $S = \{s_1, s_2, \dots, s_E\}$ denote the set of all such candidate source entities. Let $E_e$ correspond to the set of indices of all paths that originate from the candidate source entity $s_e$ and end at the unmasked linked destination entity. These paths when applied to a specific rule in (1) that corresponds to the unmasked text predicate $pred_i$ , would give a score for $s_e$ as below: + +$$ +s _ {e} = \sum_ {j \in E _ {e}} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s _ {e}, d), 1 \leq e \leq E +$$ + +A list of such scores are computed for each candidate source entity in $S$ . Note that among these scores the one corresponding to candidate entity that is same as the masked source entity should be highest (1.0) and the score for the rest should be the lowest (0.0). Accordingly, target scores are $t_e$ , $1 \leq e \leq E$ , where the score for the index of the masked entity is set to 1.0 and the rest are set to 0.0. We then compute training loss by comparing the estimated scores against the target scores. A cross-entropy training loss computed as below is used to update the rule model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD): + +$$ +l o s s = \sum_ {e \in S} t _ {e} \log (s _ {e}) +$$ + +c) Destination Entity Masking: Destination entity masking is similar to that of the source entity masking, except that when the destination entity + +is masked, unmasked source entity is linked to the knowledge base and the set of all paths originating from the linked source entity are computed as context, resulting in the associated candidate destination entities. Then scores for all candidate destination entities are computed in a similar fashion to further compute the training loss. + +# 3.4 Inference + +Note that, once trained, the right hand side of the rule model in Equation (1) directly gives human readable information of the relation linking, highlighting the interpretability/explainability aspect of our model. Each rule gives information of the knowledge base paths (that in turn are composed of the knowledge base predicates) that the text predicate should get linked to, with path weights denoting the linking confidence. During inference, for example while using our rule model to perform QA, the information being asked in the NL question would correspond to the missing element in the corresponding logical form. Hence the goal is to estimate candidates for that missing element and score them using our rule model. The scoring procedure is similar to that for the masked elements during masked training as described in Section 3.3.2. Top-K scoring candidates are chosen as the answers estimates of the rule model. + +# 3.5 Scaling + +The number of paths $N$ is exponential in the number of predicates $L$ that exist in the knowledge base. As a result, solving problem (1) becomes prohibitive with large $N$ and hence we explore methods for reducing the search space of paths. In other words, we learn a set of paths $\mathcal{P}$ with $|\mathcal{P}| << N$ that contains the optimal paths, allowing us to replace the summation in problem in Equation (1) to a summation over $\mathcal{P}$ , and thereby reducing the computation required to find the solution. + +We make use of a Chain of Mixtures (CoM) model, also known as Neural Logic Programming (Yang et al., 2017b) or edge-based rules (Sen et al., 2022), to learn $\mathcal{P}$ . In CoM, a rule is represented by a conjunction of mixtures of predicates. Specifically, rather than define a weight per path, for each of $M$ predicates we define a weight per predicate per hop to get rules of the form: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} ^ {C o M} (s, d) = g \left(f \left(\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 0} ^ {i} p _ {j} (s, r _ {1})\right), \right. \tag {2} \\ f \left(\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 1} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {1}, r _ {2})\right), \\ \end{array} +$$ + +$$ +\left. f \left(\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 2} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {2}, d)\right)\right) +$$ + +for $i \in \{1, \dots, M\}$ where now $w_{j,k}^{i}$ is a weight for rule $i$ (i.e., for the $i^{th}$ predicate) for predicate $j$ on the hop $k$ of the rule being learned, and $g(\dots)$ is a function approximating a conjunction such as a product. Equation (2) is an example 2-hop rule where $r_1$ and $r_2$ can take the values of any entities in the knowledge base. The number of weights learned in a CoM rule is $M(K + 1)$ where $K$ is the number of hops in the rule, which greatly reduces the number of weights learned in problem (1). + +While CoM requires learning much fewer parameters than our rule model (1), it is less interpretable because it is not known which paths are actually relevant to the rule. CoM rules suggest that any path that can be obtained from predicates with positive weights in the hops is possible. For example, suppose there are 8 predicates in the knowledge base and the set of strictly positive weights in a rule of the form (2) is $\{w_{0,1}^{i}, w_{0,3}^{i}, w_{0,4}^{i}, w_{1,1}^{i}, w_{1,2}^{i}, w_{2,2}^{i}, w_{2,4}^{i}, w_{2,8}^{i}\}$ . Then such a chain rule only allows rules of the form $p_{j}(s, r_{1}) \land p_{k}(r_{1}, r_{2}) \land p_{l}(r_{2}, e)$ where $j \in \{1, 3, 4\}$ , $k \in \{1, 2\}$ , $l \in \{2, 4, 8\}$ . With 8 predicates, there are a total of $8 \times 8 \times 8 = 512$ possible paths, but the CoM reduces this to $3 \times 2 \times 3 = 18$ possible paths. Given these possible paths, a more interpretable rule of the form Equation (1) can be learned more efficiently since the summation can be taken over 18 paths instead of $N = 512$ paths. + +# 4 Experimental Setup + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We evaluate our approach on two datasets as described below that involve utilization of two distinct types of knowledge sources. + +a) CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019) is a benchmark dataset for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of a Natural Language Understanding (NLU) system, where the goal is to infer kinship relations between source and target entities based on short stories. It contains both graph and textual representations of these stories. Each story consists of clauses (chains of relations) of length ranging from 2 to 10. The benchmark tests the model's ability for: i) Systematic Generalization which tests how well the model generalizes beyond the combination of rules seen during training. The test set consists of clauses + +of length up to 10, while the train set has clauses of length up to 4. ii) Model robustness which tests how well model performs in the presence of noisy facts. It consists of three kinds of noise: a) Supporting facts: It adds alternative equivalent paths between source and target entities. b) Irrelevant facts: It adds a path which originates on the path between the source and target entity but ends at an entity not in that path. c) Disconnected facts: It adds a path which is completely disconnected from the path between the source and target entity. + +We considered graph stories with only clause length 2 for training rule models in a self-supervised fashion. This results in multiple one-hop rules along with their confidence scores. These rules can be used to handle stories of clause length 2 at the time of inference. For stories with clause length greater than 2, we combine relations within the path from source to target entity using Algorithm 1 to compute the path scores. A n-length path $\mathbf{R}_1, \dots, \mathbf{R}_n$ from source entity to target entity can be reduced by invoking infer(1, n). It utilises two sub-modules predict( $R_i, R_j$ ) and score( $R_i, R_j$ ) which returns prediction and confidence scores for merging $R_i$ and $R_j$ using one-hop rule model. + +Algorithm 1: Inference procedure using one-hop rule model +Output: $\mathbb{R}_{ij}$ : Prediction for path $\mathrm{R}_i\ldots \mathrm{R}_j$ $S_{ij}$ : Prediction score for path $\mathrm{R}_i\ldots \mathrm{R}_j$ +Function infer(i,j): if $i = j$ then return $\mathbb{R}_i$ 1 else $\begin{array}{rl} & {\mathrm{R}_{ij}\gets \mathrm{null},\mathrm{S}_{ij}\gets 0}\\ & {\mathrm{for~}k\gets i + 1\mathrm{~to~}j\mathrm{~by~}1\mathrm{~do}}\\ & {\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}\gets \mathrm{infer}(i,k - 1)}\\ & {\mathrm{R}_{kj},\mathrm{S}_{kj}\gets \mathrm{infer}(k,j)}\\ & {\mathrm{S}_{ij}'\gets \mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}*\mathrm{S}_{kj}*\mathrm{score}(\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\ & {\mathrm{R}_{ij}'\gets \mathrm{predict}(\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\ & {\mathrm{if~}S_{ij}' > S_{ij}\mathrm{~then}}\\ & {\mid \mathrm{R}_{ij}\gets \mathrm{R}_{ij}',\mathrm{S}_{ij}\gets \mathrm{S}_{ij}^{\prime}}\\ & {\mathrm{end}}\\ & {\mathrm{return}\mathrm{R}_{ij},\mathrm{S}_{ij}}\\ & {\mathrm{end}} \end{array}$ + +b) SWQ-WD (Diefenbach et al., 2017) is a Question Answering (QA) dataset with simple questions built to evaluate the QA accuracy of KBQA systems that use Wikidata as the knowledge source. This dataset fits our relation linking evaluation goal because it consists of simple questions with single text predicates, hence it is possible to perform a focused evaluation of the relation linking task, reducing the impact of uncertainties of other components of KBQA systems such as semantic parsing + +CLUTRR: +son:{(son and brother, 0.95), (daughter and brother, 0.95), (wife and son, 0.96), (husband and son, 0.96)} +granddaughter:{(son and daughter, 0.97), (daughter and daughter, 0.96), (granddaughter and sister, 0.92), (grandson and sister, 0.96), (wife and granddaughter, 0.94), (husband and granddaughter, 0.90)} +niece:{(brother and daughter, 0.98), (sister and daughter, 0.91)} +SWQ-WD: +book-write:{(author, 0.88), (notable work-1, 0.87)} +film-language:{... (original language of film or TV show, 0.97), (language of work or name, 0.83) , ..., cast member and writing language, 0.97), (screenwriter and writing language, 0.95), (film editor and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.87), director and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.83), (follows and original language of film or TV show, 0.96), based on and language of work or name, 0.70), ...} + +Figure 7: Sample learned rules for both CLUTRR and SWQ-WD datasets. Note that each rule is represented by a set of tuples, with each tuple containing a knowledge base path and its weight value. These corresponds to the knowledge base paths and the corresponding weights in rule model (1). Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relations) in the rules are denoted by superscript ${}^{-1}$ , as described in Section 3.2. + +son: \{ (son, 0.97), (husband, 2.49), (daughter, 0.70), (wife, 2.30) \} and \{ (son, 0.81), (brother, 2.86) \} +- granddaughter: { (son, 1.26), (grandson, 2.50), (daughter, 1.20), (granddaughter, 4.22)} and { (daughter, 1.22), (granddaughter, 5.09)} +- niece: { (brother, 1.69), (sister, 1.43)} and { (daughter, 1.72)} + +Figure 8: Sample learned rules for CLUTRR using Chain of Mixtures. + +and entity linking. SWQ-WD has 13894 train set questions and 5622 test set questions. We use train set to self-learn rules and report relation linking accuracy on the test set. Answer prediction using our rule model is described in Section 3.4. + +# 4.2 Baselines and Metrics + +For both the datasets, we compared our method against the best available baseline as per our knowledge. For CLUTRR, we compared against GAT (Velicković et al., 2017), a neural graph representation framework that learns representations through self-attention over the neighbourhood. For SWQ, we compared against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022), a modular and generalizable pipeline based approach consisting of KB-specific and KB-agnostic modules for KBQA. + +For CLUTRR experiments, where relation linking performance is directly evaluated, we use a simple accuracy metric of accuracy = success_count/total_count. For SWQ experiments, where the relation linking performance is not directly evaluated but through its influence on the question answering (QA) accuracy, we use the metric of Recall which is a fraction of correct answers that the system is able to estimate. + +# 4.3 Code Release + +The code and the experimental setup used to train and evaluate our self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking is available at https://github.com/IBM/self-supervised-rule-learning. + +# 5 Results + +a) CLUTRR: Figure 7 shows (in upper part) sample 1-hop rules learned from CLUTRR dataset. Note that these rules are of form as in Equation (1). For CLUTRR, there were 22 predicates and so each 1-hop rule was learned over $N = 22 \times 22 = 484$ possible paths. Figure 8 shows corresponding CoM rules for the CLUTRR dataset. For example, the CoM rule for son implies possible 1-hop rules that start with either son, husband, daughter, or wife and end with either son or brother, offering $4 \times 2 = 8$ possible rules for son. Rules of the form (1) could thus be rather learned over only these 8 possible rules and capture the same two interpretable rules for son seen in the CLUTRR part of Figure 7. Overall, rules for the 22 different relations search over 484 paths each (10648 total possible rules); CoM reduced that search to 118 to + +tal possible rules with perfect coverage (i.e., CoM results include all optimal rules as a subset) for all but 2 relations. + +Figure 9 compares the Systematic generalization performance of our approach against GAT (Veličković et al., 2017) on CLUTRR dataset with test set clause length ranging from 2 to 10. The results suggest that the proposed approach trained with stories of clause length $k = 2$ generalizes better in comparison to GAT trained with stories of clause length $k = 2$ , 3 and stories of clause length $k = 2$ , 3, 4. Table 1 compares the model robustness of our approach against GAT on CLUTRR dataset for differing noise scenarios during training and inference. The results suggest that the proposed approach outperforms GAT for most scenarios, achieving an average absolute accuracy improvement of $17\%$ . + +![](images/0044e6ad7d39245cbce59bff84458f4c2fe4af21502357e0cb6528fb9aa708c8.jpg) +Figure 9: Systematic generalization on CLUTRR. + +b) SWQ-WD: Figure 7 shows (in lower part) sample 0/1-hop rules learned from SWQ dataset, of form as in Equation (1). Interestingly, for text predicate film-language it is able to learn rules that associate it with the language spoken/written by the director or screen writer or cast members of the film. Table 2 compares QA accuracy of our approach against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022). Our approach achieves comparable QA performance (as given in the first two lines), in spite of SYGMA using supervised training for its relation linking module - whereas our approach is a self-supervised approach (not using any labelled data for training). Note that rule learning is prone to inaccurate entity linking6. Thus, when ground truth entities are + +
TrainingTestingGATOur approach
CleanClean1.01.0
Supporting0.241.0
Irrelevant0.511.0
Disconnected0.81.0
SupportingClean0.920.89
Supporting0.980.97
Irrelevant0.50.94
Disconnected0.920.91
IrrelevantClean0.920.94
Supporting0.770.94
Irrelevant0.930.96
Disconnected0.850.88
DisconnectedClean0.750.91
Supporting0.780.93
Irrelevant0.560.91
Disconnected0.960.93
Average0.770.94
+ +Table 1: Model robustness on CLUTRR - Accuracies for various training and inference noise conditions. + +
MethodRecall
SYGMA55.0
Our approach53.7
SYGMA (with GT entities)68.0
Our approach (with GT entities)70.1
+ +Table 2: QA performance on SWQ. + +used, our approach performs marginally better than SYGMA (as shown in the last two rows). Note that when ground truth entities are used, QA performance is more reflective of the relation linking performance, thus asserting the effectiveness of our relation linking model. + +# 6 Conclusions + +In this paper, we presented a novel masked training based self rule learning approach for relation linking. The proposed approach takes inspiration from the masked training of large language models and rule learning in knowledge base completion to create a rule learning model that results in a relation linking model that is interpretable and generalizable to any knowledge base and domain. Our evaluation on two datasets CLUTRR (rule learning for kinship relations) and SWQ (relation linking for Wikidata) shows that our model is able to produce high quality rules for relation linking that generalize across domains. Our next steps are to scale to learn from large amount of data, extend the framework beyond triples. We see a lot of potential for our rule learning framework beyond relation linking, like general knowledge acquisition. + +# 7 Limitations + +Proposed approach is an initial attempt at taking masked training to logic statements and using knowledge graph as context. Current approach described is only taking single triple to learn relationship linking problem for KBQA, but overall approach has potential to extend to larger logic statements. Extending the work to handle logic statements with more than one triple is a future direction that we are looking into. In the current approach we assumed semantic parses to be perfect and available, but in reality they can be noisy resulting in noisy rule model. Handling noise coming from the parsing is another main extension we would like to look into as part of our future work. + +# References + +Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In LAW@ACL. +Chandra Bhagavatula, Jena D. Hwang, Doug Downey, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Lianhui Qin, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Peter West, and Yejin Choi. 2023. I2d2: Inductive knowledge distillation with neurologic and self-imitation. +Mihaela A. Bornea, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Tahira Naseem, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Pavan Kapanipathi, Radu Florian, and Salim Roukos. 2021. Learning to transpile amr into sparql. ArXiv, abs/2112.07877. +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, and et.al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. ArXiv, abs/2005.14165. +Yubo Chen, Yunqi Zhang, Changran Hu, and Yongfeng Huang. 2021. Jointly extracting explicit and implicit relational triples with reasoning pattern enhanced binary pointer network. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5694-5703, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, and et.al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. ArXiv, abs/2204.02311. +Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. ArXiv, abs/2003.10555. + +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805. +Dennis Diefenbach, Thomas Pellissier Tanon, Kamal Deep Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2017. Question answering benchmarks for wikidata. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web. +Mohnish Dubey, Debayan Banerjee, Debanjan Chaudhuri, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. Earl: Joint entity and relation linking for question answering over knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1801.03825. +Claire Gardent, Anastasia Shimorina, Shashi Narayan, and Laura Perez-Beltrachini. 2017. Creating training corpora for nlg micro-planners. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Maria Chang, Cristina Cornelio, Saswati Dana, Achille Fokoue, Dinesh Garg, A. Gliozzo, Sairam Gurajada, Hima P. Karanam, Naweed Khan, Dinesh Khandelwal, Young suk Lee, Yunyao Li, Francois P. S. Luus, Ndivhuwo Makondo, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Tahira Naseem, Sumit Neelam, Lucian Popa, Revanth Reddy Gangi Reddy, Ryan Riegel, Gaetano Rossiello, Udit Sharma, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, and Mo Yu. 2020. Leveraging abstract meaning representation for knowledge base question answering. In Findings. +Hunter Lang and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Self-supervised self-supervision by combining deep learning and probabilistic logic. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(6):4978-4986. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdel rahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xueling Lin, Haoyang Li, Hao Xin, Zijian Li, and Lei Chen. 2020. Kbpearl: A knowledge base population system supported by joint entity and relation linking. Proc. VLDB Endow., 13:1035-1049. +Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692. +Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Gaetano Rossiello, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Mo Yu, A. Gliozzo, Salim Roukos, and Alexander G. + +Gray. 2020. Leveraging semantic parsing for relation linking over knowledge bases. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web. +Sumit Neelam, Udit Sharma, Hima P. Karanam, Shajith Ikbal, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Young-Suk Lee, Santosh K. Srivastava, Cezar Pendus, Saswati Dana, Dinesh Garg, Achille Fokoue, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, Dinesh Khandelwal, Srinivas Ravishankar, Sairam Gurajada, Maria Chang, Rosario A. Uceda-Sosa, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Guilherme Lima, Ryan Riegel, Francois P. S. Luus, and L. V. Subramaniam. 2022. Syagma: A system for generalizable and modular question answering over knowledge bases. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso A. Poggio. 2015. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1510.04935. +Jeff Z. Pan, Mei Zhang, Kuldeep Singh, F. V. Harmelen, Jinguang Gu, and Zhi Zhang. 2019. Entity enabled relation linking. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web. +Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Reid Pryzant, Ziyi Yang, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Automatic rule induction for interpretable semi-supervised learning. +Stanislaw J. Purgal, David M. Cerna, and C. Kaliszkyk. 2022. Differentiable inductive logic programming in high-dimensional space. ArXiv, abs/2208.06652. +Meng Qu, Junkun Chen, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. 2020. Rnnlogic: Learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs. ArXiv, abs/2010.04029. +Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining. +Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. +Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683. +Tim Rocktäschel and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. End-to-end differentiable proving. ArXiv, abs/1705.11040. +Gaetano Rossiello, Faisal Chowdhury, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Owen Cornec, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Knowgl: Knowledge generation and linking from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13952. + +Gaetano Rossiello, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Mihaela A. Bornea, A. Gliozzo, Tahira Naseem, and Pavan Kapanipathi. 2021. Generative relation linking for question answering over knowledge bases. ArXiv, abs/2108.07337. +Ali Reza Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. Drum: End-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1911.00055. +Ahmad Sakor, Isaiah Onando Mulang, Kuldeep Singh, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria-Esther Vidal, Jens Lehmann, and S. Auer. 2019a. Old is gold: Linguistic driven approach for entity and relation linking of short text. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ahmad Sakor, Kuldeep Singh, Anery Patel, and Maria-Esther Vidal. 2019b. Falcon 2.0: An entity and relation linking tool over wikidata. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. +Tven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, Suzana Ilič, Daniel Hesslow, and et.al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv, abs/2211.05100. +P. Sen, B. W. S. R. de Carvalho, I. Abdelaziz, P. Kapanipathi, S. Roukos, and A. Gray. 2022. Logical neural networks for knowledge base completion with embeddings & rules. In EMNLP. +Prithviraj Sen, Bruno W. Carvalho, Ryan Riegel, and Alexander G. Gray. 2021. Neuro-symbolic inductive logic programming with logical neural networks. ArXiv, abs/2112.03324. +Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177. +Saleh Soltan, Shankar Ananthakrishnan, Jack G. M. FitzGerald, Rahul Gupta, Wael Hamza, Haidar Khan, Charith S. Peris, and et.al. 2022. Alexatm 20b: Few-shot learning using a large-scale multilingual seq2seq model. ArXiv, abs/2208.01448. +Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pretraining for language generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning. +Zhiqing Sun, Zhihong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2018. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. ArXiv, abs/1902.10197. +Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In International Conference on Machine Learning. + +Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS. +Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903. +Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Ledell Yu Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Bishan Yang, Wen tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2014. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/1412.6575. +Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017a. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NIPS. +Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017b. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NeurIPS. +Mo Yu, Wenpeng Yin, Kazi Saidul Hasan, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. Improved neural relation detection for knowledge base question answering. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shuai Zhang, Yi Tay, Lina Yao, and Qi Liu. 2019. Quaternion knowledge graph embeddings. In Neural Information Processing Systems. +Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, and et.al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. ArXiv, abs/2205.01068. +Ronghang Zhu and Sheng Li. Self-supervision based Semantic Alignment for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation, pages 1-9. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/images.zip b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed3a0ec38f17d27172b5a9ccf97978dc0825173f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cd2fc274b6f678279a59d3e4d9a1347d2a2b8232d923e4ac8b1e95f476c5e549 +size 233109 diff --git a/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/layout.json b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66c9565cd9f261ce317370b610929726a7452358 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9083 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 67, + 504, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 67, + 504, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 67, + 504, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Supervised Rule Learning to Link Text Segments to Relational Elements of Structured Knowledge" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 118, + 511, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 118, + 511, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 118, + 511, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shajith Ikbal\\*, Udit Sharma\\*, Hima Karanam\\*, Sumit Neelam†, Ronny Luss‡, Dheeraj Sreedhar†, Pavan Kapanipathi‡, Naweed Khan§, Kyle Erwin§, Ndivhuwo Makondo§, Ibrahim Abdelaziz‡, Achille Fokoue‡, Alexander Gray‡, Maxwell Crouse‡, Subhajit Chaudhury‡, Chitra K Subramanian‡" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 190, + 336, + 203 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 190, + 336, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 190, + 336, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "IBM Research" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a neuro-symbolic approach to self-learn rules that serve as interpretable knowledge to perform relation linking in knowledge base question answering systems. These rules define natural language text predicates as a weighted mixture of knowledge base paths. The weights learned during training effectively serve the mapping needed to perform relation linking. We use popular masked training strategy to self-learn the rules. A key distinguishing aspect of our work is that the masked training operates over logical forms of the sentence instead of their natural language text form. This offers opportunity to extract extended context information from the structured knowledge source and use that to build robust and human readable rules. We evaluate accuracy and usefulness of such learned rules by utilizing them for prediction of missing kinship relation in CLUTRR dataset and relation linking in a KBQA system using SWQ-WD dataset. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach - its generalizability, interpretability and ability to achieve an average performance gain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "17\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 239, + 274, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on CLUTRR dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 154, + 565 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 154, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 154, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 292, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 292, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 292, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relation linking is a key step in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks including Semantic Parsing, Triple Extraction, and Knowledge Base Question Answering (KBQA). Its goal is to accurately map predicate components of a natural language (NL) text segment onto their corresponding predicate (i.e., relational) elements within a knowledge base (KB). Such a mapping would enable question answering systems to exploit the deep" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 525, + 330 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 525, + 330 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 525, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 525, + 330 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "21199cf5b8d21f2a9975535c8a22e08b9360431090b7328a9256245a966e80d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 527, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 527, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Illustration of logical statement of a NL text, masked logical statement, and the grounding (i.e. linking) of unmasked elements of the statement to a knowledge base (Wikidata)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "reasoning capabilities of symbolic systems. For example, by accurately mapping predicate component of the NL text shown in Figure 1, i.e., share-screen, to its corresponding relational elements within KB, we should be able to successfully utilize KBQA systems to answer questions like Whether Kate Winslet shared screen with Leonardo DiCaprio? and Who all have shared screen with Kate Winslet?1. However, learning these mappings is challenging for various reasons: lexical variations, modeling deficiencies to handle complex linking involving multiple KB predicates2, and limited training data to build models in a supervised fashion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Various approaches have been tried in the past work, including graph-based approaches (Pan et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 525, + 671 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 525, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 525, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Provided entity mentions in the NL text are also appropriately mapped to their corresponding entity elements in the KB, through entity linking (Wu et al., 2019). For example, in Figure 1, entity mention Kate Winslet in NL text is mapped to corresponding KB (Wikidata) entity wd:Q202765." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2On several occasions, there is no single relational element but multiple connected relational elements within the KB that actually correspond to a NL text predicate. These connected relational elements constitute a path within the KB. For example, two connected relational elements as in Figure 3 (i.e., one-hop path involving a reverse KB relation edge cast-member and a forward KB relation edge cast-member) correspond to NL text predicate share-screen. Note that a formal expression of this KB path is given in Figure 2, i.e., cast-member" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{-1}(x,z)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " & cast-member " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(z,y)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 709, + 244, + 720 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 709, + 244, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 709, + 244, + 720 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 709, + 244, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " IBM Research, Bangalore/Gurugram, India." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 720, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 720, + 289, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 720, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\ddagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 720, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "IBM Research, T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, United States." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 741, + 245, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 741, + 245, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 741, + 245, + 751 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 741, + 245, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " IBM Research, Johannesburg, South Africa." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 752, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 752, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 752, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Correspondence e-mails: shajmoha@in.ibm.com,udit.sharma@in.ibm.com, hkaranam@in.ibm.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1707" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1707-1718" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 138, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 138, + 291, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 138, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Illustration of human readable rule for the example shown in Figure 1 and the corresponding extended knowledge base context shown in Figure 3. Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relation) in the rule is denoted by superscript " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 138, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 138, + 291, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as described in Section 3.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 292, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 292, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 292, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2019; Dubey et al., 2018), linguistic features based approaches (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020), and recently neural approaches that achieve state-of-the-art performance (Rossiello et al., 2021; Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017). However, these approaches have the following drawbacks: they are (a) data hungry requiring huge amount of supervised data for training, (b) non-interpretable by design, and (c) non-trivial to adapt and generalize to new domains or knowledge graphs. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that formulates relation linking as a rule learning problem in the space of structured knowledge sources. Our approach tries to learn human readable rules of the form illustrated in Figure 2 and use them to perform relation linking, thus resulting in explainable relation linking model. In contrast to the existing approaches that build linking models in a supervised fashion, we adopt a self-supervised learning approach that offer benefits: does not require annotating large amounts of training data, and offers generalization across domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For self-supervision we use masked training, a popularly used self-supervised training strategy for large language models. However, in contrast to the use of NL text as in the large language models (LLMs), masked training in our approach operates on logical statements of the sentences. In this work, we use triples extracted from semantically parsed output of the sentences as the logical statements. An example sentence in its NL form and its corresponding triple form (logical statement) are shown in Figure 1. The masking procedure when applied on a triple may end up masking any of the three elements, i.e., subject, object, or predicate. Figure 1 shows an illustration of the predicate component" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "getting masked. Given that the three elements of a triple play different semantic roles, the masked training need to be adapted to suit the role played by the element being masked. As will be seen later in the paper, such differences reflect mainly on the loss computation during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 153, + 492, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 153, + 492, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 153, + 492, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The main contributions of our work are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 172, + 527, + 485 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 172, + 527, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 172, + 527, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 172, + 527, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. The first self-supervised rule learning approach that uses an adaptation of masked language objective for logical forms extracted from text. We have applied this to relation linking, a prominent task for understanding natural language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 261, + 527, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 261, + 527, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 261, + 527, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The output of our model is completely interpretable; the set of rules obtained to perform relation linking can explain the predictions of the model. An example of a learnt rule for the SWQ dataset is shown in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 338, + 527, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 338, + 527, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 338, + 527, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We evaluate our approach on two datasets CLUTRR and SWQ demonstrating (a) Generalizability over two different knowledge bases as context on the datasets, (b) Effectiveness of relation linking where results show significant gains (17% gain in average performance) for CLUTRR across different test sets along with superior systematic generalization and competitive results on SWQ, (c) Interpretability, by showing qualitative results of the learnt rules." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 396, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 396, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 396, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relation linking has been important for various NLP tasks such as semantic parsing, knowledge graph induction (Gardent et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2021; Rossiello et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2020) and knowledge base question answering (Rossiello et al., 2021; Kapanipathi et al., 2020; Neelam et al., 2022). Prior to the surge of generative models, relation linking was addressed either by graph traversal based (Pan et al., 2019; Dubey et al., 2018) or by linguistic-features based methodologies (Sakor et al., 2019a,b; Lin et al., 2020). Several learning based approaches to relation linking have been proposed (Mihindukulasooriya et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017; Bornea et al., 2021). Most recent approaches to relation linking have focused on generative models (Rossiello et al., 2021). These approaches are data hungry and non-interpretable. In contrast, our work is a self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking. The learnt rules are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rule: share-screen " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 242, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " w1\\*P161- & P161+)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 97, + 274, + 107 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 97, + 274, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 97, + 274, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cast member " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 97, + 274, + 107 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{-1}(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{z})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 97, + 274, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " & cast member " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 131, + 97, + 274, + 107 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{z},\\mathbf{y})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 108, + 279, + 117 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 108, + 279, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 108, + 279, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Description of the rule: x has shared screen with y if" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 118, + 295, + 126 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 118, + 295, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 118, + 295, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "x is a cast member of a movie z where y is also a cast member," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Triple format: predicate.source entity, destination entity), where source entity and destination entity are also alternatively referred to as subject and object, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1708" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "human readable and they can be learnt for different knowledge bases as context for different domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 104, + 291, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 104, + 291, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 104, + 291, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rule learning, specifically in terms of detecting relations has also been popular for knowledge base completion (KBC) task. KBC problems are addressed in two different ways in the literature. Rule based KBC learns explainable rules that can be used to predict the missing links in the knowledge base (Sen et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017a; Sadeghian et al., 2019; Purgal et al., 2022; Rocktäschel and Riedel, 2017). These rules are learned for predicates in the knowledge base in terms of other predicates and paths in the knowledge base. Our work uses the rule model and some of the ideas from the rule based KBC to build self supervised explainable rules for linking text elements to knowledge base relations. There have also been several learning based methods that use vector embeddings of the entities and relationships and then use them to predict any missing relationships (Nickel et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Trouillon et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019); they have the same drawbacks as neural relation linking approaches. There are many recent works that use semi-supervised/unsupervised learning for rules and knowledge induction (Pryzant et al., 2022; Bhagavatula et al., 2023; Lang and Poon, 2021; Zhu and Li)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017) have given rise to a wide range of masked pre-training models that try to learn latent representation of words. Masked language modeling has gained popularity in building large pre-trained models that learn word representations that can easily be adapted to a variety of tasks. Masked language training has resulted in building various model architectures like encoder only models which learn a vector representation of tokens using masked training (Peters et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2020). Several Encode-decoder LLMs are built using similar training strategy (Song et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2019; Soltan et al., 2022; Raffel et al., 2019). Recently decoder only models built using similar masked language training are gaining popularity (Radford and Narasimhan, 2018; Radford et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022; Scao et al., 2022). In this paper we take inspiration from masked language training on text and use the ideas to perform similar masking on logic statements to learn rules." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 400, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 400, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 400, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Our Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 527, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 527, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach to relation linking is a rule-learning framework where rules learned in a self-supervised fashion are used to map from 'NL text segments' to the 'elements of structured knowledge'. For self-supervised rule learning, we use masked training. A distinctive aspect of the masked training in our approach is that it is applied over the logical form of the input text. When logical form is not readily available, we first convert NL text into its logical form using a semantic parser, before applying masked training. In this section, first we briefly describe the conversion of input text to logical statements, and then describe the proposed rule model and its self-supervised training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 420, + 306 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 420, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 420, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Logical Statements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we use triples extracted from sentences as their logical form4. Note that logical forms are expressed as predicate.source entity, destination entity), as illustrated in Figure 1. To extract such logical forms from NL text, we use the semantic parsing approach described in (Neelam et al., 2022), which performs an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) (Banarescu et al., 2013) based " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-expression extraction. For simple sentences, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-expressions can be converted directly into triples5. Figure 1 shows an illustration of a NL text and its corresponding logical form. Different elements of the triple represent distinct segments of the NL text. Since we use an AMR based approach to derive " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 527, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-expressions, predicate components of the triple are typically a propbank predicate. Relation linking is expected to map this predicate component onto the corresponding knowledge-base elements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 386, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 386, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 386, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Rule Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Towards the goal of relation linking, our rule model is formulated as a function that maps a weighted mixture of 'knowledge base predicates' onto a 'predicate component of the NL text'. This enables interpretable prediction of the set of knowledge base predicates that the text predicate should get linked to. Figure 2 gives an illustration of a simple rule." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let us assume a triple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "pred_{i}(s,d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " extracted from NL text, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the source entity, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the destination entity and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "pred_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the text predicate. The" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 495, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 495, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 495, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4We use triples and logical form interchangeably." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also employ heuristics to handle the AMR and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-expression computation failures and errors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1709" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 300, + 141 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 300, + 141 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 300, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 300, + 141 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "64a71100e4cfb65ed56fcef0aebd5ec65d6896bd17fe3bf94e5c75ba4a3a34e9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 291, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 291, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 291, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Illustration of a one-hop path between entities Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio via entity Titanic movie in Wikidata (through a reverse relation edge cast-member connecting Kate Winslet to Titanic movie and a forward relation edge cast-member connecting Titanic movie to Leonardo DiCaprio). This can also be viewed as an extended context extracted from knowledge base through the unmasked elements of the masked logical statement in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "goal is to ground " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 332 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "pred_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to its corresponding knowledge base predicates using relation linking model. Our proposed rule model to achieve this is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 338, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 338, + 290, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 338, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} (s, d) = f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} w _ {j} ^ {i} \\operatorname {p a t h} _ {j} (s, d)\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "47f809de04905a27af3efe9e0ac754150218550a82695d4bca7a3dfd7ea3e1f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i \\in \\{1, \\dots, M\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a function such as Sigmoid and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "path_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a path in the knowledge base that passes through one or more knowledge base predicate edges. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "path_j(s, d)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can take values 0 or 1 depending upon presence or absence of a path " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "path_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " connecting source entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and destination entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Depending upon the length of the path, i.e., number of predicate edges and the intermediate entities, paths could be categorized as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the count of intermediate entities in the path. An example of a 1-hop path between entities in Wikidata is shown in Figure 3. If there are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " unique knowledge base predicates, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{p_l\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq l \\leq L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the sets of 0, 1 and 2-hop paths are defined as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 601, + 263, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 601, + 263, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 601, + 263, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "0-hop paths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 601, + 263, + 616 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= \\{p_{l}(s,d)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 601, + 263, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 601, + 263, + 616 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq l \\leq L" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 625, + 257, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 625, + 257, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 625, + 257, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1-hop paths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 625, + 257, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= \\{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, d)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 625, + 257, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 640, + 234, + 652 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 640, + 234, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 640, + 234, + 652 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq l \\leq L, 1 \\leq m \\leq L", + "image_path": "563d9ebca1476e7a3088715991ec5a24f04e5ec723107f96e6441ae2064d6f93.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 660, + 282, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 660, + 282, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 660, + 282, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2-hop paths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 660, + 282, + 674 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "= \\{p_{l}(s, *) : p_{m}(*, *) : p_{n}(*, d)\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 660, + 282, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 674, + 263, + 687 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 674, + 263, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 674, + 263, + 687 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq l \\leq L, 1 \\leq m \\leq L, 1 \\leq n \\leq L", + "image_path": "2ca48ec9250e00eeef60314ee7927b7be04cc7817793189f88ef0cbf1f1207e8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote any possible entity. Note that paths always originate from a source entity and end at a destination entity. Also note that, the constituent knowledge base predicates in a path could also be inverse (reverse), denoted by superscript " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For example, path in Figure 3 contains an inverse relation," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 527, + 220 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 527, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 527, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 527, + 220 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ff13e7191a0f6131e2d9e2ca7be803b0a2f47f0e32af5226f60489cb9001f9dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 525, + 252 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 525, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Neural model implementing each rule of the rule model defined in Equation (1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which is denoted as cast member" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the corresponding path expression given in Figure 2. All the knowledge base paths of various lengths, i.e., from 0-hop paths until " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-hop paths put together, constitute the overall set of paths considered in our rule learning framework. Let us assume there are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " such paths in total. Given that the knowledge base paths path" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are defined in terms of the knowledge base predicates, our rule model in (1) effectively defines a mapping between the 'NL text predicates' and the 'knowledge base predicates'. During learning, we want to estimate weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_j^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " so that rule model in (1) can be used for relation linking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A neural implementation of each rule in (1) is given in Figure 4. Note that there is one such network each for every rule in (1), and all these networks are trained together during learning. Note that the parameters of our rule model, denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 531 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", is a matrix of learnable weights:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 542, + 500, + 559 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 542, + 500, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 542, + 500, + 559 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "W = \\{w _ {j} ^ {i} \\}, 1 \\leq i \\leq M, 1 \\leq j \\leq N", + "image_path": "928952d23c7e3ee4a200316645a45b4000cc2a54dd5cf6c56c6261d5f55e5692.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 524, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 524, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 524, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where each row corresponds to the set of path weights of a specific rule. In the next section, we describe masked training used to estimate these weights in a self-supervised manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 474, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 474, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 633, + 474, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Self-Supervised Rule Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Masked training in large language model training involves masking certain parts of the input text and having the model predict those masked parts by treating the rest of the (unmasked) text as its context. The model parameters are adjusted during training to effectively model the context so it can act as a proxy for the masked part. In our approach masked training is performed on the logical form of the input text as detailed below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1710" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 268, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 268, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.1 Masked Training on Logical Forms" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 88, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 88, + 291, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 88, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Logical statements are composed of distinct elements playing distinct semantic roles. For example, triples are composed of a predicate, a source entity (also called subject) and a destination entity (also called object). The masking procedure could mask any of these elements:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 178, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 290, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 178, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Predicate masking - predicate component of the triple is masked" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 291, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 291, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 215, + 291, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Source entity masking - source entity component of the triple is masked" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 252, + 290, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 252, + 290, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 252, + 290, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Destination entity masking - destination entity element of the triple is masked" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1 gives an illustration of predicate masking. Similar to the large language model training, masked training for rule learning also aims to adjust the parameters of the rule model so that it can accurately predict the masked elements from the unmasked context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 291, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, the distinctive aspect of our approach is in the context computation. For the context, in addition to the unmasked elements of the logical statement, we also use paths within the knowledge base that are associated to those unmasked elements. A set of such associated paths are obtained by grounding the unmasked elements of the logical statement to the knowledge base. For example, given Wikidata as the knowledge base, we first use entity linking (Wu et al., 2019) to link the unmasked source and destination entities of the triple to corresponding Wikidata entities, as illustrated in Figure 1. Then the Wikidata paths originating from unmasked source entity and ending at unmasked destination entity are computed and used as the context. Figure 3 gives an illustration of a Wikidata path, through entity node corresponding to Titanic movie, for the unmasked entities of Figure 1. Note that such use of knowledge base paths as the context help establish the mapping between the NL text predicates and the knowledge base predicates, which indeed is the goal of our relation linking model. Next we describe rule model parameter estimation procedure for different masking scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 212, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 212, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 212, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.2 Rule Model Estimation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Learning procedures for the 3 masking scenarios differ mainly in the way training loss is computed. In all 3 masking scenarios we use rule models to predict the masked element. As discussed" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 67, + 518, + 159 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 67, + 518, + 159 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 67, + 518, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 67, + 518, + 159 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1207484741b174fb5cf5a9df7754182eae25a38ba88b8c2fa8064cba4a1c06dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 524, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 524, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 169, + 524, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when predicate in the triple is masked." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "above, knowledge base paths associated with the unmasked elements of the triple are used as the context for the prediction. However, the set of such paths differ based on which element is masked and which elements are unmasked and could be linked to the knowledge base. Training loss functions are defined to improve prediction accuracy over the training iterations, as described below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a) Predicate Masking: As illustrated in Figure 5, when the predicate is masked, unmasked source and destination entities are linked to the corresponding elements in the knowledge base through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that connect these linked entities are computed and used as context. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j \\in E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the set of indices of knowledge base paths that connect the linked source and destination entities. These paths when applied to all the rules in (1), corresponding to all the text predicates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "pred_{i}(.)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq i \\leq M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", would result in scores for each text predicate as below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 512, + 516, + 555 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 512, + 516, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 512, + 516, + 555 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {i} = f \\left(\\sum_ {j \\in E} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s, d)\\right), 1 \\leq i \\leq M.", + "image_path": "7779ba42e024503a8226e986b7599f57f2b178fbb21c5dac0924ccd05631af48.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For accurate prediction of the masked predicate by the model, the score should be highest (1.0) for the text predicate being masked and should be the lowest (0.0) for all others. Accordingly, let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq i \\leq M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 564, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the target scores, where the score corresponding to the index of the masked predicate is 1.0 and the rest of the scores are 0.0. We compare the estimated scores against these target scores, to compute the training loss that could be used further to update the model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD). In actual, we use a cross-entropy training loss computed as below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 738, + 462, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 738, + 462, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 738, + 462, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "l o s s = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N} t _ {i} \\log (s _ {i})", + "image_path": "536d176d8e191d1f1b5e21d9994b99d370618fc0c3eb3d8e24fa8a9e384c512f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1711" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 283, + 176 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 283, + 176 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 283, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 283, + 176 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e1e8847eedca1cd9c2080fdfc7bc0d332d411c09d1fea2b16209f5ac4451de8a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 290, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 290, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Illustration of knowledge base paths to be used as context when source entity in the triple is masked." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "b) Source Entity Masking: As illustrated in Figure 6 when the source entity is masked, unmasked destination entity is linked to the corresponding element in the knowledge base, through entity linking. Then the set of all paths that end at the linked destination entity are computed for use as the context. Note that all these paths together have a set of associated origination entities that could potentially be considered as the prediction for the masked source entity. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = \\{s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_E\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the set of all such candidate source entities. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " correspond to the set of indices of all paths that originate from the candidate source entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and end at the unmasked linked destination entity. These paths when applied to a specific rule in (1) that corresponds to the unmasked text predicate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "pred_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", would give a score for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 467, + 270, + 496 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 467, + 270, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 467, + 270, + 496 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "s _ {e} = \\sum_ {j \\in E _ {e}} w _ {j} ^ {i} p a t h _ {j} (s _ {e}, d), 1 \\leq e \\leq E", + "image_path": "86d13deab778db37ce3062731655a752db231f9c017be0769cb48ef481ba20bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A list of such scores are computed for each candidate source entity in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that among these scores the one corresponding to candidate entity that is same as the masked source entity should be highest (1.0) and the score for the rest should be the lowest (0.0). Accordingly, target scores are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq e \\leq E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where the score for the index of the masked entity is set to 1.0 and the rest are set to 0.0. We then compute training loss by comparing the estimated scores against the target scores. A cross-entropy training loss computed as below is used to update the rule model weights through stochastic gradient descent (SGD):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 690, + 228, + 718 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 690, + 228, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 690, + 228, + 718 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "l o s s = \\sum_ {e \\in S} t _ {e} \\log (s _ {e})", + "image_path": "edd9957b39bc5c71fa49f37abf541beb47117598690c6769fdf47232af5e8145.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "c) Destination Entity Masking: Destination entity masking is similar to that of the source entity masking, except that when the destination entity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is masked, unmasked source entity is linked to the knowledge base and the set of all paths originating from the linked source entity are computed as context, resulting in the associated candidate destination entities. Then scores for all candidate destination entities are computed in a similar fashion to further compute the training loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 376, + 185 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 376, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 174, + 376, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 526, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that, once trained, the right hand side of the rule model in Equation (1) directly gives human readable information of the relation linking, highlighting the interpretability/explainability aspect of our model. Each rule gives information of the knowledge base paths (that in turn are composed of the knowledge base predicates) that the text predicate should get linked to, with path weights denoting the linking confidence. During inference, for example while using our rule model to perform QA, the information being asked in the NL question would correspond to the missing element in the corresponding logical form. Hence the goal is to estimate candidates for that missing element and score them using our rule model. The scoring procedure is similar to that for the masked elements during masked training as described in Section 3.3.2. Top-K scoring candidates are chosen as the answers estimates of the rule model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 365, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 365, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 365, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Scaling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The number of paths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is exponential in the number of predicates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that exist in the knowledge base. As a result, solving problem (1) becomes prohibitive with large " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and hence we explore methods for reducing the search space of paths. In other words, we learn a set of paths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{P}| << N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that contains the optimal paths, allowing us to replace the summation in problem in Equation (1) to a summation over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and thereby reducing the computation required to find the solution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We make use of a Chain of Mixtures (CoM) model, also known as Neural Logic Programming (Yang et al., 2017b) or edge-based rules (Sen et al., 2022), to learn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In CoM, a rule is represented by a conjunction of mixtures of predicates. Specifically, rather than define a weight per path, for each of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 609, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicates we define a weight per predicate per hop to get rules of the form:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 723, + 525, + 776 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 723, + 525, + 776 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 723, + 525, + 776 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\operatorname {p r e d} _ {i} ^ {C o M} (s, d) = g \\left(f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 0} ^ {i} p _ {j} (s, r _ {1})\\right), \\right. \\tag {2} \\\\ f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 1} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {1}, r _ {2})\\right), \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "8a2b47125c283fd66e7cdb73d472f2a76d8c6b091e45eac9c59644cdcd90cd89.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1712" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 68, + 238, + 90 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 68, + 238, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 68, + 238, + 90 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left. f \\left(\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {M} w _ {j, 2} ^ {i} p _ {j} (r _ {2}, d)\\right)\\right)", + "image_path": "a04ef1ebf0bbb6620790e5a7611dfcd69e2f0c5ad13fdee3bc63c4ad8d052c7b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i \\in \\{1, \\dots, M\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where now " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{j,k}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a weight for rule " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (i.e., for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicate) for predicate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the hop " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the rule being learned, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g(\\dots)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a function approximating a conjunction such as a product. Equation (2) is an example 2-hop rule where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can take the values of any entities in the knowledge base. The number of weights learned in a CoM rule is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M(K + 1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 96, + 289, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of hops in the rule, which greatly reduces the number of weights learned in problem (1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While CoM requires learning much fewer parameters than our rule model (1), it is less interpretable because it is not known which paths are actually relevant to the rule. CoM rules suggest that any path that can be obtained from predicates with positive weights in the hops is possible. For example, suppose there are 8 predicates in the knowledge base and the set of strictly positive weights in a rule of the form (2) is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{w_{0,1}^{i}, w_{0,3}^{i}, w_{0,4}^{i}, w_{1,1}^{i}, w_{1,2}^{i}, w_{2,2}^{i}, w_{2,4}^{i}, w_{2,8}^{i}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then such a chain rule only allows rules of the form " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{j}(s, r_{1}) \\land p_{k}(r_{1}, r_{2}) \\land p_{l}(r_{2}, e)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j \\in \\{1, 3, 4\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k \\in \\{1, 2\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l \\in \\{2, 4, 8\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". With 8 predicates, there are a total of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8 \\times 8 \\times 8 = 512" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " possible paths, but the CoM reduces this to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 \\times 2 \\times 3 = 18" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " possible paths. Given these possible paths, a more interpretable rule of the form Equation (1) can be learned more efficiently since the summation can be taken over 18 paths instead of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N = 512" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " paths." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 191, + 530 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 191, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 191, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 135, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 135, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 135, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our approach on two datasets as described below that involve utilization of two distinct types of knowledge sources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a) CLUTRR (Sinha et al., 2019) is a benchmark dataset for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of a Natural Language Understanding (NLU) system, where the goal is to infer kinship relations between source and target entities based on short stories. It contains both graph and textual representations of these stories. Each story consists of clauses (chains of relations) of length ranging from 2 to 10. The benchmark tests the model's ability for: i) Systematic Generalization which tests how well the model generalizes beyond the combination of rules seen during training. The test set consists of clauses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 525, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 525, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 525, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of length up to 10, while the train set has clauses of length up to 4. ii) Model robustness which tests how well model performs in the presence of noisy facts. It consists of three kinds of noise: a) Supporting facts: It adds alternative equivalent paths between source and target entities. b) Irrelevant facts: It adds a path which originates on the path between the source and target entity but ends at an entity not in that path. c) Disconnected facts: It adds a path which is completely disconnected from the path between the source and target entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We considered graph stories with only clause length 2 for training rule models in a self-supervised fashion. This results in multiple one-hop rules along with their confidence scores. These rules can be used to handle stories of clause length 2 at the time of inference. For stories with clause length greater than 2, we combine relations within the path from source to target entity using Algorithm 1 to compute the path scores. A n-length path " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}_1, \\dots, \\mathbf{R}_n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from source entity to target entity can be reduced by invoking infer(1, n). It utilises two sub-modules predict(" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_i, R_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and score(" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_i, R_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") which returns prediction and confidence scores for merging " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 220, + 526, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using one-hop rule model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 497, + 449 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 497, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 423, + 497, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: Inference procedure using one-hop rule model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : Prediction for path " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{R}_i\\ldots \\mathrm{R}_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : Prediction score for path " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{R}_i\\ldots \\mathrm{R}_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \nFunction infer(i,j): if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 1 else " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 451, + 508, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{rl} & {\\mathrm{R}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{null},\\mathrm{S}_{ij}\\gets 0}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{for~}k\\gets i + 1\\mathrm{~to~}j\\mathrm{~by~}1\\mathrm{~do}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}\\gets \\mathrm{infer}(i,k - 1)}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{kj},\\mathrm{S}_{kj}\\gets \\mathrm{infer}(k,j)}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{S}_{ij}'\\gets \\mathrm{S}_{ik - 1}*\\mathrm{S}_{kj}*\\mathrm{score}(\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{R}_{ij}'\\gets \\mathrm{predict}(\\mathrm{R}_{ik - 1},\\mathrm{R}_{kj})}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{if~}S_{ij}' > S_{ij}\\mathrm{~then}}\\\\ & {\\mid \\mathrm{R}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{R}_{ij}',\\mathrm{S}_{ij}\\gets \\mathrm{S}_{ij}^{\\prime}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{end}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{return}\\mathrm{R}_{ij},\\mathrm{S}_{ij}}\\\\ & {\\mathrm{end}} \\end{array}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 10, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "b) SWQ-WD (Diefenbach et al., 2017) is a Question Answering (QA) dataset with simple questions built to evaluate the QA accuracy of KBQA systems that use Wikidata as the knowledge source. This dataset fits our relation linking evaluation goal because it consists of simple questions with single text predicates, hence it is possible to perform a focused evaluation of the relation linking task, reducing the impact of uncertainties of other components of KBQA systems such as semantic parsing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1713" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 508, + 248 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 508, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 508, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 71, + 508, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CLUTRR: \nson:{(son and brother, 0.95), (daughter and brother, 0.95), (wife and son, 0.96), (husband and son, 0.96)} \ngranddaughter:{(son and daughter, 0.97), (daughter and daughter, 0.96), (granddaughter and sister, 0.92), (grandson and sister, 0.96), (wife and granddaughter, 0.94), (husband and granddaughter, 0.90)} \nniece:{(brother and daughter, 0.98), (sister and daughter, 0.91)} \nSWQ-WD: \nbook-write:{(author, 0.88), (notable work-1, 0.87)} \nfilm-language:{... (original language of film or TV show, 0.97), (language of work or name, 0.83) , ..., cast member and writing language, 0.97), (screenwriter and writing language, 0.95), (film editor and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.87), director and languages spoken, written or signed, 0.83), (follows and original language of film or TV show, 0.96), based on and language of work or name, 0.70), ...}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 0, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Sample learned rules for both CLUTRR and SWQ-WD datasets. Note that each rule is represented by a set of tuples, with each tuple containing a knowledge base path and its weight value. These corresponds to the knowledge base paths and the corresponding weights in rule model (1). Note that inverse knowledge base predicate (i.e., reverse knowledge base relations) in the rules are denoted by superscript " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as described in Section 3.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 321, + 504, + 369 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 321, + 504, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 321, + 504, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 321, + 504, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "son: \\{ (son, 0.97), (husband, 2.49), (daughter, 0.70), (wife, 2.30) \\} and \\{ (son, 0.81), (brother, 2.86) \\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 334, + 443, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 334, + 443, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 334, + 443, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- granddaughter: { (son, 1.26), (grandson, 2.50), (daughter, 1.20), (granddaughter, 4.22)} and { (daughter, 1.22), (granddaughter, 5.09)}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 357, + 351, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 357, + 351, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 357, + 351, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- niece: { (brother, 1.69), (sister, 1.43)} and { (daughter, 1.72)}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 381, + 439, + 394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 381, + 439, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 381, + 439, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Sample learned rules for CLUTRR using Chain of Mixtures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 290, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 290, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and entity linking. SWQ-WD has 13894 train set questions and 5622 test set questions. We use train set to self-learn rules and report relation linking accuracy on the test set. Answer prediction using our rule model is described in Section 3.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 198, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 198, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 496, + 198, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baselines and Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For both the datasets, we compared our method against the best available baseline as per our knowledge. For CLUTRR, we compared against GAT (Velicković et al., 2017), a neural graph representation framework that learns representations through self-attention over the neighbourhood. For SWQ, we compared against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022), a modular and generalizable pipeline based approach consisting of KB-specific and KB-agnostic modules for KBQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For CLUTRR experiments, where relation linking performance is directly evaluated, we use a simple accuracy metric of accuracy = success_count/total_count. For SWQ experiments, where the relation linking performance is not directly evaluated but through its influence on the question answering (QA) accuracy, we use the metric of Recall which is a fraction of correct answers that the system is able to estimate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 393, + 427 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 393, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 393, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Code Release" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 526, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 526, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 526, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The code and the experimental setup used to train and evaluate our self-supervised rule learning based approach for relation linking is available at https://github.com/IBM/self-supervised-rule-learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 361, + 530 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 361, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 361, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a) CLUTRR: Figure 7 shows (in upper part) sample 1-hop rules learned from CLUTRR dataset. Note that these rules are of form as in Equation (1). For CLUTRR, there were 22 predicates and so each 1-hop rule was learned over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N = 22 \\times 22 = 484" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " possible paths. Figure 8 shows corresponding CoM rules for the CLUTRR dataset. For example, the CoM rule for son implies possible 1-hop rules that start with either son, husband, daughter, or wife and end with either son or brother, offering " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4 \\times 2 = 8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " possible rules for son. Rules of the form (1) could thus be rather learned over only these 8 possible rules and capture the same two interpretable rules for son seen in the CLUTRR part of Figure 7. Overall, rules for the 22 different relations search over 484 paths each (10648 total possible rules); CoM reduced that search to 118 to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1714" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tal possible rules with perfect coverage (i.e., CoM results include all optimal rules as a subset) for all but 2 relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9 compares the Systematic generalization performance of our approach against GAT (Veličković et al., 2017) on CLUTRR dataset with test set clause length ranging from 2 to 10. The results suggest that the proposed approach trained with stories of clause length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generalizes better in comparison to GAT trained with stories of clause length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", 3 and stories of clause length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", 3, 4. Table 1 compares the model robustness of our approach against GAT on CLUTRR dataset for differing noise scenarios during training and inference. The results suggest that the proposed approach outperforms GAT for most scenarios, achieving an average absolute accuracy improvement of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "17\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 313, + 270, + 444 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 313, + 270, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 313, + 270, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 313, + 270, + 444 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0044e6ad7d39245cbce59bff84458f4c2fe4af21502357e0cb6528fb9aa708c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 455, + 280, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 455, + 280, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 455, + 280, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Systematic generalization on CLUTRR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "b) SWQ-WD: Figure 7 shows (in lower part) sample 0/1-hop rules learned from SWQ dataset, of form as in Equation (1). Interestingly, for text predicate film-language it is able to learn rules that associate it with the language spoken/written by the director or screen writer or cast members of the film. Table 2 compares QA accuracy of our approach against SYGMA (Neelam et al., 2022). Our approach achieves comparable QA performance (as given in the first two lines), in spite of SYGMA using supervised training for its relation linking module - whereas our approach is a self-supervised approach (not using any labelled data for training). Note that rule learning is prone to inaccurate entity linking6. Thus, when ground truth entities are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 263 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 263 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 514, + 263 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TrainingTestingGATOur approach
CleanClean1.01.0
Supporting0.241.0
Irrelevant0.511.0
Disconnected0.81.0
SupportingClean0.920.89
Supporting0.980.97
Irrelevant0.50.94
Disconnected0.920.91
IrrelevantClean0.920.94
Supporting0.770.94
Irrelevant0.930.96
Disconnected0.850.88
DisconnectedClean0.750.91
Supporting0.780.93
Irrelevant0.560.91
Disconnected0.960.93
Average0.770.94
", + "image_path": "ed36f0ed74bc4f7f94f77d250e5d2035036fa0dc0b90e3486c46b673b676f469.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 512, + 385 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 271, + 524, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 271, + 524, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 271, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Model robustness on CLUTRR - Accuracies for various training and inference noise conditions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 512, + 385 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 512, + 385 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 312, + 512, + 385 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodRecall
SYGMA55.0
Our approach53.7
SYGMA (with GT entities)68.0
Our approach (with GT entities)70.1
", + "image_path": "48a62bb386ffa7a4d4dbc1d099b83013087be11267430790b3b68da374f0c7e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 392, + 486, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 392, + 486, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 341, + 392, + 486, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: QA performance on SWQ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "used, our approach performs marginally better than SYGMA (as shown in the last two rows). Note that when ground truth entities are used, QA performance is more reflective of the relation linking performance, thus asserting the effectiveness of our relation linking model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 387, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 387, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 387, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we presented a novel masked training based self rule learning approach for relation linking. The proposed approach takes inspiration from the masked training of large language models and rule learning in knowledge base completion to create a rule learning model that results in a relation linking model that is interpretable and generalizable to any knowledge base and domain. Our evaluation on two datasets CLUTRR (rule learning for kinship relations) and SWQ (relation linking for Wikidata) shows that our model is able to produce high quality rules for relation linking that generalize across domains. Our next steps are to scale to learn from large amount of data, extend the framework beyond triples. We see a lot of potential for our rule learning framework beyond relation linking, like general knowledge acquisition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that inaccuracies both in AMR parsing and entity linking could lead to erroneous logical statements. However, SWQ sentences are simple and hence their AMR parsing is straight forward, with SMATCH score of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "83.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Neelam et al., 2022). Thus, incorrect logical statements for SWQ are largely due to entity linking errors. In case of CLUTRR, GAT baseline used the readily available ground truth logical forms of the sentences that we also used for fair comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1715" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 149, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 149, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 149, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Proposed approach is an initial attempt at taking masked training to logic statements and using knowledge graph as context. Current approach described is only taking single triple to learn relationship linking problem for KBQA, but overall approach has potential to extend to larger logic statements. Extending the work to handle logic statements with more than one triple is a future direction that we are looking into. In the current approach we assumed semantic parses to be perfect and available, but in reality they can be noisy resulting in noisy rule model. Handling noise coming from the parsing is another main extension we would like to look into as part of our future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 306, + 127, + 318 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 306, + 127, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 306, + 127, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 326, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Laura Banarescu, Claire Bonial, Shu Cai, Madalina Georgescu, Kira Griffith, Ulf Hermjakob, Kevin Knight, Philipp Koehn, Martha Palmer, and Nathan Schneider. 2013. Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In LAW@ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 391, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 391, + 291, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 391, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chandra Bhagavatula, Jena D. Hwang, Doug Downey, Ronan Le Bras, Ximing Lu, Lianhui Qin, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Peter West, and Yejin Choi. 2023. I2d2: Inductive knowledge distillation with neurologic and self-imitation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 456, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 456, + 291, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 456, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mihaela A. Bornea, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Tahira Naseem, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Pavan Kapanipathi, Radu Florian, and Salim Roukos. 2021. Learning to transpile amr into sparql. ArXiv, abs/2112.07877." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, and et.al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. ArXiv, abs/2005.14165." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 576, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 576, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 576, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yubo Chen, Yunqi Zhang, Changran Hu, and Yongfeng Huang. 2021. Jointly extracting explicit and implicit relational triples with reasoning pattern enhanced binary pointer network. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5694-5703, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, and et.al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. ArXiv, abs/2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Electra: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. ArXiv, abs/2003.10555." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dennis Diefenbach, Thomas Pellissier Tanon, Kamal Deep Singh, and Pierre Maret. 2017. Question answering benchmarks for wikidata. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 177, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 177, + 526, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 177, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohnish Dubey, Debayan Banerjee, Debanjan Chaudhuri, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. Earl: Joint entity and relation linking for question answering over knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1801.03825." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 525, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 525, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 229, + 525, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Claire Gardent, Anastasia Shimorina, Shashi Narayan, and Laura Perez-Beltrachini. 2017. Creating training corpora for nlg micro-planners. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 526, + 425 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 526, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 526, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Ramón Fernández Astudillo, Maria Chang, Cristina Cornelio, Saswati Dana, Achille Fokoue, Dinesh Garg, A. Gliozzo, Sairam Gurajada, Hima P. Karanam, Naweed Khan, Dinesh Khandelwal, Young suk Lee, Yunyao Li, Francois P. S. Luus, Ndivhuwo Makondo, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Tahira Naseem, Sumit Neelam, Lucian Popa, Revanth Reddy Gangi Reddy, Ryan Riegel, Gaetano Rossiello, Udit Sharma, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, and Mo Yu. 2020. Leveraging abstract meaning representation for knowledge base question answering. In Findings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 477 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 525, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hunter Lang and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Self-supervised self-supervision by combining deep learning and probabilistic logic. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(6):4978-4986." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 486, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 486, + 526, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 486, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdel rahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xueling Lin, Haoyang Li, Hao Xin, Zijian Li, and Lei Chen. 2020. Kbpearl: A knowledge base population system supported by joint entity and relation linking. Proc. VLDB Endow., 13:1035-1049." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 667 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. ArXiv, abs/1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Gaetano Rossiello, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Srinivas Ravishankar, Mo Yu, A. Gliozzo, Salim Roukos, and Alexander G." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1716" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gray. 2020. Leveraging semantic parsing for relation linking over knowledge bases. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 290, + 257 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 290, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 290, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sumit Neelam, Udit Sharma, Hima P. Karanam, Shajith Ikbal, Pavan Kapanipathi, I. Abdelaziz, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Young-Suk Lee, Santosh K. Srivastava, Cezar Pendus, Saswati Dana, Dinesh Garg, Achille Fokoue, G. P. Shrivatsa Bhargav, Dinesh Khandelwal, Srinivas Ravishankar, Sairam Gurajada, Maria Chang, Rosario A. Uceda-Sosa, Salim Roukos, Alexander G. Gray, Guilherme Lima, Ryan Riegel, Francois P. S. Luus, and L. V. Subramaniam. 2022. Syagma: A system for generalizable and modular question answering over knowledge bases. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 297 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso A. Poggio. 2015. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1510.04935." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeff Z. Pan, Mei Zhang, Kuldeep Singh, F. V. Harmelen, Jinguang Gu, and Zhi Zhang. 2019. Entity enabled relation linking. In International Workshop on the Semantic Web." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew E. Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 290, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reid Pryzant, Ziyi Yang, Yichong Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Automatic rule induction for interpretable semi-supervised learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stanislaw J. Purgal, David M. Cerna, and C. Kaliszkyk. 2022. Differentiable inductive logic programming in high-dimensional space. ArXiv, abs/2208.06652." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meng Qu, Junkun Chen, Louis-Pascal Xhonneux, Yoshua Bengio, and Jian Tang. 2020. Rnnlogic: Learning logic rules for reasoning on knowledge graphs. ArXiv, abs/2010.04029." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pretraining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 594, + 290, + 628 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 594, + 290, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 594, + 290, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/1910.10683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 290, + 720 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 290, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 290, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Rocktäschel and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. End-to-end differentiable proving. ArXiv, abs/1705.11040." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gaetano Rossiello, Faisal Chowdhury, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, Owen Cornec, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Knowgl: Knowledge generation and linking from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13952." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gaetano Rossiello, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya, I. Abdelaziz, Mihaela A. Bornea, A. Gliozzo, Tahira Naseem, and Pavan Kapanipathi. 2021. Generative relation linking for question answering over knowledge bases. ArXiv, abs/2108.07337." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ali Reza Sadeghian, Mohammadreza Armandpour, Patrick Ding, and Daisy Zhe Wang. 2019. Drum: End-to-end differentiable rule mining on knowledge graphs. *ArXiv*, abs/1911.00055." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ahmad Sakor, Isaiah Onando Mulang, Kuldeep Singh, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria-Esther Vidal, Jens Lehmann, and S. Auer. 2019a. Old is gold: Linguistic driven approach for entity and relation linking of short text. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ahmad Sakor, Kuldeep Singh, Anery Patel, and Maria-Esther Vidal. 2019b. Falcon 2.0: An entity and relation linking tool over wikidata. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Elizabeth-Jane Pavlick, Suzana Ilič, Daniel Hesslow, and et.al. 2022. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model. ArXiv, abs/2211.05100." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 395, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "P. Sen, B. W. S. R. de Carvalho, I. Abdelaziz, P. Kapanipathi, S. Roukos, and A. Gray. 2022. Logical neural networks for knowledge base completion with embeddings & rules. In EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prithviraj Sen, Bruno W. Carvalho, Ryan Riegel, and Alexander G. Gray. 2021. Neuro-symbolic inductive logic programming with logical neural networks. ArXiv, abs/2112.03324." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L Hamilton. 2019. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06177." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 611 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saleh Soltan, Shankar Ananthakrishnan, Jack G. M. FitzGerald, Rahul Gupta, Wael Hamza, Haidar Khan, Charith S. Peris, and et.al. 2022. Alexatm 20b: Few-shot learning using a large-scale multilingual seq2seq model. ArXiv, abs/2208.01448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 525, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 620, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pretraining for language generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhihong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2018. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. ArXiv, abs/1902.10197." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 727, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 727, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 727, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Théo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Éric Gaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In International Conference on Machine Learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1717" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 168 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 285 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ledell Yu Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bishan Yang, Wen tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2014. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. CoRR, abs/1412.6575." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 347, + 289, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017a. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 289, + 422 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 289, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 289, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W. Cohen. 2017b. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. In NeurIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 289, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mo Yu, Wenpeng Yin, Kazi Saidul Hasan, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Bing Xiang, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. Improved neural relation detection for knowledge base question answering. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 289, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuai Zhang, Yi Tay, Lina Yao, and Qi Liu. 2019. Quaternion knowledge graph embeddings. In Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 547, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 547, + 289, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 547, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, and et.al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. ArXiv, abs/2205.01068." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronghang Zhu and Sheng Li. Self-supervision based Semantic Alignment for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation, pages 1-9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1718" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_content_list.json b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e63b58df7c929b34b23e86aab58f38130c437a59 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2189 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 157, + 89, + 842, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xiangyu Lin1, Weijia Jia2 and Zhiguo Gong1*", + "bbox": [ + 300, + 148, + 699, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ SKL-IOTSC, University of Macau†", + "bbox": [ + 352, + 166, + 648, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ BNU-UIC & Beijing Normal University (Zhuhai)", + "bbox": [ + 295, + 181, + 705, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "yc07403@um.edu.mo, jiawj@uic.edu.cn, fstzgg@um.edu.mo", + "bbox": [ + 258, + 202, + 742, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 341, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The widespread existence of wrongly labeled instances is a challenge to distantly supervised relation extraction. Most of the previous works are trained in a bag-level setting to alleviate such noise. However, sentence-level training better utilizes the information than bag-level training, as long as combined with effective noise alleviation. In this work, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with the self-distilled BERT backbone, utilizing information in the intermediate outputs to generate dynamic instance weights for denoised sentence-level training. By down-weighting wrongly labeled instances and discounting the weights of easy-to-fit ones, our method can effectively tackle wrongly labeled instances and prevent overfitting. Experiments on both held-out and manual datasets indicate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 607, + 260, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction (DSRE) (Mintz et al., 2009) is designed to automatically annotate the sentences mentioning the entity pairs, which enables a significant way of constructing large-scale datasets. However, distant supervision (DS) works under an unrealistic assumption that all sentences mentioning the same entity pair express the same relation. This introduces many noisy (wrongly labeled) instances into the dataset. To tackle this challenge, previous works mostly adopt the bag-level setting as shown at the top of Figure 1, where the vector representations of sentences are aggregated as the bag-level representation using multi-instance learning (MIL) (Riedel et al., 2010),", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 489, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and the prediction is thus produced from the bag representation. The optimization is conducted at the bag level to minimize the loss of bag prediction. Only a small subset of previous works leverage the sentence-level setting (Zhang et al., 2019b; Liu et al., 2020a) as in the bottom of Figure 1, where the sentence-level predictions are produced and then aggregated into the bag prediction. In fact, sentence-level training can directly optimize the loss from each sentence, enabling higher information utilization than bag-level training. However, sentence-level training is vulnerable to the noise brought by DS, which limits its application. Therefore, sentence-level training should be combined with effective noise-alleviation mechanisms to improve its robustness.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 885, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bdd6f2236d00614f0c2df7bc1e9e688280b6cc527baa98a77eb1e91b184f4b66.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The bag-level and sentence-level pipelines of DSRE." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 523, + 880, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The mainstream encoders of DSRE models are Piecewise Convolutional Neural Network (PCNN) (Zeng et al., 2015) and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) (Zhou et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018) over the years. It is reasonable for most previous works to take the simple encoder as a black box and only utilize its final output during training and inference. However, as large models like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) become popular in recent years, the information within the outputs from their intermediate layers is a non-trivial source of knowledge but is rarely discussed in DSRE. In this", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 868, + 278, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{\\dagger}$ Xiangyu Lin and Zhiguo Gong are with the State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 881, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "168", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 168-180", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "work, we apply self-distillation to extract intermediate information as output probabilities and utilize them to denoise from wrong labels. Furthermore, we use soft target selection and set up transitive knowledge passing among the students to alleviate the effects of noisy target probabilities from the teacher.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The instances in DSRE can be roughly divided into easy, hard and noisy ones. Both easy and hard instances are correctly labeled but the model learns from hard instances slower (Huang et al., 2021). Noisy instances have wrong labels and can be further divided into False Positives (FPs) and False Negatives (FNs). FPs are instances with NA relation but are wrongly labeled as non-NA relations by DS, while FNs are non-NA instances wrongly labeled as NA. We hope to avoid learning from noisy instances since they contain misleading information. Moreover, we also need to avoid overfitting to easy instances to improve the learning of deeper knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 197, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To tackle the above challenges, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) mechanism for denoised sentence-level training in DSRE. Firstly, we apply self-distillation to directly reuse the knowledge of the teacher model for further denoising in students and set up a transitive way to share knowledge among students. Secondly, we leverage the TIW mechanism to generate robust instance weights to reduce noise and overfitting during distillation. TIW considers two factors in the generation of instance weights: Uncertainty (Liu et al., 2020b) for overfitting prevention and general Consistency for noise reduction. The general Consistency we proposed reflects the learning difficulty of the instance and provides guidance both in selecting soft targets of distillation and in weighting instances. Lastly, the generated instance weights directly multiply the sentence-level losses to dynamically and globally enhance the training in the sentence-level setting. The experiments on both held-out and manual datasets show that our approach boosts the student's performance to achieve state-of-the-art results and consistent improvements over the teacher. We also provide an ablation study to explore the effects of the modules. In addition, we analyse the errors and provide additional experimental results in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 423, + 489, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 859, + 472, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We are the first to denoise sentence-level DSRE with dynamic instance weights and har", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ness intermediate knowledge to improve noise resistance and information utilization.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism with multiple functions, including noise alleviation, overfitting prevention, soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 128, + 882, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Experiment and analysis show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance with good generalization and robustness.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 219, + 882, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 281, + 665, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Distant supervision (DS) for relation extraction (Mintz et al., 2009) enables automatic annotation of large-scale datasets, but its strong assumption introduces a large number of wrongly labeled instances. Following Riedel et al. (2010), various multi-instance learning methods are proposed to denoise from noisy instances, and they broadly fall into two categories: instance selection (Zeng et al., 2015; Qin et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2018) and instance attention (Lin et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2019b,a; Ye and Ling, 2019). Apart from multi-instance learning, many of the previous works try to improve the effectiveness of training. Liu et al. (2017) and Shang et al. (2020) try to convert wrongly labeled instances to useful information through relabeling. Huang and Du (2019) proposes collaborative curriculum learning for denoising. Hao et al. (2021) adopts adversarial training to filter noisy instances in the dataset. Nayak et al. (2021) designs a self-ensemble framework to filter noisy instances despite information loss. Li et al. (2022) proposes a hierarchical contrastive learning framework to reduce the effect of noise. Rathore et al. (2022) constructs a passage from the bags to generate a summary for classification. Nevertheless, the above approaches are trained with bag-level loss, leading to lower utilization of information. In our work, we adopt sentence-level training to directly utilize sentence-level information and effectively tackle noise and overfitting using dynamic instance weights.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 307, + 884, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) is an effective way to improve model generalization, though it has difficulty in transferring knowledge effectively (Stanton et al., 2021). By sharing some parameters between teacher and students, self-distillation (Zhang et al., 2019a) improves knowledge transfer from teacher to student. Liu et al.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "169", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(2020b) applies self-distillation on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to improve inference efficiency. However, in our work, we apply self-distillation as the tool to extract intermediate knowledge for denoising and further reduce the noise from the teacher with transitive information passing among the students.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are some epoch-level techniques to detect noisy instances like Swayamdipta et al. (2020) and Huang et al. (2021). But in sentence-level DSRE which is highly noisy and contains bias from the entity mentions (Peng et al., 2020), larger models like BERT can overfit noisy instances faster, even before an epoch ends. Therefore, we adopt a dynamic instance weighting mechanism which is more suitable for DSRE.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 197, + 489, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 354, + 262, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Overview", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 380, + 235, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "DSRE aims to predict the relations between an entity pair given a bag of sentences mentioning them. Previous works mostly aggregate sentence representations into bag representations before being optimized using bag-level loss. However, useful information may be diluted or mixed during aggregation. Instead, our model is directly trained on the sentence level to preserve more information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 487, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our model is illustrated in Figure 2. The backbone is the BERT encoder on the left, with a teacher classifier on the top. Each student shares a subencoder with the teacher and uses a new classifier for prediction. Firstly, the encoder and the teacher classifier are fine-tuned on the dataset to establish background knowledge. Then, we freeze the encoder and train the student classifiers, in which knowledge distillation and Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) are applied to reduce noise and overfitting. TIW computes the instance weights based on three sources of knowledge: the teacher's output $p^t$ , the outputs of the student $i$ itself $p_i^s$ and the previous peer $p_{i-1}^s$ . It first selects a more consistent soft target $p_i^{tg}$ between $p^t$ and $p_{i-1}^s$ based on the probabilities of making the same predictions as them (i.e. Consistency), which are denoted as $c_i^t$ and $c_i^s$ respectively. Then the possible false negative instances are filtered according to the predictions $p_{i-1}^s$ from the previous peer. Finally, the instance weights $w_i$ are computed as the multiplication of Uncertainty $u_i$ (normalized entropy) and the general Consistency $c_i$ with the soft target. The details of TIW are given in Algorithm 1,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 531, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $re2id(r)$ is a function that maps the relation class $r$ to its id for generating the one-hot label. The instance weights directly multiply with the instance losses to dynamically regulate the roles of instances in optimization (Equation 6). This improves training by globally down-weighting the instances leading to extra noise and overfitting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8847b017108f5cd449eb75014ab5918a558734c51c70dc33af2357e1fc1f4245.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Dotted arrows indicate the generation of instance weight." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 211, + 875, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Backbone", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 633, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is a powerful transformer-based pretrained network with broad applications in natural language processing. Its intermediate layers encode a rich hierarchy of sentence features, ranging from surface features, and syntactic features, to semantic features (Jawahar et al., 2019). However, previous BERT applications in DSRE (Alt et al., 2019; Rao et al., 2022) only utilize the output from the final layer, neglecting the possibility that hierarchical intermediate information can be useful in denoising. Therefore, we set up the student classifiers to extract information from the hierarchical features in the form of output probabilities and utilize them to distinguish noisy instances in the distillation stage.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 488, + 882, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The model takes a batch of sentences as input, each is labeled with at least one relation. Firstly, each input sentence is transformed into a sequence of vector representations $s$ by the embedding layer. Then, BERT conducts layer-wise feature extraction with the input $s$ , the output of $i_{th}$ layer $(1 \\leq i \\leq n)$ is described as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 730, + 882, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nh _ {i} = B E R T _ {i} (s) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 630, + 856, + 882, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $BERT_{i}$ refers to the subencoder containing transformer layers from the first to the $i_{th}$ . The", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "170", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 Transitive Instance Weighting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 83, + 438, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: DS label $Y$ , teacher's output probability $p^t$ and students' $p^s$ for the instance.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 104, + 737, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: The soft target $p^{t g}$ and the instance weight $w$ of the instance from the students.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 121, + 766, + 136 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Initialize $w_{l} \\gets 1, p_{l}^{tg} \\gets p^{t}$", + "2: for $i = l + 1 \\rightarrow n$ do", + "3: Compute the Consistency with teacher and peer: $c_{i}^{t} \\gets p_{i}^{s} \\cdot p^{t}$ $c_{i}^{s} \\gets p_{i}^{s} \\cdot p_{i-1}^{s}$", + "4: if $c_i^t > c_i^s$ then $p_i^{tg} \\gets p^t$ else $p_i^{tg} \\gets p_i^s$", + "5: if $Y = \\text{rel2id}(NA)$ then" + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 137, + 749, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "6: if $Y = \\operatorname{argmax}_{j} (p_{i-1}^{s}(j))$ then $w_{i} \\gets 1$ else $w_{i} \\gets 0$", + "7: else" + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 219, + 596, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "> Soft Target Selection", + "bbox": [ + 709, + 187, + 880, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\triangleright$ False Negative Filtering", + "bbox": [ + 687, + 204, + 880, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Positive Weighting", + "bbox": [ + 724, + 236, + 880, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "8: Compute the Uncertainty of soft target: $u_{i} \\gets \\sum_{j=1}^{n_{c}} \\frac{p_{i}^{tg}(j) \\log p_{i}^{tg}(j)}{\\log \\frac{1}{n_{c}}}$", + "9: Compute the general Consistency and the instance weight: $c_i \\gets p_i^{tg} \\cdot p_i^s \\quad w_i \\gets c_i u_i$", + "10: end if", + "11: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 250, + 828, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "encoder is fine-tuned with a simple feedforward classifier $FFN_{t}$ on the top and we can obtain the output of the teacher $p^t$ as in the following:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 354, + 485, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nx _ {i} = \\left[ h _ {i} \\left(p _ {1}\\right); h _ {i} \\left(p _ {2}\\right) \\right] \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 414, + 485, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np ^ {t} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(F F N _ {t} \\left(x _ {n}\\right)\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 445, + 485, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the start positions of the head entity and tail entity respectively. $[a:b]$ indicates the concatenation of vectors $a$ and $b$ . $n_c$ is the number of classes. Similarly, the output of student $i$ can be formulated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 472, + 485, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {i} ^ {s} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(F F N _ {i} \\left(x _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 565, + 485, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that after fine-tuning, the parameters of the teacher model including the BERT encoder stay fixed during the process of self-distillation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 485, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Transitive Instance Weighting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 656, + 394, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TIW incorporates multiple mechanisms to reduce noise and overfitting. For negative (NA) instances, TIW adopts False Negative Filtering (FNF) to filter false negatives based on the prediction of the previous peer $p_{i-1}^{s}$ . For positive (non-NA) instances, TIW provides dynamic instance weights $w_{i}$ generated by multiplying the Uncertainty $u_{i}$ and the general Consistency $c_{i}$ . The Uncertainty $u_{i}$ is computed as the normalized entropy of the student's soft target $p_{i}^{tg}$ as in Line 8 of Algorithm 1 and is applied to avoid overfitting to easy instances. The general Consistency $c_{i}$ evaluates the consistency between the student's output and its soft target $p_{i}^{tg}$ to limit the effects of wrongly-labeled instances.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most previous works in knowledge distillation directly use the teacher's output probability as the soft target. However, the teacher can constantly make mistakes if trained with noisy data, as in DSRE. Therefore, by introducing peer output $p^s$ into distillation, TIW sets up a transitive way to share knowledge among the students and reduces the noise from the teacher. As in Line 4 of Algorithm 1, instead of blindly following the output from the teacher, each student $i$ ( $i > l$ ) chooses between the teacher $p^t$ and the previous peer $p_{i-1}^s$ to follow. This step is referred to as Soft Target Selection (STS) later. STS provides additional referential probability distributions for the learning students so they can switch to a smoother target probability when the output from the teacher is too hard to follow. The criterion of selection is Consistency ( $c_i^t$ and $c_i^s$ ), which is described as the probability of two systems making the same predictions and is computed as the dot product of the probability distributions from the two systems, as in Line 3 of Algorithm 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 354, + 884, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In TIW, we adopt different strategies for negative instances and positive ones because their characteristics are quite different. For negative instances, we conduct FNF as in Lines 5-6 of Algorithm 1. Since we have sufficient negative instances in the dataset, it is acceptable to avoid more FNs at the cost of slight information loss. Therefore, we assign 0 weight to all the possible FNs and 1 weight to the rest. To correctly identify FNs, we adopt a dynamic approach that if the previous peer agrees with distant supervision and also labels the instance as $NA$ , then we classify the instance as a true negative. Otherwise, we assume it to be a false negative", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "171", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that the DS label is unreliable. The student follows the peer's view in FNF instead of the teacher's because the teacher already overfits the noisy data and mostly follows the DS label, though the probabilities of label relations may vary.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to preserve more information for training, we use soft weights for the positive instances instead of hard filtering. We call it Positive Weighting (PW) and determine the instance weight $w_{i}$ of student $i$ by two factors: Uncertainty $u_{i}$ and the general Consistency $c_{i}$ with the selected soft target.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 167, + 489, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The uncertainty term is the normalized entropy as in Liu et al. (2020b) of the chosen soft target. It evaluates how well an instance is fitted so we can leverage it to detect overfitted instances dynamically. Easy instances contain shallow features like London, UK indicating a location/contains relation, so the model fits them easily and fast. But we do not hope the model becomes overdependent on them and lose focus on deeper features hidden in semantics. Therefore we discount their weights with uncertainty to prevent overfitting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 489, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The general Consistency $c_{i}$ of student $i$ is the Consistency between the student and the soft target. During distillation, each student is expected to stay consistent with its target distribution. If $c_{i}$ is high, the student successfully follows the prediction of the soft target, indicating that the instance is easy to learn for the student. If $c_{i}$ is low, the student fails to stay consistent with prior knowledge and the instance may be noisy or very hard to learn. The instance weight $w_{i}$ should take the prevention of both noise and overfitting into consideration, so it is empirically implemented as the multiplication of general Consistency $c_{i}$ and Uncertainty $u_{i}$ , as in Line 9 of the algorithm.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 444, + 489, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that during distillation, the student is trained with both soft targets and DS labels, as shown in Equation 6. We present the discussions on the $c_{i}$ and losses of easy, noisy and hard instances in the following.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Easy instances mostly have high $c_{i}$ and are well-fitted by the teacher or the peer, so the optimizations using soft targets and DS labels conform with each other.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 489, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Noisy instances are mostly underfitted and very hard to optimize because the soft targets and DS labels are mostly inconsistent. They have low $c_{i}$ because the teacher and the students are not likely to provide consistent predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 820, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hard instances are underfitted clean instances", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with low $c_{i}$ at first. However, their soft targets and DS labels are consistent, leading to steady optimizations. When clean background knowledge is established by learning from clean instances, learning from hard ones becomes easier so the $c_{i}$ values of hard instances grow larger.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the above discussions, it is safe to say that both easy and hard instances are faster to fit than noisy ones during distillation, indicating that TIW is capable of reducing noise in the training set. As for Uncertainty, its role is non-decisive. Both hard and noisy instances tend to have high Uncertainty but the hard ones have higher Consistency, leading to larger weights than noisy ones. Easy instances are fast to fit even with their weights discounted by low Uncertainty. Therefore, applying Uncertainty helps alleviate overfitting and does not lead to increases in noise.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 884, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sum up, TIW aims to tackle noise and overfitting and thus can be combined with sentence-level training, which is more demanding in both noise reduction and overfitting alleviation than traditional bag-level training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 374, + 884, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Optimization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 660, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The teacher and the peer may overfit noisy instances during fine-tuning and distillation. Therefore, we apply a dynamic temperature $\\tau$ to the soft target in the following form:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 486, + 882, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tau_ {i} = 1 + \\gamma (1 - u _ {i}) \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 620, + 564, + 882, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\gamma$ is a hyperparameter empirically set as 3. The idea of $\\tau$ is to further smooth the well-fitted instances to produce softer targets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 593, + 882, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The loss function of our model follows the general form of knowledge distillation with the instance weight $w$ we propose:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 642, + 882, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL = \\sum_ {i = l} ^ {n} w _ {i} \\left(\\alpha K L _ {\\tau_ {i}} \\left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, p _ {i} ^ {t g}\\right) + (1 - \\alpha) C E \\left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, Y\\right)\\right) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 701, + 882, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\alpha$ is a hyper-parameter empirically set as 0.5. $KL_{\\tau}(p,q)$ computes the KL-divergence between distributions $p$ and $q$ with temperature $\\tau$ for the soft target $q$ . $Y$ is the label from distant supervision and $CE(p,Y)$ is the cross entropy loss with one-hot label obtained from $Y$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 884, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 860, + 655, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, the datasets, settings and hyperparameters are specified first. Then, we present the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "172", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance of our model compared with previous baselines and the teacher model. We also conduct an ablation study to enable a deeper understanding of the mechanisms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets and Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 162, + 329, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the widely used held-out dataset NYT-10 (Riedel et al., 2010) and recent manual dataset NYT-10m (Gao et al., 2021) for evaluation. As a standard dataset for DSRE, NYT-10 is constructed by aligning the relations in Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008) with the New York Times (NYT) corpus (English). NYT-10m is a manual dataset constructed also from the NYT corpus, with a human-labeled test set and a new relation ontology. For NYT-10, we divide the dataset into five parts for cross-validation. For NYT-10m, we use the provided validation set. The details of the datasets are shown in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 184, + 489, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cf476e0631f30049fd2360fdc5e23140b99e82bbcc5f4612d7773d677499ddfb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTrain (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
held-out522.618.4172.42.053
manual417.917.19.73.925
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 403, + 482, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: The statistics of datasets. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 500, + 489, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the experiments, we use the bert-base-uncased checkpoint with about 110M parameters for initialization as in Han et al. (2019). We apply the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer during distillation. The structure of the embedding layer and BERT layers follow those in the previous works with the number of transformer layers $n = 12$ and hidden size $d_h = 768$ . The batch size is 32 and the learning rate is $2e - 5$ . The maximum length of sentences $m$ is 128. As discussed by Jawahar et al. (2019), the shallow layers may not be able to encode the information needed for the DSRE task. Therefore, TIW starts from layer $l$ , which is empirically set as 7.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the Area Under precision-recall Curve (AUC), micro-F1, macro-F1, precision at top N predictions $(\\mathrm{P@N},\\mathrm{N} = 100,200,300)$ and the mean of $\\mathrm{P@N}$ , which is denoted as $\\mathrm{P@M}$ . Following the at-least-one assumption (Riedel et al., 2010), we adopt ONE strategy (Zeng et al., 2015) for bag-level evaluation, which takes the maximum score for each relation to generate bag-level predic", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tions. We use the output of the last student (12) as the output of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the Appendix, we display the results from other students and the results using other $l$ settings. We also provide detailed error analysis and extra experimental results on Wiki-20m dataset. Moreover, we try out a different initialization of the teacher to further explore the generalization of TIW.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Overall Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 225, + 721, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the performance of our model against that of the following baselines:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 880, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PCNN+ATT (Lin et al., 2016) proposes PCNN with selective attention mechanism.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 277, + 880, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RESIDE (Vashishth et al., 2018) integrates side information into Graph Convolution Networks to improve relation extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 310, + 880, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "DISTRE (Alt et al., 2019) extends and finetunes GPT on DSRE.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intra+inter (Ye and Ling, 2019) combines intra-bag attention with inter-bag attention to tackle the noisy bags.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 391, + 882, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CIL (Chen et al., 2021) applies contrastive instance learning to reduce noise from DS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HiCLRE (Li et al., 2022) uses a hierarchical contrastive learning Framework to improve DSRE.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PARE (Rathore et al., 2022) constructs a passage from the sentence bag and use its summary for relation extraction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 504, + 880, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Teacher follows the implementation of Gao et al. (2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 552, + 880, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Among the baselines, DISTRE, HiCLRE, CIL and PARE use pretrained language models for initialization and the last three use the same BERT pretrained encoder as ours. The held-out dataset is the mainstream for DSRE evaluation, but it contains wrongly-labeled test instances leading to inaccurate evaluation. The manual dataset provides an accurate test set but is limited by its scale in generalization. Therefore, we use both datasets for better evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 583, + 882, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.1 Evaluation on Held-out Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 816, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 show the experimental results on the heldout dataset. We use the results reported in the papers of previous work. We also plot the precisionrecall curves as in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in the results, our model achieves the best AUC and Micro-F1 score among all the compared methods. It is shown that direct sentence-level training (the teacher) leads to a slight decline in precision due to the existence of noise but still", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "173", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/329e7e2dddfdb900cd90852167b13347e2f0249431ebcd25dd371a52b49f7813.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT33.840.775.072.565.771.1
RESIDE41.545.784.078.575.679.4
DISTRE42.248.668.067.065.366.8
Intra+inter42.346.591.884.078.784.8
CIL50.852.290.186.181.886.0
HiCLRE45.350.582.078.574.078.2
PARE53.454.485.085.082.784.8
Teacher50.652.290.082.078.783.6
Last Student53.955.388.084.082.784.9
", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 80, + 776, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: The performance (%) of the models on the held-out dataset. The best scores are marked as bold and the second best scores are underlined, as in other tables of the experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 880, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e3d272aac67e991b57973f4d28f48b8669d0407f21b0d5827fa00a8dd125b960.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: PR curves of the models on the held-out dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 346, + 453, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "achieves competitive AUC and Micro-F1 on the test set because of its advantage in information utilization. The P@N of the student are relatively lower than bag-level baselines, but still improved over the teacher. Compared with the teacher, the student further alleviates noise and overfitting with TIW, thus achieving state-of-the-art performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 487, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.2 Evaluation on Manual Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 413, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the experimental results on the manual dataset. We use the original implementations of the baselines to reproduce the results. The precision-recall curves are plotted in Figure 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 487, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the manual dataset, the bag-level methods still perform better at $\\mathrm{P@N}$ , however, our method outperforms them in AUC and Micro-F1 by large margins. It shows that previous bag-level methods may overfit easy instances, leading to the loss of overall generalization despite higher precision at easy instances $(\\mathrm{P@N})$ . Also, some of the baselines fail in handling infrequent relation classes", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d96f9f9661b027428d490ae797d17d5b966674ee900c244be21a85de8cbb63ee.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: PR curves of the models on the manual dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 346, + 848, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(eespecially Intra+inter), but our model manages to achieve both high Micro-F1 and Macro-F1. Moreover, the student improves significantly over the teacher, especially in P@N. These results further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW in improving sentence-level training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 586, + 882, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to Gao et al. (2021), the performance of the model may be inconsistent if evaluated in both the held-out and manual datasets. Good performance on the held-out set may indicate overfitting to the bias from DS. However, our model is robust enough to perform well on both datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 684, + 882, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 797, + 675, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ablation study is performed using the heldout dataset. As shown in Table 4, all the modules improve the overall performance. Detailed discussions are given below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 820, + 884, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$a$ : removes Uncertainty and directly uses the general Consistency as positive weight. In this case,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "174", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4c5f33df6487232eb26b2d8276f6611b7cd0a7279aaccbc78016dc2eccbb8d93.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1Macro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT57.757.021.291.088.588.089.2
Intra+inter53.653.52.293.092.590.091.8
CIL60.258.832.394.191.589.491.7
HiCLRE61.862.834.785.084.583.784.4
PARE62.760.736.197.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.434.785.083.584.384.3
Last Student63.963.835.294.090.588.090.8
", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 80, + 823, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/550ec060b57c1898ba0edbdf83cfebf14dcad147f166f823f6347bb822aaad87.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the manual dataset." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAUCF1P@M
Last Student53.955.384.9
a: - Un52.553.286.1
b: - STS53.254.583.3
c: - PW51.952.584.8
d: - FNF53.354.982.5
e: - TIW52.152.684.6
f: Probe50.652.580.0
g: JS div53.655.083.9
", + "bbox": [ + 156, + 280, + 445, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Ablation study of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 451, + 433, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the easy instances always have the largest weights even if they are already well-fitted. The model thus overfits shallow features, which is indicated by the high $\\mathrm{P@N}$ and the decline in overall performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 487, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "$b$ : removes STS and follows the output probabilities from the teacher all the time. In this case, the noise from the teacher is not addressed. Fixing the soft target also leads to the fixed Uncertainty for each instance, causing the underfitting of some easy instances. Therefore, the performance declines, especially $\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}$ .", + "$c$ : removes PW and all the positive instances are treated equally, including the noisy ones. Therefore, the model is heavily affected by noise and FNF may be inaccurate, leading to further performance declines. In this case, high $\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}$ indicates that the model overfits easy instances and loses generalization.", + "$d$ : removes FNF. The FNs only make up a small part of the dataset, so the effects are relatively small. However, the noise from FNs significantly reduces $\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}$ . We suspect that the fitting of FNs affects that of true positives. If a false negative $fn$ has similar syntactic and semantic features to a true positive $tp$ , fitting $fn$ is similar to fitting $tp$ using an incorrect label." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 562, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$e$ : removes TIW totally and all the instances are weighted as 1. The label smoothness of knowledge distillation is able to alleviate some noise from DS, so there are improvements in performance over $f$ . However, the student is still trained with much noise and overfits easy instances, so the overall performance declines significantly.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 284, + 884, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$f$ : is the probing result of 12th layer using the DS label. It shows that without effective denoising mechanisms, simply retraining the classifier does not help in performance.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 397, + 882, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$g$ : we have also tried out the Jensen-Shannon divergence (Fuglede and Topsoe, 2004), which is a variant of KL divergence. The performance is not as good as the dot product because it pushes the student to output the same probability as the teacher. However, it should be acceptable (or even better) for the student to output a higher probability for the target relation than the teacher.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 462, + 882, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The above results and discussions further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW designs in alleviating noise and overfitting.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 590, + 884, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusions and Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 651, + 791, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with self-distillation to denoise from sentence-level training of DSRE. We employ the self-distilled BERT backbone to extract intermediate information for generating reliable instance weights. TIW combines Consistency with Uncertainty as the tools to tackle noisy instances and alleviate overfitting. It also enables soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing among the students to tackle the noise from the teacher. The experiment results show that our method improves the general resistance to DS noise and prevents overfitting from harming its generalization, thus can achieve state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 677, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "175", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "basielines on both the held-out and manual datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, our work still has some limitations. Firstly, since our model is built on the basis of the teacher-student network, the performance of the student is highly affected by the teacher. If the teacher provides too much noisy information, our instance weighting mechanism might not work. Secondly, in some cases, the student fails to follow the correct predictions from the teacher, possibly due to ambiguity, lack of information or word-level noise. Finally, TIW may down-weight some instances of infrequent relation classes due to their difficulty, but it can be tackled by combining TIW with other methods addressing the long-tailed distribution of relations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 101, + 490, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 338, + 280, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by National Key D&R Program of China (2019YFB1600704), The Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (0068/2020/AGJ, SKL-IOTSC(UM)-2021-2023), GDST (2020B1212030003), MYRG2022-00192-FST and MYRG-GRG2023-00186-FSTUMDF.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 365, + 490, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 506, + 213, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Christoph Alt, Marc Hübner, and Leonhard Hennig. 2019. Fine-tuning pre-trained transformer language models to distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1388-1398, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 1247-1250.", + "Tao Chen, Haizhou Shi, Siliang Tang, Zhigang Chen, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. CIL: Contrastive instance learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6191-6200, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 527, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Li Zhao, Yang Yang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. Reinforcement learning for relation classification from noisy data. In Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32.", + "Bent Fuglede and Flemming Topsoe. 2004. Jensenshannon divergence and hilbert space embedding. In International symposium on Information theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings., page 31. IEEE.", + "Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yuzhuo Bai, Keyue Qiu, Zhiyu Xie, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Manual evaluation matters: Reviewing test protocols of distantly supervised relation extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1306-1318, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xu Han, Tianyu Gao, Yuan Yao, Deming Ye, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. OpenNRE: An open and extensible toolkit for neural relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 169-174, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kailong Hao, Botao Yu, and Wei Hu. 2021. Knowing false negatives: An adversarial training method for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9661-9672, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, Jeff Dean, et al. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2(7).", + "Xiusheng Huang, Yubo Chen, Shun Wu, Jun Zhao, Yuantao Xie, and Weijian Sun. 2021. Named entity recognition via noise aware training mechanism with data filter. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4791-4803, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yuyun Huang and Jinhua Du. 2019. Self-attention enhanced CNNs and collaborative curriculum learning for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 389-398, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "176", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? In ACL 2019-57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dongyang Li, Taolin Zhang, Nan Hu, Chengyu Wang, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. HiCLRE: A hierarchical contrastive learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2567-2578, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yankai Lin, Shiqi Shen, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. 2016. Neural relation extraction with selective attention over instances. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2124-2133.", + "Tianyi Liu, Xiangyu Lin, Weijia Jia, Mingliang Zhou, and Wei Zhao. 2020a. Regularized attentive capsule network for overlapped relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6388-6398, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianyi Liu, Xinsong Zhang, Wanhao Zhou, and Wei-jia Jia. 2018. Neural relation extraction via inner-sentence noise reduction and transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195-2204.", + "Tianyu Liu, Kexiang Wang, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2017. A soft-label method for noise-tolerant distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1790-1795.", + "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020b. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101.", + "Mike Mintz, Steven Bills, Rion Snow, and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 1003-1011.", + "Tapas Nayak, Navonil Majumder, and Soujanya Poria. 2021. Improving distantly supervised relation extraction with self-ensemble noise filtering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021), pages 1031-1039, Held Online. INCOMA Ltd.", + "Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3661-3672, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Pengda Qin, Weiran Xu, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Robust distant supervision relation extraction via deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2137-2147.", + "Ziqin Rao, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. A simple model for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2651-2657, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Vipul Rathore, Kartikeya Badola, Parag Singla, and Mausam. 2022. PARE: A simple and strong baseline for monolingual and multilingual distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 340-354, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 148-163. Springer.", + "Yuming Shang, He-Yan Huang, Xian-Ling Mao, Xin Sun, and Wei Wei. 2020. Are noisy sentences useless for distant supervised relation extraction? In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8799-8806.", + "Wei Song, Weishuai Gu, Fuxin Zhu, and Soon Cheol Park. 2023. Interaction-and-response network for distantly supervised relation extraction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.", + "Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A Alemi, and Andrew G Wilson. 2021. Does knowledge distillation really work? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:6906-6919.", + "Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "177", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275-9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 489, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shikhar Vashishth, Rishabh Joshi, Sai Suman Prayaga, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya, and Partha Talukdar. 2018. Reside: Improving distantly-supervised neural relation extraction using side information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04361.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 134, + 489, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhi-Xiu Ye and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2019. Distant supervision relation extraction with intra-bag and inter-bag attentions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2810-2819.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 209, + 489, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Changsen Yuan, Heyan Huang, Chong Feng, Xiao Liu, and Xiaochi Wei. 2019a. Distant supervision for relation extraction with linear attenuation simulation and non-iid relevance embedding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7418-7425.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 311, + 489, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yujin Yuan, Liyuan Liu, Siliang Tang, Zhongfei Zhang, Yueting Zhuang, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Xiang Ren. 2019b. Cross-relation cross-bag attention for distantly-supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 419-426.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 399, + 489, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Daojian Zeng, Kang Liu, Yubo Chen, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Distant supervision for relation extraction via piecewise convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1753-1762.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 487, + 489, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Linfeng Zhang, Jiebo Song, Anni Gao, Jingwei Chen, Chenglong Bao, and Kaisheng Ma. 2019a. By your own teacher: Improve the performance of convolutional neural networks via self distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3713-3722.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 563, + 489, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xinsong Zhang, Pengshuai Li, Weijia Jia, and Hai Zhao. 2019b. Multi-labeled relation extraction with attentive capsule network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7484-7491.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 650, + 489, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Peng Zhou, Wei Shi, Jun Tian, Zhenyu Qi, Bingchen Li, Hongwei Hao, and Bo Xu. 2016. Attention-based bidirectional long short-term memory networks for relation classification. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 207-212.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 726, + 489, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Hyperparameter Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 829, + 376, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are two key hyperparameters in our experiments, the student selected and the head layer $l$ . In our best model, we select the last student (12th) for evaluation and set layer 7 as the head layer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6e19d8b4cb5ea84d4de1109eb5d8b2691f4d5456f8c690a05fa94743213b6e3d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Results of the students and auxiliary classifiers of the teacher on the held-out dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 82, + 694, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/39fcdfed463e8b39164fc1bdfd384aa2eb6ab0baff9942d60c2beb707842c91c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 707, + 93, + 870, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 5, the higher students $(\\geq 9)$ improve significantly over the teacher. The last student performs the best and the students from 9th to 11th also achieve comparable performances. Lower layers of BERT encode shallower features and the instance weighting in lower students is more affected by noise, so the performances of 7th and 8th students show little advantage over the teacher. With knowledge passed and noise alleviated student by student, the performance gradually improves.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 269, + 884, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cf4dee45dd503faca792d99715ee182ab60a7c7d88abfd8c73d1177dd95dc4e9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SettingAUCF1P@M
l = 1153.455.182.8
l = 1053.554.983.6
l = 953.655.084.0
l = 853.755.184.7
l = 753.955.384.9
l = 653.855.384.8
l = 553.755.184.6
l = 353.555.084.7
l = 253.554.984.6
l = 153.454.984.5
", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 442, + 821, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Results of using different head layer $l$ settings. The best results are marked as bold.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 882, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To study the effect of head layer $l$ , we run experiments with $l$ from 1 to n. In Table 5, we present the results where $l = 7$ achieves the best performance. For $l > 7$ , the head layer is too close to the top and TIW filters fewer false negatives. So the P@M declines quickly, which is similar to the effect of removing FNF as in Table 4. For $l < 7$ , the lower layers of BERT are not able to encode sufficient information for accurate relation extraction, so the lower students are not able to provide reliable instance weights, leading to the transfer of some noise among students. Though other settings are less effective than the best, their performances still dominate most of the baselines. The above re", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "178", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sults show that our method is not dependent on the empirical settings of hyperparameters and further demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Evaluations on Wiki-20m", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 161, + 371, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to further explore the generalization of our method, we also experiment on the Wiki-20m dataset (Gao et al., 2021). The details of the dataset are shown in Table 6 and the results are shown in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/229feff2beac4e1a88130e9642b9ecc8dc0b59bf99066dd45b8dd78fee3a972d.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Train (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
698.7157.7138.056.081
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 275, + 445, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4b7bb598db9044f04416b17b90d29035583cc699ddce2656b2bbdcef65177064.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: The statistics of Wiki-20m dataset. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAUCMacro-F1
Intra+inter88.781.1
CIL89.782.6
HiCLRE87.980.3
IRN (Song et al., 2023)90.982.5
PARE91.483.9
Teacher89.782.8
Last Student90.984.1
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 428, + 475, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We take the best-reported results of the baselines in Rathore et al. (2022) and Song et al. (2023). On Wiki-20m dataset, our model still achieves state-of-the-art performance and the improvements over the teacher are significant. Therefore, our method can generalize well to the Wiki-20m dataset, which has more relation classes (81).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 639, + 487, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Error Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 282, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For accurate analysis of the errors, we use the test set of the manual dataset for statistical discussions. Each positive label is considered an item. The instances with multiple positive labels are considered to have multiple items. We classify the items based on the predictions of the teacher and student, then count the number and percentage of each class as in Table 8. The goal is to explore where the errors", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of the student come from: a) from the teacher, meaning that the knowledge from the teacher is noisy and leads to the student's errors, or b) from the student itself, meaning that the teacher gives correct knowledge but the student fails to follow.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9f65d2da324281b63f26c46b2484037eecab6cfc6ce48e1e0770e055cae292f1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the Wiki-20m dataset." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ClassNum. of itemsPercentage (%)
BC3,04478.07
BI74219.03
TISC942.41
TCSI190.49
", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 175, + 857, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Numbers and percentages of different classes of items. $BC$ stands for both correct, $BI$ stands for both incorrect, $TISC$ stands for teacher incorrect, student correct and $TCSI$ stands for teacher correct, student incorrect.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 882, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the results, the student achieves slightly higher (about $2\\%$ ) accuracy than the teacher and shows high fidelity with $97.1\\%$ of all predictions being the same as the teacher. $BI$ represents the student's errors caused by the errors from the teacher. $TISC$ indicates the student's corrections on the errors from the teacher and $TCSI$ represents the errors from the student itself. From the results, we can conclude that almost all (about $97.5\\%$ ) of the errors come from the teacher, and the corrections made by the student are much more than the errors made by the student itself. This demonstrates the effectiveness of our method in reducing the occurrence of errors and the limitation that it requires a good teacher for good performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 370, + 882, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For further analysis of the student's errors, we inspect the $TCSI$ items and select some representative ones for discussions as in Figure 6. Most of the instances with place_of_birth relation are correctly classified and the first example should be an easy instance in the form, yet misclassified by the student as place_lived. We observe several similar items and suspect that long and uncommon names like Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker sometimes confuse the student to make conservative predictions, which is the more common relation place_lived. The second example, however, confuses the student with a compound noun Brooklyn College. Brooklyn appears very often in the dataset in the form of location, making the student believe that Brooklyn College is a location rather than an organization. The third example is mostly related to ambiguity, where the word Arab may refer to the Arab people (ethnic group) or the Arab world", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "179", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/16d53b7d2430592579306488bb683ae50fa89cbcbd8be5b0621785b18ca433a8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SentenceTeacherStudent
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker was born in Kiel, Germany, on June 28, 1912./people/person/place_of_birth/people/person/place_lived
Presented by Brooklyn College and the office of Borough President Marty Markowitz./business/person/company/people/person/place_lived
Furthermore, the relationship between the central government, dominated by three small Arab tribes living along the Nile, and Darfur's Arabs, who claim a heritage going back to the e Prophet Muhammad, is often antagonistic./people/person/ethnicity/people/person/place_of_birth
", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 85, + 857, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fbaea6d12e7189b58fee1f255c240eff58d117db46210962ad1ba1e1f9f518d5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Figure 6: TCSI examples. The entities are underlined." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
CIL60.258.894.191.589.491.7
PARE62.760.797.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.485.083.584.384.3
Teacher†61.760.689.090.088.789.2
Last Student63.963.894.090.588.090.8
Last Student†63.460.796.096.095.395.8
", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 209, + 779, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: The performance (%) of the models on the manual dataset. † indicates initialized using well-trained encoder.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 356, + 882, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "location). The latter two examples indicate that the lack of entity-related information may lead to inconsistency between the student and the teacher. The first example shows that the student may be confused to lose focus on key phrases like was born in, which may be solved by combining it with word-level attention in the future.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 410, + 489, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Effects of Teacher Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 369, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the main experiments of this paper, the teacher model is trained in an extremely noisy environment, leaving much room for TIW to improve performance. In order to explore the potential of TIW in improving state-of-the-art methods, we initialize the teacher model using the well-trained encoder from CIL (Chen et al., 2021) instead of the bert-base-uncased checkpoint. We repeat the experiments on the manual dataset and the results are shown in Table 9. In the results, the models initialized with a well-trained CIL encoder achieve significantly higher precision and TIW further improves the performance over the baselines. However, since CIL is trained in a bag-level setting, it has lower utilization in information than the models trained in sentence-level settings, leading to some decline in AUC and Micro-F1. These results show that the initialization of the teacher model has a great impact on the performance and that TIW can consistently improve the performance of the model with different teachers. Hopefully, TIW can be employed with more powerful teacher models to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "achieve even better performance in DSRE.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 410, + 826, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "180", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_model.json b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d766733065c5f7da67dc3418bd1cf1592758135 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2690 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.09, + 0.843, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.302, + 0.149, + 0.7, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiangyu Lin1, Weijia Jia2 and Zhiguo Gong1*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.354, + 0.167, + 0.649, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)SKL-IOTSC, University of Macau†" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.296, + 0.183, + 0.707, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)BNU-UIC & Beijing Normal University (Zhuhai)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.203, + 0.744, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "yc07403@um.edu.mo, jiawj@uic.edu.cn, fstzgg@um.edu.mo" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.342, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.462, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The widespread existence of wrongly labeled instances is a challenge to distantly supervised relation extraction. Most of the previous works are trained in a bag-level setting to alleviate such noise. However, sentence-level training better utilizes the information than bag-level training, as long as combined with effective noise alleviation. In this work, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with the self-distilled BERT backbone, utilizing information in the intermediate outputs to generate dynamic instance weights for denoised sentence-level training. By down-weighting wrongly labeled instances and discounting the weights of easy-to-fit ones, our method can effectively tackle wrongly labeled instances and prevent overfitting. Experiments on both held-out and manual datasets indicate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the baselines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.608, + 0.262, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.635, + 0.49, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction (DSRE) (Mintz et al., 2009) is designed to automatically annotate the sentences mentioning the entity pairs, which enables a significant way of constructing large-scale datasets. However, distant supervision (DS) works under an unrealistic assumption that all sentences mentioning the same entity pair express the same relation. This introduces many noisy (wrongly labeled) instances into the dataset. To tackle this challenge, previous works mostly adopt the bag-level setting as shown at the top of Figure 1, where the vector representations of sentences are aggregated as the bag-level representation using multi-instance learning (MIL) (Riedel et al., 2010)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.886, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and the prediction is thus produced from the bag representation. The optimization is conducted at the bag level to minimize the loss of bag prediction. Only a small subset of previous works leverage the sentence-level setting (Zhang et al., 2019b; Liu et al., 2020a) as in the bottom of Figure 1, where the sentence-level predictions are produced and then aggregated into the bag prediction. In fact, sentence-level training can directly optimize the loss from each sentence, enabling higher information utilization than bag-level training. However, sentence-level training is vulnerable to the noise brought by DS, which limits its application. Therefore, sentence-level training should be combined with effective noise-alleviation mechanisms to improve its robustness." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.524, + 0.882, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.676, + 0.884, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The bag-level and sentence-level pipelines of DSRE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The mainstream encoders of DSRE models are Piecewise Convolutional Neural Network (PCNN) (Zeng et al., 2015) and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) (Zhou et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018) over the years. It is reasonable for most previous works to take the simple encoder as a black box and only utilize its final output during training and inference. However, as large models like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) become popular in recent years, the information within the outputs from their intermediate layers is a non-trivial source of knowledge but is rarely discussed in DSRE. In this" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.869, + 0.28, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.882, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{\\dagger}\\)Xiangyu Lin and Zhiguo Gong are with the State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.869, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "168" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 168-180" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "work, we apply self-distillation to extract intermediate information as output probabilities and utilize them to denoise from wrong labels. Furthermore, we use soft target selection and set up transitive knowledge passing among the students to alleviate the effects of noisy target probabilities from the teacher." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The instances in DSRE can be roughly divided into easy, hard and noisy ones. Both easy and hard instances are correctly labeled but the model learns from hard instances slower (Huang et al., 2021). Noisy instances have wrong labels and can be further divided into False Positives (FPs) and False Negatives (FNs). FPs are instances with NA relation but are wrongly labeled as non-NA relations by DS, while FNs are non-NA instances wrongly labeled as NA. We hope to avoid learning from noisy instances since they contain misleading information. Moreover, we also need to avoid overfitting to easy instances to improve the learning of deeper knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To tackle the above challenges, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) mechanism for denoised sentence-level training in DSRE. Firstly, we apply self-distillation to directly reuse the knowledge of the teacher model for further denoising in students and set up a transitive way to share knowledge among students. Secondly, we leverage the TIW mechanism to generate robust instance weights to reduce noise and overfitting during distillation. TIW considers two factors in the generation of instance weights: Uncertainty (Liu et al., 2020b) for overfitting prevention and general Consistency for noise reduction. The general Consistency we proposed reflects the learning difficulty of the instance and provides guidance both in selecting soft targets of distillation and in weighting instances. Lastly, the generated instance weights directly multiply the sentence-level losses to dynamically and globally enhance the training in the sentence-level setting. The experiments on both held-out and manual datasets show that our approach boosts the student's performance to achieve state-of-the-art results and consistent improvements over the teacher. We also provide an ablation study to explore the effects of the modules. In addition, we analyse the errors and provide additional experimental results in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.86, + 0.473, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We are the first to denoise sentence-level DSRE with dynamic instance weights and har" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ness intermediate knowledge to improve noise resistance and information utilization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.129, + 0.884, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism with multiple functions, including noise alleviation, overfitting prevention, soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.221, + 0.883, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Experiment and analysis show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance with good generalization and robustness." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.282, + 0.666, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.308, + 0.885, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Distant supervision (DS) for relation extraction (Mintz et al., 2009) enables automatic annotation of large-scale datasets, but its strong assumption introduces a large number of wrongly labeled instances. Following Riedel et al. (2010), various multi-instance learning methods are proposed to denoise from noisy instances, and they broadly fall into two categories: instance selection (Zeng et al., 2015; Qin et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2018) and instance attention (Lin et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2019b,a; Ye and Ling, 2019). Apart from multi-instance learning, many of the previous works try to improve the effectiveness of training. Liu et al. (2017) and Shang et al. (2020) try to convert wrongly labeled instances to useful information through relabeling. Huang and Du (2019) proposes collaborative curriculum learning for denoising. Hao et al. (2021) adopts adversarial training to filter noisy instances in the dataset. Nayak et al. (2021) designs a self-ensemble framework to filter noisy instances despite information loss. Li et al. (2022) proposes a hierarchical contrastive learning framework to reduce the effect of noise. Rathore et al. (2022) constructs a passage from the bags to generate a summary for classification. Nevertheless, the above approaches are trained with bag-level loss, leading to lower utilization of information. In our work, we adopt sentence-level training to directly utilize sentence-level information and effectively tackle noise and overfitting using dynamic instance weights." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) is an effective way to improve model generalization, though it has difficulty in transferring knowledge effectively (Stanton et al., 2021). By sharing some parameters between teacher and students, self-distillation (Zhang et al., 2019a) improves knowledge transfer from teacher to student. Liu et al." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "169" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2020b) applies self-distillation on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to improve inference efficiency. However, in our work, we apply self-distillation as the tool to extract intermediate knowledge for denoising and further reduce the noise from the teacher with transitive information passing among the students." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are some epoch-level techniques to detect noisy instances like Swayamdipta et al. (2020) and Huang et al. (2021). But in sentence-level DSRE which is highly noisy and contains bias from the entity mentions (Peng et al., 2020), larger models like BERT can overfit noisy instances faster, even before an epoch ends. Therefore, we adopt a dynamic instance weighting mechanism which is more suitable for DSRE." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.355, + 0.263, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.381, + 0.236, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Overview" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.403, + 0.489, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DSRE aims to predict the relations between an entity pair given a bag of sentences mentioning them. Previous works mostly aggregate sentence representations into bag representations before being optimized using bag-level loss. However, useful information may be diluted or mixed during aggregation. Instead, our model is directly trained on the sentence level to preserve more information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.532, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our model is illustrated in Figure 2. The backbone is the BERT encoder on the left, with a teacher classifier on the top. Each student shares a subencoder with the teacher and uses a new classifier for prediction. Firstly, the encoder and the teacher classifier are fine-tuned on the dataset to establish background knowledge. Then, we freeze the encoder and train the student classifiers, in which knowledge distillation and Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) are applied to reduce noise and overfitting. TIW computes the instance weights based on three sources of knowledge: the teacher's output \\( p^t \\), the outputs of the student \\( i \\) itself \\( p_i^s \\) and the previous peer \\( p_{i-1}^s \\). It first selects a more consistent soft target \\( p_i^{tg} \\) between \\( p^t \\) and \\( p_{i-1}^s \\) based on the probabilities of making the same predictions as them (i.e. Consistency), which are denoted as \\( c_i^t \\) and \\( c_i^s \\) respectively. Then the possible false negative instances are filtered according to the predictions \\( p_{i-1}^s \\) from the previous peer. Finally, the instance weights \\( w_i \\) are computed as the multiplication of Uncertainty \\( u_i \\) (normalized entropy) and the general Consistency \\( c_i \\) with the soft target. The details of TIW are given in Algorithm 1," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( re2id(r) \\) is a function that maps the relation class \\( r \\) to its id for generating the one-hot label. The instance weights directly multiply with the instance losses to dynamically regulate the roles of instances in optimization (Equation 6). This improves training by globally down-weighting the instances leading to extra noise and overfitting." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.212, + 0.877, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.41, + 0.883, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Dotted arrows indicate the generation of instance weight." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.468, + 0.635, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Backbone" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.489, + 0.884, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is a powerful transformer-based pretrained network with broad applications in natural language processing. Its intermediate layers encode a rich hierarchy of sentence features, ranging from surface features, and syntactic features, to semantic features (Jawahar et al., 2019). However, previous BERT applications in DSRE (Alt et al., 2019; Rao et al., 2022) only utilize the output from the final layer, neglecting the possibility that hierarchical intermediate information can be useful in denoising. Therefore, we set up the student classifiers to extract information from the hierarchical features in the form of output probabilities and utilize them to distinguish noisy instances in the distillation stage." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.731, + 0.884, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The model takes a batch of sentences as input, each is labeled with at least one relation. Firstly, each input sentence is transformed into a sequence of vector representations \\( s \\) by the embedding layer. Then, BERT conducts layer-wise feature extraction with the input \\( s \\), the output of \\( i_{th} \\) layer \\( (1 \\leq i \\leq n) \\) is described as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.631, + 0.857, + 0.883, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nh _ {i} = B E R T _ {i} (s) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( BERT_{i} \\) refers to the subencoder containing transformer layers from the first to the \\( i_{th} \\). The" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "170" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.084, + 0.44, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 Transitive Instance Weighting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.105, + 0.738, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: DS label \\( Y \\), teacher's output probability \\( p^t \\) and students' \\( p^s \\) for the instance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.122, + 0.767, + 0.137 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: The soft target \\( p^{t g} \\) and the instance weight \\( w \\) of the instance from the students." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.138, + 0.351, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Initialize \\( w_{l} \\gets 1, p_{l}^{tg} \\gets p^{t} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.155, + 0.31, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: for \\( i = l + 1 \\rightarrow n \\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.169, + 0.75, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: Compute the Consistency with teacher and peer: \\( c_{i}^{t} \\gets p_{i}^{s} \\cdot p^{t} \\) \\( c_{i}^{s} \\gets p_{i}^{s} \\cdot p_{i-1}^{s} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.187, + 0.463, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: if \\( c_i^t > c_i^s \\) then \\( p_i^{tg} \\gets p^t \\) else \\( p_i^{tg} \\gets p_i^s \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.205, + 0.358, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: if \\( Y = \\text{rel2id}(NA) \\) then" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.138, + 0.75, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.22, + 0.597, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: if \\( Y = \\operatorname{argmax}_{j} (p_{i-1}^{s}(j)) \\) then \\( w_{i} \\gets 1 \\) else \\( w_{i} \\gets 0 \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.237, + 0.207, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: else" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.22, + 0.597, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.71, + 0.188, + 0.882, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "> Soft Target Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.688, + 0.205, + 0.882, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\triangleright\\) False Negative Filtering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.725, + 0.237, + 0.882, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Positive Weighting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.251, + 0.686, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Compute the Uncertainty of soft target: \\( u_{i} \\gets \\sum_{j=1}^{n_{c}} \\frac{p_{i}^{tg}(j) \\log p_{i}^{tg}(j)}{\\log \\frac{1}{n_{c}}} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.28, + 0.83, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: Compute the general Consistency and the instance weight: \\( c_i \\gets p_i^{tg} \\cdot p_i^s \\quad w_i \\gets c_i u_i \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.297, + 0.224, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10: end if" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.313, + 0.207, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.251, + 0.83, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.487, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "encoder is fine-tuned with a simple feedforward classifier \\( FFN_{t} \\) on the top and we can obtain the output of the teacher \\( p^t \\) as in the following:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.416, + 0.487, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nx _ {i} = \\left[ h _ {i} \\left(p _ {1}\\right); h _ {i} \\left(p _ {2}\\right) \\right] \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.446, + 0.487, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np ^ {t} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(F F N _ {t} \\left(x _ {n}\\right)\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.473, + 0.487, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( p_1 \\) and \\( p_2 \\) are the start positions of the head entity and tail entity respectively. \\([a:b]\\) indicates the concatenation of vectors \\( a \\) and \\( b \\). \\( n_c \\) is the number of classes. Similarly, the output of student \\( i \\) can be formulated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.566, + 0.487, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {i} ^ {s} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(F F N _ {i} \\left(x _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.597, + 0.487, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that after fine-tuning, the parameters of the teacher model including the BERT encoder stay fixed during the process of self-distillation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.657, + 0.396, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Transitive Instance Weighting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TIW incorporates multiple mechanisms to reduce noise and overfitting. For negative (NA) instances, TIW adopts False Negative Filtering (FNF) to filter false negatives based on the prediction of the previous peer \\( p_{i-1}^{s} \\). For positive (non-NA) instances, TIW provides dynamic instance weights \\( w_{i} \\) generated by multiplying the Uncertainty \\( u_{i} \\) and the general Consistency \\( c_{i} \\). The Uncertainty \\( u_{i} \\) is computed as the normalized entropy of the student's soft target \\( p_{i}^{tg} \\) as in Line 8 of Algorithm 1 and is applied to avoid overfitting to easy instances. The general Consistency \\( c_{i} \\) evaluates the consistency between the student's output and its soft target \\( p_{i}^{tg} \\) to limit the effects of wrongly-labeled instances." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.355, + 0.885, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most previous works in knowledge distillation directly use the teacher's output probability as the soft target. However, the teacher can constantly make mistakes if trained with noisy data, as in DSRE. Therefore, by introducing peer output \\( p^s \\) into distillation, TIW sets up a transitive way to share knowledge among the students and reduces the noise from the teacher. As in Line 4 of Algorithm 1, instead of blindly following the output from the teacher, each student \\( i \\) (\\( i > l \\)) chooses between the teacher \\( p^t \\) and the previous peer \\( p_{i-1}^s \\) to follow. This step is referred to as Soft Target Selection (STS) later. STS provides additional referential probability distributions for the learning students so they can switch to a smoother target probability when the output from the teacher is too hard to follow. The criterion of selection is Consistency (\\( c_i^t \\) and \\( c_i^s \\)), which is described as the probability of two systems making the same predictions and is computed as the dot product of the probability distributions from the two systems, as in Line 3 of Algorithm 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In TIW, we adopt different strategies for negative instances and positive ones because their characteristics are quite different. For negative instances, we conduct FNF as in Lines 5-6 of Algorithm 1. Since we have sufficient negative instances in the dataset, it is acceptable to avoid more FNs at the cost of slight information loss. Therefore, we assign 0 weight to all the possible FNs and 1 weight to the rest. To correctly identify FNs, we adopt a dynamic approach that if the previous peer agrees with distant supervision and also labels the instance as \\( NA \\), then we classify the instance as a true negative. Otherwise, we assume it to be a false negative" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "171" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that the DS label is unreliable. The student follows the peer's view in FNF instead of the teacher's because the teacher already overfits the noisy data and mostly follows the DS label, though the probabilities of label relations may vary." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.168, + 0.49, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to preserve more information for training, we use soft weights for the positive instances instead of hard filtering. We call it Positive Weighting (PW) and determine the instance weight \\( w_{i} \\) of student \\( i \\) by two factors: Uncertainty \\( u_{i} \\) and the general Consistency \\( c_{i} \\) with the selected soft target." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.267, + 0.49, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The uncertainty term is the normalized entropy as in Liu et al. (2020b) of the chosen soft target. It evaluates how well an instance is fitted so we can leverage it to detect overfitted instances dynamically. Easy instances contain shallow features like London, UK indicating a location/contains relation, so the model fits them easily and fast. But we do not hope the model becomes overdependent on them and lose focus on deeper features hidden in semantics. Therefore we discount their weights with uncertainty to prevent overfitting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.445, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The general Consistency \\( c_{i} \\) of student \\( i \\) is the Consistency between the student and the soft target. During distillation, each student is expected to stay consistent with its target distribution. If \\( c_{i} \\) is high, the student successfully follows the prediction of the soft target, indicating that the instance is easy to learn for the student. If \\( c_{i} \\) is low, the student fails to stay consistent with prior knowledge and the instance may be noisy or very hard to learn. The instance weight \\( w_{i} \\) should take the prevention of both noise and overfitting into consideration, so it is empirically implemented as the multiplication of general Consistency \\( c_{i} \\) and Uncertainty \\( u_{i} \\), as in Line 9 of the algorithm." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that during distillation, the student is trained with both soft targets and DS labels, as shown in Equation 6. We present the discussions on the \\( c_{i} \\) and losses of easy, noisy and hard instances in the following." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.755, + 0.49, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Easy instances mostly have high \\( c_{i} \\) and are well-fitted by the teacher or the peer, so the optimizations using soft targets and DS labels conform with each other." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.821, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Noisy instances are mostly underfitted and very hard to optimize because the soft targets and DS labels are mostly inconsistent. They have low \\( c_{i} \\) because the teacher and the students are not likely to provide consistent predictions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hard instances are underfitted clean instances" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with low \\( c_{i} \\) at first. However, their soft targets and DS labels are consistent, leading to steady optimizations. When clean background knowledge is established by learning from clean instances, learning from hard ones becomes easier so the \\( c_{i} \\) values of hard instances grow larger." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.182, + 0.885, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the above discussions, it is safe to say that both easy and hard instances are faster to fit than noisy ones during distillation, indicating that TIW is capable of reducing noise in the training set. As for Uncertainty, its role is non-decisive. Both hard and noisy instances tend to have high Uncertainty but the hard ones have higher Consistency, leading to larger weights than noisy ones. Easy instances are fast to fit even with their weights discounted by low Uncertainty. Therefore, applying Uncertainty helps alleviate overfitting and does not lead to increases in noise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.375, + 0.885, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sum up, TIW aims to tackle noise and overfitting and thus can be combined with sentence-level training, which is more demanding in both noise reduction and overfitting alleviation than traditional bag-level training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.466, + 0.662, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Optimization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.884, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The teacher and the peer may overfit noisy instances during fine-tuning and distillation. Therefore, we apply a dynamic temperature \\(\\tau\\) to the soft target in the following form:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.621, + 0.565, + 0.884, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tau_ {i} = 1 + \\gamma (1 - u _ {i}) \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.594, + 0.884, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\gamma\\) is a hyperparameter empirically set as 3. The idea of \\(\\tau\\) is to further smooth the well-fitted instances to produce softer targets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.643, + 0.884, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The loss function of our model follows the general form of knowledge distillation with the instance weight \\( w \\) we propose:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.702, + 0.884, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL = \\sum_ {i = l} ^ {n} w _ {i} \\left(\\alpha K L _ {\\tau_ {i}} \\left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, p _ {i} ^ {t g}\\right) + (1 - \\alpha) C E \\left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, Y\\right)\\right) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.754, + 0.885, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\alpha\\) is a hyper-parameter empirically set as 0.5. \\(KL_{\\tau}(p,q)\\) computes the KL-divergence between distributions \\(p\\) and \\(q\\) with temperature \\(\\tau\\) for the soft target \\(q\\). \\(Y\\) is the label from distant supervision and \\(CE(p,Y)\\) is the cross entropy loss with one-hot label obtained from \\(Y\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.862, + 0.657, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, the datasets, settings and hyperparameters are specified first. Then, we present the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "172" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance of our model compared with previous baselines and the teacher model. We also conduct an ablation study to enable a deeper understanding of the mechanisms." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.163, + 0.331, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.185, + 0.49, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the widely used held-out dataset NYT-10 (Riedel et al., 2010) and recent manual dataset NYT-10m (Gao et al., 2021) for evaluation. As a standard dataset for DSRE, NYT-10 is constructed by aligning the relations in Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008) with the New York Times (NYT) corpus (English). NYT-10m is a manual dataset constructed also from the NYT corpus, with a human-labeled test set and a new relation ontology. For NYT-10, we divide the dataset into five parts for cross-validation. For NYT-10m, we use the provided validation set. The details of the datasets are shown in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.404, + 0.484, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTrain (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
held-out522.618.4172.42.053
manual417.917.19.73.925
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.501, + 0.49, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: The statistics of datasets. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the experiments, we use the bert-base-uncased checkpoint with about 110M parameters for initialization as in Han et al. (2019). We apply the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer during distillation. The structure of the embedding layer and BERT layers follow those in the previous works with the number of transformer layers \\( n = 12 \\) and hidden size \\( d_h = 768 \\). The batch size is 32 and the learning rate is \\( 2e - 5 \\). The maximum length of sentences \\( m \\) is 128. As discussed by Jawahar et al. (2019), the shallow layers may not be able to encode the information needed for the DSRE task. Therefore, TIW starts from layer \\( l \\), which is empirically set as 7." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the Area Under precision-recall Curve (AUC), micro-F1, macro-F1, precision at top N predictions \\((\\mathrm{P@N},\\mathrm{N} = 100,200,300)\\) and the mean of \\(\\mathrm{P@N}\\), which is denoted as \\(\\mathrm{P@M}\\). Following the at-least-one assumption (Riedel et al., 2010), we adopt ONE strategy (Zeng et al., 2015) for bag-level evaluation, which takes the maximum score for each relation to generate bag-level predic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tions. We use the output of the last student (12) as the output of the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the Appendix, we display the results from other students and the results using other \\(l\\) settings. We also provide detailed error analysis and extra experimental results on Wiki-20m dataset. Moreover, we try out a different initialization of the teacher to further explore the generalization of TIW." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.226, + 0.722, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Overall Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.246, + 0.882, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the performance of our model against that of the following baselines:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.278, + 0.882, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PCNN+ATT (Lin et al., 2016) proposes PCNN with selective attention mechanism." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.311, + 0.882, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RESIDE (Vashishth et al., 2018) integrates side information into Graph Convolution Networks to improve relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.359, + 0.884, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DISTRE (Alt et al., 2019) extends and finetunes GPT on DSRE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.392, + 0.884, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intra+inter (Ye and Ling, 2019) combines intra-bag attention with inter-bag attention to tackle the noisy bags." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.44, + 0.884, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CIL (Chen et al., 2021) applies contrastive instance learning to reduce noise from DS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.472, + 0.884, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HiCLRE (Li et al., 2022) uses a hierarchical contrastive learning Framework to improve DSRE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.505, + 0.882, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PARE (Rathore et al., 2022) constructs a passage from the sentence bag and use its summary for relation extraction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.553, + 0.882, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Teacher follows the implementation of Gao et al. (2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.585, + 0.884, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Among the baselines, DISTRE, HiCLRE, CIL and PARE use pretrained language models for initialization and the last three use the same BERT pretrained encoder as ours. The held-out dataset is the mainstream for DSRE evaluation, but it contains wrongly-labeled test instances leading to inaccurate evaluation. The manual dataset provides an accurate test set but is limited by its scale in generalization. Therefore, we use both datasets for better evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.756, + 0.818, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.1 Evaluation on Held-out Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 show the experimental results on the heldout dataset. We use the results reported in the papers of previous work. We also plot the precisionrecall curves as in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in the results, our model achieves the best AUC and Micro-F1 score among all the compared methods. It is shown that direct sentence-level training (the teacher) leads to a slight decline in precision due to the existence of noise but still" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "173" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.082, + 0.778, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT33.840.775.072.565.771.1
RESIDE41.545.784.078.575.679.4
DISTRE42.248.668.067.065.366.8
Intra+inter42.346.591.884.078.784.8
CIL50.852.290.186.181.886.0
HiCLRE45.350.582.078.574.078.2
PARE53.454.485.085.082.784.8
Teacher50.652.290.082.078.783.6
Last Student53.955.388.084.082.784.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.277, + 0.882, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: The performance (%) of the models on the held-out dataset. The best scores are marked as bold and the second best scores are underlined, as in other tables of the experiments." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.347, + 0.454, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.53, + 0.488, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: PR curves of the models on the held-out dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.585, + 0.489, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "achieves competitive AUC and Micro-F1 on the test set because of its advantage in information utilization. The P@N of the student are relatively lower than bag-level baselines, but still improved over the teacher. Compared with the teacher, the student further alleviates noise and overfitting with TIW, thus achieving state-of-the-art performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.707, + 0.414, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.2 Evaluation on Manual Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the experimental results on the manual dataset. We use the original implementations of the baselines to reproduce the results. The precision-recall curves are plotted in Figure 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.792, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the manual dataset, the bag-level methods still perform better at \\(\\mathrm{P@N}\\), however, our method outperforms them in AUC and Micro-F1 by large margins. It shows that previous bag-level methods may overfit easy instances, leading to the loss of overall generalization despite higher precision at easy instances \\((\\mathrm{P@N})\\). Also, some of the baselines fail in handling infrequent relation classes" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.347, + 0.849, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.53, + 0.882, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: PR curves of the models on the manual dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.587, + 0.884, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(eespecially Intra+inter), but our model manages to achieve both high Micro-F1 and Macro-F1. Moreover, the student improves significantly over the teacher, especially in P@N. These results further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW in improving sentence-level training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.685, + 0.884, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to Gao et al. (2021), the performance of the model may be inconsistent if evaluated in both the held-out and manual datasets. Good performance on the held-out set may indicate overfitting to the bias from DS. However, our model is robust enough to perform well on both datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.798, + 0.677, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.821, + 0.885, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ablation study is performed using the heldout dataset. As shown in Table 4, all the modules improve the overall performance. Detailed discussions are given below:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(a\\): removes Uncertainty and directly uses the general Consistency as positive weight. In this case," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "174" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.082, + 0.825, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1Macro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT57.757.021.291.088.588.089.2
Intra+inter53.653.52.293.092.590.091.8
CIL60.258.832.394.191.589.491.7
HiCLRE61.862.834.785.084.583.784.4
PARE62.760.736.197.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.434.785.083.584.384.3
Last Student63.963.835.294.090.588.090.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.244, + 0.784, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the manual dataset." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.281, + 0.447, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAUCF1P@M
Last Student53.955.384.9
a: - Un52.553.286.1
b: - STS53.254.583.3
c: - PW51.952.584.8
d: - FNF53.354.982.5
e: - TIW52.152.684.6
f: Probe50.652.580.0
g: JS div53.655.083.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.453, + 0.434, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study of our method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.497, + 0.489, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the easy instances always have the largest weights even if they are already well-fitted. The model thus overfits shallow features, which is indicated by the high \\(\\mathrm{P@N}\\) and the decline in overall performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.563, + 0.49, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(b\\): removes STS and follows the output probabilities from the teacher all the time. In this case, the noise from the teacher is not addressed. Fixing the soft target also leads to the fixed Uncertainty for each instance, causing the underfitting of some easy instances. Therefore, the performance declines, especially \\(\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.677, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(c\\): removes PW and all the positive instances are treated equally, including the noisy ones. Therefore, the model is heavily affected by noise and FNF may be inaccurate, leading to further performance declines. In this case, high \\(\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}\\) indicates that the model overfits easy instances and loses generalization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(d\\): removes FNF. The FNs only make up a small part of the dataset, so the effects are relatively small. However, the noise from FNs significantly reduces \\(\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}\\). We suspect that the fitting of FNs affects that of true positives. If a false negative \\(fn\\) has similar syntactic and semantic features to a true positive \\(tp\\), fitting \\(fn\\) is similar to fitting \\(tp\\) using an incorrect label." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.563, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.285, + 0.885, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(e\\): removes TIW totally and all the instances are weighted as 1. The label smoothness of knowledge distillation is able to alleviate some noise from DS, so there are improvements in performance over \\(f\\). However, the student is still trained with much noise and overfits easy instances, so the overall performance declines significantly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.398, + 0.884, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(f\\): is the probing result of 12th layer using the DS label. It shows that without effective denoising mechanisms, simply retraining the classifier does not help in performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.463, + 0.884, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(g\\): we have also tried out the Jensen-Shannon divergence (Fuglede and Topsoe, 2004), which is a variant of KL divergence. The performance is not as good as the dot product because it pushes the student to output the same probability as the teacher. However, it should be acceptable (or even better) for the student to output a higher probability for the target relation than the teacher." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.591, + 0.885, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The above results and discussions further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW designs in alleviating noise and overfitting." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.652, + 0.792, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusions and Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with self-distillation to denoise from sentence-level training of DSRE. We employ the self-distilled BERT backbone to extract intermediate information for generating reliable instance weights. TIW combines Consistency with Uncertainty as the tools to tackle noisy instances and alleviate overfitting. It also enables soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing among the students to tackle the noise from the teacher. The experiment results show that our method improves the general resistance to DS noise and prevents overfitting from harming its generalization, thus can achieve state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "175" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.492, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "basielines on both the held-out and manual datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.102, + 0.491, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, our work still has some limitations. Firstly, since our model is built on the basis of the teacher-student network, the performance of the student is highly affected by the teacher. If the teacher provides too much noisy information, our instance weighting mechanism might not work. Secondly, in some cases, the student fails to follow the correct predictions from the teacher, possibly due to ambiguity, lack of information or word-level noise. Finally, TIW may down-weight some instances of infrequent relation classes due to their difficulty, but it can be tackled by combining TIW with other methods addressing the long-tailed distribution of relations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.34, + 0.281, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.366, + 0.491, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by National Key D&R Program of China (2019YFB1600704), The Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (0068/2020/AGJ, SKL-IOTSC(UM)-2021-2023), GDST (2020B1212030003), MYRG2022-00192-FST and MYRG-GRG2023-00186-FSTUMDF." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.507, + 0.214, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.529, + 0.49, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christoph Alt, Marc Hübner, and Leonhard Hennig. 2019. Fine-tuning pre-trained transformer language models to distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1388-1398, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.633, + 0.49, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 1247-1250." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.723, + 0.49, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Chen, Haizhou Shi, Siliang Tang, Zhigang Chen, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. CIL: Contrastive instance learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6191-6200, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.529, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.151, + 0.885, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Li Zhao, Yang Yang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. Reinforcement learning for relation classification from noisy data. In Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.229, + 0.885, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bent Fuglede and Flemming Topsoe. 2004. Jensenshannon divergence and hilbert space embedding. In International symposium on Information theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings., page 31. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.294, + 0.885, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yuzhuo Bai, Keyue Qiu, Zhiyu Xie, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Manual evaluation matters: Reviewing test protocols of distantly supervised relation extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1306-1318, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.411, + 0.885, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xu Han, Tianyu Gao, Yuan Yao, Deming Ye, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. OpenNRE: An open and extensible toolkit for neural relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 169-174, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.541, + 0.885, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kailong Hao, Botao Yu, and Wei Hu. 2021. Knowing false negatives: An adversarial training method for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9661-9672, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.645, + 0.885, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, Jeff Dean, et al. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2(7)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.696, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiusheng Huang, Yubo Chen, Shun Wu, Jun Zhao, Yuantao Xie, and Weijian Sun. 2021. Named entity recognition via noise aware training mechanism with data filter. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4791-4803, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.801, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuyun Huang and Jinhua Du. 2019. Self-attention enhanced CNNs and collaborative curriculum learning for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 389-398, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "176" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? In ACL 2019-57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.15, + 0.487, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dongyang Li, Taolin Zhang, Nan Hu, Chengyu Wang, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. HiCLRE: A hierarchical contrastive learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2567-2578, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.487, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yankai Lin, Shiqi Shen, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. 2016. Neural relation extraction with selective attention over instances. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2124-2133." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.342, + 0.487, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Liu, Xiangyu Lin, Weijia Jia, Mingliang Zhou, and Wei Zhao. 2020a. Regularized attentive capsule network for overlapped relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6388-6398, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.444, + 0.487, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Liu, Xinsong Zhang, Wanhao Zhou, and Wei-jia Jia. 2018. Neural relation extraction via inner-sentence noise reduction and transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195-2204." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.533, + 0.487, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Liu, Kexiang Wang, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2017. A soft-label method for noise-tolerant distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1790-1795." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.61, + 0.487, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020b. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.713, + 0.487, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.487, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Mintz, Steven Bills, Rion Snow, and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 1003-1011." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tapas Nayak, Navonil Majumder, and Soujanya Poria. 2021. Improving distantly supervised relation extraction with self-ensemble noise filtering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021), pages 1031-1039, Held Online. INCOMA Ltd." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.136, + 0.882, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3661-3672, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.882, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengda Qin, Weiran Xu, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Robust distant supervision relation extraction via deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2137-2147." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.342, + 0.882, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziqin Rao, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. A simple model for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2651-2657, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.444, + 0.882, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vipul Rathore, Kartikeya Badola, Parag Singla, and Mausam. 2022. PARE: A simple and strong baseline for monolingual and multilingual distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 340-354, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.56, + 0.882, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 148-163. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.636, + 0.882, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuming Shang, He-Yan Huang, Xian-Ling Mao, Xin Sun, and Wei Wei. 2020. Are noisy sentences useless for distant supervised relation extraction? In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8799-8806." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.882, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Song, Weishuai Gu, Fuxin Zhu, and Soon Cheol Park. 2023. Interaction-and-response network for distantly supervised relation extraction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.776, + 0.882, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A Alemi, and Andrew G Wilson. 2021. Does knowledge distillation really work? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:6906-6919." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "177" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275-9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.135, + 0.49, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shikhar Vashishth, Rishabh Joshi, Sai Suman Prayaga, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya, and Partha Talukdar. 2018. Reside: Improving distantly-supervised neural relation extraction using side information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04361." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.21, + 0.49, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhi-Xiu Ye and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2019. Distant supervision relation extraction with intra-bag and inter-bag attentions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2810-2819." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.312, + 0.49, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changsen Yuan, Heyan Huang, Chong Feng, Xiao Liu, and Xiaochi Wei. 2019a. Distant supervision for relation extraction with linear attenuation simulation and non-iid relevance embedding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7418-7425." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.4, + 0.49, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yujin Yuan, Liyuan Liu, Siliang Tang, Zhongfei Zhang, Yueting Zhuang, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Xiang Ren. 2019b. Cross-relation cross-bag attention for distantly-supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 419-426." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.488, + 0.49, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daojian Zeng, Kang Liu, Yubo Chen, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Distant supervision for relation extraction via piecewise convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1753-1762." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.564, + 0.49, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linfeng Zhang, Jiebo Song, Anni Gao, Jingwei Chen, Chenglong Bao, and Kaisheng Ma. 2019a. By your own teacher: Improve the performance of convolutional neural networks via self distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3713-3722." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.651, + 0.49, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinsong Zhang, Pengshuai Li, Weijia Jia, and Hai Zhao. 2019b. Multi-labeled relation extraction with attentive capsule network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7484-7491." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peng Zhou, Wei Shi, Jun Tian, Zhenyu Qi, Bingchen Li, Hongwei Hao, and Bo Xu. 2016. Attention-based bidirectional long short-term memory networks for relation classification. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 207-212." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.831, + 0.378, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Hyperparameter Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are two key hyperparameters in our experiments, the student selected and the head layer \\(l\\). In our best model, we select the last student (12th) for evaluation and set layer 7 as the head layer." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.083, + 0.695, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.709, + 0.094, + 0.871, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.213, + 0.882, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Results of the students and auxiliary classifiers of the teacher on the held-out dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.27, + 0.885, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 5, the higher students \\((\\geq 9)\\) improve significantly over the teacher. The last student performs the best and the students from 9th to 11th also achieve comparable performances. Lower layers of BERT encode shallower features and the instance weighting in lower students is more affected by noise, so the performances of 7th and 8th students show little advantage over the teacher. With knowledge passed and noise alleviated student by student, the performance gradually improves." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.443, + 0.822, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SettingAUCF1P@M
l = 1153.455.182.8
l = 1053.554.983.6
l = 953.655.084.0
l = 853.755.184.7
l = 753.955.384.9
l = 653.855.384.8
l = 553.755.184.6
l = 353.555.084.7
l = 253.554.984.6
l = 153.454.984.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.648, + 0.884, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Results of using different head layer \\(l\\) settings. The best results are marked as bold." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To study the effect of head layer \\( l \\), we run experiments with \\( l \\) from 1 to n. In Table 5, we present the results where \\( l = 7 \\) achieves the best performance. For \\( l > 7 \\), the head layer is too close to the top and TIW filters fewer false negatives. So the P@M declines quickly, which is similar to the effect of removing FNF as in Table 4. For \\( l < 7 \\), the lower layers of BERT are not able to encode sufficient information for accurate relation extraction, so the lower students are not able to provide reliable instance weights, leading to the transfer of some noise among students. Though other settings are less effective than the best, their performances still dominate most of the baselines. The above re" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "178" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sults show that our method is not dependent on the empirical settings of hyperparameters and further demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.162, + 0.373, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Evaluations on Wiki-20m" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.188, + 0.489, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to further explore the generalization of our method, we also experiment on the Wiki-20m dataset (Gao et al., 2021). The details of the dataset are shown in Table 6 and the results are shown in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.277, + 0.447, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Train (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
698.7157.7138.056.081
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.358, + 0.49, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: The statistics of Wiki-20m dataset. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.429, + 0.477, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAUCMacro-F1
Intra+inter88.781.1
CIL89.782.6
HiCLRE87.980.3
IRN (Song et al., 2023)90.982.5
PARE91.483.9
Teacher89.782.8
Last Student90.984.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.592, + 0.487, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the Wiki-20m dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.64, + 0.489, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We take the best-reported results of the baselines in Rathore et al. (2022) and Song et al. (2023). On Wiki-20m dataset, our model still achieves state-of-the-art performance and the improvements over the teacher are significant. Therefore, our method can generalize well to the Wiki-20m dataset, which has more relation classes (81)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.283, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Error Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For accurate analysis of the errors, we use the test set of the manual dataset for statistical discussions. Each positive label is considered an item. The instances with multiple positive labels are considered to have multiple items. We classify the items based on the predictions of the teacher and student, then count the number and percentage of each class as in Table 8. The goal is to explore where the errors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of the student come from: a) from the teacher, meaning that the knowledge from the teacher is noisy and leads to the student's errors, or b) from the student itself, meaning that the teacher gives correct knowledge but the student fails to follow." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.177, + 0.858, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ClassNum. of itemsPercentage (%)
BC3,04478.07
BI74219.03
TISC942.41
TCSI190.49
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.284, + 0.883, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Numbers and percentages of different classes of items. \\(BC\\) stands for both correct, \\(BI\\) stands for both incorrect, \\(TISC\\) stands for teacher incorrect, student correct and \\(TCSI\\) stands for teacher correct, student incorrect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.884, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the results, the student achieves slightly higher (about \\(2\\%\\)) accuracy than the teacher and shows high fidelity with \\(97.1\\%\\) of all predictions being the same as the teacher. \\(BI\\) represents the student's errors caused by the errors from the teacher. \\(TISC\\) indicates the student's corrections on the errors from the teacher and \\(TCSI\\) represents the errors from the student itself. From the results, we can conclude that almost all (about \\(97.5\\%\\)) of the errors come from the teacher, and the corrections made by the student are much more than the errors made by the student itself. This demonstrates the effectiveness of our method in reducing the occurrence of errors and the limitation that it requires a good teacher for good performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For further analysis of the student's errors, we inspect the \\(TCSI\\) items and select some representative ones for discussions as in Figure 6. Most of the instances with place_of_birth relation are correctly classified and the first example should be an easy instance in the form, yet misclassified by the student as place_lived. We observe several similar items and suspect that long and uncommon names like Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker sometimes confuse the student to make conservative predictions, which is the more common relation place_lived. The second example, however, confuses the student with a compound noun Brooklyn College. Brooklyn appears very often in the dataset in the form of location, making the student believe that Brooklyn College is a location rather than an organization. The third example is mostly related to ambiguity, where the word Arab may refer to the Arab people (ethnic group) or the Arab world" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "179" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.086, + 0.858, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SentenceTeacherStudent
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker was born in Kiel, Germany, on June 28, 1912./people/person/place_of_birth/people/person/place_lived
Presented by Brooklyn College and the office of Borough President Marty Markowitz./business/person/company/people/person/place_lived
Furthermore, the relationship between the central government, dominated by three small Arab tribes living along the Nile, and Darfur's Arabs, who claim a heritage going back to the e Prophet Muhammad, is often antagonistic./people/person/ethnicity/people/person/place_of_birth
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.183, + 0.681, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: TCSI examples. The entities are underlined." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.21, + 0.78, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
CIL60.258.894.191.589.491.7
PARE62.760.797.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.485.083.584.384.3
Teacher†61.760.689.090.088.789.2
Last Student63.963.894.090.588.090.8
Last Student†63.460.796.096.095.395.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.357, + 0.884, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: The performance (%) of the models on the manual dataset. † indicates initialized using well-trained encoder." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.411, + 0.49, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "location). The latter two examples indicate that the lack of entity-related information may lead to inconsistency between the student and the teacher. The first example shows that the student may be confused to lose focus on key phrases like was born in, which may be solved by combining it with word-level attention in the future." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.371, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Effects of Teacher Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the main experiments of this paper, the teacher model is trained in an extremely noisy environment, leaving much room for TIW to improve performance. In order to explore the potential of TIW in improving state-of-the-art methods, we initialize the teacher model using the well-trained encoder from CIL (Chen et al., 2021) instead of the bert-base-uncased checkpoint. We repeat the experiments on the manual dataset and the results are shown in Table 9. In the results, the models initialized with a well-trained CIL encoder achieve significantly higher precision and TIW further improves the performance over the baselines. However, since CIL is trained in a bag-level setting, it has lower utilization in information than the models trained in sentence-level settings, leading to some decline in AUC and Micro-F1. These results show that the initialization of the teacher model has a great impact on the performance and that TIW can consistently improve the performance of the model with different teachers. Hopefully, TIW can be employed with more powerful teacher models to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.411, + 0.827, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "achieve even better performance in DSRE." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "180" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..048d15d4094ceeabfcbec180a860f4ff7b7a5966 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/d91426af-5287-4140-a5cb-6a259295cf81_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b074f054eb0bc7d2f2338f7498d6a240ce8883578caccb645c5e07699cd927bf +size 661718 diff --git a/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/full.md b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c047e8a6da2d5eba1c5d0a4a4f779211713b6142 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,399 @@ +# Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction + +Xiangyu Lin1, Weijia Jia2 and Zhiguo Gong1* + +$^{1}$ SKL-IOTSC, University of Macau† + +$^{2}$ BNU-UIC & Beijing Normal University (Zhuhai) + +yc07403@um.edu.mo, jiawj@uic.edu.cn, fstzgg@um.edu.mo + +# Abstract + +The widespread existence of wrongly labeled instances is a challenge to distantly supervised relation extraction. Most of the previous works are trained in a bag-level setting to alleviate such noise. However, sentence-level training better utilizes the information than bag-level training, as long as combined with effective noise alleviation. In this work, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with the self-distilled BERT backbone, utilizing information in the intermediate outputs to generate dynamic instance weights for denoised sentence-level training. By down-weighting wrongly labeled instances and discounting the weights of easy-to-fit ones, our method can effectively tackle wrongly labeled instances and prevent overfitting. Experiments on both held-out and manual datasets indicate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the baselines. + +# 1 Introduction + +Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction (DSRE) (Mintz et al., 2009) is designed to automatically annotate the sentences mentioning the entity pairs, which enables a significant way of constructing large-scale datasets. However, distant supervision (DS) works under an unrealistic assumption that all sentences mentioning the same entity pair express the same relation. This introduces many noisy (wrongly labeled) instances into the dataset. To tackle this challenge, previous works mostly adopt the bag-level setting as shown at the top of Figure 1, where the vector representations of sentences are aggregated as the bag-level representation using multi-instance learning (MIL) (Riedel et al., 2010), + +and the prediction is thus produced from the bag representation. The optimization is conducted at the bag level to minimize the loss of bag prediction. Only a small subset of previous works leverage the sentence-level setting (Zhang et al., 2019b; Liu et al., 2020a) as in the bottom of Figure 1, where the sentence-level predictions are produced and then aggregated into the bag prediction. In fact, sentence-level training can directly optimize the loss from each sentence, enabling higher information utilization than bag-level training. However, sentence-level training is vulnerable to the noise brought by DS, which limits its application. Therefore, sentence-level training should be combined with effective noise-alleviation mechanisms to improve its robustness. + +![](images/bdd6f2236d00614f0c2df7bc1e9e688280b6cc527baa98a77eb1e91b184f4b66.jpg) +Figure 1: The bag-level and sentence-level pipelines of DSRE. + +The mainstream encoders of DSRE models are Piecewise Convolutional Neural Network (PCNN) (Zeng et al., 2015) and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) (Zhou et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018) over the years. It is reasonable for most previous works to take the simple encoder as a black box and only utilize its final output during training and inference. However, as large models like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) become popular in recent years, the information within the outputs from their intermediate layers is a non-trivial source of knowledge but is rarely discussed in DSRE. In this + +work, we apply self-distillation to extract intermediate information as output probabilities and utilize them to denoise from wrong labels. Furthermore, we use soft target selection and set up transitive knowledge passing among the students to alleviate the effects of noisy target probabilities from the teacher. + +The instances in DSRE can be roughly divided into easy, hard and noisy ones. Both easy and hard instances are correctly labeled but the model learns from hard instances slower (Huang et al., 2021). Noisy instances have wrong labels and can be further divided into False Positives (FPs) and False Negatives (FNs). FPs are instances with NA relation but are wrongly labeled as non-NA relations by DS, while FNs are non-NA instances wrongly labeled as NA. We hope to avoid learning from noisy instances since they contain misleading information. Moreover, we also need to avoid overfitting to easy instances to improve the learning of deeper knowledge. + +To tackle the above challenges, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) mechanism for denoised sentence-level training in DSRE. Firstly, we apply self-distillation to directly reuse the knowledge of the teacher model for further denoising in students and set up a transitive way to share knowledge among students. Secondly, we leverage the TIW mechanism to generate robust instance weights to reduce noise and overfitting during distillation. TIW considers two factors in the generation of instance weights: Uncertainty (Liu et al., 2020b) for overfitting prevention and general Consistency for noise reduction. The general Consistency we proposed reflects the learning difficulty of the instance and provides guidance both in selecting soft targets of distillation and in weighting instances. Lastly, the generated instance weights directly multiply the sentence-level losses to dynamically and globally enhance the training in the sentence-level setting. The experiments on both held-out and manual datasets show that our approach boosts the student's performance to achieve state-of-the-art results and consistent improvements over the teacher. We also provide an ablation study to explore the effects of the modules. In addition, we analyse the errors and provide additional experimental results in the Appendix. + +Our contributions are summarized as follows: + +- We are the first to denoise sentence-level DSRE with dynamic instance weights and har + +ness intermediate knowledge to improve noise resistance and information utilization. + +- We propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism with multiple functions, including noise alleviation, overfitting prevention, soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing. + +- Experiment and analysis show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance with good generalization and robustness. + +# 2 Related Work + +Distant supervision (DS) for relation extraction (Mintz et al., 2009) enables automatic annotation of large-scale datasets, but its strong assumption introduces a large number of wrongly labeled instances. Following Riedel et al. (2010), various multi-instance learning methods are proposed to denoise from noisy instances, and they broadly fall into two categories: instance selection (Zeng et al., 2015; Qin et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2018) and instance attention (Lin et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2019b,a; Ye and Ling, 2019). Apart from multi-instance learning, many of the previous works try to improve the effectiveness of training. Liu et al. (2017) and Shang et al. (2020) try to convert wrongly labeled instances to useful information through relabeling. Huang and Du (2019) proposes collaborative curriculum learning for denoising. Hao et al. (2021) adopts adversarial training to filter noisy instances in the dataset. Nayak et al. (2021) designs a self-ensemble framework to filter noisy instances despite information loss. Li et al. (2022) proposes a hierarchical contrastive learning framework to reduce the effect of noise. Rathore et al. (2022) constructs a passage from the bags to generate a summary for classification. Nevertheless, the above approaches are trained with bag-level loss, leading to lower utilization of information. In our work, we adopt sentence-level training to directly utilize sentence-level information and effectively tackle noise and overfitting using dynamic instance weights. + +Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) is an effective way to improve model generalization, though it has difficulty in transferring knowledge effectively (Stanton et al., 2021). By sharing some parameters between teacher and students, self-distillation (Zhang et al., 2019a) improves knowledge transfer from teacher to student. Liu et al. + +(2020b) applies self-distillation on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to improve inference efficiency. However, in our work, we apply self-distillation as the tool to extract intermediate knowledge for denoising and further reduce the noise from the teacher with transitive information passing among the students. + +There are some epoch-level techniques to detect noisy instances like Swayamdipta et al. (2020) and Huang et al. (2021). But in sentence-level DSRE which is highly noisy and contains bias from the entity mentions (Peng et al., 2020), larger models like BERT can overfit noisy instances faster, even before an epoch ends. Therefore, we adopt a dynamic instance weighting mechanism which is more suitable for DSRE. + +# 3 Methodology + +# 3.1 Overview + +DSRE aims to predict the relations between an entity pair given a bag of sentences mentioning them. Previous works mostly aggregate sentence representations into bag representations before being optimized using bag-level loss. However, useful information may be diluted or mixed during aggregation. Instead, our model is directly trained on the sentence level to preserve more information. + +Our model is illustrated in Figure 2. The backbone is the BERT encoder on the left, with a teacher classifier on the top. Each student shares a subencoder with the teacher and uses a new classifier for prediction. Firstly, the encoder and the teacher classifier are fine-tuned on the dataset to establish background knowledge. Then, we freeze the encoder and train the student classifiers, in which knowledge distillation and Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) are applied to reduce noise and overfitting. TIW computes the instance weights based on three sources of knowledge: the teacher's output $p^t$ , the outputs of the student $i$ itself $p_i^s$ and the previous peer $p_{i-1}^s$ . It first selects a more consistent soft target $p_i^{tg}$ between $p^t$ and $p_{i-1}^s$ based on the probabilities of making the same predictions as them (i.e. Consistency), which are denoted as $c_i^t$ and $c_i^s$ respectively. Then the possible false negative instances are filtered according to the predictions $p_{i-1}^s$ from the previous peer. Finally, the instance weights $w_i$ are computed as the multiplication of Uncertainty $u_i$ (normalized entropy) and the general Consistency $c_i$ with the soft target. The details of TIW are given in Algorithm 1, + +where $re2id(r)$ is a function that maps the relation class $r$ to its id for generating the one-hot label. The instance weights directly multiply with the instance losses to dynamically regulate the roles of instances in optimization (Equation 6). This improves training by globally down-weighting the instances leading to extra noise and overfitting. + +![](images/8847b017108f5cd449eb75014ab5918a558734c51c70dc33af2357e1fc1f4245.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Dotted arrows indicate the generation of instance weight. + +# 3.2 Backbone + +BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is a powerful transformer-based pretrained network with broad applications in natural language processing. Its intermediate layers encode a rich hierarchy of sentence features, ranging from surface features, and syntactic features, to semantic features (Jawahar et al., 2019). However, previous BERT applications in DSRE (Alt et al., 2019; Rao et al., 2022) only utilize the output from the final layer, neglecting the possibility that hierarchical intermediate information can be useful in denoising. Therefore, we set up the student classifiers to extract information from the hierarchical features in the form of output probabilities and utilize them to distinguish noisy instances in the distillation stage. + +The model takes a batch of sentences as input, each is labeled with at least one relation. Firstly, each input sentence is transformed into a sequence of vector representations $s$ by the embedding layer. Then, BERT conducts layer-wise feature extraction with the input $s$ , the output of $i_{th}$ layer $(1 \leq i \leq n)$ is described as: + +$$ +h _ {i} = B E R T _ {i} (s) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $BERT_{i}$ refers to the subencoder containing transformer layers from the first to the $i_{th}$ . The + +# Algorithm 1 Transitive Instance Weighting + +Input: DS label $Y$ , teacher's output probability $p^t$ and students' $p^s$ for the instance. + +Output: The soft target $p^{t g}$ and the instance weight $w$ of the instance from the students. + +1: Initialize $w_{l} \gets 1, p_{l}^{tg} \gets p^{t}$ +2: for $i = l + 1 \rightarrow n$ do +3: Compute the Consistency with teacher and peer: $c_{i}^{t} \gets p_{i}^{s} \cdot p^{t}$ $c_{i}^{s} \gets p_{i}^{s} \cdot p_{i-1}^{s}$ +4: if $c_i^t > c_i^s$ then $p_i^{tg} \gets p^t$ else $p_i^{tg} \gets p_i^s$ +5: if $Y = \text{rel2id}(NA)$ then + +6: if $Y = \operatorname{argmax}_{j} (p_{i-1}^{s}(j))$ then $w_{i} \gets 1$ else $w_{i} \gets 0$ +7: else + +> Soft Target Selection + +$\triangleright$ False Negative Filtering + +Positive Weighting + +8: Compute the Uncertainty of soft target: $u_{i} \gets \sum_{j=1}^{n_{c}} \frac{p_{i}^{tg}(j) \log p_{i}^{tg}(j)}{\log \frac{1}{n_{c}}}$ +9: Compute the general Consistency and the instance weight: $c_i \gets p_i^{tg} \cdot p_i^s \quad w_i \gets c_i u_i$ +10: end if +11: end for + +encoder is fine-tuned with a simple feedforward classifier $FFN_{t}$ on the top and we can obtain the output of the teacher $p^t$ as in the following: + +$$ +x _ {i} = \left[ h _ {i} \left(p _ {1}\right); h _ {i} \left(p _ {2}\right) \right] \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +p ^ {t} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(F F N _ {t} \left(x _ {n}\right)\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the start positions of the head entity and tail entity respectively. $[a:b]$ indicates the concatenation of vectors $a$ and $b$ . $n_c$ is the number of classes. Similarly, the output of student $i$ can be formulated as follows: + +$$ +p _ {i} ^ {s} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(F F N _ {i} \left(x _ {i}\right)\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +Note that after fine-tuning, the parameters of the teacher model including the BERT encoder stay fixed during the process of self-distillation. + +# 3.3 Transitive Instance Weighting + +TIW incorporates multiple mechanisms to reduce noise and overfitting. For negative (NA) instances, TIW adopts False Negative Filtering (FNF) to filter false negatives based on the prediction of the previous peer $p_{i-1}^{s}$ . For positive (non-NA) instances, TIW provides dynamic instance weights $w_{i}$ generated by multiplying the Uncertainty $u_{i}$ and the general Consistency $c_{i}$ . The Uncertainty $u_{i}$ is computed as the normalized entropy of the student's soft target $p_{i}^{tg}$ as in Line 8 of Algorithm 1 and is applied to avoid overfitting to easy instances. The general Consistency $c_{i}$ evaluates the consistency between the student's output and its soft target $p_{i}^{tg}$ to limit the effects of wrongly-labeled instances. + +Most previous works in knowledge distillation directly use the teacher's output probability as the soft target. However, the teacher can constantly make mistakes if trained with noisy data, as in DSRE. Therefore, by introducing peer output $p^s$ into distillation, TIW sets up a transitive way to share knowledge among the students and reduces the noise from the teacher. As in Line 4 of Algorithm 1, instead of blindly following the output from the teacher, each student $i$ ( $i > l$ ) chooses between the teacher $p^t$ and the previous peer $p_{i-1}^s$ to follow. This step is referred to as Soft Target Selection (STS) later. STS provides additional referential probability distributions for the learning students so they can switch to a smoother target probability when the output from the teacher is too hard to follow. The criterion of selection is Consistency ( $c_i^t$ and $c_i^s$ ), which is described as the probability of two systems making the same predictions and is computed as the dot product of the probability distributions from the two systems, as in Line 3 of Algorithm 1. + +In TIW, we adopt different strategies for negative instances and positive ones because their characteristics are quite different. For negative instances, we conduct FNF as in Lines 5-6 of Algorithm 1. Since we have sufficient negative instances in the dataset, it is acceptable to avoid more FNs at the cost of slight information loss. Therefore, we assign 0 weight to all the possible FNs and 1 weight to the rest. To correctly identify FNs, we adopt a dynamic approach that if the previous peer agrees with distant supervision and also labels the instance as $NA$ , then we classify the instance as a true negative. Otherwise, we assume it to be a false negative + +that the DS label is unreliable. The student follows the peer's view in FNF instead of the teacher's because the teacher already overfits the noisy data and mostly follows the DS label, though the probabilities of label relations may vary. + +In order to preserve more information for training, we use soft weights for the positive instances instead of hard filtering. We call it Positive Weighting (PW) and determine the instance weight $w_{i}$ of student $i$ by two factors: Uncertainty $u_{i}$ and the general Consistency $c_{i}$ with the selected soft target. + +The uncertainty term is the normalized entropy as in Liu et al. (2020b) of the chosen soft target. It evaluates how well an instance is fitted so we can leverage it to detect overfitted instances dynamically. Easy instances contain shallow features like London, UK indicating a location/contains relation, so the model fits them easily and fast. But we do not hope the model becomes overdependent on them and lose focus on deeper features hidden in semantics. Therefore we discount their weights with uncertainty to prevent overfitting. + +The general Consistency $c_{i}$ of student $i$ is the Consistency between the student and the soft target. During distillation, each student is expected to stay consistent with its target distribution. If $c_{i}$ is high, the student successfully follows the prediction of the soft target, indicating that the instance is easy to learn for the student. If $c_{i}$ is low, the student fails to stay consistent with prior knowledge and the instance may be noisy or very hard to learn. The instance weight $w_{i}$ should take the prevention of both noise and overfitting into consideration, so it is empirically implemented as the multiplication of general Consistency $c_{i}$ and Uncertainty $u_{i}$ , as in Line 9 of the algorithm. + +Note that during distillation, the student is trained with both soft targets and DS labels, as shown in Equation 6. We present the discussions on the $c_{i}$ and losses of easy, noisy and hard instances in the following. + +Easy instances mostly have high $c_{i}$ and are well-fitted by the teacher or the peer, so the optimizations using soft targets and DS labels conform with each other. + +Noisy instances are mostly underfitted and very hard to optimize because the soft targets and DS labels are mostly inconsistent. They have low $c_{i}$ because the teacher and the students are not likely to provide consistent predictions. + +Hard instances are underfitted clean instances + +with low $c_{i}$ at first. However, their soft targets and DS labels are consistent, leading to steady optimizations. When clean background knowledge is established by learning from clean instances, learning from hard ones becomes easier so the $c_{i}$ values of hard instances grow larger. + +Based on the above discussions, it is safe to say that both easy and hard instances are faster to fit than noisy ones during distillation, indicating that TIW is capable of reducing noise in the training set. As for Uncertainty, its role is non-decisive. Both hard and noisy instances tend to have high Uncertainty but the hard ones have higher Consistency, leading to larger weights than noisy ones. Easy instances are fast to fit even with their weights discounted by low Uncertainty. Therefore, applying Uncertainty helps alleviate overfitting and does not lead to increases in noise. + +To sum up, TIW aims to tackle noise and overfitting and thus can be combined with sentence-level training, which is more demanding in both noise reduction and overfitting alleviation than traditional bag-level training. + +# 3.4 Optimization + +The teacher and the peer may overfit noisy instances during fine-tuning and distillation. Therefore, we apply a dynamic temperature $\tau$ to the soft target in the following form: + +$$ +\tau_ {i} = 1 + \gamma (1 - u _ {i}) \tag {5} +$$ + +where $\gamma$ is a hyperparameter empirically set as 3. The idea of $\tau$ is to further smooth the well-fitted instances to produce softer targets. + +The loss function of our model follows the general form of knowledge distillation with the instance weight $w$ we propose: + +$$ +L = \sum_ {i = l} ^ {n} w _ {i} \left(\alpha K L _ {\tau_ {i}} \left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, p _ {i} ^ {t g}\right) + (1 - \alpha) C E \left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, Y\right)\right) \tag {6} +$$ + +where $\alpha$ is a hyper-parameter empirically set as 0.5. $KL_{\tau}(p,q)$ computes the KL-divergence between distributions $p$ and $q$ with temperature $\tau$ for the soft target $q$ . $Y$ is the label from distant supervision and $CE(p,Y)$ is the cross entropy loss with one-hot label obtained from $Y$ . + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section, the datasets, settings and hyperparameters are specified first. Then, we present the + +performance of our model compared with previous baselines and the teacher model. We also conduct an ablation study to enable a deeper understanding of the mechanisms. + +# 4.1 Datasets and Settings + +We use the widely used held-out dataset NYT-10 (Riedel et al., 2010) and recent manual dataset NYT-10m (Gao et al., 2021) for evaluation. As a standard dataset for DSRE, NYT-10 is constructed by aligning the relations in Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008) with the New York Times (NYT) corpus (English). NYT-10m is a manual dataset constructed also from the NYT corpus, with a human-labeled test set and a new relation ontology. For NYT-10, we divide the dataset into five parts for cross-validation. For NYT-10m, we use the provided validation set. The details of the datasets are shown in Table 1. + +
DatasetTrain (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
held-out522.618.4172.42.053
manual417.917.19.73.925
+ +Table 1: The statistics of datasets. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively. + +In the experiments, we use the bert-base-uncased checkpoint with about 110M parameters for initialization as in Han et al. (2019). We apply the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer during distillation. The structure of the embedding layer and BERT layers follow those in the previous works with the number of transformer layers $n = 12$ and hidden size $d_h = 768$ . The batch size is 32 and the learning rate is $2e - 5$ . The maximum length of sentences $m$ is 128. As discussed by Jawahar et al. (2019), the shallow layers may not be able to encode the information needed for the DSRE task. Therefore, TIW starts from layer $l$ , which is empirically set as 7. + +We compare the Area Under precision-recall Curve (AUC), micro-F1, macro-F1, precision at top N predictions $(\mathrm{P@N},\mathrm{N} = 100,200,300)$ and the mean of $\mathrm{P@N}$ , which is denoted as $\mathrm{P@M}$ . Following the at-least-one assumption (Riedel et al., 2010), we adopt ONE strategy (Zeng et al., 2015) for bag-level evaluation, which takes the maximum score for each relation to generate bag-level predic + +tions. We use the output of the last student (12) as the output of the model. + +In the Appendix, we display the results from other students and the results using other $l$ settings. We also provide detailed error analysis and extra experimental results on Wiki-20m dataset. Moreover, we try out a different initialization of the teacher to further explore the generalization of TIW. + +# 4.2 Overall Performance + +We compare the performance of our model against that of the following baselines: + +PCNN+ATT (Lin et al., 2016) proposes PCNN with selective attention mechanism. + +RESIDE (Vashishth et al., 2018) integrates side information into Graph Convolution Networks to improve relation extraction. + +DISTRE (Alt et al., 2019) extends and finetunes GPT on DSRE. + +Intra+inter (Ye and Ling, 2019) combines intra-bag attention with inter-bag attention to tackle the noisy bags. + +CIL (Chen et al., 2021) applies contrastive instance learning to reduce noise from DS. + +HiCLRE (Li et al., 2022) uses a hierarchical contrastive learning Framework to improve DSRE. + +PARE (Rathore et al., 2022) constructs a passage from the sentence bag and use its summary for relation extraction. + +Teacher follows the implementation of Gao et al. (2021). + +Among the baselines, DISTRE, HiCLRE, CIL and PARE use pretrained language models for initialization and the last three use the same BERT pretrained encoder as ours. The held-out dataset is the mainstream for DSRE evaluation, but it contains wrongly-labeled test instances leading to inaccurate evaluation. The manual dataset provides an accurate test set but is limited by its scale in generalization. Therefore, we use both datasets for better evaluation. + +# 4.2.1 Evaluation on Held-out Dataset + +Table 2 show the experimental results on the heldout dataset. We use the results reported in the papers of previous work. We also plot the precisionrecall curves as in Figure 3. + +As shown in the results, our model achieves the best AUC and Micro-F1 score among all the compared methods. It is shown that direct sentence-level training (the teacher) leads to a slight decline in precision due to the existence of noise but still + +
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT33.840.775.072.565.771.1
RESIDE41.545.784.078.575.679.4
DISTRE42.248.668.067.065.366.8
Intra+inter42.346.591.884.078.784.8
CIL50.852.290.186.181.886.0
HiCLRE45.350.582.078.574.078.2
PARE53.454.485.085.082.784.8
Teacher50.652.290.082.078.783.6
Last Student53.955.388.084.082.784.9
+ +Table 2: The performance (%) of the models on the held-out dataset. The best scores are marked as bold and the second best scores are underlined, as in other tables of the experiments. + +![](images/e3d272aac67e991b57973f4d28f48b8669d0407f21b0d5827fa00a8dd125b960.jpg) +Figure 3: PR curves of the models on the held-out dataset. + +achieves competitive AUC and Micro-F1 on the test set because of its advantage in information utilization. The P@N of the student are relatively lower than bag-level baselines, but still improved over the teacher. Compared with the teacher, the student further alleviates noise and overfitting with TIW, thus achieving state-of-the-art performance. + +# 4.2.2 Evaluation on Manual Dataset + +Table 3 shows the experimental results on the manual dataset. We use the original implementations of the baselines to reproduce the results. The precision-recall curves are plotted in Figure 4. + +On the manual dataset, the bag-level methods still perform better at $\mathrm{P@N}$ , however, our method outperforms them in AUC and Micro-F1 by large margins. It shows that previous bag-level methods may overfit easy instances, leading to the loss of overall generalization despite higher precision at easy instances $(\mathrm{P@N})$ . Also, some of the baselines fail in handling infrequent relation classes + +![](images/d96f9f9661b027428d490ae797d17d5b966674ee900c244be21a85de8cbb63ee.jpg) +Figure 4: PR curves of the models on the manual dataset. + +(eespecially Intra+inter), but our model manages to achieve both high Micro-F1 and Macro-F1. Moreover, the student improves significantly over the teacher, especially in P@N. These results further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW in improving sentence-level training. + +According to Gao et al. (2021), the performance of the model may be inconsistent if evaluated in both the held-out and manual datasets. Good performance on the held-out set may indicate overfitting to the bias from DS. However, our model is robust enough to perform well on both datasets. + +# 4.3 Ablation Study + +The ablation study is performed using the heldout dataset. As shown in Table 4, all the modules improve the overall performance. Detailed discussions are given below: + +$a$ : removes Uncertainty and directly uses the general Consistency as positive weight. In this case, + +
ModelAUCMicro-F1Macro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT57.757.021.291.088.588.089.2
Intra+inter53.653.52.293.092.590.091.8
CIL60.258.832.394.191.589.491.7
HiCLRE61.862.834.785.084.583.784.4
PARE62.760.736.197.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.434.785.083.584.384.3
Last Student63.963.835.294.090.588.090.8
+ +Table 3: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the manual dataset. + +
ModelAUCF1P@M
Last Student53.955.384.9
a: - Un52.553.286.1
b: - STS53.254.583.3
c: - PW51.952.584.8
d: - FNF53.354.982.5
e: - TIW52.152.684.6
f: Probe50.652.580.0
g: JS div53.655.083.9
+ +Table 4: Ablation study of our method. + +the easy instances always have the largest weights even if they are already well-fitted. The model thus overfits shallow features, which is indicated by the high $\mathrm{P@N}$ and the decline in overall performance. + +$b$ : removes STS and follows the output probabilities from the teacher all the time. In this case, the noise from the teacher is not addressed. Fixing the soft target also leads to the fixed Uncertainty for each instance, causing the underfitting of some easy instances. Therefore, the performance declines, especially $\mathrm{P}@\mathrm{M}$ . +$c$ : removes PW and all the positive instances are treated equally, including the noisy ones. Therefore, the model is heavily affected by noise and FNF may be inaccurate, leading to further performance declines. In this case, high $\mathrm{P}@\mathrm{M}$ indicates that the model overfits easy instances and loses generalization. +$d$ : removes FNF. The FNs only make up a small part of the dataset, so the effects are relatively small. However, the noise from FNs significantly reduces $\mathrm{P}@\mathrm{M}$ . We suspect that the fitting of FNs affects that of true positives. If a false negative $fn$ has similar syntactic and semantic features to a true positive $tp$ , fitting $fn$ is similar to fitting $tp$ using an incorrect label. + +$e$ : removes TIW totally and all the instances are weighted as 1. The label smoothness of knowledge distillation is able to alleviate some noise from DS, so there are improvements in performance over $f$ . However, the student is still trained with much noise and overfits easy instances, so the overall performance declines significantly. + +$f$ : is the probing result of 12th layer using the DS label. It shows that without effective denoising mechanisms, simply retraining the classifier does not help in performance. + +$g$ : we have also tried out the Jensen-Shannon divergence (Fuglede and Topsoe, 2004), which is a variant of KL divergence. The performance is not as good as the dot product because it pushes the student to output the same probability as the teacher. However, it should be acceptable (or even better) for the student to output a higher probability for the target relation than the teacher. + +The above results and discussions further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW designs in alleviating noise and overfitting. + +# 5 Conclusions and Limitations + +In this paper, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with self-distillation to denoise from sentence-level training of DSRE. We employ the self-distilled BERT backbone to extract intermediate information for generating reliable instance weights. TIW combines Consistency with Uncertainty as the tools to tackle noisy instances and alleviate overfitting. It also enables soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing among the students to tackle the noise from the teacher. The experiment results show that our method improves the general resistance to DS noise and prevents overfitting from harming its generalization, thus can achieve state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the + +basielines on both the held-out and manual datasets. + +However, our work still has some limitations. Firstly, since our model is built on the basis of the teacher-student network, the performance of the student is highly affected by the teacher. If the teacher provides too much noisy information, our instance weighting mechanism might not work. Secondly, in some cases, the student fails to follow the correct predictions from the teacher, possibly due to ambiguity, lack of information or word-level noise. Finally, TIW may down-weight some instances of infrequent relation classes due to their difficulty, but it can be tackled by combining TIW with other methods addressing the long-tailed distribution of relations. + +# Acknowledgement + +This work was supported by National Key D&R Program of China (2019YFB1600704), The Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (0068/2020/AGJ, SKL-IOTSC(UM)-2021-2023), GDST (2020B1212030003), MYRG2022-00192-FST and MYRG-GRG2023-00186-FSTUMDF. + +# References + +Christoph Alt, Marc Hübner, and Leonhard Hennig. 2019. Fine-tuning pre-trained transformer language models to distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1388-1398, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 1247-1250. +Tao Chen, Haizhou Shi, Siliang Tang, Zhigang Chen, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. CIL: Contrastive instance learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6191-6200, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for + +Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Li Zhao, Yang Yang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. Reinforcement learning for relation classification from noisy data. In Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32. +Bent Fuglede and Flemming Topsoe. 2004. Jensenshannon divergence and hilbert space embedding. In International symposium on Information theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings., page 31. IEEE. +Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yuzhuo Bai, Keyue Qiu, Zhiyu Xie, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Manual evaluation matters: Reviewing test protocols of distantly supervised relation extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1306-1318, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xu Han, Tianyu Gao, Yuan Yao, Deming Ye, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. OpenNRE: An open and extensible toolkit for neural relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 169-174, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kailong Hao, Botao Yu, and Wei Hu. 2021. Knowing false negatives: An adversarial training method for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9661-9672, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, Jeff Dean, et al. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2(7). +Xiusheng Huang, Yubo Chen, Shun Wu, Jun Zhao, Yuantao Xie, and Weijian Sun. 2021. Named entity recognition via noise aware training mechanism with data filter. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4791-4803, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yuyun Huang and Jinhua Du. 2019. Self-attention enhanced CNNs and collaborative curriculum learning for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 389-398, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? In ACL 2019-57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dongyang Li, Taolin Zhang, Nan Hu, Chengyu Wang, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. HiCLRE: A hierarchical contrastive learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2567-2578, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yankai Lin, Shiqi Shen, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. 2016. Neural relation extraction with selective attention over instances. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2124-2133. +Tianyi Liu, Xiangyu Lin, Weijia Jia, Mingliang Zhou, and Wei Zhao. 2020a. Regularized attentive capsule network for overlapped relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6388-6398, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Tianyi Liu, Xinsong Zhang, Wanhao Zhou, and Wei-jia Jia. 2018. Neural relation extraction via inner-sentence noise reduction and transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195-2204. +Tianyu Liu, Kexiang Wang, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2017. A soft-label method for noise-tolerant distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1790-1795. +Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020b. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101. +Mike Mintz, Steven Bills, Rion Snow, and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 1003-1011. +Tapas Nayak, Navonil Majumder, and Soujanya Poria. 2021. Improving distantly supervised relation extraction with self-ensemble noise filtering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent + +Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021), pages 1031-1039, Held Online. INCOMA Ltd. +Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3661-3672, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Pengda Qin, Weiran Xu, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Robust distant supervision relation extraction via deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2137-2147. +Ziqin Rao, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. A simple model for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2651-2657, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Vipul Rathore, Kartikeya Badola, Parag Singla, and Mausam. 2022. PARE: A simple and strong baseline for monolingual and multilingual distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 340-354, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 148-163. Springer. +Yuming Shang, He-Yan Huang, Xian-Ling Mao, Xin Sun, and Wei Wei. 2020. Are noisy sentences useless for distant supervised relation extraction? In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8799-8806. +Wei Song, Weishuai Gu, Fuxin Zhu, and Soon Cheol Park. 2023. Interaction-and-response network for distantly supervised relation extraction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems. +Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A Alemi, and Andrew G Wilson. 2021. Does knowledge distillation really work? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:6906-6919. +Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical + +Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275-9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Shikhar Vashishth, Rishabh Joshi, Sai Suman Prayaga, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya, and Partha Talukdar. 2018. Reside: Improving distantly-supervised neural relation extraction using side information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04361. + +Zhi-Xiu Ye and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2019. Distant supervision relation extraction with intra-bag and inter-bag attentions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2810-2819. + +Changsen Yuan, Heyan Huang, Chong Feng, Xiao Liu, and Xiaochi Wei. 2019a. Distant supervision for relation extraction with linear attenuation simulation and non-iid relevance embedding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7418-7425. + +Yujin Yuan, Liyuan Liu, Siliang Tang, Zhongfei Zhang, Yueting Zhuang, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Xiang Ren. 2019b. Cross-relation cross-bag attention for distantly-supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 419-426. + +Daojian Zeng, Kang Liu, Yubo Chen, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Distant supervision for relation extraction via piecewise convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1753-1762. + +Linfeng Zhang, Jiebo Song, Anni Gao, Jingwei Chen, Chenglong Bao, and Kaisheng Ma. 2019a. By your own teacher: Improve the performance of convolutional neural networks via self distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3713-3722. + +Xinsong Zhang, Pengshuai Li, Weijia Jia, and Hai Zhao. 2019b. Multi-labeled relation extraction with attentive capsule network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7484-7491. + +Peng Zhou, Wei Shi, Jun Tian, Zhenyu Qi, Bingchen Li, Hongwei Hao, and Bo Xu. 2016. Attention-based bidirectional long short-term memory networks for relation classification. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 207-212. + +# A Hyperparameter Analysis + +There are two key hyperparameters in our experiments, the student selected and the head layer $l$ . In our best model, we select the last student (12th) for evaluation and set layer 7 as the head layer. + +![](images/6e19d8b4cb5ea84d4de1109eb5d8b2691f4d5456f8c690a05fa94743213b6e3d.jpg) +Figure 5: Results of the students and auxiliary classifiers of the teacher on the held-out dataset. + +![](images/39fcdfed463e8b39164fc1bdfd384aa2eb6ab0baff9942d60c2beb707842c91c.jpg) + +As shown in Figure 5, the higher students $(\geq 9)$ improve significantly over the teacher. The last student performs the best and the students from 9th to 11th also achieve comparable performances. Lower layers of BERT encode shallower features and the instance weighting in lower students is more affected by noise, so the performances of 7th and 8th students show little advantage over the teacher. With knowledge passed and noise alleviated student by student, the performance gradually improves. + +
SettingAUCF1P@M
l = 1153.455.182.8
l = 1053.554.983.6
l = 953.655.084.0
l = 853.755.184.7
l = 753.955.384.9
l = 653.855.384.8
l = 553.755.184.6
l = 353.555.084.7
l = 253.554.984.6
l = 153.454.984.5
+ +Table 5: Results of using different head layer $l$ settings. The best results are marked as bold. + +To study the effect of head layer $l$ , we run experiments with $l$ from 1 to n. In Table 5, we present the results where $l = 7$ achieves the best performance. For $l > 7$ , the head layer is too close to the top and TIW filters fewer false negatives. So the P@M declines quickly, which is similar to the effect of removing FNF as in Table 4. For $l < 7$ , the lower layers of BERT are not able to encode sufficient information for accurate relation extraction, so the lower students are not able to provide reliable instance weights, leading to the transfer of some noise among students. Though other settings are less effective than the best, their performances still dominate most of the baselines. The above re + +sults show that our method is not dependent on the empirical settings of hyperparameters and further demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method. + +# B Evaluations on Wiki-20m + +In order to further explore the generalization of our method, we also experiment on the Wiki-20m dataset (Gao et al., 2021). The details of the dataset are shown in Table 6 and the results are shown in Table 7. + +
Train (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
698.7157.7138.056.081
+ +Table 6: The statistics of Wiki-20m dataset. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively. + +
ModelAUCMacro-F1
Intra+inter88.781.1
CIL89.782.6
HiCLRE87.980.3
IRN (Song et al., 2023)90.982.5
PARE91.483.9
Teacher89.782.8
Last Student90.984.1
+ +We take the best-reported results of the baselines in Rathore et al. (2022) and Song et al. (2023). On Wiki-20m dataset, our model still achieves state-of-the-art performance and the improvements over the teacher are significant. Therefore, our method can generalize well to the Wiki-20m dataset, which has more relation classes (81). + +# C Error Analysis + +For accurate analysis of the errors, we use the test set of the manual dataset for statistical discussions. Each positive label is considered an item. The instances with multiple positive labels are considered to have multiple items. We classify the items based on the predictions of the teacher and student, then count the number and percentage of each class as in Table 8. The goal is to explore where the errors + +of the student come from: a) from the teacher, meaning that the knowledge from the teacher is noisy and leads to the student's errors, or b) from the student itself, meaning that the teacher gives correct knowledge but the student fails to follow. + +Table 7: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the Wiki-20m dataset. + +
ClassNum. of itemsPercentage (%)
BC3,04478.07
BI74219.03
TISC942.41
TCSI190.49
+ +Table 8: Numbers and percentages of different classes of items. $BC$ stands for both correct, $BI$ stands for both incorrect, $TISC$ stands for teacher incorrect, student correct and $TCSI$ stands for teacher correct, student incorrect. + +In the results, the student achieves slightly higher (about $2\%$ ) accuracy than the teacher and shows high fidelity with $97.1\%$ of all predictions being the same as the teacher. $BI$ represents the student's errors caused by the errors from the teacher. $TISC$ indicates the student's corrections on the errors from the teacher and $TCSI$ represents the errors from the student itself. From the results, we can conclude that almost all (about $97.5\%$ ) of the errors come from the teacher, and the corrections made by the student are much more than the errors made by the student itself. This demonstrates the effectiveness of our method in reducing the occurrence of errors and the limitation that it requires a good teacher for good performance. + +For further analysis of the student's errors, we inspect the $TCSI$ items and select some representative ones for discussions as in Figure 6. Most of the instances with place_of_birth relation are correctly classified and the first example should be an easy instance in the form, yet misclassified by the student as place_lived. We observe several similar items and suspect that long and uncommon names like Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker sometimes confuse the student to make conservative predictions, which is the more common relation place_lived. The second example, however, confuses the student with a compound noun Brooklyn College. Brooklyn appears very often in the dataset in the form of location, making the student believe that Brooklyn College is a location rather than an organization. The third example is mostly related to ambiguity, where the word Arab may refer to the Arab people (ethnic group) or the Arab world + +
SentenceTeacherStudent
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker was born in Kiel, Germany, on June 28, 1912./people/person/place_of_birth/people/person/place_lived
Presented by Brooklyn College and the office of Borough President Marty Markowitz./business/person/company/people/person/place_lived
Furthermore, the relationship between the central government, dominated by three small Arab tribes living along the Nile, and Darfur's Arabs, who claim a heritage going back to the e Prophet Muhammad, is often antagonistic./people/person/ethnicity/people/person/place_of_birth
+ +Figure 6: TCSI examples. The entities are underlined. + +
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
CIL60.258.894.191.589.491.7
PARE62.760.797.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.485.083.584.384.3
Teacher†61.760.689.090.088.789.2
Last Student63.963.894.090.588.090.8
Last Student†63.460.796.096.095.395.8
+ +Table 9: The performance (%) of the models on the manual dataset. † indicates initialized using well-trained encoder. + +location). The latter two examples indicate that the lack of entity-related information may lead to inconsistency between the student and the teacher. The first example shows that the student may be confused to lose focus on key phrases like was born in, which may be solved by combining it with word-level attention in the future. + +# D Effects of Teacher Model + +In the main experiments of this paper, the teacher model is trained in an extremely noisy environment, leaving much room for TIW to improve performance. In order to explore the potential of TIW in improving state-of-the-art methods, we initialize the teacher model using the well-trained encoder from CIL (Chen et al., 2021) instead of the bert-base-uncased checkpoint. We repeat the experiments on the manual dataset and the results are shown in Table 9. In the results, the models initialized with a well-trained CIL encoder achieve significantly higher precision and TIW further improves the performance over the baselines. However, since CIL is trained in a bag-level setting, it has lower utilization in information than the models trained in sentence-level settings, leading to some decline in AUC and Micro-F1. These results show that the initialization of the teacher model has a great impact on the performance and that TIW can consistently improve the performance of the model with different teachers. Hopefully, TIW can be employed with more powerful teacher models to + +achieve even better performance in DSRE. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/images.zip b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf6bbccf6f4b73ba4cf16a5d096b455b1085f4d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7ef8e9ca01fc745cb4403c45d1d810911645d342baf71378f9894e234104bec7 +size 495928 diff --git a/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/layout.json b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f03066019a37421c8805b259d1dced181e0d361 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10838 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 75, + 501, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 75, + 501, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 75, + 501, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-distilled Transitive Instance Weighting for Denoised Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 125, + 416, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 125, + 416, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 179, + 125, + 416, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiangyu Lin1, Weijia Jia2 and Zhiguo Gong1*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 210, + 140, + 386, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 210, + 140, + 386, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 210, + 140, + 386, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 210, + 140, + 386, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SKL-IOTSC, University of Macau†" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 153, + 420, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 153, + 420, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 153, + 420, + 168 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 176, + 153, + 420, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "BNU-UIC & Beijing Normal University (Zhuhai)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 170, + 442, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 170, + 442, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 170, + 442, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "yc07403@um.edu.mo, jiawj@uic.edu.cn, fstzgg@um.edu.mo" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The widespread existence of wrongly labeled instances is a challenge to distantly supervised relation extraction. Most of the previous works are trained in a bag-level setting to alleviate such noise. However, sentence-level training better utilizes the information than bag-level training, as long as combined with effective noise alleviation. In this work, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with the self-distilled BERT backbone, utilizing information in the intermediate outputs to generate dynamic instance weights for denoised sentence-level training. By down-weighting wrongly labeled instances and discounting the weights of easy-to-fit ones, our method can effectively tackle wrongly labeled instances and prevent overfitting. Experiments on both held-out and manual datasets indicate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 155, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 155, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 155, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Distantly Supervised Relation Extraction (DSRE) (Mintz et al., 2009) is designed to automatically annotate the sentences mentioning the entity pairs, which enables a significant way of constructing large-scale datasets. However, distant supervision (DS) works under an unrealistic assumption that all sentences mentioning the same entity pair express the same relation. This introduces many noisy (wrongly labeled) instances into the dataset. To tackle this challenge, previous works mostly adopt the bag-level setting as shown at the top of Figure 1, where the vector representations of sentences are aggregated as the bag-level representation using multi-instance learning (MIL) (Riedel et al., 2010)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and the prediction is thus produced from the bag representation. The optimization is conducted at the bag level to minimize the loss of bag prediction. Only a small subset of previous works leverage the sentence-level setting (Zhang et al., 2019b; Liu et al., 2020a) as in the bottom of Figure 1, where the sentence-level predictions are produced and then aggregated into the bag prediction. In fact, sentence-level training can directly optimize the loss from each sentence, enabling higher information utilization than bag-level training. However, sentence-level training is vulnerable to the noise brought by DS, which limits its application. Therefore, sentence-level training should be combined with effective noise-alleviation mechanisms to improve its robustness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 524, + 561 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 524, + 561 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 524, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 524, + 561 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bdd6f2236d00614f0c2df7bc1e9e688280b6cc527baa98a77eb1e91b184f4b66.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 592 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The bag-level and sentence-level pipelines of DSRE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The mainstream encoders of DSRE models are Piecewise Convolutional Neural Network (PCNN) (Zeng et al., 2015) and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) (Zhou et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018) over the years. It is reasonable for most previous works to take the simple encoder as a black box and only utilize its final output during training and inference. However, as large models like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) become popular in recent years, the information within the outputs from their intermediate layers is a non-trivial source of knowledge but is rarely discussed in DSRE. In this" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 730, + 166, + 741 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 730, + 166, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 730, + 166, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiangyu Lin and Zhiguo Gong are with the State Key Laboratory of Internet of Things for Smart City, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "168" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 168-180" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "work, we apply self-distillation to extract intermediate information as output probabilities and utilize them to denoise from wrong labels. Furthermore, we use soft target selection and set up transitive knowledge passing among the students to alleviate the effects of noisy target probabilities from the teacher." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The instances in DSRE can be roughly divided into easy, hard and noisy ones. Both easy and hard instances are correctly labeled but the model learns from hard instances slower (Huang et al., 2021). Noisy instances have wrong labels and can be further divided into False Positives (FPs) and False Negatives (FNs). FPs are instances with NA relation but are wrongly labeled as non-NA relations by DS, while FNs are non-NA instances wrongly labeled as NA. We hope to avoid learning from noisy instances since they contain misleading information. Moreover, we also need to avoid overfitting to easy instances to improve the learning of deeper knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To tackle the above challenges, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) mechanism for denoised sentence-level training in DSRE. Firstly, we apply self-distillation to directly reuse the knowledge of the teacher model for further denoising in students and set up a transitive way to share knowledge among students. Secondly, we leverage the TIW mechanism to generate robust instance weights to reduce noise and overfitting during distillation. TIW considers two factors in the generation of instance weights: Uncertainty (Liu et al., 2020b) for overfitting prevention and general Consistency for noise reduction. The general Consistency we proposed reflects the learning difficulty of the instance and provides guidance both in selecting soft targets of distillation and in weighting instances. Lastly, the generated instance weights directly multiply the sentence-level losses to dynamically and globally enhance the training in the sentence-level setting. The experiments on both held-out and manual datasets show that our approach boosts the student's performance to achieve state-of-the-art results and consistent improvements over the teacher. We also provide an ablation study to explore the effects of the modules. In addition, we analyse the errors and provide additional experimental results in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 723, + 281, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 723, + 281, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 723, + 281, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We are the first to denoise sentence-level DSRE with dynamic instance weights and har" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ness intermediate knowledge to improve noise resistance and information utilization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 108, + 525, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 108, + 525, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 108, + 525, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism with multiple functions, including noise alleviation, overfitting prevention, soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 185, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 185, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 185, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Experiment and analysis show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance with good generalization and robustness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 237, + 396, + 249 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 237, + 396, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 237, + 396, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 526, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Distant supervision (DS) for relation extraction (Mintz et al., 2009) enables automatic annotation of large-scale datasets, but its strong assumption introduces a large number of wrongly labeled instances. Following Riedel et al. (2010), various multi-instance learning methods are proposed to denoise from noisy instances, and they broadly fall into two categories: instance selection (Zeng et al., 2015; Qin et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2018) and instance attention (Lin et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2019b,a; Ye and Ling, 2019). Apart from multi-instance learning, many of the previous works try to improve the effectiveness of training. Liu et al. (2017) and Shang et al. (2020) try to convert wrongly labeled instances to useful information through relabeling. Huang and Du (2019) proposes collaborative curriculum learning for denoising. Hao et al. (2021) adopts adversarial training to filter noisy instances in the dataset. Nayak et al. (2021) designs a self-ensemble framework to filter noisy instances despite information loss. Li et al. (2022) proposes a hierarchical contrastive learning framework to reduce the effect of noise. Rathore et al. (2022) constructs a passage from the bags to generate a summary for classification. Nevertheless, the above approaches are trained with bag-level loss, leading to lower utilization of information. In our work, we adopt sentence-level training to directly utilize sentence-level information and effectively tackle noise and overfitting using dynamic instance weights." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) is an effective way to improve model generalization, though it has difficulty in transferring knowledge effectively (Stanton et al., 2021). By sharing some parameters between teacher and students, self-distillation (Zhang et al., 2019a) improves knowledge transfer from teacher to student. Liu et al." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "169" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2020b) applies self-distillation on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) to improve inference efficiency. However, in our work, we apply self-distillation as the tool to extract intermediate knowledge for denoising and further reduce the noise from the teacher with transitive information passing among the students." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are some epoch-level techniques to detect noisy instances like Swayamdipta et al. (2020) and Huang et al. (2021). But in sentence-level DSRE which is highly noisy and contains bias from the entity mentions (Peng et al., 2020), larger models like BERT can overfit noisy instances faster, even before an epoch ends. Therefore, we adopt a dynamic instance weighting mechanism which is more suitable for DSRE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 156, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 156, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 156, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 140, + 333 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 140, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 140, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Overview" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 290, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 290, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 290, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DSRE aims to predict the relations between an entity pair given a bag of sentences mentioning them. Previous works mostly aggregate sentence representations into bag representations before being optimized using bag-level loss. However, useful information may be diluted or mixed during aggregation. Instead, our model is directly trained on the sentence level to preserve more information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our model is illustrated in Figure 2. The backbone is the BERT encoder on the left, with a teacher classifier on the top. Each student shares a subencoder with the teacher and uses a new classifier for prediction. Firstly, the encoder and the teacher classifier are fine-tuned on the dataset to establish background knowledge. Then, we freeze the encoder and train the student classifiers, in which knowledge distillation and Transitive Instance Weighting (TIW) are applied to reduce noise and overfitting. TIW computes the instance weights based on three sources of knowledge: the teacher's output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the outputs of the student " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " itself " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the previous peer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i-1}^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". It first selects a more consistent soft target " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i^{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i-1}^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the probabilities of making the same predictions as them (i.e. Consistency), which are denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. Then the possible false negative instances are filtered according to the predictions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i-1}^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the previous peer. Finally, the instance weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are computed as the multiplication of Uncertainty " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (normalized entropy) and the general Consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the soft target. The details of TIW are given in Algorithm 1," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "re2id(r)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a function that maps the relation class " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to its id for generating the one-hot label. The instance weights directly multiply with the instance losses to dynamically regulate the roles of instances in optimization (Equation 6). This improves training by globally down-weighting the instances leading to extra noise and overfitting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 178, + 521, + 333 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 178, + 521, + 333 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 178, + 521, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 178, + 521, + 333 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8847b017108f5cd449eb75014ab5918a558734c51c70dc33af2357e1fc1f4245.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 525, + 370 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of our model. Dotted arrows indicate the generation of instance weight." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 377, + 405 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 377, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 377, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Backbone" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 411, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 411, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 411, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) is a powerful transformer-based pretrained network with broad applications in natural language processing. Its intermediate layers encode a rich hierarchy of sentence features, ranging from surface features, and syntactic features, to semantic features (Jawahar et al., 2019). However, previous BERT applications in DSRE (Alt et al., 2019; Rao et al., 2022) only utilize the output from the final layer, neglecting the possibility that hierarchical intermediate information can be useful in denoising. Therefore, we set up the student classifiers to extract information from the hierarchical features in the form of output probabilities and utilize them to distinguish noisy instances in the distillation stage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The model takes a batch of sentences as input, each is labeled with at least one relation. Firstly, each input sentence is transformed into a sequence of vector representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the embedding layer. Then, BERT conducts layer-wise feature extraction with the input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the output of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i_{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(1 \\leq i \\leq n)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 614, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is described as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 720, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 720, + 525, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 720, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "h _ {i} = B E R T _ {i} (s) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "118656a2b9a58b635c95ce27702374c183295701d3f0f60b35aa9291f6cd7ddd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BERT_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to the subencoder containing transformer layers from the first to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i_{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "170" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 261, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 261, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 261, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 Transitive Instance Weighting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: DS label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", teacher's output probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and students' " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 88, + 439, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the instance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: The soft target " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^{t g}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the instance weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 456, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the instance from the students." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 116, + 446, + 184 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 116, + 208, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 116, + 208, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 116, + 208, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Initialize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 116, + 208, + 130 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{l} \\gets 1, p_{l}^{tg} \\gets p^{t}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 130, + 184, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 130, + 184, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 130, + 184, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 130, + 184, + 140 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = l + 1 \\rightarrow n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 130, + 184, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 446, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 446, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 446, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: Compute the Consistency with teacher and peer: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 446, + 156 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}^{t} \\gets p_{i}^{s} \\cdot p^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 142, + 446, + 156 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}^{s} \\gets p_{i}^{s} \\cdot p_{i-1}^{s}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i^t > c_i^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i^{tg} \\gets p^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " else " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 157, + 275, + 171 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i^{tg} \\gets p_i^s" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 172, + 213, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 172, + 213, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 172, + 213, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 172, + 213, + 184 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y = \\text{rel2id}(NA)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 172, + 213, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 210 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y = \\operatorname{argmax}_{j} (p_{i-1}^{s}(j))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i} \\gets 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " else " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 185, + 355, + 198 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i} \\gets 0" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 199, + 123, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 199, + 123, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 199, + 123, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: else" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 158, + 524, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 158, + 524, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 158, + 524, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "> Soft Target Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 172, + 524, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 172, + 524, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 172, + 524, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\triangleright" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 172, + 524, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " False Negative Filtering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 199, + 524, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 199, + 524, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 199, + 524, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Positive Weighting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 211, + 493, + 274 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 408, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 408, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 408, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Compute the Uncertainty of soft target: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 211, + 408, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i} \\gets \\sum_{j=1}^{n_{c}} \\frac{p_{i}^{tg}(j) \\log p_{i}^{tg}(j)}{\\log \\frac{1}{n_{c}}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 235, + 493, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 235, + 493, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 235, + 493, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: Compute the general Consistency and the instance weight: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 235, + 493, + 249 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i \\gets p_i^{tg} \\cdot p_i^s \\quad w_i \\gets c_i u_i" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 249, + 133, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 249, + 133, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 249, + 133, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10: end if" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 123, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 123, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 123, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "encoder is fine-tuned with a simple feedforward classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "FFN_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the top and we can obtain the output of the teacher " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as in the following:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 349, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 349, + 289, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 349, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "x _ {i} = \\left[ h _ {i} \\left(p _ {1}\\right); h _ {i} \\left(p _ {2}\\right) \\right] \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "45e1df4b3c4a96bf4a0da50d53a92452492885826a22dfc3dac52eaf1ecce35e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 375, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 375, + 289, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 375, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p ^ {t} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(F F N _ {t} \\left(x _ {n}\\right)\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "338c33d53a30a52f20e35d9ee0e63b69b93f3bca2f406d9f0be9d21de07eb2f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the start positions of the head entity and tail entity respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[a:b]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the concatenation of vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of classes. Similarly, the output of student " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 289, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be formulated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 476, + 289, + 491 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 476, + 289, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 476, + 289, + 491 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {i} ^ {s} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(F F N _ {i} \\left(x _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "b4b152e32ab5f6be8f05d469773ce859ee1ae07fe4b94f4f87378bddbb4cdac4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 289, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 289, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 289, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that after fine-tuning, the parameters of the teacher model including the BERT encoder stay fixed during the process of self-distillation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 235, + 565 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 235, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 235, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Transitive Instance Weighting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TIW incorporates multiple mechanisms to reduce noise and overfitting. For negative (NA) instances, TIW adopts False Negative Filtering (FNF) to filter false negatives based on the prediction of the previous peer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i-1}^{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For positive (non-NA) instances, TIW provides dynamic instance weights " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generated by multiplying the Uncertainty " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the general Consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The Uncertainty " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is computed as the normalized entropy of the student's soft target " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i}^{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as in Line 8 of Algorithm 1 and is applied to avoid overfitting to easy instances. The general Consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " evaluates the consistency between the student's output and its soft target " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i}^{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to limit the effects of wrongly-labeled instances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most previous works in knowledge distillation directly use the teacher's output probability as the soft target. However, the teacher can constantly make mistakes if trained with noisy data, as in DSRE. Therefore, by introducing peer output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into distillation, TIW sets up a transitive way to share knowledge among the students and reduces the noise from the teacher. As in Line 4 of Algorithm 1, instead of blindly following the output from the teacher, each student " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i > l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") chooses between the teacher " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the previous peer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{i-1}^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to follow. This step is referred to as Soft Target Selection (STS) later. STS provides additional referential probability distributions for the learning students so they can switch to a smoother target probability when the output from the teacher is too hard to follow. The criterion of selection is Consistency (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 298, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), which is described as the probability of two systems making the same predictions and is computed as the dot product of the probability distributions from the two systems, as in Line 3 of Algorithm 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In TIW, we adopt different strategies for negative instances and positive ones because their characteristics are quite different. For negative instances, we conduct FNF as in Lines 5-6 of Algorithm 1. Since we have sufficient negative instances in the dataset, it is acceptable to avoid more FNs at the cost of slight information loss. Therefore, we assign 0 weight to all the possible FNs and 1 weight to the rest. To correctly identify FNs, we adopt a dynamic approach that if the previous peer agrees with distant supervision and also labels the instance as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "NA" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then we classify the instance as a true negative. Otherwise, we assume it to be a false negative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "171" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that the DS label is unreliable. The student follows the peer's view in FNF instead of the teacher's because the teacher already overfits the noisy data and mostly follows the DS label, though the probabilities of label relations may vary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to preserve more information for training, we use soft weights for the positive instances instead of hard filtering. We call it Positive Weighting (PW) and determine the instance weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of student " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by two factors: Uncertainty " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the general Consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the selected soft target." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 291, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The uncertainty term is the normalized entropy as in Liu et al. (2020b) of the chosen soft target. It evaluates how well an instance is fitted so we can leverage it to detect overfitted instances dynamically. Easy instances contain shallow features like London, UK indicating a location/contains relation, so the model fits them easily and fast. But we do not hope the model becomes overdependent on them and lose focus on deeper features hidden in semantics. Therefore we discount their weights with uncertainty to prevent overfitting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The general Consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of student " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the Consistency between the student and the soft target. During distillation, each student is expected to stay consistent with its target distribution. If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is high, the student successfully follows the prediction of the soft target, indicating that the instance is easy to learn for the student. If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is low, the student fails to stay consistent with prior knowledge and the instance may be noisy or very hard to learn. The instance weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " should take the prevention of both noise and overfitting into consideration, so it is empirically implemented as the multiplication of general Consistency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Uncertainty " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as in Line 9 of the algorithm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that during distillation, the student is trained with both soft targets and DS labels, as shown in Equation 6. We present the discussions on the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and losses of easy, noisy and hard instances in the following." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Easy instances mostly have high " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and are well-fitted by the teacher or the peer, so the optimizations using soft targets and DS labels conform with each other." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Noisy instances are mostly underfitted and very hard to optimize because the soft targets and DS labels are mostly inconsistent. They have low " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " because the teacher and the students are not likely to provide consistent predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hard instances are underfitted clean instances" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with low " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at first. However, their soft targets and DS labels are consistent, leading to steady optimizations. When clean background knowledge is established by learning from clean instances, learning from hard ones becomes easier so the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values of hard instances grow larger." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the above discussions, it is safe to say that both easy and hard instances are faster to fit than noisy ones during distillation, indicating that TIW is capable of reducing noise in the training set. As for Uncertainty, its role is non-decisive. Both hard and noisy instances tend to have high Uncertainty but the hard ones have higher Consistency, leading to larger weights than noisy ones. Easy instances are fast to fit even with their weights discounted by low Uncertainty. Therefore, applying Uncertainty helps alleviate overfitting and does not lead to increases in noise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sum up, TIW aims to tackle noise and overfitting and thus can be combined with sentence-level training, which is more demanding in both noise reduction and overfitting alleviation than traditional bag-level training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 393, + 404 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 393, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 393, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Optimization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The teacher and the peer may overfit noisy instances during fine-tuning and distillation. Therefore, we apply a dynamic temperature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 464 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the soft target in the following form:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 369, + 475, + 525, + 488 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 369, + 475, + 525, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 369, + 475, + 525, + 488 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_ {i} = 1 + \\gamma (1 - u _ {i}) \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "0533b50055b42099f4c264eee71434936dfb5d1e2f7312dd777b521859ab5ac7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter empirically set as 3. The idea of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is to further smooth the well-fitted instances to produce softer targets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The loss function of our model follows the general form of knowledge distillation with the instance weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we propose:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 590, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 590, + 525, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 590, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L = \\sum_ {i = l} ^ {n} w _ {i} \\left(\\alpha K L _ {\\tau_ {i}} \\left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, p _ {i} ^ {t g}\\right) + (1 - \\alpha) C E \\left(p _ {i} ^ {s}, Y\\right)\\right) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "f6059b0ebf00b37af0f4683925e268d98faf7c7d4f839df68eaae123e670e181.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyper-parameter empirically set as 0.5. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "KL_{\\tau}(p,q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " computes the KL-divergence between distributions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with temperature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the soft target " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the label from distant supervision and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "CE(p,Y)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the cross entropy loss with one-hot label obtained from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 526, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 390, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 390, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 724, + 390, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, the datasets, settings and hyperparameters are specified first. Then, we present the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "172" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance of our model compared with previous baselines and the teacher model. We also conduct an ablation study to enable a deeper understanding of the mechanisms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 196, + 150 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 196, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 196, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 155, + 291, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 155, + 291, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 155, + 291, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the widely used held-out dataset NYT-10 (Riedel et al., 2010) and recent manual dataset NYT-10m (Gao et al., 2021) for evaluation. As a standard dataset for DSRE, NYT-10 is constructed by aligning the relations in Freebase (Bollacker et al., 2008) with the New York Times (NYT) corpus (English). NYT-10m is a manual dataset constructed also from the NYT corpus, with a human-labeled test set and a new relation ontology. For NYT-10, we divide the dataset into five parts for cross-validation. For NYT-10m, we use the provided validation set. The details of the datasets are shown in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 339, + 287, + 413 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 339, + 287, + 413 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 339, + 287, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 339, + 287, + 413 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTrain (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
held-out522.618.4172.42.053
manual417.917.19.73.925
", + "image_path": "cf476e0631f30049fd2360fdc5e23140b99e82bbcc5f4612d7773d677499ddfb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 460 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: The statistics of datasets. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the experiments, we use the bert-base-uncased checkpoint with about 110M parameters for initialization as in Han et al. (2019). We apply the AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017) optimizer during distillation. The structure of the embedding layer and BERT layers follow those in the previous works with the number of transformer layers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = 12" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and hidden size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_h = 768" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The batch size is 32 and the learning rate is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2e - 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The maximum length of sentences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is 128. As discussed by Jawahar et al. (2019), the shallow layers may not be able to encode the information needed for the DSRE task. Therefore, TIW starts from layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is empirically set as 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the Area Under precision-recall Curve (AUC), micro-F1, macro-F1, precision at top N predictions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{P@N},\\mathrm{N} = 100,200,300)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the mean of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P@N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P@M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Following the at-least-one assumption (Riedel et al., 2010), we adopt ONE strategy (Zeng et al., 2015) for bag-level evaluation, which takes the maximum score for each relation to generate bag-level predic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tions. We use the output of the last student (12) as the output of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the Appendix, we display the results from other students and the results using other " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " settings. We also provide detailed error analysis and extra experimental results on Wiki-20m dataset. Moreover, we try out a different initialization of the teacher to further explore the generalization of TIW." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 190, + 429, + 201 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 190, + 429, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 190, + 429, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Overall Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 524, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the performance of our model against that of the following baselines:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 233, + 524, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 233, + 524, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 233, + 524, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PCNN+ATT (Lin et al., 2016) proposes PCNN with selective attention mechanism." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 524, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 524, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 524, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RESIDE (Vashishth et al., 2018) integrates side information into Graph Convolution Networks to improve relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DISTRE (Alt et al., 2019) extends and finetunes GPT on DSRE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intra+inter (Ye and Ling, 2019) combines intra-bag attention with inter-bag attention to tackle the noisy bags." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CIL (Chen et al., 2021) applies contrastive instance learning to reduce noise from DS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HiCLRE (Li et al., 2022) uses a hierarchical contrastive learning Framework to improve DSRE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 524, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 524, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 424, + 524, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PARE (Rathore et al., 2022) constructs a passage from the sentence bag and use its summary for relation extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 524, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 524, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 524, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Teacher follows the implementation of Gao et al. (2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Among the baselines, DISTRE, HiCLRE, CIL and PARE use pretrained language models for initialization and the last three use the same BERT pretrained encoder as ours. The held-out dataset is the mainstream for DSRE evaluation, but it contains wrongly-labeled test instances leading to inaccurate evaluation. The manual dataset provides an accurate test set but is limited by its scale in generalization. Therefore, we use both datasets for better evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 486, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 486, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 486, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.1 Evaluation on Held-out Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 show the experimental results on the heldout dataset. We use the results reported in the papers of previous work. We also plot the precisionrecall curves as in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in the results, our model achieves the best AUC and Micro-F1 score among all the compared methods. It is shown that direct sentence-level training (the teacher) leads to a slight decline in precision due to the existence of noise but still" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "173" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 462, + 224 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 462, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 462, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 462, + 224 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT33.840.775.072.565.771.1
RESIDE41.545.784.078.575.679.4
DISTRE42.248.668.067.065.366.8
Intra+inter42.346.591.884.078.784.8
CIL50.852.290.186.181.886.0
HiCLRE45.350.582.078.574.078.2
PARE53.454.485.085.082.784.8
Teacher50.652.290.082.078.783.6
Last Student53.955.388.084.082.784.9
", + "image_path": "329e7e2dddfdb900cd90852167b13347e2f0249431ebcd25dd371a52b49f7813.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 524, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 524, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 524, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: The performance (%) of the models on the held-out dataset. The best scores are marked as bold and the second best scores are underlined, as in other tables of the experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 291, + 270, + 435 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 291, + 270, + 435 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 291, + 270, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 291, + 270, + 435 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e3d272aac67e991b57973f4d28f48b8669d0407f21b0d5827fa00a8dd125b960.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 290, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 290, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 445, + 290, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: PR curves of the models on the held-out dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "achieves competitive AUC and Micro-F1 on the test set because of its advantage in information utilization. The P@N of the student are relatively lower than bag-level baselines, but still improved over the teacher. Compared with the teacher, the student further alleviates noise and overfitting with TIW, thus achieving state-of-the-art performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 246, + 607 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 246, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 246, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.2 Evaluation on Manual Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the experimental results on the manual dataset. We use the original implementations of the baselines to reproduce the results. The precision-recall curves are plotted in Figure 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the manual dataset, the bag-level methods still perform better at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P@N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", however, our method outperforms them in AUC and Micro-F1 by large margins. It shows that previous bag-level methods may overfit easy instances, leading to the loss of overall generalization despite higher precision at easy instances " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathrm{P@N})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Also, some of the baselines fail in handling infrequent relation classes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 291, + 505, + 435 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 291, + 505, + 435 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 291, + 505, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 291, + 505, + 435 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d96f9f9661b027428d490ae797d17d5b966674ee900c244be21a85de8cbb63ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 445, + 524, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 445, + 524, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 445, + 524, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: PR curves of the models on the manual dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 525, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(eespecially Intra+inter), but our model manages to achieve both high Micro-F1 and Macro-F1. Moreover, the student improves significantly over the teacher, especially in P@N. These results further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW in improving sentence-level training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 576, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to Gao et al. (2021), the performance of the model may be inconsistent if evaluated in both the held-out and manual datasets. Good performance on the held-out set may indicate overfitting to the bias from DS. However, our model is robust enough to perform well on both datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 402, + 684 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 402, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 402, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 526, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 526, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 526, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ablation study is performed using the heldout dataset. As shown in Table 4, all the modules improve the overall performance. Detailed discussions are given below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": removes Uncertainty and directly uses the general Consistency as positive weight. In this case," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "174" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 197 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 197 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 197 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1Macro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
PCNN+ATT57.757.021.291.088.588.089.2
Intra+inter53.653.52.293.092.590.091.8
CIL60.258.832.394.191.589.491.7
HiCLRE61.862.834.785.084.583.784.4
PARE62.760.736.197.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.434.785.083.584.384.3
Last Student63.963.835.294.090.588.090.8
", + "image_path": "4c5f33df6487232eb26b2d8276f6611b7cd0a7279aaccbc78016dc2eccbb8d93.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 93, + 236, + 265, + 374 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 205, + 466, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 205, + 466, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 205, + 466, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the manual dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 236, + 265, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 236, + 265, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 236, + 265, + 374 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAUCF1P@M
Last Student53.955.384.9
a: - Un52.553.286.1
b: - STS53.254.583.3
c: - PW51.952.584.8
d: - FNF53.354.982.5
e: - TIW52.152.684.6
f: Probe50.652.580.0
g: JS div53.655.083.9
", + "image_path": "550ec060b57c1898ba0edbdf83cfebf14dcad147f166f823f6347bb822aaad87.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 380, + 258, + 393 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 380, + 258, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 380, + 258, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the easy instances always have the largest weights even if they are already well-fitted. The model thus overfits shallow features, which is indicated by the high " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P@N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 290, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the decline in overall performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 566 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": removes STS and follows the output probabilities from the teacher all the time. In this case, the noise from the teacher is not addressed. Fixing the soft target also leads to the fixed Uncertainty for each instance, causing the underfitting of some easy instances. Therefore, the performance declines, especially " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 566 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 291, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": removes PW and all the positive instances are treated equally, including the noisy ones. Therefore, the model is heavily affected by noise and FNF may be inaccurate, leading to further performance declines. In this case, high " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 569, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates that the model overfits easy instances and loses generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": removes FNF. The FNs only make up a small part of the dataset, so the effects are relatively small. However, the noise from FNs significantly reduces " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P}@\\mathrm{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We suspect that the fitting of FNs affects that of true positives. If a false negative " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "fn" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has similar syntactic and semantic features to a true positive " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "tp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", fitting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "fn" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is similar to fitting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "tp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using an incorrect label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 239, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 239, + 526, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 239, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 239, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": removes TIW totally and all the instances are weighted as 1. The label smoothness of knowledge distillation is able to alleviate some noise from DS, so there are improvements in performance over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 239, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 239, + 526, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". However, the student is still trained with much noise and overfits easy instances, so the overall performance declines significantly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 525, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": is the probing result of 12th layer using the DS label. It shows that without effective denoising mechanisms, simply retraining the classifier does not help in performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 389, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 389, + 525, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 389, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 389, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": we have also tried out the Jensen-Shannon divergence (Fuglede and Topsoe, 2004), which is a variant of KL divergence. The performance is not as good as the dot product because it pushes the student to output the same probability as the teacher. However, it should be acceptable (or even better) for the student to output a higher probability for the target relation than the teacher." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 497, + 526, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 497, + 526, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 497, + 526, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The above results and discussions further demonstrate the effectiveness of TIW designs in alleviating noise and overfitting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 471, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 471, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 471, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusions and Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel Transitive Instance Weighting mechanism integrated with self-distillation to denoise from sentence-level training of DSRE. We employ the self-distilled BERT backbone to extract intermediate information for generating reliable instance weights. TIW combines Consistency with Uncertainty as the tools to tackle noisy instances and alleviate overfitting. It also enables soft target selection and transitive knowledge passing among the students to tackle the noise from the teacher. The experiment results show that our method improves the general resistance to DS noise and prevents overfitting from harming its generalization, thus can achieve state-of-the-art performance and consistent improvements over the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "175" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "basielines on both the held-out and manual datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 292, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 292, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 292, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, our work still has some limitations. Firstly, since our model is built on the basis of the teacher-student network, the performance of the student is highly affected by the teacher. If the teacher provides too much noisy information, our instance weighting mechanism might not work. Secondly, in some cases, the student fails to follow the correct predictions from the teacher, possibly due to ambiguity, lack of information or word-level noise. Finally, TIW may down-weight some instances of infrequent relation classes due to their difficulty, but it can be tackled by combining TIW with other methods addressing the long-tailed distribution of relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 285, + 167, + 300 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 285, + 167, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 285, + 167, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 292, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 292, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 292, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by National Key D&R Program of China (2019YFB1600704), The Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (0068/2020/AGJ, SKL-IOTSC(UM)-2021-2023), GDST (2020B1212030003), MYRG2022-00192-FST and MYRG-GRG2023-00186-FSTUMDF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 127, + 438 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 127, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 426, + 127, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 291, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christoph Alt, Marc Hübner, and Leonhard Hennig. 2019. Fine-tuning pre-trained transformer language models to distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1388-1398, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 532, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 532, + 291, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 532, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 1247-1250." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Chen, Haizhou Shi, Siliang Tang, Zhigang Chen, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. CIL: Contrastive instance learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6191-6200, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jun Feng, Minlie Huang, Li Zhao, Yang Yang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2018. Reinforcement learning for relation classification from noisy data. In Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 192, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 192, + 526, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 192, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bent Fuglede and Flemming Topsoe. 2004. Jensenshannon divergence and hilbert space embedding. In International symposium on Information theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings., page 31. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 526, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 247, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yuzhuo Bai, Keyue Qiu, Zhiyu Xie, Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2021. Manual evaluation matters: Reviewing test protocols of distantly supervised relation extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 1306-1318, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 345, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 345, + 526, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 345, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xu Han, Tianyu Gao, Yuan Yao, Deming Ye, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. OpenNRE: An open and extensible toolkit for neural relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 169-174, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 532 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kailong Hao, Botao Yu, and Wei Hu. 2021. Knowing false negatives: An adversarial training method for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9661-9672, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 526, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 542, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, Jeff Dean, et al. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2(7)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 585, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 585, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 585, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiusheng Huang, Yubo Chen, Shun Wu, Jun Zhao, Yuantao Xie, and Weijian Sun. 2021. Named entity recognition via noise aware training mechanism with data filter. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 4791-4803, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 673, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuyun Huang and Jinhua Du. 2019. Self-attention enhanced CNNs and collaborative curriculum learning for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 389-398, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "176" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does bert learn about the structure of language? In ACL 2019-57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dongyang Li, Taolin Zhang, Nan Hu, Chengyu Wang, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. HiCLRE: A hierarchical contrastive learning framework for distantly supervised relation extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2022, pages 2567-2578, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 289, + 278 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 289, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 289, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yankai Lin, Shiqi Shen, Zhiyuan Liu, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. 2016. Neural relation extraction with selective attention over instances. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2124-2133." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 289, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Liu, Xiangyu Lin, Weijia Jia, Mingliang Zhou, and Wei Zhao. 2020a. Regularized attentive capsule network for overlapped relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6388-6398, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 289, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Liu, Xinsong Zhang, Wanhao Zhou, and Wei-jia Jia. 2018. Neural relation extraction via inner-sentence noise reduction and transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2195-2204." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 289, + 504 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 289, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 289, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Liu, Kexiang Wang, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2017. A soft-label method for noise-tolerant distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1790-1795." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 289, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 289, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 289, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhiruo Wang, Zhe Zhao, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. 2020b. FastBERT: a self-distilling BERT with adaptive inference time. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6035-6044, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 631 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 289, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 289, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Mintz, Steven Bills, Rion Snow, and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, pages 1003-1011." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tapas Nayak, Navonil Majumder, and Soujanya Poria. 2021. Improving distantly supervised relation extraction with self-ensemble noise filtering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021), pages 1031-1039, Held Online. INCOMA Ltd." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 524, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 114, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Peng, Tianyu Gao, Xu Han, Yankai Lin, Peng Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2020. Learning from Context or Names? An Empirical Study on Neural Relation Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3661-3672, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengda Qin, Weiran Xu, and William Yang Wang. 2018. Robust distant supervision relation extraction via deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2137-2147." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 287, + 524, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziqin Rao, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. A simple model for distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2651-2657, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 524, + 461 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 524, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 524, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vipul Rathore, Kartikeya Badola, Parag Singla, and Mausam. 2022. PARE: A simple and strong baseline for monolingual and multilingual distantly supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 340-354, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 526 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 524, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Riedel, Limin Yao, and Andrew McCallum. 2010. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 148-163. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 524, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuming Shang, He-Yan Huang, Xian-Ling Mao, Xin Sun, and Wei Wei. 2020. Are noisy sentences useless for distant supervised relation extraction? In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8799-8806." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Song, Weishuai Gu, Fuxin Zhu, and Soon Cheol Park. 2023. Interaction-and-response network for distantly supervised relation extraction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 524, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 524, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 524, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A Alemi, and Andrew G Wilson. 2021. Does knowledge distillation really work? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:6906-6919." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "177" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275-9293, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 113, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 113, + 291, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 113, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shikhar Vashishth, Rishabh Joshi, Sai Suman Prayaga, Chiranjib Bhattacharyya, and Partha Talukdar. 2018. Reside: Improving distantly-supervised neural relation extraction using side information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04361." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 176, + 291, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 176, + 291, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 176, + 291, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhi-Xiu Ye and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2019. Distant supervision relation extraction with intra-bag and inter-bag attentions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2810-2819." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 262, + 291, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 262, + 291, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 262, + 291, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changsen Yuan, Heyan Huang, Chong Feng, Xiao Liu, and Xiaochi Wei. 2019a. Distant supervision for relation extraction with linear attenuation simulation and non-iid relevance embedding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7418-7425." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 336, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 336, + 291, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 336, + 291, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yujin Yuan, Liyuan Liu, Siliang Tang, Zhongfei Zhang, Yueting Zhuang, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Xiang Ren. 2019b. Cross-relation cross-bag attention for distantly-supervised relation extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 419-426." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 410, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 410, + 291, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 410, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daojian Zeng, Kang Liu, Yubo Chen, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Distant supervision for relation extraction via piecewise convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1753-1762." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 474, + 291, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 474, + 291, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 474, + 291, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linfeng Zhang, Jiebo Song, Anni Gao, Jingwei Chen, Chenglong Bao, and Kaisheng Ma. 2019a. By your own teacher: Improve the performance of convolutional neural networks via self distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3713-3722." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 547, + 291, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 547, + 291, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 547, + 291, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinsong Zhang, Pengshuai Li, Weijia Jia, and Hai Zhao. 2019b. Multi-labeled relation extraction with attentive capsule network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7484-7491." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 611, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 611, + 291, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 611, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peng Zhou, Wei Shi, Jun Tian, Zhenyu Qi, Bingchen Li, Hongwei Hao, and Bo Xu. 2016. Attention-based bidirectional long short-term memory networks for relation classification. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 207-212." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 698, + 224, + 713 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 698, + 224, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 698, + 224, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Hyperparameter Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are two key hyperparameters in our experiments, the student selected and the head layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In our best model, we select the last student (12th) for evaluation and set layer 7 as the head layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 413, + 171 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 413, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 413, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 69, + 413, + 171 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6e19d8b4cb5ea84d4de1109eb5d8b2691f4d5456f8c690a05fa94743213b6e3d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 524, + 202 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 524, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Results of the students and auxiliary classifiers of the teacher on the held-out dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 421, + 79, + 518, + 171 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 79, + 518, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 79, + 518, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 79, + 518, + 171 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "39fcdfed463e8b39164fc1bdfd384aa2eb6ab0baff9942d60c2beb707842c91c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 5, the higher students " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 362 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\geq 9)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 227, + 526, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improve significantly over the teacher. The last student performs the best and the students from 9th to 11th also achieve comparable performances. Lower layers of BERT encode shallower features and the instance weighting in lower students is more affected by noise, so the performances of 7th and 8th students show little advantage over the teacher. With knowledge passed and noise alleviated student by student, the performance gradually improves." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 340, + 372, + 489, + 535 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 372, + 489, + 535 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 372, + 489, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 372, + 489, + 535 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SettingAUCF1P@M
l = 1153.455.182.8
l = 1053.554.983.6
l = 953.655.084.0
l = 853.755.184.7
l = 753.955.384.9
l = 653.855.384.8
l = 553.755.184.6
l = 353.555.084.7
l = 253.554.984.6
l = 153.454.984.5
", + "image_path": "cf4dee45dd503faca792d99715ee182ab60a7c7d88abfd8c73d1177dd95dc4e9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 567 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Results of using different head layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " settings. The best results are marked as bold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To study the effect of head layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we run experiments with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from 1 to n. In Table 5, we present the results where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l = 7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " achieves the best performance. For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l > 7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the head layer is too close to the top and TIW filters fewer false negatives. So the P@M declines quickly, which is similar to the effect of removing FNF as in Table 4. For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l < 7" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the lower layers of BERT are not able to encode sufficient information for accurate relation extraction, so the lower students are not able to provide reliable instance weights, leading to the transfer of some noise among students. Though other settings are less effective than the best, their performances still dominate most of the baselines. The above re" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "178" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sults show that our method is not dependent on the empirical settings of hyperparameters and further demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 221, + 149 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 221, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 221, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Evaluations on Wiki-20m" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to further explore the generalization of our method, we also experiment on the Wiki-20m dataset (Gao et al., 2021). The details of the dataset are shown in Table 6 and the results are shown in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 265, + 293 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 265, + 293 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 265, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 265, + 293 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Train (k)Test (k)Rel.
Sen.Fac.Sen.Fac.
698.7157.7138.056.081
", + "image_path": "229feff2beac4e1a88130e9642b9ecc8dc0b59bf99066dd45b8dd78fee3a972d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 360, + 283, + 489 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 338 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: The statistics of Wiki-20m dataset. Sen., Fac. and Rel. indicate the numbers of sentences, relation facts and relation types (including NA) respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 360, + 283, + 489 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 360, + 283, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 360, + 283, + 489 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAUCMacro-F1
Intra+inter88.781.1
CIL89.782.6
HiCLRE87.980.3
IRN (Song et al., 2023)90.982.5
PARE91.483.9
Teacher89.782.8
Last Student90.984.1
", + "image_path": "4b7bb598db9044f04416b17b90d29035583cc699ddce2656b2bbdcef65177064.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 290, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 290, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 290, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We take the best-reported results of the baselines in Rathore et al. (2022) and Song et al. (2023). On Wiki-20m dataset, our model still achieves state-of-the-art performance and the improvements over the teacher are significant. Therefore, our method can generalize well to the Wiki-20m dataset, which has more relation classes (81)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 168, + 656 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 168, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 168, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Error Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For accurate analysis of the errors, we use the test set of the manual dataset for statistical discussions. Each positive label is considered an item. The instances with multiple positive labels are considered to have multiple items. We classify the items based on the predictions of the teacher and student, then count the number and percentage of each class as in Table 8. The goal is to explore where the errors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of the student come from: a) from the teacher, meaning that the knowledge from the teacher is noisy and leads to the student's errors, or b) from the student itself, meaning that the teacher gives correct knowledge but the student fails to follow." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 318, + 148, + 510, + 230 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: The performance (%) of our model and the baselines on the Wiki-20m dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 148, + 510, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 148, + 510, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 148, + 510, + 230 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ClassNum. of itemsPercentage (%)
BC3,04478.07
BI74219.03
TISC942.41
TCSI190.49
", + "image_path": "9f65d2da324281b63f26c46b2484037eecab6cfc6ce48e1e0770e055cae292f1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Numbers and percentages of different classes of items. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for both correct, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BI" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for both incorrect, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "TISC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for teacher incorrect, student correct and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "TCSI" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for teacher correct, student incorrect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the results, the student achieves slightly higher (about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") accuracy than the teacher and shows high fidelity with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of all predictions being the same as the teacher. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "BI" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the student's errors caused by the errors from the teacher. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "TISC" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the student's corrections on the errors from the teacher and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "TCSI" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the errors from the student itself. From the results, we can conclude that almost all (about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") of the errors come from the teacher, and the corrections made by the student are much more than the errors made by the student itself. This demonstrates the effectiveness of our method in reducing the occurrence of errors and the limitation that it requires a good teacher for good performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For further analysis of the student's errors, we inspect the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "TCSI" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " items and select some representative ones for discussions as in Figure 6. Most of the instances with place_of_birth relation are correctly classified and the first example should be an easy instance in the form, yet misclassified by the student as place_lived. We observe several similar items and suspect that long and uncommon names like Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker sometimes confuse the student to make conservative predictions, which is the more common relation place_lived. The second example, however, confuses the student with a compound noun Brooklyn College. Brooklyn appears very often in the dataset in the form of location, making the student believe that Brooklyn College is a location rather than an organization. The third example is mostly related to ambiguity, where the word Arab may refer to the Arab people (ethnic group) or the Arab world" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "179" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 84, + 72, + 510, + 143 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 72, + 510, + 143 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 72, + 510, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 72, + 510, + 143 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SentenceTeacherStudent
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker was born in Kiel, Germany, on June 28, 1912./people/person/place_of_birth/people/person/place_lived
Presented by Brooklyn College and the office of Borough President Marty Markowitz./business/person/company/people/person/place_lived
Furthermore, the relationship between the central government, dominated by three small Arab tribes living along the Nile, and Darfur's Arabs, who claim a heritage going back to the e Prophet Muhammad, is often antagonistic./people/person/ethnicity/people/person/place_of_birth
", + "image_path": "16d53b7d2430592579306488bb683ae50fa89cbcbd8be5b0621785b18ca433a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 130, + 176, + 464, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 153, + 405, + 166 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 153, + 405, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 153, + 405, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: TCSI examples. The entities are underlined." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 176, + 464, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 176, + 464, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 176, + 464, + 292 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAUCMicro-F1P@100P@200P@300P@M
CIL60.258.894.191.589.491.7
PARE62.760.797.095.095.095.7
Teacher61.362.485.083.584.384.3
Teacher†61.760.689.090.088.789.2
Last Student63.963.894.090.588.090.8
Last Student†63.460.796.096.095.395.8
", + "image_path": "fbaea6d12e7189b58fee1f255c240eff58d117db46210962ad1ba1e1f9f518d5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 525, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: The performance (%) of the models on the manual dataset. † indicates initialized using well-trained encoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "location). The latter two examples indicate that the lack of entity-related information may lead to inconsistency between the student and the teacher. The first example shows that the student may be confused to lose focus on key phrases like was born in, which may be solved by combining it with word-level attention in the future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 220, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 220, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 220, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Effects of Teacher Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the main experiments of this paper, the teacher model is trained in an extremely noisy environment, leaving much room for TIW to improve performance. In order to explore the potential of TIW in improving state-of-the-art methods, we initialize the teacher model using the well-trained encoder from CIL (Chen et al., 2021) instead of the bert-base-uncased checkpoint. We repeat the experiments on the manual dataset and the results are shown in Table 9. In the results, the models initialized with a well-trained CIL encoder achieve significantly higher precision and TIW further improves the performance over the baselines. However, since CIL is trained in a bag-level setting, it has lower utilization in information than the models trained in sentence-level settings, leading to some decline in AUC and Micro-F1. These results show that the initialization of the teacher model has a great impact on the performance and that TIW can consistently improve the performance of the model with different teachers. Hopefully, TIW can be employed with more powerful teacher models to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 345, + 492, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 345, + 492, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 345, + 492, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "achieve even better performance in DSRE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "180" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_content_list.json b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45f0a57e7421bbfe55b82e4456045a405f511b89 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2358 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 164, + 80, + 833, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jinyuan Wang $^{1,3}$ and Junlong Li $^{2,3}$ and Hai Zhao $^{2,3*}$", + "bbox": [ + 267, + 130, + 739, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ SJTU-Paris Elite Institute of Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 148, + 798, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 164, + 836, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3Key Laboratory of Shanghai Education Commission for Intelligent Interaction and Cognitive Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 181, + 821, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{steve_wang,lockonn}@sjtu.edu.cn,zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 216, + 778, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In open-domain question-answering (ODQA), most existing questions require single-hop reasoning on commonsense. To further extend this task, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) by answering multi-hop questions with explicit reasoning steps in open-domain setting. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have found significant utility in facilitating ODQA without external corpus. Furthermore, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting boosts the reasoning capability of LLMs to a greater extent with manual or automated paradigms. However, existing automated methods lack of quality assurance, while manual approaches suffer from limited scalability and poor diversity, hindering the capabilities of LLMs. In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an automated framework to mass-produce high quality CoTs of LLMs, by LLMs and for LLMs. SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of high quality ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for in-context CoT selection and self-prompted inference via in-context learning. Extensive experiments on four multihop question-answering benchmarks show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on largescale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs. Further analysis reveals the remarkable capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling $\\sim 50\\%$ of intermediate answers on MuSiQue-Ans dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 279, + 460, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 788, + 258, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Open-domain question-answering (ODQA) is a longstanding and challenging task which addresses factoid commonsense questions without specific", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 814, + 487, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "contexts provided. While existing works in ODQA primarily focus on resolving questions that mostly require single-hop reasoning, there is a burgeoning interest in multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which aims to derive the correct answer through multi-step reasoning over a collection of candidate articles (Mavi et al., 2022). Yet, a significant disparity exists between such scenarios and real-world applications, since the latter often lacks an explicit set of candidate articles provided by users. In light of this, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) as a progression task of ODQA, which requires MHQA with explicit rationales in open-domain setting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 252, + 885, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For ODMR, an emerging approach is to leverage large language models (LLMs) due to the vast knowledge stored within their numerous parameters. In recent years, LLMs have shown powerful reasoning and instruction-following capabilities, such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). After extensive training on vast corpora of textual data, LLMs prove to be zero-shot reasoners on complex reasoning tasks by breaking down multi-step questions into intermediate ones for step-by-step reasoning before producing the final answer (Kojima et al., 2023). Such series of intermediate reasoning steps is known as chain-of-thoughts (CoTs) (Wei et al., 2023). CoTs often serve as in-context demonstrations for in-context learning (ICL) (Brown et al., 2020), which enables LLMs to generate outputs that are formally consistent with a target task via a few reference examples provided as prompt. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) adopt manually designed CoTs as in-context demonstrations to improve the reasoning performance of LLMs. However, it demands delicate and meticulous design by humans, and the demonstrations are the same for each question, which may be sub-optimal. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) was proposed to trigger automated CoTs", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Corresponding author. This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 869, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2717", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2717-2731 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "by certain specific prompting techniques, such as \"Let's think step by step:\". Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs and build in-context demonstrations. However, previous works have not fully leveraged the strong instruction-following and zero-shot reasoning capabilities of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an LLM-only framework to mass-produce high-quality CoTs for ODMR. In general, SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. The automated ODMR datasets are MHQA datasets without candidate contexts, yet including multi-hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains and step-by-step decomposition. Each intermediate QA step is equipped with a short explanation to justify the answer. By leveraging the ICL ability of LLMs, our method is generally effective on LLMs of different scales.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 199, + 489, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our method on four MHQA datasets in an open-domain setting: ComplexWebQuestions (CWebQ) (Talmor and Berant, 2018), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), 2WikiMultiHopQA (2Wiki) (Ho et al., 2020) and MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) (Trivedi et al., 2022). Extensive experiments show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on large-scale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance on small-scale (13B) LLMs in ODMR. Further analysis reveals the outstanding capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling $\\sim 50\\%$ of intermediate answers on MSQ dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 423, + 489, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions can be summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 648, + 487, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. We introduce an automated pipeline to generate high-quality ODMR datasets by LLMs, which include 2-4 hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains.", + "2. We propose SP-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs while ensuring quality and diversity.", + "3. We conduct extensive experiments to confirm the effectiveness of SP-CoT on four ODMR benchmarks. In ODMR setting, our approach significantly boosts the performance by eliciting high-quality intermediate reasoning steps." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 670, + 487, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Works", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 672, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Multi-Hop Dataset Creation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 778, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Creating an annotated MHQA dataset manually requires significant human resources. Therefore, some researchers are dedicated to automating the generation of MHQA datasets. Jiang et al. (2020) elaborated the creation of a multi-hop fact verification dataset from existing HotpotQA dataset. Trivedi et al. (2022) introduced a bottom-up process to build challenging multi-hop reading comprehension QA dataset through meticulous selection and composition of single-hop questions derived from existing datasets. Press et al. (2023) proposed an automatically generated dataset with compositional 2-hop questions about celebrities. Nevertheless, existing approaches are either only partially automated, still requiring crowdsourcing, or they are limited to less complex 1-2 hop questions. In this work, our proposed SP-CoT is capable of automatically generating 2-4 hop questions with six different types of reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 130, + 885, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Chain-of-Thought Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 463, + 789, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent works on CoT prompting can be divided into two research lines. The first is prompting LLMs step by step to leverage their comprehension and reasoning abilities to answer questions. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) adopts a two-stage design, which requires LLMs to first generate intermediate rationale and then produce an answer. Wang et al. (2022) introduced iCAP, which iteratively prompts a fine-tuned small-scale LLM to generate CoTs and then combines the generated rationales to formulate answers. Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2023) requires LLMs to first decompose a complex question into sub-questions and then sequentially solve them to arrive at the final answer.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 483, + 885, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The second research line focuses on designing effective CoT as demonstrations for ICL to release more powerful reasoning abilities of LLMs. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) was introduced to leverage manually designed CoT as in-context demonstrations to solve arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic problems. A recent work (Zelikman et al., 2022) shed light on the practicality to automate the generation of rationales by LLMs. Subsequently, Self-Ask (Press et al., 2023) was proposed to construct step-by-step demonstrations with explicit decision process and intermediate answers", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2718", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1fb809fb6074f8519d5915b5b2981f707c3cebcc3314b8973e53cf7128ebf0fd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The overall framework of our proposed SP-CoT, including an automated generation of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. Texts highlighted in purple refer to questions, in red to previously generated CoTs, in orange to answers, and in green to newly generated contents." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 87, + 880, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "as CoT. Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, which automatically constructs CoTs via LLMs and adopts clustering methods to dynamically build demonstrations for each question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 487, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, existing methods have two significant limitations: 1) Over-reliance on the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Most methods are reported effective on large-scale LLMs like InstructGPT, while reproducing these methods on small-scale LLMs is quite challenging. 2) Over-confidence on the quality of intermediate results. When prompting LLMs step by step, defects in previous steps may limit the performance of subsequent steps. Similarly, while automatically constructing in-context demonstrations, the effectiveness of ICL might be compromised by the unstable quality of CoTs. Admittedly, manually constructed CoTs can ensure quality, yet they face a trade-off between content diversity and costs. To overcome the above drawbacks, our proposed SP-CoT automates CoT generation with quality ensured by leveraging the strong instruction-following capability of LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 497, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Model Enhancement via LLM Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 797, + 487, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With the powerful capabilities of LLMs on content generation and instruction-following, one recent research direction extensively leverages the content generated by LLMs to enhance smaller LLMs. Recent works such as GPTeacher, $^{1}$ Al", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "paca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) collect the content generated by GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) and the corresponding prompts to train smaller-scale LLMs to achieve comparable performance. Another research line aims to boost the performance of large-scale LLMs to higher levels by leveraging the self-generated content. Some works use the self-generation as contexts to assist themselves in answering questions, such as eliciting intermediate rationales as CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) or generating background articles for reading comprehension (Yu et al., 2023). While others instruct LLMs to generate demonstrations for ICL during inference (Zhang et al., 2022), such as prompting LLMs to generate reliable QA pairs as self-prompted in-context demonstrations (Li et al., 2022). Our work is dedicated to extending the second research line to ODMR by leveraging the automated self-generated CoT as in-context demonstrations. Compared to previous works (Kojima et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022), our work taps into the potential of self-prompting LLMs with more complicated framework design to solve a most challenging task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 829, + 621, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we elaborate our proposed SP-CoT in three stages (Figure 1):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplets with", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ https://github.com/teknium1/GPTeacher", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 389, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2719", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5441eda7b68ecca6049ec80a0f6fde4fab76093216542fae180c671c16ea0840.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Stage 1: 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation", + "Figure 2: Generation steps for 2-hop QA quadruplets. Each QA quadruplet comprises a question $q$ , its corresponding answer $a$ , and a context passage $p$ . The explanation $e$ includes the answer $a$ from the passage $p$ to address the question $q$ . Text highlighted in orange refers to previously generated content, while the response of the LLM is highlighted in green." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 103, + 884, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "context, question, answer and explanation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 430, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains by connecting 2-hop QA quadruplets and build an ODMR dataset via composition.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 487, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the last stage, we adopt clustering-based sampling approach to dynamically select and construct in-context demonstrations for inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 516, + 489, + 563 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 405, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop QA quadruplets with context, question, answer and explanation, which is illustrated in Figure 2. Inspired by Li et al. (2022), we design a 2-hop commonsense QA generation pipeline, including the following 4 steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 608, + 489, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 1: First-Hop Passage Generation To guarantee the comprehensive coverage of commonsense knowledge, we manually design 29 diverse topics based on the statistics of TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). For each topic, we require the LLM to name a certain number of keywords. For each collected keyword $k_{1}$ , we ask the LLM to generate a Wiki-style passage $p_{1}$ . Despite some factoid errors (Li et al., 2022), such generated passages contain sufficient factual information to serve as context for QA generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 707, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 2: First-Hop QA Generation Given that the answers for commonsense questions are likely", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to be named entities, we use Spacy $^2$ and NLTK (Bird and Loper, 2004) libraries to extract the named entities in the passage $p_1$ as candidate answers. For each candidate answer $a_1$ , we require the LLM to raise a question $q_1$ to which the answer is $a_1$ based on the passage $p_1$ . To ensure the quality of $q_1$ , we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question $q_1$ given the context $p_1$ to check if the generated answer $a_1'$ is accordant with $a_1$ . Once the generated QA pair passes the double-check, we prompt the LLM to write a short explanation $e_1$ for it. Note that the candidate answers must exclude the keyword $(a_1 \\neq k_1)$ because the answer in the first hop will become the keyword for the second hop $(k_2 = a_1, k_2 \\neq k_1)$ . In addition to that, a valid explanation must contain the answer $(a_1 \\in e_1)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 884, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 3: Second-Hop Passage Generation Before the first-hop answers are used as keywords for second-hop passage generation, we use Spacy to filter out the answers with certain labels (QUANTITY, ORDINAL, CARDINAL, PERCENT, MONEY, DATE, TIME), which are infeasible for Wiki-style passage generation. Given a keyword $k_{2}$ , we repeat the same prompts as described in Step 1 to generate the passage $p_{2}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 722, + 884, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 4: Second-Hop QA Generation We be", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 870, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2https://spacy.io/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 636, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2720", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/69cb048a8843a4782a777dc57e7385e6aaca1544526812cae42e71826f5fde60.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Stage 2: Multi-Hop QAs via Composition", + "Figure 3: Generation steps for MHQA groups. In step 3 and step 4, we use 4 manually designed demonstrations for ICL. Each MHQA group includes a multi-hop question, the corresponding answer and decomposed QA quadruplets. Nodes and texts highlighted in red, blue and green successively refer to the last hops, intermediate hops and generated hops. Manually designed texts are highlighted in purple." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 96, + 880, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gin with extracting candidate answers in the generated passage $p_2$ while blocking the keyword $k_1$ and the answer $a_1$ (also known as $k_2$ ) in the first-hop QA to avoid cyclic graphs. For each candidate answer $a_2$ , we require the LLM to generate a question $q_2$ which contains the first-hop answer $a_1$ and can be answered by the candidate answer $a_2$ . We examine the quality of $q_2$ with the same double-check in Step 2, and ensure the second-hop question $q_2$ contains the first-hop answer $a_1$ ( $a_1 \\in q_2$ ) for connected reasoning. Then we repeat the same prompts in Step 2 to generate explanation $e_2$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 489, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "So far, we have instructed the LLM to generate a 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplet pair, which is $(p_1,q_1,a_1,e_1)\\rightarrow (p_2,q_2,a_2,e_2)$ with $a_1\\in q_2$ Detailed prompt templates are shown in Figure 2 and Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 489, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Multi-Hop QAs via Composition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 734, + 416, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains with the connected 2-hop QA quadruplets, which is illustrated in Figure 3. We propose an automated dataset construction pipeline to build ODMR datasets with 2-4 hops, which has the following 4 steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 487, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 1: Reasoning Chain Composition To connect more questions, we follow the composability criteria (Trivedi et al., 2022), that is, two single-hop QA pairs $(q_{1},a_{1})$ and $(q_{2},a_{2})$ are composable into", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a multi-hop question $Q$ with $a_2$ as a valid answer if $a_1$ is a named entity and it is mentioned in $q_2$ . Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use this criterion for connecting more questions. We adopt 6 reasoning graphs with 2-4 hops to build 6 types of multi-hop reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix), and we ensure that in each reasoning chain: 1) the answer $a_i$ to an intermediate question $q_i$ will appear and ONLY appear in its next-hop question $q_{i+1}$ to avoid shortcuts; 2) the answer to the last question will NOT appear in any intermediate questions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 447, + 884, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 2: Duplication Control Built by rule-based composition, our new dataset has considerably similar reasoning chains that have duplicate intermediate questions. To ensure the diversity and simplicity of our dataset, we filter out the reasoning chains by a preset duplication degree which is defined by the number of questions that co-existed in other chains within the same reasoning type.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 884, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 3: Binary Question Generation We notice that MHQA datasets also include general interrogative questions which should be answered by \"Yes\" or \"No\", rather than a named entity. Therefore, we leverage the LLM to reform the last QA $(q_{n},a_{n})$ of some reasoning chains to binary question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations. For each reasoning type, we randomly sample $10\\%$ reasoning chains for positive question generation and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2721", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/898249ba6a22560ec3b8cac7bf572855ade419bb0dab330c0da3e49aa4c8328e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Comparison of different approaches on four MHQA benchmarks. The fine-tuning methods are fine-tuned on the train split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset. Among them, methods marked with \"†\" use the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. For retrieval-based methods, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Methods based on ChatGPT are performed by gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
Fine-tuning methods with extra corpus
DPR† (Karpukhin et al., 2020)7.516.614.723.06.514.621.330.212.521.1
RAG† (Lewis et al., 2020)3.98.29.615.515.718.613.315.810.614.5
REALM† (Guu et al., 2020)3.78.515.322.05.19.621.127.311.316.9
T5-11B-SSM (Roberts et al., 2020)10.616.615.422.415.620.528.535.517.523.8
Retrieval-based methods with LLMs
DPR† + ChatGPT1.74.115.821.410.918.113.718.710.515.6
DPR† + Alpaca-13B (Taori et al., 2023)2.28.412.021.512.621.215.927.110.719.5
DPR† + Vicuna-13B (Chiang et al., 2023)2.27.418.625.823.927.620.327.916.222.1
DPR† + WizardLM-13B (Xu et al., 2023)3.510.019.928.422.827.524.232.217.624.5
DPR† + InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)4.811.626.334.823.327.134.441.622.228.8
LLM-only methods on ChatGPT
Zero-Shot3.17.322.430.018.721.731.637.519.024.1
Self-Prompting (Li et al., 2022)2.96.223.831.218.923.526.832.618.123.4
GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023)8.614.633.242.630.435.333.740.126.533.2
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.08.822.629.624.327.130.336.220.625.4
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.113.626.136.326.230.229.938.422.629.6
Manual-CoT (random) (Wei et al., 2023)12.319.232.443.727.734.636.643.027.335.1
SP-CoT (Ours)14.522.633.242.930.134.737.543.628.836.0
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 162, + 875, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$10\\%$ for negative ones. Then we reform a new reasoning chain by the generated binary question together with its previous question hops and add it to the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 487, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 4: Multi-Hop Question Generation Now we need to generate multi-hop questions, to which the previously generated question chains serve as their intermediate reasoning steps. For each question chain, we iteratively replace the answer $a_{i}$ to an intermediate question $q_{i}$ in the next-hop question $q_{i + 1}$ by $[q_i]$ until the last question $q_{n}$ is replaced, which indicates a relative clause. Then we leverage the LLM to reform it into a natural multi-hop question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After the pipeline above, we construct a high quality ODMR dataset with 2-4 hops, including the overall multi-hop question, the decomposed reasoning chains with detailed QA quadruplets. With the double-check in generation and the composability criteria, we automatically build a high quality new dataset. Detailed prompt templates are presented in Figure 3 and Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 489, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Adaptive In-context Demonstration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 440, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this stage, we sample multi-hop questions from our generated ODMR dataset as in-context demonstrations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Clustering-based Retrieval Some previous", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "works (Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) have shown that clustering-based methods benefit from the diversity of demonstrations. We adopt a clustering-based retrieval approach to adaptively sample in-context demonstrations for the input question. First, all the questions are projected to a high dimension hidden space by encoding with Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Suppose we need $n$ in-context demonstrations. Given a test question $Q$ , we use $k$ -means to cluster the question embeddings into $n$ clusters and adaptively retrieve the question with the highest cosine similarity to $Q$ from each cluster.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 451, + 884, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Build Reasoning Chain For each sampled example, we sequentially concatenate the explanation from each hop, prefaced by \"Step $\\{i\\} : \"$ , to construct a reasoning chain.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 885, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 655, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our research questions (RQs) are:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 771, + 764, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RQ1: To what extent can SP-CoT boost the LLMs on our four ODMR benchmarks, compared with other LLM-only methods?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 788, + 882, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RQ2: Is SP-CoT generally effective on recent popular instruction-following LLMs?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To this end, we conduct experiments on four MHQA datasets that require complex multi-step reasoning and compare different methods across", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2722", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8564e87580b5c58d0a6bff2cd7415d6bee44b79ae393a90a308b03441dcc22b2.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: The performance (EM) of our method on recent popular LLMs. We use text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On small-scale LLMs, SP-CoT nearly doubles the average zero-shot performance on four MHQA benchmarks." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelSizeMethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQMeanBoost
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BZero-shot0.99.512.512.68.9-
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT5.319.817.826.517.48.5↑
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.311.518.118.312.6-
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT8.523.322.032.221.58.9↑
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.010.313.617.510.9-
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT7.324.027.231.322.511.6↑
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BZero-shot4.425.622.838.622.9-
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BSP-CoT14.837.433.746.633.110.2↑
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 120, + 873, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "different LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 258, + 235, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Benchmarks and Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 287, + 448, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We choose the following four MHQA datasets: CWebQ, HotpotQA, 2Wiki and MSQ. We set them as ODMR benchmarks by taking only the question and the answer in each example. Dataset introduction and statistics are detailed in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 307, + 487, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We adopt the exact match (EM) and F1 scores as our evaluation metrics. Based on the evaluation script of Karpukhin et al. (2020), we add a preprocessing step which ignores the content within \"()\" and splits the answer strings by certain delimiters to extract multiple answers.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 390, + 487, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experiment Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 500, + 319, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For reference, we experiment with fine-tuning methods using an extra corpus, which are finetuned on the training split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset and most of them adopt the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. We also test our implementation of the retrieval-based methods on most recent LLMs for reference. Specifically, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Detailed prompt templates and parameter settings are provided in the Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 487, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unless otherwise specified, we use SentenceBERT (all-mptnet-base-v2) for question encoding following previous works. The default number of in-context demonstrations is 8 and the demonstrations are sampled by the maximum cosine similarity of questions in each cluster.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 732, + 487, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For RQ1, we adopt ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) as the LLM to conduct the following experiments. According to OpenAI,3 gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 is an improvement on the InstructGPT text", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 829, + 489, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "davinci-003 model, which performs at a similar capability level to text-davinci-003 for inference. We use the whole development set of each dataset in our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 258, + 882, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For RQ2, we not only test InstructGPT (text-davinci-003), but also employ three smaller-scale (13B) LLMs: Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023), Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) and WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023), which are LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) models fine-tuned on different large-scale instruction-following datasets. To save computational cost, we conduct this experiment on subsets of the four datasets by randomly selecting 1000 samples from the test sets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 322, + 882, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Experiment Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 710, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The main results of RQ1 are shown in Table 1. Even with extra corpus, the models fine-tuned on NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) present poor performance due to the inherent challenges of MHQA. With the same Retriever model, the performance of retrieval-based methods depends largely on the LLM Readers. Compared to previous LLM-only works, our SP-CoT significantly outperforms the Auto-CoT by $+6.2$ EM and $+6.4$ F1 scores on average and surpasses the previous SOTA method GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) by $+2.3$ EM and $+2.8$ F1 scores on average. On the most challenging benchmark MSQ, SP-CoT empowers ChatGPT to outperform other LLM-only methods by a decent margin.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We notice that SP-CoT significantly outperforms GENREAD on MSQ, confirming the effectiveness of providing high quality CoTs as in-context demonstrations for complex multi-hop questions. On the other three datasets, SP-CoT delivers comparable performance with GENREAD. However, GENREAD relies heavily on the generation faithfulness of LLMs, which is challenging for small-scale LLMs. By breaking down demanding instructions into step-by-step simple ones, our method", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://platform.openai.com", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 314, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2723", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e6e6ce7423bd4283a1bafd4be71d0096f330f5ecee9f7beefa8930ccb8e65c23.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: The performance (EM) of different methods of demonstration selection. The results from random selection represent the mean value and standard deviation obtained from 3 runs, each with a different seed." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Random12.0±0.829.5±0.625.6±1.234.3±0.925.4±0.3
Retrieve10.527.924.333.524.1
ClusterCenter10.426.222.833.023.1
RetrieveInTypeCluster11.628.723.535.324.8
RetrieveInCluster11.530.927.834.026.1
", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 120, + 771, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9236d824d41cea9987d003e8199d7713fb570f0a8f6d105cb3881113a297b63c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Average EM and F1 scores of different numbers of in-context demonstrations. The experiments are tested on 1k subsets of four ODMR benchmarks with ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 225, + 463, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is more applicable to small-scale LLMs, which is validated by Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 469, + 487, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 presents the results for RQ2. Our proposed SP-CoT proves to be generally effective by significantly boosting the performance of all these four LLMs on all four benchmarks. With SP-CoT, the performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs can be boosted to be on par with directly prompting LLMs that are over $10 \\times$ larger, regardless of the elicited high quality intermediate reasoning steps.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 489, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 223, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we explore the choices of the sampling methods and the number of demonstrations. Then we examine the quality of the intermediate reasoning steps elicited by SP-CoT and the quality of self-generation data. Unless otherwise specified, we use ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) to conduct analysis on the same subsets mentioned in RQ2 settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 674, + 489, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Methods of Demonstration Sampling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 450, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The performance of ICL depends largely on the quality of demonstration sampling. We test the effectiveness of the following five strategies: randomly sampling (Random), sampling globally by maximum cosine similarity (Retrieve), sampling", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0ff308996319c5849ecf66894fa33b14832c6ddb72503e7ebc6e9775e352cb29.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Evaluation results of the CoT generated by three methods. The first four scores are in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility (Comp.) and directness given by GPT-4 on 50 examples. The recall accuracy of intermediate answers (IA Recall) is reported on the questions that are correctly answered by all 3 methods." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 225, + 867, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the closest to the centroid in each cluster (ClusterCenter), sampling by the maximum cosine similarity in each cluster (RetrieveInCluster) and sampling the most similar QAs in each cluster in a certain reasoning type (RetrieveInTypeCluster). The reasoning type of the input question is determined by the most frequent reasoning type of its k-nearest neighbors. As indicated in Table 3, RetrieveInCluster (Li et al., 2022) is the best-performing strategy, which is exactly the strategy we adopt in previous experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 884, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Impact of Demonstration Amount", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 823, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Providing more in-context demonstrations empirically improves ICL performance; however, it also causes increasing computational cost. To this end, we investigate the trade-offs of number of demonstrations and the resulting performance boost. We report the EM and F1 scores over the four benchmarks for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 in-context demonstrations, as well as the scores in a zero-shot setting. As illustrated in Figure 4, the performance of SP-CoT increases with the number of demonstrations when the count is between 2 and 8; however, using 10 demonstrations doesn't yield any further", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2724", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance boost. In our main experiments, we opted for 8 as the default number of demonstrations, striking a balance between performance and cost.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Intermediate Reasoning Quality Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 161, + 482, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the high-quality CoTs constructed by our proposed SP-CoT, we investigate the quality of intermediate reasoning steps generated during inference. For this analysis, we use the development set of MSQ, as it's the most challenging of the four datasets and offers decomposed step-by-step QAs. We compare the CoTs generated by Zero-shot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT during inference. For fairness, we select 50 out of a total of 59 questions that all of the three methods answered correctly. First, we use GPT-4 to evaluate4 the intermediate reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility and directness separately on a scale of 1 to 10. Additionally, we compute the recall accuracy of intermediate answers co-occurring in the reasoning steps of each method. For fairness, we only report the intermediate answer recall accuracy of correctly answered questions for each method. As depicted in Figure 5, GPT-4 highly favors our SP-CoT, which achieves nearly a $50\\%$ recall accuracy for intermediate answers. This suggests that SP-CoT elicits high-quality reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility, and directness.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 183, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 247, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we harness the capabilities of LLMs combined with self-prompted CoTs to tackle the intricate MHQA task within the open-domain context, termed as ODMR. Our innovative SP-CoT not only sets a new benchmark by surpassing preceding CoT prompting techniques but also outclasses the erstwhile SOTA LLM-only methodologies in open-domain question-answering. A distinguishing feature of SP-CoT is its proficiency in eliciting high-caliber intermediate reasoning steps, and its universal efficacy across both large and small-scale LLMs. We anticipate our innovative self-generation pipeline for ODMR to not just be foundational for SP-CoT, but also to pave the way for future research, catalyzing a shift towards leveraging self-generation in LLMs, by LLMs, and for LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 680, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400) and under the technical support of National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2021YFC3340700). Our appreciation also extends to Ms. Yangyang Ding, who has been generous with her time and knowledge, offering constructive criticism and enriching discussions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 284, + 613, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed method (SP-CoT) leverages the strong instruction-following power of LLMs. Such capability is easy to acquire through instruction fine-tuning for small-scale LLMs (even 7B), however, some LLMs proposed in early years may show poor capability in following human instructions due to lack of corresponding training before their release. Therefore, the performance of such LLMs may not be boosted by our proposed SP-CoT. In fact, we did not succeed in boosting the performance of GPT-NeoX by any of Zeroshot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT. GPT-NeoX is a 20B LLMs released in early 2022, which shows poor instruction-following capability. Please note that neither GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) nor Self-prompting (Li et al., 2022) boosts the performance of GPT-NeoX.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 317, + 884, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is acknowledged that the efficacy of LLM-only approaches is predominantly reliant on the LLMs themselves. With smaller-scale LLMs, specifically those of 13B scale, our SP-CoT together with other CoT methodologies, demonstrate comparable or similar performance enhancement across four ODMR benchmarks as presented in Table 6. The consistent performance of handcrafted CoTs remains ambivalent across different LLMs and benchmarks; our empirical observations indicate that Manual-CoT occasionally outperforms SP-CoT, while at other instances, it does not.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 882, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the potential for LLMs to generate imprecise information, the process by which our SP-CoT produces datasets might also result in the emergence of inaccurate QA pairs as well as erroneous explanations. Despite the incorporation of a double-check mechanism to ensure data integrity, certain errors and inaccuracies are inevitably present.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4Script from https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat and modified.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2725", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Steven Bird and Edward Loper. 2004. NLTK: The natural language toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pages 214-217, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.", + "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\\%$ * chatgpt quality.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.", + "Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond i.i.d.: Three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. ACM.", + "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training.", + "Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multihop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics," + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "pages 6609-6625, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Yichen Jiang, Shikha Bordia, Zheng Zhong, Charles Dognin, Maneesh Singh, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Hover: A dataset for many-hop fact extraction and claim verification.", + "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2023. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.", + "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466.", + "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474.", + "Junlong Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Self-prompting large language models for open-domain qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08635.", + "Vaibhav Mavi, Anubhav Jangra, and Adam Jatowt. 2022. A survey on multi-hop question answering and generation.", + "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2726", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418-5426, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions.", + "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.", + "Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Musique: Multi-hop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539-554.", + "Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022. Iteratively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought.", + "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.", + "Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions.", + "Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. In International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR).", + "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning.", + "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models.", + "Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2023. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 430, + 621, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 457, + 660, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) HotpotQA is a widely used dataset for multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which contains 113k multi-hop questions in natural language. The questions are collected by crowdsourcing based on Wikipedia articles with human annotated supporting evidence and answers.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 479, + 882, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2WikiMultiHopQA (Ho et al., 2020) 2WikiMultiHopQA s a recently proposed large-scale MHQA dataset, which contains over 192k samples constructed jointly from Wikipedia and Wikidata.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 592, + 882, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MuSiQue-Ans (Trivedi et al., 2022) MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) is a recent challenging MHQA dataset created via single-hop question composition. It includes 25k 2-4 hop questions with six different composition structures. Although MSQ is composed from existing datasets, it poses $3 \\times$ the human-machine gap with a substantially lower disconnected reasoning score.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 658, + 882, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ComplexWebQuestions (Talmor and Berant, 2018) ComplexWebQuestions is a manually generated MHQA dataset of 35k QA pairs. CWebQ is generated by rephrasing questions generated by machine from existing dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 788, + 882, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Statistics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 879, + 630, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The statistics of four datasets are shown in Table 4.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2727", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e93c5abb0df51ad895be44e513aabcac92f72dd0ad13e807ca34cd8dd4c56e10.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Statistics of development set of four MHQA benchmarks, average tokens for questions, answers and average number of reasoning steps. CWebQ does not provide supporting evidence or question decomposition." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MSQHotpotQACWebQ2Wiki
Q len.18.1115.8313.3711.98
A len.2.82.462.422.41
Steps2.652.68-2.47
Size24177405351912576
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 149, + 468, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Prompt Templates", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 237, + 310, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 First-Hop QA Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 267, + 366, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We following the notations described in Section 3. The templates are:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 288, + 487, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Name {Number} {Topic}:", + "2. Generate a Wikipedia passage about $\\{k_1\\}$ .", + "3. Passage about $\\{k_1\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Generate a question to which the answer is the entity $\\{a_1\\}$ .", + "4. Passage about $\\{k_1\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Question:\\n $\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible.", + "5. Passage about $\\{k_{1}\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Question: $\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{q_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Answer: $\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{a_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 338, + 487, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.2 Second-Hop QA Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 625, + 384, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Generate a Wikipedia passage about $\\{k_2\\}$ .", + "2. Passage about $\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Generate a question that meets the following conditions: 1. contains the term '\\{k_2\\}' in question, 2. the answer is $\\{a_2\\}$ , 3. Avoid the following entities in the question: $\\{k_2\\}$", + "3. Passage about $\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Question:\\n $\\{q_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible.", + "4. Passage about $\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Question: $\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Answer: $\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{a_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 648, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.3 Binary Question Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 781, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Question: $\\{q_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}$ : $\\{a_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nReform}$ the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with yes:", + "- Question: $\\{q_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}$ : $\\{a_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nReform}$ the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with no:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 107, + 880, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.4 Multi-Hop Question Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 233, + 810, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Raw question: $\\{q_{n}\\} \\backslash n$ Replace the sentence within [] with a relative clause and make the raw question into a natural question:", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 256, + 880, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.5 CoT Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 319, + 700, + 334 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Suppose $q^{*}$ is the generated multi-hop question, $e_i$ denotes the explanation from intermediate hop $(q_{i}, a_{i}, e_{i})$ , $a^{*}$ is the answer of the last hop $(a^{*} = a_{n})$ . The template is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 342, + 882, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Question: $\\{q^{*}\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}$ : Let's think step by step:\\nStep 1: $\\{e_1\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nStep2}$ : $\\{e_2\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{n}$ ... Therefore, the answer in just one entity is: $\\{a^{*}\\}$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 423, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.6 Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 486, + 633, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.6.1 Zero-shot", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 508, + 648, + 523 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a question $Q$ , the inference template is:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 530, + 850, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Answer the following question with just one entity:\\nQuestion: $\\{Q\\}$ \\nAnswer:", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 562, + 880, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.6.2 SP-CoT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 609, + 635, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Suppose we have the input question $Q$ and 2 demonstrations $(q_{1},r_{1},a_{1})$ , $(q_{2},r_{2},a_{2})$ , where $q_{i}$ , $r_{i}$ , $a_{i}$ denote the question, CoT and answer of the $i^{th}$ demonstration. The inference template is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 631, + 880, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Question: $\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{r_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Question: $\\{q_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ $\\{r_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Question: $\\{Q\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}$ Answer: Let's think step by step:\\n", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 711, + 880, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Experiment Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 788, + 722, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1 Hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 816, + 700, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section is the experiment settings on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) only, for more settings of other LLMs used in our experiments, please see our code. Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2728", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/557c25acbf7dde6f47ddf5c29b9adad315f5374098bcfb22eed80e17a974b7dc.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Performance (EM/F1) of additional CoT variants. In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Zero-shot3.1/7.322.4/30.018.7/21.731.6/37.519.0/24.1
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.0/8.822.6/29.624.3/27.130.3/36.220.6/25.4
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)12.3/19.232.4/43.727.7/34.636.6/43.027.3/35.1
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)13.7/21.933.9/44.731.5/38.637.2/44.029.1/37.3
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.1/13.626.1/36.326.2/30.229.9/38.322.6/29.6
SP-CoT (Ours)14.5/22.633.2/42.930.1/34.737.5/43.628.8/36.0
SP-CoT + Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023)18.3/28.3-/--/-47.1/54.0-/-
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 149, + 852, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0ca2863965ea5e20bc61434765122e0b84f9eeb327a853ff9e9a21d150db4b13.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: The performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of test sets. We use gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 for ChatGPT and text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On smaller-scale (13B) LLMs, CoT methods achieve comparable performance boost on four MHQA benchmarks." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodChatGPTInstructGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizard-13B
Zero-shot20.822.98.912.610.9
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)28.733.118.023.724.7
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)26.332.417.722.024.0
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)21.231.416.921.323.3
SP-CoT (Ours)26.133.117.421.522.5
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 313, + 889, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1.1 System message", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 304, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"You should use your knowledge to answer the question to the best of your ability, not refuse to answer, even though you know your knowledge is sometimes out of date. If some references are uncertain, answer all possible cases rather than requesting further information.\"", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 487, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1.2 Temperature", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 282, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In most cases, the default temperature is set to 0 for obtaining a most deterministic response. When we ask ChatGPT to name some terms or to generation a question, the temperature is set to 1.0 for more diversity.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 487, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2 LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 215, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The 13B LLMs used in our experiments are from Huggingface Hub, use chavinlo/gpt4-x-alpaca for Alpaca-13B, TheBloke/wizard-vicuna-13B-HF for Vicuna-13B and TheBloke/wizardLM-13B-1.0-fp16 for WizardLM-13B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Additional Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 776, + 361, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.1 Comparison of CoT Variants", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 801, + 393, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To provide a more comprehensive picture of current CoT methods on ODQA, we report hereby (Table 5) the performance of additional CoT variants, including Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) and Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022) on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 884, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To the best of our knowledge, Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is orthogonal to existing CoT methods, including SP-CoT. Although Self-Consistency boosts the performance of SP-CoT to a higher level (10%-30% increase for 5 runs), it's worth noting that the cost of Self-Consistency is also 5 times higher.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 882, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 6, we report the performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of the test sets. The scores are the average EM scores on 4 ODMR benchmarks. Although Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) outperforms Automated methods, it requires high quality human-labeled CoTs, which is not always accessible in real world applications. Since the cherry-picked CoTs take the dataset features in to consideration, we consider their results as the theoretical upper limit of automated approaches. Compared to previously automatic SOTA method (Auto-CoT), our proposed SP-CoT shows a decent performance boost in most cases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2729", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6d8521893188cdfa57249326a5da000cd0279c035edba7ca38787cbe416b37a6.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: The scale and average hops of each ODMR dataset generated in this paper. Please note that the scale and the average hops are largely decided by the self-generation setting and the duplication control process." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ChatGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizardLM-13B
Number of Samples3550135415621604
Avg. Number of Hops3.042.822.923.16
Avg. Question tokens34.6125.3531.0534.30
Avg. Answer tokens1.861.992.021.91
", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 120, + 776, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D.2 SP-CoT on GrailQA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 208, + 324, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report our experiment of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021). According to our ODMR setting, no external knowledge is provided to LLMs. From the results below, we notice that our proposed SP-CoT is effective on GrailQA, our results on InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) are presented in Table 8.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 230, + 487, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f1bc50e1f10c463036dc160dcb42ce8b9dcd948ce318138af35646cdf90a46d1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Performance of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodEMF1
Zero-shot12.924.3
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)13.525.2
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)17.730.7
SP-CoT (Ours)16.028.2
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 393, + 485, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Constructed ODMR Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 485, + 405, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.1 Overview and scale", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 511, + 315, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For better understanding of the constructed ODMR datasets, we offer a well-designed figure (Figure 6) to illustrate the six types of generated questions and their step-by-step decomposition. The scale of the generated ODMR datasets is about 1-4k (Table 7), however, it's largely dependent by the self-generation setting (how many examples to generate?) and the Duplication Control process in Stage 2 Step 2 (How many examples to keep?) To be more specific, the number of topic terms for self-generation decides the scale of generated 2-hop question pairs, and the level of duplication (how many existing question hops are allowed when constructing a new reasoning chain) decides the scale of the remaining examples after filtering.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 489, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.2 Topics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 213, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The 29 manually designed topics for generation are: politicians, athletes, sports teams, sports events, countries, cities, historical figures, historical events, wars, religions, singers, songs, actors or actresses, movies or TV series, writers, books, painters, paintings, composers, classical music, tourist attractions, scientists, scientific terms, video", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "games, animals, plants, foods, enterprises, international organizations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 209, + 882, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.3 Quality Control", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 250, + 685, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To ensure the self-generation quality, two mechanisms are included in our proposed method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 272, + 882, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-validation in self-generation: To ensure the quality of generated QA pairs, we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question given the generated context and double-check If the generated answer is accordant with the target answer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 304, + 882, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Composability criteria in composition: Two single-hop QA pairs $(q_{1},a_{1})$ and $(q_{2},a_{2})$ are composable into a multi-hop question $Q$ with $a_2$ as a valid answer if $a_1$ is a named entity and it is mentioned in $q_{2}$ . Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use it for connecting more questions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 882, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.4 Composition rather than Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 524, + 847, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Directly generating k-hop questions will produce many highly-duplicated reasoning chains, which is less effective than composition with 2-hop QAs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 880, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Take a connected 3-hop QAs as example: $(Q_{1},A_{1})\\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\\to (Q_{3},A_{3})$ , where $A_{1}$ in $Q_{2}$ $A_{2}$ in $Q_{3}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 882, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Suppose there are 2 valid next-hop QAs $(Q_{4},A_{4})$ and $(Q_{5},A_{5})$ for $(Q_{3},A_{3})$ . Now we have 2 generated 4-hop reasoning chains: $(Q_{1},A_{1})\\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\\rightarrow (Q_{4},A_{4})$ and $(Q_{1},A_{1})\\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\\rightarrow$ $(Q_{5},A_{5})$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 642, + 882, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which are highly-duplicated. When directly generating k-hop reasoning chains, the number of highly-duplicated chains will increase exponentially and such chains will be filtered out in the Duplication Control Process (Stage 2, Step 2).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 738, + 882, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, when there are more than 2 question hops in one reasoning chain, more effort should be made to ensure direct acyclic graphs (DAGs). An example of cyclic reasoning chain is $(Q_{1},A_{1})\\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\\to (Q_{1},A_{1})$ , which should be avoided.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 819, + 882, + 913 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2730", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b30c95ec8297ee7c73a7d54bcf93c61049614187e48f16a5054deb35764e3aff.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
GraphQADecomposition
○→○Q: What is another common name for some members of the genus to which daffodils belong, besides daffodil? \nA: Jonquil1. Q: What is the genus to which daffodils belong? \nA: Narcissus \n2. Q: What is another common name for some members of the Narcissus genus besides daffodil? \nA: Jonquil
○→○→○Q: Who held the titles of King of the French and The Duke of Orleans during the year when John Lindley first described the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? \nA: Louis Philippe1. Q: What is the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? \nA: Scilloideae \n2. Q: In what year was the subfamily Scilloideae first described by John Lindley? \nA: 1830 \n3. Q: Who became King of the French in 1830 and also held the title of The Duke of Orleans? \nA: Louis Philippe
○Q: Which country, commonly visited by ships traveling from Europe and where most species of roses are native to, is located south of the remote island where Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled and eventually died? \nA: South Africa1. Q: Where are most species of roses native to? \nA: Asia \n2. Q: To which remote island was Napoleon Bonaparte exiled and where did he eventually die? \nA: Saint Helena \n3. Q: What country is located south of Saint Helena and was a common destination for ships traveling from Asia and Europe? \nA: South Africa
○→○→○Q: What work did the person who shared credit with the father of the biblical figure referenced in the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" defend his optimism in, while also famously contributing to the development of infinitesimal calculus with Newton? \nA: Theodicy1. Q: Who is the biblical figure that the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" references? \nA: Jacob \n2. Q: Who was the father of Jacob? \nA: Isaac \n3. Q: Who shares credit with Isaac Newton for developing the infinitesimal calculus? \nA: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz \n4. Q: What work did Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz famously defend his optimism in? \nA: Theodicy
○→○Q: What body of water separates the country that is a key ally of the country that Iraq launched Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, from Canada? \nA: the Atlantic Ocean1. Q: What country did Iraq launch Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, and why is this relevant to the conflict? \nA: Israel \n2. Q: What is the native region of Carrot? \nA: the Middle East \n3. Q: What is the name of the country that is a key ally of Israel in the Middle East? \nA: the United States \n4. Q: What body of water separates the United States from Canada? \nA: the Atlantic Ocean
○→○Q: What is the name of the town in the country that is the largest in South America after the country where Lionel Messi represents in international football competitions where Tom Brady's wife was born? \nA: Très de Maio1. Q: Which country does Lionel Messi represent in international football competitions? \nA: Argentina \n2. Q: What is the largest country in South America after Argentina? \nA: Brazil \n3. Q: What is the name of the model that Tom Brady is married to? \nA: Gisele Bündchen \n4. Q: What is the name of the town in Brazil where Gisele Bündchen was born? \nA: Très de Maio
", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 118, + 858, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6: The illustration of six reasoning types in our automated dataset construction pipeline. These selected examples are self-generated by ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301), Vicuna-13B and WizardLM-13B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 860, + 882, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2731", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_model.json b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca0c4dbd10374d2ce22e75a9624ea766ca947d78 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2914 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.082, + 0.834, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.268, + 0.131, + 0.74, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinyuan Wang\\(^{1,3}\\) and Junlong Li\\(^{2,3}\\) and Hai Zhao\\(^{2,3*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.149, + 0.799, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)SJTU-Paris Elite Institute of Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.165, + 0.838, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.182, + 0.822, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Key Laboratory of Shanghai Education Commission for Intelligent Interaction and Cognitive Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.217, + 0.779, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{steve_wang,lockonn}@sjtu.edu.cn,zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In open-domain question-answering (ODQA), most existing questions require single-hop reasoning on commonsense. To further extend this task, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) by answering multi-hop questions with explicit reasoning steps in open-domain setting. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have found significant utility in facilitating ODQA without external corpus. Furthermore, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting boosts the reasoning capability of LLMs to a greater extent with manual or automated paradigms. However, existing automated methods lack of quality assurance, while manual approaches suffer from limited scalability and poor diversity, hindering the capabilities of LLMs. In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an automated framework to mass-produce high quality CoTs of LLMs, by LLMs and for LLMs. SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of high quality ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for in-context CoT selection and self-prompted inference via in-context learning. Extensive experiments on four multihop question-answering benchmarks show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on largescale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs. Further analysis reveals the remarkable capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling \\(\\sim 50\\%\\) of intermediate answers on MuSiQue-Ans dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.789, + 0.26, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.815, + 0.489, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Open-domain question-answering (ODQA) is a longstanding and challenging task which addresses factoid commonsense questions without specific" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.253, + 0.886, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "contexts provided. While existing works in ODQA primarily focus on resolving questions that mostly require single-hop reasoning, there is a burgeoning interest in multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which aims to derive the correct answer through multi-step reasoning over a collection of candidate articles (Mavi et al., 2022). Yet, a significant disparity exists between such scenarios and real-world applications, since the latter often lacks an explicit set of candidate articles provided by users. In light of this, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) as a progression task of ODQA, which requires MHQA with explicit rationales in open-domain setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For ODMR, an emerging approach is to leverage large language models (LLMs) due to the vast knowledge stored within their numerous parameters. In recent years, LLMs have shown powerful reasoning and instruction-following capabilities, such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). After extensive training on vast corpora of textual data, LLMs prove to be zero-shot reasoners on complex reasoning tasks by breaking down multi-step questions into intermediate ones for step-by-step reasoning before producing the final answer (Kojima et al., 2023). Such series of intermediate reasoning steps is known as chain-of-thoughts (CoTs) (Wei et al., 2023). CoTs often serve as in-context demonstrations for in-context learning (ICL) (Brown et al., 2020), which enables LLMs to generate outputs that are formally consistent with a target task via a few reference examples provided as prompt. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) adopt manually designed CoTs as in-context demonstrations to improve the reasoning performance of LLMs. However, it demands delicate and meticulous design by humans, and the demonstrations are the same for each question, which may be sub-optimal. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) was proposed to trigger automated CoTs" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.87, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Corresponding author. This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.48, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2717" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2717-2731 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "by certain specific prompting techniques, such as \"Let's think step by step:\". Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs and build in-context demonstrations. However, previous works have not fully leveraged the strong instruction-following and zero-shot reasoning capabilities of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.2, + 0.49, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an LLM-only framework to mass-produce high-quality CoTs for ODMR. In general, SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. The automated ODMR datasets are MHQA datasets without candidate contexts, yet including multi-hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains and step-by-step decomposition. Each intermediate QA step is equipped with a short explanation to justify the answer. By leveraging the ICL ability of LLMs, our method is generally effective on LLMs of different scales." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.424, + 0.49, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our method on four MHQA datasets in an open-domain setting: ComplexWebQuestions (CWebQ) (Talmor and Berant, 2018), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), 2WikiMultiHopQA (2Wiki) (Ho et al., 2020) and MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) (Trivedi et al., 2022). Extensive experiments show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on large-scale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance on small-scale (13B) LLMs in ODMR. Further analysis reveals the outstanding capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling \\(\\sim 50\\%\\) of intermediate answers on MSQ dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.649, + 0.489, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions can be summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.671, + 0.488, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We introduce an automated pipeline to generate high-quality ODMR datasets by LLMs, which include 2-4 hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.744, + 0.487, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. We propose SP-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs while ensuring quality and diversity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.801, + 0.488, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We conduct extensive experiments to confirm the effectiveness of SP-CoT on four ODMR benchmarks. In ODMR setting, our approach significantly boosts the performance by eliciting high-quality intermediate reasoning steps." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.671, + 0.488, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.673, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Works" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.11, + 0.779, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Multi-Hop Dataset Creation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.131, + 0.886, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Creating an annotated MHQA dataset manually requires significant human resources. Therefore, some researchers are dedicated to automating the generation of MHQA datasets. Jiang et al. (2020) elaborated the creation of a multi-hop fact verification dataset from existing HotpotQA dataset. Trivedi et al. (2022) introduced a bottom-up process to build challenging multi-hop reading comprehension QA dataset through meticulous selection and composition of single-hop questions derived from existing datasets. Press et al. (2023) proposed an automatically generated dataset with compositional 2-hop questions about celebrities. Nevertheless, existing approaches are either only partially automated, still requiring crowdsourcing, or they are limited to less complex 1-2 hop questions. In this work, our proposed SP-CoT is capable of automatically generating 2-4 hop questions with six different types of reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.464, + 0.791, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Chain-of-Thought Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.485, + 0.886, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent works on CoT prompting can be divided into two research lines. The first is prompting LLMs step by step to leverage their comprehension and reasoning abilities to answer questions. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) adopts a two-stage design, which requires LLMs to first generate intermediate rationale and then produce an answer. Wang et al. (2022) introduced iCAP, which iteratively prompts a fine-tuned small-scale LLM to generate CoTs and then combines the generated rationales to formulate answers. Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2023) requires LLMs to first decompose a complex question into sub-questions and then sequentially solve them to arrive at the final answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The second research line focuses on designing effective CoT as demonstrations for ICL to release more powerful reasoning abilities of LLMs. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) was introduced to leverage manually designed CoT as in-context demonstrations to solve arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic problems. A recent work (Zelikman et al., 2022) shed light on the practicality to automate the generation of rationales by LLMs. Subsequently, Self-Ask (Press et al., 2023) was proposed to construct step-by-step demonstrations with explicit decision process and intermediate answers" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2718" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.089, + 0.881, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.884, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The overall framework of our proposed SP-CoT, including an automated generation of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. Texts highlighted in purple refer to questions, in red to previously generated CoTs, in orange to answers, and in green to newly generated contents." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.489, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "as CoT. Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, which automatically constructs CoTs via LLMs and adopts clustering methods to dynamically build demonstrations for each question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.498, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, existing methods have two significant limitations: 1) Over-reliance on the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Most methods are reported effective on large-scale LLMs like InstructGPT, while reproducing these methods on small-scale LLMs is quite challenging. 2) Over-confidence on the quality of intermediate results. When prompting LLMs step by step, defects in previous steps may limit the performance of subsequent steps. Similarly, while automatically constructing in-context demonstrations, the effectiveness of ICL might be compromised by the unstable quality of CoTs. Admittedly, manually constructed CoTs can ensure quality, yet they face a trade-off between content diversity and costs. To overcome the above drawbacks, our proposed SP-CoT automates CoT generation with quality ensured by leveraging the strong instruction-following capability of LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.798, + 0.489, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Model Enhancement via LLM Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.818, + 0.49, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With the powerful capabilities of LLMs on content generation and instruction-following, one recent research direction extensively leverages the content generated by LLMs to enhance smaller LLMs. Recent works such as GPTeacher,\\(^{1}\\) Al" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.434, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "paca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) collect the content generated by GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) and the corresponding prompts to train smaller-scale LLMs to achieve comparable performance. Another research line aims to boost the performance of large-scale LLMs to higher levels by leveraging the self-generated content. Some works use the self-generation as contexts to assist themselves in answering questions, such as eliciting intermediate rationales as CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) or generating background articles for reading comprehension (Yu et al., 2023). While others instruct LLMs to generate demonstrations for ICL during inference (Zhang et al., 2022), such as prompting LLMs to generate reliable QA pairs as self-prompted in-context demonstrations (Li et al., 2022). Our work is dedicated to extending the second research line to ODMR by leveraging the automated self-generated CoT as in-context demonstrations. Compared to previous works (Kojima et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022), our work taps into the potential of self-prompting LLMs with more complicated framework design to solve a most challenging task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.831, + 0.622, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.883, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we elaborate our proposed SP-CoT in three stages (Figure 1):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplets with" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.39, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)https://github.com/teknium1/GPTeacher" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2719" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.373, + 0.089, + 0.623, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stage 1: 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.104, + 0.885, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.884, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Generation steps for 2-hop QA quadruplets. Each QA quadruplet comprises a question \\( q \\), its corresponding answer \\( a \\), and a context passage \\( p \\). The explanation \\( e \\) includes the answer \\( a \\) from the passage \\( p \\) to address the question \\( q \\). Text highlighted in orange refers to previously generated content, while the response of the LLM is highlighted in green." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.448, + 0.431, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context, question, answer and explanation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.489, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains by connecting 2-hop QA quadruplets and build an ODMR dataset via composition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.517, + 0.49, + 0.564 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the last stage, we adopt clustering-based sampling approach to dynamically select and construct in-context demonstrations for inference." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.584, + 0.406, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.609, + 0.49, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop QA quadruplets with context, question, answer and explanation, which is illustrated in Figure 2. Inspired by Li et al. (2022), we design a 2-hop commonsense QA generation pipeline, including the following 4 steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.708, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 1: First-Hop Passage Generation To guarantee the comprehensive coverage of commonsense knowledge, we manually design 29 diverse topics based on the statistics of TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). For each topic, we require the LLM to name a certain number of keywords. For each collected keyword \\( k_{1} \\), we ask the LLM to generate a Wiki-style passage \\( p_{1} \\). Despite some factoid errors (Li et al., 2022), such generated passages contain sufficient factual information to serve as context for QA generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 2: First-Hop QA Generation Given that the answers for commonsense questions are likely" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.447, + 0.885, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to be named entities, we use Spacy\\(^2\\) and NLTK (Bird and Loper, 2004) libraries to extract the named entities in the passage \\( p_1 \\) as candidate answers. For each candidate answer \\( a_1 \\), we require the LLM to raise a question \\( q_1 \\) to which the answer is \\( a_1 \\) based on the passage \\( p_1 \\). To ensure the quality of \\( q_1 \\), we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question \\( q_1 \\) given the context \\( p_1 \\) to check if the generated answer \\( a_1' \\) is accordant with \\( a_1 \\). Once the generated QA pair passes the double-check, we prompt the LLM to write a short explanation \\( e_1 \\) for it. Note that the candidate answers must exclude the keyword \\( (a_1 \\neq k_1) \\) because the answer in the first hop will become the keyword for the second hop \\( (k_2 = a_1, k_2 \\neq k_1) \\). In addition to that, a valid explanation must contain the answer \\( (a_1 \\in e_1) \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.724, + 0.885, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 3: Second-Hop Passage Generation Before the first-hop answers are used as keywords for second-hop passage generation, we use Spacy to filter out the answers with certain labels (QUANTITY, ORDINAL, CARDINAL, PERCENT, MONEY, DATE, TIME), which are infeasible for Wiki-style passage generation. Given a keyword \\( k_{2} \\), we repeat the same prompts as described in Step 1 to generate the passage \\( p_{2} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 4: Second-Hop QA Generation We be" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.638, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2https://spacy.io/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2720" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.369, + 0.084, + 0.629, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stage 2: Multi-Hop QAs via Composition" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.097, + 0.881, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.365, + 0.885, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Generation steps for MHQA groups. In step 3 and step 4, we use 4 manually designed demonstrations for ICL. Each MHQA group includes a multi-hop question, the corresponding answer and decomposed QA quadruplets. Nodes and texts highlighted in red, blue and green successively refer to the last hops, intermediate hops and generated hops. Manually designed texts are highlighted in purple." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.448, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gin with extracting candidate answers in the generated passage \\( p_2 \\) while blocking the keyword \\( k_1 \\) and the answer \\( a_1 \\) (also known as \\( k_2 \\)) in the first-hop QA to avoid cyclic graphs. For each candidate answer \\( a_2 \\), we require the LLM to generate a question \\( q_2 \\) which contains the first-hop answer \\( a_1 \\) and can be answered by the candidate answer \\( a_2 \\). We examine the quality of \\( q_2 \\) with the same double-check in Step 2, and ensure the second-hop question \\( q_2 \\) contains the first-hop answer \\( a_1 \\) (\\( a_1 \\in q_2 \\)) for connected reasoning. Then we repeat the same prompts in Step 2 to generate explanation \\( e_2 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.643, + 0.49, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "So far, we have instructed the LLM to generate a 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplet pair, which is \\((p_1,q_1,a_1,e_1)\\rightarrow (p_2,q_2,a_2,e_2)\\) with \\(a_1\\in q_2\\) Detailed prompt templates are shown in Figure 2 and Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.736, + 0.418, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Multi-Hop QAs via Composition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.489, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains with the connected 2-hop QA quadruplets, which is illustrated in Figure 3. We propose an automated dataset construction pipeline to build ODMR datasets with 2-4 hops, which has the following 4 steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 1: Reasoning Chain Composition To connect more questions, we follow the composability criteria (Trivedi et al., 2022), that is, two single-hop QA pairs \\((q_{1},a_{1})\\) and \\((q_{2},a_{2})\\) are composable into" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.448, + 0.885, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a multi-hop question \\( Q \\) with \\( a_2 \\) as a valid answer if \\( a_1 \\) is a named entity and it is mentioned in \\( q_2 \\). Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use this criterion for connecting more questions. We adopt 6 reasoning graphs with 2-4 hops to build 6 types of multi-hop reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix), and we ensure that in each reasoning chain: 1) the answer \\( a_i \\) to an intermediate question \\( q_i \\) will appear and ONLY appear in its next-hop question \\( q_{i+1} \\) to avoid shortcuts; 2) the answer to the last question will NOT appear in any intermediate questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.644, + 0.885, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 2: Duplication Control Built by rule-based composition, our new dataset has considerably similar reasoning chains that have duplicate intermediate questions. To ensure the diversity and simplicity of our dataset, we filter out the reasoning chains by a preset duplication degree which is defined by the number of questions that co-existed in other chains within the same reasoning type." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 3: Binary Question Generation We notice that MHQA datasets also include general interrogative questions which should be answered by \"Yes\" or \"No\", rather than a named entity. Therefore, we leverage the LLM to reform the last QA \\((q_{n},a_{n})\\) of some reasoning chains to binary question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations. For each reasoning type, we randomly sample \\(10\\%\\) reasoning chains for positive question generation and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2721" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.157 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Comparison of different approaches on four MHQA benchmarks. The fine-tuning methods are fine-tuned on the train split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset. Among them, methods marked with \"†\" use the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. For retrieval-based methods, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Methods based on ChatGPT are performed by gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.164, + 0.877, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
Fine-tuning methods with extra corpus
DPR† (Karpukhin et al., 2020)7.516.614.723.06.514.621.330.212.521.1
RAG† (Lewis et al., 2020)3.98.29.615.515.718.613.315.810.614.5
REALM† (Guu et al., 2020)3.78.515.322.05.19.621.127.311.316.9
T5-11B-SSM (Roberts et al., 2020)10.616.615.422.415.620.528.535.517.523.8
Retrieval-based methods with LLMs
DPR† + ChatGPT1.74.115.821.410.918.113.718.710.515.6
DPR† + Alpaca-13B (Taori et al., 2023)2.28.412.021.512.621.215.927.110.719.5
DPR† + Vicuna-13B (Chiang et al., 2023)2.27.418.625.823.927.620.327.916.222.1
DPR† + WizardLM-13B (Xu et al., 2023)3.510.019.928.422.827.524.232.217.624.5
DPR† + InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)4.811.626.334.823.327.134.441.622.228.8
LLM-only methods on ChatGPT
Zero-Shot3.17.322.430.018.721.731.637.519.024.1
Self-Prompting (Li et al., 2022)2.96.223.831.218.923.526.832.618.123.4
GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023)8.614.633.242.630.435.333.740.126.533.2
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.08.822.629.624.327.130.336.220.625.4
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.113.626.136.326.230.229.938.422.629.6
Manual-CoT (random) (Wei et al., 2023)12.319.232.443.727.734.636.643.027.335.1
SP-CoT (Ours)14.522.633.242.930.134.737.543.628.836.0
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.452, + 0.489, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(10\\%\\) for negative ones. Then we reform a new reasoning chain by the generated binary question together with its previous question hops and add it to the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.49, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 4: Multi-Hop Question Generation Now we need to generate multi-hop questions, to which the previously generated question chains serve as their intermediate reasoning steps. For each question chain, we iteratively replace the answer \\( a_{i} \\) to an intermediate question \\( q_{i} \\) in the next-hop question \\( q_{i + 1} \\) by \\( [q_i] \\) until the last question \\( q_{n} \\) is replaced, which indicates a relative clause. Then we leverage the LLM to reform it into a natural multi-hop question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.694, + 0.49, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After the pipeline above, we construct a high quality ODMR dataset with 2-4 hops, including the overall multi-hop question, the decomposed reasoning chains with detailed QA quadruplets. With the double-check in generation and the composability criteria, we automatically build a high quality new dataset. Detailed prompt templates are presented in Figure 3 and Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.441, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Adaptive In-context Demonstration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this stage, we sample multi-hop questions from our generated ODMR dataset as in-context demonstrations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Clustering-based Retrieval Some previous" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.452, + 0.885, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "works (Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) have shown that clustering-based methods benefit from the diversity of demonstrations. We adopt a clustering-based retrieval approach to adaptively sample in-context demonstrations for the input question. First, all the questions are projected to a high dimension hidden space by encoding with Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Suppose we need \\( n \\) in-context demonstrations. Given a test question \\( Q \\), we use \\( k \\)-means to cluster the question embeddings into \\( n \\) clusters and adaptively retrieve the question with the highest cosine similarity to \\( Q \\) from each cluster." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.886, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Build Reasoning Chain For each sampled example, we sequentially concatenate the explanation from each hop, prefaced by \"Step \\(\\{i\\} : \"\\), to construct a reasoning chain." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.743, + 0.657, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.772, + 0.766, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our research questions (RQs) are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.789, + 0.883, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RQ1: To what extent can SP-CoT boost the LLMs on our four ODMR benchmarks, compared with other LLM-only methods?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.883, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RQ2: Is SP-CoT generally effective on recent popular instruction-following LLMs?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To this end, we conduct experiments on four MHQA datasets that require complex multi-step reasoning and compare different methods across" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2722" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: The performance (EM) of our method on recent popular LLMs. We use text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On small-scale LLMs, SP-CoT nearly doubles the average zero-shot performance on four MHQA benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.121, + 0.875, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelSizeMethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQMeanBoost
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BZero-shot0.99.512.512.68.9-
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT5.319.817.826.517.48.5↑
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.311.518.118.312.6-
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT8.523.322.032.221.58.9↑
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.010.313.617.510.9-
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT7.324.027.231.322.511.6↑
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BZero-shot4.425.622.838.622.9-
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BSP-CoT14.837.433.746.633.110.2↑
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.259, + 0.236, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "different LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.288, + 0.449, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Benchmarks and Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.309, + 0.489, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We choose the following four MHQA datasets: CWebQ, HotpotQA, 2Wiki and MSQ. We set them as ODMR benchmarks by taking only the question and the answer in each example. Dataset introduction and statistics are detailed in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.391, + 0.489, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We adopt the exact match (EM) and F1 scores as our evaluation metrics. Based on the evaluation script of Karpukhin et al. (2020), we add a preprocessing step which ignores the content within \"()\" and splits the answer strings by certain delimiters to extract multiple answers." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.501, + 0.321, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experiment Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.523, + 0.489, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For reference, we experiment with fine-tuning methods using an extra corpus, which are finetuned on the training split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset and most of them adopt the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. We also test our implementation of the retrieval-based methods on most recent LLMs for reference. Specifically, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Detailed prompt templates and parameter settings are provided in the Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.733, + 0.489, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unless otherwise specified, we use SentenceBERT (all-mptnet-base-v2) for question encoding following previous works. The default number of in-context demonstrations is 8 and the demonstrations are sampled by the maximum cosine similarity of questions in each cluster." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.83, + 0.49, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For RQ1, we adopt ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) as the LLM to conduct the following experiments. According to OpenAI,3 gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 is an improvement on the InstructGPT text" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.259, + 0.883, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "davinci-003 model, which performs at a similar capability level to text-davinci-003 for inference. We use the whole development set of each dataset in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.323, + 0.884, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For RQ2, we not only test InstructGPT (text-davinci-003), but also employ three smaller-scale (13B) LLMs: Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023), Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) and WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023), which are LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) models fine-tuned on different large-scale instruction-following datasets. To save computational cost, we conduct this experiment on subsets of the four datasets by randomly selecting 1000 samples from the test sets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.496, + 0.712, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Experiment Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The main results of RQ1 are shown in Table 1. Even with extra corpus, the models fine-tuned on NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) present poor performance due to the inherent challenges of MHQA. With the same Retriever model, the performance of retrieval-based methods depends largely on the LLM Readers. Compared to previous LLM-only works, our SP-CoT significantly outperforms the Auto-CoT by \\(+6.2\\) EM and \\(+6.4\\) F1 scores on average and surpasses the previous SOTA method GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) by \\(+2.3\\) EM and \\(+2.8\\) F1 scores on average. On the most challenging benchmark MSQ, SP-CoT empowers ChatGPT to outperform other LLM-only methods by a decent margin." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We notice that SP-CoT significantly outperforms GENREAD on MSQ, confirming the effectiveness of providing high quality CoTs as in-context demonstrations for complex multi-hop questions. On the other three datasets, SP-CoT delivers comparable performance with GENREAD. However, GENREAD relies heavily on the generation faithfulness of LLMs, which is challenging for small-scale LLMs. By breaking down demanding instructions into step-by-step simple ones, our method" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.315, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://platform.openai.com" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2723" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The performance (EM) of different methods of demonstration selection. The results from random selection represent the mean value and standard deviation obtained from 3 runs, each with a different seed." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.121, + 0.772, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Random12.0±0.829.5±0.625.6±1.234.3±0.925.4±0.3
Retrieve10.527.924.333.524.1
ClusterCenter10.426.222.833.023.1
RetrieveInTypeCluster11.628.723.535.324.8
RetrieveInCluster11.530.927.834.026.1
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.226, + 0.465, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.386, + 0.49, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Average EM and F1 scores of different numbers of in-context demonstrations. The experiments are tested on 1k subsets of four ODMR benchmarks with ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.47, + 0.489, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is more applicable to small-scale LLMs, which is validated by Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.504, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 presents the results for RQ2. Our proposed SP-CoT proves to be generally effective by significantly boosting the performance of all these four LLMs on all four benchmarks. With SP-CoT, the performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs can be boosted to be on par with directly prompting LLMs that are over \\(10 \\times\\) larger, regardless of the elicited high quality intermediate reasoning steps." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.647, + 0.225, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.675, + 0.49, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we explore the choices of the sampling methods and the number of demonstrations. Then we examine the quality of the intermediate reasoning steps elicited by SP-CoT and the quality of self-generation data. Unless otherwise specified, we use ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) to conduct analysis on the same subsets mentioned in RQ2 settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.817, + 0.452, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Methods of Demonstration Sampling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The performance of ICL depends largely on the quality of demonstration sampling. We test the effectiveness of the following five strategies: randomly sampling (Random), sampling globally by maximum cosine similarity (Retrieve), sampling" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.226, + 0.868, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.386, + 0.885, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Evaluation results of the CoT generated by three methods. The first four scores are in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility (Comp.) and directness given by GPT-4 on 50 examples. The recall accuracy of intermediate answers (IA Recall) is reported on the questions that are correctly answered by all 3 methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.885, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the closest to the centroid in each cluster (ClusterCenter), sampling by the maximum cosine similarity in each cluster (RetrieveInCluster) and sampling the most similar QAs in each cluster in a certain reasoning type (RetrieveInTypeCluster). The reasoning type of the input question is determined by the most frequent reasoning type of its k-nearest neighbors. As indicated in Table 3, RetrieveInCluster (Li et al., 2022) is the best-performing strategy, which is exactly the strategy we adopt in previous experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.704, + 0.824, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Impact of Demonstration Amount" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Providing more in-context demonstrations empirically improves ICL performance; however, it also causes increasing computational cost. To this end, we investigate the trade-offs of number of demonstrations and the resulting performance boost. We report the EM and F1 scores over the four benchmarks for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 in-context demonstrations, as well as the scores in a zero-shot setting. As illustrated in Figure 4, the performance of SP-CoT increases with the number of demonstrations when the count is between 2 and 8; however, using 10 demonstrations doesn't yield any further" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2724" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance boost. In our main experiments, we opted for 8 as the default number of demonstrations, striking a balance between performance and cost." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.162, + 0.484, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Intermediate Reasoning Quality Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.184, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the high-quality CoTs constructed by our proposed SP-CoT, we investigate the quality of intermediate reasoning steps generated during inference. For this analysis, we use the development set of MSQ, as it's the most challenging of the four datasets and offers decomposed step-by-step QAs. We compare the CoTs generated by Zero-shot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT during inference. For fairness, we select 50 out of a total of 59 questions that all of the three methods answered correctly. First, we use GPT-4 to evaluate4 the intermediate reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility and directness separately on a scale of 1 to 10. Additionally, we compute the recall accuracy of intermediate answers co-occurring in the reasoning steps of each method. For fairness, we only report the intermediate answer recall accuracy of correctly answered questions for each method. As depicted in Figure 5, GPT-4 highly favors our SP-CoT, which achieves nearly a \\(50\\%\\) recall accuracy for intermediate answers. This suggests that SP-CoT elicits high-quality reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility, and directness." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.585, + 0.248, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.611, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we harness the capabilities of LLMs combined with self-prompted CoTs to tackle the intricate MHQA task within the open-domain context, termed as ODMR. Our innovative SP-CoT not only sets a new benchmark by surpassing preceding CoT prompting techniques but also outclasses the erstwhile SOTA LLM-only methodologies in open-domain question-answering. A distinguishing feature of SP-CoT is its proficiency in eliciting high-caliber intermediate reasoning steps, and its universal efficacy across both large and small-scale LLMs. We anticipate our innovative self-generation pipeline for ODMR to not just be foundational for SP-CoT, but also to pave the way for future research, catalyzing a shift towards leveraging self-generation in LLMs, by LLMs, and for LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.682, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400) and under the technical support of National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2021YFC3340700). Our appreciation also extends to Ms. Yangyang Ding, who has been generous with her time and knowledge, offering constructive criticism and enriching discussions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.285, + 0.615, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.318, + 0.885, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed method (SP-CoT) leverages the strong instruction-following power of LLMs. Such capability is easy to acquire through instruction fine-tuning for small-scale LLMs (even 7B), however, some LLMs proposed in early years may show poor capability in following human instructions due to lack of corresponding training before their release. Therefore, the performance of such LLMs may not be boosted by our proposed SP-CoT. In fact, we did not succeed in boosting the performance of GPT-NeoX by any of Zeroshot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT. GPT-NeoX is a 20B LLMs released in early 2022, which shows poor instruction-following capability. Please note that neither GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) nor Self-prompting (Li et al., 2022) boosts the performance of GPT-NeoX." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.884, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is acknowledged that the efficacy of LLM-only approaches is predominantly reliant on the LLMs themselves. With smaller-scale LLMs, specifically those of 13B scale, our SP-CoT together with other CoT methodologies, demonstrate comparable or similar performance enhancement across four ODMR benchmarks as presented in Table 6. The consistent performance of handcrafted CoTs remains ambivalent across different LLMs and benchmarks; our empirical observations indicate that Manual-CoT occasionally outperforms SP-CoT, while at other instances, it does not." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the potential for LLMs to generate imprecise information, the process by which our SP-CoT produces datasets might also result in the emergence of inaccurate QA pairs as well as erroneous explanations. Despite the incorporation of a double-check mechanism to ensure data integrity, certain errors and inaccuracies are inevitably present." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4Script from https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat and modified." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2725" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Steven Bird and Edward Loper. 2004. NLTK: The natural language toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pages 214-217, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.181, + 0.49, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.49, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with \\(90\\%\\) * chatgpt quality." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.421, + 0.49, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.73, + 0.489, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond i.i.d.: Three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.804, + 0.489, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multihop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pages 6609-6625, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.126, + 0.883, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yichen Jiang, Shikha Bordia, Zheng Zhong, Charles Dognin, Maneesh Singh, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Hover: A dataset for many-hop fact extraction and claim verification." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.192, + 0.884, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.298, + 0.884, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.403, + 0.884, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2023. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.456, + 0.884, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.588, + 0.884, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.68, + 0.884, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junlong Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Self-prompting large language models for open-domain qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08635." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.733, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vaibhav Mavi, Anubhav Jangra, and Adam Jatowt. 2022. A survey on multi-hop question answering and generation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.786, + 0.773, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2726" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.49, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.264, + 0.49, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418-5426, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.352, + 0.487, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.489, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.464, + 0.489, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.553, + 0.489, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Musique: Multi-hop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539-554." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.628, + 0.489, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022. Iteratively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.678, + 0.489, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.741, + 0.489, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.489, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.152, + 0.884, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. In International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.243, + 0.883, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.296, + 0.883, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.349, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2023. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.623, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.458, + 0.661, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) HotpotQA is a widely used dataset for multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which contains 113k multi-hop questions in natural language. The questions are collected by crowdsourcing based on Wikipedia articles with human annotated supporting evidence and answers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.593, + 0.884, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2WikiMultiHopQA (Ho et al., 2020) 2WikiMultiHopQA s a recently proposed large-scale MHQA dataset, which contains over 192k samples constructed jointly from Wikipedia and Wikidata." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.659, + 0.884, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MuSiQue-Ans (Trivedi et al., 2022) MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) is a recent challenging MHQA dataset created via single-hop question composition. It includes 25k 2-4 hop questions with six different composition structures. Although MSQ is composed from existing datasets, it poses \\(3 \\times\\) the human-machine gap with a substantially lower disconnected reasoning score." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.789, + 0.884, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ComplexWebQuestions (Talmor and Berant, 2018) ComplexWebQuestions is a manually generated MHQA dataset of 35k QA pairs. CWebQ is generated by rephrasing questions generated by machine from existing dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.881, + 0.631, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Statistics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The statistics of four datasets are shown in Table 4." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2727" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.082, + 0.488, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Statistics of development set of four MHQA benchmarks, average tokens for questions, answers and average number of reasoning steps. CWebQ does not provide supporting evidence or question decomposition." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.15, + 0.469, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MSQHotpotQACWebQ2Wiki
Q len.18.1115.8313.3711.98
A len.2.82.462.422.41
Steps2.652.68-2.47
Size24177405351912576
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.239, + 0.312, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Prompt Templates" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.268, + 0.367, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 First-Hop QA Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.29, + 0.489, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We following the notations described in Section 3. The templates are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.34, + 0.352, + 0.356 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Name {Number} {Topic}:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.371, + 0.466, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Generate a Wikipedia passage about \\(\\{k_1\\}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.402, + 0.486, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Passage about \\(\\{k_1\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Generate a question to which the answer is the entity \\(\\{a_1\\}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.466, + 0.486, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Passage about \\(\\{k_1\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Question:\\n\\(\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.529, + 0.488, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Passage about \\(\\{k_{1}\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Question: \\(\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{q_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Answer: \\(\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{a_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.34, + 0.488, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.626, + 0.385, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.2 Second-Hop QA Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.649, + 0.465, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Generate a Wikipedia passage about \\(\\{k_2\\}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.681, + 0.487, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Passage about \\(\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Generate a question that meets the following conditions: 1. contains the term '\\{k_2\\}' in question, 2. the answer is \\(\\{a_2\\}\\), 3. Avoid the following entities in the question: \\(\\{k_2\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.776, + 0.486, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Passage about \\(\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Question:\\n\\(\\{q_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Passage about \\(\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Question: \\(\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Answer: \\(\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{a_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.649, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.782, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.3 Binary Question Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.108, + 0.882, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Question: \\(\\{q_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}\\): \\(\\{a_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nReform}\\) the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with yes:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.17, + 0.882, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Question: \\(\\{q_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}\\): \\(\\{a_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nReform}\\) the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with no:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.108, + 0.882, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.234, + 0.811, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.4 Multi-Hop Question Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.257, + 0.882, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Raw question: \\(\\{q_{n}\\} \\backslash n\\) Replace the sentence within [] with a relative clause and make the raw question into a natural question:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.321, + 0.701, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.5 CoT Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.343, + 0.884, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suppose \\(q^{*}\\) is the generated multi-hop question, \\(e_i\\) denotes the explanation from intermediate hop \\((q_{i}, a_{i}, e_{i})\\), \\(a^{*}\\) is the answer of the last hop \\((a^{*} = a_{n})\\). The template is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.424, + 0.884, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Question: \\(\\{q^{*}\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}\\): Let's think step by step:\\nStep 1: \\(\\{e_1\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nStep2}\\): \\(\\{e_2\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{n}\\) ... Therefore, the answer in just one entity is: \\(\\{a^{*}\\}\\)," + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.487, + 0.634, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.6 Inference" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.51, + 0.65, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.6.1 Zero-shot" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.531, + 0.851, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a question \\(Q\\), the inference template is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.563, + 0.882, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Answer the following question with just one entity:\\nQuestion: \\(\\{Q\\}\\) \\nAnswer:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.61, + 0.636, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.6.2 SP-CoT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.632, + 0.882, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suppose we have the input question \\(Q\\) and 2 demonstrations \\((q_{1},r_{1},a_{1})\\), \\((q_{2},r_{2},a_{2})\\), where \\(q_{i}\\), \\(r_{i}\\), \\(a_{i}\\) denote the question, CoT and answer of the \\(i^{th}\\) demonstration. The inference template is:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.712, + 0.882, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Question: \\(\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{r_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Question: \\(\\{q_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) \\(\\{r_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Question: \\(\\{Q\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\) Answer: Let's think step by step:\\n" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.789, + 0.724, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Experiment Settings" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.817, + 0.701, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1 Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section is the experiment settings on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) only, for more settings of other LLMs used in our experiments, please see our code. Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2728" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Performance (EM/F1) of additional CoT variants. In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.15, + 0.853, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Zero-shot3.1/7.322.4/30.018.7/21.731.6/37.519.0/24.1
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.0/8.822.6/29.624.3/27.130.3/36.220.6/25.4
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)12.3/19.232.4/43.727.7/34.636.6/43.027.3/35.1
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)13.7/21.933.9/44.731.5/38.637.2/44.029.1/37.3
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.1/13.626.1/36.326.2/30.229.9/38.322.6/29.6
SP-CoT (Ours)14.5/22.633.2/42.930.1/34.737.5/43.628.8/36.0
SP-CoT + Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023)18.3/28.3-/--/-47.1/54.0-/-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.262, + 0.884, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: The performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of test sets. We use gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 for ChatGPT and text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On smaller-scale (13B) LLMs, CoT methods achieve comparable performance boost on four MHQA benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.314, + 0.89, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodChatGPTInstructGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizard-13B
Zero-shot20.822.98.912.610.9
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)28.733.118.023.724.7
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)26.332.417.722.024.0
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)21.231.416.921.323.3
SP-CoT (Ours)26.133.117.421.522.5
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.415, + 0.305, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1.1 System message" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.488, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"You should use your knowledge to answer the question to the best of your ability, not refuse to answer, even though you know your knowledge is sometimes out of date. If some references are uncertain, answer all possible cases rather than requesting further information.\"" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.539, + 0.283, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1.2 Temperature" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.558, + 0.489, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In most cases, the default temperature is set to 0 for obtaining a most deterministic response. When we ask ChatGPT to name some terms or to generation a question, the temperature is set to 1.0 for more diversity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.648, + 0.216, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2 LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The 13B LLMs used in our experiments are from Huggingface Hub, use chavinlo/gpt4-x-alpaca for Alpaca-13B, TheBloke/wizard-vicuna-13B-HF for Vicuna-13B and TheBloke/wizardLM-13B-1.0-fp16 for WizardLM-13B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.777, + 0.363, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Additional Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.802, + 0.394, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.1 Comparison of CoT Variants" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To provide a more comprehensive picture of current CoT methods on ODQA, we report hereby (Table 5) the performance of additional CoT variants, including Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) and Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022) on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.885, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.884, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is orthogonal to existing CoT methods, including SP-CoT. Although Self-Consistency boosts the performance of SP-CoT to a higher level (10%-30% increase for 5 runs), it's worth noting that the cost of Self-Consistency is also 5 times higher." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 6, we report the performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of the test sets. The scores are the average EM scores on 4 ODMR benchmarks. Although Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) outperforms Automated methods, it requires high quality human-labeled CoTs, which is not always accessible in real world applications. Since the cherry-picked CoTs take the dataset features in to consideration, we consider their results as the theoretical upper limit of automated approaches. Compared to previously automatic SOTA method (Auto-CoT), our proposed SP-CoT shows a decent performance boost in most cases." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2729" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: The scale and average hops of each ODMR dataset generated in this paper. Please note that the scale and the average hops are largely decided by the self-generation setting and the duplication control process." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.121, + 0.777, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ChatGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizardLM-13B
Number of Samples3550135415621604
Avg. Number of Hops3.042.822.923.16
Avg. Question tokens34.6125.3531.0534.30
Avg. Answer tokens1.861.992.021.91
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.209, + 0.325, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D.2 SP-CoT on GrailQA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.231, + 0.488, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report our experiment of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021). According to our ODMR setting, no external knowledge is provided to LLMs. From the results below, we notice that our proposed SP-CoT is effective on GrailQA, our results on InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) are presented in Table 8." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.489, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Performance of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.394, + 0.486, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodEMF1
Zero-shot12.924.3
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)13.525.2
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)17.730.7
SP-CoT (Ours)16.028.2
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.486, + 0.406, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Constructed ODMR Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.512, + 0.317, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.1 Overview and scale" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.533, + 0.49, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For better understanding of the constructed ODMR datasets, we offer a well-designed figure (Figure 6) to illustrate the six types of generated questions and their step-by-step decomposition. The scale of the generated ODMR datasets is about 1-4k (Table 7), however, it's largely dependent by the self-generation setting (how many examples to generate?) and the Duplication Control process in Stage 2 Step 2 (How many examples to keep?) To be more specific, the number of topic terms for self-generation decides the scale of generated 2-hop question pairs, and the level of duplication (how many existing question hops are allowed when constructing a new reasoning chain) decides the scale of the remaining examples after filtering." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.786, + 0.215, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.2 Topics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The 29 manually designed topics for generation are: politicians, athletes, sports teams, sports events, countries, cities, historical figures, historical events, wars, religions, singers, songs, actors or actresses, movies or TV series, writers, books, painters, paintings, composers, classical music, tourist attractions, scientists, scientific terms, video" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.21, + 0.884, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "games, animals, plants, foods, enterprises, international organizations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.252, + 0.686, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.3 Quality Control" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.273, + 0.884, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To ensure the self-generation quality, two mechanisms are included in our proposed method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.305, + 0.884, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-validation in self-generation: To ensure the quality of generated QA pairs, we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question given the generated context and double-check If the generated answer is accordant with the target answer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.402, + 0.884, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Composability criteria in composition: Two single-hop QA pairs \\((q_{1},a_{1})\\) and \\((q_{2},a_{2})\\) are composable into a multi-hop question \\(Q\\) with \\(a_2\\) as a valid answer if \\(a_1\\) is a named entity and it is mentioned in \\(q_{2}\\). Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use it for connecting more questions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.525, + 0.848, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.4 Composition rather than Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.881, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Directly generating k-hop questions will produce many highly-duplicated reasoning chains, which is less effective than composition with 2-hop QAs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.884, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Take a connected 3-hop QAs as example: \\((Q_{1},A_{1})\\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\\to (Q_{3},A_{3})\\) , where \\(A_{1}\\) in \\(Q_{2}\\) \\(A_{2}\\) in \\(Q_{3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.643, + 0.883, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suppose there are 2 valid next-hop QAs \\((Q_{4},A_{4})\\) and \\((Q_{5},A_{5})\\) for \\((Q_{3},A_{3})\\). Now we have 2 generated 4-hop reasoning chains: \\((Q_{1},A_{1})\\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\\rightarrow (Q_{4},A_{4})\\) and \\((Q_{1},A_{1})\\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\\rightarrow\\) \\((Q_{5},A_{5})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.739, + 0.884, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which are highly-duplicated. When directly generating k-hop reasoning chains, the number of highly-duplicated chains will increase exponentially and such chains will be filtered out in the Duplication Control Process (Stage 2, Step 2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.82, + 0.884, + 0.914 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, when there are more than 2 question hops in one reasoning chain, more effort should be made to ensure direct acyclic graphs (DAGs). An example of cyclic reasoning chain is \\((Q_{1},A_{1})\\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\\to (Q_{1},A_{1})\\), which should be avoided." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2730" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.119, + 0.86, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
GraphQADecomposition
○→○Q: What is another common name for some members of the genus to which daffodils belong, besides daffodil? \nA: Jonquil1. Q: What is the genus to which daffodils belong? \nA: Narcissus \n2. Q: What is another common name for some members of the Narcissus genus besides daffodil? \nA: Jonquil
○→○→○Q: Who held the titles of King of the French and The Duke of Orleans during the year when John Lindley first described the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? \nA: Louis Philippe1. Q: What is the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? \nA: Scilloideae \n2. Q: In what year was the subfamily Scilloideae first described by John Lindley? \nA: 1830 \n3. Q: Who became King of the French in 1830 and also held the title of The Duke of Orleans? \nA: Louis Philippe
○Q: Which country, commonly visited by ships traveling from Europe and where most species of roses are native to, is located south of the remote island where Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled and eventually died? \nA: South Africa1. Q: Where are most species of roses native to? \nA: Asia \n2. Q: To which remote island was Napoleon Bonaparte exiled and where did he eventually die? \nA: Saint Helena \n3. Q: What country is located south of Saint Helena and was a common destination for ships traveling from Asia and Europe? \nA: South Africa
○→○→○Q: What work did the person who shared credit with the father of the biblical figure referenced in the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" defend his optimism in, while also famously contributing to the development of infinitesimal calculus with Newton? \nA: Theodicy1. Q: Who is the biblical figure that the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" references? \nA: Jacob \n2. Q: Who was the father of Jacob? \nA: Isaac \n3. Q: Who shares credit with Isaac Newton for developing the infinitesimal calculus? \nA: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz \n4. Q: What work did Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz famously defend his optimism in? \nA: Theodicy
○→○Q: What body of water separates the country that is a key ally of the country that Iraq launched Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, from Canada? \nA: the Atlantic Ocean1. Q: What country did Iraq launch Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, and why is this relevant to the conflict? \nA: Israel \n2. Q: What is the native region of Carrot? \nA: the Middle East \n3. Q: What is the name of the country that is a key ally of Israel in the Middle East? \nA: the United States \n4. Q: What body of water separates the United States from Canada? \nA: the Atlantic Ocean
○→○Q: What is the name of the town in the country that is the largest in South America after the country where Lionel Messi represents in international football competitions where Tom Brady's wife was born? \nA: Très de Maio1. Q: Which country does Lionel Messi represent in international football competitions? \nA: Argentina \n2. Q: What is the largest country in South America after Argentina? \nA: Brazil \n3. Q: What is the name of the model that Tom Brady is married to? \nA: Gisele Bündchen \n4. Q: What is the name of the town in Brazil where Gisele Bündchen was born? \nA: Très de Maio
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.861, + 0.883, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: The illustration of six reasoning types in our automated dataset construction pipeline. These selected examples are self-generated by ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301), Vicuna-13B and WizardLM-13B." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2731" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be2b11a3446b62e74fcd6adf4270ada42ece57ae --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/a17aeaa2-dcfd-44eb-b9fa-cbe1fbd08f03_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:758e6c9a1f86be71a93b88c0d7fc9ee61854996b4c9b18e5960880605c730bbc +size 862372 diff --git a/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/full.md b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b63d15571c3d991eb366511421a6e404a50b974 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,457 @@ +# Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning + +Jinyuan Wang $^{1,3}$ and Junlong Li $^{2,3}$ and Hai Zhao $^{2,3*}$ + +$^{1}$ SJTU-Paris Elite Institute of Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University + +$^{2}$ Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University + +3Key Laboratory of Shanghai Education Commission for Intelligent Interaction and Cognitive Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University + +{steve_wang,lockonn}@sjtu.edu.cn,zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +In open-domain question-answering (ODQA), most existing questions require single-hop reasoning on commonsense. To further extend this task, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) by answering multi-hop questions with explicit reasoning steps in open-domain setting. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have found significant utility in facilitating ODQA without external corpus. Furthermore, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting boosts the reasoning capability of LLMs to a greater extent with manual or automated paradigms. However, existing automated methods lack of quality assurance, while manual approaches suffer from limited scalability and poor diversity, hindering the capabilities of LLMs. In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an automated framework to mass-produce high quality CoTs of LLMs, by LLMs and for LLMs. SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of high quality ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for in-context CoT selection and self-prompted inference via in-context learning. Extensive experiments on four multihop question-answering benchmarks show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on largescale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs. Further analysis reveals the remarkable capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling $\sim 50\%$ of intermediate answers on MuSiQue-Ans dataset. + +# 1 Introduction + +Open-domain question-answering (ODQA) is a longstanding and challenging task which addresses factoid commonsense questions without specific + +contexts provided. While existing works in ODQA primarily focus on resolving questions that mostly require single-hop reasoning, there is a burgeoning interest in multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which aims to derive the correct answer through multi-step reasoning over a collection of candidate articles (Mavi et al., 2022). Yet, a significant disparity exists between such scenarios and real-world applications, since the latter often lacks an explicit set of candidate articles provided by users. In light of this, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) as a progression task of ODQA, which requires MHQA with explicit rationales in open-domain setting. + +For ODMR, an emerging approach is to leverage large language models (LLMs) due to the vast knowledge stored within their numerous parameters. In recent years, LLMs have shown powerful reasoning and instruction-following capabilities, such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). After extensive training on vast corpora of textual data, LLMs prove to be zero-shot reasoners on complex reasoning tasks by breaking down multi-step questions into intermediate ones for step-by-step reasoning before producing the final answer (Kojima et al., 2023). Such series of intermediate reasoning steps is known as chain-of-thoughts (CoTs) (Wei et al., 2023). CoTs often serve as in-context demonstrations for in-context learning (ICL) (Brown et al., 2020), which enables LLMs to generate outputs that are formally consistent with a target task via a few reference examples provided as prompt. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) adopt manually designed CoTs as in-context demonstrations to improve the reasoning performance of LLMs. However, it demands delicate and meticulous design by humans, and the demonstrations are the same for each question, which may be sub-optimal. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) was proposed to trigger automated CoTs + +by certain specific prompting techniques, such as "Let's think step by step:". Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs and build in-context demonstrations. However, previous works have not fully leveraged the strong instruction-following and zero-shot reasoning capabilities of LLMs. + +In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an LLM-only framework to mass-produce high-quality CoTs for ODMR. In general, SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. The automated ODMR datasets are MHQA datasets without candidate contexts, yet including multi-hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains and step-by-step decomposition. Each intermediate QA step is equipped with a short explanation to justify the answer. By leveraging the ICL ability of LLMs, our method is generally effective on LLMs of different scales. + +We evaluate our method on four MHQA datasets in an open-domain setting: ComplexWebQuestions (CWebQ) (Talmor and Berant, 2018), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), 2WikiMultiHopQA (2Wiki) (Ho et al., 2020) and MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) (Trivedi et al., 2022). Extensive experiments show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on large-scale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance on small-scale (13B) LLMs in ODMR. Further analysis reveals the outstanding capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling $\sim 50\%$ of intermediate answers on MSQ dataset. + +Our contributions can be summarized as follows: + +1. We introduce an automated pipeline to generate high-quality ODMR datasets by LLMs, which include 2-4 hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains. +2. We propose SP-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs while ensuring quality and diversity. +3. We conduct extensive experiments to confirm the effectiveness of SP-CoT on four ODMR benchmarks. In ODMR setting, our approach significantly boosts the performance by eliciting high-quality intermediate reasoning steps. + +Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT. + +# 2 Related Works + +# 2.1 Multi-Hop Dataset Creation + +Creating an annotated MHQA dataset manually requires significant human resources. Therefore, some researchers are dedicated to automating the generation of MHQA datasets. Jiang et al. (2020) elaborated the creation of a multi-hop fact verification dataset from existing HotpotQA dataset. Trivedi et al. (2022) introduced a bottom-up process to build challenging multi-hop reading comprehension QA dataset through meticulous selection and composition of single-hop questions derived from existing datasets. Press et al. (2023) proposed an automatically generated dataset with compositional 2-hop questions about celebrities. Nevertheless, existing approaches are either only partially automated, still requiring crowdsourcing, or they are limited to less complex 1-2 hop questions. In this work, our proposed SP-CoT is capable of automatically generating 2-4 hop questions with six different types of reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix). + +# 2.2 Chain-of-Thought Prompting + +Recent works on CoT prompting can be divided into two research lines. The first is prompting LLMs step by step to leverage their comprehension and reasoning abilities to answer questions. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) adopts a two-stage design, which requires LLMs to first generate intermediate rationale and then produce an answer. Wang et al. (2022) introduced iCAP, which iteratively prompts a fine-tuned small-scale LLM to generate CoTs and then combines the generated rationales to formulate answers. Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2023) requires LLMs to first decompose a complex question into sub-questions and then sequentially solve them to arrive at the final answer. + +The second research line focuses on designing effective CoT as demonstrations for ICL to release more powerful reasoning abilities of LLMs. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) was introduced to leverage manually designed CoT as in-context demonstrations to solve arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic problems. A recent work (Zelikman et al., 2022) shed light on the practicality to automate the generation of rationales by LLMs. Subsequently, Self-Ask (Press et al., 2023) was proposed to construct step-by-step demonstrations with explicit decision process and intermediate answers + +![](images/1fb809fb6074f8519d5915b5b2981f707c3cebcc3314b8973e53cf7128ebf0fd.jpg) +Figure 1: The overall framework of our proposed SP-CoT, including an automated generation of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. Texts highlighted in purple refer to questions, in red to previously generated CoTs, in orange to answers, and in green to newly generated contents. + +as CoT. Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, which automatically constructs CoTs via LLMs and adopts clustering methods to dynamically build demonstrations for each question. + +However, existing methods have two significant limitations: 1) Over-reliance on the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Most methods are reported effective on large-scale LLMs like InstructGPT, while reproducing these methods on small-scale LLMs is quite challenging. 2) Over-confidence on the quality of intermediate results. When prompting LLMs step by step, defects in previous steps may limit the performance of subsequent steps. Similarly, while automatically constructing in-context demonstrations, the effectiveness of ICL might be compromised by the unstable quality of CoTs. Admittedly, manually constructed CoTs can ensure quality, yet they face a trade-off between content diversity and costs. To overcome the above drawbacks, our proposed SP-CoT automates CoT generation with quality ensured by leveraging the strong instruction-following capability of LLMs. + +# 2.3 Model Enhancement via LLM Generation + +With the powerful capabilities of LLMs on content generation and instruction-following, one recent research direction extensively leverages the content generated by LLMs to enhance smaller LLMs. Recent works such as GPTeacher, $^{1}$ Al + +paca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) collect the content generated by GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) and the corresponding prompts to train smaller-scale LLMs to achieve comparable performance. Another research line aims to boost the performance of large-scale LLMs to higher levels by leveraging the self-generated content. Some works use the self-generation as contexts to assist themselves in answering questions, such as eliciting intermediate rationales as CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) or generating background articles for reading comprehension (Yu et al., 2023). While others instruct LLMs to generate demonstrations for ICL during inference (Zhang et al., 2022), such as prompting LLMs to generate reliable QA pairs as self-prompted in-context demonstrations (Li et al., 2022). Our work is dedicated to extending the second research line to ODMR by leveraging the automated self-generated CoT as in-context demonstrations. Compared to previous works (Kojima et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022), our work taps into the potential of self-prompting LLMs with more complicated framework design to solve a most challenging task. + +# 3 Methods + +In this section, we elaborate our proposed SP-CoT in three stages (Figure 1): + +In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplets with + +![](images/5441eda7b68ecca6049ec80a0f6fde4fab76093216542fae180c671c16ea0840.jpg) +Stage 1: 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation +Figure 2: Generation steps for 2-hop QA quadruplets. Each QA quadruplet comprises a question $q$ , its corresponding answer $a$ , and a context passage $p$ . The explanation $e$ includes the answer $a$ from the passage $p$ to address the question $q$ . Text highlighted in orange refers to previously generated content, while the response of the LLM is highlighted in green. + +context, question, answer and explanation. + +In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains by connecting 2-hop QA quadruplets and build an ODMR dataset via composition. + +In the last stage, we adopt clustering-based sampling approach to dynamically select and construct in-context demonstrations for inference. + +# 3.1 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation + +In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop QA quadruplets with context, question, answer and explanation, which is illustrated in Figure 2. Inspired by Li et al. (2022), we design a 2-hop commonsense QA generation pipeline, including the following 4 steps: + +Step 1: First-Hop Passage Generation To guarantee the comprehensive coverage of commonsense knowledge, we manually design 29 diverse topics based on the statistics of TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). For each topic, we require the LLM to name a certain number of keywords. For each collected keyword $k_{1}$ , we ask the LLM to generate a Wiki-style passage $p_{1}$ . Despite some factoid errors (Li et al., 2022), such generated passages contain sufficient factual information to serve as context for QA generation. + +Step 2: First-Hop QA Generation Given that the answers for commonsense questions are likely + +to be named entities, we use Spacy $^2$ and NLTK (Bird and Loper, 2004) libraries to extract the named entities in the passage $p_1$ as candidate answers. For each candidate answer $a_1$ , we require the LLM to raise a question $q_1$ to which the answer is $a_1$ based on the passage $p_1$ . To ensure the quality of $q_1$ , we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question $q_1$ given the context $p_1$ to check if the generated answer $a_1'$ is accordant with $a_1$ . Once the generated QA pair passes the double-check, we prompt the LLM to write a short explanation $e_1$ for it. Note that the candidate answers must exclude the keyword $(a_1 \neq k_1)$ because the answer in the first hop will become the keyword for the second hop $(k_2 = a_1, k_2 \neq k_1)$ . In addition to that, a valid explanation must contain the answer $(a_1 \in e_1)$ . + +Step 3: Second-Hop Passage Generation Before the first-hop answers are used as keywords for second-hop passage generation, we use Spacy to filter out the answers with certain labels (QUANTITY, ORDINAL, CARDINAL, PERCENT, MONEY, DATE, TIME), which are infeasible for Wiki-style passage generation. Given a keyword $k_{2}$ , we repeat the same prompts as described in Step 1 to generate the passage $p_{2}$ . + +Step 4: Second-Hop QA Generation We be + +![](images/69cb048a8843a4782a777dc57e7385e6aaca1544526812cae42e71826f5fde60.jpg) +Stage 2: Multi-Hop QAs via Composition +Figure 3: Generation steps for MHQA groups. In step 3 and step 4, we use 4 manually designed demonstrations for ICL. Each MHQA group includes a multi-hop question, the corresponding answer and decomposed QA quadruplets. Nodes and texts highlighted in red, blue and green successively refer to the last hops, intermediate hops and generated hops. Manually designed texts are highlighted in purple. + +gin with extracting candidate answers in the generated passage $p_2$ while blocking the keyword $k_1$ and the answer $a_1$ (also known as $k_2$ ) in the first-hop QA to avoid cyclic graphs. For each candidate answer $a_2$ , we require the LLM to generate a question $q_2$ which contains the first-hop answer $a_1$ and can be answered by the candidate answer $a_2$ . We examine the quality of $q_2$ with the same double-check in Step 2, and ensure the second-hop question $q_2$ contains the first-hop answer $a_1$ ( $a_1 \in q_2$ ) for connected reasoning. Then we repeat the same prompts in Step 2 to generate explanation $e_2$ . + +So far, we have instructed the LLM to generate a 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplet pair, which is $(p_1,q_1,a_1,e_1)\rightarrow (p_2,q_2,a_2,e_2)$ with $a_1\in q_2$ Detailed prompt templates are shown in Figure 2 and Appendix B. + +# 3.2 Multi-Hop QAs via Composition + +In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains with the connected 2-hop QA quadruplets, which is illustrated in Figure 3. We propose an automated dataset construction pipeline to build ODMR datasets with 2-4 hops, which has the following 4 steps: + +Step 1: Reasoning Chain Composition To connect more questions, we follow the composability criteria (Trivedi et al., 2022), that is, two single-hop QA pairs $(q_{1},a_{1})$ and $(q_{2},a_{2})$ are composable into + +a multi-hop question $Q$ with $a_2$ as a valid answer if $a_1$ is a named entity and it is mentioned in $q_2$ . Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use this criterion for connecting more questions. We adopt 6 reasoning graphs with 2-4 hops to build 6 types of multi-hop reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix), and we ensure that in each reasoning chain: 1) the answer $a_i$ to an intermediate question $q_i$ will appear and ONLY appear in its next-hop question $q_{i+1}$ to avoid shortcuts; 2) the answer to the last question will NOT appear in any intermediate questions. + +Step 2: Duplication Control Built by rule-based composition, our new dataset has considerably similar reasoning chains that have duplicate intermediate questions. To ensure the diversity and simplicity of our dataset, we filter out the reasoning chains by a preset duplication degree which is defined by the number of questions that co-existed in other chains within the same reasoning type. + +Step 3: Binary Question Generation We notice that MHQA datasets also include general interrogative questions which should be answered by "Yes" or "No", rather than a named entity. Therefore, we leverage the LLM to reform the last QA $(q_{n},a_{n})$ of some reasoning chains to binary question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations. For each reasoning type, we randomly sample $10\%$ reasoning chains for positive question generation and + +Table 1: Comparison of different approaches on four MHQA benchmarks. The fine-tuning methods are fine-tuned on the train split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset. Among them, methods marked with "†" use the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. For retrieval-based methods, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Methods based on ChatGPT are performed by gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version. + +
MethodsMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
Fine-tuning methods with extra corpus
DPR† (Karpukhin et al., 2020)7.516.614.723.06.514.621.330.212.521.1
RAG† (Lewis et al., 2020)3.98.29.615.515.718.613.315.810.614.5
REALM† (Guu et al., 2020)3.78.515.322.05.19.621.127.311.316.9
T5-11B-SSM (Roberts et al., 2020)10.616.615.422.415.620.528.535.517.523.8
Retrieval-based methods with LLMs
DPR† + ChatGPT1.74.115.821.410.918.113.718.710.515.6
DPR† + Alpaca-13B (Taori et al., 2023)2.28.412.021.512.621.215.927.110.719.5
DPR† + Vicuna-13B (Chiang et al., 2023)2.27.418.625.823.927.620.327.916.222.1
DPR† + WizardLM-13B (Xu et al., 2023)3.510.019.928.422.827.524.232.217.624.5
DPR† + InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)4.811.626.334.823.327.134.441.622.228.8
LLM-only methods on ChatGPT
Zero-Shot3.17.322.430.018.721.731.637.519.024.1
Self-Prompting (Li et al., 2022)2.96.223.831.218.923.526.832.618.123.4
GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023)8.614.633.242.630.435.333.740.126.533.2
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.08.822.629.624.327.130.336.220.625.4
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.113.626.136.326.230.229.938.422.629.6
Manual-CoT (random) (Wei et al., 2023)12.319.232.443.727.734.636.643.027.335.1
SP-CoT (Ours)14.522.633.242.930.134.737.543.628.836.0
+ +$10\%$ for negative ones. Then we reform a new reasoning chain by the generated binary question together with its previous question hops and add it to the dataset. + +Step 4: Multi-Hop Question Generation Now we need to generate multi-hop questions, to which the previously generated question chains serve as their intermediate reasoning steps. For each question chain, we iteratively replace the answer $a_{i}$ to an intermediate question $q_{i}$ in the next-hop question $q_{i + 1}$ by $[q_i]$ until the last question $q_{n}$ is replaced, which indicates a relative clause. Then we leverage the LLM to reform it into a natural multi-hop question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations. + +After the pipeline above, we construct a high quality ODMR dataset with 2-4 hops, including the overall multi-hop question, the decomposed reasoning chains with detailed QA quadruplets. With the double-check in generation and the composability criteria, we automatically build a high quality new dataset. Detailed prompt templates are presented in Figure 3 and Appendix B. + +# 3.3 Adaptive In-context Demonstration + +In this stage, we sample multi-hop questions from our generated ODMR dataset as in-context demonstrations. + +Clustering-based Retrieval Some previous + +works (Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) have shown that clustering-based methods benefit from the diversity of demonstrations. We adopt a clustering-based retrieval approach to adaptively sample in-context demonstrations for the input question. First, all the questions are projected to a high dimension hidden space by encoding with Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Suppose we need $n$ in-context demonstrations. Given a test question $Q$ , we use $k$ -means to cluster the question embeddings into $n$ clusters and adaptively retrieve the question with the highest cosine similarity to $Q$ from each cluster. + +Build Reasoning Chain For each sampled example, we sequentially concatenate the explanation from each hop, prefaced by "Step $\{i\} : "$ , to construct a reasoning chain. + +# 4 Experiments + +Our research questions (RQs) are: + +RQ1: To what extent can SP-CoT boost the LLMs on our four ODMR benchmarks, compared with other LLM-only methods? + +RQ2: Is SP-CoT generally effective on recent popular instruction-following LLMs? + +To this end, we conduct experiments on four MHQA datasets that require complex multi-step reasoning and compare different methods across + +Table 2: The performance (EM) of our method on recent popular LLMs. We use text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On small-scale LLMs, SP-CoT nearly doubles the average zero-shot performance on four MHQA benchmarks. + +
ModelSizeMethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQMeanBoost
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BZero-shot0.99.512.512.68.9-
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT5.319.817.826.517.48.5↑
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.311.518.118.312.6-
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT8.523.322.032.221.58.9↑
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.010.313.617.510.9-
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT7.324.027.231.322.511.6↑
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BZero-shot4.425.622.838.622.9-
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BSP-CoT14.837.433.746.633.110.2↑
+ +different LLMs. + +# 4.1 Benchmarks and Evaluation Metrics + +We choose the following four MHQA datasets: CWebQ, HotpotQA, 2Wiki and MSQ. We set them as ODMR benchmarks by taking only the question and the answer in each example. Dataset introduction and statistics are detailed in Appendix A. + +We adopt the exact match (EM) and F1 scores as our evaluation metrics. Based on the evaluation script of Karpukhin et al. (2020), we add a preprocessing step which ignores the content within "()" and splits the answer strings by certain delimiters to extract multiple answers. + +# 4.2 Experiment Settings + +For reference, we experiment with fine-tuning methods using an extra corpus, which are finetuned on the training split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset and most of them adopt the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. We also test our implementation of the retrieval-based methods on most recent LLMs for reference. Specifically, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Detailed prompt templates and parameter settings are provided in the Appendix B. + +Unless otherwise specified, we use SentenceBERT (all-mptnet-base-v2) for question encoding following previous works. The default number of in-context demonstrations is 8 and the demonstrations are sampled by the maximum cosine similarity of questions in each cluster. + +For RQ1, we adopt ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) as the LLM to conduct the following experiments. According to OpenAI,3 gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 is an improvement on the InstructGPT text + +davinci-003 model, which performs at a similar capability level to text-davinci-003 for inference. We use the whole development set of each dataset in our experiments. + +For RQ2, we not only test InstructGPT (text-davinci-003), but also employ three smaller-scale (13B) LLMs: Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023), Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) and WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023), which are LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) models fine-tuned on different large-scale instruction-following datasets. To save computational cost, we conduct this experiment on subsets of the four datasets by randomly selecting 1000 samples from the test sets. + +# 4.3 Experiment Results + +The main results of RQ1 are shown in Table 1. Even with extra corpus, the models fine-tuned on NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) present poor performance due to the inherent challenges of MHQA. With the same Retriever model, the performance of retrieval-based methods depends largely on the LLM Readers. Compared to previous LLM-only works, our SP-CoT significantly outperforms the Auto-CoT by $+6.2$ EM and $+6.4$ F1 scores on average and surpasses the previous SOTA method GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) by $+2.3$ EM and $+2.8$ F1 scores on average. On the most challenging benchmark MSQ, SP-CoT empowers ChatGPT to outperform other LLM-only methods by a decent margin. + +We notice that SP-CoT significantly outperforms GENREAD on MSQ, confirming the effectiveness of providing high quality CoTs as in-context demonstrations for complex multi-hop questions. On the other three datasets, SP-CoT delivers comparable performance with GENREAD. However, GENREAD relies heavily on the generation faithfulness of LLMs, which is challenging for small-scale LLMs. By breaking down demanding instructions into step-by-step simple ones, our method + +Table 3: The performance (EM) of different methods of demonstration selection. The results from random selection represent the mean value and standard deviation obtained from 3 runs, each with a different seed. + +
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Random12.0±0.829.5±0.625.6±1.234.3±0.925.4±0.3
Retrieve10.527.924.333.524.1
ClusterCenter10.426.222.833.023.1
RetrieveInTypeCluster11.628.723.535.324.8
RetrieveInCluster11.530.927.834.026.1
+ +![](images/9236d824d41cea9987d003e8199d7713fb570f0a8f6d105cb3881113a297b63c.jpg) +Figure 4: Average EM and F1 scores of different numbers of in-context demonstrations. The experiments are tested on 1k subsets of four ODMR benchmarks with ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301). + +is more applicable to small-scale LLMs, which is validated by Table 2. + +Table 2 presents the results for RQ2. Our proposed SP-CoT proves to be generally effective by significantly boosting the performance of all these four LLMs on all four benchmarks. With SP-CoT, the performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs can be boosted to be on par with directly prompting LLMs that are over $10 \times$ larger, regardless of the elicited high quality intermediate reasoning steps. + +# 5 Analysis + +In this section, we explore the choices of the sampling methods and the number of demonstrations. Then we examine the quality of the intermediate reasoning steps elicited by SP-CoT and the quality of self-generation data. Unless otherwise specified, we use ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) to conduct analysis on the same subsets mentioned in RQ2 settings. + +# 5.1 Methods of Demonstration Sampling + +The performance of ICL depends largely on the quality of demonstration sampling. We test the effectiveness of the following five strategies: randomly sampling (Random), sampling globally by maximum cosine similarity (Retrieve), sampling + +![](images/0ff308996319c5849ecf66894fa33b14832c6ddb72503e7ebc6e9775e352cb29.jpg) +Figure 5: Evaluation results of the CoT generated by three methods. The first four scores are in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility (Comp.) and directness given by GPT-4 on 50 examples. The recall accuracy of intermediate answers (IA Recall) is reported on the questions that are correctly answered by all 3 methods. + +the closest to the centroid in each cluster (ClusterCenter), sampling by the maximum cosine similarity in each cluster (RetrieveInCluster) and sampling the most similar QAs in each cluster in a certain reasoning type (RetrieveInTypeCluster). The reasoning type of the input question is determined by the most frequent reasoning type of its k-nearest neighbors. As indicated in Table 3, RetrieveInCluster (Li et al., 2022) is the best-performing strategy, which is exactly the strategy we adopt in previous experiments. + +# 5.2 Impact of Demonstration Amount + +Providing more in-context demonstrations empirically improves ICL performance; however, it also causes increasing computational cost. To this end, we investigate the trade-offs of number of demonstrations and the resulting performance boost. We report the EM and F1 scores over the four benchmarks for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 in-context demonstrations, as well as the scores in a zero-shot setting. As illustrated in Figure 4, the performance of SP-CoT increases with the number of demonstrations when the count is between 2 and 8; however, using 10 demonstrations doesn't yield any further + +performance boost. In our main experiments, we opted for 8 as the default number of demonstrations, striking a balance between performance and cost. + +# 5.3 Intermediate Reasoning Quality Analysis + +Given the high-quality CoTs constructed by our proposed SP-CoT, we investigate the quality of intermediate reasoning steps generated during inference. For this analysis, we use the development set of MSQ, as it's the most challenging of the four datasets and offers decomposed step-by-step QAs. We compare the CoTs generated by Zero-shot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT during inference. For fairness, we select 50 out of a total of 59 questions that all of the three methods answered correctly. First, we use GPT-4 to evaluate4 the intermediate reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility and directness separately on a scale of 1 to 10. Additionally, we compute the recall accuracy of intermediate answers co-occurring in the reasoning steps of each method. For fairness, we only report the intermediate answer recall accuracy of correctly answered questions for each method. As depicted in Figure 5, GPT-4 highly favors our SP-CoT, which achieves nearly a $50\%$ recall accuracy for intermediate answers. This suggests that SP-CoT elicits high-quality reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility, and directness. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this work, we harness the capabilities of LLMs combined with self-prompted CoTs to tackle the intricate MHQA task within the open-domain context, termed as ODMR. Our innovative SP-CoT not only sets a new benchmark by surpassing preceding CoT prompting techniques but also outclasses the erstwhile SOTA LLM-only methodologies in open-domain question-answering. A distinguishing feature of SP-CoT is its proficiency in eliciting high-caliber intermediate reasoning steps, and its universal efficacy across both large and small-scale LLMs. We anticipate our innovative self-generation pipeline for ODMR to not just be foundational for SP-CoT, but also to pave the way for future research, catalyzing a shift towards leveraging self-generation in LLMs, by LLMs, and for LLMs. + +# Acknowledgements + +This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400) and under the technical support of National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2021YFC3340700). Our appreciation also extends to Ms. Yangyang Ding, who has been generous with her time and knowledge, offering constructive criticism and enriching discussions. + +# Limitations + +Our proposed method (SP-CoT) leverages the strong instruction-following power of LLMs. Such capability is easy to acquire through instruction fine-tuning for small-scale LLMs (even 7B), however, some LLMs proposed in early years may show poor capability in following human instructions due to lack of corresponding training before their release. Therefore, the performance of such LLMs may not be boosted by our proposed SP-CoT. In fact, we did not succeed in boosting the performance of GPT-NeoX by any of Zeroshot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT. GPT-NeoX is a 20B LLMs released in early 2022, which shows poor instruction-following capability. Please note that neither GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) nor Self-prompting (Li et al., 2022) boosts the performance of GPT-NeoX. + +It is acknowledged that the efficacy of LLM-only approaches is predominantly reliant on the LLMs themselves. With smaller-scale LLMs, specifically those of 13B scale, our SP-CoT together with other CoT methodologies, demonstrate comparable or similar performance enhancement across four ODMR benchmarks as presented in Table 6. The consistent performance of handcrafted CoTs remains ambivalent across different LLMs and benchmarks; our empirical observations indicate that Manual-CoT occasionally outperforms SP-CoT, while at other instances, it does not. + +Given the potential for LLMs to generate imprecise information, the process by which our SP-CoT produces datasets might also result in the emergence of inaccurate QA pairs as well as erroneous explanations. Despite the incorporation of a double-check mechanism to ensure data integrity, certain errors and inaccuracies are inevitably present. + +# References + +Steven Bird and Edward Loper. 2004. NLTK: The natural language toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pages 214-217, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. +Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\%$ * chatgpt quality. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. +Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond i.i.d.: Three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. ACM. +Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training. +Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multihop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, + +pages 6609-6625, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Yichen Jiang, Shikha Bordia, Zheng Zhong, Charles Dognin, Maneesh Singh, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Hover: A dataset for many-hop fact extraction and claim verification. +Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2023. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. +Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466. +Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474. +Junlong Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Self-prompting large language models for open-domain qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08635. +Vaibhav Mavi, Anubhav Jangra, and Adam Jatowt. 2022. A survey on multi-hop question answering and generation. +OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. + +Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418-5426, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions. +Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. +Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Musique: Multi-hop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539-554. +Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022. Iteratively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought. +Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. +Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions. +Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. + +In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. In International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR). +Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. +Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. +Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2023. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. + +# A Datasets + +# A.1 Introduction + +HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) HotpotQA is a widely used dataset for multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which contains 113k multi-hop questions in natural language. The questions are collected by crowdsourcing based on Wikipedia articles with human annotated supporting evidence and answers. + +2WikiMultiHopQA (Ho et al., 2020) 2WikiMultiHopQA s a recently proposed large-scale MHQA dataset, which contains over 192k samples constructed jointly from Wikipedia and Wikidata. + +MuSiQue-Ans (Trivedi et al., 2022) MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) is a recent challenging MHQA dataset created via single-hop question composition. It includes 25k 2-4 hop questions with six different composition structures. Although MSQ is composed from existing datasets, it poses $3 \times$ the human-machine gap with a substantially lower disconnected reasoning score. + +ComplexWebQuestions (Talmor and Berant, 2018) ComplexWebQuestions is a manually generated MHQA dataset of 35k QA pairs. CWebQ is generated by rephrasing questions generated by machine from existing dataset. + +# A.2 Statistics + +The statistics of four datasets are shown in Table 4. + +Table 4: Statistics of development set of four MHQA benchmarks, average tokens for questions, answers and average number of reasoning steps. CWebQ does not provide supporting evidence or question decomposition. + +
MSQHotpotQACWebQ2Wiki
Q len.18.1115.8313.3711.98
A len.2.82.462.422.41
Steps2.652.68-2.47
Size24177405351912576
+ +# B Prompt Templates + +# B.1 First-Hop QA Generation + +We following the notations described in Section 3. The templates are: + +1. Name {Number} {Topic}: +2. Generate a Wikipedia passage about $\{k_1\}$ . +3. Passage about $\{k_1\} : \backslash \mathsf{n}\{p_1\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Generate a question to which the answer is the entity $\{a_1\}$ . +4. Passage about $\{k_1\} : \backslash \mathsf{n}\{p_1\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\backslash \mathsf{n}$ Question:\n $\{q_1\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\backslash \mathsf{n}$ Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible. +5. Passage about $\{k_{1}\} : \backslash \mathsf{n}\{p_{1}\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Question: $\backslash \mathsf{n}\{q_{1}\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Answer: $\backslash \mathsf{n}\{a_{1}\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage. + +# B.2 Second-Hop QA Generation + +1. Generate a Wikipedia passage about $\{k_2\}$ . +2. Passage about $\{k_2\} : \backslash \mathsf{n}\{p_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Generate a question that meets the following conditions: 1. contains the term '\{k_2\}' in question, 2. the answer is $\{a_2\}$ , 3. Avoid the following entities in the question: $\{k_2\}$ +3. Passage about $\{k_2\} : \backslash \mathsf{n}\{p_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\backslash \mathsf{n}$ Question:\n $\{q_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\backslash \mathsf{n}$ Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible. +4. Passage about $\{k_2\} : \backslash \mathsf{n}\{p_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Question: $\backslash \mathsf{n}\{q_1\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Answer: $\backslash \mathsf{n}\{a_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage. + +# B.3 Binary Question Generation + +- Question: $\{q_n\} \backslash \mathrm{nAnswer}$ : $\{a_n\} \backslash \mathrm{nReform}$ the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with yes: +- Question: $\{q_n\} \backslash \mathrm{nAnswer}$ : $\{a_n\} \backslash \mathrm{nReform}$ the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with no: + +# B.4 Multi-Hop Question Generation + +- Raw question: $\{q_{n}\} \backslash n$ Replace the sentence within [] with a relative clause and make the raw question into a natural question: + +# B.5 CoT Construction + +Suppose $q^{*}$ is the generated multi-hop question, $e_i$ denotes the explanation from intermediate hop $(q_{i}, a_{i}, e_{i})$ , $a^{*}$ is the answer of the last hop $(a^{*} = a_{n})$ . The template is: + +- Question: $\{q^{*}\} \backslash \mathrm{nAnswer}$ : Let's think step by step:\nStep 1: $\{e_1\} \backslash \mathrm{nStep2}$ : $\{e_2\} \backslash \mathrm{n}$ ... Therefore, the answer in just one entity is: $\{a^{*}\}$ , + +# B.6 Inference + +# B.6.1 Zero-shot + +Given a question $Q$ , the inference template is: + +- Answer the following question with just one entity:\nQuestion: $\{Q\}$ \nAnswer: + +# B.6.2 SP-CoT + +Suppose we have the input question $Q$ and 2 demonstrations $(q_{1},r_{1},a_{1})$ , $(q_{2},r_{2},a_{2})$ , where $q_{i}$ , $r_{i}$ , $a_{i}$ denote the question, CoT and answer of the $i^{th}$ demonstration. The inference template is: + +- Question: $\{q_1\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\{r_1\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\backslash \mathsf{n}$ Question: $\{q_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ $\{r_2\} \backslash \mathsf{n}\backslash \mathsf{n}$ Question: $\{Q\} \backslash \mathsf{n}$ Answer: Let's think step by step:\n + +# C Experiment Settings + +# C.1 Hyperparameters + +This section is the experiment settings on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) only, for more settings of other LLMs used in our experiments, please see our code. Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT. + +Table 5: Performance (EM/F1) of additional CoT variants. In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question. + +
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Zero-shot3.1/7.322.4/30.018.7/21.731.6/37.519.0/24.1
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.0/8.822.6/29.624.3/27.130.3/36.220.6/25.4
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)12.3/19.232.4/43.727.7/34.636.6/43.027.3/35.1
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)13.7/21.933.9/44.731.5/38.637.2/44.029.1/37.3
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.1/13.626.1/36.326.2/30.229.9/38.322.6/29.6
SP-CoT (Ours)14.5/22.633.2/42.930.1/34.737.5/43.628.8/36.0
SP-CoT + Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023)18.3/28.3-/--/-47.1/54.0-/-
+ +Table 6: The performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of test sets. We use gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 for ChatGPT and text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On smaller-scale (13B) LLMs, CoT methods achieve comparable performance boost on four MHQA benchmarks. + +
MethodChatGPTInstructGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizard-13B
Zero-shot20.822.98.912.610.9
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)28.733.118.023.724.7
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)26.332.417.722.024.0
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)21.231.416.921.323.3
SP-CoT (Ours)26.133.117.421.522.5
+ +# C.1.1 System message + +"You should use your knowledge to answer the question to the best of your ability, not refuse to answer, even though you know your knowledge is sometimes out of date. If some references are uncertain, answer all possible cases rather than requesting further information." + +# C.1.2 Temperature + +In most cases, the default temperature is set to 0 for obtaining a most deterministic response. When we ask ChatGPT to name some terms or to generation a question, the temperature is set to 1.0 for more diversity. + +# C.2 LLMs + +The 13B LLMs used in our experiments are from Huggingface Hub, use chavinlo/gpt4-x-alpaca for Alpaca-13B, TheBloke/wizard-vicuna-13B-HF for Vicuna-13B and TheBloke/wizardLM-13B-1.0-fp16 for WizardLM-13B. + +# D Additional Experiments + +# D.1 Comparison of CoT Variants + +To provide a more comprehensive picture of current CoT methods on ODQA, we report hereby (Table 5) the performance of additional CoT variants, including Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) and Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022) on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301). + +In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question. + +To the best of our knowledge, Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is orthogonal to existing CoT methods, including SP-CoT. Although Self-Consistency boosts the performance of SP-CoT to a higher level (10%-30% increase for 5 runs), it's worth noting that the cost of Self-Consistency is also 5 times higher. + +In Table 6, we report the performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of the test sets. The scores are the average EM scores on 4 ODMR benchmarks. Although Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) outperforms Automated methods, it requires high quality human-labeled CoTs, which is not always accessible in real world applications. Since the cherry-picked CoTs take the dataset features in to consideration, we consider their results as the theoretical upper limit of automated approaches. Compared to previously automatic SOTA method (Auto-CoT), our proposed SP-CoT shows a decent performance boost in most cases. + +Table 7: The scale and average hops of each ODMR dataset generated in this paper. Please note that the scale and the average hops are largely decided by the self-generation setting and the duplication control process. + +
ChatGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizardLM-13B
Number of Samples3550135415621604
Avg. Number of Hops3.042.822.923.16
Avg. Question tokens34.6125.3531.0534.30
Avg. Answer tokens1.861.992.021.91
+ +# D.2 SP-CoT on GrailQA + +We report our experiment of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021). According to our ODMR setting, no external knowledge is provided to LLMs. From the results below, we notice that our proposed SP-CoT is effective on GrailQA, our results on InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) are presented in Table 8. + +Table 8: Performance of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021). + +
MethodEMF1
Zero-shot12.924.3
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)13.525.2
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)17.730.7
SP-CoT (Ours)16.028.2
+ +# E Constructed ODMR Datasets + +# E.1 Overview and scale + +For better understanding of the constructed ODMR datasets, we offer a well-designed figure (Figure 6) to illustrate the six types of generated questions and their step-by-step decomposition. The scale of the generated ODMR datasets is about 1-4k (Table 7), however, it's largely dependent by the self-generation setting (how many examples to generate?) and the Duplication Control process in Stage 2 Step 2 (How many examples to keep?) To be more specific, the number of topic terms for self-generation decides the scale of generated 2-hop question pairs, and the level of duplication (how many existing question hops are allowed when constructing a new reasoning chain) decides the scale of the remaining examples after filtering. + +# E.2 Topics + +The 29 manually designed topics for generation are: politicians, athletes, sports teams, sports events, countries, cities, historical figures, historical events, wars, religions, singers, songs, actors or actresses, movies or TV series, writers, books, painters, paintings, composers, classical music, tourist attractions, scientists, scientific terms, video + +games, animals, plants, foods, enterprises, international organizations. + +# E.3 Quality Control + +To ensure the self-generation quality, two mechanisms are included in our proposed method. + +Self-validation in self-generation: To ensure the quality of generated QA pairs, we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question given the generated context and double-check If the generated answer is accordant with the target answer. + +Composability criteria in composition: Two single-hop QA pairs $(q_{1},a_{1})$ and $(q_{2},a_{2})$ are composable into a multi-hop question $Q$ with $a_2$ as a valid answer if $a_1$ is a named entity and it is mentioned in $q_{2}$ . Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use it for connecting more questions. + +# E.4 Composition rather than Generation + +Directly generating k-hop questions will produce many highly-duplicated reasoning chains, which is less effective than composition with 2-hop QAs. + +Take a connected 3-hop QAs as example: $(Q_{1},A_{1})\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\to (Q_{3},A_{3})$ , where $A_{1}$ in $Q_{2}$ $A_{2}$ in $Q_{3}$ + +Suppose there are 2 valid next-hop QAs $(Q_{4},A_{4})$ and $(Q_{5},A_{5})$ for $(Q_{3},A_{3})$ . Now we have 2 generated 4-hop reasoning chains: $(Q_{1},A_{1})\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\rightarrow (Q_{4},A_{4})$ and $(Q_{1},A_{1})\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\rightarrow$ $(Q_{5},A_{5})$ + +which are highly-duplicated. When directly generating k-hop reasoning chains, the number of highly-duplicated chains will increase exponentially and such chains will be filtered out in the Duplication Control Process (Stage 2, Step 2). + +Furthermore, when there are more than 2 question hops in one reasoning chain, more effort should be made to ensure direct acyclic graphs (DAGs). An example of cyclic reasoning chain is $(Q_{1},A_{1})\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\to (Q_{1},A_{1})$ , which should be avoided. + +
GraphQADecomposition
○→○Q: What is another common name for some members of the genus to which daffodils belong, besides daffodil? +A: Jonquil1. Q: What is the genus to which daffodils belong? +A: Narcissus +2. Q: What is another common name for some members of the Narcissus genus besides daffodil? +A: Jonquil
○→○→○Q: Who held the titles of King of the French and The Duke of Orleans during the year when John Lindley first described the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? +A: Louis Philippe1. Q: What is the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? +A: Scilloideae +2. Q: In what year was the subfamily Scilloideae first described by John Lindley? +A: 1830 +3. Q: Who became King of the French in 1830 and also held the title of The Duke of Orleans? +A: Louis Philippe
○Q: Which country, commonly visited by ships traveling from Europe and where most species of roses are native to, is located south of the remote island where Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled and eventually died? +A: South Africa1. Q: Where are most species of roses native to? +A: Asia +2. Q: To which remote island was Napoleon Bonaparte exiled and where did he eventually die? +A: Saint Helena +3. Q: What country is located south of Saint Helena and was a common destination for ships traveling from Asia and Europe? +A: South Africa
○→○→○Q: What work did the person who shared credit with the father of the biblical figure referenced in the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" defend his optimism in, while also famously contributing to the development of infinitesimal calculus with Newton? +A: Theodicy1. Q: Who is the biblical figure that the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" references? +A: Jacob +2. Q: Who was the father of Jacob? +A: Isaac +3. Q: Who shares credit with Isaac Newton for developing the infinitesimal calculus? +A: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz +4. Q: What work did Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz famously defend his optimism in? +A: Theodicy
○→○Q: What body of water separates the country that is a key ally of the country that Iraq launched Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, from Canada? +A: the Atlantic Ocean1. Q: What country did Iraq launch Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, and why is this relevant to the conflict? +A: Israel +2. Q: What is the native region of Carrot? +A: the Middle East +3. Q: What is the name of the country that is a key ally of Israel in the Middle East? +A: the United States +4. Q: What body of water separates the United States from Canada? +A: the Atlantic Ocean
○→○Q: What is the name of the town in the country that is the largest in South America after the country where Lionel Messi represents in international football competitions where Tom Brady's wife was born? +A: Très de Maio1. Q: Which country does Lionel Messi represent in international football competitions? +A: Argentina +2. Q: What is the largest country in South America after Argentina? +A: Brazil +3. Q: What is the name of the model that Tom Brady is married to? +A: Gisele Bündchen +4. Q: What is the name of the town in Brazil where Gisele Bündchen was born? +A: Très de Maio
+ +Figure 6: The illustration of six reasoning types in our automated dataset construction pipeline. These selected examples are self-generated by ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301), Vicuna-13B and WizardLM-13B. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/images.zip b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5a69f09227153c97bf710ec90d4e4260bbb6354 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:72d2e84443b0ddb45ad4ed44bf8e68290282b65c0bb87c5238f9ff265f39ab21 +size 1187126 diff --git a/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/layout.json b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a0344f0895a300a87fc4e50bf0021b22b3ec925 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11592 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 496, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought on Large Language Models for Open-domain Multi-hop Reasoning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinyuan Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Junlong Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2,3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Hai Zhao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 110, + 440, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2,3*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 125, + 475, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 125, + 475, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 125, + 475, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 125, + 475, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SJTU-Paris Elite Institute of Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 138, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 138, + 498, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 138, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 138, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 153, + 489, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 153, + 489, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 153, + 489, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Key Laboratory of Shanghai Education Commission for Intelligent Interaction and Cognitive Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 182, + 463, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 182, + 463, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 182, + 463, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{steve_wang,lockonn}@sjtu.edu.cn,zhaohai@cs.sjtu.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In open-domain question-answering (ODQA), most existing questions require single-hop reasoning on commonsense. To further extend this task, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) by answering multi-hop questions with explicit reasoning steps in open-domain setting. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have found significant utility in facilitating ODQA without external corpus. Furthermore, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting boosts the reasoning capability of LLMs to a greater extent with manual or automated paradigms. However, existing automated methods lack of quality assurance, while manual approaches suffer from limited scalability and poor diversity, hindering the capabilities of LLMs. In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an automated framework to mass-produce high quality CoTs of LLMs, by LLMs and for LLMs. SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of high quality ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for in-context CoT selection and self-prompted inference via in-context learning. Extensive experiments on four multihop question-answering benchmarks show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on largescale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs. Further analysis reveals the remarkable capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 652 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim 50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of intermediate answers on MuSiQue-Ans dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 154, + 677 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 154, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 663, + 154, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 685, + 290, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 685, + 290, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 685, + 290, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Open-domain question-answering (ODQA) is a longstanding and challenging task which addresses factoid commonsense questions without specific" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 212, + 527, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "contexts provided. While existing works in ODQA primarily focus on resolving questions that mostly require single-hop reasoning, there is a burgeoning interest in multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which aims to derive the correct answer through multi-step reasoning over a collection of candidate articles (Mavi et al., 2022). Yet, a significant disparity exists between such scenarios and real-world applications, since the latter often lacks an explicit set of candidate articles provided by users. In light of this, we officially introduce open-domain multi-hop reasoning (ODMR) as a progression task of ODQA, which requires MHQA with explicit rationales in open-domain setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For ODMR, an emerging approach is to leverage large language models (LLMs) due to the vast knowledge stored within their numerous parameters. In recent years, LLMs have shown powerful reasoning and instruction-following capabilities, such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). After extensive training on vast corpora of textual data, LLMs prove to be zero-shot reasoners on complex reasoning tasks by breaking down multi-step questions into intermediate ones for step-by-step reasoning before producing the final answer (Kojima et al., 2023). Such series of intermediate reasoning steps is known as chain-of-thoughts (CoTs) (Wei et al., 2023). CoTs often serve as in-context demonstrations for in-context learning (ICL) (Brown et al., 2020), which enables LLMs to generate outputs that are formally consistent with a target task via a few reference examples provided as prompt. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) adopt manually designed CoTs as in-context demonstrations to improve the reasoning performance of LLMs. However, it demands delicate and meticulous design by humans, and the demonstrations are the same for each question, which may be sub-optimal. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) was proposed to trigger automated CoTs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Corresponding author. This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2717" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2717-2731 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "by certain specific prompting techniques, such as \"Let's think step by step:\". Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs and build in-context demonstrations. However, previous works have not fully leveraged the strong instruction-following and zero-shot reasoning capabilities of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose Self-prompted Chain-of-Thought (SP-CoT), an LLM-only framework to mass-produce high-quality CoTs for ODMR. In general, SP-CoT introduces an automated generation pipeline of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. The automated ODMR datasets are MHQA datasets without candidate contexts, yet including multi-hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains and step-by-step decomposition. Each intermediate QA step is equipped with a short explanation to justify the answer. By leveraging the ICL ability of LLMs, our method is generally effective on LLMs of different scales." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our method on four MHQA datasets in an open-domain setting: ComplexWebQuestions (CWebQ) (Talmor and Berant, 2018), HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018), 2WikiMultiHopQA (2Wiki) (Ho et al., 2020) and MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) (Trivedi et al., 2022). Extensive experiments show that our proposed SP-CoT not only significantly surpasses the previous SOTA methods on large-scale (175B) LLMs, but also nearly doubles the zero-shot performance on small-scale (13B) LLMs in ODMR. Further analysis reveals the outstanding capability of SP-CoT to elicit direct and concise intermediate reasoning steps by recalling " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim 50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 291, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of intermediate answers on MSQ dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 545, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 545, + 290, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 545, + 290, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions can be summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 564, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 564, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 564, + 290, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 564, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We introduce an automated pipeline to generate high-quality ODMR datasets by LLMs, which include 2-4 hop questions with six types of complex reasoning chains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 625, + 289, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 625, + 289, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 625, + 289, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. We propose SP-CoT, an automated framework to mass-produce CoTs while ensuring quality and diversity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 673, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 673, + 290, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 673, + 290, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We conduct extensive experiments to confirm the effectiveness of SP-CoT on four ODMR benchmarks. In ODMR setting, our approach significantly boosts the performance by eliciting high-quality intermediate reasoning steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 400, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 400, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 400, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Works" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 463, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 463, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 463, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Multi-Hop Dataset Creation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 110, + 527, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 110, + 527, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 110, + 527, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Creating an annotated MHQA dataset manually requires significant human resources. Therefore, some researchers are dedicated to automating the generation of MHQA datasets. Jiang et al. (2020) elaborated the creation of a multi-hop fact verification dataset from existing HotpotQA dataset. Trivedi et al. (2022) introduced a bottom-up process to build challenging multi-hop reading comprehension QA dataset through meticulous selection and composition of single-hop questions derived from existing datasets. Press et al. (2023) proposed an automatically generated dataset with compositional 2-hop questions about celebrities. Nevertheless, existing approaches are either only partially automated, still requiring crowdsourcing, or they are limited to less complex 1-2 hop questions. In this work, our proposed SP-CoT is capable of automatically generating 2-4 hop questions with six different types of reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 470, + 403 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 470, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 470, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Chain-of-Thought Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 527, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 527, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 527, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent works on CoT prompting can be divided into two research lines. The first is prompting LLMs step by step to leverage their comprehension and reasoning abilities to answer questions. Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) adopts a two-stage design, which requires LLMs to first generate intermediate rationale and then produce an answer. Wang et al. (2022) introduced iCAP, which iteratively prompts a fine-tuned small-scale LLM to generate CoTs and then combines the generated rationales to formulate answers. Least-to-Most (Zhou et al., 2023) requires LLMs to first decompose a complex question into sub-questions and then sequentially solve them to arrive at the final answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The second research line focuses on designing effective CoT as demonstrations for ICL to release more powerful reasoning abilities of LLMs. Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) was introduced to leverage manually designed CoT as in-context demonstrations to solve arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic problems. A recent work (Zelikman et al., 2022) shed light on the practicality to automate the generation of rationales by LLMs. Subsequently, Self-Ask (Press et al., 2023) was proposed to construct step-by-step demonstrations with explicit decision process and intermediate answers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2718" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 524, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 524, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 524, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 524, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1fb809fb6074f8519d5915b5b2981f707c3cebcc3314b8973e53cf7128ebf0fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The overall framework of our proposed SP-CoT, including an automated generation of ODMR datasets, an adaptive sampler for CoT selection and self-prompted inference via ICL. Texts highlighted in purple refer to questions, in red to previously generated CoTs, in orange to answers, and in green to newly generated contents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "as CoT. Zhang et al. (2022) proposed Auto-CoT, which automatically constructs CoTs via LLMs and adopts clustering methods to dynamically build demonstrations for each question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, existing methods have two significant limitations: 1) Over-reliance on the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Most methods are reported effective on large-scale LLMs like InstructGPT, while reproducing these methods on small-scale LLMs is quite challenging. 2) Over-confidence on the quality of intermediate results. When prompting LLMs step by step, defects in previous steps may limit the performance of subsequent steps. Similarly, while automatically constructing in-context demonstrations, the effectiveness of ICL might be compromised by the unstable quality of CoTs. Admittedly, manually constructed CoTs can ensure quality, yet they face a trade-off between content diversity and costs. To overcome the above drawbacks, our proposed SP-CoT automates CoT generation with quality ensured by leveraging the strong instruction-following capability of LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 290, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 671, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Model Enhancement via LLM Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With the powerful capabilities of LLMs on content generation and instruction-following, one recent research direction extensively leverages the content generated by LLMs to enhance smaller LLMs. Recent works such as GPTeacher," + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Al" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "paca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) collect the content generated by GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) and the corresponding prompts to train smaller-scale LLMs to achieve comparable performance. Another research line aims to boost the performance of large-scale LLMs to higher levels by leveraging the self-generated content. Some works use the self-generation as contexts to assist themselves in answering questions, such as eliciting intermediate rationales as CoT (Kojima et al., 2023) or generating background articles for reading comprehension (Yu et al., 2023). While others instruct LLMs to generate demonstrations for ICL during inference (Zhang et al., 2022), such as prompting LLMs to generate reliable QA pairs as self-prompted in-context demonstrations (Li et al., 2022). Our work is dedicated to extending the second research line to ODMR by leveraging the automated self-generated CoT as in-context demonstrations. Compared to previous works (Kojima et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022), our work taps into the potential of self-prompting LLMs with more complicated framework design to solve a most challenging task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 698, + 370, + 710 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 698, + 370, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 698, + 370, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we elaborate our proposed SP-CoT in three stages (Figure 1):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplets with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 232, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 232, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 232, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 232, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/teknium1/GPTeacher" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2719" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 87, + 526, + 286 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 74, + 370, + 85 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 74, + 370, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 74, + 370, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stage 1: 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 87, + 526, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 87, + 526, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 87, + 526, + 286 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5441eda7b68ecca6049ec80a0f6fde4fab76093216542fae180c671c16ea0840.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Generation steps for 2-hop QA quadruplets. Each QA quadruplet comprises a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", its corresponding answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a context passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The explanation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " includes the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to address the question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Text highlighted in orange refers to previously generated content, while the response of the LLM is highlighted in green." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 256, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 256, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 256, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context, question, answer and explanation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains by connecting 2-hop QA quadruplets and build an ODMR dataset via composition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 474 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 474 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 474 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the last stage, we adopt clustering-based sampling approach to dynamically select and construct in-context demonstrations for inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 241, + 504 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 241, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 241, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 2-Hop QAs via Self-Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the first stage, we prompt LLMs to iteratively generate 2-hop QA quadruplets with context, question, answer and explanation, which is illustrated in Figure 2. Inspired by Li et al. (2022), we design a 2-hop commonsense QA generation pipeline, including the following 4 steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 1: First-Hop Passage Generation To guarantee the comprehensive coverage of commonsense knowledge, we manually design 29 diverse topics based on the statistics of TriviaQA (Joshi et al., 2017). For each topic, we require the LLM to name a certain number of keywords. For each collected keyword " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we ask the LLM to generate a Wiki-style passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Despite some factoid errors (Li et al., 2022), such generated passages contain sufficient factual information to serve as context for QA generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 2: First-Hop QA Generation Given that the answers for commonsense questions are likely" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to be named entities, we use Spacy" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and NLTK (Bird and Loper, 2004) libraries to extract the named entities in the passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as candidate answers. For each candidate answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we require the LLM to raise a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to which the answer is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To ensure the quality of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given the context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to check if the generated answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is accordant with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Once the generated QA pair passes the double-check, we prompt the LLM to write a short explanation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for it. Note that the candidate answers must exclude the keyword " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(a_1 \\neq k_1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " because the answer in the first hop will become the keyword for the second hop " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(k_2 = a_1, k_2 \\neq k_1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In addition to that, a valid explanation must contain the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(a_1 \\in e_1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 3: Second-Hop Passage Generation Before the first-hop answers are used as keywords for second-hop passage generation, we use Spacy to filter out the answers with certain labels (QUANTITY, ORDINAL, CARDINAL, PERCENT, MONEY, DATE, TIME), which are infeasible for Wiki-style passage generation. Given a keyword " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we repeat the same prompts as described in Step 1 to generate the passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 732, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 732, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 732, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 4: Second-Hop QA Generation We be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 379, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 379, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 379, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2https://spacy.io/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2720" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 81, + 524, + 298 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 70, + 374, + 81 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 70, + 374, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 70, + 374, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stage 2: Multi-Hop QAs via Composition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 81, + 524, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 81, + 524, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 81, + 524, + 298 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "69cb048a8843a4782a777dc57e7385e6aaca1544526812cae42e71826f5fde60.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 356 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Generation steps for MHQA groups. In step 3 and step 4, we use 4 manually designed demonstrations for ICL. Each MHQA group includes a multi-hop question, the corresponding answer and decomposed QA quadruplets. Nodes and texts highlighted in red, blue and green successively refer to the last hops, intermediate hops and generated hops. Manually designed texts are highlighted in purple." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gin with extracting candidate answers in the generated passage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " while blocking the keyword " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (also known as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") in the first-hop QA to avoid cyclic graphs. For each candidate answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we require the LLM to generate a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which contains the first-hop answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and can be answered by the candidate answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We examine the quality of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the same double-check in Step 2, and ensure the second-hop question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contains the first-hop answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1 \\in q_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") for connected reasoning. Then we repeat the same prompts in Step 2 to generate explanation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "So far, we have instructed the LLM to generate a 2-hop commonsense QA quadruplet pair, which is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p_1,q_1,a_1,e_1)\\rightarrow (p_2,q_2,a_2,e_2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1\\in q_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Detailed prompt templates are shown in Figure 2 and Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 248, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 248, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 248, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Multi-Hop QAs via Composition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In stage 2, we construct multi-hop reasoning chains with the connected 2-hop QA quadruplets, which is illustrated in Figure 3. We propose an automated dataset construction pipeline to build ODMR datasets with 2-4 hops, which has the following 4 steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 1: Reasoning Chain Composition To connect more questions, we follow the composability criteria (Trivedi et al., 2022), that is, two single-hop QA pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{1},a_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{2},a_{2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are composable into" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a multi-hop question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a valid answer if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a named entity and it is mentioned in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use this criterion for connecting more questions. We adopt 6 reasoning graphs with 2-4 hops to build 6 types of multi-hop reasoning chains (Figure 6 in Appendix), and we ensure that in each reasoning chain: 1) the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to an intermediate question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will appear and ONLY appear in its next-hop question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i+1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to avoid shortcuts; 2) the answer to the last question will NOT appear in any intermediate questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 526, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 2: Duplication Control Built by rule-based composition, our new dataset has considerably similar reasoning chains that have duplicate intermediate questions. To ensure the diversity and simplicity of our dataset, we filter out the reasoning chains by a preset duplication degree which is defined by the number of questions that co-existed in other chains within the same reasoning type." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 3: Binary Question Generation We notice that MHQA datasets also include general interrogative questions which should be answered by \"Yes\" or \"No\", rather than a named entity. Therefore, we leverage the LLM to reform the last QA " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{n},a_{n})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of some reasoning chains to binary question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations. For each reasoning type, we randomly sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reasoning chains for positive question generation and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2721" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 137, + 521, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 132 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Comparison of different approaches on four MHQA benchmarks. The fine-tuning methods are fine-tuned on the train split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset. Among them, methods marked with \"†\" use the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. For retrieval-based methods, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Methods based on ChatGPT are performed by gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 137, + 521, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 137, + 521, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 137, + 521, + 361 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
Fine-tuning methods with extra corpus
DPR† (Karpukhin et al., 2020)7.516.614.723.06.514.621.330.212.521.1
RAG† (Lewis et al., 2020)3.98.29.615.515.718.613.315.810.614.5
REALM† (Guu et al., 2020)3.78.515.322.05.19.621.127.311.316.9
T5-11B-SSM (Roberts et al., 2020)10.616.615.422.415.620.528.535.517.523.8
Retrieval-based methods with LLMs
DPR† + ChatGPT1.74.115.821.410.918.113.718.710.515.6
DPR† + Alpaca-13B (Taori et al., 2023)2.28.412.021.512.621.215.927.110.719.5
DPR† + Vicuna-13B (Chiang et al., 2023)2.27.418.625.823.927.620.327.916.222.1
DPR† + WizardLM-13B (Xu et al., 2023)3.510.019.928.422.827.524.232.217.624.5
DPR† + InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)4.811.626.334.823.327.134.441.622.228.8
LLM-only methods on ChatGPT
Zero-Shot3.17.322.430.018.721.731.637.519.024.1
Self-Prompting (Li et al., 2022)2.96.223.831.218.923.526.832.618.123.4
GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023)8.614.633.242.630.435.333.740.126.533.2
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.08.822.629.624.327.130.336.220.625.4
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.113.626.136.326.230.229.938.422.629.6
Manual-CoT (random) (Wei et al., 2023)12.319.232.443.727.734.636.643.027.335.1
SP-CoT (Ours)14.522.633.242.930.134.737.543.628.836.0
", + "image_path": "898249ba6a22560ec3b8cac7bf572855ade419bb0dab330c0da3e49aa4c8328e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 290, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for negative ones. Then we reform a new reasoning chain by the generated binary question together with its previous question hops and add it to the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 4: Multi-Hop Question Generation Now we need to generate multi-hop questions, to which the previously generated question chains serve as their intermediate reasoning steps. For each question chain, we iteratively replace the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to an intermediate question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the next-hop question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i + 1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[q_i]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " until the last question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is replaced, which indicates a relative clause. Then we leverage the LLM to reform it into a natural multi-hop question with 4 manually designed in-context demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After the pipeline above, we construct a high quality ODMR dataset with 2-4 hops, including the overall multi-hop question, the decomposed reasoning chains with detailed QA quadruplets. With the double-check in generation and the composability criteria, we automatically build a high quality new dataset. Detailed prompt templates are presented in Figure 3 and Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 262, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 262, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 262, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Adaptive In-context Demonstration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this stage, we sample multi-hop questions from our generated ODMR dataset as in-context demonstrations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Clustering-based Retrieval Some previous" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "works (Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) have shown that clustering-based methods benefit from the diversity of demonstrations. We adopt a clustering-based retrieval approach to adaptively sample in-context demonstrations for the input question. First, all the questions are projected to a high dimension hidden space by encoding with Sentence-BERT (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Suppose we need " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in-context demonstrations. Given a test question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-means to cluster the question embeddings into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " clusters and adaptively retrieve the question with the highest cosine similarity to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from each cluster." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Build Reasoning Chain For each sampled example, we sequentially concatenate the explanation from each hop, prefaced by \"Step " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{i\\} : \"" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", to construct a reasoning chain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 390, + 638 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 390, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 390, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 455, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 455, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 455, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our research questions (RQs) are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RQ1: To what extent can SP-CoT boost the LLMs on our four ODMR benchmarks, compared with other LLM-only methods?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RQ2: Is SP-CoT generally effective on recent popular instruction-following LLMs?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To this end, we conduct experiments on four MHQA datasets that require complex multi-step reasoning and compare different methods across" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2722" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 101, + 520, + 197 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: The performance (EM) of our method on recent popular LLMs. We use text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On small-scale LLMs, SP-CoT nearly doubles the average zero-shot performance on four MHQA benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 101, + 520, + 197 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 101, + 520, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 101, + 520, + 197 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelSizeMethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQMeanBoost
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BZero-shot0.99.512.512.68.9-
Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT5.319.817.826.517.48.5↑
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.311.518.118.312.6-
Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT8.523.322.032.221.58.9↑
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BZero-shot2.010.313.617.510.9-
WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023)13BSP-CoT7.324.027.231.322.511.6↑
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BZero-shot4.425.622.838.622.9-
InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)175BSP-CoT14.837.433.746.633.110.2↑
", + "image_path": "8564e87580b5c58d0a6bff2cd7415d6bee44b79ae393a90a308b03441dcc22b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 217, + 140, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 217, + 140, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 217, + 140, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "different LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 267, + 253 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 267, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 267, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Benchmarks and Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 290, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We choose the following four MHQA datasets: CWebQ, HotpotQA, 2Wiki and MSQ. We set them as ODMR benchmarks by taking only the question and the answer in each example. Dataset introduction and statistics are detailed in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We adopt the exact match (EM) and F1 scores as our evaluation metrics. Based on the evaluation script of Karpukhin et al. (2020), we add a preprocessing step which ignores the content within \"()\" and splits the answer strings by certain delimiters to extract multiple answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 190, + 433 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 190, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 190, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experiment Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 290, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For reference, we experiment with fine-tuning methods using an extra corpus, which are finetuned on the training split of NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) dataset and most of them adopt the Wikipedia dump (Karpukhin et al., 2020) as extra corpus. We also test our implementation of the retrieval-based methods on most recent LLMs for reference. Specifically, we use a fine-tuned DPR (Karpukhin et al., 2020) to retrieve top-5 documents from Wikipedia as context and employ LLM as Reader to answer the question based on the context. Detailed prompt templates and parameter settings are provided in the Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 290, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 290, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 616, + 290, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unless otherwise specified, we use SentenceBERT (all-mptnet-base-v2) for question encoding following previous works. The default number of in-context demonstrations is 8 and the demonstrations are sampled by the maximum cosine similarity of questions in each cluster." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For RQ1, we adopt ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) as the LLM to conduct the following experiments. According to OpenAI,3 gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 is an improvement on the InstructGPT text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "davinci-003 model, which performs at a similar capability level to text-davinci-003 for inference. We use the whole development set of each dataset in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 271, + 525, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 271, + 525, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 271, + 525, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For RQ2, we not only test InstructGPT (text-davinci-003), but also employ three smaller-scale (13B) LLMs: Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023), Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023) and WizardLM (Xu et al., 2023), which are LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) models fine-tuned on different large-scale instruction-following datasets. To save computational cost, we conduct this experiment on subsets of the four datasets by randomly selecting 1000 samples from the test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 423, + 429 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 423, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 423, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Experiment Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The main results of RQ1 are shown in Table 1. Even with extra corpus, the models fine-tuned on NQ (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019) present poor performance due to the inherent challenges of MHQA. With the same Retriever model, the performance of retrieval-based methods depends largely on the LLM Readers. Compared to previous LLM-only works, our SP-CoT significantly outperforms the Auto-CoT by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+6.2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " EM and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+6.4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 scores on average and surpasses the previous SOTA method GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+2.3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " EM and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+2.8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 scores on average. On the most challenging benchmark MSQ, SP-CoT empowers ChatGPT to outperform other LLM-only methods by a decent margin." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We notice that SP-CoT significantly outperforms GENREAD on MSQ, confirming the effectiveness of providing high quality CoTs as in-context demonstrations for complex multi-hop questions. On the other three datasets, SP-CoT delivers comparable performance with GENREAD. However, GENREAD relies heavily on the generation faithfulness of LLMs, which is challenging for small-scale LLMs. By breaking down demanding instructions into step-by-step simple ones, our method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 187, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 187, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 187, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://platform.openai.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2723" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 101, + 459, + 167 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The performance (EM) of different methods of demonstration selection. The results from random selection represent the mean value and standard deviation obtained from 3 runs, each with a different seed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 101, + 459, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 101, + 459, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 101, + 459, + 167 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Random12.0±0.829.5±0.625.6±1.234.3±0.925.4±0.3
Retrieve10.527.924.333.524.1
ClusterCenter10.426.222.833.023.1
RetrieveInTypeCluster11.628.723.535.324.8
RetrieveInCluster11.530.927.834.026.1
", + "image_path": "e6e6ce7423bd4283a1bafd4be71d0096f330f5ecee9f7beefa8930ccb8e65c23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 190, + 276, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 190, + 276, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 190, + 276, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 190, + 276, + 312 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9236d824d41cea9987d003e8199d7713fb570f0a8f6d105cb3881113a297b63c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 291, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 291, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 291, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Average EM and F1 scores of different numbers of in-context demonstrations. The experiments are tested on 1k subsets of four ODMR benchmarks with ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 290, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is more applicable to small-scale LLMs, which is validated by Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 presents the results for RQ2. Our proposed SP-CoT proves to be generally effective by significantly boosting the performance of all these four LLMs on all four benchmarks. With SP-CoT, the performance of small-scale (13B) LLMs can be boosted to be on par with directly prompting LLMs that are over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " larger, regardless of the elicited high quality intermediate reasoning steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 133, + 558 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 133, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 133, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 291, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we explore the choices of the sampling methods and the number of demonstrations. Then we examine the quality of the intermediate reasoning steps elicited by SP-CoT and the quality of self-generation data. Unless otherwise specified, we use ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) to conduct analysis on the same subsets mentioned in RQ2 settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 268, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 268, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 268, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Methods of Demonstration Sampling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The performance of ICL depends largely on the quality of demonstration sampling. We test the effectiveness of the following five strategies: randomly sampling (Random), sampling globally by maximum cosine similarity (Retrieve), sampling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 190, + 516, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 190, + 516, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 190, + 516, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 190, + 516, + 312 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0ff308996319c5849ecf66894fa33b14832c6ddb72503e7ebc6e9775e352cb29.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Evaluation results of the CoT generated by three methods. The first four scores are in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility (Comp.) and directness given by GPT-4 on 50 examples. The recall accuracy of intermediate answers (IA Recall) is reported on the questions that are correctly answered by all 3 methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 526, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the closest to the centroid in each cluster (ClusterCenter), sampling by the maximum cosine similarity in each cluster (RetrieveInCluster) and sampling the most similar QAs in each cluster in a certain reasoning type (RetrieveInTypeCluster). The reasoning type of the input question is determined by the most frequent reasoning type of its k-nearest neighbors. As indicated in Table 3, RetrieveInCluster (Li et al., 2022) is the best-performing strategy, which is exactly the strategy we adopt in previous experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 490, + 604 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 490, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 490, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Impact of Demonstration Amount" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Providing more in-context demonstrations empirically improves ICL performance; however, it also causes increasing computational cost. To this end, we investigate the trade-offs of number of demonstrations and the resulting performance boost. We report the EM and F1 scores over the four benchmarks for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 in-context demonstrations, as well as the scores in a zero-shot setting. As illustrated in Figure 4, the performance of SP-CoT increases with the number of demonstrations when the count is between 2 and 8; however, using 10 demonstrations doesn't yield any further" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2724" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance boost. In our main experiments, we opted for 8 as the default number of demonstrations, striking a balance between performance and cost." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 287, + 149 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 287, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 287, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Intermediate Reasoning Quality Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the high-quality CoTs constructed by our proposed SP-CoT, we investigate the quality of intermediate reasoning steps generated during inference. For this analysis, we use the development set of MSQ, as it's the most challenging of the four datasets and offers decomposed step-by-step QAs. We compare the CoTs generated by Zero-shot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT during inference. For fairness, we select 50 out of a total of 59 questions that all of the three methods answered correctly. First, we use GPT-4 to evaluate4 the intermediate reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility and directness separately on a scale of 1 to 10. Additionally, we compute the recall accuracy of intermediate answers co-occurring in the reasoning steps of each method. For fairness, we only report the intermediate answer recall accuracy of correctly answered questions for each method. As depicted in Figure 5, GPT-4 highly favors our SP-CoT, which achieves nearly a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 154, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " recall accuracy for intermediate answers. This suggests that SP-CoT elicits high-quality reasoning steps in terms of clearness, conciseness, comprehensibility, and directness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 147, + 504 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 147, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 147, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we harness the capabilities of LLMs combined with self-prompted CoTs to tackle the intricate MHQA task within the open-domain context, termed as ODMR. Our innovative SP-CoT not only sets a new benchmark by surpassing preceding CoT prompting techniques but also outclasses the erstwhile SOTA LLM-only methodologies in open-domain question-answering. A distinguishing feature of SP-CoT is its proficiency in eliciting high-caliber intermediate reasoning steps, and its universal efficacy across both large and small-scale LLMs. We anticipate our innovative self-generation pipeline for ODMR to not just be foundational for SP-CoT, but also to pave the way for future research, catalyzing a shift towards leveraging self-generation in LLMs, by LLMs, and for LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper was partially supported by the Joint Research Project of Yangtze River Delta Science and Technology Innovation Community (No. 2022CSJGG1400) and under the technical support of National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2021YFC3340700). Our appreciation also extends to Ms. Yangyang Ding, who has been generous with her time and knowledge, offering constructive criticism and enriching discussions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 239, + 365, + 252 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 239, + 365, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 239, + 365, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 526, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed method (SP-CoT) leverages the strong instruction-following power of LLMs. Such capability is easy to acquire through instruction fine-tuning for small-scale LLMs (even 7B), however, some LLMs proposed in early years may show poor capability in following human instructions due to lack of corresponding training before their release. Therefore, the performance of such LLMs may not be boosted by our proposed SP-CoT. In fact, we did not succeed in boosting the performance of GPT-NeoX by any of Zeroshot-CoT, Auto-CoT and SP-CoT. GPT-NeoX is a 20B LLMs released in early 2022, which shows poor instruction-following capability. Please note that neither GENREAD (Yu et al., 2023) nor Self-prompting (Li et al., 2022) boosts the performance of GPT-NeoX." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is acknowledged that the efficacy of LLM-only approaches is predominantly reliant on the LLMs themselves. With smaller-scale LLMs, specifically those of 13B scale, our SP-CoT together with other CoT methodologies, demonstrate comparable or similar performance enhancement across four ODMR benchmarks as presented in Table 6. The consistent performance of handcrafted CoTs remains ambivalent across different LLMs and benchmarks; our empirical observations indicate that Manual-CoT occasionally outperforms SP-CoT, while at other instances, it does not." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the potential for LLMs to generate imprecise information, the process by which our SP-CoT produces datasets might also result in the emergence of inaccurate QA pairs as well as erroneous explanations. Despite the incorporation of a double-check mechanism to ensure data integrity, certain errors and inaccuracies are inevitably present." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 771 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4Script from https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat and modified." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2725" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 145 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 291, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Steven Bird and Edward Loper. 2004. NLTK: The natural language toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pages 214-217, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 152, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 152, + 291, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 152, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " * chatgpt quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 354, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 354, + 291, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 354, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 669 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 290, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yu Gu, Sue Kase, Michelle Vanni, Brian Sadler, Percy Liang, Xifeng Yan, and Yu Su. 2021. Beyond i.i.d.: Three levels of generalization for question answering on knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 290, + 710 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 290, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 676, + 290, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multihop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pages 6609-6625, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 525, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 525, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 105, + 525, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yichen Jiang, Shikha Bordia, Zheng Zhong, Charles Dognin, Maneesh Singh, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Hover: A dataset for many-hop fact extraction and claim verification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 161, + 525, + 239 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 161, + 525, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 161, + 525, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601-1611, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 250, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 250, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 250, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 372 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2023. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:452-466." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 494, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 494, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 494, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 605 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 571, + 525, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junlong Li, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Hai Zhao. 2022. Self-prompting large language models for open-domain qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08635." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 616, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 616, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 616, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vaibhav Mavi, Anubhav Jangra, and Adam Jatowt. 2022. A survey on multi-hop question answering and generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 661, + 459, + 673 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 661, + 459, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 661, + 459, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2726" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 291, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. 2020. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 5418-5426, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 289, + 319 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 289, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 289, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alon Talmor and Jonathan Berant. 2018. The web as a knowledge-base for answering complex questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 390, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 390, + 290, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 390, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Musique: Multi-hop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539-554." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Boshi Wang, Xiang Deng, and Huan Sun. 2022. Iteratively prompt pre-trained language models for chain of thought." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 623, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 623, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 623, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2369-2380, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 525, + 194 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 525, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 525, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. In International Conference for Learning Representation (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 204, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 204, + 525, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 204, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D. Goodman. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 248, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 293, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 293, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 293, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denny Zhou, Nathanael Scharli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2023. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 370, + 374 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 370, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 370, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 393, + 396 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 393, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 385, + 393, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 403, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 403, + 525, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 403, + 525, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HotpotQA (Yang et al., 2018) HotpotQA is a widely used dataset for multi-hop question-answering (MHQA), which contains 113k multi-hop questions in natural language. The questions are collected by crowdsourcing based on Wikipedia articles with human annotated supporting evidence and answers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 498, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 498, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 498, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2WikiMultiHopQA (Ho et al., 2020) 2WikiMultiHopQA s a recently proposed large-scale MHQA dataset, which contains over 192k samples constructed jointly from Wikipedia and Wikidata." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 554, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 554, + 525, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 554, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MuSiQue-Ans (Trivedi et al., 2022) MuSiQue-Ans (MSQ) is a recent challenging MHQA dataset created via single-hop question composition. It includes 25k 2-4 hop questions with six different composition structures. Although MSQ is composed from existing datasets, it poses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 554, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 554, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the human-machine gap with a substantially lower disconnected reasoning score." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 663, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 663, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 663, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ComplexWebQuestions (Talmor and Berant, 2018) ComplexWebQuestions is a manually generated MHQA dataset of 35k QA pairs. CWebQ is generated by rephrasing questions generated by machine from existing dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 375, + 752 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 375, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 740, + 375, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Statistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The statistics of four datasets are shown in Table 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2727" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 126, + 279, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 68, + 290, + 118 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 68, + 290, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 68, + 290, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Statistics of development set of four MHQA benchmarks, average tokens for questions, answers and average number of reasoning steps. CWebQ does not provide supporting evidence or question decomposition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 126, + 279, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 126, + 279, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 126, + 279, + 179 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MSQHotpotQACWebQ2Wiki
Q len.18.1115.8313.3711.98
A len.2.82.462.422.41
Steps2.652.68-2.47
Size24177405351912576
", + "image_path": "e93c5abb0df51ad895be44e513aabcac92f72dd0ad13e807ca34cd8dd4c56e10.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 200, + 185, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 200, + 185, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 200, + 185, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Prompt Templates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 225, + 218, + 238 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 225, + 218, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 225, + 218, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 First-Hop QA Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 290, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 290, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 290, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We following the notations described in Section 3. The templates are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 285, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 285, + 209, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 285, + 209, + 299 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 285, + 209, + 299 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Name {Number} {Topic}:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 277, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 277, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 277, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Generate a Wikipedia passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 277, + 325 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_1\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 312, + 277, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_1\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Generate a question to which the answer is the entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{a_1\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 338, + 289, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_1\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Question:\\n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 391, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_{1}\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{q_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Answer: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{a_{1}\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 444, + 290, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 526, + 229, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 526, + 229, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 526, + 229, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.2 Second-Hop QA Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 545, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 545, + 276, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 545, + 276, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 545, + 276, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Generate a Wikipedia passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 545, + 276, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_2\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 545, + 276, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Generate a question that meets the following conditions: 1. contains the term '\\{k_2\\}' in question, 2. the answer is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{a_2\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", 3. Avoid the following entities in the question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 572, + 289, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_2\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Question:\\n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 652, + 289, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Extract the answer directly from the passage in less words as possible." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Passage about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{k_2\\} : \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{p_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Answer: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{a_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " According to an evidence from the passage to support the answer, rewrite it to make its meaning clear without passage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 465, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 465, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 465, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.3 Binary Question Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{a_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nReform}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 90, + 524, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with yes:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{a_n\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nReform}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 142, + 524, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the question to a general interrogative question that can be answered with no:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 196, + 482, + 210 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 196, + 482, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 196, + 482, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.4 Multi-Hop Question Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 216, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 216, + 524, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 216, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Raw question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 216, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_{n}\\} \\backslash n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 216, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Replace the sentence within [] with a relative clause and make the raw question into a natural question:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 269, + 417, + 281 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 269, + 417, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 269, + 417, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.5 CoT Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suppose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the generated multi-hop question, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the explanation from intermediate hop " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{i}, a_{i}, e_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the answer of the last hop " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(a^{*} = a_{n})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The template is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q^{*}\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nAnswer}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": Let's think step by step:\\nStep 1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{e_1\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{nStep2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{e_2\\} \\backslash \\mathrm{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ... Therefore, the answer in just one entity is: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{a^{*}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 356, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 409, + 377, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 409, + 377, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 409, + 377, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.6 Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 428, + 386, + 440 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 428, + 386, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 428, + 386, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.6.1 Zero-shot" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 506, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 506, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 506, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 506, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 506, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the inference template is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 473, + 524, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 473, + 524, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 473, + 524, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Answer the following question with just one entity:\\nQuestion: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 473, + 524, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{Q\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 473, + 524, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \\nAnswer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 378, + 525 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 378, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 513, + 378, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.6.2 SP-CoT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suppose we have the input question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and 2 demonstrations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{1},r_{1},a_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{2},r_{2},a_{2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the question, CoT and answer of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " demonstration. The inference template is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\{r_1\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{r_2\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}\\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Question: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{Q\\} \\backslash \\mathsf{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 598, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Answer: Let's think step by step:\\n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 430, + 677 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 430, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 430, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Experiment Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 687, + 417, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 687, + 417, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 687, + 417, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1 Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section is the experiment settings on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301) only, for more settings of other LLMs used in our experiments, please see our code. Our code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/noewangjy/SP-CoT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2728" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 126, + 507, + 211 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 117 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Performance (EM/F1) of additional CoT variants. In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 126, + 507, + 211 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 126, + 507, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 126, + 507, + 211 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodMSQHotpotQA2WikiCWebQAverage
Zero-shot3.1/7.322.4/30.018.7/21.731.6/37.519.0/24.1
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)5.0/8.822.6/29.624.3/27.130.3/36.220.6/25.4
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)12.3/19.232.4/43.727.7/34.636.6/43.027.3/35.1
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)13.7/21.933.9/44.731.5/38.637.2/44.029.1/37.3
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)8.1/13.626.1/36.326.2/30.229.9/38.322.6/29.6
SP-CoT (Ours)14.5/22.633.2/42.930.1/34.737.5/43.628.8/36.0
SP-CoT + Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023)18.3/28.3-/--/-47.1/54.0-/-
", + "image_path": "557c25acbf7dde6f47ddf5c29b9adad315f5374098bcfb22eed80e17a974b7dc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 529, + 328 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 525, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 525, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: The performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of test sets. We use gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 for ChatGPT and text-davinci-003 for InstructGPT. On smaller-scale (13B) LLMs, CoT methods achieve comparable performance boost on four MHQA benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 529, + 328 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 529, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 529, + 328 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodChatGPTInstructGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizard-13B
Zero-shot20.822.98.912.610.9
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Cherry-Pick)28.733.118.023.724.7
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)26.332.417.722.024.0
Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022)21.231.416.921.323.3
SP-CoT (Ours)26.133.117.421.522.5
", + "image_path": "0ca2863965ea5e20bc61434765122e0b84f9eeb327a853ff9e9a21d150db4b13.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 181, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 181, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 181, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1.1 System message" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"You should use your knowledge to answer the question to the best of your ability, not refuse to answer, even though you know your knowledge is sometimes out of date. If some references are uncertain, answer all possible cases rather than requesting further information.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 168, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 168, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 168, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1.2 Temperature" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In most cases, the default temperature is set to 0 for obtaining a most deterministic response. When we ask ChatGPT to name some terms or to generation a question, the temperature is set to 1.0 for more diversity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 128, + 556 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 128, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 128, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2 LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The 13B LLMs used in our experiments are from Huggingface Hub, use chavinlo/gpt4-x-alpaca for Alpaca-13B, TheBloke/wizard-vicuna-13B-HF for Vicuna-13B and TheBloke/wizardLM-13B-1.0-fp16 for WizardLM-13B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 215, + 667 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 215, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 215, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Additional Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 234, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 234, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 234, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.1 Comparison of CoT Variants" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To provide a more comprehensive picture of current CoT methods on ODQA, we report hereby (Table 5) the performance of additional CoT variants, including Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) and Auto-CoT (Zhang et al., 2022) on ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our experiment, Manual-CoT (Cherry-Pick) adopts 8 cherry-picked questions and their CoTs manually written by the authors. The results of Manual-CoT (Random) report the mean EM scores of randomly selected questions and theirs manual CoTs for 2 experiments across the 4 benchmarks. Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is based on SP-CoT with 5 responses for each question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 525, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, Self-Consistency (Wang et al., 2023) is orthogonal to existing CoT methods, including SP-CoT. Although Self-Consistency boosts the performance of SP-CoT to a higher level (10%-30% increase for 5 runs), it's worth noting that the cost of Self-Consistency is also 5 times higher." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 6, we report the performance (EM) of CoT methods with recent popular LLMs on 1k subsets of the test sets. The scores are the average EM scores on 4 ODMR benchmarks. Although Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) outperforms Automated methods, it requires high quality human-labeled CoTs, which is not always accessible in real world applications. Since the cherry-picked CoTs take the dataset features in to consideration, we consider their results as the theoretical upper limit of automated approaches. Compared to previously automatic SOTA method (Auto-CoT), our proposed SP-CoT shows a decent performance boost in most cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2729" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 130, + 101, + 462, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 524, + 93 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 524, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 524, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: The scale and average hops of each ODMR dataset generated in this paper. Please note that the scale and the average hops are largely decided by the self-generation setting and the duplication control process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 101, + 462, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 101, + 462, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 101, + 462, + 157 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ChatGPTAlpaca-13BVicuna-13BWizardLM-13B
Number of Samples3550135415621604
Avg. Number of Hops3.042.822.923.16
Avg. Question tokens34.6125.3531.0534.30
Avg. Answer tokens1.861.992.021.91
", + "image_path": "6d8521893188cdfa57249326a5da000cd0279c035edba7ca38787cbe416b37a6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 193, + 190 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 193, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 193, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D.2 SP-CoT on GrailQA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 290, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report our experiment of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021). According to our ODMR setting, no external knowledge is provided to LLMs. From the results below, we notice that our proposed SP-CoT is effective on GrailQA, our results on InstructGPT (text-davinci-003) are presented in Table 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 386 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Performance of CoT methods on 1k subset of test set provided by GrailQA (Gu et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 331, + 289, + 386 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodEMF1
Zero-shot12.924.3
Zero-shot-CoT (Kojima et al., 2023)13.525.2
Manual-CoT (Wei et al., 2023) (Random)17.730.7
SP-CoT (Ours)16.028.2
", + "image_path": "f1bc50e1f10c463036dc160dcb42ce8b9dcd948ce318138af35646cdf90a46d1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 241, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 241, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 241, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Constructed ODMR Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 188, + 443 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 188, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 188, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.1 Overview and scale" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 291, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 291, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For better understanding of the constructed ODMR datasets, we offer a well-designed figure (Figure 6) to illustrate the six types of generated questions and their step-by-step decomposition. The scale of the generated ODMR datasets is about 1-4k (Table 7), however, it's largely dependent by the self-generation setting (how many examples to generate?) and the Duplication Control process in Stage 2 Step 2 (How many examples to keep?) To be more specific, the number of topic terms for self-generation decides the scale of generated 2-hop question pairs, and the level of duplication (how many existing question hops are allowed when constructing a new reasoning chain) decides the scale of the remaining examples after filtering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 127, + 673 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 127, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 127, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.2 Topics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The 29 manually designed topics for generation are: politicians, athletes, sports teams, sports events, countries, cities, historical figures, historical events, wars, religions, singers, songs, actors or actresses, movies or TV series, writers, books, painters, paintings, composers, classical music, tourist attractions, scientists, scientific terms, video" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 525, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "games, animals, plants, foods, enterprises, international organizations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 408, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 408, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 408, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.3 Quality Control" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 525, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 525, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 525, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To ensure the self-generation quality, two mechanisms are included in our proposed method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 525, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 525, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 525, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-validation in self-generation: To ensure the quality of generated QA pairs, we employ a double-check process, where we demand the LLM to answer the generated question given the generated context and double-check If the generated answer is accordant with the target answer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Composability criteria in composition: Two single-hop QA pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{1},a_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(q_{2},a_{2})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are composable into a multi-hop question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a valid answer if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a named entity and it is mentioned in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Such criteria are already satisfied when our 2-hop QA pairs are generated, we use it for connecting more questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 504, + 454 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 504, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 504, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.4 Composition rather than Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 524, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 524, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 524, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Directly generating k-hop questions will produce many highly-duplicated reasoning chains, which is less effective than composition with 2-hop QAs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Take a connected 3-hop QAs as example: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{1},A_{1})\\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\\to (Q_{3},A_{3})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suppose there are 2 valid next-hop QAs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{4},A_{4})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{5},A_{5})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{3},A_{3})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Now we have 2 generated 4-hop reasoning chains: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{1},A_{1})\\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\\rightarrow (Q_{4},A_{4})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{1},A_{1})\\rightarrow (Q_{2},A_{2})\\rightarrow (Q_{3},A_{3})\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 540, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{5},A_{5})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 525, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which are highly-duplicated. When directly generating k-hop reasoning chains, the number of highly-duplicated chains will increase exponentially and such chains will be filtered out in the Duplication Control Process (Stage 2, Step 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 768 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, when there are more than 2 question hops in one reasoning chain, more effort should be made to ensure direct acyclic graphs (DAGs). An example of cyclic reasoning chain is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 768 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q_{1},A_{1})\\to (Q_{2},A_{2})\\to (Q_{1},A_{1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 689, + 525, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which should be avoided." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2730" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 511, + 694 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 511, + 694 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 511, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 100, + 511, + 694 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
GraphQADecomposition
○→○Q: What is another common name for some members of the genus to which daffodils belong, besides daffodil? \nA: Jonquil1. Q: What is the genus to which daffodils belong? \nA: Narcissus \n2. Q: What is another common name for some members of the Narcissus genus besides daffodil? \nA: Jonquil
○→○→○Q: Who held the titles of King of the French and The Duke of Orleans during the year when John Lindley first described the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? \nA: Louis Philippe1. Q: What is the subfamily of the family Asparagaceae that hyacinths belong to? \nA: Scilloideae \n2. Q: In what year was the subfamily Scilloideae first described by John Lindley? \nA: 1830 \n3. Q: Who became King of the French in 1830 and also held the title of The Duke of Orleans? \nA: Louis Philippe
○Q: Which country, commonly visited by ships traveling from Europe and where most species of roses are native to, is located south of the remote island where Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled and eventually died? \nA: South Africa1. Q: Where are most species of roses native to? \nA: Asia \n2. Q: To which remote island was Napoleon Bonaparte exiled and where did he eventually die? \nA: Saint Helena \n3. Q: What country is located south of Saint Helena and was a common destination for ships traveling from Asia and Europe? \nA: South Africa
○→○→○Q: What work did the person who shared credit with the father of the biblical figure referenced in the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" defend his optimism in, while also famously contributing to the development of infinitesimal calculus with Newton? \nA: Theodicy1. Q: Who is the biblical figure that the title of the song "Stairway to Heaven" references? \nA: Jacob \n2. Q: Who was the father of Jacob? \nA: Isaac \n3. Q: Who shares credit with Isaac Newton for developing the infinitesimal calculus? \nA: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz \n4. Q: What work did Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz famously defend his optimism in? \nA: Theodicy
○→○Q: What body of water separates the country that is a key ally of the country that Iraq launched Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, from Canada? \nA: the Atlantic Ocean1. Q: What country did Iraq launch Scud missiles at during the Gulf War, and why is this relevant to the conflict? \nA: Israel \n2. Q: What is the native region of Carrot? \nA: the Middle East \n3. Q: What is the name of the country that is a key ally of Israel in the Middle East? \nA: the United States \n4. Q: What body of water separates the United States from Canada? \nA: the Atlantic Ocean
○→○Q: What is the name of the town in the country that is the largest in South America after the country where Lionel Messi represents in international football competitions where Tom Brady's wife was born? \nA: Très de Maio1. Q: Which country does Lionel Messi represent in international football competitions? \nA: Argentina \n2. Q: What is the largest country in South America after Argentina? \nA: Brazil \n3. Q: What is the name of the model that Tom Brady is married to? \nA: Gisele Bündchen \n4. Q: What is the name of the town in Brazil where Gisele Bündchen was born? \nA: Très de Maio
", + "image_path": "b30c95ec8297ee7c73a7d54bcf93c61049614187e48f16a5054deb35764e3aff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 525, + 749 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 525, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 724, + 525, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: The illustration of six reasoning types in our automated dataset construction pipeline. These selected examples are self-generated by ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301), Vicuna-13B and WizardLM-13B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2731" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_content_list.json b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20888df0550a161665279d45edb8f916943a60ab --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2955 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 87, + 880, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kaihang Pan $^{1,2*}$ , Juncheng Li $^{1\\dagger}$ , Hongye Song $^{2}$ , Jun Lin $^{2}$ , Xiaozhong Liu $^{3}$ , Siliang Tang $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 140, + 880, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Zhejiang University, 2 DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group,", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 158, + 742, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Worcester Polytechnic Institute", + "bbox": [ + 368, + 175, + 638, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{kaihangpan, junchengli, siliang}@zju.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 193, + 724, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{hongye.shy, linjun.lj}@alibaba-inc.com, xliu14@wpi.edu", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 209, + 779, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt tuning is a parameter-efficient method, which learns soft prompts and conditions frozen language models to perform specific downstream tasks. Though effective, prompt tuning under few-shot settings on the one hand heavily relies on a good initialization of soft prompts. On the other hand, it can easily overfit to few-shot training samples, thereby undermining generalizability. Existing works leverage pre-training or supervised meta-learning to initialize soft prompts but they fail to data-efficiently generalize to unseen downstream tasks. To address the above problems, this paper proposes a novel SelfSupervised meta-Prompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization for few-shot generalization (SUPMER). SUPMER leverages self-supervised meta-learning with a diverse set of well-designed meta-training tasks to learn a universal prompt initialization for efficient adaptation using only unlabeled data. Additionally, it jointly meta-learns a gradient regularization function to transform raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction, thus alleviating the problem of overfitting. Extensive experiments show that SUPMER achieves better performance for different few-shot downstream tasks, and also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability. The code for SUPMER will be available at https://github.com/beepkh/SUPMER.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 731, + 258, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent NLP accomplishments witnessed the rapid development of pre-trained language models (PLMs) (e.g., BERT Devlin et al., 2019; T5 Raffel et al., 2020; GPT3 Brown et al., 2020). Finetuning, which tunes the entire PLM parameters, has achieved outstanding performances in various NLP tasks. However, as the pre-trained model scale increases, tuning the entire set of parameters", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 756, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5514dc8acdbfe69bbb9e267897152e466e0bef12be1dea44d5776b9200a4946b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)", + "Figure 1: (a) Performance of PT with different prompt initialization. (b) Performance after different training steps for vanilla PT and SUPMER." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 250, + 690, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/061f28ad549d86f2011fc11dda3f0097f47385e9dbd5dfecab08dd670e13d5be.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 700, + 250, + 878, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "would be sometimes unaffordable. More recently, prompt-based methods, which simply insert a piece of carefully designed text to the input (e.g., \"It was $\\langle X\\rangle$ .\") and predict target words (e.g., \"great\" or \"terrible\") at the mask position with frozen PLMs, have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness. But it has been observed that the performance of prompt-based methods is greatly affected by the design of prompts. In light of this, prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), as a parameter-efficient tuning method, is proposed to only prepend some additional learnable tokens called soft prompts to the input text, with all PLM parameters freezing.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 447, + 884, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Though prompt tuning is an efficient and effective paradigm, Gu et al. (2022) shows it performs much worse than fine-tuning under few-shot settings. We argue that the performance is not satisfactory mainly due to two limitations: 1) The performance of PT is highly sensitive to the soft prompt initialization, especially for few-shot tasks. As shown in Figure 1 (a), different soft prompt initialization leads to significant performance variations. 2) Few-shot PT risks overfitting to some spurious correlations as soft prompts are tuned on limited training samples, thus undermining the generalizability of PLMs. As shown in Figure 1 (b), the performance of few-shot vanilla PT degrades significantly in the final training steps.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 885, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent research mainly focused on the first limi", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Work done when interning at Alibaba DAMO Academy.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 891, + 485, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Corresponding Author.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 292, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1059", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1059-1077", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tation, leveraging pre-training or supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization. A pretrained prompt tuning method (PPT) (Gu et al., 2022) is proposed from the beginning, which utilizes self-supervised tasks to pre-train soft prompts and then applies them in the few-shot scenario. However, without explicitly optimizing the fast adaptation ability of the model, PPT suffers from a train-test mismatch between the pre-training data and the downstream data. So it limits generalization to unseen few-shot tasks, especially when there is a significant disparity in task domains or formats. MetaPrompting (Hou et al., 2022), as another effort, seeks assistance from model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML Finn et al., 2017) for fast adaptation in few-shot settings. However, in each task, MetaPrompting requires plenty of labeled data within certain classes to perform supervised meta-learning for prompt initialization, which is often inaccessible in practical few-shot scenarios. And the learned initialization can only generalize to the remaining classes of the same task in a few-shot manner, exhibiting weak task transferability. Furthermore, all these existing works ignore the second limitation, i.e., the propensity for few-shot prompt tuning to lead to overfitting.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 490, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the shortcomings of existing works, we propose SUPMER, a Self-sUpervised metaPrompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization. It leverages self-supervised meta-learning to universally learn an efficient soft prompt initialization, also with a meta-gradient regularization function to mitigate overfitting. This comprehensive process only requires a one-time execution and enables seamless adaptation to different downstream few-shot tasks, while also facilitating faster convergence for downstream prompt tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 507, + 489, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, to address the first limitation, we design a novel self-supervised meta-learning method for prompt initialization, which automatically generates a diverse set of meta-training tasks from large-scale unlabeled corpora and explicitly learns to fast adapt across these tasks. To ensure task diversity, we initially design a collection of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks with different formats. And then a curriculum-based task augmentation method is further proposed to enrich the task distribution dynamically in terms of the current model capability.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 689, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the second issue, we integrate a metagradient regularization function into meta-prompt", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "learning. As we simulate distribution shift through task augmentation, the meta-gradient regularization parameters are jointly optimized to align gradient directions across different distributions within our proposed meta-prompt learning paradigm. Consequently, in downstream tasks, these optimized parameters can be directly utilized to transform raw gradients over few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction, preventing prompt tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 884, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall, our contributions are mainly three-fold:", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 246, + 882, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) We propose a novel self-supervised metaprompt learning framework to better initialize soft prompts, where only unlabeled pre-training data are used to construct different meta-training tasks with curriculum-based task augmentation for further task enrichment.", + "(2) We incorporate a novel meta-gradient regularization function into our meta-prompt learning framework, which meta-learns to transform the raw gradient during few-shot learning into a domain-generalizable direction, thus preventing prompt tuning overfitting to domain-specific correlations.", + "(3) Comprehensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization validate the superiority of our method, which even outperforms full-model tuning in few-shot learning. It also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability." + ], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 263, + 882, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 552, + 663, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Soft Prompt Tuning. Soft prompt tuning is one of the most parameter-efficient tuning methods widely used in NLP (Liu et al., 2023) and vision-language tasks (Zhou et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023a), which only tunes a small number of (extra) parameters to attain strong performance. Specifically, it freezes the PLM parameters and prepends some trainable continuous embeddings (i.e., soft prompts) to the input sequence (Lester et al., 2021) or every layer of the pre-trained model (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 580, + 884, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To efficiently train task-adaptive soft prompts in few-shot scenarios, some studies (Vu et al., 2022; Asai et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022) employ task adaptation techniques, obtaining source prompts from source tasks in a supervised way and interpolating them into the target prompts. Other works focus on training improved prompt initializations. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pre-trains the soft prompts with some self-supervised tasks on unlabeled corpora, but it doesn't explicitly optimize the fast adap", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1060", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8663d4db2b26d2f3e41c5deca5370abd7c8b1956531aa8a92090a309e4d94cc8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The framework of SUPMER. We employ task interpolation to enrich the distribution of self-supervised meta-training tasks. Concurrently, we integrate a meta-gradient regularization function into meta-prompt learning. Furthermore, during meta-prompt learning we also dynamically adapt the mixing ratio of task interpolation, upgrading the vanilla task augmentation into a curriculum-based one." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 80, + 880, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tation ability of the model. MetaPrompting(Hou et al., 2022) utilizes supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization, splitting each dataset into two sets with disjoint data classes. One split is used to initialize soft prompts while the other serves as the downstream task. In comparison, SUPMER differs from MetaPrompting in the following ways: 1) for each downstream task MetaPrompting focuses on a fixed supervised dataset to reinitialize soft prompts, whereas SUPMER can universally generalize to different unseen tasks with large-scale unlabeled corpora for initialization; 2) MetaPrompting doesn't freeze PLM parameters, while SUPMER only tunes the soft prompts as the general soft prompt tuning methods do.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 386, + 489, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meta-Learning. Meta-learning, also known as learning to learn, optimizes the ability to learn new tasks quickly and efficiently, utilizing experience from previously seen tasks. It can be classified into three types: metric-based methods (Koch et al., 2015; Vinyals et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2017), model-based methods (Graves et al., 2014; Mishra et al., 2018; Qiao et al., 2018), and gradient-based methods (Hochreiter et al., 2001; Ravi and Larochelle, 2017; Nichol et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). In this work, we focus on a gradient-based meta-learning algorithm (i.e., MAML Finn et al., 2017). Compared to typical meta-learning methods that rely on human-annotated meta-training tasks, we automatically generate abundant tasks in a self-supervised way, also integrating a meta-gradient regularization function into MAML to steer gradi", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ents towards a domain-generalizable direction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 386, + 855, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 412, + 611, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we describe the whole framework of SUPMER (shown in Figure 2). With pre-defined preliminaries, we first introduce the way to construct anchor self-supervised meta tasks and the foundation of task augmentation to densify task distributions. Then we elaborate on the SUPMER model, including the meta-gradient regularization function. Finally, we upgrade the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one. Besides, we formalize all tasks in a text-to-text format following the T5 fashion (Raffel et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 437, + 884, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Preliminaries", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 624, + 662, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt Tuning. In prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021), given a training sample $(x_{i},y_{i})$ from task $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}$ , we apply a prompt template $P$ converting $x_{i}$ into a new sequence $P(x_{i})$ and then concatenate a set of soft prompts $\\theta$ to the beginning of $P(x_{i})$ . And verbalizer $\\mathcal{V}$ plays a role in mapping $y_{i}$ to some corresponding label tokens $\\mathcal{V}(y_i)$ in the vocabulary of PLMs. So the objective of prompt tuning can be formulated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\arg \\min _ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau}} (\\theta) \\\\ = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\left(x _ {i}, y _ {i}\\right) \\in D _ {\\tau}} \\log p \\left(\\langle X \\rangle = \\mathcal {V} \\left(y _ {i}\\right) \\mid [ \\theta ; P \\left(x _ {i}\\right) ]; \\theta\\right) \\tag {1} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 791, + 882, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\theta$ denotes the soft prompt embedding (the only tunable parameters in prompt tuning). $\\langle \\mathrm{X}\\rangle$ let PLMs predict target tokens at the masked positions and $[\\cdot ;\\cdot ]$ is the concatenation operation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1061", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning. Assuming access to a task distribution $p(\\mathcal{T})$ , the goal of meta-learning is to utilize tasks $\\tau_{i} \\sim p(\\mathcal{T})$ , referred to as meta-training tasks or meta tasks, to train a learning procedure that generalizes to unseen tasks from the distribution. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) (Finn et al., 2017) is a gradient-based bi-level optimization meta-learning method, which consists of an inner loop task-specific learning and outer loop fast adaptation across tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, a task $\\tau$ is composed of the support set $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}^{s}$ and the query set $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}^{q}$ . In the inner loop of MAML, a model learns to adapt to a new task $\\tau_{i}$ using its support set in the following way:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 244, + 489, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime} = \\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\\theta) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 317, + 487, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\alpha_{1}$ is the inner loop learning rate and $\\theta$ is the model's parameters. And the optimized parameters $\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}$ is then evaluated on the query set of task $\\tau_{i}$ with the loss function $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}$ . In the outer loop, this loss across meta-training tasks is treated as the final training loss to update $\\theta$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 343, + 487, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\theta \\leftarrow \\theta - \\beta_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 449, + 487, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\beta_{1}$ is the outer loop learning rate.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 486, + 411, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 512, + 421, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Supervised datasets with a large amount of labeled data are often unavailable in many NLP tasks. While unlabeled data is more easily accessible and generally covers broader semantic concepts. So we utilize the unlabeled data from a large corpus to create anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 487, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The unlabeled data are first grouped into different clusters. We utilize PLMs to derive semantically meaningful embeddings for sentences in the corpus, and then apply unsupervised K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences. Based on the results of K-means, we design three different formats of self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-sentence classification.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, sentence-pair classification involves predicting whether two sentences are adjacent in the same document or from the same cluster after K-means clustering. Multi-choice classification identifies the correct sentence among several candidates, which is either adjacent to a query sentence or from its same cluster. And Single-sentence classification aims to associate each sentence with its correct cluster label, as determined", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "by K-means. On this basis, for each task format, we distribute meta-training data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with well-balanced task distributions. We group samples with similar embeddings into the same task based on the results of K-means. And we give a more detailed description of anchor meta-training task construction in Appendix A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Vanilla Task Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 223, + 769, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With a set of anchor meta-training tasks, in this section we first introduce the vanilla task augmentation to densify the task distribution. Extending the idea of mixup (Zhang et al., 2018), we augment the task set through task interpolation, which linearly combines features and corresponding labels of samples from the query set in different tasks. In §3.5 we further upgrade the vanilla task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, which dynamically controls the task interpolation in terms of the current model capability.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 243, + 882, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, for a task composed of the support set and the query set, we denote the hidden representations of the query set samples in task $\\tau_{k}$ as $H^{q}$ . Given an anchor task $\\tau_{i}$ , first we randomly select another task $\\tau_{j}$ . While retaining the support set of $\\tau_{i}$ , we reconstruct its query set by interpolating on the hidden representations $(\\pmb{H}_i^q,\\pmb{H}_j^q)$ and corresponding labels $(Y_{i}^{q},Y_{j}^{q})$ from the query sets in $\\tau_{i}$ and $\\tau_{j}$ , which can be accomplished using mixup:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tilde {\\boldsymbol {H}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \\lambda) \\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q} + \\lambda \\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \\tilde {\\boldsymbol {Y}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \\lambda) \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q} + \\lambda \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 571, + 880, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the mixing ratio $\\lambda \\in [0,1]$ is drawn from a Beta distribution $Beta(\\alpha ,\\alpha)$ , and $\\alpha$ is a hyperparameter. The process of task augmentation not only enriches the task distribution, but also simulates the distribution shift between the support set and the query set within one task, as we only leverage interpolation between the query sets of different anchor meta-training tasks. And in §3.4 we will show the effect of this distribution deviation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 599, + 882, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 794, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we introduce the algorithm of our meta-prompt learning framework, which is a bi-level meta-learning paradigm learning a task-universal soft prompt initialization $\\theta$ for efficient adaptation. And it jointly meta-learns a metagradient regularization function $\\psi_{\\phi}$ that transforms raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction to prevent prompt tuning from overfitting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1062", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, considering that the inner loop update of MAML (i.e., Eq. (2)) over limited samples might overfit to some domain-specific correlations, we propose to learn a gradient regularization function $\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)$ , making a direct transformation to the raw gradients obtained from the support set $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s$ . The function first performs affine transformation $h(\\cdot)$ (e.g., rotation) to modulate the raw gradients $g$ , and then an update gate vector $z$ is employed to combine $g$ and $h(g)$ into the final gradients:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\psi_ {\\phi} (g) = z \\cdot h (g) + (1 - z) \\cdot g \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 258, + 487, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Obviously, the value of $z$ can be used to control how much the transformed gradients $h(g)$ contribute to the output of $\\psi_{\\phi}(g)$ . We hope to determine this weight based on the input samples themselves, setting $z = \\sigma(WH + b)$ , where $H$ is the hidden representations of input samples. Formally, now we transform Eq. (2) into:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 287, + 489, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime} = \\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {i} ^ {z}} (\\theta)\\right) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 413, + 487, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After adapting the soft prompt embeddings to the support set $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s$ , in the outer loop we optimize the prompt initialization $\\theta$ based on these adapted embeddings $\\theta^\\prime$ via Eq. (3). Besides, meta-gradient regularization parameters $\\phi$ are also optimized using the same loss to learn a better gradient transformation, with $\\beta_{2}$ as the learning rate:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 444, + 489, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\phi \\leftarrow \\phi - \\beta_ {2} \\nabla_ {\\phi} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 570, + 487, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overall, the total meta-prompt learning obejective can be formulated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 487, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\\theta)\\right)\\right) \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 655, + 487, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Downstream Prompt Tuning. The above metaprompt learning framework only requires a one-time execution. The optimized prompt initialization $\\theta^{*}$ and meta-gradient regularization parameters $\\phi^{*}$ are then universal for different downstream tasks. During downstream prompt tuning, we fix $\\phi^{*}$ and further adapt $\\theta^{*}$ to testing tasks as Eq. (6).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 697, + 489, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analysis of SUPMER. Here we give some analysis of how SUPMER could enhance generalizability, with more complete proof in Appendix A.1. Given that $x = \\theta -\\alpha_{1}\\psi_{\\phi}(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}^{s}}(\\theta))$ and $x_0 = \\theta$ focusing on a single meta-training task, we can apply a first-order Taylor expansion around the point", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$x_0$ to reformulate Eq. (8) as:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 722, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\because \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x) = \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x _ {0}) + \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} ^ {\\prime} (x _ {0}) (x - x _ {0}) \\\\ \\therefore \\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\\theta))) \\tag {9} \\\\ = \\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta) - \\alpha_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta) \\cdot \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\\theta)\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 112, + 880, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the aforementioned discussion, we can reach the following conclusions: (1) The update of $\\theta$ minimizes the expected loss on the query set. (2) The optimization of both $\\theta$ and $\\phi$ maximizes the inner product between the regulated gradients from the support set and the gradients from the query set. The inner product of two vectors is larger if they are in a similar direction. Recalling that we simulate the distribution shift between the support set and the query set, the optimization of $\\theta$ and $\\phi$ tries to align the gradient directions across different distributions. To improve the alignment between the domain-specific gradients, the gradient regularization parameters $\\phi$ are optimized to retain some domain-invariant information of metatraining data and then can be utilized to regulate raw gradients obtained from few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction in downstream prompt tuning, thus avoiding overfitting to some spurious correlations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 189, + 884, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Curriculum-based Task Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 858, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In §3.4 we show that SUPMER can help align the optimization direction across two distributions with deviation, which is simulated by performing task augmentation exclusively on the support sets. From Eq. (4) it is evident that the mixing ratio $\\lambda$ of mixup controls the extent of the distribution deviation, with a larger $\\lambda$ resulting in a more noticeable deviation. However, in the previously discussed method, $\\lambda$ is sampled from a fixed Beta distribution. In this section, we propose a more flexible sampling approach, which upgrades the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, gradually increasing the task difficulty and achieving a more reasonable distribution shift.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 548, + 882, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The curriculum-based task augmentation dynamically adjusts the parameters of the Beta distribution, from which we sample the mixing ratio $\\lambda$ . Specifically, a batch of meta tasks is sampled in each training epoch. For each task, we can obtain gradients on the support set $g_{i}^{s}$ and gradients on the query set $g_{i}^{q}$ , along with their cosine similarity. We leverage the average cosine similarity $s_{k-1}$ of all tasks in a batch during the last epoch to derive the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1063", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/738a992a1f32fff0a0c3b974722516f696a3ca830398b1fa73d70480ca0a8c83.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Model: T5-base (220M)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Prefix Tuning78.21.738.02.574.03.284.53.366.23.970.12.970.42.654.42.055.74.353.41.368.11.264.91.364.82.5
P-Tuning-v283.10.841.71.582.30.888.70.574.82.478.12.167.55.453.91.361.41.654.52.270.71.168.01.168.71.7
FT83.61.741.22.681.70.988.30.980.01.479.81.771.91.556.92.162.30.654.61.670.20.769.51.070.01.4
PT71.93.437.32.873.24.584.43.561.53.365.34.258.96.153.22.855.24.853.12.466.65.363.02.662.04.0
PPT81.22.040.25.481.20.783.67.366.83.773.42.460.77.755.41.260.43.953.61.368.00.863.10.765.63.1
Unified-PPT76.87.744.71.779.03.387.70.664.25.868.42.963.92.954.41.156.72.454.51.667.81.167.62.965.52.8
MetaPT85.71.345.31.182.54.588.50.373.23.778.72.265.42.456.11.758.23.154.11.369.60.668.80.968.81.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.071.30.9
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 96, + 882, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/14f3c8bf9544ed03771645f1df9419830cfeddd365b419237de95642c2a6ba65.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Zero-shot Inference89.152.383.380.657.487.276.875.885.050.577.277.574.4
Few-shot Inference93.253.388.587.858.691.683.979.186.964.379.981.079.0
Prefix Tuning88.62.145.42.788.72.289.11.684.63.990.62.465.46.473.42.672.34.155.51.873.92.675.02.375.22.9
P-Tuning-v291.21.053.51.190.00.889.81.187.73.292.30.969.12.962.34.676.83.663.12.077.21.777.31.677.52.0
FT92.91.453.61.989.61.391.30.588.70.993.62.077.81.676.01.784.41.563.01.877.71.382.92.981.01.6
PT88.29.245.73.485.65.688.65.181.65.185.15.665.47.261.64.069.35.954.81.171.12.770.28.672.35.3
PPT91.02.649.12.388.81.388.03.087.61.990.81.767.14.867.12.281.51.156.11.375.82.271.63.176.22.3
Unified-PPT89.98.347.42.889.70.989.01.586.44.388.43.269.33.563.21.174.93.259.91.774.02.476.32.075.72.9
MetaPT93.70.852.51.390.70.789.70.688.12.491.81.872.12.274.11.377.52.558.51.676.61.881.42.478.91.6
SUPMER95.50.455.30.791.40.590.70.790.30.893.01.587.61.581.41.088.30.665.01.778.10.885.10.483.50.9
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 219, + 882, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Results of few-shot learning. For each dataset we report the average accuracy and standard deviation over five random seeds (zero-shot & few-shot inference produce nearly consistent results each time as they do not require parameter tuning). Bold fonts indicate the best results. We can see SUPMER achieves better performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 366, + 882, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mixing ratio $\\lambda_{k}$ for the current epoch $k$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 410, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\lambda_ {k} = \\operatorname {B e t a} (\\alpha , b _ {k} \\alpha)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 235, + 448, + 364, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nb _ {k} = \\frac {m ^ {\\frac {1 + s _ {k - 1}}{2}} - 1}{m - 1}, \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 464, + 487, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\text {w h e r e} s _ {k - 1} = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {B} |} \\cdot \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathcal {B} |} \\frac {g _ {i} ^ {s} \\cdot g _ {i} ^ {q}}{\\| g _ {i} ^ {s} \\| \\cdot \\| g _ {i} ^ {q} \\|}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 500, + 415, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $m$ is the curve parameter. In this way, when our model is not capable of aligning the optimization directions across different distributions at the beginning, a smaller $\\lambda$ is preferable to create a smaller distribution deviation. Then $\\lambda$ tends to gradually increase as the model's capability improves, resulting in a larger distribution deviation and a corresponding increase in task difficulty.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 546, + 487, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the pseudo-codes of SUPMER in Appendix A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 675, + 487, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 719, + 258, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 744, + 317, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our approach in two problem settings: 1) Few-shot learning with different NLP downstream tasks; 2) domain generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 765, + 487, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Few-shot Learning. We consider 6 downstream tasks with 12 datasets: 1) the sentiment analysis datasets SST-2, SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013), MR (Pang and Lee, 2005) and CR (Hu and Liu, 2004); 2) the subjectivity classification dataset SUBJ (Pang and Lee, 2004); 3) the question", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "classification dataset TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000); 4) the natural language inference datasets CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019) and RTE (Wang et al., 2019); 5) the question answering dataset QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016); 6) the word sense disambiguation dataset WiC (Pilehvar and Camacho-Collados, 2019); 7) the paraphrase detection datasets MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) and QQP. Following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), for each dataset we sample 16 instances per label from the original training set to form training and validation sets for few-shot learning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 882, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain Generalization. Then we design a more challenging problem about zero-shot domain generalization in the sentiment analysis task. Our experiments include 6 domains across 3 datasets: 1) the Amazon review dataset (Blitzer et al., 2007) containing reviews about Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E) and Kitchen appliances (K); 2) the airline review dataset (A) (Nguyen, 2015; Ziser and Reichart, 2018); 3) the restaurant (R) domain obtained from the Yelp dataset (Zhang et al., 2015).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 882, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. On this basis, we sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain to tune soft prompts. And then we directly use the soft prompts learned from the source domain to evaluate performance on the test set of each domain.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1064", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c7889f46c19183e8022d72850367c35e59aeecfdea2c19fed43d8c96f42234ba.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model: T5-base (220M)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
Prefix Tuning78.12.282.71.081.51.284.40.682.72.684.92.282.41.6
P-Tuning-v284.00.883.60.982.41.785.90.984.21.583.82.784.01.4
FT84.40.283.90.681.00.684.10.685.00.785.30.684.00.6
PT79.82.575.32.276.03.279.62.079.81.983.01.878.92.3
PPT81.91.477.93.583.61.388.41.089.11.687.81.584.81.7
Unified-PPT80.93.082.12.076.84.081.04.582.23.984.93.381.33.5
MetaPT86.10.384.30.884.20.789.40.990.30.6-(86.90.7)
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.691.10.590.40.488.00.5
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 485, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/87ef1d7f4e1fad39e18f200464d1377281f8213ca848f58d9a2ecc6e29751f09.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
zero-shot inference77.884.686.286.888.687.885.3
few-shot inference82.590.389.792.392.289.289.4
Prefix Tuning83.01.185.31.983.41.187.31.586.42.489.81.085.91.5
P-Tuning-v285.60.486.72.386.81.888.62.190.22.388.92.687.81.9
FT86.20.788.82.284.61.387.21.389.81.190.70.987.91.3
PT82.61.279.03.982.51.784.22.384.52.584.82.182.92.3
PPT85.20.983.23.389.71.892.41.793.61.589.61.189.01.7
Unified-PPT83.00.882.53.082.04.886.03.086.62.285.62.084.32.6
MetaPT87.10.687.42.789.51.793.80.694.31.1-(90.41.3)
SUPMER87.00.289.81.491.11.295.10.895.80.991.80.891.80.9
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 183, + 485, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Results of domain generalization. For MetaPT we calculate the average performance only across domain A, B, D, E, K (without R).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 307, + 489, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experimental Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 327, + 380 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines. Our experiments are built on a smaller-scale model, T5-base (Raffel et al., 2020), and then on a larger-scale instruction-tuned model, Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022). For both two backbone models, we use the following baselines: (1) prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters as SUPMER: vanilla prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), PPT (Gu et al., 2022), Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022), and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022). (2) methods with more tunable parameters: Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), full-model tuning (FT). Furthermore, Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we additionally compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL, i.e., zero-shot inference and few-shot inference, which directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation. We list the details of baselines in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Implementation Details. We solve all downstream tasks in a text-to-text format and run each experiment with 5 different random seeds. For all prompt tuning methods, we follow Lester et al. (2021) to design soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens, with tunable parameters far less than full-model tuning. For our SUPMER, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) we sample 10GB data from OpenWebText (Gokaslan et al., 2019), a large-scale unlabeled corpus, to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. The meta-training stage only requires a one-time execution. In downstream prompt-tuning, we freeze the meta-gradient reg-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/80d03ce364d765883b04442ed03de500a963ee9e0dd4c764f1e6aa02d05ddeca.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The performance after different training steps on CB and MRPC." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 84, + 695, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/34ce0d9325ffffe3b376c7f062b382906bf848f179fa46573a23ffcfee8503bb.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 695, + 84, + 878, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5298afa21251cf120f5c71baef192eaca936b0f66fa1f8939396fea1e7825e35.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The performance on SST-5 and SUBJ when different numbers of training samples are available." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 260, + 695, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8a5c9ef45c7fb30c014615b63240ec32034937ed27797902f607ef0c5481ba08.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 261, + 878, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ularization parameters and the soft prompts are the only tunable parameters. We give more details of training hyper-parameters in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Main Result", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 507, + 653, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 and Table 2 show the main results of few-shot learning and domain generalization. From the results, we have the following observations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 530, + 882, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, in few-shot learning, SUPMER achieves better performance than all baselines on 10 of 12 datasets, whether using T5-base or Flan-T5-XL as the backbone. And the average accuracy of SUPMER over all datasets reaches $71.3\\%$ on T5-base, significantly outperforming other baselines (e.g., improving the performance by +1.3 points compared to FT). Notably, when utilizing the larger Flan-T5-XL as the backbone, SUPMER demonstrates even more substantial performance gains (e.g., improving the average performance by +2.5 points compared to FT), which indicates that our approach unlocks greater capabilities for stronger models that have undergone instruction-tuning with a higher number of parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 580, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, SUPMER consistently outperforms all other prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters across all datasets. This indicates that our method offers soft prompts with better few-shot generalization ability. And it is noteworthy to highlight that SUPMER utilizes ex", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1065", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b65e07837528a19c0417cd61ecad9c9f417f6b98d24faacb996de85076b3eb77.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
1 SUPMER (only labeled)87.547.083.889.975.479.667.956.659.054.669.269.570.0
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)87.346.784.089.379.680.272.457.361.754.871.370.571.3
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)84.745.082.487.867.277.464.355.361.653.968.967.768.0
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.146.383.789.473.880.167.257.460.054.370.169.969.9
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)89.148.285.790.879.383.473.258.863.755.370.571.572.5
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 885, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "actly the same unlabelled data as PPT and UnifiedPPT for soft prompt initialization. Yet it considerably outperforms these two baselines, demonstrating that the performance improvement is primarily attributable to our methodology rather than the meta-training data itself. Additionally, SUPMER outperforms baseline methods with more tunable parameters (e.g., full-model tuning) on the majority of datasets, achieving superior performance with fewer parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, SUPMER is superior to all baselines in almost all domain-generalization setups. For example, compared to MetaPT which meta-trains soft prompts with a supervised sentiment analysis dataset, SUPMER exhibits average gains of $1.1\\%$ on T5-base and $1.4\\%$ on Flan-T5-XL. So it can be inferred that SUPMER shows stronger robustness to domain shifts, exhibiting better generalization to unseen tasks or domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 362, + 487, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Third, for both few-shot learning and domain generalization on Flan-T5-XL, SUPMER demonstrates superior performance across almost all datasets and domains in contrast to few-shot inference. It provides further evidence that for LMs such as Flan-T5-XL with inherent few-shot inference capabilities, our approach can significantly enhance their abilities in a parameter-efficient tuning strategy, without providing any in-context examples during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 508, + 489, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fourth, SUPMER also results in lower variances on most datasets. Few-shot learning is often notorious for its instability. And in our method we keep few-shot prompt tuning more stable.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 751, + 280, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analysis of Generalization. Figure 3 shows the performance trend for each method after different training steps on datasets CB and MRPC with T5-base model. It illustrates that few-shot prompt tuning converges slowly with its performance typically showing an overall decline during the final training steps because they may easily result in overfitting. In comparison, SUPMER achieves faster, stronger, and more enduring few-shot generalization. It not", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/98a6e00cc517c5e8627d9b508c0dff922ec62339449c92833af12d0bcbb6055b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Results of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsFew-shot LearningDG
1only sp66.785.7
2only mc66.985.7
3only ss67.486.7
4w/o ta68.685.3
5w/o curriculum69.987.0
6w/o mgr69.486.1
7SUPMER71.388.0
", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 197, + 826, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Results of ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We report the average accuracy over all 12 datasets in few-shot learning and all 6 domains in domain generalization (DG).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 884, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "only accelerates the convergence to the optimal performance realizing fast adaptation, but also consistently maintains its optimal performance across prolonged training periods.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 397, + 884, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of Sample Size. We also discuss how the performance of SUPMER and other baselines varies when the number of training samples increases on SST-5 and SUBJ. As shown in Figure 4, with T5-base as the underlying PLM, when the number of training samples per label grows from 4 to 64, SUPMER is consistently better than other prompt tuning methods. And the performance gap between these methods is gradually reduced as the number of training data increases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 472, + 882, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-Supervised v.s. Supervised. To illustrate that self-supervised meta-learning can better generalize to unseen tasks compared to supervised meta-learning, we also collect a set of labeled datasets (ensuring no overlap with downstream testing datasets) to formulate meta-training tasks for soft prompt initialization and conduct the experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base. The results are displayed in Table 3 (rows 1 and 2). As our collected labeled data contains lots of sentiment analysis datasets (e.g., Yelp5), SUPMER (only labeled) and SUPMER (only unlabeled) reveal proximity in their performance on sentiment analysis tasks (i.e., SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR). But in other tasks, using unlabeled data consistently achieves better results than utilizing only labeled data, also with a higher average accuracy over all datasets, which validates", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1066", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 470, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of integrating Labeled Data. To further explore the impact of integrating labeled data and substantiate the efficacy of SUPMER following this integration, we amalgamate the original unlabeled meta-training data with our collected labeled data mentioned above, with a mixing ratio of labeled to unlabeled as 1:2. The amalgamated data is employed for constructing meta-training tasks to meta-train SUPMER. Moreover, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022), We also leverage pre-training and vanilla MAML to initialize soft prompts using the same amalgamated data. The experimental results of few-shot learning on T5-base are shown in Table 3 (rows 3-5). First, we can see that SUPMER (labeled+unlabeled) outperforms SUPMER (unlabeled) and SUPMER (labeled) as it allows us to harness the high-quality advantages of labeled data while also exploiting the broader semantic concepts encapsulated by unlabeled data. Second, After the integration of labeled data, SUPMER still consistently demonstrates significantly superior performance compared to baseline methods employing the same data for prompt initialization, which further underscores the effectiveness of SUPMER.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 115, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of Individual Components. We train the following ablation models. 1) only sp / mc / ss: we retain sentence-pair classification / multi-choice classification / single-sentence classification as the only anchor meta-training task format. 2) w/o ta: we entirely remove the task augmentation method. 3) w/o curriculum: we only retain the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. 4) w/o mgr: we remove the meta-gradient regularization function. All experiments follow the settings in §4.1 and are conducted on T5-base. We report the average accuracy of few-shot learning and domain generalization in Table 4. More detailed results are in Appendix D.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 531, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of Row 1-3 indicate that considering diversified task formats during meta-training helps efficiently generalize to different tasks as downstream tasks often contain various task formats. Row 4 and Row 5 highlight that task augmentation plays an essential role in our framework, with curriculum-based augmentation further enriching the task distribution and realistically simulating the distribution shift. Moreover, Row 6 validates the superiority of meta-gradient regularization in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "avoiding overfitting to some domain-specific correlations, thus achieving better performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 128, + 640, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we present SUPMER, a self-supervised meta-prompt learning framework with meta-gradient regularization. With a diverse set of well-designed self-supervised meta-training tasks, SUPMER jointly meta-learns a universal prompt initialization and an effective gradient regularization function for efficient few-shot generalization. Extensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization show that SUPMER outperforms other prompt methods and full-model tuning, achieving state-of-the-art performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 153, + 884, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 342, + 613, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although SUPMER performs superbly in a variety of problem scenarios, there still exist some limitations in our work: 1) We did not conduct any data filtering or cleaning operations to the meta-training data, which could potentially result in the inclusion of some biased content. 2) Our experiments are solely conducted on English tasks, and also do not involve some kinds of NLP tasks (e.g., language generation Li et al., 2022c) or vision-language tasks (Zhang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022b; Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 882, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these limitations, in the future we plan to conduct further cleansing and filtering on the current meta-training data. Besides, we intend to evaluate the few-shot performance of our framework in the multilingual setting and also broaden the scope of tasks, including retrieval (Pan et al., 2023), language generation (Li et al., 2022c) and vision-language tasks (Li et al., 2023b; Chen et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022a). Furthermore, we hope our work could pave the way for future research on better leveraging parameter-efficient methods under few-shot settings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 884, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 749, + 680, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work has been supported in part by the Zhejiang NSF (LR21F020004), Key Research and Development Projects in Zhejiang Province (No. 2023C01030, 2023C01032), NSFC (No. 62272411), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018AAA0101900), Ant Group and Alibaba-Zhejiang University Joint Research Institute of Frontier Technologies.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1067", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Akari Asai, Mohammadreza Salehi, Matthew Peters, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. ATTEMPT: Parameter-efficient multi-task tuning via attentional mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6655-6672, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "John Blitzer, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, Bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 440-447, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Nitay Calderon, Eyal Ben-David, Amir Feder, and Roi Reichart. 2022. DoCoGen: Domain counterfactual generation for low resource domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7727-7746, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dong Chen, Kaihang Pan, Guoming Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Improving vision anomaly detection with the guidance of language modality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02821.", + "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.", + "Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. In proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005).", + "Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1126-1135. PMLR.", + "Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816-3830, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aaron Gokaslan, Vanya Cohen, Ellie Pavlick, and Stefanie Tellex. 2019. Openwebtext corpus.", + "Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, and Ivo Danihelka. 2014. Neural tuning machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.5401.", + "Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410-8423, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sepp Hochreiter, A. Steven Younger, and Peter R. Conwell. 2001. Learning to learn using gradient descent. In Artificial Neural Networks — ICANN 2001, pages 87–94, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.", + "Yutai Hou, Hongyuan Dong, Xinghao Wang, Bohan Li, and Wanxiang Che. 2022. MetaPrompting: Learning to learn better prompts. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3251-3262, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168-177.", + "Yukun Huang, Kun Qian, and Zhou Yu. 2022. Learning a better initialization for soft prompts via meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12471.", + "Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Luke Zettlemoyer, James Henderson, Lambert Mathias, Marzieh Saeidi, Veselin Stoyanov, and Majid Yazdani. 2022. Prompt-free and efficient few-shot learning with language" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1068", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3638-3652, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Gregory Koch, Richard Zemel, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2015. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML Deep Learning Workshop, volume 2.", + "Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045-3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierrick Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Juncheng Li, Minghe Gao, Longhui Wei, Siliang Tang, Wenqiao Zhang, Mengze Li, Wei Ji, Qi Tian, Tat-Seng Chua, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023a. Gradient-regulated meta-prompt learning for generalizable vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06571.", + "Juncheng Li, Xin He, Longhui Wei, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Lingxi Xie, Yueting Zhuang, Qi Tian, and Siliang Tang. 2022a. Fine-grained semantically aligned vision-language pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:7290-7303.", + "Juncheng Li, Kaihang Pan, Zhiqi Ge, Minghe Gao, Hanwang Zhang, Wei Ji, Wenqiao Zhang, Tat-Seng Chua, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023b. Fine-tuning multimodal llms to follow zero-shot demonstrative instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04152.", + "Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, Linchao Zhu, Haochen Shi, Xuanwen Huang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. Adaptive hierarchical graph reasoning with semantic coherence for video-and-language inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1867-1877.", + "Juncheng Li, Xin Wang, Siliang Tang, Haizhou Shi, Fei Wu, Yueting Zhuang, and William Yang Wang. 2020." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Unsupervised reinforcement learning of transferable meta-skills for embodied navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12123-12132.", + "Juncheng Li, Junlin Xie, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Siliang Tang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, Yueting Zhuang, and Xin Eric Wang. 2022b. Compositional temporal grounding with structured variational crossgraph correspondence learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3032-3041.", + "Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022c. Pretrained language models for text generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05273.", + "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582-4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35.", + "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning across scales and tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 61-68, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nikhil Mishra, Mostafa Rohaninejad, Xi Chen, and Pieter Abbeel. 2018. A simple neural attentive metal-learner. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Quang Nguyen. 2015. The airline review dataset.", + "Alex Nichol, Joshua Achiam, and John Schulman. 2018. On first-order meta-learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02999.", + "Kaihang Pan, Juncheng Li, Hongye Song, Hao Fei, Wei Ji, Shuo Zhang, Jun Lin, Xiaozhong Liu, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Controlretriever: Harnessing the power of instructions for controllable retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10025.", + "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 271-278, Barcelona, Spain." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1069", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115-124, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1267-1273, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Siyuan Qiao, Chenxi Liu, Wei Shen, and Alan L. Yuille. 2018. Few-shot image recognition by predicting parameters from activations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunjri Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1-16. IEEE.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506.", + "Sachin Ravi and Hugo Larochelle. 2017. Optimization as a model for few-shot learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339-2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianxiang Sun, Zhengfu He, Qin Zhu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training of modular prompt for few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07565.", + "Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, koryakvukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Ellen M. Voorhees and Dawn M. Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '00, page 200-207, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Tu Vu, Brian Lester, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou', and Daniel Cer. 2022. SPoT: Better frozen model adaptation through soft prompt transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5039-5059, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1070", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Wenqiao Zhang, Jiannan Guo, Mengze Li, Haochen Shi, Shengyu Zhang, Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022a. Boss: Bottom-up cross-modal semantic composition with hybrid counterfactual training for robust content-based image retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04211.", + "Wenqiao Zhang, Haochen Shi, Jiannan Guo, Shengyu Zhang, Qingpeng Cai, Juncheng Li, Sihui Luo, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022b. Magic: Multimodal relational graph adversarial inference for diverse and unpaired text-based image captioning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3335-3343.", + "Wenqiao Zhang, Siliang Tang, Yanpeng Cao, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2019. Frame augmented alternating attention network for video question answering. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(4):1032-1041.", + "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(9):2337-2348.", + "Yftah Ziser and Roi Reichart. 2018. Pivot based language modeling for improved neural domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1241-1251, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 707 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1071", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 517, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendices", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Additional Information for SUPMER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 111, + 475, + 126 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Complete Analysis of SUPMER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 139, + 413, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we provide a more comprehensive and complete analysis of SUPMER. We will show that during meta-training, the optimization of soft prompt embeddings $\\theta$ and the meta-gradient regularization parameters $\\phi$ tends to maximize the inner product of gradients obtained from the support set after regulation and gradients from the query set.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 162, + 487, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, to update the parameters $\\theta$ and $\\phi$ , we should evaluate their gradients at first, denoting them as $g^{\\theta}$ and $g^{\\phi}$ . Considering the original algorithm of MAML, each task consists of a support set and a query set. And only one step of gradient descent is applied in the inner-loop optimization. To make our statement more direct, we denote the loss function based on the support set and the query set as $\\mathcal{L}_0$ and $\\mathcal{L}_1$ . In SUPMER, ignoring the regularized loss, only $\\mathcal{L}_1$ is directly utilized to optimize $\\phi$ , while $\\theta$ is optimized in a bi-level meta-optimization paradigm. Here we define the following terms related to $\\theta$ similar to Nichol et al. (2018):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 489, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ng _ {\\theta} ^ {i} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {i})}{\\partial \\theta_ {i}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 497, + 206, + 523 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gradient obtained during SGD)", + "bbox": [ + 278, + 504, + 473, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\bar {g} _ {i} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 525, + 208, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gradient at initial point)", + "bbox": [ + 278, + 532, + 428, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\overline {{H}} _ {i} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial^ {2} \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0} ^ {2}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 554, + 221, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(Hessian at initial point)", + "bbox": [ + 278, + 562, + 426, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\theta_ {1} = \\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 585, + 248, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gradient descent in the inner-loop) (11)", + "bbox": [ + 278, + 586, + 492, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each definition $i \\in \\{0,1\\}$ and $\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)$ is the meta-gradient regularization operation. $\\theta_0$ denotes the initial soft prompt embeddings for each step, and $\\theta_{1}$ denotes the embeddings after the inner-loop optimization. Obviously we have $g_0^\\theta = \\overline{g}_0^\\theta$ . Firstly we perform a Taylor series expansion to approximate the SGD gradients $g_{1}^{\\theta}$ obtained from the query set as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 489, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} g _ {1} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} + \\frac {\\partial^ {2} \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0} ^ {2}} (\\theta_ {1} - \\theta_ {0}) + \\underbrace {O (| | \\theta_ {1} - \\theta_ {0} | | ^ {2})} _ {= O (\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2})} \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\tag {12} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 752, + 485, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then we analysis the gradient descent operation in the inner-loop optimization based on the support set. Define $U$ as the gradient descent and we have $U(\\theta_0) = \\theta_0 - \\alpha_1\\psi_\\phi \\left(\\frac{\\partial\\mathcal{L}_0(\\theta_0)}{\\partial\\theta_0}\\right)$ . So we can get", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\text {a n d} \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\text {a s f o l l o w s :}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 729, + 104 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\partial U \\left(\\theta_ {0}\\right)}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} = \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\left(\\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\\right)\\right) \\\\ = I - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\tag {13} \\\\ = I - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\\theta} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 586, + 117, + 880, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\partial U \\left(\\theta_ {0}\\right)}{\\partial \\phi} = \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\phi} \\left(\\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\\right)\\right) \\tag {14} \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 588, + 222, + 880, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "So based on Eq. (12, 13, 14), we can finally approximate the gradients $g^{\\theta}$ and $g^{\\phi}$ as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 285, + 884, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\\theta_ {0}))}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}) - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta})}{\\partial \\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\\theta} + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\\right) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 331, + 878, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\\phi} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta})}{\\partial \\phi} + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\\right) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\tag {15} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 489, + 880, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thus, $-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\theta_0} (\\overline{g}_1^\\theta \\psi_\\phi (\\overline{g}_0^\\theta))$ and $-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\phi} (\\overline{g}_1^\\theta \\psi_\\phi (\\overline{g}_0^\\theta))$ indicate the optimization direction, which increases the inner product between gradients from the query set and gradients from the support set after transformation. To further consolidate our analysis, we also track the normalized gradient inner product in the first 5000 steps during meta-training. As shown in Figure 5, it is clear that the normalized gradient inner product gradually increases during meta-training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 644, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On this basis, since there exists distribution shift between the support set and the query set after task augmentation, our method aligns the gradient directions across different distributions, which helps enhance model generalization. In other words, the trainable parameters descend in a coordinated manner such that the input-output correspondence is as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1072", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/78f17a90da65e7ba97f235e66b5378043156d3e7b6ef1aaad2d72608b47d1e5e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Normalized gradient inner products in the first 5000 steps during meta-training." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 194, + 85, + 410, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "close as possible across two distributions with deviation. Besides, the meta-gradient regularization parameters $\\phi$ also retain some domain-invariant information of the meta-training data in the above process. Considering that $\\phi$ is fixed in downstream tasks, $\\phi$ can be applied to encourage the alignment between the domain-specific gradients and avoid prompt-tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 285, + 489, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 442, + 426, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a sentence $x$ from unlabeled corpora, we can derive semantically meaningful sentence embedding $H = f_{\\theta}^{enc}(x)$ with PLMs, e.g., T5 encoder. And we apply K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences according to their embeddings:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 463, + 489, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {P}, \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\} = \\arg \\min _ {\\left\\{\\mathcal {C} _ {c} \\right\\}, \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\}} \\sum_ {c = 1} ^ {K} \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {H} \\in \\mathcal {C} _ {c}} \\left\\| \\boldsymbol {H} - \\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\| ^ {2} \\tag {16}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 556, + 487, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mu_{c}$ indicates the learned centroid of cluster $\\mathcal{C}_c$ and $\\mathcal{P}$ indicates the partitions of all sentences. K-means clustering leads to more abundant formats and objectives of meta-training tasks. Based on the results of K-means, we design three formats of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-text classification. Here we introduce each of them in detail.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 489, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sentence-pair Classification. Sentence-pair classification takes a pair of sentences $(x_0, x_1)$ as input, and $x_0$ is the anchor sentence. We carry on next sentence prediction task and sentence similarity task in sentence-pair classification with the label list $\\mathcal{Y} = [0, 1, 2]$ . For the former one, following Gu et al. (2022), we set two sentences next to each other as label 0, those from the same document but not adjacent as label 2, and those from different documents as label 1. And for", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 Meta-training Process of SUPMER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 83, + 875, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: $p(\\mathcal{T})$ : Distribution over anchor tasks", + "2: $f_{\\theta}$ : PLM with soft prompt embeddings $\\theta$", + "3: $\\psi_{\\phi}$ : Meta-gradient regularization", + "4: $\\alpha_{1},\\beta_{1},\\beta_{2}$ : Learning rate", + "5: TA : Task augmentation in Algorithm 2" + ], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 104, + 848, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "6: $s\\gets -1$", + "7: Randomly initialize $\\theta, \\phi$", + "8: while not done do" + ], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 200, + 722, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "9: Sample a batch of task $\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i=1}^n$ from $p(\\mathcal{T})$", + "10: $\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n = \\mathbf{TA}(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n,p(\\mathcal{T}),s)$", + "11: for all $\\tau_{i} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}\\}$ do", + "12: Evaluate $\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta)$ with $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s$", + "13: Evaluate $\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)$ with $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q$", + "14: Transform $\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta)$ via $\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 249, + 873, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "15.", + "15: $s_i = \\frac{\\|\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\| \\cdot \\|\\psi_\\phi(\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta))\\|}{\\|\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\|}$", + "16: $\\theta_{i}^{\\prime} = \\theta -\\alpha_{1}\\psi_{\\phi}(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s}}(f_{\\theta}))$", + "17: end for", + "18: $s\\gets \\sum_{i}s_{i} / \\sum_{i}1$", + "19: $\\theta \\gets \\theta -\\beta_{1}\\nabla_{\\theta}\\sum_{\\tau_{i}}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}})$", + "20: $\\phi \\gets \\phi -\\beta_{2}\\nabla_{\\phi}\\bigl {(}\\sum_{\\tau_{i}}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}}) + \\mathcal{L}_{reg}\\bigr)$", + "21: end while", + "22: return $\\theta, \\phi$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 351, + 870, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sentence similarity task, we set two sentences coming from the same cluster as label 0, and those from different clusters as label 1. In this way, the prompt template and verbalizer are designed as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} P = \\text {\"} s _ {1} \\left\\langle \\mathrm {X} \\right\\rangle . s _ {2}\" \\tag {17} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\rightarrow \\text {y e s}, 1 \\rightarrow \\text {n o}, 2 \\rightarrow \\text {m a y b e} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 600, + 880, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-choice Classification. Multi-choice classification takes an anchor sentence $x_0$ as the query and we should find the correct one in several answer candidates. Here we also set two different tasks. The first one aims to select the sentence next to $s_0$ and the second one aims to select the sentence which belongs to the same cluster as $s_0$ . In each task we will set four candidates, and only one of them is correct. We design the prompt template and verbalizer as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 639, + 884, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} P = \" s _ {0}? \\mathrm {A}. s _ {1} \\dots \\mathrm {D}. s _ {4}. \\text {A n s w e r :} \\langle \\mathrm {X} \\rangle\" \\tag {18} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\to \\mathrm {A}, 1 \\to \\mathrm {B}, 2 \\to \\mathrm {C}, 3 \\to \\mathrm {D} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 806, + 880, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Single-Sentence Classification. Through K-means clustering, each sentence is associated with a cluster label $r_i$ in $\\{0,1\\}^K$ where $r_{ic} = 1$ if $c = k$ and $y_{ic} = 0$ if $c \\neq k$ . Here $k$ represents the cluster", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1073", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to which the sentence belongs. We simply use $r_i$ as the pseudo label for meta-training and construct 4-way classification tasks. As for the designing of the verbalizer, we transform the single-sentence classification into the format of multi-choice classification. We insert the centroid of cluster $\\mu_c$ into the template and use it to represent the corresponding cluster. So that we have:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} P = \\text {\"} s _ {0}? \\mathrm {A .} \\langle \\mu_ {c _ {1}} \\rangle \\dots \\mathrm {D .} \\langle \\mu_ {c _ {4}} \\rangle . \\text {A n s w e r :} \\langle \\mathrm {X} \\rangle \\tag {10} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\to \\mathrm {A}, 1 \\to \\mathrm {B}, 2 \\to \\mathrm {C}, 3 \\to \\mathrm {D} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 216, + 487, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On this basis, for each task format, we separate all data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with good task distributions. Through K-means, sentences with similar embeddings are clustered into the same group. So in sentence-pair classification and multi-choice classification, we group samples whose anchor sentence comes from the same cluster into the same meta-training task. And in single-sentence classification, for each meta-training task, we randomly select $N$ clusters as $N$ classes and then sample $k$ sentences for each cluster to construct a $N$ -way $k$ -shot classification task $(N = 4)$ . In this way, we completely construct all anchor meta-training tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 489, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Additional Loss to Train Meta-Gradient Regularization Parameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 485, + 480, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the meta-training stage, we optimize the metagradient regularization parameters $\\phi$ via Eq. (7), utilizing the same loss which optimizes the soft prompt embeddings. Here we introduce a regularized loss to attach some additional restrictions when updating the meta-gradient regularization parameters. Notably, a higher value of $b_{k}$ in Eq. (10) indicates a higher probability of a larger distribution deviation between the support set and the query set. Furthermore, in Eq. (5) we also tend to increase $z$ to achieve a more pronounced gradient transformation with a more noticeable distribution deviation. From this perspective, $z$ has a similar monotonicity with $b_{k}$ , and they both range between 0 and 1. Thus we further add a regularized loss $\\mathcal{L}_{reg} = \\| z - b_k\\|^2$ to constrain the value of $z$ and finally modify Eq. (7) into:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 521, + 489, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\phi \\leftarrow \\phi - \\beta_ {2} \\nabla_ {\\phi} \\left(\\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(f _ {\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}}\\right) + \\lambda \\mathcal {L} _ {r e g}\\right) \\tag {20}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 800, + 487, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Pseudo-Codes of SUPMER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 834, + 378, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show the pseudo-codes for the meta-training process of SUPMER in Alg. 1. And the process of curriculum-based task augmentation is described in Alg. 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 2 TA : Curriculum-based Task Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 882, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: $\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n$ : A batch of anchor tasks", + "2: $p(\\mathcal{T})$ : Distribution over anchor tasks", + "3: $s \\in [-1, 1]$ : Avg cos-sim between gradients", + "4: $\\alpha, m$ : hyper-parameters" + ], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 116, + 872, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5: $s\\gets (1 + s) / 2$", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 198, + 655, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "6: $b \\gets (m^s - 1) / (m - 1)$", + "7: for all $\\tau_{i} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}\\}$ do", + "8: Sample task $\\tau_{j} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{j}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{j}}^{q}\\}$ from $p(T)$", + "9: Draw $\\lambda$ from $Beta(\\alpha, b\\alpha)$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 214, + 870, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n/ / \\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q} = \\left(\\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q}, \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q}\\right), \\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {j}} ^ {q} = \\left(\\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 559, + 278, + 836, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "// $H$ : the hidden representations of samples", + "bbox": [ + 559, + 294, + 880, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "10: $\\tilde{\\pmb{H}}_i^q = (1 - \\lambda)\\pmb {H}_i^q +\\lambda \\pmb {H}_j^q$", + "11: $\\tilde{\\pmb{Y}}_i^q = (1 - \\lambda)\\pmb {Y}_i^q +\\lambda$", + "12: $\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q \\gets (\\tilde{\\pmb{H}}_i^q, \\tilde{\\pmb{Y}}_i^q)$", + "13: end for", + "14: return $\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i=1}^n$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 310, + 768, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Dataset & Baseline Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 425, + 774, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Few-shot Learning. We conduct experiments of few-shot learning on 6 different downstream English tasks with 12 datasets. Since some of the test sets of the datasets are not publicly available, following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), we leverage the original validation sets of SST-2, CB, RTE, QNLI, WiC, MRPC, and $\\mathrm{QQP}^1$ as substitutes for the unavailable test sets. And the validation sets for few-shot learning are sampled from the original training set, ensuring no overlap with our designated test sets. Besides, we download the datasets of SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR, and SUBJ from Gao et al. (2021). And the rest of the datasets are obtained from the HuggingFace Datasets library (Lhoest et al., 2021). CB, RTE, BoolQ, and Wic are from SuperGLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2019), while QNLI, MRPC, and QQP are from GLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2018) with Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0). We give the statistics of all these datasets in Table 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain Generalization. Similar to Calderon et al. (2022), We evaluate on the sentiment analysis task including 6 different domains: Airlines (A), Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E), Kitchen appliances (K), and Restaurants (R). Each domain has totally 2,000 manually labeled data of binary categories for testing, including 1000 positive and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 782, + 882, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "DatasetTask#Train#TestKSST-2Sentiment analysis69208722SST-5Sentiment analysis854422105MRSentiment analysis866220002CRSentiment analysis177420002SUBJSubjectivity classification800020002TRECQuestion classification54525006CBNatural language inference250563RTENatural language inference24902772QNLIQuestion answering10474354632WiCWord sense disambiguation54286382MRPCParaphrase detection36684082QQPParaphrase detection363846404302", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1000 negative. We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. We sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain for prompt tuning and then evaluate on the test sets of all 6 domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 357, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines. We first compare with baseline methods with the same number of parameters as SUP-MER. These methods utilize prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) to handle downstream tasks, with the key distinction lying in the initialization of the soft prompts. Vallina prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021) directly tunes the soft prompts in the downstream task, which are randomly initialized from a normal distribution. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pretrains soft prompts in a self-supervised way with 3 formats of pre-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification. Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022) formulate all these three formats into a unified task form. MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022) using a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data and directly leveraging MAML to initialize soft prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 466, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we also consider baseline methods with more tunable parameters, including Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), which add prompts at each layer of PLM. We also compare with full-model tuning (FT) that fine-tunes all parameters of the PLM.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 489, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we newly compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL: zero-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/264a495aa2f719c8603b688b491248b5ab745697358609c3e31427c837f7efff.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 6: Hyper-parameters for SUPMER. $\\phi$ denotes the meta-gradient regularization parameters. $\\lambda$ is the coefficient of the regularized loss. And $m$ is the curve parameter in the curriculum-based task augmentation." + ], + "table_body": "
Hyper-parameterValue
Number of clusters for each task format250
Tasks per batch4
Size of support set per task32
Size of query set per task32
OptimizerAdam
Inner loop learning rate0.1
Outer loop learning rate0.1
Learning rate for φ1e-4
SchedulerLinear scheduler
Warm-up steps0
Max training steps100,000
Validation steps2,000
Max sequence length512
λ1.0
m2.0
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 884, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "shot inference and few-shot inference. For both of them, we directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation, coupled with carefully designed task instructions for each dataset. Furthermore, in few-shot inference, we also provide an appropriate number of few-shot examples to form a demonstration context.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 374, + 884, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Training Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 501, + 690, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We apply the T5 base model (Raffel et al., 2020) (220M parameters) and Flan-T5-XL model (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) as the underlying PLM, and use the HuggingFace Pytorch implementation (Wolf et al., 2020). We run experiments with 8 GeForce RTX 3090 24G GPUs. And the metatraining process of SUPMER takes about 140 GPU hours. Next we will describe the details of training hyper-parameters in the case of leveraging T5-base as the PLM.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.1 Training Hyper-parameters for Downstream Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 806, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our experiments, we leverage full-model tuning and prompt tuning to solve downstream tasks, including few-shot learning and domain generalization. In few-shot learning, following some prior work (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2022), we set the maximum sequence length of each example to 256 for CR, SUBJ, CB, RTE and WiC, and 128 for other datasets. While in domain generalization, the maximum sequence length of each example is set to 256.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We run each experiment 5 times on the random", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1075", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/60d575096fda966a8d428a083487eadef9408c84f812246d04f75d1c1079b821.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQP
only sp83.61.542.62.281.71.886.00.665.82.871.26.664.62.157.02.558.43.353.61.569.91.366.01.0
only mc83.41.444.51.979.35.188.30.570.54.766.41.465.93.154.91.358.71.754.21.868.80.867.61.3
only ss84.51.545.02.081.50.788.40.573.33.179.15.862.12.653.91.056.51.453.31.367.71.363.71.7
w/o ta84.71.040.13.381.91.887.20.873.62.878.83.766.41.956.60.959.41.854.32.469.51.170.21.1
w/o curriculum86.80.840.82.282.31.388.40.974.83.179.71.671.02.156.50.862.61.455.41.169.70.871.31.2
w/o mgr85.01.344.51.182.80.788.00.576.01.779.55.067.11.656.80.858.92.454.42.070.01.070.30.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.0
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 882, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a7d0e2215e1219a3520d53c6786c7774d6967536c4ebc415fd186d1deca6aaf9.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Detailed results of ablation study for few-shot learning to illustrate the effect of individual Components. In the first three rows we keep only one anchor task format during meta-training, and sp stands for sentence-pair classification, mc for multi-choice classification, ss for single-sentence classification. And w/o ta means entirely removing task augmentation, w/o curriculum only retains the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. w/o mgr means removing the meta-gradient regularization method." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodSourceTarget
ABDEKR
only sp83.41.182.11.483.00.788.51.288.90.888.10.7
only mc84.00.682.31.281.50.988.51.089.30.788.80.7
only ss83.60.784.70.884.20.688.90.989.70.989.00.3
w/o ta83.40.882.01.481.71.587.80.888.20.688.60.6
w/o curriculum84.00.584.70.883.90.689.60.590.30.889.71.1
w/o mgr83.80.483.40.583.30.588.10.689.20.888.90.4
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.791.10.590.40.4
", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 280, + 771, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Detailed results of ablation study for domain generalization to illustrate the effect of individual Components.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 441, + 880, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average accuracy as well as the standard deviation. For both full-model tuning and prompt tuning, We implement AdamW as the optimizer. We use a batch size of 32 and train the model for 200 epochs, meanwhile evaluating the model every 10 steps. And we report the results for hyper-parameters performing the best on the validation set for each task.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 470, + 487, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, for full-model tuning, all parameters of PLM are fine-tuned without adding soft prompts. We use the learning rate of [1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5] and choose the one obtaining the highest validation performance. Moreover, to fine-tune the Flan-T5-XL model, we use ZeRO (Rajbhandari et al., 2020) stage-2 provided in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020) to reduce GPU memory usage.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 489, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For prompt tuning, we freeze all PLM parameters and only tune soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens. As a result, the tunable parameters of prompt tuning are only $77\\mathrm{K}$ with T5-base and $205\\mathrm{K}$ with Flan-T5-XL, updating around 3000 and 15000 times fewer parameters on T5-base and Flan-T5-Xl, respectively, compared to full-model tuning. And we find that prompt tuning requires a much larger learning rate than full-model tuning. We search for the learning rate in [1e-1, 2e-1, 3e-1] and also choose the model with the best performance on the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "validation set.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 470, + 616, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C.2 Training Hyper-parameters for Prompt Initialization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 870, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pre-training for prompt initialization. Gu et al. (2022) proposes two frameworks for unsupervised prompt pre-training, named PPT and Unified PPT. PPT designs three formats of unsupervised pre-training tasks (sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification), and Unified-PPT further formulate them into a unified task form. We implement PPT and Unified-PPT following the hyper-parameters provided in Gu et al. (2022) and reset the pretrained language model to T5-base and Flan-T5-XL. Specifically, for both PPT and Unified-PPT, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct pre-training tasks for each task format. And $5\\%$ data are split for validation. We apply the \"inverse square root\" learning rate scheduler with no warm-up steps and set the learning rate as 0.1. We set the batch size to 256 with the max sequence length as 512, and train soft prompts for at most 200,000 steps. We evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps and choose prompts with the lowest validation loss.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1076", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f6867ec04a4194e5f6cc03b5851001dd214baaacb12da353043f6235e084e1f6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEK
1 SUPMER (only labeled)86.484.784.890.090.787.3
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)85.785.385.190.391.187.5
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)83.179.084.489.390.685.3
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.385.386.790.191.488.0
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)86.688.688.592.793.790.0
", + "bbox": [ + 223, + 80, + 773, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Results of domain generalization on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization. As our collected labeled data includes Yelp5, a sentiment analysis dataset in the domain of restaurants, we conduct the experiments of domain generalization only across domains A, B, D, E, K (without R).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 205, + 882, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meta-training for prompt initialization. In our SUPMER framework, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. We split $5\\%$ data to construct tasks for validation. And for each task format, we first set the number of clusters to 250. We sample 4 meta-training tasks in a batch, and train the prompt embeddings $\\theta$ and the meta-gradient regularization parameters $\\phi$ for at most 100,000 steps. We also evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps, choosing $\\theta$ and $\\phi$ with the lowest validation loss for downstream tasks. Table 6 lists all training hyper-parameters for SUPMER. It is worth noting that for most hyperparameters in Table 6, we just set a default value by experience without tuning them. we tune the hyperparameters which are also tuned in other baselines (e.g., learning rate), ensuring all methods have the same number of tunable hyper-parameters in our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 262, + 487, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, to illustrate the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning, we also imitate MetaPT(Huang et al., 2022) to initialize soft prompts via supervised meta-learning. MetaPT uses a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data, which has 650,000 training samples only covering the domain of restaurants. Following Huang et al. (2022), We group all labeled data into 10 clusters through K-means. And we set the inner loop learning rate to 0.08, the outer loop learning rate to 0.025 with the early stop patience as 6. Other hyper-parameters are consistent with those in SUPMER.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 586, + 489, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Full Results of Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 413, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we first give detailed experimental results of the ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We evaluate each ablation model over all 12 datasets of few-shot learning and all 6 domains of domain generalization, with", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "T5-base as the underlying PLM. We run each experiment 5 times on the random seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average performances as well as the standard deviation. The detailed results of few-shot learning and domain generalization are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. We can see each component is critical in our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 262, + 884, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, in §4.4, to explore the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning and the impact of integrating additional labeled data for soft prompt initialization, we conduct experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for soft prompt initialization. We also carry out experiments of domain generation leveraging different data with various prompt initialization methods, with the results presented in Table 9. From Table 3 and 9, it is evident that self-supervised meta-learning utilizing unlabeled data exhibits enhanced adaptability to unseen tasks in comparison to its supervised counterparts. And amalgamating both labeled and unlabeled data for the construction of meta-training tasks emerges as a more advantageous strategy. When it comes to employing both labeled and unlabeled data for prompt initialization, SUPMER continues to showcase markedly superior results in contrast to baseline methods in the realms of both few-shot learning and domain generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 375, + 884, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1077", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_model.json b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3aaee0bba08ae4b71ff9e29314248223069c51ca --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,4033 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.089, + 0.882, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.141, + 0.882, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaihang Pan\\(^{1,2*}\\), Juncheng Li\\(^{1\\dagger}\\), Hongye Song\\(^{2}\\), Jun Lin\\(^{2}\\), Xiaozhong Liu\\(^{3}\\), Siliang Tang\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.159, + 0.744, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Zhejiang University, 2 DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.369, + 0.177, + 0.639, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\) Worcester Polytechnic Institute" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.194, + 0.726, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{kaihangpan, junchengli, siliang}@zju.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.21, + 0.78, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{hongye.shy, linjun.lj}@alibaba-inc.com, xliu14@wpi.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt tuning is a parameter-efficient method, which learns soft prompts and conditions frozen language models to perform specific downstream tasks. Though effective, prompt tuning under few-shot settings on the one hand heavily relies on a good initialization of soft prompts. On the other hand, it can easily overfit to few-shot training samples, thereby undermining generalizability. Existing works leverage pre-training or supervised meta-learning to initialize soft prompts but they fail to data-efficiently generalize to unseen downstream tasks. To address the above problems, this paper proposes a novel SelfSupervised meta-Prompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization for few-shot generalization (SUPMER). SUPMER leverages self-supervised meta-learning with a diverse set of well-designed meta-training tasks to learn a universal prompt initialization for efficient adaptation using only unlabeled data. Additionally, it jointly meta-learns a gradient regularization function to transform raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction, thus alleviating the problem of overfitting. Extensive experiments show that SUPMER achieves better performance for different few-shot downstream tasks, and also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability. The code for SUPMER will be available at https://github.com/beepkh/SUPMER." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.732, + 0.26, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.757, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent NLP accomplishments witnessed the rapid development of pre-trained language models (PLMs) (e.g., BERT Devlin et al., 2019; T5 Raffel et al., 2020; GPT3 Brown et al., 2020). Finetuning, which tunes the entire PLM parameters, has achieved outstanding performances in various NLP tasks. However, as the pre-trained model scale increases, tuning the entire set of parameters" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.252, + 0.692, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.605, + 0.373, + 0.618, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.702, + 0.252, + 0.88, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.797, + 0.373, + 0.81, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.395, + 0.884, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: (a) Performance of PT with different prompt initialization. (b) Performance after different training steps for vanilla PT and SUPMER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.448, + 0.885, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "would be sometimes unaffordable. More recently, prompt-based methods, which simply insert a piece of carefully designed text to the input (e.g., \"It was \\(\\langle X\\rangle\\).\") and predict target words (e.g., \"great\" or \"terrible\") at the mask position with frozen PLMs, have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness. But it has been observed that the performance of prompt-based methods is greatly affected by the design of prompts. In light of this, prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), as a parameter-efficient tuning method, is proposed to only prepend some additional learnable tokens called soft prompts to the input text, with all PLM parameters freezing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.66, + 0.886, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Though prompt tuning is an efficient and effective paradigm, Gu et al. (2022) shows it performs much worse than fine-tuning under few-shot settings. We argue that the performance is not satisfactory mainly due to two limitations: 1) The performance of PT is highly sensitive to the soft prompt initialization, especially for few-shot tasks. As shown in Figure 1 (a), different soft prompt initialization leads to significant performance variations. 2) Few-shot PT risks overfitting to some spurious correlations as soft prompts are tuned on limited training samples, thus undermining the generalizability of PLMs. As shown in Figure 1 (b), the performance of few-shot vanilla PT degrades significantly in the final training steps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent research mainly focused on the first limi" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Work done when interning at Alibaba DAMO Academy." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.294, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Corresponding Author." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1059" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1059-1077" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.491, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tation, leveraging pre-training or supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization. A pretrained prompt tuning method (PPT) (Gu et al., 2022) is proposed from the beginning, which utilizes self-supervised tasks to pre-train soft prompts and then applies them in the few-shot scenario. However, without explicitly optimizing the fast adaptation ability of the model, PPT suffers from a train-test mismatch between the pre-training data and the downstream data. So it limits generalization to unseen few-shot tasks, especially when there is a significant disparity in task domains or formats. MetaPrompting (Hou et al., 2022), as another effort, seeks assistance from model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML Finn et al., 2017) for fast adaptation in few-shot settings. However, in each task, MetaPrompting requires plenty of labeled data within certain classes to perform supervised meta-learning for prompt initialization, which is often inaccessible in practical few-shot scenarios. And the learned initialization can only generalize to the remaining classes of the same task in a few-shot manner, exhibiting weak task transferability. Furthermore, all these existing works ignore the second limitation, i.e., the propensity for few-shot prompt tuning to lead to overfitting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the shortcomings of existing works, we propose SUPMER, a Self-sUpervised metaPrompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization. It leverages self-supervised meta-learning to universally learn an efficient soft prompt initialization, also with a meta-gradient regularization function to mitigate overfitting. This comprehensive process only requires a one-time execution and enables seamless adaptation to different downstream few-shot tasks, while also facilitating faster convergence for downstream prompt tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.69, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, to address the first limitation, we design a novel self-supervised meta-learning method for prompt initialization, which automatically generates a diverse set of meta-training tasks from large-scale unlabeled corpora and explicitly learns to fast adapt across these tasks. To ensure task diversity, we initially design a collection of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks with different formats. And then a curriculum-based task augmentation method is further proposed to enrich the task distribution dynamically in terms of the current model capability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the second issue, we integrate a metagradient regularization function into meta-prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learning. As we simulate distribution shift through task augmentation, the meta-gradient regularization parameters are jointly optimized to align gradient directions across different distributions within our proposed meta-prompt learning paradigm. Consequently, in downstream tasks, these optimized parameters can be directly utilized to transform raw gradients over few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction, preventing prompt tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.247, + 0.884, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall, our contributions are mainly three-fold:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.264, + 0.884, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) We propose a novel self-supervised metaprompt learning framework to better initialize soft prompts, where only unlabeled pre-training data are used to construct different meta-training tasks with curriculum-based task augmentation for further task enrichment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.361, + 0.884, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) We incorporate a novel meta-gradient regularization function into our meta-prompt learning framework, which meta-learns to transform the raw gradient during few-shot learning into a domain-generalizable direction, thus preventing prompt tuning overfitting to domain-specific correlations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.459, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Comprehensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization validate the superiority of our method, which even outperforms full-model tuning in few-shot learning. It also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.264, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.553, + 0.665, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.581, + 0.885, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Soft Prompt Tuning. Soft prompt tuning is one of the most parameter-efficient tuning methods widely used in NLP (Liu et al., 2023) and vision-language tasks (Zhou et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023a), which only tunes a small number of (extra) parameters to attain strong performance. Specifically, it freezes the PLM parameters and prepends some trainable continuous embeddings (i.e., soft prompts) to the input sequence (Lester et al., 2021) or every layer of the pre-trained model (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To efficiently train task-adaptive soft prompts in few-shot scenarios, some studies (Vu et al., 2022; Asai et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022) employ task adaptation techniques, obtaining source prompts from source tasks in a supervised way and interpolating them into the target prompts. Other works focus on training improved prompt initializations. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pre-trains the soft prompts with some self-supervised tasks on unlabeled corpora, but it doesn't explicitly optimize the fast adap" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.484, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1060" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.081, + 0.882, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.321, + 0.885, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The framework of SUPMER. We employ task interpolation to enrich the distribution of self-supervised meta-training tasks. Concurrently, we integrate a meta-gradient regularization function into meta-prompt learning. Furthermore, during meta-prompt learning we also dynamically adapt the mixing ratio of task interpolation, upgrading the vanilla task augmentation into a curriculum-based one." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.387, + 0.49, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tation ability of the model. MetaPrompting(Hou et al., 2022) utilizes supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization, splitting each dataset into two sets with disjoint data classes. One split is used to initialize soft prompts while the other serves as the downstream task. In comparison, SUPMER differs from MetaPrompting in the following ways: 1) for each downstream task MetaPrompting focuses on a fixed supervised dataset to reinitialize soft prompts, whereas SUPMER can universally generalize to different unseen tasks with large-scale unlabeled corpora for initialization; 2) MetaPrompting doesn't freeze PLM parameters, while SUPMER only tunes the soft prompts as the general soft prompt tuning methods do." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meta-Learning. Meta-learning, also known as learning to learn, optimizes the ability to learn new tasks quickly and efficiently, utilizing experience from previously seen tasks. It can be classified into three types: metric-based methods (Koch et al., 2015; Vinyals et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2017), model-based methods (Graves et al., 2014; Mishra et al., 2018; Qiao et al., 2018), and gradient-based methods (Hochreiter et al., 2001; Ravi and Larochelle, 2017; Nichol et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). In this work, we focus on a gradient-based meta-learning algorithm (i.e., MAML Finn et al., 2017). Compared to typical meta-learning methods that rely on human-annotated meta-training tasks, we automatically generate abundant tasks in a self-supervised way, also integrating a meta-gradient regularization function into MAML to steer gradi" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.387, + 0.857, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ents towards a domain-generalizable direction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.413, + 0.613, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.438, + 0.885, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we describe the whole framework of SUPMER (shown in Figure 2). With pre-defined preliminaries, we first introduce the way to construct anchor self-supervised meta tasks and the foundation of task augmentation to densify task distributions. Then we elaborate on the SUPMER model, including the meta-gradient regularization function. Finally, we upgrade the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one. Besides, we formalize all tasks in a text-to-text format following the T5 fashion (Raffel et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.625, + 0.663, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Preliminaries" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt Tuning. In prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021), given a training sample \\((x_{i},y_{i})\\) from task \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}\\), we apply a prompt template \\(P\\) converting \\(x_{i}\\) into a new sequence \\(P(x_{i})\\) and then concatenate a set of soft prompts \\(\\theta\\) to the beginning of \\(P(x_{i})\\). And verbalizer \\(\\mathcal{V}\\) plays a role in mapping \\(y_{i}\\) to some corresponding label tokens \\(\\mathcal{V}(y_i)\\) in the vocabulary of PLMs. So the objective of prompt tuning can be formulated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.793, + 0.884, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\arg \\min _ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau}} (\\theta) \\\\ = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\left(x _ {i}, y _ {i}\\right) \\in D _ {\\tau}} \\log p \\left(\\langle X \\rangle = \\mathcal {V} \\left(y _ {i}\\right) \\mid [ \\theta ; P \\left(x _ {i}\\right) ]; \\theta\\right) \\tag {1} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\theta\\) denotes the soft prompt embedding (the only tunable parameters in prompt tuning). \\(\\langle \\mathrm{X}\\rangle\\) let PLMs predict target tokens at the masked positions and \\([\\cdot ;\\cdot ]\\) is the concatenation operation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1061" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning. Assuming access to a task distribution \\( p(\\mathcal{T}) \\), the goal of meta-learning is to utilize tasks \\( \\tau_{i} \\sim p(\\mathcal{T}) \\), referred to as meta-training tasks or meta tasks, to train a learning procedure that generalizes to unseen tasks from the distribution. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) (Finn et al., 2017) is a gradient-based bi-level optimization meta-learning method, which consists of an inner loop task-specific learning and outer loop fast adaptation across tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.246, + 0.49, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, a task \\(\\tau\\) is composed of the support set \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}^{s}\\) and the query set \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}^{q}\\). In the inner loop of MAML, a model learns to adapt to a new task \\(\\tau_{i}\\) using its support set in the following way:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.318, + 0.488, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime} = \\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\\theta) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.344, + 0.488, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\alpha_{1}\\) is the inner loop learning rate and \\(\\theta\\) is the model's parameters. And the optimized parameters \\(\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}\\) is then evaluated on the query set of task \\(\\tau_{i}\\) with the loss function \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}\\). In the outer loop, this loss across meta-training tasks is treated as the final training loss to update \\(\\theta\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.45, + 0.488, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\theta \\leftarrow \\theta - \\beta_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.487, + 0.412, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\beta_{1}\\) is the outer loop learning rate." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.513, + 0.422, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.533, + 0.489, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supervised datasets with a large amount of labeled data are often unavailable in many NLP tasks. While unlabeled data is more easily accessible and generally covers broader semantic concepts. So we utilize the unlabeled data from a large corpus to create anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.489, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The unlabeled data are first grouped into different clusters. We utilize PLMs to derive semantically meaningful embeddings for sentences in the corpus, and then apply unsupervised K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences. Based on the results of K-means, we design three different formats of self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-sentence classification." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, sentence-pair classification involves predicting whether two sentences are adjacent in the same document or from the same cluster after K-means clustering. Multi-choice classification identifies the correct sentence among several candidates, which is either adjacent to a query sentence or from its same cluster. And Single-sentence classification aims to associate each sentence with its correct cluster label, as determined" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "by K-means. On this basis, for each task format, we distribute meta-training data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with well-balanced task distributions. We group samples with similar embeddings into the same task based on the results of K-means. And we give a more detailed description of anchor meta-training task construction in Appendix A.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.224, + 0.77, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Vanilla Task Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.244, + 0.884, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With a set of anchor meta-training tasks, in this section we first introduce the vanilla task augmentation to densify the task distribution. Extending the idea of mixup (Zhang et al., 2018), we augment the task set through task interpolation, which linearly combines features and corresponding labels of samples from the query set in different tasks. In §3.5 we further upgrade the vanilla task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, which dynamically controls the task interpolation in terms of the current model capability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.421, + 0.884, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, for a task composed of the support set and the query set, we denote the hidden representations of the query set samples in task \\(\\tau_{k}\\) as \\(H^{q}\\). Given an anchor task \\(\\tau_{i}\\), first we randomly select another task \\(\\tau_{j}\\). While retaining the support set of \\(\\tau_{i}\\), we reconstruct its query set by interpolating on the hidden representations \\((\\pmb{H}_i^q,\\pmb{H}_j^q)\\) and corresponding labels \\((Y_{i}^{q},Y_{j}^{q})\\) from the query sets in \\(\\tau_{i}\\) and \\(\\tau_{j}\\), which can be accomplished using mixup:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.572, + 0.882, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tilde {\\boldsymbol {H}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \\lambda) \\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q} + \\lambda \\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \\tilde {\\boldsymbol {Y}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \\lambda) \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q} + \\lambda \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.6, + 0.884, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the mixing ratio \\(\\lambda \\in [0,1]\\) is drawn from a Beta distribution \\(Beta(\\alpha ,\\alpha)\\), and \\(\\alpha\\) is a hyperparameter. The process of task augmentation not only enriches the task distribution, but also simulates the distribution shift between the support set and the query set within one task, as we only leverage interpolation between the query sets of different anchor meta-training tasks. And in §3.4 we will show the effect of this distribution deviation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.796, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we introduce the algorithm of our meta-prompt learning framework, which is a bi-level meta-learning paradigm learning a task-universal soft prompt initialization \\(\\theta\\) for efficient adaptation. And it jointly meta-learns a metagradient regularization function \\(\\psi_{\\phi}\\) that transforms raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction to prevent prompt tuning from overfitting." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1062" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, considering that the inner loop update of MAML (i.e., Eq. (2)) over limited samples might overfit to some domain-specific correlations, we propose to learn a gradient regularization function \\(\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)\\), making a direct transformation to the raw gradients obtained from the support set \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s\\). The function first performs affine transformation \\(h(\\cdot)\\) (e.g., rotation) to modulate the raw gradients \\(g\\), and then an update gate vector \\(z\\) is employed to combine \\(g\\) and \\(h(g)\\) into the final gradients:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.259, + 0.488, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\psi_ {\\phi} (g) = z \\cdot h (g) + (1 - z) \\cdot g \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.288, + 0.49, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Obviously, the value of \\(z\\) can be used to control how much the transformed gradients \\(h(g)\\) contribute to the output of \\(\\psi_{\\phi}(g)\\). We hope to determine this weight based on the input samples themselves, setting \\(z = \\sigma(WH + b)\\), where \\(H\\) is the hidden representations of input samples. Formally, now we transform Eq. (2) into:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.208, + 0.414, + 0.488, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime} = \\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {i} ^ {z}} (\\theta)\\right) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.445, + 0.49, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After adapting the soft prompt embeddings to the support set \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s\\), in the outer loop we optimize the prompt initialization \\(\\theta\\) based on these adapted embeddings \\(\\theta^\\prime\\) via Eq. (3). Besides, meta-gradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi\\) are also optimized using the same loss to learn a better gradient transformation, with \\(\\beta_{2}\\) as the learning rate:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.571, + 0.488, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\phi \\leftarrow \\phi - \\beta_ {2} \\nabla_ {\\phi} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overall, the total meta-prompt learning obejective can be formulated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.656, + 0.488, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\\theta)\\right)\\right) \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.699, + 0.49, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Downstream Prompt Tuning. The above metaprompt learning framework only requires a one-time execution. The optimized prompt initialization \\(\\theta^{*}\\) and meta-gradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi^{*}\\) are then universal for different downstream tasks. During downstream prompt tuning, we fix \\(\\phi^{*}\\) and further adapt \\(\\theta^{*}\\) to testing tasks as Eq. (6)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analysis of SUPMER. Here we give some analysis of how SUPMER could enhance generalizability, with more complete proof in Appendix A.1. Given that \\(x = \\theta -\\alpha_{1}\\psi_{\\phi}(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}^{s}}(\\theta))\\) and \\(x_0 = \\theta\\) focusing on a single meta-training task, we can apply a first-order Taylor expansion around the point" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.724, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(x_0\\) to reformulate Eq. (8) as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.114, + 0.882, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\because \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x) = \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x _ {0}) + \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} ^ {\\prime} (x _ {0}) (x - x _ {0}) \\\\ \\therefore \\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\\theta))) \\tag {9} \\\\ = \\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta) - \\alpha_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta) \\cdot \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\\theta)\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.19, + 0.885, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the aforementioned discussion, we can reach the following conclusions: (1) The update of \\(\\theta\\) minimizes the expected loss on the query set. (2) The optimization of both \\(\\theta\\) and \\(\\phi\\) maximizes the inner product between the regulated gradients from the support set and the gradients from the query set. The inner product of two vectors is larger if they are in a similar direction. Recalling that we simulate the distribution shift between the support set and the query set, the optimization of \\(\\theta\\) and \\(\\phi\\) tries to align the gradient directions across different distributions. To improve the alignment between the domain-specific gradients, the gradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi\\) are optimized to retain some domain-invariant information of metatraining data and then can be utilized to regulate raw gradients obtained from few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction in downstream prompt tuning, thus avoiding overfitting to some spurious correlations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.526, + 0.859, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Curriculum-based Task Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.549, + 0.884, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In §3.4 we show that SUPMER can help align the optimization direction across two distributions with deviation, which is simulated by performing task augmentation exclusively on the support sets. From Eq. (4) it is evident that the mixing ratio \\(\\lambda\\) of mixup controls the extent of the distribution deviation, with a larger \\(\\lambda\\) resulting in a more noticeable deviation. However, in the previously discussed method, \\(\\lambda\\) is sampled from a fixed Beta distribution. In this section, we propose a more flexible sampling approach, which upgrades the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, gradually increasing the task difficulty and achieving a more reasonable distribution shift." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The curriculum-based task augmentation dynamically adjusts the parameters of the Beta distribution, from which we sample the mixing ratio \\(\\lambda\\). Specifically, a batch of meta tasks is sampled in each training epoch. For each task, we can obtain gradients on the support set \\(g_{i}^{s}\\) and gradients on the query set \\(g_{i}^{q}\\), along with their cosine similarity. We leverage the average cosine similarity \\(s_{k-1}\\) of all tasks in a batch during the last epoch to derive the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1063" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.438, + 0.086, + 0.56, + 0.096 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model: T5-base (220M)" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.097, + 0.884, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Prefix Tuning78.21.738.02.574.03.284.53.366.23.970.12.970.42.654.42.055.74.353.41.368.11.264.91.364.82.5
P-Tuning-v283.10.841.71.582.30.888.70.574.82.478.12.167.55.453.91.361.41.654.52.270.71.168.01.168.71.7
FT83.61.741.22.681.70.988.30.980.01.479.81.771.91.556.92.162.30.654.61.670.20.769.51.070.01.4
PT71.93.437.32.873.24.584.43.561.53.365.34.258.96.153.22.855.24.853.12.466.65.363.02.662.04.0
PPT81.22.040.25.481.20.783.67.366.83.773.42.460.77.755.41.260.43.953.61.368.00.863.10.765.63.1
Unified-PPT76.87.744.71.779.03.387.70.664.25.868.42.963.92.954.41.156.72.454.51.667.81.167.62.965.52.8
MetaPT85.71.345.31.182.54.588.50.373.23.778.72.265.42.456.11.758.23.154.11.369.60.668.80.968.81.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.071.30.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.435, + 0.21, + 0.562, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.221, + 0.884, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Zero-shot Inference89.152.383.380.657.487.276.875.885.050.577.277.574.4
Few-shot Inference93.253.388.587.858.691.683.979.186.964.379.981.079.0
Prefix Tuning88.62.145.42.788.72.289.11.684.63.990.62.465.46.473.42.672.34.155.51.873.92.675.02.375.22.9
P-Tuning-v291.21.053.51.190.00.889.81.187.73.292.30.969.12.962.34.676.83.663.12.077.21.777.31.677.52.0
FT92.91.453.61.989.61.391.30.588.70.993.62.077.81.676.01.784.41.563.01.877.71.382.92.981.01.6
PT88.29.245.73.485.65.688.65.181.65.185.15.665.47.261.64.069.35.954.81.171.12.770.28.672.35.3
PPT91.02.649.12.388.81.388.03.087.61.990.81.767.14.867.12.281.51.156.11.375.82.271.63.176.22.3
Unified-PPT89.98.347.42.889.70.989.01.586.44.388.43.269.33.563.21.174.93.259.91.774.02.476.32.075.72.9
MetaPT93.70.852.51.390.70.789.70.688.12.491.81.872.12.274.11.377.52.558.51.676.61.881.42.478.91.6
SUPMER95.50.455.30.791.40.590.70.790.30.893.01.587.61.581.41.088.30.665.01.778.10.885.10.483.50.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.884, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Results of few-shot learning. For each dataset we report the average accuracy and standard deviation over five random seeds (zero-shot & few-shot inference produce nearly consistent results each time as they do not require parameter tuning). Bold fonts indicate the best results. We can see SUPMER achieves better performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.422, + 0.411, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mixing ratio \\(\\lambda_{k}\\) for the current epoch \\(k\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.236, + 0.449, + 0.366, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\lambda_ {k} = \\operatorname {B e t a} (\\alpha , b _ {k} \\alpha)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.234, + 0.466, + 0.488, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nb _ {k} = \\frac {m ^ {\\frac {1 + s _ {k - 1}}{2}} - 1}{m - 1}, \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.501, + 0.416, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\text {w h e r e} s _ {k - 1} = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {B} |} \\cdot \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathcal {B} |} \\frac {g _ {i} ^ {s} \\cdot g _ {i} ^ {q}}{\\| g _ {i} ^ {s} \\| \\cdot \\| g _ {i} ^ {q} \\|}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.547, + 0.489, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( m \\) is the curve parameter. In this way, when our model is not capable of aligning the optimization directions across different distributions at the beginning, a smaller \\( \\lambda \\) is preferable to create a smaller distribution deviation. Then \\( \\lambda \\) tends to gradually increase as the model's capability improves, resulting in a larger distribution deviation and a corresponding increase in task difficulty." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.676, + 0.488, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the pseudo-codes of SUPMER in Appendix A.4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.72, + 0.26, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.745, + 0.318, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.766, + 0.489, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our approach in two problem settings: 1) Few-shot learning with different NLP downstream tasks; 2) domain generalization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Few-shot Learning. We consider 6 downstream tasks with 12 datasets: 1) the sentiment analysis datasets SST-2, SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013), MR (Pang and Lee, 2005) and CR (Hu and Liu, 2004); 2) the subjectivity classification dataset SUBJ (Pang and Lee, 2004); 3) the question" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.422, + 0.884, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "classification dataset TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000); 4) the natural language inference datasets CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019) and RTE (Wang et al., 2019); 5) the question answering dataset QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016); 6) the word sense disambiguation dataset WiC (Pilehvar and Camacho-Collados, 2019); 7) the paraphrase detection datasets MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) and QQP. Following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), for each dataset we sample 16 instances per label from the original training set to form training and validation sets for few-shot learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.641, + 0.884, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain Generalization. Then we design a more challenging problem about zero-shot domain generalization in the sentiment analysis task. Our experiments include 6 domains across 3 datasets: 1) the Amazon review dataset (Blitzer et al., 2007) containing reviews about Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E) and Kitchen appliances (K); 2) the airline review dataset (A) (Nguyen, 2015; Ziser and Reichart, 2018); 3) the restaurant (R) domain obtained from the Yelp dataset (Zhang et al., 2015)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. On this basis, we sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain to tune soft prompts. And then we directly use the soft prompts learned from the source domain to evaluate performance on the test set of each domain." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1064" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.487, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model: T5-base (220M)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
Prefix Tuning78.12.282.71.081.51.284.40.682.72.684.92.282.41.6
P-Tuning-v284.00.883.60.982.41.785.90.984.21.583.82.784.01.4
FT84.40.283.90.681.00.684.10.685.00.785.30.684.00.6
PT79.82.575.32.276.03.279.62.079.81.983.01.878.92.3
PPT81.91.477.93.583.61.388.41.089.11.687.81.584.81.7
Unified-PPT80.93.082.12.076.84.081.04.582.23.984.93.381.33.5
MetaPT86.10.384.30.884.20.789.40.990.30.6-(86.90.7)
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.691.10.590.40.488.00.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.184, + 0.487, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
zero-shot inference77.884.686.286.888.687.885.3
few-shot inference82.590.389.792.392.289.289.4
Prefix Tuning83.01.185.31.983.41.187.31.586.42.489.81.085.91.5
P-Tuning-v285.60.486.72.386.81.888.62.190.22.388.92.687.81.9
FT86.20.788.82.284.61.387.21.389.81.190.70.987.91.3
PT82.61.279.03.982.51.784.22.384.52.584.82.182.92.3
PPT85.20.983.23.389.71.892.41.793.61.589.61.189.01.7
Unified-PPT83.00.882.53.082.04.886.03.086.62.285.62.084.32.6
MetaPT87.10.687.42.789.51.793.80.694.31.1-(90.41.3)
SUPMER87.00.289.81.491.11.295.10.895.80.991.80.891.80.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.309, + 0.49, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results of domain generalization. For MetaPT we calculate the average performance only across domain A, B, D, E, K (without R)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.365, + 0.329, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experimental Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines. Our experiments are built on a smaller-scale model, T5-base (Raffel et al., 2020), and then on a larger-scale instruction-tuned model, Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022). For both two backbone models, we use the following baselines: (1) prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters as SUPMER: vanilla prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), PPT (Gu et al., 2022), Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022), and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022). (2) methods with more tunable parameters: Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), full-model tuning (FT). Furthermore, Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we additionally compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL, i.e., zero-shot inference and few-shot inference, which directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation. We list the details of baselines in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Implementation Details. We solve all downstream tasks in a text-to-text format and run each experiment with 5 different random seeds. For all prompt tuning methods, we follow Lester et al. (2021) to design soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens, with tunable parameters far less than full-model tuning. For our SUPMER, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) we sample 10GB data from OpenWebText (Gokaslan et al., 2019), a large-scale unlabeled corpus, to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. The meta-training stage only requires a one-time execution. In downstream prompt-tuning, we freeze the meta-gradient reg-" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.085, + 0.696, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.697, + 0.085, + 0.88, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.228, + 0.882, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The performance after different training steps on CB and MRPC." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.261, + 0.697, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.698, + 0.262, + 0.879, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.405, + 0.882, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The performance on SST-5 and SUBJ when different numbers of training samples are available." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.884, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ularization parameters and the soft prompts are the only tunable parameters. We give more details of training hyper-parameters in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.508, + 0.654, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Main Result" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.531, + 0.884, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 and Table 2 show the main results of few-shot learning and domain generalization. From the results, we have the following observations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.581, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, in few-shot learning, SUPMER achieves better performance than all baselines on 10 of 12 datasets, whether using T5-base or Flan-T5-XL as the backbone. And the average accuracy of SUPMER over all datasets reaches \\(71.3\\%\\) on T5-base, significantly outperforming other baselines (e.g., improving the performance by +1.3 points compared to FT). Notably, when utilizing the larger Flan-T5-XL as the backbone, SUPMER demonstrates even more substantial performance gains (e.g., improving the average performance by +2.5 points compared to FT), which indicates that our approach unlocks greater capabilities for stronger models that have undergone instruction-tuning with a higher number of parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, SUPMER consistently outperforms all other prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters across all datasets. This indicates that our method offers soft prompts with better few-shot generalization ability. And it is noteworthy to highlight that SUPMER utilizes ex" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1065" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.081, + 0.886, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
1 SUPMER (only labeled)87.547.083.889.975.479.667.956.659.054.669.269.570.0
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)87.346.784.089.379.680.272.457.361.754.871.370.571.3
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)84.745.082.487.867.277.464.355.361.653.968.967.768.0
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.146.383.789.473.880.167.257.460.054.370.169.969.9
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)89.148.285.790.879.383.473.258.863.755.370.571.572.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.173, + 0.882, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Results of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "actly the same unlabelled data as PPT and UnifiedPPT for soft prompt initialization. Yet it considerably outperforms these two baselines, demonstrating that the performance improvement is primarily attributable to our methodology rather than the meta-training data itself. Additionally, SUPMER outperforms baseline methods with more tunable parameters (e.g., full-model tuning) on the majority of datasets, achieving superior performance with fewer parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.363, + 0.489, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, SUPMER is superior to all baselines in almost all domain-generalization setups. For example, compared to MetaPT which meta-trains soft prompts with a supervised sentiment analysis dataset, SUPMER exhibits average gains of \\(1.1\\%\\) on T5-base and \\(1.4\\%\\) on Flan-T5-XL. So it can be inferred that SUPMER shows stronger robustness to domain shifts, exhibiting better generalization to unseen tasks or domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.51, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Third, for both few-shot learning and domain generalization on Flan-T5-XL, SUPMER demonstrates superior performance across almost all datasets and domains in contrast to few-shot inference. It provides further evidence that for LMs such as Flan-T5-XL with inherent few-shot inference capabilities, our approach can significantly enhance their abilities in a parameter-efficient tuning strategy, without providing any in-context examples during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fourth, SUPMER also results in lower variances on most datasets. Few-shot learning is often notorious for its instability. And in our method we keep few-shot prompt tuning more stable." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.752, + 0.281, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analysis of Generalization. Figure 3 shows the performance trend for each method after different training steps on datasets CB and MRPC with T5-base model. It illustrates that few-shot prompt tuning converges slowly with its performance typically showing an overall decline during the final training steps because they may easily result in overfitting. In comparison, SUPMER achieves faster, stronger, and more enduring few-shot generalization. It not" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.566, + 0.198, + 0.828, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsFew-shot LearningDG
1only sp66.785.7
2only mc66.985.7
3only ss67.486.7
4w/o ta68.685.3
5w/o curriculum69.987.0
6w/o mgr69.486.1
7SUPMER71.388.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.321, + 0.885, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Results of ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We report the average accuracy over all 12 datasets in few-shot learning and all 6 domains in domain generalization (DG)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.398, + 0.885, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "only accelerates the convergence to the optimal performance realizing fast adaptation, but also consistently maintains its optimal performance across prolonged training periods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.473, + 0.884, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of Sample Size. We also discuss how the performance of SUPMER and other baselines varies when the number of training samples increases on SST-5 and SUBJ. As shown in Figure 4, with T5-base as the underlying PLM, when the number of training samples per label grows from 4 to 64, SUPMER is consistently better than other prompt tuning methods. And the performance gap between these methods is gradually reduced as the number of training data increases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-Supervised v.s. Supervised. To illustrate that self-supervised meta-learning can better generalize to unseen tasks compared to supervised meta-learning, we also collect a set of labeled datasets (ensuring no overlap with downstream testing datasets) to formulate meta-training tasks for soft prompt initialization and conduct the experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base. The results are displayed in Table 3 (rows 1 and 2). As our collected labeled data contains lots of sentiment analysis datasets (e.g., Yelp5), SUPMER (only labeled) and SUPMER (only unlabeled) reveal proximity in their performance on sentiment analysis tasks (i.e., SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR). But in other tasks, using unlabeled data consistently achieves better results than utilizing only labeled data, also with a higher average accuracy over all datasets, which validates" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1066" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.472, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.116, + 0.49, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of integrating Labeled Data. To further explore the impact of integrating labeled data and substantiate the efficacy of SUPMER following this integration, we amalgamate the original unlabeled meta-training data with our collected labeled data mentioned above, with a mixing ratio of labeled to unlabeled as 1:2. The amalgamated data is employed for constructing meta-training tasks to meta-train SUPMER. Moreover, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022), We also leverage pre-training and vanilla MAML to initialize soft prompts using the same amalgamated data. The experimental results of few-shot learning on T5-base are shown in Table 3 (rows 3-5). First, we can see that SUPMER (labeled+unlabeled) outperforms SUPMER (unlabeled) and SUPMER (labeled) as it allows us to harness the high-quality advantages of labeled data while also exploiting the broader semantic concepts encapsulated by unlabeled data. Second, After the integration of labeled data, SUPMER still consistently demonstrates significantly superior performance compared to baseline methods employing the same data for prompt initialization, which further underscores the effectiveness of SUPMER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.532, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of Individual Components. We train the following ablation models. 1) only sp / mc / ss: we retain sentence-pair classification / multi-choice classification / single-sentence classification as the only anchor meta-training task format. 2) w/o ta: we entirely remove the task augmentation method. 3) w/o curriculum: we only retain the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. 4) w/o mgr: we remove the meta-gradient regularization function. All experiments follow the settings in §4.1 and are conducted on T5-base. We report the average accuracy of few-shot learning and domain generalization in Table 4. More detailed results are in Appendix D." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of Row 1-3 indicate that considering diversified task formats during meta-training helps efficiently generalize to different tasks as downstream tasks often contain various task formats. Row 4 and Row 5 highlight that task augmentation plays an essential role in our framework, with curriculum-based augmentation further enriching the task distribution and realistically simulating the distribution shift. Moreover, Row 6 validates the superiority of meta-gradient regularization in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "avoiding overfitting to some domain-specific correlations, thus achieving better performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.129, + 0.642, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.154, + 0.885, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we present SUPMER, a self-supervised meta-prompt learning framework with meta-gradient regularization. With a diverse set of well-designed self-supervised meta-training tasks, SUPMER jointly meta-learns a universal prompt initialization and an effective gradient regularization function for efficient few-shot generalization. Extensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization show that SUPMER outperforms other prompt methods and full-model tuning, achieving state-of-the-art performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.343, + 0.615, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.884, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although SUPMER performs superbly in a variety of problem scenarios, there still exist some limitations in our work: 1) We did not conduct any data filtering or cleaning operations to the meta-training data, which could potentially result in the inclusion of some biased content. 2) Our experiments are solely conducted on English tasks, and also do not involve some kinds of NLP tasks (e.g., language generation Li et al., 2022c) or vision-language tasks (Zhang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022b; Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.885, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these limitations, in the future we plan to conduct further cleansing and filtering on the current meta-training data. Besides, we intend to evaluate the few-shot performance of our framework in the multilingual setting and also broaden the scope of tasks, including retrieval (Pan et al., 2023), language generation (Li et al., 2022c) and vision-language tasks (Li et al., 2023b; Chen et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022a). Furthermore, we hope our work could pave the way for future research on better leveraging parameter-efficient methods under few-shot settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.75, + 0.682, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work has been supported in part by the Zhejiang NSF (LR21F020004), Key Research and Development Projects in Zhejiang Province (No. 2023C01030, 2023C01032), NSFC (No. 62272411), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018AAA0101900), Ant Group and Alibaba-Zhejiang University Joint Research Institute of Frontier Technologies." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1067" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Akari Asai, Mohammadreza Salehi, Matthew Peters, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. ATTEMPT: Parameter-efficient multi-task tuning via attentional mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6655-6672, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.223, + 0.49, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Blitzer, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, Bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 440-447, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.326, + 0.49, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.52, + 0.49, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nitay Calderon, Eyal Ben-David, Amir Feder, and Roi Reichart. 2022. DoCoGen: Domain counterfactual generation for low resource domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7727-7746, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.623, + 0.488, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dong Chen, Kaihang Pan, Guoming Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Improving vision anomaly detection with the guidance of language modality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02821." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.686, + 0.49, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.49, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. In proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.124, + 0.884, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.188, + 0.884, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1126-1135. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.277, + 0.884, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816-3830, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.393, + 0.884, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aaron Gokaslan, Vanya Cohen, Ellie Pavlick, and Stefanie Tellex. 2019. Openwebtext corpus." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.884, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, and Ivo Danihelka. 2014. Neural tuning machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.5401." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.481, + 0.884, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410-8423, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.572, + 0.884, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter, A. Steven Younger, and Peter R. Conwell. 2001. Learning to learn using gradient descent. In Artificial Neural Networks — ICANN 2001, pages 87–94, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.648, + 0.884, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yutai Hou, Hongyuan Dong, Xinghao Wang, Bohan Li, and Wanxiang Che. 2022. MetaPrompting: Learning to learn better prompts. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3251-3262, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.751, + 0.884, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168-177." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yukun Huang, Kun Qian, and Zhou Yu. 2022. Learning a better initialization for soft prompts via meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12471." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Luke Zettlemoyer, James Henderson, Lambert Mathias, Marzieh Saeidi, Veselin Stoyanov, and Majid Yazdani. 2022. Prompt-free and efficient few-shot learning with language" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1068" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3638-3652, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.147, + 0.49, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gregory Koch, Richard Zemel, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2015. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML Deep Learning Workshop, volume 2." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.21, + 0.49, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045-3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.31, + 0.49, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierrick Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.54, + 0.49, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncheng Li, Minghe Gao, Longhui Wei, Siliang Tang, Wenqiao Zhang, Mengze Li, Wei Ji, Qi Tian, Tat-Seng Chua, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023a. Gradient-regulated meta-prompt learning for generalizable vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06571." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.628, + 0.489, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncheng Li, Xin He, Longhui Wei, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Lingxi Xie, Yueting Zhuang, Qi Tian, and Siliang Tang. 2022a. Fine-grained semantically aligned vision-language pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:7290-7303." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.703, + 0.49, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncheng Li, Kaihang Pan, Zhiqi Ge, Minghe Gao, Hanwang Zhang, Wei Ji, Wenqiao Zhang, Tat-Seng Chua, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023b. Fine-tuning multimodal llms to follow zero-shot demonstrative instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04152." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, Linchao Zhu, Haochen Shi, Xuanwen Huang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. Adaptive hierarchical graph reasoning with semantic coherence for video-and-language inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1867-1877." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncheng Li, Xin Wang, Siliang Tang, Haizhou Shi, Fei Wu, Yueting Zhuang, and William Yang Wang. 2020." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unsupervised reinforcement learning of transferable meta-skills for embodied navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12123-12132." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Juncheng Li, Junlin Xie, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Siliang Tang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, Yueting Zhuang, and Xin Eric Wang. 2022b. Compositional temporal grounding with structured variational crossgraph correspondence learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3032-3041." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.885, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022c. Pretrained language models for text generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05273." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.316, + 0.885, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582-4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.432, + 0.885, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.508, + 0.885, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning across scales and tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 61-68, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.624, + 0.885, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikhil Mishra, Mostafa Rohaninejad, Xi Chen, and Pieter Abbeel. 2018. A simple neural attentive metal-learner. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.688, + 0.847, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quang Nguyen. 2015. The airline review dataset." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.885, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Nichol, Joshua Achiam, and John Schulman. 2018. On first-order meta-learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02999." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.763, + 0.885, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaihang Pan, Juncheng Li, Hongye Song, Hao Fei, Wei Ji, Shuo Zhang, Jun Lin, Xiaozhong Liu, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Controlretriever: Harnessing the power of instructions for controllable retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10025." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 271-278, Barcelona, Spain." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1069" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115-124, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.192, + 0.49, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1267-1273, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.323, + 0.488, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siyuan Qiao, Chenxi Liu, Wei Shen, and Alan L. Yuille. 2018. Few-shot image recognition by predicting parameters from activations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.403, + 0.488, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.495, + 0.49, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunjri Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1-16. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.588, + 0.49, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.681, + 0.49, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.773, + 0.488, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sachin Ravi and Hugo Larochelle. 2017. Optimization as a model for few-shot learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339-2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.884, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.265, + 0.884, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Zhengfu He, Qin Zhu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training of modular prompt for few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07565." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.328, + 0.884, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, koryakvukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.404, + 0.884, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ellen M. Voorhees and Dawn M. Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '00, page 200-207, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.493, + 0.884, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tu Vu, Brian Lester, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou', and Daniel Cer. 2022. SPoT: Better frozen model adaptation through soft prompt transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5039-5059, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.596, + 0.884, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.698, + 0.884, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1070" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.486, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.487, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenqiao Zhang, Jiannan Guo, Mengze Li, Haochen Shi, Shengyu Zhang, Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022a. Boss: Bottom-up cross-modal semantic composition with hybrid counterfactual training for robust content-based image retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04211." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.3, + 0.487, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenqiao Zhang, Haochen Shi, Jiannan Guo, Shengyu Zhang, Qingpeng Cai, Juncheng Li, Sihui Luo, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022b. Magic: Multimodal relational graph adversarial inference for diverse and unpaired text-based image captioning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3335-3343." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.402, + 0.487, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenqiao Zhang, Siliang Tang, Yanpeng Cao, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2019. Frame augmented alternating attention network for video question answering. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(4):1032-1041." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.478, + 0.487, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.54, + 0.487, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(9):2337-2348." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.603, + 0.487, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yftah Ziser and Roi Reichart. 2018. Pivot based language modeling for improved neural domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1241-1251, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.518, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1071" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendices" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.112, + 0.477, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Additional Information for SUPMER" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.14, + 0.414, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Complete Analysis of SUPMER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.163, + 0.489, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we provide a more comprehensive and complete analysis of SUPMER. We will show that during meta-training, the optimization of soft prompt embeddings \\(\\theta\\) and the meta-gradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi\\) tends to maximize the inner product of gradients obtained from the support set after regulation and gradients from the query set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.276, + 0.49, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, to update the parameters \\(\\theta\\) and \\(\\phi\\), we should evaluate their gradients at first, denoting them as \\(g^{\\theta}\\) and \\(g^{\\phi}\\). Considering the original algorithm of MAML, each task consists of a support set and a query set. And only one step of gradient descent is applied in the inner-loop optimization. To make our statement more direct, we denote the loss function based on the support set and the query set as \\(\\mathcal{L}_0\\) and \\(\\mathcal{L}_1\\). In SUPMER, ignoring the regularized loss, only \\(\\mathcal{L}_1\\) is directly utilized to optimize \\(\\phi\\), while \\(\\theta\\) is optimized in a bi-level meta-optimization paradigm. Here we define the following terms related to \\(\\theta\\) similar to Nichol et al. (2018):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.498, + 0.208, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ng _ {\\theta} ^ {i} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {i})}{\\partial \\theta_ {i}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.28, + 0.505, + 0.474, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gradient obtained during SGD)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.526, + 0.209, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\bar {g} _ {i} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.28, + 0.533, + 0.429, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gradient at initial point)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.555, + 0.222, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\overline {{H}} _ {i} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial^ {2} \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0} ^ {2}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.28, + 0.563, + 0.428, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(Hessian at initial point)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.586, + 0.249, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\theta_ {1} = \\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.28, + 0.587, + 0.494, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gradient descent in the inner-loop) (11)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each definition \\(i \\in \\{0,1\\}\\) and \\(\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)\\) is the meta-gradient regularization operation. \\(\\theta_0\\) denotes the initial soft prompt embeddings for each step, and \\(\\theta_{1}\\) denotes the embeddings after the inner-loop optimization. Obviously we have \\(g_0^\\theta = \\overline{g}_0^\\theta\\). Firstly we perform a Taylor series expansion to approximate the SGD gradients \\(g_{1}^{\\theta}\\) obtained from the query set as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.753, + 0.487, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} g _ {1} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} + \\frac {\\partial^ {2} \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0} ^ {2}} (\\theta_ {1} - \\theta_ {0}) + \\underbrace {O (| | \\theta_ {1} - \\theta_ {0} | | ^ {2})} _ {= O (\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2})} \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\tag {12} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then we analysis the gradient descent operation in the inner-loop optimization based on the support set. Define \\(U\\) as the gradient descent and we have \\(U(\\theta_0) = \\theta_0 - \\alpha_1\\psi_\\phi \\left(\\frac{\\partial\\mathcal{L}_0(\\theta_0)}{\\partial\\theta_0}\\right)\\). So we can get" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.081, + 0.731, + 0.105 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\text {a n d} \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\text {a s f o l l o w s :}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.118, + 0.882, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\partial U \\left(\\theta_ {0}\\right)}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} = \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\left(\\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\\right)\\right) \\\\ = I - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\tag {13} \\\\ = I - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\\theta} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.589, + 0.223, + 0.882, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\partial U \\left(\\theta_ {0}\\right)}{\\partial \\phi} = \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\phi} \\left(\\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\\right)\\right) \\tag {14} \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.286, + 0.885, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "So based on Eq. (12, 13, 14), we can finally approximate the gradients \\( g^{\\theta} \\) and \\( g^{\\phi} \\) as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.332, + 0.88, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\\theta_ {0}))}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}) - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta})}{\\partial \\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\\theta} + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\\right) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.491, + 0.882, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\\phi} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta})}{\\partial \\phi} + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\\right) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\tag {15} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.645, + 0.883, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thus, \\(-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\theta_0} (\\overline{g}_1^\\theta \\psi_\\phi (\\overline{g}_0^\\theta))\\) and \\(-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\phi} (\\overline{g}_1^\\theta \\psi_\\phi (\\overline{g}_0^\\theta))\\) indicate the optimization direction, which increases the inner product between gradients from the query set and gradients from the support set after transformation. To further consolidate our analysis, we also track the normalized gradient inner product in the first 5000 steps during meta-training. As shown in Figure 5, it is clear that the normalized gradient inner product gradually increases during meta-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On this basis, since there exists distribution shift between the support set and the query set after task augmentation, our method aligns the gradient directions across different distributions, which helps enhance model generalization. In other words, the trainable parameters descend in a coordinated manner such that the input-output correspondence is as" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1072" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.086, + 0.411, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.244, + 0.489, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Normalized gradient inner products in the first 5000 steps during meta-training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.286, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "close as possible across two distributions with deviation. Besides, the meta-gradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi\\) also retain some domain-invariant information of the meta-training data in the above process. Considering that \\(\\phi\\) is fixed in downstream tasks, \\(\\phi\\) can be applied to encourage the alignment between the domain-specific gradients and avoid prompt-tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.443, + 0.427, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.464, + 0.49, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a sentence \\( x \\) from unlabeled corpora, we can derive semantically meaningful sentence embedding \\( H = f_{\\theta}^{enc}(x) \\) with PLMs, e.g., T5 encoder. And we apply K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences according to their embeddings:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.557, + 0.488, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {P}, \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\} = \\arg \\min _ {\\left\\{\\mathcal {C} _ {c} \\right\\}, \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\}} \\sum_ {c = 1} ^ {K} \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {H} \\in \\mathcal {C} _ {c}} \\left\\| \\boldsymbol {H} - \\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\| ^ {2} \\tag {16}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.604, + 0.49, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mu_{c}\\) indicates the learned centroid of cluster \\(\\mathcal{C}_c\\) and \\(\\mathcal{P}\\) indicates the partitions of all sentences. K-means clustering leads to more abundant formats and objectives of meta-training tasks. Based on the results of K-means, we design three formats of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-text classification. Here we introduce each of them in detail." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sentence-pair Classification. Sentence-pair classification takes a pair of sentences \\((x_0, x_1)\\) as input, and \\(x_0\\) is the anchor sentence. We carry on next sentence prediction task and sentence similarity task in sentence-pair classification with the label list \\(\\mathcal{Y} = [0, 1, 2]\\). For the former one, following Gu et al. (2022), we set two sentences next to each other as label 0, those from the same document but not adjacent as label 2, and those from different documents as label 1. And for" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.084, + 0.876, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 Meta-training Process of SUPMER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.105, + 0.822, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: \\(p(\\mathcal{T})\\) : Distribution over anchor tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.122, + 0.85, + 0.137 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: \\( f_{\\theta} \\): PLM with soft prompt embeddings \\( \\theta \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.138, + 0.794, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: \\(\\psi_{\\phi}\\): Meta-gradient regularization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.154, + 0.734, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: \\(\\alpha_{1},\\beta_{1},\\beta_{2}\\) : Learning rate" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.17, + 0.843, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: TA : Task augmentation in Algorithm 2" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.105, + 0.85, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.202, + 0.608, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: \\(s\\gets -1\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.218, + 0.724, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: Randomly initialize \\(\\theta, \\phi\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.235, + 0.681, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: while not done do" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.202, + 0.724, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.25, + 0.875, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: Sample a batch of task \\(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i=1}^n\\) from \\(p(\\mathcal{T})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.266, + 0.815, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10: \\(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n = \\mathbf{TA}(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n,p(\\mathcal{T}),s)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.283, + 0.767, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11: for all \\(\\tau_{i} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}\\}\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.299, + 0.826, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12: Evaluate \\(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta)\\) with \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.317, + 0.827, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13: Evaluate \\(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\) with \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.335, + 0.844, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14: Transform \\(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta)\\) via \\(\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.25, + 0.875, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.353, + 0.841, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.368, + 0.855, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15: \\(s_i = \\frac{\\|\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\| \\cdot \\|\\psi_\\phi(\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta))\\|}{\\|\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\|}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.385, + 0.816, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "16: \\(\\theta_{i}^{\\prime} = \\theta -\\alpha_{1}\\psi_{\\phi}(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s}}(f_{\\theta}))\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.403, + 0.63, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "17: end for" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.416, + 0.701, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "18: \\(s\\gets \\sum_{i}s_{i} / \\sum_{i}1\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.433, + 0.793, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "19: \\(\\theta \\gets \\theta -\\beta_{1}\\nabla_{\\theta}\\sum_{\\tau_{i}}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.452, + 0.871, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "20: \\(\\phi \\gets \\phi -\\beta_{2}\\nabla_{\\phi}\\bigl {(}\\sum_{\\tau_{i}}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}}) + \\mathcal{L}_{reg}\\bigr)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.47, + 0.622, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "21: end while" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.485, + 0.629, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "22: return \\(\\theta, \\phi\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.353, + 0.871, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.528, + 0.883, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sentence similarity task, we set two sentences coming from the same cluster as label 0, and those from different clusters as label 1. In this way, the prompt template and verbalizer are designed as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.601, + 0.882, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} P = \\text {\"} s _ {1} \\left\\langle \\mathrm {X} \\right\\rangle . s _ {2}\" \\tag {17} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\rightarrow \\text {y e s}, 1 \\rightarrow \\text {n o}, 2 \\rightarrow \\text {m a y b e} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.64, + 0.885, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-choice Classification. Multi-choice classification takes an anchor sentence \\( x_0 \\) as the query and we should find the correct one in several answer candidates. Here we also set two different tasks. The first one aims to select the sentence next to \\( s_0 \\) and the second one aims to select the sentence which belongs to the same cluster as \\( s_0 \\). In each task we will set four candidates, and only one of them is correct. We design the prompt template and verbalizer as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.57, + 0.807, + 0.882, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} P = \" s _ {0}? \\mathrm {A}. s _ {1} \\dots \\mathrm {D}. s _ {4}. \\text {A n s w e r :} \\langle \\mathrm {X} \\rangle\" \\tag {18} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\to \\mathrm {A}, 1 \\to \\mathrm {B}, 2 \\to \\mathrm {C}, 3 \\to \\mathrm {D} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Single-Sentence Classification. Through K-means clustering, each sentence is associated with a cluster label \\( r_i \\) in \\( \\{0,1\\}^K \\) where \\( r_{ic} = 1 \\) if \\( c = k \\) and \\( y_{ic} = 0 \\) if \\( c \\neq k \\). Here \\( k \\) represents the cluster" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1073" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to which the sentence belongs. We simply use \\( r_i \\) as the pseudo label for meta-training and construct 4-way classification tasks. As for the designing of the verbalizer, we transform the single-sentence classification into the format of multi-choice classification. We insert the centroid of cluster \\( \\mu_c \\) into the template and use it to represent the corresponding cluster. So that we have:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.217, + 0.488, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} P = \\text {\"} s _ {0}? \\mathrm {A .} \\langle \\mu_ {c _ {1}} \\rangle \\dots \\mathrm {D .} \\langle \\mu_ {c _ {4}} \\rangle . \\text {A n s w e r :} \\langle \\mathrm {X} \\rangle \\tag {10} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\to \\mathrm {A}, 1 \\to \\mathrm {B}, 2 \\to \\mathrm {C}, 3 \\to \\mathrm {D} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.252, + 0.49, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On this basis, for each task format, we separate all data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with good task distributions. Through K-means, sentences with similar embeddings are clustered into the same group. So in sentence-pair classification and multi-choice classification, we group samples whose anchor sentence comes from the same cluster into the same meta-training task. And in single-sentence classification, for each meta-training task, we randomly select \\(N\\) clusters as \\(N\\) classes and then sample \\(k\\) sentences for each cluster to construct a \\(N\\)-way \\(k\\)-shot classification task \\((N = 4)\\). In this way, we completely construct all anchor meta-training tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.486, + 0.482, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Additional Loss to Train Meta-Gradient Regularization Parameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.523, + 0.49, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the meta-training stage, we optimize the metagradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi\\) via Eq. (7), utilizing the same loss which optimizes the soft prompt embeddings. Here we introduce a regularized loss to attach some additional restrictions when updating the meta-gradient regularization parameters. Notably, a higher value of \\(b_{k}\\) in Eq. (10) indicates a higher probability of a larger distribution deviation between the support set and the query set. Furthermore, in Eq. (5) we also tend to increase \\(z\\) to achieve a more pronounced gradient transformation with a more noticeable distribution deviation. From this perspective, \\(z\\) has a similar monotonicity with \\(b_{k}\\), and they both range between 0 and 1. Thus we further add a regularized loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{reg} = \\| z - b_k\\|^2\\) to constrain the value of \\(z\\) and finally modify Eq. (7) into:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.801, + 0.488, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\phi \\leftarrow \\phi - \\beta_ {2} \\nabla_ {\\phi} \\left(\\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(f _ {\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}}\\right) + \\lambda \\mathcal {L} _ {r e g}\\right) \\tag {20}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.835, + 0.379, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Pseudo-Codes of SUPMER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show the pseudo-codes for the meta-training process of SUPMER in Alg. 1. And the process of curriculum-based task augmentation is described in Alg. 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.884, + 0.114 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 2 TA : Curriculum-based Task Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.117, + 0.792, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: \\(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n\\) : A batch of anchor tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.135, + 0.821, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: \\(p(\\mathcal{T})\\) : Distribution over anchor tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.151, + 0.873, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: \\( s \\in [-1, 1] \\): Avg cos-sim between gradients" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.168, + 0.726, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: \\(\\alpha, m\\): hyper-parameters" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.117, + 0.873, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.199, + 0.657, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: \\(s\\gets (1 + s) / 2\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.215, + 0.722, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: \\( b \\gets (m^s - 1) / (m - 1) \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.232, + 0.74, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: for all \\(\\tau_{i} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}\\}\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.248, + 0.871, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Sample task \\(\\tau_{j} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{j}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{j}}^{q}\\}\\) from \\(p(T)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.265, + 0.766, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: Draw \\(\\lambda\\) from \\(Beta(\\alpha, b\\alpha)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.215, + 0.871, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.561, + 0.279, + 0.837, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n/ / \\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q} = \\left(\\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q}, \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q}\\right), \\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {j}} ^ {q} = \\left(\\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.561, + 0.296, + 0.882, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "// \\( H \\): the hidden representations of samples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.311, + 0.769, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10: \\(\\tilde{\\pmb{H}}_i^q = (1 - \\lambda)\\pmb {H}_i^q +\\lambda \\pmb {H}_j^q\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.33, + 0.731, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11: \\(\\tilde{\\pmb{Y}}_i^q = (1 - \\lambda)\\pmb {Y}_i^q +\\lambda\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.349, + 0.702, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12: \\(\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q \\gets (\\tilde{\\pmb{H}}_i^q, \\tilde{\\pmb{Y}}_i^q)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.367, + 0.603, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13: end for" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.382, + 0.655, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14: return \\(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i=1}^n\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.311, + 0.769, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.426, + 0.776, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Dataset & Baseline Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.452, + 0.885, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Few-shot Learning. We conduct experiments of few-shot learning on 6 different downstream English tasks with 12 datasets. Since some of the test sets of the datasets are not publicly available, following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), we leverage the original validation sets of SST-2, CB, RTE, QNLI, WiC, MRPC, and \\(\\mathrm{QQP}^1\\) as substitutes for the unavailable test sets. And the validation sets for few-shot learning are sampled from the original training set, ensuring no overlap with our designated test sets. Besides, we download the datasets of SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR, and SUBJ from Gao et al. (2021). And the rest of the datasets are obtained from the HuggingFace Datasets library (Lhoest et al., 2021). CB, RTE, BoolQ, and Wic are from SuperGLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2019), while QNLI, MRPC, and QQP are from GLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2018) with Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0). We give the statistics of all these datasets in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.783, + 0.884, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain Generalization. Similar to Calderon et al. (2022), We evaluate on the sentiment analysis task including 6 different domains: Airlines (A), Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E), Kitchen appliances (K), and Restaurants (R). Each domain has totally 2,000 manually labeled data of binary categories for testing, including 1000 positive and" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.753, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DatasetTask#Train#TestKSST-2Sentiment analysis69208722SST-5Sentiment analysis854422105MRSentiment analysis866220002CRSentiment analysis177420002SUBJSubjectivity classification800020002TRECQuestion classification54525006CBNatural language inference250563RTENatural language inference24902772QNLIQuestion answering10474354632WiCWord sense disambiguation54286382MRPCParaphrase detection36684082QQPParaphrase detection363846404302" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.281, + 0.49, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Statistics of all 12 datasets for few-shot learning. K is the number of labels. We sample \\( N \\times K \\) instances from the original training set to construct the few-shot training and validation sets. And #Test shows the size of the test set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.359, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1000 negative. We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. We sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain for prompt tuning and then evaluate on the test sets of all 6 domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.467, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines. We first compare with baseline methods with the same number of parameters as SUP-MER. These methods utilize prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) to handle downstream tasks, with the key distinction lying in the initialization of the soft prompts. Vallina prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021) directly tunes the soft prompts in the downstream task, which are randomly initialized from a normal distribution. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pretrains soft prompts in a self-supervised way with 3 formats of pre-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification. Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022) formulate all these three formats into a unified task form. MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022) using a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data and directly leveraging MAML to initialize soft prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we also consider baseline methods with more tunable parameters, including Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), which add prompts at each layer of PLM. We also compare with full-model tuning (FT) that fine-tunes all parameters of the PLM." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we newly compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL: zero-" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Hyper-parameterValue
Number of clusters for each task format250
Tasks per batch4
Size of support set per task32
Size of query set per task32
OptimizerAdam
Inner loop learning rate0.1
Outer loop learning rate0.1
Learning rate for φ1e-4
SchedulerLinear scheduler
Warm-up steps0
Max training steps100,000
Validation steps2,000
Max sequence length512
λ1.0
m2.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.301, + 0.884, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Hyper-parameters for SUPMER. \\( \\phi \\) denotes the meta-gradient regularization parameters. \\( \\lambda \\) is the coefficient of the regularized loss. And \\( m \\) is the curve parameter in the curriculum-based task augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.375, + 0.885, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "shot inference and few-shot inference. For both of them, we directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation, coupled with carefully designed task instructions for each dataset. Furthermore, in few-shot inference, we also provide an appropriate number of few-shot examples to form a demonstration context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.502, + 0.691, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Training Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.884, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We apply the T5 base model (Raffel et al., 2020) (220M parameters) and Flan-T5-XL model (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) as the underlying PLM, and use the HuggingFace Pytorch implementation (Wolf et al., 2020). We run experiments with 8 GeForce RTX 3090 24G GPUs. And the metatraining process of SUPMER takes about 140 GPU hours. Next we will describe the details of training hyper-parameters in the case of leveraging T5-base as the PLM." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.704, + 0.807, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.1 Training Hyper-parameters for Downstream Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.742, + 0.884, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our experiments, we leverage full-model tuning and prompt tuning to solve downstream tasks, including few-shot learning and domain generalization. In few-shot learning, following some prior work (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2022), we set the maximum sequence length of each example to 256 for CR, SUBJ, CB, RTE and WiC, and 128 for other datasets. While in domain generalization, the maximum sequence length of each example is set to 256." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We run each experiment 5 times on the random" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1075" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.884, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQP
only sp83.61.542.62.281.71.886.00.665.82.871.26.664.62.157.02.558.43.353.61.569.91.366.01.0
only mc83.41.444.51.979.35.188.30.570.54.766.41.465.93.154.91.358.71.754.21.868.80.867.61.3
only ss84.51.545.02.081.50.788.40.573.33.179.15.862.12.653.91.056.51.453.31.367.71.363.71.7
w/o ta84.71.040.13.381.91.887.20.873.62.878.83.766.41.956.60.959.41.854.32.469.51.170.21.1
w/o curriculum86.80.840.82.282.31.388.40.974.83.179.71.671.02.156.50.862.61.455.41.169.70.871.31.2
w/o mgr85.01.344.51.182.80.788.00.576.01.779.55.067.11.656.80.858.92.454.42.070.01.070.30.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.197, + 0.884, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Detailed results of ablation study for few-shot learning to illustrate the effect of individual Components. In the first three rows we keep only one anchor task format during meta-training, and sp stands for sentence-pair classification, mc for multi-choice classification, ss for single-sentence classification. And w/o ta means entirely removing task augmentation, w/o curriculum only retains the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. w/o mgr means removing the meta-gradient regularization method." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.281, + 0.772, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodSourceTarget
ABDEKR
only sp83.41.182.11.483.00.788.51.288.90.888.10.7
only mc84.00.682.31.281.50.988.51.089.30.788.80.7
only ss83.60.784.70.884.20.688.90.989.70.989.00.3
w/o ta83.40.882.01.481.71.587.80.888.20.688.60.6
w/o curriculum84.00.584.70.883.90.689.60.590.30.889.71.1
w/o mgr83.80.483.40.583.30.588.10.689.20.888.90.4
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.791.10.590.40.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.442, + 0.882, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Detailed results of ablation study for domain generalization to illustrate the effect of individual Components." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.472, + 0.489, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average accuracy as well as the standard deviation. For both full-model tuning and prompt tuning, We implement AdamW as the optimizer. We use a batch size of 32 and train the model for 200 epochs, meanwhile evaluating the model every 10 steps. And we report the results for hyper-parameters performing the best on the validation set for each task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.607, + 0.49, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, for full-model tuning, all parameters of PLM are fine-tuned without adding soft prompts. We use the learning rate of [1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5] and choose the one obtaining the highest validation performance. Moreover, to fine-tune the Flan-T5-XL model, we use ZeRO (Rajbhandari et al., 2020) stage-2 provided in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020) to reduce GPU memory usage." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For prompt tuning, we freeze all PLM parameters and only tune soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens. As a result, the tunable parameters of prompt tuning are only \\(77\\mathrm{K}\\) with T5-base and \\(205\\mathrm{K}\\) with Flan-T5-XL, updating around 3000 and 15000 times fewer parameters on T5-base and Flan-T5-Xl, respectively, compared to full-model tuning. And we find that prompt tuning requires a much larger learning rate than full-model tuning. We search for the learning rate in [1e-1, 2e-1, 3e-1] and also choose the model with the best performance on the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.472, + 0.618, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "validation set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.517, + 0.871, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C.2 Training Hyper-parameters for Prompt Initialization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pre-training for prompt initialization. Gu et al. (2022) proposes two frameworks for unsupervised prompt pre-training, named PPT and Unified PPT. PPT designs three formats of unsupervised pre-training tasks (sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification), and Unified-PPT further formulate them into a unified task form. We implement PPT and Unified-PPT following the hyper-parameters provided in Gu et al. (2022) and reset the pretrained language model to T5-base and Flan-T5-XL. Specifically, for both PPT and Unified-PPT, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct pre-training tasks for each task format. And \\(5\\%\\) data are split for validation. We apply the \"inverse square root\" learning rate scheduler with no warm-up steps and set the learning rate as 0.1. We set the batch size to 256 with the max sequence length as 512, and train soft prompts for at most 200,000 steps. We evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps and choose prompts with the lowest validation loss." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1076" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.224, + 0.082, + 0.774, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEK
1 SUPMER (only labeled)86.484.784.890.090.787.3
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)85.785.385.190.391.187.5
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)83.179.084.489.390.685.3
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.385.386.790.191.488.0
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)86.688.688.592.793.790.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.206, + 0.884, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Results of domain generalization on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization. As our collected labeled data includes Yelp5, a sentiment analysis dataset in the domain of restaurants, we conduct the experiments of domain generalization only across domains A, B, D, E, K (without R)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.263, + 0.488, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meta-training for prompt initialization. In our SUPMER framework, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. We split \\(5\\%\\) data to construct tasks for validation. And for each task format, we first set the number of clusters to 250. We sample 4 meta-training tasks in a batch, and train the prompt embeddings \\(\\theta\\) and the meta-gradient regularization parameters \\(\\phi\\) for at most 100,000 steps. We also evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps, choosing \\(\\theta\\) and \\(\\phi\\) with the lowest validation loss for downstream tasks. Table 6 lists all training hyper-parameters for SUPMER. It is worth noting that for most hyperparameters in Table 6, we just set a default value by experience without tuning them. we tune the hyperparameters which are also tuned in other baselines (e.g., learning rate), ensuring all methods have the same number of tunable hyper-parameters in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.587, + 0.49, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, to illustrate the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning, we also imitate MetaPT(Huang et al., 2022) to initialize soft prompts via supervised meta-learning. MetaPT uses a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data, which has 650,000 training samples only covering the domain of restaurants. Following Huang et al. (2022), We group all labeled data into 10 clusters through K-means. And we set the inner loop learning rate to 0.08, the outer loop learning rate to 0.025 with the early stop patience as 6. Other hyper-parameters are consistent with those in SUPMER." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.811, + 0.414, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Full Results of Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we first give detailed experimental results of the ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We evaluate each ablation model over all 12 datasets of few-shot learning and all 6 domains of domain generalization, with" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "T5-base as the underlying PLM. We run each experiment 5 times on the random seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average performances as well as the standard deviation. The detailed results of few-shot learning and domain generalization are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. We can see each component is critical in our framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.376, + 0.885, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, in §4.4, to explore the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning and the impact of integrating additional labeled data for soft prompt initialization, we conduct experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for soft prompt initialization. We also carry out experiments of domain generation leveraging different data with various prompt initialization methods, with the results presented in Table 9. From Table 3 and 9, it is evident that self-supervised meta-learning utilizing unlabeled data exhibits enhanced adaptability to unseen tasks in comparison to its supervised counterparts. And amalgamating both labeled and unlabeled data for the construction of meta-training tasks emerges as a more advantageous strategy. When it comes to employing both labeled and unlabeled data for prompt initialization, SUPMER continues to showcase markedly superior results in contrast to baseline methods in the realms of both few-shot learning and domain generalization." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1077" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5109238c462e353da6aec0801221b105569d19d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/cba196e6-3604-4774-8b70-1747605c92a9_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:1c216840859c77779ba7ce6c6429bef27e37906c3bb14aa2a8ec8aa371ac0133 +size 886192 diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/full.md b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c952d5b9ff586d596152745fd1eba5ea9503e8e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,604 @@ +# Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization + +Kaihang Pan $^{1,2*}$ , Juncheng Li $^{1\dagger}$ , Hongye Song $^{2}$ , Jun Lin $^{2}$ , Xiaozhong Liu $^{3}$ , Siliang Tang $^{1}$ + +1 Zhejiang University, 2 DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group, + +$^{3}$ Worcester Polytechnic Institute + +{kaihangpan, junchengli, siliang}@zju.edu.cn + +{hongye.shy, linjun.lj}@alibaba-inc.com, xliu14@wpi.edu + +# Abstract + +Prompt tuning is a parameter-efficient method, which learns soft prompts and conditions frozen language models to perform specific downstream tasks. Though effective, prompt tuning under few-shot settings on the one hand heavily relies on a good initialization of soft prompts. On the other hand, it can easily overfit to few-shot training samples, thereby undermining generalizability. Existing works leverage pre-training or supervised meta-learning to initialize soft prompts but they fail to data-efficiently generalize to unseen downstream tasks. To address the above problems, this paper proposes a novel SelfSupervised meta-Prompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization for few-shot generalization (SUPMER). SUPMER leverages self-supervised meta-learning with a diverse set of well-designed meta-training tasks to learn a universal prompt initialization for efficient adaptation using only unlabeled data. Additionally, it jointly meta-learns a gradient regularization function to transform raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction, thus alleviating the problem of overfitting. Extensive experiments show that SUPMER achieves better performance for different few-shot downstream tasks, and also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability. The code for SUPMER will be available at https://github.com/beepkh/SUPMER. + +# 1 Introduction + +Recent NLP accomplishments witnessed the rapid development of pre-trained language models (PLMs) (e.g., BERT Devlin et al., 2019; T5 Raffel et al., 2020; GPT3 Brown et al., 2020). Finetuning, which tunes the entire PLM parameters, has achieved outstanding performances in various NLP tasks. However, as the pre-trained model scale increases, tuning the entire set of parameters + +![](images/5514dc8acdbfe69bbb9e267897152e466e0bef12be1dea44d5776b9200a4946b.jpg) +(a) +Figure 1: (a) Performance of PT with different prompt initialization. (b) Performance after different training steps for vanilla PT and SUPMER. + +![](images/061f28ad549d86f2011fc11dda3f0097f47385e9dbd5dfecab08dd670e13d5be.jpg) +(b) + +would be sometimes unaffordable. More recently, prompt-based methods, which simply insert a piece of carefully designed text to the input (e.g., "It was $\langle X\rangle$ .") and predict target words (e.g., "great" or "terrible") at the mask position with frozen PLMs, have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness. But it has been observed that the performance of prompt-based methods is greatly affected by the design of prompts. In light of this, prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), as a parameter-efficient tuning method, is proposed to only prepend some additional learnable tokens called soft prompts to the input text, with all PLM parameters freezing. + +Though prompt tuning is an efficient and effective paradigm, Gu et al. (2022) shows it performs much worse than fine-tuning under few-shot settings. We argue that the performance is not satisfactory mainly due to two limitations: 1) The performance of PT is highly sensitive to the soft prompt initialization, especially for few-shot tasks. As shown in Figure 1 (a), different soft prompt initialization leads to significant performance variations. 2) Few-shot PT risks overfitting to some spurious correlations as soft prompts are tuned on limited training samples, thus undermining the generalizability of PLMs. As shown in Figure 1 (b), the performance of few-shot vanilla PT degrades significantly in the final training steps. + +Recent research mainly focused on the first limi + +tation, leveraging pre-training or supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization. A pretrained prompt tuning method (PPT) (Gu et al., 2022) is proposed from the beginning, which utilizes self-supervised tasks to pre-train soft prompts and then applies them in the few-shot scenario. However, without explicitly optimizing the fast adaptation ability of the model, PPT suffers from a train-test mismatch between the pre-training data and the downstream data. So it limits generalization to unseen few-shot tasks, especially when there is a significant disparity in task domains or formats. MetaPrompting (Hou et al., 2022), as another effort, seeks assistance from model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML Finn et al., 2017) for fast adaptation in few-shot settings. However, in each task, MetaPrompting requires plenty of labeled data within certain classes to perform supervised meta-learning for prompt initialization, which is often inaccessible in practical few-shot scenarios. And the learned initialization can only generalize to the remaining classes of the same task in a few-shot manner, exhibiting weak task transferability. Furthermore, all these existing works ignore the second limitation, i.e., the propensity for few-shot prompt tuning to lead to overfitting. + +To address the shortcomings of existing works, we propose SUPMER, a Self-sUpervised metaPrompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization. It leverages self-supervised meta-learning to universally learn an efficient soft prompt initialization, also with a meta-gradient regularization function to mitigate overfitting. This comprehensive process only requires a one-time execution and enables seamless adaptation to different downstream few-shot tasks, while also facilitating faster convergence for downstream prompt tuning. + +Specifically, to address the first limitation, we design a novel self-supervised meta-learning method for prompt initialization, which automatically generates a diverse set of meta-training tasks from large-scale unlabeled corpora and explicitly learns to fast adapt across these tasks. To ensure task diversity, we initially design a collection of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks with different formats. And then a curriculum-based task augmentation method is further proposed to enrich the task distribution dynamically in terms of the current model capability. + +For the second issue, we integrate a metagradient regularization function into meta-prompt + +learning. As we simulate distribution shift through task augmentation, the meta-gradient regularization parameters are jointly optimized to align gradient directions across different distributions within our proposed meta-prompt learning paradigm. Consequently, in downstream tasks, these optimized parameters can be directly utilized to transform raw gradients over few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction, preventing prompt tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations. + +Overall, our contributions are mainly three-fold: + +(1) We propose a novel self-supervised metaprompt learning framework to better initialize soft prompts, where only unlabeled pre-training data are used to construct different meta-training tasks with curriculum-based task augmentation for further task enrichment. +(2) We incorporate a novel meta-gradient regularization function into our meta-prompt learning framework, which meta-learns to transform the raw gradient during few-shot learning into a domain-generalizable direction, thus preventing prompt tuning overfitting to domain-specific correlations. +(3) Comprehensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization validate the superiority of our method, which even outperforms full-model tuning in few-shot learning. It also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability. + +# 2 Related Work + +Soft Prompt Tuning. Soft prompt tuning is one of the most parameter-efficient tuning methods widely used in NLP (Liu et al., 2023) and vision-language tasks (Zhou et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023a), which only tunes a small number of (extra) parameters to attain strong performance. Specifically, it freezes the PLM parameters and prepends some trainable continuous embeddings (i.e., soft prompts) to the input sequence (Lester et al., 2021) or every layer of the pre-trained model (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2022). + +To efficiently train task-adaptive soft prompts in few-shot scenarios, some studies (Vu et al., 2022; Asai et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022) employ task adaptation techniques, obtaining source prompts from source tasks in a supervised way and interpolating them into the target prompts. Other works focus on training improved prompt initializations. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pre-trains the soft prompts with some self-supervised tasks on unlabeled corpora, but it doesn't explicitly optimize the fast adap + +![](images/8663d4db2b26d2f3e41c5deca5370abd7c8b1956531aa8a92090a309e4d94cc8.jpg) +Figure 2: The framework of SUPMER. We employ task interpolation to enrich the distribution of self-supervised meta-training tasks. Concurrently, we integrate a meta-gradient regularization function into meta-prompt learning. Furthermore, during meta-prompt learning we also dynamically adapt the mixing ratio of task interpolation, upgrading the vanilla task augmentation into a curriculum-based one. + +tation ability of the model. MetaPrompting(Hou et al., 2022) utilizes supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization, splitting each dataset into two sets with disjoint data classes. One split is used to initialize soft prompts while the other serves as the downstream task. In comparison, SUPMER differs from MetaPrompting in the following ways: 1) for each downstream task MetaPrompting focuses on a fixed supervised dataset to reinitialize soft prompts, whereas SUPMER can universally generalize to different unseen tasks with large-scale unlabeled corpora for initialization; 2) MetaPrompting doesn't freeze PLM parameters, while SUPMER only tunes the soft prompts as the general soft prompt tuning methods do. + +Meta-Learning. Meta-learning, also known as learning to learn, optimizes the ability to learn new tasks quickly and efficiently, utilizing experience from previously seen tasks. It can be classified into three types: metric-based methods (Koch et al., 2015; Vinyals et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2017), model-based methods (Graves et al., 2014; Mishra et al., 2018; Qiao et al., 2018), and gradient-based methods (Hochreiter et al., 2001; Ravi and Larochelle, 2017; Nichol et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). In this work, we focus on a gradient-based meta-learning algorithm (i.e., MAML Finn et al., 2017). Compared to typical meta-learning methods that rely on human-annotated meta-training tasks, we automatically generate abundant tasks in a self-supervised way, also integrating a meta-gradient regularization function into MAML to steer gradi + +ents towards a domain-generalizable direction. + +# 3 Method + +In this section, we describe the whole framework of SUPMER (shown in Figure 2). With pre-defined preliminaries, we first introduce the way to construct anchor self-supervised meta tasks and the foundation of task augmentation to densify task distributions. Then we elaborate on the SUPMER model, including the meta-gradient regularization function. Finally, we upgrade the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one. Besides, we formalize all tasks in a text-to-text format following the T5 fashion (Raffel et al., 2020). + +# 3.1 Preliminaries + +Prompt Tuning. In prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021), given a training sample $(x_{i},y_{i})$ from task $\mathcal{D}_{\tau}$ , we apply a prompt template $P$ converting $x_{i}$ into a new sequence $P(x_{i})$ and then concatenate a set of soft prompts $\theta$ to the beginning of $P(x_{i})$ . And verbalizer $\mathcal{V}$ plays a role in mapping $y_{i}$ to some corresponding label tokens $\mathcal{V}(y_i)$ in the vocabulary of PLMs. So the objective of prompt tuning can be formulated as follows: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \arg \min _ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau}} (\theta) \\ = \arg \max _ {\theta} \sum_ {\left(x _ {i}, y _ {i}\right) \in D _ {\tau}} \log p \left(\langle X \rangle = \mathcal {V} \left(y _ {i}\right) \mid [ \theta ; P \left(x _ {i}\right) ]; \theta\right) \tag {1} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\theta$ denotes the soft prompt embedding (the only tunable parameters in prompt tuning). $\langle \mathrm{X}\rangle$ let PLMs predict target tokens at the masked positions and $[\cdot ;\cdot ]$ is the concatenation operation. + +Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning. Assuming access to a task distribution $p(\mathcal{T})$ , the goal of meta-learning is to utilize tasks $\tau_{i} \sim p(\mathcal{T})$ , referred to as meta-training tasks or meta tasks, to train a learning procedure that generalizes to unseen tasks from the distribution. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) (Finn et al., 2017) is a gradient-based bi-level optimization meta-learning method, which consists of an inner loop task-specific learning and outer loop fast adaptation across tasks. + +Specifically, a task $\tau$ is composed of the support set $\mathcal{D}_{\tau}^{s}$ and the query set $\mathcal{D}_{\tau}^{q}$ . In the inner loop of MAML, a model learns to adapt to a new task $\tau_{i}$ using its support set in the following way: + +$$ +\theta_ {i} ^ {\prime} = \theta - \alpha_ {1} \nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\theta) \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\alpha_{1}$ is the inner loop learning rate and $\theta$ is the model's parameters. And the optimized parameters $\theta_{i}^{\prime}$ is then evaluated on the query set of task $\tau_{i}$ with the loss function $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^q}$ . In the outer loop, this loss across meta-training tasks is treated as the final training loss to update $\theta$ : + +$$ +\theta \leftarrow \theta - \beta_ {1} \nabla_ {\theta} \sum_ {\tau_ {i} \sim p (\mathcal {T})} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \left(\theta_ {i} ^ {\prime}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +where $\beta_{1}$ is the outer loop learning rate. + +# 3.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks + +Supervised datasets with a large amount of labeled data are often unavailable in many NLP tasks. While unlabeled data is more easily accessible and generally covers broader semantic concepts. So we utilize the unlabeled data from a large corpus to create anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks. + +The unlabeled data are first grouped into different clusters. We utilize PLMs to derive semantically meaningful embeddings for sentences in the corpus, and then apply unsupervised K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences. Based on the results of K-means, we design three different formats of self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-sentence classification. + +Specifically, sentence-pair classification involves predicting whether two sentences are adjacent in the same document or from the same cluster after K-means clustering. Multi-choice classification identifies the correct sentence among several candidates, which is either adjacent to a query sentence or from its same cluster. And Single-sentence classification aims to associate each sentence with its correct cluster label, as determined + +by K-means. On this basis, for each task format, we distribute meta-training data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with well-balanced task distributions. We group samples with similar embeddings into the same task based on the results of K-means. And we give a more detailed description of anchor meta-training task construction in Appendix A.2. + +# 3.3 Vanilla Task Augmentation + +With a set of anchor meta-training tasks, in this section we first introduce the vanilla task augmentation to densify the task distribution. Extending the idea of mixup (Zhang et al., 2018), we augment the task set through task interpolation, which linearly combines features and corresponding labels of samples from the query set in different tasks. In §3.5 we further upgrade the vanilla task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, which dynamically controls the task interpolation in terms of the current model capability. + +Specifically, for a task composed of the support set and the query set, we denote the hidden representations of the query set samples in task $\tau_{k}$ as $H^{q}$ . Given an anchor task $\tau_{i}$ , first we randomly select another task $\tau_{j}$ . While retaining the support set of $\tau_{i}$ , we reconstruct its query set by interpolating on the hidden representations $(\pmb{H}_i^q,\pmb{H}_j^q)$ and corresponding labels $(Y_{i}^{q},Y_{j}^{q})$ from the query sets in $\tau_{i}$ and $\tau_{j}$ , which can be accomplished using mixup: + +$$ +\tilde {\boldsymbol {H}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \lambda) \boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q} + \lambda \boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \tilde {\boldsymbol {Y}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \lambda) \boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q} + \lambda \boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q} \tag {4} +$$ + +where the mixing ratio $\lambda \in [0,1]$ is drawn from a Beta distribution $Beta(\alpha ,\alpha)$ , and $\alpha$ is a hyperparameter. The process of task augmentation not only enriches the task distribution, but also simulates the distribution shift between the support set and the query set within one task, as we only leverage interpolation between the query sets of different anchor meta-training tasks. And in §3.4 we will show the effect of this distribution deviation. + +# 3.4 Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization + +In this section we introduce the algorithm of our meta-prompt learning framework, which is a bi-level meta-learning paradigm learning a task-universal soft prompt initialization $\theta$ for efficient adaptation. And it jointly meta-learns a metagradient regularization function $\psi_{\phi}$ that transforms raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction to prevent prompt tuning from overfitting. + +Specifically, considering that the inner loop update of MAML (i.e., Eq. (2)) over limited samples might overfit to some domain-specific correlations, we propose to learn a gradient regularization function $\psi_{\phi}(\cdot)$ , making a direct transformation to the raw gradients obtained from the support set $\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^s$ . The function first performs affine transformation $h(\cdot)$ (e.g., rotation) to modulate the raw gradients $g$ , and then an update gate vector $z$ is employed to combine $g$ and $h(g)$ into the final gradients: + +$$ +\psi_ {\phi} (g) = z \cdot h (g) + (1 - z) \cdot g \tag {5} +$$ + +Obviously, the value of $z$ can be used to control how much the transformed gradients $h(g)$ contribute to the output of $\psi_{\phi}(g)$ . We hope to determine this weight based on the input samples themselves, setting $z = \sigma(WH + b)$ , where $H$ is the hidden representations of input samples. Formally, now we transform Eq. (2) into: + +$$ +\theta_ {i} ^ {\prime} = \theta - \alpha_ {1} \psi_ {\phi} \left(\nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {i} ^ {z}} (\theta)\right) \tag {6} +$$ + +After adapting the soft prompt embeddings to the support set $\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^s$ , in the outer loop we optimize the prompt initialization $\theta$ based on these adapted embeddings $\theta^\prime$ via Eq. (3). Besides, meta-gradient regularization parameters $\phi$ are also optimized using the same loss to learn a better gradient transformation, with $\beta_{2}$ as the learning rate: + +$$ +\phi \leftarrow \phi - \beta_ {2} \nabla_ {\phi} \sum_ {\tau_ {i} \sim p (\mathcal {T})} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \left(\theta_ {i} ^ {\prime}\right) \tag {7} +$$ + +Overall, the total meta-prompt learning obejective can be formulated as follows: + +$$ +\arg \min _ {\theta , \phi} \sum_ {\tau_ {i} \sim p (\mathcal {T})} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \left(\theta - \alpha_ {1} \psi_ {\phi} \left(\nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\theta)\right)\right) \tag {8} +$$ + +Downstream Prompt Tuning. The above metaprompt learning framework only requires a one-time execution. The optimized prompt initialization $\theta^{*}$ and meta-gradient regularization parameters $\phi^{*}$ are then universal for different downstream tasks. During downstream prompt tuning, we fix $\phi^{*}$ and further adapt $\theta^{*}$ to testing tasks as Eq. (6). + +Analysis of SUPMER. Here we give some analysis of how SUPMER could enhance generalizability, with more complete proof in Appendix A.1. Given that $x = \theta -\alpha_{1}\psi_{\phi}(\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}^{s}}(\theta))$ and $x_0 = \theta$ focusing on a single meta-training task, we can apply a first-order Taylor expansion around the point + +$x_0$ to reformulate Eq. (8) as: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \because \mathscr {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x) = \mathscr {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x _ {0}) + \mathscr {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} ^ {\prime} (x _ {0}) (x - x _ {0}) \\ \therefore \arg \min _ {\theta , \phi} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\theta - \alpha_ {1} \psi_ {\phi} (\nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\theta))) \tag {9} \\ = \arg \min _ {\theta , \phi} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\theta) - \alpha_ {1} \nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\theta) \cdot \psi_ {\phi} \left(\nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\theta)\right) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Based on the aforementioned discussion, we can reach the following conclusions: (1) The update of $\theta$ minimizes the expected loss on the query set. (2) The optimization of both $\theta$ and $\phi$ maximizes the inner product between the regulated gradients from the support set and the gradients from the query set. The inner product of two vectors is larger if they are in a similar direction. Recalling that we simulate the distribution shift between the support set and the query set, the optimization of $\theta$ and $\phi$ tries to align the gradient directions across different distributions. To improve the alignment between the domain-specific gradients, the gradient regularization parameters $\phi$ are optimized to retain some domain-invariant information of metatraining data and then can be utilized to regulate raw gradients obtained from few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction in downstream prompt tuning, thus avoiding overfitting to some spurious correlations. + +# 3.5 Curriculum-based Task Augmentation + +In §3.4 we show that SUPMER can help align the optimization direction across two distributions with deviation, which is simulated by performing task augmentation exclusively on the support sets. From Eq. (4) it is evident that the mixing ratio $\lambda$ of mixup controls the extent of the distribution deviation, with a larger $\lambda$ resulting in a more noticeable deviation. However, in the previously discussed method, $\lambda$ is sampled from a fixed Beta distribution. In this section, we propose a more flexible sampling approach, which upgrades the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, gradually increasing the task difficulty and achieving a more reasonable distribution shift. + +The curriculum-based task augmentation dynamically adjusts the parameters of the Beta distribution, from which we sample the mixing ratio $\lambda$ . Specifically, a batch of meta tasks is sampled in each training epoch. For each task, we can obtain gradients on the support set $g_{i}^{s}$ and gradients on the query set $g_{i}^{q}$ , along with their cosine similarity. We leverage the average cosine similarity $s_{k-1}$ of all tasks in a batch during the last epoch to derive the + +Model: T5-base (220M) + +
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Prefix Tuning78.21.738.02.574.03.284.53.366.23.970.12.970.42.654.42.055.74.353.41.368.11.264.91.364.82.5
P-Tuning-v283.10.841.71.582.30.888.70.574.82.478.12.167.55.453.91.361.41.654.52.270.71.168.01.168.71.7
FT83.61.741.22.681.70.988.30.980.01.479.81.771.91.556.92.162.30.654.61.670.20.769.51.070.01.4
PT71.93.437.32.873.24.584.43.561.53.365.34.258.96.153.22.855.24.853.12.466.65.363.02.662.04.0
PPT81.22.040.25.481.20.783.67.366.83.773.42.460.77.755.41.260.43.953.61.368.00.863.10.765.63.1
Unified-PPT76.87.744.71.779.03.387.70.664.25.868.42.963.92.954.41.156.72.454.51.667.81.167.62.965.52.8
MetaPT85.71.345.31.182.54.588.50.373.23.778.72.265.42.456.11.758.23.154.11.369.60.668.80.968.81.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.071.30.9
+ +Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B) + +
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Zero-shot Inference89.152.383.380.657.487.276.875.885.050.577.277.574.4
Few-shot Inference93.253.388.587.858.691.683.979.186.964.379.981.079.0
Prefix Tuning88.62.145.42.788.72.289.11.684.63.990.62.465.46.473.42.672.34.155.51.873.92.675.02.375.22.9
P-Tuning-v291.21.053.51.190.00.889.81.187.73.292.30.969.12.962.34.676.83.663.12.077.21.777.31.677.52.0
FT92.91.453.61.989.61.391.30.588.70.993.62.077.81.676.01.784.41.563.01.877.71.382.92.981.01.6
PT88.29.245.73.485.65.688.65.181.65.185.15.665.47.261.64.069.35.954.81.171.12.770.28.672.35.3
PPT91.02.649.12.388.81.388.03.087.61.990.81.767.14.867.12.281.51.156.11.375.82.271.63.176.22.3
Unified-PPT89.98.347.42.889.70.989.01.586.44.388.43.269.33.563.21.174.93.259.91.774.02.476.32.075.72.9
MetaPT93.70.852.51.390.70.789.70.688.12.491.81.872.12.274.11.377.52.558.51.676.61.881.42.478.91.6
SUPMER95.50.455.30.791.40.590.70.790.30.893.01.587.61.581.41.088.30.665.01.778.10.885.10.483.50.9
+ +Table 1: Results of few-shot learning. For each dataset we report the average accuracy and standard deviation over five random seeds (zero-shot & few-shot inference produce nearly consistent results each time as they do not require parameter tuning). Bold fonts indicate the best results. We can see SUPMER achieves better performance. + +mixing ratio $\lambda_{k}$ for the current epoch $k$ : + +$$ +\lambda_ {k} = \operatorname {B e t a} (\alpha , b _ {k} \alpha) +$$ + +$$ +b _ {k} = \frac {m ^ {\frac {1 + s _ {k - 1}}{2}} - 1}{m - 1}, \tag {10} +$$ + +$$ +\text {w h e r e} s _ {k - 1} = \frac {1}{| \mathcal {B} |} \cdot \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \mathcal {B} |} \frac {g _ {i} ^ {s} \cdot g _ {i} ^ {q}}{\| g _ {i} ^ {s} \| \cdot \| g _ {i} ^ {q} \|} +$$ + +where $m$ is the curve parameter. In this way, when our model is not capable of aligning the optimization directions across different distributions at the beginning, a smaller $\lambda$ is preferable to create a smaller distribution deviation. Then $\lambda$ tends to gradually increase as the model's capability improves, resulting in a larger distribution deviation and a corresponding increase in task difficulty. + +We present the pseudo-codes of SUPMER in Appendix A.4. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Experimental Setup + +We evaluate our approach in two problem settings: 1) Few-shot learning with different NLP downstream tasks; 2) domain generalization. + +Few-shot Learning. We consider 6 downstream tasks with 12 datasets: 1) the sentiment analysis datasets SST-2, SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013), MR (Pang and Lee, 2005) and CR (Hu and Liu, 2004); 2) the subjectivity classification dataset SUBJ (Pang and Lee, 2004); 3) the question + +classification dataset TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000); 4) the natural language inference datasets CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019) and RTE (Wang et al., 2019); 5) the question answering dataset QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016); 6) the word sense disambiguation dataset WiC (Pilehvar and Camacho-Collados, 2019); 7) the paraphrase detection datasets MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) and QQP. Following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), for each dataset we sample 16 instances per label from the original training set to form training and validation sets for few-shot learning. + +Domain Generalization. Then we design a more challenging problem about zero-shot domain generalization in the sentiment analysis task. Our experiments include 6 domains across 3 datasets: 1) the Amazon review dataset (Blitzer et al., 2007) containing reviews about Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E) and Kitchen appliances (K); 2) the airline review dataset (A) (Nguyen, 2015; Ziser and Reichart, 2018); 3) the restaurant (R) domain obtained from the Yelp dataset (Zhang et al., 2015). + +We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. On this basis, we sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain to tune soft prompts. And then we directly use the soft prompts learned from the source domain to evaluate performance on the test set of each domain. + +
Model: T5-base (220M)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
Prefix Tuning78.12.282.71.081.51.284.40.682.72.684.92.282.41.6
P-Tuning-v284.00.883.60.982.41.785.90.984.21.583.82.784.01.4
FT84.40.283.90.681.00.684.10.685.00.785.30.684.00.6
PT79.82.575.32.276.03.279.62.079.81.983.01.878.92.3
PPT81.91.477.93.583.61.388.41.089.11.687.81.584.81.7
Unified-PPT80.93.082.12.076.84.081.04.582.23.984.93.381.33.5
MetaPT86.10.384.30.884.20.789.40.990.30.6-(86.90.7)
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.691.10.590.40.488.00.5
+ +
Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
zero-shot inference77.884.686.286.888.687.885.3
few-shot inference82.590.389.792.392.289.289.4
Prefix Tuning83.01.185.31.983.41.187.31.586.42.489.81.085.91.5
P-Tuning-v285.60.486.72.386.81.888.62.190.22.388.92.687.81.9
FT86.20.788.82.284.61.387.21.389.81.190.70.987.91.3
PT82.61.279.03.982.51.784.22.384.52.584.82.182.92.3
PPT85.20.983.23.389.71.892.41.793.61.589.61.189.01.7
Unified-PPT83.00.882.53.082.04.886.03.086.62.285.62.084.32.6
MetaPT87.10.687.42.789.51.793.80.694.31.1-(90.41.3)
SUPMER87.00.289.81.491.11.295.10.895.80.991.80.891.80.9
+ +Table 2: Results of domain generalization. For MetaPT we calculate the average performance only across domain A, B, D, E, K (without R). + +# 4.2 Experimental Details + +Baselines. Our experiments are built on a smaller-scale model, T5-base (Raffel et al., 2020), and then on a larger-scale instruction-tuned model, Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022). For both two backbone models, we use the following baselines: (1) prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters as SUPMER: vanilla prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), PPT (Gu et al., 2022), Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022), and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022). (2) methods with more tunable parameters: Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), full-model tuning (FT). Furthermore, Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we additionally compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL, i.e., zero-shot inference and few-shot inference, which directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation. We list the details of baselines in Appendix B. + +Implementation Details. We solve all downstream tasks in a text-to-text format and run each experiment with 5 different random seeds. For all prompt tuning methods, we follow Lester et al. (2021) to design soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens, with tunable parameters far less than full-model tuning. For our SUPMER, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) we sample 10GB data from OpenWebText (Gokaslan et al., 2019), a large-scale unlabeled corpus, to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. The meta-training stage only requires a one-time execution. In downstream prompt-tuning, we freeze the meta-gradient reg- + +![](images/80d03ce364d765883b04442ed03de500a963ee9e0dd4c764f1e6aa02d05ddeca.jpg) +Figure 3: The performance after different training steps on CB and MRPC. + +![](images/34ce0d9325ffffe3b376c7f062b382906bf848f179fa46573a23ffcfee8503bb.jpg) + +![](images/5298afa21251cf120f5c71baef192eaca936b0f66fa1f8939396fea1e7825e35.jpg) +Figure 4: The performance on SST-5 and SUBJ when different numbers of training samples are available. + +![](images/8a5c9ef45c7fb30c014615b63240ec32034937ed27797902f607ef0c5481ba08.jpg) + +ularization parameters and the soft prompts are the only tunable parameters. We give more details of training hyper-parameters in Appendix C. + +# 4.3 Main Result + +Table 1 and Table 2 show the main results of few-shot learning and domain generalization. From the results, we have the following observations. + +First, in few-shot learning, SUPMER achieves better performance than all baselines on 10 of 12 datasets, whether using T5-base or Flan-T5-XL as the backbone. And the average accuracy of SUPMER over all datasets reaches $71.3\%$ on T5-base, significantly outperforming other baselines (e.g., improving the performance by +1.3 points compared to FT). Notably, when utilizing the larger Flan-T5-XL as the backbone, SUPMER demonstrates even more substantial performance gains (e.g., improving the average performance by +2.5 points compared to FT), which indicates that our approach unlocks greater capabilities for stronger models that have undergone instruction-tuning with a higher number of parameters. + +Specifically, SUPMER consistently outperforms all other prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters across all datasets. This indicates that our method offers soft prompts with better few-shot generalization ability. And it is noteworthy to highlight that SUPMER utilizes ex + +
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
1 SUPMER (only labeled)87.547.083.889.975.479.667.956.659.054.669.269.570.0
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)87.346.784.089.379.680.272.457.361.754.871.370.571.3
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)84.745.082.487.867.277.464.355.361.653.968.967.768.0
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.146.383.789.473.880.167.257.460.054.370.169.969.9
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)89.148.285.790.879.383.473.258.863.755.370.571.572.5
+ +actly the same unlabelled data as PPT and UnifiedPPT for soft prompt initialization. Yet it considerably outperforms these two baselines, demonstrating that the performance improvement is primarily attributable to our methodology rather than the meta-training data itself. Additionally, SUPMER outperforms baseline methods with more tunable parameters (e.g., full-model tuning) on the majority of datasets, achieving superior performance with fewer parameters. + +Second, SUPMER is superior to all baselines in almost all domain-generalization setups. For example, compared to MetaPT which meta-trains soft prompts with a supervised sentiment analysis dataset, SUPMER exhibits average gains of $1.1\%$ on T5-base and $1.4\%$ on Flan-T5-XL. So it can be inferred that SUPMER shows stronger robustness to domain shifts, exhibiting better generalization to unseen tasks or domains. + +Third, for both few-shot learning and domain generalization on Flan-T5-XL, SUPMER demonstrates superior performance across almost all datasets and domains in contrast to few-shot inference. It provides further evidence that for LMs such as Flan-T5-XL with inherent few-shot inference capabilities, our approach can significantly enhance their abilities in a parameter-efficient tuning strategy, without providing any in-context examples during inference. + +Fourth, SUPMER also results in lower variances on most datasets. Few-shot learning is often notorious for its instability. And in our method we keep few-shot prompt tuning more stable. + +# 4.4 Ablation Study + +Analysis of Generalization. Figure 3 shows the performance trend for each method after different training steps on datasets CB and MRPC with T5-base model. It illustrates that few-shot prompt tuning converges slowly with its performance typically showing an overall decline during the final training steps because they may easily result in overfitting. In comparison, SUPMER achieves faster, stronger, and more enduring few-shot generalization. It not + +Table 3: Results of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization. + +
MethodsFew-shot LearningDG
1only sp66.785.7
2only mc66.985.7
3only ss67.486.7
4w/o ta68.685.3
5w/o curriculum69.987.0
6w/o mgr69.486.1
7SUPMER71.388.0
+ +Table 4: Results of ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We report the average accuracy over all 12 datasets in few-shot learning and all 6 domains in domain generalization (DG). + +only accelerates the convergence to the optimal performance realizing fast adaptation, but also consistently maintains its optimal performance across prolonged training periods. + +Effect of Sample Size. We also discuss how the performance of SUPMER and other baselines varies when the number of training samples increases on SST-5 and SUBJ. As shown in Figure 4, with T5-base as the underlying PLM, when the number of training samples per label grows from 4 to 64, SUPMER is consistently better than other prompt tuning methods. And the performance gap between these methods is gradually reduced as the number of training data increases. + +Self-Supervised v.s. Supervised. To illustrate that self-supervised meta-learning can better generalize to unseen tasks compared to supervised meta-learning, we also collect a set of labeled datasets (ensuring no overlap with downstream testing datasets) to formulate meta-training tasks for soft prompt initialization and conduct the experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base. The results are displayed in Table 3 (rows 1 and 2). As our collected labeled data contains lots of sentiment analysis datasets (e.g., Yelp5), SUPMER (only labeled) and SUPMER (only unlabeled) reveal proximity in their performance on sentiment analysis tasks (i.e., SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR). But in other tasks, using unlabeled data consistently achieves better results than utilizing only labeled data, also with a higher average accuracy over all datasets, which validates + +the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning. + +Effect of integrating Labeled Data. To further explore the impact of integrating labeled data and substantiate the efficacy of SUPMER following this integration, we amalgamate the original unlabeled meta-training data with our collected labeled data mentioned above, with a mixing ratio of labeled to unlabeled as 1:2. The amalgamated data is employed for constructing meta-training tasks to meta-train SUPMER. Moreover, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022), We also leverage pre-training and vanilla MAML to initialize soft prompts using the same amalgamated data. The experimental results of few-shot learning on T5-base are shown in Table 3 (rows 3-5). First, we can see that SUPMER (labeled+unlabeled) outperforms SUPMER (unlabeled) and SUPMER (labeled) as it allows us to harness the high-quality advantages of labeled data while also exploiting the broader semantic concepts encapsulated by unlabeled data. Second, After the integration of labeled data, SUPMER still consistently demonstrates significantly superior performance compared to baseline methods employing the same data for prompt initialization, which further underscores the effectiveness of SUPMER. + +Effect of Individual Components. We train the following ablation models. 1) only sp / mc / ss: we retain sentence-pair classification / multi-choice classification / single-sentence classification as the only anchor meta-training task format. 2) w/o ta: we entirely remove the task augmentation method. 3) w/o curriculum: we only retain the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. 4) w/o mgr: we remove the meta-gradient regularization function. All experiments follow the settings in §4.1 and are conducted on T5-base. We report the average accuracy of few-shot learning and domain generalization in Table 4. More detailed results are in Appendix D. + +The results of Row 1-3 indicate that considering diversified task formats during meta-training helps efficiently generalize to different tasks as downstream tasks often contain various task formats. Row 4 and Row 5 highlight that task augmentation plays an essential role in our framework, with curriculum-based augmentation further enriching the task distribution and realistically simulating the distribution shift. Moreover, Row 6 validates the superiority of meta-gradient regularization in + +avoiding overfitting to some domain-specific correlations, thus achieving better performance. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we present SUPMER, a self-supervised meta-prompt learning framework with meta-gradient regularization. With a diverse set of well-designed self-supervised meta-training tasks, SUPMER jointly meta-learns a universal prompt initialization and an effective gradient regularization function for efficient few-shot generalization. Extensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization show that SUPMER outperforms other prompt methods and full-model tuning, achieving state-of-the-art performance. + +# Limitations + +Although SUPMER performs superbly in a variety of problem scenarios, there still exist some limitations in our work: 1) We did not conduct any data filtering or cleaning operations to the meta-training data, which could potentially result in the inclusion of some biased content. 2) Our experiments are solely conducted on English tasks, and also do not involve some kinds of NLP tasks (e.g., language generation Li et al., 2022c) or vision-language tasks (Zhang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022b; Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021). + +To address these limitations, in the future we plan to conduct further cleansing and filtering on the current meta-training data. Besides, we intend to evaluate the few-shot performance of our framework in the multilingual setting and also broaden the scope of tasks, including retrieval (Pan et al., 2023), language generation (Li et al., 2022c) and vision-language tasks (Li et al., 2023b; Chen et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022a). Furthermore, we hope our work could pave the way for future research on better leveraging parameter-efficient methods under few-shot settings. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work has been supported in part by the Zhejiang NSF (LR21F020004), Key Research and Development Projects in Zhejiang Province (No. 2023C01030, 2023C01032), NSFC (No. 62272411), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018AAA0101900), Ant Group and Alibaba-Zhejiang University Joint Research Institute of Frontier Technologies. + +# References + +Akari Asai, Mohammadreza Salehi, Matthew Peters, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. ATTEMPT: Parameter-efficient multi-task tuning via attentional mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6655-6672, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +John Blitzer, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, Bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 440-447, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Nitay Calderon, Eyal Ben-David, Amir Feder, and Roi Reichart. 2022. DoCoGen: Domain counterfactual generation for low resource domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7727-7746, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dong Chen, Kaihang Pan, Guoming Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Improving vision anomaly detection with the guidance of language modality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02821. +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. +Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. In proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages + +4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005). +Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1126-1135. PMLR. +Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816-3830, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aaron Gokaslan, Vanya Cohen, Ellie Pavlick, and Stefanie Tellex. 2019. Openwebtext corpus. +Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, and Ivo Danihelka. 2014. Neural tuning machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.5401. +Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410-8423, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sepp Hochreiter, A. Steven Younger, and Peter R. Conwell. 2001. Learning to learn using gradient descent. In Artificial Neural Networks — ICANN 2001, pages 87–94, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. +Yutai Hou, Hongyuan Dong, Xinghao Wang, Bohan Li, and Wanxiang Che. 2022. MetaPrompting: Learning to learn better prompts. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3251-3262, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168-177. +Yukun Huang, Kun Qian, and Zhou Yu. 2022. Learning a better initialization for soft prompts via meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12471. +Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Luke Zettlemoyer, James Henderson, Lambert Mathias, Marzieh Saeidi, Veselin Stoyanov, and Majid Yazdani. 2022. Prompt-free and efficient few-shot learning with language + +models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3638-3652, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Gregory Koch, Richard Zemel, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2015. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML Deep Learning Workshop, volume 2. +Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045-3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierrick Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Juncheng Li, Minghe Gao, Longhui Wei, Siliang Tang, Wenqiao Zhang, Mengze Li, Wei Ji, Qi Tian, Tat-Seng Chua, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023a. Gradient-regulated meta-prompt learning for generalizable vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06571. +Juncheng Li, Xin He, Longhui Wei, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Lingxi Xie, Yueting Zhuang, Qi Tian, and Siliang Tang. 2022a. Fine-grained semantically aligned vision-language pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:7290-7303. +Juncheng Li, Kaihang Pan, Zhiqi Ge, Minghe Gao, Hanwang Zhang, Wei Ji, Wenqiao Zhang, Tat-Seng Chua, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023b. Fine-tuning multimodal llms to follow zero-shot demonstrative instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04152. +Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, Linchao Zhu, Haochen Shi, Xuanwen Huang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. Adaptive hierarchical graph reasoning with semantic coherence for video-and-language inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1867-1877. +Juncheng Li, Xin Wang, Siliang Tang, Haizhou Shi, Fei Wu, Yueting Zhuang, and William Yang Wang. 2020. + +Unsupervised reinforcement learning of transferable meta-skills for embodied navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12123-12132. +Juncheng Li, Junlin Xie, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Siliang Tang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, Yueting Zhuang, and Xin Eric Wang. 2022b. Compositional temporal grounding with structured variational crossgraph correspondence learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3032-3041. +Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022c. Pretrained language models for text generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05273. +Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582-4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35. +Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning across scales and tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 61-68, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nikhil Mishra, Mostafa Rohaninejad, Xi Chen, and Pieter Abbeel. 2018. A simple neural attentive metal-learner. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Quang Nguyen. 2015. The airline review dataset. +Alex Nichol, Joshua Achiam, and John Schulman. 2018. On first-order meta-learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02999. +Kaihang Pan, Juncheng Li, Hongye Song, Hao Fei, Wei Ji, Shuo Zhang, Jun Lin, Xiaozhong Liu, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Controlretriever: Harnessing the power of instructions for controllable retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10025. +Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 271-278, Barcelona, Spain. + +Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115-124, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1267-1273, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Siyuan Qiao, Chenxi Liu, Wei Shen, and Alan L. Yuille. 2018. Few-shot image recognition by predicting parameters from activations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunjri Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1-16. IEEE. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506. +Sachin Ravi and Hugo Larochelle. 2017. Optimization as a model for few-shot learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339-2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. +Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianxiang Sun, Zhengfu He, Qin Zhu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training of modular prompt for few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07565. +Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, koryakvukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc. +Ellen M. Voorhees and Dawn M. Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '00, page 200-207, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Tu Vu, Brian Lester, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou', and Daniel Cer. 2022. SPoT: Better frozen model adaptation through soft prompt transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5039-5059, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc. +Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. + +In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Wenqiao Zhang, Jiannan Guo, Mengze Li, Haochen Shi, Shengyu Zhang, Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022a. Boss: Bottom-up cross-modal semantic composition with hybrid counterfactual training for robust content-based image retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04211. +Wenqiao Zhang, Haochen Shi, Jiannan Guo, Shengyu Zhang, Qingpeng Cai, Juncheng Li, Sihui Luo, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022b. Magic: Multimodal relational graph adversarial inference for diverse and unpaired text-based image captioning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3335-3343. +Wenqiao Zhang, Siliang Tang, Yanpeng Cao, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2019. Frame augmented alternating attention network for video question answering. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(4):1032-1041. +Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc. +Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(9):2337-2348. +Yftah Ziser and Roi Reichart. 2018. Pivot based language modeling for improved neural domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1241-1251, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# Appendices + +# A Additional Information for SUPMER + +# A.1 Complete Analysis of SUPMER + +In this section, we provide a more comprehensive and complete analysis of SUPMER. We will show that during meta-training, the optimization of soft prompt embeddings $\theta$ and the meta-gradient regularization parameters $\phi$ tends to maximize the inner product of gradients obtained from the support set after regulation and gradients from the query set. + +Specifically, to update the parameters $\theta$ and $\phi$ , we should evaluate their gradients at first, denoting them as $g^{\theta}$ and $g^{\phi}$ . Considering the original algorithm of MAML, each task consists of a support set and a query set. And only one step of gradient descent is applied in the inner-loop optimization. To make our statement more direct, we denote the loss function based on the support set and the query set as $\mathcal{L}_0$ and $\mathcal{L}_1$ . In SUPMER, ignoring the regularized loss, only $\mathcal{L}_1$ is directly utilized to optimize $\phi$ , while $\theta$ is optimized in a bi-level meta-optimization paradigm. Here we define the following terms related to $\theta$ similar to Nichol et al. (2018): + +$$ +g _ {\theta} ^ {i} = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {i} (\theta_ {i})}{\partial \theta_ {i}} +$$ + +gradient obtained during SGD) + +$$ +\bar {g} _ {i} ^ {\theta} = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {i} (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \theta_ {0}} +$$ + +gradient at initial point) + +$$ +\overline {{H}} _ {i} ^ {\theta} = \frac {\partial^ {2} \mathcal {L} _ {i} (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \theta_ {0} ^ {2}} +$$ + +(Hessian at initial point) + +$$ +\theta_ {1} = \theta_ {0} - \alpha_ {1} \psi_ {\phi} \left(g _ {0} ^ {\theta}\right) +$$ + +gradient descent in the inner-loop) (11) + +For each definition $i \in \{0,1\}$ and $\psi_{\phi}(\cdot)$ is the meta-gradient regularization operation. $\theta_0$ denotes the initial soft prompt embeddings for each step, and $\theta_{1}$ denotes the embeddings after the inner-loop optimization. Obviously we have $g_0^\theta = \overline{g}_0^\theta$ . Firstly we perform a Taylor series expansion to approximate the SGD gradients $g_{1}^{\theta}$ obtained from the query set as follows: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} g _ {1} ^ {\theta} = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1} (\theta_ {1})}{\partial \theta_ {1}} \\ = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1} (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \theta_ {0}} + \frac {\partial^ {2} \mathcal {L} _ {1} (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \theta_ {0} ^ {2}} (\theta_ {1} - \theta_ {0}) + \underbrace {O (| | \theta_ {1} - \theta_ {0} | | ^ {2})} _ {= O (\alpha_ {1} ^ {2})} \\ = \bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} - \alpha_ {1} \bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\theta} \psi_ {\phi} (\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta}) + O \left(\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\right) \tag {12} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Then we analysis the gradient descent operation in the inner-loop optimization based on the support set. Define $U$ as the gradient descent and we have $U(\theta_0) = \theta_0 - \alpha_1\psi_\phi \left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}_0(\theta_0)}{\partial\theta_0}\right)$ . So we can get + +$$ +\frac {\partial U (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \text {a n d} \frac {\partial U (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \phi} \text {a s f o l l o w s :} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \frac {\partial U \left(\theta_ {0}\right)}{\partial \theta_ {0}} = \frac {\partial}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \left(\theta_ {0} - \alpha_ {1} \psi_ {\phi} \left(\frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\partial \theta_ {0}}\right)\right) \\ = I - \alpha_ {1} \frac {\partial \psi_ {\phi} \left(g _ {0} ^ {\theta}\right)}{\partial g _ {0} ^ {\theta}} \cdot \frac {\partial g _ {0} ^ {\theta}}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \tag {13} \\ = I - \alpha_ {1} \frac {\partial \psi_ {\phi} \left(g _ {0} ^ {\theta}\right)}{\partial g _ {0} ^ {\theta}} \cdot \bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\theta} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \frac {\partial U \left(\theta_ {0}\right)}{\partial \phi} = \frac {\partial}{\partial \phi} \left(\theta_ {0} - \alpha_ {1} \psi_ {\phi} \left(\frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\partial \theta_ {0}}\right)\right) \tag {14} \\ = - \alpha_ {1} \frac {\partial \psi_ {\phi} \left(g _ {0} ^ {\theta}\right)}{\partial \phi} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +So based on Eq. (12, 13, 14), we can finally approximate the gradients $g^{\theta}$ and $g^{\phi}$ as: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\theta} = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1} (\theta_ {1})}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \\ = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\theta_ {0}))}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \\ = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\partial \theta_ {1}} \cdot \frac {\partial U (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \\ = \bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} - \alpha_ {1} \bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\theta} \psi_ {\phi} (\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta}) - \alpha_ {1} \bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} \cdot \frac {\partial \psi_ {\phi} (\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta})}{\partial \bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta}} \cdot \bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\theta} + O \left(\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\right) \\ = \bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} - \alpha_ {1} \frac {\partial}{\partial \theta_ {0}} \left(\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} \psi_ {\phi} \left(\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta}\right)\right) + O \left(\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\right) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\phi} = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1} (\theta_ {1})}{\partial \phi} \\ = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \phi} \\ = \frac {\partial \mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\partial \theta_ {1}} \cdot \frac {\partial U (\theta_ {0})}{\partial \phi} \\ = - \alpha_ {1} \bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} \frac {\partial \psi_ {\phi} (\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta})}{\partial \phi} + O \left(\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\right) \\ = - \alpha_ {1} \frac {\partial}{\partial \phi} \left(\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\theta} \psi_ {\phi} \left(\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\theta}\right)\right) + O \left(\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\right) \tag {15} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Thus, $-\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_0} (\overline{g}_1^\theta \psi_\phi (\overline{g}_0^\theta))$ and $-\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi} (\overline{g}_1^\theta \psi_\phi (\overline{g}_0^\theta))$ indicate the optimization direction, which increases the inner product between gradients from the query set and gradients from the support set after transformation. To further consolidate our analysis, we also track the normalized gradient inner product in the first 5000 steps during meta-training. As shown in Figure 5, it is clear that the normalized gradient inner product gradually increases during meta-training. + +On this basis, since there exists distribution shift between the support set and the query set after task augmentation, our method aligns the gradient directions across different distributions, which helps enhance model generalization. In other words, the trainable parameters descend in a coordinated manner such that the input-output correspondence is as + +![](images/78f17a90da65e7ba97f235e66b5378043156d3e7b6ef1aaad2d72608b47d1e5e.jpg) +Figure 5: Normalized gradient inner products in the first 5000 steps during meta-training. + +close as possible across two distributions with deviation. Besides, the meta-gradient regularization parameters $\phi$ also retain some domain-invariant information of the meta-training data in the above process. Considering that $\phi$ is fixed in downstream tasks, $\phi$ can be applied to encourage the alignment between the domain-specific gradients and avoid prompt-tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations. + +# A.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks + +Given a sentence $x$ from unlabeled corpora, we can derive semantically meaningful sentence embedding $H = f_{\theta}^{enc}(x)$ with PLMs, e.g., T5 encoder. And we apply K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences according to their embeddings: + +$$ +\mathcal {P}, \left\{\boldsymbol {\mu} _ {c} \right\} = \arg \min _ {\left\{\mathcal {C} _ {c} \right\}, \left\{\boldsymbol {\mu} _ {c} \right\}} \sum_ {c = 1} ^ {K} \sum_ {\boldsymbol {H} \in \mathcal {C} _ {c}} \left\| \boldsymbol {H} - \boldsymbol {\mu} _ {c} \right\| ^ {2} \tag {16} +$$ + +where $\mu_{c}$ indicates the learned centroid of cluster $\mathcal{C}_c$ and $\mathcal{P}$ indicates the partitions of all sentences. K-means clustering leads to more abundant formats and objectives of meta-training tasks. Based on the results of K-means, we design three formats of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-text classification. Here we introduce each of them in detail. + +Sentence-pair Classification. Sentence-pair classification takes a pair of sentences $(x_0, x_1)$ as input, and $x_0$ is the anchor sentence. We carry on next sentence prediction task and sentence similarity task in sentence-pair classification with the label list $\mathcal{Y} = [0, 1, 2]$ . For the former one, following Gu et al. (2022), we set two sentences next to each other as label 0, those from the same document but not adjacent as label 2, and those from different documents as label 1. And for + +# Algorithm 1 Meta-training Process of SUPMER + +1: $p(\mathcal{T})$ : Distribution over anchor tasks +2: $f_{\theta}$ : PLM with soft prompt embeddings $\theta$ +3: $\psi_{\phi}$ : Meta-gradient regularization +4: $\alpha_{1},\beta_{1},\beta_{2}$ : Learning rate +5: TA : Task augmentation in Algorithm 2 + +6: $s\gets -1$ +7: Randomly initialize $\theta, \phi$ +8: while not done do + +9: Sample a batch of task $\{\tau_i\}_{i=1}^n$ from $p(\mathcal{T})$ +10: $\{\tau_i\}_{i = 1}^n = \mathbf{TA}(\{\tau_i\}_{i = 1}^n,p(\mathcal{T}),s)$ +11: for all $\tau_{i} = \{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{s},\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{q}\}$ do +12: Evaluate $\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^s}(f_\theta)$ with $\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^s$ +13: Evaluate $\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^q}(f_\theta)$ with $\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^q$ +14: Transform $\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^s}(f_\theta)$ via $\psi_{\phi}(\cdot)$ + +15. +15: $s_i = \frac{\|\nabla_\theta\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^q}(f_\theta)\| \cdot \|\psi_\phi(\nabla_\theta\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^s}(f_\theta))\|}{\|\nabla_\theta\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^q}(f_\theta)\|}$ +16: $\theta_{i}^{\prime} = \theta -\alpha_{1}\psi_{\phi}(\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{s}}(f_{\theta}))$ +17: end for +18: $s\gets \sum_{i}s_{i} / \sum_{i}1$ +19: $\theta \gets \theta -\beta_{1}\nabla_{\theta}\sum_{\tau_{i}}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\theta_{i}^{\prime}})$ +20: $\phi \gets \phi -\beta_{2}\nabla_{\phi}\bigl {(}\sum_{\tau_{i}}\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\theta_{i}^{\prime}}) + \mathcal{L}_{reg}\bigr)$ +21: end while +22: return $\theta, \phi$ + +sentence similarity task, we set two sentences coming from the same cluster as label 0, and those from different clusters as label 1. In this way, the prompt template and verbalizer are designed as: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} P = \text {"} s _ {1} \left\langle \mathrm {X} \right\rangle . s _ {2}" \tag {17} \\ \mathcal {V} = \{0 \rightarrow \text {y e s}, 1 \rightarrow \text {n o}, 2 \rightarrow \text {m a y b e} \} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Multi-choice Classification. Multi-choice classification takes an anchor sentence $x_0$ as the query and we should find the correct one in several answer candidates. Here we also set two different tasks. The first one aims to select the sentence next to $s_0$ and the second one aims to select the sentence which belongs to the same cluster as $s_0$ . In each task we will set four candidates, and only one of them is correct. We design the prompt template and verbalizer as follows: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} P = " s _ {0}? \mathrm {A}. s _ {1} \dots \mathrm {D}. s _ {4}. \text {A n s w e r :} \langle \mathrm {X} \rangle" \tag {18} \\ \mathcal {V} = \{0 \to \mathrm {A}, 1 \to \mathrm {B}, 2 \to \mathrm {C}, 3 \to \mathrm {D} \} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Single-Sentence Classification. Through K-means clustering, each sentence is associated with a cluster label $r_i$ in $\{0,1\}^K$ where $r_{ic} = 1$ if $c = k$ and $y_{ic} = 0$ if $c \neq k$ . Here $k$ represents the cluster + +to which the sentence belongs. We simply use $r_i$ as the pseudo label for meta-training and construct 4-way classification tasks. As for the designing of the verbalizer, we transform the single-sentence classification into the format of multi-choice classification. We insert the centroid of cluster $\mu_c$ into the template and use it to represent the corresponding cluster. So that we have: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} P = \text {"} s _ {0}? \mathrm {A .} \langle \mu_ {c _ {1}} \rangle \dots \mathrm {D .} \langle \mu_ {c _ {4}} \rangle . \text {A n s w e r :} \langle \mathrm {X} \rangle \tag {10} \\ \mathcal {V} = \{0 \to \mathrm {A}, 1 \to \mathrm {B}, 2 \to \mathrm {C}, 3 \to \mathrm {D} \} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +On this basis, for each task format, we separate all data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with good task distributions. Through K-means, sentences with similar embeddings are clustered into the same group. So in sentence-pair classification and multi-choice classification, we group samples whose anchor sentence comes from the same cluster into the same meta-training task. And in single-sentence classification, for each meta-training task, we randomly select $N$ clusters as $N$ classes and then sample $k$ sentences for each cluster to construct a $N$ -way $k$ -shot classification task $(N = 4)$ . In this way, we completely construct all anchor meta-training tasks. + +# A.3 Additional Loss to Train Meta-Gradient Regularization Parameters + +In the meta-training stage, we optimize the metagradient regularization parameters $\phi$ via Eq. (7), utilizing the same loss which optimizes the soft prompt embeddings. Here we introduce a regularized loss to attach some additional restrictions when updating the meta-gradient regularization parameters. Notably, a higher value of $b_{k}$ in Eq. (10) indicates a higher probability of a larger distribution deviation between the support set and the query set. Furthermore, in Eq. (5) we also tend to increase $z$ to achieve a more pronounced gradient transformation with a more noticeable distribution deviation. From this perspective, $z$ has a similar monotonicity with $b_{k}$ , and they both range between 0 and 1. Thus we further add a regularized loss $\mathcal{L}_{reg} = \| z - b_k\|^2$ to constrain the value of $z$ and finally modify Eq. (7) into: + +$$ +\phi \leftarrow \phi - \beta_ {2} \nabla_ {\phi} \left(\sum_ {\tau_ {i} \sim p (\mathcal {T})} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \left(f _ {\theta_ {i} ^ {\prime}}\right) + \lambda \mathcal {L} _ {r e g}\right) \tag {20} +$$ + +# A.4 Pseudo-Codes of SUPMER + +We show the pseudo-codes for the meta-training process of SUPMER in Alg. 1. And the process of curriculum-based task augmentation is described in Alg. 2. + +# Algorithm 2 TA : Curriculum-based Task Augmentation + +1: $\{\tau_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ : A batch of anchor tasks +2: $p(\mathcal{T})$ : Distribution over anchor tasks +3: $s \in [-1, 1]$ : Avg cos-sim between gradients +4: $\alpha, m$ : hyper-parameters + +5: $s\gets (1 + s) / 2$ + +6: $b \gets (m^s - 1) / (m - 1)$ +7: for all $\tau_{i} = \{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{s},\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{i}}^{q}\}$ do +8: Sample task $\tau_{j} = \{\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{j}}^{s},\mathcal{D}_{\tau_{j}}^{q}\}$ from $p(T)$ +9: Draw $\lambda$ from $Beta(\alpha, b\alpha)$ + +$$ +/ / \mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {i}} ^ {q} = \left(\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q}, \boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q}\right), \mathcal {D} _ {\tau_ {j}} ^ {q} = \left(\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q}\right) +$$ + +// $H$ : the hidden representations of samples + +10: $\tilde{\pmb{H}}_i^q = (1 - \lambda)\pmb {H}_i^q +\lambda \pmb {H}_j^q$ +11: $\tilde{\pmb{Y}}_i^q = (1 - \lambda)\pmb {Y}_i^q +\lambda$ +12: $\mathcal{D}_{\tau_i}^q \gets (\tilde{\pmb{H}}_i^q, \tilde{\pmb{Y}}_i^q)$ +13: end for +14: return $\{\tau_i\}_{i=1}^n$ + +# B Dataset & Baseline Details + +Few-shot Learning. We conduct experiments of few-shot learning on 6 different downstream English tasks with 12 datasets. Since some of the test sets of the datasets are not publicly available, following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), we leverage the original validation sets of SST-2, CB, RTE, QNLI, WiC, MRPC, and $\mathrm{QQP}^1$ as substitutes for the unavailable test sets. And the validation sets for few-shot learning are sampled from the original training set, ensuring no overlap with our designated test sets. Besides, we download the datasets of SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR, and SUBJ from Gao et al. (2021). And the rest of the datasets are obtained from the HuggingFace Datasets library (Lhoest et al., 2021). CB, RTE, BoolQ, and Wic are from SuperGLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2019), while QNLI, MRPC, and QQP are from GLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2018) with Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0). We give the statistics of all these datasets in Table 5. + +Domain Generalization. Similar to Calderon et al. (2022), We evaluate on the sentiment analysis task including 6 different domains: Airlines (A), Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E), Kitchen appliances (K), and Restaurants (R). Each domain has totally 2,000 manually labeled data of binary categories for testing, including 1000 positive and + +
DatasetTask#Train#TestK
SST-2Sentiment analysis69208722
SST-5Sentiment analysis854422105
MRSentiment analysis866220002
CRSentiment analysis177420002
SUBJSubjectivity classification800020002
TRECQuestion classification54525006
CBNatural language inference250563
RTENatural language inference24902772
QNLIQuestion answering10474354632
WiCWord sense disambiguation54286382
MRPCParaphrase detection36684082
QQPParaphrase detection363846404302
+ +Table 5: Statistics of all 12 datasets for few-shot learning. K is the number of labels. We sample $N \times K$ instances from the original training set to construct the few-shot training and validation sets. And #Test shows the size of the test set. + +1000 negative. We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. We sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain for prompt tuning and then evaluate on the test sets of all 6 domains. + +Baselines. We first compare with baseline methods with the same number of parameters as SUP-MER. These methods utilize prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) to handle downstream tasks, with the key distinction lying in the initialization of the soft prompts. Vallina prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021) directly tunes the soft prompts in the downstream task, which are randomly initialized from a normal distribution. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pretrains soft prompts in a self-supervised way with 3 formats of pre-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification. Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022) formulate all these three formats into a unified task form. MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022) using a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data and directly leveraging MAML to initialize soft prompts. + +To further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we also consider baseline methods with more tunable parameters, including Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), which add prompts at each layer of PLM. We also compare with full-model tuning (FT) that fine-tunes all parameters of the PLM. + +Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we newly compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL: zero- + +
Hyper-parameterValue
Number of clusters for each task format250
Tasks per batch4
Size of support set per task32
Size of query set per task32
OptimizerAdam
Inner loop learning rate0.1
Outer loop learning rate0.1
Learning rate for φ1e-4
SchedulerLinear scheduler
Warm-up steps0
Max training steps100,000
Validation steps2,000
Max sequence length512
λ1.0
m2.0
+ +Table 6: Hyper-parameters for SUPMER. $\phi$ denotes the meta-gradient regularization parameters. $\lambda$ is the coefficient of the regularized loss. And $m$ is the curve parameter in the curriculum-based task augmentation. + +shot inference and few-shot inference. For both of them, we directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation, coupled with carefully designed task instructions for each dataset. Furthermore, in few-shot inference, we also provide an appropriate number of few-shot examples to form a demonstration context. + +# C Training Details + +We apply the T5 base model (Raffel et al., 2020) (220M parameters) and Flan-T5-XL model (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) as the underlying PLM, and use the HuggingFace Pytorch implementation (Wolf et al., 2020). We run experiments with 8 GeForce RTX 3090 24G GPUs. And the metatraining process of SUPMER takes about 140 GPU hours. Next we will describe the details of training hyper-parameters in the case of leveraging T5-base as the PLM. + +# C.1 Training Hyper-parameters for Downstream Tasks + +In our experiments, we leverage full-model tuning and prompt tuning to solve downstream tasks, including few-shot learning and domain generalization. In few-shot learning, following some prior work (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2022), we set the maximum sequence length of each example to 256 for CR, SUBJ, CB, RTE and WiC, and 128 for other datasets. While in domain generalization, the maximum sequence length of each example is set to 256. + +We run each experiment 5 times on the random + +
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQP
only sp83.61.542.62.281.71.886.00.665.82.871.26.664.62.157.02.558.43.353.61.569.91.366.01.0
only mc83.41.444.51.979.35.188.30.570.54.766.41.465.93.154.91.358.71.754.21.868.80.867.61.3
only ss84.51.545.02.081.50.788.40.573.33.179.15.862.12.653.91.056.51.453.31.367.71.363.71.7
w/o ta84.71.040.13.381.91.887.20.873.62.878.83.766.41.956.60.959.41.854.32.469.51.170.21.1
w/o curriculum86.80.840.82.282.31.388.40.974.83.179.71.671.02.156.50.862.61.455.41.169.70.871.31.2
w/o mgr85.01.344.51.182.80.788.00.576.01.779.55.067.11.656.80.858.92.454.42.070.01.070.30.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.0
+ +Table 7: Detailed results of ablation study for few-shot learning to illustrate the effect of individual Components. In the first three rows we keep only one anchor task format during meta-training, and sp stands for sentence-pair classification, mc for multi-choice classification, ss for single-sentence classification. And w/o ta means entirely removing task augmentation, w/o curriculum only retains the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. w/o mgr means removing the meta-gradient regularization method. + +
MethodSourceTarget
ABDEKR
only sp83.41.182.11.483.00.788.51.288.90.888.10.7
only mc84.00.682.31.281.50.988.51.089.30.788.80.7
only ss83.60.784.70.884.20.688.90.989.70.989.00.3
w/o ta83.40.882.01.481.71.587.80.888.20.688.60.6
w/o curriculum84.00.584.70.883.90.689.60.590.30.889.71.1
w/o mgr83.80.483.40.583.30.588.10.689.20.888.90.4
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.791.10.590.40.4
+ +Table 8: Detailed results of ablation study for domain generalization to illustrate the effect of individual Components. + +seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average accuracy as well as the standard deviation. For both full-model tuning and prompt tuning, We implement AdamW as the optimizer. We use a batch size of 32 and train the model for 200 epochs, meanwhile evaluating the model every 10 steps. And we report the results for hyper-parameters performing the best on the validation set for each task. + +Besides, for full-model tuning, all parameters of PLM are fine-tuned without adding soft prompts. We use the learning rate of [1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5] and choose the one obtaining the highest validation performance. Moreover, to fine-tune the Flan-T5-XL model, we use ZeRO (Rajbhandari et al., 2020) stage-2 provided in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020) to reduce GPU memory usage. + +For prompt tuning, we freeze all PLM parameters and only tune soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens. As a result, the tunable parameters of prompt tuning are only $77\mathrm{K}$ with T5-base and $205\mathrm{K}$ with Flan-T5-XL, updating around 3000 and 15000 times fewer parameters on T5-base and Flan-T5-Xl, respectively, compared to full-model tuning. And we find that prompt tuning requires a much larger learning rate than full-model tuning. We search for the learning rate in [1e-1, 2e-1, 3e-1] and also choose the model with the best performance on the + +validation set. + +# C.2 Training Hyper-parameters for Prompt Initialization + +Pre-training for prompt initialization. Gu et al. (2022) proposes two frameworks for unsupervised prompt pre-training, named PPT and Unified PPT. PPT designs three formats of unsupervised pre-training tasks (sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification), and Unified-PPT further formulate them into a unified task form. We implement PPT and Unified-PPT following the hyper-parameters provided in Gu et al. (2022) and reset the pretrained language model to T5-base and Flan-T5-XL. Specifically, for both PPT and Unified-PPT, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct pre-training tasks for each task format. And $5\%$ data are split for validation. We apply the "inverse square root" learning rate scheduler with no warm-up steps and set the learning rate as 0.1. We set the batch size to 256 with the max sequence length as 512, and train soft prompts for at most 200,000 steps. We evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps and choose prompts with the lowest validation loss. + +
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEK
1 SUPMER (only labeled)86.484.784.890.090.787.3
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)85.785.385.190.391.187.5
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)83.179.084.489.390.685.3
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.385.386.790.191.488.0
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)86.688.688.592.793.790.0
+ +Table 9: Results of domain generalization on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization. As our collected labeled data includes Yelp5, a sentiment analysis dataset in the domain of restaurants, we conduct the experiments of domain generalization only across domains A, B, D, E, K (without R). + +Meta-training for prompt initialization. In our SUPMER framework, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. We split $5\%$ data to construct tasks for validation. And for each task format, we first set the number of clusters to 250. We sample 4 meta-training tasks in a batch, and train the prompt embeddings $\theta$ and the meta-gradient regularization parameters $\phi$ for at most 100,000 steps. We also evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps, choosing $\theta$ and $\phi$ with the lowest validation loss for downstream tasks. Table 6 lists all training hyper-parameters for SUPMER. It is worth noting that for most hyperparameters in Table 6, we just set a default value by experience without tuning them. we tune the hyperparameters which are also tuned in other baselines (e.g., learning rate), ensuring all methods have the same number of tunable hyper-parameters in our experiments. + +Moreover, to illustrate the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning, we also imitate MetaPT(Huang et al., 2022) to initialize soft prompts via supervised meta-learning. MetaPT uses a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data, which has 650,000 training samples only covering the domain of restaurants. Following Huang et al. (2022), We group all labeled data into 10 clusters through K-means. And we set the inner loop learning rate to 0.08, the outer loop learning rate to 0.025 with the early stop patience as 6. Other hyper-parameters are consistent with those in SUPMER. + +# D Full Results of Ablation Study + +In this section, we first give detailed experimental results of the ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We evaluate each ablation model over all 12 datasets of few-shot learning and all 6 domains of domain generalization, with + +T5-base as the underlying PLM. We run each experiment 5 times on the random seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average performances as well as the standard deviation. The detailed results of few-shot learning and domain generalization are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. We can see each component is critical in our framework. + +Besides, in §4.4, to explore the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning and the impact of integrating additional labeled data for soft prompt initialization, we conduct experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for soft prompt initialization. We also carry out experiments of domain generation leveraging different data with various prompt initialization methods, with the results presented in Table 9. From Table 3 and 9, it is evident that self-supervised meta-learning utilizing unlabeled data exhibits enhanced adaptability to unseen tasks in comparison to its supervised counterparts. And amalgamating both labeled and unlabeled data for the construction of meta-training tasks emerges as a more advantageous strategy. When it comes to employing both labeled and unlabeled data for prompt initialization, SUPMER continues to showcase markedly superior results in contrast to baseline methods in the realms of both few-shot learning and domain generalization. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/images.zip b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56a653c77bfabb1b7892e3f25c08d9a7d0af88e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:d5610065b4db8124ebbb7c440e9d194255ffcb52b560ca0c0cb838b45b8c4300 +size 914472 diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/layout.json b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ada4e718d13af338bc12a4f32ad08d3206e1d7c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,15993 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 524, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 524, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 74, + 524, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-supervised Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization for Few-shot Generalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaihang Pan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Juncheng Li" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Hongye Song" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jun Lin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xiaozhong Liu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Siliang Tang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 118, + 524, + 135 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 133, + 442, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 133, + 442, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 133, + 442, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Zhejiang University, 2 DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 148, + 380, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 148, + 380, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 148, + 380, + 162 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 219, + 148, + 380, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Worcester Polytechnic Institute" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 163, + 431, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 163, + 431, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 163, + 431, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{kaihangpan, junchengli, siliang}@zju.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 176, + 464, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 176, + 464, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 176, + 464, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{hongye.shy, linjun.lj}@alibaba-inc.com, xliu14@wpi.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt tuning is a parameter-efficient method, which learns soft prompts and conditions frozen language models to perform specific downstream tasks. Though effective, prompt tuning under few-shot settings on the one hand heavily relies on a good initialization of soft prompts. On the other hand, it can easily overfit to few-shot training samples, thereby undermining generalizability. Existing works leverage pre-training or supervised meta-learning to initialize soft prompts but they fail to data-efficiently generalize to unseen downstream tasks. To address the above problems, this paper proposes a novel SelfSupervised meta-Prompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization for few-shot generalization (SUPMER). SUPMER leverages self-supervised meta-learning with a diverse set of well-designed meta-training tasks to learn a universal prompt initialization for efficient adaptation using only unlabeled data. Additionally, it jointly meta-learns a gradient regularization function to transform raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction, thus alleviating the problem of overfitting. Extensive experiments show that SUPMER achieves better performance for different few-shot downstream tasks, and also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability. The code for SUPMER will be available at https://github.com/beepkh/SUPMER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 615, + 154, + 628 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 615, + 154, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 615, + 154, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent NLP accomplishments witnessed the rapid development of pre-trained language models (PLMs) (e.g., BERT Devlin et al., 2019; T5 Raffel et al., 2020; GPT3 Brown et al., 2020). Finetuning, which tunes the entire PLM parameters, has achieved outstanding performances in various NLP tasks. However, as the pre-trained model scale increases, tuning the entire set of parameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 411, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 411, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 411, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 411, + 312 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5514dc8acdbfe69bbb9e267897152e466e0bef12be1dea44d5776b9200a4946b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 313, + 367, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 313, + 367, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 313, + 367, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: (a) Performance of PT with different prompt initialization. (b) Performance after different training steps for vanilla PT and SUPMER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 417, + 211, + 523, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 211, + 523, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 211, + 523, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 417, + 211, + 523, + 312 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "061f28ad549d86f2011fc11dda3f0097f47385e9dbd5dfecab08dd670e13d5be.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 474, + 313, + 481, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 474, + 313, + 481, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 474, + 313, + 481, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 376, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 376, + 526, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 376, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "would be sometimes unaffordable. More recently, prompt-based methods, which simply insert a piece of carefully designed text to the input (e.g., \"It was " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 376, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle X\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 376, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ".\") and predict target words (e.g., \"great\" or \"terrible\") at the mask position with frozen PLMs, have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness. But it has been observed that the performance of prompt-based methods is greatly affected by the design of prompts. In light of this, prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), as a parameter-efficient tuning method, is proposed to only prepend some additional learnable tokens called soft prompts to the input text, with all PLM parameters freezing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 527, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 527, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 527, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Though prompt tuning is an efficient and effective paradigm, Gu et al. (2022) shows it performs much worse than fine-tuning under few-shot settings. We argue that the performance is not satisfactory mainly due to two limitations: 1) The performance of PT is highly sensitive to the soft prompt initialization, especially for few-shot tasks. As shown in Figure 1 (a), different soft prompt initialization leads to significant performance variations. 2) Few-shot PT risks overfitting to some spurious correlations as soft prompts are tuned on limited training samples, thus undermining the generalizability of PLMs. As shown in Figure 1 (b), the performance of few-shot vanilla PT degrades significantly in the final training steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent research mainly focused on the first limi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 289, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 289, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 289, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Work done when interning at Alibaba DAMO Academy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 174, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 174, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 174, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Corresponding Author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1059" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1059-1077" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tation, leveraging pre-training or supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization. A pretrained prompt tuning method (PPT) (Gu et al., 2022) is proposed from the beginning, which utilizes self-supervised tasks to pre-train soft prompts and then applies them in the few-shot scenario. However, without explicitly optimizing the fast adaptation ability of the model, PPT suffers from a train-test mismatch between the pre-training data and the downstream data. So it limits generalization to unseen few-shot tasks, especially when there is a significant disparity in task domains or formats. MetaPrompting (Hou et al., 2022), as another effort, seeks assistance from model-agnostic meta-learning (MAML Finn et al., 2017) for fast adaptation in few-shot settings. However, in each task, MetaPrompting requires plenty of labeled data within certain classes to perform supervised meta-learning for prompt initialization, which is often inaccessible in practical few-shot scenarios. And the learned initialization can only generalize to the remaining classes of the same task in a few-shot manner, exhibiting weak task transferability. Furthermore, all these existing works ignore the second limitation, i.e., the propensity for few-shot prompt tuning to lead to overfitting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 291, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 291, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 291, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the shortcomings of existing works, we propose SUPMER, a Self-sUpervised metaPrompt learning framework with MEta-gradient Regularization. It leverages self-supervised meta-learning to universally learn an efficient soft prompt initialization, also with a meta-gradient regularization function to mitigate overfitting. This comprehensive process only requires a one-time execution and enables seamless adaptation to different downstream few-shot tasks, while also facilitating faster convergence for downstream prompt tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 580, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 580, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 580, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, to address the first limitation, we design a novel self-supervised meta-learning method for prompt initialization, which automatically generates a diverse set of meta-training tasks from large-scale unlabeled corpora and explicitly learns to fast adapt across these tasks. To ensure task diversity, we initially design a collection of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks with different formats. And then a curriculum-based task augmentation method is further proposed to enrich the task distribution dynamically in terms of the current model capability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the second issue, we integrate a metagradient regularization function into meta-prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learning. As we simulate distribution shift through task augmentation, the meta-gradient regularization parameters are jointly optimized to align gradient directions across different distributions within our proposed meta-prompt learning paradigm. Consequently, in downstream tasks, these optimized parameters can be directly utilized to transform raw gradients over few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction, preventing prompt tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 207, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 207, + 525, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 207, + 525, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall, our contributions are mainly three-fold:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 525, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) We propose a novel self-supervised metaprompt learning framework to better initialize soft prompts, where only unlabeled pre-training data are used to construct different meta-training tasks with curriculum-based task augmentation for further task enrichment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 303, + 525, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 303, + 525, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 303, + 525, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) We incorporate a novel meta-gradient regularization function into our meta-prompt learning framework, which meta-learns to transform the raw gradient during few-shot learning into a domain-generalizable direction, thus preventing prompt tuning overfitting to domain-specific correlations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 386, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 386, + 525, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 386, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Comprehensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization validate the superiority of our method, which even outperforms full-model tuning in few-shot learning. It also exhibits a stronger domain generalization ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 465, + 395, + 478 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 465, + 395, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 465, + 395, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 526, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Soft Prompt Tuning. Soft prompt tuning is one of the most parameter-efficient tuning methods widely used in NLP (Liu et al., 2023) and vision-language tasks (Zhou et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023a), which only tunes a small number of (extra) parameters to attain strong performance. Specifically, it freezes the PLM parameters and prepends some trainable continuous embeddings (i.e., soft prompts) to the input sequence (Lester et al., 2021) or every layer of the pre-trained model (Li and Liang, 2021; Liu et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To efficiently train task-adaptive soft prompts in few-shot scenarios, some studies (Vu et al., 2022; Asai et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022) employ task adaptation techniques, obtaining source prompts from source tasks in a supervised way and interpolating them into the target prompts. Other works focus on training improved prompt initializations. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pre-trains the soft prompts with some self-supervised tasks on unlabeled corpora, but it doesn't explicitly optimize the fast adap" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1060" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 524, + 261 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 524, + 261 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 524, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 68, + 524, + 261 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8663d4db2b26d2f3e41c5deca5370abd7c8b1956531aa8a92090a309e4d94cc8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 526, + 318 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 526, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 526, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The framework of SUPMER. We employ task interpolation to enrich the distribution of self-supervised meta-training tasks. Concurrently, we integrate a meta-gradient regularization function into meta-prompt learning. Furthermore, during meta-prompt learning we also dynamically adapt the mixing ratio of task interpolation, upgrading the vanilla task augmentation into a curriculum-based one." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 291, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tation ability of the model. MetaPrompting(Hou et al., 2022) utilizes supervised meta-learning for soft prompt initialization, splitting each dataset into two sets with disjoint data classes. One split is used to initialize soft prompts while the other serves as the downstream task. In comparison, SUPMER differs from MetaPrompting in the following ways: 1) for each downstream task MetaPrompting focuses on a fixed supervised dataset to reinitialize soft prompts, whereas SUPMER can universally generalize to different unseen tasks with large-scale unlabeled corpora for initialization; 2) MetaPrompting doesn't freeze PLM parameters, while SUPMER only tunes the soft prompts as the general soft prompt tuning methods do." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meta-Learning. Meta-learning, also known as learning to learn, optimizes the ability to learn new tasks quickly and efficiently, utilizing experience from previously seen tasks. It can be classified into three types: metric-based methods (Koch et al., 2015; Vinyals et al., 2016; Snell et al., 2017), model-based methods (Graves et al., 2014; Mishra et al., 2018; Qiao et al., 2018), and gradient-based methods (Hochreiter et al., 2001; Ravi and Larochelle, 2017; Nichol et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). In this work, we focus on a gradient-based meta-learning algorithm (i.e., MAML Finn et al., 2017). Compared to typical meta-learning methods that rely on human-annotated meta-training tasks, we automatically generate abundant tasks in a self-supervised way, also integrating a meta-gradient regularization function into MAML to steer gradi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 325, + 509, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 325, + 509, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 325, + 509, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ents towards a domain-generalizable direction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 364, + 359 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 364, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 364, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 526, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we describe the whole framework of SUPMER (shown in Figure 2). With pre-defined preliminaries, we first introduce the way to construct anchor self-supervised meta tasks and the foundation of task augmentation to densify task distributions. Then we elaborate on the SUPMER model, including the meta-gradient regularization function. Finally, we upgrade the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one. Besides, we formalize all tasks in a text-to-text format following the T5 fashion (Raffel et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 394, + 537 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 394, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 525, + 394, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Preliminaries" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt Tuning. In prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021), given a training sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_{i},y_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we apply a prompt template " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " converting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into a new sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P(x_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and then concatenate a set of soft prompts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the beginning of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P(x_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". And verbalizer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " plays a role in mapping " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to some corresponding label tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{V}(y_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the vocabulary of PLMs. So the objective of prompt tuning can be formulated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\arg \\min _ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau}} (\\theta) \\\\ = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\left(x _ {i}, y _ {i}\\right) \\in D _ {\\tau}} \\log p \\left(\\langle X \\rangle = \\mathcal {V} \\left(y _ {i}\\right) \\mid [ \\theta ; P \\left(x _ {i}\\right) ]; \\theta\\right) \\tag {1} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "8c1616eced189b6268c1201ec56363532d71a582732b87537106aa07f609eb4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the soft prompt embedding (the only tunable parameters in prompt tuning). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle \\mathrm{X}\\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " let PLMs predict target tokens at the masked positions and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\cdot ;\\cdot ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the concatenation operation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1061" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning. Assuming access to a task distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(\\mathcal{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the goal of meta-learning is to utilize tasks " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i} \\sim p(\\mathcal{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", referred to as meta-training tasks or meta tasks, to train a learning procedure that generalizes to unseen tasks from the distribution. Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (MAML) (Finn et al., 2017) is a gradient-based bi-level optimization meta-learning method, which consists of an inner loop task-specific learning and outer loop fast adaptation across tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, a task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is composed of the support set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}^{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the query set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau}^{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the inner loop of MAML, a model learns to adapt to a new task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 291, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using its support set in the following way:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 267, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 267, + 290, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 267, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime} = \\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\\theta) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "d4457b66a805d4866a4566a65939ec010ecc99cdf86f7ba6823d53ecfeb5b853.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the inner loop learning rate and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the model's parameters. And the optimized parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is then evaluated on the query set of task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the loss function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the outer loop, this loss across meta-training tasks is treated as the final training loss to update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 378, + 290, + 402 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 378, + 290, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 378, + 290, + 402 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\theta \\leftarrow \\theta - \\beta_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "19511a396406674cf4290bec62d1a0f9608b782e30bf3d9b81bda02e4673906f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 245, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 245, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 245, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 245, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 245, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the outer loop learning rate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 251, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 251, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 251, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 290, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supervised datasets with a large amount of labeled data are often unavailable in many NLP tasks. While unlabeled data is more easily accessible and generally covers broader semantic concepts. So we utilize the unlabeled data from a large corpus to create anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The unlabeled data are first grouped into different clusters. We utilize PLMs to derive semantically meaningful embeddings for sentences in the corpus, and then apply unsupervised K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences. Based on the results of K-means, we design three different formats of self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-sentence classification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, sentence-pair classification involves predicting whether two sentences are adjacent in the same document or from the same cluster after K-means clustering. Multi-choice classification identifies the correct sentence among several candidates, which is either adjacent to a query sentence or from its same cluster. And Single-sentence classification aims to associate each sentence with its correct cluster label, as determined" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "by K-means. On this basis, for each task format, we distribute meta-training data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with well-balanced task distributions. We group samples with similar embeddings into the same task based on the results of K-means. And we give a more detailed description of anchor meta-training task construction in Appendix A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 458, + 200 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 458, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 458, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Vanilla Task Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 525, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 205, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With a set of anchor meta-training tasks, in this section we first introduce the vanilla task augmentation to densify the task distribution. Extending the idea of mixup (Zhang et al., 2018), we augment the task set through task interpolation, which linearly combines features and corresponding labels of samples from the query set in different tasks. In §3.5 we further upgrade the vanilla task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, which dynamically controls the task interpolation in terms of the current model capability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, for a task composed of the support set and the query set, we denote the hidden representations of the query set samples in task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H^{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Given an anchor task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", first we randomly select another task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". While retaining the support set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we reconstruct its query set by interpolating on the hidden representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\pmb{H}_i^q,\\pmb{H}_j^q)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and corresponding labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Y_{i}^{q},Y_{j}^{q})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the query sets in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which can be accomplished using mixup:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 481, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 481, + 524, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 481, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde {\\boldsymbol {H}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \\lambda) \\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q} + \\lambda \\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \\tilde {\\boldsymbol {Y}} _ {i} ^ {q} = (1 - \\lambda) \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q} + \\lambda \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "b27bc866c42231053ef6c900301e1f8d72015222affd6417e0986e271e6c96ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the mixing ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda \\in [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is drawn from a Beta distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Beta(\\alpha ,\\alpha)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 504, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter. The process of task augmentation not only enriches the task distribution, but also simulates the distribution shift between the support set and the query set within one task, as we only leverage interpolation between the query sets of different anchor meta-training tasks. And in §3.4 we will show the effect of this distribution deviation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 473, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 473, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 473, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Meta-Prompt Learning with Meta-Gradient Regularization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we introduce the algorithm of our meta-prompt learning framework, which is a bi-level meta-learning paradigm learning a task-universal soft prompt initialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for efficient adaptation. And it jointly meta-learns a metagradient regularization function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_{\\phi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that transforms raw gradients into a domain-generalizable direction to prevent prompt tuning from overfitting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1062" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, considering that the inner loop update of MAML (i.e., Eq. (2)) over limited samples might overfit to some domain-specific correlations, we propose to learn a gradient regularization function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", making a direct transformation to the raw gradients obtained from the support set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The function first performs affine transformation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (e.g., rotation) to modulate the raw gradients " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and then an update gate vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is employed to combine " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h(g)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into the final gradients:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 217, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 217, + 290, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 217, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_ {\\phi} (g) = z \\cdot h (g) + (1 - z) \\cdot g \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "99b23b45b814c4c94c3f832c50210184193c01c774a5e0697080524729daadf0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Obviously, the value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be used to control how much the transformed gradients " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h(g)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contribute to the output of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_{\\phi}(g)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We hope to determine this weight based on the input samples themselves, setting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z = \\sigma(WH + b)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 291, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hidden representations of input samples. Formally, now we transform Eq. (2) into:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 348, + 290, + 362 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 348, + 290, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 348, + 290, + 362 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime} = \\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {i} ^ {z}} (\\theta)\\right) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "235987d415674cb040c6fc16829e5d0a40ef5130621f569fdb2f612fe3258a85.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After adapting the soft prompt embeddings to the support set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", in the outer loop we optimize the prompt initialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on these adapted embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^\\prime" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via Eq. (3). Besides, meta-gradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are also optimized using the same loss to learn a better gradient transformation, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 374, + 291, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the learning rate:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 480, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 480, + 290, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 480, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\phi \\leftarrow \\phi - \\beta_ {2} \\nabla_ {\\phi} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "93a8e018f767a66d77baa64df8b96ef7ba2862e3c34e6e3cfb4c286682a105bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overall, the total meta-prompt learning obejective can be formulated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 551, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 551, + 290, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 551, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(\\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {s}} (\\theta)\\right)\\right) \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "f47cefd96ae799fb4c6d322b312c6b07ced43220593dbec142383b638b0e6d69.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Downstream Prompt Tuning. The above metaprompt learning framework only requires a one-time execution. The optimized prompt initialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and meta-gradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are then universal for different downstream tasks. During downstream prompt tuning, we fix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and further adapt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 587, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to testing tasks as Eq. (6)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analysis of SUPMER. Here we give some analysis of how SUPMER could enhance generalizability, with more complete proof in Appendix A.1. Given that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = \\theta -\\alpha_{1}\\psi_{\\phi}(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}^{s}}(\\theta))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_0 = \\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " focusing on a single meta-training task, we can apply a first-order Taylor expansion around the point" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 430, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 430, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 430, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 430, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to reformulate Eq. (8) as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 95, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 95, + 524, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 95, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\because \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x) = \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (x _ {0}) + \\mathscr {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} ^ {\\prime} (x _ {0}) (x - x _ {0}) \\\\ \\therefore \\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\\theta))) \\tag {9} \\\\ = \\arg \\min _ {\\theta , \\phi} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta) - \\alpha_ {1} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {q}} (\\theta) \\cdot \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} ^ {s}} (\\theta)\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "b9f38cc3c4a3ccfbbbc98c432a87030e32e9a858ffc3b47e81489baeb90b6424.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the aforementioned discussion, we can reach the following conclusions: (1) The update of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " minimizes the expected loss on the query set. (2) The optimization of both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maximizes the inner product between the regulated gradients from the support set and the gradients from the query set. The inner product of two vectors is larger if they are in a similar direction. Recalling that we simulate the distribution shift between the support set and the query set, the optimization of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tries to align the gradient directions across different distributions. To improve the alignment between the domain-specific gradients, the gradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are optimized to retain some domain-invariant information of metatraining data and then can be utilized to regulate raw gradients obtained from few-shot samples into a domain-generalizable direction in downstream prompt tuning, thus avoiding overfitting to some spurious correlations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 511, + 454 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 511, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 511, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Curriculum-based Task Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In §3.4 we show that SUPMER can help align the optimization direction across two distributions with deviation, which is simulated by performing task augmentation exclusively on the support sets. From Eq. (4) it is evident that the mixing ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of mixup controls the extent of the distribution deviation, with a larger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " resulting in a more noticeable deviation. However, in the previously discussed method, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is sampled from a fixed Beta distribution. In this section, we propose a more flexible sampling approach, which upgrades the original task augmentation method into a curriculum-based one, gradually increasing the task difficulty and achieving a more reasonable distribution shift." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The curriculum-based task augmentation dynamically adjusts the parameters of the Beta distribution, from which we sample the mixing ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically, a batch of meta tasks is sampled in each training epoch. For each task, we can obtain gradients on the support set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{i}^{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and gradients on the query set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{i}^{q}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", along with their cosine similarity. We leverage the average cosine similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_{k-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of all tasks in a batch during the last epoch to derive the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1063" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 81, + 525, + 175 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 72, + 333, + 80 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 72, + 333, + 80 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 72, + 333, + 80 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model: T5-base (220M)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 81, + 525, + 175 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 81, + 525, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 81, + 525, + 175 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Prefix Tuning78.21.738.02.574.03.284.53.366.23.970.12.970.42.654.42.055.74.353.41.368.11.264.91.364.82.5
P-Tuning-v283.10.841.71.582.30.888.70.574.82.478.12.167.55.453.91.361.41.654.52.270.71.168.01.168.71.7
FT83.61.741.22.681.70.988.30.980.01.479.81.771.91.556.92.162.30.654.61.670.20.769.51.070.01.4
PT71.93.437.32.873.24.584.43.561.53.365.34.258.96.153.22.855.24.853.12.466.65.363.02.662.04.0
PPT81.22.040.25.481.20.783.67.366.83.773.42.460.77.755.41.260.43.953.61.368.00.863.10.765.63.1
Unified-PPT76.87.744.71.779.03.387.70.664.25.868.42.963.92.954.41.156.72.454.51.667.81.167.62.965.52.8
MetaPT85.71.345.31.182.54.588.50.373.23.778.72.265.42.456.11.758.23.154.11.369.60.668.80.968.81.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.071.30.9
", + "image_path": "738a992a1f32fff0a0c3b974722516f696a3ca830398b1fa73d70480ca0a8c83.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 525, + 300 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 176, + 334, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 176, + 334, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 258, + 176, + 334, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 525, + 300 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 525, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
Zero-shot Inference89.152.383.380.657.487.276.875.885.050.577.277.574.4
Few-shot Inference93.253.388.587.858.691.683.979.186.964.379.981.079.0
Prefix Tuning88.62.145.42.788.72.289.11.684.63.990.62.465.46.473.42.672.34.155.51.873.92.675.02.375.22.9
P-Tuning-v291.21.053.51.190.00.889.81.187.73.292.30.969.12.962.34.676.83.663.12.077.21.777.31.677.52.0
FT92.91.453.61.989.61.391.30.588.70.993.62.077.81.676.01.784.41.563.01.877.71.382.92.981.01.6
PT88.29.245.73.485.65.688.65.181.65.185.15.665.47.261.64.069.35.954.81.171.12.770.28.672.35.3
PPT91.02.649.12.388.81.388.03.087.61.990.81.767.14.867.12.281.51.156.11.375.82.271.63.176.22.3
Unified-PPT89.98.347.42.889.70.989.01.586.44.388.43.269.33.563.21.174.93.259.91.774.02.476.32.075.72.9
MetaPT93.70.852.51.390.70.789.70.688.12.491.81.872.12.274.11.377.52.558.51.676.61.881.42.478.91.6
SUPMER95.50.455.30.791.40.590.70.790.30.893.01.587.61.581.41.088.30.665.01.778.10.885.10.483.50.9
", + "image_path": "14f3c8bf9544ed03771645f1df9419830cfeddd365b419237de95642c2a6ba65.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Results of few-shot learning. For each dataset we report the average accuracy and standard deviation over five random seeds (zero-shot & few-shot inference produce nearly consistent results each time as they do not require parameter tuning). Bold fonts indicate the best results. We can see SUPMER achieves better performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mixing ratio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the current epoch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 244, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 377, + 217, + 389 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 377, + 217, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 377, + 217, + 389 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_ {k} = \\operatorname {B e t a} (\\alpha , b _ {k} \\alpha)", + "image_path": "86dcd96f3e4cee8ca3e5534382d5f13510964238a629d543559baa22a5ebd5ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 391, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 391, + 290, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 391, + 290, + 420 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "b _ {k} = \\frac {m ^ {\\frac {1 + s _ {k - 1}}{2}} - 1}{m - 1}, \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "61926bb68b7117284d02af11691df6d10a4a10c5feb0daae8ba4db637e915fa6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 421, + 247, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 421, + 247, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 421, + 247, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\text {w h e r e} s _ {k - 1} = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {B} |} \\cdot \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathcal {B} |} \\frac {g _ {i} ^ {s} \\cdot g _ {i} ^ {q}}{\\| g _ {i} ^ {s} \\| \\cdot \\| g _ {i} ^ {q} \\|}", + "image_path": "1e1e6e1d8e0cb4973748db43404115f69c6e87aba629e009e8e9cee83f8e4f4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the curve parameter. In this way, when our model is not capable of aligning the optimization directions across different distributions at the beginning, a smaller " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is preferable to create a smaller distribution deviation. Then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tends to gradually increase as the model's capability improves, resulting in a larger distribution deviation and a corresponding increase in task difficulty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 290, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 290, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the pseudo-codes of SUPMER in Appendix A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 154, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 154, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 154, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 189, + 640 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 189, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 189, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our approach in two problem settings: 1) Few-shot learning with different NLP downstream tasks; 2) domain generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Few-shot Learning. We consider 6 downstream tasks with 12 datasets: 1) the sentiment analysis datasets SST-2, SST-5 (Socher et al., 2013), MR (Pang and Lee, 2005) and CR (Hu and Liu, 2004); 2) the subjectivity classification dataset SUBJ (Pang and Lee, 2004); 3) the question" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "classification dataset TREC (Voorhees and Tice, 2000); 4) the natural language inference datasets CB (De Marneffe et al., 2019) and RTE (Wang et al., 2019); 5) the question answering dataset QNLI (Rajpurkar et al., 2016); 6) the word sense disambiguation dataset WiC (Pilehvar and Camacho-Collados, 2019); 7) the paraphrase detection datasets MRPC (Dolan and Brockett, 2005) and QQP. Following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), for each dataset we sample 16 instances per label from the original training set to form training and validation sets for few-shot learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain Generalization. Then we design a more challenging problem about zero-shot domain generalization in the sentiment analysis task. Our experiments include 6 domains across 3 datasets: 1) the Amazon review dataset (Blitzer et al., 2007) containing reviews about Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E) and Kitchen appliances (K); 2) the airline review dataset (A) (Nguyen, 2015; Ziser and Reichart, 2018); 3) the restaurant (R) domain obtained from the Yelp dataset (Zhang et al., 2015)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. On this basis, we sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain to tune soft prompts. And then we directly use the soft prompts learned from the source domain to evaluate performance on the test set of each domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1064" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 154 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model: T5-base (220M)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
Prefix Tuning78.12.282.71.081.51.284.40.682.72.684.92.282.41.6
P-Tuning-v284.00.883.60.982.41.785.90.984.21.583.82.784.01.4
FT84.40.283.90.681.00.684.10.685.00.785.30.684.00.6
PT79.82.575.32.276.03.279.62.079.81.983.01.878.92.3
PPT81.91.477.93.583.61.388.41.089.11.687.81.584.81.7
Unified-PPT80.93.082.12.076.84.081.04.582.23.984.93.381.33.5
MetaPT86.10.384.30.884.20.789.40.990.30.6-(86.90.7)
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.691.10.590.40.488.00.5
", + "image_path": "c7889f46c19183e8022d72850367c35e59aeecfdea2c19fed43d8c96f42234ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 289, + 250 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 289, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 289, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model: Flan-T5-XL (3B)
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEKR
zero-shot inference77.884.686.286.888.687.885.3
few-shot inference82.590.389.792.392.289.289.4
Prefix Tuning83.01.185.31.983.41.187.31.586.42.489.81.085.91.5
P-Tuning-v285.60.486.72.386.81.888.62.190.22.388.92.687.81.9
FT86.20.788.82.284.61.387.21.389.81.190.70.987.91.3
PT82.61.279.03.982.51.784.22.384.52.584.82.182.92.3
PPT85.20.983.23.389.71.892.41.793.61.589.61.189.01.7
Unified-PPT83.00.882.53.082.04.886.03.086.62.285.62.084.32.6
MetaPT87.10.687.42.789.51.793.80.694.31.1-(90.41.3)
SUPMER87.00.289.81.491.11.295.10.895.80.991.80.891.80.9
", + "image_path": "87ef1d7f4e1fad39e18f200464d1377281f8213ca848f58d9a2ecc6e29751f09.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 291, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 291, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 291, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results of domain generalization. For MetaPT we calculate the average performance only across domain A, B, D, E, K (without R)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 195, + 320 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 195, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 195, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experimental Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines. Our experiments are built on a smaller-scale model, T5-base (Raffel et al., 2020), and then on a larger-scale instruction-tuned model, Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022). For both two backbone models, we use the following baselines: (1) prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters as SUPMER: vanilla prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021), PPT (Gu et al., 2022), Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022), and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022). (2) methods with more tunable parameters: Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), full-model tuning (FT). Furthermore, Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we additionally compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL, i.e., zero-shot inference and few-shot inference, which directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation. We list the details of baselines in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Implementation Details. We solve all downstream tasks in a text-to-text format and run each experiment with 5 different random seeds. For all prompt tuning methods, we follow Lester et al. (2021) to design soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens, with tunable parameters far less than full-model tuning. For our SUPMER, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) we sample 10GB data from OpenWebText (Gokaslan et al., 2019), a large-scale unlabeled corpus, to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. The meta-training stage only requires a one-time execution. In downstream prompt-tuning, we freeze the meta-gradient reg-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 414, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 414, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 414, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 414, + 181 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "80d03ce364d765883b04442ed03de500a963ee9e0dd4c764f1e6aa02d05ddeca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 524, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 524, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 191, + 524, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The performance after different training steps on CB and MRPC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 414, + 71, + 523, + 180 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 71, + 523, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 71, + 523, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 414, + 71, + 523, + 180 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "34ce0d9325ffffe3b376c7f062b382906bf848f179fa46573a23ffcfee8503bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 219, + 414, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 219, + 414, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 219, + 414, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 219, + 414, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5298afa21251cf120f5c71baef192eaca936b0f66fa1f8939396fea1e7825e35.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 524, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 524, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 524, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The performance on SST-5 and SUBJ when different numbers of training samples are available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 220, + 523, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 220, + 523, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 220, + 523, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 220, + 523, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8a5c9ef45c7fb30c014615b63240ec32034937ed27797902f607ef0c5481ba08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ularization parameters and the soft prompts are the only tunable parameters. We give more details of training hyper-parameters in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 389, + 439 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 389, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 389, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Main Result" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 and Table 2 show the main results of few-shot learning and domain generalization. From the results, we have the following observations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, in few-shot learning, SUPMER achieves better performance than all baselines on 10 of 12 datasets, whether using T5-base or Flan-T5-XL as the backbone. And the average accuracy of SUPMER over all datasets reaches " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "71.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on T5-base, significantly outperforming other baselines (e.g., improving the performance by +1.3 points compared to FT). Notably, when utilizing the larger Flan-T5-XL as the backbone, SUPMER demonstrates even more substantial performance gains (e.g., improving the average performance by +2.5 points compared to FT), which indicates that our approach unlocks greater capabilities for stronger models that have undergone instruction-tuning with a higher number of parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, SUPMER consistently outperforms all other prompt tuning methods with the same number of tunable parameters across all datasets. This indicates that our method offers soft prompts with better few-shot generalization ability. And it is noteworthy to highlight that SUPMER utilizes ex" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1065" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 138 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 138 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 138 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQPAVG
1 SUPMER (only labeled)87.547.083.889.975.479.667.956.659.054.669.269.570.0
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)87.346.784.089.379.680.272.457.361.754.871.370.571.3
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)84.745.082.487.867.277.464.355.361.653.968.967.768.0
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.146.383.789.473.880.167.257.460.054.370.169.969.9
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)89.148.285.790.879.383.473.258.863.755.370.571.572.5
", + "image_path": "b65e07837528a19c0417cd61ecad9c9f417f6b98d24faacb996de85076b3eb77.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "actly the same unlabelled data as PPT and UnifiedPPT for soft prompt initialization. Yet it considerably outperforms these two baselines, demonstrating that the performance improvement is primarily attributable to our methodology rather than the meta-training data itself. Additionally, SUPMER outperforms baseline methods with more tunable parameters (e.g., full-model tuning) on the majority of datasets, achieving superior performance with fewer parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, SUPMER is superior to all baselines in almost all domain-generalization setups. For example, compared to MetaPT which meta-trains soft prompts with a supervised sentiment analysis dataset, SUPMER exhibits average gains of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on T5-base and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on Flan-T5-XL. So it can be inferred that SUPMER shows stronger robustness to domain shifts, exhibiting better generalization to unseen tasks or domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Third, for both few-shot learning and domain generalization on Flan-T5-XL, SUPMER demonstrates superior performance across almost all datasets and domains in contrast to few-shot inference. It provides further evidence that for LMs such as Flan-T5-XL with inherent few-shot inference capabilities, our approach can significantly enhance their abilities in a parameter-efficient tuning strategy, without providing any in-context examples during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fourth, SUPMER also results in lower variances on most datasets. Few-shot learning is often notorious for its instability. And in our method we keep few-shot prompt tuning more stable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 167, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 167, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 167, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analysis of Generalization. Figure 3 shows the performance trend for each method after different training steps on datasets CB and MRPC with T5-base model. It illustrates that few-shot prompt tuning converges slowly with its performance typically showing an overall decline during the final training steps because they may easily result in overfitting. In comparison, SUPMER achieves faster, stronger, and more enduring few-shot generalization. It not" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 336, + 166, + 492, + 262 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 524, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 524, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 524, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Results of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 166, + 492, + 262 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 166, + 492, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 166, + 492, + 262 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsFew-shot LearningDG
1only sp66.785.7
2only mc66.985.7
3only ss67.486.7
4w/o ta68.685.3
5w/o curriculum69.987.0
6w/o mgr69.486.1
7SUPMER71.388.0
", + "image_path": "98a6e00cc517c5e8627d9b508c0dff922ec62339449c92833af12d0bcbb6055b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 319 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Results of ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We report the average accuracy over all 12 datasets in few-shot learning and all 6 domains in domain generalization (DG)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 526, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 334, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "only accelerates the convergence to the optimal performance realizing fast adaptation, but also consistently maintains its optimal performance across prolonged training periods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 397, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 397, + 525, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 397, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of Sample Size. We also discuss how the performance of SUPMER and other baselines varies when the number of training samples increases on SST-5 and SUBJ. As shown in Figure 4, with T5-base as the underlying PLM, when the number of training samples per label grows from 4 to 64, SUPMER is consistently better than other prompt tuning methods. And the performance gap between these methods is gradually reduced as the number of training data increases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-Supervised v.s. Supervised. To illustrate that self-supervised meta-learning can better generalize to unseen tasks compared to supervised meta-learning, we also collect a set of labeled datasets (ensuring no overlap with downstream testing datasets) to formulate meta-training tasks for soft prompt initialization and conduct the experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base. The results are displayed in Table 3 (rows 1 and 2). As our collected labeled data contains lots of sentiment analysis datasets (e.g., Yelp5), SUPMER (only labeled) and SUPMER (only unlabeled) reveal proximity in their performance on sentiment analysis tasks (i.e., SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR). But in other tasks, using unlabeled data consistently achieves better results than utilizing only labeled data, also with a higher average accuracy over all datasets, which validates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1066" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 97, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 97, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 97, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of integrating Labeled Data. To further explore the impact of integrating labeled data and substantiate the efficacy of SUPMER following this integration, we amalgamate the original unlabeled meta-training data with our collected labeled data mentioned above, with a mixing ratio of labeled to unlabeled as 1:2. The amalgamated data is employed for constructing meta-training tasks to meta-train SUPMER. Moreover, following PPT (Gu et al., 2022) and MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022), We also leverage pre-training and vanilla MAML to initialize soft prompts using the same amalgamated data. The experimental results of few-shot learning on T5-base are shown in Table 3 (rows 3-5). First, we can see that SUPMER (labeled+unlabeled) outperforms SUPMER (unlabeled) and SUPMER (labeled) as it allows us to harness the high-quality advantages of labeled data while also exploiting the broader semantic concepts encapsulated by unlabeled data. Second, After the integration of labeled data, SUPMER still consistently demonstrates significantly superior performance compared to baseline methods employing the same data for prompt initialization, which further underscores the effectiveness of SUPMER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of Individual Components. We train the following ablation models. 1) only sp / mc / ss: we retain sentence-pair classification / multi-choice classification / single-sentence classification as the only anchor meta-training task format. 2) w/o ta: we entirely remove the task augmentation method. 3) w/o curriculum: we only retain the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. 4) w/o mgr: we remove the meta-gradient regularization function. All experiments follow the settings in §4.1 and are conducted on T5-base. We report the average accuracy of few-shot learning and domain generalization in Table 4. More detailed results are in Appendix D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of Row 1-3 indicate that considering diversified task formats during meta-training helps efficiently generalize to different tasks as downstream tasks often contain various task formats. Row 4 and Row 5 highlight that task augmentation plays an essential role in our framework, with curriculum-based augmentation further enriching the task distribution and realistically simulating the distribution shift. Moreover, Row 6 validates the superiority of meta-gradient regularization in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "avoiding overfitting to some domain-specific correlations, thus achieving better performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 108, + 381, + 120 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 108, + 381, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 108, + 381, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 129, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 129, + 526, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 129, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we present SUPMER, a self-supervised meta-prompt learning framework with meta-gradient regularization. With a diverse set of well-designed self-supervised meta-training tasks, SUPMER jointly meta-learns a universal prompt initialization and an effective gradient regularization function for efficient few-shot generalization. Extensive experiments on few-shot learning and domain generalization show that SUPMER outperforms other prompt methods and full-model tuning, achieving state-of-the-art performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 288, + 365, + 300 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 288, + 365, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 288, + 365, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although SUPMER performs superbly in a variety of problem scenarios, there still exist some limitations in our work: 1) We did not conduct any data filtering or cleaning operations to the meta-training data, which could potentially result in the inclusion of some biased content. 2) Our experiments are solely conducted on English tasks, and also do not involve some kinds of NLP tasks (e.g., language generation Li et al., 2022c) or vision-language tasks (Zhang et al., 2022b; Li et al., 2022b; Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 526, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these limitations, in the future we plan to conduct further cleansing and filtering on the current meta-training data. Besides, we intend to evaluate the few-shot performance of our framework in the multilingual setting and also broaden the scope of tasks, including retrieval (Pan et al., 2023), language generation (Li et al., 2022c) and vision-language tasks (Li et al., 2023b; Chen et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022a). Furthermore, we hope our work could pave the way for future research on better leveraging parameter-efficient methods under few-shot settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 630, + 405, + 644 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 630, + 405, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 630, + 405, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work has been supported in part by the Zhejiang NSF (LR21F020004), Key Research and Development Projects in Zhejiang Province (No. 2023C01030, 2023C01032), NSFC (No. 62272411), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018AAA0101900), Ant Group and Alibaba-Zhejiang University Joint Research Institute of Frontier Technologies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1067" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Akari Asai, Mohammadreza Salehi, Matthew Peters, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. ATTEMPT: Parameter-efficient multi-task tuning via attentional mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6655-6672, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 291, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 187, + 291, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Blitzer, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, Bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 440-447, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 291, + 427 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 291, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 274, + 291, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 437, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 437, + 291, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 437, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nitay Calderon, Eyal Ben-David, Amir Feder, and Roi Reichart. 2022. DoCoGen: Domain counterfactual generation for low resource domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7727-7746, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 290, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 290, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 290, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dong Chen, Kaihang Pan, Guoming Wang, Yueting Zhuang, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Improving vision anomaly detection with the guidance of language modality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02821." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 576, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 576, + 291, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 576, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser. 2019. The commitmentbank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse. In proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 525, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 525, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 525, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "William B. Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1126-1135. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 525, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816-3830, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aaron Gokaslan, Vanya Cohen, Ellie Pavlick, and Stefanie Tellex. 2019. Openwebtext corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, and Ivo Danihelka. 2014. Neural tuning machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.5401." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 525, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuxian Gu, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2022. PPT: Pre-trained prompt tuning for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8410-8423, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter, A. Steven Younger, and Peter R. Conwell. 2001. Learning to learn using gradient descent. In Artificial Neural Networks — ICANN 2001, pages 87–94, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 623 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 525, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yutai Hou, Hongyuan Dong, Xinghao Wang, Bohan Li, and Wanxiang Che. 2022. MetaPrompting: Learning to learn better prompts. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3251-3262, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 631, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 631, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 631, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 168-177." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yukun Huang, Kun Qian, and Zhou Yu. 2022. Learning a better initialization for soft prompts via meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12471." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Luke Zettlemoyer, James Henderson, Lambert Mathias, Marzieh Saeidi, Veselin Stoyanov, and Majid Yazdani. 2022. Prompt-free and efficient few-shot learning with language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1068" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3638-3652, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gregory Koch, Richard Zemel, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2015. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML Deep Learning Workshop, volume 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 291, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 291, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 176, + 291, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045-3059, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 448 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 260, + 291, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierrick Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2021. Datasets: A community library for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 175-184, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 521 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncheng Li, Minghe Gao, Longhui Wei, Siliang Tang, Wenqiao Zhang, Mengze Li, Wei Ji, Qi Tian, Tat-Seng Chua, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023a. Gradient-regulated meta-prompt learning for generalizable vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.06571." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncheng Li, Xin He, Longhui Wei, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Lingxi Xie, Yueting Zhuang, Qi Tian, and Siliang Tang. 2022a. Fine-grained semantically aligned vision-language pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:7290-7303." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 591, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 591, + 291, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 591, + 291, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncheng Li, Kaihang Pan, Zhiqi Ge, Minghe Gao, Hanwang Zhang, Wei Ji, Wenqiao Zhang, Tat-Seng Chua, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023b. Fine-tuning multimodal llms to follow zero-shot demonstrative instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04152." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 665, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, Linchao Zhu, Haochen Shi, Xuanwen Huang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2021. Adaptive hierarchical graph reasoning with semantic coherence for video-and-language inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1867-1877." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncheng Li, Xin Wang, Siliang Tang, Haizhou Shi, Fei Wu, Yueting Zhuang, and William Yang Wang. 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unsupervised reinforcement learning of transferable meta-skills for embodied navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12123-12132." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 203 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Juncheng Li, Junlin Xie, Long Qian, Linchao Zhu, Siliang Tang, Fei Wu, Yi Yang, Yueting Zhuang, and Xin Eric Wang. 2022b. Compositional temporal grounding with structured variational crossgraph correspondence learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3032-3041." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 526, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 526, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 526, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022c. Pretrained language models for text generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05273." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 526, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582-4597, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 526, + 418 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 526, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 526, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Pretrain, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 427, + 526, + 515 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 427, + 526, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 427, + 526, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Liu, Kaixuan Ji, Yicheng Fu, Weng Tam, Zhengxiao Du, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. P-tuning: Prompt tuning can be comparable to fine-tuning across scales and tasks. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 61-68, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 526, + 569 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 526, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 526, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikhil Mishra, Mostafa Rohaninejad, Xi Chen, and Pieter Abbeel. 2018. A simple neural attentive metal-learner. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 503, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 503, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 578, + 503, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quang Nguyen. 2015. The airline review dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 526, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 526, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Nichol, Joshua Achiam, and John Schulman. 2018. On first-order meta-learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02999." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 641, + 526, + 697 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 641, + 526, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 641, + 526, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaihang Pan, Juncheng Li, Hongye Song, Hao Fei, Wei Ji, Shuo Zhang, Jun Lin, Xiaozhong Liu, and Siliang Tang. 2023. Controlretriever: Harnessing the power of instructions for controllable retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10025." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 271-278, Barcelona, Spain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1069" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 115-124, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 161, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 161, + 291, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 161, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. WiC: the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1267-1273, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 271, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 271, + 290, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 271, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siyuan Qiao, Chenxi Liu, Wei Shen, and Alan L. Yuille. 2018. Few-shot image recognition by predicting parameters from activations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 404 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 290, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 291, + 482 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 291, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 291, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunjri Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Zero: Memory optimizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1-16. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 291, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 291, + 639 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 291, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 291, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunj Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 290, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 650, + 290, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sachin Ravi and Hugo Larochelle. 2017. Optimization as a model for few-shot learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339-2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiang Sun, Zhengfu He, Qin Zhu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2022. Multi-task pre-training of modular prompt for few-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07565." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 330 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oriol Vinyals, Charles Blundell, Timothy Lillicrap, koryakvukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 339, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 339, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 339, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ellen M. Voorhees and Dawn M. Tice. 2000. Building a question answering test collection. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '00, page 200-207, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 525, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 414, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tu Vu, Brian Lester, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou', and Daniel Cer. 2022. SPoT: Better frozen model adaptation through soft prompt transfer. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5039-5059, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 501, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 501, + 525, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 501, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 587, + 525, + 675 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 587, + 525, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 587, + 525, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353-355, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1070" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 595 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N. Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 243 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenqiao Zhang, Jiannan Guo, Mengze Li, Haochen Shi, Shengyu Zhang, Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022a. Boss: Bottom-up cross-modal semantic composition with hybrid counterfactual training for robust content-based image retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04211." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 289, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 252, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenqiao Zhang, Haochen Shi, Jiannan Guo, Shengyu Zhang, Qingpeng Cai, Juncheng Li, Sihui Luo, and Yueting Zhuang. 2022b. Magic: Multimodal relational graph adversarial inference for diverse and unpaired text-based image captioning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3335-3343." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenqiao Zhang, Siliang Tang, Yanpeng Cao, Shiliang Pu, Fei Wu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2019. Frame augmented alternating attention network for video question answering. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(4):1032-1041." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 445 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 289, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 289, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 289, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(9):2337-2348." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 595 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yftah Ziser and Roi Reichart. 2018. Pivot based language modeling for improved neural domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1241-1251, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1071" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendices" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 94, + 283, + 106 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 94, + 283, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 94, + 283, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Additional Information for SUPMER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 117, + 246, + 130 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 117, + 246, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 117, + 246, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Complete Analysis of SUPMER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we provide a more comprehensive and complete analysis of SUPMER. We will show that during meta-training, the optimization of soft prompt embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the meta-gradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 137, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tends to maximize the inner product of gradients obtained from the support set after regulation and gradients from the query set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, to update the parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we should evaluate their gradients at first, denoting them as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g^{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g^{\\phi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Considering the original algorithm of MAML, each task consists of a support set and a query set. And only one step of gradient descent is applied in the inner-loop optimization. To make our statement more direct, we denote the loss function based on the support set and the query set as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In SUPMER, ignoring the regularized loss, only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is directly utilized to optimize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is optimized in a bi-level meta-optimization paradigm. Here we define the following terms related to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " similar to Nichol et al. (2018):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 418, + 123, + 440 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 418, + 123, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 418, + 123, + 440 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "g _ {\\theta} ^ {i} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {i})}{\\partial \\theta_ {i}}", + "image_path": "66fdff3ee23e122ec7136269cf61cd2f2c77759de9e8df98a335e45baa6505bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 424, + 282, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 424, + 282, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 424, + 282, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gradient obtained during SGD)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 442, + 124, + 464 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 442, + 124, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 442, + 124, + 464 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\bar {g} _ {i} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}", + "image_path": "d6aa46a338bc3b7778ddeac9042996091d7b127c18088794abe6ef0c34e2126f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 448, + 255, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 448, + 255, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 448, + 255, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gradient at initial point)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 466, + 132, + 490 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 466, + 132, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 466, + 132, + 490 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\overline {{H}} _ {i} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial^ {2} \\mathcal {L} _ {i} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0} ^ {2}}", + "image_path": "245e6dedadb61e5342c44d9749c2afd16e4c971eef0dc8fc957e10c08562feae.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 473, + 254, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 473, + 254, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 473, + 254, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(Hessian at initial point)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 148, + 505 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 148, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 148, + 505 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_ {1} = \\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)", + "image_path": "c831d0fb013960117b0b00772c5e0eadf5205503552b9445a58eb963b25db3c5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 493, + 293, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 493, + 293, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 493, + 293, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gradient descent in the inner-loop) (11)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each definition " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i \\in \\{0,1\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the meta-gradient regularization operation. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the initial soft prompt embeddings for each step, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the embeddings after the inner-loop optimization. Obviously we have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_0^\\theta = \\overline{g}_0^\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Firstly we perform a Taylor series expansion to approximate the SGD gradients " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{1}^{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " obtained from the query set as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 633, + 289, + 717 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 633, + 289, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 633, + 289, + 717 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} g _ {1} ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} + \\frac {\\partial^ {2} \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0} ^ {2}} (\\theta_ {1} - \\theta_ {0}) + \\underbrace {O (| | \\theta_ {1} - \\theta_ {0} | | ^ {2})} _ {= O (\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2})} \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\tag {12} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "1d88507be2b2a44a614ebe11f27b248cd1d1d74be030f6d07968aedf56a65850.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then we analysis the gradient descent operation in the inner-loop optimization based on the support set. Define " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the gradient descent and we have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U(\\theta_0) = \\theta_0 - \\alpha_1\\psi_\\phi \\left(\\frac{\\partial\\mathcal{L}_0(\\theta_0)}{\\partial\\theta_0}\\right)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". So we can get" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 434, + 88 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 434, + 88 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 434, + 88 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\text {a n d} \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\text {a s f o l l o w s :}", + "image_path": "a09bd7df3fa8a016248158e51117d421fa437cdbb2513dbe14a865bdf9e81225.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 99, + 524, + 173 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 99, + 524, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 99, + 524, + 173 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\partial U \\left(\\theta_ {0}\\right)}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} = \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\left(\\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\\right)\\right) \\\\ = I - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\tag {13} \\\\ = I - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\\theta} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "cc92861b8f73e8308f40b19f948706825d4764f41c757f949439f7f6b61477c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 187, + 524, + 233 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 187, + 524, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 187, + 524, + 233 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\partial U \\left(\\theta_ {0}\\right)}{\\partial \\phi} = \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\phi} \\left(\\theta_ {0} - \\alpha_ {1} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {0}}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}}\\right)\\right) \\tag {14} \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(g _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "16996f519d8ce26129633d9820bb24e16476c6d51f0b77f149c81d5c09aafb9e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "So based on Eq. (12, 13, 14), we can finally approximate the gradients " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g^{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g^{\\phi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 240, + 526, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 279, + 523, + 396 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 279, + 523, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 279, + 523, + 396 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\\theta} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\\theta_ {0}))}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {H} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}) - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta})}{\\partial \\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}} \\cdot \\bar {H} _ {0} ^ {\\theta} + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ = \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\theta_ {0}} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\\right) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "711bd3ab504d987d08e4aac03308dac11f015bbd912df860d436ebe963719cda.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 412, + 524, + 541 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 412, + 524, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 412, + 524, + 541 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} g ^ {\\phi} = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (\\theta_ {1})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1} (U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = \\frac {\\partial \\mathcal {L} _ {1}}{\\partial \\theta_ {1}} \\cdot \\frac {\\partial U (\\theta_ {0})}{\\partial \\phi} \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\frac {\\partial \\psi_ {\\phi} (\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta})}{\\partial \\phi} + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ = - \\alpha_ {1} \\frac {\\partial}{\\partial \\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {1} ^ {\\theta} \\psi_ {\\phi} \\left(\\bar {g} _ {0} ^ {\\theta}\\right)\\right) + O \\left(\\alpha_ {1} ^ {2}\\right) \\tag {15} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "d66c8df8fc061c5f02cda9a6abff5ce130eff79750fea14e9c2f20bb98fcb2e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thus, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\theta_0} (\\overline{g}_1^\\theta \\psi_\\phi (\\overline{g}_0^\\theta))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\phi} (\\overline{g}_1^\\theta \\psi_\\phi (\\overline{g}_0^\\theta))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicate the optimization direction, which increases the inner product between gradients from the query set and gradients from the support set after transformation. To further consolidate our analysis, we also track the normalized gradient inner product in the first 5000 steps during meta-training. As shown in Figure 5, it is clear that the normalized gradient inner product gradually increases during meta-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On this basis, since there exists distribution shift between the support set and the query set after task augmentation, our method aligns the gradient directions across different distributions, which helps enhance model generalization. In other words, the trainable parameters descend in a coordinated manner such that the input-output correspondence is as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1072" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 244, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 244, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 244, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 244, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "78f17a90da65e7ba97f235e66b5378043156d3e7b6ef1aaad2d72608b47d1e5e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 205, + 290, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 205, + 290, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 205, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Normalized gradient inner products in the first 5000 steps during meta-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "close as possible across two distributions with deviation. Besides, the meta-gradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " also retain some domain-invariant information of the meta-training data in the above process. Considering that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is fixed in downstream tasks, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be applied to encourage the alignment between the domain-specific gradients and avoid prompt-tuning overfitting to some domain-specific correlations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 372, + 254, + 386 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 372, + 254, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 372, + 254, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Constructing Anchor Meta Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from unlabeled corpora, we can derive semantically meaningful sentence embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H = f_{\\theta}^{enc}(x)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with PLMs, e.g., T5 encoder. And we apply K-means to cluster these unlabeled sentences according to their embeddings:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 468, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 468, + 290, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 468, + 290, + 498 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {P}, \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\} = \\arg \\min _ {\\left\\{\\mathcal {C} _ {c} \\right\\}, \\left\\{\\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\}} \\sum_ {c = 1} ^ {K} \\sum_ {\\boldsymbol {H} \\in \\mathcal {C} _ {c}} \\left\\| \\boldsymbol {H} - \\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {c} \\right\\| ^ {2} \\tag {16}", + "image_path": "a74b1fe1316f8ca1796153dfb489c15a66d52bbdac16567033289ad4433efe83.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the learned centroid of cluster " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 291, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the partitions of all sentences. K-means clustering leads to more abundant formats and objectives of meta-training tasks. Based on the results of K-means, we design three formats of anchor self-supervised meta-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multi-choice classification, and single-text classification. Here we introduce each of them in detail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sentence-pair Classification. Sentence-pair classification takes a pair of sentences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_0, x_1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as input, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the anchor sentence. We carry on next sentence prediction task and sentence similarity task in sentence-pair classification with the label list " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Y} = [0, 1, 2]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For the former one, following Gu et al. (2022), we set two sentences next to each other as label 0, those from the same document but not adjacent as label 2, and those from different documents as label 1. And for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 521, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 521, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 521, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 Meta-training Process of SUPMER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 88, + 505, + 155 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 88, + 489, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 88, + 489, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 88, + 489, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 88, + 489, + 100 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(\\mathcal{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 88, + 489, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : Distribution over anchor tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 102, + 505, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 102, + 505, + 115 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 102, + 505, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 102, + 505, + 115 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 102, + 505, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": PLM with soft prompt embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 102, + 505, + 115 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 116, + 472, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 116, + 472, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 116, + 472, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 116, + 472, + 128 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_{\\phi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 116, + 472, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": Meta-gradient regularization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{1},\\beta_{1},\\beta_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 129, + 436, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : Learning rate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 142, + 501, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 142, + 501, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 142, + 501, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: TA : Task augmentation in Algorithm 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 169, + 430, + 207 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 169, + 361, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 169, + 361, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 169, + 361, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 169, + 361, + 181 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s\\gets -1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 183, + 430, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 183, + 430, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 183, + 430, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: Randomly initialize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 183, + 430, + 195 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta, \\phi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 197, + 405, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 197, + 405, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 197, + 405, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: while not done do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 520, + 296 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 210, + 520, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 210, + 520, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 210, + 520, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: Sample a batch of task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 210, + 520, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i=1}^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 210, + 520, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 210, + 520, + 223 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(\\mathcal{T})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 484, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 484, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 484, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 223, + 484, + 237 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n = \\mathbf{TA}(\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n,p(\\mathcal{T}),s)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 456, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 456, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 456, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11: for all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 456, + 251 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 456, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 251, + 491, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 251, + 491, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 251, + 491, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12: Evaluate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 251, + 491, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 251, + 491, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 251, + 491, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 266, + 492, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 266, + 492, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 266, + 492, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13: Evaluate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 266, + 492, + 281 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 266, + 492, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 266, + 492, + 281 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 281, + 502, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 281, + 502, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 281, + 502, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14: Transform " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 281, + 502, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 281, + 502, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 281, + 502, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\psi_{\\phi}(\\cdot)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 296, + 518, + 419 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 35, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 296, + 500, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 296, + 500, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 296, + 500, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 309, + 508, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 309, + 508, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 309, + 508, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 309, + 508, + 323 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i = \\frac{\\|\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\| \\cdot \\|\\psi_\\phi(\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^s}(f_\\theta))\\|}{\\|\\nabla_\\theta\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q}(f_\\theta)\\|}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 323, + 485, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 323, + 485, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 323, + 485, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "16: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 323, + 485, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{i}^{\\prime} = \\theta -\\alpha_{1}\\psi_{\\phi}(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s}}(f_{\\theta}))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 374, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 374, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 338, + 374, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "17: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 417, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 417, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 417, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "18: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 349, + 417, + 364 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s\\gets \\sum_{i}s_{i} / \\sum_{i}1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 364, + 471, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 364, + 471, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 364, + 471, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "19: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 364, + 471, + 379 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta \\gets \\theta -\\beta_{1}\\nabla_{\\theta}\\sum_{\\tau_{i}}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 380, + 518, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 380, + 518, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 380, + 518, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "20: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 380, + 518, + 395 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi \\gets \\phi -\\beta_{2}\\nabla_{\\phi}\\bigl {(}\\sum_{\\tau_{i}}\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}}(f_{\\theta_{i}^{\\prime}}) + \\mathcal{L}_{reg}\\bigr)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 395, + 370, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 395, + 370, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 395, + 370, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "21: end while" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 374, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 374, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 374, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "22: return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 407, + 374, + 419 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta, \\phi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sentence similarity task, we set two sentences coming from the same cluster as label 0, and those from different clusters as label 1. In this way, the prompt template and verbalizer are designed as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 505, + 524, + 530 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 505, + 524, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 505, + 524, + 530 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} P = \\text {\"} s _ {1} \\left\\langle \\mathrm {X} \\right\\rangle . s _ {2}\" \\tag {17} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\rightarrow \\text {y e s}, 1 \\rightarrow \\text {n o}, 2 \\rightarrow \\text {m a y b e} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "9d15628ad73000d8407fefbea63e4409ec15d554994f04a7126beb26ab99a689.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-choice Classification. Multi-choice classification takes an anchor sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the query and we should find the correct one in several answer candidates. Here we also set two different tasks. The first one aims to select the sentence next to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the second one aims to select the sentence which belongs to the same cluster as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 538, + 526, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In each task we will set four candidates, and only one of them is correct. We design the prompt template and verbalizer as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 678, + 524, + 703 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 678, + 524, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 678, + 524, + 703 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} P = \" s _ {0}? \\mathrm {A}. s _ {1} \\dots \\mathrm {D}. s _ {4}. \\text {A n s w e r :} \\langle \\mathrm {X} \\rangle\" \\tag {18} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\to \\mathrm {A}, 1 \\to \\mathrm {B}, 2 \\to \\mathrm {C}, 3 \\to \\mathrm {D} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "d1f5ab2490eea753575e824b0641e560204d64b213f3424d5ddd0005cde14b73.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Single-Sentence Classification. Through K-means clustering, each sentence is associated with a cluster label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{0,1\\}^K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_{ic} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c = k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{ic} = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c \\neq k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the cluster" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1073" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to which the sentence belongs. We simply use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the pseudo label for meta-training and construct 4-way classification tasks. As for the designing of the verbalizer, we transform the single-sentence classification into the format of multi-choice classification. We insert the centroid of cluster " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into the template and use it to represent the corresponding cluster. So that we have:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 182, + 290, + 207 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 182, + 290, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 182, + 290, + 207 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} P = \\text {\"} s _ {0}? \\mathrm {A .} \\langle \\mu_ {c _ {1}} \\rangle \\dots \\mathrm {D .} \\langle \\mu_ {c _ {4}} \\rangle . \\text {A n s w e r :} \\langle \\mathrm {X} \\rangle \\tag {10} \\\\ \\mathcal {V} = \\{0 \\to \\mathrm {A}, 1 \\to \\mathrm {B}, 2 \\to \\mathrm {C}, 3 \\to \\mathrm {D} \\} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "cdc2d0d0da41a874e01c22fe06d6b386a3bac0b333b93ad3be2f464b266c4eac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On this basis, for each task format, we separate all data into different tasks to construct anchor meta-training tasks with good task distributions. Through K-means, sentences with similar embeddings are clustered into the same group. So in sentence-pair classification and multi-choice classification, we group samples whose anchor sentence comes from the same cluster into the same meta-training task. And in single-sentence classification, for each meta-training task, we randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " clusters as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " classes and then sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sentences for each cluster to construct a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-way " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-shot classification task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(N = 4)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In this way, we completely construct all anchor meta-training tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 286, + 435 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 286, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 408, + 286, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Additional Loss to Train Meta-Gradient Regularization Parameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the meta-training stage, we optimize the metagradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via Eq. (7), utilizing the same loss which optimizes the soft prompt embeddings. Here we introduce a regularized loss to attach some additional restrictions when updating the meta-gradient regularization parameters. Notably, a higher value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Eq. (10) indicates a higher probability of a larger distribution deviation between the support set and the query set. Furthermore, in Eq. (5) we also tend to increase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to achieve a more pronounced gradient transformation with a more noticeable distribution deviation. From this perspective, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has a similar monotonicity with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and they both range between 0 and 1. Thus we further add a regularized loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{reg} = \\| z - b_k\\|^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to constrain the value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 439, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and finally modify Eq. (7) into:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 673, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 673, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 673, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\phi \\leftarrow \\phi - \\beta_ {2} \\nabla_ {\\phi} \\left(\\sum_ {\\tau_ {i} \\sim p (\\mathcal {T})} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q}} \\left(f _ {\\theta_ {i} ^ {\\prime}}\\right) + \\lambda \\mathcal {L} _ {r e g}\\right) \\tag {20}", + "image_path": "d6baa85fdd28aeaf4e7f8c5ea76696ebe2432a4be57b84e5a1223e8d5eecf9c9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 225, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 225, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 225, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Pseudo-Codes of SUPMER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show the pseudo-codes for the meta-training process of SUPMER in Alg. 1. And the process of curriculum-based task augmentation is described in Alg. 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 525, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 2 TA : Curriculum-based Task Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 98, + 519, + 153 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 98, + 471, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 98, + 471, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 98, + 471, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 98, + 471, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i = 1}^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 98, + 471, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : A batch of anchor tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 113, + 488, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 113, + 488, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 113, + 488, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 113, + 488, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(\\mathcal{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 113, + 488, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : Distribution over anchor tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 126, + 519, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 126, + 519, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 126, + 519, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 126, + 519, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s \\in [-1, 1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 126, + 519, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": Avg cos-sim between gradients" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 141, + 431, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 141, + 431, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 141, + 431, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 141, + 431, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha, m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 141, + 431, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": hyper-parameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 167, + 390, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 167, + 390, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 167, + 390, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 167, + 390, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s\\gets (1 + s) / 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 180, + 518, + 233 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 180, + 429, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 180, + 429, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 180, + 429, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 180, + 429, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b \\gets (m^s - 1) / (m - 1)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 195, + 440, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 195, + 440, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 195, + 440, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: for all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 195, + 440, + 207 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{i} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{i}}^{q}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 195, + 440, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 208, + 518, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 208, + 518, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 208, + 518, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Sample task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 208, + 518, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau_{j} = \\{\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{j}}^{s},\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_{j}}^{q}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 208, + 518, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 208, + 518, + 222 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(T)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 222, + 455, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 222, + 455, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 222, + 455, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: Draw " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 222, + 455, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 222, + 455, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 222, + 455, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Beta(\\alpha, b\\alpha)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 234, + 498, + 248 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 234, + 498, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 234, + 498, + 248 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "/ / \\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {i}} ^ {q} = \\left(\\boldsymbol {H} _ {i} ^ {q}, \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {i} ^ {q}\\right), \\mathcal {D} _ {\\tau_ {j}} ^ {q} = \\left(\\boldsymbol {H} _ {j} ^ {q}, \\boldsymbol {Y} _ {j} ^ {q}\\right)", + "image_path": "3ab027bf4c89022a5868fba39e93867f4a3b6a716696ada134061c7b8aaf7397.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 248, + 524, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 248, + 524, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 248, + 524, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "// " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 248, + 524, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 248, + 524, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": the hidden representations of samples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 261, + 457, + 334 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 27, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 261, + 457, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 261, + 457, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 261, + 457, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 261, + 457, + 276 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\pmb{H}}_i^q = (1 - \\lambda)\\pmb {H}_i^q +\\lambda \\pmb {H}_j^q" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 277, + 434, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 277, + 434, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 277, + 434, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 277, + 434, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\pmb{Y}}_i^q = (1 - \\lambda)\\pmb {Y}_i^q +\\lambda" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 293, + 417, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 293, + 417, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 293, + 417, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 293, + 417, + 307 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_{\\tau_i}^q \\gets (\\tilde{\\pmb{H}}_i^q, \\tilde{\\pmb{Y}}_i^q)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 308, + 358, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 308, + 358, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 308, + 358, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 389, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 389, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 389, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14: return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 321, + 389, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\tau_i\\}_{i=1}^n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 461, + 370 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 461, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 358, + 461, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Dataset & Baseline Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Few-shot Learning. We conduct experiments of few-shot learning on 6 different downstream English tasks with 12 datasets. Since some of the test sets of the datasets are not publicly available, following Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2022), we leverage the original validation sets of SST-2, CB, RTE, QNLI, WiC, MRPC, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{QQP}^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as substitutes for the unavailable test sets. And the validation sets for few-shot learning are sampled from the original training set, ensuring no overlap with our designated test sets. Besides, we download the datasets of SST-2, SST-5, MR, CR, and SUBJ from Gao et al. (2021). And the rest of the datasets are obtained from the HuggingFace Datasets library (Lhoest et al., 2021). CB, RTE, BoolQ, and Wic are from SuperGLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2019), while QNLI, MRPC, and QQP are from GLUE Benchmark (Wang et al., 2018) with Creative Commons license (CC BY 4.0). We give the statistics of all these datasets in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain Generalization. Similar to Calderon et al. (2022), We evaluate on the sentiment analysis task including 6 different domains: Airlines (A), Books (B), DVDs (D), Electronics (E), Kitchen appliances (K), and Restaurants (R). Each domain has totally 2,000 manually labeled data of binary categories for testing, including 1000 positive and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 448, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 448, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 448, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DatasetTask#Train#TestKSST-2Sentiment analysis69208722SST-5Sentiment analysis854422105MRSentiment analysis866220002CRSentiment analysis177420002SUBJSubjectivity classification800020002TRECQuestion classification54525006CBNatural language inference250563RTENatural language inference24902772QNLIQuestion answering10474354632WiCWord sense disambiguation54286382MRPCParaphrase detection36684082QQPParaphrase detection363846404302", + "image_path": "2441b2ba3a769b897c54beb8df493d561ef6b1b39842fb25b47abe8b9bb7cb0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Statistics of all 12 datasets for few-shot learning. K is the number of labels. We sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N \\times K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 236, + 291, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " instances from the original training set to construct the few-shot training and validation sets. And #Test shows the size of the test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1000 negative. We choose A as the source domain and the other five (B, D, E, K, R) constitute the target domains. We sample 16 instances per label from the training set of the source domain for prompt tuning and then evaluate on the test sets of all 6 domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 392, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 392, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 392, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines. We first compare with baseline methods with the same number of parameters as SUP-MER. These methods utilize prompt tuning (Lester et al., 2021) to handle downstream tasks, with the key distinction lying in the initialization of the soft prompts. Vallina prompt tuning (PT Lester et al., 2021) directly tunes the soft prompts in the downstream task, which are randomly initialized from a normal distribution. PPT (Gu et al., 2022) pretrains soft prompts in a self-supervised way with 3 formats of pre-training tasks: sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification. Unified-PPT (Gu et al., 2022) formulate all these three formats into a unified task form. MetaPT (Huang et al., 2022) using a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data and directly leveraging MAML to initialize soft prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we also consider baseline methods with more tunable parameters, including Prefix-Tuning (Li and Liang, 2021) and P-tuning-v2 (Liu et al., 2022), which add prompts at each layer of PLM. We also compare with full-model tuning (FT) that fine-tunes all parameters of the PLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given that FLAN-T5-XL was also designed with few-shot inference in mind, we newly compare with two baseline methods on FLAN-T5-XL: zero-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 246 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 246 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Hyper-parameterValue
Number of clusters for each task format250
Tasks per batch4
Size of support set per task32
Size of query set per task32
OptimizerAdam
Inner loop learning rate0.1
Outer loop learning rate0.1
Learning rate for φ1e-4
SchedulerLinear scheduler
Warm-up steps0
Max training steps100,000
Validation steps2,000
Max sequence length512
λ1.0
m2.0
", + "image_path": "264a495aa2f719c8603b688b491248b5ab745697358609c3e31427c837f7efff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Hyper-parameters for SUPMER. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the meta-gradient regularization parameters. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the coefficient of the regularized loss. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the curve parameter in the curriculum-based task augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "shot inference and few-shot inference. For both of them, we directly employ Flan-T5-XL for downstream evaluation, coupled with carefully designed task instructions for each dataset. Furthermore, in few-shot inference, we also provide an appropriate number of few-shot examples to form a demonstration context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 411, + 436 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 411, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 411, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Training Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We apply the T5 base model (Raffel et al., 2020) (220M parameters) and Flan-T5-XL model (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) as the underlying PLM, and use the HuggingFace Pytorch implementation (Wolf et al., 2020). We run experiments with 8 GeForce RTX 3090 24G GPUs. And the metatraining process of SUPMER takes about 140 GPU hours. Next we will describe the details of training hyper-parameters in the case of leveraging T5-base as the PLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 480, + 617 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 480, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 480, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.1 Training Hyper-parameters for Downstream Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our experiments, we leverage full-model tuning and prompt tuning to solve downstream tasks, including few-shot learning and domain generalization. In few-shot learning, following some prior work (Schick and Schütze, 2021; Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2022), we set the maximum sequence length of each example to 256 for CR, SUBJ, CB, RTE and WiC, and 128 for other datasets. While in domain generalization, the maximum sequence length of each example is set to 256." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We run each experiment 5 times on the random" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1075" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 525, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 525, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 525, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 525, + 157 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsSST-2SST-5MRCRSUBJTRECCBRTEQNLIWiCMRPCQQP
only sp83.61.542.62.281.71.886.00.665.82.871.26.664.62.157.02.558.43.353.61.569.91.366.01.0
only mc83.41.444.51.979.35.188.30.570.54.766.41.465.93.154.91.358.71.754.21.868.80.867.61.3
only ss84.51.545.02.081.50.788.40.573.33.179.15.862.12.653.91.056.51.453.31.367.71.363.71.7
w/o ta84.71.040.13.381.91.887.20.873.62.878.83.766.41.956.60.959.41.854.32.469.51.170.21.1
w/o curriculum86.80.840.82.282.31.388.40.974.83.179.71.671.02.156.50.862.61.455.41.169.70.871.31.2
w/o mgr85.01.344.51.182.80.788.00.576.01.779.55.067.11.656.80.858.92.454.42.070.01.070.30.9
SUPMER87.30.546.70.684.00.689.30.379.62.280.20.972.41.457.31.061.71.054.81.271.30.570.51.0
", + "image_path": "60d575096fda966a8d428a083487eadef9408c84f812246d04f75d1c1079b821.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 236, + 459, + 364 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 165, + 525, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 165, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 165, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Detailed results of ablation study for few-shot learning to illustrate the effect of individual Components. In the first three rows we keep only one anchor task format during meta-training, and sp stands for sentence-pair classification, mc for multi-choice classification, ss for single-sentence classification. And w/o ta means entirely removing task augmentation, w/o curriculum only retains the vanilla task augmentation without the curriculum-based idea. w/o mgr means removing the meta-gradient regularization method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 236, + 459, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 236, + 459, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 236, + 459, + 364 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodSourceTarget
ABDEKR
only sp83.41.182.11.483.00.788.51.288.90.888.10.7
only mc84.00.682.31.281.50.988.51.089.30.788.80.7
only ss83.60.784.70.884.20.688.90.989.70.989.00.3
w/o ta83.40.882.01.481.71.587.80.888.20.688.60.6
w/o curriculum84.00.584.70.883.90.689.60.590.30.889.71.1
w/o mgr83.80.483.40.583.30.588.10.689.20.888.90.4
SUPMER85.70.585.30.685.10.490.30.791.10.590.40.4
", + "image_path": "a7d0e2215e1219a3520d53c6786c7774d6967536c4ebc415fd186d1deca6aaf9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 524, + 384 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 524, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Detailed results of ablation study for domain generalization to illustrate the effect of individual Components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 396, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 396, + 290, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 396, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average accuracy as well as the standard deviation. For both full-model tuning and prompt tuning, We implement AdamW as the optimizer. We use a batch size of 32 and train the model for 200 epochs, meanwhile evaluating the model every 10 steps. And we report the results for hyper-parameters performing the best on the validation set for each task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, for full-model tuning, all parameters of PLM are fine-tuned without adding soft prompts. We use the learning rate of [1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5] and choose the one obtaining the highest validation performance. Moreover, to fine-tune the Flan-T5-XL model, we use ZeRO (Rajbhandari et al., 2020) stage-2 provided in DeepSpeed (Rasley et al., 2020) to reduce GPU memory usage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For prompt tuning, we freeze all PLM parameters and only tune soft prompts composed of 100 soft tokens. As a result, the tunable parameters of prompt tuning are only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "77\\mathrm{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with T5-base and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "205\\mathrm{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with Flan-T5-XL, updating around 3000 and 15000 times fewer parameters on T5-base and Flan-T5-Xl, respectively, compared to full-model tuning. And we find that prompt tuning requires a much larger learning rate than full-model tuning. We search for the learning rate in [1e-1, 2e-1, 3e-1] and also choose the model with the best performance on the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 396, + 367, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 396, + 367, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 396, + 367, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "validation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 518, + 460 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 518, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 518, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C.2 Training Hyper-parameters for Prompt Initialization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pre-training for prompt initialization. Gu et al. (2022) proposes two frameworks for unsupervised prompt pre-training, named PPT and Unified PPT. PPT designs three formats of unsupervised pre-training tasks (sentence-pair classification, multiple-choice classification and single-text classification), and Unified-PPT further formulate them into a unified task form. We implement PPT and Unified-PPT following the hyper-parameters provided in Gu et al. (2022) and reset the pretrained language model to T5-base and Flan-T5-XL. Specifically, for both PPT and Unified-PPT, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct pre-training tasks for each task format. And " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " data are split for validation. We apply the \"inverse square root\" learning rate scheduler with no warm-up steps and set the learning rate as 0.1. We set the batch size to 256 with the max sequence length as 512, and train soft prompts for at most 200,000 steps. We evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps and choose prompts with the lowest validation loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1076" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 133, + 68, + 460, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 68, + 460, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 68, + 460, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 68, + 460, + 164 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodSourceTargetAVG
ABDEK
1 SUPMER (only labeled)86.484.784.890.090.787.3
2 SUPMER (only unlabeled)85.785.385.190.391.187.5
3 PPT (labeled + unlabeled)83.179.084.489.390.685.3
4 MetaPT (labeled + unlabeled)86.385.386.790.191.488.0
5 SUPMER (labeled + unlabeled)86.688.688.592.793.790.0
", + "image_path": "f6867ec04a4194e5f6cc03b5851001dd214baaacb12da353043f6235e084e1f6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 525, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 525, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Results of domain generalization on T5-base, considering different data and methods for prompt initialization. As our collected labeled data includes Yelp5, a sentiment analysis dataset in the domain of restaurants, we conduct the experiments of domain generalization only across domains A, B, D, E, K (without R)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meta-training for prompt initialization. In our SUPMER framework, we sample 10GB of unlabeled data from OpenWebText to construct self-supervised meta-training tasks. We split " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " data to construct tasks for validation. And for each task format, we first set the number of clusters to 250. We sample 4 meta-training tasks in a batch, and train the prompt embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the meta-gradient regularization parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for at most 100,000 steps. We also evaluate the performance on the validation set every 2,000 steps, choosing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the lowest validation loss for downstream tasks. Table 6 lists all training hyper-parameters for SUPMER. It is worth noting that for most hyperparameters in Table 6, we just set a default value by experience without tuning them. we tune the hyperparameters which are also tuned in other baselines (e.g., learning rate), ensuring all methods have the same number of tunable hyper-parameters in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 493, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, to illustrate the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning, we also imitate MetaPT(Huang et al., 2022) to initialize soft prompts via supervised meta-learning. MetaPT uses a supervised sentiment analysis dataset Yelp5 as the meta-training data, which has 650,000 training samples only covering the domain of restaurants. Following Huang et al. (2022), We group all labeled data into 10 clusters through K-means. And we set the inner loop learning rate to 0.08, the outer loop learning rate to 0.025 with the early stop patience as 6. Other hyper-parameters are consistent with those in SUPMER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 246, + 696 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 246, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 246, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Full Results of Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we first give detailed experimental results of the ablation study to illustrate the effect of individual components. We evaluate each ablation model over all 12 datasets of few-shot learning and all 6 domains of domain generalization, with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "T5-base as the underlying PLM. We run each experiment 5 times on the random seed [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] and report the average performances as well as the standard deviation. The detailed results of few-shot learning and domain generalization are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. We can see each component is critical in our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 526, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, in §4.4, to explore the superiority of self-supervised meta-learning and the impact of integrating additional labeled data for soft prompt initialization, we conduct experiments of few-shot learning on T5-base, considering different data and methods for soft prompt initialization. We also carry out experiments of domain generation leveraging different data with various prompt initialization methods, with the results presented in Table 9. From Table 3 and 9, it is evident that self-supervised meta-learning utilizing unlabeled data exhibits enhanced adaptability to unseen tasks in comparison to its supervised counterparts. And amalgamating both labeled and unlabeled data for the construction of meta-training tasks emerges as a more advantageous strategy. When it comes to employing both labeled and unlabeled data for prompt initialization, SUPMER continues to showcase markedly superior results in contrast to baseline methods in the realms of both few-shot learning and domain generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1077" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_content_list.json b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8c781924e496f9630400d1582a02b255123108e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1619 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 89, + 882, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hwiyeol Jo", + "bbox": [ + 450, + 143, + 551, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NAVER, Search US", + "bbox": [ + 418, + 160, + 583, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "hwiyeolj@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 403, + 175, + 598, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retrofitting techniques, which inject external resources into word representations, have compensated for the weakness of distributed representations in semantic and relational knowledge between words. However, the previous methods require additional external resources and strongly depend on the lexicon. To address the issues, we propose a simple extension of extrofitting, self-supervised extrofitting: extrofitting by its own word vector distribution. Our methods improve the vanilla embeddings on all of word similarity tasks without any external resources. Moreover, the method is also effective in various languages, which implies that our method will be useful in lexicon-scarce languages. As downstream tasks, we show its benefits in dialogue state tracking and text classification tasks, reporting better and generalized results compared to other word vector specialization methods.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 579, + 260, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Static word vectors are still widely used in natural language tasks despite the recent trends of contextualized models. For example, in a wide study of Dialogue State Tracking (DST) (Feng et al., 2021), contextualized models performed worse than static word embeddings. It seems reasonable that the contextualized models do not perform well in such a lack of context, which implies that static embeddings are still useful.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 489, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make better word vectors, we focus on retrofitting ideas (also called word vector post-processing), which injects the semantic information from external resources by modifying the values of pretrained word vectors (Faruqui et al. (2015); Mrksić et al. (2016a); inter alia). The benefits of post-processing methods are that (1) the methods can reflect additional resources into the word vectors without re-training, (2) the methods can be", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 751, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "applied to any kinds of pretrained word vectors, and (3) retrofitting can make word vectors specialize in a specific task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The previous studies focusing on explicit retrofitting have used manually defined or learned functions to make synonyms close and antonyms distant (see the details in §4). As a result, their approaches strongly rely on external resources.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 304, + 884, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, we agree that making synonyms close together is somewhat reasonable, even though the synonyms have different nuances in some contexts. However, other kinds of relations, such as antonyms, should be further investigated. For instance, love and hate are generally grouped as antonyms. Most of the previous studies have made the words distant from each other, but the words definitely share the meaning of emotion in their representations. We thus conjecture that the methods are not generalized well.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 885, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose word vector enrichment based on extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 568, + 884, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Self-supervised extrofitting that extends extrofitting for enriching word vectors without using external semantic lexicons. This method can resolve a limitation of post-processing approaches, which requires well-defined semantic lexicons. We highlight its usefulness in (relatively) lexicon-scarce languages.", + "- We report the effects of word vector post-processing on several downstream tasks to show the generalization of the word vectors. Our methods consistently improve model performances in the fundamental tasks. In contrast, other post-processing methods degrade the performance." + ], + "bbox": [ + 527, + 605, + 885, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Preliminary", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 853, + 650, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Extrofitting Extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018) expands word embedding matrix $W$ by concatenating", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1http://github.com/hwiyeoljo/SELFExtro", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 903, + 440, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "747", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 747-757", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 959, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$W$ with $r_w$ :", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 200, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Expand(W, c)", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 114, + 235, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n= W \\oplus r _ {w} \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{c l} \\operatorname {m e a n} _ {w \\in c} (\\mu_ {w}) & \\text {i f} w \\in \\mathbf {L} \\\\ \\mu_ {w} & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 134, + 460, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mu_w$ is the mean value of elements in word vector $w$ . L denotes semantic lexicons, and $c$ denotes the same class (synonym pairs). In other words, Expand makes an additional dimension per the word vector, and fill it with the same value if the pairs are synonym.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 177, + 487, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, Trans calculates transform matrix given the matrix $W$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 273, + 485, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Trans(W, c)", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 319, + 218, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n= \\operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {U} \\frac {\\left| U ^ {T} \\sum_ {c} (\\mu_ {c} - \\mu) (\\mu_ {c} - \\mu) ^ {T} U \\right|}{\\left| U ^ {T} \\sum_ {c} \\sum_ {i} (x _ {i} - \\mu_ {c}) (x _ {i} - \\mu_ {c}) ^ {T} U \\right|}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 338, + 468, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $x$ is a word vector, $c$ is a class. The overall average of $x$ is $\\mu$ , and the class average in class $i$ is denoted by $\\mu_i$ . This formula finds a transform matrix $U$ , which minimizes the variance within the same class and maximizes the variance between different classes. Each class is defined as the index of synonym pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 487, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the end, Extrofitting is formulated as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 494, + 487, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\operatorname{Extro}(W, c)$", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 524, + 218, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n= \\operatorname {T r a n s} (\\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c), c) ^ {T} \\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 544, + 468, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) LSA (Landauer and Dumais, 1997) has been used to extract the relation of data through latent variables. LSA is based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), which decomposes a matrix as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA = U S V ^ {T},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 252, + 661, + 347, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $S$ is a diagonal matrix with singular values, and $U$ and $V$ are the orthogonal eigenvectors. We can select top- $k$ singular values to represent matrix $A$ in $k$ -dimensional latent space. Then $U$ and $V$ are re-defined as $U_k \\in \\mathcal{R}^{N \\times k}$ and $V_k^T \\in \\mathcal{R}^{k \\times N}$ , respectively, with diagonal matrix $S_k \\in \\mathcal{R}^{k \\times k}$ . When we use LSA for topic modeling, $A$ is defined as a term-document matrix. Then, $U_k S_k$ and $S_k V_k^T$ are considered as term vectors and document vectors in the $k$ -dimensional latent space, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 689, + 489, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Self-supervised Extrofitting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 862, + 386, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider the word embedding matrix as the term-document matrix; The x-axis of the matrix", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is vocabulary and the y-axis is (unknown) semantic dimension. Thus, as researchers have used the decomposition of the term-document matrix to get the term-vectors in LSA, the decomposition of the term-semantic matrix can be considered to represent term-vectors $(US)$ and semantic-vectors $(SV^T)$ . This intuition corresponds to the traditional methods in vector embedding, verified in Levy and Goldberg (2014); Allen et al. (2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With the idea, we first decompose word embeddings matrix $W$ to make latent representations as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 882, + 274 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nW _ {k} = U _ {k} S _ {k} V _ {k} ^ {T}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 638, + 275, + 751, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As described above, we can get term-vectors, which are word representations in $k$ -dimensional latent space, by computing $U_{k}S_{k}$ . Adjusting the dimension of latent space ( $k$ in §2), we calculate semantically related words using cosine similarity. For every word, we calculate its cosine similarity to all other words in the vocabulary. If the similarity exceeds a predetermined threshold, we group the words. Note that a group can contain only a single word. This process is repeated iteratively for each ungrouped word until all words are clustered.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 298, + 882, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the set of semantically related words $(c^{\\prime})$ as the class (synonym pairs, $c$ ) of extrofitting instead of semantic lexicons:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SelfExtro(W, $c^{\\prime}$ )", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 533, + 653, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n= \\operatorname {T r a n s} (\\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\\prime}), c ^ {\\prime}) ^ {T} \\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\\prime})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 552, + 865, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sum up, we use the principle of vanilla extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018), which utilizes LDA algorithms to group in-domain instances (in this case, word vectors). Simultaneously, the algorithm pushes out-domain instances apart. Instead of using pre-defined lexicons for extrofitting, we use the idea of LSA to get semantically related words. Even if the number of extracted word pairs are small or the words are not meaningful, the process of making out-domain instances far can make better representations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 882, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the experiments, we start with pretrained GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) (if we do not mention it explicitly) and set a threshold that determines whether a pair of words are semantically related. We use a high threshold (0.9 of cosine similarity) since type II error is rather better than type I error.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 756, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Related Works", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 862, + 672, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The first successful post-processing approach was Retrofitting (Faruqui et al., 2015), which modi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "748", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/09c8bdf6d64b2c76bcbc48339a5d7940927fc5171e9cac2343153cade9624318.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
GloVe (glove.42B)fastText (wiki-news)
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSVW(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
Raw.70.57.39.74.57.37.22.82.62.51.80.64.44.35
SelfExtro, k=100.80.73.50.84.66.51.39.81.70.56.82.66.50.41
SelfExtro, k=200.79.72.49.84.66.51.39.81.70.57.82.65.51.42
SelfExtro, k=300.78.69.48.84.64.50.37.81.71.57.83.64.51.42
+WordNet(=Extro).80.74.49.83.66.49.36.78.67.51.80.63.50.40
vecmap.67.53.31.72.52.35.20.81.62.49.80.59.44.34
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 80, + 857, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings. $k$ denotes the dimension of latent space that is used to extract semantically related words (see §3). Ablation studies in threshold are presented in Appendix A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 199, + 882, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "fied word vectors by weighted averaging the word vectors with semantic lexicons. Extending from the simple idea, Counter-fitting (Mrkšić et al., 2016a) used both synonym pairs to collect word vectors and antonym pairs to make word vectors the gene from one another. Next, Paragram embeddings (Wieting et al., 2015) used synonyms and negative sampling to collect the word vectors. Borrowing attract-terms from the Paragram embeddings and adding repel-terms, Attract-Repel (Mrkšić et al., 2017) injected linguistic constraints into word vectors through predefined cost function with mono-/cross-lingual linguistic constraints. Explicit Retrofitting (ER-CNT) (Glavaš and Vulić, 2018) directly learned mapping functions of linguistic constraints with deep neural network architectures. They then used the functions to retrofit the word vectors. Post-Specialization (Vulić et al., 2018; Ponti et al., 2018) resolved the problem of the previous models that only updates words in external lexicons. Some works have used cross-lingual resources to get further semantic information (Vulić et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 267, + 490, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While the previous methods utilized text-level resources, vecmap (Artetxe et al., 2018) used other word embeddings as external resources. For fair comparisons, we input the same word vectors for source and target embeddings of the method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 487, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, BERT-based model LexFit (Vulić et al., 2021) was derived, but the method requires external resources.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 734, + 487, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiment 1: Word Similarity Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 794, + 473, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Settings. Word similarity datasets consist of word pairs with human-rated similarity scores between the words and models calculate Spearman's correlation (Daniel, 1990) between the similarity", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 820, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scores and the cosine similarity of the word vector pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 882, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use 6 datasets in English: WordSim353 (W(s) for similarity and W(r) for relation) (Finkelstein et al., 2001), RareWord (RW) (Luong et al., 2013), MEN-3k (ME) (Bruni et al., 2014), SemEval (SE) (Camacho-Collados et al., 2017), SimLex999 (SL) (Hill et al., 2015), and SimVerb-3500 (SV) (Gerz et al., 2016).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 300, + 884, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. In Table 1, self-supervised extrofitting (SelfExtro) improves the performance on all the word similarity datasets when compared with the popular pretrained word vectors, GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) and fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016) $^3$ . The result implies the pretrained word vectors can be enriched by our method, which means it does not require any semantic lexicons to make better embeddings. In addition, SelfExtro shows better performances with the original extrofitting (+WordNet) on most of the evaluations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 882, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also investigate the extracted semantic information (see Appendix A.2). The extracted information hardly seems synonyms, but we can see that some similar words are grouped. As extrofitting affects all the word vectors, every word can benefit from the other words being enriched. In other words, although the number of extracted information is small, this simple extension makes extrofitting fully utilize its advantages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 605, + 882, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitative examples of self-supervised extrofitting are presented in Table 2. Although the representations lose similarity scores, the similar words become diverse and reasonable. Additional qualitative examples are shown in Appendix A.5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 751, + 882, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed SelfExtro is also potentially useful when semantic lexicon resources are scarce, such as in many non-English languages. In Ta", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 832, + 882, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We selected unsupervised version of vecmap because it performs better than identical version.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "word2vec could also be considered as a base model, but it takes too much time due to its large vocabulary size.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "749", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7d94db288d64f73496e10294e89c2e405ebd354f8f41806594c22b6f87a88a12.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
loveVanillaloved(.7745), i(.7338), loves(.7311), know(.7286), loving(.7263), really(.7196), always(.7193), want(.7192), hope(.7127), think(.7110)
+SelfExtroloved(.7152), loving(.6734), loves(.6489), adore(.6348), passion(.6333), luv(.6326), hope(.6256), i(.6250), want(.6209), hate(.6181)
hateVanilladont(.7318), stupid(.7193), hates(.7190), think(.7063), why(.6943), love(.6928), hating(.6927), hated(.6861), shit(.6847), know(.6825)
+SelfExtrohating(.6707), hatred(.6650), dont(.6580), hates(.6529), dislike(.6447), despise(.6309), hated(.6306), stupid(.6266), think(.6249), love(.6181)
foreverVanillaalive(.6478), gone(.6450), love(.6381), never(.6267), again(.6249), yours(.6238), life(.6171), alone(.6153), anymore(.6129), always(.6093)
+SelfExtroeternally(.6297), alive(.5814), yours(.5717), life(.5532), anymore(.5524), eternity(.5488), eternal(.5474), gone(.5447), permanently(.5446), again(.5414)
lifeVanillalives(.8053), living(.7134), things(.6869), way(.6852), mind(.6844), what(.6779), much(.6723), love(.6719), because(.6716), work(.6706)
+SelfExtrolives(.7801), living(.6538), journey(.6048), everyday(.6038), mind(.5922), things(.5920), lifetime(.5892), happiness(.5749), love(.5743), way(.5728)
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 80, + 863, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e9ff86d3321beae308d71fe75359a4f65ac23b0e0730191c2e6b1795f60cc5a4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of words–love, hate, forever, and life. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CZIT(s/r)RU(s/r)GE(s/r)
fastText.240.377.188.428.275.335.169
k=100.450.453.370.525.411.425.261
k=200.443.444.359.545.426.431.261
k=300.451.456.359.539.426.449.271
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 370, + 487, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e3af5feb4172c6f4939e542d1d00ddaa0c671d07d361c6fe386cd4455c3456fe.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on WordSim datasets in 4 languages: Czech (CZ), Italian (IT), Russian (RU), and German (GE). $k$ denotes extracted semantic information from fastText in $k$ -dimensional latent space." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CYETFIFRHEPLRUES
fT.187.213.455.314.371.283.305.385
k=100.201.223.475.340.400.306.334.425
k=200.209.215.463.339.399.299.306.423
k=300.214.219.464.338.402.305.308.421
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 537, + 490, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ble 3 and Table 4, we use pretrained fastText for WordSim datasets in 4 languages and MultiSimLex (Vulic et al., 2020) in 8 languages, respectively. SelfExtro significantly increases the performance in all the languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 715, + 489, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Experiment 2: Dialogue State Tracking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 487, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Settings. Previous works (Mrkusic et al., 2016a, 2017; Vulic et al., 2019) showed that word vector post-processing is useful for dialogue state tracking (DST) (Young et al., 2010). Using Neural Belief Tracker (NBT) (Mrkusic et al., 2016b), they have", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/37e6469114e9b6bdbcb324cc94ea39aa087116aef87378c5613a89a91098d2e3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on Multi-SimLex datasets in 8 languages: Welsh (CY), Estonian (ET), Finnish (FI), French (FR), Hebrew (HE), Polish (PL), Russian (RU), and Spanish (ES). Other languages cannot be found in fastText." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model(Resource)JGA with WordNetJGA with A-R Lexicon
GloVe.798(.03)
Retrofitting(Syn).792(.03).793(.01)
Paragraph(Syn).670(.05).657(.03)
Extro(Syn).821(.03).820(.01)
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant).625(.01).630(.03)
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant).671(.04).675(.03)
vecmap(-).772(.01)
SelfExtro(-).825(.02)
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 370, + 878, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Joint goal accuracy and its standard deviation in WOZ 2.0 datasets. Despite the fact that we used the original Github code and data, the result is different from their report. Furthermore, our settings show different trends from what they reported.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 508, + 882, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "claimed that the performance on the task is related to word vector specialization in that the model has to identify the flow of dialogue with only a few words, which seems reasonable. Thus, we use the NBT4 and check the model performances with our post-processed embeddings. Refer to the papers cited above for the details of DST.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 605, + 882, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. Table 5 shows the performance of DST in Wizard-of-Oz 2.0 dataset (Wen et al., 2017). The results show that the semantic specialization (e.g., Attract-Repel) does not increase the performance. In contrast, Extro and SelfExtro show better performance than vanilla GloVe.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 727, + 884, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We additionally experiment with the lexicons (both synonyms and antonyms) included in the Github of Attract-Repel5. It shows only a little", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 824, + 882, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://github.com/nmrksic/ neural-belief-tracker 5https://github.com/nmrksic/attract-repel", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 858, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "750", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/330d90d9c2fb698547b4e13d12962e9c72c0a12c2f19b78753679dfd5103d78f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.31±0.1271.97±0.7649.35±0.5161.55±0.3590.66±0.7987.47±1.93
Retrofit(Syn)81.92±5.1144.72±2.7722.31±0.6348.87±0.4082.04±1.4963.40±3.53
Paragram(Syn)86.88±0.3662.37±0.3640.25±0.1950.04±0.2080.16±0.1474.77±0.43
Extro(Syn)98.52±0.0572.94±0.1050.01±0.3962.70±0.0691.36±0.2989.40±0.20
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)73.26±1.2959.70±0.1937.80±0.0847.97±0.4576.47±1.4566.54±0.48
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)87.52±0.1262.51±0.4139.75±1.1550.08±0.2979.80±0.9374.71±0.37
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)76.78±0.7959.45±0.1537.16±0.3549.16±0.6476.06±0.6266.11±0.79
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.44±0.0572.41±0.2649.79±0.3762.97±0.1890.93±0.1189.36±0.41
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.61±0.0573.45±0.7049.30±0.6163.01±0.4291.54±0.4588.82±0.55
Retrofit(Syn)98.16±0.0567.15±1.7343.14±1.3161.74±0.3389.21±1.6182.77±1.27
Paragram(Syn)98.14±0.0466.32±0.2742.85±0.4361.96±0.2289.91±0.1983.14±1.15
Extro(Syn)98.61±0.0673.50±0.1950.43±0.3063.22±0.1991.78±0.2989.74±0.28
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)98.07±0.1063.74±0.5340.83±0.2061.89±0.1790.09±1.2383.78±1.84
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)98.11±0.0766.05±0.4242.68±0.4361.80±0.2190.05±0.1883.74±1.30
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)98.10±0.0563.88±0.3640.49±0.5161.84±0.1390.48±0.3884.54±0.38
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.58±0.0273.02±0.1550.05±0.2363.25±0.2591.61±0.0889.98±0.26
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 80, + 870, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: 10 times average accuracy initialized with the post-processed word vectors. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 882, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance gain; we thus guess that the difference in DST performance comes from lexical resources or fine-tuning of NBT rather than specialization.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 410, + 487, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Experiment 3: Text Classification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 470, + 436, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Settings. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors. When the word vectors are fixed, we can evaluate the usefulness of the word vectors per se. When the word vectors are trainable, we can see the improvement of the model performance in a conventional training setting. The dataset and classifier are described in Appendix A.3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 487, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Results. We report the performances in Table 6. The classifier initialized with SelfExtro outperforms the vanilla GloVe and performs on par with the original extrofitting. On the other hand, although the previous word vector post-processing methods specialize well on a domain-specific task, the approaches failed to be generalized; they show large performance deterioration despite the added general semantic information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 637, + 489, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 796, + 240, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The specialized word vectors do not warrant better performance. We conjecture that the methods trade off catastrophic forgetting against semantic specialization even though the previous methods successfully specialize their vectors into given lexicons, losing the pretrained information encoded in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the original GloVe. It affects the performance of the fundamental tasks, which are largely degraded. On the other hand, our method enriches the word vector in general, resulting in marginal but certain improvements.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 409, + 884, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contextual representations provide substantial improvements in NLP tasks, but the representations lack semantic information due to their nature. Since the context and the semantics are different types of information that can enrich representations, we believe our approaches might further improve the contextual representations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 489, + 885, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "9 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 618, + 640, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We develop a self-supervised retrofitting model that enriches word vectors without semantic lexicons. The method utilizes its own distribution of word vectors to get better representations. In the Exp. 1, we show that our method can improve the performance on word similarity tasks and present qualitative examples. It can be applied to other pretrained word vectors, resulting in better performances on all the word similarity datasets. SelfExtro also has potential advantages in lexicon-scarce languages. In the Exp. 2 and 3, we presented the effect of post-processing methods on downstream tasks. Our method shows marginal but certain improvements, while other post-processed word vectors largely degrade the performances, which seems the result of losing generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 645, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "751", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "10 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 83, + 260, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Usefulness compared with contextual embeddings Contextual embeddings are recently dominant in NLP tasks, whereas static word embeddings have become less frequently used. However, it does not mean static word embeddings are not useful. Although we can assume that the amount of pretraining dataset and training resources are similar, the cost of inference is much cheaper at static word embeddings. Furthermore, static word embeddings perform better when a task lacks enough context (e.g., word similarity tasks). It will be interesting future work to retrofit contextual embeddings, but it is out of scope in this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 111, + 490, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The use of antonyms Although we believe that there are no definitely opposite meanings of the word (e.g., love and hate share the sense of emotion), previous works (see §4) that utilize antonyms showed significant improvement in word similarity tasks. However, compared to the methods, self-supervised extrofitting explicitly considers synonyms only, but implicitly expects antonyms to be distant while maximizing the variances of in-class/out-of-class word vectors. Also, the process of self-supervised extrofitting makes it hard to incorporate other kinds of word relations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 489, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The method is only a simple linear projection. Both extrofitting and self-supervised extrofitting use linear projections in enriching vectors, following a traditional NLP method. The linear model might not be the best to reflect word relations in vector spaces, but we believe that it is a simple yet effective method, as we still calculate lots of things (e.g., distance) in a linear way.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 487, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 680, + 278, + 696 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The author would like to thank all the reviewers in several rounds of submission, a total of 5 years. Lastly, I am grateful to Alice Lee for her help in qualitative analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 707, + 490, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 800, + 213, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Carl Allen, Ivana Balazevic, and Timothy Hospedales. 2019. What the vec? towards probabilistically grounded embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 7465-7475.", + "Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 825, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 789-798.", + "Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Enriching word vectors with subword information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.04606.", + "Elia Bruni, N Tram, Marco Baroni, et al. 2014. Multimodal distributional semantics. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49:1-47.", + "Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Nigel Collier, and Roberto Navigli. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 2: Multilingual and cross-lingual semantic word similarity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 15-26.", + "Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Inigo Lopez-Gazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00055.", + "Ming-Wei Chang, Lev-Arie Ratinov, Dan Roth, and Vivek Srikumar. 2008. Importance of semantic representation: Dataless classification. In AAAI, volume 2, pages 830-835.", + "Wayne W Daniel. 1990. Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Applied nonparametric statistics, pages 358-365.", + "Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A Smith. 2015. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1606-1615.", + "Yue Feng, Yang Wang, and Hang Li. 2021. A sequence-to-sequence approach to dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1714-1725.", + "Lev Finkelstein, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yossi Matias, Ehud Rivlin, Zach Solan, Gadi Wolfman, and Eytan Ruppin. 2001. Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 406-414. ACM.", + "Daniela Gerz, Ivan Vulić, Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Simverb-3500: A large-scale evaluation set of verb similarity. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2173-2182." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "752", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2018. Explicit retrofitting of distributional word vectors. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 34-45.", + "Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. Nature, 405(6789):947.", + "Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2015. Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4):665-695.", + "Hwiyeol Jo and Stanley Jungkyu Choi. 2018. Extrofitting: Enriching word representation and its vector space with semantic lexicons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07946.", + "Aishwarya Kamath, Jonas Pfeiffer, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, and Ivan Vulić. 2019. Specializing distributional vectors of all words for lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2019), pages 72-83.", + "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751.", + "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.", + "Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211.", + "Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick Van Kleef, Soren Auer, et al. 2015. Dbpedia-a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195.", + "Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Dependency-based word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 302-308.", + "Minh-Thang Luong, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2013. Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 104-113.", + "Andrew L Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies-volume 1, pages 142-150. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39-41.", + "Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016a. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00892.", + "Nikola Mrksic, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Blaise Thomson, and Steve Young. 2016b. Neural belief tracker: Data-driven dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03777.", + "Nikola Mrkšić, Ivan Vulić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Ira Leviant, Roi Reichart, Milica Gašić, Anna Korhonen, and Steve Young. 2017. Semantic specialization of distributional word vector spaces using monolingual and cross-lingual constraints. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:309-324.", + "Roberto Navigli and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2012. Babelnet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence, 193:217-250.", + "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543.", + "Edoardo Maria Ponti, Roi Reichart, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2018. Isomorphic transfer of syntactic structures in cross-lingual nlp. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1531-1542.", + "Ivan Vulic, Simon Baker, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Ulla Petti, Ira Leviant, Kelly Wing, Olga Majewska, Eden Bar, Matt Malone, Thierry Poibeanu, et al. 2020. Multi-simlex: A large-scale evaluation of multilingual and crosslingual lexical semantic similarity. Computational Linguistics, 46(4):847-897.", + "Ivan Vulic, Goran Glavaš, Nikola Mrkšić, and Anna Korhonen. 2018. Post-specialisation: Retrofitting vectors of words unseen in lexical resources. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 516-527.", + "Ivan Vulic, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. LexFit: Lexical fine-tuning of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "753", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5269-5283, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ivan Vulić, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2019. Multilingual and cross-lingual graded lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4963-4974.", + "Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrkšić, Milica Gasic, Lina M Rojas Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. A network-based end-to-end trainable task-oriented dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 438-449.", + "John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, Karen Livescu, and Dan Roth. 2015. From paraphrase database to compositional paraphrase model and back. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:345-358.", + "Steve Young, Milica Gašić, Simon Keizer, François Mairesse, Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, and Kai Yu. 2010. The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. Computer Speech & Language, 24(2):150-174.", + "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 649-657." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "754", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 238, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Data Resources", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 109, + 285, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.1 Pretrained word vectors", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 130, + 369, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pretrained word vectors include words composed of n-dimensional float vectors. One of the major pretrained word vectors we used is GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) glove.42B.300d. Even though many word embedding algorithms and pretrained word vectors have been suggested, GloVe is still being used as a strong baseline on word similarity tasks (Cer et al., 2017; Camacho-Collados et al., 2017). We also use fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016), and Paragraph (Wieting et al., 2015) as resources and baseline of self-supervised extrofitting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1.2 Semantic Lexicon", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 336, + 317, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As an external semantic lexicon, we use WordNet (Miller, 1995), which consists of approximately 150,000 words and 115,000 synsets pairs. We use Faruqui et al.'s WordNet all lexicon, comprised of synonyms, hypernyms, and hyponyms. Some recent works built their own or used large lexicons like BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012), but in order to observe the effect of post-processing algorithm rather than the power of lexicons, we use the (relatively) small lexicon.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 354, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For fair comparisons, we replace the previous works' lexicon with WordNet $_{all}$ lexicon. If the models require antonyms, we use the antonyms pairs, which are uploaded in their Github.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 487, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Example of Extracted Relation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 590, + 406, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/22693cc2f8265398e403fa559d71b9d579b24c2119a72b18718198670d54d6f5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ThresholdGrouped Words
≥ .90points225 points203 points166 points253···
17:20:18 09:22:30 10:22:49 07:33:04···
review10/15/2012 review3/31/2013
review11/30/2012 review12/18/2012···
≥ .99!!! !!
january february
range emailicon linkicon
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 621, + 485, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Examples of extracted related word groups. This results are extracted from 100 dimensional latent space in GloVe.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 734, + 487, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Further Details in Experiment 3", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 804, + 416, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. We use 5 classification datasets; DBpedia ontology (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yahoo!Answers (Chang et al., 2008)6, YelpRe", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 825, + 489, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{6}$ https://cogcomp.seas.upenn.edu/page/resource_view/89 Note that Chang et al. (2008) said the dataset has 20 top-level categories but actually it has 3", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 881, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "views (Zhang et al., 2015), AGNews, and IMDB (Maas et al., 2011). We utilize Yahoo! Answer dataset for 2 different tasks, which are classifying upper-level categories and classifying lower-level categories, respectively. We use all the words tokenized by space as inputs. The data information is described in Table 8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Classifier. We build TextCNN (Kim, 2014) rather than use a classifier based on Bag-of-Words (BoW), as Faruqui et al. did, in order to process word sequences. The classifier consists of 2 convolutional layers with the channel size of 32 and 16, respectively. We adopt the multi-channel approach, implementing 4 different sizes of kernels-2, 3, 4, and 5. We concatenate them after every max-pooling layer. The learned kernels go through an activation function, ReLU (Hahnloser et al., 2000), and max-pooling. We set the dimension of word embedding to 300, optimizer to Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with learning rate 0.001, and use early-stopping if validation accuracy does not increase over 5 epochs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 205, + 885, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Ablation Study in Threshold", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 457, + 781, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When the latent dimension is 300, following the best performance:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 478, + 880, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Qualitative Examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 727, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The additional qualitative examples are presented in Table 12.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 541, + 880, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "duplicated top-level categories because of errors.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 904, + 806, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "755", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2502914a7208c43735132a816037cc7323655784a7b44cdee7913362330b72ee.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)AGNewsYelpIMDB
#Train560,000133,703133,703120,000650,00025,000
#Test70,00023,59523,5957,60050,00025,000
#Class1417280452
#Vocab626,717154,142154,14266,049198,62547,113
", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 123, + 811, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ea7d56677bed57b6019a7dbb6baa64392deba746a6d7e7da60ceea0f05201e95.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: The data information used in text classification. YahooAnswer dataset is used for 2 different tasks, which are to classify upper-level categories and to classify lower-level categories, respectively. The vocabulary size can be slightly different due to the predefined special tokens such as none and out-of-vocabulary" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Word Similarity Task
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
GloVe.70.57.39.74.57.37.28
threshold= .95 .72.60.39.76.58.42.28
threshold= .90 .78.69.48.84.64.50.37
threshold= .50 .71.59.38.75.56.39.23
", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 334, + 690, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0eb74f8a2efd372ee02b5ac5c1097a9c1c8430c2013475d015d57dca015990f9.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings according to threshold." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model(threshold)DST
GloVe.798
SelfExtro(threshold=.95).800
SelfExtro(threshold=.90).825
SelfExtro(threshold=.50).811
", + "bbox": [ + 366, + 531, + 628, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3ca19756058b5faab380b6222f58a6cb7abe955a71930bf3add955e4d499154f.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: Joint goal accuracy according to threshold" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.3171.9749.3561.5590.6687.47
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.3571.6149.0761.0190.7887.23
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.4472.4149.7962.9790.9389.36
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.4972.7450.8062.1090.9488.33
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.6173.4549.3063.0191.5488.82
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.4272.0849.1761.8391.0386.80
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.5873.0250.0563.2591.6189.98
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.5873.3550.6662.6491.6788.64
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 713, + 860, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: Text classification accuracy according to threshold", + "bbox": [ + 290, + 858, + 705, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "756", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/99dd3cc2ab2821dd96abc128ffaea43197864de8a325032b58fcdc2babdcba22.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
sooVanillasooo(.8394), soooo(.7938), soooo(.7715), soooo(.7359), soooo(.6844), haha(.6574), hahah(.6320), damn(.6247), omg(.6244), hahaha(.6219)
+SelfExtrosooo(.8196), soooo(.7743), soooo(.7576), soooo(.7304), soooo(.6852), soooo(.6342), soooo(.6314), soooo(.6003) tooo(.5967), soooo(.00000000(.5869)
elaborateVanillaintricate(.7244), elaborately(.6238), extravagant(.6223), complicated(.6089), lavish(.5714), formal(.5643), sophisticated(.5639), detailed(.5623), ornate(.5619), simple(.5566)
+SelfExtrointricate(.7002), elaborately(.6329), extravagant(.6109), complicated(.5651), ornate(.5586), lavish(.5533), grandiose(.5452), formal(.5326), detailed(.5235), fanciful(.5225)
gratitudeVanillathankfulness(.7113), generosity(.6967), kindness(.6917), appreciation(.6860) compassion(.6695), admiration(.6672), grateful(.6420), thankful(.6385), heartfelt(.6368), sympathy(.6211)
+SelfExtrothankfulness(.7648), generosity(.7001), kindness(.6975), appreciation(.6934), admiration(.6830), compassion(.6738), gratefulness(.6444), reverence(.6361), thankful(.6313), sympathy(.6304)
jubilateVanillaexultate(.5262), deum(.4763), exultate(.4545), motet(.4054), excelsis(.3777), deo(.3721), cantata(.3651), alleluia(.3625), stabat(.3558), laudamus(.3485)
+SelfExtroexultate(.5111), exultate(.4449), deum(.4269), motet(.4093), deo(.3703), choir(.3670), excelsis(.3626), mozart(.3594), stabat(.3591), cantata(.3532)
elatedVanillaoverjoyed(.7712), ecstatic(.7045), thrilled(.6576), exhilarated(.6533), gratified(.6431), enthused(.6214), saddened(.6075), flabbergasted(.6060), disheartened(.5989), giddy(.5984)
+SelfExtrooverjoyed(.8018), ecstatic(.7424), thrilled(.7320), excited(.6894), exhilarated(.6758), delighted(.6733), gratified(.6690), relieved(.6569), enthused(.6564), dismayed(.6342)
mono-saccharideVanilladisaccharide(.6470), monosaccharides(.5152), oligosaccharide(.4911), galactose(.4686), 5-carbon(.4609), n-acetylgucosamine(.4282), saccharide(.4223), sucrose(.4215), mannose(.4196), disaccharides(.4107)
+SelfExtrodisaccharide(.6329), monosaccharides(.4888), oligosaccharide(.4844), 5-carbon(.4617), galactose(.4414), n-acetylgucosamine(.4227), sucrose(.4206), disaccharides(.4050), carbohydrate(.4045), moieties(.4033)
outlookVanillaexcel(.5686), recovery(.5457), export(.5368), forecast(.5229), forecasts(.5060), contacts(.5025), powerpoint(.5025), exchange(.5011), microsoft(.4944), import(.4816)
+SelfExtroexcel(.5145), mapssevere(.5054), icalandargoogle(.4955), export(.4883), contacts(.4877), recovery(.4753), advisorieshourly(.4673), mailbox(.4661), vcard(.4612), thunderbird(.4599)
vainVanillafoolish(.6229), futile(.6104), selfish(.5340), vainly(.5242), fruitless(.5133), thy(.4981), arrogant(.4976), useless(.4844), righteous(.4833), thou(.4830)
+SelfExtrofutil(.6273), foolish(.6079), vainly(.5454), fruitless(.5338), selfish(.5143), useless(.5044), pointless(.4910), hopeless(.4846), attempt(.4797), presumptuous(.4780)
prioritizeVanillaprioritise(.8064), prioritizing(.7426), priorities(.6323), prioritising(.5995), evaluate(.5950), strategize(.5933), proactively(.5862), analyze(.5800), assess(.5764), identify(.5633)
+SelfExtroprioritise(.8322), prioritizing(.7415), priorities(.6390), prioritising(.6225), proactively(.6075), strategize(.5990), evaluate(.5946), analyze(.5919), prioritized(.5880), manage(.5783)
nomadVanillanomads(.4911), drifter(.4735), nomadic(.4574), vagabond(.4233), zen(.4161), muvo2(.4054), gypsy(.4054), jukebox(.3997), vulcan(.3906), adventurer(.3869)
+SelfExtronomads(.5254), drifter(.4916), nomadic(.4841), muvo2(.4631), vagabond(.4422), traveler(.4246), traveller(.4216), zen(.4150), jukebox(.4110), wanderer(.4073)
junctionVanillajunctions(.5729), near(.4985), road(.4936), intersection(.4923), creek(.4911), highway(.4878), exit(.4853), bridge(.4811), rd(.4779), jct(.4772)
+SelfExtrojunctions(.5822), jct(.5099), highway(.4787), motorway(.4781), road(.4744), exit(.4738).hwy(.4710), rd(.4667), intersection(.4628), heafford(.4596)
mossVanillapeat(.5360), brady(.5090), reed(.4998), brown(.4963), fern(.4945), green(.4920), woods(.4872), pine(.4856), jones(.4840), campbell(.4824),
+SelfExtrolichen(.5628), sphagnum(.5463), spagnum(.5457), peat(.5323), lichens(.5264), mosses(.5224), fern(.4934), welker(.4852), pine(.4846), ferns(.4805),
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 87, + 878, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of random words. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 864, + 884, + 909 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "757", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_model.json b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69ab65aa66c832431ea113f938bbb6cd83eb54f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2059 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.09, + 0.884, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.452, + 0.144, + 0.552, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hwiyeol Jo" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.419, + 0.161, + 0.584, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NAVER, Search US" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.405, + 0.177, + 0.599, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "hwiyeolj@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.462, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retrofitting techniques, which inject external resources into word representations, have compensated for the weakness of distributed representations in semantic and relational knowledge between words. However, the previous methods require additional external resources and strongly depend on the lexicon. To address the issues, we propose a simple extension of extrofitting, self-supervised extrofitting: extrofitting by its own word vector distribution. Our methods improve the vanilla embeddings on all of word similarity tasks without any external resources. Moreover, the method is also effective in various languages, which implies that our method will be useful in lexicon-scarce languages. As downstream tasks, we show its benefits in dialogue state tracking and text classification tasks, reporting better and generalized results compared to other word vector specialization methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.58, + 0.262, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.606, + 0.49, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Static word vectors are still widely used in natural language tasks despite the recent trends of contextualized models. For example, in a wide study of Dialogue State Tracking (DST) (Feng et al., 2021), contextualized models performed worse than static word embeddings. It seems reasonable that the contextualized models do not perform well in such a lack of context, which implies that static embeddings are still useful." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.752, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make better word vectors, we focus on retrofitting ideas (also called word vector post-processing), which injects the semantic information from external resources by modifying the values of pretrained word vectors (Faruqui et al. (2015); Mrksić et al. (2016a); inter alia). The benefits of post-processing methods are that (1) the methods can reflect additional resources into the word vectors without re-training, (2) the methods can be" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "applied to any kinds of pretrained word vectors, and (3) retrofitting can make word vectors specialize in a specific task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.305, + 0.885, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The previous studies focusing on explicit retrofitting have used manually defined or learned functions to make synonyms close and antonyms distant (see the details in §4). As a result, their approaches strongly rely on external resources." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.886, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, we agree that making synonyms close together is somewhat reasonable, even though the synonyms have different nuances in some contexts. However, other kinds of relations, such as antonyms, should be further investigated. For instance, love and hate are generally grouped as antonyms. Most of the previous studies have made the words distant from each other, but the words definitely share the meaning of emotion in their representations. We thus conjecture that the methods are not generalized well." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.569, + 0.885, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose word vector enrichment based on extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.606, + 0.886, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Self-supervised extrofitting that extends extrofitting for enriching word vectors without using external semantic lexicons. This method can resolve a limitation of post-processing approaches, which requires well-defined semantic lexicons. We highlight its usefulness in (relatively) lexicon-scarce languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.719, + 0.886, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We report the effects of word vector post-processing on several downstream tasks to show the generalization of the word vectors. Our methods consistently improve model performances in the fundamental tasks. In contrast, other post-processing methods degrade the performance." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.606, + 0.886, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.854, + 0.651, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Preliminary" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Extrofitting Extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018) expands word embedding matrix \\( W \\) by concatenating" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.904, + 0.442, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1http://github.com/hwiyeoljo/SELFExtro" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "747" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 747-757" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.96, + 0.721, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.201, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(W\\) with \\(r_w\\):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.115, + 0.236, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Expand(W, c)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.135, + 0.462, + 0.17 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n= W \\oplus r _ {w} \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{c l} \\operatorname {m e a n} _ {w \\in c} (\\mu_ {w}) & \\text {i f} w \\in \\mathbf {L} \\\\ \\mu_ {w} & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.178, + 0.489, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mu_w\\) is the mean value of elements in word vector \\(w\\). L denotes semantic lexicons, and \\(c\\) denotes the same class (synonym pairs). In other words, Expand makes an additional dimension per the word vector, and fill it with the same value if the pairs are synonym." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.274, + 0.487, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, Trans calculates transform matrix given the matrix \\( W \\):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.32, + 0.22, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Trans(W, c)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.339, + 0.47, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n= \\operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {U} \\frac {\\left| U ^ {T} \\sum_ {c} (\\mu_ {c} - \\mu) (\\mu_ {c} - \\mu) ^ {T} U \\right|}{\\left| U ^ {T} \\sum_ {c} \\sum_ {i} (x _ {i} - \\mu_ {c}) (x _ {i} - \\mu_ {c}) ^ {T} U \\right|}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.382, + 0.489, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( x \\) is a word vector, \\( c \\) is a class. The overall average of \\( x \\) is \\( \\mu \\), and the class average in class \\( i \\) is denoted by \\( \\mu_i \\). This formula finds a transform matrix \\( U \\), which minimizes the variance within the same class and maximizes the variance between different classes. Each class is defined as the index of synonym pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.495, + 0.489, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the end, Extrofitting is formulated as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.525, + 0.22, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\operatorname{Extro}(W, c)\\)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.545, + 0.47, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n= \\operatorname {T r a n s} (\\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c), c) ^ {T} \\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.573, + 0.49, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) LSA (Landauer and Dumais, 1997) has been used to extract the relation of data through latent variables. LSA is based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), which decomposes a matrix as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.662, + 0.348, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA = U S V ^ {T},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.69, + 0.49, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(S\\) is a diagonal matrix with singular values, and \\(U\\) and \\(V\\) are the orthogonal eigenvectors. We can select top-\\(k\\) singular values to represent matrix \\(A\\) in \\(k\\)-dimensional latent space. Then \\(U\\) and \\(V\\) are re-defined as \\(U_k \\in \\mathcal{R}^{N \\times k}\\) and \\(V_k^T \\in \\mathcal{R}^{k \\times N}\\), respectively, with diagonal matrix \\(S_k \\in \\mathcal{R}^{k \\times k}\\). When we use LSA for topic modeling, \\(A\\) is defined as a term-document matrix. Then, \\(U_k S_k\\) and \\(S_k V_k^T\\) are considered as term vectors and document vectors in the \\(k\\)-dimensional latent space, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.863, + 0.387, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Self-supervised Extrofitting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider the word embedding matrix as the term-document matrix; The x-axis of the matrix" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is vocabulary and the y-axis is (unknown) semantic dimension. Thus, as researchers have used the decomposition of the term-document matrix to get the term-vectors in LSA, the decomposition of the term-semantic matrix can be considered to represent term-vectors \\((US)\\) and semantic-vectors \\((SV^T)\\). This intuition corresponds to the traditional methods in vector embedding, verified in Levy and Goldberg (2014); Allen et al. (2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.23, + 0.884, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With the idea, we first decompose word embeddings matrix \\(W\\) to make latent representations as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.64, + 0.276, + 0.752, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nW _ {k} = U _ {k} S _ {k} V _ {k} ^ {T}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.299, + 0.884, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As described above, we can get term-vectors, which are word representations in \\(k\\)-dimensional latent space, by computing \\(U_{k}S_{k}\\). Adjusting the dimension of latent space (\\(k\\) in §2), we calculate semantically related words using cosine similarity. For every word, we calculate its cosine similarity to all other words in the vocabulary. If the similarity exceeds a predetermined threshold, we group the words. Note that a group can contain only a single word. This process is repeated iteratively for each ungrouped word until all words are clustered." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the set of semantically related words \\((c^{\\prime})\\) as the class (synonym pairs, \\(c\\)) of extrofitting instead of semantic lexicons:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.534, + 0.655, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SelfExtro(W, \\(c^{\\prime}\\))" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.554, + 0.866, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n= \\operatorname {T r a n s} (\\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\\prime}), c ^ {\\prime}) ^ {T} \\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\\prime})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.579, + 0.884, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sum up, we use the principle of vanilla extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018), which utilizes LDA algorithms to group in-domain instances (in this case, word vectors). Simultaneously, the algorithm pushes out-domain instances apart. Instead of using pre-defined lexicons for extrofitting, we use the idea of LSA to get semantically related words. Even if the number of extracted word pairs are small or the words are not meaningful, the process of making out-domain instances far can make better representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.757, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the experiments, we start with pretrained GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) (if we do not mention it explicitly) and set a threshold that determines whether a pair of words are semantically related. We use a high threshold (0.9 of cosine similarity) since type II error is rather better than type I error." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.863, + 0.673, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Related Works" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The first successful post-processing approach was Retrofitting (Faruqui et al., 2015), which modi" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "748" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.082, + 0.858, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
GloVe (glove.42B)fastText (wiki-news)
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSVW(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
Raw.70.57.39.74.57.37.22.82.62.51.80.64.44.35
SelfExtro, k=100.80.73.50.84.66.51.39.81.70.56.82.66.50.41
SelfExtro, k=200.79.72.49.84.66.51.39.81.70.57.82.65.51.42
SelfExtro, k=300.78.69.48.84.64.50.37.81.71.57.83.64.51.42
+WordNet(=Extro).80.74.49.83.66.49.36.78.67.51.80.63.50.40
vecmap.67.53.31.72.52.35.20.81.62.49.80.59.44.34
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.2, + 0.884, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings. \\( k \\) denotes the dimension of latent space that is used to extract semantically related words (see §3). Ablation studies in threshold are presented in Appendix A.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.268, + 0.492, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fied word vectors by weighted averaging the word vectors with semantic lexicons. Extending from the simple idea, Counter-fitting (Mrkšić et al., 2016a) used both synonym pairs to collect word vectors and antonym pairs to make word vectors the gene from one another. Next, Paragram embeddings (Wieting et al., 2015) used synonyms and negative sampling to collect the word vectors. Borrowing attract-terms from the Paragram embeddings and adding repel-terms, Attract-Repel (Mrkšić et al., 2017) injected linguistic constraints into word vectors through predefined cost function with mono-/cross-lingual linguistic constraints. Explicit Retrofitting (ER-CNT) (Glavaš and Vulić, 2018) directly learned mapping functions of linguistic constraints with deep neural network architectures. They then used the functions to retrofit the word vectors. Post-Specialization (Vulić et al., 2018; Ponti et al., 2018) resolved the problem of the previous models that only updates words in external lexicons. Some works have used cross-lingual resources to get further semantic information (Vulić et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.655, + 0.489, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While the previous methods utilized text-level resources, vecmap (Artetxe et al., 2018) used other word embeddings as external resources. For fair comparisons, we input the same word vectors for source and target embeddings of the method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.735, + 0.489, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, BERT-based model LexFit (Vulić et al., 2021) was derived, but the method requires external resources." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.795, + 0.475, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiment 1: Word Similarity Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.821, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Settings. Word similarity datasets consist of word pairs with human-rated similarity scores between the words and models calculate Spearman's correlation (Daniel, 1990) between the similarity" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.269, + 0.883, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scores and the cosine similarity of the word vector pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.301, + 0.885, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use 6 datasets in English: WordSim353 (W(s) for similarity and W(r) for relation) (Finkelstein et al., 2001), RareWord (RW) (Luong et al., 2013), MEN-3k (ME) (Bruni et al., 2014), SemEval (SE) (Camacho-Collados et al., 2017), SimLex999 (SL) (Hill et al., 2015), and SimVerb-3500 (SV) (Gerz et al., 2016)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.427, + 0.884, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. In Table 1, self-supervised extrofitting (SelfExtro) improves the performance on all the word similarity datasets when compared with the popular pretrained word vectors, GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) and fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016)\\(^3\\). The result implies the pretrained word vectors can be enriched by our method, which means it does not require any semantic lexicons to make better embeddings. In addition, SelfExtro shows better performances with the original extrofitting (+WordNet) on most of the evaluations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.606, + 0.884, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also investigate the extracted semantic information (see Appendix A.2). The extracted information hardly seems synonyms, but we can see that some similar words are grouped. As extrofitting affects all the word vectors, every word can benefit from the other words being enriched. In other words, although the number of extracted information is small, this simple extension makes extrofitting fully utilize its advantages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.752, + 0.883, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative examples of self-supervised extrofitting are presented in Table 2. Although the representations lose similarity scores, the similar words become diverse and reasonable. Additional qualitative examples are shown in Appendix A.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.833, + 0.884, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed SelfExtro is also potentially useful when semantic lexicon resources are scarce, such as in many non-English languages. In Ta" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We selected unsupervised version of vecmap because it performs better than identical version." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "word2vec could also be considered as a base model, but it takes too much time due to its large vocabulary size." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "749" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.082, + 0.865, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
loveVanillaloved(.7745), i(.7338), loves(.7311), know(.7286), loving(.7263), really(.7196), always(.7193), want(.7192), hope(.7127), think(.7110)
+SelfExtroloved(.7152), loving(.6734), loves(.6489), adore(.6348), passion(.6333), luv(.6326), hope(.6256), i(.6250), want(.6209), hate(.6181)
hateVanilladont(.7318), stupid(.7193), hates(.7190), think(.7063), why(.6943), love(.6928), hating(.6927), hated(.6861), shit(.6847), know(.6825)
+SelfExtrohating(.6707), hatred(.6650), dont(.6580), hates(.6529), dislike(.6447), despise(.6309), hated(.6306), stupid(.6266), think(.6249), love(.6181)
foreverVanillaalive(.6478), gone(.6450), love(.6381), never(.6267), again(.6249), yours(.6238), life(.6171), alone(.6153), anymore(.6129), always(.6093)
+SelfExtroeternally(.6297), alive(.5814), yours(.5717), life(.5532), anymore(.5524), eternity(.5488), eternal(.5474), gone(.5447), permanently(.5446), again(.5414)
lifeVanillalives(.8053), living(.7134), things(.6869), way(.6852), mind(.6844), what(.6779), much(.6723), love(.6719), because(.6716), work(.6706)
+SelfExtrolives(.7801), living(.6538), journey(.6048), everyday(.6038), mind(.5922), things(.5920), lifetime(.5892), happiness(.5749), love(.5743), way(.5728)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.307, + 0.883, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of words–love, hate, forever, and life. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.372, + 0.489, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CZIT(s/r)RU(s/r)GE(s/r)
fastText.240.377.188.428.275.335.169
k=100.450.453.370.525.411.425.261
k=200.443.444.359.545.426.431.261
k=300.451.456.359.539.426.449.271
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.452, + 0.49, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on WordSim datasets in 4 languages: Czech (CZ), Italian (IT), Russian (RU), and German (GE). \\( k \\) denotes extracted semantic information from fastText in \\( k \\) -dimensional latent space." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.538, + 0.492, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CYETFIFRHEPLRUES
fT.187.213.455.314.371.283.305.385
k=100.201.223.475.340.400.306.334.425
k=200.209.215.463.339.399.299.306.423
k=300.214.219.464.338.402.305.308.421
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.617, + 0.49, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on Multi-SimLex datasets in 8 languages: Welsh (CY), Estonian (ET), Finnish (FI), French (FR), Hebrew (HE), Polish (PL), Russian (RU), and Spanish (ES). Other languages cannot be found in fastText." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.716, + 0.49, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ble 3 and Table 4, we use pretrained fastText for WordSim datasets in 4 languages and MultiSimLex (Vulic et al., 2020) in 8 languages, respectively. SelfExtro significantly increases the performance in all the languages." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.811, + 0.489, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Experiment 2: Dialogue State Tracking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Settings. Previous works (Mrkusic et al., 2016a, 2017; Vulic et al., 2019) showed that word vector post-processing is useful for dialogue state tracking (DST) (Young et al., 2010). Using Neural Belief Tracker (NBT) (Mrkusic et al., 2016b), they have" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.372, + 0.879, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model(Resource)JGA with WordNetJGA with A-R Lexicon
GloVe.798(.03)
Retrofitting(Syn).792(.03).793(.01)
Paragraph(Syn).670(.05).657(.03)
Extro(Syn).821(.03).820(.01)
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant).625(.01).630(.03)
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant).671(.04).675(.03)
vecmap(-).772(.01)
SelfExtro(-).825(.02)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.509, + 0.884, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Joint goal accuracy and its standard deviation in WOZ 2.0 datasets. Despite the fact that we used the original Github code and data, the result is different from their report. Furthermore, our settings show different trends from what they reported." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.606, + 0.884, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "claimed that the performance on the task is related to word vector specialization in that the model has to identify the flow of dialogue with only a few words, which seems reasonable. Thus, we use the NBT4 and check the model performances with our post-processed embeddings. Refer to the papers cited above for the details of DST." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.728, + 0.885, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. Table 5 shows the performance of DST in Wizard-of-Oz 2.0 dataset (Wen et al., 2017). The results show that the semantic specialization (e.g., Attract-Repel) does not increase the performance. In contrast, Extro and SelfExtro show better performance than vanilla GloVe." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.825, + 0.884, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We additionally experiment with the lexicons (both synonyms and antonyms) included in the Github of Attract-Repel5. It shows only a little" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.881, + 0.86, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://github.com/nmrksic/ neural-belief-tracker 5https://github.com/nmrksic/attract-repel" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "750" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.082, + 0.871, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.31±0.1271.97±0.7649.35±0.5161.55±0.3590.66±0.7987.47±1.93
Retrofit(Syn)81.92±5.1144.72±2.7722.31±0.6348.87±0.4082.04±1.4963.40±3.53
Paragram(Syn)86.88±0.3662.37±0.3640.25±0.1950.04±0.2080.16±0.1474.77±0.43
Extro(Syn)98.52±0.0572.94±0.1050.01±0.3962.70±0.0691.36±0.2989.40±0.20
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)73.26±1.2959.70±0.1937.80±0.0847.97±0.4576.47±1.4566.54±0.48
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)87.52±0.1262.51±0.4139.75±1.1550.08±0.2979.80±0.9374.71±0.37
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)76.78±0.7959.45±0.1537.16±0.3549.16±0.6476.06±0.6266.11±0.79
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.44±0.0572.41±0.2649.79±0.3762.97±0.1890.93±0.1189.36±0.41
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.61±0.0573.45±0.7049.30±0.6163.01±0.4291.54±0.4588.82±0.55
Retrofit(Syn)98.16±0.0567.15±1.7343.14±1.3161.74±0.3389.21±1.6182.77±1.27
Paragram(Syn)98.14±0.0466.32±0.2742.85±0.4361.96±0.2289.91±0.1983.14±1.15
Extro(Syn)98.61±0.0673.50±0.1950.43±0.3063.22±0.1991.78±0.2989.74±0.28
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)98.07±0.1063.74±0.5340.83±0.2061.89±0.1790.09±1.2383.78±1.84
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)98.11±0.0766.05±0.4242.68±0.4361.80±0.2190.05±0.1883.74±1.30
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)98.10±0.0563.88±0.3640.49±0.5161.84±0.1390.48±0.3884.54±0.38
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.58±0.0273.02±0.1550.05±0.2363.25±0.2591.61±0.0889.98±0.26
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.356, + 0.883, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: 10 times average accuracy initialized with the post-processed word vectors. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.411, + 0.489, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance gain; we thus guess that the difference in DST performance comes from lexical resources or fine-tuning of NBT rather than specialization." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.472, + 0.437, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Experiment 3: Text Classification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.489, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Settings. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors. When the word vectors are fixed, we can evaluate the usefulness of the word vectors per se. When the word vectors are trainable, we can see the improvement of the model performance in a conventional training setting. The dataset and classifier are described in Appendix A.3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Results. We report the performances in Table 6. The classifier initialized with SelfExtro outperforms the vanilla GloVe and performs on par with the original extrofitting. On the other hand, although the previous word vector post-processing methods specialize well on a domain-specific task, the approaches failed to be generalized; they show large performance deterioration despite the added general semantic information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.797, + 0.242, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The specialized word vectors do not warrant better performance. We conjecture that the methods trade off catastrophic forgetting against semantic specialization even though the previous methods successfully specialize their vectors into given lexicons, losing the pretrained information encoded in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.41, + 0.885, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the original GloVe. It affects the performance of the fundamental tasks, which are largely degraded. On the other hand, our method enriches the word vector in general, resulting in marginal but certain improvements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.491, + 0.886, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contextual representations provide substantial improvements in NLP tasks, but the representations lack semantic information due to their nature. Since the context and the semantics are different types of information that can enrich representations, we believe our approaches might further improve the contextual representations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.619, + 0.642, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We develop a self-supervised retrofitting model that enriches word vectors without semantic lexicons. The method utilizes its own distribution of word vectors to get better representations. In the Exp. 1, we show that our method can improve the performance on word similarity tasks and present qualitative examples. It can be applied to other pretrained word vectors, resulting in better performances on all the word similarity datasets. SelfExtro also has potential advantages in lexicon-scarce languages. In the Exp. 2 and 3, we presented the effect of post-processing methods on downstream tasks. Our method shows marginal but certain improvements, while other post-processed word vectors largely degrade the performances, which seems the result of losing generalization." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "751" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.084, + 0.262, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.112, + 0.491, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Usefulness compared with contextual embeddings Contextual embeddings are recently dominant in NLP tasks, whereas static word embeddings have become less frequently used. However, it does not mean static word embeddings are not useful. Although we can assume that the amount of pretraining dataset and training resources are similar, the cost of inference is much cheaper at static word embeddings. Furthermore, static word embeddings perform better when a task lacks enough context (e.g., word similarity tasks). It will be interesting future work to retrofit contextual embeddings, but it is out of scope in this paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.333, + 0.49, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The use of antonyms Although we believe that there are no definitely opposite meanings of the word (e.g., love and hate share the sense of emotion), previous works (see §4) that utilize antonyms showed significant improvement in word similarity tasks. However, compared to the methods, self-supervised extrofitting explicitly considers synonyms only, but implicitly expects antonyms to be distant while maximizing the variances of in-class/out-of-class word vectors. Also, the process of self-supervised extrofitting makes it hard to incorporate other kinds of word relations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.488, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The method is only a simple linear projection. Both extrofitting and self-supervised extrofitting use linear projections in enriching vectors, following a traditional NLP method. The linear model might not be the best to reflect word relations in vector spaces, but we believe that it is a simple yet effective method, as we still calculate lots of things (e.g., distance) in a linear way." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.681, + 0.28, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.708, + 0.491, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The author would like to thank all the reviewers in several rounds of submission, a total of 5 years. Lastly, I am grateful to Alice Lee for her help in qualitative analysis." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.801, + 0.214, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Carl Allen, Ivana Balazevic, and Timothy Hospedales. 2019. What the vec? towards probabilistically grounded embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 7465-7475." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 789-798." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.151, + 0.885, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Enriching word vectors with subword information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.04606." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.216, + 0.885, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elia Bruni, N Tram, Marco Baroni, et al. 2014. Multimodal distributional semantics. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49:1-47." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.268, + 0.885, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Nigel Collier, and Roberto Navigli. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 2: Multilingual and cross-lingual semantic word similarity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 15-26." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.359, + 0.885, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Inigo Lopez-Gazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00055." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.437, + 0.885, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ming-Wei Chang, Lev-Arie Ratinov, Dan Roth, and Vivek Srikumar. 2008. Importance of semantic representation: Dataless classification. In AAAI, volume 2, pages 830-835." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wayne W Daniel. 1990. Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Applied nonparametric statistics, pages 358-365." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.554, + 0.885, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A Smith. 2015. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1606-1615." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.658, + 0.885, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yue Feng, Yang Wang, and Hang Li. 2021. A sequence-to-sequence approach to dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1714-1725." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.762, + 0.885, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lev Finkelstein, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yossi Matias, Ehud Rivlin, Zach Solan, Gadi Wolfman, and Eytan Ruppin. 2001. Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 406-414. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.852, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniela Gerz, Ivan Vulić, Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Simverb-3500: A large-scale evaluation set of verb similarity. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2173-2182." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "752" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2018. Explicit retrofitting of distributional word vectors. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 34-45." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.487, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. Nature, 405(6789):947." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.24, + 0.487, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2015. Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4):665-695." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.304, + 0.487, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hwiyeol Jo and Stanley Jungkyu Choi. 2018. Extrofitting: Enriching word representation and its vector space with semantic lexicons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07946." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.367, + 0.487, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aishwarya Kamath, Jonas Pfeiffer, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, and Ivan Vulić. 2019. Specializing distributional vectors of all words for lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2019), pages 72-83." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.457, + 0.487, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.521, + 0.486, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.572, + 0.487, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.636, + 0.487, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick Van Kleef, Soren Auer, et al. 2015. Dbpedia-a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.487, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Dependency-based word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 302-308." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.802, + 0.487, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minh-Thang Luong, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2013. Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 104-113." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew L Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies-volume 1, pages 142-150. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.15, + 0.882, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39-41." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.187, + 0.882, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016a. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00892." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.264, + 0.882, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikola Mrksic, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Blaise Thomson, and Steve Young. 2016b. Neural belief tracker: Data-driven dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03777." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.328, + 0.882, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikola Mrkšić, Ivan Vulić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Ira Leviant, Roi Reichart, Milica Gašić, Anna Korhonen, and Steve Young. 2017. Semantic specialization of distributional word vector spaces using monolingual and cross-lingual constraints. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:309-324." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.882, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roberto Navigli and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2012. Babelnet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence, 193:217-250." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.495, + 0.882, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.572, + 0.882, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edoardo Maria Ponti, Roi Reichart, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2018. Isomorphic transfer of syntactic structures in cross-lingual nlp. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1531-1542." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.661, + 0.882, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Vulic, Simon Baker, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Ulla Petti, Ira Leviant, Kelly Wing, Olga Majewska, Eden Bar, Matt Malone, Thierry Poibeanu, et al. 2020. Multi-simlex: A large-scale evaluation of multilingual and crosslingual lexical semantic similarity. Computational Linguistics, 46(4):847-897." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.75, + 0.882, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Vulic, Goran Glavaš, Nikola Mrkšić, and Anna Korhonen. 2018. Post-specialisation: Retrofitting vectors of words unseen in lexical resources. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 516-527." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Vulic, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. LexFit: Lexical fine-tuning of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "753" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5269-5283, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.136, + 0.49, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Vulić, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2019. Multilingual and cross-lingual graded lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4963-4974." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.49, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrkšić, Milica Gasic, Lina M Rojas Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. A network-based end-to-end trainable task-oriented dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 438-449." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.313, + 0.489, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, Karen Livescu, and Dan Roth. 2015. From paraphrase database to compositional paraphrase model and back. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:345-358." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Steve Young, Milica Gašić, Simon Keizer, François Mairesse, Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, and Kai Yu. 2010. The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. Computer Speech & Language, 24(2):150-174." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.478, + 0.49, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 649-657." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "754" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.239, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.11, + 0.287, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Data Resources" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.131, + 0.37, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.1 Pretrained word vectors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pretrained word vectors include words composed of n-dimensional float vectors. One of the major pretrained word vectors we used is GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) glove.42B.300d. Even though many word embedding algorithms and pretrained word vectors have been suggested, GloVe is still being used as a strong baseline on word similarity tasks (Cer et al., 2017; Camacho-Collados et al., 2017). We also use fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016), and Paragraph (Wieting et al., 2015) as resources and baseline of self-supervised extrofitting." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.337, + 0.319, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1.2 Semantic Lexicon" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.49, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As an external semantic lexicon, we use WordNet (Miller, 1995), which consists of approximately 150,000 words and 115,000 synsets pairs. We use Faruqui et al.'s WordNet all lexicon, comprised of synonyms, hypernyms, and hyponyms. Some recent works built their own or used large lexicons like BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012), but in order to observe the effect of post-processing algorithm rather than the power of lexicons, we use the (relatively) small lexicon." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.488, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For fair comparisons, we replace the previous works' lexicon with WordNet\\(_{all}\\) lexicon. If the models require antonyms, we use the antonyms pairs, which are uploaded in their Github." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.592, + 0.407, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Example of Extracted Relation" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.622, + 0.486, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ThresholdGrouped Words
≥ .90points225 points203 points166 points253···
17:20:18 09:22:30 10:22:49 07:33:04···
review10/15/2012 review3/31/2013
review11/30/2012 review12/18/2012···
≥ .99!!! !!
january february
range emailicon linkicon
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.735, + 0.489, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Examples of extracted related word groups. This results are extracted from 100 dimensional latent space in GloVe." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.805, + 0.418, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Further Details in Experiment 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. We use 5 classification datasets; DBpedia ontology (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yahoo!Answers (Chang et al., 2008)6, YelpRe" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.882, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{6}\\)https://cogcomp.seas.upenn.edu/page/resource_view/89 Note that Chang et al. (2008) said the dataset has 20 top-level categories but actually it has 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "views (Zhang et al., 2015), AGNews, and IMDB (Maas et al., 2011). We utilize Yahoo! Answer dataset for 2 different tasks, which are classifying upper-level categories and classifying lower-level categories, respectively. We use all the words tokenized by space as inputs. The data information is described in Table 8." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.206, + 0.886, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Classifier. We build TextCNN (Kim, 2014) rather than use a classifier based on Bag-of-Words (BoW), as Faruqui et al. did, in order to process word sequences. The classifier consists of 2 convolutional layers with the channel size of 32 and 16, respectively. We adopt the multi-channel approach, implementing 4 different sizes of kernels-2, 3, 4, and 5. We concatenate them after every max-pooling layer. The learned kernels go through an activation function, ReLU (Hahnloser et al., 2000), and max-pooling. We set the dimension of word embedding to 300, optimizer to Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with learning rate 0.001, and use early-stopping if validation accuracy does not increase over 5 epochs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.458, + 0.783, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Ablation Study in Threshold" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.479, + 0.882, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When the latent dimension is 300, following the best performance:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.522, + 0.729, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Qualitative Examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.542, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The additional qualitative examples are presented in Table 12." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.905, + 0.808, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "duplicated top-level categories because of errors." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "755" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.124, + 0.813, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)AGNewsYelpIMDB
#Train560,000133,703133,703120,000650,00025,000
#Test70,00023,59523,5957,60050,00025,000
#Class1417280452
#Vocab626,717154,142154,14266,049198,62547,113
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.202, + 0.882, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: The data information used in text classification. YahooAnswer dataset is used for 2 different tasks, which are to classify upper-level categories and to classify lower-level categories, respectively. The vocabulary size can be slightly different due to the predefined special tokens such as none and out-of-vocabulary" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.307, + 0.335, + 0.692, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Word Similarity Task
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
GloVe.70.57.39.74.57.37.28
threshold= .95 .72.60.39.76.58.42.28
threshold= .90 .78.69.48.84.64.50.37
threshold= .50 .71.59.38.75.56.39.23
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.427, + 0.882, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings according to threshold." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.368, + 0.532, + 0.63, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model(threshold)DST
GloVe.798
SelfExtro(threshold=.95).800
SelfExtro(threshold=.90).825
SelfExtro(threshold=.50).811
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.321, + 0.609, + 0.677, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Joint goal accuracy according to threshold" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.714, + 0.861, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.3171.9749.3561.5590.6687.47
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.3571.6149.0761.0190.7887.23
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.4472.4149.7962.9790.9389.36
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.4972.7450.8062.1090.9488.33
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.6173.4549.3063.0191.5488.82
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.4272.0849.1761.8391.0386.80
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.5873.0250.0563.2591.6189.98
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.5873.3550.6662.6491.6788.64
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.292, + 0.859, + 0.706, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Text classification accuracy according to threshold" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "756" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.088, + 0.879, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
sooVanillasooo(.8394), soooo(.7938), soooo(.7715), soooo(.7359), soooo(.6844), haha(.6574), hahah(.6320), damn(.6247), omg(.6244), hahaha(.6219)
+SelfExtrosooo(.8196), soooo(.7743), soooo(.7576), soooo(.7304), soooo(.6852), soooo(.6342), soooo(.6314), soooo(.6003) tooo(.5967), soooo(.00000000(.5869)
elaborateVanillaintricate(.7244), elaborately(.6238), extravagant(.6223), complicated(.6089), lavish(.5714), formal(.5643), sophisticated(.5639), detailed(.5623), ornate(.5619), simple(.5566)
+SelfExtrointricate(.7002), elaborately(.6329), extravagant(.6109), complicated(.5651), ornate(.5586), lavish(.5533), grandiose(.5452), formal(.5326), detailed(.5235), fanciful(.5225)
gratitudeVanillathankfulness(.7113), generosity(.6967), kindness(.6917), appreciation(.6860) compassion(.6695), admiration(.6672), grateful(.6420), thankful(.6385), heartfelt(.6368), sympathy(.6211)
+SelfExtrothankfulness(.7648), generosity(.7001), kindness(.6975), appreciation(.6934), admiration(.6830), compassion(.6738), gratefulness(.6444), reverence(.6361), thankful(.6313), sympathy(.6304)
jubilateVanillaexultate(.5262), deum(.4763), exultate(.4545), motet(.4054), excelsis(.3777), deo(.3721), cantata(.3651), alleluia(.3625), stabat(.3558), laudamus(.3485)
+SelfExtroexultate(.5111), exultate(.4449), deum(.4269), motet(.4093), deo(.3703), choir(.3670), excelsis(.3626), mozart(.3594), stabat(.3591), cantata(.3532)
elatedVanillaoverjoyed(.7712), ecstatic(.7045), thrilled(.6576), exhilarated(.6533), gratified(.6431), enthused(.6214), saddened(.6075), flabbergasted(.6060), disheartened(.5989), giddy(.5984)
+SelfExtrooverjoyed(.8018), ecstatic(.7424), thrilled(.7320), excited(.6894), exhilarated(.6758), delighted(.6733), gratified(.6690), relieved(.6569), enthused(.6564), dismayed(.6342)
mono-saccharideVanilladisaccharide(.6470), monosaccharides(.5152), oligosaccharide(.4911), galactose(.4686), 5-carbon(.4609), n-acetylgucosamine(.4282), saccharide(.4223), sucrose(.4215), mannose(.4196), disaccharides(.4107)
+SelfExtrodisaccharide(.6329), monosaccharides(.4888), oligosaccharide(.4844), 5-carbon(.4617), galactose(.4414), n-acetylgucosamine(.4227), sucrose(.4206), disaccharides(.4050), carbohydrate(.4045), moieties(.4033)
outlookVanillaexcel(.5686), recovery(.5457), export(.5368), forecast(.5229), forecasts(.5060), contacts(.5025), powerpoint(.5025), exchange(.5011), microsoft(.4944), import(.4816)
+SelfExtroexcel(.5145), mapssevere(.5054), icalandargoogle(.4955), export(.4883), contacts(.4877), recovery(.4753), advisorieshourly(.4673), mailbox(.4661), vcard(.4612), thunderbird(.4599)
vainVanillafoolish(.6229), futile(.6104), selfish(.5340), vainly(.5242), fruitless(.5133), thy(.4981), arrogant(.4976), useless(.4844), righteous(.4833), thou(.4830)
+SelfExtrofutil(.6273), foolish(.6079), vainly(.5454), fruitless(.5338), selfish(.5143), useless(.5044), pointless(.4910), hopeless(.4846), attempt(.4797), presumptuous(.4780)
prioritizeVanillaprioritise(.8064), prioritizing(.7426), priorities(.6323), prioritising(.5995), evaluate(.5950), strategize(.5933), proactively(.5862), analyze(.5800), assess(.5764), identify(.5633)
+SelfExtroprioritise(.8322), prioritizing(.7415), priorities(.6390), prioritising(.6225), proactively(.6075), strategize(.5990), evaluate(.5946), analyze(.5919), prioritized(.5880), manage(.5783)
nomadVanillanomads(.4911), drifter(.4735), nomadic(.4574), vagabond(.4233), zen(.4161), muvo2(.4054), gypsy(.4054), jukebox(.3997), vulcan(.3906), adventurer(.3869)
+SelfExtronomads(.5254), drifter(.4916), nomadic(.4841), muvo2(.4631), vagabond(.4422), traveler(.4246), traveller(.4216), zen(.4150), jukebox(.4110), wanderer(.4073)
junctionVanillajunctions(.5729), near(.4985), road(.4936), intersection(.4923), creek(.4911), highway(.4878), exit(.4853), bridge(.4811), rd(.4779), jct(.4772)
+SelfExtrojunctions(.5822), jct(.5099), highway(.4787), motorway(.4781), road(.4744), exit(.4738).hwy(.4710), rd(.4667), intersection(.4628), heafford(.4596)
mossVanillapeat(.5360), brady(.5090), reed(.4998), brown(.4963), fern(.4945), green(.4920), woods(.4872), pine(.4856), jones(.4840), campbell(.4824),
+SelfExtrolichen(.5628), sphagnum(.5463), spagnum(.5457), peat(.5323), lichens(.5264), mosses(.5224), fern(.4934), welker(.4852), pine(.4846), ferns(.4805),
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.865, + 0.885, + 0.91 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of random words. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "757" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_origin.pdf b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c316af13a5a3fd17a084876665bb3fe02c50265f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/8e5cce6f-e78d-452c-85ca-e7d3cbafc61d_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a1ded8cea8195d86ac6cb5cffb8bf6e53b0092083fd855d6912109b953fefd30 +size 184478 diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/full.md b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a367e4117db387086bdad5b2e3773727df3defaf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@ +# Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors + +Hwiyeol Jo + +NAVER, Search US + +hwiyeolj@gmail.com + +# Abstract + +Retrofitting techniques, which inject external resources into word representations, have compensated for the weakness of distributed representations in semantic and relational knowledge between words. However, the previous methods require additional external resources and strongly depend on the lexicon. To address the issues, we propose a simple extension of extrofitting, self-supervised extrofitting: extrofitting by its own word vector distribution. Our methods improve the vanilla embeddings on all of word similarity tasks without any external resources. Moreover, the method is also effective in various languages, which implies that our method will be useful in lexicon-scarce languages. As downstream tasks, we show its benefits in dialogue state tracking and text classification tasks, reporting better and generalized results compared to other word vector specialization methods. + +# 1 Introduction + +Static word vectors are still widely used in natural language tasks despite the recent trends of contextualized models. For example, in a wide study of Dialogue State Tracking (DST) (Feng et al., 2021), contextualized models performed worse than static word embeddings. It seems reasonable that the contextualized models do not perform well in such a lack of context, which implies that static embeddings are still useful. + +To make better word vectors, we focus on retrofitting ideas (also called word vector post-processing), which injects the semantic information from external resources by modifying the values of pretrained word vectors (Faruqui et al. (2015); Mrksić et al. (2016a); inter alia). The benefits of post-processing methods are that (1) the methods can reflect additional resources into the word vectors without re-training, (2) the methods can be + +applied to any kinds of pretrained word vectors, and (3) retrofitting can make word vectors specialize in a specific task. + +The previous studies focusing on explicit retrofitting have used manually defined or learned functions to make synonyms close and antonyms distant (see the details in §4). As a result, their approaches strongly rely on external resources. + +Furthermore, we agree that making synonyms close together is somewhat reasonable, even though the synonyms have different nuances in some contexts. However, other kinds of relations, such as antonyms, should be further investigated. For instance, love and hate are generally grouped as antonyms. Most of the previous studies have made the words distant from each other, but the words definitely share the meaning of emotion in their representations. We thus conjecture that the methods are not generalized well. + +In this paper, we propose word vector enrichment based on extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018): + +- Self-supervised extrofitting that extends extrofitting for enriching word vectors without using external semantic lexicons. This method can resolve a limitation of post-processing approaches, which requires well-defined semantic lexicons. We highlight its usefulness in (relatively) lexicon-scarce languages. +- We report the effects of word vector post-processing on several downstream tasks to show the generalization of the word vectors. Our methods consistently improve model performances in the fundamental tasks. In contrast, other post-processing methods degrade the performance. + +# 2 Preliminary + +Extrofitting Extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018) expands word embedding matrix $W$ by concatenating + +$W$ with $r_w$ : + +Expand(W, c) + +$$ += W \oplus r _ {w} \left\{ \begin{array}{c l} \operatorname {m e a n} _ {w \in c} (\mu_ {w}) & \text {i f} w \in \mathbf {L} \\ \mu_ {w} & \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} \right. +$$ + +where $\mu_w$ is the mean value of elements in word vector $w$ . L denotes semantic lexicons, and $c$ denotes the same class (synonym pairs). In other words, Expand makes an additional dimension per the word vector, and fill it with the same value if the pairs are synonym. + +Next, Trans calculates transform matrix given the matrix $W$ : + +Trans(W, c) + +$$ += \operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {U} \frac {\left| U ^ {T} \sum_ {c} (\mu_ {c} - \mu) (\mu_ {c} - \mu) ^ {T} U \right|}{\left| U ^ {T} \sum_ {c} \sum_ {i} (x _ {i} - \mu_ {c}) (x _ {i} - \mu_ {c}) ^ {T} U \right|} +$$ + +where $x$ is a word vector, $c$ is a class. The overall average of $x$ is $\mu$ , and the class average in class $i$ is denoted by $\mu_i$ . This formula finds a transform matrix $U$ , which minimizes the variance within the same class and maximizes the variance between different classes. Each class is defined as the index of synonym pairs. + +In the end, Extrofitting is formulated as follows: + +$\operatorname{Extro}(W, c)$ + +$$ += \operatorname {T r a n s} (\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c), c) ^ {T} \operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c) +$$ + +Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) LSA (Landauer and Dumais, 1997) has been used to extract the relation of data through latent variables. LSA is based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), which decomposes a matrix as follows: + +$$ +A = U S V ^ {T}, +$$ + +where $S$ is a diagonal matrix with singular values, and $U$ and $V$ are the orthogonal eigenvectors. We can select top- $k$ singular values to represent matrix $A$ in $k$ -dimensional latent space. Then $U$ and $V$ are re-defined as $U_k \in \mathcal{R}^{N \times k}$ and $V_k^T \in \mathcal{R}^{k \times N}$ , respectively, with diagonal matrix $S_k \in \mathcal{R}^{k \times k}$ . When we use LSA for topic modeling, $A$ is defined as a term-document matrix. Then, $U_k S_k$ and $S_k V_k^T$ are considered as term vectors and document vectors in the $k$ -dimensional latent space, respectively. + +# 3 Self-supervised Extrofitting + +We consider the word embedding matrix as the term-document matrix; The x-axis of the matrix + +is vocabulary and the y-axis is (unknown) semantic dimension. Thus, as researchers have used the decomposition of the term-document matrix to get the term-vectors in LSA, the decomposition of the term-semantic matrix can be considered to represent term-vectors $(US)$ and semantic-vectors $(SV^T)$ . This intuition corresponds to the traditional methods in vector embedding, verified in Levy and Goldberg (2014); Allen et al. (2019). + +With the idea, we first decompose word embeddings matrix $W$ to make latent representations as follows: + +$$ +W _ {k} = U _ {k} S _ {k} V _ {k} ^ {T} +$$ + +As described above, we can get term-vectors, which are word representations in $k$ -dimensional latent space, by computing $U_{k}S_{k}$ . Adjusting the dimension of latent space ( $k$ in §2), we calculate semantically related words using cosine similarity. For every word, we calculate its cosine similarity to all other words in the vocabulary. If the similarity exceeds a predetermined threshold, we group the words. Note that a group can contain only a single word. This process is repeated iteratively for each ungrouped word until all words are clustered. + +We use the set of semantically related words $(c^{\prime})$ as the class (synonym pairs, $c$ ) of extrofitting instead of semantic lexicons: + +SelfExtro(W, $c^{\prime}$ ) + +$$ += \operatorname {T r a n s} (\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\prime}), c ^ {\prime}) ^ {T} \operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\prime}) +$$ + +To sum up, we use the principle of vanilla extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018), which utilizes LDA algorithms to group in-domain instances (in this case, word vectors). Simultaneously, the algorithm pushes out-domain instances apart. Instead of using pre-defined lexicons for extrofitting, we use the idea of LSA to get semantically related words. Even if the number of extracted word pairs are small or the words are not meaningful, the process of making out-domain instances far can make better representations. + +In the experiments, we start with pretrained GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) (if we do not mention it explicitly) and set a threshold that determines whether a pair of words are semantically related. We use a high threshold (0.9 of cosine similarity) since type II error is rather better than type I error. + +# 4 Related Works + +The first successful post-processing approach was Retrofitting (Faruqui et al., 2015), which modi + +
GloVe (glove.42B)fastText (wiki-news)
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSVW(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
Raw.70.57.39.74.57.37.22.82.62.51.80.64.44.35
SelfExtro, k=100.80.73.50.84.66.51.39.81.70.56.82.66.50.41
SelfExtro, k=200.79.72.49.84.66.51.39.81.70.57.82.65.51.42
SelfExtro, k=300.78.69.48.84.64.50.37.81.71.57.83.64.51.42
+WordNet(=Extro).80.74.49.83.66.49.36.78.67.51.80.63.50.40
vecmap.67.53.31.72.52.35.20.81.62.49.80.59.44.34
+ +Table 1: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings. $k$ denotes the dimension of latent space that is used to extract semantically related words (see §3). Ablation studies in threshold are presented in Appendix A.4. + +fied word vectors by weighted averaging the word vectors with semantic lexicons. Extending from the simple idea, Counter-fitting (Mrkšić et al., 2016a) used both synonym pairs to collect word vectors and antonym pairs to make word vectors the gene from one another. Next, Paragram embeddings (Wieting et al., 2015) used synonyms and negative sampling to collect the word vectors. Borrowing attract-terms from the Paragram embeddings and adding repel-terms, Attract-Repel (Mrkšić et al., 2017) injected linguistic constraints into word vectors through predefined cost function with mono-/cross-lingual linguistic constraints. Explicit Retrofitting (ER-CNT) (Glavaš and Vulić, 2018) directly learned mapping functions of linguistic constraints with deep neural network architectures. They then used the functions to retrofit the word vectors. Post-Specialization (Vulić et al., 2018; Ponti et al., 2018) resolved the problem of the previous models that only updates words in external lexicons. Some works have used cross-lingual resources to get further semantic information (Vulić et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2019). + +While the previous methods utilized text-level resources, vecmap (Artetxe et al., 2018) used other word embeddings as external resources. For fair comparisons, we input the same word vectors for source and target embeddings of the method. + +Recently, BERT-based model LexFit (Vulić et al., 2021) was derived, but the method requires external resources. + +# 5 Experiment 1: Word Similarity Tasks + +Settings. Word similarity datasets consist of word pairs with human-rated similarity scores between the words and models calculate Spearman's correlation (Daniel, 1990) between the similarity + +scores and the cosine similarity of the word vector pairs. + +We use 6 datasets in English: WordSim353 (W(s) for similarity and W(r) for relation) (Finkelstein et al., 2001), RareWord (RW) (Luong et al., 2013), MEN-3k (ME) (Bruni et al., 2014), SemEval (SE) (Camacho-Collados et al., 2017), SimLex999 (SL) (Hill et al., 2015), and SimVerb-3500 (SV) (Gerz et al., 2016). + +Results. In Table 1, self-supervised extrofitting (SelfExtro) improves the performance on all the word similarity datasets when compared with the popular pretrained word vectors, GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) and fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016) $^3$ . The result implies the pretrained word vectors can be enriched by our method, which means it does not require any semantic lexicons to make better embeddings. In addition, SelfExtro shows better performances with the original extrofitting (+WordNet) on most of the evaluations. + +We also investigate the extracted semantic information (see Appendix A.2). The extracted information hardly seems synonyms, but we can see that some similar words are grouped. As extrofitting affects all the word vectors, every word can benefit from the other words being enriched. In other words, although the number of extracted information is small, this simple extension makes extrofitting fully utilize its advantages. + +Qualitative examples of self-supervised extrofitting are presented in Table 2. Although the representations lose similarity scores, the similar words become diverse and reasonable. Additional qualitative examples are shown in Appendix A.5. + +Our proposed SelfExtro is also potentially useful when semantic lexicon resources are scarce, such as in many non-English languages. In Ta + +
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
loveVanillaloved(.7745), i(.7338), loves(.7311), know(.7286), loving(.7263), really(.7196), always(.7193), want(.7192), hope(.7127), think(.7110)
+SelfExtroloved(.7152), loving(.6734), loves(.6489), adore(.6348), passion(.6333), luv(.6326), hope(.6256), i(.6250), want(.6209), hate(.6181)
hateVanilladont(.7318), stupid(.7193), hates(.7190), think(.7063), why(.6943), love(.6928), hating(.6927), hated(.6861), shit(.6847), know(.6825)
+SelfExtrohating(.6707), hatred(.6650), dont(.6580), hates(.6529), dislike(.6447), despise(.6309), hated(.6306), stupid(.6266), think(.6249), love(.6181)
foreverVanillaalive(.6478), gone(.6450), love(.6381), never(.6267), again(.6249), yours(.6238), life(.6171), alone(.6153), anymore(.6129), always(.6093)
+SelfExtroeternally(.6297), alive(.5814), yours(.5717), life(.5532), anymore(.5524), eternity(.5488), eternal(.5474), gone(.5447), permanently(.5446), again(.5414)
lifeVanillalives(.8053), living(.7134), things(.6869), way(.6852), mind(.6844), what(.6779), much(.6723), love(.6719), because(.6716), work(.6706)
+SelfExtrolives(.7801), living(.6538), journey(.6048), everyday(.6038), mind(.5922), things(.5920), lifetime(.5892), happiness(.5749), love(.5743), way(.5728)
+ +Table 2: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of words–love, hate, forever, and life. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively. + +
CZIT(s/r)RU(s/r)GE(s/r)
fastText.240.377.188.428.275.335.169
k=100.450.453.370.525.411.425.261
k=200.443.444.359.545.426.431.261
k=300.451.456.359.539.426.449.271
+ +Table 3: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on WordSim datasets in 4 languages: Czech (CZ), Italian (IT), Russian (RU), and German (GE). $k$ denotes extracted semantic information from fastText in $k$ -dimensional latent space. + +
CYETFIFRHEPLRUES
fT.187.213.455.314.371.283.305.385
k=100.201.223.475.340.400.306.334.425
k=200.209.215.463.339.399.299.306.423
k=300.214.219.464.338.402.305.308.421
+ +ble 3 and Table 4, we use pretrained fastText for WordSim datasets in 4 languages and MultiSimLex (Vulic et al., 2020) in 8 languages, respectively. SelfExtro significantly increases the performance in all the languages. + +# 6 Experiment 2: Dialogue State Tracking + +Settings. Previous works (Mrkusic et al., 2016a, 2017; Vulic et al., 2019) showed that word vector post-processing is useful for dialogue state tracking (DST) (Young et al., 2010). Using Neural Belief Tracker (NBT) (Mrkusic et al., 2016b), they have + +Table 4: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on Multi-SimLex datasets in 8 languages: Welsh (CY), Estonian (ET), Finnish (FI), French (FR), Hebrew (HE), Polish (PL), Russian (RU), and Spanish (ES). Other languages cannot be found in fastText. + +
Model(Resource)JGA with WordNetJGA with A-R Lexicon
GloVe.798(.03)
Retrofitting(Syn).792(.03).793(.01)
Paragraph(Syn).670(.05).657(.03)
Extro(Syn).821(.03).820(.01)
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant).625(.01).630(.03)
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant).671(.04).675(.03)
vecmap(-).772(.01)
SelfExtro(-).825(.02)
+ +Table 5: Joint goal accuracy and its standard deviation in WOZ 2.0 datasets. Despite the fact that we used the original Github code and data, the result is different from their report. Furthermore, our settings show different trends from what they reported. + +claimed that the performance on the task is related to word vector specialization in that the model has to identify the flow of dialogue with only a few words, which seems reasonable. Thus, we use the NBT4 and check the model performances with our post-processed embeddings. Refer to the papers cited above for the details of DST. + +Results. Table 5 shows the performance of DST in Wizard-of-Oz 2.0 dataset (Wen et al., 2017). The results show that the semantic specialization (e.g., Attract-Repel) does not increase the performance. In contrast, Extro and SelfExtro show better performance than vanilla GloVe. + +We additionally experiment with the lexicons (both synonyms and antonyms) included in the Github of Attract-Repel5. It shows only a little + +
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.31±0.1271.97±0.7649.35±0.5161.55±0.3590.66±0.7987.47±1.93
Retrofit(Syn)81.92±5.1144.72±2.7722.31±0.6348.87±0.4082.04±1.4963.40±3.53
Paragram(Syn)86.88±0.3662.37±0.3640.25±0.1950.04±0.2080.16±0.1474.77±0.43
Extro(Syn)98.52±0.0572.94±0.1050.01±0.3962.70±0.0691.36±0.2989.40±0.20
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)73.26±1.2959.70±0.1937.80±0.0847.97±0.4576.47±1.4566.54±0.48
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)87.52±0.1262.51±0.4139.75±1.1550.08±0.2979.80±0.9374.71±0.37
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)76.78±0.7959.45±0.1537.16±0.3549.16±0.6476.06±0.6266.11±0.79
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.44±0.0572.41±0.2649.79±0.3762.97±0.1890.93±0.1189.36±0.41
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.61±0.0573.45±0.7049.30±0.6163.01±0.4291.54±0.4588.82±0.55
Retrofit(Syn)98.16±0.0567.15±1.7343.14±1.3161.74±0.3389.21±1.6182.77±1.27
Paragram(Syn)98.14±0.0466.32±0.2742.85±0.4361.96±0.2289.91±0.1983.14±1.15
Extro(Syn)98.61±0.0673.50±0.1950.43±0.3063.22±0.1991.78±0.2989.74±0.28
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)98.07±0.1063.74±0.5340.83±0.2061.89±0.1790.09±1.2383.78±1.84
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)98.11±0.0766.05±0.4242.68±0.4361.80±0.2190.05±0.1883.74±1.30
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)98.10±0.0563.88±0.3640.49±0.5161.84±0.1390.48±0.3884.54±0.38
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.58±0.0273.02±0.1550.05±0.2363.25±0.2591.61±0.0889.98±0.26
+ +Table 6: 10 times average accuracy initialized with the post-processed word vectors. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors. + +performance gain; we thus guess that the difference in DST performance comes from lexical resources or fine-tuning of NBT rather than specialization. + +# 7 Experiment 3: Text Classification + +Settings. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors. When the word vectors are fixed, we can evaluate the usefulness of the word vectors per se. When the word vectors are trainable, we can see the improvement of the model performance in a conventional training setting. The dataset and classifier are described in Appendix A.3. + +Results. We report the performances in Table 6. The classifier initialized with SelfExtro outperforms the vanilla GloVe and performs on par with the original extrofitting. On the other hand, although the previous word vector post-processing methods specialize well on a domain-specific task, the approaches failed to be generalized; they show large performance deterioration despite the added general semantic information. + +# 8 Discussion + +The specialized word vectors do not warrant better performance. We conjecture that the methods trade off catastrophic forgetting against semantic specialization even though the previous methods successfully specialize their vectors into given lexicons, losing the pretrained information encoded in + +the original GloVe. It affects the performance of the fundamental tasks, which are largely degraded. On the other hand, our method enriches the word vector in general, resulting in marginal but certain improvements. + +Contextual representations provide substantial improvements in NLP tasks, but the representations lack semantic information due to their nature. Since the context and the semantics are different types of information that can enrich representations, we believe our approaches might further improve the contextual representations. + +# 9 Conclusion + +We develop a self-supervised retrofitting model that enriches word vectors without semantic lexicons. The method utilizes its own distribution of word vectors to get better representations. In the Exp. 1, we show that our method can improve the performance on word similarity tasks and present qualitative examples. It can be applied to other pretrained word vectors, resulting in better performances on all the word similarity datasets. SelfExtro also has potential advantages in lexicon-scarce languages. In the Exp. 2 and 3, we presented the effect of post-processing methods on downstream tasks. Our method shows marginal but certain improvements, while other post-processed word vectors largely degrade the performances, which seems the result of losing generalization. + +# 10 Limitations + +Usefulness compared with contextual embeddings Contextual embeddings are recently dominant in NLP tasks, whereas static word embeddings have become less frequently used. However, it does not mean static word embeddings are not useful. Although we can assume that the amount of pretraining dataset and training resources are similar, the cost of inference is much cheaper at static word embeddings. Furthermore, static word embeddings perform better when a task lacks enough context (e.g., word similarity tasks). It will be interesting future work to retrofit contextual embeddings, but it is out of scope in this paper. + +The use of antonyms Although we believe that there are no definitely opposite meanings of the word (e.g., love and hate share the sense of emotion), previous works (see §4) that utilize antonyms showed significant improvement in word similarity tasks. However, compared to the methods, self-supervised extrofitting explicitly considers synonyms only, but implicitly expects antonyms to be distant while maximizing the variances of in-class/out-of-class word vectors. Also, the process of self-supervised extrofitting makes it hard to incorporate other kinds of word relations. + +The method is only a simple linear projection. Both extrofitting and self-supervised extrofitting use linear projections in enriching vectors, following a traditional NLP method. The linear model might not be the best to reflect word relations in vector spaces, but we believe that it is a simple yet effective method, as we still calculate lots of things (e.g., distance) in a linear way. + +# Acknowledgement + +The author would like to thank all the reviewers in several rounds of submission, a total of 5 years. Lastly, I am grateful to Alice Lee for her help in qualitative analysis. + +# References + +Carl Allen, Ivana Balazevic, and Timothy Hospedales. 2019. What the vec? towards probabilistically grounded embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 7465-7475. +Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised + +cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 789-798. +Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Enriching word vectors with subword information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.04606. +Elia Bruni, N Tram, Marco Baroni, et al. 2014. Multimodal distributional semantics. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49:1-47. +Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Nigel Collier, and Roberto Navigli. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 2: Multilingual and cross-lingual semantic word similarity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 15-26. +Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Inigo Lopez-Gazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00055. +Ming-Wei Chang, Lev-Arie Ratinov, Dan Roth, and Vivek Srikumar. 2008. Importance of semantic representation: Dataless classification. In AAAI, volume 2, pages 830-835. +Wayne W Daniel. 1990. Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Applied nonparametric statistics, pages 358-365. +Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A Smith. 2015. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1606-1615. +Yue Feng, Yang Wang, and Hang Li. 2021. A sequence-to-sequence approach to dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1714-1725. +Lev Finkelstein, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yossi Matias, Ehud Rivlin, Zach Solan, Gadi Wolfman, and Eytan Ruppin. 2001. Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 406-414. ACM. +Daniela Gerz, Ivan Vulić, Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Simverb-3500: A large-scale evaluation set of verb similarity. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2173-2182. + +Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2018. Explicit retrofitting of distributional word vectors. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 34-45. +Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. Nature, 405(6789):947. +Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2015. Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4):665-695. +Hwiyeol Jo and Stanley Jungkyu Choi. 2018. Extrofitting: Enriching word representation and its vector space with semantic lexicons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07946. +Aishwarya Kamath, Jonas Pfeiffer, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, and Ivan Vulić. 2019. Specializing distributional vectors of all words for lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2019), pages 72-83. +Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751. +Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. +Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211. +Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick Van Kleef, Soren Auer, et al. 2015. Dbpedia-a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195. +Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Dependency-based word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 302-308. +Minh-Thang Luong, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2013. Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 104-113. +Andrew L Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In + +Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies-volume 1, pages 142-150. Association for Computational Linguistics. +George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39-41. +Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016a. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00892. +Nikola Mrksic, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Blaise Thomson, and Steve Young. 2016b. Neural belief tracker: Data-driven dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03777. +Nikola Mrkšić, Ivan Vulić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Ira Leviant, Roi Reichart, Milica Gašić, Anna Korhonen, and Steve Young. 2017. Semantic specialization of distributional word vector spaces using monolingual and cross-lingual constraints. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:309-324. +Roberto Navigli and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2012. Babelnet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence, 193:217-250. +Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543. +Edoardo Maria Ponti, Roi Reichart, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2018. Isomorphic transfer of syntactic structures in cross-lingual nlp. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1531-1542. +Ivan Vulic, Simon Baker, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Ulla Petti, Ira Leviant, Kelly Wing, Olga Majewska, Eden Bar, Matt Malone, Thierry Poibeanu, et al. 2020. Multi-simlex: A large-scale evaluation of multilingual and crosslingual lexical semantic similarity. Computational Linguistics, 46(4):847-897. +Ivan Vulic, Goran Glavaš, Nikola Mrkšić, and Anna Korhonen. 2018. Post-specialisation: Retrofitting vectors of words unseen in lexical resources. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 516-527. +Ivan Vulic, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. LexFit: Lexical fine-tuning of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint + +Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5269-5283, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ivan Vulić, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2019. Multilingual and cross-lingual graded lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4963-4974. +Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrkšić, Milica Gasic, Lina M Rojas Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. A network-based end-to-end trainable task-oriented dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 438-449. +John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, Karen Livescu, and Dan Roth. 2015. From paraphrase database to compositional paraphrase model and back. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:345-358. +Steve Young, Milica Gašić, Simon Keizer, François Mairesse, Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, and Kai Yu. 2010. The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. Computer Speech & Language, 24(2):150-174. +Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 649-657. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Data Resources + +# A.1.1 Pretrained word vectors + +Pretrained word vectors include words composed of n-dimensional float vectors. One of the major pretrained word vectors we used is GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) glove.42B.300d. Even though many word embedding algorithms and pretrained word vectors have been suggested, GloVe is still being used as a strong baseline on word similarity tasks (Cer et al., 2017; Camacho-Collados et al., 2017). We also use fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016), and Paragraph (Wieting et al., 2015) as resources and baseline of self-supervised extrofitting. + +# A.1.2 Semantic Lexicon + +As an external semantic lexicon, we use WordNet (Miller, 1995), which consists of approximately 150,000 words and 115,000 synsets pairs. We use Faruqui et al.'s WordNet all lexicon, comprised of synonyms, hypernyms, and hyponyms. Some recent works built their own or used large lexicons like BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012), but in order to observe the effect of post-processing algorithm rather than the power of lexicons, we use the (relatively) small lexicon. + +For fair comparisons, we replace the previous works' lexicon with WordNet $_{all}$ lexicon. If the models require antonyms, we use the antonyms pairs, which are uploaded in their Github. + +# A.2 Example of Extracted Relation + +
ThresholdGrouped Words
≥ .90points225 points203 points166 points253···
17:20:18 09:22:30 10:22:49 07:33:04···
review10/15/2012 review3/31/2013
review11/30/2012 review12/18/2012···
≥ .99!!! !!
january february
range emailicon linkicon
+ +Table 7: Examples of extracted related word groups. This results are extracted from 100 dimensional latent space in GloVe. + +# A.3 Further Details in Experiment 3 + +Datasets. We use 5 classification datasets; DBpedia ontology (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yahoo!Answers (Chang et al., 2008)6, YelpRe + +$^{6}$ https://cogcomp.seas.upenn.edu/page/resource_view/89 Note that Chang et al. (2008) said the dataset has 20 top-level categories but actually it has 3 + +views (Zhang et al., 2015), AGNews, and IMDB (Maas et al., 2011). We utilize Yahoo! Answer dataset for 2 different tasks, which are classifying upper-level categories and classifying lower-level categories, respectively. We use all the words tokenized by space as inputs. The data information is described in Table 8. + +Classifier. We build TextCNN (Kim, 2014) rather than use a classifier based on Bag-of-Words (BoW), as Faruqui et al. did, in order to process word sequences. The classifier consists of 2 convolutional layers with the channel size of 32 and 16, respectively. We adopt the multi-channel approach, implementing 4 different sizes of kernels-2, 3, 4, and 5. We concatenate them after every max-pooling layer. The learned kernels go through an activation function, ReLU (Hahnloser et al., 2000), and max-pooling. We set the dimension of word embedding to 300, optimizer to Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with learning rate 0.001, and use early-stopping if validation accuracy does not increase over 5 epochs. + +# A.4 Ablation Study in Threshold + +When the latent dimension is 300, following the best performance: + +# A.5 Qualitative Examples + +The additional qualitative examples are presented in Table 12. + +
DBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)AGNewsYelpIMDB
#Train560,000133,703133,703120,000650,00025,000
#Test70,00023,59523,5957,60050,00025,000
#Class1417280452
#Vocab626,717154,142154,14266,049198,62547,113
+ +Table 8: The data information used in text classification. YahooAnswer dataset is used for 2 different tasks, which are to classify upper-level categories and to classify lower-level categories, respectively. The vocabulary size can be slightly different due to the predefined special tokens such as none and out-of-vocabulary + +
Word Similarity Task
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
GloVe.70.57.39.74.57.37.28
threshold= .95 .72.60.39.76.58.42.28
threshold= .90 .78.69.48.84.64.50.37
threshold= .50 .71.59.38.75.56.39.23
+ +Table 9: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings according to threshold. + +
Model(threshold)DST
GloVe.798
SelfExtro(threshold=.95).800
SelfExtro(threshold=.90).825
SelfExtro(threshold=.50).811
+ +Table 10: Joint goal accuracy according to threshold + +
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.3171.9749.3561.5590.6687.47
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.3571.6149.0761.0190.7887.23
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.4472.4149.7962.9790.9389.36
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.4972.7450.8062.1090.9488.33
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.6173.4549.3063.0191.5488.82
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.4272.0849.1761.8391.0386.80
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.5873.0250.0563.2591.6189.98
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.5873.3550.6662.6491.6788.64
+ +Table 11: Text classification accuracy according to threshold + +
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
sooVanillasooo(.8394), soooo(.7938), soooo(.7715), soooo(.7359), soooo(.6844), haha(.6574), hahah(.6320), damn(.6247), omg(.6244), hahaha(.6219)
+SelfExtrosooo(.8196), soooo(.7743), soooo(.7576), soooo(.7304), soooo(.6852), soooo(.6342), soooo(.6314), soooo(.6003) tooo(.5967), soooo(.00000000(.5869)
elaborateVanillaintricate(.7244), elaborately(.6238), extravagant(.6223), complicated(.6089), lavish(.5714), formal(.5643), sophisticated(.5639), detailed(.5623), ornate(.5619), simple(.5566)
+SelfExtrointricate(.7002), elaborately(.6329), extravagant(.6109), complicated(.5651), ornate(.5586), lavish(.5533), grandiose(.5452), formal(.5326), detailed(.5235), fanciful(.5225)
gratitudeVanillathankfulness(.7113), generosity(.6967), kindness(.6917), appreciation(.6860) compassion(.6695), admiration(.6672), grateful(.6420), thankful(.6385), heartfelt(.6368), sympathy(.6211)
+SelfExtrothankfulness(.7648), generosity(.7001), kindness(.6975), appreciation(.6934), admiration(.6830), compassion(.6738), gratefulness(.6444), reverence(.6361), thankful(.6313), sympathy(.6304)
jubilateVanillaexultate(.5262), deum(.4763), exultate(.4545), motet(.4054), excelsis(.3777), deo(.3721), cantata(.3651), alleluia(.3625), stabat(.3558), laudamus(.3485)
+SelfExtroexultate(.5111), exultate(.4449), deum(.4269), motet(.4093), deo(.3703), choir(.3670), excelsis(.3626), mozart(.3594), stabat(.3591), cantata(.3532)
elatedVanillaoverjoyed(.7712), ecstatic(.7045), thrilled(.6576), exhilarated(.6533), gratified(.6431), enthused(.6214), saddened(.6075), flabbergasted(.6060), disheartened(.5989), giddy(.5984)
+SelfExtrooverjoyed(.8018), ecstatic(.7424), thrilled(.7320), excited(.6894), exhilarated(.6758), delighted(.6733), gratified(.6690), relieved(.6569), enthused(.6564), dismayed(.6342)
mono-saccharideVanilladisaccharide(.6470), monosaccharides(.5152), oligosaccharide(.4911), galactose(.4686), 5-carbon(.4609), n-acetylgucosamine(.4282), saccharide(.4223), sucrose(.4215), mannose(.4196), disaccharides(.4107)
+SelfExtrodisaccharide(.6329), monosaccharides(.4888), oligosaccharide(.4844), 5-carbon(.4617), galactose(.4414), n-acetylgucosamine(.4227), sucrose(.4206), disaccharides(.4050), carbohydrate(.4045), moieties(.4033)
outlookVanillaexcel(.5686), recovery(.5457), export(.5368), forecast(.5229), forecasts(.5060), contacts(.5025), powerpoint(.5025), exchange(.5011), microsoft(.4944), import(.4816)
+SelfExtroexcel(.5145), mapssevere(.5054), icalandargoogle(.4955), export(.4883), contacts(.4877), recovery(.4753), advisorieshourly(.4673), mailbox(.4661), vcard(.4612), thunderbird(.4599)
vainVanillafoolish(.6229), futile(.6104), selfish(.5340), vainly(.5242), fruitless(.5133), thy(.4981), arrogant(.4976), useless(.4844), righteous(.4833), thou(.4830)
+SelfExtrofutil(.6273), foolish(.6079), vainly(.5454), fruitless(.5338), selfish(.5143), useless(.5044), pointless(.4910), hopeless(.4846), attempt(.4797), presumptuous(.4780)
prioritizeVanillaprioritise(.8064), prioritizing(.7426), priorities(.6323), prioritising(.5995), evaluate(.5950), strategize(.5933), proactively(.5862), analyze(.5800), assess(.5764), identify(.5633)
+SelfExtroprioritise(.8322), prioritizing(.7415), priorities(.6390), prioritising(.6225), proactively(.6075), strategize(.5990), evaluate(.5946), analyze(.5919), prioritized(.5880), manage(.5783)
nomadVanillanomads(.4911), drifter(.4735), nomadic(.4574), vagabond(.4233), zen(.4161), muvo2(.4054), gypsy(.4054), jukebox(.3997), vulcan(.3906), adventurer(.3869)
+SelfExtronomads(.5254), drifter(.4916), nomadic(.4841), muvo2(.4631), vagabond(.4422), traveler(.4246), traveller(.4216), zen(.4150), jukebox(.4110), wanderer(.4073)
junctionVanillajunctions(.5729), near(.4985), road(.4936), intersection(.4923), creek(.4911), highway(.4878), exit(.4853), bridge(.4811), rd(.4779), jct(.4772)
+SelfExtrojunctions(.5822), jct(.5099), highway(.4787), motorway(.4781), road(.4744), exit(.4738).hwy(.4710), rd(.4667), intersection(.4628), heafford(.4596)
mossVanillapeat(.5360), brady(.5090), reed(.4998), brown(.4963), fern(.4945), green(.4920), woods(.4872), pine(.4856), jones(.4840), campbell(.4824),
+SelfExtrolichen(.5628), sphagnum(.5463), spagnum(.5457), peat(.5323), lichens(.5264), mosses(.5224), fern(.4934), welker(.4852), pine(.4846), ferns(.4805),
+ +Table 12: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of random words. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/images.zip b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3e1263bf83e733ce289c07dffa0b9983aa35d4e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8515a7dd04dda8f19618d0739dde5f916b513a21d0d110cd3e2f8bab1f2a82a3 +size 1149078 diff --git a/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/layout.json b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9cb5ec3a01f54361fb096653c8ae8f3730cc3ea --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7140 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 75, + 525, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 75, + 525, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 75, + 525, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Self-supervised Post-processing Method to Enrich Pretrained Word Vectors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 121, + 328, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 121, + 328, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 268, + 121, + 328, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hwiyeol Jo" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 135, + 347, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 135, + 347, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 135, + 347, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NAVER, Search US" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 148, + 356, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 148, + 356, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 148, + 356, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "hwiyeolj@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retrofitting techniques, which inject external resources into word representations, have compensated for the weakness of distributed representations in semantic and relational knowledge between words. However, the previous methods require additional external resources and strongly depend on the lexicon. To address the issues, we propose a simple extension of extrofitting, self-supervised extrofitting: extrofitting by its own word vector distribution. Our methods improve the vanilla embeddings on all of word similarity tasks without any external resources. Moreover, the method is also effective in various languages, which implies that our method will be useful in lexicon-scarce languages. As downstream tasks, we show its benefits in dialogue state tracking and text classification tasks, reporting better and generalized results compared to other word vector specialization methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 487, + 155, + 500 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 487, + 155, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 487, + 155, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Static word vectors are still widely used in natural language tasks despite the recent trends of contextualized models. For example, in a wide study of Dialogue State Tracking (DST) (Feng et al., 2021), contextualized models performed worse than static word embeddings. It seems reasonable that the contextualized models do not perform well in such a lack of context, which implies that static embeddings are still useful." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make better word vectors, we focus on retrofitting ideas (also called word vector post-processing), which injects the semantic information from external resources by modifying the values of pretrained word vectors (Faruqui et al. (2015); Mrksić et al. (2016a); inter alia). The benefits of post-processing methods are that (1) the methods can reflect additional resources into the word vectors without re-training, (2) the methods can be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "applied to any kinds of pretrained word vectors, and (3) retrofitting can make word vectors specialize in a specific task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 256, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The previous studies focusing on explicit retrofitting have used manually defined or learned functions to make synonyms close and antonyms distant (see the details in §4). As a result, their approaches strongly rely on external resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 527, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 527, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 527, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, we agree that making synonyms close together is somewhat reasonable, even though the synonyms have different nuances in some contexts. However, other kinds of relations, such as antonyms, should be further investigated. For instance, love and hate are generally grouped as antonyms. Most of the previous studies have made the words distant from each other, but the words definitely share the meaning of emotion in their representations. We thus conjecture that the methods are not generalized well." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 526, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 526, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 526, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose word vector enrichment based on extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 509, + 527, + 698 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 509, + 527, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 509, + 527, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 509, + 527, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Self-supervised extrofitting that extends extrofitting for enriching word vectors without using external semantic lexicons. This method can resolve a limitation of post-processing approaches, which requires well-defined semantic lexicons. We highlight its usefulness in (relatively) lexicon-scarce languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 604, + 527, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 604, + 527, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 604, + 527, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We report the effects of word vector post-processing on several downstream tasks to show the generalization of the word vectors. Our methods consistently improve model performances in the fundamental tasks. In contrast, other post-processing methods degrade the performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 718, + 387, + 732 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 718, + 387, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 718, + 387, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Preliminary" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Extrofitting Extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018) expands word embedding matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by concatenating" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 262, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 262, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 760, + 262, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1http://github.com/hwiyeoljo/SELFExtro" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "747" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 747-757" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 119, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 119, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 119, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 119, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 119, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 119, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 96, + 140, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 96, + 140, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 96, + 140, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Expand(W, c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 113, + 274, + 142 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 113, + 274, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 113, + 274, + 142 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "= W \\oplus r _ {w} \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{c l} \\operatorname {m e a n} _ {w \\in c} (\\mu_ {w}) & \\text {i f} w \\in \\mathbf {L} \\\\ \\mu_ {w} & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.", + "image_path": "a465238145891e529a944fd29fdc21c555c91eae6a56f274a4492550afee4885.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the mean value of elements in word vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". L denotes semantic lexicons, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 149, + 290, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the same class (synonym pairs). In other words, Expand makes an additional dimension per the word vector, and fill it with the same value if the pairs are synonym." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 289, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 289, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 289, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, Trans calculates transform matrix given the matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 289, + 256 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 289, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 130, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 130, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 269, + 130, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Trans(W, c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 285, + 279, + 316 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 285, + 279, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 285, + 279, + 316 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "= \\operatorname {a r g m a x} _ {U} \\frac {\\left| U ^ {T} \\sum_ {c} (\\mu_ {c} - \\mu) (\\mu_ {c} - \\mu) ^ {T} U \\right|}{\\left| U ^ {T} \\sum_ {c} \\sum_ {i} (x _ {i} - \\mu_ {c}) (x _ {i} - \\mu_ {c}) ^ {T} U \\right|}", + "image_path": "eb2d779ea976ff59934dfa914e9ea957e5307b98659f6f906d955a7bcc7cf31f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a word vector, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a class. The overall average of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the class average in class " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This formula finds a transform matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which minimizes the variance within the same class and maximizes the variance between different classes. Each class is defined as the index of synonym pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 416, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 416, + 290, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 416, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the end, Extrofitting is formulated as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 130, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 130, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 441, + 130, + 454 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname{Extro}(W, c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 458, + 279, + 473 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 458, + 279, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 458, + 279, + 473 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "= \\operatorname {T r a n s} (\\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c), c) ^ {T} \\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c)", + "image_path": "b956d1aaa864722a95007af92d2857be3d42573b42423daa25706fd2ab2b3cb1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) LSA (Landauer and Dumais, 1997) has been used to extract the relation of data through latent variables. LSA is based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), which decomposes a matrix as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 556, + 207, + 571 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 556, + 207, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 556, + 207, + 571 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A = U S V ^ {T},", + "image_path": "45dee46e5f0a82aa66670af1680bde60e67b8b33671903c003d9e35836cfb6a1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a diagonal matrix with singular values, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the orthogonal eigenvectors. We can select top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " singular values to represent matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dimensional latent space. Then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are re-defined as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_k \\in \\mathcal{R}^{N \\times k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_k^T \\in \\mathcal{R}^{k \\times N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively, with diagonal matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_k \\in \\mathcal{R}^{k \\times k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". When we use LSA for topic modeling, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as a term-document matrix. Then, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_k S_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_k V_k^T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are considered as term vectors and document vectors in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 580, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dimensional latent space, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 230, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 230, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 230, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Self-supervised Extrofitting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider the word embedding matrix as the term-document matrix; The x-axis of the matrix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is vocabulary and the y-axis is (unknown) semantic dimension. Thus, as researchers have used the decomposition of the term-document matrix to get the term-vectors in LSA, the decomposition of the term-semantic matrix can be considered to represent term-vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(US)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and semantic-vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(SV^T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This intuition corresponds to the traditional methods in vector embedding, verified in Levy and Goldberg (2014); Allen et al. (2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 525, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With the idea, we first decompose word embeddings matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "W" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to make latent representations as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 232, + 447, + 248 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 232, + 447, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 380, + 232, + 447, + 248 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "W _ {k} = U _ {k} S _ {k} V _ {k} ^ {T}", + "image_path": "ce14aa945f6716a0d4bc7ab70e341be673e96a1d53abf253ced8fabdc6692d3e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As described above, we can get term-vectors, which are word representations in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dimensional latent space, by computing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_{k}S_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Adjusting the dimension of latent space (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in §2), we calculate semantically related words using cosine similarity. For every word, we calculate its cosine similarity to all other words in the vocabulary. If the similarity exceeds a predetermined threshold, we group the words. Note that a group can contain only a single word. This process is repeated iteratively for each ungrouped word until all words are clustered." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the set of semantically related words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(c^{\\prime})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the class (synonym pairs, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") of extrofitting instead of semantic lexicons:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 449, + 389, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 449, + 389, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 449, + 389, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SelfExtro(W, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 449, + 389, + 462 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 449, + 389, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 465, + 515, + 481 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 465, + 515, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 465, + 515, + 481 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "= \\operatorname {T r a n s} (\\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\\prime}), c ^ {\\prime}) ^ {T} \\operatorname {E x p a n d} (W, c ^ {\\prime})", + "image_path": "35839488e117fc3a5b2c3ef74f751c1cf6f1f9f6122c0b244d1d184a87193f91.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sum up, we use the principle of vanilla extrofitting (Jo and Choi, 2018), which utilizes LDA algorithms to group in-domain instances (in this case, word vectors). Simultaneously, the algorithm pushes out-domain instances apart. Instead of using pre-defined lexicons for extrofitting, we use the idea of LSA to get semantically related words. Even if the number of extracted word pairs are small or the words are not meaningful, the process of making out-domain instances far can make better representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 636, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 636, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 636, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the experiments, we start with pretrained GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) (if we do not mention it explicitly) and set a threshold that determines whether a pair of words are semantically related. We use a high threshold (0.9 of cosine similarity) since type II error is rather better than type I error." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 400, + 738 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 400, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 400, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Related Works" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The first successful post-processing approach was Retrofitting (Faruqui et al., 2015), which modi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "748" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 510, + 159 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 510, + 159 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 510, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 510, + 159 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
GloVe (glove.42B)fastText (wiki-news)
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSVW(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
Raw.70.57.39.74.57.37.22.82.62.51.80.64.44.35
SelfExtro, k=100.80.73.50.84.66.51.39.81.70.56.82.66.50.41
SelfExtro, k=200.79.72.49.84.66.51.39.81.70.57.82.65.51.42
SelfExtro, k=300.78.69.48.84.64.50.37.81.71.57.83.64.51.42
+WordNet(=Extro).80.74.49.83.66.49.36.78.67.51.80.63.50.40
vecmap.67.53.31.72.52.35.20.81.62.49.80.59.44.34
", + "image_path": "09c8bdf6d64b2c76bcbc48339a5d7940927fc5171e9cac2343153cade9624318.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the dimension of latent space that is used to extract semantically related words (see §3). Ablation studies in threshold are presented in Appendix A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 225, + 292, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 225, + 292, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 225, + 292, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fied word vectors by weighted averaging the word vectors with semantic lexicons. Extending from the simple idea, Counter-fitting (Mrkšić et al., 2016a) used both synonym pairs to collect word vectors and antonym pairs to make word vectors the gene from one another. Next, Paragram embeddings (Wieting et al., 2015) used synonyms and negative sampling to collect the word vectors. Borrowing attract-terms from the Paragram embeddings and adding repel-terms, Attract-Repel (Mrkšić et al., 2017) injected linguistic constraints into word vectors through predefined cost function with mono-/cross-lingual linguistic constraints. Explicit Retrofitting (ER-CNT) (Glavaš and Vulić, 2018) directly learned mapping functions of linguistic constraints with deep neural network architectures. They then used the functions to retrofit the word vectors. Post-Specialization (Vulić et al., 2018; Ponti et al., 2018) resolved the problem of the previous models that only updates words in external lexicons. Some works have used cross-lingual resources to get further semantic information (Vulić et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 290, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While the previous methods utilized text-level resources, vecmap (Artetxe et al., 2018) used other word embeddings as external resources. For fair comparisons, we input the same word vectors for source and target embeddings of the method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 290, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 290, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 290, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, BERT-based model LexFit (Vulić et al., 2021) was derived, but the method requires external resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 282, + 683 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 282, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 668, + 282, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiment 1: Word Similarity Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Settings. Word similarity datasets consist of word pairs with human-rated similarity scores between the words and models calculate Spearman's correlation (Daniel, 1990) between the similarity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scores and the cosine similarity of the word vector pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use 6 datasets in English: WordSim353 (W(s) for similarity and W(r) for relation) (Finkelstein et al., 2001), RareWord (RW) (Luong et al., 2013), MEN-3k (ME) (Bruni et al., 2014), SemEval (SE) (Camacho-Collados et al., 2017), SimLex999 (SL) (Hill et al., 2015), and SimVerb-3500 (SV) (Gerz et al., 2016)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. In Table 1, self-supervised extrofitting (SelfExtro) improves the performance on all the word similarity datasets when compared with the popular pretrained word vectors, GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) and fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The result implies the pretrained word vectors can be enriched by our method, which means it does not require any semantic lexicons to make better embeddings. In addition, SelfExtro shows better performances with the original extrofitting (+WordNet) on most of the evaluations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also investigate the extracted semantic information (see Appendix A.2). The extracted information hardly seems synonyms, but we can see that some similar words are grouped. As extrofitting affects all the word vectors, every word can benefit from the other words being enriched. In other words, although the number of extracted information is small, this simple extension makes extrofitting fully utilize its advantages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 632, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 632, + 525, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 632, + 525, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative examples of self-supervised extrofitting are presented in Table 2. Although the representations lose similarity scores, the similar words become diverse and reasonable. Additional qualitative examples are shown in Appendix A.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed SelfExtro is also potentially useful when semantic lexicon resources are scarce, such as in many non-English languages. In Ta" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We selected unsupervised version of vecmap because it performs better than identical version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "word2vec could also be considered as a base model, but it takes too much time due to its large vocabulary size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "749" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 514, + 249 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 514, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 514, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 514, + 249 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
loveVanillaloved(.7745), i(.7338), loves(.7311), know(.7286), loving(.7263), really(.7196), always(.7193), want(.7192), hope(.7127), think(.7110)
+SelfExtroloved(.7152), loving(.6734), loves(.6489), adore(.6348), passion(.6333), luv(.6326), hope(.6256), i(.6250), want(.6209), hate(.6181)
hateVanilladont(.7318), stupid(.7193), hates(.7190), think(.7063), why(.6943), love(.6928), hating(.6927), hated(.6861), shit(.6847), know(.6825)
+SelfExtrohating(.6707), hatred(.6650), dont(.6580), hates(.6529), dislike(.6447), despise(.6309), hated(.6306), stupid(.6266), think(.6249), love(.6181)
foreverVanillaalive(.6478), gone(.6450), love(.6381), never(.6267), again(.6249), yours(.6238), life(.6171), alone(.6153), anymore(.6129), always(.6093)
+SelfExtroeternally(.6297), alive(.5814), yours(.5717), life(.5532), anymore(.5524), eternity(.5488), eternal(.5474), gone(.5447), permanently(.5446), again(.5414)
lifeVanillalives(.8053), living(.7134), things(.6869), way(.6852), mind(.6844), what(.6779), much(.6723), love(.6719), because(.6716), work(.6706)
+SelfExtrolives(.7801), living(.6538), journey(.6048), everyday(.6038), mind(.5922), things(.5920), lifetime(.5892), happiness(.5749), love(.5743), way(.5728)
", + "image_path": "7d94db288d64f73496e10294e89c2e405ebd354f8f41806594c22b6f87a88a12.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 371 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 258, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of words–love, hate, forever, and life. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CZIT(s/r)RU(s/r)GE(s/r)
fastText.240.377.188.428.275.335.169
k=100.450.453.370.525.411.425.261
k=200.443.444.359.545.426.431.261
k=300.451.456.359.539.426.449.271
", + "image_path": "e9ff86d3321beae308d71fe75359a4f65ac23b0e0730191c2e6b1795f60cc5a4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 292, + 511 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on WordSim datasets in 4 languages: Czech (CZ), Italian (IT), Russian (RU), and German (GE). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes extracted semantic information from fastText in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -dimensional latent space." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 292, + 511 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 292, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 292, + 511 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CYETFIFRHEPLRUES
fT.187.213.455.314.371.283.305.385
k=100.201.223.475.340.400.306.334.425
k=200.209.215.463.339.399.299.306.423
k=300.214.219.464.338.402.305.308.421
", + "image_path": "e3af5feb4172c6f4939e542d1d00ddaa0c671d07d361c6fe386cd4455c3456fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 602, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ble 3 and Table 4, we use pretrained fastText for WordSim datasets in 4 languages and MultiSimLex (Vulic et al., 2020) in 8 languages, respectively. SelfExtro significantly increases the performance in all the languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 290, + 697 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 290, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 290, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Experiment 2: Dialogue State Tracking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Settings. Previous works (Mrkusic et al., 2016a, 2017; Vulic et al., 2019) showed that word vector post-processing is useful for dialogue state tracking (DST) (Young et al., 2010). Using Neural Belief Tracker (NBT) (Mrkusic et al., 2016b), they have" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 523, + 420 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 579 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitting on Multi-SimLex datasets in 8 languages: Welsh (CY), Estonian (ET), Finnish (FI), French (FR), Hebrew (HE), Polish (PL), Russian (RU), and Spanish (ES). Other languages cannot be found in fastText." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 523, + 420 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 523, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 523, + 420 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model(Resource)JGA with WordNetJGA with A-R Lexicon
GloVe.798(.03)
Retrofitting(Syn).792(.03).793(.01)
Paragraph(Syn).670(.05).657(.03)
Extro(Syn).821(.03).820(.01)
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant).625(.01).630(.03)
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant).671(.04).675(.03)
vecmap(-).772(.01)
SelfExtro(-).825(.02)
", + "image_path": "37e6469114e9b6bdbcb324cc94ea39aa087116aef87378c5613a89a91098d2e3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 488 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 525, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Joint goal accuracy and its standard deviation in WOZ 2.0 datasets. Despite the fact that we used the original Github code and data, the result is different from their report. Furthermore, our settings show different trends from what they reported." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "claimed that the performance on the task is related to word vector specialization in that the model has to identify the flow of dialogue with only a few words, which seems reasonable. Thus, we use the NBT4 and check the model performances with our post-processed embeddings. Refer to the papers cited above for the details of DST." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 612, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. Table 5 shows the performance of DST in Wizard-of-Oz 2.0 dataset (Wen et al., 2017). The results show that the semantic specialization (e.g., Attract-Repel) does not increase the performance. In contrast, Extro and SelfExtro show better performance than vanilla GloVe." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 693, + 525, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 693, + 525, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 693, + 525, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We additionally experiment with the lexicons (both synonyms and antonyms) included in the Github of Attract-Repel5. It shows only a little" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 511, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 511, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 511, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://github.com/nmrksic/ neural-belief-tracker 5https://github.com/nmrksic/attract-repel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "750" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 290 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.31±0.1271.97±0.7649.35±0.5161.55±0.3590.66±0.7987.47±1.93
Retrofit(Syn)81.92±5.1144.72±2.7722.31±0.6348.87±0.4082.04±1.4963.40±3.53
Paragram(Syn)86.88±0.3662.37±0.3640.25±0.1950.04±0.2080.16±0.1474.77±0.43
Extro(Syn)98.52±0.0572.94±0.1050.01±0.3962.70±0.0691.36±0.2989.40±0.20
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)73.26±1.2959.70±0.1937.80±0.0847.97±0.4576.47±1.4566.54±0.48
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)87.52±0.1262.51±0.4139.75±1.1550.08±0.2979.80±0.9374.71±0.37
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)76.78±0.7959.45±0.1537.16±0.3549.16±0.6476.06±0.6266.11±0.79
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.44±0.0572.41±0.2649.79±0.3762.97±0.1890.93±0.1189.36±0.41
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.61±0.0573.45±0.7049.30±0.6163.01±0.4291.54±0.4588.82±0.55
Retrofit(Syn)98.16±0.0567.15±1.7343.14±1.3161.74±0.3389.21±1.6182.77±1.27
Paragram(Syn)98.14±0.0466.32±0.2742.85±0.4361.96±0.2289.91±0.1983.14±1.15
Extro(Syn)98.61±0.0673.50±0.1950.43±0.3063.22±0.1991.78±0.2989.74±0.28
Counter-fit(Syn+Ant)98.07±0.1063.74±0.5340.83±0.2061.89±0.1790.09±1.2383.78±1.84
Att-Repel(Syn+Ant)98.11±0.0766.05±0.4242.68±0.4361.80±0.2190.05±0.1883.74±1.30
PostSpec(Syn+Ant)98.10±0.0563.88±0.3640.49±0.5161.84±0.1390.48±0.3884.54±0.38
vecmap(-)98.01±0.2768.99±0.6844.57±1.1462.22±0.2589.87±0.8883.80±1.33
SelfExtro(-)98.58±0.0273.02±0.1550.05±0.2363.25±0.2591.61±0.0889.98±0.26
", + "image_path": "330d90d9c2fb698547b4e13d12962e9c72c0a12c2f19b78753679dfd5103d78f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 525, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: 10 times average accuracy initialized with the post-processed word vectors. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 290, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance gain; we thus guess that the difference in DST performance comes from lexical resources or fine-tuning of NBT rather than specialization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 396, + 260, + 411 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 396, + 260, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 396, + 260, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Experiment 3: Text Classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 290, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Settings. We experiment with our methods in 2 different settings: fixed word vectors and trainable word vectors. When the word vectors are fixed, we can evaluate the usefulness of the word vectors per se. When the word vectors are trainable, we can see the improvement of the model performance in a conventional training setting. The dataset and classifier are described in Appendix A.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Results. We report the performances in Table 6. The classifier initialized with SelfExtro outperforms the vanilla GloVe and performs on par with the original extrofitting. On the other hand, although the previous word vector post-processing methods specialize well on a domain-specific task, the approaches failed to be generalized; they show large performance deterioration despite the added general semantic information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 143, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 143, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 143, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The specialized word vectors do not warrant better performance. We conjecture that the methods trade off catastrophic forgetting against semantic specialization even though the previous methods successfully specialize their vectors into given lexicons, losing the pretrained information encoded in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 526, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the original GloVe. It affects the performance of the fundamental tasks, which are largely degraded. On the other hand, our method enriches the word vector in general, resulting in marginal but certain improvements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 527, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 527, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 527, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contextual representations provide substantial improvements in NLP tasks, but the representations lack semantic information due to their nature. Since the context and the semantics are different types of information that can enrich representations, we believe our approaches might further improve the contextual representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 381, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 381, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 381, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 543, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We develop a self-supervised retrofitting model that enriches word vectors without semantic lexicons. The method utilizes its own distribution of word vectors to get better representations. In the Exp. 1, we show that our method can improve the performance on word similarity tasks and present qualitative examples. It can be applied to other pretrained word vectors, resulting in better performances on all the word similarity datasets. SelfExtro also has potential advantages in lexicon-scarce languages. In the Exp. 2 and 3, we presented the effect of post-processing methods on downstream tasks. Our method shows marginal but certain improvements, while other post-processed word vectors largely degrade the performances, which seems the result of losing generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "751" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 155, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 155, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 155, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 292, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 292, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 94, + 292, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Usefulness compared with contextual embeddings Contextual embeddings are recently dominant in NLP tasks, whereas static word embeddings have become less frequently used. However, it does not mean static word embeddings are not useful. Although we can assume that the amount of pretraining dataset and training resources are similar, the cost of inference is much cheaper at static word embeddings. Furthermore, static word embeddings perform better when a task lacks enough context (e.g., word similarity tasks). It will be interesting future work to retrofit contextual embeddings, but it is out of scope in this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The use of antonyms Although we believe that there are no definitely opposite meanings of the word (e.g., love and hate share the sense of emotion), previous works (see §4) that utilize antonyms showed significant improvement in word similarity tasks. However, compared to the methods, self-supervised extrofitting explicitly considers synonyms only, but implicitly expects antonyms to be distant while maximizing the variances of in-class/out-of-class word vectors. Also, the process of self-supervised extrofitting makes it hard to incorporate other kinds of word relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The method is only a simple linear projection. Both extrofitting and self-supervised extrofitting use linear projections in enriching vectors, following a traditional NLP method. The linear model might not be the best to reflect word relations in vector spaces, but we believe that it is a simple yet effective method, as we still calculate lots of things (e.g., distance) in a linear way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 572, + 166, + 586 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 572, + 166, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 572, + 166, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 292, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 292, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 292, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The author would like to thank all the reviewers in several rounds of submission, a total of 5 years. Lastly, I am grateful to Alice Lee for her help in qualitative analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 127, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 127, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 127, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Carl Allen, Ivana Balazevic, and Timothy Hospedales. 2019. What the vec? towards probabilistically grounded embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 7465-7475." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Gorka Labaka, and Eneko Agirre. 2018. A robust self-learning method for fully unsupervised" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cross-lingual mappings of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 789-798." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Enriching word vectors with subword information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.04606." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elia Bruni, N Tram, Marco Baroni, et al. 2014. Multimodal distributional semantics. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49:1-47." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, Nigel Collier, and Roberto Navigli. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 2: Multilingual and cross-lingual semantic word similarity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017), pages 15-26." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 526, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Eneko Agirre, Inigo Lopez-Gazpio, and Lucia Specia. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00055." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 526, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ming-Wei Chang, Lev-Arie Ratinov, Dan Roth, and Vivek Srikumar. 2008. Importance of semantic representation: Dataless classification. In AAAI, volume 2, pages 830-835." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wayne W Daniel. 1990. Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Applied nonparametric statistics, pages 358-365." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 526, + 544 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 526, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 526, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Manaal Faruqui, Jesse Dodge, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Chris Dyer, Eduard Hovy, and Noah A Smith. 2015. Retrofitting word vectors to semantic lexicons. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1606-1615." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 553, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yue Feng, Yang Wang, and Hang Li. 2021. A sequence-to-sequence approach to dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1714-1725." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lev Finkelstein, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yossi Matias, Ehud Rivlin, Zach Solan, Gadi Wolfman, and Eytan Ruppin. 2001. Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 406-414. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniela Gerz, Ivan Vulić, Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Simverb-3500: A large-scale evaluation set of verb similarity. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2173-2182." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "752" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Goran Glavaš and Ivan Vulić. 2018. Explicit retrofitting of distributional word vectors. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, pages 34-45." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 289, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard HR Hahnloser, Rahul Sarpeshkar, Misha A Mahowald, Rodney J Douglas, and H Sebastian Seung. 2000. Digital selection and analogue amplification coexist in a cortex-inspired silicon circuit. Nature, 405(6789):947." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 289, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 289, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 289, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Hill, Roi Reichart, and Anna Korhonen. 2015. Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4):665-695." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 255, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 255, + 289, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 255, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hwiyeol Jo and Stanley Jungkyu Choi. 2018. Extrofitting: Enriching word representation and its vector space with semantic lexicons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07946." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 289, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 308, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aishwarya Kamath, Jonas Pfeiffer, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Goran Glavaš, and Ivan Vulić. 2019. Specializing distributional vectors of all words for lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2019), pages 72-83." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 384, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 289, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 289, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 289, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 289, + 524 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 289, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 289, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas K Landauer and Susan T Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2):211." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 534, + 289, + 600 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 534, + 289, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 534, + 289, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick Van Kleef, Soren Auer, et al. 2015. Dbpedia-a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic Web, 6(2):167-195." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Dependency-based word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 302-308." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 289, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minh-Thang Luong, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2013. Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 104-113." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew L Maas, Raymond E Daly, Peter T Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies-volume 1, pages 142-150. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 524, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 524, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 126, + 524, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39-41." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 524, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 524, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 524, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016a. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00892." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikola Mrksic, Diarmuid O Seaghdha, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Blaise Thomson, and Steve Young. 2016b. Neural belief tracker: Data-driven dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03777." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 524, + 352 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 524, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 524, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikola Mrkšić, Ivan Vulić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Ira Leviant, Roi Reichart, Milica Gašić, Anna Korhonen, and Steve Young. 2017. Semantic specialization of distributional word vector spaces using monolingual and cross-lingual constraints. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:309-324." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 524, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 524, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 524, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roberto Navigli and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2012. Babelnet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence, 193:217-250." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 524, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 524, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 416, + 524, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 524, + 546 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 524, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 524, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edoardo Maria Ponti, Roi Reichart, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulic. 2018. Isomorphic transfer of syntactic structures in cross-lingual nlp. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1531-1542." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 524, + 621 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 524, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 524, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Vulic, Simon Baker, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Ulla Petti, Ira Leviant, Kelly Wing, Olga Majewska, Eden Bar, Matt Malone, Thierry Poibeanu, et al. 2020. Multi-simlex: A large-scale evaluation of multilingual and crosslingual lexical semantic similarity. Computational Linguistics, 46(4):847-897." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 524, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 524, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 524, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Vulic, Goran Glavaš, Nikola Mrkšić, and Anna Korhonen. 2018. Post-specialisation: Retrofitting vectors of words unseen in lexical resources. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 516-527." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Vulic, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. LexFit: Lexical fine-tuning of pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "753" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5269-5283, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Vulić, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Goran Glavaš. 2019. Multilingual and cross-lingual graded lexical entailment. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4963-4974." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 291, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrkšić, Milica Gasic, Lina M Rojas Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. A network-based end-to-end trainable task-oriented dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 438-449." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 290, + 318 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 290, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 290, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, Karen Livescu, and Dan Roth. 2015. From paraphrase database to compositional paraphrase model and back. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:345-358." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 291, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Steve Young, Milica Gašić, Simon Keizer, François Mairesse, Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, and Kai Yu. 2010. The hidden information state model: A practical framework for pomdp-based spoken dialogue management. Computer Speech & Language, 24(2):150-174." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 291, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 649-657." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "754" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 142, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 170, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 170, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 170, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Data Resources" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 110, + 220, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 110, + 220, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 110, + 220, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.1 Pretrained word vectors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pretrained word vectors include words composed of n-dimensional float vectors. One of the major pretrained word vectors we used is GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) glove.42B.300d. Even though many word embedding algorithms and pretrained word vectors have been suggested, GloVe is still being used as a strong baseline on word similarity tasks (Cer et al., 2017; Camacho-Collados et al., 2017). We also use fastText (Bojanowski et al., 2016), and Paragraph (Wieting et al., 2015) as resources and baseline of self-supervised extrofitting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 189, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 189, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 189, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1.2 Semantic Lexicon" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As an external semantic lexicon, we use WordNet (Miller, 1995), which consists of approximately 150,000 words and 115,000 synsets pairs. We use Faruqui et al.'s WordNet all lexicon, comprised of synonyms, hypernyms, and hyponyms. Some recent works built their own or used large lexicons like BabelNet (Navigli and Ponzetto, 2012), but in order to observe the effect of post-processing algorithm rather than the power of lexicons, we use the (relatively) small lexicon." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For fair comparisons, we replace the previous works' lexicon with WordNet" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{all}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " lexicon. If the models require antonyms, we use the antonyms pairs, which are uploaded in their Github." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 497, + 242, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 497, + 242, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 497, + 242, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Example of Extracted Relation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 523, + 289, + 610 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 523, + 289, + 610 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 523, + 289, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 523, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ThresholdGrouped Words
≥ .90points225 points203 points166 points253···
17:20:18 09:22:30 10:22:49 07:33:04···
review10/15/2012 review3/31/2013
review11/30/2012 review12/18/2012···
≥ .99!!! !!
january february
range emailicon linkicon
", + "image_path": "22693cc2f8265398e403fa559d71b9d579b24c2119a72b18718198670d54d6f5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 290, + 653 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 290, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 618, + 290, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Examples of extracted related word groups. This results are extracted from 100 dimensional latent space in GloVe." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 677, + 248, + 689 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 677, + 248, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 677, + 248, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Further Details in Experiment 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. We use 5 classification datasets; DBpedia ontology (Lehmann et al., 2015), Yahoo!Answers (Chang et al., 2008)6, YelpRe" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://cogcomp.seas.upenn.edu/page/resource_view/89 Note that Chang et al. (2008) said the dataset has 20 top-level categories but actually it has 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "views (Zhang et al., 2015), AGNews, and IMDB (Maas et al., 2011). We utilize Yahoo! Answer dataset for 2 different tasks, which are classifying upper-level categories and classifying lower-level categories, respectively. We use all the words tokenized by space as inputs. The data information is described in Table 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 173, + 527, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 173, + 527, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 173, + 527, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Classifier. We build TextCNN (Kim, 2014) rather than use a classifier based on Bag-of-Words (BoW), as Faruqui et al. did, in order to process word sequences. The classifier consists of 2 convolutional layers with the channel size of 32 and 16, respectively. We adopt the multi-channel approach, implementing 4 different sizes of kernels-2, 3, 4, and 5. We concatenate them after every max-pooling layer. The learned kernels go through an activation function, ReLU (Hahnloser et al., 2000), and max-pooling. We set the dimension of word embedding to 300, optimizer to Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with learning rate 0.001, and use early-stopping if validation accuracy does not increase over 5 epochs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 465, + 397 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 465, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 385, + 465, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Ablation Study in Threshold" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 524, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 524, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 402, + 524, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When the latent dimension is 300, following the best performance:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 433, + 452 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 433, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 433, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Qualitative Examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The additional qualitative examples are presented in Table 12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 761, + 480, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 761, + 480, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 761, + 480, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "duplicated top-level categories because of errors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "755" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 104, + 483, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 104, + 483, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 104, + 483, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 104, + 483, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)AGNewsYelpIMDB
#Train560,000133,703133,703120,000650,00025,000
#Test70,00023,59523,5957,60050,00025,000
#Class1417280452
#Vocab626,717154,142154,14266,049198,62547,113
", + "image_path": "2502914a7208c43735132a816037cc7323655784a7b44cdee7913362330b72ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 182, + 281, + 411, + 350 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 524, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 524, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 524, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: The data information used in text classification. YahooAnswer dataset is used for 2 different tasks, which are to classify upper-level categories and to classify lower-level categories, respectively. The vocabulary size can be slightly different due to the predefined special tokens such as none and out-of-vocabulary" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 281, + 411, + 350 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 281, + 411, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 281, + 411, + 350 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Word Similarity Task
W(s)W(r)RWMESESLSV
GloVe.70.57.39.74.57.37.28
threshold= .95 .72.60.39.76.58.42.28
threshold= .90 .78.69.48.84.64.50.37
threshold= .50 .71.59.38.75.56.39.23
", + "image_path": "ea7d56677bed57b6019a7dbb6baa64392deba746a6d7e7da60ceea0f05201e95.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 447, + 374, + 503 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 524, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 524, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Spearman's correlation of self-supervised extrofitted pretrained word embeddings according to threshold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 447, + 374, + 503 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 447, + 374, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 447, + 374, + 503 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model(threshold)DST
GloVe.798
SelfExtro(threshold=.95).800
SelfExtro(threshold=.90).825
SelfExtro(threshold=.50).811
", + "image_path": "0eb74f8a2efd372ee02b5ac5c1097a9c1c8430c2013475d015d57dca015990f9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 512, + 714 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 512, + 402, + 524 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 512, + 402, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 512, + 402, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Joint goal accuracy according to threshold" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 512, + 714 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 512, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 600, + 512, + 714 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Freezed VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.3171.9749.3561.5590.6687.47
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.3571.6149.0761.0190.7887.23
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.4472.4149.7962.9790.9389.36
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.4972.7450.8062.1090.9488.33
Trainable VectorsDBpediaYahoo(Up)Yahoo(Low)YelpAGNewsIMDB
GloVe98.6173.4549.3063.0191.5488.82
SelfExtro(thr=.95)98.4272.0849.1761.8391.0386.80
SelfExtro(thr=.90)98.5873.0250.0563.2591.6189.98
SelfExtro(thr=.50)98.5873.3550.6662.6491.6788.64
", + "image_path": "3ca19756058b5faab380b6222f58a6cb7abe955a71930bf3add955e4d499154f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 722, + 420, + 735 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 722, + 420, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 722, + 420, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Text classification accuracy according to threshold" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "756" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 523, + 719 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 523, + 719 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 523, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 74, + 523, + 719 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Cue WordMethodTop-10 Nearest Words(Cosine Similarity Score)
sooVanillasooo(.8394), soooo(.7938), soooo(.7715), soooo(.7359), soooo(.6844), haha(.6574), hahah(.6320), damn(.6247), omg(.6244), hahaha(.6219)
+SelfExtrosooo(.8196), soooo(.7743), soooo(.7576), soooo(.7304), soooo(.6852), soooo(.6342), soooo(.6314), soooo(.6003) tooo(.5967), soooo(.00000000(.5869)
elaborateVanillaintricate(.7244), elaborately(.6238), extravagant(.6223), complicated(.6089), lavish(.5714), formal(.5643), sophisticated(.5639), detailed(.5623), ornate(.5619), simple(.5566)
+SelfExtrointricate(.7002), elaborately(.6329), extravagant(.6109), complicated(.5651), ornate(.5586), lavish(.5533), grandiose(.5452), formal(.5326), detailed(.5235), fanciful(.5225)
gratitudeVanillathankfulness(.7113), generosity(.6967), kindness(.6917), appreciation(.6860) compassion(.6695), admiration(.6672), grateful(.6420), thankful(.6385), heartfelt(.6368), sympathy(.6211)
+SelfExtrothankfulness(.7648), generosity(.7001), kindness(.6975), appreciation(.6934), admiration(.6830), compassion(.6738), gratefulness(.6444), reverence(.6361), thankful(.6313), sympathy(.6304)
jubilateVanillaexultate(.5262), deum(.4763), exultate(.4545), motet(.4054), excelsis(.3777), deo(.3721), cantata(.3651), alleluia(.3625), stabat(.3558), laudamus(.3485)
+SelfExtroexultate(.5111), exultate(.4449), deum(.4269), motet(.4093), deo(.3703), choir(.3670), excelsis(.3626), mozart(.3594), stabat(.3591), cantata(.3532)
elatedVanillaoverjoyed(.7712), ecstatic(.7045), thrilled(.6576), exhilarated(.6533), gratified(.6431), enthused(.6214), saddened(.6075), flabbergasted(.6060), disheartened(.5989), giddy(.5984)
+SelfExtrooverjoyed(.8018), ecstatic(.7424), thrilled(.7320), excited(.6894), exhilarated(.6758), delighted(.6733), gratified(.6690), relieved(.6569), enthused(.6564), dismayed(.6342)
mono-saccharideVanilladisaccharide(.6470), monosaccharides(.5152), oligosaccharide(.4911), galactose(.4686), 5-carbon(.4609), n-acetylgucosamine(.4282), saccharide(.4223), sucrose(.4215), mannose(.4196), disaccharides(.4107)
+SelfExtrodisaccharide(.6329), monosaccharides(.4888), oligosaccharide(.4844), 5-carbon(.4617), galactose(.4414), n-acetylgucosamine(.4227), sucrose(.4206), disaccharides(.4050), carbohydrate(.4045), moieties(.4033)
outlookVanillaexcel(.5686), recovery(.5457), export(.5368), forecast(.5229), forecasts(.5060), contacts(.5025), powerpoint(.5025), exchange(.5011), microsoft(.4944), import(.4816)
+SelfExtroexcel(.5145), mapssevere(.5054), icalandargoogle(.4955), export(.4883), contacts(.4877), recovery(.4753), advisorieshourly(.4673), mailbox(.4661), vcard(.4612), thunderbird(.4599)
vainVanillafoolish(.6229), futile(.6104), selfish(.5340), vainly(.5242), fruitless(.5133), thy(.4981), arrogant(.4976), useless(.4844), righteous(.4833), thou(.4830)
+SelfExtrofutil(.6273), foolish(.6079), vainly(.5454), fruitless(.5338), selfish(.5143), useless(.5044), pointless(.4910), hopeless(.4846), attempt(.4797), presumptuous(.4780)
prioritizeVanillaprioritise(.8064), prioritizing(.7426), priorities(.6323), prioritising(.5995), evaluate(.5950), strategize(.5933), proactively(.5862), analyze(.5800), assess(.5764), identify(.5633)
+SelfExtroprioritise(.8322), prioritizing(.7415), priorities(.6390), prioritising(.6225), proactively(.6075), strategize(.5990), evaluate(.5946), analyze(.5919), prioritized(.5880), manage(.5783)
nomadVanillanomads(.4911), drifter(.4735), nomadic(.4574), vagabond(.4233), zen(.4161), muvo2(.4054), gypsy(.4054), jukebox(.3997), vulcan(.3906), adventurer(.3869)
+SelfExtronomads(.5254), drifter(.4916), nomadic(.4841), muvo2(.4631), vagabond(.4422), traveler(.4246), traveller(.4216), zen(.4150), jukebox(.4110), wanderer(.4073)
junctionVanillajunctions(.5729), near(.4985), road(.4936), intersection(.4923), creek(.4911), highway(.4878), exit(.4853), bridge(.4811), rd(.4779), jct(.4772)
+SelfExtrojunctions(.5822), jct(.5099), highway(.4787), motorway(.4781), road(.4744), exit(.4738).hwy(.4710), rd(.4667), intersection(.4628), heafford(.4596)
mossVanillapeat(.5360), brady(.5090), reed(.4998), brown(.4963), fern(.4945), green(.4920), woods(.4872), pine(.4856), jones(.4840), campbell(.4824),
+SelfExtrolichen(.5628), sphagnum(.5463), spagnum(.5457), peat(.5323), lichens(.5264), mosses(.5224), fern(.4934), welker(.4852), pine(.4846), ferns(.4805),
", + "image_path": "99dd3cc2ab2821dd96abc128ffaea43197864de8a325032b58fcdc2babdcba22.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 526, + 765 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 526, + 765 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: List of top-10 nearest words of cue words in different post-processing methods. We report cosine similarity scores of random words. Underline and bold indicate the difference between the list from vanilla vectors and self-supervised extrofitted vectors, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "757" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_content_list.json b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83c6028c2f9ee28ce048f842624d28fec9c4f1cb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2919 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 129, + 87, + 867, + 109 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ben Eyal and Amir Bachar and Ophir Haroche", + "bbox": [ + 287, + 121, + 712, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moran Mahabi and Michael Elhadad", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 159, + 663, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dept of Computer Science", + "bbox": [ + 389, + 177, + 606, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ben Gurion University", + "bbox": [ + 405, + 193, + 591, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "BeerSheva,Israel", + "bbox": [ + 423, + 210, + 571, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text-to-SQL semantic parsing faces challenges in generalizing to cross-domain and complex queries. Recent research has employed a question decomposition strategy to enhance the parsing of complex SQL queries. However, this strategy encounters two major obstacles: (1) existing datasets lack question decomposition; (2) due to the syntactic complexity of SQL, most complex queries cannot be disentangled into sub-queries that can be readily recomposed.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 280, + 458, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these challenges, we propose a new modular Query Plan Language (QPL) that systematically decomposes SQL queries into simple and regular sub-queries. We develop a translator from SQL to QPL by leveraging analysis of SQL server query optimization plans, and we augment the Spider dataset with QPL programs. Experimental results demonstrate that the modular nature of QPL benefits existing semantic-parsing architectures, and training text-to-QPL parsers is more effective than text-to-SQL parsing for semantically equivalent queries.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 423, + 460, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The QPL approach offers two additional advantages: (1) QPL programs can be paraphrased as simple questions, which allows us to create a dataset of (complex question, decomposed questions). Training on this dataset, we obtain a Question Decomposer for data retrieval that is sensitive to database schemas. (2) QPL is more accessible to non-experts for complex queries, leading to more interpretable output from the semantic parser.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 593, + 460, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 747, + 258, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Querying and exploring complex relational data stores necessitate programming skills and domain-specific knowledge of the data. Text-to-SQL semantic parsing allows non-expert programmers to formulate questions in natural language, convert the questions into SQL, and inspect the execution results. While recent progress has been remarkable on this task, general cross-domain text-to-SQL models still face challenges on complex schemas", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and queries. State of the art text-to-SQL models show performance above $90\\%$ for easy queries, but fall to about $50\\%$ on complex ones (see Table 1). This accuracy drop is particularly bothersome for non-experts, because they also find it difficult to verify whether a complex SQL query corresponds to the intent behind the question they asked. In a user study we performed, we found that software engineers who are not experts in SQL fail to determine whether a complex SQL query corresponds to a question in about $66\\%$ of the cases (see Table 4). The risk of text-to-code models producing incorrect results with confidence is thus acute: complex SQL queries non-aligned with users intent will be hard to detect.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 493 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we address the challenge of dealing with complex data retrieval questions through a compositional approach. Based on the success of the question decomposition approach for multi-hop question answering, recent work in semantic parsing has also investigated ways to deal with complex SQL queries with a Question Decomposition (QD) strategy. In another direction, previous attempts have focused on splitting complex SQL queries into spans (e.g., aggregation operators, join criteria, column selection) and generating each span separately.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 884, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our approach, we start from a semantic analysis of the SQL query. We introduce a new intermediary language, which we call Query Plan Language (QPL) that is modular and decomposable. QPL can be directly executed on SQL databases through direct translation to modular SQL Common Table Expressions (CTEs). We design QPL to be both easier to learn with modern neural architectures than SQL and easier to interpret by non-experts. The overall approach is illustrated in Fig. 1. We develop an automatic translation method from SQL to QPL. On the basis of the modular QPL program, we also learn how to generate a natural language decomposition of the original question.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13629", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13629-13645 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 80, + 189, + 95 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "What is the official language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 108, + 771, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gold SQL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 152, + 200, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SELECT T2.Language", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 179, + 285, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "FROM country AS T1", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 196, + 282, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "JOIN countrylanguage AS T2 ON T1.Code = T2.CountryCode", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 212, + 631, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "WHERE T1.HeadOfState = 'Beatrix' AND T2.IsOfficial = 'T'", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 228, + 665, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gold QPL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 253, + 200, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 = Scan Table [country] Predicate [HeadOfState = 'Beatrix'] Output [Code, HeadOfState]", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 281, + 677, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#2 = Scan Table [countrylanguage] Output [CountryCode, Language, Officials]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 315, + 813, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#3 = Filter[#2] Predicate [IsOfficial = 'T'] Output [CountryCode, Language]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 331, + 813, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#4 = Join[#1,#3] Predicate[#3.CountryCode = #1.Code] Output[#3.Language]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 347, + 813, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Computed Question Decomposition (QD)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 374, + 442, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 = Scan the table country and retrieve the code and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 606, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "head of state of the country whose head of state is Beatrix", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 418, + 705, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\# 2 =$ Scan the table countrylanguage and retrieve the country codes, languages and if they're official", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 434, + 729, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#3 = Filter from #2 all the official languages and retrieve the country codes and languages", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 466, + 576, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#4 = Join #1 and #3 based on the matching country codes and retrieve the language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 498, + 759, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Predicted QDMR", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 539, + 257, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#1 = return countries whose head of state is beatrix ;", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 567, + 611, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#2 = return the official language spoken in the official language of #1", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 768, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: Example QPL and Question Decomposition compared to the original SQL query from Spider and to the predicted QDMR question decomposition from (Wolfson et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 618, + 882, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast to generic QD methods such as QDMR (Wolfson et al., 2020), our decomposition takes into account the database schema which is referenced by the question and the semantics of the QPL operations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 487, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous research in semantic parsing has shown that the choice of the target language impacts a model's ability to learn to parse text into an accurate semantic representation. For instance, Guo et al. (2020) compared the performance of various architectures on three question-answering datasets with targets converted to Prolog, Lambda Calculus, FunQL, and SQL. They discovered that the same architectures produce lower accuracy (up to a $10\\%$ difference) when generating SQL, indicating that", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQL is a challenging target language for neural models. The search for a target language that is easier to learn has been pursued in Text-to-SQL as well (Yu et al., 2018a; Guo et al., 2019; Gan et al., 2021). We can view QPL as another candidate intermediary language, which in contrast to previous attempts, does not rely on a syntactic analysis of the SQL queries but rather on a semantic transformation into a simpler, more regular query language.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the rest of the paper, we review recent work in text-to-SQL models that investigates intermediary representations and question decomposition. We then present the Query Plan Language (QPL) we have designed and the conversion procedure", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13630", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "we have implemented to translate the existing large-scale Spider dataset into QPL. We then describe how we exploit the semantic transformation of SQL to QPL to derive a dataset of schemadependent Question Decompositions. We finally present strategies that exploit the compositional nature of QPL to train models capable of predicting complex QPL query plans from natural language questions, and to decompose questions into data-retrieval oriented decompositions.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 492, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We investigate two main research questions: (RQ1) Is it easier to learn Text-to-QPL - a modular, decomposable query language - than to learn Text-to-SQL using Language Model based architectures; (RQ2) Can non-expert users interpret QPL outputs in an easier manner than they can for complex SQL queries.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 246, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our main contributions are (1) the definition of the QPL language together with automatic translation from SQL to QPL and execution of QPL on standard SQL servers; (2) the construction of the Spider-QPL dataset which enriches the Spider samples with validated QPL programs for Spider's dataset together with Question Decompositions based on the QPL structure; (3) Text-to-QPL models to predict QPL from a (Schema + Question) input that are competitive with state of the art Text-to-SQL models and perform better on complex queries; (4) a user experiment validating that non-expert users can detect incorrect complex queries better on QPL than on SQL.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 359, + 489, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Previous Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 278, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text-to-SQL parsing consists of mapping a question $Q = (x_{1},\\ldots ,x_{n})$ and a database schema $S = [table_{1}(col_{1}^{1}\\dots col_{c_{1}}^{1}),\\dots ,table_{T}(col_{1}^{T}\\dots col_{c_{T}}^{T})]$ into a valid SQL query $Y = (y_{1},\\dots ,y_{q})$ . Performance metrics include exact match (where the predicted query is compared to the expected one according to the overall SQL structure and within each field token by token) and execution match (where the predicted query is executed on a database and results are compared).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 624, + 489, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Several large Text-to-SQL datasets have been created, some with single schema (Wang et al., 2020b), some with simple queries (Zhong et al., 2017). Notably, the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018b) encompasses over 200 database schemas with over 5K complex queries and 10K questions.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 785, + 489, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is employed to assess the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models to unseen schemas on complex queries. Recent datasets have increased the scale to more samples and more domains (Lan et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). In this paper, we focus on the Spider dataset for our experiments, as it enables comparison with many previous methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Architectures for Text-to-SQL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 230, + 793, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the work of Dong and Lapata (2016), leading text-to-SQL models have adopted attention-based sequence to sequence architectures, translating the question and schema into a well-formed SQL query. Pre-trained transformer models have improved performance as in many other NLP tasks, starting with BERT-based models (Hwang et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020) and up to larger LLMs, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in (Scholak et al., 2021), OpenAI CodeX (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT variants in (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu and Tan, 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 262, + 884, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to pre-trained transformer models, several task-specific improvements have been introduced: the encoding of the schema can be improved through effective representation learning Boin et al. (2019), and the attention mechanism of the sequence-to-sequence model can be fine-tuned Wang et al. (2020a). On the decoding side, techniques that incorporate the syntactic structure of the SQL output have been proposed.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 462, + 885, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make sure that models generate a sequence of tokens that obey SQL syntax, different approaches have been proposed: in (Yin and Neubig, 2017), instead of generating a sequence of tokens, code-oriented models generate the abstract syntax tree (AST) of expressions of the target program. Scholak et al. (2021) defined the constrained decoding method with PICARD. PICARD is an independent module on top of a text-to-text auto-regressive model that uses an incremental parser to constrain the generated output to adhere to the target SQL grammar. Not only does this eliminate almost entirely invalid SQL queries, but the parser is also schema-aware, thus reducing the number of semantically incorrect queries, e.g., selecting a non-existent column from a specific table. We have adopted constrained decoding in our approach, by designing an incremental parser for QPL, and enforcing the generation of syntactically valid plans.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 614, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1All of the datasets and code are available on https:// github.com/bgunlp/qpl.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13631", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/517f47e897f0fdd580b0100963fb676eafd4972a7dcea25d88ee8ae630fe42b7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DifficultyNatSQL + RAT-SQLDin-SQL GPT-4GPT3.5-turbo
Easy91.6%91.1%87.7%
Medium75.2%79.8%75.1%
Hard65.5%64.9%72.5%
Extra Hard51.8%43.4%53.9%
Overall73.7%74.2%74.3%
", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 80, + 771, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Spider Development Set baseline execution accuracy by difficulty level", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 211, + 769, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Zero-shot and Few-shot LLM Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 465, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With recent LLM progress, the multi-task capabilities of LLMs have been tested on text-to-SQL. In zero-shot mode, a task-specific prompt is prefixed to a textual encoding of the schema and the question, and the LLM outputs an SQL query. Rajkumar et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2023), showed that OpenAI Codex achieves $67\\%$ execution accuracy. In our own evaluation, GPT-4 (as of May 2023) achieves about $74\\%$ execution accuracy under the same zero-shot prompting conditions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 489, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Few-shot LLM prompting strategies have also been investigated: example selection strategies are reviewed in (Guo et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023) and report about $85\\%$ execution accuracy when tested on Spider dev or 7K examples from the Spider training set. Pourreza and Rafiei (2023); Liu and Tan (2023) are top performers on Spider with the GPT4-based DIN-SQL. They use multi-step prompting strategies with query decomposition.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Few-shot LLM prompting methods close the gap and even outperform specialized Text-to-SQL models with about $85\\%$ execution match vs. $80\\%$ for 3B parameters specialized models on the Spider test set, without requiring any fine-tuning or training. In this paper, we focus on the hardest cases of queries, which remain challenging both in SQL and in QPL (with execution accuracy at about $60\\%$ in the best cases). We also note that OpenAI-based models are problematic as baselines, since they cannot be reproduced reliably.2", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 579, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Intermediary Target Representations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 766, + 452, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most text-to-SQL systems suffer from a severe drop in performance for complex queries, as reported for example in DIN-SQL results where the drop in execution accuracy between simple queries and hard queries is from about $85\\%$ to $55\\%$ (see also (Lee, 2019)). We demonstrate this drop in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 787, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 which shows execution accuracy of leading baseline models (Gan et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) per Spider difficulty level on the development set. The GPT3.5-turbo results correspond to our own experiment using zero-shot prompt. Other methods have been used to demonstrate that current sequence to sequence methods suffer at compositional generalization, that is, systems trained on simple queries, fail to generate complex queries, even though they know how to generate the components of the complex query. This weakness is diagnosed by using challenging compositional splits (Keysers et al., 2019; Shaw et al., 2021; Gan et al., 2022) over the training data.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 250, + 884, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One of the reasons for such failure to generalize to complex queries relates to the gap between the syntactic structure of natural language questions and the target SQL queries. This has motivated a thread of work attempting to generate simplified or more generalizable logical forms than executable SQL queries. These attempts are motivated by empirical results on other semantic parsing formalisms that showed that adequate syntax of the logical form can make learning more successful (Guo et al., 2020; Herzig and Berant, 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 479, + 884, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most notable attempts include SyntaxSQLNet (Yu et al., 2018a), SemQL (Guo et al., 2019) and NatSQL (Gan et al., 2021). NatSQL aims at reducing the gap between questions and queries. It introduces a simplified syntax for SQL from which the original SQL can be recovered. Figure 2 illustrates how this simplified syntax is aligned with spans of the question.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 882, + 787 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work is directly related to this thread. Our approach in designing $QPL$ is different from NatsQL, in that we do not follow SQL syntax nor attempt to mimic the syntax of natural language. Instead, we apply a semantic transformation on the SQL query, and obtain a compositional regular query language, where all the nodes are simple executable operators which feed into other nodes in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "It is most likely that the Spider dataset was part of the training material processed by GPT-x models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13632", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 189, + 95 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "What type of pet is the youngest animal, and how much does it weigh?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 107, + 485, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SQL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 149, + 157, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SELECT PetType , Weight FROM Pets ORDER BY Pet_Age LIMIT 1", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 175, + 423, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Spider-SS Decomposition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 219, + 319, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SubSentence: What type of pet \nNatSQL: SELECT Pets.Petty \nSubSentence: is the youngest animal \nNatSQL: ORDER BY Pets.Pet_Age LIMIT 1 \nSubSentence: and how much does it weigh? \nNatSQL: SELECT Pets.Weight", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 236, + 470, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: NATSQL and Question Decomposition in Spider-SS (Gan et al., 2022)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 485, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a data-flow graph according to the execution plan of the SQL query. Our method does not aim at simplifying the mapping of a single question to a whole query, but instead at decomposing a question into a tree of simpler questions, which can then be mapped to simple queries. The design of QPL vs. SQL adopts the same objectives as those defined in KoPL vs. SparQL in (Cao et al., 2022) in the setting of QA over Knowledge Graphs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 398, + 489, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Question Decomposition Approaches", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 448, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach is also inspired by work attempting to solve complex QA and semantic parsing using a question decomposition strategy (Perez et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Saparina and Osokin, 2021; Wolfson et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Deng et al., 2022b; Zhao et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2023). In this approach, the natural language question is decomposed into a chain of sub-steps, which has been popular in the context of Knowledge-Graph-based QA with multi-hop questions (Min et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). Recent work attempts to decompose the questions into trees (Huang et al., 2023), which yields explainable answers (Zhang et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this approach, the question decomposer is sometimes learned in a joint-manner to optimize the performance of an end to end model (Ye et al., 2023); it can also be derived from a syntactic analysis of complex questions (Deng et al., 2022a); or specialized pre-training of decompositions using distant supervision from comparable texts (Zhou et al., 2022); or weak supervision from execution", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "values (Wolfson et al., 2022). LLMs have also been found effective as generic question decomposers in Chain of Thought (CoT) methods (Wei et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). In this work, we compare our own Question Decomposition method with the QDMR model (Wolfson et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Decomposing Queries into QPL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 210, + 818, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Query Plan Language Dataset Conversion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 236, + 880, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We design Query Plan Language (QPL) as a modular dataflow language that encodes the semantics of SQL queries. We take inspiration in our semantic transformation from SQL to QPL from the definition of the execution plans used internally by SQL optimizers, e.g., (Selinger et al., 1979). We automatically convert the original Spider dataset into a version that includes QPL expressions for all the training and development parts of Spider. The detailed syntax of QPL is shown in § A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 258, + 884, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "QPL is a hierarchical representation for execution plans. It is a tree of operations in which the leaves are table reading nodes (Scan nodes), and the inner nodes are either unary operations (such as Aggregate and Filter) or binary operations (such as Join and Intersect). Nodes have arguments, such as the table to scan in a Scan node, or the join predicate of a Join node.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 419, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An important distinction between QPL plans and SQL queries is that every QPL sub-plan is a valid executable operator, which returns a stream of data tuples. For example, Fig. 1 shows an execution plan with 4 steps and depth 2. The 4 steps are: the two Scan leaves, the Filter sub-plan, and the Join sub-plan, which is the root of the overall plan.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 882, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We automatically convert SQL queries into semantically equivalent QPL plans by reusing the execution plans produced by Microsoft SQL Server 2019 query optimizer (Fritchey, 2018). QPL is a high-level abstraction of the physical execution plan produced (which includes data and index statistics). In QPL syntax, we reduced the number of operators to the 9 operators listed in Table 2. We also design the operators to be context free, i.e., all operators take as input streams of tuples and output a stream of tuples, and the output of an operator only depends on its inputs.3 We experiment with different syntactic realizations of QPL expressions,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 662, + 884, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3This is in contrast to SQL execution plan operators such as Nested-Loops where the two children nodes tightly depend on each other.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 881, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13633", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/46193ded9ad76b9c4a14c11f58f524e1b69c0bc159d1c6202e526ff3ea760d0b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OperatorDescription
ScanScan all rows in a table with optional filtering predicate
AggregateAggregate a stream of tuples using a grouping criterion into a stream of groups
FilterRemove tuples from a stream that do not match a predicate
SortSort a stream according to a sorting expression
TopSortSelect the top-K tuples from a stream according to a sorting expression
JoinPerform a logical join operation between two streams based on a join condition
ExceptCompute the set difference between two streams of tuples
IntersectCompute the set intersection between two streams of tuples
UnionCompute the set union between two streams of tuples
", + "bbox": [ + 146, + 80, + 848, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/953e238ff6c15bbd98953b45e38039b0e282606bed872bef0863b98301bedf49.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Table 2: Description of QPL Operators", + "Figure 3: QPL generation process: the dataset SQL expressions are run through the query optimizer, which is then converted into QPL. QPL expressions are converted into modular CTE SQL programs, which can be executed. We verify that the execution results match those of the original SQL queries.", + "Figure 4: SQL query and its equivalent CTE" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 201, + 294, + 800, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and elected the version where steps are numbered and ordered bottom-up, corresponding roughly to the execution order of the steps. We validate that the result sets returned by the converted QPL plans are equivalent to those of the original Spider SQL queries. We thus enrich the Spider training and development sets with semantically equivalent QPL programs as shown in Fig. 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 488, + 489, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Text-to-QPL Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 630, + 314, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Original SQL", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 226, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "SELECT template_id, count(*) FROM Documents GROUP BY template_id", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 686, + 329, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CTE", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 734, + 157, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "WITH \nScan_1 AS (SELECT Template_ID FROM Documents), \nAggregate_2 AS (SELECT COUNT(*) AS Count, Template_ID FROM Scan_1 GROUP BY Template_ID) \nSELECT * FROM Aggregate_2", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 760, + 428, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to train a text-to-QPL model, we fine-tune Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) on 6,509 training examples. Each example contains a question, schema information and the gold computed QPL. The input to the model is the same as in Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ... We also experiment with rich schema encoding, adding type, key and value information as described in §A.2. We train the model for 15 full epochs and choose the model with the best execution accuracy on the development set. Execution accuracy is calculated by generating a QPL prediction, converting it to Common Table Expression format (CTE) (see example in Fig. 4), running the CTE in the database and comparing the predicted result sets of the predicted and gold CTEs. Final evaluation of the model uses the PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) decoder with a parser we developed for QPL syntax. This constrained decoding method ensures that the generated QPL programs are syntactically valid.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 884, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Question Decomposition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 858, + 756, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the QPL plans automatically computed from SQL queries in the dataset to derive a set of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13634", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "question decompositions (QD) that are grounded in the QPL steps, as shown in Fig. 1. We investigate three usages of this QD method: (1) $QPL \\rightarrow QD$ : we learn how to generate a QD given a QPL plan; this is useful at inference time, to present the predicted QPL to non-expert users, as a more readable form of the plan; (2) $Q \\rightarrow QD$ we train a question decomposer on the Spider-QPL dataset for which we collect a set of validated automatically generated QDs; (3) $Q + QD \\rightarrow QPL$ we finally investigate a Text-to-QPL predictor model which given a question, firstly generates a corresponding QD, and then predicts a QPL plan based on $(Q + QD)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 492, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 QPL to QD", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 304, + 250, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the OpenAI gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 model to generate a QD given a QPL plan. We prepared a few-shot prompt that includes a detailed description of the QPL language syntax and six examples that cover all the QPL operators that we prepared manually (see §A.3).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 487, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We validated manually 50 pairs (QPL, QD) generated using this method and found them to be reliable, varied and fluent. In addition, we designed an automatic metric to verify that the generated QDs are well aligned with the source QPL plan: (1) we verify that the number of steps in QD is the same as that in the source QPL; (2) we identify the leaf Scan instructions in the QD and verify that they are aligned with the corresponding QPL Scan operations. To this end, we use a fuzzy string matching method to identify the name of the table to be scanned in the QD instruction. The QPL-QD alignment score combines the distance between the length of QD and QPL and the IoU (intersection over union) measure of the set of Scan operations.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 422, + 489, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Dataset Preparation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 674, + 319, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using the QPL $\\rightarrow$ QD generator, we further enrich the Spider-QPL dataset with a computed QD field for each sample. For the sake of comparison, we also compute the predicted QDMR decomposition of the question (Wolfson et al., 2020) using the Question Decomposer from (Wolfson et al., 2022) $^4$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 695, + 487, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We obtain for each example a tuple: . We obtained 1,007 valid QDs (QPL-QD alignment score of 1.0) in the Spider Dev Set (out of 1,034) and 6,285 out of 6,509 in the Training Set with a valid QPL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 487, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Question Decomposer Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 781, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the dataset of $< \\mathrm{Q},\\mathrm{QD}>$ obtained above we train a QPL Question Decomposer which learns to predict a QD in our format given a question and a schema description: $Q + Schema \\rightarrow QD$ . We fine-tune a Flan-T5-XL model for this task, using the same schema encoding as for the $Q + Schema \\rightarrow QPL$ model shown in §3.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 107, + 884, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Q+QD to QPL Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 235, + 756, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train a Flan-T5-XL model under the same conditions as previous models on $\\langle Q, QD, QPL \\rangle$ to predict QPL given the QD computed by our question decomposer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 256, + 884, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments and Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 337, + 759, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Text-to-QPL Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 741, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present our results on the Spider development set in Table 3. We compare our models to T5-3B with PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), as it is the closest model to ours in terms of number of parameters, architecture, and decoding strategy. To make the comparison as close as possible, we retrain a model $\\langle \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{SQL} \\rangle$ using the same base model Flan-T5-XL as we use for our $\\langle \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{QPL} \\rangle$ model. We also compare two schema encoding methods: Simple Schema Encoding only provides the list of table names and column names for each table; Rich Schema Encoding provides for each column additional information: simplified type (same types as used in Spider's dataset - text, number, date, other), keys (primary and foreign keys) and values (see §A.2 for details). We see that at every difficulty level (except \"Easy\" for Simple Schema Encoding), our $\\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{QPL}$ model improves on the baseline. The same is true compared to the other models in Table 1. All other things being equal, this experiment indicates that it is easier to learn QPL as a target language than SQL (RQ1).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 388, + 882, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On overall accuracy, the direct $\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}$ model achieves a respectable 77.4% without database content and 83.8% with database content. Our model notably achieves highest execution accuracy on Hard and Extra-Hard queries across existing fine-tuned and LLM-based models (70.0% across Hard+Extra-Hard with database content).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 744, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4We used the decomposer model published in https://github.com/tomerwolgithub/question-decomposition-to-sql.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5The $\\mathrm{Q}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{SQL}$ baseline we show reaches $82\\%$ vs. $79\\%$ reported in Scholak et al. (2021) as we used a more complete schema encoding and the instruction fine-tuned Flan-T5-XL model as opposed to the base T5-3B model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13635", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/79b54d6f3ede3b6e67aab1364373c293aec7be008b96610d037aa91969ac712a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Spider DifficultyQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLQ → SQLSupport
Simple Schema Encoding
Easy87.5%84.7%91.9%248
Medium84.3%72.2%76.9%446
Hard66.7%62.0%64.9%174
Extra Hard54.8%45.1%44.6%166
Overall77.4%69.1%73.3%1034
Rich Schema Encoding
Easy93.5%91.5%248
Medium89.0%88.3%446
Hard74.7%69.5%174
Extra Hard65.1%63.9%166
Overall83.8%82.0%1034
", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 80, + 811, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9ead82ca800aaac8b45748b4a5394a9dd3ba07b296926bdce0360364faa0dbe1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Accuracy on Spider Development Set by difficulty level with Simple Schema Encoding (table names and column names) and Rich Schema Encoding (column types, keys, values)." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 4: User experiment: 20 (question, query) pairs are shown to 4 users - half in QPL and half in SQL, half are correct and half incorrect. The table reports how long users assessed on average each query, and how often they were right in assessing the correctness of the query." + ], + "table_body": "
TypeGold labelTimeCorrect
QPLIncorrect query89%53%
Correct query100%79%
67%
SQLIncorrect query102%50%
Correct query101%25%
34%
Avg timeQPL123s
SQL132s
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 388, + 485, + 563 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The $< \\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{QD} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} >$ model is inferior to the direct $\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}$ model (69.1% to 77.4% with simple schema encoding). We verified that this is due to the lower quality of the QD produced by our question decomposer. On Oracle QD, the model produces about 83% accuracy without database content. Table 8 confirms that the model accuracy level increases when the QD-QPL alignment score increases. This indicates that the development of a more robust question decomposer grounded in query decomposition for training signal has the potential to improve semantic parsing performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 674, + 485, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we find that the $<\\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{QD} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}>$ model produces correct answers that were not computed by the direct $<\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}>$ model in 50 cases", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(6 easy, 18 medium, 15 hard, 11 extra hard). This diversity is interesting, because for hard and extra-hard cases, execution accuracy remains low (55%-74%). Showing multiple candidates from different models may be a viable strategy to indicate the lack of confidence the model has on these queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 391, + 884, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Interpretability User Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 532, + 816, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to probe whether QPL is easier to interpret by non-expert SQL users, we organized a user experiment. We selected a sample of 22 queries of complexity Hard and Extra-Hard. We collected predicted SQL queries and QPL plans for the queries, with half correct (producing the expected output), and half incorrect.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 571, + 882, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Four volunteer software engineers with over five years of experience participated in the experiment. We asked them to determine whether a query in either SQL or QPL corresponded to the intent of the natural language question. The participants were each exposed to half cases in QPL and half in SQL, half correct and half incorrect. We measured the time it took for each participant to make a decision for each case. Results are reported in Table 4. They indicate that the participants were correct about QPL in $67\\%$ of the cases vs. $34\\%$ of the SQL cases, supporting the hypothesis that validating the alignment between a question and query is easier with QPL than with SQL $(p < 0.06)$ (RQ2).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 694, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13636", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3b07d1c6a27db397051614391f2c800506a55bb7cad59cbd2b6287bec26c61b5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Error TypeErrorErr.%Explanation
Wrong aggregate3521%Error in Aggregate (sum, avg, count, max, min)
Join3119%Wrong join (e.g., not on Primary/Foreign key)
Wrong column1712%Output does not include the right columns
Missing filter1710%Filter stage is missing
Wrong constant159%Compare with wrong constant (e.g., isOfficial = 'Y' vs. 'T')
Wrong predicate127%Error in selection predicate (e.g., > instead of <)
Lost127%Predicted QPL is completely wrong
Typing74%Compare with constant of wrong type (e.g., age = 'old' vs. 20)
Extremum42%Error in selecting top value (min vs. max for example)
Intersect42%Error in Intersect operation
Wrong structure32%QPL plan is not a connected tree
Syntax issue32%Predicted QPL is not syntactically valid
Except21%Error in Except operation
Distinct11%Missing distinct flag
Wrong table11%Refers to the wrong table in the schema
Grand Total167
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 884, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Error Types: Breakdown of errors by error types", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 692, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Error Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 428, + 278, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The most challenging error type is related to queries that involve aggregate operations (group by and aggregated values such as count, sum or max).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 487, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5 shows the breakdown of errors by error types for the $\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow$ QPL model with Rich Schema Encoding. We hypothesize that errors related to Join operations could be reduced by exploiting a more expressive description of the schema structure and applying either a post-processing critique of the generated QPL or enforcing stricter constraints in the QPL Picard parser. Similarly, a more detailed description of the content of encoded columns could improve the Wrong Constant type.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 487, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Spider development set includes 20 different schemas. Table 9 shows the break down of errors per schema. We observe that 5 schemas account for over $70\\%$ of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling: keys are not declared, column naming is inconsistent, and value encoding in some columns is non standard (e.g., use of 'T'/'F' for boolean values).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 667, + 487, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 247, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We presented a method to improve compositional learning of complex text-to-SQL models based on QPL, a new executable and modular intermediary language that is derived from SQL through semantic transformation. We provide software tools to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "automatically translate SQL queries into QPL and to execute QPL plans by translating them to CTE SQL statements. We also compiled Spider-QPL, a version of Spider which includes QPL and Question Decomposition for all examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 428, + 884, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our experiments indicate that QPL is easier to learn using fine-tuned LLMs (our text-to-QPL model achieves SOTA results on fine-tuned models on Spider dev set without db values, especially on hard and extra-hard queries); and easier to interpret by users than SQL for complex queries. On the basis of the computed QPL plans, we derived a new form of Question Decomposition and trained a question decomposer that is sensitive to the target database schema, in contrast to existing generic question decomposers. Given a predicted QPL plan, we can derive a readable QD that increases the interpretability of the predicted plan.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 885, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In future work, we plan to further exploit the modularity of QPL plans for data augmentation and to explore multi-step inference techniques. We have started experimenting with an auto-regressive model which predicts QPL plans line by line. Our error analysis indicates that enhancing the model to further take advantage of the database values and foreign-keys has the potential to increase the robustness of this multi-step approach. We are also exploring whether users can provide interactive feedback on predicted QD as a way to guide QPL prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13637", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All models mentioned in this paper were trained on one NVIDIA H100 GPU with 80GB RAM for 10 epochs, totaling around 8 hours of training per model at the cost of US$2 per GPU hour.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 108, + 487, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The models were tested on the Spider development set, which only has QPLs of up to 13 lines; our method has not been tested on longer QPLs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 173, + 487, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During training, we did not use schema information such as the primary-foreign key relationships and column types, nor did we use the actual databases' content. In this regard, our models might output incorrect Join predicates (due to lack of primary-foreign key information), or incorrect Scan predicates (due to lack of database content).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 221, + 487, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We acknowledge certain limitations arising from the evaluation conducted on the Spider development set. These limitations include:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 334, + 487, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. A total of 49 queries yield an empty result set on their corresponding databases. Consequently, inaccurately predicted QPLs could generate the same \"result\" as the gold query while bearing significant semantic differences. In the Spider-QPL dataset, we have inserted additional data so that none of the queries return an empty result set in the development set.", + "2. As many as 187 queries employ the LIMIT function. This can lead to complications in the presence of \"ties\"; for instance, when considering the query SELECT grade FROM students ORDER BY grade DESC LIMIT 1, the returned row becomes arbitrary if more than one student shares the highest grade." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 390, + 489, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 668, + 265, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The use of text-to-code applications inherently carries risks, especially when users are unable to confirm the accuracy of the generated code. This issue is particularly pronounced for intricate code, such as complex SQL queries. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a more transparent target language. However, our limited-scale user study reveals that, even when utilizing this more interpretable language, software engineers struggle to detect misaligned queries in more than $30\\%$ of instances. This occurs even for queries with moderate complexity (QPL length of 5 to 7). More work on interpretability of generated code is warranted before deploying such tools.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 680, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank the Frankel Center for Computer Science at Ben Gurion University for their support.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 112, + 880, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 174, + 608, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ben Boin, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Representing schema structure with graph neural networks for text-to-SQL parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4560-4565, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 200, + 885, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shulin Cao, Jiaxin Shi, Liangming Pan, Lunyiu Nie, Yutong Xiang, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Bin He, and Hanwang Zhang. 2022. KQA pro: A dataset with explicit compositional programs for complex question answering over knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6101-6119, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 294, + 885, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidi Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 426, + 884, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 703, + 882, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 771, + 884, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, M. Witbrock, and Patricia J. Riddle. 2022a. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 851, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13638", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, Michael Witbrock, and Patricia Riddle. 2022b. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages 4093-4099. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track.", + "Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 33-43, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Grant Fritchey. 2018. SQL Server Execution Plans: Third Edition. Red Gate Books.", + "Ruiliu Fu, Han Wang, Xuejun Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Yonghong Yan. 2021. Decomposing complex questions makes multi-hop QA easier and more interpretable. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 169-180, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yujiang Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, and Matthew Purver. 2022. Measuring and improving compositional generalization in text-to-SQL via component alignment. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 831-843, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021. Natural SQL: Making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2030-2042, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql.", + "Jiaqi Guo, Qian Liu, Jian-Guang Lou, Zhenwen Li, Xueqing Liu, Tao Xie, and Ting Liu. 2020. Benchmarking meaning representations in neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1520-1540, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, JianGuang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards complex text-to-SQL in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4524-4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Span-based semantic parsing for compositional generalization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 908-921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.", + "Xiang Huang, Sitao Cheng, Yiheng Shu, Yuheng Bao, and Yuzhong Qu. 2023. Question decomposition tree for answering complex questions over knowledge bases.", + "Wonseok Hwang, Jinyeung Yim, Seunghyun Park, and Minjoon Seo. 2019. A comprehensive exploration on wikisql with table-aware word contextualization. CoRR, abs/1902.01069.", + "Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Scharli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2019. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. *ICLR* 2020, abs/1912.09713.", + "Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jiang Guo, Shenmin Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, Lin Pan, Mingwen Dong, J. Wang, Jiarong Jiang, Stephen M. Ash, Vittorio Castelli, Patrick Ng, and Bing Xiang. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. ArXiv, abs/2305.16265.", + "Dongjun Lee. 2019. Clause-wise and recursive decoding for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6045-6051, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, Kevin C. Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. ArXiv, abs/2305.03111.", + "Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13639", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability.", + "Xiping Liu and Zhao Tan. 2023. Divide and prompt: Chain of thought prompting for text-to-sql.", + "Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading comprehension through question decomposition and rescoring. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097-6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies.", + "Yilin Niu, Fei Huang, Wei Liu, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Bridging the Gap between Synthetic and Natural Questions via Sentence Decomposition for Semantic Parsing. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:367-383.", + "Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8864-8880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bah-danau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models.", + "Irina Saparina and Anton Osokin. 2021. SPARQLing database queries from intermediate question decompositions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8984-8998, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "P. Griffiths Selinger, M. M. Astrahan, D. D. Chamberlin, R. A. Lorie, and T. G. Price. 1979. Access path selection in a relational database management system. In Proceedings of the 1979 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '79, page 23-34, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 922-938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lysandre Debut Younes Belkada Sayak Paul Sourab Mangrulkar, Sylvain Gugger. 2022. Peft: State-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. https://github.com/huggingface/peft.", + "Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020a. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lei Wang, Wanyu Xu, Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Yunshi Lan, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models.", + "Ping Wang, Tian Shi, and Chandan K. Reddy. 2020b. Text-to-sql generation for question answering on electronic medical records. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, page 350-361, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tomer Wolfson, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Weakly supervised text-to-SQL parsing" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13640", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "through question decomposition. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2528-2542, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 489, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tomer Wolfson, Mor Geva, Ankit Gupta, Matt Gardner, Yoav Goldberg, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Break It Down: A Question Understanding Benchmark. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:183-198.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 151, + 489, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Qingyu Yin, Danqing Zhang, Bing Yin, and Diyi Yang. 2022. SEQZERO: Few-shot compositional semantic parsing with sequential prompts and zero-shot models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 49-60, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 231, + 489, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yunhu Ye, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Large language models are versatile decomposers: Decompose evidence and questions for table-based reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2301.13808.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 336, + 489, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 440-450, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 416, + 489, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tao Yu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kai Yang, Rui Zhang, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2018a. SyntaxSQLNet: Syntax tree networks for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1653-1663, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 508, + 489, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018b. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 627, + 489, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Haoyu Zhang, Jingjing Cai, Jianjun Xu, and Ji Wang. 2019. Complex question decomposition for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4477-4486, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 758, + 489, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiajie Zhang, Shulin Cao, Tingjia Zhang, Xin Lv, Jiaxin Shi, Qingwen Tian, Juanzi Li, and Lei Hou. 2023. Reasoning over hierarchical question decomposition tree for explainable question answering. ArXiv, abs/2305.15056.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 851, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wenting Zhao, Konstantine Arkoudas, Weiqi Sun, and Claire Cardie. 2022. *Compositional task-oriented parsing as abstractive question answering*. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4418-4427, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 884, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 200, + 884, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ben Zhou, Kyle Richardson, Xiaodong Yu, and Dan Roth. 2022. Learning to decompose: Hypothetical question decomposition based on comparable texts. ArXiv, abs/2210.16865.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 250, + 884, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 319, + 633, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 $\\mathbf{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathbf{QPL}$ Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 344, + 695, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The $\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}$ model was trained using the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and PEFT (Sourab Mangrulkar, 2022) libraries. As the Flan-T5-XL model was too large to fine-tune on one GPU, we use the LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) method to fine-tune only the q and v matrices of the model. Hyperparameters used in training are listed in Table 7. The trained model and training and validation datasets are available on https://huggingface.co/bgunlp.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 884, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c4d2ad118d28b0d3046f46133766f366fc22a72176e9c85b74c345d57b869fe8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterValue
# Epoch10
Dropout Prob.0.05
Batch Size1
Learning Rate0.0002
Adaptation (r)16
LoRA α32
", + "bbox": [ + 588, + 539, + 805, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: $\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{{QPL}}$ Training Hyperparameters", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 678, + 853, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Schema Encoding Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 713, + 774, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare two methods to describe the database schema when we prompt our models:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 734, + 880, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Simple Schema Encoding: this is similar to Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ...", + "2. Rich Schema Encoding: this encoding provides for each column a simplified type (as in Spider - text, number, date or other); primary and foreign keys; and values." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 778, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13641", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e7782237239deb2a76aeed2563a22989c2141c79ace2710d1cb83fbd64cfe905.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
QPL LengthQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLSupport
187.3%78.3%189
286.6%83.4%277
385.3%78.0%191
475.0%62.9%124
567.1%54.4%164
648.2%25.9%27
731.8%22.7%44
≥811.9%24.4%18
Overall77.4%69.1%1034
", + "bbox": [ + 289, + 80, + 709, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Execution Accuracy of Text-to-QPL Models on Spider Development Set by Length of QPL. QPL length is a more natural measure of query complexity than the method used to classify queries in Spider. We find that there is little correlation between QPL Length and the Spider difficulty level.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 878, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For example:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 344, + 235, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple Schema Encoding: pets_1", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 132, + 361, + 396, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table Student (StuID, LName, Fname, Age, Sex, Major, Advisor, city_code)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 392, + 475, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table Pets (PetID, PetType, pet_age, weight)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 423, + 447, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table Has_Pet (StuID, PetID)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 374, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rich Schema Encoding: pets_1", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 132, + 486, + 379, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "CREATE TABLE Student ( StuID number, LName text, Fname text, Age number, Sex text, Major number, Advisor number, city_code text, primary key (StuID))", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 517, + 393, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "CREATE TABLE Pets ( PetID number, PetType text ( dog ), pet_age number, weight number, primary key ( PetID ))", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 694, + 393, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "CREATE TABLE Has_Pet (StuID number, PetID number, foreign key (StuID) references Student (StuID), foreign key (PetID) references Pets (PetID))", + "guess_lang": "sql", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 807, + 473, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Values are added after each column when an n-gram from the question is found as one of the values in one of the rows of the table. For example, for the question \"How much does the youngest dog weigh?\", the n-gram \"dog\" is found in the values of the column PetType. In this case, the value annotation PetType text (dog) is encoded.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 344, + 880, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Question Decomposer Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 786, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The prompt given to ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) to decompose a question given QPL is listed in Fig. 5. The full prompt (including BNF and all 6 examples) is available on GitHub.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 880, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 QPL Syntax", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 655, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show the BNF of the QPL language we have designed in Fig. 6. This grammar is used as part of the PICARD parser used for the decoder of all QPL predictor models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 583, + 880, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Errors by Schema", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 702, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9 shows error rate for the $\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}$ model with Rich Schema Encoding by schema for each of the 20 schemas present in Spider's development set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 880, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We observe that 5 of the 20 schemas (car_1, flight_2, student_transcripts_tracking, world_1 and wta_1) account for $41.8\\%$ of the examples in the development set and $70.1\\%$ of the errors. Most of the errors in these specific schemas can be traced to missing key declarations, inconsistent column naming and typing (strings used to encode boolean or number values).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 744, + 880, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13642", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "QPL is a formalism used to describe data retrieval operations over an SQL schema in a modular manner. A QPL plan is a sequence of instructions for querying tabular data to answer a natural language question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 112, + 877, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Forget everything you know about SQL, only use the following explanations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 148, + 673, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A schema is specified as a list of specification in the format:
: ", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 171, + 652, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A plan contains a sequence of operations. All operations return a stream of tuples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 206, + 426, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All operations take as input either a physical table from the schema (for the Scan operation) or the output of other operations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 231, + 816, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let's think step by step to convert QPL plan to natural language plan given schema, question, and QPL that describe the question.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 266, + 742, + 290 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the natural language plan:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 302, + 334, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. You must have exactly the same number of questions as there are steps in the QPL.", + "2. The questions you generate must follow exactly the same order as the steps in the QPL." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 313, + 786, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This is the formal specification for each operation:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 349, + 509, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(BNF goes here, elided for brevity)", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 372, + 381, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Example 1:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 191, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Schema:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 420, + 169, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table Visitor (ID, Name, Age, Level_of_membership) \nTable Museum (Museum_ID, Name, Open Year, Num_of_staff) \nTable Visit (Visitor_ID, Museum_ID, Total_Spent, Num_of_Ticket)", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 432, + 593, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 479, + 184, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "What is the total ticket expense of the visitors whose membership level is 1?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 491, + 699, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "QPL Plan:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 514, + 184, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#1 = Scan Table [ visitor ] Predicate [ Level_of_membership = 1 ] Output [ ID ]", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 526, + 712, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$2 =$ Scan Table [ visit ] Output [ visitor_ID, Total_spent]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 539, + 579, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#3 = Join [ #1, #2 ] Predicate [ #1.ID = #2visitor_ID ] Output [ #2.Total_spent ]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 551, + 736, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#4 = Aggregate [ #3 ] Output [ SUM(Total_spent) AS Sum_Total_spent ]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 563, + 631, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural Language Plan:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 586, + 282, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#1 = Scan the table Visitor to find who are the visitors with membership level 1", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 598, + 719, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#2 = Scan the table Visit to find what is the total spent by visitors during their visits", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 609, + 789, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\# 3 =$ Join #1 and #2 to find what is the total spent by each visitor with membership level 1 during their visits", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 621, + 660, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#4 = Group #3 by Visitor and aggregate the sum of total spent to find what is the total spent by all visitors with membership level 1 during their visit", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 645, + 818, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(5 more examples are given)", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 680, + 319, + 692 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Now your turn:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 703, + 221, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Schema: {schema}", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 728, + 176, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: {question}", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 764, + 193, + 787 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "QPL Plan: {qpl}", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 799, + 184, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural Language Plan:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 834, + 282, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5: Prompt used to generate QD", + "bbox": [ + 366, + 869, + 628, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13643", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": " ::= + \n ::= # = \n ::= \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| ", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 183, + 431, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "-- Leaf operator\n ::= Scan Table [ ] ? ? ", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 376, + 833, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "-- Unary operators \n ::= Aggregate [ ] \n ::= Filter [ ] \n ::= Sort [ ] \n ::= TopSort [ ] Rows [ ] \n ", + "guess_lang": "haskell", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 425, + 800, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "-- Binary operators \n ::= Join [ , ] ? ? \n ::= Except [ , ] \n ::= Intersect [ , ] ? \n ::= Union [ , ] \n ::= GroupBy [ (, )* ] \n ::= OrderBy [ (, )* ] \n ::= WithTies [ true | false ] \n ::= ASC | DESC \n ::= Predicate [ (AND | OR )* ] \n ::= Distinct [ true | false ] \n ::= Output [ (, )* ] \n ::= Output [ (, )* ] \n ::= # . ", + "guess_lang": "haskell", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 537, + 887, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6: QPL Grammar", + "bbox": [ + 411, + 797, + 584, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13644", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1e42e600903c6dd256eb1794072884bc27055dda7334d9968a2fcca6ade22499.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
QD-QPL AlignmentSupportCorrectExec AccAvg QPL Gold Len.
[0.0, 0.4]1005.0
(0.4, 0.5]19421.14.6
(0.5, 0.6]9222.26.3
(0.6, 0.7]43920.95.0
(0.7, 0.8]632133.34.2
(0.8, 0.9]933335.54.6
(0.9, 1]77962480.12.8
", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 137, + 793, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ea91290ae7bd76d944c977c55687c2fc877ed37ef5f7a2d4fe93f494922cf9e1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: $\\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{{QD}} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{{QPL}}$ model trained with QDs predicted by Trained Question Decomposer" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Schema IDErrorsSamplesError Rate
battle_death1166%
car_1279229%
concert_singer54511%
course_teach0300%
cre_Doc_Package_Mgt88410%
dog_kennels128215%
employee_hire_evaluation1383%
flight_2158019%
museum.visit21811%
network_195616%
orchestra0400%
pets_12425%
poker_player0400%
real_estate_property1425%
singer1303%
student_transcripts_tracking167821%
tvshow5628%
voter_131520%
world_14412037%
wta_1156224%
Grand Total167103416%
", + "bbox": [ + 240, + 426, + 759, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Breakdown of errors by Schema ID: 5 schemas out of the 20 present in Spider's development set account for $70\\%$ of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling and lack proper foreign key declarations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 815, + 882, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13645", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_model.json b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71df05bedd2274cd9ee665511875c3fabbfb5bc2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3336 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.088, + 0.868, + 0.11 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.289, + 0.122, + 0.713, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Eyal and Amir Bachar and Ophir Haroche" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.333, + 0.16, + 0.665, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moran Mahabi and Michael Elhadad" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.391, + 0.178, + 0.608, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dept of Computer Science" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.406, + 0.195, + 0.593, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Gurion University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.425, + 0.211, + 0.573, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "BeerSheva,Israel" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.281, + 0.46, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text-to-SQL semantic parsing faces challenges in generalizing to cross-domain and complex queries. Recent research has employed a question decomposition strategy to enhance the parsing of complex SQL queries. However, this strategy encounters two major obstacles: (1) existing datasets lack question decomposition; (2) due to the syntactic complexity of SQL, most complex queries cannot be disentangled into sub-queries that can be readily recomposed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.424, + 0.461, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these challenges, we propose a new modular Query Plan Language (QPL) that systematically decomposes SQL queries into simple and regular sub-queries. We develop a translator from SQL to QPL by leveraging analysis of SQL server query optimization plans, and we augment the Spider dataset with QPL programs. Experimental results demonstrate that the modular nature of QPL benefits existing semantic-parsing architectures, and training text-to-QPL parsers is more effective than text-to-SQL parsing for semantically equivalent queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.594, + 0.461, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The QPL approach offers two additional advantages: (1) QPL programs can be paraphrased as simple questions, which allows us to create a dataset of (complex question, decomposed questions). Training on this dataset, we obtain a Question Decomposer for data retrieval that is sensitive to database schemas. (2) QPL is more accessible to non-experts for complex queries, leading to more interpretable output from the semantic parser." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.749, + 0.26, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Querying and exploring complex relational data stores necessitate programming skills and domain-specific knowledge of the data. Text-to-SQL semantic parsing allows non-expert programmers to formulate questions in natural language, convert the questions into SQL, and inspect the execution results. While recent progress has been remarkable on this task, general cross-domain text-to-SQL models still face challenges on complex schemas" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and queries. State of the art text-to-SQL models show performance above \\(90\\%\\) for easy queries, but fall to about \\(50\\%\\) on complex ones (see Table 1). This accuracy drop is particularly bothersome for non-experts, because they also find it difficult to verify whether a complex SQL query corresponds to the intent behind the question they asked. In a user study we performed, we found that software engineers who are not experts in SQL fail to determine whether a complex SQL query corresponds to a question in about \\(66\\%\\) of the cases (see Table 4). The risk of text-to-code models producing incorrect results with confidence is thus acute: complex SQL queries non-aligned with users intent will be hard to detect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.885, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we address the challenge of dealing with complex data retrieval questions through a compositional approach. Based on the success of the question decomposition approach for multi-hop question answering, recent work in semantic parsing has also investigated ways to deal with complex SQL queries with a Question Decomposition (QD) strategy. In another direction, previous attempts have focused on splitting complex SQL queries into spans (e.g., aggregation operators, join criteria, column selection) and generating each span separately." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our approach, we start from a semantic analysis of the SQL query. We introduce a new intermediary language, which we call Query Plan Language (QPL) that is modular and decomposable. QPL can be directly executed on SQL databases through direct translation to modular SQL Common Table Expressions (CTEs). We design QPL to be both easier to learn with modern neural architectures than SQL and easier to interpret by non-experts. The overall approach is illustrated in Fig. 1. We develop an automatic translation method from SQL to QPL. On the basis of the modular QPL program, we also learn how to generate a natural language decomposition of the original question." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13629" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13629-13645 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.081, + 0.191, + 0.096 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.109, + 0.772, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "What is the official language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.153, + 0.201, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gold SQL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.18, + 0.286, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECT T2.Language" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.197, + 0.284, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "FROM country AS T1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.213, + 0.633, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "JOIN countrylanguage AS T2 ON T1.Code = T2.CountryCode" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.229, + 0.667, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "WHERE T1.HeadOfState = 'Beatrix' AND T2.IsOfficial = 'T'" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.254, + 0.201, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gold QPL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.282, + 0.678, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 = Scan Table [country] Predicate [HeadOfState = 'Beatrix'] Output [Code, HeadOfState]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.316, + 0.815, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#2 = Scan Table [countrylanguage] Output [CountryCode, Language, Officials]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.332, + 0.815, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#3 = Filter[#2] Predicate [IsOfficial = 'T'] Output [CountryCode, Language]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.348, + 0.815, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#4 = Join[#1,#3] Predicate[#3.CountryCode = #1.Code] Output[#3.Language]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.375, + 0.443, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Computed Question Decomposition (QD)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.402, + 0.607, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 = Scan the table country and retrieve the code and" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.419, + 0.707, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "head of state of the country whose head of state is Beatrix" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.435, + 0.731, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( \\# 2 = \\) Scan the table countrylanguage and retrieve the country codes, languages and if they're official" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.467, + 0.578, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#3 = Filter from #2 all the official languages and retrieve the country codes and languages" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.499, + 0.761, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#4 = Join #1 and #3 based on the matching country codes and retrieve the language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.541, + 0.258, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Predicted QDMR" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.568, + 0.613, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#1 = return countries whose head of state is beatrix ;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.585, + 0.769, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#2 = return the official language spoken in the official language of #1" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.619, + 0.884, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Example QPL and Question Decomposition compared to the original SQL query from Spider and to the predicted QDMR question decomposition from (Wolfson et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.673, + 0.489, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast to generic QD methods such as QDMR (Wolfson et al., 2020), our decomposition takes into account the database schema which is referenced by the question and the semantics of the QPL operations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous research in semantic parsing has shown that the choice of the target language impacts a model's ability to learn to parse text into an accurate semantic representation. For instance, Guo et al. (2020) compared the performance of various architectures on three question-answering datasets with targets converted to Prolog, Lambda Calculus, FunQL, and SQL. They discovered that the same architectures produce lower accuracy (up to a \\(10\\%\\) difference) when generating SQL, indicating that" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.673, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQL is a challenging target language for neural models. The search for a target language that is easier to learn has been pursued in Text-to-SQL as well (Yu et al., 2018a; Guo et al., 2019; Gan et al., 2021). We can view QPL as another candidate intermediary language, which in contrast to previous attempts, does not rely on a syntactic analysis of the SQL queries but rather on a semantic transformation into a simpler, more regular query language." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the rest of the paper, we review recent work in text-to-SQL models that investigates intermediary representations and question decomposition. We then present the Query Plan Language (QPL) we have designed and the conversion procedure" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13630" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "we have implemented to translate the existing large-scale Spider dataset into QPL. We then describe how we exploit the semantic transformation of SQL to QPL to derive a dataset of schemadependent Question Decompositions. We finally present strategies that exploit the compositional nature of QPL to train models capable of predicting complex QPL query plans from natural language questions, and to decompose questions into data-retrieval oriented decompositions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.247, + 0.49, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We investigate two main research questions: (RQ1) Is it easier to learn Text-to-QPL - a modular, decomposable query language - than to learn Text-to-SQL using Language Model based architectures; (RQ2) Can non-expert users interpret QPL outputs in an easier manner than they can for complex SQL queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.36, + 0.49, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our main contributions are (1) the definition of the QPL language together with automatic translation from SQL to QPL and execution of QPL on standard SQL servers; (2) the construction of the Spider-QPL dataset which enriches the Spider samples with validated QPL programs for Spider's dataset together with Question Decompositions based on the QPL structure; (3) Text-to-QPL models to predict QPL from a (Schema + Question) input that are competitive with state of the art Text-to-SQL models and perform better on complex queries; (4) a user experiment validating that non-expert users can detect incorrect complex queries better on QPL than on SQL." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.598, + 0.279, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Previous Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.625, + 0.49, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text-to-SQL parsing consists of mapping a question \\( Q = (x_{1},\\ldots ,x_{n}) \\) and a database schema \\( S = [table_{1}(col_{1}^{1}\\dots col_{c_{1}}^{1}),\\dots ,table_{T}(col_{1}^{T}\\dots col_{c_{T}}^{T})] \\) into a valid SQL query \\( Y = (y_{1},\\dots ,y_{q}) \\). Performance metrics include exact match (where the predicted query is compared to the expected one according to the overall SQL structure and within each field token by token) and execution match (where the predicted query is executed on a database and results are compared)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.787, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Several large Text-to-SQL datasets have been created, some with single schema (Wang et al., 2020b), some with simple queries (Zhong et al., 2017). Notably, the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018b) encompasses over 200 database schemas with over 5K complex queries and 10K questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is employed to assess the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models to unseen schemas on complex queries. Recent datasets have increased the scale to more samples and more domains (Lan et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). In this paper, we focus on the Spider dataset for our experiments, as it enables comparison with many previous methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.231, + 0.794, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Architectures for Text-to-SQL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the work of Dong and Lapata (2016), leading text-to-SQL models have adopted attention-based sequence to sequence architectures, translating the question and schema into a well-formed SQL query. Pre-trained transformer models have improved performance as in many other NLP tasks, starting with BERT-based models (Hwang et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020) and up to larger LLMs, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in (Scholak et al., 2021), OpenAI CodeX (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT variants in (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu and Tan, 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.463, + 0.887, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to pre-trained transformer models, several task-specific improvements have been introduced: the encoding of the schema can be improved through effective representation learning Boin et al. (2019), and the attention mechanism of the sequence-to-sequence model can be fine-tuned Wang et al. (2020a). On the decoding side, techniques that incorporate the syntactic structure of the SQL output have been proposed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.615, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make sure that models generate a sequence of tokens that obey SQL syntax, different approaches have been proposed: in (Yin and Neubig, 2017), instead of generating a sequence of tokens, code-oriented models generate the abstract syntax tree (AST) of expressions of the target program. Scholak et al. (2021) defined the constrained decoding method with PICARD. PICARD is an independent module on top of a text-to-text auto-regressive model that uses an incremental parser to constrain the generated output to adhere to the target SQL grammar. Not only does this eliminate almost entirely invalid SQL queries, but the parser is also schema-aware, thus reducing the number of semantically incorrect queries, e.g., selecting a non-existent column from a specific table. We have adopted constrained decoding in our approach, by designing an incremental parser for QPL, and enforcing the generation of syntactically valid plans." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1All of the datasets and code are available on https:// github.com/bgunlp/qpl." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13631" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.227, + 0.082, + 0.773, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DifficultyNatSQL + RAT-SQLDin-SQL GPT-4GPT3.5-turbo
Easy91.6%91.1%87.7%
Medium75.2%79.8%75.1%
Hard65.5%64.9%72.5%
Extra Hard51.8%43.4%53.9%
Overall73.7%74.2%74.3%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.227, + 0.212, + 0.771, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Spider Development Set baseline execution accuracy by difficulty level" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.252, + 0.466, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Zero-shot and Few-shot LLM Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.49, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With recent LLM progress, the multi-task capabilities of LLMs have been tested on text-to-SQL. In zero-shot mode, a task-specific prompt is prefixed to a textual encoding of the schema and the question, and the LLM outputs an SQL query. Rajkumar et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2023), showed that OpenAI Codex achieves \\(67\\%\\) execution accuracy. In our own evaluation, GPT-4 (as of May 2023) achieves about \\(74\\%\\) execution accuracy under the same zero-shot prompting conditions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.434, + 0.49, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Few-shot LLM prompting strategies have also been investigated: example selection strategies are reviewed in (Guo et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023) and report about \\(85\\%\\) execution accuracy when tested on Spider dev or 7K examples from the Spider training set. Pourreza and Rafiei (2023); Liu and Tan (2023) are top performers on Spider with the GPT4-based DIN-SQL. They use multi-step prompting strategies with query decomposition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Few-shot LLM prompting methods close the gap and even outperform specialized Text-to-SQL models with about \\(85\\%\\) execution match vs. \\(80\\%\\) for 3B parameters specialized models on the Spider test set, without requiring any fine-tuning or training. In this paper, we focus on the hardest cases of queries, which remain challenging both in SQL and in QPL (with execution accuracy at about \\(60\\%\\) in the best cases). We also note that OpenAI-based models are problematic as baselines, since they cannot be reproduced reliably.2" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.768, + 0.453, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Intermediary Target Representations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.788, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most text-to-SQL systems suffer from a severe drop in performance for complex queries, as reported for example in DIN-SQL results where the drop in execution accuracy between simple queries and hard queries is from about \\(85\\%\\) to \\(55\\%\\) (see also (Lee, 2019)). We demonstrate this drop in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.252, + 0.885, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 which shows execution accuracy of leading baseline models (Gan et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) per Spider difficulty level on the development set. The GPT3.5-turbo results correspond to our own experiment using zero-shot prompt. Other methods have been used to demonstrate that current sequence to sequence methods suffer at compositional generalization, that is, systems trained on simple queries, fail to generate complex queries, even though they know how to generate the components of the complex query. This weakness is diagnosed by using challenging compositional splits (Keysers et al., 2019; Shaw et al., 2021; Gan et al., 2022) over the training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.48, + 0.885, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One of the reasons for such failure to generalize to complex queries relates to the gap between the syntactic structure of natural language questions and the target SQL queries. This has motivated a thread of work attempting to generate simplified or more generalizable logical forms than executable SQL queries. These attempts are motivated by empirical results on other semantic parsing formalisms that showed that adequate syntax of the logical form can make learning more successful (Guo et al., 2020; Herzig and Berant, 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.884, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most notable attempts include SyntaxSQLNet (Yu et al., 2018a), SemQL (Guo et al., 2019) and NatSQL (Gan et al., 2021). NatSQL aims at reducing the gap between questions and queries. It introduces a simplified syntax for SQL from which the original SQL can be recovered. Figure 2 illustrates how this simplified syntax is aligned with spans of the question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work is directly related to this thread. Our approach in designing \\( QPL \\) is different from NatsQL, in that we do not follow SQL syntax nor attempt to mimic the syntax of natural language. Instead, we apply a semantic transformation on the SQL query, and obtain a compositional regular query language, where all the nodes are simple executable operators which feed into other nodes in" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is most likely that the Spider dataset was part of the training material processed by GPT-x models." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13632" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.081, + 0.191, + 0.096 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.108, + 0.486, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "What type of pet is the youngest animal, and how much does it weigh?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.15, + 0.158, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SQL" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.177, + 0.424, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECT PetType , Weight FROM Pets ORDER BY Pet_Age LIMIT 1" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.22, + 0.32, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Spider-SS Decomposition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.237, + 0.472, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SubSentence: What type of pet \nNatSQL: SELECT Pets.Petty \nSubSentence: is the youngest animal \nNatSQL: ORDER BY Pets.Pet_Age LIMIT 1 \nSubSentence: and how much does it weigh? \nNatSQL: SELECT Pets.Weight" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.341, + 0.487, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: NATSQL and Question Decomposition in Spider-SS (Gan et al., 2022)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.399, + 0.49, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a data-flow graph according to the execution plan of the SQL query. Our method does not aim at simplifying the mapping of a single question to a whole query, but instead at decomposing a question into a tree of simpler questions, which can then be mapped to simple queries. The design of QPL vs. SQL adopts the same objectives as those defined in KoPL vs. SparQL in (Cao et al., 2022) in the setting of QA over Knowledge Graphs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.558, + 0.45, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Question Decomposition Approaches" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach is also inspired by work attempting to solve complex QA and semantic parsing using a question decomposition strategy (Perez et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Saparina and Osokin, 2021; Wolfson et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Deng et al., 2022b; Zhao et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2023). In this approach, the natural language question is decomposed into a chain of sub-steps, which has been popular in the context of Knowledge-Graph-based QA with multi-hop questions (Min et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). Recent work attempts to decompose the questions into trees (Huang et al., 2023), which yields explainable answers (Zhang et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this approach, the question decomposer is sometimes learned in a joint-manner to optimize the performance of an end to end model (Ye et al., 2023); it can also be derived from a syntactic analysis of complex questions (Deng et al., 2022a); or specialized pre-training of decompositions using distant supervision from comparable texts (Zhou et al., 2022); or weak supervision from execution" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "values (Wolfson et al., 2022). LLMs have also been found effective as generic question decomposers in Chain of Thought (CoT) methods (Wei et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). In this work, we compare our own Question Decomposition method with the QDMR model (Wolfson et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.211, + 0.819, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Decomposing Queries into QPL" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.237, + 0.882, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Query Plan Language Dataset Conversion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.259, + 0.885, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We design Query Plan Language (QPL) as a modular dataflow language that encodes the semantics of SQL queries. We take inspiration in our semantic transformation from SQL to QPL from the definition of the execution plans used internally by SQL optimizers, e.g., (Selinger et al., 1979). We automatically convert the original Spider dataset into a version that includes QPL expressions for all the training and development parts of Spider. The detailed syntax of QPL is shown in § A.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.42, + 0.884, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "QPL is a hierarchical representation for execution plans. It is a tree of operations in which the leaves are table reading nodes (Scan nodes), and the inner nodes are either unary operations (such as Aggregate and Filter) or binary operations (such as Join and Intersect). Nodes have arguments, such as the table to scan in a Scan node, or the join predicate of a Join node." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.884, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An important distinction between QPL plans and SQL queries is that every QPL sub-plan is a valid executable operator, which returns a stream of data tuples. For example, Fig. 1 shows an execution plan with 4 steps and depth 2. The 4 steps are: the two Scan leaves, the Filter sub-plan, and the Join sub-plan, which is the root of the overall plan." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.663, + 0.885, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We automatically convert SQL queries into semantically equivalent QPL plans by reusing the execution plans produced by Microsoft SQL Server 2019 query optimizer (Fritchey, 2018). QPL is a high-level abstraction of the physical execution plan produced (which includes data and index statistics). In QPL syntax, we reduced the number of operators to the 9 operators listed in Table 2. We also design the operators to be context free, i.e., all operators take as input streams of tuples and output a stream of tuples, and the output of an operator only depends on its inputs.3 We experiment with different syntactic realizations of QPL expressions," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.882, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3This is in contrast to SQL execution plan operators such as Nested-Loops where the two children nodes tightly depend on each other." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13633" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.082, + 0.85, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OperatorDescription
ScanScan all rows in a table with optional filtering predicate
AggregateAggregate a stream of tuples using a grouping criterion into a stream of groups
FilterRemove tuples from a stream that do not match a predicate
SortSort a stream according to a sorting expression
TopSortSelect the top-K tuples from a stream according to a sorting expression
JoinPerform a logical join operation between two streams based on a join condition
ExceptCompute the set difference between two streams of tuples
IntersectCompute the set intersection between two streams of tuples
UnionCompute the set union between two streams of tuples
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.364, + 0.269, + 0.632, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Description of QPL Operators" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.296, + 0.8, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.421, + 0.884, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: QPL generation process: the dataset SQL expressions are run through the query optimizer, which is then converted into QPL. QPL expressions are converted into modular CTE SQL programs, which can be executed. We verify that the execution results match those of the original SQL queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.489, + 0.49, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and elected the version where steps are numbered and ordered bottom-up, corresponding roughly to the execution order of the steps. We validate that the result sets returned by the converted QPL plans are equivalent to those of the original Spider SQL queries. We thus enrich the Spider training and development sets with semantically equivalent QPL programs as shown in Fig. 3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.631, + 0.315, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Text-to-QPL Model" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.663, + 0.228, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Original SQL" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.687, + 0.331, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SELECT template_id, count(*) FROM Documents GROUP BY template_id" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.736, + 0.158, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CTE" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.761, + 0.43, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "WITH \nScan_1 AS (SELECT Template_ID FROM Documents), \nAggregate_2 AS (SELECT COUNT(*) AS Count, Template_ID FROM Scan_1 GROUP BY Template_ID) \nSELECT * FROM Aggregate_2" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.9, + 0.454, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: SQL query and its equivalent CTE" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.885, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to train a text-to-QPL model, we fine-tune Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) on 6,509 training examples. Each example contains a question, schema information and the gold computed QPL. The input to the model is the same as in Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ... We also experiment with rich schema encoding, adding type, key and value information as described in §A.2. We train the model for 15 full epochs and choose the model with the best execution accuracy on the development set. Execution accuracy is calculated by generating a QPL prediction, converting it to Common Table Expression format (CTE) (see example in Fig. 4), running the CTE in the database and comparing the predicted result sets of the predicted and gold CTEs. Final evaluation of the model uses the PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) decoder with a parser we developed for QPL syntax. This constrained decoding method ensures that the generated QPL programs are syntactically valid." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.859, + 0.757, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Question Decomposition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the QPL plans automatically computed from SQL queries in the dataset to derive a set of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13634" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "question decompositions (QD) that are grounded in the QPL steps, as shown in Fig. 1. We investigate three usages of this QD method: (1) \\( QPL \\rightarrow QD \\): we learn how to generate a QD given a QPL plan; this is useful at inference time, to present the predicted QPL to non-expert users, as a more readable form of the plan; (2) \\( Q \\rightarrow QD \\) we train a question decomposer on the Spider-QPL dataset for which we collect a set of validated automatically generated QDs; (3) \\( Q + QD \\rightarrow QPL \\) we finally investigate a Text-to-QPL predictor model which given a question, firstly generates a corresponding QD, and then predicts a QPL plan based on \\( (Q + QD) \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.305, + 0.251, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 QPL to QD" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.326, + 0.489, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the OpenAI gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 model to generate a QD given a QPL plan. We prepared a few-shot prompt that includes a detailed description of the QPL language syntax and six examples that cover all the QPL operators that we prepared manually (see §A.3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.423, + 0.49, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We validated manually 50 pairs (QPL, QD) generated using this method and found them to be reliable, varied and fluent. In addition, we designed an automatic metric to verify that the generated QDs are well aligned with the source QPL plan: (1) we verify that the number of steps in QD is the same as that in the source QPL; (2) we identify the leaf Scan instructions in the QD and verify that they are aligned with the corresponding QPL Scan operations. To this end, we use a fuzzy string matching method to identify the name of the table to be scanned in the QD instruction. The QPL-QD alignment score combines the distance between the length of QD and QPL and the IoU (intersection over union) measure of the set of Scan operations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.675, + 0.32, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Dataset Preparation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.696, + 0.488, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using the QPL \\(\\rightarrow\\) QD generator, we further enrich the Spider-QPL dataset with a computed QD field for each sample. For the sake of comparison, we also compute the predicted QDMR decomposition of the question (Wolfson et al., 2020) using the Question Decomposer from (Wolfson et al., 2022)\\(^4\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.793, + 0.489, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We obtain for each example a tuple: . We obtained 1,007 valid QDs (QPL-QD alignment score of 1.0) in the Spider Dev Set (out of 1,034) and 6,285 out of 6,509 in the Training Set with a valid QPL." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.783, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Question Decomposer Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.108, + 0.885, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the dataset of \\( < \\mathrm{Q},\\mathrm{QD}> \\) obtained above we train a QPL Question Decomposer which learns to predict a QD in our format given a question and a schema description: \\( Q + Schema \\rightarrow QD \\). We fine-tune a Flan-T5-XL model for this task, using the same schema encoding as for the \\( Q + Schema \\rightarrow QPL \\) model shown in §3.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.236, + 0.757, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Q+QD to QPL Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.258, + 0.885, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train a Flan-T5-XL model under the same conditions as previous models on \\(\\langle Q, QD, QPL \\rangle\\) to predict QPL given the QD computed by our question decomposer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.338, + 0.761, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments and Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.367, + 0.742, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Text-to-QPL Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.389, + 0.884, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present our results on the Spider development set in Table 3. We compare our models to T5-3B with PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), as it is the closest model to ours in terms of number of parameters, architecture, and decoding strategy. To make the comparison as close as possible, we retrain a model \\( \\langle \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{SQL} \\rangle \\) using the same base model Flan-T5-XL as we use for our \\( \\langle \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{QPL} \\rangle \\) model. We also compare two schema encoding methods: Simple Schema Encoding only provides the list of table names and column names for each table; Rich Schema Encoding provides for each column additional information: simplified type (same types as used in Spider's dataset - text, number, date, other), keys (primary and foreign keys) and values (see §A.2 for details). We see that at every difficulty level (except \"Easy\" for Simple Schema Encoding), our \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{QPL} \\) model improves on the baseline. The same is true compared to the other models in Table 1. All other things being equal, this experiment indicates that it is easier to learn QPL as a target language than SQL (RQ1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.745, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On overall accuracy, the direct \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} \\) model achieves a respectable 77.4% without database content and 83.8% with database content. Our model notably achieves highest execution accuracy on Hard and Extra-Hard queries across existing fine-tuned and LLM-based models (70.0% across Hard+Extra-Hard with database content)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4We used the decomposer model published in https://github.com/tomerwolgithub/question-decomposition-to-sql." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.87, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5The \\(\\mathrm{Q}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{SQL}\\) baseline we show reaches \\(82\\%\\) vs. \\(79\\%\\) reported in Scholak et al. (2021) as we used a more complete schema encoding and the instruction fine-tuned Flan-T5-XL model as opposed to the base T5-3B model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13635" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.186, + 0.081, + 0.813, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Spider DifficultyQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLQ → SQLSupport
Simple Schema Encoding
Easy87.5%84.7%91.9%248
Medium84.3%72.2%76.9%446
Hard66.7%62.0%64.9%174
Extra Hard54.8%45.1%44.6%166
Overall77.4%69.1%73.3%1034
Rich Schema Encoding
Easy93.5%91.5%248
Medium89.0%88.3%446
Hard74.7%69.5%174
Extra Hard65.1%63.9%166
Overall83.8%82.0%1034
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.338, + 0.882, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy on Spider Development Set by difficulty level with Simple Schema Encoding (table names and column names) and Rich Schema Encoding (column types, keys, values)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.487, + 0.564 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TypeGold labelTimeCorrect
QPLIncorrect query89%53%
Correct query100%79%
67%
SQLIncorrect query102%50%
Correct query101%25%
34%
Avg timeQPL123s
SQL132s
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.574, + 0.488, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: User experiment: 20 (question, query) pairs are shown to 4 users - half in QPL and half in SQL, half are correct and half incorrect. The table reports how long users assessed on average each query, and how often they were right in assessing the correctness of the query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.675, + 0.487, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The \\( < \\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{QD} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} > \\) model is inferior to the direct \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} \\) model (69.1% to 77.4% with simple schema encoding). We verified that this is due to the lower quality of the QD produced by our question decomposer. On Oracle QD, the model produces about 83% accuracy without database content. Table 8 confirms that the model accuracy level increases when the QD-QPL alignment score increases. This indicates that the development of a more robust question decomposer grounded in query decomposition for training signal has the potential to improve semantic parsing performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we find that the \\( <\\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{QD} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}> \\) model produces correct answers that were not computed by the direct \\( <\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}> \\) model in 50 cases" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.392, + 0.885, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(6 easy, 18 medium, 15 hard, 11 extra hard). This diversity is interesting, because for hard and extra-hard cases, execution accuracy remains low (55%-74%). Showing multiple candidates from different models may be a viable strategy to indicate the lack of confidence the model has on these queries." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.533, + 0.818, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Interpretability User Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.572, + 0.884, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to probe whether QPL is easier to interpret by non-expert SQL users, we organized a user experiment. We selected a sample of 22 queries of complexity Hard and Extra-Hard. We collected predicted SQL queries and QPL plans for the queries, with half correct (producing the expected output), and half incorrect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.695, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Four volunteer software engineers with over five years of experience participated in the experiment. We asked them to determine whether a query in either SQL or QPL corresponded to the intent of the natural language question. The participants were each exposed to half cases in QPL and half in SQL, half correct and half incorrect. We measured the time it took for each participant to make a decision for each case. Results are reported in Table 4. They indicate that the participants were correct about QPL in \\(67\\%\\) of the cases vs. \\(34\\%\\) of the SQL cases, supporting the hypothesis that validating the alignment between a question and query is easier with QPL than with SQL \\((p < 0.06)\\) (RQ2)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13636" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Error TypeErrorErr.%Explanation
Wrong aggregate3521%Error in Aggregate (sum, avg, count, max, min)
Join3119%Wrong join (e.g., not on Primary/Foreign key)
Wrong column1712%Output does not include the right columns
Missing filter1710%Filter stage is missing
Wrong constant159%Compare with wrong constant (e.g., isOfficial = 'Y' vs. 'T')
Wrong predicate127%Error in selection predicate (e.g., > instead of <)
Lost127%Predicted QPL is completely wrong
Typing74%Compare with constant of wrong type (e.g., age = 'old' vs. 20)
Extremum42%Error in selecting top value (min vs. max for example)
Intersect42%Error in Intersect operation
Wrong structure32%QPL plan is not a connected tree
Syntax issue32%Predicted QPL is not syntactically valid
Except21%Error in Except operation
Distinct11%Missing distinct flag
Wrong table11%Refers to the wrong table in the schema
Grand Total167
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.304, + 0.389, + 0.694, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Error Types: Breakdown of errors by error types" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.429, + 0.279, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Error Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.489, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The most challenging error type is related to queries that involve aggregate operations (group by and aggregated values such as count, sum or max)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.489, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5 shows the breakdown of errors by error types for the \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\) QPL model with Rich Schema Encoding. We hypothesize that errors related to Join operations could be reduced by exploiting a more expressive description of the schema structure and applying either a post-processing critique of the generated QPL or enforcing stricter constraints in the QPL Picard parser. Similarly, a more detailed description of the content of encoded columns could improve the Wrong Constant type." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.668, + 0.489, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Spider development set includes 20 different schemas. Table 9 shows the break down of errors per schema. We observe that 5 schemas account for over \\(70\\%\\) of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling: keys are not declared, column naming is inconsistent, and value encoding in some columns is non standard (e.g., use of 'T'/'F' for boolean values)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.812, + 0.248, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We presented a method to improve compositional learning of complex text-to-SQL models based on QPL, a new executable and modular intermediary language that is derived from SQL through semantic transformation. We provide software tools to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.429, + 0.885, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "automatically translate SQL queries into QPL and to execute QPL plans by translating them to CTE SQL statements. We also compiled Spider-QPL, a version of Spider which includes QPL and Question Decomposition for all examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.886, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our experiments indicate that QPL is easier to learn using fine-tuned LLMs (our text-to-QPL model achieves SOTA results on fine-tuned models on Spider dev set without db values, especially on hard and extra-hard queries); and easier to interpret by users than SQL for complex queries. On the basis of the computed QPL plans, we derived a new form of Question Decomposition and trained a question decomposer that is sensitive to the target database schema, in contrast to existing generic question decomposers. Given a predicted QPL plan, we can derive a readable QD that increases the interpretability of the predicted plan." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In future work, we plan to further exploit the modularity of QPL plans for data augmentation and to explore multi-step inference techniques. We have started experimenting with an auto-regressive model which predicts QPL plans line by line. Our error analysis indicates that enhancing the model to further take advantage of the database values and foreign-keys has the potential to increase the robustness of this multi-step approach. We are also exploring whether users can provide interactive feedback on predicted QD as a way to guide QPL prediction." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13637" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.109, + 0.488, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All models mentioned in this paper were trained on one NVIDIA H100 GPU with 80GB RAM for 10 epochs, totaling around 8 hours of training per model at the cost of US$2 per GPU hour." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.174, + 0.489, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The models were tested on the Spider development set, which only has QPLs of up to 13 lines; our method has not been tested on longer QPLs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.222, + 0.489, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During training, we did not use schema information such as the primary-foreign key relationships and column types, nor did we use the actual databases' content. In this regard, our models might output incorrect Join predicates (due to lack of primary-foreign key information), or incorrect Scan predicates (due to lack of database content)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.335, + 0.489, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We acknowledge certain limitations arising from the evaluation conducted on the Spider development set. These limitations include:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. A total of 49 queries yield an empty result set on their corresponding databases. Consequently, inaccurately predicted QPLs could generate the same \"result\" as the gold query while bearing significant semantic differences. In the Spider-QPL dataset, we have inserted additional data so that none of the queries return an empty result set in the development set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.546, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. As many as 187 queries employ the LIMIT function. This can lead to complications in the presence of \"ties\"; for instance, when considering the query SELECT grade FROM students ORDER BY grade DESC LIMIT 1, the returned row becomes arbitrary if more than one student shares the highest grade." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.669, + 0.267, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The use of text-to-code applications inherently carries risks, especially when users are unable to confirm the accuracy of the generated code. This issue is particularly pronounced for intricate code, such as complex SQL queries. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a more transparent target language. However, our limited-scale user study reveals that, even when utilizing this more interpretable language, software engineers struggle to detect misaligned queries in more than \\(30\\%\\) of instances. This occurs even for queries with moderate complexity (QPL length of 5 to 7). More work on interpretability of generated code is warranted before deploying such tools." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.682, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.113, + 0.882, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank the Frankel Center for Computer Science at Ben Gurion University for their support." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.175, + 0.61, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.201, + 0.886, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Boin, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Representing schema structure with graph neural networks for text-to-SQL parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4560-4565, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.295, + 0.886, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shulin Cao, Jiaxin Shi, Liangming Pan, Lunyiu Nie, Yutong Xiang, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Bin He, and Hanwang Zhang. 2022. KQA pro: A dataset with explicit compositional programs for complex question answering over knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6101-6119, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.428, + 0.885, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidi Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.704, + 0.884, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.772, + 0.885, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.852, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, M. Witbrock, and Patricia J. Riddle. 2022a. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13638" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, Michael Witbrock, and Patricia Riddle. 2022b. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages 4093-4099. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.205, + 0.49, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 33-43, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.297, + 0.489, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Grant Fritchey. 2018. SQL Server Execution Plans: Third Edition. Red Gate Books." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.337, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruiliu Fu, Han Wang, Xuejun Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Yonghong Yan. 2021. Decomposing complex questions makes multi-hop QA easier and more interpretable. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 169-180, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.443, + 0.49, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yujiang Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, and Matthew Purver. 2022. Measuring and improving compositional generalization in text-to-SQL via component alignment. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 831-843, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.549, + 0.49, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021. Natural SQL: Making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2030-2042, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.655, + 0.49, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.721, + 0.49, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaqi Guo, Qian Liu, Jian-Guang Lou, Zhenwen Li, Xueqing Liu, Tao Xie, and Ting Liu. 2020. Benchmarking meaning representations in neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1520-1540, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, JianGuang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards complex text-to-SQL in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4524-4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Span-based semantic parsing for compositional generalization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 908-921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.203, + 0.885, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.268, + 0.885, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Huang, Sitao Cheng, Yiheng Shu, Yuheng Bao, and Yuzhong Qu. 2023. Question decomposition tree for answering complex questions over knowledge bases." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.333, + 0.885, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wonseok Hwang, Jinyeung Yim, Seunghyun Park, and Minjoon Seo. 2019. A comprehensive exploration on wikisql with table-aware word contextualization. CoRR, abs/1902.01069." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.398, + 0.885, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Scharli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2019. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. *ICLR* 2020, abs/1912.09713." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.515, + 0.885, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jiang Guo, Shenmin Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, Lin Pan, Mingwen Dong, J. Wang, Jiarong Jiang, Stephen M. Ash, Vittorio Castelli, Patrick Ng, and Bing Xiang. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. ArXiv, abs/2305.16265." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.619, + 0.885, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dongjun Lee. 2019. Clause-wise and recursive decoding for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6045-6051, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.736, + 0.885, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, Kevin C. Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. ArXiv, abs/2305.03111." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13639" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.135, + 0.489, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiping Liu and Zhao Tan. 2023. Divide and prompt: Chain of thought prompting for text-to-sql." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.172, + 0.49, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading comprehension through question decomposition and rescoring. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097-6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.273, + 0.489, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.348, + 0.489, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yilin Niu, Fei Huang, Wei Liu, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Bridging the Gap between Synthetic and Natural Questions via Sentence Decomposition for Semantic Parsing. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:367-383." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8864-8880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.538, + 0.489, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.587, + 0.49, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.675, + 0.49, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bah-danau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.724, + 0.49, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Irina Saparina and Anton Osokin. 2021. SPARQLing database queries from intermediate question decompositions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8984-8998, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "P. Griffiths Selinger, M. M. Astrahan, D. D. Chamberlin, R. A. Lorie, and T. G. Price. 1979. Access path selection in a relational database management system. In Proceedings of the 1979 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '79, page 23-34, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.187, + 0.885, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 922-938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.313, + 0.885, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lysandre Debut Younes Belkada Sayak Paul Sourab Mangrulkar, Sylvain Gugger. 2022. Peft: State-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. https://github.com/huggingface/peft." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.375, + 0.885, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020a. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.476, + 0.885, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lei Wang, Wanyu Xu, Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Yunshi Lan, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.537, + 0.885, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ping Wang, Tian Shi, and Chandan K. Reddy. 2020b. Text-to-sql generation for question answering on electronic medical records. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, page 350-361, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.625, + 0.885, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.725, + 0.885, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.891, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomer Wolfson, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Weakly supervised text-to-SQL parsing" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13640" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "through question decomposition. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2528-2542, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.152, + 0.49, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomer Wolfson, Mor Geva, Ankit Gupta, Matt Gardner, Yoav Goldberg, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Break It Down: A Question Understanding Benchmark. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:183-198." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.232, + 0.49, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Qingyu Yin, Danqing Zhang, Bing Yin, and Diyi Yang. 2022. SEQZERO: Few-shot compositional semantic parsing with sequential prompts and zero-shot models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 49-60, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.337, + 0.49, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yunhu Ye, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Large language models are versatile decomposers: Decompose evidence and questions for table-based reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2301.13808." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.417, + 0.49, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 440-450, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.51, + 0.49, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Yu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kai Yang, Rui Zhang, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2018a. SyntaxSQLNet: Syntax tree networks for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1653-1663, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018b. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoyu Zhang, Jingjing Cai, Jianjun Xu, and Ji Wang. 2019. Complex question decomposition for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4477-4486, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiajie Zhang, Shulin Cao, Tingjia Zhang, Xin Lv, Jiaxin Shi, Qingwen Tian, Juanzi Li, and Lei Hou. 2023. Reasoning over hierarchical question decomposition tree for explainable question answering. ArXiv, abs/2305.15056." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenting Zhao, Konstantine Arkoudas, Weiqi Sun, and Claire Cardie. 2022. *Compositional task-oriented parsing as abstractive question answering*. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4418-4427, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.201, + 0.885, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.252, + 0.885, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Zhou, Kyle Richardson, Xiaodong Yu, and Dan Roth. 2022. Learning to decompose: Hypothetical question decomposition based on comparable texts. ArXiv, abs/2210.16865." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.32, + 0.635, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.345, + 0.696, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 \\(\\mathbf{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathbf{QPL}\\) Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.885, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} \\) model was trained using the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and PEFT (Sourab Mangrulkar, 2022) libraries. As the Flan-T5-XL model was too large to fine-tune on one GPU, we use the LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) method to fine-tune only the q and v matrices of the model. Hyperparameters used in training are listed in Table 7. The trained model and training and validation datasets are available on https://huggingface.co/bgunlp." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.589, + 0.54, + 0.806, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterValue
# Epoch10
Dropout Prob.0.05
Batch Size1
Learning Rate0.0002
Adaptation (r)16
LoRA α32
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.679, + 0.854, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{{QPL}} \\) Training Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.714, + 0.776, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Schema Encoding Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.736, + 0.882, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare two methods to describe the database schema when we prompt our models:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.779, + 0.885, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Simple Schema Encoding: this is similar to Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Rich Schema Encoding: this encoding provides for each column a simplified type (as in Spider - text, number, date or other); primary and foreign keys; and values." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.779, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13641" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.29, + 0.082, + 0.71, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
QPL LengthQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLSupport
187.3%78.3%189
286.6%83.4%277
385.3%78.0%191
475.0%62.9%124
567.1%54.4%164
648.2%25.9%27
731.8%22.7%44
≥811.9%24.4%18
Overall77.4%69.1%1034
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.277, + 0.88, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Execution Accuracy of Text-to-QPL Models on Spider Development Set by Length of QPL. QPL length is a more natural measure of query complexity than the method used to classify queries in Spider. We find that there is little correlation between QPL Length and the Spider difficulty level." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.345, + 0.236, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For example:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.362, + 0.398, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple Schema Encoding: pets_1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.393, + 0.476, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table Student (StuID, LName, Fname, Age, Sex, Major, Advisor, city_code)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.424, + 0.448, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table Pets (PetID, PetType, pet_age, weight)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.457, + 0.375, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table Has_Pet (StuID, PetID)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.487, + 0.38, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rich Schema Encoding: pets_1" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.518, + 0.394, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CREATE TABLE Student ( StuID number, LName text, Fname text, Age number, Sex text, Major number, Advisor number, city_code text, primary key (StuID))" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.695, + 0.394, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CREATE TABLE Pets ( PetID number, PetType text ( dog ), pet_age number, weight number, primary key ( PetID ))" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.808, + 0.475, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CREATE TABLE Has_Pet (StuID number, PetID number, foreign key (StuID) references Student (StuID), foreign key (PetID) references Pets (PetID))" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.345, + 0.882, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Values are added after each column when an n-gram from the question is found as one of the values in one of the rows of the table. For example, for the question \"How much does the youngest dog weigh?\", the n-gram \"dog\" is found in the values of the column PetType. In this case, the value annotation PetType text (dog) is encoded." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.468, + 0.787, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Question Decomposer Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.882, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The prompt given to ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) to decompose a question given QPL is listed in Fig. 5. The full prompt (including BNF and all 6 examples) is available on GitHub." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.564, + 0.657, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 QPL Syntax" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.585, + 0.882, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show the BNF of the QPL language we have designed in Fig. 6. This grammar is used as part of the PICARD parser used for the decoder of all QPL predictor models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.66, + 0.704, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Errors by Schema" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.68, + 0.882, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9 shows error rate for the \\( \\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} \\) model with Rich Schema Encoding by schema for each of the 20 schemas present in Spider's development set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.745, + 0.882, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We observe that 5 of the 20 schemas (car_1, flight_2, student_transcripts_tracking, world_1 and wta_1) account for \\(41.8\\%\\) of the examples in the development set and \\(70.1\\%\\) of the errors. Most of the errors in these specific schemas can be traced to missing key declarations, inconsistent column naming and typing (strings used to encode boolean or number values)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13642" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.113, + 0.878, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "QPL is a formalism used to describe data retrieval operations over an SQL schema in a modular manner. A QPL plan is a sequence of instructions for querying tabular data to answer a natural language question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.149, + 0.675, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Forget everything you know about SQL, only use the following explanations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.172, + 0.653, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A schema is specified as a list of specification in the format:
: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.208, + 0.428, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A plan contains a sequence of operations. All operations return a stream of tuples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.232, + 0.818, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All operations take as input either a physical table from the schema (for the Scan operation) or the output of other operations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.267, + 0.743, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let's think step by step to convert QPL plan to natural language plan given schema, question, and QPL that describe the question." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.303, + 0.336, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the natural language plan:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.315, + 0.75, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. You must have exactly the same number of questions as there are steps in the QPL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.327, + 0.787, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The questions you generate must follow exactly the same order as the steps in the QPL." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.315, + 0.787, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.35, + 0.51, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This is the formal specification for each operation:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.373, + 0.382, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(BNF goes here, elided for brevity)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.397, + 0.192, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Example 1:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.421, + 0.17, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Schema:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.433, + 0.594, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table Visitor (ID, Name, Age, Level_of_membership) \nTable Museum (Museum_ID, Name, Open Year, Num_of_staff) \nTable Visit (Visitor_ID, Museum_ID, Total_Spent, Num_of_Ticket)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.48, + 0.185, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.492, + 0.7, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "What is the total ticket expense of the visitors whose membership level is 1?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.516, + 0.185, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "QPL Plan:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.527, + 0.713, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#1 = Scan Table [ visitor ] Predicate [ Level_of_membership = 1 ] Output [ ID ]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.54, + 0.58, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(2 =\\) Scan Table [ visit ] Output [ visitor_ID, Total_spent]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.552, + 0.737, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#3 = Join [ #1, #2 ] Predicate [ #1.ID = #2visitor_ID ] Output [ #2.Total_spent ]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.564, + 0.632, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#4 = Aggregate [ #3 ] Output [ SUM(Total_spent) AS Sum_Total_spent ]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.587, + 0.284, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural Language Plan:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.599, + 0.721, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#1 = Scan the table Visitor to find who are the visitors with membership level 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.611, + 0.79, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#2 = Scan the table Visit to find what is the total spent by visitors during their visits" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.623, + 0.662, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( \\# 3 = \\) Join #1 and #2 to find what is the total spent by each visitor with membership level 1 during their visits" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.646, + 0.82, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#4 = Group #3 by Visitor and aggregate the sum of total spent to find what is the total spent by all visitors with membership level 1 during their visit" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.681, + 0.321, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(5 more examples are given)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.705, + 0.223, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Now your turn:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.729, + 0.177, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Schema: {schema}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.765, + 0.194, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: {question}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.8, + 0.186, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "QPL Plan: {qpl}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.835, + 0.283, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural Language Plan:" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.367, + 0.87, + 0.63, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Prompt used to generate QD" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13643" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.184, + 0.432, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " ::= + \n ::= # = \n ::= \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| " + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.377, + 0.835, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "-- Leaf operator\n ::= Scan Table [ ] ? ? " + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.426, + 0.8, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "-- Unary operators \n ::= Aggregate [ ] \n ::= Filter [ ] \n ::= Sort [ ] \n ::= TopSort [ ] Rows [ ] \n " + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.538, + 0.889, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "-- Binary operators \n ::= Join [ , ] ? ? \n ::= Except [ , ] \n ::= Intersect [ , ] ? \n ::= Union [ , ] \n ::= GroupBy [ (, )* ] \n ::= OrderBy [ (, )* ] \n ::= WithTies [ true | false ] \n ::= ASC | DESC \n ::= Predicate [ (AND | OR )* ] \n ::= Distinct [ true | false ] \n ::= Output [ (, )* ] \n ::= Output [ (, )* ] \n ::= # . " + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.413, + 0.799, + 0.585, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: QPL Grammar" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13644" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.138, + 0.794, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
QD-QPL AlignmentSupportCorrectExec AccAvg QPL Gold Len.
[0.0, 0.4]1005.0
(0.4, 0.5]19421.14.6
(0.5, 0.6]9222.26.3
(0.6, 0.7]43920.95.0
(0.7, 0.8]632133.34.2
(0.8, 0.9]933335.54.6
(0.9, 1]77962480.12.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.293, + 0.816, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: \\( \\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{{QD}} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{{QPL}} \\) model trained with QDs predicted by Trained Question Decomposer" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.241, + 0.428, + 0.761, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Schema IDErrorsSamplesError Rate
battle_death1166%
car_1279229%
concert_singer54511%
course_teach0300%
cre_Doc_Package_Mgt88410%
dog_kennels128215%
employee_hire_evaluation1383%
flight_2158019%
museum.visit21811%
network_195616%
orchestra0400%
pets_12425%
poker_player0400%
real_estate_property1425%
singer1303%
student_transcripts_tracking167821%
tvshow5628%
voter_131520%
world_14412037%
wta_1156224%
Grand Total167103416%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.816, + 0.884, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Breakdown of errors by Schema ID: 5 schemas out of the 20 present in Spider's development set account for \\(70\\%\\) of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling and lack proper foreign key declarations." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13645" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_origin.pdf b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31e74d11ab90e0382f919896862dc6b4de72e185 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/24c1b45e-a8f4-46f9-9983-ebff85cb144b_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:cbc890222af2e01725f34b0ae410ceefca02bb34a19bfdcdd768cf249511db1a +size 344074 diff --git a/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/full.md b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a6461d34b9b1a26b653eef56e622365f18db8c81 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,556 @@ +# Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing + +Ben Eyal and Amir Bachar and Ophir Haroche + +Moran Mahabi and Michael Elhadad + +Dept of Computer Science + +Ben Gurion University + +BeerSheva,Israel + +# Abstract + +Text-to-SQL semantic parsing faces challenges in generalizing to cross-domain and complex queries. Recent research has employed a question decomposition strategy to enhance the parsing of complex SQL queries. However, this strategy encounters two major obstacles: (1) existing datasets lack question decomposition; (2) due to the syntactic complexity of SQL, most complex queries cannot be disentangled into sub-queries that can be readily recomposed. + +To address these challenges, we propose a new modular Query Plan Language (QPL) that systematically decomposes SQL queries into simple and regular sub-queries. We develop a translator from SQL to QPL by leveraging analysis of SQL server query optimization plans, and we augment the Spider dataset with QPL programs. Experimental results demonstrate that the modular nature of QPL benefits existing semantic-parsing architectures, and training text-to-QPL parsers is more effective than text-to-SQL parsing for semantically equivalent queries. + +The QPL approach offers two additional advantages: (1) QPL programs can be paraphrased as simple questions, which allows us to create a dataset of (complex question, decomposed questions). Training on this dataset, we obtain a Question Decomposer for data retrieval that is sensitive to database schemas. (2) QPL is more accessible to non-experts for complex queries, leading to more interpretable output from the semantic parser. + +# 1 Introduction + +Querying and exploring complex relational data stores necessitate programming skills and domain-specific knowledge of the data. Text-to-SQL semantic parsing allows non-expert programmers to formulate questions in natural language, convert the questions into SQL, and inspect the execution results. While recent progress has been remarkable on this task, general cross-domain text-to-SQL models still face challenges on complex schemas + +and queries. State of the art text-to-SQL models show performance above $90\%$ for easy queries, but fall to about $50\%$ on complex ones (see Table 1). This accuracy drop is particularly bothersome for non-experts, because they also find it difficult to verify whether a complex SQL query corresponds to the intent behind the question they asked. In a user study we performed, we found that software engineers who are not experts in SQL fail to determine whether a complex SQL query corresponds to a question in about $66\%$ of the cases (see Table 4). The risk of text-to-code models producing incorrect results with confidence is thus acute: complex SQL queries non-aligned with users intent will be hard to detect. + +In this paper, we address the challenge of dealing with complex data retrieval questions through a compositional approach. Based on the success of the question decomposition approach for multi-hop question answering, recent work in semantic parsing has also investigated ways to deal with complex SQL queries with a Question Decomposition (QD) strategy. In another direction, previous attempts have focused on splitting complex SQL queries into spans (e.g., aggregation operators, join criteria, column selection) and generating each span separately. + +In our approach, we start from a semantic analysis of the SQL query. We introduce a new intermediary language, which we call Query Plan Language (QPL) that is modular and decomposable. QPL can be directly executed on SQL databases through direct translation to modular SQL Common Table Expressions (CTEs). We design QPL to be both easier to learn with modern neural architectures than SQL and easier to interpret by non-experts. The overall approach is illustrated in Fig. 1. We develop an automatic translation method from SQL to QPL. On the basis of the modular QPL program, we also learn how to generate a natural language decomposition of the original question. + +# Question + +What is the official language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix? + +# Gold SQL + +SELECT T2.Language + +FROM country AS T1 + +JOIN countrylanguage AS T2 ON T1.Code = T2.CountryCode + +WHERE T1.HeadOfState = 'Beatrix' AND T2.IsOfficial = 'T' + +# Gold QPL + +1 = Scan Table [country] Predicate [HeadOfState = 'Beatrix'] Output [Code, HeadOfState] + +#2 = Scan Table [countrylanguage] Output [CountryCode, Language, Officials] + +#3 = Filter[#2] Predicate [IsOfficial = 'T'] Output [CountryCode, Language] + +#4 = Join[#1,#3] Predicate[#3.CountryCode = #1.Code] Output[#3.Language] + +# Computed Question Decomposition (QD) + +1 = Scan the table country and retrieve the code and + +head of state of the country whose head of state is Beatrix + +$\# 2 =$ Scan the table countrylanguage and retrieve the country codes, languages and if they're official + +#3 = Filter from #2 all the official languages and retrieve the country codes and languages + +#4 = Join #1 and #3 based on the matching country codes and retrieve the language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix + +# Predicted QDMR + +#1 = return countries whose head of state is beatrix ; + +#2 = return the official language spoken in the official language of #1 + +Figure 1: Example QPL and Question Decomposition compared to the original SQL query from Spider and to the predicted QDMR question decomposition from (Wolfson et al., 2020). + +In contrast to generic QD methods such as QDMR (Wolfson et al., 2020), our decomposition takes into account the database schema which is referenced by the question and the semantics of the QPL operations. + +Previous research in semantic parsing has shown that the choice of the target language impacts a model's ability to learn to parse text into an accurate semantic representation. For instance, Guo et al. (2020) compared the performance of various architectures on three question-answering datasets with targets converted to Prolog, Lambda Calculus, FunQL, and SQL. They discovered that the same architectures produce lower accuracy (up to a $10\%$ difference) when generating SQL, indicating that + +SQL is a challenging target language for neural models. The search for a target language that is easier to learn has been pursued in Text-to-SQL as well (Yu et al., 2018a; Guo et al., 2019; Gan et al., 2021). We can view QPL as another candidate intermediary language, which in contrast to previous attempts, does not rely on a syntactic analysis of the SQL queries but rather on a semantic transformation into a simpler, more regular query language. + +In the rest of the paper, we review recent work in text-to-SQL models that investigates intermediary representations and question decomposition. We then present the Query Plan Language (QPL) we have designed and the conversion procedure + +we have implemented to translate the existing large-scale Spider dataset into QPL. We then describe how we exploit the semantic transformation of SQL to QPL to derive a dataset of schemadependent Question Decompositions. We finally present strategies that exploit the compositional nature of QPL to train models capable of predicting complex QPL query plans from natural language questions, and to decompose questions into data-retrieval oriented decompositions. + +We investigate two main research questions: (RQ1) Is it easier to learn Text-to-QPL - a modular, decomposable query language - than to learn Text-to-SQL using Language Model based architectures; (RQ2) Can non-expert users interpret QPL outputs in an easier manner than they can for complex SQL queries. + +Our main contributions are (1) the definition of the QPL language together with automatic translation from SQL to QPL and execution of QPL on standard SQL servers; (2) the construction of the Spider-QPL dataset which enriches the Spider samples with validated QPL programs for Spider's dataset together with Question Decompositions based on the QPL structure; (3) Text-to-QPL models to predict QPL from a (Schema + Question) input that are competitive with state of the art Text-to-SQL models and perform better on complex queries; (4) a user experiment validating that non-expert users can detect incorrect complex queries better on QPL than on SQL. + +# 2 Previous Work + +Text-to-SQL parsing consists of mapping a question $Q = (x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})$ and a database schema $S = [table_{1}(col_{1}^{1}\dots col_{c_{1}}^{1}),\dots ,table_{T}(col_{1}^{T}\dots col_{c_{T}}^{T})]$ into a valid SQL query $Y = (y_{1},\dots ,y_{q})$ . Performance metrics include exact match (where the predicted query is compared to the expected one according to the overall SQL structure and within each field token by token) and execution match (where the predicted query is executed on a database and results are compared). + +Several large Text-to-SQL datasets have been created, some with single schema (Wang et al., 2020b), some with simple queries (Zhong et al., 2017). Notably, the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018b) encompasses over 200 database schemas with over 5K complex queries and 10K questions. + +It is employed to assess the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models to unseen schemas on complex queries. Recent datasets have increased the scale to more samples and more domains (Lan et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). In this paper, we focus on the Spider dataset for our experiments, as it enables comparison with many previous methods. + +# 2.1 Architectures for Text-to-SQL + +Since the work of Dong and Lapata (2016), leading text-to-SQL models have adopted attention-based sequence to sequence architectures, translating the question and schema into a well-formed SQL query. Pre-trained transformer models have improved performance as in many other NLP tasks, starting with BERT-based models (Hwang et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020) and up to larger LLMs, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in (Scholak et al., 2021), OpenAI CodeX (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT variants in (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu and Tan, 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023). + +In addition to pre-trained transformer models, several task-specific improvements have been introduced: the encoding of the schema can be improved through effective representation learning Boin et al. (2019), and the attention mechanism of the sequence-to-sequence model can be fine-tuned Wang et al. (2020a). On the decoding side, techniques that incorporate the syntactic structure of the SQL output have been proposed. + +To make sure that models generate a sequence of tokens that obey SQL syntax, different approaches have been proposed: in (Yin and Neubig, 2017), instead of generating a sequence of tokens, code-oriented models generate the abstract syntax tree (AST) of expressions of the target program. Scholak et al. (2021) defined the constrained decoding method with PICARD. PICARD is an independent module on top of a text-to-text auto-regressive model that uses an incremental parser to constrain the generated output to adhere to the target SQL grammar. Not only does this eliminate almost entirely invalid SQL queries, but the parser is also schema-aware, thus reducing the number of semantically incorrect queries, e.g., selecting a non-existent column from a specific table. We have adopted constrained decoding in our approach, by designing an incremental parser for QPL, and enforcing the generation of syntactically valid plans. + +
DifficultyNatSQL + RAT-SQLDin-SQL GPT-4GPT3.5-turbo
Easy91.6%91.1%87.7%
Medium75.2%79.8%75.1%
Hard65.5%64.9%72.5%
Extra Hard51.8%43.4%53.9%
Overall73.7%74.2%74.3%
+ +Table 1: Spider Development Set baseline execution accuracy by difficulty level + +# 2.2 Zero-shot and Few-shot LLM Methods + +With recent LLM progress, the multi-task capabilities of LLMs have been tested on text-to-SQL. In zero-shot mode, a task-specific prompt is prefixed to a textual encoding of the schema and the question, and the LLM outputs an SQL query. Rajkumar et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2023), showed that OpenAI Codex achieves $67\%$ execution accuracy. In our own evaluation, GPT-4 (as of May 2023) achieves about $74\%$ execution accuracy under the same zero-shot prompting conditions. + +Few-shot LLM prompting strategies have also been investigated: example selection strategies are reviewed in (Guo et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023) and report about $85\%$ execution accuracy when tested on Spider dev or 7K examples from the Spider training set. Pourreza and Rafiei (2023); Liu and Tan (2023) are top performers on Spider with the GPT4-based DIN-SQL. They use multi-step prompting strategies with query decomposition. + +Few-shot LLM prompting methods close the gap and even outperform specialized Text-to-SQL models with about $85\%$ execution match vs. $80\%$ for 3B parameters specialized models on the Spider test set, without requiring any fine-tuning or training. In this paper, we focus on the hardest cases of queries, which remain challenging both in SQL and in QPL (with execution accuracy at about $60\%$ in the best cases). We also note that OpenAI-based models are problematic as baselines, since they cannot be reproduced reliably.2 + +# 2.3 Intermediary Target Representations + +Most text-to-SQL systems suffer from a severe drop in performance for complex queries, as reported for example in DIN-SQL results where the drop in execution accuracy between simple queries and hard queries is from about $85\%$ to $55\%$ (see also (Lee, 2019)). We demonstrate this drop in + +Table 1 which shows execution accuracy of leading baseline models (Gan et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) per Spider difficulty level on the development set. The GPT3.5-turbo results correspond to our own experiment using zero-shot prompt. Other methods have been used to demonstrate that current sequence to sequence methods suffer at compositional generalization, that is, systems trained on simple queries, fail to generate complex queries, even though they know how to generate the components of the complex query. This weakness is diagnosed by using challenging compositional splits (Keysers et al., 2019; Shaw et al., 2021; Gan et al., 2022) over the training data. + +One of the reasons for such failure to generalize to complex queries relates to the gap between the syntactic structure of natural language questions and the target SQL queries. This has motivated a thread of work attempting to generate simplified or more generalizable logical forms than executable SQL queries. These attempts are motivated by empirical results on other semantic parsing formalisms that showed that adequate syntax of the logical form can make learning more successful (Guo et al., 2020; Herzig and Berant, 2021). + +Most notable attempts include SyntaxSQLNet (Yu et al., 2018a), SemQL (Guo et al., 2019) and NatSQL (Gan et al., 2021). NatSQL aims at reducing the gap between questions and queries. It introduces a simplified syntax for SQL from which the original SQL can be recovered. Figure 2 illustrates how this simplified syntax is aligned with spans of the question. + +Our work is directly related to this thread. Our approach in designing $QPL$ is different from NatsQL, in that we do not follow SQL syntax nor attempt to mimic the syntax of natural language. Instead, we apply a semantic transformation on the SQL query, and obtain a compositional regular query language, where all the nodes are simple executable operators which feed into other nodes in + +# Question + +What type of pet is the youngest animal, and how much does it weigh? + +# SQL + +SELECT PetType , Weight FROM Pets ORDER BY Pet_Age LIMIT 1 + +# Spider-SS Decomposition + +SubSentence: What type of pet +NatSQL: SELECT Pets.Petty +SubSentence: is the youngest animal +NatSQL: ORDER BY Pets.Pet_Age LIMIT 1 +SubSentence: and how much does it weigh? +NatSQL: SELECT Pets.Weight + +Figure 2: NATSQL and Question Decomposition in Spider-SS (Gan et al., 2022) + +a data-flow graph according to the execution plan of the SQL query. Our method does not aim at simplifying the mapping of a single question to a whole query, but instead at decomposing a question into a tree of simpler questions, which can then be mapped to simple queries. The design of QPL vs. SQL adopts the same objectives as those defined in KoPL vs. SparQL in (Cao et al., 2022) in the setting of QA over Knowledge Graphs. + +# 2.4 Question Decomposition Approaches + +Our approach is also inspired by work attempting to solve complex QA and semantic parsing using a question decomposition strategy (Perez et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Saparina and Osokin, 2021; Wolfson et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Deng et al., 2022b; Zhao et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2023). In this approach, the natural language question is decomposed into a chain of sub-steps, which has been popular in the context of Knowledge-Graph-based QA with multi-hop questions (Min et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). Recent work attempts to decompose the questions into trees (Huang et al., 2023), which yields explainable answers (Zhang et al., 2023). + +In this approach, the question decomposer is sometimes learned in a joint-manner to optimize the performance of an end to end model (Ye et al., 2023); it can also be derived from a syntactic analysis of complex questions (Deng et al., 2022a); or specialized pre-training of decompositions using distant supervision from comparable texts (Zhou et al., 2022); or weak supervision from execution + +values (Wolfson et al., 2022). LLMs have also been found effective as generic question decomposers in Chain of Thought (CoT) methods (Wei et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). In this work, we compare our own Question Decomposition method with the QDMR model (Wolfson et al., 2022). + +# 3 Decomposing Queries into QPL + +# 3.1 Query Plan Language Dataset Conversion + +We design Query Plan Language (QPL) as a modular dataflow language that encodes the semantics of SQL queries. We take inspiration in our semantic transformation from SQL to QPL from the definition of the execution plans used internally by SQL optimizers, e.g., (Selinger et al., 1979). We automatically convert the original Spider dataset into a version that includes QPL expressions for all the training and development parts of Spider. The detailed syntax of QPL is shown in § A.4. + +QPL is a hierarchical representation for execution plans. It is a tree of operations in which the leaves are table reading nodes (Scan nodes), and the inner nodes are either unary operations (such as Aggregate and Filter) or binary operations (such as Join and Intersect). Nodes have arguments, such as the table to scan in a Scan node, or the join predicate of a Join node. + +An important distinction between QPL plans and SQL queries is that every QPL sub-plan is a valid executable operator, which returns a stream of data tuples. For example, Fig. 1 shows an execution plan with 4 steps and depth 2. The 4 steps are: the two Scan leaves, the Filter sub-plan, and the Join sub-plan, which is the root of the overall plan. + +We automatically convert SQL queries into semantically equivalent QPL plans by reusing the execution plans produced by Microsoft SQL Server 2019 query optimizer (Fritchey, 2018). QPL is a high-level abstraction of the physical execution plan produced (which includes data and index statistics). In QPL syntax, we reduced the number of operators to the 9 operators listed in Table 2. We also design the operators to be context free, i.e., all operators take as input streams of tuples and output a stream of tuples, and the output of an operator only depends on its inputs.3 We experiment with different syntactic realizations of QPL expressions, + +
OperatorDescription
ScanScan all rows in a table with optional filtering predicate
AggregateAggregate a stream of tuples using a grouping criterion into a stream of groups
FilterRemove tuples from a stream that do not match a predicate
SortSort a stream according to a sorting expression
TopSortSelect the top-K tuples from a stream according to a sorting expression
JoinPerform a logical join operation between two streams based on a join condition
ExceptCompute the set difference between two streams of tuples
IntersectCompute the set intersection between two streams of tuples
UnionCompute the set union between two streams of tuples
+ +![](images/953e238ff6c15bbd98953b45e38039b0e282606bed872bef0863b98301bedf49.jpg) +Table 2: Description of QPL Operators +Figure 3: QPL generation process: the dataset SQL expressions are run through the query optimizer, which is then converted into QPL. QPL expressions are converted into modular CTE SQL programs, which can be executed. We verify that the execution results match those of the original SQL queries. +Figure 4: SQL query and its equivalent CTE + +and elected the version where steps are numbered and ordered bottom-up, corresponding roughly to the execution order of the steps. We validate that the result sets returned by the converted QPL plans are equivalent to those of the original Spider SQL queries. We thus enrich the Spider training and development sets with semantically equivalent QPL programs as shown in Fig. 3. + +# 3.2 Text-to-QPL Model + +# Original SQL + +```sql +SELECT template_id, count(*) FROM Documents GROUP BY template_id +``` + +# CTE + +```sql +WITH +Scan_1 AS (SELECT Template_ID FROM Documents), +Aggregate_2 AS (SELECT COUNT(*) AS Count, Template_ID FROM Scan_1 GROUP BY Template_ID) +SELECT * FROM Aggregate_2 +``` + +In order to train a text-to-QPL model, we fine-tune Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) on 6,509 training examples. Each example contains a question, schema information and the gold computed QPL. The input to the model is the same as in Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ... We also experiment with rich schema encoding, adding type, key and value information as described in §A.2. We train the model for 15 full epochs and choose the model with the best execution accuracy on the development set. Execution accuracy is calculated by generating a QPL prediction, converting it to Common Table Expression format (CTE) (see example in Fig. 4), running the CTE in the database and comparing the predicted result sets of the predicted and gold CTEs. Final evaluation of the model uses the PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) decoder with a parser we developed for QPL syntax. This constrained decoding method ensures that the generated QPL programs are syntactically valid. + +# 4 Question Decomposition + +We use the QPL plans automatically computed from SQL queries in the dataset to derive a set of + +question decompositions (QD) that are grounded in the QPL steps, as shown in Fig. 1. We investigate three usages of this QD method: (1) $QPL \rightarrow QD$ : we learn how to generate a QD given a QPL plan; this is useful at inference time, to present the predicted QPL to non-expert users, as a more readable form of the plan; (2) $Q \rightarrow QD$ we train a question decomposer on the Spider-QPL dataset for which we collect a set of validated automatically generated QDs; (3) $Q + QD \rightarrow QPL$ we finally investigate a Text-to-QPL predictor model which given a question, firstly generates a corresponding QD, and then predicts a QPL plan based on $(Q + QD)$ . + +# 4.1 QPL to QD + +We use the OpenAI gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 model to generate a QD given a QPL plan. We prepared a few-shot prompt that includes a detailed description of the QPL language syntax and six examples that cover all the QPL operators that we prepared manually (see §A.3). + +We validated manually 50 pairs (QPL, QD) generated using this method and found them to be reliable, varied and fluent. In addition, we designed an automatic metric to verify that the generated QDs are well aligned with the source QPL plan: (1) we verify that the number of steps in QD is the same as that in the source QPL; (2) we identify the leaf Scan instructions in the QD and verify that they are aligned with the corresponding QPL Scan operations. To this end, we use a fuzzy string matching method to identify the name of the table to be scanned in the QD instruction. The QPL-QD alignment score combines the distance between the length of QD and QPL and the IoU (intersection over union) measure of the set of Scan operations. + +# 4.2 Dataset Preparation + +Using the QPL $\rightarrow$ QD generator, we further enrich the Spider-QPL dataset with a computed QD field for each sample. For the sake of comparison, we also compute the predicted QDMR decomposition of the question (Wolfson et al., 2020) using the Question Decomposer from (Wolfson et al., 2022) $^4$ + +We obtain for each example a tuple: . We obtained 1,007 valid QDs (QPL-QD alignment score of 1.0) in the Spider Dev Set (out of 1,034) and 6,285 out of 6,509 in the Training Set with a valid QPL. + +# 4.3 Question Decomposer Model + +Given the dataset of $< \mathrm{Q},\mathrm{QD}>$ obtained above we train a QPL Question Decomposer which learns to predict a QD in our format given a question and a schema description: $Q + Schema \rightarrow QD$ . We fine-tune a Flan-T5-XL model for this task, using the same schema encoding as for the $Q + Schema \rightarrow QPL$ model shown in §3.2. + +# 4.4 Q+QD to QPL Prediction + +We train a Flan-T5-XL model under the same conditions as previous models on $\langle Q, QD, QPL \rangle$ to predict QPL given the QD computed by our question decomposer. + +# 5 Experiments and Results + +# 5.1 Text-to-QPL Prediction + +We present our results on the Spider development set in Table 3. We compare our models to T5-3B with PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), as it is the closest model to ours in terms of number of parameters, architecture, and decoding strategy. To make the comparison as close as possible, we retrain a model $\langle \mathrm{Q} \to \mathrm{SQL} \rangle$ using the same base model Flan-T5-XL as we use for our $\langle \mathrm{Q} \to \mathrm{QPL} \rangle$ model. We also compare two schema encoding methods: Simple Schema Encoding only provides the list of table names and column names for each table; Rich Schema Encoding provides for each column additional information: simplified type (same types as used in Spider's dataset - text, number, date, other), keys (primary and foreign keys) and values (see §A.2 for details). We see that at every difficulty level (except "Easy" for Simple Schema Encoding), our $\mathrm{Q} \to \mathrm{QPL}$ model improves on the baseline. The same is true compared to the other models in Table 1. All other things being equal, this experiment indicates that it is easier to learn QPL as a target language than SQL (RQ1). + +On overall accuracy, the direct $\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL}$ model achieves a respectable 77.4% without database content and 83.8% with database content. Our model notably achieves highest execution accuracy on Hard and Extra-Hard queries across existing fine-tuned and LLM-based models (70.0% across Hard+Extra-Hard with database content). + +
Spider DifficultyQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLQ → SQLSupport
Simple Schema Encoding
Easy87.5%84.7%91.9%248
Medium84.3%72.2%76.9%446
Hard66.7%62.0%64.9%174
Extra Hard54.8%45.1%44.6%166
Overall77.4%69.1%73.3%1034
Rich Schema Encoding
Easy93.5%91.5%248
Medium89.0%88.3%446
Hard74.7%69.5%174
Extra Hard65.1%63.9%166
Overall83.8%82.0%1034
+ +Table 3: Accuracy on Spider Development Set by difficulty level with Simple Schema Encoding (table names and column names) and Rich Schema Encoding (column types, keys, values). + +
TypeGold labelTimeCorrect
QPLIncorrect query89%53%
Correct query100%79%
67%
SQLIncorrect query102%50%
Correct query101%25%
34%
Avg timeQPL123s
SQL132s
+ +Table 4: User experiment: 20 (question, query) pairs are shown to 4 users - half in QPL and half in SQL, half are correct and half incorrect. The table reports how long users assessed on average each query, and how often they were right in assessing the correctness of the query. + +The $< \mathrm{Q} + \mathrm{QD} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL} >$ model is inferior to the direct $\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL}$ model (69.1% to 77.4% with simple schema encoding). We verified that this is due to the lower quality of the QD produced by our question decomposer. On Oracle QD, the model produces about 83% accuracy without database content. Table 8 confirms that the model accuracy level increases when the QD-QPL alignment score increases. This indicates that the development of a more robust question decomposer grounded in query decomposition for training signal has the potential to improve semantic parsing performance. + +In addition, we find that the $<\mathrm{Q} + \mathrm{QD} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL}>$ model produces correct answers that were not computed by the direct $<\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL}>$ model in 50 cases + +(6 easy, 18 medium, 15 hard, 11 extra hard). This diversity is interesting, because for hard and extra-hard cases, execution accuracy remains low (55%-74%). Showing multiple candidates from different models may be a viable strategy to indicate the lack of confidence the model has on these queries. + +# 5.2 Interpretability User Experiment + +In order to probe whether QPL is easier to interpret by non-expert SQL users, we organized a user experiment. We selected a sample of 22 queries of complexity Hard and Extra-Hard. We collected predicted SQL queries and QPL plans for the queries, with half correct (producing the expected output), and half incorrect. + +Four volunteer software engineers with over five years of experience participated in the experiment. We asked them to determine whether a query in either SQL or QPL corresponded to the intent of the natural language question. The participants were each exposed to half cases in QPL and half in SQL, half correct and half incorrect. We measured the time it took for each participant to make a decision for each case. Results are reported in Table 4. They indicate that the participants were correct about QPL in $67\%$ of the cases vs. $34\%$ of the SQL cases, supporting the hypothesis that validating the alignment between a question and query is easier with QPL than with SQL $(p < 0.06)$ (RQ2). + +
Error TypeErrorErr.%Explanation
Wrong aggregate3521%Error in Aggregate (sum, avg, count, max, min)
Join3119%Wrong join (e.g., not on Primary/Foreign key)
Wrong column1712%Output does not include the right columns
Missing filter1710%Filter stage is missing
Wrong constant159%Compare with wrong constant (e.g., isOfficial = 'Y' vs. 'T')
Wrong predicate127%Error in selection predicate (e.g., > instead of <)
Lost127%Predicted QPL is completely wrong
Typing74%Compare with constant of wrong type (e.g., age = 'old' vs. 20)
Extremum42%Error in selecting top value (min vs. max for example)
Intersect42%Error in Intersect operation
Wrong structure32%QPL plan is not a connected tree
Syntax issue32%Predicted QPL is not syntactically valid
Except21%Error in Except operation
Distinct11%Missing distinct flag
Wrong table11%Refers to the wrong table in the schema
Grand Total167
+ +Table 5: Error Types: Breakdown of errors by error types + +# 6 Error Analysis + +The most challenging error type is related to queries that involve aggregate operations (group by and aggregated values such as count, sum or max). + +Table 5 shows the breakdown of errors by error types for the $\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow$ QPL model with Rich Schema Encoding. We hypothesize that errors related to Join operations could be reduced by exploiting a more expressive description of the schema structure and applying either a post-processing critique of the generated QPL or enforcing stricter constraints in the QPL Picard parser. Similarly, a more detailed description of the content of encoded columns could improve the Wrong Constant type. + +The Spider development set includes 20 different schemas. Table 9 shows the break down of errors per schema. We observe that 5 schemas account for over $70\%$ of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling: keys are not declared, column naming is inconsistent, and value encoding in some columns is non standard (e.g., use of 'T'/'F' for boolean values). + +# 7 Conclusion + +We presented a method to improve compositional learning of complex text-to-SQL models based on QPL, a new executable and modular intermediary language that is derived from SQL through semantic transformation. We provide software tools to + +automatically translate SQL queries into QPL and to execute QPL plans by translating them to CTE SQL statements. We also compiled Spider-QPL, a version of Spider which includes QPL and Question Decomposition for all examples. + +Our experiments indicate that QPL is easier to learn using fine-tuned LLMs (our text-to-QPL model achieves SOTA results on fine-tuned models on Spider dev set without db values, especially on hard and extra-hard queries); and easier to interpret by users than SQL for complex queries. On the basis of the computed QPL plans, we derived a new form of Question Decomposition and trained a question decomposer that is sensitive to the target database schema, in contrast to existing generic question decomposers. Given a predicted QPL plan, we can derive a readable QD that increases the interpretability of the predicted plan. + +In future work, we plan to further exploit the modularity of QPL plans for data augmentation and to explore multi-step inference techniques. We have started experimenting with an auto-regressive model which predicts QPL plans line by line. Our error analysis indicates that enhancing the model to further take advantage of the database values and foreign-keys has the potential to increase the robustness of this multi-step approach. We are also exploring whether users can provide interactive feedback on predicted QD as a way to guide QPL prediction. + +# Limitations + +All models mentioned in this paper were trained on one NVIDIA H100 GPU with 80GB RAM for 10 epochs, totaling around 8 hours of training per model at the cost of US$2 per GPU hour. + +The models were tested on the Spider development set, which only has QPLs of up to 13 lines; our method has not been tested on longer QPLs. + +During training, we did not use schema information such as the primary-foreign key relationships and column types, nor did we use the actual databases' content. In this regard, our models might output incorrect Join predicates (due to lack of primary-foreign key information), or incorrect Scan predicates (due to lack of database content). + +We acknowledge certain limitations arising from the evaluation conducted on the Spider development set. These limitations include: + +1. A total of 49 queries yield an empty result set on their corresponding databases. Consequently, inaccurately predicted QPLs could generate the same "result" as the gold query while bearing significant semantic differences. In the Spider-QPL dataset, we have inserted additional data so that none of the queries return an empty result set in the development set. +2. As many as 187 queries employ the LIMIT function. This can lead to complications in the presence of "ties"; for instance, when considering the query SELECT grade FROM students ORDER BY grade DESC LIMIT 1, the returned row becomes arbitrary if more than one student shares the highest grade. + +# Ethics Statement + +The use of text-to-code applications inherently carries risks, especially when users are unable to confirm the accuracy of the generated code. This issue is particularly pronounced for intricate code, such as complex SQL queries. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a more transparent target language. However, our limited-scale user study reveals that, even when utilizing this more interpretable language, software engineers struggle to detect misaligned queries in more than $30\%$ of instances. This occurs even for queries with moderate complexity (QPL length of 5 to 7). More work on interpretability of generated code is warranted before deploying such tools. + +# Acknowledgements + +We thank the Frankel Center for Computer Science at Ben Gurion University for their support. + +# References + +Ben Boin, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Representing schema structure with graph neural networks for text-to-SQL parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4560-4565, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Shulin Cao, Jiaxin Shi, Liangming Pan, Lunyiu Nie, Yutong Xiang, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Bin He, and Hanwang Zhang. 2022. KQA pro: A dataset with explicit compositional programs for complex question answering over knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6101-6119, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidi Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. + +Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks. + +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. + +Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, M. Witbrock, and Patricia J. Riddle. 2022a. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. + +Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, Michael Witbrock, and Patricia Riddle. 2022b. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages 4093-4099. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track. +Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 33-43, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Grant Fritchey. 2018. SQL Server Execution Plans: Third Edition. Red Gate Books. +Ruiliu Fu, Han Wang, Xuejun Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Yonghong Yan. 2021. Decomposing complex questions makes multi-hop QA easier and more interpretable. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 169-180, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yujiang Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, and Matthew Purver. 2022. Measuring and improving compositional generalization in text-to-SQL via component alignment. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 831-843, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021. Natural SQL: Making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2030-2042, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql. +Jiaqi Guo, Qian Liu, Jian-Guang Lou, Zhenwen Li, Xueqing Liu, Tao Xie, and Ting Liu. 2020. Benchmarking meaning representations in neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1520-1540, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, JianGuang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards complex text-to-SQL in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4524-4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Span-based semantic parsing for compositional generalization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 908-921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. +Xiang Huang, Sitao Cheng, Yiheng Shu, Yuheng Bao, and Yuzhong Qu. 2023. Question decomposition tree for answering complex questions over knowledge bases. +Wonseok Hwang, Jinyeung Yim, Seunghyun Park, and Minjoon Seo. 2019. A comprehensive exploration on wikisql with table-aware word contextualization. CoRR, abs/1902.01069. +Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Scharli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2019. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. *ICLR* 2020, abs/1912.09713. +Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jiang Guo, Shenmin Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, Lin Pan, Mingwen Dong, J. Wang, Jiarong Jiang, Stephen M. Ash, Vittorio Castelli, Patrick Ng, and Bing Xiang. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. ArXiv, abs/2305.16265. +Dongjun Lee. 2019. Clause-wise and recursive decoding for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6045-6051, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, Kevin C. Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. ArXiv, abs/2305.03111. +Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. +Xiping Liu and Zhao Tan. 2023. Divide and prompt: Chain of thought prompting for text-to-sql. +Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading comprehension through question decomposition and rescoring. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097-6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies. +Yilin Niu, Fei Huang, Wei Liu, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Bridging the Gap between Synthetic and Natural Questions via Sentence Decomposition for Semantic Parsing. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:367-383. +Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8864-8880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bah-danau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models. +Irina Saparina and Anton Osokin. 2021. SPARQLing database queries from intermediate question decompositions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8984-8998, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +P. Griffiths Selinger, M. M. Astrahan, D. D. Chamberlin, R. A. Lorie, and T. G. Price. 1979. Access path selection in a relational database management system. In Proceedings of the 1979 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '79, page 23-34, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 922-938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lysandre Debut Younes Belkada Sayak Paul Sourab Mangrulkar, Sylvain Gugger. 2022. Peft: State-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. https://github.com/huggingface/peft. +Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020a. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lei Wang, Wanyu Xu, Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Yunshi Lan, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models. +Ping Wang, Tian Shi, and Chandan K. Reddy. 2020b. Text-to-sql generation for question answering on electronic medical records. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, page 350-361, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tomer Wolfson, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Weakly supervised text-to-SQL parsing + +through question decomposition. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2528-2542, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Tomer Wolfson, Mor Geva, Ankit Gupta, Matt Gardner, Yoav Goldberg, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Break It Down: A Question Understanding Benchmark. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:183-198. + +Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Qingyu Yin, Danqing Zhang, Bing Yin, and Diyi Yang. 2022. SEQZERO: Few-shot compositional semantic parsing with sequential prompts and zero-shot models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 49-60, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yunhu Ye, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Large language models are versatile decomposers: Decompose evidence and questions for table-based reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2301.13808. + +Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 440-450, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Tao Yu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kai Yang, Rui Zhang, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2018a. SyntaxSQLNet: Syntax tree networks for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1653-1663, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018b. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Haoyu Zhang, Jingjing Cai, Jianjun Xu, and Ji Wang. 2019. Complex question decomposition for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4477-4486, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Jiajie Zhang, Shulin Cao, Tingjia Zhang, Xin Lv, Jiaxin Shi, Qingwen Tian, Juanzi Li, and Lei Hou. 2023. Reasoning over hierarchical question decomposition tree for explainable question answering. ArXiv, abs/2305.15056. + +Wenting Zhao, Konstantine Arkoudas, Weiqi Sun, and Claire Cardie. 2022. *Compositional task-oriented parsing as abstractive question answering*. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4418-4427, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. + +Ben Zhou, Kyle Richardson, Xiaodong Yu, and Dan Roth. 2022. Learning to decompose: Hypothetical question decomposition based on comparable texts. ArXiv, abs/2210.16865. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 $\mathbf{Q} \rightarrow \mathbf{QPL}$ Model + +The $\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL}$ model was trained using the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and PEFT (Sourab Mangrulkar, 2022) libraries. As the Flan-T5-XL model was too large to fine-tune on one GPU, we use the LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) method to fine-tune only the q and v matrices of the model. Hyperparameters used in training are listed in Table 7. The trained model and training and validation datasets are available on https://huggingface.co/bgunlp. + +
HyperparameterValue
# Epoch10
Dropout Prob.0.05
Batch Size1
Learning Rate0.0002
Adaptation (r)16
LoRA α32
+ +Table 7: $\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow \mathrm{{QPL}}$ Training Hyperparameters + +# A.2 Schema Encoding Methods + +We compare two methods to describe the database schema when we prompt our models: + +1. Simple Schema Encoding: this is similar to Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ... +2. Rich Schema Encoding: this encoding provides for each column a simplified type (as in Spider - text, number, date or other); primary and foreign keys; and values. + +
QPL LengthQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLSupport
187.3%78.3%189
286.6%83.4%277
385.3%78.0%191
475.0%62.9%124
567.1%54.4%164
648.2%25.9%27
731.8%22.7%44
≥811.9%24.4%18
Overall77.4%69.1%1034
+ +Table 6: Execution Accuracy of Text-to-QPL Models on Spider Development Set by Length of QPL. QPL length is a more natural measure of query complexity than the method used to classify queries in Spider. We find that there is little correlation between QPL Length and the Spider difficulty level. + +For example: + +# Simple Schema Encoding: pets_1 + +Table Student (StuID, LName, Fname, Age, Sex, Major, Advisor, city_code) + +Table Pets (PetID, PetType, pet_age, weight) + +Table Has_Pet (StuID, PetID) + +# Rich Schema Encoding: pets_1 + +```sql +CREATE TABLE Student ( StuID number, LName text, Fname text, Age number, Sex text, Major number, Advisor number, city_code text, primary key (StuID)) +``` + +```sql +CREATE TABLE Pets ( PetID number, PetType text ( dog ), pet_age number, weight number, primary key ( PetID )) +``` + +```sql +CREATE TABLE Has_Pet (StuID number, PetID number, foreign key (StuID) references Student (StuID), foreign key (PetID) references Pets (PetID)) +``` + +Values are added after each column when an n-gram from the question is found as one of the values in one of the rows of the table. For example, for the question "How much does the youngest dog weigh?", the n-gram "dog" is found in the values of the column PetType. In this case, the value annotation PetType text (dog) is encoded. + +# A.3 Question Decomposer Model + +The prompt given to ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) to decompose a question given QPL is listed in Fig. 5. The full prompt (including BNF and all 6 examples) is available on GitHub. + +# A.4 QPL Syntax + +We show the BNF of the QPL language we have designed in Fig. 6. This grammar is used as part of the PICARD parser used for the decoder of all QPL predictor models. + +# A.5 Errors by Schema + +Table 9 shows error rate for the $\mathrm{Q} \rightarrow \mathrm{QPL}$ model with Rich Schema Encoding by schema for each of the 20 schemas present in Spider's development set. + +We observe that 5 of the 20 schemas (car_1, flight_2, student_transcripts_tracking, world_1 and wta_1) account for $41.8\%$ of the examples in the development set and $70.1\%$ of the errors. Most of the errors in these specific schemas can be traced to missing key declarations, inconsistent column naming and typing (strings used to encode boolean or number values). + +QPL is a formalism used to describe data retrieval operations over an SQL schema in a modular manner. A QPL plan is a sequence of instructions for querying tabular data to answer a natural language question. + +Forget everything you know about SQL, only use the following explanations. + +A schema is specified as a list of specification in the format:
: + +A plan contains a sequence of operations. All operations return a stream of tuples. + +All operations take as input either a physical table from the schema (for the Scan operation) or the output of other operations. + +Let's think step by step to convert QPL plan to natural language plan given schema, question, and QPL that describe the question. + +In the natural language plan: + +1. You must have exactly the same number of questions as there are steps in the QPL. +2. The questions you generate must follow exactly the same order as the steps in the QPL. + +This is the formal specification for each operation: + +(BNF goes here, elided for brevity) + +Example 1: + +Schema: + +Table Visitor (ID, Name, Age, Level_of_membership) +Table Museum (Museum_ID, Name, Open Year, Num_of_staff) +Table Visit (Visitor_ID, Museum_ID, Total_Spent, Num_of_Ticket) + +Question: + +What is the total ticket expense of the visitors whose membership level is 1? + +QPL Plan: + +#1 = Scan Table [ visitor ] Predicate [ Level_of_membership = 1 ] Output [ ID ] + +$2 =$ Scan Table [ visit ] Output [ visitor_ID, Total_spent] + +#3 = Join [ #1, #2 ] Predicate [ #1.ID = #2visitor_ID ] Output [ #2.Total_spent ] + +#4 = Aggregate [ #3 ] Output [ SUM(Total_spent) AS Sum_Total_spent ] + +Natural Language Plan: + +#1 = Scan the table Visitor to find who are the visitors with membership level 1 + +#2 = Scan the table Visit to find what is the total spent by visitors during their visits + +$\# 3 =$ Join #1 and #2 to find what is the total spent by each visitor with membership level 1 during their visits + +#4 = Group #3 by Visitor and aggregate the sum of total spent to find what is the total spent by all visitors with membership level 1 during their visit + +(5 more examples are given) + +Now your turn: + +Schema: {schema} + +Question: {question} + +QPL Plan: {qpl} + +Natural Language Plan: + +Figure 5: Prompt used to generate QD + +```txt + ::= + + ::= # = + ::= +| +| +| +| +| +| +| +| +``` + +```txt +-- Leaf operator + ::= Scan Table [ ] ? ? +``` + +```haskell +-- Unary operators + ::= Aggregate [ ] + ::= Filter [ ] + ::= Sort [ ] + ::= TopSort [ ] Rows [ ] + +``` + +```haskell +-- Binary operators + ::= Join [ , ] ? ? + ::= Except [ , ] + ::= Intersect [ , ] ? + ::= Union [ , ] + ::= GroupBy [ (, )* ] + ::= OrderBy [ (, )* ] + ::= WithTies [ true | false ] + ::= ASC | DESC + ::= Predicate [ (AND | OR )* ] + ::= Distinct [ true | false ] + ::= Output [ (, )* ] + ::= Output [ (, )* ] + ::= # . +``` + +Figure 6: QPL Grammar + +
QD-QPL AlignmentSupportCorrectExec AccAvg QPL Gold Len.
[0.0, 0.4]1005.0
(0.4, 0.5]19421.14.6
(0.5, 0.6]9222.26.3
(0.6, 0.7]43920.95.0
(0.7, 0.8]632133.34.2
(0.8, 0.9]933335.54.6
(0.9, 1]77962480.12.8
+ +Table 8: $\mathrm{Q} + \mathrm{{QD}} \rightarrow \mathrm{{QPL}}$ model trained with QDs predicted by Trained Question Decomposer + +
Schema IDErrorsSamplesError Rate
battle_death1166%
car_1279229%
concert_singer54511%
course_teach0300%
cre_Doc_Package_Mgt88410%
dog_kennels128215%
employee_hire_evaluation1383%
flight_2158019%
museum.visit21811%
network_195616%
orchestra0400%
pets_12425%
poker_player0400%
real_estate_property1425%
singer1303%
student_transcripts_tracking167821%
tvshow5628%
voter_131520%
world_14412037%
wta_1156224%
Grand Total167103416%
+ +Table 9: Breakdown of errors by Schema ID: 5 schemas out of the 20 present in Spider's development set account for $70\%$ of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling and lack proper foreign key declarations. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/images.zip b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..978f8c69b151c00de42c289a38dac540ec5a28b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:94e55eb0e1752f88101ea47515e73b26601bb0f5af8f11fe37311eebc69d8a49 +size 487642 diff --git a/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/layout.json b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43e6162092c1b27f10c2fd79284061a036c29872 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11255 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 74, + 516, + 92 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 74, + 516, + 92 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 74, + 516, + 92 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Semantic Decomposition of Question and SQL for Text-to-SQL Parsing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 102, + 424, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 102, + 424, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 102, + 424, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Eyal and Amir Bachar and Ophir Haroche" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 134, + 395, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 134, + 395, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 198, + 134, + 395, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moran Mahabi and Michael Elhadad" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 149, + 361, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 149, + 361, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 149, + 361, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dept of Computer Science" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 163, + 352, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 163, + 352, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 163, + 352, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Gurion University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 177, + 340, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 177, + 340, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 252, + 177, + 340, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "BeerSheva,Israel" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 273, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 273, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 273, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text-to-SQL semantic parsing faces challenges in generalizing to cross-domain and complex queries. Recent research has employed a question decomposition strategy to enhance the parsing of complex SQL queries. However, this strategy encounters two major obstacles: (1) existing datasets lack question decomposition; (2) due to the syntactic complexity of SQL, most complex queries cannot be disentangled into sub-queries that can be readily recomposed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 356, + 274, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 356, + 274, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 356, + 274, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these challenges, we propose a new modular Query Plan Language (QPL) that systematically decomposes SQL queries into simple and regular sub-queries. We develop a translator from SQL to QPL by leveraging analysis of SQL server query optimization plans, and we augment the Spider dataset with QPL programs. Experimental results demonstrate that the modular nature of QPL benefits existing semantic-parsing architectures, and training text-to-QPL parsers is more effective than text-to-SQL parsing for semantically equivalent queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 499, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 499, + 274, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 499, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The QPL approach offers two additional advantages: (1) QPL programs can be paraphrased as simple questions, which allows us to create a dataset of (complex question, decomposed questions). Training on this dataset, we obtain a Question Decomposer for data retrieval that is sensitive to database schemas. (2) QPL is more accessible to non-experts for complex queries, leading to more interpretable output from the semantic parser." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 629, + 154, + 643 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 629, + 154, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 629, + 154, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Querying and exploring complex relational data stores necessitate programming skills and domain-specific knowledge of the data. Text-to-SQL semantic parsing allows non-expert programmers to formulate questions in natural language, convert the questions into SQL, and inspect the execution results. While recent progress has been remarkable on this task, general cross-domain text-to-SQL models still face challenges on complex schemas" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and queries. State of the art text-to-SQL models show performance above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for easy queries, but fall to about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on complex ones (see Table 1). This accuracy drop is particularly bothersome for non-experts, because they also find it difficult to verify whether a complex SQL query corresponds to the intent behind the question they asked. In a user study we performed, we found that software engineers who are not experts in SQL fail to determine whether a complex SQL query corresponds to a question in about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "66\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the cases (see Table 4). The risk of text-to-code models producing incorrect results with confidence is thus acute: complex SQL queries non-aligned with users intent will be hard to detect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we address the challenge of dealing with complex data retrieval questions through a compositional approach. Based on the success of the question decomposition approach for multi-hop question answering, recent work in semantic parsing has also investigated ways to deal with complex SQL queries with a Question Decomposition (QD) strategy. In another direction, previous attempts have focused on splitting complex SQL queries into spans (e.g., aggregation operators, join criteria, column selection) and generating each span separately." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our approach, we start from a semantic analysis of the SQL query. We introduce a new intermediary language, which we call Query Plan Language (QPL) that is modular and decomposable. QPL can be directly executed on SQL databases through direct translation to modular SQL Common Table Expressions (CTEs). We design QPL to be both easier to learn with modern neural architectures than SQL and easier to interpret by non-experts. The overall approach is illustrated in Fig. 1. We develop an automatic translation method from SQL to QPL. On the basis of the modular QPL program, we also learn how to generate a natural language decomposition of the original question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13629" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13629-13645 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 68, + 113, + 80 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 68, + 113, + 80 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 68, + 113, + 80 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 459, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 459, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 459, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "What is the official language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 128, + 119, + 141 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 128, + 119, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 128, + 119, + 141 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gold SQL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 170, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 170, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 151, + 170, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECT T2.Language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 165, + 168, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 165, + 168, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 165, + 168, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "FROM country AS T1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 376, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 376, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 376, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "JOIN countrylanguage AS T2 ON T1.Code = T2.CountryCode" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 396, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 396, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 396, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "WHERE T1.HeadOfState = 'Beatrix' AND T2.IsOfficial = 'T'" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 119, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 119, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 119, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gold QPL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 237, + 403, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 237, + 403, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 237, + 403, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 = Scan Table [country] Predicate [HeadOfState = 'Beatrix'] Output [Code, HeadOfState]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 484, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 484, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 484, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#2 = Scan Table [countrylanguage] Output [CountryCode, Language, Officials]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 279, + 484, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 279, + 484, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 279, + 484, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#3 = Filter[#2] Predicate [IsOfficial = 'T'] Output [CountryCode, Language]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 484, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 484, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 484, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#4 = Join[#1,#3] Predicate[#3.CountryCode = #1.Code] Output[#3.Language]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 263, + 328 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 263, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 263, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Computed Question Decomposition (QD)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 361, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 361, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 361, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 = Scan the table country and retrieve the code and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 352, + 420, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 352, + 420, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 352, + 420, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "head of state of the country whose head of state is Beatrix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 434, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 434, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 434, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\# 2 =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 434, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Scan the table countrylanguage and retrieve the country codes, languages and if they're official" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 392, + 343, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 392, + 343, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 392, + 343, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#3 = Filter from #2 all the official languages and retrieve the country codes and languages" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 452, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 452, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 419, + 452, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#4 = Join #1 and #3 based on the matching country codes and retrieve the language spoken in the country whose head of state is Beatrix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 153, + 468 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 153, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 153, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Predicted QDMR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 364, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 364, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 364, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#1 = return countries whose head of state is beatrix ;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 457, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 457, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 457, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#2 = return the official language spoken in the official language of #1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 525, + 544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 525, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Example QPL and Question Decomposition compared to the original SQL query from Spider and to the predicted QDMR question decomposition from (Wolfson et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast to generic QD methods such as QDMR (Wolfson et al., 2020), our decomposition takes into account the database schema which is referenced by the question and the semantics of the QPL operations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous research in semantic parsing has shown that the choice of the target language impacts a model's ability to learn to parse text into an accurate semantic representation. For instance, Guo et al. (2020) compared the performance of various architectures on three question-answering datasets with targets converted to Prolog, Lambda Calculus, FunQL, and SQL. They discovered that the same architectures produce lower accuracy (up to a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " difference) when generating SQL, indicating that" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQL is a challenging target language for neural models. The search for a target language that is easier to learn has been pursued in Text-to-SQL as well (Yu et al., 2018a; Guo et al., 2019; Gan et al., 2021). We can view QPL as another candidate intermediary language, which in contrast to previous attempts, does not rely on a syntactic analysis of the SQL queries but rather on a semantic transformation into a simpler, more regular query language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the rest of the paper, we review recent work in text-to-SQL models that investigates intermediary representations and question decomposition. We then present the Query Plan Language (QPL) we have designed and the conversion procedure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13630" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "we have implemented to translate the existing large-scale Spider dataset into QPL. We then describe how we exploit the semantic transformation of SQL to QPL to derive a dataset of schemadependent Question Decompositions. We finally present strategies that exploit the compositional nature of QPL to train models capable of predicting complex QPL query plans from natural language questions, and to decompose questions into data-retrieval oriented decompositions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 207, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 207, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 207, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We investigate two main research questions: (RQ1) Is it easier to learn Text-to-QPL - a modular, decomposable query language - than to learn Text-to-SQL using Language Model based architectures; (RQ2) Can non-expert users interpret QPL outputs in an easier manner than they can for complex SQL queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 302, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 302, + 291, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 302, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our main contributions are (1) the definition of the QPL language together with automatic translation from SQL to QPL and execution of QPL on standard SQL servers; (2) the construction of the Spider-QPL dataset which enriches the Spider samples with validated QPL programs for Spider's dataset together with Question Decompositions based on the QPL structure; (3) Text-to-QPL models to predict QPL from a (Schema + Question) input that are competitive with state of the art Text-to-SQL models and perform better on complex queries; (4) a user experiment validating that non-expert users can detect incorrect complex queries better on QPL than on SQL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 166, + 515 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 166, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 166, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Previous Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text-to-SQL parsing consists of mapping a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q = (x_{1},\\ldots ,x_{n})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a database schema " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = [table_{1}(col_{1}^{1}\\dots col_{c_{1}}^{1}),\\dots ,table_{T}(col_{1}^{T}\\dots col_{c_{T}}^{T})]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into a valid SQL query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y = (y_{1},\\dots ,y_{q})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 525, + 291, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Performance metrics include exact match (where the predicted query is compared to the expected one according to the overall SQL structure and within each field token by token) and execution match (where the predicted query is executed on a database and results are compared)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 661, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 661, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 661, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Several large Text-to-SQL datasets have been created, some with single schema (Wang et al., 2020b), some with simple queries (Zhong et al., 2017). Notably, the Spider dataset (Yu et al., 2018b) encompasses over 200 database schemas with over 5K complex queries and 10K questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is employed to assess the generalization capabilities of text-to-SQL models to unseen schemas on complex queries. Recent datasets have increased the scale to more samples and more domains (Lan et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). In this paper, we focus on the Spider dataset for our experiments, as it enables comparison with many previous methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 472, + 206 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 472, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 472, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Architectures for Text-to-SQL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the work of Dong and Lapata (2016), leading text-to-SQL models have adopted attention-based sequence to sequence architectures, translating the question and schema into a well-formed SQL query. Pre-trained transformer models have improved performance as in many other NLP tasks, starting with BERT-based models (Hwang et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020) and up to larger LLMs, such as T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) in (Scholak et al., 2021), OpenAI CodeX (Chen et al., 2021) and GPT variants in (Rajkumar et al., 2022; Liu and Tan, 2023; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 527, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 527, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 527, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to pre-trained transformer models, several task-specific improvements have been introduced: the encoding of the schema can be improved through effective representation learning Boin et al. (2019), and the attention mechanism of the sequence-to-sequence model can be fine-tuned Wang et al. (2020a). On the decoding side, techniques that incorporate the syntactic structure of the SQL output have been proposed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make sure that models generate a sequence of tokens that obey SQL syntax, different approaches have been proposed: in (Yin and Neubig, 2017), instead of generating a sequence of tokens, code-oriented models generate the abstract syntax tree (AST) of expressions of the target program. Scholak et al. (2021) defined the constrained decoding method with PICARD. PICARD is an independent module on top of a text-to-text auto-regressive model that uses an incremental parser to constrain the generated output to adhere to the target SQL grammar. Not only does this eliminate almost entirely invalid SQL queries, but the parser is also schema-aware, thus reducing the number of semantically incorrect queries, e.g., selecting a non-existent column from a specific table. We have adopted constrained decoding in our approach, by designing an incremental parser for QPL, and enforcing the generation of syntactically valid plans." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1All of the datasets and code are available on https:// github.com/bgunlp/qpl." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13631" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 135, + 68, + 459, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 68, + 459, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 68, + 459, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 68, + 459, + 170 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DifficultyNatSQL + RAT-SQLDin-SQL GPT-4GPT3.5-turbo
Easy91.6%91.1%87.7%
Medium75.2%79.8%75.1%
Hard65.5%64.9%72.5%
Extra Hard51.8%43.4%53.9%
Overall73.7%74.2%74.3%
", + "image_path": "517f47e897f0fdd580b0100963fb676eafd4972a7dcea25d88ee8ae630fe42b7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 178, + 458, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 178, + 458, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 178, + 458, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Spider Development Set baseline execution accuracy by difficulty level" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 277, + 223 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 277, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 277, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Zero-shot and Few-shot LLM Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With recent LLM progress, the multi-task capabilities of LLMs have been tested on text-to-SQL. In zero-shot mode, a task-specific prompt is prefixed to a textual encoding of the schema and the question, and the LLM outputs an SQL query. Rajkumar et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2023), showed that OpenAI Codex achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "67\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " execution accuracy. In our own evaluation, GPT-4 (as of May 2023) achieves about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "74\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " execution accuracy under the same zero-shot prompting conditions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Few-shot LLM prompting strategies have also been investigated: example selection strategies are reviewed in (Guo et al., 2023; Nan et al., 2023) and report about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " execution accuracy when tested on Spider dev or 7K examples from the Spider training set. Pourreza and Rafiei (2023); Liu and Tan (2023) are top performers on Spider with the GPT4-based DIN-SQL. They use multi-step prompting strategies with query decomposition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Few-shot LLM prompting methods close the gap and even outperform specialized Text-to-SQL models with about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " execution match vs. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for 3B parameters specialized models on the Spider test set, without requiring any fine-tuning or training. In this paper, we focus on the hardest cases of queries, which remain challenging both in SQL and in QPL (with execution accuracy at about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the best cases). We also note that OpenAI-based models are problematic as baselines, since they cannot be reproduced reliably.2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 269, + 658 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 269, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 269, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Intermediary Target Representations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most text-to-SQL systems suffer from a severe drop in performance for complex queries, as reported for example in DIN-SQL results where the drop in execution accuracy between simple queries and hard queries is from about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "55\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (see also (Lee, 2019)). We demonstrate this drop in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 which shows execution accuracy of leading baseline models (Gan et al., 2021; Pourreza and Rafiei, 2023) per Spider difficulty level on the development set. The GPT3.5-turbo results correspond to our own experiment using zero-shot prompt. Other methods have been used to demonstrate that current sequence to sequence methods suffer at compositional generalization, that is, systems trained on simple queries, fail to generate complex queries, even though they know how to generate the components of the complex query. This weakness is diagnosed by using challenging compositional splits (Keysers et al., 2019; Shaw et al., 2021; Gan et al., 2022) over the training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 403, + 526, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 403, + 526, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 403, + 526, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One of the reasons for such failure to generalize to complex queries relates to the gap between the syntactic structure of natural language questions and the target SQL queries. This has motivated a thread of work attempting to generate simplified or more generalizable logical forms than executable SQL queries. These attempts are motivated by empirical results on other semantic parsing formalisms that showed that adequate syntax of the logical form can make learning more successful (Guo et al., 2020; Herzig and Berant, 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 525, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most notable attempts include SyntaxSQLNet (Yu et al., 2018a), SemQL (Guo et al., 2019) and NatSQL (Gan et al., 2021). NatSQL aims at reducing the gap between questions and queries. It introduces a simplified syntax for SQL from which the original SQL can be recovered. Figure 2 illustrates how this simplified syntax is aligned with spans of the question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work is directly related to this thread. Our approach in designing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "QPL" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is different from NatsQL, in that we do not follow SQL syntax nor attempt to mimic the syntax of natural language. Instead, we apply a semantic transformation on the SQL query, and obtain a compositional regular query language, where all the nodes are simple executable operators which feed into other nodes in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is most likely that the Spider dataset was part of the training material processed by GPT-x models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13632" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 113, + 80 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 113, + 80 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 113, + 80 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 90, + 289, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 90, + 289, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 90, + 289, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "What type of pet is the youngest animal, and how much does it weigh?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 126, + 94, + 139 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 126, + 94, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 126, + 94, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SQL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 252, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 252, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 252, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECT PetType , Weight FROM Pets ORDER BY Pet_Age LIMIT 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 185, + 190, + 198 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 185, + 190, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 185, + 190, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Spider-SS Decomposition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 280, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 280, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 280, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SubSentence: What type of pet \nNatSQL: SELECT Pets.Petty \nSubSentence: is the youngest animal \nNatSQL: ORDER BY Pets.Pet_Age LIMIT 1 \nSubSentence: and how much does it weigh? \nNatSQL: SELECT Pets.Weight" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: NATSQL and Question Decomposition in Spider-SS (Gan et al., 2022)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 291, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 291, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 291, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a data-flow graph according to the execution plan of the SQL query. Our method does not aim at simplifying the mapping of a single question to a whole query, but instead at decomposing a question into a tree of simpler questions, which can then be mapped to simple queries. The design of QPL vs. SQL adopts the same objectives as those defined in KoPL vs. SparQL in (Cao et al., 2022) in the setting of QA over Knowledge Graphs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 267, + 482 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 267, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 267, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Question Decomposition Approaches" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach is also inspired by work attempting to solve complex QA and semantic parsing using a question decomposition strategy (Perez et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Saparina and Osokin, 2021; Wolfson et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Deng et al., 2022b; Zhao et al., 2022; Niu et al., 2023). In this approach, the natural language question is decomposed into a chain of sub-steps, which has been popular in the context of Knowledge-Graph-based QA with multi-hop questions (Min et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). Recent work attempts to decompose the questions into trees (Huang et al., 2023), which yields explainable answers (Zhang et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this approach, the question decomposer is sometimes learned in a joint-manner to optimize the performance of an end to end model (Ye et al., 2023); it can also be derived from a syntactic analysis of complex questions (Deng et al., 2022a); or specialized pre-training of decompositions using distant supervision from comparable texts (Zhou et al., 2022); or weak supervision from execution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "values (Wolfson et al., 2022). LLMs have also been found effective as generic question decomposers in Chain of Thought (CoT) methods (Wei et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). In this work, we compare our own Question Decomposition method with the QDMR model (Wolfson et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 177, + 487, + 191 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 177, + 487, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 177, + 487, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Decomposing Queries into QPL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 524, + 212 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 524, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 524, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Query Plan Language Dataset Conversion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We design Query Plan Language (QPL) as a modular dataflow language that encodes the semantics of SQL queries. We take inspiration in our semantic transformation from SQL to QPL from the definition of the execution plans used internally by SQL optimizers, e.g., (Selinger et al., 1979). We automatically convert the original Spider dataset into a version that includes QPL expressions for all the training and development parts of Spider. The detailed syntax of QPL is shown in § A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 353, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "QPL is a hierarchical representation for execution plans. It is a tree of operations in which the leaves are table reading nodes (Scan nodes), and the inner nodes are either unary operations (such as Aggregate and Filter) or binary operations (such as Join and Intersect). Nodes have arguments, such as the table to scan in a Scan node, or the join predicate of a Join node." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An important distinction between QPL plans and SQL queries is that every QPL sub-plan is a valid executable operator, which returns a stream of data tuples. For example, Fig. 1 shows an execution plan with 4 steps and depth 2. The 4 steps are: the two Scan leaves, the Filter sub-plan, and the Join sub-plan, which is the root of the overall plan." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 526, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We automatically convert SQL queries into semantically equivalent QPL plans by reusing the execution plans produced by Microsoft SQL Server 2019 query optimizer (Fritchey, 2018). QPL is a high-level abstraction of the physical execution plan produced (which includes data and index statistics). In QPL syntax, we reduced the number of operators to the 9 operators listed in Table 2. We also design the operators to be context free, i.e., all operators take as input streams of tuples and output a stream of tuples, and the output of an operator only depends on its inputs.3 We experiment with different syntactic realizations of QPL expressions," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3This is in contrast to SQL execution plan operators such as Nested-Loops where the two children nodes tightly depend on each other." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13633" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 87, + 68, + 505, + 218 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 68, + 505, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 68, + 505, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 68, + 505, + 218 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OperatorDescription
ScanScan all rows in a table with optional filtering predicate
AggregateAggregate a stream of tuples using a grouping criterion into a stream of groups
FilterRemove tuples from a stream that do not match a predicate
SortSort a stream according to a sorting expression
TopSortSelect the top-K tuples from a stream according to a sorting expression
JoinPerform a logical join operation between two streams based on a join condition
ExceptCompute the set difference between two streams of tuples
IntersectCompute the set intersection between two streams of tuples
UnionCompute the set union between two streams of tuples
", + "image_path": "46193ded9ad76b9c4a14c11f58f524e1b69c0bc159d1c6202e526ff3ea760d0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 120, + 248, + 476, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 216, + 226, + 376, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 216, + 226, + 376, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 216, + 226, + 376, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Description of QPL Operators" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 248, + 476, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 248, + 476, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 248, + 476, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "953e238ff6c15bbd98953b45e38039b0e282606bed872bef0863b98301bedf49.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 525, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: QPL generation process: the dataset SQL expressions are run through the query optimizer, which is then converted into QPL. QPL expressions are converted into modular CTE SQL programs, which can be executed. We verify that the execution results match those of the original SQL queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 756, + 270, + 769 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 756, + 270, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 756, + 270, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: SQL query and its equivalent CTE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and elected the version where steps are numbered and ordered bottom-up, corresponding roughly to the execution order of the steps. We validate that the result sets returned by the converted QPL plans are equivalent to those of the original Spider SQL queries. We thus enrich the Spider training and development sets with semantically equivalent QPL programs as shown in Fig. 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 187, + 543 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 187, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 187, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Text-to-QPL Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 135, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 135, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 135, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Original SQL" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 196, + 609 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 196, + 609 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 196, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 577, + 196, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SELECT template_id, count(*) FROM Documents GROUP BY template_id" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 7, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 618, + 94, + 630 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 618, + 94, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 618, + 94, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CTE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 255, + 741 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 255, + 741 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 255, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 255, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "WITH \nScan_1 AS (SELECT Template_ID FROM Documents), \nAggregate_2 AS (SELECT COUNT(*) AS Count, Template_ID FROM Scan_1 GROUP BY Template_ID) \nSELECT * FROM Aggregate_2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 9, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to train a text-to-QPL model, we fine-tune Flan-T5-XL (Chung et al., 2022) (3B parameters) on 6,509 training examples. Each example contains a question, schema information and the gold computed QPL. The input to the model is the same as in Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ... We also experiment with rich schema encoding, adding type, key and value information as described in §A.2. We train the model for 15 full epochs and choose the model with the best execution accuracy on the development set. Execution accuracy is calculated by generating a QPL prediction, converting it to Common Table Expression format (CTE) (see example in Fig. 4), running the CTE in the database and comparing the predicted result sets of the predicted and gold CTEs. Final evaluation of the model uses the PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021) decoder with a parser we developed for QPL syntax. This constrained decoding method ensures that the generated QPL programs are syntactically valid." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 722, + 450, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 722, + 450, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 722, + 450, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Question Decomposition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the QPL plans automatically computed from SQL queries in the dataset to derive a set of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13634" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "question decompositions (QD) that are grounded in the QPL steps, as shown in Fig. 1. We investigate three usages of this QD method: (1) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "QPL \\rightarrow QD" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": we learn how to generate a QD given a QPL plan; this is useful at inference time, to present the predicted QPL to non-expert users, as a more readable form of the plan; (2) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q \\rightarrow QD" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we train a question decomposer on the Spider-QPL dataset for which we collect a set of validated automatically generated QDs; (3) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q + QD \\rightarrow QPL" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we finally investigate a Text-to-QPL predictor model which given a question, firstly generates a corresponding QD, and then predicts a QPL plan based on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(Q + QD)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 149, + 269 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 149, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 149, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 QPL to QD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 290, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the OpenAI gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 model to generate a QD given a QPL plan. We prepared a few-shot prompt that includes a detailed description of the QPL language syntax and six examples that cover all the QPL operators that we prepared manually (see §A.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 355, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 355, + 291, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 355, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We validated manually 50 pairs (QPL, QD) generated using this method and found them to be reliable, varied and fluent. In addition, we designed an automatic metric to verify that the generated QDs are well aligned with the source QPL plan: (1) we verify that the number of steps in QD is the same as that in the source QPL; (2) we identify the leaf Scan instructions in the QD and verify that they are aligned with the corresponding QPL Scan operations. To this end, we use a fuzzy string matching method to identify the name of the table to be scanned in the QD instruction. The QPL-QD alignment score combines the distance between the length of QD and QPL and the IoU (intersection over union) measure of the set of Scan operations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 190, + 581 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 190, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 190, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Dataset Preparation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using the QPL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " QD generator, we further enrich the Spider-QPL dataset with a computed QD field for each sample. For the sake of comparison, we also compute the predicted QDMR decomposition of the question (Wolfson et al., 2020) using the Question Decomposer from (Wolfson et al., 2022)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 290, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We obtain for each example a tuple: . We obtained 1,007 valid QDs (QPL-QD alignment score of 1.0) in the Spider Dev Set (out of 1,034) and 6,285 out of 6,509 in the Training Set with a valid QPL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 465, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 465, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 465, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Question Decomposer Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the dataset of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< \\mathrm{Q},\\mathrm{QD}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " obtained above we train a QPL Question Decomposer which learns to predict a QD in our format given a question and a schema description: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q + Schema \\rightarrow QD" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We fine-tune a Flan-T5-XL model for this task, using the same schema encoding as for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q + Schema \\rightarrow QPL" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model shown in §3.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 450, + 211 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 450, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 198, + 450, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Q+QD to QPL Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train a Flan-T5-XL model under the same conditions as previous models on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 271 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle Q, QD, QPL \\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to predict QPL given the QD computed by our question decomposer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 452, + 298 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 452, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 452, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments and Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 441, + 321 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 441, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 441, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Text-to-QPL Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present our results on the Spider development set in Table 3. We compare our models to T5-3B with PICARD (Scholak et al., 2021), as it is the closest model to ours in terms of number of parameters, architecture, and decoding strategy. To make the comparison as close as possible, we retrain a model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{SQL} \\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the same base model Flan-T5-XL as we use for our " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle \\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{QPL} \\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model. We also compare two schema encoding methods: Simple Schema Encoding only provides the list of table names and column names for each table; Rich Schema Encoding provides for each column additional information: simplified type (same types as used in Spider's dataset - text, number, date, other), keys (primary and foreign keys) and values (see §A.2 for details). We see that at every difficulty level (except \"Easy\" for Simple Schema Encoding), our " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\to \\mathrm{QPL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 327, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model improves on the baseline. The same is true compared to the other models in Table 1. All other things being equal, this experiment indicates that it is easier to learn QPL as a target language than SQL (RQ1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On overall accuracy, the direct " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model achieves a respectable 77.4% without database content and 83.8% with database content. Our model notably achieves highest execution accuracy on Hard and Extra-Hard queries across existing fine-tuned and LLM-based models (70.0% across Hard+Extra-Hard with database content)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4We used the decomposer model published in https://github.com/tomerwolgithub/question-decomposition-to-sql." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{SQL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " baseline we show reaches " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "82\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " vs. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "79\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reported in Scholak et al. (2021) as we used a more complete schema encoding and the instruction fine-tuned Flan-T5-XL model as opposed to the base T5-3B model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13635" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 275 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 68, + 483, + 275 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Spider DifficultyQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLQ → SQLSupport
Simple Schema Encoding
Easy87.5%84.7%91.9%248
Medium84.3%72.2%76.9%446
Hard66.7%62.0%64.9%174
Extra Hard54.8%45.1%44.6%166
Overall77.4%69.1%73.3%1034
Rich Schema Encoding
Easy93.5%91.5%248
Medium89.0%88.3%446
Hard74.7%69.5%174
Extra Hard65.1%63.9%166
Overall83.8%82.0%1034
", + "image_path": "79b54d6f3ede3b6e67aab1364373c293aec7be008b96610d037aa91969ac712a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 474 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy on Spider Development Set by difficulty level with Simple Schema Encoding (table names and column names) and Rich Schema Encoding (column types, keys, values)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 474 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 474 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 474 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TypeGold labelTimeCorrect
QPLIncorrect query89%53%
Correct query100%79%
67%
SQLIncorrect query102%50%
Correct query101%25%
34%
Avg timeQPL123s
SQL132s
", + "image_path": "9ead82ca800aaac8b45748b4a5394a9dd3ba07b296926bdce0360364faa0dbe1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 543 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: User experiment: 20 (question, query) pairs are shown to 4 users - half in QPL and half in SQL, half are correct and half incorrect. The table reports how long users assessed on average each query, and how often they were right in assessing the correctness of the query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< \\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{QD} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL} >" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model is inferior to the direct " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 289, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model (69.1% to 77.4% with simple schema encoding). We verified that this is due to the lower quality of the QD produced by our question decomposer. On Oracle QD, the model produces about 83% accuracy without database content. Table 8 confirms that the model accuracy level increases when the QD-QPL alignment score increases. This indicates that the development of a more robust question decomposer grounded in query decomposition for training signal has the potential to improve semantic parsing performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we find that the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{QD} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model produces correct answers that were not computed by the direct " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model in 50 cases" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 526, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 526, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 526, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(6 easy, 18 medium, 15 hard, 11 extra hard). This diversity is interesting, because for hard and extra-hard cases, execution accuracy remains low (55%-74%). Showing multiple candidates from different models may be a viable strategy to indicate the lack of confidence the model has on these queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 486, + 461 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 486, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 486, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Interpretability User Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 481, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 481, + 525, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 481, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to probe whether QPL is easier to interpret by non-expert SQL users, we organized a user experiment. We selected a sample of 22 queries of complexity Hard and Extra-Hard. We collected predicted SQL queries and QPL plans for the queries, with half correct (producing the expected output), and half incorrect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Four volunteer software engineers with over five years of experience participated in the experiment. We asked them to determine whether a query in either SQL or QPL corresponded to the intent of the natural language question. The participants were each exposed to half cases in QPL and half in SQL, half correct and half incorrect. We measured the time it took for each participant to make a decision for each case. Results are reported in Table 4. They indicate that the participants were correct about QPL in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "67\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the cases vs. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "34\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the SQL cases, supporting the hypothesis that validating the alignment between a question and query is easier with QPL than with SQL " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p < 0.06)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (RQ2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13636" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 319 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 319 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 319 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Error TypeErrorErr.%Explanation
Wrong aggregate3521%Error in Aggregate (sum, avg, count, max, min)
Join3119%Wrong join (e.g., not on Primary/Foreign key)
Wrong column1712%Output does not include the right columns
Missing filter1710%Filter stage is missing
Wrong constant159%Compare with wrong constant (e.g., isOfficial = 'Y' vs. 'T')
Wrong predicate127%Error in selection predicate (e.g., > instead of <)
Lost127%Predicted QPL is completely wrong
Typing74%Compare with constant of wrong type (e.g., age = 'old' vs. 20)
Extremum42%Error in selecting top value (min vs. max for example)
Intersect42%Error in Intersect operation
Wrong structure32%QPL plan is not a connected tree
Syntax issue32%Predicted QPL is not syntactically valid
Except21%Error in Except operation
Distinct11%Missing distinct flag
Wrong table11%Refers to the wrong table in the schema
Grand Total167
", + "image_path": "3b07d1c6a27db397051614391f2c800506a55bb7cad59cbd2b6287bec26c61b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 327, + 412, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 327, + 412, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 327, + 412, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Error Types: Breakdown of errors by error types" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 166, + 374 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 166, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 360, + 166, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Error Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 290, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The most challenging error type is related to queries that involve aggregate operations (group by and aggregated values such as count, sum or max)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5 shows the breakdown of errors by error types for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " QPL model with Rich Schema Encoding. We hypothesize that errors related to Join operations could be reduced by exploiting a more expressive description of the schema structure and applying either a post-processing critique of the generated QPL or enforcing stricter constraints in the QPL Picard parser. Similarly, a more detailed description of the content of encoded columns could improve the Wrong Constant type." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Spider development set includes 20 different schemas. Table 9 shows the break down of errors per schema. We observe that 5 schemas account for over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 290, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling: keys are not declared, column naming is inconsistent, and value encoding in some columns is non standard (e.g., use of 'T'/'F' for boolean values)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 147, + 695 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 147, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 147, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We presented a method to improve compositional learning of complex text-to-SQL models based on QPL, a new executable and modular intermediary language that is derived from SQL through semantic transformation. We provide software tools to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 360, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 360, + 526, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 360, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "automatically translate SQL queries into QPL and to execute QPL plans by translating them to CTE SQL statements. We also compiled Spider-QPL, a version of Spider which includes QPL and Question Decomposition for all examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our experiments indicate that QPL is easier to learn using fine-tuned LLMs (our text-to-QPL model achieves SOTA results on fine-tuned models on Spider dev set without db values, especially on hard and extra-hard queries); and easier to interpret by users than SQL for complex queries. On the basis of the computed QPL plans, we derived a new form of Question Decomposition and trained a question decomposer that is sensitive to the target database schema, in contrast to existing generic question decomposers. Given a predicted QPL plan, we can derive a readable QD that increases the interpretability of the predicted plan." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In future work, we plan to further exploit the modularity of QPL plans for data augmentation and to explore multi-step inference techniques. We have started experimenting with an auto-regressive model which predicts QPL plans line by line. Our error analysis indicates that enhancing the model to further take advantage of the database values and foreign-keys has the potential to increase the robustness of this multi-step approach. We are also exploring whether users can provide interactive feedback on predicted QD as a way to guide QPL prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13637" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 290, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 290, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 290, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All models mentioned in this paper were trained on one NVIDIA H100 GPU with 80GB RAM for 10 epochs, totaling around 8 hours of training per model at the cost of US$2 per GPU hour." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 290, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 146, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The models were tested on the Spider development set, which only has QPLs of up to 13 lines; our method has not been tested on longer QPLs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 186, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 186, + 290, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 186, + 290, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During training, we did not use schema information such as the primary-foreign key relationships and column types, nor did we use the actual databases' content. In this regard, our models might output incorrect Join predicates (due to lack of primary-foreign key information), or incorrect Scan predicates (due to lack of database content)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We acknowledge certain limitations arising from the evaluation conducted on the Spider development set. These limitations include:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 328, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 291, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 328, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. A total of 49 queries yield an empty result set on their corresponding databases. Consequently, inaccurately predicted QPLs could generate the same \"result\" as the gold query while bearing significant semantic differences. In the Spider-QPL dataset, we have inserted additional data so that none of the queries return an empty result set in the development set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 459, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 459, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 459, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. As many as 187 queries employ the LIMIT function. This can lead to complications in the presence of \"ties\"; for instance, when considering the query SELECT grade FROM students ORDER BY grade DESC LIMIT 1, the returned row becomes arbitrary if more than one student shares the highest grade." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 158, + 576 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 158, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 158, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The use of text-to-code applications inherently carries risks, especially when users are unable to confirm the accuracy of the generated code. This issue is particularly pronounced for intricate code, such as complex SQL queries. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a more transparent target language. However, our limited-scale user study reveals that, even when utilizing this more interpretable language, software engineers struggle to detect misaligned queries in more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of instances. This occurs even for queries with moderate complexity (QPL length of 5 to 7). More work on interpretability of generated code is warranted before deploying such tools." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 405, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 524, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 524, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 95, + 524, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank the Frankel Center for Computer Science at Ben Gurion University for their support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 362, + 160 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 362, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 362, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 527, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 527, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Boin, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Representing schema structure with graph neural networks for text-to-SQL parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4560-4565, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 527, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 527, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 527, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shulin Cao, Jiaxin Shi, Liangming Pan, Lunyiu Nie, Yutong Xiang, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li, Bin He, and Hanwang Zhang. 2022. KQA pro: A dataset with explicit compositional programs for complex question answering over knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6101-6119, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 359, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 359, + 526, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 359, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidi Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 525, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2022. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 649, + 526, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 649, + 526, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 649, + 526, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 716, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 716, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 716, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, M. Witbrock, and Patricia J. Riddle. 2022a. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13638" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenyun Deng, Yonghua Zhu, Yang Chen, Michael Witbrock, and Patricia Riddle. 2022b. Interpretable amr-based question decomposition for multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages 4093-4099. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 291, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li Dong and Mirella Lapata. 2016. Language to logical form with neural attention. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 33-43, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 290, + 272 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 290, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 290, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Grant Fritchey. 2018. SQL Server Execution Plans: Third Edition. Red Gate Books." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruiliu Fu, Han Wang, Xuejun Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Yonghong Yan. 2021. Decomposing complex questions makes multi-hop QA easier and more interpretable. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2021, pages 169-180, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yujiang Gan, Xinyun Chen, Qiuping Huang, and Matthew Purver. 2022. Measuring and improving compositional generalization in text-to-SQL via component alignment. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022*, pages 831-843, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yujian Gan, Xinyun Chen, Jinxia Xie, Matthew Purver, John R. Woodward, John Drake, and Qiaofu Zhang. 2021. Natural SQL: Making SQL easier to infer from natural language specifications. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 2030-2042, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 291, + 595 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 291, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 291, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chunxi Guo, Zhiliang Tian, Jintao Tang, Pancheng Wang, Zhihua Wen, Kang Yang, and Ting Wang. 2023. A case-based reasoning framework for adaptive prompting in cross-domain text-to-sql." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 606, + 291, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 606, + 291, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 606, + 291, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaqi Guo, Qian Liu, Jian-Guang Lou, Zhenwen Li, Xueqing Liu, Tao Xie, and Ting Liu. 2020. Benchmarking meaning representations in neural semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1520-1540, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, JianGuang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards complex text-to-SQL in cross-domain database with intermediate representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4524-4535, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Herzig and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Span-based semantic parsing for compositional generalization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 908-921, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 526, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 225, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Huang, Sitao Cheng, Yiheng Shu, Yuheng Bao, and Yuzhong Qu. 2023. Question decomposition tree for answering complex questions over knowledge bases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 526, + 323 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 526, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 526, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wonseok Hwang, Jinyeung Yim, Seunghyun Park, and Minjoon Seo. 2019. A comprehensive exploration on wikisql with table-aware word contextualization. CoRR, abs/1902.01069." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 526, + 422 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 526, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 334, + 526, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Keysers, Nathanael Scharli, Nathan Scales, Hylke Buisman, Daniel Furrer, Sergii Kashubin, Nikola Momchev, Danila Sinopalnikov, Lukasz Stafiniak, Tibor Tihon, Dmitry Tsarkov, Xiao Wang, Marc van Zee, and Olivier Bousquet. 2019. Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. *ICLR* 2020, abs/1912.09713." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wuwei Lan, Zhiguo Wang, Anuj Chauhan, Henghui Zhu, Alexander Hanbo Li, Jiang Guo, Shenmin Zhang, Chung-Wei Hang, Joseph Lilien, Yiqun Hu, Lin Pan, Mingwen Dong, J. Wang, Jiarong Jiang, Stephen M. Ash, Vittorio Castelli, Patrick Ng, and Bing Xiang. 2023. Unite: A unified benchmark for text-to-sql evaluation. ArXiv, abs/2305.16265." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dongjun Lee. 2019. Clause-wise and recursive decoding for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 6045-6051, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 526, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 526, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 526, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Binhua Li, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Rongyu Cao, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Chenhao Ma, Kevin C. Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Can llm already serve as a database interface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. ArXiv, abs/2305.03111." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xi Victoria Lin, Richard Socher, and Caiming Xiong. 2020. Bridging textual and tabular data for cross-domain text-to-SQL semantic parsing. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 4870-4888, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13639" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S. Yu. 2023. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 290, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiping Liu and Zhao Tan. 2023. Divide and prompt: Chain of thought prompting for text-to-sql." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 144, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 144, + 291, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 144, + 291, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading comprehension through question decomposition and rescoring. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097-6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 290, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linyong Nan, Yilun Zhao, Weijin Zou, Narutatsu Ri, Jaesung Tae, Ellen Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Enhancing few-shot text-to-sql capabilities of large language models: A study on prompt design strategies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 290, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 292, + 290, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yilin Niu, Fei Huang, Wei Liu, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, and Minlie Huang. 2023. Bridging the Gap between Synthetic and Natural Questions via Sentence Decomposition for Semantic Parsing. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:367-383." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 366, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 366, + 290, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 366, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Unsupervised question decomposition for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8864-8880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 486 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 493, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 493, + 291, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 493, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bah-danau. 2022. Evaluating the text-to-sql capabilities of large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Irina Saparina and Anton Osokin. 2021. SPARQLing database queries from intermediate question decompositions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8984-8998, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2021. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "P. Griffiths Selinger, M. M. Astrahan, D. D. Chamberlin, R. A. Lorie, and T. G. Price. 1979. Access path selection in a relational database management system. In Proceedings of the 1979 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '79, page 23-34, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 157, + 526, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Panupong Pasupat, and Kristina Toutanova. 2021. Compositional generalization and natural language variation: Can a semantic parsing approach handle both? In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 922-938, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 526, + 309 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 526, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 526, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lysandre Debut Younes Belkada Sayak Paul Sourab Mangrulkar, Sylvain Gugger. 2022. Peft: State-of-the-art parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. https://github.com/huggingface/peft." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 315, + 526, + 393 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 315, + 526, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 315, + 526, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bailin Wang, Richard Shin, Xiaodong Liu, Oleksandr Polozov, and Matthew Richardson. 2020a. RAT-SQL: Relation-aware schema encoding and linking for text-to-SQL parsers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7567-7578, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 445 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lei Wang, Wanyu Xu, Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Yunshi Lan, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 451, + 526, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 451, + 526, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 451, + 526, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ping Wang, Tian Shi, and Chandan K. Reddy. 2020b. Text-to-sql generation for question answering on electronic medical records. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, WWW '20, page 350-361, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 525, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 525, + 526, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 525, + 526, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 609, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 609, + 526, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 609, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 749, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomer Wolfson, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Weakly supervised text-to-SQL parsing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13640" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "through question decomposition. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 2528-2542, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 127, + 291, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 127, + 291, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 127, + 291, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomer Wolfson, Mor Geva, Ankit Gupta, Matt Gardner, Yoav Goldberg, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Break It Down: A Question Understanding Benchmark. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:183-198." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 195, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 195, + 291, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 195, + 291, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingfeng Yang, Haoming Jiang, Qingyu Yin, Danqing Zhang, Bing Yin, and Diyi Yang. 2022. SEQZERO: Few-shot compositional semantic parsing with sequential prompts and zero-shot models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 49-60, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 283, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yunhu Ye, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Large language models are versatile decomposers: Decompose evidence and questions for table-based reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2301.13808." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 350, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 350, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 350, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pengcheng Yin and Graham Neubig. 2017. A syntactic neural model for general-purpose code generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 440-450, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 428, + 291, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 428, + 291, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 428, + 291, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Yu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kai Yang, Rui Zhang, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2018a. SyntaxSQLNet: Syntax tree networks for complex and cross-domain text-to-SQL task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1653-1663, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 528, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 528, + 291, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 528, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018b. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 638, + 291, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 638, + 291, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 638, + 291, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoyu Zhang, Jingjing Cai, Jianjun Xu, and Ji Wang. 2019. Complex question decomposition for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4477-4486, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiajie Zhang, Shulin Cao, Tingjia Zhang, Xin Lv, Jiaxin Shi, Qingwen Tian, Juanzi Li, and Lei Hou. 2023. Reasoning over hierarchical question decomposition tree for explainable question answering. ArXiv, abs/2305.15056." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 526, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 526, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 526, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenting Zhao, Konstantine Arkoudas, Weiqi Sun, and Claire Cardie. 2022. *Compositional task-oriented parsing as abstractive question answering*. In *Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, pages 4418-4427, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 169, + 526, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 169, + 526, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 169, + 526, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 211, + 526, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 211, + 526, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 211, + 526, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Zhou, Kyle Richardson, Xiaodong Yu, and Dan Roth. 2022. Learning to decompose: Hypothetical question decomposition based on comparable texts. ArXiv, abs/2210.16865." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 269, + 377, + 282 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 269, + 377, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 269, + 377, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 290, + 414, + 304 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 290, + 414, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 290, + 414, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 290, + 414, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathbf{QPL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 290, + 414, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 526, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model was trained using the HuggingFace Transformers (Wolf et al., 2020) and PEFT (Sourab Mangrulkar, 2022) libraries. As the Flan-T5-XL model was too large to fine-tune on one GPU, we use the LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) method to fine-tune only the q and v matrices of the model. Hyperparameters used in training are listed in Table 7. The trained model and training and validation datasets are available on https://huggingface.co/bgunlp." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 350, + 454, + 479, + 563 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 454, + 479, + 563 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 454, + 479, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 454, + 479, + 563 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterValue
# Epoch10
Dropout Prob.0.05
Batch Size1
Learning Rate0.0002
Adaptation (r)16
LoRA α32
", + "image_path": "c4d2ad118d28b0d3046f46133766f366fc22a72176e9c85b74c345d57b869fe8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 571, + 508, + 584 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 571, + 508, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 571, + 508, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 571, + 508, + 584 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{{QPL}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 571, + 508, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Training Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 600, + 461, + 613 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 600, + 461, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 600, + 461, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Schema Encoding Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 524, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 524, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 618, + 524, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare two methods to describe the database schema when we prompt our models:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 655, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 655, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 655, + 526, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 655, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Simple Schema Encoding: this is similar to Shaw et al. (2021), i.e., Question | Schema Name | Table1 : Col11, Col12, ... | Table2 : Col21, Col22, ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Rich Schema Encoding: this encoding provides for each column a simplified type (as in Spider - text, number, date or other); primary and foreign keys; and values." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13641" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 172, + 68, + 422, + 223 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 172, + 68, + 422, + 223 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 172, + 68, + 422, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 172, + 68, + 422, + 223 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
QPL LengthQ → QPLQ+QD → QPLSupport
187.3%78.3%189
286.6%83.4%277
385.3%78.0%191
475.0%62.9%124
567.1%54.4%164
648.2%25.9%27
731.8%22.7%44
≥811.9%24.4%18
Overall77.4%69.1%1034
", + "image_path": "e7782237239deb2a76aeed2563a22989c2141c79ace2710d1cb83fbd64cfe905.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 523, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 523, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 523, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Execution Accuracy of Text-to-QPL Models on Spider Development Set by Length of QPL. QPL length is a more natural measure of query complexity than the method used to classify queries in Spider. We find that there is little correlation between QPL Length and the Spider difficulty level." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 290, + 140, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 290, + 140, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 290, + 140, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 304, + 236, + 317 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 304, + 236, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 304, + 236, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple Schema Encoding: pets_1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 283, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 283, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 283, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table Student (StuID, LName, Fname, Age, Sex, Major, Advisor, city_code)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 266, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 266, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 356, + 266, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table Pets (PetID, PetType, pet_age, weight)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 223, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 223, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 223, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table Has_Pet (StuID, PetID)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 409, + 226, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 409, + 226, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 409, + 226, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rich Schema Encoding: pets_1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 234, + 570 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 234, + 570 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 234, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 234, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CREATE TABLE Student ( StuID number, LName text, Fname text, Age number, Sex text, Major number, Advisor number, city_code text, primary key (StuID))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 8, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 234, + 665 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 234, + 665 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 234, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 234, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CREATE TABLE Pets ( PetID number, PetType text ( dog ), pet_age number, weight number, primary key ( PetID ))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 9, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 679, + 282, + 772 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 679, + 282, + 772 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 679, + 282, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 679, + 282, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CREATE TABLE Has_Pet (StuID number, PetID number, foreign key (StuID) references Student (StuID), foreign key (PetID) references Pets (PetID))" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 10, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "sql" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 524, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Values are added after each column when an n-gram from the question is found as one of the values in one of the rows of the table. For example, for the question \"How much does the youngest dog weigh?\", the n-gram \"dog\" is found in the values of the column PetType. In this case, the value annotation PetType text (dog) is encoded." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 468, + 407 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 468, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 468, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Question Decomposer Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 524, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 524, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 524, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The prompt given to ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) to decompose a question given QPL is listed in Fig. 5. The full prompt (including BNF and all 6 examples) is available on GitHub." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 390, + 487 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 390, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 390, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 QPL Syntax" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show the BNF of the QPL language we have designed in Fig. 6. This grammar is used as part of the PICARD parser used for the decoder of all QPL predictor models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 418, + 567 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 418, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 418, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Errors by Schema" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 524, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9 shows error rate for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{QPL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model with Rich Schema Encoding by schema for each of the 20 schemas present in Spider's development set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We observe that 5 of the 20 schemas (car_1, flight_2, student_transcripts_tracking, world_1 and wta_1) account for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "41.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the examples in the development set and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the errors. Most of the errors in these specific schemas can be traced to missing key declarations, inconsistent column naming and typing (strings used to encode boolean or number values)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13642" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 522, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 522, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 522, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "QPL is a formalism used to describe data retrieval operations over an SQL schema in a modular manner. A QPL plan is a sequence of instructions for querying tabular data to answer a natural language question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 401, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 401, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 401, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Forget everything you know about SQL, only use the following explanations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 388, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 388, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 388, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A schema is specified as a list of specification in the format:
: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 254, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 254, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 254, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A plan contains a sequence of operations. All operations return a stream of tuples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 486, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 486, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 486, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All operations take as input either a physical table from the schema (for the Scan operation) or the output of other operations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 442, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 442, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 224, + 442, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let's think step by step to convert QPL plan to natural language plan given schema, question, and QPL that describe the question." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 254, + 199, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 254, + 199, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 254, + 199, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the natural language plan:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 468, + 284 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 446, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 446, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 264, + 446, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. You must have exactly the same number of questions as there are steps in the QPL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 275, + 468, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 275, + 468, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 275, + 468, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The questions you generate must follow exactly the same order as the steps in the QPL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 303, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 303, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 303, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This is the formal specification for each operation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 313, + 227, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 313, + 227, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 313, + 227, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(BNF goes here, elided for brevity)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 114, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 114, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 114, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Example 1:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 354, + 101, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 354, + 101, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 354, + 101, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Schema:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 353, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 353, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 364, + 353, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table Visitor (ID, Name, Age, Level_of_membership) \nTable Museum (Museum_ID, Name, Open Year, Num_of_staff) \nTable Visit (Visitor_ID, Museum_ID, Total_Spent, Num_of_Ticket)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 403, + 110, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 403, + 110, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 403, + 110, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 416, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 416, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 416, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "What is the total ticket expense of the visitors whose membership level is 1?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 433, + 110, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 433, + 110, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 433, + 110, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "QPL Plan:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 443, + 424, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 443, + 424, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 443, + 424, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#1 = Scan Table [ visitor ] Predicate [ Level_of_membership = 1 ] Output [ ID ]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 345, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 345, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 345, + 463 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2 =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 345, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Scan Table [ visit ] Output [ visitor_ID, Total_spent]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 464, + 438, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 464, + 438, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 464, + 438, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#3 = Join [ #1, #2 ] Predicate [ #1.ID = #2visitor_ID ] Output [ #2.Total_spent ]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 376, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 376, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 376, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#4 = Aggregate [ #3 ] Output [ SUM(Total_spent) AS Sum_Total_spent ]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 493, + 168, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 493, + 168, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 493, + 168, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural Language Plan:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 503, + 428, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 503, + 428, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 503, + 428, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#1 = Scan the table Visitor to find who are the visitors with membership level 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 470, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 470, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 470, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#2 = Scan the table Visit to find what is the total spent by visitors during their visits" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 393, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 393, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 393, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\# 3 =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 393, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Join #1 and #2 to find what is the total spent by each visitor with membership level 1 during their visits" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 543, + 487, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 543, + 487, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 543, + 487, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#4 = Group #3 by Visitor and aggregate the sum of total spent to find what is the total spent by all visitors with membership level 1 during their visit" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 190, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 190, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 190, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(5 more examples are given)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 132, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 132, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 592, + 132, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Now your turn:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 105, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 105, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 105, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Schema: {schema}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 115, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 115, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 643, + 115, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: {question}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 672, + 110, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 672, + 110, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 672, + 110, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "QPL Plan: {qpl}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 168, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 168, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 702, + 168, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural Language Plan:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 731, + 374, + 743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 731, + 374, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 731, + 374, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Prompt used to generate QD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13643" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 257, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 257, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 257, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 154, + 257, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ::= + \n ::= # = \n ::= \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| \n| " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 0, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 496, + 342 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 496, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 496, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 496, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-- Leaf operator\n ::= Scan Table [ ] ? ? " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 1, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 476, + 436 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 476, + 436 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 476, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 358, + 476, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-- Unary operators \n ::= Aggregate [ ] \n ::= Filter [ ] \n ::= Sort [ ] \n ::= TopSort [ ] Rows [ ] \n " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 2, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "haskell" + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 528, + 653 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 528, + 653 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 528, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 452, + 528, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-- Binary operators \n ::= Join [ , ] ? ? \n ::= Except [ , ] \n ::= Intersect [ , ] ? \n ::= Union [ , ] \n ::= GroupBy [ (, )* ] \n ::= OrderBy [ (, )* ] \n ::= WithTies [ true | false ] \n ::= ASC | DESC \n ::= Predicate [ (AND | OR )* ] \n ::= Distinct [ true | false ] \n ::= Output [ (, )* ] \n ::= Output [ (, )* ] \n ::= # . " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 3, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "haskell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 245, + 671, + 348, + 683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 245, + 671, + 348, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 245, + 671, + 348, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: QPL Grammar" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13644" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 123, + 116, + 472, + 238 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 116, + 472, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 116, + 472, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 116, + 472, + 238 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
QD-QPL AlignmentSupportCorrectExec AccAvg QPL Gold Len.
[0.0, 0.4]1005.0
(0.4, 0.5]19421.14.6
(0.5, 0.6]9222.26.3
(0.6, 0.7]43920.95.0
(0.7, 0.8]632133.34.2
(0.8, 0.9]933335.54.6
(0.9, 1]77962480.12.8
", + "image_path": "1e42e600903c6dd256eb1794072884bc27055dda7334d9968a2fcca6ade22499.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 143, + 359, + 452, + 677 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 246, + 485, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 246, + 485, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 246, + 485, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 246, + 485, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Q} + \\mathrm{{QD}} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{{QPL}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 246, + 485, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model trained with QDs predicted by Trained Question Decomposer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 359, + 452, + 677 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 359, + 452, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 359, + 452, + 677 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Schema IDErrorsSamplesError Rate
battle_death1166%
car_1279229%
concert_singer54511%
course_teach0300%
cre_Doc_Package_Mgt88410%
dog_kennels128215%
employee_hire_evaluation1383%
flight_2158019%
museum.visit21811%
network_195616%
orchestra0400%
pets_12425%
poker_player0400%
real_estate_property1425%
singer1303%
student_transcripts_tracking167821%
tvshow5628%
voter_131520%
world_14412037%
wta_1156224%
Grand Total167103416%
", + "image_path": "ea91290ae7bd76d944c977c55687c2fc877ed37ef5f7a2d4fe93f494922cf9e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 525, + 722 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 525, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Breakdown of errors by Schema ID: 5 schemas out of the 20 present in Spider's development set account for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 686, + 525, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the errors. These schemas do not follow best practices in data modeling and lack proper foreign key declarations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13645" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_content_list.json b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0768994860af3b8701a8aa74db53ffa067f5ec06 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2120 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 144, + 89, + 852, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuxiang Wu $^{1*}$ , Guanting Dong $^{1*}$ , Weiran Xu $^{1*}$ $^{1}$ Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China \n{yuxiangw, dongguanting, xuweiran}@bupt.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 154, + 783, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-shot Dialogue State Tracking (DST) addresses the challenge of acquiring and annotating task-oriented dialogues, which can be time-consuming and costly. However, DST extends beyond simple slot-filling and requires effective updating strategies for tracking dialogue state as conversations progress. In this paper, we propose ParsingDST, a new In-Context Learning (ICL) method, to introduce additional intricate updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Our approach reformulates the DST task by leveraging powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) and translating the original dialogue text to JSON through semantic parsing as an intermediate state. We also design a novel framework that includes more modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies in the text-to-JSON process. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing zero-shot DST methods on MultiWOZ, exhibiting significant improvements in Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) and slot accuracy compared to existing ICL methods.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 619, + 258, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dialogue State Tracking (DST) is crucial in Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems to understand and manage user intentions(Wu et al., 2019; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Heck et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). Collecting and annotating dialogue states at the turn level is challenging and expensive (Budzianowski et al., 2018), and commercial applications often need to expand the schema and include new domains. Therefore, it is vital to develop DST learning strategies that can adapt and scale effectively with minimal data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 644, + 487, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most of the existing fine-tuning methods for zero-shot DST have primarily focused on domain-transfer approaches (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021b,a), which have not yielded satisfactory", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 821, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6ba575ca1ea87650c42dc1e1649f0273773d5cb858d9cc8bc23146c79dfee06c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An example of the comparison between the previous ICL method and ours." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 252, + 870, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance. Recent studies have showcased the impressive and adaptable expertise possessed by large language models (LLMs)(Raffel et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023). However, with the discovery of the emergent ability of large language models in downstream tasks (Cobbe et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022a,b), the In-Context Learning (ICL) method (Brown et al., 2020) has garnered more attention in DST research. ICL offers a more flexible and cost-effective approach as it eliminates the need for retraining when new slots or domains are introduced. Some recent studies have explored the effectiveness of ICL in DST (Hu et al., 2022; Madotto et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2022) such as the IC-DST method, which has demonstrated remarkable performance surpassing previous fine-tuning methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 579, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nevertheless, all the previous methods directly generate the dialogue state or its change, which only achieves a simple slot-filling task that extracts the slot's value from dialogue but does not explain", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*The first two authors contribute equally. Weiran Xu is the corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11093", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11093-11099 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 973 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ca4f49ee89b663463ea335a73b2b4d2185a5fd44cf809d124d5c9e0fec4bdfbf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Our framework of ParsingDST that includes filter module." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 84, + 867, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "how the state updating strategies work during DST which makes the DST process a black box. And we find the main obstacle in the current zero-shot DST method is that the large language models (LLMs)' understanding of updating strategies have not aligned with the DST task.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 231, + 487, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we proposed a new ICL method named ParsingDST for zero-shot DST. Specifically, we reformulate the DST task by semantic parsing that translates the origin dialogue text into the designed JSON format (Text-to-JSON) as the intermediate state through the LLMs The translated JSON data will include the information about the speaker, interaction action, domain, slot, and corresponding values in a formatted and structured manner, which enables the introduction of manual state updating strategies later.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 330, + 489, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We illustrated the significance of updating strategies by presenting an intricate scenario in Figure 1. Previous ICL approaches typically decode the dialogue to directly extract the values of all slots, such as \"hotel-name\", \"price-range\", and \"attraction-name\" in the example, without considering the updating strategies, which leads to errors in the result. In contrast, our method applies additional updating strategies after the text-to-JSON conversion. We delete non-entity slots like \"price_range\" when it appears in the system but not in the context, and we set the value of the \"hotel name\" to \"[Delete]\" when it is mentioned in the user's \"reject\" action, which makes our result aligns with the golden label.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 507, + 489, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on our observations, we noticed that when merging context, system, and user utterances as dialogue input like the previous methods, the LLMs will often exhibit confusion between these different types of information, which will invalidate the updating strategies. To address this, we also designed a companion framework with more process modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies and conducted experiments to validate them. We choose to test and compare ICL meth", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 733, + 489, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ods with the powerful LLMs by OpenAI $^2$ : gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 $^3$ and text-davinci-003 (Brown et al., 2020) on MultiWoz 2.1&2.4 dataset.:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 231, + 884, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, our work makes the following contributions: (1) To our best knowledge, we are the first to apply text-to-JSON by semantic parsing as the transition between dialogue to state, making it possible to tool additional state updating strategies and other modules, making the process of DST more controllable and interpretable. (2) We proposed a novel framework with modules in the process of text-to-JSON to maintain the effectiveness of updating strategies. (3) We experiment with different ICL methods with various LLMs on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, proving our ICL method outperforms the previous in the same model and achieves a new state-of-art in zero-shot DST task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 281, + 884, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 DST System", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 518, + 650, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Data format design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 544, + 705, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As we mentioned before, we translate the origin dialogue text to the JSON format which includes interactive actions. The domain, slot, and value in JSON are inferred from the utterance. And the formats of User JSON and System JSON are different. More details about JSON format and our prompt are in Appendix A.3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Dialogue context representation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 705, + 805, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to maintain semantic consistency, we still use JSON format as context representation. When translating system's utterance, we put all domain-slot-value pairs from the context state into the \"request\" action of the data that is User JSON's format as context representation. Then When translating user's utterance, we merge the previous context representation and the System JSON as the new context representation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2More details about models in https://openai.com/", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 879, + 870, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3Snapshot of gpt-3.5-turbo from March 1st, 2023, this model will not receive updates.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 892, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Codes in github.com/ToLightUpTheSky/ParsingDST", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11094", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c1ecb83c640acef61752b3bb515767d1a21014909ee55bba1869a20802818371.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MultiWoZ 2.1AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
Supervised fine-tuning method
SimpleTOD++ (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)28.0117.6915.5759.2227.7529.65
T5DST + description (Lin et al., 2021b)33.0921.2121.6564.6235.4235.20
TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a)31.2522.7226.2861.8736.7235.77
Previous sota ICL method with different LLMs
IC-DST Codex (deprecated)59.9746.6957.2871.3549.3756.92
IC-DST Text-davinci-00350.6938.5543.9871.2545.9950.09
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.3240.2046.5068.3252.8753.13
Our method with different LLMs
ParsingDST Text-davinci-00364.60+13.9139.92+1.3762.55+18.5780.45+9.2051.89+5.9059.88+9.79
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030164.95+5.6346.76+6.5667.04+20.5480.26+11.9462.78+9.9163.36+10.23
- filter module63.15+3.2045.35+5.1566.60+20.1080.25+11.9358.41+5.5462.75+9.44
- framework64.92+5.6046.63+6.4366.95+20.4575.42+7.1052.63-0.2461.71+8.40
MultiWoZ 2.4AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.8140.2046.8068.3252.8753.60
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030165.63+5.8146.76+6.5667.67+20.8780.58+12.2662.59+9.7264.65+11.05
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 80, + 847, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Zero-shot per-domain JGA on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, we calculate the average of all per-domain JGA as the measure of overall performance, and we use subscripts to indicate the JGA changes of our methods compared to the previous sota ICL method under the same model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 304, + 882, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Updating Strategies", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 317, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Through the observation of the dataset, we have formulated some status update strategies, which are based on rulers and will influenced by the speaker, interactive action, and entity or not. As for slots in generated User JSON: (1) The slot in \"reject\" action will be deleted later; (2) The slot in \"request\" action will be updated. As for System JSON: (1) The slot in \"ask_for\" or \"not avaliable\" actions will be ignored, these actions are for reducing the mistakes of interaction classification in semantic parsing; (2) The slot in \"info\" action will be updated when it is an entity or it also in context state, but in other cases, we will ignore it.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 382, + 487, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.4 Modules", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 228, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The introduction of the new framework makes it possible to use additional modules to correct the generated previous content. In this paper, we tried a simple module that filters System JSON to make it only include the updated slot or entity slot in our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 487, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.5 Framework design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 752, + 309, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The motivation for designing this framework is to avoid harmful information from the history state or previous speaker being mixed into the JSON generated by the subsequent speaker and affecting the effectiveness of the update strategy. Our framework modifies the shared input-output method which processes all together. We make it asynchronous and add more modules in the pipeline: process the context, the system utterance, and the user utterance", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "dividedly. As shown in figure 2. The details of the steps in our framework pipeline are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 359, + 882, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step1. In the $t$ turn of dialogue, convert the context state $S_{t-1}$ to JSON format $C_t$ as context representation (mentioned in section 2.2) in equation (1), then merge it with the system utterance $A_{utt}^t$ as the dialogue input for LLM, generate the System JSON $A_{JSON}^t$ in equation (2):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 391, + 882, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nC _ {t} = \\text {S t a t e 2 J S O N} \\left(S _ {t - 1}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 591, + 494, + 882, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \\left(C ^ {t}, A _ {u t t} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 516, + 880, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step2. Then the context state is updated by updating strategies and the System JSON and saved as the temporary state $S_{temp}^{t}$ as in equation (3):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 538, + 882, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {t e m p} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {U p d a t e} \\left(S _ {t - 1}, A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 593, + 880, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step3. Equation (4) will filter the generated System JSON with the module mentioned in section 2.4:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 617, + 880, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {F i l t e r} \\left(A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 591, + 653, + 880, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step4. Equation (5) combines context JSON and filtered System JSON as the new context representation, then equation (6) inputs the new context with user's utterance $U_{utt}^{t}$ together and generate User JSON $U_{JSON}^{t}$ with LLM:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 882, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nC _ {t} = C _ {t} + A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 621, + 765, + 880, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nU _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \\left(C _ {t}, U _ {u t t} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 787, + 880, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step5. Finally, the temporary state is updated by the updating strategies and the User JSON to get our dialogue state of this turn $S_{t}$ in quation (7):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 809, + 880, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {t} = \\operatorname {U p d a t e} \\left(S _ {\\text {t e m p}} ^ {t}, U _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 581, + 863, + 880, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If it is the first turn, the process will start from step4 and $A_{JSON}^{t}$ will be empty.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11095", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9782fd945ed52d3dbc38aaf4c6e110322c1f960d587ce210050fdfe8c60e0633.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The average slot accuracy in 5 different domains of MultiWOZ 2.1 with GPT -3.5 model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 84, + 480, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 274, + 250, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Dataset, Metric, and Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 300, + 410, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MultiWOZ (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multidomain human-human written dialogue dataset, the labels and utterances have been refined in subsequent versions, e.g., MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2019) and MultiWOZ2.4 (Ye et al., 2021) is a cleaner version. We use Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) which is the average accuracy of predicting all slot assignments for a given service in a turn correctly to evaluate the main results of models. Regarding text preprocessing and labeling, we followed most of the previous work of IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) on preprocessing and labeling data. The only change is that we renamed some names of the slots and domains. More details about baselines and zero-shot settings are in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 322, + 489, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Results and Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 576, + 322, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Main Result. Table 1 shows the zero-shot per-domain JGA result on MultiWOZ 2.1, and AVG JGA as the measure of overall performance. Because IC-DST's best performance model Codex-Davinci (Chen et al., 2021) has been deprecated by openAI, we supplement two experiment results with GPT-3.5 and Text-davinci models. We can find from the result that the supervised fine-tuning method is far inferior to the ICL method. And no matter in which domain, our method always outperforms the previous sota ICL method IC-DST by a large-scale margin in the same model. For example, using the same GPT-3.5 model, we achieved a $20.54\\%$ increase in JGA in the restaurant domain. Although the supplemented experiments of IC-DST show worse performance compared to the Codex model, our ParsingDST method still outperforms the IC-DST Codex in all five domains with the same model of supplemented experiments, which shows the strong ability of our method and the great", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/af3c593499a93e24d44c87b54c2bc948911a0777288826b00198559dec94eab0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Two representative samples in the test set of MultiWOZ 2.1." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 85, + 873, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "influence of updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Ablation Studies. We conduct an ablation study to better prove the effectiveness of our modules and new framework. In the situation without the framework, we follow the traditional setting to merge context, user, and system utterance as dialogue input, then output JSON all at once. As shown in Table 1, the overall performance degrades whether the filter module or our framework is discarded. However, we observed that the JGA in certain domains remained similar to the previous performance during our ablation studies, we believe that is because our modules and updating strategies still need to be optimized.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 404, + 882, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Slot Accuracy Analysis. Figure 3 shows the slot accuracy of models using PasingDST and IC-DST with the Gpt-3.5 model. It can be seen that our method achieves better results on all 5 domains compared to the IC-DST (e.g., $2.88\\%$ improvement in the restaurant domain), which further proves the effectiveness of our method. We speculate that it is crucial for DST to introduce an appropriate dialog state update strategy into the model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Case Studies. To further illustrate the effectiveness of our framework, Figure 4 shows two representative samples of different methods' predictions. In the first case, the IC-DST method makes a wrong prediction that includes the non-entity slot \"pricerange\" from system utterance that does not appear in context, however, our method can handle the situation well because of the introduction of updating strategies. In the second case, parsing-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11096", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "DST makes a wrong prediction when removing its framework, because its User JSON included slots \"internet\" and \"parking\" from system utterance, which makes the updating strategies invalid because these slots will be updated rather than be ignored. In our method, we can process System JSON and context JSON with modules that are included in the framework before the harmful information influences the latter User JSON.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 244, + 247, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we reformulate DST to semantic parsing with LLMs that translate the dialogue text into JSON as the intermediate state, which enables us to introduce updating strategies and makes DST process more controllable and interpretable. Furthermore, we present a novel framework that includes more modules within the text-to-JSON conversion process to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies. Through experiments on the MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4 dataset, our system achieves sota performance in zero-shot settings. Our analyses showed that our method surpasses the previous ICL method and the innovative modules and framework benefit the overall performance. In future work, we plan to explore and evaluate more variety of updating strategies and modules to further enhance our framework and we will test our method in more open-source LLMs like Llama (Touvron et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 489, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 594, + 218, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work has two main limitations: (1) The performance of our framework is highly dependent on the inference language model, which may limit the framework's usage. For example, it depends on the ability of LLMs that are pre-trained in JSON and natural language data and can understand both. (2) Lack the detailed comparison of various updating strategies and modules in the framework. We will design and test more kinds of updating strategies and modules for our framework in future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 489, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 814, + 213, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 838, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Pawel Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz-a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00278.", + "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.", + "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168.", + "Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Adarsh Kumar, Abhishek Sethi, Peter Ku, Anuj Kumar Goyal, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Multiwoz 2.1: A consolidated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01669.", + "Michael Heck, Carel van Niekerk, Nurul Lubis, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, Marco Moresi, and Milica Gašić. 2020. Trippy: A triple copy strategy for value independent neural dialog state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02877.", + "Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191.", + "Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. In-context learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08568.", + "Chia-Hsuan Lee, Hao Cheng, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Dialogue state tracking with a language model using schema-driven prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07506.", + "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04655.", + "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04222.", + "Yiheng Liu, Tianle Han, Siyuan Ma, Jiayue Zhang, Yuanyuan Yang, Jiaming Tian, Hao He, Antong Li, Mengshen He, Zhengliang Liu, et al. 2023. Summary of chatgpt/gpt-4 research and perspective towards" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11097", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the future of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01852.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 85, + 487, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 120, + 489, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 181, + 489, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 268, + 489, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 355, + 489, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on $1,600+$ language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 442, + 489, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 542, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 615, + 489, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08743.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 690, + 489, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 764, + 489, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021. Multiwoz 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00773.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 852, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jeffrey Zhao, Raghav Gupta, Yuan Cao, Dian Yu, Mingqiu Wang, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Description-driven task-oriented dialog modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08904.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 884, + 151 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 162, + 633, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Baseline", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 187, + 626, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SimpleTOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020) Successfully leverage the pretrained language model GPT-2 for the end-to-end TOD modeling in the unified way.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 208, + 884, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b) A slot description enhanced approach for zero-shot & few-shot cross-domain DST based on T5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 884, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a) Reformulated DST as QA problem. The model is pre-trained with a large amount of QA data. At inference time, the model predicts slot values by taking synthesized extractive questions as input", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 321, + 882, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) An in-context learning method for zero-shot & few-shot DST by text-to-SQL with LLMs. It's the previous state-of-art method that outperforms the supervised fine-tuning methods in zero-shot DST.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 884, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Zero-shot setting of ICL frameworks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 492, + 848, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are no labeled examples to retrieve, but formatting examples are included, following previous zero-shot learning work. (Wang et al., 2022), and we set the temperature parameter of LLMs to 0 for a stable result.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Prompt design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 604, + 673, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Below are the template of the user and system's prompt in zero-shot settings. The last example is the test instance that needs to be completed. We find the example is more useful than the task-description prompt in the in-context learning, so we use a simple example that includes all slots of the domain to map the relationship between slot and value in the dialogue rather than directly describe the slot and its value. Furthermore, for LLMs to understand the meaning of action in JSON format, we also formulate some examples to demonstrate some interaction typical scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 621, + 882, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System prompt template", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 780, + 707, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "translate system message to JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 803, + 678, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "data format of JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 821, + 615, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message: \nsystem: \"... \noutput JSON: \n{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}, \"info\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}, \"ask_for\": {domain: [slot]}} \n[END]", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 841, + 882, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 907, + 557, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11098", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 89, + 188, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "system: \"the booking for restaurant at 10:00 on sunday was successful\" \noutput JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 99, + 452, + 117 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"restaurant\": {\"clock_book\": [\"10:00\"], \"week_day\": [\"sunday\"]}},{\"ask_for\": {}}} \n[END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 118, + 485, + 145 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 155, + 161, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 165, + 188, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "system:\"it is a chinese restaurant in the centre\" output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 175, + 339, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "```\n[\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"cuisine\": [\"chinese\"], \"direction\": [\"centre\"], \"ask_for\": {}]} [END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 193, + 485, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 231, + 161, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 241, + 188, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "system:\"how about abc restaurant in the city centre\"", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 250, + 364, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 261, + 181, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"restaurant\": {\"full_name\": [\"abc restaurant\"], \"direction\": [\"centre\"]} }, \"ask_for\": {}}} \n[END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 269, + 485, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 307, + 161, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 317, + 188, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "system: \"how about the part of the area and food type for the restaurant\" output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 326, + 457, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"direction\", \"cuisine\"]}}}] \n[END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 344, + 485, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 382, + 161, + 392 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 392, + 188, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "system: \"do you need certain price range or part of area for restaurant\" \noutput JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 401, + 448, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"price_range\", \"direction\"]}}] \n[END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 420, + 485, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 458, + 161, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 468, + 188, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "system: \"sorry i can not book restaurant nusa for you . i can only find nandos\" output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 476, + 485, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\": [\"nusha\"]}], \"info\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\": [\"nandos\"]}], \"ask_for\": {}]} [END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 495, + 485, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[DM]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 533, + 144, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[ST]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 543, + 139, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[KW]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 552, + 146, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 571, + 161, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "context:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 582, + 156, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[PREDIC]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 590, + 168, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 601, + 188, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[DIALOG]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 611, + 171, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 620, + 181, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User prompt template", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 637, + 292, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "translate user message to JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 661, + 268, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "data format of JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 680, + 218, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 700, + 188, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user:\"...", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 709, + 156, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 718, + 181, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {domain: [slot]}, \"request\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}}", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 728, + 485, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example: input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 757, + 233, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: \"i want a place to eat. in the city centre. with cheap price\"", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 766, + 421, + 775 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 776, + 181, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"direction\": [\"centre\"], \"price_range\": [\"cheap\"]}}}} \n[END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 784, + 485, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 822, + 161, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 832, + 188, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user:\"no particular food type\"", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 841, + 260, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 851, + 181, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": [\"cuine\": [\"any\"]}}}}", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 860, + 450, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[END]", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 869, + 149, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 889, + 161, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"system\": {\"not avaliable\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"price_range\", \"cuisine\"]}}}}", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 898, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message: user: \"no, i am not picky as long as it book for 4 on sunday\" \noutput JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 89, + 872, + 107 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"price_range\": [\"any\"], \"cuisine\": [\"any\"], \"num_people\": [\"4\"], \"week_day\": [\"sunday\"]}}] [END]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 108, + 880, + 136 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 146, + 556, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 155, + 583, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: \"i want to be in the east of town . can i get their phone number and address please\"", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 165, + 880, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 181, + 576, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {},,\"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"direction\": [\"east\"], \"phone_number\": [], \"address\": []}}}}", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 193, + 880, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[END]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 211, + 694, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 231, + 556, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 241, + 583, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "user: \"nusha is not a restaurant but an attraction\"", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 250, + 741, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 261, + 576, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\"]}], \"request\": {\"attraction\":", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 269, + 880, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"full_name\": [\"nusha\"]}}}}", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 279, + 647, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[END]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 288, + 544, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[DM]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 307, + 541, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[EXM]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 317, + 547, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[ST]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 326, + 534, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[KW]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 335, + 541, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "example:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 354, + 556, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "context:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 363, + 578, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[PREDIC]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 373, + 561, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "input message:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 382, + 583, + 392 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[DIALOG]", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 392, + 566, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "output JSON:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 401, + 576, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Special tokens in prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 423, + 709, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The prompt has some special tokens which will be replace by something else in the data-building process:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 439, + 880, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[DM]\" is the domain list.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 487, + 705, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[EXM]\" is the domain example which is a user utterance that includes all slots of the domain and its translated JSON.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 502, + 880, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[ST]\" is the slot list of the domain.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 551, + 774, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[KW]\" is the possible choice of some slot.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 567, + 830, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[PREDIC]\" is the context JSON.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 583, + 759, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[DIALOG]\" is the utterance that should be translated to JSON.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 599, + 880, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"[END]\" is the stop token.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 631, + 705, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11099", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_model.json b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed2505a78789fe48b2d735eceaf9dcc45dc57733 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2249 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.09, + 0.853, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.155, + 0.784, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuxiang Wu\\(^{1*}\\), Guanting Dong\\(^{1*}\\), Weiran Xu\\(^{1*}\\) \n\\(^{1}\\)Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China \n{yuxiangw, dongguanting, xuweiran}@bupt.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-shot Dialogue State Tracking (DST) addresses the challenge of acquiring and annotating task-oriented dialogues, which can be time-consuming and costly. However, DST extends beyond simple slot-filling and requires effective updating strategies for tracking dialogue state as conversations progress. In this paper, we propose ParsingDST, a new In-Context Learning (ICL) method, to introduce additional intricate updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Our approach reformulates the DST task by leveraging powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) and translating the original dialogue text to JSON through semantic parsing as an intermediate state. We also design a novel framework that includes more modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies in the text-to-JSON process. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing zero-shot DST methods on MultiWOZ, exhibiting significant improvements in Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) and slot accuracy compared to existing ICL methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.62, + 0.26, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.645, + 0.489, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dialogue State Tracking (DST) is crucial in Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems to understand and manage user intentions(Wu et al., 2019; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Heck et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). Collecting and annotating dialogue states at the turn level is challenging and expensive (Budzianowski et al., 2018), and commercial applications often need to expand the schema and include new domains. Therefore, it is vital to develop DST learning strategies that can adapt and scale effectively with minimal data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.822, + 0.489, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most of the existing fine-tuning methods for zero-shot DST have primarily focused on domain-transfer approaches (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021b,a), which have not yielded satisfactory" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.253, + 0.871, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.544, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example of the comparison between the previous ICL method and ours." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.58, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance. Recent studies have showcased the impressive and adaptable expertise possessed by large language models (LLMs)(Raffel et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023). However, with the discovery of the emergent ability of large language models in downstream tasks (Cobbe et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022a,b), the In-Context Learning (ICL) method (Brown et al., 2020) has garnered more attention in DST research. ICL offers a more flexible and cost-effective approach as it eliminates the need for retraining when new slots or domains are introduced. Some recent studies have explored the effectiveness of ICL in DST (Hu et al., 2022; Madotto et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2022) such as the IC-DST method, which has demonstrated remarkable performance surpassing previous fine-tuning methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nevertheless, all the previous methods directly generate the dialogue state or its change, which only achieves a simple slot-filling task that extracts the slot's value from dialogue but does not explain" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.894, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*The first two authors contribute equally. Weiran Xu is the corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11093" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.974 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11093-11099 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.085, + 0.868, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.266, + 0.207, + 0.731, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Our framework of ParsingDST that includes filter module." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.233, + 0.489, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "how the state updating strategies work during DST which makes the DST process a black box. And we find the main obstacle in the current zero-shot DST method is that the large language models (LLMs)' understanding of updating strategies have not aligned with the DST task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.331, + 0.49, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we proposed a new ICL method named ParsingDST for zero-shot DST. Specifically, we reformulate the DST task by semantic parsing that translates the origin dialogue text into the designed JSON format (Text-to-JSON) as the intermediate state through the LLMs The translated JSON data will include the information about the speaker, interaction action, domain, slot, and corresponding values in a formatted and structured manner, which enables the introduction of manual state updating strategies later." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We illustrated the significance of updating strategies by presenting an intricate scenario in Figure 1. Previous ICL approaches typically decode the dialogue to directly extract the values of all slots, such as \"hotel-name\", \"price-range\", and \"attraction-name\" in the example, without considering the updating strategies, which leads to errors in the result. In contrast, our method applies additional updating strategies after the text-to-JSON conversion. We delete non-entity slots like \"price_range\" when it appears in the system but not in the context, and we set the value of the \"hotel name\" to \"[Delete]\" when it is mentioned in the user's \"reject\" action, which makes our result aligns with the golden label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.734, + 0.49, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on our observations, we noticed that when merging context, system, and user utterances as dialogue input like the previous methods, the LLMs will often exhibit confusion between these different types of information, which will invalidate the updating strategies. To address this, we also designed a companion framework with more process modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies and conducted experiments to validate them. We choose to test and compare ICL meth" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.233, + 0.885, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ods with the powerful LLMs by OpenAI\\(^2\\): gpt-3.5-turbo-0301\\(^3\\) and text-davinci-003 (Brown et al., 2020) on MultiWoz 2.1&2.4 dataset.:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.282, + 0.885, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, our work makes the following contributions: (1) To our best knowledge, we are the first to apply text-to-JSON by semantic parsing as the transition between dialogue to state, making it possible to tool additional state updating strategies and other modules, making the process of DST more controllable and interpretable. (2) We proposed a novel framework with modules in the process of text-to-JSON to maintain the effectiveness of updating strategies. (3) We experiment with different ICL methods with various LLMs on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, proving our ICL method outperforms the previous in the same model and achieves a new state-of-art in zero-shot DST task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.519, + 0.652, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 DST System" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.545, + 0.707, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Data format design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.884, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As we mentioned before, we translate the origin dialogue text to the JSON format which includes interactive actions. The domain, slot, and value in JSON are inferred from the utterance. And the formats of User JSON and System JSON are different. More details about JSON format and our prompt are in Appendix A.3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.706, + 0.806, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Dialogue context representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to maintain semantic consistency, we still use JSON format as context representation. When translating system's utterance, we put all domain-slot-value pairs from the context state into the \"request\" action of the data that is User JSON's format as context representation. Then When translating user's utterance, we merge the previous context representation and the System JSON as the new context representation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.88, + 0.871, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2More details about models in https://openai.com/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.894, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Snapshot of gpt-3.5-turbo from March 1st, 2023, this model will not receive updates." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.88, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Codes in github.com/ToLightUpTheSky/ParsingDST" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11094" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.081, + 0.848, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MultiWoZ 2.1AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
Supervised fine-tuning method
SimpleTOD++ (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)28.0117.6915.5759.2227.7529.65
T5DST + description (Lin et al., 2021b)33.0921.2121.6564.6235.4235.20
TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a)31.2522.7226.2861.8736.7235.77
Previous sota ICL method with different LLMs
IC-DST Codex (deprecated)59.9746.6957.2871.3549.3756.92
IC-DST Text-davinci-00350.6938.5543.9871.2545.9950.09
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.3240.2046.5068.3252.8753.13
Our method with different LLMs
ParsingDST Text-davinci-00364.60+13.9139.92+1.3762.55+18.5780.45+9.2051.89+5.9059.88+9.79
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030164.95+5.6346.76+6.5667.04+20.5480.26+11.9462.78+9.9163.36+10.23
- filter module63.15+3.2045.35+5.1566.60+20.1080.25+11.9358.41+5.5462.75+9.44
- framework64.92+5.6046.63+6.4366.95+20.4575.42+7.1052.63-0.2461.71+8.40
MultiWoZ 2.4AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.8140.2046.8068.3252.8753.60
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030165.63+5.8146.76+6.5667.67+20.8780.58+12.2662.59+9.7264.65+11.05
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.305, + 0.884, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Zero-shot per-domain JGA on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, we calculate the average of all per-domain JGA as the measure of overall performance, and we use subscripts to indicate the JGA changes of our methods compared to the previous sota ICL method under the same model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.36, + 0.318, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Updating Strategies" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.383, + 0.489, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Through the observation of the dataset, we have formulated some status update strategies, which are based on rulers and will influenced by the speaker, interactive action, and entity or not. As for slots in generated User JSON: (1) The slot in \"reject\" action will be deleted later; (2) The slot in \"request\" action will be updated. As for System JSON: (1) The slot in \"ask_for\" or \"not avaliable\" actions will be ignored, these actions are for reducing the mistakes of interaction classification in semantic parsing; (2) The slot in \"info\" action will be updated when it is an entity or it also in context state, but in other cases, we will ignore it." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.621, + 0.229, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.4 Modules" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.643, + 0.489, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The introduction of the new framework makes it possible to use additional modules to correct the generated previous content. In this paper, we tried a simple module that filters System JSON to make it only include the updated slot or entity slot in our framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.753, + 0.31, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.5 Framework design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The motivation for designing this framework is to avoid harmful information from the history state or previous speaker being mixed into the JSON generated by the subsequent speaker and affecting the effectiveness of the update strategy. Our framework modifies the shared input-output method which processes all together. We make it asynchronous and add more modules in the pipeline: process the context, the system utterance, and the user utterance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.36, + 0.883, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "dividedly. As shown in figure 2. The details of the steps in our framework pipeline are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.392, + 0.884, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step1. In the \\(t\\) turn of dialogue, convert the context state \\(S_{t-1}\\) to JSON format \\(C_t\\) as context representation (mentioned in section 2.2) in equation (1), then merge it with the system utterance \\(A_{utt}^t\\) as the dialogue input for LLM, generate the System JSON \\(A_{JSON}^t\\) in equation (2):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.592, + 0.495, + 0.884, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nC _ {t} = \\text {S t a t e 2 J S O N} \\left(S _ {t - 1}\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.517, + 0.882, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \\left(C ^ {t}, A _ {u t t} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.539, + 0.884, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step2. Then the context state is updated by updating strategies and the System JSON and saved as the temporary state \\( S_{temp}^{t} \\) as in equation (3):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.573, + 0.594, + 0.882, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {t e m p} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {U p d a t e} \\left(S _ {t - 1}, A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.618, + 0.882, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step3. Equation (4) will filter the generated System JSON with the module mentioned in section 2.4:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.592, + 0.655, + 0.882, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {F i l t e r} \\left(A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.68, + 0.884, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step4. Equation (5) combines context JSON and filtered System JSON as the new context representation, then equation (6) inputs the new context with user's utterance \\( U_{utt}^{t} \\) together and generate User JSON \\( U_{JSON}^{t} \\) with LLM:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.622, + 0.766, + 0.882, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nC _ {t} = C _ {t} + A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.558, + 0.788, + 0.882, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nU _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \\left(C _ {t}, U _ {u t t} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.81, + 0.882, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step5. Finally, the temporary state is updated by the updating strategies and the User JSON to get our dialogue state of this turn \\( S_{t} \\) in quation (7):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.582, + 0.864, + 0.882, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {t} = \\operatorname {U p d a t e} \\left(S _ {\\text {t e m p}} ^ {t}, U _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If it is the first turn, the process will start from step4 and \\( A_{JSON}^{t} \\) will be empty." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11095" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.085, + 0.482, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.234, + 0.49, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The average slot accuracy in 5 different domains of MultiWOZ 2.1 with GPT -3.5 model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.275, + 0.251, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.302, + 0.411, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Dataset, Metric, and Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.323, + 0.49, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MultiWOZ (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multidomain human-human written dialogue dataset, the labels and utterances have been refined in subsequent versions, e.g., MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2019) and MultiWOZ2.4 (Ye et al., 2021) is a cleaner version. We use Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) which is the average accuracy of predicting all slot assignments for a given service in a turn correctly to evaluate the main results of models. Regarding text preprocessing and labeling, we followed most of the previous work of IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) on preprocessing and labeling data. The only change is that we renamed some names of the slots and domains. More details about baselines and zero-shot settings are in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.577, + 0.323, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Results and Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Main Result. Table 1 shows the zero-shot per-domain JGA result on MultiWOZ 2.1, and AVG JGA as the measure of overall performance. Because IC-DST's best performance model Codex-Davinci (Chen et al., 2021) has been deprecated by openAI, we supplement two experiment results with GPT-3.5 and Text-davinci models. We can find from the result that the supervised fine-tuning method is far inferior to the ICL method. And no matter in which domain, our method always outperforms the previous sota ICL method IC-DST by a large-scale margin in the same model. For example, using the same GPT-3.5 model, we achieved a \\(20.54\\%\\) increase in JGA in the restaurant domain. Although the supplemented experiments of IC-DST show worse performance compared to the Codex model, our ParsingDST method still outperforms the IC-DST Codex in all five domains with the same model of supplemented experiments, which shows the strong ability of our method and the great" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.086, + 0.875, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.362, + 0.883, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Two representative samples in the test set of MultiWOZ 2.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.405, + 0.884, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "influence of updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Ablation Studies. We conduct an ablation study to better prove the effectiveness of our modules and new framework. In the situation without the framework, we follow the traditional setting to merge context, user, and system utterance as dialogue input, then output JSON all at once. As shown in Table 1, the overall performance degrades whether the filter module or our framework is discarded. However, we observed that the JGA in certain domains remained similar to the previous performance during our ablation studies, we believe that is because our modules and updating strategies still need to be optimized." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.884, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Slot Accuracy Analysis. Figure 3 shows the slot accuracy of models using PasingDST and IC-DST with the Gpt-3.5 model. It can be seen that our method achieves better results on all 5 domains compared to the IC-DST (e.g., \\(2.88\\%\\) improvement in the restaurant domain), which further proves the effectiveness of our method. We speculate that it is crucial for DST to introduce an appropriate dialog state update strategy into the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Case Studies. To further illustrate the effectiveness of our framework, Figure 4 shows two representative samples of different methods' predictions. In the first case, the IC-DST method makes a wrong prediction that includes the non-entity slot \"pricerange\" from system utterance that does not appear in context, however, our method can handle the situation well because of the introduction of updating strategies. In the second case, parsing-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11096" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "DST makes a wrong prediction when removing its framework, because its User JSON included slots \"internet\" and \"parking\" from system utterance, which makes the updating strategies invalid because these slots will be updated rather than be ignored. In our method, we can process System JSON and context JSON with modules that are included in the framework before the harmful information influences the latter User JSON." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.245, + 0.248, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.49, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we reformulate DST to semantic parsing with LLMs that translate the dialogue text into JSON as the intermediate state, which enables us to introduce updating strategies and makes DST process more controllable and interpretable. Furthermore, we present a novel framework that includes more modules within the text-to-JSON conversion process to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies. Through experiments on the MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4 dataset, our system achieves sota performance in zero-shot settings. Our analyses showed that our method surpasses the previous ICL method and the innovative modules and framework benefit the overall performance. In future work, we plan to explore and evaluate more variety of updating strategies and modules to further enhance our framework and we will test our method in more open-source LLMs like Llama (Touvron et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.595, + 0.22, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.623, + 0.49, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work has two main limitations: (1) The performance of our framework is highly dependent on the inference language model, which may limit the framework's usage. For example, it depends on the ability of LLMs that are pre-trained in JSON and natural language data and can understand both. (2) Lack the detailed comparison of various updating strategies and modules in the framework. We will design and test more kinds of updating strategies and modules for our framework in future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.815, + 0.214, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.839, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pawel Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz-a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00278." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.174, + 0.885, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.338, + 0.885, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Adarsh Kumar, Abhishek Sethi, Peter Ku, Anuj Kumar Goyal, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Multiwoz 2.1: A consolidated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01669." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.426, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Heck, Carel van Niekerk, Nurul Lubis, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, Marco Moresi, and Milica Gašić. 2020. Trippy: A triple copy strategy for value independent neural dialog state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02877." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.501, + 0.885, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.577, + 0.885, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. In-context learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08568." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.64, + 0.885, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chia-Hsuan Lee, Hao Cheng, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Dialogue state tracking with a language model using schema-driven prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07506." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.702, + 0.885, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04655." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.777, + 0.885, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04222." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiheng Liu, Tianle Han, Siyuan Ma, Jiayue Zhang, Yuanyuan Yang, Jiaming Tian, Hao He, Antong Li, Mengshen He, Zhengliang Liu, et al. 2023. Summary of chatgpt/gpt-4 research and perspective towards" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11097" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the future of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01852." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.121, + 0.49, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.182, + 0.49, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.269, + 0.49, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.356, + 0.49, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.443, + 0.49, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on \\(1,600+\\) language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.617, + 0.49, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.691, + 0.49, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08743." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.765, + 0.49, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.853, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021. Multiwoz 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00773." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Zhao, Raghav Gupta, Yuan Cao, Dian Yu, Mingqiu Wang, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Description-driven task-oriented dialog modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08904." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.163, + 0.634, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.189, + 0.627, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Baseline" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.209, + 0.885, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SimpleTOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020) Successfully leverage the pretrained language model GPT-2 for the end-to-end TOD modeling in the unified way." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b) A slot description enhanced approach for zero-shot & few-shot cross-domain DST based on T5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.322, + 0.884, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a) Reformulated DST as QA problem. The model is pre-trained with a large amount of QA data. At inference time, the model predicts slot values by taking synthesized extractive questions as input" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.403, + 0.885, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) An in-context learning method for zero-shot & few-shot DST by text-to-SQL with LLMs. It's the previous state-of-art method that outperforms the supervised fine-tuning methods in zero-shot DST." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.493, + 0.85, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Zero-shot setting of ICL frameworks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.515, + 0.884, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are no labeled examples to retrieve, but formatting examples are included, following previous zero-shot learning work. (Wang et al., 2022), and we set the temperature parameter of LLMs to 0 for a stable result." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.605, + 0.675, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Prompt design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.623, + 0.884, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Below are the template of the user and system's prompt in zero-shot settings. The last example is the test instance that needs to be completed. We find the example is more useful than the task-description prompt in the in-context learning, so we use a simple example that includes all slots of the domain to map the relationship between slot and value in the dialogue rather than directly describe the slot and its value. Furthermore, for LLMs to understand the meaning of action in JSON format, we also formulate some examples to demonstrate some interaction typical scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.781, + 0.709, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System prompt template" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.804, + 0.68, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "translate system message to JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.822, + 0.616, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "data format of JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.842, + 0.884, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message: \nsystem: \"... \noutput JSON: \n{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}, \"info\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}, \"ask_for\": {domain: [slot]}} \n[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.908, + 0.558, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11098" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.09, + 0.189, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.1, + 0.453, + 0.118 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "system: \"the booking for restaurant at 10:00 on sunday was successful\" \noutput JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.119, + 0.487, + 0.146 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"restaurant\": {\"clock_book\": [\"10:00\"], \"week_day\": [\"sunday\"]}},{\"ask_for\": {}}} \n[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.156, + 0.162, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.166, + 0.189, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.176, + 0.341, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "system:\"it is a chinese restaurant in the centre\" output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.194, + 0.487, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "```\n[\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"cuisine\": [\"chinese\"], \"direction\": [\"centre\"], \"ask_for\": {}]} [END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.232, + 0.162, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.242, + 0.189, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.366, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "system:\"how about abc restaurant in the city centre\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.262, + 0.182, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.27, + 0.486, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"restaurant\": {\"full_name\": [\"abc restaurant\"], \"direction\": [\"centre\"]} }, \"ask_for\": {}}} \n[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.308, + 0.162, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.318, + 0.189, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.327, + 0.458, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "system: \"how about the part of the area and food type for the restaurant\" output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.346, + 0.487, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"direction\", \"cuisine\"]}}}] \n[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.384, + 0.162, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.393, + 0.189, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.403, + 0.45, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "system: \"do you need certain price range or part of area for restaurant\" \noutput JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.421, + 0.487, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"price_range\", \"direction\"]}}] \n[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.46, + 0.162, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.469, + 0.189, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.478, + 0.486, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "system: \"sorry i can not book restaurant nusa for you . i can only find nandos\" output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.496, + 0.487, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\": [\"nusha\"]}], \"info\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\": [\"nandos\"]}], \"ask_for\": {}]} [END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.535, + 0.146, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[DM]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.544, + 0.141, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[ST]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.554, + 0.147, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[KW]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.573, + 0.162, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.583, + 0.157, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.592, + 0.169, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[PREDIC]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.602, + 0.189, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.612, + 0.172, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[DIALOG]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.621, + 0.182, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.638, + 0.293, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User prompt template" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.662, + 0.27, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "translate user message to JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.681, + 0.22, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "data format of JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.701, + 0.189, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.71, + 0.157, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user:\"..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.719, + 0.182, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.729, + 0.487, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {domain: [slot]}, \"request\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.758, + 0.235, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example: input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.767, + 0.423, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: \"i want a place to eat. in the city centre. with cheap price\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.182, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.785, + 0.487, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"direction\": [\"centre\"], \"price_range\": [\"cheap\"]}}}} \n[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.824, + 0.162, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.833, + 0.189, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.843, + 0.261, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user:\"no particular food type\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.182, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.861, + 0.452, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": [\"cuine\": [\"any\"]}}}}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.87, + 0.151, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.89, + 0.162, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.899, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not avaliable\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"price_range\", \"cuisine\"]}}}}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.09, + 0.873, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message: user: \"no, i am not picky as long as it book for 4 on sunday\" \noutput JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.109, + 0.882, + 0.137 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"price_range\": [\"any\"], \"cuisine\": [\"any\"], \"num_people\": [\"4\"], \"week_day\": [\"sunday\"]}}] [END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.147, + 0.557, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.156, + 0.584, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.166, + 0.882, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: \"i want to be in the east of town . can i get their phone number and address please\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.183, + 0.578, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.194, + 0.882, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {},,\"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"direction\": [\"east\"], \"phone_number\": [], \"address\": []}}}}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.212, + 0.695, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.232, + 0.557, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.242, + 0.584, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.742, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "user: \"nusha is not a restaurant but an attraction\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.262, + 0.578, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.27, + 0.882, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\"]}], \"request\": {\"attraction\":" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.28, + 0.648, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"full_name\": [\"nusha\"]}}}}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.29, + 0.546, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[END]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.308, + 0.542, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[DM]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.318, + 0.548, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[EXM]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.327, + 0.536, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[ST]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.336, + 0.542, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[KW]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.355, + 0.557, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "example:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.365, + 0.579, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.374, + 0.563, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[PREDIC]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.384, + 0.584, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "input message:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.393, + 0.568, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[DIALOG]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.403, + 0.578, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "output JSON:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.424, + 0.71, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Special tokens in prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.44, + 0.882, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The prompt has some special tokens which will be replace by something else in the data-building process:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.488, + 0.706, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[DM]\" is the domain list." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.504, + 0.882, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[EXM]\" is the domain example which is a user utterance that includes all slots of the domain and its translated JSON." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.552, + 0.775, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[ST]\" is the slot list of the domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.568, + 0.831, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[KW]\" is the possible choice of some slot." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.584, + 0.761, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[PREDIC]\" is the context JSON." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.6, + 0.882, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[DIALOG]\" is the utterance that should be translated to JSON." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.632, + 0.707, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"[END]\" is the stop token." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11099" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_origin.pdf b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc6bb28daed3a55da1c657f35e579200fcd9ed2c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/743bb9e3-7bb3-4a87-aacd-21ec129787ba_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:31a80f4cf3ec52a81388fc7e974371a811c0901e567b61c937c7e5a1e1ef42c2 +size 380622 diff --git a/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/full.md b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c26627712f304f4e2e3aea7d6252a1642895615 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,391 @@ +# Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking + +Yuxiang Wu $^{1*}$ , Guanting Dong $^{1*}$ , Weiran Xu $^{1*}$ $^{1}$ Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China +{yuxiangw, dongguanting, xuweiran}@bupt.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Zero-shot Dialogue State Tracking (DST) addresses the challenge of acquiring and annotating task-oriented dialogues, which can be time-consuming and costly. However, DST extends beyond simple slot-filling and requires effective updating strategies for tracking dialogue state as conversations progress. In this paper, we propose ParsingDST, a new In-Context Learning (ICL) method, to introduce additional intricate updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Our approach reformulates the DST task by leveraging powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) and translating the original dialogue text to JSON through semantic parsing as an intermediate state. We also design a novel framework that includes more modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies in the text-to-JSON process. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing zero-shot DST methods on MultiWOZ, exhibiting significant improvements in Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) and slot accuracy compared to existing ICL methods. + +# 1 Introduction + +Dialogue State Tracking (DST) is crucial in Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems to understand and manage user intentions(Wu et al., 2019; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Heck et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). Collecting and annotating dialogue states at the turn level is challenging and expensive (Budzianowski et al., 2018), and commercial applications often need to expand the schema and include new domains. Therefore, it is vital to develop DST learning strategies that can adapt and scale effectively with minimal data. + +Most of the existing fine-tuning methods for zero-shot DST have primarily focused on domain-transfer approaches (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021b,a), which have not yielded satisfactory + +![](images/6ba575ca1ea87650c42dc1e1649f0273773d5cb858d9cc8bc23146c79dfee06c.jpg) +Figure 1: An example of the comparison between the previous ICL method and ours. + +performance. Recent studies have showcased the impressive and adaptable expertise possessed by large language models (LLMs)(Raffel et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023). However, with the discovery of the emergent ability of large language models in downstream tasks (Cobbe et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022a,b), the In-Context Learning (ICL) method (Brown et al., 2020) has garnered more attention in DST research. ICL offers a more flexible and cost-effective approach as it eliminates the need for retraining when new slots or domains are introduced. Some recent studies have explored the effectiveness of ICL in DST (Hu et al., 2022; Madotto et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2022) such as the IC-DST method, which has demonstrated remarkable performance surpassing previous fine-tuning methods. + +Nevertheless, all the previous methods directly generate the dialogue state or its change, which only achieves a simple slot-filling task that extracts the slot's value from dialogue but does not explain + +![](images/ca4f49ee89b663463ea335a73b2b4d2185a5fd44cf809d124d5c9e0fec4bdfbf.jpg) +Figure 2: Our framework of ParsingDST that includes filter module. + +how the state updating strategies work during DST which makes the DST process a black box. And we find the main obstacle in the current zero-shot DST method is that the large language models (LLMs)' understanding of updating strategies have not aligned with the DST task. + +In this work, we proposed a new ICL method named ParsingDST for zero-shot DST. Specifically, we reformulate the DST task by semantic parsing that translates the origin dialogue text into the designed JSON format (Text-to-JSON) as the intermediate state through the LLMs The translated JSON data will include the information about the speaker, interaction action, domain, slot, and corresponding values in a formatted and structured manner, which enables the introduction of manual state updating strategies later. + +We illustrated the significance of updating strategies by presenting an intricate scenario in Figure 1. Previous ICL approaches typically decode the dialogue to directly extract the values of all slots, such as "hotel-name", "price-range", and "attraction-name" in the example, without considering the updating strategies, which leads to errors in the result. In contrast, our method applies additional updating strategies after the text-to-JSON conversion. We delete non-entity slots like "price_range" when it appears in the system but not in the context, and we set the value of the "hotel name" to "[Delete]" when it is mentioned in the user's "reject" action, which makes our result aligns with the golden label. + +Based on our observations, we noticed that when merging context, system, and user utterances as dialogue input like the previous methods, the LLMs will often exhibit confusion between these different types of information, which will invalidate the updating strategies. To address this, we also designed a companion framework with more process modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies and conducted experiments to validate them. We choose to test and compare ICL meth + +ods with the powerful LLMs by OpenAI $^2$ : gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 $^3$ and text-davinci-003 (Brown et al., 2020) on MultiWoz 2.1&2.4 dataset.: + +In summary, our work makes the following contributions: (1) To our best knowledge, we are the first to apply text-to-JSON by semantic parsing as the transition between dialogue to state, making it possible to tool additional state updating strategies and other modules, making the process of DST more controllable and interpretable. (2) We proposed a novel framework with modules in the process of text-to-JSON to maintain the effectiveness of updating strategies. (3) We experiment with different ICL methods with various LLMs on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, proving our ICL method outperforms the previous in the same model and achieves a new state-of-art in zero-shot DST task. + +# 2 DST System + +# 2.1 Data format design + +As we mentioned before, we translate the origin dialogue text to the JSON format which includes interactive actions. The domain, slot, and value in JSON are inferred from the utterance. And the formats of User JSON and System JSON are different. More details about JSON format and our prompt are in Appendix A.3. + +# 2.2 Dialogue context representation + +In order to maintain semantic consistency, we still use JSON format as context representation. When translating system's utterance, we put all domain-slot-value pairs from the context state into the "request" action of the data that is User JSON's format as context representation. Then When translating user's utterance, we merge the previous context representation and the System JSON as the new context representation. + +
MultiWoZ 2.1AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
Supervised fine-tuning method
SimpleTOD++ (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)28.0117.6915.5759.2227.7529.65
T5DST + description (Lin et al., 2021b)33.0921.2121.6564.6235.4235.20
TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a)31.2522.7226.2861.8736.7235.77
Previous sota ICL method with different LLMs
IC-DST Codex (deprecated)59.9746.6957.2871.3549.3756.92
IC-DST Text-davinci-00350.6938.5543.9871.2545.9950.09
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.3240.2046.5068.3252.8753.13
Our method with different LLMs
ParsingDST Text-davinci-00364.60+13.9139.92+1.3762.55+18.5780.45+9.2051.89+5.9059.88+9.79
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030164.95+5.6346.76+6.5667.04+20.5480.26+11.9462.78+9.9163.36+10.23
- filter module63.15+3.2045.35+5.1566.60+20.1080.25+11.9358.41+5.5462.75+9.44
- framework64.92+5.6046.63+6.4366.95+20.4575.42+7.1052.63-0.2461.71+8.40
MultiWoZ 2.4AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.8140.2046.8068.3252.8753.60
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030165.63+5.8146.76+6.5667.67+20.8780.58+12.2662.59+9.7264.65+11.05
+ +Table 1: Zero-shot per-domain JGA on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, we calculate the average of all per-domain JGA as the measure of overall performance, and we use subscripts to indicate the JGA changes of our methods compared to the previous sota ICL method under the same model. + +# 2.3 Updating Strategies + +Through the observation of the dataset, we have formulated some status update strategies, which are based on rulers and will influenced by the speaker, interactive action, and entity or not. As for slots in generated User JSON: (1) The slot in "reject" action will be deleted later; (2) The slot in "request" action will be updated. As for System JSON: (1) The slot in "ask_for" or "not avaliable" actions will be ignored, these actions are for reducing the mistakes of interaction classification in semantic parsing; (2) The slot in "info" action will be updated when it is an entity or it also in context state, but in other cases, we will ignore it. + +# 2.4 Modules + +The introduction of the new framework makes it possible to use additional modules to correct the generated previous content. In this paper, we tried a simple module that filters System JSON to make it only include the updated slot or entity slot in our framework. + +# 2.5 Framework design + +The motivation for designing this framework is to avoid harmful information from the history state or previous speaker being mixed into the JSON generated by the subsequent speaker and affecting the effectiveness of the update strategy. Our framework modifies the shared input-output method which processes all together. We make it asynchronous and add more modules in the pipeline: process the context, the system utterance, and the user utterance + +dividedly. As shown in figure 2. The details of the steps in our framework pipeline are as follows: + +Step1. In the $t$ turn of dialogue, convert the context state $S_{t-1}$ to JSON format $C_t$ as context representation (mentioned in section 2.2) in equation (1), then merge it with the system utterance $A_{utt}^t$ as the dialogue input for LLM, generate the System JSON $A_{JSON}^t$ in equation (2): + +$$ +C _ {t} = \text {S t a t e 2 J S O N} \left(S _ {t - 1}\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \left(C ^ {t}, A _ {u t t} ^ {t}\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +Step2. Then the context state is updated by updating strategies and the System JSON and saved as the temporary state $S_{temp}^{t}$ as in equation (3): + +$$ +S _ {t e m p} ^ {t} = \operatorname {U p d a t e} \left(S _ {t - 1}, A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +Step3. Equation (4) will filter the generated System JSON with the module mentioned in section 2.4: + +$$ +A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \operatorname {F i l t e r} \left(A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +Step4. Equation (5) combines context JSON and filtered System JSON as the new context representation, then equation (6) inputs the new context with user's utterance $U_{utt}^{t}$ together and generate User JSON $U_{JSON}^{t}$ with LLM: + +$$ +C _ {t} = C _ {t} + A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} \tag {5} +$$ + +$$ +U _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \left(C _ {t}, U _ {u t t} ^ {t}\right) \tag {6} +$$ + +Step5. Finally, the temporary state is updated by the updating strategies and the User JSON to get our dialogue state of this turn $S_{t}$ in quation (7): + +$$ +S _ {t} = \operatorname {U p d a t e} \left(S _ {\text {t e m p}} ^ {t}, U _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\right) \tag {7} +$$ + +If it is the first turn, the process will start from step4 and $A_{JSON}^{t}$ will be empty. + +![](images/9782fd945ed52d3dbc38aaf4c6e110322c1f960d587ce210050fdfe8c60e0633.jpg) +Figure 3: The average slot accuracy in 5 different domains of MultiWOZ 2.1 with GPT -3.5 model. + +# 3 Experiment + +# 3.1 Dataset, Metric, and Evaluation + +MultiWOZ (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multidomain human-human written dialogue dataset, the labels and utterances have been refined in subsequent versions, e.g., MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2019) and MultiWOZ2.4 (Ye et al., 2021) is a cleaner version. We use Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) which is the average accuracy of predicting all slot assignments for a given service in a turn correctly to evaluate the main results of models. Regarding text preprocessing and labeling, we followed most of the previous work of IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) on preprocessing and labeling data. The only change is that we renamed some names of the slots and domains. More details about baselines and zero-shot settings are in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2. + +# 3.2 Results and Analysis + +Main Result. Table 1 shows the zero-shot per-domain JGA result on MultiWOZ 2.1, and AVG JGA as the measure of overall performance. Because IC-DST's best performance model Codex-Davinci (Chen et al., 2021) has been deprecated by openAI, we supplement two experiment results with GPT-3.5 and Text-davinci models. We can find from the result that the supervised fine-tuning method is far inferior to the ICL method. And no matter in which domain, our method always outperforms the previous sota ICL method IC-DST by a large-scale margin in the same model. For example, using the same GPT-3.5 model, we achieved a $20.54\%$ increase in JGA in the restaurant domain. Although the supplemented experiments of IC-DST show worse performance compared to the Codex model, our ParsingDST method still outperforms the IC-DST Codex in all five domains with the same model of supplemented experiments, which shows the strong ability of our method and the great + +![](images/af3c593499a93e24d44c87b54c2bc948911a0777288826b00198559dec94eab0.jpg) +Figure 4: Two representative samples in the test set of MultiWOZ 2.1. + +influence of updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Ablation Studies. We conduct an ablation study to better prove the effectiveness of our modules and new framework. In the situation without the framework, we follow the traditional setting to merge context, user, and system utterance as dialogue input, then output JSON all at once. As shown in Table 1, the overall performance degrades whether the filter module or our framework is discarded. However, we observed that the JGA in certain domains remained similar to the previous performance during our ablation studies, we believe that is because our modules and updating strategies still need to be optimized. + +Slot Accuracy Analysis. Figure 3 shows the slot accuracy of models using PasingDST and IC-DST with the Gpt-3.5 model. It can be seen that our method achieves better results on all 5 domains compared to the IC-DST (e.g., $2.88\%$ improvement in the restaurant domain), which further proves the effectiveness of our method. We speculate that it is crucial for DST to introduce an appropriate dialog state update strategy into the model. + +Case Studies. To further illustrate the effectiveness of our framework, Figure 4 shows two representative samples of different methods' predictions. In the first case, the IC-DST method makes a wrong prediction that includes the non-entity slot "pricerange" from system utterance that does not appear in context, however, our method can handle the situation well because of the introduction of updating strategies. In the second case, parsing- + +DST makes a wrong prediction when removing its framework, because its User JSON included slots "internet" and "parking" from system utterance, which makes the updating strategies invalid because these slots will be updated rather than be ignored. In our method, we can process System JSON and context JSON with modules that are included in the framework before the harmful information influences the latter User JSON. + +# 4 Conclusion + +In this paper, we reformulate DST to semantic parsing with LLMs that translate the dialogue text into JSON as the intermediate state, which enables us to introduce updating strategies and makes DST process more controllable and interpretable. Furthermore, we present a novel framework that includes more modules within the text-to-JSON conversion process to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies. Through experiments on the MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4 dataset, our system achieves sota performance in zero-shot settings. Our analyses showed that our method surpasses the previous ICL method and the innovative modules and framework benefit the overall performance. In future work, we plan to explore and evaluate more variety of updating strategies and modules to further enhance our framework and we will test our method in more open-source LLMs like Llama (Touvron et al., 2023). + +# Limitations + +This work has two main limitations: (1) The performance of our framework is highly dependent on the inference language model, which may limit the framework's usage. For example, it depends on the ability of LLMs that are pre-trained in JSON and natural language data and can understand both. (2) Lack the detailed comparison of various updating strategies and modules in the framework. We will design and test more kinds of updating strategies and modules for our framework in future work. + +# References + +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. + +Pawel Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz-a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00278. +Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. +Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. +Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Adarsh Kumar, Abhishek Sethi, Peter Ku, Anuj Kumar Goyal, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Multiwoz 2.1: A consolidated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01669. +Michael Heck, Carel van Niekerk, Nurul Lubis, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, Marco Moresi, and Milica Gašić. 2020. Trippy: A triple copy strategy for value independent neural dialog state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02877. +Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191. +Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. In-context learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08568. +Chia-Hsuan Lee, Hao Cheng, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Dialogue state tracking with a language model using schema-driven prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07506. +Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04655. +Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04222. +Yiheng Liu, Tianle Han, Siyuan Ma, Jiayue Zhang, Yuanyuan Yang, Jiaming Tian, Hao He, Antong Li, Mengshen He, Zhengliang Liu, et al. 2023. Summary of chatgpt/gpt-4 research and perspective towards + +the future of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01852. + +Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118. + +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744. + +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551. + +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. + +Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on $1,600+$ language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705. + +Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682. + +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837. + +Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08743. + +Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966. + +Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021. Multiwoz 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00773. + +Jeffrey Zhao, Raghav Gupta, Yuan Cao, Dian Yu, Mingqiu Wang, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Description-driven task-oriented dialog modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08904. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Baseline + +SimpleTOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020) Successfully leverage the pretrained language model GPT-2 for the end-to-end TOD modeling in the unified way. + +T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b) A slot description enhanced approach for zero-shot & few-shot cross-domain DST based on T5. + +TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a) Reformulated DST as QA problem. The model is pre-trained with a large amount of QA data. At inference time, the model predicts slot values by taking synthesized extractive questions as input + +IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) An in-context learning method for zero-shot & few-shot DST by text-to-SQL with LLMs. It's the previous state-of-art method that outperforms the supervised fine-tuning methods in zero-shot DST. + +# A.2 Zero-shot setting of ICL frameworks + +There are no labeled examples to retrieve, but formatting examples are included, following previous zero-shot learning work. (Wang et al., 2022), and we set the temperature parameter of LLMs to 0 for a stable result. + +# A.3 Prompt design + +Below are the template of the user and system's prompt in zero-shot settings. The last example is the test instance that needs to be completed. We find the example is more useful than the task-description prompt in the in-context learning, so we use a simple example that includes all slots of the domain to map the relationship between slot and value in the dialogue rather than directly describe the slot and its value. Furthermore, for LLMs to understand the meaning of action in JSON format, we also formulate some examples to demonstrate some interaction typical scenarios. + +# System prompt template + +translate system message to JSON: + +data format of JSON: + +input message: +system: "... +output JSON: +{"system": {"not-available": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}, "info": {domain: {slot: [value]}}, "ask_for": {domain: [slot]}} +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +system: "the booking for restaurant at 10:00 on sunday was successful" +output JSON: + +{"system": {"not-available": {}, "info": {"restaurant": {"clock_book": ["10:00"], "week_day": ["sunday"]}},{"ask_for": {}}} +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +system:"it is a chinese restaurant in the centre" output JSON: + +``` +["system": {"not-available": {}, "info": {"cuisine": ["chinese"], "direction": ["centre"], "ask_for": {}]} [END] + +example: + +input message: + +system:"how about abc restaurant in the city centre" + +output JSON: + +{"system": {"not-available": {}, "info": {"restaurant": {"full_name": ["abc restaurant"], "direction": ["centre"]} }, "ask_for": {}}} +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +system: "how about the part of the area and food type for the restaurant" output JSON: + +{"system": {"not-available": {}, "info": {}, "ask_for": {"restaurant": ["direction", "cuisine"]}}}] +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +system: "do you need certain price range or part of area for restaurant" +output JSON: + +{"system": {"not-available": {}, "info": {}, "ask_for": {"restaurant": ["price_range", "direction"]}}] +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +system: "sorry i can not book restaurant nusa for you . i can only find nandos" output JSON: + +{"system": {"not-available": {"restaurant": ["full_name": ["nusha"]}], "info": {"restaurant": ["full_name": ["nandos"]}], "ask_for": {}]} [END] + +[DM] + +[ST] + +[KW] + +example: + +context: + +[PREDIC] + +input message: + +[DIALOG] + +output JSON: + +# User prompt template + +translate user message to JSON: + +data format of JSON: + +input message: + +user:"... + +output JSON: + +{"user": {"reject": {domain: [slot]}, "request": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}} + +example: input message: + +user: "i want a place to eat. in the city centre. with cheap price" + +output JSON: + +{"user": {"reject": {}, "request": {"restaurant": {"direction": ["centre"], "price_range": ["cheap"]}}}} +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +user:"no particular food type" + +output JSON: + +{"user": {"reject": {}, "request": {"restaurant": ["cuine": ["any"]}}}} + +[END] + +example: + +{"system": {"not avaliable": {}, "info": {}, "ask_for": {"restaurant": ["price_range", "cuisine"]}}}} + +input message: user: "no, i am not picky as long as it book for 4 on sunday" +output JSON: + +{"user": {"reject": {}, "request": {"restaurant": {"price_range": ["any"], "cuisine": ["any"], "num_people": ["4"], "week_day": ["sunday"]}}] [END] + +example: + +input message: + +user: "i want to be in the east of town . can i get their phone number and address please" + +output JSON: + +{"user": {"reject": {},,"request": {"restaurant": {"direction": ["east"], "phone_number": [], "address": []}}}} + +[END] + +example: + +input message: + +user: "nusha is not a restaurant but an attraction" + +output JSON: + +{"user": {"reject": {"restaurant": ["full_name"]}], "request": {"attraction": + +{"full_name": ["nusha"]}}}} + +[END] + +[DM] + +[EXM] + +[ST] + +[KW] + +example: + +context: + +[PREDIC] + +input message: + +[DIALOG] + +output JSON: + +# Special tokens in prompt + +The prompt has some special tokens which will be replace by something else in the data-building process: + +"[DM]" is the domain list. + +"[EXM]" is the domain example which is a user utterance that includes all slots of the domain and its translated JSON. + +"[ST]" is the slot list of the domain. + +"[KW]" is the possible choice of some slot. + +"[PREDIC]" is the context JSON. + +"[DIALOG]" is the utterance that should be translated to JSON. + +"[END]" is the stop token. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/images.zip b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..765d9007edb2059f85e42ddb7f9c21fd7d82ba99 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:21b8a8ef83210516401c0c3d0ab19f9a94926e2bc1730dd71704d8e1e8e21ce0 +size 335856 diff --git a/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/layout.json b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a80ed83f5217bc8cd9da71956595cdff3dac77e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7168 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 75, + 507, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 75, + 507, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 75, + 507, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Semantic Parsing by Large Language Models for Intricate Updating Strategies of Zero-Shot Dialogue State Tracking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuxiang Wu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Guanting Dong" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Weiran Xu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 130, + 466, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China \n{yuxiangw, dongguanting, xuweiran}@bupt.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-shot Dialogue State Tracking (DST) addresses the challenge of acquiring and annotating task-oriented dialogues, which can be time-consuming and costly. However, DST extends beyond simple slot-filling and requires effective updating strategies for tracking dialogue state as conversations progress. In this paper, we propose ParsingDST, a new In-Context Learning (ICL) method, to introduce additional intricate updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Our approach reformulates the DST task by leveraging powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) and translating the original dialogue text to JSON through semantic parsing as an intermediate state. We also design a novel framework that includes more modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies in the text-to-JSON process. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing zero-shot DST methods on MultiWOZ, exhibiting significant improvements in Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) and slot accuracy compared to existing ICL methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 521, + 154, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 521, + 154, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 521, + 154, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 542, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dialogue State Tracking (DST) is crucial in Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems to understand and manage user intentions(Wu et al., 2019; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Heck et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). Collecting and annotating dialogue states at the turn level is challenging and expensive (Budzianowski et al., 2018), and commercial applications often need to expand the schema and include new domains. Therefore, it is vital to develop DST learning strategies that can adapt and scale effectively with minimal data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most of the existing fine-tuning methods for zero-shot DST have primarily focused on domain-transfer approaches (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021b,a), which have not yielded satisfactory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 212, + 518, + 446 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 212, + 518, + 446 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 212, + 518, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 212, + 518, + 446 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6ba575ca1ea87650c42dc1e1649f0273773d5cb858d9cc8bc23146c79dfee06c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 524, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 457, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example of the comparison between the previous ICL method and ours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 487, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance. Recent studies have showcased the impressive and adaptable expertise possessed by large language models (LLMs)(Raffel et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023). However, with the discovery of the emergent ability of large language models in downstream tasks (Cobbe et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2022a,b), the In-Context Learning (ICL) method (Brown et al., 2020) has garnered more attention in DST research. ICL offers a more flexible and cost-effective approach as it eliminates the need for retraining when new slots or domains are introduced. Some recent studies have explored the effectiveness of ICL in DST (Hu et al., 2022; Madotto et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2022) such as the IC-DST method, which has demonstrated remarkable performance surpassing previous fine-tuning methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nevertheless, all the previous methods directly generate the dialogue state or its change, which only achieves a simple slot-filling task that extracts the slot's value from dialogue but does not explain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*The first two authors contribute equally. Weiran Xu is the corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11093" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 819 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 819 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 819 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11093-11099 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 516, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 516, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 516, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 516, + 164 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ca4f49ee89b663463ea335a73b2b4d2185a5fd44cf809d124d5c9e0fec4bdfbf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 174, + 434, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 174, + 434, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 174, + 434, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Our framework of ParsingDST that includes filter module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 195, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 195, + 290, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 195, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "how the state updating strategies work during DST which makes the DST process a black box. And we find the main obstacle in the current zero-shot DST method is that the large language models (LLMs)' understanding of updating strategies have not aligned with the DST task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 278, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 278, + 291, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 278, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we proposed a new ICL method named ParsingDST for zero-shot DST. Specifically, we reformulate the DST task by semantic parsing that translates the origin dialogue text into the designed JSON format (Text-to-JSON) as the intermediate state through the LLMs The translated JSON data will include the information about the speaker, interaction action, domain, slot, and corresponding values in a formatted and structured manner, which enables the introduction of manual state updating strategies later." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 427, + 291, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 427, + 291, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 427, + 291, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We illustrated the significance of updating strategies by presenting an intricate scenario in Figure 1. Previous ICL approaches typically decode the dialogue to directly extract the values of all slots, such as \"hotel-name\", \"price-range\", and \"attraction-name\" in the example, without considering the updating strategies, which leads to errors in the result. In contrast, our method applies additional updating strategies after the text-to-JSON conversion. We delete non-entity slots like \"price_range\" when it appears in the system but not in the context, and we set the value of the \"hotel name\" to \"[Delete]\" when it is mentioned in the user's \"reject\" action, which makes our result aligns with the golden label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 617, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 617, + 291, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 617, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on our observations, we noticed that when merging context, system, and user utterances as dialogue input like the previous methods, the LLMs will often exhibit confusion between these different types of information, which will invalidate the updating strategies. To address this, we also designed a companion framework with more process modules to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies and conducted experiments to validate them. We choose to test and compare ICL meth" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ods with the powerful LLMs by OpenAI" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": gpt-3.5-turbo-0301" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and text-davinci-003 (Brown et al., 2020) on MultiWoz 2.1&2.4 dataset.:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 526, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, our work makes the following contributions: (1) To our best knowledge, we are the first to apply text-to-JSON by semantic parsing as the transition between dialogue to state, making it possible to tool additional state updating strategies and other modules, making the process of DST more controllable and interpretable. (2) We proposed a novel framework with modules in the process of text-to-JSON to maintain the effectiveness of updating strategies. (3) We experiment with different ICL methods with various LLMs on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, proving our ICL method outperforms the previous in the same model and achieves a new state-of-art in zero-shot DST task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 387, + 449 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 387, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 387, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 DST System" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 420, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 420, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 420, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Data format design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As we mentioned before, we translate the origin dialogue text to the JSON format which includes interactive actions. The domain, slot, and value in JSON are inferred from the utterance. And the formats of User JSON and System JSON are different. More details about JSON format and our prompt are in Appendix A.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 479, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 479, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 479, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Dialogue context representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to maintain semantic consistency, we still use JSON format as context representation. When translating system's utterance, we put all domain-slot-value pairs from the context state into the \"request\" action of the data that is User JSON's format as context representation. Then When translating user's utterance, we merge the previous context representation and the System JSON as the new context representation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 740, + 518, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 740, + 518, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 740, + 518, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2More details about models in https://openai.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Snapshot of gpt-3.5-turbo from March 1st, 2023, this model will not receive updates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Codes in github.com/ToLightUpTheSky/ParsingDST" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11094" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 249 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 249 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MultiWoZ 2.1AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
Supervised fine-tuning method
SimpleTOD++ (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020)28.0117.6915.5759.2227.7529.65
T5DST + description (Lin et al., 2021b)33.0921.2121.6564.6235.4235.20
TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a)31.2522.7226.2861.8736.7235.77
Previous sota ICL method with different LLMs
IC-DST Codex (deprecated)59.9746.6957.2871.3549.3756.92
IC-DST Text-davinci-00350.6938.5543.9871.2545.9950.09
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.3240.2046.5068.3252.8753.13
Our method with different LLMs
ParsingDST Text-davinci-00364.60+13.9139.92+1.3762.55+18.5780.45+9.2051.89+5.9059.88+9.79
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030164.95+5.6346.76+6.5667.04+20.5480.26+11.9462.78+9.9163.36+10.23
- filter module63.15+3.2045.35+5.1566.60+20.1080.25+11.9358.41+5.5462.75+9.44
- framework64.92+5.6046.63+6.4366.95+20.4575.42+7.1052.63-0.2461.71+8.40
MultiWoZ 2.4AttractionHotelRestaurantTaxiTrainAVG
IC-DST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030159.8140.2046.8068.3252.8753.60
ParsingDST Gpt-3.5-turbo-030165.63+5.8146.76+6.5667.67+20.8780.58+12.2662.59+9.7264.65+11.05
", + "image_path": "c1ecb83c640acef61752b3bb515767d1a21014909ee55bba1869a20802818371.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Zero-shot per-domain JGA on MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4, we calculate the average of all per-domain JGA as the measure of overall performance, and we use subscripts to indicate the JGA changes of our methods compared to the previous sota ICL method under the same model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 189, + 316 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 189, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 189, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Updating Strategies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 290, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 290, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 290, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Through the observation of the dataset, we have formulated some status update strategies, which are based on rulers and will influenced by the speaker, interactive action, and entity or not. As for slots in generated User JSON: (1) The slot in \"reject\" action will be deleted later; (2) The slot in \"request\" action will be updated. As for System JSON: (1) The slot in \"ask_for\" or \"not avaliable\" actions will be ignored, these actions are for reducing the mistakes of interaction classification in semantic parsing; (2) The slot in \"info\" action will be updated when it is an entity or it also in context state, but in other cases, we will ignore it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 136, + 534 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 136, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 136, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.4 Modules" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The introduction of the new framework makes it possible to use additional modules to correct the generated previous content. In this paper, we tried a simple module that filters System JSON to make it only include the updated slot or entity slot in our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 184, + 645 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 184, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 633, + 184, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.5 Framework design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The motivation for designing this framework is to avoid harmful information from the history state or previous speaker being mixed into the JSON generated by the subsequent speaker and affecting the effectiveness of the update strategy. Our framework modifies the shared input-output method which processes all together. We make it asynchronous and add more modules in the pipeline: process the context, the system utterance, and the user utterance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "dividedly. As shown in figure 2. The details of the steps in our framework pipeline are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step1. In the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " turn of dialogue, convert the context state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{t-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to JSON format " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as context representation (mentioned in section 2.2) in equation (1), then merge it with the system utterance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{utt}^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the dialogue input for LLM, generate the System JSON " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{JSON}^t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 329, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in equation (2):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 416, + 525, + 430 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 416, + 525, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 416, + 525, + 430 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "C _ {t} = \\text {S t a t e 2 J S O N} \\left(S _ {t - 1}\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "ead4891525cd24b1f3ba7b2a11694ce776dca3cb1dcf90ef3b2fa0f1d38e3618.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 434, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 434, + 524, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 434, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \\left(C ^ {t}, A _ {u t t} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "185230defc9bf43d16f880e667833d3d026f899fc8c0d8f2afdc1dc5eeaacdd1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 525, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 525, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 525, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step2. Then the context state is updated by updating strategies and the System JSON and saved as the temporary state " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 525, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{temp}^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 525, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as in equation (3):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 499, + 524, + 515 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 499, + 524, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 499, + 524, + 515 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {t e m p} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {U p d a t e} \\left(S _ {t - 1}, A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "6226b4c9866aa18393f367b89570de1636b1d02431c0884cd6cee0b79de3200d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 519, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 519, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 519, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step3. Equation (4) will filter the generated System JSON with the module mentioned in section 2.4:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 550, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 550, + 524, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 550, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {F i l t e r} \\left(A _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "a8431b7c959e244d165d03bd1b61847a2870cdec43acd69faacec5b6c09162f0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step4. Equation (5) combines context JSON and filtered System JSON as the new context representation, then equation (6) inputs the new context with user's utterance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_{utt}^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " together and generate User JSON " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_{JSON}^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with LLM:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 644, + 524, + 658 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 644, + 524, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 644, + 524, + 658 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "C _ {t} = C _ {t} + A _ {J S O N} ^ {t} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "adba197d85183eaeb53fca084a24295c332ec52a452cc99e0f2d7477cc6319b0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 662, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 662, + 524, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 662, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "U _ {J S O N} ^ {t} = \\operatorname {T r a n s 2 J S O N} \\left(C _ {t}, U _ {u t t} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "710a62731f14f813c49ecf3ba8c7d1796491ad1c57f43b58211dc1e7e12e7702.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 524, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 524, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 524, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step5. Finally, the temporary state is updated by the updating strategies and the User JSON to get our dialogue state of this turn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 524, + 721 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 524, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in quation (7):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 726, + 524, + 742 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 726, + 524, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 726, + 524, + 742 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {t} = \\operatorname {U p d a t e} \\left(S _ {\\text {t e m p}} ^ {t}, U _ {J S O N} ^ {t}\\right) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "34d06d90f3f60f25103909c299f866c3c6ecda002c580f1885a4229fb5258c59.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If it is the first turn, the process will start from step4 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{JSON}^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will be empty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11095" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 186 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 186 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9782fd945ed52d3dbc38aaf4c6e110322c1f960d587ce210050fdfe8c60e0633.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 291, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 291, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 291, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The average slot accuracy in 5 different domains of MultiWOZ 2.1 with GPT -3.5 model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 231, + 149, + 245 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 231, + 149, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 231, + 149, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 244, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 244, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 244, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Dataset, Metric, and Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MultiWOZ (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a multidomain human-human written dialogue dataset, the labels and utterances have been refined in subsequent versions, e.g., MultiWOZ 2.1 (Eric et al., 2019) and MultiWOZ2.4 (Ye et al., 2021) is a cleaner version. We use Joint Goal Accuracy (JGA) which is the average accuracy of predicting all slot assignments for a given service in a turn correctly to evaluate the main results of models. Regarding text preprocessing and labeling, we followed most of the previous work of IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) on preprocessing and labeling data. The only change is that we renamed some names of the slots and domains. More details about baselines and zero-shot settings are in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 485, + 192, + 497 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 485, + 192, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 485, + 192, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Results and Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Main Result. Table 1 shows the zero-shot per-domain JGA result on MultiWOZ 2.1, and AVG JGA as the measure of overall performance. Because IC-DST's best performance model Codex-Davinci (Chen et al., 2021) has been deprecated by openAI, we supplement two experiment results with GPT-3.5 and Text-davinci models. We can find from the result that the supervised fine-tuning method is far inferior to the ICL method. And no matter in which domain, our method always outperforms the previous sota ICL method IC-DST by a large-scale margin in the same model. For example, using the same GPT-3.5 model, we achieved a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20.54\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increase in JGA in the restaurant domain. Although the supplemented experiments of IC-DST show worse performance compared to the Codex model, our ParsingDST method still outperforms the IC-DST Codex in all five domains with the same model of supplemented experiments, which shows the strong ability of our method and the great" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 520, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 520, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 520, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 72, + 520, + 292 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "af3c593499a93e24d44c87b54c2bc948911a0777288826b00198559dec94eab0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 304, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Two representative samples in the test set of MultiWOZ 2.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "influence of updating strategies in zero-shot DST. Ablation Studies. We conduct an ablation study to better prove the effectiveness of our modules and new framework. In the situation without the framework, we follow the traditional setting to merge context, user, and system utterance as dialogue input, then output JSON all at once. As shown in Table 1, the overall performance degrades whether the filter module or our framework is discarded. However, we observed that the JGA in certain domains remained similar to the previous performance during our ablation studies, we believe that is because our modules and updating strategies still need to be optimized." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Slot Accuracy Analysis. Figure 3 shows the slot accuracy of models using PasingDST and IC-DST with the Gpt-3.5 model. It can be seen that our method achieves better results on all 5 domains compared to the IC-DST (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.88\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvement in the restaurant domain), which further proves the effectiveness of our method. We speculate that it is crucial for DST to introduce an appropriate dialog state update strategy into the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Case Studies. To further illustrate the effectiveness of our framework, Figure 4 shows two representative samples of different methods' predictions. In the first case, the IC-DST method makes a wrong prediction that includes the non-entity slot \"pricerange\" from system utterance that does not appear in context, however, our method can handle the situation well because of the introduction of updating strategies. In the second case, parsing-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11096" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "DST makes a wrong prediction when removing its framework, because its User JSON included slots \"internet\" and \"parking\" from system utterance, which makes the updating strategies invalid because these slots will be updated rather than be ignored. In our method, we can process System JSON and context JSON with modules that are included in the framework before the harmful information influences the latter User JSON." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 147, + 218 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 147, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 206, + 147, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we reformulate DST to semantic parsing with LLMs that translate the dialogue text into JSON as the intermediate state, which enables us to introduce updating strategies and makes DST process more controllable and interpretable. Furthermore, we present a novel framework that includes more modules within the text-to-JSON conversion process to ensure the effectiveness of updating strategies. Through experiments on the MultiWOZ 2.1&2.4 dataset, our system achieves sota performance in zero-shot settings. Our analyses showed that our method surpasses the previous ICL method and the innovative modules and framework benefit the overall performance. In future work, we plan to explore and evaluate more variety of updating strategies and modules to further enhance our framework and we will test our method in more open-source LLMs like Llama (Touvron et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 500, + 130, + 513 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 500, + 130, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 500, + 130, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work has two main limitations: (1) The performance of our framework is highly dependent on the inference language model, which may limit the framework's usage. For example, it depends on the ability of LLMs that are pre-trained in JSON and natural language data and can understand both. (2) Lack the detailed comparison of various updating strategies and modules in the framework. We will design and test more kinds of updating strategies and modules for our framework in future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 685, + 127, + 698 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 685, + 127, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 685, + 127, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 705, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pawel Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Inigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Gašić. 2018. Multiwoz-a large-scale multi-domain wizard-of-oz dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00278." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 526, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 284, + 526, + 351 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 284, + 526, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 284, + 526, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mihail Eric, Rahul Goel, Shachi Paul, Adarsh Kumar, Abhishek Sethi, Peter Ku, Anuj Kumar Goyal, Sanchit Agarwal, Shuyang Gao, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2019. Multiwoz 2.1: A consolidated multi-domain dialogue dataset with state corrections and state tracking baselines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.01669." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Heck, Carel van Niekerk, Nurul Lubis, Christian Geishauser, Hsien-Chin Lin, Marco Moresi, and Milica Gašić. 2020. Trippy: A triple copy strategy for value independent neural dialog state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.02877." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 421, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. 2020. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:20179-20191." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 526, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 526, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 526, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yushi Hu, Chia-Hsuan Lee, Tianbao Xie, Tao Yu, Noah A Smith, and Mari Ostendorf. 2022. In-context learning for few-shot dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08568." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 526, + 581 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 526, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 526, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chia-Hsuan Lee, Hao Cheng, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Dialogue state tracking with a language model using schema-driven prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07506." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 590, + 526, + 646 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 590, + 526, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 590, + 526, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Andrea Madotto, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Eunjoon Cho, Rajen Subba, et al. 2021a. Zero-shot dialogue state tracking via cross-task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04655." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 526, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhaojiang Lin, Bing Liu, Seungwhan Moon, Paul Crook, Zhenpeng Zhou, Zhiguang Wang, Zhou Yu, Andrea Madotto, Eunjoon Cho, and Rajen Subba. 2021b. Leveraging slot descriptions for zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04222." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiheng Liu, Tianle Han, Siyuan Ma, Jiayue Zhang, Yuanyuan Yang, Jiaming Tian, Hao He, Antong Li, Mengshen He, Zhengliang Liu, et al. 2023. Summary of chatgpt/gpt-4 research and perspective towards" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11097" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the future of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01852." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 291, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 291, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 101, + 291, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Madotto, Zhaojiang Lin, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2021. Few-shot bot: Prompt-based learning for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08118." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 291, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 291, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 226, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 299, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 299, + 291, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 299, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoormolabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instructions on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1,600+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 456, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 456, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 456, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 291, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022b. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 291, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 581, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Transferable multi-domain state generator for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08743." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 291, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 291, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 291, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianbao Xie, Chen Henry Wu, Peng Shi, Ruiqi Zhong, Torsten Scholak, Michihiro Yasunaga, Chien-Sheng Wu, Ming Zhong, Pengcheng Yin, Sida I Wang, et al. 2022. Unifiedskg: Unifying and multi-tasking structured knowledge grounding with text-to-text language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05966." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fanghua Ye, Jarana Manotumruksa, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021. Multiwoz 2.4: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset with essential annotation corrections to improve state tracking evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00773." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Zhao, Raghav Gupta, Yuan Cao, Dian Yu, Mingqiu Wang, Harrison Lee, Abhinav Rastogi, Izhak Shafran, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. Description-driven task-oriented dialog modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08904." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 137, + 377, + 151 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 137, + 377, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 137, + 377, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 158, + 373, + 170 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 158, + 373, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 158, + 373, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Baseline" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SimpleTOD (Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020) Successfully leverage the pretrained language model GPT-2 for the end-to-end TOD modeling in the unified way." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "T5DST (Lin et al., 2021b) A slot description enhanced approach for zero-shot & few-shot cross-domain DST based on T5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TransferQA (Lin et al., 2021a) Reformulated DST as QA problem. The model is pre-trained with a large amount of QA data. At inference time, the model predicts slot values by taking synthesized extractive questions as input" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "IC-DST (Hu et al., 2022) An in-context learning method for zero-shot & few-shot DST by text-to-SQL with LLMs. It's the previous state-of-art method that outperforms the supervised fine-tuning methods in zero-shot DST." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 505, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 505, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 414, + 505, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Zero-shot setting of ICL frameworks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are no labeled examples to retrieve, but formatting examples are included, following previous zero-shot learning work. (Wang et al., 2022), and we set the temperature parameter of LLMs to 0 for a stable result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 508, + 401, + 522 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 508, + 401, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 508, + 401, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Prompt design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 525, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 525, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 525, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Below are the template of the user and system's prompt in zero-shot settings. The last example is the test instance that needs to be completed. We find the example is more useful than the task-description prompt in the in-context learning, so we use a simple example that includes all slots of the domain to map the relationship between slot and value in the dialogue rather than directly describe the slot and its value. Furthermore, for LLMs to understand the meaning of action in JSON format, we also formulate some examples to demonstrate some interaction typical scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 656, + 421, + 670 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 656, + 421, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 656, + 421, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System prompt template" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 676, + 404, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 676, + 404, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 676, + 404, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "translate system message to JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 691, + 366, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 691, + 366, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 691, + 366, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "data format of JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 708, + 525, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 708, + 525, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 708, + 525, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message: \nsystem: \"... \noutput JSON: \n{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}, \"info\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}, \"ask_for\": {domain: [slot]}} \n[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 763, + 332, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 763, + 332, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 763, + 332, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11098" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 75, + 112, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 75, + 112, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 75, + 112, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 84, + 269, + 99 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 84, + 269, + 99 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 84, + 269, + 99 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "system: \"the booking for restaurant at 10:00 on sunday was successful\" \noutput JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 100, + 289, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 100, + 289, + 122 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 100, + 289, + 122 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"restaurant\": {\"clock_book\": [\"10:00\"], \"week_day\": [\"sunday\"]}},{\"ask_for\": {}}} \n[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 96, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 96, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 131, + 96, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 139, + 112, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 139, + 112, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 139, + 112, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 202, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 202, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 202, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "system:\"it is a chinese restaurant in the centre\" output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 163, + 289, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 163, + 289, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 163, + 289, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "```\n[\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"cuisine\": [\"chinese\"], \"direction\": [\"centre\"], \"ask_for\": {}]} [END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 96, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 96, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 195, + 96, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 112, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 112, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 112, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 217, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 217, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 217, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "system:\"how about abc restaurant in the city centre\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 220, + 108, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 220, + 108, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 220, + 108, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 289, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {\"restaurant\": {\"full_name\": [\"abc restaurant\"], \"direction\": [\"centre\"]} }, \"ask_for\": {}}} \n[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 259, + 96, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 259, + 96, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 259, + 96, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 112, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 112, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 112, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 272, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 272, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 272, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "system: \"how about the part of the area and food type for the restaurant\" output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 289, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 289, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 290, + 289, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"direction\", \"cuisine\"]}}}] \n[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 322, + 96, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 322, + 96, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 322, + 96, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 112, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 112, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 112, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 267, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 267, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 267, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "system: \"do you need certain price range or part of area for restaurant\" \noutput JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 354, + 289, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 354, + 289, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 354, + 289, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"price_range\", \"direction\"]}}] \n[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 96, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 96, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 96, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 112, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 112, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 112, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 401, + 289, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "system: \"sorry i can not book restaurant nusa for you . i can only find nandos\" output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 289, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 289, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not-available\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\": [\"nusha\"]}], \"info\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\": [\"nandos\"]}], \"ask_for\": {}]} [END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 86, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 86, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 449, + 86, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[DM]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 83, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 83, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 83, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[ST]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 87, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 87, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 87, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[KW]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 96, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 96, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 96, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 490, + 93, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 490, + 93, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 490, + 93, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 100, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 100, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 497, + 100, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[PREDIC]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 112, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 112, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 112, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 514, + 102, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 514, + 102, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 514, + 102, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[DIALOG]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 108, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 108, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 522, + 108, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 174, + 549 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 174, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 536, + 174, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User prompt template" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 160, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 160, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 160, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "translate user message to JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 130, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 130, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 572, + 130, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "data format of JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 112, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 112, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 589, + 112, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 93, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 93, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 93, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user:\"..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 604, + 108, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 604, + 108, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 604, + 108, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {domain: [slot]}, \"request\": {domain: {slot: [value]}}}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 637, + 139, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 637, + 139, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 637, + 139, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example: input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 645, + 251, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 645, + 251, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 645, + 251, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: \"i want a place to eat. in the city centre. with cheap price\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 108, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 108, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 108, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 660, + 289, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 660, + 289, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 660, + 289, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"direction\": [\"centre\"], \"price_range\": [\"cheap\"]}}}} \n[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 96, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 96, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 692, + 96, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 44 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 700, + 112, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 700, + 112, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 700, + 112, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 708, + 155, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 708, + 155, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 708, + 155, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user:\"no particular food type\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 108, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 108, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 108, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 724, + 268, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 724, + 268, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 724, + 268, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": [\"cuine\": [\"any\"]}}}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 48 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 731, + 89, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 731, + 89, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 731, + 89, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 49 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 748, + 96, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 748, + 96, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 748, + 96, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 50 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 756, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 756, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 756, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"system\": {\"not avaliable\": {}, \"info\": {}, \"ask_for\": {\"restaurant\": [\"price_range\", \"cuisine\"]}}}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 51 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 75, + 519, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 75, + 519, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 75, + 519, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message: user: \"no, i am not picky as long as it book for 4 on sunday\" \noutput JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 52 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 524, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 524, + 115 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 524, + 115 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {}, \"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"price_range\": [\"any\"], \"cuisine\": [\"any\"], \"num_people\": [\"4\"], \"week_day\": [\"sunday\"]}}] [END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 53 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 331, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 331, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 331, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 54 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 131, + 347, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 131, + 347, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 131, + 347, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 55 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 139, + 524, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 139, + 524, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 139, + 524, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: \"i want to be in the east of town . can i get their phone number and address please\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 56 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 153, + 343, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 153, + 343, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 153, + 343, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 57 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 524, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 524, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 163, + 524, + 178 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {},,\"request\": {\"restaurant\": {\"direction\": [\"east\"], \"phone_number\": [], \"address\": []}}}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 58 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 413, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 413, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 413, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 59 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 331, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 331, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 331, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 60 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 203, + 347, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 203, + 347, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 203, + 347, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 61 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 441, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 441, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 441, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "user: \"nusha is not a restaurant but an attraction\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 62 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 220, + 343, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 220, + 343, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 220, + 343, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 63 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 227, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 227, + 524, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 227, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"user\": {\"reject\": {\"restaurant\": [\"full_name\"]}], \"request\": {\"attraction\":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 64 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 235, + 385, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 235, + 385, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 235, + 385, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"full_name\": [\"nusha\"]}}}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 65 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 324, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 324, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 243, + 324, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[END]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 66 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 259, + 322, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 259, + 322, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 259, + 322, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[DM]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 67 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 267, + 326, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 267, + 326, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 267, + 326, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[EXM]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 68 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 318, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 318, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 318, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[ST]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 69 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 322, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 322, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 322, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[KW]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 70 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 331, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 331, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 298, + 331, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "example:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 71 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 344, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 344, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 344, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 72 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 314, + 334, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 314, + 334, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 314, + 334, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[PREDIC]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 73 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 322, + 347, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 322, + 347, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 322, + 347, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "input message:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 74 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 337, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 337, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 337, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[DIALOG]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 75 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 343, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 343, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 343, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "output JSON:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 76 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 422, + 369 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 422, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 422, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Special tokens in prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 77 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 524, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 524, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 524, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The prompt has some special tokens which will be replace by something else in the data-building process:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 78 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 420, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 420, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 420, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[DM]\" is the domain list." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 79 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 524, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 524, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 423, + 524, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[EXM]\" is the domain example which is a user utterance that includes all slots of the domain and its translated JSON." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 80 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 461, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 461, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 461, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[ST]\" is the slot list of the domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 81 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 477, + 494, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 477, + 494, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 477, + 494, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[KW]\" is the possible choice of some slot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 82 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 452, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 452, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 452, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[PREDIC]\" is the context JSON." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 83 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 504, + 524, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 504, + 524, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 504, + 524, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[DIALOG]\" is the utterance that should be translated to JSON." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 84 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 531, + 420, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 531, + 420, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 531, + 420, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"[END]\" is the stop token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 85 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11099" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 86 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_content_list.json b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2dcc263ac26986390ca9e20a38a7a79b6bb5ba53 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2475 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 236, + 90, + 759, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Guillaume Becquin", + "bbox": [ + 247, + 142, + 418, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bloomberg", + "bbox": [ + 287, + 161, + 379, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "gbecquin1@bloomberg.net", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 177, + 450, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Saher Esmeir", + "bbox": [ + 603, + 142, + 727, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bloomberg", + "bbox": [ + 618, + 160, + 712, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sesmeir2@bloomberg.net", + "bbox": [ + 554, + 177, + 776, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An accurate estimation of the covariance matrix is a critical component of many applications in finance, including portfolio optimization. The sample covariance suffers from the curse of dimensionality when the number of observations is in the same order or lower than the number of variables. This tends to be the case in portfolio optimization, where a portfolio manager can choose between thousands of stocks using historical daily returns to guide their investment decisions. To address this issue, past works proposed linear covariance shrinkage to regularize the estimated matrix. While effective, the proposed methods relied solely on historical price data and thus ignored company fundamental data. In this work, we propose to utilise semantic similarity derived from textual descriptions or knowledge graphs to improve the covariance estimation. Rather than using the semantic similarity directly as a biased estimator to the covariance, we employ it as a shrinkage target. The resulting covariance estimators leverage both semantic similarity and recent price history, and can be readily adapted to a broad range of financial securities. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated for a period including diverse market conditions and compared with the covariance shrinkage prior art.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 701, + 258, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A wide range of domains rely on the analysis of high-dimensional time-series data. For example, this includes medical systems with MRI denoising (Honnorat and Habes, 2022), radar sensors (Kang et al., 2019) post-processing, physics and chemistry, engineering, neuroscience, speech recognition, and quantitative finance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). These applications often require a reliable estimate of the covariance matrix. In the financial domain, the price of a company's stock is influenced, among other factors, by the fundamental characteristics of the company, news articles, and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5d9cf7924b98fa763c36170c3bd421e76ad336f7e0381286b8ed5f8c065870ac.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Instead of using the semantic similarity as a direct approximation to the covariance matrix, we use it to build a target for linear shrinkage. This estimator can then be used for convex portfolio optimization." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 255, + 877, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "general stock market conditions. Building upon advances in language modeling and graph embeddings, recent work has investigated how to leverage semantic representations to guide investment decisions by estimating expected returns.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 458, + 884, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The volatility and the expected return of an asset are both critical ingredients when forming an investment strategy. Risk-return trade-off is a fundamental trading principle describing the typical inverse relationship between a given investment risk and investment return. In the common case of a multi-asset portfolio, an investor with a given risk tolerance seeks to maximise their return within the allowed risk level. In this case, the degree of covariance between asset returns can be utilised to achieve an aggregate portfolio risk that is lower than its components. Modern portfolio theory formalises this trade-off (Markowitz, 1952). The Mean Variance Portfolio aims at maximizing expected returns while minimizing expected variance:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 539, + 882, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {w} ^ {*} = \\underset {\\mathbf {w}} {\\operatorname {a r g m a x}} \\left(\\mathbf {w} \\boldsymbol {\\mu} - \\lambda \\mathbf {w} ^ {T} \\boldsymbol {\\Sigma} \\mathbf {w}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 789, + 882, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{w}$ denotes the weights of assets in a portfolio, $\\mu$ the price returns of these assets, $\\Sigma$ the covariance matrix of asset prices and $\\lambda$ a parameter to denote the level of risk aversion of the investor. This optimization problem can be solved effectively using convex solvers if the covariance", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9977", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9977-9992", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "matrix is positive definite (and therefore invertible). Nevertheless, the covariance matrix of the assets prices is unknown and must therefore be estimated. Kan and Zhou (2007) show that the estimation error for the covariance matrix has a higher impact than the mean estimation error when the number of assets considered is large compared to the number of observations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing approaches leveraging semantic stock representations have focused on improving the estimate of the expected returns $\\mu$ , using a rough approximation of the covariance matrix $\\Sigma$ by directly using the semantic similarity matrix as an estimator for portfolio optimization (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020; Li et al., 2022). However, these similarity matrix estimators may not be morphologically similar to a covariance matrix and are prone to bias. Indeed, while semantic models are effective at ranking similarities, their absolute similarity value is typically uncalibrated and depend on the fraction of the hypersphere occupied by the embeddings. Furthermore, their expected cosine similarity value depends on the dimension of the embeddings (Elekes et al., 2017). Since the true covariance matrix is obviously independent of the chosen embedding dimension, this would imply that a single embedding dimension is valid for building a semantic estimator, which is unacceptable. Finally, they give no guarantee of being positive semi-definite and ignore recent stock price observations.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 219, + 490, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An alternative estimator for the covariance matrix is the sample covariance matrix. While unbiased, the sample covariance matrix is singular when the number of observations $N$ is lower than the number of random variables $p$ (preventing the use of convex solvers for equation 1) or ill-defined when $N \\gg p$ , making the portfolio optimization task inaccurate (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). Covariance shrinkage refers to a family of regularization methods aiming at combining the maximum likelihood sample covariance matrix with a structured, lower-dimensionality, regularizing model (shrinkage target). The regularizing targets are built on a set of assumptions (e.g., constant variance and O-covariance between variables) whose degree of validity varies between asset classes and market regimes. Furthermore, the shrinkage estimators can be interpreted as empirical Bayes estimators where the prior is data-dependent, and computed from the same data as the sample covariance matrix (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we highlight the limitations of using semantic similarity as a direct estimation of the covariance matrix. We address these limitations by extending the established framework of linear shrinkage to semantic similarity matrices as seen in Figure 1. The semantic representations can be derived from both structured data stored in a curated knowledge base or unstructured data in the form of natural language text. We share a Python implementation1 of our method, allowing its integration as a simple post-processing step when building covariance matrix estimators from semantic similarity matrices. We aim at validating the following:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Hypothesis 1: Semantic similarity depends on the embedding dimension and therefore cannot be used directly as a covariance matrix estimator.", + "- Hypothesis 2: Semantic similarity can be used as an effective regularization target for covariance matrix estimation.", + "- Hypothesis 3: The proposed shrinkage target includes fundamental information about the random variables and is therefore less sensitive to sudden changes in volatility regime." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 305, + 885, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 519, + 665, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Portfolio optimization using semantic representations: Du and Tanaka-Ishii (2020) investigate the potential of using news data to train a classifier to make buy and sell decisions over time. They take the cosine similarity matrix of intermediate stock representations as a direct estimator for the covariance matrix to perform portfolio optimization. Similarly, Li et al. (2022) use normalized stock embeddings trained on fundamental and price data to build a similarity matrix and use it as an estimate of the covariance matrix for mean-variance portfolio optimization. Both approaches suffer from the assumption that the similarity matrix is an unbiased estimator of the covariance. Our work instead uses semantic similarity as a shrinkage target to the sample covariance matrix resulting in estimators that are asymptotically unbiased. Sawhney et al. (2021) leverage a knowledge graph (KG) to model the correlation between stocks through temporal hyperbolic graph learning on Riemannian manifolds. They train a model to directly output a ranked list", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 885, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://github.com/bloomberg/", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 892, + 761, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "semantic-similarity-covariance-shrinkage", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 904, + 818, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9978", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of trade candidates, and therefore do not rely on the Modern Portfolio Theory mean-variance optimization problem. Our approach instead leverages established portfolio optimization routines allowing better interpretability and modularity (decoupling the semantic representations generation from the investment strategy).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Covariance shrinkage: Linear shrinkage methods, taking a convex linear combination between the sample covariance matrix and a regularization target were originally proposed by Stein (1956) for the estimation of high dimensional multivariate mean, choosing the 0-vector as a shrinkage target. Efron and Morris (1973) built upon this approach by choosing a 1-parameter structured target built as the identity vector multiplied by the sample mean. This work was extended to a robust estimation of the covariance matrix in a high dimensional space by Ledoit and Wolf (2004), proposing a single-parameter shrinkage target built as the scalar product of the identity matrix and the average sample variance. Their choice of shrinkage target made the strong assumption that the stock price returns had a constant, common variance and no covariance. Ledoit and Wolf (2003a) instead assumed a constant and positive correlation between stock price returns, resulting in a 2-parameters shrinkage target. The single-factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b) assumes the asset prices can be approximated using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and linearly depend on the average market returns with sensitivity $\\beta_{i}$ and an offset $\\alpha_{i}$ capturing the stock idiosyncratic returns. The resulting shrinkage target contains $p$ parameters to estimate, higher than the previous two models, but typically significantly lower than the $p(p - 1)/2$ parameters of the full (symmetric) covariance matrix. These regularization targets are estimated using the same data used to compute the sample covariance matrix and are therefore prone to estimation error if the number of samples is low relative to their number of parameters. Our approach instead utilises similarity-based targets that are not derived from recent observations but rather trained on large scale semantic datasets. These therefore do not suffer from this parametrization trade-off and are less sensitive to market regime changes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 198, + 489, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Preliminaries", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 858, + 265, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we formally describe the framework of linear shrinkage and derive the optimum shrink", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "age (regularization) factor coefficient. Let $X_N$ be a de-meaned price returns matrix of $N$ observations for $p$ assets (we omit the $p$ for notation simplicity). The sample covariance matrix is a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the covariance and is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {N} = \\frac {1}{N} X _ {N} ^ {T} X _ {N} \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 186, + 882, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The sample covariance matrix is symmetric and has $\\frac{p(p - 1)}{2}$ parameters to estimate. When the number of observations $N$ is lower than the number of features $p$ , this matrix is non-invertible. Furthermore, unless $p \\ll N$ , it is numerically ill-conditioned and the instabilities in the estimate lead to the underestimation of the smallest eigenvalues and overestimation of the largest ones (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). An alternative is to replace this MLE by a lower capacity model making a series of assumptions on the random variables observed (for example constant variance, no correlation or a factor model as introduced previously). This option is also unsatisfactory as it would suffer from a high bias because of the strong modeling assumptions implied. The approach of linear shrinkage is to build a new estimator from a convex linear combination of (1) the high variance, low bias of the sample covariance matrix; and (2) the low variance, high bias of the shrinkage target (lower capacity model) $T$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 231, + 884, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\Sigma} _ {N} = \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} \\tag {3} \\\\ \\lambda \\in [ 0, 1 ] \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 577, + 882, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The objective is to minimize the mean square error between this estimator and the population covariance $\\Sigma^{*}$ . The loss function is therefore given by", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 638, + 882, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\lambda} = \\left\\| \\hat {\\Sigma} _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\right\\| _ {F} ^ {2} \\tag {4} \\\\ = \\| \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\| _ {F} ^ {2} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 708, + 880, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The expected risk is", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 770, + 662, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} R (\\lambda) = \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} _ {\\lambda}\\right) \\tag {5} \\\\ = \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\| \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\| _ {F} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 807, + 880, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The population covariance is unknown and not observable but Ledoit and Wolf (2003b) show that the optimum $\\lambda^{*}$ coefficient is asymptotically con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9979", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "stant over $N$ and has the following form:", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 418, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\lambda_ {N} ^ {*} = \\frac {1}{N} \\frac {\\pi - \\rho}{\\gamma} \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 116, + 485, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\pi_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 152, + 485, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\rho_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 197, + 485, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\gamma_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\left(T _ {i j} - S _ {i j}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 243, + 485, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\text{AsyVar}$ and $\\text{AsyCov}$ respectively refer to the asymptotic variance and covariance when the number of observations $N$ grows larger.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 303, + 485, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Intuitively, $\\pi_N$ measures the degree of variance in the sample covariance matrix, with high values indicating high variance for the sample covariance estimator. A high $\\pi_N$ would therefore result in a higher amount of required shrinkage. $\\rho_N$ measures the level of covariance between the sample covariance matrix and the shrinkage target: a high covariance indicates the chosen target provides limited additional information and therefore the optimum shrinkage amount should be reduced (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). Finally, $\\gamma_N$ measures the distance between the unbiased sample covariance matrix and the target. A higher value indicates a biased shrinkage target, and therefore leads to a lower optimum shrinkage factor.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 354, + 487, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Semantic Similarity Shrinkage", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 614, + 413, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our proposed approach is based on the availability of embeddings (vector representation) for the random variables considered. In the context of financial markets, this translates into the availability of a $(p,k)$ embeddings matrix $\\mathbf{E}$ built from $k$ -dimensional semantic vectors for the $p$ financial assets considered for the portfolio optimization. These embeddings may be generated using text description of the assets (e.g., description of the company that issued a stock) and a sentence embeddings model such as (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), KG embeddings, or intermediate representation generated from a downstream task such as a buy/sell classifier (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020). We first propose a semantic shrinkage target built using these embeddings and then derive the optimum shrinkage factor.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Semantic shrinkage target", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 761, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach for building a shrinkage target from embeddings matrices is as follows. We first normalize the embeddings matrix $\\mathbf{E}$ along the semantic dimension, bounding the dot product between two asset representations in $[-1;1]$ . We then build a $(p,p)$ similarity matrix Sim by taking the product of the embeddings matrix with itself.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 882, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {S i m} = \\mathbf {E E} ^ {T} \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 642, + 227, + 880, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This results in a matrix where the diagonal entries are 1 while each off-diagonal entry $(i,j)$ represents the degree of semantic match between assets $i$ and $j$ . Rather than directly considering Sim an approximation of the covariance matrix as in (Li et al., 2022), we instead consider Sim to be an approximation of a correlation matrix (based on its constant 1-valued diagonal and entries bounded in $[-1;1]$ . We map this semantic correlation to a covariance matrix using the covariance definition and the asset variance estimated from the sample covariance matrix. The correlation between two random variables $x$ and $y$ is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 258, + 882, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {c o r r} (x, y) := \\frac {\\operatorname {c o v} (x , y)}{\\sqrt {\\operatorname {v a r} (x) \\operatorname {v a r} (y)}} \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 478, + 882, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By analogy, we define the similarity-based covariance as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 523, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {S i m} := \\frac {\\operatorname {S i m C o v}}{\\sqrt {\\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right) ^ {T} \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right)}} \\tag {12}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 561, + 880, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {S i m C o v} = \\operatorname {S i m} \\odot \\sqrt {\\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right) ^ {T} \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right)} \\tag {13}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 623, + 880, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\odot$ is the Hadamard product and $\\mathrm{diag}(S_N)$ is a $(1,p)$ vector made of the diagonal entries of the sample covariance matrix $S_N$ . This approach ensures that the scale of the semantic-based shrinkage target is on the same scale of the sample covariance matrix, regardless of the original stock embeddings space. This estimator therefore has $p$ price-dependent parameters to estimate (the variances), similar to the CAPM-based single factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we ensure that the shrinkage target is positive definite, a desirable property that allows the use of the shrunk covariance matrix with convex optimizers. While the covariance matrix SimCov is by construction symmetric, it is not necessarily positive definite. We introduce small perturbations", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9980", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on the eigenvalues following spectral decomposition of SimCov based on (Gill et al., 2019). Let $U$ and $\\Delta$ be the eigenvectors and eigenvalues from the spectral decomposition of SimCov:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {S i m C o v} = U \\Delta U ^ {T} \\tag {14}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 158, + 487, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If $\\min(\\Delta) < 0$ , we shift the eigenvalues so that they are all strictly positive with a margin $\\epsilon$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Delta_ {+} = \\Delta + \\min (a b s (\\Delta)) + \\epsilon \\tag {15}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 231, + 487, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then recover the semi-definite similarity-based covariance shrinkage target:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 260, + 489, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+} = U \\Delta_ {+} U ^ {T} \\tag {16}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 302, + 487, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We do not use this value directly to approximate the covariance matrix; instead we build a linear shrinkage estimator from the convex linear combination of the target and sample covariance matrix as per equation 3:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 487, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\Sigma} _ {S i m} = \\lambda \\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+} + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} \\tag {17}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 422, + 487, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Semantic shrinkage factor", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 366, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned in Section 3, the optimum shrinkage factor for the similarity-based covariance estimator can be derived analytically using equations 7 to 9. The following provides consistent estimators when assuming a semantic similarity target. Index $t$ refers to time, while $i$ and $j$ refer to the position of the random variables in the covariance matrix. The derivation is similar to constant correlation shrinkage (using similarity values instead of a constant value) and is provided in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 487, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A consistent estimator of $\\pi_N$ is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 487, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\pi} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\pi_ {\\hat {N}, i j} \\tag {18}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 676, + 487, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}) ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {N, i j} ^ {2} \\tag {19} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 722, + 485, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with $X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \\bar{X}_{N})^{\\odot 2}$ the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 804, + 487, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We obtain a consistent estimator $\\hat{\\rho}_N$ based on the constant variance target proposed in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), where the constant correlation value is replaced by entries in the similarity matrix. We use the fact that the similarity matrix is constant", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with respect to the observations and symmetric, a full derivation is available in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\rho} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i i} + \\\\ \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left(\\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\\right) \\tag {20} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 124, + 880, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Where the $\\hat{\\vartheta}_{ii,ij}$ are consistent estimators of $A s y C o v(\\sqrt{N} S_{N,ii},\\sqrt{N} S_{N,ij})$ given by:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 221, + 882, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {N, i i}\\right) \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}\\right) \\tag {21}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 262, + 882, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, a consistent estimator of $\\gamma_N$ is given by:", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 313, + 882, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\gamma_ {N}} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\left(\\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {N, i, j}\\right) ^ {2} (22) \\\\ = \\left\\| \\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {i, j} \\right\\| _ {F} ^ {2} (23) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 336, + 880, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This fully specifies the optimal shrinkage factor based on 6.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 409, + 880, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 653, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 621, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the performance of the proposed similarity-based covariance matrix shrinkage on the task of portfolio selection. In particular, we consider the universe of historical members for 3 major stock indices: the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500), the NASDAQ-100 and the Nikkei 225 (Nikkei). We choose this data based on the availability of price data and high quality company fundamental data that can be used to generate stock embeddings. We report results for the S&P 500 for conciseness; the full set of results for all 3 indices is available in Appendices C and D.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 498, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1.1 Stock price return data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 700, + 752, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We gather price data over a period of 16 years from 2007 to 2023. This extended period includes a variety of market regimes including high volatility events, such as the global financial crisis in 2007-2008, the sovereign debt crisis in 2011, and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. It also includes periods of low volatility such as 2017, when the volatility index (VIX) was at historic lows. We build the dataset as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 718, + 882, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1. We split the data in rolling windows of 3 months for estimator fitting and 1 month for evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 870, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9981", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "2. The stock indices composition evolved over the period considered. Within each window, we keep only index members with price data throughout the entire period.", + "3. We convert the end-of-day price into daily price returns, removing the effect of the absolute stock price." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 84, + 489, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This results in 190 slices, each covering a 4 month span (the first 3 months are used for fitting and the last for evaluation).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 216, + 487, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1.2 Semantic representations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 371, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the effectiveness of the proposed approach using three methods for computing stock semantic representations. The set of hyperparameters used for the training of the semantic models is available in Appendix E.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 291, + 487, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The first method leverages the text description for the companies that issued stock. We build semantic representation for the companies using a 768 dimensions sentence embeddings transformer model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The experiments were conducted using a DistilBERT model (Sanh et al., 2019) finetuned on the Natural Questions dataset (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). The second method leverages relational facts from knowledge graphs. We use publicly available 512 dimensions RotatE pre-trained embeddings on the Wikidata5m dataset generated using GraphVite (Zhu et al., 2019), referred to as W5m KG. For both methods we match the stock price data to a Wikidata entry using the Wikidata5m dataset (Wang et al., 2021) containing entity names and aliases. We successfully match $98.3\\%$ , $97.9\\%$ and $99.3\\%$ of index members for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 and Nikkei 225, respectively. The unmatched entries are excluded from both training and evaluation rolling windows.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 372, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then consider a third model using a subgraph from a large scale, financial knowledge graph in Bloomberg herein referred to as Fin. KG. This includes triples involving the domicile country, industry, sector, board members, supply chain, subsidiaries, fund and index inclusion. We train KG embeddings using RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) with a 128 dimensions embeddings size.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 487, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We observe that the representations produced by these methods capture the overall semantics of the company as illustrated in Figure 2. We build the semantic similarity matrices for all semantic models following the method described in 4.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a63c70389559dee2f2c5f22a73ca914fc04c177089877c6b578ab824c164c202.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: 2-D projection of the KG embeddings using t-SNE. Each point corresponds to a historical S&P 500 component colored by BICS industry sectors." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 84, + 877, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Performance of semantic-based shrinkage targets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 880, + 385 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We build the covariance matrix for each evaluation period in 5.1.1 and annualize the results by multiplying the entries by the number of trading days per year (252). For each of the 3-month training periods (first 3 months), we fit the following covariance estimators:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 882, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Sample covariance matrix $S_{\\text{Sample}}$ .", + "- Constant-variance shrunk covariance matrix $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{CVar}$ using a 1-parameter shrinkage target assuming a constant variance and no covariance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004).", + "- Constant-correlation shrunk covariance matrix $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{CCor}$ using a 2-parameters shrinkage target assuming a constant correlation (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a).", + "- Single-factor shrunk covariance matrix $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{SF}$ assuming a single factor CAPM model for the stock price returns (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b).", + "- Scaled Text similarities $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{\\text{Text, scaled}}$ using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix transformed using 13.", + "- Scaled KG similarities $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{W5mKG, scaled}$ and $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Fin. KG, scaled}$ using the KG similarity matrices transformed using 13.", + "- Shrunk covariance matrix $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Text}$ , using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix.", + "- Shrunk covariance matrices $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{W5mKG}$ and $\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Fin.KG}$ using the KG similarity matrices." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 495, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9982", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7b6d26e69edd284af9500582e0f1e2d53163f95afd44f4fbc822ea0dd94d0359.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Off-diagonal entries of shrinkage targets relative to the sample covariance." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 84, + 480, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f9712ceff5bbe72863cfd0d7e677b85a8eaec8769ab792c6b05a9efbe189bb07.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
EstimatorMean ||.||F
Sample covariance0.128
Text Sim.0.066
W5m KG Sim.0.101
Fin. KG Sim.0.114
", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 390, + 435, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Average off-diagonal Frobenius norm", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 486, + 458, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We begin by observing the impact of the shrinkage model assumptions on the resulting target bias. We sample 500 (time, stock pair) observations for all estimators for the S&P 500 and compare their value to the corresponding entry in the sample covariance matrix for the same (time, stock pair) (see Figure 3). Values along the diagonal indicate a shrinkage target with no bias. By construction the constant variance model has a 0 value on the off-diagonal and is therefore the most biased estimator considered. The semantic estimators show a variable level of bias. The average Frobenius norm of the similarity estimators (excluding the diagonal variances) is given in table 1. The norm of the unbiased sample covariance matrix is given for reference. It shows that different semantic models may result in significant differences in similarity values and therefore are prone to bias when estimating the covariance, validating hypothesis 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 530, + 489, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to evaluate the performance of the shrinkage targets, we compute the optimum shrinkage factor based on 4.2 and shrink the sample covariance matrix for each 3-month fitting period to build an estimator. We evaluate these against the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b6b9d155d2121b1624727e52187620d42e624e21007b17a538002f22da78fbdd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: PRIAL for the S&P 500 for 2007-2023" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 84, + 877, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "following 1-month sample test covariance matrix as an approximation of the population covariance. We evaluate a given estimator $\\hat{\\Sigma}$ using the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss (PRIAL) defined as (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020a):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 884, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP R I A L (\\hat {\\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \\frac {\\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)\\right) - \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} (\\hat {\\Sigma})\\right)}{\\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)\\right)} \\tag {24}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 482, + 882, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathcal{L}$ refers to the MSE loss introduced in equation 4.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 532, + 877, + 548 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 4 shows the PRIAL for all estimators over the entire period (190 data points) for S&P 500. The constant variance model is the best performing price-based shrinkage target. Using the scaled similarity matrix shows a high level of performance variability and shows the impact of the bias for the text-based embeddings (resulting in a worse estimator than the sample covariance matrix). The higher performance of the scaled KG similarity is highly snapshot-dependent and driven by high volatility events during the period considered (see Appendix B). Our shrunk similarity-based models are outperforming price-based shrinkage methods and their scaled variant. Figure 5 shows the outperformance of shrunk similarity-based methods is consistent across time windows and not driven by isolated high volatility outliers. We perform a statistical test of the null hypothesis (the performance of similarity-based models and constant variance shrinkage method is equal) that is rejected with p-values of $1.3 \\times 10^{-12}$ and $2.5 \\times 10^{-10}$ for the KG-based and text-based similarity targets respectively, validating hypothesis 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9983", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/76025b5d2fc69c67dd4707d38944df0540d02b5f007595157f4db773d7709299.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom). The semantic shrinkage methods error is consistently lower than their scaled variant and estimators using price data only." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 82, + 880, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Impact of volatility regimes on shrinkage target performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 480, + 413 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further investigate the impact of market regime change. In order to identify the contribution of specific samples to the, we define the Percentage Relative Improvement in Loss (PRIL) based on 24:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 489, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP R I L (\\hat {\\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \\frac {\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right) - \\mathcal {L} (\\hat {\\Sigma})}{\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)} \\tag {25}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 498, + 487, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6 focuses on years 2017 to 2023 for the S&P 500 during which several market regimes were observed, including: low volatility (2017 to the end of 2018); two high volatility periods (end of 2018, 2022); and a very high volatility event (first half of 2020). We show PRIL values for both the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models together with the realized annualized log market volatility $(\\log (\\| S_{Sample}\\|_{F}*\\#_{trading~days}))$ on the right axis. The outperformance of the similarity-based estimator is higher during periods (or transitions between periods) of high market volatility.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 489, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compute the PRIL difference between the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models (shaded area in Figure 6) for all test periods between 2007 and 2023 to validate this effect, and present the results in Figure 7. We note that the degree of outperformance of the similarity-based approach correlates with the level of market volatility. The effect is particularly pronounced for the very high volatility levels, indicating the potential of the approach to mitigate market \"fat", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/109d775e4331f11d05a832a1f52f6d8603cfe596f1d07ef151473dd11ba35d21.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: S&P 500 PRIL for the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrinkage targets. The shaded area shows the difference between the PRIL values. An indicator of market volatility is shown on the right axis." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 380, + 878, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tail risk\" (short-term move of more than 3 standard deviations). This validates the Hypothesis 3 and shows that the proposed covariance matrix estimators are more robust during transitions between market volatility regimes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 882, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 701, + 636, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we present a family of covariance shrinkage estimators leveraging semantic similarity between the random variables. We show that semantic similarity cannot be used as a direct estimator of the covariance, but instead as regularization for the sample covariance using linear shrinkage. The shrunk estimators include price-independent semantics and are superior in periods of high volatility, where an accurate estimation of the covariance is typically more critical. This demonstrates the potential of semantic models for covariance matrix estimation and extends beyond", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9984", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c9d808bc7afa6a702d1af310391b5d8b9a6b21a4c80bb634b79cad32bce7114c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators: performance benefits increase with the overall market volatility" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 84, + 473, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "traditional applications to predicting returns.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 443, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed method is agnostic to the embeddings generation process and can be applied to most existing semantic representation algorithms. This includes semantic representations that capture static (company description) and dynamic (company news, recent price data) components from text, knowledge graphs or multi-modal datasets. By decoupling the semantic model from the portfolio optimization, the proposed method provides a robust and modular mechanism for integrating semantic representations into established portfolio management and investment decision systems.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 361, + 489, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 568, + 250, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While showing encouraging results, the proposed similarity-based targets are built from static semantic information. A potential future work direction could be the extension of these static embeddings with dynamic components, including for example news data or dynamic knowledge graphs. Text embeddings from news data (capturing company recent events) can be combined with the static embeddings (capturing company fundamentals) to compute either a single similarity matrix target for shrinkage, or use techniques such as multiple targets shrinkage. Building semantic representations from news data will involve challenges related to sampling for companies with high news coverage, the lack of news for some companies and the choice of importance given to the static versus dynamic components.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The input to the semantic models (text and KG triples) was gathered as of 2021 and 2022, potentially leading to data leakage for the 2007-2023", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "period backtest. Future work may use historical Wikipedia snapshots to measure the impact of this assumption. However, we estimate this risk to be low given the focus on company fundamentals. The price data frequency is typically much higher than frequency of change of the fundamental data (description or KG triples): the company characteristics (e.g., industry sector) of the large capitalization investigated did not change significantly over the period considered. Furthermore, the analysis does not show a drop in performance before and after the datasets snapshot date. Future work including dynamic semantic components (e.g., news) should however ensure that only news released prior to an experiment time window are used, since news do have a significant impact on short term price data (and correlation) as illustrated by recent work referenced in our work. Similarly, the rolling window evaluation excludes companies that stopped trading during the period considered: this inclusion/exclusion process is a-priori unknown.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The approach requires both rich semantic representations and an effective way to match the stock price returns to their embeddings. The matching process may be more challenging for international companies or smaller capitalization stocks than for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 or Nikkei 225 components. Finally, while the approach could be extended to any financial asset class including commodities or derivatives, obtaining a valid text description may prove more challenging. Note that the knowledge-graph embeddings do not suffer from this limitation and can generalize to any asset class where structured data is available, and future work may investigate this method potential for multi-asset portfolio (i.e., equities, fixed income and commodities) covariance estimation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 423, + 884, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9985", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xin Du and Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii. 2020. Stock embeddings acquired from news articles and price history, and an application to portfolio optimization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3353-3363, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(61):2121-2159.", + "Bradley Efron and Carl Morris. 1973. Stein's estimation rule and its competitors—an empirical bayes approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(341):117-130.", + "Ábel Elekes, Martin Schäler, and Klemens Böhm. 2017. On the various semantics of similarity in word embedding models. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '17, page 139-148. IEEE Press.", + "Philip E. Gill, Walter Murray, and Margaret H. Wright. 2019. Practical Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA.", + "Nicolas Honnorat and Mohamad Habes. 2022. Covariance shrinkage can assess and improve functional connectomes. NeuroImage, 256:119229.", + "Raymond Kan and Guofu Zhou. 2007. Optimal portfolio choice with parameter uncertainty. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3):621-656.", + "Naixin Kang, Zheran Shang, and Qinglei Du. 2019. Knowledge-aided structured covariance matrix estimator applied for radar sensor signal detection. Sensors, 19(3).", + "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics.", + "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003a. Honey, i shrunk the sample covariance matrix. In UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 691.", + "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003b. Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(5):603-621.", + "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivar. Anal., 88(2):365-411." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020a. Analytical nonlinear shrinkage of large-dimensional covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics, 48(5):3043 - 3065.", + "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020b. The Power of (Non-)Linear Shrinking: A Review and Guide to Covariance Matrix Estimation. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 20(1):187-218.", + "Shicheng Li, Wei Li, Zhiyuan Zhang, Ruihan Bao, Keiko Harimoto, and Keiko Harimoto. 2022. No stock is an island: Learning internal and relational attributes of stocks with contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Financial Technology and Natural Language Processing (FinNLP), pages 147-153, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Harry Markowitz. 1952. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77-91.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108.", + "Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, and Rajiv Shah. 2021. Exploring the scale-free nature of stock markets: Hyperbolic graph learning for algorithmic trading. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, WWW '21, page 11-22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Charles M. Stein. 1956. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. In Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist. and Prob., 1956: 197-206.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. CoRR, abs/1902.10197.", + "Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194.", + "Zhaocheng Zhu, Shizhen Xu, Meng Qu, and Jian Tang. 2019. Graphvite: A high-performance cpu-gpu hybrid system for node embedding. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2494-2504. ACM." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9986", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Semantic Target Shrinkage Factor Estimation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 450, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For notation simplicity we omit in the following the $N$ index from the sample covariance matrix.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 124, + 485, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Derivation of the $\\hat{\\pi}_N$ estimator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 167, + 405, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A consistent estimator of $\\pi_N$ is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\pi} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\pi_ {\\hat {N}, i j} \\tag {26}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 227, + 487, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {27}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 273, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\hat{\\pi}_{N,ij}$ can be rewritten to allow for factorized computation, using the fact that $S_{N,ij}$ is constant with respect to the sum over the samples:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 485, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}) ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\frac {x _ {t i} x _ {t j}}{N} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} S _ {i j} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\tag {28} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 379, + 487, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with $X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \\bar{X}_{N})^{\\odot 2}$ the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Derivation of the $\\hat{\\rho}_N$ estimator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 640, + 403, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We follow the derivation an estimator for $8_N$ assuming a shrinkage target built on a constant correlation matrix provided in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), replacing the constant correlation value $\\bar{r}_N$ by individual semantic similarities matrix entries $e_{ij}$ . By definition (see 8):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\rho_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) (29) \\\\ = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}) \\\\ + \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\operatorname {A s y C o v} \\left(\\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} \\sqrt {S _ {i i} S _ {j j}}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}\\right) (30) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 765, + 487, + 913 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The first term is equal to the diagonal of the $\\hat{\\pi}_{N,ij}$ estimator calculated previously. As per (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), using the delta-method an estimator for $AsyCov(\\sqrt{Ne}_{ij}\\sqrt{S_{ii}S_{jj}},\\sqrt{N} S_{ij})$ is given by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\frac {1}{2} \\binom {\\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} {+ \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} e _ {j i} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} \\tag {31}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 187, + 882, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the $e_{ij}$ are constant with respect to the observations and symmetric $(e_{ij} = e_{ji})$ , this can be re-written:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 281, + 882, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left( \\begin{array}{l} \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\\\ + \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\end{array} \\right) \\tag {32}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 337, + 882, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A consistent estimator for $\\text{AsyCov}(\\sqrt{N} S_{ii}, \\sqrt{N} S_{ij})$ is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 882, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {i i}\\right) \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {33}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 485, + 882, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "And by symmetry:", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 539, + 670, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {j j}\\right) \\left(x _ {t j} x _ {t i} - S _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {34}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 565, + 882, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The resulting consistent estimator for $\\rho_N$ is given by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 619, + 880, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\rho} _ {N} = \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(\\hat {\\boldsymbol {\\pi}} _ {N}\\right) \\\\ + \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left(\\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\\right) \\tag {35} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 663, + 882, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9987", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Comparison of Scaled and Shrunk Estimators for 2018-2023 period", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 450, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This appendix provides additional experimental results for the similarity-based estimators for the 2018 to 2023 period. Figure 9 shows that while the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss is higher for a naive estimator built using the scaled similarity as a covariance estimator, the outperformance is concentrated in a single period of very high volatility. Since the loss is a mean squared error, the large covariance values (and their error) seen during this period dominate the general evaluation period.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 127, + 489, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9ae15b9bf256e65a1cc255595ea790f3a003cd21ec845572b31da3dc1e2aa7ff.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 316, + 485, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8fa39e21df544b3c3e09b00dfa4001a00f0a58d761184ecc29101b379b3c5a67.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 521, + 485, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/435f064b577c9ebf02886e0a7306c62fc6ef5e1cdc32be459560af10e2483bf2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 726, + 485, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It can be seen that the estimator under performs both the constant variance shrunk estimator (Figure 9) and the shrunk covariance using a KG similarity matrix target (Figure 10). A similar effect for the text encoder semantic similarity can be seen in Figure 11 to Figure 13, showing the systematic underperformance of uncalibrated semantic similarity matrices for covariance estimation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f59169b7448d6604a2c258e54854df1a2a868ed089dc6cd08a6e035dbb151664.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 223, + 878, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2bf3134ee07947bed527675cdeeeb510360f8ef0375417e52f553d31d3930f32.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: Relative performance of the Text similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 426, + 878, + 563 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fb59da4b397f6443a4e648d7ae468409e0803642cb0729515ad0987bbea68410.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 13: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 631, + 878, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9988", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Experimental results for NASDAQ-100", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 487, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This appendix provides the experimental results for the NASDAQ-100 components. Figure 14 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The results align with the S&P 500, showing a strong variance in the average performance of scaled semantic estimators (with the text semantic similarity under-performing the sample covariance estimator). This variance is significantly lower for the shrunk estimators (our method).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/88bd8b00c2a95fff1f3ed1ec479a91985d9a5805d128b179cb19f7dadf158764.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 14: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 284, + 484, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The improved consistency of the proposed estimators is highlighted in Figure 15. This shows that even scaled estimators showing a high PRIAL score (such as the scaled KG similarities) do not consistently perform better than other estimators. The PRIAL metric is an average metric and therefore sensitive to outliers. The scaled similarity methods are biased towards lower covariance values (see Table 1) leading to a very significant error reduction during volatility regime transition periods when the sample covariance is a poor estimator of future covariance (such as the low to high volatility transition during the coronavirus pandemic), but worse performance than other estimators overall.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The PRIL (defined in equation 25) allows visualization the contribution of each time window to the PRIAL. Figure 17 confirms the previous observation: the semantic shrinkage estimator outperforms its scaled similarity variant over the entire period, except for the transition into the high volatility events in 2020.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a80676d8a48abc40fdafb8a48b61354ecde91cf685d4dfa125aa6392baee43cf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 15: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the NASDAQ-100 index." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 84, + 882, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/12f902a03f2a1509975630b957ffd085a316bf53eaa97fc5a6e5695e274c17b6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 16: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 393, + 880, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/342b2583642a3ac14be146f312d01b782b6dfd40d0c419a5f2acd0b49dd01644.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 17: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 580, + 880, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A similar effect can be seen for the text-based estimators in Figures 18 to 19.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 882, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similarly to results presented for the S&P 500 in 7, the degree of improvement from semantic shrinkage estimators for the covariance prediction shows a positive correlation with a measure of overall market volatility, as illustrated in Figure 20.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9989", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/66b4075d1392389f7714d632daf40a66b2e52c2402328dc1fdb59b3ada8b5249.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 18: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 124, + 482, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/75bcc33274f8ebe71d071f15141d9cc16b6e9565a7147f77e88bb7fdc8a39867.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 19: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 388, + 484, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5c5ee0b9001b8edfe6bfa462181752d466940aadda1de1eff102dbbbf78f3fe1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 20: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators for the NASDAQ-100" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 653, + 477, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9990", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Experimental results for Nikkei 225", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 460, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This appendix provides experimental results for the Nikkei 225 components. Figure 21 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The PRIAL value for the scaled estimators is, unlike for the other two indices, higher than for their shrunk variant, with all semantic estimators significantly outperforming the estimators based on price only (constant variance, constant correlation and single factor shrinkage).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 489, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c5d3461da8978341e7296279f0122aa95370bfcb336ce5a12e6881cee8cbe1c6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 21: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 268, + 484, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This result can be explained by the sensitivity of the PRIAL metric to outliers. Figure 22 shows that the improved PRIAL of the scaled estimators over their shrunk variant is not consistent: it can be seen that the scaled similarity estimators only outperform the price-based and the semantic shrinkage estimators 20 to $40\\%$ of the time (middle 3 rows). The semantic shrinkage estimators, on the other hand, tend to be consistently better than the other estimators (bottom 3 rows). This is also illustrated by the PRIL in Figures 24 and 24: the scaled similarity outperforms its shrunk variant only in the 2020 volatility transition period. The errors made by all estimators during this period are significantly higher than average, biasing the average PRIAL metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Providing a reliable estimate of future covariance is a desirable feature and the proposed shrink semantic similarity estimators show a consistent improvement over their scaled variants.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 887 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/382fb23c40ad4cc7991b9ea83240a163b5a8ae0fe1fd79341c2fad6b6082f80e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 22: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the Nikkei 225 index." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 514, + 110, + 882, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2b9659a070d8fdf7a4172c9206343c15453a69b865cf5f2beb62a82ec2ede456.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 23: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 467, + 878, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d9710098f80ae930615358c94b041077c08e625093f838256772da428a77b37c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 24: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 702, + 880, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9991", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Semantic Models Hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 458, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.1 Wikidata5m Knowledge Graph Embeddings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 108, + 410, + 141 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/985ff875e10cfc4ea463041ea68f28eca7c5648dfb01719095897b2fa85daf37.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE (Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetWikidata5m (Wang et al., 2021)
Dimension512
OptimizerSGD
Learning rate1e-2
Weight decay0
Margin6
Batch size100k
Epochs1000
Sample batch size2000
# Negative/positive64
Adversarial temp.0.2
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 155, + 463, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.2 Text Embeddings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 453, + 302, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/aac74884ed9dc3008105c03b38486c79f8b1454742b77b627a3cc70a8e99c656.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Wikidata5m KG Embeddings hyperparameters" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureDistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019)
DatasetNatural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019)
Dimension768
Hidden dim.3072
# layers6
# heads12
ActivationGeLU
LossMultiple Negatives Ranking
Dropout0.1
Cls. dropout0.2
QA dropout0.1
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 483, + 470, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E.3 Financial Knowledge Graph Embeddings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 880, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/45604996410d8be180b4635927740778e80fdceeead9a2eabe71d4494a13f009.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Text Embeddings hyperparameters" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE\n(Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetProprietary
Dimension128
OptimizerAdagrad\n(Duchi et al., 2011)
Learning rate1e-1
Weight decay1e-7
Margin19.9
Batch size1024
Epochs20
Sample batch size512
# Negative/positive2
Adversarial temp.1.0
", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 115, + 860, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Financial KG Embeddings hyperparameters", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 370, + 873, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9992", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_model.json b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7653cb9c2704f1bb804e855ff60822c70a203df --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2982 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.237, + 0.091, + 0.761, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.248, + 0.143, + 0.42, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guillaume Becquin" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.288, + 0.162, + 0.381, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bloomberg" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.178, + 0.452, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "gbecquin1@bloomberg.net" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.605, + 0.143, + 0.728, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saher Esmeir" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.619, + 0.161, + 0.714, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bloomberg" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.555, + 0.178, + 0.778, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sesmeir2@bloomberg.net" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An accurate estimation of the covariance matrix is a critical component of many applications in finance, including portfolio optimization. The sample covariance suffers from the curse of dimensionality when the number of observations is in the same order or lower than the number of variables. This tends to be the case in portfolio optimization, where a portfolio manager can choose between thousands of stocks using historical daily returns to guide their investment decisions. To address this issue, past works proposed linear covariance shrinkage to regularize the estimated matrix. While effective, the proposed methods relied solely on historical price data and thus ignored company fundamental data. In this work, we propose to utilise semantic similarity derived from textual descriptions or knowledge graphs to improve the covariance estimation. Rather than using the semantic similarity directly as a biased estimator to the covariance, we employ it as a shrinkage target. The resulting covariance estimators leverage both semantic similarity and recent price history, and can be readily adapted to a broad range of financial securities. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated for a period including diverse market conditions and compared with the covariance shrinkage prior art." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.702, + 0.26, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A wide range of domains rely on the analysis of high-dimensional time-series data. For example, this includes medical systems with MRI denoising (Honnorat and Habes, 2022), radar sensors (Kang et al., 2019) post-processing, physics and chemistry, engineering, neuroscience, speech recognition, and quantitative finance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). These applications often require a reliable estimate of the covariance matrix. In the financial domain, the price of a company's stock is influenced, among other factors, by the fundamental characteristics of the company, news articles, and" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.256, + 0.878, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.379, + 0.884, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Instead of using the semantic similarity as a direct approximation to the covariance matrix, we use it to build a target for linear shrinkage. This estimator can then be used for convex portfolio optimization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.46, + 0.885, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "general stock market conditions. Building upon advances in language modeling and graph embeddings, recent work has investigated how to leverage semantic representations to guide investment decisions by estimating expected returns." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.54, + 0.884, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The volatility and the expected return of an asset are both critical ingredients when forming an investment strategy. Risk-return trade-off is a fundamental trading principle describing the typical inverse relationship between a given investment risk and investment return. In the common case of a multi-asset portfolio, an investor with a given risk tolerance seeks to maximise their return within the allowed risk level. In this case, the degree of covariance between asset returns can be utilised to achieve an aggregate portfolio risk that is lower than its components. Modern portfolio theory formalises this trade-off (Markowitz, 1952). The Mean Variance Portfolio aims at maximizing expected returns while minimizing expected variance:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {w} ^ {*} = \\underset {\\mathbf {w}} {\\operatorname {a r g m a x}} \\left(\\mathbf {w} \\boldsymbol {\\mu} - \\lambda \\mathbf {w} ^ {T} \\boldsymbol {\\Sigma} \\mathbf {w}\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{w}\\) denotes the weights of assets in a portfolio, \\(\\mu\\) the price returns of these assets, \\(\\Sigma\\) the covariance matrix of asset prices and \\(\\lambda\\) a parameter to denote the level of risk aversion of the investor. This optimization problem can be solved effectively using convex solvers if the covariance" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.48, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9977" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9977-9992" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "matrix is positive definite (and therefore invertible). Nevertheless, the covariance matrix of the assets prices is unknown and must therefore be estimated. Kan and Zhou (2007) show that the estimation error for the covariance matrix has a higher impact than the mean estimation error when the number of assets considered is large compared to the number of observations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.221, + 0.492, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing approaches leveraging semantic stock representations have focused on improving the estimate of the expected returns \\(\\mu\\), using a rough approximation of the covariance matrix \\(\\Sigma\\) by directly using the semantic similarity matrix as an estimator for portfolio optimization (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020; Li et al., 2022). However, these similarity matrix estimators may not be morphologically similar to a covariance matrix and are prone to bias. Indeed, while semantic models are effective at ranking similarities, their absolute similarity value is typically uncalibrated and depend on the fraction of the hypersphere occupied by the embeddings. Furthermore, their expected cosine similarity value depends on the dimension of the embeddings (Elekes et al., 2017). Since the true covariance matrix is obviously independent of the chosen embedding dimension, this would imply that a single embedding dimension is valid for building a semantic estimator, which is unacceptable. Finally, they give no guarantee of being positive semi-definite and ignore recent stock price observations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.582, + 0.492, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An alternative estimator for the covariance matrix is the sample covariance matrix. While unbiased, the sample covariance matrix is singular when the number of observations \\(N\\) is lower than the number of random variables \\(p\\) (preventing the use of convex solvers for equation 1) or ill-defined when \\(N \\gg p\\), making the portfolio optimization task inaccurate (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). Covariance shrinkage refers to a family of regularization methods aiming at combining the maximum likelihood sample covariance matrix with a structured, lower-dimensionality, regularizing model (shrinkage target). The regularizing targets are built on a set of assumptions (e.g., constant variance and O-covariance between variables) whose degree of validity varies between asset classes and market regimes. Furthermore, the shrinkage estimators can be interpreted as empirical Bayes estimators where the prior is data-dependent, and computed from the same data as the sample covariance matrix (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we highlight the limitations of using semantic similarity as a direct estimation of the covariance matrix. We address these limitations by extending the established framework of linear shrinkage to semantic similarity matrices as seen in Figure 1. The semantic representations can be derived from both structured data stored in a curated knowledge base or unstructured data in the form of natural language text. We share a Python implementation1 of our method, allowing its integration as a simple post-processing step when building covariance matrix estimators from semantic similarity matrices. We aim at validating the following:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.306, + 0.884, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Hypothesis 1: Semantic similarity depends on the embedding dimension and therefore cannot be used directly as a covariance matrix estimator." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.382, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Hypothesis 2: Semantic similarity can be used as an effective regularization target for covariance matrix estimation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.443, + 0.887, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Hypothesis 3: The proposed shrinkage target includes fundamental information about the random variables and is therefore less sensitive to sudden changes in volatility regime." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.306, + 0.887, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.52, + 0.666, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.886, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Portfolio optimization using semantic representations: Du and Tanaka-Ishii (2020) investigate the potential of using news data to train a classifier to make buy and sell decisions over time. They take the cosine similarity matrix of intermediate stock representations as a direct estimator for the covariance matrix to perform portfolio optimization. Similarly, Li et al. (2022) use normalized stock embeddings trained on fundamental and price data to build a similarity matrix and use it as an estimate of the covariance matrix for mean-variance portfolio optimization. Both approaches suffer from the assumption that the similarity matrix is an unbiased estimator of the covariance. Our work instead uses semantic similarity as a shrinkage target to the sample covariance matrix resulting in estimators that are asymptotically unbiased. Sawhney et al. (2021) leverage a knowledge graph (KG) to model the correlation between stocks through temporal hyperbolic graph learning on Riemannian manifolds. They train a model to directly output a ranked list" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.893, + 0.763, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://github.com/bloomberg/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.906, + 0.82, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "semantic-similarity-covariance-shrinkage" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.893, + 0.82, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9978" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of trade candidates, and therefore do not rely on the Modern Portfolio Theory mean-variance optimization problem. Our approach instead leverages established portfolio optimization routines allowing better interpretability and modularity (decoupling the semantic representations generation from the investment strategy)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.199, + 0.49, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Covariance shrinkage: Linear shrinkage methods, taking a convex linear combination between the sample covariance matrix and a regularization target were originally proposed by Stein (1956) for the estimation of high dimensional multivariate mean, choosing the 0-vector as a shrinkage target. Efron and Morris (1973) built upon this approach by choosing a 1-parameter structured target built as the identity vector multiplied by the sample mean. This work was extended to a robust estimation of the covariance matrix in a high dimensional space by Ledoit and Wolf (2004), proposing a single-parameter shrinkage target built as the scalar product of the identity matrix and the average sample variance. Their choice of shrinkage target made the strong assumption that the stock price returns had a constant, common variance and no covariance. Ledoit and Wolf (2003a) instead assumed a constant and positive correlation between stock price returns, resulting in a 2-parameters shrinkage target. The single-factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b) assumes the asset prices can be approximated using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and linearly depend on the average market returns with sensitivity \\(\\beta_{i}\\) and an offset \\(\\alpha_{i}\\) capturing the stock idiosyncratic returns. The resulting shrinkage target contains \\(p\\) parameters to estimate, higher than the previous two models, but typically significantly lower than the \\(p(p - 1)/2\\) parameters of the full (symmetric) covariance matrix. These regularization targets are estimated using the same data used to compute the sample covariance matrix and are therefore prone to estimation error if the number of samples is low relative to their number of parameters. Our approach instead utilises similarity-based targets that are not derived from recent observations but rather trained on large scale semantic datasets. These therefore do not suffer from this parametrization trade-off and are less sensitive to market regime changes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.859, + 0.267, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Preliminaries" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we formally describe the framework of linear shrinkage and derive the optimum shrink" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "age (regularization) factor coefficient. Let \\( X_N \\) be a de-meaned price returns matrix of \\( N \\) observations for \\( p \\) assets (we omit the \\( p \\) for notation simplicity). The sample covariance matrix is a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the covariance and is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.187, + 0.883, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {N} = \\frac {1}{N} X _ {N} ^ {T} X _ {N} \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.233, + 0.885, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The sample covariance matrix is symmetric and has \\( \\frac{p(p - 1)}{2} \\) parameters to estimate. When the number of observations \\( N \\) is lower than the number of features \\( p \\), this matrix is non-invertible. Furthermore, unless \\( p \\ll N \\), it is numerically ill-conditioned and the instabilities in the estimate lead to the underestimation of the smallest eigenvalues and overestimation of the largest ones (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). An alternative is to replace this MLE by a lower capacity model making a series of assumptions on the random variables observed (for example constant variance, no correlation or a factor model as introduced previously). This option is also unsatisfactory as it would suffer from a high bias because of the strong modeling assumptions implied. The approach of linear shrinkage is to build a new estimator from a convex linear combination of (1) the high variance, low bias of the sample covariance matrix; and (2) the low variance, high bias of the shrinkage target (lower capacity model) \\( T \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.603, + 0.579, + 0.884, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\Sigma} _ {N} = \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} \\tag {3} \\\\ \\lambda \\in [ 0, 1 ] \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.639, + 0.884, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The objective is to minimize the mean square error between this estimator and the population covariance \\(\\Sigma^{*}\\). The loss function is therefore given by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.57, + 0.709, + 0.882, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\lambda} = \\left\\| \\hat {\\Sigma} _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\right\\| _ {F} ^ {2} \\tag {4} \\\\ = \\| \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\| _ {F} ^ {2} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.771, + 0.663, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The expected risk is" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.54, + 0.808, + 0.882, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} R (\\lambda) = \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} _ {\\lambda}\\right) \\tag {5} \\\\ = \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\| \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\| _ {F} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The population covariance is unknown and not observable but Ledoit and Wolf (2003b) show that the optimum \\(\\lambda^{*}\\) coefficient is asymptotically con" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9979" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.42, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "stant over \\(N\\) and has the following form:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.117, + 0.487, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\lambda_ {N} ^ {*} = \\frac {1}{N} \\frac {\\pi - \\rho}{\\gamma} \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.153, + 0.487, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\pi_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.198, + 0.487, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\rho_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.244, + 0.487, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\gamma_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\left(T _ {i j} - S _ {i j}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.304, + 0.487, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\text{AsyVar} \\) and \\( \\text{AsyCov} \\) respectively refer to the asymptotic variance and covariance when the number of observations \\( N \\) grows larger." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.355, + 0.489, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Intuitively, \\(\\pi_N\\) measures the degree of variance in the sample covariance matrix, with high values indicating high variance for the sample covariance estimator. A high \\(\\pi_N\\) would therefore result in a higher amount of required shrinkage. \\(\\rho_N\\) measures the level of covariance between the sample covariance matrix and the shrinkage target: a high covariance indicates the chosen target provides limited additional information and therefore the optimum shrinkage amount should be reduced (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). Finally, \\(\\gamma_N\\) measures the distance between the unbiased sample covariance matrix and the target. A higher value indicates a biased shrinkage target, and therefore leads to a lower optimum shrinkage factor." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.615, + 0.414, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Semantic Similarity Shrinkage" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our proposed approach is based on the availability of embeddings (vector representation) for the random variables considered. In the context of financial markets, this translates into the availability of a \\((p,k)\\) embeddings matrix \\(\\mathbf{E}\\) built from \\(k\\)-dimensional semantic vectors for the \\(p\\) financial assets considered for the portfolio optimization. These embeddings may be generated using text description of the assets (e.g., description of the company that issued a stock) and a sentence embeddings model such as (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), KG embeddings, or intermediate representation generated from a downstream task such as a buy/sell classifier (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020). We first propose a semantic shrinkage target built using these embeddings and then derive the optimum shrinkage factor." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.763, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Semantic shrinkage target" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.884, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach for building a shrinkage target from embeddings matrices is as follows. We first normalize the embeddings matrix \\(\\mathbf{E}\\) along the semantic dimension, bounding the dot product between two asset representations in \\([-1;1]\\). We then build a \\((p,p)\\) similarity matrix Sim by taking the product of the embeddings matrix with itself." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.643, + 0.228, + 0.882, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {S i m} = \\mathbf {E E} ^ {T} \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.259, + 0.884, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This results in a matrix where the diagonal entries are 1 while each off-diagonal entry \\((i,j)\\) represents the degree of semantic match between assets \\(i\\) and \\(j\\). Rather than directly considering Sim an approximation of the covariance matrix as in (Li et al., 2022), we instead consider Sim to be an approximation of a correlation matrix (based on its constant 1-valued diagonal and entries bounded in \\([-1;1]\\). We map this semantic correlation to a covariance matrix using the covariance definition and the asset variance estimated from the sample covariance matrix. The correlation between two random variables \\(x\\) and \\(y\\) is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.479, + 0.883, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {c o r r} (x, y) := \\frac {\\operatorname {c o v} (x , y)}{\\sqrt {\\operatorname {v a r} (x) \\operatorname {v a r} (y)}} \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.524, + 0.884, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By analogy, we define the similarity-based covariance as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.551, + 0.562, + 0.882, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {S i m} := \\frac {\\operatorname {S i m C o v}}{\\sqrt {\\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right) ^ {T} \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right)}} \\tag {12}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.624, + 0.882, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {S i m C o v} = \\operatorname {S i m} \\odot \\sqrt {\\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right) ^ {T} \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right)} \\tag {13}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\odot\\) is the Hadamard product and \\(\\mathrm{diag}(S_N)\\) is a \\((1,p)\\) vector made of the diagonal entries of the sample covariance matrix \\(S_N\\). This approach ensures that the scale of the semantic-based shrinkage target is on the same scale of the sample covariance matrix, regardless of the original stock embeddings space. This estimator therefore has \\(p\\) price-dependent parameters to estimate (the variances), similar to the CAPM-based single factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we ensure that the shrinkage target is positive definite, a desirable property that allows the use of the shrunk covariance matrix with convex optimizers. While the covariance matrix SimCov is by construction symmetric, it is not necessarily positive definite. We introduce small perturbations" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9980" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on the eigenvalues following spectral decomposition of SimCov based on (Gill et al., 2019). Let \\(U\\) and \\(\\Delta\\) be the eigenvectors and eigenvalues from the spectral decomposition of SimCov:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.222, + 0.159, + 0.488, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {S i m C o v} = U \\Delta U ^ {T} \\tag {14}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.189, + 0.489, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If \\( \\min(\\Delta) < 0 \\), we shift the eigenvalues so that they are all strictly positive with a margin \\( \\epsilon \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.233, + 0.488, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Delta_ {+} = \\Delta + \\min (a b s (\\Delta)) + \\epsilon \\tag {15}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.261, + 0.49, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then recover the semi-definite similarity-based covariance shrinkage target:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.303, + 0.488, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+} = U \\Delta_ {+} U ^ {T} \\tag {16}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.333, + 0.489, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We do not use this value directly to approximate the covariance matrix; instead we build a linear shrinkage estimator from the convex linear combination of the target and sample covariance matrix as per equation 3:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.423, + 0.488, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\Sigma} _ {S i m} = \\lambda \\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+} + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} \\tag {17}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.453, + 0.367, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Semantic shrinkage factor" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.474, + 0.489, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned in Section 3, the optimum shrinkage factor for the similarity-based covariance estimator can be derived analytically using equations 7 to 9. The following provides consistent estimators when assuming a semantic similarity target. Index \\( t \\) refers to time, while \\( i \\) and \\( j \\) refer to the position of the random variables in the covariance matrix. The derivation is similar to constant correlation shrinkage (using similarity values instead of a constant value) and is provided in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.635, + 0.488, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A consistent estimator of \\(\\pi_N\\) is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.677, + 0.488, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\pi} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\pi_ {\\hat {N}, i j} \\tag {18}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.723, + 0.487, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}) ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {N, i j} ^ {2} \\tag {19} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.806, + 0.489, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with \\(X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \\bar{X}_{N})^{\\odot 2}\\) the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We obtain a consistent estimator \\(\\hat{\\rho}_N\\) based on the constant variance target proposed in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), where the constant correlation value is replaced by entries in the similarity matrix. We use the fact that the similarity matrix is constant" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with respect to the observations and symmetric, a full derivation is available in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.125, + 0.882, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\rho} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i i} + \\\\ \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left(\\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\\right) \\tag {20} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.222, + 0.883, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Where the \\(\\hat{\\vartheta}_{ii,ij}\\) are consistent estimators of \\(A s y C o v(\\sqrt{N} S_{N,ii},\\sqrt{N} S_{N,ij})\\) given by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.263, + 0.883, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {N, i i}\\right) \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}\\right) \\tag {21}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.314, + 0.883, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, a consistent estimator of \\(\\gamma_N\\) is given by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.337, + 0.882, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\gamma_ {N}} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\left(\\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {N, i, j}\\right) ^ {2} (22) \\\\ = \\left\\| \\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {i, j} \\right\\| _ {F} ^ {2} (23) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.41, + 0.882, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This fully specifies the optimal shrinkage factor based on 6." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.453, + 0.655, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.478, + 0.623, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.499, + 0.884, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the performance of the proposed similarity-based covariance matrix shrinkage on the task of portfolio selection. In particular, we consider the universe of historical members for 3 major stock indices: the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500), the NASDAQ-100 and the Nikkei 225 (Nikkei). We choose this data based on the availability of price data and high quality company fundamental data that can be used to generate stock embeddings. We report results for the S&P 500 for conciseness; the full set of results for all 3 indices is available in Appendices C and D." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.701, + 0.753, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1.1 Stock price return data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.719, + 0.884, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We gather price data over a period of 16 years from 2007 to 2023. This extended period includes a variety of market regimes including high volatility events, such as the global financial crisis in 2007-2008, the sovereign debt crisis in 2011, and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. It also includes periods of low volatility such as 2017, when the volatility index (VIX) was at historic lows. We build the dataset as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.871, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. We split the data in rolling windows of 3 months for estimator fitting and 1 month for evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9981" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The stock indices composition evolved over the period considered. Within each window, we keep only index members with price data throughout the entire period." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.159, + 0.49, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. We convert the end-of-day price into daily price returns, removing the effect of the absolute stock price." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.217, + 0.489, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This results in 190 slices, each covering a 4 month span (the first 3 months are used for fitting and the last for evaluation)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.273, + 0.373, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1.2 Semantic representations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.292, + 0.489, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the effectiveness of the proposed approach using three methods for computing stock semantic representations. The set of hyperparameters used for the training of the semantic models is available in Appendix E." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.373, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The first method leverages the text description for the companies that issued stock. We build semantic representation for the companies using a 768 dimensions sentence embeddings transformer model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The experiments were conducted using a DistilBERT model (Sanh et al., 2019) finetuned on the Natural Questions dataset (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). The second method leverages relational facts from knowledge graphs. We use publicly available 512 dimensions RotatE pre-trained embeddings on the Wikidata5m dataset generated using GraphVite (Zhu et al., 2019), referred to as W5m KG. For both methods we match the stock price data to a Wikidata entry using the Wikidata5m dataset (Wang et al., 2021) containing entity names and aliases. We successfully match \\(98.3\\%\\), \\(97.9\\%\\) and \\(99.3\\%\\) of index members for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 and Nikkei 225, respectively. The unmatched entries are excluded from both training and evaluation rolling windows." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.489, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then consider a third model using a subgraph from a large scale, financial knowledge graph in Bloomberg herein referred to as Fin. KG. This includes triples involving the domicile country, industry, sector, board members, supply chain, subsidiaries, fund and index inclusion. We train KG embeddings using RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) with a 128 dimensions embeddings size." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We observe that the representations produced by these methods capture the overall semantics of the company as illustrated in Figure 2. We build the semantic similarity matrices for all semantic models following the method described in 4.1." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.085, + 0.878, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.287, + 0.883, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: 2-D projection of the KG embeddings using t-SNE. Each point corresponds to a historical S&P 500 component colored by BICS industry sectors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.354, + 0.882, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Performance of semantic-based shrinkage targets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.391, + 0.884, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We build the covariance matrix for each evaluation period in 5.1.1 and annualize the results by multiplying the entries by the number of trading days per year (252). For each of the 3-month training periods (first 3 months), we fit the following covariance estimators:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.497, + 0.81, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Sample covariance matrix \\( S_{\\text{Sample}} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.522, + 0.884, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Constant-variance shrunk covariance matrix \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{CVar}\\) using a 1-parameter shrinkage target assuming a constant variance and no covariance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.596, + 0.884, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Constant-correlation shrunk covariance matrix \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{CCor}\\) using a 2-parameters shrinkage target assuming a constant correlation (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.669, + 0.883, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Single-factor shrunk covariance matrix \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{SF}\\) assuming a single factor CAPM model for the stock price returns (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.728, + 0.882, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Scaled Text similarities \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{\\text{Text, scaled}}\\) using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix transformed using 13." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.785, + 0.884, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Scaled KG similarities \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{W5mKG, scaled}\\) and \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Fin. KG, scaled}\\) using the KG similarity matrices transformed using 13." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.845, + 0.883, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Shrunk covariance matrix \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Text}\\), using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.887, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Shrunk covariance matrices \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{W5mKG}\\) and \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Fin.KG}\\) using the KG similarity matrices." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.497, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9982" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.085, + 0.482, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.346, + 0.49, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Off-diagonal entries of shrinkage targets relative to the sample covariance." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.391, + 0.436, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
EstimatorMean ||.||F
Sample covariance0.128
Text Sim.0.066
W5m KG Sim.0.101
Fin. KG Sim.0.114
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.487, + 0.46, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Average off-diagonal Frobenius norm" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.531, + 0.49, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We begin by observing the impact of the shrinkage model assumptions on the resulting target bias. We sample 500 (time, stock pair) observations for all estimators for the S&P 500 and compare their value to the corresponding entry in the sample covariance matrix for the same (time, stock pair) (see Figure 3). Values along the diagonal indicate a shrinkage target with no bias. By construction the constant variance model has a 0 value on the off-diagonal and is therefore the most biased estimator considered. The semantic estimators show a variable level of bias. The average Frobenius norm of the similarity estimators (excluding the diagonal variances) is given in table 1. The norm of the unbiased sample covariance matrix is given for reference. It shows that different semantic models may result in significant differences in similarity values and therefore are prone to bias when estimating the covariance, validating hypothesis 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to evaluate the performance of the shrinkage targets, we compute the optimum shrinkage factor based on 4.2 and shrink the sample covariance matrix for each 3-month fitting period to build an estimator. We evaluate these against the" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.085, + 0.878, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.349, + 0.866, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: PRIAL for the S&P 500 for 2007-2023" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.391, + 0.885, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "following 1-month sample test covariance matrix as an approximation of the population covariance. We evaluate a given estimator \\(\\hat{\\Sigma}\\) using the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss (PRIAL) defined as (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020a):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.483, + 0.884, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP R I A L (\\hat {\\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \\frac {\\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)\\right) - \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} (\\hat {\\Sigma})\\right)}{\\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)\\right)} \\tag {24}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.533, + 0.878, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathcal{L}\\) refers to the MSE loss introduced in equation 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.55, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4 shows the PRIAL for all estimators over the entire period (190 data points) for S&P 500. The constant variance model is the best performing price-based shrinkage target. Using the scaled similarity matrix shows a high level of performance variability and shows the impact of the bias for the text-based embeddings (resulting in a worse estimator than the sample covariance matrix). The higher performance of the scaled KG similarity is highly snapshot-dependent and driven by high volatility events during the period considered (see Appendix B). Our shrunk similarity-based models are outperforming price-based shrinkage methods and their scaled variant. Figure 5 shows the outperformance of shrunk similarity-based methods is consistent across time windows and not driven by isolated high volatility outliers. We perform a statistical test of the null hypothesis (the performance of similarity-based models and constant variance shrinkage method is equal) that is rejected with p-values of \\(1.3 \\times 10^{-12}\\) and \\(2.5 \\times 10^{-10}\\) for the KG-based and text-based similarity targets respectively, validating hypothesis 2." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9983" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.083, + 0.881, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.328, + 0.884, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom). The semantic shrinkage methods error is consistently lower than their scaled variant and estimators using price data only." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.382, + 0.482, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Impact of volatility regimes on shrinkage target performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.421, + 0.49, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further investigate the impact of market regime change. In order to identify the contribution of specific samples to the, we define the Percentage Relative Improvement in Loss (PRIL) based on 24:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.499, + 0.488, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP R I L (\\hat {\\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \\frac {\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right) - \\mathcal {L} (\\hat {\\Sigma})}{\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)} \\tag {25}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.549, + 0.49, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6 focuses on years 2017 to 2023 for the S&P 500 during which several market regimes were observed, including: low volatility (2017 to the end of 2018); two high volatility periods (end of 2018, 2022); and a very high volatility event (first half of 2020). We show PRIL values for both the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models together with the realized annualized log market volatility \\((\\log (\\| S_{Sample}\\|_{F}*\\#_{trading~days}))\\) on the right axis. The outperformance of the similarity-based estimator is higher during periods (or transitions between periods) of high market volatility." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compute the PRIL difference between the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models (shaded area in Figure 6) for all test periods between 2007 and 2023 to validate this effect, and present the results in Figure 7. We note that the degree of outperformance of the similarity-based approach correlates with the level of market volatility. The effect is particularly pronounced for the very high volatility levels, indicating the potential of the approach to mitigate market \"fat" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.381, + 0.88, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.527, + 0.884, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: S&P 500 PRIL for the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrinkage targets. The shaded area shows the difference between the PRIL values. An indicator of market volatility is shown on the right axis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.61, + 0.884, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tail risk\" (short-term move of more than 3 standard deviations). This validates the Hypothesis 3 and shows that the proposed covariance matrix estimators are more robust during transitions between market volatility regimes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.702, + 0.637, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we present a family of covariance shrinkage estimators leveraging semantic similarity between the random variables. We show that semantic similarity cannot be used as a direct estimator of the covariance, but instead as regularization for the sample covariance using linear shrinkage. The shrunk estimators include price-independent semantics and are superior in periods of high volatility, where an accurate estimation of the covariance is typically more critical. This demonstrates the potential of semantic models for covariance matrix estimation and extends beyond" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9984" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.085, + 0.475, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.274, + 0.49, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators: performance benefits increase with the overall market volatility" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.345, + 0.445, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "traditional applications to predicting returns." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.362, + 0.49, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed method is agnostic to the embeddings generation process and can be applied to most existing semantic representation algorithms. This includes semantic representations that capture static (company description) and dynamic (company news, recent price data) components from text, knowledge graphs or multi-modal datasets. By decoupling the semantic model from the portfolio optimization, the proposed method provides a robust and modular mechanism for integrating semantic representations into established portfolio management and investment decision systems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.569, + 0.251, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.597, + 0.49, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While showing encouraging results, the proposed similarity-based targets are built from static semantic information. A potential future work direction could be the extension of these static embeddings with dynamic components, including for example news data or dynamic knowledge graphs. Text embeddings from news data (capturing company recent events) can be combined with the static embeddings (capturing company fundamentals) to compute either a single similarity matrix target for shrinkage, or use techniques such as multiple targets shrinkage. Building semantic representations from news data will involve challenges related to sampling for companies with high news coverage, the lack of news for some companies and the choice of importance given to the static versus dynamic components." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The input to the semantic models (text and KG triples) was gathered as of 2021 and 2022, potentially leading to data leakage for the 2007-2023" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "period backtest. Future work may use historical Wikipedia snapshots to measure the impact of this assumption. However, we estimate this risk to be low given the focus on company fundamentals. The price data frequency is typically much higher than frequency of change of the fundamental data (description or KG triples): the company characteristics (e.g., industry sector) of the large capitalization investigated did not change significantly over the period considered. Furthermore, the analysis does not show a drop in performance before and after the datasets snapshot date. Future work including dynamic semantic components (e.g., news) should however ensure that only news released prior to an experiment time window are used, since news do have a significant impact on short term price data (and correlation) as illustrated by recent work referenced in our work. Similarly, the rolling window evaluation excludes companies that stopped trading during the period considered: this inclusion/exclusion process is a-priori unknown." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.424, + 0.885, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The approach requires both rich semantic representations and an effective way to match the stock price returns to their embeddings. The matching process may be more challenging for international companies or smaller capitalization stocks than for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 or Nikkei 225 components. Finally, while the approach could be extended to any financial asset class including commodities or derivatives, obtaining a valid text description may prove more challenging. Note that the knowledge-graph embeddings do not suffer from this limitation and can generalize to any asset class where structured data is available, and future work may investigate this method potential for multi-asset portfolio (i.e., equities, fixed income and commodities) covariance estimation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9985" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Du and Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii. 2020. Stock embeddings acquired from news articles and price history, and an application to portfolio optimization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3353-3363, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.489, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(61):2121-2159." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.276, + 0.489, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bradley Efron and Carl Morris. 1973. Stein's estimation rule and its competitors—an empirical bayes approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(341):117-130." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.339, + 0.489, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ábel Elekes, Martin Schäler, and Klemens Böhm. 2017. On the various semantics of similarity in word embedding models. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '17, page 139-148. IEEE Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.417, + 0.489, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philip E. Gill, Walter Murray, and Margaret H. Wright. 2019. Practical Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.468, + 0.489, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicolas Honnorat and Mohamad Habes. 2022. Covariance shrinkage can assess and improve functional connectomes. NeuroImage, 256:119229." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.519, + 0.49, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raymond Kan and Guofu Zhou. 2007. Optimal portfolio choice with parameter uncertainty. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3):621-656." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.57, + 0.49, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Naixin Kang, Zheran Shang, and Qinglei Du. 2019. Knowledge-aided structured covariance matrix estimator applied for radar sensor signal detection. Sensors, 19(3)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.634, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003a. Honey, i shrunk the sample covariance matrix. In UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 691." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003b. Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(5):603-621." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivar. Anal., 88(2):365-411." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020a. Analytical nonlinear shrinkage of large-dimensional covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics, 48(5):3043 - 3065." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.883, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020b. The Power of (Non-)Linear Shrinking: A Review and Guide to Covariance Matrix Estimation. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 20(1):187-218." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.212, + 0.883, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shicheng Li, Wei Li, Zhiyuan Zhang, Ruihan Bao, Keiko Harimoto, and Keiko Harimoto. 2022. No stock is an island: Learning internal and relational attributes of stocks with contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Financial Technology and Natural Language Processing (FinNLP), pages 147-153, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.327, + 0.883, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Harry Markowitz. 1952. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77-91." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.363, + 0.883, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.478, + 0.883, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.541, + 0.883, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, and Rajiv Shah. 2021. Exploring the scale-free nature of stock markets: Hyperbolic graph learning for algorithmic trading. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, WWW '21, page 11-22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.63, + 0.883, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charles M. Stein. 1956. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. In Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist. and Prob., 1956: 197-206." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.692, + 0.883, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. CoRR, abs/1902.10197." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.755, + 0.883, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.844, + 0.883, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhaocheng Zhu, Shizhen Xu, Meng Qu, and Jian Tang. 2019. Graphvite: A high-performance cpu-gpu hybrid system for node embedding. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2494-2504. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9986" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.452, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Semantic Target Shrinkage Factor Estimation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.126, + 0.487, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For notation simplicity we omit in the following the \\(N\\) index from the sample covariance matrix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.168, + 0.406, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Derivation of the \\(\\hat{\\pi}_N\\) estimator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.189, + 0.489, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A consistent estimator of \\(\\pi_N\\) is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.228, + 0.488, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\pi} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\pi_ {\\hat {N}, i j} \\tag {26}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.274, + 0.488, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {27}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.325, + 0.487, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\hat{\\pi}_{N,ij}\\) can be rewritten to allow for factorized computation, using the fact that \\(S_{N,ij}\\) is constant with respect to the sum over the samples:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.38, + 0.488, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}) ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\frac {x _ {t i} x _ {t j}}{N} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} S _ {i j} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\tag {28} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with \\(X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \\bar{X}_{N})^{\\odot 2}\\) the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.641, + 0.405, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Derivation of the \\(\\hat{\\rho}_N\\) estimator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We follow the derivation an estimator for \\(8_N\\) assuming a shrinkage target built on a constant correlation matrix provided in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), replacing the constant correlation value \\(\\bar{r}_N\\) by individual semantic similarities matrix entries \\(e_{ij}\\). By definition (see 8):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.766, + 0.488, + 0.914 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\rho_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) (29) \\\\ = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}) \\\\ + \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\operatorname {A s y C o v} \\left(\\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} \\sqrt {S _ {i i} S _ {j j}}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}\\right) (30) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The first term is equal to the diagonal of the \\(\\hat{\\pi}_{N,ij}\\) estimator calculated previously. As per (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), using the delta-method an estimator for \\(AsyCov(\\sqrt{Ne}_{ij}\\sqrt{S_{ii}S_{jj}},\\sqrt{N} S_{ij})\\) is given by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.189, + 0.883, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\frac {1}{2} \\binom {\\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} {+ \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} e _ {j i} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} \\tag {31}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.282, + 0.883, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the \\(e_{ij}\\) are constant with respect to the observations and symmetric \\((e_{ij} = e_{ji})\\), this can be re-written:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.338, + 0.883, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left( \\begin{array}{l} \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\\\ + \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\end{array} \\right) \\tag {32}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.427, + 0.884, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A consistent estimator for \\( \\text{AsyCov}(\\sqrt{N} S_{ii}, \\sqrt{N} S_{ij}) \\) is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.486, + 0.883, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {i i}\\right) \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {33}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.54, + 0.671, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "And by symmetry:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.566, + 0.883, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {j j}\\right) \\left(x _ {t j} x _ {t i} - S _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {34}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.62, + 0.882, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The resulting consistent estimator for \\(\\rho_N\\) is given by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.664, + 0.884, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\rho} _ {N} = \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(\\hat {\\boldsymbol {\\pi}} _ {N}\\right) \\\\ + \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left(\\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\\right) \\tag {35} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9987" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.452, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Comparison of Scaled and Shrunk Estimators for 2018-2023 period" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.128, + 0.49, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This appendix provides additional experimental results for the similarity-based estimators for the 2018 to 2023 period. Figure 9 shows that while the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss is higher for a naive estimator built using the scaled similarity as a covariance estimator, the outperformance is concentrated in a single period of very high volatility. Since the loss is a mean squared error, the large covariance values (and their error) seen during this period dominate the general evaluation period." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.317, + 0.486, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.464, + 0.49, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.523, + 0.486, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.668, + 0.49, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.727, + 0.486, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.914 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It can be seen that the estimator under performs both the constant variance shrunk estimator (Figure 9) and the shrunk covariance using a KG similarity matrix target (Figure 10). A similar effect for the text encoder semantic similarity can be seen in Figure 11 to Figure 13, showing the systematic underperformance of uncalibrated semantic similarity matrices for covariance estimation." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.224, + 0.88, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.37, + 0.883, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.427, + 0.88, + 0.564 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.574, + 0.883, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: Relative performance of the Text similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.632, + 0.88, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.778, + 0.883, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 13: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9988" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.489, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Experimental results for NASDAQ-100" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This appendix provides the experimental results for the NASDAQ-100 components. Figure 14 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The results align with the S&P 500, showing a strong variance in the average performance of scaled semantic estimators (with the text semantic similarity under-performing the sample covariance estimator). This variance is significantly lower for the shrunk estimators (our method)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.285, + 0.485, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.549, + 0.489, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 14: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.582, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The improved consistency of the proposed estimators is highlighted in Figure 15. This shows that even scaled estimators showing a high PRIAL score (such as the scaled KG similarities) do not consistently perform better than other estimators. The PRIAL metric is an average metric and therefore sensitive to outliers. The scaled similarity methods are biased towards lower covariance values (see Table 1) leading to a very significant error reduction during volatility regime transition periods when the sample covariance is a poor estimator of future covariance (such as the low to high volatility transition during the coronavirus pandemic), but worse performance than other estimators overall." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The PRIL (defined in equation 25) allows visualization the contribution of each time window to the PRIAL. Figure 17 confirms the previous observation: the semantic shrinkage estimator outperforms its scaled similarity variant over the entire period, except for the transition into the high volatility events in 2020." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.337, + 0.885, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 15: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the NASDAQ-100 index." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.394, + 0.882, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.538, + 0.885, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 16: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.581, + 0.882, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.723, + 0.885, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 17: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.792, + 0.883, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A similar effect can be seen for the text-based estimators in Figures 18 to 19." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similarly to results presented for the S&P 500 in 7, the degree of improvement from semantic shrinkage estimators for the covariance prediction shows a positive correlation with a measure of overall market volatility, as illustrated in Figure 20." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9989" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.125, + 0.483, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.269, + 0.489, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 18: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.389, + 0.485, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.532, + 0.49, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 19: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.655, + 0.478, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.845, + 0.489, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 20: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators for the NASDAQ-100" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9990" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.461, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Experimental results for Nikkei 225" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This appendix provides experimental results for the Nikkei 225 components. Figure 21 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The PRIAL value for the scaled estimators is, unlike for the other two indices, higher than for their shrunk variant, with all semantic estimators significantly outperforming the estimators based on price only (constant variance, constant correlation and single factor shrinkage)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.269, + 0.485, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.536, + 0.487, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 21: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This result can be explained by the sensitivity of the PRIAL metric to outliers. Figure 22 shows that the improved PRIAL of the scaled estimators over their shrunk variant is not consistent: it can be seen that the scaled similarity estimators only outperform the price-based and the semantic shrinkage estimators 20 to \\(40\\%\\) of the time (middle 3 rows). The semantic shrinkage estimators, on the other hand, tend to be consistently better than the other estimators (bottom 3 rows). This is also illustrated by the PRIL in Figures 24 and 24: the scaled similarity outperforms its shrunk variant only in the 2020 volatility transition period. The errors made by all estimators during this period are significantly higher than average, biasing the average PRIAL metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.824, + 0.49, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Providing a reliable estimate of future covariance is a desirable feature and the proposed shrink semantic similarity estimators show a consistent improvement over their scaled variants." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.111, + 0.883, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.363, + 0.884, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 22: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the Nikkei 225 index." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.468, + 0.88, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.612, + 0.884, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 23: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.703, + 0.881, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.845, + 0.884, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 24: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9991" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.46, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Semantic Models Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.109, + 0.411, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.1 Wikidata5m Knowledge Graph Embeddings" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.156, + 0.465, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE (Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetWikidata5m (Wang et al., 2021)
Dimension512
OptimizerSGD
Learning rate1e-2
Weight decay0
Margin6
Batch size100k
Epochs1000
Sample batch size2000
# Negative/positive64
Adversarial temp.0.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.413, + 0.486, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Wikidata5m KG Embeddings hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.454, + 0.303, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.2 Text Embeddings" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.485, + 0.472, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureDistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019)
DatasetNatural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019)
Dimension768
Hidden dim.3072
# layers6
# heads12
ActivationGeLU
LossMultiple Negatives Ranking
Dropout0.1
Cls. dropout0.2
QA dropout0.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.725, + 0.45, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Text Embeddings hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E.3 Financial Knowledge Graph Embeddings" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.116, + 0.862, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE\n(Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetProprietary
Dimension128
OptimizerAdagrad\n(Duchi et al., 2011)
Learning rate1e-1
Weight decay1e-7
Margin19.9
Batch size1024
Epochs20
Sample batch size512
# Negative/positive2
Adversarial temp.1.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.372, + 0.875, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Financial KG Embeddings hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9992" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_origin.pdf b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7817fdc17d4bc2310e0e2e5b840728b80d22a35e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/61a0db41-237c-4393-b759-b8a6269d1f6e_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ee6f9da027c5e75092be3afca0849bffaffddd79dc636e00f52ddeb02b1c80fe +size 1878624 diff --git a/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/full.md b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..360cb23b446fcb568dbdb9641a20fc26e09ab1e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,496 @@ +# Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage + +Guillaume Becquin + +Bloomberg + +gbecquin1@bloomberg.net + +Saher Esmeir + +Bloomberg + +sesmeir2@bloomberg.net + +# Abstract + +An accurate estimation of the covariance matrix is a critical component of many applications in finance, including portfolio optimization. The sample covariance suffers from the curse of dimensionality when the number of observations is in the same order or lower than the number of variables. This tends to be the case in portfolio optimization, where a portfolio manager can choose between thousands of stocks using historical daily returns to guide their investment decisions. To address this issue, past works proposed linear covariance shrinkage to regularize the estimated matrix. While effective, the proposed methods relied solely on historical price data and thus ignored company fundamental data. In this work, we propose to utilise semantic similarity derived from textual descriptions or knowledge graphs to improve the covariance estimation. Rather than using the semantic similarity directly as a biased estimator to the covariance, we employ it as a shrinkage target. The resulting covariance estimators leverage both semantic similarity and recent price history, and can be readily adapted to a broad range of financial securities. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated for a period including diverse market conditions and compared with the covariance shrinkage prior art. + +# 1 Introduction + +A wide range of domains rely on the analysis of high-dimensional time-series data. For example, this includes medical systems with MRI denoising (Honnorat and Habes, 2022), radar sensors (Kang et al., 2019) post-processing, physics and chemistry, engineering, neuroscience, speech recognition, and quantitative finance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). These applications often require a reliable estimate of the covariance matrix. In the financial domain, the price of a company's stock is influenced, among other factors, by the fundamental characteristics of the company, news articles, and + +![](images/5d9cf7924b98fa763c36170c3bd421e76ad336f7e0381286b8ed5f8c065870ac.jpg) +Figure 1: Instead of using the semantic similarity as a direct approximation to the covariance matrix, we use it to build a target for linear shrinkage. This estimator can then be used for convex portfolio optimization. + +general stock market conditions. Building upon advances in language modeling and graph embeddings, recent work has investigated how to leverage semantic representations to guide investment decisions by estimating expected returns. + +The volatility and the expected return of an asset are both critical ingredients when forming an investment strategy. Risk-return trade-off is a fundamental trading principle describing the typical inverse relationship between a given investment risk and investment return. In the common case of a multi-asset portfolio, an investor with a given risk tolerance seeks to maximise their return within the allowed risk level. In this case, the degree of covariance between asset returns can be utilised to achieve an aggregate portfolio risk that is lower than its components. Modern portfolio theory formalises this trade-off (Markowitz, 1952). The Mean Variance Portfolio aims at maximizing expected returns while minimizing expected variance: + +$$ +\mathbf {w} ^ {*} = \underset {\mathbf {w}} {\operatorname {a r g m a x}} \left(\mathbf {w} \boldsymbol {\mu} - \lambda \mathbf {w} ^ {T} \boldsymbol {\Sigma} \mathbf {w}\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{w}$ denotes the weights of assets in a portfolio, $\mu$ the price returns of these assets, $\Sigma$ the covariance matrix of asset prices and $\lambda$ a parameter to denote the level of risk aversion of the investor. This optimization problem can be solved effectively using convex solvers if the covariance + +matrix is positive definite (and therefore invertible). Nevertheless, the covariance matrix of the assets prices is unknown and must therefore be estimated. Kan and Zhou (2007) show that the estimation error for the covariance matrix has a higher impact than the mean estimation error when the number of assets considered is large compared to the number of observations. + +Existing approaches leveraging semantic stock representations have focused on improving the estimate of the expected returns $\mu$ , using a rough approximation of the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ by directly using the semantic similarity matrix as an estimator for portfolio optimization (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020; Li et al., 2022). However, these similarity matrix estimators may not be morphologically similar to a covariance matrix and are prone to bias. Indeed, while semantic models are effective at ranking similarities, their absolute similarity value is typically uncalibrated and depend on the fraction of the hypersphere occupied by the embeddings. Furthermore, their expected cosine similarity value depends on the dimension of the embeddings (Elekes et al., 2017). Since the true covariance matrix is obviously independent of the chosen embedding dimension, this would imply that a single embedding dimension is valid for building a semantic estimator, which is unacceptable. Finally, they give no guarantee of being positive semi-definite and ignore recent stock price observations. + +An alternative estimator for the covariance matrix is the sample covariance matrix. While unbiased, the sample covariance matrix is singular when the number of observations $N$ is lower than the number of random variables $p$ (preventing the use of convex solvers for equation 1) or ill-defined when $N \gg p$ , making the portfolio optimization task inaccurate (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). Covariance shrinkage refers to a family of regularization methods aiming at combining the maximum likelihood sample covariance matrix with a structured, lower-dimensionality, regularizing model (shrinkage target). The regularizing targets are built on a set of assumptions (e.g., constant variance and O-covariance between variables) whose degree of validity varies between asset classes and market regimes. Furthermore, the shrinkage estimators can be interpreted as empirical Bayes estimators where the prior is data-dependent, and computed from the same data as the sample covariance matrix (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). + +In this work, we highlight the limitations of using semantic similarity as a direct estimation of the covariance matrix. We address these limitations by extending the established framework of linear shrinkage to semantic similarity matrices as seen in Figure 1. The semantic representations can be derived from both structured data stored in a curated knowledge base or unstructured data in the form of natural language text. We share a Python implementation1 of our method, allowing its integration as a simple post-processing step when building covariance matrix estimators from semantic similarity matrices. We aim at validating the following: + +- Hypothesis 1: Semantic similarity depends on the embedding dimension and therefore cannot be used directly as a covariance matrix estimator. +- Hypothesis 2: Semantic similarity can be used as an effective regularization target for covariance matrix estimation. +- Hypothesis 3: The proposed shrinkage target includes fundamental information about the random variables and is therefore less sensitive to sudden changes in volatility regime. + +# 2 Related Work + +Portfolio optimization using semantic representations: Du and Tanaka-Ishii (2020) investigate the potential of using news data to train a classifier to make buy and sell decisions over time. They take the cosine similarity matrix of intermediate stock representations as a direct estimator for the covariance matrix to perform portfolio optimization. Similarly, Li et al. (2022) use normalized stock embeddings trained on fundamental and price data to build a similarity matrix and use it as an estimate of the covariance matrix for mean-variance portfolio optimization. Both approaches suffer from the assumption that the similarity matrix is an unbiased estimator of the covariance. Our work instead uses semantic similarity as a shrinkage target to the sample covariance matrix resulting in estimators that are asymptotically unbiased. Sawhney et al. (2021) leverage a knowledge graph (KG) to model the correlation between stocks through temporal hyperbolic graph learning on Riemannian manifolds. They train a model to directly output a ranked list + +of trade candidates, and therefore do not rely on the Modern Portfolio Theory mean-variance optimization problem. Our approach instead leverages established portfolio optimization routines allowing better interpretability and modularity (decoupling the semantic representations generation from the investment strategy). + +Covariance shrinkage: Linear shrinkage methods, taking a convex linear combination between the sample covariance matrix and a regularization target were originally proposed by Stein (1956) for the estimation of high dimensional multivariate mean, choosing the 0-vector as a shrinkage target. Efron and Morris (1973) built upon this approach by choosing a 1-parameter structured target built as the identity vector multiplied by the sample mean. This work was extended to a robust estimation of the covariance matrix in a high dimensional space by Ledoit and Wolf (2004), proposing a single-parameter shrinkage target built as the scalar product of the identity matrix and the average sample variance. Their choice of shrinkage target made the strong assumption that the stock price returns had a constant, common variance and no covariance. Ledoit and Wolf (2003a) instead assumed a constant and positive correlation between stock price returns, resulting in a 2-parameters shrinkage target. The single-factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b) assumes the asset prices can be approximated using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and linearly depend on the average market returns with sensitivity $\beta_{i}$ and an offset $\alpha_{i}$ capturing the stock idiosyncratic returns. The resulting shrinkage target contains $p$ parameters to estimate, higher than the previous two models, but typically significantly lower than the $p(p - 1)/2$ parameters of the full (symmetric) covariance matrix. These regularization targets are estimated using the same data used to compute the sample covariance matrix and are therefore prone to estimation error if the number of samples is low relative to their number of parameters. Our approach instead utilises similarity-based targets that are not derived from recent observations but rather trained on large scale semantic datasets. These therefore do not suffer from this parametrization trade-off and are less sensitive to market regime changes. + +# 3 Preliminaries + +In this section, we formally describe the framework of linear shrinkage and derive the optimum shrink + +age (regularization) factor coefficient. Let $X_N$ be a de-meaned price returns matrix of $N$ observations for $p$ assets (we omit the $p$ for notation simplicity). The sample covariance matrix is a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the covariance and is defined as: + +$$ +S _ {N} = \frac {1}{N} X _ {N} ^ {T} X _ {N} \tag {2} +$$ + +The sample covariance matrix is symmetric and has $\frac{p(p - 1)}{2}$ parameters to estimate. When the number of observations $N$ is lower than the number of features $p$ , this matrix is non-invertible. Furthermore, unless $p \ll N$ , it is numerically ill-conditioned and the instabilities in the estimate lead to the underestimation of the smallest eigenvalues and overestimation of the largest ones (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). An alternative is to replace this MLE by a lower capacity model making a series of assumptions on the random variables observed (for example constant variance, no correlation or a factor model as introduced previously). This option is also unsatisfactory as it would suffer from a high bias because of the strong modeling assumptions implied. The approach of linear shrinkage is to build a new estimator from a convex linear combination of (1) the high variance, low bias of the sample covariance matrix; and (2) the low variance, high bias of the shrinkage target (lower capacity model) $T$ : + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\Sigma} _ {N} = \lambda T + (1 - \lambda) S _ {N} \tag {3} \\ \lambda \in [ 0, 1 ] \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The objective is to minimize the mean square error between this estimator and the population covariance $\Sigma^{*}$ . The loss function is therefore given by + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \mathcal {L} _ {\lambda} = \left\| \hat {\Sigma} _ {N} - \Sigma^ {*} \right\| _ {F} ^ {2} \tag {4} \\ = \| \lambda T + (1 - \lambda) S _ {N} - \Sigma^ {*} \| _ {F} ^ {2} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The expected risk is + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} R (\lambda) = \mathbb {E} \left(\mathcal {L} _ {\lambda}\right) \tag {5} \\ = \mathbb {E} \left(\| \lambda T + (1 - \lambda) S _ {N} - \Sigma^ {*} \| _ {F} ^ {2}\right) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The population covariance is unknown and not observable but Ledoit and Wolf (2003b) show that the optimum $\lambda^{*}$ coefficient is asymptotically con + +stant over $N$ and has the following form: + +$$ +\lambda_ {N} ^ {*} = \frac {1}{N} \frac {\pi - \rho}{\gamma} \tag {6} +$$ + +$$ +\pi_ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \tag {7} +$$ + +$$ +\rho_ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +\gamma_ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \left(T _ {i j} - S _ {i j}\right) ^ {2} \tag {9} +$$ + +where $\text{AsyVar}$ and $\text{AsyCov}$ respectively refer to the asymptotic variance and covariance when the number of observations $N$ grows larger. + +Intuitively, $\pi_N$ measures the degree of variance in the sample covariance matrix, with high values indicating high variance for the sample covariance estimator. A high $\pi_N$ would therefore result in a higher amount of required shrinkage. $\rho_N$ measures the level of covariance between the sample covariance matrix and the shrinkage target: a high covariance indicates the chosen target provides limited additional information and therefore the optimum shrinkage amount should be reduced (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). Finally, $\gamma_N$ measures the distance between the unbiased sample covariance matrix and the target. A higher value indicates a biased shrinkage target, and therefore leads to a lower optimum shrinkage factor. + +# 4 Semantic Similarity Shrinkage + +Our proposed approach is based on the availability of embeddings (vector representation) for the random variables considered. In the context of financial markets, this translates into the availability of a $(p,k)$ embeddings matrix $\mathbf{E}$ built from $k$ -dimensional semantic vectors for the $p$ financial assets considered for the portfolio optimization. These embeddings may be generated using text description of the assets (e.g., description of the company that issued a stock) and a sentence embeddings model such as (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), KG embeddings, or intermediate representation generated from a downstream task such as a buy/sell classifier (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020). We first propose a semantic shrinkage target built using these embeddings and then derive the optimum shrinkage factor. + +# 4.1 Semantic shrinkage target + +Our approach for building a shrinkage target from embeddings matrices is as follows. We first normalize the embeddings matrix $\mathbf{E}$ along the semantic dimension, bounding the dot product between two asset representations in $[-1;1]$ . We then build a $(p,p)$ similarity matrix Sim by taking the product of the embeddings matrix with itself. + +$$ +\mathbf {S i m} = \mathbf {E E} ^ {T} \tag {10} +$$ + +This results in a matrix where the diagonal entries are 1 while each off-diagonal entry $(i,j)$ represents the degree of semantic match between assets $i$ and $j$ . Rather than directly considering Sim an approximation of the covariance matrix as in (Li et al., 2022), we instead consider Sim to be an approximation of a correlation matrix (based on its constant 1-valued diagonal and entries bounded in $[-1;1]$ . We map this semantic correlation to a covariance matrix using the covariance definition and the asset variance estimated from the sample covariance matrix. The correlation between two random variables $x$ and $y$ is defined as: + +$$ +\operatorname {c o r r} (x, y) := \frac {\operatorname {c o v} (x , y)}{\sqrt {\operatorname {v a r} (x) \operatorname {v a r} (y)}} \tag {11} +$$ + +By analogy, we define the similarity-based covariance as: + +$$ +\operatorname {S i m} := \frac {\operatorname {S i m C o v}}{\sqrt {\operatorname {d i a g} \left(S _ {N}\right) ^ {T} \operatorname {d i a g} \left(S _ {N}\right)}} \tag {12} +$$ + +$$ +\operatorname {S i m C o v} = \operatorname {S i m} \odot \sqrt {\operatorname {d i a g} \left(S _ {N}\right) ^ {T} \operatorname {d i a g} \left(S _ {N}\right)} \tag {13} +$$ + +where $\odot$ is the Hadamard product and $\mathrm{diag}(S_N)$ is a $(1,p)$ vector made of the diagonal entries of the sample covariance matrix $S_N$ . This approach ensures that the scale of the semantic-based shrinkage target is on the same scale of the sample covariance matrix, regardless of the original stock embeddings space. This estimator therefore has $p$ price-dependent parameters to estimate (the variances), similar to the CAPM-based single factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b). + +Finally, we ensure that the shrinkage target is positive definite, a desirable property that allows the use of the shrunk covariance matrix with convex optimizers. While the covariance matrix SimCov is by construction symmetric, it is not necessarily positive definite. We introduce small perturbations + +on the eigenvalues following spectral decomposition of SimCov based on (Gill et al., 2019). Let $U$ and $\Delta$ be the eigenvectors and eigenvalues from the spectral decomposition of SimCov: + +$$ +\operatorname {S i m C o v} = U \Delta U ^ {T} \tag {14} +$$ + +If $\min(\Delta) < 0$ , we shift the eigenvalues so that they are all strictly positive with a margin $\epsilon$ : + +$$ +\Delta_ {+} = \Delta + \min (a b s (\Delta)) + \epsilon \tag {15} +$$ + +We then recover the semi-definite similarity-based covariance shrinkage target: + +$$ +\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+} = U \Delta_ {+} U ^ {T} \tag {16} +$$ + +We do not use this value directly to approximate the covariance matrix; instead we build a linear shrinkage estimator from the convex linear combination of the target and sample covariance matrix as per equation 3: + +$$ +\hat {\Sigma} _ {S i m} = \lambda \mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+} + (1 - \lambda) S _ {N} \tag {17} +$$ + +# 4.2 Semantic shrinkage factor + +As mentioned in Section 3, the optimum shrinkage factor for the similarity-based covariance estimator can be derived analytically using equations 7 to 9. The following provides consistent estimators when assuming a semantic similarity target. Index $t$ refers to time, while $i$ and $j$ refer to the position of the random variables in the covariance matrix. The derivation is similar to constant correlation shrinkage (using similarity values instead of a constant value) and is provided in Appendix A. + +A consistent estimator of $\pi_N$ is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b): + +$$ +\hat {\pi} _ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \pi_ {\hat {N}, i j} \tag {18} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\pi} _ {N, i j} = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}) ^ {2} \\ = \frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {N, i j} ^ {2} \tag {19} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +with $X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \bar{X}_{N})^{\odot 2}$ the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns. + +We obtain a consistent estimator $\hat{\rho}_N$ based on the constant variance target proposed in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), where the constant correlation value is replaced by entries in the similarity matrix. We use the fact that the similarity matrix is constant + +with respect to the observations and symmetric, a full derivation is available in Appendix A. + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\rho} _ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \hat {\pi} _ {N, i i} + \\ \sum_ {i \neq j} ^ {p} \frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \left(\sqrt {\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \hat {\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \sqrt {\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \hat {\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\right) \tag {20} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Where the $\hat{\vartheta}_{ii,ij}$ are consistent estimators of $A s y C o v(\sqrt{N} S_{N,ii},\sqrt{N} S_{N,ij})$ given by: + +$$ +\hat {\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {N, i i}\right) \left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}\right) \tag {21} +$$ + +Finally, a consistent estimator of $\gamma_N$ is given by: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\gamma_ {N}} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \left(\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {N, i, j}\right) ^ {2} (22) \\ = \left\| \operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {i, j} \right\| _ {F} ^ {2} (23) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +This fully specifies the optimal shrinkage factor based on 6. + +# 5 Experiments + +# 5.1 Datasets + +We evaluate the performance of the proposed similarity-based covariance matrix shrinkage on the task of portfolio selection. In particular, we consider the universe of historical members for 3 major stock indices: the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500), the NASDAQ-100 and the Nikkei 225 (Nikkei). We choose this data based on the availability of price data and high quality company fundamental data that can be used to generate stock embeddings. We report results for the S&P 500 for conciseness; the full set of results for all 3 indices is available in Appendices C and D. + +# 5.1.1 Stock price return data + +We gather price data over a period of 16 years from 2007 to 2023. This extended period includes a variety of market regimes including high volatility events, such as the global financial crisis in 2007-2008, the sovereign debt crisis in 2011, and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. It also includes periods of low volatility such as 2017, when the volatility index (VIX) was at historic lows. We build the dataset as follows: + +1. We split the data in rolling windows of 3 months for estimator fitting and 1 month for evaluation. + +2. The stock indices composition evolved over the period considered. Within each window, we keep only index members with price data throughout the entire period. +3. We convert the end-of-day price into daily price returns, removing the effect of the absolute stock price. + +This results in 190 slices, each covering a 4 month span (the first 3 months are used for fitting and the last for evaluation). + +# 5.1.2 Semantic representations + +We compare the effectiveness of the proposed approach using three methods for computing stock semantic representations. The set of hyperparameters used for the training of the semantic models is available in Appendix E. + +The first method leverages the text description for the companies that issued stock. We build semantic representation for the companies using a 768 dimensions sentence embeddings transformer model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The experiments were conducted using a DistilBERT model (Sanh et al., 2019) finetuned on the Natural Questions dataset (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). The second method leverages relational facts from knowledge graphs. We use publicly available 512 dimensions RotatE pre-trained embeddings on the Wikidata5m dataset generated using GraphVite (Zhu et al., 2019), referred to as W5m KG. For both methods we match the stock price data to a Wikidata entry using the Wikidata5m dataset (Wang et al., 2021) containing entity names and aliases. We successfully match $98.3\%$ , $97.9\%$ and $99.3\%$ of index members for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 and Nikkei 225, respectively. The unmatched entries are excluded from both training and evaluation rolling windows. + +We then consider a third model using a subgraph from a large scale, financial knowledge graph in Bloomberg herein referred to as Fin. KG. This includes triples involving the domicile country, industry, sector, board members, supply chain, subsidiaries, fund and index inclusion. We train KG embeddings using RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) with a 128 dimensions embeddings size. + +We observe that the representations produced by these methods capture the overall semantics of the company as illustrated in Figure 2. We build the semantic similarity matrices for all semantic models following the method described in 4.1. + +![](images/a63c70389559dee2f2c5f22a73ca914fc04c177089877c6b578ab824c164c202.jpg) +Figure 2: 2-D projection of the KG embeddings using t-SNE. Each point corresponds to a historical S&P 500 component colored by BICS industry sectors. + +# 5.2 Performance of semantic-based shrinkage targets + +We build the covariance matrix for each evaluation period in 5.1.1 and annualize the results by multiplying the entries by the number of trading days per year (252). For each of the 3-month training periods (first 3 months), we fit the following covariance estimators: + +- Sample covariance matrix $S_{\text{Sample}}$ . +- Constant-variance shrunk covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{CVar}$ using a 1-parameter shrinkage target assuming a constant variance and no covariance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). +- Constant-correlation shrunk covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{CCor}$ using a 2-parameters shrinkage target assuming a constant correlation (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a). +- Single-factor shrunk covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{SF}$ assuming a single factor CAPM model for the stock price returns (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b). +- Scaled Text similarities $\hat{\Sigma}_{\text{Text, scaled}}$ using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix transformed using 13. +- Scaled KG similarities $\hat{\Sigma}_{W5mKG, scaled}$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_{Fin. KG, scaled}$ using the KG similarity matrices transformed using 13. +- Shrunk covariance matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_{Text}$ , using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix. +- Shrunk covariance matrices $\hat{\Sigma}_{W5mKG}$ and $\hat{\Sigma}_{Fin.KG}$ using the KG similarity matrices. + +![](images/7b6d26e69edd284af9500582e0f1e2d53163f95afd44f4fbc822ea0dd94d0359.jpg) +Figure 3: Off-diagonal entries of shrinkage targets relative to the sample covariance. + +
EstimatorMean ||.||F
Sample covariance0.128
Text Sim.0.066
W5m KG Sim.0.101
Fin. KG Sim.0.114
+ +Table 1: Average off-diagonal Frobenius norm + +We begin by observing the impact of the shrinkage model assumptions on the resulting target bias. We sample 500 (time, stock pair) observations for all estimators for the S&P 500 and compare their value to the corresponding entry in the sample covariance matrix for the same (time, stock pair) (see Figure 3). Values along the diagonal indicate a shrinkage target with no bias. By construction the constant variance model has a 0 value on the off-diagonal and is therefore the most biased estimator considered. The semantic estimators show a variable level of bias. The average Frobenius norm of the similarity estimators (excluding the diagonal variances) is given in table 1. The norm of the unbiased sample covariance matrix is given for reference. It shows that different semantic models may result in significant differences in similarity values and therefore are prone to bias when estimating the covariance, validating hypothesis 1. + +In order to evaluate the performance of the shrinkage targets, we compute the optimum shrinkage factor based on 4.2 and shrink the sample covariance matrix for each 3-month fitting period to build an estimator. We evaluate these against the + +![](images/b6b9d155d2121b1624727e52187620d42e624e21007b17a538002f22da78fbdd.jpg) +Figure 4: PRIAL for the S&P 500 for 2007-2023 + +following 1-month sample test covariance matrix as an approximation of the population covariance. We evaluate a given estimator $\hat{\Sigma}$ using the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss (PRIAL) defined as (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020a): + +$$ +P R I A L (\hat {\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \frac {\mathbb {E} \left(\mathcal {L} \left(S _ {\text {S a m p l e}}\right)\right) - \mathbb {E} \left(\mathcal {L} (\hat {\Sigma})\right)}{\mathbb {E} \left(\mathcal {L} \left(S _ {\text {S a m p l e}}\right)\right)} \tag {24} +$$ + +$\mathcal{L}$ refers to the MSE loss introduced in equation 4. + +Figure 4 shows the PRIAL for all estimators over the entire period (190 data points) for S&P 500. The constant variance model is the best performing price-based shrinkage target. Using the scaled similarity matrix shows a high level of performance variability and shows the impact of the bias for the text-based embeddings (resulting in a worse estimator than the sample covariance matrix). The higher performance of the scaled KG similarity is highly snapshot-dependent and driven by high volatility events during the period considered (see Appendix B). Our shrunk similarity-based models are outperforming price-based shrinkage methods and their scaled variant. Figure 5 shows the outperformance of shrunk similarity-based methods is consistent across time windows and not driven by isolated high volatility outliers. We perform a statistical test of the null hypothesis (the performance of similarity-based models and constant variance shrinkage method is equal) that is rejected with p-values of $1.3 \times 10^{-12}$ and $2.5 \times 10^{-10}$ for the KG-based and text-based similarity targets respectively, validating hypothesis 2. + +![](images/76025b5d2fc69c67dd4707d38944df0540d02b5f007595157f4db773d7709299.jpg) +Figure 5: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom). The semantic shrinkage methods error is consistently lower than their scaled variant and estimators using price data only. + +# 5.3 Impact of volatility regimes on shrinkage target performance + +We further investigate the impact of market regime change. In order to identify the contribution of specific samples to the, we define the Percentage Relative Improvement in Loss (PRIL) based on 24: + +$$ +P R I L (\hat {\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \frac {\mathcal {L} \left(S _ {\text {S a m p l e}}\right) - \mathcal {L} (\hat {\Sigma})}{\mathcal {L} \left(S _ {\text {S a m p l e}}\right)} \tag {25} +$$ + +Figure 6 focuses on years 2017 to 2023 for the S&P 500 during which several market regimes were observed, including: low volatility (2017 to the end of 2018); two high volatility periods (end of 2018, 2022); and a very high volatility event (first half of 2020). We show PRIL values for both the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models together with the realized annualized log market volatility $(\log (\| S_{Sample}\|_{F}*\#_{trading~days}))$ on the right axis. The outperformance of the similarity-based estimator is higher during periods (or transitions between periods) of high market volatility. + +We compute the PRIL difference between the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models (shaded area in Figure 6) for all test periods between 2007 and 2023 to validate this effect, and present the results in Figure 7. We note that the degree of outperformance of the similarity-based approach correlates with the level of market volatility. The effect is particularly pronounced for the very high volatility levels, indicating the potential of the approach to mitigate market "fat + +![](images/109d775e4331f11d05a832a1f52f6d8603cfe596f1d07ef151473dd11ba35d21.jpg) +Figure 6: S&P 500 PRIL for the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrinkage targets. The shaded area shows the difference between the PRIL values. An indicator of market volatility is shown on the right axis. + +tail risk" (short-term move of more than 3 standard deviations). This validates the Hypothesis 3 and shows that the proposed covariance matrix estimators are more robust during transitions between market volatility regimes. + +# 6 Discussion + +In this work, we present a family of covariance shrinkage estimators leveraging semantic similarity between the random variables. We show that semantic similarity cannot be used as a direct estimator of the covariance, but instead as regularization for the sample covariance using linear shrinkage. The shrunk estimators include price-independent semantics and are superior in periods of high volatility, where an accurate estimation of the covariance is typically more critical. This demonstrates the potential of semantic models for covariance matrix estimation and extends beyond + +![](images/c9d808bc7afa6a702d1af310391b5d8b9a6b21a4c80bb634b79cad32bce7114c.jpg) +Figure 7: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators: performance benefits increase with the overall market volatility + +traditional applications to predicting returns. + +The proposed method is agnostic to the embeddings generation process and can be applied to most existing semantic representation algorithms. This includes semantic representations that capture static (company description) and dynamic (company news, recent price data) components from text, knowledge graphs or multi-modal datasets. By decoupling the semantic model from the portfolio optimization, the proposed method provides a robust and modular mechanism for integrating semantic representations into established portfolio management and investment decision systems. + +# 7 Limitations + +While showing encouraging results, the proposed similarity-based targets are built from static semantic information. A potential future work direction could be the extension of these static embeddings with dynamic components, including for example news data or dynamic knowledge graphs. Text embeddings from news data (capturing company recent events) can be combined with the static embeddings (capturing company fundamentals) to compute either a single similarity matrix target for shrinkage, or use techniques such as multiple targets shrinkage. Building semantic representations from news data will involve challenges related to sampling for companies with high news coverage, the lack of news for some companies and the choice of importance given to the static versus dynamic components. + +The input to the semantic models (text and KG triples) was gathered as of 2021 and 2022, potentially leading to data leakage for the 2007-2023 + +period backtest. Future work may use historical Wikipedia snapshots to measure the impact of this assumption. However, we estimate this risk to be low given the focus on company fundamentals. The price data frequency is typically much higher than frequency of change of the fundamental data (description or KG triples): the company characteristics (e.g., industry sector) of the large capitalization investigated did not change significantly over the period considered. Furthermore, the analysis does not show a drop in performance before and after the datasets snapshot date. Future work including dynamic semantic components (e.g., news) should however ensure that only news released prior to an experiment time window are used, since news do have a significant impact on short term price data (and correlation) as illustrated by recent work referenced in our work. Similarly, the rolling window evaluation excludes companies that stopped trading during the period considered: this inclusion/exclusion process is a-priori unknown. + +The approach requires both rich semantic representations and an effective way to match the stock price returns to their embeddings. The matching process may be more challenging for international companies or smaller capitalization stocks than for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 or Nikkei 225 components. Finally, while the approach could be extended to any financial asset class including commodities or derivatives, obtaining a valid text description may prove more challenging. Note that the knowledge-graph embeddings do not suffer from this limitation and can generalize to any asset class where structured data is available, and future work may investigate this method potential for multi-asset portfolio (i.e., equities, fixed income and commodities) covariance estimation. + +# References + +Xin Du and Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii. 2020. Stock embeddings acquired from news articles and price history, and an application to portfolio optimization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3353-3363, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(61):2121-2159. +Bradley Efron and Carl Morris. 1973. Stein's estimation rule and its competitors—an empirical bayes approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(341):117-130. +Ábel Elekes, Martin Schäler, and Klemens Böhm. 2017. On the various semantics of similarity in word embedding models. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '17, page 139-148. IEEE Press. +Philip E. Gill, Walter Murray, and Margaret H. Wright. 2019. Practical Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. +Nicolas Honnorat and Mohamad Habes. 2022. Covariance shrinkage can assess and improve functional connectomes. NeuroImage, 256:119229. +Raymond Kan and Guofu Zhou. 2007. Optimal portfolio choice with parameter uncertainty. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3):621-656. +Naixin Kang, Zheran Shang, and Qinglei Du. 2019. Knowledge-aided structured covariance matrix estimator applied for radar sensor signal detection. Sensors, 19(3). +Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics. +Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003a. Honey, i shrunk the sample covariance matrix. In UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 691. +Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003b. Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(5):603-621. +Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivar. Anal., 88(2):365-411. + +Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020a. Analytical nonlinear shrinkage of large-dimensional covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics, 48(5):3043 - 3065. +Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020b. The Power of (Non-)Linear Shrinking: A Review and Guide to Covariance Matrix Estimation. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 20(1):187-218. +Shicheng Li, Wei Li, Zhiyuan Zhang, Ruihan Bao, Keiko Harimoto, and Keiko Harimoto. 2022. No stock is an island: Learning internal and relational attributes of stocks with contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Financial Technology and Natural Language Processing (FinNLP), pages 147-153, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. +Harry Markowitz. 1952. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77-91. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108. +Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, and Rajiv Shah. 2021. Exploring the scale-free nature of stock markets: Hyperbolic graph learning for algorithmic trading. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, WWW '21, page 11-22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Charles M. Stein. 1956. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. In Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist. and Prob., 1956: 197-206. +Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. CoRR, abs/1902.10197. +Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194. +Zhaocheng Zhu, Shizhen Xu, Meng Qu, and Jian Tang. 2019. Graphvite: A high-performance cpu-gpu hybrid system for node embedding. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2494-2504. ACM. + +# A Semantic Target Shrinkage Factor Estimation + +For notation simplicity we omit in the following the $N$ index from the sample covariance matrix. + +# A.1 Derivation of the $\hat{\pi}_N$ estimator + +A consistent estimator of $\pi_N$ is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b): + +$$ +\hat {\pi} _ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \pi_ {\hat {N}, i j} \tag {26} +$$ + +$$ +\hat {\pi} _ {N, i j} = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\right) ^ {2} \tag {27} +$$ + +$\hat{\pi}_{N,ij}$ can be rewritten to allow for factorized computation, using the fact that $S_{N,ij}$ is constant with respect to the sum over the samples: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\pi} _ {N, i j} = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}) ^ {2} \\ = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \frac {x _ {t i} x _ {t j}}{N} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\ = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} S _ {i j} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\ = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\ = \frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \tag {28} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +with $X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \bar{X}_{N})^{\odot 2}$ the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns. + +# A.2 Derivation of the $\hat{\rho}_N$ estimator + +We follow the derivation an estimator for $8_N$ assuming a shrinkage target built on a constant correlation matrix provided in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), replacing the constant correlation value $\bar{r}_N$ by individual semantic similarities matrix entries $e_{ij}$ . By definition (see 8): + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \rho_ {N} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) (29) \\ = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}) \\ + \sum_ {i \neq j} ^ {p} \operatorname {A s y C o v} \left(\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} \sqrt {S _ {i i} S _ {j j}}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j}\right) (30) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The first term is equal to the diagonal of the $\hat{\pi}_{N,ij}$ estimator calculated previously. As per (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), using the delta-method an estimator for $AsyCov(\sqrt{Ne}_{ij}\sqrt{S_{ii}S_{jj}},\sqrt{N} S_{ij})$ is given by: + +$$ +\frac {1}{2} \binom {\sqrt {\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} S _ {i i}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} {+ \sqrt {\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\sqrt {N} e _ {j i} S _ {i i}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} \tag {31} +$$ + +Since the $e_{ij}$ are constant with respect to the observations and symmetric $(e_{ij} = e_{ji})$ , this can be re-written: + +$$ +\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \left( \begin{array}{l} \sqrt {\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\ + \sqrt {\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \end{array} \right) \tag {32} +$$ + +A consistent estimator for $\text{AsyCov}(\sqrt{N} S_{ii}, \sqrt{N} S_{ij})$ is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a): + +$$ +\hat {\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {i i}\right) \left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\right) \tag {33} +$$ + +And by symmetry: + +$$ +\hat {\vartheta} _ {j j, i j} = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \left(x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {j j}\right) \left(x _ {t j} x _ {t i} - S _ {i j}\right) \tag {34} +$$ + +The resulting consistent estimator for $\rho_N$ is given by: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \hat {\rho} _ {N} = \operatorname {d i a g} \left(\hat {\boldsymbol {\pi}} _ {N}\right) \\ + \sum_ {i \neq j} ^ {p} \frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \left(\sqrt {\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \hat {\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \sqrt {\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \hat {\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\right) \tag {35} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +# B Comparison of Scaled and Shrunk Estimators for 2018-2023 period + +This appendix provides additional experimental results for the similarity-based estimators for the 2018 to 2023 period. Figure 9 shows that while the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss is higher for a naive estimator built using the scaled similarity as a covariance estimator, the outperformance is concentrated in a single period of very high volatility. Since the loss is a mean squared error, the large covariance values (and their error) seen during this period dominate the general evaluation period. + +![](images/9ae15b9bf256e65a1cc255595ea790f3a003cd21ec845572b31da3dc1e2aa7ff.jpg) +Figure 8: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/8fa39e21df544b3c3e09b00dfa4001a00f0a58d761184ecc29101b379b3c5a67.jpg) +Figure 9: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/435f064b577c9ebf02886e0a7306c62fc6ef5e1cdc32be459560af10e2483bf2.jpg) +Figure 10: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator + +It can be seen that the estimator under performs both the constant variance shrunk estimator (Figure 9) and the shrunk covariance using a KG similarity matrix target (Figure 10). A similar effect for the text encoder semantic similarity can be seen in Figure 11 to Figure 13, showing the systematic underperformance of uncalibrated semantic similarity matrices for covariance estimation. + +![](images/f59169b7448d6604a2c258e54854df1a2a868ed089dc6cd08a6e035dbb151664.jpg) +Figure 11: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/2bf3134ee07947bed527675cdeeeb510360f8ef0375417e52f553d31d3930f32.jpg) +Figure 12: Relative performance of the Text similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/fb59da4b397f6443a4e648d7ae468409e0803642cb0729515ad0987bbea68410.jpg) +Figure 13: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator + +# C Experimental results for NASDAQ-100 + +This appendix provides the experimental results for the NASDAQ-100 components. Figure 14 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The results align with the S&P 500, showing a strong variance in the average performance of scaled semantic estimators (with the text semantic similarity under-performing the sample covariance estimator). This variance is significantly lower for the shrunk estimators (our method). + +![](images/88bd8b00c2a95fff1f3ed1ec479a91985d9a5805d128b179cb19f7dadf158764.jpg) +Figure 14: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023 + +The improved consistency of the proposed estimators is highlighted in Figure 15. This shows that even scaled estimators showing a high PRIAL score (such as the scaled KG similarities) do not consistently perform better than other estimators. The PRIAL metric is an average metric and therefore sensitive to outliers. The scaled similarity methods are biased towards lower covariance values (see Table 1) leading to a very significant error reduction during volatility regime transition periods when the sample covariance is a poor estimator of future covariance (such as the low to high volatility transition during the coronavirus pandemic), but worse performance than other estimators overall. + +The PRIL (defined in equation 25) allows visualization the contribution of each time window to the PRIAL. Figure 17 confirms the previous observation: the semantic shrinkage estimator outperforms its scaled similarity variant over the entire period, except for the transition into the high volatility events in 2020. + +![](images/a80676d8a48abc40fdafb8a48b61354ecde91cf685d4dfa125aa6392baee43cf.jpg) +Figure 15: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the NASDAQ-100 index. + +![](images/12f902a03f2a1509975630b957ffd085a316bf53eaa97fc5a6e5695e274c17b6.jpg) +Figure 16: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/342b2583642a3ac14be146f312d01b782b6dfd40d0c419a5f2acd0b49dd01644.jpg) +Figure 17: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator + +A similar effect can be seen for the text-based estimators in Figures 18 to 19. + +Similarly to results presented for the S&P 500 in 7, the degree of improvement from semantic shrinkage estimators for the covariance prediction shows a positive correlation with a measure of overall market volatility, as illustrated in Figure 20. + +![](images/66b4075d1392389f7714d632daf40a66b2e52c2402328dc1fdb59b3ada8b5249.jpg) +Figure 18: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/75bcc33274f8ebe71d071f15141d9cc16b6e9565a7147f77e88bb7fdc8a39867.jpg) +Figure 19: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator + +![](images/5c5ee0b9001b8edfe6bfa462181752d466940aadda1de1eff102dbbbf78f3fe1.jpg) +Figure 20: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators for the NASDAQ-100 + +# D Experimental results for Nikkei 225 + +This appendix provides experimental results for the Nikkei 225 components. Figure 21 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The PRIAL value for the scaled estimators is, unlike for the other two indices, higher than for their shrunk variant, with all semantic estimators significantly outperforming the estimators based on price only (constant variance, constant correlation and single factor shrinkage). + +![](images/c5d3461da8978341e7296279f0122aa95370bfcb336ce5a12e6881cee8cbe1c6.jpg) +Figure 21: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023 + +This result can be explained by the sensitivity of the PRIAL metric to outliers. Figure 22 shows that the improved PRIAL of the scaled estimators over their shrunk variant is not consistent: it can be seen that the scaled similarity estimators only outperform the price-based and the semantic shrinkage estimators 20 to $40\%$ of the time (middle 3 rows). The semantic shrinkage estimators, on the other hand, tend to be consistently better than the other estimators (bottom 3 rows). This is also illustrated by the PRIL in Figures 24 and 24: the scaled similarity outperforms its shrunk variant only in the 2020 volatility transition period. The errors made by all estimators during this period are significantly higher than average, biasing the average PRIAL metrics. + +Providing a reliable estimate of future covariance is a desirable feature and the proposed shrink semantic similarity estimators show a consistent improvement over their scaled variants. + +![](images/382fb23c40ad4cc7991b9ea83240a163b5a8ae0fe1fd79341c2fad6b6082f80e.jpg) +Figure 22: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the Nikkei 225 index. + +![](images/2b9659a070d8fdf7a4172c9206343c15453a69b865cf5f2beb62a82ec2ede456.jpg) +Figure 23: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator + +![](images/d9710098f80ae930615358c94b041077c08e625093f838256772da428a77b37c.jpg) +Figure 24: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator + +# E Semantic Models Hyperparameters + +# E.1 Wikidata5m Knowledge Graph Embeddings + +
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE (Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetWikidata5m (Wang et al., 2021)
Dimension512
OptimizerSGD
Learning rate1e-2
Weight decay0
Margin6
Batch size100k
Epochs1000
Sample batch size2000
# Negative/positive64
Adversarial temp.0.2
+ +# E.2 Text Embeddings + +Table 2: Wikidata5m KG Embeddings hyperparameters + +
ParameterValue
ArchitectureDistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019)
DatasetNatural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019)
Dimension768
Hidden dim.3072
# layers6
# heads12
ActivationGeLU
LossMultiple Negatives Ranking
Dropout0.1
Cls. dropout0.2
QA dropout0.1
+ +# E.3 Financial Knowledge Graph Embeddings + +Table 3: Text Embeddings hyperparameters + +
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE +(Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetProprietary
Dimension128
OptimizerAdagrad +(Duchi et al., 2011)
Learning rate1e-1
Weight decay1e-7
Margin19.9
Batch size1024
Epochs20
Sample batch size512
# Negative/positive2
Adversarial temp.1.0
+ +Table 4: Financial KG Embeddings hyperparameters \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/images.zip b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81ea47ce52bb86abec926e18ea14e5c0c63a1299 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5cb0bc9d523e125b1b9936eb887d6ef1d8cd8716d8059b57bf9f88e6a1dcda1f +size 1311502 diff --git a/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/layout.json b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4763a86c7158026bef1f13f5e6ab1f18cfd77dd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,11211 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 76, + 452, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 76, + 452, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 76, + 452, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Semantic Similarity Covariance Matrix Shrinkage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 120, + 249, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 120, + 249, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 147, + 120, + 249, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guillaume Becquin" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 136, + 226, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 136, + 226, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 136, + 226, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bloomberg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 149, + 268, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 149, + 268, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 149, + 268, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "gbecquin1@bloomberg.net" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 120, + 433, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 120, + 433, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 120, + 433, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saher Esmeir" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 135, + 424, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 135, + 424, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 368, + 135, + 424, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bloomberg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 149, + 462, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 149, + 462, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 149, + 462, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sesmeir2@bloomberg.net" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An accurate estimation of the covariance matrix is a critical component of many applications in finance, including portfolio optimization. The sample covariance suffers from the curse of dimensionality when the number of observations is in the same order or lower than the number of variables. This tends to be the case in portfolio optimization, where a portfolio manager can choose between thousands of stocks using historical daily returns to guide their investment decisions. To address this issue, past works proposed linear covariance shrinkage to regularize the estimated matrix. While effective, the proposed methods relied solely on historical price data and thus ignored company fundamental data. In this work, we propose to utilise semantic similarity derived from textual descriptions or knowledge graphs to improve the covariance estimation. Rather than using the semantic similarity directly as a biased estimator to the covariance, we employ it as a shrinkage target. The resulting covariance estimators leverage both semantic similarity and recent price history, and can be readily adapted to a broad range of financial securities. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated for a period including diverse market conditions and compared with the covariance shrinkage prior art." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 590, + 154, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 590, + 154, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 590, + 154, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A wide range of domains rely on the analysis of high-dimensional time-series data. For example, this includes medical systems with MRI denoising (Honnorat and Habes, 2022), radar sensors (Kang et al., 2019) post-processing, physics and chemistry, engineering, neuroscience, speech recognition, and quantitative finance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). These applications often require a reliable estimate of the covariance matrix. In the financial domain, the price of a company's stock is influenced, among other factors, by the fundamental characteristics of the company, news articles, and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 215, + 522, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 215, + 522, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 215, + 522, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 215, + 522, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5d9cf7924b98fa763c36170c3bd421e76ad336f7e0381286b8ed5f8c065870ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Instead of using the semantic similarity as a direct approximation to the covariance matrix, we use it to build a target for linear shrinkage. This estimator can then be used for convex portfolio optimization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 526, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "general stock market conditions. Building upon advances in language modeling and graph embeddings, recent work has investigated how to leverage semantic representations to guide investment decisions by estimating expected returns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The volatility and the expected return of an asset are both critical ingredients when forming an investment strategy. Risk-return trade-off is a fundamental trading principle describing the typical inverse relationship between a given investment risk and investment return. In the common case of a multi-asset portfolio, an investor with a given risk tolerance seeks to maximise their return within the allowed risk level. In this case, the degree of covariance between asset returns can be utilised to achieve an aggregate portfolio risk that is lower than its components. Modern portfolio theory formalises this trade-off (Markowitz, 1952). The Mean Variance Portfolio aims at maximizing expected returns while minimizing expected variance:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 664, + 525, + 686 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 664, + 525, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 664, + 525, + 686 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {w} ^ {*} = \\underset {\\mathbf {w}} {\\operatorname {a r g m a x}} \\left(\\mathbf {w} \\boldsymbol {\\mu} - \\lambda \\mathbf {w} ^ {T} \\boldsymbol {\\Sigma} \\mathbf {w}\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "8f5e18a33393d1ae8696f9d6a9cb7e0a9d508d1d6c623ebc8e286579701063cc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{w}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the weights of assets in a portfolio, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the price returns of these assets, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the covariance matrix of asset prices and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " a parameter to denote the level of risk aversion of the investor. This optimization problem can be solved effectively using convex solvers if the covariance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9977" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9977-9992" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "matrix is positive definite (and therefore invertible). Nevertheless, the covariance matrix of the assets prices is unknown and must therefore be estimated. Kan and Zhou (2007) show that the estimation error for the covariance matrix has a higher impact than the mean estimation error when the number of assets considered is large compared to the number of observations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing approaches leveraging semantic stock representations have focused on improving the estimate of the expected returns " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", using a rough approximation of the covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 185, + 292, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by directly using the semantic similarity matrix as an estimator for portfolio optimization (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020; Li et al., 2022). However, these similarity matrix estimators may not be morphologically similar to a covariance matrix and are prone to bias. Indeed, while semantic models are effective at ranking similarities, their absolute similarity value is typically uncalibrated and depend on the fraction of the hypersphere occupied by the embeddings. Furthermore, their expected cosine similarity value depends on the dimension of the embeddings (Elekes et al., 2017). Since the true covariance matrix is obviously independent of the chosen embedding dimension, this would imply that a single embedding dimension is valid for building a semantic estimator, which is unacceptable. Finally, they give no guarantee of being positive semi-definite and ignore recent stock price observations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An alternative estimator for the covariance matrix is the sample covariance matrix. While unbiased, the sample covariance matrix is singular when the number of observations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is lower than the number of random variables " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (preventing the use of convex solvers for equation 1) or ill-defined when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N \\gg p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", making the portfolio optimization task inaccurate (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). Covariance shrinkage refers to a family of regularization methods aiming at combining the maximum likelihood sample covariance matrix with a structured, lower-dimensionality, regularizing model (shrinkage target). The regularizing targets are built on a set of assumptions (e.g., constant variance and O-covariance between variables) whose degree of validity varies between asset classes and market regimes. Furthermore, the shrinkage estimators can be interpreted as empirical Bayes estimators where the prior is data-dependent, and computed from the same data as the sample covariance matrix (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we highlight the limitations of using semantic similarity as a direct estimation of the covariance matrix. We address these limitations by extending the established framework of linear shrinkage to semantic similarity matrices as seen in Figure 1. The semantic representations can be derived from both structured data stored in a curated knowledge base or unstructured data in the form of natural language text. We share a Python implementation1 of our method, allowing its integration as a simple post-processing step when building covariance matrix estimators from semantic similarity matrices. We aim at validating the following:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 257, + 527, + 426 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 257, + 525, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 257, + 525, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 257, + 525, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Hypothesis 1: Semantic similarity depends on the embedding dimension and therefore cannot be used directly as a covariance matrix estimator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 321, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 321, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 321, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Hypothesis 2: Semantic similarity can be used as an effective regularization target for covariance matrix estimation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 372, + 527, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 372, + 527, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 372, + 527, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Hypothesis 3: The proposed shrinkage target includes fundamental information about the random variables and is therefore less sensitive to sudden changes in volatility regime." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 396, + 449 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 396, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 396, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 527, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 527, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 527, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Portfolio optimization using semantic representations: Du and Tanaka-Ishii (2020) investigate the potential of using news data to train a classifier to make buy and sell decisions over time. They take the cosine similarity matrix of intermediate stock representations as a direct estimator for the covariance matrix to perform portfolio optimization. Similarly, Li et al. (2022) use normalized stock embeddings trained on fundamental and price data to build a similarity matrix and use it as an estimate of the covariance matrix for mean-variance portfolio optimization. Both approaches suffer from the assumption that the similarity matrix is an unbiased estimator of the covariance. Our work instead uses semantic similarity as a shrinkage target to the sample covariance matrix resulting in estimators that are asymptotically unbiased. Sawhney et al. (2021) leverage a knowledge graph (KG) to model the correlation between stocks through temporal hyperbolic graph learning on Riemannian manifolds. They train a model to directly output a ranked list" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 453, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 453, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 751, + 453, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://github.com/bloomberg/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 761, + 487, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 761, + 487, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 761, + 487, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "semantic-similarity-covariance-shrinkage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9978" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of trade candidates, and therefore do not rely on the Modern Portfolio Theory mean-variance optimization problem. Our approach instead leverages established portfolio optimization routines allowing better interpretability and modularity (decoupling the semantic representations generation from the investment strategy)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Covariance shrinkage: Linear shrinkage methods, taking a convex linear combination between the sample covariance matrix and a regularization target were originally proposed by Stein (1956) for the estimation of high dimensional multivariate mean, choosing the 0-vector as a shrinkage target. Efron and Morris (1973) built upon this approach by choosing a 1-parameter structured target built as the identity vector multiplied by the sample mean. This work was extended to a robust estimation of the covariance matrix in a high dimensional space by Ledoit and Wolf (2004), proposing a single-parameter shrinkage target built as the scalar product of the identity matrix and the average sample variance. Their choice of shrinkage target made the strong assumption that the stock price returns had a constant, common variance and no covariance. Ledoit and Wolf (2003a) instead assumed a constant and positive correlation between stock price returns, resulting in a 2-parameters shrinkage target. The single-factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b) assumes the asset prices can be approximated using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and linearly depend on the average market returns with sensitivity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an offset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " capturing the stock idiosyncratic returns. The resulting shrinkage target contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameters to estimate, higher than the previous two models, but typically significantly lower than the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(p - 1)/2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 167, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameters of the full (symmetric) covariance matrix. These regularization targets are estimated using the same data used to compute the sample covariance matrix and are therefore prone to estimation error if the number of samples is low relative to their number of parameters. Our approach instead utilises similarity-based targets that are not derived from recent observations but rather trained on large scale semantic datasets. These therefore do not suffer from this parametrization trade-off and are less sensitive to market regime changes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 158, + 734 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 158, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 722, + 158, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Preliminaries" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we formally describe the framework of linear shrinkage and derive the optimum shrink" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "age (regularization) factor coefficient. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be a de-meaned price returns matrix of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " observations for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " assets (we omit the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for notation simplicity). The sample covariance matrix is a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the covariance and is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 157, + 525, + 182 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 157, + 525, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 157, + 525, + 182 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {N} = \\frac {1}{N} X _ {N} ^ {T} X _ {N} \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "a499c529af76a61346d50818a9423ed3b1d337d1cb26e026ef7d05b34cf4aa88.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The sample covariance matrix is symmetric and has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\frac{p(p - 1)}{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameters to estimate. When the number of observations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is lower than the number of features " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this matrix is non-invertible. Furthermore, unless " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p \\ll N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it is numerically ill-conditioned and the instabilities in the estimate lead to the underestimation of the smallest eigenvalues and overestimation of the largest ones (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004). An alternative is to replace this MLE by a lower capacity model making a series of assumptions on the random variables observed (for example constant variance, no correlation or a factor model as introduced previously). This option is also unsatisfactory as it would suffer from a high bias because of the strong modeling assumptions implied. The approach of linear shrinkage is to build a new estimator from a convex linear combination of (1) the high variance, low bias of the sample covariance matrix; and (2) the low variance, high bias of the shrinkage target (lower capacity model) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 486, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 486, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 486, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\Sigma} _ {N} = \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} \\tag {3} \\\\ \\lambda \\in [ 0, 1 ] \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "7eda43b95149ce6f6e1d2a3bb0e9411e95ccea1e76435d7d678369fc5da4676c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The objective is to minimize the mean square error between this estimator and the population covariance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Sigma^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The loss function is therefore given by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 596, + 524, + 629 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 596, + 524, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 596, + 524, + 629 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\lambda} = \\left\\| \\hat {\\Sigma} _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\right\\| _ {F} ^ {2} \\tag {4} \\\\ = \\| \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\| _ {F} ^ {2} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "8632108d50070bf4ea3a95310406837b8c6b17abc7e0d66d6b8135bc23b60460.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 648, + 394, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 648, + 394, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 648, + 394, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The expected risk is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 679, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 679, + 524, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 679, + 524, + 711 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} R (\\lambda) = \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} _ {\\lambda}\\right) \\tag {5} \\\\ = \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\| \\lambda T + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} - \\Sigma^ {*} \\| _ {F} ^ {2}\\right) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "e3a4a30cfb68b6d8b2f4eba32a2285a67bf015a1e15b81c7da1cb3a31d50c813.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The population covariance is unknown and not observable but Ledoit and Wolf (2003b) show that the optimum " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " coefficient is asymptotically con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9979" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 249, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 249, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 249, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "stant over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 249, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 249, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and has the following form:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 98, + 289, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 98, + 289, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 98, + 289, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_ {N} ^ {*} = \\frac {1}{N} \\frac {\\pi - \\rho}{\\gamma} \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "f5a0163354cd54369ad0845c4580adfcbfc4d4266cfa3de08d6b211ef602a39d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 128, + 289, + 163 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 128, + 289, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 128, + 289, + 163 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "47d60e4aaeca6c6a0f72ecbbf26767137f63ad36359703d53ec98ec3c318dabd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 166, + 289, + 201 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 166, + 289, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 166, + 289, + 201 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\rho_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "62430d86f656f36fac24e5d467a68f35c021af99fbb139b11b999d32f96a04b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 205, + 289, + 240 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 205, + 289, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 205, + 289, + 240 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\left(T _ {i j} - S _ {i j}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "e8bf3b883c745631064f2afe8a920c88154ad9fccb84b5c1f931d6b5d71a60c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{AsyVar}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{AsyCov}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively refer to the asymptotic variance and covariance when the number of observations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 289, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " grows larger." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Intuitively, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures the degree of variance in the sample covariance matrix, with high values indicating high variance for the sample covariance estimator. A high " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " would therefore result in a higher amount of required shrinkage. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rho_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures the level of covariance between the sample covariance matrix and the shrinkage target: a high covariance indicates the chosen target provides limited additional information and therefore the optimum shrinkage amount should be reduced (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b). Finally, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 290, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures the distance between the unbiased sample covariance matrix and the target. A higher value indicates a biased shrinkage target, and therefore leads to a lower optimum shrinkage factor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 246, + 531 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 246, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 246, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Semantic Similarity Shrinkage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our proposed approach is based on the availability of embeddings (vector representation) for the random variables considered. In the context of financial markets, this translates into the availability of a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p,k)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " embeddings matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " built from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dimensional semantic vectors for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " financial assets considered for the portfolio optimization. These embeddings may be generated using text description of the assets (e.g., description of the company that issued a stock) and a sentence embeddings model such as (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019), KG embeddings, or intermediate representation generated from a downstream task such as a buy/sell classifier (Du and Tanaka-Ishii, 2020). We first propose a semantic shrinkage target built using these embeddings and then derive the optimum shrinkage factor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 453, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 453, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 453, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Semantic shrinkage target" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach for building a shrinkage target from embeddings matrices is as follows. We first normalize the embeddings matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " along the semantic dimension, bounding the dot product between two asset representations in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[-1;1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We then build a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(p,p)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " similarity matrix Sim by taking the product of the embeddings matrix with itself." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 191, + 524, + 206 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 191, + 524, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 382, + 191, + 524, + 206 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {S i m} = \\mathbf {E E} ^ {T} \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "fc73f021bad0c1bd6791174bb6d226e20799c384e16be29c73cb06cd008fa1bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This results in a matrix where the diagonal entries are 1 while each off-diagonal entry " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the degree of semantic match between assets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Rather than directly considering Sim an approximation of the covariance matrix as in (Li et al., 2022), we instead consider Sim to be an approximation of a correlation matrix (based on its constant 1-valued diagonal and entries bounded in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[-1;1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We map this semantic correlation to a covariance matrix using the covariance definition and the asset variance estimated from the sample covariance matrix. The correlation between two random variables " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 402, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 402, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 402, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {c o r r} (x, y) := \\frac {\\operatorname {c o v} (x , y)}{\\sqrt {\\operatorname {v a r} (x) \\operatorname {v a r} (y)}} \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "f3f989a004ff31b35964b87ff516aa54f0dcaae39104c7c476fc2793e0531b8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By analogy, we define the similarity-based covariance as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 472, + 524, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 472, + 524, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 472, + 524, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {S i m} := \\frac {\\operatorname {S i m C o v}}{\\sqrt {\\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right) ^ {T} \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right)}} \\tag {12}", + "image_path": "fe0944bb725b5502fcd59268fa8913fdc6cfbd8824c187cb966f23f46e00c4b3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 524, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 524, + 524, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 524, + 524, + 555 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {S i m C o v} = \\operatorname {S i m} \\odot \\sqrt {\\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right) ^ {T} \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(S _ {N}\\right)} \\tag {13}", + "image_path": "842807d41dc4c04d4d2c2edd130a2c56aee3e3abf36428b84b593117caf2f403.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\odot" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the Hadamard product and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{diag}(S_N)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(1,p)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " vector made of the diagonal entries of the sample covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This approach ensures that the scale of the semantic-based shrinkage target is on the same scale of the sample covariance matrix, regardless of the original stock embeddings space. This estimator therefore has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " price-dependent parameters to estimate (the variances), similar to the CAPM-based single factor model (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we ensure that the shrinkage target is positive definite, a desirable property that allows the use of the shrunk covariance matrix with convex optimizers. While the covariance matrix SimCov is by construction symmetric, it is not necessarily positive definite. We introduce small perturbations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9980" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on the eigenvalues following spectral decomposition of SimCov based on (Gill et al., 2019). Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be the eigenvectors and eigenvalues from the spectral decomposition of SimCov:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 133, + 290, + 148 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 133, + 290, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 133, + 290, + 148 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {S i m C o v} = U \\Delta U ^ {T} \\tag {14}", + "image_path": "e3aabc53cc4b5768a24bcaed97e31527b1002ecdda20e8ba0cc3798087425ef2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\min(\\Delta) < 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we shift the eigenvalues so that they are all strictly positive with a margin " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 195, + 290, + 210 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 195, + 290, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 195, + 290, + 210 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta_ {+} = \\Delta + \\min (a b s (\\Delta)) + \\epsilon \\tag {15}", + "image_path": "d78d8c3eeecf58ca8d769a8c2b1d30883b8f90287984b59d4cb0477d6e2e34f2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then recover the semi-definite similarity-based covariance shrinkage target:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 254, + 290, + 270 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 254, + 290, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 254, + 290, + 270 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+} = U \\Delta_ {+} U ^ {T} \\tag {16}", + "image_path": "ba518efb02a89d1a246b3068e03cc3104988953d89f006f0c65b713ad26c899a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 290, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 290, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 290, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We do not use this value directly to approximate the covariance matrix; instead we build a linear shrinkage estimator from the convex linear combination of the target and sample covariance matrix as per equation 3:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 355, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 355, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 355, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\Sigma} _ {S i m} = \\lambda \\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+} + (1 - \\lambda) S _ {N} \\tag {17}", + "image_path": "41b2ddd903f9b0f6c8f2b020f3d8f10e5cbf602c10f3fe6521cad0323e0654ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 218, + 393 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 218, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 218, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Semantic shrinkage factor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned in Section 3, the optimum shrinkage factor for the similarity-based covariance estimator can be derived analytically using equations 7 to 9. The following provides consistent estimators when assuming a semantic similarity target. Index " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to time, while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refer to the position of the random variables in the covariance matrix. The derivation is similar to constant correlation shrinkage (using similarity values instead of a constant value) and is provided in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A consistent estimator of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020b):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 569, + 290, + 604 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 569, + 290, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 569, + 290, + 604 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\pi} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\pi_ {\\hat {N}, i j} \\tag {18}", + "image_path": "7af3e961df37e6e63fea3b203190f0f00892566d94d119eb52b2b2996c493f10.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 608, + 289, + 670 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 608, + 289, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 608, + 289, + 670 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}) ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {N, i j} ^ {2} \\tag {19} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "4984e1288dfae368cbac58f5bdf090c38853fcd22240df166876e10d54c8244e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \\bar{X}_{N})^{\\odot 2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 677, + 290, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We obtain a consistent estimator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\rho}_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the constant variance target proposed in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), where the constant correlation value is replaced by entries in the similarity matrix. We use the fact that the similarity matrix is constant" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with respect to the observations and symmetric, a full derivation is available in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 105, + 524, + 178 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 105, + 524, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 105, + 524, + 178 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\rho} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i i} + \\\\ \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left(\\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\\right) \\tag {20} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "c3689a8a01dd4c10322f55710ba810d72e69b52befb10e10780d6ac030a36d87.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Where the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\vartheta}_{ii,ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are consistent estimators of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A s y C o v(\\sqrt{N} S_{N,ii},\\sqrt{N} S_{N,ij})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 186, + 525, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 221, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 221, + 525, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 221, + 525, + 257 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {N, i i}\\right) \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {N, i j}\\right) \\tag {21}", + "image_path": "c34270e947e74345b0e8f6ec764c59af2240c443a4edd4ea1377402dd20b8205.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 264, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 264, + 525, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 264, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, a consistent estimator of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 264, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 264, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 283, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 283, + 524, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 283, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\gamma_ {N}} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\left(\\mathbf {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {N, i, j}\\right) ^ {2} (22) \\\\ = \\left\\| \\operatorname {S i m C o v} _ {+ i, j} - S _ {i, j} \\right\\| _ {F} ^ {2} (23) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "89cf93d3bbc6a0c4d72305398ea2483d44c22cf2a0f9a37ddeccdbc2fc39c2ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 524, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 344, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This fully specifies the optimal shrinkage factor based on 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 389, + 394 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 389, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 389, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 370, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 370, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 370, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 419, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the performance of the proposed similarity-based covariance matrix shrinkage on the task of portfolio selection. In particular, we consider the universe of historical members for 3 major stock indices: the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500), the NASDAQ-100 and the Nikkei 225 (Nikkei). We choose this data based on the availability of price data and high quality company fundamental data that can be used to generate stock embeddings. We report results for the S&P 500 for conciseness; the full set of results for all 3 indices is available in Appendices C and D." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 448, + 601 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 448, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 448, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1.1 Stock price return data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 604, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 604, + 525, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 604, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We gather price data over a period of 16 years from 2007 to 2023. This extended period includes a variety of market regimes including high volatility events, such as the global financial crisis in 2007-2008, the sovereign debt crisis in 2011, and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. It also includes periods of low volatility such as 2017, when the volatility index (VIX) was at historic lows. We build the dataset as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. We split the data in rolling windows of 3 months for estimator fitting and 1 month for evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9981" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 291, + 174 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 2, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The stock indices composition evolved over the period considered. Within each window, we keep only index members with price data throughout the entire period." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 133, + 291, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 133, + 291, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 133, + 291, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. We convert the end-of-day price into daily price returns, removing the effect of the absolute stock price." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 290, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 290, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 182, + 290, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This results in 190 slices, each covering a 4 month span (the first 3 months are used for fitting and the last for evaluation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 221, + 243 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 221, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 221, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1.2 Semantic representations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 290, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the effectiveness of the proposed approach using three methods for computing stock semantic representations. The set of hyperparameters used for the training of the semantic models is available in Appendix E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The first method leverages the text description for the companies that issued stock. We build semantic representation for the companies using a 768 dimensions sentence embeddings transformer model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). The experiments were conducted using a DistilBERT model (Sanh et al., 2019) finetuned on the Natural Questions dataset (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019). The second method leverages relational facts from knowledge graphs. We use publicly available 512 dimensions RotatE pre-trained embeddings on the Wikidata5m dataset generated using GraphVite (Zhu et al., 2019), referred to as W5m KG. For both methods we match the stock price data to a Wikidata entry using the Wikidata5m dataset (Wang et al., 2021) containing entity names and aliases. We successfully match " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "98.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "97.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "99.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 313, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of index members for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 and Nikkei 225, respectively. The unmatched entries are excluded from both training and evaluation rolling windows." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 290, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then consider a third model using a subgraph from a large scale, financial knowledge graph in Bloomberg herein referred to as Fin. KG. This includes triples involving the domicile country, industry, sector, board members, supply chain, subsidiaries, fund and index inclusion. We train KG embeddings using RotatE (Sun et al., 2019) with a 128 dimensions embeddings size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We observe that the representations produced by these methods capture the overall semantics of the company as illustrated in Figure 2. We build the semantic similarity matrices for all semantic models following the method described in 4.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 229 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a63c70389559dee2f2c5f22a73ca914fc04c177089877c6b578ab824c164c202.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 278 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: 2-D projection of the KG embeddings using t-SNE. Each point corresponds to a historical S&P 500 component colored by BICS industry sectors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 524, + 324 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 524, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 524, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Performance of semantic-based shrinkage targets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We build the covariance matrix for each evaluation period in 5.1.1 and annualize the results by multiplying the entries by the number of trading days per year (252). For each of the 3-month training periods (first 3 months), we fit the following covariance estimators:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 417, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 417, + 481, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 417, + 481, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 417, + 481, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Sample covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 417, + 481, + 431 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{\\text{Sample}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 417, + 481, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Constant-variance shrunk covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{CVar}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using a 1-parameter shrinkage target assuming a constant variance and no covariance (Ledoit and Wolf, 2004)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 501, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 501, + 525, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 501, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Constant-correlation shrunk covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 501, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{CCor}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 501, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using a 2-parameters shrinkage target assuming a constant correlation (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Single-factor shrunk covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{SF}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 562, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " assuming a single factor CAPM model for the stock price returns (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 612, + 524, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 612, + 524, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 612, + 524, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Scaled Text similarities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 612, + 524, + 652 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{\\text{Text, scaled}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 612, + 524, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix transformed using 13." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Scaled KG similarities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{W5mKG, scaled}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Fin. KG, scaled}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 660, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the KG similarity matrices transformed using 13." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 710, + 525, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 710, + 525, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 710, + 525, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Shrunk covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 710, + 525, + 737 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Text}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 710, + 525, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", using the Wikipedia text embeddings similarity matrix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Shrunk covariance matrices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{W5mKG}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}_{Fin.KG}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 745, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the KG similarity matrices." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9982" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 286, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7b6d26e69edd284af9500582e0f1e2d53163f95afd44f4fbc822ea0dd94d0359.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 317 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Off-diagonal entries of shrinkage targets relative to the sample covariance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 100, + 328, + 259, + 401 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 328, + 259, + 401 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 328, + 259, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 328, + 259, + 401 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
EstimatorMean ||.||F
Sample covariance0.128
Text Sim.0.066
W5m KG Sim.0.101
Fin. KG Sim.0.114
", + "image_path": "f9712ceff5bbe72863cfd0d7e677b85a8eaec8769ab792c6b05a9efbe189bb07.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 409, + 273, + 423 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 409, + 273, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 409, + 273, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Average off-diagonal Frobenius norm" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 291, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We begin by observing the impact of the shrinkage model assumptions on the resulting target bias. We sample 500 (time, stock pair) observations for all estimators for the S&P 500 and compare their value to the corresponding entry in the sample covariance matrix for the same (time, stock pair) (see Figure 3). Values along the diagonal indicate a shrinkage target with no bias. By construction the constant variance model has a 0 value on the off-diagonal and is therefore the most biased estimator considered. The semantic estimators show a variable level of bias. The average Frobenius norm of the similarity estimators (excluding the diagonal variances) is given in table 1. The norm of the unbiased sample covariance matrix is given for reference. It shows that different semantic models may result in significant differences in similarity values and therefore are prone to bias when estimating the covariance, validating hypothesis 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to evaluate the performance of the shrinkage targets, we compute the optimum shrinkage factor based on 4.2 and shrink the sample covariance matrix for each 3-month fitting period to build an estimator. We evaluate these against the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 71, + 522, + 282 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 71, + 522, + 282 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 71, + 522, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 71, + 522, + 282 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b6b9d155d2121b1624727e52187620d42e624e21007b17a538002f22da78fbdd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 293, + 515, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 293, + 515, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 293, + 515, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: PRIAL for the S&P 500 for 2007-2023" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "following 1-month sample test covariance matrix as an approximation of the population covariance. We evaluate a given estimator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\Sigma}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss (PRIAL) defined as (Ledoit and Wolf, 2020a):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 406, + 525, + 447 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 406, + 525, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 406, + 525, + 447 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P R I A L (\\hat {\\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \\frac {\\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)\\right) - \\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} (\\hat {\\Sigma})\\right)}{\\mathbb {E} \\left(\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)\\right)} \\tag {24}", + "image_path": "762ea610a7253ef70d982eb1a0114d97f4f1ecc464ba4ef6020c1dc8176491a5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 448, + 522, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 448, + 522, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 448, + 522, + 461 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 448, + 522, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to the MSE loss introduced in equation 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4 shows the PRIAL for all estimators over the entire period (190 data points) for S&P 500. The constant variance model is the best performing price-based shrinkage target. Using the scaled similarity matrix shows a high level of performance variability and shows the impact of the bias for the text-based embeddings (resulting in a worse estimator than the sample covariance matrix). The higher performance of the scaled KG similarity is highly snapshot-dependent and driven by high volatility events during the period considered (see Appendix B). Our shrunk similarity-based models are outperforming price-based shrinkage methods and their scaled variant. Figure 5 shows the outperformance of shrunk similarity-based methods is consistent across time windows and not driven by isolated high volatility outliers. We perform a statistical test of the null hypothesis (the performance of similarity-based models and constant variance shrinkage method is equal) that is rejected with p-values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.3 \\times 10^{-12}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.5 \\times 10^{-10}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the KG-based and text-based similarity targets respectively, validating hypothesis 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9983" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 524, + 264 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 524, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 524, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 524, + 264 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "76025b5d2fc69c67dd4707d38944df0540d02b5f007595157f4db773d7709299.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 525, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 525, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 525, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom). The semantic shrinkage methods error is consistently lower than their scaled variant and estimators using price data only." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 286, + 348 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 286, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 286, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Impact of volatility regimes on shrinkage target performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 291, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further investigate the impact of market regime change. In order to identify the contribution of specific samples to the, we define the Percentage Relative Improvement in Loss (PRIL) based on 24:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 419, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 419, + 290, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 419, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P R I L (\\hat {\\Sigma}) := 1 0 0 \\frac {\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right) - \\mathcal {L} (\\hat {\\Sigma})}{\\mathcal {L} \\left(S _ {\\text {S a m p l e}}\\right)} \\tag {25}", + "image_path": "284fff3aeb6ee814604a8408fc17cab1a3cbd0fabe7d9b38966c0cd503470312.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6 focuses on years 2017 to 2023 for the S&P 500 during which several market regimes were observed, including: low volatility (2017 to the end of 2018); two high volatility periods (end of 2018, 2022); and a very high volatility event (first half of 2020). We show PRIL values for both the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models together with the realized annualized log market volatility " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\log (\\| S_{Sample}\\|_{F}*\\#_{trading~days}))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the right axis. The outperformance of the similarity-based estimator is higher during periods (or transitions between periods) of high market volatility." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compute the PRIL difference between the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrunk covariance models (shaded area in Figure 6) for all test periods between 2007 and 2023 to validate this effect, and present the results in Figure 7. We note that the degree of outperformance of the similarity-based approach correlates with the level of market volatility. The effect is particularly pronounced for the very high volatility levels, indicating the potential of the approach to mitigate market \"fat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 320, + 523, + 433 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 320, + 523, + 433 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 320, + 523, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 320, + 523, + 433 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "109d775e4331f11d05a832a1f52f6d8603cfe596f1d07ef151473dd11ba35d21.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 491 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 443, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: S&P 500 PRIL for the KG-based similarity and constant variance shrinkage targets. The shaded area shows the difference between the PRIL values. An indicator of market volatility is shown on the right axis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tail risk\" (short-term move of more than 3 standard deviations). This validates the Hypothesis 3 and shows that the proposed covariance matrix estimators are more robust during transitions between market volatility regimes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 379, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 379, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 590, + 379, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we present a family of covariance shrinkage estimators leveraging semantic similarity between the random variables. We show that semantic similarity cannot be used as a direct estimator of the covariance, but instead as regularization for the sample covariance using linear shrinkage. The shrunk estimators include price-independent semantics and are superior in periods of high volatility, where an accurate estimation of the covariance is typically more critical. This demonstrates the potential of semantic models for covariance matrix estimation and extends beyond" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9984" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 282, + 218 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 282, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 282, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 71, + 282, + 218 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c9d808bc7afa6a702d1af310391b5d8b9a6b21a4c80bb634b79cad32bce7114c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators: performance benefits increase with the overall market volatility" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 264, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 264, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 264, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "traditional applications to predicting returns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 291, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 291, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 291, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed method is agnostic to the embeddings generation process and can be applied to most existing semantic representation algorithms. This includes semantic representations that capture static (company description) and dynamic (company news, recent price data) components from text, knowledge graphs or multi-modal datasets. By decoupling the semantic model from the portfolio optimization, the proposed method provides a robust and modular mechanism for integrating semantic representations into established portfolio management and investment decision systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 149, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 149, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 149, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While showing encouraging results, the proposed similarity-based targets are built from static semantic information. A potential future work direction could be the extension of these static embeddings with dynamic components, including for example news data or dynamic knowledge graphs. Text embeddings from news data (capturing company recent events) can be combined with the static embeddings (capturing company fundamentals) to compute either a single similarity matrix target for shrinkage, or use techniques such as multiple targets shrinkage. Building semantic representations from news data will involve challenges related to sampling for companies with high news coverage, the lack of news for some companies and the choice of importance given to the static versus dynamic components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The input to the semantic models (text and KG triples) was gathered as of 2021 and 2022, potentially leading to data leakage for the 2007-2023" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "period backtest. Future work may use historical Wikipedia snapshots to measure the impact of this assumption. However, we estimate this risk to be low given the focus on company fundamentals. The price data frequency is typically much higher than frequency of change of the fundamental data (description or KG triples): the company characteristics (e.g., industry sector) of the large capitalization investigated did not change significantly over the period considered. Furthermore, the analysis does not show a drop in performance before and after the datasets snapshot date. Future work including dynamic semantic components (e.g., news) should however ensure that only news released prior to an experiment time window are used, since news do have a significant impact on short term price data (and correlation) as illustrated by recent work referenced in our work. Similarly, the rolling window evaluation excludes companies that stopped trading during the period considered: this inclusion/exclusion process is a-priori unknown." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 526, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 526, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 526, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The approach requires both rich semantic representations and an effective way to match the stock price returns to their embeddings. The matching process may be more challenging for international companies or smaller capitalization stocks than for the S&P 500, NASDAQ-100 or Nikkei 225 components. Finally, while the approach could be extended to any financial asset class including commodities or derivatives, obtaining a valid text description may prove more challenging. Note that the knowledge-graph embeddings do not suffer from this limitation and can generalize to any asset class where structured data is available, and future work may investigate this method potential for multi-asset portfolio (i.e., equities, fixed income and commodities) covariance estimation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9985" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 291, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Du and Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii. 2020. Stock embeddings acquired from news articles and price history, and an application to portfolio optimization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3353-3363, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(61):2121-2159." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 232, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bradley Efron and Carl Morris. 1973. Stein's estimation rule and its competitors—an empirical bayes approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(341):117-130." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 290, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 290, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ábel Elekes, Martin Schäler, and Klemens Böhm. 2017. On the various semantics of similarity in word embedding models. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '17, page 139-148. IEEE Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 290, + 384 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 290, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 350, + 290, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philip E. Gill, Walter Murray, and Margaret H. Wright. 2019. Practical Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 393, + 290, + 427 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 393, + 290, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 393, + 290, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicolas Honnorat and Mohamad Habes. 2022. Covariance shrinkage can assess and improve functional connectomes. NeuroImage, 256:119229." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 436, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 436, + 291, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 436, + 291, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raymond Kan and Guofu Zhou. 2007. Optimal portfolio choice with parameter uncertainty. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(3):621-656." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 479, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 479, + 291, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 479, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Naixin Kang, Zheran Shang, and Qinglei Du. 2019. Knowledge-aided structured covariance matrix estimator applied for radar sensor signal detection. Sensors, 19(3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 533, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 533, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 533, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003a. Honey, i shrunk the sample covariance matrix. In UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 691." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2003b. Improved estimation of the covariance matrix of stock returns with an application to portfolio selection. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10(5):603-621." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2004. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivar. Anal., 88(2):365-411." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020a. Analytical nonlinear shrinkage of large-dimensional covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics, 48(5):3043 - 3065." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf. 2020b. The Power of (Non-)Linear Shrinking: A Review and Guide to Covariance Matrix Estimation. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 20(1):187-218." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 525, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shicheng Li, Wei Li, Zhiyuan Zhang, Ruihan Bao, Keiko Harimoto, and Keiko Harimoto. 2022. No stock is an island: Learning internal and relational attributes of stocks with contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Financial Technology and Natural Language Processing (FinNLP), pages 147-153, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 275, + 525, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Harry Markowitz. 1952. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1):77-91." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 305, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 525, + 445 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 525, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 525, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumont, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR, abs/1910.01108." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 521 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 525, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ramit Sawhney, Shivam Agarwal, Arnav Wadhwa, and Rajiv Shah. 2021. Exploring the scale-free nature of stock markets: Hyperbolic graph learning for algorithmic trading. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, WWW '21, page 11-22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 525, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 525, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charles M. Stein. 1956. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. In Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist. and Prob., 1956: 197-206." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 525, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 525, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. CoRR, abs/1902.10197." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 525, + 700 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 525, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 525, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaozhi Wang, Tianyu Gao, Zhaocheng Zhu, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhiyuan Liu, Juanzi Li, and Jian Tang. 2021. Kepler: A unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:176-194." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 709, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 709, + 525, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 709, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhaocheng Zhu, Shizhen Xu, Meng Qu, and Jian Tang. 2019. Graphvite: A high-performance cpu-gpu hybrid system for node embedding. In The World Wide Web Conference, pages 2494-2504. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9986" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 268, + 97 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 268, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 268, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Semantic Target Shrinkage Factor Estimation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 105, + 289, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 105, + 289, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 105, + 289, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For notation simplicity we omit in the following the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 105, + 289, + 132 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 105, + 289, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " index from the sample covariance matrix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 141, + 241, + 154 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 141, + 241, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 141, + 241, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Derivation of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 141, + 241, + 154 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\pi}_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 141, + 241, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A consistent estimator of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003b):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 191, + 290, + 227 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 191, + 290, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 191, + 290, + 227 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\pi} _ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} \\pi_ {\\hat {N}, i j} \\tag {26}", + "image_path": "2a31ffdbedc966cdec5f41e94b92aab26c49fba1776974349be15d98962ac254.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 230, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 230, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 230, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {27}", + "image_path": "e72a46655365b401ac619dd58126f6ad8f678caa3638360905620c07768245fa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\pi}_{N,ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be rewritten to allow for factorized computation, using the fact that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{N,ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is constant with respect to the sum over the samples:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 319, + 290, + 497 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 319, + 290, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 319, + 290, + 497 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\pi} _ {N, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} (x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}) ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\frac {x _ {t i} x _ {t j}}{N} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - 2 S _ {i j} S _ {i j} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} x _ {t i} ^ {2} x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\\\ = \\frac {1}{N} X 2 _ {N} X 2 _ {N} ^ {T} - S _ {i j} ^ {2} \\tag {28} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "8075ae2186c1ea3814ea5655aab9e5a3f1ef65ec57b6572437ac4473ec540fe6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X2_{N} = (X_{N} - \\bar{X}_{N})^{\\odot 2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the matrix of elementwise squared de-meaned returns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 240, + 552 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 240, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 240, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Derivation of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 240, + 552 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\rho}_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 539, + 240, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We follow the derivation an estimator for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "8_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " assuming a shrinkage target built on a constant correlation matrix provided in (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), replacing the constant correlation value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bar{r}_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by individual semantic similarities matrix entries " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By definition (see 8):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 644, + 290, + 768 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 644, + 290, + 768 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 644, + 290, + 768 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\rho_ {N} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {p} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} T _ {i j}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) (29) \\\\ = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {p} A s y V a r (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}) \\\\ + \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\operatorname {A s y C o v} \\left(\\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} \\sqrt {S _ {i i} S _ {j j}}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}\\right) (30) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "c18bd0a8b281059bd9a0d8288606051fe21f6473ee48733bcc9529415c1ff5c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The first term is equal to the diagonal of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\pi}_{N,ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " estimator calculated previously. As per (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a), using the delta-method an estimator for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "AsyCov(\\sqrt{Ne}_{ij}\\sqrt{S_{ii}S_{jj}},\\sqrt{N} S_{ij})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 158, + 525, + 235 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 158, + 525, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 158, + 525, + 235 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\frac {1}{2} \\binom {\\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} e _ {i j} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} {+ \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} e _ {j i} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j})} \\tag {31}", + "image_path": "634b942812fb3386d5c5d04bcc7d5e6a0bb0d4eaa7b2fca8d1bd45a41cdc224d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are constant with respect to the observations and symmetric " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(e_{ij} = e_{ji})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this can be re-written:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 284, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 284, + 525, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 284, + 525, + 350 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left( \\begin{array}{l} \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {j j}}{S _ {i i}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\\\ + \\sqrt {\\frac {S _ {i i}}{S _ {j j}}} A s y C o v (\\sqrt {N} S _ {i i}, \\sqrt {N} S _ {i j}) \\end{array} \\right) \\tag {32}", + "image_path": "7e80cd4670474b1200cf8de598fec369937bd5ba041f4221aebff90171aaf812.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A consistent estimator for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{AsyCov}(\\sqrt{N} S_{ii}, \\sqrt{N} S_{ij})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 525, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by (Ledoit and Wolf, 2003a):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 408, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 408, + 525, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 408, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t i} ^ {2} - S _ {i i}\\right) \\left(x _ {t i} x _ {t j} - S _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {33}", + "image_path": "a60ee33803046c7a44b9e4b4c924d2f07625b4070f83ed9071f916ce9ffe8305.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 454, + 399, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 454, + 399, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 454, + 399, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "And by symmetry:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 476, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 476, + 525, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 476, + 525, + 512 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j} = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {N} \\left(x _ {t j} ^ {2} - S _ {j j}\\right) \\left(x _ {t j} x _ {t i} - S _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {34}", + "image_path": "e6a5888dd6b3a35d192d385639ccf98915d026aae87c8a20886397e43ded02dc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 524, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The resulting consistent estimator for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rho_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 558, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 558, + 525, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 558, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\hat {\\rho} _ {N} = \\operatorname {d i a g} \\left(\\hat {\\boldsymbol {\\pi}} _ {N}\\right) \\\\ + \\sum_ {i \\neq j} ^ {p} \\frac {e _ {i j}}{2} \\left(\\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {j j}}{s _ {i i}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {i i, i j} + \\sqrt {\\frac {s _ {i i}}{s _ {j j}}} \\hat {\\vartheta} _ {j j, i j}\\right) \\tag {35} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "df442386d44c9e9215758ea4206abe1844ec885966344328f1275cb868ae889d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9987" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 268, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 268, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 268, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Comparison of Scaled and Shrunk Estimators for 2018-2023 period" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 107, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 107, + 291, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 107, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This appendix provides additional experimental results for the similarity-based estimators for the 2018 to 2023 period. Figure 9 shows that while the Percentage Relative Improvement in Average Loss is higher for a naive estimator built using the scaled similarity as a covariance estimator, the outperformance is concentrated in a single period of very high volatility. Since the loss is a mean squared error, the large covariance values (and their error) seen during this period dominate the general evaluation period." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 266, + 289, + 381 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 266, + 289, + 381 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 266, + 289, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 266, + 289, + 381 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9ae15b9bf256e65a1cc255595ea790f3a003cd21ec845572b31da3dc1e2aa7ff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 415 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 439, + 289, + 553 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 439, + 289, + 553 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 439, + 289, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 439, + 289, + 553 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8fa39e21df544b3c3e09b00dfa4001a00f0a58d761184ecc29101b379b3c5a67.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 291, + 587 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 291, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 561, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 611, + 289, + 724 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 611, + 289, + 724 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 611, + 289, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 611, + 289, + 724 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "435f064b577c9ebf02886e0a7306c62fc6ef5e1cdc32be459560af10e2483bf2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 768 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 768 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It can be seen that the estimator under performs both the constant variance shrunk estimator (Figure 9) and the shrunk covariance using a KG similarity matrix target (Figure 10). A similar effect for the text encoder semantic similarity can be seen in Figure 11 to Figure 13, showing the systematic underperformance of uncalibrated semantic similarity matrices for covariance estimation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 523, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 523, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 523, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 523, + 301 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f59169b7448d6604a2c258e54854df1a2a868ed089dc6cd08a6e035dbb151664.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 525, + 335 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 525, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 311, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 359, + 523, + 474 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 359, + 523, + 474 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 359, + 523, + 474 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 359, + 523, + 474 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2bf3134ee07947bed527675cdeeeb510360f8ef0375417e52f553d31d3930f32.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 525, + 507 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 525, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 482, + 525, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: Relative performance of the Text similarity scaled estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 531, + 523, + 645 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 531, + 523, + 645 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 531, + 523, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 531, + 523, + 645 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fb59da4b397f6443a4e648d7ae468409e0803642cb0729515ad0987bbea68410.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 525, + 679 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 525, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 654, + 525, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 13: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9988" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 290, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 290, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 290, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Experimental results for NASDAQ-100" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This appendix provides the experimental results for the NASDAQ-100 components. Figure 14 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The results align with the S&P 500, showing a strong variance in the average performance of scaled semantic estimators (with the text semantic similarity under-performing the sample covariance estimator). This variance is significantly lower for the shrunk estimators (our method)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 239, + 288, + 451 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 239, + 288, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 239, + 288, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 239, + 288, + 451 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "88bd8b00c2a95fff1f3ed1ec479a91985d9a5805d128b179cb19f7dadf158764.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 461, + 290, + 475 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 461, + 290, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 461, + 290, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 14: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The improved consistency of the proposed estimators is highlighted in Figure 15. This shows that even scaled estimators showing a high PRIAL score (such as the scaled KG similarities) do not consistently perform better than other estimators. The PRIAL metric is an average metric and therefore sensitive to outliers. The scaled similarity methods are biased towards lower covariance values (see Table 1) leading to a very significant error reduction during volatility regime transition periods when the sample covariance is a poor estimator of future covariance (such as the low to high volatility transition during the coronavirus pandemic), but worse performance than other estimators overall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The PRIL (defined in equation 25) allows visualization the contribution of each time window to the PRIAL. Figure 17 confirms the previous observation: the semantic shrinkage estimator outperforms its scaled similarity variant over the entire period, except for the transition into the high volatility events in 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 525, + 273 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 525, + 273 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 525, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 71, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a80676d8a48abc40fdafb8a48b61354ecde91cf685d4dfa125aa6392baee43cf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 526, + 320 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 526, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 526, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 15: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the NASDAQ-100 index." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 331, + 524, + 444 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 331, + 524, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 331, + 524, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 331, + 524, + 444 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "12f902a03f2a1509975630b957ffd085a316bf53eaa97fc5a6e5695e274c17b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 526, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 526, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 16: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 524, + 599 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 524, + 599 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 524, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 488, + 524, + 599 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "342b2583642a3ac14be146f312d01b782b6dfd40d0c419a5f2acd0b49dd01644.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 643 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 17: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A similar effect can be seen for the text-based estimators in Figures 18 to 19." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similarly to results presented for the S&P 500 in 7, the degree of improvement from semantic shrinkage estimators for the covariance prediction shows a positive correlation with a measure of overall market volatility, as illustrated in Figure 20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9989" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 287, + 216 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 287, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 287, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 287, + 216 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "66b4075d1392389f7714d632daf40a66b2e52c2402328dc1fdb59b3ada8b5249.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 226, + 290, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 226, + 290, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 226, + 290, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 18: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 327, + 288, + 438 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 327, + 288, + 438 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 327, + 288, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 327, + 288, + 438 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "75bcc33274f8ebe71d071f15141d9cc16b6e9565a7147f77e88bb7fdc8a39867.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 291, + 471 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 291, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 291, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 19: Relative performance of the Text similarity shrunk estimator to the Text similarity scaled estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 550, + 284, + 698 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 550, + 284, + 698 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 550, + 284, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 550, + 284, + 698 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5c5ee0b9001b8edfe6bfa462181752d466940aadda1de1eff102dbbbf78f3fe1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 735 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 20: PRIL difference between KG and constant variance shrunk estimators for the NASDAQ-100" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9990" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 274, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 274, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 274, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Experimental results for Nikkei 225" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This appendix provides experimental results for the Nikkei 225 components. Figure 21 shows the PRIAL (defined in equation 24) over the entire experimental period. The PRIAL value for the scaled estimators is, unlike for the other two indices, higher than for their shrunk variant, with all semantic estimators significantly outperforming the estimators based on price only (constant variance, constant correlation and single factor shrinkage)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 226, + 288, + 438 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 226, + 288, + 438 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 226, + 288, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 226, + 288, + 438 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c5d3461da8978341e7296279f0122aa95370bfcb336ce5a12e6881cee8cbe1c6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 450, + 289, + 463 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 450, + 289, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 450, + 289, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 21: PRIAL for the NASDAQ-100 for 2007-2023" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This result can be explained by the sensitivity of the PRIAL metric to outliers. Figure 22 shows that the improved PRIAL of the scaled estimators over their shrunk variant is not consistent: it can be seen that the scaled similarity estimators only outperform the price-based and the semantic shrinkage estimators 20 to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the time (middle 3 rows). The semantic shrinkage estimators, on the other hand, tend to be consistently better than the other estimators (bottom 3 rows). This is also illustrated by the PRIL in Figures 24 and 24: the scaled similarity outperforms its shrunk variant only in the 2020 volatility transition period. The errors made by all estimators during this period are significantly higher than average, biasing the average PRIAL metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Providing a reliable estimate of future covariance is a desirable feature and the proposed shrink semantic similarity estimators show a consistent improvement over their scaled variants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 93, + 525, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 93, + 525, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 93, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 93, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "382fb23c40ad4cc7991b9ea83240a163b5a8ae0fe1fd79341c2fad6b6082f80e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 525, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 525, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 525, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 22: Percentage of rolling windows when a method (left) MSE is lower than a reference method (bottom) for the Nikkei 225 index." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 393, + 523, + 506 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 393, + 523, + 506 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 393, + 523, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 393, + 523, + 506 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2b9659a070d8fdf7a4172c9206343c15453a69b865cf5f2beb62a82ec2ede456.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 539 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 23: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the constant variance estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 591, + 524, + 702 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 591, + 524, + 702 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 591, + 524, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 591, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d9710098f80ae930615358c94b041077c08e625093f838256772da428a77b37c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 745 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 24: Relative performance of the Fin. KG similarity shrunk estimator to the KG similarity scaled estimator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9991" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 273, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 273, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 273, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Semantic Models Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 91, + 244, + 119 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 91, + 244, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 91, + 244, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.1 Wikidata5m Knowledge Graph Embeddings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 131, + 276, + 339 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 131, + 276, + 339 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 131, + 276, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 131, + 276, + 339 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE (Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetWikidata5m (Wang et al., 2021)
Dimension512
OptimizerSGD
Learning rate1e-2
Weight decay0
Margin6
Batch size100k
Epochs1000
Sample batch size2000
# Negative/positive64
Adversarial temp.0.2
", + "image_path": "985ff875e10cfc4ea463041ea68f28eca7c5648dfb01719095897b2fa85daf37.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 381, + 180, + 395 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 381, + 180, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 381, + 180, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.2 Text Embeddings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 407, + 280, + 602 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 347, + 289, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 347, + 289, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 347, + 289, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Wikidata5m KG Embeddings hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 407, + 280, + 602 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 407, + 280, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 407, + 280, + 602 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureDistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019)
DatasetNatural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019)
Dimension768
Hidden dim.3072
# layers6
# heads12
ActivationGeLU
LossMultiple Negatives Ranking
Dropout0.1
Cls. dropout0.2
QA dropout0.1
", + "image_path": "aac74884ed9dc3008105c03b38486c79f8b1454742b77b627a3cc70a8e99c656.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 524, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 524, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 524, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E.3 Financial Knowledge Graph Embeddings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 97, + 512, + 305 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 609, + 267, + 622 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 609, + 267, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 609, + 267, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Text Embeddings hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 97, + 512, + 305 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 97, + 512, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 97, + 512, + 305 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ParameterValue
ArchitectureRotatE\n(Sun et al., 2019)
DatasetProprietary
Dimension128
OptimizerAdagrad\n(Duchi et al., 2011)
Learning rate1e-1
Weight decay1e-7
Margin19.9
Batch size1024
Epochs20
Sample batch size512
# Negative/positive2
Adversarial temp.1.0
", + "image_path": "45604996410d8be180b4635927740778e80fdceeead9a2eabe71d4494a13f009.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 520, + 325 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 520, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 312, + 520, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Financial KG Embeddings hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9992" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_content_list.json b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a35214a9f383a450bdc4e14b7495cbfd148a2521 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2222 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 268, + 79, + 727, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rudra Murthy $\\mathbf{V}^{1}$ , Riyadh Bhat $^{1}$ , Chulaka Gunasekara $^{1}$ , Siva Sankalp Patel $^{1}$ , Hui Wan $^{1}$ , Tejas Indulal Dhamecha $^{2*}$ , Danish Contractor $^{1}$ , Marina Danilevsky $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 105, + 836, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1IBM Research AI", + "bbox": [ + 425, + 156, + 576, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2Microsoft India Development Center", + "bbox": [ + 347, + 173, + 655, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "rmurthyv@in.ibm.com,{riyaz.bhat,chulaka.gunasekara,siva.sankalp.patel} @ IBM.com,", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 190, + 847, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "hwan@us.ibm.com, tdhamecha@microsoft.com,", + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 697, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "danish.contractor@ibm.com, mdanile@us.ibm.com", + "bbox": [ + 292, + 224, + 709, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. Examples of such data include user activity on websites, machine logs, and many others. This type of data is often represented as a sequence of sets of key-value pairs over time and can present modeling challenges due to an ever-increasing sequence length thereby affecting the quality of the representation. We propose a two-part approach, which first considers each key independently and encodes a representation of its values over time; we then self-attend over these value-aware key representations to accomplish a downstream task. This allows us to learn better representation while being able to operate on longer object sequences than existing methods. We introduce a novel shared-attention-head architecture between the two modules and present an innovative training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules with shared weights for some attention heads.1 Our experiments on multiple prediction tasks using real-world data demonstrate that our approach outperforms a unified network with hierarchical encoding, as well as other methods including a record-centric representation and a flattened representation of the sequence.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 284, + 460, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 728, + 258, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Semi-structured object sequences comprise a significant portion of the myriad of data created daily. This data usually has a temporal aspect, with the data created sequentially and representing events happening in some order. More generally, the data is a sequence of structured objects, each represented by a set of key-value pairs that encode the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 756, + 489, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "attributes of the object (Figure 1(a)). Examples include recordings of user interactions with websites, logs of machine activity, shopping decisions made by consumers, and many more (Figure 1(b)). The data is usually stored in semi-structured formats such as JSONs, or tabular forms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. If we think of the parallel to natural language data, we could treat each sentence of a text (Figure 1(c)) akin to the set of key-value pairs at a particular time step.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 350, + 884, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The challenge of sequence length: A trivial method of representing such sequences would be to flatten each structured object and view its constituents as individual words for tokenization in natural language (Figure 1 (d)).2 However, this causes the sequence length to become extremely large (thousands of tokens) when operating on real-word semi-structured sequences. For instance, in our study of semi-structured objects from user-interaction sessions on software from a large cloud-based service provider, we found these objects could contain 60 fields on average. The values of these fields include timestamps, identifiers, log messages, etc., with an average of 5 words each. A session length of 15 minutes results in 105 such session objects, amounting to nearly 31,500 words which would further increase the sequence length after sub-words are created.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 884, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Record-centric representation: In contrast, to flattening structured objects, one could also create record-centric representations (Figure 1(f)) where the set of key-value representations at each time step are considered in sequence. As our experiments in Section 3.3 demonstrate, such represent", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 787, + 884, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^2$ with markers to indicate boundaries for each structured object", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Work carried out when the author was an IBM employee Code at https://github.com/murthyrudra/ SemiStructuredEncoders", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9026", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9026-9039 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bd64209231cfb46db09b228445a78d92d249b57fc15ee8929e33905ff7687b91.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 159, + 86, + 448, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b4b3d2a162a59ba1505c6ba4f3b977163fd4ff75379c71a633e412a4d5c78951.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(e)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 584, + 96, + 875, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9be1265decc665abc60984c46c94805d9589af4873560e7443d7f77bb96bb9eb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 159, + 166, + 512, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {k} _ {1}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {1}, v _ {2} ^ {1}, v _ {3} ^ {1}, \\dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 630, + 168, + 801, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{c} \\mathsf {k} _ {\\mathsf {2}}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {2}, v _ {2} ^ {2}, v _ {3} ^ {2}, \\ldots v _ {N} ^ {2} \\right\\} \\\\ \\ldots \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 185, + 800, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {k} _ {\\mathsf {K}}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {K}, v _ {2} ^ {K}, v _ {3} ^ {K}, \\dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 209, + 800, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c22a1a1c14a59dd35a8bcb929840e1c7bdc38e541d63b5b04f21dc623f14dc02.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c)", + "(f)", + "Figure 1: Semi-Structured Object Sequences: (a) Generic representation of a sequence of semi-structured objects, consisting of multiple key-value pairs at time steps $t_1 \\ldots t_N$ . (b) Example object: a sequence of events triggered by the use of a graphical user interface. (c) Viewing a text paragraph as a sequence of sentences. (d) Encoding the example object in (a) by flattening. (e) Encoding (a) by encoding a representation of the values for each key (to be followed by a key aggregation step, not shown). (f) Encoding (a) using a record-centric representation for each time step." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 159, + 244, + 510, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {t} _ {1}: \\left\\{k _ {1}: v _ {1} ^ {1}, k _ {2}: v _ {1} ^ {2}, k _ {3}: v _ {1} ^ {3}, \\dots k _ {K}: v _ {1} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 243, + 863, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {t} _ {2}: \\left\\{\\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {2} ^ {1}, \\mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {2} ^ {2}, \\mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {2} ^ {3}, \\dots \\mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {2} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 260, + 863, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\dots\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 275, + 670, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {t} _ {\\mathbf {N}}: \\left\\{\\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {N} ^ {1}, \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {N} ^ {2}, \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {N} ^ {3}, \\quad \\dots \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 284, + 863, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tations do not work well when operating on long sequences. We hypothesize that this could be because the record-representation does not adequately model the dependencies between the constituent values of the same key across different time steps (records).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 487, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Key-centric representation: To address these challenges we use a modular, two-part hierarchical encoding strategy. First, we decompose the sequence of semi-structured objects into independent sets of sequences based on keys. This allows us to consider each key separately (Figure 1(e)), and encode a representation of how the values of that key evolve over time (we refer to this as Temporal Value Modeling – TVM). This may be achieved using any encoder.3 We then self-attend over the set of the key encodings to create a representation of the entire structured object sequence (referred to as Key Aggregation – KA).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 535, + 487, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Advantages: This key-centric perspective of encoding semi-structured sequences has many advantages as compared to flattening and record-centric representations (Figure 1(f)).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 487, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Decoupling the keys allows us to support an arbitrary number of keys since each key-sequence is encoded independently. So, the key-representations created during Temporal Value Modeling can sup", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 819, + 487, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "port longer sequences than what would have been impossible with flattening (due to memory constraints). Moreover, this encoding strategy also accommodates input sequences that may be considered non-structured – e.g., natural language text as sequences of words in sentences (Figure 1(c)). Specifically, if we consider a sequence of structured objects where each structured object consists of only one key, whose values contain a sentence, then our TVM effectively encodes the text sequence using whichever encoder has been employed.5", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 429, + 884, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The decoupling of keys and the use of two independent encoders - TVM for value-aware key representations, and KA for aggregating key-representations for a downstream task - requires that information be shared between the two networks so that the key-representations generated by TVM can be optimized for downstream tasks via the KA. To facilitate this, we share a few sets of attention heads between the two networks. First, we pre-train the TVM network with shared attention heads in place. We then use the frozen representations from this network to initialize the KA network, which has its own untrained attention heads, and the shared attention heads from the TVM network as part of its trainable parameters. We utilize a training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules to iteratively train them. Doing so allows the TVM and KA modules to create richer", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 607, + 884, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3We use BERT and Longformer in our experiments", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 890, + 448, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4Real-world data can have hundreds of keys in each object.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 904, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5The key aggregation step, in this case, is redundant.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 852, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9027", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "representations of keys, informed by their importance for the downstream task. We find that this novel iterative two part-training results in better performance compared to a unified network with hierarchical encoding (with no attention-head sharing) as well as other methods, that either use a flattened representation or a record-centric representation of the sequence (Velicković et al., 2018; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 489, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contributions: Our work addresses the challenges of encoding semi-structured object sequences: (i) we propose a two-part approach that separately encodes the evolution of the values for each key, followed by aggregation over key-representations to accomplish downstream tasks; (ii) we present a novel approach for sharing attention heads between the components; (iii) we compare our approach against baselines such as sequence flattening, joint encoding, and record-centric sequence representations; and (iv) we present detailed experiments on several datasets and tasks to demonstrate the advantages of our approach.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 244, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Modeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 231, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now describe our approach for modeling key-value semi-structured object sequences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 489, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let a sequence of semi-structured objects be denoted as $\\mathcal{J} = [J_1, J_2, J_3, \\ldots, J_N]$ corresponding to $N$ time steps. Further, let $J_i = \\{k_1 : v_i^1, k_2 : v_i^2, \\ldots, k_j : v_i^j, \\ldots, k_K : v_i^K\\}$ denote a structured object $J_i$ , containing $K$ key-value pairs $< k_j : v_i^j >, j = 1 \\ldots K$ . The goal of our modeling is to learn a representation of a sequence of structured objects $\\mathcal{J}$ ; and subsequently, learn $f : \\operatorname{Emb}(\\mathcal{J}) \\to \\{1, 2, \\ldots, C\\}$ for an end task, such as a $C$ -way classification task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 523, + 489, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We develop a modular two-part modeling strategy to represent a sequence of structured objects.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 684, + 489, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. The first module, called the Temporal Value Modeler (TVM), is used to learn a combined representation (referred to as the key-representations) for the different values that each key takes in the sequence.", + "2. The second module, called the KeyAggregator (KA), uses the key-representations corresponding to each key, to create an overall representation for $\\mathcal{I}$ ." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 724, + 489, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Temporal Value Modeling: Let $k$ be a key from the universe of all the keys $\\mathcal{K}$ in the sequence. Then,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for each key $k$ we encode the value-aware key-representation $V_{k}$ , by considering the value of the key $k$ at each timestamp, as a sequence. Formally, $V_{k}$ is given by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV _ {k} = [ \\text {C L S} ] k [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] v _ {1} ^ {k} [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] v _ {2} ^ {k} [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] \\dots v _ {N} ^ {k} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 155, + 885, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where [VAL_SEP] and [CLS] are special tokens. Note that each value $v_{j}^{k}$ for a key $k$ at time step $j$ can itself consist of many tokens and those have not been shown for ease of presentation. With any choice of a transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) language encoder (TextEncoder - TE), an embedding for $V_{k}$ , termed the key-representation (KR), can be obtained as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 184, + 884, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathrm {K R} _ {k} = \\text {T e x t E n c o d e r} \\left(V _ {k}\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 583, + 321, + 882, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the output embedding representation at the first position (corresponding to [CLS]) as the key-representation. It is easy to see that this formulation allows us to accommodate the modeling of natural language text as in Figure 1 (c). For illustration, if the TextEncoder is based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Eq. 2 reduces to the encoding scheme typically employed in BERT for text paragraphs, where the [VAL_SEP] corresponds to the [SEP] token.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 346, + 882, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Key-Aggregation: Once we create key-representations we utilize them for an end-task. We encode the key-representations using the same model architecture as the TVM TextEncoder but do not use positional embeddings since we encode a set of position-invariant key representations. Note that the weights of the KA are randomly initialized. This network is directly optimized for an end-task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {E m b d} (\\mathcal {J}) = \\mathrm {K A} \\left(\\left\\{\\mathrm {K R} (k) \\mid k \\in \\mathcal {K} \\right\\}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 668, + 882, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Key-centric vs. Record-centric Representation: As an alternative to the key-centric representation used by the TVM, one could construct a record-centric view to model the sequence (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021). Instead of modeling the evolution of keys in a semistructured object sequence using $V_{k}$ for each key, one could treat the sequence as a series of $J_{i}$ (Figure 1(f)). However, the record-centric representation requires the network to compress information present in multiple keys and values of a record $(J_{i})$ which can create an information bottleneck for the downstream task. We compare and contrast these alternative views in Section 3 and Section 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 694, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9028", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/53bd6767e01c1c6db40fa444604be8d9e58611dcde3ea85c435f21c64313b98e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The TVM-KA network architecture consisting of a set of shared attention heads (weights) between the Temporal Value Modeler and the Key Aggregator. Each key is encoded independently to create a corresponding key representation." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 194, + 82, + 803, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Challenges of Scalable Training: The training of the hierarchical two-part network, which first obtains the key-representations (Eq. 2) and then the structured object sequence representation (Eq. 3), could be done end-to-end where the network parameters are directly trained for the downstream task. However, end-to-end training of the hierarchical two-part network is often difficult due to the constraints imposed by the limited GPU memory. The GPU memory usage is affected by two factors: (1) the length of the semi-structured object sequence; and (2) the number of keys in an object. The end-to-end model architecture operating over a batch of $\\mathcal{I}$ sequences would exceed the memory of most commodity GPUs. By a conservative estimate, even for $n = 11$ and $N = 512$ , a typical 120M parameter model would exceed 40GB RAM limit with a batch-size of 2. To address this, we use an iterative training paradigm, described below, which interleaves the training of the TVM and KA components by relying on attention heads that are shared between the two components.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sharing Attention Heads: Recall that the TVM network first creates a representation for each key by attending to the values that occur in the sequence for each of them. The KA network then uses these representations to learn the end task. However, if the KA network could influence how these representations are created for each key, it could perhaps", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "help improve the performance of the KA on the downstream task. We, therefore, introduce hard-parameter sharing between the TVM and KA components. We hypothesize that by sharing a few attention heads (weights) between the two networks, the KA will be able to utilize the shared attention heads. Specifically, as training progresses and updates the parameters used in these heads, it will have an effect of adjusting the key-representations from the TVM in a way that could help improve overall end-task performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 884, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interleaved Task Training: As mentioned above, we use an iterative task training paradigm where we interleave the training of the TVM and KA components. Note that our training paradigm is different from traditional training schedules for sequential task training where one network is fully trained before the next module, or from fine-tuning approaches where a part of the network may be initialized with a pre-trained model and additional layers of the network are initialized randomly and then updated for an end-task. We use the Masked language modeling (MLM) objective (Devlin et al., 2019) to train the TVM component and an end-task-specific objective for training the KA. The use of interleaved training, as outlined in Algorithm 1, prevents the problem of catastrophic forgetting (French, 1999; McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; McClelland et al., 1995; Kumaran et al., 2016; Ratcliff,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9029", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1990) when the KA is trained. Further, it is possible that when the TVM is trained for the first time it may rely heavily on the heads that are shared. Thus, any change to the representation from these heads could lead to poorer key-representations and attention sharing, and would therefore would be counter-productive. To address this problem, we apply DropHead (Zhou et al., 2020) on the shared attention heads in TVM and pre-train the model before beginning the interleaving schedule.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 Interleaved training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 258, + 363, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Initialize Temporal Value Modeler $\\mathcal{M}_v$ , Key Aggregator $\\mathcal{M}_k$ parameters randomly.", + "2: Prepare the dataset $D_v$ consisting of value sequences", + "3: for i = 1,2,...,p do", + "4: ▷TVM training", + "5: Update TVM $\\mathcal{M}_v$ model parameters with MLM objective on $D_v$ .", + "6: Prepare the dataset $D_{k}$ consisting of key-representations $\\mathrm{KR}_k$ as per Eq. 2", + "7: ▷KA training", + "8: Update Key Aggregator $\\mathcal{M}_k$ model parameters with cross-entropy loss for downstream task.", + "9: end for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 281, + 487, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 467, + 260, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our experiments are designed to answer the following questions: (i) How helpful is the TVM-KA architecture over the baseline that involves flattening semi-structured object sequences? (ii) How does the model compare to existing approaches based on record-centric representations? (iii) How important is the use of shared attention heads for fine-tuning KA? (iv) Does the interleaved training procedure help train the network effectively?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 489, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 648, + 200, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We experiment using two application/cloud logs datasets and one e-commerce purchase history dataset. The first logs dataset, referred to as 'Cloud Service Logs,' is an internal dataset consisting of interaction traces typically used for product usage analysis. We also use the publicly available LogHub (He et al., 2020) dataset, comprising system log messages from the Hadoop distributed file system, and a publicly available e-commerce dataset, which consists of product purchase information (Stanley et al., 2017). We include additional details about the datasets in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 489, + 863 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cloud Service Logs Data - Application event traces from a large cloud provider: In the Cloud Service Logs dataset, application event", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "traces are logged by the cloud provider website. Event types include login, browsing, account creation/maintenance/update, UI navigation, search, service creation/deletion, app interactions, and others. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months and comprising about 450M events, from which we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. While the raw data has over 60 keys in each event, we experiment with a smaller set of manually selected 11 keys, so that existing approaches and baselines can be meaningfully used for comparison. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen to represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of 3) no milestone event occurring is treated as third class. From the traces, temporal sequences of 300 events are extracted to predict if a milestone (or no-milestone) event will occur in next 50 time steps. We report Macro F1-Score, as the dataset exhibits class imbalance.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 84, + 884, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instacart eCommerce Data: The publicly available Instacart dataset6 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as day of the week, product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We predict the product name given the sequence of product orders,7 which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict if a particular item is likely to be purchased again.8", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 885, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LogHub Data: We use the HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) for the log anomaly detection task. As the dataset originally consisted of lines of log messages, we use the Drain log parser", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 781, + 884, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{6}$ https://tech.instacart.com/3-million-instarcart-orders-open-sourced-d40d29ead6f2", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 863, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7We use the complete structured object.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 879, + 773, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/instacart-market-basket-analysis/leaderboard", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9030", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bf37e76268565ade9ec0d6c0a4f325c54ed88ab221fc63d3dc421447f74550ba.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTrainDevTest# ClassesTask# Keys# Time Steps
MedianMaximum
Cloud Service Logs12,8331,6051,6043Milestone Prediction11112 (17061)300 (177340)
LogHub402,54257,506115,0122Anomaly Detection4619 (1176)298 (18530)
Instacart780,00397,50197,5003,212Next Product Prediction10134 (9842)3598 (267025)
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 877, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Dataset Statistics including the median and maximum length of sequences reported in number of time-steps. Values in parentheses report the sequence length after sub-word tokenization using the BERT tokenizer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 882, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(He et al., 2017) to identify 48 log templates. Using a semi-automated approach, we assign key names to the value slots of the templates. Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object with 46 key-value pairs. The original dataset splits the log lines into blocks, and the binary prediction task is to predict whether a particular block is anomalous. The dataset is highly imbalanced, with around $3\\%$ of the instances belonging to the anomalous class. We therefore report F1-Score for the anomalous class.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 236, + 487, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Encoders", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 412, + 235, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines: We flatten each key-value pair in a structured object and encode them with special markers indicating boundaries for objects and timesteps. We fine-tune the pre-trained encoders for each downstream task and report their performance. We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) as the pre-trained encoders.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 487, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also compare our model with popular approaches for creating record-centric representations. These approaches first obtain the representations for each object $J_{i}$ , and then feed them to an inter-object transformer to create the representation of the whole sequence of objects. We experiment with three popular methods, where each object representation is obtained from the key-value pair representations by 1) point-wise summation, 2) concatenation then project-down (Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021), and 3) self-attention then averaging (Zhang et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2021). Note that the record-centric baseline can be viewed as an adaptation of the TabBERT model originally designed for tabular data (Padhi et al., 2021). Padhi et al. (2021) use a field transformer (a transformer encoder similar to BERT) to encode all rows in the table independently to obtain row embeddings. These row embeddings are later passed through another encoder to obtain a representation for the entire table. We use self-attention instead of a field transformer to encode", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the key-value pairs of a JSON object.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 236, + 786, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pre-trained models for tokens cannot be meaningfully used to initialize record-centric baselines as these create sequences over sets of key-value pairs. On the other hand, identifying a custom pretraining objective for baselines is challenging as the downstream task of predicting the next event/product involves predicting a value for a very specific key at a future time step (which is very similar to an objective one might think of for pre-training). Hence, we randomly initialize the weights of the record-centric models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Encoders for TVM-KA: One of the advantages of the TVM-KA architecture is that it is agnostic to the choice of the encoder. We employ the same encoder architectures used in our baselines to enable a direct performance comparison. Recall that the TVM module and KA module share attention heads to facilitate sharing of information between them. To pre-train the TVM, we mask $15\\%$ of the tokens in every Value Sequence, and the objective is to predict the masked tokens. We do not mask value-separator and key aggregator tokens; we only mask the values. Details on hyper-parameter tuning and the iterative training schedule are in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 613, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 reports the primary results from our experiments. We include the results on three datasets and for each dataset, we report the overall performance along with the performance of the models on slices of the dataset where the length of the sequence is greater than the median length for that dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 683, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with Flattened encoding: As seen in the 'overall' scores for each dataset in Table 2, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVMKA (last row). For instance, on the cloud service logs, there's an increase of $3.9\\% - 58.5\\%$ compared to flattened encodings in macro F1 scores. Similar", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9031", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/51b398f5a4d97c08dd572b0711f3e4ef718b192b5ba8c899233d7496a6385cef.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ConfigurationCloud Service Logs (Macro F1)Instacart (Recall@10)Loghub (Binary F1-Score)
L >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (51.37%)Overall
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)49.5550.229.69.40.0053.62
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)77.3074.7720.1018.7023.3261.63
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)80.0676.5921.0719.1158.3075.86
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained75.8373.7116.9416.0897.7198.54
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation78.9777.337.115.1099.2299.51
Concat77.7675.997.185.1199.2999.57
Self-Attention79.1877.737.986.3499.0899.42
TVM-KAJoint Modeling80.1577.6817.0416.046.7870.72
No Interleaving73.1973.2218.3217.599.0598.64
Interleaving81.2679.6023.4422.5498.7999.32
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 884, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on various datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report results on a subset of the test set whose sequence length (L) (post-tokenization) is greater than the median length for each dataset. The values in parenthesis indicate the percentage number of instances where the length of a sequence is greater than the median sequence length. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches on both cloud service logs and instacart datasets (p-value $< 0.03$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 884, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "trends are reported on the Instacart dataset. We find that on the LogHub dataset, the Longformer model (Beltagy et al., 2020) is able to obtain a comparable performance (98.54 vs 99.32).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 455, + 487, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparison with Record-centric representations: Unlike flattened encoding, the record-centric representation does not suffer from the modeling limitations associated with the maximum sequence length limit. These representations can encode sequences in their entirety, since most datasets have fewer than 300 objects (time-steps), and the sequence length is equal to the number of time steps. However, the record-centric view may not adequately model the dependencies between values of the same key across different time steps. We find that our approach outperforms all record-centric representation baselines on the Cloud Service Logs dataset as well as the Instacart dataset. As before, the performance of TVM-KA on the LogHub data is similar to that of different record-centric baselines (99.32 vs 99.57) - this perhaps indicates that the prediction task is relatively simpler on this dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 532, + 489, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While the poor performance of record-centric baselines over flattened encoding on the Instacart dataset may appear counter-intuitive at first glance, the reason this can happen is that the record-centric approach creates a combined representation for", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "each time-step before it processes a sequence (See Figure 1). This combined representation can be lossy and it does not allow interaction across keys or time steps, which the flattening baseline permits (thanks to $n^2$ attention across each token). Further, not only is the number of classes for prediction in the Instacart data in the thousands (while it is $< 5$ for the other datasets), but it also exhibits longer sequences than other datasets, all of which are factors that likely contribute to this result.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 455, + 884, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Importance of interleaved training: As seen in the last two rows of Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVMKA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. We illustrate the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 630, + 885, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint Modeling vs Interleaved Training of TVM-KA: In the joint modeling approach, we do not use shared attention heads and instead train the TVM and KA networks end-to-end (jointly). We observe that joint modeling performs poorly compared to our interleaving approach. We found this surprising as we had expected it to be at par", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9032", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with our approach when the joint models fit in memory. We hypothesize that by interleaving and sharing attention heads between TVM and KA, the fine-tuning of the KA on the downstream task introduces a task-specific bias to help improve the key-representations. This in-turn, benefits the pre-trained representations of the TVM via shared-attention weights and further improves performance in the next round of training. In the absence of this bias, the joint model perhaps converges at an alternative minima that is not as good.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of varying the number of shared attention heads: In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Sharing too few or too many attention heads results in an average drop of $2\\% - 43\\%$ in performance. We include further details in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 271, + 489, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of parameter size/model capacity: We investigate if the model capacity could be a bottleneck for the approaches based on flattened representations. We fine-tune a bert-large-uncased model, which has $3x$ the parameters of the bert-base-uncased model and approximately $1.5x$ the parameters of the TVM-KA network. We find that our model performs better, suggesting that the improved performance is primarily due to the value-aware key representations and the model's resultant ability to accommodate longer sequences due to the decoupling of keys.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 378, + 489, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 270, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work is related to several areas of research.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 611, + 470, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Modeling Tabular and Timeseries Data: As we explicitly model the value sequence for each key, the data object we work with is reminiscent of tabular data where each row is a time-step and each column comprises the values for a particular field. On the surface, the modeling of data may appear related, but the actual tasks and models developed for tasks on tabular data cannot be applied to semi-structured object sequences. This is because the work on modeling textual tabular data often involves developing specialized models focused on retrieving information from cells (Zayats et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Iida et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), multi-hop reasoning across information in different cells across parts of the table (Chen et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a), combining", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 637, + 489, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "information present in tables and unstructured text for information seeking tasks (Li et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021; Zayats et al., 2021; Luetto et al., 2023; Cholakov and Kolev, 2022), etc. In addition, work on modeling time-series tabular data has focused on numerical data (Zhou et al., 2021; Zerveas et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022b) with purpose-built task-specific architectures that cannot be easily adapted to other tasks (Wu et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Modeling Temporal Graph Sequences and Recommender Systems: Our approach is also related to a rich body of work on modeling temporal graphs and recommendation systems (Xu et al., 2021b; Grigsby et al., 2021; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021). Temporal graph evolution problems involve constructing representations to enable tasks such as link prediction (Sankar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021a), item recommendation in user sessions (Hsu and te Li, 2021), answering queries on graphs and sequences (Saxena et al., 2022), classifying graph instances in a sequence, (Xu et al., 2021a,b) etc. Our findings suggest that such approaches do not scale for long sequences for the tasks we experimented with. However, our record-centric model baselines (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019) are similar in approach to these methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 885, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Parameter sharing in neural network models: Deep neural networks are usually trained to tackle different tasks in isolation. Networks that cater to multiple related tasks (multi-task neural networks) seek to improve generalization and process data efficiently through parameter sharing and joint learning. Traditional hard-parameter sharing uses the same initial layers and splits the network into task-specific branches at an ad hoc point (Guo et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2017). On the other hand, soft-parameter sharing shares features via a set of task-specific networks (Liu et al., 2019; Maninis et al., 2019). More recently adaptive sharing approaches have been proposed that decide what parameters to share across tasks to achieve the best performance (Vandenhende et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020). The parameter sharing utilized in this work is different from the aforementioned approaches, as we share some attention head weights between the two networks (as compared to shared layers), in a way that could improve overall end-task performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9We trained our joint models on 80GB A100 GPUs.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 453, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9033", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion and Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 379, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we have presented a two-part encoder to model structured object sequences. The choice of a key-centric representation enables us to encode larger objects as well as long sequences. Our experiments show that by using the two-part TVM-KA architecture we are able to inject downstream task information into the temporal value modeler network to generate key representations that are more relevant.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 108, + 487, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We additionally present a novel interleaving scheme to train our two-part encoder. We induce task bias into the model by sharing attention heads between the Temporal Value Modeler and Key Aggregator components. Our proposed approach outperforms both the baseline approaches that flatten structured object sequences and those based on record-centric representations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 253, + 489, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 393, + 220, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The benefits of our approach are best highlighted in datasets that have a large number of keys in each object when sequences are long and have a challenging prediction task. In such cases, the joint modeling of TVM-KA becomes too big to fit in memory and record-centric approaches suffer a lot of deterioration due to lossy record-representations. In our experiments, the Instacart data exhibits some of these characteristics and we see a significant improvement in performance as compared to record-centric baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 417, + 489, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We note that the key-centric representation does not allow the model to support tasks such as sequence tagging of the structured objects. Nor does it allow to modeling of graph sequences effectively, as it does not use a global view of the structured objects. Thus, it may not be able to learn patterns across fields at different time steps. For such tasks, a record-centric representation is perhaps more helpful. Both key-centric and record-centric representations have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice should be made with the downstream task in mind. Further, while our experiments have been reported on real-world datasets they do not represent the full spectrum of existing sequence modeling tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 595, + 489, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 846, + 285, + 863 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank Vignesh P for his work during internship at IBM and helping us with the processing of LogHub data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 608, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/2004.05150.", + "Zhiyu Chen, Wenhu Chen, Charese Smiley, Sameena Shah, Iana Borova, Dylan Langdon, Reema Moussa, Matt Beane, Ting-Hao Huang, Bryan Routledge, and William Yang Wang. 2021. FinQA: A dataset of numerical reasoning over financial data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3697-3711, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Radostin Cholakov and Todor Kolev. 2022. The gatedtabtransformer: an enhanced deep learning architecture for tabular modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00199.", + "Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Sara Rabhi, Jeong Min Lee, Ronay Ak, and Even Oldridge. 2021. Transformers4rec: Bridging the gap between nlp and sequential/session-based recommendation. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 143-153.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Robert M. French. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4):128-135.", + "Jake Grigsby, Zhe Wang, and Yanjun Qi. 2021. Long-range transformers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218.", + "Xiaodong Gu, Kang Min Yoo, and Jung-Woo Ha. 2021. DialogBERT: Discourse-aware response generation via learning to recover and rank utterances.", + "Michelle Guo, Albert Haque, De-An Huang, Serena Yeung, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Dynamic task prioritization for multitask learning. In ECCV (16).", + "Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R Lyu. 2017. Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree. In 2017 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pages 33-40. IEEE.", + "Shilin He, Jieming Zhu, Pinjia He, and Michael R Lyu. 2020. Loghub: a large collection of system log datasets towards automated log analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06448." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 107, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9034", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Cheng-Mao Hsu and Cheng te Li. 2021. Retagnn: Relational temporal attentive graph neural networks for holistic sequential recommendation. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021.", + "Hiroshi Iida, Dung Thai, Varun Manjunatha, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. Tabbie: Pretrained representations of tabular data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3446-3456.", + "Dharshan Kumaran, Demis Hassabis, and James L McClelland. 2016. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(7):512-534.", + "Alexander Hanbo Li, Patrick Ng, Peng Xu, Henghui Zhu, Zhiguo Wang, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Dual reader-parser on hybrid textual and tabular evidence for open domain question answering. In ACLIJCNLP 2021.", + "Shikun Liu, Edward Johns, and Andrew J Davison. 2019. End-to-end multi-task learning with attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1871-1880.", + "Yongxi Lu, Abhishek Kumar, Shuangfei Zhai, Yu Cheng, Tara Javidi, and Rogerio Feris. 2017. Fully-adaptive feature sharing in multi-task networks with applications in person attribute classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5334-5343.", + "Simone Luetto, Fabrizio Garuti, Enver Sangineto, Lorenzo Forni, and Rita Cucchiara. 2023. One transformer for all time series: Representing and training with time-dependent heterogeneous tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06375.", + "Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Ilija Radosavovic, and Iasonas Kokkinos. 2019. Attentive single-tasking of multiple tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1851-1860.", + "James L McClelland, Bruce L McNaughton, and Randall C O'Reilly. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological review, 102(3):419.", + "Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109-165. Elsevier.", + "Sarai Mizrachi and Pavel Levin. 2019. Combining context features in sequence-aware recommender systems. In RecSys." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Inkit Padhi, Yair Schiff, Igor Melnyk, Mattia Rigotti, Youssef Mroueh, Pierre Dognin, Jerret Ross, Ravi Nair, and Erik Altman. 2021. Tabular transformers for modeling multivariate time series. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 3565-3569. IEEE.", + "Roger Ratcliff. 1990. Connectionist models of recognition memory: constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. *Psychological review*, 97(2):285.", + "Aravind Sankar, Yanhong Wu, Liang Gou, Wei Zhang, and Hao Yang. 2020. Dysat: Deep neural representation learning on dynamic graphs via self-attention networks. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '20, page 519-527, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Apoory Saxena, Adrian Kochsiek, and Rainer Gemulla. 2022. Sequence-to-sequence knowledge graph completion and question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2814-2828.", + "Jeremy Stanley, Meg Risdal, sharathrao, and Will Cukierski. 2017. Instacart market basket analysis.", + "Ximeng Sun, Rameswar Panda, Rogerio Feris, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Adashare: Learning what to share for efficient deep multi-task learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:8728-8740.", + "Simon Vandenhende, Stamatios Georgoulis, Bert De Brabandere, and Luc Van Gool. 2019. Branched multi-task networks: Deciding what layers to share. Proceedings BMVC 2020.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc.", + "Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Fei Wang, Kexuan Sun, Muhao Chen, Jay Pujara, and Pedro A Szekely. 2021. Retrieving complex tables with multi-granular graph representation learning. In SIGIR.", + "Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with Auto-Correlation for long-term series forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9035", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dongkuan Xu, Junjie Liang, Wei Cheng, Hua Wei, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. 2021a. Transformer-style relational reasoning with dynamic memory updating for temporal network modeling. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(5):4546-4554.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiehui Xu, Haixu Wu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021b. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 173, + 487, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jingfeng Yang, Aditya Gupta, Shyam Upadhyay, Luheng He, Rahul Goel, and Shachi Paul. 2022. Tableformer: Robust transformer modeling for tablettext encoding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 528-537.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 248, + 487, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Victoria Zayats, Kristina Toutanova, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Representations for question answering from documents with tables and text. In EACL.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 336, + 487, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "George Zerveas, Srideepika Jayaraman, Dhaval Patel, Anuradha Bhamidipaty, and Carsten Eickhoff. 2021. A transformer-based framework for multivariate time series representation learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2114-2124.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 385, + 487, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2019. HIBERT: Document level pre-training of hierarchical bidirectional transformers for document summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5059-5069, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 473, + 489, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022a. Multihiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 574, + 487, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022b. MultiHiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 662, + 487, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 11106-11115.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 763, + 487, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wangchunshu Zhou, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2020. Scheduled drophead: A regularization method for transformer models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1971-1980.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 851, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. TAT-QA: A question answering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3277-3287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 882, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Dataset Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 231, + 680, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide additional details about the datasets used in our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 256, + 880, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Cloud Service Logs Data: Application event traces from a large cloud provider", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 302, + 873, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the Cloud Service Logs (CSL) dataset, application event traces are logged in the cloud provider website. Each user is assigned a unique identifier. Event types range from login, browsing, account creation, account maintenance, account update, UI navigation, search, service creation, service deletion, app interactions, among several others. We have about 638 unique event types. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. For example, if a user performed a search, the payload captures the search query and the page where the search was performed. If a user interacted with a service, the payload captures the service ID and action performed on the service, among other information.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 882, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months comprising about 450M events. Using these, we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. If there is a difference of greater than 15 minutes between two consecutive events, we break the session. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen as they represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of no milestone event occurring is treated as the third class.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the traces, we identify user sessions containing any of the aforementioned milestone events. We consider the temporal sequences of events 350 time-steps before the milestone event occurs. To construct the data, we consider the sequence of events till 300 time-steps and the task is to predict", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9036", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "if a milestone (or no milestone) event will occur in the next 50 time steps.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Instacart eCommerce Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 127, + 374, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The publicly available Instacart dataset10 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as the day of the week, the product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We create variable-length training instances from each user's order history by sampling between 50 to 200 previous product purchases for a certain target product. Additionally, we only sample a training instance if the target product has been ordered at least 50 times across users.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 146, + 487, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As per our task formulation, we predict the product name given the sequence of product orders11, which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict whether a particular item is likely to be purchased again.12", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 487, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2.1 LogHub Data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 510, + 285, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) is utilized for the log anomaly detection task. The dataset consists of log lines. A sample log message is shown below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 485, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "081109 203519 29 INFO dfs.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 599, + 401, + 614 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "FSNamesystem: BLOCK*", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 615, + 371, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NameSystem.addStoredBlock:", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 632, + 433, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "blockMap updated :", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 648, + 336, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "10.250.10.6:50010 is added to", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 664, + 468, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "blk_ $-1608999687919862906$ size", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 680, + 468, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "91178", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 696, + 206, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now convert the log message to a JSON object. We utilize Drain log parser (He et al., 2017) to extract the static template, dynamic variables, and header information from log messages. We obtain around 48 templates. All the log messages fall into one of the 48 templates. In a semi-automated fashion, we define keys for the templates. We populate key names with the value slots of the templates.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 719, + 487, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object. The log message after conversion to a JSON object would look as follows,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "{ \"status\": \"addStoredBLock: Blockmap updated\", \"port\": \"10.250.10.6:50010\", \"block_ID\": \"blk_160899968791986290 6\", \"size\": \"91178\", \"LineId\": \"11\", \"Date\": \"81109\", \"Time\": \"203519\", \"Pid\": \"29\", \"Level\": \"INFO\", \"Component\": \"dfs.FSNamesystem\", \"EventId\": \"5d5de21c\" }", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 146, + 878, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A block consists of a sequence of such structured objects. The task is to classify the given block as anomalous or not.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 880, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Hyperparameters and Training schedule", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 418, + 818, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform a grid search for the learning rate and batch size for all the models in our experiments. We select the hyper-parameter configuration which gives the best validation set performance on each dataset's metric. We now list the range of values considered for each hyper-parameter.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 461, + 882, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Learning", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 573, + 625, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rate:", + "bbox": [ + 836, + 573, + 882, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\{1 e ^ {- 4}, 3 e ^ {- 4}, 5 e ^ {- 4}, 1 e ^ {- 5}, 3 e ^ {- 5},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 547, + 587, + 779, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left. 5 e ^ {- 5}, 1 e ^ {- 6}, 3 e ^ {- 6}, 5 e ^ {- 6} \\right\\},\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 547, + 604, + 736, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Batch Size: 2,4,8,16,32", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 633, + 741, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Shared Heads (p): 2, 4, 6, 8", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 663, + 759, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The drophead mechanism is only activated during TVM training, with drophead probability set to 0.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 693, + 882, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For all the baseline models, we train till convergence. For the TVM training in the first iteration, we vary learning rates and observe model convergence (in terms of train and dev loss) after a fixed $100K$ steps. The best learning rate for TVM is identified from this exercise. A similar approach is used for identifying the best learning rate for the KA training stage too, albeit for a smaller number of update steps. In the first iteration, TVM training is done for 1 epoch. Then we proceed with the interleaving step. We alternate between TVM", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10https://tech.instacart.com/3-million-instarcart-orders-open-sourced-d40d29ead6f2", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 468, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "11We use the complete structured object.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 879, + 378, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{12}$ https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/instacart-market-basket-analysis/leaderboard", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9037", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ce2f6ec4c263d6f7724c056356e2fc141b98ae662dda030e494a6670a885cb7a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Effect of sharing different numbers of attention heads between TVM and KA" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 80, + 475, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "training and KA training with their number of training steps in 2:1 proportion. For the cloud service logs dataset, the number of TVM training steps is $50\\mathrm{K}$ and the number of KA training steps is around $100\\mathrm{K}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 292, + 489, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Class-wise Results on Cloud Service Logs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 385, + 465, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 reports the detailed class-wise results on the Cloud Service Logs dataset. As seen in the 'Macro F1' score column in the Table 3, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVM-KA (last row). Specifically, the flattened encoding with randomly initialized BERT model suffers the most on the Open Chatbot class. We believe that semantic understanding of the event names is crucial for identifying the sequences leading to Open Chatbot milestone event.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 489, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In general, we observe improvements from our TVM-KA approach on all class labels compared to the baseline models. This indicates the performance gain from our model is not due to improvements in a single class or subset of classes, but, on all the classes present in our dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 489, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Influence of shared attention heads", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 731, + 455, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use BERT encoder (Devlin et al., 2019) to model both TVM and KA components in our model. This allows us to share attention heads between the TVM and KA components. bert-base-uncased has 12 attention heads at each encoder layer. We experiment with sharing 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 attention heads between TVM and KA components.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 489, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 3 presents the performance of our TVM-KA approach with different numbers of shared attention heads between TVM and KA components.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/978ee105edbafaa04f0dd588587c8de10fda1f3b2586e366329d30531cc671b5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: TVM-KA model performance for each interleaving stage. The red, green, and blue lines, along with their respective colored y-axes, indicate the performance of the Loghub, Instacart, and Cloud Service Logs datasets, respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 80, + 884, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Either not sharing any attention heads or sharing more than that results in poorer performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 344, + 882, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Training schedule", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 420, + 702, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVM-KA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. Figure 4 illustrates the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9038", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ab535189da2849dd74b9bf74bac9e81621881f6c220a198c708dfadcd30f3b87.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CommentsMacro F1Micro F1Browsing/ Upgrade AccountNo MileStoneOpen Chatbot
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)50.2272.3870.1480.500.0
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)74.7780.3179.3984.1260.79
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)76.5981.5780.7285.1363.93
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained73.7179.9179.3184.2657.57
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation77.3385.6684.9190.5956.50
Concat75.9985.1284.4790.1553.36
Self-Attention77.7385.6684.7890.4857.92
TVM-KAJoint Modeling69.6180.5480.0486.8241.97
No Interleaving73.2284.1483.0390.3246.31
Interleaving79.6086.4985.4791.2462.11
", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 338, + 884, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on Cloud Service Logs datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report class-wise results. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches (p-value $< 0.03$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 599, + 882, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "9039", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_model.json b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd702100d797a6d1fb2b95764ea34a3ecd15a83c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2736 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.27, + 0.08, + 0.728, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.106, + 0.838, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rudra Murthy \\(\\mathbf{V}^{1}\\), Riyadh Bhat\\(^{1}\\), Chulaka Gunasekara\\(^{1}\\), Siva Sankalp Patel\\(^{1}\\), Hui Wan\\(^{1}\\), Tejas Indulal Dhamecha\\(^{2*}\\), Danish Contractor\\(^{1}\\), Marina Danilevsky\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.426, + 0.157, + 0.578, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1IBM Research AI" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.348, + 0.174, + 0.656, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Microsoft India Development Center" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.191, + 0.848, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "rmurthyv@in.ibm.com,{riyaz.bhat,chulaka.gunasekara,siva.sankalp.patel} @ IBM.com," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.303, + 0.209, + 0.699, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "hwan@us.ibm.com, tdhamecha@microsoft.com," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.293, + 0.225, + 0.71, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "danish.contractor@ibm.com, mdanile@us.ibm.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.285, + 0.461, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. Examples of such data include user activity on websites, machine logs, and many others. This type of data is often represented as a sequence of sets of key-value pairs over time and can present modeling challenges due to an ever-increasing sequence length thereby affecting the quality of the representation. We propose a two-part approach, which first considers each key independently and encodes a representation of its values over time; we then self-attend over these value-aware key representations to accomplish a downstream task. This allows us to learn better representation while being able to operate on longer object sequences than existing methods. We introduce a novel shared-attention-head architecture between the two modules and present an innovative training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules with shared weights for some attention heads.1 Our experiments on multiple prediction tasks using real-world data demonstrate that our approach outperforms a unified network with hierarchical encoding, as well as other methods including a record-centric representation and a flattened representation of the sequence." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.729, + 0.26, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.757, + 0.49, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Semi-structured object sequences comprise a significant portion of the myriad of data created daily. This data usually has a temporal aspect, with the data created sequentially and representing events happening in some order. More generally, the data is a sequence of structured objects, each represented by a set of key-value pairs that encode the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "attributes of the object (Figure 1(a)). Examples include recordings of user interactions with websites, logs of machine activity, shopping decisions made by consumers, and many more (Figure 1(b)). The data is usually stored in semi-structured formats such as JSONs, or tabular forms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.351, + 0.885, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. If we think of the parallel to natural language data, we could treat each sentence of a text (Figure 1(c)) akin to the set of key-value pairs at a particular time step." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.885, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The challenge of sequence length: A trivial method of representing such sequences would be to flatten each structured object and view its constituents as individual words for tokenization in natural language (Figure 1 (d)).2 However, this causes the sequence length to become extremely large (thousands of tokens) when operating on real-word semi-structured sequences. For instance, in our study of semi-structured objects from user-interaction sessions on software from a large cloud-based service provider, we found these objects could contain 60 fields on average. The values of these fields include timestamps, identifiers, log messages, etc., with an average of 5 words each. A session length of 15 minutes results in 105 such session objects, amounting to nearly 31,500 words which would further increase the sequence length after sub-words are created." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.788, + 0.885, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Record-centric representation: In contrast, to flattening structured objects, one could also create record-centric representations (Figure 1(f)) where the set of key-value representations at each time step are considered in sequence. As our experiments in Section 3.3 demonstrate, such represent" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^2\\)with markers to indicate boundaries for each structured object" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Work carried out when the author was an IBM employee Code at https://github.com/murthyrudra/ SemiStructuredEncoders" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.48, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9026" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9026-9039 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.117, + 0.147, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.087, + 0.449, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.585, + 0.097, + 0.877, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.195, + 0.148, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.167, + 0.514, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.19, + 0.605, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(e)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.631, + 0.169, + 0.802, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {k} _ {1}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {1}, v _ {2} ^ {1}, v _ {3} ^ {1}, \\dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.632, + 0.186, + 0.8, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{c} \\mathsf {k} _ {\\mathsf {2}}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {2}, v _ {2} ^ {2}, v _ {3} ^ {2}, \\ldots v _ {N} ^ {2} \\right\\} \\\\ \\ldots \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.632, + 0.21, + 0.8, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {k} _ {\\mathsf {K}}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {K}, v _ {2} ^ {K}, v _ {3} ^ {K}, \\dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.273, + 0.142, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.246, + 0.512, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.589, + 0.273, + 0.605, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(f)" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.633, + 0.244, + 0.865, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {t} _ {1}: \\left\\{k _ {1}: v _ {1} ^ {1}, k _ {2}: v _ {1} ^ {2}, k _ {3}: v _ {1} ^ {3}, \\dots k _ {K}: v _ {1} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.633, + 0.261, + 0.865, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {t} _ {2}: \\left\\{\\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {2} ^ {1}, \\mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {2} ^ {2}, \\mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {2} ^ {3}, \\dots \\mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {2} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.633, + 0.276, + 0.672, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\dots\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.633, + 0.285, + 0.865, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {t} _ {\\mathbf {N}}: \\left\\{\\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {N} ^ {1}, \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {N} ^ {2}, \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {N} ^ {3}, \\quad \\dots \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.319, + 0.885, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Semi-Structured Object Sequences: (a) Generic representation of a sequence of semi-structured objects, consisting of multiple key-value pairs at time steps \\( t_1 \\ldots t_N \\). (b) Example object: a sequence of events triggered by the use of a graphical user interface. (c) Viewing a text paragraph as a sequence of sentences. (d) Encoding the example object in (a) by flattening. (e) Encoding (a) by encoding a representation of the values for each key (to be followed by a key aggregation step, not shown). (f) Encoding (a) using a record-centric representation for each time step." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.43, + 0.489, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tations do not work well when operating on long sequences. We hypothesize that this could be because the record-representation does not adequately model the dependencies between the constituent values of the same key across different time steps (records)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.536, + 0.489, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Key-centric representation: To address these challenges we use a modular, two-part hierarchical encoding strategy. First, we decompose the sequence of semi-structured objects into independent sets of sequences based on keys. This allows us to consider each key separately (Figure 1(e)), and encode a representation of how the values of that key evolve over time (we refer to this as Temporal Value Modeling – TVM). This may be achieved using any encoder.3 We then self-attend over the set of the key encodings to create a representation of the entire structured object sequence (referred to as Key Aggregation – KA)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.755, + 0.489, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Advantages: This key-centric perspective of encoding semi-structured sequences has many advantages as compared to flattening and record-centric representations (Figure 1(f))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.82, + 0.489, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Decoupling the keys allows us to support an arbitrary number of keys since each key-sequence is encoded independently. So, the key-representations created during Temporal Value Modeling can sup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.43, + 0.885, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "port longer sequences than what would have been impossible with flattening (due to memory constraints). Moreover, this encoding strategy also accommodates input sequences that may be considered non-structured – e.g., natural language text as sequences of words in sentences (Figure 1(c)). Specifically, if we consider a sequence of structured objects where each structured object consists of only one key, whose values contain a sentence, then our TVM effectively encodes the text sequence using whichever encoder has been employed.5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.608, + 0.885, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The decoupling of keys and the use of two independent encoders - TVM for value-aware key representations, and KA for aggregating key-representations for a downstream task - requires that information be shared between the two networks so that the key-representations generated by TVM can be optimized for downstream tasks via the KA. To facilitate this, we share a few sets of attention heads between the two networks. First, we pre-train the TVM network with shared attention heads in place. We then use the frozen representations from this network to initialize the KA network, which has its own untrained attention heads, and the shared attention heads from the TVM network as part of its trainable parameters. We utilize a training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules to iteratively train them. Doing so allows the TVM and KA modules to create richer" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.891, + 0.45, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3We use BERT and Longformer in our experiments" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.905, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4Real-world data can have hundreds of keys in each object." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.891, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.853, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5The key aggregation step, in this case, is redundant." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9027" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.111, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "representations of keys, informed by their importance for the downstream task. We find that this novel iterative two part-training results in better performance compared to a unified network with hierarchical encoding (with no attention-head sharing) as well as other methods, that either use a flattened representation or a record-centric representation of the sequence (Velicković et al., 2018; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.246, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contributions: Our work addresses the challenges of encoding semi-structured object sequences: (i) we propose a two-part approach that separately encodes the evolution of the values for each key, followed by aggregation over key-representations to accomplish downstream tasks; (ii) we present a novel approach for sharing attention heads between the components; (iii) we compare our approach against baselines such as sequence flattening, joint encoding, and record-centric sequence representations; and (iv) we present detailed experiments on several datasets and tasks to demonstrate the advantages of our approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.466, + 0.233, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Modeling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.491, + 0.49, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now describe our approach for modeling key-value semi-structured object sequences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.524, + 0.49, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let a sequence of semi-structured objects be denoted as \\(\\mathcal{J} = [J_1, J_2, J_3, \\ldots, J_N]\\) corresponding to \\(N\\) time steps. Further, let \\(J_i = \\{k_1 : v_i^1, k_2 : v_i^2, \\ldots, k_j : v_i^j, \\ldots, k_K : v_i^K\\}\\) denote a structured object \\(J_i\\), containing \\(K\\) key-value pairs \\(< k_j : v_i^j >, j = 1 \\ldots K\\). The goal of our modeling is to learn a representation of a sequence of structured objects \\(\\mathcal{J}\\); and subsequently, learn \\(f : \\operatorname{Emb}(\\mathcal{J}) \\to \\{1, 2, \\ldots, C\\}\\) for an end task, such as a \\(C\\)-way classification task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.685, + 0.49, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We develop a modular two-part modeling strategy to represent a sequence of structured objects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.725, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. The first module, called the Temporal Value Modeler (TVM), is used to learn a combined representation (referred to as the key-representations) for the different values that each key takes in the sequence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.815, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. The second module, called the KeyAggregator (KA), uses the key-representations corresponding to each key, to create an overall representation for \\(\\mathcal{I}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.725, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Temporal Value Modeling: Let \\( k \\) be a key from the universe of all the keys \\( \\mathcal{K} \\) in the sequence. Then," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for each key \\( k \\) we encode the value-aware key-representation \\( V_{k} \\), by considering the value of the key \\( k \\) at each timestamp, as a sequence. Formally, \\( V_{k} \\) is given by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.156, + 0.886, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV _ {k} = [ \\text {C L S} ] k [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] v _ {1} ^ {k} [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] v _ {2} ^ {k} [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] \\dots v _ {N} ^ {k} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.185, + 0.885, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where [VAL_SEP] and [CLS] are special tokens. Note that each value \\( v_{j}^{k} \\) for a key \\( k \\) at time step \\( j \\) can itself consist of many tokens and those have not been shown for ease of presentation. With any choice of a transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) language encoder (TextEncoder - TE), an embedding for \\( V_{k} \\), termed the key-representation (KR), can be obtained as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.584, + 0.322, + 0.884, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathrm {K R} _ {k} = \\text {T e x t E n c o d e r} \\left(V _ {k}\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.347, + 0.884, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the output embedding representation at the first position (corresponding to [CLS]) as the key-representation. It is easy to see that this formulation allows us to accommodate the modeling of natural language text as in Figure 1 (c). For illustration, if the TextEncoder is based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Eq. 2 reduces to the encoding scheme typically employed in BERT for text paragraphs, where the [VAL_SEP] corresponds to the [SEP] token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Key-Aggregation: Once we create key-representations we utilize them for an end-task. We encode the key-representations using the same model architecture as the TVM TextEncoder but do not use positional embeddings since we encode a set of position-invariant key representations. Note that the weights of the KA are randomly initialized. This network is directly optimized for an end-task." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.54, + 0.669, + 0.883, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {E m b d} (\\mathcal {J}) = \\mathrm {K A} \\left(\\left\\{\\mathrm {K R} (k) \\mid k \\in \\mathcal {K} \\right\\}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.695, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Key-centric vs. Record-centric Representation: As an alternative to the key-centric representation used by the TVM, one could construct a record-centric view to model the sequence (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021). Instead of modeling the evolution of keys in a semistructured object sequence using \\( V_{k} \\) for each key, one could treat the sequence as a series of \\( J_{i} \\) (Figure 1(f)). However, the record-centric representation requires the network to compress information present in multiple keys and values of a record \\( (J_{i}) \\) which can create an information bottleneck for the downstream task. We compare and contrast these alternative views in Section 3 and Section 5." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9028" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.083, + 0.805, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.364, + 0.885, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The TVM-KA network architecture consisting of a set of shared attention heads (weights) between the Temporal Value Modeler and the Key Aggregator. Each key is encoded independently to create a corresponding key representation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.49, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Challenges of Scalable Training: The training of the hierarchical two-part network, which first obtains the key-representations (Eq. 2) and then the structured object sequence representation (Eq. 3), could be done end-to-end where the network parameters are directly trained for the downstream task. However, end-to-end training of the hierarchical two-part network is often difficult due to the constraints imposed by the limited GPU memory. The GPU memory usage is affected by two factors: (1) the length of the semi-structured object sequence; and (2) the number of keys in an object. The end-to-end model architecture operating over a batch of \\(\\mathcal{I}\\) sequences would exceed the memory of most commodity GPUs. By a conservative estimate, even for \\(n = 11\\) and \\(N = 512\\), a typical 120M parameter model would exceed 40GB RAM limit with a batch-size of 2. To address this, we use an iterative training paradigm, described below, which interleaves the training of the TVM and KA components by relying on attention heads that are shared between the two components." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sharing Attention Heads: Recall that the TVM network first creates a representation for each key by attending to the values that occur in the sequence for each of them. The KA network then uses these representations to learn the end task. However, if the KA network could influence how these representations are created for each key, it could perhaps" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.433, + 0.885, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "help improve the performance of the KA on the downstream task. We, therefore, introduce hard-parameter sharing between the TVM and KA components. We hypothesize that by sharing a few attention heads (weights) between the two networks, the KA will be able to utilize the shared attention heads. Specifically, as training progresses and updates the parameters used in these heads, it will have an effect of adjusting the key-representations from the TVM in a way that could help improve overall end-task performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interleaved Task Training: As mentioned above, we use an iterative task training paradigm where we interleave the training of the TVM and KA components. Note that our training paradigm is different from traditional training schedules for sequential task training where one network is fully trained before the next module, or from fine-tuning approaches where a part of the network may be initialized with a pre-trained model and additional layers of the network are initialized randomly and then updated for an end-task. We use the Masked language modeling (MLM) objective (Devlin et al., 2019) to train the TVM component and an end-task-specific objective for training the KA. The use of interleaved training, as outlined in Algorithm 1, prevents the problem of catastrophic forgetting (French, 1999; McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; McClelland et al., 1995; Kumaran et al., 2016; Ratcliff," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9029" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1990) when the KA is trained. Further, it is possible that when the TVM is trained for the first time it may rely heavily on the heads that are shared. Thus, any change to the representation from these heads could lead to poorer key-representations and attention sharing, and would therefore would be counter-productive. To address this problem, we apply DropHead (Zhou et al., 2020) on the shared attention heads in TVM and pre-train the model before beginning the interleaving schedule." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.259, + 0.364, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 Interleaved training" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.282, + 0.488, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Initialize Temporal Value Modeler \\(\\mathcal{M}_v\\), Key Aggregator \\(\\mathcal{M}_k\\) parameters randomly." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.308, + 0.465, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2: Prepare the dataset \\( D_v \\) consisting of value sequences" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.32, + 0.26, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: for i = 1,2,...,p do" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.332, + 0.26, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4: ▷TVM training" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.343, + 0.488, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: Update TVM \\(\\mathcal{M}_v\\) model parameters with MLM objective on \\(D_v\\)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.367, + 0.488, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6: Prepare the dataset \\(D_{k}\\) consisting of key-representations \\(\\mathrm{KR}_k\\) as per Eq. 2" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.391, + 0.248, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7: ▷KA training" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.403, + 0.485, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8: Update Key Aggregator \\(\\mathcal{M}_k\\) model parameters with cross-entropy loss for downstream task." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.427, + 0.191, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9: end for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.282, + 0.488, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.468, + 0.262, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.493, + 0.49, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our experiments are designed to answer the following questions: (i) How helpful is the TVM-KA architecture over the baseline that involves flattening semi-structured object sequences? (ii) How does the model compare to existing approaches based on record-centric representations? (iii) How important is the use of shared attention heads for fine-tuning KA? (iv) Does the interleaved training procedure help train the network effectively?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.649, + 0.2, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.669, + 0.49, + 0.864 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We experiment using two application/cloud logs datasets and one e-commerce purchase history dataset. The first logs dataset, referred to as 'Cloud Service Logs,' is an internal dataset consisting of interaction traces typically used for product usage analysis. We also use the publicly available LogHub (He et al., 2020) dataset, comprising system log messages from the Hadoop distributed file system, and a publicly available e-commerce dataset, which consists of product purchase information (Stanley et al., 2017). We include additional details about the datasets in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cloud Service Logs Data - Application event traces from a large cloud provider: In the Cloud Service Logs dataset, application event" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "traces are logged by the cloud provider website. Event types include login, browsing, account creation/maintenance/update, UI navigation, search, service creation/deletion, app interactions, and others. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months and comprising about 450M events, from which we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. While the raw data has over 60 keys in each event, we experiment with a smaller set of manually selected 11 keys, so that existing approaches and baselines can be meaningfully used for comparison. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen to represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of 3) no milestone event occurring is treated as third class. From the traces, temporal sequences of 300 events are extracted to predict if a milestone (or no-milestone) event will occur in next 50 time steps. We report Macro F1-Score, as the dataset exhibits class imbalance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.886, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instacart eCommerce Data: The publicly available Instacart dataset6 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as day of the week, product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We predict the product name given the sequence of product orders,7 which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict if a particular item is likely to be purchased again.8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.782, + 0.885, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LogHub Data: We use the HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) for the log anomaly detection task. As the dataset originally consisted of lines of log messages, we use the Drain log parser" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.864, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{6}\\)https://tech.instacart.com/3-million-instarcart-orders-open-sourced-d40d29ead6f2" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.881, + 0.774, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7We use the complete structured object." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.894, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/instacart-market-basket-analysis/leaderboard" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9030" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.878, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTrainDevTest# ClassesTask# Keys# Time Steps
MedianMaximum
Cloud Service Logs12,8331,6051,6043Milestone Prediction11112 (17061)300 (177340)
LogHub402,54257,506115,0122Anomaly Detection4619 (1176)298 (18530)
Instacart780,00397,50197,5003,212Next Product Prediction10134 (9842)3598 (267025)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.182, + 0.884, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Dataset Statistics including the median and maximum length of sequences reported in number of time-steps. Values in parentheses report the sequence length after sub-word tokenization using the BERT tokenizer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.237, + 0.489, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(He et al., 2017) to identify 48 log templates. Using a semi-automated approach, we assign key names to the value slots of the templates. Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object with 46 key-value pairs. The original dataset splits the log lines into blocks, and the binary prediction task is to predict whether a particular block is anomalous. The dataset is highly imbalanced, with around \\(3\\%\\) of the instances belonging to the anomalous class. We therefore report F1-Score for the anomalous class." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.413, + 0.236, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Encoders" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines: We flatten each key-value pair in a structured object and encode them with special markers indicating boundaries for objects and timesteps. We fine-tune the pre-trained encoders for each downstream task and report their performance. We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) as the pre-trained encoders." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also compare our model with popular approaches for creating record-centric representations. These approaches first obtain the representations for each object \\( J_{i} \\), and then feed them to an inter-object transformer to create the representation of the whole sequence of objects. We experiment with three popular methods, where each object representation is obtained from the key-value pair representations by 1) point-wise summation, 2) concatenation then project-down (Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021), and 3) self-attention then averaging (Zhang et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2021). Note that the record-centric baseline can be viewed as an adaptation of the TabBERT model originally designed for tabular data (Padhi et al., 2021). Padhi et al. (2021) use a field transformer (a transformer encoder similar to BERT) to encode all rows in the table independently to obtain row embeddings. These row embeddings are later passed through another encoder to obtain a representation for the entire table. We use self-attention instead of a field transformer to encode" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.237, + 0.788, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the key-value pairs of a JSON object." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pre-trained models for tokens cannot be meaningfully used to initialize record-centric baselines as these create sequences over sets of key-value pairs. On the other hand, identifying a custom pretraining objective for baselines is challenging as the downstream task of predicting the next event/product involves predicting a value for a very specific key at a future time step (which is very similar to an objective one might think of for pre-training). Hence, we randomly initialize the weights of the record-centric models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.441, + 0.884, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Encoders for TVM-KA: One of the advantages of the TVM-KA architecture is that it is agnostic to the choice of the encoder. We employ the same encoder architectures used in our baselines to enable a direct performance comparison. Recall that the TVM module and KA module share attention heads to facilitate sharing of information between them. To pre-train the TVM, we mask \\(15\\%\\) of the tokens in every Value Sequence, and the objective is to predict the masked tokens. We do not mask value-separator and key aggregator tokens; we only mask the values. Details on hyper-parameter tuning and the iterative training schedule are in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.662, + 0.615, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.684, + 0.883, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 reports the primary results from our experiments. We include the results on three datasets and for each dataset, we report the overall performance along with the performance of the models on slices of the dataset where the length of the sequence is greater than the median length for that dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with Flattened encoding: As seen in the 'overall' scores for each dataset in Table 2, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVMKA (last row). For instance, on the cloud service logs, there's an increase of \\(3.9\\% - 58.5\\%\\) compared to flattened encodings in macro F1 scores. Similar" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9031" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ConfigurationCloud Service Logs (Macro F1)Instacart (Recall@10)Loghub (Binary F1-Score)
L >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (51.37%)Overall
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)49.5550.229.69.40.0053.62
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)77.3074.7720.1018.7023.3261.63
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)80.0676.5921.0719.1158.3075.86
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained75.8373.7116.9416.0897.7198.54
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation78.9777.337.115.1099.2299.51
Concat77.7675.997.185.1199.2999.57
Self-Attention79.1877.737.986.3499.0899.42
TVM-KAJoint Modeling80.1577.6817.0416.046.7870.72
No Interleaving73.1973.2218.3217.599.0598.64
Interleaving81.2679.6023.4422.5498.7999.32
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.345, + 0.885, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on various datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report results on a subset of the test set whose sequence length (L) (post-tokenization) is greater than the median length for each dataset. The values in parenthesis indicate the percentage number of instances where the length of a sequence is greater than the median sequence length. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches on both cloud service logs and instacart datasets (p-value \\(< 0.03\\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.456, + 0.489, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "trends are reported on the Instacart dataset. We find that on the LogHub dataset, the Longformer model (Beltagy et al., 2020) is able to obtain a comparable performance (98.54 vs 99.32)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.533, + 0.49, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparison with Record-centric representations: Unlike flattened encoding, the record-centric representation does not suffer from the modeling limitations associated with the maximum sequence length limit. These representations can encode sequences in their entirety, since most datasets have fewer than 300 objects (time-steps), and the sequence length is equal to the number of time steps. However, the record-centric view may not adequately model the dependencies between values of the same key across different time steps. We find that our approach outperforms all record-centric representation baselines on the Cloud Service Logs dataset as well as the Instacart dataset. As before, the performance of TVM-KA on the LogHub data is similar to that of different record-centric baselines (99.32 vs 99.57) - this perhaps indicates that the prediction task is relatively simpler on this dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While the poor performance of record-centric baselines over flattened encoding on the Instacart dataset may appear counter-intuitive at first glance, the reason this can happen is that the record-centric approach creates a combined representation for" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.456, + 0.885, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "each time-step before it processes a sequence (See Figure 1). This combined representation can be lossy and it does not allow interaction across keys or time steps, which the flattening baseline permits (thanks to \\( n^2 \\) attention across each token). Further, not only is the number of classes for prediction in the Instacart data in the thousands (while it is \\( < 5 \\) for the other datasets), but it also exhibits longer sequences than other datasets, all of which are factors that likely contribute to this result." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.631, + 0.886, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Importance of interleaved training: As seen in the last two rows of Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVMKA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. We illustrate the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.886, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint Modeling vs Interleaved Training of TVM-KA: In the joint modeling approach, we do not use shared attention heads and instead train the TVM and KA networks end-to-end (jointly). We observe that joint modeling performs poorly compared to our interleaving approach. We found this surprising as we had expected it to be at par" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9032" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with our approach when the joint models fit in memory. We hypothesize that by interleaving and sharing attention heads between TVM and KA, the fine-tuning of the KA on the downstream task introduces a task-specific bias to help improve the key-representations. This in-turn, benefits the pre-trained representations of the TVM via shared-attention weights and further improves performance in the next round of training. In the absence of this bias, the joint model perhaps converges at an alternative minima that is not as good." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.272, + 0.49, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of varying the number of shared attention heads: In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Sharing too few or too many attention heads results in an average drop of \\(2\\% - 43\\%\\) in performance. We include further details in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.379, + 0.49, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of parameter size/model capacity: We investigate if the model capacity could be a bottleneck for the approaches based on flattened representations. We fine-tune a bert-large-uncased model, which has \\(3x\\) the parameters of the bert-base-uncased model and approximately \\(1.5x\\) the parameters of the TVM-KA network. We find that our model performs better, suggesting that the improved performance is primarily due to the value-aware key representations and the model's resultant ability to accommodate longer sequences due to the decoupling of keys." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.585, + 0.271, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.612, + 0.471, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work is related to several areas of research." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.638, + 0.49, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Modeling Tabular and Timeseries Data: As we explicitly model the value sequence for each key, the data object we work with is reminiscent of tabular data where each row is a time-step and each column comprises the values for a particular field. On the surface, the modeling of data may appear related, but the actual tasks and models developed for tasks on tabular data cannot be applied to semi-structured object sequences. This is because the work on modeling textual tabular data often involves developing specialized models focused on retrieving information from cells (Zayats et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Iida et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), multi-hop reasoning across information in different cells across parts of the table (Chen et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a), combining" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "information present in tables and unstructured text for information seeking tasks (Li et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021; Zayats et al., 2021; Luetto et al., 2023; Cholakov and Kolev, 2022), etc. In addition, work on modeling time-series tabular data has focused on numerical data (Zhou et al., 2021; Zerveas et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022b) with purpose-built task-specific architectures that cannot be easily adapted to other tasks (Wu et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.886, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Modeling Temporal Graph Sequences and Recommender Systems: Our approach is also related to a rich body of work on modeling temporal graphs and recommendation systems (Xu et al., 2021b; Grigsby et al., 2021; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021). Temporal graph evolution problems involve constructing representations to enable tasks such as link prediction (Sankar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021a), item recommendation in user sessions (Hsu and te Li, 2021), answering queries on graphs and sequences (Saxena et al., 2022), classifying graph instances in a sequence, (Xu et al., 2021a,b) etc. Our findings suggest that such approaches do not scale for long sequences for the tasks we experimented with. However, our record-centric model baselines (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019) are similar in approach to these methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Parameter sharing in neural network models: Deep neural networks are usually trained to tackle different tasks in isolation. Networks that cater to multiple related tasks (multi-task neural networks) seek to improve generalization and process data efficiently through parameter sharing and joint learning. Traditional hard-parameter sharing uses the same initial layers and splits the network into task-specific branches at an ad hoc point (Guo et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2017). On the other hand, soft-parameter sharing shares features via a set of task-specific networks (Liu et al., 2019; Maninis et al., 2019). More recently adaptive sharing approaches have been proposed that decide what parameters to share across tasks to achieve the best performance (Vandenhende et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020). The parameter sharing utilized in this work is different from the aforementioned approaches, as we share some attention head weights between the two networks (as compared to shared layers), in a way that could improve overall end-task performance." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.454, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9We trained our joint models on 80GB A100 GPUs." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9033" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.38, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion and Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.109, + 0.489, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we have presented a two-part encoder to model structured object sequences. The choice of a key-centric representation enables us to encode larger objects as well as long sequences. Our experiments show that by using the two-part TVM-KA architecture we are able to inject downstream task information into the temporal value modeler network to generate key representations that are more relevant." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.254, + 0.49, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We additionally present a novel interleaving scheme to train our two-part encoder. We induce task bias into the model by sharing attention heads between the Temporal Value Modeler and Key Aggregator components. Our proposed approach outperforms both the baseline approaches that flatten structured object sequences and those based on record-centric representations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.394, + 0.221, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.418, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The benefits of our approach are best highlighted in datasets that have a large number of keys in each object when sequences are long and have a challenging prediction task. In such cases, the joint modeling of TVM-KA becomes too big to fit in memory and record-centric approaches suffer a lot of deterioration due to lossy record-representations. In our experiments, the Instacart data exhibits some of these characteristics and we see a significant improvement in performance as compared to record-centric baselines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.596, + 0.49, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We note that the key-centric representation does not allow the model to support tasks such as sequence tagging of the structured objects. Nor does it allow to modeling of graph sequences effectively, as it does not use a global view of the structured objects. Thus, it may not be able to learn patterns across fields at different time steps. For such tasks, a record-centric representation is perhaps more helpful. Both key-centric and record-centric representations have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice should be made with the downstream task in mind. Further, while our experiments have been reported on real-world datasets they do not represent the full spectrum of existing sequence modeling tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.847, + 0.287, + 0.864 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank Vignesh P for his work during internship at IBM and helping us with the processing of LogHub data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.085, + 0.61, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.108, + 0.886, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/2004.05150." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.159, + 0.885, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyu Chen, Wenhu Chen, Charese Smiley, Sameena Shah, Iana Borova, Dylan Langdon, Reema Moussa, Matt Beane, Ting-Hao Huang, Bryan Routledge, and William Yang Wang. 2021. FinQA: A dataset of numerical reasoning over financial data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3697-3711, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.288, + 0.885, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Radostin Cholakov and Todor Kolev. 2022. The gatedtabtransformer: an enhanced deep learning architecture for tabular modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00199." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.352, + 0.885, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Sara Rabhi, Jeong Min Lee, Ronay Ak, and Even Oldridge. 2021. Transformers4rec: Bridging the gap between nlp and sequential/session-based recommendation. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 143-153." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.442, + 0.886, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.584, + 0.885, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert M. French. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4):128-135." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.635, + 0.885, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jake Grigsby, Zhe Wang, and Yanjun Qi. 2021. Long-range transformers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.686, + 0.885, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaodong Gu, Kang Min Yoo, and Jung-Woo Ha. 2021. DialogBERT: Discourse-aware response generation via learning to recover and rank utterances." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.737, + 0.885, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michelle Guo, Albert Haque, De-An Huang, Serena Yeung, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Dynamic task prioritization for multitask learning. In ECCV (16)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.788, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R Lyu. 2017. Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree. In 2017 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pages 33-40. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.865, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shilin He, Jieming Zhu, Pinjia He, and Michael R Lyu. 2020. Loghub: a large collection of system log datasets towards automated log analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06448." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.108, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9034" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cheng-Mao Hsu and Cheng te Li. 2021. Retagnn: Relational temporal attentive graph neural networks for holistic sequential recommendation. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.151, + 0.488, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hiroshi Iida, Dung Thai, Varun Manjunatha, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. Tabbie: Pretrained representations of tabular data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3446-3456." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.242, + 0.488, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dharshan Kumaran, Demis Hassabis, and James L McClelland. 2016. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(7):512-534." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.32, + 0.488, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Hanbo Li, Patrick Ng, Peng Xu, Henghui Zhu, Zhiguo Wang, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Dual reader-parser on hybrid textual and tabular evidence for open domain question answering. In ACLIJCNLP 2021." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.398, + 0.488, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shikun Liu, Edward Johns, and Andrew J Davison. 2019. End-to-end multi-task learning with attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1871-1880." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.463, + 0.488, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongxi Lu, Abhishek Kumar, Shuangfei Zhai, Yu Cheng, Tara Javidi, and Rogerio Feris. 2017. Fully-adaptive feature sharing in multi-task networks with applications in person attribute classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5334-5343." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.554, + 0.488, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simone Luetto, Fabrizio Garuti, Enver Sangineto, Lorenzo Forni, and Rita Cucchiara. 2023. One transformer for all time series: Representing and training with time-dependent heterogeneous tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06375." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.632, + 0.488, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Ilija Radosavovic, and Iasonas Kokkinos. 2019. Attentive single-tasking of multiple tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1851-1860." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.71, + 0.488, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James L McClelland, Bruce L McNaughton, and Randall C O'Reilly. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological review, 102(3):419." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.488, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109-165. Elsevier." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sarai Mizrachi and Pavel Levin. 2019. Combining context features in sequence-aware recommender systems. In RecSys." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inkit Padhi, Yair Schiff, Igor Melnyk, Mattia Rigotti, Youssef Mroueh, Pierre Dognin, Jerret Ross, Ravi Nair, and Erik Altman. 2021. Tabular transformers for modeling multivariate time series. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 3565-3569. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.189, + 0.883, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roger Ratcliff. 1990. Connectionist models of recognition memory: constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. *Psychological review*, 97(2):285." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.253, + 0.883, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aravind Sankar, Yanhong Wu, Liang Gou, Wei Zhang, and Hao Yang. 2020. Dysat: Deep neural representation learning on dynamic graphs via self-attention networks. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '20, page 519-527, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.356, + 0.883, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Apoory Saxena, Adrian Kochsiek, and Rainer Gemulla. 2022. Sequence-to-sequence knowledge graph completion and question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2814-2828." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.445, + 0.883, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeremy Stanley, Meg Risdal, sharathrao, and Will Cukierski. 2017. Instacart market basket analysis." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.483, + 0.883, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ximeng Sun, Rameswar Panda, Rogerio Feris, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Adashare: Learning what to share for efficient deep multi-task learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:8728-8740." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.56, + 0.883, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simon Vandenhende, Stamatios Georgoulis, Bert De Brabandere, and Luc Van Gool. 2019. Branched multi-task networks: Deciding what layers to share. Proceedings BMVC 2020." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.623, + 0.883, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.726, + 0.883, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Wang, Kexuan Sun, Muhao Chen, Jay Pujara, and Pedro A Szekely. 2021. Retrieving complex tables with multi-granular graph representation learning. In SIGIR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with Auto-Correlation for long-term series forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9035" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dongkuan Xu, Junjie Liang, Wei Cheng, Hua Wei, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. 2021a. Transformer-style relational reasoning with dynamic memory updating for temporal network modeling. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(5):4546-4554." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.174, + 0.489, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiehui Xu, Haixu Wu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021b. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.249, + 0.488, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingfeng Yang, Aditya Gupta, Shyam Upadhyay, Luheng He, Rahul Goel, and Shachi Paul. 2022. Tableformer: Robust transformer modeling for tablettext encoding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 528-537." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.337, + 0.488, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victoria Zayats, Kristina Toutanova, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Representations for question answering from documents with tables and text. In EACL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.386, + 0.489, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "George Zerveas, Srideepika Jayaraman, Dhaval Patel, Anuradha Bhamidipaty, and Carsten Eickhoff. 2021. A transformer-based framework for multivariate time series representation learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2114-2124." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.474, + 0.49, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2019. HIBERT: Document level pre-training of hierarchical bidirectional transformers for document summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5059-5069, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.575, + 0.489, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022a. Multihiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.663, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022b. MultiHiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 11106-11115." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.852, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2020. Scheduled drophead: A regularization method for transformer models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1971-1980." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. TAT-QA: A question answering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3277-3287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.232, + 0.681, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Dataset Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.258, + 0.882, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide additional details about the datasets used in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.303, + 0.875, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Cloud Service Logs Data: Application event traces from a large cloud provider" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.339, + 0.884, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the Cloud Service Logs (CSL) dataset, application event traces are logged in the cloud provider website. Each user is assigned a unique identifier. Event types range from login, browsing, account creation, account maintenance, account update, UI navigation, search, service creation, service deletion, app interactions, among several others. We have about 638 unique event types. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. For example, if a user performed a search, the payload captures the search query and the page where the search was performed. If a user interacted with a service, the payload captures the service ID and action performed on the service, among other information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.598, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months comprising about 450M events. Using these, we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. If there is a difference of greater than 15 minutes between two consecutive events, we break the session. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen as they represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of no milestone event occurring is treated as the third class." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the traces, we identify user sessions containing any of the aforementioned milestone events. We consider the temporal sequences of events 350 time-steps before the milestone event occurs. To construct the data, we consider the sequence of events till 300 time-steps and the task is to predict" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9036" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "if a milestone (or no milestone) event will occur in the next 50 time steps." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.128, + 0.376, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Instacart eCommerce Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.147, + 0.489, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The publicly available Instacart dataset10 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as the day of the week, the product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We create variable-length training instances from each user's order history by sampling between 50 to 200 previous product purchases for a certain target product. Additionally, we only sample a training instance if the target product has been ordered at least 50 times across users." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.39, + 0.489, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As per our task formulation, we predict the product name given the sequence of product orders11, which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict whether a particular item is likely to be purchased again.12" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.511, + 0.287, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2.1 LogHub Data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.529, + 0.487, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) is utilized for the log anomaly detection task. The dataset consists of log lines. A sample log message is shown below:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.6, + 0.402, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "081109 203519 29 INFO dfs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.617, + 0.373, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "FSNamesystem: BLOCK*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.633, + 0.435, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NameSystem.addStoredBlock:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.649, + 0.337, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "blockMap updated :" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.665, + 0.47, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10.250.10.6:50010 is added to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.681, + 0.47, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "blk_ \\(-1608999687919862906\\) size" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.697, + 0.207, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "91178" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.72, + 0.489, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now convert the log message to a JSON object. We utilize Drain log parser (He et al., 2017) to extract the static template, dynamic variables, and header information from log messages. We obtain around 48 templates. All the log messages fall into one of the 48 templates. In a semi-automated fashion, we define keys for the templates. We populate key names with the value slots of the templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object. The log message after conversion to a JSON object would look as follows," + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.147, + 0.88, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{ \"status\": \"addStoredBLock: Blockmap updated\", \"port\": \"10.250.10.6:50010\", \"block_ID\": \"blk_160899968791986290 6\", \"size\": \"91178\", \"LineId\": \"11\", \"Date\": \"81109\", \"Time\": \"203519\", \"Pid\": \"29\", \"Level\": \"INFO\", \"Component\": \"dfs.FSNamesystem\", \"EventId\": \"5d5de21c\" }" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.358, + 0.882, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A block consists of a sequence of such structured objects. The task is to classify the given block as anomalous or not." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.419, + 0.819, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Hyperparameters and Training schedule" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.462, + 0.884, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform a grid search for the learning rate and batch size for all the models in our experiments. We select the hyper-parameter configuration which gives the best validation set performance on each dataset's metric. We now list the range of values considered for each hyper-parameter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.574, + 0.626, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.838, + 0.574, + 0.884, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rate:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.549, + 0.588, + 0.781, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\{1 e ^ {- 4}, 3 e ^ {- 4}, 5 e ^ {- 4}, 1 e ^ {- 5}, 3 e ^ {- 5},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.549, + 0.605, + 0.737, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left. 5 e ^ {- 5}, 1 e ^ {- 6}, 3 e ^ {- 6}, 5 e ^ {- 6} \\right\\},\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.634, + 0.742, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Batch Size: 2,4,8,16,32" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.664, + 0.761, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Shared Heads (p): 2, 4, 6, 8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.694, + 0.884, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The drophead mechanism is only activated during TVM training, with drophead probability set to 0.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For all the baseline models, we train till convergence. For the TVM training in the first iteration, we vary learning rates and observe model convergence (in terms of train and dev loss) after a fixed \\(100K\\) steps. The best learning rate for TVM is identified from this exercise. A similar approach is used for identifying the best learning rate for the KA training stage too, albeit for a smaller number of update steps. In the first iteration, TVM training is done for 1 epoch. Then we proceed with the interleaving step. We alternate between TVM" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.855, + 0.469, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10https://tech.instacart.com/3-million-instarcart-orders-open-sourced-d40d29ead6f2" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.881, + 0.379, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11We use the complete structured object." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.894, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{12}\\)https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/instacart-market-basket-analysis/leaderboard" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.855, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9037" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.081, + 0.476, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.238, + 0.49, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Effect of sharing different numbers of attention heads between TVM and KA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.293, + 0.49, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "training and KA training with their number of training steps in 2:1 proportion. For the cloud service logs dataset, the number of TVM training steps is \\(50\\mathrm{K}\\) and the number of KA training steps is around \\(100\\mathrm{K}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.386, + 0.466, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Class-wise Results on Cloud Service Logs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.43, + 0.49, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 reports the detailed class-wise results on the Cloud Service Logs dataset. As seen in the 'Macro F1' score column in the Table 3, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVM-KA (last row). Specifically, the flattened encoding with randomly initialized BERT model suffers the most on the Open Chatbot class. We believe that semantic understanding of the event names is crucial for identifying the sequences leading to Open Chatbot milestone event." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.623, + 0.49, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In general, we observe improvements from our TVM-KA approach on all class labels compared to the baseline models. This indicates the performance gain from our model is not due to improvements in a single class or subset of classes, but, on all the classes present in our dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.732, + 0.456, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Influence of shared attention heads" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use BERT encoder (Devlin et al., 2019) to model both TVM and KA components in our model. This allows us to share attention heads between the TVM and KA components. bert-base-uncased has 12 attention heads at each encoder layer. We experiment with sharing 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 attention heads between TVM and KA components." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3 presents the performance of our TVM-KA approach with different numbers of shared attention heads between TVM and KA components." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.081, + 0.885, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.248, + 0.885, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: TVM-KA model performance for each interleaving stage. The red, green, and blue lines, along with their respective colored y-axes, indicate the performance of the Loghub, Instacart, and Cloud Service Logs datasets, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.345, + 0.884, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Either not sharing any attention heads or sharing more than that results in poorer performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.421, + 0.704, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Training schedule" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.884, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVM-KA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. Figure 4 illustrates the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9038" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.339, + 0.885, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CommentsMacro F1Micro F1Browsing/ Upgrade AccountNo MileStoneOpen Chatbot
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)50.2272.3870.1480.500.0
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)74.7780.3179.3984.1260.79
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)76.5981.5780.7285.1363.93
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained73.7179.9179.3184.2657.57
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation77.3385.6684.9190.5956.50
Concat75.9985.1284.4790.1553.36
Self-Attention77.7385.6684.7890.4857.92
TVM-KAJoint Modeling69.6180.5480.0486.8241.97
No Interleaving73.2284.1483.0390.3246.31
Interleaving79.6086.4985.4791.2462.11
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.6, + 0.884, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on Cloud Service Logs datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report class-wise results. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches (p-value \\( < 0.03 \\))." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9039" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_origin.pdf b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..377ada22766abb99ef0edbe79ebb2068e8fef56f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/6e327045-ce68-4822-a6c3-3e26d2925114_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fb39b8a55a11a3cc7d797e8ba4addfc07241c1187e3fc20e8bfb77c4cc52e06c +size 715962 diff --git a/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/full.md b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88bcd209f2e4845b499beaf176bdfc4b8b5de9f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,399 @@ +# Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders + +Rudra Murthy $\mathbf{V}^{1}$ , Riyadh Bhat $^{1}$ , Chulaka Gunasekara $^{1}$ , Siva Sankalp Patel $^{1}$ , Hui Wan $^{1}$ , Tejas Indulal Dhamecha $^{2*}$ , Danish Contractor $^{1}$ , Marina Danilevsky $^{1}$ + +1IBM Research AI + +2Microsoft India Development Center + +rmurthyv@in.ibm.com,{riyaz.bhat,chulaka.gunasekara,siva.sankalp.patel} @ IBM.com, + +hwan@us.ibm.com, tdhamecha@microsoft.com, + +danish.contractor@ibm.com, mdanile@us.ibm.com + +# Abstract + +In this paper we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. Examples of such data include user activity on websites, machine logs, and many others. This type of data is often represented as a sequence of sets of key-value pairs over time and can present modeling challenges due to an ever-increasing sequence length thereby affecting the quality of the representation. We propose a two-part approach, which first considers each key independently and encodes a representation of its values over time; we then self-attend over these value-aware key representations to accomplish a downstream task. This allows us to learn better representation while being able to operate on longer object sequences than existing methods. We introduce a novel shared-attention-head architecture between the two modules and present an innovative training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules with shared weights for some attention heads.1 Our experiments on multiple prediction tasks using real-world data demonstrate that our approach outperforms a unified network with hierarchical encoding, as well as other methods including a record-centric representation and a flattened representation of the sequence. + +# 1 Introduction + +Semi-structured object sequences comprise a significant portion of the myriad of data created daily. This data usually has a temporal aspect, with the data created sequentially and representing events happening in some order. More generally, the data is a sequence of structured objects, each represented by a set of key-value pairs that encode the + +attributes of the object (Figure 1(a)). Examples include recordings of user interactions with websites, logs of machine activity, shopping decisions made by consumers, and many more (Figure 1(b)). The data is usually stored in semi-structured formats such as JSONs, or tabular forms. + +In this paper, we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. If we think of the parallel to natural language data, we could treat each sentence of a text (Figure 1(c)) akin to the set of key-value pairs at a particular time step. + +The challenge of sequence length: A trivial method of representing such sequences would be to flatten each structured object and view its constituents as individual words for tokenization in natural language (Figure 1 (d)).2 However, this causes the sequence length to become extremely large (thousands of tokens) when operating on real-word semi-structured sequences. For instance, in our study of semi-structured objects from user-interaction sessions on software from a large cloud-based service provider, we found these objects could contain 60 fields on average. The values of these fields include timestamps, identifiers, log messages, etc., with an average of 5 words each. A session length of 15 minutes results in 105 such session objects, amounting to nearly 31,500 words which would further increase the sequence length after sub-words are created. + +Record-centric representation: In contrast, to flattening structured objects, one could also create record-centric representations (Figure 1(f)) where the set of key-value representations at each time step are considered in sequence. As our experiments in Section 3.3 demonstrate, such represent + +![](images/bd64209231cfb46db09b228445a78d92d249b57fc15ee8929e33905ff7687b91.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/b4b3d2a162a59ba1505c6ba4f3b977163fd4ff75379c71a633e412a4d5c78951.jpg) +(e) + +![](images/9be1265decc665abc60984c46c94805d9589af4873560e7443d7f77bb96bb9eb.jpg) +(b) + +$$ +\mathbf {k} _ {1}: \left\{v _ {1} ^ {1}, v _ {2} ^ {1}, v _ {3} ^ {1}, \dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \right\} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{c} \mathsf {k} _ {\mathsf {2}}: \left\{v _ {1} ^ {2}, v _ {2} ^ {2}, v _ {3} ^ {2}, \ldots v _ {N} ^ {2} \right\} \\ \ldots \end{array} +$$ + +$$ +\mathbf {k} _ {\mathsf {K}}: \left\{v _ {1} ^ {K}, v _ {2} ^ {K}, v _ {3} ^ {K}, \dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \right\} +$$ + +![](images/c22a1a1c14a59dd35a8bcb929840e1c7bdc38e541d63b5b04f21dc623f14dc02.jpg) +(c) +(f) +Figure 1: Semi-Structured Object Sequences: (a) Generic representation of a sequence of semi-structured objects, consisting of multiple key-value pairs at time steps $t_1 \ldots t_N$ . (b) Example object: a sequence of events triggered by the use of a graphical user interface. (c) Viewing a text paragraph as a sequence of sentences. (d) Encoding the example object in (a) by flattening. (e) Encoding (a) by encoding a representation of the values for each key (to be followed by a key aggregation step, not shown). (f) Encoding (a) using a record-centric representation for each time step. + +$$ +\mathbf {t} _ {1}: \left\{k _ {1}: v _ {1} ^ {1}, k _ {2}: v _ {1} ^ {2}, k _ {3}: v _ {1} ^ {3}, \dots k _ {K}: v _ {1} ^ {K} \right\} +$$ + +$$ +\mathbf {t} _ {2}: \left\{\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {2} ^ {1}, \mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {2} ^ {2}, \mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {2} ^ {3}, \dots \mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {2} ^ {K} \right\} +$$ + +$$ +\dots +$$ + +$$ +\mathbf {t} _ {\mathbf {N}}: \left\{\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {N} ^ {1}, \quad \mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {N} ^ {2}, \quad \mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {N} ^ {3}, \quad \dots \quad \mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {N} ^ {K} \right\} +$$ + +tations do not work well when operating on long sequences. We hypothesize that this could be because the record-representation does not adequately model the dependencies between the constituent values of the same key across different time steps (records). + +Key-centric representation: To address these challenges we use a modular, two-part hierarchical encoding strategy. First, we decompose the sequence of semi-structured objects into independent sets of sequences based on keys. This allows us to consider each key separately (Figure 1(e)), and encode a representation of how the values of that key evolve over time (we refer to this as Temporal Value Modeling – TVM). This may be achieved using any encoder.3 We then self-attend over the set of the key encodings to create a representation of the entire structured object sequence (referred to as Key Aggregation – KA). + +Advantages: This key-centric perspective of encoding semi-structured sequences has many advantages as compared to flattening and record-centric representations (Figure 1(f)). + +Decoupling the keys allows us to support an arbitrary number of keys since each key-sequence is encoded independently. So, the key-representations created during Temporal Value Modeling can sup + +port longer sequences than what would have been impossible with flattening (due to memory constraints). Moreover, this encoding strategy also accommodates input sequences that may be considered non-structured – e.g., natural language text as sequences of words in sentences (Figure 1(c)). Specifically, if we consider a sequence of structured objects where each structured object consists of only one key, whose values contain a sentence, then our TVM effectively encodes the text sequence using whichever encoder has been employed.5 + +The decoupling of keys and the use of two independent encoders - TVM for value-aware key representations, and KA for aggregating key-representations for a downstream task - requires that information be shared between the two networks so that the key-representations generated by TVM can be optimized for downstream tasks via the KA. To facilitate this, we share a few sets of attention heads between the two networks. First, we pre-train the TVM network with shared attention heads in place. We then use the frozen representations from this network to initialize the KA network, which has its own untrained attention heads, and the shared attention heads from the TVM network as part of its trainable parameters. We utilize a training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules to iteratively train them. Doing so allows the TVM and KA modules to create richer + +representations of keys, informed by their importance for the downstream task. We find that this novel iterative two part-training results in better performance compared to a unified network with hierarchical encoding (with no attention-head sharing) as well as other methods, that either use a flattened representation or a record-centric representation of the sequence (Velicković et al., 2018; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021). + +Contributions: Our work addresses the challenges of encoding semi-structured object sequences: (i) we propose a two-part approach that separately encodes the evolution of the values for each key, followed by aggregation over key-representations to accomplish downstream tasks; (ii) we present a novel approach for sharing attention heads between the components; (iii) we compare our approach against baselines such as sequence flattening, joint encoding, and record-centric sequence representations; and (iv) we present detailed experiments on several datasets and tasks to demonstrate the advantages of our approach. + +# 2 Modeling + +We now describe our approach for modeling key-value semi-structured object sequences. + +Let a sequence of semi-structured objects be denoted as $\mathcal{J} = [J_1, J_2, J_3, \ldots, J_N]$ corresponding to $N$ time steps. Further, let $J_i = \{k_1 : v_i^1, k_2 : v_i^2, \ldots, k_j : v_i^j, \ldots, k_K : v_i^K\}$ denote a structured object $J_i$ , containing $K$ key-value pairs $< k_j : v_i^j >, j = 1 \ldots K$ . The goal of our modeling is to learn a representation of a sequence of structured objects $\mathcal{J}$ ; and subsequently, learn $f : \operatorname{Emb}(\mathcal{J}) \to \{1, 2, \ldots, C\}$ for an end task, such as a $C$ -way classification task. + +We develop a modular two-part modeling strategy to represent a sequence of structured objects. + +1. The first module, called the Temporal Value Modeler (TVM), is used to learn a combined representation (referred to as the key-representations) for the different values that each key takes in the sequence. +2. The second module, called the KeyAggregator (KA), uses the key-representations corresponding to each key, to create an overall representation for $\mathcal{I}$ . + +Temporal Value Modeling: Let $k$ be a key from the universe of all the keys $\mathcal{K}$ in the sequence. Then, + +for each key $k$ we encode the value-aware key-representation $V_{k}$ , by considering the value of the key $k$ at each timestamp, as a sequence. Formally, $V_{k}$ is given by: + +$$ +V _ {k} = [ \text {C L S} ] k [ \text {V A L} _ {\text {S E P}} ] v _ {1} ^ {k} [ \text {V A L} _ {\text {S E P}} ] v _ {2} ^ {k} [ \text {V A L} _ {\text {S E P}} ] \dots v _ {N} ^ {k} \tag {1} +$$ + +where [VAL_SEP] and [CLS] are special tokens. Note that each value $v_{j}^{k}$ for a key $k$ at time step $j$ can itself consist of many tokens and those have not been shown for ease of presentation. With any choice of a transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) language encoder (TextEncoder - TE), an embedding for $V_{k}$ , termed the key-representation (KR), can be obtained as: + +$$ +\mathrm {K R} _ {k} = \text {T e x t E n c o d e r} \left(V _ {k}\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +We use the output embedding representation at the first position (corresponding to [CLS]) as the key-representation. It is easy to see that this formulation allows us to accommodate the modeling of natural language text as in Figure 1 (c). For illustration, if the TextEncoder is based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Eq. 2 reduces to the encoding scheme typically employed in BERT for text paragraphs, where the [VAL_SEP] corresponds to the [SEP] token. + +Key-Aggregation: Once we create key-representations we utilize them for an end-task. We encode the key-representations using the same model architecture as the TVM TextEncoder but do not use positional embeddings since we encode a set of position-invariant key representations. Note that the weights of the KA are randomly initialized. This network is directly optimized for an end-task. + +$$ +\operatorname {E m b d} (\mathcal {J}) = \mathrm {K A} \left(\left\{\mathrm {K R} (k) \mid k \in \mathcal {K} \right\}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +Key-centric vs. Record-centric Representation: As an alternative to the key-centric representation used by the TVM, one could construct a record-centric view to model the sequence (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021). Instead of modeling the evolution of keys in a semistructured object sequence using $V_{k}$ for each key, one could treat the sequence as a series of $J_{i}$ (Figure 1(f)). However, the record-centric representation requires the network to compress information present in multiple keys and values of a record $(J_{i})$ which can create an information bottleneck for the downstream task. We compare and contrast these alternative views in Section 3 and Section 5. + +![](images/53bd6767e01c1c6db40fa444604be8d9e58611dcde3ea85c435f21c64313b98e.jpg) +Figure 2: The TVM-KA network architecture consisting of a set of shared attention heads (weights) between the Temporal Value Modeler and the Key Aggregator. Each key is encoded independently to create a corresponding key representation. + +Challenges of Scalable Training: The training of the hierarchical two-part network, which first obtains the key-representations (Eq. 2) and then the structured object sequence representation (Eq. 3), could be done end-to-end where the network parameters are directly trained for the downstream task. However, end-to-end training of the hierarchical two-part network is often difficult due to the constraints imposed by the limited GPU memory. The GPU memory usage is affected by two factors: (1) the length of the semi-structured object sequence; and (2) the number of keys in an object. The end-to-end model architecture operating over a batch of $\mathcal{I}$ sequences would exceed the memory of most commodity GPUs. By a conservative estimate, even for $n = 11$ and $N = 512$ , a typical 120M parameter model would exceed 40GB RAM limit with a batch-size of 2. To address this, we use an iterative training paradigm, described below, which interleaves the training of the TVM and KA components by relying on attention heads that are shared between the two components. + +Sharing Attention Heads: Recall that the TVM network first creates a representation for each key by attending to the values that occur in the sequence for each of them. The KA network then uses these representations to learn the end task. However, if the KA network could influence how these representations are created for each key, it could perhaps + +help improve the performance of the KA on the downstream task. We, therefore, introduce hard-parameter sharing between the TVM and KA components. We hypothesize that by sharing a few attention heads (weights) between the two networks, the KA will be able to utilize the shared attention heads. Specifically, as training progresses and updates the parameters used in these heads, it will have an effect of adjusting the key-representations from the TVM in a way that could help improve overall end-task performance. + +Interleaved Task Training: As mentioned above, we use an iterative task training paradigm where we interleave the training of the TVM and KA components. Note that our training paradigm is different from traditional training schedules for sequential task training where one network is fully trained before the next module, or from fine-tuning approaches where a part of the network may be initialized with a pre-trained model and additional layers of the network are initialized randomly and then updated for an end-task. We use the Masked language modeling (MLM) objective (Devlin et al., 2019) to train the TVM component and an end-task-specific objective for training the KA. The use of interleaved training, as outlined in Algorithm 1, prevents the problem of catastrophic forgetting (French, 1999; McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; McClelland et al., 1995; Kumaran et al., 2016; Ratcliff, + +1990) when the KA is trained. Further, it is possible that when the TVM is trained for the first time it may rely heavily on the heads that are shared. Thus, any change to the representation from these heads could lead to poorer key-representations and attention sharing, and would therefore would be counter-productive. To address this problem, we apply DropHead (Zhou et al., 2020) on the shared attention heads in TVM and pre-train the model before beginning the interleaving schedule. + +# Algorithm 1 Interleaved training + +1: Initialize Temporal Value Modeler $\mathcal{M}_v$ , Key Aggregator $\mathcal{M}_k$ parameters randomly. +2: Prepare the dataset $D_v$ consisting of value sequences +3: for i = 1,2,...,p do +4: ▷TVM training +5: Update TVM $\mathcal{M}_v$ model parameters with MLM objective on $D_v$ . +6: Prepare the dataset $D_{k}$ consisting of key-representations $\mathrm{KR}_k$ as per Eq. 2 +7: ▷KA training +8: Update Key Aggregator $\mathcal{M}_k$ model parameters with cross-entropy loss for downstream task. +9: end for + +# 3 Experiments + +Our experiments are designed to answer the following questions: (i) How helpful is the TVM-KA architecture over the baseline that involves flattening semi-structured object sequences? (ii) How does the model compare to existing approaches based on record-centric representations? (iii) How important is the use of shared attention heads for fine-tuning KA? (iv) Does the interleaved training procedure help train the network effectively? + +# 3.1 Data + +We experiment using two application/cloud logs datasets and one e-commerce purchase history dataset. The first logs dataset, referred to as 'Cloud Service Logs,' is an internal dataset consisting of interaction traces typically used for product usage analysis. We also use the publicly available LogHub (He et al., 2020) dataset, comprising system log messages from the Hadoop distributed file system, and a publicly available e-commerce dataset, which consists of product purchase information (Stanley et al., 2017). We include additional details about the datasets in the appendix. + +Cloud Service Logs Data - Application event traces from a large cloud provider: In the Cloud Service Logs dataset, application event + +traces are logged by the cloud provider website. Event types include login, browsing, account creation/maintenance/update, UI navigation, search, service creation/deletion, app interactions, and others. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months and comprising about 450M events, from which we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. While the raw data has over 60 keys in each event, we experiment with a smaller set of manually selected 11 keys, so that existing approaches and baselines can be meaningfully used for comparison. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen to represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of 3) no milestone event occurring is treated as third class. From the traces, temporal sequences of 300 events are extracted to predict if a milestone (or no-milestone) event will occur in next 50 time steps. We report Macro F1-Score, as the dataset exhibits class imbalance. + +Instacart eCommerce Data: The publicly available Instacart dataset6 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as day of the week, product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We predict the product name given the sequence of product orders,7 which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict if a particular item is likely to be purchased again.8 + +LogHub Data: We use the HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) for the log anomaly detection task. As the dataset originally consisted of lines of log messages, we use the Drain log parser + +
DatasetTrainDevTest# ClassesTask# Keys# Time Steps
MedianMaximum
Cloud Service Logs12,8331,6051,6043Milestone Prediction11112 (17061)300 (177340)
LogHub402,54257,506115,0122Anomaly Detection4619 (1176)298 (18530)
Instacart780,00397,50197,5003,212Next Product Prediction10134 (9842)3598 (267025)
+ +Table 1: Dataset Statistics including the median and maximum length of sequences reported in number of time-steps. Values in parentheses report the sequence length after sub-word tokenization using the BERT tokenizer. + +(He et al., 2017) to identify 48 log templates. Using a semi-automated approach, we assign key names to the value slots of the templates. Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object with 46 key-value pairs. The original dataset splits the log lines into blocks, and the binary prediction task is to predict whether a particular block is anomalous. The dataset is highly imbalanced, with around $3\%$ of the instances belonging to the anomalous class. We therefore report F1-Score for the anomalous class. + +# 3.2 Encoders + +Baselines: We flatten each key-value pair in a structured object and encode them with special markers indicating boundaries for objects and timesteps. We fine-tune the pre-trained encoders for each downstream task and report their performance. We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) as the pre-trained encoders. + +We also compare our model with popular approaches for creating record-centric representations. These approaches first obtain the representations for each object $J_{i}$ , and then feed them to an inter-object transformer to create the representation of the whole sequence of objects. We experiment with three popular methods, where each object representation is obtained from the key-value pair representations by 1) point-wise summation, 2) concatenation then project-down (Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021), and 3) self-attention then averaging (Zhang et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2021). Note that the record-centric baseline can be viewed as an adaptation of the TabBERT model originally designed for tabular data (Padhi et al., 2021). Padhi et al. (2021) use a field transformer (a transformer encoder similar to BERT) to encode all rows in the table independently to obtain row embeddings. These row embeddings are later passed through another encoder to obtain a representation for the entire table. We use self-attention instead of a field transformer to encode + +the key-value pairs of a JSON object. + +Pre-trained models for tokens cannot be meaningfully used to initialize record-centric baselines as these create sequences over sets of key-value pairs. On the other hand, identifying a custom pretraining objective for baselines is challenging as the downstream task of predicting the next event/product involves predicting a value for a very specific key at a future time step (which is very similar to an objective one might think of for pre-training). Hence, we randomly initialize the weights of the record-centric models. + +Encoders for TVM-KA: One of the advantages of the TVM-KA architecture is that it is agnostic to the choice of the encoder. We employ the same encoder architectures used in our baselines to enable a direct performance comparison. Recall that the TVM module and KA module share attention heads to facilitate sharing of information between them. To pre-train the TVM, we mask $15\%$ of the tokens in every Value Sequence, and the objective is to predict the masked tokens. We do not mask value-separator and key aggregator tokens; we only mask the values. Details on hyper-parameter tuning and the iterative training schedule are in the appendix. + +# 3.3 Results + +Table 2 reports the primary results from our experiments. We include the results on three datasets and for each dataset, we report the overall performance along with the performance of the models on slices of the dataset where the length of the sequence is greater than the median length for that dataset. + +Comparison with Flattened encoding: As seen in the 'overall' scores for each dataset in Table 2, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVMKA (last row). For instance, on the cloud service logs, there's an increase of $3.9\% - 58.5\%$ compared to flattened encodings in macro F1 scores. Similar + +
ConfigurationCloud Service Logs (Macro F1)Instacart (Recall@10)Loghub (Binary F1-Score)
L >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (51.37%)Overall
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)49.5550.229.69.40.0053.62
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)77.3074.7720.1018.7023.3261.63
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)80.0676.5921.0719.1158.3075.86
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained75.8373.7116.9416.0897.7198.54
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation78.9777.337.115.1099.2299.51
Concat77.7675.997.185.1199.2999.57
Self-Attention79.1877.737.986.3499.0899.42
TVM-KAJoint Modeling80.1577.6817.0416.046.7870.72
No Interleaving73.1973.2218.3217.599.0598.64
Interleaving81.2679.6023.4422.5498.7999.32
+ +Table 2: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on various datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report results on a subset of the test set whose sequence length (L) (post-tokenization) is greater than the median length for each dataset. The values in parenthesis indicate the percentage number of instances where the length of a sequence is greater than the median sequence length. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches on both cloud service logs and instacart datasets (p-value $< 0.03$ ). + +trends are reported on the Instacart dataset. We find that on the LogHub dataset, the Longformer model (Beltagy et al., 2020) is able to obtain a comparable performance (98.54 vs 99.32). + +Comparison with Record-centric representations: Unlike flattened encoding, the record-centric representation does not suffer from the modeling limitations associated with the maximum sequence length limit. These representations can encode sequences in their entirety, since most datasets have fewer than 300 objects (time-steps), and the sequence length is equal to the number of time steps. However, the record-centric view may not adequately model the dependencies between values of the same key across different time steps. We find that our approach outperforms all record-centric representation baselines on the Cloud Service Logs dataset as well as the Instacart dataset. As before, the performance of TVM-KA on the LogHub data is similar to that of different record-centric baselines (99.32 vs 99.57) - this perhaps indicates that the prediction task is relatively simpler on this dataset. + +While the poor performance of record-centric baselines over flattened encoding on the Instacart dataset may appear counter-intuitive at first glance, the reason this can happen is that the record-centric approach creates a combined representation for + +each time-step before it processes a sequence (See Figure 1). This combined representation can be lossy and it does not allow interaction across keys or time steps, which the flattening baseline permits (thanks to $n^2$ attention across each token). Further, not only is the number of classes for prediction in the Instacart data in the thousands (while it is $< 5$ for the other datasets), but it also exhibits longer sequences than other datasets, all of which are factors that likely contribute to this result. + +Importance of interleaved training: As seen in the last two rows of Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVMKA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. We illustrate the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets in the appendix. + +Joint Modeling vs Interleaved Training of TVM-KA: In the joint modeling approach, we do not use shared attention heads and instead train the TVM and KA networks end-to-end (jointly). We observe that joint modeling performs poorly compared to our interleaving approach. We found this surprising as we had expected it to be at par + +with our approach when the joint models fit in memory. We hypothesize that by interleaving and sharing attention heads between TVM and KA, the fine-tuning of the KA on the downstream task introduces a task-specific bias to help improve the key-representations. This in-turn, benefits the pre-trained representations of the TVM via shared-attention weights and further improves performance in the next round of training. In the absence of this bias, the joint model perhaps converges at an alternative minima that is not as good. + +Effect of varying the number of shared attention heads: In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Sharing too few or too many attention heads results in an average drop of $2\% - 43\%$ in performance. We include further details in the appendix. + +Effect of parameter size/model capacity: We investigate if the model capacity could be a bottleneck for the approaches based on flattened representations. We fine-tune a bert-large-uncased model, which has $3x$ the parameters of the bert-base-uncased model and approximately $1.5x$ the parameters of the TVM-KA network. We find that our model performs better, suggesting that the improved performance is primarily due to the value-aware key representations and the model's resultant ability to accommodate longer sequences due to the decoupling of keys. + +# 4 Related Work + +Our work is related to several areas of research. + +Modeling Tabular and Timeseries Data: As we explicitly model the value sequence for each key, the data object we work with is reminiscent of tabular data where each row is a time-step and each column comprises the values for a particular field. On the surface, the modeling of data may appear related, but the actual tasks and models developed for tasks on tabular data cannot be applied to semi-structured object sequences. This is because the work on modeling textual tabular data often involves developing specialized models focused on retrieving information from cells (Zayats et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Iida et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), multi-hop reasoning across information in different cells across parts of the table (Chen et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a), combining + +information present in tables and unstructured text for information seeking tasks (Li et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021; Zayats et al., 2021; Luetto et al., 2023; Cholakov and Kolev, 2022), etc. In addition, work on modeling time-series tabular data has focused on numerical data (Zhou et al., 2021; Zerveas et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022b) with purpose-built task-specific architectures that cannot be easily adapted to other tasks (Wu et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021). + +Modeling Temporal Graph Sequences and Recommender Systems: Our approach is also related to a rich body of work on modeling temporal graphs and recommendation systems (Xu et al., 2021b; Grigsby et al., 2021; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021). Temporal graph evolution problems involve constructing representations to enable tasks such as link prediction (Sankar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021a), item recommendation in user sessions (Hsu and te Li, 2021), answering queries on graphs and sequences (Saxena et al., 2022), classifying graph instances in a sequence, (Xu et al., 2021a,b) etc. Our findings suggest that such approaches do not scale for long sequences for the tasks we experimented with. However, our record-centric model baselines (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019) are similar in approach to these methods. + +Parameter sharing in neural network models: Deep neural networks are usually trained to tackle different tasks in isolation. Networks that cater to multiple related tasks (multi-task neural networks) seek to improve generalization and process data efficiently through parameter sharing and joint learning. Traditional hard-parameter sharing uses the same initial layers and splits the network into task-specific branches at an ad hoc point (Guo et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2017). On the other hand, soft-parameter sharing shares features via a set of task-specific networks (Liu et al., 2019; Maninis et al., 2019). More recently adaptive sharing approaches have been proposed that decide what parameters to share across tasks to achieve the best performance (Vandenhende et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020). The parameter sharing utilized in this work is different from the aforementioned approaches, as we share some attention head weights between the two networks (as compared to shared layers), in a way that could improve overall end-task performance. + +# 5 Discussion and Conclusion + +In this paper, we have presented a two-part encoder to model structured object sequences. The choice of a key-centric representation enables us to encode larger objects as well as long sequences. Our experiments show that by using the two-part TVM-KA architecture we are able to inject downstream task information into the temporal value modeler network to generate key representations that are more relevant. + +We additionally present a novel interleaving scheme to train our two-part encoder. We induce task bias into the model by sharing attention heads between the Temporal Value Modeler and Key Aggregator components. Our proposed approach outperforms both the baseline approaches that flatten structured object sequences and those based on record-centric representations. + +# Limitations + +The benefits of our approach are best highlighted in datasets that have a large number of keys in each object when sequences are long and have a challenging prediction task. In such cases, the joint modeling of TVM-KA becomes too big to fit in memory and record-centric approaches suffer a lot of deterioration due to lossy record-representations. In our experiments, the Instacart data exhibits some of these characteristics and we see a significant improvement in performance as compared to record-centric baselines. + +We note that the key-centric representation does not allow the model to support tasks such as sequence tagging of the structured objects. Nor does it allow to modeling of graph sequences effectively, as it does not use a global view of the structured objects. Thus, it may not be able to learn patterns across fields at different time steps. For such tasks, a record-centric representation is perhaps more helpful. Both key-centric and record-centric representations have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice should be made with the downstream task in mind. Further, while our experiments have been reported on real-world datasets they do not represent the full spectrum of existing sequence modeling tasks. + +# Acknowledgements + +We would like to thank Vignesh P for his work during internship at IBM and helping us with the processing of LogHub data. + +# References + +Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/2004.05150. +Zhiyu Chen, Wenhu Chen, Charese Smiley, Sameena Shah, Iana Borova, Dylan Langdon, Reema Moussa, Matt Beane, Ting-Hao Huang, Bryan Routledge, and William Yang Wang. 2021. FinQA: A dataset of numerical reasoning over financial data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3697-3711, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Radostin Cholakov and Todor Kolev. 2022. The gatedtabtransformer: an enhanced deep learning architecture for tabular modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00199. +Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Sara Rabhi, Jeong Min Lee, Ronay Ak, and Even Oldridge. 2021. Transformers4rec: Bridging the gap between nlp and sequential/session-based recommendation. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 143-153. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Robert M. French. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4):128-135. +Jake Grigsby, Zhe Wang, and Yanjun Qi. 2021. Long-range transformers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218. +Xiaodong Gu, Kang Min Yoo, and Jung-Woo Ha. 2021. DialogBERT: Discourse-aware response generation via learning to recover and rank utterances. +Michelle Guo, Albert Haque, De-An Huang, Serena Yeung, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Dynamic task prioritization for multitask learning. In ECCV (16). +Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R Lyu. 2017. Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree. In 2017 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pages 33-40. IEEE. +Shilin He, Jieming Zhu, Pinjia He, and Michael R Lyu. 2020. Loghub: a large collection of system log datasets towards automated log analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06448. + +Cheng-Mao Hsu and Cheng te Li. 2021. Retagnn: Relational temporal attentive graph neural networks for holistic sequential recommendation. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. +Hiroshi Iida, Dung Thai, Varun Manjunatha, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. Tabbie: Pretrained representations of tabular data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3446-3456. +Dharshan Kumaran, Demis Hassabis, and James L McClelland. 2016. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(7):512-534. +Alexander Hanbo Li, Patrick Ng, Peng Xu, Henghui Zhu, Zhiguo Wang, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Dual reader-parser on hybrid textual and tabular evidence for open domain question answering. In ACLIJCNLP 2021. +Shikun Liu, Edward Johns, and Andrew J Davison. 2019. End-to-end multi-task learning with attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1871-1880. +Yongxi Lu, Abhishek Kumar, Shuangfei Zhai, Yu Cheng, Tara Javidi, and Rogerio Feris. 2017. Fully-adaptive feature sharing in multi-task networks with applications in person attribute classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5334-5343. +Simone Luetto, Fabrizio Garuti, Enver Sangineto, Lorenzo Forni, and Rita Cucchiara. 2023. One transformer for all time series: Representing and training with time-dependent heterogeneous tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06375. +Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Ilija Radosavovic, and Iasonas Kokkinos. 2019. Attentive single-tasking of multiple tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1851-1860. +James L McClelland, Bruce L McNaughton, and Randall C O'Reilly. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological review, 102(3):419. +Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109-165. Elsevier. +Sarai Mizrachi and Pavel Levin. 2019. Combining context features in sequence-aware recommender systems. In RecSys. + +Inkit Padhi, Yair Schiff, Igor Melnyk, Mattia Rigotti, Youssef Mroueh, Pierre Dognin, Jerret Ross, Ravi Nair, and Erik Altman. 2021. Tabular transformers for modeling multivariate time series. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 3565-3569. IEEE. +Roger Ratcliff. 1990. Connectionist models of recognition memory: constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. *Psychological review*, 97(2):285. +Aravind Sankar, Yanhong Wu, Liang Gou, Wei Zhang, and Hao Yang. 2020. Dysat: Deep neural representation learning on dynamic graphs via self-attention networks. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '20, page 519-527, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Apoory Saxena, Adrian Kochsiek, and Rainer Gemulla. 2022. Sequence-to-sequence knowledge graph completion and question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2814-2828. +Jeremy Stanley, Meg Risdal, sharathrao, and Will Cukierski. 2017. Instacart market basket analysis. +Ximeng Sun, Rameswar Panda, Rogerio Feris, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Adashare: Learning what to share for efficient deep multi-task learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:8728-8740. +Simon Vandenhende, Stamatios Georgoulis, Bert De Brabandere, and Luc Van Gool. 2019. Branched multi-task networks: Deciding what layers to share. Proceedings BMVC 2020. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. +Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Fei Wang, Kexuan Sun, Muhao Chen, Jay Pujara, and Pedro A Szekely. 2021. Retrieving complex tables with multi-granular graph representation learning. In SIGIR. +Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with Auto-Correlation for long-term series forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. + +Dongkuan Xu, Junjie Liang, Wei Cheng, Hua Wei, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. 2021a. Transformer-style relational reasoning with dynamic memory updating for temporal network modeling. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(5):4546-4554. + +Jiehui Xu, Haixu Wu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021b. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. In International Conference on Learning Representations. + +Jingfeng Yang, Aditya Gupta, Shyam Upadhyay, Luheng He, Rahul Goel, and Shachi Paul. 2022. Tableformer: Robust transformer modeling for tablettext encoding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 528-537. + +Victoria Zayats, Kristina Toutanova, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Representations for question answering from documents with tables and text. In EACL. + +George Zerveas, Srideepika Jayaraman, Dhaval Patel, Anuradha Bhamidipaty, and Carsten Eickhoff. 2021. A transformer-based framework for multivariate time series representation learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2114-2124. + +Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2019. HIBERT: Document level pre-training of hierarchical bidirectional transformers for document summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5059-5069, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022a. Multihiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600. + +Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022b. MultiHiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 11106-11115. + +Wangchunshu Zhou, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2020. Scheduled drophead: A regularization method for transformer models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1971-1980. + +Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. TAT-QA: A question answering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3277-3287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Dataset Details + +We provide additional details about the datasets used in our experiments. + +# A.1 Cloud Service Logs Data: Application event traces from a large cloud provider + +In the Cloud Service Logs (CSL) dataset, application event traces are logged in the cloud provider website. Each user is assigned a unique identifier. Event types range from login, browsing, account creation, account maintenance, account update, UI navigation, search, service creation, service deletion, app interactions, among several others. We have about 638 unique event types. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. For example, if a user performed a search, the payload captures the search query and the page where the search was performed. If a user interacted with a service, the payload captures the service ID and action performed on the service, among other information. + +Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months comprising about 450M events. Using these, we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. If there is a difference of greater than 15 minutes between two consecutive events, we break the session. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen as they represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of no milestone event occurring is treated as the third class. + +From the traces, we identify user sessions containing any of the aforementioned milestone events. We consider the temporal sequences of events 350 time-steps before the milestone event occurs. To construct the data, we consider the sequence of events till 300 time-steps and the task is to predict + +if a milestone (or no milestone) event will occur in the next 50 time steps. + +# A.2 Instacart eCommerce Data + +The publicly available Instacart dataset10 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as the day of the week, the product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We create variable-length training instances from each user's order history by sampling between 50 to 200 previous product purchases for a certain target product. Additionally, we only sample a training instance if the target product has been ordered at least 50 times across users. + +As per our task formulation, we predict the product name given the sequence of product orders11, which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict whether a particular item is likely to be purchased again.12 + +# A.2.1 LogHub Data + +HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) is utilized for the log anomaly detection task. The dataset consists of log lines. A sample log message is shown below: + +081109 203519 29 INFO dfs. + +FSNamesystem: BLOCK* + +NameSystem.addStoredBlock: + +blockMap updated : + +10.250.10.6:50010 is added to + +blk_ $-1608999687919862906$ size + +91178 + +We now convert the log message to a JSON object. We utilize Drain log parser (He et al., 2017) to extract the static template, dynamic variables, and header information from log messages. We obtain around 48 templates. All the log messages fall into one of the 48 templates. In a semi-automated fashion, we define keys for the templates. We populate key names with the value slots of the templates. + +Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object. The log message after conversion to a JSON object would look as follows, + +```txt +{ "status": "addStoredBLock: Blockmap updated", "port": "10.250.10.6:50010", "block_ID": "blk_160899968791986290 6", "size": "91178", "LineId": "11", "Date": "81109", "Time": "203519", "Pid": "29", "Level": "INFO", "Component": "dfs.FSNamesystem", "EventId": "5d5de21c" } +``` + +A block consists of a sequence of such structured objects. The task is to classify the given block as anomalous or not. + +# B Hyperparameters and Training schedule + +We perform a grid search for the learning rate and batch size for all the models in our experiments. We select the hyper-parameter configuration which gives the best validation set performance on each dataset's metric. We now list the range of values considered for each hyper-parameter. + +- Learning + +Rate: + +$$ +\{1 e ^ {- 4}, 3 e ^ {- 4}, 5 e ^ {- 4}, 1 e ^ {- 5}, 3 e ^ {- 5}, +$$ + +$$ +\left. 5 e ^ {- 5}, 1 e ^ {- 6}, 3 e ^ {- 6}, 5 e ^ {- 6} \right\}, +$$ + +- Batch Size: 2,4,8,16,32 + +- Shared Heads (p): 2, 4, 6, 8 + +The drophead mechanism is only activated during TVM training, with drophead probability set to 0.2. + +For all the baseline models, we train till convergence. For the TVM training in the first iteration, we vary learning rates and observe model convergence (in terms of train and dev loss) after a fixed $100K$ steps. The best learning rate for TVM is identified from this exercise. A similar approach is used for identifying the best learning rate for the KA training stage too, albeit for a smaller number of update steps. In the first iteration, TVM training is done for 1 epoch. Then we proceed with the interleaving step. We alternate between TVM + +![](images/ce2f6ec4c263d6f7724c056356e2fc141b98ae662dda030e494a6670a885cb7a.jpg) +Figure 3: Effect of sharing different numbers of attention heads between TVM and KA + +training and KA training with their number of training steps in 2:1 proportion. For the cloud service logs dataset, the number of TVM training steps is $50\mathrm{K}$ and the number of KA training steps is around $100\mathrm{K}$ . + +# C Class-wise Results on Cloud Service Logs + +Table 3 reports the detailed class-wise results on the Cloud Service Logs dataset. As seen in the 'Macro F1' score column in the Table 3, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVM-KA (last row). Specifically, the flattened encoding with randomly initialized BERT model suffers the most on the Open Chatbot class. We believe that semantic understanding of the event names is crucial for identifying the sequences leading to Open Chatbot milestone event. + +In general, we observe improvements from our TVM-KA approach on all class labels compared to the baseline models. This indicates the performance gain from our model is not due to improvements in a single class or subset of classes, but, on all the classes present in our dataset. + +# D Influence of shared attention heads + +We use BERT encoder (Devlin et al., 2019) to model both TVM and KA components in our model. This allows us to share attention heads between the TVM and KA components. bert-base-uncased has 12 attention heads at each encoder layer. We experiment with sharing 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 attention heads between TVM and KA components. + +Figure 3 presents the performance of our TVM-KA approach with different numbers of shared attention heads between TVM and KA components. + +![](images/978ee105edbafaa04f0dd588587c8de10fda1f3b2586e366329d30531cc671b5.jpg) +Figure 4: TVM-KA model performance for each interleaving stage. The red, green, and blue lines, along with their respective colored y-axes, indicate the performance of the Loghub, Instacart, and Cloud Service Logs datasets, respectively. + +In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Either not sharing any attention heads or sharing more than that results in poorer performance. + +# E Training schedule + +As shown in Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVM-KA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. Figure 4 illustrates the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets. + +
CommentsMacro F1Micro F1Browsing/ Upgrade AccountNo MileStoneOpen Chatbot
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)50.2272.3870.1480.500.0
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)74.7780.3179.3984.1260.79
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)76.5981.5780.7285.1363.93
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained73.7179.9179.3184.2657.57
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation77.3385.6684.9190.5956.50
Concat75.9985.1284.4790.1553.36
Self-Attention77.7385.6684.7890.4857.92
TVM-KAJoint Modeling69.6180.5480.0486.8241.97
No Interleaving73.2284.1483.0390.3246.31
Interleaving79.6086.4985.4791.2462.11
+ +Table 3: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on Cloud Service Logs datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report class-wise results. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches (p-value $< 0.03$ ). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/images.zip b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df7410d5fe0616a0b76e2d2fe744e694f7a36593 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:dfaa03b6ce05ee0e12b8011d5515a29ad12e5f4c420a527e40fdecdbff9631b2 +size 362037 diff --git a/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/layout.json b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0943e3ee8fdf90034e0a068af4f3bc1eee0656d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9413 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 67, + 433, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 67, + 433, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 160, + 67, + 433, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Semi-Structured Object Sequence Encoders" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rudra Murthy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{V}^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Riyadh Bhat" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Chulaka Gunasekara" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Siva Sankalp Patel" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Hui Wan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Tejas Indulal Dhamecha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Danish Contractor" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Marina Danilevsky" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 89, + 498, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 253, + 132, + 343, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 253, + 132, + 343, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 253, + 132, + 343, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1IBM Research AI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 207, + 146, + 390, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 207, + 146, + 390, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 207, + 146, + 390, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Microsoft India Development Center" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 160, + 504, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 160, + 504, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 160, + 504, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "rmurthyv@in.ibm.com,{riyaz.bhat,chulaka.gunasekara,siva.sankalp.patel} @ IBM.com," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 175, + 415, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 175, + 415, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 180, + 175, + 415, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "hwan@us.ibm.com, tdhamecha@microsoft.com," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 189, + 422, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 189, + 422, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 189, + 422, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "danish.contractor@ibm.com, mdanile@us.ibm.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 239, + 274, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 239, + 274, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 239, + 274, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. Examples of such data include user activity on websites, machine logs, and many others. This type of data is often represented as a sequence of sets of key-value pairs over time and can present modeling challenges due to an ever-increasing sequence length thereby affecting the quality of the representation. We propose a two-part approach, which first considers each key independently and encodes a representation of its values over time; we then self-attend over these value-aware key representations to accomplish a downstream task. This allows us to learn better representation while being able to operate on longer object sequences than existing methods. We introduce a novel shared-attention-head architecture between the two modules and present an innovative training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules with shared weights for some attention heads.1 Our experiments on multiple prediction tasks using real-world data demonstrate that our approach outperforms a unified network with hierarchical encoding, as well as other methods including a record-centric representation and a flattened representation of the sequence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 624 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 291, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Semi-structured object sequences comprise a significant portion of the myriad of data created daily. This data usually has a temporal aspect, with the data created sequentially and representing events happening in some order. More generally, the data is a sequence of structured objects, each represented by a set of key-value pairs that encode the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "attributes of the object (Figure 1(a)). Examples include recordings of user interactions with websites, logs of machine activity, shopping decisions made by consumers, and many more (Figure 1(b)). The data is usually stored in semi-structured formats such as JSONs, or tabular forms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 295, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 295, + 526, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 295, + 526, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we explore the task of modeling semi-structured object sequences; in particular, we focus our attention on the problem of developing a structure-aware input representation for such sequences. If we think of the parallel to natural language data, we could treat each sentence of a text (Figure 1(c)) akin to the set of key-value pairs at a particular time step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The challenge of sequence length: A trivial method of representing such sequences would be to flatten each structured object and view its constituents as individual words for tokenization in natural language (Figure 1 (d)).2 However, this causes the sequence length to become extremely large (thousands of tokens) when operating on real-word semi-structured sequences. For instance, in our study of semi-structured objects from user-interaction sessions on software from a large cloud-based service provider, we found these objects could contain 60 fields on average. The values of these fields include timestamps, identifiers, log messages, etc., with an average of 5 words each. A session length of 15 minutes results in 105 such session objects, amounting to nearly 31,500 words which would further increase the sequence length after sub-words are created." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 662, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 662, + 526, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 662, + 526, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Record-centric representation: In contrast, to flattening structured objects, one could also create record-centric representations (Figure 1(f)) where the set of key-value representations at each time step are considered in sequence. As our experiments in Section 3.3 demonstrate, such represent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with markers to indicate boundaries for each structured object" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Work carried out when the author was an IBM employee Code at https://github.com/murthyrudra/ SemiStructuredEncoders" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9026" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9026-9039 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 73, + 267, + 135 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 98, + 87, + 109 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 98, + 87, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 98, + 87, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 73, + 267, + 135 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 73, + 267, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 73, + 267, + 135 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bd64209231cfb46db09b228445a78d92d249b57fc15ee8929e33905ff7687b91.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 348, + 81, + 521, + 126 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 81, + 521, + 126 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 81, + 521, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 81, + 521, + 126 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b4b3d2a162a59ba1505c6ba4f3b977163fd4ff75379c71a633e412a4d5c78951.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 159, + 359, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 159, + 359, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 159, + 359, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(e)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 140, + 305, + 196 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 163, + 88, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 163, + 88, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 163, + 88, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 140, + 305, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 140, + 305, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 140, + 305, + 196 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9be1265decc665abc60984c46c94805d9589af4873560e7443d7f77bb96bb9eb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 142, + 477, + 154 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 142, + 477, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 375, + 142, + 477, + 154 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {k} _ {1}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {1}, v _ {2} ^ {1}, v _ {3} ^ {1}, \\dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}", + "image_path": "49db5a6a199838f305585b2705539843638d183cc1ded032fe99b3fd18c9cc57.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 156, + 476, + 174 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 156, + 476, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 156, + 476, + 174 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{c} \\mathsf {k} _ {\\mathsf {2}}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {2}, v _ {2} ^ {2}, v _ {3} ^ {2}, \\ldots v _ {N} ^ {2} \\right\\} \\\\ \\ldots \\end{array}", + "image_path": "05dae70125a7e03bf825cdb23d9d87349ac765f8e46a435fe2a17936dfea23cb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 176, + 476, + 188 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 176, + 476, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 176, + 476, + 188 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {k} _ {\\mathsf {K}}: \\left\\{v _ {1} ^ {K}, v _ {2} ^ {K}, v _ {3} ^ {K}, \\dots v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}", + "image_path": "480a006d07bd9ad537acf9fd88c48828a50b552f2a1a612771683b92051ce26b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 206, + 304, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 229, + 84, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 229, + 84, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 229, + 84, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 206, + 304, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 206, + 304, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 206, + 304, + 253 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c22a1a1c14a59dd35a8bcb929840e1c7bdc38e541d63b5b04f21dc623f14dc02.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 229, + 359, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 229, + 359, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 350, + 229, + 359, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(f)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 526, + 340 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 526, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Semi-Structured Object Sequences: (a) Generic representation of a sequence of semi-structured objects, consisting of multiple key-value pairs at time steps " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_1 \\ldots t_N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". (b) Example object: a sequence of events triggered by the use of a graphical user interface. (c) Viewing a text paragraph as a sequence of sentences. (d) Encoding the example object in (a) by flattening. (e) Encoding (a) by encoding a representation of the values for each key (to be followed by a key aggregation step, not shown). (f) Encoding (a) using a record-centric representation for each time step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 205, + 514, + 218 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 205, + 514, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 205, + 514, + 218 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {t} _ {1}: \\left\\{k _ {1}: v _ {1} ^ {1}, k _ {2}: v _ {1} ^ {2}, k _ {3}: v _ {1} ^ {3}, \\dots k _ {K}: v _ {1} ^ {K} \\right\\}", + "image_path": "4737ea5c5a49d539685b36b92d19be8df60d0121f7fbdcc8e8e941f2c56184a1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 219, + 514, + 232 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 219, + 514, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 219, + 514, + 232 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {t} _ {2}: \\left\\{\\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {2} ^ {1}, \\mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {2} ^ {2}, \\mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {2} ^ {3}, \\dots \\mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {2} ^ {K} \\right\\}", + "image_path": "f2ed2b4a5fdcd4cebc5d727cbdac0e3a403aa37806501091a6696a98de52f19f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 232, + 399, + 238 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 232, + 399, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 232, + 399, + 238 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\dots", + "image_path": "df87f659b47855061e5b5fb6b4b67da76a102dd1887630b4a364e35ececed31a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 239, + 514, + 252 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 239, + 514, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 239, + 514, + 252 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {t} _ {\\mathbf {N}}: \\left\\{\\mathrm {k} _ {1}: v _ {N} ^ {1}, \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {2}: v _ {N} ^ {2}, \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {3}: v _ {N} ^ {3}, \\quad \\dots \\quad \\mathrm {k} _ {K}: v _ {N} ^ {K} \\right\\}", + "image_path": "88140052b2dd9707440c584606ab4d2aee15cfeb4a55e3228cb15f0a418d9247.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 290, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 290, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 290, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tations do not work well when operating on long sequences. We hypothesize that this could be because the record-representation does not adequately model the dependencies between the constituent values of the same key across different time steps (records)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 290, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 290, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 290, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Key-centric representation: To address these challenges we use a modular, two-part hierarchical encoding strategy. First, we decompose the sequence of semi-structured objects into independent sets of sequences based on keys. This allows us to consider each key separately (Figure 1(e)), and encode a representation of how the values of that key evolve over time (we refer to this as Temporal Value Modeling – TVM). This may be achieved using any encoder.3 We then self-attend over the set of the key encodings to create a representation of the entire structured object sequence (referred to as Key Aggregation – KA)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 290, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Advantages: This key-centric perspective of encoding semi-structured sequences has many advantages as compared to flattening and record-centric representations (Figure 1(f))." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 689, + 290, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Decoupling the keys allows us to support an arbitrary number of keys since each key-sequence is encoded independently. So, the key-representations created during Temporal Value Modeling can sup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 526, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "port longer sequences than what would have been impossible with flattening (due to memory constraints). Moreover, this encoding strategy also accommodates input sequences that may be considered non-structured – e.g., natural language text as sequences of words in sentences (Figure 1(c)). Specifically, if we consider a sequence of structured objects where each structured object consists of only one key, whose values contain a sentence, then our TVM effectively encodes the text sequence using whichever encoder has been employed.5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The decoupling of keys and the use of two independent encoders - TVM for value-aware key representations, and KA for aggregating key-representations for a downstream task - requires that information be shared between the two networks so that the key-representations generated by TVM can be optimized for downstream tasks via the KA. To facilitate this, we share a few sets of attention heads between the two networks. First, we pre-train the TVM network with shared attention heads in place. We then use the frozen representations from this network to initialize the KA network, which has its own untrained attention heads, and the shared attention heads from the TVM network as part of its trainable parameters. We utilize a training schedule that interleaves the training of both modules to iteratively train them. Doing so allows the TVM and KA modules to create richer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 267, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 267, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 749, + 267, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3We use BERT and Longformer in our experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4Real-world data can have hundreds of keys in each object." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 507, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 507, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 507, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5The key aggregation step, in this case, is redundant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9027" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "representations of keys, informed by their importance for the downstream task. We find that this novel iterative two part-training results in better performance compared to a unified network with hierarchical encoding (with no attention-head sharing) as well as other methods, that either use a flattened representation or a record-centric representation of the sequence (Velicković et al., 2018; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 206, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 206, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 206, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contributions: Our work addresses the challenges of encoding semi-structured object sequences: (i) we propose a two-part approach that separately encodes the evolution of the values for each key, followed by aggregation over key-representations to accomplish downstream tasks; (ii) we present a novel approach for sharing attention heads between the components; (iii) we compare our approach against baselines such as sequence flattening, joint encoding, and record-centric sequence representations; and (iv) we present detailed experiments on several datasets and tasks to demonstrate the advantages of our approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 138, + 406 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 138, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 138, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Modeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 291, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now describe our approach for modeling key-value semi-structured object sequences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let a sequence of semi-structured objects be denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{J} = [J_1, J_2, J_3, \\ldots, J_N]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corresponding to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " time steps. Further, let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J_i = \\{k_1 : v_i^1, k_2 : v_i^2, \\ldots, k_j : v_i^j, \\ldots, k_K : v_i^K\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote a structured object " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", containing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " key-value pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< k_j : v_i^j >, j = 1 \\ldots K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The goal of our modeling is to learn a representation of a sequence of structured objects " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{J}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; and subsequently, learn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f : \\operatorname{Emb}(\\mathcal{J}) \\to \\{1, 2, \\ldots, C\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for an end task, such as a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-way classification task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 576, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We develop a modular two-part modeling strategy to represent a sequence of structured objects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 609, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. The first module, called the Temporal Value Modeler (TVM), is used to learn a combined representation (referred to as the key-representations) for the different values that each key takes in the sequence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 685, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 685, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 685, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. The second module, called the KeyAggregator (KA), uses the key-representations corresponding to each key, to create an overall representation for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 685, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 685, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Temporal Value Modeling: Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be a key from the universe of all the keys " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the sequence. Then," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for each key " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we encode the value-aware key-representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", by considering the value of the key " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at each timestamp, as a sequence. Formally, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 131, + 527, + 153 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 131, + 527, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 131, + 527, + 153 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V _ {k} = [ \\text {C L S} ] k [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] v _ {1} ^ {k} [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] v _ {2} ^ {k} [ \\text {V A L} _ {\\text {S E P}} ] \\dots v _ {N} ^ {k} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "343c860b2d02936c6f5c46e9f6f3ac52796eba5073bd5917f50e99948d31d038.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where [VAL_SEP] and [CLS] are special tokens. Note that each value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{j}^{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for a key " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at time step " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can itself consist of many tokens and those have not been shown for ease of presentation. With any choice of a transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) language encoder (TextEncoder - TE), an embedding for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", termed the key-representation (KR), can be obtained as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 270, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 270, + 525, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 347, + 270, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm {K R} _ {k} = \\text {T e x t E n c o d e r} \\left(V _ {k}\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "ccdb9777da53a046bcb71e9670acdf47aaa7ab1e1152a8b1d3dc9e0ecbcec541.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the output embedding representation at the first position (corresponding to [CLS]) as the key-representation. It is easy to see that this formulation allows us to accommodate the modeling of natural language text as in Figure 1 (c). For illustration, if the TextEncoder is based on BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), Eq. 2 reduces to the encoding scheme typically employed in BERT for text paragraphs, where the [VAL_SEP] corresponds to the [SEP] token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Key-Aggregation: Once we create key-representations we utilize them for an end-task. We encode the key-representations using the same model architecture as the TVM TextEncoder but do not use positional embeddings since we encode a set of position-invariant key representations. Note that the weights of the KA are randomly initialized. This network is directly optimized for an end-task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 562, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 562, + 525, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 562, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {E m b d} (\\mathcal {J}) = \\mathrm {K A} \\left(\\left\\{\\mathrm {K R} (k) \\mid k \\in \\mathcal {K} \\right\\}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "695f81d7ef06be9339112e551aea38fde5b70008f0dbb77f2efe120d80e06181.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Key-centric vs. Record-centric Representation: As an alternative to the key-centric representation used by the TVM, one could construct a record-centric view to model the sequence (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021). Instead of modeling the evolution of keys in a semistructured object sequence using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for each key, one could treat the sequence as a series of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Figure 1(f)). However, the record-centric representation requires the network to compress information present in multiple keys and values of a record " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(J_{i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 584, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which can create an information bottleneck for the downstream task. We compare and contrast these alternative views in Section 3 and Section 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9028" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 69, + 478, + 298 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 69, + 478, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 69, + 478, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 69, + 478, + 298 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "53bd6767e01c1c6db40fa444604be8d9e58611dcde3ea85c435f21c64313b98e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 526, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The TVM-KA network architecture consisting of a set of shared attention heads (weights) between the Temporal Value Modeler and the Key Aggregator. Each key is encoded independently to create a corresponding key representation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Challenges of Scalable Training: The training of the hierarchical two-part network, which first obtains the key-representations (Eq. 2) and then the structured object sequence representation (Eq. 3), could be done end-to-end where the network parameters are directly trained for the downstream task. However, end-to-end training of the hierarchical two-part network is often difficult due to the constraints imposed by the limited GPU memory. The GPU memory usage is affected by two factors: (1) the length of the semi-structured object sequence; and (2) the number of keys in an object. The end-to-end model architecture operating over a batch of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sequences would exceed the memory of most commodity GPUs. By a conservative estimate, even for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = 11" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N = 512" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a typical 120M parameter model would exceed 40GB RAM limit with a batch-size of 2. To address this, we use an iterative training paradigm, described below, which interleaves the training of the TVM and KA components by relying on attention heads that are shared between the two components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sharing Attention Heads: Recall that the TVM network first creates a representation for each key by attending to the values that occur in the sequence for each of them. The KA network then uses these representations to learn the end task. However, if the KA network could influence how these representations are created for each key, it could perhaps" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "help improve the performance of the KA on the downstream task. We, therefore, introduce hard-parameter sharing between the TVM and KA components. We hypothesize that by sharing a few attention heads (weights) between the two networks, the KA will be able to utilize the shared attention heads. Specifically, as training progresses and updates the parameters used in these heads, it will have an effect of adjusting the key-representations from the TVM in a way that could help improve overall end-task performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interleaved Task Training: As mentioned above, we use an iterative task training paradigm where we interleave the training of the TVM and KA components. Note that our training paradigm is different from traditional training schedules for sequential task training where one network is fully trained before the next module, or from fine-tuning approaches where a part of the network may be initialized with a pre-trained model and additional layers of the network are initialized randomly and then updated for an end-task. We use the Masked language modeling (MLM) objective (Devlin et al., 2019) to train the TVM component and an end-task-specific objective for training the KA. The use of interleaved training, as outlined in Algorithm 1, prevents the problem of catastrophic forgetting (French, 1999; McCloskey and Cohen, 1989; McClelland et al., 1995; Kumaran et al., 2016; Ratcliff," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9029" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1990) when the KA is trained. Further, it is possible that when the TVM is trained for the first time it may rely heavily on the heads that are shared. Thus, any change to the representation from these heads could lead to poorer key-representations and attention sharing, and would therefore would be counter-productive. To address this problem, we apply DropHead (Zhou et al., 2020) on the shared attention heads in TVM and pre-train the model before beginning the interleaving schedule." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 216, + 230 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 216, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 217, + 216, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 Interleaved training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 366 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Initialize Temporal Value Modeler " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Key Aggregator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 237, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameters randomly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 259, + 276, + 268 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 259, + 276, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 259, + 276, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2: Prepare the dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 259, + 276, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 259, + 276, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consisting of value sequences" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 269, + 154, + 278 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 269, + 154, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 269, + 154, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: for i = 1,2,...,p do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 279, + 154, + 287 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 279, + 154, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 279, + 154, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4: ▷TVM training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: Update TVM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model parameters with MLM objective on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 288, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6: Prepare the dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consisting of key-representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{KR}_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 308, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as per Eq. 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 328, + 147, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 328, + 147, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 328, + 147, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7: ▷KA training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 338, + 288, + 358 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 338, + 288, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 338, + 288, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8: Update Key Aggregator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 338, + 288, + 358 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M}_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 338, + 288, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model parameters with cross-entropy loss for downstream task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 359, + 113, + 366 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 359, + 113, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 359, + 113, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9: end for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 393, + 155, + 407 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 393, + 155, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 393, + 155, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our experiments are designed to answer the following questions: (i) How helpful is the TVM-KA architecture over the baseline that involves flattening semi-structured object sequences? (ii) How does the model compare to existing approaches based on record-centric representations? (iii) How important is the use of shared attention heads for fine-tuning KA? (iv) Does the interleaved training procedure help train the network effectively?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 119, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 119, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 119, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 726 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We experiment using two application/cloud logs datasets and one e-commerce purchase history dataset. The first logs dataset, referred to as 'Cloud Service Logs,' is an internal dataset consisting of interaction traces typically used for product usage analysis. We also use the publicly available LogHub (He et al., 2020) dataset, comprising system log messages from the Hadoop distributed file system, and a publicly available e-commerce dataset, which consists of product purchase information (Stanley et al., 2017). We include additional details about the datasets in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cloud Service Logs Data - Application event traces from a large cloud provider: In the Cloud Service Logs dataset, application event" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 71, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "traces are logged by the cloud provider website. Event types include login, browsing, account creation/maintenance/update, UI navigation, search, service creation/deletion, app interactions, and others. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months and comprising about 450M events, from which we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. While the raw data has over 60 keys in each event, we experiment with a smaller set of manually selected 11 keys, so that existing approaches and baselines can be meaningfully used for comparison. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen to represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of 3) no milestone event occurring is treated as third class. From the traces, temporal sequences of 300 events are extracted to predict if a milestone (or no-milestone) event will occur in next 50 time steps. We report Macro F1-Score, as the dataset exhibits class imbalance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 527, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instacart eCommerce Data: The publicly available Instacart dataset6 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as day of the week, product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We predict the product name given the sequence of product orders,7 which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict if a particular item is likely to be purchased again.8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 657, + 526, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 657, + 526, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 657, + 526, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LogHub Data: We use the HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) for the log anomaly detection task. As the dataset originally consisted of lines of log messages, we use the Drain log parser" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 514, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 514, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 514, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 514, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://tech.instacart.com/3-million-instarcart-orders-open-sourced-d40d29ead6f2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 460, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 460, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 740, + 460, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7We use the complete structured object." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/instacart-market-basket-analysis/leaderboard" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9030" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 143 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 143 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 143 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTrainDevTest# ClassesTask# Keys# Time Steps
MedianMaximum
Cloud Service Logs12,8331,6051,6043Milestone Prediction11112 (17061)300 (177340)
LogHub402,54257,506115,0122Anomaly Detection4619 (1176)298 (18530)
Instacart780,00397,50197,5003,212Next Product Prediction10134 (9842)3598 (267025)
", + "image_path": "bf37e76268565ade9ec0d6c0a4f325c54ed88ab221fc63d3dc421447f74550ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 525, + 177 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 525, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 525, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Dataset Statistics including the median and maximum length of sequences reported in number of time-steps. Values in parentheses report the sequence length after sub-word tokenization using the BERT tokenizer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 199, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 199, + 290, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 199, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(He et al., 2017) to identify 48 log templates. Using a semi-automated approach, we assign key names to the value slots of the templates. Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object with 46 key-value pairs. The original dataset splits the log lines into blocks, and the binary prediction task is to predict whether a particular block is anomalous. The dataset is highly imbalanced, with around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 199, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 199, + 290, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the instances belonging to the anomalous class. We therefore report F1-Score for the anomalous class." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 140, + 359 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 140, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 140, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Encoders" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines: We flatten each key-value pair in a structured object and encode them with special markers indicating boundaries for objects and timesteps. We fine-tune the pre-trained encoders for each downstream task and report their performance. We experiment with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020) as the pre-trained encoders." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also compare our model with popular approaches for creating record-centric representations. These approaches first obtain the representations for each object " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and then feed them to an inter-object transformer to create the representation of the whole sequence of objects. We experiment with three popular methods, where each object representation is obtained from the key-value pair representations by 1) point-wise summation, 2) concatenation then project-down (Mizrachi and Levin, 2019; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021), and 3) self-attention then averaging (Zhang et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2021). Note that the record-centric baseline can be viewed as an adaptation of the TabBERT model originally designed for tabular data (Padhi et al., 2021). Padhi et al. (2021) use a field transformer (a transformer encoder similar to BERT) to encode all rows in the table independently to obtain row embeddings. These row embeddings are later passed through another encoder to obtain a representation for the entire table. We use self-attention instead of a field transformer to encode" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 468, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 468, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 468, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the key-value pairs of a JSON object." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pre-trained models for tokens cannot be meaningfully used to initialize record-centric baselines as these create sequences over sets of key-value pairs. On the other hand, identifying a custom pretraining objective for baselines is challenging as the downstream task of predicting the next event/product involves predicting a value for a very specific key at a future time step (which is very similar to an objective one might think of for pre-training). Hence, we randomly initialize the weights of the record-centric models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Encoders for TVM-KA: One of the advantages of the TVM-KA architecture is that it is agnostic to the choice of the encoder. We employ the same encoder architectures used in our baselines to enable a direct performance comparison. Recall that the TVM module and KA module share attention heads to facilitate sharing of information between them. To pre-train the TVM, we mask " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the tokens in every Value Sequence, and the objective is to predict the masked tokens. We do not mask value-separator and key aggregator tokens; we only mask the values. Details on hyper-parameter tuning and the iterative training schedule are in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 365, + 568 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 365, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 365, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 reports the primary results from our experiments. We include the results on three datasets and for each dataset, we report the overall performance along with the performance of the models on slices of the dataset where the length of the sequence is greater than the median length for that dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with Flattened encoding: As seen in the 'overall' scores for each dataset in Table 2, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVMKA (last row). For instance, on the cloud service logs, there's an increase of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.9\\% - 58.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to flattened encodings in macro F1 scores. Similar" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9031" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 282 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 282 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 526, + 282 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ConfigurationCloud Service Logs (Macro F1)Instacart (Recall@10)Loghub (Binary F1-Score)
L >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (50%)OverallL >Median (51.37%)Overall
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)49.5550.229.69.40.0053.62
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)77.3074.7720.1018.7023.3261.63
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)80.0676.5921.0719.1158.3075.86
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained75.8373.7116.9416.0897.7198.54
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation78.9777.337.115.1099.2299.51
Concat77.7675.997.185.1199.2999.57
Self-Attention79.1877.737.986.3499.0899.42
TVM-KAJoint Modeling80.1577.6817.0416.046.7870.72
No Interleaving73.1973.2218.3217.599.0598.64
Interleaving81.2679.6023.4422.5498.7999.32
", + "image_path": "51b398f5a4d97c08dd572b0711f3e4ef718b192b5ba8c899233d7496a6385cef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 526, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 526, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on various datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report results on a subset of the test set whose sequence length (L) (post-tokenization) is greater than the median length for each dataset. The values in parenthesis indicate the percentage number of instances where the length of a sequence is greater than the median sequence length. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches on both cloud service logs and instacart datasets (p-value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 0.03" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 290, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "trends are reported on the Instacart dataset. We find that on the LogHub dataset, the Longformer model (Beltagy et al., 2020) is able to obtain a comparable performance (98.54 vs 99.32)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 291, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparison with Record-centric representations: Unlike flattened encoding, the record-centric representation does not suffer from the modeling limitations associated with the maximum sequence length limit. These representations can encode sequences in their entirety, since most datasets have fewer than 300 objects (time-steps), and the sequence length is equal to the number of time steps. However, the record-centric view may not adequately model the dependencies between values of the same key across different time steps. We find that our approach outperforms all record-centric representation baselines on the Cloud Service Logs dataset as well as the Instacart dataset. As before, the performance of TVM-KA on the LogHub data is similar to that of different record-centric baselines (99.32 vs 99.57) - this perhaps indicates that the prediction task is relatively simpler on this dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While the poor performance of record-centric baselines over flattened encoding on the Instacart dataset may appear counter-intuitive at first glance, the reason this can happen is that the record-centric approach creates a combined representation for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "each time-step before it processes a sequence (See Figure 1). This combined representation can be lossy and it does not allow interaction across keys or time steps, which the flattening baseline permits (thanks to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " attention across each token). Further, not only is the number of classes for prediction in the Instacart data in the thousands (while it is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 383, + 526, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the other datasets), but it also exhibits longer sequences than other datasets, all of which are factors that likely contribute to this result." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 530, + 527, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 530, + 527, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 530, + 527, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Importance of interleaved training: As seen in the last two rows of Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVMKA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. We illustrate the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint Modeling vs Interleaved Training of TVM-KA: In the joint modeling approach, we do not use shared attention heads and instead train the TVM and KA networks end-to-end (jointly). We observe that joint modeling performs poorly compared to our interleaving approach. We found this surprising as we had expected it to be at par" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9032" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with our approach when the joint models fit in memory. We hypothesize that by interleaving and sharing attention heads between TVM and KA, the fine-tuning of the KA on the downstream task introduces a task-specific bias to help improve the key-representations. This in-turn, benefits the pre-trained representations of the TVM via shared-attention weights and further improves performance in the next round of training. In the absence of this bias, the joint model perhaps converges at an alternative minima that is not as good." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of varying the number of shared attention heads: In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Sharing too few or too many attention heads results in an average drop of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\% - 43\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 228, + 291, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in performance. We include further details in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of parameter size/model capacity: We investigate if the model capacity could be a bottleneck for the approaches based on flattened representations. We fine-tune a bert-large-uncased model, which has " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the parameters of the bert-base-uncased model and approximately " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.5x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 318, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the parameters of the TVM-KA network. We find that our model performs better, suggesting that the improved performance is primarily due to the value-aware key representations and the model's resultant ability to accommodate longer sequences due to the decoupling of keys." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 161, + 505 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 161, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 161, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 280, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 280, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 280, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work is related to several areas of research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 536, + 291, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Modeling Tabular and Timeseries Data: As we explicitly model the value sequence for each key, the data object we work with is reminiscent of tabular data where each row is a time-step and each column comprises the values for a particular field. On the surface, the modeling of data may appear related, but the actual tasks and models developed for tasks on tabular data cannot be applied to semi-structured object sequences. This is because the work on modeling textual tabular data often involves developing specialized models focused on retrieving information from cells (Zayats et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Iida et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), multi-hop reasoning across information in different cells across parts of the table (Chen et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a), combining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "information present in tables and unstructured text for information seeking tasks (Li et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2021; Zayats et al., 2021; Luetto et al., 2023; Cholakov and Kolev, 2022), etc. In addition, work on modeling time-series tabular data has focused on numerical data (Zhou et al., 2021; Zerveas et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022b) with purpose-built task-specific architectures that cannot be easily adapted to other tasks (Wu et al., 2021; Padhi et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 527, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 527, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 527, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Modeling Temporal Graph Sequences and Recommender Systems: Our approach is also related to a rich body of work on modeling temporal graphs and recommendation systems (Xu et al., 2021b; Grigsby et al., 2021; de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021). Temporal graph evolution problems involve constructing representations to enable tasks such as link prediction (Sankar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021a), item recommendation in user sessions (Hsu and te Li, 2021), answering queries on graphs and sequences (Saxena et al., 2022), classifying graph instances in a sequence, (Xu et al., 2021a,b) etc. Our findings suggest that such approaches do not scale for long sequences for the tasks we experimented with. However, our record-centric model baselines (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021; Mizrachi and Levin, 2019) are similar in approach to these methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Parameter sharing in neural network models: Deep neural networks are usually trained to tackle different tasks in isolation. Networks that cater to multiple related tasks (multi-task neural networks) seek to improve generalization and process data efficiently through parameter sharing and joint learning. Traditional hard-parameter sharing uses the same initial layers and splits the network into task-specific branches at an ad hoc point (Guo et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2017). On the other hand, soft-parameter sharing shares features via a set of task-specific networks (Liu et al., 2019; Maninis et al., 2019). More recently adaptive sharing approaches have been proposed that decide what parameters to share across tasks to achieve the best performance (Vandenhende et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020). The parameter sharing utilized in this work is different from the aforementioned approaches, as we share some attention head weights between the two networks (as compared to shared layers), in a way that could improve overall end-task performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 270, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 270, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 270, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9We trained our joint models on 80GB A100 GPUs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9033" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 226, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 226, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 226, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion and Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 290, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we have presented a two-part encoder to model structured object sequences. The choice of a key-centric representation enables us to encode larger objects as well as long sequences. Our experiments show that by using the two-part TVM-KA architecture we are able to inject downstream task information into the temporal value modeler network to generate key representations that are more relevant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 291, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 291, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 291, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We additionally present a novel interleaving scheme to train our two-part encoder. We induce task bias into the model by sharing attention heads between the Temporal Value Modeler and Key Aggregator components. Our proposed approach outperforms both the baseline approaches that flatten structured object sequences and those based on record-centric representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 331, + 131, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 331, + 131, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 331, + 131, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 351, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The benefits of our approach are best highlighted in datasets that have a large number of keys in each object when sequences are long and have a challenging prediction task. In such cases, the joint modeling of TVM-KA becomes too big to fit in memory and record-centric approaches suffer a lot of deterioration due to lossy record-representations. In our experiments, the Instacart data exhibits some of these characteristics and we see a significant improvement in performance as compared to record-centric baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We note that the key-centric representation does not allow the model to support tasks such as sequence tagging of the structured objects. Nor does it allow to modeling of graph sequences effectively, as it does not use a global view of the structured objects. Thus, it may not be able to learn patterns across fields at different time steps. For such tasks, a record-centric representation is perhaps more helpful. Both key-centric and record-centric representations have their strengths and weaknesses, and the choice should be made with the downstream task in mind. Further, while our experiments have been reported on real-world datasets they do not represent the full spectrum of existing sequence modeling tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 712, + 170, + 726 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 712, + 170, + 726 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 712, + 170, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank Vignesh P for his work during internship at IBM and helping us with the processing of LogHub data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 362, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 527, + 124 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 527, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 527, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. *ArXiv*, abs/2004.05150." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 133, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 133, + 526, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 133, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyu Chen, Wenhu Chen, Charese Smiley, Sameena Shah, Iana Borova, Dylan Langdon, Reema Moussa, Matt Beane, Ting-Hao Huang, Bryan Routledge, and William Yang Wang. 2021. FinQA: A dataset of numerical reasoning over financial data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3697-3711, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 242, + 526, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 242, + 526, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 242, + 526, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Radostin Cholakov and Todor Kolev. 2022. The gatedtabtransformer: an enhanced deep learning architecture for tabular modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00199." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 526, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 526, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Sara Rabhi, Jeong Min Lee, Ronay Ak, and Even Oldridge. 2021. Transformers4rec: Bridging the gap between nlp and sequential/session-based recommendation. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 143-153." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 527, + 482 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 527, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 371, + 527, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 526, + 525 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 526, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 526, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert M. French. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4):128-135." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 526, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 534, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jake Grigsby, Zhe Wang, and Yanjun Qi. 2021. Long-range transformers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 526, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 526, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaodong Gu, Kang Min Yoo, and Jung-Woo Ha. 2021. DialogBERT: Discourse-aware response generation via learning to recover and rank utterances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 526, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 526, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 526, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michelle Guo, Albert Haque, De-An Huang, Serena Yeung, and Li Fei-Fei. 2018. Dynamic task prioritization for multitask learning. In ECCV (16)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R Lyu. 2017. Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree. In 2017 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pages 33-40. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 727, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 727, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 727, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shilin He, Jieming Zhu, Pinjia He, and Michael R Lyu. 2020. Loghub: a large collection of system log datasets towards automated log analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9034" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cheng-Mao Hsu and Cheng te Li. 2021. Retagnn: Relational temporal attentive graph neural networks for holistic sequential recommendation. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 290, + 193 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 290, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 290, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hiroshi Iida, Dung Thai, Varun Manjunatha, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. Tabbie: Pretrained representations of tabular data. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 3446-3456." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 203, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dharshan Kumaran, Demis Hassabis, and James L McClelland. 2016. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(7):512-534." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 290, + 323 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 290, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 290, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Hanbo Li, Patrick Ng, Peng Xu, Henghui Zhu, Zhiguo Wang, and Bing Xiang. 2021. Dual reader-parser on hybrid textual and tabular evidence for open domain question answering. In ACLIJCNLP 2021." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 290, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shikun Liu, Edward Johns, and Andrew J Davison. 2019. End-to-end multi-task learning with attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1871-1880." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongxi Lu, Abhishek Kumar, Shuangfei Zhai, Yu Cheng, Tara Javidi, and Rogerio Feris. 2017. Fully-adaptive feature sharing in multi-task networks with applications in person attribute classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5334-5343." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 290, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simone Luetto, Fabrizio Garuti, Enver Sangineto, Lorenzo Forni, and Rita Cucchiara. 2023. One transformer for all time series: Representing and training with time-dependent heterogeneous tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06375." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 586 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Ilija Radosavovic, and Iasonas Kokkinos. 2019. Attentive single-tasking of multiple tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1851-1860." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 662 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 597, + 290, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James L McClelland, Bruce L McNaughton, and Randall C O'Reilly. 1995. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological review, 102(3):419." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 728 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. 1989. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In *Psychology of learning and motivation*, volume 24, pages 109-165. Elsevier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sarai Mizrachi and Pavel Levin. 2019. Combining context features in sequence-aware recommender systems. In RecSys." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 148 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inkit Padhi, Yair Schiff, Igor Melnyk, Mattia Rigotti, Youssef Mroueh, Pierre Dognin, Jerret Ross, Ravi Nair, and Erik Altman. 2021. Tabular transformers for modeling multivariate time series. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 3565-3569. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 203 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roger Ratcliff. 1990. Connectionist models of recognition memory: constraints imposed by learning and forgetting functions. *Psychological review*, 97(2):285." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 212, + 525, + 290 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 212, + 525, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 212, + 525, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aravind Sankar, Yanhong Wu, Liang Gou, Wei Zhang, and Hao Yang. 2020. Dysat: Deep neural representation learning on dynamic graphs via self-attention networks. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '20, page 519-527, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 299, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 299, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 299, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Apoory Saxena, Adrian Kochsiek, and Rainer Gemulla. 2022. Sequence-to-sequence knowledge graph completion and question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2814-2828." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 374, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 374, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 374, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeremy Stanley, Meg Risdal, sharathrao, and Will Cukierski. 2017. Instacart market basket analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ximeng Sun, Rameswar Panda, Rogerio Feris, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Adashare: Learning what to share for efficient deep multi-task learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:8728-8740." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 470, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simon Vandenhende, Stamatios Georgoulis, Bert De Brabandere, and Luc Van Gool. 2019. Branched multi-task networks: Deciding what layers to share. Proceedings BMVC 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 600 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 525, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Petar Velicković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Wang, Kexuan Sun, Muhao Chen, Jay Pujara, and Pedro A Szekely. 2021. Retrieving complex tables with multi-granular graph representation learning. In SIGIR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with Auto-Correlation for long-term series forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9035" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dongkuan Xu, Junjie Liang, Wei Cheng, Hua Wei, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. 2021a. Transformer-style relational reasoning with dynamic memory updating for temporal network modeling. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(5):4546-4554." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 290, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiehui Xu, Haixu Wu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021b. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 209, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 209, + 290, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 209, + 290, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingfeng Yang, Aditya Gupta, Shyam Upadhyay, Luheng He, Rahul Goel, and Shachi Paul. 2022. Tableformer: Robust transformer modeling for tablettext encoding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 528-537." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 290, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 283, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victoria Zayats, Kristina Toutanova, and Mari Ostendorf. 2021. Representations for question answering from documents with tables and text. In EACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 324, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "George Zerveas, Srideepika Jayaraman, Dhaval Patel, Anuradha Bhamidipaty, and Carsten Eickhoff. 2021. A transformer-based framework for multivariate time series representation learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2114-2124." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 398, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 398, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 398, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2019. HIBERT: Document level pre-training of hierarchical bidirectional transformers for document summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5059-5069, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022a. Multihiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yilun Zhao, Yunxiang Li, Chenying Li, and Rui Zhang. 2022b. MultiHiertt: Numerical reasoning over multi hierarchical tabular and textual data. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6588-6600, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 642, + 290, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 11106-11115." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wangchunshu Zhou, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2020. Scheduled drophead: A regularization method for transformer models. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1971-1980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 525, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 525, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Youcheng Huang, Chao Wang, Shuo Zhang, Jiancheng Lv, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. TAT-QA: A question answering benchmark on a hybrid of tabular and textual content in finance. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3277-3287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 195, + 405, + 206 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 195, + 405, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 195, + 405, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Dataset Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 524, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 524, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 524, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide additional details about the datasets used in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 254, + 520, + 280 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 254, + 520, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 254, + 520, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Cloud Service Logs Data: Application event traces from a large cloud provider" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the Cloud Service Logs (CSL) dataset, application event traces are logged in the cloud provider website. Each user is assigned a unique identifier. Event types range from login, browsing, account creation, account maintenance, account update, UI navigation, search, service creation, service deletion, app interactions, among several others. We have about 638 unique event types. Each event has an associated payload that provides context around the event. For example, if a user performed a search, the payload captures the search query and the page where the search was performed. If a user interacted with a service, the payload captures the service ID and action performed on the service, among other information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our raw data is a snapshot of application event traces spanning 3 months comprising about 450M events. Using these, we build our user sessions. A user session is essentially a temporal sequence of event traces for that user. If there is a difference of greater than 15 minutes between two consecutive events, we break the session. We constructed user sessions for 100k users. The application events corresponding to 1) plan upgrade, and 2) opening chatbot (to seek help) are considered as milestone events. These milestone events are chosen as they represent revenue generation and user experience, respectively. The case of no milestone event occurring is treated as the third class." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the traces, we identify user sessions containing any of the aforementioned milestone events. We consider the temporal sequences of events 350 time-steps before the milestone event occurs. To construct the data, we consider the sequence of events till 300 time-steps and the task is to predict" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9036" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "if a milestone (or no milestone) event will occur in the next 50 time steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 107, + 223, + 118 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 107, + 223, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 107, + 223, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Instacart eCommerce Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 290, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 123, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The publicly available Instacart dataset10 contains 3 million grocery purchase orders of nearly 200,000 users of the application. Each order consists of multiple products and each structured object associated with a product contains meta-data such as the day of the week, the product category, department, aisle, etc. We reprocess this dataset to create sequences of product purchases and evaluate models on the task of the next product prediction. We create variable-length training instances from each user's order history by sampling between 50 to 200 previous product purchases for a certain target product. Additionally, we only sample a training instance if the target product has been ordered at least 50 times across users." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 290, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 290, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 290, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As per our task formulation, we predict the product name given the sequence of product orders11, which is effectively a classification task over a universe of 3212 products. Existing work on this dataset has focused on a simpler binary prediction task where models are asked to predict whether a particular item is likely to be purchased again.12" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 429, + 170, + 442 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 429, + 170, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 429, + 170, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2.1 LogHub Data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 289, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 289, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HDFS-1 from LogHub (He et al., 2020) is utilized for the log anomaly detection task. The dataset consists of log lines. A sample log message is shown below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 504, + 239, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 504, + 239, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 504, + 239, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "081109 203519 29 INFO dfs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 518, + 221, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 518, + 221, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 518, + 221, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "FSNamesystem: BLOCK*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 258, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 258, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 532, + 258, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NameSystem.addStoredBlock:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 545, + 200, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 545, + 200, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 545, + 200, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "blockMap updated :" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 559, + 279, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 559, + 279, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 559, + 279, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10.250.10.6:50010 is added to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 572, + 279, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 572, + 279, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 572, + 279, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "blk_ " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 572, + 279, + 585 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-1608999687919862906" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 572, + 279, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " size" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 586, + 123, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 586, + 123, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 586, + 123, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "91178" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 290, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 290, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 290, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now convert the log message to a JSON object. We utilize Drain log parser (He et al., 2017) to extract the static template, dynamic variables, and header information from log messages. We obtain around 48 templates. All the log messages fall into one of the 48 templates. In a semi-automated fashion, we define keys for the templates. We populate key names with the value slots of the templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thus, each log line is converted to a structured object. The log message after conversion to a JSON object would look as follows," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 523, + 279 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 523, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 523, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 523, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{ \"status\": \"addStoredBLock: Blockmap updated\", \"port\": \"10.250.10.6:50010\", \"block_ID\": \"blk_160899968791986290 6\", \"size\": \"91178\", \"LineId\": \"11\", \"Date\": \"81109\", \"Time\": \"203519\", \"Pid\": \"29\", \"Level\": \"INFO\", \"Component\": \"dfs.FSNamesystem\", \"EventId\": \"5d5de21c\" }" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 15, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 524, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A block consists of a sequence of such structured objects. The task is to classify the given block as anomalous or not." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 487, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 487, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 487, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Hyperparameters and Training schedule" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform a grid search for the learning rate and batch size for all the models in our experiments. We select the hyper-parameter configuration which gives the best validation set performance on each dataset's metric. We now list the range of values considered for each hyper-parameter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 482, + 372, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 482, + 372, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 482, + 372, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 482, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 482, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 482, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rate:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 494, + 464, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 494, + 464, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 494, + 464, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\{1 e ^ {- 4}, 3 e ^ {- 4}, 5 e ^ {- 4}, 1 e ^ {- 5}, 3 e ^ {- 5},", + "image_path": "cc6377b3c664e71eadeb6826d6dd9442ec4db21d51d45b7eab51bd04df67ccc3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 508, + 438, + 523 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 508, + 438, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 508, + 438, + 523 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left. 5 e ^ {- 5}, 1 e ^ {- 6}, 3 e ^ {- 6}, 5 e ^ {- 6} \\right\\},", + "image_path": "4c8638cdc57dfc9470a3f8f8abab8e6c50ddd084373febced1c8cd27258536f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 533, + 441, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 533, + 441, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 533, + 441, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Batch Size: 2,4,8,16,32" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 558, + 452, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 558, + 452, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 558, + 452, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Shared Heads (p): 2, 4, 6, 8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The drophead mechanism is only activated during TVM training, with drophead probability set to 0.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For all the baseline models, we train till convergence. For the TVM training in the first iteration, we vary learning rates and observe model convergence (in terms of train and dev loss) after a fixed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " steps. The best learning rate for TVM is identified from this exercise. A similar approach is used for identifying the best learning rate for the KA training stage too, albeit for a smaller number of update steps. In the first iteration, TVM training is done for 1 epoch. Then we proceed with the interleaving step. We alternate between TVM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 279, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 279, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 279, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10https://tech.instacart.com/3-million-instarcart-orders-open-sourced-d40d29ead6f2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 225, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 225, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 225, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11We use the complete structured object." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{12}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/instacart-market-basket-analysis/leaderboard" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9037" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 283, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 283, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 283, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 283, + 191 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ce2f6ec4c263d6f7724c056356e2fc141b98ae662dda030e494a6670a885cb7a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 291, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 291, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Effect of sharing different numbers of attention heads between TVM and KA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "training and KA training with their number of training steps in 2:1 proportion. For the cloud service logs dataset, the number of TVM training steps is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\mathrm{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the number of KA training steps is around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\mathrm{K}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 277, + 353 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 277, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 277, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Class-wise Results on Cloud Service Logs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 291, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 291, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 291, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 reports the detailed class-wise results on the Cloud Service Logs dataset. As seen in the 'Macro F1' score column in the Table 3, flattening (first four rows) yields a significantly lower performance compared to our approach involving the use of interleaved training for TVM-KA (last row). Specifically, the flattened encoding with randomly initialized BERT model suffers the most on the Open Chatbot class. We believe that semantic understanding of the event names is crucial for identifying the sequences leading to Open Chatbot milestone event." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 291, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In general, we observe improvements from our TVM-KA approach on all class labels compared to the baseline models. This indicates the performance gain from our model is not due to improvements in a single class or subset of classes, but, on all the classes present in our dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 271, + 629 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 271, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 615, + 271, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Influence of shared attention heads" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use BERT encoder (Devlin et al., 2019) to model both TVM and KA components in our model. This allows us to share attention heads between the TVM and KA components. bert-base-uncased has 12 attention heads at each encoder layer. We experiment with sharing 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 attention heads between TVM and KA components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3 presents the performance of our TVM-KA approach with different numbers of shared attention heads between TVM and KA components." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "978ee105edbafaa04f0dd588587c8de10fda1f3b2586e366329d30531cc671b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 526, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: TVM-KA model performance for each interleaving stage. The red, green, and blue lines, along with their respective colored y-axes, indicate the performance of the Loghub, Instacart, and Cloud Service Logs datasets, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In general, we observe that sharing of 4 and 6 attention heads helps the most. Either not sharing any attention heads or sharing more than that results in poorer performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 418, + 367 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 418, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 354, + 418, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Training schedule" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Table 2, using our interleaving training method outperforms training the model with no interleaving. This supports our hypothesis that sharing a few attention heads helps the TVM-KA model uncover better key-representations for the downstream task as training progresses. Figure 4 illustrates the increase in performance with each stage of interleaving on all three datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9038" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 526, + 497 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 526, + 497 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 526, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 526, + 497 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CommentsMacro F1Micro F1Browsing/ Upgrade AccountNo MileStoneOpen Chatbot
Flattened Encoding (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019)Random (bert-base-uncased)50.2272.3870.1480.500.0
Pre-Trained (bert-base-uncased)74.7780.3179.3984.1260.79
Pre-Trained (bert-large-uncased)76.5981.5780.7285.1363.93
Flattened Encoding (Longformer) (Beltagy et al., 2020)Pre-Trained73.7179.9179.3184.2657.57
Record-centric Representation (de Souza Pereira Moreira et al., 2021) (Gu et al., 2021)Summation77.3385.6684.9190.5956.50
Concat75.9985.1284.4790.1553.36
Self-Attention77.7385.6684.7890.4857.92
TVM-KAJoint Modeling69.6180.5480.0486.8241.97
No Interleaving73.2284.1483.0390.3246.31
Interleaving79.6086.4985.4791.2462.11
", + "image_path": "ab535189da2849dd74b9bf74bac9e81621881f6c220a198c708dfadcd30f3b87.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 554 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Comparison of TVM-KA model with the baseline approaches on Cloud Service Logs datasets. In our proposed approach, both TVM and KA components have the same architecture and the number of parameters as bert-base-uncased. We additionally report class-wise results. The results from our approach are statistically significant with respect to all other approaches (p-value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 0.03" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 525, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9039" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_content_list.json b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9511628563cebeba383d4bd5f3cf0d35761bbdf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2093 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sharing, Teaching and Aligning: Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 129, + 79, + 865, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tingfeng Cao $^{1,2,3*}$ , Chengyu Wang $^{2\\dagger}$ , Chuanqi Tan $^{2}$ , Jun Huang $^{2}$ , Jinhui Zhu $^{1,3\\dagger}$", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 124, + 855, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology, China", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 143, + 823, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2Alibaba Group, China", + "bbox": [ + 405, + 158, + 594, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China University of Technology)", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 174, + 870, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ministry of Education, China", + "bbox": [ + 381, + 193, + 620, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "settingfengcao@mail.scut.edu.cn, csjhzhu@scut.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 210, + 737, + 224 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{chengyu.wcy, chuanqi.tcq, huangjun.hj}@alibaba-inc.com", + "bbox": [ + 245, + 227, + 754, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In cross-lingual language understanding, machine translation is often utilized to enhance the transferability of models across languages, either by translating the training data from the source language to the target, or from the target to the source to aid inference. However, in cross-lingual machine reading comprehension (MRC), it is difficult to perform a deep level of assistance to enhance cross-lingual transfer because of the variation of answer span positions in different languages. In this paper, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC. Specifically, we leverage an attentive teacher to subtly transfer the answer spans of the source language to the answer output space of the target. A Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed as an improved cross-attention block. In addition, we force the model to learn semantic alignments from multiple granularities and calibrate the model outputs with teacher guidance to enhance cross-lingual transferability. Experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets show the effectiveness of our method, outperforming state-of-the-art approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 646, + 258, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, significant progress has been made in NLP by pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). Yet, these models often require a sufficient amount of training data to perform well, which is difficult to achieve in cross-lingual low-resource adaptation. Although many cross-lingual PLMs have been proposed to learn generic feature representations (Devlin et al., 2019; Conneau and Lample, 2019; Conneau et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020), the performance gap between", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2c1dc4330aedb7f7267e4df0629477c0f75891c8a1009011db8f3b17953e7721.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 252, + 895, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f381e673d56a18607b5842d2628ac835972a90a29c89d7d2c4fcb6a4d378f1c0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Machine translation as an aid for cross-lingual transfer. Above is a natural language inference (NLI) task. The probability distribution of the source language can be fitted by KL Divergence for teaching low-resource languages; during inference, the target language can be translated into the source language with its output used for calibration. Below is an MRC task, where the knowledge is difficult to transfer directly." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 367, + 895, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "source and target languages is still relatively large, especially for token-level tasks such as machine reading comprehension (MRC). In addition, ultralarge PLMs such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023) exhibit amazing zero-shot generation abilities over multiple languages. We observe that such models may not be sufficient for cross-language MRC due to the linguistic and cultural differences between these languages, together with the requirements of very fine-grained extraction of answer spans.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 673, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One of the most significant challenges in crosslingual MRC is the lack of annotated datasets in low-resource languages, which are difficult to obtain. As seen, most of the current MRC datasets are in English (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). Another", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Work done during an internship at Alibaba.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 854, + 413, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† C. Wang and J. Zhu are co-corresponding authors.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 869, + 455, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Source codes will be publicly available in the EasyNLP framework (Wang et al., 2022). URL: https://github.com/ alibaba/EasyNLP.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 881, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "455", + "bbox": [ + 484, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 455-467", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "challenge is the linguistic and cultural variations that exist across different languages, which exhibit different sentence structures, word orders and morphological features. For instance, languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Hindi and Arabic have different writing systems and a more complicated grammatical system than English, making it challenging for MRC models to comprehend the texts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the literature, machine translation-based data augmentation is often employed to translate the dataset of the source language into each target language for model training (Conneau et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2020; Ruder et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, it is relatively easy to enhance cross-lingual transferability of simple sequential classification tasks by directly fitting the output probability distribution of the source language via Kullback-Leibler Divergence (Fang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). However, for MRC, it is not possible to use the output distribution of the source language directly to teach the target language, due to the answer span shift caused by translation.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 212, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Motivated by this, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC that follows three principles: Sharing, Teaching and Aligning. For sharing, we propose the Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS) technique, which uses parallel language pairs as model inputs and extracts knowledge from the source language. It enhances the understanding of the target language while avoiding degradation of the source language representations. For teaching, our approach leverages an attention mechanism by finding answers span from the target language's context that are semantically similar to the source language's output answers to calibrate the output answers. For aligning, alignments at multi-granularity are utilized to further enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the MRC model. In this way, we can enhance the language understanding of the model for different languages through knowledge sharing, teacher-guided calibration and multi-granularity alignment.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 439, + 489, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, the main contributions of this study are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 760, + 487, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We propose X-STA, a new approach for crosslingual MRC based on three principles: sharing, teaching, and aligning.", + "- In X-STA, a Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed for transferring language representations. Output calibration and semantic alignments are further" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 797, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "leveraged to enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the model.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 884, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Extensive experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets verify that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Thorough ablation studies are conducted to understand the impact of each component of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 136, + 884, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 236, + 665, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we summarize the related work in the following three aspects.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 267, + 880, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Pre-trained Multi-lingual Language Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 318, + 836, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent work has demonstrated that large-scale PLMs have tremendous potential for downstream tasks, as well as for multilingual representations including multilingual BERT (mBERT, Devlin et al., 2019), XLM (Conneau and Lample, 2019), XLM-RoBERTa (Conneau et al., 2020), mT5 (Xue et al., 2021), mBART (Liu et al., 2020). These models extend training sets to unlabeled multilingual corpora and project all languages into the same semantic space, allowing for cross-lingual understanding.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 360, + 884, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Cross-lingual Knowledge Transfer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 539, + 825, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It aims to transfer knowledge learned from a source language to target languages. A intuitive approach is to use machine translation for data augmentation (Conneau et al., 2018; Bornea et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2020). Under this setting, more transferable crosslingual representations can be learned through feature fusion (Fang et al., 2021), consistency regularization (Zheng et al., 2021) and mainfold mixup (Yang et al., 2022). However, these works are not sufficiently exploited on translation data for MRC. Other work learns language-agnostic representations through adversarial training to explicitly decompose language-specific representations (Keung et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2022a), or through normalization to implicitly preserve more generic representations across languages (Libovický et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Aboagye et al., 2022). A more intuitive idea used for alignment is contrastive learning (Li et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023), where translation pairs are positive examples and texts from other pairs as negative examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "456", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Cross-lingual MRC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 314, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuan et al. (2020) propose several auxiliary pretraining tasks for solving answer boundary problems for low-resource languages. Liang et al. (2021) introduce an unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pre-training task to further address this problem. Chen et al. (2022) propose a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer from good to best for cross-lingual MRC. Wu et al. (2022b) introduce a Siamese Semantic Disentangle Model to disassociate semantics from syntax. Our work further focuses on finding the corresponding answers from the target language based on better knowledge transfer and textual alignments from multiple granularities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 112, + 492, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 X-STA: Proposed Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 389, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present the detailed techniques of X-STA for cross-lingual MRC.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 399, + 487, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Task Definition and Basic Notations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 455, + 440, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the a context $C$ and a question $Q$ , the MRC task is to extract a sub-sequence from context $C$ as the right answer to question $Q$ . Denote the input sequence as $\\mathbf{X} = \\{Q, C\\} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N$ , where $N$ is the sequence length. We use $\\mathbf{p}_{\\mathrm{start}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N$ and $\\mathbf{p}_{\\mathrm{end}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N$ to denote the answer start and end position probability distributions. For the sake of simplicity, we concatenate the two together to $\\mathbf{p} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}$ . Similarly, $\\mathbf{y} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}$ represents the one-hot golden label sequence. For cross-lingual scenarios, only annotated training data from the source language $D_S^{\\mathrm{Train}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_S^{\\mathrm{Train}}, \\mathbf{y}_S^{\\mathrm{Train}}\\}$ and raw test data from the target language $D_T^{\\mathrm{Test}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_T^{\\mathrm{Test}}, \\mathbf{y}_T^{\\mathrm{Test}}\\}$ are available. $S$ and $T$ denote the source and target language. Machine translation can be used to obtain training data for the target language $D_T^{\\mathrm{Train}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_T^{\\mathrm{Train}}, \\mathbf{y}_T^{\\mathrm{Train}}\\}$ and test data for the source language $D_S^{\\mathrm{Test}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_S^{\\mathrm{Test}}, \\mathbf{y}_S^{\\mathrm{Test}}\\}$ (Hu et al., 2020). In addition, we use $\\mathbf{h}^l$ to denote the hidden states of a sequence in layer $l \\in L$ , where $L$ is the total number of transformer layers. Thus, to predict the start position and end position of the correct answer span in $\\mathbf{X}$ , the probability distributions $\\mathbf{p}$ is induced over the entire sequence by feeding $\\mathbf{h}^L$ into a linear classification layer and a softmax function: $\\mathbf{p} = \\text{softmax}(\\mathbf{Wh}^L + \\mathbf{b})$ , $\\mathbf{W}$ and $\\mathbf{b}$ are the weights and bias of the linear classifier.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/38e8e73ff6db5fcaff9121b925c89ea92bc398cd03e3d01b9e7be1dc469b510e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Model architecture. The cross-attention block (GDKS) is implemented only in a certain layer. In other layers, vanilla transformer layers are applied." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 82, + 870, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 544, + 826, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although machine translation from high-resource languages to low-resource ones can be used for training multi-lingual models, the drawbacks are evident. i) Machine translation quality varies across languages. ii) The original semantics can be easily lost during translation. iii) Task labels are relatively expensive to obtain, especially for token-level cross-lingual tasks. Thus, as shown in 2, we leverage parallel language pairs as the input and fuse cross-lingual representations.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 581, + 882, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As in Yang et al. (2022), cross-attention can be leveraged for feature fusion. However, a performance loss can be observed in the source language, as shown in Figure 3. A reasonable conjecture is that helping the target language to extract target-related information from the hidden states of the source language leads to a degeneration of source language representations. To alleviate this problem, we propose Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS), which is an improved version of the cross-attention block. Specifically, we", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "457", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1b83e027f1287f831ec1d474aca44ab9243031387da915988dabadb2d69d28fe.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: The performance of previous methods and our method on cross-lingual MRC. X-MIXUP (a cross-attention based approach) improves the performance on target languages, but with a performance drop on the source language (en). Our approach addresses the issue by GDKS." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 489, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "block the gradients from the target language output back to the source language hidden states $\\mathbf{h}_S^l$ . As a compensation, we add a trainable correction term:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 392, + 487, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l} & S = T \\\\ s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}) + f (s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}), s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})) & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 453, + 495, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, $sg(\\cdot)$ is used to stop back-propagating gradients, preventing interfering with source language representations. $f(\\cdot)$ refers to a trainable linear transformation with dropout. Then use the target hidden states as the query and the converted source hidden states $\\tilde{h}_S^l$ as key and value to perform cross-attention, defined as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 501, + 489, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} = \\mathbf {M H A} (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 196, + 626, + 403, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where MHA is multi-head attention (Vaswani et al., 2017). Then, the target hidden states are fused with the source-aware target hidden states by the weight $\\lambda$ , computed as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 487, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l + 1} = (1 - \\lambda) \\cdot \\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} + \\lambda \\cdot \\mathrm {M H A} (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 737, + 480, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\lambda = w*\\lambda_0 + b$ , with $w$ and $b$ to be trainable parameters. It is worth noting that GDKS is implemented in a certain transformer layer only.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 771, + 487, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 458, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As GDKS focuses on transferring knowledge from hidden states of the teacher model (trained from the source language), we also calibrate the model output distributions with teacher guidance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Normalization. The premise of obtaining good guidance is that the representations of different languages should be normalized first. Following Pires et al. (2019), we hypothesize that the representation of a multi-lingual model is composed of language-specific and language-agnostic representations. We estimate language-specific features as the mean of the language representations and remove language-specific features by subtracting the mean to retain only the generic semantic features. The intuition behind this is that a certain language may have a large number of phenomena such as function words (Libovický et al., 2020). Therefore, the average representation of that language is prominent. Inspired by Batch Normalization (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015), we transform the generic semantic representation to the standard normal distribution space:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} = \\frac {\\mathbf {h} ^ {L} - \\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {\\beta}}{\\sqrt {\\boldsymbol {\\sigma} _ {\\beta} ^ {2} + \\epsilon}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 636, + 366, + 754, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mu_{\\beta}$ and $\\sigma_{\\beta}$ are mean and variance of token-level representations in batch $\\beta$ . $\\epsilon$ is a constant for numerical stability. To facilitate its use in inference, it is set to be linguistically independent.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 882, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Calibration. After normalization, we use the hidden states of the target language as query, and the hidden states and the output distribution of the source language as key and value, respectively. We also leverage MHA and average the results of the transformation of multiple heads. Hence, the transferred output distribution $\\mathbf{p}_{T|S} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}$ is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 485, + 882, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} = \\mathrm {M H A} (\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {T}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S}, s g (\\mathbf {p} _ {S}))\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 609, + 813, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\tilde{\\mathbf{h}}_T$ and $\\tilde{\\mathbf{h}}_S$ are the normalized hidden states of source and target languages, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 880, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During the model training phase, we incorporate a teacher-guided loss $\\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ for the computation of $\\mathbf{p}_{T|S}$ . Thus, tokens with the same semantics but in different languages can still be brought closer together by annotated data, even if their representations differ significantly. Specifically, we have the sample-wise loss $\\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ defined as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 675, + 882, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {t g} = - \\sum_ {i} ^ {N} \\sum_ {j} ^ {2} \\mathbf {y} ^ {i j} l o g \\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} ^ {i j}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 584, + 797, + 806, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For model inference, we leverage $\\mathbf{p}_{T|S}$ to calibrate the output for the target language by averaging the results from two output distributions, i.e., $\\tilde{\\mathbf{p}}_T = \\frac{\\mathbf{p}_{T|S} + \\mathbf{p}_T}{2}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 851, + 882, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "458", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 470, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We further enhance the knowledge transfer of our model, based on our proposed Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment (MGSA) technique.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 487, + 153 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sentence-Level Alignment. A vanilla approach to learn alignments is from the sentence level. Here, we employ Contrastive Learning (CL, Hadsell et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2020) to strengthen the alignment across languages:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 154, + 487, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} S} = - \\log \\frac {e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \\tau}}{e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \\tau} + \\sum_ {i} e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} _ {i} ^ {-}) / \\tau}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 244, + 472, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{r}$ is the mean pooled sentence representation. $\\mathbf{r}^{+}$ and $\\mathbf{r}^{-}$ represent a positive sample from the parallel translated data and a negative example in the mini-batch, respectively. $\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{r}_1,\\mathbf{r}_2)$ is the cosine similarity, i.e., $\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{r}_1,\\mathbf{r}_2) = \\frac{\\mathbf{r}_1^\\top\\mathbf{r}_2}{\\|\\mathbf{r}_1\\| \\cdot \\|\\mathbf{r}_2\\|}$ . $\\tau$ is the temperature hyper-parameter, which we set to 0.05 in default.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 296, + 487, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Token-Level Alignment. In Fomicheva et al. (2020); Yang et al. (2022), the entropy of the cross-attention distribution (ECA) is used to measure the quality of machine translation. A smaller entropy of the attention distribution, i.e., more focused attention, can indicate a relatively higher translation quality (Rikters and Fishel, 2017). Similarly, ECA can also be used to represent the cross-lingual alignment quality, which we use as a penalty term for training the cross-lingual model to avoid distraction in GDKS. The token-level alignment loss $\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{align}_T}$ can be defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 413, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {a l i g n _ {T}} = - \\frac {1}{I} \\sum_ {i} ^ {I} \\sum_ {j} ^ {J} a ^ {i j} \\log a ^ {i j}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 176, + 615, + 423, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $a^{ij} = \\mathrm{softmax}\\left(\\frac{\\mathbf{h}_{T_i}\\mathbf{h}_{S_j}^\\top}{\\sqrt{n}}\\right)$ represents attention weights, $n$ is the hidden size, $I$ is the number of target tokens and $J$ is the number of source tokens. Next, the total alignment loss is summed by the two parts, with $\\varsigma$ and $\\eta$ to be the coefficients:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 487, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n}} = \\varsigma \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} S} + \\eta \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} T}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 777, + 420, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Final Training Objective", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 354, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In brief, the final training objective of X-STA is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 827, + 473, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} + \\gamma \\mathcal {L} _ {t g} + \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 857, + 406, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\gamma$ is a factor for the teacher-guided loss $\\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ . $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathrm{MRC}}$ refers to the cross-entropy loss of the MRC", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "task. Following Yang et al. (2022), we split the MRC loss $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathrm{MRC}}$ into the MRC loss of the source language and the target language with a balancing factor $\\alpha$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} = \\alpha \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {S} + (1 - \\alpha) \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {T}.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 159, + 823, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 191, + 655, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 216, + 621, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate X-STA on three multi-lingual MRC datasets, namely MLQA (Lewis et al., 2020), XQuAD (Artetxe et al., 2020) and TyDiQA (Clark et al., 2020). MLQA is a benchmark dataset consisting of over 5K extractive MRC instances in 7 languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Vietnamese (vi) and Chinese (zh). XQuAD consists of a subset of 240 paragraphs and 1190 question-answer pairs from the SQuAD v1.1 (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) development set together with their professional translations into ten languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Greek (el), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Russian (ru), Thai (th), Turkish (tr), Vietnamese (vi), and Chinese (zh). TyDiQA covers 9 typologically diverse languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), Bengali (bn), Finnish (fi), Indonesian (id), Korean (ko), Russian (ru), Swahili (sw), Telugu (te). Follow XTREME (Hu et al., 2020), we use the gold passage version of TyDiQA.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 237, + 884, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the translated data, we employ the translate-train and translate-test data from XTREME ${}^{2}$ . We use two evaluation metrics,namely exact match (EM) and macro-average F1 score (F1), following Rajpurkar et al. (2016); Hu et al. (2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 882, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experimental Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 650, + 729, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct extensive experiments based on two multi-lingual pre-trained backbones: mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-Rbase (Conneau et al., 2020). The batch size is set to 32. The learning rate is set to 3e-5, and decreases linearly with warmup. Following Yang et al. (2022), $\\alpha$ is set to 0.2 and we implement GDKS in the 8th layer. We set $\\lambda_0$ to 0.3 and $\\epsilon$ to 1e-8. We perform grid search $\\varsigma$ , $\\eta$ and $\\gamma$ from [0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5] on the validation set of MLQA, and finally set them to 0.05, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively. We save the model with the best averaged performance of all languages on the validation set for testing. Since there are no validation sets in XQuAD and TyDiQA. Following", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 882, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://github.com/google-research/xtreme", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 798, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "459", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9f75d1887d64af6f6dd6f2bfb0aabd70a235d33e900848528af68f15389bf248.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsenardeeshivizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot80.2/67.052.3/34.659.0/43.867.4/49.250.2/35.361.2/40.759.6/38.661.4/44.2
Trans-train80.7/67.758.9/39.066.0/51.671.3/53.762.4/45.067.9/47.666.0/43.967.6/49.8
LAKM80.1/66.9-64.4/49.969.5/51.5----
X-MIXUP-------69.0/50.9
X-MIXUP*78.4/64.963.3/43.567.5/53.672.3/55.065.8/47.572.2/51.766.6/45.669.5/51.7
Ours80.5/67.664.1/43.769.2/54.674.2/56.567.6/49.773.5/52.869.2/47.771.2/53.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*79.2/66.256.2/37.261.7/46.967.4/50.061.5/44.265.6/45.262.5/39.064.9/47.0
Trans-train*80.9/67.959.8/40.465.2/50.870.3/52.965.1/47.969.3/49.163.4/41.367.7/50.1
CalibreNet79.7/66.656.1/37.861.7/47.668.0/50.860.0/43.866.9/46.6--
AA-CL80.1/66.858.5/41.364.6/49.869.0/51.262.8/46.567.9/47.2--
X-MIXUP*78.9/65.862.5/43.165.7/51.571.8/54.566.8/49.671.4/50.965.3/43.468.9/51.3
Ours81.6/68.763.1/43.267.5/52.972.7/55.168.6/50.972.7/52.066.3/43.570.4/52.3
", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 80, + 857, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the MLQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 290, + 865, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yang et al. (2022), for the former, we use MLQA's validation set and for the latter, we use the English data as the validation set. All the experiments are implemented in PyTorch and run on a single server with NVIDIA Tesla V100 (32GB) GPUs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 330, + 487, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 424, + 235, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We systematically compare our method with the following strong baselines:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 447, + 485, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Zero-shot models are trained on labeled data in the source language only, and directly evaluated on target languages.", + "- Trans-train (Hu et al., 2020) translates training data in English into target languages. The model is trained on the combination of these original and translated training sets.", + "- LAKM (Yuan et al., 2020) leverages a language-agnostic knowledge masking task by knowledge phrases based on mBERT.", + "- CalibreNet (Liang et al., 2021) employs a unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pretraining task to enhance the multi-lingual boundary detection capability of XLM-Rbase.", + "- AA-CL (Chen et al., 2022) is a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer for cross-lingual MRC over XLM- $\\mathbf{R}_{\\text {base }}$ .", + "- X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022) is a cross-lingual manifold mixup method that learns compromised representations for target languages, which produces the state-of-the-art results for cross-lingual MRC." + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 493, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For Zero-shot and Trans-train, we report the results of mBERT from Hu et al. (2020) and reproduce the results of XLM-Rbase. For LAKM, CalibreNet and AA-CL (which have been evaluated over part of our settings), we report the results from their original papers. As for X-MIXUP (the state-of-the-art method), in order to conduct a rigorous comparison, we report both the results from the original paper and our re-implementation. Among these methods, only Zero-shot and CalibreNet are under zero-shot setting, for the rest of the methods translate data are available.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 330, + 884, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 General Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 571, + 794, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As in Table 1, based on mBERT, we achieved an average of $71.2\\%$ F1 and $53.2\\%$ EM in MLQA, exceeding all strong baselines. A gain of $1.7 / 1.5\\%$ is obtained compared to the state-of-the-art X-MIXUP. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, our method also consistently outperforms all the strong baselines on XQuAD and TyDiQA. Our method obtains on average $1.8 / 2.2$ and $2.6 / 3.5$ improvement F1/EM scores compared to X-MIXUP. In conclusion, based on two backbones, our method outperforms state-of-the-art methods on three datasets, showing the effectiveness and generalization of our method. In addition, X-MIXUP significantly reduces the performance gap between the source and target languages, but also compromises performance on the source language; whereas our approach can achieve comparable performance to translate-train on English without negatively affecting the representation of the source language.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "460", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/83af9373860c109d3d56b9f6e8b554be29ed6b0567a1de70f8feac15c008f104.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsenarbnfiidkoruswteAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot75.3/63.662.2/42.849.3/32.759.7/45.364.8/45.858.8/50.060.0/38.857.5/37.949.6/38.459.7/43.9
Trans-train73.2/62.571.8/54.249.7/36.368.1/53.672.3/55.258.6/47.864.3/45.366.8/48.953.3/40.264.2/49.3
X-MIXUP---------60.8/46.5
X-MIXUP*72.5/60.770.0/52.855.1/41.665.8/50.074.1/57.762.6/52.263.0/43.367.5/49.151.2/37.564.6/49.4
Ours73.9/63.472.4/54.560.9/47.869.4/55.976.2/60.964.0/52.265.2/46.071.2/54.151.2/41.767.2/52.9
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*66.0/53.461.1/41.637.8/23.061.4/45.772.6/55.048.1/33.059.5/35.054.7/35.937.5/25.455.4/38.7
Trans-train*70.9/59.267.7/49.646.3/31.065.1/51.374.2/57.554.3/43.163.9/46.063.2/47.163.3/46.963.2/48.0
X-MIXUP*68.0/54.867.7/48.850.6/33.666.5/52.672.0/55.052.7/40.664.0/45.064.0/47.560.2/43.362.9/46.8
Ours71.3/59.368.6/50.856.7/40.767.6/54.177.7/62.555.7/44.664.2/46.164.6/48.570.2/52.966.3/51.0
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 890, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the TyDiQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 269, + 868, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d10451bef333182b7fe8bedfd8dada8ea62bbae8e0bde896290e0c1c9ad6a93c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The attention distribution heat map of query part. We show the average result of multi-head attention." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 299, + 472, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/abc8dc2464e404611fcc16493d1c64a572486c3699ed30c7c8d2baac1be02e1b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 478, + 299, + 878, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f85e99e6379b0c5910de1d24d5a7f106222c00607e584cf5ab00ed5a93e2fe52.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: t-SNE distributions of sentence representations. Different shapes indicate different examples." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 532, + 495, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 718, + 278, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct an ablation study by removing each key component individually to evaluate the effectiveness of our method. As shown in Table 4, there is a performance gap when removing any of the components. Although the removal of GDKS has little effect on the overall performance, it significantly affects the representation of the source language, resulting in an obvious performance drop in the source language (i.e., English).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Removing the Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration (ATGC) component degrades the model", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance the most, and the results demonstrate that mapping the output of the source language to the target language space is efficient and feasible. In addition, there is still some performance loss compared to removing ATGC only at inference time, which suggests that the improvement from ATGC does not only come from weighted outputs of source and target languages. Using the answer span as additional knowledge can enhance the cross-lingual alignment through the teacher-guided loss $\\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ . Figure 5 shows the visual distribution of sentence representations before and after normalization. In the original space, the distributions of the same language (same color) tend to cluster together, while after normalization, these representations are sparsely dispersed, which also shows that normalization can indeed decompose some of the language-specific representations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 532, + 882, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of MGSA. As seen, token-level alignment contributes more than sentence-level alignment. A reasonable speculation is that the MRC task is more concerned with token-level representations. As shown in Figure 4, without token-level alignment, attention is", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "461", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d6ebe9211165fe9589d387ba26743f4bdb189aa830f8b74f210f52d2921a37fb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Methodsenardeeleshi
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot83.5/72.261.5/45.170.6/54.062.6/44.975.5/56.959.2/46.0
Trans-train86.0/74.571.0/54.178.8/63.974.2/56.182.4/66.271.3/56.2
X-MIXUP------
X-MIXUP*83.4/71.978.0/60.980.6/65.279.0/60.781.7/63.777.4/61.8
Ours85.6/74.480.1/62.982.3/66.681.3/64.483.5/65.079.0/64.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*83.3/72.366.3/50.375.4/59.474.4/56.676.1/58.667.4/50.5
Trans-train*83.9/73.071.1/54.978.1/62.976.7/59.480.2/62.375.0/59.7
AA-CL84.1/73.166.5/50.377.9/62.5-80.0/61.773.8/58.9
X-MIXUP*81.8/70.973.7/56.677.1/61.476.8/59.779.9/61.575.1/59.7
Ours86.0/74.977.7/61.281.4/66.180.3/63.682.7/65.479.4/62.9
MethodsruthtrvizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot71.3/53.342.7/33.555.4/40.169.5/49.658.0/48.364.5/49.4
Trans-train78.1/63.038.1/34.570.6/55.778.5/58.867.7/58.772.4/58.3
X-MIXUP-----73.3/58.9
X-MIXUP*80.1/63.961.9/55.775.0/58.280.4/61.171.2/61.877.1/62.3
Ours81.8/66.265.2/59.476.8/62.282.0/63.870.2/60.378.9/64.5
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*74.4/58.864.6/53.467.7/51.173.7/53.661.4/52.471.3/56.1
Trans-train*77.0/61.359.9/55.072.2/56.877.3/59.174.9/72.375.1/61.5
AA-CL---77.6/57.5--
X-MIXUP*77.8/62.172.7/67.172.2/56.578.2/59.277.4/73.976.6/62.6
Ours80.8/66.070.2/64.576.4/61.281.0/63.377.7/74.679.4/65.8
", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 80, + 796, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0a8f08e3bafd67dabd75be4ed09729cd4183e13cb920256ba1b1da9a123f493e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the XQuAD dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
AblationMLQAXQuAD
Ours71.2 / 53.278.9 / 64.5
w/o. GDKS71.1 / 53.0†78.0 / 63.5‡
w/o. ATGC70.8 / 52.677.4 / 63.1
w/o. ATGC inference70.9 / 53.078.6 / 64.2
w/o. Rep-Norm71.0 / 52.978.0 / 63.5
w/o. alignments71.2 / 53.078.5 / 64.0
w/o. alignmentt70.8 / 52.677.5 / 63.4
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 504, + 455, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Ablation study of our method on MLQA and XQuAD. w/o. GDKS refers to vanilla cross-attention is used, Rep-Norm is Representation Normalization. alignment $_s$ and alignment $_t$ refer to sentence-level alignment and token-level alignment. $\\dagger$ and $\\ddagger$ have a performance drop of 1.1/1.0 and 1.3/1.0 on English.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 489, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "more distracted and not well aligned across languages. Instead, token-level alignment penalizes this behavior, allowing attention to be focused on the QA-related token (e.g., \"many\").", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 749, + 487, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 831, + 248, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further demonstrate the output results of our approach, we show the answer generation process of a Hindi example and the corresponding English example from the XQuAD dataset, and com", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "pare it with a powerful ultra-large language model (i.e., ChatGPT). Figure 6 shows that for English, both our approach and ChatGPT answer the question well. However, in a low-resource language setting such as Hindi, there are some capability limitations of mBERT and ChatGPT. Without ATGC, our method fails to find the correct answer. When mapping the source language output to the target language output space, it successfully calibrates the output and generates the correct answer after averaging the two outputs. ChatGPT, on the other hand, produces plausible but incorrect answers, showing a sign of producing hallucinations (also reported in Bang et al. (2023)). More cases in low-resource languages can be found in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 507, + 884, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 763, + 640, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose X-STA, which addresses the challenges of cross-lingual MRC in effectively utilizing translation data and the linguistic and cultural differences. Our work follows three principles: sharing, teaching and aligning. Experimental results on three datasets show that our approach obtains the state-of-the-art performance compared to strong baselines. We further analyze the effec", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "462", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Passage: After leaving Edison's company Tesla partnered with two businessmen in 1886, Robert Lane and Benjamin Vail, who agreed to finance an electric lighting company in Tesla's name, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing. The company installed electrical arc light based illumination systems designed by Tesla and also had designs for dynamo electric machine commutators, the first patents issued to Tesla in the US.", + "Question: What was produced at Tesla's company?", + "Ours: electrical arc light based illumination systems", + "ChatGPT: Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing produced electrical arc light based illumination systems and dynamo electric machine commutators." + ], + "bbox": [ + 144, + 92, + 485, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Passage: 1886, Bhagniya kai, 1887, Maharaja kai, 1888, Maharaja kai, 1889, Maharaja kai, 1890, Maharaja kai, 1891, Maharaja kai, 1892, Maharaja kai, 1893, Maharaja kai, 1894, Maharaja kai, 1895, Maharaja kai, 1896, Maharaja kai, 1897, Maharaja kai, 1898, Maharaja kai, 1899, Maharaja kai, 1900, Maharaja kai, 1901, Maharaja kai, 1902, Maharaja kai, 1903, Maharaja kai, 1904, Maharaja kai, 1905, Maharaja kai, 1906, Maharaja kai, 1907, Maharaja kai, 1908, Maharaja kai, 1909, Maharaja kai, 1910, Maharaja kai, 1911, Maharaja kai, 1912, Maharaja kai, 1913, Maharaja kai, 1914, Maharaja kai, 1915, Maharaja kai, 1916, Maharaja kai, 1917, Maharaja kai, 1918, Maharaja kai, 1919, Maharaja kai, 1920, Maharaja kai, 1921, Maharaja kai, 1922, Maharaja kai, 1923, Maharaja kai, 1924, Maharaja kai, 1925, Maharaja kai, 1926, Maharaja kai, 1927, Maharaja kai, 1928, Maharaja kai, 1929, Maharaja kai, 1930, Maharaja kai, 1931, Maharaja kai, 1932, Maharaja kai, 1933, Maharaja kai, 1934, Maharaja kai, 1935, Maharaja kai, 1936, Maharaja kai, 1937, Maharaja kai, 1938, Maharaja kai, 1939, Maharaja kai, 1940", + "Question: TeKlal a kki Kpokn o Ksikmokk a Ucpadodk kkya gnya", + "Ours w/o. ATGC: भयलामो के अस्थल्तिक कृध्वान रत्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक उपागली", + "Ours: 2", + "ChatGPT: ेर्विक्ला की यक्षपानी नं रेतोल्यविक्लय रागित्ता के सिलिक \nृत्तादान यक्षा रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्तaley" + ], + "bbox": [ + 504, + 92, + 863, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6: An example from XQuAD dataset, its ground-truth answer is marked with another color and underlined. The source language example (English) on the left corresponds to the low-resource target language (Hindi) example on the right. The ChatGPT used is Mar 14 Version, and our method uses mBERT as the backbone.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 882, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tiveness of each component. In the future, we will extend our work to other cross-lingual NLP tasks for low-resource languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 397, + 485, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 218, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach requires a translation system as an aid and incurs additional inference costs during the inference process (the sequences translated back to the source language also need to go through model). For other cross-lingual token-level tasks (e.g., POS, NER), it is difficult to obtain the labels of translate-train data directly. Previous approaches usually use trained models to generate pseudo-labels. These low-quality labels pose significant challenges to our approach. Extending our approach to these tasks is left to our subsequent work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 482, + 487, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 671, + 285, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work is partially supported by Alibaba Cloud Group, through Research Talent Program with South China University of Technology.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 695, + 485, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 769, + 213, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Prince Osei Aboagye, Yan Zheng, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Junpeng Wang, Wei Zhang, Liang Wang, Hao Yang, and Jeff M Phillips. 2022. Normalization of language embeddings for cross-lingual alignment.", + "Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 791, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023.", + "Mihaela Bornea, Lin Pan, Sara Rosenthal, Radu Florian, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Multilingual transfer learning for qa using translation as data augmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12583-12591.", + "Nuo Chen, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Jian Pei. 2022. From good to best: Two-stage training for cross-lingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10501-10508.", + "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR.", + "Xilun Chen, Ahmed Hassan, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Wei Wang, and Claire Cardie. 2019. Multi-source cross-lingual model transfer: Learning what to share. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3098–3112.", + "Jonathan H Clark, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Dan Garrette, Tom Kwiatkowski, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Jennimaria Palomaki. 2020. Tydi qa: A benchmark for information-seeking question answering in typologically diverse languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:454-470.", + "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 398, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "463", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Guzmán, Édouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451.", + "Alexis Conneau and Guillaume Lample. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.", + "Alexis Conneau, Rudy Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. Xnli: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475-2485.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186.", + "Yuwei Fang, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. Filter: An enhanced fusion method for cross-lingual language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12776-12784.", + "Fangxiaoyu Feng, Yinfei Yang, Daniel Cer, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Wei Wang. 2022. Language-agnostic bert sentence embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 878-891.", + "Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Lisa Yankovskaya, Frédéric Blain, Francisco Guzmán, Mark Fishel, Nikolaos Aletras, Vishray Chaudhary, and Lucia Specia. 2020. Unsupervised quality estimation for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:539-555.", + "Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742. IEEE.", + "Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. Xtreme: A massively multilingual multi-task benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4411-4421. PMLR.", + "Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pages 448-456. pmlr." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Phillip Keung, Yichao Lu, and Vikas Bhardwaj. 2019. Adversarial learning with contextual embeddings for zero-resource cross-lingual classification and ner. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1355-1360.", + "Patrick Lewis, Barlas Oguz, Rudy Rinott, Sebastian Riedel, and Holger Schwenk. 2020. *Mlqa: Evaluating cross-lingual extractive question answering*. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7315–7330.", + "Shicheng Li, Pengcheng Yang, Fuli Luo, and Jun Xie. 2021. Multi-granularity contrasting for cross-lingual pre-training. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1708–1717.", + "Shining Liang, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Ming Gong, Wanli Zuo, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Calibrenet: Calibration networks for multilingual sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 842-850.", + "Jindrich Libovický, Rudolf Rosa, and Alexander Fraser. 2020. On the language neutrality of pre-trained multilingual representations. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1663-1674.", + "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742.", + "OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt.", + "Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual bert? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4996-5001.", + "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.", + "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392.", + "Matiss Rikters and Mark Fishel. 2017. Confidence through attention. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVI: Research Track, pages 299-311.", + "Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, et al. 2021. Xtreme-r:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "464", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10215-10245.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.", + "Chengyu Wang, Minghui Qiu, Taolin Zhang, Tingting Liu, Lei Li, Jianing Wang, Ming Wang, Jun Huang, and Wei Lin. 2022. Easynlp: A comprehensive and easy-to-use toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 22-29.", + "Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022a. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000.", + "Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022b. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000.", + "Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483-498.", + "Huiyun Yang, Huadong Chen, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual transfer by manifold mixup. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Fei Yuan, Linjun Shou, Xuanyu Bai, Ming Gong, Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yan Fu, and Daxin Jiang. 2020. Enhancing answer boundary detection for multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 925-934.", + "Chen Zhang, Yuxuan Lai, Yansong Feng, Xingyu Shen, Haowei Du, and Dongyan Zhao. 2023. Cross-lingual question answering over knowledge base as reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13241.", + "Taolin Zhang, Junwei Dong, Jianing Wang, Chengyu Wang, Ang Wang, Yinghui Liu, Jun Huang, Yong" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Li, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. Revisiting and advancing Chinese natural language understanding with accelerated heterogeneous knowledge pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 560-570. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wei Zhao, Steffen Eger, Johannes Bjerva, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Inducing language-agnostic multilingual representations. In *The 10th Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics*, page 229.", + "Bo Zheng, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Wenhui Wang, Zewen Chi, Saksham Singhal, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Consistency regularization for cross-lingual fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3403-3417." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "465", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Parameter Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 324, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further evaluate the effectiveness of ATGC, we conduct a series of experiments on MLQA and XQuAD for the hyper-parameter $\\gamma = \\{0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5\\}$ . Figure 7 shows that the performance trends are consistent over both datasets, with $\\gamma$ achieving optimal performance on 0.1. We conjecture that when $\\gamma$ is too large, it can interfere with the original representation of the model. In addition, we conduct the implementation of GDKS in different layers and find that the optimal number of layers to implement is 8, which is consistent with the results of X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 492, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Cases", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 315, + 205, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown is Figure 9, 10 and 11, ChatGPT sometimes fail to generate the answers accurately. In contrast, our method is able to extract the correct answers with the help of the English datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 489, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b8ad3d3444c4c8b89dbc6d6a3018e1692a883470c34bba67674834a391330fa7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: The parameter analysis of $\\gamma$ on MLQA (left vertical axis) and XQuAD (right vertical axis)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 422, + 485, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/febbf5e55f075bae788c33590beb182a02a036b119adb3f5bcc4958140f111b6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: Performance comparison on implementing GDKS in different layers over the MLQA dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 657, + 305, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e8cb8e2ca2ebdbfb6f980e36767f2f2593c5cf7322ea0cd85723678e650e9813.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 307, + 657, + 497, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "466", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Passage: As northwest Europe slowly began to warm up from 22,000 years ago onward, frozen subsoil and expanded alpine glaciers began to thaw and fall-winter snow covers melted in spring. Much of the discharge was routed to the Rhine and its downstream extension. Rapid warming and changes of vegetation, to open forest, began about 13,000 BP. By 9000 BP, Europe was fully forested. With globally shrinking ice-cover, ocean water levels rose and the English Channel and North Sea re-inundated. Meltwater, adding to the ocean and land subsidence, drowned the former coasts of Europe transgressionally.", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 105, + 521, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: When was Europe fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age?", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 235, + 468, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: 9000 BP", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 260, + 295, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP.", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 275, + 494, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Passage: 22,000 #n nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnnee nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnn ne", + "bbox": [ + 541, + 105, + 823, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question:", + "bbox": [ + 542, + 230, + 816, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: 9000 in.1.", + "bbox": [ + 542, + 249, + 652, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT: 13,000 n.l.", + "bbox": [ + 542, + 263, + 801, + 290 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 9: A Thai (th) example from the XQuAD dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 324, + 690, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Passage: Through combining the definition of electric current as the time rate of change of electric charge, a rule of vector multiplication called Lorentz's Law describes the force on a charge moving in a magnetic field. The connection between electricity and magnetism allows for the description of a unified electromagnetic force that acts on a charge. This force can be written as a sum of the electrostatic force (due to the electric field) and the magnetic force (due to the magnetic field). Fully stated, this is the law:", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 388, + 507, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: What magnetic and electric force acts on a charge?", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 508, + 505, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: unified electromagnetic force", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 533, + 431, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT: The magnetic force and electrostatic force act on a charge. X", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 548, + 473, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Passage: Bäng vièc két hop dinh nghia cuà dong dièn gionghu tó do thoi bian thay doi cúa dièn tich, quy tánc nhān vecto goi la Dinh luàt Lorentz mo ta luc tac dung len mot dièn tich chuyen dong trong tu truong. Vièc két noui giua dièn va tu tinghu piug mo ta mot luc dièn tu thong nhàt tac dung trén mot dièn tich. Luc nay co the duçc viét duoi dang tong cua luc tinh dièn (do dièn truong) va luc tu (do tu truong). Nài day du, day la dinh luàt:", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 388, + 820, + 493 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: Lyc tú và luc dien nao tác dung len mot dien tich?", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 497, + 818, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: lyc dién tu thong nhát", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 523, + 732, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT: Luc tu và luc tinh dien tác dung len mot dien tich. ×", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 538, + 818, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 10: A Vietnamese (vi) example from the XQuAD dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 593, + 717, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Passage: Reserved matters are subjects that are outside the legislative competence of the Scotland Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is unable to legislate on such issues that are reserved to, and dealt with at, Westminster (and where Ministerial functions usually lie with UK Government ministers). These include abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system.", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 657, + 544, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: Where are issues like abortion and drug policy legislated on?", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 807, + 544, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: Westminster", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 832, + 317, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP.", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 848, + 526, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Passage:保留问题是苏格兰议会立法能力以外的议题。苏格兰议会无法对保留问题进行立法,应交由威斯敏斯特处理(部委职能通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。此类问题包括堕胎、广播政策、国民服务、政府机构、英国商品和服务的共同市场宪法、电力、煤炭、石油、燃气、核能、国防和国家安全、毒品政策、就业、对外政策和对欧关系、交通安全和管制的大多数方面、英国彩票、边境安全、社会保障以及英国的财政、经济和货币系统的稳定性。", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 657, + 823, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question:诸如堕胎、毒品政策之类的问题在哪里立法?", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 765, + 816, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ours: 威斯敏斯特", + "bbox": [ + 563, + 791, + 682, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT:这些问题的立法权不在苏格兰议会,而是应交由威斯敏斯特处理,通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 806, + 821, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 11: A Chinese (zh) example from the XQuAD dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 287, + 891, + 705, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "467", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_model.json b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..967afbece1b493e505ea4257fe049c9c04b64afd --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2723 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.08, + 0.867, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sharing, Teaching and Aligning: Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.125, + 0.857, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tingfeng Cao\\(^{1,2,3*}\\), Chengyu Wang\\(^{2\\dagger}\\), Chuanqi Tan\\(^{2}\\), Jun Huang\\(^{2}\\), Jinhui Zhu\\(^{1,3\\dagger}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.178, + 0.144, + 0.825, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.406, + 0.159, + 0.596, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Alibaba Group, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.175, + 0.871, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China University of Technology)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.194, + 0.621, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ministry of Education, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.265, + 0.211, + 0.738, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "settingfengcao@mail.scut.edu.cn, csjhzhu@scut.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.247, + 0.228, + 0.756, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{chengyu.wcy, chuanqi.tcq, huangjun.hj}@alibaba-inc.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In cross-lingual language understanding, machine translation is often utilized to enhance the transferability of models across languages, either by translating the training data from the source language to the target, or from the target to the source to aid inference. However, in cross-lingual machine reading comprehension (MRC), it is difficult to perform a deep level of assistance to enhance cross-lingual transfer because of the variation of answer span positions in different languages. In this paper, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC. Specifically, we leverage an attentive teacher to subtly transfer the answer spans of the source language to the answer output space of the target. A Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed as an improved cross-attention block. In addition, we force the model to learn semantic alignments from multiple granularities and calibrate the model outputs with teacher guidance to enhance cross-lingual transferability. Experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets show the effectiveness of our method, outperforming state-of-the-art approaches." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.647, + 0.26, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, significant progress has been made in NLP by pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). Yet, these models often require a sufficient amount of training data to perform well, which is difficult to achieve in cross-lingual low-resource adaptation. Although many cross-lingual PLMs have been proposed to learn generic feature representations (Devlin et al., 2019; Conneau and Lample, 2019; Conneau et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020), the performance gap between" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.253, + 0.896, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.368, + 0.896, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.526, + 0.885, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Machine translation as an aid for cross-lingual transfer. Above is a natural language inference (NLI) task. The probability distribution of the source language can be fitted by KL Divergence for teaching low-resource languages; during inference, the target language can be translated into the source language with its output used for calibration. Below is an MRC task, where the knowledge is difficult to transfer directly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.674, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "source and target languages is still relatively large, especially for token-level tasks such as machine reading comprehension (MRC). In addition, ultralarge PLMs such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023) exhibit amazing zero-shot generation abilities over multiple languages. We observe that such models may not be sufficient for cross-language MRC due to the linguistic and cultural differences between these languages, together with the requirements of very fine-grained extraction of answer spans." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One of the most significant challenges in crosslingual MRC is the lack of annotated datasets in low-resource languages, which are difficult to obtain. As seen, most of the current MRC datasets are in English (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). Another" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.856, + 0.415, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Work done during an internship at Alibaba." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.87, + 0.456, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† C. Wang and J. Zhu are co-corresponding authors." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.882, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Source codes will be publicly available in the EasyNLP framework (Wang et al., 2022). URL: https://github.com/ alibaba/EasyNLP." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.856, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.485, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "455" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 455-467" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "challenge is the linguistic and cultural variations that exist across different languages, which exhibit different sentence structures, word orders and morphological features. For instance, languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Hindi and Arabic have different writing systems and a more complicated grammatical system than English, making it challenging for MRC models to comprehend the texts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.214, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the literature, machine translation-based data augmentation is often employed to translate the dataset of the source language into each target language for model training (Conneau et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2020; Ruder et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, it is relatively easy to enhance cross-lingual transferability of simple sequential classification tasks by directly fitting the output probability distribution of the source language via Kullback-Leibler Divergence (Fang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). However, for MRC, it is not possible to use the output distribution of the source language directly to teach the target language, due to the answer span shift caused by translation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.44, + 0.49, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Motivated by this, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC that follows three principles: Sharing, Teaching and Aligning. For sharing, we propose the Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS) technique, which uses parallel language pairs as model inputs and extracts knowledge from the source language. It enhances the understanding of the target language while avoiding degradation of the source language representations. For teaching, our approach leverages an attention mechanism by finding answers span from the target language's context that are semantically similar to the source language's output answers to calibrate the output answers. For aligning, alignments at multi-granularity are utilized to further enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the MRC model. In this way, we can enhance the language understanding of the model for different languages through knowledge sharing, teacher-guided calibration and multi-granularity alignment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.762, + 0.489, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, the main contributions of this study are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.798, + 0.489, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose X-STA, a new approach for crosslingual MRC based on three principles: sharing, teaching, and aligning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- In X-STA, a Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed for transferring language representations. Output calibration and semantic alignments are further" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.798, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "leveraged to enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.137, + 0.885, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Extensive experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets verify that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Thorough ablation studies are conducted to understand the impact of each component of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.237, + 0.667, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.268, + 0.882, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we summarize the related work in the following three aspects." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.319, + 0.838, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Pre-trained Multi-lingual Language Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.361, + 0.885, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent work has demonstrated that large-scale PLMs have tremendous potential for downstream tasks, as well as for multilingual representations including multilingual BERT (mBERT, Devlin et al., 2019), XLM (Conneau and Lample, 2019), XLM-RoBERTa (Conneau et al., 2020), mT5 (Xue et al., 2021), mBART (Liu et al., 2020). These models extend training sets to unlabeled multilingual corpora and project all languages into the same semantic space, allowing for cross-lingual understanding." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.54, + 0.826, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Cross-lingual Knowledge Transfer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It aims to transfer knowledge learned from a source language to target languages. A intuitive approach is to use machine translation for data augmentation (Conneau et al., 2018; Bornea et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2020). Under this setting, more transferable crosslingual representations can be learned through feature fusion (Fang et al., 2021), consistency regularization (Zheng et al., 2021) and mainfold mixup (Yang et al., 2022). However, these works are not sufficiently exploited on translation data for MRC. Other work learns language-agnostic representations through adversarial training to explicitly decompose language-specific representations (Keung et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2022a), or through normalization to implicitly preserve more generic representations across languages (Libovický et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Aboagye et al., 2022). A more intuitive idea used for alignment is contrastive learning (Li et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023), where translation pairs are positive examples and texts from other pairs as negative examples." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "456" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.315, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Cross-lingual MRC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.114, + 0.493, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuan et al. (2020) propose several auxiliary pretraining tasks for solving answer boundary problems for low-resource languages. Liang et al. (2021) introduce an unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pre-training task to further address this problem. Chen et al. (2022) propose a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer from good to best for cross-lingual MRC. Wu et al. (2022b) introduce a Siamese Semantic Disentangle Model to disassociate semantics from syntax. Our work further focuses on finding the corresponding answers from the target language based on better knowledge transfer and textual alignments from multiple granularities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.364, + 0.391, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 X-STA: Proposed Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.4, + 0.489, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present the detailed techniques of X-STA for cross-lingual MRC." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.456, + 0.442, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Task Definition and Basic Notations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.485, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the a context \\(C\\) and a question \\(Q\\), the MRC task is to extract a sub-sequence from context \\(C\\) as the right answer to question \\(Q\\). Denote the input sequence as \\(\\mathbf{X} = \\{Q, C\\} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N\\), where \\(N\\) is the sequence length. We use \\(\\mathbf{p}_{\\mathrm{start}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N\\) and \\(\\mathbf{p}_{\\mathrm{end}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N\\) to denote the answer start and end position probability distributions. For the sake of simplicity, we concatenate the two together to \\(\\mathbf{p} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}\\). Similarly, \\(\\mathbf{y} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}\\) represents the one-hot golden label sequence. For cross-lingual scenarios, only annotated training data from the source language \\(D_S^{\\mathrm{Train}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_S^{\\mathrm{Train}}, \\mathbf{y}_S^{\\mathrm{Train}}\\}\\) and raw test data from the target language \\(D_T^{\\mathrm{Test}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_T^{\\mathrm{Test}}, \\mathbf{y}_T^{\\mathrm{Test}}\\}\\) are available. \\(S\\) and \\(T\\) denote the source and target language. Machine translation can be used to obtain training data for the target language \\(D_T^{\\mathrm{Train}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_T^{\\mathrm{Train}}, \\mathbf{y}_T^{\\mathrm{Train}}\\}\\) and test data for the source language \\(D_S^{\\mathrm{Test}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_S^{\\mathrm{Test}}, \\mathbf{y}_S^{\\mathrm{Test}}\\}\\) (Hu et al., 2020). In addition, we use \\(\\mathbf{h}^l\\) to denote the hidden states of a sequence in layer \\(l \\in L\\), where \\(L\\) is the total number of transformer layers. Thus, to predict the start position and end position of the correct answer span in \\(\\mathbf{X}\\), the probability distributions \\(\\mathbf{p}\\) is induced over the entire sequence by feeding \\(\\mathbf{h}^L\\) into a linear classification layer and a softmax function: \\(\\mathbf{p} = \\text{softmax}(\\mathbf{Wh}^L + \\mathbf{b})\\), \\(\\mathbf{W}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b}\\) are the weights and bias of the linear classifier." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.083, + 0.872, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.476, + 0.883, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Model architecture. The cross-attention block (GDKS) is implemented only in a certain layer. In other layers, vanilla transformer layers are applied." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.545, + 0.828, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.582, + 0.884, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although machine translation from high-resource languages to low-resource ones can be used for training multi-lingual models, the drawbacks are evident. i) Machine translation quality varies across languages. ii) The original semantics can be easily lost during translation. iii) Task labels are relatively expensive to obtain, especially for token-level cross-lingual tasks. Thus, as shown in 2, we leverage parallel language pairs as the input and fuse cross-lingual representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As in Yang et al. (2022), cross-attention can be leveraged for feature fusion. However, a performance loss can be observed in the source language, as shown in Figure 3. A reasonable conjecture is that helping the target language to extract target-related information from the hidden states of the source language leads to a degeneration of source language representations. To alleviate this problem, we propose Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS), which is an improved version of the cross-attention block. Specifically, we" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "457" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.083, + 0.49, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.28, + 0.49, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: The performance of previous methods and our method on cross-lingual MRC. X-MIXUP (a cross-attention based approach) improves the performance on target languages, but with a performance drop on the source language (en). Our approach addresses the issue by GDKS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.393, + 0.489, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "block the gradients from the target language output back to the source language hidden states \\(\\mathbf{h}_S^l\\). As a compensation, we add a trainable correction term:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.454, + 0.496, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l} & S = T \\\\ s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}) + f (s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}), s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})) & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.502, + 0.49, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, \\( sg(\\cdot) \\) is used to stop back-propagating gradients, preventing interfering with source language representations. \\( f(\\cdot) \\) refers to a trainable linear transformation with dropout. Then use the target hidden states as the query and the converted source hidden states \\( \\tilde{h}_S^l \\) as key and value to perform cross-attention, defined as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.197, + 0.627, + 0.405, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} = \\mathbf {M H A} (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.662, + 0.489, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where MHA is multi-head attention (Vaswani et al., 2017). Then, the target hidden states are fused with the source-aware target hidden states by the weight \\(\\lambda\\), computed as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.738, + 0.481, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l + 1} = (1 - \\lambda) \\cdot \\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} + \\lambda \\cdot \\mathrm {M H A} (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.772, + 0.489, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\lambda = w*\\lambda_0 + b\\), with \\(w\\) and \\(b\\) to be trainable parameters. It is worth noting that GDKS is implemented in a certain transformer layer only." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.833, + 0.46, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As GDKS focuses on transferring knowledge from hidden states of the teacher model (trained from the source language), we also calibrate the model output distributions with teacher guidance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Normalization. The premise of obtaining good guidance is that the representations of different languages should be normalized first. Following Pires et al. (2019), we hypothesize that the representation of a multi-lingual model is composed of language-specific and language-agnostic representations. We estimate language-specific features as the mean of the language representations and remove language-specific features by subtracting the mean to retain only the generic semantic features. The intuition behind this is that a certain language may have a large number of phenomena such as function words (Libovický et al., 2020). Therefore, the average representation of that language is prominent. Inspired by Batch Normalization (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015), we transform the generic semantic representation to the standard normal distribution space:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.637, + 0.367, + 0.756, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} = \\frac {\\mathbf {h} ^ {L} - \\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {\\beta}}{\\sqrt {\\boldsymbol {\\sigma} _ {\\beta} ^ {2} + \\epsilon}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.422, + 0.884, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mu_{\\beta}\\) and \\(\\sigma_{\\beta}\\) are mean and variance of token-level representations in batch \\(\\beta\\). \\(\\epsilon\\) is a constant for numerical stability. To facilitate its use in inference, it is set to be linguistically independent." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.486, + 0.884, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Calibration. After normalization, we use the hidden states of the target language as query, and the hidden states and the output distribution of the source language as key and value, respectively. We also leverage MHA and average the results of the transformation of multiple heads. Hence, the transferred output distribution \\(\\mathbf{p}_{T|S} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}\\) is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.611, + 0.815, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} = \\mathrm {M H A} (\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {T}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S}, s g (\\mathbf {p} _ {S}))\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.642, + 0.881, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\tilde{\\mathbf{h}}_T\\) and \\(\\tilde{\\mathbf{h}}_S\\) are the normalized hidden states of source and target languages, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.676, + 0.884, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During the model training phase, we incorporate a teacher-guided loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{tg}\\) for the computation of \\(\\mathbf{p}_{T|S}\\). Thus, tokens with the same semantics but in different languages can still be brought closer together by annotated data, even if their representations differ significantly. Specifically, we have the sample-wise loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{tg}\\) defined as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.585, + 0.798, + 0.808, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {t g} = - \\sum_ {i} ^ {N} \\sum_ {j} ^ {2} \\mathbf {y} ^ {i j} l o g \\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} ^ {i j}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.852, + 0.884, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For model inference, we leverage \\(\\mathbf{p}_{T|S}\\) to calibrate the output for the target language by averaging the results from two output distributions, i.e., \\(\\tilde{\\mathbf{p}}_T = \\frac{\\mathbf{p}_{T|S} + \\mathbf{p}_T}{2}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "458" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.471, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.488, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We further enhance the knowledge transfer of our model, based on our proposed Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment (MGSA) technique." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.155, + 0.489, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sentence-Level Alignment. A vanilla approach to learn alignments is from the sentence level. Here, we employ Contrastive Learning (CL, Hadsell et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2020) to strengthen the alignment across languages:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.246, + 0.473, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} S} = - \\log \\frac {e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \\tau}}{e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \\tau} + \\sum_ {i} e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} _ {i} ^ {-}) / \\tau}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.489, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{r}\\) is the mean pooled sentence representation. \\(\\mathbf{r}^{+}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{r}^{-}\\) represent a positive sample from the parallel translated data and a negative example in the mini-batch, respectively. \\(\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{r}_1,\\mathbf{r}_2)\\) is the cosine similarity, i.e., \\(\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{r}_1,\\mathbf{r}_2) = \\frac{\\mathbf{r}_1^\\top\\mathbf{r}_2}{\\|\\mathbf{r}_1\\| \\cdot \\|\\mathbf{r}_2\\|}\\). \\(\\tau\\) is the temperature hyper-parameter, which we set to 0.05 in default." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.414, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Token-Level Alignment. In Fomicheva et al. (2020); Yang et al. (2022), the entropy of the cross-attention distribution (ECA) is used to measure the quality of machine translation. A smaller entropy of the attention distribution, i.e., more focused attention, can indicate a relatively higher translation quality (Rikters and Fishel, 2017). Similarly, ECA can also be used to represent the cross-lingual alignment quality, which we use as a penalty term for training the cross-lingual model to avoid distraction in GDKS. The token-level alignment loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{align}_T}\\) can be defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.178, + 0.616, + 0.424, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {a l i g n _ {T}} = - \\frac {1}{I} \\sum_ {i} ^ {I} \\sum_ {j} ^ {J} a ^ {i j} \\log a ^ {i j}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.673, + 0.489, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(a^{ij} = \\mathrm{softmax}\\left(\\frac{\\mathbf{h}_{T_i}\\mathbf{h}_{S_j}^\\top}{\\sqrt{n}}\\right)\\) represents attention weights, \\(n\\) is the hidden size, \\(I\\) is the number of target tokens and \\(J\\) is the number of source tokens. Next, the total alignment loss is summed by the two parts, with \\(\\varsigma\\) and \\(\\eta\\) to be the coefficients:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.778, + 0.421, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n}} = \\varsigma \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} S} + \\eta \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} T}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.355, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Final Training Objective" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.828, + 0.475, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In brief, the final training objective of X-STA is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.858, + 0.407, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} + \\gamma \\mathcal {L} _ {t g} + \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\gamma\\) is a factor for the teacher-guided loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{tg}\\). \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathrm{MRC}}\\) refers to the cross-entropy loss of the MRC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "task. Following Yang et al. (2022), we split the MRC loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathrm{MRC}}\\) into the MRC loss of the source language and the target language with a balancing factor \\(\\alpha\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.16, + 0.824, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} = \\alpha \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {S} + (1 - \\alpha) \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {T}.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.192, + 0.656, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.217, + 0.623, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.238, + 0.885, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate X-STA on three multi-lingual MRC datasets, namely MLQA (Lewis et al., 2020), XQuAD (Artetxe et al., 2020) and TyDiQA (Clark et al., 2020). MLQA is a benchmark dataset consisting of over 5K extractive MRC instances in 7 languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Vietnamese (vi) and Chinese (zh). XQuAD consists of a subset of 240 paragraphs and 1190 question-answer pairs from the SQuAD v1.1 (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) development set together with their professional translations into ten languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Greek (el), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Russian (ru), Thai (th), Turkish (tr), Vietnamese (vi), and Chinese (zh). TyDiQA covers 9 typologically diverse languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), Bengali (bn), Finnish (fi), Indonesian (id), Korean (ko), Russian (ru), Swahili (sw), Telugu (te). Follow XTREME (Hu et al., 2020), we use the gold passage version of TyDiQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.56, + 0.884, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the translated data, we employ the translate-train and translate-test data from XTREME \\( {}^{2} \\) . We use two evaluation metrics,namely exact match (EM) and macro-average F1 score (F1), following Rajpurkar et al. (2016); Hu et al. (2020)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.651, + 0.731, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experimental Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.672, + 0.884, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct extensive experiments based on two multi-lingual pre-trained backbones: mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-Rbase (Conneau et al., 2020). The batch size is set to 32. The learning rate is set to 3e-5, and decreases linearly with warmup. Following Yang et al. (2022), \\(\\alpha\\) is set to 0.2 and we implement GDKS in the 8th layer. We set \\(\\lambda_0\\) to 0.3 and \\(\\epsilon\\) to 1e-8. We perform grid search \\(\\varsigma\\), \\(\\eta\\) and \\(\\gamma\\) from [0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5] on the validation set of MLQA, and finally set them to 0.05, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively. We save the model with the best averaged performance of all languages on the validation set for testing. Since there are no validation sets in XQuAD and TyDiQA. Following" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.799, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://github.com/google-research/xtreme" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "459" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.082, + 0.858, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsenardeeshivizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot80.2/67.052.3/34.659.0/43.867.4/49.250.2/35.361.2/40.759.6/38.661.4/44.2
Trans-train80.7/67.758.9/39.066.0/51.671.3/53.762.4/45.067.9/47.666.0/43.967.6/49.8
LAKM80.1/66.9-64.4/49.969.5/51.5----
X-MIXUP-------69.0/50.9
X-MIXUP*78.4/64.963.3/43.567.5/53.672.3/55.065.8/47.572.2/51.766.6/45.669.5/51.7
Ours80.5/67.664.1/43.769.2/54.674.2/56.567.6/49.773.5/52.869.2/47.771.2/53.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*79.2/66.256.2/37.261.7/46.967.4/50.061.5/44.265.6/45.262.5/39.064.9/47.0
Trans-train*80.9/67.959.8/40.465.2/50.870.3/52.965.1/47.969.3/49.163.4/41.367.7/50.1
CalibreNet79.7/66.656.1/37.861.7/47.668.0/50.860.0/43.866.9/46.6--
AA-CL80.1/66.858.5/41.364.6/49.869.0/51.262.8/46.567.9/47.2--
X-MIXUP*78.9/65.862.5/43.165.7/51.571.8/54.566.8/49.671.4/50.965.3/43.468.9/51.3
Ours81.6/68.763.1/43.267.5/52.972.7/55.168.6/50.972.7/52.066.3/43.570.4/52.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.291, + 0.866, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the MLQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.331, + 0.489, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang et al. (2022), for the former, we use MLQA's validation set and for the latter, we use the English data as the validation set. All the experiments are implemented in PyTorch and run on a single server with NVIDIA Tesla V100 (32GB) GPUs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.425, + 0.236, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.448, + 0.487, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We systematically compare our method with the following strong baselines:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.494, + 0.489, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Zero-shot models are trained on labeled data in the source language only, and directly evaluated on target languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.557, + 0.49, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Trans-train (Hu et al., 2020) translates training data in English into target languages. The model is trained on the combination of these original and translated training sets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.636, + 0.488, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- LAKM (Yuan et al., 2020) leverages a language-agnostic knowledge masking task by knowledge phrases based on mBERT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.698, + 0.49, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- CalibreNet (Liang et al., 2021) employs a unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pretraining task to enhance the multi-lingual boundary detection capability of XLM-Rbase." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.777, + 0.489, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- AA-CL (Chen et al., 2022) is a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer for cross-lingual MRC over XLM-\\(\\mathbf{R}_{\\text {base }}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022) is a cross-lingual manifold mixup method that learns compromised representations for target languages, which produces the state-of-the-art results for cross-lingual MRC." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.494, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.331, + 0.885, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For Zero-shot and Trans-train, we report the results of mBERT from Hu et al. (2020) and reproduce the results of XLM-Rbase. For LAKM, CalibreNet and AA-CL (which have been evaluated over part of our settings), we report the results from their original papers. As for X-MIXUP (the state-of-the-art method), in order to conduct a rigorous comparison, we report both the results from the original paper and our re-implementation. Among these methods, only Zero-shot and CalibreNet are under zero-shot setting, for the rest of the methods translate data are available." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.572, + 0.795, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 General Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As in Table 1, based on mBERT, we achieved an average of \\(71.2\\%\\) F1 and \\(53.2\\%\\) EM in MLQA, exceeding all strong baselines. A gain of \\(1.7 / 1.5\\%\\) is obtained compared to the state-of-the-art X-MIXUP. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, our method also consistently outperforms all the strong baselines on XQuAD and TyDiQA. Our method obtains on average \\(1.8 / 2.2\\) and \\(2.6 / 3.5\\) improvement F1/EM scores compared to X-MIXUP. In conclusion, based on two backbones, our method outperforms state-of-the-art methods on three datasets, showing the effectiveness and generalization of our method. In addition, X-MIXUP significantly reduces the performance gap between the source and target languages, but also compromises performance on the source language; whereas our approach can achieve comparable performance to translate-train on English without negatively affecting the representation of the source language." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "460" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.891, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsenarbnfiidkoruswteAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot75.3/63.662.2/42.849.3/32.759.7/45.364.8/45.858.8/50.060.0/38.857.5/37.949.6/38.459.7/43.9
Trans-train73.2/62.571.8/54.249.7/36.368.1/53.672.3/55.258.6/47.864.3/45.366.8/48.953.3/40.264.2/49.3
X-MIXUP---------60.8/46.5
X-MIXUP*72.5/60.770.0/52.855.1/41.665.8/50.074.1/57.762.6/52.263.0/43.367.5/49.151.2/37.564.6/49.4
Ours73.9/63.472.4/54.560.9/47.869.4/55.976.2/60.964.0/52.265.2/46.071.2/54.151.2/41.767.2/52.9
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*66.0/53.461.1/41.637.8/23.061.4/45.772.6/55.048.1/33.059.5/35.054.7/35.937.5/25.455.4/38.7
Trans-train*70.9/59.267.7/49.646.3/31.065.1/51.374.2/57.554.3/43.163.9/46.063.2/47.163.3/46.963.2/48.0
X-MIXUP*68.0/54.867.7/48.850.6/33.666.5/52.672.0/55.052.7/40.664.0/45.064.0/47.560.2/43.362.9/46.8
Ours71.3/59.368.6/50.856.7/40.767.6/54.177.7/62.555.7/44.664.2/46.164.6/48.570.2/52.966.3/51.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.27, + 0.87, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the TyDiQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.3, + 0.473, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.479, + 0.3, + 0.88, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.492, + 0.873, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The attention distribution heat map of query part. We show the average result of multi-head attention." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.533, + 0.496, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.661, + 0.489, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: t-SNE distributions of sentence representations. Different shapes indicate different examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.719, + 0.28, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.742, + 0.489, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct an ablation study by removing each key component individually to evaluate the effectiveness of our method. As shown in Table 4, there is a performance gap when removing any of the components. Although the removal of GDKS has little effect on the overall performance, it significantly affects the representation of the source language, resulting in an obvious performance drop in the source language (i.e., English)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Removing the Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration (ATGC) component degrades the model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.533, + 0.884, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance the most, and the results demonstrate that mapping the output of the source language to the target language space is efficient and feasible. In addition, there is still some performance loss compared to removing ATGC only at inference time, which suggests that the improvement from ATGC does not only come from weighted outputs of source and target languages. Using the answer span as additional knowledge can enhance the cross-lingual alignment through the teacher-guided loss \\(\\mathcal{L}_{tg}\\). Figure 5 shows the visual distribution of sentence representations before and after normalization. In the original space, the distributions of the same language (same color) tend to cluster together, while after normalization, these representations are sparsely dispersed, which also shows that normalization can indeed decompose some of the language-specific representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of MGSA. As seen, token-level alignment contributes more than sentence-level alignment. A reasonable speculation is that the MRC task is more concerned with token-level representations. As shown in Figure 4, without token-level alignment, attention is" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "461" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.082, + 0.797, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Methodsenardeeleshi
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot83.5/72.261.5/45.170.6/54.062.6/44.975.5/56.959.2/46.0
Trans-train86.0/74.571.0/54.178.8/63.974.2/56.182.4/66.271.3/56.2
X-MIXUP------
X-MIXUP*83.4/71.978.0/60.980.6/65.279.0/60.781.7/63.777.4/61.8
Ours85.6/74.480.1/62.982.3/66.681.3/64.483.5/65.079.0/64.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*83.3/72.366.3/50.375.4/59.474.4/56.676.1/58.667.4/50.5
Trans-train*83.9/73.071.1/54.978.1/62.976.7/59.480.2/62.375.0/59.7
AA-CL84.1/73.166.5/50.377.9/62.5-80.0/61.773.8/58.9
X-MIXUP*81.8/70.973.7/56.677.1/61.476.8/59.779.9/61.575.1/59.7
Ours86.0/74.977.7/61.281.4/66.180.3/63.682.7/65.479.4/62.9
MethodsruthtrvizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot71.3/53.342.7/33.555.4/40.169.5/49.658.0/48.364.5/49.4
Trans-train78.1/63.038.1/34.570.6/55.778.5/58.867.7/58.772.4/58.3
X-MIXUP-----73.3/58.9
X-MIXUP*80.1/63.961.9/55.775.0/58.280.4/61.171.2/61.877.1/62.3
Ours81.8/66.265.2/59.476.8/62.282.0/63.870.2/60.378.9/64.5
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*74.4/58.864.6/53.467.7/51.173.7/53.661.4/52.471.3/56.1
Trans-train*77.0/61.359.9/55.072.2/56.877.3/59.174.9/72.375.1/61.5
AA-CL---77.6/57.5--
X-MIXUP*77.8/62.172.7/67.172.2/56.578.2/59.277.4/73.976.6/62.6
Ours80.8/66.070.2/64.576.4/61.281.0/63.377.7/74.679.4/65.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.467, + 0.868, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the XQuAD dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.505, + 0.457, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
AblationMLQAXQuAD
Ours71.2 / 53.278.9 / 64.5
w/o. GDKS71.1 / 53.0†78.0 / 63.5‡
w/o. ATGC70.8 / 52.677.4 / 63.1
w/o. ATGC inference70.9 / 53.078.6 / 64.2
w/o. Rep-Norm71.0 / 52.978.0 / 63.5
w/o. alignments71.2 / 53.078.5 / 64.0
w/o. alignmentt70.8 / 52.677.5 / 63.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.636, + 0.49, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study of our method on MLQA and XQuAD. w/o. GDKS refers to vanilla cross-attention is used, Rep-Norm is Representation Normalization. alignment\\(_s\\) and alignment\\(_t\\) refer to sentence-level alignment and token-level alignment. \\(\\dagger\\) and \\(\\ddagger\\) have a performance drop of 1.1/1.0 and 1.3/1.0 on English." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.75, + 0.489, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "more distracted and not well aligned across languages. Instead, token-level alignment penalizes this behavior, allowing attention to be focused on the QA-related token (e.g., \"many\")." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.832, + 0.25, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further demonstrate the output results of our approach, we show the answer generation process of a Hindi example and the corresponding English example from the XQuAD dataset, and com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.508, + 0.885, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pare it with a powerful ultra-large language model (i.e., ChatGPT). Figure 6 shows that for English, both our approach and ChatGPT answer the question well. However, in a low-resource language setting such as Hindi, there are some capability limitations of mBERT and ChatGPT. Without ATGC, our method fails to find the correct answer. When mapping the source language output to the target language output space, it successfully calibrates the output and generates the correct answer after averaging the two outputs. ChatGPT, on the other hand, produces plausible but incorrect answers, showing a sign of producing hallucinations (also reported in Bang et al. (2023)). More cases in low-resource languages can be found in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.764, + 0.642, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose X-STA, which addresses the challenges of cross-lingual MRC in effectively utilizing translation data and the linguistic and cultural differences. Our work follows three principles: sharing, teaching and aligning. Experimental results on three datasets show that our approach obtains the state-of-the-art performance compared to strong baselines. We further analyze the effec" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "462" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.093, + 0.484, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: After leaving Edison's company Tesla partnered with two businessmen in 1886, Robert Lane and Benjamin Vail, who agreed to finance an electric lighting company in Tesla's name, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing. The company installed electrical arc light based illumination systems designed by Tesla and also had designs for dynamo electric machine commutators, the first patents issued to Tesla in the US." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.215, + 0.487, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: What was produced at Tesla's company?" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.233, + 0.473, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: electrical arc light based illumination systems" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.261, + 0.474, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing produced electrical arc light based illumination systems and dynamo electric machine commutators." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.093, + 0.487, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.093, + 0.858, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: 1886, Bhagniya kai, 1887, Maharaja kai, 1888, Maharaja kai, 1889, Maharaja kai, 1890, Maharaja kai, 1891, Maharaja kai, 1892, Maharaja kai, 1893, Maharaja kai, 1894, Maharaja kai, 1895, Maharaja kai, 1896, Maharaja kai, 1897, Maharaja kai, 1898, Maharaja kai, 1899, Maharaja kai, 1900, Maharaja kai, 1901, Maharaja kai, 1902, Maharaja kai, 1903, Maharaja kai, 1904, Maharaja kai, 1905, Maharaja kai, 1906, Maharaja kai, 1907, Maharaja kai, 1908, Maharaja kai, 1909, Maharaja kai, 1910, Maharaja kai, 1911, Maharaja kai, 1912, Maharaja kai, 1913, Maharaja kai, 1914, Maharaja kai, 1915, Maharaja kai, 1916, Maharaja kai, 1917, Maharaja kai, 1918, Maharaja kai, 1919, Maharaja kai, 1920, Maharaja kai, 1921, Maharaja kai, 1922, Maharaja kai, 1923, Maharaja kai, 1924, Maharaja kai, 1925, Maharaja kai, 1926, Maharaja kai, 1927, Maharaja kai, 1928, Maharaja kai, 1929, Maharaja kai, 1930, Maharaja kai, 1931, Maharaja kai, 1932, Maharaja kai, 1933, Maharaja kai, 1934, Maharaja kai, 1935, Maharaja kai, 1936, Maharaja kai, 1937, Maharaja kai, 1938, Maharaja kai, 1939, Maharaja kai, 1940" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.191, + 0.862, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: TeKlal a kki Kpokn o Ksikmokk a Ucpadodk kkya gnya" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.209, + 0.837, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours w/o. ATGC: भयलामो के अस्थल्तिक कृध्वान रत्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक उपागली" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.246, + 0.828, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: 2" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.262, + 0.865, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: ेर्विक्ला की यक्षपानी नं रेतोल्यविक्लय रागित्ता के सिलिक \nृत्तादान यक्षा रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्तaley" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.093, + 0.865, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.326, + 0.884, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: An example from XQuAD dataset, its ground-truth answer is marked with another color and underlined. The source language example (English) on the left corresponds to the low-resource target language (Hindi) example on the right. The ChatGPT used is Mar 14 Version, and our method uses mBERT as the backbone." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.398, + 0.487, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tiveness of each component. In the future, we will extend our work to other cross-lingual NLP tasks for low-resource languages." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.458, + 0.22, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.483, + 0.489, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach requires a translation system as an aid and incurs additional inference costs during the inference process (the sequences translated back to the source language also need to go through model). For other cross-lingual token-level tasks (e.g., POS, NER), it is difficult to obtain the labels of translate-train data directly. Previous approaches usually use trained models to generate pseudo-labels. These low-quality labels pose significant challenges to our approach. Extending our approach to these tasks is left to our subsequent work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.672, + 0.287, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.696, + 0.487, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work is partially supported by Alibaba Cloud Group, through Research Talent Program with South China University of Technology." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.77, + 0.214, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.792, + 0.487, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prince Osei Aboagye, Yan Zheng, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Junpeng Wang, Wei Zhang, Liang Wang, Hao Yang, and Jeff M Phillips. 2022. Normalization of language embeddings for cross-lingual alignment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.852, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.792, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.399, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.488, + 0.883, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mihaela Bornea, Lin Pan, Sara Rosenthal, Radu Florian, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Multilingual transfer learning for qa using translation as data augmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12583-12591." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.563, + 0.884, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nuo Chen, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Jian Pei. 2022. From good to best: Two-stage training for cross-lingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10501-10508." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.639, + 0.883, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.714, + 0.885, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xilun Chen, Ahmed Hassan, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Wei Wang, and Claire Cardie. 2019. Multi-source cross-lingual model transfer: Learning what to share. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3098–3112." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.803, + 0.884, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan H Clark, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Dan Garrette, Tom Kwiatkowski, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Jennimaria Palomaki. 2020. Tydi qa: A benchmark for information-seeking question answering in typologically diverse languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:454-470." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.892, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.399, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "463" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guzmán, Édouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.178, + 0.487, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau and Guillaume Lample. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.232, + 0.488, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Rudy Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. Xnli: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475-2485." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.324, + 0.488, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.442, + 0.487, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuwei Fang, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. Filter: An enhanced fusion method for cross-lingual language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12776-12784." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.522, + 0.488, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fangxiaoyu Feng, Yinfei Yang, Daniel Cer, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Wei Wang. 2022. Language-agnostic bert sentence embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 878-891." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.602, + 0.487, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Lisa Yankovskaya, Frédéric Blain, Francisco Guzmán, Mark Fishel, Nikolaos Aletras, Vishray Chaudhary, and Lucia Specia. 2020. Unsupervised quality estimation for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:539-555." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.694, + 0.487, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.773, + 0.487, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. Xtreme: A massively multilingual multi-task benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4411-4421. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pages 448-456. pmlr." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Phillip Keung, Yichao Lu, and Vikas Bhardwaj. 2019. Adversarial learning with contextual embeddings for zero-resource cross-lingual classification and ner. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1355-1360." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.188, + 0.882, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Barlas Oguz, Rudy Rinott, Sebastian Riedel, and Holger Schwenk. 2020. *Mlqa: Evaluating cross-lingual extractive question answering*. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7315–7330." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.277, + 0.882, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shicheng Li, Pengcheng Yang, Fuli Luo, and Jun Xie. 2021. Multi-granularity contrasting for cross-lingual pre-training. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1708–1717." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.352, + 0.882, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shining Liang, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Ming Gong, Wanli Zuo, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Calibrenet: Calibration networks for multilingual sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 842-850." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.441, + 0.882, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jindrich Libovický, Rudolf Rosa, and Alexander Fraser. 2020. On the language neutrality of pre-trained multilingual representations. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1663-1674." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.517, + 0.882, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.606, + 0.882, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.642, + 0.882, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual bert? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4996-5001." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.705, + 0.882, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.754, + 0.882, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.829, + 0.882, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matiss Rikters and Mark Fishel. 2017. Confidence through attention. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVI: Research Track, pages 299-311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, et al. 2021. Xtreme-r:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "464" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10215-10245." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.151, + 0.487, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.228, + 0.487, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengyu Wang, Minghui Qiu, Taolin Zhang, Tingting Liu, Lei Li, Jianing Wang, Ming Wang, Jun Huang, and Wei Lin. 2022. Easynlp: A comprehensive and easy-to-use toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 22-29." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.333, + 0.487, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022a. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.45, + 0.487, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022b. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.567, + 0.487, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483-498." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.671, + 0.487, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huiyun Yang, Huadong Chen, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual transfer by manifold mixup. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.736, + 0.487, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Yuan, Linjun Shou, Xuanyu Bai, Ming Gong, Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yan Fu, and Daxin Jiang. 2020. Enhancing answer boundary detection for multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 925-934." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.827, + 0.487, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chen Zhang, Yuxuan Lai, Yansong Feng, Xingyu Shen, Haowei Du, and Dongyan Zhao. 2023. Cross-lingual question answering over knowledge base as reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13241." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taolin Zhang, Junwei Dong, Jianing Wang, Chengyu Wang, Ang Wang, Yinghui Liu, Jun Huang, Yong" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. Revisiting and advancing Chinese natural language understanding with accelerated heterogeneous knowledge pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 560-570. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.882, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Zhao, Steffen Eger, Johannes Bjerva, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Inducing language-agnostic multilingual representations. In *The 10th Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics*, page 229." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.238, + 0.882, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Zheng, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Wenhui Wang, Zewen Chi, Saksham Singhal, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Consistency regularization for cross-lingual fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3403-3417." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "465" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.325, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Parameter Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.493, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further evaluate the effectiveness of ATGC, we conduct a series of experiments on MLQA and XQuAD for the hyper-parameter \\(\\gamma = \\{0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5\\}\\). Figure 7 shows that the performance trends are consistent over both datasets, with \\(\\gamma\\) achieving optimal performance on 0.1. We conjecture that when \\(\\gamma\\) is too large, it can interfere with the original representation of the model. In addition, we conduct the implementation of GDKS in different layers and find that the optimal number of layers to implement is 8, which is consistent with the results of X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.316, + 0.206, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Cases" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.341, + 0.49, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown is Figure 9, 10 and 11, ChatGPT sometimes fail to generate the answers accurately. In contrast, our method is able to extract the correct answers with the help of the English datasets." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.423, + 0.486, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.6, + 0.49, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: The parameter analysis of \\(\\gamma\\) on MLQA (left vertical axis) and XQuAD (right vertical axis)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.658, + 0.307, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.309, + 0.658, + 0.498, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Performance comparison on implementing GDKS in different layers over the MLQA dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "466" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.106, + 0.522, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: As northwest Europe slowly began to warm up from 22,000 years ago onward, frozen subsoil and expanded alpine glaciers began to thaw and fall-winter snow covers melted in spring. Much of the discharge was routed to the Rhine and its downstream extension. Rapid warming and changes of vegetation, to open forest, began about 13,000 BP. By 9000 BP, Europe was fully forested. With globally shrinking ice-cover, ocean water levels rose and the English Channel and North Sea re-inundated. Meltwater, adding to the ocean and land subsidence, drowned the former coasts of Europe transgressionally." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.236, + 0.47, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: When was Europe fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.183, + 0.261, + 0.296, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: 9000 BP" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.276, + 0.495, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.542, + 0.106, + 0.824, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: 22,000 #n nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnnee nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnn ne" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.231, + 0.818, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.25, + 0.653, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: 9000 in.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.265, + 0.802, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: 13,000 n.l." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.306, + 0.325, + 0.692, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: A Thai (th) example from the XQuAD dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.389, + 0.508, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: Through combining the definition of electric current as the time rate of change of electric charge, a rule of vector multiplication called Lorentz's Law describes the force on a charge moving in a magnetic field. The connection between electricity and magnetism allows for the description of a unified electromagnetic force that acts on a charge. This force can be written as a sum of the electrostatic force (due to the electric field) and the magnetic force (due to the magnetic field). Fully stated, this is the law:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.509, + 0.507, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: What magnetic and electric force acts on a charge?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.534, + 0.432, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: unified electromagnetic force" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.549, + 0.475, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: The magnetic force and electrostatic force act on a charge. X" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.389, + 0.821, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: Bäng vièc két hop dinh nghia cuà dong dièn gionghu tó do thoi bian thay doi cúa dièn tich, quy tánc nhān vecto goi la Dinh luàt Lorentz mo ta luc tac dung len mot dièn tich chuyen dong trong tu truong. Vièc két noui giua dièn va tu tinghu piug mo ta mot luc dièn tu thong nhàt tac dung trén mot dièn tich. Luc nay co the duçc viét duoi dang tong cua luc tinh dièn (do dièn truong) va luc tu (do tu truong). Nài day du, day la dinh luàt:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.498, + 0.82, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: Lyc tú và luc dien nao tác dung len mot dien tich?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.524, + 0.733, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: lyc dién tu thong nhát" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.539, + 0.82, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: Luc tu và luc tinh dien tác dung len mot dien tich. ×" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.594, + 0.719, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: A Vietnamese (vi) example from the XQuAD dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.658, + 0.545, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage: Reserved matters are subjects that are outside the legislative competence of the Scotland Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is unable to legislate on such issues that are reserved to, and dealt with at, Westminster (and where Ministerial functions usually lie with UK Government ministers). These include abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.808, + 0.546, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: Where are issues like abortion and drug policy legislated on?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.183, + 0.833, + 0.319, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: Westminster" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.849, + 0.527, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.658, + 0.825, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Passage:保留问题是苏格兰议会立法能力以外的议题。苏格兰议会无法对保留问题进行立法,应交由威斯敏斯特处理(部委职能通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。此类问题包括堕胎、广播政策、国民服务、政府机构、英国商品和服务的共同市场宪法、电力、煤炭、石油、燃气、核能、国防和国家安全、毒品政策、就业、对外政策和对欧关系、交通安全和管制的大多数方面、英国彩票、边境安全、社会保障以及英国的财政、经济和货币系统的稳定性。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.766, + 0.818, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question:诸如堕胎、毒品政策之类的问题在哪里立法?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.564, + 0.792, + 0.683, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours: 威斯敏斯特" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.807, + 0.822, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT:这些问题的立法权不在苏格兰议会,而是应交由威斯敏斯特处理,通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.289, + 0.892, + 0.707, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: A Chinese (zh) example from the XQuAD dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "467" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_origin.pdf b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1528e19db37821483c5a066064d854ba6a55e8eb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/94860b0e-b6b8-46ac-9884-3c17f12798f0_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:53365803cfefe3521faa3471f605a26c75db5dea0e20e33e742a7170874614c1 +size 1574577 diff --git a/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/full.md b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38f7fcf4f4db1e6fff1f431ce294491838647596 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,394 @@ +# Sharing, Teaching and Aligning: Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension + +Tingfeng Cao $^{1,2,3*}$ , Chengyu Wang $^{2\dagger}$ , Chuanqi Tan $^{2}$ , Jun Huang $^{2}$ , Jinhui Zhu $^{1,3\dagger}$ + +1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology, China + +2Alibaba Group, China + +3Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China University of Technology) + +Ministry of Education, China + +settingfengcao@mail.scut.edu.cn, csjhzhu@scut.edu.cn + +{chengyu.wcy, chuanqi.tcq, huangjun.hj}@alibaba-inc.com + +# Abstract + +In cross-lingual language understanding, machine translation is often utilized to enhance the transferability of models across languages, either by translating the training data from the source language to the target, or from the target to the source to aid inference. However, in cross-lingual machine reading comprehension (MRC), it is difficult to perform a deep level of assistance to enhance cross-lingual transfer because of the variation of answer span positions in different languages. In this paper, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC. Specifically, we leverage an attentive teacher to subtly transfer the answer spans of the source language to the answer output space of the target. A Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed as an improved cross-attention block. In addition, we force the model to learn semantic alignments from multiple granularities and calibrate the model outputs with teacher guidance to enhance cross-lingual transferability. Experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets show the effectiveness of our method, outperforming state-of-the-art approaches. + +# 1 Introduction + +Recently, significant progress has been made in NLP by pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). Yet, these models often require a sufficient amount of training data to perform well, which is difficult to achieve in cross-lingual low-resource adaptation. Although many cross-lingual PLMs have been proposed to learn generic feature representations (Devlin et al., 2019; Conneau and Lample, 2019; Conneau et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020), the performance gap between + +![](images/2c1dc4330aedb7f7267e4df0629477c0f75891c8a1009011db8f3b17953e7721.jpg) + +![](images/f381e673d56a18607b5842d2628ac835972a90a29c89d7d2c4fcb6a4d378f1c0.jpg) +Figure 1: Machine translation as an aid for cross-lingual transfer. Above is a natural language inference (NLI) task. The probability distribution of the source language can be fitted by KL Divergence for teaching low-resource languages; during inference, the target language can be translated into the source language with its output used for calibration. Below is an MRC task, where the knowledge is difficult to transfer directly. + +source and target languages is still relatively large, especially for token-level tasks such as machine reading comprehension (MRC). In addition, ultralarge PLMs such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023) exhibit amazing zero-shot generation abilities over multiple languages. We observe that such models may not be sufficient for cross-language MRC due to the linguistic and cultural differences between these languages, together with the requirements of very fine-grained extraction of answer spans. + +One of the most significant challenges in crosslingual MRC is the lack of annotated datasets in low-resource languages, which are difficult to obtain. As seen, most of the current MRC datasets are in English (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). Another + +challenge is the linguistic and cultural variations that exist across different languages, which exhibit different sentence structures, word orders and morphological features. For instance, languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Hindi and Arabic have different writing systems and a more complicated grammatical system than English, making it challenging for MRC models to comprehend the texts. + +In the literature, machine translation-based data augmentation is often employed to translate the dataset of the source language into each target language for model training (Conneau et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2020; Ruder et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, it is relatively easy to enhance cross-lingual transferability of simple sequential classification tasks by directly fitting the output probability distribution of the source language via Kullback-Leibler Divergence (Fang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). However, for MRC, it is not possible to use the output distribution of the source language directly to teach the target language, due to the answer span shift caused by translation. + +Motivated by this, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC that follows three principles: Sharing, Teaching and Aligning. For sharing, we propose the Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS) technique, which uses parallel language pairs as model inputs and extracts knowledge from the source language. It enhances the understanding of the target language while avoiding degradation of the source language representations. For teaching, our approach leverages an attention mechanism by finding answers span from the target language's context that are semantically similar to the source language's output answers to calibrate the output answers. For aligning, alignments at multi-granularity are utilized to further enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the MRC model. In this way, we can enhance the language understanding of the model for different languages through knowledge sharing, teacher-guided calibration and multi-granularity alignment. + +In summary, the main contributions of this study are as follows: + +- We propose X-STA, a new approach for crosslingual MRC based on three principles: sharing, teaching, and aligning. +- In X-STA, a Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed for transferring language representations. Output calibration and semantic alignments are further + +leveraged to enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the model. + +- Extensive experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets verify that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Thorough ablation studies are conducted to understand the impact of each component of our method. + +# 2 Related Work + +In this section, we summarize the related work in the following three aspects. + +# 2.1 Pre-trained Multi-lingual Language Models + +Recent work has demonstrated that large-scale PLMs have tremendous potential for downstream tasks, as well as for multilingual representations including multilingual BERT (mBERT, Devlin et al., 2019), XLM (Conneau and Lample, 2019), XLM-RoBERTa (Conneau et al., 2020), mT5 (Xue et al., 2021), mBART (Liu et al., 2020). These models extend training sets to unlabeled multilingual corpora and project all languages into the same semantic space, allowing for cross-lingual understanding. + +# 2.2 Cross-lingual Knowledge Transfer + +It aims to transfer knowledge learned from a source language to target languages. A intuitive approach is to use machine translation for data augmentation (Conneau et al., 2018; Bornea et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2020). Under this setting, more transferable crosslingual representations can be learned through feature fusion (Fang et al., 2021), consistency regularization (Zheng et al., 2021) and mainfold mixup (Yang et al., 2022). However, these works are not sufficiently exploited on translation data for MRC. Other work learns language-agnostic representations through adversarial training to explicitly decompose language-specific representations (Keung et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2022a), or through normalization to implicitly preserve more generic representations across languages (Libovický et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Aboagye et al., 2022). A more intuitive idea used for alignment is contrastive learning (Li et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023), where translation pairs are positive examples and texts from other pairs as negative examples. + +# 2.3 Cross-lingual MRC + +Yuan et al. (2020) propose several auxiliary pretraining tasks for solving answer boundary problems for low-resource languages. Liang et al. (2021) introduce an unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pre-training task to further address this problem. Chen et al. (2022) propose a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer from good to best for cross-lingual MRC. Wu et al. (2022b) introduce a Siamese Semantic Disentangle Model to disassociate semantics from syntax. Our work further focuses on finding the corresponding answers from the target language based on better knowledge transfer and textual alignments from multiple granularities. + +# 3 X-STA: Proposed Approach + +In this section, we present the detailed techniques of X-STA for cross-lingual MRC. + +# 3.1 Task Definition and Basic Notations + +Given the a context $C$ and a question $Q$ , the MRC task is to extract a sub-sequence from context $C$ as the right answer to question $Q$ . Denote the input sequence as $\mathbf{X} = \{Q, C\} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ , where $N$ is the sequence length. We use $\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{start}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ and $\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{end}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ to denote the answer start and end position probability distributions. For the sake of simplicity, we concatenate the two together to $\mathbf{p} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}$ . Similarly, $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}$ represents the one-hot golden label sequence. For cross-lingual scenarios, only annotated training data from the source language $D_S^{\mathrm{Train}} = \{\mathbf{X}_S^{\mathrm{Train}}, \mathbf{y}_S^{\mathrm{Train}}\}$ and raw test data from the target language $D_T^{\mathrm{Test}} = \{\mathbf{X}_T^{\mathrm{Test}}, \mathbf{y}_T^{\mathrm{Test}}\}$ are available. $S$ and $T$ denote the source and target language. Machine translation can be used to obtain training data for the target language $D_T^{\mathrm{Train}} = \{\mathbf{X}_T^{\mathrm{Train}}, \mathbf{y}_T^{\mathrm{Train}}\}$ and test data for the source language $D_S^{\mathrm{Test}} = \{\mathbf{X}_S^{\mathrm{Test}}, \mathbf{y}_S^{\mathrm{Test}}\}$ (Hu et al., 2020). In addition, we use $\mathbf{h}^l$ to denote the hidden states of a sequence in layer $l \in L$ , where $L$ is the total number of transformer layers. Thus, to predict the start position and end position of the correct answer span in $\mathbf{X}$ , the probability distributions $\mathbf{p}$ is induced over the entire sequence by feeding $\mathbf{h}^L$ into a linear classification layer and a softmax function: $\mathbf{p} = \text{softmax}(\mathbf{Wh}^L + \mathbf{b})$ , $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are the weights and bias of the linear classifier. + +![](images/38e8e73ff6db5fcaff9121b925c89ea92bc398cd03e3d01b9e7be1dc469b510e.jpg) +Figure 2: Model architecture. The cross-attention block (GDKS) is implemented only in a certain layer. In other layers, vanilla transformer layers are applied. + +# 3.2 Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing + +Although machine translation from high-resource languages to low-resource ones can be used for training multi-lingual models, the drawbacks are evident. i) Machine translation quality varies across languages. ii) The original semantics can be easily lost during translation. iii) Task labels are relatively expensive to obtain, especially for token-level cross-lingual tasks. Thus, as shown in 2, we leverage parallel language pairs as the input and fuse cross-lingual representations. + +As in Yang et al. (2022), cross-attention can be leveraged for feature fusion. However, a performance loss can be observed in the source language, as shown in Figure 3. A reasonable conjecture is that helping the target language to extract target-related information from the hidden states of the source language leads to a degeneration of source language representations. To alleviate this problem, we propose Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS), which is an improved version of the cross-attention block. Specifically, we + +![](images/1b83e027f1287f831ec1d474aca44ab9243031387da915988dabadb2d69d28fe.jpg) +Figure 3: The performance of previous methods and our method on cross-lingual MRC. X-MIXUP (a cross-attention based approach) improves the performance on target languages, but with a performance drop on the source language (en). Our approach addresses the issue by GDKS. + +block the gradients from the target language output back to the source language hidden states $\mathbf{h}_S^l$ . As a compensation, we add a trainable correction term: + +$$ +\tilde {\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l} & S = T \\ s g (\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}) + f (s g (\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}), s g (\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})) & \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} \right. +$$ + +Here, $sg(\cdot)$ is used to stop back-propagating gradients, preventing interfering with source language representations. $f(\cdot)$ refers to a trainable linear transformation with dropout. Then use the target hidden states as the query and the converted source hidden states $\tilde{h}_S^l$ as key and value to perform cross-attention, defined as follows: + +$$ +\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} = \mathbf {M H A} (\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \tilde {\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l}, \tilde {\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l}) +$$ + +where MHA is multi-head attention (Vaswani et al., 2017). Then, the target hidden states are fused with the source-aware target hidden states by the weight $\lambda$ , computed as follows: + +$$ +\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l + 1} = (1 - \lambda) \cdot \mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} + \lambda \cdot \mathrm {M H A} (\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}) +$$ + +where $\lambda = w*\lambda_0 + b$ , with $w$ and $b$ to be trainable parameters. It is worth noting that GDKS is implemented in a certain transformer layer only. + +# 3.3 Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration + +As GDKS focuses on transferring knowledge from hidden states of the teacher model (trained from the source language), we also calibrate the model output distributions with teacher guidance. + +Normalization. The premise of obtaining good guidance is that the representations of different languages should be normalized first. Following Pires et al. (2019), we hypothesize that the representation of a multi-lingual model is composed of language-specific and language-agnostic representations. We estimate language-specific features as the mean of the language representations and remove language-specific features by subtracting the mean to retain only the generic semantic features. The intuition behind this is that a certain language may have a large number of phenomena such as function words (Libovický et al., 2020). Therefore, the average representation of that language is prominent. Inspired by Batch Normalization (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015), we transform the generic semantic representation to the standard normal distribution space: + +$$ +\tilde {\mathbf {h}} = \frac {\mathbf {h} ^ {L} - \boldsymbol {\mu} _ {\beta}}{\sqrt {\boldsymbol {\sigma} _ {\beta} ^ {2} + \epsilon}} +$$ + +where $\mu_{\beta}$ and $\sigma_{\beta}$ are mean and variance of token-level representations in batch $\beta$ . $\epsilon$ is a constant for numerical stability. To facilitate its use in inference, it is set to be linguistically independent. + +Calibration. After normalization, we use the hidden states of the target language as query, and the hidden states and the output distribution of the source language as key and value, respectively. We also leverage MHA and average the results of the transformation of multiple heads. Hence, the transferred output distribution $\mathbf{p}_{T|S} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}$ is: + +$$ +\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} = \mathrm {M H A} (\tilde {\mathbf {h}} _ {T}, \tilde {\mathbf {h}} _ {S}, s g (\mathbf {p} _ {S})) +$$ + +where $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_T$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}_S$ are the normalized hidden states of source and target languages, respectively. + +During the model training phase, we incorporate a teacher-guided loss $\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ for the computation of $\mathbf{p}_{T|S}$ . Thus, tokens with the same semantics but in different languages can still be brought closer together by annotated data, even if their representations differ significantly. Specifically, we have the sample-wise loss $\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ defined as follows: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {t g} = - \sum_ {i} ^ {N} \sum_ {j} ^ {2} \mathbf {y} ^ {i j} l o g \mathbf {p} _ {T | S} ^ {i j}. +$$ + +For model inference, we leverage $\mathbf{p}_{T|S}$ to calibrate the output for the target language by averaging the results from two output distributions, i.e., $\tilde{\mathbf{p}}_T = \frac{\mathbf{p}_{T|S} + \mathbf{p}_T}{2}$ . + +# 3.4 Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment + +We further enhance the knowledge transfer of our model, based on our proposed Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment (MGSA) technique. + +Sentence-Level Alignment. A vanilla approach to learn alignments is from the sentence level. Here, we employ Contrastive Learning (CL, Hadsell et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2020) to strengthen the alignment across languages: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\text {a l i g n} S} = - \log \frac {e ^ {\operatorname {s i m} (\mathbf {r} , \mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \tau}}{e ^ {\operatorname {s i m} (\mathbf {r} , \mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \tau} + \sum_ {i} e ^ {\operatorname {s i m} (\mathbf {r} , \mathbf {r} _ {i} ^ {-}) / \tau}} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{r}$ is the mean pooled sentence representation. $\mathbf{r}^{+}$ and $\mathbf{r}^{-}$ represent a positive sample from the parallel translated data and a negative example in the mini-batch, respectively. $\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2)$ is the cosine similarity, i.e., $\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2) = \frac{\mathbf{r}_1^\top\mathbf{r}_2}{\|\mathbf{r}_1\| \cdot \|\mathbf{r}_2\|}$ . $\tau$ is the temperature hyper-parameter, which we set to 0.05 in default. + +Token-Level Alignment. In Fomicheva et al. (2020); Yang et al. (2022), the entropy of the cross-attention distribution (ECA) is used to measure the quality of machine translation. A smaller entropy of the attention distribution, i.e., more focused attention, can indicate a relatively higher translation quality (Rikters and Fishel, 2017). Similarly, ECA can also be used to represent the cross-lingual alignment quality, which we use as a penalty term for training the cross-lingual model to avoid distraction in GDKS. The token-level alignment loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{align}_T}$ can be defined as: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {a l i g n _ {T}} = - \frac {1}{I} \sum_ {i} ^ {I} \sum_ {j} ^ {J} a ^ {i j} \log a ^ {i j} +$$ + +where $a^{ij} = \mathrm{softmax}\left(\frac{\mathbf{h}_{T_i}\mathbf{h}_{S_j}^\top}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$ represents attention weights, $n$ is the hidden size, $I$ is the number of target tokens and $J$ is the number of source tokens. Next, the total alignment loss is summed by the two parts, with $\varsigma$ and $\eta$ to be the coefficients: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\text {a l i g n}} = \varsigma \mathcal {L} _ {\text {a l i g n} S} + \eta \mathcal {L} _ {\text {a l i g n} T}. +$$ + +# 3.5 Final Training Objective + +In brief, the final training objective of X-STA is: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {M R C}} + \gamma \mathcal {L} _ {t g} + \mathcal {L} _ {\text {a l i g n}} +$$ + +where $\gamma$ is a factor for the teacher-guided loss $\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ . $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MRC}}$ refers to the cross-entropy loss of the MRC + +task. Following Yang et al. (2022), we split the MRC loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MRC}}$ into the MRC loss of the source language and the target language with a balancing factor $\alpha$ : + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {M R C}} = \alpha \mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {S} + (1 - \alpha) \mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {T}. +$$ + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We evaluate X-STA on three multi-lingual MRC datasets, namely MLQA (Lewis et al., 2020), XQuAD (Artetxe et al., 2020) and TyDiQA (Clark et al., 2020). MLQA is a benchmark dataset consisting of over 5K extractive MRC instances in 7 languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Vietnamese (vi) and Chinese (zh). XQuAD consists of a subset of 240 paragraphs and 1190 question-answer pairs from the SQuAD v1.1 (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) development set together with their professional translations into ten languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Greek (el), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Russian (ru), Thai (th), Turkish (tr), Vietnamese (vi), and Chinese (zh). TyDiQA covers 9 typologically diverse languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), Bengali (bn), Finnish (fi), Indonesian (id), Korean (ko), Russian (ru), Swahili (sw), Telugu (te). Follow XTREME (Hu et al., 2020), we use the gold passage version of TyDiQA. + +For the translated data, we employ the translate-train and translate-test data from XTREME ${}^{2}$ . We use two evaluation metrics,namely exact match (EM) and macro-average F1 score (F1), following Rajpurkar et al. (2016); Hu et al. (2020). + +# 4.2 Experimental Settings + +We conduct extensive experiments based on two multi-lingual pre-trained backbones: mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-Rbase (Conneau et al., 2020). The batch size is set to 32. The learning rate is set to 3e-5, and decreases linearly with warmup. Following Yang et al. (2022), $\alpha$ is set to 0.2 and we implement GDKS in the 8th layer. We set $\lambda_0$ to 0.3 and $\epsilon$ to 1e-8. We perform grid search $\varsigma$ , $\eta$ and $\gamma$ from [0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5] on the validation set of MLQA, and finally set them to 0.05, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively. We save the model with the best averaged performance of all languages on the validation set for testing. Since there are no validation sets in XQuAD and TyDiQA. Following + +
MethodsenardeeshivizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot80.2/67.052.3/34.659.0/43.867.4/49.250.2/35.361.2/40.759.6/38.661.4/44.2
Trans-train80.7/67.758.9/39.066.0/51.671.3/53.762.4/45.067.9/47.666.0/43.967.6/49.8
LAKM80.1/66.9-64.4/49.969.5/51.5----
X-MIXUP-------69.0/50.9
X-MIXUP*78.4/64.963.3/43.567.5/53.672.3/55.065.8/47.572.2/51.766.6/45.669.5/51.7
Ours80.5/67.664.1/43.769.2/54.674.2/56.567.6/49.773.5/52.869.2/47.771.2/53.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*79.2/66.256.2/37.261.7/46.967.4/50.061.5/44.265.6/45.262.5/39.064.9/47.0
Trans-train*80.9/67.959.8/40.465.2/50.870.3/52.965.1/47.969.3/49.163.4/41.367.7/50.1
CalibreNet79.7/66.656.1/37.861.7/47.668.0/50.860.0/43.866.9/46.6--
AA-CL80.1/66.858.5/41.364.6/49.869.0/51.262.8/46.567.9/47.2--
X-MIXUP*78.9/65.862.5/43.165.7/51.571.8/54.566.8/49.671.4/50.965.3/43.468.9/51.3
Ours81.6/68.763.1/43.267.5/52.972.7/55.168.6/50.972.7/52.066.3/43.570.4/52.3
+ +Table 1: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the MLQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation. + +Yang et al. (2022), for the former, we use MLQA's validation set and for the latter, we use the English data as the validation set. All the experiments are implemented in PyTorch and run on a single server with NVIDIA Tesla V100 (32GB) GPUs. + +# 4.3 Baselines + +We systematically compare our method with the following strong baselines: + +- Zero-shot models are trained on labeled data in the source language only, and directly evaluated on target languages. +- Trans-train (Hu et al., 2020) translates training data in English into target languages. The model is trained on the combination of these original and translated training sets. +- LAKM (Yuan et al., 2020) leverages a language-agnostic knowledge masking task by knowledge phrases based on mBERT. +- CalibreNet (Liang et al., 2021) employs a unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pretraining task to enhance the multi-lingual boundary detection capability of XLM-Rbase. +- AA-CL (Chen et al., 2022) is a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer for cross-lingual MRC over XLM- $\mathbf{R}_{\text {base }}$ . +- X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022) is a cross-lingual manifold mixup method that learns compromised representations for target languages, which produces the state-of-the-art results for cross-lingual MRC. + +For Zero-shot and Trans-train, we report the results of mBERT from Hu et al. (2020) and reproduce the results of XLM-Rbase. For LAKM, CalibreNet and AA-CL (which have been evaluated over part of our settings), we report the results from their original papers. As for X-MIXUP (the state-of-the-art method), in order to conduct a rigorous comparison, we report both the results from the original paper and our re-implementation. Among these methods, only Zero-shot and CalibreNet are under zero-shot setting, for the rest of the methods translate data are available. + +# 4.4 General Experimental Results + +As in Table 1, based on mBERT, we achieved an average of $71.2\%$ F1 and $53.2\%$ EM in MLQA, exceeding all strong baselines. A gain of $1.7 / 1.5\%$ is obtained compared to the state-of-the-art X-MIXUP. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, our method also consistently outperforms all the strong baselines on XQuAD and TyDiQA. Our method obtains on average $1.8 / 2.2$ and $2.6 / 3.5$ improvement F1/EM scores compared to X-MIXUP. In conclusion, based on two backbones, our method outperforms state-of-the-art methods on three datasets, showing the effectiveness and generalization of our method. In addition, X-MIXUP significantly reduces the performance gap between the source and target languages, but also compromises performance on the source language; whereas our approach can achieve comparable performance to translate-train on English without negatively affecting the representation of the source language. + +
MethodsenarbnfiidkoruswteAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot75.3/63.662.2/42.849.3/32.759.7/45.364.8/45.858.8/50.060.0/38.857.5/37.949.6/38.459.7/43.9
Trans-train73.2/62.571.8/54.249.7/36.368.1/53.672.3/55.258.6/47.864.3/45.366.8/48.953.3/40.264.2/49.3
X-MIXUP---------60.8/46.5
X-MIXUP*72.5/60.770.0/52.855.1/41.665.8/50.074.1/57.762.6/52.263.0/43.367.5/49.151.2/37.564.6/49.4
Ours73.9/63.472.4/54.560.9/47.869.4/55.976.2/60.964.0/52.265.2/46.071.2/54.151.2/41.767.2/52.9
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*66.0/53.461.1/41.637.8/23.061.4/45.772.6/55.048.1/33.059.5/35.054.7/35.937.5/25.455.4/38.7
Trans-train*70.9/59.267.7/49.646.3/31.065.1/51.374.2/57.554.3/43.163.9/46.063.2/47.163.3/46.963.2/48.0
X-MIXUP*68.0/54.867.7/48.850.6/33.666.5/52.672.0/55.052.7/40.664.0/45.064.0/47.560.2/43.362.9/46.8
Ours71.3/59.368.6/50.856.7/40.767.6/54.177.7/62.555.7/44.664.2/46.164.6/48.570.2/52.966.3/51.0
+ +Table 2: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the TyDiQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation. + +![](images/d10451bef333182b7fe8bedfd8dada8ea62bbae8e0bde896290e0c1c9ad6a93c.jpg) +Figure 4: The attention distribution heat map of query part. We show the average result of multi-head attention. + +![](images/abc8dc2464e404611fcc16493d1c64a572486c3699ed30c7c8d2baac1be02e1b.jpg) + +![](images/f85e99e6379b0c5910de1d24d5a7f106222c00607e584cf5ab00ed5a93e2fe52.jpg) +Figure 5: t-SNE distributions of sentence representations. Different shapes indicate different examples. + +# 4.5 Ablation Study + +We conduct an ablation study by removing each key component individually to evaluate the effectiveness of our method. As shown in Table 4, there is a performance gap when removing any of the components. Although the removal of GDKS has little effect on the overall performance, it significantly affects the representation of the source language, resulting in an obvious performance drop in the source language (i.e., English). + +Removing the Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration (ATGC) component degrades the model + +performance the most, and the results demonstrate that mapping the output of the source language to the target language space is efficient and feasible. In addition, there is still some performance loss compared to removing ATGC only at inference time, which suggests that the improvement from ATGC does not only come from weighted outputs of source and target languages. Using the answer span as additional knowledge can enhance the cross-lingual alignment through the teacher-guided loss $\mathcal{L}_{tg}$ . Figure 5 shows the visual distribution of sentence representations before and after normalization. In the original space, the distributions of the same language (same color) tend to cluster together, while after normalization, these representations are sparsely dispersed, which also shows that normalization can indeed decompose some of the language-specific representations. + +Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of MGSA. As seen, token-level alignment contributes more than sentence-level alignment. A reasonable speculation is that the MRC task is more concerned with token-level representations. As shown in Figure 4, without token-level alignment, attention is + +
Methodsenardeeleshi
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot83.5/72.261.5/45.170.6/54.062.6/44.975.5/56.959.2/46.0
Trans-train86.0/74.571.0/54.178.8/63.974.2/56.182.4/66.271.3/56.2
X-MIXUP------
X-MIXUP*83.4/71.978.0/60.980.6/65.279.0/60.781.7/63.777.4/61.8
Ours85.6/74.480.1/62.982.3/66.681.3/64.483.5/65.079.0/64.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*83.3/72.366.3/50.375.4/59.474.4/56.676.1/58.667.4/50.5
Trans-train*83.9/73.071.1/54.978.1/62.976.7/59.480.2/62.375.0/59.7
AA-CL84.1/73.166.5/50.377.9/62.5-80.0/61.773.8/58.9
X-MIXUP*81.8/70.973.7/56.677.1/61.476.8/59.779.9/61.575.1/59.7
Ours86.0/74.977.7/61.281.4/66.180.3/63.682.7/65.479.4/62.9
MethodsruthtrvizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot71.3/53.342.7/33.555.4/40.169.5/49.658.0/48.364.5/49.4
Trans-train78.1/63.038.1/34.570.6/55.778.5/58.867.7/58.772.4/58.3
X-MIXUP-----73.3/58.9
X-MIXUP*80.1/63.961.9/55.775.0/58.280.4/61.171.2/61.877.1/62.3
Ours81.8/66.265.2/59.476.8/62.282.0/63.870.2/60.378.9/64.5
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*74.4/58.864.6/53.467.7/51.173.7/53.661.4/52.471.3/56.1
Trans-train*77.0/61.359.9/55.072.2/56.877.3/59.174.9/72.375.1/61.5
AA-CL---77.6/57.5--
X-MIXUP*77.8/62.172.7/67.172.2/56.578.2/59.277.4/73.976.6/62.6
Ours80.8/66.070.2/64.576.4/61.281.0/63.377.7/74.679.4/65.8
+ +Table 3: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the XQuAD dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation. + +
AblationMLQAXQuAD
Ours71.2 / 53.278.9 / 64.5
w/o. GDKS71.1 / 53.0†78.0 / 63.5‡
w/o. ATGC70.8 / 52.677.4 / 63.1
w/o. ATGC inference70.9 / 53.078.6 / 64.2
w/o. Rep-Norm71.0 / 52.978.0 / 63.5
w/o. alignments71.2 / 53.078.5 / 64.0
w/o. alignmentt70.8 / 52.677.5 / 63.4
+ +Table 4: Ablation study of our method on MLQA and XQuAD. w/o. GDKS refers to vanilla cross-attention is used, Rep-Norm is Representation Normalization. alignment $_s$ and alignment $_t$ refer to sentence-level alignment and token-level alignment. $\dagger$ and $\ddagger$ have a performance drop of 1.1/1.0 and 1.3/1.0 on English. + +more distracted and not well aligned across languages. Instead, token-level alignment penalizes this behavior, allowing attention to be focused on the QA-related token (e.g., "many"). + +# 4.6 Case Study + +To further demonstrate the output results of our approach, we show the answer generation process of a Hindi example and the corresponding English example from the XQuAD dataset, and com + +pare it with a powerful ultra-large language model (i.e., ChatGPT). Figure 6 shows that for English, both our approach and ChatGPT answer the question well. However, in a low-resource language setting such as Hindi, there are some capability limitations of mBERT and ChatGPT. Without ATGC, our method fails to find the correct answer. When mapping the source language output to the target language output space, it successfully calibrates the output and generates the correct answer after averaging the two outputs. ChatGPT, on the other hand, produces plausible but incorrect answers, showing a sign of producing hallucinations (also reported in Bang et al. (2023)). More cases in low-resource languages can be found in Appendix B. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose X-STA, which addresses the challenges of cross-lingual MRC in effectively utilizing translation data and the linguistic and cultural differences. Our work follows three principles: sharing, teaching and aligning. Experimental results on three datasets show that our approach obtains the state-of-the-art performance compared to strong baselines. We further analyze the effec + +Passage: After leaving Edison's company Tesla partnered with two businessmen in 1886, Robert Lane and Benjamin Vail, who agreed to finance an electric lighting company in Tesla's name, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing. The company installed electrical arc light based illumination systems designed by Tesla and also had designs for dynamo electric machine commutators, the first patents issued to Tesla in the US. +Question: What was produced at Tesla's company? +Ours: electrical arc light based illumination systems +ChatGPT: Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing produced electrical arc light based illumination systems and dynamo electric machine commutators. + +Passage: 1886, Bhagniya kai, 1887, Maharaja kai, 1888, Maharaja kai, 1889, Maharaja kai, 1890, Maharaja kai, 1891, Maharaja kai, 1892, Maharaja kai, 1893, Maharaja kai, 1894, Maharaja kai, 1895, Maharaja kai, 1896, Maharaja kai, 1897, Maharaja kai, 1898, Maharaja kai, 1899, Maharaja kai, 1900, Maharaja kai, 1901, Maharaja kai, 1902, Maharaja kai, 1903, Maharaja kai, 1904, Maharaja kai, 1905, Maharaja kai, 1906, Maharaja kai, 1907, Maharaja kai, 1908, Maharaja kai, 1909, Maharaja kai, 1910, Maharaja kai, 1911, Maharaja kai, 1912, Maharaja kai, 1913, Maharaja kai, 1914, Maharaja kai, 1915, Maharaja kai, 1916, Maharaja kai, 1917, Maharaja kai, 1918, Maharaja kai, 1919, Maharaja kai, 1920, Maharaja kai, 1921, Maharaja kai, 1922, Maharaja kai, 1923, Maharaja kai, 1924, Maharaja kai, 1925, Maharaja kai, 1926, Maharaja kai, 1927, Maharaja kai, 1928, Maharaja kai, 1929, Maharaja kai, 1930, Maharaja kai, 1931, Maharaja kai, 1932, Maharaja kai, 1933, Maharaja kai, 1934, Maharaja kai, 1935, Maharaja kai, 1936, Maharaja kai, 1937, Maharaja kai, 1938, Maharaja kai, 1939, Maharaja kai, 1940 +Question: TeKlal a kki Kpokn o Ksikmokk a Ucpadodk kkya gnya +Ours w/o. ATGC: भयलामो के अस्थल्तिक कृध्वान रत्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक उपागली +Ours: 2 +ChatGPT: ेर्विक्ला की यक्षपानी नं रेतोल्यविक्लय रागित्ता के सिलिक +ृत्तादान यक्षा रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्तaley + +Figure 6: An example from XQuAD dataset, its ground-truth answer is marked with another color and underlined. The source language example (English) on the left corresponds to the low-resource target language (Hindi) example on the right. The ChatGPT used is Mar 14 Version, and our method uses mBERT as the backbone. + +tiveness of each component. In the future, we will extend our work to other cross-lingual NLP tasks for low-resource languages. + +# Limitations + +Our approach requires a translation system as an aid and incurs additional inference costs during the inference process (the sequences translated back to the source language also need to go through model). For other cross-lingual token-level tasks (e.g., POS, NER), it is difficult to obtain the labels of translate-train data directly. Previous approaches usually use trained models to generate pseudo-labels. These low-quality labels pose significant challenges to our approach. Extending our approach to these tasks is left to our subsequent work. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work is partially supported by Alibaba Cloud Group, through Research Talent Program with South China University of Technology. + +# References + +Prince Osei Aboagye, Yan Zheng, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Junpeng Wang, Wei Zhang, Liang Wang, Hao Yang, and Jeff M Phillips. 2022. Normalization of language embeddings for cross-lingual alignment. +Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637. + +Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023. +Mihaela Bornea, Lin Pan, Sara Rosenthal, Radu Florian, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Multilingual transfer learning for qa using translation as data augmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12583-12591. +Nuo Chen, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Jian Pei. 2022. From good to best: Two-stage training for cross-lingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10501-10508. +Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR. +Xilun Chen, Ahmed Hassan, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Wei Wang, and Claire Cardie. 2019. Multi-source cross-lingual model transfer: Learning what to share. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3098–3112. +Jonathan H Clark, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Dan Garrette, Tom Kwiatkowski, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Jennimaria Palomaki. 2020. Tydi qa: A benchmark for information-seeking question answering in typologically diverse languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:454-470. +Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco + +Guzmán, Édouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451. +Alexis Conneau and Guillaume Lample. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. +Alexis Conneau, Rudy Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. Xnli: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475-2485. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. +Yuwei Fang, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. Filter: An enhanced fusion method for cross-lingual language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12776-12784. +Fangxiaoyu Feng, Yinfei Yang, Daniel Cer, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Wei Wang. 2022. Language-agnostic bert sentence embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 878-891. +Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Lisa Yankovskaya, Frédéric Blain, Francisco Guzmán, Mark Fishel, Nikolaos Aletras, Vishray Chaudhary, and Lucia Specia. 2020. Unsupervised quality estimation for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:539-555. +Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742. IEEE. +Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. Xtreme: A massively multilingual multi-task benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4411-4421. PMLR. +Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pages 448-456. pmlr. + +Phillip Keung, Yichao Lu, and Vikas Bhardwaj. 2019. Adversarial learning with contextual embeddings for zero-resource cross-lingual classification and ner. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1355-1360. +Patrick Lewis, Barlas Oguz, Rudy Rinott, Sebastian Riedel, and Holger Schwenk. 2020. *Mlqa: Evaluating cross-lingual extractive question answering*. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7315–7330. +Shicheng Li, Pengcheng Yang, Fuli Luo, and Jun Xie. 2021. Multi-granularity contrasting for cross-lingual pre-training. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1708–1717. +Shining Liang, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Ming Gong, Wanli Zuo, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Calibrenet: Calibration networks for multilingual sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 842-850. +Jindrich Libovický, Rudolf Rosa, and Alexander Fraser. 2020. On the language neutrality of pre-trained multilingual representations. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1663-1674. +Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742. +OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt. +Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual bert? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4996-5001. +Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. +Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392. +Matiss Rikters and Mark Fishel. 2017. Confidence through attention. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVI: Research Track, pages 299-311. +Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, et al. 2021. Xtreme-r: + +Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10215-10245. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. +Chengyu Wang, Minghui Qiu, Taolin Zhang, Tingting Liu, Lei Li, Jianing Wang, Ming Wang, Jun Huang, and Wei Lin. 2022. Easynlp: A comprehensive and easy-to-use toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 22-29. +Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022a. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000. +Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022b. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000. +Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483-498. +Huiyun Yang, Huadong Chen, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual transfer by manifold mixup. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Fei Yuan, Linjun Shou, Xuanyu Bai, Ming Gong, Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yan Fu, and Daxin Jiang. 2020. Enhancing answer boundary detection for multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 925-934. +Chen Zhang, Yuxuan Lai, Yansong Feng, Xingyu Shen, Haowei Du, and Dongyan Zhao. 2023. Cross-lingual question answering over knowledge base as reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13241. +Taolin Zhang, Junwei Dong, Jianing Wang, Chengyu Wang, Ang Wang, Yinghui Liu, Jun Huang, Yong + +Li, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. Revisiting and advancing Chinese natural language understanding with accelerated heterogeneous knowledge pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 560-570. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wei Zhao, Steffen Eger, Johannes Bjerva, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Inducing language-agnostic multilingual representations. In *The 10th Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics*, page 229. +Bo Zheng, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Wenhui Wang, Zewen Chi, Saksham Singhal, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Consistency regularization for cross-lingual fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3403-3417. + +# A Parameter Analysis + +To further evaluate the effectiveness of ATGC, we conduct a series of experiments on MLQA and XQuAD for the hyper-parameter $\gamma = \{0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5\}$ . Figure 7 shows that the performance trends are consistent over both datasets, with $\gamma$ achieving optimal performance on 0.1. We conjecture that when $\gamma$ is too large, it can interfere with the original representation of the model. In addition, we conduct the implementation of GDKS in different layers and find that the optimal number of layers to implement is 8, which is consistent with the results of X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022). + +# B Cases + +As shown is Figure 9, 10 and 11, ChatGPT sometimes fail to generate the answers accurately. In contrast, our method is able to extract the correct answers with the help of the English datasets. + +![](images/b8ad3d3444c4c8b89dbc6d6a3018e1692a883470c34bba67674834a391330fa7.jpg) +Figure 7: The parameter analysis of $\gamma$ on MLQA (left vertical axis) and XQuAD (right vertical axis). + +![](images/febbf5e55f075bae788c33590beb182a02a036b119adb3f5bcc4958140f111b6.jpg) +Figure 8: Performance comparison on implementing GDKS in different layers over the MLQA dataset. + +![](images/e8cb8e2ca2ebdbfb6f980e36767f2f2593c5cf7322ea0cd85723678e650e9813.jpg) + +Passage: As northwest Europe slowly began to warm up from 22,000 years ago onward, frozen subsoil and expanded alpine glaciers began to thaw and fall-winter snow covers melted in spring. Much of the discharge was routed to the Rhine and its downstream extension. Rapid warming and changes of vegetation, to open forest, began about 13,000 BP. By 9000 BP, Europe was fully forested. With globally shrinking ice-cover, ocean water levels rose and the English Channel and North Sea re-inundated. Meltwater, adding to the ocean and land subsidence, drowned the former coasts of Europe transgressionally. + +Question: When was Europe fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age? + +Ours: 9000 BP + +ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP. + +Passage: 22,000 #n nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnnee nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnn ne + +Question: + +Ours: 9000 in.1. + +ChatGPT: 13,000 n.l. + +Figure 9: A Thai (th) example from the XQuAD dataset. + +Passage: Through combining the definition of electric current as the time rate of change of electric charge, a rule of vector multiplication called Lorentz's Law describes the force on a charge moving in a magnetic field. The connection between electricity and magnetism allows for the description of a unified electromagnetic force that acts on a charge. This force can be written as a sum of the electrostatic force (due to the electric field) and the magnetic force (due to the magnetic field). Fully stated, this is the law: + +Question: What magnetic and electric force acts on a charge? + +Ours: unified electromagnetic force + +ChatGPT: The magnetic force and electrostatic force act on a charge. X + +Passage: Bäng vièc két hop dinh nghia cuà dong dièn gionghu tó do thoi bian thay doi cúa dièn tich, quy tánc nhān vecto goi la Dinh luàt Lorentz mo ta luc tac dung len mot dièn tich chuyen dong trong tu truong. Vièc két noui giua dièn va tu tinghu piug mo ta mot luc dièn tu thong nhàt tac dung trén mot dièn tich. Luc nay co the duçc viét duoi dang tong cua luc tinh dièn (do dièn truong) va luc tu (do tu truong). Nài day du, day la dinh luàt: + +Question: Lyc tú và luc dien nao tác dung len mot dien tich? + +Ours: lyc dién tu thong nhát + +ChatGPT: Luc tu và luc tinh dien tác dung len mot dien tich. × + +Figure 10: A Vietnamese (vi) example from the XQuAD dataset. + +Passage: Reserved matters are subjects that are outside the legislative competence of the Scotland Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is unable to legislate on such issues that are reserved to, and dealt with at, Westminster (and where Ministerial functions usually lie with UK Government ministers). These include abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system. + +Question: Where are issues like abortion and drug policy legislated on? + +Ours: Westminster + +ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP. + +Passage:保留问题是苏格兰议会立法能力以外的议题。苏格兰议会无法对保留问题进行立法,应交由威斯敏斯特处理(部委职能通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。此类问题包括堕胎、广播政策、国民服务、政府机构、英国商品和服务的共同市场宪法、电力、煤炭、石油、燃气、核能、国防和国家安全、毒品政策、就业、对外政策和对欧关系、交通安全和管制的大多数方面、英国彩票、边境安全、社会保障以及英国的财政、经济和货币系统的稳定性。 + +Question:诸如堕胎、毒品政策之类的问题在哪里立法? + +Ours: 威斯敏斯特 + +ChatGPT:这些问题的立法权不在苏格兰议会,而是应交由威斯敏斯特处理,通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。 + +Figure 11: A Chinese (zh) example from the XQuAD dataset. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/images.zip b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba317626c0f8f057aa8b8858487ea010f93bb8e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:338aa09d478632581ffdb5a5fff0fa9fd174ce467deb01152bc37964dd35c059 +size 652026 diff --git a/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/layout.json b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d6c0a6aece271f7d1675007f887f2223f53124a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sharing, Teaching and Aligning_ Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9994 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 515, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 515, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 67, + 515, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sharing, Teaching and Aligning: Knowledgeable Transfer Learning for Cross-Lingual Machine Reading Comprehension" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tingfeng Cao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2,3*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Chengyu Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Chuanqi Tan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jun Huang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jinhui Zhu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 105, + 509, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,3\\dagger}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 121, + 490, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 121, + 490, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 121, + 490, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 133, + 354, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 133, + 354, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 241, + 133, + 354, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Alibaba Group, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 147, + 518, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 147, + 518, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 147, + 518, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Key Laboratory of Big Data and Intelligent Robot (South China University of Technology)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 163, + 369, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 163, + 369, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 163, + 369, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ministry of Education, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 177, + 439, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 177, + 439, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 177, + 439, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "settingfengcao@mail.scut.edu.cn, csjhzhu@scut.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 191, + 449, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 191, + 449, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 191, + 449, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{chengyu.wcy, chuanqi.tcq, huangjun.hj}@alibaba-inc.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In cross-lingual language understanding, machine translation is often utilized to enhance the transferability of models across languages, either by translating the training data from the source language to the target, or from the target to the source to aid inference. However, in cross-lingual machine reading comprehension (MRC), it is difficult to perform a deep level of assistance to enhance cross-lingual transfer because of the variation of answer span positions in different languages. In this paper, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC. Specifically, we leverage an attentive teacher to subtly transfer the answer spans of the source language to the answer output space of the target. A Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed as an improved cross-attention block. In addition, we force the model to learn semantic alignments from multiple granularities and calibrate the model outputs with teacher guidance to enhance cross-lingual transferability. Experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets show the effectiveness of our method, outperforming state-of-the-art approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 555 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, significant progress has been made in NLP by pre-trained language models (PLMs) (Radford et al., 2018; Devlin et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). Yet, these models often require a sufficient amount of training data to perform well, which is difficult to achieve in cross-lingual low-resource adaptation. Although many cross-lingual PLMs have been proposed to learn generic feature representations (Devlin et al., 2019; Conneau and Lample, 2019; Conneau et al., 2020; Xue et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020), the performance gap between" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 533, + 307 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 533, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 533, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 533, + 307 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2c1dc4330aedb7f7267e4df0629477c0f75891c8a1009011db8f3b17953e7721.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 533, + 433 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 533, + 433 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 533, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 533, + 433 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f381e673d56a18607b5842d2628ac835972a90a29c89d7d2c4fcb6a4d378f1c0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 526, + 539 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 526, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Machine translation as an aid for cross-lingual transfer. Above is a natural language inference (NLI) task. The probability distribution of the source language can be fitted by KL Divergence for teaching low-resource languages; during inference, the target language can be translated into the source language with its output used for calibration. Below is an MRC task, where the knowledge is difficult to transfer directly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 566, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 566, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 566, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "source and target languages is still relatively large, especially for token-level tasks such as machine reading comprehension (MRC). In addition, ultralarge PLMs such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023) exhibit amazing zero-shot generation abilities over multiple languages. We observe that such models may not be sufficient for cross-language MRC due to the linguistic and cultural differences between these languages, together with the requirements of very fine-grained extraction of answer spans." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One of the most significant challenges in crosslingual MRC is the lack of annotated datasets in low-resource languages, which are difficult to obtain. As seen, most of the current MRC datasets are in English (Rajpurkar et al., 2016). Another" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 719, + 246, + 730 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 719, + 246, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 719, + 246, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Work done during an internship at Alibaba." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 731, + 271, + 741 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 731, + 271, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 731, + 271, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† C. Wang and J. Zhu are co-corresponding authors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Source codes will be publicly available in the EasyNLP framework (Wang et al., 2022). URL: https://github.com/ alibaba/EasyNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 288, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 288, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 288, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "455" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 455-467" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "challenge is the linguistic and cultural variations that exist across different languages, which exhibit different sentence structures, word orders and morphological features. For instance, languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Hindi and Arabic have different writing systems and a more complicated grammatical system than English, making it challenging for MRC models to comprehend the texts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the literature, machine translation-based data augmentation is often employed to translate the dataset of the source language into each target language for model training (Conneau et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2020; Ruder et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, it is relatively easy to enhance cross-lingual transferability of simple sequential classification tasks by directly fitting the output probability distribution of the source language via Kullback-Leibler Divergence (Fang et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022). However, for MRC, it is not possible to use the output distribution of the source language directly to teach the target language, due to the answer span shift caused by translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 291, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Motivated by this, we propose X-STA, a new approach for cross-lingual MRC that follows three principles: Sharing, Teaching and Aligning. For sharing, we propose the Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS) technique, which uses parallel language pairs as model inputs and extracts knowledge from the source language. It enhances the understanding of the target language while avoiding degradation of the source language representations. For teaching, our approach leverages an attention mechanism by finding answers span from the target language's context that are semantically similar to the source language's output answers to calibrate the output answers. For aligning, alignments at multi-granularity are utilized to further enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the MRC model. In this way, we can enhance the language understanding of the model for different languages through knowledge sharing, teacher-guided calibration and multi-granularity alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, the main contributions of this study are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 671, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 671, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 671, + 290, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 671, + 290, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose X-STA, a new approach for crosslingual MRC based on three principles: sharing, teaching, and aligning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- In X-STA, a Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing technique is proposed for transferring language representations. Output calibration and semantic alignments are further" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 526, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 526, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 526, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "leveraged to enhance the cross-lingual transferability of the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 115, + 526, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 115, + 526, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 115, + 526, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Extensive experiments on three multi-lingual MRC datasets verify that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Thorough ablation studies are conducted to understand the impact of each component of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 396, + 212 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 396, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 199, + 396, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 524, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 225, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we summarize the related work in the following three aspects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 498, + 295 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 498, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 498, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Pre-trained Multi-lingual Language Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent work has demonstrated that large-scale PLMs have tremendous potential for downstream tasks, as well as for multilingual representations including multilingual BERT (mBERT, Devlin et al., 2019), XLM (Conneau and Lample, 2019), XLM-RoBERTa (Conneau et al., 2020), mT5 (Xue et al., 2021), mBART (Liu et al., 2020). These models extend training sets to unlabeled multilingual corpora and project all languages into the same semantic space, allowing for cross-lingual understanding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 491, + 468 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 491, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 491, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Cross-lingual Knowledge Transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It aims to transfer knowledge learned from a source language to target languages. A intuitive approach is to use machine translation for data augmentation (Conneau et al., 2018; Bornea et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2020). Under this setting, more transferable crosslingual representations can be learned through feature fusion (Fang et al., 2021), consistency regularization (Zheng et al., 2021) and mainfold mixup (Yang et al., 2022). However, these works are not sufficiently exploited on translation data for MRC. Other work learns language-agnostic representations through adversarial training to explicitly decompose language-specific representations (Keung et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2022a), or through normalization to implicitly preserve more generic representations across languages (Libovický et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021; Aboagye et al., 2022). A more intuitive idea used for alignment is contrastive learning (Li et al., 2021; Feng et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023), where translation pairs are positive examples and texts from other pairs as negative examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "456" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 187, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 187, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 187, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Cross-lingual MRC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 293, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 293, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 95, + 293, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuan et al. (2020) propose several auxiliary pretraining tasks for solving answer boundary problems for low-resource languages. Liang et al. (2021) introduce an unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pre-training task to further address this problem. Chen et al. (2022) propose a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer from good to best for cross-lingual MRC. Wu et al. (2022b) introduce a Siamese Semantic Disentangle Model to disassociate semantics from syntax. Our work further focuses on finding the corresponding answers from the target language based on better knowledge transfer and textual alignments from multiple granularities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 232, + 321 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 232, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 232, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 X-STA: Proposed Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present the detailed techniques of X-STA for cross-lingual MRC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 262, + 395 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 262, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 262, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Task Definition and Basic Notations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the a context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the MRC task is to extract a sub-sequence from context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the right answer to question " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Denote the input sequence as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X} = \\{Q, C\\} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the sequence length. We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}_{\\mathrm{start}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}_{\\mathrm{end}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote the answer start and end position probability distributions. For the sake of simplicity, we concatenate the two together to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Similarly, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the one-hot golden label sequence. For cross-lingual scenarios, only annotated training data from the source language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_S^{\\mathrm{Train}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_S^{\\mathrm{Train}}, \\mathbf{y}_S^{\\mathrm{Train}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and raw test data from the target language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_T^{\\mathrm{Test}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_T^{\\mathrm{Test}}, \\mathbf{y}_T^{\\mathrm{Test}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are available. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the source and target language. Machine translation can be used to obtain training data for the target language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_T^{\\mathrm{Train}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_T^{\\mathrm{Train}}, \\mathbf{y}_T^{\\mathrm{Train}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and test data for the source language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_S^{\\mathrm{Test}} = \\{\\mathbf{X}_S^{\\mathrm{Test}}, \\mathbf{y}_S^{\\mathrm{Test}}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Hu et al., 2020). In addition, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote the hidden states of a sequence in layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l \\in L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the total number of transformer layers. Thus, to predict the start position and end position of the correct answer span in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the probability distributions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is induced over the entire sequence by feeding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}^L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into a linear classification layer and a softmax function: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p} = \\text{softmax}(\\mathbf{Wh}^L + \\mathbf{b})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the weights and bias of the linear classifier." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 518, + 391 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 518, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 518, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 69, + 518, + 391 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "38e8e73ff6db5fcaff9121b925c89ea92bc398cd03e3d01b9e7be1dc469b510e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 437 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Model architecture. The cross-attention block (GDKS) is implemented only in a certain layer. In other layers, vanilla transformer layers are applied." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 492, + 484 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 492, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 492, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 525, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 489, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although machine translation from high-resource languages to low-resource ones can be used for training multi-lingual models, the drawbacks are evident. i) Machine translation quality varies across languages. ii) The original semantics can be easily lost during translation. iii) Task labels are relatively expensive to obtain, especially for token-level cross-lingual tasks. Thus, as shown in 2, we leverage parallel language pairs as the input and fuse cross-lingual representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As in Yang et al. (2022), cross-attention can be leveraged for feature fusion. However, a performance loss can be observed in the source language, as shown in Figure 3. A reasonable conjecture is that helping the target language to extract target-related information from the hidden states of the source language leads to a degeneration of source language representations. To alleviate this problem, we propose Gradient-Disentangled Knowledge Sharing (GDKS), which is an improved version of the cross-attention block. Specifically, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "457" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 228 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 228 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1b83e027f1287f831ec1d474aca44ab9243031387da915988dabadb2d69d28fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: The performance of previous methods and our method on cross-lingual MRC. X-MIXUP (a cross-attention based approach) improves the performance on target languages, but with a performance drop on the source language (en). Our approach addresses the issue by GDKS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 290, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "block the gradients from the target language output back to the source language hidden states " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_S^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 290, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As a compensation, we add a trainable correction term:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 381, + 295, + 412 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 381, + 295, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 381, + 295, + 412 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l} & S = T \\\\ s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}) + f (s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {S} ^ {l}), s g (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})) & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right.", + "image_path": "e7142aa5e20b2e1dfd734689c5a3faad9cf6147de6da2638ac4e8093f1737024.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sg(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used to stop back-propagating gradients, preventing interfering with source language representations. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to a trainable linear transformation with dropout. Then use the target hidden states as the query and the converted source hidden states " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{h}_S^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as key and value to perform cross-attention, defined as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 527, + 240, + 546 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 527, + 240, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 527, + 240, + 546 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} = \\mathbf {M H A} (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S} ^ {l})", + "image_path": "1303d362ee64382f4c13b4e9ab37622829dffc6475261cde850ec386b58cf66e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where MHA is multi-head attention (Vaswani et al., 2017). Then, the target hidden states are fused with the source-aware target hidden states by the weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", computed as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 620, + 286, + 640 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 620, + 286, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 620, + 286, + 640 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l + 1} = (1 - \\lambda) \\cdot \\mathbf {h} _ {T | S} ^ {l} + \\lambda \\cdot \\mathrm {M H A} (\\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l}, \\mathbf {h} _ {T} ^ {l})", + "image_path": "b20f56b0775c6df849a3d49049a196c549c8d2e7d81a404b68f1f4466a46ccb5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda = w*\\lambda_0 + b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 290, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be trainable parameters. It is worth noting that GDKS is implemented in a certain transformer layer only." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 273, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 273, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 273, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As GDKS focuses on transferring knowledge from hidden states of the teacher model (trained from the source language), we also calibrate the model output distributions with teacher guidance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Normalization. The premise of obtaining good guidance is that the representations of different languages should be normalized first. Following Pires et al. (2019), we hypothesize that the representation of a multi-lingual model is composed of language-specific and language-agnostic representations. We estimate language-specific features as the mean of the language representations and remove language-specific features by subtracting the mean to retain only the generic semantic features. The intuition behind this is that a certain language may have a large number of phenomena such as function words (Libovický et al., 2020). Therefore, the average representation of that language is prominent. Inspired by Batch Normalization (Ioffe and Szegedy, 2015), we transform the generic semantic representation to the standard normal distribution space:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 308, + 449, + 349 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 308, + 449, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 379, + 308, + 449, + 349 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} = \\frac {\\mathbf {h} ^ {L} - \\boldsymbol {\\mu} _ {\\beta}}{\\sqrt {\\boldsymbol {\\sigma} _ {\\beta} ^ {2} + \\epsilon}}", + "image_path": "0fb5e9f8a6065a8c1b19443f5da988d14be846f37c0a9556007d8d219f383d90.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_{\\beta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma_{\\beta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are mean and variance of token-level representations in batch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a constant for numerical stability. To facilitate its use in inference, it is set to be linguistically independent." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Calibration. After normalization, we use the hidden states of the target language as query, and the hidden states and the output distribution of the source language as key and value, respectively. We also leverage MHA and average the results of the transformation of multiple heads. Hence, the transferred output distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}_{T|S} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{N \\times 2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 513, + 484, + 531 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 513, + 484, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 513, + 484, + 531 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} = \\mathrm {M H A} (\\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {T}, \\tilde {\\mathbf {h}} _ {S}, s g (\\mathbf {p} _ {S}))", + "image_path": "7d5fff09f1c240cd77e7deb59afe7796b0f5d358f4ce5045f7d3b78f168f3e4b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\mathbf{h}}_T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\mathbf{h}}_S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the normalized hidden states of source and target languages, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During the model training phase, we incorporate a teacher-guided loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the computation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}_{T|S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus, tokens with the same semantics but in different languages can still be brought closer together by annotated data, even if their representations differ significantly. Specifically, we have the sample-wise loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " defined as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 671, + 480, + 708 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 671, + 480, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 671, + 480, + 708 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {t g} = - \\sum_ {i} ^ {N} \\sum_ {j} ^ {2} \\mathbf {y} ^ {i j} l o g \\mathbf {p} _ {T | S} ^ {i j}.", + "image_path": "b52470e6532ad6d64106c6dcded5cedac6d4a793d6f42b3b2c0682aec80adeff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For model inference, we leverage " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{p}_{T|S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to calibrate the output for the target language by averaging the results from two output distributions, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\mathbf{p}}_T = \\frac{\\mathbf{p}_{T|S} + \\mathbf{p}_T}{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 525, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "458" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 280, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 129 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 129 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We further enhance the knowledge transfer of our model, based on our proposed Multi-Granularity Semantic Alignment (MGSA) technique." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 290, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sentence-Level Alignment. A vanilla approach to learn alignments is from the sentence level. Here, we employ Contrastive Learning (CL, Hadsell et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2020) to strengthen the alignment across languages:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 206, + 281, + 241 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 206, + 281, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 206, + 281, + 241 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} S} = - \\log \\frac {e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \\tau}}{e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} ^ {+}) / \\tau} + \\sum_ {i} e ^ {\\operatorname {s i m} (\\mathbf {r} , \\mathbf {r} _ {i} ^ {-}) / \\tau}}", + "image_path": "dc78a503347b62e2421d60ef7a0ec06b56dce7339401fb9f860fa215f6f8c72c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the mean pooled sentence representation. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}^{-}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represent a positive sample from the parallel translated data and a negative example in the mini-batch, respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{r}_1,\\mathbf{r}_2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the cosine similarity, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{r}_1,\\mathbf{r}_2) = \\frac{\\mathbf{r}_1^\\top\\mathbf{r}_2}{\\|\\mathbf{r}_1\\| \\cdot \\|\\mathbf{r}_2\\|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the temperature hyper-parameter, which we set to 0.05 in default." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Token-Level Alignment. In Fomicheva et al. (2020); Yang et al. (2022), the entropy of the cross-attention distribution (ECA) is used to measure the quality of machine translation. A smaller entropy of the attention distribution, i.e., more focused attention, can indicate a relatively higher translation quality (Rikters and Fishel, 2017). Similarly, ECA can also be used to represent the cross-lingual alignment quality, which we use as a penalty term for training the cross-lingual model to avoid distraction in GDKS. The token-level alignment loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{align}_T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 518, + 252, + 555 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 518, + 252, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 105, + 518, + 252, + 555 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {a l i g n _ {T}} = - \\frac {1}{I} \\sum_ {i} ^ {I} \\sum_ {j} ^ {J} a ^ {i j} \\log a ^ {i j}", + "image_path": "c253fa29636f1645b0f8a2886f0f90750c7270f7009890eff765e651c4a9db08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a^{ij} = \\mathrm{softmax}\\left(\\frac{\\mathbf{h}_{T_i}\\mathbf{h}_{S_j}^\\top}{\\sqrt{n}}\\right)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents attention weights, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hidden size, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of target tokens and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of source tokens. Next, the total alignment loss is summed by the two parts, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varsigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\eta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 290, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be the coefficients:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 654, + 250, + 668 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 654, + 250, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 654, + 250, + 668 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n}} = \\varsigma \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} S} + \\eta \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n} T}.", + "image_path": "f5f5cb2ff0ec2690821cfb3b1bc0f3e41e33b7a45dca779f9b0fc79fbc55682d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 211, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 211, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 211, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Final Training Objective" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 282, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 282, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 282, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In brief, the final training objective of X-STA is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 721, + 242, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 721, + 242, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 721, + 242, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} + \\gamma \\mathcal {L} _ {t g} + \\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {a l i g n}}", + "image_path": "d4ed2e8dcf02ec7924ad54aa2aefb1cb25defc6bf89498bc539bf027c39c00ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a factor for the teacher-guided loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathrm{MRC}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to the cross-entropy loss of the MRC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "task. Following Yang et al. (2022), we split the MRC loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathrm{MRC}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into the MRC loss of the source language and the target language with a balancing factor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 134, + 490, + 151 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 134, + 490, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 134, + 490, + 151 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} = \\alpha \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {S} + (1 - \\alpha) \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M R C}} ^ {T}.", + "image_path": "1dd9697a247117eedb7ee0440d66efd69bf88213280e03b679595097fb51efa8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 161, + 390, + 174 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 161, + 390, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 161, + 390, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 182, + 370, + 193 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 182, + 370, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 182, + 370, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate X-STA on three multi-lingual MRC datasets, namely MLQA (Lewis et al., 2020), XQuAD (Artetxe et al., 2020) and TyDiQA (Clark et al., 2020). MLQA is a benchmark dataset consisting of over 5K extractive MRC instances in 7 languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Vietnamese (vi) and Chinese (zh). XQuAD consists of a subset of 240 paragraphs and 1190 question-answer pairs from the SQuAD v1.1 (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) development set together with their professional translations into ten languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), German (de), Greek (el), Spanish (es), Hindi (hi), Russian (ru), Thai (th), Turkish (tr), Vietnamese (vi), and Chinese (zh). TyDiQA covers 9 typologically diverse languages: English (en), Arabic (ar), Bengali (bn), Finnish (fi), Indonesian (id), Korean (ko), Russian (ru), Swahili (sw), Telugu (te). Follow XTREME (Hu et al., 2020), we use the gold passage version of TyDiQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the translated data, we employ the translate-train and translate-test data from XTREME " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 525, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . We use two evaluation metrics,namely exact match (EM) and macro-average F1 score (F1), following Rajpurkar et al. (2016); Hu et al. (2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 434, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 434, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 547, + 434, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experimental Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct extensive experiments based on two multi-lingual pre-trained backbones: mBERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLM-Rbase (Conneau et al., 2020). The batch size is set to 32. The learning rate is set to 3e-5, and decreases linearly with warmup. Following Yang et al. (2022), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 0.2 and we implement GDKS in the 8th layer. We set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 0.3 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 1e-8. We perform grid search " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varsigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\eta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from [0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5] on the validation set of MLQA, and finally set them to 0.05, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively. We save the model with the best averaged performance of all languages on the validation set for testing. Since there are no validation sets in XQuAD and TyDiQA. Following" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 475, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/google-research/xtreme" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "459" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 68, + 510, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 68, + 510, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 68, + 510, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 68, + 510, + 237 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsenardeeshivizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot80.2/67.052.3/34.659.0/43.867.4/49.250.2/35.361.2/40.759.6/38.661.4/44.2
Trans-train80.7/67.758.9/39.066.0/51.671.3/53.762.4/45.067.9/47.666.0/43.967.6/49.8
LAKM80.1/66.9-64.4/49.969.5/51.5----
X-MIXUP-------69.0/50.9
X-MIXUP*78.4/64.963.3/43.567.5/53.672.3/55.065.8/47.572.2/51.766.6/45.669.5/51.7
Ours80.5/67.664.1/43.769.2/54.674.2/56.567.6/49.773.5/52.869.2/47.771.2/53.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*79.2/66.256.2/37.261.7/46.967.4/50.061.5/44.265.6/45.262.5/39.064.9/47.0
Trans-train*80.9/67.959.8/40.465.2/50.870.3/52.965.1/47.969.3/49.163.4/41.367.7/50.1
CalibreNet79.7/66.656.1/37.861.7/47.668.0/50.860.0/43.866.9/46.6--
AA-CL80.1/66.858.5/41.364.6/49.869.0/51.262.8/46.567.9/47.2--
X-MIXUP*78.9/65.862.5/43.165.7/51.571.8/54.566.8/49.671.4/50.965.3/43.468.9/51.3
Ours81.6/68.763.1/43.267.5/52.972.7/55.168.6/50.972.7/52.066.3/43.570.4/52.3
", + "image_path": "9f75d1887d64af6f6dd6f2bfb0aabd70a235d33e900848528af68f15389bf248.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 244, + 515, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 244, + 515, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 244, + 515, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the MLQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 290, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang et al. (2022), for the former, we use MLQA's validation set and for the latter, we use the English data as the validation set. All the experiments are implemented in PyTorch and run on a single server with NVIDIA Tesla V100 (32GB) GPUs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 140, + 369 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 140, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 357, + 140, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 376, + 289, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We systematically compare our method with the following strong baselines:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 415, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 415, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 415, + 290, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 415, + 290, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Zero-shot models are trained on labeled data in the source language only, and directly evaluated on target languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 468, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 468, + 291, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 468, + 291, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Trans-train (Hu et al., 2020) translates training data in English into target languages. The model is trained on the combination of these original and translated training sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 534, + 290, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 534, + 290, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 534, + 290, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- LAKM (Yuan et al., 2020) leverages a language-agnostic knowledge masking task by knowledge phrases based on mBERT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 587, + 291, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 587, + 291, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 587, + 291, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- CalibreNet (Liang et al., 2021) employs a unsupervised phrase boundary recovery pretraining task to enhance the multi-lingual boundary detection capability of XLM-Rbase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 653, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 653, + 290, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 653, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- AA-CL (Chen et al., 2022) is a two-stage step-by-step algorithm for finding the best answer for cross-lingual MRC over XLM-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 653, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}_{\\text {base }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 653, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022) is a cross-lingual manifold mixup method that learns compromised representations for target languages, which produces the state-of-the-art results for cross-lingual MRC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For Zero-shot and Trans-train, we report the results of mBERT from Hu et al. (2020) and reproduce the results of XLM-Rbase. For LAKM, CalibreNet and AA-CL (which have been evaluated over part of our settings), we report the results from their original papers. As for X-MIXUP (the state-of-the-art method), in order to conduct a rigorous comparison, we report both the results from the original paper and our re-implementation. Among these methods, only Zero-shot and CalibreNet are under zero-shot setting, for the rest of the methods translate data are available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 473, + 494 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 473, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 473, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 General Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As in Table 1, based on mBERT, we achieved an average of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "71.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "53.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " EM in MLQA, exceeding all strong baselines. A gain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.7 / 1.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is obtained compared to the state-of-the-art X-MIXUP. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, our method also consistently outperforms all the strong baselines on XQuAD and TyDiQA. Our method obtains on average " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.8 / 2.2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.6 / 3.5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " improvement F1/EM scores compared to X-MIXUP. In conclusion, based on two backbones, our method outperforms state-of-the-art methods on three datasets, showing the effectiveness and generalization of our method. In addition, X-MIXUP significantly reduces the performance gap between the source and target languages, but also compromises performance on the source language; whereas our approach can achieve comparable performance to translate-train on English without negatively affecting the representation of the source language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "460" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 530, + 218 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 530, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 530, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 530, + 218 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsenarbnfiidkoruswteAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot75.3/63.662.2/42.849.3/32.759.7/45.364.8/45.858.8/50.060.0/38.857.5/37.949.6/38.459.7/43.9
Trans-train73.2/62.571.8/54.249.7/36.368.1/53.672.3/55.258.6/47.864.3/45.366.8/48.953.3/40.264.2/49.3
X-MIXUP---------60.8/46.5
X-MIXUP*72.5/60.770.0/52.855.1/41.665.8/50.074.1/57.762.6/52.263.0/43.367.5/49.151.2/37.564.6/49.4
Ours73.9/63.472.4/54.560.9/47.869.4/55.976.2/60.964.0/52.265.2/46.071.2/54.151.2/41.767.2/52.9
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*66.0/53.461.1/41.637.8/23.061.4/45.772.6/55.048.1/33.059.5/35.054.7/35.937.5/25.455.4/38.7
Trans-train*70.9/59.267.7/49.646.3/31.065.1/51.374.2/57.554.3/43.163.9/46.063.2/47.163.3/46.963.2/48.0
X-MIXUP*68.0/54.867.7/48.850.6/33.666.5/52.672.0/55.052.7/40.664.0/45.064.0/47.560.2/43.362.9/46.8
Ours71.3/59.368.6/50.856.7/40.767.6/54.177.7/62.555.7/44.664.2/46.164.6/48.570.2/52.966.3/51.0
", + "image_path": "83af9373860c109d3d56b9f6e8b554be29ed6b0567a1de70f8feac15c008f104.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 227, + 517, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 227, + 517, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 227, + 517, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the TyDiQA dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 252, + 281, + 404 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 252, + 281, + 404 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 252, + 281, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 252, + 281, + 404 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d10451bef333182b7fe8bedfd8dada8ea62bbae8e0bde896290e0c1c9ad6a93c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 413, + 519, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 413, + 519, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 413, + 519, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The attention distribution heat map of query part. We show the average result of multi-head attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 285, + 252, + 523, + 404 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 252, + 523, + 404 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 252, + 523, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 252, + 523, + 404 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "abc8dc2464e404611fcc16493d1c64a572486c3699ed30c7c8d2baac1be02e1b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 295, + 546 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 295, + 546 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 295, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 295, + 546 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f85e99e6379b0c5910de1d24d5a7f106222c00607e584cf5ab00ed5a93e2fe52.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 581 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: t-SNE distributions of sentence representations. Different shapes indicate different examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 604, + 166, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 604, + 166, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 604, + 166, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct an ablation study by removing each key component individually to evaluate the effectiveness of our method. As shown in Table 4, there is a performance gap when removing any of the components. Although the removal of GDKS has little effect on the overall performance, it significantly affects the representation of the source language, resulting in an obvious performance drop in the source language (i.e., English)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Removing the Attentive Teacher-Guided Calibration (ATGC) component degrades the model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance the most, and the results demonstrate that mapping the output of the source language to the target language space is efficient and feasible. In addition, there is still some performance loss compared to removing ATGC only at inference time, which suggests that the improvement from ATGC does not only come from weighted outputs of source and target languages. Using the answer span as additional knowledge can enhance the cross-lingual alignment through the teacher-guided loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{tg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 448, + 525, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Figure 5 shows the visual distribution of sentence representations before and after normalization. In the original space, the distributions of the same language (same color) tend to cluster together, while after normalization, these representations are sparsely dispersed, which also shows that normalization can indeed decompose some of the language-specific representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of MGSA. As seen, token-level alignment contributes more than sentence-level alignment. A reasonable speculation is that the MRC task is more concerned with token-level representations. As shown in Figure 4, without token-level alignment, attention is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "461" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 68, + 474, + 386 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 68, + 474, + 386 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 68, + 474, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 68, + 474, + 386 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Methodsenardeeleshi
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot83.5/72.261.5/45.170.6/54.062.6/44.975.5/56.959.2/46.0
Trans-train86.0/74.571.0/54.178.8/63.974.2/56.182.4/66.271.3/56.2
X-MIXUP------
X-MIXUP*83.4/71.978.0/60.980.6/65.279.0/60.781.7/63.777.4/61.8
Ours85.6/74.480.1/62.982.3/66.681.3/64.483.5/65.079.0/64.2
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*83.3/72.366.3/50.375.4/59.474.4/56.676.1/58.667.4/50.5
Trans-train*83.9/73.071.1/54.978.1/62.976.7/59.480.2/62.375.0/59.7
AA-CL84.1/73.166.5/50.377.9/62.5-80.0/61.773.8/58.9
X-MIXUP*81.8/70.973.7/56.677.1/61.476.8/59.779.9/61.575.1/59.7
Ours86.0/74.977.7/61.281.4/66.180.3/63.682.7/65.479.4/62.9
MethodsruthtrvizhAvg.
Based on mBERT
Zero-shot71.3/53.342.7/33.555.4/40.169.5/49.658.0/48.364.5/49.4
Trans-train78.1/63.038.1/34.570.6/55.778.5/58.867.7/58.772.4/58.3
X-MIXUP-----73.3/58.9
X-MIXUP*80.1/63.961.9/55.775.0/58.280.4/61.171.2/61.877.1/62.3
Ours81.8/66.265.2/59.476.8/62.282.0/63.870.2/60.378.9/64.5
Based on XLM-Rbase
Zero-shot*74.4/58.864.6/53.467.7/51.173.7/53.661.4/52.471.3/56.1
Trans-train*77.0/61.359.9/55.072.2/56.877.3/59.174.9/72.375.1/61.5
AA-CL---77.6/57.5--
X-MIXUP*77.8/62.172.7/67.172.2/56.578.2/59.277.4/73.976.6/62.6
Ours80.8/66.070.2/64.576.4/61.281.0/63.377.7/74.679.4/65.8
", + "image_path": "d6ebe9211165fe9589d387ba26743f4bdb189aa830f8b74f210f52d2921a37fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 424, + 271, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 392, + 516, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 392, + 516, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 392, + 516, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Overall evaluation (F1/EM) over the XQuAD dataset. * denotes the results of our re-implementation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 424, + 271, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 424, + 271, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 424, + 271, + 527 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
AblationMLQAXQuAD
Ours71.2 / 53.278.9 / 64.5
w/o. GDKS71.1 / 53.0†78.0 / 63.5‡
w/o. ATGC70.8 / 52.677.4 / 63.1
w/o. ATGC inference70.9 / 53.078.6 / 64.2
w/o. Rep-Norm71.0 / 52.978.0 / 63.5
w/o. alignments71.2 / 53.078.5 / 64.0
w/o. alignmentt70.8 / 52.677.5 / 63.4
", + "image_path": "0a8f08e3bafd67dabd75be4ed09729cd4183e13cb920256ba1b1da9a123f493e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study of our method on MLQA and XQuAD. w/o. GDKS refers to vanilla cross-attention is used, Rep-Norm is Representation Normalization. alignment" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and alignment" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refer to sentence-level alignment and token-level alignment. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ddagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " have a performance drop of 1.1/1.0 and 1.3/1.0 on English." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 290, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 290, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 290, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "more distracted and not well aligned across languages. Instead, token-level alignment penalizes this behavior, allowing attention to be focused on the QA-related token (e.g., \"many\")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 148, + 713 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 148, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 148, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further demonstrate the output results of our approach, we show the answer generation process of a Hindi example and the corresponding English example from the XQuAD dataset, and com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pare it with a powerful ultra-large language model (i.e., ChatGPT). Figure 6 shows that for English, both our approach and ChatGPT answer the question well. However, in a low-resource language setting such as Hindi, there are some capability limitations of mBERT and ChatGPT. Without ATGC, our method fails to find the correct answer. When mapping the source language output to the target language output space, it successfully calibrates the output and generates the correct answer after averaging the two outputs. ChatGPT, on the other hand, produces plausible but incorrect answers, showing a sign of producing hallucinations (also reported in Bang et al. (2023)). More cases in low-resource languages can be found in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 381, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 381, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 642, + 381, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose X-STA, which addresses the challenges of cross-lingual MRC in effectively utilizing translation data and the linguistic and cultural differences. Our work follows three principles: sharing, teaching and aligning. Experimental results on three datasets show that our approach obtains the state-of-the-art performance compared to strong baselines. We further analyze the effec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "462" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 78, + 289, + 258 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 78, + 287, + 176 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 78, + 287, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 78, + 287, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: After leaving Edison's company Tesla partnered with two businessmen in 1886, Robert Lane and Benjamin Vail, who agreed to finance an electric lighting company in Tesla's name, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing. The company installed electrical arc light based illumination systems designed by Tesla and also had designs for dynamo electric machine commutators, the first patents issued to Tesla in the US." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 180, + 289, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 180, + 289, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 180, + 289, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: What was produced at Tesla's company?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 195, + 281, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 195, + 281, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 195, + 281, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: electrical arc light based illumination systems" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 219, + 282, + 258 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 219, + 282, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 219, + 282, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing produced electrical arc light based illumination systems and dynamo electric machine commutators." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 78, + 514, + 259 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 78, + 510, + 156 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 78, + 510, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 78, + 510, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: 1886, Bhagniya kai, 1887, Maharaja kai, 1888, Maharaja kai, 1889, Maharaja kai, 1890, Maharaja kai, 1891, Maharaja kai, 1892, Maharaja kai, 1893, Maharaja kai, 1894, Maharaja kai, 1895, Maharaja kai, 1896, Maharaja kai, 1897, Maharaja kai, 1898, Maharaja kai, 1899, Maharaja kai, 1900, Maharaja kai, 1901, Maharaja kai, 1902, Maharaja kai, 1903, Maharaja kai, 1904, Maharaja kai, 1905, Maharaja kai, 1906, Maharaja kai, 1907, Maharaja kai, 1908, Maharaja kai, 1909, Maharaja kai, 1910, Maharaja kai, 1911, Maharaja kai, 1912, Maharaja kai, 1913, Maharaja kai, 1914, Maharaja kai, 1915, Maharaja kai, 1916, Maharaja kai, 1917, Maharaja kai, 1918, Maharaja kai, 1919, Maharaja kai, 1920, Maharaja kai, 1921, Maharaja kai, 1922, Maharaja kai, 1923, Maharaja kai, 1924, Maharaja kai, 1925, Maharaja kai, 1926, Maharaja kai, 1927, Maharaja kai, 1928, Maharaja kai, 1929, Maharaja kai, 1930, Maharaja kai, 1931, Maharaja kai, 1932, Maharaja kai, 1933, Maharaja kai, 1934, Maharaja kai, 1935, Maharaja kai, 1936, Maharaja kai, 1937, Maharaja kai, 1938, Maharaja kai, 1939, Maharaja kai, 1940" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 160, + 512, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 160, + 512, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 160, + 512, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: TeKlal a kki Kpokn o Ksikmokk a Ucpadodk kkya gnya" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 175, + 498, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 175, + 498, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 175, + 498, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours w/o. ATGC: भयलामो के अस्थल्तिक कृध्वान रत्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक ित्तर्दिक उपागली" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 206, + 492, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 206, + 492, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 206, + 492, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 220, + 514, + 259 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 220, + 514, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 220, + 514, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: ेर्विक्ला की यक्षपानी नं रेतोल्यविक्लय रागित्ता के सिलिक \nृत्तादान यक्षा रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्ता रागित्तaley रागित्तaley" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 525, + 312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: An example from XQuAD dataset, its ground-truth answer is marked with another color and underlined. The source language example (English) on the left corresponds to the low-resource target language (Hindi) example on the right. The ChatGPT used is Mar 14 Version, and our method uses mBERT as the backbone." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 289, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tiveness of each component. In the future, we will extend our work to other cross-lingual NLP tasks for low-resource languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 130, + 397 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 130, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 130, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 290, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 290, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 290, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach requires a translation system as an aid and incurs additional inference costs during the inference process (the sequences translated back to the source language also need to go through model). For other cross-lingual token-level tasks (e.g., POS, NER), it is difficult to obtain the labels of translate-train data directly. Previous approaches usually use trained models to generate pseudo-labels. These low-quality labels pose significant challenges to our approach. Extending our approach to these tasks is left to our subsequent work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 565, + 170, + 578 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 565, + 170, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 565, + 170, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 289, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 289, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 289, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work is partially supported by Alibaba Cloud Group, through Research Talent Program with South China University of Technology." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 647, + 127, + 660 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 647, + 127, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 647, + 127, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 289, + 711 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 289, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 666, + 289, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prince Osei Aboagye, Yan Zheng, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Junpeng Wang, Wei Zhang, Liang Wang, Hao Yang, and Jeff M Phillips. 2022. Normalization of language embeddings for cross-lingual alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mikel Artetxe, Sebastian Ruder, and Dani Yogatama. 2020. On the cross-lingual transferability of monolingual representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4623–4637." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 28, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 335, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 410, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mihaela Bornea, Lin Pan, Sara Rosenthal, Radu Florian, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Multilingual transfer learning for qa using translation as data augmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12583-12591." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 525, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nuo Chen, Linjun Shou, Ming Gong, and Jian Pei. 2022. From good to best: Two-stage training for cross-lingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10501-10508." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 526, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xilun Chen, Ahmed Hassan, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Wei Wang, and Claire Cardie. 2019. Multi-source cross-lingual model transfer: Learning what to share. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3098–3112." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 525, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan H Clark, Eunsol Choi, Michael Collins, Dan Garrette, Tom Kwiatkowski, Vitaly Nikolaev, and Jennimaria Palomaki. 2020. Tydi qa: A benchmark for information-seeking question answering in typologically diverse languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:454-470." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "463" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guzmán, Édouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8440-8451." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 149, + 289, + 183 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 149, + 289, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 149, + 289, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau and Guillaume Lample. 2019. Crosslingual language model pretraining. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 195, + 290, + 261 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 195, + 290, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 195, + 290, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexis Conneau, Rudy Rinott, Guillaume Lample, Adina Williams, Samuel Bowman, Holger Schwenk, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2018. Xnli: Evaluating crosslingual sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2475-2485." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 359 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 371, + 289, + 427 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 371, + 289, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 371, + 289, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuwei Fang, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, and Jingjing Liu. 2021. Filter: An enhanced fusion method for cross-lingual language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12776-12784." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 290, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fangxiaoyu Feng, Yinfei Yang, Daniel Cer, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Wei Wang. 2022. Language-agnostic bert sentence embedding. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 878-891." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 289, + 571 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 289, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 289, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Lisa Yankovskaya, Frédéric Blain, Francisco Guzmán, Mark Fishel, Nikolaos Aletras, Vishray Chaudhary, and Lucia Specia. 2020. Unsupervised quality estimation for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:539-555." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 583, + 289, + 638 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 583, + 289, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 583, + 289, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 650, + 289, + 716 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 650, + 289, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 650, + 289, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junjie Hu, Sebastian Ruder, Aditya Siddhant, Graham Neubig, Orhan First, and Melvin Johnson. 2020. Xtreme: A massively multilingual multi-task benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual generalisation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4411-4421. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pages 448-456. pmlr." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Phillip Keung, Yichao Lu, and Vikas Bhardwaj. 2019. Adversarial learning with contextual embeddings for zero-resource cross-lingual classification and ner. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1355-1360." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 524, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Barlas Oguz, Rudy Rinott, Sebastian Riedel, and Holger Schwenk. 2020. *Mlqa: Evaluating cross-lingual extractive question answering*. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7315–7330." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shicheng Li, Pengcheng Yang, Fuli Luo, and Jun Xie. 2021. Multi-granularity contrasting for cross-lingual pre-training. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1708–1717." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 524, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 524, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 524, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shining Liang, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Ming Gong, Wanli Zuo, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Calibrenet: Calibration networks for multilingual sequence labeling. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 842-850." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 524, + 425 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 524, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 370, + 524, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jindrich Libovický, Rudolf Rosa, and Alexander Fraser. 2020. On the language neutrality of pre-trained multilingual representations. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2020, pages 1663-1674." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 434, + 524, + 500 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 434, + 524, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 434, + 524, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual denoising pretraining for neural machine translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726-742." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 524, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 524, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 539, + 524, + 583 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 539, + 524, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 539, + 524, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Telmo Pires, Eva Schlinger, and Dan Garrette. 2019. How multilingual is multilingual bert? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4996-5001." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 524, + 625 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 524, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 592, + 524, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 524, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 524, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 634, + 524, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 524, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matiss Rikters and Mark Fishel. 2017. Confidence through attention. In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XVI: Research Track, pages 299-311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastian Ruder, Noah Constant, Jan Botha, Aditya Siddhant, Orhan Firat, Jinlan Fu, Pengfei Liu, Junjie Hu, Dan Garrette, Graham Neubig, et al. 2021. Xtreme-r:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "464" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Towards more challenging and nuanced multilingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10215-10245." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 191, + 289, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 191, + 289, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 191, + 289, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengyu Wang, Minghui Qiu, Taolin Zhang, Tingting Liu, Lei Li, Jianing Wang, Ming Wang, Jun Huang, and Wei Lin. 2022. Easynlp: A comprehensive and easy-to-use toolkit for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the The 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 22-29." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 368 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022a. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 289, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linjuan Wu, Shaojuan Wu, Xiaowang Zhang, Deyi Xiong, Shizhan Chen, Zhiqiang Zhuang, and Zhiyong Feng. 2022b. Learning disentangled semantic representations for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 991-1000." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 289, + 554 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 289, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 289, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mt5: A massively multilingual pre-trained text-to-text transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 483-498." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 564, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 564, + 289, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 564, + 289, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huiyun Yang, Huadong Chen, Hao Zhou, and Lei Li. 2022. Enhancing cross-lingual transfer by manifold mixup. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 289, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 289, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 289, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Yuan, Linjun Shou, Xuanyu Bai, Ming Gong, Yaobo Liang, Nan Duan, Yan Fu, and Daxin Jiang. 2020. Enhancing answer boundary detection for multilingual machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 925-934." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 289, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 695, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chen Zhang, Yuxuan Lai, Yansong Feng, Xingyu Shen, Haowei Du, and Dongyan Zhao. 2023. Cross-lingual question answering over knowledge base as reading comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13241." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taolin Zhang, Junwei Dong, Jianing Wang, Chengyu Wang, Ang Wang, Yinghui Liu, Jun Huang, Yong" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 288 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li, and Xiaofeng He. 2022. Revisiting and advancing Chinese natural language understanding with accelerated heterogeneous knowledge pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 560-570. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Zhao, Steffen Eger, Johannes Bjerva, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Inducing language-agnostic multilingual representations. In *The 10th Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics*, page 229." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Zheng, Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Wenhui Wang, Zewen Chi, Saksham Singhal, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2021. Consistency regularization for cross-lingual fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3403-3417." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "465" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 193, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 193, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 193, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Parameter Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further evaluate the effectiveness of ATGC, we conduct a series of experiments on MLQA and XQuAD for the hyper-parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma = \\{0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Figure 7 shows that the performance trends are consistent over both datasets, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " achieving optimal performance on 0.1. We conjecture that when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 293, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is too large, it can interfere with the original representation of the model. In addition, we conduct the implementation of GDKS in different layers and find that the optimal number of layers to implement is 8, which is consistent with the results of X-MIXUP (Yang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 265, + 122, + 278 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 265, + 122, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 265, + 122, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Cases" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 291, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown is Figure 9, 10 and 11, ChatGPT sometimes fail to generate the answers accurately. In contrast, our method is able to extract the correct answers with the help of the English datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 355, + 289, + 495 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 355, + 289, + 495 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 355, + 289, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 355, + 289, + 495 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b8ad3d3444c4c8b89dbc6d6a3018e1692a883470c34bba67674834a391330fa7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 530 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: The parameter analysis of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\gamma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 504, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on MLQA (left vertical axis) and XQuAD (right vertical axis)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 182, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 182, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 182, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 553, + 182, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "febbf5e55f075bae788c33590beb182a02a036b119adb3f5bcc4958140f111b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 669 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 642, + 290, + 669 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Performance comparison on implementing GDKS in different layers over the MLQA dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 553, + 296, + 634 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 553, + 296, + 634 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 553, + 296, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 553, + 296, + 634 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e8cb8e2ca2ebdbfb6f980e36767f2f2593c5cf7322ea0cd85723678e650e9813.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "466" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 310, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 310, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 89, + 310, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: As northwest Europe slowly began to warm up from 22,000 years ago onward, frozen subsoil and expanded alpine glaciers began to thaw and fall-winter snow covers melted in spring. Much of the discharge was routed to the Rhine and its downstream extension. Rapid warming and changes of vegetation, to open forest, began about 13,000 BP. By 9000 BP, Europe was fully forested. With globally shrinking ice-cover, ocean water levels rose and the English Channel and North Sea re-inundated. Meltwater, adding to the ocean and land subsidence, drowned the former coasts of Europe transgressionally." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 198, + 279, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 198, + 279, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 198, + 279, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: When was Europe fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 219, + 176, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 219, + 176, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 219, + 176, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: 9000 BP" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 232, + 294, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 232, + 294, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 232, + 294, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 322, + 89, + 490, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 322, + 89, + 490, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 322, + 89, + 490, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: 22,000 #n nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnnee nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnnne nnnn ne" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 194, + 486, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 194, + 486, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 194, + 486, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 210, + 388, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 210, + 388, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 210, + 388, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: 9000 in.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 222, + 477, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 222, + 477, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 222, + 477, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: 13,000 n.l." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 273, + 411, + 285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 273, + 411, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 273, + 411, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: A Thai (th) example from the XQuAD dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 327, + 302, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 327, + 302, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 327, + 302, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: Through combining the definition of electric current as the time rate of change of electric charge, a rule of vector multiplication called Lorentz's Law describes the force on a charge moving in a magnetic field. The connection between electricity and magnetism allows for the description of a unified electromagnetic force that acts on a charge. This force can be written as a sum of the electrostatic force (due to the electric field) and the magnetic force (due to the magnetic field). Fully stated, this is the law:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 428, + 301, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 428, + 301, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 428, + 301, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: What magnetic and electric force acts on a charge?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 449, + 257, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 449, + 257, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 449, + 257, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: unified electromagnetic force" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 461, + 282, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 461, + 282, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 461, + 282, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: The magnetic force and electrostatic force act on a charge. X" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 327, + 488, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 327, + 488, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 327, + 488, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: Bäng vièc két hop dinh nghia cuà dong dièn gionghu tó do thoi bian thay doi cúa dièn tich, quy tánc nhān vecto goi la Dinh luàt Lorentz mo ta luc tac dung len mot dièn tich chuyen dong trong tu truong. Vièc két noui giua dièn va tu tinghu piug mo ta mot luc dièn tu thong nhàt tac dung trén mot dièn tich. Luc nay co the duçc viét duoi dang tong cua luc tinh dièn (do dièn truong) va luc tu (do tu truong). Nài day du, day la dinh luàt:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 418, + 487, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 418, + 487, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 418, + 487, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: Lyc tú và luc dien nao tác dung len mot dien tich?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 440, + 436, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 440, + 436, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 440, + 436, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: lyc dién tu thong nhát" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 453, + 487, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 453, + 487, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 453, + 487, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: Luc tu và luc tinh dien tác dung len mot dien tich. ×" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 499, + 427, + 511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 499, + 427, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 499, + 427, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: A Vietnamese (vi) example from the XQuAD dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 553, + 324, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 553, + 324, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 553, + 324, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage: Reserved matters are subjects that are outside the legislative competence of the Scotland Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is unable to legislate on such issues that are reserved to, and dealt with at, Westminster (and where Ministerial functions usually lie with UK Government ministers). These include abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 679, + 324, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 679, + 324, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 679, + 324, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: Where are issues like abortion and drug policy legislated on?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 700, + 189, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 700, + 189, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 700, + 189, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: Westminster" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 714, + 313, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 714, + 313, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 714, + 313, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT: Europe was fully forested and recovered from the last Ice Age by 9000 BP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 553, + 490, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 553, + 490, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 553, + 490, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Passage:保留问题是苏格兰议会立法能力以外的议题。苏格兰议会无法对保留问题进行立法,应交由威斯敏斯特处理(部委职能通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。此类问题包括堕胎、广播政策、国民服务、政府机构、英国商品和服务的共同市场宪法、电力、煤炭、石油、燃气、核能、国防和国家安全、毒品政策、就业、对外政策和对欧关系、交通安全和管制的大多数方面、英国彩票、边境安全、社会保障以及英国的财政、经济和货币系统的稳定性。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 644, + 486, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 644, + 486, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 644, + 486, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question:诸如堕胎、毒品政策之类的问题在哪里立法?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 335, + 666, + 406, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 335, + 666, + 406, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 335, + 666, + 406, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours: 威斯敏斯特" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 678, + 489, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 678, + 489, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 678, + 489, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT:这些问题的立法权不在苏格兰议会,而是应交由威斯敏斯特处理,通常由英国政府的国务大臣完成。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 750, + 420, + 761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 750, + 420, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 750, + 420, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: A Chinese (zh) example from the XQuAD dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "467" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_content_list.json b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b48368bfbb51a13ffb2c5319fa0bf457296f062 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,3463 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Show, Write, and Retrieve: Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 90, + 882, + 110 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhongping Zhang Yiwen Gu Bryan A. Plummer", + "bbox": [ + 250, + 142, + 749, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Boston University", + "bbox": [ + 426, + 160, + 574, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{zpzhang, yiweng, bplum}@bu.edu", + "bbox": [ + 349, + 177, + 662, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Article comprehension is an important challenge in natural language processing with many applications such as article generation or image-to-article retrieval. Prior work typically encodes all tokens in articles uniformly using pretrained language models. However, in many applications, such as understanding news stories, these articles are based on real-world events and may reference many named entities that are difficult to accurately recognize and predict by language models. To address this challenge, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratIoN and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework, to explicitly incorporate named entities into language models. ENGINE has two main components: a named-entity extraction module to extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images associated with articles, and an entity-aware mechanism that enhances the model's ability to recognize and predict entity names. We conducted experiments on three public datasets: GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText, where our results demonstrate that our model can boost both article generation and article retrieval performance, with a 4-5 perplexity improvement in article generation and a $3 - 4\\%$ boost in recall@1 in article retrieval. We release our implementation at this http URL.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 277, + 460, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 684, + 258, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comprehending articles enables a wide range of applications such as story generation (Fan et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2018), image-to-text retrieval (Tan et al., 2022), automated journalism (Leppänen et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2020), defending against misinformation (Zellers et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020), and writing Wiki articles (Banerjee and Mitra, 2016; Stephen et al., 2017), among others. Inspired by the impressive capability of large language models, recent work (e.g., Radford et al. (2019); Brown et al. (2020); Wang and Komatsuzaki (2021)) generate or retrieve articles by training language models on massive datasets (e.g., The", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(A) Language Modeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 514, + 250, + 633, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics \nPublish date: 05-24-2016", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 263, + 650, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.nytimes.com", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 288, + 605, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt, the Oscar winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt will join the London School of Economics' Center for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday by the university, one of Britain's most renowned academic institutions. Ms. Jolie's work there will include delivering guest lectures and taking part in workshops as a \"visiting professor in practice.\"", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 300, + 650, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(B) Entity-aware Language Modeling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 657, + 250, + 840, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d078c45232d25999ea264e9a0d276705d1ba73ed72169983dcaca467fb8d16c1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 660, + 263, + 873, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics \nPublish date: 05-24-2016", + "bbox": [ + 658, + 349, + 873, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.nytimes.com", + "bbox": [ + 658, + 365, + 742, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt $<$ PERSON $>$ , the Oscar-winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations $<$ ORG $>$ refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt $<$ PERSON $>$ will join the London School of Economics' Center $<$ ORG $>$ for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday $<$ DATE $>$ by the university, ...", + "bbox": [ + 658, + 370, + 878, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: We propose entity-aware language modeling for article generation and retrieval. Prior work (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), shown in (A), typically comprehends articles by uniformly encoding all text tokens. However, these approaches face challenges in accurately recognizing and predicting named entities. In our paper, shown in (B), we propose a method to extract named entities from embedded images and explicitly model the named entities in articles, boosting the performance of both article generation and article retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 884, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pile (Gao et al., 2020) or LAION400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These models typically uniformly encode all text tokens in the articles including named entities (Radford et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). In other words, named entities like organizations, places, and dates are modeled together with other text, as illustrated in Figure 1(A). However, it poses a challenge for these models to accurately recognize and predict named entities, as they can be unique to specific articles. E.g., in Figure 1(A), entities like \"Ms. Jolie\" and \"Jolie Pitt\" may only appear in articles related to the celebrity \"Angelina Jolie.\"", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 627, + 884, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Directly extracting named entities from user-provided prompts is a straightforward entity-aware approach used by methods addressing news image captioning (Biten et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). However, these methods do not", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8684", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8684-8704", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "generalize well to article generation and retrieval since they rely on substantial contextual information (via the articles) as well as a direct indication of entities that may appear in predicted captions. For example, in Figure 1 (A), the article mentions that Angelina Jolie Pitt is an Oscar winner, but this information is not present in the other metadata like the image captions. Thus, a language model generating an article must infer this named entity information rather than directly extracting it from the metadata. Even if a list of named entities were provided, an article generation model must determine where and when to use each of them. In contrast, in news image captioning, entities used in the caption almost always appear in the body of the article (Liu et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2020), and the image itself will directly inform what named entities should be used for its caption. Thus, as we will show, adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related work (e.g., (Liu et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021)) results in poor performance in our task.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the aforementioned issues, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratiOn and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework to explicitly incorporate and model named entities in articles. ENGINE mainly consists two modules: a named-entity extraction module and an entity-aware module. In the named-entity extraction module, we show that providing a list of named entities for article generation improves performance. However, creating such lists does require a small overhead cost. Thus, we also demonstrate we can improve performance without manual input.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 426, + 489, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 1 (B), we observe that images associated with an article often contain information about the article's events. Therefore, we explore leveraging large vision-language models to extract named entities from embedded images. Specifically, we employ CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to automatically select a set of likely named entities from embedded images. In the entity-aware module, we introduce special tokens after each entity name to indicate its entity category. In this case, ENGINE models the named entity and its entity category jointly. An additional benefit brought by our entity-aware mechanism is the named-entity recognition (NER) ability, i.e., our model not only recognizes and predicts the entity names but also predicts their entity categories simultaneously.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 621, + 489, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, the contributions of this paper are:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 883, + 485, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We propose an entity-aware language model, EN-", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GINE, for article generation and retrieval. Compared to existing language models (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023), our entity-aware mechanism enhances the recognition and prediction of named entities by jointly modeling entity names and their entity categories, boosting the performance of article generation and retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We introduce a named-entity extraction method to recognize named entities from embedded images in articles, eliminating the overhead in manually creating a list of named entities that will appear in the articles.", + "- Experiments on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) show a perplexity gain of 4-5 points for article generation and a Recall@1 boost of $3 - 4\\%$ for article retrieval. We also show that ENGINE generalizes via zero-shot transfer to WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017).", + "- We perform comprehensive experiments on human evaluation and machine discrimination, validating that ENGINE produces more realistic articles compared to prior work (Radford et al., 2019; Zellers et al., 2020). This suggests that our model can potentially contribute additional training data for the development of more powerful machine-generated text detectors." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 212, + 885, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 533, + 663, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Article Generation in recent work uses large-scale pretrained transformer models that can be separated into unconditional text generation (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and conditional text generation (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). Generating articles via unconditional samples has been found to be less effective, since the models may interpret the first sentence of articles as a tweet and start posting responses (Brown et al., 2020). To enable controllable generation, GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) conditions article generation on titles and the initial sentences of articles. Grover (Zellers et al., 2020) decomposes news articles into distinct parts and conditions generation on metadata like the author or organization. In this paper, we further explore the impact of named entities and embedded article images. Specifically, ENGINE produces articles conditioned on both metadata and embedded article images, with a dedicated focus on the explicit extraction and modeling of named entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 564, + 884, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Article Retrieval is commonly accomplished by image-text matching frameworks. Early work on", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8685", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/21e0eaf11d34e0ee8dbbc50ea71e81a31ff411ffa4241c30ba1b52a112b7c7f7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: ENGINE overview. Our model mainly consists of two modules: (A) Named-entity Extraction: We extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles. See Section 3.2 for detailed discussion; (B) Entity-aware mechanism: Each named entity is associated by its corresponding entity category. ENGINE models the entity name and category jointly to avoid inconsistency between named entities in images and article text. See Section 3.1 for detailed discussion." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 880, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "image-text matching has primarily focused on developing bespoke models (Wang et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Nguyen and Okatani, 2018; Nam et al., 2017) with various retrieval loss functions, such as triplet loss (Schroff et al., 2015) or proxy anchor loss (Kim et al., 2020). However, these models are often domain-specific and limited in the expressiveness of the text. In recent work, large vision-language models (Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022) have addressed these limitations by contrastive image-language pretraining on massive datasets (e.g., LAION-400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These large vision-language models have demonstrated exceptional performance in zero-shot image-text matching. Therefore, in our experiments, we employ the pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) to extract visual and text representations from articles, and compute the cosine similarity between these representations to obtain the retrieval predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 390, + 489, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Entity-aware mechanisms have been applied in closely related tasks, such as news image captioning, which aims to caption images based on articles and images. Ramisa et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end framework that takes the concatenation of article and image features as input and outputs captions by an LSTM decoder. However, this approach often fails to predict named entities that were not seen during training. Thus, more recent work boosts performance by extracting entity representations from user-provided articles and inserts them into generated templates (Biten et al., 2019;", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In this paper, we effectively reverse the inputs and outputs of these approaches, i.e., we generate an article based on images and captions rather than generating captions based on images and articles. As discussed in the Introduction, this shift breaks the assumptions used by entity-aware mechanisms in image captioning, causing them to not generalize well in our article generation and retrieval task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 884, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 ENGINE: Entity-aware article GenerationIoN and rEtrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 549, + 806, + 581 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given user-provided prompts and embedded article images, our task aims to more accurately represent articles by recognizing and predicting named entities. Thus, we incorporate candidate named entities as an additional control to our language model. We propose an entity-aware mechanism to jointly model entity names and their corresponding entity categories in Section 3.1. To enrich the entity information available to language models, we introduce our named-entity extraction approach in Section 3.2. Finally, we introduce the learning strategy of ENGINE in Section 3.3. Figure 2 provides an overview of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 593, + 884, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Entity-aware Mechanism", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 756, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed in the Introduction, accurately recognizing and predicting named entities can help avoid inconsistencies between the associated images and the textual content of an article. For example, in NBA news, an entity-aware model should be", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8686", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "able to predict \"Curry\" given the preceding word \"Stephen,\" whereas traditional language models might struggle in this regard. Existing methods typically model named entities uniformly with other text, making the leverage of named entities less effective. To help our language model be aware of named entities, we insert the entity category predicted by SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017) after each entity name. We use special tokens as the indicator of these entity types. Then the entity name and its corresponding category are modeled jointly by ENGINE. We visualize our entity-aware mechanism in Figure 2 (B).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 84, + 489, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Named-entity Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 316, + 357, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our entity-aware mechanism in Section 3.1 enhances a language model's ability to recognize and predict named entities. However, we find that the entity information extracted from the metadata may not be sufficient for article generation. Thus, as shown in Figure 2 (A), we explore named entity extraction methods from various sources within articles, such as embedded images. Below we discuss two ways to create the named entity list.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 344, + 487, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Oracle named-entities. This approach assumes that we are provided with all the named entities that would appear in articles, e.g., named entities provided by a user. To simulate user-provided named entities, we extract named entities from news articles using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). This list is then provided as input to our model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CLIP-based NER. Existing Named Entity Recognition (NER) methods (Yadav and Bethard, 2018; Li et al., 2020) primarily distinguish named entities within text documents and are not designed for NER involving images (referred to as Visual-NER in Figure 2(A)). However, we note that CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) was trained on 400 million image-text pairs collected from the internet, many of which likely contain named entities. Thus, we use CLIP to build an open-ended Visual-NER framework. First, we construct a candidate list of named entities for each image by extracting entities from the articles in the dataset using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). Subsequently, we use CLIP to predict the similarity between the article images and the candidate entities. The top $k^1$ entities are then provided as input to our model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 608, + 489, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Learning Strategy", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 699, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language Modeling. Given a set of documents $\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{n}\\}$ each with variable length sequences of symbols $\\{s_{1}, s_{2}, \\ldots, s_{m}\\}$ , the statistical language model of a text document $x$ can be represented by the probability of next symbol given all the previous ones (Bengio et al., 2003):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 884, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (x) = \\prod_ {i = 1} ^ {m} p \\left(s _ {i} \\mid s _ {1}, \\dots , s _ {i - 1}\\right), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 584, + 212, + 880, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where each symbol $s_i$ is processed uniformly and the document $x$ is viewed as an unstructured text field (also referred as body field later). Language models based only on Eq. 1 produce articles via unconditional samples. Thus, these models are not suitable for controllable generation (Hu et al., 2017). Instead, the language model can be formulated by the joint distribution of separate fields decomposed from the article $x$ (Zellers et al., 2020):", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 265, + 884, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (x) = p (\\text {m e t a}, \\text {b o d y}), \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 423, + 880, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where meta is a data-dependent term consisting of a set of subfields. For instance, meta includes date, title, summary in GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and domain, date, topic, title in VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). Thus, we model $x$ by:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 456, + 882, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (x) = p (\\text {b o d y} \\mid \\text {m e t a}) p (\\text {m e t a}). \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 549, + 880, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on Eq. 3, we further introduce special tokens $<\\text{start-}\\tau>$ and $<\\text{end-}\\tau>$ to indicate the boundaries of field $\\tau$ . The content of a target field $\\tau$ is sampled from the model starting with $<\\text{start-}\\tau>$ and ending with $<\\text{end-}\\tau>$ . Given the named entities extracted by our method (from Section 3.2), Eq. 3 is re-formulated as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 580, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np (x) = p (\\text {b o d y} \\mid \\text {m e t a}, \\text {e n t i t y}) p (\\text {m e t a}, \\text {e n t i t y}). \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 705, + 885, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sample from Eq. 4, we define a canonical order $^2$ among the fields (or subfields) of articles $\\mathcal{F}:(f_1 < f_2 < \\ldots < f_{|\\mathcal{F}|})$ and model the articles left-to-right in the order using Eq.1: $s_1^{f_1}, s_2^{f_2}, \\ldots, s_{|f_{|\\mathcal{F}|}|}^{f_{|\\mathcal{F}|}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 882, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Architecture. Following (Zellers et al., 2020), ENGINE uses the GPT2 architecture (Radford et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 828, + 882, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We define canonical order in Goodnews (Biten et al., 2019) as: domain, date, named-entity, title, caption, summary, body; and Visualnews (Liu et al., 2021) as: domain, date, topic, named-entity, title, caption, body.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1 We set $k$ to 10 in this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 312, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8687", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2019) for article generation. We experiment with three model sizes: (1) ENGINE-Base has 12 layers and 124 million parameters, on par with GPT2-124M and GROVER-Base; (2) ENGINE-Medium has 24 layers and 355 million parameters, on par with GPT2-355M and GROVER-Large; (3) ENGINE-XL has 48 layers and 1.5 billion parameters, on par with GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega. In addition, we also show ENGINE generalizes across architectures by evaluating on LLAMA (Touvron et al., 2023). For article retrieval, we implement our method on pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 305, + 260, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets and Experiment Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 426, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. We evaluate ENGINE on three public datasets: GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019), VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021), and WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). GoodNews provides the URLs from New York Times from 2010 to 2018. After filtering out broken links or non-English articles, we downloaded 307,286 news articles. Following the split ratios of Biten et al. (2019), we randomly split 15,365 articles for validation, 30,728 articles for testing, and used the rest for training. VisualNews contains news articles from four news sources: Guardian, BBC, USA Today, and Washington Post. We obtain 582,194 news articles in total after we removed broken links and articles without metadata. Similarly, we get a 491,796 training set, 28,932 validation set, and a 57,889 test set. WikiText contains 600/60/60 Wikipedia articles in train/test/validation sets, respectively. We performed zero-shot article generation on the test set of WikiText.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 489, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Metrics. Following Zellers et al. (2020), we adopt Perplexity (PPL) $^3$ to evaluate models on article generation. Perplexity is defined as the exponentiated average negative log-likelihood of a sequence. Given Eq. 1, the perplexity of $x$ is calculated by:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 658, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {P P L} (x) = \\exp \\left\\{- \\frac {1}{m} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\log p \\left(s _ {i} \\mid s _ {1}, \\dots , s _ {i - 1}\\right) \\right\\} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 749, + 487, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $s_1, \\ldots, s_i$ are ground truth tokens in $x$ and $p(\\cdot)$ is the probability predicted by the model. We evaluate models using Recall@K (R@1, R@5, R@10) for article retrieval.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 820, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Implementation Details We primarily implemented our models using Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and Transformer (Wolf et al., 2020) libraries. The maximum sequence length of language models is set to 1024. For ENGINE-Base and ENGINE-Medium, we used a batch size of 8 and a maximum learning rate of $1 \\times 10^{-4}$ . For ENGINE-XL, we used a batch size of 4 to fit into GPU memory. Correspondingly, the maximum learning rate is set to $2^{0.5} \\times 10^{-4}$ . We finetuned our models for around 3 epochs with 0.06 epoch for linear warm-up on both datasets. We parallelized ENGINE-XL on 4 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s and ENGINE-Medium on 2 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s. ENGINE-XL on VisualNews requires the longest training time- approximately two weeks on our system.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Article Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 360, + 702, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Perplexity. Table 1 presents sizes, architectures, and perplexity results of different models on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). We see that ENGINE variants of all model sizes significantly outperform the baselines. On the base size, ENGINE-Base(NE) improves PPL over the original GPT2-124M model by a factor of 2 $(23.6\\rightarrow 12.0$ $27.5\\rightarrow 13.1)$ . We draw three major conclusions from Table 1. First, the data distribution still plays an important role. Finetuned GPT2s improve PPL over the original GPT2s. The improvements become less obvious with a greater model size (VisualNews: $27.5\\rightarrow 18.3$ of base size; $15.7\\rightarrow 12.4$ of XL size). Second, ENGINE noticeably improves the performance over finetuned GPTs (4-5 perplexity points on both datasets), which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. Third, our contributions are architecture agnostic. E.g., ENGINE-LLAMA outperforms LLAMA-7B with an approximately 2-point perplexity improvement on both datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 385, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Parameter Efficiency. Table 1 shows that ENGINE can achieve a comparable performance with alternative models using much fewer parameters. For example, ENGINE-Base(NE), with only 124M parameters, outperforms the GPT-NEO-2.7B and achieves comparable performance with finetuned GPT2-1.5B (12.0 vs. 12.6 PPL on GoodNews, 13.1 vs. 12.4 PPL on VisualNews). ENGINE-Medium (NE) model, with 355M parameters, outperforms all the GPT-Series baselines including GPT-J-6B. Figure 3 plots the perplexity as a function of the number of parameters on news datasets, demon", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3During inference, we get rid of entity categories from our generated articles to make fair comparisons to other baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8688", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/194acf8387fe5d5f170a3cc92c9678af03256bf2e27b04dfd792244ff9fe423e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model NamenparamsnlayersdmodelnhedgesGoodNews PPL ↓VisualNews PPL ↓
GPT2-124M (Radford et al., 2019)124M127681223.627.5
GROVER-Base (Zellers et al., 2020)124M127681223.821.9
GPT-Neo-125M (Gao et al., 2020)125M127681227.129.3
GPT2-124M (Finetuned)124M127681217.318.3
ENGINE-Base (ClipNE)124M127681214.816.1
ENGINE-Base (NE)124M127681212.013.1
GPT2-355M (Radford et al., 2019)355M2410241617.820.1
GROVER-Large (Zellers et al., 2020)355M2410241618.516.4
GPT-Neo-1.3B (Gao et al., 2020)1.3B2420481615.315.9
GPT2-355M (Finetuned)355M2410241613.514.0
ENGINE-Medium(clipNE)355M2410241611.612.5
ENGINE-Medium(NE)355M241024169.510.2
GPT2-1.5B (Radford et al., 2019)1.5B4816002513.915.7
GROVER-Mega (Zellers et al., 2020)1.5B4816002514.512.6
GPT-Neo-2.7B (Gao et al., 2020)2.7B3225602013.514.0
GPT-J-6B (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021)6B2840961611.311.6
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)1.5B4816002512.612.4
ENGINE-XL(clipNE)1.5B4816002510.811.1
ENGINE-XL(NE)1.5B481600258.79.0
LLAMA-7B (Touvron et al., 2023)7B324096328.38.5
ENGINE+LLAMA (NE)7B324096326.56.4
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 80, + 870, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Perplexity (PPL) comparison on GoodNews and VisualNews. ClipNE denotes that we select CLIP-based named entities in named-entity field (described in Section 3.2), NE denotes that we apply oracle named entities in named-entity field. PPL is calculated only on the article body. We observe that our model consistently outperforms baselines of comparable model sizes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 480, + 882, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "strating that ENGINE gets as good or better results than prior work while also using fewer parameters. Additional Baselines adapted from close-related tasks4. In Table 2(A), we see that ENGINE-1.5B outperforms integrating BU (Anderson et al., 2018) and VisualGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022) features, demonstrating that our entity-aware mechanism is more effective than directly incorporating image features. As discussed in the Introduction, this is likely due to the loose correlation between images and their corresponding articles. Table 2(B) demonstrates that the entity-aware mechanisms proposed for other text generation tasks do not generalize well to article generation, where our approach obtains a 4-5 PPL improvement on both datasets. We also find that InfoSurgeon struggles to generate articles well, which we argue is due to its sequence-to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 563, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sequence translation framework finding it challenging to effectively leverage prior knowledge from pretrained language models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 884, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows ablations of ENGINE-Base. We observe that both the caption and named-entity fields boost performance, revealing that cues from embedded images help produce higher-quality articles. Comparing using only captions (Cap) vs. combining them with our Entity-aware mechanism, we get a minimum gain of 0.6 PPL, demonstrating its effectiveness. In addition, we observe that ClipNE outperforms CapNE, validating that CLIP-detected named entities are more effective than those extracted from captions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 612, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Article Quality User Study. Following (Zellers et al., 2020; Kreps et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020), we ask annotators to distinguish machine-generated articles from human-written articles. We randomly selected 50 news stories from GoodNews and VisualNews test sets (100 total). Given the metadata and news images, we generated news articles using three different language models: GROVER-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4InfoSurgeon (Fung et al., 2021), InjType (Dong et al., 2021), VNC (Liu et al., 2021) are adapted from sequence-to-sequence translation, close-ended paragraph generation, and news image captioning, respectively. For a fair comparison, GPT2-Base is applied as the backbone of InjType, VNC, and BU for article generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 845, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8689", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6ef9faab3a4e3231908a33ed82900c43dd9c0fb77297b0bb4279aa03ad807e37.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Comparison of the perplexity of different language models on GoodNews (top) and VisualNews (bottom) as a function of learned parameters." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 149, + 84, + 450, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mega, GPT2-1.5B (finetuned), and ENGINE-XL. This results in a total of 200 articles per dataset. We recruited 200 Qualified Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) workers per dataset. Each article was annotated 5 times by AMT workers, where each worker was presented with the article titles, images and captions, and was asked to indicate if the article was human or machine generated. If they thought the article was machine-generated, they were asked to indicate a reason for it following the same option format as Tan et al. (2020). Table 3 reports annotation accuracy in identifying articles from VisualNews as machine or human-generated. We see ENGINE-XL is able to generate hard-to-detect news articles (a $2\\%$ boost over GPT2-1.5B, and a $5\\%$ gain over GROVER-Mega), validating the effectiveness of our approach.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 436, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine Discriminator. We apply OpenAI's RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) detector to detect generated articles. The maximum article length is cut to 512 to fit the model input size. For comparison, we use the same article set from our user study. In Table 3, we observe that the machine discriminator is much better at identifying the machine-generated news. We see that articles produced by ENGINE-XL can be reliably detected by RoBERTa though it gets the lowest accuracy on human evaluation. This can be due to the fact that GROVER-Mega, GPT2-1.5B, and ENGINE-XL all share a similar underlying model architecture. Thus, they may contain", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/998e86474fdb389a0e274422ecf48ce9846937a49951eb2563ccfb59964a4f43.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model NameGood-NewsVisual-News
(A) BU (Anderson et al., 2018)26.624.3
VisualGLM(Du et al., 2022)11.812.2
ENGINE-1.5B (ours)8.79.0
(B) InfoSurg (Fung et al., 2021)41.842.1
InjType (Dong et al., 2021)18.219.0
VNC (Liu et al., 2021)16.717.8
ENGINE-Base (ours)12.013.1
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 80, + 877, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: PPL of baselines adapted from close-related tasks. (A) leverages visual features directly extracted from images, (B) contrasts entity-aware mechanisms. Adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related tasks may result in poor performance in our task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 884, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/44aa366011f6f9853f8da66eb7ea9992fe04980784bf9f81b620c870c173098c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Ablation results of ENGINE-Base. Text-only denotes the model focuses only on text information, which is same to finetuned GPT2 model. Cap denotes caption field, EA denotes the Entity-aware mechanism. CapNE denotes named entities extracted from captions. Both the named-entity extraction module and our entity-aware mechanism can improve the performance." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 349, + 863, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "enough similarities in the distributional features that are recognized by the machine discriminator.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 882, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zero-shot Article Generation We perform zero-shot experiments on Wikipedia articles to demonstrate ENGINE's ability to generalize. Table 4 reports performance on WikiText. We find that our oracle named entities and entity-aware mechanism still can improve the performance over several baselines, even though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is significantly different. For example, the GPT2 models finetuned on Visualnews get worse performance than the original GPT2 models on WikiText. However, our ENGINE models get comparable or better results than the original GPT2 across different model sizes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualitative Results. We provide a qualitative comparison of GoodNews articles in Figure 5. Con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8690", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: A Designer Unites the Basque Country", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 91, + 423, + 102 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.nytimes.com", + "bbox": [ + 205, + 102, + 327, + 110 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Date: 06-10-2016", + "bbox": [ + 205, + 110, + 282, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f532b261a76e3466e3cc65cd0c7a56f7fdedb22722b4d9ef5d08261f0ed05c92.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on GoodNews. We cut the articles to fit the figure size. The entity names from image information are highlighted in light purple (PERSON tag) and light blue (ORG tag) colors. We can see that the named entities in captions also appear in the human-written and ENGINE-generated articles. In contrast, the GPT2-generated and GROVER-generated articles do not contain correct entity names corresponding to the image." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 505, + 87, + 557, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jean Louis Iratzoki checking the 3D", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 105, + 702, + 114 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "scale model of a chair for Alki.", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 114, + 680, + 123 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 168, + 137, + 287, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In 2007, the French industrial designer Jean Louis Iratzoki opened a remote studio in a wood cabin in the foothills of the Pyrenees. His minimalist \"refuge\" has recently become an unlikely creative epicenter for industrial production on both the French and Spanish sides of the Pays Basque.", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 155, + 492, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "At last year's Maison & Obj design fair, Mr. Iratzoki won plaudits for designing one of the world's first bioplastic chairs made of a biodegradable plant-based polymer. That shell chair, part of a long collaboration with the Basque furniture brand Alki, is only one example of Mr. Iratzoki's determination to promote his native region. (Mr. Iratzoki was born in France in St. Jean-de-Luz.) He has also recently revamped the brand identity of Cazenave (a Basque chocolate company) and helped design the interiors of a luxurious eco lodge in Saubion, north of Biarritz.", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 197, + 492, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This year, he founded a new practice with a Basque designer of Spanish extraction, Ander Lizaso, with the aim of creating a multipurpose design studio inspired by", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 272, + 492, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 504, + 137, + 633, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following in the footsteps of his male counterpart, the 2007 French - Spanish architect Jean Louis Iratzoki, whose archives became the subject of last year's Basque / Francophile Rodeo Drive exhibition, Ander Lizaso, the designer of the Pays Basque label Maison & Objet, has taken on the relatively new mantle of directorie in his own right. This year, he announced the inaugural of his own Design Angeles - in - Motion, the largest design fair for brands of the Basque / Francophone world.", + "bbox": [ + 502, + 155, + 828, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"He's the one name you know everywhere,\" said Lizaso, who came of age as a designer in the city of Alki during the first boom in construction trade there, selling commissioners as part of the community's growing business. \"And it was the same in France.\"", + "bbox": [ + 502, + 222, + 828, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Going back to Belgium, where the heritage of the Maison & Obj founders still lies, imbuing his name with its celebrated high- culture associations, he explained, the house was fully aware of its Basque roots.\"", + "bbox": [ + 502, + 263, + 828, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT2-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 168, + 307, + 290, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tears eluded Chris Burch and his wife, Susana, when they first set eyes on each other as headwaiter in 1991. They had no idea how they would end up there. But neither did he, not at the time, not even 10 years later. Their friendship would grow into a tentative romance; twice, both of them, over the next 13 years, would fly away from their native Basque region to live and work and play together in New York. Until suddenly they were happily on their own, taking care of themselves. In 2012, with both 40, Burch decided to marry them. Thirty years later, the brothers will go their separate ways: Chris, the artistic director of the Gypsy Rose Lee boutique in the West Village, and Susana, founder and creative director of her own company, Flora Flora, which specializes in floral textiles and ties. \"A wedding is an intimate, temporary thing, where people are sending you on your merry way,\" Chris explains. \"You leave with a future and a few words of what you can say. With something you want to do full-fledged -- 'We're engaged' or 'I have a proposal' -- you can't even focus.\" The couple recently moved to Miami, where Chris wants to take a nautical theme to Hawaii, where Susana is from. Below, they discuss the undercurrents of their romance as lifelong friends.", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 323, + 492, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GROVER-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 504, + 307, + 638, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In both making clothing and politics, Ms. Madrid strives to combine the traditions of dress and activism with the street's distinct urbanity. She designs a range of products, from T-shirts and tees for millennials, to men's shirts for families. Everything in both stands as her identity as a designer. \"I'm the most passionate person in designing my own clothes because I'm a feminist,\" Ms. Madrid said in an interview at a café in town. \"I'm very anti-strong men and fat women.\"", + "bbox": [ + 502, + 323, + 828, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The 40-year-old mother of two is creating a new business. It's aiming to combine traditional fashion and activism. She's hoping to raise money and offer services for political activism in the Basque country - and beyond.", + "bbox": [ + 502, + 382, + 825, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the past four decades, Ms. Madrid has been involved in social and political activism. She went on hunger strike after she was attacked while in jail. Her goal is to become a national emblem for the Basque country, she said, but she's not convinced this is a responsibility of the Basque government.", + "bbox": [ + 502, + 416, + 825, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d7daf9ea8fccb2ba102302457d054a411ebeb02373f9332b890665be4516537f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodHumanRoBERTa
GROVER-Mega72.8%90%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)69.6%84%
ENGINE-XL67.6%84%
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 546, + 485, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sistent with our annotation experiment, we compare the human-written article with three machine-generated articles. From the results, we can see that ENGINE-XL can effectively produce articles with the named entities learned from image information. In contrast, finetuned GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega failed to generate correct named entities in articles. For example, both ENGINE-generated article and the human-written article mentioned \"Hean Louis Iratzoki\" and \"Alki\", which are appeared in the caption. In contrast, articles generated by GPT2", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a66cb138d1a6018acbe5f0655ef4ea92bdf91cd30382757b2747652464c8c2ac.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Detection of generated articles. Left column reports the performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated. Right column uses OpenAI's text detector based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to perform the same task." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Method124M355M≥ 1.5B
GPT226.119.114.8
GPT-Neo24.913.111.5
GPT-J-6B--9.0
GPT2 (Finetuned)33.825.225.9
ENGINE (NE)20.715.416.3
", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 546, + 877, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Zero-shot article generation. We compare the perplexity of ENGINE to GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), GPT-Neo (Gao et al., 2020), and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) on WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). Both GPT2 and ENGINE are finetuned on VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) with a maximum article length of 1024. Though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is different, our proposed entity-aware method still improves the performance over several baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 882, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "or GROVER are discussing some other entities such as \"Chris Burch\" and \"Ms. Madrid.\"", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 880, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Article Retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 863, + 687, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5 compares the Recall@K retrieval scores of ENGINE with the state-of-the-art baselines on the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8691", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/768bdc8dea85429e153d191338e95bb963debb75a882755ae517cc578b336695.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 5: Retrieval results. We compare the Recall@K of ENGINE to CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), BLIP (Li et al., 2022), and EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) on the article-to-image and image-to-article retrieval tasks on GoodNews and VisualNews. For articles with multiple embedded images, we only use the first embedded image. See Section 4.3 for discussion." + ], + "table_body": "
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
GoodNewsVisualNewsGoodNewsVisualNews
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
CLIP-B/1619.442.752.930.653.564.632.556.864.443.169.576.5
CLIP-L/1432.556.065.347.372.178.946.668.375.055.077.384.3
BLIP19.838.048.822.043.652.515.930.837.915.133.342.7
EVA01-CLIP-G/1449.670.377.156.978.984.747.668.375.254.976.582.5
EVA02-CLIP-L/1450.773.179.457.978.685.249.369.676.854.877.382.7
ENGINE (ours)53.873.579.661.982.086.751.572.077.856.378.383.9
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 82, + 890, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "test splits of GoodNews and VisualNews. Following Tan et al. (2022), we randomly select 1500 article-image pairs from each dataset for evaluation. In the image-to-article retrieval task, we observe that compare to EVA02-CLIP-L/14 (Sun et al., 2023), ENGINE boost the Recall@1 scores from 50.7 to 53.8 on GoodNews and from 57.9 to 61.9 to VisualNews. For article-to-image retrieval, ENGINE achieves the highest performance with Recall@1 scores of 51.5 and 56.3 on GoodNews and VisualNews, respectively. The retrieval results validate the importance of named entities within articles and the effectiveness of our proposed method.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 317, + 489, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 539, + 240, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our paper, we mainly investigate modeling machine-generated articles, which can be used directly for generation while also can providing strong language features to support applications like article retrieval. However, actors can also use the same technology to generate articles for misinformation by modifying information of specific fields to realize two potential purposes: monetization (ad revenue through clicks) or propaganda (communicating targeted information) (Zellers et al., 2020). Thus, the development of a better article generator can not only help humans write high-quality articles but also potentially help train a more powerful discriminator. Table 3 reports the performance of using human judgements or OpenAI's RoBERTa-based machine generated text detector (Liu et al., 2019). When comparing the results of the RoBERTa detector for GPT2-1.5B and ENGINE-XL, we find that only $25\\%$ of the articles that were predicted as human written came from the same generation prompts. Thus, the two methods can provide differ", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 565, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ent views of the same prompt, which can provide additional information for training an even more powerful machine generated text detector. We note that our contributions are largely architecture ag- nostic, so they could also be used in RNN-based generators, which may provide a larger distribution shift in the generated articles that may fool a discriminator trained only on Transformer outputs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 317, + 885, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 458, + 640, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we proposed ENGINE, an entity-aware article generation and retrieval method that explicitly incorporates and models named entities in language models. Concretely, ENGINE extracts named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles, providing a more comprehensive source of entity information. In addition, we introduce an entity-aware mechanism to help ENGINE recognize and predict named entities more effectively and accurately. ENGINE outperforms current popular language models in quantitative and qualitative experiments on GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText. For example, ENGINE outperforms GPT-J by roughly 2.5 perplexity points using only a quarter parameters of GPT-J and boost the performance of EVA02-CLIP by 3-4 Recall@1 accuracy in article retrieval experiments. The noticeable improvements demonstrate that ENGINE can generate and retrieve articles more accurately and efficiently by effectively leveraging named entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 884, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported, in part, by DARPA under agreement number HR00112020054. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting agencies.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8692", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 941 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We discuss limitations and potential improvements of our work in this section. First, though our method can effectively predict the correct entity names in articles, their corresponding entity categories might be mistakenly predicted. For example, in Figure 5, the brand name \"Alki\" is recognized as a city name by ENGINE. Therefore, a more accurate entity-aware mechanism could be developed in future work. Second, the image information can be further explored. In this paper, we mainly investigate the captions and named entities of news images. However, other information such as the locations of images within articles may also prove useful for article generation. In addition, our current methods detect named entities from images considering each entity independently using a text-image matching framework. However, since the relationships between entities also affect the probability that entities appear in images, the incorporation of entity relationships can also be considered to further improve the entity detection module.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 109, + 490, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 458, + 265, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE is a model for article generation and retrieval. It can either help automated journalism or defending against machine-generation articles. However, there is no perfect system which can generate $100\\%$ accurate articles. Therefore, it is critical for practitioners to check the fact mentioned in articles and avoid the misinformation brought by failure generation cases. Additionally, someone could use our approach to generate misinformation. However, ENGINE applies the network structure that is same to GPT2, which means the discriminators trained for GPT2 articles (e.g., RoBERTa detector (Liu et al., 2019)) are also effective to discriminate ENGINE-generated articles. Our paper helps to highlight the need for building tools like the RoBERTa detector.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 483, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 766, + 213, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).", + "Siddhartha Banerjee and Prasenjit Mitra. 2016. Wiki-write: Generating wikipedia articles automatically. In *IJCAI*, pages 2740-2746." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 789, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. The journal of machine learning research, 3:1137-1155.", + "Ali Furkan Biten, Lluis Gomez, Marçal Rusinol, and Dimosthenis Karatzas. 2019. Good news, everyone! context driven entity-aware captioning for news images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12466-12475.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.", + "Xiangyu Dong, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2021. Injecting entity types into entity-guided text generation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).", + "Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 320-335.", + "Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 889-898.", + "Yi Fung, Christopher Thomas, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Sandeep Polisetty, Heng Ji, Shih-Fu Chang, Kathleen McKeown, Mohit Bansal, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Infosurgeon: Cross-media fine-grained information consistency checking for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1683-1698.", + "Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027.", + "Jiuxiang Gu, Jianfei Cai, Shafiq R Joty, Li Niu, and Gang Wang. 2018. Look, imagine and match: Improving textual-visual cross-modal retrieval with generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7181-7189.", + "Tatsunori B Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2019. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1689-1701." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8693", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751.", + "Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spacy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear, 7(1):411-420.", + "Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1587-1596. PMLR.", + "Sungyeon Kim, Dongwon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Suha Kwak. 2020. Proxy anchor loss for deep metric learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3238-3247.", + "Sarah Kreps, R Miles McCain, and Miles Brundage. 2020. All the news that's fit to fabricate: A-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of Experimental Political Science, pages 1-14.", + "Leo Leppänen, Myriam Munezero, Mark Granroth-Wilding, and Hannu Toivonen. 2017. Data-driven news generation for automated journalism. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on natural language generation, pages 188-197.", + "Jing Li, Aixin Sun, Jianglei Han, and Chenliang Li. 2020. A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.", + "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12888-12900. PMLR.", + "Fuxiao Liu, Yinghan Wang, Tianlu Wang, and Vicente Ordonez. 2021. Visualnews: Benchmark and challenges in entity-aware image captioning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6761-6771.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Hyeonseob Nam, Jung-Woo Ha, and Jeonghee Kim. 2017. Dual attention networks for multimodal reasoning and matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 299-307.", + "Duy-Kien Nguyen and Takayuki Okatani. 2018. Improved fusion of visual and language representations by dense symmetric co-attention for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6087-6096.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744.", + "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32:8026-8037.", + "Nanyun Peng, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Towards controllable story generation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Storytelling, pages 43-49.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR.", + "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.", + "Arnau Ramisa, Fei Yan, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Krystian Mokolajczyk. 2017. Breakingnews: Article annotation by image and text processing. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(5):1072-1085.", + "Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 815-823.", + "Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114.", + "Merit Stephen, Xiong Caiming, Bradbury James, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. Proceedings of ICLR.", + "Quan Sun, Yuxin Fang, Ledell Wu, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. 2023. Eva-clip: Improved training techniques for clip at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15389." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8694", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reuben Tan, Bryan A. Plummer, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Detecting cross-modal inconsistency to defend against neural fake news. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 487, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reuben Tan, Bryan A Plummer, Kate Saenko, JP Lewis, Avneesh Sud, and Thomas Leung. 2022. Newsstories: Illustrating articles with visual summaries. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 644-661. Springer.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 148, + 487, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 225, + 487, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alasdair Tran, Alexander Mathews, and Lexing Xie. 2020. Transform and tell: Entity-aware news image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13035-13045.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 328, + 487, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 404, + 487, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bokun Wang, Yang Yang, Xing Xu, Alan Hanjalic, and Heng Tao Shen. 2017. Adversarial cross-modal retrieval. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 154-162.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 468, + 487, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thomas Wolf, Julien Chaumont, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 531, + 487, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vikas Yadav and Steven Bethard. 2018. A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2145-2158.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 646, + 487, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Defending against neural fake news. Neurips.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 724, + 487, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Additional Experiment Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 791, + 418, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Article Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 816, + 310, + 831 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additional qualitative results on article generation are provided in Figure 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 as the supplement of our main paper, demonstrating that ENGINE is able to generate articles given different news sources.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Article Quality Annotation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 769, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6 reports human accuracy in identifying articles as machine or human-generated to supplement the main paper. We see that ENGINE-XL is able to generate more realistic-looking news articles on Goodnews, consistent with the conclusion in our main paper.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 882, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/24d07ae079abfa1780fea2103604427d857b9bd317de87c6245a70871c3dcba5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 6: The performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated on GoodNews." + ], + "table_body": "
Human-based detector
GROVER-Mega76.4%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)73.6%
ENGINE-XL70.4%
", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 212, + 838, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Ablation Study on Top-k Named Entities", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 355, + 878, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide the ablation study on top-k named entities in Table 7. We see that the model achieves the best performance when $k$ is set to 15. When $k$ is greater than 10, the improvement is limited.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 376, + 880, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/be789295d087f7bdf14f369d8e123ba0ceba9c3015a206b1e372e747b05ec26c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 7: Ablation study on the number of named entities detected by CLIP (GoodNews)." + ], + "table_body": "
top-k named entities5101520
PPL ↓15.514.814.514.6
", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 451, + 862, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Recall of CLIP-detected Named Entities", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 568, + 873, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use Oracle NE as ground truth labels to evaluate the retrieval results by CLIP model. In Table 8, we observe that approximately $30\\%$ named entities from Oracle NE have been retrieved by CLIP. In contrast, recall of Cap on GoodNews and VisualNews are $22.57\\%$ and $7.41\\%$ respectively. The gap between GoodNews and VisualNews is likely because captions in GoodNews are often much longer than captions in VisualNews. The retrieval results validate that ClipNE contains more relevant named entities compared to named entities extracted solely based on captions.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 589, + 882, + 782 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/eb077ef09f64e9fa18a489cba7e7bd68933471bd476d4f98d481e2ea0d807a92.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 8: Recall of Cap, ClipNE on GoodNews and VisualNews. Cap represents named entities that appear in captions, ClipNE represent named entities detected by CLIP model." + ], + "table_body": "
Named EntitiesGoodNewsVisualNews
Cap22.577.41
ClipNE29.8431.19
", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 791, + 868, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8695", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Ablation Study on the Canonical Order", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 475, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ablation study of varying inference order is shown in Table 9. From the Table, we see that canonical orders which are not consistent with the training order result in greater PPL of the language model. The model achieves the best performance when the inference order is aligned with the training order.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 489, + 217 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5fd52dad9af70f8566becd42a4d536fbc2ee5ce978effb6194e1d8afc2dca720.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
canonical orderGoodNews PPL↓
date-domain-title-summary18.2
title-date-domain-summary19.2
summary-date-domain-title20.5
domain-date-title-summary17.3
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 228, + 487, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 Ablation Study on Article Retrieval", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 384, + 442, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We ablate the two modules of our method on article retrieval in Table 10. Text-only denotes that we directly use the original articles as the input. NE denotes named entity extraction, and EA denotes the entity-aware mechanism. From the table, we observe that both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can boost the article retrieval performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 405, + 489, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b0958bd10212dab37e65976f219e8865fe683bf697c442cc2b2e68c79e49dc3e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Ablation study on the canonical order during inference (GoodNews)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
Text-only57.978.685.254.877.382.7
NE60.080.385.956.178.283.7
NE-EA61.982.086.756.378.383.9
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 544, + 507, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Ablation study on article retrieval (VisualNews). Both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can improve the article retrieval performance on VisualNews.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 651, + 489, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.7 Decoding Strategy for Article Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 721, + 487, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Likelihood-maximization decoding strategies like greedy search or beam search work well in close-ended generation such as image captions, machine translation, or summarization. However, these methods suffer from the repetitive text problem in open-ended generations like dialog or story generation (Hashimoto et al., 2019; Holtzman et al., 2019). Sampling methods (Fan et al., 2018; Holtzman et al., 2019) are therefore proposed to introduce more randomness and surprise to text generation. In our work, we adopt the top-p sampling", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(nucleus sampling) method (Holtzman et al., 2019) as our decoding strategy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.8 Article Quality Annotation Templates", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 127, + 855, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following (Tan et al., 2020), annotators are asked to indicate a reason for whether the articles are human-written or machine-manipulated. We provide a view of the AMT worker interface in Figure 13.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 148, + 882, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8696", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: Daniel Agger leaves Liverpool to return to former club Brondby", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 248, + 610, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.theguardian.com", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 263, + 336, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Date: 08-30-2014", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 274, + 258, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/80bbb81bbddabf324f1c6fd3bae1ad555e145489fcfa55b0333d9c0783753806.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Guardian." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 292, + 255, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Daniel Agger has rejoined Brondby for an undisclosed fee.", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 298, + 470, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 363, + 295, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Liverpool have announced the sale of the defender Daniel Agger to the Danish club Brondby for an undisclosed fee. The 29-year-old Denmark international joined the Anfield club from Brondby in 2006 and went on to make more than 200 appearances for the club but had fallen down the pecking order under Brendan Rodgers.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 386, + 475, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"Liverpool have been such a big part of my life and my family's lives for so long, that leaving is extremely difficult,\" Agger said. \"The opportunity arose for me to return home to Brondby and at this stage of my career it felt like the right decision for me.\" I wouldn't leave here to go anywhere else and that has been proven by my actions in recent seasons - I have turned down many offers to move to other Premier League and European clubs. \"I would like to thank the Liverpool supporters for the incredible backing they have given me in my time here and the warmth and generosity of spirit displayed to my family. \"This has been our home and somewhere we have been very happy and settled. However, more recently I have started to feel the effects of playing regularly in a league that is as physically demanding as the Premier League is, and I would not want to stay if I did not think that I was able to meet that challenge week in, week out.\"", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 466, + 478, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 499, + 363, + 677, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Liverpool defender Daniel Agger has left Anfield to return to his previous club Brondby. The Danish international midfielder was reported to have agreed personal terms with the club. The 29-year-old left Liverpool in 2006 following their relegation from the Premier League and has featured for the national team in Denmark's recent seasons.", + "bbox": [ + 497, + 386, + 860, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The move to Brondby was said to be a \"cash - plus \" deal. \" We're very pleased Daniel Agger has chosen to continue his development at Brondby,\" read a statement on the club website. \" He's a young man who has shown great potential in the Premier League, and we look forward to working with him again.\" Brondby, who are in the Danish Superliga, have a squad of more than 200 players. The Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers said : \" As a footballer you dream of playing in the Premier League and I'm very pleased that Daniel Agger has chosen to come back to Brondby.\" He's a good defender and I'm sure he will work very hard to prove to the club that he is a good player. \" We like to think of him as a very important player for his nationality. But he has a great character. You might think he's a bit of a character but you 'll see he's as strong a character as any of the other players here.\" Agger said : \" I am extremely proud to play for Brondby.\" I will always consider it as one of the happiest days of my career so far. It has been a great and very memorable time, and the supporters have been fantastic. My future lies with the club, and hopefully, it will be here for a long time. \" I also want to thank the Liverpool fans for their support. Without them I wouldn't have been able to carry on fighting for this shirt, so thank you!\"", + "bbox": [ + 495, + 466, + 860, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8697", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: State of Britain's wildlife 'increasingly fragile'", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 205, + 489, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.bbc.com", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 219, + 290, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Date: 12-08-2015", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 230, + 257, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4bf97210c23c56eceb92154db7f5405b110497eb9f266a96e5922fbf8daa58a1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 249, + 255, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dark green fritillary butterfly", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 255, + 423, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 318, + 285, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Britain's wildlife is in an increasingly fragile state, with animals carrying out vital jobs for farmers being lost more rapidly than others, say scientists. Insects that pollinate crops or fight pests are at risk of disappearing, putting food production in jeopardy, according to the team. The research brings together millions of wildlife records spanning 40 years. It suggests conservation efforts should focus on certain areas, they add. Dr Tom Oliver of the University of Reading, who led the research, said it was the biggest and most comprehensive report ever assembled for any country in the world. \"By standardising records from an army of amateur biologists across the country, we have amassed an impressive array of data, giving us our most complete picture yet of the state of Britain's wildlife,\" he told BBC News. \"The picture that emerges is of an increasingly fragile system, particularly in species that do vital jobs for humans. \"Unless efforts are made to reverse some of these declines, we face a future where we will be less confident that we can effectively grow our food.\" Benefits from nature.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 340, + 475, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The researchers looked at records of the changing fortunes of more than 4,000 types of plant and animal living in England, Wales and Scotland between 1970 and 2009. Species such as bees, dragonflies, grasshoppers, ladybirds, plants and mosses were put into groups based on the role they play in nature. Groups providing pollination and pest control benefits had undergone declines while those involved in functions such as decay or mopping up carbon emissions were more stable. Plants and animals regarded as of cultural importance to humans, such as birds, butterflies and hedgehogs, also fared badly. Prof James Bullock, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxfordshire, a co-researcher on the study, said conservation efforts should focus on the areas where there was strong evidence of declining fortunes.\"Conservation actions, such as wildlife friendly farming, can avoid the loss of biodiversity and the resulting erosion of the pollination, pest control and other benefits we derive from nature,\" he said. And Dr Oliver said there were a number of measures that individuals could take to help to improve the future for wildlife in the British Isles. They include: Making gardens wildlife friendly Purchasing food grown in a sustainable way to wildlife Helping to collect data on wildlife. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 532, + 475, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 497, + 318, + 662, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The state of Britain's wildlife has become increasingly fragile due to loss of habitat and changes in the climate, a study has suggested. Mass bird and butterfly losses have increased along with climate change, scientists found, which means many species are not as well equipped to cope. And while changes in food distribution, such as floods, may cause short - term problems, they can make long - term problems worse. Drought and flood events could put millions of birds and insects at risk, the scientists concluded. Monitoring of more than 4,000 species of birds, butterflies and moths across England, Wales and Scotland for 40 years concluded that the UK's biodiversity was still very good - only smaller than it was in 1975. But the biological communities in which they live were now less diverse than when these earlier surveys took place, which meant their ability to recover was less certain, they added. \"We have lost several species of already endangered species,\" explained lead researcher Dr Tom Oliver, a naturalist at the University of Reading. \"And we are moving into many of these habitats that are becoming drier and thus less suitable for them. \"The results of the study were \" far more alarming \" than expected.\" The situation looks pretty dire,\" said Dr James Bullock from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Oxfordshire, who was not involved with the research. He told BBC News that Britain's wildlife was already extremely stressed. \" Our natural environment is suffering from climate change, which is melting the ice sheets and expanding the oceans, and from human - generated pollution, so we are going to have a much more polluted environment in the future.\" And the species we are losing are particularly important because when you lose species, you do so in numbers, they cease to exist in numbers. \" The loss of a single species in Britain alone has the potential to affect millions of other organisms. \"The impact of the findings is likely to be felt most in many communities across the British Isles. \"We have lost a large number of species,\" Dr Oliver added. \" It's going to have a big impact on the ecology of Britain.\" He explained that the risk of long - term damage was unlikely to be taken lightly : \" We are more concerned about short - term impacts. \"The researchers believe that much work needs to be done to understand how, in time, this situation might change. Research in Nature Communications suggests that climate change means there has been a sharp decline in the number of butterfly species spotted in northern England - down by a third between 1970 and 2009 Species such as the large blue have struggled for many generations as the cold weather has made it too cold to overwinter in the UK.Follow Helen on Twitter.", + "bbox": [ + 492, + 338, + 863, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from BBC.", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 796, + 786, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8698", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: Robberies plague Tenleytown area over the past few weeks", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 231, + 571, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.washingtonpost.com", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 247, + 354, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Date: 05-23-2016", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 258, + 257, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0565b9b1f2c0df3899a4f5150f609d96aa83bb62b2cb9aa24c813ae65d323307.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 275, + 255, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Video shows suspects robbing attacking", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 282, + 480, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Georgetown Day student", + "bbox": [ + 265, + 294, + 401, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 346, + 295, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A student at Georgetown Day School was robbed last month in the same area of the District where a student at another school was stabbed during a robbery attempt, and near where two other robberies also occurred last month. The student at Georgetown Day was robbed about 1:30 p.m. April 27 in the 4200 block of Davenport Street, near the private school. Three robbers approached, and began beating the victim, police said, although they did not identify him as a student. They went through his pants pocket and took his glasses, wallet and phone before fleeing on foot, police said. A spokeswoman for Georgetown Day issued a statement saying that a student there was robbed along 42nd Street in Tenleytown on April 27, and the school provided immediate medical and security support. The statement said the school has held an assembly devoted to neighborhood safety training and it has adjusted the patrols of school security officers. That robbery occurred two days after an April 25 incident in which authorities said a student at Woodrow Wilson High School was stabbed in the leg during an attempted robbery near the school. In the Wilson incident, the robber was described as a man in his 30s. No description was provided of the robbers on Davenport Street NW. Police released video Monday of three people described as \"persons of interest.\" The video showed the victim and the robbers approaching each other on a sidewalk, with school buses lined up at a curb. Suddenly the student is knocked down and one or two of the robbers appear to go through his pockets. But the video does not appear to make possible a detailed description of the robbers. The stabbing comes nearly a week after two robberies, one of them involving a student victim, were reported on streets near Wilson and near Georgetown Day. Both occurred within about 15 minutes of each other April 19. In each instance, three people, one of whom who was armed with a knife, approached female victims and demanded their cellphones and debit cards. A juvenile male has been arrested in those cases, police said.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 369, + 500, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 522, + 346, + 699, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A group that robbed Georgetown Day School of valuables including cash last month and a purse while it was locked up in a dormitory has also robbed a spate of Georgetown Day students, police said. The initial thefts occurred April 27 and April 27. Two men entered the school, stealing the wallets and purses of two female students, police said. A total of four men were released from custody. The school said the total was $ 170. The last robbery occurred about 1:30 p.m. April 27 near the store at 4200 Davenport Street. Three male suspects fled the school on foot, and a local resident engaged in an effort to help the robbers, police said. It took about 15 minutes before the local man was able to locate them. The three defendants - one in his 20s, one in his late 20s and one in his late teens - fled along Davenport Street NW and into a residential neighborhood, police said. That resident was identified as a friend of the robbers and assisted in helping apprehend them. The robbery at Georgetown Day came two days after a robbery at Woodrow Wilson High School in Tenleytown. That April 25 robbery took place near 42nd Street and Davenport Street NW, a major thoroughfare in Tenleytown. According to police, two men in their 20s robbed a woman in her 30s. The robbers fled with a purse containing cash that was in a pink leather wallet. On Monday, the Wilson robbery went unsolved for nearly a week. Staff at the school said no incidents had been reported. \"We do have a staff member watching the campus. You go through the normal procedures of setting up alarms,\" said a Tenleytown police spokeswoman.\" We were n't able to get that information from the yet. The person you are talking to is someone within security. You have to keep an eye on him.\" Correction : This story has been updated to reflect that the Davenport Street robbery occurred April 19, not April 27.", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 369, + 863, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Washington Post.", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 769, + 826, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8699", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: Courts again rule against streaming upstart Aero", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 233, + 515, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.usatoday.com", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 247, + 315, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Date: 08-21-2014", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 259, + 255, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cdd5264f70555f4362aa6e8b406fa333c172dd0afabfdd863b761444c296ddc2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 277, + 253, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this photo illustration Aereocom a Web service that provides television shows online is shown on an iPhone 4S on April 22 2014 in New York City", + "bbox": [ + 262, + 282, + 542, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 346, + 294, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A federal court will not hear Aeroo's argument that the streaming media company should be allowed to operate similarly to a cable company. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Aeroo will have to take its argument to the district court, according to court documents first reported by The Washington Post. This decision continues broadcasters' winning streak against the upstart service. Launched two years ago, Aeroo delivered over-the-air channels via online streaming to computers and tablets for about $8 a month and had brought the service to 11 cities. The Supreme Court ruled two months ago that Aeroo was violating copyright law by not paying the networks for transmitting their signals. After that, the streaming media company voluntarily shut down and told the U.S. District Court that it wanted to be treated as the equivalent to a cable TV system and apply for a compulsory license to stream live TV broadcasts. Subsequently, the Copyright Office's general counsel said that the office did not think that Aeroo would qualify, but fell short of denying Aeroo's filing because the issue remained alive in the courts. Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 368, + 473, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 492, + 346, + 670, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The high court delivered yet another blow to Aeroo in a pair of unanimous court opinions Thursday declaring the popular streaming service illegally alters the contents of customers' cable subscriptions and is guilty of violating copyright law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which first ruled against Aeroo two years ago, urged the justices to reject its claim that it is simply a device for consumers to access live TV without paying for it. Aeroo lets consumers use a digital antenna to receive live broadcasts online and streams those broadcasts as they are being transmitted over the Internet, just like cable TV. Through those transmissions the consumer also becomes a subscriber to the over - the - air service. But even if they keep Aeroo's service on, only a portion of the amount paid for cable service remains. For example, for $ 16.95 per month Aeroo customers receive nearly all the TV shows they request, regardless of what shows they watch. For about $8 each the consumer loses the signals they might already have over the Internet. Thus the company is violating copyright law by redistributing the service users already pay for without paying for the service they are receiving from cable operators. \"The Court finds that Aeroo's business model violates this section of the Copyright Act,\" 11 judges wrote in the majority opinion. The Washington Post, which first reported on the decision, called it \"a blow to digital media and to consumers.\" \"This unanimous decision means a lot,\" Aeroo chief executive Mike Snider said in a statement. \"Consumers no longer have to pay to receive the traditional way they watch TV. They now have the option to pay only for a service that delivers those channels, all for free.\" Aeroo has petitioned the court to change the district court's ruling to the full appeals court, which is likely to do so. The Supreme Court upheld the same ruling from two months ago. Aeroo said it will appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Experts tell the Post that its previous case shows that the Copyright Office's determination to give consumers access to streaming services without paying retailled companies is likely to be reversed by the appeals court. Follow @jswartz on Twitter", + "bbox": [ + 490, + 368, + 865, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 9: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from USA Today.", + "bbox": [ + 184, + 768, + 808, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8700", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Title: James F. Holland, Trailblazing Cancer Researcher, Dies at 92", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 250, + 581, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain: www.nytimes.com", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 263, + 309, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Date: 03-27-2018", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 275, + 255, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f6d615f91477daa2419583f4de693e8cfdc2befdd7d981a9591aa301c9a463b1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 293, + 220, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dr. Holland with his wife, Dr. Jimmie Holland, who pioneered the field of psycho-oncology. While she treated the emotional distress of cancer patients, he focused on discovering universal remedies. She died in December.", + "bbox": [ + 223, + 294, + 532, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/435f043da48ba8a2194b4134a2c8bd1828849958effa4fcdead3e11bf2380a8e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 561, + 293, + 628, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dr. James F. Holland in an undated photograph. In the 1950s, he and his colleagues were considered research cowboys by some colleagues, he said.", + "bbox": [ + 631, + 294, + 847, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 132, + 362, + 294, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "James F. Holland, a founding father of chemotherapy who helped pioneer a lifesaving drug treatment for pediatric leukemia patients, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 395, + 470, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The cause was respiratory failure, his son Steven said.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 453, + 413, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dr. Holland and his medical collaborators in the 1950s were scorned by some colleagues as research \"cowboys,\" as he put it, because they audaciously tackled what was considered an incurable disease and tried to treat it with several chemicals simultaneously, instead of sequentially.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 475, + 470, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When their research began, fewer than one in three children who were found to have acute lymphoblastic leukemia lived as long as a year. Today, as many as nine in 10 survive the disease, in which the bone marrow makes too many immature white blood cells.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 543, + 470, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another clinical trial that Dr. Holland directed in the 1970s, to contain acute myeloid leukemia, a somewhat similar malfunction in blood cell production, resulted in what became the standard treatment.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 609, + 470, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated News Article", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 490, + 362, + 667, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "James F. Holland, an innovative oncologist whose scientific insights made him, as he once said, a \"Google\" for cancer research, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92.", + "bbox": [ + 489, + 385, + 865, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The cause was a widespread myeloid leukemia subtype, a cancer of the blood cells in bone marrow that occurs in fewer than one in three patients.", + "bbox": [ + 489, + 430, + 865, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mr. Holland was one of the few oncologists to propose, in the 1950s, the chemical treatment known as stereosporin -- hence the name. He was also among the first to suggest ( though not actually carry out ) what became known as precancer therapy : turning over nonmedical patients to their regular doctors, while supplementing their therapies with medications to kill cancer cells. The mere suggestion of precancer therapy, it seemed to some, would have rendered it toxic.", + "bbox": [ + 489, + 475, + 865, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "At the time, though, Mr. Holland thought it should not. He and his colleagues had been working for as long as a year on drugs to prevent acute lymphoblastic leukemia in patients with advanced disease, in which cells on the surface of the blood can proliferate out of control after being overexposed by chemotherapy. Doctors usually did this only after the patient's health deteriorated. Today, many hospitals will not perform precancer therapy, either.", + "bbox": [ + 489, + 565, + 865, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "But in the 1970s, he and his colleagues were regarded as \" research cowboys \" by their colleagues. Known for treating as many as nine of 10 cancer cases, they had been derided even by their own specialty, nuclear medicine, for treating these patients when \" the science does not justify it,\" Dr. Steven Holland, his brother and his only sibling, said.", + "bbox": [ + 489, + 655, + 865, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 10: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from New York Times.", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 751, + 828, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8701", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robert Boulter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 224, + 236, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written Wikipedia", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 246, + 265, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. He had a guest role in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002. In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \\\" Craig \\\" in the episode \\\" Teddy's Story \\\" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. He was cast in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur, which was performed at the Drum Theatre in Plymouth and the Menier Chocolate Factory in London. He was directed by John Tiffany and starred alongside Ben Whishaw, Shane Zaza, Harry Kent, Fraser Ayres, Sophie Stanton and Dominic Hall. \\n\\nThe 2006, Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the play Citizenship written by Mark Ravenhill. He appeared on a 2006 episode of the television series, Doctors, followed by a role in the 2007 theatre production of How to Curse directed by Josie Rourke. How to Curse was performed at Bush Theatre in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Boulter starred in two films in 2008, Daylight Robbery by filmmaker Paris Leonti, and Donkey Punch directed by Olly Blackburn. In May 2008, Boulter made a guest appearance on a two @-@ part episode arc of the television series Waking the Dead, followed by an appearance on the television series Survivors in November 2008. He had a recurring role in ten episodes of the television series Casualty in 2010, as \\\" Kieron Fletcher \\\". Boulter starred in the 2011 film Mercenaries directed by Paris Leonti. \\n\\nThe play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. A review of Boulter's performance in The Independent on Sunday described him as \\\" horribly menacing \\\" in the role, and he received critical reviews in The Herald, and Evening Standard. He appeared in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002 as \\\" Addem Armitage \\\" in the episode \\\" Political Expediency \\\", and had a role as a different character \\\" Toby Steele \\\" on The Bill. \\nHe had a recurring role in 2003 on two episodes of The Bill, as character \\\" Connor Price \\\". In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \\\" Craig \\\" in the episode \\\" Teddy's Story \\\" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. Boulter starred as \\\" Darren \\\", in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur.\\n", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 267, + 489, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated Wikipedia", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 246, + 660, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons. He has also starred on TV as a teacher and actor. In 2004 Boulter starred in the stage play Waste in Plymouth. He made his film debut at the Festival theatre in London in the 2005 John Sabatalain adaption of the John Grant -written novel, Intimate Behaviour. In 2006 he won a Samuel Beckett award for Best Performance in a Television Play for the film version of his play Teddy's Story. In 2007 Boulter played the lead role in the adaptation of Patrick Burden's book, East of Eden. In 2008 he was involved with Dominic Hall and John Deed and Craig Mark Strong, who were co - writer of another film, the comedy thriller, Derek Jacobi And The Mercenaries, and the TV adaptation of the Hot Fuzz movies. In May 2008 he made his film acting debut in the film Fever. Since then he has been sought out for appearing in films and TV series including Mercury Fur, which he appeared in as John Tiffany ; Hammersmith, where he played Ben Whishaw ; and London's Bush Theatre, where he appeared alongside Shane Zaza in Man of Economic Mass. In November 2008 he returned to the stage, in West End production of This Side of Paradise and in the West End production of Until Goes. He is currently appearing at the Shakespeare theatre at Fulham with a revival of Gods and Heroes. Robert Boulter biography Being called a fusion of two performers has never been embarrassing in Boulter's theatre career. In taking the offbeat, gruff character of Teddy that readers may instantly recognise as Harry Kent he defied expectations ; it was an unexpected and welcome return from a genre that had seen him move towards cheerfulness, his name becoming subtly attached to his image. He has also made the perfect transition from film to stage, propelling himself between brutal, seriously unpleasant characters on screen and harsh, adoring protagonists with dignity and aplomb in real life. Boulter lives with his family in Burn, Devon. His son Fraser Ayres is a member of the team behind the website jeffersonsworld.com, and his daughter Sophie Stanton has been a character actor in the theatre. Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the 2010 film Donkey Punch. The other main roles in the film were Mark Ravenhill, who plays a former officer in an augmented forces unit, and Josie Rourke as his. In the play the lead character, \\*\" the demon of myth \\*\" is C, who lives in the arctic wasteland and is transformed when he is savagely hunted by a face - eating gnactus. Boulter played the first half of the story, or lion, while the other half was The Soldier, a mercenary, \\*\" the curse of mythology \\\".", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 267, + 867, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 11: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles (from WikiText dataset (Stephen et al., 2017)). We generate articles conditioned on both the title Robert Boulter, and the first 50 tokens highlighted by light yellow. The articles are cut to fit the figure size.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 882, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8702", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1933 Treasure Coast hurricane", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 231, + 342, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-written Wikipedia", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 253, + 265, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United States during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane, and the third major hurricane of the season, it formed east @-@ northeast of the Leeward Islands on August 31. The tropical storm moved rapidly west @-@ northwestward, steadily intensifying to a hurricane. It acquired peak winds of 140 miles per hour (225 km / h) and passed over portions of the Bahamas on September 3, including Eleuthera and Harbour Island, causing severe damage to crops, buildings, and infrastructure. Winds over 100 mph (161 km / h) affected many islands in its path, especially those that encountered its center, and many wharves were ruined. \\n\\nThe hurricane moved across the state, passing near Tampa before moving into Georgia and dissipating. In Florida, the strong winds of the cyclone blew buildings off their foundations, and numerous trees were prostrated in citrus groves. The Treasure Coast region received the most extensive destruction, and Stuart, Jupiter, and Fort Pierce were heavily damaged. Inland, the cyclone weakened rapidly but produced prodigious amounts of rain, causing a dam to collapse near Tampa. The storm caused $ 3 million in damage (1933 USD) after damaging or destroying 6 @, @ 848 homes. \\n\\nUnusually, the storm hit Florida less than 24 hours before another major hurricane bearing 125 @-@ mile @-@ per @-@ hour (201 km / h) winds struck South Texas; never have two major cyclones hit the United States in such close succession. \\n\\nThe origins of the hurricane were from a tropical wave that possibly spawned a tropical depression on August 27, although there was minimal data over the next few days as it tracked to the west @-@ northwest. On August 31, a nearby ship reported gale force winds, which indicated that a tropical storm had developed to the east @-@ northeast of the Lesser Antilles. Based on continuity, it is estimated the storm attained hurricane status later that day. Moving quickly to the west @-@ northwest, the storm passed north of the Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico. Early on September 2, a ship called the Gulfwing reported a barometric pressure of 978 mbar (28 @. @ 88 inHg), which confirmed that the storm attained hurricane status. After passing north of the Turks and Caicos islands, the hurricane struck Eleuthera and Harbour Island in the Bahamas on September 3, the latter at 1100 UTC. A station on the latter island reported a pressure of 27 @. @ 90 inHg (945 mb) during the 30 minute passage of the eye.\\n\\n", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 275, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ENGINE-generated Wikipedia", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 660, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United State during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane. A Category 4 cyclone with winds of $100\\mathrm{mph}$ generated winds of 161 km per hour and a water temperature of -49 degrees. The storm killed 6 people, flooded an area of $848~\\mathrm{sq~km}$ , and caused $\\$ 3$ million in damage. Although it missed the Florida coast, the system swept across the rest of the United States less than 24 hours. The heat from the system caused widespread fires and continued to bring heavy rain and wind throughout the south and central regions. In south Florida alone, the fires killed two men and destroyed 98 homes in the Lesser Antilles and southwest Florida. The Turks and Caicos islands were particularly badly hit because of a storm surge that produced high seas and flooding, especially along the coast from Tampa, Georgia, to Puerto Rico. The Turks and Caicos islands experienced over $125\\mathrm{mph}$ winds, winds of $125\\text{@ - }$ mile per hour, and only $1\\mathrm{cm}$ to 2 inches of rain in the 30 minute interval starting around 1400 UTC. The Turks and Caicos islands also experienced an over $140\\mathrm{mph}$ wind shear at $5875\\mathrm{kp}$ / m. In south Georgia, home to the Simpson and Penally counties, the worst of the damage was felt in the Savannah area, where $800+$ homes were damaged or destroyed and well over 1000 had to be demolished. The most intense tropical storm to strike the United States during the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season occurred when Tropical Depression 6 formed over the Bahamas during the winter of 1913. The storm resulted in catastrophic loss of life and destruction. As of $24\\mathrm{km}$ west of the Bahamas, the lowest pressure was $3.21\\mathrm{mb}$ , and the storm had maximum sustained winds of $200\\mathrm{km/h}$ , with gusts to over $200\\mathrm{km/h}$ . In south Florida, the intense storm produced winds of $100\\mathrm{mph}$ over south - western southwest Florida and a south - western coast generally between the edges of the Low Range and the extreme southeast of the storms. In western Cuba, the storms produced winds up to what the Weather Bureau described as $\\backslash$ \"about $65\\mathrm{mph}\\backslash$ \" in some spots, and all tropical storms at Category 4, 5 and 7, respectively, were downgraded to a tropical storm or depression. Texas though was hit by Hurricane Norbert in early October 1913. At the time, the Weather Bureau reported that the storm produced winds of $800 - 900\\mathrm{km/h}$ , and a storm tide of $848\\mathrm{m}$ . The storm passed over northeast Texas between midnight and dawn, and was the first major tropical cyclone to impact the United States during the winter of 1913. Norbert resulted in 848 lives being lost and $\\$ 98$ m in damages, amongst other catastrophic damage, as well as numerous fatalities.", + "bbox": [ + 504, + 274, + 868, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 12: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles about 1993 Treasure Coast hurricane.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 749, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8703", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Qualifications Required: HIT Approval Rate $(\\%)$ for all Requesters' HITs greater than or equal to 98 , Number of HITs Approved greater than or equal to 1000", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 248, + 663, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instructions: News Articles Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 124, + 279, + 426, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hello, we are trying to determine how susceptible people are to machine-generated fake news.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 302, + 593, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this study, you are asked to discriminate between human and machine-generated news articles.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 318, + 608, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will be assigned 5 article samples. Each article sample contains the headline, article body and image/caption pairs. The images and captions are located after the article body where each caption is situated below its corresponding image.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 328, + 855, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You should spend no more than 1 to 1.5 minutes on each article.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 346, + 443, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please be sure to click the submit buttom for each article.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 361, + 411, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please note that we re-rendered all the article samples. As a result, the primitive display is NOT an indicator of whether the article is human or machine generated.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 370, + 865, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instructions", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 398, + 189, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shortcuts", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 400, + 245, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Is this news article human or machine generated? Please choose the option that you think is the most suitable for the given news article.", + "bbox": [ + 253, + 400, + 761, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "#", + "bbox": [ + 853, + 401, + 863, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Duterte, Philippine President, Boasts He Killed Someone as a Teenager", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 193, + 439, + 495, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MANILA -- The death of Chief Justice Sereno Alan Casolan III, shot at his front gate when he was 13, was the most recent in what is a mounting tally of police killings in the Philippines.", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 497, + 517, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "But Mr. Duterte is beginning to openly talk about his personal transgressions, something that had rarely come up before.", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 527, + 517, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since at least the start of his administration in June, Mr. Duterte has been lashing out at journalists, academics and everyone else with a magnifying glass. In addition to criminals, he has singled out people with mental disabilities, journalists and judges whom he sees as opponents of his policies.", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 549, + 517, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In videos broadcast on television and in print, Mr. Duterte has projected a maniacal, cartoonishly intimidating stare toward the camera. The gang leader Lech Charles Leffo, a convicted drug dealer, was stabbed to death by Mr. Duterte on the grounds of a provincial court in 2016. The next year, Mr. Duterte beat a man to death with a wooden rod in a crowded Manila public market during an anti-drug operation.", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 587, + 517, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/64bb4dfb964bdd8644bffb3f18d64db7a81ed961db5b43658d6f537fb611bb38.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 13: The interface used by AMT workers in our article quality annotation experiment." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 171, + 650, + 245, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Select an option", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 611, + 416, + 721, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-Generate", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 434, + 715, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1", + "bbox": [ + 789, + 432, + 800, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the article body", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 449, + 783, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2", + "bbox": [ + 791, + 449, + 800, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine-Generated because one or more captions is not very relevant to the article body", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 481, + 789, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3", + "bbox": [ + 791, + 481, + 800, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the caption", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 514, + 783, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4", + "bbox": [ + 791, + 514, + 800, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine-Generated because the image/caption pairs are not relavent to the article body", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 546, + 784, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5", + "bbox": [ + 791, + 545, + 800, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine-Generated because something about the article appears off", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 579, + 773, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6", + "bbox": [ + 791, + 577, + 800, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Machine-Generated because the article title is not really relavent to the article", + "bbox": [ + 628, + 611, + 774, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7", + "bbox": [ + 791, + 609, + 800, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Submit", + "bbox": [ + 823, + 715, + 855, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Determine if news articles are human or machine-generated.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 225, + 334, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Requester: Vision Group", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 237, + 221, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Reward: $1.00 per task", + "bbox": [ + 500, + 237, + 586, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Tasks available: 0", + "bbox": [ + 635, + 237, + 705, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Duration: 15 Minutes", + "bbox": [ + 744, + 237, + 823, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8704", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_model.json b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..937255af1c9294cb87566d81abdc0426cde16799 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3883 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.091, + 0.883, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Show, Write, and Retrieve: Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.252, + 0.143, + 0.751, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhongping Zhang Yiwen Gu Bryan A. Plummer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.427, + 0.161, + 0.576, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Boston University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.35, + 0.178, + 0.663, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{zpzhang, yiweng, bplum}@bu.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.278, + 0.461, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Article comprehension is an important challenge in natural language processing with many applications such as article generation or image-to-article retrieval. Prior work typically encodes all tokens in articles uniformly using pretrained language models. However, in many applications, such as understanding news stories, these articles are based on real-world events and may reference many named entities that are difficult to accurately recognize and predict by language models. To address this challenge, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratIoN and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework, to explicitly incorporate named entities into language models. ENGINE has two main components: a named-entity extraction module to extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images associated with articles, and an entity-aware mechanism that enhances the model's ability to recognize and predict entity names. We conducted experiments on three public datasets: GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText, where our results demonstrate that our model can boost both article generation and article retrieval performance, with a 4-5 perplexity improvement in article generation and a \\(3 - 4\\%\\) boost in recall@1 in article retrieval. We release our implementation at this http URL." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.685, + 0.26, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comprehending articles enables a wide range of applications such as story generation (Fan et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2018), image-to-text retrieval (Tan et al., 2022), automated journalism (Leppänen et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2020), defending against misinformation (Zellers et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020), and writing Wiki articles (Banerjee and Mitra, 2016; Stephen et al., 2017), among others. Inspired by the impressive capability of large language models, recent work (e.g., Radford et al. (2019); Brown et al. (2020); Wang and Komatsuzaki (2021)) generate or retrieve articles by training language models on massive datasets (e.g., The" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.252, + 0.634, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(A) Language Modeling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.265, + 0.651, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics \nPublish date: 05-24-2016" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.29, + 0.606, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.301, + 0.651, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt, the Oscar winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt will join the London School of Economics' Center for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday by the university, one of Britain's most renowned academic institutions. Ms. Jolie's work there will include delivering guest lectures and taking part in workshops as a \"visiting professor in practice.\"" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.658, + 0.252, + 0.842, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(B) Entity-aware Language Modeling" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.662, + 0.264, + 0.875, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.66, + 0.35, + 0.874, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics \nPublish date: 05-24-2016" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.66, + 0.366, + 0.744, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.66, + 0.371, + 0.879, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt \\(< \\) PERSON \\(>\\), the Oscar-winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations \\(< \\) ORG \\(>\\) refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt \\(< \\) PERSON \\(>\\) will join the London School of Economics' Center \\(< \\) ORG \\(>\\) for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday \\(< \\) DATE \\(>\\) by the university, ..." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.885, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: We propose entity-aware language modeling for article generation and retrieval. Prior work (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), shown in (A), typically comprehends articles by uniformly encoding all text tokens. However, these approaches face challenges in accurately recognizing and predicting named entities. In our paper, shown in (B), we propose a method to extract named entities from embedded images and explicitly model the named entities in articles, boosting the performance of both article generation and article retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.628, + 0.885, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pile (Gao et al., 2020) or LAION400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These models typically uniformly encode all text tokens in the articles including named entities (Radford et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). In other words, named entities like organizations, places, and dates are modeled together with other text, as illustrated in Figure 1(A). However, it poses a challenge for these models to accurately recognize and predict named entities, as they can be unique to specific articles. E.g., in Figure 1(A), entities like \"Ms. Jolie\" and \"Jolie Pitt\" may only appear in articles related to the celebrity \"Angelina Jolie.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Directly extracting named entities from user-provided prompts is a straightforward entity-aware approach used by methods addressing news image captioning (Biten et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). However, these methods do not" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8684" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8684-8704" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "generalize well to article generation and retrieval since they rely on substantial contextual information (via the articles) as well as a direct indication of entities that may appear in predicted captions. For example, in Figure 1 (A), the article mentions that Angelina Jolie Pitt is an Oscar winner, but this information is not present in the other metadata like the image captions. Thus, a language model generating an article must infer this named entity information rather than directly extracting it from the metadata. Even if a list of named entities were provided, an article generation model must determine where and when to use each of them. In contrast, in news image captioning, entities used in the caption almost always appear in the body of the article (Liu et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2020), and the image itself will directly inform what named entities should be used for its caption. Thus, as we will show, adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related work (e.g., (Liu et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021)) results in poor performance in our task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.427, + 0.49, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the aforementioned issues, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratiOn and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework to explicitly incorporate and model named entities in articles. ENGINE mainly consists two modules: a named-entity extraction module and an entity-aware module. In the named-entity extraction module, we show that providing a list of named entities for article generation improves performance. However, creating such lists does require a small overhead cost. Thus, we also demonstrate we can improve performance without manual input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.623, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 1 (B), we observe that images associated with an article often contain information about the article's events. Therefore, we explore leveraging large vision-language models to extract named entities from embedded images. Specifically, we employ CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to automatically select a set of likely named entities from embedded images. In the entity-aware module, we introduce special tokens after each entity name to indicate its entity category. In this case, ENGINE models the named entity and its entity category jointly. An additional benefit brought by our entity-aware mechanism is the named-entity recognition (NER) ability, i.e., our model not only recognizes and predicts the entity names but also predicts their entity categories simultaneously." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.884, + 0.486, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, the contributions of this paper are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.904, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose an entity-aware language model, EN-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GINE, for article generation and retrieval. Compared to existing language models (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023), our entity-aware mechanism enhances the recognition and prediction of named entities by jointly modeling entity names and their entity categories, boosting the performance of article generation and retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.214, + 0.884, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We introduce a named-entity extraction method to recognize named entities from embedded images in articles, eliminating the overhead in manually creating a list of named entities that will appear in the articles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.295, + 0.885, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Experiments on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) show a perplexity gain of 4-5 points for article generation and a Recall@1 boost of \\(3 - 4\\%\\) for article retrieval. We also show that ENGINE generalizes via zero-shot transfer to WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.392, + 0.886, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We perform comprehensive experiments on human evaluation and machine discrimination, validating that ENGINE produces more realistic articles compared to prior work (Radford et al., 2019; Zellers et al., 2020). This suggests that our model can potentially contribute additional training data for the development of more powerful machine-generated text detectors." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.214, + 0.886, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.535, + 0.665, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.565, + 0.885, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Article Generation in recent work uses large-scale pretrained transformer models that can be separated into unconditional text generation (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and conditional text generation (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). Generating articles via unconditional samples has been found to be less effective, since the models may interpret the first sentence of articles as a tweet and start posting responses (Brown et al., 2020). To enable controllable generation, GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) conditions article generation on titles and the initial sentences of articles. Grover (Zellers et al., 2020) decomposes news articles into distinct parts and conditions generation on metadata like the author or organization. In this paper, we further explore the impact of named entities and embedded article images. Specifically, ENGINE produces articles conditioned on both metadata and embedded article images, with a dedicated focus on the explicit extraction and modeling of named entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Article Retrieval is commonly accomplished by image-text matching frameworks. Early work on" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8685" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.294, + 0.884, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: ENGINE overview. Our model mainly consists of two modules: (A) Named-entity Extraction: We extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles. See Section 3.2 for detailed discussion; (B) Entity-aware mechanism: Each named entity is associated by its corresponding entity category. ENGINE models the entity name and category jointly to avoid inconsistency between named entities in images and article text. See Section 3.1 for detailed discussion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "image-text matching has primarily focused on developing bespoke models (Wang et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Nguyen and Okatani, 2018; Nam et al., 2017) with various retrieval loss functions, such as triplet loss (Schroff et al., 2015) or proxy anchor loss (Kim et al., 2020). However, these models are often domain-specific and limited in the expressiveness of the text. In recent work, large vision-language models (Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022) have addressed these limitations by contrastive image-language pretraining on massive datasets (e.g., LAION-400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These large vision-language models have demonstrated exceptional performance in zero-shot image-text matching. Therefore, in our experiments, we employ the pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) to extract visual and text representations from articles, and compute the cosine similarity between these representations to obtain the retrieval predictions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Entity-aware mechanisms have been applied in closely related tasks, such as news image captioning, which aims to caption images based on articles and images. Ramisa et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end framework that takes the concatenation of article and image features as input and outputs captions by an LSTM decoder. However, this approach often fails to predict named entities that were not seen during training. Thus, more recent work boosts performance by extracting entity representations from user-provided articles and inserts them into generated templates (Biten et al., 2019;" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.391, + 0.885, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In this paper, we effectively reverse the inputs and outputs of these approaches, i.e., we generate an article based on images and captions rather than generating captions based on images and articles. As discussed in the Introduction, this shift breaks the assumptions used by entity-aware mechanisms in image captioning, causing them to not generalize well in our article generation and retrieval task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.55, + 0.807, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 ENGINE: Entity-aware article GenerationIoN and rEtrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.594, + 0.885, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given user-provided prompts and embedded article images, our task aims to more accurately represent articles by recognizing and predicting named entities. Thus, we incorporate candidate named entities as an additional control to our language model. We propose an entity-aware mechanism to jointly model entity names and their corresponding entity categories in Section 3.1. To enrich the entity information available to language models, we introduce our named-entity extraction approach in Section 3.2. Finally, we introduce the learning strategy of ENGINE in Section 3.3. Figure 2 provides an overview of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.817, + 0.757, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Entity-aware Mechanism" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed in the Introduction, accurately recognizing and predicting named entities can help avoid inconsistencies between the associated images and the textual content of an article. For example, in NBA news, an entity-aware model should be" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8686" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "able to predict \"Curry\" given the preceding word \"Stephen,\" whereas traditional language models might struggle in this regard. Existing methods typically model named entities uniformly with other text, making the leverage of named entities less effective. To help our language model be aware of named entities, we insert the entity category predicted by SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017) after each entity name. We use special tokens as the indicator of these entity types. Then the entity name and its corresponding category are modeled jointly by ENGINE. We visualize our entity-aware mechanism in Figure 2 (B)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.317, + 0.358, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Named-entity Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.345, + 0.489, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our entity-aware mechanism in Section 3.1 enhances a language model's ability to recognize and predict named entities. However, we find that the entity information extracted from the metadata may not be sufficient for article generation. Thus, as shown in Figure 2 (A), we explore named entity extraction methods from various sources within articles, such as embedded images. Below we discuss two ways to create the named entity list." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.493, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oracle named-entities. This approach assumes that we are provided with all the named entities that would appear in articles, e.g., named entities provided by a user. To simulate user-provided named entities, we extract named entities from news articles using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). This list is then provided as input to our model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.609, + 0.49, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CLIP-based NER. Existing Named Entity Recognition (NER) methods (Yadav and Bethard, 2018; Li et al., 2020) primarily distinguish named entities within text documents and are not designed for NER involving images (referred to as Visual-NER in Figure 2(A)). However, we note that CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) was trained on 400 million image-text pairs collected from the internet, many of which likely contain named entities. Thus, we use CLIP to build an open-ended Visual-NER framework. First, we construct a candidate list of named entities for each image by extracting entities from the articles in the dataset using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). Subsequently, we use CLIP to predict the similarity between the article images and the candidate entities. The top \\( k^1 \\) entities are then provided as input to our model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.7, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Learning Strategy" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.885, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language Modeling. Given a set of documents \\(\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{n}\\}\\) each with variable length sequences of symbols \\(\\{s_{1}, s_{2}, \\ldots, s_{m}\\}\\), the statistical language model of a text document \\(x\\) can be represented by the probability of next symbol given all the previous ones (Bengio et al., 2003):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.585, + 0.214, + 0.882, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (x) = \\prod_ {i = 1} ^ {m} p \\left(s _ {i} \\mid s _ {1}, \\dots , s _ {i - 1}\\right), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.266, + 0.885, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where each symbol \\( s_i \\) is processed uniformly and the document \\( x \\) is viewed as an unstructured text field (also referred as body field later). Language models based only on Eq. 1 produce articles via unconditional samples. Thus, these models are not suitable for controllable generation (Hu et al., 2017). Instead, the language model can be formulated by the joint distribution of separate fields decomposed from the article \\( x \\) (Zellers et al., 2020):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.598, + 0.424, + 0.882, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (x) = p (\\text {m e t a}, \\text {b o d y}), \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.457, + 0.884, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where meta is a data-dependent term consisting of a set of subfields. For instance, meta includes date, title, summary in GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and domain, date, topic, title in VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). Thus, we model \\( x \\) by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.55, + 0.882, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (x) = p (\\text {b o d y} \\mid \\text {m e t a}) p (\\text {m e t a}). \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.581, + 0.884, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on Eq. 3, we further introduce special tokens \\(<\\text{start-}\\tau>\\) and \\(<\\text{end-}\\tau>\\) to indicate the boundaries of field \\(\\tau\\). The content of a target field \\(\\tau\\) is sampled from the model starting with \\(<\\text{start-}\\tau>\\) and ending with \\(<\\text{end-}\\tau>\\). Given the named entities extracted by our method (from Section 3.2), Eq. 3 is re-formulated as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.706, + 0.887, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np (x) = p (\\text {b o d y} \\mid \\text {m e t a}, \\text {e n t i t y}) p (\\text {m e t a}, \\text {e n t i t y}). \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.756, + 0.883, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sample from Eq. 4, we define a canonical order\\(^2\\) among the fields (or subfields) of articles \\(\\mathcal{F}:(f_1 < f_2 < \\ldots < f_{|\\mathcal{F}|})\\) and model the articles left-to-right in the order using Eq.1: \\(s_1^{f_1}, s_2^{f_2}, \\ldots, s_{|f_{|\\mathcal{F}|}|}^{f_{|\\mathcal{F}|}}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.829, + 0.884, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Architecture. Following (Zellers et al., 2020), ENGINE uses the GPT2 architecture (Radford et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.87, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We define canonical order in Goodnews (Biten et al., 2019) as: domain, date, named-entity, title, caption, summary, body; and Visualnews (Liu et al., 2021) as: domain, date, topic, named-entity, title, caption, body." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.314, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 We set \\(k\\) to 10 in this paper." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8687" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2019) for article generation. We experiment with three model sizes: (1) ENGINE-Base has 12 layers and 124 million parameters, on par with GPT2-124M and GROVER-Base; (2) ENGINE-Medium has 24 layers and 355 million parameters, on par with GPT2-355M and GROVER-Large; (3) ENGINE-XL has 48 layers and 1.5 billion parameters, on par with GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega. In addition, we also show ENGINE generalizes across architectures by evaluating on LLAMA (Touvron et al., 2023). For article retrieval, we implement our method on pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.306, + 0.262, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.332, + 0.427, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Experiment Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. We evaluate ENGINE on three public datasets: GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019), VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021), and WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). GoodNews provides the URLs from New York Times from 2010 to 2018. After filtering out broken links or non-English articles, we downloaded 307,286 news articles. Following the split ratios of Biten et al. (2019), we randomly split 15,365 articles for validation, 30,728 articles for testing, and used the rest for training. VisualNews contains news articles from four news sources: Guardian, BBC, USA Today, and Washington Post. We obtain 582,194 news articles in total after we removed broken links and articles without metadata. Similarly, we get a 491,796 training set, 28,932 validation set, and a 57,889 test set. WikiText contains 600/60/60 Wikipedia articles in train/test/validation sets, respectively. We performed zero-shot article generation on the test set of WikiText." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.659, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Metrics. Following Zellers et al. (2020), we adopt Perplexity (PPL) \\(^3\\) to evaluate models on article generation. Perplexity is defined as the exponentiated average negative log-likelihood of a sequence. Given Eq. 1, the perplexity of \\(x\\) is calculated by:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.75, + 0.488, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {P P L} (x) = \\exp \\left\\{- \\frac {1}{m} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\log p \\left(s _ {i} \\mid s _ {1}, \\dots , s _ {i - 1}\\right) \\right\\} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.821, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(s_1, \\ldots, s_i\\) are ground truth tokens in \\(x\\) and \\(p(\\cdot)\\) is the probability predicted by the model. We evaluate models using Recall@K (R@1, R@5, R@10) for article retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Implementation Details We primarily implemented our models using Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and Transformer (Wolf et al., 2020) libraries. The maximum sequence length of language models is set to 1024. For ENGINE-Base and ENGINE-Medium, we used a batch size of 8 and a maximum learning rate of \\(1 \\times 10^{-4}\\). For ENGINE-XL, we used a batch size of 4 to fit into GPU memory. Correspondingly, the maximum learning rate is set to \\(2^{0.5} \\times 10^{-4}\\). We finetuned our models for around 3 epochs with 0.06 epoch for linear warm-up on both datasets. We parallelized ENGINE-XL on 4 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s and ENGINE-Medium on 2 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s. ENGINE-XL on VisualNews requires the longest training time- approximately two weeks on our system." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.361, + 0.704, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Article Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.386, + 0.885, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Perplexity. Table 1 presents sizes, architectures, and perplexity results of different models on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). We see that ENGINE variants of all model sizes significantly outperform the baselines. On the base size, ENGINE-Base(NE) improves PPL over the original GPT2-124M model by a factor of 2 \\((23.6\\rightarrow 12.0\\) \\(27.5\\rightarrow 13.1)\\). We draw three major conclusions from Table 1. First, the data distribution still plays an important role. Finetuned GPT2s improve PPL over the original GPT2s. The improvements become less obvious with a greater model size (VisualNews: \\(27.5\\rightarrow 18.3\\) of base size; \\(15.7\\rightarrow 12.4\\) of XL size). Second, ENGINE noticeably improves the performance over finetuned GPTs (4-5 perplexity points on both datasets), which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. Third, our contributions are architecture agnostic. E.g., ENGINE-LLAMA outperforms LLAMA-7B with an approximately 2-point perplexity improvement on both datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Parameter Efficiency. Table 1 shows that ENGINE can achieve a comparable performance with alternative models using much fewer parameters. For example, ENGINE-Base(NE), with only 124M parameters, outperforms the GPT-NEO-2.7B and achieves comparable performance with finetuned GPT2-1.5B (12.0 vs. 12.6 PPL on GoodNews, 13.1 vs. 12.4 PPL on VisualNews). ENGINE-Medium (NE) model, with 355M parameters, outperforms all the GPT-Series baselines including GPT-J-6B. Figure 3 plots the perplexity as a function of the number of parameters on news datasets, demon" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3During inference, we get rid of entity categories from our generated articles to make fair comparisons to other baselines." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8688" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.082, + 0.871, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model NamenparamsnlayersdmodelnhedgesGoodNews PPL ↓VisualNews PPL ↓
GPT2-124M (Radford et al., 2019)124M127681223.627.5
GROVER-Base (Zellers et al., 2020)124M127681223.821.9
GPT-Neo-125M (Gao et al., 2020)125M127681227.129.3
GPT2-124M (Finetuned)124M127681217.318.3
ENGINE-Base (ClipNE)124M127681214.816.1
ENGINE-Base (NE)124M127681212.013.1
GPT2-355M (Radford et al., 2019)355M2410241617.820.1
GROVER-Large (Zellers et al., 2020)355M2410241618.516.4
GPT-Neo-1.3B (Gao et al., 2020)1.3B2420481615.315.9
GPT2-355M (Finetuned)355M2410241613.514.0
ENGINE-Medium(clipNE)355M2410241611.612.5
ENGINE-Medium(NE)355M241024169.510.2
GPT2-1.5B (Radford et al., 2019)1.5B4816002513.915.7
GROVER-Mega (Zellers et al., 2020)1.5B4816002514.512.6
GPT-Neo-2.7B (Gao et al., 2020)2.7B3225602013.514.0
GPT-J-6B (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021)6B2840961611.311.6
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)1.5B4816002512.612.4
ENGINE-XL(clipNE)1.5B4816002510.811.1
ENGINE-XL(NE)1.5B481600258.79.0
LLAMA-7B (Touvron et al., 2023)7B324096328.38.5
ENGINE+LLAMA (NE)7B324096326.56.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.481, + 0.884, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Perplexity (PPL) comparison on GoodNews and VisualNews. ClipNE denotes that we select CLIP-based named entities in named-entity field (described in Section 3.2), NE denotes that we apply oracle named entities in named-entity field. PPL is calculated only on the article body. We observe that our model consistently outperforms baselines of comparable model sizes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.564, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "strating that ENGINE gets as good or better results than prior work while also using fewer parameters. Additional Baselines adapted from close-related tasks4. In Table 2(A), we see that ENGINE-1.5B outperforms integrating BU (Anderson et al., 2018) and VisualGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022) features, demonstrating that our entity-aware mechanism is more effective than directly incorporating image features. As discussed in the Introduction, this is likely due to the loose correlation between images and their corresponding articles. Table 2(B) demonstrates that the entity-aware mechanisms proposed for other text generation tasks do not generalize well to article generation, where our approach obtains a 4-5 PPL improvement on both datasets. We also find that InfoSurgeon struggles to generate articles well, which we argue is due to its sequence-to" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.846, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4InfoSurgeon (Fung et al., 2021), InjType (Dong et al., 2021), VNC (Liu et al., 2021) are adapted from sequence-to-sequence translation, close-ended paragraph generation, and news image captioning, respectively. For a fair comparison, GPT2-Base is applied as the backbone of InjType, VNC, and BU for article generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.885, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sequence translation framework finding it challenging to effectively leverage prior knowledge from pretrained language models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.613, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows ablations of ENGINE-Base. We observe that both the caption and named-entity fields boost performance, revealing that cues from embedded images help produce higher-quality articles. Comparing using only captions (Cap) vs. combining them with our Entity-aware mechanism, we get a minimum gain of 0.6 PPL, demonstrating its effectiveness. In addition, we observe that ClipNE outperforms CapNE, validating that CLIP-detected named entities are more effective than those extracted from captions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Article Quality User Study. Following (Zellers et al., 2020; Kreps et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020), we ask annotators to distinguish machine-generated articles from human-written articles. We randomly selected 50 news stories from GoodNews and VisualNews test sets (100 total). Given the metadata and news images, we generated news articles using three different language models: GROVER-" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8689" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.085, + 0.452, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.374, + 0.49, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Comparison of the perplexity of different language models on GoodNews (top) and VisualNews (bottom) as a function of learned parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.437, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mega, GPT2-1.5B (finetuned), and ENGINE-XL. This results in a total of 200 articles per dataset. We recruited 200 Qualified Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) workers per dataset. Each article was annotated 5 times by AMT workers, where each worker was presented with the article titles, images and captions, and was asked to indicate if the article was human or machine generated. If they thought the article was machine-generated, they were asked to indicate a reason for it following the same option format as Tan et al. (2020). Table 3 reports annotation accuracy in identifying articles from VisualNews as machine or human-generated. We see ENGINE-XL is able to generate hard-to-detect news articles (a \\(2\\%\\) boost over GPT2-1.5B, and a \\(5\\%\\) gain over GROVER-Mega), validating the effectiveness of our approach." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine Discriminator. We apply OpenAI's RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) detector to detect generated articles. The maximum article length is cut to 512 to fit the model input size. For comparison, we use the same article set from our user study. In Table 3, we observe that the machine discriminator is much better at identifying the machine-generated news. We see that articles produced by ENGINE-XL can be reliably detected by RoBERTa though it gets the lowest accuracy on human evaluation. This can be due to the fact that GROVER-Mega, GPT2-1.5B, and ENGINE-XL all share a similar underlying model architecture. Thus, they may contain" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.082, + 0.878, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model NameGood-NewsVisual-News
(A) BU (Anderson et al., 2018)26.624.3
VisualGLM(Du et al., 2022)11.812.2
ENGINE-1.5B (ours)8.79.0
(B) InfoSurg (Fung et al., 2021)41.842.1
InjType (Dong et al., 2021)18.219.0
VNC (Liu et al., 2021)16.717.8
ENGINE-Base (ours)12.013.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.885, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: PPL of baselines adapted from close-related tasks. (A) leverages visual features directly extracted from images, (B) contrasts entity-aware mechanisms. Adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related tasks may result in poor performance in our task." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.35, + 0.865, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.519, + 0.887, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Ablation results of ENGINE-Base. Text-only denotes the model focuses only on text information, which is same to finetuned GPT2 model. Cap denotes caption field, EA denotes the Entity-aware mechanism. CapNE denotes named entities extracted from captions. Both the named-entity extraction module and our entity-aware mechanism can improve the performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.883, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "enough similarities in the distributional features that are recognized by the machine discriminator." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zero-shot Article Generation We perform zero-shot experiments on Wikipedia articles to demonstrate ENGINE's ability to generalize. Table 4 reports performance on WikiText. We find that our oracle named entities and entity-aware mechanism still can improve the performance over several baselines, even though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is significantly different. For example, the GPT2 models finetuned on Visualnews get worse performance than the original GPT2 models on WikiText. However, our ENGINE models get comparable or better results than the original GPT2 across different model sizes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative Results. We provide a qualitative comparison of GoodNews articles in Figure 5. Con" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8690" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.092, + 0.425, + 0.103 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: A Designer Unites the Basque Country" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.206, + 0.103, + 0.328, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.206, + 0.111, + 0.283, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Date: 06-10-2016" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.088, + 0.559, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.562, + 0.107, + 0.703, + 0.115 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jean Louis Iratzoki checking the 3D" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.562, + 0.115, + 0.681, + 0.124 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "scale model of a chair for Alki." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.139, + 0.289, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.156, + 0.493, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In 2007, the French industrial designer Jean Louis Iratzoki opened a remote studio in a wood cabin in the foothills of the Pyrenees. His minimalist \"refuge\" has recently become an unlikely creative epicenter for industrial production on both the French and Spanish sides of the Pays Basque." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.198, + 0.493, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "At last year's Maison & Obj design fair, Mr. Iratzoki won plaudits for designing one of the world's first bioplastic chairs made of a biodegradable plant-based polymer. That shell chair, part of a long collaboration with the Basque furniture brand Alki, is only one example of Mr. Iratzoki's determination to promote his native region. (Mr. Iratzoki was born in France in St. Jean-de-Luz.) He has also recently revamped the brand identity of Cazenave (a Basque chocolate company) and helped design the interiors of a luxurious eco lodge in Saubion, north of Biarritz." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.273, + 0.493, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This year, he founded a new practice with a Basque designer of Spanish extraction, Ander Lizaso, with the aim of creating a multipurpose design studio inspired by" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.139, + 0.635, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.156, + 0.829, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following in the footsteps of his male counterpart, the 2007 French - Spanish architect Jean Louis Iratzoki, whose archives became the subject of last year's Basque / Francophile Rodeo Drive exhibition, Ander Lizaso, the designer of the Pays Basque label Maison & Objet, has taken on the relatively new mantle of directorie in his own right. This year, he announced the inaugural of his own Design Angeles - in - Motion, the largest design fair for brands of the Basque / Francophone world." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.223, + 0.829, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"He's the one name you know everywhere,\" said Lizaso, who came of age as a designer in the city of Alki during the first boom in construction trade there, selling commissioners as part of the community's growing business. \"And it was the same in France.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.265, + 0.829, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Going back to Belgium, where the heritage of the Maison & Obj founders still lies, imbuing his name with its celebrated high- culture associations, he explained, the house was fully aware of its Basque roots.\"" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.308, + 0.292, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT2-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.324, + 0.493, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tears eluded Chris Burch and his wife, Susana, when they first set eyes on each other as headwaiter in 1991. They had no idea how they would end up there. But neither did he, not at the time, not even 10 years later. Their friendship would grow into a tentative romance; twice, both of them, over the next 13 years, would fly away from their native Basque region to live and work and play together in New York. Until suddenly they were happily on their own, taking care of themselves. In 2012, with both 40, Burch decided to marry them. Thirty years later, the brothers will go their separate ways: Chris, the artistic director of the Gypsy Rose Lee boutique in the West Village, and Susana, founder and creative director of her own company, Flora Flora, which specializes in floral textiles and ties. \"A wedding is an intimate, temporary thing, where people are sending you on your merry way,\" Chris explains. \"You leave with a future and a few words of what you can say. With something you want to do full-fledged -- 'We're engaged' or 'I have a proposal' -- you can't even focus.\" The couple recently moved to Miami, where Chris wants to take a nautical theme to Hawaii, where Susana is from. Below, they discuss the undercurrents of their romance as lifelong friends." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.308, + 0.639, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GROVER-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.324, + 0.829, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In both making clothing and politics, Ms. Madrid strives to combine the traditions of dress and activism with the street's distinct urbanity. She designs a range of products, from T-shirts and tees for millennials, to men's shirts for families. Everything in both stands as her identity as a designer. \"I'm the most passionate person in designing my own clothes because I'm a feminist,\" Ms. Madrid said in an interview at a café in town. \"I'm very anti-strong men and fat women.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.383, + 0.826, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The 40-year-old mother of two is creating a new business. It's aiming to combine traditional fashion and activism. She's hoping to raise money and offer services for political activism in the Basque country - and beyond." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.503, + 0.417, + 0.826, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the past four decades, Ms. Madrid has been involved in social and political activism. She went on hunger strike after she was attacked while in jail. Her goal is to become a national emblem for the Basque country, she said, but she's not convinced this is a responsibility of the Basque government." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.476, + 0.882, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on GoodNews. We cut the articles to fit the figure size. The entity names from image information are highlighted in light purple (PERSON tag) and light blue (ORG tag) colors. We can see that the named entities in captions also appear in the human-written and ENGINE-generated articles. In contrast, the GPT2-generated and GROVER-generated articles do not contain correct entity names corresponding to the image." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.548, + 0.487, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodHumanRoBERTa
GROVER-Mega72.8%90%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)69.6%84%
ENGINE-XL67.6%84%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.641, + 0.487, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Detection of generated articles. Left column reports the performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated. Right column uses OpenAI's text detector based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to perform the same task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sistent with our annotation experiment, we compare the human-written article with three machine-generated articles. From the results, we can see that ENGINE-XL can effectively produce articles with the named entities learned from image information. In contrast, finetuned GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega failed to generate correct named entities in articles. For example, both ENGINE-generated article and the human-written article mentioned \"Hean Louis Iratzoki\" and \"Alki\", which are appeared in the caption. In contrast, articles generated by GPT2" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.548, + 0.878, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Method124M355M≥ 1.5B
GPT226.119.114.8
GPT-Neo24.913.111.5
GPT-J-6B--9.0
GPT2 (Finetuned)33.825.225.9
ENGINE (NE)20.715.416.3
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.673, + 0.884, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Zero-shot article generation. We compare the perplexity of ENGINE to GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), GPT-Neo (Gao et al., 2020), and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) on WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). Both GPT2 and ENGINE are finetuned on VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) with a maximum article length of 1024. Though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is different, our proposed entity-aware method still improves the performance over several baselines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.817, + 0.882, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "or GROVER are discussing some other entities such as \"Chris Burch\" and \"Ms. Madrid.\"" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.864, + 0.688, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Article Retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5 compares the Recall@K retrieval scores of ENGINE with the state-of-the-art baselines on the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8691" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.083, + 0.891, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
GoodNewsVisualNewsGoodNewsVisualNews
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
CLIP-B/1619.442.752.930.653.564.632.556.864.443.169.576.5
CLIP-L/1432.556.065.347.372.178.946.668.375.055.077.384.3
BLIP19.838.048.822.043.652.515.930.837.915.133.342.7
EVA01-CLIP-G/1449.670.377.156.978.984.747.668.375.254.976.582.5
EVA02-CLIP-L/1450.773.179.457.978.685.249.369.676.854.877.382.7
ENGINE (ours)53.873.579.661.982.086.751.572.077.856.378.383.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.248, + 0.885, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Retrieval results. We compare the Recall@K of ENGINE to CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), BLIP (Li et al., 2022), and EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) on the article-to-image and image-to-article retrieval tasks on GoodNews and VisualNews. For articles with multiple embedded images, we only use the first embedded image. See Section 4.3 for discussion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.318, + 0.49, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "test splits of GoodNews and VisualNews. Following Tan et al. (2022), we randomly select 1500 article-image pairs from each dataset for evaluation. In the image-to-article retrieval task, we observe that compare to EVA02-CLIP-L/14 (Sun et al., 2023), ENGINE boost the Recall@1 scores from 50.7 to 53.8 on GoodNews and from 57.9 to 61.9 to VisualNews. For article-to-image retrieval, ENGINE achieves the highest performance with Recall@1 scores of 51.5 and 56.3 on GoodNews and VisualNews, respectively. The retrieval results validate the importance of named entities within articles and the effectiveness of our proposed method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.54, + 0.242, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our paper, we mainly investigate modeling machine-generated articles, which can be used directly for generation while also can providing strong language features to support applications like article retrieval. However, actors can also use the same technology to generate articles for misinformation by modifying information of specific fields to realize two potential purposes: monetization (ad revenue through clicks) or propaganda (communicating targeted information) (Zellers et al., 2020). Thus, the development of a better article generator can not only help humans write high-quality articles but also potentially help train a more powerful discriminator. Table 3 reports the performance of using human judgements or OpenAI's RoBERTa-based machine generated text detector (Liu et al., 2019). When comparing the results of the RoBERTa detector for GPT2-1.5B and ENGINE-XL, we find that only \\(25\\%\\) of the articles that were predicted as human written came from the same generation prompts. Thus, the two methods can provide differ" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.318, + 0.886, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ent views of the same prompt, which can provide additional information for training an even more powerful machine generated text detector. We note that our contributions are largely architecture ag- nostic, so they could also be used in RNN-based generators, which may provide a larger distribution shift in the generated articles that may fool a discriminator trained only on Transformer outputs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.459, + 0.642, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.885, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we proposed ENGINE, an entity-aware article generation and retrieval method that explicitly incorporates and models named entities in language models. Concretely, ENGINE extracts named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles, providing a more comprehensive source of entity information. In addition, we introduce an entity-aware mechanism to help ENGINE recognize and predict named entities more effectively and accurately. ENGINE outperforms current popular language models in quantitative and qualitative experiments on GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText. For example, ENGINE outperforms GPT-J by roughly 2.5 perplexity points using only a quarter parameters of GPT-J and boost the performance of EVA02-CLIP by 3-4 Recall@1 accuracy in article retrieval experiments. The noticeable improvements demonstrate that ENGINE can generate and retrieve articles more accurately and efficiently by effectively leveraging named entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported, in part, by DARPA under agreement number HR00112020054. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting agencies." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.942 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8692" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.11, + 0.491, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We discuss limitations and potential improvements of our work in this section. First, though our method can effectively predict the correct entity names in articles, their corresponding entity categories might be mistakenly predicted. For example, in Figure 5, the brand name \"Alki\" is recognized as a city name by ENGINE. Therefore, a more accurate entity-aware mechanism could be developed in future work. Second, the image information can be further explored. In this paper, we mainly investigate the captions and named entities of news images. However, other information such as the locations of images within articles may also prove useful for article generation. In addition, our current methods detect named entities from images considering each entity independently using a text-image matching framework. However, since the relationships between entities also affect the probability that entities appear in images, the incorporation of entity relationships can also be considered to further improve the entity detection module." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.459, + 0.267, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.484, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE is a model for article generation and retrieval. It can either help automated journalism or defending against machine-generation articles. However, there is no perfect system which can generate \\(100\\%\\) accurate articles. Therefore, it is critical for practitioners to check the fact mentioned in articles and avoid the misinformation brought by failure generation cases. Additionally, someone could use our approach to generate misinformation. However, ENGINE applies the network structure that is same to GPT2, which means the discriminators trained for GPT2 articles (e.g., RoBERTa detector (Liu et al., 2019)) are also effective to discriminate ENGINE-generated articles. Our paper helps to highlight the need for building tools like the RoBERTa detector." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.768, + 0.214, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.79, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siddhartha Banerjee and Prasenjit Mitra. 2016. Wiki-write: Generating wikipedia articles automatically. In *IJCAI*, pages 2740-2746." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.79, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. The journal of machine learning research, 3:1137-1155." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ali Furkan Biten, Lluis Gomez, Marçal Rusinol, and Dimosthenis Karatzas. 2019. Good news, everyone! context driven entity-aware captioning for news images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12466-12475." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.239, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.329, + 0.885, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiangyu Dong, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2021. Injecting entity types into entity-guided text generation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.392, + 0.885, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 320-335." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.481, + 0.885, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 889-898." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.545, + 0.885, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Fung, Christopher Thomas, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Sandeep Polisetty, Heng Ji, Shih-Fu Chang, Kathleen McKeown, Mohit Bansal, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Infosurgeon: Cross-media fine-grained information consistency checking for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1683-1698." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.673, + 0.885, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.75, + 0.885, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiuxiang Gu, Jianfei Cai, Shafiq R Joty, Li Niu, and Gang Wang. 2018. Look, imagine and match: Improving textual-visual cross-modal retrieval with generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7181-7189." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tatsunori B Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2019. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1689-1701." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8693" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.135, + 0.487, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spacy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear, 7(1):411-420." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.199, + 0.487, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1587-1596. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.487, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sungyeon Kim, Dongwon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Suha Kwak. 2020. Proxy anchor loss for deep metric learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3238-3247." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.349, + 0.487, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sarah Kreps, R Miles McCain, and Miles Brundage. 2020. All the news that's fit to fabricate: A-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of Experimental Political Science, pages 1-14." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.425, + 0.487, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leo Leppänen, Myriam Munezero, Mark Granroth-Wilding, and Hannu Toivonen. 2017. Data-driven news generation for automated journalism. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on natural language generation, pages 188-197." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.501, + 0.487, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Li, Aixin Sun, Jianglei Han, and Chenliang Li. 2020. A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.563, + 0.487, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12888-12900. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.639, + 0.487, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fuxiao Liu, Yinghan Wang, Tianlu Wang, and Vicente Ordonez. 2021. Visualnews: Benchmark and challenges in entity-aware image captioning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6761-6771." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.714, + 0.487, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.79, + 0.487, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyeonseob Nam, Jung-Woo Ha, and Jeonghee Kim. 2017. Dual attention networks for multimodal reasoning and matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 299-307." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Duy-Kien Nguyen and Takayuki Okatani. 2018. Improved fusion of visual and language representations by dense symmetric co-attention for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.086, + 0.881, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6087-6096." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.123, + 0.883, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.212, + 0.883, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32:8026-8037." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.313, + 0.883, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nanyun Peng, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Towards controllable story generation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Storytelling, pages 43-49." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.376, + 0.883, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.465, + 0.883, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.514, + 0.883, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.577, + 0.883, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arnau Ramisa, Fei Yan, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Krystian Mokolajczyk. 2017. Breakingnews: Article annotation by image and text processing. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(5):1072-1085." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.652, + 0.883, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 815-823." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.728, + 0.883, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.816, + 0.883, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Merit Stephen, Xiong Caiming, Bradbury James, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. Proceedings of ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quan Sun, Yuxin Fang, Ledell Wu, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. 2023. Eva-clip: Improved training techniques for clip at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15389." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8694" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reuben Tan, Bryan A. Plummer, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Detecting cross-modal inconsistency to defend against neural fake news. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.149, + 0.488, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reuben Tan, Bryan A Plummer, Kate Saenko, JP Lewis, Avneesh Sud, and Thomas Leung. 2022. Newsstories: Illustrating articles with visual summaries. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 644-661. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.226, + 0.488, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.329, + 0.488, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alasdair Tran, Alexander Mathews, and Lexing Xie. 2020. Transform and tell: Entity-aware news image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13035-13045." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.405, + 0.488, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.469, + 0.488, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bokun Wang, Yang Yang, Xing Xu, Alan Hanjalic, and Heng Tao Shen. 2017. Adversarial cross-modal retrieval. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 154-162." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.532, + 0.488, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Julien Chaumont, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.648, + 0.488, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vikas Yadav and Steven Bethard. 2018. A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2145-2158." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.725, + 0.488, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Defending against neural fake news. Neurips." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.792, + 0.42, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Additional Experiment Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.818, + 0.312, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Article Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additional qualitative results on article generation are provided in Figure 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 as the supplement of our main paper, demonstrating that ENGINE is able to generate articles given different news sources." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.771, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Article Quality Annotation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.884, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6 reports human accuracy in identifying articles as machine or human-generated to supplement the main paper. We see that ENGINE-XL is able to generate more realistic-looking news articles on Goodnews, consistent with the conclusion in our main paper." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.214, + 0.839, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Human-based detector
GROVER-Mega76.4%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)73.6%
ENGINE-XL70.4%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.299, + 0.882, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: The performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated on GoodNews." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.356, + 0.88, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Ablation Study on Top-k Named Entities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.377, + 0.882, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide the ablation study on top-k named entities in Table 7. We see that the model achieves the best performance when \\( k \\) is set to 15. When \\( k \\) is greater than 10, the improvement is limited." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.452, + 0.863, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
top-k named entities5101520
PPL ↓15.514.814.514.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.512, + 0.882, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Ablation study on the number of named entities detected by CLIP (GoodNews)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.569, + 0.874, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Recall of CLIP-detected Named Entities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.59, + 0.884, + 0.783 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use Oracle NE as ground truth labels to evaluate the retrieval results by CLIP model. In Table 8, we observe that approximately \\(30\\%\\) named entities from Oracle NE have been retrieved by CLIP. In contrast, recall of Cap on GoodNews and VisualNews are \\(22.57\\%\\) and \\(7.41\\%\\) respectively. The gap between GoodNews and VisualNews is likely because captions in GoodNews are often much longer than captions in VisualNews. The retrieval results validate that ClipNE contains more relevant named entities compared to named entities extracted solely based on captions." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.793, + 0.87, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Named EntitiesGoodNewsVisualNews
Cap22.577.41
ClipNE29.8431.19
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.857, + 0.882, + 0.914 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Recall of Cap, ClipNE on GoodNews and VisualNews. Cap represents named entities that appear in captions, ClipNE represent named entities detected by CLIP model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8695" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.476, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Ablation Study on the Canonical Order" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ablation study of varying inference order is shown in Table 9. From the Table, we see that canonical orders which are not consistent with the training order result in greater PPL of the language model. The model achieves the best performance when the inference order is aligned with the training order." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.229, + 0.489, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
canonical orderGoodNews PPL↓
date-domain-title-summary18.2
title-date-domain-summary19.2
summary-date-domain-title20.5
domain-date-title-summary17.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.33, + 0.488, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Ablation study on the canonical order during inference (GoodNews)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.385, + 0.443, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 Ablation Study on Article Retrieval" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.406, + 0.49, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We ablate the two modules of our method on article retrieval in Table 10. Text-only denotes that we directly use the original articles as the input. NE denotes named entity extraction, and EA denotes the entity-aware mechanism. From the table, we observe that both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can boost the article retrieval performance." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.545, + 0.508, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
Text-only57.978.685.254.877.382.7
NE60.080.385.956.178.283.7
NE-EA61.982.086.756.378.383.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.652, + 0.49, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Ablation study on article retrieval (VisualNews). Both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can improve the article retrieval performance on VisualNews." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.722, + 0.488, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.7 Decoding Strategy for Article Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Likelihood-maximization decoding strategies like greedy search or beam search work well in close-ended generation such as image captions, machine translation, or summarization. However, these methods suffer from the repetitive text problem in open-ended generations like dialog or story generation (Hashimoto et al., 2019; Holtzman et al., 2019). Sampling methods (Fan et al., 2018; Holtzman et al., 2019) are therefore proposed to introduce more randomness and surprise to text generation. In our work, we adopt the top-p sampling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(nucleus sampling) method (Holtzman et al., 2019) as our decoding strategy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.128, + 0.857, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.8 Article Quality Annotation Templates" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.149, + 0.884, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following (Tan et al., 2020), annotators are asked to indicate a reason for whether the articles are human-written or machine-manipulated. We provide a view of the AMT worker interface in Figure 13." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8696" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.249, + 0.611, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: Daniel Agger leaves Liverpool to return to former club Brondby" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.264, + 0.337, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.theguardian.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.275, + 0.259, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Date: 08-30-2014" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.293, + 0.256, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.265, + 0.299, + 0.471, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Agger has rejoined Brondby for an undisclosed fee." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.364, + 0.297, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.387, + 0.477, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Liverpool have announced the sale of the defender Daniel Agger to the Danish club Brondby for an undisclosed fee. The 29-year-old Denmark international joined the Anfield club from Brondby in 2006 and went on to make more than 200 appearances for the club but had fallen down the pecking order under Brendan Rodgers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.467, + 0.479, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"Liverpool have been such a big part of my life and my family's lives for so long, that leaving is extremely difficult,\" Agger said. \"The opportunity arose for me to return home to Brondby and at this stage of my career it felt like the right decision for me.\" I wouldn't leave here to go anywhere else and that has been proven by my actions in recent seasons - I have turned down many offers to move to other Premier League and European clubs. \"I would like to thank the Liverpool supporters for the incredible backing they have given me in my time here and the warmth and generosity of spirit displayed to my family. \"This has been our home and somewhere we have been very happy and settled. However, more recently I have started to feel the effects of playing regularly in a league that is as physically demanding as the Premier League is, and I would not want to stay if I did not think that I was able to meet that challenge week in, week out.\"" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.5, + 0.364, + 0.678, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.498, + 0.387, + 0.862, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Liverpool defender Daniel Agger has left Anfield to return to his previous club Brondby. The Danish international midfielder was reported to have agreed personal terms with the club. The 29-year-old left Liverpool in 2006 following their relegation from the Premier League and has featured for the national team in Denmark's recent seasons." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.497, + 0.467, + 0.862, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The move to Brondby was said to be a \"cash - plus \" deal. \" We're very pleased Daniel Agger has chosen to continue his development at Brondby,\" read a statement on the club website. \" He's a young man who has shown great potential in the Premier League, and we look forward to working with him again.\" Brondby, who are in the Danish Superliga, have a squad of more than 200 players. The Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers said : \" As a footballer you dream of playing in the Premier League and I'm very pleased that Daniel Agger has chosen to come back to Brondby.\" He's a good defender and I'm sure he will work very hard to prove to the club that he is a good player. \" We like to think of him as a very important player for his nationality. But he has a great character. You might think he's a bit of a character but you 'll see he's as strong a character as any of the other players here.\" Agger said : \" I am extremely proud to play for Brondby.\" I will always consider it as one of the happiest days of my career so far. It has been a great and very memorable time, and the supporters have been fantastic. My future lies with the club, and hopefully, it will be here for a long time. \" I also want to thank the Liverpool fans for their support. Without them I wouldn't have been able to carry on fighting for this shirt, so thank you!\"" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.754, + 0.804, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Guardian." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8697" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.206, + 0.49, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: State of Britain's wildlife 'increasingly fragile'" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.221, + 0.292, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.bbc.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.231, + 0.258, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Date: 12-08-2015" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.25, + 0.256, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.265, + 0.256, + 0.425, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dark green fritillary butterfly" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.319, + 0.286, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.341, + 0.477, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Britain's wildlife is in an increasingly fragile state, with animals carrying out vital jobs for farmers being lost more rapidly than others, say scientists. Insects that pollinate crops or fight pests are at risk of disappearing, putting food production in jeopardy, according to the team. The research brings together millions of wildlife records spanning 40 years. It suggests conservation efforts should focus on certain areas, they add. Dr Tom Oliver of the University of Reading, who led the research, said it was the biggest and most comprehensive report ever assembled for any country in the world. \"By standardising records from an army of amateur biologists across the country, we have amassed an impressive array of data, giving us our most complete picture yet of the state of Britain's wildlife,\" he told BBC News. \"The picture that emerges is of an increasingly fragile system, particularly in species that do vital jobs for humans. \"Unless efforts are made to reverse some of these declines, we face a future where we will be less confident that we can effectively grow our food.\" Benefits from nature." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.533, + 0.477, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The researchers looked at records of the changing fortunes of more than 4,000 types of plant and animal living in England, Wales and Scotland between 1970 and 2009. Species such as bees, dragonflies, grasshoppers, ladybirds, plants and mosses were put into groups based on the role they play in nature. Groups providing pollination and pest control benefits had undergone declines while those involved in functions such as decay or mopping up carbon emissions were more stable. Plants and animals regarded as of cultural importance to humans, such as birds, butterflies and hedgehogs, also fared badly. Prof James Bullock, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxfordshire, a co-researcher on the study, said conservation efforts should focus on the areas where there was strong evidence of declining fortunes.\"Conservation actions, such as wildlife friendly farming, can avoid the loss of biodiversity and the resulting erosion of the pollination, pest control and other benefits we derive from nature,\" he said. And Dr Oliver said there were a number of measures that individuals could take to help to improve the future for wildlife in the British Isles. They include: Making gardens wildlife friendly Purchasing food grown in a sustainable way to wildlife Helping to collect data on wildlife. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.498, + 0.319, + 0.663, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.494, + 0.34, + 0.865, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The state of Britain's wildlife has become increasingly fragile due to loss of habitat and changes in the climate, a study has suggested. Mass bird and butterfly losses have increased along with climate change, scientists found, which means many species are not as well equipped to cope. And while changes in food distribution, such as floods, may cause short - term problems, they can make long - term problems worse. Drought and flood events could put millions of birds and insects at risk, the scientists concluded. Monitoring of more than 4,000 species of birds, butterflies and moths across England, Wales and Scotland for 40 years concluded that the UK's biodiversity was still very good - only smaller than it was in 1975. But the biological communities in which they live were now less diverse than when these earlier surveys took place, which meant their ability to recover was less certain, they added. \"We have lost several species of already endangered species,\" explained lead researcher Dr Tom Oliver, a naturalist at the University of Reading. \"And we are moving into many of these habitats that are becoming drier and thus less suitable for them. \"The results of the study were \" far more alarming \" than expected.\" The situation looks pretty dire,\" said Dr James Bullock from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Oxfordshire, who was not involved with the research. He told BBC News that Britain's wildlife was already extremely stressed. \" Our natural environment is suffering from climate change, which is melting the ice sheets and expanding the oceans, and from human - generated pollution, so we are going to have a much more polluted environment in the future.\" And the species we are losing are particularly important because when you lose species, you do so in numbers, they cease to exist in numbers. \" The loss of a single species in Britain alone has the potential to affect millions of other organisms. \"The impact of the findings is likely to be felt most in many communities across the British Isles. \"We have lost a large number of species,\" Dr Oliver added. \" It's going to have a big impact on the ecology of Britain.\" He explained that the risk of long - term damage was unlikely to be taken lightly : \" We are more concerned about short - term impacts. \"The researchers believe that much work needs to be done to understand how, in time, this situation might change. Research in Nature Communications suggests that climate change means there has been a sharp decline in the number of butterfly species spotted in northern England - down by a third between 1970 and 2009 Species such as the large blue have struggled for many generations as the cold weather has made it too cold to overwinter in the UK.Follow Helen on Twitter." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.208, + 0.797, + 0.788, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from BBC." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8698" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.233, + 0.573, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: Robberies plague Tenleytown area over the past few weeks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.248, + 0.356, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.washingtonpost.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.259, + 0.258, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Date: 05-23-2016" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.277, + 0.256, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.265, + 0.283, + 0.482, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Video shows suspects robbing attacking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.266, + 0.296, + 0.403, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Georgetown Day student" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.347, + 0.296, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.37, + 0.502, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A student at Georgetown Day School was robbed last month in the same area of the District where a student at another school was stabbed during a robbery attempt, and near where two other robberies also occurred last month. The student at Georgetown Day was robbed about 1:30 p.m. April 27 in the 4200 block of Davenport Street, near the private school. Three robbers approached, and began beating the victim, police said, although they did not identify him as a student. They went through his pants pocket and took his glasses, wallet and phone before fleeing on foot, police said. A spokeswoman for Georgetown Day issued a statement saying that a student there was robbed along 42nd Street in Tenleytown on April 27, and the school provided immediate medical and security support. The statement said the school has held an assembly devoted to neighborhood safety training and it has adjusted the patrols of school security officers. That robbery occurred two days after an April 25 incident in which authorities said a student at Woodrow Wilson High School was stabbed in the leg during an attempted robbery near the school. In the Wilson incident, the robber was described as a man in his 30s. No description was provided of the robbers on Davenport Street NW. Police released video Monday of three people described as \"persons of interest.\" The video showed the victim and the robbers approaching each other on a sidewalk, with school buses lined up at a curb. Suddenly the student is knocked down and one or two of the robbers appear to go through his pockets. But the video does not appear to make possible a detailed description of the robbers. The stabbing comes nearly a week after two robberies, one of them involving a student victim, were reported on streets near Wilson and near Georgetown Day. Both occurred within about 15 minutes of each other April 19. In each instance, three people, one of whom who was armed with a knife, approached female victims and demanded their cellphones and debit cards. A juvenile male has been arrested in those cases, police said." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.347, + 0.7, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.37, + 0.865, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A group that robbed Georgetown Day School of valuables including cash last month and a purse while it was locked up in a dormitory has also robbed a spate of Georgetown Day students, police said. The initial thefts occurred April 27 and April 27. Two men entered the school, stealing the wallets and purses of two female students, police said. A total of four men were released from custody. The school said the total was $ 170. The last robbery occurred about 1:30 p.m. April 27 near the store at 4200 Davenport Street. Three male suspects fled the school on foot, and a local resident engaged in an effort to help the robbers, police said. It took about 15 minutes before the local man was able to locate them. The three defendants - one in his 20s, one in his late 20s and one in his late teens - fled along Davenport Street NW and into a residential neighborhood, police said. That resident was identified as a friend of the robbers and assisted in helping apprehend them. The robbery at Georgetown Day came two days after a robbery at Woodrow Wilson High School in Tenleytown. That April 25 robbery took place near 42nd Street and Davenport Street NW, a major thoroughfare in Tenleytown. According to police, two men in their 20s robbed a woman in her 30s. The robbers fled with a purse containing cash that was in a pink leather wallet. On Monday, the Wilson robbery went unsolved for nearly a week. Staff at the school said no incidents had been reported. \"We do have a staff member watching the campus. You go through the normal procedures of setting up alarms,\" said a Tenleytown police spokeswoman.\" We were n't able to get that information from the yet. The person you are talking to is someone within security. You have to keep an eye on him.\" Correction : This story has been updated to reflect that the Davenport Street robbery occurred April 19, not April 27." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.77, + 0.828, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Washington Post." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8699" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.234, + 0.516, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: Courts again rule against streaming upstart Aero" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.248, + 0.316, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.usatoday.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.26, + 0.257, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Date: 08-21-2014" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.278, + 0.255, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.263, + 0.283, + 0.544, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this photo illustration Aereocom a Web service that provides television shows online is shown on an iPhone 4S on April 22 2014 in New York City" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.347, + 0.295, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.369, + 0.474, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A federal court will not hear Aeroo's argument that the streaming media company should be allowed to operate similarly to a cable company. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Aeroo will have to take its argument to the district court, according to court documents first reported by The Washington Post. This decision continues broadcasters' winning streak against the upstart service. Launched two years ago, Aeroo delivered over-the-air channels via online streaming to computers and tablets for about $8 a month and had brought the service to 11 cities. The Supreme Court ruled two months ago that Aeroo was violating copyright law by not paying the networks for transmitting their signals. After that, the streaming media company voluntarily shut down and told the U.S. District Court that it wanted to be treated as the equivalent to a cable TV system and apply for a compulsory license to stream live TV broadcasts. Subsequently, the Copyright Office's general counsel said that the office did not think that Aeroo would qualify, but fell short of denying Aeroo's filing because the issue remained alive in the courts. Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.494, + 0.347, + 0.671, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.492, + 0.369, + 0.867, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The high court delivered yet another blow to Aeroo in a pair of unanimous court opinions Thursday declaring the popular streaming service illegally alters the contents of customers' cable subscriptions and is guilty of violating copyright law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which first ruled against Aeroo two years ago, urged the justices to reject its claim that it is simply a device for consumers to access live TV without paying for it. Aeroo lets consumers use a digital antenna to receive live broadcasts online and streams those broadcasts as they are being transmitted over the Internet, just like cable TV. Through those transmissions the consumer also becomes a subscriber to the over - the - air service. But even if they keep Aeroo's service on, only a portion of the amount paid for cable service remains. For example, for $ 16.95 per month Aeroo customers receive nearly all the TV shows they request, regardless of what shows they watch. For about $8 each the consumer loses the signals they might already have over the Internet. Thus the company is violating copyright law by redistributing the service users already pay for without paying for the service they are receiving from cable operators. \"The Court finds that Aeroo's business model violates this section of the Copyright Act,\" 11 judges wrote in the majority opinion. The Washington Post, which first reported on the decision, called it \"a blow to digital media and to consumers.\" \"This unanimous decision means a lot,\" Aeroo chief executive Mike Snider said in a statement. \"Consumers no longer have to pay to receive the traditional way they watch TV. They now have the option to pay only for a service that delivers those channels, all for free.\" Aeroo has petitioned the court to change the district court's ruling to the full appeals court, which is likely to do so. The Supreme Court upheld the same ruling from two months ago. Aeroo said it will appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Experts tell the Post that its previous case shows that the Copyright Office's determination to give consumers access to streaming services without paying retailled companies is likely to be reversed by the appeals court. Follow @jswartz on Twitter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.186, + 0.769, + 0.809, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from USA Today." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8700" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.251, + 0.582, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Title: James F. Holland, Trailblazing Cancer Researcher, Dies at 92" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.265, + 0.31, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.276, + 0.257, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Date: 03-27-2018" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.294, + 0.221, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.225, + 0.295, + 0.534, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dr. Holland with his wife, Dr. Jimmie Holland, who pioneered the field of psycho-oncology. While she treated the emotional distress of cancer patients, he focused on discovering universal remedies. She died in December." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.562, + 0.294, + 0.63, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.632, + 0.296, + 0.848, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dr. James F. Holland in an undated photograph. In the 1950s, he and his colleagues were considered research cowboys by some colleagues, he said." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.363, + 0.295, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.397, + 0.471, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James F. Holland, a founding father of chemotherapy who helped pioneer a lifesaving drug treatment for pediatric leukemia patients, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.454, + 0.415, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The cause was respiratory failure, his son Steven said." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.476, + 0.471, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dr. Holland and his medical collaborators in the 1950s were scorned by some colleagues as research \"cowboys,\" as he put it, because they audaciously tackled what was considered an incurable disease and tried to treat it with several chemicals simultaneously, instead of sequentially." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.544, + 0.471, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When their research began, fewer than one in three children who were found to have acute lymphoblastic leukemia lived as long as a year. Today, as many as nine in 10 survive the disease, in which the bone marrow makes too many immature white blood cells." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.611, + 0.471, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another clinical trial that Dr. Holland directed in the 1970s, to contain acute myeloid leukemia, a somewhat similar malfunction in blood cell production, resulted in what became the standard treatment." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.491, + 0.363, + 0.668, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.49, + 0.386, + 0.866, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James F. Holland, an innovative oncologist whose scientific insights made him, as he once said, a \"Google\" for cancer research, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.49, + 0.431, + 0.866, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The cause was a widespread myeloid leukemia subtype, a cancer of the blood cells in bone marrow that occurs in fewer than one in three patients." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.49, + 0.476, + 0.867, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mr. Holland was one of the few oncologists to propose, in the 1950s, the chemical treatment known as stereosporin -- hence the name. He was also among the first to suggest ( though not actually carry out ) what became known as precancer therapy : turning over nonmedical patients to their regular doctors, while supplementing their therapies with medications to kill cancer cells. The mere suggestion of precancer therapy, it seemed to some, would have rendered it toxic." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.49, + 0.566, + 0.867, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "At the time, though, Mr. Holland thought it should not. He and his colleagues had been working for as long as a year on drugs to prevent acute lymphoblastic leukemia in patients with advanced disease, in which cells on the surface of the blood can proliferate out of control after being overexposed by chemotherapy. Doctors usually did this only after the patient's health deteriorated. Today, many hospitals will not perform precancer therapy, either." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.49, + 0.656, + 0.867, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "But in the 1970s, he and his colleagues were regarded as \" research cowboys \" by their colleagues. Known for treating as many as nine of 10 cancer cases, they had been derided even by their own specialty, nuclear medicine, for treating these patients when \" the science does not justify it,\" Dr. Steven Holland, his brother and his only sibling, said." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.752, + 0.83, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from New York Times." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8701" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.225, + 0.237, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Boulter" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.247, + 0.267, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written Wikipedia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.268, + 0.49, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. He had a guest role in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002. In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \\\" Craig \\\" in the episode \\\" Teddy's Story \\\" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. He was cast in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur, which was performed at the Drum Theatre in Plymouth and the Menier Chocolate Factory in London. He was directed by John Tiffany and starred alongside Ben Whishaw, Shane Zaza, Harry Kent, Fraser Ayres, Sophie Stanton and Dominic Hall. \\n\\nThe 2006, Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the play Citizenship written by Mark Ravenhill. He appeared on a 2006 episode of the television series, Doctors, followed by a role in the 2007 theatre production of How to Curse directed by Josie Rourke. How to Curse was performed at Bush Theatre in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Boulter starred in two films in 2008, Daylight Robbery by filmmaker Paris Leonti, and Donkey Punch directed by Olly Blackburn. In May 2008, Boulter made a guest appearance on a two @-@ part episode arc of the television series Waking the Dead, followed by an appearance on the television series Survivors in November 2008. He had a recurring role in ten episodes of the television series Casualty in 2010, as \\\" Kieron Fletcher \\\". Boulter starred in the 2011 film Mercenaries directed by Paris Leonti. \\n\\nThe play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. A review of Boulter's performance in The Independent on Sunday described him as \\\" horribly menacing \\\" in the role, and he received critical reviews in The Herald, and Evening Standard. He appeared in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002 as \\\" Addem Armitage \\\" in the episode \\\" Political Expediency \\\", and had a role as a different character \\\" Toby Steele \\\" on The Bill. \\nHe had a recurring role in 2003 on two episodes of The Bill, as character \\\" Connor Price \\\". In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \\\" Craig \\\" in the episode \\\" Teddy's Story \\\" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. Boulter starred as \\\" Darren \\\", in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur.\\n" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.247, + 0.662, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated Wikipedia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.268, + 0.868, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons. He has also starred on TV as a teacher and actor. In 2004 Boulter starred in the stage play Waste in Plymouth. He made his film debut at the Festival theatre in London in the 2005 John Sabatalain adaption of the John Grant -written novel, Intimate Behaviour. In 2006 he won a Samuel Beckett award for Best Performance in a Television Play for the film version of his play Teddy's Story. In 2007 Boulter played the lead role in the adaptation of Patrick Burden's book, East of Eden. In 2008 he was involved with Dominic Hall and John Deed and Craig Mark Strong, who were co - writer of another film, the comedy thriller, Derek Jacobi And The Mercenaries, and the TV adaptation of the Hot Fuzz movies. In May 2008 he made his film acting debut in the film Fever. Since then he has been sought out for appearing in films and TV series including Mercury Fur, which he appeared in as John Tiffany ; Hammersmith, where he played Ben Whishaw ; and London's Bush Theatre, where he appeared alongside Shane Zaza in Man of Economic Mass. In November 2008 he returned to the stage, in West End production of This Side of Paradise and in the West End production of Until Goes. He is currently appearing at the Shakespeare theatre at Fulham with a revival of Gods and Heroes. Robert Boulter biography Being called a fusion of two performers has never been embarrassing in Boulter's theatre career. In taking the offbeat, gruff character of Teddy that readers may instantly recognise as Harry Kent he defied expectations ; it was an unexpected and welcome return from a genre that had seen him move towards cheerfulness, his name becoming subtly attached to his image. He has also made the perfect transition from film to stage, propelling himself between brutal, seriously unpleasant characters on screen and harsh, adoring protagonists with dignity and aplomb in real life. Boulter lives with his family in Burn, Devon. His son Fraser Ayres is a member of the team behind the website jeffersonsworld.com, and his daughter Sophie Stanton has been a character actor in the theatre. Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the 2010 film Donkey Punch. The other main roles in the film were Mark Ravenhill, who plays a former officer in an augmented forces unit, and Josie Rourke as his. In the play the lead character, \\*\" the demon of myth \\*\" is C, who lives in the arctic wasteland and is transformed when he is savagely hunted by a face - eating gnactus. Boulter played the first half of the story, or lion, while the other half was The Soldier, a mercenary, \\*\" the curse of mythology \\\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.883, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles (from WikiText dataset (Stephen et al., 2017)). We generate articles conditioned on both the title Robert Boulter, and the first 50 tokens highlighted by light yellow. The articles are cut to fit the figure size." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8702" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.232, + 0.344, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1933 Treasure Coast hurricane" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.254, + 0.267, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-written Wikipedia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.276, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United States during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane, and the third major hurricane of the season, it formed east @-@ northeast of the Leeward Islands on August 31. The tropical storm moved rapidly west @-@ northwestward, steadily intensifying to a hurricane. It acquired peak winds of 140 miles per hour (225 km / h) and passed over portions of the Bahamas on September 3, including Eleuthera and Harbour Island, causing severe damage to crops, buildings, and infrastructure. Winds over 100 mph (161 km / h) affected many islands in its path, especially those that encountered its center, and many wharves were ruined. \\n\\nThe hurricane moved across the state, passing near Tampa before moving into Georgia and dissipating. In Florida, the strong winds of the cyclone blew buildings off their foundations, and numerous trees were prostrated in citrus groves. The Treasure Coast region received the most extensive destruction, and Stuart, Jupiter, and Fort Pierce were heavily damaged. Inland, the cyclone weakened rapidly but produced prodigious amounts of rain, causing a dam to collapse near Tampa. The storm caused $ 3 million in damage (1933 USD) after damaging or destroying 6 @, @ 848 homes. \\n\\nUnusually, the storm hit Florida less than 24 hours before another major hurricane bearing 125 @-@ mile @-@ per @-@ hour (201 km / h) winds struck South Texas; never have two major cyclones hit the United States in such close succession. \\n\\nThe origins of the hurricane were from a tropical wave that possibly spawned a tropical depression on August 27, although there was minimal data over the next few days as it tracked to the west @-@ northwest. On August 31, a nearby ship reported gale force winds, which indicated that a tropical storm had developed to the east @-@ northeast of the Lesser Antilles. Based on continuity, it is estimated the storm attained hurricane status later that day. Moving quickly to the west @-@ northwest, the storm passed north of the Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico. Early on September 2, a ship called the Gulfwing reported a barometric pressure of 978 mbar (28 @. @ 88 inHg), which confirmed that the storm attained hurricane status. After passing north of the Turks and Caicos islands, the hurricane struck Eleuthera and Harbour Island in the Bahamas on September 3, the latter at 1100 UTC. A station on the latter island reported a pressure of 27 @. @ 90 inHg (945 mb) during the 30 minute passage of the eye.\\n\\n" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.662, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ENGINE-generated Wikipedia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.505, + 0.275, + 0.869, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United State during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane. A Category 4 cyclone with winds of \\(100\\mathrm{mph}\\) generated winds of 161 km per hour and a water temperature of -49 degrees. The storm killed 6 people, flooded an area of \\(848~\\mathrm{sq~km}\\), and caused \\(\\$ 3\\) million in damage. Although it missed the Florida coast, the system swept across the rest of the United States less than 24 hours. The heat from the system caused widespread fires and continued to bring heavy rain and wind throughout the south and central regions. In south Florida alone, the fires killed two men and destroyed 98 homes in the Lesser Antilles and southwest Florida. The Turks and Caicos islands were particularly badly hit because of a storm surge that produced high seas and flooding, especially along the coast from Tampa, Georgia, to Puerto Rico. The Turks and Caicos islands experienced over \\(125\\mathrm{mph}\\) winds, winds of \\(125\\text{@ - }\\) mile per hour, and only \\(1\\mathrm{cm}\\) to 2 inches of rain in the 30 minute interval starting around 1400 UTC. The Turks and Caicos islands also experienced an over \\(140\\mathrm{mph}\\) wind shear at \\(5875\\mathrm{kp}\\) / m. In south Georgia, home to the Simpson and Penally counties, the worst of the damage was felt in the Savannah area, where \\(800+\\) homes were damaged or destroyed and well over 1000 had to be demolished. The most intense tropical storm to strike the United States during the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season occurred when Tropical Depression 6 formed over the Bahamas during the winter of 1913. The storm resulted in catastrophic loss of life and destruction. As of \\(24\\mathrm{km}\\) west of the Bahamas, the lowest pressure was \\(3.21\\mathrm{mb}\\), and the storm had maximum sustained winds of \\(200\\mathrm{km/h}\\), with gusts to over \\(200\\mathrm{km/h}\\). In south Florida, the intense storm produced winds of \\(100\\mathrm{mph}\\) over south - western southwest Florida and a south - western coast generally between the edges of the Low Range and the extreme southeast of the storms. In western Cuba, the storms produced winds up to what the Weather Bureau described as \\(\\backslash\\) \"about \\(65\\mathrm{mph}\\backslash\\) \" in some spots, and all tropical storms at Category 4, 5 and 7, respectively, were downgraded to a tropical storm or depression. Texas though was hit by Hurricane Norbert in early October 1913. At the time, the Weather Bureau reported that the storm produced winds of \\(800 - 900\\mathrm{km/h}\\), and a storm tide of \\(848\\mathrm{m}\\). The storm passed over northeast Texas between midnight and dawn, and was the first major tropical cyclone to impact the United States during the winter of 1913. Norbert resulted in 848 lives being lost and \\(\\$ 98\\) m in damages, amongst other catastrophic damage, as well as numerous fatalities." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.75, + 0.883, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles about 1993 Treasure Coast hurricane." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8703" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.226, + 0.336, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Determine if news articles are human or machine-generated." + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.238, + 0.223, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Requester: Vision Group" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.238, + 0.587, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reward: $1.00 per task" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.636, + 0.238, + 0.706, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tasks available: 0" + }, + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.746, + 0.238, + 0.825, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Duration: 15 Minutes" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.249, + 0.664, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualifications Required: HIT Approval Rate \\((\\%)\\) for all Requesters' HITs greater than or equal to 98 , Number of HITs Approved greater than or equal to 1000" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.28, + 0.427, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instructions: News Articles Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.303, + 0.594, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hello, we are trying to determine how susceptible people are to machine-generated fake news." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.319, + 0.61, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this study, you are asked to discriminate between human and machine-generated news articles." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.329, + 0.857, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will be assigned 5 article samples. Each article sample contains the headline, article body and image/caption pairs. The images and captions are located after the article body where each caption is situated below its corresponding image." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.347, + 0.445, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You should spend no more than 1 to 1.5 minutes on each article." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.362, + 0.412, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please be sure to click the submit buttom for each article." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.371, + 0.866, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please note that we re-rendered all the article samples. As a result, the primitive display is NOT an indicator of whether the article is human or machine generated." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.399, + 0.191, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.401, + 0.246, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shortcuts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.255, + 0.401, + 0.763, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Is this news article human or machine generated? Please choose the option that you think is the most suitable for the given news article." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.854, + 0.402, + 0.864, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "#" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.441, + 0.497, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Duterte, Philippine President, Boasts He Killed Someone as a Teenager" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.498, + 0.519, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MANILA -- The death of Chief Justice Sereno Alan Casolan III, shot at his front gate when he was 13, was the most recent in what is a mounting tally of police killings in the Philippines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.528, + 0.519, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "But Mr. Duterte is beginning to openly talk about his personal transgressions, something that had rarely come up before." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.55, + 0.519, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since at least the start of his administration in June, Mr. Duterte has been lashing out at journalists, academics and everyone else with a magnifying glass. In addition to criminals, he has singled out people with mental disabilities, journalists and judges whom he sees as opponents of his policies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.17, + 0.588, + 0.519, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In videos broadcast on television and in print, Mr. Duterte has projected a maniacal, cartoonishly intimidating stare toward the camera. The gang leader Lech Charles Leffo, a convicted drug dealer, was stabbed to death by Mr. Duterte on the grounds of a provincial court in 2016. The next year, Mr. Duterte beat a man to death with a wooden rod in a crowded Manila public market during an anti-drug operation." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.172, + 0.651, + 0.246, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.417, + 0.722, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Select an option" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.435, + 0.717, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-Generate" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.791, + 0.433, + 0.8, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.45, + 0.784, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the article body" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.792, + 0.45, + 0.8, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.482, + 0.791, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine-Generated because one or more captions is not very relevant to the article body" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.792, + 0.482, + 0.8, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.516, + 0.784, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the caption" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.792, + 0.516, + 0.8, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.547, + 0.785, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine-Generated because the image/caption pairs are not relavent to the article body" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.792, + 0.546, + 0.8, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.58, + 0.774, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine-Generated because something about the article appears off" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.792, + 0.579, + 0.8, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.612, + 0.775, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Machine-Generated because the article title is not really relavent to the article" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.792, + 0.611, + 0.8, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.824, + 0.716, + 0.856, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Submit" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.77, + 0.809, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 13: The interface used by AMT workers in our article quality annotation experiment." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8704" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_origin.pdf b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..802a2709b073cc92ef8f3ced700cea34240706a1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/c2ee6168-3c12-4507-a324-57969290b9e7_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:68f31ffcd9e43832a50f7e77e383a2d52be00a4d7138b304e6271c10d4307b9b +size 2143424 diff --git a/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/full.md b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9961ba04b8cb9266581723ca74d148ab0054c37 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,595 @@ +# Show, Write, and Retrieve: Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval + +Zhongping Zhang Yiwen Gu Bryan A. Plummer + +Boston University + +{zpzhang, yiweng, bplum}@bu.edu + +# Abstract + +Article comprehension is an important challenge in natural language processing with many applications such as article generation or image-to-article retrieval. Prior work typically encodes all tokens in articles uniformly using pretrained language models. However, in many applications, such as understanding news stories, these articles are based on real-world events and may reference many named entities that are difficult to accurately recognize and predict by language models. To address this challenge, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratIoN and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework, to explicitly incorporate named entities into language models. ENGINE has two main components: a named-entity extraction module to extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images associated with articles, and an entity-aware mechanism that enhances the model's ability to recognize and predict entity names. We conducted experiments on three public datasets: GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText, where our results demonstrate that our model can boost both article generation and article retrieval performance, with a 4-5 perplexity improvement in article generation and a $3 - 4\%$ boost in recall@1 in article retrieval. We release our implementation at this http URL. + +# 1 Introduction + +Comprehending articles enables a wide range of applications such as story generation (Fan et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2018), image-to-text retrieval (Tan et al., 2022), automated journalism (Leppänen et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2020), defending against misinformation (Zellers et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020), and writing Wiki articles (Banerjee and Mitra, 2016; Stephen et al., 2017), among others. Inspired by the impressive capability of large language models, recent work (e.g., Radford et al. (2019); Brown et al. (2020); Wang and Komatsuzaki (2021)) generate or retrieve articles by training language models on massive datasets (e.g., The + +# (A) Language Modeling + +Title: Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics +Publish date: 05-24-2016 + +Domain: www.nytimes.com + +Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt, the Oscar winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt will join the London School of Economics' Center for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday by the university, one of Britain's most renowned academic institutions. Ms. Jolie's work there will include delivering guest lectures and taking part in workshops as a "visiting professor in practice." + +# (B) Entity-aware Language Modeling + +![](images/d078c45232d25999ea264e9a0d276705d1ba73ed72169983dcaca467fb8d16c1.jpg) + +Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics +Publish date: 05-24-2016 + +Domain: www.nytimes.com + +Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt $<$ PERSON $>$ , the Oscar-winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations $<$ ORG $>$ refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt $<$ PERSON $>$ will join the London School of Economics' Center $<$ ORG $>$ for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday $<$ DATE $>$ by the university, ... + +Figure 1: We propose entity-aware language modeling for article generation and retrieval. Prior work (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), shown in (A), typically comprehends articles by uniformly encoding all text tokens. However, these approaches face challenges in accurately recognizing and predicting named entities. In our paper, shown in (B), we propose a method to extract named entities from embedded images and explicitly model the named entities in articles, boosting the performance of both article generation and article retrieval. + +Pile (Gao et al., 2020) or LAION400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These models typically uniformly encode all text tokens in the articles including named entities (Radford et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). In other words, named entities like organizations, places, and dates are modeled together with other text, as illustrated in Figure 1(A). However, it poses a challenge for these models to accurately recognize and predict named entities, as they can be unique to specific articles. E.g., in Figure 1(A), entities like "Ms. Jolie" and "Jolie Pitt" may only appear in articles related to the celebrity "Angelina Jolie." + +Directly extracting named entities from user-provided prompts is a straightforward entity-aware approach used by methods addressing news image captioning (Biten et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). However, these methods do not + +generalize well to article generation and retrieval since they rely on substantial contextual information (via the articles) as well as a direct indication of entities that may appear in predicted captions. For example, in Figure 1 (A), the article mentions that Angelina Jolie Pitt is an Oscar winner, but this information is not present in the other metadata like the image captions. Thus, a language model generating an article must infer this named entity information rather than directly extracting it from the metadata. Even if a list of named entities were provided, an article generation model must determine where and when to use each of them. In contrast, in news image captioning, entities used in the caption almost always appear in the body of the article (Liu et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2020), and the image itself will directly inform what named entities should be used for its caption. Thus, as we will show, adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related work (e.g., (Liu et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021)) results in poor performance in our task. + +To address the aforementioned issues, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratiOn and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework to explicitly incorporate and model named entities in articles. ENGINE mainly consists two modules: a named-entity extraction module and an entity-aware module. In the named-entity extraction module, we show that providing a list of named entities for article generation improves performance. However, creating such lists does require a small overhead cost. Thus, we also demonstrate we can improve performance without manual input. + +As shown in Figure 1 (B), we observe that images associated with an article often contain information about the article's events. Therefore, we explore leveraging large vision-language models to extract named entities from embedded images. Specifically, we employ CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to automatically select a set of likely named entities from embedded images. In the entity-aware module, we introduce special tokens after each entity name to indicate its entity category. In this case, ENGINE models the named entity and its entity category jointly. An additional benefit brought by our entity-aware mechanism is the named-entity recognition (NER) ability, i.e., our model not only recognizes and predicts the entity names but also predicts their entity categories simultaneously. + +In summary, the contributions of this paper are: + +- We propose an entity-aware language model, EN- + +GINE, for article generation and retrieval. Compared to existing language models (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023), our entity-aware mechanism enhances the recognition and prediction of named entities by jointly modeling entity names and their entity categories, boosting the performance of article generation and retrieval. + +- We introduce a named-entity extraction method to recognize named entities from embedded images in articles, eliminating the overhead in manually creating a list of named entities that will appear in the articles. +- Experiments on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) show a perplexity gain of 4-5 points for article generation and a Recall@1 boost of $3 - 4\%$ for article retrieval. We also show that ENGINE generalizes via zero-shot transfer to WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). +- We perform comprehensive experiments on human evaluation and machine discrimination, validating that ENGINE produces more realistic articles compared to prior work (Radford et al., 2019; Zellers et al., 2020). This suggests that our model can potentially contribute additional training data for the development of more powerful machine-generated text detectors. + +# 2 Related Work + +Article Generation in recent work uses large-scale pretrained transformer models that can be separated into unconditional text generation (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and conditional text generation (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). Generating articles via unconditional samples has been found to be less effective, since the models may interpret the first sentence of articles as a tweet and start posting responses (Brown et al., 2020). To enable controllable generation, GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) conditions article generation on titles and the initial sentences of articles. Grover (Zellers et al., 2020) decomposes news articles into distinct parts and conditions generation on metadata like the author or organization. In this paper, we further explore the impact of named entities and embedded article images. Specifically, ENGINE produces articles conditioned on both metadata and embedded article images, with a dedicated focus on the explicit extraction and modeling of named entities. + +Article Retrieval is commonly accomplished by image-text matching frameworks. Early work on + +![](images/21e0eaf11d34e0ee8dbbc50ea71e81a31ff411ffa4241c30ba1b52a112b7c7f7.jpg) +Figure 2: ENGINE overview. Our model mainly consists of two modules: (A) Named-entity Extraction: We extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles. See Section 3.2 for detailed discussion; (B) Entity-aware mechanism: Each named entity is associated by its corresponding entity category. ENGINE models the entity name and category jointly to avoid inconsistency between named entities in images and article text. See Section 3.1 for detailed discussion. + +image-text matching has primarily focused on developing bespoke models (Wang et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Nguyen and Okatani, 2018; Nam et al., 2017) with various retrieval loss functions, such as triplet loss (Schroff et al., 2015) or proxy anchor loss (Kim et al., 2020). However, these models are often domain-specific and limited in the expressiveness of the text. In recent work, large vision-language models (Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022) have addressed these limitations by contrastive image-language pretraining on massive datasets (e.g., LAION-400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These large vision-language models have demonstrated exceptional performance in zero-shot image-text matching. Therefore, in our experiments, we employ the pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) to extract visual and text representations from articles, and compute the cosine similarity between these representations to obtain the retrieval predictions. + +Entity-aware mechanisms have been applied in closely related tasks, such as news image captioning, which aims to caption images based on articles and images. Ramisa et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end framework that takes the concatenation of article and image features as input and outputs captions by an LSTM decoder. However, this approach often fails to predict named entities that were not seen during training. Thus, more recent work boosts performance by extracting entity representations from user-provided articles and inserts them into generated templates (Biten et al., 2019; + +Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In this paper, we effectively reverse the inputs and outputs of these approaches, i.e., we generate an article based on images and captions rather than generating captions based on images and articles. As discussed in the Introduction, this shift breaks the assumptions used by entity-aware mechanisms in image captioning, causing them to not generalize well in our article generation and retrieval task. + +# 3 ENGINE: Entity-aware article GenerationIoN and rEtrieval + +Given user-provided prompts and embedded article images, our task aims to more accurately represent articles by recognizing and predicting named entities. Thus, we incorporate candidate named entities as an additional control to our language model. We propose an entity-aware mechanism to jointly model entity names and their corresponding entity categories in Section 3.1. To enrich the entity information available to language models, we introduce our named-entity extraction approach in Section 3.2. Finally, we introduce the learning strategy of ENGINE in Section 3.3. Figure 2 provides an overview of our method. + +# 3.1 Entity-aware Mechanism + +As discussed in the Introduction, accurately recognizing and predicting named entities can help avoid inconsistencies between the associated images and the textual content of an article. For example, in NBA news, an entity-aware model should be + +able to predict "Curry" given the preceding word "Stephen," whereas traditional language models might struggle in this regard. Existing methods typically model named entities uniformly with other text, making the leverage of named entities less effective. To help our language model be aware of named entities, we insert the entity category predicted by SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017) after each entity name. We use special tokens as the indicator of these entity types. Then the entity name and its corresponding category are modeled jointly by ENGINE. We visualize our entity-aware mechanism in Figure 2 (B). + +# 3.2 Named-entity Extraction + +Our entity-aware mechanism in Section 3.1 enhances a language model's ability to recognize and predict named entities. However, we find that the entity information extracted from the metadata may not be sufficient for article generation. Thus, as shown in Figure 2 (A), we explore named entity extraction methods from various sources within articles, such as embedded images. Below we discuss two ways to create the named entity list. + +Oracle named-entities. This approach assumes that we are provided with all the named entities that would appear in articles, e.g., named entities provided by a user. To simulate user-provided named entities, we extract named entities from news articles using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). This list is then provided as input to our model. + +CLIP-based NER. Existing Named Entity Recognition (NER) methods (Yadav and Bethard, 2018; Li et al., 2020) primarily distinguish named entities within text documents and are not designed for NER involving images (referred to as Visual-NER in Figure 2(A)). However, we note that CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) was trained on 400 million image-text pairs collected from the internet, many of which likely contain named entities. Thus, we use CLIP to build an open-ended Visual-NER framework. First, we construct a candidate list of named entities for each image by extracting entities from the articles in the dataset using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). Subsequently, we use CLIP to predict the similarity between the article images and the candidate entities. The top $k^1$ entities are then provided as input to our model. + +# 3.3 Learning Strategy + +Language Modeling. Given a set of documents $\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{n}\}$ each with variable length sequences of symbols $\{s_{1}, s_{2}, \ldots, s_{m}\}$ , the statistical language model of a text document $x$ can be represented by the probability of next symbol given all the previous ones (Bengio et al., 2003): + +$$ +p (x) = \prod_ {i = 1} ^ {m} p \left(s _ {i} \mid s _ {1}, \dots , s _ {i - 1}\right), \tag {1} +$$ + +where each symbol $s_i$ is processed uniformly and the document $x$ is viewed as an unstructured text field (also referred as body field later). Language models based only on Eq. 1 produce articles via unconditional samples. Thus, these models are not suitable for controllable generation (Hu et al., 2017). Instead, the language model can be formulated by the joint distribution of separate fields decomposed from the article $x$ (Zellers et al., 2020): + +$$ +p (x) = p (\text {m e t a}, \text {b o d y}), \tag {2} +$$ + +where meta is a data-dependent term consisting of a set of subfields. For instance, meta includes date, title, summary in GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and domain, date, topic, title in VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). Thus, we model $x$ by: + +$$ +p (x) = p (\text {b o d y} \mid \text {m e t a}) p (\text {m e t a}). \tag {3} +$$ + +Based on Eq. 3, we further introduce special tokens $<\text{start-}\tau>$ and $<\text{end-}\tau>$ to indicate the boundaries of field $\tau$ . The content of a target field $\tau$ is sampled from the model starting with $<\text{start-}\tau>$ and ending with $<\text{end-}\tau>$ . Given the named entities extracted by our method (from Section 3.2), Eq. 3 is re-formulated as: + +$$ +p (x) = p (\text {b o d y} \mid \text {m e t a}, \text {e n t i t y}) p (\text {m e t a}, \text {e n t i t y}). \tag {4} +$$ + +To sample from Eq. 4, we define a canonical order $^2$ among the fields (or subfields) of articles $\mathcal{F}:(f_1 < f_2 < \ldots < f_{|\mathcal{F}|})$ and model the articles left-to-right in the order using Eq.1: $s_1^{f_1}, s_2^{f_2}, \ldots, s_{|f_{|\mathcal{F}|}|}^{f_{|\mathcal{F}|}}$ . + +Architecture. Following (Zellers et al., 2020), ENGINE uses the GPT2 architecture (Radford et al., + +2019) for article generation. We experiment with three model sizes: (1) ENGINE-Base has 12 layers and 124 million parameters, on par with GPT2-124M and GROVER-Base; (2) ENGINE-Medium has 24 layers and 355 million parameters, on par with GPT2-355M and GROVER-Large; (3) ENGINE-XL has 48 layers and 1.5 billion parameters, on par with GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega. In addition, we also show ENGINE generalizes across architectures by evaluating on LLAMA (Touvron et al., 2023). For article retrieval, we implement our method on pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023). + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Datasets and Experiment Settings + +Datasets. We evaluate ENGINE on three public datasets: GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019), VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021), and WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). GoodNews provides the URLs from New York Times from 2010 to 2018. After filtering out broken links or non-English articles, we downloaded 307,286 news articles. Following the split ratios of Biten et al. (2019), we randomly split 15,365 articles for validation, 30,728 articles for testing, and used the rest for training. VisualNews contains news articles from four news sources: Guardian, BBC, USA Today, and Washington Post. We obtain 582,194 news articles in total after we removed broken links and articles without metadata. Similarly, we get a 491,796 training set, 28,932 validation set, and a 57,889 test set. WikiText contains 600/60/60 Wikipedia articles in train/test/validation sets, respectively. We performed zero-shot article generation on the test set of WikiText. + +Metrics. Following Zellers et al. (2020), we adopt Perplexity (PPL) $^3$ to evaluate models on article generation. Perplexity is defined as the exponentiated average negative log-likelihood of a sequence. Given Eq. 1, the perplexity of $x$ is calculated by: + +$$ +\operatorname {P P L} (x) = \exp \left\{- \frac {1}{m} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \log p \left(s _ {i} \mid s _ {1}, \dots , s _ {i - 1}\right) \right\} \tag {5} +$$ + +where $s_1, \ldots, s_i$ are ground truth tokens in $x$ and $p(\cdot)$ is the probability predicted by the model. We evaluate models using Recall@K (R@1, R@5, R@10) for article retrieval. + +Implementation Details We primarily implemented our models using Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and Transformer (Wolf et al., 2020) libraries. The maximum sequence length of language models is set to 1024. For ENGINE-Base and ENGINE-Medium, we used a batch size of 8 and a maximum learning rate of $1 \times 10^{-4}$ . For ENGINE-XL, we used a batch size of 4 to fit into GPU memory. Correspondingly, the maximum learning rate is set to $2^{0.5} \times 10^{-4}$ . We finetuned our models for around 3 epochs with 0.06 epoch for linear warm-up on both datasets. We parallelized ENGINE-XL on 4 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s and ENGINE-Medium on 2 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s. ENGINE-XL on VisualNews requires the longest training time- approximately two weeks on our system. + +# 4.2 Article Generation + +Perplexity. Table 1 presents sizes, architectures, and perplexity results of different models on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). We see that ENGINE variants of all model sizes significantly outperform the baselines. On the base size, ENGINE-Base(NE) improves PPL over the original GPT2-124M model by a factor of 2 $(23.6\rightarrow 12.0$ $27.5\rightarrow 13.1)$ . We draw three major conclusions from Table 1. First, the data distribution still plays an important role. Finetuned GPT2s improve PPL over the original GPT2s. The improvements become less obvious with a greater model size (VisualNews: $27.5\rightarrow 18.3$ of base size; $15.7\rightarrow 12.4$ of XL size). Second, ENGINE noticeably improves the performance over finetuned GPTs (4-5 perplexity points on both datasets), which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. Third, our contributions are architecture agnostic. E.g., ENGINE-LLAMA outperforms LLAMA-7B with an approximately 2-point perplexity improvement on both datasets. + +Parameter Efficiency. Table 1 shows that ENGINE can achieve a comparable performance with alternative models using much fewer parameters. For example, ENGINE-Base(NE), with only 124M parameters, outperforms the GPT-NEO-2.7B and achieves comparable performance with finetuned GPT2-1.5B (12.0 vs. 12.6 PPL on GoodNews, 13.1 vs. 12.4 PPL on VisualNews). ENGINE-Medium (NE) model, with 355M parameters, outperforms all the GPT-Series baselines including GPT-J-6B. Figure 3 plots the perplexity as a function of the number of parameters on news datasets, demon + +
Model NamenparamsnlayersdmodelnhedgesGoodNews PPL ↓VisualNews PPL ↓
GPT2-124M (Radford et al., 2019)124M127681223.627.5
GROVER-Base (Zellers et al., 2020)124M127681223.821.9
GPT-Neo-125M (Gao et al., 2020)125M127681227.129.3
GPT2-124M (Finetuned)124M127681217.318.3
ENGINE-Base (ClipNE)124M127681214.816.1
ENGINE-Base (NE)124M127681212.013.1
GPT2-355M (Radford et al., 2019)355M2410241617.820.1
GROVER-Large (Zellers et al., 2020)355M2410241618.516.4
GPT-Neo-1.3B (Gao et al., 2020)1.3B2420481615.315.9
GPT2-355M (Finetuned)355M2410241613.514.0
ENGINE-Medium(clipNE)355M2410241611.612.5
ENGINE-Medium(NE)355M241024169.510.2
GPT2-1.5B (Radford et al., 2019)1.5B4816002513.915.7
GROVER-Mega (Zellers et al., 2020)1.5B4816002514.512.6
GPT-Neo-2.7B (Gao et al., 2020)2.7B3225602013.514.0
GPT-J-6B (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021)6B2840961611.311.6
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)1.5B4816002512.612.4
ENGINE-XL(clipNE)1.5B4816002510.811.1
ENGINE-XL(NE)1.5B481600258.79.0
LLAMA-7B (Touvron et al., 2023)7B324096328.38.5
ENGINE+LLAMA (NE)7B324096326.56.4
+ +Table 1: Perplexity (PPL) comparison on GoodNews and VisualNews. ClipNE denotes that we select CLIP-based named entities in named-entity field (described in Section 3.2), NE denotes that we apply oracle named entities in named-entity field. PPL is calculated only on the article body. We observe that our model consistently outperforms baselines of comparable model sizes. + +strating that ENGINE gets as good or better results than prior work while also using fewer parameters. Additional Baselines adapted from close-related tasks4. In Table 2(A), we see that ENGINE-1.5B outperforms integrating BU (Anderson et al., 2018) and VisualGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022) features, demonstrating that our entity-aware mechanism is more effective than directly incorporating image features. As discussed in the Introduction, this is likely due to the loose correlation between images and their corresponding articles. Table 2(B) demonstrates that the entity-aware mechanisms proposed for other text generation tasks do not generalize well to article generation, where our approach obtains a 4-5 PPL improvement on both datasets. We also find that InfoSurgeon struggles to generate articles well, which we argue is due to its sequence-to + +sequence translation framework finding it challenging to effectively leverage prior knowledge from pretrained language models. + +Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows ablations of ENGINE-Base. We observe that both the caption and named-entity fields boost performance, revealing that cues from embedded images help produce higher-quality articles. Comparing using only captions (Cap) vs. combining them with our Entity-aware mechanism, we get a minimum gain of 0.6 PPL, demonstrating its effectiveness. In addition, we observe that ClipNE outperforms CapNE, validating that CLIP-detected named entities are more effective than those extracted from captions. + +Article Quality User Study. Following (Zellers et al., 2020; Kreps et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020), we ask annotators to distinguish machine-generated articles from human-written articles. We randomly selected 50 news stories from GoodNews and VisualNews test sets (100 total). Given the metadata and news images, we generated news articles using three different language models: GROVER- + +![](images/6ef9faab3a4e3231908a33ed82900c43dd9c0fb77297b0bb4279aa03ad807e37.jpg) +Figure 3: Comparison of the perplexity of different language models on GoodNews (top) and VisualNews (bottom) as a function of learned parameters. + +Mega, GPT2-1.5B (finetuned), and ENGINE-XL. This results in a total of 200 articles per dataset. We recruited 200 Qualified Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) workers per dataset. Each article was annotated 5 times by AMT workers, where each worker was presented with the article titles, images and captions, and was asked to indicate if the article was human or machine generated. If they thought the article was machine-generated, they were asked to indicate a reason for it following the same option format as Tan et al. (2020). Table 3 reports annotation accuracy in identifying articles from VisualNews as machine or human-generated. We see ENGINE-XL is able to generate hard-to-detect news articles (a $2\%$ boost over GPT2-1.5B, and a $5\%$ gain over GROVER-Mega), validating the effectiveness of our approach. + +Machine Discriminator. We apply OpenAI's RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) detector to detect generated articles. The maximum article length is cut to 512 to fit the model input size. For comparison, we use the same article set from our user study. In Table 3, we observe that the machine discriminator is much better at identifying the machine-generated news. We see that articles produced by ENGINE-XL can be reliably detected by RoBERTa though it gets the lowest accuracy on human evaluation. This can be due to the fact that GROVER-Mega, GPT2-1.5B, and ENGINE-XL all share a similar underlying model architecture. Thus, they may contain + +
Model NameGood-NewsVisual-News
(A) BU (Anderson et al., 2018)26.624.3
VisualGLM(Du et al., 2022)11.812.2
ENGINE-1.5B (ours)8.79.0
(B) InfoSurg (Fung et al., 2021)41.842.1
InjType (Dong et al., 2021)18.219.0
VNC (Liu et al., 2021)16.717.8
ENGINE-Base (ours)12.013.1
+ +Table 2: PPL of baselines adapted from close-related tasks. (A) leverages visual features directly extracted from images, (B) contrasts entity-aware mechanisms. Adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related tasks may result in poor performance in our task. + +![](images/44aa366011f6f9853f8da66eb7ea9992fe04980784bf9f81b620c870c173098c.jpg) +Figure 4: Ablation results of ENGINE-Base. Text-only denotes the model focuses only on text information, which is same to finetuned GPT2 model. Cap denotes caption field, EA denotes the Entity-aware mechanism. CapNE denotes named entities extracted from captions. Both the named-entity extraction module and our entity-aware mechanism can improve the performance. + +enough similarities in the distributional features that are recognized by the machine discriminator. + +Zero-shot Article Generation We perform zero-shot experiments on Wikipedia articles to demonstrate ENGINE's ability to generalize. Table 4 reports performance on WikiText. We find that our oracle named entities and entity-aware mechanism still can improve the performance over several baselines, even though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is significantly different. For example, the GPT2 models finetuned on Visualnews get worse performance than the original GPT2 models on WikiText. However, our ENGINE models get comparable or better results than the original GPT2 across different model sizes. + +Qualitative Results. We provide a qualitative comparison of GoodNews articles in Figure 5. Con + +Title: A Designer Unites the Basque Country + +Domain: www.nytimes.com + +Date: 06-10-2016 + +![](images/f532b261a76e3466e3cc65cd0c7a56f7fdedb22722b4d9ef5d08261f0ed05c92.jpg) +Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on GoodNews. We cut the articles to fit the figure size. The entity names from image information are highlighted in light purple (PERSON tag) and light blue (ORG tag) colors. We can see that the named entities in captions also appear in the human-written and ENGINE-generated articles. In contrast, the GPT2-generated and GROVER-generated articles do not contain correct entity names corresponding to the image. + +Jean Louis Iratzoki checking the 3D + +scale model of a chair for Alki. + +# Human-written News Article + +In 2007, the French industrial designer Jean Louis Iratzoki opened a remote studio in a wood cabin in the foothills of the Pyrenees. His minimalist "refuge" has recently become an unlikely creative epicenter for industrial production on both the French and Spanish sides of the Pays Basque. + +At last year's Maison & Obj design fair, Mr. Iratzoki won plaudits for designing one of the world's first bioplastic chairs made of a biodegradable plant-based polymer. That shell chair, part of a long collaboration with the Basque furniture brand Alki, is only one example of Mr. Iratzoki's determination to promote his native region. (Mr. Iratzoki was born in France in St. Jean-de-Luz.) He has also recently revamped the brand identity of Cazenave (a Basque chocolate company) and helped design the interiors of a luxurious eco lodge in Saubion, north of Biarritz. + +This year, he founded a new practice with a Basque designer of Spanish extraction, Ander Lizaso, with the aim of creating a multipurpose design studio inspired by + +# ENGINE-generated News Article + +Following in the footsteps of his male counterpart, the 2007 French - Spanish architect Jean Louis Iratzoki, whose archives became the subject of last year's Basque / Francophile Rodeo Drive exhibition, Ander Lizaso, the designer of the Pays Basque label Maison & Objet, has taken on the relatively new mantle of directorie in his own right. This year, he announced the inaugural of his own Design Angeles - in - Motion, the largest design fair for brands of the Basque / Francophone world. + +"He's the one name you know everywhere," said Lizaso, who came of age as a designer in the city of Alki during the first boom in construction trade there, selling commissioners as part of the community's growing business. "And it was the same in France." + +Going back to Belgium, where the heritage of the Maison & Obj founders still lies, imbuing his name with its celebrated high- culture associations, he explained, the house was fully aware of its Basque roots." + +# GPT2-generated News Article + +Tears eluded Chris Burch and his wife, Susana, when they first set eyes on each other as headwaiter in 1991. They had no idea how they would end up there. But neither did he, not at the time, not even 10 years later. Their friendship would grow into a tentative romance; twice, both of them, over the next 13 years, would fly away from their native Basque region to live and work and play together in New York. Until suddenly they were happily on their own, taking care of themselves. In 2012, with both 40, Burch decided to marry them. Thirty years later, the brothers will go their separate ways: Chris, the artistic director of the Gypsy Rose Lee boutique in the West Village, and Susana, founder and creative director of her own company, Flora Flora, which specializes in floral textiles and ties. "A wedding is an intimate, temporary thing, where people are sending you on your merry way," Chris explains. "You leave with a future and a few words of what you can say. With something you want to do full-fledged -- 'We're engaged' or 'I have a proposal' -- you can't even focus." The couple recently moved to Miami, where Chris wants to take a nautical theme to Hawaii, where Susana is from. Below, they discuss the undercurrents of their romance as lifelong friends. + +# GROVER-generated News Article + +In both making clothing and politics, Ms. Madrid strives to combine the traditions of dress and activism with the street's distinct urbanity. She designs a range of products, from T-shirts and tees for millennials, to men's shirts for families. Everything in both stands as her identity as a designer. "I'm the most passionate person in designing my own clothes because I'm a feminist," Ms. Madrid said in an interview at a café in town. "I'm very anti-strong men and fat women." + +The 40-year-old mother of two is creating a new business. It's aiming to combine traditional fashion and activism. She's hoping to raise money and offer services for political activism in the Basque country - and beyond. + +In the past four decades, Ms. Madrid has been involved in social and political activism. She went on hunger strike after she was attacked while in jail. Her goal is to become a national emblem for the Basque country, she said, but she's not convinced this is a responsibility of the Basque government. + +
MethodHumanRoBERTa
GROVER-Mega72.8%90%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)69.6%84%
ENGINE-XL67.6%84%
+ +sistent with our annotation experiment, we compare the human-written article with three machine-generated articles. From the results, we can see that ENGINE-XL can effectively produce articles with the named entities learned from image information. In contrast, finetuned GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega failed to generate correct named entities in articles. For example, both ENGINE-generated article and the human-written article mentioned "Hean Louis Iratzoki" and "Alki", which are appeared in the caption. In contrast, articles generated by GPT2 + +Table 3: Detection of generated articles. Left column reports the performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated. Right column uses OpenAI's text detector based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to perform the same task. + +
Method124M355M≥ 1.5B
GPT226.119.114.8
GPT-Neo24.913.111.5
GPT-J-6B--9.0
GPT2 (Finetuned)33.825.225.9
ENGINE (NE)20.715.416.3
+ +Table 4: Zero-shot article generation. We compare the perplexity of ENGINE to GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), GPT-Neo (Gao et al., 2020), and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) on WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). Both GPT2 and ENGINE are finetuned on VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) with a maximum article length of 1024. Though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is different, our proposed entity-aware method still improves the performance over several baselines. + +or GROVER are discussing some other entities such as "Chris Burch" and "Ms. Madrid." + +# 4.3 Article Retrieval + +Table 5 compares the Recall@K retrieval scores of ENGINE with the state-of-the-art baselines on the + +
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
GoodNewsVisualNewsGoodNewsVisualNews
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
CLIP-B/1619.442.752.930.653.564.632.556.864.443.169.576.5
CLIP-L/1432.556.065.347.372.178.946.668.375.055.077.384.3
BLIP19.838.048.822.043.652.515.930.837.915.133.342.7
EVA01-CLIP-G/1449.670.377.156.978.984.747.668.375.254.976.582.5
EVA02-CLIP-L/1450.773.179.457.978.685.249.369.676.854.877.382.7
ENGINE (ours)53.873.579.661.982.086.751.572.077.856.378.383.9
+ +Table 5: Retrieval results. We compare the Recall@K of ENGINE to CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), BLIP (Li et al., 2022), and EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) on the article-to-image and image-to-article retrieval tasks on GoodNews and VisualNews. For articles with multiple embedded images, we only use the first embedded image. See Section 4.3 for discussion. + +test splits of GoodNews and VisualNews. Following Tan et al. (2022), we randomly select 1500 article-image pairs from each dataset for evaluation. In the image-to-article retrieval task, we observe that compare to EVA02-CLIP-L/14 (Sun et al., 2023), ENGINE boost the Recall@1 scores from 50.7 to 53.8 on GoodNews and from 57.9 to 61.9 to VisualNews. For article-to-image retrieval, ENGINE achieves the highest performance with Recall@1 scores of 51.5 and 56.3 on GoodNews and VisualNews, respectively. The retrieval results validate the importance of named entities within articles and the effectiveness of our proposed method. + +# 5 Discussion + +In our paper, we mainly investigate modeling machine-generated articles, which can be used directly for generation while also can providing strong language features to support applications like article retrieval. However, actors can also use the same technology to generate articles for misinformation by modifying information of specific fields to realize two potential purposes: monetization (ad revenue through clicks) or propaganda (communicating targeted information) (Zellers et al., 2020). Thus, the development of a better article generator can not only help humans write high-quality articles but also potentially help train a more powerful discriminator. Table 3 reports the performance of using human judgements or OpenAI's RoBERTa-based machine generated text detector (Liu et al., 2019). When comparing the results of the RoBERTa detector for GPT2-1.5B and ENGINE-XL, we find that only $25\%$ of the articles that were predicted as human written came from the same generation prompts. Thus, the two methods can provide differ + +ent views of the same prompt, which can provide additional information for training an even more powerful machine generated text detector. We note that our contributions are largely architecture ag- nostic, so they could also be used in RNN-based generators, which may provide a larger distribution shift in the generated articles that may fool a discriminator trained only on Transformer outputs. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, we proposed ENGINE, an entity-aware article generation and retrieval method that explicitly incorporates and models named entities in language models. Concretely, ENGINE extracts named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles, providing a more comprehensive source of entity information. In addition, we introduce an entity-aware mechanism to help ENGINE recognize and predict named entities more effectively and accurately. ENGINE outperforms current popular language models in quantitative and qualitative experiments on GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText. For example, ENGINE outperforms GPT-J by roughly 2.5 perplexity points using only a quarter parameters of GPT-J and boost the performance of EVA02-CLIP by 3-4 Recall@1 accuracy in article retrieval experiments. The noticeable improvements demonstrate that ENGINE can generate and retrieve articles more accurately and efficiently by effectively leveraging named entities. + +Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported, in part, by DARPA under agreement number HR00112020054. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting agencies. + +# Limitations + +We discuss limitations and potential improvements of our work in this section. First, though our method can effectively predict the correct entity names in articles, their corresponding entity categories might be mistakenly predicted. For example, in Figure 5, the brand name "Alki" is recognized as a city name by ENGINE. Therefore, a more accurate entity-aware mechanism could be developed in future work. Second, the image information can be further explored. In this paper, we mainly investigate the captions and named entities of news images. However, other information such as the locations of images within articles may also prove useful for article generation. In addition, our current methods detect named entities from images considering each entity independently using a text-image matching framework. However, since the relationships between entities also affect the probability that entities appear in images, the incorporation of entity relationships can also be considered to further improve the entity detection module. + +# Ethics Statement + +ENGINE is a model for article generation and retrieval. It can either help automated journalism or defending against machine-generation articles. However, there is no perfect system which can generate $100\%$ accurate articles. Therefore, it is critical for practitioners to check the fact mentioned in articles and avoid the misinformation brought by failure generation cases. Additionally, someone could use our approach to generate misinformation. However, ENGINE applies the network structure that is same to GPT2, which means the discriminators trained for GPT2 articles (e.g., RoBERTa detector (Liu et al., 2019)) are also effective to discriminate ENGINE-generated articles. Our paper helps to highlight the need for building tools like the RoBERTa detector. + +# References + +Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). +Siddhartha Banerjee and Prasenjit Mitra. 2016. Wiki-write: Generating wikipedia articles automatically. In *IJCAI*, pages 2740-2746. + +Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. The journal of machine learning research, 3:1137-1155. +Ali Furkan Biten, Lluis Gomez, Marçal Rusinol, and Dimosthenis Karatzas. 2019. Good news, everyone! context driven entity-aware captioning for news images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12466-12475. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. +Xiangyu Dong, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2021. Injecting entity types into entity-guided text generation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). +Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 320-335. +Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 889-898. +Yi Fung, Christopher Thomas, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Sandeep Polisetty, Heng Ji, Shih-Fu Chang, Kathleen McKeown, Mohit Bansal, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Infosurgeon: Cross-media fine-grained information consistency checking for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1683-1698. +Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027. +Jiuxiang Gu, Jianfei Cai, Shafiq R Joty, Li Niu, and Gang Wang. 2018. Look, imagine and match: Improving textual-visual cross-modal retrieval with generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7181-7189. +Tatsunori B Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2019. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1689-1701. + +Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751. +Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spacy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear, 7(1):411-420. +Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1587-1596. PMLR. +Sungyeon Kim, Dongwon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Suha Kwak. 2020. Proxy anchor loss for deep metric learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3238-3247. +Sarah Kreps, R Miles McCain, and Miles Brundage. 2020. All the news that's fit to fabricate: A-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of Experimental Political Science, pages 1-14. +Leo Leppänen, Myriam Munezero, Mark Granroth-Wilding, and Hannu Toivonen. 2017. Data-driven news generation for automated journalism. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on natural language generation, pages 188-197. +Jing Li, Aixin Sun, Jianglei Han, and Chenliang Li. 2020. A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. +Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12888-12900. PMLR. +Fuxiao Liu, Yinghan Wang, Tianlu Wang, and Vicente Ordonez. 2021. Visualnews: Benchmark and challenges in entity-aware image captioning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6761-6771. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Hyeonseob Nam, Jung-Woo Ha, and Jeonghee Kim. 2017. Dual attention networks for multimodal reasoning and matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 299-307. +Duy-Kien Nguyen and Takayuki Okatani. 2018. Improved fusion of visual and language representations by dense symmetric co-attention for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference + +on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6087-6096. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744. +Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32:8026-8037. +Nanyun Peng, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Towards controllable story generation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Storytelling, pages 43-49. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR. +Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. +Arnau Ramisa, Fei Yan, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Krystian Mokolajczyk. 2017. Breakingnews: Article annotation by image and text processing. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(5):1072-1085. +Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 815-823. +Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114. +Merit Stephen, Xiong Caiming, Bradbury James, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. Proceedings of ICLR. +Quan Sun, Yuxin Fang, Ledell Wu, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. 2023. Eva-clip: Improved training techniques for clip at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15389. + +Reuben Tan, Bryan A. Plummer, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Detecting cross-modal inconsistency to defend against neural fake news. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). + +Reuben Tan, Bryan A Plummer, Kate Saenko, JP Lewis, Avneesh Sud, and Thomas Leung. 2022. Newsstories: Illustrating articles with visual summaries. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 644-661. Springer. + +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. + +Alasdair Tran, Alexander Mathews, and Lexing Xie. 2020. Transform and tell: Entity-aware news image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13035-13045. + +Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax. + +Bokun Wang, Yang Yang, Xing Xu, Alan Hanjalic, and Heng Tao Shen. 2017. Adversarial cross-modal retrieval. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 154-162. + +Thomas Wolf, Julien Chaumont, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45. + +Vikas Yadav and Steven Bethard. 2018. A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2145-2158. + +Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Defending against neural fake news. Neurips. + +# A Additional Experiment Results + +# A.1 Article Generation + +Additional qualitative results on article generation are provided in Figure 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 as the supplement of our main paper, demonstrating that ENGINE is able to generate articles given different news sources. + +# A.2 Article Quality Annotation + +Table 6 reports human accuracy in identifying articles as machine or human-generated to supplement the main paper. We see that ENGINE-XL is able to generate more realistic-looking news articles on Goodnews, consistent with the conclusion in our main paper. + +
Human-based detector
GROVER-Mega76.4%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)73.6%
ENGINE-XL70.4%
+ +Table 6: The performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated on GoodNews. + +# A.3 Ablation Study on Top-k Named Entities + +We provide the ablation study on top-k named entities in Table 7. We see that the model achieves the best performance when $k$ is set to 15. When $k$ is greater than 10, the improvement is limited. + +
top-k named entities5101520
PPL ↓15.514.814.514.6
+ +Table 7: Ablation study on the number of named entities detected by CLIP (GoodNews). + +# A.4 Recall of CLIP-detected Named Entities + +We use Oracle NE as ground truth labels to evaluate the retrieval results by CLIP model. In Table 8, we observe that approximately $30\%$ named entities from Oracle NE have been retrieved by CLIP. In contrast, recall of Cap on GoodNews and VisualNews are $22.57\%$ and $7.41\%$ respectively. The gap between GoodNews and VisualNews is likely because captions in GoodNews are often much longer than captions in VisualNews. The retrieval results validate that ClipNE contains more relevant named entities compared to named entities extracted solely based on captions. + +
Named EntitiesGoodNewsVisualNews
Cap22.577.41
ClipNE29.8431.19
+ +Table 8: Recall of Cap, ClipNE on GoodNews and VisualNews. Cap represents named entities that appear in captions, ClipNE represent named entities detected by CLIP model. + +# A.5 Ablation Study on the Canonical Order + +The ablation study of varying inference order is shown in Table 9. From the Table, we see that canonical orders which are not consistent with the training order result in greater PPL of the language model. The model achieves the best performance when the inference order is aligned with the training order. + +
canonical orderGoodNews PPL↓
date-domain-title-summary18.2
title-date-domain-summary19.2
summary-date-domain-title20.5
domain-date-title-summary17.3
+ +# A.6 Ablation Study on Article Retrieval + +We ablate the two modules of our method on article retrieval in Table 10. Text-only denotes that we directly use the original articles as the input. NE denotes named entity extraction, and EA denotes the entity-aware mechanism. From the table, we observe that both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can boost the article retrieval performance. + +Table 9: Ablation study on the canonical order during inference (GoodNews). + +
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
Text-only57.978.685.254.877.382.7
NE60.080.385.956.178.283.7
NE-EA61.982.086.756.378.383.9
+ +Table 10: Ablation study on article retrieval (VisualNews). Both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can improve the article retrieval performance on VisualNews. + +# A.7 Decoding Strategy for Article Generation + +Likelihood-maximization decoding strategies like greedy search or beam search work well in close-ended generation such as image captions, machine translation, or summarization. However, these methods suffer from the repetitive text problem in open-ended generations like dialog or story generation (Hashimoto et al., 2019; Holtzman et al., 2019). Sampling methods (Fan et al., 2018; Holtzman et al., 2019) are therefore proposed to introduce more randomness and surprise to text generation. In our work, we adopt the top-p sampling + +(nucleus sampling) method (Holtzman et al., 2019) as our decoding strategy. + +# A.8 Article Quality Annotation Templates + +Following (Tan et al., 2020), annotators are asked to indicate a reason for whether the articles are human-written or machine-manipulated. We provide a view of the AMT worker interface in Figure 13. + +Title: Daniel Agger leaves Liverpool to return to former club Brondby + +Domain: www.theguardian.com + +Date: 08-30-2014 + +![](images/80bbb81bbddabf324f1c6fd3bae1ad555e145489fcfa55b0333d9c0783753806.jpg) +Figure 6: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Guardian. + +Daniel Agger has rejoined Brondby for an undisclosed fee. + +# Human-written News Article + +Liverpool have announced the sale of the defender Daniel Agger to the Danish club Brondby for an undisclosed fee. The 29-year-old Denmark international joined the Anfield club from Brondby in 2006 and went on to make more than 200 appearances for the club but had fallen down the pecking order under Brendan Rodgers. + +"Liverpool have been such a big part of my life and my family's lives for so long, that leaving is extremely difficult," Agger said. "The opportunity arose for me to return home to Brondby and at this stage of my career it felt like the right decision for me." I wouldn't leave here to go anywhere else and that has been proven by my actions in recent seasons - I have turned down many offers to move to other Premier League and European clubs. "I would like to thank the Liverpool supporters for the incredible backing they have given me in my time here and the warmth and generosity of spirit displayed to my family. "This has been our home and somewhere we have been very happy and settled. However, more recently I have started to feel the effects of playing regularly in a league that is as physically demanding as the Premier League is, and I would not want to stay if I did not think that I was able to meet that challenge week in, week out." + +# ENGINE-generated News Article + +The Liverpool defender Daniel Agger has left Anfield to return to his previous club Brondby. The Danish international midfielder was reported to have agreed personal terms with the club. The 29-year-old left Liverpool in 2006 following their relegation from the Premier League and has featured for the national team in Denmark's recent seasons. + +The move to Brondby was said to be a "cash - plus " deal. " We're very pleased Daniel Agger has chosen to continue his development at Brondby," read a statement on the club website. " He's a young man who has shown great potential in the Premier League, and we look forward to working with him again." Brondby, who are in the Danish Superliga, have a squad of more than 200 players. The Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers said : " As a footballer you dream of playing in the Premier League and I'm very pleased that Daniel Agger has chosen to come back to Brondby." He's a good defender and I'm sure he will work very hard to prove to the club that he is a good player. " We like to think of him as a very important player for his nationality. But he has a great character. You might think he's a bit of a character but you 'll see he's as strong a character as any of the other players here." Agger said : " I am extremely proud to play for Brondby." I will always consider it as one of the happiest days of my career so far. It has been a great and very memorable time, and the supporters have been fantastic. My future lies with the club, and hopefully, it will be here for a long time. " I also want to thank the Liverpool fans for their support. Without them I wouldn't have been able to carry on fighting for this shirt, so thank you!" + +Title: State of Britain's wildlife 'increasingly fragile' + +Domain: www.bbc.com + +Date: 12-08-2015 + +![](images/4bf97210c23c56eceb92154db7f5405b110497eb9f266a96e5922fbf8daa58a1.jpg) + +Dark green fritillary butterfly + +# Human-written News Article + +Britain's wildlife is in an increasingly fragile state, with animals carrying out vital jobs for farmers being lost more rapidly than others, say scientists. Insects that pollinate crops or fight pests are at risk of disappearing, putting food production in jeopardy, according to the team. The research brings together millions of wildlife records spanning 40 years. It suggests conservation efforts should focus on certain areas, they add. Dr Tom Oliver of the University of Reading, who led the research, said it was the biggest and most comprehensive report ever assembled for any country in the world. "By standardising records from an army of amateur biologists across the country, we have amassed an impressive array of data, giving us our most complete picture yet of the state of Britain's wildlife," he told BBC News. "The picture that emerges is of an increasingly fragile system, particularly in species that do vital jobs for humans. "Unless efforts are made to reverse some of these declines, we face a future where we will be less confident that we can effectively grow our food." Benefits from nature. + +The researchers looked at records of the changing fortunes of more than 4,000 types of plant and animal living in England, Wales and Scotland between 1970 and 2009. Species such as bees, dragonflies, grasshoppers, ladybirds, plants and mosses were put into groups based on the role they play in nature. Groups providing pollination and pest control benefits had undergone declines while those involved in functions such as decay or mopping up carbon emissions were more stable. Plants and animals regarded as of cultural importance to humans, such as birds, butterflies and hedgehogs, also fared badly. Prof James Bullock, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxfordshire, a co-researcher on the study, said conservation efforts should focus on the areas where there was strong evidence of declining fortunes."Conservation actions, such as wildlife friendly farming, can avoid the loss of biodiversity and the resulting erosion of the pollination, pest control and other benefits we derive from nature," he said. And Dr Oliver said there were a number of measures that individuals could take to help to improve the future for wildlife in the British Isles. They include: Making gardens wildlife friendly Purchasing food grown in a sustainable way to wildlife Helping to collect data on wildlife. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications. + +# ENGINE-generated News Article + +The state of Britain's wildlife has become increasingly fragile due to loss of habitat and changes in the climate, a study has suggested. Mass bird and butterfly losses have increased along with climate change, scientists found, which means many species are not as well equipped to cope. And while changes in food distribution, such as floods, may cause short - term problems, they can make long - term problems worse. Drought and flood events could put millions of birds and insects at risk, the scientists concluded. Monitoring of more than 4,000 species of birds, butterflies and moths across England, Wales and Scotland for 40 years concluded that the UK's biodiversity was still very good - only smaller than it was in 1975. But the biological communities in which they live were now less diverse than when these earlier surveys took place, which meant their ability to recover was less certain, they added. "We have lost several species of already endangered species," explained lead researcher Dr Tom Oliver, a naturalist at the University of Reading. "And we are moving into many of these habitats that are becoming drier and thus less suitable for them. "The results of the study were " far more alarming " than expected." The situation looks pretty dire," said Dr James Bullock from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Oxfordshire, who was not involved with the research. He told BBC News that Britain's wildlife was already extremely stressed. " Our natural environment is suffering from climate change, which is melting the ice sheets and expanding the oceans, and from human - generated pollution, so we are going to have a much more polluted environment in the future." And the species we are losing are particularly important because when you lose species, you do so in numbers, they cease to exist in numbers. " The loss of a single species in Britain alone has the potential to affect millions of other organisms. "The impact of the findings is likely to be felt most in many communities across the British Isles. "We have lost a large number of species," Dr Oliver added. " It's going to have a big impact on the ecology of Britain." He explained that the risk of long - term damage was unlikely to be taken lightly : " We are more concerned about short - term impacts. "The researchers believe that much work needs to be done to understand how, in time, this situation might change. Research in Nature Communications suggests that climate change means there has been a sharp decline in the number of butterfly species spotted in northern England - down by a third between 1970 and 2009 Species such as the large blue have struggled for many generations as the cold weather has made it too cold to overwinter in the UK.Follow Helen on Twitter. + +Figure 7: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from BBC. + +Title: Robberies plague Tenleytown area over the past few weeks + +Domain: www.washingtonpost.com + +Date: 05-23-2016 + +![](images/0565b9b1f2c0df3899a4f5150f609d96aa83bb62b2cb9aa24c813ae65d323307.jpg) + +Video shows suspects robbing attacking + +Georgetown Day student + +# Human-written News Article + +A student at Georgetown Day School was robbed last month in the same area of the District where a student at another school was stabbed during a robbery attempt, and near where two other robberies also occurred last month. The student at Georgetown Day was robbed about 1:30 p.m. April 27 in the 4200 block of Davenport Street, near the private school. Three robbers approached, and began beating the victim, police said, although they did not identify him as a student. They went through his pants pocket and took his glasses, wallet and phone before fleeing on foot, police said. A spokeswoman for Georgetown Day issued a statement saying that a student there was robbed along 42nd Street in Tenleytown on April 27, and the school provided immediate medical and security support. The statement said the school has held an assembly devoted to neighborhood safety training and it has adjusted the patrols of school security officers. That robbery occurred two days after an April 25 incident in which authorities said a student at Woodrow Wilson High School was stabbed in the leg during an attempted robbery near the school. In the Wilson incident, the robber was described as a man in his 30s. No description was provided of the robbers on Davenport Street NW. Police released video Monday of three people described as "persons of interest." The video showed the victim and the robbers approaching each other on a sidewalk, with school buses lined up at a curb. Suddenly the student is knocked down and one or two of the robbers appear to go through his pockets. But the video does not appear to make possible a detailed description of the robbers. The stabbing comes nearly a week after two robberies, one of them involving a student victim, were reported on streets near Wilson and near Georgetown Day. Both occurred within about 15 minutes of each other April 19. In each instance, three people, one of whom who was armed with a knife, approached female victims and demanded their cellphones and debit cards. A juvenile male has been arrested in those cases, police said. + +# ENGINE-generated News Article + +A group that robbed Georgetown Day School of valuables including cash last month and a purse while it was locked up in a dormitory has also robbed a spate of Georgetown Day students, police said. The initial thefts occurred April 27 and April 27. Two men entered the school, stealing the wallets and purses of two female students, police said. A total of four men were released from custody. The school said the total was $ 170. The last robbery occurred about 1:30 p.m. April 27 near the store at 4200 Davenport Street. Three male suspects fled the school on foot, and a local resident engaged in an effort to help the robbers, police said. It took about 15 minutes before the local man was able to locate them. The three defendants - one in his 20s, one in his late 20s and one in his late teens - fled along Davenport Street NW and into a residential neighborhood, police said. That resident was identified as a friend of the robbers and assisted in helping apprehend them. The robbery at Georgetown Day came two days after a robbery at Woodrow Wilson High School in Tenleytown. That April 25 robbery took place near 42nd Street and Davenport Street NW, a major thoroughfare in Tenleytown. According to police, two men in their 20s robbed a woman in her 30s. The robbers fled with a purse containing cash that was in a pink leather wallet. On Monday, the Wilson robbery went unsolved for nearly a week. Staff at the school said no incidents had been reported. "We do have a staff member watching the campus. You go through the normal procedures of setting up alarms," said a Tenleytown police spokeswoman." We were n't able to get that information from the yet. The person you are talking to is someone within security. You have to keep an eye on him." Correction : This story has been updated to reflect that the Davenport Street robbery occurred April 19, not April 27. + +Figure 8: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Washington Post. + +Title: Courts again rule against streaming upstart Aero + +Domain: www.usatoday.com + +Date: 08-21-2014 + +![](images/cdd5264f70555f4362aa6e8b406fa333c172dd0afabfdd863b761444c296ddc2.jpg) + +In this photo illustration Aereocom a Web service that provides television shows online is shown on an iPhone 4S on April 22 2014 in New York City + +# Human-written News Article + +A federal court will not hear Aeroo's argument that the streaming media company should be allowed to operate similarly to a cable company. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Aeroo will have to take its argument to the district court, according to court documents first reported by The Washington Post. This decision continues broadcasters' winning streak against the upstart service. Launched two years ago, Aeroo delivered over-the-air channels via online streaming to computers and tablets for about $8 a month and had brought the service to 11 cities. The Supreme Court ruled two months ago that Aeroo was violating copyright law by not paying the networks for transmitting their signals. After that, the streaming media company voluntarily shut down and told the U.S. District Court that it wanted to be treated as the equivalent to a cable TV system and apply for a compulsory license to stream live TV broadcasts. Subsequently, the Copyright Office's general counsel said that the office did not think that Aeroo would qualify, but fell short of denying Aeroo's filing because the issue remained alive in the courts. Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider + +# ENGINE-generated News Article + +The high court delivered yet another blow to Aeroo in a pair of unanimous court opinions Thursday declaring the popular streaming service illegally alters the contents of customers' cable subscriptions and is guilty of violating copyright law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which first ruled against Aeroo two years ago, urged the justices to reject its claim that it is simply a device for consumers to access live TV without paying for it. Aeroo lets consumers use a digital antenna to receive live broadcasts online and streams those broadcasts as they are being transmitted over the Internet, just like cable TV. Through those transmissions the consumer also becomes a subscriber to the over - the - air service. But even if they keep Aeroo's service on, only a portion of the amount paid for cable service remains. For example, for $ 16.95 per month Aeroo customers receive nearly all the TV shows they request, regardless of what shows they watch. For about $8 each the consumer loses the signals they might already have over the Internet. Thus the company is violating copyright law by redistributing the service users already pay for without paying for the service they are receiving from cable operators. "The Court finds that Aeroo's business model violates this section of the Copyright Act," 11 judges wrote in the majority opinion. The Washington Post, which first reported on the decision, called it "a blow to digital media and to consumers." "This unanimous decision means a lot," Aeroo chief executive Mike Snider said in a statement. "Consumers no longer have to pay to receive the traditional way they watch TV. They now have the option to pay only for a service that delivers those channels, all for free." Aeroo has petitioned the court to change the district court's ruling to the full appeals court, which is likely to do so. The Supreme Court upheld the same ruling from two months ago. Aeroo said it will appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Experts tell the Post that its previous case shows that the Copyright Office's determination to give consumers access to streaming services without paying retailled companies is likely to be reversed by the appeals court. Follow @jswartz on Twitter + +Figure 9: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from USA Today. + +Title: James F. Holland, Trailblazing Cancer Researcher, Dies at 92 + +Domain: www.nytimes.com + +Date: 03-27-2018 + +![](images/f6d615f91477daa2419583f4de693e8cfdc2befdd7d981a9591aa301c9a463b1.jpg) + +Dr. Holland with his wife, Dr. Jimmie Holland, who pioneered the field of psycho-oncology. While she treated the emotional distress of cancer patients, he focused on discovering universal remedies. She died in December. + +![](images/435f043da48ba8a2194b4134a2c8bd1828849958effa4fcdead3e11bf2380a8e.jpg) + +Dr. James F. Holland in an undated photograph. In the 1950s, he and his colleagues were considered research cowboys by some colleagues, he said. + +# Human-written News Article + +James F. Holland, a founding father of chemotherapy who helped pioneer a lifesaving drug treatment for pediatric leukemia patients, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92. + +The cause was respiratory failure, his son Steven said. + +Dr. Holland and his medical collaborators in the 1950s were scorned by some colleagues as research "cowboys," as he put it, because they audaciously tackled what was considered an incurable disease and tried to treat it with several chemicals simultaneously, instead of sequentially. + +When their research began, fewer than one in three children who were found to have acute lymphoblastic leukemia lived as long as a year. Today, as many as nine in 10 survive the disease, in which the bone marrow makes too many immature white blood cells. + +Another clinical trial that Dr. Holland directed in the 1970s, to contain acute myeloid leukemia, a somewhat similar malfunction in blood cell production, resulted in what became the standard treatment. + +# ENGINE-generated News Article + +James F. Holland, an innovative oncologist whose scientific insights made him, as he once said, a "Google" for cancer research, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92. + +The cause was a widespread myeloid leukemia subtype, a cancer of the blood cells in bone marrow that occurs in fewer than one in three patients. + +Mr. Holland was one of the few oncologists to propose, in the 1950s, the chemical treatment known as stereosporin -- hence the name. He was also among the first to suggest ( though not actually carry out ) what became known as precancer therapy : turning over nonmedical patients to their regular doctors, while supplementing their therapies with medications to kill cancer cells. The mere suggestion of precancer therapy, it seemed to some, would have rendered it toxic. + +At the time, though, Mr. Holland thought it should not. He and his colleagues had been working for as long as a year on drugs to prevent acute lymphoblastic leukemia in patients with advanced disease, in which cells on the surface of the blood can proliferate out of control after being overexposed by chemotherapy. Doctors usually did this only after the patient's health deteriorated. Today, many hospitals will not perform precancer therapy, either. + +But in the 1970s, he and his colleagues were regarded as " research cowboys " by their colleagues. Known for treating as many as nine of 10 cancer cases, they had been derided even by their own specialty, nuclear medicine, for treating these patients when " the science does not justify it," Dr. Steven Holland, his brother and his only sibling, said. + +Figure 10: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from New York Times. + +# Robert Boulter + +# Human-written Wikipedia + +Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. He had a guest role in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002. In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \" Craig \" in the episode \" Teddy's Story \" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. He was cast in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur, which was performed at the Drum Theatre in Plymouth and the Menier Chocolate Factory in London. He was directed by John Tiffany and starred alongside Ben Whishaw, Shane Zaza, Harry Kent, Fraser Ayres, Sophie Stanton and Dominic Hall. \n\nThe 2006, Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the play Citizenship written by Mark Ravenhill. He appeared on a 2006 episode of the television series, Doctors, followed by a role in the 2007 theatre production of How to Curse directed by Josie Rourke. How to Curse was performed at Bush Theatre in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Boulter starred in two films in 2008, Daylight Robbery by filmmaker Paris Leonti, and Donkey Punch directed by Olly Blackburn. In May 2008, Boulter made a guest appearance on a two @-@ part episode arc of the television series Waking the Dead, followed by an appearance on the television series Survivors in November 2008. He had a recurring role in ten episodes of the television series Casualty in 2010, as \" Kieron Fletcher \". Boulter starred in the 2011 film Mercenaries directed by Paris Leonti. \n\nThe play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. A review of Boulter's performance in The Independent on Sunday described him as \" horribly menacing \" in the role, and he received critical reviews in The Herald, and Evening Standard. He appeared in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002 as \" Addem Armitage \" in the episode \" Political Expediency \", and had a role as a different character \" Toby Steele \" on The Bill. \nHe had a recurring role in 2003 on two episodes of The Bill, as character \" Connor Price \". In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \" Craig \" in the episode \" Teddy's Story \" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. Boulter starred as \" Darren \", in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur.\n + +# ENGINE-generated Wikipedia + +Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons. He has also starred on TV as a teacher and actor. In 2004 Boulter starred in the stage play Waste in Plymouth. He made his film debut at the Festival theatre in London in the 2005 John Sabatalain adaption of the John Grant -written novel, Intimate Behaviour. In 2006 he won a Samuel Beckett award for Best Performance in a Television Play for the film version of his play Teddy's Story. In 2007 Boulter played the lead role in the adaptation of Patrick Burden's book, East of Eden. In 2008 he was involved with Dominic Hall and John Deed and Craig Mark Strong, who were co - writer of another film, the comedy thriller, Derek Jacobi And The Mercenaries, and the TV adaptation of the Hot Fuzz movies. In May 2008 he made his film acting debut in the film Fever. Since then he has been sought out for appearing in films and TV series including Mercury Fur, which he appeared in as John Tiffany ; Hammersmith, where he played Ben Whishaw ; and London's Bush Theatre, where he appeared alongside Shane Zaza in Man of Economic Mass. In November 2008 he returned to the stage, in West End production of This Side of Paradise and in the West End production of Until Goes. He is currently appearing at the Shakespeare theatre at Fulham with a revival of Gods and Heroes. Robert Boulter biography Being called a fusion of two performers has never been embarrassing in Boulter's theatre career. In taking the offbeat, gruff character of Teddy that readers may instantly recognise as Harry Kent he defied expectations ; it was an unexpected and welcome return from a genre that had seen him move towards cheerfulness, his name becoming subtly attached to his image. He has also made the perfect transition from film to stage, propelling himself between brutal, seriously unpleasant characters on screen and harsh, adoring protagonists with dignity and aplomb in real life. Boulter lives with his family in Burn, Devon. His son Fraser Ayres is a member of the team behind the website jeffersonsworld.com, and his daughter Sophie Stanton has been a character actor in the theatre. Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the 2010 film Donkey Punch. The other main roles in the film were Mark Ravenhill, who plays a former officer in an augmented forces unit, and Josie Rourke as his. In the play the lead character, \*" the demon of myth \*" is C, who lives in the arctic wasteland and is transformed when he is savagely hunted by a face - eating gnactus. Boulter played the first half of the story, or lion, while the other half was The Soldier, a mercenary, \*" the curse of mythology \". + +Figure 11: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles (from WikiText dataset (Stephen et al., 2017)). We generate articles conditioned on both the title Robert Boulter, and the first 50 tokens highlighted by light yellow. The articles are cut to fit the figure size. + +# 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane + +# Human-written Wikipedia + +The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United States during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane, and the third major hurricane of the season, it formed east @-@ northeast of the Leeward Islands on August 31. The tropical storm moved rapidly west @-@ northwestward, steadily intensifying to a hurricane. It acquired peak winds of 140 miles per hour (225 km / h) and passed over portions of the Bahamas on September 3, including Eleuthera and Harbour Island, causing severe damage to crops, buildings, and infrastructure. Winds over 100 mph (161 km / h) affected many islands in its path, especially those that encountered its center, and many wharves were ruined. \n\nThe hurricane moved across the state, passing near Tampa before moving into Georgia and dissipating. In Florida, the strong winds of the cyclone blew buildings off their foundations, and numerous trees were prostrated in citrus groves. The Treasure Coast region received the most extensive destruction, and Stuart, Jupiter, and Fort Pierce were heavily damaged. Inland, the cyclone weakened rapidly but produced prodigious amounts of rain, causing a dam to collapse near Tampa. The storm caused $ 3 million in damage (1933 USD) after damaging or destroying 6 @, @ 848 homes. \n\nUnusually, the storm hit Florida less than 24 hours before another major hurricane bearing 125 @-@ mile @-@ per @-@ hour (201 km / h) winds struck South Texas; never have two major cyclones hit the United States in such close succession. \n\nThe origins of the hurricane were from a tropical wave that possibly spawned a tropical depression on August 27, although there was minimal data over the next few days as it tracked to the west @-@ northwest. On August 31, a nearby ship reported gale force winds, which indicated that a tropical storm had developed to the east @-@ northeast of the Lesser Antilles. Based on continuity, it is estimated the storm attained hurricane status later that day. Moving quickly to the west @-@ northwest, the storm passed north of the Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico. Early on September 2, a ship called the Gulfwing reported a barometric pressure of 978 mbar (28 @. @ 88 inHg), which confirmed that the storm attained hurricane status. After passing north of the Turks and Caicos islands, the hurricane struck Eleuthera and Harbour Island in the Bahamas on September 3, the latter at 1100 UTC. A station on the latter island reported a pressure of 27 @. @ 90 inHg (945 mb) during the 30 minute passage of the eye.\n\n + +# ENGINE-generated Wikipedia + +The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United State during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane. A Category 4 cyclone with winds of $100\mathrm{mph}$ generated winds of 161 km per hour and a water temperature of -49 degrees. The storm killed 6 people, flooded an area of $848~\mathrm{sq~km}$ , and caused $\$ 3$ million in damage. Although it missed the Florida coast, the system swept across the rest of the United States less than 24 hours. The heat from the system caused widespread fires and continued to bring heavy rain and wind throughout the south and central regions. In south Florida alone, the fires killed two men and destroyed 98 homes in the Lesser Antilles and southwest Florida. The Turks and Caicos islands were particularly badly hit because of a storm surge that produced high seas and flooding, especially along the coast from Tampa, Georgia, to Puerto Rico. The Turks and Caicos islands experienced over $125\mathrm{mph}$ winds, winds of $125\text{@ - }$ mile per hour, and only $1\mathrm{cm}$ to 2 inches of rain in the 30 minute interval starting around 1400 UTC. The Turks and Caicos islands also experienced an over $140\mathrm{mph}$ wind shear at $5875\mathrm{kp}$ / m. In south Georgia, home to the Simpson and Penally counties, the worst of the damage was felt in the Savannah area, where $800+$ homes were damaged or destroyed and well over 1000 had to be demolished. The most intense tropical storm to strike the United States during the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season occurred when Tropical Depression 6 formed over the Bahamas during the winter of 1913. The storm resulted in catastrophic loss of life and destruction. As of $24\mathrm{km}$ west of the Bahamas, the lowest pressure was $3.21\mathrm{mb}$ , and the storm had maximum sustained winds of $200\mathrm{km/h}$ , with gusts to over $200\mathrm{km/h}$ . In south Florida, the intense storm produced winds of $100\mathrm{mph}$ over south - western southwest Florida and a south - western coast generally between the edges of the Low Range and the extreme southeast of the storms. In western Cuba, the storms produced winds up to what the Weather Bureau described as $\backslash$ "about $65\mathrm{mph}\backslash$ " in some spots, and all tropical storms at Category 4, 5 and 7, respectively, were downgraded to a tropical storm or depression. Texas though was hit by Hurricane Norbert in early October 1913. At the time, the Weather Bureau reported that the storm produced winds of $800 - 900\mathrm{km/h}$ , and a storm tide of $848\mathrm{m}$ . The storm passed over northeast Texas between midnight and dawn, and was the first major tropical cyclone to impact the United States during the winter of 1913. Norbert resulted in 848 lives being lost and $\$ 98$ m in damages, amongst other catastrophic damage, as well as numerous fatalities. + +Figure 12: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles about 1993 Treasure Coast hurricane. + +Qualifications Required: HIT Approval Rate $(\%)$ for all Requesters' HITs greater than or equal to 98 , Number of HITs Approved greater than or equal to 1000 + +# Instructions: News Articles Evaluation + +Hello, we are trying to determine how susceptible people are to machine-generated fake news. + +In this study, you are asked to discriminate between human and machine-generated news articles. + +You will be assigned 5 article samples. Each article sample contains the headline, article body and image/caption pairs. The images and captions are located after the article body where each caption is situated below its corresponding image. + +You should spend no more than 1 to 1.5 minutes on each article. + +Please be sure to click the submit buttom for each article. + +Please note that we re-rendered all the article samples. As a result, the primitive display is NOT an indicator of whether the article is human or machine generated. + +Instructions + +Shortcuts + +Is this news article human or machine generated? Please choose the option that you think is the most suitable for the given news article. + +# + +# Duterte, Philippine President, Boasts He Killed Someone as a Teenager + +MANILA -- The death of Chief Justice Sereno Alan Casolan III, shot at his front gate when he was 13, was the most recent in what is a mounting tally of police killings in the Philippines. + +But Mr. Duterte is beginning to openly talk about his personal transgressions, something that had rarely come up before. + +Since at least the start of his administration in June, Mr. Duterte has been lashing out at journalists, academics and everyone else with a magnifying glass. In addition to criminals, he has singled out people with mental disabilities, journalists and judges whom he sees as opponents of his policies. + +In videos broadcast on television and in print, Mr. Duterte has projected a maniacal, cartoonishly intimidating stare toward the camera. The gang leader Lech Charles Leffo, a convicted drug dealer, was stabbed to death by Mr. Duterte on the grounds of a provincial court in 2016. The next year, Mr. Duterte beat a man to death with a wooden rod in a crowded Manila public market during an anti-drug operation. + +![](images/64bb4dfb964bdd8644bffb3f18d64db7a81ed961db5b43658d6f537fb611bb38.jpg) +Figure 13: The interface used by AMT workers in our article quality annotation experiment. + +# Select an option + +Human-Generate + +1 + +Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the article body + +2 + +Machine-Generated because one or more captions is not very relevant to the article body + +3 + +Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the caption + +4 + +Machine-Generated because the image/caption pairs are not relavent to the article body + +5 + +Machine-Generated because something about the article appears off + +6 + +Machine-Generated because the article title is not really relavent to the article + +7 + +Submit \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/images.zip b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b5550c4dcce921d9f8be71ab0bc7cdf61b7a636 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7091aab661cd8c0dfa9dc408bbc85196f9c4e8e3b75a4a2ed48d38cd61524c95 +size 678093 diff --git a/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/layout.json b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9865c725211f295199b2f13268e53230b958583a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Show, Write, and Retrieve_ Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,13328 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 76, + 525, + 93 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 76, + 525, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 76, + 525, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Show, Write, and Retrieve: Entity-aware Article Generation and Retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 120, + 446, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 120, + 446, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 120, + 446, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhongping Zhang Yiwen Gu Bryan A. Plummer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 254, + 135, + 342, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 254, + 135, + 342, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 254, + 135, + 342, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Boston University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 149, + 394, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 149, + 394, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 149, + 394, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{zpzhang, yiweng, bplum}@bu.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Article comprehension is an important challenge in natural language processing with many applications such as article generation or image-to-article retrieval. Prior work typically encodes all tokens in articles uniformly using pretrained language models. However, in many applications, such as understanding news stories, these articles are based on real-world events and may reference many named entities that are difficult to accurately recognize and predict by language models. To address this challenge, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratIoN and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework, to explicitly incorporate named entities into language models. ENGINE has two main components: a named-entity extraction module to extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images associated with articles, and an entity-aware mechanism that enhances the model's ability to recognize and predict entity names. We conducted experiments on three public datasets: GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText, where our results demonstrate that our model can boost both article generation and article retrieval performance, with a 4-5 perplexity improvement in article generation and a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 - 4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " boost in recall@1 in article retrieval. We release our implementation at this http URL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 576, + 154, + 588 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 576, + 154, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 576, + 154, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comprehending articles enables a wide range of applications such as story generation (Fan et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2018), image-to-text retrieval (Tan et al., 2022), automated journalism (Leppänen et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2020), defending against misinformation (Zellers et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020), and writing Wiki articles (Banerjee and Mitra, 2016; Stephen et al., 2017), among others. Inspired by the impressive capability of large language models, recent work (e.g., Radford et al. (2019); Brown et al. (2020); Wang and Komatsuzaki (2021)) generate or retrieve articles by training language models on massive datasets (e.g., The" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 211, + 377, + 221 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 211, + 377, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 211, + 377, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(A) Language Modeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 222, + 387, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 222, + 387, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 222, + 387, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics \nPublish date: 05-24-2016" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 243, + 360, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 243, + 360, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 243, + 360, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 253, + 387, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 253, + 387, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 253, + 387, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt, the Oscar winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt will join the London School of Economics' Center for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday by the university, one of Britain's most renowned academic institutions. Ms. Jolie's work there will include delivering guest lectures and taking part in workshops as a \"visiting professor in practice.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 391, + 211, + 500, + 221 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 391, + 211, + 500, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 391, + 211, + 500, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(B) Entity-aware Language Modeling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 393, + 222, + 520, + 291 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 222, + 520, + 291 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 222, + 520, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 393, + 222, + 520, + 291 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d078c45232d25999ea264e9a0d276705d1ba73ed72169983dcaca467fb8d16c1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 294, + 520, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 294, + 520, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 294, + 520, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angelina Jolie Will Be Visiting Professor at London School of Economics \nPublish date: 05-24-2016" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 307, + 442, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 307, + 442, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 307, + 442, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Body: Angelina Jolie Pitt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " PERSON " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the Oscar-winning actress and special envoy for the United Nations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ORG " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refugee agency, has taken on a new role: university professor. Ms. Jolie Pitt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " PERSON " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will join the London School of Economics' Center " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ORG " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for Women, Peace and Security as one of four visiting professors in a new master's program that starts taking applicants in the fall, according to a statement released on Monday " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " DATE " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 392, + 312, + 523, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the university, ..." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 526, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 526, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: We propose entity-aware language modeling for article generation and retrieval. Prior work (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022), shown in (A), typically comprehends articles by uniformly encoding all text tokens. However, these approaches face challenges in accurately recognizing and predicting named entities. In our paper, shown in (B), we propose a method to extract named entities from embedded images and explicitly model the named entities in articles, boosting the performance of both article generation and article retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 526, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pile (Gao et al., 2020) or LAION400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These models typically uniformly encode all text tokens in the articles including named entities (Radford et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). In other words, named entities like organizations, places, and dates are modeled together with other text, as illustrated in Figure 1(A). However, it poses a challenge for these models to accurately recognize and predict named entities, as they can be unique to specific articles. E.g., in Figure 1(A), entities like \"Ms. Jolie\" and \"Jolie Pitt\" may only appear in articles related to the celebrity \"Angelina Jolie.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Directly extracting named entities from user-provided prompts is a straightforward entity-aware approach used by methods addressing news image captioning (Biten et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). However, these methods do not" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8684" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8684-8704" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "generalize well to article generation and retrieval since they rely on substantial contextual information (via the articles) as well as a direct indication of entities that may appear in predicted captions. For example, in Figure 1 (A), the article mentions that Angelina Jolie Pitt is an Oscar winner, but this information is not present in the other metadata like the image captions. Thus, a language model generating an article must infer this named entity information rather than directly extracting it from the metadata. Even if a list of named entities were provided, an article generation model must determine where and when to use each of them. In contrast, in news image captioning, entities used in the caption almost always appear in the body of the article (Liu et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2020), and the image itself will directly inform what named entities should be used for its caption. Thus, as we will show, adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related work (e.g., (Liu et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021)) results in poor performance in our task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 359, + 291, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 359, + 291, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 359, + 291, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the aforementioned issues, we propose an ENtity-aware article GeneratiOn and rEtrieval (ENGINE) framework to explicitly incorporate and model named entities in articles. ENGINE mainly consists two modules: a named-entity extraction module and an entity-aware module. In the named-entity extraction module, we show that providing a list of named entities for article generation improves performance. However, creating such lists does require a small overhead cost. Thus, we also demonstrate we can improve performance without manual input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 1 (B), we observe that images associated with an article often contain information about the article's events. Therefore, we explore leveraging large vision-language models to extract named entities from embedded images. Specifically, we employ CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) to automatically select a set of likely named entities from embedded images. In the entity-aware module, we introduce special tokens after each entity name to indicate its entity category. In this case, ENGINE models the named entity and its entity category jointly. An additional benefit brought by our entity-aware mechanism is the named-entity recognition (NER) ability, i.e., our model not only recognizes and predicts the entity names but also predicts their entity categories simultaneously." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 743, + 289, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 743, + 289, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 743, + 289, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, the contributions of this paper are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose an entity-aware language model, EN-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GINE, for article generation and retrieval. Compared to existing language models (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020; Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023), our entity-aware mechanism enhances the recognition and prediction of named entities by jointly modeling entity names and their entity categories, boosting the performance of article generation and retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 179, + 527, + 436 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 179, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 179, + 525, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 179, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We introduce a named-entity extraction method to recognize named entities from embedded images in articles, eliminating the overhead in manually creating a list of named entities that will appear in the articles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 526, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Experiments on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) show a perplexity gain of 4-5 points for article generation and a Recall@1 boost of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 - 4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 248, + 526, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for article retrieval. We also show that ENGINE generalizes via zero-shot transfer to WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 329, + 527, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 329, + 527, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 329, + 527, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We perform comprehensive experiments on human evaluation and machine discrimination, validating that ENGINE produces more realistic articles compared to prior work (Radford et al., 2019; Zellers et al., 2020). This suggests that our model can potentially contribute additional training data for the development of more powerful machine-generated text detectors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 449, + 395, + 463 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 449, + 395, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 449, + 395, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 526, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Article Generation in recent work uses large-scale pretrained transformer models that can be separated into unconditional text generation (Radford et al., 2018, 2019) and conditional text generation (Brown et al., 2020; Zellers et al., 2020). Generating articles via unconditional samples has been found to be less effective, since the models may interpret the first sentence of articles as a tweet and start posting responses (Brown et al., 2020). To enable controllable generation, GPT3 (Brown et al., 2020) conditions article generation on titles and the initial sentences of articles. Grover (Zellers et al., 2020) decomposes news articles into distinct parts and conditions generation on metadata like the author or organization. In this paper, we further explore the impact of named entities and embedded article images. Specifically, ENGINE produces articles conditioned on both metadata and embedded article images, with a dedicated focus on the explicit extraction and modeling of named entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Article Retrieval is commonly accomplished by image-text matching frameworks. Early work on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8685" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 238 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 238 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "21e0eaf11d34e0ee8dbbc50ea71e81a31ff411ffa4241c30ba1b52a112b7c7f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 525, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 525, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: ENGINE overview. Our model mainly consists of two modules: (A) Named-entity Extraction: We extract named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles. See Section 3.2 for detailed discussion; (B) Entity-aware mechanism: Each named entity is associated by its corresponding entity category. ENGINE models the entity name and category jointly to avoid inconsistency between named entities in images and article text. See Section 3.1 for detailed discussion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 291, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "image-text matching has primarily focused on developing bespoke models (Wang et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2018; Nguyen and Okatani, 2018; Nam et al., 2017) with various retrieval loss functions, such as triplet loss (Schroff et al., 2015) or proxy anchor loss (Kim et al., 2020). However, these models are often domain-specific and limited in the expressiveness of the text. In recent work, large vision-language models (Radford et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022) have addressed these limitations by contrastive image-language pretraining on massive datasets (e.g., LAION-400M (Schuhmann et al., 2021)). These large vision-language models have demonstrated exceptional performance in zero-shot image-text matching. Therefore, in our experiments, we employ the pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) to extract visual and text representations from articles, and compute the cosine similarity between these representations to obtain the retrieval predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Entity-aware mechanisms have been applied in closely related tasks, such as news image captioning, which aims to caption images based on articles and images. Ramisa et al. (2017) proposed an end-to-end framework that takes the concatenation of article and image features as input and outputs captions by an LSTM decoder. However, this approach often fails to predict named entities that were not seen during training. Thus, more recent work boosts performance by extracting entity representations from user-provided articles and inserts them into generated templates (Biten et al., 2019;" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tran et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In this paper, we effectively reverse the inputs and outputs of these approaches, i.e., we generate an article based on images and captions rather than generating captions based on images and articles. As discussed in the Introduction, this shift breaks the assumptions used by entity-aware mechanisms in image captioning, causing them to not generalize well in our article generation and retrieval task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 480, + 489 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 480, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 462, + 480, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 ENGINE: Entity-aware article GenerationIoN and rEtrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 499, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 499, + 526, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 499, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given user-provided prompts and embedded article images, our task aims to more accurately represent articles by recognizing and predicting named entities. Thus, we incorporate candidate named entities as an additional control to our language model. We propose an entity-aware mechanism to jointly model entity names and their corresponding entity categories in Section 3.1. To enrich the entity information available to language models, we introduce our named-entity extraction approach in Section 3.2. Finally, we introduce the learning strategy of ENGINE in Section 3.3. Figure 2 provides an overview of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 450, + 699 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 450, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 450, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Entity-aware Mechanism" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed in the Introduction, accurately recognizing and predicting named entities can help avoid inconsistencies between the associated images and the textual content of an article. For example, in NBA news, an entity-aware model should be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8686" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "able to predict \"Curry\" given the preceding word \"Stephen,\" whereas traditional language models might struggle in this regard. Existing methods typically model named entities uniformly with other text, making the leverage of named entities less effective. To help our language model be aware of named entities, we insert the entity category predicted by SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017) after each entity name. We use special tokens as the indicator of these entity types. Then the entity name and its corresponding category are modeled jointly by ENGINE. We visualize our entity-aware mechanism in Figure 2 (B)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 213, + 279 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 213, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 266, + 213, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Named-entity Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 290, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 290, + 290, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 290, + 290, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our entity-aware mechanism in Section 3.1 enhances a language model's ability to recognize and predict named entities. However, we find that the entity information extracted from the metadata may not be sufficient for article generation. Thus, as shown in Figure 2 (A), we explore named entity extraction methods from various sources within articles, such as embedded images. Below we discuss two ways to create the named entity list." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oracle named-entities. This approach assumes that we are provided with all the named entities that would appear in articles, e.g., named entities provided by a user. To simulate user-provided named entities, we extract named entities from news articles using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). This list is then provided as input to our model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CLIP-based NER. Existing Named Entity Recognition (NER) methods (Yadav and Bethard, 2018; Li et al., 2020) primarily distinguish named entities within text documents and are not designed for NER involving images (referred to as Visual-NER in Figure 2(A)). However, we note that CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) was trained on 400 million image-text pairs collected from the internet, many of which likely contain named entities. Thus, we use CLIP to build an open-ended Visual-NER framework. First, we construct a candidate list of named entities for each image by extracting entities from the articles in the dataset using SpaCy (Honnibal and Montani, 2017). Subsequently, we use CLIP to predict the similarity between the article images and the candidate entities. The top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 512, + 291, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entities are then provided as input to our model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 416, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 416, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 416, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Learning Strategy" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language Modeling. Given a set of documents " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{n}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " each with variable length sequences of symbols " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{s_{1}, s_{2}, \\ldots, s_{m}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the statistical language model of a text document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be represented by the probability of next symbol given all the previous ones (Bengio et al., 2003):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 179, + 524, + 214 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 179, + 524, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 179, + 524, + 214 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (x) = \\prod_ {i = 1} ^ {m} p \\left(s _ {i} \\mid s _ {1}, \\dots , s _ {i - 1}\\right), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "d7eb41eff312b6ade01ac4fc3494f994ec5ce697dc7261c4df3323ceef28cc8d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where each symbol " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is processed uniformly and the document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is viewed as an unstructured text field (also referred as body field later). Language models based only on Eq. 1 produce articles via unconditional samples. Thus, these models are not suitable for controllable generation (Hu et al., 2017). Instead, the language model can be formulated by the joint distribution of separate fields decomposed from the article " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Zellers et al., 2020):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 356, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 356, + 524, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 356, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (x) = p (\\text {m e t a}, \\text {b o d y}), \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "fbe716a3a4e49cef80f5c3a2867f7b0c937f6cce93857924560f96bb15f89151.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 525, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where meta is a data-dependent term consisting of a set of subfields. For instance, meta includes date, title, summary in GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and domain, date, topic, title in VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). Thus, we model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 384, + 525, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 462, + 524, + 477 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 462, + 524, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 462, + 524, + 477 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (x) = p (\\text {b o d y} \\mid \\text {m e t a}) p (\\text {m e t a}). \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "03fb4358947c43b2a3abf2f73783c5f4e4648d62edcb641025476e0e45210262.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on Eq. 3, we further introduce special tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\text{start-}\\tau>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\text{end-}\\tau>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to indicate the boundaries of field " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The content of a target field " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is sampled from the model starting with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\text{start-}\\tau>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and ending with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\text{end-}\\tau>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Given the named entities extracted by our method (from Section 3.2), Eq. 3 is re-formulated as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 527, + 624 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 527, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 527, + 624 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p (x) = p (\\text {b o d y} \\mid \\text {m e t a}, \\text {e n t i t y}) p (\\text {m e t a}, \\text {e n t i t y}). \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "86a7b057e2d21b147d5be09b62e62bfa51dcbf1fe51b5ddd37a3730e10b2ce93.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sample from Eq. 4, we define a canonical order" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " among the fields (or subfields) of articles " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{F}:(f_1 < f_2 < \\ldots < f_{|\\mathcal{F}|})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and model the articles left-to-right in the order using Eq.1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_1^{f_1}, s_2^{f_2}, \\ldots, s_{|f_{|\\mathcal{F}|}|}^{f_{|\\mathcal{F}|}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 525, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 525, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Architecture. Following (Zellers et al., 2020), ENGINE uses the GPT2 architecture (Radford et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We define canonical order in Goodnews (Biten et al., 2019) as: domain, date, named-entity, title, caption, summary, body; and Visualnews (Liu et al., 2021) as: domain, date, topic, named-entity, title, caption, body." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 We set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 10 in this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8687" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2019) for article generation. We experiment with three model sizes: (1) ENGINE-Base has 12 layers and 124 million parameters, on par with GPT2-124M and GROVER-Base; (2) ENGINE-Medium has 24 layers and 355 million parameters, on par with GPT2-355M and GROVER-Large; (3) ENGINE-XL has 48 layers and 1.5 billion parameters, on par with GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega. In addition, we also show ENGINE generalizes across architectures by evaluating on LLAMA (Touvron et al., 2023). For article retrieval, we implement our method on pretrained vision-language model EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 155, + 271 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 155, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 155, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 254, + 292 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 254, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 254, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Experiment Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. We evaluate ENGINE on three public datasets: GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019), VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021), and WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). GoodNews provides the URLs from New York Times from 2010 to 2018. After filtering out broken links or non-English articles, we downloaded 307,286 news articles. Following the split ratios of Biten et al. (2019), we randomly split 15,365 articles for validation, 30,728 articles for testing, and used the rest for training. VisualNews contains news articles from four news sources: Guardian, BBC, USA Today, and Washington Post. We obtain 582,194 news articles in total after we removed broken links and articles without metadata. Similarly, we get a 491,796 training set, 28,932 validation set, and a 57,889 test set. WikiText contains 600/60/60 Wikipedia articles in train/test/validation sets, respectively. We performed zero-shot article generation on the test set of WikiText." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Metrics. Following Zellers et al. (2020), we adopt Perplexity (PPL) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to evaluate models on article generation. Perplexity is defined as the exponentiated average negative log-likelihood of a sequence. Given Eq. 1, the perplexity of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated by:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 630, + 290, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 630, + 290, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 630, + 290, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {P P L} (x) = \\exp \\left\\{- \\frac {1}{m} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\log p \\left(s _ {i} \\mid s _ {1}, \\dots , s _ {i - 1}\\right) \\right\\} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "5f8d140a4bae0fc10310579b34adf5c624b6df2a59d8449111f258a0605e74a3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_1, \\ldots, s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are ground truth tokens in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the probability predicted by the model. We evaluate models using Recall@K (R@1, R@5, R@10) for article retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Implementation Details We primarily implemented our models using Pytorch (Paszke et al., 2019) and Transformer (Wolf et al., 2020) libraries. The maximum sequence length of language models is set to 1024. For ENGINE-Base and ENGINE-Medium, we used a batch size of 8 and a maximum learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\times 10^{-4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For ENGINE-XL, we used a batch size of 4 to fit into GPU memory. Correspondingly, the maximum learning rate is set to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2^{0.5} \\times 10^{-4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We finetuned our models for around 3 epochs with 0.06 epoch for linear warm-up on both datasets. We parallelized ENGINE-XL on 4 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s and ENGINE-Medium on 2 NVIDIA RTX-A6000s. ENGINE-XL on VisualNews requires the longest training time- approximately two weeks on our system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 418, + 315 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 418, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 418, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Article Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Perplexity. Table 1 presents sizes, architectures, and perplexity results of different models on GoodNews (Biten et al., 2019) and VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021). We see that ENGINE variants of all model sizes significantly outperform the baselines. On the base size, ENGINE-Base(NE) improves PPL over the original GPT2-124M model by a factor of 2 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(23.6\\rightarrow 12.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "27.5\\rightarrow 13.1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We draw three major conclusions from Table 1. First, the data distribution still plays an important role. Finetuned GPT2s improve PPL over the original GPT2s. The improvements become less obvious with a greater model size (VisualNews: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "27.5\\rightarrow 18.3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of base size; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15.7\\rightarrow 12.4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 324, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of XL size). Second, ENGINE noticeably improves the performance over finetuned GPTs (4-5 perplexity points on both datasets), which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. Third, our contributions are architecture agnostic. E.g., ENGINE-LLAMA outperforms LLAMA-7B with an approximately 2-point perplexity improvement on both datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Parameter Efficiency. Table 1 shows that ENGINE can achieve a comparable performance with alternative models using much fewer parameters. For example, ENGINE-Base(NE), with only 124M parameters, outperforms the GPT-NEO-2.7B and achieves comparable performance with finetuned GPT2-1.5B (12.0 vs. 12.6 PPL on GoodNews, 13.1 vs. 12.4 PPL on VisualNews). ENGINE-Medium (NE) model, with 355M parameters, outperforms all the GPT-Series baselines including GPT-J-6B. Figure 3 plots the perplexity as a function of the number of parameters on news datasets, demon" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3During inference, we get rid of entity categories from our generated articles to make fair comparisons to other baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8688" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 396 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 396 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model NamenparamsnlayersdmodelnhedgesGoodNews PPL ↓VisualNews PPL ↓
GPT2-124M (Radford et al., 2019)124M127681223.627.5
GROVER-Base (Zellers et al., 2020)124M127681223.821.9
GPT-Neo-125M (Gao et al., 2020)125M127681227.129.3
GPT2-124M (Finetuned)124M127681217.318.3
ENGINE-Base (ClipNE)124M127681214.816.1
ENGINE-Base (NE)124M127681212.013.1
GPT2-355M (Radford et al., 2019)355M2410241617.820.1
GROVER-Large (Zellers et al., 2020)355M2410241618.516.4
GPT-Neo-1.3B (Gao et al., 2020)1.3B2420481615.315.9
GPT2-355M (Finetuned)355M2410241613.514.0
ENGINE-Medium(clipNE)355M2410241611.612.5
ENGINE-Medium(NE)355M241024169.510.2
GPT2-1.5B (Radford et al., 2019)1.5B4816002513.915.7
GROVER-Mega (Zellers et al., 2020)1.5B4816002514.512.6
GPT-Neo-2.7B (Gao et al., 2020)2.7B3225602013.514.0
GPT-J-6B (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021)6B2840961611.311.6
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)1.5B4816002512.612.4
ENGINE-XL(clipNE)1.5B4816002510.811.1
ENGINE-XL(NE)1.5B481600258.79.0
LLAMA-7B (Touvron et al., 2023)7B324096328.38.5
ENGINE+LLAMA (NE)7B324096326.56.4
", + "image_path": "194acf8387fe5d5f170a3cc92c9678af03256bf2e27b04dfd792244ff9fe423e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 525, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 525, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Perplexity (PPL) comparison on GoodNews and VisualNews. ClipNE denotes that we select CLIP-based named entities in named-entity field (described in Section 3.2), NE denotes that we apply oracle named entities in named-entity field. PPL is calculated only on the article body. We observe that our model consistently outperforms baselines of comparable model sizes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "strating that ENGINE gets as good or better results than prior work while also using fewer parameters. Additional Baselines adapted from close-related tasks4. In Table 2(A), we see that ENGINE-1.5B outperforms integrating BU (Anderson et al., 2018) and VisualGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022) features, demonstrating that our entity-aware mechanism is more effective than directly incorporating image features. As discussed in the Introduction, this is likely due to the loose correlation between images and their corresponding articles. Table 2(B) demonstrates that the entity-aware mechanisms proposed for other text generation tasks do not generalize well to article generation, where our approach obtains a 4-5 PPL improvement on both datasets. We also find that InfoSurgeon struggles to generate articles well, which we argue is due to its sequence-to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 526, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sequence translation framework finding it challenging to effectively leverage prior knowledge from pretrained language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation Study. Figure 4 shows ablations of ENGINE-Base. We observe that both the caption and named-entity fields boost performance, revealing that cues from embedded images help produce higher-quality articles. Comparing using only captions (Cap) vs. combining them with our Entity-aware mechanism, we get a minimum gain of 0.6 PPL, demonstrating its effectiveness. In addition, we observe that ClipNE outperforms CapNE, validating that CLIP-detected named entities are more effective than those extracted from captions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Article Quality User Study. Following (Zellers et al., 2020; Kreps et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020), we ask annotators to distinguish machine-generated articles from human-written articles. We randomly selected 50 news stories from GoodNews and VisualNews test sets (100 total). Given the metadata and news images, we generated news articles using three different language models: GROVER-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 711, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4InfoSurgeon (Fung et al., 2021), InjType (Dong et al., 2021), VNC (Liu et al., 2021) are adapted from sequence-to-sequence translation, close-ended paragraph generation, and news image captioning, respectively. For a fair comparison, GPT2-Base is applied as the backbone of InjType, VNC, and BU for article generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8689" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 268, + 304 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 268, + 304 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 268, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 71, + 268, + 304 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6ef9faab3a4e3231908a33ed82900c43dd9c0fb77297b0bb4279aa03ad807e37.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 351 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 291, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Comparison of the perplexity of different language models on GoodNews (top) and VisualNews (bottom) as a function of learned parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mega, GPT2-1.5B (finetuned), and ENGINE-XL. This results in a total of 200 articles per dataset. We recruited 200 Qualified Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) workers per dataset. Each article was annotated 5 times by AMT workers, where each worker was presented with the article titles, images and captions, and was asked to indicate if the article was human or machine generated. If they thought the article was machine-generated, they were asked to indicate a reason for it following the same option format as Tan et al. (2020). Table 3 reports annotation accuracy in identifying articles from VisualNews as machine or human-generated. We see ENGINE-XL is able to generate hard-to-detect news articles (a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " boost over GPT2-1.5B, and a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 367, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " gain over GROVER-Mega), validating the effectiveness of our approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine Discriminator. We apply OpenAI's RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) detector to detect generated articles. The maximum article length is cut to 512 to fit the model input size. For comparison, we use the same article set from our user study. In Table 3, we observe that the machine discriminator is much better at identifying the machine-generated news. We see that articles produced by ENGINE-XL can be reliably detected by RoBERTa though it gets the lowest accuracy on human evaluation. This can be due to the fact that GROVER-Mega, GPT2-1.5B, and ENGINE-XL all share a similar underlying model architecture. Thus, they may contain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 522, + 211 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 522, + 211 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 522, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 68, + 522, + 211 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model NameGood-NewsVisual-News
(A) BU (Anderson et al., 2018)26.624.3
VisualGLM(Du et al., 2022)11.812.2
ENGINE-1.5B (ours)8.79.0
(B) InfoSurg (Fung et al., 2021)41.842.1
InjType (Dong et al., 2021)18.219.0
VNC (Liu et al., 2021)16.717.8
ENGINE-Base (ours)12.013.1
", + "image_path": "998e86474fdb389a0e274422ecf48ce9846937a49951eb2563ccfb59964a4f43.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: PPL of baselines adapted from close-related tasks. (A) leverages visual features directly extracted from images, (B) contrasts entity-aware mechanisms. Adapting entity-aware mechanisms from related tasks may result in poor performance in our task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 294, + 514, + 427 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 294, + 514, + 427 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 294, + 514, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 294, + 514, + 427 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "44aa366011f6f9853f8da66eb7ea9992fe04980784bf9f81b620c870c173098c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 527, + 521 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 527, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 436, + 527, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Ablation results of ENGINE-Base. Text-only denotes the model focuses only on text information, which is same to finetuned GPT2 model. Cap denotes caption field, EA denotes the Entity-aware mechanism. CapNE denotes named entities extracted from captions. Both the named-entity extraction module and our entity-aware mechanism can improve the performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "enough similarities in the distributional features that are recognized by the machine discriminator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zero-shot Article Generation We perform zero-shot experiments on Wikipedia articles to demonstrate ENGINE's ability to generalize. Table 4 reports performance on WikiText. We find that our oracle named entities and entity-aware mechanism still can improve the performance over several baselines, even though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is significantly different. For example, the GPT2 models finetuned on Visualnews get worse performance than the original GPT2 models on WikiText. However, our ENGINE models get comparable or better results than the original GPT2 across different model sizes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative Results. We provide a qualitative comparison of GoodNews articles in Figure 5. Con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8690" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 77, + 252, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 77, + 252, + 86 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 77, + 252, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: A Designer Unites the Basque Country" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 86, + 195, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 86, + 195, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 86, + 195, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 168, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 168, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 122, + 93, + 168, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Date: 06-10-2016" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 301, + 74, + 332, + 105 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 74, + 332, + 105 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 74, + 332, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 74, + 332, + 105 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f532b261a76e3466e3cc65cd0c7a56f7fdedb22722b4d9ef5d08261f0ed05c92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 524, + 449 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 524, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on GoodNews. We cut the articles to fit the figure size. The entity names from image information are highlighted in light purple (PERSON tag) and light blue (ORG tag) colors. We can see that the named entities in captions also appear in the human-written and ENGINE-generated articles. In contrast, the GPT2-generated and GROVER-generated articles do not contain correct entity names corresponding to the image." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 89, + 418, + 96 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 89, + 418, + 96 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 89, + 418, + 96 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jean Louis Iratzoki checking the 3D" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 96, + 405, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 96, + 405, + 104 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 96, + 405, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "scale model of a chair for Alki." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 116, + 171, + 123 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 116, + 171, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 116, + 171, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 131, + 293, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 131, + 293, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 131, + 293, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In 2007, the French industrial designer Jean Louis Iratzoki opened a remote studio in a wood cabin in the foothills of the Pyrenees. His minimalist \"refuge\" has recently become an unlikely creative epicenter for industrial production on both the French and Spanish sides of the Pays Basque." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 166, + 293, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 166, + 293, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 166, + 293, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "At last year's Maison & Obj design fair, Mr. Iratzoki won plaudits for designing one of the world's first bioplastic chairs made of a biodegradable plant-based polymer. That shell chair, part of a long collaboration with the Basque furniture brand Alki, is only one example of Mr. Iratzoki's determination to promote his native region. (Mr. Iratzoki was born in France in St. Jean-de-Luz.) He has also recently revamped the brand identity of Cazenave (a Basque chocolate company) and helped design the interiors of a luxurious eco lodge in Saubion, north of Biarritz." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 229, + 293, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 229, + 293, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 229, + 293, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This year, he founded a new practice with a Basque designer of Spanish extraction, Ander Lizaso, with the aim of creating a multipurpose design studio inspired by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 116, + 377, + 124 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 116, + 377, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 116, + 377, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 131, + 493, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 131, + 493, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 131, + 493, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following in the footsteps of his male counterpart, the 2007 French - Spanish architect Jean Louis Iratzoki, whose archives became the subject of last year's Basque / Francophile Rodeo Drive exhibition, Ander Lizaso, the designer of the Pays Basque label Maison & Objet, has taken on the relatively new mantle of directorie in his own right. This year, he announced the inaugural of his own Design Angeles - in - Motion, the largest design fair for brands of the Basque / Francophone world." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 187, + 493, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 187, + 493, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 187, + 493, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"He's the one name you know everywhere,\" said Lizaso, who came of age as a designer in the city of Alki during the first boom in construction trade there, selling commissioners as part of the community's growing business. \"And it was the same in France.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 222, + 493, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 222, + 493, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 222, + 493, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Going back to Belgium, where the heritage of the Maison & Obj founders still lies, imbuing his name with its celebrated high- culture associations, he explained, the house was fully aware of its Basque roots.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 259, + 173, + 267 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 259, + 173, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 259, + 173, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT2-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 272, + 293, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 272, + 293, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 272, + 293, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tears eluded Chris Burch and his wife, Susana, when they first set eyes on each other as headwaiter in 1991. They had no idea how they would end up there. But neither did he, not at the time, not even 10 years later. Their friendship would grow into a tentative romance; twice, both of them, over the next 13 years, would fly away from their native Basque region to live and work and play together in New York. Until suddenly they were happily on their own, taking care of themselves. In 2012, with both 40, Burch decided to marry them. Thirty years later, the brothers will go their separate ways: Chris, the artistic director of the Gypsy Rose Lee boutique in the West Village, and Susana, founder and creative director of her own company, Flora Flora, which specializes in floral textiles and ties. \"A wedding is an intimate, temporary thing, where people are sending you on your merry way,\" Chris explains. \"You leave with a future and a few words of what you can say. With something you want to do full-fledged -- 'We're engaged' or 'I have a proposal' -- you can't even focus.\" The couple recently moved to Miami, where Chris wants to take a nautical theme to Hawaii, where Susana is from. Below, they discuss the undercurrents of their romance as lifelong friends." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 259, + 380, + 267 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 259, + 380, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 259, + 380, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GROVER-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 272, + 493, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 272, + 493, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 272, + 493, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In both making clothing and politics, Ms. Madrid strives to combine the traditions of dress and activism with the street's distinct urbanity. She designs a range of products, from T-shirts and tees for millennials, to men's shirts for families. Everything in both stands as her identity as a designer. \"I'm the most passionate person in designing my own clothes because I'm a feminist,\" Ms. Madrid said in an interview at a café in town. \"I'm very anti-strong men and fat women.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 322, + 491, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 322, + 491, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 322, + 491, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The 40-year-old mother of two is creating a new business. It's aiming to combine traditional fashion and activism. She's hoping to raise money and offer services for political activism in the Basque country - and beyond." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 350, + 491, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 350, + 491, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 299, + 350, + 491, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the past four decades, Ms. Madrid has been involved in social and political activism. She went on hunger strike after she was attacked while in jail. Her goal is to become a national emblem for the Basque country, she said, but she's not convinced this is a responsibility of the Basque government." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 289, + 531 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 289, + 531 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 289, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 460, + 289, + 531 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodHumanRoBERTa
GROVER-Mega72.8%90%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)69.6%84%
ENGINE-XL67.6%84%
", + "image_path": "d7daf9ea8fccb2ba102302457d054a411ebeb02373f9332b890665be4516537f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sistent with our annotation experiment, we compare the human-written article with three machine-generated articles. From the results, we can see that ENGINE-XL can effectively produce articles with the named entities learned from image information. In contrast, finetuned GPT2-1.5B and GROVER-Mega failed to generate correct named entities in articles. For example, both ENGINE-generated article and the human-written article mentioned \"Hean Louis Iratzoki\" and \"Alki\", which are appeared in the caption. In contrast, articles generated by GPT2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 460, + 522, + 558 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 289, + 599 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 289, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 289, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Detection of generated articles. Left column reports the performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated. Right column uses OpenAI's text detector based on RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) to perform the same task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 460, + 522, + 558 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 460, + 522, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 460, + 522, + 558 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Method124M355M≥ 1.5B
GPT226.119.114.8
GPT-Neo24.913.111.5
GPT-J-6B--9.0
GPT2 (Finetuned)33.825.225.9
ENGINE (NE)20.715.416.3
", + "image_path": "a66cb138d1a6018acbe5f0655ef4ea92bdf91cd30382757b2747652464c8c2ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Zero-shot article generation. We compare the perplexity of ENGINE to GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), GPT-Neo (Gao et al., 2020), and GPT-J (Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021) on WikiText (Stephen et al., 2017). Both GPT2 and ENGINE are finetuned on VisualNews (Liu et al., 2021) with a maximum article length of 1024. Though the data distribution between Wikipedia and news is different, our proposed entity-aware method still improves the performance over several baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 524, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 524, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 524, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "or GROVER are discussing some other entities such as \"Chris Burch\" and \"Ms. Madrid.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 409, + 738 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 409, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 409, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Article Retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5 compares the Recall@K retrieval scores of ENGINE with the state-of-the-art baselines on the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8691" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 530, + 206 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 530, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 530, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 69, + 530, + 206 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
GoodNewsVisualNewsGoodNewsVisualNews
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
CLIP-B/1619.442.752.930.653.564.632.556.864.443.169.576.5
CLIP-L/1432.556.065.347.372.178.946.668.375.055.077.384.3
BLIP19.838.048.822.043.652.515.930.837.915.133.342.7
EVA01-CLIP-G/1449.670.377.156.978.984.747.668.375.254.976.582.5
EVA02-CLIP-L/1450.773.179.457.978.685.249.369.676.854.877.382.7
ENGINE (ours)53.873.579.661.982.086.751.572.077.856.378.383.9
", + "image_path": "768bdc8dea85429e153d191338e95bb963debb75a882755ae517cc578b336695.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 526, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 526, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 526, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Retrieval results. We compare the Recall@K of ENGINE to CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), BLIP (Li et al., 2022), and EVA-CLIP (Sun et al., 2023) on the article-to-image and image-to-article retrieval tasks on GoodNews and VisualNews. For articles with multiple embedded images, we only use the first embedded image. See Section 4.3 for discussion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "test splits of GoodNews and VisualNews. Following Tan et al. (2022), we randomly select 1500 article-image pairs from each dataset for evaluation. In the image-to-article retrieval task, we observe that compare to EVA02-CLIP-L/14 (Sun et al., 2023), ENGINE boost the Recall@1 scores from 50.7 to 53.8 on GoodNews and from 57.9 to 61.9 to VisualNews. For article-to-image retrieval, ENGINE achieves the highest performance with Recall@1 scores of 51.5 and 56.3 on GoodNews and VisualNews, respectively. The retrieval results validate the importance of named entities within articles and the effectiveness of our proposed method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 143, + 466 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 143, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 143, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our paper, we mainly investigate modeling machine-generated articles, which can be used directly for generation while also can providing strong language features to support applications like article retrieval. However, actors can also use the same technology to generate articles for misinformation by modifying information of specific fields to realize two potential purposes: monetization (ad revenue through clicks) or propaganda (communicating targeted information) (Zellers et al., 2020). Thus, the development of a better article generator can not only help humans write high-quality articles but also potentially help train a more powerful discriminator. Table 3 reports the performance of using human judgements or OpenAI's RoBERTa-based machine generated text detector (Liu et al., 2019). When comparing the results of the RoBERTa detector for GPT2-1.5B and ENGINE-XL, we find that only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the articles that were predicted as human written came from the same generation prompts. Thus, the two methods can provide differ" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ent views of the same prompt, which can provide additional information for training an even more powerful machine generated text detector. We note that our contributions are largely architecture ag- nostic, so they could also be used in RNN-based generators, which may provide a larger distribution shift in the generated articles that may fool a discriminator trained only on Transformer outputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 381, + 398 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 381, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 386, + 381, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we proposed ENGINE, an entity-aware article generation and retrieval method that explicitly incorporates and models named entities in language models. Concretely, ENGINE extracts named entities from both metadata and embedded images in articles, providing a more comprehensive source of entity information. In addition, we introduce an entity-aware mechanism to help ENGINE recognize and predict named entities more effectively and accurately. ENGINE outperforms current popular language models in quantitative and qualitative experiments on GoodNews, VisualNews, and WikiText. For example, ENGINE outperforms GPT-J by roughly 2.5 perplexity points using only a quarter parameters of GPT-J and boost the performance of EVA02-CLIP by 3-4 Recall@1 accuracy in article retrieval experiments. The noticeable improvements demonstrate that ENGINE can generate and retrieve articles more accurately and efficiently by effectively leveraging named entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported, in part, by DARPA under agreement number HR00112020054. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting agencies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 792 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 792 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 792 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8692" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 292, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 292, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 292, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We discuss limitations and potential improvements of our work in this section. First, though our method can effectively predict the correct entity names in articles, their corresponding entity categories might be mistakenly predicted. For example, in Figure 5, the brand name \"Alki\" is recognized as a city name by ENGINE. Therefore, a more accurate entity-aware mechanism could be developed in future work. Second, the image information can be further explored. In this paper, we mainly investigate the captions and named entities of news images. However, other information such as the locations of images within articles may also prove useful for article generation. In addition, our current methods detect named entities from images considering each entity independently using a text-image matching framework. However, since the relationships between entities also affect the probability that entities appear in images, the incorporation of entity relationships can also be considered to further improve the entity detection module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 386, + 158, + 397 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 386, + 158, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 386, + 158, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE is a model for article generation and retrieval. It can either help automated journalism or defending against machine-generation articles. However, there is no perfect system which can generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " accurate articles. Therefore, it is critical for practitioners to check the fact mentioned in articles and avoid the misinformation brought by failure generation cases. Additionally, someone could use our approach to generate misinformation. However, ENGINE applies the network structure that is same to GPT2, which means the discriminators trained for GPT2 articles (e.g., RoBERTa detector (Liu et al., 2019)) are also effective to discriminate ENGINE-generated articles. Our paper helps to highlight the need for building tools like the RoBERTa detector." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 645, + 127, + 658 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 645, + 127, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 645, + 127, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-up and top-down attention for image captioning and visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siddhartha Banerjee and Prasenjit Mitra. 2016. Wiki-write: Generating wikipedia articles automatically. In *IJCAI*, pages 2740-2746." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 526, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. The journal of machine learning research, 3:1137-1155." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ali Furkan Biten, Lluis Gomez, Marçal Rusinol, and Dimosthenis Karatzas. 2019. Good news, everyone! context driven entity-aware captioning for news images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12466-12475." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 526, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 276, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiangyu Dong, Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, and Meng Jiang. 2021. Injecting entity types into entity-guided text generation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 329, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 329, + 526, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 329, + 526, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 320-335." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 404, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 889-898." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 526, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 458, + 526, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Fung, Christopher Thomas, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Sandeep Polisetty, Heng Ji, Shih-Fu Chang, Kathleen McKeown, Mohit Bansal, and Avirup Sil. 2021. Infosurgeon: Cross-media fine-grained information consistency checking for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1683-1698." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 565, + 526, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. 2020. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 526, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiuxiang Gu, Jianfei Cai, Shafiq R Joty, Li Niu, and Gang Wang. 2018. Look, imagine and match: Improving textual-visual cross-modal retrieval with generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7181-7189." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tatsunori B Hashimoto, Hugh Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2019. Unifying human and statistical evaluation for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1689-1701." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8693" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 289, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 289, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spacy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear, 7(1):411-420." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 289, + 221 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 289, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 167, + 289, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Xiaodan Liang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Eric P Xing. 2017. Toward controlled generation of text. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1587-1596. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 284 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 289, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sungyeon Kim, Dongwon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Suha Kwak. 2020. Proxy anchor loss for deep metric learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3238-3247." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 289, + 348 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 289, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 293, + 289, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sarah Kreps, R Miles McCain, and Miles Brundage. 2020. All the news that's fit to fabricate: A-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of Experimental Political Science, pages 1-14." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 289, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 289, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 289, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leo Leppänen, Myriam Munezero, Mark Granroth-Wilding, and Hannu Toivonen. 2017. Data-driven news generation for automated journalism. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on natural language generation, pages 188-197." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 289, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 421, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Li, Aixin Sun, Jianglei Han, and Chenliang Li. 2020. A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 289, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 289, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining for unified vision-language understanding and generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12888-12900. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 289, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 537, + 289, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fuxiao Liu, Yinghan Wang, Tianlu Wang, and Vicente Ordonez. 2021. Visualnews: Benchmark and challenges in entity-aware image captioning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6761-6771." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 600, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 600, + 289, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 600, + 289, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 664, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyeonseob Nam, Jung-Woo Ha, and Jeonghee Kim. 2017. Dual attention networks for multimodal reasoning and matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 299-307." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Duy-Kien Nguyen and Takayuki Okatani. 2018. Improved fusion of visual and language representations by dense symmetric co-attention for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 94 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6087-6096." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 525, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 178, + 525, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32:8026-8037." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 525, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 263, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nanyun Peng, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Jonathan May, and Kevin Knight. 2018. Towards controllable story generation. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Storytelling, pages 43-49." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 316, + 525, + 381 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 316, + 525, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 316, + 525, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 391, + 525, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 485, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arnau Ramisa, Fei Yan, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Krystian Mokolajczyk. 2017. Breakingnews: Article annotation by image and text processing. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(5):1072-1085." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 525, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 815-823." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christoph Schuhmann, Richard Vencu, Romain Beaumont, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Clayton Mullis, Aarush Katta, Theo Coombes, Jenia Jitsev, and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. Laion-400m: Open dataset of clip-filtered 400 million image-text pairs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02114." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Merit Stephen, Xiong Caiming, Bradbury James, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture models. Proceedings of ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quan Sun, Yuxin Fang, Ledell Wu, Xinlong Wang, and Yue Cao. 2023. Eva-clip: Improved training techniques for clip at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15389." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8694" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reuben Tan, Bryan A. Plummer, and Kate Saenko. 2020. Detecting cross-modal inconsistency to defend against neural fake news. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 290, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 290, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 125, + 290, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reuben Tan, Bryan A Plummer, Kate Saenko, JP Lewis, Avneesh Sud, and Thomas Leung. 2022. Newsstories: Illustrating articles with visual summaries. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 644-661. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 190, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 190, + 290, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 190, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 276, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 276, + 290, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 276, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alasdair Tran, Alexander Mathews, and Lexing Xie. 2020. Transform and tell: Entity-aware news image captioning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13035-13045." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 340, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 340, + 290, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 340, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J-6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Language Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 290, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 290, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bokun Wang, Yang Yang, Xing Xu, Alan Hanjalic, and Heng Tao Shen. 2017. Adversarial cross-modal retrieval. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 154-162." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 447, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Julien Chaumont, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 290, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vikas Yadav and Steven Bethard. 2018. A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2145-2158." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 609, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 609, + 290, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 609, + 290, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Defending against neural fake news. Neurips." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 666, + 249, + 679 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 666, + 249, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 666, + 249, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Additional Experiment Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 687, + 185, + 699 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 687, + 185, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 687, + 185, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Article Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additional qualitative results on article generation are provided in Figure 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 as the supplement of our main paper, demonstrating that ENGINE is able to generate articles given different news sources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 458, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 458, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 458, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Article Quality Annotation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6 reports human accuracy in identifying articles as machine or human-generated to supplement the main paper. We see that ENGINE-XL is able to generate more realistic-looking news articles on Goodnews, consistent with the conclusion in our main paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 327, + 179, + 499, + 248 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 179, + 499, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 179, + 499, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 179, + 499, + 248 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Human-based detector
GROVER-Mega76.4%
GPT2-1.5B (Finetuned)73.6%
ENGINE-XL70.4%
", + "image_path": "24d07ae079abfa1780fea2103604427d857b9bd317de87c6245a70871c3dcba5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 524, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 524, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 524, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: The performance of AMT workers at correctly identifying an article as human or machine generated on GoodNews." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 299, + 523, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 299, + 523, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 299, + 523, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Ablation Study on Top-k Named Entities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide the ablation study on top-k named entities in Table 7. We see that the model achieves the best performance when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 15. When " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 524, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is greater than 10, the improvement is limited." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 380, + 513, + 422 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 380, + 513, + 422 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 380, + 513, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 380, + 513, + 422 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
top-k named entities5101520
PPL ↓15.514.814.514.6
", + "image_path": "be789295d087f7bdf14f369d8e123ba0ceba9c3015a206b1e372e747b05ec26c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 430, + 524, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 430, + 524, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 430, + 524, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Ablation study on the number of named entities detected by CLIP (GoodNews)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 520, + 490 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 520, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 520, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Recall of CLIP-detected Named Entities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use Oracle NE as ground truth labels to evaluate the retrieval results by CLIP model. In Table 8, we observe that approximately " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "30\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " named entities from Oracle NE have been retrieved by CLIP. In contrast, recall of Cap on GoodNews and VisualNews are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "22.57\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.41\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 496, + 525, + 658 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. The gap between GoodNews and VisualNews is likely because captions in GoodNews are often much longer than captions in VisualNews. The retrieval results validate that ClipNE contains more relevant named entities compared to named entities extracted solely based on captions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 517, + 717 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 517, + 717 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 517, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 666, + 517, + 717 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Named EntitiesGoodNewsVisualNews
Cap22.577.41
ClipNE29.8431.19
", + "image_path": "eb077ef09f64e9fa18a489cba7e7bd68933471bd476d4f98d481e2ea0d807a92.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 524, + 768 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 524, + 768 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 524, + 768 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Recall of Cap, ClipNE on GoodNews and VisualNews. Cap represents named entities that appear in captions, ClipNE represent named entities detected by CLIP model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8695" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 283, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 283, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 283, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Ablation Study on the Canonical Order" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ablation study of varying inference order is shown in Table 9. From the Table, we see that canonical orders which are not consistent with the training order result in greater PPL of the language model. The model achieves the best performance when the inference order is aligned with the training order." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 270 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 270 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 290, + 270 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
canonical orderGoodNews PPL↓
date-domain-title-summary18.2
title-date-domain-summary19.2
summary-date-domain-title20.5
domain-date-title-summary17.3
", + "image_path": "5fd52dad9af70f8566becd42a4d536fbc2ee5ce978effb6194e1d8afc2dca720.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 263, + 336 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 263, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 263, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 Ablation Study on Article Retrieval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 291, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We ablate the two modules of our method on article retrieval in Table 10. Text-only denotes that we directly use the original articles as the input. NE denotes named entity extraction, and EA denotes the entity-aware mechanism. From the table, we observe that both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can boost the article retrieval performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 302, + 540 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 277, + 290, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 277, + 290, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 277, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Ablation study on the canonical order during inference (GoodNews)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 302, + 540 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 302, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 458, + 302, + 540 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodImage-to-articleArticle-to-image
R@1R@5R@10R@1R@5R@10
Text-only57.978.685.254.877.382.7
NE60.080.385.956.178.283.7
NE-EA61.982.086.756.378.383.9
", + "image_path": "b0958bd10212dab37e65976f219e8865fe683bf697c442cc2b2e68c79e49dc3e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 291, + 596 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 291, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Ablation study on article retrieval (VisualNews). Both named entity extraction and the entity-aware mechanism can improve the article retrieval performance on VisualNews." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 290, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.7 Decoding Strategy for Article Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Likelihood-maximization decoding strategies like greedy search or beam search work well in close-ended generation such as image captions, machine translation, or summarization. However, these methods suffer from the repetitive text problem in open-ended generations like dialog or story generation (Hashimoto et al., 2019; Holtzman et al., 2019). Sampling methods (Fan et al., 2018; Holtzman et al., 2019) are therefore proposed to introduce more randomness and surprise to text generation. In our work, we adopt the top-p sampling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(nucleus sampling) method (Holtzman et al., 2019) as our decoding strategy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 107, + 509, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 107, + 509, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 107, + 509, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.8 Article Quality Annotation Templates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 525, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 125, + 525, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following (Tan et al., 2020), annotators are asked to indicate a reason for whether the articles are human-written or machine-manipulated. We provide a view of the AMT worker interface in Figure 13." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8696" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 209, + 363, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 209, + 363, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 209, + 363, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: Daniel Agger leaves Liverpool to return to former club Brondby" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 222, + 200, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 222, + 200, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 222, + 200, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.theguardian.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 231, + 154, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 231, + 154, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 231, + 154, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Date: 08-30-2014" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 246, + 152, + 286 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 246, + 152, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 246, + 152, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 246, + 152, + 286 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "80bbb81bbddabf324f1c6fd3bae1ad555e145489fcfa55b0333d9c0783753806.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 634, + 478, + 645 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 634, + 478, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 634, + 478, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Guardian." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 251, + 280, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 251, + 280, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 251, + 280, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Agger has rejoined Brondby for an undisclosed fee." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 306, + 176, + 315 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 306, + 176, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 306, + 176, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 325, + 283, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 325, + 283, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 325, + 283, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Liverpool have announced the sale of the defender Daniel Agger to the Danish club Brondby for an undisclosed fee. The 29-year-old Denmark international joined the Anfield club from Brondby in 2006 and went on to make more than 200 appearances for the club but had fallen down the pecking order under Brendan Rodgers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 392, + 285, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 392, + 285, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 392, + 285, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"Liverpool have been such a big part of my life and my family's lives for so long, that leaving is extremely difficult,\" Agger said. \"The opportunity arose for me to return home to Brondby and at this stage of my career it felt like the right decision for me.\" I wouldn't leave here to go anywhere else and that has been proven by my actions in recent seasons - I have turned down many offers to move to other Premier League and European clubs. \"I would like to thank the Liverpool supporters for the incredible backing they have given me in my time here and the warmth and generosity of spirit displayed to my family. \"This has been our home and somewhere we have been very happy and settled. However, more recently I have started to feel the effects of playing regularly in a league that is as physically demanding as the Premier League is, and I would not want to stay if I did not think that I was able to meet that challenge week in, week out.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 306, + 403, + 316 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 306, + 403, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 297, + 306, + 403, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 325, + 512, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 325, + 512, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 325, + 512, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Liverpool defender Daniel Agger has left Anfield to return to his previous club Brondby. The Danish international midfielder was reported to have agreed personal terms with the club. The 29-year-old left Liverpool in 2006 following their relegation from the Premier League and has featured for the national team in Denmark's recent seasons." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 392, + 512, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 392, + 512, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 295, + 392, + 512, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The move to Brondby was said to be a \"cash - plus \" deal. \" We're very pleased Daniel Agger has chosen to continue his development at Brondby,\" read a statement on the club website. \" He's a young man who has shown great potential in the Premier League, and we look forward to working with him again.\" Brondby, who are in the Danish Superliga, have a squad of more than 200 players. The Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers said : \" As a footballer you dream of playing in the Premier League and I'm very pleased that Daniel Agger has chosen to come back to Brondby.\" He's a good defender and I'm sure he will work very hard to prove to the club that he is a good player. \" We like to think of him as a very important player for his nationality. But he has a great character. You might think he's a bit of a character but you 'll see he's as strong a character as any of the other players here.\" Agger said : \" I am extremely proud to play for Brondby.\" I will always consider it as one of the happiest days of my career so far. It has been a great and very memorable time, and the supporters have been fantastic. My future lies with the club, and hopefully, it will be here for a long time. \" I also want to thank the Liverpool fans for their support. Without them I wouldn't have been able to carry on fighting for this shirt, so thank you!\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8697" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 173, + 291, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 173, + 291, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 173, + 291, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: State of Britain's wildlife 'increasingly fragile'" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 185, + 173, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 185, + 173, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 185, + 173, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.bbc.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 194, + 153, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 194, + 153, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 194, + 153, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Date: 12-08-2015" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 152, + 250 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 152, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 152, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 152, + 250 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4bf97210c23c56eceb92154db7f5405b110497eb9f266a96e5922fbf8daa58a1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 215, + 252, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 215, + 252, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 215, + 252, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dark green fritillary butterfly" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 268, + 170, + 277 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 268, + 170, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 268, + 170, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 286, + 283, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 286, + 283, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 286, + 283, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Britain's wildlife is in an increasingly fragile state, with animals carrying out vital jobs for farmers being lost more rapidly than others, say scientists. Insects that pollinate crops or fight pests are at risk of disappearing, putting food production in jeopardy, according to the team. The research brings together millions of wildlife records spanning 40 years. It suggests conservation efforts should focus on certain areas, they add. Dr Tom Oliver of the University of Reading, who led the research, said it was the biggest and most comprehensive report ever assembled for any country in the world. \"By standardising records from an army of amateur biologists across the country, we have amassed an impressive array of data, giving us our most complete picture yet of the state of Britain's wildlife,\" he told BBC News. \"The picture that emerges is of an increasingly fragile system, particularly in species that do vital jobs for humans. \"Unless efforts are made to reverse some of these declines, we face a future where we will be less confident that we can effectively grow our food.\" Benefits from nature." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 448, + 283, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 448, + 283, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 448, + 283, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The researchers looked at records of the changing fortunes of more than 4,000 types of plant and animal living in England, Wales and Scotland between 1970 and 2009. Species such as bees, dragonflies, grasshoppers, ladybirds, plants and mosses were put into groups based on the role they play in nature. Groups providing pollination and pest control benefits had undergone declines while those involved in functions such as decay or mopping up carbon emissions were more stable. Plants and animals regarded as of cultural importance to humans, such as birds, butterflies and hedgehogs, also fared badly. Prof James Bullock, of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Oxfordshire, a co-researcher on the study, said conservation efforts should focus on the areas where there was strong evidence of declining fortunes.\"Conservation actions, such as wildlife friendly farming, can avoid the loss of biodiversity and the resulting erosion of the pollination, pest control and other benefits we derive from nature,\" he said. And Dr Oliver said there were a number of measures that individuals could take to help to improve the future for wildlife in the British Isles. They include: Making gardens wildlife friendly Purchasing food grown in a sustainable way to wildlife Helping to collect data on wildlife. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 268, + 394, + 278 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 268, + 394, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 268, + 394, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 285, + 514, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 285, + 514, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 285, + 514, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The state of Britain's wildlife has become increasingly fragile due to loss of habitat and changes in the climate, a study has suggested. Mass bird and butterfly losses have increased along with climate change, scientists found, which means many species are not as well equipped to cope. And while changes in food distribution, such as floods, may cause short - term problems, they can make long - term problems worse. Drought and flood events could put millions of birds and insects at risk, the scientists concluded. Monitoring of more than 4,000 species of birds, butterflies and moths across England, Wales and Scotland for 40 years concluded that the UK's biodiversity was still very good - only smaller than it was in 1975. But the biological communities in which they live were now less diverse than when these earlier surveys took place, which meant their ability to recover was less certain, they added. \"We have lost several species of already endangered species,\" explained lead researcher Dr Tom Oliver, a naturalist at the University of Reading. \"And we are moving into many of these habitats that are becoming drier and thus less suitable for them. \"The results of the study were \" far more alarming \" than expected.\" The situation looks pretty dire,\" said Dr James Bullock from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Oxfordshire, who was not involved with the research. He told BBC News that Britain's wildlife was already extremely stressed. \" Our natural environment is suffering from climate change, which is melting the ice sheets and expanding the oceans, and from human - generated pollution, so we are going to have a much more polluted environment in the future.\" And the species we are losing are particularly important because when you lose species, you do so in numbers, they cease to exist in numbers. \" The loss of a single species in Britain alone has the potential to affect millions of other organisms. \"The impact of the findings is likely to be felt most in many communities across the British Isles. \"We have lost a large number of species,\" Dr Oliver added. \" It's going to have a big impact on the ecology of Britain.\" He explained that the risk of long - term damage was unlikely to be taken lightly : \" We are more concerned about short - term impacts. \"The researchers believe that much work needs to be done to understand how, in time, this situation might change. Research in Nature Communications suggests that climate change means there has been a sharp decline in the number of butterfly species spotted in northern England - down by a third between 1970 and 2009 Species such as the large blue have struggled for many generations as the cold weather has made it too cold to overwinter in the UK.Follow Helen on Twitter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 670, + 468, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 670, + 468, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 670, + 468, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from BBC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8698" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 195, + 340, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 195, + 340, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 195, + 340, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: Robberies plague Tenleytown area over the past few weeks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 208, + 211, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 208, + 211, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 208, + 211, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.washingtonpost.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 217, + 153, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 217, + 153, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 217, + 153, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Date: 05-23-2016" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 152, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 152, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 152, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 232, + 152, + 274 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0565b9b1f2c0df3899a4f5150f609d96aa83bb62b2cb9aa24c813ae65d323307.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 238, + 286, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 238, + 286, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 238, + 286, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Video shows suspects robbing attacking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 248, + 239, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 248, + 239, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 248, + 239, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Georgetown Day student" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 291, + 176, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 291, + 176, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 291, + 176, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 311, + 298, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 311, + 298, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 311, + 298, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A student at Georgetown Day School was robbed last month in the same area of the District where a student at another school was stabbed during a robbery attempt, and near where two other robberies also occurred last month. The student at Georgetown Day was robbed about 1:30 p.m. April 27 in the 4200 block of Davenport Street, near the private school. Three robbers approached, and began beating the victim, police said, although they did not identify him as a student. They went through his pants pocket and took his glasses, wallet and phone before fleeing on foot, police said. A spokeswoman for Georgetown Day issued a statement saying that a student there was robbed along 42nd Street in Tenleytown on April 27, and the school provided immediate medical and security support. The statement said the school has held an assembly devoted to neighborhood safety training and it has adjusted the patrols of school security officers. That robbery occurred two days after an April 25 incident in which authorities said a student at Woodrow Wilson High School was stabbed in the leg during an attempted robbery near the school. In the Wilson incident, the robber was described as a man in his 30s. No description was provided of the robbers on Davenport Street NW. Police released video Monday of three people described as \"persons of interest.\" The video showed the victim and the robbers approaching each other on a sidewalk, with school buses lined up at a curb. Suddenly the student is knocked down and one or two of the robbers appear to go through his pockets. But the video does not appear to make possible a detailed description of the robbers. The stabbing comes nearly a week after two robberies, one of them involving a student victim, were reported on streets near Wilson and near Georgetown Day. Both occurred within about 15 minutes of each other April 19. In each instance, three people, one of whom who was armed with a knife, approached female victims and demanded their cellphones and debit cards. A juvenile male has been arrested in those cases, police said." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 291, + 416, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 291, + 416, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 291, + 416, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 311, + 514, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 311, + 514, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 311, + 514, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A group that robbed Georgetown Day School of valuables including cash last month and a purse while it was locked up in a dormitory has also robbed a spate of Georgetown Day students, police said. The initial thefts occurred April 27 and April 27. Two men entered the school, stealing the wallets and purses of two female students, police said. A total of four men were released from custody. The school said the total was $ 170. The last robbery occurred about 1:30 p.m. April 27 near the store at 4200 Davenport Street. Three male suspects fled the school on foot, and a local resident engaged in an effort to help the robbers, police said. It took about 15 minutes before the local man was able to locate them. The three defendants - one in his 20s, one in his late 20s and one in his late teens - fled along Davenport Street NW and into a residential neighborhood, police said. That resident was identified as a friend of the robbers and assisted in helping apprehend them. The robbery at Georgetown Day came two days after a robbery at Woodrow Wilson High School in Tenleytown. That April 25 robbery took place near 42nd Street and Davenport Street NW, a major thoroughfare in Tenleytown. According to police, two men in their 20s robbed a woman in her 30s. The robbers fled with a purse containing cash that was in a pink leather wallet. On Monday, the Wilson robbery went unsolved for nearly a week. Staff at the school said no incidents had been reported. \"We do have a staff member watching the campus. You go through the normal procedures of setting up alarms,\" said a Tenleytown police spokeswoman.\" We were n't able to get that information from the yet. The person you are talking to is someone within security. You have to keep an eye on him.\" Correction : This story has been updated to reflect that the Davenport Street robbery occurred April 19, not April 27." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 647, + 492, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 647, + 492, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 647, + 492, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from Washington Post." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8699" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 196, + 307, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 196, + 307, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 196, + 307, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: Courts again rule against streaming upstart Aero" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 208, + 188, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 208, + 188, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 208, + 188, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.usatoday.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 218, + 152, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 218, + 152, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 218, + 152, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Date: 08-21-2014" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 233, + 151, + 274 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 233, + 151, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 233, + 151, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 233, + 151, + 274 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cdd5264f70555f4362aa6e8b406fa333c172dd0afabfdd863b761444c296ddc2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 238, + 323, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 238, + 323, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 156, + 238, + 323, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this photo illustration Aereocom a Web service that provides television shows online is shown on an iPhone 4S on April 22 2014 in New York City" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 291, + 175, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 291, + 175, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 291, + 175, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 310, + 282, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 310, + 282, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 310, + 282, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A federal court will not hear Aeroo's argument that the streaming media company should be allowed to operate similarly to a cable company. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Aeroo will have to take its argument to the district court, according to court documents first reported by The Washington Post. This decision continues broadcasters' winning streak against the upstart service. Launched two years ago, Aeroo delivered over-the-air channels via online streaming to computers and tablets for about $8 a month and had brought the service to 11 cities. The Supreme Court ruled two months ago that Aeroo was violating copyright law by not paying the networks for transmitting their signals. After that, the streaming media company voluntarily shut down and told the U.S. District Court that it wanted to be treated as the equivalent to a cable TV system and apply for a compulsory license to stream live TV broadcasts. Subsequently, the Copyright Office's general counsel said that the office did not think that Aeroo would qualify, but fell short of denying Aeroo's filing because the issue remained alive in the courts. Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 291, + 399, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 291, + 399, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 293, + 291, + 399, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 310, + 515, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 310, + 515, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 310, + 515, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The high court delivered yet another blow to Aeroo in a pair of unanimous court opinions Thursday declaring the popular streaming service illegally alters the contents of customers' cable subscriptions and is guilty of violating copyright law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which first ruled against Aeroo two years ago, urged the justices to reject its claim that it is simply a device for consumers to access live TV without paying for it. Aeroo lets consumers use a digital antenna to receive live broadcasts online and streams those broadcasts as they are being transmitted over the Internet, just like cable TV. Through those transmissions the consumer also becomes a subscriber to the over - the - air service. But even if they keep Aeroo's service on, only a portion of the amount paid for cable service remains. For example, for $ 16.95 per month Aeroo customers receive nearly all the TV shows they request, regardless of what shows they watch. For about $8 each the consumer loses the signals they might already have over the Internet. Thus the company is violating copyright law by redistributing the service users already pay for without paying for the service they are receiving from cable operators. \"The Court finds that Aeroo's business model violates this section of the Copyright Act,\" 11 judges wrote in the majority opinion. The Washington Post, which first reported on the decision, called it \"a blow to digital media and to consumers.\" \"This unanimous decision means a lot,\" Aeroo chief executive Mike Snider said in a statement. \"Consumers no longer have to pay to receive the traditional way they watch TV. They now have the option to pay only for a service that delivers those channels, all for free.\" Aeroo has petitioned the court to change the district court's ruling to the full appeals court, which is likely to do so. The Supreme Court upheld the same ruling from two months ago. Aeroo said it will appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Experts tell the Post that its previous case shows that the Copyright Office's determination to give consumers access to streaming services without paying retailled companies is likely to be reversed by the appeals court. Follow @jswartz on Twitter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 646, + 481, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 646, + 481, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 646, + 481, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from USA Today." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8700" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 211, + 346, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 211, + 346, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 211, + 346, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Title: James F. Holland, Trailblazing Cancer Researcher, Dies at 92" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 222, + 184, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 222, + 184, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 222, + 184, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain: www.nytimes.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 232, + 152, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 232, + 152, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 232, + 152, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Date: 03-27-2018" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 247, + 131, + 286 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 247, + 131, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 247, + 131, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 247, + 131, + 286 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f6d615f91477daa2419583f4de693e8cfdc2befdd7d981a9591aa301c9a463b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 248, + 317, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 248, + 317, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 133, + 248, + 317, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dr. Holland with his wife, Dr. Jimmie Holland, who pioneered the field of psycho-oncology. While she treated the emotional distress of cancer patients, he focused on discovering universal remedies. She died in December." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 334, + 247, + 374, + 286 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 247, + 374, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 247, + 374, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 247, + 374, + 286 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "435f043da48ba8a2194b4134a2c8bd1828849958effa4fcdead3e11bf2380a8e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 248, + 504, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 248, + 504, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 376, + 248, + 504, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dr. James F. Holland in an undated photograph. In the 1950s, he and his colleagues were considered research cowboys by some colleagues, he said." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 305, + 175, + 315 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 305, + 175, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 305, + 175, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 280, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 280, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 333, + 280, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James F. Holland, a founding father of chemotherapy who helped pioneer a lifesaving drug treatment for pediatric leukemia patients, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 381, + 246, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 381, + 246, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 381, + 246, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The cause was respiratory failure, his son Steven said." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 400, + 280, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 400, + 280, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 400, + 280, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dr. Holland and his medical collaborators in the 1950s were scorned by some colleagues as research \"cowboys,\" as he put it, because they audaciously tackled what was considered an incurable disease and tried to treat it with several chemicals simultaneously, instead of sequentially." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 457, + 280, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 457, + 280, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 457, + 280, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When their research began, fewer than one in three children who were found to have acute lymphoblastic leukemia lived as long as a year. Today, as many as nine in 10 survive the disease, in which the bone marrow makes too many immature white blood cells." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 513, + 280, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 513, + 280, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 513, + 280, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another clinical trial that Dr. Holland directed in the 1970s, to contain acute myeloid leukemia, a somewhat similar malfunction in blood cell production, resulted in what became the standard treatment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 305, + 397, + 316 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 305, + 397, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 292, + 305, + 397, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated News Article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 324, + 515, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 324, + 515, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 324, + 515, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James F. Holland, an innovative oncologist whose scientific insights made him, as he once said, a \"Google\" for cancer research, died on Thursday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 92." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 362, + 515, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 362, + 515, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 362, + 515, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The cause was a widespread myeloid leukemia subtype, a cancer of the blood cells in bone marrow that occurs in fewer than one in three patients." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 400, + 515, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 400, + 515, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 400, + 515, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mr. Holland was one of the few oncologists to propose, in the 1950s, the chemical treatment known as stereosporin -- hence the name. He was also among the first to suggest ( though not actually carry out ) what became known as precancer therapy : turning over nonmedical patients to their regular doctors, while supplementing their therapies with medications to kill cancer cells. The mere suggestion of precancer therapy, it seemed to some, would have rendered it toxic." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 476, + 515, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 476, + 515, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 476, + 515, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "At the time, though, Mr. Holland thought it should not. He and his colleagues had been working for as long as a year on drugs to prevent acute lymphoblastic leukemia in patients with advanced disease, in which cells on the surface of the blood can proliferate out of control after being overexposed by chemotherapy. Doctors usually did this only after the patient's health deteriorated. Today, many hospitals will not perform precancer therapy, either." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 551, + 515, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 551, + 515, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 291, + 551, + 515, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "But in the 1970s, he and his colleagues were regarded as \" research cowboys \" by their colleagues. Known for treating as many as nine of 10 cancer cases, they had been derided even by their own specialty, nuclear medicine, for treating these patients when \" the science does not justify it,\" Dr. Steven Holland, his brother and his only sibling, said." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 632, + 493, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 632, + 493, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 632, + 493, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated news articles from New York Times." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8701" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 189, + 141, + 199 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 189, + 141, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 189, + 141, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Boulter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 207, + 158, + 217 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 207, + 158, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 207, + 158, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written Wikipedia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 225, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 225, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 225, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. He had a guest role in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002. In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \\\" Craig \\\" in the episode \\\" Teddy's Story \\\" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. He was cast in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur, which was performed at the Drum Theatre in Plymouth and the Menier Chocolate Factory in London. He was directed by John Tiffany and starred alongside Ben Whishaw, Shane Zaza, Harry Kent, Fraser Ayres, Sophie Stanton and Dominic Hall. \\n\\nThe 2006, Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the play Citizenship written by Mark Ravenhill. He appeared on a 2006 episode of the television series, Doctors, followed by a role in the 2007 theatre production of How to Curse directed by Josie Rourke. How to Curse was performed at Bush Theatre in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Boulter starred in two films in 2008, Daylight Robbery by filmmaker Paris Leonti, and Donkey Punch directed by Olly Blackburn. In May 2008, Boulter made a guest appearance on a two @-@ part episode arc of the television series Waking the Dead, followed by an appearance on the television series Survivors in November 2008. He had a recurring role in ten episodes of the television series Casualty in 2010, as \\\" Kieron Fletcher \\\". Boulter starred in the 2011 film Mercenaries directed by Paris Leonti. \\n\\nThe play Herons written by Simon Stephens, which was performed in 2001 at the Royal Court Theatre. A review of Boulter's performance in The Independent on Sunday described him as \\\" horribly menacing \\\" in the role, and he received critical reviews in The Herald, and Evening Standard. He appeared in the television series Judge John Deed in 2002 as \\\" Addem Armitage \\\" in the episode \\\" Political Expediency \\\", and had a role as a different character \\\" Toby Steele \\\" on The Bill. \\nHe had a recurring role in 2003 on two episodes of The Bill, as character \\\" Connor Price \\\". In 2004 Boulter landed a role as \\\" Craig \\\" in the episode \\\" Teddy's Story \\\" of the television series The Long Firm; he starred alongside actors Mark Strong and Derek Jacobi. Boulter starred as \\\" Darren \\\", in the 2005 theatre productions of the Philip Ridley play Mercury Fur.\\n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 393, + 217 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 393, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 393, + 217 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated Wikipedia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 225, + 516, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 225, + 516, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 225, + 516, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Boulter is an English film, television and theatre actor. He had a guest @-@ starring role on the television series The Bill in 2000. This was followed by a starring role in the play Herons. He has also starred on TV as a teacher and actor. In 2004 Boulter starred in the stage play Waste in Plymouth. He made his film debut at the Festival theatre in London in the 2005 John Sabatalain adaption of the John Grant -written novel, Intimate Behaviour. In 2006 he won a Samuel Beckett award for Best Performance in a Television Play for the film version of his play Teddy's Story. In 2007 Boulter played the lead role in the adaptation of Patrick Burden's book, East of Eden. In 2008 he was involved with Dominic Hall and John Deed and Craig Mark Strong, who were co - writer of another film, the comedy thriller, Derek Jacobi And The Mercenaries, and the TV adaptation of the Hot Fuzz movies. In May 2008 he made his film acting debut in the film Fever. Since then he has been sought out for appearing in films and TV series including Mercury Fur, which he appeared in as John Tiffany ; Hammersmith, where he played Ben Whishaw ; and London's Bush Theatre, where he appeared alongside Shane Zaza in Man of Economic Mass. In November 2008 he returned to the stage, in West End production of This Side of Paradise and in the West End production of Until Goes. He is currently appearing at the Shakespeare theatre at Fulham with a revival of Gods and Heroes. Robert Boulter biography Being called a fusion of two performers has never been embarrassing in Boulter's theatre career. In taking the offbeat, gruff character of Teddy that readers may instantly recognise as Harry Kent he defied expectations ; it was an unexpected and welcome return from a genre that had seen him move towards cheerfulness, his name becoming subtly attached to his image. He has also made the perfect transition from film to stage, propelling himself between brutal, seriously unpleasant characters on screen and harsh, adoring protagonists with dignity and aplomb in real life. Boulter lives with his family in Burn, Devon. His son Fraser Ayres is a member of the team behind the website jeffersonsworld.com, and his daughter Sophie Stanton has been a character actor in the theatre. Boulter starred alongside Whishaw in the 2010 film Donkey Punch. The other main roles in the film were Mark Ravenhill, who plays a former officer in an augmented forces unit, and Josie Rourke as his. In the play the lead character, \\*\" the demon of myth \\*\" is C, who lives in the arctic wasteland and is transformed when he is savagely hunted by a face - eating gnactus. Boulter played the first half of the story, or lion, while the other half was The Soldier, a mercenary, \\*\" the curse of mythology \\\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 525, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles (from WikiText dataset (Stephen et al., 2017)). We generate articles conditioned on both the title Robert Boulter, and the first 50 tokens highlighted by light yellow. The articles are cut to fit the figure size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8702" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 204, + 205 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 204, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 195, + 204, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1933 Treasure Coast hurricane" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 213, + 158, + 223 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 213, + 158, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 213, + 158, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-written Wikipedia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 232, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 232, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 232, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United States during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane, and the third major hurricane of the season, it formed east @-@ northeast of the Leeward Islands on August 31. The tropical storm moved rapidly west @-@ northwestward, steadily intensifying to a hurricane. It acquired peak winds of 140 miles per hour (225 km / h) and passed over portions of the Bahamas on September 3, including Eleuthera and Harbour Island, causing severe damage to crops, buildings, and infrastructure. Winds over 100 mph (161 km / h) affected many islands in its path, especially those that encountered its center, and many wharves were ruined. \\n\\nThe hurricane moved across the state, passing near Tampa before moving into Georgia and dissipating. In Florida, the strong winds of the cyclone blew buildings off their foundations, and numerous trees were prostrated in citrus groves. The Treasure Coast region received the most extensive destruction, and Stuart, Jupiter, and Fort Pierce were heavily damaged. Inland, the cyclone weakened rapidly but produced prodigious amounts of rain, causing a dam to collapse near Tampa. The storm caused $ 3 million in damage (1933 USD) after damaging or destroying 6 @, @ 848 homes. \\n\\nUnusually, the storm hit Florida less than 24 hours before another major hurricane bearing 125 @-@ mile @-@ per @-@ hour (201 km / h) winds struck South Texas; never have two major cyclones hit the United States in such close succession. \\n\\nThe origins of the hurricane were from a tropical wave that possibly spawned a tropical depression on August 27, although there was minimal data over the next few days as it tracked to the west @-@ northwest. On August 31, a nearby ship reported gale force winds, which indicated that a tropical storm had developed to the east @-@ northeast of the Lesser Antilles. Based on continuity, it is estimated the storm attained hurricane status later that day. Moving quickly to the west @-@ northwest, the storm passed north of the Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico. Early on September 2, a ship called the Gulfwing reported a barometric pressure of 978 mbar (28 @. @ 88 inHg), which confirmed that the storm attained hurricane status. After passing north of the Turks and Caicos islands, the hurricane struck Eleuthera and Harbour Island in the Bahamas on September 3, the latter at 1100 UTC. A station on the latter island reported a pressure of 27 @. @ 90 inHg (945 mb) during the 30 minute passage of the eye.\\n\\n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 393, + 223 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 393, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 393, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ENGINE-generated Wikipedia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The 1933 Treasure Coast hurricane was the second @-@ most intense tropical cyclone to strike the United State during the active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. The eleventh tropical storm, fifth hurricane. A Category 4 cyclone with winds of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\mathrm{mph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generated winds of 161 km per hour and a water temperature of -49 degrees. The storm killed 6 people, flooded an area of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "848~\\mathrm{sq~km}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and caused " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\$ 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " million in damage. Although it missed the Florida coast, the system swept across the rest of the United States less than 24 hours. The heat from the system caused widespread fires and continued to bring heavy rain and wind throughout the south and central regions. In south Florida alone, the fires killed two men and destroyed 98 homes in the Lesser Antilles and southwest Florida. The Turks and Caicos islands were particularly badly hit because of a storm surge that produced high seas and flooding, especially along the coast from Tampa, Georgia, to Puerto Rico. The Turks and Caicos islands experienced over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "125\\mathrm{mph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " winds, winds of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "125\\text{@ - }" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " mile per hour, and only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\mathrm{cm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 2 inches of rain in the 30 minute interval starting around 1400 UTC. The Turks and Caicos islands also experienced an over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "140\\mathrm{mph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " wind shear at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5875\\mathrm{kp}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " / m. In south Georgia, home to the Simpson and Penally counties, the worst of the damage was felt in the Savannah area, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "800+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " homes were damaged or destroyed and well over 1000 had to be demolished. The most intense tropical storm to strike the United States during the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season occurred when Tropical Depression 6 formed over the Bahamas during the winter of 1913. The storm resulted in catastrophic loss of life and destruction. As of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "24\\mathrm{km}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " west of the Bahamas, the lowest pressure was " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.21\\mathrm{mb}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the storm had maximum sustained winds of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "200\\mathrm{km/h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with gusts to over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "200\\mathrm{km/h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In south Florida, the intense storm produced winds of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\mathrm{mph}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over south - western southwest Florida and a south - western coast generally between the edges of the Low Range and the extreme southeast of the storms. In western Cuba, the storms produced winds up to what the Weather Bureau described as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\backslash" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \"about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "65\\mathrm{mph}\\backslash" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \" in some spots, and all tropical storms at Category 4, 5 and 7, respectively, were downgraded to a tropical storm or depression. Texas though was hit by Hurricane Norbert in early October 1913. At the time, the Weather Bureau reported that the storm produced winds of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "800 - 900\\mathrm{km/h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a storm tide of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "848\\mathrm{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The storm passed over northeast Texas between midnight and dawn, and was the first major tropical cyclone to impact the United States during the winter of 1913. Norbert resulted in 848 lives being lost and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\$ 98" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 300, + 231, + 517, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " m in damages, amongst other catastrophic damage, as well as numerous fatalities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 525, + 655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 630, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: Example of human-written and ENGINE-generated Wikipedia articles about 1993 Treasure Coast hurricane." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8703" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 395, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 395, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 395, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualifications Required: HIT Approval Rate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 395, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 209, + 395, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for all Requesters' HITs greater than or equal to 98 , Number of HITs Approved greater than or equal to 1000" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 235, + 254, + 246 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 235, + 254, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 235, + 254, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instructions: News Articles Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 353, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 353, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 254, + 353, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hello, we are trying to determine how susceptible people are to machine-generated fake news." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 362, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 362, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 268, + 362, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this study, you are asked to discriminate between human and machine-generated news articles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 509, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 509, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 276, + 509, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will be assigned 5 article samples. Each article sample contains the headline, article body and image/caption pairs. The images and captions are located after the article body where each caption is situated below its corresponding image." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 291, + 264, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 291, + 264, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 291, + 264, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You should spend no more than 1 to 1.5 minutes on each article." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 304, + 245, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 304, + 245, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 304, + 245, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please be sure to click the submit buttom for each article." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 312, + 515, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 312, + 515, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 312, + 515, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please note that we re-rendered all the article samples. As a result, the primitive display is NOT an indicator of whether the article is human or machine generated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 335, + 113, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 335, + 113, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 335, + 113, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 337, + 146, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 337, + 146, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 337, + 146, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shortcuts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 337, + 453, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 337, + 453, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 151, + 337, + 453, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Is this news article human or machine generated? Please choose the option that you think is the most suitable for the given news article." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 508, + 338, + 514, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 508, + 338, + 514, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 508, + 338, + 514, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "#" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 370, + 295, + 414 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 370, + 295, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 370, + 295, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Duterte, Philippine President, Boasts He Killed Someone as a Teenager" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 418, + 308, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 418, + 308, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 418, + 308, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MANILA -- The death of Chief Justice Sereno Alan Casolan III, shot at his front gate when he was 13, was the most recent in what is a mounting tally of police killings in the Philippines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 444, + 308, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 444, + 308, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 444, + 308, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "But Mr. Duterte is beginning to openly talk about his personal transgressions, something that had rarely come up before." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 462, + 308, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 462, + 308, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 462, + 308, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since at least the start of his administration in June, Mr. Duterte has been lashing out at journalists, academics and everyone else with a magnifying glass. In addition to criminals, he has singled out people with mental disabilities, journalists and judges whom he sees as opponents of his policies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 494, + 308, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 494, + 308, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 494, + 308, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In videos broadcast on television and in print, Mr. Duterte has projected a maniacal, cartoonishly intimidating stare toward the camera. The gang leader Lech Charles Leffo, a convicted drug dealer, was stabbed to death by Mr. Duterte on the grounds of a provincial court in 2016. The next year, Mr. Duterte beat a man to death with a wooden rod in a crowded Manila public market during an anti-drug operation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 102, + 547, + 146, + 592 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 547, + 146, + 592 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 547, + 146, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 547, + 146, + 592 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "64bb4dfb964bdd8644bffb3f18d64db7a81ed961db5b43658d6f537fb611bb38.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 647, + 481, + 659 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 647, + 481, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 647, + 481, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 13: The interface used by AMT workers in our article quality annotation experiment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 350, + 429, + 360 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 350, + 429, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 350, + 429, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Select an option" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 365, + 426, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 365, + 426, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 365, + 426, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-Generate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 470, + 364, + 476, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 470, + 364, + 476, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 470, + 364, + 476, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 378, + 466, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 378, + 466, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 378, + 466, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the article body" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 378, + 476, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 378, + 476, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 378, + 476, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 405, + 470, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 405, + 470, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 405, + 470, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine-Generated because one or more captions is not very relevant to the article body" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 405, + 476, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 405, + 476, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 405, + 476, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 433, + 466, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 433, + 466, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 433, + 466, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine-Generated because one or more images is not very relevant to the caption" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 433, + 476, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 433, + 476, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 433, + 476, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 460, + 467, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 460, + 467, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 460, + 467, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine-Generated because the image/caption pairs are not relavent to the article body" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 459, + 476, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 459, + 476, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 459, + 476, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 487, + 460, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 487, + 460, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 487, + 460, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine-Generated because something about the article appears off" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 486, + 476, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 486, + 476, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 486, + 476, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 514, + 461, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 514, + 461, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 514, + 461, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Machine-Generated because the article title is not really relavent to the article" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 513, + 476, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 513, + 476, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 471, + 513, + 476, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 490, + 602, + 509, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 490, + 602, + 509, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 490, + 602, + 509, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Submit" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 190, + 199, + 196 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 190, + 199, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 190, + 199, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Determine if news articles are human or machine-generated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 200, + 132, + 206 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 200, + 132, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 200, + 132, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Requester: Vision Group" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 200, + 349, + 206 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 200, + 349, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 200, + 349, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reward: $1.00 per task" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 378, + 200, + 420, + 206 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 378, + 200, + 420, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 378, + 200, + 420, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tasks available: 0" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 443, + 200, + 490, + 206 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 443, + 200, + 490, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 443, + 200, + 490, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Duration: 15 Minutes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8704" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_content_list.json b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fe8e080e2d34ec63b7f3531d566de7f7390d4abf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1925 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SiMFy: A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 152, + 82, + 843, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhengtao Liu, Lei Tan, Mengfan Li, Yao Wan, Hai Jin, Xuanhua Shi†", + "bbox": [ + 198, + 130, + 800, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "National Engineering Research Center for Big Data Technology and System, Services Computing Technology and System Lab, Cluster and Grid Computing Lab,", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 148, + 840, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "School of Computer Science and Technology,", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 181, + 687, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China", + "bbox": [ + 238, + 198, + 761, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{zhengtaoliu,tanlei,limf,wanyao,hjin,xhshi}@hust.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 215, + 779, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) reasoning, which focuses on leveraging temporal information to infer future facts in knowledge graphs, plays a vital role in knowledge graph completion. Typically, existing works for this task design graph neural networks and recurrent neural networks to respectively capture the structural and temporal information in KGs. Despite their effectiveness, in our practice, we find that they tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability, which can be attributed to the over design of model architectures. To this end, this paper aims to figure out whether the current complex model architectures are necessary for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. As a result, we put forward a simple yet effective approach (termed SiMFy), which simply utilizes multilayer perceptron (MLP) to model the structural dependencies of events and adopts a fixed-frequency strategy to incorporate historical frequency during inference. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our SiMFy can reach state-of-the-art performance with the following strengths: 1) faster convergence speed and better generalization ability; 2) a much smaller time consumption in the training process; and 3) better ability to capture the structural dependencies of events in KGs. These results provide evidence that the substitution of complex models with simpler counterparts is a feasible strategy. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 281, + 460, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 749, + 258, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Knowledge Graphs (KGs), which represent events as triples $(s, r, o)$ , facilitate a wide range of natural language processing tasks, including semantic search (Bonatti et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), product recommendations (Xie et al., 2021), and question-answering systems (Saxena et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 775, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/59b9aaa2402e017756fd3da431da3b29acb34498eb5f723de97cbd6c0eff6c7d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An illustration of TKG reasoning, showing knowledge graphs at three distinct timestamps. Directed edges represent relations, originating from the subject entity and terminating at the object entity. Our objective is to predict the object entity at the final timestamp." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 253, + 858, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, traditional KGs struggle to effectively handle facts that have temporal characteristics. Therefore, Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs) have been introduced to tackle this challenge (Wang et al., 2023), which incorporate a time dimension $t$ and store facts as quadruples $(s, r, o, t)$ , e.g., (Germany, negotiate, Russia, 2022-05).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 884, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, in real-world scenarios, TKGs are often incomplete, highlighting the vital importance of TKG reasoning, which aims to predict future facts by utilizing the temporal information. As illustrated in Figure 1, given the TKGs associated with Entity A at the timestamps of Time I, Time II, and Time III, our objective is to predict a quadruple containing an unknown entity, i.e., (A, negotiate,?, Time IV). To achieve this goal, we can observe a significant structural dependency of facts along the timeline. That is, interactions between Entity A and Entity B at Time I could influence the interaction patterns at Time II, which, in turn, might provide clues for Time III. We also notice that historical events may recur. For instance, Entity A and Entity B had conflicts at both Time I and Time II timestamps. These observations provide us valuable insights into TKG reasoning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 562, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the TKG reasoning task, events to be predicted can typically be classified into two main types: historical events and unseen events (Han et al., 2021). Historical events, also known as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1The source code and datasets are available at https://github.com/CGCL-codes/SiMFy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Xuanhua Shi is the corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 904, + 396, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3825", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3825-3836", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "repetitive pattern, refer to facts that have already occurred in the historical KG sequence. Unseen events refer to events that have not occurred in the historical KG sequence. Many methods (Jin et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021) can predict historical events effectively by modeling the historical KG sequence auto-regressively. However, for unseen events, it is necessary to consider both the information of structural dependency and temporality of entities and relations. Typically, existing works (Liu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) apply Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) as encoders to capture the structural and temporal information in the historical KG sequence. Then, a translational model, such as ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), is used as a decoder to obtain predicted entities. Despite their effectiveness, these approaches are conceptually and technically complex due to their advanced model architectures. Moreover, these complex methods tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we aim to answer the following research question: Are these complex model architectures indispensable for temporal knowledge graph reasoning? As a solution, we design a Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) to evaluate it against other complex baselines. Specifically, we use a one-layer MLP to jointly model entities and relations, capturing structural and temporal information in TKGs. This allows us to obtain embedding vectors for entities and relations, which are then used to calculate the similarity between queries and candidate entities, resulting in preliminary candidate entity scores. Next, we calculate the historical frequency scores of candidate entities based on their historical KG sequences. Finally, in the inference stage, the two scores mentioned above are combined using a coefficient $\\alpha$ to obtain the final entity scores. Through extensive experiments comparing it with existing state-of-the-art models, we find that our model can achieve comparable performance while having higher training efficiency and better generalization ability.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 445, + 489, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, we conduct a series of empirical studies to investigate the performance of SiMFy and existing complex models under specific conditions. We are the first to analyze the performance of MLP and GNNs in capturing unseen entities. Our findings indicate that MLP performs comparably to GNN in capturing structural dependency infor", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mation for the TKG reasoning task. Furthermore, we investigate the question of whether historical frequency information should be incorporated into the model training process, which has not been explored before. Unlike the most current mainstream methods which directly incorporate historical frequency information of entities during training, SiMFy utilizes conceptually simple features to model the repetitive pattern of TKGs, which is fixed in training. Through empirical experiments, we validate the effectiveness of this fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The contributions of this paper are as follows.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 279, + 868, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We design a simple MLP-based-only model, called SiMFy, which achieves state-of-the-art performance on four widely-used datasets (i.e., ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT), demonstrating the effectiveness of the simple model architecture.", + "- We have performed extensive experiments to analyze the convergence speed, generalization ability, and training consumption of SiMFy and existing complex models. The empirical evidence demonstrates that a simple model architecture like SiMFy enjoys faster convergence, better generalization ability, and higher efficiency.", + "- The performance of SiMFy could motivate future research to rethink the significance of the simpler model architecture and the potential value of MLP-based models in TKGs." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 296, + 884, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 601, + 663, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Static KG Reasoning In static knowledge graphs, inference is done to deduce unknown facts from known ones. Existing approaches for inference can be categorized into embedding-based, tensor decomposition-based, and neural network-based. Embedding-based methods, represented by the classic method TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), consider relations as translational transformations. Later models like KG2E (He et al., 2015) optimize the handling of diverse relations and improve model scalability. Tensor decomposition methods represent the graph as a tensor which is then decomposed. Models like RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011) use this to capture interactions between entities and relations. As for the neural network models like ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and KG-BART (Liu et al., 2021), ConvE enhances inference capabilities through deep feature learning and leveraging graph", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 629, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3826", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7e02844892146d331b38a0ab79a99f7568d3b1d65d48c19785fef52afd4a582c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overall model architecture of SiMFy. Given a query $(s, r,?, t + \\Delta t)$ , the Similarity Matching module learns the similarity score between the query and each candidate entity $o$ , and the Historical Frequency Learning module learns the historical frequency score between them, then the two scores are combined to generate the final probability distribution of entities." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 84, + 870, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "structures, and KG-BART utilizes pretrained language models augmented with knowledge graphs to not only enhance inference but also improve the generation of commonsense-reasoned text.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 487, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Temporal KG Reasoning Temporal knowledge graph inference, which takes into account the temporal evolution of events, generally falls into two categories: interpolation-based and extrapolation-based inference. Interpolation-based inference aims to guess unknown facts within a known time range. TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016) integrates temporal information into the TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) model using recursive neural networks, while HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018) designs a unique hyperplane to embed time into the entity-relation space. TeMP (Hu et al., 2022) addresses time sparsity and variability issues by combining neural message passing and temporal dynamic methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 487, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the other hand, extrapolation-based inference, which forecasts unknown future facts, is garnering increasing attention. RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020) employs an encoder and aggregator to model past facts, while HIP (He et al., 2021) utilizes temporal, structural, and repetitive information. xERTE (Han et al., 2021) offers a novel framework for predicting future facts and CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021) introduces a creative copy-mechanism used in natural language generation tasks before. Reinforce", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ment learning is adopted by CluSTeR (Li et al., 2021a), which infers answers from induced clues, and TimeTraveler (Sun et al., 2021), which uses historical knowledge graph snapshots for answer search. CEN (Li et al., 2022) adopts a length-aware convolutional network to model the KG sequence dynamically and GHT (Sun et al., 2022) is the first method to introduce a transformer into the TKG reasoning task. Finally, DA-Net (Liu et al., 2022) and CENET (Xu et al., 2023) propose unique event prediction models. DA-Net learns distributed attention to future events, while CENET distinguishes likely entities for a given query using a historical contrastive learning framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 882, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Problem Formulation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 732, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Temporal Knowledge Graph", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 700, + 781, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) $\\mathcal{G}$ is a sequence of KGs $(\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\dots ,\\mathcal{G}_t)$ arranged in order of their timestamp $t$ $\\mathcal{G} = \\{\\mathcal{E},\\mathcal{R}\\}$ , where $\\mathcal{E}$ stands for the set of entities, and $\\mathcal{R}$ for the set of relations. Each $\\mathcal{G}_t = \\{\\mathcal{E}_t,\\mathcal{R}_t\\}$ , where $\\mathcal{E}_t\\subseteq \\mathcal{E}$ and $\\mathcal{R}_t\\subseteq \\mathcal{R}$ are the sets of entities and relations at timestamp $t$ respectively. In $\\mathcal{G}_t$ , facts are represented as quadruples $(s,r,o,t)$ , where $s,o\\in \\mathcal{E}_t$ and $r\\in \\mathcal{R}_t$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 722, + 884, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 TKG Reasoning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 865, + 684, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TKG reasoning seeks to forecast either the subject entity $s$ or the object entity $o$ based on the historical", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3827", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "KG sequence $\\{\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\dots ,\\mathcal{G}_t\\}$ . When presented with a query of the form $(?r,o,t + \\Delta t)$ , the task is to identify the subject entity $s$ , while for a query like $(s,r,?t + \\Delta t)$ , the aim is to predict the object entity o. We use $\\mathbf{E}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|\\times d}$ and $\\mathbf{R}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{R}|\\times d}$ to express the embeddings of all entities and all relations respectively. Boldfaced s, r, o are used to denote the embedding vectors of $s,r$ , and $o$ with a dimension of $d$ . In our work, we specifically concentrate on the task of object entity prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Our Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 256, + 275, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we elaborate our proposed Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) for temporal graph reasoning. As illustrated in Figure 2, SiMFy mainly involves two modules: the Similarity Matching module and the Historical Frequency Learning module. These two modules generate corresponding scores for candidate entities. Afterward, a weight-based inference process is utilized to determine the final result of the reasoning. In the subsequent sections, we will provide a comprehensive introduction to our proposed method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 489, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Similarity Matching", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 319, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a query $q = (s,r,?,t + \\Delta t)$ , the Similarity Matching module is implemented by one-layer-MLP to calculate the similarity between $q$ and each candidate entity $o$ to obtain the matching scores. Specifically, it generates a latent context vector $\\mathbf{H}_{s,r} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}$ for query $q$ , which scores the similarity of different object entities with the query:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {H} _ {s, r} = \\tanh (\\mathbf {W} [ \\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {r} ] + \\mathbf {b}) \\mathbf {E} ^ {T} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 615, + 487, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{s} \\in \\mathbf{E}$ , $\\mathbf{r} \\in \\mathbf{R}$ , and $[\\mathbf{s},\\mathbf{r}]$ denotes the concatenation of $\\mathbf{s}$ and $\\mathbf{r}$ . We use one-layer-MLP to aggregate the query's information. Here, $\\mathbf{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{d \\times 2d}$ and $\\mathbf{b} \\in \\mathbb{R}^d$ are trainable parameters. tanh is the activation function of the layer, then the layer's output is multiplied by $\\mathbf{E}$ to obtain the final similarity vector, where each element represents the similarity score between the corresponding entity $o \\in \\mathcal{E}$ and the query $q$ . The learning objective of the similarity matching is to minimize the NCE loss (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2010) $\\mathcal{L}$ , as described below:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 646, + 489, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = - \\sum_ {q} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \\left(o _ {i}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {o _ {j} \\in \\mathcal {E}} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \\left(o _ {j}\\right)\\right)} (2)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 835, + 487, + 875 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $o_i$ is the ground truth object entity corresponding to the given query $q$ . Finally, we obtain", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the following similarity score by utilizing the softmax function:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s, r}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 603, + 128, + 882, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Historical Frequency Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 164, + 800, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a query $q = (s,r,?,t + \\Delta t)$ and the historical KG sequence $\\{\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\ldots ,\\mathcal{G}_t\\}$ , the Historical Frequency Learning module aims to obtain the historical frequency scores. Specifically, for every timestamp $t^\\prime \\leq t$ , we first investigate the frequencies of historical entities $f_{t^{\\prime}}^{(s,r)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}$ , as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 185, + 884, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nf _ {t ^ {\\prime}} ^ {(s, r)} (o) = \\sum_ {x \\in \\mathcal {G} _ {t ^ {\\prime}}} \\mathbb {I} [ x = (s, r, o, t ^ {\\prime}) ] \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 556, + 298, + 882, + 335 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbb{I}[\\cdot ]$ is an indicator function, yielding 1 if $[\\cdot ]$ is true and 0 otherwise. Then we add up the frequency information of all timestamps $t^{\\prime}\\leq t$ to obtain the historical frequency information of the query as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 348, + 882, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {F} _ {t + \\Delta t} ^ {(s, r)} = f _ {0} ^ {(s, r)} + f _ {1} ^ {(s, r)} + \\dots + f _ {t} ^ {(s, r)} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 442, + 882, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{F}_{t + \\Delta t}^{(s,r)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}$ is an $|\\mathcal{E}|$ -dimensional vector where each element represents the corresponding historical frequency of the candidate object entities. Finally, we obtain the following historical frequency score by utilizing the softmax function:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 882, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (k \\cdot \\mathbf {F} _ {t + \\Delta t} ^ {(s, r)}) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 584, + 575, + 882, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $k$ is a hyperparameter to balance the extremely small values.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 611, + 882, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 656, + 631, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the inference stage, a coefficient $\\alpha \\in [0,1]$ is integrated to balance the weight between the similarity score $S_{sim}^{(s,r)}$ and the historical frequency score $S_{freq}^{(s,r)}$ . These two scores are merged to determine the final probability distribution of candidate entities, then the model chooses the object with the highest probability as the final prediction, as defined below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \\Delta t) = \\alpha \\cdot S _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} (o) + (1 - \\alpha) \\cdot S _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} (o)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 822, + 880, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\no _ {t + \\Delta t} = \\arg \\max _ {o \\in \\mathcal {E}} \\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \\Delta t) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 860, + 882, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{P}(o|s,r,t + \\Delta t)$ is an $|\\mathcal{E}|$ -dimensional vector which stores the final probability of all entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3828", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cd8369bdb698d914db936fcff39c2a343c4cc3bbac711644a26e9cbc4912b537.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (raw metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of second-best are underlined." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelICEWS14 (raw)ICEWS18 (raw)ICEWS05-15 (raw)GDELT (raw)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
RotatE25.7116.4129.0145.1614.536.4715.7831.8619.0110.4221.3536.923.620.522.268.37
ConvE30.3021.3034.4247.8922.8113.6325.8341.4331.4021.5635.7050.9618.3711.2919.3632.13
Conv-TransE31.5022.4634.9850.0323.2214.2626.1341.3430.2820.7933.8049.9519.0711.8520.3233.14
R-GCN28.0319.4231.9544.8315.058.1316.4929.0027.1318.8330.4143.1612.177.4012.3720.63
TTransE12.863.1415.7233.658.441.858.9522.3816.535.5120.7739.265.530.464.9715.37
HyTE16.782.1324.8443.947.413.107.3316.0116.056.5320.2034.726.690.017.5719.06
TA-DistMult26.2216.8329.7245.2316.428.6018.1332.5127.5117.5731.4647.3210.344.4410.4421.63
xERTE32.2324.2936.4148.7627.9819.2632.4346.0038.0728.4543.9257.62----
RE-NET35.7725.9940.1054.8726.1716.4329.8944.3736.8626.2441.8557.6019.6012.0320.5633.89
CyGNet35.0625.7839.0053.4224.8015.3728.2943.4636.2425.6541.5456.2617.9911.1019.0331.26
CENET36.3627.3240.0254.3926.4317.5729.4444.1238.7428.5743.3958.37----
GHT37.4027.7741.6656.1927.4018.0830.7645.7641.5030.7946.8562.7320.0412.6821.3734.42
CEN36.3226.8340.2054.9326.7017.3430.3344.8436.6626.2741.0457.1219.2711.9620.6033.50
RE-GCN37.5827.4941.9257.6927.9318.1831.6347.0737.7926.8642.9158.9319.0712.1620.2032.39
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.1828.6518.9932.4547.6241.8331.3047.0262.1121.3313.3823.1636.87
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 122, + 878, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 347, + 260, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 373, + 317, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dataset During the evaluation, we adopt four publicly available TKG datasets: ICEWS14 (Li et al., 2021b), ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018), ICEWS18 (Jin et al., 2020), and GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013). The first three datasets which originate from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (Boschee et al., 2015) (ICEWS) comprise a diverse range of political facts accompanied by time annotations, such as (European Union, Praise or endorse, Kosovo, 2018/09/29). Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) is a much larger dataset that records data every 15 minutes. Following the dataset split strategy proposed by (Jin et al., 2020), we divide these datasets into training, validation, and test sets, adhering to an $80\\%$ , $10\\%$ , and $10\\%$ proportion by timestamps.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 394, + 489, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation Metrics We evaluate our approach to the task of entity prediction, where the objective is to predict the absent object entity for a given entity-relation pair, assessing whether the ground truth entity ranks higher than other entities. We present the results in terms of Hits@1/3/10 and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 487, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During the evaluation stage, two settings are commonly employed: filtered setting and raw setting. In terms of the filtered setting, for each query, we treat all triples absent from the training, validation, and test sets to be negative samples. This implies that, when computing rankings, we disregard all triples known to be true.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast, the raw setting does not involve fil", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tering any triples, meaning that all possible triples are considered when calculating rankings. In the context of TKG reasoning task, each quadruple $(s,r,o,t)$ is unique due to the inclusion of timestamp information. This suggests that the filtered setting holds little practical relevance when evaluating model performance. Therefore, we adopt the raw setting for our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 348, + 884, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines We assess how well our SiMFy model performs in comparison to three other types of previously proposed models: (1) Static reasoning methods, including RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), and R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). (2) Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods, including TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018), and TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018). (3) Dynamic extrapolated reasoning methods, including xERTE (Han et al., 2021), RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020), CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021), CENET (Xu et al., 2023), GHT (Sun et al., 2022), CEN (Li et al., 2022) and RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 485, + 885, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 737, + 741, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the baselines of CyGNet, CENET, CEN, and RE-GCN, we rerun these models using their open-source code on four datasets with their default parameter settings. Since the code of GHT is not open-source, we provide the findings from their publication. It should be noted that we utilize the offline version of CEN to ensure fairness. Some results of static and dynamic interpolated reasoning approaches are adopted from (Li et al., 2021b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 884, + 902 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement our SiMFy model using PyTorch.", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3829", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cd1a266725030d37c5d7f32707bd67dc2cfa3b59865f5678e360c9e6d4a9317d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Ablation study of SiMFy on ICEWS14" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy w.o. HF35.9726.0340.8555.39
SiMFy w.o. SM31.1824.0734.5144.34
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 107, + 480, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The dimension of entity and relation embeddings is set to 200. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) as the optimizer, with a learning rate of 0.001 and a weight decay of 0.00001. The hyperparameter $k$ is set to 2 and the $\\alpha$ is set to 0.001. The batch size is set to 1024 and the training epoch is limited to 30. All experiments were conducted on a Tesla V100.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 206, + 489, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Model Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 273, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 shows the experimental results of SiMFy compared with other baselines on four datasets. It is clear that SiMFy performs better than other baselines in most cases. For static reasoning methods, their results are very poor because they do not consider temporal information. Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods like TTransE only encode time information without considering the evolution of temporal KG sequences, so they cannot achieve good results. It is worth noting that for GCN-based models CEN and RE-GCN, as well as the models most pertinent to our model, RE-NET, CyGNet, and CENET, SiMFy outperforms them. This demonstrates the effectiveness of simple models based on MLPs and shows that MLPs can to some extent replace GCNs. Please refer to Section 6.3 for a more in-depth analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 353, + 489, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 639, + 280, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform ablation experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset to better understand the impact of each SiMFy module, and the results are displayed in Table 2. SiMFy w.o. HF refers to SiMFy without the Historical Frequency Learning module, while SiMFy w.o. SM represents SiMFy without the Similarity Matching module. It can be observed that SiMFy w.o. HF performs better than SiMFy w.o. SM. This is because the Similarity Matching module captures many unseen events in the TKGs, which also demonstrates the ability of MLP in understanding the structural dependencies of events. Therefore, SiMFy w.o. SM, which only considers historical repetitive patterns, results in a significant drop of $21.1\\%$ and $25.1\\%$ in terms of MRR and Hits@10 respectively compared to SiMFy. Despite", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "having some capability to handle historical events, SiMFy w.o. HF also experiences a drop of $9\\%$ in performance, which further confirms the effectiveness of the Historical Frequency Learning module.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.5 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 167, + 645, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further illustrate 1) SiMFy's ability to predict unseen entities by capturing the structural dependency information of KGs, and 2) SiMFy's ability to predict repetitive events using historical frequency, we present two cases in the ICEWS18 dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 191, + 884, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- In the first case, the query is (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (India). However, upon investigating the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India)) has not occurred before. This indicates that there is no repetitive pattern for the quadruple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India), t), making it an unseen event with Government (India) as the corresponding unseen entity. Nevertheless, due to SiMFy's extraction of structural dependency information from the historical KG sequence, we find that the candidate entity Government (India) appears as the top first in the ranking list generated by the model. This indicates that SiMFy has successfully captured the correct unseen entity, despite its absence in the historical KGs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 274, + 885, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- In the second case, the query is (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (Croatia). By analyzing the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, Government (Croatia)) has the highest frequency of occurrence, significantly surpassing other cases. SiMFy, utilizing the learned historical frequency information, recognizes this repetitive pattern and memorizes it. As a result, in the final ranking list generated by the model, the correct answer Government (Croatia) occupies the top position. This aligns with our real-world understanding that Zdravko Maric served as the Minister of Finance in the Croatian government, making statements on behalf of the government frequently.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 580, + 885, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 More Empirical Results and Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 856, + 865, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we show more empirical results and analysis to reveal the strengths of our proposed SiMFy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3830", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a1fb5235425d545f38a739b3918d2307300b2daebf98e1a6b152ac943defc0e2.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: The comparison results of the MLP and GCN-based models' ability to predict unseen events" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelICEWS14 unseenICEWS18 unseenICEWS05-15 unseen
MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10
RGCN+ConvTransE13.9014.9226.6011.1511.5421.9012.5613.3425.03
RGCN+MLP14.1015.0326.9010.7011.0320.8613.2113.9525.86
MLP15.5317.0130.9711.2811.5922.9114.0015.0627.65
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 107, + 860, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/312a46c2d692275cde59d7b60c065e6d6e2743becc84f7e8ea635dd84f9ce1ac.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Time consumption of different models" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 230, + 475, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Convergence Speed and Generalization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 474, + 468, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To gain a deeper understanding of the model's performance, we will closely examine the dynamics of both training MRR and evaluation MRR. Following (Cong et al., 2023), we will also discuss the important generalization gap (the absolute difference between the MRR scores obtained during training and evaluation) of different models. In addition to SiMFy, we also use four existing complex baseline models, including CyGNet, RE-GCN, CENET, and CEN, which are most relevant to our work, as experimental comparisons. Moreover, based on RGCN, we also reconstruct two new GCN-based models as our comparative baselines. The first one is RGCN+ConvTransE, where ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019) is used as the decoder. The second one is RGCN+MLP, using MLP as the decoder. Figure 4 illustrates the efficacy of the models on the most representative ICEWS05-15 dataset, from which the following conclusions can be drawn:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 489, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- As the slope change of the training MRR curve can reflect the convergence speed of the model (i.e., a slope close to 0 indicates model convergence), we can see that our model always converges after several epochs, indicating a very fast convergence speed.", + "- After each epoch, we save separate models and" + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "evaluate their performance on the test set. Figure 4b illustrates that our model not only achieves the highest MRR but also maintains stability and smoothness in the curve after several epochs. In contrast, the MRR curves of other baselines show varying degrees of oscillation.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 227, + 882, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- The generalization ability of a model refers to its performance on unseen data, that is, the adaptability of the model to new data. Therefore, the smaller the generalization gap, the better the model's generalization ability. As shown in Figure 4c, our model has the smallest generalization gap, showing its strong generalization ability.", + "- Combining these three figures, we can also observe an interesting phenomenon. Models based on GCN, represented by CEN (Li et al., 2022), even if their performance on the test set fails to enhance after numerous epochs, their MRR on the training set keeps rising. This means that these GCN-based models have overfitting problems, which is also reflected in the increasing generalization gap." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 323, + 882, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Low Time Consumption", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 592, + 746, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared to other complex models, SiMFy has much lower training time consumption because the model parameter numbers of SiMFy are much smaller. This could be attributed to the concise and effective model structure of SiMFy. Taking the typical GCN-based method as an example, our SiMFy is simply composed of an MLP layer that maps the input embedding to the output embedding. The GCN-based models also perform the multi-step propagation operation, which will significantly increase the model parameters, especially when the depth of the GCN is increased.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 613, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, and ICEWS05-15 benchmarks, we calculate the average training time consumption of our model SiMFy and other baselines over 30 epochs. As shown in Figure 3, the time cost is highest for the ICEWS05-15 dataset, followed by the ICEWS18 dataset, and the lowest for the ICEWS14 dataset. However, on all three", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3831", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b5bf764ae57694fd60c6773a5afbe78f203dd5d9a131e56c28a4380915221b2e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 80, + 374, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/068248319950fac9cac2513283b89c66e9902d8840a1beff8fcab9f6fe5225c9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 80, + 616, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fcb7445feeb6b54e8d6fabd30c1a75602ebd0fb4271493b773907e2cd35aacc0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 80, + 858, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "datasets, SiMFy exhibits the lowest time consumption compared to other baselines during the training process, making it more efficient and greatly improving resource utilization. Furthermore, we can observe that the training time consumption of SiMFy does not exhibit significant fluctuations across different datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 286, + 487, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Ability to Capture Unseen Events", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 409, + 421, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To predict the unseen events that do not appear in the historical KG sequence, a natural idea is using the historical evolutionary information of other events that interact with them, which is also known as the event structure dependency information. The mainstream view is that GCN can better capture this structural dependence, interestingly, we find that MLP and GCN have similar abilities to capture unseen events. Therefore, given the high training cost of GCN, we doubt whether it is necessary to apply it to TKG reasoning task. We collect all unseen events from the test set for the three ICEWS datasets, as indicated in Table 3, and then we evaluate the MLP module and the GCN, respectively. The results indicate that the performance of MLP is even slightly superior to that of GCN, which also validates the effectiveness of our MLP-based model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 429, + 487, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7cf07f1ae1dd7c0734f339d3eed9d176cb342ecdbe989eb9c56b9ad608f1fd23.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Comparative experiments of frequency on ICEWS14" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
MLP-F.F.39.5429.5644.5659.18
MLP-ONLY35.9726.0340.8555.39
MLP-COPY35.9626.5440.2054.02
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 766, + 468, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.4 Fixed Frequency in Training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 384, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SiMFy utilizes the historical frequency information of events only during the inference stage", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5e33fe4baa9729863e2155c358cd2def4585208f132b6f8c5690bf26ae6ee5bd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap for the 30 training epochs on ICEWS05-15. Results on other ICEWS datasets can be found in Appendix A.4.", + "Figure 5: Training time in first 10 epochs" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 542, + 288, + 843, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(fixed-frequency in training). However, many existing state-of-the-art methods, like CENET and CyGNet, combine event embeddings with historical frequency during the training process and iteratively update the model parameters. To validate which approach is more beneficial for the TKG reasoning task, we conduct comparative experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset by adopting the copy-mechanism-based learning strategy used in CyGNet and CENET. The results can be found in Table 4, MLP-ONLY consists of only the MLP module, MLP-F.F. adopts the fixed-frequency strategy during training, and MLP-COPY represents the model that incorporates the copy mechanism. It can be observed that MLP-F.F. outperforms MLP-COPY significantly, while MLP-COPY performs even slightly worse than the original MLP-ONLY. This suggests that MLP-COPY fails to effectively incorporate historical frequency information during the training process. Furthermore, by considering Figure 5, we can observe that MLP-COPY not only fails to enhance the model performance, but also significantly prolongs the training time for each epoch. This indirectly confirms the superiority of the fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 517, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3832", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.5 Discussion on the Depth of MLP", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 413, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SiMFy uses a simple one-layer MLP to draw the final prediction. We also want to figure out whether the performance of the model will improve or worsen when the one-layer MLP is replaced with some deeper or more complicated neural structure. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to replace the one-layer MLP with deeper ones. The experimental results on the ICEWS14 dataset are presented in Table 5. From this table, we can see that as the structure of the model becomes more complex, its performance has hardly changed. This is because the complex model structure, while increasing computational costs, does not better capture the evolving information of entities and relations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 489, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3717e0c72af41e77e4e68222df2b061ee97c46fc0c24f6139fe5c6b1a7c7fc3b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Comparative experiments on the depth of MLP on ICEWS14" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy-1MLP39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy-2MLP39.4929.7443.9758.58
SiMFy-3MLP39.2929.7443.4658.20
SiMFy-RNN+MLP39.2729.4543.8958.36
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 397, + 495, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 516, + 247, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we have proposed a new model, called SiMFy, for the TKG reasoning task. SiMFy is a conceptually straightforward method that simply combines MLP and historical frequency to model the temporal events in the TKGs. The experimental results demonstrate that SiMFy not only outperforms many existing complex methods but also exhibits faster convergence speed and better generalization ability. Our findings suggest that a well-designed MLP-based model, such as SiMFy, can effectively address the limitations faced by complex architectures, making it a practical and efficient solution for the TKG reasoning task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 489, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 764, + 220, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One limitation of this paper is that no in-depth exploration of the potential mutual influence between historical events and unseen events is considered, which means that events that have been repeatedly happening in the sequence of historical KGs may not happen in the future, and instead, new unseen events will take place. Another limitation lies in that the time span for calculating the frequency of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "historical events is too long, and a more precise time window is needed to better capture the long- and short-term evolutionary patterns of events.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 145, + 682, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant 2020AAA0108501, and the Key Program of Hubei under Grant JD2023008.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 171, + 882, + 234 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 263, + 608, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Piero Andrea Bonatti, Stefan Decker, Axel Polleres, and Valentina Presutti. 2019. Knowledge graphs: New directions for knowledge representation on the semantic web (dagstuhl seminar 18371). In *Dagstuhl reports*, volume 8. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 286, + 882, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 2787-2795.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 376, + 882, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icecs coded event data. *Harvard Data-verse*, 12.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 466, + 882, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Weilin Cong, Si Zhang, Jian Kang, Baichuan Yuan, Hao Wu, Xin Zhou, Hanghang Tong, and Mehrdad Mahdavi. 2023. Do we really need complicated model architectures for temporal networks? In Proceedings of The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 530, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2001-2011.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 632, + 882, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 734, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 865, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3833", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4816-4821.", + "Michael Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2010. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 297-304. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings.", + "Zhen Han, Peng Chen, Yunpu Ma, and Volker Tresp. 2021. Explainable subgraph reasoning for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021.", + "Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, October 19 - 23, 2015, pages 623-632.", + "Yongquan He, Peng Zhang, Luchen Liu, Qi Liang, Wenyuan Zhang, and Chuang Zhang. 2021. Hip network: Historical information passing network for extrapolation reasoning on temporal knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 1915-1921.", + "Zhiwei Hu, Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto, Zhiliang Xiang, Xiaoli Li, Ru Li, and Jeff Z. Pan. 2022. Type-aware embeddings for multi-hop reasoning over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 3078-3084.", + "Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1715-1724.", + "Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6669-6683.", + "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015.", + "Kalev Leetaru and Philip A. Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979-2012. In Proceedings of the ISA Annual Convention, volume 2, pages 1-49. CiteSeer." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zixuan Li, Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Weihua Peng, Yajuan Lyu, Yong Zhu, Long Bai, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. 2022. Complex evolutionary pattern learning for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 290-296.", + "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Saiping Guan, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021a. Search from history and reason for future: Two-stage reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4732-4743, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021b. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 408-417.", + "Kangzheng Liu, Feng Zhao, Hongxu Chen, Yicong Li, Guandong Xu, and Hai Jin. 2022. Da-net: Distributed attention network for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 1289-1298.", + "Ye Liu, Yao Wan, Lifang He, Hao Peng, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. KG-BART: knowledge graph-augmented BART for generative commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6418-6425.", + "Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011, Bellevue, Washington, USA, June 28 - July 2, 2011, pages 809-816.", + "Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507.", + "Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 15th International Conference, ESWC" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3834", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, volume 10843 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 593-607. Springer.", + "Chao Shang, Yun Tang, Jing Huang, Jinbo Bi, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2019. End-to-end structure-aware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3060-3067.", + "Haohai Sun, Shangyi Geng, Jialun Zhong, Han Hu, and Kun He. 2022. Graph Hawkes transformer for extrapolated reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7481-7493, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Haohai Sun, Jialun Zhong, Yunpu Ma, Zhen Han, and Kun He. 2021. Timetraveler: Reinforcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 8306-8319.", + "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019.", + "Guoren Wang, Yue Zeng, Rong-Hua Li, Hongchao Qin, Xuanhua Shi, Yubin Xia, Xuequn Shang, and Liang Hong. 2023. Temporal graph cube. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pages 1-15.", + "Yuxiang Wang, Arijit Khan, Tianxing Wu, Jiahui Jin, and Haijiang Yan. 2020. Semantic guided and response times bounded top-k similarity search over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020, Dallas, TX, USA, April 20-24, 2020, pages 445-456. IEEE.", + "Lijie Xie, Zhaoming Hu, Xingjuan Cai, Wensheng Zhang, and Jinjun Chen. 2021. Explainable recommendation based on knowledge graph and multi-objective optimization. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7:1241-1252.", + "Yi Xu, Junjie Ou, Hui Xu, and Luoyi Fu. 2023. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with historical contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2023, Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2023, Washington, DC, USA, February 7-14, 2023, pages 4765-4773.", + "Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhang. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 4732-4740." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 214, + 633, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Results with Filtered Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 239, + 786, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6 provides the experimental results (with filtered metrics) of SiMFy compared with other baselines on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 260, + 882, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Statistics of Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 335, + 721, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The detailed statistics of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets are presented in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 356, + 882, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Proportion of Unseen Events", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 414, + 784, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct a statistical analysis on the proportion of unseen events in the test set of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The results are presented in Table 8.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 435, + 882, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Supplementary Figures on Convergence Speed and Generalization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 510, + 873, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide the missing figures on the ICEWS14 and ICEWS18 datasets to supplement the Section 6.1. The results on ICEWS14 are shown in Figure 6 and the results on ICEWS18 are shown in Figure 7.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 546, + 882, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3835", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/762932c53aa9a10ce80ab4ded0359cfeec27e05eebfbfef06eb2d3dd5c340513.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (filtered metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of the second-best ones are underlined." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelICEWS14 (filtered)ICEWS18 (filtered)ICEWS05-15 (filtered)GDELT (filtered)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
xERTE40.7932.7045.6757.3029.3121.0333.5146.4846.6237.8452.3163.92----
RE-NET45.7138.4249.0659.1242.9336.1945.4755.8042.9731.2646.8563.4740.1232.4343.4053.80
CyGNet48.6341.7752.5060.2946.6940.5849.8257.1457.0050.0661.5168.4751.5645.6354.8660.96
CENET52.8747.9454.4262.7950.0946.0251.0557.85--------
CEN37.3428.0441.0955.7628.2119.1031.8045.8937.5327.5741.4957.5119.7112.4720.9833.82
RE-GCN38.2728.4042.5457.8829.2119.7932.7747.5438.6828.2643.4459.1129.4621.7432.0143.62
SiMFy54.8147.9958.5466.6546.8739.2951.0060.2360.7653.4365.6272.9447.4040.1750.8160.46
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 127, + 873, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f5c1a8cb9fd1a297e6b1ad7e304dd4829ad8d9b1ba7538ab5ea303132dd1d90b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Statistics of the datasets" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetEntitiesRelationsTrainValidTestTimestampGranularity
ICEWS147128230748458514737136524 hours
ICEWS1823033256373018459954954530424 hours
ICEWS05-15104882513688684630246159401724 hours
GDELT76912401734399238765305241275115 minutes
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 279, + 867, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/05f0adbb7c6c2a35b11fe9fa0e59946f1959c20c6c509e0b3db4bbb53aeaed24.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: The proportion of unseen events" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTestUnseen EventsRepetitive EventsProportion of Unseen Events
ICEWS1473713511386047%
ICEWS1849545245602498549%
ICEWS05-1546159145923156731%
GDELT30524110706219817935%
", + "bbox": [ + 146, + 432, + 858, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c2f64673be9becb1e940bb348148727db440c63890f3cc881b5482847c973d9e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 558, + 374, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0fbf8110fcbde77b51359289c47ddc063e9e011c176df624698d212751e12568.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 558, + 615, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ca4b8cda15dfa6089c563dd8127cdf3149ac4d4892d538a9af1945d8545f95dd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 560, + 858, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0bb30b091a90c69a8742edf26fde7f86882fdae9e2514c6aded89f3b937d205e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS14", + "(a) Comparison on training MRR", + "Figure 7: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS18" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 743, + 373, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ea8a706d97c0b45130fb3565c509c4c14bd4185ab4026fb082f6a272c4e4eeea.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 743, + 615, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/41a2a193505ccacb2a47336fc3765d786bcf402ddef4a2b204adf1484aaf3ea8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 744, + 858, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3836", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_model.json b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12fc07ad893d6a17455ac32f6ac6601d0c04162c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2435 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.083, + 0.844, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SiMFy: A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.199, + 0.131, + 0.8, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengtao Liu, Lei Tan, Mengfan Li, Yao Wan, Hai Jin, Xuanhua Shi†" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.149, + 0.842, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "National Engineering Research Center for Big Data Technology and System, Services Computing Technology and System Lab, Cluster and Grid Computing Lab," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.183, + 0.689, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "School of Computer Science and Technology," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.24, + 0.199, + 0.763, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.216, + 0.78, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{zhengtaoliu,tanlei,limf,wanyao,hjin,xhshi}@hust.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) reasoning, which focuses on leveraging temporal information to infer future facts in knowledge graphs, plays a vital role in knowledge graph completion. Typically, existing works for this task design graph neural networks and recurrent neural networks to respectively capture the structural and temporal information in KGs. Despite their effectiveness, in our practice, we find that they tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability, which can be attributed to the over design of model architectures. To this end, this paper aims to figure out whether the current complex model architectures are necessary for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. As a result, we put forward a simple yet effective approach (termed SiMFy), which simply utilizes multilayer perceptron (MLP) to model the structural dependencies of events and adopts a fixed-frequency strategy to incorporate historical frequency during inference. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our SiMFy can reach state-of-the-art performance with the following strengths: 1) faster convergence speed and better generalization ability; 2) a much smaller time consumption in the training process; and 3) better ability to capture the structural dependencies of events in KGs. These results provide evidence that the substitution of complex models with simpler counterparts is a feasible strategy.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.75, + 0.26, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.776, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Knowledge Graphs (KGs), which represent events as triples \\((s, r, o)\\), facilitate a wide range of natural language processing tasks, including semantic search (Bonatti et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), product recommendations (Xie et al., 2021), and question-answering systems (Saxena et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.254, + 0.86, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.344, + 0.883, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An illustration of TKG reasoning, showing knowledge graphs at three distinct timestamps. Directed edges represent relations, originating from the subject entity and terminating at the object entity. Our objective is to predict the object entity at the final timestamp." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.447, + 0.885, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, traditional KGs struggle to effectively handle facts that have temporal characteristics. Therefore, Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs) have been introduced to tackle this challenge (Wang et al., 2023), which incorporate a time dimension \\( t \\) and store facts as quadruples \\( (s, r, o, t) \\), e.g., (Germany, negotiate, Russia, 2022-05)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.563, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, in real-world scenarios, TKGs are often incomplete, highlighting the vital importance of TKG reasoning, which aims to predict future facts by utilizing the temporal information. As illustrated in Figure 1, given the TKGs associated with Entity A at the timestamps of Time I, Time II, and Time III, our objective is to predict a quadruple containing an unknown entity, i.e., (A, negotiate,?, Time IV). To achieve this goal, we can observe a significant structural dependency of facts along the timeline. That is, interactions between Entity A and Entity B at Time I could influence the interaction patterns at Time II, which, in turn, might provide clues for Time III. We also notice that historical events may recur. For instance, Entity A and Entity B had conflicts at both Time I and Time II timestamps. These observations provide us valuable insights into TKG reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the TKG reasoning task, events to be predicted can typically be classified into two main types: historical events and unseen events (Han et al., 2021). Historical events, also known as" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1The source code and datasets are available at https://github.com/CGCL-codes/SiMFy." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.906, + 0.398, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Xuanhua Shi is the corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3825" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3825-3836" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "repetitive pattern, refer to facts that have already occurred in the historical KG sequence. Unseen events refer to events that have not occurred in the historical KG sequence. Many methods (Jin et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021) can predict historical events effectively by modeling the historical KG sequence auto-regressively. However, for unseen events, it is necessary to consider both the information of structural dependency and temporality of entities and relations. Typically, existing works (Liu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) apply Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) as encoders to capture the structural and temporal information in the historical KG sequence. Then, a translational model, such as ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), is used as a decoder to obtain predicted entities. Despite their effectiveness, these approaches are conceptually and technically complex due to their advanced model architectures. Moreover, these complex methods tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we aim to answer the following research question: Are these complex model architectures indispensable for temporal knowledge graph reasoning? As a solution, we design a Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) to evaluate it against other complex baselines. Specifically, we use a one-layer MLP to jointly model entities and relations, capturing structural and temporal information in TKGs. This allows us to obtain embedding vectors for entities and relations, which are then used to calculate the similarity between queries and candidate entities, resulting in preliminary candidate entity scores. Next, we calculate the historical frequency scores of candidate entities based on their historical KG sequences. Finally, in the inference stage, the two scores mentioned above are combined using a coefficient \\(\\alpha\\) to obtain the final entity scores. Through extensive experiments comparing it with existing state-of-the-art models, we find that our model can achieve comparable performance while having higher training efficiency and better generalization ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, we conduct a series of empirical studies to investigate the performance of SiMFy and existing complex models under specific conditions. We are the first to analyze the performance of MLP and GNNs in capturing unseen entities. Our findings indicate that MLP performs comparably to GNN in capturing structural dependency infor" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mation for the TKG reasoning task. Furthermore, we investigate the question of whether historical frequency information should be incorporated into the model training process, which has not been explored before. Unlike the most current mainstream methods which directly incorporate historical frequency information of entities during training, SiMFy utilizes conceptually simple features to model the repetitive pattern of TKGs, which is fixed in training. Through empirical experiments, we validate the effectiveness of this fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.28, + 0.87, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The contributions of this paper are as follows." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.297, + 0.884, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We design a simple MLP-based-only model, called SiMFy, which achieves state-of-the-art performance on four widely-used datasets (i.e., ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT), demonstrating the effectiveness of the simple model architecture." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.393, + 0.885, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We have performed extensive experiments to analyze the convergence speed, generalization ability, and training consumption of SiMFy and existing complex models. The empirical evidence demonstrates that a simple model architecture like SiMFy enjoys faster convergence, better generalization ability, and higher efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.522, + 0.884, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The performance of SiMFy could motivate future research to rethink the significance of the simpler model architecture and the potential value of MLP-based models in TKGs." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.297, + 0.885, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.602, + 0.665, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Static KG Reasoning In static knowledge graphs, inference is done to deduce unknown facts from known ones. Existing approaches for inference can be categorized into embedding-based, tensor decomposition-based, and neural network-based. Embedding-based methods, represented by the classic method TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), consider relations as translational transformations. Later models like KG2E (He et al., 2015) optimize the handling of diverse relations and improve model scalability. Tensor decomposition methods represent the graph as a tensor which is then decomposed. Models like RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011) use this to capture interactions between entities and relations. As for the neural network models like ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and KG-BART (Liu et al., 2021), ConvE enhances inference capabilities through deep feature learning and leveraging graph" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3826" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.085, + 0.871, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.35, + 0.882, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overall model architecture of SiMFy. Given a query \\((s, r,?, t + \\Delta t)\\), the Similarity Matching module learns the similarity score between the query and each candidate entity \\(o\\), and the Historical Frequency Learning module learns the historical frequency score between them, then the two scores are combined to generate the final probability distribution of entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.433, + 0.489, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "structures, and KG-BART utilizes pretrained language models augmented with knowledge graphs to not only enhance inference but also improve the generation of commonsense-reasoned text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.515, + 0.489, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Temporal KG Reasoning Temporal knowledge graph inference, which takes into account the temporal evolution of events, generally falls into two categories: interpolation-based and extrapolation-based inference. Interpolation-based inference aims to guess unknown facts within a known time range. TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016) integrates temporal information into the TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) model using recursive neural networks, while HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018) designs a unique hyperplane to embed time into the entity-relation space. TeMP (Hu et al., 2022) addresses time sparsity and variability issues by combining neural message passing and temporal dynamic methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the other hand, extrapolation-based inference, which forecasts unknown future facts, is garnering increasing attention. RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020) employs an encoder and aggregator to model past facts, while HIP (He et al., 2021) utilizes temporal, structural, and repetitive information. xERTE (Han et al., 2021) offers a novel framework for predicting future facts and CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021) introduces a creative copy-mechanism used in natural language generation tasks before. Reinforce" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.433, + 0.883, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ment learning is adopted by CluSTeR (Li et al., 2021a), which infers answers from induced clues, and TimeTraveler (Sun et al., 2021), which uses historical knowledge graph snapshots for answer search. CEN (Li et al., 2022) adopts a length-aware convolutional network to model the KG sequence dynamically and GHT (Sun et al., 2022) is the first method to introduce a transformer into the TKG reasoning task. Finally, DA-Net (Liu et al., 2022) and CENET (Xu et al., 2023) propose unique event prediction models. DA-Net learns distributed attention to future events, while CENET distinguishes likely entities for a given query using a historical contrastive learning framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.673, + 0.733, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Problem Formulation" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.701, + 0.782, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Temporal Knowledge Graph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.723, + 0.885, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) \\(\\mathcal{G}\\) is a sequence of KGs \\((\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\dots ,\\mathcal{G}_t)\\) arranged in order of their timestamp \\(t\\) \\(\\mathcal{G} = \\{\\mathcal{E},\\mathcal{R}\\}\\), where \\(\\mathcal{E}\\) stands for the set of entities, and \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) for the set of relations. Each \\(\\mathcal{G}_t = \\{\\mathcal{E}_t,\\mathcal{R}_t\\}\\), where \\(\\mathcal{E}_t\\subseteq \\mathcal{E}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{R}_t\\subseteq \\mathcal{R}\\) are the sets of entities and relations at timestamp \\(t\\) respectively. In \\(\\mathcal{G}_t\\), facts are represented as quadruples \\((s,r,o,t)\\), where \\(s,o\\in \\mathcal{E}_t\\) and \\(r\\in \\mathcal{R}_t\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.866, + 0.685, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 TKG Reasoning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TKG reasoning seeks to forecast either the subject entity \\( s \\) or the object entity \\( o \\) based on the historical" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3827" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "KG sequence \\(\\{\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\dots ,\\mathcal{G}_t\\}\\) . When presented with a query of the form \\((?r,o,t + \\Delta t)\\) , the task is to identify the subject entity \\(s\\) , while for a query like \\((s,r,?t + \\Delta t)\\) , the aim is to predict the object entity o. We use \\(\\mathbf{E}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|\\times d}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{R}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{R}|\\times d}\\) to express the embeddings of all entities and all relations respectively. Boldfaced s, r, o are used to denote the embedding vectors of \\(s,r\\) , and \\(o\\) with a dimension of \\(d\\) . In our work, we specifically concentrate on the task of object entity prediction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.258, + 0.276, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Our Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.284, + 0.49, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we elaborate our proposed Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) for temporal graph reasoning. As illustrated in Figure 2, SiMFy mainly involves two modules: the Similarity Matching module and the Historical Frequency Learning module. These two modules generate corresponding scores for candidate entities. Afterward, a weight-based inference process is utilized to determine the final result of the reasoning. In the subsequent sections, we will provide a comprehensive introduction to our proposed method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.472, + 0.321, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Similarity Matching" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.493, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a query \\(q = (s,r,?,t + \\Delta t)\\), the Similarity Matching module is implemented by one-layer-MLP to calculate the similarity between \\(q\\) and each candidate entity \\(o\\) to obtain the matching scores. Specifically, it generates a latent context vector \\(\\mathbf{H}_{s,r} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}\\) for query \\(q\\), which scores the similarity of different object entities with the query:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.617, + 0.488, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {H} _ {s, r} = \\tanh (\\mathbf {W} [ \\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {r} ] + \\mathbf {b}) \\mathbf {E} ^ {T} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.648, + 0.49, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{s} \\in \\mathbf{E}\\), \\(\\mathbf{r} \\in \\mathbf{R}\\), and \\([\\mathbf{s},\\mathbf{r}]\\) denotes the concatenation of \\(\\mathbf{s}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{r}\\). We use one-layer-MLP to aggregate the query's information. Here, \\(\\mathbf{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{d \\times 2d}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{b} \\in \\mathbb{R}^d\\) are trainable parameters. tanh is the activation function of the layer, then the layer's output is multiplied by \\(\\mathbf{E}\\) to obtain the final similarity vector, where each element represents the similarity score between the corresponding entity \\(o \\in \\mathcal{E}\\) and the query \\(q\\). The learning objective of the similarity matching is to minimize the NCE loss (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2010) \\(\\mathcal{L}\\), as described below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.837, + 0.488, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = - \\sum_ {q} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \\left(o _ {i}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {o _ {j} \\in \\mathcal {E}} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \\left(o _ {j}\\right)\\right)} (2)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(o_i\\) is the ground truth object entity corresponding to the given query \\(q\\). Finally, we obtain" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the following similarity score by utilizing the softmax function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.604, + 0.129, + 0.883, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s, r}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.165, + 0.8, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Historical Frequency Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a query \\(q = (s,r,?,t + \\Delta t)\\) and the historical KG sequence \\(\\{\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\ldots ,\\mathcal{G}_t\\}\\), the Historical Frequency Learning module aims to obtain the historical frequency scores. Specifically, for every timestamp \\(t^\\prime \\leq t\\), we first investigate the frequencies of historical entities \\(f_{t^{\\prime}}^{(s,r)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}\\), as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.557, + 0.299, + 0.883, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nf _ {t ^ {\\prime}} ^ {(s, r)} (o) = \\sum_ {x \\in \\mathcal {G} _ {t ^ {\\prime}}} \\mathbb {I} [ x = (s, r, o, t ^ {\\prime}) ] \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.349, + 0.884, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbb{I}[\\cdot ]\\) is an indicator function, yielding 1 if \\([\\cdot ]\\) is true and 0 otherwise. Then we add up the frequency information of all timestamps \\(t^{\\prime}\\leq t\\) to obtain the historical frequency information of the query as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.443, + 0.883, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {F} _ {t + \\Delta t} ^ {(s, r)} = f _ {0} ^ {(s, r)} + f _ {1} ^ {(s, r)} + \\dots + f _ {t} ^ {(s, r)} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{F}_{t + \\Delta t}^{(s,r)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}\\) is an \\(|\\mathcal{E}|\\)-dimensional vector where each element represents the corresponding historical frequency of the candidate object entities. Finally, we obtain the following historical frequency score by utilizing the softmax function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.586, + 0.576, + 0.883, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (k \\cdot \\mathbf {F} _ {t + \\Delta t} ^ {(s, r)}) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.612, + 0.884, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( k \\) is a hyperparameter to balance the extremely small values." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.657, + 0.632, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the inference stage, a coefficient \\(\\alpha \\in [0,1]\\) is integrated to balance the weight between the similarity score \\(S_{sim}^{(s,r)}\\) and the historical frequency score \\(S_{freq}^{(s,r)}\\). These two scores are merged to determine the final probability distribution of candidate entities, then the model chooses the object with the highest probability as the final prediction, as defined below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.823, + 0.881, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \\Delta t) = \\alpha \\cdot S _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} (o) + (1 - \\alpha) \\cdot S _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} (o)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.861, + 0.883, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\no _ {t + \\Delta t} = \\arg \\max _ {o \\in \\mathcal {E}} \\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \\Delta t) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{P}(o|s,r,t + \\Delta t)\\) is an \\(|\\mathcal{E}|\\)-dimensional vector which stores the final probability of all entities." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3828" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (raw metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of second-best are underlined." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.123, + 0.88, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelICEWS14 (raw)ICEWS18 (raw)ICEWS05-15 (raw)GDELT (raw)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
RotatE25.7116.4129.0145.1614.536.4715.7831.8619.0110.4221.3536.923.620.522.268.37
ConvE30.3021.3034.4247.8922.8113.6325.8341.4331.4021.5635.7050.9618.3711.2919.3632.13
Conv-TransE31.5022.4634.9850.0323.2214.2626.1341.3430.2820.7933.8049.9519.0711.8520.3233.14
R-GCN28.0319.4231.9544.8315.058.1316.4929.0027.1318.8330.4143.1612.177.4012.3720.63
TTransE12.863.1415.7233.658.441.858.9522.3816.535.5120.7739.265.530.464.9715.37
HyTE16.782.1324.8443.947.413.107.3316.0116.056.5320.2034.726.690.017.5719.06
TA-DistMult26.2216.8329.7245.2316.428.6018.1332.5127.5117.5731.4647.3210.344.4410.4421.63
xERTE32.2324.2936.4148.7627.9819.2632.4346.0038.0728.4543.9257.62----
RE-NET35.7725.9940.1054.8726.1716.4329.8944.3736.8626.2441.8557.6019.6012.0320.5633.89
CyGNet35.0625.7839.0053.4224.8015.3728.2943.4636.2425.6541.5456.2617.9911.1019.0331.26
CENET36.3627.3240.0254.3926.4317.5729.4444.1238.7428.5743.3958.37----
GHT37.4027.7741.6656.1927.4018.0830.7645.7641.5030.7946.8562.7320.0412.6821.3734.42
CEN36.3226.8340.2054.9326.7017.3430.3344.8436.6626.2741.0457.1219.2711.9620.6033.50
RE-GCN37.5827.4941.9257.6927.9318.1831.6347.0737.7926.8642.9158.9319.0712.1620.2032.39
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.1828.6518.9932.4547.6241.8331.3047.0262.1121.3313.3823.1636.87
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.348, + 0.262, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.374, + 0.318, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.395, + 0.49, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dataset During the evaluation, we adopt four publicly available TKG datasets: ICEWS14 (Li et al., 2021b), ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018), ICEWS18 (Jin et al., 2020), and GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013). The first three datasets which originate from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (Boschee et al., 2015) (ICEWS) comprise a diverse range of political facts accompanied by time annotations, such as (European Union, Praise or endorse, Kosovo, 2018/09/29). Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) is a much larger dataset that records data every 15 minutes. Following the dataset split strategy proposed by (Jin et al., 2020), we divide these datasets into training, validation, and test sets, adhering to an \\(80\\%\\), \\(10\\%\\), and \\(10\\%\\) proportion by timestamps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.489, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation Metrics We evaluate our approach to the task of entity prediction, where the objective is to predict the absent object entity for a given entity-relation pair, assessing whether the ground truth entity ranks higher than other entities. We present the results in terms of Hits@1/3/10 and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During the evaluation stage, two settings are commonly employed: filtered setting and raw setting. In terms of the filtered setting, for each query, we treat all triples absent from the training, validation, and test sets to be negative samples. This implies that, when computing rankings, we disregard all triples known to be true." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast, the raw setting does not involve fil" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.349, + 0.885, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tering any triples, meaning that all possible triples are considered when calculating rankings. In the context of TKG reasoning task, each quadruple \\((s,r,o,t)\\) is unique due to the inclusion of timestamp information. This suggests that the filtered setting holds little practical relevance when evaluating model performance. Therefore, we adopt the raw setting for our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.486, + 0.886, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines We assess how well our SiMFy model performs in comparison to three other types of previously proposed models: (1) Static reasoning methods, including RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), and R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). (2) Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods, including TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018), and TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018). (3) Dynamic extrapolated reasoning methods, including xERTE (Han et al., 2021), RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020), CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021), CENET (Xu et al., 2023), GHT (Sun et al., 2022), CEN (Li et al., 2022) and RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021b)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.738, + 0.742, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.885, + 0.903 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the baselines of CyGNet, CENET, CEN, and RE-GCN, we rerun these models using their open-source code on four datasets with their default parameter settings. Since the code of GHT is not open-source, we provide the findings from their publication. It should be noted that we utilize the offline version of CEN to ensure fairness. Some results of static and dynamic interpolated reasoning approaches are adopted from (Li et al., 2021b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement our SiMFy model using PyTorch." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3829" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.083, + 0.465, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Ablation study of SiMFy on ICEWS14" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.108, + 0.481, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy w.o. HF35.9726.0340.8555.39
SiMFy w.o. SM31.1824.0734.5144.34
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.207, + 0.49, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The dimension of entity and relation embeddings is set to 200. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) as the optimizer, with a learning rate of 0.001 and a weight decay of 0.00001. The hyperparameter \\( k \\) is set to 2 and the \\( \\alpha \\) is set to 0.001. The batch size is set to 1024 and the training epoch is limited to 30. All experiments were conducted on a Tesla V100." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.332, + 0.274, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Model Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.354, + 0.49, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 shows the experimental results of SiMFy compared with other baselines on four datasets. It is clear that SiMFy performs better than other baselines in most cases. For static reasoning methods, their results are very poor because they do not consider temporal information. Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods like TTransE only encode time information without considering the evolution of temporal KG sequences, so they cannot achieve good results. It is worth noting that for GCN-based models CEN and RE-GCN, as well as the models most pertinent to our model, RE-NET, CyGNet, and CENET, SiMFy outperforms them. This demonstrates the effectiveness of simple models based on MLPs and shows that MLPs can to some extent replace GCNs. Please refer to Section 6.3 for a more in-depth analysis." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.64, + 0.281, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform ablation experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset to better understand the impact of each SiMFy module, and the results are displayed in Table 2. SiMFy w.o. HF refers to SiMFy without the Historical Frequency Learning module, while SiMFy w.o. SM represents SiMFy without the Similarity Matching module. It can be observed that SiMFy w.o. HF performs better than SiMFy w.o. SM. This is because the Similarity Matching module captures many unseen events in the TKGs, which also demonstrates the ability of MLP in understanding the structural dependencies of events. Therefore, SiMFy w.o. SM, which only considers historical repetitive patterns, results in a significant drop of \\(21.1\\%\\) and \\(25.1\\%\\) in terms of MRR and Hits@10 respectively compared to SiMFy. Despite" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "having some capability to handle historical events, SiMFy w.o. HF also experiences a drop of \\(9\\%\\) in performance, which further confirms the effectiveness of the Historical Frequency Learning module." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.168, + 0.646, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.192, + 0.885, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further illustrate 1) SiMFy's ability to predict unseen entities by capturing the structural dependency information of KGs, and 2) SiMFy's ability to predict repetitive events using historical frequency, we present two cases in the ICEWS18 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.275, + 0.886, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- In the first case, the query is (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (India). However, upon investigating the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India)) has not occurred before. This indicates that there is no repetitive pattern for the quadruple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India), t), making it an unseen event with Government (India) as the corresponding unseen entity. Nevertheless, due to SiMFy's extraction of structural dependency information from the historical KG sequence, we find that the candidate entity Government (India) appears as the top first in the ranking list generated by the model. This indicates that SiMFy has successfully captured the correct unseen entity, despite its absence in the historical KGs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.581, + 0.886, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- In the second case, the query is (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (Croatia). By analyzing the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, Government (Croatia)) has the highest frequency of occurrence, significantly surpassing other cases. SiMFy, utilizing the learned historical frequency information, recognizes this repetitive pattern and memorizes it. As a result, in the final ranking list generated by the model, the correct answer Government (Croatia) occupies the top position. This aligns with our real-world understanding that Zdravko Maric served as the Minister of Finance in the Croatian government, making statements on behalf of the government frequently." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.857, + 0.866, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 More Empirical Results and Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we show more empirical results and analysis to reveal the strengths of our proposed SiMFy." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3830" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.083, + 0.84, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The comparison results of the MLP and GCN-based models' ability to predict unseen events" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.108, + 0.862, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelICEWS14 unseenICEWS18 unseenICEWS05-15 unseen
MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10
RGCN+ConvTransE13.9014.9226.6011.1511.5421.9012.5613.3425.03
RGCN+MLP14.1015.0326.9010.7011.0320.8613.2113.9525.86
MLP15.5317.0130.9711.2811.5922.9114.0015.0627.65
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.231, + 0.476, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.431, + 0.466, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Time consumption of different models" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.475, + 0.469, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Convergence Speed and Generalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To gain a deeper understanding of the model's performance, we will closely examine the dynamics of both training MRR and evaluation MRR. Following (Cong et al., 2023), we will also discuss the important generalization gap (the absolute difference between the MRR scores obtained during training and evaluation) of different models. In addition to SiMFy, we also use four existing complex baseline models, including CyGNet, RE-GCN, CENET, and CEN, which are most relevant to our work, as experimental comparisons. Moreover, based on RGCN, we also reconstruct two new GCN-based models as our comparative baselines. The first one is RGCN+ConvTransE, where ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019) is used as the decoder. The second one is RGCN+MLP, using MLP as the decoder. Figure 4 illustrates the efficacy of the models on the most representative ICEWS05-15 dataset, from which the following conclusions can be drawn:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- As the slope change of the training MRR curve can reflect the convergence speed of the model (i.e., a slope close to 0 indicates model convergence), we can see that our model always converges after several epochs, indicating a very fast convergence speed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.904, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- After each epoch, we save separate models and" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.228, + 0.883, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "evaluate their performance on the test set. Figure 4b illustrates that our model not only achieves the highest MRR but also maintains stability and smoothness in the curve after several epochs. In contrast, the MRR curves of other baselines show varying degrees of oscillation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.324, + 0.884, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The generalization ability of a model refers to its performance on unseen data, that is, the adaptability of the model to new data. Therefore, the smaller the generalization gap, the better the model's generalization ability. As shown in Figure 4c, our model has the smallest generalization gap, showing its strong generalization ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.437, + 0.884, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Combining these three figures, we can also observe an interesting phenomenon. Models based on GCN, represented by CEN (Li et al., 2022), even if their performance on the test set fails to enhance after numerous epochs, their MRR on the training set keeps rising. This means that these GCN-based models have overfitting problems, which is also reflected in the increasing generalization gap." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.324, + 0.884, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.593, + 0.747, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Low Time Consumption" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.614, + 0.884, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared to other complex models, SiMFy has much lower training time consumption because the model parameter numbers of SiMFy are much smaller. This could be attributed to the concise and effective model structure of SiMFy. Taking the typical GCN-based method as an example, our SiMFy is simply composed of an MLP layer that maps the input embedding to the output embedding. The GCN-based models also perform the multi-step propagation operation, which will significantly increase the model parameters, especially when the depth of the GCN is increased." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, and ICEWS05-15 benchmarks, we calculate the average training time consumption of our model SiMFy and other baselines over 30 epochs. As shown in Figure 3, the time cost is highest for the ICEWS05-15 dataset, followed by the ICEWS18 dataset, and the lowest for the ICEWS14 dataset. However, on all three" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3831" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.081, + 0.375, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.209, + 0.358, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.081, + 0.617, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.411, + 0.209, + 0.588, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.082, + 0.859, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.627, + 0.209, + 0.856, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.233, + 0.882, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap for the 30 training epochs on ICEWS05-15. Results on other ICEWS datasets can be found in Appendix A.4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.287, + 0.489, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "datasets, SiMFy exhibits the lowest time consumption compared to other baselines during the training process, making it more efficient and greatly improving resource utilization. Furthermore, we can observe that the training time consumption of SiMFy does not exhibit significant fluctuations across different datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.41, + 0.423, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Ability to Capture Unseen Events" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.43, + 0.489, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To predict the unseen events that do not appear in the historical KG sequence, a natural idea is using the historical evolutionary information of other events that interact with them, which is also known as the event structure dependency information. The mainstream view is that GCN can better capture this structural dependence, interestingly, we find that MLP and GCN have similar abilities to capture unseen events. Therefore, given the high training cost of GCN, we doubt whether it is necessary to apply it to TKG reasoning task. We collect all unseen events from the test set for the three ICEWS datasets, as indicated in Table 3, and then we evaluate the MLP module and the GCN, respectively. The results indicate that the performance of MLP is even slightly superior to that of GCN, which also validates the effectiveness of our MLP-based model." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.729, + 0.486, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Comparative experiments of frequency on ICEWS14" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.768, + 0.469, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
MLP-F.F.39.5429.5644.5659.18
MLP-ONLY35.9726.0340.8555.39
MLP-COPY35.9626.5440.2054.02
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.385, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.4 Fixed Frequency in Training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SiMFy utilizes the historical frequency information of events only during the inference stage" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.544, + 0.29, + 0.845, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.555, + 0.457, + 0.837, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Training time in first 10 epochs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.518, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(fixed-frequency in training). However, many existing state-of-the-art methods, like CENET and CyGNet, combine event embeddings with historical frequency during the training process and iteratively update the model parameters. To validate which approach is more beneficial for the TKG reasoning task, we conduct comparative experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset by adopting the copy-mechanism-based learning strategy used in CyGNet and CENET. The results can be found in Table 4, MLP-ONLY consists of only the MLP module, MLP-F.F. adopts the fixed-frequency strategy during training, and MLP-COPY represents the model that incorporates the copy mechanism. It can be observed that MLP-F.F. outperforms MLP-COPY significantly, while MLP-COPY performs even slightly worse than the original MLP-ONLY. This suggests that MLP-COPY fails to effectively incorporate historical frequency information during the training process. Furthermore, by considering Figure 5, we can observe that MLP-COPY not only fails to enhance the model performance, but also significantly prolongs the training time for each epoch. This indirectly confirms the superiority of the fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3832" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.415, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.5 Discussion on the Depth of MLP" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.49, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SiMFy uses a simple one-layer MLP to draw the final prediction. We also want to figure out whether the performance of the model will improve or worsen when the one-layer MLP is replaced with some deeper or more complicated neural structure. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to replace the one-layer MLP with deeper ones. The experimental results on the ICEWS14 dataset are presented in Table 5. From this table, we can see that as the structure of the model becomes more complex, its performance has hardly changed. This is because the complex model structure, while increasing computational costs, does not better capture the evolving information of entities and relations." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.357, + 0.489, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparative experiments on the depth of MLP on ICEWS14" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.398, + 0.496, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy-1MLP39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy-2MLP39.4929.7443.9758.58
SiMFy-3MLP39.2929.7443.4658.20
SiMFy-RNN+MLP39.2729.4543.8958.36
" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.517, + 0.248, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we have proposed a new model, called SiMFy, for the TKG reasoning task. SiMFy is a conceptually straightforward method that simply combines MLP and historical frequency to model the temporal events in the TKGs. The experimental results demonstrate that SiMFy not only outperforms many existing complex methods but also exhibits faster convergence speed and better generalization ability. Our findings suggest that a well-designed MLP-based model, such as SiMFy, can effectively address the limitations faced by complex architectures, making it a practical and efficient solution for the TKG reasoning task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.765, + 0.221, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One limitation of this paper is that no in-depth exploration of the potential mutual influence between historical events and unseen events is considered, which means that events that have been repeatedly happening in the sequence of historical KGs may not happen in the future, and instead, new unseen events will take place. Another limitation lies in that the time span for calculating the frequency of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "historical events is too long, and a more precise time window is needed to better capture the long- and short-term evolutionary patterns of events." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.146, + 0.683, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.172, + 0.884, + 0.235 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant 2020AAA0108501, and the Key Program of Hubei under Grant JD2023008." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.264, + 0.61, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.287, + 0.884, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Piero Andrea Bonatti, Stefan Decker, Axel Polleres, and Valentina Presutti. 2019. Knowledge graphs: New directions for knowledge representation on the semantic web (dagstuhl seminar 18371). In *Dagstuhl reports*, volume 8. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.377, + 0.884, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 2787-2795." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.467, + 0.884, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icecs coded event data. *Harvard Data-verse*, 12." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.531, + 0.884, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weilin Cong, Si Zhang, Jian Kang, Baichuan Yuan, Hao Wu, Xin Zhou, Hanghang Tong, and Mehrdad Mahdavi. 2023. Do we really need complicated model architectures for temporal networks? In Proceedings of The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.633, + 0.883, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2001-2011." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.736, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3833" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4816-4821." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.124, + 0.49, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2010. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 297-304. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.213, + 0.489, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Han, Peng Chen, Yunpu Ma, and Volker Tresp. 2021. Explainable subgraph reasoning for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.303, + 0.489, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, October 19 - 23, 2015, pages 623-632." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.392, + 0.489, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongquan He, Peng Zhang, Luchen Liu, Qi Liang, Wenyuan Zhang, and Chuang Zhang. 2021. Hip network: Historical information passing network for extrapolation reasoning on temporal knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 1915-1921." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.495, + 0.489, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiwei Hu, Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto, Zhiliang Xiang, Xiaoli Li, Ru Li, and Jeff Z. Pan. 2022. Type-aware embeddings for multi-hop reasoning over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 3078-3084." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.597, + 0.489, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1715-1724." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.687, + 0.49, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6669-6683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.789, + 0.489, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kalev Leetaru and Philip A. Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979-2012. In Proceedings of the ISA Annual Convention, volume 2, pages 1-49. CiteSeer." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zixuan Li, Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Weihua Peng, Yajuan Lyu, Yong Zhu, Long Bai, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. 2022. Complex evolutionary pattern learning for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 290-296." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.203, + 0.883, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Saiping Guan, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021a. Search from history and reason for future: Two-stage reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4732-4743, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.333, + 0.883, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021b. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 408-417." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.437, + 0.883, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kangzheng Liu, Feng Zhao, Hongxu Chen, Yicong Li, Guandong Xu, and Hai Jin. 2022. Da-net: Distributed attention network for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 1289-1298." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.528, + 0.883, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ye Liu, Yao Wan, Lifang He, Hao Peng, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. KG-BART: knowledge graph-augmented BART for generative commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6418-6425." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.671, + 0.883, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011, Bellevue, Washington, USA, June 28 - July 2, 2011, pages 809-816." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.762, + 0.883, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.852, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 15th International Conference, ESWC" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3834" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, volume 10843 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 593-607. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.136, + 0.49, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chao Shang, Yun Tang, Jing Huang, Jinbo Bi, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2019. End-to-end structure-aware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3060-3067." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.278, + 0.49, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haohai Sun, Shangyi Geng, Jialun Zhong, Han Hu, and Kun He. 2022. Graph Hawkes transformer for extrapolated reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7481-7493, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.38, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haohai Sun, Jialun Zhong, Yunpu Ma, Zhen Han, and Kun He. 2021. Timetraveler: Reinforcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 8306-8319." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.482, + 0.49, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.572, + 0.49, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guoren Wang, Yue Zeng, Rong-Hua Li, Hongchao Qin, Xuanhua Shi, Yubin Xia, Xuequn Shang, and Liang Hong. 2023. Temporal graph cube. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pages 1-15." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.648, + 0.49, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuxiang Wang, Arijit Khan, Tianxing Wu, Jiahui Jin, and Haijiang Yan. 2020. Semantic guided and response times bounded top-k similarity search over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020, Dallas, TX, USA, April 20-24, 2020, pages 445-456. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.75, + 0.49, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lijie Xie, Zhaoming Hu, Xingjuan Cai, Wensheng Zhang, and Jinjun Chen. 2021. Explainable recommendation based on knowledge graph and multi-objective optimization. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7:1241-1252." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Xu, Junjie Ou, Hui Xu, and Luoyi Fu. 2023. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with historical contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2023, Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2023, Washington, DC, USA, February 7-14, 2023, pages 4765-4773." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.123, + 0.885, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhang. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 4732-4740." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.215, + 0.634, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.24, + 0.788, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Results with Filtered Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.261, + 0.884, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6 provides the experimental results (with filtered metrics) of SiMFy compared with other baselines on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.336, + 0.722, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Statistics of Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.357, + 0.884, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The detailed statistics of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets are presented in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.416, + 0.786, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Proportion of Unseen Events" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.436, + 0.884, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct a statistical analysis on the proportion of unseen events in the test set of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The results are presented in Table 8." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.511, + 0.874, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Supplementary Figures on Convergence Speed and Generalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.548, + 0.884, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide the missing figures on the ICEWS14 and ICEWS18 datasets to supplement the Section 6.1. The results on ICEWS14 are shown in Figure 6 and the results on ICEWS18 are shown in Figure 7." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3835" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.088, + 0.884, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (filtered metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of the second-best ones are underlined." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.128, + 0.875, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelICEWS14 (filtered)ICEWS18 (filtered)ICEWS05-15 (filtered)GDELT (filtered)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
xERTE40.7932.7045.6757.3029.3121.0333.5146.4846.6237.8452.3163.92----
RE-NET45.7138.4249.0659.1242.9336.1945.4755.8042.9731.2646.8563.4740.1232.4343.4053.80
CyGNet48.6341.7752.5060.2946.6940.5849.8257.1457.0050.0661.5168.4751.5645.6354.8660.96
CENET52.8747.9454.4262.7950.0946.0251.0557.85--------
CEN37.3428.0441.0955.7628.2119.1031.8045.8937.5327.5741.4957.5119.7112.4720.9833.82
RE-GCN38.2728.4042.5457.8829.2119.7932.7747.5438.6828.2643.4459.1129.4621.7432.0143.62
SiMFy54.8147.9958.5466.6546.8739.2951.0060.2360.7653.4365.6272.9447.4040.1750.8160.46
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.386, + 0.255, + 0.611, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Statistics of the datasets" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.28, + 0.868, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetEntitiesRelationsTrainValidTestTimestampGranularity
ICEWS147128230748458514737136524 hours
ICEWS1823033256373018459954954530424 hours
ICEWS05-15104882513688684630246159401724 hours
GDELT76912401734399238765305241275115 minutes
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.358, + 0.409, + 0.638, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: The proportion of unseen events" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.434, + 0.859, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTestUnseen EventsRepetitive EventsProportion of Unseen Events
ICEWS1473713511386047%
ICEWS1849545245602498549%
ICEWS05-1546159145923156731%
GDELT30524110706219817935%
" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.56, + 0.376, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.687, + 0.359, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.56, + 0.616, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.41, + 0.687, + 0.589, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.561, + 0.86, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.687, + 0.857, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.186, + 0.712, + 0.812, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS14" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.744, + 0.374, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.871, + 0.359, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.382, + 0.744, + 0.616, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.41, + 0.871, + 0.589, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.745, + 0.86, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.871, + 0.857, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.895, + 0.811, + 0.911 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS18" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3836" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_origin.pdf b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1f3238a15bcaf010370037834d4fa1bb8cf6e67 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/4cb09716-7156-43ce-8c2e-0b4763cf3744_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b86b92e6c24981c374bb62750ea206301d3180d5b2e51f252c433dd6bddc02b0 +size 791095 diff --git a/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/full.md b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..794d3e49f4e6e1af0e56acb2b76e1b2e841029e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,360 @@ +# SiMFy: A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning + +Zhengtao Liu, Lei Tan, Mengfan Li, Yao Wan, Hai Jin, Xuanhua Shi† + +National Engineering Research Center for Big Data Technology and System, Services Computing Technology and System Lab, Cluster and Grid Computing Lab, + +School of Computer Science and Technology, + +Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China + +{zhengtaoliu,tanlei,limf,wanyao,hjin,xhshi}@hust.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) reasoning, which focuses on leveraging temporal information to infer future facts in knowledge graphs, plays a vital role in knowledge graph completion. Typically, existing works for this task design graph neural networks and recurrent neural networks to respectively capture the structural and temporal information in KGs. Despite their effectiveness, in our practice, we find that they tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability, which can be attributed to the over design of model architectures. To this end, this paper aims to figure out whether the current complex model architectures are necessary for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. As a result, we put forward a simple yet effective approach (termed SiMFy), which simply utilizes multilayer perceptron (MLP) to model the structural dependencies of events and adopts a fixed-frequency strategy to incorporate historical frequency during inference. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our SiMFy can reach state-of-the-art performance with the following strengths: 1) faster convergence speed and better generalization ability; 2) a much smaller time consumption in the training process; and 3) better ability to capture the structural dependencies of events in KGs. These results provide evidence that the substitution of complex models with simpler counterparts is a feasible strategy. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Knowledge Graphs (KGs), which represent events as triples $(s, r, o)$ , facilitate a wide range of natural language processing tasks, including semantic search (Bonatti et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), product recommendations (Xie et al., 2021), and question-answering systems (Saxena et al., 2020). + +![](images/59b9aaa2402e017756fd3da431da3b29acb34498eb5f723de97cbd6c0eff6c7d.jpg) +Figure 1: An illustration of TKG reasoning, showing knowledge graphs at three distinct timestamps. Directed edges represent relations, originating from the subject entity and terminating at the object entity. Our objective is to predict the object entity at the final timestamp. + +However, traditional KGs struggle to effectively handle facts that have temporal characteristics. Therefore, Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs) have been introduced to tackle this challenge (Wang et al., 2023), which incorporate a time dimension $t$ and store facts as quadruples $(s, r, o, t)$ , e.g., (Germany, negotiate, Russia, 2022-05). + +However, in real-world scenarios, TKGs are often incomplete, highlighting the vital importance of TKG reasoning, which aims to predict future facts by utilizing the temporal information. As illustrated in Figure 1, given the TKGs associated with Entity A at the timestamps of Time I, Time II, and Time III, our objective is to predict a quadruple containing an unknown entity, i.e., (A, negotiate,?, Time IV). To achieve this goal, we can observe a significant structural dependency of facts along the timeline. That is, interactions between Entity A and Entity B at Time I could influence the interaction patterns at Time II, which, in turn, might provide clues for Time III. We also notice that historical events may recur. For instance, Entity A and Entity B had conflicts at both Time I and Time II timestamps. These observations provide us valuable insights into TKG reasoning. + +In the TKG reasoning task, events to be predicted can typically be classified into two main types: historical events and unseen events (Han et al., 2021). Historical events, also known as + +repetitive pattern, refer to facts that have already occurred in the historical KG sequence. Unseen events refer to events that have not occurred in the historical KG sequence. Many methods (Jin et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021) can predict historical events effectively by modeling the historical KG sequence auto-regressively. However, for unseen events, it is necessary to consider both the information of structural dependency and temporality of entities and relations. Typically, existing works (Liu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) apply Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) as encoders to capture the structural and temporal information in the historical KG sequence. Then, a translational model, such as ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), is used as a decoder to obtain predicted entities. Despite their effectiveness, these approaches are conceptually and technically complex due to their advanced model architectures. Moreover, these complex methods tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability. + +In this paper, we aim to answer the following research question: Are these complex model architectures indispensable for temporal knowledge graph reasoning? As a solution, we design a Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) to evaluate it against other complex baselines. Specifically, we use a one-layer MLP to jointly model entities and relations, capturing structural and temporal information in TKGs. This allows us to obtain embedding vectors for entities and relations, which are then used to calculate the similarity between queries and candidate entities, resulting in preliminary candidate entity scores. Next, we calculate the historical frequency scores of candidate entities based on their historical KG sequences. Finally, in the inference stage, the two scores mentioned above are combined using a coefficient $\alpha$ to obtain the final entity scores. Through extensive experiments comparing it with existing state-of-the-art models, we find that our model can achieve comparable performance while having higher training efficiency and better generalization ability. + +Furthermore, we conduct a series of empirical studies to investigate the performance of SiMFy and existing complex models under specific conditions. We are the first to analyze the performance of MLP and GNNs in capturing unseen entities. Our findings indicate that MLP performs comparably to GNN in capturing structural dependency infor + +mation for the TKG reasoning task. Furthermore, we investigate the question of whether historical frequency information should be incorporated into the model training process, which has not been explored before. Unlike the most current mainstream methods which directly incorporate historical frequency information of entities during training, SiMFy utilizes conceptually simple features to model the repetitive pattern of TKGs, which is fixed in training. Through empirical experiments, we validate the effectiveness of this fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy. + +The contributions of this paper are as follows. + +- We design a simple MLP-based-only model, called SiMFy, which achieves state-of-the-art performance on four widely-used datasets (i.e., ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT), demonstrating the effectiveness of the simple model architecture. +- We have performed extensive experiments to analyze the convergence speed, generalization ability, and training consumption of SiMFy and existing complex models. The empirical evidence demonstrates that a simple model architecture like SiMFy enjoys faster convergence, better generalization ability, and higher efficiency. +- The performance of SiMFy could motivate future research to rethink the significance of the simpler model architecture and the potential value of MLP-based models in TKGs. + +# 2 Related Work + +Static KG Reasoning In static knowledge graphs, inference is done to deduce unknown facts from known ones. Existing approaches for inference can be categorized into embedding-based, tensor decomposition-based, and neural network-based. Embedding-based methods, represented by the classic method TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), consider relations as translational transformations. Later models like KG2E (He et al., 2015) optimize the handling of diverse relations and improve model scalability. Tensor decomposition methods represent the graph as a tensor which is then decomposed. Models like RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011) use this to capture interactions between entities and relations. As for the neural network models like ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and KG-BART (Liu et al., 2021), ConvE enhances inference capabilities through deep feature learning and leveraging graph + +![](images/7e02844892146d331b38a0ab79a99f7568d3b1d65d48c19785fef52afd4a582c.jpg) +Figure 2: Overall model architecture of SiMFy. Given a query $(s, r,?, t + \Delta t)$ , the Similarity Matching module learns the similarity score between the query and each candidate entity $o$ , and the Historical Frequency Learning module learns the historical frequency score between them, then the two scores are combined to generate the final probability distribution of entities. + +structures, and KG-BART utilizes pretrained language models augmented with knowledge graphs to not only enhance inference but also improve the generation of commonsense-reasoned text. + +Temporal KG Reasoning Temporal knowledge graph inference, which takes into account the temporal evolution of events, generally falls into two categories: interpolation-based and extrapolation-based inference. Interpolation-based inference aims to guess unknown facts within a known time range. TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016) integrates temporal information into the TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) model using recursive neural networks, while HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018) designs a unique hyperplane to embed time into the entity-relation space. TeMP (Hu et al., 2022) addresses time sparsity and variability issues by combining neural message passing and temporal dynamic methods. + +On the other hand, extrapolation-based inference, which forecasts unknown future facts, is garnering increasing attention. RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020) employs an encoder and aggregator to model past facts, while HIP (He et al., 2021) utilizes temporal, structural, and repetitive information. xERTE (Han et al., 2021) offers a novel framework for predicting future facts and CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021) introduces a creative copy-mechanism used in natural language generation tasks before. Reinforce + +ment learning is adopted by CluSTeR (Li et al., 2021a), which infers answers from induced clues, and TimeTraveler (Sun et al., 2021), which uses historical knowledge graph snapshots for answer search. CEN (Li et al., 2022) adopts a length-aware convolutional network to model the KG sequence dynamically and GHT (Sun et al., 2022) is the first method to introduce a transformer into the TKG reasoning task. Finally, DA-Net (Liu et al., 2022) and CENET (Xu et al., 2023) propose unique event prediction models. DA-Net learns distributed attention to future events, while CENET distinguishes likely entities for a given query using a historical contrastive learning framework. + +# 3 Problem Formulation + +# 3.1 Temporal Knowledge Graph + +A Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) $\mathcal{G}$ is a sequence of KGs $(\mathcal{G}_0,\mathcal{G}_1,\dots ,\mathcal{G}_t)$ arranged in order of their timestamp $t$ $\mathcal{G} = \{\mathcal{E},\mathcal{R}\}$ , where $\mathcal{E}$ stands for the set of entities, and $\mathcal{R}$ for the set of relations. Each $\mathcal{G}_t = \{\mathcal{E}_t,\mathcal{R}_t\}$ , where $\mathcal{E}_t\subseteq \mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{R}_t\subseteq \mathcal{R}$ are the sets of entities and relations at timestamp $t$ respectively. In $\mathcal{G}_t$ , facts are represented as quadruples $(s,r,o,t)$ , where $s,o\in \mathcal{E}_t$ and $r\in \mathcal{R}_t$ . + +# 3.2 TKG Reasoning + +TKG reasoning seeks to forecast either the subject entity $s$ or the object entity $o$ based on the historical + +KG sequence $\{\mathcal{G}_0,\mathcal{G}_1,\dots ,\mathcal{G}_t\}$ . When presented with a query of the form $(?r,o,t + \Delta t)$ , the task is to identify the subject entity $s$ , while for a query like $(s,r,?t + \Delta t)$ , the aim is to predict the object entity o. We use $\mathbf{E}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{E}|\times d}$ and $\mathbf{R}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{R}|\times d}$ to express the embeddings of all entities and all relations respectively. Boldfaced s, r, o are used to denote the embedding vectors of $s,r$ , and $o$ with a dimension of $d$ . In our work, we specifically concentrate on the task of object entity prediction. + +# 4 Our Approach + +Here we elaborate our proposed Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) for temporal graph reasoning. As illustrated in Figure 2, SiMFy mainly involves two modules: the Similarity Matching module and the Historical Frequency Learning module. These two modules generate corresponding scores for candidate entities. Afterward, a weight-based inference process is utilized to determine the final result of the reasoning. In the subsequent sections, we will provide a comprehensive introduction to our proposed method. + +# 4.1 Similarity Matching + +Given a query $q = (s,r,?,t + \Delta t)$ , the Similarity Matching module is implemented by one-layer-MLP to calculate the similarity between $q$ and each candidate entity $o$ to obtain the matching scores. Specifically, it generates a latent context vector $\mathbf{H}_{s,r} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{E}|}$ for query $q$ , which scores the similarity of different object entities with the query: + +$$ +\mathbf {H} _ {s, r} = \tanh (\mathbf {W} [ \mathbf {s}, \mathbf {r} ] + \mathbf {b}) \mathbf {E} ^ {T} \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{s} \in \mathbf{E}$ , $\mathbf{r} \in \mathbf{R}$ , and $[\mathbf{s},\mathbf{r}]$ denotes the concatenation of $\mathbf{s}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ . We use one-layer-MLP to aggregate the query's information. Here, $\mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times 2d}$ and $\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ are trainable parameters. tanh is the activation function of the layer, then the layer's output is multiplied by $\mathbf{E}$ to obtain the final similarity vector, where each element represents the similarity score between the corresponding entity $o \in \mathcal{E}$ and the query $q$ . The learning objective of the similarity matching is to minimize the NCE loss (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2010) $\mathcal{L}$ , as described below: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = - \sum_ {q} \log \frac {\exp \left(\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \left(o _ {i}\right)\right)}{\sum_ {o _ {j} \in \mathcal {E}} \exp \left(\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \left(o _ {j}\right)\right)} (2) +$$ + +where $o_i$ is the ground truth object entity corresponding to the given query $q$ . Finally, we obtain + +the following similarity score by utilizing the softmax function: + +$$ +S _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} \left(\mathbf {H} _ {s, r}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +# 4.2 Historical Frequency Learning + +Given a query $q = (s,r,?,t + \Delta t)$ and the historical KG sequence $\{\mathcal{G}_0,\mathcal{G}_1,\ldots ,\mathcal{G}_t\}$ , the Historical Frequency Learning module aims to obtain the historical frequency scores. Specifically, for every timestamp $t^\prime \leq t$ , we first investigate the frequencies of historical entities $f_{t^{\prime}}^{(s,r)}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{E}|}$ , as follows: + +$$ +f _ {t ^ {\prime}} ^ {(s, r)} (o) = \sum_ {x \in \mathcal {G} _ {t ^ {\prime}}} \mathbb {I} [ x = (s, r, o, t ^ {\prime}) ] \tag {4} +$$ + +where $\mathbb{I}[\cdot ]$ is an indicator function, yielding 1 if $[\cdot ]$ is true and 0 otherwise. Then we add up the frequency information of all timestamps $t^{\prime}\leq t$ to obtain the historical frequency information of the query as follows: + +$$ +\mathbf {F} _ {t + \Delta t} ^ {(s, r)} = f _ {0} ^ {(s, r)} + f _ {1} ^ {(s, r)} + \dots + f _ {t} ^ {(s, r)} \tag {5} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{F}_{t + \Delta t}^{(s,r)}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{E}|}$ is an $|\mathcal{E}|$ -dimensional vector where each element represents the corresponding historical frequency of the candidate object entities. Finally, we obtain the following historical frequency score by utilizing the softmax function: + +$$ +S _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} (k \cdot \mathbf {F} _ {t + \Delta t} ^ {(s, r)}) \tag {6} +$$ + +where $k$ is a hyperparameter to balance the extremely small values. + +# 4.3 Inference + +In the inference stage, a coefficient $\alpha \in [0,1]$ is integrated to balance the weight between the similarity score $S_{sim}^{(s,r)}$ and the historical frequency score $S_{freq}^{(s,r)}$ . These two scores are merged to determine the final probability distribution of candidate entities, then the model chooses the object with the highest probability as the final prediction, as defined below: + +$$ +\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \Delta t) = \alpha \cdot S _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} (o) + (1 - \alpha) \cdot S _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} (o) +$$ + +$$ +o _ {t + \Delta t} = \arg \max _ {o \in \mathcal {E}} \mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \Delta t) \tag {7} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{P}(o|s,r,t + \Delta t)$ is an $|\mathcal{E}|$ -dimensional vector which stores the final probability of all entities. + +Table 1: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (raw metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of second-best are underlined. + +
ModelICEWS14 (raw)ICEWS18 (raw)ICEWS05-15 (raw)GDELT (raw)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
RotatE25.7116.4129.0145.1614.536.4715.7831.8619.0110.4221.3536.923.620.522.268.37
ConvE30.3021.3034.4247.8922.8113.6325.8341.4331.4021.5635.7050.9618.3711.2919.3632.13
Conv-TransE31.5022.4634.9850.0323.2214.2626.1341.3430.2820.7933.8049.9519.0711.8520.3233.14
R-GCN28.0319.4231.9544.8315.058.1316.4929.0027.1318.8330.4143.1612.177.4012.3720.63
TTransE12.863.1415.7233.658.441.858.9522.3816.535.5120.7739.265.530.464.9715.37
HyTE16.782.1324.8443.947.413.107.3316.0116.056.5320.2034.726.690.017.5719.06
TA-DistMult26.2216.8329.7245.2316.428.6018.1332.5127.5117.5731.4647.3210.344.4410.4421.63
xERTE32.2324.2936.4148.7627.9819.2632.4346.0038.0728.4543.9257.62----
RE-NET35.7725.9940.1054.8726.1716.4329.8944.3736.8626.2441.8557.6019.6012.0320.5633.89
CyGNet35.0625.7839.0053.4224.8015.3728.2943.4636.2425.6541.5456.2617.9911.1019.0331.26
CENET36.3627.3240.0254.3926.4317.5729.4444.1238.7428.5743.3958.37----
GHT37.4027.7741.6656.1927.4018.0830.7645.7641.5030.7946.8562.7320.0412.6821.3734.42
CEN36.3226.8340.2054.9326.7017.3430.3344.8436.6626.2741.0457.1219.2711.9620.6033.50
RE-GCN37.5827.4941.9257.6927.9318.1831.6347.0737.7926.8642.9158.9319.0712.1620.2032.39
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.1828.6518.9932.4547.6241.8331.3047.0262.1121.3313.3823.1636.87
+ +# 5 Experiments + +# 5.1 Experimental Setup + +Dataset During the evaluation, we adopt four publicly available TKG datasets: ICEWS14 (Li et al., 2021b), ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018), ICEWS18 (Jin et al., 2020), and GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013). The first three datasets which originate from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (Boschee et al., 2015) (ICEWS) comprise a diverse range of political facts accompanied by time annotations, such as (European Union, Praise or endorse, Kosovo, 2018/09/29). Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) is a much larger dataset that records data every 15 minutes. Following the dataset split strategy proposed by (Jin et al., 2020), we divide these datasets into training, validation, and test sets, adhering to an $80\%$ , $10\%$ , and $10\%$ proportion by timestamps. + +Evaluation Metrics We evaluate our approach to the task of entity prediction, where the objective is to predict the absent object entity for a given entity-relation pair, assessing whether the ground truth entity ranks higher than other entities. We present the results in terms of Hits@1/3/10 and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR). + +During the evaluation stage, two settings are commonly employed: filtered setting and raw setting. In terms of the filtered setting, for each query, we treat all triples absent from the training, validation, and test sets to be negative samples. This implies that, when computing rankings, we disregard all triples known to be true. + +In contrast, the raw setting does not involve fil + +tering any triples, meaning that all possible triples are considered when calculating rankings. In the context of TKG reasoning task, each quadruple $(s,r,o,t)$ is unique due to the inclusion of timestamp information. This suggests that the filtered setting holds little practical relevance when evaluating model performance. Therefore, we adopt the raw setting for our experiments. + +Baselines We assess how well our SiMFy model performs in comparison to three other types of previously proposed models: (1) Static reasoning methods, including RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), and R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). (2) Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods, including TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018), and TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018). (3) Dynamic extrapolated reasoning methods, including xERTE (Han et al., 2021), RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020), CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021), CENET (Xu et al., 2023), GHT (Sun et al., 2022), CEN (Li et al., 2022) and RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021b). + +# 5.2 Implementation Details + +For the baselines of CyGNet, CENET, CEN, and RE-GCN, we rerun these models using their open-source code on four datasets with their default parameter settings. Since the code of GHT is not open-source, we provide the findings from their publication. It should be noted that we utilize the offline version of CEN to ensure fairness. Some results of static and dynamic interpolated reasoning approaches are adopted from (Li et al., 2021b). + +We implement our SiMFy model using PyTorch. + +Table 2: Ablation study of SiMFy on ICEWS14 + +
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy w.o. HF35.9726.0340.8555.39
SiMFy w.o. SM31.1824.0734.5144.34
+ +The dimension of entity and relation embeddings is set to 200. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) as the optimizer, with a learning rate of 0.001 and a weight decay of 0.00001. The hyperparameter $k$ is set to 2 and the $\alpha$ is set to 0.001. The batch size is set to 1024 and the training epoch is limited to 30. All experiments were conducted on a Tesla V100. + +# 5.3 Model Results + +Table 1 shows the experimental results of SiMFy compared with other baselines on four datasets. It is clear that SiMFy performs better than other baselines in most cases. For static reasoning methods, their results are very poor because they do not consider temporal information. Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods like TTransE only encode time information without considering the evolution of temporal KG sequences, so they cannot achieve good results. It is worth noting that for GCN-based models CEN and RE-GCN, as well as the models most pertinent to our model, RE-NET, CyGNet, and CENET, SiMFy outperforms them. This demonstrates the effectiveness of simple models based on MLPs and shows that MLPs can to some extent replace GCNs. Please refer to Section 6.3 for a more in-depth analysis. + +# 5.4 Ablation Study + +We perform ablation experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset to better understand the impact of each SiMFy module, and the results are displayed in Table 2. SiMFy w.o. HF refers to SiMFy without the Historical Frequency Learning module, while SiMFy w.o. SM represents SiMFy without the Similarity Matching module. It can be observed that SiMFy w.o. HF performs better than SiMFy w.o. SM. This is because the Similarity Matching module captures many unseen events in the TKGs, which also demonstrates the ability of MLP in understanding the structural dependencies of events. Therefore, SiMFy w.o. SM, which only considers historical repetitive patterns, results in a significant drop of $21.1\%$ and $25.1\%$ in terms of MRR and Hits@10 respectively compared to SiMFy. Despite + +having some capability to handle historical events, SiMFy w.o. HF also experiences a drop of $9\%$ in performance, which further confirms the effectiveness of the Historical Frequency Learning module. + +# 5.5 Case Study + +To further illustrate 1) SiMFy's ability to predict unseen entities by capturing the structural dependency information of KGs, and 2) SiMFy's ability to predict repetitive events using historical frequency, we present two cases in the ICEWS18 dataset. + +- In the first case, the query is (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (India). However, upon investigating the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India)) has not occurred before. This indicates that there is no repetitive pattern for the quadruple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India), t), making it an unseen event with Government (India) as the corresponding unseen entity. Nevertheless, due to SiMFy's extraction of structural dependency information from the historical KG sequence, we find that the candidate entity Government (India) appears as the top first in the ranking list generated by the model. This indicates that SiMFy has successfully captured the correct unseen entity, despite its absence in the historical KGs. + +- In the second case, the query is (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (Croatia). By analyzing the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, Government (Croatia)) has the highest frequency of occurrence, significantly surpassing other cases. SiMFy, utilizing the learned historical frequency information, recognizes this repetitive pattern and memorizes it. As a result, in the final ranking list generated by the model, the correct answer Government (Croatia) occupies the top position. This aligns with our real-world understanding that Zdravko Maric served as the Minister of Finance in the Croatian government, making statements on behalf of the government frequently. + +# 6 More Empirical Results and Analysis + +Here, we show more empirical results and analysis to reveal the strengths of our proposed SiMFy. + +Table 3: The comparison results of the MLP and GCN-based models' ability to predict unseen events + +
ModelICEWS14 unseenICEWS18 unseenICEWS05-15 unseen
MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10
RGCN+ConvTransE13.9014.9226.6011.1511.5421.9012.5613.3425.03
RGCN+MLP14.1015.0326.9010.7011.0320.8613.2113.9525.86
MLP15.5317.0130.9711.2811.5922.9114.0015.0627.65
+ +![](images/312a46c2d692275cde59d7b60c065e6d6e2743becc84f7e8ea635dd84f9ce1ac.jpg) +Figure 3: Time consumption of different models + +# 6.1 Convergence Speed and Generalization + +To gain a deeper understanding of the model's performance, we will closely examine the dynamics of both training MRR and evaluation MRR. Following (Cong et al., 2023), we will also discuss the important generalization gap (the absolute difference between the MRR scores obtained during training and evaluation) of different models. In addition to SiMFy, we also use four existing complex baseline models, including CyGNet, RE-GCN, CENET, and CEN, which are most relevant to our work, as experimental comparisons. Moreover, based on RGCN, we also reconstruct two new GCN-based models as our comparative baselines. The first one is RGCN+ConvTransE, where ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019) is used as the decoder. The second one is RGCN+MLP, using MLP as the decoder. Figure 4 illustrates the efficacy of the models on the most representative ICEWS05-15 dataset, from which the following conclusions can be drawn: + +- As the slope change of the training MRR curve can reflect the convergence speed of the model (i.e., a slope close to 0 indicates model convergence), we can see that our model always converges after several epochs, indicating a very fast convergence speed. +- After each epoch, we save separate models and + +evaluate their performance on the test set. Figure 4b illustrates that our model not only achieves the highest MRR but also maintains stability and smoothness in the curve after several epochs. In contrast, the MRR curves of other baselines show varying degrees of oscillation. + +- The generalization ability of a model refers to its performance on unseen data, that is, the adaptability of the model to new data. Therefore, the smaller the generalization gap, the better the model's generalization ability. As shown in Figure 4c, our model has the smallest generalization gap, showing its strong generalization ability. +- Combining these three figures, we can also observe an interesting phenomenon. Models based on GCN, represented by CEN (Li et al., 2022), even if their performance on the test set fails to enhance after numerous epochs, their MRR on the training set keeps rising. This means that these GCN-based models have overfitting problems, which is also reflected in the increasing generalization gap. + +# 6.2 Low Time Consumption + +Compared to other complex models, SiMFy has much lower training time consumption because the model parameter numbers of SiMFy are much smaller. This could be attributed to the concise and effective model structure of SiMFy. Taking the typical GCN-based method as an example, our SiMFy is simply composed of an MLP layer that maps the input embedding to the output embedding. The GCN-based models also perform the multi-step propagation operation, which will significantly increase the model parameters, especially when the depth of the GCN is increased. + +For the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, and ICEWS05-15 benchmarks, we calculate the average training time consumption of our model SiMFy and other baselines over 30 epochs. As shown in Figure 3, the time cost is highest for the ICEWS05-15 dataset, followed by the ICEWS18 dataset, and the lowest for the ICEWS14 dataset. However, on all three + +![](images/b5bf764ae57694fd60c6773a5afbe78f203dd5d9a131e56c28a4380915221b2e.jpg) +(a) Comparison on training MRR + +![](images/068248319950fac9cac2513283b89c66e9902d8840a1beff8fcab9f6fe5225c9.jpg) +(b) Comparison on test MRR + +![](images/fcb7445feeb6b54e8d6fabd30c1a75602ebd0fb4271493b773907e2cd35aacc0.jpg) +(c) Comparison on generalization gap + +datasets, SiMFy exhibits the lowest time consumption compared to other baselines during the training process, making it more efficient and greatly improving resource utilization. Furthermore, we can observe that the training time consumption of SiMFy does not exhibit significant fluctuations across different datasets. + +# 6.3 Ability to Capture Unseen Events + +To predict the unseen events that do not appear in the historical KG sequence, a natural idea is using the historical evolutionary information of other events that interact with them, which is also known as the event structure dependency information. The mainstream view is that GCN can better capture this structural dependence, interestingly, we find that MLP and GCN have similar abilities to capture unseen events. Therefore, given the high training cost of GCN, we doubt whether it is necessary to apply it to TKG reasoning task. We collect all unseen events from the test set for the three ICEWS datasets, as indicated in Table 3, and then we evaluate the MLP module and the GCN, respectively. The results indicate that the performance of MLP is even slightly superior to that of GCN, which also validates the effectiveness of our MLP-based model. + +Table 4: Comparative experiments of frequency on ICEWS14 + +
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
MLP-F.F.39.5429.5644.5659.18
MLP-ONLY35.9726.0340.8555.39
MLP-COPY35.9626.5440.2054.02
+ +# 6.4 Fixed Frequency in Training + +SiMFy utilizes the historical frequency information of events only during the inference stage + +![](images/5e33fe4baa9729863e2155c358cd2def4585208f132b6f8c5690bf26ae6ee5bd.jpg) +Figure 4: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap for the 30 training epochs on ICEWS05-15. Results on other ICEWS datasets can be found in Appendix A.4. +Figure 5: Training time in first 10 epochs + +(fixed-frequency in training). However, many existing state-of-the-art methods, like CENET and CyGNet, combine event embeddings with historical frequency during the training process and iteratively update the model parameters. To validate which approach is more beneficial for the TKG reasoning task, we conduct comparative experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset by adopting the copy-mechanism-based learning strategy used in CyGNet and CENET. The results can be found in Table 4, MLP-ONLY consists of only the MLP module, MLP-F.F. adopts the fixed-frequency strategy during training, and MLP-COPY represents the model that incorporates the copy mechanism. It can be observed that MLP-F.F. outperforms MLP-COPY significantly, while MLP-COPY performs even slightly worse than the original MLP-ONLY. This suggests that MLP-COPY fails to effectively incorporate historical frequency information during the training process. Furthermore, by considering Figure 5, we can observe that MLP-COPY not only fails to enhance the model performance, but also significantly prolongs the training time for each epoch. This indirectly confirms the superiority of the fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy. + +# 6.5 Discussion on the Depth of MLP + +SiMFy uses a simple one-layer MLP to draw the final prediction. We also want to figure out whether the performance of the model will improve or worsen when the one-layer MLP is replaced with some deeper or more complicated neural structure. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to replace the one-layer MLP with deeper ones. The experimental results on the ICEWS14 dataset are presented in Table 5. From this table, we can see that as the structure of the model becomes more complex, its performance has hardly changed. This is because the complex model structure, while increasing computational costs, does not better capture the evolving information of entities and relations. + +Table 5: Comparative experiments on the depth of MLP on ICEWS14 + +
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy-1MLP39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy-2MLP39.4929.7443.9758.58
SiMFy-3MLP39.2929.7443.4658.20
SiMFy-RNN+MLP39.2729.4543.8958.36
+ +# 7 Conclusion + +In this paper, we have proposed a new model, called SiMFy, for the TKG reasoning task. SiMFy is a conceptually straightforward method that simply combines MLP and historical frequency to model the temporal events in the TKGs. The experimental results demonstrate that SiMFy not only outperforms many existing complex methods but also exhibits faster convergence speed and better generalization ability. Our findings suggest that a well-designed MLP-based model, such as SiMFy, can effectively address the limitations faced by complex architectures, making it a practical and efficient solution for the TKG reasoning task. + +# Limitations + +One limitation of this paper is that no in-depth exploration of the potential mutual influence between historical events and unseen events is considered, which means that events that have been repeatedly happening in the sequence of historical KGs may not happen in the future, and instead, new unseen events will take place. Another limitation lies in that the time span for calculating the frequency of + +historical events is too long, and a more precise time window is needed to better capture the long- and short-term evolutionary patterns of events. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant 2020AAA0108501, and the Key Program of Hubei under Grant JD2023008. + +# References + +Piero Andrea Bonatti, Stefan Decker, Axel Polleres, and Valentina Presutti. 2019. Knowledge graphs: New directions for knowledge representation on the semantic web (dagstuhl seminar 18371). In *Dagstuhl reports*, volume 8. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik. + +Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 2787-2795. + +Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icecs coded event data. *Harvard Data-verse*, 12. + +Weilin Cong, Si Zhang, Jian Kang, Baichuan Yuan, Hao Wu, Xin Zhou, Hanghang Tong, and Mehrdad Mahdavi. 2023. Do we really need complicated model architectures for temporal networks? In Proceedings of The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. + +Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2001-2011. + +Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818. + +Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods + +in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4816-4821. +Michael Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2010. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 297-304. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings. +Zhen Han, Peng Chen, Yunpu Ma, and Volker Tresp. 2021. Explainable subgraph reasoning for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. +Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, October 19 - 23, 2015, pages 623-632. +Yongquan He, Peng Zhang, Luchen Liu, Qi Liang, Wenyuan Zhang, and Chuang Zhang. 2021. Hip network: Historical information passing network for extrapolation reasoning on temporal knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 1915-1921. +Zhiwei Hu, Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto, Zhiliang Xiang, Xiaoli Li, Ru Li, and Jeff Z. Pan. 2022. Type-aware embeddings for multi-hop reasoning over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 3078-3084. +Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1715-1724. +Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6669-6683. +Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015. +Kalev Leetaru and Philip A. Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979-2012. In Proceedings of the ISA Annual Convention, volume 2, pages 1-49. CiteSeer. + +Zixuan Li, Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Weihua Peng, Yajuan Lyu, Yong Zhu, Long Bai, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. 2022. Complex evolutionary pattern learning for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 290-296. +Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Saiping Guan, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021a. Search from history and reason for future: Two-stage reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4732-4743, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021b. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 408-417. +Kangzheng Liu, Feng Zhao, Hongxu Chen, Yicong Li, Guandong Xu, and Hai Jin. 2022. Da-net: Distributed attention network for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 1289-1298. +Ye Liu, Yao Wan, Lifang He, Hao Peng, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. KG-BART: knowledge graph-augmented BART for generative commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6418-6425. +Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011, Bellevue, Washington, USA, June 28 - July 2, 2011, pages 809-816. +Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507. +Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 15th International Conference, ESWC + +2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, volume 10843 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 593-607. Springer. +Chao Shang, Yun Tang, Jing Huang, Jinbo Bi, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2019. End-to-end structure-aware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3060-3067. +Haohai Sun, Shangyi Geng, Jialun Zhong, Han Hu, and Kun He. 2022. Graph Hawkes transformer for extrapolated reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7481-7493, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Haohai Sun, Jialun Zhong, Yunpu Ma, Zhen Han, and Kun He. 2021. Timetraveler: Reinforcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 8306-8319. +Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. +Guoren Wang, Yue Zeng, Rong-Hua Li, Hongchao Qin, Xuanhua Shi, Yubin Xia, Xuequn Shang, and Liang Hong. 2023. Temporal graph cube. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pages 1-15. +Yuxiang Wang, Arijit Khan, Tianxing Wu, Jiahui Jin, and Haijiang Yan. 2020. Semantic guided and response times bounded top-k similarity search over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020, Dallas, TX, USA, April 20-24, 2020, pages 445-456. IEEE. +Lijie Xie, Zhaoming Hu, Xingjuan Cai, Wensheng Zhang, and Jinjun Chen. 2021. Explainable recommendation based on knowledge graph and multi-objective optimization. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7:1241-1252. +Yi Xu, Junjie Ou, Hui Xu, and Luoyi Fu. 2023. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with historical contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2023, Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in + +Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2023, Washington, DC, USA, February 7-14, 2023, pages 4765-4773. +Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhang. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 4732-4740. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Results with Filtered Metrics + +Table 6 provides the experimental results (with filtered metrics) of SiMFy compared with other baselines on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. + +# A.2 Statistics of Datasets + +The detailed statistics of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets are presented in Table 7. + +# A.3 Proportion of Unseen Events + +We conduct a statistical analysis on the proportion of unseen events in the test set of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The results are presented in Table 8. + +# A.4 Supplementary Figures on Convergence Speed and Generalization + +We provide the missing figures on the ICEWS14 and ICEWS18 datasets to supplement the Section 6.1. The results on ICEWS14 are shown in Figure 6 and the results on ICEWS18 are shown in Figure 7. + +Table 6: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (filtered metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of the second-best ones are underlined. + +
ModelICEWS14 (filtered)ICEWS18 (filtered)ICEWS05-15 (filtered)GDELT (filtered)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
xERTE40.7932.7045.6757.3029.3121.0333.5146.4846.6237.8452.3163.92----
RE-NET45.7138.4249.0659.1242.9336.1945.4755.8042.9731.2646.8563.4740.1232.4343.4053.80
CyGNet48.6341.7752.5060.2946.6940.5849.8257.1457.0050.0661.5168.4751.5645.6354.8660.96
CENET52.8747.9454.4262.7950.0946.0251.0557.85--------
CEN37.3428.0441.0955.7628.2119.1031.8045.8937.5327.5741.4957.5119.7112.4720.9833.82
RE-GCN38.2728.4042.5457.8829.2119.7932.7747.5438.6828.2643.4459.1129.4621.7432.0143.62
SiMFy54.8147.9958.5466.6546.8739.2951.0060.2360.7653.4365.6272.9447.4040.1750.8160.46
+ +Table 7: Statistics of the datasets + +
DatasetEntitiesRelationsTrainValidTestTimestampGranularity
ICEWS147128230748458514737136524 hours
ICEWS1823033256373018459954954530424 hours
ICEWS05-15104882513688684630246159401724 hours
GDELT76912401734399238765305241275115 minutes
+ +Table 8: The proportion of unseen events + +
DatasetTestUnseen EventsRepetitive EventsProportion of Unseen Events
ICEWS1473713511386047%
ICEWS1849545245602498549%
ICEWS05-1546159145923156731%
GDELT30524110706219817935%
+ +![](images/c2f64673be9becb1e940bb348148727db440c63890f3cc881b5482847c973d9e.jpg) +(a) Comparison on training MRR + +![](images/0fbf8110fcbde77b51359289c47ddc063e9e011c176df624698d212751e12568.jpg) +(b) Comparison on test MRR + +![](images/ca4b8cda15dfa6089c563dd8127cdf3149ac4d4892d538a9af1945d8545f95dd.jpg) +(c) Comparison on generalization gap + +![](images/0bb30b091a90c69a8742edf26fde7f86882fdae9e2514c6aded89f3b937d205e.jpg) +Figure 6: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS14 +(a) Comparison on training MRR +Figure 7: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS18 + +![](images/ea8a706d97c0b45130fb3565c509c4c14bd4185ab4026fb082f6a272c4e4eeea.jpg) +(b) Comparison on test MRR + +![](images/41a2a193505ccacb2a47336fc3765d786bcf402ddef4a2b204adf1484aaf3ea8.jpg) +(c) Comparison on generalization gap \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/images.zip b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f28fba9d3c0150db38c1a8b367aee7bd55cb6bf --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8a37d8f05907967b5910a4203a8fb9593dd1679f03f7388661b737aefea3b803 +size 679271 diff --git a/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/layout.json b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3eeb3e8ef749c18cd39296a2e10bd2587d62ceaa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SiMFy_ A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8927 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 69, + 502, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 69, + 502, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 69, + 502, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SiMFy: A Simple Yet Effective Approach for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 476, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 476, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 118, + 110, + 476, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengtao Liu, Lei Tan, Mengfan Li, Yao Wan, Hai Jin, Xuanhua Shi†" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 125, + 500, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 125, + 500, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 125, + 500, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "National Engineering Research Center for Big Data Technology and System, Services Computing Technology and System Lab, Cluster and Grid Computing Lab," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 153, + 409, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 153, + 409, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 153, + 409, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Computer Science and Technology," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 167, + 453, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 167, + 453, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 167, + 453, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 181, + 464, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 181, + 464, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 181, + 464, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{zhengtaoliu,tanlei,limf,wanyao,hjin,xhshi}@hust.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 237, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 237, + 274, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 237, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) reasoning, which focuses on leveraging temporal information to infer future facts in knowledge graphs, plays a vital role in knowledge graph completion. Typically, existing works for this task design graph neural networks and recurrent neural networks to respectively capture the structural and temporal information in KGs. Despite their effectiveness, in our practice, we find that they tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability, which can be attributed to the over design of model architectures. To this end, this paper aims to figure out whether the current complex model architectures are necessary for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. As a result, we put forward a simple yet effective approach (termed SiMFy), which simply utilizes multilayer perceptron (MLP) to model the structural dependencies of events and adopts a fixed-frequency strategy to incorporate historical frequency during inference. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our SiMFy can reach state-of-the-art performance with the following strengths: 1) faster convergence speed and better generalization ability; 2) a much smaller time consumption in the training process; and 3) better ability to capture the structural dependencies of events in KGs. These results provide evidence that the substitution of complex models with simpler counterparts is a feasible strategy." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 237, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 154, + 643 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 154, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 630, + 154, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Knowledge Graphs (KGs), which represent events as triples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s, r, o)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 652, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", facilitate a wide range of natural language processing tasks, including semantic search (Bonatti et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020), product recommendations (Xie et al., 2021), and question-answering systems (Saxena et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 511, + 279 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 511, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 511, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 511, + 279 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "59b9aaa2402e017756fd3da431da3b29acb34498eb5f723de97cbd6c0eff6c7d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An illustration of TKG reasoning, showing knowledge graphs at three distinct timestamps. Directed edges represent relations, originating from the subject entity and terminating at the object entity. Our objective is to predict the object entity at the final timestamp." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, traditional KGs struggle to effectively handle facts that have temporal characteristics. Therefore, Temporal Knowledge Graphs (TKGs) have been introduced to tackle this challenge (Wang et al., 2023), which incorporate a time dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and store facts as quadruples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s, r, o, t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", e.g., (Germany, negotiate, Russia, 2022-05)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, in real-world scenarios, TKGs are often incomplete, highlighting the vital importance of TKG reasoning, which aims to predict future facts by utilizing the temporal information. As illustrated in Figure 1, given the TKGs associated with Entity A at the timestamps of Time I, Time II, and Time III, our objective is to predict a quadruple containing an unknown entity, i.e., (A, negotiate,?, Time IV). To achieve this goal, we can observe a significant structural dependency of facts along the timeline. That is, interactions between Entity A and Entity B at Time I could influence the interaction patterns at Time II, which, in turn, might provide clues for Time III. We also notice that historical events may recur. For instance, Entity A and Entity B had conflicts at both Time I and Time II timestamps. These observations provide us valuable insights into TKG reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the TKG reasoning task, events to be predicted can typically be classified into two main types: historical events and unseen events (Han et al., 2021). Historical events, also known as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1The source code and datasets are available at https://github.com/CGCL-codes/SiMFy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 761, + 236, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 761, + 236, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 761, + 236, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Xuanhua Shi is the corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3825" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3825-3836" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "repetitive pattern, refer to facts that have already occurred in the historical KG sequence. Unseen events refer to events that have not occurred in the historical KG sequence. Many methods (Jin et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021) can predict historical events effectively by modeling the historical KG sequence auto-regressively. However, for unseen events, it is necessary to consider both the information of structural dependency and temporality of entities and relations. Typically, existing works (Liu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022) apply Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) as encoders to capture the structural and temporal information in the historical KG sequence. Then, a translational model, such as ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), is used as a decoder to obtain predicted entities. Despite their effectiveness, these approaches are conceptually and technically complex due to their advanced model architectures. Moreover, these complex methods tend to suffer the issues of low training efficiency and insufficient generalization ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we aim to answer the following research question: Are these complex model architectures indispensable for temporal knowledge graph reasoning? As a solution, we design a Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) to evaluate it against other complex baselines. Specifically, we use a one-layer MLP to jointly model entities and relations, capturing structural and temporal information in TKGs. This allows us to obtain embedding vectors for entities and relations, which are then used to calculate the similarity between queries and candidate entities, resulting in preliminary candidate entity scores. Next, we calculate the historical frequency scores of candidate entities based on their historical KG sequences. Finally, in the inference stage, the two scores mentioned above are combined using a coefficient " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 375, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain the final entity scores. Through extensive experiments comparing it with existing state-of-the-art models, we find that our model can achieve comparable performance while having higher training efficiency and better generalization ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, we conduct a series of empirical studies to investigate the performance of SiMFy and existing complex models under specific conditions. We are the first to analyze the performance of MLP and GNNs in capturing unseen entities. Our findings indicate that MLP performs comparably to GNN in capturing structural dependency infor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mation for the TKG reasoning task. Furthermore, we investigate the question of whether historical frequency information should be incorporated into the model training process, which has not been explored before. Unlike the most current mainstream methods which directly incorporate historical frequency information of entities during training, SiMFy utilizes conceptually simple features to model the repetitive pattern of TKGs, which is fixed in training. Through empirical experiments, we validate the effectiveness of this fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 235, + 517, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 235, + 517, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 235, + 517, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The contributions of this paper are as follows." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 249, + 526, + 491 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 249, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 249, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 249, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We design a simple MLP-based-only model, called SiMFy, which achieves state-of-the-art performance on four widely-used datasets (i.e., ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT), demonstrating the effectiveness of the simple model architecture." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 330, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 330, + 526, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 330, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We have performed extensive experiments to analyze the convergence speed, generalization ability, and training consumption of SiMFy and existing complex models. The empirical evidence demonstrates that a simple model architecture like SiMFy enjoys faster convergence, better generalization ability, and higher efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 439, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The performance of SiMFy could motivate future research to rethink the significance of the simpler model architecture and the potential value of MLP-based models in TKGs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 506, + 395, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 506, + 395, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 506, + 395, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Static KG Reasoning In static knowledge graphs, inference is done to deduce unknown facts from known ones. Existing approaches for inference can be categorized into embedding-based, tensor decomposition-based, and neural network-based. Embedding-based methods, represented by the classic method TransE (Bordes et al., 2013), consider relations as translational transformations. Later models like KG2E (He et al., 2015) optimize the handling of diverse relations and improve model scalability. Tensor decomposition methods represent the graph as a tensor which is then decomposed. Models like RESCAL (Nickel et al., 2011) use this to capture interactions between entities and relations. As for the neural network models like ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018) and KG-BART (Liu et al., 2021), ConvE enhances inference capabilities through deep feature learning and leveraging graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3826" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 518, + 285 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 518, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 518, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 71, + 518, + 285 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7e02844892146d331b38a0ab79a99f7568d3b1d65d48c19785fef52afd4a582c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overall model architecture of SiMFy. Given a query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s, r,?, t + \\Delta t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the Similarity Matching module learns the similarity score between the query and each candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 524, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the Historical Frequency Learning module learns the historical frequency score between them, then the two scores are combined to generate the final probability distribution of entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "structures, and KG-BART utilizes pretrained language models augmented with knowledge graphs to not only enhance inference but also improve the generation of commonsense-reasoned text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Temporal KG Reasoning Temporal knowledge graph inference, which takes into account the temporal evolution of events, generally falls into two categories: interpolation-based and extrapolation-based inference. Interpolation-based inference aims to guess unknown facts within a known time range. TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016) integrates temporal information into the TransE (Bordes et al., 2013) model using recursive neural networks, while HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018) designs a unique hyperplane to embed time into the entity-relation space. TeMP (Hu et al., 2022) addresses time sparsity and variability issues by combining neural message passing and temporal dynamic methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the other hand, extrapolation-based inference, which forecasts unknown future facts, is garnering increasing attention. RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020) employs an encoder and aggregator to model past facts, while HIP (He et al., 2021) utilizes temporal, structural, and repetitive information. xERTE (Han et al., 2021) offers a novel framework for predicting future facts and CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021) introduces a creative copy-mechanism used in natural language generation tasks before. Reinforce" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ment learning is adopted by CluSTeR (Li et al., 2021a), which infers answers from induced clues, and TimeTraveler (Sun et al., 2021), which uses historical knowledge graph snapshots for answer search. CEN (Li et al., 2022) adopts a length-aware convolutional network to model the KG sequence dynamically and GHT (Sun et al., 2022) is the first method to introduce a transformer into the TKG reasoning task. Finally, DA-Net (Liu et al., 2022) and CENET (Xu et al., 2023) propose unique event prediction models. DA-Net learns distributed attention to future events, while CENET distinguishes likely entities for a given query using a historical contrastive learning framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 436, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 436, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 436, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Problem Formulation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 465, + 602 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 465, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 589, + 465, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Temporal Knowledge Graph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Temporal Knowledge Graph (TKG) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a sequence of KGs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\dots ,\\mathcal{G}_t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " arranged in order of their timestamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G} = \\{\\mathcal{E},\\mathcal{R}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stands for the set of entities, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the set of relations. Each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_t = \\{\\mathcal{E}_t,\\mathcal{R}_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}_t\\subseteq \\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_t\\subseteq \\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the sets of entities and relations at timestamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. In " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", facts are represented as quadruples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s,o\\in \\mathcal{E}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r\\in \\mathcal{R}_t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 407, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 407, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 407, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 TKG Reasoning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TKG reasoning seeks to forecast either the subject entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or the object entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the historical" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3827" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "KG sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\dots ,\\mathcal{G}_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . When presented with a query of the form " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(?r,o,t + \\Delta t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , the task is to identify the subject entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , while for a query like " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,?t + \\Delta t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , the aim is to predict the object entity o. We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|\\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{R}|\\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to express the embeddings of all entities and all relations respectively. Boldfaced s, r, o are used to denote the embedding vectors of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s,r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a dimension of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . In our work, we specifically concentrate on the task of object entity prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 164, + 230 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 164, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 164, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Our Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we elaborate our proposed Simple MLP-Frequency-based model (SiMFy) for temporal graph reasoning. As illustrated in Figure 2, SiMFy mainly involves two modules: the Similarity Matching module and the Historical Frequency Learning module. These two modules generate corresponding scores for candidate entities. Afterward, a weight-based inference process is utilized to determine the final result of the reasoning. In the subsequent sections, we will provide a comprehensive introduction to our proposed method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 190, + 410 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 190, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 190, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Similarity Matching" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = (s,r,?,t + \\Delta t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the Similarity Matching module is implemented by one-layer-MLP to calculate the similarity between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and each candidate entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain the matching scores. Specifically, it generates a latent context vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{H}_{s,r} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which scores the similarity of different object entities with the query:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 518, + 290, + 535 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 518, + 290, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 518, + 290, + 535 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {H} _ {s, r} = \\tanh (\\mathbf {W} [ \\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {r} ] + \\mathbf {b}) \\mathbf {E} ^ {T} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "8d621a9f85964aebcb789fc51fcf9aac99ef6dbaad7705a065d3a15e619bdd55.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{s} \\in \\mathbf{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r} \\in \\mathbf{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathbf{s},\\mathbf{r}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the concatenation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We use one-layer-MLP to aggregate the query's information. Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{d \\times 2d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b} \\in \\mathbb{R}^d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are trainable parameters. tanh is the activation function of the layer, then the layer's output is multiplied by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain the final similarity vector, where each element represents the similarity score between the corresponding entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o \\in \\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The learning objective of the similarity matching is to minimize the NCE loss (Gutmann and Hyvarinen, 2010) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 544, + 291, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as described below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 703, + 290, + 736 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 703, + 290, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 703, + 290, + 736 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = - \\sum_ {q} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \\left(o _ {i}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {o _ {j} \\in \\mathcal {E}} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s , r} \\left(o _ {j}\\right)\\right)} (2)", + "image_path": "9d4af95f46be1c3f0e9534b5d07fc986696e6e9eaaef2b6fcbe0a17a05f68644.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the ground truth object entity corresponding to the given query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, we obtain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the following similarity score by utilizing the softmax function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 108, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 108, + 525, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 108, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} \\left(\\mathbf {H} _ {s, r}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "4ee10ce789ba25382b1d12f4794ac3158e5183106219331514f53bc18063dfcf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 476, + 152 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 476, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 476, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Historical Frequency Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q = (s,r,?,t + \\Delta t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the historical KG sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\mathcal{G}_0,\\mathcal{G}_1,\\ldots ,\\mathcal{G}_t\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the Historical Frequency Learning module aims to obtain the historical frequency scores. Specifically, for every timestamp " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^\\prime \\leq t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we first investigate the frequencies of historical entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{t^{\\prime}}^{(s,r)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 251, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 251, + 525, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 331, + 251, + 525, + 282 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "f _ {t ^ {\\prime}} ^ {(s, r)} (o) = \\sum_ {x \\in \\mathcal {G} _ {t ^ {\\prime}}} \\mathbb {I} [ x = (s, r, o, t ^ {\\prime}) ] \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "690ef33cf717bd8130db86aaaefe657653cf502102e3bf46fbc677368ebc27ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{I}[\\cdot ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an indicator function, yielding 1 if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\cdot ]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is true and 0 otherwise. Then we add up the frequency information of all timestamps " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^{\\prime}\\leq t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain the historical frequency information of the query as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 372, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 372, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 372, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {F} _ {t + \\Delta t} ^ {(s, r)} = f _ {0} ^ {(s, r)} + f _ {1} ^ {(s, r)} + \\dots + f _ {t} ^ {(s, r)} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "d4943961b96f735dbf7c640c588ee32e773b8dfe22cc08e97861e1c25a7a34de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{F}_{t + \\Delta t}^{(s,r)}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{E}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{E}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dimensional vector where each element represents the corresponding historical frequency of the candidate object entities. Finally, we obtain the following historical frequency score by utilizing the softmax function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 484, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 484, + 525, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 348, + 484, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (k \\cdot \\mathbf {F} _ {t + \\Delta t} ^ {(s, r)}) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "1b17f50509e60f999f106f05d54a5332d8111aa27c424c45b9fc93d9842129fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 514, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter to balance the extremely small values." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 376, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 376, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 552, + 376, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the inference stage, a coefficient " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha \\in [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is integrated to balance the weight between the similarity score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{sim}^{(s,r)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the historical frequency score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{freq}^{(s,r)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These two scores are merged to determine the final probability distribution of candidate entities, then the model chooses the object with the highest probability as the final prediction, as defined below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 692, + 524, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 692, + 524, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 692, + 524, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \\Delta t) = \\alpha \\cdot S _ {s i m} ^ {(s, r)} (o) + (1 - \\alpha) \\cdot S _ {f r e q} ^ {(s, r)} (o)", + "image_path": "7b02c9bf9f2b45ad43ec50acf8241804ec63ffaead3d5e138a5b2aa057c55ea5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 724, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 724, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 724, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "o _ {t + \\Delta t} = \\arg \\max _ {o \\in \\mathcal {E}} \\mathbf {P} (o | s, r, t + \\Delta t) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "370a3ecd1c4255e3f2f7fcb08b3c9bd39aa22dd18e249b7a0edeffd080c27049.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{P}(o|s,r,t + \\Delta t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{E}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-dimensional vector which stores the final probability of all entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3828" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 103, + 523, + 272 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (raw metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of second-best are underlined." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 103, + 523, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 103, + 523, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 103, + 523, + 272 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelICEWS14 (raw)ICEWS18 (raw)ICEWS05-15 (raw)GDELT (raw)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
RotatE25.7116.4129.0145.1614.536.4715.7831.8619.0110.4221.3536.923.620.522.268.37
ConvE30.3021.3034.4247.8922.8113.6325.8341.4331.4021.5635.7050.9618.3711.2919.3632.13
Conv-TransE31.5022.4634.9850.0323.2214.2626.1341.3430.2820.7933.8049.9519.0711.8520.3233.14
R-GCN28.0319.4231.9544.8315.058.1316.4929.0027.1318.8330.4143.1612.177.4012.3720.63
TTransE12.863.1415.7233.658.441.858.9522.3816.535.5120.7739.265.530.464.9715.37
HyTE16.782.1324.8443.947.413.107.3316.0116.056.5320.2034.726.690.017.5719.06
TA-DistMult26.2216.8329.7245.2316.428.6018.1332.5127.5117.5731.4647.3210.344.4410.4421.63
xERTE32.2324.2936.4148.7627.9819.2632.4346.0038.0728.4543.9257.62----
RE-NET35.7725.9940.1054.8726.1716.4329.8944.3736.8626.2441.8557.6019.6012.0320.5633.89
CyGNet35.0625.7839.0053.4224.8015.3728.2943.4636.2425.6541.5456.2617.9911.1019.0331.26
CENET36.3627.3240.0254.3926.4317.5729.4444.1238.7428.5743.3958.37----
GHT37.4027.7741.6656.1927.4018.0830.7645.7641.5030.7946.8562.7320.0412.6821.3734.42
CEN36.3226.8340.2054.9326.7017.3430.3344.8436.6626.2741.0457.1219.2711.9620.6033.50
RE-GCN37.5827.4941.9257.6927.9318.1831.6347.0737.7926.8642.9158.9319.0712.1620.2032.39
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.1828.6518.9932.4547.6241.8331.3047.0262.1121.3313.3823.1636.87
", + "image_path": "cd8369bdb698d914db936fcff39c2a343c4cc3bbac711644a26e9cbc4912b537.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 155, + 306 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 155, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 155, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 189, + 327 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 189, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 189, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dataset During the evaluation, we adopt four publicly available TKG datasets: ICEWS14 (Li et al., 2021b), ICEWS05-15 (García-Durán et al., 2018), ICEWS18 (Jin et al., 2020), and GDELT (Leetaru and Schrodt, 2013). The first three datasets which originate from the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (Boschee et al., 2015) (ICEWS) comprise a diverse range of political facts accompanied by time annotations, such as (European Union, Praise or endorse, Kosovo, 2018/09/29). Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) is a much larger dataset that records data every 15 minutes. Following the dataset split strategy proposed by (Jin et al., 2020), we divide these datasets into training, validation, and test sets, adhering to an " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 332, + 291, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " proportion by timestamps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation Metrics We evaluate our approach to the task of entity prediction, where the objective is to predict the absent object entity for a given entity-relation pair, assessing whether the ground truth entity ranks higher than other entities. We present the results in terms of Hits@1/3/10 and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During the evaluation stage, two settings are commonly employed: filtered setting and raw setting. In terms of the filtered setting, for each query, we treat all triples absent from the training, validation, and test sets to be negative samples. This implies that, when computing rankings, we disregard all triples known to be true." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast, the raw setting does not involve fil" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 526, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tering any triples, meaning that all possible triples are considered when calculating rankings. In the context of TKG reasoning task, each quadruple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,r,o,t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 293, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is unique due to the inclusion of timestamp information. This suggests that the filtered setting holds little practical relevance when evaluating model performance. Therefore, we adopt the raw setting for our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 527, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines We assess how well our SiMFy model performs in comparison to three other types of previously proposed models: (1) Static reasoning methods, including RotatE (Sun et al., 2019), ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019), ConvE (Dettmers et al., 2018), and R-GCN (Schlichtkrull et al., 2018). (2) Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods, including TTransE (Jiang et al., 2016), HyTE (Dasgupta et al., 2018), and TA-DistMult (García-Durán et al., 2018). (3) Dynamic extrapolated reasoning methods, including xERTE (Han et al., 2021), RE-NET (Jin et al., 2020), CyGNet (Zhu et al., 2021), CENET (Xu et al., 2023), GHT (Sun et al., 2022), CEN (Li et al., 2022) and RE-GCN (Li et al., 2021b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 441, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 441, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 441, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 759 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 759 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the baselines of CyGNet, CENET, CEN, and RE-GCN, we rerun these models using their open-source code on four datasets with their default parameter settings. Since the code of GHT is not open-source, we provide the findings from their publication. It should be noted that we utilize the offline version of CEN to ensure fairness. Some results of static and dynamic interpolated reasoning approaches are adopted from (Li et al., 2021b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement our SiMFy model using PyTorch." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3829" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 90, + 286, + 153 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 276, + 82 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 276, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 276, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Ablation study of SiMFy on ICEWS14" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 90, + 286, + 153 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 90, + 286, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 90, + 286, + 153 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy w.o. HF35.9726.0340.8555.39
SiMFy w.o. SM31.1824.0734.5144.34
", + "image_path": "cd1a266725030d37c5d7f32707bd67dc2cfa3b59865f5678e360c9e6d4a9317d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The dimension of entity and relation embeddings is set to 200. We use Adam (Kingma and Ba, 2015) as the optimizer, with a learning rate of 0.001 and a weight decay of 0.00001. The hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 2 and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 174, + 291, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 0.001. The batch size is set to 1024 and the training epoch is limited to 30. All experiments were conducted on a Tesla V100." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 163, + 290 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 163, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 163, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Model Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 shows the experimental results of SiMFy compared with other baselines on four datasets. It is clear that SiMFy performs better than other baselines in most cases. For static reasoning methods, their results are very poor because they do not consider temporal information. Dynamic interpolated reasoning methods like TTransE only encode time information without considering the evolution of temporal KG sequences, so they cannot achieve good results. It is worth noting that for GCN-based models CEN and RE-GCN, as well as the models most pertinent to our model, RE-NET, CyGNet, and CENET, SiMFy outperforms them. This demonstrates the effectiveness of simple models based on MLPs and shows that MLPs can to some extent replace GCNs. Please refer to Section 6.3 for a more in-depth analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 167, + 552 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 167, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 167, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform ablation experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset to better understand the impact of each SiMFy module, and the results are displayed in Table 2. SiMFy w.o. HF refers to SiMFy without the Historical Frequency Learning module, while SiMFy w.o. SM represents SiMFy without the Similarity Matching module. It can be observed that SiMFy w.o. HF performs better than SiMFy w.o. SM. This is because the Similarity Matching module captures many unseen events in the TKGs, which also demonstrates the ability of MLP in understanding the structural dependencies of events. Therefore, SiMFy w.o. SM, which only considers historical repetitive patterns, results in a significant drop of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "21.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in terms of MRR and Hits@10 respectively compared to SiMFy. Despite" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "having some capability to handle historical events, SiMFy w.o. HF also experiences a drop of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in performance, which further confirms the effectiveness of the Historical Frequency Learning module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 141, + 384, + 153 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 141, + 384, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 141, + 384, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 161, + 526, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 161, + 526, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 161, + 526, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further illustrate 1) SiMFy's ability to predict unseen entities by capturing the structural dependency information of KGs, and 2) SiMFy's ability to predict repetitive events using historical frequency, we present two cases in the ICEWS18 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 527, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 527, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 231, + 527, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- In the first case, the query is (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (India). However, upon investigating the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India)) has not occurred before. This indicates that there is no repetitive pattern for the quadruple (Dharamvira Gandhi, Criticize or denounce, Government (India), t), making it an unseen event with Government (India) as the corresponding unseen entity. Nevertheless, due to SiMFy's extraction of structural dependency information from the historical KG sequence, we find that the candidate entity Government (India) appears as the top first in the ranking list generated by the model. This indicates that SiMFy has successfully captured the correct unseen entity, despite its absence in the historical KGs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 527, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 527, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 488, + 527, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- In the second case, the query is (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, ?, t), and the correct objective entity is Government (Croatia). By analyzing the historical KG sequence of this query, we find that the triple (Zdravko Maric, Make statement, Government (Croatia)) has the highest frequency of occurrence, significantly surpassing other cases. SiMFy, utilizing the learned historical frequency information, recognizes this repetitive pattern and memorizes it. As a result, in the final ranking list generated by the model, the correct answer Government (Croatia) occupies the top position. This aligns with our real-world understanding that Zdravko Maric served as the Minister of Finance in the Croatian government, making statements on behalf of the government frequently." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 515, + 735 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 515, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 720, + 515, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 More Empirical Results and Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we show more empirical results and analysis to reveal the strengths of our proposed SiMFy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3830" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 512, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 499, + 82 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 499, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 69, + 499, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The comparison results of the MLP and GCN-based models' ability to predict unseen events" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 512, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 512, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 90, + 512, + 170 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelICEWS14 unseenICEWS18 unseenICEWS05-15 unseen
MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10MRRHits@3Hits@10
RGCN+ConvTransE13.9014.9226.6011.1511.5421.9012.5613.3425.03
RGCN+MLP14.1015.0326.9010.7011.0320.8613.2113.9525.86
MLP15.5317.0130.9711.2811.5922.9114.0015.0627.65
", + "image_path": "a1fb5235425d545f38a739b3918d2307300b2daebf98e1a6b152ac943defc0e2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 194, + 283, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 194, + 283, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 194, + 283, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 194, + 283, + 349 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "312a46c2d692275cde59d7b60c065e6d6e2743becc84f7e8ea635dd84f9ce1ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 362, + 277, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 362, + 277, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 362, + 277, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Time consumption of different models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 399, + 279, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 399, + 279, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 399, + 279, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Convergence Speed and Generalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To gain a deeper understanding of the model's performance, we will closely examine the dynamics of both training MRR and evaluation MRR. Following (Cong et al., 2023), we will also discuss the important generalization gap (the absolute difference between the MRR scores obtained during training and evaluation) of different models. In addition to SiMFy, we also use four existing complex baseline models, including CyGNet, RE-GCN, CENET, and CEN, which are most relevant to our work, as experimental comparisons. Moreover, based on RGCN, we also reconstruct two new GCN-based models as our comparative baselines. The first one is RGCN+ConvTransE, where ConvTransE (Shang et al., 2019) is used as the decoder. The second one is RGCN+MLP, using MLP as the decoder. Figure 4 illustrates the efficacy of the models on the most representative ICEWS05-15 dataset, from which the following conclusions can be drawn:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- As the slope change of the training MRR curve can reflect the convergence speed of the model (i.e., a slope close to 0 indicates model convergence), we can see that our model always converges after several epochs, indicating a very fast convergence speed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- After each epoch, we save separate models and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 191, + 525, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 191, + 525, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 191, + 525, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "evaluate their performance on the test set. Figure 4b illustrates that our model not only achieves the highest MRR but also maintains stability and smoothness in the curve after several epochs. In contrast, the MRR curves of other baselines show varying degrees of oscillation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 272, + 525, + 488 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 272, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 272, + 525, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 272, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The generalization ability of a model refers to its performance on unseen data, that is, the adaptability of the model to new data. Therefore, the smaller the generalization gap, the better the model's generalization ability. As shown in Figure 4c, our model has the smallest generalization gap, showing its strong generalization ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Combining these three figures, we can also observe an interesting phenomenon. Models based on GCN, represented by CEN (Li et al., 2022), even if their performance on the test set fails to enhance after numerous epochs, their MRR on the training set keeps rising. This means that these GCN-based models have overfitting problems, which is also reflected in the increasing generalization gap." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 444, + 511 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 444, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 444, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Low Time Consumption" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 516, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared to other complex models, SiMFy has much lower training time consumption because the model parameter numbers of SiMFy are much smaller. This could be attributed to the concise and effective model structure of SiMFy. Taking the typical GCN-based method as an example, our SiMFy is simply composed of an MLP layer that maps the input embedding to the output embedding. The GCN-based models also perform the multi-step propagation operation, which will significantly increase the model parameters, especially when the depth of the GCN is increased." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, and ICEWS05-15 benchmarks, we calculate the average training time consumption of our model SiMFy and other baselines over 30 epochs. As shown in Figure 3, the time cost is highest for the ICEWS05-15 dataset, followed by the ICEWS18 dataset, and the lowest for the ICEWS14 dataset. However, on all three" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3831" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 223, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 223, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 223, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 223, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b5bf764ae57694fd60c6773a5afbe78f203dd5d9a131e56c28a4380915221b2e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 175, + 213, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 175, + 213, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 175, + 213, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 68, + 367, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 68, + 367, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 68, + 367, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 68, + 367, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "068248319950fac9cac2513283b89c66e9902d8840a1beff8fcab9f6fe5225c9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 244, + 175, + 349, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 244, + 175, + 349, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 244, + 175, + 349, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 68, + 511, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 68, + 511, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 68, + 511, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 68, + 511, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fcb7445feeb6b54e8d6fabd30c1a75602ebd0fb4271493b773907e2cd35aacc0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 373, + 175, + 509, + 186 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 373, + 175, + 509, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 373, + 175, + 509, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "datasets, SiMFy exhibits the lowest time consumption compared to other baselines during the training process, making it more efficient and greatly improving resource utilization. Furthermore, we can observe that the training time consumption of SiMFy does not exhibit significant fluctuations across different datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 251, + 358 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 251, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 251, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Ability to Capture Unseen Events" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 290, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 361, + 290, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To predict the unseen events that do not appear in the historical KG sequence, a natural idea is using the historical evolutionary information of other events that interact with them, which is also known as the event structure dependency information. The mainstream view is that GCN can better capture this structural dependence, interestingly, we find that MLP and GCN have similar abilities to capture unseen events. Therefore, given the high training cost of GCN, we doubt whether it is necessary to apply it to TKG reasoning task. We collect all unseen events from the test set for the three ICEWS datasets, as indicated in Table 3, and then we evaluate the MLP module and the GCN, respectively. The results indicate that the performance of MLP is even slightly superior to that of GCN, which also validates the effectiveness of our MLP-based model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 645, + 279, + 706 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 289, + 635 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 289, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 289, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Comparative experiments of frequency on ICEWS14" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 645, + 279, + 706 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 645, + 279, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 645, + 279, + 706 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
MLP-F.F.39.5429.5644.5659.18
MLP-ONLY35.9726.0340.8555.39
MLP-COPY35.9626.5440.2054.02
", + "image_path": "7cf07f1ae1dd7c0734f339d3eed9d176cb342ecdbe989eb9c56b9ad608f1fd23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 229, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 229, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 229, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.4 Fixed Frequency in Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SiMFy utilizes the historical frequency information of events only during the inference stage" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 323, + 243, + 502, + 375 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 524, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 524, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 195, + 524, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap for the 30 training epochs on ICEWS05-15. Results on other ICEWS datasets can be found in Appendix A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 243, + 502, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 243, + 502, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 243, + 502, + 375 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5e33fe4baa9729863e2155c358cd2def4585208f132b6f8c5690bf26ae6ee5bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 384, + 498, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 384, + 498, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 384, + 498, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Training time in first 10 epochs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 435, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(fixed-frequency in training). However, many existing state-of-the-art methods, like CENET and CyGNet, combine event embeddings with historical frequency during the training process and iteratively update the model parameters. To validate which approach is more beneficial for the TKG reasoning task, we conduct comparative experiments on the ICEWS14 dataset by adopting the copy-mechanism-based learning strategy used in CyGNet and CENET. The results can be found in Table 4, MLP-ONLY consists of only the MLP module, MLP-F.F. adopts the fixed-frequency strategy during training, and MLP-COPY represents the model that incorporates the copy mechanism. It can be observed that MLP-F.F. outperforms MLP-COPY significantly, while MLP-COPY performs even slightly worse than the original MLP-ONLY. This suggests that MLP-COPY fails to effectively incorporate historical frequency information during the training process. Furthermore, by considering Figure 5, we can observe that MLP-COPY not only fails to enhance the model performance, but also significantly prolongs the training time for each epoch. This indirectly confirms the superiority of the fixed-frequency strategy adopted by SiMFy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3832" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 246, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 246, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 246, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.5 Discussion on the Depth of MLP" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 291, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SiMFy uses a simple one-layer MLP to draw the final prediction. We also want to figure out whether the performance of the model will improve or worsen when the one-layer MLP is replaced with some deeper or more complicated neural structure. To answer this question, we conduct experiments to replace the one-layer MLP with deeper ones. The experimental results on the ICEWS14 dataset are presented in Table 5. From this table, we can see that as the structure of the model becomes more complex, its performance has hardly changed. This is because the complex model structure, while increasing computational costs, does not better capture the evolving information of entities and relations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 334, + 295, + 407 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 300, + 290, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparative experiments on the depth of MLP on ICEWS14" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 334, + 295, + 407 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 334, + 295, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 334, + 295, + 407 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
SiMFy-1MLP39.5429.5644.5659.18
SiMFy-2MLP39.4929.7443.9758.58
SiMFy-3MLP39.2929.7443.4658.20
SiMFy-RNN+MLP39.2729.4543.8958.36
", + "image_path": "3717e0c72af41e77e4e68222df2b061ee97c46fc0c24f6139fe5c6b1a7c7fc3b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 147, + 447 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 147, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 147, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we have proposed a new model, called SiMFy, for the TKG reasoning task. SiMFy is a conceptually straightforward method that simply combines MLP and historical frequency to model the temporal events in the TKGs. The experimental results demonstrate that SiMFy not only outperforms many existing complex methods but also exhibits faster convergence speed and better generalization ability. Our findings suggest that a well-designed MLP-based model, such as SiMFy, can effectively address the limitations faced by complex architectures, making it a practical and efficient solution for the TKG reasoning task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 643, + 131, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 643, + 131, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 643, + 131, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One limitation of this paper is that no in-depth exploration of the potential mutual influence between historical events and unseen events is considered, which means that events that have been repeatedly happening in the sequence of historical KGs may not happen in the future, and instead, new unseen events will take place. Another limitation lies in that the time span for calculating the frequency of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "historical events is too long, and a more precise time window is needed to better capture the long- and short-term evolutionary patterns of events." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 122, + 406, + 137 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 122, + 406, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 122, + 406, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 525, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 525, + 197 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 144, + 525, + 197 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant 2020AAA0108501, and the Key Program of Hubei under Grant JD2023008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 362, + 234 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 362, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 362, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 241, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 241, + 525, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 241, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Piero Andrea Bonatti, Stefan Decker, Axel Polleres, and Valentina Presutti. 2019. Knowledge graphs: New directions for knowledge representation on the semantic web (dagstuhl seminar 18371). In *Dagstuhl reports*, volume 8. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 317, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 317, + 525, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 317, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto García-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, pages 2787-2795." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 392, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 392, + 525, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 392, + 525, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elizabeth Boschee, Jennifer Lautenschlager, Sean O'Brien, Steve Shellman, James Starz, and Michael Ward. 2015. Icecs coded event data. *Harvard Data-verse*, 12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 446, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weilin Cong, Si Zhang, Jian Kang, Baichuan Yuan, Hao Wu, Xin Zhou, Hanghang Tong, and Mehrdad Mahdavi. 2023. Do we really need complicated model architectures for temporal networks? In Proceedings of The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 532, + 525, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 532, + 525, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 532, + 525, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shib Sankar Dasgupta, Swayambhu Nath Ray, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2018. Hyte: Hyperplane-based temporally aware knowledge graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 2001-2011." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 618, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 618, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 618, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Pasquale Minervini, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Convolutional 2d knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), the 30th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-18), and the 8th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-18), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 2-7, 2018, pages 1811-1818." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alberto García-Durán, Sebastijan Dumancic, and Mathias Niepert. 2018. Learning sequence encoders for temporal knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3833" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 4816-4821." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Gutmann and Aapo Hyvarinen. 2010. Noise-contrastive estimation: A new estimation principle for unnormalized statistical models. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 297-304. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 290, + 244 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 290, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 290, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Han, Peng Chen, Yunpu Ma, and Volker Tresp. 2021. Explainable subgraph reasoning for forecasting on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 290, + 320 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 290, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 290, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shizhu He, Kang Liu, Guoliang Ji, and Jun Zhao. 2015. Learning to represent knowledge graphs with gaussian embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, October 19 - 23, 2015, pages 623-632." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 329, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongquan He, Peng Zhang, Luchen Liu, Qi Liang, Wenyuan Zhang, and Chuang Zhang. 2021. Hip network: Historical information passing network for extrapolation reasoning on temporal knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 1915-1921." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiwei Hu, Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto, Zhiliang Xiang, Xiaoli Li, Ru Li, and Jeff Z. Pan. 2022. Type-aware embeddings for multi-hop reasoning over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 3078-3084." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 290, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 290, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tingsong Jiang, Tianyu Liu, Tao Ge, Lei Sha, Baobao Chang, Sujian Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2016. Towards time-aware knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1715-1724." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 291, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Woojeong Jin, Meng Qu, Xisen Jin, and Xiang Ren. 2020. Recurrent event network: Autoregressive structure inference over temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6669-6683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 663, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kalev Leetaru and Philip A. Schrodt. 2013. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979-2012. In Proceedings of the ISA Annual Convention, volume 2, pages 1-49. CiteSeer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zixuan Li, Saiping Guan, Xiaolong Jin, Weihua Peng, Yajuan Lyu, Yong Zhu, Long Bai, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, and Xueqi Cheng. 2022. Complex evolutionary pattern learning for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 290-296." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 525, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Saiping Guan, Wei Li, Jiafeng Guo, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021a. Search from history and reason for future: Two-stage reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4732-4743, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 357 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zixuan Li, Xiaolong Jin, Wei Li, Saiping Guan, Jiafeng Guo, Huawei Shen, Yuzhuo Wang, and Xueqi Cheng. 2021b. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on evolutionary representation learning. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 408-417." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 367, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kangzheng Liu, Feng Zhao, Hongxu Chen, Yicong Li, Guandong Xu, and Hai Jin. 2022. Da-net: Distributed attention network for temporal knowledge graph reasoning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 1289-1298." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ye Liu, Yao Wan, Lifang He, Hao Peng, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. KG-BART: knowledge graph-augmented BART for generative commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 6418-6425." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 525, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 564, + 525, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maximilian Nickel, Volker Tresp, and Hans-Peter Kriegel. 2011. A three-way model for collective learning on multi-relational data. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2011, Bellevue, Washington, USA, June 28 - July 2, 2011, pages 809-816." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Apoory Saxena, Aditay Tripathi, and Partha P. Talukdar. 2020. Improving multi-hop question answering over knowledge graphs using knowledge base embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4498-4507." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 15th International Conference, ESWC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3834" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 72, + 291, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, volume 10843 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 593-607. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 225 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 291, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chao Shang, Yun Tang, Jing Huang, Jinbo Bi, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2019. End-to-end structure-aware convolutional networks for knowledge base completion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, January 27 - February 1, 2019, pages 3060-3067." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 311 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 233, + 291, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haohai Sun, Shangyi Geng, Jialun Zhong, Han Hu, and Kun He. 2022. Graph Hawkes transformer for extrapolated reasoning on temporal knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7481-7493, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haohai Sun, Jialun Zhong, Yunpu Ma, Zhen Han, and Kun He. 2021. Timetraveler: Reinforcement learning for temporal knowledge graph forecasting. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 8306-8319." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 291, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 291, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 405, + 291, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Sun, Zhi-Hong Deng, Jian-Yun Nie, and Jian Tang. 2019. Rotate: Knowledge graph embedding by relational rotation in complex space. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 291, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 481, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guoren Wang, Yue Zeng, Rong-Hua Li, Hongchao Qin, Xuanhua Shi, Yubin Xia, Xuequn Shang, and Liang Hong. 2023. Temporal graph cube. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pages 1-15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 291, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 544, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuxiang Wang, Arijit Khan, Tianxing Wu, Jiahui Jin, and Haijiang Yan. 2020. Semantic guided and response times bounded top-k similarity search over knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2020, Dallas, TX, USA, April 20-24, 2020, pages 445-456. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 291, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 291, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 291, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lijie Xie, Zhaoming Hu, Xingjuan Cai, Wensheng Zhang, and Jinjun Chen. 2021. Explainable recommendation based on knowledge graph and multi-objective optimization. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7:1241-1252." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Xu, Junjie Ou, Hui Xu, and Luoyi Fu. 2023. Temporal knowledge graph reasoning with historical contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2023, Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2023, Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2023, Washington, DC, USA, February 7-14, 2023, pages 4765-4773." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 526, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 526, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cunchao Zhu, Muhao Chen, Changjun Fan, Guangquan Cheng, and Yan Zhang. 2021. Learning from history: Modeling temporal knowledge graphs with sequential copy-generation networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 4732-4740." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 377, + 194 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 377, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 377, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 201, + 468, + 214 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 201, + 468, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 201, + 468, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Results with Filtered Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 525, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 525, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 525, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6 provides the experimental results (with filtered metrics) of SiMFy compared with other baselines on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 429, + 295 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 429, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 429, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Statistics of Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 300, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 300, + 525, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 300, + 525, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The detailed statistics of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets are presented in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 467, + 362 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 467, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 467, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Proportion of Unseen Events" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 366, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 366, + 525, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 366, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct a statistical analysis on the proportion of unseen events in the test set of the ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The results are presented in Table 8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 520, + 456 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 520, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 429, + 520, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Supplementary Figures on Convergence Speed and Generalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 525, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide the missing figures on the ICEWS14 and ICEWS18 datasets to supplement the Section 6.1. The results on ICEWS14 are shown in Figure 6 and the results on ICEWS18 are shown in Figure 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3835" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 107, + 520, + 200 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 525, + 100 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 525, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 74, + 525, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Experimental results of the entity prediction task (filtered metrics) on ICEWS14, ICEWS18, ICEWS05-15, and GDELT datasets. The best results are boldfaced and the ones of the second-best ones are underlined." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 107, + 520, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 107, + 520, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 107, + 520, + 200 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelICEWS14 (filtered)ICEWS18 (filtered)ICEWS05-15 (filtered)GDELT (filtered)
MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10MRRHits@1Hits@3Hits@10
xERTE40.7932.7045.6757.3029.3121.0333.5146.4846.6237.8452.3163.92----
RE-NET45.7138.4249.0659.1242.9336.1945.4755.8042.9731.2646.8563.4740.1232.4343.4053.80
CyGNet48.6341.7752.5060.2946.6940.5849.8257.1457.0050.0661.5168.4751.5645.6354.8660.96
CENET52.8747.9454.4262.7950.0946.0251.0557.85--------
CEN37.3428.0441.0955.7628.2119.1031.8045.8937.5327.5741.4957.5119.7112.4720.9833.82
RE-GCN38.2728.4042.5457.8829.2119.7932.7747.5438.6828.2643.4459.1129.4621.7432.0143.62
SiMFy54.8147.9958.5466.6546.8739.2951.0060.2360.7653.4365.6272.9447.4040.1750.8160.46
", + "image_path": "762932c53aa9a10ce80ab4ded0359cfeec27e05eebfbfef06eb2d3dd5c340513.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 235, + 516, + 328 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 214, + 363, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 214, + 363, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 214, + 363, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Statistics of the datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 235, + 516, + 328 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 235, + 516, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 235, + 516, + 328 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetEntitiesRelationsTrainValidTestTimestampGranularity
ICEWS147128230748458514737136524 hours
ICEWS1823033256373018459954954530424 hours
ICEWS05-15104882513688684630246159401724 hours
GDELT76912401734399238765305241275115 minutes
", + "image_path": "f5c1a8cb9fd1a297e6b1ad7e304dd4829ad8d9b1ba7538ab5ea303132dd1d90b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 87, + 364, + 511, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 343, + 379, + 356 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 343, + 379, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 213, + 343, + 379, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: The proportion of unseen events" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 364, + 511, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 364, + 511, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 364, + 511, + 456 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTestUnseen EventsRepetitive EventsProportion of Unseen Events
ICEWS1473713511386047%
ICEWS1849545245602498549%
ICEWS05-1546159145923156731%
GDELT30524110706219817935%
", + "image_path": "05f0adbb7c6c2a35b11fe9fa0e59946f1959c20c6c509e0b3db4bbb53aeaed24.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 470, + 223, + 574 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 470, + 223, + 574 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 470, + 223, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 470, + 223, + 574 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c2f64673be9becb1e940bb348148727db440c63890f3cc881b5482847c973d9e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 577, + 213, + 589 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 577, + 213, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 577, + 213, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 470, + 366, + 573 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 470, + 366, + 573 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 470, + 366, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 470, + 366, + 573 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0fbf8110fcbde77b51359289c47ddc063e9e011c176df624698d212751e12568.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 577, + 350, + 589 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 577, + 350, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 577, + 350, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 471, + 511, + 573 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 471, + 511, + 573 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 471, + 511, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 471, + 511, + 573 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ca4b8cda15dfa6089c563dd8127cdf3149ac4d4892d538a9af1945d8545f95dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 577, + 509, + 589 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 577, + 509, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 577, + 509, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 625, + 222, + 728 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 598, + 483, + 612 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 598, + 483, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 598, + 483, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS14" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 625, + 222, + 728 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 625, + 222, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 625, + 222, + 728 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0bb30b091a90c69a8742edf26fde7f86882fdae9e2514c6aded89f3b937d205e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 732, + 213, + 743 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 732, + 213, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 732, + 213, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Comparison on training MRR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 752, + 482, + 766 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 752, + 482, + 766 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 752, + 482, + 766 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Comparison on the training MRR, test MRR, and generalization gap on ICEWS18" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 625, + 366, + 728 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 625, + 366, + 728 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 625, + 366, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 625, + 366, + 728 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ea8a706d97c0b45130fb3565c509c4c14bd4185ab4026fb082f6a272c4e4eeea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 732, + 350, + 743 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 732, + 350, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 243, + 732, + 350, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Comparison on test MRR" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 626, + 511, + 728 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 626, + 511, + 728 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 626, + 511, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 626, + 511, + 728 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "41a2a193505ccacb2a47336fc3765d786bcf402ddef4a2b204adf1484aaf3ea8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 732, + 509, + 743 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 732, + 509, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 732, + 509, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Comparison on generalization gap" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3836" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_content_list.json b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c1f557ffc03d5bcac79728f1e8810112546d062 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1810 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SimCKP: Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 136, + 89, + 860, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Minseok Choi\\* Chaeheon Gwak \\* Seho Kim \\* Si Hyeong Kim \\* Jaegul Choo KAIST AI Naver Webtoon AI {minseok.choi, jchoo}@kaist.ac.kr {ch.gwak, seho.kim, typekim}@webtoonscorp.com", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 134, + 845, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Keyphrase generation (KG) aims to generate a set of summarizing words or phrases given a source document, while keyphrase extraction (KE) aims to identify them from the text. Because the search space is much smaller in KE, it is often combined with KG to predict keyphrases that may or may not exist in the corresponding document. However, current unified approaches adopt sequence labeling and maximization-based generation that primarily operate at a token level, falling short in observing and scoring keyphrases as a whole. In this work, we propose SIMCKP, a simple contrastive learning framework that consists of two stages: 1) An extractor-generator that extracts keyphrases by learning context-aware phrase-level representations in a contrastive manner while also generating keyphrases that do not appear in the document; 2) A reranker that adapts scores for each generated phrase by likewise aligning their representations with the corresponding document. Experimental results on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, which outperforms the state-of-the-art models by a significant margin. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 665, + 258, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Keyphrase prediction (KP) is a task of identifying a set of relevant words or phrases that capture the main ideas or topics discussed in a given document. Prior studies have defined keyphrases that appear in the document as present keyphrases and the opposites as absent keyphrases. High-quality keyphrases are beneficial for various applications such as information retrieval (Kim et al., 2013), text summarization (Pasunuru and Bansal, 2018), and translation (Tang et al., 2016). KP methods are generally divided into keyphrase extraction (KE) (Witten", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 690, + 489, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/99f50a315b04b584fda9ae8b93a862655bb5da13c50ac90087811a5974f6768e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Title: Nonlinear magnetostatic BEM formulation using one unknown double layer charge
Document: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to solve generic magnetostatic problems by BEM, by studying how to use a boundary integral equation (BIE) with the double layer charge as unknown derived from the scalar potential. Design/methodology/approach - Since the double layer charge produces only the potential gap without disturbing the normal magnetic flux density, the field is accurately formulated even by one BIE with one unknown. Once the double layer charge is determined, Biot-Savart's law gives easily the magnetic flux density. Findings - The BIE using double layer charge is capable of treating robustly geometrical singularities at edges and corners. It is also capable of solving the problems with extremely high magnetic permeability. Originality/value - The proposed BIE contains only the double layer charge while the conventional equations derived from the scalar potential contain the single and double layer charges as unknowns. In the multiply connected problems, the excitation potential in the material is derived from the magnetomotive force to represent the circulating fields due to multiply connected exciting currents.
Present keyphrases: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected problem, scalar potential, integral equations}
Absent keyphrases: {nonlinear magnetostatic analysis, electric current}
Sequence labeling result: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected, scalar potential}
MLE result: {magnetostatic energy analysis, magnetomotive force, electric current}
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 250, + 880, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: An example of keyphrase prediction. Present and absent keyphrases are colored blue and red, respectively. Overlapping keyphrases are in bold.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 882, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009; Caragea et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Alzaidy et al., 2019) and keyphrase generation (KG) models (Meng et al., 2017; Ye and Wang, 2018; Chan et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020b; Yuan et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022), where the former only extracts present keyphrases from the text and the latter generates both present and absent keyphrases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, several methods integrating KE and KG have been proposed (Chen et al., 2019a; Liu et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021, 2022b). These models predict present keyphrases using an extractor and absent keyphrases using a generator, thereby effectively exploiting a relatively small search space in extraction. However, current integrated models suffer from two limitations. First, they employ sequence labeling models that predict the probability of each token being a constituent of a present keyphrase, where such token-level predictions may be a problem when the target keyphrase is fairly long or overlapping. As shown in Figure 1, the sequence labeling model makes an incomplete prediction for the term \"multi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Work done during an internship at Naver Webtoon.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 877, + 453, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Our code is publicly available at https://github. com/brightjade/SimCKP.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 891, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3003", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3003-3015", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 957, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ply connected problem\" because only the tokens for \"multiply connected\" have yielded a high probability. We also observe that the model is prone to miss the keyphrase \"integral equations\" every time because it overlaps with another keyphrase \"boundary integral equation\" in the text. Secondly, integrated or even purely generative models are usually based on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), which predicts the probability of each token given the past seen tokens. This approach scores the most probable text sequence the highest, but as pointed out by Zhao et al. (2022), keyphrases from the maximum-probability sequence are not necessarily aligned with target keyphrases. In Figure 1, the MLE-based model predicts \"magnetostatic energy analysis\", which is semantically similar to but not aligned with the target keyphrase \"nonlinear magnetostatic analysis\". This may be a consequence of greedy search, which can be remedied by finding the target keyphrases across many beams during beam search, but it would also create a large number of noisy keyphrases being generated in the top- $k$ predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing KE approaches based on representation learning may address the above limitations (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). These methods first mine candidates that are likely to be keyphrases in the document and then rank them based on the relevance between the document and keyphrase embeddings, which have shown promising results. Nevertheless, these techniques only tackle present keyphrases from the text, which may mitigate the overlapping keyphrase problem from sequence labeling, but they are not suitable for handling MLE and the generated keyphrases.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 461, + 489, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose a two-stage contrastive learning framework that leverages context-aware phrase-level representations on both extraction and generation. First, we train an encoder-decoder network that extracts present keyphrases on top of the encoder and generates absent keyphrases through the decoder. The model learns to extract present keyphrases by maximizing the agreement between the document and present keyphrase representations. Specifically, we consider the document and its corresponding present keyphrases as positive pairs and the rest of the candidate phrases as negative pairs. Note that these negative candidate phrases are mined from the document using", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 694, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a heuristic algorithm (see Section 4.1). The model pulls keyphrase embeddings to the document embedding and pushes away the rest of the candidates in a contrastive manner. Then during inference, top- $k$ keyphrases that are semantically close to the document are predicted. After the model has finished training, it generates candidates for absent keyphrases. These candidates are simply constructed by overgenerating with a large beam size for beam search decoding. To reduce the noise introduced by beam search, we train a reranker that allocates new scores for the generated phrases via another round of contrastive learning, where this time the agreement between the document and absent keyphrase representations is maximized. Overall, major contributions of our work can be summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 884, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We present a contrastive learning framework that learns to extract and generate keyphrases by building context-aware phrase-level representations.", + "- We develop a reranker based on the semantic alignment with the document to improve the absent keyphrase prediction performance.", + "- To the best of our knowledge, we introduce contrastive learning to a unified keyphrase extraction and generation task for the first time and empirically show its effectiveness across multiple KP benchmarks." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 363, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 583, + 663, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Keyphrase Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 609, + 727, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Keyphrase extraction focuses on predicting salient phrases that are present in the source document. Existing approaches can be broadly divided into two-step extraction methods and sequence labeling models. Two-step methods first determine a set of candidate phrases from the text using different heuristic rules (Hulth, 2003; Medelyan et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016). These candidate phrases are then sorted and ranked by either supervised algorithms (Witten et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009) or unsupervised learning (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bougouin et al., 2013; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). Another line of work is sequence labeling, where a model learns to predict the likelihood of each word being a keyphrase word (Zhang et al., 2016; Luan et al., 2017; Gollapalli et al., 2017; Alzaidy et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 630, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3004", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5dd61f5feee02e6b4f9265f486a6ed042b0140eca1966fa78b4cd17f507e2dd9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: A contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In the first stage (left), the model learns to maximize the relevance between present keyphrases and their corresponding document while generating absent keyphrases. After training, the model generates candidates for absent keyphrases and sends them to the second stage (right), where the candidates are reranked after their relevance with the document has been maximized/minimized." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 884, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Keyphrase Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 296, + 337, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The task of keyphrase generation is introduced to predict both present and absent keyphrases. Meng et al. (2017) first proposed CopyRNN, a seq2seq framework with attention and copy mechanism under the ONE2ONE paradigm, where a model is trained to generate a single keyphrase per document. However, due to the problem of having to fix the number of predictions, Yuan et al. (2020) proposed the ONE2SEQ paradigm where a model learns to predict a dynamic number of keyphrases by concatenating them into a single sequence. Several ONE2SEQ-based models have been proposed using semi-supervised learning (Ye and Wang, 2018), reinforcement learning (Chan et al., 2019), adversarial training (Swaminathan et al., 2020), hierarchical decoding (Chen et al., 2020b), graphs (Ye et al., 2021a), dropout (Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), and pretraining (Kulkarni et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022a) to improve keyphrase generation.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 318, + 489, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, there have been several attempts to unify KE and KG tasks into a single learning framework. These methods not only focus on generating only the absent keyphrases but also perform presumably an easier task by extracting present keyphrases from the document, instead of having to generate them from a myriad of vocabularies. Current methodologies utilize external source (Chen et al., 2019a), selection guidance (Zhao et al., 2021), salient sentence detection (Ahmad et al., 2021), relation network (Wu et al., 2021), and prompt-based learning (Wu et al., 2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 626, + 489, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Contrastive Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 329, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Methods to extract rich feature representations based on contrastive learning (Chopra et al., 2005; Hadsell et al., 2006) have been widely studied in numerous literature. The primary goal of the learn", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing process is to pull semantically similar data to be close while pushing dissimilar data to be far away in the representation space. Contrastive learning has shown great success for various computer vision tasks, especially in self-supervised training (Chen et al., 2020a), whereas Gao et al. (2021) have devised a contrastive framework to learn universal sentence embeddings for natural language processing. Furthermore, Liu and Liu (2021) formulated a seq2seq framework employing contrastive learning for abstractive summarization. Similarly, a contrastive framework for autoregressive language modeling (Su et al., 2022) and open-ended text generation (Krishna et al., 2022) have been presented.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 296, + 884, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There have been endeavors to incorporate contrastive learning in the context of keyphrase extraction. These methods generally utilized the pairwise ranking loss to rank phrases with respect to the document to extract present keyphrases (Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). In this paper, we devise a contrastive learning framework for keyphrase embeddings on both extraction and generation to improve the keyphrase prediction performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 884, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Problem Definition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 709, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a document $\\mathbf{x}$ , the task of keyphrase prediction is to identify a set of keyphrases $\\mathcal{Y} = \\{\\mathbf{y}^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}|}$ , where $|\\mathcal{Y}|$ is the number of keyphrases. In the ONE2ONE training paradigm, each sample pair $(\\mathbf{x}, \\mathcal{Y})$ is split into multiple pairs $\\{(x, y^i)\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}|}$ to train the model to generate one keyphrase per document. In ONE2SEQ, each sample pair is processed as $(x, f(\\mathcal{Y}))$ , where $f(\\mathcal{Y})$ is a concatenated sequence of keyphrases. In this work, we train for extraction and generation simultaneously; therefore, we decompose $\\mathcal{Y}$ into a present keyphrase set $\\mathcal{Y}_p = \\{\\mathbf{y}_p^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}_p|}$ and an absent keyphrase set $\\mathcal{Y}_a = \\{\\mathbf{y}_a^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}_a|}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 706, + 884, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3005", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 SIMCKP", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 231, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we elaborate on our approach to building a contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In Section 4.1, we delineate our heuristic algorithm for constructing a set of candidates for present keyphrase extraction; in Section 4.2, we describe the multi-task learning process for extracting and generating keyphrases; and lastly, we explain our method for reranking the generated keyphrases in Section 4.3. Figure 2 illustrates the overall architecture of our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 396, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To obtain the candidates for present keyphrases, we employ a similar heuristic approach from existing extractive methods (Hulth, 2003; Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). A notable difference between prior work and ours is that we keep not only noun phrases but also verb, adjective, and adverb phrases, as well as phrases containing prepositions and conjunctions. We observe that keyphrases are actually made up of diverse parts of speech, and extracting only the noun phrases could lead to missing a significant number of keyphrases. Following the common practice, we assign part-of-speech (POS) tags to each word using the Stanford POSTagger2 and chunk the phrase structure tree into valid phrases using the NLTK RegexpParser3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 303, + 489, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Algorithm 1, each document is converted to a phrase structure tree where each word $w$ is tagged with a POS tag $t$ . The tagged document is then split into possible phrase chunks based on our predefined regular expression rules, which must include one or more valid tags such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Nevertheless, such valid tag sequences are sometimes nongrammatical, which cannot be a proper phrase and thus may introduce noise during training. In response, we filter out such nongrammatical phrases by first categorizing tags as independent or dependent. Phrases generally do not start or end with a preposition or conjunction; therefore, preposition and conjunction tags belong to a dependent tag set $\\mathcal{T}_{dep}$ . On the other hand, noun, verb, adjective, and adverb tags can stand alone by themselves, making them belong to an independent tag set $\\mathcal{T}_{indep}$ . There are also", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 577, + 489, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 833, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Source document x, maximum n-gram length $n$ , regular expression pattern $p$ , POS tagging function tag(\\cdot), phrase parsing function parse(\\cdot), stemming function stem(\\cdot)", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 101, + 882, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Present keyphrase candidate set $\\mathcal{C}_{pre}$", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 137, + 793, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "algorithm", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "1: $\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\emptyset$ \n2: word_tag_pairs $\\leftarrow$ tag(x) \n3: phrase_tree $\\leftarrow$ parse(p,word_tag_pairs) \n4: for phrase $\\in$ phrase_tree do \n5: for $w_{i},t_{i}\\in$ phrase do \n6: if $t_i\\not\\in T_{indep}$ and $t_i\\not\\in T_{end\\_ dep}$ then \n7: continue \n8: span $\\leftarrow$ stem(wi) \n9: $\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\cup \\mathrm{span}_i$ \n10: for $w_{ij},t_{ij}\\in$ phrase[i+1:] do \n11: if len(span.split())≥nthen \n12: break \n13: if $t_{ij}\\in T_{dep}$ or $t_{ij}\\in T_{end\\_ dep}$ then \n14: span $^+\\equiv$ stem(wij) \n15: continue \n16: if $t_{ij}\\in T_{indep}$ or $t_{ij}\\in T_{start\\_ dep}$ then \n17: span $^+\\equiv$ stem(wij) \n18: $\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\cup \\mathrm{span}_i$ \n19: return $\\mathcal{C}_{pre}$", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 151, + 850, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tag sets $\\mathcal{T}_{start\\_dep}$ and $\\mathcal{T}_{end\\_dep}$ , which include tags that cannot start but end a phrase and tags that can start but not end a phrase, respectively. Lastly, each candidate phrase is iterated over to acquire all n-grams that make up the phrase. For example, if the phrase is \"applications of machine learning\", we select n-grams \"applications\", \"machine\", \"learning\", \"applications of machine\", \"machine learning\", and \"applications of machine learning\" as candidates. Note that phrases such as \"applications of\", \"of\", \"of machine\", and \"of machine learning\" are not chosen as candidates because they are not proper phrases. As noted by Gillick et al. (2019), hard negatives are important for learning a high-quality encoder, and we claim that our mining accomplishes this objective.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 406, + 884, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Extractor-Generator", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 674, + 721, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to jointly train for extraction and generation, we adopt a pretrained encoder-decoder network. Given a document $\\mathbf{x}$ , it is tokenized and fed as input to the encoder where we take the last hidden states of the encoder to obtain the contextual embeddings of a document:", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 694, + 884, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\left[ \\mathbf {h} _ {0}, \\mathbf {h} _ {1}, \\dots , \\mathbf {h} _ {T} \\right] = \\operatorname {E n c o d e r} _ {p} (\\mathbf {x}), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 797, + 880, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $T$ is the token sequence length of the document and $\\mathbf{h}_0$ is the start token (e.g., $$ ) representation used as the corresponding document embedding. For each candidate phrase, we construct its embedding by taking the sum pooling of the token span representations: $\\mathbf{h}_p =$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/ \n $^{3}$ https://www.nltk.org/", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 876, + 416, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3006", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SumPooling $([\\mathbf{h}_s,\\dots ,\\mathbf{h}_e])$ , where $s$ and $e$ denote the start and end indices of the span. The document and candidate phrase embeddings are then passed through a linear layer followed by nonlinear activation to obtain the hidden representations:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} = \\tanh \\left(\\mathbf {W} _ {d _ {p}} \\mathbf {h} _ {0} + \\mathbf {b} _ {d _ {p}}\\right) \\tag {2} \\\\ \\mathbf {z} _ {p} = \\tanh (\\mathbf {W} _ {p} \\mathbf {h} _ {p} + \\mathbf {b} _ {p}), \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 193, + 183, + 487, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{W}_{d_p},\\mathbf{W}_p,\\mathbf{b}_{d_p},\\mathbf{b}_p$ are learnable parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 228, + 487, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contrastive Learning for Extraction To extract relevant keyphrases given a document, we train our model to learn representations by pulling keyphrase embeddings to the corresponding document while pushing away the rest of the candidate phrase embeddings in the latent space. Specifically, we follow the contrastive framework in Chen et al. (2020a) and take a cross-entropy objective between the document and each candidate phrase embedding. We set keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, while the rest of the phrases and the document are set as negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair $(\\mathbf{z}_{d_p},\\mathbf{z}_{p,i}^+)$ (i.e., document and present keyphrase $y_{p}^{i}$ ) with $N_{p}$ candidate pairs is defined as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 489, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i} = - \\log \\frac {\\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \\tau}}{\\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \\tau} + \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N _ {p}} \\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , j} ^ {-}) / \\tau}}, \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 502, + 485, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\tau$ is a temperature hyperparameter and $\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{u},\\mathbf{v})$ is the cosine similarity between vectors $\\mathbf{u}$ and $\\mathbf{v}$ . The final loss is then computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document (i.e.,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 551, + 487, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathcal {Y} _ {p} |} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i}).\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 615, + 258, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Joint Learning Our model generates keyphrases by learning a probability distribution $p_{\\theta}(\\mathbf{y}_a)$ over an absent keyphrase text sequence $\\mathbf{y}_a = \\{y_{a,1},\\dots,y_{a,|\\mathbf{y}|}\\}$ (i.e., in an ONE2SEQ fashion), where $\\theta$ denotes the model parameters. Then, the MLE objective used to train the model to generate absent keyphrases is defined as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 643, + 487, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M L E}} = - \\frac {1}{| \\mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {| \\mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\left(y _ {a, t} | \\mathbf {y} _ {a, < t}\\right). \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 762, + 485, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Lastly, we combine the contrastive loss with the negative log-likelihood loss to train the model to both extract and generate keyphrases:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 809, + 485, + 856 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M L E}} + \\lambda \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}}, \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 864, + 485, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\lambda$ is a hyperparameter balancing the losses in the objective.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/678f842d50cf8db045033cc5895c4ee9f990f7356c3be01cf79c4944a1c989d9.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SplitDataset#KPμ#KPσ|KP|μ% Absent# Samples
TrainKP20k5.283.761.9438.19530,809
ValidKP20k5.263.671.9438.2620,000
TestKP20k5.273.742.0437.0320,000
Inspec9.814.972.3322.25500
Krapivin5.843.552.0844.77400
NUS10.856.672.1351.55211
SemEval14.973.502.1555.74100
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 80, + 878, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Dataset statistics. $\\# \\mathbf{KP}_{\\mu}$ : average number of keyphrases; $\\# \\mathbf{KP}_{\\sigma}$ : standard deviation of the number of keyphrases; $|\\mathbf{KP}|_{\\mu}$ : average length (n-gram) of keyphrases per document.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 199, + 882, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Reranker", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 631, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As stated by Zhao et al. (2022), MLE-driven models predict candidates with the highest probability, disregarding the possibility that target keyphrases may appear in suboptimal candidates. This problem can be resolved by setting a large beam size for beam search; however, this approach would also result in a substantial increase in the generation of noisy keyphrases among the top- $k$ predictions. Inspired by Liu and Liu (2021), we aim to reduce this noise by assigning new scores to the generated keyphrases.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 303, + 882, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Candidate Generation We employ the finetuned model from Section 4.2 to generate candidate phrases that are highly likely to be absent keyphrases for the corresponding document. We perform beam search decoding using a large beam size on each training document, resulting in the overgeneration of absent keyphrase candidates. The model generates in an ONE2SEQ fashion where the outputs are sequences of phrases, which means that many duplicate phrases are present across the beams. We remove the duplicates and arrange the phrases such that each unique phrase is independently fed to the encoder. We realize that the generator sometimes fails to produce even a single target keyphrase, in which we filter out such documents for the second-stage training.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 489, + 882, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dual Encoder We adopt two pretrained encoder-only networks and obtain the contextual embeddings of a document, as well as each candidate phrase $\\mathbf{c}$ : $[\\mathbf{h}_d^0,\\mathbf{h}_d^1,\\dots,\\mathbf{h}_d^T] = \\mathrm{Encoder}_{a_1}(\\mathbf{x})$ and $[\\mathbf{h}_c^0,\\mathbf{h}_c^1,\\dots,\\mathbf{h}_c^{T_c}] = \\mathrm{Encoder}_{a_2}(\\mathbf{c})$ , where $T_{c}$ is the token sequence length of the candidate phrase and $\\mathbf{h}_d^0$ and $\\mathbf{h}_c^0$ are the start token representations used as the document and candidate phrase embedding, respectively. Consequently, their hidden representations are obtained by $\\mathbf{z}_{d_a} = \\tanh (\\mathbf{W}_{d_a}\\mathbf{h}_d^0 +\\mathbf{b}_{d_a})$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 884, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3007", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7968810238eb5da8d2654c2e8c2d5ae74804619b6eca7d343a521eae20653977.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelInspecKrapivenNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.2250.2620.2690.3540.3230.3970.2420.2830.2910.367
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.2290.2700.2820.3660.3250.3930.2460.2900.2920.366
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.2530.3010.3000.3690.3750.4330.2870.3290.3210.386
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.2530.2910.2860.347--0.2840.3350.3110.374
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.2850.3240.3260.3640.4060.4500.3310.3570.3580.392
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.3300.365--0.4050.4490.3330.3590.3700.404
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.2160.2650.2760.3660.3960.4610.2830.3320.3110.379
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.2600.288--0.4150.4430.3020.3220.3470.352
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.2600.294--0.4120.4390.3290.3560.3510.355
SIMCKP0.35660.35880.40580.40580.49680.49890.38720.38640.42610.4271
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 878, + 253 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Present keyphrase prediction results. The best results are in bold, while the second best are underlined. The subscript denotes the corresponding standard deviation (e.g., $0.427_{1}$ indicates $0.427 \\pm 0.001$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 262, + 882, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and $\\mathbf{z}_a = \\tanh (\\mathbf{W}_a\\mathbf{h}_c^0 +\\mathbf{b}_a)$ , where $\\mathbf{W}_{d_a}$ $\\mathbf{W}_a$ $\\mathbf{b}_{d_a}$ $\\mathbf{b}_a$ are learnable parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 315, + 487, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Contrautive Learning for Generation To rank relevant keyphrases high given a document, we train the dual-encoder framework via contrastive learning. Following a similar process as before, we train our model to learn absent keyphrase representations by semantically aligning them with the corresponding document. Specifically, we set the correctly generated keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, whereas the rest of the generated candidates and the document become negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair $(\\mathbf{z}_{d_a},\\mathbf{z}_{a,i}^+)$ (i.e., document and absent keyphrase $y_{a}^{i}$ ) with $N_{a}$ candidate pairs then follows Equation 3, where the cross-entropy objective maximizes the similarity of positive pairs and minimizes the rest. The final loss is computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document with a summation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 357, + 489, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 321, + 680 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 688, + 228, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our framework on five scientific article datasets: Inspec (Hulth, 2003), Krapivin (Krapivin et al., 2009), NUS (Nguyen and Kan, 2007), Se-mEval (Kim et al., 2010), and KP20k (Meng et al., 2017). Following previous work (Meng et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020), we concatenate the title and abstract of each sample as a source document and use the training set of KP20k to train all the models. Data statistics are shown in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 233, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare our framework with two kinds of KP models: Generative and Unified.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generative Models Generative models predict both present and absent keyphrases through generation. Most models follow catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020), a seq2seq framework under the ONE2SEQ paradigm. We report the performance of catSeq along with its variants such as catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b), catseqTG-2RF $_1$ (Chan et al., 2019), and ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b). We also compare with two state-of-the-arts SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b) and CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 316, + 884, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unified Models Unified models combine extractive and generative methods to predict keyphrases. We compare with the latest models including SEGNet (Ahmad et al., 2021), UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021), and PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 486, + 885, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 705, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Chan et al. (2019), all models are evaluated on macro-averaged $F_{1}@5$ and $F_{1}@M$ . $F_{1}@M$ compares all the predicted keyphrases with the ground truth, taking the number of predictions into account. $F_{1}@5$ measures only the top five predictions, but if the model predicts less than five keyphrases, we randomly append incorrect keyphrases until it obtains five. The motivation is to avoid $F_{1}@5$ and $F_{1}@M$ reaching similar results when the number of predictions is less than five. We stem all phrases using the Porter Stemmer and remove all duplicates after stemming.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 598, + 882, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 801, + 741, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our framework is built on PyTorch and Huggingface's Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use BART (Lewis et al., 2020) for the encoder-decoder model and uncased BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for the reranking model. We optimize their weights with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3008", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8b84f4732ba27e2566b34c9bf3625901f137e1cea68634cee2724aafb49f34fb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelInspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.0040.0080.0180.0360.0160.0280.0160.0280.0150.032
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.0050.0110.0180.0340.0110.0180.0110.0180.0150.032
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.0120.0210.0300.0530.0190.0310.0210.0300.0270.050
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.0110.0220.0220.043--0.0170.0250.0160.032
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.0210.0340.0470.0730.0420.0600.0260.0340.0360.058
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.0320.045--0.0610.0790.0390.0440.0530.071
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.0090.0150.0180.0360.0210.0360.0210.0300.0180.036
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.0260.036--0.0450.0560.0450.0520.0460.068
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.0170.022--0.0360.0420.0280.0320.0320.042
SIMCKP0.03320.03530.07810.08900.076120.088150.04020.04760.07320.0801
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 878, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2019) and tune our hyperparameters to maximize $F_{1}$ on the validation set, incorporating techniques such as early stopping and linear warmup followed by linear decay to 0. We set the maximum n-gram length of candidate phrases to 6 during mining and fix $\\lambda$ to 0.3 for scaling the contrastive loss. When generating candidates for absent keyphrases, we use beam search with the beam size 50. During inference, we take the candidate phrases as predictions in which the cosine similarity with the corresponding document is higher than the threshold found in the validation set. The threshold is calculated by taking the average of the $F_{1}$ maximizing thresholds for each document. If the number of predictions is less than five, we retrieve the top similar phrases until we obtain five. We conduct our experiments with three different random seeds and report the averaged results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 300, + 489, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Results and Analyses", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 331, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Present and Absent Keyphrase Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 632, + 485, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The present and absent keyphrase prediction results are demonstrated in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. The performance of our model mostly exceeds that of previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin, showing that our method is effective in predicting both present and absent keyphrases. Particularly, there is a notable improvement in the $F_{1}@5$ performance, indicating the effectiveness of our approach in retrieving the top- $k$ predictions. On the other hand, we observe that $F_{1}@M$ values are not much different from $F_{1}@5$ , and we believe this is due to the critical limitation of a global threshold. The number of keyphrases varies significantly for each document, and finding op", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 655, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ac5e748e460a49db69bb28e3ec1eac375873f4162564903658dc6d522a3200bb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Absent keyphrase prediction results." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Present keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.4260.4270.4110.412
w/o CL0.2950.3880.2780.356
CL⇒SEQLABEL0.2360.3840.1800.272
CL⇒BINARYCLF0.2090.3220.1710.251
Absent keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.0730.0800.0570.064
w/o CL0.0300.0660.0270.051
w/o RERANKER0.0350.0690.0250.041
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 298, + 884, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Ablation study. \"w/o CL\" is the vanilla BART model using beam search for predictions. \"w/o reranker\" extracts with CL but generates using only beam search.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 463, + 882, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "timal thresholds seems necessary for improving the $F_{1}@\\mathcal{M}$ performance. Nonetheless, real-world applications are often focused on identifying the top- $k$ keywords, which we believe our model effectively accomplishes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 882, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 627, + 673, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We investigate each component of our model to understand their effects on the overall performance and report the effectiveness of each building block in Table 4. Following Xie et al. (2022), we report on two kinds of test sets: 1) KP20k, which we refer to as in-domain, and 2) the combination of Inspec, Krapivin, NUS, and SemEval, which is out-of-domain.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 649, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of CL We notice a significant drop in both present and absent keyphrase prediction performance after decoupling contrastive learning (CL). For a fair comparison, we set the beam size to 50, but our model still outperforms the purely generative model, demonstrating the effectiveness of CL. We also compare our model with two extractive methods: sequence labeling and binary classifica", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4We compared with $F_{1}@\\mathbb{5}$ and found no difference in determining the best hyperparameter configuration.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3009", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1839ee84d5354b7b5ad54b45a722433438206b2fd7e6b220016fbe04e94ed7b4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Comparison of present keyphrase prediction performance w.r.t max n-gram length during extraction." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 84, + 463, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b13d2ce4e87f03ab0c5d6f5d8671c626f2546cd0f3146561f7eddcd9fd230b4e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Mining MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
IN-BATCH DOC NEGATIVES0.0770.0380.0920.065
RANDOM NEGATIVES0.2100.2260.2110.267
HARD NEGATIVES (OURS)0.4260.4270.4110.412
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 310, + 485, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Comparison of negative mining methods for present keyphrase prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 487, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tion. For sequence labeling, we follow previous work (Tokala et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021) and employ a BiLSTM-CRF, a strong sequence labeling baseline, on top of the encoder to predict a BIO5 tag for each token, while for binary classification, a model takes each phrase embedding to predict whether each phrase is a keyphrase or not. CL outperforms both approaches, showing that learning phrase representations is more efficacious.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 487, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of Reranking We remove the reranker and observe the degradation of performance in absent keyphrase prediction. Note that the vanilla BART (i.e., w/o CL) is trained to generate both present and absent keyphrases, while the other model (i.e., w/o RERANKER) is trained to generate only the absent keyphrases. The former performs slightly better in out-of-domain scenarios, as it is trained to generate diverse keyphrases, while the latter excels in in-domain since absent keyphrases resemble those encountered during training. Nevertheless, the reranker outperforms the two, indicating that it plays a vital role in the KG part of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 588, + 489, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Performance over Max N-Gram Length", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 473, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct experiments on various maximum lengths of n-grams for extraction and compare the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 828, + 487, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5f72aff78fc6386584984f6bfe6db7f52bc2cce95f847b2b6999e557fcfd788d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Visualization of the semantic space using t-SNE. The left shows the extractor space, while the right depicts the generator space after reranking." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 83, + 695, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d9c2e00416f9fecd0a85fba21603f368835571233eef70ede8ef370368f6ad6c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 82, + 880, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "present keyphrase prediction performance from unigrams to 6-grams, as shown in Figure 3. For all datasets, the performance steadily increases until the length of 3, which then plateaus to the rest of the lengths. This indicates that the testing datasets are mostly composed of unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams. The performance increases slightly with the length of 6 for some datasets, such as Inspec and SemEval, suggesting that there is a non-negligible number of 6-gram keyphrases. Therefore, the length of 6 seems feasible for maximum performance in all experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 884, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.4 Impact of Hard Negative Phrase Mining", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 873, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to assess the effectiveness of our hard negative phrase mining method, we compare it with other negative mining methods and report the results in Table 5. First, utilizing in-batch document embeddings as negatives yields the poorest performance. This is likely due to ineffective differentiation between keyphrases and other phrase embeddings. Additionally, we experiment with using random text spans as negatives and observe that although it aids in representation learning to some degree, the performance improvement is limited. The outcomes of these two baselines demonstrate that our approach successfully mines hard negatives, enabling our encoder to acquire high-quality representations of keyphrases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 485, + 882, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.5 Visualization of Semantic Space", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 737, + 806, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To verify that our model works as intended, we visualize the representation space of our model with t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) plots, as depicted in Figure 4. From the visualizations, we find that our model successfully pulls keyphrase embeddings close to their corresponding document in both extractor and generator space. Note that the generator space displays a lesser number of phrases than the beam size 50 because the duplicates after stemming have been removed.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5We use the BIO format for our sequence labeling baseline. For example, if the phrase \"voip conferencing system\" is tokenized into \"v ##oi ##p con ##fer ##encing system\", it is labeled as \"B I I I I I\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3010", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/15f6c33f1a40a1e41438184752b37462c61b9aca363485abe6f405a71f915d2b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
InspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
R@500.144160.22650.185120.07250.2207
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Upper bound performance for absent keyphrase prediction after overgeneration with the beam size 50.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 120, + 485, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.6 Upper Bound Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 175, + 371, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following previous work (Meng et al., 2021; Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), we measure the upper bound performance after overgeneration by calculating the recall score of the generated phrases and report the results in Table 6. The high recall demonstrates the potential for reranking to increase precision, and we observe that there is room for improvement by better reranking, opening up an opportunity for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 199, + 489, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 357, + 245, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper presents a contrastive framework that aims to improve the keyphrase prediction performance by learning phrase-level representations, rectifying the shortcomings of existing unified models that score and predict keyphrases at a token level. To effectively identify keyphrases, we divide our framework into two stages: a joint model for extracting and generating keyphrases and a reranking model that scores the generated outputs based on the semantic relation with the corresponding document. We empirically show that our method significantly improves the performance of both present and absent keyphrase prediction against existing state-of-the-art models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 385, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 625, + 218, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the promising prediction performance of the framework proposed in this paper, there is still room for improvement. A fixed global threshold has limited the potential performance of the framework, especially when evaluating $F_{1}$ at $M$ . We expect that adaptively selecting a threshold value via an auxiliary module for each data sample might overcome such a challenge. Moreover, the result of the second stage highly depends on the performance of the first stage model, directing the next step of research towards an end-to-end framework.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 652, + 489, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 844, + 285, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "government (MSIT) (No. 2020-0-00368, A Neural-Symbolic Model for Knowledge Acquisition and Inference Techniques and No. 2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1A2B5B02001913). We thank all researchers at Naver WEBTOON Ltd. for their valuable discussions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 256, + 608, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Wasi Ahmad, Xiao Bai, Soomin Lee, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Select, extract and generate: Neural keyphrase generation with layer-wise coverage attention. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1389–1404, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rabah Alzaidy, Cornelia Caragea, and C. Lee Giles. 2019. Bi-lstm-crf sequence labeling for keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In *The World Wide Web Conference*, WWW '19, page 2551-2557, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Kamil Bennani-Smires, Claudi Musat, Andreae Hossmann, Michael Baeriswyl, and Martin Jaggi. 2018. Simple unsupervised keyphrase extraction using sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 221-229, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Adrien Bougouin, Florian Boudin, and Beatrice Daille. 2013. TopicRank: Graph-based topic ranking for keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 543-551, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.", + "Cornelia Caragea, Florin Adrian Bulgarov, Andreea Godea, and Sujatha Das Gollapalli. 2014. Citation-enhanced keyphrase extraction from research papers: A supervised approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1435-1446, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hou Pong Chan, Wang Chen, Lu Wang, and Irwin King. 2019. Neural keyphrase generation via reinforcement learning with adaptive rewards. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2163-2174, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020a. A simple framework for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 278, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3011", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1597-1607. PMLR.", + "Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, Lidong Bing, and Irwin King. 2019a. An integrated approach for keyphrase generation via exploring the power of retrieval and extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2846-2856, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, and Irwin King. 2020b. Exclusive hierarchical decoding for deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1095-1105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wang Chen, Yifan Gao, Jiani Zhang, Irwin King, and Michael R Lyu. 2019b. Title-guided encoding for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6268-6275.", + "S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y. LeCun. 2005. Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), volume 1, pages 539-546 vol. 1.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Daniel Gillick, Sayali Kulkarni, Larry Lansing, Alessandro Presta, Jason Baldridge, Eugene Ie, and Diego Garcia-Olano. 2019. Learning dense representations for entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 528-537, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sujatha Das Gollapalli, Xiao-Li Li, and Peng Yang. 2017. Incorporating expert knowledge into keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y. LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742.", + "Anette Hulth. 2003. Improved automatic keyword extraction given more linguistic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 216-223.", + "Su Nam Kim, Olena Medelyan, Min-Yen Kan, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 5: Automatic keyphrase extraction from scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 21–26, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Youngsam Kim, Munhyong Kim, Andrew Cattle, Julia Otmakhova, Suzi Park, and Hyopil Shin. 2013. Applying graph-based keyword extraction to document retrieval. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 864-868, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.", + "Mikalai Krapivin, Aliaksandr Autaeu, and Maurizio Marchese. 2009. Large dataset for keyphrase extraction.", + "Kalpesh Krishna, Yapei Chang, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2022. RankGen: Improving text generation with large ranking models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 199-232, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mayank Kulkarni, Debanjan Mahata, Ravneet Arora, and Rajarshi Bhowmik. 2022. Learning rich representation of keyphrases from text. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 891–906, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xinnian Liang, Shuangzhi Wu, Mu Li, and Zhoujun Li. 2021. Unsupervised keyphrase extraction by jointly modeling local and global context. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 155-164, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rui Liu, Zheng Lin, and Weiping Wang. 2021. Addressing extraction and generation separately:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3012", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Keyphrase prediction with pre-trained language models. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3180-3191.", + "Yixin Liu and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SimCLS: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1065-1072, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhiyuan Liu, Xinxiong Chen, Yabin Zheng, and Maosong Sun. 2011. Automatic keyphrase extraction by bridging vocabulary gap. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 135-144, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Yi Luan, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Scientific information extraction with semi-supervised neural tagging. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2641-2651, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Olena Medelyan, Eibe Frank, and Ian H. Witten. 2009. Human-competitive tagging using automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1318-1327, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Olena Medelyan, Ian H Witten, and David Milne. 2008. Topic indexing with wikipedia. In Proceedings of the AAAI WikiAI workshop, volume 1, pages 19-24.", + "Rui Meng, Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Sanqiang Zhao, Adam Trischler, and Daqing He. 2021. An empirical study on neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4985-5007.", + "Rui Meng, Sanqiang Zhao, Shuguang Han, Daqing He, Peter Brusilovsky, and Yu Chi. 2017. Deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 582-592, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Thuy Dung Nguyen and Min-Yen Kan. 2007. Keyphrase extraction in scientific publications. In Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers, pages 317-326, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.", + "Ramakanth Pasunuru and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Multireward reinforced summarization with saliency and entailment. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 646-653, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jishnu Ray Chowdhury, Seo Yeon Park, Tuhin Kundu, and Cornelia Caragea. 2022. KPDROP: Improving absent keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 4853-4870, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mingyang Song, Liping Jing, and Lin Xiao. 2021. Importance Estimation from Multiple Perspectives for Keyphrase Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2726-2736, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Mingyang Song, Lin Xiao, and Liping Jing. 2023. Learning to extract from multiple perspectives for neural keyphrase extraction. Computer Speech & Language, 81:101502.", + "Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Si Sun, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Bao. 2021. Capturing global informativeness in open domain keyphrase extraction. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 10, pages 275-287. Springer.", + "Yi Sun, Hangping Qiu, Yu Zheng, Zhongwei Wang, and Chaoran Zhang. 2020. Sifrank: a new baseline for unsupervised keyphrase extraction based on pre-trained language model. IEEE Access, 8:10896-10906.", + "Avinash Swaminathan, Haimin Zhang, Debanjan Mahata, Rakesh Gosangi, Rajiv Ratn Shah, and Amanda Stent. 2020. A preliminary exploration of GANs for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8021-8030, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yaohua Tang, Fandong Meng, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Philip L. H. Yu. 2016. Neural machine translation with external phrase memory. CoRR, abs/1606.01792." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3013", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Santosh Tokala, Debarshi Kumar Sanyal, Plaban Kumar Bhowmick, and Partha Pratim Das. 2020. SaSAKE: Syntax and semantics aware keyphrase extraction from research papers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5372-5383, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579-2605.", + "Xiaojun Wan and Jianguo Xiao. 2008. Single document keyphrase extraction using neighborhood knowledge. In AAAI, volume 8, pages 855-860.", + "Minmei Wang, Bo Zhao, and Yihua Huang. 2016. *Ptr: Phrase-based topical ranking for automatic keyphrase extraction in scientific publications*. In *Neural Information Processing: 23rd International Conference, ICONIP* 2016, Kyoto, Japan, October 16–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 23, pages 120–128. Springer.", + "Ian H Witten, Gordon W Paynter, Eibe Frank, Carl Gutwin, and Craig G Nevill-Manning. 1999. Kea: practical automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital libraries, pages 254-255.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Di Wu, Wasi Ahmad, Sunipa Dev, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022a. Representation learning for resource-constrained keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 700-716, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Huanqin Wu, Wei Liu, Lei Li, Dan Nie, Tao Chen, Feng Zhang, and Di Wang. 2021. UniKeyphrase: A unified extraction and generation framework for keyphrase prediction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 825-835, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Huanqin Wu, Baijiaxin Ma, Wei Liu, Tao Chen, and Dan Nie. 2022b. Fast and constrained absent keyphrase generation by prompt-based learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11495-11503." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Binbin Xie, Xiangpeng Wei, Baosong Yang, Huan Lin, Jun Xie, Xiaoli Wang, Min Zhang, and Jinsong Su. 2022. WR-One2Set: Towards well-calibrated keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7283-7293, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hai Ye and Lu Wang. 2018. Semi-supervised learning for neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4142-4153, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiacheng Ye, Ruijian Cai, Tao Gui, and Qi Zhang. 2021a. Heterogeneous graph neural networks for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2705-2715, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiacheng Ye, Tao Gui, Yichao Luo, Yige Xu, and Qi Zhang. 2021b. One2Set: Generating diverse keyphrases as a set. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4598-4608, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Rui Meng, Khushboo Thaker, Peter Brusilovsky, Daqing He, and Adam Trischler. 2020. One size does not fit all: Generating and evaluating variable number of keyphrases. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7961-7975, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Linhan Zhang, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Chong Deng, ShiLiang Zhang, Bing Li, Wei Wang, and Xin Cao. 2022. MDERank: A masked document embedding rank approach for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 396-409, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Qi Zhang, Yang Wang, Yeyun Gong, and Xuanjing Huang. 2016. Keyphrase extraction using deep recurrent neural networks on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 836-845, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Guangzhen Zhao, Guoshun Yin, Peng Yang, and Yu Yao. 2022. Keyphrase generation via soft and hard semantic corrections. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7757-7768, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jing Zhao, Junwei Bao, Yifan Wang, Youzheng Wu, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. SGG: Learning" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3014", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to select, guide, and generate for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5717-5726, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Additional Details for SIMCKP", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 177, + 426, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Details for Hard Negative Phrase Mining", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 202, + 485, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to effectively extract present keyphrases, we categorize POS tags to the corresponding tag set as the following:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 224, + 487, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- $\\mathcal{T}_{\\text{indep}}$ : $\\{\\text{\"CD\", \"FW\", \"GW\", \"NN*\", \"VB*\", \"JJ*\", \"RB*\", \"ADD\"\\}$", + "- $\\mathcal{T}_{dep}$ : $\\{\\text{\"CC\", \"POS\", \"HYPH\", \"IN\"}\\}$", + "- $\\mathcal{T}_{start\\_dep}$ : $\\{\\text{“RP}^*\\}$", + "$\\mathcal{T}_{end\\_dep}$ : $\\{\\text{\"DT\",\"AFX\",\"LS\"}\\}$" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 281, + 487, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where each tag is defined in the NLTK library. An asterisk (*) refers to any character(s) that come after the tag name. For example, \"JJ\", \"JJR\", and \"JJS\" are adjectives, comparative adjectives, and superlative adjectives, respectively, and all of them are elements of the independent tag set $\\mathcal{T}_{\\text{indep}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 405, + 487, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Hyperparameter Search", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 512, + 356, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform a grid search to find the best hyperparameter configuration and report the tuning range used for our experiments in Table 7. The evaluation on the validation set is performed for every 5,000 gradient accumulating steps, and the tolerance increases by 1 when the validation loss or $F_{1}$ @M is worse than the previous evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 489, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/346c498a329203f38de619ea52a072df34e3e29dacdef46ddf9fb883c7110d84.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelHyperparameterRangeBest
BARTBASElearning rate{ 5e-5, 1e-4}5e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.0
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0}0.1
λ{ 0.1, 0.2, ..., 1.0}0.3
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
BERTBASElearning rate{ 1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5, 5e-5}3e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.1
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1}0.1
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 658, + 487, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Hyperparameter tuning range and best values used in the experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 485, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3015", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_model.json b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..050aeb2d869e1c9dfca65d7b87d45de52f5aef2f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2503 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.09, + 0.861, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SimCKP: Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.135, + 0.847, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minseok Choi\\* Chaeheon Gwak \\* Seho Kim \\* Si Hyeong Kim \\* Jaegul Choo KAIST AI Naver Webtoon AI {minseok.choi, jchoo}@kaist.ac.kr {ch.gwak, seho.kim, typekim}@webtoonscorp.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keyphrase generation (KG) aims to generate a set of summarizing words or phrases given a source document, while keyphrase extraction (KE) aims to identify them from the text. Because the search space is much smaller in KE, it is often combined with KG to predict keyphrases that may or may not exist in the corresponding document. However, current unified approaches adopt sequence labeling and maximization-based generation that primarily operate at a token level, falling short in observing and scoring keyphrases as a whole. In this work, we propose SIMCKP, a simple contrastive learning framework that consists of two stages: 1) An extractor-generator that extracts keyphrases by learning context-aware phrase-level representations in a contrastive manner while also generating keyphrases that do not appear in the document; 2) A reranker that adapts scores for each generated phrase by likewise aligning their representations with the corresponding document. Experimental results on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, which outperforms the state-of-the-art models by a significant margin.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.666, + 0.26, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.692, + 0.49, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keyphrase prediction (KP) is a task of identifying a set of relevant words or phrases that capture the main ideas or topics discussed in a given document. Prior studies have defined keyphrases that appear in the document as present keyphrases and the opposites as absent keyphrases. High-quality keyphrases are beneficial for various applications such as information retrieval (Kim et al., 2013), text summarization (Pasunuru and Bansal, 2018), and translation (Tang et al., 2016). KP methods are generally divided into keyphrase extraction (KE) (Witten" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.251, + 0.882, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Title: Nonlinear magnetostatic BEM formulation using one unknown double layer charge
Document: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to solve generic magnetostatic problems by BEM, by studying how to use a boundary integral equation (BIE) with the double layer charge as unknown derived from the scalar potential. Design/methodology/approach - Since the double layer charge produces only the potential gap without disturbing the normal magnetic flux density, the field is accurately formulated even by one BIE with one unknown. Once the double layer charge is determined, Biot-Savart's law gives easily the magnetic flux density. Findings - The BIE using double layer charge is capable of treating robustly geometrical singularities at edges and corners. It is also capable of solving the problems with extremely high magnetic permeability. Originality/value - The proposed BIE contains only the double layer charge while the conventional equations derived from the scalar potential contain the single and double layer charges as unknowns. In the multiply connected problems, the excitation potential in the material is derived from the magnetomotive force to represent the circulating fields due to multiply connected exciting currents.
Present keyphrases: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected problem, scalar potential, integral equations}
Absent keyphrases: {nonlinear magnetostatic analysis, electric current}
Sequence labeling result: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected, scalar potential}
MLE result: {magnetostatic energy analysis, magnetomotive force, electric current}
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.452, + 0.884, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example of keyphrase prediction. Present and absent keyphrases are colored blue and red, respectively. Overlapping keyphrases are in bold." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.884, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009; Caragea et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Alzaidy et al., 2019) and keyphrase generation (KG) models (Meng et al., 2017; Ye and Wang, 2018; Chan et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020b; Yuan et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022), where the former only extracts present keyphrases from the text and the latter generates both present and absent keyphrases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, several methods integrating KE and KG have been proposed (Chen et al., 2019a; Liu et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021, 2022b). These models predict present keyphrases using an extractor and absent keyphrases using a generator, thereby effectively exploiting a relatively small search space in extraction. However, current integrated models suffer from two limitations. First, they employ sequence labeling models that predict the probability of each token being a constituent of a present keyphrase, where such token-level predictions may be a problem when the target keyphrase is fairly long or overlapping. As shown in Figure 1, the sequence labeling model makes an incomplete prediction for the term \"multi" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.878, + 0.454, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Work done during an internship at Naver Webtoon." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Our code is publicly available at https://github. com/brightjade/SimCKP." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.878, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3003" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3003-3015" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.958, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ply connected problem\" because only the tokens for \"multiply connected\" have yielded a high probability. We also observe that the model is prone to miss the keyphrase \"integral equations\" every time because it overlaps with another keyphrase \"boundary integral equation\" in the text. Secondly, integrated or even purely generative models are usually based on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), which predicts the probability of each token given the past seen tokens. This approach scores the most probable text sequence the highest, but as pointed out by Zhao et al. (2022), keyphrases from the maximum-probability sequence are not necessarily aligned with target keyphrases. In Figure 1, the MLE-based model predicts \"magnetostatic energy analysis\", which is semantically similar to but not aligned with the target keyphrase \"nonlinear magnetostatic analysis\". This may be a consequence of greedy search, which can be remedied by finding the target keyphrases across many beams during beam search, but it would also create a large number of noisy keyphrases being generated in the top-\\(k\\) predictions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.462, + 0.49, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing KE approaches based on representation learning may address the above limitations (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). These methods first mine candidates that are likely to be keyphrases in the document and then rank them based on the relevance between the document and keyphrase embeddings, which have shown promising results. Nevertheless, these techniques only tackle present keyphrases from the text, which may mitigate the overlapping keyphrase problem from sequence labeling, but they are not suitable for handling MLE and the generated keyphrases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose a two-stage contrastive learning framework that leverages context-aware phrase-level representations on both extraction and generation. First, we train an encoder-decoder network that extracts present keyphrases on top of the encoder and generates absent keyphrases through the decoder. The model learns to extract present keyphrases by maximizing the agreement between the document and present keyphrase representations. Specifically, we consider the document and its corresponding present keyphrases as positive pairs and the rest of the candidate phrases as negative pairs. Note that these negative candidate phrases are mined from the document using" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a heuristic algorithm (see Section 4.1). The model pulls keyphrase embeddings to the document embedding and pushes away the rest of the candidates in a contrastive manner. Then during inference, top-\\(k\\) keyphrases that are semantically close to the document are predicted. After the model has finished training, it generates candidates for absent keyphrases. These candidates are simply constructed by overgenerating with a large beam size for beam search decoding. To reduce the noise introduced by beam search, we train a reranker that allocates new scores for the generated phrases via another round of contrastive learning, where this time the agreement between the document and absent keyphrase representations is maximized. Overall, major contributions of our work can be summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.365, + 0.884, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We present a contrastive learning framework that learns to extract and generate keyphrases by building context-aware phrase-level representations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.434, + 0.883, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We develop a reranker based on the semantic alignment with the document to improve the absent keyphrase prediction performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.487, + 0.884, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To the best of our knowledge, we introduce contrastive learning to a unified keyphrase extraction and generation task for the first time and empirically show its effectiveness across multiple KP benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.365, + 0.884, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.584, + 0.665, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.61, + 0.729, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Keyphrase Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.631, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keyphrase extraction focuses on predicting salient phrases that are present in the source document. Existing approaches can be broadly divided into two-step extraction methods and sequence labeling models. Two-step methods first determine a set of candidate phrases from the text using different heuristic rules (Hulth, 2003; Medelyan et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016). These candidate phrases are then sorted and ranked by either supervised algorithms (Witten et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009) or unsupervised learning (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bougouin et al., 2013; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). Another line of work is sequence labeling, where a model learns to predict the likelihood of each word being a keyphrase word (Zhang et al., 2016; Luan et al., 2017; Gollapalli et al., 2017; Alzaidy et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3004" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.214, + 0.885, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: A contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In the first stage (left), the model learns to maximize the relevance between present keyphrases and their corresponding document while generating absent keyphrases. After training, the model generates candidates for absent keyphrases and sends them to the second stage (right), where the candidates are reranked after their relevance with the document has been maximized/minimized." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.297, + 0.339, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Keyphrase Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.319, + 0.49, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The task of keyphrase generation is introduced to predict both present and absent keyphrases. Meng et al. (2017) first proposed CopyRNN, a seq2seq framework with attention and copy mechanism under the ONE2ONE paradigm, where a model is trained to generate a single keyphrase per document. However, due to the problem of having to fix the number of predictions, Yuan et al. (2020) proposed the ONE2SEQ paradigm where a model learns to predict a dynamic number of keyphrases by concatenating them into a single sequence. Several ONE2SEQ-based models have been proposed using semi-supervised learning (Ye and Wang, 2018), reinforcement learning (Chan et al., 2019), adversarial training (Swaminathan et al., 2020), hierarchical decoding (Chen et al., 2020b), graphs (Ye et al., 2021a), dropout (Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), and pretraining (Kulkarni et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022a) to improve keyphrase generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.627, + 0.49, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, there have been several attempts to unify KE and KG tasks into a single learning framework. These methods not only focus on generating only the absent keyphrases but also perform presumably an easier task by extracting present keyphrases from the document, instead of having to generate them from a myriad of vocabularies. Current methodologies utilize external source (Chen et al., 2019a), selection guidance (Zhao et al., 2021), salient sentence detection (Ahmad et al., 2021), relation network (Wu et al., 2021), and prompt-based learning (Wu et al., 2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.833, + 0.331, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Contrastive Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Methods to extract rich feature representations based on contrastive learning (Chopra et al., 2005; Hadsell et al., 2006) have been widely studied in numerous literature. The primary goal of the learn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.297, + 0.885, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing process is to pull semantically similar data to be close while pushing dissimilar data to be far away in the representation space. Contrastive learning has shown great success for various computer vision tasks, especially in self-supervised training (Chen et al., 2020a), whereas Gao et al. (2021) have devised a contrastive framework to learn universal sentence embeddings for natural language processing. Furthermore, Liu and Liu (2021) formulated a seq2seq framework employing contrastive learning for abstractive summarization. Similarly, a contrastive framework for autoregressive language modeling (Su et al., 2022) and open-ended text generation (Krishna et al., 2022) have been presented." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.523, + 0.885, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There have been endeavors to incorporate contrastive learning in the context of keyphrase extraction. These methods generally utilized the pairwise ranking loss to rank phrases with respect to the document to extract present keyphrases (Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). In this paper, we devise a contrastive learning framework for keyphrase embeddings on both extraction and generation to improve the keyphrase prediction performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.68, + 0.71, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Problem Definition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.707, + 0.885, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a document \\(\\mathbf{x}\\), the task of keyphrase prediction is to identify a set of keyphrases \\(\\mathcal{Y} = \\{\\mathbf{y}^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}|}\\), where \\(|\\mathcal{Y}|\\) is the number of keyphrases. In the ONE2ONE training paradigm, each sample pair \\((\\mathbf{x}, \\mathcal{Y})\\) is split into multiple pairs \\(\\{(x, y^i)\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}|}\\) to train the model to generate one keyphrase per document. In ONE2SEQ, each sample pair is processed as \\((x, f(\\mathcal{Y}))\\), where \\(f(\\mathcal{Y})\\) is a concatenated sequence of keyphrases. In this work, we train for extraction and generation simultaneously; therefore, we decompose \\(\\mathcal{Y}\\) into a present keyphrase set \\(\\mathcal{Y}_p = \\{\\mathbf{y}_p^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}_p|}\\) and an absent keyphrase set \\(\\mathcal{Y}_a = \\{\\mathbf{y}_a^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}_a|}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3005" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.232, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 SIMCKP" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we elaborate on our approach to building a contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In Section 4.1, we delineate our heuristic algorithm for constructing a set of candidates for present keyphrase extraction; in Section 4.2, we describe the multi-task learning process for extracting and generating keyphrases; and lastly, we explain our method for reranking the generated keyphrases in Section 4.3. Figure 2 illustrates the overall architecture of our framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.283, + 0.398, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.304, + 0.49, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To obtain the candidates for present keyphrases, we employ a similar heuristic approach from existing extractive methods (Hulth, 2003; Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). A notable difference between prior work and ours is that we keep not only noun phrases but also verb, adjective, and adverb phrases, as well as phrases containing prepositions and conjunctions. We observe that keyphrases are actually made up of diverse parts of speech, and extracting only the noun phrases could lead to missing a significant number of keyphrases. Following the common practice, we assign part-of-speech (POS) tags to each word using the Stanford POSTagger2 and chunk the phrase structure tree into valid phrases using the NLTK RegexpParser3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.579, + 0.49, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Algorithm 1, each document is converted to a phrase structure tree where each word \\( w \\) is tagged with a POS tag \\( t \\). The tagged document is then split into possible phrase chunks based on our predefined regular expression rules, which must include one or more valid tags such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Nevertheless, such valid tag sequences are sometimes nongrammatical, which cannot be a proper phrase and thus may introduce noise during training. In response, we filter out such nongrammatical phrases by first categorizing tags as independent or dependent. Phrases generally do not start or end with a preposition or conjunction; therefore, preposition and conjunction tags belong to a dependent tag set \\( \\mathcal{T}_{dep} \\). On the other hand, noun, verb, adjective, and adverb tags can stand alone by themselves, making them belong to an independent tag set \\( \\mathcal{T}_{indep} \\). There are also" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.835, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.102, + 0.884, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Source document x, maximum n-gram length \\(n\\), regular expression pattern \\(p\\), POS tagging function tag(\\cdot), phrase parsing function parse(\\cdot), stemming function stem(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.138, + 0.794, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Present keyphrase candidate set \\( \\mathcal{C}_{pre} \\)" + }, + { + "type": "algorithm", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.152, + 0.852, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: \\(\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\emptyset\\) \n2: word_tag_pairs \\(\\leftarrow\\) tag(x) \n3: phrase_tree \\(\\leftarrow\\) parse(p,word_tag_pairs) \n4: for phrase \\(\\in\\) phrase_tree do \n5: for \\(w_{i},t_{i}\\in\\) phrase do \n6: if \\(t_i\\not\\in T_{indep}\\) and \\(t_i\\not\\in T_{end\\_ dep}\\) then \n7: continue \n8: span \\(\\leftarrow\\) stem(wi) \n9: \\(\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\cup \\mathrm{span}_i\\) \n10: for \\(w_{ij},t_{ij}\\in\\) phrase[i+1:] do \n11: if len(span.split())≥nthen \n12: break \n13: if \\(t_{ij}\\in T_{dep}\\) or \\(t_{ij}\\in T_{end\\_ dep}\\) then \n14: span \\(^+\\equiv\\) stem(wij) \n15: continue \n16: if \\(t_{ij}\\in T_{indep}\\) or \\(t_{ij}\\in T_{start\\_ dep}\\) then \n17: span \\(^+\\equiv\\) stem(wij) \n18: \\(\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\cup \\mathrm{span}_i\\) \n19: return \\(\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.407, + 0.885, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tag sets \\(\\mathcal{T}_{start\\_dep}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{T}_{end\\_dep}\\), which include tags that cannot start but end a phrase and tags that can start but not end a phrase, respectively. Lastly, each candidate phrase is iterated over to acquire all n-grams that make up the phrase. For example, if the phrase is \"applications of machine learning\", we select n-grams \"applications\", \"machine\", \"learning\", \"applications of machine\", \"machine learning\", and \"applications of machine learning\" as candidates. Note that phrases such as \"applications of\", \"of\", \"of machine\", and \"of machine learning\" are not chosen as candidates because they are not proper phrases. As noted by Gillick et al. (2019), hard negatives are important for learning a high-quality encoder, and we claim that our mining accomplishes this objective." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.675, + 0.722, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Extractor-Generator" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to jointly train for extraction and generation, we adopt a pretrained encoder-decoder network. Given a document \\( \\mathbf{x} \\), it is tokenized and fed as input to the encoder where we take the last hidden states of the encoder to obtain the contextual embeddings of a document:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.573, + 0.799, + 0.882, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\left[ \\mathbf {h} _ {0}, \\mathbf {h} _ {1}, \\dots , \\mathbf {h} _ {T} \\right] = \\operatorname {E n c o d e r} _ {p} (\\mathbf {x}), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(T\\) is the token sequence length of the document and \\(\\mathbf{h}_0\\) is the start token (e.g., \\(\\)) representation used as the corresponding document embedding. For each candidate phrase, we construct its embedding by taking the sum pooling of the token span representations: \\(\\mathbf{h}_p =\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.877, + 0.418, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/ \n\\(^{3}\\)https://www.nltk.org/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3006" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SumPooling \\(([\\mathbf{h}_s,\\dots ,\\mathbf{h}_e])\\) , where \\(s\\) and \\(e\\) denote the start and end indices of the span. The document and candidate phrase embeddings are then passed through a linear layer followed by nonlinear activation to obtain the hidden representations:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.194, + 0.184, + 0.488, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} = \\tanh \\left(\\mathbf {W} _ {d _ {p}} \\mathbf {h} _ {0} + \\mathbf {b} _ {d _ {p}}\\right) \\tag {2} \\\\ \\mathbf {z} _ {p} = \\tanh (\\mathbf {W} _ {p} \\mathbf {h} _ {p} + \\mathbf {b} _ {p}), \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.229, + 0.489, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{W}_{d_p},\\mathbf{W}_p,\\mathbf{b}_{d_p},\\mathbf{b}_p\\) are learnable parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.252, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contrastive Learning for Extraction To extract relevant keyphrases given a document, we train our model to learn representations by pulling keyphrase embeddings to the corresponding document while pushing away the rest of the candidate phrase embeddings in the latent space. Specifically, we follow the contrastive framework in Chen et al. (2020a) and take a cross-entropy objective between the document and each candidate phrase embedding. We set keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, while the rest of the phrases and the document are set as negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair \\((\\mathbf{z}_{d_p},\\mathbf{z}_{p,i}^+)\\) (i.e., document and present keyphrase \\(y_{p}^{i}\\)) with \\(N_{p}\\) candidate pairs is defined as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.503, + 0.486, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i} = - \\log \\frac {\\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \\tau}}{\\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \\tau} + \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N _ {p}} \\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , j} ^ {-}) / \\tau}}, \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.552, + 0.489, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\tau\\) is a temperature hyperparameter and \\(\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{u},\\mathbf{v})\\) is the cosine similarity between vectors \\(\\mathbf{u}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{v}\\). The final loss is then computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document (i.e.," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.616, + 0.26, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathcal {Y} _ {p} |} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i}).\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.644, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joint Learning Our model generates keyphrases by learning a probability distribution \\( p_{\\theta}(\\mathbf{y}_a) \\) over an absent keyphrase text sequence \\( \\mathbf{y}_a = \\{y_{a,1},\\dots,y_{a,|\\mathbf{y}|}\\} \\) (i.e., in an ONE2SEQ fashion), where \\( \\theta \\) denotes the model parameters. Then, the MLE objective used to train the model to generate absent keyphrases is defined as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.763, + 0.487, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M L E}} = - \\frac {1}{| \\mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {| \\mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\left(y _ {a, t} | \\mathbf {y} _ {a, < t}\\right). \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.81, + 0.487, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lastly, we combine the contrastive loss with the negative log-likelihood loss to train the model to both extract and generate keyphrases:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.865, + 0.486, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M L E}} + \\lambda \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}}, \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\lambda\\) is a hyperparameter balancing the losses in the objective." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SplitDataset#KPμ#KPσ|KP|μ% Absent# Samples
TrainKP20k5.283.761.9438.19530,809
ValidKP20k5.263.671.9438.2620,000
TestKP20k5.273.742.0437.0320,000
Inspec9.814.972.3322.25500
Krapivin5.843.552.0844.77400
NUS10.856.672.1351.55211
SemEval14.973.502.1555.74100
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.2, + 0.884, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Dataset statistics. \\(\\# \\mathbf{KP}_{\\mu}\\): average number of keyphrases; \\(\\# \\mathbf{KP}_{\\sigma}\\): standard deviation of the number of keyphrases; \\(|\\mathbf{KP}|_{\\mu}\\): average length (n-gram) of keyphrases per document." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.284, + 0.632, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Reranker" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.304, + 0.884, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As stated by Zhao et al. (2022), MLE-driven models predict candidates with the highest probability, disregarding the possibility that target keyphrases may appear in suboptimal candidates. This problem can be resolved by setting a large beam size for beam search; however, this approach would also result in a substantial increase in the generation of noisy keyphrases among the top-\\(k\\) predictions. Inspired by Liu and Liu (2021), we aim to reduce this noise by assigning new scores to the generated keyphrases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.884, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Candidate Generation We employ the finetuned model from Section 4.2 to generate candidate phrases that are highly likely to be absent keyphrases for the corresponding document. We perform beam search decoding using a large beam size on each training document, resulting in the overgeneration of absent keyphrase candidates. The model generates in an ONE2SEQ fashion where the outputs are sequences of phrases, which means that many duplicate phrases are present across the beams. We remove the duplicates and arrange the phrases such that each unique phrase is independently fed to the encoder. We realize that the generator sometimes fails to produce even a single target keyphrase, in which we filter out such documents for the second-stage training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.756, + 0.885, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dual Encoder We adopt two pretrained encoder-only networks and obtain the contextual embeddings of a document, as well as each candidate phrase \\(\\mathbf{c}\\): \\([\\mathbf{h}_d^0,\\mathbf{h}_d^1,\\dots,\\mathbf{h}_d^T] = \\mathrm{Encoder}_{a_1}(\\mathbf{x})\\) and \\([\\mathbf{h}_c^0,\\mathbf{h}_c^1,\\dots,\\mathbf{h}_c^{T_c}] = \\mathrm{Encoder}_{a_2}(\\mathbf{c})\\), where \\(T_{c}\\) is the token sequence length of the candidate phrase and \\(\\mathbf{h}_d^0\\) and \\(\\mathbf{h}_c^0\\) are the start token representations used as the document and candidate phrase embedding, respectively. Consequently, their hidden representations are obtained by \\(\\mathbf{z}_{d_a} = \\tanh (\\mathbf{W}_{d_a}\\mathbf{h}_d^0 +\\mathbf{b}_{d_a})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3007" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelInspecKrapivenNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.2250.2620.2690.3540.3230.3970.2420.2830.2910.367
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.2290.2700.2820.3660.3250.3930.2460.2900.2920.366
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.2530.3010.3000.3690.3750.4330.2870.3290.3210.386
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.2530.2910.2860.347--0.2840.3350.3110.374
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.2850.3240.3260.3640.4060.4500.3310.3570.3580.392
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.3300.365--0.4050.4490.3330.3590.3700.404
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.2160.2650.2760.3660.3960.4610.2830.3320.3110.379
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.2600.288--0.4150.4430.3020.3220.3470.352
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.2600.294--0.4120.4390.3290.3560.3510.355
SIMCKP0.35660.35880.40580.40580.49680.49890.38720.38640.42610.4271
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.263, + 0.883, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Present keyphrase prediction results. The best results are in bold, while the second best are underlined. The subscript denotes the corresponding standard deviation (e.g., \\(0.427_{1}\\) indicates \\(0.427 \\pm 0.001\\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.316, + 0.489, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and \\(\\mathbf{z}_a = \\tanh (\\mathbf{W}_a\\mathbf{h}_c^0 +\\mathbf{b}_a)\\) , where \\(\\mathbf{W}_{d_a}\\) \\(\\mathbf{W}_a\\) \\(\\mathbf{b}_{d_a}\\) \\(\\mathbf{b}_a\\) are learnable parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.359, + 0.49, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Contrautive Learning for Generation To rank relevant keyphrases high given a document, we train the dual-encoder framework via contrastive learning. Following a similar process as before, we train our model to learn absent keyphrase representations by semantically aligning them with the corresponding document. Specifically, we set the correctly generated keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, whereas the rest of the generated candidates and the document become negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair \\((\\mathbf{z}_{d_a},\\mathbf{z}_{a,i}^+)\\) (i.e., document and absent keyphrase \\(y_{a}^{i}\\)) with \\(N_{a}\\) candidate pairs then follows Equation 3, where the cross-entropy objective maximizes the similarity of positive pairs and minimizes the rest. The final loss is computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document with a summation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.663, + 0.322, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.689, + 0.229, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our framework on five scientific article datasets: Inspec (Hulth, 2003), Krapivin (Krapivin et al., 2009), NUS (Nguyen and Kan, 2007), Se-mEval (Kim et al., 2010), and KP20k (Meng et al., 2017). Following previous work (Meng et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020), we concatenate the title and abstract of each sample as a source document and use the training set of KP20k to train all the models. Data statistics are shown in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.235, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare our framework with two kinds of KP models: Generative and Unified." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.317, + 0.885, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generative Models Generative models predict both present and absent keyphrases through generation. Most models follow catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020), a seq2seq framework under the ONE2SEQ paradigm. We report the performance of catSeq along with its variants such as catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b), catseqTG-2RF\\(_1\\) (Chan et al., 2019), and ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b). We also compare with two state-of-the-arts SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b) and CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.886, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unified Models Unified models combine extractive and generative methods to predict keyphrases. We compare with the latest models including SEGNet (Ahmad et al., 2021), UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021), and PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.578, + 0.707, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.599, + 0.884, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Chan et al. (2019), all models are evaluated on macro-averaged \\( F_{1}@5 \\) and \\( F_{1}@M \\). \\( F_{1}@M \\) compares all the predicted keyphrases with the ground truth, taking the number of predictions into account. \\( F_{1}@5 \\) measures only the top five predictions, but if the model predicts less than five keyphrases, we randomly append incorrect keyphrases until it obtains five. The motivation is to avoid \\( F_{1}@5 \\) and \\( F_{1}@M \\) reaching similar results when the number of predictions is less than five. We stem all phrases using the Porter Stemmer and remove all duplicates after stemming." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.802, + 0.742, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our framework is built on PyTorch and Huggingface's Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use BART (Lewis et al., 2020) for the encoder-decoder model and uncased BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for the reranking model. We optimize their weights with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3008" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelInspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.0040.0080.0180.0360.0160.0280.0160.0280.0150.032
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.0050.0110.0180.0340.0110.0180.0110.0180.0150.032
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.0120.0210.0300.0530.0190.0310.0210.0300.0270.050
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.0110.0220.0220.043--0.0170.0250.0160.032
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.0210.0340.0470.0730.0420.0600.0260.0340.0360.058
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.0320.045--0.0610.0790.0390.0440.0530.071
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.0090.0150.0180.0360.0210.0360.0210.0300.0180.036
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.0260.036--0.0450.0560.0450.0520.0460.068
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.0170.022--0.0360.0420.0280.0320.0320.042
SIMCKP0.03320.03530.07810.08900.076120.088150.04020.04760.07320.0801
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.345, + 0.262, + 0.651, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Absent keyphrase prediction results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.302, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2019) and tune our hyperparameters to maximize \\( F_{1} \\) on the validation set, incorporating techniques such as early stopping and linear warmup followed by linear decay to 0. We set the maximum n-gram length of candidate phrases to 6 during mining and fix \\( \\lambda \\) to 0.3 for scaling the contrastive loss. When generating candidates for absent keyphrases, we use beam search with the beam size 50. During inference, we take the candidate phrases as predictions in which the cosine similarity with the corresponding document is higher than the threshold found in the validation set. The threshold is calculated by taking the average of the \\( F_{1} \\) maximizing thresholds for each document. If the number of predictions is less than five, we retrieve the top similar phrases until we obtain five. We conduct our experiments with three different random seeds and report the averaged results." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.606, + 0.332, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Results and Analyses" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.633, + 0.486, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Present and Absent Keyphrase Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.656, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The present and absent keyphrase prediction results are demonstrated in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. The performance of our model mostly exceeds that of previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin, showing that our method is effective in predicting both present and absent keyphrases. Particularly, there is a notable improvement in the \\( F_{1}@5 \\) performance, indicating the effectiveness of our approach in retrieving the top- \\( k \\) predictions. On the other hand, we observe that \\( F_{1}@M \\) values are not much different from \\( F_{1}@5 \\), and we believe this is due to the critical limitation of a global threshold. The number of keyphrases varies significantly for each document, and finding op" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.299, + 0.885, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Present keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.4260.4270.4110.412
w/o CL0.2950.3880.2780.356
CL⇒SEQLABEL0.2360.3840.1800.272
CL⇒BINARYCLF0.2090.3220.1710.251
Absent keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.0730.0800.0570.064
w/o CL0.0300.0660.0270.051
w/o RERANKER0.0350.0690.0250.041
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.464, + 0.884, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study. \"w/o CL\" is the vanilla BART model using beam search for predictions. \"w/o reranker\" extracts with CL but generates using only beam search." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.884, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "timal thresholds seems necessary for improving the \\(F_{1}@\\mathcal{M}\\) performance. Nonetheless, real-world applications are often focused on identifying the top-\\(k\\) keywords, which we believe our model effectively accomplishes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.628, + 0.675, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.65, + 0.884, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We investigate each component of our model to understand their effects on the overall performance and report the effectiveness of each building block in Table 4. Following Xie et al. (2022), we report on two kinds of test sets: 1) KP20k, which we refer to as in-domain, and 2) the combination of Inspec, Krapivin, NUS, and SemEval, which is out-of-domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of CL We notice a significant drop in both present and absent keyphrase prediction performance after decoupling contrastive learning (CL). For a fair comparison, we set the beam size to 50, but our model still outperforms the purely generative model, demonstrating the effectiveness of CL. We also compare our model with two extractive methods: sequence labeling and binary classifica" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4We compared with \\(F_{1}@\\mathbb{5}\\) and found no difference in determining the best hyperparameter configuration." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3009" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.085, + 0.465, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.27, + 0.489, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Comparison of present keyphrase prediction performance w.r.t max n-gram length during extraction." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.311, + 0.487, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Mining MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
IN-BATCH DOC NEGATIVES0.0770.0380.0920.065
RANDOM NEGATIVES0.2100.2260.2110.267
HARD NEGATIVES (OURS)0.4260.4270.4110.412
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.382, + 0.489, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparison of negative mining methods for present keyphrase prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.435, + 0.489, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tion. For sequence labeling, we follow previous work (Tokala et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021) and employ a BiLSTM-CRF, a strong sequence labeling baseline, on top of the encoder to predict a BIO5 tag for each token, while for binary classification, a model takes each phrase embedding to predict whether each phrase is a keyphrase or not. CL outperforms both approaches, showing that learning phrase representations is more efficacious." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.589, + 0.49, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of Reranking We remove the reranker and observe the degradation of performance in absent keyphrase prediction. Note that the vanilla BART (i.e., w/o CL) is trained to generate both present and absent keyphrases, while the other model (i.e., w/o RERANKER) is trained to generate only the absent keyphrases. The former performs slightly better in out-of-domain scenarios, as it is trained to generate diverse keyphrases, while the latter excels in in-domain since absent keyphrases resemble those encountered during training. Nevertheless, the reranker outperforms the two, indicating that it plays a vital role in the KG part of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.808, + 0.475, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Performance over Max N-Gram Length" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.829, + 0.489, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct experiments on various maximum lengths of n-grams for extraction and compare the" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.084, + 0.696, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.699, + 0.083, + 0.882, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.193, + 0.885, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Visualization of the semantic space using t-SNE. The left shows the extractor space, while the right depicts the generator space after reranking." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.885, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "present keyphrase prediction performance from unigrams to 6-grams, as shown in Figure 3. For all datasets, the performance steadily increases until the length of 3, which then plateaus to the rest of the lengths. This indicates that the testing datasets are mostly composed of unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams. The performance increases slightly with the length of 6 for some datasets, such as Inspec and SemEval, suggesting that there is a non-negligible number of 6-gram keyphrases. Therefore, the length of 6 seems feasible for maximum performance in all experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.465, + 0.874, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.4 Impact of Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.486, + 0.884, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to assess the effectiveness of our hard negative phrase mining method, we compare it with other negative mining methods and report the results in Table 5. First, utilizing in-batch document embeddings as negatives yields the poorest performance. This is likely due to ineffective differentiation between keyphrases and other phrase embeddings. Additionally, we experiment with using random text spans as negatives and observe that although it aids in representation learning to some degree, the performance improvement is limited. The outcomes of these two baselines demonstrate that our approach successfully mines hard negatives, enabling our encoder to acquire high-quality representations of keyphrases." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.738, + 0.807, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.5 Visualization of Semantic Space" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To verify that our model works as intended, we visualize the representation space of our model with t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) plots, as depicted in Figure 4. From the visualizations, we find that our model successfully pulls keyphrase embeddings close to their corresponding document in both extractor and generator space. Note that the generator space displays a lesser number of phrases than the beam size 50 because the duplicates after stemming have been removed." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.868, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5We use the BIO format for our sequence labeling baseline. For example, if the phrase \"voip conferencing system\" is tokenized into \"v ##oi ##p con ##fer ##encing system\", it is labeled as \"B I I I I I\"." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3010" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.487, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
InspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
R@500.144160.22650.185120.07250.2207
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.121, + 0.486, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Upper bound performance for absent keyphrase prediction after overgeneration with the beam size 50." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.177, + 0.373, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.6 Upper Bound Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.2, + 0.49, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following previous work (Meng et al., 2021; Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), we measure the upper bound performance after overgeneration by calculating the recall score of the generated phrases and report the results in Table 6. The high recall demonstrates the potential for reranking to increase precision, and we observe that there is room for improvement by better reranking, opening up an opportunity for future research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.359, + 0.247, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.386, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper presents a contrastive framework that aims to improve the keyphrase prediction performance by learning phrase-level representations, rectifying the shortcomings of existing unified models that score and predict keyphrases at a token level. To effectively identify keyphrases, we divide our framework into two stages: a joint model for extracting and generating keyphrases and a reranking model that scores the generated outputs based on the semantic relation with the corresponding document. We empirically show that our method significantly improves the performance of both present and absent keyphrase prediction against existing state-of-the-art models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.626, + 0.22, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.653, + 0.49, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the promising prediction performance of the framework proposed in this paper, there is still room for improvement. A fixed global threshold has limited the potential performance of the framework, especially when evaluating \\( F_{1} \\) at \\( M \\). We expect that adaptively selecting a threshold value via an auxiliary module for each data sample might overcome such a challenge. Moreover, the result of the second stage highly depends on the performance of the first stage model, directing the next step of research towards an end-to-end framework." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.845, + 0.287, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "government (MSIT) (No. 2020-0-00368, A Neural-Symbolic Model for Knowledge Acquisition and Inference Techniques and No. 2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1A2B5B02001913). We thank all researchers at Naver WEBTOON Ltd. for their valuable discussions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.257, + 0.61, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.279, + 0.885, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wasi Ahmad, Xiao Bai, Soomin Lee, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Select, extract and generate: Neural keyphrase generation with layer-wise coverage attention. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1389–1404, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.407, + 0.887, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rabah Alzaidy, Cornelia Caragea, and C. Lee Giles. 2019. Bi-lstm-crf sequence labeling for keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In *The World Wide Web Conference*, WWW '19, page 2551-2557, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.497, + 0.887, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kamil Bennani-Smires, Claudi Musat, Andreae Hossmann, Michael Baeriswyl, and Martin Jaggi. 2018. Simple unsupervised keyphrase extraction using sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 221-229, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.599, + 0.885, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adrien Bougouin, Florian Boudin, and Beatrice Daille. 2013. TopicRank: Graph-based topic ranking for keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 543-551, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.687, + 0.885, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cornelia Caragea, Florin Adrian Bulgarov, Andreea Godea, and Sujatha Das Gollapalli. 2014. Citation-enhanced keyphrase extraction from research papers: A supervised approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1435-1446, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.802, + 0.885, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hou Pong Chan, Wang Chen, Lu Wang, and Irwin King. 2019. Neural keyphrase generation via reinforcement learning with adaptive rewards. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2163-2174, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.891, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020a. A simple framework for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.279, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3011" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1597-1607. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.488, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, Lidong Bing, and Irwin King. 2019a. An integrated approach for keyphrase generation via exploring the power of retrieval and extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2846-2856, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.291, + 0.487, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, and Irwin King. 2020b. Exclusive hierarchical decoding for deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1095-1105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.38, + 0.487, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wang Chen, Yifan Gao, Jiani Zhang, Irwin King, and Michael R Lyu. 2019b. Title-guided encoding for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6268-6275." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.456, + 0.487, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y. LeCun. 2005. Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), volume 1, pages 539-546 vol. 1." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.533, + 0.488, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.661, + 0.488, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Gillick, Sayali Kulkarni, Larry Lansing, Alessandro Presta, Jason Baldridge, Eugene Ie, and Diego Garcia-Olano. 2019. Learning dense representations for entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 528-537, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sujatha Das Gollapalli, Xiao-Li Li, and Peng Yang. 2017. Incorporating expert knowledge into keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y. LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.883, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anette Hulth. 2003. Improved automatic keyword extraction given more linguistic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 216-223." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.227, + 0.883, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Su Nam Kim, Olena Medelyan, Min-Yen Kan, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 5: Automatic keyphrase extraction from scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 21–26, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.316, + 0.883, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Youngsam Kim, Munhyong Kim, Andrew Cattle, Julia Otmakhova, Suzi Park, and Hyopil Shin. 2013. Applying graph-based keyword extraction to document retrieval. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 864-868, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.419, + 0.883, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mikalai Krapivin, Aliaksandr Autaeu, and Maurizio Marchese. 2009. Large dataset for keyphrase extraction." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.469, + 0.883, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kalpesh Krishna, Yapei Chang, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2022. RankGen: Improving text generation with large ranking models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 199-232, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.572, + 0.883, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mayank Kulkarni, Debanjan Mahata, Ravneet Arora, and Rajarshi Bhowmik. 2022. Learning rich representation of keyphrases from text. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 891–906, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.661, + 0.883, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinnian Liang, Shuangzhi Wu, Mu Li, and Zhoujun Li. 2021. Unsupervised keyphrase extraction by jointly modeling local and global context. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 155-164, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rui Liu, Zheng Lin, and Weiping Wang. 2021. Addressing extraction and generation separately:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3012" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Keyphrase prediction with pre-trained language models. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3180-3191." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.139, + 0.487, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yixin Liu and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SimCLS: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1065-1072, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.258, + 0.487, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyuan Liu, Xinxiong Chen, Yabin Zheng, and Maosong Sun. 2011. Automatic keyphrase extraction by bridging vocabulary gap. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 135-144, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.35, + 0.487, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.404, + 0.487, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Luan, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Scientific information extraction with semi-supervised neural tagging. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2641-2651, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.509, + 0.487, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olena Medelyan, Eibe Frank, and Ian H. Witten. 2009. Human-competitive tagging using automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1318-1327, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.602, + 0.487, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olena Medelyan, Ian H Witten, and David Milne. 2008. Topic indexing with wikipedia. In Proceedings of the AAAI WikiAI workshop, volume 1, pages 19-24." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.655, + 0.487, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rui Meng, Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Sanqiang Zhao, Adam Trischler, and Daqing He. 2021. An empirical study on neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4985-5007." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.76, + 0.487, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rui Meng, Sanqiang Zhao, Shuguang Han, Daqing He, Peter Brusilovsky, and Yu Chi. 2017. Deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 582-592, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thuy Dung Nguyen and Min-Yen Kan. 2007. Keyphrase extraction in scientific publications. In Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers, pages 317-326, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.882, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ramakanth Pasunuru and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Multireward reinforced summarization with saliency and entailment. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 646-653, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.278, + 0.882, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jishnu Ray Chowdhury, Seo Yeon Park, Tuhin Kundu, and Cornelia Caragea. 2022. KPDROP: Improving absent keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 4853-4870, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.368, + 0.882, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingyang Song, Liping Jing, and Lin Xiao. 2021. Importance Estimation from Multiple Perspectives for Keyphrase Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2726-2736, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.471, + 0.882, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingyang Song, Lin Xiao, and Liping Jing. 2023. Learning to extract from multiple perspectives for neural keyphrase extraction. Computer Speech & Language, 81:101502." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.534, + 0.882, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.597, + 0.882, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Si Sun, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Bao. 2021. Capturing global informativeness in open domain keyphrase extraction. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 10, pages 275-287. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.7, + 0.882, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Sun, Hangping Qiu, Yu Zheng, Zhongwei Wang, and Chaoran Zhang. 2020. Sifrank: a new baseline for unsupervised keyphrase extraction based on pre-trained language model. IEEE Access, 8:10896-10906." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.764, + 0.882, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Avinash Swaminathan, Haimin Zhang, Debanjan Mahata, Rakesh Gosangi, Rajiv Ratn Shah, and Amanda Stent. 2020. A preliminary exploration of GANs for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8021-8030, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.882, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaohua Tang, Fandong Meng, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Philip L. H. Yu. 2016. Neural machine translation with external phrase memory. CoRR, abs/1606.01792." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3013" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Santosh Tokala, Debarshi Kumar Sanyal, Plaban Kumar Bhowmick, and Partha Pratim Das. 2020. SaSAKE: Syntax and semantics aware keyphrase extraction from research papers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5372-5383, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.205, + 0.487, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579-2605." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.258, + 0.487, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaojun Wan and Jianguo Xiao. 2008. Single document keyphrase extraction using neighborhood knowledge. In AAAI, volume 8, pages 855-860." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.312, + 0.487, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minmei Wang, Bo Zhao, and Yihua Huang. 2016. *Ptr: Phrase-based topical ranking for automatic keyphrase extraction in scientific publications*. In *Neural Information Processing: 23rd International Conference, ICONIP* 2016, Kyoto, Japan, October 16–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 23, pages 120–128. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.404, + 0.487, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ian H Witten, Gordon W Paynter, Eibe Frank, Carl Gutwin, and Craig G Nevill-Manning. 1999. Kea: practical automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital libraries, pages 254-255." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.483, + 0.487, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.655, + 0.487, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Di Wu, Wasi Ahmad, Sunipa Dev, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022a. Representation learning for resource-constrained keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 700-716, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.747, + 0.487, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huanqin Wu, Wei Liu, Lei Li, Dan Nie, Tao Chen, Feng Zhang, and Di Wang. 2021. UniKeyphrase: A unified extraction and generation framework for keyphrase prediction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 825-835, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huanqin Wu, Baijiaxin Ma, Wei Liu, Tao Chen, and Dan Nie. 2022b. Fast and constrained absent keyphrase generation by prompt-based learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11495-11503." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Binbin Xie, Xiangpeng Wei, Baosong Yang, Huan Lin, Jun Xie, Xiaoli Wang, Min Zhang, and Jinsong Su. 2022. WR-One2Set: Towards well-calibrated keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7283-7293, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.201, + 0.882, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hai Ye and Lu Wang. 2018. Semi-supervised learning for neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4142-4153, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.291, + 0.882, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiacheng Ye, Ruijian Cai, Tao Gui, and Qi Zhang. 2021a. Heterogeneous graph neural networks for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2705-2715, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.393, + 0.882, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiacheng Ye, Tao Gui, Yichao Luo, Yige Xu, and Qi Zhang. 2021b. One2Set: Generating diverse keyphrases as a set. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4598-4608, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.508, + 0.882, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Rui Meng, Khushboo Thaker, Peter Brusilovsky, Daqing He, and Adam Trischler. 2020. One size does not fit all: Generating and evaluating variable number of keyphrases. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7961-7975, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.611, + 0.882, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linhan Zhang, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Chong Deng, ShiLiang Zhang, Bing Li, Wei Wang, and Xin Cao. 2022. MDERank: A masked document embedding rank approach for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 396-409, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.882, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qi Zhang, Yang Wang, Yeyun Gong, and Xuanjing Huang. 2016. Keyphrase extraction using deep recurrent neural networks on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 836-845, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.803, + 0.882, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guangzhen Zhao, Guoshun Yin, Peng Yang, and Yu Yao. 2022. Keyphrase generation via soft and hard semantic corrections. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7757-7768, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Zhao, Junwei Bao, Yifan Wang, Youzheng Wu, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. SGG: Learning" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3014" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to select, guide, and generate for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5717-5726, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.178, + 0.427, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Additional Details for SIMCKP" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.203, + 0.486, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Details for Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.225, + 0.489, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to effectively extract present keyphrases, we categorize POS tags to the corresponding tag set as the following:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.282, + 0.488, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- \\(\\mathcal{T}_{\\text{indep}}\\): \\(\\{\\text{\"CD\", \"FW\", \"GW\", \"NN*\", \"VB*\", \"JJ*\", \"RB*\", \"ADD\"\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.326, + 0.429, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- \\(\\mathcal{T}_{dep}\\): \\(\\{\\text{\"CC\", \"POS\", \"HYPH\", \"IN\"}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.353, + 0.291, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- \\(\\mathcal{T}_{start\\_dep}\\): \\(\\{\\text{“RP}^*\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.379, + 0.387, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathcal{T}_{end\\_dep}\\) : \\(\\{\\text{\"DT\",\"AFX\",\"LS\"}\\}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.282, + 0.488, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.406, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where each tag is defined in the NLTK library. An asterisk (*) refers to any character(s) that come after the tag name. For example, \"JJ\", \"JJR\", and \"JJS\" are adjectives, comparative adjectives, and superlative adjectives, respectively, and all of them are elements of the independent tag set \\( \\mathcal{T}_{\\text{indep}} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.513, + 0.357, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Hyperparameter Search" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.534, + 0.49, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform a grid search to find the best hyperparameter configuration and report the tuning range used for our experiments in Table 7. The evaluation on the validation set is performed for every 5,000 gradient accumulating steps, and the tolerance increases by 1 when the validation loss or \\( F_{1} \\)@M is worse than the previous evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.659, + 0.488, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelHyperparameterRangeBest
BARTBASElearning rate{ 5e-5, 1e-4}5e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.0
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0}0.1
λ{ 0.1, 0.2, ..., 1.0}0.3
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
BERTBASElearning rate{ 1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5, 5e-5}3e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.1
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1}0.1
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.855, + 0.486, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Hyperparameter tuning range and best values used in the experiments." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3015" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_origin.pdf b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..360ccfa55c4824cbef01d0bb36b5cccbed7db211 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/f5d22dff-d4ee-41ab-8281-25b7ba3cad7b_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:ee6568f394ba3fd237d24327150cdf224c2c00b88b370aaaa22c1c0208769310 +size 659227 diff --git a/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/full.md b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de0184263ccfeb062f1b5e44a78c5158904ded7c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,354 @@ +# SimCKP: Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations + +Minseok Choi\* Chaeheon Gwak \* Seho Kim \* Si Hyeong Kim \* Jaegul Choo KAIST AI Naver Webtoon AI {minseok.choi, jchoo}@kaist.ac.kr {ch.gwak, seho.kim, typekim}@webtoonscorp.com + +# Abstract + +Keyphrase generation (KG) aims to generate a set of summarizing words or phrases given a source document, while keyphrase extraction (KE) aims to identify them from the text. Because the search space is much smaller in KE, it is often combined with KG to predict keyphrases that may or may not exist in the corresponding document. However, current unified approaches adopt sequence labeling and maximization-based generation that primarily operate at a token level, falling short in observing and scoring keyphrases as a whole. In this work, we propose SIMCKP, a simple contrastive learning framework that consists of two stages: 1) An extractor-generator that extracts keyphrases by learning context-aware phrase-level representations in a contrastive manner while also generating keyphrases that do not appear in the document; 2) A reranker that adapts scores for each generated phrase by likewise aligning their representations with the corresponding document. Experimental results on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, which outperforms the state-of-the-art models by a significant margin. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Keyphrase prediction (KP) is a task of identifying a set of relevant words or phrases that capture the main ideas or topics discussed in a given document. Prior studies have defined keyphrases that appear in the document as present keyphrases and the opposites as absent keyphrases. High-quality keyphrases are beneficial for various applications such as information retrieval (Kim et al., 2013), text summarization (Pasunuru and Bansal, 2018), and translation (Tang et al., 2016). KP methods are generally divided into keyphrase extraction (KE) (Witten + +
Title: Nonlinear magnetostatic BEM formulation using one unknown double layer charge
Document: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to solve generic magnetostatic problems by BEM, by studying how to use a boundary integral equation (BIE) with the double layer charge as unknown derived from the scalar potential. Design/methodology/approach - Since the double layer charge produces only the potential gap without disturbing the normal magnetic flux density, the field is accurately formulated even by one BIE with one unknown. Once the double layer charge is determined, Biot-Savart's law gives easily the magnetic flux density. Findings - The BIE using double layer charge is capable of treating robustly geometrical singularities at edges and corners. It is also capable of solving the problems with extremely high magnetic permeability. Originality/value - The proposed BIE contains only the double layer charge while the conventional equations derived from the scalar potential contain the single and double layer charges as unknowns. In the multiply connected problems, the excitation potential in the material is derived from the magnetomotive force to represent the circulating fields due to multiply connected exciting currents.
Present keyphrases: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected problem, scalar potential, integral equations}
Absent keyphrases: {nonlinear magnetostatic analysis, electric current}
Sequence labeling result: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected, scalar potential}
MLE result: {magnetostatic energy analysis, magnetomotive force, electric current}
+ +Figure 1: An example of keyphrase prediction. Present and absent keyphrases are colored blue and red, respectively. Overlapping keyphrases are in bold. + +et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009; Caragea et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Alzaidy et al., 2019) and keyphrase generation (KG) models (Meng et al., 2017; Ye and Wang, 2018; Chan et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020b; Yuan et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022), where the former only extracts present keyphrases from the text and the latter generates both present and absent keyphrases. + +Recently, several methods integrating KE and KG have been proposed (Chen et al., 2019a; Liu et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021, 2022b). These models predict present keyphrases using an extractor and absent keyphrases using a generator, thereby effectively exploiting a relatively small search space in extraction. However, current integrated models suffer from two limitations. First, they employ sequence labeling models that predict the probability of each token being a constituent of a present keyphrase, where such token-level predictions may be a problem when the target keyphrase is fairly long or overlapping. As shown in Figure 1, the sequence labeling model makes an incomplete prediction for the term "multi + +ply connected problem" because only the tokens for "multiply connected" have yielded a high probability. We also observe that the model is prone to miss the keyphrase "integral equations" every time because it overlaps with another keyphrase "boundary integral equation" in the text. Secondly, integrated or even purely generative models are usually based on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), which predicts the probability of each token given the past seen tokens. This approach scores the most probable text sequence the highest, but as pointed out by Zhao et al. (2022), keyphrases from the maximum-probability sequence are not necessarily aligned with target keyphrases. In Figure 1, the MLE-based model predicts "magnetostatic energy analysis", which is semantically similar to but not aligned with the target keyphrase "nonlinear magnetostatic analysis". This may be a consequence of greedy search, which can be remedied by finding the target keyphrases across many beams during beam search, but it would also create a large number of noisy keyphrases being generated in the top- $k$ predictions. + +Existing KE approaches based on representation learning may address the above limitations (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). These methods first mine candidates that are likely to be keyphrases in the document and then rank them based on the relevance between the document and keyphrase embeddings, which have shown promising results. Nevertheless, these techniques only tackle present keyphrases from the text, which may mitigate the overlapping keyphrase problem from sequence labeling, but they are not suitable for handling MLE and the generated keyphrases. + +In this work, we propose a two-stage contrastive learning framework that leverages context-aware phrase-level representations on both extraction and generation. First, we train an encoder-decoder network that extracts present keyphrases on top of the encoder and generates absent keyphrases through the decoder. The model learns to extract present keyphrases by maximizing the agreement between the document and present keyphrase representations. Specifically, we consider the document and its corresponding present keyphrases as positive pairs and the rest of the candidate phrases as negative pairs. Note that these negative candidate phrases are mined from the document using + +a heuristic algorithm (see Section 4.1). The model pulls keyphrase embeddings to the document embedding and pushes away the rest of the candidates in a contrastive manner. Then during inference, top- $k$ keyphrases that are semantically close to the document are predicted. After the model has finished training, it generates candidates for absent keyphrases. These candidates are simply constructed by overgenerating with a large beam size for beam search decoding. To reduce the noise introduced by beam search, we train a reranker that allocates new scores for the generated phrases via another round of contrastive learning, where this time the agreement between the document and absent keyphrase representations is maximized. Overall, major contributions of our work can be summarized as follows: + +- We present a contrastive learning framework that learns to extract and generate keyphrases by building context-aware phrase-level representations. +- We develop a reranker based on the semantic alignment with the document to improve the absent keyphrase prediction performance. +- To the best of our knowledge, we introduce contrastive learning to a unified keyphrase extraction and generation task for the first time and empirically show its effectiveness across multiple KP benchmarks. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 Keyphrase Extraction + +Keyphrase extraction focuses on predicting salient phrases that are present in the source document. Existing approaches can be broadly divided into two-step extraction methods and sequence labeling models. Two-step methods first determine a set of candidate phrases from the text using different heuristic rules (Hulth, 2003; Medelyan et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016). These candidate phrases are then sorted and ranked by either supervised algorithms (Witten et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009) or unsupervised learning (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bougouin et al., 2013; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). Another line of work is sequence labeling, where a model learns to predict the likelihood of each word being a keyphrase word (Zhang et al., 2016; Luan et al., 2017; Gollapalli et al., 2017; Alzaidy et al., 2019). + +![](images/5dd61f5feee02e6b4f9265f486a6ed042b0140eca1966fa78b4cd17f507e2dd9.jpg) +Figure 2: A contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In the first stage (left), the model learns to maximize the relevance between present keyphrases and their corresponding document while generating absent keyphrases. After training, the model generates candidates for absent keyphrases and sends them to the second stage (right), where the candidates are reranked after their relevance with the document has been maximized/minimized. + +# 2.2 Keyphrase Generation + +The task of keyphrase generation is introduced to predict both present and absent keyphrases. Meng et al. (2017) first proposed CopyRNN, a seq2seq framework with attention and copy mechanism under the ONE2ONE paradigm, where a model is trained to generate a single keyphrase per document. However, due to the problem of having to fix the number of predictions, Yuan et al. (2020) proposed the ONE2SEQ paradigm where a model learns to predict a dynamic number of keyphrases by concatenating them into a single sequence. Several ONE2SEQ-based models have been proposed using semi-supervised learning (Ye and Wang, 2018), reinforcement learning (Chan et al., 2019), adversarial training (Swaminathan et al., 2020), hierarchical decoding (Chen et al., 2020b), graphs (Ye et al., 2021a), dropout (Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), and pretraining (Kulkarni et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022a) to improve keyphrase generation. + +Furthermore, there have been several attempts to unify KE and KG tasks into a single learning framework. These methods not only focus on generating only the absent keyphrases but also perform presumably an easier task by extracting present keyphrases from the document, instead of having to generate them from a myriad of vocabularies. Current methodologies utilize external source (Chen et al., 2019a), selection guidance (Zhao et al., 2021), salient sentence detection (Ahmad et al., 2021), relation network (Wu et al., 2021), and prompt-based learning (Wu et al., 2022b). + +# 2.3 Contrastive Learning + +Methods to extract rich feature representations based on contrastive learning (Chopra et al., 2005; Hadsell et al., 2006) have been widely studied in numerous literature. The primary goal of the learn + +ing process is to pull semantically similar data to be close while pushing dissimilar data to be far away in the representation space. Contrastive learning has shown great success for various computer vision tasks, especially in self-supervised training (Chen et al., 2020a), whereas Gao et al. (2021) have devised a contrastive framework to learn universal sentence embeddings for natural language processing. Furthermore, Liu and Liu (2021) formulated a seq2seq framework employing contrastive learning for abstractive summarization. Similarly, a contrastive framework for autoregressive language modeling (Su et al., 2022) and open-ended text generation (Krishna et al., 2022) have been presented. + +There have been endeavors to incorporate contrastive learning in the context of keyphrase extraction. These methods generally utilized the pairwise ranking loss to rank phrases with respect to the document to extract present keyphrases (Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). In this paper, we devise a contrastive learning framework for keyphrase embeddings on both extraction and generation to improve the keyphrase prediction performance. + +# 3 Problem Definition + +Given a document $\mathbf{x}$ , the task of keyphrase prediction is to identify a set of keyphrases $\mathcal{Y} = \{\mathbf{y}^i\}_{i=1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Y}|}$ , where $|\mathcal{Y}|$ is the number of keyphrases. In the ONE2ONE training paradigm, each sample pair $(\mathbf{x}, \mathcal{Y})$ is split into multiple pairs $\{(x, y^i)\}_{i=1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Y}|}$ to train the model to generate one keyphrase per document. In ONE2SEQ, each sample pair is processed as $(x, f(\mathcal{Y}))$ , where $f(\mathcal{Y})$ is a concatenated sequence of keyphrases. In this work, we train for extraction and generation simultaneously; therefore, we decompose $\mathcal{Y}$ into a present keyphrase set $\mathcal{Y}_p = \{\mathbf{y}_p^i\}_{i=1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Y}_p|}$ and an absent keyphrase set $\mathcal{Y}_a = \{\mathbf{y}_a^i\}_{i=1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Y}_a|}$ . + +# 4 SIMCKP + +In this section, we elaborate on our approach to building a contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In Section 4.1, we delineate our heuristic algorithm for constructing a set of candidates for present keyphrase extraction; in Section 4.2, we describe the multi-task learning process for extracting and generating keyphrases; and lastly, we explain our method for reranking the generated keyphrases in Section 4.3. Figure 2 illustrates the overall architecture of our framework. + +# 4.1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining + +To obtain the candidates for present keyphrases, we employ a similar heuristic approach from existing extractive methods (Hulth, 2003; Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). A notable difference between prior work and ours is that we keep not only noun phrases but also verb, adjective, and adverb phrases, as well as phrases containing prepositions and conjunctions. We observe that keyphrases are actually made up of diverse parts of speech, and extracting only the noun phrases could lead to missing a significant number of keyphrases. Following the common practice, we assign part-of-speech (POS) tags to each word using the Stanford POSTagger2 and chunk the phrase structure tree into valid phrases using the NLTK RegexpParser3. + +As shown in Algorithm 1, each document is converted to a phrase structure tree where each word $w$ is tagged with a POS tag $t$ . The tagged document is then split into possible phrase chunks based on our predefined regular expression rules, which must include one or more valid tags such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Nevertheless, such valid tag sequences are sometimes nongrammatical, which cannot be a proper phrase and thus may introduce noise during training. In response, we filter out such nongrammatical phrases by first categorizing tags as independent or dependent. Phrases generally do not start or end with a preposition or conjunction; therefore, preposition and conjunction tags belong to a dependent tag set $\mathcal{T}_{dep}$ . On the other hand, noun, verb, adjective, and adverb tags can stand alone by themselves, making them belong to an independent tag set $\mathcal{T}_{indep}$ . There are also + +# Algorithm 1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining + +Input: Source document x, maximum n-gram length $n$ , regular expression pattern $p$ , POS tagging function tag(\cdot), phrase parsing function parse(\cdot), stemming function stem(\cdot) + +Output: Present keyphrase candidate set $\mathcal{C}_{pre}$ + +1: $\mathcal{C}_{pre}\gets \emptyset$ +2: word_tag_pairs $\leftarrow$ tag(x) +3: phrase_tree $\leftarrow$ parse(p,word_tag_pairs) +4: for phrase $\in$ phrase_tree do +5: for $w_{i},t_{i}\in$ phrase do +6: if $t_i\not\in T_{indep}$ and $t_i\not\in T_{end\_ dep}$ then +7: continue +8: span $\leftarrow$ stem(wi) +9: $\mathcal{C}_{pre}\gets \mathcal{C}_{pre}\cup \mathrm{span}_i$ +10: for $w_{ij},t_{ij}\in$ phrase[i+1:] do +11: if len(span.split())≥nthen +12: break +13: if $t_{ij}\in T_{dep}$ or $t_{ij}\in T_{end\_ dep}$ then +14: span $^+\equiv$ stem(wij) +15: continue +16: if $t_{ij}\in T_{indep}$ or $t_{ij}\in T_{start\_ dep}$ then +17: span $^+\equiv$ stem(wij) +18: $\mathcal{C}_{pre}\gets \mathcal{C}_{pre}\cup \mathrm{span}_i$ +19: return $\mathcal{C}_{pre}$ + +tag sets $\mathcal{T}_{start\_dep}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{end\_dep}$ , which include tags that cannot start but end a phrase and tags that can start but not end a phrase, respectively. Lastly, each candidate phrase is iterated over to acquire all n-grams that make up the phrase. For example, if the phrase is "applications of machine learning", we select n-grams "applications", "machine", "learning", "applications of machine", "machine learning", and "applications of machine learning" as candidates. Note that phrases such as "applications of", "of", "of machine", and "of machine learning" are not chosen as candidates because they are not proper phrases. As noted by Gillick et al. (2019), hard negatives are important for learning a high-quality encoder, and we claim that our mining accomplishes this objective. + +# 4.2 Extractor-Generator + +In order to jointly train for extraction and generation, we adopt a pretrained encoder-decoder network. Given a document $\mathbf{x}$ , it is tokenized and fed as input to the encoder where we take the last hidden states of the encoder to obtain the contextual embeddings of a document: + +$$ +\left[ \mathbf {h} _ {0}, \mathbf {h} _ {1}, \dots , \mathbf {h} _ {T} \right] = \operatorname {E n c o d e r} _ {p} (\mathbf {x}), \tag {1} +$$ + +where $T$ is the token sequence length of the document and $\mathbf{h}_0$ is the start token (e.g., $$ ) representation used as the corresponding document embedding. For each candidate phrase, we construct its embedding by taking the sum pooling of the token span representations: $\mathbf{h}_p =$ + +SumPooling $([\mathbf{h}_s,\dots ,\mathbf{h}_e])$ , where $s$ and $e$ denote the start and end indices of the span. The document and candidate phrase embeddings are then passed through a linear layer followed by nonlinear activation to obtain the hidden representations: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} = \tanh \left(\mathbf {W} _ {d _ {p}} \mathbf {h} _ {0} + \mathbf {b} _ {d _ {p}}\right) \tag {2} \\ \mathbf {z} _ {p} = \tanh (\mathbf {W} _ {p} \mathbf {h} _ {p} + \mathbf {b} _ {p}), \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{W}_{d_p},\mathbf{W}_p,\mathbf{b}_{d_p},\mathbf{b}_p$ are learnable parameters. + +Contrastive Learning for Extraction To extract relevant keyphrases given a document, we train our model to learn representations by pulling keyphrase embeddings to the corresponding document while pushing away the rest of the candidate phrase embeddings in the latent space. Specifically, we follow the contrastive framework in Chen et al. (2020a) and take a cross-entropy objective between the document and each candidate phrase embedding. We set keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, while the rest of the phrases and the document are set as negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair $(\mathbf{z}_{d_p},\mathbf{z}_{p,i}^+)$ (i.e., document and present keyphrase $y_{p}^{i}$ ) with $N_{p}$ candidate pairs is defined as + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i} = - \log \frac {\mathrm {e} ^ {\sin (\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \tau}}{\mathrm {e} ^ {\sin (\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \tau} + \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N _ {p}} \mathrm {e} ^ {\sin (\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \mathbf {z} _ {p , j} ^ {-}) / \tau}}, \tag {3} +$$ + +where $\tau$ is a temperature hyperparameter and $\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})$ is the cosine similarity between vectors $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ . The final loss is then computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document (i.e., + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {C L}} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \mathcal {Y} _ {p} |} \mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i}). +$$ + +Joint Learning Our model generates keyphrases by learning a probability distribution $p_{\theta}(\mathbf{y}_a)$ over an absent keyphrase text sequence $\mathbf{y}_a = \{y_{a,1},\dots,y_{a,|\mathbf{y}|}\}$ (i.e., in an ONE2SEQ fashion), where $\theta$ denotes the model parameters. Then, the MLE objective used to train the model to generate absent keyphrases is defined as + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {M L E}} = - \frac {1}{| \mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {| \mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \log p _ {\theta} \left(y _ {a, t} | \mathbf {y} _ {a, < t}\right). \tag {4} +$$ + +Lastly, we combine the contrastive loss with the negative log-likelihood loss to train the model to both extract and generate keyphrases: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {M L E}} + \lambda \mathcal {L} _ {\mathrm {C L}}, \tag {5} +$$ + +where $\lambda$ is a hyperparameter balancing the losses in the objective. + +
SplitDataset#KPμ#KPσ|KP|μ% Absent# Samples
TrainKP20k5.283.761.9438.19530,809
ValidKP20k5.263.671.9438.2620,000
TestKP20k5.273.742.0437.0320,000
Inspec9.814.972.3322.25500
Krapivin5.843.552.0844.77400
NUS10.856.672.1351.55211
SemEval14.973.502.1555.74100
+ +Table 1: Dataset statistics. $\# \mathbf{KP}_{\mu}$ : average number of keyphrases; $\# \mathbf{KP}_{\sigma}$ : standard deviation of the number of keyphrases; $|\mathbf{KP}|_{\mu}$ : average length (n-gram) of keyphrases per document. + +# 4.3 Reranker + +As stated by Zhao et al. (2022), MLE-driven models predict candidates with the highest probability, disregarding the possibility that target keyphrases may appear in suboptimal candidates. This problem can be resolved by setting a large beam size for beam search; however, this approach would also result in a substantial increase in the generation of noisy keyphrases among the top- $k$ predictions. Inspired by Liu and Liu (2021), we aim to reduce this noise by assigning new scores to the generated keyphrases. + +Candidate Generation We employ the finetuned model from Section 4.2 to generate candidate phrases that are highly likely to be absent keyphrases for the corresponding document. We perform beam search decoding using a large beam size on each training document, resulting in the overgeneration of absent keyphrase candidates. The model generates in an ONE2SEQ fashion where the outputs are sequences of phrases, which means that many duplicate phrases are present across the beams. We remove the duplicates and arrange the phrases such that each unique phrase is independently fed to the encoder. We realize that the generator sometimes fails to produce even a single target keyphrase, in which we filter out such documents for the second-stage training. + +Dual Encoder We adopt two pretrained encoder-only networks and obtain the contextual embeddings of a document, as well as each candidate phrase $\mathbf{c}$ : $[\mathbf{h}_d^0,\mathbf{h}_d^1,\dots,\mathbf{h}_d^T] = \mathrm{Encoder}_{a_1}(\mathbf{x})$ and $[\mathbf{h}_c^0,\mathbf{h}_c^1,\dots,\mathbf{h}_c^{T_c}] = \mathrm{Encoder}_{a_2}(\mathbf{c})$ , where $T_{c}$ is the token sequence length of the candidate phrase and $\mathbf{h}_d^0$ and $\mathbf{h}_c^0$ are the start token representations used as the document and candidate phrase embedding, respectively. Consequently, their hidden representations are obtained by $\mathbf{z}_{d_a} = \tanh (\mathbf{W}_{d_a}\mathbf{h}_d^0 +\mathbf{b}_{d_a})$ + +
ModelInspecKrapivenNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.2250.2620.2690.3540.3230.3970.2420.2830.2910.367
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.2290.2700.2820.3660.3250.3930.2460.2900.2920.366
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.2530.3010.3000.3690.3750.4330.2870.3290.3210.386
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.2530.2910.2860.347--0.2840.3350.3110.374
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.2850.3240.3260.3640.4060.4500.3310.3570.3580.392
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.3300.365--0.4050.4490.3330.3590.3700.404
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.2160.2650.2760.3660.3960.4610.2830.3320.3110.379
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.2600.288--0.4150.4430.3020.3220.3470.352
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.2600.294--0.4120.4390.3290.3560.3510.355
SIMCKP0.35660.35880.40580.40580.49680.49890.38720.38640.42610.4271
+ +Table 2: Present keyphrase prediction results. The best results are in bold, while the second best are underlined. The subscript denotes the corresponding standard deviation (e.g., $0.427_{1}$ indicates $0.427 \pm 0.001$ ). + +and $\mathbf{z}_a = \tanh (\mathbf{W}_a\mathbf{h}_c^0 +\mathbf{b}_a)$ , where $\mathbf{W}_{d_a}$ $\mathbf{W}_a$ $\mathbf{b}_{d_a}$ $\mathbf{b}_a$ are learnable parameters. + +Contrautive Learning for Generation To rank relevant keyphrases high given a document, we train the dual-encoder framework via contrastive learning. Following a similar process as before, we train our model to learn absent keyphrase representations by semantically aligning them with the corresponding document. Specifically, we set the correctly generated keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, whereas the rest of the generated candidates and the document become negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair $(\mathbf{z}_{d_a},\mathbf{z}_{a,i}^+)$ (i.e., document and absent keyphrase $y_{a}^{i}$ ) with $N_{a}$ candidate pairs then follows Equation 3, where the cross-entropy objective maximizes the similarity of positive pairs and minimizes the rest. The final loss is computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document with a summation. + +# 5 Experimental Setup + +# 5.1 Datasets + +We evaluate our framework on five scientific article datasets: Inspec (Hulth, 2003), Krapivin (Krapivin et al., 2009), NUS (Nguyen and Kan, 2007), Se-mEval (Kim et al., 2010), and KP20k (Meng et al., 2017). Following previous work (Meng et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020), we concatenate the title and abstract of each sample as a source document and use the training set of KP20k to train all the models. Data statistics are shown in Table 1. + +# 5.2 Baselines + +We compare our framework with two kinds of KP models: Generative and Unified. + +Generative Models Generative models predict both present and absent keyphrases through generation. Most models follow catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020), a seq2seq framework under the ONE2SEQ paradigm. We report the performance of catSeq along with its variants such as catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b), catseqTG-2RF $_1$ (Chan et al., 2019), and ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b). We also compare with two state-of-the-arts SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b) and CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022). + +Unified Models Unified models combine extractive and generative methods to predict keyphrases. We compare with the latest models including SEGNet (Ahmad et al., 2021), UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021), and PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b). + +# 5.3 Evaluation Metrics + +Following Chan et al. (2019), all models are evaluated on macro-averaged $F_{1}@5$ and $F_{1}@M$ . $F_{1}@M$ compares all the predicted keyphrases with the ground truth, taking the number of predictions into account. $F_{1}@5$ measures only the top five predictions, but if the model predicts less than five keyphrases, we randomly append incorrect keyphrases until it obtains five. The motivation is to avoid $F_{1}@5$ and $F_{1}@M$ reaching similar results when the number of predictions is less than five. We stem all phrases using the Porter Stemmer and remove all duplicates after stemming. + +# 5.4 Implementation Details + +Our framework is built on PyTorch and Huggingface's Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use BART (Lewis et al., 2020) for the encoder-decoder model and uncased BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for the reranking model. We optimize their weights with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, + +
ModelInspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.0040.0080.0180.0360.0160.0280.0160.0280.0150.032
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.0050.0110.0180.0340.0110.0180.0110.0180.0150.032
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.0120.0210.0300.0530.0190.0310.0210.0300.0270.050
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.0110.0220.0220.043--0.0170.0250.0160.032
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.0210.0340.0470.0730.0420.0600.0260.0340.0360.058
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.0320.045--0.0610.0790.0390.0440.0530.071
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.0090.0150.0180.0360.0210.0360.0210.0300.0180.036
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.0260.036--0.0450.0560.0450.0520.0460.068
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.0170.022--0.0360.0420.0280.0320.0320.042
SIMCKP0.03320.03530.07810.08900.076120.088150.04020.04760.07320.0801
+ +2019) and tune our hyperparameters to maximize $F_{1}$ on the validation set, incorporating techniques such as early stopping and linear warmup followed by linear decay to 0. We set the maximum n-gram length of candidate phrases to 6 during mining and fix $\lambda$ to 0.3 for scaling the contrastive loss. When generating candidates for absent keyphrases, we use beam search with the beam size 50. During inference, we take the candidate phrases as predictions in which the cosine similarity with the corresponding document is higher than the threshold found in the validation set. The threshold is calculated by taking the average of the $F_{1}$ maximizing thresholds for each document. If the number of predictions is less than five, we retrieve the top similar phrases until we obtain five. We conduct our experiments with three different random seeds and report the averaged results. + +# 6 Results and Analyses + +# 6.1 Present and Absent Keyphrase Prediction + +The present and absent keyphrase prediction results are demonstrated in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. The performance of our model mostly exceeds that of previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin, showing that our method is effective in predicting both present and absent keyphrases. Particularly, there is a notable improvement in the $F_{1}@5$ performance, indicating the effectiveness of our approach in retrieving the top- $k$ predictions. On the other hand, we observe that $F_{1}@M$ values are not much different from $F_{1}@5$ , and we believe this is due to the critical limitation of a global threshold. The number of keyphrases varies significantly for each document, and finding op + +Table 3: Absent keyphrase prediction results. + +
MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Present keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.4260.4270.4110.412
w/o CL0.2950.3880.2780.356
CL⇒SEQLABEL0.2360.3840.1800.272
CL⇒BINARYCLF0.2090.3220.1710.251
Absent keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.0730.0800.0570.064
w/o CL0.0300.0660.0270.051
w/o RERANKER0.0350.0690.0250.041
+ +Table 4: Ablation study. "w/o CL" is the vanilla BART model using beam search for predictions. "w/o reranker" extracts with CL but generates using only beam search. + +timal thresholds seems necessary for improving the $F_{1}@\mathcal{M}$ performance. Nonetheless, real-world applications are often focused on identifying the top- $k$ keywords, which we believe our model effectively accomplishes. + +# 6.2 Ablation Study + +We investigate each component of our model to understand their effects on the overall performance and report the effectiveness of each building block in Table 4. Following Xie et al. (2022), we report on two kinds of test sets: 1) KP20k, which we refer to as in-domain, and 2) the combination of Inspec, Krapivin, NUS, and SemEval, which is out-of-domain. + +Effect of CL We notice a significant drop in both present and absent keyphrase prediction performance after decoupling contrastive learning (CL). For a fair comparison, we set the beam size to 50, but our model still outperforms the purely generative model, demonstrating the effectiveness of CL. We also compare our model with two extractive methods: sequence labeling and binary classifica + +![](images/1839ee84d5354b7b5ad54b45a722433438206b2fd7e6b220016fbe04e94ed7b4.jpg) +Figure 3: Comparison of present keyphrase prediction performance w.r.t max n-gram length during extraction. + +
Mining MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
IN-BATCH DOC NEGATIVES0.0770.0380.0920.065
RANDOM NEGATIVES0.2100.2260.2110.267
HARD NEGATIVES (OURS)0.4260.4270.4110.412
+ +Table 5: Comparison of negative mining methods for present keyphrase prediction. + +tion. For sequence labeling, we follow previous work (Tokala et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021) and employ a BiLSTM-CRF, a strong sequence labeling baseline, on top of the encoder to predict a BIO5 tag for each token, while for binary classification, a model takes each phrase embedding to predict whether each phrase is a keyphrase or not. CL outperforms both approaches, showing that learning phrase representations is more efficacious. + +Effect of Reranking We remove the reranker and observe the degradation of performance in absent keyphrase prediction. Note that the vanilla BART (i.e., w/o CL) is trained to generate both present and absent keyphrases, while the other model (i.e., w/o RERANKER) is trained to generate only the absent keyphrases. The former performs slightly better in out-of-domain scenarios, as it is trained to generate diverse keyphrases, while the latter excels in in-domain since absent keyphrases resemble those encountered during training. Nevertheless, the reranker outperforms the two, indicating that it plays a vital role in the KG part of our method. + +# 6.3 Performance over Max N-Gram Length + +We conduct experiments on various maximum lengths of n-grams for extraction and compare the + +![](images/5f72aff78fc6386584984f6bfe6db7f52bc2cce95f847b2b6999e557fcfd788d.jpg) +Figure 4: Visualization of the semantic space using t-SNE. The left shows the extractor space, while the right depicts the generator space after reranking. + +![](images/d9c2e00416f9fecd0a85fba21603f368835571233eef70ede8ef370368f6ad6c.jpg) + +present keyphrase prediction performance from unigrams to 6-grams, as shown in Figure 3. For all datasets, the performance steadily increases until the length of 3, which then plateaus to the rest of the lengths. This indicates that the testing datasets are mostly composed of unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams. The performance increases slightly with the length of 6 for some datasets, such as Inspec and SemEval, suggesting that there is a non-negligible number of 6-gram keyphrases. Therefore, the length of 6 seems feasible for maximum performance in all experiments. + +# 6.4 Impact of Hard Negative Phrase Mining + +In order to assess the effectiveness of our hard negative phrase mining method, we compare it with other negative mining methods and report the results in Table 5. First, utilizing in-batch document embeddings as negatives yields the poorest performance. This is likely due to ineffective differentiation between keyphrases and other phrase embeddings. Additionally, we experiment with using random text spans as negatives and observe that although it aids in representation learning to some degree, the performance improvement is limited. The outcomes of these two baselines demonstrate that our approach successfully mines hard negatives, enabling our encoder to acquire high-quality representations of keyphrases. + +# 6.5 Visualization of Semantic Space + +To verify that our model works as intended, we visualize the representation space of our model with t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) plots, as depicted in Figure 4. From the visualizations, we find that our model successfully pulls keyphrase embeddings close to their corresponding document in both extractor and generator space. Note that the generator space displays a lesser number of phrases than the beam size 50 because the duplicates after stemming have been removed. + +
InspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
R@500.144160.22650.185120.07250.2207
+ +Table 6: Upper bound performance for absent keyphrase prediction after overgeneration with the beam size 50. + +# 6.6 Upper Bound Performance + +Following previous work (Meng et al., 2021; Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), we measure the upper bound performance after overgeneration by calculating the recall score of the generated phrases and report the results in Table 6. The high recall demonstrates the potential for reranking to increase precision, and we observe that there is room for improvement by better reranking, opening up an opportunity for future research. + +# 7 Conclusion + +This paper presents a contrastive framework that aims to improve the keyphrase prediction performance by learning phrase-level representations, rectifying the shortcomings of existing unified models that score and predict keyphrases at a token level. To effectively identify keyphrases, we divide our framework into two stages: a joint model for extracting and generating keyphrases and a reranking model that scores the generated outputs based on the semantic relation with the corresponding document. We empirically show that our method significantly improves the performance of both present and absent keyphrase prediction against existing state-of-the-art models. + +# Limitations + +Despite the promising prediction performance of the framework proposed in this paper, there is still room for improvement. A fixed global threshold has limited the potential performance of the framework, especially when evaluating $F_{1}$ at $M$ . We expect that adaptively selecting a threshold value via an auxiliary module for each data sample might overcome such a challenge. Moreover, the result of the second stage highly depends on the performance of the first stage model, directing the next step of research towards an end-to-end framework. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea + +government (MSIT) (No. 2020-0-00368, A Neural-Symbolic Model for Knowledge Acquisition and Inference Techniques and No. 2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1A2B5B02001913). We thank all researchers at Naver WEBTOON Ltd. for their valuable discussions. + +# References + +Wasi Ahmad, Xiao Bai, Soomin Lee, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Select, extract and generate: Neural keyphrase generation with layer-wise coverage attention. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1389–1404, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rabah Alzaidy, Cornelia Caragea, and C. Lee Giles. 2019. Bi-lstm-crf sequence labeling for keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In *The World Wide Web Conference*, WWW '19, page 2551-2557, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Kamil Bennani-Smires, Claudi Musat, Andreae Hossmann, Michael Baeriswyl, and Martin Jaggi. 2018. Simple unsupervised keyphrase extraction using sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 221-229, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Adrien Bougouin, Florian Boudin, and Beatrice Daille. 2013. TopicRank: Graph-based topic ranking for keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 543-551, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. +Cornelia Caragea, Florin Adrian Bulgarov, Andreea Godea, and Sujatha Das Gollapalli. 2014. Citation-enhanced keyphrase extraction from research papers: A supervised approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1435-1446, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hou Pong Chan, Wang Chen, Lu Wang, and Irwin King. 2019. Neural keyphrase generation via reinforcement learning with adaptive rewards. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2163-2174, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020a. A simple framework for + +contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1597-1607. PMLR. +Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, Lidong Bing, and Irwin King. 2019a. An integrated approach for keyphrase generation via exploring the power of retrieval and extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2846-2856, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, and Irwin King. 2020b. Exclusive hierarchical decoding for deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1095-1105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wang Chen, Yifan Gao, Jiani Zhang, Irwin King, and Michael R Lyu. 2019b. Title-guided encoding for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6268-6275. +S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y. LeCun. 2005. Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), volume 1, pages 539-546 vol. 1. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Daniel Gillick, Sayali Kulkarni, Larry Lansing, Alessandro Presta, Jason Baldridge, Eugene Ie, and Diego Garcia-Olano. 2019. Learning dense representations for entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 528-537, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sujatha Das Gollapalli, Xiao-Li Li, and Peng Yang. 2017. Incorporating expert knowledge into keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31. + +R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y. LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742. +Anette Hulth. 2003. Improved automatic keyword extraction given more linguistic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 216-223. +Su Nam Kim, Olena Medelyan, Min-Yen Kan, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 5: Automatic keyphrase extraction from scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 21–26, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Youngsam Kim, Munhyong Kim, Andrew Cattle, Julia Otmakhova, Suzi Park, and Hyopil Shin. 2013. Applying graph-based keyword extraction to document retrieval. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 864-868, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. +Mikalai Krapivin, Aliaksandr Autaeu, and Maurizio Marchese. 2009. Large dataset for keyphrase extraction. +Kalpesh Krishna, Yapei Chang, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2022. RankGen: Improving text generation with large ranking models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 199-232, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mayank Kulkarni, Debanjan Mahata, Ravneet Arora, and Rajarshi Bhowmik. 2022. Learning rich representation of keyphrases from text. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 891–906, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xinnian Liang, Shuangzhi Wu, Mu Li, and Zhoujun Li. 2021. Unsupervised keyphrase extraction by jointly modeling local and global context. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 155-164, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rui Liu, Zheng Lin, and Weiping Wang. 2021. Addressing extraction and generation separately: + +Keyphrase prediction with pre-trained language models. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3180-3191. +Yixin Liu and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SimCLS: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1065-1072, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhiyuan Liu, Xinxiong Chen, Yabin Zheng, and Maosong Sun. 2011. Automatic keyphrase extraction by bridging vocabulary gap. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 135-144, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Yi Luan, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Scientific information extraction with semi-supervised neural tagging. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2641-2651, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Olena Medelyan, Eibe Frank, and Ian H. Witten. 2009. Human-competitive tagging using automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1318-1327, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Olena Medelyan, Ian H Witten, and David Milne. 2008. Topic indexing with wikipedia. In Proceedings of the AAAI WikiAI workshop, volume 1, pages 19-24. +Rui Meng, Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Sanqiang Zhao, Adam Trischler, and Daqing He. 2021. An empirical study on neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4985-5007. +Rui Meng, Sanqiang Zhao, Shuguang Han, Daqing He, Peter Brusilovsky, and Yu Chi. 2017. Deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 582-592, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Thuy Dung Nguyen and Min-Yen Kan. 2007. Keyphrase extraction in scientific publications. In Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers, pages 317-326, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. +Ramakanth Pasunuru and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Multireward reinforced summarization with saliency and entailment. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 646-653, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jishnu Ray Chowdhury, Seo Yeon Park, Tuhin Kundu, and Cornelia Caragea. 2022. KPDROP: Improving absent keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 4853-4870, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mingyang Song, Liping Jing, and Lin Xiao. 2021. Importance Estimation from Multiple Perspectives for Keyphrase Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2726-2736, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Mingyang Song, Lin Xiao, and Liping Jing. 2023. Learning to extract from multiple perspectives for neural keyphrase extraction. Computer Speech & Language, 81:101502. +Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Si Sun, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Bao. 2021. Capturing global informativeness in open domain keyphrase extraction. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 10, pages 275-287. Springer. +Yi Sun, Hangping Qiu, Yu Zheng, Zhongwei Wang, and Chaoran Zhang. 2020. Sifrank: a new baseline for unsupervised keyphrase extraction based on pre-trained language model. IEEE Access, 8:10896-10906. +Avinash Swaminathan, Haimin Zhang, Debanjan Mahata, Rakesh Gosangi, Rajiv Ratn Shah, and Amanda Stent. 2020. A preliminary exploration of GANs for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8021-8030, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yaohua Tang, Fandong Meng, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Philip L. H. Yu. 2016. Neural machine translation with external phrase memory. CoRR, abs/1606.01792. + +Santosh Tokala, Debarshi Kumar Sanyal, Plaban Kumar Bhowmick, and Partha Pratim Das. 2020. SaSAKE: Syntax and semantics aware keyphrase extraction from research papers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5372-5383, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579-2605. +Xiaojun Wan and Jianguo Xiao. 2008. Single document keyphrase extraction using neighborhood knowledge. In AAAI, volume 8, pages 855-860. +Minmei Wang, Bo Zhao, and Yihua Huang. 2016. *Ptr: Phrase-based topical ranking for automatic keyphrase extraction in scientific publications*. In *Neural Information Processing: 23rd International Conference, ICONIP* 2016, Kyoto, Japan, October 16–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 23, pages 120–128. Springer. +Ian H Witten, Gordon W Paynter, Eibe Frank, Carl Gutwin, and Craig G Nevill-Manning. 1999. Kea: practical automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital libraries, pages 254-255. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Di Wu, Wasi Ahmad, Sunipa Dev, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022a. Representation learning for resource-constrained keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 700-716, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Huanqin Wu, Wei Liu, Lei Li, Dan Nie, Tao Chen, Feng Zhang, and Di Wang. 2021. UniKeyphrase: A unified extraction and generation framework for keyphrase prediction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 825-835, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Huanqin Wu, Baijiaxin Ma, Wei Liu, Tao Chen, and Dan Nie. 2022b. Fast and constrained absent keyphrase generation by prompt-based learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11495-11503. + +Binbin Xie, Xiangpeng Wei, Baosong Yang, Huan Lin, Jun Xie, Xiaoli Wang, Min Zhang, and Jinsong Su. 2022. WR-One2Set: Towards well-calibrated keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7283-7293, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hai Ye and Lu Wang. 2018. Semi-supervised learning for neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4142-4153, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiacheng Ye, Ruijian Cai, Tao Gui, and Qi Zhang. 2021a. Heterogeneous graph neural networks for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2705-2715, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiacheng Ye, Tao Gui, Yichao Luo, Yige Xu, and Qi Zhang. 2021b. One2Set: Generating diverse keyphrases as a set. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4598-4608, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Rui Meng, Khushboo Thaker, Peter Brusilovsky, Daqing He, and Adam Trischler. 2020. One size does not fit all: Generating and evaluating variable number of keyphrases. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7961-7975, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Linhan Zhang, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Chong Deng, ShiLiang Zhang, Bing Li, Wei Wang, and Xin Cao. 2022. MDERank: A masked document embedding rank approach for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 396-409, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Qi Zhang, Yang Wang, Yeyun Gong, and Xuanjing Huang. 2016. Keyphrase extraction using deep recurrent neural networks on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 836-845, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Guangzhen Zhao, Guoshun Yin, Peng Yang, and Yu Yao. 2022. Keyphrase generation via soft and hard semantic corrections. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7757-7768, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jing Zhao, Junwei Bao, Yifan Wang, Youzheng Wu, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. SGG: Learning + +to select, guide, and generate for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5717-5726, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Additional Details for SIMCKP + +# A.1 Details for Hard Negative Phrase Mining + +In order to effectively extract present keyphrases, we categorize POS tags to the corresponding tag set as the following: + +- $\mathcal{T}_{\text{indep}}$ : $\{\text{"CD", "FW", "GW", "NN*", "VB*", "JJ*", "RB*", "ADD"\}$ +- $\mathcal{T}_{dep}$ : $\{\text{"CC", "POS", "HYPH", "IN"}\}$ +- $\mathcal{T}_{start\_dep}$ : $\{\text{“RP}^*\}$ +$\mathcal{T}_{end\_dep}$ : $\{\text{"DT","AFX","LS"}\}$ + +where each tag is defined in the NLTK library. An asterisk (*) refers to any character(s) that come after the tag name. For example, "JJ", "JJR", and "JJS" are adjectives, comparative adjectives, and superlative adjectives, respectively, and all of them are elements of the independent tag set $\mathcal{T}_{\text{indep}}$ . + +# A.2 Hyperparameter Search + +We perform a grid search to find the best hyperparameter configuration and report the tuning range used for our experiments in Table 7. The evaluation on the validation set is performed for every 5,000 gradient accumulating steps, and the tolerance increases by 1 when the validation loss or $F_{1}$ @M is worse than the previous evaluation. + +
ModelHyperparameterRangeBest
BARTBASElearning rate{ 5e-5, 1e-4}5e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.0
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0}0.1
λ{ 0.1, 0.2, ..., 1.0}0.3
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
BERTBASElearning rate{ 1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5, 5e-5}3e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.1
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1}0.1
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
+ +Table 7: Hyperparameter tuning range and best values used in the experiments. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/images.zip b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67772d88043052d6bd60142c4481a72c4be3e08f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8545e738d24a119089331fec48f53586af8a3e8927b693ace14f4e993bda2c80 +size 517166 diff --git a/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/layout.json b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b8877a47ee698a47ae274261473d4d11b05ff474 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SimCKP_ Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9641 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 512, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 512, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 75, + 512, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SimCKP: Simple Contrastive Learning of Keyphrase Representations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 113, + 503, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 113, + 503, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 113, + 503, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minseok Choi\\* Chaeheon Gwak \\* Seho Kim \\* Si Hyeong Kim \\* Jaegul Choo KAIST AI Naver Webtoon AI {minseok.choi, jchoo}@kaist.ac.kr {ch.gwak, seho.kim, typekim}@webtoonscorp.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keyphrase generation (KG) aims to generate a set of summarizing words or phrases given a source document, while keyphrase extraction (KE) aims to identify them from the text. Because the search space is much smaller in KE, it is often combined with KG to predict keyphrases that may or may not exist in the corresponding document. However, current unified approaches adopt sequence labeling and maximization-based generation that primarily operate at a token level, falling short in observing and scoring keyphrases as a whole. In this work, we propose SIMCKP, a simple contrastive learning framework that consists of two stages: 1) An extractor-generator that extracts keyphrases by learning context-aware phrase-level representations in a contrastive manner while also generating keyphrases that do not appear in the document; 2) A reranker that adapts scores for each generated phrase by likewise aligning their representations with the corresponding document. Experimental results on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, which outperforms the state-of-the-art models by a significant margin." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 154, + 572 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 154, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 560, + 154, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keyphrase prediction (KP) is a task of identifying a set of relevant words or phrases that capture the main ideas or topics discussed in a given document. Prior studies have defined keyphrases that appear in the document as present keyphrases and the opposites as absent keyphrases. High-quality keyphrases are beneficial for various applications such as information retrieval (Kim et al., 2013), text summarization (Pasunuru and Bansal, 2018), and translation (Tang et al., 2016). KP methods are generally divided into keyphrase extraction (KE) (Witten" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 524, + 371 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 524, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 524, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 524, + 371 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Title: Nonlinear magnetostatic BEM formulation using one unknown double layer charge
Document: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to solve generic magnetostatic problems by BEM, by studying how to use a boundary integral equation (BIE) with the double layer charge as unknown derived from the scalar potential. Design/methodology/approach - Since the double layer charge produces only the potential gap without disturbing the normal magnetic flux density, the field is accurately formulated even by one BIE with one unknown. Once the double layer charge is determined, Biot-Savart's law gives easily the magnetic flux density. Findings - The BIE using double layer charge is capable of treating robustly geometrical singularities at edges and corners. It is also capable of solving the problems with extremely high magnetic permeability. Originality/value - The proposed BIE contains only the double layer charge while the conventional equations derived from the scalar potential contain the single and double layer charges as unknowns. In the multiply connected problems, the excitation potential in the material is derived from the magnetomotive force to represent the circulating fields due to multiply connected exciting currents.
Present keyphrases: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected problem, scalar potential, integral equations}
Absent keyphrases: {nonlinear magnetostatic analysis, electric current}
Sequence labeling result: {boundary integral equation, double layer charge, multiply connected, scalar potential}
MLE result: {magnetostatic energy analysis, magnetomotive force, electric current}
", + "image_path": "99f50a315b04b584fda9ae8b93a862655bb5da13c50ac90087811a5974f6768e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example of keyphrase prediction. Present and absent keyphrases are colored blue and red, respectively. Overlapping keyphrases are in bold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009; Caragea et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Alzaidy et al., 2019) and keyphrase generation (KG) models (Meng et al., 2017; Ye and Wang, 2018; Chan et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020b; Yuan et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2021b; Zhao et al., 2022), where the former only extracts present keyphrases from the text and the latter generates both present and absent keyphrases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, several methods integrating KE and KG have been proposed (Chen et al., 2019a; Liu et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021, 2022b). These models predict present keyphrases using an extractor and absent keyphrases using a generator, thereby effectively exploiting a relatively small search space in extraction. However, current integrated models suffer from two limitations. First, they employ sequence labeling models that predict the probability of each token being a constituent of a present keyphrase, where such token-level predictions may be a problem when the target keyphrase is fairly long or overlapping. As shown in Figure 1, the sequence labeling model makes an incomplete prediction for the term \"multi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 738, + 270, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 738, + 270, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 738, + 270, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Work done during an internship at Naver Webtoon." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Our code is publicly available at https://github. com/brightjade/SimCKP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3003" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3003-3015" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ply connected problem\" because only the tokens for \"multiply connected\" have yielded a high probability. We also observe that the model is prone to miss the keyphrase \"integral equations\" every time because it overlaps with another keyphrase \"boundary integral equation\" in the text. Secondly, integrated or even purely generative models are usually based on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), which predicts the probability of each token given the past seen tokens. This approach scores the most probable text sequence the highest, but as pointed out by Zhao et al. (2022), keyphrases from the maximum-probability sequence are not necessarily aligned with target keyphrases. In Figure 1, the MLE-based model predicts \"magnetostatic energy analysis\", which is semantically similar to but not aligned with the target keyphrase \"nonlinear magnetostatic analysis\". This may be a consequence of greedy search, which can be remedied by finding the target keyphrases across many beams during beam search, but it would also create a large number of noisy keyphrases being generated in the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 388, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 388, + 291, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 388, + 291, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing KE approaches based on representation learning may address the above limitations (Bennani-Smires et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). These methods first mine candidates that are likely to be keyphrases in the document and then rank them based on the relevance between the document and keyphrase embeddings, which have shown promising results. Nevertheless, these techniques only tackle present keyphrases from the text, which may mitigate the overlapping keyphrase problem from sequence labeling, but they are not suitable for handling MLE and the generated keyphrases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 584, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose a two-stage contrastive learning framework that leverages context-aware phrase-level representations on both extraction and generation. First, we train an encoder-decoder network that extracts present keyphrases on top of the encoder and generates absent keyphrases through the decoder. The model learns to extract present keyphrases by maximizing the agreement between the document and present keyphrase representations. Specifically, we consider the document and its corresponding present keyphrases as positive pairs and the rest of the candidate phrases as negative pairs. Note that these negative candidate phrases are mined from the document using" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a heuristic algorithm (see Section 4.1). The model pulls keyphrase embeddings to the document embedding and pushes away the rest of the candidates in a contrastive manner. Then during inference, top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 526, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " keyphrases that are semantically close to the document are predicted. After the model has finished training, it generates candidates for absent keyphrases. These candidates are simply constructed by overgenerating with a large beam size for beam search decoding. To reduce the noise introduced by beam search, we train a reranker that allocates new scores for the generated phrases via another round of contrastive learning, where this time the agreement between the document and absent keyphrase representations is maximized. Overall, major contributions of our work can be summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 306, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We present a contrastive learning framework that learns to extract and generate keyphrases by building context-aware phrase-level representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 525, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 364, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We develop a reranker based on the semantic alignment with the document to improve the absent keyphrase prediction performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To the best of our knowledge, we introduce contrastive learning to a unified keyphrase extraction and generation task for the first time and empirically show its effectiveness across multiple KP benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 395, + 504 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 395, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 491, + 395, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 433, + 525 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 433, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 433, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Keyphrase Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 530, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 530, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 530, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keyphrase extraction focuses on predicting salient phrases that are present in the source document. Existing approaches can be broadly divided into two-step extraction methods and sequence labeling models. Two-step methods first determine a set of candidate phrases from the text using different heuristic rules (Hulth, 2003; Medelyan et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016). These candidate phrases are then sorted and ranked by either supervised algorithms (Witten et al., 1999; Hulth, 2003; Nguyen and Kan, 2007; Medelyan et al., 2009) or unsupervised learning (Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bougouin et al., 2013; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). Another line of work is sequence labeling, where a model learns to predict the likelihood of each word being a keyphrase word (Zhang et al., 2016; Luan et al., 2017; Gollapalli et al., 2017; Alzaidy et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3004" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 526, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 526, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 526, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 526, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5dd61f5feee02e6b4f9265f486a6ed042b0140eca1966fa78b4cd17f507e2dd9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 526, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 526, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 526, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: A contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In the first stage (left), the model learns to maximize the relevance between present keyphrases and their corresponding document while generating absent keyphrases. After training, the model generates candidates for absent keyphrases and sends them to the second stage (right), where the candidates are reranked after their relevance with the document has been maximized/minimized." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 201, + 262 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 201, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 201, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Keyphrase Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 268, + 291, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 268, + 291, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 268, + 291, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The task of keyphrase generation is introduced to predict both present and absent keyphrases. Meng et al. (2017) first proposed CopyRNN, a seq2seq framework with attention and copy mechanism under the ONE2ONE paradigm, where a model is trained to generate a single keyphrase per document. However, due to the problem of having to fix the number of predictions, Yuan et al. (2020) proposed the ONE2SEQ paradigm where a model learns to predict a dynamic number of keyphrases by concatenating them into a single sequence. Several ONE2SEQ-based models have been proposed using semi-supervised learning (Ye and Wang, 2018), reinforcement learning (Chan et al., 2019), adversarial training (Swaminathan et al., 2020), hierarchical decoding (Chen et al., 2020b), graphs (Ye et al., 2021a), dropout (Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), and pretraining (Kulkarni et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022a) to improve keyphrase generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, there have been several attempts to unify KE and KG tasks into a single learning framework. These methods not only focus on generating only the absent keyphrases but also perform presumably an easier task by extracting present keyphrases from the document, instead of having to generate them from a myriad of vocabularies. Current methodologies utilize external source (Chen et al., 2019a), selection guidance (Zhao et al., 2021), salient sentence detection (Ahmad et al., 2021), relation network (Wu et al., 2021), and prompt-based learning (Wu et al., 2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 196, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 196, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 196, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Contrastive Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Methods to extract rich feature representations based on contrastive learning (Chopra et al., 2005; Hadsell et al., 2006) have been widely studied in numerous literature. The primary goal of the learn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 249, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 249, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 249, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing process is to pull semantically similar data to be close while pushing dissimilar data to be far away in the representation space. Contrastive learning has shown great success for various computer vision tasks, especially in self-supervised training (Chen et al., 2020a), whereas Gao et al. (2021) have devised a contrastive framework to learn universal sentence embeddings for natural language processing. Furthermore, Liu and Liu (2021) formulated a seq2seq framework employing contrastive learning for abstractive summarization. Similarly, a contrastive framework for autoregressive language modeling (Su et al., 2022) and open-ended text generation (Krishna et al., 2022) have been presented." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 526, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 526, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 526, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There have been endeavors to incorporate contrastive learning in the context of keyphrase extraction. These methods generally utilized the pairwise ranking loss to rank phrases with respect to the document to extract present keyphrases (Sun et al., 2021; Song et al., 2021, 2023). In this paper, we devise a contrastive learning framework for keyphrase embeddings on both extraction and generation to improve the keyphrase prediction performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 422, + 585 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 422, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 422, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Problem Definition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the task of keyphrase prediction is to identify a set of keyphrases " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Y} = \\{\\mathbf{y}^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathcal{Y}|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of keyphrases. In the ONE2ONE training paradigm, each sample pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{x}, \\mathcal{Y})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is split into multiple pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{(x, y^i)\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to train the model to generate one keyphrase per document. In ONE2SEQ, each sample pair is processed as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x, f(\\mathcal{Y}))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f(\\mathcal{Y})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a concatenated sequence of keyphrases. In this work, we train for extraction and generation simultaneously; therefore, we decompose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into a present keyphrase set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Y}_p = \\{\\mathbf{y}_p^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}_p|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an absent keyphrase set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Y}_a = \\{\\mathbf{y}_a^i\\}_{i=1,\\ldots,|\\mathcal{Y}_a|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 594, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3005" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 138, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 138, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 138, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 SIMCKP" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we elaborate on our approach to building a contrastive framework for keyphrase prediction. In Section 4.1, we delineate our heuristic algorithm for constructing a set of candidates for present keyphrase extraction; in Section 4.2, we describe the multi-task learning process for extracting and generating keyphrases; and lastly, we explain our method for reranking the generated keyphrases in Section 4.3. Figure 2 illustrates the overall architecture of our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 236, + 251 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 236, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 236, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 291, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 255, + 291, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To obtain the candidates for present keyphrases, we employ a similar heuristic approach from existing extractive methods (Hulth, 2003; Mihalcea and Tarau, 2004; Wan and Xiao, 2008; Bennani-Smires et al., 2018). A notable difference between prior work and ours is that we keep not only noun phrases but also verb, adjective, and adverb phrases, as well as phrases containing prepositions and conjunctions. We observe that keyphrases are actually made up of diverse parts of speech, and extracting only the noun phrases could lead to missing a significant number of keyphrases. Following the common practice, we assign part-of-speech (POS) tags to each word using the Stanford POSTagger2 and chunk the phrase structure tree into valid phrases using the NLTK RegexpParser3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Algorithm 1, each document is converted to a phrase structure tree where each word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is tagged with a POS tag " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The tagged document is then split into possible phrase chunks based on our predefined regular expression rules, which must include one or more valid tags such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Nevertheless, such valid tag sequences are sometimes nongrammatical, which cannot be a proper phrase and thus may introduce noise during training. In response, we filter out such nongrammatical phrases by first categorizing tags as independent or dependent. Phrases generally do not start or end with a preposition or conjunction; therefore, preposition and conjunction tags belong to a dependent tag set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". On the other hand, noun, verb, adjective, and adverb tags can stand alone by themselves, making them belong to an independent tag set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{indep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 486, + 291, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". There are also" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 496, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 496, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 496, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1 Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Source document x, maximum n-gram length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", regular expression pattern " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 85, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", POS tagging function tag(\\cdot), phrase parsing function parse(\\cdot), stemming function stem(\\cdot)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 472, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 472, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 472, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Present keyphrase candidate set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 472, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}_{pre}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\emptyset" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n2: word_tag_pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tag(x) \n3: phrase_tree " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parse(p,word_tag_pairs) \n4: for phrase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\in" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " phrase_tree do \n5: for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i},t_{i}\\in" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " phrase do \n6: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i\\not\\in T_{indep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i\\not\\in T_{end\\_ dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n7: continue \n8: span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stem(wi) \n9: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\cup \\mathrm{span}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n10: for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{ij},t_{ij}\\in" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " phrase[i+1:] do \n11: if len(span.split())≥nthen \n12: break \n13: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{ij}\\in T_{dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{ij}\\in T_{end\\_ dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n14: span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+\\equiv" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stem(wij) \n15: continue \n16: if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{ij}\\in T_{indep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{ij}\\in T_{start\\_ dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n17: span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^+\\equiv" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stem(wij) \n18: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\gets \\mathcal{C}_{pre}\\cup \\mathrm{span}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n19: return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 127, + 506, + 322 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{C}_{pre}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 8, + "sub_type": "algorithm" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tag sets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{start\\_dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{end\\_dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 342, + 526, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which include tags that cannot start but end a phrase and tags that can start but not end a phrase, respectively. Lastly, each candidate phrase is iterated over to acquire all n-grams that make up the phrase. For example, if the phrase is \"applications of machine learning\", we select n-grams \"applications\", \"machine\", \"learning\", \"applications of machine\", \"machine learning\", and \"applications of machine learning\" as candidates. Note that phrases such as \"applications of\", \"of\", \"of machine\", and \"of machine learning\" are not chosen as candidates because they are not proper phrases. As noted by Gillick et al. (2019), hard negatives are important for learning a high-quality encoder, and we claim that our mining accomplishes this objective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 429, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 429, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 429, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Extractor-Generator" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to jointly train for extraction and generation, we adopt a pretrained encoder-decoder network. Given a document " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it is tokenized and fed as input to the encoder where we take the last hidden states of the encoder to obtain the contextual embeddings of a document:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 671, + 524, + 687 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 671, + 524, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 671, + 524, + 687 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\left[ \\mathbf {h} _ {0}, \\mathbf {h} _ {1}, \\dots , \\mathbf {h} _ {T} \\right] = \\operatorname {E n c o d e r} _ {p} (\\mathbf {x}), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "8cef1f41fde6d0e7e902d68678a19d694d67451599b78f94b40d09c4b1bdadb0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the token sequence length of the document and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the start token (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") representation used as the corresponding document embedding. For each candidate phrase, we construct its embedding by taking the sum pooling of the token span representations: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_p =" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 737, + 248, + 774 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 737, + 248, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 737, + 248, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 737, + 248, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/ \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 737, + 248, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 737, + 248, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://www.nltk.org/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3006" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SumPooling " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "([\\mathbf{h}_s,\\dots ,\\mathbf{h}_e])" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the start and end indices of the span. The document and candidate phrase embeddings are then passed through a linear layer followed by nonlinear activation to obtain the hidden representations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 154, + 290, + 188 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 154, + 290, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 115, + 154, + 290, + 188 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} = \\tanh \\left(\\mathbf {W} _ {d _ {p}} \\mathbf {h} _ {0} + \\mathbf {b} _ {d _ {p}}\\right) \\tag {2} \\\\ \\mathbf {z} _ {p} = \\tanh (\\mathbf {W} _ {p} \\mathbf {h} _ {p} + \\mathbf {b} _ {p}), \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "154414e572f7d77ef7395995fbea3c3701b212f473112659b720b8bdc449ff41.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_{d_p},\\mathbf{W}_p,\\mathbf{b}_{d_p},\\mathbf{b}_p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 192, + 290, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are learnable parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contrastive Learning for Extraction To extract relevant keyphrases given a document, we train our model to learn representations by pulling keyphrase embeddings to the corresponding document while pushing away the rest of the candidate phrase embeddings in the latent space. Specifically, we follow the contrastive framework in Chen et al. (2020a) and take a cross-entropy objective between the document and each candidate phrase embedding. We set keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, while the rest of the phrases and the document are set as negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{z}_{d_p},\\mathbf{z}_{p,i}^+)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (i.e., document and present keyphrase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{p}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidate pairs is defined as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 423, + 289, + 462 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 423, + 289, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 423, + 289, + 462 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i} = - \\log \\frac {\\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \\tau}}{\\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , i} ^ {+}) / \\tau} + \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {N _ {p}} \\mathrm {e} ^ {\\sin (\\mathbf {z} _ {d _ {p}} , \\mathbf {z} _ {p , j} ^ {-}) / \\tau}}, \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "32531d200bb69c046b3bc7dd91bfebdb55822fe4b73079716137e5455dd8c4ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a temperature hyperparameter and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{sim}(\\mathbf{u},\\mathbf{v})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the cosine similarity between vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{u}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 464, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The final loss is then computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document (i.e.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 154, + 535 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 154, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 154, + 535 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathcal {Y} _ {p} |} \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}} ^ {i}).", + "image_path": "73a9e00ed5a2ea903e8ad78551ecd3e5595a98dce62500a820b4694dbc1d2dcf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joint Learning Our model generates keyphrases by learning a probability distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{\\theta}(\\mathbf{y}_a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over an absent keyphrase text sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}_a = \\{y_{a,1},\\dots,y_{a,|\\mathbf{y}|}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (i.e., in an ONE2SEQ fashion), where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the model parameters. Then, the MLE objective used to train the model to generate absent keyphrases is defined as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 641, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 641, + 289, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 641, + 289, + 677 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M L E}} = - \\frac {1}{| \\mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {| \\mathbf {y} _ {a} |} \\log p _ {\\theta} \\left(y _ {a, t} | \\mathbf {y} _ {a, < t}\\right). \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "c2ad4fd2dbc840f3f4a8ceaa730fbbc9f36f291801937502489da776ef192c7e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 681, + 289, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 681, + 289, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 681, + 289, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lastly, we combine the contrastive loss with the negative log-likelihood loss to train the model to both extract and generate keyphrases:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 727, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 727, + 289, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 727, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {M L E}} + \\lambda \\mathcal {L} _ {\\mathrm {C L}}, \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "125d4062063d4dc716fb23e6f6a91808e8cfaeaae3c483837c7950787fe564c1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter balancing the losses in the objective." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 523, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 523, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 523, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 68, + 523, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SplitDataset#KPμ#KPσ|KP|μ% Absent# Samples
TrainKP20k5.283.761.9438.19530,809
ValidKP20k5.263.671.9438.2620,000
TestKP20k5.273.742.0437.0320,000
Inspec9.814.972.3322.25500
Krapivin5.843.552.0844.77400
NUS10.856.672.1351.55211
SemEval14.973.502.1555.74100
", + "image_path": "678f842d50cf8db045033cc5895c4ee9f990f7356c3be01cf79c4944a1c989d9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Dataset statistics. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\# \\mathbf{KP}_{\\mu}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": average number of keyphrases; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\# \\mathbf{KP}_{\\sigma}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": standard deviation of the number of keyphrases; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|\\mathbf{KP}|_{\\mu}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": average length (n-gram) of keyphrases per document." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 376, + 249 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 376, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 376, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Reranker" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 525, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As stated by Zhao et al. (2022), MLE-driven models predict candidates with the highest probability, disregarding the possibility that target keyphrases may appear in suboptimal candidates. This problem can be resolved by setting a large beam size for beam search; however, this approach would also result in a substantial increase in the generation of noisy keyphrases among the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 255, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions. Inspired by Liu and Liu (2021), we aim to reduce this noise by assigning new scores to the generated keyphrases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Candidate Generation We employ the finetuned model from Section 4.2 to generate candidate phrases that are highly likely to be absent keyphrases for the corresponding document. We perform beam search decoding using a large beam size on each training document, resulting in the overgeneration of absent keyphrase candidates. The model generates in an ONE2SEQ fashion where the outputs are sequences of phrases, which means that many duplicate phrases are present across the beams. We remove the duplicates and arrange the phrases such that each unique phrase is independently fed to the encoder. We realize that the generator sometimes fails to produce even a single target keyphrase, in which we filter out such documents for the second-stage training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dual Encoder We adopt two pretrained encoder-only networks and obtain the contextual embeddings of a document, as well as each candidate phrase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathbf{h}_d^0,\\mathbf{h}_d^1,\\dots,\\mathbf{h}_d^T] = \\mathrm{Encoder}_{a_1}(\\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathbf{h}_c^0,\\mathbf{h}_c^1,\\dots,\\mathbf{h}_c^{T_c}] = \\mathrm{Encoder}_{a_2}(\\mathbf{c})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the token sequence length of the candidate phrase and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_d^0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}_c^0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the start token representations used as the document and candidate phrase embedding, respectively. Consequently, their hidden representations are obtained by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 526, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{d_a} = \\tanh (\\mathbf{W}_{d_a}\\mathbf{h}_d^0 +\\mathbf{b}_{d_a})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3007" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 213 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 213 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 213 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelInspecKrapivenNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.2250.2620.2690.3540.3230.3970.2420.2830.2910.367
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.2290.2700.2820.3660.3250.3930.2460.2900.2920.366
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.2530.3010.3000.3690.3750.4330.2870.3290.3210.386
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.2530.2910.2860.347--0.2840.3350.3110.374
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.2850.3240.3260.3640.4060.4500.3310.3570.3580.392
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.3300.365--0.4050.4490.3330.3590.3700.404
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.2160.2650.2760.3660.3960.4610.2830.3320.3110.379
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.2600.288--0.4150.4430.3020.3220.3470.352
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.2600.294--0.4120.4390.3290.3560.3510.355
SIMCKP0.35660.35880.40580.40580.49680.49890.38720.38640.42610.4271
", + "image_path": "7968810238eb5da8d2654c2e8c2d5ae74804619b6eca7d343a521eae20653977.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Present keyphrase prediction results. The best results are in bold, while the second best are underlined. The subscript denotes the corresponding standard deviation (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.427_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.427 \\pm 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_a = \\tanh (\\mathbf{W}_a\\mathbf{h}_c^0 +\\mathbf{b}_a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_{d_a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{W}_a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_{d_a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{b}_a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 290, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are learnable parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Contrautive Learning for Generation To rank relevant keyphrases high given a document, we train the dual-encoder framework via contrastive learning. Following a similar process as before, we train our model to learn absent keyphrase representations by semantically aligning them with the corresponding document. Specifically, we set the correctly generated keyphrases and their corresponding document as positive pairs, whereas the rest of the generated candidates and the document become negative pairs. The training objective for a positive pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{z}_{d_a},\\mathbf{z}_{a,i}^+)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (i.e., document and absent keyphrase " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{a}^{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidate pairs then follows Equation 3, where the cross-entropy objective maximizes the similarity of positive pairs and minimizes the rest. The final loss is computed across all positive pairs for the corresponding document with a summation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 191, + 572 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 191, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 191, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 136, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 136, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 136, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our framework on five scientific article datasets: Inspec (Hulth, 2003), Krapivin (Krapivin et al., 2009), NUS (Nguyen and Kan, 2007), Se-mEval (Kim et al., 2010), and KP20k (Meng et al., 2017). Following previous work (Meng et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2020), we concatenate the title and abstract of each sample as a source document and use the training set of KP20k to train all the models. Data statistics are shown in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 139, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 139, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 139, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare our framework with two kinds of KP models: Generative and Unified." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generative Models Generative models predict both present and absent keyphrases through generation. Most models follow catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020), a seq2seq framework under the ONE2SEQ paradigm. We report the performance of catSeq along with its variants such as catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b), catseqTG-2RF" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Chan et al., 2019), and ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b). We also compare with two state-of-the-arts SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b) and CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 527, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 527, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 527, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unified Models Unified models combine extractive and generative methods to predict keyphrases. We compare with the latest models including SEGNet (Ahmad et al., 2021), UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021), and PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 420, + 497 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 420, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 420, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Chan et al. (2019), all models are evaluated on macro-averaged " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compares all the predicted keyphrases with the ground truth, taking the number of predictions into account. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures only the top five predictions, but if the model predicts less than five keyphrases, we randomly append incorrect keyphrases until it obtains five. The motivation is to avoid " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reaching similar results when the number of predictions is less than five. We stem all phrases using the Porter Stemmer and remove all duplicates after stemming." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 441, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 441, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 441, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our framework is built on PyTorch and Huggingface's Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use BART (Lewis et al., 2020) for the encoder-decoder model and uncased BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) for the reranking model. We optimize their weights with AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3008" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 212 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelInspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Generative Models
catSeq (Yuan et al., 2020)0.0040.0080.0180.0360.0160.0280.0160.0280.0150.032
catSeqTG (Chen et al., 2019b)0.0050.0110.0180.0340.0110.0180.0110.0180.0150.032
catSeqTG-2RF1 (Chan et al., 2019)0.0120.0210.0300.0530.0190.0310.0210.0300.0270.050
ExHiRD-h (Chen et al., 2020b)0.0110.0220.0220.043--0.0170.0250.0160.032
SetTrans (Ye et al., 2021b)0.0210.0340.0470.0730.0420.0600.0260.0340.0360.058
CorrKG (Zhao et al., 2022)0.0320.045--0.0610.0790.0390.0440.0530.071
Unified Models
SEG-Net (Ahmad et al., 2021)0.0090.0150.0180.0360.0210.0360.0210.0300.0180.036
UniKeyphrase (Wu et al., 2021)0.0260.036--0.0450.0560.0450.0520.0460.068
PromptKP (Wu et al., 2022b)0.0170.022--0.0360.0420.0280.0320.0320.042
SIMCKP0.03320.03530.07810.08900.076120.088150.04020.04760.07320.0801
", + "image_path": "8b84f4732ba27e2566b34c9bf3625901f137e1cea68634cee2724aafb49f34fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2019) and tune our hyperparameters to maximize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the validation set, incorporating techniques such as early stopping and linear warmup followed by linear decay to 0. We set the maximum n-gram length of candidate phrases to 6 during mining and fix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 0.3 for scaling the contrastive loss. When generating candidates for absent keyphrases, we use beam search with the beam size 50. During inference, we take the candidate phrases as predictions in which the cosine similarity with the corresponding document is higher than the threshold found in the validation set. The threshold is calculated by taking the average of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maximizing thresholds for each document. If the number of predictions is less than five, we retrieve the top similar phrases until we obtain five. We conduct our experiments with three different random seeds and report the averaged results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 197, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 197, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 197, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Results and Analyses" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 289, + 545 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 289, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 289, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Present and Absent Keyphrase Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The present and absent keyphrase prediction results are demonstrated in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. The performance of our model mostly exceeds that of previous state-of-the-art methods by a large margin, showing that our method is effective in predicting both present and absent keyphrases. Particularly, there is a notable improvement in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performance, indicating the effectiveness of our approach in retrieving the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions. On the other hand, we observe that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values are not much different from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 551, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and we believe this is due to the critical limitation of a global threshold. The number of keyphrases varies significantly for each document, and finding op" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 383 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 220, + 387, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 220, + 387, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 205, + 220, + 387, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Absent keyphrase prediction results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 383 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
Present keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.4260.4270.4110.412
w/o CL0.2950.3880.2780.356
CL⇒SEQLABEL0.2360.3840.1800.272
CL⇒BINARYCLF0.2090.3220.1710.251
Absent keyphrase prediction
SIMCKP0.0730.0800.0570.064
w/o CL0.0300.0660.0270.051
w/o RERANKER0.0350.0690.0250.041
", + "image_path": "ac5e748e460a49db69bb28e3ec1eac375873f4162564903658dc6d522a3200bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 525, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 525, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 390, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Ablation study. \"w/o CL\" is the vanilla BART model using beam search for predictions. \"w/o reranker\" extracts with CL but generates using only beam search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "timal thresholds seems necessary for improving the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@\\mathcal{M}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performance. Nonetheless, real-world applications are often focused on identifying the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " keywords, which we believe our model effectively accomplishes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 401, + 541 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 401, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 401, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 546, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We investigate each component of our model to understand their effects on the overall performance and report the effectiveness of each building block in Table 4. Following Xie et al. (2022), we report on two kinds of test sets: 1) KP20k, which we refer to as in-domain, and 2) the combination of Inspec, Krapivin, NUS, and SemEval, which is out-of-domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of CL We notice a significant drop in both present and absent keyphrase prediction performance after decoupling contrastive learning (CL). For a fair comparison, we set the beam size to 50, but our model still outperforms the purely generative model, demonstrating the effectiveness of CL. We also compare our model with two extractive methods: sequence labeling and binary classifica" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4We compared with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}@\\mathbb{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and found no difference in determining the best hyperparameter configuration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3009" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 215 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 215 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1839ee84d5354b7b5ad54b45a722433438206b2fd7e6b220016fbe04e94ed7b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 252 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Comparison of present keyphrase prediction performance w.r.t max n-gram length during extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Mining MethodIn-domainOut-of-domain
F1@5F1@MF1@5F1@M
IN-BATCH DOC NEGATIVES0.0770.0380.0920.065
RANDOM NEGATIVES0.2100.2260.2110.267
HARD NEGATIVES (OURS)0.4260.4270.4110.412
", + "image_path": "b13d2ce4e87f03ab0c5d6f5d8671c626f2546cd0f3146561f7eddcd9fd230b4e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparison of negative mining methods for present keyphrase prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tion. For sequence labeling, we follow previous work (Tokala et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021) and employ a BiLSTM-CRF, a strong sequence labeling baseline, on top of the encoder to predict a BIO5 tag for each token, while for binary classification, a model takes each phrase embedding to predict whether each phrase is a keyphrase or not. CL outperforms both approaches, showing that learning phrase representations is more efficacious." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 291, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 291, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of Reranking We remove the reranker and observe the degradation of performance in absent keyphrase prediction. Note that the vanilla BART (i.e., w/o CL) is trained to generate both present and absent keyphrases, while the other model (i.e., w/o RERANKER) is trained to generate only the absent keyphrases. The former performs slightly better in out-of-domain scenarios, as it is trained to generate diverse keyphrases, while the latter excels in in-domain since absent keyphrases resemble those encountered during training. Nevertheless, the reranker outperforms the two, indicating that it plays a vital role in the KG part of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 282, + 693 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 282, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 282, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Performance over Max N-Gram Length" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 697, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 697, + 290, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 697, + 290, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct experiments on various maximum lengths of n-grams for extraction and compare the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 70, + 414, + 152 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 70, + 414, + 152 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 70, + 414, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 70, + 414, + 152 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5f72aff78fc6386584984f6bfe6db7f52bc2cce95f847b2b6999e557fcfd788d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 526, + 198 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 526, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 526, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Visualization of the semantic space using t-SNE. The left shows the extractor space, while the right depicts the generator space after reranking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 153 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 153 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 69, + 524, + 153 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d9c2e00416f9fecd0a85fba21603f368835571233eef70ede8ef370368f6ad6c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 526, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "present keyphrase prediction performance from unigrams to 6-grams, as shown in Figure 3. For all datasets, the performance steadily increases until the length of 3, which then plateaus to the rest of the lengths. This indicates that the testing datasets are mostly composed of unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams. The performance increases slightly with the length of 6 for some datasets, such as Inspec and SemEval, suggesting that there is a non-negligible number of 6-gram keyphrases. Therefore, the length of 6 seems feasible for maximum performance in all experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 520, + 404 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 520, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 520, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.4 Impact of Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 408, + 525, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to assess the effectiveness of our hard negative phrase mining method, we compare it with other negative mining methods and report the results in Table 5. First, utilizing in-batch document embeddings as negatives yields the poorest performance. This is likely due to ineffective differentiation between keyphrases and other phrase embeddings. Additionally, we experiment with using random text spans as negatives and observe that although it aids in representation learning to some degree, the performance improvement is limited. The outcomes of these two baselines demonstrate that our approach successfully mines hard negatives, enabling our encoder to acquire high-quality representations of keyphrases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 480, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 480, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 620, + 480, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.5 Visualization of Semantic Space" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To verify that our model works as intended, we visualize the representation space of our model with t-SNE (van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008) plots, as depicted in Figure 4. From the visualizations, we find that our model successfully pulls keyphrase embeddings close to their corresponding document in both extractor and generator space. Note that the generator space displays a lesser number of phrases than the beam size 50 because the duplicates after stemming have been removed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5We use the BIO format for our sequence labeling baseline. For example, if the phrase \"voip conferencing system\" is tokenized into \"v ##oi ##p con ##fer ##encing system\", it is labeled as \"B I I I I I\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3010" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 95 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 95 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
InspecKrapivinNUSSemEvalKP20k
R@500.144160.22650.185120.07250.2207
", + "image_path": "15f6c33f1a40a1e41438184752b37462c61b9aca363485abe6f405a71f915d2b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 289, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 289, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 289, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Upper bound performance for absent keyphrase prediction after overgeneration with the beam size 50." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 221, + 162 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 221, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 221, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.6 Upper Bound Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 291, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 291, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 291, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following previous work (Meng et al., 2021; Ray Chowdhury et al., 2022), we measure the upper bound performance after overgeneration by calculating the recall score of the generated phrases and report the results in Table 6. The high recall demonstrates the potential for reranking to increase precision, and we observe that there is room for improvement by better reranking, opening up an opportunity for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 146, + 313 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 146, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 146, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 324, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper presents a contrastive framework that aims to improve the keyphrase prediction performance by learning phrase-level representations, rectifying the shortcomings of existing unified models that score and predict keyphrases at a token level. To effectively identify keyphrases, we divide our framework into two stages: a joint model for extracting and generating keyphrases and a reranking model that scores the generated outputs based on the semantic relation with the corresponding document. We empirically show that our method significantly improves the performance of both present and absent keyphrase prediction against existing state-of-the-art models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 526, + 130, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 526, + 130, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 526, + 130, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the promising prediction performance of the framework proposed in this paper, there is still room for improvement. A fixed global threshold has limited the potential performance of the framework, especially when evaluating " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 549, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We expect that adaptively selecting a threshold value via an auxiliary module for each data sample might overcome such a challenge. Moreover, the result of the second stage highly depends on the performance of the first stage model, directing the next step of research towards an end-to-end framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 170, + 723 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 170, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 170, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "government (MSIT) (No. 2020-0-00368, A Neural-Symbolic Model for Knowledge Acquisition and Inference Techniques and No. 2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1A2B5B02001913). We thank all researchers at Naver WEBTOON Ltd. for their valuable discussions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 216, + 362, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 216, + 362, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 216, + 362, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 234, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 526, + 334 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 526, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 234, + 526, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wasi Ahmad, Xiao Bai, Soomin Lee, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Select, extract and generate: Neural keyphrase generation with layer-wise coverage attention. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1389–1404, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 527, + 410 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 527, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 342, + 527, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rabah Alzaidy, Cornelia Caragea, and C. Lee Giles. 2019. Bi-lstm-crf sequence labeling for keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In *The World Wide Web Conference*, WWW '19, page 2551-2557, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 527, + 496 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 527, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 527, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kamil Bennani-Smires, Claudi Musat, Andreae Hossmann, Michael Baeriswyl, and Martin Jaggi. 2018. Simple unsupervised keyphrase extraction using sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 221-229, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 503, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 503, + 526, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 503, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adrien Bougouin, Florian Boudin, and Beatrice Daille. 2013. TopicRank: Graph-based topic ranking for keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 543-551, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 577, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 577, + 526, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 577, + 526, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cornelia Caragea, Florin Adrian Bulgarov, Andreea Godea, and Sujatha Das Gollapalli. 2014. Citation-enhanced keyphrase extraction from research papers: A supervised approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1435-1446, Doha, Qatar. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 674, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 674, + 526, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 674, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hou Pong Chan, Wang Chen, Lu Wang, and Irwin King. 2019. Neural keyphrase generation via reinforcement learning with adaptive rewards. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2163-2174, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 749, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 749, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 749, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020a. A simple framework for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3011" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1597-1607. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 236 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, Lidong Bing, and Irwin King. 2019a. An integrated approach for keyphrase generation via exploring the power of retrieval and extraction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2846-2856, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 289, + 311 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 289, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 244, + 289, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wang Chen, Hou Pong Chan, Piji Li, and Irwin King. 2020b. Exclusive hierarchical decoding for deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1095-1105, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 289, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 319, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wang Chen, Yifan Gao, Jiani Zhang, Irwin King, and Michael R Lyu. 2019b. Title-guided encoding for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6268-6275." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 289, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 383, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, and Y. LeCun. 2005. Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), volume 1, pages 539-546 vol. 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 290, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 448, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 555, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple contrastive learning of sentence embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6894-6910, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Gillick, Sayali Kulkarni, Larry Lansing, Alessandro Presta, Jason Baldridge, Eugene Ie, and Diego Garcia-Olano. 2019. Learning dense representations for entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 528-537, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sujatha Das Gollapalli, Xiao-Li Li, and Peng Yang. 2017. Incorporating expert knowledge into keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y. LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06), volume 2, pages 1735-1742." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anette Hulth. 2003. Improved automatic keyword extraction given more linguistic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 216-223." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 525, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Su Nam Kim, Olena Medelyan, Min-Yen Kan, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 5: Automatic keyphrase extraction from scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pages 21–26, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 265, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Youngsam Kim, Munhyong Kim, Andrew Cattle, Julia Otmakhova, Suzi Park, and Hyopil Shin. 2013. Applying graph-based keyword extraction to document retrieval. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 864-868, Nagoya, Japan. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 384 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 352, + 525, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mikalai Krapivin, Aliaksandr Autaeu, and Maurizio Marchese. 2009. Large dataset for keyphrase extraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 394, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kalpesh Krishna, Yapei Chang, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2022. RankGen: Improving text generation with large ranking models. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 199-232, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 546 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 481, + 525, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mayank Kulkarni, Debanjan Mahata, Ravneet Arora, and Rajarshi Bhowmik. 2022. Learning rich representation of keyphrases from text. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL* 2022, pages 891–906, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 555, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 664, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinnian Liang, Shuangzhi Wu, Mu Li, and Zhoujun Li. 2021. Unsupervised keyphrase extraction by jointly modeling local and global context. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 155-164, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rui Liu, Zheng Lin, and Weiping Wang. 2021. Addressing extraction and generation separately:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3012" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Keyphrase prediction with pre-trained language models. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3180-3191." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 116, + 289, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 116, + 289, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 116, + 289, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yixin Liu and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SimCLS: A simple framework for contrastive learning of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1065-1072, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 289, + 282 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 289, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 289, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyuan Liu, Xinxiong Chen, Yabin Zheng, and Maosong Sun. 2011. Automatic keyphrase extraction by bridging vocabulary gap. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 135-144, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 339, + 289, + 416 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 339, + 289, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 339, + 289, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Luan, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2017. Scientific information extraction with semi-supervised neural tagging. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2641-2651, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 428, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 428, + 289, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 428, + 289, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olena Medelyan, Eibe Frank, and Ian H. Witten. 2009. Human-competitive tagging using automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1318-1327, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 289, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olena Medelyan, Ian H Witten, and David Milne. 2008. Topic indexing with wikipedia. In Proceedings of the AAAI WikiAI workshop, volume 1, pages 19-24." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 626 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rui Meng, Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Sanqiang Zhao, Adam Trischler, and Daqing He. 2021. An empirical study on neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4985-5007." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 639, + 289, + 705 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 639, + 289, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 639, + 289, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rui Meng, Sanqiang Zhao, Shuguang Han, Daqing He, Peter Brusilovsky, and Yu Chi. 2017. Deep keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 582-592, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 404-411, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 771 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thuy Dung Nguyen and Min-Yen Kan. 2007. Keyphrase extraction in scientific publications. In Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers, pages 317-326, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 224 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ramakanth Pasunuru and Mohit Bansal. 2018. Multireward reinforced summarization with saliency and entailment. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 646-653, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 300 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 524, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jishnu Ray Chowdhury, Seo Yeon Park, Tuhin Kundu, and Cornelia Caragea. 2022. KPDROP: Improving absent keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 4853-4870, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 309, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 309, + 524, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 309, + 524, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingyang Song, Liping Jing, and Lin Xiao. 2021. Importance Estimation from Multiple Perspectives for Keyphrase Extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2726-2736, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 396, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 396, + 524, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 396, + 524, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingyang Song, Lin Xiao, and Liping Jing. 2023. Learning to extract from multiple perspectives for neural keyphrase extraction. Computer Speech & Language, 81:101502." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 524, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 524, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 524, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yixuan Su, Tian Lan, Yan Wang, Dani Yogatama, Lingpeng Kong, and Nigel Collier. 2022. A contrastive framework for neural text generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 578 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 524, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Si Sun, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Bao. 2021. Capturing global informativeness in open domain keyphrase extraction. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 10th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2021, Qingdao, China, October 13-17, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 10, pages 275-287. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 588, + 524, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Sun, Hangping Qiu, Yu Zheng, Zhongwei Wang, and Chaoran Zhang. 2020. Sifrank: a new baseline for unsupervised keyphrase extraction based on pre-trained language model. IEEE Access, 8:10896-10906." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 524, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 642, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Avinash Swaminathan, Haimin Zhang, Debanjan Mahata, Rakesh Gosangi, Rajiv Ratn Shah, and Amanda Stent. 2020. A preliminary exploration of GANs for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8021-8030, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 771 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaohua Tang, Fandong Meng, Zhengdong Lu, Hang Li, and Philip L. H. Yu. 2016. Neural machine translation with external phrase memory. CoRR, abs/1606.01792." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3013" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Santosh Tokala, Debarshi Kumar Sanyal, Plaban Kumar Bhowmick, and Partha Pratim Das. 2020. SaSAKE: Syntax and semantics aware keyphrase extraction from research papers. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5372-5383, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 289, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 289, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 172, + 289, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579-2605." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 289, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 216, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaojun Wan and Jianguo Xiao. 2008. Single document keyphrase extraction using neighborhood knowledge. In AAAI, volume 8, pages 855-860." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 328 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minmei Wang, Bo Zhao, and Yihua Huang. 2016. *Ptr: Phrase-based topical ranking for automatic keyphrase extraction in scientific publications*. In *Neural Information Processing: 23rd International Conference, ICONIP* 2016, Kyoto, Japan, October 16–21, 2016, Proceedings, Part IV 23, pages 120–128. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 289, + 394 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 289, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 289, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ian H Witten, Gordon W Paynter, Eibe Frank, Carl Gutwin, and Craig G Nevill-Manning. 1999. Kea: practical automatic keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Digital libraries, pages 254-255." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 406, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 406, + 289, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 406, + 289, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 616 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 550, + 289, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Di Wu, Wasi Ahmad, Sunipa Dev, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022a. Representation learning for resource-constrained keyphrase generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 700-716, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 628, + 289, + 704 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 628, + 289, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 628, + 289, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huanqin Wu, Wei Liu, Lei Li, Dan Nie, Tao Chen, Feng Zhang, and Di Wang. 2021. UniKeyphrase: A unified extraction and generation framework for keyphrase prediction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 825-835, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huanqin Wu, Baijiaxin Ma, Wei Liu, Tao Chen, and Dan Nie. 2022b. Fast and constrained absent keyphrase generation by prompt-based learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 11495-11503." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Binbin Xie, Xiangpeng Wei, Baosong Yang, Huan Lin, Jun Xie, Xiaoli Wang, Min Zhang, and Jinsong Su. 2022. WR-One2Set: Towards well-calibrated keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7283-7293, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hai Ye and Lu Wang. 2018. Semi-supervised learning for neural keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4142-4153, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 524, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 524, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 244, + 524, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiacheng Ye, Ruijian Cai, Tao Gui, and Qi Zhang. 2021a. Heterogeneous graph neural networks for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2705-2715, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 524, + 418 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 524, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 524, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiacheng Ye, Tao Gui, Yichao Luo, Yige Xu, and Qi Zhang. 2021b. One2Set: Generating diverse keyphrases as a set. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4598-4608, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 427, + 524, + 504 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 427, + 524, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 427, + 524, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang, Rui Meng, Khushboo Thaker, Peter Brusilovsky, Daqing He, and Adam Trischler. 2020. One size does not fit all: Generating and evaluating variable number of keyphrases. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7961-7975, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 524, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 524, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 513, + 524, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linhan Zhang, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Chong Deng, ShiLiang Zhang, Bing Li, Wei Wang, and Xin Cao. 2022. MDERank: A masked document embedding rank approach for unsupervised keyphrase extraction. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 396-409, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qi Zhang, Yang Wang, Yeyun Gong, and Xuanjing Huang. 2016. Keyphrase extraction using deep recurrent neural networks on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 836-845, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 524, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 524, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 524, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guangzhen Zhao, Guoshun Yin, Peng Yang, and Yu Yao. 2022. Keyphrase generation via soft and hard semantic corrections. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7757-7768, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Zhao, Junwei Bao, Yifan Wang, Youzheng Wu, Xiaodong He, and Bowen Zhou. 2021. SGG: Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3014" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to select, guide, and generate for keyphrase generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5717-5726, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 149, + 254, + 162 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 149, + 254, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 149, + 254, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Additional Details for SIMCKP" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 170, + 289, + 184 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 170, + 289, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 170, + 289, + 184 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Details for Hard Negative Phrase Mining" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 290, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 290, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 290, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to effectively extract present keyphrases, we categorize POS tags to the corresponding tag set as the following:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 333 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{\\text{indep}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 237, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\text{\"CD\", \"FW\", \"GW\", \"NN*\", \"VB*\", \"JJ*\", \"RB*\", \"ADD\"\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 255, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 255, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 255, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 255, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 255, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 274, + 255, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\text{\"CC\", \"POS\", \"HYPH\", \"IN\"}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 173, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 173, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 173, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 173, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{start\\_dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 173, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 296, + 173, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\text{“RP}^*\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 318, + 230, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 318, + 230, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 318, + 230, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{end\\_dep}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 318, + 230, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " : " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 318, + 230, + 333 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{\\text{\"DT\",\"AFX\",\"LS\"}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where each tag is defined in the NLTK library. An asterisk (*) refers to any character(s) that come after the tag name. For example, \"JJ\", \"JJR\", and \"JJS\" are adjectives, comparative adjectives, and superlative adjectives, respectively, and all of them are elements of the independent tag set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}_{\\text{indep}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 341, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 431, + 212, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 431, + 212, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 431, + 212, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Hyperparameter Search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform a grid search to find the best hyperparameter configuration and report the tuning range used for our experiments in Table 7. The evaluation on the validation set is performed for every 5,000 gradient accumulating steps, and the tolerance increases by 1 when the validation loss or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "@M is worse than the previous evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 711 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 711 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 554, + 290, + 711 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelHyperparameterRangeBest
BARTBASElearning rate{ 5e-5, 1e-4}5e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.0
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0}0.1
λ{ 0.1, 0.2, ..., 1.0}0.3
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
BERTBASElearning rate{ 1e-5, 2e-5, 3e-5, 4e-5, 5e-5}3e-5
warm-up ratio{ 0.0, 0.1}0.1
batch size{ 4, 8, 16}8
τ{ 0.1}0.1
epoch{ 10}10
max tolerance{ 10}10
max grad norm{ 1.0}1.0
", + "image_path": "346c498a329203f38de619ea52a072df34e3e29dacdef46ddf9fb883c7110d84.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 289, + 743 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 289, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 289, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Hyperparameter tuning range and best values used in the experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3015" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_content_list.json b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58a1eb25216ba7726a8bfb483559c5c89326ef41 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1381 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 287, + 82, + 712, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wei Liu $^{1,2*}$ , Songlin Yang $^{3*}$ , Yoon Kim $^{3}$ , Kewei Tu $^{1,2}$", + "bbox": [ + 275, + 129, + 724, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 148, + 801, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Vision and Imaging", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 165, + 801, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3Massachusetts Institute of Technology", + "bbox": [ + 341, + 181, + 660, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{liuwei4,tukw}@shanghaiitech.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 329, + 199, + 673, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yangsl66,yoonkim}@mit.edu", + "bbox": [ + 369, + 215, + 631, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scaling dense PCFGs to thousands of nonterminals via a low-rank parameterization of the rule probability tensor has been shown to be beneficial for unsupervised parsing. However, PCFGs scaled this way still perform poorly as a language model, and even underperform similarly-sized HMMs. This work introduces SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. Despite imposing a stronger independence assumption than the low-rank approach, we find that this formalism scales more effectively both as a language model and as an unsupervised parser. As an unsupervised parser, our simple PCFG obtains an average F1 of 65.1 on the English PTB, and as a language model, it obtains a perplexity of 119.0, outperforming similarly-sized low-rank PCFGs. We further introduce FlashInside, a hardware IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm for efficiently scaling simple PCFGs.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 588, + 258, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the improvements in unsupervised parsing obtained through scaling neural probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFGs), their language model performance scales less favorably compared to, for example, hidden Markov models (HMMs) and neural language models. On the Penn Treebank, a neural PCFG with 30 nonterminals and 60 preterminals obtains $\\approx 250$ perplexity (Kim et al., 2019), and while scaling neural PCFGs to thousands of states via a low-rank parameterization can improve perplexity to $\\approx 170$ (Yang et al., 2022), this still lags behind a similarly-sized HMM, which obtains $\\approx 130$ perplexity (Chiu et al., 2021), despite the fact that HMMs are a subclass of PCFGs", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work proposes SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. We find that this simple PCFG scales", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 887 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "more effectively (in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing) than previous approaches which scale PCFGs by factorizing the rule probability tensor into low-rank components (Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). In particular, we find that simple PCFGs can obtain significantly lower perplexity in language modeling while achieving higher unsupervised parsing performance compared to low-rank PCFGs with a similar number of nonterminals, achieving a near state-of-the-art unsupervised parsing performance on the Penn Treebank with an F1 of 65.1. We further describe a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm, dubbed FlashInside, to facilitate scalable learning of simple PCFGs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 885, + 493 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Simple PCFGs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 507, + 672, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A PCFG can be defined by a 6-tuple $\\mathcal{G} = (S, \\mathcal{N}, \\mathcal{P}, \\Sigma, \\mathcal{R}, \\pi)$ , where $\\mathcal{S}$ is the distinguished start symbol, $\\mathcal{N} / \\mathcal{P} / \\Sigma$ are a finite set of non-terminal/pre-terminal/terminal symbols, $^1$ $\\mathcal{R}$ is a set of production rules of the form,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 882, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS \\to A, \\quad A \\in \\mathcal {N}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 627, + 831, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA \\to B C, \\quad A \\in \\mathcal {N}, B, C \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 643, + 831, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nT \\to w, \\quad T \\in \\mathcal {P}, w \\in \\Sigma\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 659, + 831, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and $\\pi : \\mathcal{R} \\to [0,1]$ maps rules to their associated probabilities. In simple PCFGs, we decompose $\\pi_{A \\to BC}$ into $\\pi_{B \\curvearrowright A} \\cdot \\pi_{A \\curvearrowright C}$ , effectively assuming that left and right children are generated independently. We denote $\\mathbf{L}, \\mathbf{R} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}|}$ as the matrix representation of $\\pi_{B \\curvearrowright A}$ and $\\pi_{A \\curvearrowright C}$ , and apply a neural parameterization over these matrices to compute the rule probabilities (Kim et al., 2019). See Appendix A for details.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 689, + 884, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "For brevity we do not distinguish between $\\mathcal{N}$ and $\\mathcal{P}$ for the rest of the paper.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 844, + 882, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2This formalism has been discussed in Hsu et al. (2012), i.e., PCFG-I. We also experimented with PCFG-IE, where $\\mathbf{L} = \\mathbf{R}$ but found it necessary to distinguish between $\\mathbf{L}$ and $\\mathbf{R}$ to achieve good performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal contribution.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 892, + 270, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Code: https://github.com/sustcsonglin/TN-PCFG.", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 904, + 465, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1662", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1662-1669", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1dfd6d0eac7bc562b5f1381cfc184a14f097b7a8bab41fc022c9e40dd794f3c2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 236, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/60c03dea7ceb6b6c0328daae477cdabe91bd15302f509b086735772f8467cd41.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 240, + 82, + 357, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a03a0a04c78843300af199517725f24a48ecb3250739721b1f3bd7c79319ae0a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c)", + "Figure 1: Bayesian network-like representations of PCFG binary rules: (a) original grammar, (b) after tensor decomposition (Yang et al., 2021b), and (c) rank space grammar (Yang et al., 2022). Our simple PCFG is almost the same as (c) but uses a flexible parameterization." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 364, + 82, + 482, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparing simple vs. low-rank PCFGs. The previous approach to scaling HMMs and PCFGs to thousands of nontermals is parameterizing the rule probability tensor $\\mathbf{T} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}|}$ to be low-rank (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). Low-rank PCFGs can be viewed as introducing a new latent variable, namely a \"rank variable\" $R$ , to decompose $\\pi_{A \\to BC}$ into $\\sum_{R} \\pi_{A \\to R} \\pi_{B \\cap R} \\pi_{R \\cap C}$ , as shown in Fig. 1, where the tensor/matrix representations of $\\pi_{A \\to BC}, \\pi_{A \\to R}, \\pi_{B \\cap R}, \\pi_{R \\cap C}$ are $\\mathbf{T}, \\mathbf{U}, \\mathbf{V}, \\mathbf{W}$ , respectively. Yang et al. (2022, Sect. 4.2) show that a low-rank PCFG can be reparameterized as a simple PCFG with independent left/right productions by marginalizing nonterminal variables and viewing the rank variables as new nonterminal variables. As such, low-rank PCFGs parameterize $\\mathbf{L}, \\mathbf{R}$ in a more restrictive manner: $\\mathbf{L} = \\mathbf{V} \\mathbf{U}^T, \\mathbf{R} = \\mathbf{W} \\mathbf{U}^T$ . We speculate that the shared $\\mathbf{U}^T$ would restrict the expressiveness of low-rank PCFGs and thus hinder optimization, which motivates our simple PCFGs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 489, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 A Hardware-efficient Inside Algorithm", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 482, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 470, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs has the following recursive formula:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 724, + 485, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\beta_ {i j} ^ {A} = \\sum_ {B, C \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} \\cdot \\pi_ {A \\cap C} \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\beta_ {i k} ^ {B} \\cdot \\beta_ {k j} ^ {C} \\\\ = \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\underbrace {\\left(\\sum_ {B \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} \\cdot \\beta_ {i k} ^ {B}\\right)} _ {\\eta_ {i k} ^ {A}} \\underbrace {\\left(\\sum_ {C \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {A \\cap C} \\cdot \\beta_ {k j} ^ {C}\\right)} _ {\\zeta_ {k j} ^ {A}} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 766, + 495, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\beta_{ij}^{A}$ is the inside probability for span $(A,i,j)$ with the base case $\\beta_{ii}^{A} = \\pi_{A\\to w_i}$ . We cache $\\eta_{ij}^{A},\\zeta_{ij}^{A}$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 884, + 487, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to avoid repeated computation, similar to Cohen et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2022). The resulting complexity is $\\mathcal{O}(l^3 |\\mathcal{N}| + l^2 |\\mathcal{N}|^2)$ where $l$ is sentence length.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Vector form. We abuse the notation to have $\\beta_{ij},\\pmb{\\eta}_{ij},\\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}|}$ . Then we can write $\\beta_{ij} = \\sum_{i < k < j}\\pmb{\\eta}_{ik}\\odot \\pmb{\\zeta}_{kj}$ and $\\pmb{\\eta}_{ij} = \\mathbf{L}\\pmb{\\beta}_{ij},\\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij} = \\mathbf{R}\\pmb{\\beta}_{ij}$ , where $\\odot$ is the element-wise product.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 156, + 882, + 221 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 FlashInside", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 231, + 648, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is necessary to implement the inside algorithm on GPUs efficiently to facilitate scaling of simple PCFGs. We introduce FlashInside, a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm in the spirit of FlashAttention (Dao et al., 2022). FlashInside comprises of four main techniques:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Span-level parallelism. Given the span width $w$ , the inside probability vector $\\beta_{i(i + w)}$ could be computed in parallel for different starting position $i$ (Yi et al., 2011, Sect. 4.2).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 374, + 882, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The log-einsum-exp trick. To improve numerical stability, it is common to use the \"log-sum-exp\" trick. For example, letting $\\pmb{o}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\beta}_{ij}, \\pmb{a}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\eta}_{ij}, \\pmb{b}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij}$ , we have", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 447, + 885, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star} + \\log \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 525, + 882, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\pmb{x}^{\\star} = \\max_{i < k < j}(\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj})\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}|}$ . Using log-sum-exp could be expensive when computing $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ , so we resort to the \"log-einsum-exp\" trick (Peharz et al., 2020, Sect. 3.2),", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 571, + 882, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left(\\mathbf {L} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger}\\right)\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 559, + 646, + 825, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {b} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left(\\mathbf {R} \\exp (\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger})\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 676, + 828, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\pmb{x}^{\\dagger} = \\max_{i,j}\\pmb{0}_{ij}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}$ . This allows us to leverage matrix multiplication operators, which are highly optimized on GPUs, to compute $\\mathbf{L}\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})$ and $\\mathbf{R}\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 714, + 882, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kernel fusion. The above computation involves many element-wise operations and is thus memory-bounded. Loading and storing these vectors multiple times would cause significant IO-cost (Dao et al., 2022). We reduce the IO-cost by fusing these operations whenever possible. Concretely, when", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 788, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3We abuse the notation for broadcasting vector-scalar addition/subtraction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1663", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/796a5841e5d54b05c8feea3cba9814191459b5c467b6033fcdfd68146967cd86.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 1: Ablation of how different elements of FlashInside contribute to speed and memory efficiency, with different numbers of nonterminals $(|\\mathcal{N}|)$ and sentence lengths $(l)$ . For speed the regular log-sum-exp implementation from Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020) is the baseline, whereas for memory our FlashInside serves as the baseline." + ], + "table_body": "
Algorithm|N|lSpeedMemory
log-sum-exp512201x100x
log-einsum-exp512204.8x3x
FlashInside512209.5x1x
log-einsum-exp8192201x2x
FlashInside8192206x1x
log-sum-exp512401x50x
log-einsum-exp5124016x3x
FlashInside5124044x1x
log-einsum-exp8192401x2.4x
FlashInside81924039x1x
", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 68, + 472, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "computing $\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})$ , we perform max, -, exp in the same kernel that computes $\\pmb{o}_{ij}$ ; and we compute $\\pmb{a}_{ij}, \\pmb{b}_{ij}$ at once by", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 322, + 489, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n[ \\pmb {a} _ {i j} | \\pmb {b} _ {i j} ] = \\pmb {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left([ \\mathbf {L} | \\mathbf {R} ] \\exp (\\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\dagger})\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 382, + 467, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "followed by fused element-wise log and addition operations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 485, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recomputation. While it possible to rely on automatic differentiation (AD) to backpropagate through the inside algorithm (Eisner, 2016), this can be memory-inefficient since AD would save all the intermediate results in the DP computation, which are not needed. For example, in Eq. 1 the partial differentiation between $o_{ij}$ and $a_{ik}, b_{kj}$ is given by,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 458, + 487, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\delta \\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\\delta \\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k}} = \\frac {\\delta \\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\\delta \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j}} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right)}{\\sum_ {k ^ {\\prime}} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k ^ {\\prime}} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k ^ {\\prime} , j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right)} \\\\ = \\frac {\\exp (\\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \\pmb {b} _ {k j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\star})}{\\exp (\\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\star})} = \\exp (\\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \\pmb {b} _ {k j} - \\pmb {o} _ {i j}) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 598, + 494, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the backward pass, we could recompute $\\exp (\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj} - \\pmb{o}_{ij})$ without the need to store $\\exp (\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj} - \\pmb{x}^{\\star})$ in the forward pass, thus saving memory4. We found that this manual backpropagation led to a slight decrease in running speed but greatly increased memory savings, and thus use it for all our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 681, + 489, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speed comparison Table 1 shows running speed and memory footprint measured under a single NVIDIA-A40 GPU, where we compare against the standard log-sum-exp implementation of the inside algorithm which only leverages span-level", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 803, + 487, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/59a1f740ddf12d0f4a9de9423481cded172a974760c8f7b99f54d9805395de3d.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 2: Results on the PTB language modeling split from Mikolov et al. (2011). NT denotes the number of nonterminals and ppl denotes perplexity. Top results are from previous papers (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), while the bottom results are from the current work. Our runs are averaged over 4 seeds." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelNTppl (↓)
NHMM4096147
LHMM16384131.8
Rank HMM16384127.0
Rank HMM32768126.4
Rank PCFG†4096174.5±11.1
Rank PCFG†8192161.2±8.9
SN-PCFG4096125.4±4.1
SN-PCFG8192119.0±5.3
", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 68, + 821, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "parallelism (e.g., in Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020)). We can see that the use of log-einsum-exp trick significantly accelerate the running speed and reduce the memory footprint. FlashInside uses the kernel fusion and recomputation techniques in addition, resulting in further improvement, especially on larger grammars and longer sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 284, + 884, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 717, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets. We conduct experiments on the Penn Treebank (PTB) (Marcus et al., 1993) dataset with two different splits: one for language modeling (Mikolov et al., 2011), and one for unsupervised parsing (Shen et al., 2018, 2019). We also evaluate our model on Chinese Treebank 5.1 (CTB) (Xue et al., 2005) and German and French treebanks from SPRML (Seddah et al., 2014).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 882, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines. Our HMM baselines include neural HMM (NHMM) (Chiu et al., 2021), LHMM (Chiu et al., 2021), and Rank HMM (Yang et al., 2022). Our PCFG baselines include Neural/Compound PCFG (N/C-PCFG) (Kim et al., 2019), TN-PCFG (Yang et al., 2021b) and Rank PCFG (Yang et al., 2022). $\\dagger$ denotes our reimplementation. For Rank PCFG we use rank size 4096. See Appendix B for more implementation details.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 575, + 882, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation. We use perplexity (ppl) to evaluate language modeling and sentence-level F1 (S-F1) (Kim et al., 2019) to evaluate unsupervised parsing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 732, + 882, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 794, + 608, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare our simple neural PCFG (SN-PCFG) to the baseline models. Table 2 shows the language modeling performance on PTB. SN-PCFG obtains significantly lower perplexity than Rank PCFG, and outperforms similarly-sized HMMs. This indicates that simple PCFGs provide a viable path", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4This is also known as gradient checkpointing (Chen et al., 2016).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1664", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d012ece08723350b4f0be4ff24b3944457043e27b57b44377b18942bc512d31c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelNTChineseFrenchGerman
S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)
Left-Branching-7.2-5.7-10.0
Right-Branching-25.5-26.4-14.07-
Random Trees-15.2-16.2-13.9-
Kim (2022)---41.9-47.3-
Li and Lu (2023)---48.7-40.8-
N-PCFG3026.3±2.545.0±2.042.3±1.6
C-PCFG3038.7±6.6-45.0±1.1-43.5±1.2-
TN-PCFG25039.2±5.039.1±4.147.1±1.7
Rank PCFG409631.00±8.9409.4±29.531.2±9.3355.8±13.735.6±9.1215.3±57.1
Rank PCFG819232.4±8.2372.6±31.432.9±10.6332.2±60.838.9±9.6190.5±65.9
SN-PCFG409639.9±6.3328.3±62.138.0±3.1379.7±5.246.7±4.9157.8±65.6
SN-PCFG819241.2±3.5288.2±11.743.3±9.9259.9±70.246.9±5.1159.5±77.2
SC-PCFG51238.4±7.4-47.9±1.2-47.7±1.0-
SC-PCFG204842.9±2.9-49.9±1.7-49.1±1.0-
", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 71, + 833, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/03cc35d9f54b7c6be5ad51b009beaac74f7c6c6f853c1dba6a8b14952e5722ff.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Results on the Chinese, French, and German treebanks. All runs are averaged over 4 seeds." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 4: Unsupervised parsing performance on the PTB test set, including comparison against prior work (bottom): PRPN (Shen et al., 2018), ON (Shen et al., 2019), DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021), S-DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2020), Constituency tests (Cao et al., 2020), StructFormer (Shen et al., 2021), and FastR2D2 (Hu et al., 2022). Wherever possible, we take the average F1 numbers across different seeds reported by the above papers (instead of the max)." + ], + "table_body": "
ModelNTS-F1 (↑)ppl (↓)
N-PCFG3050.8252.6
C-PCFG3055.2-
TN-PCFG50057.7210.0
Rank PCFG450064.1168.0
Rank PCFG†409660.1±7.6165.1±7.7
Rank PCFG†819261.1±5.9171.2±11.7
N-PCFG†12856.7±3.7181.1±15.3
SN-PCFG12851.1±4.1231.7±8.1
SN-PCFG409665.1±2.1132.5±4.9
SN-PCFG819262.9±2.8134.6±9.1
SC-PCFG51254.3±4.8-
SC-PCFG204860.6±3.6-
PRPN-37.4-
ON-47.7-
DIORA+span constraint-61.2-
S-DIORA-57.6-
Constituency test-62.8-
StructFormer-54.0-
Fast-R2D2-57.2-
Right-Branching-39.5-
Oracle Trees-84.3-
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 303, + 480, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "towards scaling PCFGs, despite the strict independence assumption.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 772, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4 and 3 show the unsupervised parsing performance. SN-PCFG consistently outperforms Rank PCFG in S-F1 while obtaining much lower perplexity. We also experiment with the compound version of simple PCFGs (SC-PCFG) which uses an auxiliary sentence-level vector to model sentence-level properties and uses variational infer", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ence for learning (see the appendix for the full parameterization). We find that SN-PCFG performs better on English while SC-PCFG achieves the best parsing performance in languages other than English. We remark that the compound parameterization is reported to be not compatible with low-rank parameterization probably due to optimization issues (Yang et al., 2021b). This work successfully scales compound PCFGs to thousands of states, which could be useful in some settings such as multimodal grammar induction which condition on vector representations of side information (Zhao and Titov, 2020; Jin and Schuler, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Li et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 305, + 884, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple PCFG vs. Neural PCFG. Despite the better scalability of simple PCFGs, we find that under the same number of nonterminal (i.e., 128), SN-PCFG expectedly underperforms N-PCFG in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing (Table 4) due to the stronger independence assumption that is necessary for scaling. Nevertheless, N-PCFG does not scale well and (for example) runs into memory issues even with just 256 nonterminals, while SN-PCFG can scale to 8192 nonterminals on a single A40 GPU.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 538, + 885, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple PCFG vs. Rank PCFG. Recall that the rank PCFG and simple PCFG share an identical dynamic programming structure. The rank variable in the rank PCFG amounts to the nonterminal variable in the simple PCFG. Consequently, if we align the rank size in the rank PCFG with the nonterminal size in the simple PCFG, we achieve parity in terms of memory footprint and computational speed within the dynamic programming computation. In our experiments, we opt for a rank size of 4096 in the low-rank PCFG. The results, as presented in tables 2-4, showcase the worse perfor", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1665", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mance of the rank PCFG when compared to SN-PCFG with 4096 nonterminals. Interestingly, this work was motivated by our observation that merely augmenting the rank size of PCFG falls short in bridging the performance gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. This resulted in our exploring alternative parameterizations, culminating in the straightforward independent left/right productions based parameterization which yields superior results in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 272, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Independence assumptions are frequently made in grammar learning for tractability and scalability. Simple PCFGs assume independent generation of left and right children, thus resembling splithead dependency grammars (Eisner, 1996; Collins, 1997; Eisner and Satta, 1999; Paskin, 2001; Klein and Manning, 2004). We have shown that trading expressiveness (of grammar formalism) for scalability is beneficial, and this idea could be applied to other complex grammar formalism of high parsing complexity, such as mildly context-sensitive grammars (Yang et al., 2023), synchronized grammars (Kim, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Friedman et al., 2022; Lou and Tu, 2023) and lexicalized grammars (Zhu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021a).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 296, + 490, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 247, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work we explore a simpler variant of PCFGs (SimplePCFG) that shows better scaling properties than previous approaches in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing performance. We also introduce a hardware-aware version of the inside algorithm (FlashInside) which improves over existing vectorized GPU implementations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 699, + 218, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have successfully bridged the gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. However, a significant disparity remains between PCFGs and neural models like Transformers. While we recognize the potential of our hardware-efficient inside algorithm implementation for conducting large-scale language modeling experiments, our aim is not to position PCFGs as direct rivals to neural models, given the intrinsic limitations arising from PCFG's strong context-free independence assumption. Our main objective is to enhance unsupervised PCFG learning, with a cen", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 492, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tral focus on optimizing the sentence log marginal likelihood objective function.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple PCFGs, due to their restrictive grammar nature, require many nonterminals for optimal performance. However, we observe diminishing returns while scaling up simple PCFGs. This phenomena is common in scaling up latent-variable models and future work might consider leveraging the technique from Liu et al. (2023) to mitigate this issue.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 117, + 884, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When scaling up simple PCFGs, the computation of grammar rule probabilities could also be expensive, especially when constructing the emission probability matrix of size $\\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{P}| \\times |\\mathcal{V}|}$ . Compound parameterization exacerbates this issue since each sentence will have its own set of grammar rule probabilities. Consequently, we only used up to 2048 nonterminals in our SC-PCFG experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 246, + 884, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 388, + 665, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139) and by funds from an MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab grant.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 882, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 491, + 608, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Steven Cao, Nikita Kitaev, and Dan Klein. 2020. Unsupervised parsing via constituency tests. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4798-4808, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. CoRR, abs/1604.06174.", + "Justin T. Chiu, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Low-rank constraints for fast inference in structured models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 2887-2898.", + "Shay B. Cohen, Giorgio Satta, and Michael Collins. 2013. Approximate PCFG parsing using tensor decomposition. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 487-496, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Michael Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 514, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1666", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 16-23, Madrid, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. In NeurlPS.", + "Andrew Drozdov, Subendhu Rongali, Yi-Pei Chen, Tim O'Gorman, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2020. Unsupervised parsing with S-DIORA: Single tree encoding for deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4832-4845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Andrew Drozdov, Patrick Verga, Yi-Pei Chen, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Unsupervised labeled parsing with deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1507-1512, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason Eisner. 2016. Inside-outside and forward-backward algorithms are just backprop (tutorial paper). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP, pages 1-17, Austin, TX. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason Eisner and Giorgio Satta. 1999. Efficient parsing for bilexical context-free grammars and head automaton grammars. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 457-464, College Park, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason M. Eisner. 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In *COLING* 1996 Volume 1: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.", + "Dan Friedman, Alexander Wettig, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Finding dataset shortcuts with grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4345-4363, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Daniel J. Hsu, Sham M. Kakade, and Percy Liang. 2012. Identifiability and unmixing of latent parse trees. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25: 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2012. Proceedings of a meeting held December 3-6, 2012, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 1520-1528.", + "Xiang Hu, Haitao Mi, Liang Li, and Gerard de Melo. 2022. Fast-R2D2: A pretrained recursive neural network based on pruned CKY for grammar induction and text representation. In Proceedings of the 2022" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2809-2821, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lifeng Jin and William Schuler. 2020. Grounded PCFG induction with images. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 396-408, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Taeuk Kim. 2022. Revisiting the practical effectiveness of constituency parse extraction from pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5398-5408, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Yoon Kim. 2021. Sequence-to-sequence learning with latent neural grammars. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 26302-26317.", + "Yoon Kim, Chris Dyer, and Alexander Rush. 2019. Compound probabilistic context-free grammars for grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2369-2385, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Dan Klein and Christopher Manning. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 478-485, Barcelona, Spain.", + "Boyi Li, Rodolfo Corona, Karttikeya Mangalam, Catherine Chen, Daniel Flaherty, Serge J. Belongie, Kilian Q. Weinberger, Jitendra Malik, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2022. Does unsupervised grammar induction need pixels? CoRR, abs/2212.10564.", + "Jiaxi Li and Wei Lu. 2023. Contextual distortion reveals constituency: Masked language models are implicit parsers. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5208-5222, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Anji Liu, Honghua Zhang, and Guy Van den Broeck. 2023. Scaling up probabilistic circuits by latent variable distillation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Chao Lou and Kewei Tu. 2023. Improving grammar-based sequence-to-sequence modeling with decomposition and constraints. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1918-1929, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1667", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank. Comput. Linguistics, 19(2):313-330.", + "Tomás Mikolov, Anoop Deoras, Stefan Kombrink, Lukás Burget, and Jan Cernocký. 2011. Empirical evaluation and combination of advanced language modeling techniques. In *INTERSPEECH* 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy, August 27-31, 2011, pages 605-608. ISCA.", + "Mark Paskin. 2001. Grammatical bigrams. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 14. MIT Press.", + "Robert Peharz, Steven Lang, Antonio Vergari, Karl Stelzner, Alejandro Molina, Martin Trapp, Guy Van den Broeck, Kristian Kersting, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2020. Einsum networks: Fast and scalable learning of tractable probabilistic circuits. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 7563-7574. PMLR.", + "Alexander Rush. 2020. Torch-struct: Deep structured prediction library. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 335-342, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Djamé Seddah, Sandra Kübler, and Reut Tsarfaty. 2014. Introducing the SPMRL 2014 shared task on parsing morphologically-rich languages. In Proceedings of the First Joint Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically Rich Languages and Syntactic Analysis of Non-Canonical Languages, pages 103–109, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City University.", + "Yikang Shen, Zhouhan Lin, Chin-Wei Huang, and Aaron Courville. 2018. Neural Language Modeling by Jointly Learning Syntax and Lexicon. In Proceedings of ICLR.", + "Yikang Shen, Shawn Tan, Alessandro Sordoni, and Aaron Courville. 2019. Ordered Neurons: Integrating Tree Structures into Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of ICLR.", + "Yikang Shen, Yi Tay, Che Zheng, Dara Bahri, Donald Metzler, and Aaron Courville. 2021. StructFormer: Joint unsupervised induction of dependency and constituency structure from masked language modeling. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7196-7209, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Philippe Tillet, Hsiang-Tsung Kung, and David D. Cox. 2019. Triton: an intermediate language and compiler for tiled neural network computations. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN International" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages, MAPL@PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22, 2019, pages 10-19. ACM.", + "Bailin Wang, Ivan Titov, Jacob Andreas, and Yoon Kim. 2022. Hierarchical phrase-based sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8211-8229, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4818-4831, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nianwen Xue, Fei Xia, Fu-Dong Chiou, and Martha Palmer. 2005. The penn chinese treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Nat. Lang. Eng., 11(2):207-238.", + "Songlin Yang, Roger P Levy, and Yoon Kim. 2023. Unsupervised discontinuous constituency parsing with mildly context-sensitive grammars. In Proceedings of ACL.", + "Songlin Yang, Wei Liu, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Dynamic programming in rank space: Scaling structured inference with low-rank HMMs and PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4797-4809, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021a. Neural bi-lexicalized PCFG induction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 2688–2699, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021b. PCFGs can do better: Inducing probabilistic context-free grammars with many symbols. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1487-1498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Youngmin Yi, Chao-Yue Lai, Slav Petrov, and Kurt Keutzer. 2011. Efficient parallel CKY parsing on GPUs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, pages 175-185, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1668", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Haitao Mi, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2022. Learning a grammar inducer from massive uncurated instructional videos. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 233-247, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2021. Video-aided unsupervised grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1513–1524, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 186, + 489, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yanpeng Zhao and Ivan Titov. 2020. Visually grounded compound PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4369-4379, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 286, + 489, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hao Zhu, Yonatan Bisk, and Graham Neubig. 2020. The Return of Lexical Dependencies: Neural Lexicalized PCFGs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:647-661.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 362, + 489, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Neural Parameterization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 425, + 369, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the neural parameterization of our simple neural pcfg and simple compound pcfg. We use $\\pmb{E}_{\\mathcal{G}} = \\{\\pmb{w}_N | N \\in \\{\\mathcal{S}\\} \\cup \\mathcal{N} \\cup \\mathcal{P}\\}$ to denote symbol embeddings for simple PCFG and use function $g_{r}(\\cdot; \\theta) = \\pi_{r}$ parameterized by $\\theta$ to denote neural parameterization function.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 489, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple Neural PCFG We use neural networks to parameterize these rule probabilities. The neural parameterization of all rule probabilities $\\pi_r$ starts from corresponding symbol embeddings in $E_{\\mathcal{G}}$ . Parameterization function $g_{r}(\\cdot ;\\theta)$ can be formulated as $g_{r}(E_{\\mathcal{G}};\\theta)$ in simple neural PCFG, which takes from one of these forms:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 555, + 489, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\pi_ {S \\rightarrow A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {A} ^ {\\top} f _ {1} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {S}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {A ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {A ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {1} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {S}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {B \\curvearrowright A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {2} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {B ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {2} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {A \\curvearrowright C} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {C ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {T \\rightarrow w} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {T}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {w ^ {\\prime} \\in \\Sigma} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {T}\\right)\\right)} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 690, + 472, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $f_{1}, f_{5}$ are two-layer residual networks; $f_{2}, f_{3}, f_{4}$ are one-linear-layer with ReLU activation function and residual connections. We highlight the usefulness of sharing symbol embedding", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "across different grammar rules; and the use of residual connections in $f_{2},f_{3},f_{4}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simple Compound PCFG Similar to compound PCFGs, we parameterize our simple compound PCFGs with a latent variable $z \\sim p(z)$ . We replace three rule probabilities $\\pi_{B \\cap A}, \\pi_{B \\cap A}$ , and $\\pi_{T \\to w}$ with $\\pi_r = g_r(\\boldsymbol{z}, \\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta)$ , while leaving the remaining rule probabilities as $g_r(\\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta)$ . The function $\\pi_r = g_r(\\boldsymbol{z}, \\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta)$ can take one of the following forms:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 124, + 884, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {2} (\\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}{\\sum_ {B ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {2} (\\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {A \\cap C} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}{\\sum_ {C ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {T \\rightarrow w} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} ^ {\\prime} \\left([ \\mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {w ^ {\\prime} \\in \\Sigma} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} ^ {\\prime} \\left([ \\mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]\\right)\\right)} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 278, + 887, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $f_3', f_5'$ are neural networks which are similar to $f_3, f_5$ but with different input shape.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 884, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 450, + 749, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We follow Mikolov et al. (2011) to preprocess PTB language modeling split data. For other datasets, we use the preprocessing from Yang et al. (2021b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 882, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implement our model based on the codebase of Yang et al. (2022). And most hyperparameters follow their settings. We use Xavier normal initialization to initialize neural networks. Our model is optimized by Adam optimizer with $\\beta_{1} = 0.75, \\beta_{2} = 0.999$ , and learning rate 0.002. All dimensions of symbol embeddings are set to 512. Our FlashInside is implemented with Triton (Tillet et al., 2019) $^5$ , an open-source python-like GPU programming language. For the latent variable $z$ in SC-PCFG, we follow the implementation of Kim et al. (2019) which applies a max-pooling layer over the hidden states of the BiLSTM to obtain sentence representation and generates 64-dimensional mean vectors $\\mu (\\boldsymbol{w})$ and log-variances $\\log \\sigma (\\boldsymbol{w})$ by leveraging an affine layer.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 882, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We run all experiments on NVIDIA V100 and NVIDIA A40. All experimental results are averaged from four runs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 782, + 882, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{5}$ https://github.com/openai/triton", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 732, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1669", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_model.json b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a564eeebbe7b1c9a4167e35213d63a478c06f4c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1866 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.289, + 0.083, + 0.713, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.277, + 0.13, + 0.725, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Liu\\(^{1,2*}\\), Songlin Yang\\(^{3*}\\), Yoon Kim\\(^{3}\\), Kewei Tu\\(^{1,2}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.149, + 0.802, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.166, + 0.802, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Vision and Imaging" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.182, + 0.662, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Massachusetts Institute of Technology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.33, + 0.2, + 0.674, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{liuwei4,tukw}@shanghaiitech.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.37, + 0.216, + 0.633, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yangsl66,yoonkim}@mit.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scaling dense PCFGs to thousands of nonterminals via a low-rank parameterization of the rule probability tensor has been shown to be beneficial for unsupervised parsing. However, PCFGs scaled this way still perform poorly as a language model, and even underperform similarly-sized HMMs. This work introduces SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. Despite imposing a stronger independence assumption than the low-rank approach, we find that this formalism scales more effectively both as a language model and as an unsupervised parser. As an unsupervised parser, our simple PCFG obtains an average F1 of 65.1 on the English PTB, and as a language model, it obtains a perplexity of 119.0, outperforming similarly-sized low-rank PCFGs. We further introduce FlashInside, a hardware IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm for efficiently scaling simple PCFGs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.589, + 0.26, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the improvements in unsupervised parsing obtained through scaling neural probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFGs), their language model performance scales less favorably compared to, for example, hidden Markov models (HMMs) and neural language models. On the Penn Treebank, a neural PCFG with 30 nonterminals and 60 preterminals obtains \\(\\approx 250\\) perplexity (Kim et al., 2019), and while scaling neural PCFGs to thousands of states via a low-rank parameterization can improve perplexity to \\(\\approx 170\\) (Yang et al., 2022), this still lags behind a similarly-sized HMM, which obtains \\(\\approx 130\\) perplexity (Chiu et al., 2021), despite the fact that HMMs are a subclass of PCFGs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.489, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work proposes SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. We find that this simple PCFG scales" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.886, + 0.494 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "more effectively (in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing) than previous approaches which scale PCFGs by factorizing the rule probability tensor into low-rank components (Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). In particular, we find that simple PCFGs can obtain significantly lower perplexity in language modeling while achieving higher unsupervised parsing performance compared to low-rank PCFGs with a similar number of nonterminals, achieving a near state-of-the-art unsupervised parsing performance on the Penn Treebank with an F1 of 65.1. We further describe a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm, dubbed FlashInside, to facilitate scalable learning of simple PCFGs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.508, + 0.673, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Simple PCFGs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.534, + 0.884, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A PCFG can be defined by a 6-tuple \\(\\mathcal{G} = (S, \\mathcal{N}, \\mathcal{P}, \\Sigma, \\mathcal{R}, \\pi)\\), where \\(\\mathcal{S}\\) is the distinguished start symbol, \\(\\mathcal{N} / \\mathcal{P} / \\Sigma\\) are a finite set of non-terminal/pre-terminal/terminal symbols,\\(^1\\) \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) is a set of production rules of the form," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.628, + 0.833, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS \\to A, \\quad A \\in \\mathcal {N}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.644, + 0.832, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA \\to B C, \\quad A \\in \\mathcal {N}, B, C \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.661, + 0.832, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nT \\to w, \\quad T \\in \\mathcal {P}, w \\in \\Sigma\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.69, + 0.885, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and \\(\\pi : \\mathcal{R} \\to [0,1]\\) maps rules to their associated probabilities. In simple PCFGs, we decompose \\(\\pi_{A \\to BC}\\) into \\(\\pi_{B \\curvearrowright A} \\cdot \\pi_{A \\curvearrowright C}\\), effectively assuming that left and right children are generated independently. We denote \\(\\mathbf{L}, \\mathbf{R} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}|}\\) as the matrix representation of \\(\\pi_{B \\curvearrowright A}\\) and \\(\\pi_{A \\curvearrowright C}\\), and apply a neural parameterization over these matrices to compute the rule probabilities (Kim et al., 2019). See Appendix A for details." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.845, + 0.883, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For brevity we do not distinguish between \\(\\mathcal{N}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{P}\\) for the rest of the paper." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.87, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2This formalism has been discussed in Hsu et al. (2012), i.e., PCFG-I. We also experimented with PCFG-IE, where \\(\\mathbf{L} = \\mathbf{R}\\) but found it necessary to distinguish between \\(\\mathbf{L}\\) and \\(\\mathbf{R}\\) to achieve good performance." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.845, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.894, + 0.272, + 0.906 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal contribution." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.906, + 0.466, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Code: https://github.com/sustcsonglin/TN-PCFG." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1662" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1662-1669" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.083, + 0.237, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.195, + 0.18, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.242, + 0.083, + 0.359, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.293, + 0.195, + 0.311, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.365, + 0.083, + 0.484, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.419, + 0.195, + 0.435, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.218, + 0.49, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Bayesian network-like representations of PCFG binary rules: (a) original grammar, (b) after tensor decomposition (Yang et al., 2021b), and (c) rank space grammar (Yang et al., 2022). Our simple PCFG is almost the same as (c) but uses a flexible parameterization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.329, + 0.49, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparing simple vs. low-rank PCFGs. The previous approach to scaling HMMs and PCFGs to thousands of nontermals is parameterizing the rule probability tensor \\(\\mathbf{T} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}|}\\) to be low-rank (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). Low-rank PCFGs can be viewed as introducing a new latent variable, namely a \"rank variable\" \\(R\\), to decompose \\(\\pi_{A \\to BC}\\) into \\(\\sum_{R} \\pi_{A \\to R} \\pi_{B \\cap R} \\pi_{R \\cap C}\\), as shown in Fig. 1, where the tensor/matrix representations of \\(\\pi_{A \\to BC}, \\pi_{A \\to R}, \\pi_{B \\cap R}, \\pi_{R \\cap C}\\) are \\(\\mathbf{T}, \\mathbf{U}, \\mathbf{V}, \\mathbf{W}\\), respectively. Yang et al. (2022, Sect. 4.2) show that a low-rank PCFG can be reparameterized as a simple PCFG with independent left/right productions by marginalizing nonterminal variables and viewing the rank variables as new nonterminal variables. As such, low-rank PCFGs parameterize \\(\\mathbf{L}, \\mathbf{R}\\) in a more restrictive manner: \\(\\mathbf{L} = \\mathbf{V} \\mathbf{U}^T, \\mathbf{R} = \\mathbf{W} \\mathbf{U}^T\\). We speculate that the shared \\(\\mathbf{U}^T\\) would restrict the expressiveness of low-rank PCFGs and thus hinder optimization, which motivates our simple PCFGs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.679, + 0.484, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 A Hardware-efficient Inside Algorithm" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.704, + 0.471, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.725, + 0.487, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs has the following recursive formula:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.767, + 0.496, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\beta_ {i j} ^ {A} = \\sum_ {B, C \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} \\cdot \\pi_ {A \\cap C} \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\beta_ {i k} ^ {B} \\cdot \\beta_ {k j} ^ {C} \\\\ = \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\underbrace {\\left(\\sum_ {B \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} \\cdot \\beta_ {i k} ^ {B}\\right)} _ {\\eta_ {i k} ^ {A}} \\underbrace {\\left(\\sum_ {C \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {A \\cap C} \\cdot \\beta_ {k j} ^ {C}\\right)} _ {\\zeta_ {k j} ^ {A}} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.885, + 0.489, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\beta_{ij}^{A}\\) is the inside probability for span \\((A,i,j)\\) with the base case \\(\\beta_{ii}^{A} = \\pi_{A\\to w_i}\\). We cache \\(\\eta_{ij}^{A},\\zeta_{ij}^{A}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to avoid repeated computation, similar to Cohen et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2022). The resulting complexity is \\(\\mathcal{O}(l^3 |\\mathcal{N}| + l^2 |\\mathcal{N}|^2)\\) where \\(l\\) is sentence length." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.158, + 0.884, + 0.222 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vector form. We abuse the notation to have \\(\\beta_{ij},\\pmb{\\eta}_{ij},\\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}|}\\). Then we can write \\(\\beta_{ij} = \\sum_{i < k < j}\\pmb{\\eta}_{ik}\\odot \\pmb{\\zeta}_{kj}\\) and \\(\\pmb{\\eta}_{ij} = \\mathbf{L}\\pmb{\\beta}_{ij},\\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij} = \\mathbf{R}\\pmb{\\beta}_{ij}\\), where \\(\\odot\\) is the element-wise product." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.233, + 0.649, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 FlashInside" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is necessary to implement the inside algorithm on GPUs efficiently to facilitate scaling of simple PCFGs. We introduce FlashInside, a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm in the spirit of FlashAttention (Dao et al., 2022). FlashInside comprises of four main techniques:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.375, + 0.884, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Span-level parallelism. Given the span width \\( w \\), the inside probability vector \\( \\beta_{i(i + w)} \\) could be computed in parallel for different starting position \\( i \\) (Yi et al., 2011, Sect. 4.2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.448, + 0.886, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The log-einsum-exp trick. To improve numerical stability, it is common to use the \"log-sum-exp\" trick. For example, letting \\( \\pmb{o}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\beta}_{ij}, \\pmb{a}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\eta}_{ij}, \\pmb{b}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij} \\), we have" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.526, + 0.884, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star} + \\log \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.573, + 0.884, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\pmb{x}^{\\star} = \\max_{i < k < j}(\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj})\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}|}\\). Using log-sum-exp could be expensive when computing \\(a_{ij}\\) and \\(b_{ij}\\), so we resort to the \"log-einsum-exp\" trick (Peharz et al., 2020, Sect. 3.2)," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.56, + 0.648, + 0.826, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left(\\mathbf {L} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger}\\right)\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.677, + 0.829, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {b} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left(\\mathbf {R} \\exp (\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger})\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.715, + 0.883, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\pmb{x}^{\\dagger} = \\max_{i,j}\\pmb{0}_{ij}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}\\). This allows us to leverage matrix multiplication operators, which are highly optimized on GPUs, to compute \\(\\mathbf{L}\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})\\) and \\(\\mathbf{R}\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.789, + 0.884, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kernel fusion. The above computation involves many element-wise operations and is thus memory-bounded. Loading and storing these vectors multiple times would cause significant IO-cost (Dao et al., 2022). We reduce the IO-cost by fusing these operations whenever possible. Concretely, when" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3We abuse the notation for broadcasting vector-scalar addition/subtraction." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1663" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.069, + 0.473, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Algorithm|N|lSpeedMemory
log-sum-exp512201x100x
log-einsum-exp512204.8x3x
FlashInside512209.5x1x
log-einsum-exp8192201x2x
FlashInside8192206x1x
log-sum-exp512401x50x
log-einsum-exp5124016x3x
FlashInside5124044x1x
log-einsum-exp8192401x2.4x
FlashInside81924039x1x
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.212, + 0.49, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Ablation of how different elements of FlashInside contribute to speed and memory efficiency, with different numbers of nonterminals \\((|\\mathcal{N}|)\\) and sentence lengths \\((l)\\). For speed the regular log-sum-exp implementation from Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020) is the baseline, whereas for memory our FlashInside serves as the baseline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.323, + 0.49, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "computing \\(\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})\\), we perform max, -, exp in the same kernel that computes \\(\\pmb{o}_{ij}\\); and we compute \\(\\pmb{a}_{ij}, \\pmb{b}_{ij}\\) at once by" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.384, + 0.468, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n[ \\pmb {a} _ {i j} | \\pmb {b} _ {i j} ] = \\pmb {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left([ \\mathbf {L} | \\mathbf {R} ] \\exp (\\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\dagger})\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.421, + 0.487, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "followed by fused element-wise log and addition operations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.459, + 0.489, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recomputation. While it possible to rely on automatic differentiation (AD) to backpropagate through the inside algorithm (Eisner, 2016), this can be memory-inefficient since AD would save all the intermediate results in the DP computation, which are not needed. For example, in Eq. 1 the partial differentiation between \\( o_{ij} \\) and \\( a_{ik}, b_{kj} \\) is given by," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.599, + 0.495, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\delta \\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\\delta \\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k}} = \\frac {\\delta \\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\\delta \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j}} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right)}{\\sum_ {k ^ {\\prime}} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k ^ {\\prime}} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k ^ {\\prime} , j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right)} \\\\ = \\frac {\\exp (\\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \\pmb {b} _ {k j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\star})}{\\exp (\\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\star})} = \\exp (\\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \\pmb {b} _ {k j} - \\pmb {o} _ {i j}) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.682, + 0.49, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the backward pass, we could recompute \\(\\exp (\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj} - \\pmb{o}_{ij})\\) without the need to store \\(\\exp (\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj} - \\pmb{x}^{\\star})\\) in the forward pass, thus saving memory4. We found that this manual backpropagation led to a slight decrease in running speed but greatly increased memory savings, and thus use it for all our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.804, + 0.489, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speed comparison Table 1 shows running speed and memory footprint measured under a single NVIDIA-A40 GPU, where we compare against the standard log-sum-exp implementation of the inside algorithm which only leverages span-level" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.571, + 0.069, + 0.822, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelNTppl (↓)
NHMM4096147
LHMM16384131.8
Rank HMM16384127.0
Rank HMM32768126.4
Rank PCFG†4096174.5±11.1
Rank PCFG†8192161.2±8.9
SN-PCFG4096125.4±4.1
SN-PCFG8192119.0±5.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.189, + 0.884, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Results on the PTB language modeling split from Mikolov et al. (2011). NT denotes the number of nonterminals and ppl denotes perplexity. Top results are from previous papers (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), while the bottom results are from the current work. Our runs are averaged over 4 seeds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.285, + 0.885, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "parallelism (e.g., in Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020)). We can see that the use of log-einsum-exp trick significantly accelerate the running speed and reduce the memory footprint. FlashInside uses the kernel fusion and recomputation techniques in addition, resulting in further improvement, especially on larger grammars and longer sentences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.409, + 0.719, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.436, + 0.884, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets. We conduct experiments on the Penn Treebank (PTB) (Marcus et al., 1993) dataset with two different splits: one for language modeling (Mikolov et al., 2011), and one for unsupervised parsing (Shen et al., 2018, 2019). We also evaluate our model on Chinese Treebank 5.1 (CTB) (Xue et al., 2005) and German and French treebanks from SPRML (Seddah et al., 2014)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.576, + 0.884, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines. Our HMM baselines include neural HMM (NHMM) (Chiu et al., 2021), LHMM (Chiu et al., 2021), and Rank HMM (Yang et al., 2022). Our PCFG baselines include Neural/Compound PCFG (N/C-PCFG) (Kim et al., 2019), TN-PCFG (Yang et al., 2021b) and Rank PCFG (Yang et al., 2022). \\(\\dagger\\) denotes our reimplementation. For Rank PCFG we use rank size 4096. See Appendix B for more implementation details." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.733, + 0.884, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation. We use perplexity (ppl) to evaluate language modeling and sentence-level F1 (S-F1) (Kim et al., 2019) to evaluate unsupervised parsing." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.795, + 0.61, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare our simple neural PCFG (SN-PCFG) to the baseline models. Table 2 shows the language modeling performance on PTB. SN-PCFG obtains significantly lower perplexity than Rank PCFG, and outperforms similarly-sized HMMs. This indicates that simple PCFGs provide a viable path" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4This is also known as gradient checkpointing (Chen et al., 2016)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1664" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.072, + 0.835, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelNTChineseFrenchGerman
S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)
Left-Branching-7.2-5.7-10.0
Right-Branching-25.5-26.4-14.07-
Random Trees-15.2-16.2-13.9-
Kim (2022)---41.9-47.3-
Li and Lu (2023)---48.7-40.8-
N-PCFG3026.3±2.545.0±2.042.3±1.6
C-PCFG3038.7±6.6-45.0±1.1-43.5±1.2-
TN-PCFG25039.2±5.039.1±4.147.1±1.7
Rank PCFG409631.00±8.9409.4±29.531.2±9.3355.8±13.735.6±9.1215.3±57.1
Rank PCFG819232.4±8.2372.6±31.432.9±10.6332.2±60.838.9±9.6190.5±65.9
SN-PCFG409639.9±6.3328.3±62.138.0±3.1379.7±5.246.7±4.9157.8±65.6
SN-PCFG819241.2±3.5288.2±11.743.3±9.9259.9±70.246.9±5.1159.5±77.2
SC-PCFG51238.4±7.4-47.9±1.2-47.7±1.0-
SC-PCFG204842.9±2.9-49.9±1.7-49.1±1.0-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.162, + 0.28, + 0.835, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Results on the Chinese, French, and German treebanks. All runs are averaged over 4 seeds." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.304, + 0.482, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelNTS-F1 (↑)ppl (↓)
N-PCFG3050.8252.6
C-PCFG3055.2-
TN-PCFG50057.7210.0
Rank PCFG450064.1168.0
Rank PCFG†409660.1±7.6165.1±7.7
Rank PCFG†819261.1±5.9171.2±11.7
N-PCFG†12856.7±3.7181.1±15.3
SN-PCFG12851.1±4.1231.7±8.1
SN-PCFG409665.1±2.1132.5±4.9
SN-PCFG819262.9±2.8134.6±9.1
SC-PCFG51254.3±4.8-
SC-PCFG204860.6±3.6-
PRPN-37.4-
ON-47.7-
DIORA+span constraint-61.2-
S-DIORA-57.6-
Constituency test-62.8-
StructFormer-54.0-
Fast-R2D2-57.2-
Right-Branching-39.5-
Oracle Trees-84.3-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.632, + 0.49, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Unsupervised parsing performance on the PTB test set, including comparison against prior work (bottom): PRPN (Shen et al., 2018), ON (Shen et al., 2019), DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021), S-DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2020), Constituency tests (Cao et al., 2020), StructFormer (Shen et al., 2021), and FastR2D2 (Hu et al., 2022). Wherever possible, we take the average F1 numbers across different seeds reported by the above papers (instead of the max)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.774, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "towards scaling PCFGs, despite the strict independence assumption." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4 and 3 show the unsupervised parsing performance. SN-PCFG consistently outperforms Rank PCFG in S-F1 while obtaining much lower perplexity. We also experiment with the compound version of simple PCFGs (SC-PCFG) which uses an auxiliary sentence-level vector to model sentence-level properties and uses variational infer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.306, + 0.885, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ence for learning (see the appendix for the full parameterization). We find that SN-PCFG performs better on English while SC-PCFG achieves the best parsing performance in languages other than English. We remark that the compound parameterization is reported to be not compatible with low-rank parameterization probably due to optimization issues (Yang et al., 2021b). This work successfully scales compound PCFGs to thousands of states, which could be useful in some settings such as multimodal grammar induction which condition on vector representations of side information (Zhao and Titov, 2020; Jin and Schuler, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Li et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.539, + 0.887, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple PCFG vs. Neural PCFG. Despite the better scalability of simple PCFGs, we find that under the same number of nonterminal (i.e., 128), SN-PCFG expectedly underperforms N-PCFG in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing (Table 4) due to the stronger independence assumption that is necessary for scaling. Nevertheless, N-PCFG does not scale well and (for example) runs into memory issues even with just 256 nonterminals, while SN-PCFG can scale to 8192 nonterminals on a single A40 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple PCFG vs. Rank PCFG. Recall that the rank PCFG and simple PCFG share an identical dynamic programming structure. The rank variable in the rank PCFG amounts to the nonterminal variable in the simple PCFG. Consequently, if we align the rank size in the rank PCFG with the nonterminal size in the simple PCFG, we achieve parity in terms of memory footprint and computational speed within the dynamic programming computation. In our experiments, we opt for a rank size of 4096 in the low-rank PCFG. The results, as presented in tables 2-4, showcase the worse perfor" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1665" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mance of the rank PCFG when compared to SN-PCFG with 4096 nonterminals. Interestingly, this work was motivated by our observation that merely augmenting the rank size of PCFG falls short in bridging the performance gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. This resulted in our exploring alternative parameterizations, culminating in the straightforward independent left/right productions based parameterization which yields superior results in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.273, + 0.273, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.492, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Independence assumptions are frequently made in grammar learning for tractability and scalability. Simple PCFGs assume independent generation of left and right children, thus resembling splithead dependency grammars (Eisner, 1996; Collins, 1997; Eisner and Satta, 1999; Paskin, 2001; Klein and Manning, 2004). We have shown that trading expressiveness (of grammar formalism) for scalability is beneficial, and this idea could be applied to other complex grammar formalism of high parsing complexity, such as mildly context-sensitive grammars (Yang et al., 2023), synchronized grammars (Kim, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Friedman et al., 2022; Lou and Tu, 2023) and lexicalized grammars (Zhu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021a)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.549, + 0.248, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.573, + 0.49, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work we explore a simpler variant of PCFGs (SimplePCFG) that shows better scaling properties than previous approaches in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing performance. We also introduce a hardware-aware version of the inside algorithm (FlashInside) which improves over existing vectorized GPU implementations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.7, + 0.22, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.493, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have successfully bridged the gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. However, a significant disparity remains between PCFGs and neural models like Transformers. While we recognize the potential of our hardware-efficient inside algorithm implementation for conducting large-scale language modeling experiments, our aim is not to position PCFGs as direct rivals to neural models, given the intrinsic limitations arising from PCFG's strong context-free independence assumption. Our main objective is to enhance unsupervised PCFG learning, with a cen" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tral focus on optimizing the sentence log marginal likelihood objective function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.118, + 0.885, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple PCFGs, due to their restrictive grammar nature, require many nonterminals for optimal performance. However, we observe diminishing returns while scaling up simple PCFGs. This phenomena is common in scaling up latent-variable models and future work might consider leveraging the technique from Liu et al. (2023) to mitigate this issue." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.247, + 0.885, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When scaling up simple PCFGs, the computation of grammar rule probabilities could also be expensive, especially when constructing the emission probability matrix of size \\(\\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{P}| \\times |\\mathcal{V}|}\\). Compound parameterization exacerbates this issue since each sentence will have its own set of grammar rule probabilities. Consequently, we only used up to 2048 nonterminals in our SC-PCFG experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.389, + 0.667, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.884, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139) and by funds from an MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab grant." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.492, + 0.61, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.516, + 0.887, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Steven Cao, Nikita Kitaev, and Dan Klein. 2020. Unsupervised parsing via constituency tests. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4798-4808, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.607, + 0.884, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. CoRR, abs/1604.06174." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.658, + 0.885, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Justin T. Chiu, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Low-rank constraints for fast inference in structured models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 2887-2898." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.762, + 0.885, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shay B. Cohen, Giorgio Satta, and Michael Collins. 2013. Approximate PCFG parsing using tensor decomposition. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 487-496, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.865, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.516, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1666" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 16-23, Madrid, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.137, + 0.488, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. In NeurlPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.2, + 0.488, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew Drozdov, Subendhu Rongali, Yi-Pei Chen, Tim O'Gorman, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2020. Unsupervised parsing with S-DIORA: Single tree encoding for deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4832-4845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.316, + 0.488, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew Drozdov, Patrick Verga, Yi-Pei Chen, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Unsupervised labeled parsing with deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1507-1512, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.444, + 0.488, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Eisner. 2016. Inside-outside and forward-backward algorithms are just backprop (tutorial paper). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP, pages 1-17, Austin, TX. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.521, + 0.488, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Eisner and Giorgio Satta. 1999. Efficient parsing for bilexical context-free grammars and head automaton grammars. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 457-464, College Park, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.61, + 0.488, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason M. Eisner. 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In *COLING* 1996 Volume 1: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.674, + 0.488, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Friedman, Alexander Wettig, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Finding dataset shortcuts with grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4345-4363, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel J. Hsu, Sham M. Kakade, and Percy Liang. 2012. Identifiability and unmixing of latent parse trees. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25: 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2012. Proceedings of a meeting held December 3-6, 2012, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 1520-1528." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Hu, Haitao Mi, Liang Li, and Gerard de Melo. 2022. Fast-R2D2: A pretrained recursive neural network based on pruned CKY for grammar induction and text representation. In Proceedings of the 2022" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2809-2821, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.148, + 0.884, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lifeng Jin and William Schuler. 2020. Grounded PCFG induction with images. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 396-408, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.25, + 0.884, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Taeuk Kim. 2022. Revisiting the practical effectiveness of constituency parse extraction from pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5398-5408, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.338, + 0.883, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoon Kim. 2021. Sequence-to-sequence learning with latent neural grammars. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 26302-26317." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.426, + 0.883, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoon Kim, Chris Dyer, and Alexander Rush. 2019. Compound probabilistic context-free grammars for grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2369-2385, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.514, + 0.883, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Klein and Christopher Manning. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 478-485, Barcelona, Spain." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.602, + 0.883, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Boyi Li, Rodolfo Corona, Karttikeya Mangalam, Catherine Chen, Daniel Flaherty, Serge J. Belongie, Kilian Q. Weinberger, Jitendra Malik, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2022. Does unsupervised grammar induction need pixels? CoRR, abs/2212.10564." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.676, + 0.883, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaxi Li and Wei Lu. 2023. Contextual distortion reveals constituency: Masked language models are implicit parsers. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5208-5222, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.765, + 0.883, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anji Liu, Honghua Zhang, and Guy Van den Broeck. 2023. Scaling up probabilistic circuits by latent variable distillation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.827, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chao Lou and Kewei Tu. 2023. Improving grammar-based sequence-to-sequence modeling with decomposition and constraints. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1918-1929, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1667" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank. Comput. Linguistics, 19(2):313-330." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.147, + 0.49, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomás Mikolov, Anoop Deoras, Stefan Kombrink, Lukás Burget, and Jan Cernocký. 2011. Empirical evaluation and combination of advanced language modeling techniques. In *INTERSPEECH* 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy, August 27-31, 2011, pages 605-608. ISCA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.249, + 0.489, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mark Paskin. 2001. Grammatical bigrams. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 14. MIT Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.298, + 0.489, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Peharz, Steven Lang, Antonio Vergari, Karl Stelzner, Alejandro Molina, Martin Trapp, Guy Van den Broeck, Kristian Kersting, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2020. Einsum networks: Fast and scalable learning of tractable probabilistic circuits. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 7563-7574. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.425, + 0.489, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Rush. 2020. Torch-struct: Deep structured prediction library. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 335-342, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.5, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Djamé Seddah, Sandra Kübler, and Reut Tsarfaty. 2014. Introducing the SPMRL 2014 shared task on parsing morphologically-rich languages. In Proceedings of the First Joint Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically Rich Languages and Syntactic Analysis of Non-Canonical Languages, pages 103–109, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City University." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.602, + 0.489, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yikang Shen, Zhouhan Lin, Chin-Wei Huang, and Aaron Courville. 2018. Neural Language Modeling by Jointly Learning Syntax and Lexicon. In Proceedings of ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.663, + 0.49, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yikang Shen, Shawn Tan, Alessandro Sordoni, and Aaron Courville. 2019. Ordered Neurons: Integrating Tree Structures into Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.725, + 0.49, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yikang Shen, Yi Tay, Che Zheng, Dara Bahri, Donald Metzler, and Aaron Courville. 2021. StructFormer: Joint unsupervised induction of dependency and constituency structure from masked language modeling. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7196-7209, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Philippe Tillet, Hsiang-Tsung Kung, and David D. Cox. 2019. Triton: an intermediate language and compiler for tiled neural network computations. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN International" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages, MAPL@PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22, 2019, pages 10-19. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.139, + 0.885, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bailin Wang, Ivan Titov, Jacob Andreas, and Yoon Kim. 2022. Hierarchical phrase-based sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8211-8229, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4818-4831, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.377, + 0.883, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nianwen Xue, Fei Xia, Fu-Dong Chiou, and Martha Palmer. 2005. The penn chinese treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Nat. Lang. Eng., 11(2):207-238." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.443, + 0.883, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songlin Yang, Roger P Levy, and Yoon Kim. 2023. Unsupervised discontinuous constituency parsing with mildly context-sensitive grammars. In Proceedings of ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.51, + 0.883, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songlin Yang, Wei Liu, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Dynamic programming in rank space: Scaling structured inference with low-rank HMMs and PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4797-4809, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.628, + 0.883, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021a. Neural bi-lexicalized PCFG induction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 2688–2699, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.734, + 0.883, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021b. PCFGs can do better: Inducing probabilistic context-free grammars with many symbols. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1487-1498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Youngmin Yi, Chao-Yue Lai, Slav Petrov, and Kurt Keutzer. 2011. Efficient parallel CKY parsing on GPUs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, pages 175-185, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1668" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Haitao Mi, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2022. Learning a grammar inducer from massive uncurated instructional videos. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 233-247, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.187, + 0.49, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2021. Video-aided unsupervised grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1513–1524, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.287, + 0.49, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanpeng Zhao and Ivan Titov. 2020. Visually grounded compound PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4369-4379, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.363, + 0.49, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Zhu, Yonatan Bisk, and Graham Neubig. 2020. The Return of Lexical Dependencies: Neural Lexicalized PCFGs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:647-661." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.426, + 0.37, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Neural Parameterization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.452, + 0.49, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the neural parameterization of our simple neural pcfg and simple compound pcfg. We use \\( \\pmb{E}_{\\mathcal{G}} = \\{\\pmb{w}_N | N \\in \\{\\mathcal{S}\\} \\cup \\mathcal{N} \\cup \\mathcal{P}\\} \\) to denote symbol embeddings for simple PCFG and use function \\( g_{r}(\\cdot; \\theta) = \\pi_{r} \\) parameterized by \\( \\theta \\) to denote neural parameterization function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.556, + 0.49, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple Neural PCFG We use neural networks to parameterize these rule probabilities. The neural parameterization of all rule probabilities \\(\\pi_r\\) starts from corresponding symbol embeddings in \\(E_{\\mathcal{G}}\\). Parameterization function \\(g_{r}(\\cdot ;\\theta)\\) can be formulated as \\(g_{r}(E_{\\mathcal{G}};\\theta)\\) in simple neural PCFG, which takes from one of these forms:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.691, + 0.473, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\pi_ {S \\rightarrow A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {A} ^ {\\top} f _ {1} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {S}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {A ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {A ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {1} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {S}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {B \\curvearrowright A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {2} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {B ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {2} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {A \\curvearrowright C} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {C ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {T \\rightarrow w} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {T}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {w ^ {\\prime} \\in \\Sigma} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {T}\\right)\\right)} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( f_{1}, f_{5} \\) are two-layer residual networks; \\( f_{2}, f_{3}, f_{4} \\) are one-linear-layer with ReLU activation function and residual connections. We highlight the usefulness of sharing symbol embedding" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "across different grammar rules; and the use of residual connections in \\(f_{2},f_{3},f_{4}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.126, + 0.885, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simple Compound PCFG Similar to compound PCFGs, we parameterize our simple compound PCFGs with a latent variable \\( z \\sim p(z) \\). We replace three rule probabilities \\( \\pi_{B \\cap A}, \\pi_{B \\cap A} \\), and \\( \\pi_{T \\to w} \\) with \\( \\pi_r = g_r(\\boldsymbol{z}, \\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta) \\), while leaving the remaining rule probabilities as \\( g_r(\\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta) \\). The function \\( \\pi_r = g_r(\\boldsymbol{z}, \\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta) \\) can take one of the following forms:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.279, + 0.888, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {2} (\\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}{\\sum_ {B ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {2} (\\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {A \\cap C} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}{\\sum_ {C ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {T \\rightarrow w} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} ^ {\\prime} \\left([ \\mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {w ^ {\\prime} \\in \\Sigma} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} ^ {\\prime} \\left([ \\mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]\\right)\\right)} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.408, + 0.885, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( f_3', f_5' \\) are neural networks which are similar to \\( f_3, f_5 \\) but with different input shape." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.451, + 0.75, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.477, + 0.884, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We follow Mikolov et al. (2011) to preprocess PTB language modeling split data. For other datasets, we use the preprocessing from Yang et al. (2021b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.526, + 0.884, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implement our model based on the codebase of Yang et al. (2022). And most hyperparameters follow their settings. We use Xavier normal initialization to initialize neural networks. Our model is optimized by Adam optimizer with \\(\\beta_{1} = 0.75, \\beta_{2} = 0.999\\), and learning rate 0.002. All dimensions of symbol embeddings are set to 512. Our FlashInside is implemented with Triton (Tillet et al., 2019) \\(^5\\), an open-source python-like GPU programming language. For the latent variable \\(z\\) in SC-PCFG, we follow the implementation of Kim et al. (2019) which applies a max-pooling layer over the hidden states of the BiLSTM to obtain sentence representation and generates 64-dimensional mean vectors \\(\\mu (\\boldsymbol{w})\\) and log-variances \\(\\log \\sigma (\\boldsymbol{w})\\) by leveraging an affine layer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.783, + 0.884, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We run all experiments on NVIDIA V100 and NVIDIA A40. All experimental results are averaged from four runs." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.733, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{5}\\)https://github.com/openai/triton" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1669" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_origin.pdf b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d7f0db797a38d9d0cb5bb72dfb9308dbbcd52fa --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/06f8a66f-f3b6-444e-bf2e-472e017b8bbd_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e744cf05e1e44d201ae5a89cdbfdc488dd4e1cb7ca4f623d554c354cd7bb5ec7 +size 428793 diff --git a/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/full.md b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54f1b5f4506fe654df0ecd1465fcc98f3b3ae188 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,268 @@ +# Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions + +Wei Liu $^{1,2*}$ , Songlin Yang $^{3*}$ , Yoon Kim $^{3}$ , Kewei Tu $^{1,2}$ + +$^{1}$ School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University + +$^{2}$ Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Vision and Imaging + +3Massachusetts Institute of Technology + +{liuwei4,tukw}@shanghaiitech.edu.cn + +{yangsl66,yoonkim}@mit.edu + +# Abstract + +Scaling dense PCFGs to thousands of nonterminals via a low-rank parameterization of the rule probability tensor has been shown to be beneficial for unsupervised parsing. However, PCFGs scaled this way still perform poorly as a language model, and even underperform similarly-sized HMMs. This work introduces SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. Despite imposing a stronger independence assumption than the low-rank approach, we find that this formalism scales more effectively both as a language model and as an unsupervised parser. As an unsupervised parser, our simple PCFG obtains an average F1 of 65.1 on the English PTB, and as a language model, it obtains a perplexity of 119.0, outperforming similarly-sized low-rank PCFGs. We further introduce FlashInside, a hardware IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm for efficiently scaling simple PCFGs. + +# 1 Introduction + +Despite the improvements in unsupervised parsing obtained through scaling neural probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFGs), their language model performance scales less favorably compared to, for example, hidden Markov models (HMMs) and neural language models. On the Penn Treebank, a neural PCFG with 30 nonterminals and 60 preterminals obtains $\approx 250$ perplexity (Kim et al., 2019), and while scaling neural PCFGs to thousands of states via a low-rank parameterization can improve perplexity to $\approx 170$ (Yang et al., 2022), this still lags behind a similarly-sized HMM, which obtains $\approx 130$ perplexity (Chiu et al., 2021), despite the fact that HMMs are a subclass of PCFGs + +This work proposes SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. We find that this simple PCFG scales + +more effectively (in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing) than previous approaches which scale PCFGs by factorizing the rule probability tensor into low-rank components (Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). In particular, we find that simple PCFGs can obtain significantly lower perplexity in language modeling while achieving higher unsupervised parsing performance compared to low-rank PCFGs with a similar number of nonterminals, achieving a near state-of-the-art unsupervised parsing performance on the Penn Treebank with an F1 of 65.1. We further describe a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm, dubbed FlashInside, to facilitate scalable learning of simple PCFGs. + +# 2 Simple PCFGs + +A PCFG can be defined by a 6-tuple $\mathcal{G} = (S, \mathcal{N}, \mathcal{P}, \Sigma, \mathcal{R}, \pi)$ , where $\mathcal{S}$ is the distinguished start symbol, $\mathcal{N} / \mathcal{P} / \Sigma$ are a finite set of non-terminal/pre-terminal/terminal symbols, $^1$ $\mathcal{R}$ is a set of production rules of the form, + +$$ +S \to A, \quad A \in \mathcal {N} +$$ + +$$ +A \to B C, \quad A \in \mathcal {N}, B, C \in \mathcal {N} \cup \mathcal {P} +$$ + +$$ +T \to w, \quad T \in \mathcal {P}, w \in \Sigma +$$ + +and $\pi : \mathcal{R} \to [0,1]$ maps rules to their associated probabilities. In simple PCFGs, we decompose $\pi_{A \to BC}$ into $\pi_{B \curvearrowright A} \cdot \pi_{A \curvearrowright C}$ , effectively assuming that left and right children are generated independently. We denote $\mathbf{L}, \mathbf{R} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{N}| \times |\mathcal{N}|}$ as the matrix representation of $\pi_{B \curvearrowright A}$ and $\pi_{A \curvearrowright C}$ , and apply a neural parameterization over these matrices to compute the rule probabilities (Kim et al., 2019). See Appendix A for details. + +![](images/1dfd6d0eac7bc562b5f1381cfc184a14f097b7a8bab41fc022c9e40dd794f3c2.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/60c03dea7ceb6b6c0328daae477cdabe91bd15302f509b086735772f8467cd41.jpg) +(b) + +![](images/a03a0a04c78843300af199517725f24a48ecb3250739721b1f3bd7c79319ae0a.jpg) +(c) +Figure 1: Bayesian network-like representations of PCFG binary rules: (a) original grammar, (b) after tensor decomposition (Yang et al., 2021b), and (c) rank space grammar (Yang et al., 2022). Our simple PCFG is almost the same as (c) but uses a flexible parameterization. + +Comparing simple vs. low-rank PCFGs. The previous approach to scaling HMMs and PCFGs to thousands of nontermals is parameterizing the rule probability tensor $\mathbf{T} \in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{N}| \times |\mathcal{N}| \times |\mathcal{N}|}$ to be low-rank (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). Low-rank PCFGs can be viewed as introducing a new latent variable, namely a "rank variable" $R$ , to decompose $\pi_{A \to BC}$ into $\sum_{R} \pi_{A \to R} \pi_{B \cap R} \pi_{R \cap C}$ , as shown in Fig. 1, where the tensor/matrix representations of $\pi_{A \to BC}, \pi_{A \to R}, \pi_{B \cap R}, \pi_{R \cap C}$ are $\mathbf{T}, \mathbf{U}, \mathbf{V}, \mathbf{W}$ , respectively. Yang et al. (2022, Sect. 4.2) show that a low-rank PCFG can be reparameterized as a simple PCFG with independent left/right productions by marginalizing nonterminal variables and viewing the rank variables as new nonterminal variables. As such, low-rank PCFGs parameterize $\mathbf{L}, \mathbf{R}$ in a more restrictive manner: $\mathbf{L} = \mathbf{V} \mathbf{U}^T, \mathbf{R} = \mathbf{W} \mathbf{U}^T$ . We speculate that the shared $\mathbf{U}^T$ would restrict the expressiveness of low-rank PCFGs and thus hinder optimization, which motivates our simple PCFGs. + +# 3 A Hardware-efficient Inside Algorithm + +# 3.1 The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs + +The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs has the following recursive formula: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \beta_ {i j} ^ {A} = \sum_ {B, C \in \mathcal {N}} \pi_ {B \cap A} \cdot \pi_ {A \cap C} \sum_ {i < k < j} \beta_ {i k} ^ {B} \cdot \beta_ {k j} ^ {C} \\ = \sum_ {i < k < j} \underbrace {\left(\sum_ {B \in \mathcal {N}} \pi_ {B \cap A} \cdot \beta_ {i k} ^ {B}\right)} _ {\eta_ {i k} ^ {A}} \underbrace {\left(\sum_ {C \in \mathcal {N}} \pi_ {A \cap C} \cdot \beta_ {k j} ^ {C}\right)} _ {\zeta_ {k j} ^ {A}} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\beta_{ij}^{A}$ is the inside probability for span $(A,i,j)$ with the base case $\beta_{ii}^{A} = \pi_{A\to w_i}$ . We cache $\eta_{ij}^{A},\zeta_{ij}^{A}$ + +to avoid repeated computation, similar to Cohen et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2022). The resulting complexity is $\mathcal{O}(l^3 |\mathcal{N}| + l^2 |\mathcal{N}|^2)$ where $l$ is sentence length. + +Vector form. We abuse the notation to have $\beta_{ij},\pmb{\eta}_{ij},\pmb{\zeta}_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{N}|}$ . Then we can write $\beta_{ij} = \sum_{i < k < j}\pmb{\eta}_{ik}\odot \pmb{\zeta}_{kj}$ and $\pmb{\eta}_{ij} = \mathbf{L}\pmb{\beta}_{ij},\pmb{\zeta}_{ij} = \mathbf{R}\pmb{\beta}_{ij}$ , where $\odot$ is the element-wise product. + +# 3.2 FlashInside + +It is necessary to implement the inside algorithm on GPUs efficiently to facilitate scaling of simple PCFGs. We introduce FlashInside, a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm in the spirit of FlashAttention (Dao et al., 2022). FlashInside comprises of four main techniques: + +Span-level parallelism. Given the span width $w$ , the inside probability vector $\beta_{i(i + w)}$ could be computed in parallel for different starting position $i$ (Yi et al., 2011, Sect. 4.2). + +The log-einsum-exp trick. To improve numerical stability, it is common to use the "log-sum-exp" trick. For example, letting $\pmb{o}_{ij} = \log \pmb{\beta}_{ij}, \pmb{a}_{ij} = \log \pmb{\eta}_{ij}, \pmb{b}_{ij} = \log \pmb{\zeta}_{ij}$ , we have + +$$ +\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} = \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\star} + \log \sum_ {i < k < j} \exp \left(\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\star}\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\pmb{x}^{\star} = \max_{i < k < j}(\pmb{a}_{ik} + \pmb{b}_{kj})\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{N}|}$ . Using log-sum-exp could be expensive when computing $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ , so we resort to the "log-einsum-exp" trick (Peharz et al., 2020, Sect. 3.2), + +$$ +\boldsymbol {a} _ {i j} = \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\dagger} + \log \left(\mathbf {L} \exp \left(\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\dagger}\right)\right) +$$ + +$$ +\boldsymbol {b} _ {i j} = \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\dagger} + \log \left(\mathbf {R} \exp (\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\dagger})\right) +$$ + +where $\pmb{x}^{\dagger} = \max_{i,j}\pmb{0}_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ . This allows us to leverage matrix multiplication operators, which are highly optimized on GPUs, to compute $\mathbf{L}\exp (\pmb{o}_{ij} - \pmb{x}^{\dagger})$ and $\mathbf{R}\exp (\pmb{o}_{ij} - \pmb{x}^{\dagger})$ . + +Kernel fusion. The above computation involves many element-wise operations and is thus memory-bounded. Loading and storing these vectors multiple times would cause significant IO-cost (Dao et al., 2022). We reduce the IO-cost by fusing these operations whenever possible. Concretely, when + +
Algorithm|N|lSpeedMemory
log-sum-exp512201x100x
log-einsum-exp512204.8x3x
FlashInside512209.5x1x
log-einsum-exp8192201x2x
FlashInside8192206x1x
log-sum-exp512401x50x
log-einsum-exp5124016x3x
FlashInside5124044x1x
log-einsum-exp8192401x2.4x
FlashInside81924039x1x
+ +Table 1: Ablation of how different elements of FlashInside contribute to speed and memory efficiency, with different numbers of nonterminals $(|\mathcal{N}|)$ and sentence lengths $(l)$ . For speed the regular log-sum-exp implementation from Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020) is the baseline, whereas for memory our FlashInside serves as the baseline. + +computing $\exp (\pmb{o}_{ij} - \pmb{x}^{\dagger})$ , we perform max, -, exp in the same kernel that computes $\pmb{o}_{ij}$ ; and we compute $\pmb{a}_{ij}, \pmb{b}_{ij}$ at once by + +$$ +[ \pmb {a} _ {i j} | \pmb {b} _ {i j} ] = \pmb {x} ^ {\dagger} + \log \left([ \mathbf {L} | \mathbf {R} ] \exp (\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \pmb {x} ^ {\dagger})\right) +$$ + +followed by fused element-wise log and addition operations. + +Recomputation. While it possible to rely on automatic differentiation (AD) to backpropagate through the inside algorithm (Eisner, 2016), this can be memory-inefficient since AD would save all the intermediate results in the DP computation, which are not needed. For example, in Eq. 1 the partial differentiation between $o_{ij}$ and $a_{ik}, b_{kj}$ is given by, + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \frac {\delta \boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\delta \boldsymbol {a} _ {i k}} = \frac {\delta \boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\delta \boldsymbol {b} _ {k j}} = \frac {\exp \left(\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\star}\right)}{\sum_ {k ^ {\prime}} \exp \left(\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k ^ {\prime}} + \boldsymbol {b} _ {k ^ {\prime} , j} - \boldsymbol {x} ^ {\star}\right)} \\ = \frac {\exp (\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \pmb {b} _ {k j} - \pmb {x} ^ {\star})}{\exp (\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \pmb {x} ^ {\star})} = \exp (\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \pmb {b} _ {k j} - \pmb {o} _ {i j}) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +In the backward pass, we could recompute $\exp (\pmb{a}_{ik} + \pmb{b}_{kj} - \pmb{o}_{ij})$ without the need to store $\exp (\pmb{a}_{ik} + \pmb{b}_{kj} - \pmb{x}^{\star})$ in the forward pass, thus saving memory4. We found that this manual backpropagation led to a slight decrease in running speed but greatly increased memory savings, and thus use it for all our experiments. + +Speed comparison Table 1 shows running speed and memory footprint measured under a single NVIDIA-A40 GPU, where we compare against the standard log-sum-exp implementation of the inside algorithm which only leverages span-level + +
ModelNTppl (↓)
NHMM4096147
LHMM16384131.8
Rank HMM16384127.0
Rank HMM32768126.4
Rank PCFG†4096174.5±11.1
Rank PCFG†8192161.2±8.9
SN-PCFG4096125.4±4.1
SN-PCFG8192119.0±5.3
+ +Table 2: Results on the PTB language modeling split from Mikolov et al. (2011). NT denotes the number of nonterminals and ppl denotes perplexity. Top results are from previous papers (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), while the bottom results are from the current work. Our runs are averaged over 4 seeds. + +parallelism (e.g., in Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020)). We can see that the use of log-einsum-exp trick significantly accelerate the running speed and reduce the memory footprint. FlashInside uses the kernel fusion and recomputation techniques in addition, resulting in further improvement, especially on larger grammars and longer sentences. + +# 4 Experimental Setup + +Datasets. We conduct experiments on the Penn Treebank (PTB) (Marcus et al., 1993) dataset with two different splits: one for language modeling (Mikolov et al., 2011), and one for unsupervised parsing (Shen et al., 2018, 2019). We also evaluate our model on Chinese Treebank 5.1 (CTB) (Xue et al., 2005) and German and French treebanks from SPRML (Seddah et al., 2014). + +Baselines. Our HMM baselines include neural HMM (NHMM) (Chiu et al., 2021), LHMM (Chiu et al., 2021), and Rank HMM (Yang et al., 2022). Our PCFG baselines include Neural/Compound PCFG (N/C-PCFG) (Kim et al., 2019), TN-PCFG (Yang et al., 2021b) and Rank PCFG (Yang et al., 2022). $\dagger$ denotes our reimplementation. For Rank PCFG we use rank size 4096. See Appendix B for more implementation details. + +Evaluation. We use perplexity (ppl) to evaluate language modeling and sentence-level F1 (S-F1) (Kim et al., 2019) to evaluate unsupervised parsing. + +# 5 Results + +We compare our simple neural PCFG (SN-PCFG) to the baseline models. Table 2 shows the language modeling performance on PTB. SN-PCFG obtains significantly lower perplexity than Rank PCFG, and outperforms similarly-sized HMMs. This indicates that simple PCFGs provide a viable path + +
ModelNTChineseFrenchGerman
S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)
Left-Branching-7.2-5.7-10.0
Right-Branching-25.5-26.4-14.07-
Random Trees-15.2-16.2-13.9-
Kim (2022)---41.9-47.3-
Li and Lu (2023)---48.7-40.8-
N-PCFG3026.3±2.545.0±2.042.3±1.6
C-PCFG3038.7±6.6-45.0±1.1-43.5±1.2-
TN-PCFG25039.2±5.039.1±4.147.1±1.7
Rank PCFG409631.00±8.9409.4±29.531.2±9.3355.8±13.735.6±9.1215.3±57.1
Rank PCFG819232.4±8.2372.6±31.432.9±10.6332.2±60.838.9±9.6190.5±65.9
SN-PCFG409639.9±6.3328.3±62.138.0±3.1379.7±5.246.7±4.9157.8±65.6
SN-PCFG819241.2±3.5288.2±11.743.3±9.9259.9±70.246.9±5.1159.5±77.2
SC-PCFG51238.4±7.4-47.9±1.2-47.7±1.0-
SC-PCFG204842.9±2.9-49.9±1.7-49.1±1.0-
+ +Table 3: Results on the Chinese, French, and German treebanks. All runs are averaged over 4 seeds. + +
ModelNTS-F1 (↑)ppl (↓)
N-PCFG3050.8252.6
C-PCFG3055.2-
TN-PCFG50057.7210.0
Rank PCFG450064.1168.0
Rank PCFG†409660.1±7.6165.1±7.7
Rank PCFG†819261.1±5.9171.2±11.7
N-PCFG†12856.7±3.7181.1±15.3
SN-PCFG12851.1±4.1231.7±8.1
SN-PCFG409665.1±2.1132.5±4.9
SN-PCFG819262.9±2.8134.6±9.1
SC-PCFG51254.3±4.8-
SC-PCFG204860.6±3.6-
PRPN-37.4-
ON-47.7-
DIORA+span constraint-61.2-
S-DIORA-57.6-
Constituency test-62.8-
StructFormer-54.0-
Fast-R2D2-57.2-
Right-Branching-39.5-
Oracle Trees-84.3-
+ +Table 4: Unsupervised parsing performance on the PTB test set, including comparison against prior work (bottom): PRPN (Shen et al., 2018), ON (Shen et al., 2019), DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021), S-DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2020), Constituency tests (Cao et al., 2020), StructFormer (Shen et al., 2021), and FastR2D2 (Hu et al., 2022). Wherever possible, we take the average F1 numbers across different seeds reported by the above papers (instead of the max). + +towards scaling PCFGs, despite the strict independence assumption. + +Table 4 and 3 show the unsupervised parsing performance. SN-PCFG consistently outperforms Rank PCFG in S-F1 while obtaining much lower perplexity. We also experiment with the compound version of simple PCFGs (SC-PCFG) which uses an auxiliary sentence-level vector to model sentence-level properties and uses variational infer + +ence for learning (see the appendix for the full parameterization). We find that SN-PCFG performs better on English while SC-PCFG achieves the best parsing performance in languages other than English. We remark that the compound parameterization is reported to be not compatible with low-rank parameterization probably due to optimization issues (Yang et al., 2021b). This work successfully scales compound PCFGs to thousands of states, which could be useful in some settings such as multimodal grammar induction which condition on vector representations of side information (Zhao and Titov, 2020; Jin and Schuler, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Li et al., 2022). + +Simple PCFG vs. Neural PCFG. Despite the better scalability of simple PCFGs, we find that under the same number of nonterminal (i.e., 128), SN-PCFG expectedly underperforms N-PCFG in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing (Table 4) due to the stronger independence assumption that is necessary for scaling. Nevertheless, N-PCFG does not scale well and (for example) runs into memory issues even with just 256 nonterminals, while SN-PCFG can scale to 8192 nonterminals on a single A40 GPU. + +Simple PCFG vs. Rank PCFG. Recall that the rank PCFG and simple PCFG share an identical dynamic programming structure. The rank variable in the rank PCFG amounts to the nonterminal variable in the simple PCFG. Consequently, if we align the rank size in the rank PCFG with the nonterminal size in the simple PCFG, we achieve parity in terms of memory footprint and computational speed within the dynamic programming computation. In our experiments, we opt for a rank size of 4096 in the low-rank PCFG. The results, as presented in tables 2-4, showcase the worse perfor + +mance of the rank PCFG when compared to SN-PCFG with 4096 nonterminals. Interestingly, this work was motivated by our observation that merely augmenting the rank size of PCFG falls short in bridging the performance gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. This resulted in our exploring alternative parameterizations, culminating in the straightforward independent left/right productions based parameterization which yields superior results in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing. + +# 6 Related Work + +Independence assumptions are frequently made in grammar learning for tractability and scalability. Simple PCFGs assume independent generation of left and right children, thus resembling splithead dependency grammars (Eisner, 1996; Collins, 1997; Eisner and Satta, 1999; Paskin, 2001; Klein and Manning, 2004). We have shown that trading expressiveness (of grammar formalism) for scalability is beneficial, and this idea could be applied to other complex grammar formalism of high parsing complexity, such as mildly context-sensitive grammars (Yang et al., 2023), synchronized grammars (Kim, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Friedman et al., 2022; Lou and Tu, 2023) and lexicalized grammars (Zhu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021a). + +# 7 Conclusion + +In this work we explore a simpler variant of PCFGs (SimplePCFG) that shows better scaling properties than previous approaches in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing performance. We also introduce a hardware-aware version of the inside algorithm (FlashInside) which improves over existing vectorized GPU implementations. + +# Limitations + +We have successfully bridged the gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. However, a significant disparity remains between PCFGs and neural models like Transformers. While we recognize the potential of our hardware-efficient inside algorithm implementation for conducting large-scale language modeling experiments, our aim is not to position PCFGs as direct rivals to neural models, given the intrinsic limitations arising from PCFG's strong context-free independence assumption. Our main objective is to enhance unsupervised PCFG learning, with a cen + +tral focus on optimizing the sentence log marginal likelihood objective function. + +Simple PCFGs, due to their restrictive grammar nature, require many nonterminals for optimal performance. However, we observe diminishing returns while scaling up simple PCFGs. This phenomena is common in scaling up latent-variable models and future work might consider leveraging the technique from Liu et al. (2023) to mitigate this issue. + +When scaling up simple PCFGs, the computation of grammar rule probabilities could also be expensive, especially when constructing the emission probability matrix of size $\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{P}| \times |\mathcal{V}|}$ . Compound parameterization exacerbates this issue since each sentence will have its own set of grammar rule probabilities. Consequently, we only used up to 2048 nonterminals in our SC-PCFG experiments. + +# Acknowledgment + +This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139) and by funds from an MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab grant. + +# References + +Steven Cao, Nikita Kitaev, and Dan Klein. 2020. Unsupervised parsing via constituency tests. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4798-4808, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. CoRR, abs/1604.06174. +Justin T. Chiu, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Low-rank constraints for fast inference in structured models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 2887-2898. +Shay B. Cohen, Giorgio Satta, and Michael Collins. 2013. Approximate PCFG parsing using tensor decomposition. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 487-496, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Michael Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the + +Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 16-23, Madrid, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. In NeurlPS. +Andrew Drozdov, Subendhu Rongali, Yi-Pei Chen, Tim O'Gorman, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2020. Unsupervised parsing with S-DIORA: Single tree encoding for deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4832-4845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Andrew Drozdov, Patrick Verga, Yi-Pei Chen, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Unsupervised labeled parsing with deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1507-1512, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason Eisner. 2016. Inside-outside and forward-backward algorithms are just backprop (tutorial paper). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP, pages 1-17, Austin, TX. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason Eisner and Giorgio Satta. 1999. Efficient parsing for bilexical context-free grammars and head automaton grammars. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 457-464, College Park, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason M. Eisner. 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In *COLING* 1996 Volume 1: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. +Dan Friedman, Alexander Wettig, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Finding dataset shortcuts with grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4345-4363, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Daniel J. Hsu, Sham M. Kakade, and Percy Liang. 2012. Identifiability and unmixing of latent parse trees. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25: 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2012. Proceedings of a meeting held December 3-6, 2012, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 1520-1528. +Xiang Hu, Haitao Mi, Liang Li, and Gerard de Melo. 2022. Fast-R2D2: A pretrained recursive neural network based on pruned CKY for grammar induction and text representation. In Proceedings of the 2022 + +Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2809-2821, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lifeng Jin and William Schuler. 2020. Grounded PCFG induction with images. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 396-408, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Taeuk Kim. 2022. Revisiting the practical effectiveness of constituency parse extraction from pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5398-5408, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Yoon Kim. 2021. Sequence-to-sequence learning with latent neural grammars. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 26302-26317. +Yoon Kim, Chris Dyer, and Alexander Rush. 2019. Compound probabilistic context-free grammars for grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2369-2385, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Dan Klein and Christopher Manning. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 478-485, Barcelona, Spain. +Boyi Li, Rodolfo Corona, Karttikeya Mangalam, Catherine Chen, Daniel Flaherty, Serge J. Belongie, Kilian Q. Weinberger, Jitendra Malik, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2022. Does unsupervised grammar induction need pixels? CoRR, abs/2212.10564. +Jiaxi Li and Wei Lu. 2023. Contextual distortion reveals constituency: Masked language models are implicit parsers. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5208-5222, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Anji Liu, Honghua Zhang, and Guy Van den Broeck. 2023. Scaling up probabilistic circuits by latent variable distillation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. +Chao Lou and Kewei Tu. 2023. Improving grammar-based sequence-to-sequence modeling with decomposition and constraints. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1918-1929, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank. Comput. Linguistics, 19(2):313-330. +Tomás Mikolov, Anoop Deoras, Stefan Kombrink, Lukás Burget, and Jan Cernocký. 2011. Empirical evaluation and combination of advanced language modeling techniques. In *INTERSPEECH* 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy, August 27-31, 2011, pages 605-608. ISCA. +Mark Paskin. 2001. Grammatical bigrams. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 14. MIT Press. +Robert Peharz, Steven Lang, Antonio Vergari, Karl Stelzner, Alejandro Molina, Martin Trapp, Guy Van den Broeck, Kristian Kersting, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2020. Einsum networks: Fast and scalable learning of tractable probabilistic circuits. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 7563-7574. PMLR. +Alexander Rush. 2020. Torch-struct: Deep structured prediction library. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 335-342, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Djamé Seddah, Sandra Kübler, and Reut Tsarfaty. 2014. Introducing the SPMRL 2014 shared task on parsing morphologically-rich languages. In Proceedings of the First Joint Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically Rich Languages and Syntactic Analysis of Non-Canonical Languages, pages 103–109, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City University. +Yikang Shen, Zhouhan Lin, Chin-Wei Huang, and Aaron Courville. 2018. Neural Language Modeling by Jointly Learning Syntax and Lexicon. In Proceedings of ICLR. +Yikang Shen, Shawn Tan, Alessandro Sordoni, and Aaron Courville. 2019. Ordered Neurons: Integrating Tree Structures into Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of ICLR. +Yikang Shen, Yi Tay, Che Zheng, Dara Bahri, Donald Metzler, and Aaron Courville. 2021. StructFormer: Joint unsupervised induction of dependency and constituency structure from masked language modeling. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7196-7209, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Philippe Tillet, Hsiang-Tsung Kung, and David D. Cox. 2019. Triton: an intermediate language and compiler for tiled neural network computations. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN International + +Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages, MAPL@PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22, 2019, pages 10-19. ACM. +Bailin Wang, Ivan Titov, Jacob Andreas, and Yoon Kim. 2022. Hierarchical phrase-based sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8211-8229, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4818-4831, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nianwen Xue, Fei Xia, Fu-Dong Chiou, and Martha Palmer. 2005. The penn chinese treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Nat. Lang. Eng., 11(2):207-238. +Songlin Yang, Roger P Levy, and Yoon Kim. 2023. Unsupervised discontinuous constituency parsing with mildly context-sensitive grammars. In Proceedings of ACL. +Songlin Yang, Wei Liu, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Dynamic programming in rank space: Scaling structured inference with low-rank HMMs and PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4797-4809, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021a. Neural bi-lexicalized PCFG induction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 2688–2699, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021b. PCFGs can do better: Inducing probabilistic context-free grammars with many symbols. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1487-1498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Youngmin Yi, Chao-Yue Lai, Slav Petrov, and Kurt Keutzer. 2011. Efficient parallel CKY parsing on GPUs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, pages 175-185, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Haitao Mi, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2022. Learning a grammar inducer from massive uncurated instructional videos. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 233-247, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2021. Video-aided unsupervised grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1513–1524, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Yanpeng Zhao and Ivan Titov. 2020. Visually grounded compound PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4369-4379, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Hao Zhu, Yonatan Bisk, and Graham Neubig. 2020. The Return of Lexical Dependencies: Neural Lexicalized PCFGs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:647-661. + +# A Neural Parameterization + +We present the neural parameterization of our simple neural pcfg and simple compound pcfg. We use $\pmb{E}_{\mathcal{G}} = \{\pmb{w}_N | N \in \{\mathcal{S}\} \cup \mathcal{N} \cup \mathcal{P}\}$ to denote symbol embeddings for simple PCFG and use function $g_{r}(\cdot; \theta) = \pi_{r}$ parameterized by $\theta$ to denote neural parameterization function. + +Simple Neural PCFG We use neural networks to parameterize these rule probabilities. The neural parameterization of all rule probabilities $\pi_r$ starts from corresponding symbol embeddings in $E_{\mathcal{G}}$ . Parameterization function $g_{r}(\cdot ;\theta)$ can be formulated as $g_{r}(E_{\mathcal{G}};\theta)$ in simple neural PCFG, which takes from one of these forms: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \pi_ {S \rightarrow A} = \frac {\exp \left(\mathbf {u} _ {A} ^ {\top} f _ {1} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {S}\right)\right)}{\sum_ {A ^ {\prime} \in \mathcal {N}} \exp \left(\mathbf {u} _ {A ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top} f _ {1} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {S}\right)\right)}, \\ \pi_ {B \curvearrowright A} = \frac {\exp \left(f _ {2} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\top}\right) f _ {3} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {A}\right)\right)}{\sum_ {B ^ {\prime} \in \mathcal {N} \cup \mathcal {P}} \exp \left(f _ {2} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top}\right) f _ {3} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {A}\right)\right)}, \\ \pi_ {A \curvearrowright C} = \frac {\exp \left(f _ {4} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\top}\right) f _ {3} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {A}\right)\right)}{\sum_ {C ^ {\prime} \in \mathcal {N} \cup \mathcal {P}} \exp \left(f _ {4} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top}\right) f _ {3} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {A}\right)\right)}, \\ \pi_ {T \rightarrow w} = \frac {\exp \left(\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\top} f _ {5} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {T}\right)\right)}{\sum_ {w ^ {\prime} \in \Sigma} \exp \left(\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top} f _ {5} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {T}\right)\right)} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $f_{1}, f_{5}$ are two-layer residual networks; $f_{2}, f_{3}, f_{4}$ are one-linear-layer with ReLU activation function and residual connections. We highlight the usefulness of sharing symbol embedding + +across different grammar rules; and the use of residual connections in $f_{2},f_{3},f_{4}$ + +Simple Compound PCFG Similar to compound PCFGs, we parameterize our simple compound PCFGs with a latent variable $z \sim p(z)$ . We replace three rule probabilities $\pi_{B \cap A}, \pi_{B \cap A}$ , and $\pi_{T \to w}$ with $\pi_r = g_r(\boldsymbol{z}, \boldsymbol{E}_{\mathcal{G}}; \theta)$ , while leaving the remaining rule probabilities as $g_r(\boldsymbol{E}_{\mathcal{G}}; \theta)$ . The function $\pi_r = g_r(\boldsymbol{z}, \boldsymbol{E}_{\mathcal{G}}; \theta)$ can take one of the following forms: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \pi_ {B \cap A} = \frac {\exp \left(f _ {2} (\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\prime} ([ \mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \boldsymbol {z} ]))\right)}{\sum_ {B ^ {\prime} \in \mathcal {N} \cup \mathcal {P}} \exp \left(f _ {2} (\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\prime} ([ \mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \boldsymbol {z} ]))\right)}, \\ \pi_ {A \cap C} = \frac {\exp \left(f _ {4} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\top}\right) f _ {3} ^ {\prime} ([ \mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \boldsymbol {z} ]))\right)}{\sum_ {C ^ {\prime} \in \mathcal {N} \cup \mathcal {P}} \exp \left(f _ {4} \left(\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top}\right) f _ {3} ^ {\prime} ([ \mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \boldsymbol {z} ]))\right)}, \\ \pi_ {T \rightarrow w} = \frac {\exp \left(\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\top} f _ {5} ^ {\prime} \left([ \mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \boldsymbol {z} ]\right)\right)}{\sum_ {w ^ {\prime} \in \Sigma} \exp \left(\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\prime}} ^ {\top} f _ {5} ^ {\prime} \left([ \mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \boldsymbol {z} ]\right)\right)} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $f_3', f_5'$ are neural networks which are similar to $f_3, f_5$ but with different input shape. + +# B Implementation Details + +We follow Mikolov et al. (2011) to preprocess PTB language modeling split data. For other datasets, we use the preprocessing from Yang et al. (2021b). + +We implement our model based on the codebase of Yang et al. (2022). And most hyperparameters follow their settings. We use Xavier normal initialization to initialize neural networks. Our model is optimized by Adam optimizer with $\beta_{1} = 0.75, \beta_{2} = 0.999$ , and learning rate 0.002. All dimensions of symbol embeddings are set to 512. Our FlashInside is implemented with Triton (Tillet et al., 2019) $^5$ , an open-source python-like GPU programming language. For the latent variable $z$ in SC-PCFG, we follow the implementation of Kim et al. (2019) which applies a max-pooling layer over the hidden states of the BiLSTM to obtain sentence representation and generates 64-dimensional mean vectors $\mu (\boldsymbol{w})$ and log-variances $\log \sigma (\boldsymbol{w})$ by leveraging an affine layer. + +We run all experiments on NVIDIA V100 and NVIDIA A40. All experimental results are averaged from four runs. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/images.zip b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..998d37a78bcba8611773c356216cb80e84bd90c2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a81cd95ac6665d839aa0d3b92f01cef04c3222d8059e2260f5cd64c44b91e3c6 +size 347154 diff --git a/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/layout.json b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e33ca439b83e0f739519db513c8b0d00abb4215 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7319 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 69, + 424, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 69, + 424, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 171, + 69, + 424, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple Hardware-Efficient PCFGs with Independent Left and Right Productions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Liu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Songlin Yang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yoon Kim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Kewei Tu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 164, + 109, + 431, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 477, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 477, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 477, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 125, + 477, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 139, + 477, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Vision and Imaging" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 153, + 393, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 153, + 393, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 153, + 393, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Massachusetts Institute of Technology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 168, + 401, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 168, + 401, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 196, + 168, + 401, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{liuwei4,tukw}@shanghaiitech.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 181, + 376, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 181, + 376, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 181, + 376, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yangsl66,yoonkim}@mit.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scaling dense PCFGs to thousands of nonterminals via a low-rank parameterization of the rule probability tensor has been shown to be beneficial for unsupervised parsing. However, PCFGs scaled this way still perform poorly as a language model, and even underperform similarly-sized HMMs. This work introduces SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. Despite imposing a stronger independence assumption than the low-rank approach, we find that this formalism scales more effectively both as a language model and as an unsupervised parser. As an unsupervised parser, our simple PCFG obtains an average F1 of 65.1 on the English PTB, and as a language model, it obtains a perplexity of 119.0, outperforming similarly-sized low-rank PCFGs. We further introduce FlashInside, a hardware IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm for efficiently scaling simple PCFGs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 154, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 154, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 495, + 154, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the improvements in unsupervised parsing obtained through scaling neural probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFGs), their language model performance scales less favorably compared to, for example, hidden Markov models (HMMs) and neural language models. On the Penn Treebank, a neural PCFG with 30 nonterminals and 60 preterminals obtains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\approx 250" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " perplexity (Kim et al., 2019), and while scaling neural PCFGs to thousands of states via a low-rank parameterization can improve perplexity to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\approx 170" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Yang et al., 2022), this still lags behind a similarly-sized HMM, which obtains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\approx 130" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " perplexity (Chiu et al., 2021), despite the fact that HMMs are a subclass of PCFGs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work proposes SimplePCFG, a simple PCFG formalism with independent left and right productions. We find that this simple PCFG scales" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 415 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 527, + 415 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "more effectively (in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing) than previous approaches which scale PCFGs by factorizing the rule probability tensor into low-rank components (Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). In particular, we find that simple PCFGs can obtain significantly lower perplexity in language modeling while achieving higher unsupervised parsing performance compared to low-rank PCFGs with a similar number of nonterminals, achieving a near state-of-the-art unsupervised parsing performance on the Penn Treebank with an F1 of 65.1. We further describe a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm, dubbed FlashInside, to facilitate scalable learning of simple PCFGs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 400, + 441 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 400, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 400, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Simple PCFGs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A PCFG can be defined by a 6-tuple " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{G} = (S, \\mathcal{N}, \\mathcal{P}, \\Sigma, \\mathcal{R}, \\pi)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{S}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the distinguished start symbol, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N} / \\mathcal{P} / \\Sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are a finite set of non-terminal/pre-terminal/terminal symbols," + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a set of production rules of the form," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 528, + 495, + 540 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 528, + 495, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 528, + 495, + 540 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S \\to A, \\quad A \\in \\mathcal {N}", + "image_path": "74dbb67130213779950f320e2474e04ffe70b3e8b4d94aa5f13935fe419c943d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 541, + 495, + 554 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 541, + 495, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 541, + 495, + 554 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A \\to B C, \\quad A \\in \\mathcal {N}, B, C \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}", + "image_path": "14a690c2a665213c152ec0780f1c96c267a1cb0234ccc72997b5e2b4e579668d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 555, + 495, + 567 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 555, + 495, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 555, + 495, + 567 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "T \\to w, \\quad T \\in \\mathcal {P}, w \\in \\Sigma", + "image_path": "70a95ddcd55c5f360bf3dbfb23388b340189cdd57c57516cecdad1d8345a7203.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi : \\mathcal{R} \\to [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maps rules to their associated probabilities. In simple PCFGs, we decompose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{A \\to BC}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{B \\curvearrowright A} \\cdot \\pi_{A \\curvearrowright C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", effectively assuming that left and right children are generated independently. We denote " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}, \\mathbf{R} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the matrix representation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{B \\curvearrowright A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{A \\curvearrowright C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 580, + 526, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and apply a neural parameterization over these matrices to compute the rule probabilities (Kim et al., 2019). See Appendix A for details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For brevity we do not distinguish between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{P}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 710, + 525, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the rest of the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2This formalism has been discussed in Hsu et al. (2012), i.e., PCFG-I. We also experimented with PCFG-IE, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L} = \\mathbf{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but found it necessary to distinguish between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to achieve good performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 751, + 161, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 751, + 161, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 751, + 161, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal contribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 761, + 277, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 761, + 277, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 761, + 277, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Code: https://github.com/sustcsonglin/TN-PCFG." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1662" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1662-1669" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 141, + 159 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 141, + 159 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 141, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 141, + 159 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1dfd6d0eac7bc562b5f1381cfc184a14f097b7a8bab41fc022c9e40dd794f3c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 163, + 107, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 163, + 107, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 163, + 107, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 143, + 69, + 213, + 158 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 69, + 213, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 69, + 213, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 69, + 213, + 158 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "60c03dea7ceb6b6c0328daae477cdabe91bd15302f509b086735772f8467cd41.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 163, + 185, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 163, + 185, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 163, + 185, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 217, + 69, + 287, + 159 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 69, + 287, + 159 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 69, + 287, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 69, + 287, + 159 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a03a0a04c78843300af199517725f24a48ecb3250739721b1f3bd7c79319ae0a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 163, + 258, + 173 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 163, + 258, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 249, + 163, + 258, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Bayesian network-like representations of PCFG binary rules: (a) original grammar, (b) after tensor decomposition (Yang et al., 2021b), and (c) rank space grammar (Yang et al., 2022). Our simple PCFG is almost the same as (c) but uses a flexible parameterization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparing simple vs. low-rank PCFGs. The previous approach to scaling HMMs and PCFGs to thousands of nontermals is parameterizing the rule probability tensor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{T} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}| \\times |\\mathcal{N}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be low-rank (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021b, 2022). Low-rank PCFGs can be viewed as introducing a new latent variable, namely a \"rank variable\" " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", to decompose " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{A \\to BC}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sum_{R} \\pi_{A \\to R} \\pi_{B \\cap R} \\pi_{R \\cap C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as shown in Fig. 1, where the tensor/matrix representations of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{A \\to BC}, \\pi_{A \\to R}, \\pi_{B \\cap R}, \\pi_{R \\cap C}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{T}, \\mathbf{U}, \\mathbf{V}, \\mathbf{W}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. Yang et al. (2022, Sect. 4.2) show that a low-rank PCFG can be reparameterized as a simple PCFG with independent left/right productions by marginalizing nonterminal variables and viewing the rank variables as new nonterminal variables. As such, low-rank PCFGs parameterize " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}, \\mathbf{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a more restrictive manner: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L} = \\mathbf{V} \\mathbf{U}^T, \\mathbf{R} = \\mathbf{W} \\mathbf{U}^T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We speculate that the shared " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{U}^T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " would restrict the expressiveness of low-rank PCFGs and thus hinder optimization, which motivates our simple PCFGs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 287, + 585 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 287, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 287, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 A Hardware-efficient Inside Algorithm" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 280, + 605 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 280, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 280, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 609, + 289, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 609, + 289, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 609, + 289, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The inside algorithm for simple PCFGs has the following recursive formula:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 295, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 295, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 645, + 295, + 735 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\beta_ {i j} ^ {A} = \\sum_ {B, C \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} \\cdot \\pi_ {A \\cap C} \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\beta_ {i k} ^ {B} \\cdot \\beta_ {k j} ^ {C} \\\\ = \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\underbrace {\\left(\\sum_ {B \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} \\cdot \\beta_ {i k} ^ {B}\\right)} _ {\\eta_ {i k} ^ {A}} \\underbrace {\\left(\\sum_ {C \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\pi_ {A \\cap C} \\cdot \\beta_ {k j} ^ {C}\\right)} _ {\\zeta_ {k j} ^ {A}} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "1eabd27011b248a53d0a4beb92be81c34f56849550aa1ea3296f97c4cba81665.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{ij}^{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the inside probability for span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(A,i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the base case " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{ii}^{A} = \\pi_{A\\to w_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We cache " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 744, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\eta_{ij}^{A},\\zeta_{ij}^{A}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to avoid repeated computation, similar to Cohen et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2022). The resulting complexity is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{O}(l^3 |\\mathcal{N}| + l^2 |\\mathcal{N}|^2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is sentence length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vector form. We abuse the notation to have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{ij},\\pmb{\\eta}_{ij},\\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then we can write " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{ij} = \\sum_{i < k < j}\\pmb{\\eta}_{ik}\\odot \\pmb{\\zeta}_{kj}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{\\eta}_{ij} = \\mathbf{L}\\pmb{\\beta}_{ij},\\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij} = \\mathbf{R}\\pmb{\\beta}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\odot" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 186 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the element-wise product." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 386, + 207 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 386, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 386, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 FlashInside" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is necessary to implement the inside algorithm on GPUs efficiently to facilitate scaling of simple PCFGs. We introduce FlashInside, a hardware-efficient IO-aware implementation of the inside algorithm in the spirit of FlashAttention (Dao et al., 2022). FlashInside comprises of four main techniques:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Span-level parallelism. Given the span width " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the inside probability vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{i(i + w)}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " could be computed in parallel for different starting position " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 525, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Yi et al., 2011, Sect. 4.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The log-einsum-exp trick. To improve numerical stability, it is common to use the \"log-sum-exp\" trick. For example, letting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{o}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\beta}_{ij}, \\pmb{a}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\eta}_{ij}, \\pmb{b}_{ij} = \\log \\pmb{\\zeta}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we have" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 442, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 442, + 525, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 442, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star} + \\log \\sum_ {i < k < j} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "155724ae8d9739346a7aa699c522f0999c5061744272a40c1cfa10a9acc314f5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}^{\\star} = \\max_{i < k < j}(\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj})\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{N}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Using log-sum-exp could be expensive when computing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", so we resort to the \"log-einsum-exp\" trick (Peharz et al., 2020, Sect. 3.2)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 544, + 491, + 567 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 544, + 491, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 544, + 491, + 567 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left(\\mathbf {L} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger}\\right)\\right)", + "image_path": "b58f413cacd62bdc044dbde8bfc965d01aa81daf8f13445d13d8cb21c633a6af.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 569, + 493, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 569, + 493, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 569, + 493, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {b} _ {i j} = \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left(\\mathbf {R} \\exp (\\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\dagger})\\right)", + "image_path": "54e32bda491bf25e68c67bd6a5121e2ea7ddef8be48864e4a048b7a5d051a5b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}^{\\dagger} = \\max_{i,j}\\pmb{0}_{ij}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This allows us to leverage matrix multiplication operators, which are highly optimized on GPUs, to compute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{L}\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 601, + 525, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 663, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kernel fusion. The above computation involves many element-wise operations and is thus memory-bounded. Loading and storing these vectors multiple times would cause significant IO-cost (Dao et al., 2022). We reduce the IO-cost by fusing these operations whenever possible. Concretely, when" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3We abuse the notation for broadcasting vector-scalar addition/subtraction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1663" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 58, + 281, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 58, + 281, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 58, + 281, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 58, + 281, + 178 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Algorithm|N|lSpeedMemory
log-sum-exp512201x100x
log-einsum-exp512204.8x3x
FlashInside512209.5x1x
log-einsum-exp8192201x2x
FlashInside8192206x1x
log-sum-exp512401x50x
log-einsum-exp5124016x3x
FlashInside5124044x1x
log-einsum-exp8192401x2.4x
FlashInside81924039x1x
", + "image_path": "796a5841e5d54b05c8feea3cba9814191459b5c467b6033fcdfd68146967cd86.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Ablation of how different elements of FlashInside contribute to speed and memory efficiency, with different numbers of nonterminals " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(|\\mathcal{N}|)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and sentence lengths " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(l)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 178, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For speed the regular log-sum-exp implementation from Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020) is the baseline, whereas for memory our FlashInside serves as the baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "computing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\exp (\\pmb{o}_{ij} - \\pmb{x}^{\\dagger})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we perform max, -, exp in the same kernel that computes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{o}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; and we compute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{a}_{ij}, \\pmb{b}_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at once by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 322, + 278, + 346 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 322, + 278, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 322, + 278, + 346 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "[ \\pmb {a} _ {i j} | \\pmb {b} _ {i j} ] = \\pmb {x} ^ {\\dagger} + \\log \\left([ \\mathbf {L} | \\mathbf {R} ] \\exp (\\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\dagger})\\right)", + "image_path": "4b4281bc647fc044b032215c38bb45e9cf6871b4f4a332ff9ae37d1b7c1cdb67.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 289, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 289, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 289, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "followed by fused element-wise log and addition operations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recomputation. While it possible to rely on automatic differentiation (AD) to backpropagate through the inside algorithm (Eisner, 2016), this can be memory-inefficient since AD would save all the intermediate results in the DP computation, which are not needed. For example, in Eq. 1 the partial differentiation between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "o_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{ik}, b_{kj}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 290, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is given by," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 503, + 294, + 565 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 503, + 294, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 503, + 294, + 565 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\frac {\\delta \\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\\delta \\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k}} = \\frac {\\delta \\boldsymbol {o} _ {i j}}{\\delta \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j}} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right)}{\\sum_ {k ^ {\\prime}} \\exp \\left(\\boldsymbol {a} _ {i k ^ {\\prime}} + \\boldsymbol {b} _ {k ^ {\\prime} , j} - \\boldsymbol {x} ^ {\\star}\\right)} \\\\ = \\frac {\\exp (\\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \\pmb {b} _ {k j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\star})}{\\exp (\\pmb {o} _ {i j} - \\pmb {x} ^ {\\star})} = \\exp (\\pmb {a} _ {i k} + \\pmb {b} _ {k j} - \\pmb {o} _ {i j}) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "09af00b280b253f51c3bba5fa8b465f9d0bd4c1663ffc2ae9d8f057cfb8a24b9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the backward pass, we could recompute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\exp (\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj} - \\pmb{o}_{ij})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " without the need to store " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\exp (\\pmb{a}_{ik} + \\pmb{b}_{kj} - \\pmb{x}^{\\star})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 573, + 291, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the forward pass, thus saving memory4. We found that this manual backpropagation led to a slight decrease in running speed but greatly increased memory savings, and thus use it for all our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 290, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speed comparison Table 1 shows running speed and memory footprint measured under a single NVIDIA-A40 GPU, where we compare against the standard log-sum-exp implementation of the inside algorithm which only leverages span-level" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 339, + 58, + 489, + 158 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 58, + 489, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 58, + 489, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 58, + 489, + 158 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelNTppl (↓)
NHMM4096147
LHMM16384131.8
Rank HMM16384127.0
Rank HMM32768126.4
Rank PCFG†4096174.5±11.1
Rank PCFG†8192161.2±8.9
SN-PCFG4096125.4±4.1
SN-PCFG8192119.0±5.3
", + "image_path": "59a1f740ddf12d0f4a9de9423481cded172a974760c8f7b99f54d9805395de3d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Results on the PTB language modeling split from Mikolov et al. (2011). NT denotes the number of nonterminals and ppl denotes perplexity. Top results are from previous papers (Chiu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022), while the bottom results are from the current work. Our runs are averaged over 4 seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 239, + 526, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 239, + 526, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 239, + 526, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "parallelism (e.g., in Torch-Struct (Rush, 2020)). We can see that the use of log-einsum-exp trick significantly accelerate the running speed and reduce the memory footprint. FlashInside uses the kernel fusion and recomputation techniques in addition, resulting in further improvement, especially on larger grammars and longer sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 427, + 358 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 427, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 427, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets. We conduct experiments on the Penn Treebank (PTB) (Marcus et al., 1993) dataset with two different splits: one for language modeling (Mikolov et al., 2011), and one for unsupervised parsing (Shen et al., 2018, 2019). We also evaluate our model on Chinese Treebank 5.1 (CTB) (Xue et al., 2005) and German and French treebanks from SPRML (Seddah et al., 2014)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines. Our HMM baselines include neural HMM (NHMM) (Chiu et al., 2021), LHMM (Chiu et al., 2021), and Rank HMM (Yang et al., 2022). Our PCFG baselines include Neural/Compound PCFG (N/C-PCFG) (Kim et al., 2019), TN-PCFG (Yang et al., 2021b) and Rank PCFG (Yang et al., 2022). " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\dagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes our reimplementation. For Rank PCFG we use rank size 4096. See Appendix B for more implementation details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation. We use perplexity (ppl) to evaluate language modeling and sentence-level F1 (S-F1) (Kim et al., 2019) to evaluate unsupervised parsing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 362, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 362, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 362, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare our simple neural PCFG (SN-PCFG) to the baseline models. Table 2 shows the language modeling performance on PTB. SN-PCFG obtains significantly lower perplexity than Rank PCFG, and outperforms similarly-sized HMMs. This indicates that simple PCFGs provide a viable path" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4This is also known as gradient checkpointing (Chen et al., 2016)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1664" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 96, + 60, + 496, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 60, + 496, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 60, + 496, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 60, + 496, + 234 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelNTChineseFrenchGerman
S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)S-F1(↑)ppl(↓)
Left-Branching-7.2-5.7-10.0
Right-Branching-25.5-26.4-14.07-
Random Trees-15.2-16.2-13.9-
Kim (2022)---41.9-47.3-
Li and Lu (2023)---48.7-40.8-
N-PCFG3026.3±2.545.0±2.042.3±1.6
C-PCFG3038.7±6.6-45.0±1.1-43.5±1.2-
TN-PCFG25039.2±5.039.1±4.147.1±1.7
Rank PCFG409631.00±8.9409.4±29.531.2±9.3355.8±13.735.6±9.1215.3±57.1
Rank PCFG819232.4±8.2372.6±31.432.9±10.6332.2±60.838.9±9.6190.5±65.9
SN-PCFG409639.9±6.3328.3±62.138.0±3.1379.7±5.246.7±4.9157.8±65.6
SN-PCFG819241.2±3.5288.2±11.743.3±9.9259.9±70.246.9±5.1159.5±77.2
SC-PCFG51238.4±7.4-47.9±1.2-47.7±1.0-
SC-PCFG204842.9±2.9-49.9±1.7-49.1±1.0-
", + "image_path": "d012ece08723350b4f0be4ff24b3944457043e27b57b44377b18942bc512d31c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 255, + 286, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 235, + 496, + 247 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 235, + 496, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 235, + 496, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Results on the Chinese, French, and German treebanks. All runs are averaged over 4 seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 255, + 286, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 255, + 286, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 255, + 286, + 527 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelNTS-F1 (↑)ppl (↓)
N-PCFG3050.8252.6
C-PCFG3055.2-
TN-PCFG50057.7210.0
Rank PCFG450064.1168.0
Rank PCFG†409660.1±7.6165.1±7.7
Rank PCFG†819261.1±5.9171.2±11.7
N-PCFG†12856.7±3.7181.1±15.3
SN-PCFG12851.1±4.1231.7±8.1
SN-PCFG409665.1±2.1132.5±4.9
SN-PCFG819262.9±2.8134.6±9.1
SC-PCFG51254.3±4.8-
SC-PCFG204860.6±3.6-
PRPN-37.4-
ON-47.7-
DIORA+span constraint-61.2-
S-DIORA-57.6-
Constituency test-62.8-
StructFormer-54.0-
Fast-R2D2-57.2-
Right-Branching-39.5-
Oracle Trees-84.3-
", + "image_path": "03cc35d9f54b7c6be5ad51b009beaac74f7c6c6f853c1dba6a8b14952e5722ff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Unsupervised parsing performance on the PTB test set, including comparison against prior work (bottom): PRPN (Shen et al., 2018), ON (Shen et al., 2019), DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021), S-DIORA (Drozdov et al., 2020), Constituency tests (Cao et al., 2020), StructFormer (Shen et al., 2021), and FastR2D2 (Hu et al., 2022). Wherever possible, we take the average F1 numbers across different seeds reported by the above papers (instead of the max)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "towards scaling PCFGs, despite the strict independence assumption." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4 and 3 show the unsupervised parsing performance. SN-PCFG consistently outperforms Rank PCFG in S-F1 while obtaining much lower perplexity. We also experiment with the compound version of simple PCFGs (SC-PCFG) which uses an auxiliary sentence-level vector to model sentence-level properties and uses variational infer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 257, + 526, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 257, + 526, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 257, + 526, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ence for learning (see the appendix for the full parameterization). We find that SN-PCFG performs better on English while SC-PCFG achieves the best parsing performance in languages other than English. We remark that the compound parameterization is reported to be not compatible with low-rank parameterization probably due to optimization issues (Yang et al., 2021b). This work successfully scales compound PCFGs to thousands of states, which could be useful in some settings such as multimodal grammar induction which condition on vector representations of side information (Zhao and Titov, 2020; Jin and Schuler, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021, 2022; Li et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 527, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 527, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 527, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple PCFG vs. Neural PCFG. Despite the better scalability of simple PCFGs, we find that under the same number of nonterminal (i.e., 128), SN-PCFG expectedly underperforms N-PCFG in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing (Table 4) due to the stronger independence assumption that is necessary for scaling. Nevertheless, N-PCFG does not scale well and (for example) runs into memory issues even with just 256 nonterminals, while SN-PCFG can scale to 8192 nonterminals on a single A40 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple PCFG vs. Rank PCFG. Recall that the rank PCFG and simple PCFG share an identical dynamic programming structure. The rank variable in the rank PCFG amounts to the nonterminal variable in the simple PCFG. Consequently, if we align the rank size in the rank PCFG with the nonterminal size in the simple PCFG, we achieve parity in terms of memory footprint and computational speed within the dynamic programming computation. In our experiments, we opt for a rank size of 4096 in the low-rank PCFG. The results, as presented in tables 2-4, showcase the worse perfor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1665" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mance of the rank PCFG when compared to SN-PCFG with 4096 nonterminals. Interestingly, this work was motivated by our observation that merely augmenting the rank size of PCFG falls short in bridging the performance gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. This resulted in our exploring alternative parameterizations, culminating in the straightforward independent left/right productions based parameterization which yields superior results in both language modeling and unsupervised parsing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 162, + 243 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 162, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 162, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 292, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 292, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 292, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Independence assumptions are frequently made in grammar learning for tractability and scalability. Simple PCFGs assume independent generation of left and right children, thus resembling splithead dependency grammars (Eisner, 1996; Collins, 1997; Eisner and Satta, 1999; Paskin, 2001; Klein and Manning, 2004). We have shown that trading expressiveness (of grammar formalism) for scalability is beneficial, and this idea could be applied to other complex grammar formalism of high parsing complexity, such as mildly context-sensitive grammars (Yang et al., 2023), synchronized grammars (Kim, 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Friedman et al., 2022; Lou and Tu, 2023) and lexicalized grammars (Zhu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 147, + 473 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 147, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 147, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work we explore a simpler variant of PCFGs (SimplePCFG) that shows better scaling properties than previous approaches in terms of both language modeling and unsupervised parsing performance. We also introduce a hardware-aware version of the inside algorithm (FlashInside) which improves over existing vectorized GPU implementations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 130, + 600 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 130, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 588, + 130, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 293, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 293, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 293, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have successfully bridged the gap between HMMs and PCFGs in language modeling. However, a significant disparity remains between PCFGs and neural models like Transformers. While we recognize the potential of our hardware-efficient inside algorithm implementation for conducting large-scale language modeling experiments, our aim is not to position PCFGs as direct rivals to neural models, given the intrinsic limitations arising from PCFG's strong context-free independence assumption. Our main objective is to enhance unsupervised PCFG learning, with a cen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tral focus on optimizing the sentence log marginal likelihood objective function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 99, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple PCFGs, due to their restrictive grammar nature, require many nonterminals for optimal performance. However, we observe diminishing returns while scaling up simple PCFGs. This phenomena is common in scaling up latent-variable models and future work might consider leveraging the technique from Liu et al. (2023) to mitigate this issue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 526, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When scaling up simple PCFGs, the computation of grammar rule probabilities could also be expensive, especially when constructing the emission probability matrix of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{R}^{|\\mathcal{P}| \\times |\\mathcal{V}|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Compound parameterization exacerbates this issue since each sentence will have its own set of grammar rule probabilities. Consequently, we only used up to 2048 nonterminals in our SC-PCFG experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 327, + 396, + 341 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 327, + 396, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 327, + 396, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139) and by funds from an MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab grant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 362, + 426 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 362, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 362, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 433, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 527, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 433, + 527, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Steven Cao, Nikita Kitaev, and Dan Klein. 2020. Unsupervised parsing via constituency tests. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4798-4808, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 510, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 510, + 525, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 510, + 525, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. CoRR, abs/1604.06174." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 553, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 553, + 526, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 553, + 526, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Justin T. Chiu, Yuntian Deng, and Alexander M. Rush. 2021. Low-rank constraints for fast inference in structured models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 2887-2898." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 640, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 640, + 526, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 640, + 526, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shay B. Cohen, Giorgio Satta, and Michael Collins. 2013. Approximate PCFG parsing using tensor decomposition. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 487-496, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 727, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 727, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 727, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1666" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 16-23, Madrid, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tri Dao, Daniel Y. Fu, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Ré. 2022. Flashattention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness. In NeurlPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 290, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 290, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 290, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew Drozdov, Subendhu Rongali, Yi-Pei Chen, Tim O'Gorman, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2020. Unsupervised parsing with S-DIORA: Single tree encoding for deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4832-4845, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 265, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew Drozdov, Patrick Verga, Yi-Pei Chen, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Unsupervised labeled parsing with deep inside-outside recursive autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1507-1512, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 429 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Eisner. 2016. Inside-outside and forward-backward algorithms are just backprop (tutorial paper). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Structured Prediction for NLP, pages 1-17, Austin, TX. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 290, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 290, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Eisner and Giorgio Satta. 1999. Efficient parsing for bilexical context-free grammars and head automaton grammars. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 457-464, College Park, Maryland, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 290, + 557 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 290, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 513, + 290, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason M. Eisner. 1996. Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In *COLING* 1996 Volume 1: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Friedman, Alexander Wettig, and Danqi Chen. 2022. Finding dataset shortcuts with grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4345-4363, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel J. Hsu, Sham M. Kakade, and Percy Liang. 2012. Identifiability and unmixing of latent parse trees. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25: 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2012. Proceedings of a meeting held December 3-6, 2012, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, pages 1520-1528." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Hu, Haitao Mi, Liang Li, and Gerard de Melo. 2022. Fast-R2D2: A pretrained recursive neural network based on pruned CKY for grammar induction and text representation. In Proceedings of the 2022" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2809-2821, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lifeng Jin and William Schuler. 2020. Grounded PCFG induction with images. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 396-408, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Taeuk Kim. 2022. Revisiting the practical effectiveness of constituency parse extraction from pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5398-5408, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 284, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 284, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 284, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoon Kim. 2021. Sequence-to-sequence learning with latent neural grammars. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 26302-26317." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 358, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoon Kim, Chris Dyer, and Alexander Rush. 2019. Compound probabilistic context-free grammars for grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2369-2385, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Klein and Christopher Manning. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 478-485, Barcelona, Spain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 525, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Boyi Li, Rodolfo Corona, Karttikeya Mangalam, Catherine Chen, Daniel Flaherty, Serge J. Belongie, Kilian Q. Weinberger, Jitendra Malik, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2022. Does unsupervised grammar induction need pixels? CoRR, abs/2212.10564." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 525, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 568, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaxi Li and Wei Lu. 2023. Contextual distortion reveals constituency: Masked language models are implicit parsers. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5208-5222, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anji Liu, Honghua Zhang, and Guy Van den Broeck. 2023. Scaling up probabilistic circuits by latent variable distillation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chao Lou and Kewei Tu. 2023. Improving grammar-based sequence-to-sequence modeling with decomposition and constraints. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1918-1929, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1667" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of english: The penn treebank. Comput. Linguistics, 19(2):313-330." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 123, + 291, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomás Mikolov, Anoop Deoras, Stefan Kombrink, Lukás Burget, and Jan Cernocký. 2011. Empirical evaluation and combination of advanced language modeling techniques. In *INTERSPEECH* 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy, August 27-31, 2011, pages 605-608. ISCA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 209, + 290, + 243 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 209, + 290, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 209, + 290, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mark Paskin. 2001. Grammatical bigrams. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 14. MIT Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Peharz, Steven Lang, Antonio Vergari, Karl Stelzner, Alejandro Molina, Martin Trapp, Guy Van den Broeck, Kristian Kersting, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2020. Einsum networks: Fast and scalable learning of tractable probabilistic circuits. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 7563-7574. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 290, + 413 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 290, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 357, + 290, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Rush. 2020. Torch-struct: Deep structured prediction library. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 335-342, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 420, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Djamé Seddah, Sandra Kübler, and Reut Tsarfaty. 2014. Introducing the SPMRL 2014 shared task on parsing morphologically-rich languages. In Proceedings of the First Joint Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically Rich Languages and Syntactic Analysis of Non-Canonical Languages, pages 103–109, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City University." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 506, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yikang Shen, Zhouhan Lin, Chin-Wei Huang, and Aaron Courville. 2018. Neural Language Modeling by Jointly Learning Syntax and Lexicon. In Proceedings of ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 557, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yikang Shen, Shawn Tan, Alessandro Sordoni, and Aaron Courville. 2019. Ordered Neurons: Integrating Tree Structures into Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 609, + 291, + 720 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 609, + 291, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 609, + 291, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yikang Shen, Yi Tay, Che Zheng, Dara Bahri, Donald Metzler, and Aaron Courville. 2021. StructFormer: Joint unsupervised induction of dependency and constituency structure from masked language modeling. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7196-7209, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Philippe Tillet, Hsiang-Tsung Kung, and David D. Cox. 2019. Triton: an intermediate language and compiler for tiled neural network computations. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGPLAN International" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Workshop on Machine Learning and Programming Languages, MAPL@PLDI 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 22, 2019, pages 10-19. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 526, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 116, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bailin Wang, Ivan Titov, Jacob Andreas, and Yoon Kim. 2022. Hierarchical phrase-based sequence-to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8211-8229, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiyang Xu, Andrew Drozdov, Jay Yoon Lee, Tim O'Gorman, Subendhu Rongali, Dylan Finkbeiner, Shilpa Suresh, Mohit Iyyer, and Andrew McCallum. 2021. Improved latent tree induction with distant supervision via span constraints. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4818-4831, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 525, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 317, + 525, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nianwen Xue, Fei Xia, Fu-Dong Chiou, and Martha Palmer. 2005. The penn chinese treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Nat. Lang. Eng., 11(2):207-238." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 372, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songlin Yang, Roger P Levy, and Yoon Kim. 2023. Unsupervised discontinuous constituency parsing with mildly context-sensitive grammars. In Proceedings of ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 517 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songlin Yang, Wei Liu, and Kewei Tu. 2022. Dynamic programming in rank space: Scaling structured inference with low-rank HMMs and PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4797-4809, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021a. Neural bi-lexicalized PCFG induction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 2688–2699, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 617, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songlin Yang, Yanpeng Zhao, and Kewei Tu. 2021b. PCFGs can do better: Inducing probabilistic context-free grammars with many symbols. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1487-1498, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Youngmin Yi, Chao-Yue Lai, Slav Petrov, and Kurt Keutzer. 2011. Efficient parallel CKY parsing on GPUs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, pages 175-185, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1668" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Haitao Mi, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2022. Learning a grammar inducer from massive uncurated instructional videos. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 233-247, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 157, + 291, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 157, + 291, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 157, + 291, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songyang Zhang, Linfeng Song, Lifeng Jin, Kun Xu, Dong Yu, and Jiebo Luo. 2021. Video-aided unsupervised grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1513–1524, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 241, + 291, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 241, + 291, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 241, + 291, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanpeng Zhao and Ivan Titov. 2020. Visually grounded compound PCFGs. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4369-4379, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 305, + 291, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 305, + 291, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 305, + 291, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Zhu, Yonatan Bisk, and Graham Neubig. 2020. The Return of Lexical Dependencies: Neural Lexicalized PCFGs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:647-661." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 220, + 371 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 220, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 358, + 220, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Neural Parameterization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the neural parameterization of our simple neural pcfg and simple compound pcfg. We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{E}_{\\mathcal{G}} = \\{\\pmb{w}_N | N \\in \\{\\mathcal{S}\\} \\cup \\mathcal{N} \\cup \\mathcal{P}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote symbol embeddings for simple PCFG and use function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{r}(\\cdot; \\theta) = \\pi_{r}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " parameterized by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote neural parameterization function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple Neural PCFG We use neural networks to parameterize these rule probabilities. The neural parameterization of all rule probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " starts from corresponding symbol embeddings in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{\\mathcal{G}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Parameterization function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{r}(\\cdot ;\\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be formulated as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{r}(E_{\\mathcal{G}};\\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 467, + 291, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in simple neural PCFG, which takes from one of these forms:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 581, + 281, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 581, + 281, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 581, + 281, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\pi_ {S \\rightarrow A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {A} ^ {\\top} f _ {1} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {S}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {A ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N}} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {A ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {1} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {S}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {B \\curvearrowright A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {2} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {B ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {2} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {A \\curvearrowright C} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {C ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {A}\\right)\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {T \\rightarrow w} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {T}\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {w ^ {\\prime} \\in \\Sigma} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {T}\\right)\\right)} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "3a5b098112193cd3f48306213d42f84b18c8e04f231a79a1ffdc7762bbe59d3d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{1}, f_{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are two-layer residual networks; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{2}, f_{3}, f_{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are one-linear-layer with ReLU activation function and residual connections. We highlight the usefulness of sharing symbol embedding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "across different grammar rules; and the use of residual connections in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 98 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{2},f_{3},f_{4}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simple Compound PCFG Similar to compound PCFGs, we parameterize our simple compound PCFGs with a latent variable " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z \\sim p(z)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We replace three rule probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{B \\cap A}, \\pi_{B \\cap A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{T \\to w}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_r = g_r(\\boldsymbol{z}, \\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while leaving the remaining rule probabilities as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_r(\\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_r = g_r(\\boldsymbol{z}, \\boldsymbol{E}_{\\mathcal{G}}; \\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 105, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can take one of the following forms:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 234, + 528, + 333 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 234, + 528, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 234, + 528, + 333 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\pi_ {B \\cap A} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {2} (\\mathbf {w} _ {B} ^ {\\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}{\\sum_ {B ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {2} (\\mathbf {w} _ {B ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {A \\cap C} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}{\\sum_ {C ^ {\\prime} \\in \\mathcal {N} \\cup \\mathcal {P}} \\exp \\left(f _ {4} \\left(\\mathbf {w} _ {C ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top}\\right) f _ {3} ^ {\\prime} ([ \\mathbf {w} _ {A} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]))\\right)}, \\\\ \\pi_ {T \\rightarrow w} = \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} ^ {\\prime} \\left([ \\mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]\\right)\\right)}{\\sum_ {w ^ {\\prime} \\in \\Sigma} \\exp \\left(\\mathbf {u} _ {w ^ {\\prime}} ^ {\\top} f _ {5} ^ {\\prime} \\left([ \\mathbf {w} _ {T} ; \\boldsymbol {z} ]\\right)\\right)} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "d80feb813515bbc4f0bd929e92f4844c3c698f43bcb0fa6e9bb1e0f94d304a82.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_3', f_5'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are neural networks which are similar to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_3, f_5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " but with different input shape." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 446, + 393 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 446, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 446, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We follow Mikolov et al. (2011) to preprocess PTB language modeling split data. For other datasets, we use the preprocessing from Yang et al. (2021b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implement our model based on the codebase of Yang et al. (2022). And most hyperparameters follow their settings. We use Xavier normal initialization to initialize neural networks. Our model is optimized by Adam optimizer with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.75, \\beta_{2} = 0.999" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and learning rate 0.002. All dimensions of symbol embeddings are set to 512. Our FlashInside is implemented with Triton (Tillet et al., 2019) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", an open-source python-like GPU programming language. For the latent variable " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in SC-PCFG, we follow the implementation of Kim et al. (2019) which applies a max-pooling layer over the hidden states of the BiLSTM to obtain sentence representation and generates 64-dimensional mean vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu (\\boldsymbol{w})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and log-variances " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\log \\sigma (\\boldsymbol{w})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by leveraging an affine layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 658, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We run all experiments on NVIDIA V100 and NVIDIA A40. All experimental results are averaged from four runs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 436, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 436, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 436, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 436, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/openai/triton" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1669" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_content_list.json b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36e2b9fb07c98747d407125f9773ebb92a180525 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1890 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 218, + 90, + 779, + 112 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Charles Torres", + "bbox": [ + 267, + 137, + 400, + 151 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of California, Irvine Language Science charl t4@uci.edu", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 153, + 460, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Richard Futrell", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 137, + 734, + 151 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of California, Irvine Language Science rfurtrell@uci.edu", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 153, + 791, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We apply a continuous relaxation of $L_{0}$ regularization (Louizos et al., 2018), which induces sparsity, to study the inductive biases of LSTMs. In particular, we are interested in the patterns of formal languages which are readily learned and expressed by LSTMs. Across a wide range of tests we find sparse LSTMs prefer subregular languages over regular languages and the strength of this preference increases as we increase the pressure for sparsity. Furthermore LSTMs which are trained on subregular languages have fewer non-zero parameters, and LSTMs trained on human-attested subregular patterns have fewer non-zero parameters than those trained on unattested patterns. We conjecture that this subregular bias in LSTMs is related to the cognitive bias for subregular language observed in human phonology, in that both are downstream of a bias for simplicity in a suitable computational description language.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 277, + 460, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 571, + 260, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the wide application of neural networks for sequence modeling, their inductive biases remain incompletely understood: for example, whether RNNs have an inductive bias favoring the kind of hierarchical structures used in sentence formation in natural language (Weiss et al., 2018; Ravfogel et al., 2019; Hewitt et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2020; Edelman et al., 2022). It is important to study the inductive biases of neural networks not only from a scientific perspective, but also a practical one: if neural networks can be developed that have inductive biases toward the same kinds of formal language structures that characterize human language, then these neural networks should be able to learn human language more easily.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Many patterns in natural language are characterized by a particular subset of the regular languages, called subregular languages. These languages have been hypothesized to form a bound on learnable human phonological patterns (Heinz, 2018),", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "as well as patterns within tree structures characterizing syntax (Graf, 2022). The particular subregular languages theorized to be human learnable are strictly piecewise (SP), strictly local (SL), and multiple tier-based strictly local (MTSL). Artificial language learning tasks have shown these languages to be easier to acquire for humans (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020; McMullin and Hansson, 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 381 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we take up the question of inductive biases for subregular languages in LSTMs (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), using a relaxation of $L_{0}$ regularization to study networks that are constrained to be simple in the sense of network sparsity. We train these networks on several sets of toy languages which contrast subregular languages against regular languages in a controlled manner. This technique not only allows us to study the inductive biases of sparse networks, but also to address an outstanding question in the literature on subregular languages: whether there exists a computational description language under which subregular languages are simpler than other regular languages (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 884, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To preview our results, we find that simple LSTMs favor subregular languages: such languages can be represented by LSTMs with fewer parameters, and sparse LSTMs favor subregular languages in generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 882, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives relevant background on subregular languages, Section 3 gives our general methods for training sparse neural networks under $L_{0}$ regularization, Section 4 presents our experiments on matched pairs of regular and subregular languages, and Section 5 concludes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 884, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 828, + 650, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is known that phonological constraints should be regular given the most common formalisms in linguistics (Kaplan and Kay, 1994). However, the regular language class is too permissive: many pat", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1651", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1651-1661 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ae087ad000e9ed93f5242315de39d5c1e7324f72fcb56be68780af520f5627bb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Language typeExample languageIn languageNot in language
SLG = {ac}bc, adc, cad, ...ac, bac, acd, ...
SPG = {ac}bc,adb, cad, ...ac, adc, abc, ...
TSLG = {ac}, T = {a, b, c}bc, cad, adbc, ...ac, adc, addc, ...
", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 80, + 803, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Example subregular languages on the alphabet $\\Sigma = a, b, c, d$ . Both SP and SL languages are defined by their alphabet and set of forbidden substrings or subsequences $(G)$ in their definition. The SL language above forbids the substring $ac$ . The SP language above forbids the subsequence $a \\ldots c$ , in other words, $c$ cannot follow $a$ in a string. TSL languages require a second set $(T)$ specifying which characters are preserved in the tier projection. A tier projection function $f_{T}$ maps strings to strings, preserving only characters in the set $T$ . For example, if $T = a, b, c$ then $f_{T}(adca) = ac$ . The restrictions $G$ in a TSL languages are forbidden substrings in the projected strings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 172, + 884, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "terns not attested in natural language are members of it. The subregular hypothesis is an attempt to improve this bound, lowering it to certain subclasses of the regular languages (Heinz, 2018). There are two versions of the hypothesis—the weak version and the strong version—hypothesizing different subregular languages as the boundary for human learnable patterns. The strong subregular hypothesis asserts that phonological constraints are within the strictly local (SL) and strictly piecewise (SP) subclasses, whereas the weak hypothesis raises this bound to the tier-based strictly local (TSL) languages (the union of multiple constraints being multiple tier-based strictly local or MTSL). These languages are not the only subregular languages, but they are the most important subregular languages for the hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 284, + 489, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "What the SL, SP, and TSL languages all share in common is that they are defined by prohibiting features in the strings of that language. The SL and SP languages (corresponding to the strong subregular hypothesis) are defined by sets of prohibited substrings and subsequences respectively. These prohibitions are meant to capture phonological constraints associated with local restrictions (SL) or harmony-like patterns (SP). The TSL languages are slightly more complex than the other two, forbidding substrings after characters have been removed from a string (the retained characters are defined by a second set, usually labeled $T$ for tier). To demonstrate these prohibitions in action examples of these languages are given in Table 1, however curious readers can look to Heinz (2018), Rogers and Pullum (2011), and Heinz et al. (2011) for a rigorous treatment of these languages as well as definitions for other subregular languages which are not part of the subregular hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 561, + 487, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The recent interest in subregular languages and their ability to capture phonological patterns has", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "stimulated some work on the learnability of sub- regular patterns by RNNs. Results in this area have been mixed. LSTMs and RNNs both show difficulty when trained to predict membership in subregular languages (Avcu et al., 2017). Nevertheless, other work has still shown that the learning of subregular patterns is easier for sequence to sequence RNNs than the learning of other patterns, echoing human-like preferences (Prickett, 2021). Work in this area is still limited.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 884, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "What can explain these preferences in LSTMs or humans? Previous work has attempted to tie a preference for simplicity to biases in natural language, for example by using the minimum description length (MDL) principle, a formulation of Occam's razor favoring simple hypotheses that account for given data, where a hypothesis is simple if it can be described using a small number of bits in some description language (Grünwald, 2000). Can the subregular preference be similarly explained? Heinz and Idsardi (2013) levelled a challenge against accounts of human language learning based on this method in explaining this preference: It is easy to find examples where a subregular and regular language both have the same description length in some computational formalism (for example a finite-state automaton, FSA). While they left open the possibility that a computational formalism may be found where description length can distinguish these examples, they expressed doubt that such a thing could be found. A similar challenge was raised in Rawski et al. (2017) where MDL accounts were challenged to explain learning biases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 448, + 884, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Is there a computational representation that, when given access to data consistent with a sub- regular and regular language, would learn only the subregular pattern by using an MDL method? We attempt to address these challenges. We will show that when controlling for description length (num", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1652", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ber of nonzero parameters) in our case studies, neural networks prefer subregular patterns over regular ones on the basis of simplicity, where FSAs do not. That this is true in LSTMs leaves open the possibility that MDL accounts are capable of explaining this bias in other systems, as in human language learning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 General Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 219, + 299, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A crucial part of our method requires finding optimal tradeoffs between accuracy and network complexity. We operationalize the complexity of a neural network as its number of nonzero parameters, reflecting the size of the subnetwork required to achieve a given accuracy. As such, we would like to use the $L_{0}$ norm, which counts the number of nonzero entries in the parameter vector $\\theta$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 254, + 490, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\| \\theta \\| _ {0} = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\mathbf {1} _ {\\theta_ {j} \\neq 0}. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 404, + 487, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ideally, the $L_0$ norm would form a part of our objective function like so:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 472, + 489, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nR (\\theta) = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \\left(p _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i}\\right), y _ {i}\\right) + \\lambda \\| \\theta \\| _ {0}, \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 525, + 487, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $L(p_{\\theta}(x_i), y_i)$ is the log likelihood of the $i$ 'th label $y_i$ given input $x_i$ in the training data under the model with parameters $\\theta$ . However, the $L_0$ norm is not differentiable, and cannot serve as part of our objective function during training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 487, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We get around this limitation using a relaxation of $L_{0}$ regularization developed by Louizos et al. (2018). For the $j$ 'th parameter in our model $\\theta_{j}$ , we assign a masking parameter $\\pi_{j} > 0$ . This parameterizes a distribution with cumulative distribution function $Q(\\cdot |\\pi_j)$ , from which we can sample a mask value $z_{j}\\in [0,1]$ , which critically can take the values of true 0 or 1. The vector of values $z$ generated in this way is then used as a mask to filter the parameters $\\theta$ , generating a vector of masked parameters $\\tilde{\\theta}$ where $\\tilde{\\theta}_j = z_j\\theta_j$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 674, + 487, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This parameterization lends us a new objective function where the labels $y_{i}$ are predicted from the inputs $x_{i}$ using the masked parameters $\\tilde{\\theta}$ , and the model is penalized for having too few masked", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b07849654edc3b087b80b7ee94924cc0fceb926803dbcc5eff5ce6e0bbf55767.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: A simple depiction of $L_{0}$ regularization, LSTM neurons in green,. Right: an unregularized network with a similar architecture as in the harmony test Left: after $L_{0}$ regularization has pruned connections." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 84, + 687, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/112ce203ddc7bca744457c0c644e74f358631a8a0e7475afd4ea92c9425caa33.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 705, + 82, + 875, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "parameters:", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 395, + 601, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} R (\\theta , \\pi) = \\underset {z \\sim Q (\\cdot | \\pi)} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \\left(p _ {\\tilde {\\theta}} \\left(x _ {i}\\right), y _ {i}\\right) \\right] + (3) \\\\ \\lambda \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} Q (z _ {j} > 0 | \\pi_ {j}), \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 419, + 882, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the expectation is over mask vectors $z$ drawn conditional on the vector of masking parameters $\\pi$ . The regularization term now reflects the expected number of parameters whose value is not masked.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 523, + 882, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use Equation 3 in all our experiments below, with different loss functions $L$ as required. When $L$ is a form of cross-entropy this term represents the cost of encoding the data using the distribution specified by the neural network. Under these conditions, the objective becomes a form of minimum description length as a two part code: with the regularization term encoding the distribution, and $L$ encoding the data (Grünwald, 2000). Though our approach focuses on the MDL interpretation, this formulation also has a Bayesian interpretation, optimizing the negative log likelihood with the regularization term as a prior and the loss term as a posterior as we show in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 588, + 882, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 824, + 655, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Subregular Battery", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 848, + 709, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The first experiment measures the complexity of LSTMs that learn subregular and regular languages. We call this the subregular battery: an experiment", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1653", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "run on three sets of three formal languages, where the description length of the generating FSAs are controlled within each set. Each set of languages contains one strictly local and one strictly piecewise (which are both subregular) and one regular language. One set of languages was used in Heinz and Idsardi (2013)'s argument that minimum description length fails to separate subregular languages from other regular ones; we offer two additional sets. The languages are described in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.1 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 253, + 243, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The method can be split into 3 steps: data generation, network training, and evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 489, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data generation For each language, we sample 2000 words from a probabilistic finite state automaton (pFSA) designed to generate words from that language following a geometric distribution on word length. The geometric distribution on word length is important for two reasons: (1) it implies a constant stopping probability in all states, meaning that the distribution over string lengths does not depend on the structure of the strings in a language, and (2) it is memoryless, meaning that the network need not keep track of the total characters observed so far to attain high accuracy. Maintaining a geometric distribution on string lengths is the simplest method for attaining the same distribution over string lengths across languages while sampling from pFSAs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 313, + 489, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This data is then split into training, development, and testing sets at an 80/10/10 ratio. Sets are constructed such that no duplicate words existed between sets. This was done by grouping words by form, and then randomly assigning them to the training, testing, or development sets before reshuffling them within the group.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Network training Each LSTM has the same architecture: a 3-dimensional embedding layer, a 5 unit LSTM layer, and a 2-layer perceptron decoder with a hidden width of 5 units. We train LSTMs for up to 400 epochs on the training set. For the subregular battery, we use cross entropy loss with the aforementioned $L_{0}$ regularization technique as our objective function. After each epoch, we evaluate development set performance (including the approximate $L_{0}$ penalty), and if improvement on it has not increased for 50 epochs, training is halted. Otherwise we use the best performing network on", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the development set over all 400 epochs. We repeat this procedure five times for various regularization penalties to get data on performance at different levels of network complexity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation Once data is collected, we evaluate the trained networks in terms of the trade-off of network complexity—measured as the number of nonzero parameters—and error, defined as the average per-character KL divergence of the LSTMs from the target distribution (the pFSAs from which the languages were sampled). For a target language with distribution $Q_{G}$ and a model $P_{\\theta}$ , this divergence is", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 156, + 885, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathrm {D} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\| P _ {\\theta} \\right] = \\mathrm {H} \\left[ Q _ {G}, P _ {\\theta} \\right] - \\mathrm {H} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\right]. \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 313, + 882, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thus, using the KL divergence here instead of cross entropy allows us to control for the entropy $\\mathrm{H}[Q_G]$ of the target language $G$ . We measure an approximate per-character KL divergence using the $N$ sample strings in the evaluation set for language $G$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 342, + 885, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\mathrm {D}} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\| P _ {\\theta} \\right] = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} \\frac {1}{T _ {i}} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T _ {i}} \\ln \\frac {Q _ {G} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \\mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\\right)}{P _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \\mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\\right)}, \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 432, + 882, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $T_{i}$ is the length of the $i$ 'th sample string in the evaluation set, $x_{i}^{t}$ is the $t$ 'th character of the $i$ 'th sample string, and $x_{i}^{< t}$ is the prefix of characters up to index $t$ in the $n$ 'th sample string.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 489, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use area under the curve (AUC) as a metric to evaluate complexity. This is defined as the area under the convex hull of (complexity, KL approximation) points. A small area under the curve indicates that it possible to achieve low error with a simple network; a large area under the curve means that error is high even with a more complex network. We determine if there is a significant difference between languages by performing a permutation test. This is done by randomly sampling points from the union of two languages and comparing the AUC statistic in the permuted samples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 554, + 885, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.2 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 755, + 628, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2 shows the trade-off of number of parameters and KL divergence for the three sets of languages. The areas under the curve are shaded, and the points which closely mimic the target distribution are shown in color. For a given level of complexity, the areas under the curve for the regular languages exceed both the piecewise testable and strictly local languages. The specific AUC numbers are shown in Table 3. In every case the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "This high patience is necessary due to the stochastic nature of the $\\bar{L}_0$ regularization technique.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1654", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f88fa562ea8520400d2ad86ed681923d0c66a9efc371c24970d58ea2df0e4477.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SetSL variantSP variantRegular variant
*aacNo string aacNo sequence a...a...cNo c if the number of a = 2 (mod 3)
*a,b, *baNo string ab / baNo sequence a...b / b...aNo b (a) after an odd number of a (b)
*aNo string acNo sequence a...cNo c after an odd number of a
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 80, + 870, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/83de213d1446f7da32e86427ce26e00a93e4bb50617ecbeac3f5ab630497bd9f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 244, + 389, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/250bd233bf76341aadd3b660da8e04620aa9219e3f4fb04fb60db6ac7bff8233.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 391, + 246, + 623, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a4b59c260aaecba7f154bf2d1900881f762d0859feb3aba1676a2a1c99fc1cd4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 246, + 877, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/35a5880fa283bf789dc9553eb0930d48af90465100a9c396cee3b0a1e7cac565.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 337, + 389, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/73e55e9a60651b952150d711524185eb8d277cfce96178bd77eb73b60f4eecba.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 391, + 337, + 623, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/75bb69d3e583ab990247e3d598d74bb87a0f3ccc8332e9632291591976eee02d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 337, + 875, + 412 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f1b03f379be2029445e07ed5aae5b9245cb5512d1c9e50889e4139d72ca1a8c8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Number of parameters (expected value)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 412, + 389, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5dc4cd66fb43002c1b18e7f2781e278c3df09603979048898397b1af8890b5a9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 391, + 412, + 623, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3fe41656f328d969d085d9e79eedc07359ae4d47b4d88459a912a6611852cafe.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: A trade-off of accuracy (KL divergence from the target language to the model) and complexity (number of nonzero parameters) of LSTMs trained on subregular and regular languages matched for description length in an FSA representation. Points within $1/100$ of a bit or less from the true distribution are shown in color. The shaded area is the area under the curve (AUC) used to compare the languages in our statistical analysis in Table 3. The subregular languages show consistently lower AUC than the matched regular languages." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 412, + 875, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "differences between both subregular languages and regular languages are statistically significant and in the expected direction as determined by a permutation test.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 621, + 487, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We augment this test with an additional post-hoc analysis of the most accurately performing networks (which we define as having a KL divergence of less than .01 bits) to determine if the size of the minimal LSTMs are also significantly different. This analysis is also done with a permutation test. These networks (Table 4) attain a lower complexity score for the subregular languages, a significant difference in all cases except *ac.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 688, + 489, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.3 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 265, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This experiment's results demonstrate that, at least in the languages chosen, strictly piecewise and strictly local languages better favor a tradeoff be", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/edbf7874c4e6752fd2210cffd59a01768ce6f8935be275db2d5b2b7c12e32661.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Language sets composing the subregular battery. Each language set consists of three languages matched for FSA complexity: a strictly local language (SL), a strictly piecewise language (SP), and a regular language. All languages are subsets of $\\{a, b, c\\}^*$ . The table gives a short description of each language. The last set is from Heinz and Idsardi (2013)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.354**2.70**2.688**
Reg.-SP.620**1.727**2.260**
SP-SL-.266.970**.428
", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 649, + 858, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Differences in AUC between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the AUC difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked \\*\\* are significant at $p < 0.01$ in a permutation test. The AUC differences between regular and subregular languages are always significant. Comparing SP and SL languages, the SP language has a significantly higher AUC for the \\*aac languages, and the difference is otherwise insignificant.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 740, + 882, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1655", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tween simplicity and complexity as demonstrated in our AUC analysis. We also see that they can be generated by functions implemented with simpler LSTMs in all but one case. In our post-hoc analysis we find that all but one subregular language is significantly simpler to accurately mimic in comparison with the regular language. These results also demonstrate that checking for the presence of two substrings is more complicated than one, and checking for a longer substring is more complicated than a shorter one. But if compared within a similar strictly regular pattern (here represented by controlling for generating FSA size) the preference is clearly for subregular languages.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7a114dec432235aef9ec3ed65d01424ac63b211d0744418f26ae064b49be6d07.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.98144.7**23.8**
Reg.-SP5.74**43.7**22.9**
SP-SL-4.75*.963.972
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 321, + 463, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Standard Harmony and First-Last Harmony", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 431, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the second test we investigate whether a preference exists between two subregular languages. One language is MTSL, a class of subregular languages believed to be learnable in the subregular hypothesis. The other is a locally testable (LT) language, which is believed to not be human learnable. This test is inspired by previous experimental works (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020) which were investigations of standard vowel harmony (attested in human languages) and first-last harmony (not attested). These two languages are not controlled for FSA size, but are languages that serve as important evidence for the subregular hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The difference between standard vowel harmony (SH) and first-last (FL) harmony languages is shown in Table 5. In an SH language we require languages to begin and end with an $a$ or $b$ , and we forbid both $a$ and $b$ from occurring in the same string. In an FL harmony pattern, we require a word to begin and end with $a$ or $b$ , and to begin and end with the same character, but allow any charac", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ters in-between. These examples are a simplistic representation of patterns that are attested in human language (standard harmony) versus not attested (first-last harmony).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the experiment below, we apply a similar test and evaluation method as in the subregular battery to demonstrate that the functions which generate SH patterns (which are MTSL) are simpler than functions which generate FL patterns (which are LT).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 149, + 884, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0819cb4283aa72545a8280a99b2308e82102add01f8edaa46f59376b289893bc.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Differences in complexity between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the complexity difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked ** are significant at $p < 0.01$ in a permutation test. Complexity differences are significant between subregular and regular except for *ac." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SHFL
babbab
caccac
babbabbcabcd
cacacacccbabc
bbbabbbcacabb
", + "bbox": [ + 613, + 255, + 781, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Examples of legal words in standard-harmony (SH) and first-last harmony (FL) patterns.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 379, + 882, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.1 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 638, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use LSTMs with the same architecture as in section 4.1. The only difference is that the objective for these networks is to predict the correct continuation set: the set of possible characters that can grammatically follow after a prefix, an objective introduced in Gers and Schmidhuber (2001) and used elsewhere (Suzgun et al., 2019). The network is trained to predict, for each possible character continuing a prefix, whether that character is licit or not—that is, whether that character is a member of the continuation set $C$ . Given a continuation set $C$ and an LSTM equipped with a decoder that reads in a prefix $x$ of characters and produces a vector of real values $\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|C|}$ , the loss for the network is", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 451, + 884, + 693 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} L _ {\\mathrm {c s}} \\left(p _ {\\theta} (x), C\\right) = \\frac {1}{| C |} \\sum_ {i \\in | C |} - C _ {i} \\log \\left(p _ {\\theta} (x) _ {i}\\right) - \\tag {6} \\\\ (1 - C _ {i}) \\log (1 - p _ {\\theta} (x) _ {i}) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 700, + 882, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This breaks with the prior work using the continuation set objective, as we use the binary cross-entropy loss instead of mean squared error.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using this loss function is necessary to control for differences in entropy between the SH and FL languages when conducting comparisons. Above, we control for differences in entropy by using an approximate KL divergence as an accuracy metric and we control for length-related effects on LSTM", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1656", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/30b26949bb651c235af266ba7354876462e850b4764c61052d999a33fb4586cf.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Graphs for LSTMs trained on first last harmony versus standard harmony, with description lengths on the x-axis, and test set performance on the y-axis (lower is better)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 487, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "complexity by making the lengths of strings geometrically distributed. This is not possible when comparing the SH and FL languages, because they cannot be generated by pFSAs in a way that yields a geometric distribution on string length.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 442, + 489, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data generation To accommodate this new task, we sampled words uniformly given length. For SH data, words were generated such that they began and ended with the same character (either $b$ or $c$ ) with a geometrically sampled number of characters in-between ( $p = .05$ ) consistent with the SH pattern (see table 5). For FL languages the same procedure was followed except that the center characters were consistent with the FL pattern.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 489, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Network training Training was performed similarly to the subregular battery. This was for a maximum of 200 epochs, potentially terminating earlier if development set performance did not improve for 50 epochs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation At the end of training, (complexity, continuation-set loss) pairs were calculated from the best network's performance on the heldout test set. As in Section 4.1 we use AUC as the performance metric, the only difference being the points are now (complexity, continuation-set loss) instead of (complexity, KL approximation).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.2 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 626, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our results are shown in Figure 3. Again, we see a similar pattern as in the subregular battery, but this time showing the human-learnable subregular language is preferred over the unlearnable one. Standard harmony performance deterioriates at the 40 parameter mark, whereas first-last harmony deteriorates at the 75 parameter mark. The areas approximated by the frontier points (shaded) remain significantly different under a permutation test, with $p = .009$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 104, + 884, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.3 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 653, + 290 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These results continue the pattern seen in the subregular battery, but demonstrate not just a subregular preference, but a human-learnable subregular preference. While prior studies have shown a preference and higher performance for SH over FL with sequence to sequence networks, this experiment demonstrates that beyond a preference, these functions are more easily represented in simpler LSTMs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 296, + 884, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Generalization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 453, + 672, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Above, we found that subregular languages, and particularly human-learnable ones, were represented by simpler LSTMs. The question remains: does this simplicity constraint affect generalization?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 884, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we test whether a pressure for sparsity in LSTMs yields a bias towards learning a subregular language when the network is trained on data that is consistent with both a subregular and regular language, an approach suggested by Rawski et al. (2017). More precisely, the test is as follows. Take two formal languages $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ , one subregular and one regular. Now, using their intersection $G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\cap G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ as training data, what does the induced grammar correspond to, $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ or $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ ?", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 556, + 885, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.1 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 728, + 638, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As our pair of langauges, we use languages from the subregular battery in Section 4.1. We take as $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ the language *ac and as $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ the regular language which forbids $b$ after an odd number of $as$ . This language is the test as described in Rawski et al. (2017).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 747, + 884, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data generation For each network, we generate data from $G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\cap G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ , dividing these into a training set and a development set with approximately 1600 words in the training set and 200 words in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1657", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a93c446852b6d9cdc1bcb4ff627c1ffd368e7b7d1a95aa79793b21cadef07ff9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Model preference for subregular language $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ over regular language $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ , where preference is defined according to Equation 7, as a function of the number of model parameters. The preference for $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ peaks in the shaded region occupied by simpler networks." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 880, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the testing set. We generate two additional testing datasets for $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ individually, checking the sets such that no words in the testing set appeared in the training or development data of 200 words each. This matches the size of the dataset to that of Section 4.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 487, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Network training With the data generated, our LSTMs are trained according to the per character cross entropy loss, regularized as in Equation 3, with a procedure identical to that used in Section 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 489, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation After training, performance on $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ is evaluated using the model which performed best on the development set over the course of training. As in the subregular analysis, we calculate the approximate KL divergence by subtracting the true per-character entropy as determined by the generating pFSA from the cross-entropy as in Equation 5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 487, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our analysis, unlike the previous ones, is qualitative. We will investigate the subregular bias, operationalized as the difference:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 738, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {P r e f} _ {G _ {\\mathrm {s u b}}} := \\hat {\\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\\mathrm {r e g}}} \\| P _ {\\theta} ] - \\hat {\\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\\mathrm {s u b}}} \\| P _ {\\theta} ], (7)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 793, + 487, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the approximate divergences $\\hat{\\mathrm{D}}$ are calculated over the evaluation sets for the two languages $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ , as in Eq. 5. The value $\\operatorname{Pref}_{G_{\\mathrm{sub}}}$ is positive when the model's distribution over strings more closely resembles the one defined by the pFSA for language $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 821, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.2 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 626, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of our generalization experiment show a clear preference for the subregular language regardless of complexity (Figure 4). However, unlike prior results, we also see a clear increase in preferences as network complexity is constrained. This difference is especially pronounced in the highlighted region. In the lowest complexity range, there is a collapse in performance where the network can do nothing but predict a uniform distribution on all characters at all times.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 451, + 884, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Examining the KL divergences for the individual languages, as in Figure 5, we find that this result is driven by high accuracy in modeling the subregular language $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ using a small number of parameters. Accuracy in modeling the regular language $G_{\\mathrm{reg}}$ is mostly poor, while accuracy modeling subregular language $G_{\\mathrm{sub}}$ is highest when the expected number of parameters is between 25 and 75.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 614, + 884, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.3 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 653, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While our prior results in the complexity evaluations have shown that subregular languages are generated with simpler networks, these results demonstrate a more clear inductive bias. LSTMs with constrained complexity generalize better to the subregular language than to the regular language. This indicates that, not only is the subregular function simpler, but that simpler networks prefer subregular languages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1658", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f18d8dce2ca63ac975d7200854965330620d97c821069f21ec6b9cf4b5d31792.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: KL divergences from the target languages to the model distributions as a function of the number of model parameters. Performance on subregular languages (black) dips in the shaded region whereas performance on regular languages is relatively poor (red)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 84, + 487, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "But we also see that this inductive bias exists even in low regularization regimes. This result is consistent with previous findings, and may be related to other phenomena like previously observed locality biases (Ravfogel et al., 2019) which are a basic constraint in all RNN functioning (Battaglia et al., 2018).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 453, + 489, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 582, + 247, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our complexity measurement experiments we observe that subregular languages are represented by consistently simpler networks than similar regular languages, and that human-learnable subregular patterns are represented by simpler networks than unlearnable ones. This result is surprising, given that the use of a description length criterion to distinguish these languages had been deemed unlikely (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, we found that in the generalization experiment, data consistent with a subregular and regular language leads to a preferential generalization towards learning the subregular distribution, and that this preference increases as the network becomes simpler. This supports the idea that a change in computational representation systems may favor subregular over regular languages, with the caveat that comparing subregular languages with radically different complexities in FSA representation may", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mean that this generalization pattern does not hold.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Why do LSTMs favor subregular languages? We argue that our results may explain this preference via the lottery ticket hypothesis (Frankle and Carbin, 2019). This hypothesis states that neural networks learn by tuning \"winning tickets\"—which are subnetworks that perform well on the task at initialization—which explains why larger neural networks perform well (they \"buy more tickets\"). The existence of smaller networks (as we define them) for subregular languages means that any neural network will contain more tickets for subregular languages at initialization, and thus have an inductive bias toward such languages. If this line of reasoning is true, $L_0$ regularization does not introduce anything qualitatively new in LSTM training, but shifts the probability mass to favor tickets with smaller subnetworks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 101, + 884, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Perhaps more controversially, we also believe these results may be of interest to human cognition. While the human brain is not an LSTM, our results indicate that a subregular bias can be downstream of a bias for simplicity within an appropriate computational formalism, showing that rich (and often puzzling) constraints can be downstream from simple rules. A bias like this can be construed as a universal grammar—a bound on learnable formal languages (Nowak et al., 2002).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 376, + 885, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "More needs to be done, of course. This work is far from a proof of the simplicity of subregular languages in LSTMs. Likewise, more subregular languages ought to be investigated. We may find, for example, that the true inductive bias for LSTMs is not exactly subregular, or that only certain aspects of subregularity are simple to implement. But we find the current results exciting and intriguing, for its relationship to network complexity and function implementation, its potential to explain LSTM inductive biases, and the demonstration of subregular biases resulting from computational complexity constraints.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 538, + 885, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 762, + 645, + 777 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The largest limitation of this work is that it is experimental, and not a proof. We try to show several demonstrations of the simplicity of subregularity, and believe further work should be done, but are aware of the limitations of this kind of work in addressing matters of mathematical curiosity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 789, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also understand that, because this work addresses these issues in an experimental way, there", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1659", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is no certainty that our object of study (subregular languages and their patterns) are what LSTMs are truly biased towards.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work uses LSTMs, rather than the Transformer architectures which underlie recently influential large language models (Brown et al., 2020). Although LSTMs are not currently the most popular architecture, recurrent models are recently seeing a revival (Peng et al., 2023) due to their inherent advantages such as being able to model indefinitely long sequences. In contrast to LSTMs, Transformers are known to be highly constrained in their strict formal expressivity (Hahn, 2020); however, their formal inductive biases in practice are not yet thoroughly explored.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 133, + 489, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethical considerations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 337, + 310, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We foresee no ethical issues arising from this work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 362, + 487, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 388, + 285, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by NSF grant #1947307 to R.F. We thank Connor Mayer, Jon Rawski, and Aniello de Santo for helpful discussion.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 487, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 488, + 213, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Enes Avcu and Arild Hestvik. 2020. Unlearnable phonotactics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5(1).", + "Enes Avcu, Chihiro Shibata, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Subregular complexity and deep learning. CLASP Papers in Computational Linguistics, page 20.", + "Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulçehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:1806.01261, v3.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. 33:1877-1901." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 511, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Benjamin L Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Sham Kakade, and Cyril Zhang. 2022. Inductive biases and variable creation in self-attention mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5793–5831. PMLR.", + "Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. 2019. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Felix A Gers and E Schmidhuber. 2001. LSTM recurrent networks learn simple context-free and context-sensitive languages. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 12(6):1333-1340.", + "Thomas Graf. 2022. Subregular linguistics: Bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48:145-184.", + "Peter Grünwald. 2000. Model selection based on minimum description length. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1):133-152.", + "Michael Hahn. 2020. Theoretical limitations of self-attention in neural sequence models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:156-171.", + "Jeffrey Heinz. 2018. The computational nature of phonological generalizations. *Phonological typology*, phonetics and phonology, pages 126-195.", + "Jeffrey Heinz and William Idsardi. 2013. What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. *Topics in Cognitive Science*, 5(1):111-131.", + "Jeffrey Heinz, Chetan Rawal, and Herbert G. Tanner. 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 58-64, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "John Hewitt, Michael Hahn, Surya Ganguli, Percy Liang, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. RNNs can generate bounded hierarchical languages with optimal memory. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1978-2010, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780.", + "Ronald M. Kaplan and Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20(3):331-378.", + "Regine Lai. 2015. Learnable vs. Unlearnable Harmony Patterns. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(3):425-451." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1660", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P Kingma. 2018. Learning sparse neural networks through $L_{0}$ regularization.", + "R. Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140.", + "Kevin McMullin and Gunnar Olafur Hansson. 2019. Inductive learning of locality relations in segmental phonology. *Laboratory Phonology*, 10(1).", + "Martin A Nowak, Natalia L Komarova, and Partha Niyogi. 2002. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature, 417(6889):611-617.", + "Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, Kranthi Kiran GV, et al. 2023. RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the transformer era. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:2305.13048.", + "Brandon Prickett. 2021. Modelling a subregular bias in phonological learning with recurrent neural networks. Journal of Language Modelling, 9.", + "Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Studying the inductive biases of RNNs with synthetic variations of natural languages. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3532-3542. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jon Rawski, Aniello De Santo, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Reconciling minimum description length with grammar-independent complexity measures. MIT Workshop on Simplicity in Grammar Learning.", + "James Rogers and Geoffrey K Pullum. 2011. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20:329-342.", + "Mirac Suzgun, Yonatan Belinkov, Stuart Shieber, and Sebastian Gehrmann. 2019. LSTM networks can perform dynamic counting. pages 44-54.", + "Gail Weiss, Yoav Goldberg, and Eran Yahav. 2018. On the practical computational power of finite precision RNNs for language recognition. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 740-745, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 487, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A $L_{0}$ regularization as maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 844, + 431, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show that $L_{0}$ regularization is equivalent to MAP estimation with an exponential prior on the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "number of non-zero parameters in the model. Consider the standard MAP estimation problem:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {M A P}} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta} f (x | \\theta) q (\\theta), \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 581, + 127, + 880, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $f$ is a distribution conditional on parameters $\\theta$ and $q$ is a prior distribution on $\\theta$ . Now consider the expected value of non-zero parameters $\\theta'$ . In Equation 3, $\\theta'$ is the regularization term, as shown below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 162, + 880, + 240 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} Q \\left(z _ {j} > 0 \\mid \\pi_ {j}\\right) (9) \\\\ = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\int q \\left(z _ {j} \\mid \\pi_ {j}\\right) \\cdot 1 \\left(z _ {j} > 0\\right) d z _ {j} (10) \\\\ = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\int q (z \\mid \\pi) \\cdot 1 (z _ {j} > 0) d z (11) \\\\ = \\int q (z \\mid \\pi) \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} 1 \\left(z _ {j} > 0\\right) d z (12) \\\\ = \\underset {z \\sim Q (\\cdot | \\pi)} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} 1 (z _ {j} > 0) \\right] (13) \\\\ = \\theta^ {\\prime}, (14) \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 252, + 880, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with probability density function $q(\\cdot \\mid \\pi)$ corresponding to cumulative distribution function $Q(\\cdot \\mid \\pi)$ , and indicator function $1(\\cdot)$ . If we consider an exponential prior on $\\theta'$ we would have:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 530, + 882, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nq \\left(\\theta^ {\\prime}\\right) = \\lambda e ^ {- \\lambda \\theta^ {\\prime}}. \\tag {15}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 633, + 605, + 880, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then by Eq. 15 and the monotonicity of the log function, the MAP estimation problem is equivalent to finding", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 636, + 882, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {M A P}} = \\arg \\min _ {\\theta} - \\log f (x | \\theta) + \\lambda \\theta^ {\\prime} - \\log \\lambda , \\tag {16}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 696, + 880, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which is equal to our objective in Eq. 3 up to an additive constant $-\\log \\lambda$ that does not depend on the parameters to be optimized.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 731, + 880, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1661", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_model.json b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5b3850e4de10498d28bdd2261f1148f7893ffa9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2180 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.22, + 0.091, + 0.78, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.268, + 0.138, + 0.4, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charles Torres" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.154, + 0.462, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of California, Irvine Language Science charl t4@uci.edu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.138, + 0.735, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Richard Futrell" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.54, + 0.154, + 0.793, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of California, Irvine Language Science rfurtrell@uci.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.278, + 0.461, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We apply a continuous relaxation of \\( L_{0} \\) regularization (Louizos et al., 2018), which induces sparsity, to study the inductive biases of LSTMs. In particular, we are interested in the patterns of formal languages which are readily learned and expressed by LSTMs. Across a wide range of tests we find sparse LSTMs prefer subregular languages over regular languages and the strength of this preference increases as we increase the pressure for sparsity. Furthermore LSTMs which are trained on subregular languages have fewer non-zero parameters, and LSTMs trained on human-attested subregular patterns have fewer non-zero parameters than those trained on unattested patterns. We conjecture that this subregular bias in LSTMs is related to the cognitive bias for subregular language observed in human phonology, in that both are downstream of a bias for simplicity in a suitable computational description language." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.573, + 0.262, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the wide application of neural networks for sequence modeling, their inductive biases remain incompletely understood: for example, whether RNNs have an inductive bias favoring the kind of hierarchical structures used in sentence formation in natural language (Weiss et al., 2018; Ravfogel et al., 2019; Hewitt et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2020; Edelman et al., 2022). It is important to study the inductive biases of neural networks not only from a scientific perspective, but also a practical one: if neural networks can be developed that have inductive biases toward the same kinds of formal language structures that characterize human language, then these neural networks should be able to learn human language more easily." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Many patterns in natural language are characterized by a particular subset of the regular languages, called subregular languages. These languages have been hypothesized to form a bound on learnable human phonological patterns (Heinz, 2018)," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "as well as patterns within tree structures characterizing syntax (Graf, 2022). The particular subregular languages theorized to be human learnable are strictly piecewise (SP), strictly local (SL), and multiple tier-based strictly local (MTSL). Artificial language learning tasks have shown these languages to be easier to acquire for humans (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020; McMullin and Hansson, 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.383, + 0.885, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we take up the question of inductive biases for subregular languages in LSTMs (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), using a relaxation of \\(L_{0}\\) regularization to study networks that are constrained to be simple in the sense of network sparsity. We train these networks on several sets of toy languages which contrast subregular languages against regular languages in a controlled manner. This technique not only allows us to study the inductive biases of sparse networks, but also to address an outstanding question in the literature on subregular languages: whether there exists a computational description language under which subregular languages are simpler than other regular languages (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.624, + 0.884, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To preview our results, we find that simple LSTMs favor subregular languages: such languages can be represented by LSTMs with fewer parameters, and sparse LSTMs favor subregular languages in generalization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.705, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives relevant background on subregular languages, Section 3 gives our general methods for training sparse neural networks under \\( L_{0} \\) regularization, Section 4 presents our experiments on matched pairs of regular and subregular languages, and Section 5 concludes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.829, + 0.652, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Background" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is known that phonological constraints should be regular given the most common formalisms in linguistics (Kaplan and Kay, 1994). However, the regular language class is too permissive: many pat" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1651" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1651-1661 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.082, + 0.805, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Language typeExample languageIn languageNot in language
SLG = {ac}bc, adc, cad, ...ac, bac, acd, ...
SPG = {ac}bc,adb, cad, ...ac, adc, abc, ...
TSLG = {ac}, T = {a, b, c}bc, cad, adbc, ...ac, adc, addc, ...
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.173, + 0.885, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Example subregular languages on the alphabet \\(\\Sigma = a, b, c, d\\). Both SP and SL languages are defined by their alphabet and set of forbidden substrings or subsequences \\((G)\\) in their definition. The SL language above forbids the substring \\(ac\\). The SP language above forbids the subsequence \\(a \\ldots c\\), in other words, \\(c\\) cannot follow \\(a\\) in a string. TSL languages require a second set \\((T)\\) specifying which characters are preserved in the tier projection. A tier projection function \\(f_{T}\\) maps strings to strings, preserving only characters in the set \\(T\\). For example, if \\(T = a, b, c\\) then \\(f_{T}(adca) = ac\\). The restrictions \\(G\\) in a TSL languages are forbidden substrings in the projected strings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.285, + 0.49, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "terns not attested in natural language are members of it. The subregular hypothesis is an attempt to improve this bound, lowering it to certain subclasses of the regular languages (Heinz, 2018). There are two versions of the hypothesis—the weak version and the strong version—hypothesizing different subregular languages as the boundary for human learnable patterns. The strong subregular hypothesis asserts that phonological constraints are within the strictly local (SL) and strictly piecewise (SP) subclasses, whereas the weak hypothesis raises this bound to the tier-based strictly local (TSL) languages (the union of multiple constraints being multiple tier-based strictly local or MTSL). These languages are not the only subregular languages, but they are the most important subregular languages for the hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.562, + 0.489, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "What the SL, SP, and TSL languages all share in common is that they are defined by prohibiting features in the strings of that language. The SL and SP languages (corresponding to the strong subregular hypothesis) are defined by sets of prohibited substrings and subsequences respectively. These prohibitions are meant to capture phonological constraints associated with local restrictions (SL) or harmony-like patterns (SP). The TSL languages are slightly more complex than the other two, forbidding substrings after characters have been removed from a string (the retained characters are defined by a second set, usually labeled \\(T\\) for tier). To demonstrate these prohibitions in action examples of these languages are given in Table 1, however curious readers can look to Heinz (2018), Rogers and Pullum (2011), and Heinz et al. (2011) for a rigorous treatment of these languages as well as definitions for other subregular languages which are not part of the subregular hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The recent interest in subregular languages and their ability to capture phonological patterns has" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.284, + 0.885, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "stimulated some work on the learnability of sub- regular patterns by RNNs. Results in this area have been mixed. LSTMs and RNNs both show difficulty when trained to predict membership in subregular languages (Avcu et al., 2017). Nevertheless, other work has still shown that the learning of subregular patterns is easier for sequence to sequence RNNs than the learning of other patterns, echoing human-like preferences (Prickett, 2021). Work in this area is still limited." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.449, + 0.885, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "What can explain these preferences in LSTMs or humans? Previous work has attempted to tie a preference for simplicity to biases in natural language, for example by using the minimum description length (MDL) principle, a formulation of Occam's razor favoring simple hypotheses that account for given data, where a hypothesis is simple if it can be described using a small number of bits in some description language (Grünwald, 2000). Can the subregular preference be similarly explained? Heinz and Idsardi (2013) levelled a challenge against accounts of human language learning based on this method in explaining this preference: It is easy to find examples where a subregular and regular language both have the same description length in some computational formalism (for example a finite-state automaton, FSA). While they left open the possibility that a computational formalism may be found where description length can distinguish these examples, they expressed doubt that such a thing could be found. A similar challenge was raised in Rawski et al. (2017) where MDL accounts were challenged to explain learning biases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Is there a computational representation that, when given access to data consistent with a sub- regular and regular language, would learn only the subregular pattern by using an MDL method? We attempt to address these challenges. We will show that when controlling for description length (num" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1652" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ber of nonzero parameters) in our case studies, neural networks prefer subregular patterns over regular ones on the basis of simplicity, where FSAs do not. That this is true in LSTMs leaves open the possibility that MDL accounts are capable of explaining this bias in other systems, as in human language learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.221, + 0.3, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 General Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.491, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A crucial part of our method requires finding optimal tradeoffs between accuracy and network complexity. We operationalize the complexity of a neural network as its number of nonzero parameters, reflecting the size of the subnetwork required to achieve a given accuracy. As such, we would like to use the \\( L_{0} \\) norm, which counts the number of nonzero entries in the parameter vector \\( \\theta \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.23, + 0.405, + 0.489, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\| \\theta \\| _ {0} = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\mathbf {1} _ {\\theta_ {j} \\neq 0}. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.473, + 0.49, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ideally, the \\(L_0\\) norm would form a part of our objective function like so:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.526, + 0.488, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nR (\\theta) = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \\left(p _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i}\\right), y _ {i}\\right) + \\lambda \\| \\theta \\| _ {0}, \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.591, + 0.489, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( L(p_{\\theta}(x_i), y_i) \\) is the log likelihood of the \\( i \\)'th label \\( y_i \\) given input \\( x_i \\) in the training data under the model with parameters \\( \\theta \\). However, the \\( L_0 \\) norm is not differentiable, and cannot serve as part of our objective function during training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.675, + 0.489, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We get around this limitation using a relaxation of \\( L_{0} \\) regularization developed by Louizos et al. (2018). For the \\( j \\)'th parameter in our model \\( \\theta_{j} \\), we assign a masking parameter \\( \\pi_{j} > 0 \\). This parameterizes a distribution with cumulative distribution function \\( Q(\\cdot |\\pi_j) \\), from which we can sample a mask value \\( z_{j}\\in [0,1] \\), which critically can take the values of true 0 or 1. The vector of values \\( z \\) generated in this way is then used as a mask to filter the parameters \\( \\theta \\), generating a vector of masked parameters \\( \\tilde{\\theta} \\) where \\( \\tilde{\\theta}_j = z_j\\theta_j \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This parameterization lends us a new objective function where the labels \\( y_{i} \\) are predicted from the inputs \\( x_{i} \\) using the masked parameters \\( \\tilde{\\theta} \\), and the model is penalized for having too few masked" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.085, + 0.689, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.083, + 0.877, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.311, + 0.886, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: A simple depiction of \\( L_{0} \\) regularization, LSTM neurons in green,. Right: an unregularized network with a similar architecture as in the harmony test Left: after \\( L_{0} \\) regularization has pruned connections." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.396, + 0.602, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "parameters:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.42, + 0.884, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} R (\\theta , \\pi) = \\underset {z \\sim Q (\\cdot | \\pi)} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \\left(p _ {\\tilde {\\theta}} \\left(x _ {i}\\right), y _ {i}\\right) \\right] + (3) \\\\ \\lambda \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} Q (z _ {j} > 0 | \\pi_ {j}), \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.524, + 0.884, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the expectation is over mask vectors \\(z\\) drawn conditional on the vector of masking parameters \\(\\pi\\). The regularization term now reflects the expected number of parameters whose value is not masked." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.589, + 0.884, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use Equation 3 in all our experiments below, with different loss functions \\( L \\) as required. When \\( L \\) is a form of cross-entropy this term represents the cost of encoding the data using the distribution specified by the neural network. Under these conditions, the objective becomes a form of minimum description length as a two part code: with the regularization term encoding the distribution, and \\( L \\) encoding the data (Grünwald, 2000). Though our approach focuses on the MDL interpretation, this formulation also has a Bayesian interpretation, optimizing the negative log likelihood with the regularization term as a prior and the loss term as a posterior as we show in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.825, + 0.656, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.85, + 0.71, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Subregular Battery" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The first experiment measures the complexity of LSTMs that learn subregular and regular languages. We call this the subregular battery: an experiment" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1653" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "run on three sets of three formal languages, where the description length of the generating FSAs are controlled within each set. Each set of languages contains one strictly local and one strictly piecewise (which are both subregular) and one regular language. One set of languages was used in Heinz and Idsardi (2013)'s argument that minimum description length fails to separate subregular languages from other regular ones; we offer two additional sets. The languages are described in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.254, + 0.245, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.1 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.49, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The method can be split into 3 steps: data generation, network training, and evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.314, + 0.49, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data generation For each language, we sample 2000 words from a probabilistic finite state automaton (pFSA) designed to generate words from that language following a geometric distribution on word length. The geometric distribution on word length is important for two reasons: (1) it implies a constant stopping probability in all states, meaning that the distribution over string lengths does not depend on the structure of the strings in a language, and (2) it is memoryless, meaning that the network need not keep track of the total characters observed so far to attain high accuracy. Maintaining a geometric distribution on string lengths is the simplest method for attaining the same distribution over string lengths across languages while sampling from pFSAs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.572, + 0.49, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This data is then split into training, development, and testing sets at an 80/10/10 ratio. Sets are constructed such that no duplicate words existed between sets. This was done by grouping words by form, and then randomly assigning them to the training, testing, or development sets before reshuffling them within the group." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.693, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Network training Each LSTM has the same architecture: a 3-dimensional embedding layer, a 5 unit LSTM layer, and a 2-layer perceptron decoder with a hidden width of 5 units. We train LSTMs for up to 400 epochs on the training set. For the subregular battery, we use cross entropy loss with the aforementioned \\(L_{0}\\) regularization technique as our objective function. After each epoch, we evaluate development set performance (including the approximate \\(L_{0}\\) penalty), and if improvement on it has not increased for 50 epochs, training is halted. Otherwise we use the best performing network on" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the development set over all 400 epochs. We repeat this procedure five times for various regularization penalties to get data on performance at different levels of network complexity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.158, + 0.887, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation Once data is collected, we evaluate the trained networks in terms of the trade-off of network complexity—measured as the number of nonzero parameters—and error, defined as the average per-character KL divergence of the LSTMs from the target distribution (the pFSAs from which the languages were sampled). For a target language with distribution \\( Q_{G} \\) and a model \\( P_{\\theta} \\), this divergence is" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.314, + 0.884, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathrm {D} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\| P _ {\\theta} \\right] = \\mathrm {H} \\left[ Q _ {G}, P _ {\\theta} \\right] - \\mathrm {H} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\right]. \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.343, + 0.886, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thus, using the KL divergence here instead of cross entropy allows us to control for the entropy \\(\\mathrm{H}[Q_G]\\) of the target language \\(G\\). We measure an approximate per-character KL divergence using the \\(N\\) sample strings in the evaluation set for language \\(G\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.433, + 0.883, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\mathrm {D}} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\| P _ {\\theta} \\right] = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} \\frac {1}{T _ {i}} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T _ {i}} \\ln \\frac {Q _ {G} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \\mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\\right)}{P _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \\mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\\right)}, \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.884, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(T_{i}\\) is the length of the \\(i\\)'th sample string in the evaluation set, \\(x_{i}^{t}\\) is the \\(t\\)'th character of the \\(i\\)'th sample string, and \\(x_{i}^{< t}\\) is the prefix of characters up to index \\(t\\) in the \\(n\\)'th sample string." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.555, + 0.886, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use area under the curve (AUC) as a metric to evaluate complexity. This is defined as the area under the convex hull of (complexity, KL approximation) points. A small area under the curve indicates that it possible to achieve low error with a simple network; a large area under the curve means that error is high even with a more complex network. We determine if there is a significant difference between languages by performing a permutation test. This is done by randomly sampling points from the union of two languages and comparing the AUC statistic in the permuted samples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.756, + 0.63, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.2 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2 shows the trade-off of number of parameters and KL divergence for the three sets of languages. The areas under the curve are shaded, and the points which closely mimic the target distribution are shown in color. For a given level of complexity, the areas under the curve for the regular languages exceed both the piecewise testable and strictly local languages. The specific AUC numbers are shown in Table 3. In every case the" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This high patience is necessary due to the stochastic nature of the \\( \\bar{L}_0 \\) regularization technique." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1654" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.082, + 0.872, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SetSL variantSP variantRegular variant
*aacNo string aacNo sequence a...a...cNo c if the number of a = 2 (mod 3)
*a,b, *baNo string ab / baNo sequence a...b / b...aNo b (a) after an odd number of a (b)
*aNo string acNo sequence a...cNo c after an odd number of a
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.173, + 0.883, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Language sets composing the subregular battery. Each language set consists of three languages matched for FSA complexity: a strictly local language (SL), a strictly piecewise language (SP), and a regular language. All languages are subsets of \\(\\{a, b, c\\}^*\\). The table gives a short description of each language. The last set is from Heinz and Idsardi (2013)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.246, + 0.391, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.393, + 0.247, + 0.625, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.247, + 0.878, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.338, + 0.391, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.393, + 0.338, + 0.625, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.338, + 0.877, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.413, + 0.39, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.393, + 0.413, + 0.625, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.413, + 0.877, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.374, + 0.5, + 0.642, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Number of parameters (expected value)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.526, + 0.885, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: A trade-off of accuracy (KL divergence from the target language to the model) and complexity (number of nonzero parameters) of LSTMs trained on subregular and regular languages matched for description length in an FSA representation. Points within \\(1/100\\) of a bit or less from the true distribution are shown in color. The shaded area is the area under the curve (AUC) used to compare the languages in our statistical analysis in Table 3. The subregular languages show consistently lower AUC than the matched regular languages." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.623, + 0.489, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "differences between both subregular languages and regular languages are statistically significant and in the expected direction as determined by a permutation test." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.689, + 0.49, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We augment this test with an additional post-hoc analysis of the most accurately performing networks (which we define as having a KL divergence of less than .01 bits) to determine if the size of the minimal LSTMs are also significantly different. This analysis is also done with a permutation test. These networks (Table 4) attain a lower complexity score for the subregular languages, a significant difference in all cases except *ac." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.849, + 0.266, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.3 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This experiment's results demonstrate that, at least in the languages chosen, strictly piecewise and strictly local languages better favor a tradeoff be" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.65, + 0.86, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.354**2.70**2.688**
Reg.-SP.620**1.727**2.260**
SP-SL-.266.970**.428
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.741, + 0.883, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Differences in AUC between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the AUC difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked \\*\\* are significant at \\(p < 0.01\\) in a permutation test. The AUC differences between regular and subregular languages are always significant. Comparing SP and SL languages, the SP language has a significantly higher AUC for the \\*aac languages, and the difference is otherwise insignificant." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1655" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tween simplicity and complexity as demonstrated in our AUC analysis. We also see that they can be generated by functions implemented with simpler LSTMs in all but one case. In our post-hoc analysis we find that all but one subregular language is significantly simpler to accurately mimic in comparison with the regular language. These results also demonstrate that checking for the presence of two substrings is more complicated than one, and checking for a longer substring is more complicated than a shorter one. But if compared within a similar strictly regular pattern (here represented by controlling for generating FSA size) the preference is clearly for subregular languages." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.322, + 0.465, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.98144.7**23.8**
Reg.-SP5.74**43.7**22.9**
SP-SL-4.75*.963.972
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.414, + 0.49, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Differences in complexity between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the complexity difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked ** are significant at \\( p < 0.01 \\) in a permutation test. Complexity differences are significant between subregular and regular except for *ac." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.543, + 0.433, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Standard Harmony and First-Last Harmony" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the second test we investigate whether a preference exists between two subregular languages. One language is MTSL, a class of subregular languages believed to be learnable in the subregular hypothesis. The other is a locally testable (LT) language, which is believed to not be human learnable. This test is inspired by previous experimental works (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020) which were investigations of standard vowel harmony (attested in human languages) and first-last harmony (not attested). These two languages are not controlled for FSA size, but are languages that serve as important evidence for the subregular hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The difference between standard vowel harmony (SH) and first-last (FL) harmony languages is shown in Table 5. In an SH language we require languages to begin and end with an \\( a \\) or \\( b \\), and we forbid both \\( a \\) and \\( b \\) from occurring in the same string. In an FL harmony pattern, we require a word to begin and end with \\( a \\) or \\( b \\), and to begin and end with the same character, but allow any charac" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ters in-between. These examples are a simplistic representation of patterns that are attested in human language (standard harmony) versus not attested (first-last harmony)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.15, + 0.885, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the experiment below, we apply a similar test and evaluation method as in the subregular battery to demonstrate that the functions which generate SH patterns (which are MTSL) are simpler than functions which generate FL patterns (which are LT)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.614, + 0.256, + 0.782, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SHFL
babbab
caccac
babbabbcabcd
cacacacccbabc
bbbabbbcacabb
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.38, + 0.884, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Examples of legal words in standard-harmony (SH) and first-last harmony (FL) patterns." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.434, + 0.64, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.1 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.453, + 0.885, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use LSTMs with the same architecture as in section 4.1. The only difference is that the objective for these networks is to predict the correct continuation set: the set of possible characters that can grammatically follow after a prefix, an objective introduced in Gers and Schmidhuber (2001) and used elsewhere (Suzgun et al., 2019). The network is trained to predict, for each possible character continuing a prefix, whether that character is licit or not—that is, whether that character is a member of the continuation set \\( C \\). Given a continuation set \\( C \\) and an LSTM equipped with a decoder that reads in a prefix \\( x \\) of characters and produces a vector of real values \\( \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|C|} \\), the loss for the network is" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.701, + 0.884, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} L _ {\\mathrm {c s}} \\left(p _ {\\theta} (x), C\\right) = \\frac {1}{| C |} \\sum_ {i \\in | C |} - C _ {i} \\log \\left(p _ {\\theta} (x) _ {i}\\right) - \\tag {6} \\\\ (1 - C _ {i}) \\log (1 - p _ {\\theta} (x) _ {i}) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This breaks with the prior work using the continuation set objective, as we use the binary cross-entropy loss instead of mean squared error." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using this loss function is necessary to control for differences in entropy between the SH and FL languages when conducting comparisons. Above, we control for differences in entropy by using an approximate KL divergence as an accuracy metric and we control for length-related effects on LSTM" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1656" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Graphs for LSTMs trained on first last harmony versus standard harmony, with description lengths on the x-axis, and test set performance on the y-axis (lower is better)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.443, + 0.49, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "complexity by making the lengths of strings geometrically distributed. This is not possible when comparing the SH and FL languages, because they cannot be generated by pFSAs in a way that yields a geometric distribution on string length." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data generation To accommodate this new task, we sampled words uniformly given length. For SH data, words were generated such that they began and ended with the same character (either \\( b \\) or \\( c \\)) with a geometrically sampled number of characters in-between (\\( p = .05 \\)) consistent with the SH pattern (see table 5). For FL languages the same procedure was followed except that the center characters were consistent with the FL pattern." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.707, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Network training Training was performed similarly to the subregular battery. This was for a maximum of 200 epochs, potentially terminating earlier if development set performance did not improve for 50 epochs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation At the end of training, (complexity, continuation-set loss) pairs were calculated from the best network's performance on the heldout test set. As in Section 4.1 we use AUC as the performance metric, the only difference being the points are now (complexity, continuation-set loss) instead of (complexity, KL approximation)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.628, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.2 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.105, + 0.885, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our results are shown in Figure 3. Again, we see a similar pattern as in the subregular battery, but this time showing the human-learnable subregular language is preferred over the unlearnable one. Standard harmony performance deterioriates at the 40 parameter mark, whereas first-last harmony deteriorates at the 75 parameter mark. The areas approximated by the frontier points (shaded) remain significantly different under a permutation test, with \\( p = .009 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.277, + 0.654, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.3 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.297, + 0.885, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These results continue the pattern seen in the subregular battery, but demonstrate not just a subregular preference, but a human-learnable subregular preference. While prior studies have shown a preference and higher performance for SH over FL with sequence to sequence networks, this experiment demonstrates that beyond a preference, these functions are more easily represented in simpler LSTMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.454, + 0.673, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Generalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.476, + 0.885, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Above, we found that subregular languages, and particularly human-learnable ones, were represented by simpler LSTMs. The question remains: does this simplicity constraint affect generalization?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.557, + 0.886, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we test whether a pressure for sparsity in LSTMs yields a bias towards learning a subregular language when the network is trained on data that is consistent with both a subregular and regular language, an approach suggested by Rawski et al. (2017). More precisely, the test is as follows. Take two formal languages \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) and \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\), one subregular and one regular. Now, using their intersection \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\cap G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\) as training data, what does the induced grammar correspond to, \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) or \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\)?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.729, + 0.64, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.1 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.749, + 0.885, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As our pair of langauges, we use languages from the subregular battery in Section 4.1. We take as \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) the language *ac and as \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\) the regular language which forbids \\( b \\) after an odd number of \\( as \\). This language is the test as described in Rawski et al. (2017)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data generation For each network, we generate data from \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\cap G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\), dividing these into a training set and a development set with approximately 1600 words in the training set and 200 words in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1657" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.364, + 0.884, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Model preference for subregular language \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) over regular language \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\), where preference is defined according to Equation 7, as a function of the number of model parameters. The preference for \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) peaks in the shaded region occupied by simpler networks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.489, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the testing set. We generate two additional testing datasets for \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) and \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\) individually, checking the sets such that no words in the testing set appeared in the training or development data of 200 words each. This matches the size of the dataset to that of Section 4.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.538, + 0.49, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Network training With the data generated, our LSTMs are trained according to the per character cross entropy loss, regularized as in Equation 3, with a procedure identical to that used in Section 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.61, + 0.489, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation After training, performance on \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) and \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\) is evaluated using the model which performed best on the development set over the course of training. As in the subregular analysis, we calculate the approximate KL divergence by subtracting the true per-character entropy as determined by the generating pFSA from the cross-entropy as in Equation 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.739, + 0.49, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our analysis, unlike the previous ones, is qualitative. We will investigate the subregular bias, operationalized as the difference:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.794, + 0.489, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {P r e f} _ {G _ {\\mathrm {s u b}}} := \\hat {\\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\\mathrm {r e g}}} \\| P _ {\\theta} ] - \\hat {\\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\\mathrm {s u b}}} \\| P _ {\\theta} ], (7)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.822, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the approximate divergences \\(\\hat{\\mathrm{D}}\\) are calculated over the evaluation sets for the two languages \\(G_{\\mathrm{sub}}\\) and \\(G_{\\mathrm{reg}}\\), as in Eq. 5. The value \\(\\operatorname{Pref}_{G_{\\mathrm{sub}}}\\) is positive when the model's distribution over strings more closely resembles the one defined by the pFSA for language \\(G_{\\mathrm{sub}}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.433, + 0.628, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.2 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.453, + 0.885, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of our generalization experiment show a clear preference for the subregular language regardless of complexity (Figure 4). However, unlike prior results, we also see a clear increase in preferences as network complexity is constrained. This difference is especially pronounced in the highlighted region. In the lowest complexity range, there is a collapse in performance where the network can do nothing but predict a uniform distribution on all characters at all times." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.615, + 0.885, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Examining the KL divergences for the individual languages, as in Figure 5, we find that this result is driven by high accuracy in modeling the subregular language \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) using a small number of parameters. Accuracy in modeling the regular language \\( G_{\\mathrm{reg}} \\) is mostly poor, while accuracy modeling subregular language \\( G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\) is highest when the expected number of parameters is between 25 and 75." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.755, + 0.655, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.3 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While our prior results in the complexity evaluations have shown that subregular languages are generated with simpler networks, these results demonstrate a more clear inductive bias. LSTMs with constrained complexity generalize better to the subregular language than to the regular language. This indicates that, not only is the subregular function simpler, but that simpler networks prefer subregular languages." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1658" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: KL divergences from the target languages to the model distributions as a function of the number of model parameters. Performance on subregular languages (black) dips in the shaded region whereas performance on regular languages is relatively poor (red)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.454, + 0.49, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "But we also see that this inductive bias exists even in low regularization regimes. This result is consistent with previous findings, and may be related to other phenomena like previously observed locality biases (Ravfogel et al., 2019) which are a basic constraint in all RNN functioning (Battaglia et al., 2018)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.583, + 0.248, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our complexity measurement experiments we observe that subregular languages are represented by consistently simpler networks than similar regular languages, and that human-learnable subregular patterns are represented by simpler networks than unlearnable ones. This result is surprising, given that the use of a description length criterion to distinguish these languages had been deemed unlikely (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, we found that in the generalization experiment, data consistent with a subregular and regular language leads to a preferential generalization towards learning the subregular distribution, and that this preference increases as the network becomes simpler. This supports the idea that a change in computational representation systems may favor subregular over regular languages, with the caveat that comparing subregular languages with radically different complexities in FSA representation may" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mean that this generalization pattern does not hold." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.102, + 0.885, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Why do LSTMs favor subregular languages? We argue that our results may explain this preference via the lottery ticket hypothesis (Frankle and Carbin, 2019). This hypothesis states that neural networks learn by tuning \"winning tickets\"—which are subnetworks that perform well on the task at initialization—which explains why larger neural networks perform well (they \"buy more tickets\"). The existence of smaller networks (as we define them) for subregular languages means that any neural network will contain more tickets for subregular languages at initialization, and thus have an inductive bias toward such languages. If this line of reasoning is true, \\(L_0\\) regularization does not introduce anything qualitatively new in LSTM training, but shifts the probability mass to favor tickets with smaller subnetworks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.377, + 0.886, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Perhaps more controversially, we also believe these results may be of interest to human cognition. While the human brain is not an LSTM, our results indicate that a subregular bias can be downstream of a bias for simplicity within an appropriate computational formalism, showing that rich (and often puzzling) constraints can be downstream from simple rules. A bias like this can be construed as a universal grammar—a bound on learnable formal languages (Nowak et al., 2002)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.539, + 0.886, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "More needs to be done, of course. This work is far from a proof of the simplicity of subregular languages in LSTMs. Likewise, more subregular languages ought to be investigated. We may find, for example, that the true inductive bias for LSTMs is not exactly subregular, or that only certain aspects of subregularity are simple to implement. But we find the current results exciting and intriguing, for its relationship to network complexity and function implementation, its potential to explain LSTM inductive biases, and the demonstration of subregular biases resulting from computational complexity constraints." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.763, + 0.646, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.79, + 0.884, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The largest limitation of this work is that it is experimental, and not a proof. We try to show several demonstrations of the simplicity of subregularity, and believe further work should be done, but are aware of the limitations of this kind of work in addressing matters of mathematical curiosity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also understand that, because this work addresses these issues in an experimental way, there" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1659" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is no certainty that our object of study (subregular languages and their patterns) are what LSTMs are truly biased towards." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.49, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work uses LSTMs, rather than the Transformer architectures which underlie recently influential large language models (Brown et al., 2020). Although LSTMs are not currently the most popular architecture, recurrent models are recently seeing a revival (Peng et al., 2023) due to their inherent advantages such as being able to model indefinitely long sequences. In contrast to LSTMs, Transformers are known to be highly constrained in their strict formal expressivity (Hahn, 2020); however, their formal inductive biases in practice are not yet thoroughly explored." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.338, + 0.311, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethical considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.363, + 0.489, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We foresee no ethical issues arising from this work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.39, + 0.287, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.415, + 0.489, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by NSF grant #1947307 to R.F. We thank Connor Mayer, Jon Rawski, and Aniello de Santo for helpful discussion." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.489, + 0.214, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Enes Avcu and Arild Hestvik. 2020. Unlearnable phonotactics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.548, + 0.488, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Enes Avcu, Chihiro Shibata, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Subregular complexity and deep learning. CLASP Papers in Computational Linguistics, page 20." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.596, + 0.489, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulçehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:1806.01261, v3." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.762, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.512, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin L Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Sham Kakade, and Cyril Zhang. 2022. Inductive biases and variable creation in self-attention mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5793–5831. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.177, + 0.883, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. 2019. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.242, + 0.884, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix A Gers and E Schmidhuber. 2001. LSTM recurrent networks learn simple context-free and context-sensitive languages. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 12(6):1333-1340." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.307, + 0.884, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Graf. 2022. Subregular linguistics: Bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48:145-184." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.36, + 0.883, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter Grünwald. 2000. Model selection based on minimum description length. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1):133-152." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.411, + 0.885, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Hahn. 2020. Theoretical limitations of self-attention in neural sequence models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:156-171." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Heinz. 2018. The computational nature of phonological generalizations. *Phonological typology*, phonetics and phonology, pages 126-195." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.528, + 0.884, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Heinz and William Idsardi. 2013. What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. *Topics in Cognitive Science*, 5(1):111-131." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.58, + 0.885, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeffrey Heinz, Chetan Rawal, and Herbert G. Tanner. 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 58-64, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.684, + 0.884, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Hewitt, Michael Hahn, Surya Ganguli, Percy Liang, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. RNNs can generate bounded hierarchical languages with optimal memory. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1978-2010, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.788, + 0.884, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronald M. Kaplan and Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20(3):331-378." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Regine Lai. 2015. Learnable vs. Unlearnable Harmony Patterns. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(3):425-451." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1660" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P Kingma. 2018. Learning sparse neural networks through \\( L_{0} \\) regularization." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.137, + 0.488, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "R. Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.215, + 0.488, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin McMullin and Gunnar Olafur Hansson. 2019. Inductive learning of locality relations in segmental phonology. *Laboratory Phonology*, 10(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.266, + 0.488, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Martin A Nowak, Natalia L Komarova, and Partha Niyogi. 2002. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature, 417(6889):611-617." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.317, + 0.488, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, Kranthi Kiran GV, et al. 2023. RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the transformer era. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:2305.13048." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.393, + 0.488, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Brandon Prickett. 2021. Modelling a subregular bias in phonological learning with recurrent neural networks. Journal of Language Modelling, 9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.444, + 0.488, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Studying the inductive biases of RNNs with synthetic variations of natural languages. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3532-3542. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.56, + 0.488, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jon Rawski, Aniello De Santo, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Reconciling minimum description length with grammar-independent complexity measures. MIT Workshop on Simplicity in Grammar Learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.624, + 0.488, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "James Rogers and Geoffrey K Pullum. 2011. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20:329-342." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.687, + 0.488, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mirac Suzgun, Yonatan Belinkov, Stuart Shieber, and Sebastian Gehrmann. 2019. LSTM networks can perform dynamic counting. pages 44-54." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.738, + 0.488, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gail Weiss, Yoav Goldberg, and Eran Yahav. 2018. On the practical computational power of finite precision RNNs for language recognition. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 740-745, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.845, + 0.433, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A \\(L_{0}\\) regularization as maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show that \\(L_{0}\\) regularization is equivalent to MAP estimation with an exponential prior on the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "number of non-zero parameters in the model. Consider the standard MAP estimation problem:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.583, + 0.128, + 0.882, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {M A P}} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta} f (x | \\theta) q (\\theta), \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.163, + 0.882, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( f \\) is a distribution conditional on parameters \\( \\theta \\) and \\( q \\) is a prior distribution on \\( \\theta \\). Now consider the expected value of non-zero parameters \\( \\theta' \\). In Equation 3, \\( \\theta' \\) is the regularization term, as shown below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.253, + 0.882, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} Q \\left(z _ {j} > 0 \\mid \\pi_ {j}\\right) (9) \\\\ = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\int q \\left(z _ {j} \\mid \\pi_ {j}\\right) \\cdot 1 \\left(z _ {j} > 0\\right) d z _ {j} (10) \\\\ = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\int q (z \\mid \\pi) \\cdot 1 (z _ {j} > 0) d z (11) \\\\ = \\int q (z \\mid \\pi) \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} 1 \\left(z _ {j} > 0\\right) d z (12) \\\\ = \\underset {z \\sim Q (\\cdot | \\pi)} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} 1 (z _ {j} > 0) \\right] (13) \\\\ = \\theta^ {\\prime}, (14) \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.531, + 0.883, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with probability density function \\(q(\\cdot \\mid \\pi)\\) corresponding to cumulative distribution function \\(Q(\\cdot \\mid \\pi)\\), and indicator function \\(1(\\cdot)\\). If we consider an exponential prior on \\(\\theta'\\) we would have:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.635, + 0.606, + 0.882, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nq \\left(\\theta^ {\\prime}\\right) = \\lambda e ^ {- \\lambda \\theta^ {\\prime}}. \\tag {15}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.637, + 0.883, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then by Eq. 15 and the monotonicity of the log function, the MAP estimation problem is equivalent to finding" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.697, + 0.882, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {M A P}} = \\arg \\min _ {\\theta} - \\log f (x | \\theta) + \\lambda \\theta^ {\\prime} - \\log \\lambda , \\tag {16}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.732, + 0.882, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which is equal to our objective in Eq. 3 up to an additive constant \\( -\\log \\lambda \\) that does not depend on the parameters to be optimized." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1661" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_origin.pdf b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17befbec54e9e1b18f6b8fb3749cd65bccd60b0d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/66af9635-ca8c-4d95-821b-351292c187e4_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fbdfc20abd0ef01b612a75b5fab4bce07c881245067f952fa4afe985cc30e107 +size 445992 diff --git a/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/full.md b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7268f00fac9466732316db8c58769837dbef6029 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,350 @@ +# Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages + +Charles Torres + +University of California, Irvine Language Science charl t4@uci.edu + +Richard Futrell + +University of California, Irvine Language Science rfurtrell@uci.edu + +# Abstract + +We apply a continuous relaxation of $L_{0}$ regularization (Louizos et al., 2018), which induces sparsity, to study the inductive biases of LSTMs. In particular, we are interested in the patterns of formal languages which are readily learned and expressed by LSTMs. Across a wide range of tests we find sparse LSTMs prefer subregular languages over regular languages and the strength of this preference increases as we increase the pressure for sparsity. Furthermore LSTMs which are trained on subregular languages have fewer non-zero parameters, and LSTMs trained on human-attested subregular patterns have fewer non-zero parameters than those trained on unattested patterns. We conjecture that this subregular bias in LSTMs is related to the cognitive bias for subregular language observed in human phonology, in that both are downstream of a bias for simplicity in a suitable computational description language. + +# 1 Introduction + +Despite the wide application of neural networks for sequence modeling, their inductive biases remain incompletely understood: for example, whether RNNs have an inductive bias favoring the kind of hierarchical structures used in sentence formation in natural language (Weiss et al., 2018; Ravfogel et al., 2019; Hewitt et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2020; Edelman et al., 2022). It is important to study the inductive biases of neural networks not only from a scientific perspective, but also a practical one: if neural networks can be developed that have inductive biases toward the same kinds of formal language structures that characterize human language, then these neural networks should be able to learn human language more easily. + +Many patterns in natural language are characterized by a particular subset of the regular languages, called subregular languages. These languages have been hypothesized to form a bound on learnable human phonological patterns (Heinz, 2018), + +as well as patterns within tree structures characterizing syntax (Graf, 2022). The particular subregular languages theorized to be human learnable are strictly piecewise (SP), strictly local (SL), and multiple tier-based strictly local (MTSL). Artificial language learning tasks have shown these languages to be easier to acquire for humans (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020; McMullin and Hansson, 2019). + +Here we take up the question of inductive biases for subregular languages in LSTMs (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), using a relaxation of $L_{0}$ regularization to study networks that are constrained to be simple in the sense of network sparsity. We train these networks on several sets of toy languages which contrast subregular languages against regular languages in a controlled manner. This technique not only allows us to study the inductive biases of sparse networks, but also to address an outstanding question in the literature on subregular languages: whether there exists a computational description language under which subregular languages are simpler than other regular languages (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013). + +To preview our results, we find that simple LSTMs favor subregular languages: such languages can be represented by LSTMs with fewer parameters, and sparse LSTMs favor subregular languages in generalization. + +The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives relevant background on subregular languages, Section 3 gives our general methods for training sparse neural networks under $L_{0}$ regularization, Section 4 presents our experiments on matched pairs of regular and subregular languages, and Section 5 concludes. + +# 2 Background + +It is known that phonological constraints should be regular given the most common formalisms in linguistics (Kaplan and Kay, 1994). However, the regular language class is too permissive: many pat + +
Language typeExample languageIn languageNot in language
SLG = {ac}bc, adc, cad, ...ac, bac, acd, ...
SPG = {ac}bc,adb, cad, ...ac, adc, abc, ...
TSLG = {ac}, T = {a, b, c}bc, cad, adbc, ...ac, adc, addc, ...
+ +Table 1: Example subregular languages on the alphabet $\Sigma = a, b, c, d$ . Both SP and SL languages are defined by their alphabet and set of forbidden substrings or subsequences $(G)$ in their definition. The SL language above forbids the substring $ac$ . The SP language above forbids the subsequence $a \ldots c$ , in other words, $c$ cannot follow $a$ in a string. TSL languages require a second set $(T)$ specifying which characters are preserved in the tier projection. A tier projection function $f_{T}$ maps strings to strings, preserving only characters in the set $T$ . For example, if $T = a, b, c$ then $f_{T}(adca) = ac$ . The restrictions $G$ in a TSL languages are forbidden substrings in the projected strings. + +terns not attested in natural language are members of it. The subregular hypothesis is an attempt to improve this bound, lowering it to certain subclasses of the regular languages (Heinz, 2018). There are two versions of the hypothesis—the weak version and the strong version—hypothesizing different subregular languages as the boundary for human learnable patterns. The strong subregular hypothesis asserts that phonological constraints are within the strictly local (SL) and strictly piecewise (SP) subclasses, whereas the weak hypothesis raises this bound to the tier-based strictly local (TSL) languages (the union of multiple constraints being multiple tier-based strictly local or MTSL). These languages are not the only subregular languages, but they are the most important subregular languages for the hypothesis. + +What the SL, SP, and TSL languages all share in common is that they are defined by prohibiting features in the strings of that language. The SL and SP languages (corresponding to the strong subregular hypothesis) are defined by sets of prohibited substrings and subsequences respectively. These prohibitions are meant to capture phonological constraints associated with local restrictions (SL) or harmony-like patterns (SP). The TSL languages are slightly more complex than the other two, forbidding substrings after characters have been removed from a string (the retained characters are defined by a second set, usually labeled $T$ for tier). To demonstrate these prohibitions in action examples of these languages are given in Table 1, however curious readers can look to Heinz (2018), Rogers and Pullum (2011), and Heinz et al. (2011) for a rigorous treatment of these languages as well as definitions for other subregular languages which are not part of the subregular hypothesis. + +The recent interest in subregular languages and their ability to capture phonological patterns has + +stimulated some work on the learnability of sub- regular patterns by RNNs. Results in this area have been mixed. LSTMs and RNNs both show difficulty when trained to predict membership in subregular languages (Avcu et al., 2017). Nevertheless, other work has still shown that the learning of subregular patterns is easier for sequence to sequence RNNs than the learning of other patterns, echoing human-like preferences (Prickett, 2021). Work in this area is still limited. + +What can explain these preferences in LSTMs or humans? Previous work has attempted to tie a preference for simplicity to biases in natural language, for example by using the minimum description length (MDL) principle, a formulation of Occam's razor favoring simple hypotheses that account for given data, where a hypothesis is simple if it can be described using a small number of bits in some description language (Grünwald, 2000). Can the subregular preference be similarly explained? Heinz and Idsardi (2013) levelled a challenge against accounts of human language learning based on this method in explaining this preference: It is easy to find examples where a subregular and regular language both have the same description length in some computational formalism (for example a finite-state automaton, FSA). While they left open the possibility that a computational formalism may be found where description length can distinguish these examples, they expressed doubt that such a thing could be found. A similar challenge was raised in Rawski et al. (2017) where MDL accounts were challenged to explain learning biases. + +Is there a computational representation that, when given access to data consistent with a sub- regular and regular language, would learn only the subregular pattern by using an MDL method? We attempt to address these challenges. We will show that when controlling for description length (num + +ber of nonzero parameters) in our case studies, neural networks prefer subregular patterns over regular ones on the basis of simplicity, where FSAs do not. That this is true in LSTMs leaves open the possibility that MDL accounts are capable of explaining this bias in other systems, as in human language learning. + +# 3 General Methods + +A crucial part of our method requires finding optimal tradeoffs between accuracy and network complexity. We operationalize the complexity of a neural network as its number of nonzero parameters, reflecting the size of the subnetwork required to achieve a given accuracy. As such, we would like to use the $L_{0}$ norm, which counts the number of nonzero entries in the parameter vector $\theta$ : + +$$ +\| \theta \| _ {0} = \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} \mathbf {1} _ {\theta_ {j} \neq 0}. \tag {1} +$$ + +Ideally, the $L_0$ norm would form a part of our objective function like so: + +$$ +R (\theta) = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \left(p _ {\theta} \left(x _ {i}\right), y _ {i}\right) + \lambda \| \theta \| _ {0}, \tag {2} +$$ + +where $L(p_{\theta}(x_i), y_i)$ is the log likelihood of the $i$ 'th label $y_i$ given input $x_i$ in the training data under the model with parameters $\theta$ . However, the $L_0$ norm is not differentiable, and cannot serve as part of our objective function during training. + +We get around this limitation using a relaxation of $L_{0}$ regularization developed by Louizos et al. (2018). For the $j$ 'th parameter in our model $\theta_{j}$ , we assign a masking parameter $\pi_{j} > 0$ . This parameterizes a distribution with cumulative distribution function $Q(\cdot |\pi_j)$ , from which we can sample a mask value $z_{j}\in [0,1]$ , which critically can take the values of true 0 or 1. The vector of values $z$ generated in this way is then used as a mask to filter the parameters $\theta$ , generating a vector of masked parameters $\tilde{\theta}$ where $\tilde{\theta}_j = z_j\theta_j$ . + +This parameterization lends us a new objective function where the labels $y_{i}$ are predicted from the inputs $x_{i}$ using the masked parameters $\tilde{\theta}$ , and the model is penalized for having too few masked + +![](images/b07849654edc3b087b80b7ee94924cc0fceb926803dbcc5eff5ce6e0bbf55767.jpg) +Figure 1: A simple depiction of $L_{0}$ regularization, LSTM neurons in green,. Right: an unregularized network with a similar architecture as in the harmony test Left: after $L_{0}$ regularization has pruned connections. + +![](images/112ce203ddc7bca744457c0c644e74f358631a8a0e7475afd4ea92c9425caa33.jpg) + +parameters: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} R (\theta , \pi) = \underset {z \sim Q (\cdot | \pi)} {\mathbb {E}} \left[ \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \left(p _ {\tilde {\theta}} \left(x _ {i}\right), y _ {i}\right) \right] + (3) \\ \lambda \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} Q (z _ {j} > 0 | \pi_ {j}), \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where the expectation is over mask vectors $z$ drawn conditional on the vector of masking parameters $\pi$ . The regularization term now reflects the expected number of parameters whose value is not masked. + +We use Equation 3 in all our experiments below, with different loss functions $L$ as required. When $L$ is a form of cross-entropy this term represents the cost of encoding the data using the distribution specified by the neural network. Under these conditions, the objective becomes a form of minimum description length as a two part code: with the regularization term encoding the distribution, and $L$ encoding the data (Grünwald, 2000). Though our approach focuses on the MDL interpretation, this formulation also has a Bayesian interpretation, optimizing the negative log likelihood with the regularization term as a prior and the loss term as a posterior as we show in Appendix A. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Subregular Battery + +The first experiment measures the complexity of LSTMs that learn subregular and regular languages. We call this the subregular battery: an experiment + +run on three sets of three formal languages, where the description length of the generating FSAs are controlled within each set. Each set of languages contains one strictly local and one strictly piecewise (which are both subregular) and one regular language. One set of languages was used in Heinz and Idsardi (2013)'s argument that minimum description length fails to separate subregular languages from other regular ones; we offer two additional sets. The languages are described in Table 2. + +# 4.1.1 Methods + +The method can be split into 3 steps: data generation, network training, and evaluation. + +Data generation For each language, we sample 2000 words from a probabilistic finite state automaton (pFSA) designed to generate words from that language following a geometric distribution on word length. The geometric distribution on word length is important for two reasons: (1) it implies a constant stopping probability in all states, meaning that the distribution over string lengths does not depend on the structure of the strings in a language, and (2) it is memoryless, meaning that the network need not keep track of the total characters observed so far to attain high accuracy. Maintaining a geometric distribution on string lengths is the simplest method for attaining the same distribution over string lengths across languages while sampling from pFSAs. + +This data is then split into training, development, and testing sets at an 80/10/10 ratio. Sets are constructed such that no duplicate words existed between sets. This was done by grouping words by form, and then randomly assigning them to the training, testing, or development sets before reshuffling them within the group. + +Network training Each LSTM has the same architecture: a 3-dimensional embedding layer, a 5 unit LSTM layer, and a 2-layer perceptron decoder with a hidden width of 5 units. We train LSTMs for up to 400 epochs on the training set. For the subregular battery, we use cross entropy loss with the aforementioned $L_{0}$ regularization technique as our objective function. After each epoch, we evaluate development set performance (including the approximate $L_{0}$ penalty), and if improvement on it has not increased for 50 epochs, training is halted. Otherwise we use the best performing network on + +the development set over all 400 epochs. We repeat this procedure five times for various regularization penalties to get data on performance at different levels of network complexity. + +Evaluation Once data is collected, we evaluate the trained networks in terms of the trade-off of network complexity—measured as the number of nonzero parameters—and error, defined as the average per-character KL divergence of the LSTMs from the target distribution (the pFSAs from which the languages were sampled). For a target language with distribution $Q_{G}$ and a model $P_{\theta}$ , this divergence is + +$$ +\mathrm {D} \left[ Q _ {G} \| P _ {\theta} \right] = \mathrm {H} \left[ Q _ {G}, P _ {\theta} \right] - \mathrm {H} \left[ Q _ {G} \right]. \tag {4} +$$ + +Thus, using the KL divergence here instead of cross entropy allows us to control for the entropy $\mathrm{H}[Q_G]$ of the target language $G$ . We measure an approximate per-character KL divergence using the $N$ sample strings in the evaluation set for language $G$ : + +$$ +\hat {\mathrm {D}} \left[ Q _ {G} \| P _ {\theta} \right] = \frac {1}{N} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} \frac {1}{T _ {i}} \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T _ {i}} \ln \frac {Q _ {G} \left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\right)}{P _ {\theta} \left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\right)}, \tag {5} +$$ + +where $T_{i}$ is the length of the $i$ 'th sample string in the evaluation set, $x_{i}^{t}$ is the $t$ 'th character of the $i$ 'th sample string, and $x_{i}^{< t}$ is the prefix of characters up to index $t$ in the $n$ 'th sample string. + +We use area under the curve (AUC) as a metric to evaluate complexity. This is defined as the area under the convex hull of (complexity, KL approximation) points. A small area under the curve indicates that it possible to achieve low error with a simple network; a large area under the curve means that error is high even with a more complex network. We determine if there is a significant difference between languages by performing a permutation test. This is done by randomly sampling points from the union of two languages and comparing the AUC statistic in the permuted samples. + +# 4.1.2 Results + +Figure 2 shows the trade-off of number of parameters and KL divergence for the three sets of languages. The areas under the curve are shaded, and the points which closely mimic the target distribution are shown in color. For a given level of complexity, the areas under the curve for the regular languages exceed both the piecewise testable and strictly local languages. The specific AUC numbers are shown in Table 3. In every case the + +
SetSL variantSP variantRegular variant
*aacNo string aacNo sequence a...a...cNo c if the number of a = 2 (mod 3)
*a,b, *baNo string ab / baNo sequence a...b / b...aNo b (a) after an odd number of a (b)
*aNo string acNo sequence a...cNo c after an odd number of a
+ +![](images/83de213d1446f7da32e86427ce26e00a93e4bb50617ecbeac3f5ab630497bd9f.jpg) + +![](images/250bd233bf76341aadd3b660da8e04620aa9219e3f4fb04fb60db6ac7bff8233.jpg) + +![](images/a4b59c260aaecba7f154bf2d1900881f762d0859feb3aba1676a2a1c99fc1cd4.jpg) + +![](images/35a5880fa283bf789dc9553eb0930d48af90465100a9c396cee3b0a1e7cac565.jpg) + +![](images/73e55e9a60651b952150d711524185eb8d277cfce96178bd77eb73b60f4eecba.jpg) + +![](images/75bb69d3e583ab990247e3d598d74bb87a0f3ccc8332e9632291591976eee02d.jpg) + +![](images/f1b03f379be2029445e07ed5aae5b9245cb5512d1c9e50889e4139d72ca1a8c8.jpg) +Number of parameters (expected value) + +![](images/5dc4cd66fb43002c1b18e7f2781e278c3df09603979048898397b1af8890b5a9.jpg) + +![](images/3fe41656f328d969d085d9e79eedc07359ae4d47b4d88459a912a6611852cafe.jpg) +Figure 2: A trade-off of accuracy (KL divergence from the target language to the model) and complexity (number of nonzero parameters) of LSTMs trained on subregular and regular languages matched for description length in an FSA representation. Points within $1/100$ of a bit or less from the true distribution are shown in color. The shaded area is the area under the curve (AUC) used to compare the languages in our statistical analysis in Table 3. The subregular languages show consistently lower AUC than the matched regular languages. + +differences between both subregular languages and regular languages are statistically significant and in the expected direction as determined by a permutation test. + +We augment this test with an additional post-hoc analysis of the most accurately performing networks (which we define as having a KL divergence of less than .01 bits) to determine if the size of the minimal LSTMs are also significantly different. This analysis is also done with a permutation test. These networks (Table 4) attain a lower complexity score for the subregular languages, a significant difference in all cases except *ac. + +# 4.1.3 Discussion + +This experiment's results demonstrate that, at least in the languages chosen, strictly piecewise and strictly local languages better favor a tradeoff be + +Table 2: Language sets composing the subregular battery. Each language set consists of three languages matched for FSA complexity: a strictly local language (SL), a strictly piecewise language (SP), and a regular language. All languages are subsets of $\{a, b, c\}^*$ . The table gives a short description of each language. The last set is from Heinz and Idsardi (2013). + +
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.354**2.70**2.688**
Reg.-SP.620**1.727**2.260**
SP-SL-.266.970**.428
+ +Table 3: Differences in AUC between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the AUC difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked \*\* are significant at $p < 0.01$ in a permutation test. The AUC differences between regular and subregular languages are always significant. Comparing SP and SL languages, the SP language has a significantly higher AUC for the \*aac languages, and the difference is otherwise insignificant. + +tween simplicity and complexity as demonstrated in our AUC analysis. We also see that they can be generated by functions implemented with simpler LSTMs in all but one case. In our post-hoc analysis we find that all but one subregular language is significantly simpler to accurately mimic in comparison with the regular language. These results also demonstrate that checking for the presence of two substrings is more complicated than one, and checking for a longer substring is more complicated than a shorter one. But if compared within a similar strictly regular pattern (here represented by controlling for generating FSA size) the preference is clearly for subregular languages. + +
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.98144.7**23.8**
Reg.-SP5.74**43.7**22.9**
SP-SL-4.75*.963.972
+ +# 4.2 Standard Harmony and First-Last Harmony + +In the second test we investigate whether a preference exists between two subregular languages. One language is MTSL, a class of subregular languages believed to be learnable in the subregular hypothesis. The other is a locally testable (LT) language, which is believed to not be human learnable. This test is inspired by previous experimental works (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020) which were investigations of standard vowel harmony (attested in human languages) and first-last harmony (not attested). These two languages are not controlled for FSA size, but are languages that serve as important evidence for the subregular hypothesis. + +The difference between standard vowel harmony (SH) and first-last (FL) harmony languages is shown in Table 5. In an SH language we require languages to begin and end with an $a$ or $b$ , and we forbid both $a$ and $b$ from occurring in the same string. In an FL harmony pattern, we require a word to begin and end with $a$ or $b$ , and to begin and end with the same character, but allow any charac + +ters in-between. These examples are a simplistic representation of patterns that are attested in human language (standard harmony) versus not attested (first-last harmony). + +In the experiment below, we apply a similar test and evaluation method as in the subregular battery to demonstrate that the functions which generate SH patterns (which are MTSL) are simpler than functions which generate FL patterns (which are LT). + +Table 4: Differences in complexity between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the complexity difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked ** are significant at $p < 0.01$ in a permutation test. Complexity differences are significant between subregular and regular except for *ac. + +
SHFL
babbab
caccac
babbabbcabcd
cacacacccbabc
bbbabbbcacabb
+ +Table 5: Examples of legal words in standard-harmony (SH) and first-last harmony (FL) patterns. + +# 4.2.1 Methods + +We use LSTMs with the same architecture as in section 4.1. The only difference is that the objective for these networks is to predict the correct continuation set: the set of possible characters that can grammatically follow after a prefix, an objective introduced in Gers and Schmidhuber (2001) and used elsewhere (Suzgun et al., 2019). The network is trained to predict, for each possible character continuing a prefix, whether that character is licit or not—that is, whether that character is a member of the continuation set $C$ . Given a continuation set $C$ and an LSTM equipped with a decoder that reads in a prefix $x$ of characters and produces a vector of real values $\in \mathbb{R}^{|C|}$ , the loss for the network is + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} L _ {\mathrm {c s}} \left(p _ {\theta} (x), C\right) = \frac {1}{| C |} \sum_ {i \in | C |} - C _ {i} \log \left(p _ {\theta} (x) _ {i}\right) - \tag {6} \\ (1 - C _ {i}) \log (1 - p _ {\theta} (x) _ {i}) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +This breaks with the prior work using the continuation set objective, as we use the binary cross-entropy loss instead of mean squared error. + +Using this loss function is necessary to control for differences in entropy between the SH and FL languages when conducting comparisons. Above, we control for differences in entropy by using an approximate KL divergence as an accuracy metric and we control for length-related effects on LSTM + +![](images/30b26949bb651c235af266ba7354876462e850b4764c61052d999a33fb4586cf.jpg) +Figure 3: Graphs for LSTMs trained on first last harmony versus standard harmony, with description lengths on the x-axis, and test set performance on the y-axis (lower is better). + +complexity by making the lengths of strings geometrically distributed. This is not possible when comparing the SH and FL languages, because they cannot be generated by pFSAs in a way that yields a geometric distribution on string length. + +Data generation To accommodate this new task, we sampled words uniformly given length. For SH data, words were generated such that they began and ended with the same character (either $b$ or $c$ ) with a geometrically sampled number of characters in-between ( $p = .05$ ) consistent with the SH pattern (see table 5). For FL languages the same procedure was followed except that the center characters were consistent with the FL pattern. + +Network training Training was performed similarly to the subregular battery. This was for a maximum of 200 epochs, potentially terminating earlier if development set performance did not improve for 50 epochs. + +Evaluation At the end of training, (complexity, continuation-set loss) pairs were calculated from the best network's performance on the heldout test set. As in Section 4.1 we use AUC as the performance metric, the only difference being the points are now (complexity, continuation-set loss) instead of (complexity, KL approximation). + +# 4.2.2 Results + +Our results are shown in Figure 3. Again, we see a similar pattern as in the subregular battery, but this time showing the human-learnable subregular language is preferred over the unlearnable one. Standard harmony performance deterioriates at the 40 parameter mark, whereas first-last harmony deteriorates at the 75 parameter mark. The areas approximated by the frontier points (shaded) remain significantly different under a permutation test, with $p = .009$ . + +# 4.2.3 Discussion + +These results continue the pattern seen in the subregular battery, but demonstrate not just a subregular preference, but a human-learnable subregular preference. While prior studies have shown a preference and higher performance for SH over FL with sequence to sequence networks, this experiment demonstrates that beyond a preference, these functions are more easily represented in simpler LSTMs. + +# 4.3 Generalization + +Above, we found that subregular languages, and particularly human-learnable ones, were represented by simpler LSTMs. The question remains: does this simplicity constraint affect generalization? + +Here, we test whether a pressure for sparsity in LSTMs yields a bias towards learning a subregular language when the network is trained on data that is consistent with both a subregular and regular language, an approach suggested by Rawski et al. (2017). More precisely, the test is as follows. Take two formal languages $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ , one subregular and one regular. Now, using their intersection $G_{\mathrm{sub}} \cap G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ as training data, what does the induced grammar correspond to, $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ or $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ ? + +# 4.3.1 Methods + +As our pair of langauges, we use languages from the subregular battery in Section 4.1. We take as $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ the language *ac and as $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ the regular language which forbids $b$ after an odd number of $as$ . This language is the test as described in Rawski et al. (2017). + +Data generation For each network, we generate data from $G_{\mathrm{sub}} \cap G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ , dividing these into a training set and a development set with approximately 1600 words in the training set and 200 words in + +![](images/a93c446852b6d9cdc1bcb4ff627c1ffd368e7b7d1a95aa79793b21cadef07ff9.jpg) +Figure 4: Model preference for subregular language $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ over regular language $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ , where preference is defined according to Equation 7, as a function of the number of model parameters. The preference for $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ peaks in the shaded region occupied by simpler networks. + +the testing set. We generate two additional testing datasets for $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ individually, checking the sets such that no words in the testing set appeared in the training or development data of 200 words each. This matches the size of the dataset to that of Section 4.1. + +Network training With the data generated, our LSTMs are trained according to the per character cross entropy loss, regularized as in Equation 3, with a procedure identical to that used in Section 2. + +Evaluation After training, performance on $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ is evaluated using the model which performed best on the development set over the course of training. As in the subregular analysis, we calculate the approximate KL divergence by subtracting the true per-character entropy as determined by the generating pFSA from the cross-entropy as in Equation 5. + +Our analysis, unlike the previous ones, is qualitative. We will investigate the subregular bias, operationalized as the difference: + +$$ +\operatorname {P r e f} _ {G _ {\mathrm {s u b}}} := \hat {\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\mathrm {r e g}}} \| P _ {\theta} ] - \hat {\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\mathrm {s u b}}} \| P _ {\theta} ], (7) +$$ + +where the approximate divergences $\hat{\mathrm{D}}$ are calculated over the evaluation sets for the two languages $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ and $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ , as in Eq. 5. The value $\operatorname{Pref}_{G_{\mathrm{sub}}}$ is positive when the model's distribution over strings more closely resembles the one defined by the pFSA for language $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ . + +# 4.3.2 Results + +The results of our generalization experiment show a clear preference for the subregular language regardless of complexity (Figure 4). However, unlike prior results, we also see a clear increase in preferences as network complexity is constrained. This difference is especially pronounced in the highlighted region. In the lowest complexity range, there is a collapse in performance where the network can do nothing but predict a uniform distribution on all characters at all times. + +Examining the KL divergences for the individual languages, as in Figure 5, we find that this result is driven by high accuracy in modeling the subregular language $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ using a small number of parameters. Accuracy in modeling the regular language $G_{\mathrm{reg}}$ is mostly poor, while accuracy modeling subregular language $G_{\mathrm{sub}}$ is highest when the expected number of parameters is between 25 and 75. + +# 4.3.3 Discussion + +While our prior results in the complexity evaluations have shown that subregular languages are generated with simpler networks, these results demonstrate a more clear inductive bias. LSTMs with constrained complexity generalize better to the subregular language than to the regular language. This indicates that, not only is the subregular function simpler, but that simpler networks prefer subregular languages. + +![](images/f18d8dce2ca63ac975d7200854965330620d97c821069f21ec6b9cf4b5d31792.jpg) +Figure 5: KL divergences from the target languages to the model distributions as a function of the number of model parameters. Performance on subregular languages (black) dips in the shaded region whereas performance on regular languages is relatively poor (red). + +But we also see that this inductive bias exists even in low regularization regimes. This result is consistent with previous findings, and may be related to other phenomena like previously observed locality biases (Ravfogel et al., 2019) which are a basic constraint in all RNN functioning (Battaglia et al., 2018). + +# 5 Conclusion + +In our complexity measurement experiments we observe that subregular languages are represented by consistently simpler networks than similar regular languages, and that human-learnable subregular patterns are represented by simpler networks than unlearnable ones. This result is surprising, given that the use of a description length criterion to distinguish these languages had been deemed unlikely (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013). + +Furthermore, we found that in the generalization experiment, data consistent with a subregular and regular language leads to a preferential generalization towards learning the subregular distribution, and that this preference increases as the network becomes simpler. This supports the idea that a change in computational representation systems may favor subregular over regular languages, with the caveat that comparing subregular languages with radically different complexities in FSA representation may + +mean that this generalization pattern does not hold. + +Why do LSTMs favor subregular languages? We argue that our results may explain this preference via the lottery ticket hypothesis (Frankle and Carbin, 2019). This hypothesis states that neural networks learn by tuning "winning tickets"—which are subnetworks that perform well on the task at initialization—which explains why larger neural networks perform well (they "buy more tickets"). The existence of smaller networks (as we define them) for subregular languages means that any neural network will contain more tickets for subregular languages at initialization, and thus have an inductive bias toward such languages. If this line of reasoning is true, $L_0$ regularization does not introduce anything qualitatively new in LSTM training, but shifts the probability mass to favor tickets with smaller subnetworks. + +Perhaps more controversially, we also believe these results may be of interest to human cognition. While the human brain is not an LSTM, our results indicate that a subregular bias can be downstream of a bias for simplicity within an appropriate computational formalism, showing that rich (and often puzzling) constraints can be downstream from simple rules. A bias like this can be construed as a universal grammar—a bound on learnable formal languages (Nowak et al., 2002). + +More needs to be done, of course. This work is far from a proof of the simplicity of subregular languages in LSTMs. Likewise, more subregular languages ought to be investigated. We may find, for example, that the true inductive bias for LSTMs is not exactly subregular, or that only certain aspects of subregularity are simple to implement. But we find the current results exciting and intriguing, for its relationship to network complexity and function implementation, its potential to explain LSTM inductive biases, and the demonstration of subregular biases resulting from computational complexity constraints. + +# 6 Limitations + +The largest limitation of this work is that it is experimental, and not a proof. We try to show several demonstrations of the simplicity of subregularity, and believe further work should be done, but are aware of the limitations of this kind of work in addressing matters of mathematical curiosity. + +We also understand that, because this work addresses these issues in an experimental way, there + +is no certainty that our object of study (subregular languages and their patterns) are what LSTMs are truly biased towards. + +Our work uses LSTMs, rather than the Transformer architectures which underlie recently influential large language models (Brown et al., 2020). Although LSTMs are not currently the most popular architecture, recurrent models are recently seeing a revival (Peng et al., 2023) due to their inherent advantages such as being able to model indefinitely long sequences. In contrast to LSTMs, Transformers are known to be highly constrained in their strict formal expressivity (Hahn, 2020); however, their formal inductive biases in practice are not yet thoroughly explored. + +# Ethical considerations + +We foresee no ethical issues arising from this work. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by NSF grant #1947307 to R.F. We thank Connor Mayer, Jon Rawski, and Aniello de Santo for helpful discussion. + +# References + +Enes Avcu and Arild Hestvik. 2020. Unlearnable phonotactics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5(1). +Enes Avcu, Chihiro Shibata, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Subregular complexity and deep learning. CLASP Papers in Computational Linguistics, page 20. +Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulçehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:1806.01261, v3. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. 33:1877-1901. + +Benjamin L Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Sham Kakade, and Cyril Zhang. 2022. Inductive biases and variable creation in self-attention mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5793–5831. PMLR. +Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. 2019. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Felix A Gers and E Schmidhuber. 2001. LSTM recurrent networks learn simple context-free and context-sensitive languages. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 12(6):1333-1340. +Thomas Graf. 2022. Subregular linguistics: Bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48:145-184. +Peter Grünwald. 2000. Model selection based on minimum description length. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1):133-152. +Michael Hahn. 2020. Theoretical limitations of self-attention in neural sequence models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:156-171. +Jeffrey Heinz. 2018. The computational nature of phonological generalizations. *Phonological typology*, phonetics and phonology, pages 126-195. +Jeffrey Heinz and William Idsardi. 2013. What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. *Topics in Cognitive Science*, 5(1):111-131. +Jeffrey Heinz, Chetan Rawal, and Herbert G. Tanner. 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 58-64, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +John Hewitt, Michael Hahn, Surya Ganguli, Percy Liang, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. RNNs can generate bounded hierarchical languages with optimal memory. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1978-2010, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780. +Ronald M. Kaplan and Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20(3):331-378. +Regine Lai. 2015. Learnable vs. Unlearnable Harmony Patterns. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(3):425-451. + +Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P Kingma. 2018. Learning sparse neural networks through $L_{0}$ regularization. +R. Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140. +Kevin McMullin and Gunnar Olafur Hansson. 2019. Inductive learning of locality relations in segmental phonology. *Laboratory Phonology*, 10(1). +Martin A Nowak, Natalia L Komarova, and Partha Niyogi. 2002. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature, 417(6889):611-617. +Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, Kranthi Kiran GV, et al. 2023. RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the transformer era. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:2305.13048. +Brandon Prickett. 2021. Modelling a subregular bias in phonological learning with recurrent neural networks. Journal of Language Modelling, 9. +Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Studying the inductive biases of RNNs with synthetic variations of natural languages. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3532-3542. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jon Rawski, Aniello De Santo, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Reconciling minimum description length with grammar-independent complexity measures. MIT Workshop on Simplicity in Grammar Learning. +James Rogers and Geoffrey K Pullum. 2011. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20:329-342. +Mirac Suzgun, Yonatan Belinkov, Stuart Shieber, and Sebastian Gehrmann. 2019. LSTM networks can perform dynamic counting. pages 44-54. +Gail Weiss, Yoav Goldberg, and Eran Yahav. 2018. On the practical computational power of finite precision RNNs for language recognition. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 740-745, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A $L_{0}$ regularization as maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation + +We show that $L_{0}$ regularization is equivalent to MAP estimation with an exponential prior on the + +number of non-zero parameters in the model. Consider the standard MAP estimation problem: + +$$ +\hat {\theta} _ {\mathrm {M A P}} = \arg \max _ {\theta} f (x | \theta) q (\theta), \tag {8} +$$ + +where $f$ is a distribution conditional on parameters $\theta$ and $q$ is a prior distribution on $\theta$ . Now consider the expected value of non-zero parameters $\theta'$ . In Equation 3, $\theta'$ is the regularization term, as shown below: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} Q \left(z _ {j} > 0 \mid \pi_ {j}\right) (9) \\ = \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} \int q \left(z _ {j} \mid \pi_ {j}\right) \cdot 1 \left(z _ {j} > 0\right) d z _ {j} (10) \\ = \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} \int q (z \mid \pi) \cdot 1 (z _ {j} > 0) d z (11) \\ = \int q (z \mid \pi) \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} 1 \left(z _ {j} > 0\right) d z (12) \\ = \underset {z \sim Q (\cdot | \pi)} {\mathbb {E}} \left[ \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \theta |} 1 (z _ {j} > 0) \right] (13) \\ = \theta^ {\prime}, (14) \\ \end{array} +$$ + +with probability density function $q(\cdot \mid \pi)$ corresponding to cumulative distribution function $Q(\cdot \mid \pi)$ , and indicator function $1(\cdot)$ . If we consider an exponential prior on $\theta'$ we would have: + +$$ +q \left(\theta^ {\prime}\right) = \lambda e ^ {- \lambda \theta^ {\prime}}. \tag {15} +$$ + +Then by Eq. 15 and the monotonicity of the log function, the MAP estimation problem is equivalent to finding + +$$ +\hat {\theta} _ {\mathrm {M A P}} = \arg \min _ {\theta} - \log f (x | \theta) + \lambda \theta^ {\prime} - \log \lambda , \tag {16} +$$ + +which is equal to our objective in Eq. 3 up to an additive constant $-\log \lambda$ that does not depend on the parameters to be optimized. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/images.zip b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a99f163457a6084eb36c79eb76c430d840b33252 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8895970d4745bc76c4379a77e579770a13224d799514f3367134b7bc68b27600 +size 412899 diff --git a/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/layout.json b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e96d175056d0c20b0e79a23a38e755a6a4c23cea --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9182 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 76, + 464, + 95 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 76, + 464, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 76, + 464, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simpler neural networks prefer subregular languages" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 116, + 238, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 116, + 238, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 116, + 238, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charles Torres" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 129, + 274, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 129, + 274, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 129, + 274, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of California, Irvine Language Science charl t4@uci.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 116, + 437, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 116, + 437, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 116, + 437, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Richard Futrell" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 129, + 471, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 129, + 471, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 129, + 471, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of California, Irvine Language Science rfurtrell@uci.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We apply a continuous relaxation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 473 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization (Louizos et al., 2018), which induces sparsity, to study the inductive biases of LSTMs. In particular, we are interested in the patterns of formal languages which are readily learned and expressed by LSTMs. Across a wide range of tests we find sparse LSTMs prefer subregular languages over regular languages and the strength of this preference increases as we increase the pressure for sparsity. Furthermore LSTMs which are trained on subregular languages have fewer non-zero parameters, and LSTMs trained on human-attested subregular patterns have fewer non-zero parameters than those trained on unattested patterns. We conjecture that this subregular bias in LSTMs is related to the cognitive bias for subregular language observed in human phonology, in that both are downstream of a bias for simplicity in a suitable computational description language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 481, + 155, + 494 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 481, + 155, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 481, + 155, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the wide application of neural networks for sequence modeling, their inductive biases remain incompletely understood: for example, whether RNNs have an inductive bias favoring the kind of hierarchical structures used in sentence formation in natural language (Weiss et al., 2018; Ravfogel et al., 2019; Hewitt et al., 2020; McCoy et al., 2020; Edelman et al., 2022). It is important to study the inductive biases of neural networks not only from a scientific perspective, but also a practical one: if neural networks can be developed that have inductive biases toward the same kinds of formal language structures that characterize human language, then these neural networks should be able to learn human language more easily." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Many patterns in natural language are characterized by a particular subset of the regular languages, called subregular languages. These languages have been hypothesized to form a bound on learnable human phonological patterns (Heinz, 2018)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "as well as patterns within tree structures characterizing syntax (Graf, 2022). The particular subregular languages theorized to be human learnable are strictly piecewise (SP), strictly local (SL), and multiple tier-based strictly local (MTSL). Artificial language learning tasks have shown these languages to be easier to acquire for humans (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020; McMullin and Hansson, 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we take up the question of inductive biases for subregular languages in LSTMs (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997), using a relaxation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization to study networks that are constrained to be simple in the sense of network sparsity. We train these networks on several sets of toy languages which contrast subregular languages against regular languages in a controlled manner. This technique not only allows us to study the inductive biases of sparse networks, but also to address an outstanding question in the literature on subregular languages: whether there exists a computational description language under which subregular languages are simpler than other regular languages (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To preview our results, we find that simple LSTMs favor subregular languages: such languages can be represented by LSTMs with fewer parameters, and sparse LSTMs favor subregular languages in generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives relevant background on subregular languages, Section 3 gives our general methods for training sparse neural networks under " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization, Section 4 presents our experiments on matched pairs of regular and subregular languages, and Section 5 concludes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 387, + 711 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 387, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 697, + 387, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is known that phonological constraints should be regular given the most common formalisms in linguistics (Kaplan and Kay, 1994). However, the regular language class is too permissive: many pat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1651" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1651-1661 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 68, + 478, + 137 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Language typeExample languageIn languageNot in language
SLG = {ac}bc, adc, cad, ...ac, bac, acd, ...
SPG = {ac}bc,adb, cad, ...ac, adc, abc, ...
TSLG = {ac}, T = {a, b, c}bc, cad, adbc, ...ac, adc, addc, ...
", + "image_path": "ae087ad000e9ed93f5242315de39d5c1e7324f72fcb56be68780af520f5627bb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Example subregular languages on the alphabet " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Sigma = a, b, c, d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Both SP and SL languages are defined by their alphabet and set of forbidden substrings or subsequences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(G)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in their definition. The SL language above forbids the substring " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ac" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The SP language above forbids the subsequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a \\ldots c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", in other words, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " cannot follow " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a string. TSL languages require a second set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " specifying which characters are preserved in the tier projection. A tier projection function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maps strings to strings, preserving only characters in the set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For example, if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T = a, b, c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{T}(adca) = ac" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The restrictions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a TSL languages are forbidden substrings in the projected strings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 291, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 291, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 239, + 291, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "terns not attested in natural language are members of it. The subregular hypothesis is an attempt to improve this bound, lowering it to certain subclasses of the regular languages (Heinz, 2018). There are two versions of the hypothesis—the weak version and the strong version—hypothesizing different subregular languages as the boundary for human learnable patterns. The strong subregular hypothesis asserts that phonological constraints are within the strictly local (SL) and strictly piecewise (SP) subclasses, whereas the weak hypothesis raises this bound to the tier-based strictly local (TSL) languages (the union of multiple constraints being multiple tier-based strictly local or MTSL). These languages are not the only subregular languages, but they are the most important subregular languages for the hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "What the SL, SP, and TSL languages all share in common is that they are defined by prohibiting features in the strings of that language. The SL and SP languages (corresponding to the strong subregular hypothesis) are defined by sets of prohibited substrings and subsequences respectively. These prohibitions are meant to capture phonological constraints associated with local restrictions (SL) or harmony-like patterns (SP). The TSL languages are slightly more complex than the other two, forbidding substrings after characters have been removed from a string (the retained characters are defined by a second set, usually labeled " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for tier). To demonstrate these prohibitions in action examples of these languages are given in Table 1, however curious readers can look to Heinz (2018), Rogers and Pullum (2011), and Heinz et al. (2011) for a rigorous treatment of these languages as well as definitions for other subregular languages which are not part of the subregular hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The recent interest in subregular languages and their ability to capture phonological patterns has" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 526, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 526, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 526, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "stimulated some work on the learnability of sub- regular patterns by RNNs. Results in this area have been mixed. LSTMs and RNNs both show difficulty when trained to predict membership in subregular languages (Avcu et al., 2017). Nevertheless, other work has still shown that the learning of subregular patterns is easier for sequence to sequence RNNs than the learning of other patterns, echoing human-like preferences (Prickett, 2021). Work in this area is still limited." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 526, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 526, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "What can explain these preferences in LSTMs or humans? Previous work has attempted to tie a preference for simplicity to biases in natural language, for example by using the minimum description length (MDL) principle, a formulation of Occam's razor favoring simple hypotheses that account for given data, where a hypothesis is simple if it can be described using a small number of bits in some description language (Grünwald, 2000). Can the subregular preference be similarly explained? Heinz and Idsardi (2013) levelled a challenge against accounts of human language learning based on this method in explaining this preference: It is easy to find examples where a subregular and regular language both have the same description length in some computational formalism (for example a finite-state automaton, FSA). While they left open the possibility that a computational formalism may be found where description length can distinguish these examples, they expressed doubt that such a thing could be found. A similar challenge was raised in Rawski et al. (2017) where MDL accounts were challenged to explain learning biases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Is there a computational representation that, when given access to data consistent with a sub- regular and regular language, would learn only the subregular pattern by using an MDL method? We attempt to address these challenges. We will show that when controlling for description length (num" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1652" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ber of nonzero parameters) in our case studies, neural networks prefer subregular patterns over regular ones on the basis of simplicity, where FSAs do not. That this is true in LSTMs leaves open the possibility that MDL accounts are capable of explaining this bias in other systems, as in human language learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 178, + 198 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 178, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 185, + 178, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 General Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A crucial part of our method requires finding optimal tradeoffs between accuracy and network complexity. We operationalize the complexity of a neural network as its number of nonzero parameters, reflecting the size of the subnetwork required to achieve a given accuracy. As such, we would like to use the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norm, which counts the number of nonzero entries in the parameter vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 292, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 340, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 340, + 290, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 340, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\| \\theta \\| _ {0} = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\mathbf {1} _ {\\theta_ {j} \\neq 0}. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "67768c31c1a5f57f5f2c2924c398e1d89ba1d1cf61b517dabb89b04067d7b234.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 291, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ideally, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 397, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norm would form a part of our objective function like so:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 442, + 290, + 479 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 442, + 290, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 442, + 290, + 479 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "R (\\theta) = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \\left(p _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i}\\right), y _ {i}\\right) + \\lambda \\| \\theta \\| _ {0}, \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "4efc589098059f13aff1cd5288dfb06b181e01bfdbfa327d47fb05baba951b68.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L(p_{\\theta}(x_i), y_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the log likelihood of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'th label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the training data under the model with parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". However, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norm is not differentiable, and cannot serve as part of our objective function during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We get around this limitation using a relaxation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization developed by Louizos et al. (2018). For the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'th parameter in our model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we assign a masking parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi_{j} > 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This parameterizes a distribution with cumulative distribution function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q(\\cdot |\\pi_j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", from which we can sample a mask value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{j}\\in [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which critically can take the values of true 0 or 1. The vector of values " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generated in this way is then used as a mask to filter the parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", generating a vector of masked parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\theta}_j = z_j\\theta_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This parameterization lends us a new objective function where the labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are predicted from the inputs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using the masked parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the model is penalized for having too few masked" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 409, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 409, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 409, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 71, + 409, + 253 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b07849654edc3b087b80b7ee94924cc0fceb926803dbcc5eff5ce6e0bbf55767.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: A simple depiction of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization, LSTM neurons in green,. Right: an unregularized network with a similar architecture as in the harmony test Left: after " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 527, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization has pruned connections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 420, + 69, + 521, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 69, + 521, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 69, + 521, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 69, + 521, + 253 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "112ce203ddc7bca744457c0c644e74f358631a8a0e7475afd4ea92c9425caa33.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 333, + 358, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 333, + 358, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 333, + 358, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "parameters:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 353, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 353, + 525, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 353, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} R (\\theta , \\pi) = \\underset {z \\sim Q (\\cdot | \\pi)} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} L \\left(p _ {\\tilde {\\theta}} \\left(x _ {i}\\right), y _ {i}\\right) \\right] + (3) \\\\ \\lambda \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} Q (z _ {j} > 0 | \\pi_ {j}), \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "e00a2814ba84266dc6013bc6aa01e51d2e26144f8cfeb7103f98f88411bcf66b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the expectation is over mask vectors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " drawn conditional on the vector of masking parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 440, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The regularization term now reflects the expected number of parameters whose value is not masked." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use Equation 3 in all our experiments below, with different loss functions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as required. When " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a form of cross-entropy this term represents the cost of encoding the data using the distribution specified by the neural network. Under these conditions, the objective becomes a form of minimum description length as a two part code: with the regularization term encoding the distribution, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 495, + 525, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " encoding the data (Grünwald, 2000). Though our approach focuses on the MDL interpretation, this formulation also has a Bayesian interpretation, optimizing the negative log likelihood with the regularization term as a prior and the loss term as a posterior as we show in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 693, + 390, + 708 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 693, + 390, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 693, + 390, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 422, + 729 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 422, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 422, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Subregular Battery" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The first experiment measures the complexity of LSTMs that learn subregular and regular languages. We call this the subregular battery: an experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1653" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "run on three sets of three formal languages, where the description length of the generating FSAs are controlled within each set. Each set of languages contains one strictly local and one strictly piecewise (which are both subregular) and one regular language. One set of languages was used in Heinz and Idsardi (2013)'s argument that minimum description length fails to separate subregular languages from other regular ones; we offer two additional sets. The languages are described in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 145, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 145, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 213, + 145, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.1 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The method can be split into 3 steps: data generation, network training, and evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data generation For each language, we sample 2000 words from a probabilistic finite state automaton (pFSA) designed to generate words from that language following a geometric distribution on word length. The geometric distribution on word length is important for two reasons: (1) it implies a constant stopping probability in all states, meaning that the distribution over string lengths does not depend on the structure of the strings in a language, and (2) it is memoryless, meaning that the network need not keep track of the total characters observed so far to attain high accuracy. Maintaining a geometric distribution on string lengths is the simplest method for attaining the same distribution over string lengths across languages while sampling from pFSAs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This data is then split into training, development, and testing sets at an 80/10/10 ratio. Sets are constructed such that no duplicate words existed between sets. This was done by grouping words by form, and then randomly assigning them to the training, testing, or development sets before reshuffling them within the group." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Network training Each LSTM has the same architecture: a 3-dimensional embedding layer, a 5 unit LSTM layer, and a 2-layer perceptron decoder with a hidden width of 5 units. We train LSTMs for up to 400 epochs on the training set. For the subregular battery, we use cross entropy loss with the aforementioned " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization technique as our objective function. After each epoch, we evaluate development set performance (including the approximate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " penalty), and if improvement on it has not increased for 50 epochs, training is halted. Otherwise we use the best performing network on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the development set over all 400 epochs. We repeat this procedure five times for various regularization penalties to get data on performance at different levels of network complexity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation Once data is collected, we evaluate the trained networks in terms of the trade-off of network complexity—measured as the number of nonzero parameters—and error, defined as the average per-character KL divergence of the LSTMs from the target distribution (the pFSAs from which the languages were sampled). For a target language with distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q_{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{\\theta}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 527, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this divergence is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 264, + 525, + 279 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 264, + 525, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 264, + 525, + 279 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm {D} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\| P _ {\\theta} \\right] = \\mathrm {H} \\left[ Q _ {G}, P _ {\\theta} \\right] - \\mathrm {H} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\right]. \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "46083f8716e0ef29ee82cf8dec6d1dc9595092619a5cefe65eac68cb706bf3a0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thus, using the KL divergence here instead of cross entropy allows us to control for the entropy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{H}[Q_G]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the target language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We measure an approximate per-character KL divergence using the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sample strings in the evaluation set for language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 527, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 364, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 364, + 525, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 364, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\mathrm {D}} \\left[ Q _ {G} \\| P _ {\\theta} \\right] = \\frac {1}{N} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {N} \\frac {1}{T _ {i}} \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T _ {i}} \\ln \\frac {Q _ {G} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \\mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\\right)}{P _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {t} \\mid x _ {i} ^ {< t}\\right)}, \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "6d9d4b318001f0870f080176c2e83a03e04abad7dbbec21ffef4de492d7dab23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'th sample string in the evaluation set, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'th character of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'th sample string, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}^{< t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the prefix of characters up to index " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 412, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'th sample string." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 527, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 527, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 527, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use area under the curve (AUC) as a metric to evaluate complexity. This is defined as the area under the convex hull of (complexity, KL approximation) points. A small area under the curve indicates that it possible to achieve low error with a simple network; a large area under the curve means that error is high even with a more complex network. We determine if there is a significant difference between languages by performing a permutation test. This is done by randomly sampling points from the union of two languages and comparing the AUC statistic in the permuted samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 374, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 374, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 635, + 374, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.2 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2 shows the trade-off of number of parameters and KL divergence for the three sets of languages. The areas under the curve are shaded, and the points which closely mimic the target distribution are shown in color. For a given level of complexity, the areas under the curve for the regular languages exceed both the piecewise testable and strictly local languages. The specific AUC numbers are shown in Table 3. In every case the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This high patience is necessary due to the stochastic nature of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bar{L}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization technique." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1654" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SetSL variantSP variantRegular variant
*aacNo string aacNo sequence a...a...cNo c if the number of a = 2 (mod 3)
*a,b, *baNo string ab / baNo sequence a...b / b...aNo b (a) after an odd number of a (b)
*aNo string acNo sequence a...cNo c after an odd number of a
", + "image_path": "f88fa562ea8520400d2ad86ed681923d0c66a9efc371c24970d58ea2df0e4477.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 206, + 232, + 284 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 206, + 232, + 284 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 206, + 232, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 206, + 232, + 284 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "83de213d1446f7da32e86427ce26e00a93e4bb50617ecbeac3f5ab630497bd9f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 207, + 371, + 283 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 207, + 371, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 207, + 371, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 207, + 371, + 283 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "250bd233bf76341aadd3b660da8e04620aa9219e3f4fb04fb60db6ac7bff8233.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 207, + 522, + 283 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 207, + 522, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 207, + 522, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 207, + 522, + 283 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a4b59c260aaecba7f154bf2d1900881f762d0859feb3aba1676a2a1c99fc1cd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 284, + 232, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 284, + 232, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 284, + 232, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 284, + 232, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "35a5880fa283bf789dc9553eb0930d48af90465100a9c396cee3b0a1e7cac565.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 284, + 371, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 284, + 371, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 284, + 371, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 284, + 371, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "73e55e9a60651b952150d711524185eb8d277cfce96178bd77eb73b60f4eecba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 284, + 521, + 347 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 284, + 521, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 284, + 521, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 284, + 521, + 347 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "75bb69d3e583ab990247e3d598d74bb87a0f3ccc8332e9632291591976eee02d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 232, + 420 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 232, + 420 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 232, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 347, + 232, + 420 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f1b03f379be2029445e07ed5aae5b9245cb5512d1c9e50889e4139d72ca1a8c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 222, + 420, + 381, + 431 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 222, + 420, + 381, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 222, + 420, + 381, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Number of parameters (expected value)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 347, + 371, + 420 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 347, + 371, + 420 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 347, + 371, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 233, + 347, + 371, + 420 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5dc4cd66fb43002c1b18e7f2781e278c3df09603979048898397b1af8890b5a9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 347, + 521, + 420 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 347, + 521, + 420 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 347, + 521, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 347, + 521, + 420 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3fe41656f328d969d085d9e79eedc07359ae4d47b4d88459a912a6611852cafe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 526, + 502 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 526, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 526, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: A trade-off of accuracy (KL divergence from the target language to the model) and complexity (number of nonzero parameters) of LSTMs trained on subregular and regular languages matched for description length in an FSA representation. Points within " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 526, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1/100" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 526, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of a bit or less from the true distribution are shown in color. The shaded area is the area under the curve (AUC) used to compare the languages in our statistical analysis in Table 3. The subregular languages show consistently lower AUC than the matched regular languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 290, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 523, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "differences between both subregular languages and regular languages are statistically significant and in the expected direction as determined by a permutation test." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 291, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 291, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 579, + 291, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We augment this test with an additional post-hoc analysis of the most accurately performing networks (which we define as having a KL divergence of less than .01 bits) to determine if the size of the minimal LSTMs are also significantly different. This analysis is also done with a permutation test. These networks (Table 4) attain a lower complexity score for the subregular languages, a significant difference in all cases except *ac." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 158, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 158, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 158, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.3 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This experiment's results demonstrate that, at least in the languages chosen, strictly piecewise and strictly local languages better favor a tradeoff be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 546, + 511, + 615 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 525, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 525, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 525, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Language sets composing the subregular battery. Each language set consists of three languages matched for FSA complexity: a strictly local language (SL), a strictly piecewise language (SP), and a regular language. All languages are subsets of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 525, + 195 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{a, b, c\\}^*" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 145, + 525, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The table gives a short description of each language. The last set is from Heinz and Idsardi (2013)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 546, + 511, + 615 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 546, + 511, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 546, + 511, + 615 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.354**2.70**2.688**
Reg.-SP.620**1.727**2.260**
SP-SL-.266.970**.428
", + "image_path": "edbf7874c4e6752fd2210cffd59a01768ce6f8935be275db2d5b2b7c12e32661.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 742 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Differences in AUC between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the AUC difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked \\*\\* are significant at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a permutation test. The AUC differences between regular and subregular languages are always significant. Comparing SP and SL languages, the SP language has a significantly higher AUC for the \\*aac languages, and the difference is otherwise insignificant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1655" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tween simplicity and complexity as demonstrated in our AUC analysis. We also see that they can be generated by functions implemented with simpler LSTMs in all but one case. In our post-hoc analysis we find that all but one subregular language is significantly simpler to accurately mimic in comparison with the regular language. These results also demonstrate that checking for the presence of two substrings is more complicated than one, and checking for a longer substring is more complicated than a shorter one. But if compared within a similar strictly regular pattern (here represented by controlling for generating FSA size) the preference is clearly for subregular languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 276, + 340 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 276, + 340 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 276, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 270, + 276, + 340 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
*ac*aac*ab, *ba
Reg.-SL.98144.7**23.8**
Reg.-SP5.74**43.7**22.9**
SP-SL-4.75*.963.972
", + "image_path": "7a114dec432235aef9ec3ed65d01424ac63b211d0744418f26ae064b49be6d07.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 257, + 484 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 257, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 257, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Standard Harmony and First-Last Harmony" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the second test we investigate whether a preference exists between two subregular languages. One language is MTSL, a class of subregular languages believed to be learnable in the subregular hypothesis. The other is a locally testable (LT) language, which is believed to not be human learnable. This test is inspired by previous experimental works (Lai, 2015; Avcu and Hestvik, 2020) which were investigations of standard vowel harmony (attested in human languages) and first-last harmony (not attested). These two languages are not controlled for FSA size, but are languages that serve as important evidence for the subregular hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The difference between standard vowel harmony (SH) and first-last (FL) harmony languages is shown in Table 5. In an SH language we require languages to begin and end with an " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and we forbid both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from occurring in the same string. In an FL harmony pattern, we require a word to begin and end with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and to begin and end with the same character, but allow any charac" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ters in-between. These examples are a simplistic representation of patterns that are attested in human language (standard harmony) versus not attested (first-last harmony)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the experiment below, we apply a similar test and evaluation method as in the subregular battery to demonstrate that the functions which generate SH patterns (which are MTSL) are simpler than functions which generate FL patterns (which are LT)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 365, + 215, + 465, + 312 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 432 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Differences in complexity between languages within the subregular battery, as shown in Figure 2. The first row shows the complexity difference for regular languages minus SL languages, etc. Comparisons marked ** are significant at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < 0.01" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in a permutation test. Complexity differences are significant between subregular and regular except for *ac." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 215, + 465, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 215, + 465, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 365, + 215, + 465, + 312 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SHFL
babbab
caccac
babbabbcabcd
cacacacccbabc
bbbabbbcacabb
", + "image_path": "0819cb4283aa72545a8280a99b2308e82102add01f8edaa46f59376b289893bc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 525, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 525, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 319, + 525, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Examples of legal words in standard-harmony (SH) and first-last harmony (FL) patterns." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 380, + 376 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 380, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 380, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.1 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use LSTMs with the same architecture as in section 4.1. The only difference is that the objective for these networks is to predict the correct continuation set: the set of possible characters that can grammatically follow after a prefix, an objective introduced in Gers and Schmidhuber (2001) and used elsewhere (Suzgun et al., 2019). The network is trained to predict, for each possible character continuing a prefix, whether that character is licit or not—that is, whether that character is a member of the continuation set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Given a continuation set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an LSTM equipped with a decoder that reads in a prefix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of characters and produces a vector of real values " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\in \\mathbb{R}^{|C|}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 526, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the loss for the network is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 589, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 589, + 525, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 589, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} L _ {\\mathrm {c s}} \\left(p _ {\\theta} (x), C\\right) = \\frac {1}{| C |} \\sum_ {i \\in | C |} - C _ {i} \\log \\left(p _ {\\theta} (x) _ {i}\\right) - \\tag {6} \\\\ (1 - C _ {i}) \\log (1 - p _ {\\theta} (x) _ {i}) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "2694277931ef9ec5d3fcb8cf37503d37c63f4ffc516a4109e2f26a1478e2b4bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This breaks with the prior work using the continuation set objective, as we use the binary cross-entropy loss instead of mean squared error." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using this loss function is necessary to control for differences in entropy between the SH and FL languages when conducting comparisons. Above, we control for differences in entropy by using an approximate KL divergence as an accuracy metric and we control for length-related effects on LSTM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1656" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 288 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 288 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 288 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "30b26949bb651c235af266ba7354876462e850b4764c61052d999a33fb4586cf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Graphs for LSTMs trained on first last harmony versus standard harmony, with description lengths on the x-axis, and test set performance on the y-axis (lower is better)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 291, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 372, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "complexity by making the lengths of strings geometrically distributed. This is not possible when comparing the SH and FL languages, because they cannot be generated by pFSAs in a way that yields a geometric distribution on string length." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data generation To accommodate this new task, we sampled words uniformly given length. For SH data, words were generated such that they began and ended with the same character (either " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") with a geometrically sampled number of characters in-between (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = .05" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") consistent with the SH pattern (see table 5). For FL languages the same procedure was followed except that the center characters were consistent with the FL pattern." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Network training Training was performed similarly to the subregular battery. This was for a maximum of 200 epochs, potentially terminating earlier if development set performance did not improve for 50 epochs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation At the end of training, (complexity, continuation-set loss) pairs were calculated from the best network's performance on the heldout test set. As in Section 4.1 we use AUC as the performance metric, the only difference being the points are now (complexity, continuation-set loss) instead of (complexity, KL approximation)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 373, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 373, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 373, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.2 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 88, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 88, + 526, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 88, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our results are shown in Figure 3. Again, we see a similar pattern as in the subregular battery, but this time showing the human-learnable subregular language is preferred over the unlearnable one. Standard harmony performance deterioriates at the 40 parameter mark, whereas first-last harmony deteriorates at the 75 parameter mark. The areas approximated by the frontier points (shaded) remain significantly different under a permutation test, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 88, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = .009" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 88, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 389, + 244 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 389, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 389, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.3 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 526, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 249, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These results continue the pattern seen in the subregular battery, but demonstrate not just a subregular preference, but a human-learnable subregular preference. While prior studies have shown a preference and higher performance for SH over FL with sequence to sequence networks, this experiment demonstrates that beyond a preference, these functions are more easily represented in simpler LSTMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 400, + 393 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 400, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 400, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Generalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 526, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Above, we found that subregular languages, and particularly human-learnable ones, were represented by simpler LSTMs. The question remains: does this simplicity constraint affect generalization?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we test whether a pressure for sparsity in LSTMs yields a bias towards learning a subregular language when the network is trained on data that is consistent with both a subregular and regular language, an approach suggested by Rawski et al. (2017). More precisely, the test is as follows. Take two formal languages " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", one subregular and one regular. Now, using their intersection " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\cap G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as training data, what does the induced grammar correspond to, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 468, + 527, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 380, + 624 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 380, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 380, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.1 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As our pair of langauges, we use languages from the subregular battery in Section 4.1. We take as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the language *ac and as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " the regular language which forbids " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " after an odd number of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "as" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 629, + 526, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This language is the test as described in Rawski et al. (2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data generation For each network, we generate data from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}} \\cap G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", dividing these into a training set and a development set with approximately 1600 words in the training set and 200 words in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1657" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 298 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 298 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 524, + 298 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a93c446852b6d9cdc1bcb4ff627c1ffd368e7b7d1a95aa79793b21cadef07ff9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Model preference for subregular language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over regular language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where preference is defined according to Equation 7, as a function of the number of model parameters. The preference for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " peaks in the shaded region occupied by simpler networks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the testing set. We generate two additional testing datasets for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 290, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " individually, checking the sets such that no words in the testing set appeared in the training or development data of 200 words each. This matches the size of the dataset to that of Section 4.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 291, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Network training With the data generated, our LSTMs are trained according to the per character cross entropy loss, regularized as in Equation 3, with a procedure identical to that used in Section 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation After training, performance on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 290, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is evaluated using the model which performed best on the development set over the course of training. As in the subregular analysis, we calculate the approximate KL divergence by subtracting the true per-character entropy as determined by the generating pFSA from the cross-entropy as in Equation 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 621, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 621, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 621, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our analysis, unlike the previous ones, is qualitative. We will investigate the subregular bias, operationalized as the difference:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 667, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 667, + 290, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 667, + 290, + 684 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {P r e f} _ {G _ {\\mathrm {s u b}}} := \\hat {\\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\\mathrm {r e g}}} \\| P _ {\\theta} ] - \\hat {\\mathrm {D}} [ Q _ {G _ {\\mathrm {s u b}}} \\| P _ {\\theta} ], (7)", + "image_path": "c18507ec98d85bc5f54ed71367b1356f566594fb41eba4265e3ec90123857da5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the approximate divergences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathrm{D}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are calculated over the evaluation sets for the two languages " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as in Eq. 5. The value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname{Pref}_{G_{\\mathrm{sub}}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is positive when the model's distribution over strings more closely resembles the one defined by the pFSA for language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 373, + 375 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 373, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 373, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.2 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 380, + 526, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of our generalization experiment show a clear preference for the subregular language regardless of complexity (Figure 4). However, unlike prior results, we also see a clear increase in preferences as network complexity is constrained. This difference is especially pronounced in the highlighted region. In the lowest complexity range, there is a collapse in performance where the network can do nothing but predict a uniform distribution on all characters at all times." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Examining the KL divergences for the individual languages, as in Figure 5, we find that this result is driven by high accuracy in modeling the subregular language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using a small number of parameters. Accuracy in modeling the regular language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{reg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is mostly poor, while accuracy modeling subregular language " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_{\\mathrm{sub}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is highest when the expected number of parameters is between 25 and 75." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 389, + 646 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 389, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 389, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.3 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While our prior results in the complexity evaluations have shown that subregular languages are generated with simpler networks, these results demonstrate a more clear inductive bias. LSTMs with constrained complexity generalize better to the subregular language than to the regular language. This indicates that, not only is the subregular function simpler, but that simpler networks prefer subregular languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1658" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 287 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 287 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 71, + 290, + 287 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f18d8dce2ca63ac975d7200854965330620d97c821069f21ec6b9cf4b5d31792.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: KL divergences from the target languages to the model distributions as a function of the number of model parameters. Performance on subregular languages (black) dips in the shaded region whereas performance on regular languages is relatively poor (red)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 381, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 381, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 381, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "But we also see that this inductive bias exists even in low regularization regimes. This result is consistent with previous findings, and may be related to other phenomena like previously observed locality biases (Ravfogel et al., 2019) which are a basic constraint in all RNN functioning (Battaglia et al., 2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 147, + 503 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 147, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 147, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our complexity measurement experiments we observe that subregular languages are represented by consistently simpler networks than similar regular languages, and that human-learnable subregular patterns are represented by simpler networks than unlearnable ones. This result is surprising, given that the use of a description length criterion to distinguish these languages had been deemed unlikely (Heinz and Idsardi, 2013)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, we found that in the generalization experiment, data consistent with a subregular and regular language leads to a preferential generalization towards learning the subregular distribution, and that this preference increases as the network becomes simpler. This supports the idea that a change in computational representation systems may favor subregular over regular languages, with the caveat that comparing subregular languages with radically different complexities in FSA representation may" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mean that this generalization pattern does not hold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Why do LSTMs favor subregular languages? We argue that our results may explain this preference via the lottery ticket hypothesis (Frankle and Carbin, 2019). This hypothesis states that neural networks learn by tuning \"winning tickets\"—which are subnetworks that perform well on the task at initialization—which explains why larger neural networks perform well (they \"buy more tickets\"). The existence of smaller networks (as we define them) for subregular languages means that any neural network will contain more tickets for subregular languages at initialization, and thus have an inductive bias toward such languages. If this line of reasoning is true, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization does not introduce anything qualitatively new in LSTM training, but shifts the probability mass to favor tickets with smaller subnetworks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 527, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 527, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 527, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Perhaps more controversially, we also believe these results may be of interest to human cognition. While the human brain is not an LSTM, our results indicate that a subregular bias can be downstream of a bias for simplicity within an appropriate computational formalism, showing that rich (and often puzzling) constraints can be downstream from simple rules. A bias like this can be construed as a universal grammar—a bound on learnable formal languages (Nowak et al., 2002)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 527, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 527, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 527, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "More needs to be done, of course. This work is far from a proof of the simplicity of subregular languages in LSTMs. Likewise, more subregular languages ought to be investigated. We may find, for example, that the true inductive bias for LSTMs is not exactly subregular, or that only certain aspects of subregularity are simple to implement. But we find the current results exciting and intriguing, for its relationship to network complexity and function implementation, its potential to explain LSTM inductive biases, and the demonstration of subregular biases resulting from computational complexity constraints." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 641, + 384, + 654 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 641, + 384, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 641, + 384, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The largest limitation of this work is that it is experimental, and not a proof. We try to show several demonstrations of the simplicity of subregularity, and believe further work should be done, but are aware of the limitations of this kind of work in addressing matters of mathematical curiosity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also understand that, because this work addresses these issues in an experimental way, there" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1659" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is no certainty that our object of study (subregular languages and their patterns) are what LSTMs are truly biased towards." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work uses LSTMs, rather than the Transformer architectures which underlie recently influential large language models (Brown et al., 2020). Although LSTMs are not currently the most popular architecture, recurrent models are recently seeing a revival (Peng et al., 2023) due to their inherent advantages such as being able to model indefinitely long sequences. In contrast to LSTMs, Transformers are known to be highly constrained in their strict formal expressivity (Hahn, 2020); however, their formal inductive biases in practice are not yet thoroughly explored." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 284, + 185, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 284, + 185, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 284, + 185, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethical considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 305, + 290, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We foresee no ethical issues arising from this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 170, + 341 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 170, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 170, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by NSF grant #1947307 to R.F. We thank Connor Mayer, Jon Rawski, and Aniello de Santo for helpful discussion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 411, + 127, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 411, + 127, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 411, + 127, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 290, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 430, + 290, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Enes Avcu and Arild Hestvik. 2020. Unlearnable phonotactics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 460, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Enes Avcu, Chihiro Shibata, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Subregular complexity and deep learning. CLASP Papers in Computational Linguistics, page 20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 501, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Flores Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, Caglar Gulçehre, H. Francis Song, Andrew J. Ballard, Justin Gilmer, George E. Dahl, Ashish Vaswani, Kelsey R. Allen, Charles Nash, Victoria Langston, Chris Dyer, Nicolas Heess, Daan Wierstra, Pushmeet Kohli, Matthew M. Botvinick, Oriol Vinyals, Yujia Li, and Razvan Pascanu. 2018. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:1806.01261, v3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin L Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Sham Kakade, and Cyril Zhang. 2022. Inductive biases and variable creation in self-attention mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5793–5831. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 148, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. 2019. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 203, + 525, + 247 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 203, + 525, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 203, + 525, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix A Gers and E Schmidhuber. 2001. LSTM recurrent networks learn simple context-free and context-sensitive languages. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 12(6):1333-1340." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 525, + 291 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 525, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 258, + 525, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Graf. 2022. Subregular linguistics: Bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48:145-184." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 525, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 302, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter Grünwald. 2000. Model selection based on minimum description length. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44(1):133-152." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 345, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 345, + 526, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 345, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Hahn. 2020. Theoretical limitations of self-attention in neural sequence models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:156-171." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Heinz. 2018. The computational nature of phonological generalizations. *Phonological typology*, phonetics and phonology, pages 126-195." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 477 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 525, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Heinz and William Idsardi. 2013. What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. *Topics in Cognitive Science*, 5(1):111-131." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 526, + 564 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 526, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 526, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeffrey Heinz, Chetan Rawal, and Herbert G. Tanner. 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 58-64, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 575, + 525, + 652 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 575, + 525, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 575, + 525, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Hewitt, Michael Hahn, Surya Ganguli, Percy Liang, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. RNNs can generate bounded hierarchical languages with optimal memory. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1978-2010, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 525, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 662, + 525, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronald M. Kaplan and Martin Kay. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics, 20(3):331-378." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Regine Lai. 2015. Learnable vs. Unlearnable Harmony Patterns. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(3):425-451." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1660" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P Kingma. 2018. Learning sparse neural networks through " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 170 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 115, + 290, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "R. Thomas McCoy, Robert Frank, and Tal Linzen. 2020. Does syntax need to grow on trees? Sources of hierarchical inductive bias in sequence-to-sequence networks. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:125-140." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 180, + 290, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 180, + 290, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 180, + 290, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin McMullin and Gunnar Olafur Hansson. 2019. Inductive learning of locality relations in segmental phonology. *Laboratory Phonology*, 10(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 290, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 223, + 290, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Martin A Nowak, Natalia L Komarova, and Partha Niyogi. 2002. Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature, 417(6889):611-617." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 266, + 290, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 266, + 290, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 266, + 290, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, Kranthi Kiran GV, et al. 2023. RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the transformer era. Computing Research Repository, arXiv:2305.13048." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 290, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 330, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Brandon Prickett. 2021. Modelling a subregular bias in phonological learning with recurrent neural networks. Journal of Language Modelling, 9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 373, + 290, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Studying the inductive biases of RNNs with synthetic variations of natural languages. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3532-3542. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jon Rawski, Aniello De Santo, and Jeffrey Heinz. 2017. Reconciling minimum description length with grammar-independent complexity measures. MIT Workshop on Simplicity in Grammar Learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "James Rogers and Geoffrey K Pullum. 2011. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20:329-342." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 290, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mirac Suzgun, Yonatan Belinkov, Stuart Shieber, and Sebastian Gehrmann. 2019. LSTM networks can perform dynamic counting. pages 44-54." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gail Weiss, Yoav Goldberg, and Eran Yahav. 2018. On the practical computational power of finite precision RNNs for language recognition. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 740-745, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 710, + 257, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 710, + 257, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 710, + 257, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 710, + 257, + 737 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 710, + 257, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization as maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " regularization is equivalent to MAP estimation with an exponential prior on the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "number of non-zero parameters in the model. Consider the standard MAP estimation problem:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 107, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 107, + 524, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 107, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {M A P}} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta} f (x | \\theta) q (\\theta), \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "837831eba822669ddba44f955ae1bf6415cd4ceeef0906f8de0f2460d8c03cd8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a distribution conditional on parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a prior distribution on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Now consider the expected value of non-zero parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In Equation 3, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the regularization term, as shown below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 212, + 524, + 434 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 212, + 524, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 212, + 524, + 434 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} Q \\left(z _ {j} > 0 \\mid \\pi_ {j}\\right) (9) \\\\ = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\int q \\left(z _ {j} \\mid \\pi_ {j}\\right) \\cdot 1 \\left(z _ {j} > 0\\right) d z _ {j} (10) \\\\ = \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} \\int q (z \\mid \\pi) \\cdot 1 (z _ {j} > 0) d z (11) \\\\ = \\int q (z \\mid \\pi) \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} 1 \\left(z _ {j} > 0\\right) d z (12) \\\\ = \\underset {z \\sim Q (\\cdot | \\pi)} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {| \\theta |} 1 (z _ {j} > 0) \\right] (13) \\\\ = \\theta^ {\\prime}, (14) \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "98d37e588a1ad457ae42a6fed18053bf604cfcc3540df4580391eca3de09d8dc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with probability density function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q(\\cdot \\mid \\pi)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corresponding to cumulative distribution function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q(\\cdot \\mid \\pi)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and indicator function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If we consider an exponential prior on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we would have:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 509, + 524, + 525 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 509, + 524, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 377, + 509, + 524, + 525 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "q \\left(\\theta^ {\\prime}\\right) = \\lambda e ^ {- \\lambda \\theta^ {\\prime}}. \\tag {15}", + "image_path": "b1bbb67dd4f39df421a16724dd3f1787f29dd95bc0fc003ad1ccc9f086171645.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then by Eq. 15 and the monotonicity of the log function, the MAP estimation problem is equivalent to finding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 586, + 524, + 606 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 586, + 524, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 586, + 524, + 606 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {M A P}} = \\arg \\min _ {\\theta} - \\log f (x | \\theta) + \\lambda \\theta^ {\\prime} - \\log \\lambda , \\tag {16}", + "image_path": "2c1ed99210d01c6be9b6fc73839b995f6d7175d12ba92b3f56e5ac17462cb7b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 615, + 524, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 615, + 524, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 615, + 524, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which is equal to our objective in Eq. 3 up to an additive constant " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 615, + 524, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-\\log \\lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 615, + 524, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that does not depend on the parameters to be optimized." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1661" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_content_list.json b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..746ef45b6c663b1a89eef6b8d63cc19a1b804b29 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2343 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 189, + 90, + 808, + 109 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shoutao Guo $^{1,2}$ , Shaolei Zhang $^{1,2}$ , Yang Feng $^{1,2*}$", + "bbox": [ + 292, + 129, + 719, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing,", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 148, + 724, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS)", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 165, + 818, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 252, + 181, + 752, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "guoshoutao22z@ict.ac.cn, zhangshaolei20z@ict.ac.cn, fengyang@ict.ac.cn", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 198, + 853, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the whole source sentence. However, existing SiMT models are typically trained using the same reference disregarding the varying amounts of available source information at different latency. Training the model with ground-truth at low latency may introduce forced anticipations, whereas utilizing reference consistent with the source word order at high latency results in performance degradation. Consequently, it is crucial to train the SiMT model with appropriate reference that avoids forced anticipations during training while maintaining high quality. In this paper, we propose a novel method that provides tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency by rephrasing the ground-truth. Specifically, we introduce the tailor, induced by reinforcement learning, to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. The SiMT model is trained with the tailored reference and jointly optimized with the tailor to enhance performance. Importantly, our method is applicable to a wide range of current SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies1.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 279, + 460, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 688, + 258, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) (Gu et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2019, 2020) generates the target sentence while reading in the source sentence. Compared to Full-sentence translation, it faces a greater challenge because it has to make trade-offs between latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2022a). In applications, it needs to meet the requirements of different latency tolerances, such as online conferences and real-time subtitles. Therefore, the SiMT models trained at", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 713, + 489, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/03171557ca685b61f74a505ce32227fe99c312b48b7fb1b99644e7271fe5aba7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source Sentence看电影是一项愉快的活动。 (watch)(a movie) (is) (an) (enjoyable) (activity)
Ground-TruthIt is an enjoyable activity to watch a movie
Tailored RefWatching a movie is an enjoyable activity.
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 253, + 878, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 1: An example of Chinese-English parallel sentence. The SiMT model will be forced to predict 'an enjoyable activity' before reading corresponding source tokens. In contrast, the tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining the original semantics.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 336, + 882, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "different latency should exhibit excellent translation performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 434, + 882, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using an inappropriate reference to train the SiMT model can significantly impact its performance. The optimal reference for the SiMT model trained at different latency varies. Under high latency, it is reasonable to train the SiMT model with ground-truth since the model can leverage sufficient source information (Zhang and Feng, 2022c). However, under low latency, the model is constrained by limited source information and thus requires reference consistent with the source word order (Chen et al., 2021). Therefore, the SiMT model should be trained with corresponding appropriate reference under different latency.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 468, + 884, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, the existing SiMT methods, which employ fixed or adaptive policy, commonly utilize only ground-truth for training across different latency settings. For fixed policy (Ma et al., 2019; Elbayad et al., 2020; Zhang and Feng, 2021), the model generates translations based on the predefined rules. The SiMT models are often forced to anticipate target tokens with insufficient information or wait for unnecessary source tokens. For adaptive policy (Ma et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2021; Zhang and Feng, 2022b), the model can adjust its translation policy based on translation status. Nevertheless, the policy learning of SiMT model will gradually adapt to the given reference (Zhang et al., 2020). Consequently, employing only ground-truth", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author: Yang Feng.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 879, + 364, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Code is available at https://github.com/ictnlp/Tailored-Ref", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 892, + 485, + 916 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3070", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3070-3084", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 957, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for the SiMT models trained at varying latency levels can negatively impact overall performance, as it forces them to learn the identical policy. Furthermore, Chen et al. (2021) adopts an offline approach to generate reference using the Full-sentence model for training the SiMT model at different latency, but this approach also imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and appropriate reference for the models with different latency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Under these grounds, we aim to dynamically provide an appropriate reference for training the SiMT models at different latency. In SiMT, the source information available to the translation model varies with latency (Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, the appropriate reference should allow the model to utilize the available information for predicting target tokens accurately. Otherwise, it will result in forced anticipations, where the model predicts target tokens in reference using insufficient source information (Guo et al., 2023). To explore the extent of forced anticipations when training the SiMT model with ground-truth at different latency, we introduce anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021). As shown in Table 1, the anticipation rate decreases as the SiMT is trained with higher latency. Consequently, the reference requirements of the SiMT model vary at different latency. To meet the requirements, the appropriate reference should avoid forced anticipations during training and maintain high quality. Therefore, we propose to dynamically tailor reference, called tailored reference, for the training of SiMT model according to the latency, thereby reducing forced anticipations. We present an intuitive example of tailored reference in Figure 1. It can avoid forced predictions during training while maintaining the semantics consistent with the original sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 250, + 490, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we propose a new method for providing tailored reference to SiMT models at different latency. To accomplish this, we introduce the tailor, a shallow non-autoregressive Transformer Decoder (Gu et al., 2018), to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. Since there is no explicit supervision to train the tailor, we quantify the requirements for the tailored reference as two reward functions and optimize them using reinforcement learning (RL). On the one hand, tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations, ensuring that the word reordering between it and the source sentence can be handled by the SiMT model trained", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b1f076292f45a08ce7c7d1b8e16ce348314a4eb692692ef81a05351c4a2a18d4.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
k13579
AR[%]28.178.683.491.120.49
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 82, + 870, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: The $\\mathrm{AR}(\\downarrow)$ on WMT15 De→En test set at different latency. $k$ belongs to Wait- $k$ policy (Ma et al., 2019) and represents the number of tokens that the target sentence lags behind the source sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 140, + 884, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "at that latency. To achieve this, the tailor learns from non-anticipatory reference corresponding to that latency, which can be generated by applying Wait- $k$ policy to Full-sentence model (Chen et al., 2021). On the other hand, tailored reference should maintain high quality, which can be achieved by encouraging the tailor to learn from ground-truth. Therefore, we measure the similarity between the output of tailor and both non-anticipatory reference and ground-truth, assigning them as separate rewards. The tailor can be optimized by striking a balance between these two rewards. During training, the SiMT model takes the output of the tailor as the objective and is jointly optimized with the tailor. Additionally, our method is applicable to a wide range of SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 219, + 884, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 536, + 650, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For a SiMT task, the model reads in the source sentence $\\mathbf{x} = (x_{1},\\dots,x_{J})$ with length $J$ and generates the target sentence $\\mathbf{y} = (y_{1},\\dots,y_{I})$ with length $I$ based on the policy. To describe the policy, we define the number of source tokens read in when translating $y_{i}$ as $g_{i}$ . Then the policy can be represented as $\\mathbf{g} = (g_{1},\\dots,g_{I})$ . Therefore, the SiMT model can be trained by minimizing the cross-entropy loss:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 561, + 884, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {s i m t} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {I} \\log p \\left(y _ {i} ^ {\\star} \\mid \\mathbf {x} _ {\\leq g _ {i}}, \\mathbf {y} _ {< i}\\right), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 554, + 695, + 882, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $y_{i}^{\\star}$ represents the ground-truth token.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 743, + 833, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach involves Wait- $k$ (Ma et al., 2019), HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) and CTC training (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), so we briefly introduce them.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 759, + 884, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wait- $k$ policy As the most widely used fixed policy, the model reads in $k$ tokens first and then alternates writing and reading a token. It can be formalized as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 831, + 882, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ng _ {i} ^ {k} = \\min \\{k + i - 1, J \\}, \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 598, + 901, + 882, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3071", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $J$ indicates the length of the source sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HMT Hidden Markov Transformer (HMT), which derives from the Hidden Markov Model, is the current state-of-the-art SiMT model. It treats the translation policy $\\mathbf{g}$ as hidden events and the target sentence $\\mathbf{y}$ as observed events. During training, HMT learns when to generate translation by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of observed events over all possible policies:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 108, + 489, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {h m t} = - \\log \\sum_ {\\mathbf {g}} p (\\mathbf {y} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {g}) \\times p (\\mathbf {g}). \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 249, + 487, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CTC CTC (Graves et al., 2006) is applied in non-autoregressive translation (NAT) (Gu et al., 2018) due to its remarkable performance and no need for length predictor. CTC-based NAT will generate a sequence containing repetitive and blank tokens first, and then reduce it to a normal sentence based on the collapse function $\\Gamma^{-1}$ . During training, CTC will consider all possible sequences $a$ , which can be reduced to $y$ using function $\\Gamma^{-1}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 293, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {c t c} = - \\log \\sum_ {\\mathbf {a} \\in \\Gamma (\\mathbf {y})} p (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}), \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 449, + 487, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $p(\\mathbf{a} \\mid \\mathbf{x})$ is modeled by NAT architecture.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 470, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 524, + 218, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we introduce the architecture of our model, which incorporates tailor into the SiMT model. To train the SiMT model with the tailor, we present a three-stage training method, in which the SiMT model benefits from training with tailored reference and is optimized together with the tailor. During inference, the SiMT model generates translation according to the policy. The details are introduced in the following subsections.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 549, + 489, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Model Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 705, + 315, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the architecture of our method in Figure 2. Alongside the encoder and decoder, our method introduces the tailor module, which is responsible for generating a tailored reference for the SiMT model, utilizing the ground-truth as its input. Considering the efficiency of generating tailored reference, the tailor module adopts the structure of the non-autoregressive Transformer decoder (Vaswani et al., 2017). To enable the tailor to generate a tailored reference that is not limited by the length of ground-truth, it initially upsamples the ground-truth. Subsequently, it cross-attends to the output", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b7a652cdca41d37a90a3986fbd9159f5d36be927a0ab6578eedf8372a955923e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The architecture of our method. The tailor module modifies ground-truth to the tailored reference, which serves as the training target for the SiMT model. The tailor is induced to optimize two rewards by reinforcement learning." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 529, + 82, + 863, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of the encoder and modifies ground-truth while considering the word order of the source sentence. Finally, it transforms the output of tailor into the tailored reference by eliminating repetitive and blank tokens (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018). The tailored reference replaces the ground-truth as the training objective for the SiMT model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 882, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the lack of explicit supervision for training the tailor, we quantify the requirements for tailored reference into two rewards and optimize the model through reinforcement learning. We propose a three-stage training method for the SiMT model with the tailor, the details of which will be presented in the next subsection.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Training Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 690, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After incorporating tailor into the SiMT model, it is essential to train the SiMT model with the assistance of tailor to get better performance. In light of this, we quantify the requirements of the tailored reference into two rewards and propose a novel three-stage training method for the training of our method. First, we train the SiMT model using ground-truth and equip the SiMT model with good translation capability. Subsequently, we use a pre-training strategy to train the tailor, enabling it to establish a favorable initial state and converge faster. Finally, we fine-tune the tailor by optimiz", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3072", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing the two rewards using reinforcement learning, where the output of the tailor serves as the training target for the SiMT model after being reduced. In the third stage, the tailor and SiMT model are jointly optimized and share the output the of the encoder. Next, we describe our three-stage training method in detail.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training the Base Model In our architecture, the tailor cross-attends to the output of the encoder to adjust ground-truth based on source information. As a result, before training the tailor module, we need a well-trained SiMT model as the base model. In our method, we choose the Wait- $k$ policy (Ma et al., 2019) and HMT model (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) as the base model for fixed policy and adaptive policy, respectively. The base model is trained using the cross-entropy loss. Once the training of the base model is completed, we optimize the tailor module, which can provide the tailored reference for the SiMT models trained across different latency settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 205, + 489, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pre-training Tailor The tailor adopts the architecture of a non-autoregressive decoder (Gu et al., 2018). The non-autoregressive architecture has demonstrated excellent performance (Qian et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022). Importantly, it enables the simultaneous generation of target tokens across all positions, making it highly efficient for reinforcement learning. However, if we train the tailor using reinforcement learning directly, it will converge to a suboptimal state in which the tokens at each position are some frequent tokens (Shao et al., 2022). This behavior is attributed to the exploration-based nature of reinforcement learning, highlighting the need for a favorable initial state for the model (Lopes et al., 2012). Since the tailored reference is modified from ground-truth, we let it learn from ground-truth during pre-training and then fine-tune it using reinforcement learning. The details of pre-training stage are introduced below.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 438, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To keep the output of the tailor from being limited by the length of ground-truth, the tailor upsamples ground-truth to get the input of the tailor, denoted as $\\mathbf{y}'$ . During training, CTC loss (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018) is used to optimize the tailor.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 744, + 489, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Denoting the output of the tailor as $\\mathbf{a} = (a_1, \\dots, a_T)$ , the probability distribution modeled by the tailor can be presented as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 825, + 489, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {a} (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p _ {a} \\left(a _ {t} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 173, + 879, + 487, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $T$ is the output length of tailor and is a multiple of the length of $\\mathbf{y}$ . Subsequently, we can get the normal sequence $\\mathbf{s}$ by applying collapse function $\\Gamma^{-1}$ to $\\mathbf{a}$ and the distribution of $\\mathbf{s}$ is calculated by considering all possible $\\mathbf{a}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\np _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}) = \\sum_ {\\mathbf {a} \\in \\Gamma (\\mathbf {s})} p _ {a} (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}). \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 175, + 882, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make the tailor learn from ground-truth, the tailor is optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 219, + 884, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {p t} = - \\log p _ {s} (\\mathbf {y} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}), \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 279, + 882, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which can be efficiently calculated through dynamic programming (Graves et al., 2006).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 307, + 882, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RL Fine-tuning After completing the pretraining, the tailor is already in a favorable initial state. We quantify the requirements for tailored reference as two rewards and fine-tune the tailor using reinforcement learning. We then introduce the two reward functions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 349, + 882, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the one hand, the tailored reference should not force the model to predict the target tokens before reading corresponding source information, which means the SiMT model can handle the word reorderings between the tailored reference and the source sentence at that latency (Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, we make the tailor learn from non-anticipatory reference $\\mathbf{y}_{na}$ , which is generated by applying the corresponding Wait- $k$ policy to the Full-sentence model. It has the word order that matches the latency and maintains the original semantics (Chen et al., 2021). We employ reward $\\mathcal{R}_{na}$ to measure the similarity between the output of tailor and non-anticipatory reference. On the other hand, the tailored reference should remain faithful to ground-truth. We introduce the reward $\\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ to measure the similarity between ground-truth and the output of the tailor. By striking an appropriate balance between $\\mathcal{R}_{na}$ and $\\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ , we can obtain the tailored reference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the output $a$ of tailor, we can obtain the normal sentence $s$ by removing the repetitive and blank tokens (Libovický and Helcl, 2018). We use BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) to measure the similarity between two sequences. Therefore, $\\mathcal{R}_{na}$ and $\\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ for the output of tailor is calculated as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 766, + 882, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\\mathbf {s}) = \\operatorname {B L E U} (\\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {y} _ {n a}), \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 875, + 882, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\\mathbf {s}) = \\operatorname {B L E U} (\\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {y}). \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 606, + 903, + 882, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3073", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d0f0dec98ce22149eebb064d56e46105bcfaf22738d54c49143dc8d57c127c87.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 91, + 374, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a3caab04fb6aadab84dfd142bcbbbf93e8ca43c444e61091568bcec68baee7e1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 378, + 90, + 621, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/159c3ed8609bd2a3fc0e5b65d93b79ce3896988beaa8b109aed2e96c076770a2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) $\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 623, + 90, + 870, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a8c6a76d357f83d65c166ce355e105ab28bb475e2c213271b00046bea5a01450.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Translation performance of different fixed policies on $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$ , $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$ and $\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ tasks.", + "(a) $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$", + "Figure 4: Translation performance of different adaptive policies on $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$ , $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$ and $\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ tasks." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 292, + 378, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fa8025d7323cdb88d250d10be78c34e58356ce4fbcf7e3d16ae0435aa21b2cb2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) $\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 381, + 294, + 626, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8d1e1ceac0166fde7e84efc19e5eb80199163dc7a7870174604c1721125ee127.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) $\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 628, + 294, + 872, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on these two rewards, we can obtain the final reward $\\mathcal{R}$ by balancing $\\mathcal{R}_{na}$ and $\\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 485, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) = (1 - \\alpha) \\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\\mathbf {s}) + \\alpha \\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\\mathbf {s}), \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 551, + 485, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\alpha \\in [0,1]$ is a hyperparameter. Subsequently, we use REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992) to optimize the final reward $\\mathcal{R}$ to obtain the tailored reference:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 487, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {J} (\\theta) = \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\mathbf {s}} p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta) \\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) \\\\ = \\underset {\\mathbf {s} \\sim p _ {s}} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\log p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta) \\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) \\right] \\\\ = \\underset {\\mathbf {a} \\sim p _ {a}} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\log p _ {s} \\left(\\Gamma^ {- 1} (\\mathbf {a}) \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta\\right) \\mathcal {R} \\left(\\Gamma^ {- 1} (\\mathbf {a}) \\right] \\right. \\tag {11} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 656, + 497, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\Gamma^{-1}$ represents the collapse function and $\\theta$ denotes the parameter of tailor. During training, we sample the sequence a from the distribution $p_a(\\mathbf{a} \\mid \\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{y}', \\theta)$ using Monte Carlo method. As the tailor adopts a non-autoregressive structure where all positions are independent of each other, we can concurrently sample tokens for all positions from the distribution. We then apply collapse function to sequence a to obtain the normal sequence s, which is used to compute the reward", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})$ and update the tailor with estimated gradient $\\nabla_{\\theta}\\log p_s(\\mathbf{s}\\mid \\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}',\\theta)\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})$ . In the calculation of $p_{s}(\\mathbf{s}\\mid \\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}',\\theta)$ , we use dynamic programming to accelerate the process. Additionally, we adopt the baseline reward strategy to reduce the variance of the estimated gradient (Weaver and Tao, 2001).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 505, + 882, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this stage, we utilize reinforcement learning to optimize the final reward $\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})$ and train the SiMT model with tailored reference using $\\mathcal{L}_{t\\_simt}$ . As a result, the SiMT model and the tailor are jointly optimized to enhance performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 601, + 882, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 693, + 655, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 718, + 621, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate our method on three translation tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 739, + 880, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "IWSLT15² English→Vietnamese (En→Vi) (Cettolo et al., 2015) We use TED tst2012 as the development set and TED tst2013 as the test set. In line with Ma et al. (2020), we replace the tokens occurring less than 5 with ⟨unk⟩. Consequently, the vocabulary sizes of English and Vietnamese are 17K and 7.7K, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 882, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "WMT163 English→Romanian (En→Ro) We", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 866, + 880, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/nmt/", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 890, + 826, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3www.statmt.org/wmt16/", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 904, + 699, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3074", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "use newsdev-2016 as the development set and newtest-2016 as the test set. The source and target languages employ a shared vocabulary. Other settings are consistent with Gu et al. (2018).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "WMT154 German→English (De→En) Following Ma et al. (2020), we use newestest2013 as development set and newestest2015 as test set. We apply BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016) with 32K subword units and use a shared vocabulary between source and target.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 148, + 489, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 System Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 256, + 284, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our experiments involve the following methods and we briefly introduce them.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 279, + 485, + 310 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Full-sentence model is the conventional full-sentence machine translation model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 311, + 487, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wait- $k$ policy (Ma et al., 2019) initially reads $k$ tokens and then alternates between writing and reading a source token.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 343, + 485, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-path (Elbayad et al., 2020) introduces the unidirectional encoder and trains the model by sampling the latency $k$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 392, + 485, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adaptive Wait- $k$ (Zheng et al., 2020) employs multiple Wait- $k$ models through heuristic method to achieve adaptive policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 441, + 485, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MMA (Ma et al., 2020) makes each head determine the translation policy by predicting the Bernoulli variable.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 487, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MoE Wait- $k$ (Zhang and Feng, 2021), the current state-of-the-art fixed policy, treats each head as an expert and integrates the decisions of all experts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 487, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PED (Guo et al., 2022) implements the adaptive policy via integrating post-evaluation into the fixed translation policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 587, + 485, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "BS-SiMT (Guo et al., 2023) constructs the optimal policy online via binary search.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 636, + 487, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ITST (Zhang and Feng, 2022b) treats the translation as information transport from source to target.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 668, + 487, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) models simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden Markov Model, and achieves the current state-of-the-art performance in SiMT.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 701, + 487, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$+100\\%$ Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) trains the Wait- $k$ model with ground-truth and pseudo reference, which is generated by applying Wait- $k$ policy to the Full-sentence model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 765, + 485, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "*+Top $40\\%$ Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) filters out pseudo references in the top $40\\%$ of quality to train the model with ground-truth.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 829, + 487, + 877 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Wait- $k +$ Tailor applies our method on Wait- $k$ .", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 879, + 485, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a92f4f377f14550cf585910d46613823cbc43be4c38dd508c7e32e3a19dce154.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Translation performance of different training methods on Wait- $k$ policy." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 84, + 877, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HMT + Tailor applies our method on HMT.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 349, + 858, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "All systems are based on Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and adapted from Fairseq Library (Ott et al., 2019). We apply Transformer-Small (6 layers, 4 heads) for $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$ task and Transform-Base (6 layers, 8 heads) for $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$ and $\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ tasks. Since PED and Adaptive Wait- $k$ do not report the results on the $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$ task, we do not compare them in the experiment. For our method, we adopt the non-regressive decoder structure with 2 layers for the tailor. We empirically set the hyperparameter $\\alpha$ as 0.2. The non-anticipatory reference used for RL Fine-tuning of SiMT model is generated by Test-time Wait- $k$ method (Ma et al., 2019) with corresponding latency. Other system settings are consistent with Ma et al. (2020) and Zhang and Feng (2023b). The detailed settings are shown in Appendix C. We use greedy search during inference and evaluate all methods with translation quality estimated by BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and latency measured by Average Lagging (AL) (Ma et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 882, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 660, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The performance comparison between our method and other SiMT approaches on three translation tasks is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Our method achieves state-of-the-art translation performance in both fixed and adaptive policies. When comparing with other training methods in Figure 5, our approach also achieves superior performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "When selecting the most commonly used Wait-k policy as the base model, our method outperforms MoE Wait-k, which is the current state-of-the-art fixed policy. Compared to Wait-k policy,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4www.statmt.org/wmt15/", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 304, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3075", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c4a16472fd03a459e22b8981fcbbf83fe67838a8a3cbfc6f3e1e7db4091fce05.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Nt124
AL1.501.891.84
BLEU24.4325.9025.46
", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 80, + 431, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "our method brings significant improvement, especially under low latency. Wait- $k$ policy is trained on ground-truth and cannot be adjusted, which may force the model to predict tokens before reading corresponding source information (Ma et al., 2019). In contrast, our method provides a tailored reference for the SiMT model, thereby alleviating the issue of forced anticipations. Our method also exceeds Multi-path and MoE Wait- $k$ . These two methods are trained using multiple Wait- $k$ policies (Elbayad et al., 2020) and gain the ability to translate under multiple latency (Zhang and Feng, 2021), but they still utilize ground-truth at all latency, leading to lower performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 218, + 489, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method can further enhance the SiMT performance by selecting adaptive policy as the base model. As the current state-of-the-art adaptive policy, HMT possesses the ability to dynamically adjust policy to balance latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2023b). However, it still relies on ground-truth for training SiMT models across different latency settings. By providing a tailored reference that matches the latency, our method can alleviate the latency burden of the SiMT model, resulting in state-of-the-art performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 489, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method also surpasses other training approaches. Ground-truth is not suitable for incremental input due to word reorderings, resulting in performance degradation (Zhang and Feng, 2022b). On the contrary, pseudo reference can avoid forced anticipations during training (Chen et al., 2021). However, it is constructed offline by applying the Wait- $k$ policy on the Full-sentence model. It imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. The tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining high quality, leading to the best performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 626, + 489, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to enhancing translation performance, our method effectively narrows the gap between fixed and adaptive policies. By leveraging our method, the SiMT model can achieve comparable performance to Full-sentence translation with lower latency on $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$ and $\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/edce1d367ce31a3d92379fdea67ee6209092856ea9f207a75474a2740f70a654.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Performance of the SiMT model when the tailor has a different number of layers." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodαALBLEU
Wait-k + Tailor0.11.7224.82
0.21.8925.90
0.31.9525.30
w/o Base Model0.21.7722.89
w/o Pre-training0.21.8024.66
w/o RL Fine-tuning0.21.8624.60
", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 80, + 873, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Ablation study on training method of the tailor and ratio between two rewards. 'w/o Base Model' removes the training stage of the base model. 'w/o Pre-training' removes the pre-training stage. 'w/o RL Fine-tuning' removes the RL fine-tuning stage.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 240, + 884, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 616, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To gain a comprehensive understanding of our method, we conducted multiple analyses. All of the following results are reported on De→En task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 365, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 426, + 673, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct ablation studies on the structure and training method of tailor to investigate the influence of different settings. The experiments all use Wait- $k$ model as the base model with $k$ set to 3. Table 2 presents a comparison of different structures. The best performance is achieved when the tailor has 2 layers. The performance can be negatively affected by both excessive layers and insufficient layers. Table 3 illustrates the results of the ablation study on the training method. Each stage of the training method contributes to the performance of the SiMT model and the training stage of the base model has the most significant impact on the performance. This can be attributed to the fact that a well-trained encoder can provide accurate source information to the tailor, enabling the generation of appropriate tailored references. Additionally, when $\\alpha$ is selected as 0.2, our method yields the best performance, indicating an optimal balance between word order and quality for the tailor.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 449, + 884, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Analysis of Tailored Reference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 784, + 794, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Anticipation Rate Furthermore, we conduct an analysis of the tailored reference to assess its influence. We first explore the rate of forced anticipations caused by using different references during training. Using the anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021) as the metric, the results in Table 4 show that the tailored reference can effectively re", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3076", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/60806a534dd8505765426593a7116a4398b720a70b8e11eebb52ceb8c8b3086f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
k1357
Ground-Truth28.178.683.491.12
Tailored Ref19.848.292.980.90
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 82, + 475, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/57417fac55491460040eaf31da1a64c8646d52a45bbc13b84811034b02daa2e7.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: The anticipation rate (AR[%]) when applying the Wait- $k$ policy on different references, which are based on De $\\rightarrow$ En test set." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
k1357
Tailored Ref79.6786.0184.8392.40
Non-Anti Ref21.8724.0726.2927.24
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 214, + 485, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: The quality (BLEU) of difference references compared to ground-truth for the training of Wait- $k$ policy. 'Non-Anti Ref' represents the reference generated by applying Wait- $k$ policy on Full-sentence model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 288, + 489, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "duce the forced anticipations during the training of the SiMT model under all latency. This implies that, compared to ground-truth, the word reorderingings between the tailored reference and the source sentence can be more effectively handled by the SiMT model at different latency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 374, + 487, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Quality However, one concern is whether the quality of tailored reference will deteriorate like non-anticipatory reference after adjusting the word order. To assess this, we compare different references with ground-truth to measure their quality. As shown in Table 5, we observe that the tailored reference exhibits significantly higher quality than the non-anticipatory reference. Therefore, our method successfully reduces the rate of forced anticipations during training while remaining faithful to ground-truth. To provide a better understanding of the tailored reference, we include several illustrative cases in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 481, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Hallucination in Translation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 383, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If the SiMT model is forced to predict target tokens before reading corresponding source information during training, there is a high likelihood of generating hallucinations during inference (Ma et al., 2019). To quantify the presence of hallucinations in the translation, we introduce hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) for evaluation. Figure 6 illustrates that the SiMT model trained with the tailored reference demonstrates a reduced probability of generating hallucinations. Moreover, even though the adaptive policy can adjust its behavior based on the translation status, our approach still ef", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/88ad485412b485e5e395d254f2f4e669797290ed0cb3e64b665d247f63612596.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: The hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) of different methods. It measures the proportion of tokens in translation that cannot find corresponding source information." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 84, + 870, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "fectively mitigates the hallucinations by alleviating the burden of latency. This signifies that minimizing forced predictions during training can enhance the faithfulness of the translation to the source sentence, thereby improving translation quality (Ma et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 885, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 665, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the source sentence. It requires a policy to determine the source information read when translating each target token, thus striking a balance between latency and translation quality. Current research on SiMT mainly focuses on two areas: policy improvement and adjustment of the training method.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 500, + 884, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For policy improvement, it aims to provide sufficient source information for translation while avoiding unnecessary latency. Ma et al. (2019) propose Wait- $k$ policy, which initially reads $k$ tokens and alternates between writing and reading one token. Zhang and Feng (2021) enable each head to obtain the information with a different fixed latency and integrate the decisions of multiple heads for translation. However, the fixed policy cannot be flexibly adjusted based on context, resulting in suboptimal performance. Ma et al. (2020) allow each head to determine its own policy and make all heads decide on the translation. Miao et al. (2021) propose a generative framework, which uses a re-parameterized Poisson prior to regularising the policy. Zhang and Feng (2023a) propose a segmentation policy for the source input. Zhang and Feng (2023b) model the simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3077", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Markov Model and achieve state-of-the-art performance. However, these methods are all trained with ground-truth, leading to forced predictions at low latency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the adjustment of the training method, it wants to supplement the missing full-sentence information or cater to the requirements of latency. Zhang et al. (2021) shorten the distance of source hidden states between the SiMT model and the Full-sentence model. This makes the source hidden states implicitly embed future information, but encourages data-driven prediction. On the other hand, Chen et al. (2021) try to train the model with non-anticipatory reference, which can be effectively handled by the SiMT model at that latency. However, while non-anticipatory reference can alleviate forced predictions at low latency, it hinders performance improvement at high latency.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 149, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we want to provide a tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency. The tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations and exhibit high quality. In view of the good structure and superior performance of the non-autoregressive model (Gu et al., 2018; Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), we utilize it to modify the ground-truth to the tailored reference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 374, + 489, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 247, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a novel method to provide a tailored reference for the training of SiMT model. Experiments and extensive analyses demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies and effectively reduces the hallucinations in translation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 539, + 489, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 648, + 218, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Regarding the system settings, we investigate the impact of the number of layers and training methods on performance. We think that further exploration of system settings could potentially yield even better results. Additionally, the tailor module aims to avoid forced anticipations and maintain faithfulness to ground-truth. If we can add language-related features to the SiMT model using a heuristic method, it may produce more suitable references for the SiMT model. We leave it for future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 673, + 489, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 862, + 268, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank all anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 83, + 608, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Mauro Cettolo, Jan Niehues, Sebastian Stüker, Luisa Bentivogli, Roldano Cattoni, and Marcello Federico. 2015. The IWSLT 2015 evaluation campaign. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation: Evaluation Campaign@IWSLT 2015, Da Nang, Vietnam, December 3-4, 2015.", + "Junkun Chen, Renjie Zheng, Atsuhito Kita, Mingbo Ma, and Liang Huang. 2021. Improving simultaneous translation by incorporating pseudo-references with fewer reorderings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 5857-5864. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Maha Elbayad, Laurent Besacier, and Jakob Verbeek. 2020. Efficient wait-k models for simultaneous machine translation. In *Interspeech* 2020, 21st Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Virtual Event, Shanghai, China, 25-29 October 2020, pages 1461-1465. ISCA.", + "Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jurgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference (ICML 2006), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, June 25-29, 2006, volume 148 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 369-376. ACM.", + "Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O. K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.", + "Jiatao Gu, Graham Neubig, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2017. Learning to translate in real-time with neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1053-1062, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Turning fixed to adaptive: Integrating post-evaluation into simultaneous machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 2264-2278. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Learning optimal policy for simultaneous machine translation via binary search. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 107, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3078", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2318-2333, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for nonautoregressive machine translation.", + "Jindrich Libovicky and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3016-3021, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Manuel Lopes, Tobias Lang, Marc Toussaint, and Pierreyves Oudeyer. 2012. Exploration in model-based reinforcement learning by empirically estimating learning progress. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, Renjie Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Baigong Zheng, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hairong Liu, Xing Li, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. STACL: simultaneous translation with implicit anticipation and controllable latency using prefix-to-prefix framework. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 3025-3036. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xutai Ma, Juan Miguel Pino, James Cross, Liezl Puzon, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Monotonic multihead attention. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net.", + "Zhengrui Ma, Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, Chenze Shao, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Nonautoregressive streaming transformer for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Yishu Miao, Phil Blunsom, and Lucia Specia. 2021. A generative framework for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 6697-6706. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Demonstrations, pages 48-53. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2020. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07905.", + "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chenze Shao, Jinchao Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Yang Feng. 2022. Rephrasing the reference for non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2211.16863.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008.", + "Lex Weaver and Nigel Tao. 2001. The optimal reward baseline for gradient-based reinforcement learning. In UAI '01: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2-5, 2001, pages 538-545. Morgan Kaufmann.", + "Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256.", + "Ruiqing Zhang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Learning adaptive segmentation policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2280-2289, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2021. Universal simultaneous machine translation with mixture-of-experts wait-k policy. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 7306-7317. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022a. Gaussian multihead attention for simultaneous machine translation." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3079", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3019-3030, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 487, + 126 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022b. Information-transport-based policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 992-1013, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 134, + 489, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022c. Modeling dual read/write paths for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2461-2477, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 223, + 489, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023a. End-to-end simultaneous speech translation with differentiable segmentation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 312, + 489, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023b. Hidden markov transformer for simultaneous machine translation. CoRR, abs/2303.00257.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 388, + 489, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shaolei Zhang, Yang Feng, and Liangyou Li. 2021. Future-guided incremental transformer for simultaneous translation. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14428-14436. AAAI Press.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 437, + 489, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, and Yang Feng. 2022. Wait-info policy: Balancing source and target at information level for simultaneous machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2249-2263, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 565, + 489, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baigong Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Renjie Zheng, Mingbo Ma, Hairong Liu, and Liang Huang. 2020. Simultaneous translation policies: From fixed to adaptive. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 2847-2853. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 667, + 489, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Anticipation & Hallucination Rate", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 847, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our analyses, we evaluate the reference and translation using anticipation rate (AR) and hallucination rate (HR), respectively. We then introduce the calculation method of these two evaluation metrics in detail.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 884, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a sentence pair $(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y})$ , there exists an alignment set $\\mathbf{h}$ , which is a set of source-target index pairs $(j,i)$ where $j^{\\mathrm{th}}$ source token $x_{j}$ aligns to the $i^{\\mathrm{th}}$ target token $y_{i}$ . If we apply the policy $\\mathbf{g} = (g_1,\\dots,g_I)$ on this sentence pair, the target token $y_{i}$ is forcibly anticipated $(A(i,\\mathbf{h},\\mathbf{g}) = 1)$ if it aligns to least one source token $x_{j}$ where $j > g_{i}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 190, + 884, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA (i, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}) = \\mathbb {1} \\left[ \\left\\{(j, i) \\in \\mathbf {h} \\mid j > g _ {i} \\right\\} \\neq \\varnothing \\right]. \\tag {12}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 315, + 882, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, we can define the anticipation rate (AR) of $(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y},\\mathbf{h})$ under the policy $\\mathbf{g}$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 346, + 882, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA R (\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y}, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}) = \\frac {1}{| \\mathbf {y} |} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathbf {y} |} A (i, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}). \\tag {13}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 390, + 882, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The anticipation rate is a metric used to quantify the degree to which the target token is predicted before reading all relevant source tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 882, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We then introduce the hallucination rate (HR). We first define the translation as $\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}$ . A target token $\\hat{y}_i$ in translation $\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}$ is a hallucination $(H(i, \\mathbf{h}) = 1)$ if it can not be aligned to any source token:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 494, + 882, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nH (i, \\mathbf {h}) = \\mathbb {1} [ \\{(j, i) \\in \\mathbf {h} \\} = \\varnothing ]. \\tag {14}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 571, + 882, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, the hallucination rate can be defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 601, + 882, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nH R (\\mathbf {x}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}}, \\mathbf {h}) = \\frac {1}{| \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} |} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} |} H (i, \\mathbf {h}). \\tag {15}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 627, + 882, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 684, + 645, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also provide two cases in the De $\\rightarrow$ En test set to understand our method. The cases are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. It presents that the tailored reference is more consistent with the word order requirements of the specific latency.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 7, if we train the SiMT model on Wait-1 policy with the ground-truth, it will be forced to predict 'with him' before reading 'mit ihm' during training. However, training the SiMT model with tailored reference will eliminate forced predictions by adjusting 'like that' to 'such' and positioning it forward. Importantly, the tailored reference also maintains the original semantics. This shows that", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3080", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/23a7133c77fbe6595f7dd62cb45dfed9da732f1e99d06e7b49e3a4ac38559d99.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source Sentenceich hatte nie ein solches Geschäfts mit ihm . (I) (had) (never) (a) (such) (conversation) (with) (him)
Ground-TruthI never had a conversation with him like that .
Tailored RefI had never had such a conversation with him .
", + "bbox": [ + 194, + 85, + 803, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: Case study of #319 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 193, + 882, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/dc5181c4113574bad5416c809b7e91f83b45237aa241d3ed8beabc3ec15107b4.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source Sentenceund vor einer Online @-@ Bestellung sollte man prüfen , so \n(and) (before) (an) (online) (order) (should) (you) (check) (so) \nGault , ob das Buch tatsächlich vorrätg ist. \n(Gault) (if) (the) (book) (actually) (in stock) (is)
Ground-Truthbefore ordering online , Gault says , be sure to check if the book \nis actually in stock .
Tailored Refand before an online order , Gault says , be sure to check if the \nbook is actually in stock .
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 239, + 853, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8: Case study of #1869 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 882, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the order of the source sentence and the tailored sentence is consistent, which makes it suitable for Wait-1 policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 487, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 8, using ground-truth as the training target of Wait-1 policy also forces the model to predict 'ordering online' before reading 'Online' and 'Bestellung'. In contrast, by replacing 'ordering online' with 'an online order', the word order of tailored reference is the same as the source sentence, thereby avoiding forced anticipations during the training of Wait-1 policy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 489, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 624, + 307, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The system settings on three translation tasks are shown in Table 6. For more detailed implementation issues, please refer to our publicly available code.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 650, + 489, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Numerical Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 312, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to the translation performance comparison in Figure 3 and Figure 4, we also provide corresponding numerical results for reference. Table 7, 8, 9 respectively report the numerical results on IWSLT15 $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}$ , WMT16 $\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}$ and WMT15 $\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}$ measured by AL (Ma et al., 2019) and BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 751, + 489, + 863 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3081", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b9a4f897d3fec39bf11184e02565dbfefa4fd948b62b1e3cedd3fabcb34d9787.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterIWSLT15 En→ViWMT16 En→RoWMT15 De→En
encoder layers666
encoder attention heads488
encoder embed dim512512512
encoder ffn embed dim102420482048
decoder layers666
decoder attention heads488
decoder embed dim512512512
decoder ffn embed dim102420482048
tailor layers222
tailor attention heads888
tailor embed dim512512512
tailor ffn embed dim204820482048
dropout0.10.30.3
optimizeradamadamadam
adam-β(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)
clip-norm000
lr5e-45e-45e-4
lr schedulerinverse sqrtinverse sqrtinverse sqrt
warmup-updates400040004000
warmup-init-lr1e-71e-71e-7
weight decay0.00010.00010.0001
label-smoothing0.10.10.1
max tokens160008192×48192×4
", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 287, + 828, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Hyperparameters of our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 339, + 694, + 653, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3082", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5d42485ed0da4a5b25155e0f58547d19a1ca0d2e49abb5302e975b291892e51a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
IWSLT15 En→Vi
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
22.4128.8
Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.0325.28
34.6427.53
56.4628.27
78.1128.45
99.8028.53
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.1926.56
34.7028.43
56.4328.73
78.1928.81
99.8628.88
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
12.9627.58
34.4929.03
56.2429.25
78.0129.45
99.7029.49
HMT
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0528.02
2, 23.7228.53
4, 24.9228.59
5, 46.3428.78
6, 48.1528.86
7, 69.6028.88
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0228.28
2, 23.7029.02
4, 25.3129.24
5, 46.2829.39
6, 48.0429.34
7, 69.7829.39
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 127, + 475, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d62b4c24b225ed15885f209742ee8e092c7c6e7172dd4946d4efacd7fd560543.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Numerical results of IWSLT15 En $\\rightarrow$ Vi." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a32.74
Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0920.67
33.0125.69
55.0929.28
77.2130.50
99.0330.87
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0023.50
33.3028.25
55.1530.94
77.0031.19
99.0031.33
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
11.4823.72
33.0728.30
54.9331.04
77.0232.13
98.8531.97
HMT
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7324.09
3, 63.3428.92
5, 65.3331.02
7, 67.4631.97
9, 89.2732.18
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7124.80
3, 63.2729.11
5, 65.2631.42
7, 67.3432.16
9, 89.2432.13
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 142, + 870, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Numerical results of WMT16 En→Ro.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 839, + 857, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3083", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4aa5bf818f0b46b2003fdbd44a44f11adea6f7eb0ccd3d902c1399695f0f9365.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a31.76
Wait-k
kALBLEU
10.0217.61
31.7123.75
53.8526.86
75.8628.20
97.8529.42
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
1-0.1821.40
31.8225.35
53.9827.50
75.9729.07
97.8829.52
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
1-0.3221.12
31.8925.90
53.8928.44
75.9129.80
97.8030.64
HMT
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.2722.52
2, 42.2027.60
3, 63.4629.29
5, 64.7430.29
7, 66.4330.90
9, 88.3631.45
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.0323.75
2, 42.1028.12
3, 63.1329.99
5, 64.6030.74
7, 66.3131.48
9, 88.1831.87
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 126, + 475, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Numerical results of WMT15 De→En.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 854, + 462, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3084", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_model.json b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2ce8d4efa84d2705c7d10c52a0f7e9dad631102 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2694 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.091, + 0.809, + 0.11 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.293, + 0.13, + 0.721, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shoutao Guo \\(^{1,2}\\), Shaolei Zhang \\(^{1,2}\\), Yang Feng \\(^{1,2*}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.149, + 0.725, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.184, + 0.166, + 0.819, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.253, + 0.182, + 0.753, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.146, + 0.199, + 0.855, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "guoshoutao22z@ict.ac.cn, zhangshaolei20z@ict.ac.cn, fengyang@ict.ac.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the whole source sentence. However, existing SiMT models are typically trained using the same reference disregarding the varying amounts of available source information at different latency. Training the model with ground-truth at low latency may introduce forced anticipations, whereas utilizing reference consistent with the source word order at high latency results in performance degradation. Consequently, it is crucial to train the SiMT model with appropriate reference that avoids forced anticipations during training while maintaining high quality. In this paper, we propose a novel method that provides tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency by rephrasing the ground-truth. Specifically, we introduce the tailor, induced by reinforcement learning, to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. The SiMT model is trained with the tailored reference and jointly optimized with the tailor to enhance performance. Importantly, our method is applicable to a wide range of current SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.689, + 0.26, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.714, + 0.49, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) (Gu et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2019, 2020) generates the target sentence while reading in the source sentence. Compared to Full-sentence translation, it faces a greater challenge because it has to make trade-offs between latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2022a). In applications, it needs to meet the requirements of different latency tolerances, such as online conferences and real-time subtitles. Therefore, the SiMT models trained at" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.254, + 0.88, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source Sentence看电影是一项愉快的活动。 (watch)(a movie) (is) (an) (enjoyable) (activity)
Ground-TruthIt is an enjoyable activity to watch a movie
Tailored RefWatching a movie is an enjoyable activity.
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.337, + 0.884, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example of Chinese-English parallel sentence. The SiMT model will be forced to predict 'an enjoyable activity' before reading corresponding source tokens. In contrast, the tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining the original semantics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.435, + 0.884, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "different latency should exhibit excellent translation performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.469, + 0.885, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using an inappropriate reference to train the SiMT model can significantly impact its performance. The optimal reference for the SiMT model trained at different latency varies. Under high latency, it is reasonable to train the SiMT model with ground-truth since the model can leverage sufficient source information (Zhang and Feng, 2022c). However, under low latency, the model is constrained by limited source information and thus requires reference consistent with the source word order (Chen et al., 2021). Therefore, the SiMT model should be trained with corresponding appropriate reference under different latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.679, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, the existing SiMT methods, which employ fixed or adaptive policy, commonly utilize only ground-truth for training across different latency settings. For fixed policy (Ma et al., 2019; Elbayad et al., 2020; Zhang and Feng, 2021), the model generates translations based on the predefined rules. The SiMT models are often forced to anticipate target tokens with insufficient information or wait for unnecessary source tokens. For adaptive policy (Ma et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2021; Zhang and Feng, 2022b), the model can adjust its translation policy based on translation status. Nevertheless, the policy learning of SiMT model will gradually adapt to the given reference (Zhang et al., 2020). Consequently, employing only ground-truth" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.88, + 0.365, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author: Yang Feng." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.894, + 0.487, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Code is available at https://github.com/ictnlp/Tailored-Ref" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.88, + 0.487, + 0.917 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3070" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3070-3084" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.958, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for the SiMT models trained at varying latency levels can negatively impact overall performance, as it forces them to learn the identical policy. Furthermore, Chen et al. (2021) adopts an offline approach to generate reference using the Full-sentence model for training the SiMT model at different latency, but this approach also imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and appropriate reference for the models with different latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.492, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Under these grounds, we aim to dynamically provide an appropriate reference for training the SiMT models at different latency. In SiMT, the source information available to the translation model varies with latency (Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, the appropriate reference should allow the model to utilize the available information for predicting target tokens accurately. Otherwise, it will result in forced anticipations, where the model predicts target tokens in reference using insufficient source information (Guo et al., 2023). To explore the extent of forced anticipations when training the SiMT model with ground-truth at different latency, we introduce anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021). As shown in Table 1, the anticipation rate decreases as the SiMT is trained with higher latency. Consequently, the reference requirements of the SiMT model vary at different latency. To meet the requirements, the appropriate reference should avoid forced anticipations during training and maintain high quality. Therefore, we propose to dynamically tailor reference, called tailored reference, for the training of SiMT model according to the latency, thereby reducing forced anticipations. We present an intuitive example of tailored reference in Figure 1. It can avoid forced predictions during training while maintaining the semantics consistent with the original sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we propose a new method for providing tailored reference to SiMT models at different latency. To accomplish this, we introduce the tailor, a shallow non-autoregressive Transformer Decoder (Gu et al., 2018), to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. Since there is no explicit supervision to train the tailor, we quantify the requirements for the tailored reference as two reward functions and optimize them using reinforcement learning (RL). On the one hand, tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations, ensuring that the word reordering between it and the source sentence can be handled by the SiMT model trained" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.083, + 0.872, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
k13579
AR[%]28.178.683.491.120.49
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.141, + 0.885, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: The \\(\\mathrm{AR}(\\downarrow)\\) on WMT15 De→En test set at different latency. \\(k\\) belongs to Wait-\\(k\\) policy (Ma et al., 2019) and represents the number of tokens that the target sentence lags behind the source sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.221, + 0.885, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "at that latency. To achieve this, the tailor learns from non-anticipatory reference corresponding to that latency, which can be generated by applying Wait-\\(k\\) policy to Full-sentence model (Chen et al., 2021). On the other hand, tailored reference should maintain high quality, which can be achieved by encouraging the tailor to learn from ground-truth. Therefore, we measure the similarity between the output of tailor and both non-anticipatory reference and ground-truth, assigning them as separate rewards. The tailor can be optimized by striking a balance between these two rewards. During training, the SiMT model takes the output of the tailor as the objective and is jointly optimized with the tailor. Additionally, our method is applicable to a wide range of SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.537, + 0.652, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Background" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.562, + 0.885, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For a SiMT task, the model reads in the source sentence \\(\\mathbf{x} = (x_{1},\\dots,x_{J})\\) with length \\(J\\) and generates the target sentence \\(\\mathbf{y} = (y_{1},\\dots,y_{I})\\) with length \\(I\\) based on the policy. To describe the policy, we define the number of source tokens read in when translating \\(y_{i}\\) as \\(g_{i}\\). Then the policy can be represented as \\(\\mathbf{g} = (g_{1},\\dots,g_{I})\\). Therefore, the SiMT model can be trained by minimizing the cross-entropy loss:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.556, + 0.696, + 0.884, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {s i m t} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {I} \\log p \\left(y _ {i} ^ {\\star} \\mid \\mathbf {x} _ {\\leq g _ {i}}, \\mathbf {y} _ {< i}\\right), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.744, + 0.835, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(y_{i}^{\\star}\\) represents the ground-truth token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.76, + 0.885, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach involves Wait- \\(k\\) (Ma et al., 2019), HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) and CTC training (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), so we briefly introduce them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.832, + 0.884, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wait-\\(k\\) policy As the most widely used fixed policy, the model reads in \\(k\\) tokens first and then alternates writing and reading a token. It can be formalized as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.599, + 0.902, + 0.883, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ng _ {i} ^ {k} = \\min \\{k + i - 1, J \\}, \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3071" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(J\\) indicates the length of the source sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.109, + 0.49, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HMT Hidden Markov Transformer (HMT), which derives from the Hidden Markov Model, is the current state-of-the-art SiMT model. It treats the translation policy \\(\\mathbf{g}\\) as hidden events and the target sentence \\(\\mathbf{y}\\) as observed events. During training, HMT learns when to generate translation by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of observed events over all possible policies:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.25, + 0.489, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {h m t} = - \\log \\sum_ {\\mathbf {g}} p (\\mathbf {y} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {g}) \\times p (\\mathbf {g}). \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.294, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CTC CTC (Graves et al., 2006) is applied in non-autoregressive translation (NAT) (Gu et al., 2018) due to its remarkable performance and no need for length predictor. CTC-based NAT will generate a sequence containing repetitive and blank tokens first, and then reduce it to a normal sentence based on the collapse function \\(\\Gamma^{-1}\\). During training, CTC will consider all possible sequences \\(a\\), which can be reduced to \\(y\\) using function \\(\\Gamma^{-1}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.45, + 0.488, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {c t c} = - \\log \\sum_ {\\mathbf {a} \\in \\Gamma (\\mathbf {y})} p (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}), \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.497, + 0.471, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(p(\\mathbf{a} \\mid \\mathbf{x})\\) is modeled by NAT architecture." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.525, + 0.219, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.55, + 0.49, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we introduce the architecture of our model, which incorporates tailor into the SiMT model. To train the SiMT model with the tailor, we present a three-stage training method, in which the SiMT model benefits from training with tailored reference and is optimized together with the tailor. During inference, the SiMT model generates translation according to the policy. The details are introduced in the following subsections." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.706, + 0.317, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Model Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the architecture of our method in Figure 2. Alongside the encoder and decoder, our method introduces the tailor module, which is responsible for generating a tailored reference for the SiMT model, utilizing the ground-truth as its input. Considering the efficiency of generating tailored reference, the tailor module adopts the structure of the non-autoregressive Transformer decoder (Vaswani et al., 2017). To enable the tailor to generate a tailored reference that is not limited by the length of ground-truth, it initially upsamples the ground-truth. Subsequently, it cross-attends to the output" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.083, + 0.864, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.366, + 0.885, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The architecture of our method. The tailor module modifies ground-truth to the tailored reference, which serves as the training target for the SiMT model. The tailor is induced to optimize two rewards by reinforcement learning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.884, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of the encoder and modifies ground-truth while considering the word order of the source sentence. Finally, it transforms the output of tailor into the tailored reference by eliminating repetitive and blank tokens (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018). The tailored reference replaces the ground-truth as the training objective for the SiMT model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.579, + 0.884, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the lack of explicit supervision for training the tailor, we quantify the requirements for tailored reference into two rewards and optimize the model through reinforcement learning. We propose a three-stage training method for the SiMT model with the tailor, the details of which will be presented in the next subsection." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.705, + 0.691, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Training Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After incorporating tailor into the SiMT model, it is essential to train the SiMT model with the assistance of tailor to get better performance. In light of this, we quantify the requirements of the tailored reference into two rewards and propose a novel three-stage training method for the training of our method. First, we train the SiMT model using ground-truth and equip the SiMT model with good translation capability. Subsequently, we use a pre-training strategy to train the tailor, enabling it to establish a favorable initial state and converge faster. Finally, we fine-tune the tailor by optimiz" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3072" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing the two rewards using reinforcement learning, where the output of the tailor serves as the training target for the SiMT model after being reduced. In the third stage, the tailor and SiMT model are jointly optimized and share the output the of the encoder. Next, we describe our three-stage training method in detail." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.206, + 0.49, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training the Base Model In our architecture, the tailor cross-attends to the output of the encoder to adjust ground-truth based on source information. As a result, before training the tailor module, we need a well-trained SiMT model as the base model. In our method, we choose the Wait-\\(k\\) policy (Ma et al., 2019) and HMT model (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) as the base model for fixed policy and adaptive policy, respectively. The base model is trained using the cross-entropy loss. Once the training of the base model is completed, we optimize the tailor module, which can provide the tailored reference for the SiMT models trained across different latency settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.439, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pre-training Tailor The tailor adopts the architecture of a non-autoregressive decoder (Gu et al., 2018). The non-autoregressive architecture has demonstrated excellent performance (Qian et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022). Importantly, it enables the simultaneous generation of target tokens across all positions, making it highly efficient for reinforcement learning. However, if we train the tailor using reinforcement learning directly, it will converge to a suboptimal state in which the tokens at each position are some frequent tokens (Shao et al., 2022). This behavior is attributed to the exploration-based nature of reinforcement learning, highlighting the need for a favorable initial state for the model (Lopes et al., 2012). Since the tailored reference is modified from ground-truth, we let it learn from ground-truth during pre-training and then fine-tune it using reinforcement learning. The details of pre-training stage are introduced below." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.745, + 0.49, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To keep the output of the tailor from being limited by the length of ground-truth, the tailor upsamples ground-truth to get the input of the tailor, denoted as \\(\\mathbf{y}'\\). During training, CTC loss (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018) is used to optimize the tailor." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denoting the output of the tailor as \\( \\mathbf{a} = (a_1, \\dots, a_T) \\), the probability distribution modeled by the tailor can be presented as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.174, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {a} (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p _ {a} \\left(a _ {t} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(T\\) is the output length of tailor and is a multiple of the length of \\(\\mathbf{y}\\). Subsequently, we can get the normal sequence \\(\\mathbf{s}\\) by applying collapse function \\(\\Gamma^{-1}\\) to \\(\\mathbf{a}\\) and the distribution of \\(\\mathbf{s}\\) is calculated by considering all possible \\(\\mathbf{a}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.176, + 0.884, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\np _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}) = \\sum_ {\\mathbf {a} \\in \\Gamma (\\mathbf {s})} p _ {a} (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}). \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.221, + 0.885, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make the tailor learn from ground-truth, the tailor is optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.28, + 0.884, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {p t} = - \\log p _ {s} (\\mathbf {y} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}), \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.308, + 0.884, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which can be efficiently calculated through dynamic programming (Graves et al., 2006)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.35, + 0.884, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RL Fine-tuning After completing the pretraining, the tailor is already in a favorable initial state. We quantify the requirements for tailored reference as two rewards and fine-tune the tailor using reinforcement learning. We then introduce the two reward functions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.884, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the one hand, the tailored reference should not force the model to predict the target tokens before reading corresponding source information, which means the SiMT model can handle the word reorderings between the tailored reference and the source sentence at that latency (Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, we make the tailor learn from non-anticipatory reference \\(\\mathbf{y}_{na}\\), which is generated by applying the corresponding Wait-\\(k\\) policy to the Full-sentence model. It has the word order that matches the latency and maintains the original semantics (Chen et al., 2021). We employ reward \\(\\mathcal{R}_{na}\\) to measure the similarity between the output of tailor and non-anticipatory reference. On the other hand, the tailored reference should remain faithful to ground-truth. We introduce the reward \\(\\mathcal{R}_{gt}\\) to measure the similarity between ground-truth and the output of the tailor. By striking an appropriate balance between \\(\\mathcal{R}_{na}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{R}_{gt}\\), we can obtain the tailored reference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.768, + 0.883, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the output \\( a \\) of tailor, we can obtain the normal sentence \\( s \\) by removing the repetitive and blank tokens (Libovický and Helcl, 2018). We use BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) to measure the similarity between two sequences. Therefore, \\( \\mathcal{R}_{na} \\) and \\( \\mathcal{R}_{gt} \\) for the output of tailor is calculated as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.876, + 0.883, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\\mathbf {s}) = \\operatorname {B L E U} (\\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {y} _ {n a}), \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.607, + 0.904, + 0.883, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\\mathbf {s}) = \\operatorname {B L E U} (\\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {y}). \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3073" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.092, + 0.376, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.233, + 0.291, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.379, + 0.091, + 0.622, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.462, + 0.233, + 0.54, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.625, + 0.091, + 0.871, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.71, + 0.233, + 0.785, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) \\(\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.261, + 0.836, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Translation performance of different fixed policies on \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\), \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) tasks." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.293, + 0.379, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.438, + 0.289, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.383, + 0.296, + 0.627, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.467, + 0.438, + 0.543, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.629, + 0.296, + 0.873, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.713, + 0.438, + 0.788, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) \\(\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.465, + 0.848, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Translation performance of different adaptive policies on \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\), \\(\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.487, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on these two rewards, we can obtain the final reward \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) by balancing \\(\\mathcal{R}_{na}\\) and \\(\\mathcal{R}_{gt}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.552, + 0.487, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) = (1 - \\alpha) \\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\\mathbf {s}) + \\alpha \\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\\mathbf {s}), \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.582, + 0.489, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\alpha \\in [0,1]\\) is a hyperparameter. Subsequently, we use REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992) to optimize the final reward \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) to obtain the tailored reference:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.657, + 0.499, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {J} (\\theta) = \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\mathbf {s}} p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta) \\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) \\\\ = \\underset {\\mathbf {s} \\sim p _ {s}} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\log p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta) \\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) \\right] \\\\ = \\underset {\\mathbf {a} \\sim p _ {a}} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\log p _ {s} \\left(\\Gamma^ {- 1} (\\mathbf {a}) \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta\\right) \\mathcal {R} \\left(\\Gamma^ {- 1} (\\mathbf {a}) \\right] \\right. \\tag {11} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\Gamma^{-1}\\) represents the collapse function and \\(\\theta\\) denotes the parameter of tailor. During training, we sample the sequence a from the distribution \\(p_a(\\mathbf{a} \\mid \\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{y}', \\theta)\\) using Monte Carlo method. As the tailor adopts a non-autoregressive structure where all positions are independent of each other, we can concurrently sample tokens for all positions from the distribution. We then apply collapse function to sequence a to obtain the normal sequence s, which is used to compute the reward" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.506, + 0.883, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})\\) and update the tailor with estimated gradient \\(\\nabla_{\\theta}\\log p_s(\\mathbf{s}\\mid \\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}',\\theta)\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})\\). In the calculation of \\(p_{s}(\\mathbf{s}\\mid \\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}',\\theta)\\), we use dynamic programming to accelerate the process. Additionally, we adopt the baseline reward strategy to reduce the variance of the estimated gradient (Weaver and Tao, 2001)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.602, + 0.884, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this stage, we utilize reinforcement learning to optimize the final reward \\(\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})\\) and train the SiMT model with tailored reference using \\(\\mathcal{L}_{t\\_simt}\\). As a result, the SiMT model and the tailor are jointly optimized to enhance performance." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.694, + 0.656, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.719, + 0.623, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.74, + 0.882, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate our method on three translation tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.755, + 0.884, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "IWSLT15² English→Vietnamese (En→Vi) (Cettolo et al., 2015) We use TED tst2012 as the development set and TED tst2013 as the test set. In line with Ma et al. (2020), we replace the tokens occurring less than 5 with ⟨unk⟩. Consequently, the vocabulary sizes of English and Vietnamese are 17K and 7.7K, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.868, + 0.882, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "WMT163 English→Romanian (En→Ro) We" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.891, + 0.828, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/nmt/" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.905, + 0.7, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3www.statmt.org/wmt16/" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.891, + 0.828, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3074" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "use newsdev-2016 as the development set and newtest-2016 as the test set. The source and target languages employ a shared vocabulary. Other settings are consistent with Gu et al. (2018)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.149, + 0.49, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "WMT154 German→English (De→En) Following Ma et al. (2020), we use newestest2013 as development set and newestest2015 as test set. We apply BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016) with 32K subword units and use a shared vocabulary between source and target." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.258, + 0.285, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 System Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.28, + 0.486, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our experiments involve the following methods and we briefly introduce them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.312, + 0.489, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Full-sentence model is the conventional full-sentence machine translation model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.344, + 0.487, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wait-\\(k\\) policy (Ma et al., 2019) initially reads \\(k\\) tokens and then alternates between writing and reading a source token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.393, + 0.487, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-path (Elbayad et al., 2020) introduces the unidirectional encoder and trains the model by sampling the latency \\( k \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.442, + 0.487, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adaptive Wait-\\(k\\) (Zheng et al., 2020) employs multiple Wait-\\(k\\) models through heuristic method to achieve adaptive policy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.491, + 0.489, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MMA (Ma et al., 2020) makes each head determine the translation policy by predicting the Bernoulli variable." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.539, + 0.489, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MoE Wait- \\(k\\) (Zhang and Feng, 2021), the current state-of-the-art fixed policy, treats each head as an expert and integrates the decisions of all experts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.588, + 0.487, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PED (Guo et al., 2022) implements the adaptive policy via integrating post-evaluation into the fixed translation policy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.637, + 0.489, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "BS-SiMT (Guo et al., 2023) constructs the optimal policy online via binary search." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.669, + 0.489, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ITST (Zhang and Feng, 2022b) treats the translation as information transport from source to target." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.702, + 0.489, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) models simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden Markov Model, and achieves the current state-of-the-art performance in SiMT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.766, + 0.487, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(+100\\%\\) Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) trains the Wait-\\(k\\) model with ground-truth and pseudo reference, which is generated by applying Wait-\\(k\\) policy to the Full-sentence model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.831, + 0.489, + 0.878 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*+Top \\(40\\%\\) Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) filters out pseudo references in the top \\(40\\%\\) of quality to train the model with ground-truth." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.88, + 0.486, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wait-\\(k +\\) Tailor applies our method on Wait-\\(k\\)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.085, + 0.878, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.294, + 0.882, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Translation performance of different training methods on Wait-\\(k\\) policy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.35, + 0.86, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HMT + Tailor applies our method on HMT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.884, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "All systems are based on Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and adapted from Fairseq Library (Ott et al., 2019). We apply Transformer-Small (6 layers, 4 heads) for \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\) task and Transform-Base (6 layers, 8 heads) for \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) tasks. Since PED and Adaptive Wait-\\(k\\) do not report the results on the \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\) task, we do not compare them in the experiment. For our method, we adopt the non-regressive decoder structure with 2 layers for the tailor. We empirically set the hyperparameter \\(\\alpha\\) as 0.2. The non-anticipatory reference used for RL Fine-tuning of SiMT model is generated by Test-time Wait-\\(k\\) method (Ma et al., 2019) with corresponding latency. Other system settings are consistent with Ma et al. (2020) and Zhang and Feng (2023b). The detailed settings are shown in Appendix C. We use greedy search during inference and evaluate all methods with translation quality estimated by BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and latency measured by Average Lagging (AL) (Ma et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.72, + 0.661, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.742, + 0.883, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The performance comparison between our method and other SiMT approaches on three translation tasks is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Our method achieves state-of-the-art translation performance in both fixed and adaptive policies. When comparing with other training methods in Figure 5, our approach also achieves superior performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "When selecting the most commonly used Wait-k policy as the base model, our method outperforms MoE Wait-k, which is the current state-of-the-art fixed policy. Compared to Wait-k policy," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.305, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4www.statmt.org/wmt15/" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3075" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.172, + 0.082, + 0.432, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Nt124
AL1.501.891.84
BLEU24.4325.9025.46
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.158, + 0.488, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Performance of the SiMT model when the tailor has a different number of layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.219, + 0.49, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "our method brings significant improvement, especially under low latency. Wait-\\(k\\) policy is trained on ground-truth and cannot be adjusted, which may force the model to predict tokens before reading corresponding source information (Ma et al., 2019). In contrast, our method provides a tailored reference for the SiMT model, thereby alleviating the issue of forced anticipations. Our method also exceeds Multi-path and MoE Wait-\\(k\\). These two methods are trained using multiple Wait-\\(k\\) policies (Elbayad et al., 2020) and gain the ability to translate under multiple latency (Zhang and Feng, 2021), but they still utilize ground-truth at all latency, leading to lower performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method can further enhance the SiMT performance by selecting adaptive policy as the base model. As the current state-of-the-art adaptive policy, HMT possesses the ability to dynamically adjust policy to balance latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2023b). However, it still relies on ground-truth for training SiMT models across different latency settings. By providing a tailored reference that matches the latency, our method can alleviate the latency burden of the SiMT model, resulting in state-of-the-art performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.627, + 0.49, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method also surpasses other training approaches. Ground-truth is not suitable for incremental input due to word reorderings, resulting in performance degradation (Zhang and Feng, 2022b). On the contrary, pseudo reference can avoid forced anticipations during training (Chen et al., 2021). However, it is constructed offline by applying the Wait-\\(k\\) policy on the Full-sentence model. It imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. The tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining high quality, leading to the best performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to enhancing translation performance, our method effectively narrows the gap between fixed and adaptive policies. By leveraging our method, the SiMT model can achieve comparable performance to Full-sentence translation with lower latency on \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) tasks." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.082, + 0.875, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodαALBLEU
Wait-k + Tailor0.11.7224.82
0.21.8925.90
0.31.9525.30
w/o Base Model0.21.7722.89
w/o Pre-training0.21.8024.66
w/o RL Fine-tuning0.21.8624.60
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.241, + 0.885, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study on training method of the tailor and ratio between two rewards. 'w/o Base Model' removes the training stage of the base model. 'w/o Pre-training' removes the pre-training stage. 'w/o RL Fine-tuning' removes the RL fine-tuning stage." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.339, + 0.618, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.366, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To gain a comprehensive understanding of our method, we conducted multiple analyses. All of the following results are reported on De→En task." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.428, + 0.674, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.45, + 0.885, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct ablation studies on the structure and training method of tailor to investigate the influence of different settings. The experiments all use Wait- \\(k\\) model as the base model with \\(k\\) set to 3. Table 2 presents a comparison of different structures. The best performance is achieved when the tailor has 2 layers. The performance can be negatively affected by both excessive layers and insufficient layers. Table 3 illustrates the results of the ablation study on the training method. Each stage of the training method contributes to the performance of the SiMT model and the training stage of the base model has the most significant impact on the performance. This can be attributed to the fact that a well-trained encoder can provide accurate source information to the tailor, enabling the generation of appropriate tailored references. Additionally, when \\(\\alpha\\) is selected as 0.2, our method yields the best performance, indicating an optimal balance between word order and quality for the tailor." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.785, + 0.795, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Analysis of Tailored Reference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anticipation Rate Furthermore, we conduct an analysis of the tailored reference to assess its influence. We first explore the rate of forced anticipations caused by using different references during training. Using the anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021) as the metric, the results in Table 4 show that the tailored reference can effectively re" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3076" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.083, + 0.477, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
k1357
Ground-Truth28.178.683.491.12
Tailored Ref19.848.292.980.90
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.158, + 0.489, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: The anticipation rate (AR[%]) when applying the Wait- \\( k \\) policy on different references, which are based on De \\( \\rightarrow \\) En test set." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.215, + 0.486, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
k1357
Tailored Ref79.6786.0184.8392.40
Non-Anti Ref21.8724.0726.2927.24
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.29, + 0.49, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: The quality (BLEU) of difference references compared to ground-truth for the training of Wait-\\(k\\) policy. 'Non-Anti Ref' represents the reference generated by applying Wait-\\(k\\) policy on Full-sentence model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.375, + 0.489, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "duce the forced anticipations during the training of the SiMT model under all latency. This implies that, compared to ground-truth, the word reorderingings between the tailored reference and the source sentence can be more effectively handled by the SiMT model at different latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.482, + 0.49, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quality However, one concern is whether the quality of tailored reference will deteriorate like non-anticipatory reference after adjusting the word order. To assess this, we compare different references with ground-truth to measure their quality. As shown in Table 5, we observe that the tailored reference exhibits significantly higher quality than the non-anticipatory reference. Therefore, our method successfully reduces the rate of forced anticipations during training while remaining faithful to ground-truth. To provide a better understanding of the tailored reference, we include several illustrative cases in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.705, + 0.384, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Hallucination in Translation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If the SiMT model is forced to predict target tokens before reading corresponding source information during training, there is a high likelihood of generating hallucinations during inference (Ma et al., 2019). To quantify the presence of hallucinations in the translation, we introduce hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) for evaluation. Figure 6 illustrates that the SiMT model trained with the tailored reference demonstrates a reduced probability of generating hallucinations. Moreover, even though the adaptive policy can adjust its behavior based on the translation status, our approach still ef" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.085, + 0.872, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.284, + 0.886, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: The hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) of different methods. It measures the proportion of tokens in translation that cannot find corresponding source information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.886, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fectively mitigates the hallucinations by alleviating the burden of latency. This signifies that minimizing forced predictions during training can enhance the faithfulness of the translation to the source sentence, thereby improving translation quality (Ma et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.476, + 0.667, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.501, + 0.885, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the source sentence. It requires a policy to determine the source information read when translating each target token, thus striking a balance between latency and translation quality. Current research on SiMT mainly focuses on two areas: policy improvement and adjustment of the training method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For policy improvement, it aims to provide sufficient source information for translation while avoiding unnecessary latency. Ma et al. (2019) propose Wait-\\(k\\) policy, which initially reads \\(k\\) tokens and alternates between writing and reading one token. Zhang and Feng (2021) enable each head to obtain the information with a different fixed latency and integrate the decisions of multiple heads for translation. However, the fixed policy cannot be flexibly adjusted based on context, resulting in suboptimal performance. Ma et al. (2020) allow each head to determine its own policy and make all heads decide on the translation. Miao et al. (2021) propose a generative framework, which uses a re-parameterized Poisson prior to regularising the policy. Zhang and Feng (2023a) propose a segmentation policy for the source input. Zhang and Feng (2023b) model the simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3077" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Markov Model and achieve state-of-the-art performance. However, these methods are all trained with ground-truth, leading to forced predictions at low latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.151, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the adjustment of the training method, it wants to supplement the missing full-sentence information or cater to the requirements of latency. Zhang et al. (2021) shorten the distance of source hidden states between the SiMT model and the Full-sentence model. This makes the source hidden states implicitly embed future information, but encourages data-driven prediction. On the other hand, Chen et al. (2021) try to train the model with non-anticipatory reference, which can be effectively handled by the SiMT model at that latency. However, while non-anticipatory reference can alleviate forced predictions at low latency, it hinders performance improvement at high latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.375, + 0.49, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we want to provide a tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency. The tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations and exhibit high quality. In view of the good structure and superior performance of the non-autoregressive model (Gu et al., 2018; Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), we utilize it to modify the ground-truth to the tailored reference." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.515, + 0.248, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.541, + 0.49, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel method to provide a tailored reference for the training of SiMT model. Experiments and extensive analyses demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies and effectively reduces the hallucinations in translation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.649, + 0.22, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.674, + 0.49, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Regarding the system settings, we investigate the impact of the number of layers and training methods on performance. We think that further exploration of system settings could potentially yield even better results. Additionally, the tailor module aims to avoid forced anticipations and maintain faithfulness to ground-truth. If we can add language-related features to the SiMT model using a heuristic method, it may produce more suitable references for the SiMT model. We leave it for future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.863, + 0.27, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank all anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.084, + 0.61, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.108, + 0.885, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mauro Cettolo, Jan Niehues, Sebastian Stüker, Luisa Bentivogli, Roldano Cattoni, and Marcello Federico. 2015. The IWSLT 2015 evaluation campaign. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation: Evaluation Campaign@IWSLT 2015, Da Nang, Vietnam, December 3-4, 2015." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.21, + 0.885, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junkun Chen, Renjie Zheng, Atsuhito Kita, Mingbo Ma, and Liang Huang. 2021. Improving simultaneous translation by incorporating pseudo-references with fewer reorderings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 5857-5864. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.339, + 0.885, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maha Elbayad, Laurent Besacier, and Jakob Verbeek. 2020. Efficient wait-k models for simultaneous machine translation. In *Interspeech* 2020, 21st Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Virtual Event, Shanghai, China, 25-29 October 2020, pages 1461-1465. ISCA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.429, + 0.885, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jurgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference (ICML 2006), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, June 25-29, 2006, volume 148 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 369-376. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.558, + 0.885, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O. K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.647, + 0.885, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiatao Gu, Graham Neubig, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2017. Learning to translate in real-time with neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1053-1062, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.75, + 0.885, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Turning fixed to adaptive: Integrating post-evaluation into simultaneous machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 2264-2278. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.853, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Learning optimal policy for simultaneous machine translation via binary search. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.108, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3078" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2318-2333, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.125, + 0.489, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for nonautoregressive machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.177, + 0.489, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jindrich Libovicky and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3016-3021, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.281, + 0.489, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Manuel Lopes, Tobias Lang, Marc Toussaint, and Pierreyves Oudeyer. 2012. Exploration in model-based reinforcement learning by empirically estimating learning progress. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.372, + 0.489, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, Renjie Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Baigong Zheng, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hairong Liu, Xing Li, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. STACL: simultaneous translation with implicit anticipation and controllable latency using prefix-to-prefix framework. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 3025-3036. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.528, + 0.489, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xutai Ma, Juan Miguel Pino, James Cross, Liezl Puzon, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Monotonic multihead attention. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.606, + 0.489, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengrui Ma, Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, Chenze Shao, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Nonautoregressive streaming transformer for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.696, + 0.489, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yishu Miao, Phil Blunsom, and Lucia Specia. 2021. A generative framework for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 6697-6706. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Demonstrations, pages 48-53. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.189, + 0.883, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2020. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07905." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.265, + 0.883, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.368, + 0.883, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenze Shao, Jinchao Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Yang Feng. 2022. Rephrasing the reference for non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2211.16863." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.431, + 0.883, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.534, + 0.883, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lex Weaver and Nigel Tao. 2001. The optimal reward baseline for gradient-based reinforcement learning. In UAI '01: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2-5, 2001, pages 538-545. Morgan Kaufmann." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.624, + 0.883, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.674, + 0.883, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ruiqing Zhang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Learning adaptive segmentation policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2280-2289, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.776, + 0.883, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2021. Universal simultaneous machine translation with mixture-of-experts wait-k policy. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 7306-7317. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022a. Gaussian multihead attention for simultaneous machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3079" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3019-3030, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.135, + 0.49, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022b. Information-transport-based policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 992-1013, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.224, + 0.49, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022c. Modeling dual read/write paths for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2461-2477, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.313, + 0.49, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023a. End-to-end simultaneous speech translation with differentiable segmentation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023b. Hidden markov transformer for simultaneous machine translation. CoRR, abs/2303.00257." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.438, + 0.49, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang, Yang Feng, and Liangyou Li. 2021. Future-guided incremental transformer for simultaneous translation. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14428-14436. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, and Yang Feng. 2022. Wait-info policy: Balancing source and target at information level for simultaneous machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2249-2263, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.668, + 0.49, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baigong Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Renjie Zheng, Mingbo Ma, Hairong Liu, and Liang Huang. 2020. Simultaneous translation policies: From fixed to adaptive. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 2847-2853. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.848, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Anticipation & Hallucination Rate" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.11, + 0.885, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our analyses, we evaluate the reference and translation using anticipation rate (AR) and hallucination rate (HR), respectively. We then introduce the calculation method of these two evaluation metrics in detail." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.191, + 0.885, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a sentence pair \\((\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y})\\), there exists an alignment set \\(\\mathbf{h}\\), which is a set of source-target index pairs \\((j,i)\\) where \\(j^{\\mathrm{th}}\\) source token \\(x_{j}\\) aligns to the \\(i^{\\mathrm{th}}\\) target token \\(y_{i}\\). If we apply the policy \\(\\mathbf{g} = (g_1,\\dots,g_I)\\) on this sentence pair, the target token \\(y_{i}\\) is forcibly anticipated \\((A(i,\\mathbf{h},\\mathbf{g}) = 1)\\) if it aligns to least one source token \\(x_{j}\\) where \\(j > g_{i}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.316, + 0.884, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA (i, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}) = \\mathbb {1} \\left[ \\left\\{(j, i) \\in \\mathbf {h} \\mid j > g _ {i} \\right\\} \\neq \\varnothing \\right]. \\tag {12}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.347, + 0.884, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, we can define the anticipation rate (AR) of \\((\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y},\\mathbf{h})\\) under the policy \\(\\mathbf{g}\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.391, + 0.884, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA R (\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y}, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}) = \\frac {1}{| \\mathbf {y} |} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathbf {y} |} A (i, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}). \\tag {13}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.883, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The anticipation rate is a metric used to quantify the degree to which the target token is predicted before reading all relevant source tokens." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.495, + 0.884, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We then introduce the hallucination rate (HR). We first define the translation as \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}\\). A target token \\(\\hat{y}_i\\) in translation \\(\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}\\) is a hallucination \\((H(i, \\mathbf{h}) = 1)\\) if it can not be aligned to any source token:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.572, + 0.884, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nH (i, \\mathbf {h}) = \\mathbb {1} [ \\{(j, i) \\in \\mathbf {h} \\} = \\varnothing ]. \\tag {14}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.602, + 0.884, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, the hallucination rate can be defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.577, + 0.629, + 0.883, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nH R (\\mathbf {x}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}}, \\mathbf {h}) = \\frac {1}{| \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} |} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} |} H (i, \\mathbf {h}). \\tag {15}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.685, + 0.646, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.883, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also provide two cases in the De \\(\\rightarrow\\) En test set to understand our method. The cases are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. It presents that the tailored reference is more consistent with the word order requirements of the specific latency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 7, if we train the SiMT model on Wait-1 policy with the ground-truth, it will be forced to predict 'with him' before reading 'mit ihm' during training. However, training the SiMT model with tailored reference will eliminate forced predictions by adjusting 'like that' to 'such' and positioning it forward. Importantly, the tailored reference also maintains the original semantics. This shows that" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3080" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.086, + 0.805, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source Sentenceich hatte nie ein solches Geschäfts mit ihm . (I) (had) (never) (a) (such) (conversation) (with) (him)
Ground-TruthI never had a conversation with him like that .
Tailored RefI had never had such a conversation with him .
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.195, + 0.884, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Case study of #319 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.24, + 0.855, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source Sentenceund vor einer Online @-@ Bestellung sollte man prüfen , so \n(and) (before) (an) (online) (order) (should) (you) (check) (so) \nGault , ob das Buch tatsächlich vorrätg ist. \n(Gault) (if) (the) (book) (actually) (in stock) (is)
Ground-Truthbefore ordering online , Gault says , be sure to check if the book \nis actually in stock .
Tailored Refand before an online order , Gault says , be sure to check if the \nbook is actually in stock .
" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.382, + 0.884, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Case study of #1869 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the order of the source sentence and the tailored sentence is consistent, which makes it suitable for Wait-1 policy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.485, + 0.49, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 8, using ground-truth as the training target of Wait-1 policy also forces the model to predict 'ordering online' before reading 'Online' and 'Bestellung'. In contrast, by replacing 'ordering online' with 'an online order', the word order of tailored reference is the same as the source sentence, thereby avoiding forced anticipations during the training of Wait-1 policy." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.625, + 0.308, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.651, + 0.49, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The system settings on three translation tasks are shown in Table 6. For more detailed implementation issues, please refer to our publicly available code." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.726, + 0.314, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Numerical Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.752, + 0.49, + 0.864 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to the translation performance comparison in Figure 3 and Figure 4, we also provide corresponding numerical results for reference. Table 7, 8, 9 respectively report the numerical results on IWSLT15 \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}\\), WMT16 \\(\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}\\) and WMT15 \\(\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}\\) measured by AL (Ma et al., 2019) and BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3081" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.288, + 0.83, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterIWSLT15 En→ViWMT16 En→RoWMT15 De→En
encoder layers666
encoder attention heads488
encoder embed dim512512512
encoder ffn embed dim102420482048
decoder layers666
decoder attention heads488
decoder embed dim512512512
decoder ffn embed dim102420482048
tailor layers222
tailor attention heads888
tailor embed dim512512512
tailor ffn embed dim204820482048
dropout0.10.30.3
optimizeradamadamadam
adam-β(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)
clip-norm000
lr5e-45e-45e-4
lr schedulerinverse sqrtinverse sqrtinverse sqrt
warmup-updates400040004000
warmup-init-lr1e-71e-71e-7
weight decay0.00010.00010.0001
label-smoothing0.10.10.1
max tokens160008192×48192×4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.341, + 0.695, + 0.655, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Hyperparameters of our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3082" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.128, + 0.476, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
IWSLT15 En→Vi
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
22.4128.8
Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.0325.28
34.6427.53
56.4628.27
78.1128.45
99.8028.53
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.1926.56
34.7028.43
56.4328.73
78.1928.81
99.8628.88
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
12.9627.58
34.4929.03
56.2429.25
78.0129.45
99.7029.49
HMT
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0528.02
2, 23.7228.53
4, 24.9228.59
5, 46.3428.78
6, 48.1528.86
7, 69.6028.88
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0228.28
2, 23.7029.02
4, 25.3129.24
5, 46.2829.39
6, 48.0429.34
7, 69.7829.39
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.856, + 0.465, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Numerical results of IWSLT15 En \\( \\rightarrow \\) Vi." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.143, + 0.871, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a32.74
Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0920.67
33.0125.69
55.0929.28
77.2130.50
99.0330.87
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0023.50
33.3028.25
55.1530.94
77.0031.19
99.0031.33
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
11.4823.72
33.0728.30
54.9331.04
77.0232.13
98.8531.97
HMT
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7324.09
3, 63.3428.92
5, 65.3331.02
7, 67.4631.97
9, 89.2732.18
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7124.80
3, 63.2729.11
5, 65.2631.42
7, 67.3432.16
9, 89.2432.13
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.84, + 0.858, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Numerical results of WMT16 En→Ro." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3083" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.127, + 0.477, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a31.76
Wait-k
kALBLEU
10.0217.61
31.7123.75
53.8526.86
75.8628.20
97.8529.42
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
1-0.1821.40
31.8225.35
53.9827.50
75.9729.07
97.8829.52
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
1-0.3221.12
31.8925.90
53.8928.44
75.9129.80
97.8030.64
HMT
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.2722.52
2, 42.2027.60
3, 63.4629.29
5, 64.7430.29
7, 66.4330.90
9, 88.3631.45
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.0323.75
2, 42.1028.12
3, 63.1329.99
5, 64.6030.74
7, 66.3131.48
9, 88.1831.87
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.856, + 0.463, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Numerical results of WMT15 De→En." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3084" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_origin.pdf b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2168f3980d5c0a4fd1a678295a7ab9e88eb7c57d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/71acfca9-9272-4b42-91c8-9299d69b3815_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a168dc09b50799f8953919fde6e78d0a66fc02c8a7499814942cea89802c17f7 +size 907724 diff --git a/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/full.md b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a632ea4cbdc72d48538c9e612863a9ff7999c7f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,429 @@ +# Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference + +Shoutao Guo $^{1,2}$ , Shaolei Zhang $^{1,2}$ , Yang Feng $^{1,2*}$ + +1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, + +Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS) + +2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China + +guoshoutao22z@ict.ac.cn, zhangshaolei20z@ict.ac.cn, fengyang@ict.ac.cn + +# Abstract + +Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the whole source sentence. However, existing SiMT models are typically trained using the same reference disregarding the varying amounts of available source information at different latency. Training the model with ground-truth at low latency may introduce forced anticipations, whereas utilizing reference consistent with the source word order at high latency results in performance degradation. Consequently, it is crucial to train the SiMT model with appropriate reference that avoids forced anticipations during training while maintaining high quality. In this paper, we propose a novel method that provides tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency by rephrasing the ground-truth. Specifically, we introduce the tailor, induced by reinforcement learning, to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. The SiMT model is trained with the tailored reference and jointly optimized with the tailor to enhance performance. Importantly, our method is applicable to a wide range of current SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies1. + +# 1 Introduction + +Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) (Gu et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2019, 2020) generates the target sentence while reading in the source sentence. Compared to Full-sentence translation, it faces a greater challenge because it has to make trade-offs between latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2022a). In applications, it needs to meet the requirements of different latency tolerances, such as online conferences and real-time subtitles. Therefore, the SiMT models trained at + +
Source Sentence看电影是一项愉快的活动。 (watch)(a movie) (is) (an) (enjoyable) (activity)
Ground-TruthIt is an enjoyable activity to watch a movie
Tailored RefWatching a movie is an enjoyable activity.
+ +Figure 1: An example of Chinese-English parallel sentence. The SiMT model will be forced to predict 'an enjoyable activity' before reading corresponding source tokens. In contrast, the tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining the original semantics. + +different latency should exhibit excellent translation performance. + +Using an inappropriate reference to train the SiMT model can significantly impact its performance. The optimal reference for the SiMT model trained at different latency varies. Under high latency, it is reasonable to train the SiMT model with ground-truth since the model can leverage sufficient source information (Zhang and Feng, 2022c). However, under low latency, the model is constrained by limited source information and thus requires reference consistent with the source word order (Chen et al., 2021). Therefore, the SiMT model should be trained with corresponding appropriate reference under different latency. + +However, the existing SiMT methods, which employ fixed or adaptive policy, commonly utilize only ground-truth for training across different latency settings. For fixed policy (Ma et al., 2019; Elbayad et al., 2020; Zhang and Feng, 2021), the model generates translations based on the predefined rules. The SiMT models are often forced to anticipate target tokens with insufficient information or wait for unnecessary source tokens. For adaptive policy (Ma et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2021; Zhang and Feng, 2022b), the model can adjust its translation policy based on translation status. Nevertheless, the policy learning of SiMT model will gradually adapt to the given reference (Zhang et al., 2020). Consequently, employing only ground-truth + +for the SiMT models trained at varying latency levels can negatively impact overall performance, as it forces them to learn the identical policy. Furthermore, Chen et al. (2021) adopts an offline approach to generate reference using the Full-sentence model for training the SiMT model at different latency, but this approach also imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and appropriate reference for the models with different latency. + +Under these grounds, we aim to dynamically provide an appropriate reference for training the SiMT models at different latency. In SiMT, the source information available to the translation model varies with latency (Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, the appropriate reference should allow the model to utilize the available information for predicting target tokens accurately. Otherwise, it will result in forced anticipations, where the model predicts target tokens in reference using insufficient source information (Guo et al., 2023). To explore the extent of forced anticipations when training the SiMT model with ground-truth at different latency, we introduce anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021). As shown in Table 1, the anticipation rate decreases as the SiMT is trained with higher latency. Consequently, the reference requirements of the SiMT model vary at different latency. To meet the requirements, the appropriate reference should avoid forced anticipations during training and maintain high quality. Therefore, we propose to dynamically tailor reference, called tailored reference, for the training of SiMT model according to the latency, thereby reducing forced anticipations. We present an intuitive example of tailored reference in Figure 1. It can avoid forced predictions during training while maintaining the semantics consistent with the original sentence. + +Therefore, we propose a new method for providing tailored reference to SiMT models at different latency. To accomplish this, we introduce the tailor, a shallow non-autoregressive Transformer Decoder (Gu et al., 2018), to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. Since there is no explicit supervision to train the tailor, we quantify the requirements for the tailored reference as two reward functions and optimize them using reinforcement learning (RL). On the one hand, tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations, ensuring that the word reordering between it and the source sentence can be handled by the SiMT model trained + +
k13579
AR[%]28.178.683.491.120.49
+ +Table 1: The $\mathrm{AR}(\downarrow)$ on WMT15 De→En test set at different latency. $k$ belongs to Wait- $k$ policy (Ma et al., 2019) and represents the number of tokens that the target sentence lags behind the source sentence. + +at that latency. To achieve this, the tailor learns from non-anticipatory reference corresponding to that latency, which can be generated by applying Wait- $k$ policy to Full-sentence model (Chen et al., 2021). On the other hand, tailored reference should maintain high quality, which can be achieved by encouraging the tailor to learn from ground-truth. Therefore, we measure the similarity between the output of tailor and both non-anticipatory reference and ground-truth, assigning them as separate rewards. The tailor can be optimized by striking a balance between these two rewards. During training, the SiMT model takes the output of the tailor as the objective and is jointly optimized with the tailor. Additionally, our method is applicable to a wide range of SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies. + +# 2 Background + +For a SiMT task, the model reads in the source sentence $\mathbf{x} = (x_{1},\dots,x_{J})$ with length $J$ and generates the target sentence $\mathbf{y} = (y_{1},\dots,y_{I})$ with length $I$ based on the policy. To describe the policy, we define the number of source tokens read in when translating $y_{i}$ as $g_{i}$ . Then the policy can be represented as $\mathbf{g} = (g_{1},\dots,g_{I})$ . Therefore, the SiMT model can be trained by minimizing the cross-entropy loss: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {s i m t} = - \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {I} \log p \left(y _ {i} ^ {\star} \mid \mathbf {x} _ {\leq g _ {i}}, \mathbf {y} _ {< i}\right), \tag {1} +$$ + +where $y_{i}^{\star}$ represents the ground-truth token. + +Our approach involves Wait- $k$ (Ma et al., 2019), HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) and CTC training (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), so we briefly introduce them. + +Wait- $k$ policy As the most widely used fixed policy, the model reads in $k$ tokens first and then alternates writing and reading a token. It can be formalized as: + +$$ +g _ {i} ^ {k} = \min \{k + i - 1, J \}, \tag {2} +$$ + +where $J$ indicates the length of the source sentence. + +HMT Hidden Markov Transformer (HMT), which derives from the Hidden Markov Model, is the current state-of-the-art SiMT model. It treats the translation policy $\mathbf{g}$ as hidden events and the target sentence $\mathbf{y}$ as observed events. During training, HMT learns when to generate translation by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of observed events over all possible policies: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {h m t} = - \log \sum_ {\mathbf {g}} p (\mathbf {y} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {g}) \times p (\mathbf {g}). \tag {3} +$$ + +CTC CTC (Graves et al., 2006) is applied in non-autoregressive translation (NAT) (Gu et al., 2018) due to its remarkable performance and no need for length predictor. CTC-based NAT will generate a sequence containing repetitive and blank tokens first, and then reduce it to a normal sentence based on the collapse function $\Gamma^{-1}$ . During training, CTC will consider all possible sequences $a$ , which can be reduced to $y$ using function $\Gamma^{-1}$ : + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {c t c} = - \log \sum_ {\mathbf {a} \in \Gamma (\mathbf {y})} p (\mathbf {a} \mid \mathbf {x}), \tag {4} +$$ + +where $p(\mathbf{a} \mid \mathbf{x})$ is modeled by NAT architecture. + +# 3 Method + +In this section, we introduce the architecture of our model, which incorporates tailor into the SiMT model. To train the SiMT model with the tailor, we present a three-stage training method, in which the SiMT model benefits from training with tailored reference and is optimized together with the tailor. During inference, the SiMT model generates translation according to the policy. The details are introduced in the following subsections. + +# 3.1 Model Architecture + +We present the architecture of our method in Figure 2. Alongside the encoder and decoder, our method introduces the tailor module, which is responsible for generating a tailored reference for the SiMT model, utilizing the ground-truth as its input. Considering the efficiency of generating tailored reference, the tailor module adopts the structure of the non-autoregressive Transformer decoder (Vaswani et al., 2017). To enable the tailor to generate a tailored reference that is not limited by the length of ground-truth, it initially upsamples the ground-truth. Subsequently, it cross-attends to the output + +![](images/b7a652cdca41d37a90a3986fbd9159f5d36be927a0ab6578eedf8372a955923e.jpg) +Figure 2: The architecture of our method. The tailor module modifies ground-truth to the tailored reference, which serves as the training target for the SiMT model. The tailor is induced to optimize two rewards by reinforcement learning. + +of the encoder and modifies ground-truth while considering the word order of the source sentence. Finally, it transforms the output of tailor into the tailored reference by eliminating repetitive and blank tokens (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018). The tailored reference replaces the ground-truth as the training objective for the SiMT model. + +Given the lack of explicit supervision for training the tailor, we quantify the requirements for tailored reference into two rewards and optimize the model through reinforcement learning. We propose a three-stage training method for the SiMT model with the tailor, the details of which will be presented in the next subsection. + +# 3.2 Training Method + +After incorporating tailor into the SiMT model, it is essential to train the SiMT model with the assistance of tailor to get better performance. In light of this, we quantify the requirements of the tailored reference into two rewards and propose a novel three-stage training method for the training of our method. First, we train the SiMT model using ground-truth and equip the SiMT model with good translation capability. Subsequently, we use a pre-training strategy to train the tailor, enabling it to establish a favorable initial state and converge faster. Finally, we fine-tune the tailor by optimiz + +ing the two rewards using reinforcement learning, where the output of the tailor serves as the training target for the SiMT model after being reduced. In the third stage, the tailor and SiMT model are jointly optimized and share the output the of the encoder. Next, we describe our three-stage training method in detail. + +Training the Base Model In our architecture, the tailor cross-attends to the output of the encoder to adjust ground-truth based on source information. As a result, before training the tailor module, we need a well-trained SiMT model as the base model. In our method, we choose the Wait- $k$ policy (Ma et al., 2019) and HMT model (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) as the base model for fixed policy and adaptive policy, respectively. The base model is trained using the cross-entropy loss. Once the training of the base model is completed, we optimize the tailor module, which can provide the tailored reference for the SiMT models trained across different latency settings. + +Pre-training Tailor The tailor adopts the architecture of a non-autoregressive decoder (Gu et al., 2018). The non-autoregressive architecture has demonstrated excellent performance (Qian et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022). Importantly, it enables the simultaneous generation of target tokens across all positions, making it highly efficient for reinforcement learning. However, if we train the tailor using reinforcement learning directly, it will converge to a suboptimal state in which the tokens at each position are some frequent tokens (Shao et al., 2022). This behavior is attributed to the exploration-based nature of reinforcement learning, highlighting the need for a favorable initial state for the model (Lopes et al., 2012). Since the tailored reference is modified from ground-truth, we let it learn from ground-truth during pre-training and then fine-tune it using reinforcement learning. The details of pre-training stage are introduced below. + +To keep the output of the tailor from being limited by the length of ground-truth, the tailor upsamples ground-truth to get the input of the tailor, denoted as $\mathbf{y}'$ . During training, CTC loss (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018) is used to optimize the tailor. + +Denoting the output of the tailor as $\mathbf{a} = (a_1, \dots, a_T)$ , the probability distribution modeled by the tailor can be presented as: + +$$ +p _ {a} (\mathbf {a} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}) = \prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p _ {a} \left(a _ {t} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}\right), \tag {5} +$$ + +where $T$ is the output length of tailor and is a multiple of the length of $\mathbf{y}$ . Subsequently, we can get the normal sequence $\mathbf{s}$ by applying collapse function $\Gamma^{-1}$ to $\mathbf{a}$ and the distribution of $\mathbf{s}$ is calculated by considering all possible $\mathbf{a}$ : + +$$ +p _ {s} (\mathbf {s} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}) = \sum_ {\mathbf {a} \in \Gamma (\mathbf {s})} p _ {a} (\mathbf {a} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}). \tag {6} +$$ + +To make the tailor learn from ground-truth, the tailor is optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {p t} = - \log p _ {s} (\mathbf {y} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}), \tag {7} +$$ + +which can be efficiently calculated through dynamic programming (Graves et al., 2006). + +RL Fine-tuning After completing the pretraining, the tailor is already in a favorable initial state. We quantify the requirements for tailored reference as two rewards and fine-tune the tailor using reinforcement learning. We then introduce the two reward functions. + +On the one hand, the tailored reference should not force the model to predict the target tokens before reading corresponding source information, which means the SiMT model can handle the word reorderings between the tailored reference and the source sentence at that latency (Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, we make the tailor learn from non-anticipatory reference $\mathbf{y}_{na}$ , which is generated by applying the corresponding Wait- $k$ policy to the Full-sentence model. It has the word order that matches the latency and maintains the original semantics (Chen et al., 2021). We employ reward $\mathcal{R}_{na}$ to measure the similarity between the output of tailor and non-anticipatory reference. On the other hand, the tailored reference should remain faithful to ground-truth. We introduce the reward $\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ to measure the similarity between ground-truth and the output of the tailor. By striking an appropriate balance between $\mathcal{R}_{na}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ , we can obtain the tailored reference. + +Given the output $a$ of tailor, we can obtain the normal sentence $s$ by removing the repetitive and blank tokens (Libovický and Helcl, 2018). We use BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) to measure the similarity between two sequences. Therefore, $\mathcal{R}_{na}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ for the output of tailor is calculated as: + +$$ +\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\mathbf {s}) = \operatorname {B L E U} (\mathbf {s}, \mathbf {y} _ {n a}), \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\mathbf {s}) = \operatorname {B L E U} (\mathbf {s}, \mathbf {y}). \tag {9} +$$ + +![](images/d0f0dec98ce22149eebb064d56e46105bcfaf22738d54c49143dc8d57c127c87.jpg) +(a) $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ + +![](images/a3caab04fb6aadab84dfd142bcbbbf93e8ca43c444e61091568bcec68baee7e1.jpg) +(b) $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ + +![](images/159c3ed8609bd2a3fc0e5b65d93b79ce3896988beaa8b109aed2e96c076770a2.jpg) +(c) $\mathrm{De}\rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ + +![](images/a8c6a76d357f83d65c166ce355e105ab28bb475e2c213271b00046bea5a01450.jpg) +Figure 3: Translation performance of different fixed policies on $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ , $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ and $\mathrm{De}\rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ tasks. +(a) $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ +Figure 4: Translation performance of different adaptive policies on $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ , $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ and $\mathrm{De}\rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ tasks. + +![](images/fa8025d7323cdb88d250d10be78c34e58356ce4fbcf7e3d16ae0435aa21b2cb2.jpg) +(b) $\mathrm{En}\rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ + +![](images/8d1e1ceac0166fde7e84efc19e5eb80199163dc7a7870174604c1721125ee127.jpg) +(c) $\mathrm{De}\rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ + +Based on these two rewards, we can obtain the final reward $\mathcal{R}$ by balancing $\mathcal{R}_{na}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{gt}$ : + +$$ +\mathcal {R} (\mathbf {s}) = (1 - \alpha) \mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\mathbf {s}) + \alpha \mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\mathbf {s}), \tag {10} +$$ + +where $\alpha \in [0,1]$ is a hyperparameter. Subsequently, we use REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992) to optimize the final reward $\mathcal{R}$ to obtain the tailored reference: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \nabla_ {\theta} \mathcal {J} (\theta) = \nabla_ {\theta} \sum_ {\mathbf {s}} p _ {s} (\mathbf {s} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}, \theta) \mathcal {R} (\mathbf {s}) \\ = \underset {\mathbf {s} \sim p _ {s}} {\mathbb {E}} \left[ \nabla_ {\theta} \log p _ {s} (\mathbf {s} \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}, \theta) \mathcal {R} (\mathbf {s}) \right] \\ = \underset {\mathbf {a} \sim p _ {a}} {\mathbb {E}} \left[ \nabla_ {\theta} \log p _ {s} \left(\Gamma^ {- 1} (\mathbf {a}) \mid \mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y} ^ {\prime}, \theta\right) \mathcal {R} \left(\Gamma^ {- 1} (\mathbf {a}) \right] \right. \tag {11} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\Gamma^{-1}$ represents the collapse function and $\theta$ denotes the parameter of tailor. During training, we sample the sequence a from the distribution $p_a(\mathbf{a} \mid \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}', \theta)$ using Monte Carlo method. As the tailor adopts a non-autoregressive structure where all positions are independent of each other, we can concurrently sample tokens for all positions from the distribution. We then apply collapse function to sequence a to obtain the normal sequence s, which is used to compute the reward + +$\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{s})$ and update the tailor with estimated gradient $\nabla_{\theta}\log p_s(\mathbf{s}\mid \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}',\theta)\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{s})$ . In the calculation of $p_{s}(\mathbf{s}\mid \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}',\theta)$ , we use dynamic programming to accelerate the process. Additionally, we adopt the baseline reward strategy to reduce the variance of the estimated gradient (Weaver and Tao, 2001). + +In this stage, we utilize reinforcement learning to optimize the final reward $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{s})$ and train the SiMT model with tailored reference using $\mathcal{L}_{t\_simt}$ . As a result, the SiMT model and the tailor are jointly optimized to enhance performance. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We evaluate our method on three translation tasks. + +IWSLT15² English→Vietnamese (En→Vi) (Cettolo et al., 2015) We use TED tst2012 as the development set and TED tst2013 as the test set. In line with Ma et al. (2020), we replace the tokens occurring less than 5 with ⟨unk⟩. Consequently, the vocabulary sizes of English and Vietnamese are 17K and 7.7K, respectively. + +WMT163 English→Romanian (En→Ro) We + +use newsdev-2016 as the development set and newtest-2016 as the test set. The source and target languages employ a shared vocabulary. Other settings are consistent with Gu et al. (2018). + +WMT154 German→English (De→En) Following Ma et al. (2020), we use newestest2013 as development set and newestest2015 as test set. We apply BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016) with 32K subword units and use a shared vocabulary between source and target. + +# 4.2 System Settings + +Our experiments involve the following methods and we briefly introduce them. + +Full-sentence model is the conventional full-sentence machine translation model. + +Wait- $k$ policy (Ma et al., 2019) initially reads $k$ tokens and then alternates between writing and reading a source token. + +Multi-path (Elbayad et al., 2020) introduces the unidirectional encoder and trains the model by sampling the latency $k$ . + +Adaptive Wait- $k$ (Zheng et al., 2020) employs multiple Wait- $k$ models through heuristic method to achieve adaptive policy. + +MMA (Ma et al., 2020) makes each head determine the translation policy by predicting the Bernoulli variable. + +MoE Wait- $k$ (Zhang and Feng, 2021), the current state-of-the-art fixed policy, treats each head as an expert and integrates the decisions of all experts. + +PED (Guo et al., 2022) implements the adaptive policy via integrating post-evaluation into the fixed translation policy. + +BS-SiMT (Guo et al., 2023) constructs the optimal policy online via binary search. + +ITST (Zhang and Feng, 2022b) treats the translation as information transport from source to target. + +HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) models simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden Markov Model, and achieves the current state-of-the-art performance in SiMT. + +$+100\%$ Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) trains the Wait- $k$ model with ground-truth and pseudo reference, which is generated by applying Wait- $k$ policy to the Full-sentence model. + +*+Top $40\%$ Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) filters out pseudo references in the top $40\%$ of quality to train the model with ground-truth. + +Wait- $k +$ Tailor applies our method on Wait- $k$ . + +![](images/a92f4f377f14550cf585910d46613823cbc43be4c38dd508c7e32e3a19dce154.jpg) +Figure 5: Translation performance of different training methods on Wait- $k$ policy. + +HMT + Tailor applies our method on HMT. + +All systems are based on Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and adapted from Fairseq Library (Ott et al., 2019). We apply Transformer-Small (6 layers, 4 heads) for $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ task and Transform-Base (6 layers, 8 heads) for $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ and $\mathrm{De} \rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ tasks. Since PED and Adaptive Wait- $k$ do not report the results on the $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ task, we do not compare them in the experiment. For our method, we adopt the non-regressive decoder structure with 2 layers for the tailor. We empirically set the hyperparameter $\alpha$ as 0.2. The non-anticipatory reference used for RL Fine-tuning of SiMT model is generated by Test-time Wait- $k$ method (Ma et al., 2019) with corresponding latency. Other system settings are consistent with Ma et al. (2020) and Zhang and Feng (2023b). The detailed settings are shown in Appendix C. We use greedy search during inference and evaluate all methods with translation quality estimated by BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and latency measured by Average Lagging (AL) (Ma et al., 2019). + +# 4.3 Main Results + +The performance comparison between our method and other SiMT approaches on three translation tasks is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Our method achieves state-of-the-art translation performance in both fixed and adaptive policies. When comparing with other training methods in Figure 5, our approach also achieves superior performance. + +When selecting the most commonly used Wait-k policy as the base model, our method outperforms MoE Wait-k, which is the current state-of-the-art fixed policy. Compared to Wait-k policy, + +
Nt124
AL1.501.891.84
BLEU24.4325.9025.46
+ +our method brings significant improvement, especially under low latency. Wait- $k$ policy is trained on ground-truth and cannot be adjusted, which may force the model to predict tokens before reading corresponding source information (Ma et al., 2019). In contrast, our method provides a tailored reference for the SiMT model, thereby alleviating the issue of forced anticipations. Our method also exceeds Multi-path and MoE Wait- $k$ . These two methods are trained using multiple Wait- $k$ policies (Elbayad et al., 2020) and gain the ability to translate under multiple latency (Zhang and Feng, 2021), but they still utilize ground-truth at all latency, leading to lower performance. + +Our method can further enhance the SiMT performance by selecting adaptive policy as the base model. As the current state-of-the-art adaptive policy, HMT possesses the ability to dynamically adjust policy to balance latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2023b). However, it still relies on ground-truth for training SiMT models across different latency settings. By providing a tailored reference that matches the latency, our method can alleviate the latency burden of the SiMT model, resulting in state-of-the-art performance. + +Our method also surpasses other training approaches. Ground-truth is not suitable for incremental input due to word reorderings, resulting in performance degradation (Zhang and Feng, 2022b). On the contrary, pseudo reference can avoid forced anticipations during training (Chen et al., 2021). However, it is constructed offline by applying the Wait- $k$ policy on the Full-sentence model. It imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. The tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining high quality, leading to the best performance. + +In addition to enhancing translation performance, our method effectively narrows the gap between fixed and adaptive policies. By leveraging our method, the SiMT model can achieve comparable performance to Full-sentence translation with lower latency on $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ and $\mathrm{De} \rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ tasks. + +Table 2: Performance of the SiMT model when the tailor has a different number of layers. + +
MethodαALBLEU
Wait-k + Tailor0.11.7224.82
0.21.8925.90
0.31.9525.30
w/o Base Model0.21.7722.89
w/o Pre-training0.21.8024.66
w/o RL Fine-tuning0.21.8624.60
+ +Table 3: Ablation study on training method of the tailor and ratio between two rewards. 'w/o Base Model' removes the training stage of the base model. 'w/o Pre-training' removes the pre-training stage. 'w/o RL Fine-tuning' removes the RL fine-tuning stage. + +# 5 Analysis + +To gain a comprehensive understanding of our method, we conducted multiple analyses. All of the following results are reported on De→En task. + +# 5.1 Ablation Study + +We conduct ablation studies on the structure and training method of tailor to investigate the influence of different settings. The experiments all use Wait- $k$ model as the base model with $k$ set to 3. Table 2 presents a comparison of different structures. The best performance is achieved when the tailor has 2 layers. The performance can be negatively affected by both excessive layers and insufficient layers. Table 3 illustrates the results of the ablation study on the training method. Each stage of the training method contributes to the performance of the SiMT model and the training stage of the base model has the most significant impact on the performance. This can be attributed to the fact that a well-trained encoder can provide accurate source information to the tailor, enabling the generation of appropriate tailored references. Additionally, when $\alpha$ is selected as 0.2, our method yields the best performance, indicating an optimal balance between word order and quality for the tailor. + +# 5.2 Analysis of Tailored Reference + +Anticipation Rate Furthermore, we conduct an analysis of the tailored reference to assess its influence. We first explore the rate of forced anticipations caused by using different references during training. Using the anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021) as the metric, the results in Table 4 show that the tailored reference can effectively re + +
k1357
Ground-Truth28.178.683.491.12
Tailored Ref19.848.292.980.90
+ +Table 4: The anticipation rate (AR[%]) when applying the Wait- $k$ policy on different references, which are based on De $\rightarrow$ En test set. + +
k1357
Tailored Ref79.6786.0184.8392.40
Non-Anti Ref21.8724.0726.2927.24
+ +Table 5: The quality (BLEU) of difference references compared to ground-truth for the training of Wait- $k$ policy. 'Non-Anti Ref' represents the reference generated by applying Wait- $k$ policy on Full-sentence model. + +duce the forced anticipations during the training of the SiMT model under all latency. This implies that, compared to ground-truth, the word reorderingings between the tailored reference and the source sentence can be more effectively handled by the SiMT model at different latency. + +Quality However, one concern is whether the quality of tailored reference will deteriorate like non-anticipatory reference after adjusting the word order. To assess this, we compare different references with ground-truth to measure their quality. As shown in Table 5, we observe that the tailored reference exhibits significantly higher quality than the non-anticipatory reference. Therefore, our method successfully reduces the rate of forced anticipations during training while remaining faithful to ground-truth. To provide a better understanding of the tailored reference, we include several illustrative cases in Appendix B. + +# 5.3 Hallucination in Translation + +If the SiMT model is forced to predict target tokens before reading corresponding source information during training, there is a high likelihood of generating hallucinations during inference (Ma et al., 2019). To quantify the presence of hallucinations in the translation, we introduce hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) for evaluation. Figure 6 illustrates that the SiMT model trained with the tailored reference demonstrates a reduced probability of generating hallucinations. Moreover, even though the adaptive policy can adjust its behavior based on the translation status, our approach still ef + +![](images/88ad485412b485e5e395d254f2f4e669797290ed0cb3e64b665d247f63612596.jpg) +Figure 6: The hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) of different methods. It measures the proportion of tokens in translation that cannot find corresponding source information. + +fectively mitigates the hallucinations by alleviating the burden of latency. This signifies that minimizing forced predictions during training can enhance the faithfulness of the translation to the source sentence, thereby improving translation quality (Ma et al., 2023). + +# 6 Related Work + +Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the source sentence. It requires a policy to determine the source information read when translating each target token, thus striking a balance between latency and translation quality. Current research on SiMT mainly focuses on two areas: policy improvement and adjustment of the training method. + +For policy improvement, it aims to provide sufficient source information for translation while avoiding unnecessary latency. Ma et al. (2019) propose Wait- $k$ policy, which initially reads $k$ tokens and alternates between writing and reading one token. Zhang and Feng (2021) enable each head to obtain the information with a different fixed latency and integrate the decisions of multiple heads for translation. However, the fixed policy cannot be flexibly adjusted based on context, resulting in suboptimal performance. Ma et al. (2020) allow each head to determine its own policy and make all heads decide on the translation. Miao et al. (2021) propose a generative framework, which uses a re-parameterized Poisson prior to regularising the policy. Zhang and Feng (2023a) propose a segmentation policy for the source input. Zhang and Feng (2023b) model the simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden + +Markov Model and achieve state-of-the-art performance. However, these methods are all trained with ground-truth, leading to forced predictions at low latency. + +For the adjustment of the training method, it wants to supplement the missing full-sentence information or cater to the requirements of latency. Zhang et al. (2021) shorten the distance of source hidden states between the SiMT model and the Full-sentence model. This makes the source hidden states implicitly embed future information, but encourages data-driven prediction. On the other hand, Chen et al. (2021) try to train the model with non-anticipatory reference, which can be effectively handled by the SiMT model at that latency. However, while non-anticipatory reference can alleviate forced predictions at low latency, it hinders performance improvement at high latency. + +Therefore, we want to provide a tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency. The tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations and exhibit high quality. In view of the good structure and superior performance of the non-autoregressive model (Gu et al., 2018; Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), we utilize it to modify the ground-truth to the tailored reference. + +# 7 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose a novel method to provide a tailored reference for the training of SiMT model. Experiments and extensive analyses demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies and effectively reduces the hallucinations in translation. + +# Limitations + +Regarding the system settings, we investigate the impact of the number of layers and training methods on performance. We think that further exploration of system settings could potentially yield even better results. Additionally, the tailor module aims to avoid forced anticipations and maintain faithfulness to ground-truth. If we can add language-related features to the SiMT model using a heuristic method, it may produce more suitable references for the SiMT model. We leave it for future work. + +# Acknowledgment + +We thank all anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions. + +# References + +Mauro Cettolo, Jan Niehues, Sebastian Stüker, Luisa Bentivogli, Roldano Cattoni, and Marcello Federico. 2015. The IWSLT 2015 evaluation campaign. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation: Evaluation Campaign@IWSLT 2015, Da Nang, Vietnam, December 3-4, 2015. +Junkun Chen, Renjie Zheng, Atsuhito Kita, Mingbo Ma, and Liang Huang. 2021. Improving simultaneous translation by incorporating pseudo-references with fewer reorderings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 5857-5864. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Maha Elbayad, Laurent Besacier, and Jakob Verbeek. 2020. Efficient wait-k models for simultaneous machine translation. In *Interspeech* 2020, 21st Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Virtual Event, Shanghai, China, 25-29 October 2020, pages 1461-1465. ISCA. +Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jurgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference (ICML 2006), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, June 25-29, 2006, volume 148 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 369-376. ACM. +Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O. K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net. +Jiatao Gu, Graham Neubig, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2017. Learning to translate in real-time with neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1053-1062, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Turning fixed to adaptive: Integrating post-evaluation into simultaneous machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 2264-2278. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Learning optimal policy for simultaneous machine translation via binary search. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages + +2318-2333, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for nonautoregressive machine translation. +Jindrich Libovicky and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3016-3021, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Manuel Lopes, Tobias Lang, Marc Toussaint, and Pierreyves Oudeyer. 2012. Exploration in model-based reinforcement learning by empirically estimating learning progress. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc. +Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, Renjie Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Baigong Zheng, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hairong Liu, Xing Li, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. STACL: simultaneous translation with implicit anticipation and controllable latency using prefix-to-prefix framework. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 3025-3036. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xutai Ma, Juan Miguel Pino, James Cross, Liezl Puzon, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Monotonic multihead attention. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net. +Zhengrui Ma, Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, Chenze Shao, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Nonautoregressive streaming transformer for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Yishu Miao, Phil Blunsom, and Lucia Specia. 2021. A generative framework for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 6697-6706. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Demonstrations, pages 48-53. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2020. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07905. +Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chenze Shao, Jinchao Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Yang Feng. 2022. Rephrasing the reference for non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2211.16863. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008. +Lex Weaver and Nigel Tao. 2001. The optimal reward baseline for gradient-based reinforcement learning. In UAI '01: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2-5, 2001, pages 538-545. Morgan Kaufmann. +Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256. +Ruiqing Zhang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Learning adaptive segmentation policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2280-2289, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2021. Universal simultaneous machine translation with mixture-of-experts wait-k policy. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 7306-7317. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022a. Gaussian multihead attention for simultaneous machine translation. + +In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3019-3030, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022b. Information-transport-based policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 992-1013, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022c. Modeling dual read/write paths for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2461-2477, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023a. End-to-end simultaneous speech translation with differentiable segmentation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023b. Hidden markov transformer for simultaneous machine translation. CoRR, abs/2303.00257. + +Shaolei Zhang, Yang Feng, and Liangyou Li. 2021. Future-guided incremental transformer for simultaneous translation. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14428-14436. AAAI Press. + +Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, and Yang Feng. 2022. Wait-info policy: Balancing source and target at information level for simultaneous machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2249-2263, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Baigong Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Renjie Zheng, Mingbo Ma, Hairong Liu, and Liang Huang. 2020. Simultaneous translation policies: From fixed to adaptive. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 2847-2853. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Anticipation & Hallucination Rate + +In our analyses, we evaluate the reference and translation using anticipation rate (AR) and hallucination rate (HR), respectively. We then introduce the calculation method of these two evaluation metrics in detail. + +Given a sentence pair $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ , there exists an alignment set $\mathbf{h}$ , which is a set of source-target index pairs $(j,i)$ where $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ source token $x_{j}$ aligns to the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ target token $y_{i}$ . If we apply the policy $\mathbf{g} = (g_1,\dots,g_I)$ on this sentence pair, the target token $y_{i}$ is forcibly anticipated $(A(i,\mathbf{h},\mathbf{g}) = 1)$ if it aligns to least one source token $x_{j}$ where $j > g_{i}$ : + +$$ +A (i, \mathbf {h}, \mathbf {g}) = \mathbb {1} \left[ \left\{(j, i) \in \mathbf {h} \mid j > g _ {i} \right\} \neq \varnothing \right]. \tag {12} +$$ + +Therefore, we can define the anticipation rate (AR) of $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{h})$ under the policy $\mathbf{g}$ : + +$$ +A R (\mathbf {x}, \mathbf {y}, \mathbf {h}, \mathbf {g}) = \frac {1}{| \mathbf {y} |} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \mathbf {y} |} A (i, \mathbf {h}, \mathbf {g}). \tag {13} +$$ + +The anticipation rate is a metric used to quantify the degree to which the target token is predicted before reading all relevant source tokens. + +We then introduce the hallucination rate (HR). We first define the translation as $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ . A target token $\hat{y}_i$ in translation $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ is a hallucination $(H(i, \mathbf{h}) = 1)$ if it can not be aligned to any source token: + +$$ +H (i, \mathbf {h}) = \mathbb {1} [ \{(j, i) \in \mathbf {h} \} = \varnothing ]. \tag {14} +$$ + +Therefore, the hallucination rate can be defined as: + +$$ +H R (\mathbf {x}, \hat {\mathbf {y}}, \mathbf {h}) = \frac {1}{| \hat {\mathbf {y}} |} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \hat {\mathbf {y}} |} H (i, \mathbf {h}). \tag {15} +$$ + +# B Case Study + +We also provide two cases in the De $\rightarrow$ En test set to understand our method. The cases are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. It presents that the tailored reference is more consistent with the word order requirements of the specific latency. + +In Figure 7, if we train the SiMT model on Wait-1 policy with the ground-truth, it will be forced to predict 'with him' before reading 'mit ihm' during training. However, training the SiMT model with tailored reference will eliminate forced predictions by adjusting 'like that' to 'such' and positioning it forward. Importantly, the tailored reference also maintains the original semantics. This shows that + +
Source Sentenceich hatte nie ein solches Geschäfts mit ihm . (I) (had) (never) (a) (such) (conversation) (with) (him)
Ground-TruthI never had a conversation with him like that .
Tailored RefI had never had such a conversation with him .
+ +Figure 7: Case study of #319 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy. + +
Source Sentenceund vor einer Online @-@ Bestellung sollte man prüfen , so +(and) (before) (an) (online) (order) (should) (you) (check) (so) +Gault , ob das Buch tatsächlich vorrätg ist. +(Gault) (if) (the) (book) (actually) (in stock) (is)
Ground-Truthbefore ordering online , Gault says , be sure to check if the book +is actually in stock .
Tailored Refand before an online order , Gault says , be sure to check if the +book is actually in stock .
+ +Figure 8: Case study of #1869 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy. + +the order of the source sentence and the tailored sentence is consistent, which makes it suitable for Wait-1 policy. + +In Figure 8, using ground-truth as the training target of Wait-1 policy also forces the model to predict 'ordering online' before reading 'Online' and 'Bestellung'. In contrast, by replacing 'ordering online' with 'an online order', the word order of tailored reference is the same as the source sentence, thereby avoiding forced anticipations during the training of Wait-1 policy. + +# C Hyperparameters + +The system settings on three translation tasks are shown in Table 6. For more detailed implementation issues, please refer to our publicly available code. + +# D Numerical Results + +In addition to the translation performance comparison in Figure 3 and Figure 4, we also provide corresponding numerical results for reference. Table 7, 8, 9 respectively report the numerical results on IWSLT15 $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{Vi}$ , WMT16 $\mathrm{En} \rightarrow \mathrm{Ro}$ and WMT15 $\mathrm{De} \rightarrow \mathrm{En}$ measured by AL (Ma et al., 2019) and BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002). + +
HyperparameterIWSLT15 En→ViWMT16 En→RoWMT15 De→En
encoder layers666
encoder attention heads488
encoder embed dim512512512
encoder ffn embed dim102420482048
decoder layers666
decoder attention heads488
decoder embed dim512512512
decoder ffn embed dim102420482048
tailor layers222
tailor attention heads888
tailor embed dim512512512
tailor ffn embed dim204820482048
dropout0.10.30.3
optimizeradamadamadam
adam-β(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)
clip-norm000
lr5e-45e-45e-4
lr schedulerinverse sqrtinverse sqrtinverse sqrt
warmup-updates400040004000
warmup-init-lr1e-71e-71e-7
weight decay0.00010.00010.0001
label-smoothing0.10.10.1
max tokens160008192×48192×4
+ +Table 6: Hyperparameters of our experiments. + +
IWSLT15 En→Vi
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
22.4128.8
Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.0325.28
34.6427.53
56.4628.27
78.1128.45
99.8028.53
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.1926.56
34.7028.43
56.4328.73
78.1928.81
99.8628.88
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
12.9627.58
34.4929.03
56.2429.25
78.0129.45
99.7029.49
HMT
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0528.02
2, 23.7228.53
4, 24.9228.59
5, 46.3428.78
6, 48.1528.86
7, 69.6028.88
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0228.28
2, 23.7029.02
4, 25.3129.24
5, 46.2829.39
6, 48.0429.34
7, 69.7829.39
+ +Table 7: Numerical results of IWSLT15 En $\rightarrow$ Vi. + +
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a32.74
Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0920.67
33.0125.69
55.0929.28
77.2130.50
99.0330.87
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0023.50
33.3028.25
55.1530.94
77.0031.19
99.0031.33
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
11.4823.72
33.0728.30
54.9331.04
77.0232.13
98.8531.97
HMT
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7324.09
3, 63.3428.92
5, 65.3331.02
7, 67.4631.97
9, 89.2732.18
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7124.80
3, 63.2729.11
5, 65.2631.42
7, 67.3432.16
9, 89.2432.13
+ +Table 8: Numerical results of WMT16 En→Ro. + +
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a31.76
Wait-k
kALBLEU
10.0217.61
31.7123.75
53.8526.86
75.8628.20
97.8529.42
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
1-0.1821.40
31.8225.35
53.9827.50
75.9729.07
97.8829.52
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
1-0.3221.12
31.8925.90
53.8928.44
75.9129.80
97.8030.64
HMT
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.2722.52
2, 42.2027.60
3, 63.4629.29
5, 64.7430.29
7, 66.4330.90
9, 88.3631.45
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.0323.75
2, 42.1028.12
3, 63.1329.99
5, 64.6030.74
7, 66.3131.48
9, 88.1831.87
+ +Table 9: Numerical results of WMT15 De→En. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/images.zip b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6423b70a4dd1838d0632868a38ba6f878f22a60 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a3e35c9e76ab7f348ba73f674ef834f5315d24c0580ecc6d9a9d15d0ccbba366 +size 759557 diff --git a/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/layout.json b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e981cab3e90e7953a4efd17349b8c3b8595fe90d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10843 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 76, + 481, + 92 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 76, + 481, + 92 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 76, + 481, + 92 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simultaneous Machine Translation with Tailored Reference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shoutao Guo " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Shaolei Zhang " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yang Feng " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 109, + 428, + 124 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2*}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 125, + 431, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 125, + 431, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 125, + 431, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 139, + 487, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 139, + 487, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 109, + 139, + 487, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 153, + 448, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 153, + 448, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 150, + 153, + 448, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 167, + 508, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 167, + 508, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 167, + 508, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "guoshoutao22z@ict.ac.cn, zhangshaolei20z@ict.ac.cn, fengyang@ict.ac.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the whole source sentence. However, existing SiMT models are typically trained using the same reference disregarding the varying amounts of available source information at different latency. Training the model with ground-truth at low latency may introduce forced anticipations, whereas utilizing reference consistent with the source word order at high latency results in performance degradation. Consequently, it is crucial to train the SiMT model with appropriate reference that avoids forced anticipations during training while maintaining high quality. In this paper, we propose a novel method that provides tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency by rephrasing the ground-truth. Specifically, we introduce the tailor, induced by reinforcement learning, to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. The SiMT model is trained with the tailored reference and jointly optimized with the tailor to enhance performance. Importantly, our method is applicable to a wide range of current SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 579, + 154, + 592 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 579, + 154, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 579, + 154, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 600, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 600, + 291, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 600, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) (Gu et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2019, 2020) generates the target sentence while reading in the source sentence. Compared to Full-sentence translation, it faces a greater challenge because it has to make trade-offs between latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2022a). In applications, it needs to meet the requirements of different latency tolerances, such as online conferences and real-time subtitles. Therefore, the SiMT models trained at" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 213, + 523, + 272 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 213, + 523, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 213, + 523, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 213, + 523, + 272 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source Sentence看电影是一项愉快的活动。 (watch)(a movie) (is) (an) (enjoyable) (activity)
Ground-TruthIt is an enjoyable activity to watch a movie
Tailored RefWatching a movie is an enjoyable activity.
", + "image_path": "03171557ca685b61f74a505ce32227fe99c312b48b7fb1b99644e7271fe5aba7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 525, + 343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 283, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example of Chinese-English parallel sentence. The SiMT model will be forced to predict 'an enjoyable activity' before reading corresponding source tokens. In contrast, the tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining the original semantics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "different latency should exhibit excellent translation performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 394, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 394, + 526, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 394, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using an inappropriate reference to train the SiMT model can significantly impact its performance. The optimal reference for the SiMT model trained at different latency varies. Under high latency, it is reasonable to train the SiMT model with ground-truth since the model can leverage sufficient source information (Zhang and Feng, 2022c). However, under low latency, the model is constrained by limited source information and thus requires reference consistent with the source word order (Chen et al., 2021). Therefore, the SiMT model should be trained with corresponding appropriate reference under different latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, the existing SiMT methods, which employ fixed or adaptive policy, commonly utilize only ground-truth for training across different latency settings. For fixed policy (Ma et al., 2019; Elbayad et al., 2020; Zhang and Feng, 2021), the model generates translations based on the predefined rules. The SiMT models are often forced to anticipate target tokens with insufficient information or wait for unnecessary source tokens. For adaptive policy (Ma et al., 2020; Miao et al., 2021; Zhang and Feng, 2022b), the model can adjust its translation policy based on translation status. Nevertheless, the policy learning of SiMT model will gradually adapt to the given reference (Zhang et al., 2020). Consequently, employing only ground-truth" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 740, + 217, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 740, + 217, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 740, + 217, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author: Yang Feng." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 771 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 751, + 289, + 771 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Code is available at https://github.com/ictnlp/Tailored-Ref" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3070" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3070-3084" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for the SiMT models trained at varying latency levels can negatively impact overall performance, as it forces them to learn the identical policy. Furthermore, Chen et al. (2021) adopts an offline approach to generate reference using the Full-sentence model for training the SiMT model at different latency, but this approach also imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and appropriate reference for the models with different latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 292, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 292, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 292, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Under these grounds, we aim to dynamically provide an appropriate reference for training the SiMT models at different latency. In SiMT, the source information available to the translation model varies with latency (Ma et al., 2019). Therefore, the appropriate reference should allow the model to utilize the available information for predicting target tokens accurately. Otherwise, it will result in forced anticipations, where the model predicts target tokens in reference using insufficient source information (Guo et al., 2023). To explore the extent of forced anticipations when training the SiMT model with ground-truth at different latency, we introduce anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021). As shown in Table 1, the anticipation rate decreases as the SiMT is trained with higher latency. Consequently, the reference requirements of the SiMT model vary at different latency. To meet the requirements, the appropriate reference should avoid forced anticipations during training and maintain high quality. Therefore, we propose to dynamically tailor reference, called tailored reference, for the training of SiMT model according to the latency, thereby reducing forced anticipations. We present an intuitive example of tailored reference in Figure 1. It can avoid forced predictions during training while maintaining the semantics consistent with the original sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we propose a new method for providing tailored reference to SiMT models at different latency. To accomplish this, we introduce the tailor, a shallow non-autoregressive Transformer Decoder (Gu et al., 2018), to modify ground-truth to the tailored reference. Since there is no explicit supervision to train the tailor, we quantify the requirements for the tailored reference as two reward functions and optimize them using reinforcement learning (RL). On the one hand, tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations, ensuring that the word reordering between it and the source sentence can be handled by the SiMT model trained" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 69, + 518, + 111 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 69, + 518, + 111 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 69, + 518, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 69, + 518, + 111 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
k13579
AR[%]28.178.683.491.120.49
", + "image_path": "b1f076292f45a08ce7c7d1b8e16ce348314a4eb692692ef81a05351c4a2a18d4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{AR}(\\downarrow)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on WMT15 De→En test set at different latency. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " belongs to Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 118, + 526, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy (Ma et al., 2019) and represents the number of tokens that the target sentence lags behind the source sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "at that latency. To achieve this, the tailor learns from non-anticipatory reference corresponding to that latency, which can be generated by applying Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 443 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy to Full-sentence model (Chen et al., 2021). On the other hand, tailored reference should maintain high quality, which can be achieved by encouraging the tailor to learn from ground-truth. Therefore, we measure the similarity between the output of tailor and both non-anticipatory reference and ground-truth, assigning them as separate rewards. The tailor can be optimized by striking a balance between these two rewards. During training, the SiMT model takes the output of the tailor as the objective and is jointly optimized with the tailor. Additionally, our method is applicable to a wide range of SiMT approaches. Experiments on three translation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 387, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 387, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 451, + 387, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For a SiMT task, the model reads in the source sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x} = (x_{1},\\dots,x_{J})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and generates the target sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y} = (y_{1},\\dots,y_{I})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the policy. To describe the policy, we define the number of source tokens read in when translating " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then the policy can be represented as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{g} = (g_{1},\\dots,g_{I})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 472, + 526, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, the SiMT model can be trained by minimizing the cross-entropy loss:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 585, + 525, + 621 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 585, + 525, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 330, + 585, + 525, + 621 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {s i m t} = - \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {I} \\log p \\left(y _ {i} ^ {\\star} \\mid \\mathbf {x} _ {\\leq g _ {i}}, \\mathbf {y} _ {< i}\\right), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "de860b314c32c3f4410fadd36a1f94d6d4a184fbdc67fbd9a3c2a537c1a89ca8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 496, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 496, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 496, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 496, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}^{\\star}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 625, + 496, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the ground-truth token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach involves Wait- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Ma et al., 2019), HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) and CTC training (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), so we briefly introduce them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy As the most widely used fixed policy, the model reads in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens first and then alternates writing and reading a token. It can be formalized as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 356, + 758, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 356, + 758, + 525, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 356, + 758, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "g _ {i} ^ {k} = \\min \\{k + i - 1, J \\}, \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "b90bd363a725348af68378e7df840873af0a47306e48c060fa3cd77e5b96eca0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3071" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 84 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "J" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the length of the source sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HMT Hidden Markov Transformer (HMT), which derives from the Hidden Markov Model, is the current state-of-the-art SiMT model. It treats the translation policy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{g}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as hidden events and the target sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as observed events. During training, HMT learns when to generate translation by minimizing the negative log-likelihood of observed events over all possible policies:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 290, + 237 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 290, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 210, + 290, + 237 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {h m t} = - \\log \\sum_ {\\mathbf {g}} p (\\mathbf {y} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {g}) \\times p (\\mathbf {g}). \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "a8df2278b432a4696248a7a908abc048f9e48e5b216b71105ee0490a3f664ca0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CTC CTC (Graves et al., 2006) is applied in non-autoregressive translation (NAT) (Gu et al., 2018) due to its remarkable performance and no need for length predictor. CTC-based NAT will generate a sequence containing repetitive and blank tokens first, and then reduce it to a normal sentence based on the collapse function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Gamma^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". During training, CTC will consider all possible sequences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which can be reduced to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Gamma^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 247, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 378, + 290, + 408 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 378, + 290, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 378, + 290, + 408 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {c t c} = - \\log \\sum_ {\\mathbf {a} \\in \\Gamma (\\mathbf {y})} p (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}), \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "121d4df4beee4eba3b081e080982a923b6e387bf3b98d1432e401810f42b2e65.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 280, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 280, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 280, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 280, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p(\\mathbf{a} \\mid \\mathbf{x})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 280, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is modeled by NAT architecture." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 441, + 130, + 453 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 441, + 130, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 441, + 130, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 462, + 291, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we introduce the architecture of our model, which incorporates tailor into the SiMT model. To train the SiMT model with the tailor, we present a three-stage training method, in which the SiMT model benefits from training with tailored reference and is optimized together with the tailor. During inference, the SiMT model generates translation according to the policy. The details are introduced in the following subsections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 188, + 605 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 188, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 593, + 188, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Model Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the architecture of our method in Figure 2. Alongside the encoder and decoder, our method introduces the tailor module, which is responsible for generating a tailored reference for the SiMT model, utilizing the ground-truth as its input. Considering the efficiency of generating tailored reference, the tailor module adopts the structure of the non-autoregressive Transformer decoder (Vaswani et al., 2017). To enable the tailor to generate a tailored reference that is not limited by the length of ground-truth, it initially upsamples the ground-truth. Subsequently, it cross-attends to the output" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 69, + 514, + 296 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 69, + 514, + 296 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 69, + 514, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 69, + 514, + 296 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b7a652cdca41d37a90a3986fbd9159f5d36be927a0ab6578eedf8372a955923e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The architecture of our method. The tailor module modifies ground-truth to the tailored reference, which serves as the training target for the SiMT model. The tailor is induced to optimize two rewards by reinforcement learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of the encoder and modifies ground-truth while considering the word order of the source sentence. Finally, it transforms the output of tailor into the tailored reference by eliminating repetitive and blank tokens (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018). The tailored reference replaces the ground-truth as the training objective for the SiMT model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the lack of explicit supervision for training the tailor, we quantify the requirements for tailored reference into two rewards and optimize the model through reinforcement learning. We propose a three-stage training method for the SiMT model with the tailor, the details of which will be presented in the next subsection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 411, + 605 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 411, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 411, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Training Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After incorporating tailor into the SiMT model, it is essential to train the SiMT model with the assistance of tailor to get better performance. In light of this, we quantify the requirements of the tailored reference into two rewards and propose a novel three-stage training method for the training of our method. First, we train the SiMT model using ground-truth and equip the SiMT model with good translation capability. Subsequently, we use a pre-training strategy to train the tailor, enabling it to establish a favorable initial state and converge faster. Finally, we fine-tune the tailor by optimiz" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3072" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing the two rewards using reinforcement learning, where the output of the tailor serves as the training target for the SiMT model after being reduced. In the third stage, the tailor and SiMT model are jointly optimized and share the output the of the encoder. Next, we describe our three-stage training method in detail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 291, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 291, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 291, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training the Base Model In our architecture, the tailor cross-attends to the output of the encoder to adjust ground-truth based on source information. As a result, before training the tailor module, we need a well-trained SiMT model as the base model. In our method, we choose the Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 291, + 362 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 173, + 291, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy (Ma et al., 2019) and HMT model (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) as the base model for fixed policy and adaptive policy, respectively. The base model is trained using the cross-entropy loss. Once the training of the base model is completed, we optimize the tailor module, which can provide the tailored reference for the SiMT models trained across different latency settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pre-training Tailor The tailor adopts the architecture of a non-autoregressive decoder (Gu et al., 2018). The non-autoregressive architecture has demonstrated excellent performance (Qian et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022). Importantly, it enables the simultaneous generation of target tokens across all positions, making it highly efficient for reinforcement learning. However, if we train the tailor using reinforcement learning directly, it will converge to a suboptimal state in which the tokens at each position are some frequent tokens (Shao et al., 2022). This behavior is attributed to the exploration-based nature of reinforcement learning, highlighting the need for a favorable initial state for the model (Lopes et al., 2012). Since the tailored reference is modified from ground-truth, we let it learn from ground-truth during pre-training and then fine-tune it using reinforcement learning. The details of pre-training stage are introduced below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To keep the output of the tailor from being limited by the length of ground-truth, the tailor upsamples ground-truth to get the input of the tailor, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 693 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". During training, CTC loss (Libovicky and Helcl, 2018) is used to optimize the tailor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denoting the output of the tailor as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{a} = (a_1, \\dots, a_T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 694, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the probability distribution modeled by the tailor can be presented as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 740, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 740, + 290, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 740, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {a} (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}) = \\prod_ {t = 1} ^ {T} p _ {a} \\left(a _ {t} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "d69f95627754ccec21877f14430348ff7b06720792f4f5b99cf0eaafb3b0ceff.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the output length of tailor and is a multiple of the length of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Subsequently, we can get the normal sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by applying collapse function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Gamma^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the distribution of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is calculated by considering all possible " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 148, + 525, + 177 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 148, + 525, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 148, + 525, + 177 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}) = \\sum_ {\\mathbf {a} \\in \\Gamma (\\mathbf {s})} p _ {a} (\\mathbf {a} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}). \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "397299a1d77d72a25b725490f5ce20a5c8a78ab849011aaff62e0b49f516f8dd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make the tailor learn from ground-truth, the tailor is optimized by minimizing the negative log-likelihood:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 235, + 525, + 250 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 235, + 525, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 235, + 525, + 250 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {p t} = - \\log p _ {s} (\\mathbf {y} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}), \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "2228401eed8d8cbb39e63944db4d6b53d240e999796b13319eacabea794fd897.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 525, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which can be efficiently calculated through dynamic programming (Graves et al., 2006)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 525, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 525, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 525, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RL Fine-tuning After completing the pretraining, the tailor is already in a favorable initial state. We quantify the requirements for tailored reference as two rewards and fine-tune the tailor using reinforcement learning. We then introduce the two reward functions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the one hand, the tailored reference should not force the model to predict the target tokens before reading corresponding source information, which means the SiMT model can handle the word reorderings between the tailored reference and the source sentence at that latency (Zhang et al., 2022). Therefore, we make the tailor learn from non-anticipatory reference " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{y}_{na}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is generated by applying the corresponding Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy to the Full-sentence model. It has the word order that matches the latency and maintains the original semantics (Chen et al., 2021). We employ reward " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{na}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to measure the similarity between the output of tailor and non-anticipatory reference. On the other hand, the tailored reference should remain faithful to ground-truth. We introduce the reward " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{gt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to measure the similarity between ground-truth and the output of the tailor. By striking an appropriate balance between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{na}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{gt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we can obtain the tailored reference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of tailor, we can obtain the normal sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by removing the repetitive and blank tokens (Libovický and Helcl, 2018). We use BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) to measure the similarity between two sequences. Therefore, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{na}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{gt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 525, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the output of tailor is calculated as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 736, + 525, + 750 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 736, + 525, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 736, + 525, + 750 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\\mathbf {s}) = \\operatorname {B L E U} (\\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {y} _ {n a}), \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "17daf0ff2da75d03ec266e0855af9dcb25733df4dae1deceb646c6f219cb3695.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 760, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 760, + 525, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 361, + 760, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\\mathbf {s}) = \\operatorname {B L E U} (\\mathbf {s}, \\mathbf {y}). \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "5d74ff7e984fc7ded703803d20423dc5f49db628741a040b097a4c42cfb3282a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3073" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 77, + 223, + 188 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 77, + 223, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 77, + 223, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 77, + 223, + 188 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d0f0dec98ce22149eebb064d56e46105bcfaf22738d54c49143dc8d57c127c87.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 195, + 173, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 195, + 173, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 195, + 173, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 195, + 173, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 76, + 370, + 188 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 76, + 370, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 76, + 370, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 76, + 370, + 188 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a3caab04fb6aadab84dfd142bcbbbf93e8ca43c444e61091568bcec68baee7e1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 195, + 321, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 195, + 321, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 195, + 321, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 274, + 195, + 321, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 371, + 76, + 518, + 188 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 76, + 518, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 76, + 518, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 76, + 518, + 188 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "159c3ed8609bd2a3fc0e5b65d93b79ce3896988beaa8b109aed2e96c076770a2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 195, + 467, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 195, + 467, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 195, + 467, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 422, + 195, + 467, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 246, + 225, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Translation performance of different fixed policies on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 219, + 497, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 246, + 225, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 246, + 225, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 246, + 225, + 361 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a8c6a76d357f83d65c166ce355e105ab28bb475e2c213271b00046bea5a01450.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 368, + 171, + 378 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 368, + 171, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 368, + 171, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 368, + 171, + 378 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Translation performance of different adaptive policies on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 391, + 504, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 227, + 248, + 373, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 248, + 373, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 248, + 373, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 248, + 373, + 361 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fa8025d7323cdb88d250d10be78c34e58356ce4fbcf7e3d16ae0435aa21b2cb2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 277, + 368, + 323, + 377 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 277, + 368, + 323, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 277, + 368, + 323, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 277, + 368, + 323, + 377 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 374, + 248, + 519, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 248, + 519, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 248, + 519, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 374, + 248, + 519, + 361 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8d1e1ceac0166fde7e84efc19e5eb80199163dc7a7870174604c1721125ee127.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 424, + 368, + 468, + 377 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 424, + 368, + 468, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 424, + 368, + 468, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 424, + 368, + 468, + 377 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on these two rewards, we can obtain the final reward " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by balancing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{na}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{gt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 464, + 289, + 478 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 464, + 289, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 464, + 289, + 478 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) = (1 - \\alpha) \\mathcal {R} _ {n a} (\\mathbf {s}) + \\alpha \\mathcal {R} _ {g t} (\\mathbf {s}), \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "72c20d5bd5b85d47036978df2b910834297753567e63004bc7782b1c88d81147.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha \\in [0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyperparameter. Subsequently, we use REINFORCE algorithm (Williams, 1992) to optimize the final reward " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to obtain the tailored reference:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 296, + 637 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 296, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 552, + 296, + 637 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\mathcal {J} (\\theta) = \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\sum_ {\\mathbf {s}} p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta) \\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) \\\\ = \\underset {\\mathbf {s} \\sim p _ {s}} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\log p _ {s} (\\mathbf {s} \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta) \\mathcal {R} (\\mathbf {s}) \\right] \\\\ = \\underset {\\mathbf {a} \\sim p _ {a}} {\\mathbb {E}} \\left[ \\nabla_ {\\theta} \\log p _ {s} \\left(\\Gamma^ {- 1} (\\mathbf {a}) \\mid \\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y} ^ {\\prime}, \\theta\\right) \\mathcal {R} \\left(\\Gamma^ {- 1} (\\mathbf {a}) \\right] \\right. \\tag {11} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "23388e1aa9cd5f232b650789661a98a49a91d26f558873daab1d1036bdfd787a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Gamma^{-1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the collapse function and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the parameter of tailor. During training, we sample the sequence a from the distribution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_a(\\mathbf{a} \\mid \\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{y}', \\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using Monte Carlo method. As the tailor adopts a non-autoregressive structure where all positions are independent of each other, we can concurrently sample tokens for all positions from the distribution. We then apply collapse function to sequence a to obtain the normal sequence s, which is used to compute the reward" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and update the tailor with estimated gradient " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nabla_{\\theta}\\log p_s(\\mathbf{s}\\mid \\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}',\\theta)\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the calculation of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{s}(\\mathbf{s}\\mid \\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y}',\\theta)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 425, + 525, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use dynamic programming to accelerate the process. Additionally, we adopt the baseline reward strategy to reduce the variance of the estimated gradient (Weaver and Tao, 2001)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this stage, we utilize reinforcement learning to optimize the final reward " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}(\\mathbf{s})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and train the SiMT model with tailored reference using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_{t\\_simt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As a result, the SiMT model and the tailor are jointly optimized to enhance performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 390, + 597 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 390, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 390, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 604, + 370, + 615 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 604, + 370, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 604, + 370, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 524, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 524, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate our method on three translation tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "IWSLT15² English→Vietnamese (En→Vi) (Cettolo et al., 2015) We use TED tst2012 as the development set and TED tst2013 as the test set. In line with Ma et al. (2020), we replace the tokens occurring less than 5 with ⟨unk⟩. Consequently, the vocabulary sizes of English and Vietnamese are 17K and 7.7K, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 729, + 524, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 729, + 524, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 729, + 524, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "WMT163 English→Romanian (En→Ro) We" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 492, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 492, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 492, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 749, + 492, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/nmt/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 761, + 416, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 761, + 416, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 761, + 416, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3www.statmt.org/wmt16/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3074" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "use newsdev-2016 as the development set and newtest-2016 as the test set. The source and target languages employ a shared vocabulary. Other settings are consistent with Gu et al. (2018)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 291, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 291, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 125, + 291, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "WMT154 German→English (De→En) Following Ma et al. (2020), we use newestest2013 as development set and newestest2015 as test set. We apply BPE (Sennrich et al., 2016) with 32K subword units and use a shared vocabulary between source and target." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 169, + 230 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 169, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 169, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 System Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 289, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our experiments involve the following methods and we briefly introduce them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Full-sentence model is the conventional full-sentence machine translation model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy (Ma et al., 2019) initially reads " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 289, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens and then alternates between writing and reading a source token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 289, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 289, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 289, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-path (Elbayad et al., 2020) introduces the unidirectional encoder and trains the model by sampling the latency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 289, + 370 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 330, + 289, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adaptive Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Zheng et al., 2020) employs multiple Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 371, + 289, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " models through heuristic method to achieve adaptive policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 290, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MMA (Ma et al., 2020) makes each head determine the translation policy by predicting the Bernoulli variable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MoE Wait- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 290, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Zhang and Feng, 2021), the current state-of-the-art fixed policy, treats each head as an expert and integrates the decisions of all experts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 289, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 289, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 494, + 289, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PED (Guo et al., 2022) implements the adaptive policy via integrating post-evaluation into the fixed translation policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 290, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 535, + 290, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "BS-SiMT (Guo et al., 2023) constructs the optimal policy online via binary search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 562, + 290, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ITST (Zhang and Feng, 2022b) treats the translation as information transport from source to target." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 290, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 590, + 290, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HMT (Zhang and Feng, 2023b) models simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden Markov Model, and achieves the current state-of-the-art performance in SiMT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) trains the Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model with ground-truth and pseudo reference, which is generated by applying Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 644, + 289, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy to the Full-sentence model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*+Top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Pseudo-Refs (Chen et al., 2021) filters out pseudo references in the top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 290, + 738 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of quality to train the model with ground-truth." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k +" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Tailor applies our method on Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 740, + 289, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 71, + 522, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a92f4f377f14550cf585910d46613823cbc43be4c38dd508c7e32e3a19dce154.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 524, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 524, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Translation performance of different training methods on Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 247, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 294, + 511, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 294, + 511, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 294, + 511, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HMT + Tailor applies our method on HMT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "All systems are based on Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017) and adapted from Fairseq Library (Ott et al., 2019). We apply Transformer-Small (6 layers, 4 heads) for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " task and Transform-Base (6 layers, 8 heads) for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks. Since PED and Adaptive Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do not report the results on the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " task, we do not compare them in the experiment. For our method, we adopt the non-regressive decoder structure with 2 layers for the tailor. We empirically set the hyperparameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as 0.2. The non-anticipatory reference used for RL Fine-tuning of SiMT model is generated by Test-time Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " method (Ma et al., 2019) with corresponding latency. Other system settings are consistent with Ma et al. (2020) and Zhang and Feng (2023b). The detailed settings are shown in Appendix C. We use greedy search during inference and evaluate all methods with translation quality estimated by BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) and latency measured by Average Lagging (AL) (Ma et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 393, + 617 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 393, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 393, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The performance comparison between our method and other SiMT approaches on three translation tasks is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Our method achieves state-of-the-art translation performance in both fixed and adaptive policies. When comparing with other training methods in Figure 5, our approach also achieves superior performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "When selecting the most commonly used Wait-k policy as the base model, our method outperforms MoE Wait-k, which is the current state-of-the-art fixed policy. Compared to Wait-k policy," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 181, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 181, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 181, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4www.statmt.org/wmt15/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3075" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 257, + 125 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 257, + 125 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 257, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 257, + 125 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Nt124
AL1.501.891.84
BLEU24.4325.9025.46
", + "image_path": "c4a16472fd03a459e22b8981fcbbf83fe67838a8a3cbfc6f3e1e7db4091fce05.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "our method brings significant improvement, especially under low latency. Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy is trained on ground-truth and cannot be adjusted, which may force the model to predict tokens before reading corresponding source information (Ma et al., 2019). In contrast, our method provides a tailored reference for the SiMT model, thereby alleviating the issue of forced anticipations. Our method also exceeds Multi-path and MoE Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These two methods are trained using multiple Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 184, + 291, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policies (Elbayad et al., 2020) and gain the ability to translate under multiple latency (Zhang and Feng, 2021), but they still utilize ground-truth at all latency, leading to lower performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method can further enhance the SiMT performance by selecting adaptive policy as the base model. As the current state-of-the-art adaptive policy, HMT possesses the ability to dynamically adjust policy to balance latency and translation quality (Zhang and Feng, 2023b). However, it still relies on ground-truth for training SiMT models across different latency settings. By providing a tailored reference that matches the latency, our method can alleviate the latency burden of the SiMT model, resulting in state-of-the-art performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method also surpasses other training approaches. Ground-truth is not suitable for incremental input due to word reorderings, resulting in performance degradation (Zhang and Feng, 2022b). On the contrary, pseudo reference can avoid forced anticipations during training (Chen et al., 2021). However, it is constructed offline by applying the Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy on the Full-sentence model. It imposes an upper bound on the performance of the SiMT model. The tailored reference avoids forced anticipations while maintaining high quality, leading to the best performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to enhancing translation performance, our method effectively narrows the gap between fixed and adaptive policies. By leveraging our method, the SiMT model can achieve comparable performance to Full-sentence translation with lower latency on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 520, + 194 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Performance of the SiMT model when the tailor has a different number of layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 520, + 194 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 520, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 520, + 194 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodαALBLEU
Wait-k + Tailor0.11.7224.82
0.21.8925.90
0.31.9525.30
w/o Base Model0.21.7722.89
w/o Pre-training0.21.8024.66
w/o RL Fine-tuning0.21.8624.60
", + "image_path": "edce1d367ce31a3d92379fdea67ee6209092856ea9f207a75474a2740f70a654.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 526, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 526, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 202, + 526, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study on training method of the tailor and ratio between two rewards. 'w/o Base Model' removes the training stage of the base model. 'w/o Pre-training' removes the pre-training stage. 'w/o RL Fine-tuning' removes the RL fine-tuning stage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 367, + 298 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 367, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 367, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To gain a comprehensive understanding of our method, we conducted multiple analyses. All of the following results are reported on De→En task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 401, + 372 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 401, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 401, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct ablation studies on the structure and training method of tailor to investigate the influence of different settings. The experiments all use Wait- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model as the base model with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " set to 3. Table 2 presents a comparison of different structures. The best performance is achieved when the tailor has 2 layers. The performance can be negatively affected by both excessive layers and insufficient layers. Table 3 illustrates the results of the ablation study on the training method. Each stage of the training method contributes to the performance of the SiMT model and the training stage of the base model has the most significant impact on the performance. This can be attributed to the fact that a well-trained encoder can provide accurate source information to the tailor, enabling the generation of appropriate tailored references. Additionally, when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\alpha" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 378, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is selected as 0.2, our method yields the best performance, indicating an optimal balance between word order and quality for the tailor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 473, + 672 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 473, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 660, + 473, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Analysis of Tailored Reference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anticipation Rate Furthermore, we conduct an analysis of the tailored reference to assess its influence. We first explore the rate of forced anticipations caused by using different references during training. Using the anticipation rate (AR) (Chen et al., 2021) as the metric, the results in Table 4 show that the tailored reference can effectively re" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3076" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 69, + 283, + 125 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 69, + 283, + 125 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 69, + 283, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 69, + 283, + 125 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
k1357
Ground-Truth28.178.683.491.12
Tailored Ref19.848.292.980.90
", + "image_path": "60806a534dd8505765426593a7116a4398b720a70b8e11eebb52ceb8c8b3086f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 180, + 289, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: The anticipation rate (AR[%]) when applying the Wait- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy on different references, which are based on De " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " En test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 180, + 289, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 180, + 289, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 180, + 289, + 237 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
k1357
Tailored Ref79.6786.0184.8392.40
Non-Anti Ref21.8724.0726.2927.24
", + "image_path": "57417fac55491460040eaf31da1a64c8646d52a45bbc13b84811034b02daa2e7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: The quality (BLEU) of difference references compared to ground-truth for the training of Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy. 'Non-Anti Ref' represents the reference generated by applying Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy on Full-sentence model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 290, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 290, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 290, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "duce the forced anticipations during the training of the SiMT model under all latency. This implies that, compared to ground-truth, the word reorderingings between the tailored reference and the source sentence can be more effectively handled by the SiMT model at different latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quality However, one concern is whether the quality of tailored reference will deteriorate like non-anticipatory reference after adjusting the word order. To assess this, we compare different references with ground-truth to measure their quality. As shown in Table 5, we observe that the tailored reference exhibits significantly higher quality than the non-anticipatory reference. Therefore, our method successfully reduces the rate of forced anticipations during training while remaining faithful to ground-truth. To provide a better understanding of the tailored reference, we include several illustrative cases in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 228, + 605 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 228, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 228, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Hallucination in Translation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If the SiMT model is forced to predict target tokens before reading corresponding source information during training, there is a high likelihood of generating hallucinations during inference (Ma et al., 2019). To quantify the presence of hallucinations in the translation, we introduce hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) for evaluation. Figure 6 illustrates that the SiMT model trained with the tailored reference demonstrates a reduced probability of generating hallucinations. Moreover, even though the adaptive policy can adjust its behavior based on the translation status, our approach still ef" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 518, + 228 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 518, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 518, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 518, + 228 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "88ad485412b485e5e395d254f2f4e669797290ed0cb3e64b665d247f63612596.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 527, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 527, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 527, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: The hallucination rate (HR) (Chen et al., 2021) of different methods. It measures the proportion of tokens in translation that cannot find corresponding source information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 527, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fectively mitigates the hallucinations by alleviating the burden of latency. This signifies that minimizing forced predictions during training can enhance the faithfulness of the translation to the source sentence, thereby improving translation quality (Ma et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 396, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 396, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 396, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 421, + 526, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 421, + 526, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 421, + 526, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Simultaneous machine translation (SiMT) generates translation while reading the source sentence. It requires a policy to determine the source information read when translating each target token, thus striking a balance between latency and translation quality. Current research on SiMT mainly focuses on two areas: policy improvement and adjustment of the training method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For policy improvement, it aims to provide sufficient source information for translation while avoiding unnecessary latency. Ma et al. (2019) propose Wait-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " policy, which initially reads " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens and alternates between writing and reading one token. Zhang and Feng (2021) enable each head to obtain the information with a different fixed latency and integrate the decisions of multiple heads for translation. However, the fixed policy cannot be flexibly adjusted based on context, resulting in suboptimal performance. Ma et al. (2020) allow each head to determine its own policy and make all heads decide on the translation. Miao et al. (2021) propose a generative framework, which uses a re-parameterized Poisson prior to regularising the policy. Zhang and Feng (2023a) propose a segmentation policy for the source input. Zhang and Feng (2023b) model the simultaneous machine translation as a Hidden" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3077" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Markov Model and achieve state-of-the-art performance. However, these methods are all trained with ground-truth, leading to forced predictions at low latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the adjustment of the training method, it wants to supplement the missing full-sentence information or cater to the requirements of latency. Zhang et al. (2021) shorten the distance of source hidden states between the SiMT model and the Full-sentence model. This makes the source hidden states implicitly embed future information, but encourages data-driven prediction. On the other hand, Chen et al. (2021) try to train the model with non-anticipatory reference, which can be effectively handled by the SiMT model at that latency. However, while non-anticipatory reference can alleviate forced predictions at low latency, it hinders performance improvement at high latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 291, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we want to provide a tailored reference for the SiMT models trained at different latency. The tailored reference should avoid forced anticipations and exhibit high quality. In view of the good structure and superior performance of the non-autoregressive model (Gu et al., 2018; Libovicky and Helcl, 2018), we utilize it to modify the ground-truth to the tailored reference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 147, + 445 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 147, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 147, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel method to provide a tailored reference for the training of SiMT model. Experiments and extensive analyses demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both fixed and adaptive policies and effectively reduces the hallucinations in translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 130, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 130, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 545, + 130, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 566, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 566, + 291, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 566, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Regarding the system settings, we investigate the impact of the number of layers and training methods on performance. We think that further exploration of system settings could potentially yield even better results. Additionally, the tailor module aims to avoid forced anticipations and maintain faithfulness to ground-truth. If we can add language-related features to the SiMT model using a heuristic method, it may produce more suitable references for the SiMT model. We leave it for future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 160, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 160, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 725, + 160, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank all anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 526, + 167 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 526, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 90, + 526, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mauro Cettolo, Jan Niehues, Sebastian Stüker, Luisa Bentivogli, Roldano Cattoni, and Marcello Federico. 2015. The IWSLT 2015 evaluation campaign. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation: Evaluation Campaign@IWSLT 2015, Da Nang, Vietnam, December 3-4, 2015." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 176, + 526, + 276 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 176, + 526, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 176, + 526, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junkun Chen, Renjie Zheng, Atsuhito Kita, Mingbo Ma, and Liang Huang. 2021. Improving simultaneous translation by incorporating pseudo-references with fewer reorderings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November; 2021, pages 5857-5864. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 526, + 352 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 526, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 526, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maha Elbayad, Laurent Besacier, and Jakob Verbeek. 2020. Efficient wait-k models for simultaneous machine translation. In *Interspeech* 2020, 21st Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Virtual Event, Shanghai, China, 25-29 October 2020, pages 1461-1465. ISCA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 360, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 360, + 526, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 360, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino J. Gomez, and Jurgen Schmidhuber. 2006. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference (ICML 2006), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, June 25-29, 2006, volume 148 of ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 369-376. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 526, + 535 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 526, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 469, + 526, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O. K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 526, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 544, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiatao Gu, Graham Neubig, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2017. Learning to translate in real-time with neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 1053-1062, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 526, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 630, + 526, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2022. Turning fixed to adaptive: Integrating post-evaluation into simultaneous machine translation. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 2264-2278. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shoutao Guo, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Learning optimal policy for simultaneous machine translation via binary search. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3078" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2318-2333, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 290, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 105, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for nonautoregressive machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jindrich Libovicky and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3016-3021, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 236, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Manuel Lopes, Tobias Lang, Marc Toussaint, and Pierreyves Oudeyer. 2012. Exploration in model-based reinforcement learning by empirically estimating learning progress. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 312, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingbo Ma, Liang Huang, Hao Xiong, Renjie Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Baigong Zheng, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hairong Liu, Xing Li, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. STACL: simultaneous translation with implicit anticipation and controllable latency using prefix-to-prefix framework. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 3025-3036. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 290, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 290, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 444, + 290, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xutai Ma, Juan Miguel Pino, James Cross, Liezl Puzon, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Monotonic multihead attention. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 509, + 290, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengrui Ma, Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, Chenze Shao, Min Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2023. Nonautoregressive streaming transformer for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 585, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 585, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 585, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yishu Miao, Phil Blunsom, and Lucia Specia. 2021. A generative framework for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 6697-6706. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2019. *fairoseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling*. In *Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Demonstrations, pages 48-53. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 158, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2020. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07905." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 309, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 309, + 525, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 309, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenze Shao, Jinchao Zhang, Jie Zhou, and Yang Feng. 2022. Rephrasing the reference for non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2211.16863." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 362, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 525, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 449, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lex Weaver and Nigel Tao. 2001. The optimal reward baseline for gradient-based reinforcement learning. In UAI '01: Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2-5, 2001, pages 538-545. Morgan Kaufmann." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 525, + 557 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 525, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 524, + 525, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Mach. Learn., 8:229-256." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 566, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 566, + 525, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 566, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ruiqing Zhang, Chuanqiang Zhang, Zhongjun He, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Learning adaptive segmentation policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2280-2289, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 652, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2021. Universal simultaneous machine translation with mixture-of-experts wait-k policy. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 7306-7317. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022a. Gaussian multihead attention for simultaneous machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3079" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 290, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 3019-3030, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 291, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 291, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 291, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022b. Information-transport-based policy for simultaneous translation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 992-1013, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 188, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 188, + 291, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 188, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2022c. Modeling dual read/write paths for simultaneous machine translation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2461-2477, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 263, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 263, + 291, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 263, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023a. End-to-end simultaneous speech translation with differentiable segmentation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 291, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang and Yang Feng. 2023b. Hidden markov transformer for simultaneous machine translation. CoRR, abs/2303.00257." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 368, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 368, + 291, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 368, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang, Yang Feng, and Liangyou Li. 2021. Future-guided incremental transformer for simultaneous translation. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 14428-14436. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 476, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 476, + 291, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 476, + 291, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaolei Zhang, Shoutao Guo, and Yang Feng. 2022. Wait-info policy: Balancing source and target at information level for simultaneous machine translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 2249-2263, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 561, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baigong Zheng, Kaibo Liu, Renjie Zheng, Mingbo Ma, Hairong Liu, and Liang Huang. 2020. Simultaneous translation policies: From fixed to adaptive. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 2847-2853. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 504, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 504, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 504, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Anticipation & Hallucination Rate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our analyses, we evaluate the reference and translation using anticipation rate (AR) and hallucination rate (HR), respectively. We then introduce the calculation method of these two evaluation metrics in detail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a sentence pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", there exists an alignment set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is a set of source-target index pairs " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(j,i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j^{\\mathrm{th}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " source token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " aligns to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{\\mathrm{th}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " target token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If we apply the policy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{g} = (g_1,\\dots,g_I)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on this sentence pair, the target token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is forcibly anticipated " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(A(i,\\mathbf{h},\\mathbf{g}) = 1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if it aligns to least one source token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j > g_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 526, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 265, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 265, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 265, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A (i, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}) = \\mathbb {1} \\left[ \\left\\{(j, i) \\in \\mathbf {h} \\mid j > g _ {i} \\right\\} \\neq \\varnothing \\right]. \\tag {12}", + "image_path": "7b86e08d210e7561a4470b910401609711672cec2ad698228102dcc8c7140bd1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, we can define the anticipation rate (AR) of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{y},\\mathbf{h})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " under the policy " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{g}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 328, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 328, + 525, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 328, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A R (\\mathbf {x}, \\mathbf {y}, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}) = \\frac {1}{| \\mathbf {y} |} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\mathbf {y} |} A (i, \\mathbf {h}, \\mathbf {g}). \\tag {13}", + "image_path": "c01e8c69fdb7d46f9692bcebc211dc91b620810b48b7a7396c5389918f5c4a6c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The anticipation rate is a metric used to quantify the degree to which the target token is predicted before reading all relevant source tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We then introduce the hallucination rate (HR). We first define the translation as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". A target token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{y}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in translation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\mathbf{y}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hallucination " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(H(i, \\mathbf{h}) = 1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 416, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if it can not be aligned to any source token:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 481, + 525, + 495 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 481, + 525, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 481, + 525, + 495 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "H (i, \\mathbf {h}) = \\mathbb {1} [ \\{(j, i) \\in \\mathbf {h} \\} = \\varnothing ]. \\tag {14}", + "image_path": "9bc1ecc3084f7be9a725116aad5d06ab6054669d342fd5a851f3d54c32f13f51.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 506, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, the hallucination rate can be defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 528, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 528, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 528, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "H R (\\mathbf {x}, \\hat {\\mathbf {y}}, \\mathbf {h}) = \\frac {1}{| \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} |} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {| \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} |} H (i, \\mathbf {h}). \\tag {15}", + "image_path": "cbd8857504fd88442c8fc655eb9dbb5ccad8aafb778fa1d026832dcc71fbe9c7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 384, + 589 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 384, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 384, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also provide two cases in the De " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " En test set to understand our method. The cases are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. It presents that the tailored reference is more consistent with the word order requirements of the specific latency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 7, if we train the SiMT model on Wait-1 policy with the ground-truth, it will be forced to predict 'with him' before reading 'mit ihm' during training. However, training the SiMT model with tailored reference will eliminate forced predictions by adjusting 'like that' to 'such' and positioning it forward. Importantly, the tailored reference also maintains the original semantics. This shows that" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3080" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 478, + 150 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 478, + 150 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 478, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 72, + 478, + 150 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source Sentenceich hatte nie ein solches Geschäfts mit ihm . (I) (had) (never) (a) (such) (conversation) (with) (him)
Ground-TruthI never had a conversation with him like that .
Tailored RefI had never had such a conversation with him .
", + "image_path": "23a7133c77fbe6595f7dd62cb45dfed9da732f1e99d06e7b49e3a4ac38559d99.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 525, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Case study of #319 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 508, + 309 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 508, + 309 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 508, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 508, + 309 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source Sentenceund vor einer Online @-@ Bestellung sollte man prüfen , so \n(and) (before) (an) (online) (order) (should) (you) (check) (so) \nGault , ob das Buch tatsächlich vorrätg ist. \n(Gault) (if) (the) (book) (actually) (in stock) (is)
Ground-Truthbefore ordering online , Gault says , be sure to check if the book \nis actually in stock .
Tailored Refand before an online order , Gault says , be sure to check if the \nbook is actually in stock .
", + "image_path": "dc5181c4113574bad5416c809b7e91f83b45237aa241d3ed8beabc3ec15107b4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 525, + 346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Case study of #1869 in De→En test set. The tokens marked in the same color share the same semantics. The tailored reference is more suitable when the model is trained with Wait-1 policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the order of the source sentence and the tailored sentence is consistent, which makes it suitable for Wait-1 policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 291, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 8, using ground-truth as the training target of Wait-1 policy also forces the model to predict 'ordering online' before reading 'Online' and 'Bestellung'. In contrast, by replacing 'ordering online' with 'an online order', the word order of tailored reference is the same as the source sentence, thereby avoiding forced anticipations during the training of Wait-1 policy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 183, + 539 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 183, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 183, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 291, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The system settings on three translation tasks are shown in Table 6. For more detailed implementation issues, please refer to our publicly available code." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 186, + 622 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 186, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 186, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Numerical Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to the translation performance comparison in Figure 3 and Figure 4, we also provide corresponding numerical results for reference. Table 7, 8, 9 respectively report the numerical results on IWSLT15 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Vi}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", WMT16 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{En} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ro}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and WMT15 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{De} \\rightarrow \\mathrm{En}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 291, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measured by AL (Ma et al., 2019) and BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3081" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 100, + 242, + 493, + 576 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 242, + 493, + 576 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 242, + 493, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 242, + 493, + 576 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterIWSLT15 En→ViWMT16 En→RoWMT15 De→En
encoder layers666
encoder attention heads488
encoder embed dim512512512
encoder ffn embed dim102420482048
decoder layers666
decoder attention heads488
decoder embed dim512512512
decoder ffn embed dim102420482048
tailor layers222
tailor attention heads888
tailor embed dim512512512
tailor ffn embed dim204820482048
dropout0.10.30.3
optimizeradamadamadam
adam-β(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)(0.9, 0.98)
clip-norm000
lr5e-45e-45e-4
lr schedulerinverse sqrtinverse sqrtinverse sqrt
warmup-updates400040004000
warmup-init-lr1e-71e-71e-7
weight decay0.00010.00010.0001
label-smoothing0.10.10.1
max tokens160008192×48192×4
", + "image_path": "b9a4f897d3fec39bf11184e02565dbfefa4fd948b62b1e3cedd3fabcb34d9787.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 584, + 389, + 597 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 584, + 389, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 584, + 389, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Hyperparameters of our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3082" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 107, + 283, + 709 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 107, + 283, + 709 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 107, + 283, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 107, + 283, + 709 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
IWSLT15 En→Vi
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
22.4128.8
Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.0325.28
34.6427.53
56.4628.27
78.1128.45
99.8028.53
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
13.1926.56
34.7028.43
56.4328.73
78.1928.81
99.8628.88
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
12.9627.58
34.4929.03
56.2429.25
78.0129.45
99.7029.49
HMT
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0528.02
2, 23.7228.53
4, 24.9228.59
5, 46.3428.78
6, 48.1528.86
7, 69.6028.88
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
1, 23.0228.28
2, 23.7029.02
4, 25.3129.24
5, 46.2829.39
6, 48.0429.34
7, 69.7829.39
", + "image_path": "5d42485ed0da4a5b25155e0f58547d19a1ca0d2e49abb5302e975b291892e51a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 120, + 518, + 693 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 276, + 731 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 276, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 276, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Numerical results of IWSLT15 En " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 276, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 719, + 276, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Vi." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 120, + 518, + 693 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 120, + 518, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 120, + 518, + 693 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a32.74
Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0920.67
33.0125.69
55.0929.28
77.2130.50
99.0330.87
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
12.0023.50
33.3028.25
55.1530.94
77.0031.19
99.0031.33
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
11.4823.72
33.0728.30
54.9331.04
77.0232.13
98.8531.97
HMT
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7324.09
3, 63.3428.92
5, 65.3331.02
7, 67.4631.97
9, 89.2732.18
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
2, 41.7124.80
3, 63.2729.11
5, 65.2631.42
7, 67.3432.16
9, 89.2432.13
", + "image_path": "d62b4c24b225ed15885f209742ee8e092c7c6e7172dd4946d4efacd7fd560543.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 706, + 510, + 718 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 706, + 510, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 706, + 510, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Numerical results of WMT16 En→Ro." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3083" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 106, + 283, + 709 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 106, + 283, + 709 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 106, + 283, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 106, + 283, + 709 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
WMT16 En→Ro
Full-sentence
ALBLEU
n/a31.76
Wait-k
kALBLEU
10.0217.61
31.7123.75
53.8526.86
75.8628.20
97.8529.42
MoE Wait-k
kALBLEU
1-0.1821.40
31.8225.35
53.9827.50
75.9729.07
97.8829.52
Wait-k + Tailor
kALBLEU
1-0.3221.12
31.8925.90
53.8928.44
75.9129.80
97.8030.64
HMT
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.2722.52
2, 42.2027.60
3, 63.4629.29
5, 64.7430.29
7, 66.4330.90
9, 88.3631.45
HMT + Tailor
L, KALBLEU
-1, 40.0323.75
2, 42.1028.12
3, 63.1329.99
5, 64.6030.74
7, 66.3131.48
9, 88.1831.87
", + "image_path": "4aa5bf818f0b46b2003fdbd44a44f11adea6f7eb0ccd3d902c1399695f0f9365.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 719, + 275, + 731 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 719, + 275, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 719, + 275, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Numerical results of WMT15 De→En." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3084" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_content_list.json" "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_content_list.json" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..251784b807c02b283eda237e5eec492f176b5228 --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_content_list.json" @@ -0,0 +1,1341 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Smart “Chef”: Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 89, + 880, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong*, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao", + "bbox": [ + 272, + 155, + 727, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University, SuZhou, China", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 172, + 835, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{xxfz56, tianxianer, qtxu0801}@gmail.com, jyao@suda.edu.com", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 189, + 800, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We tackle Aspect Term Extraction (ATE), a task of automatically extracting aspect terms from sentences. The current Pretrained Language Model (PLM) based extractors have achieved significant improvements. They primarily benefit from context-aware encoding. However, a considerable number of sentences in ATE corpora contain uninformative or low-quality contexts. Such sentences frequently act as \"troublemakers\" during test. In this study, we explore the context-oriented quality improvement method. Specifically, we propose to automatically rewrite the sentences from the perspectives of virtual experts with different roles, such as a \"chef\" in the restaurant domain. On this basis, we perform ATE over the paraphrased sentences during test, using the well-trained extractors without any change. In the experiments, we leverage ChatGPT to determine virtual experts in the considered domains, and induce ChatGPT to generate paraphrases conditioned on the roles of virtual experts. We experiment on the benchmark SemEval datasets, including Laptop-domain L14 and Restaurant-domain R14-16. The experimental results show that our approach effectively recalls the inconspicuous aspect terms like \"al di la\", although it reduces the precision. In addition, it is proven that our approach can be substantially improved by redundancy elimination and multi-role voting. More importantly, our approach can be used to expand the predictions obtained on the original sentences. This yields state-of-the-art performance (i.e., $F1$ -scores of $86.2\\%$ , $89.3\\%$ , $77.7\\%$ , $82.7\\%$ on L14 and R14-16) without retraining or fine-tuning the baseline extractors.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 279, + 460, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 806, + 258, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ATE is a natural language processing task, which aims to extract aspect terms from sentences (Jakob and Gurevych, 2010). The aspect term refers to a word, phrase or named entity depicting a certain", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 487, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "domain-specific attribute. For example, the text span \"al di la\" in (1) is specified as a restaurant-domain aspect term because it appears as the sign of an Italian trattoria.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) Love al di la (Selected from SemEval-R15).", + "(2) We take pride in every dish we serve at al di la (Rewritten by ChatGPT with a role of \"chef\")." + ], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 330, + 882, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The current studies leverage PLMs as backbones to construct ATE models (extractors), including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) as mentioned in Section 2. They yield significant improvements, compared to conventional neural networks like CNN (LeCun et al., 1998). The advantage is primarily attributed to the strong perception ability on noteworthy contexts, as well as context-aware representation learning ability.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 403, + 884, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, such extractors frequently suffer from uninformative or low-quality contexts. For example, the context \"Love\" in (1) is uninformative for recognizing \"al di la\". By contrast, the substitution containing a knowledge-rich context makes it easier to recognize aspect terms, such as the case in (2). Accordingly, we propose a ChatGPT-based Edition Fictionalization (CHEF) method to assist the current PLM-based extractors. CHEF acts as a domain-specific virtual expert with different roles to rewrite sentences, with the aim to refine contexts of potential aspect terms. ChatGPT is utilized for both expert generation and sentence rewriting. A series of post-processing methods are coupled with CHEF, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We experiment on the benchmark datasets L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). The well-trained $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}$ and PST (Wang et al., 2021) (SoTA) are adopted in the experiments. During test, they perform over the rewritten sentences by CHEF, without retraining and fine-tuning. The test results", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 290, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2190", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2190-2197 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "demonstrate the effectiveness of CHEF in recalling aspects and expanding the predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 128, + 268, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Context-aware encoding contributes to ATE. It brings domain-specific contextual information into token-level representations. Therefore, CNN (LeCun et al., 1998; Karimi et al., 2021) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019; Karimi et al., 2021; Klein et al., 2022) are widely used for ATE due to the abilities of convolving local contexts or absorbing attentive contextual information. Their expanded versions DECNN (Xu et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Chen and Qian, 2020) and BERT-PT (Xu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022b) are generally adopted as backbones in the subsequent studies. In addition, BERT is utilized as the pedestal for context-aware encoding in a series of more complex tasks, including Aspect-Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022c; Zhang et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022d; Zhao et al., 2022b) and MRC-based ASTE (Yang and Zhao, 2022; Zhai et al., 2022). Recently, the generative framework is introduced into the studies of ASTE, and accordingly BART (Yan et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a) and T5 (Zhang et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022) are used. They are constructed with the transformer encoder-decoder architecture in the seq2seq paradigm, where attentive contextual information absorption is conducted on both sides.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 155, + 489, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 602, + 235, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We aim to provide knowledge-rich and high-quality sentences for ATE. Specifically, we use CHEF to rewrite sentences, and feed the rewritten sentences into an extractor to predict aspect terms. Finally, we combine the aspect terms which are respectively extracted from the original and rewritten sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 487, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Extractors", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 737, + 243, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We follow the common practice (Chernyshevich, 2014; Toh and Wang, 2014; San Vicente et al., 2015) to treat ATE as a sequence labeling task. B/I/O labels are used, which respectively signal Beginning, Inside and Outside tokens relative to aspect terms. Therefore, an extractor essentially classifies each token into one of the B/I/O labels in terms of the token-level hidden state. We use PLM to compute the hidden states of tokens, and use a Fully-connected (FC) layer for classification.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c617ba0fe01f09f013b7ae0a3f26f9816c85e3da542052698b7e24284fc42310.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DomainVirtual Experts
RestaurantRestaurant Owner, Chef, Waiter, Diner, Catering Consultant, Receptionist, Cleaning Staff, Purchasing Manager, Restaurant Manager, Financial Officer
LaptopHardware Engineer, Software Engineer, Technical Support Engineer, Marketer, Customer Service Staff, Test Engineer Case Designer, Supply Chain Manager, Purchasing Manager, User
", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 80, + 870, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Experts of Restaurant and Laptop domains.", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 214, + 872, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1: Rewrite with Zero-shot prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 517, + 247, + 835, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Test set $S$ , Role set $\\mathcal{R}$ AND Domain set $\\mathcal{D}$", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 266, + 848, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: All the rewritten sentences", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 278, + 761, + 291 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt.fmt $(\\mathcal{D}_i,\\mathcal{R}_j,S_k) =$ Rewrite $S_{k}\\in S$ from the perspective of $\\mathcal{R}_j\\in \\mathcal{R}$ in the domain of $\\mathcal{D}_i\\in \\mathcal{D}$", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 291, + 850, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "foreach $\\mathcal{D}_i\\in \\mathcal{D}$ do", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 315, + 655, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "foreach $\\mathcal{R}_j\\in \\mathcal{R}$ do foreach $S_{k}\\in S$ do Instruction $=$ Prompt.fmt $(D_i,\\mathcal{R}_j,S_k)$ Prediction $=$ ChatGPT(Instruction)", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 326, + 847, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 375, + 584, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "end", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 400, + 556, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider two PLMs for hidden-state computation in the experiments, including $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}$ and $\\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}$ -based PST (Wang et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 444, + 882, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 CHEF", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 504, + 606, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CHEF comprises two stages, including role generation of domain-specific virtual experts, as well as role-based rewriting. It is coupled with three post-processors, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 524, + 882, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Role Generation-CHEF induces $\\mathrm{ChatGPT}^1$ to generate a series of virtual experts playing different roles. The generation is prompted by the target-domain name $\\mathcal{D}_i$ like \"Restaurant\". The query we use is as follows: \"Output the roles of experts in the domain of $[\\mathcal{D}_i]$ according to the different responsibilities.\" Table 1 shows the experts.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 605, + 882, + 717 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sentence Rewriting- Given a sentence $S_{k}$ in the ATE datasets, CHEF induces ChatGPT to rewrite the sentence from the perspective of a role-specific expert $\\mathcal{R}_{j}$ . Zero-shot prompting (Wei et al., 2022) is used during generation. In other words, there isn't any example provided for prompting ChatGPT. The query we use is as follows: \"Rewrite the sentence $[S_{k}]$ from the perspective of $[\\mathcal{R}_{j}]$ in the domain of $[\\mathcal{D}_i]$ \". We rewrite all the instances in the test sets using Algorithm 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 882, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Post-Processing- We drive the extractors to pre", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 879, + 882, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1 https://platform.openai.com/playground?mode=chat", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 855, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2191", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/69c7185cfc8f75b2e83643175df9f1e414fd9d3fe61a5c801485cd26d66f7ec3.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
L-14R-14R-15R-16
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
#Sentence2,4366098002,4336088001,0522636851,600400676
#Aspect1,9404186542,9507441,1349482525421,408336612
", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 80, + 836, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Statistics of ATE datasets. #Sentence and #Aspect denote the number of sentences and aspects.", + "bbox": [ + 146, + 147, + 847, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "dict aspect terms over the role-specific rewritten sentences. Redundant results may obtained, which are specified as the aspect terms never occurring in the original sentences. For example, although the token \"dish\" in the rewritten sentence in (2) is correctly predicted as an aspect term, it is redundant due to non-occurrence in the original sentence in (1). We filter the redundant results during test.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 487, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we use a soft synonym replacement method to reduce false positive rates. Specifically, given an original sentence $S_{i}$ and the rewritten case $\\mathring{S}_{i}$ , we segment both of them into $n$ -grams. Assume a set $\\mathcal{U}_i$ of $n$ -grams $(1 \\leq n \\leq 5)$ in $S_{i}$ share a part of the predicted aspect term with the set $\\mathring{\\mathcal{U}}_i$ of $n$ -grams in $\\mathring{S}_i$ , we calculate the similarity between each gram $u_{ij}$ in $\\mathcal{U}_i$ and every gram $\\mathring{u}_{ik}$ in $\\mathring{\\mathcal{U}}_i$ . We rank all pairs of $\\{u_{ij},\\mathring{u}_{ik}\\}$ in terms of their similarities, and select the top-1 ranked $n$ -gram pair for synonym replacement, i.e., $\\mathring{u}_{ik} \\Leftarrow u_{ij}$ . Meanwhile, the replaced $n$ -gram is specified as the unabridged aspect term, as shown in the example in (3). Note that Cosine similarity is computed over the embeddings of each pair $\\{u_{ij},\\mathring{u}_{ik}\\}$ . The embedding of each $n$ -gram is obtained by conducting mean pooling (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) over the token-level hidden states.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 317, + 489, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(3) Original: Best Indian food I have ever eaten.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 617, + 485, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rewritten: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes [Aspect Term]. (Rewritten by CHEF with a role of “chef”)", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 634, + 485, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Replacement: Indian dishes $\\Leftarrow$ Indian food Output: Indian food", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 682, + 485, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-role Voting- We conduct multi-role voting only if an extractor obtains controversial results from the original and rewritten sentences. It facilitates the combination of the extraction results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Assume an extractor refuses to extract a text span $t_i$ as an aspect from the original sentence, though it would like to do so from the sentences rewritten by different roles of experts, thus we regard $t_i$ as a controversial result. In this case, we define the behavior of extracting $t_i$ as the voting for acceptance, otherwise rejection. On this basis, we compute the acceptance rate $v_i$ over the rewritten", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 791, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sentences of all experts: $v_{i} = N_{c} / N_{all}$ , where $N_{c}$ denotes the number of voting for acceptance, while $N_{all}$ is the number of experts. $N_{all}$ is set to 10 in our experiments. For the Restaurant domain, a controversial result $t_{i}$ is finally adopted only if $v_{i}$ is no less than a threshold of 0.7. For the Laptop domain, the threshold is set to 0.8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 187, + 882, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 311, + 690, + 328 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets and Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 337, + 746, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We experiment on the SemEval datasets, including L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). All the instances in L14 are selected from the Laptop domain, while those in R14-16 derive from the Restaurant domain. We follow the common practice (Dai and Song, 2019; Wang et al., 2021) to split the datasets into training, validation and test sets. The statistics in them are shown in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 882, + 485 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is noteworthy that only the extractors are trained and developed using the above datasets. CHEF has nothing to do with training and development. It is conducted only on the test sets, providing rewritten sentences for the extractors and post-processes the predictions. We evaluate all the models using $F1$ -score (Chernyshevich, 2014).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 487, + 882, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 695, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We respectively use $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}$ and $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {pt }}$ -based PST (Wang et al., 2021) to construct the extractors, where PST achieved the best performance so far.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 631, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}$ , we set the maximum sequence length to 128 and carry out training in 4 epochs. The optimization of model parameters is obtained using AdamW with a learning rate of 3e-5 and a weight decay of 0.01. We set the batch size to 10. For PST, we adopt their initial hyperparameters, setting the first round of training to 5 epochs and performing 4 rounds of self-training. The learning rate is set to 5e-5. AdamW is used as the optimizer. All the other hyperparameters remain consistent with the reported ones.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 882, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Comparison Result", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 707, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 3, we report the performance of PST which is enhanced by CHEF, along with other state-of", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2192", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4c26f615046b55dde008a1a972757517a4239c7afade3820e59b55dc30b28da7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelL14R14R15R16
ChatGPT (2023)43.0355.6540.33-
+5-shot ICL (2023)48.1970.9953.49-
+5-shot COT (2023)54.5072.4159.27-
DECNN (2018)81.59--74.37
+CDA (2020)81.58--75.19
+Repositioning (2020)84.1784.5572.0375.40
+PrototypeE (2020)83.1987.3973.2776.98
BERTbase(2019)79.8686.5868.0873.50
+Repositioning (2020)81.4387.1072.6877.71
+CDA (2020)81.14--75.89
+PST (2021)84.1787.6372.8177.09
BERTpt(2019)84.3788.4173.6678.29
+CDA (2020)85.33--80.29
+PST (2021)86.9188.7575.8282.56
Ours (PST+CHEF)86.2289.3377.6982.74
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/dd2da32c7e8be2bf8ad38bf22ba8d132dc7acc22aeeb14666a6a019e83f77904.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: The performance $(F1$ -score) of various methods. \"ICL\" refers to in-context learning, while \"COT\" stands for chain-of-thought. The sign \"+\" represents a certain method combined with the baseline model." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelL14R14R15R16
BERTbase82.9688.0372.1774.88
+CHEF83.3988.2572.9275.56
PST (Reproduced)86.1389.2877.2982.62
+CHEF86.2289.3377.6982.74
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 376, + 478, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Improvements (F1) on different extractors.", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 456, + 477, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the-art ATE models. In this case, the extraction results are obtained by combining the predictions of PST on both original and rewritten sentences, where multi-role voting is used. It can be found that CHEF enables PST to achieve better performance, slightly increasing the performance gap relative to other strong competitors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 497, + 487, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 4, we report the effects of CHEF on both the $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}$ and $\\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}$ -based PST, where multi-role voting is used for prediction combination. It can be observed that CHEF enables both extractors to achieve better performance on all the test sets, without retraining and fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 611, + 489, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 719, + 243, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In two separate experiments, we demonstrate that CHEF contributes to the salvage of the missed aspect terms, and yields more substantial improvements on short or long sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 487, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Salvage Rate- We select all the incompletely-solved sentences from the test sets, each of which contains at least one aspect term neglected by the extractor. On this basis, we use CHEF to rewrite the sentences and drive the extractor to rework them. In this experiment, we consider the $\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}$ extractor, and verify the changes in recall rates. Figure", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a1d7ddf08fbf715d8958e5cd78de7d81629d4f5674ca4fb4dd9bd6bce18d1da8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Best Expert" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 91, + 672, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3785fff1d473ec2e1728f15f9b1dbc3c01b7153ca9ee9185ca6b635aa30b5036.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Worst Expert" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 90, + 867, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b01f9a62a47131b1268ebb8823ca93f8ff66b81f2e6a51cde335902bd3f7fbdd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Significant improvements of Recall rates yielded by CHEF on the incompletely-solved sentences." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 258, + 687, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5783b034e833982576f5fc1e2263b457caffef09e4650b209b1375336837f4f9.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 705, + 260, + 873, + 410 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/17f4593d62440b990d4cca4393e1432526cc685adc6fed4eb70457ed6d242e67.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: $F1$ -scores for the sentences at different lengths. Appendix A gives the statistics about them." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 517, + 435, + 687, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f4d317a1a707b4e98017aa31c5daaa83af14bac027768f4b805f7ecf39ae4f0f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 705, + 435, + 873, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 shows the experimental results, where only the performances yielded by the best and worst experts are provided. It can be observed that CHEF substantially improves the recall rates for all test sets, no matter whether it plays the role of best expert or worst. The most significant improvement in recall rate reaches about $9\\%$ . Besides, the change of precision, recall and $F1$ score on the full test set can be found in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 674, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adaptability-CHEF applies more to short and long sentences. The former generally contains uninformative contexts, while the latter contains lower-quality contexts due to noises. We split each test set into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. There are five subsets obtained for each,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2193", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/771da26e92f82108941e1fdc810076f3acbe72dad5fb3d5be806569e53816e60.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Best Expert", + "Figure 3: Results of ablation experiments (F1-scores)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 87, + 295, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c3bd8ac995b90cabde8f842a6db0fbc772f10edd8d609a794cc9b8080526a5f7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Worst Expert" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 307, + 87, + 480, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "including the sentences having a length within the ranges of [1, 10], [11, 15], [16, 20], [21, 30] and no less than 30. The statistics in the subsets are shown in Table 5. Figure 2 shows the ATE performance at the original sentences of different lengths, and that at the rewritten cases by CHEF (without multirole prediction combination). It can be observed that CHEF only yields improvements for relatively short or long sentences. The most significant improvement reaches about $4\\%$ F1-score at R16.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 357, + 489, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 280, + 543 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CHEF consists of four components, including Combination (Comb), Redundancy Elimination (RE), Synonym Replacement (SR) and Multi-role Voting, as presented in Section 3. To verify the effects of the components, we conduct an ablation experiment. Figure 3 illustrates the verification results over best and worst experts, where ALL indicates the complete CHEF method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 487, + 676 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It can be observed that the simple combination (Comb) causes significant performance degradation, although many terms the baseline missed are salvaged. When redundancy elimination (RE) is used, the comparable (a little worse) performance to the baseline is achieved. At this time, the precision is still lower because the synonymous terms are regarded as negative examples during evaluation. When synonym replacement (SR) is used, the performance is increased for some roles while not for others. When multi-role voting is used, the disagreement among the roles is resolved, and thus the performance is increased to a relatively higher level. We provide examples in Appendix C to facilitate the understanding of our ablation study.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 640, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We utilize ChatGPT to rewrite sentences with different roles of domain-specific experts, so as to provide informative and high-quality contexts for PLM-based ATE models. Experiments show that the proposed method contributes to the salvage of the neglected aspect terms, and applies more to the short and long sentences. In the future, we will use the rewritten sentences for contrastive learning. To reduce the reliance on ChatGPT, we will develop an offline context rewriting method by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 882, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 300, + 613, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose to use ChatGPT as an auxiliary toolkit to produce informative and high-quality contexts for context-aware token-level encoding, so as to enhance PLM encoders for aspect term recognition. Our experiments show that the proposed method yields slight improvements when coupled with strong domain-specific models, and it is not only effective in recalling neglected cases, but performs better for short and long instances. Unavoidably, the proposed method has the limitations in building a self-contained model, due to the lack of training and fine-tuning. To overcome the problem, we will develop a lite comparable generator to ChatGPT by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining. Furthermore, we will incorporate role-based rewritten sentences into the training process, with the support of contrastive learning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 328, + 884, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 615, + 663, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The research is supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2020YFB1313601) and National Science Foundation of China (62376182, 62076174).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 882, + 707 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 736, + 608, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Hao Chen, Zepeng Zhai, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022a. Enhanced multi-channel graph convolutional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2974-2985, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao, and Guodong Zhou. 2022b. Enhancing neural aspect term extraction using part-of-speech and syntactic dependency features. In 2022 IEEE 34th International" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 760, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2194", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (IC-TAI), pages 303-310.", + "Wei Chen, Jinglong Du, Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, and Zhongshi He. 2022c. A hierarchical interactive network for joint span-based aspect-sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7013-7019, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Yuqi Chen, Chen Keming, Xian Sun, and Zequn Zhang. 2022d. A span-level bidirectional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4300-4309, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhuang Chen and Tieyun Qian. 2020. Enhancing aspect term extraction with soft prototypes. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2107-2117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Maryna Chernyshevich. 2014. IHS R&D Belarus: Cross-domain extraction of product features using CRF. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 309-313, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hongliang Dai and Yangqiu Song. 2019. Neural aspect and opinion term extraction with mined rules as weak supervision. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5268-5277, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ridong Han, Tao Peng, Chaohao Yang, Benyou Wang, Lu Liu, and Xiang Wan. 2023. Is information extraction solved by chatgpt? an analysis of performance, evaluation criteria, robustness and errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14450.", + "Mengting Hu, Yike Wu, Hang Gao, Yinhao Bai, and Shiwan Zhao. 2022. Improving aspect sentiment quad prediction via template-order data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7889-7900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Niklas Jakob and Iryna Gurevych. 2010. Extracting opinion targets in a single and cross-domain setting with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1035-1045, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with bert. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803.", + "Ayal Klein, Oren Pereg, Daniel Korat, Vasudev Lal, Moshe Wasserblat, and Ido Dagan. 2022. Opinion-based relational pivoting for cross-domain aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis, pages 104-112, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kun Li, Chengbo Chen, Xiaojun Quan, Qing Ling, and Yan Song. 2020. Conditional augmentation for aspect term extraction via masked sequence-to-sequence generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7056-7066, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Suresh Manandhar, Mohammad AL-Smadi, Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub, Yanyan Zhao, Bing Qin, Orphée De Clercq, Véronique Hoste, Marianna Apidianaki, Xavier Tannier, Natalia Loukachevitch, Evgeniy Kotelnikov, Nuria Bel, Salud María Jiménez-Zafra, and Gúlşen Eryiğit. 2016. SemEval-2016 task 5: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2016, pages 19-30, San Diego, California.", + "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Suresh Manandhar, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2015. SemEval-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2015, pages 486-495, Denver, Colorado.", + "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2014, pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2195", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67.", + "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Inaki San Vicente, Xabier Saralegi, and Rodrigo Agerri. 2015. EliXa: A modular and flexible ABSA platform. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pages 748-752, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhiqiang Toh and Wenting Wang. 2014. DLIREC: Aspect term extraction and term polarity classification system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 235-240, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Qianlong Wang, Zhiyuan Wen, Qin Zhao, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2021. Progressive self-training with discriminator for aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 257-268, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Zhenkai Wei, Yu Hong, Bowei Zou, Meng Cheng, and Jianmin Yao. 2020. Don't eclipse your arts due to small discrepancies: Boundary repositioning with a pointer network for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3678-3684, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip Yu. 2019. BERT post-training for review reading comprehension and aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2324-2335, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip S. Yu. 2018. Double embeddings and CNN-based sequence labeling for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 592-598, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Hang Yan, Junqi Dai, Tuo Ji, Xipeng Qiu, and Zheng Zhang. 2021. A unified generative framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2416-2429, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yifei Yang and Hai Zhao. 2022. Aspect-based sentiment analysis as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2461-2471, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Zepeng Zhai, Hao Chen, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. COM-MRC: A COntext-masked machine reading comprehension framework for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3230-3241, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chen Zhang, Lei Ren, Fang Ma, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, and Dawei Song. 2022a. Structural bias for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6736-6745, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. Towards generative aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 504-510, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yice Zhang, Yifan Yang, Yihui Li, Bin Liang, Shiwei Chen, Yixue Dang, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Boundary-driven table-filling for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6485-6498, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Shiman Zhao, Wei Chen, and Tengjiao Wang. 2022a. Learning cooperative interactions for multi-overlap aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3337-3347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yichun Zhao, Kui Meng, Gongshen Liu, Jintao Du, and Huijia Zhu. 2022b. A multi-task dual-tree network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7065-7074, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 909 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2196", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d5c89da708a9e91189fa6945e66019056af17266d4fa23a899295a7ad5c65de6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
[1, 10][11, 15][16, 20][21, 30]>30
#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect
L142601262241681561581151224580
R1421819023828715124113725356163
R152541531481301111081031166990
R1624016114913812513011112050101
", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 80, + 870, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c92f9c345b66e29950a302a5d2f16d7fffb688f806a056e1cf9fe51f06617ba1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Statistics of ATE test sets split according to the lengths of sentences." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
L14R14R15R16
P85.97→84.9888.23→86.8270.28→70.0774.76→74.37
R80.15→81.8588.85→89.7374.17→76.0175.00→76.80
F182.96→83.3988.03→88.2572.17→72.9274.88→75.56
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 211, + 482, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3e5fe4e574a22edc83ad3b7d0446274f86f5e0caa02bbf6e019a2b2a8dec07cb.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Performance changes of Precision, Recall and $F1$ -score when applying our method." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Examples
Example of redundancy elimination: \nOriginal: Better than nobu, tomoe, taka, yama, sugiyama, and the rest. \nWaiter: Our chef's sushi is so amazing, it's better than Nobu, Tomoe, Taka, Yama, Sugiyama, and other well-known sushi spots in the city. \nGround-truth: [No Aspect] \nOutput from the rewritten sentence: chef's sushi
Example of synonym replacement: \nOriginal: Best Indian food I have ever eaten. \nChef: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes. \nGround-truth: Indian food \nOutput from the rewritten sentence: Indian dishes
Example of multi-role voting: \nOriginal: I have to say they have one of the fastest delivery times in the city. \nChef: I can prepare the order quickly to ensure timely delivery. \nRestaurant Owner: Our delivery times are some of the fastest in the city. \nCatering Consultant: Their delivery times are impressive and contribute to a positive customer experience. \nGround-truth: delivery times \nOutput from the Chef: delivery
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 323, + 485, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Examples of how each component works.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 655, + 470, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Test Set Reorganization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 695, + 357, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We divide the test sets into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. For each test set, we obtained five subsets, which can be found in Table 5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 721, + 489, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Change of Precision and Recall", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 796, + 421, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide additional results reflecting the change in precision and recall scores, as shown in Table 6. It can be found that the precision score decreases, meanwhile, the recall score increases. The performance gain at the recall score is because of the enhancement from our post-processing methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Examples for Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 212, + 798, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method combines the extracted results from both the original and rewritten sentences. However, the combination without post-processing causes terrible performance because of noises. To solve the problem, we have introduced the post-processing method, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement, and multi-role voting. We provide examples that have been post-processed using the above solutions in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 237, + 884, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2197", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_model.json" "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_model.json" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e1678417fdd5d1ef8a11a871dd2ffd353add07e --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_model.json" @@ -0,0 +1,1778 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.09, + 0.882, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Smart “Chef”: Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.273, + 0.156, + 0.728, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong*, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.173, + 0.836, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University, SuZhou, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.19, + 0.8, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{xxfz56, tianxianer, qtxu0801}@gmail.com, jyao@suda.edu.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We tackle Aspect Term Extraction (ATE), a task of automatically extracting aspect terms from sentences. The current Pretrained Language Model (PLM) based extractors have achieved significant improvements. They primarily benefit from context-aware encoding. However, a considerable number of sentences in ATE corpora contain uninformative or low-quality contexts. Such sentences frequently act as \"troublemakers\" during test. In this study, we explore the context-oriented quality improvement method. Specifically, we propose to automatically rewrite the sentences from the perspectives of virtual experts with different roles, such as a \"chef\" in the restaurant domain. On this basis, we perform ATE over the paraphrased sentences during test, using the well-trained extractors without any change. In the experiments, we leverage ChatGPT to determine virtual experts in the considered domains, and induce ChatGPT to generate paraphrases conditioned on the roles of virtual experts. We experiment on the benchmark SemEval datasets, including Laptop-domain L14 and Restaurant-domain R14-16. The experimental results show that our approach effectively recalls the inconspicuous aspect terms like \"al di la\", although it reduces the precision. In addition, it is proven that our approach can be substantially improved by redundancy elimination and multi-role voting. More importantly, our approach can be used to expand the predictions obtained on the original sentences. This yields state-of-the-art performance (i.e., \\( F1 \\)-scores of \\( 86.2\\% \\), \\( 89.3\\% \\), \\( 77.7\\% \\), \\( 82.7\\% \\) on L14 and R14-16) without retraining or fine-tuning the baseline extractors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.807, + 0.26, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.833, + 0.489, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ATE is a natural language processing task, which aims to extract aspect terms from sentences (Jakob and Gurevych, 2010). The aspect term refers to a word, phrase or named entity depicting a certain" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "domain-specific attribute. For example, the text span \"al di la\" in (1) is specified as a restaurant-domain aspect term because it appears as the sign of an Italian trattoria." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.331, + 0.874, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) Love al di la (Selected from SemEval-R15)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.36, + 0.884, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) We take pride in every dish we serve at al di la (Rewritten by ChatGPT with a role of \"chef\")." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.331, + 0.884, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.404, + 0.885, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The current studies leverage PLMs as backbones to construct ATE models (extractors), including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) as mentioned in Section 2. They yield significant improvements, compared to conventional neural networks like CNN (LeCun et al., 1998). The advantage is primarily attributed to the strong perception ability on noteworthy contexts, as well as context-aware representation learning ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.884, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, such extractors frequently suffer from uninformative or low-quality contexts. For example, the context \"Love\" in (1) is uninformative for recognizing \"al di la\". By contrast, the substitution containing a knowledge-rich context makes it easier to recognize aspect terms, such as the case in (2). Accordingly, we propose a ChatGPT-based Edition Fictionalization (CHEF) method to assist the current PLM-based extractors. CHEF acts as a domain-specific virtual expert with different roles to rewrite sentences, with the aim to refine contexts of potential aspect terms. ChatGPT is utilized for both expert generation and sentence rewriting. A series of post-processing methods are coupled with CHEF, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We experiment on the benchmark datasets L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). The well-trained \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}\\) and PST (Wang et al., 2021) (SoTA) are adopted in the experiments. During test, they perform over the rewritten sentences by CHEF, without retraining and fine-tuning. The test results" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.291, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2190" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2190-2197 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "demonstrate the effectiveness of CHEF in recalling aspects and expanding the predictions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.129, + 0.27, + 0.145 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.156, + 0.49, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Context-aware encoding contributes to ATE. It brings domain-specific contextual information into token-level representations. Therefore, CNN (LeCun et al., 1998; Karimi et al., 2021) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019; Karimi et al., 2021; Klein et al., 2022) are widely used for ATE due to the abilities of convolving local contexts or absorbing attentive contextual information. Their expanded versions DECNN (Xu et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Chen and Qian, 2020) and BERT-PT (Xu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022b) are generally adopted as backbones in the subsequent studies. In addition, BERT is utilized as the pedestal for context-aware encoding in a series of more complex tasks, including Aspect-Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022c; Zhang et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022d; Zhao et al., 2022b) and MRC-based ASTE (Yang and Zhao, 2022; Zhai et al., 2022). Recently, the generative framework is introduced into the studies of ASTE, and accordingly BART (Yan et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a) and T5 (Zhang et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022) are used. They are constructed with the transformer encoder-decoder architecture in the seq2seq paradigm, where attentive contextual information absorption is conducted on both sides." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.604, + 0.236, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.629, + 0.489, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We aim to provide knowledge-rich and high-quality sentences for ATE. Specifically, we use CHEF to rewrite sentences, and feed the rewritten sentences into an extractor to predict aspect terms. Finally, we combine the aspect terms which are respectively extracted from the original and rewritten sentences." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.738, + 0.245, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Extractors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We follow the common practice (Chernyshevich, 2014; Toh and Wang, 2014; San Vicente et al., 2015) to treat ATE as a sequence labeling task. B/I/O labels are used, which respectively signal Beginning, Inside and Outside tokens relative to aspect terms. Therefore, an extractor essentially classifies each token into one of the B/I/O labels in terms of the token-level hidden state. We use PLM to compute the hidden states of tokens, and use a Fully-connected (FC) layer for classification." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.082, + 0.872, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DomainVirtual Experts
RestaurantRestaurant Owner, Chef, Waiter, Diner, Catering Consultant, Receptionist, Cleaning Staff, Purchasing Manager, Restaurant Manager, Financial Officer
LaptopHardware Engineer, Software Engineer, Technical Support Engineer, Marketer, Customer Service Staff, Test Engineer Case Designer, Supply Chain Manager, Purchasing Manager, User
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.215, + 0.873, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Experts of Restaurant and Laptop domains." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.248, + 0.836, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: Rewrite with Zero-shot prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.267, + 0.85, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Test set \\(S\\), Role set \\(\\mathcal{R}\\) AND Domain set \\(\\mathcal{D}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.279, + 0.763, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: All the rewritten sentences" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.292, + 0.851, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt.fmt \\((\\mathcal{D}_i,\\mathcal{R}_j,S_k) =\\) Rewrite \\(S_{k}\\in S\\) from the perspective of \\(\\mathcal{R}_j\\in \\mathcal{R}\\) in the domain of \\(\\mathcal{D}_i\\in \\mathcal{D}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.316, + 0.657, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "foreach \\(\\mathcal{D}_i\\in \\mathcal{D}\\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.558, + 0.328, + 0.848, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "foreach \\(\\mathcal{R}_j\\in \\mathcal{R}\\) do foreach \\(S_{k}\\in S\\) do Instruction \\(=\\) Prompt.fmt \\((D_i,\\mathcal{R}_j,S_k)\\) Prediction \\(=\\) ChatGPT(Instruction)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.376, + 0.585, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.401, + 0.557, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "end" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.445, + 0.884, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider two PLMs for hidden-state computation in the experiments, including \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}\\) -based PST (Wang et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.505, + 0.607, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 CHEF" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.525, + 0.884, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CHEF comprises two stages, including role generation of domain-specific virtual experts, as well as role-based rewriting. It is coupled with three post-processors, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.606, + 0.884, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Role Generation-CHEF induces \\(\\mathrm{ChatGPT}^1\\) to generate a series of virtual experts playing different roles. The generation is prompted by the target-domain name \\(\\mathcal{D}_i\\) like \"Restaurant\". The query we use is as follows: \"Output the roles of experts in the domain of \\([\\mathcal{D}_i]\\) according to the different responsibilities.\" Table 1 shows the experts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.72, + 0.883, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sentence Rewriting- Given a sentence \\( S_{k} \\) in the ATE datasets, CHEF induces ChatGPT to rewrite the sentence from the perspective of a role-specific expert \\( \\mathcal{R}_{j} \\). Zero-shot prompting (Wei et al., 2022) is used during generation. In other words, there isn't any example provided for prompting ChatGPT. The query we use is as follows: \"Rewrite the sentence \\( [S_{k}] \\) from the perspective of \\( [\\mathcal{R}_{j}] \\) in the domain of \\( [\\mathcal{D}_i] \\)\". We rewrite all the instances in the test sets using Algorithm 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.881, + 0.883, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Post-Processing- We drive the extractors to pre" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.856, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 https://platform.openai.com/playground?mode=chat" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2191" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.082, + 0.837, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
L-14R-14R-15R-16
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
#Sentence2,4366098002,4336088001,0522636851,600400676
#Aspect1,9404186542,9507441,1349482525421,408336612
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.148, + 0.848, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Statistics of ATE datasets. #Sentence and #Aspect denote the number of sentences and aspects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.189, + 0.489, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "dict aspect terms over the role-specific rewritten sentences. Redundant results may obtained, which are specified as the aspect terms never occurring in the original sentences. For example, although the token \"dish\" in the rewritten sentence in (2) is correctly predicted as an aspect term, it is redundant due to non-occurrence in the original sentence in (1). We filter the redundant results during test." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.318, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we use a soft synonym replacement method to reduce false positive rates. Specifically, given an original sentence \\( S_{i} \\) and the rewritten case \\( \\mathring{S}_{i} \\), we segment both of them into \\( n \\)-grams. Assume a set \\( \\mathcal{U}_i \\) of \\( n \\)-grams \\( (1 \\leq n \\leq 5) \\) in \\( S_{i} \\) share a part of the predicted aspect term with the set \\( \\mathring{\\mathcal{U}}_i \\) of \\( n \\)-grams in \\( \\mathring{S}_i \\), we calculate the similarity between each gram \\( u_{ij} \\) in \\( \\mathcal{U}_i \\) and every gram \\( \\mathring{u}_{ik} \\) in \\( \\mathring{\\mathcal{U}}_i \\). We rank all pairs of \\( \\{u_{ij},\\mathring{u}_{ik}\\} \\) in terms of their similarities, and select the top-1 ranked \\( n \\)-gram pair for synonym replacement, i.e., \\( \\mathring{u}_{ik} \\Leftarrow u_{ij} \\). Meanwhile, the replaced \\( n \\)-gram is specified as the unabridged aspect term, as shown in the example in (3). Note that Cosine similarity is computed over the embeddings of each pair \\( \\{u_{ij},\\mathring{u}_{ik}\\} \\). The embedding of each \\( n \\)-gram is obtained by conducting mean pooling (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) over the token-level hidden states." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.618, + 0.486, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Original: Best Indian food I have ever eaten." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.635, + 0.486, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rewritten: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes [Aspect Term]. (Rewritten by CHEF with a role of “chef”)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.683, + 0.487, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Replacement: Indian dishes \\(\\Leftarrow\\) Indian food Output: Indian food" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-role Voting- We conduct multi-role voting only if an extractor obtains controversial results from the original and rewritten sentences. It facilitates the combination of the extraction results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.792, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Assume an extractor refuses to extract a text span \\( t_i \\) as an aspect from the original sentence, though it would like to do so from the sentences rewritten by different roles of experts, thus we regard \\( t_i \\) as a controversial result. In this case, we define the behavior of extracting \\( t_i \\) as the voting for acceptance, otherwise rejection. On this basis, we compute the acceptance rate \\( v_i \\) over the rewritten" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.188, + 0.883, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sentences of all experts: \\( v_{i} = N_{c} / N_{all} \\), where \\( N_{c} \\) denotes the number of voting for acceptance, while \\( N_{all} \\) is the number of experts. \\( N_{all} \\) is set to 10 in our experiments. For the Restaurant domain, a controversial result \\( t_{i} \\) is finally adopted only if \\( v_{i} \\) is no less than a threshold of 0.7. For the Laptop domain, the threshold is set to 0.8." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.312, + 0.692, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimentation" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.338, + 0.747, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.358, + 0.884, + 0.486 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We experiment on the SemEval datasets, including L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). All the instances in L14 are selected from the Laptop domain, while those in R14-16 derive from the Restaurant domain. We follow the common practice (Dai and Song, 2019; Wang et al., 2021) to split the datasets into training, validation and test sets. The statistics in them are shown in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.488, + 0.884, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is noteworthy that only the extractors are trained and developed using the above datasets. CHEF has nothing to do with training and development. It is conducted only on the test sets, providing rewritten sentences for the extractors and post-processes the predictions. We evaluate all the models using \\( F1 \\)-score (Chernyshevich, 2014)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.611, + 0.696, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.632, + 0.883, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We respectively use \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {pt }}\\)-based PST (Wang et al., 2021) to construct the extractors, where PST achieved the best performance so far." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.68, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}\\), we set the maximum sequence length to 128 and carry out training in 4 epochs. The optimization of model parameters is obtained using AdamW with a learning rate of 3e-5 and a weight decay of 0.01. We set the batch size to 10. For PST, we adopt their initial hyperparameters, setting the first round of training to 5 epochs and performing 4 rounds of self-training. The learning rate is set to 5e-5. AdamW is used as the optimizer. All the other hyperparameters remain consistent with the reported ones." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.709, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Comparison Result" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 3, we report the performance of PST which is enhanced by CHEF, along with other state-of" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2192" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelL14R14R15R16
ChatGPT (2023)43.0355.6540.33-
+5-shot ICL (2023)48.1970.9953.49-
+5-shot COT (2023)54.5072.4159.27-
DECNN (2018)81.59--74.37
+CDA (2020)81.58--75.19
+Repositioning (2020)84.1784.5572.0375.40
+PrototypeE (2020)83.1987.3973.2776.98
BERTbase(2019)79.8686.5868.0873.50
+Repositioning (2020)81.4387.1072.6877.71
+CDA (2020)81.14--75.89
+PST (2021)84.1787.6372.8177.09
BERTpt(2019)84.3788.4173.6678.29
+CDA (2020)85.33--80.29
+PST (2021)86.9188.7575.8282.56
Ours (PST+CHEF)86.2289.3377.6982.74
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.306, + 0.49, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The performance \\((F1\\)-score) of various methods. \"ICL\" refers to in-context learning, while \"COT\" stands for chain-of-thought. The sign \"+\" represents a certain method combined with the baseline model." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.378, + 0.48, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelL14R14R15R16
BERTbase82.9688.0372.1774.88
+CHEF83.3988.2572.9275.56
PST (Reproduced)86.1389.2877.2982.62
+CHEF86.2289.3377.6982.74
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.457, + 0.478, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Improvements (F1) on different extractors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.498, + 0.489, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the-art ATE models. In this case, the extraction results are obtained by combining the predictions of PST on both original and rewritten sentences, where multi-role voting is used. It can be found that CHEF enables PST to achieve better performance, slightly increasing the performance gap relative to other strong competitors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.612, + 0.49, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 4, we report the effects of CHEF on both the \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}\\)-based PST, where multi-role voting is used for prediction combination. It can be observed that CHEF enables both extractors to achieve better performance on all the test sets, without retraining and fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.72, + 0.245, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.742, + 0.489, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In two separate experiments, we demonstrate that CHEF contributes to the salvage of the missed aspect terms, and yields more substantial improvements on short or long sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Salvage Rate- We select all the incompletely-solved sentences from the test sets, each of which contains at least one aspect term neglected by the extractor. On this basis, we use CHEF to rewrite the sentences and drive the extractor to rework them. In this experiment, we consider the \\(\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}\\) extractor, and verify the changes in recall rates. Figure" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.092, + 0.673, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.551, + 0.176, + 0.648, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Best Expert" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.699, + 0.091, + 0.868, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.735, + 0.176, + 0.84, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Worst Expert" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.204, + 0.883, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Significant improvements of Recall rates yielded by CHEF on the incompletely-solved sentences." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.259, + 0.689, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.261, + 0.875, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.436, + 0.688, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.706, + 0.436, + 0.875, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.615, + 0.883, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: \\( F1 \\)-scores for the sentences at different lengths. Appendix A gives the statistics about them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.675, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 shows the experimental results, where only the performances yielded by the best and worst experts are provided. It can be observed that CHEF substantially improves the recall rates for all test sets, no matter whether it plays the role of best expert or worst. The most significant improvement in recall rate reaches about \\(9\\%\\). Besides, the change of precision, recall and \\(F1\\) score on the full test set can be found in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adaptability-CHEF applies more to short and long sentences. The former generally contains uninformative contexts, while the latter contains lower-quality contexts due to noises. We split each test set into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. There are five subsets obtained for each," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2193" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.089, + 0.296, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.29, + 0.258, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Best Expert" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.309, + 0.088, + 0.482, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.29, + 0.449, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Worst Expert" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.318, + 0.486, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Results of ablation experiments (F1-scores)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.358, + 0.49, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "including the sentences having a length within the ranges of [1, 10], [11, 15], [16, 20], [21, 30] and no less than 30. The statistics in the subsets are shown in Table 5. Figure 2 shows the ATE performance at the original sentences of different lengths, and that at the rewritten cases by CHEF (without multirole prediction combination). It can be observed that CHEF only yields improvements for relatively short or long sentences. The most significant improvement reaches about \\(4\\%\\) F1-score at R16." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.529, + 0.281, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.549, + 0.488, + 0.677 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CHEF consists of four components, including Combination (Comb), Redundancy Elimination (RE), Synonym Replacement (SR) and Multi-role Voting, as presented in Section 3. To verify the effects of the components, we conduct an ablation experiment. Figure 3 illustrates the verification results over best and worst experts, where ALL indicates the complete CHEF method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.679, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It can be observed that the simple combination (Comb) causes significant performance degradation, although many terms the baseline missed are salvaged. When redundancy elimination (RE) is used, the comparable (a little worse) performance to the baseline is achieved. At this time, the precision is still lower because the synonymous terms are regarded as negative examples during evaluation. When synonym replacement (SR) is used, the performance is increased for some roles while not for others. When multi-role voting is used, the disagreement among the roles is resolved, and thus the performance is increased to a relatively higher level. We provide examples in Appendix C to facilitate the understanding of our ablation study." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.642, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.884, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We utilize ChatGPT to rewrite sentences with different roles of domain-specific experts, so as to provide informative and high-quality contexts for PLM-based ATE models. Experiments show that the proposed method contributes to the salvage of the neglected aspect terms, and applies more to the short and long sentences. In the future, we will use the rewritten sentences for contrastive learning. To reduce the reliance on ChatGPT, we will develop an offline context rewriting method by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.302, + 0.615, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.329, + 0.885, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose to use ChatGPT as an auxiliary toolkit to produce informative and high-quality contexts for context-aware token-level encoding, so as to enhance PLM encoders for aspect term recognition. Our experiments show that the proposed method yields slight improvements when coupled with strong domain-specific models, and it is not only effective in recalling neglected cases, but performs better for short and long instances. Unavoidably, the proposed method has the limitations in building a self-contained model, due to the lack of training and fine-tuning. To overcome the problem, we will develop a lite comparable generator to ChatGPT by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining. Furthermore, we will incorporate role-based rewritten sentences into the training process, with the support of contrastive learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.617, + 0.665, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.644, + 0.884, + 0.708 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The research is supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2020YFB1313601) and National Science Foundation of China (62376182, 62076174)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.737, + 0.61, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.761, + 0.884, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Chen, Zepeng Zhai, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022a. Enhanced multi-channel graph convolutional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2974-2985, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao, and Guodong Zhou. 2022b. Enhancing neural aspect term extraction using part-of-speech and syntactic dependency features. In 2022 IEEE 34th International" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.761, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2194" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (IC-TAI), pages 303-310." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.124, + 0.49, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Chen, Jinglong Du, Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, and Zhongshi He. 2022c. A hierarchical interactive network for joint span-based aspect-sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7013-7019, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.226, + 0.49, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuqi Chen, Chen Keming, Xian Sun, and Zequn Zhang. 2022d. A span-level bidirectional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4300-4309, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.329, + 0.488, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhuang Chen and Tieyun Qian. 2020. Enhancing aspect term extraction with soft prototypes. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2107-2117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.405, + 0.488, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maryna Chernyshevich. 2014. IHS R&D Belarus: Cross-domain extraction of product features using CRF. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 309-313, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.495, + 0.488, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hongliang Dai and Yangqiu Song. 2019. Neural aspect and opinion term extraction with mined rules as weak supervision. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5268-5277, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.584, + 0.488, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.7, + 0.488, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ridong Han, Tao Peng, Chaohao Yang, Benyou Wang, Lu Liu, and Xiang Wan. 2023. Is information extraction solved by chatgpt? an analysis of performance, evaluation criteria, robustness and errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14450." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.488, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mengting Hu, Yike Wu, Hang Gao, Yinhao Bai, and Shiwan Zhao. 2022. Improving aspect sentiment quad prediction via template-order data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7889-7900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Niklas Jakob and Iryna Gurevych. 2010. Extracting opinion targets in a single and cross-domain setting with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1035-1045, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.14, + 0.882, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with bert. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.206, + 0.882, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ayal Klein, Oren Pereg, Daniel Korat, Vasudev Lal, Moshe Wasserblat, and Ido Dagan. 2022. Opinion-based relational pivoting for cross-domain aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis, pages 104-112, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.325, + 0.882, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.391, + 0.882, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.523, + 0.882, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Li, Chengbo Chen, Xiaojun Quan, Qing Ling, and Yan Song. 2020. Conditional augmentation for aspect term extraction via masked sequence-to-sequence generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7056-7066, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.628, + 0.882, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Suresh Manandhar, Mohammad AL-Smadi, Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub, Yanyan Zhao, Bing Qin, Orphée De Clercq, Véronique Hoste, Marianna Apidianaki, Xavier Tannier, Natalia Loukachevitch, Evgeniy Kotelnikov, Nuria Bel, Salud María Jiménez-Zafra, and Gúlşen Eryiğit. 2016. SemEval-2016 task 5: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2016, pages 19-30, San Diego, California." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.773, + 0.882, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Suresh Manandhar, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2015. SemEval-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2015, pages 486-495, Denver, Colorado." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.852, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2014, pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2195" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.161, + 0.49, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.49, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inaki San Vicente, Xabier Saralegi, and Rodrigo Agerri. 2015. EliXa: A modular and flexible ABSA platform. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pages 748-752, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.362, + 0.49, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqiang Toh and Wenting Wang. 2014. DLIREC: Aspect term extraction and term polarity classification system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 235-240, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.45, + 0.49, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qianlong Wang, Zhiyuan Wen, Qin Zhao, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2021. Progressive self-training with discriminator for aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 257-268, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.551, + 0.49, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.625, + 0.49, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhenkai Wei, Yu Hong, Bowei Zou, Meng Cheng, and Jianmin Yao. 2020. Don't eclipse your arts due to small discrepancies: Boundary repositioning with a pointer network for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3678-3684, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.49, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip Yu. 2019. BERT post-training for review reading comprehension and aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2324-2335, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip S. Yu. 2018. Double embeddings and CNN-based sequence labeling for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 592-598, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hang Yan, Junqi Dai, Tuo Ji, Xipeng Qiu, and Zheng Zhang. 2021. A unified generative framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2416-2429, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.2, + 0.885, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifei Yang and Hai Zhao. 2022. Aspect-based sentiment analysis as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2461-2471, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.288, + 0.885, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zepeng Zhai, Hao Chen, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. COM-MRC: A COntext-masked machine reading comprehension framework for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3230-3241, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.402, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chen Zhang, Lei Ren, Fang Ma, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, and Dawei Song. 2022a. Structural bias for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6736-6745, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. Towards generative aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 504-510, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.616, + 0.885, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yice Zhang, Yifan Yang, Yihui Li, Bin Liang, Shiwei Chen, Yixue Dang, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Boundary-driven table-filling for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6485-6498, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.73, + 0.885, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shiman Zhao, Wei Chen, and Tengjiao Wang. 2022a. Learning cooperative interactions for multi-overlap aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3337-3347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.818, + 0.885, + 0.91 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yichun Zhao, Kui Meng, Gongshen Liu, Jintao Du, and Huijia Zhu. 2022b. A multi-task dual-tree network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7065-7074, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.91 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2196" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.082, + 0.872, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
[1, 10][11, 15][16, 20][21, 30]>30
#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect
L142601262241681561581151224580
R1421819023828715124113725356163
R152541531481301111081031166990
R1624016114913812513011112050101
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.236, + 0.174, + 0.759, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Statistics of ATE test sets split according to the lengths of sentences." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.212, + 0.484, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
L14R14R15R16
P85.97→84.9888.23→86.8270.28→70.0774.76→74.37
R80.15→81.8588.85→89.7374.17→76.0175.00→76.80
F182.96→83.3988.03→88.2572.17→72.9274.88→75.56
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.282, + 0.486, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Performance changes of Precision, Recall and \\( F1 \\)-score when applying our method." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.324, + 0.486, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Examples
Example of redundancy elimination: \nOriginal: Better than nobu, tomoe, taka, yama, sugiyama, and the rest. \nWaiter: Our chef's sushi is so amazing, it's better than Nobu, Tomoe, Taka, Yama, Sugiyama, and other well-known sushi spots in the city. \nGround-truth: [No Aspect] \nOutput from the rewritten sentence: chef's sushi
Example of synonym replacement: \nOriginal: Best Indian food I have ever eaten. \nChef: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes. \nGround-truth: Indian food \nOutput from the rewritten sentence: Indian dishes
Example of multi-role voting: \nOriginal: I have to say they have one of the fastest delivery times in the city. \nChef: I can prepare the order quickly to ensure timely delivery. \nRestaurant Owner: Our delivery times are some of the fastest in the city. \nCatering Consultant: Their delivery times are impressive and contribute to a positive customer experience. \nGround-truth: delivery times \nOutput from the Chef: delivery
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.656, + 0.472, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Examples of how each component works." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.696, + 0.358, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Test Set Reorganization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.722, + 0.49, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We divide the test sets into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. For each test set, we obtained five subsets, which can be found in Table 5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.797, + 0.422, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Change of Precision and Recall" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide additional results reflecting the change in precision and recall scores, as shown in Table 6. It can be found that the precision score decreases, meanwhile, the recall score increases. The performance gain at the recall score is because of the enhancement from our post-processing methods." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.214, + 0.799, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Examples for Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.239, + 0.885, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method combines the extracted results from both the original and rewritten sentences. However, the combination without post-processing causes terrible performance because of noises. To solve the problem, we have introduced the post-processing method, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement, and multi-role voting. We provide examples that have been post-processed using the above solutions in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2197" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_origin.pdf" "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_origin.pdf" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62e2cbdbd03d75fadd682bef81b5d87c6b284528 --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/76d67012-9195-430d-8599-8f48f8506969_origin.pdf" @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a57186a28d530f34f8a45b1490892d86c9e67e153a88d6dad9bb0af70ae6fccb +size 548286 diff --git "a/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/full.md" "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/full.md" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..437a278e5fb368fe84dc8896e85d77777d78f112 --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/full.md" @@ -0,0 +1,258 @@ +# Smart “Chef”: Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction + +Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong*, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao + +School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University, SuZhou, China + +{xxfz56, tianxianer, qtxu0801}@gmail.com, jyao@suda.edu.com + +# Abstract + +We tackle Aspect Term Extraction (ATE), a task of automatically extracting aspect terms from sentences. The current Pretrained Language Model (PLM) based extractors have achieved significant improvements. They primarily benefit from context-aware encoding. However, a considerable number of sentences in ATE corpora contain uninformative or low-quality contexts. Such sentences frequently act as "troublemakers" during test. In this study, we explore the context-oriented quality improvement method. Specifically, we propose to automatically rewrite the sentences from the perspectives of virtual experts with different roles, such as a "chef" in the restaurant domain. On this basis, we perform ATE over the paraphrased sentences during test, using the well-trained extractors without any change. In the experiments, we leverage ChatGPT to determine virtual experts in the considered domains, and induce ChatGPT to generate paraphrases conditioned on the roles of virtual experts. We experiment on the benchmark SemEval datasets, including Laptop-domain L14 and Restaurant-domain R14-16. The experimental results show that our approach effectively recalls the inconspicuous aspect terms like "al di la", although it reduces the precision. In addition, it is proven that our approach can be substantially improved by redundancy elimination and multi-role voting. More importantly, our approach can be used to expand the predictions obtained on the original sentences. This yields state-of-the-art performance (i.e., $F1$ -scores of $86.2\%$ , $89.3\%$ , $77.7\%$ , $82.7\%$ on L14 and R14-16) without retraining or fine-tuning the baseline extractors. + +# 1 Introduction + +ATE is a natural language processing task, which aims to extract aspect terms from sentences (Jakob and Gurevych, 2010). The aspect term refers to a word, phrase or named entity depicting a certain + +domain-specific attribute. For example, the text span "al di la" in (1) is specified as a restaurant-domain aspect term because it appears as the sign of an Italian trattoria. + +(1) Love al di la (Selected from SemEval-R15). +(2) We take pride in every dish we serve at al di la (Rewritten by ChatGPT with a role of "chef"). + +The current studies leverage PLMs as backbones to construct ATE models (extractors), including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) as mentioned in Section 2. They yield significant improvements, compared to conventional neural networks like CNN (LeCun et al., 1998). The advantage is primarily attributed to the strong perception ability on noteworthy contexts, as well as context-aware representation learning ability. + +However, such extractors frequently suffer from uninformative or low-quality contexts. For example, the context "Love" in (1) is uninformative for recognizing "al di la". By contrast, the substitution containing a knowledge-rich context makes it easier to recognize aspect terms, such as the case in (2). Accordingly, we propose a ChatGPT-based Edition Fictionalization (CHEF) method to assist the current PLM-based extractors. CHEF acts as a domain-specific virtual expert with different roles to rewrite sentences, with the aim to refine contexts of potential aspect terms. ChatGPT is utilized for both expert generation and sentence rewriting. A series of post-processing methods are coupled with CHEF, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting. + +We experiment on the benchmark datasets L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). The well-trained $\mathrm{BERT}_{\mathrm{base}}$ and PST (Wang et al., 2021) (SoTA) are adopted in the experiments. During test, they perform over the rewritten sentences by CHEF, without retraining and fine-tuning. The test results + +demonstrate the effectiveness of CHEF in recalling aspects and expanding the predictions. + +# 2 Related Work + +Context-aware encoding contributes to ATE. It brings domain-specific contextual information into token-level representations. Therefore, CNN (LeCun et al., 1998; Karimi et al., 2021) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019; Karimi et al., 2021; Klein et al., 2022) are widely used for ATE due to the abilities of convolving local contexts or absorbing attentive contextual information. Their expanded versions DECNN (Xu et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Chen and Qian, 2020) and BERT-PT (Xu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022b) are generally adopted as backbones in the subsequent studies. In addition, BERT is utilized as the pedestal for context-aware encoding in a series of more complex tasks, including Aspect-Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022c; Zhang et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022d; Zhao et al., 2022b) and MRC-based ASTE (Yang and Zhao, 2022; Zhai et al., 2022). Recently, the generative framework is introduced into the studies of ASTE, and accordingly BART (Yan et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a) and T5 (Zhang et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022) are used. They are constructed with the transformer encoder-decoder architecture in the seq2seq paradigm, where attentive contextual information absorption is conducted on both sides. + +# 3 Approach + +We aim to provide knowledge-rich and high-quality sentences for ATE. Specifically, we use CHEF to rewrite sentences, and feed the rewritten sentences into an extractor to predict aspect terms. Finally, we combine the aspect terms which are respectively extracted from the original and rewritten sentences. + +# 3.1 Extractors + +We follow the common practice (Chernyshevich, 2014; Toh and Wang, 2014; San Vicente et al., 2015) to treat ATE as a sequence labeling task. B/I/O labels are used, which respectively signal Beginning, Inside and Outside tokens relative to aspect terms. Therefore, an extractor essentially classifies each token into one of the B/I/O labels in terms of the token-level hidden state. We use PLM to compute the hidden states of tokens, and use a Fully-connected (FC) layer for classification. + +
DomainVirtual Experts
RestaurantRestaurant Owner, Chef, Waiter, Diner, Catering Consultant, Receptionist, Cleaning Staff, Purchasing Manager, Restaurant Manager, Financial Officer
LaptopHardware Engineer, Software Engineer, Technical Support Engineer, Marketer, Customer Service Staff, Test Engineer Case Designer, Supply Chain Manager, Purchasing Manager, User
+ +Table 1: Experts of Restaurant and Laptop domains. + +# Algorithm 1: Rewrite with Zero-shot prompting + +Input: Test set $S$ , Role set $\mathcal{R}$ AND Domain set $\mathcal{D}$ + +Output: All the rewritten sentences + +Prompt.fmt $(\mathcal{D}_i,\mathcal{R}_j,S_k) =$ Rewrite $S_{k}\in S$ from the perspective of $\mathcal{R}_j\in \mathcal{R}$ in the domain of $\mathcal{D}_i\in \mathcal{D}$ + +foreach $\mathcal{D}_i\in \mathcal{D}$ do + +foreach $\mathcal{R}_j\in \mathcal{R}$ do foreach $S_{k}\in S$ do Instruction $=$ Prompt.fmt $(D_i,\mathcal{R}_j,S_k)$ Prediction $=$ ChatGPT(Instruction) + +1 + +end + +We consider two PLMs for hidden-state computation in the experiments, including $\mathrm{BERT}_{\text {base }}$ and $\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}$ -based PST (Wang et al., 2021). + +# 3.2 CHEF + +CHEF comprises two stages, including role generation of domain-specific virtual experts, as well as role-based rewriting. It is coupled with three post-processors, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting. + +Role Generation-CHEF induces $\mathrm{ChatGPT}^1$ to generate a series of virtual experts playing different roles. The generation is prompted by the target-domain name $\mathcal{D}_i$ like "Restaurant". The query we use is as follows: "Output the roles of experts in the domain of $[\mathcal{D}_i]$ according to the different responsibilities." Table 1 shows the experts. + +Sentence Rewriting- Given a sentence $S_{k}$ in the ATE datasets, CHEF induces ChatGPT to rewrite the sentence from the perspective of a role-specific expert $\mathcal{R}_{j}$ . Zero-shot prompting (Wei et al., 2022) is used during generation. In other words, there isn't any example provided for prompting ChatGPT. The query we use is as follows: "Rewrite the sentence $[S_{k}]$ from the perspective of $[\mathcal{R}_{j}]$ in the domain of $[\mathcal{D}_i]$ ". We rewrite all the instances in the test sets using Algorithm 1. + +Post-Processing- We drive the extractors to pre + +
L-14R-14R-15R-16
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
#Sentence2,4366098002,4336088001,0522636851,600400676
#Aspect1,9404186542,9507441,1349482525421,408336612
+ +Table 2: Statistics of ATE datasets. #Sentence and #Aspect denote the number of sentences and aspects. + +dict aspect terms over the role-specific rewritten sentences. Redundant results may obtained, which are specified as the aspect terms never occurring in the original sentences. For example, although the token "dish" in the rewritten sentence in (2) is correctly predicted as an aspect term, it is redundant due to non-occurrence in the original sentence in (1). We filter the redundant results during test. + +In addition, we use a soft synonym replacement method to reduce false positive rates. Specifically, given an original sentence $S_{i}$ and the rewritten case $\mathring{S}_{i}$ , we segment both of them into $n$ -grams. Assume a set $\mathcal{U}_i$ of $n$ -grams $(1 \leq n \leq 5)$ in $S_{i}$ share a part of the predicted aspect term with the set $\mathring{\mathcal{U}}_i$ of $n$ -grams in $\mathring{S}_i$ , we calculate the similarity between each gram $u_{ij}$ in $\mathcal{U}_i$ and every gram $\mathring{u}_{ik}$ in $\mathring{\mathcal{U}}_i$ . We rank all pairs of $\{u_{ij},\mathring{u}_{ik}\}$ in terms of their similarities, and select the top-1 ranked $n$ -gram pair for synonym replacement, i.e., $\mathring{u}_{ik} \Leftarrow u_{ij}$ . Meanwhile, the replaced $n$ -gram is specified as the unabridged aspect term, as shown in the example in (3). Note that Cosine similarity is computed over the embeddings of each pair $\{u_{ij},\mathring{u}_{ik}\}$ . The embedding of each $n$ -gram is obtained by conducting mean pooling (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) over the token-level hidden states. + +(3) Original: Best Indian food I have ever eaten. + +Rewritten: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes [Aspect Term]. (Rewritten by CHEF with a role of “chef”) + +Replacement: Indian dishes $\Leftarrow$ Indian food Output: Indian food + +Multi-role Voting- We conduct multi-role voting only if an extractor obtains controversial results from the original and rewritten sentences. It facilitates the combination of the extraction results. + +Assume an extractor refuses to extract a text span $t_i$ as an aspect from the original sentence, though it would like to do so from the sentences rewritten by different roles of experts, thus we regard $t_i$ as a controversial result. In this case, we define the behavior of extracting $t_i$ as the voting for acceptance, otherwise rejection. On this basis, we compute the acceptance rate $v_i$ over the rewritten + +sentences of all experts: $v_{i} = N_{c} / N_{all}$ , where $N_{c}$ denotes the number of voting for acceptance, while $N_{all}$ is the number of experts. $N_{all}$ is set to 10 in our experiments. For the Restaurant domain, a controversial result $t_{i}$ is finally adopted only if $v_{i}$ is no less than a threshold of 0.7. For the Laptop domain, the threshold is set to 0.8. + +# 4 Experimentation + +# 4.1 Datasets and Evaluation + +We experiment on the SemEval datasets, including L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). All the instances in L14 are selected from the Laptop domain, while those in R14-16 derive from the Restaurant domain. We follow the common practice (Dai and Song, 2019; Wang et al., 2021) to split the datasets into training, validation and test sets. The statistics in them are shown in Table 2. + +It is noteworthy that only the extractors are trained and developed using the above datasets. CHEF has nothing to do with training and development. It is conducted only on the test sets, providing rewritten sentences for the extractors and post-processes the predictions. We evaluate all the models using $F1$ -score (Chernyshevich, 2014). + +# 4.2 Hyperparameters + +We respectively use $\mathrm{BERT}_{\text {base }}$ and $\mathrm{BERT}_{\text {pt }}$ -based PST (Wang et al., 2021) to construct the extractors, where PST achieved the best performance so far. + +For $\mathrm{BERT}_{\mathrm{base}}$ , we set the maximum sequence length to 128 and carry out training in 4 epochs. The optimization of model parameters is obtained using AdamW with a learning rate of 3e-5 and a weight decay of 0.01. We set the batch size to 10. For PST, we adopt their initial hyperparameters, setting the first round of training to 5 epochs and performing 4 rounds of self-training. The learning rate is set to 5e-5. AdamW is used as the optimizer. All the other hyperparameters remain consistent with the reported ones. + +# 4.3 Comparison Result + +In Table 3, we report the performance of PST which is enhanced by CHEF, along with other state-of + +
ModelL14R14R15R16
ChatGPT (2023)43.0355.6540.33-
+5-shot ICL (2023)48.1970.9953.49-
+5-shot COT (2023)54.5072.4159.27-
DECNN (2018)81.59--74.37
+CDA (2020)81.58--75.19
+Repositioning (2020)84.1784.5572.0375.40
+PrototypeE (2020)83.1987.3973.2776.98
BERTbase(2019)79.8686.5868.0873.50
+Repositioning (2020)81.4387.1072.6877.71
+CDA (2020)81.14--75.89
+PST (2021)84.1787.6372.8177.09
BERTpt(2019)84.3788.4173.6678.29
+CDA (2020)85.33--80.29
+PST (2021)86.9188.7575.8282.56
Ours (PST+CHEF)86.2289.3377.6982.74
+ +Table 3: The performance $(F1$ -score) of various methods. "ICL" refers to in-context learning, while "COT" stands for chain-of-thought. The sign "+" represents a certain method combined with the baseline model. + +
ModelL14R14R15R16
BERTbase82.9688.0372.1774.88
+CHEF83.3988.2572.9275.56
PST (Reproduced)86.1389.2877.2982.62
+CHEF86.2289.3377.6982.74
+ +Table 4: Improvements (F1) on different extractors. + +the-art ATE models. In this case, the extraction results are obtained by combining the predictions of PST on both original and rewritten sentences, where multi-role voting is used. It can be found that CHEF enables PST to achieve better performance, slightly increasing the performance gap relative to other strong competitors. + +In Table 4, we report the effects of CHEF on both the $\mathrm{BERT}_{\text {base }}$ and $\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}$ -based PST, where multi-role voting is used for prediction combination. It can be observed that CHEF enables both extractors to achieve better performance on all the test sets, without retraining and fine-tuning. + +# 4.4 Discussion + +In two separate experiments, we demonstrate that CHEF contributes to the salvage of the missed aspect terms, and yields more substantial improvements on short or long sentences. + +Salvage Rate- We select all the incompletely-solved sentences from the test sets, each of which contains at least one aspect term neglected by the extractor. On this basis, we use CHEF to rewrite the sentences and drive the extractor to rework them. In this experiment, we consider the $\mathrm{BERT}_{\mathrm{base}}$ extractor, and verify the changes in recall rates. Figure + +![](images/a1d7ddf08fbf715d8958e5cd78de7d81629d4f5674ca4fb4dd9bd6bce18d1da8.jpg) +(a) Best Expert + +![](images/3785fff1d473ec2e1728f15f9b1dbc3c01b7153ca9ee9185ca6b635aa30b5036.jpg) +(b) Worst Expert + +![](images/b01f9a62a47131b1268ebb8823ca93f8ff66b81f2e6a51cde335902bd3f7fbdd.jpg) +Figure 1: Significant improvements of Recall rates yielded by CHEF on the incompletely-solved sentences. + +![](images/5783b034e833982576f5fc1e2263b457caffef09e4650b209b1375336837f4f9.jpg) + +![](images/17f4593d62440b990d4cca4393e1432526cc685adc6fed4eb70457ed6d242e67.jpg) +Figure 2: $F1$ -scores for the sentences at different lengths. Appendix A gives the statistics about them. + +![](images/f4d317a1a707b4e98017aa31c5daaa83af14bac027768f4b805f7ecf39ae4f0f.jpg) + +1 shows the experimental results, where only the performances yielded by the best and worst experts are provided. It can be observed that CHEF substantially improves the recall rates for all test sets, no matter whether it plays the role of best expert or worst. The most significant improvement in recall rate reaches about $9\%$ . Besides, the change of precision, recall and $F1$ score on the full test set can be found in Appendix B. + +Adaptability-CHEF applies more to short and long sentences. The former generally contains uninformative contexts, while the latter contains lower-quality contexts due to noises. We split each test set into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. There are five subsets obtained for each, + +![](images/771da26e92f82108941e1fdc810076f3acbe72dad5fb3d5be806569e53816e60.jpg) +(a) Best Expert +Figure 3: Results of ablation experiments (F1-scores). + +![](images/c3bd8ac995b90cabde8f842a6db0fbc772f10edd8d609a794cc9b8080526a5f7.jpg) +(b) Worst Expert + +including the sentences having a length within the ranges of [1, 10], [11, 15], [16, 20], [21, 30] and no less than 30. The statistics in the subsets are shown in Table 5. Figure 2 shows the ATE performance at the original sentences of different lengths, and that at the rewritten cases by CHEF (without multirole prediction combination). It can be observed that CHEF only yields improvements for relatively short or long sentences. The most significant improvement reaches about $4\%$ F1-score at R16. + +# 4.5 Ablation Study + +CHEF consists of four components, including Combination (Comb), Redundancy Elimination (RE), Synonym Replacement (SR) and Multi-role Voting, as presented in Section 3. To verify the effects of the components, we conduct an ablation experiment. Figure 3 illustrates the verification results over best and worst experts, where ALL indicates the complete CHEF method. + +It can be observed that the simple combination (Comb) causes significant performance degradation, although many terms the baseline missed are salvaged. When redundancy elimination (RE) is used, the comparable (a little worse) performance to the baseline is achieved. At this time, the precision is still lower because the synonymous terms are regarded as negative examples during evaluation. When synonym replacement (SR) is used, the performance is increased for some roles while not for others. When multi-role voting is used, the disagreement among the roles is resolved, and thus the performance is increased to a relatively higher level. We provide examples in Appendix C to facilitate the understanding of our ablation study. + +# 5 Conclusion + +We utilize ChatGPT to rewrite sentences with different roles of domain-specific experts, so as to provide informative and high-quality contexts for PLM-based ATE models. Experiments show that the proposed method contributes to the salvage of the neglected aspect terms, and applies more to the short and long sentences. In the future, we will use the rewritten sentences for contrastive learning. To reduce the reliance on ChatGPT, we will develop an offline context rewriting method by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining. + +# Limitations + +We propose to use ChatGPT as an auxiliary toolkit to produce informative and high-quality contexts for context-aware token-level encoding, so as to enhance PLM encoders for aspect term recognition. Our experiments show that the proposed method yields slight improvements when coupled with strong domain-specific models, and it is not only effective in recalling neglected cases, but performs better for short and long instances. Unavoidably, the proposed method has the limitations in building a self-contained model, due to the lack of training and fine-tuning. To overcome the problem, we will develop a lite comparable generator to ChatGPT by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining. Furthermore, we will incorporate role-based rewritten sentences into the training process, with the support of contrastive learning. + +# Acknowledgment + +The research is supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2020YFB1313601) and National Science Foundation of China (62376182, 62076174). + +# References + +Hao Chen, Zepeng Zhai, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022a. Enhanced multi-channel graph convolutional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2974-2985, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao, and Guodong Zhou. 2022b. Enhancing neural aspect term extraction using part-of-speech and syntactic dependency features. In 2022 IEEE 34th International + +Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (IC-TAI), pages 303-310. +Wei Chen, Jinglong Du, Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, and Zhongshi He. 2022c. A hierarchical interactive network for joint span-based aspect-sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7013-7019, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Yuqi Chen, Chen Keming, Xian Sun, and Zequn Zhang. 2022d. A span-level bidirectional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4300-4309, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhuang Chen and Tieyun Qian. 2020. Enhancing aspect term extraction with soft prototypes. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2107-2117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Maryna Chernyshevich. 2014. IHS R&D Belarus: Cross-domain extraction of product features using CRF. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 309-313, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hongliang Dai and Yangqiu Song. 2019. Neural aspect and opinion term extraction with mined rules as weak supervision. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5268-5277, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ridong Han, Tao Peng, Chaohao Yang, Benyou Wang, Lu Liu, and Xiang Wan. 2023. Is information extraction solved by chatgpt? an analysis of performance, evaluation criteria, robustness and errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14450. +Mengting Hu, Yike Wu, Hang Gao, Yinhao Bai, and Shiwan Zhao. 2022. Improving aspect sentiment quad prediction via template-order data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7889-7900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Niklas Jakob and Iryna Gurevych. 2010. Extracting opinion targets in a single and cross-domain setting with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the + +2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1035-1045, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with bert. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803. +Ayal Klein, Oren Pereg, Daniel Korat, Vasudev Lal, Moshe Wasserblat, and Ido Dagan. 2022. Opinion-based relational pivoting for cross-domain aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis, pages 104-112, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kun Li, Chengbo Chen, Xiaojun Quan, Qing Ling, and Yan Song. 2020. Conditional augmentation for aspect term extraction via masked sequence-to-sequence generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7056-7066, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Suresh Manandhar, Mohammad AL-Smadi, Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub, Yanyan Zhao, Bing Qin, Orphée De Clercq, Véronique Hoste, Marianna Apidianaki, Xavier Tannier, Natalia Loukachevitch, Evgeniy Kotelnikov, Nuria Bel, Salud María Jiménez-Zafra, and Gúlşen Eryiğit. 2016. SemEval-2016 task 5: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2016, pages 19-30, San Diego, California. +Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Suresh Manandhar, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2015. SemEval-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2015, pages 486-495, Denver, Colorado. +Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2014, pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland. + +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67. +Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Inaki San Vicente, Xabier Saralegi, and Rodrigo Agerri. 2015. EliXa: A modular and flexible ABSA platform. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pages 748-752, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhiqiang Toh and Wenting Wang. 2014. DLIREC: Aspect term extraction and term polarity classification system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 235-240, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Qianlong Wang, Zhiyuan Wen, Qin Zhao, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2021. Progressive self-training with discriminator for aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 257-268, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Zhenkai Wei, Yu Hong, Bowei Zou, Meng Cheng, and Jianmin Yao. 2020. Don't eclipse your arts due to small discrepancies: Boundary repositioning with a pointer network for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3678-3684, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip Yu. 2019. BERT post-training for review reading comprehension and aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2324-2335, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip S. Yu. 2018. Double embeddings and CNN-based sequence labeling for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 592-598, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Hang Yan, Junqi Dai, Tuo Ji, Xipeng Qiu, and Zheng Zhang. 2021. A unified generative framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2416-2429, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yifei Yang and Hai Zhao. 2022. Aspect-based sentiment analysis as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2461-2471, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Zepeng Zhai, Hao Chen, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. COM-MRC: A COntext-masked machine reading comprehension framework for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3230-3241, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chen Zhang, Lei Ren, Fang Ma, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, and Dawei Song. 2022a. Structural bias for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6736-6745, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. Towards generative aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 504-510, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yice Zhang, Yifan Yang, Yihui Li, Bin Liang, Shiwei Chen, Yixue Dang, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Boundary-driven table-filling for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6485-6498, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Shiman Zhao, Wei Chen, and Tengjiao Wang. 2022a. Learning cooperative interactions for multi-overlap aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3337-3347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yichun Zhao, Kui Meng, Gongshen Liu, Jintao Du, and Huijia Zhu. 2022b. A multi-task dual-tree network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7065-7074, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. + +
[1, 10][11, 15][16, 20][21, 30]>30
#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect
L142601262241681561581151224580
R1421819023828715124113725356163
R152541531481301111081031166990
R1624016114913812513011112050101
+ +Table 5: Statistics of ATE test sets split according to the lengths of sentences. + +
L14R14R15R16
P85.97→84.9888.23→86.8270.28→70.0774.76→74.37
R80.15→81.8588.85→89.7374.17→76.0175.00→76.80
F182.96→83.3988.03→88.2572.17→72.9274.88→75.56
+ +Table 6: Performance changes of Precision, Recall and $F1$ -score when applying our method. + +
Examples
Example of redundancy elimination: +Original: Better than nobu, tomoe, taka, yama, sugiyama, and the rest. +Waiter: Our chef's sushi is so amazing, it's better than Nobu, Tomoe, Taka, Yama, Sugiyama, and other well-known sushi spots in the city. +Ground-truth: [No Aspect] +Output from the rewritten sentence: chef's sushi
Example of synonym replacement: +Original: Best Indian food I have ever eaten. +Chef: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes. +Ground-truth: Indian food +Output from the rewritten sentence: Indian dishes
Example of multi-role voting: +Original: I have to say they have one of the fastest delivery times in the city. +Chef: I can prepare the order quickly to ensure timely delivery. +Restaurant Owner: Our delivery times are some of the fastest in the city. +Catering Consultant: Their delivery times are impressive and contribute to a positive customer experience. +Ground-truth: delivery times +Output from the Chef: delivery
+ +Table 7: Examples of how each component works. + +# A Test Set Reorganization + +We divide the test sets into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. For each test set, we obtained five subsets, which can be found in Table 5. + +# B Change of Precision and Recall + +We provide additional results reflecting the change in precision and recall scores, as shown in Table 6. It can be found that the precision score decreases, meanwhile, the recall score increases. The performance gain at the recall score is because of the enhancement from our post-processing methods. + +# C Examples for Ablation Study + +Our method combines the extracted results from both the original and rewritten sentences. However, the combination without post-processing causes terrible performance because of noises. To solve the problem, we have introduced the post-processing method, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement, and multi-role voting. We provide examples that have been post-processed using the above solutions in Table 7. \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/images.zip" "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/images.zip" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..869a18e12d6ccf463c6acaff1c044813c974fe5a --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/images.zip" @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4d514e78b9ee3d9eea8d9d2553a4c86b47884f11f1bcb2bef2cd5e291345ab40 +size 400178 diff --git "a/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/layout.json" "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/layout.json" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1d27aa1a49bfabfd369cf5939f3b03abba6535e --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/Smart \342\200\234Chef\342\200\235_ Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction/layout.json" @@ -0,0 +1,6887 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 75, + 524, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 75, + 524, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 75, + 524, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Smart “Chef”: Verifying the Effect of Role-based Paraphrasing for Aspect Term Extraction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 131, + 433, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 131, + 433, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 162, + 131, + 433, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong*, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 145, + 497, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 145, + 497, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 145, + 497, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University, SuZhou, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 159, + 476, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 159, + 476, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 159, + 476, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{xxfz56, tianxianer, qtxu0801}@gmail.com, jyao@suda.edu.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We tackle Aspect Term Extraction (ATE), a task of automatically extracting aspect terms from sentences. The current Pretrained Language Model (PLM) based extractors have achieved significant improvements. They primarily benefit from context-aware encoding. However, a considerable number of sentences in ATE corpora contain uninformative or low-quality contexts. Such sentences frequently act as \"troublemakers\" during test. In this study, we explore the context-oriented quality improvement method. Specifically, we propose to automatically rewrite the sentences from the perspectives of virtual experts with different roles, such as a \"chef\" in the restaurant domain. On this basis, we perform ATE over the paraphrased sentences during test, using the well-trained extractors without any change. In the experiments, we leverage ChatGPT to determine virtual experts in the considered domains, and induce ChatGPT to generate paraphrases conditioned on the roles of virtual experts. We experiment on the benchmark SemEval datasets, including Laptop-domain L14 and Restaurant-domain R14-16. The experimental results show that our approach effectively recalls the inconspicuous aspect terms like \"al di la\", although it reduces the precision. In addition, it is proven that our approach can be substantially improved by redundancy elimination and multi-role voting. More importantly, our approach can be used to expand the predictions obtained on the original sentences. This yields state-of-the-art performance (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-scores of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "86.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "89.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "77.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "82.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 235, + 274, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on L14 and R14-16) without retraining or fine-tuning the baseline extractors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 154, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 154, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 678, + 154, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ATE is a natural language processing task, which aims to extract aspect terms from sentences (Jakob and Gurevych, 2010). The aspect term refers to a word, phrase or named entity depicting a certain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "domain-specific attribute. For example, the text span \"al di la\" in (1) is specified as a restaurant-domain aspect term because it appears as the sign of an Italian trattoria." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 278, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 278, + 520, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 278, + 520, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 278, + 520, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) Love al di la (Selected from SemEval-R15)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 302, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) We take pride in every dish we serve at al di la (Rewritten by ChatGPT with a role of \"chef\")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 526, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The current studies leverage PLMs as backbones to construct ATE models (extractors), including BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2020) and T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) as mentioned in Section 2. They yield significant improvements, compared to conventional neural networks like CNN (LeCun et al., 1998). The advantage is primarily attributed to the strong perception ability on noteworthy contexts, as well as context-aware representation learning ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, such extractors frequently suffer from uninformative or low-quality contexts. For example, the context \"Love\" in (1) is uninformative for recognizing \"al di la\". By contrast, the substitution containing a knowledge-rich context makes it easier to recognize aspect terms, such as the case in (2). Accordingly, we propose a ChatGPT-based Edition Fictionalization (CHEF) method to assist the current PLM-based extractors. CHEF acts as a domain-specific virtual expert with different roles to rewrite sentences, with the aim to refine contexts of potential aspect terms. ChatGPT is utilized for both expert generation and sentence rewriting. A series of post-processing methods are coupled with CHEF, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We experiment on the benchmark datasets L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). The well-trained " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and PST (Wang et al., 2021) (SoTA) are adopted in the experiments. During test, they perform over the rewritten sentences by CHEF, without retraining and fine-tuning. The test results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 173, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 173, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2190" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2190-2197 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "demonstrate the effectiveness of CHEF in recalling aspects and expanding the predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 108, + 160, + 121 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 108, + 160, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 108, + 160, + 121 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 291, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 291, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 291, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Context-aware encoding contributes to ATE. It brings domain-specific contextual information into token-level representations. Therefore, CNN (LeCun et al., 1998; Karimi et al., 2021) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019; Karimi et al., 2021; Klein et al., 2022) are widely used for ATE due to the abilities of convolving local contexts or absorbing attentive contextual information. Their expanded versions DECNN (Xu et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Chen and Qian, 2020) and BERT-PT (Xu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022b) are generally adopted as backbones in the subsequent studies. In addition, BERT is utilized as the pedestal for context-aware encoding in a series of more complex tasks, including Aspect-Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) (Chen et al., 2022a; Zhang et al., 2022b; Chen et al., 2022c; Zhang et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2022d; Zhao et al., 2022b) and MRC-based ASTE (Yang and Zhao, 2022; Zhai et al., 2022). Recently, the generative framework is introduced into the studies of ASTE, and accordingly BART (Yan et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022a) and T5 (Zhang et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2022) are used. They are constructed with the transformer encoder-decoder architecture in the seq2seq paradigm, where attentive contextual information absorption is conducted on both sides." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 507, + 140, + 521 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 507, + 140, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 507, + 140, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We aim to provide knowledge-rich and high-quality sentences for ATE. Specifically, we use CHEF to rewrite sentences, and feed the rewritten sentences into an extractor to predict aspect terms. Finally, we combine the aspect terms which are respectively extracted from the original and rewritten sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 620, + 145, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 620, + 145, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 620, + 145, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Extractors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We follow the common practice (Chernyshevich, 2014; Toh and Wang, 2014; San Vicente et al., 2015) to treat ATE as a sequence labeling task. B/I/O labels are used, which respectively signal Beginning, Inside and Outside tokens relative to aspect terms. Therefore, an extractor essentially classifies each token into one of the B/I/O labels in terms of the token-level hidden state. We use PLM to compute the hidden states of tokens, and use a Fully-connected (FC) layer for classification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 68, + 518, + 172 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 68, + 518, + 172 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 68, + 518, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 68, + 518, + 172 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DomainVirtual Experts
RestaurantRestaurant Owner, Chef, Waiter, Diner, Catering Consultant, Receptionist, Cleaning Staff, Purchasing Manager, Restaurant Manager, Financial Officer
LaptopHardware Engineer, Software Engineer, Technical Support Engineer, Marketer, Customer Service Staff, Test Engineer Case Designer, Supply Chain Manager, Purchasing Manager, User
", + "image_path": "c617ba0fe01f09f013b7ae0a3f26f9816c85e3da542052698b7e24284fc42310.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 180, + 519, + 193 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 180, + 519, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 180, + 519, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Experts of Restaurant and Laptop domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 208, + 497, + 222 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 208, + 497, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 208, + 497, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: Rewrite with Zero-shot prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Test set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Role set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " AND Domain set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 224, + 505, + 234 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 234, + 453, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 234, + 453, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 234, + 453, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: All the rewritten sentences" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt.fmt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathcal{D}_i,\\mathcal{R}_j,S_k) =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Rewrite " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{k}\\in S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the perspective of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_j\\in \\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the domain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 245, + 506, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_i\\in \\mathcal{D}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 265, + 390, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 265, + 390, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 265, + 390, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "foreach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 265, + 390, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_i\\in \\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 265, + 390, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "foreach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_j\\in \\mathcal{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do foreach " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{k}\\in S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do Instruction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "=" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Prompt.fmt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D_i,\\mathcal{R}_j,S_k)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Prediction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "=" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 275, + 504, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ChatGPT(Instruction)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 316, + 348, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 316, + 348, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 316, + 348, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 337, + 331, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 337, + 331, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 337, + 331, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "end" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider two PLMs for hidden-state computation in the experiments, including " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 525, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -based PST (Wang et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 424, + 361, + 435 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 424, + 361, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 424, + 361, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 CHEF" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 525, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CHEF comprises two stages, including role generation of domain-specific virtual experts, as well as role-based rewriting. It is coupled with three post-processors, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement and multi-role voting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Role Generation-CHEF induces " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{ChatGPT}^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to generate a series of virtual experts playing different roles. The generation is prompted by the target-domain name " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " like \"Restaurant\". The query we use is as follows: \"Output the roles of experts in the domain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathcal{D}_i]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 509, + 525, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " according to the different responsibilities.\" Table 1 shows the experts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sentence Rewriting- Given a sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the ATE datasets, CHEF induces ChatGPT to rewrite the sentence from the perspective of a role-specific expert " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{R}_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Zero-shot prompting (Wei et al., 2022) is used during generation. In other words, there isn't any example provided for prompting ChatGPT. The query we use is as follows: \"Rewrite the sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[S_{k}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the perspective of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathcal{R}_{j}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the domain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[\\mathcal{D}_i]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\". We rewrite all the instances in the test sets using Algorithm 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 740, + 525, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 740, + 525, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 740, + 525, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Post-Processing- We drive the extractors to pre" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 509, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 509, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 509, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 https://platform.openai.com/playground?mode=chat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2191" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 116 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 116 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 68, + 498, + 116 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
L-14R-14R-15R-16
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
#Sentence2,4366098002,4336088001,0522636851,600400676
#Aspect1,9404186542,9507441,1349482525421,408336612
", + "image_path": "69c7185cfc8f75b2e83643175df9f1e414fd9d3fe61a5c801485cd26d66f7ec3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 124, + 504, + 137 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 124, + 504, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 124, + 504, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Statistics of ATE datasets. #Sentence and #Aspect denote the number of sentences and aspects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 290, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "dict aspect terms over the role-specific rewritten sentences. Redundant results may obtained, which are specified as the aspect terms never occurring in the original sentences. For example, although the token \"dish\" in the rewritten sentence in (2) is correctly predicted as an aspect term, it is redundant due to non-occurrence in the original sentence in (1). We filter the redundant results during test." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we use a soft synonym replacement method to reduce false positive rates. Specifically, given an original sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the rewritten case " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathring{S}_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we segment both of them into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-grams. Assume a set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{U}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-grams " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(1 \\leq n \\leq 5)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " share a part of the predicted aspect term with the set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathring{\\mathcal{U}}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-grams in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathring{S}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we calculate the similarity between each gram " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{U}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and every gram " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathring{u}_{ik}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathring{\\mathcal{U}}_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We rank all pairs of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{u_{ij},\\mathring{u}_{ik}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in terms of their similarities, and select the top-1 ranked " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-gram pair for synonym replacement, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathring{u}_{ik} \\Leftarrow u_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Meanwhile, the replaced " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-gram is specified as the unabridged aspect term, as shown in the example in (3). Note that Cosine similarity is computed over the embeddings of each pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{u_{ij},\\mathring{u}_{ik}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The embedding of each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 267, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-gram is obtained by conducting mean pooling (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019) over the token-level hidden states." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 519, + 289, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 519, + 289, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 519, + 289, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Original: Best Indian food I have ever eaten." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 534, + 289, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 534, + 289, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 534, + 289, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rewritten: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes [Aspect Term]. (Rewritten by CHEF with a role of “chef”)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 574, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 574, + 289, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 574, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Replacement: Indian dishes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 574, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Leftarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 574, + 289, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Indian food Output: Indian food" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-role Voting- We conduct multi-role voting only if an extractor obtains controversial results from the original and rewritten sentences. It facilitates the combination of the extraction results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Assume an extractor refuses to extract a text span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as an aspect from the original sentence, though it would like to do so from the sentences rewritten by different roles of experts, thus we regard " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a controversial result. In this case, we define the behavior of extracting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the voting for acceptance, otherwise rejection. On this basis, we compute the acceptance rate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 666, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " over the rewritten" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sentences of all experts: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i} = N_{c} / N_{all}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the number of voting for acceptance, while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{all}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of experts. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{all}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 10 in our experiments. For the Restaurant domain, a controversial result " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is finally adopted only if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is no less than a threshold of 0.7. For the Laptop domain, the threshold is set to 0.8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 262, + 411, + 276 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 262, + 411, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 262, + 411, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 444, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 444, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 444, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 408 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 408 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We experiment on the SemEval datasets, including L14 and R14-16 (Pontiki et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). All the instances in L14 are selected from the Laptop domain, while those in R14-16 derive from the Restaurant domain. We follow the common practice (Dai and Song, 2019; Wang et al., 2021) to split the datasets into training, validation and test sets. The statistics in them are shown in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is noteworthy that only the extractors are trained and developed using the above datasets. CHEF has nothing to do with training and development. It is conducted only on the test sets, providing rewritten sentences for the extractors and post-processes the predictions. We evaluate all the models using " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 410, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-score (Chernyshevich, 2014)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 414, + 526 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 414, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 414, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We respectively use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {pt }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-based PST (Wang et al., 2021) to construct the extractors, where PST achieved the best performance so far." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we set the maximum sequence length to 128 and carry out training in 4 epochs. The optimization of model parameters is obtained using AdamW with a learning rate of 3e-5 and a weight decay of 0.01. We set the batch size to 10. For PST, we adopt their initial hyperparameters, setting the first round of training to 5 epochs and performing 4 rounds of self-training. The learning rate is set to 5e-5. AdamW is used as the optimizer. All the other hyperparameters remain consistent with the reported ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 421, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 421, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 421, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Comparison Result" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 3, we report the performance of PST which is enhanced by CHEF, along with other state-of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2192" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 249 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 249 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelL14R14R15R16
ChatGPT (2023)43.0355.6540.33-
+5-shot ICL (2023)48.1970.9953.49-
+5-shot COT (2023)54.5072.4159.27-
DECNN (2018)81.59--74.37
+CDA (2020)81.58--75.19
+Repositioning (2020)84.1784.5572.0375.40
+PrototypeE (2020)83.1987.3973.2776.98
BERTbase(2019)79.8686.5868.0873.50
+Repositioning (2020)81.4387.1072.6877.71
+CDA (2020)81.14--75.89
+PST (2021)84.1787.6372.8177.09
BERTpt(2019)84.3788.4173.6678.29
+CDA (2020)85.33--80.29
+PST (2021)86.9188.7575.8282.56
Ours (PST+CHEF)86.2289.3377.6982.74
", + "image_path": "4c26f615046b55dde008a1a972757517a4239c7afade3820e59b55dc30b28da7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 317, + 285, + 376 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The performance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 291, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-score) of various methods. \"ICL\" refers to in-context learning, while \"COT\" stands for chain-of-thought. The sign \"+\" represents a certain method combined with the baseline model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 317, + 285, + 376 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 317, + 285, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 317, + 285, + 376 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelL14R14R15R16
BERTbase82.9688.0372.1774.88
+CHEF83.3988.2572.9275.56
PST (Reproduced)86.1389.2877.2982.62
+CHEF86.2289.3377.6982.74
", + "image_path": "dd2da32c7e8be2bf8ad38bf22ba8d132dc7acc22aeeb14666a6a019e83f77904.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 384, + 284, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 384, + 284, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 384, + 284, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Improvements (F1) on different extractors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 290, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 290, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 290, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the-art ATE models. In this case, the extraction results are obtained by combining the predictions of PST on both original and rewritten sentences, where multi-role voting is used. It can be found that CHEF enables PST to achieve better performance, slightly increasing the performance gap relative to other strong competitors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 4, we report the effects of CHEF on both the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\text {base }}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{pt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-based PST, where multi-role voting is used for prediction combination. It can be observed that CHEF enables both extractors to achieve better performance on all the test sets, without retraining and fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 145, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 145, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 605, + 145, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In two separate experiments, we demonstrate that CHEF contributes to the salvage of the missed aspect terms, and yields more substantial improvements on short or long sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Salvage Rate- We select all the incompletely-solved sentences from the test sets, each of which contains at least one aspect term neglected by the extractor. On this basis, we use CHEF to rewrite the sentences and drive the extractor to rework them. In this experiment, we consider the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{BERT}_{\\mathrm{base}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " extractor, and verify the changes in recall rates. Figure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 77, + 400, + 145 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 77, + 400, + 145 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 77, + 400, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 77, + 400, + 145 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a1d7ddf08fbf715d8958e5cd78de7d81629d4f5674ca4fb4dd9bd6bce18d1da8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 148, + 385, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 148, + 385, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 148, + 385, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Best Expert" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 76, + 516, + 145 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 76, + 516, + 145 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 76, + 516, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 76, + 516, + 145 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3785fff1d473ec2e1728f15f9b1dbc3c01b7153ca9ee9185ca6b635aa30b5036.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 437, + 148, + 499, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 437, + 148, + 499, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 437, + 148, + 499, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Worst Expert" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 217, + 409, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 525, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 525, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 171, + 525, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Significant improvements of Recall rates yielded by CHEF on the incompletely-solved sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 217, + 409, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 217, + 409, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 217, + 409, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b01f9a62a47131b1268ebb8823ca93f8ff66b81f2e6a51cde335902bd3f7fbdd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 420, + 219, + 520, + 345 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 219, + 520, + 345 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 219, + 520, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 219, + 520, + 345 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5783b034e833982576f5fc1e2263b457caffef09e4650b209b1375336837f4f9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 366, + 409, + 493 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 366, + 409, + 493 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 366, + 409, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 366, + 409, + 493 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "17f4593d62440b990d4cca4393e1432526cc685adc6fed4eb70457ed6d242e67.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 541 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 517, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-scores for the sentences at different lengths. Appendix A gives the statistics about them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 420, + 366, + 520, + 493 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 366, + 520, + 493 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 366, + 520, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 420, + 366, + 520, + 493 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f4d317a1a707b4e98017aa31c5daaa83af14bac027768f4b805f7ecf39ae4f0f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 shows the experimental results, where only the performances yielded by the best and worst experts are provided. It can be observed that CHEF substantially improves the recall rates for all test sets, no matter whether it plays the role of best expert or worst. The most significant improvement in recall rate reaches about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Besides, the change of precision, recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " score on the full test set can be found in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adaptability-CHEF applies more to short and long sentences. The former generally contains uninformative contexts, while the latter contains lower-quality contexts due to noises. We split each test set into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. There are five subsets obtained for each," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2193" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 176, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 176, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 176, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 74, + 176, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "771da26e92f82108941e1fdc810076f3acbe72dad5fb3d5be806569e53816e60.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 243, + 153, + 254 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 243, + 153, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 243, + 153, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Best Expert" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 267, + 289, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 267, + 289, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 267, + 289, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Results of ablation experiments (F1-scores)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 74, + 286, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 74, + 286, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 74, + 286, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 74, + 286, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c3bd8ac995b90cabde8f842a6db0fbc772f10edd8d609a794cc9b8080526a5f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 243, + 267, + 254 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 243, + 267, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 243, + 267, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Worst Expert" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "including the sentences having a length within the ranges of [1, 10], [11, 15], [16, 20], [21, 30] and no less than 30. The statistics in the subsets are shown in Table 5. Figure 2 shows the ATE performance at the original sentences of different lengths, and that at the rewritten cases by CHEF (without multirole prediction combination). It can be observed that CHEF only yields improvements for relatively short or long sentences. The most significant improvement reaches about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 435 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 291, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " F1-score at R16." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 167, + 457 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 167, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 167, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 569 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 569 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CHEF consists of four components, including Combination (Comb), Redundancy Elimination (RE), Synonym Replacement (SR) and Multi-role Voting, as presented in Section 3. To verify the effects of the components, we conduct an ablation experiment. Figure 3 illustrates the verification results over best and worst experts, where ALL indicates the complete CHEF method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It can be observed that the simple combination (Comb) causes significant performance degradation, although many terms the baseline missed are salvaged. When redundancy elimination (RE) is used, the comparable (a little worse) performance to the baseline is achieved. At this time, the precision is still lower because the synonymous terms are regarded as negative examples during evaluation. When synonym replacement (SR) is used, the performance is increased for some roles while not for others. When multi-role voting is used, the disagreement among the roles is resolved, and thus the performance is increased to a relatively higher level. We provide examples in Appendix C to facilitate the understanding of our ablation study." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 381, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We utilize ChatGPT to rewrite sentences with different roles of domain-specific experts, so as to provide informative and high-quality contexts for PLM-based ATE models. Experiments show that the proposed method contributes to the salvage of the neglected aspect terms, and applies more to the short and long sentences. In the future, we will use the rewritten sentences for contrastive learning. To reduce the reliance on ChatGPT, we will develop an offline context rewriting method by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 253, + 365, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 253, + 365, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 253, + 365, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 526, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 526, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose to use ChatGPT as an auxiliary toolkit to produce informative and high-quality contexts for context-aware token-level encoding, so as to enhance PLM encoders for aspect term recognition. Our experiments show that the proposed method yields slight improvements when coupled with strong domain-specific models, and it is not only effective in recalling neglected cases, but performs better for short and long instances. Unavoidably, the proposed method has the limitations in building a self-contained model, due to the lack of training and fine-tuning. To overcome the problem, we will develop a lite comparable generator to ChatGPT by knowledge distillation and domain-specific pretraining. Furthermore, we will incorporate role-based rewritten sentences into the training process, with the support of contrastive learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 518, + 395, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 518, + 395, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 518, + 395, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 595 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 595 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The research is supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2020YFB1313601) and National Science Foundation of China (62376182, 62076174)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 362, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 362, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 362, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 640, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Chen, Zepeng Zhai, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022a. Enhanced multi-channel graph convolutional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2974-2985, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaxiang Chen, Yu Hong, Qingting Xu, Jianmin Yao, and Guodong Zhou. 2022b. Enhancing neural aspect term extraction using part-of-speech and syntactic dependency features. In 2022 IEEE 34th International" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2194" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (IC-TAI), pages 303-310." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 180 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Chen, Jinglong Du, Zhao Zhang, Fuzhen Zhuang, and Zhongshi He. 2022c. A hierarchical interactive network for joint span-based aspect-sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7013-7019, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 190, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuqi Chen, Chen Keming, Xian Sun, and Zequn Zhang. 2022d. A span-level bidirectional network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4300-4309, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 276, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhuang Chen and Tieyun Qian. 2020. Enhancing aspect term extraction with soft prototypes. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2107-2117, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maryna Chernyshevich. 2014. IHS R&D Belarus: Cross-domain extraction of product features using CRF. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 309-313, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 416, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hongliang Dai and Yangqiu Song. 2019. Neural aspect and opinion term extraction with mined rules as weak supervision. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5268-5277, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 290, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 290, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 290, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ridong Han, Tao Peng, Chaohao Yang, Benyou Wang, Lu Liu, and Xiang Wan. 2023. Is information extraction solved by chatgpt? an analysis of performance, evaluation criteria, robustness and errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14450." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mengting Hu, Yike Wu, Hang Gao, Yinhao Bai, and Shiwan Zhao. 2022. Improving aspect sentiment quad prediction via template-order data augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7889-7900, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Niklas Jakob and Iryna Gurevych. 2010. Extracting opinion targets in a single and cross-domain setting with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1035-1045, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 117, + 524, + 162 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 117, + 524, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 117, + 524, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Akbar Karimi, Leonardo Rossi, and Andrea Prati. 2021. Adversarial training for aspect-based sentiment analysis with bert. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 8797-8803." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 173, + 524, + 261 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 173, + 524, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 173, + 524, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ayal Klein, Oren Pereg, Daniel Korat, Vasudev Lal, Moshe Wasserblat, and Ido Dagan. 2022. Opinion-based relational pivoting for cross-domain aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis, pages 104-112, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 273, + 524, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 273, + 524, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 273, + 524, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 524, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 328, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 524, + 517 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 524, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 439, + 524, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Li, Chengbo Chen, Xiaojun Quan, Qing Ling, and Yan Song. 2020. Conditional augmentation for aspect term extraction via masked sequence-to-sequence generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7056-7066, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 524, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 524, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Suresh Manandhar, Mohammad AL-Smadi, Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub, Yanyan Zhao, Bing Qin, Orphée De Clercq, Véronique Hoste, Marianna Apidianaki, Xavier Tannier, Natalia Loukachevitch, Evgeniy Kotelnikov, Nuria Bel, Salud María Jiménez-Zafra, and Gúlşen Eryiğit. 2016. SemEval-2016 task 5: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2016, pages 19-30, San Diego, California." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 524, + 704 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 524, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 524, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Suresh Manandhar, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2015. SemEval-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2015, pages 486-495, Denver, Colorado." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. SemEval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval 2014, pages 27-35, Dublin, Ireland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2195" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21:140:1-140:67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 135, + 291, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 135, + 291, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 135, + 291, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. SentenceBERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERTnetworks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 297 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 291, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inaki San Vicente, Xabier Saralegi, and Rodrigo Agerri. 2015. EliXa: A modular and flexible ABSA platform. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pages 748-752, Denver, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 291, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 304, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqiang Toh and Wenting Wang. 2014. DLIREC: Aspect term extraction and term polarity classification system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 235-240, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 291, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qianlong Wang, Zhiyuan Wen, Qin Zhao, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2021. Progressive self-training with discriminator for aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 257-268, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 291, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 291, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 463, + 291, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 525, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 525, + 291, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 525, + 291, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhenkai Wei, Yu Hong, Bowei Zou, Meng Cheng, and Jianmin Yao. 2020. Don't eclipse your arts due to small discrepancies: Boundary repositioning with a pointer network for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3678-3684, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 291, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 291, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip Yu. 2019. BERT post-training for review reading comprehension and aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2324-2335, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hu Xu, Bing Liu, Lei Shu, and Philip S. Yu. 2018. Double embeddings and CNN-based sequence labeling for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 592-598, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hang Yan, Junqi Dai, Tuo Ji, Xipeng Qiu, and Zheng Zhang. 2021. A unified generative framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2416-2429, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 234 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifei Yang and Hai Zhao. 2022. Aspect-based sentiment analysis as machine reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2461-2471, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 242, + 526, + 330 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 242, + 526, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 242, + 526, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zepeng Zhai, Hao Chen, Fangxiang Feng, Ruifan Li, and Xiaojie Wang. 2022. COM-MRC: A COntext-masked machine reading comprehension framework for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3230-3241, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chen Zhang, Lei Ren, Fang Ma, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, and Dawei Song. 2022a. Structural bias for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6736-6745, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. Towards generative aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 504-510, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 526, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 518, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yice Zhang, Yifan Yang, Yihui Li, Bin Liang, Shiwei Chen, Yixue Dang, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022b. Boundary-driven table-filling for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6485-6498, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 526, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 526, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shiman Zhao, Wei Chen, and Tengjiao Wang. 2022a. Learning cooperative interactions for multi-overlap aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 3337-3347, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 687, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 687, + 526, + 765 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 687, + 526, + 765 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yichun Zhao, Kui Meng, Gongshen Liu, Jintao Du, and Huijia Zhu. 2022b. A multi-task dual-tree network for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 7065-7074, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2196" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 68, + 518, + 138 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
[1, 10][11, 15][16, 20][21, 30]>30
#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect#Sentence#Aspect
L142601262241681561581151224580
R1421819023828715124113725356163
R152541531481301111081031166990
R1624016114913812513011112050101
", + "image_path": "d5c89da708a9e91189fa6945e66019056af17266d4fa23a899295a7ad5c65de6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 287, + 229 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 146, + 451, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 146, + 451, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 146, + 451, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Statistics of ATE test sets split according to the lengths of sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 287, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 287, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 287, + 229 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
L14R14R15R16
P85.97→84.9888.23→86.8270.28→70.0774.76→74.37
R80.15→81.8588.85→89.7374.17→76.0175.00→76.80
F182.96→83.3988.03→88.2572.17→72.9274.88→75.56
", + "image_path": "c92f9c345b66e29950a302a5d2f16d7fffb688f806a056e1cf9fe51f06617ba1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 289, + 543 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 237, + 289, + 261 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 237, + 289, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 237, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Performance changes of Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 237, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 237, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-score when applying our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 289, + 543 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 289, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Examples
Example of redundancy elimination: \nOriginal: Better than nobu, tomoe, taka, yama, sugiyama, and the rest. \nWaiter: Our chef's sushi is so amazing, it's better than Nobu, Tomoe, Taka, Yama, Sugiyama, and other well-known sushi spots in the city. \nGround-truth: [No Aspect] \nOutput from the rewritten sentence: chef's sushi
Example of synonym replacement: \nOriginal: Best Indian food I have ever eaten. \nChef: I put a lot of effort into perfecting our Indian dishes. \nGround-truth: Indian food \nOutput from the rewritten sentence: Indian dishes
Example of multi-role voting: \nOriginal: I have to say they have one of the fastest delivery times in the city. \nChef: I can prepare the order quickly to ensure timely delivery. \nRestaurant Owner: Our delivery times are some of the fastest in the city. \nCatering Consultant: Their delivery times are impressive and contribute to a positive customer experience. \nGround-truth: delivery times \nOutput from the Chef: delivery
", + "image_path": "3e5fe4e574a22edc83ad3b7d0446274f86f5e0caa02bbf6e019a2b2a8dec07cb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 551, + 280, + 564 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 551, + 280, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 551, + 280, + 564 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Examples of how each component works." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 585, + 213, + 598 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 585, + 213, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 585, + 213, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Test Set Reorganization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 607, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We divide the test sets into different subsets according to the lengths of sentences. For each test set, we obtained five subsets, which can be found in Table 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 251, + 684 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 251, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 251, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Change of Precision and Recall" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide additional results reflecting the change in precision and recall scores, as shown in Table 6. It can be found that the precision score decreases, meanwhile, the recall score increases. The performance gain at the recall score is because of the enhancement from our post-processing methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 475, + 194 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 475, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 475, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Examples for Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method combines the extracted results from both the original and rewritten sentences. However, the combination without post-processing causes terrible performance because of noises. To solve the problem, we have introduced the post-processing method, including redundancy elimination, synonym replacement, and multi-role voting. We provide examples that have been post-processed using the above solutions in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2197" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_content_list.json b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43876873c982a571d5bf9cc3ffc1c4eac3e31ccd --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2109 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SMARTSPANNER: Making SPANNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 121, + 89, + 875, + 110 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Min Zhang, Xiaosong Qiao, Yanqing Zhao, Shimin Tao, Hao Yang", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 141, + 786, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Huawei Translation Services Center, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 290, + 160, + 712, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{zhangmin186,qiaoxiaosong,zhaoyanqing,taoshimin,yanghao30}@huawei.com", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 175, + 850, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Named Entity Recognition (NER) is one of the most fundamental tasks in natural language processing. Span-level prediction (SPANNER) is more naturally suitable for nested NER than sequence labeling (SEQLAB). However, according to our experiments, the SPANNER method is more sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the $F1$ score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops. In order to improve the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, we propose a simple and effective method SMARTSPANNER, which introduces a Named Entity Head (NEH $^1$ ) prediction task to SPANNER and performs multi-task learning together with the task of span classification. Experimental results demonstrate that the robustness of SPANNER could be greatly improved by SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios constructed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 standard benchmark datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 605, + 258, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NER is a fundamental information extraction task and plays an essential role in natural language processing applications such as information retrieval, question and answering, machine translation and knowledge graphs (Liu et al., 2022). The goal of NER is to extract named entities (NEs) into predefined categories, such as person (PER), location (LOC), organization (ORG) and geo-political entity (GPE). With the rapid evolution of neural architectures (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997; Kalchbrenner et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) and large pretrained models (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020), recent years have seen the paradigm shift of NER systems from sequence labeling (Chiu and Nichols, 2016; Luo", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 631, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/01b254c1893fea0d4a2d3966ab4daf678bdf35bd16dafa6618ab6c03863a042b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: A sentence from ACE05 with 5 nested NEs. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 524, + 267, + 867, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/17ddc24125535a9308e99923544c5c53139b2c268d3f7840876fe91012251582.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Averaged $F1$ scores of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 10 independent runs on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FeW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 10." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 395, + 877, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020) to span prediction (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021). It is pointed out that nested entities are very common in the field of NER (Finkel and Manning, 2009), i.e., a named entity can contain or embed other entities as illustrated in Fig. 1. Compared with SEQLAB, SPANNER has an obvious advantage: All candidate entities can be easily found with different sub-sequences, which is straightforward for nested NER (Fu et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 659, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, our experiments reveal that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which makes SPANNER hard in low resource scenarios. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1NEH is the first word of a named entity, for example, \"Carl\" is the NEH of \"Carl Dinnon\" in Fig. 1. If a named entity has only one word, the NEH is itself.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7964", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7964-7976", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "this paper. By introducing a Named Entity Head (NEH) prediction task for each word in given sentences, we perform multi-task learning together with the task of span classification for NER. We conduct experiments on both flat and nested standard benchmark datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05). Experimental results demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER could improve the robustness in low resource scenarios significantly as shown in Fig 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 246, + 472, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight the robustness problem of SPANNER in low resource scenarios.", + "- To mitigate this problem, we develop a simple and effective method, named SMARTSPANNER. By introducing the task of NEH prediction, SMARTSPANNER can achieve significant gains in low resource scenarios.", + "- We provide an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the strong robustness of the method SMARTSPANNER." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 274, + 487, + 474 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 489, + 270, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There has been a long history of research involving NER (McCallum and Li, 2003). Traditional approaches are based on Hidden Markov Model (HMM; Zhou and Su, 2002) or Conditional Random Field (CRF; Lafferty et al., 2001). With the development of deep learning technology (Hinton and Salakhutdinov, 2006), SEQLAB methods such as LSTM-CRF (Huang et al., 2015) and BERT-LSTM-CRF (Devlin et al., 2019) achieve very promising results in the field of NER. However, these methods cannot directly handle the nested structure because they can only assign one label to each token.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 516, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As it is pointed out that named entities are often nested (Finkel and Manning, 2009), various approaches for nested NER have been proposed in recent years (Wang et al., 2022; Shibuya and Hovy, 2020). One of the most representative directions is span-based methods that recognize nested entities by classifying sub-sequences of a sentence (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Zaratiana et al., 2022; Weng and Zhang, 2023). SPANNER methods are naturally suitable for the nested structure because nested entities can be easily detected in different sub-sequences. Although the strengths and weak", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e28771efa48027630821c3c4f5c2ee57264952d18ce0b3b48791fb75ad70defc.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Percentage10%15%20%50%100%
# sentences1,4982,2482,9977,49314,987
SEQLAB82.2683.9085.7887.8191.01
SPANNER26.9346.1376.6188.9890.72
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 882, + 141 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: $F1$ scores of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods on the test dataset of CoNLL03 with different percentages of training data and the maximum epoch set to 10.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 149, + 884, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "nesses of SPANNER have been systematically investigated by Fu et al. (2021), its performance in low resource scenarios is not discussed. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which poses a challenge to the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios. In order to address this challenge, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 219, + 884, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It should be noted that the low resource scenarios in this paper refer to those with at least 1,000 labeled sentences, different from the settings for few-shot NER (Huang et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2021) and more common in real-world applications.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 381, + 882, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 474, + 658, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Problem Description", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 501, + 719, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The commonly-used NER standard benchmark dataset CoNLL03 (English) (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is selected to show the different sensitivities of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods. $10\\%$ , $20\\%$ , $50\\%$ and $100\\%$ of the training data are used to train the models respectively, and the $F1$ scores on the test dataset are reported in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 882, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 1, although the performances of SEQLAB and SPANNER on the entire training data are almost the same, the $F1$ score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the training data drops, i.e., the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios needs to be greatly improved.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 636, + 882, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 NEH for SPANNER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 744, + 707, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a sentence $S = \\{w_{1},\\dots ,w_{n}\\}$ with $n$ words, and a span $(i,j)$ denoting the sub-sequence in $S$ which starts with $w_{i}$ and ends with $w_{j}$ , $w_{i}$ is an NEH if there is an NE span $(i,j)$ . For example, the words \"Reporter0\", \"Carl1\" and \"Britain4\" in Fig. 1 are NEHs, and the other words are not.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 765, + 882, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the above definition, we could conclude that $w_{i}$ is an NEH, which is a necessary but not suf-", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 863, + 882, + 894 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2Details of implementation are described in Experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7965", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c499d24219b8782db527262578909abb44b13fa26a2785a6fde594e83025356a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: An overview of SMARTSPANNER method, which consists of (a) NEH prediction and (b) span classification. The two parts are jointly trained under the multi-task learning framework, and jointly determine the final results." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 98, + 855, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ficient condition for span $(i,j)$ to be an NE. That is to say, if $w_{i}$ is not an NEH, the span $(i,j)$ must not be an NE. Therefore, if we introduce the NEH prediction task for SPANNER, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced in training and inferring. For example, without the NEH prediction task, the number of spans in Fig. 1 (all sub-sequences for the sentence with 11 words) for SPANNER is 66. If the three NEHs in Fig. 1 are correctly predicted, the number of spans (the sub-sequences starting with the words \"Reporter $^{0}$ \", \"Carl $^{1}$ \" and \"Britain $^{4}$ ) could be reduced to 28.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 416, + 487, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These are the basic ideas of our method SMARTSPANNER. With the introduction of the NEH prediction task, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced, so the difficulty of semantic tag classification in SMARTSPANNER will be easier than in SPANNER. Meanwhile, the NEH prediction task is obviously easier than semantic tag classification (fewer categories and more balanced positive and negative samples). Therefore, with the help of the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER reduces the difficulties of NER and could be more robust in low resource scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 818 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 SMARTSPANNER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 299, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An overview of our SMARTSPANNER method is shown in Fig. 3, which consists of two parts: NEH prediction and span classification. NEH prediction aims to predict whether a word is the first word of", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "an entity, and span classification aims to classify spans to corresponding semantic tags. The two parts are jointly trained under a multi-task learning framework with a shared encoder. The encoder is applied to a sentence to obtain contextual word representation, which is shared in downstream NEH prediction and span classification tasks. In this work, the NEH prediction task is treated as a special type of span classification, where the span width is 1 and the number of classes is 2. The span classification task is to aggregate the span information for multi-class classification. During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 416, + 884, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.1 Encoder", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 636, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Considering a sentence $S$ with $n$ tokenized words $\\{w_{i}\\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ , we convert the words to their contextual embeddings with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) encoder. We generate the input sequence by concatenating a [CLS] token, $\\{w_{i}\\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ and a [SEP] token, and use a series of $L$ stacked Transformer blocks (TBs) to project the input to a sequence of contextual vectors, i.e.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 676, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {h} _ {0}, \\dots , \\boldsymbol {h} _ {n + 1} = \\mathrm {T B} _ {L} ([ \\mathrm {C L S} ], w _ {1}, \\dots , w _ {n}, [ \\mathrm {S E P} ]). \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 832, + 882, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.2 Span Classification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 865, + 719, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Considering a span $(i,j)$ , we use the boundary embeddings and span length embedding to represent", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7966", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9a389daaae882d2b32e2db19236b9a6a343ad96a4ff798a8b9e1ec98ff8ec5bd.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
CoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# sentences14,9873,4663,684131,76718,82437,64815,0221,6691,8557,2859681,058
# entities23,4995,9425,648339,61748,63396,67647,0064,4615,59624,7003,2183,029
# nested entities------3,2223284482,797352339
avg length13.5914.8212.6024.4824.5924.4526.4925.6727.0518.8218.7716.93
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 884, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Statistics of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets, where the number of entity types are 4, 66, 5 and 7 respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 178, + 882, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the span (Fu et al., 2021):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 233, + 307, + 248 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {s} (i, j) = \\left[ \\boldsymbol {h} _ {i}; \\boldsymbol {h} _ {j}; \\boldsymbol {z} _ {j - i + 1} \\right], \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 261, + 487, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\pmb{z}_{j - i + 1}$ is the span length embedding, which could be obtained by a learnable look-up table.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 291, + 485, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, we feed the span representation into a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classifier, and apply a softmax layer to obtain the probability $P_{s}$ to predict its semantic tag.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 487, + 387 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {s} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, j))) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 400, + 487, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we minimize the cross-entropy loss function:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 430, + 489, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {s} = - \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {k} \\left(y ^ {t} \\log P _ {s} ^ {t} + \\left(1 - y ^ {t}\\right) \\log \\left(1 - P _ {s} ^ {t}\\right)\\right), (4)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 470, + 487, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $k$ is the number of semantic tags, and $y^{t}$ denotes a label indicating whether the span $(i,j)$ is in tag $t$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 526, + 487, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.3 NEH Prediction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 583, + 302, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we treat NEH prediction as binary classification for a special span $(i,i)$ (i.e., only word $w_{i}$ , $1\\leq i\\leq n$ ) in sentence $S$ . So the NEH probability $P_{h}$ is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 487, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {h} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, i))) [:, 1 ], \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 678, + 487, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and the cross-entropy loss function is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 400, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {h} = - \\left(y _ {h} \\log P _ {h} + \\left(1 - y _ {h}\\right) \\log \\left(1 - P _ {h}\\right)\\right), (6)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 738, + 487, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $y_{h}$ denotes whether the word $w_{i}$ is an NEH.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 768, + 487, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.4 Joint Training and Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 793, + 400, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We jointly minimize the following loss for training:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 812, + 487, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = w \\mathcal {L} _ {h} + (1 - w) \\mathcal {L} _ {s}, \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 841, + 487, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathcal{L}_h$ and $\\mathcal{L}_s$ are the losses of the NEH prediction task and span classification task, and $w$ is the hyper-parameter to balance the two tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 233, + 880, + 279 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, in order to keep the training and inferring data distributions consistent, training the span classification model in SMARTSPANNER only requires a part of the spans that are all needed in SPANNER. A selection strategy is designed for each span $(i,j)$ in training:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 281, + 882, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {S e l e c t} ((i, j)) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} 1, \\text {i f} w _ {i} \\text {i s a n N E H} \\\\ 1, \\text {i f r a n d} < s p \\\\ 0, \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} , \\right. \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 403, + 882, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where rand is a randomly generated float number in $[0,1]$ and $sp$ is a hyper-parameter of the selection threshold (0.05 used in this paper).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 880, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "An example for this selection strategy is provided to compare the number of total training samples in SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER: Given a sentence having $n$ tokens and $d$ named entities, we could get the number of training samples generated by this sentence for SPANNER ( $N_{sn}$ ) and SMARTSPANNER ( $N_{ssn}$ ) respectively when the max span width is set to the value $m$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 882, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} N _ {s n} = n * m - (m - 1) * m / 2 \\\\ N _ {s s n} \\approx n + d * m + (n - d) * m * s p \\tag {9} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 536, + 653, + 880, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It should be noted that the training samples of NEH prediction are included in $N_{ssn}$ (the first term $n$ in the right). Supposing $n = 100, d = 5, m = 10, sp = 0.05$ , we could have $N_{sn} = 955, N_{ssn} \\approx 197$ . This means the training samples are greatly reduced in SMARTSPANNER, and thus the training time is also greatly reduced. This is the reason why we name the method \"SMART\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 699, + 880, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 840, + 655, + 856 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 623, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Four standard benchmark datasets CoNLL03 English (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003),", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7967", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e19d2097febfa14ca2849398ba35e38bd4a66b73c68b144702cf1d444286dcfd.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
PRF1PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000SPANNER45.3310.9217.280.000.000.0042.7317.2823.0666.5812.4620.44
SMARTSPANNER77.8567.7572.4549.7412.1919.5741.3665.4650.6651.0360.6055.38
SEQLAB75.2482.5278.3814.4720.9917.10------
2,000SPANNER73.9859.1165.6921.850.000.0138.2645.6741.5453.9245.0248.98
SMARTSPANNER87.1680.6683.7848.5427.0234.6954.5077.3563.9462.6476.3768.82
SEQLAB80.8586.3783.5227.0835.3130.71------
5,000SPANNER87.2484.9886.0955.3919.2928.6257.0073.7264.2863.9977.6270.14
SMARTSPANNER89.9889.8889.9357.9758.5658.2665.6781.2072.6170.4984.3376.79
SEQLAB85.0789.2087.0844.6453.1148.50------
ALLSPANNER90.1591.2990.7267.6270.9969.2670.2681.9475.6573.1185.8378.96
SMARTSPANNER91.2591.5691.4067.4570.2368.8171.6182.2276.5477.5187.0582.00
SEQLAB89.8792.1991.0167.0569.4068.20------
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Overall results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. The $P$ , $R$ and $F1$ are the mean values in 10 independent runs. Best $F1$ scores are in bold. “# Sents” stands for the number of sentences used for training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 278, + 882, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "FEW-NERD (SUP) (Ding et al., 2021), GENIA (Kim et al., 2003) and ACE053 English are selected for evaluation, where CoNLL03 and FEw-NERD are for flat NER and the others are for nested NER. The statistics of these datasets are shown in Table 2. It should be pointed out that we follow Shibuya and Hovy (2020)'s preprocessing steps4 to split GENIA and ACE05 into train, development, and test sets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 347, + 487, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Experiment Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 487, + 319, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In experiments, we implement the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods based on the source codes by Fu et al. (2021), where the pretrained model bert-base-uncased is used as the encoder. And we implement BERT-CRF as the SEQLAB method for comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 507, + 489, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training datasets for low resource scenarios are constructed by random shuffle on the entire training sentences and extracting the first 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences, where the random seeds in 10 runs are set to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 42 respectively. In addition, the random seed for the results in Table 1 is set to 42. The development datasets of CoNLL03, GENIA and ACE05 are all used in the constructed low resource scenarios. As the development data in Few-NERD is very large (18,824 sentences), we choose the first 2,000 sentences as the development data when the training data contains 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 604, + 489, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods, the embedding size of the span width is set", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 813, + 489, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to 50, the max span width is set to $20^{7}$ . The MLP for span classification takes two layers, which is the same as the setting by Fu et al. (2021). Considering that NEH classification is less challenging compared to span classification, we use single-layer MLP for NEH classification.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 347, + 884, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training epoch number is set to 10, and the batch size is set to 16. During training, the SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB models are optimized by AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with the learning rate set to 0.00001 and a linear warmup scheduler. The values of the hyper-parameters $w$ for joint training and $sp$ for span selection in SMARTSPANNER are set to 0.2 and 0.05 respectively. All models are trained using a single NVIDIA V100 GPU.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 444, + 884, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 618, + 662, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEWNERD, GENIA and ACE05 are reported in Table 3, where the values of the precision $(P)$ , recall $(R)$ and $F1$ score are included (SEQLAB only for flat NER datasets, not for nested).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 884, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER on 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 training sentences, it is obvious that the $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER are greatly better than those of SPANNER on all the four datasets. Specially, when the training data is 1,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER has the most obviously improvement in $F1$ scores (17.28% to 72.45% on CoNLL03, 0.00% to 19.57% on Few-NERD,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 738, + 885, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7This setting is to ensure the proportions of entities with a length exceeding 20 in the four datasets do not exceed $1\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06 4https://github.com/yahshibu/ nested-ner-tac12020 5https://github.com/neulab/SpanNER 6https://huggingface.co/bert-base-uncased", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 853, + 450, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7968", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bd826c839aaf25971f8681138ddd7bf282e8a1e3906a7989094b84c46a8225eb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN6.910.010.58.0
SSN4.96.47.15.7
↓29%↓36%↓33%↓29%
2,000SN13.719.821.215.9
SSN9.912.814.211.3
↓28%↓36%↓33%↓29%
5,000SN33.649.553.735.1
SSN24.431.935.726.0
↓27%↓35%↓34%↓26%
ALLSN100.11311.3162.458.3
SSN72.6844.8108.041.2
↓27%↓36%↓33%↓29%
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 485, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/93778ad178b0807f0869140a19214b20efd1e52ecf30f09c1bf4586949adc15e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Training time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the datasets of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN40.51029.237.612.7
SSN14.7301.712.25.4
↓ 64%↓ 71%↓ 68%↓ 57%
2,000SN40.71026.737.912.7
SSN14.0280.311.85.1
↓ 66%↓ 73%↓ 69%↓ 60%
5,000SN41.01041.037.812.7
SSN13.5277.311.55.2
↓ 67%↓ 73%↓ 70%↓ 59%
ALLSN41.11041.737.812.7
SSN13.5270.111.15.2
↓ 67%↓ 74%↓ 71%↓ 59%
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 293, + 485, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "23.06% to 50.66% on GENIA, and 20.44% to 55.38% on ACE05). Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 485, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the comparison results of SEQLAB and SMARTSPANNER on the two flat NER datasets, it can be seen that the $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER are better than those of SEQLAB on all low resource settings except on the 1,000 sentences of CoNLL03. It is worth mentioning that SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SEQLAB on all the low resource settings of FEw-NERD - using such settings poses a significant challenging due to the large number of entity types in FEw-NERD.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 487, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, by introducing the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER greatly improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, even better than SEQLAB.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 487, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Efficiency", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 238, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to our analysis, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER reduces the number of samples (spans) for training and inferring. To verify this, we compare the efficiencies of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER in this section. Table 4 and", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/37e65f4e51367ec01f6fe20d5d834056a7bd5000ba4fe7df8efd15f04579cbd7.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Inferring time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "* The value is 24,614, not 24,700 shown in Table 2. This is because spans exceeding the max span width (set to 20 in experiments) are not used for training." + ], + "table_body": "
# SentsMethodsTasks# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH23,07215,5531/5.1
SP83,34147,1681/13.1
SNSP83,341207,2811/62.0
2,000SSNNEH26,10030,8741/5.1
SP86,66887,1771/13.1
SNSP86,668412,5291/61.9
5,000SSNNEH215,58478,1791/5.0
SP816,973222,7451/13.1
SNSP816,9731,053,3311/62.1
ALLSSNNEH222,614114,5241/5.1
SP824,614*323,9211/13.2
SNSP824,614*1,545,8361/62.8
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 882, + 218 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Descriptions of ACE05's training data for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT, # PS and # NS mean the number of classification categories, the number of positive samples and the number of negative samples respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 247, + 882, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5 report the running time of the two methods on the four datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05) during training and inferring. For training, the running time is the average time to train one epoch. For inferring, the running time is the time to complete NER on the test datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 366, + 882, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 4, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER takes at least $26\\%$ less training time than SPANNER on both all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets. This is because much fewer negative samples for span classification are used in the training of SMARTSPANNER, according to the selection strategy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 466, + 882, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 5, it could be seen that the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is at least $57\\%$ shorter than that of SPANNER on the four test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. This is because only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification in SMARTSPANNER, which reduces the number of spans for inferring greatly.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 583, + 882, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From the comparison results in Table 4 and Table 5, SMARTSPANNER is much more efficient than SPANNER during training and inferring on all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 715, + 882, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 820, + 618, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have shown the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios. In this section, we aim to take a deeper look and understand what contributes to its final performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7969", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b8f50eee04950ce9c156e231e0eaa7ae4fbeae03c4fe91cd651e14bf449f827a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsTasks# Sentences
1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH17,90917,90917,90917,909
SP40,74338,40937,87437,553
SNSP192,302192,302192,302192,302
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 485, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Task Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 240, + 268, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SMARTSPANNER has two tasks, i.e., NEH prediction task and span classification (SP) task, while SPANNER has one task, i.e., SP task. We first provide a detailed comparison of training data for these tasks on ACE05, which are shown in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 260, + 487, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 6, it could be found that the task of NEH prediction is the easiest, because the number of classification categories is the smallest and the balance of positive and negative samples8 is the best. Meanwhile, due to the more balanced positive and negative samples brought by the selection strategy, the task of span classification in SMARTSPANNER is much easier than that in SPANNER. Although deep learning methods can solve difficult problems, they require large amounts of data. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SPANNER for NER in low-resource scenarios. Furthermore, it could be seen that the total samples of SMARTSPANNER for training are much less than those of SPANNER (about $70\\%$ reduction). This is why the training time of SMARTSPANNER is much less than that of SPANNER.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 341, + 489, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, we compare the number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER and SPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training, as shown in Table 7. It could be clearly seen that the total inferring samples in SMARTSPANNER are greatly less than those in SPANNER (more than $70\\%$ reduction). This is why the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is much less.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 615, + 489, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we provide the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training data. In Table 8, the rows of \"NEH\" list the results of the NEH prediction task, the rows of \"SP\" list the results of the SP task on all the possible spans, and the rows of \"NEH + SP\" list", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 760, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/805c98c0af277ca562d9f33fd80ec2db8674a6fc4f2b95ef23d81bf69647ac6d.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test dataset of ACE05 (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# SentsTasksPRF1
1,000NEH78.0391.8484.33
SP39.3362.1248.13
NEH + SP51.0360.6055.38 (↑ 7.25)
2,000NEH84.4494.8689.34
SP48.6077.9859.87
NEH + SP62.6476.3768.82 (↑ 8.95)
5,000NEH87.6695.9191.60
SP60.6885.9271.12
NEH + SP70.4984.3376.79 (↑ 5.67)
ALLNEH89.7695.9192.73
SP65.0488.5173.71
NEH + SP77.5187.0582.00 (↑ 8.29)
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 884, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: The average values of precision $(P)$ , recall $(R)$ and $F1$ scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 275, + 882, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the results of SMARTSPANNER (only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 882, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Table 8, it could be seen that the $F1$ scores of NEH prediction tasks are higher than those of span classification tasks due to the lower task difficulty. When span classification in SMARTSPANNER is used for all possible spans, the precision suffers because of the inconsistent distributions of training and test data (worse than that of SPANNER in Table 3). When NEH prediction is used before span classification (i.e., only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification), the precision rates are greatly improved (more than $10\\%$ ), the recall rates are slightly decreased (less than $2\\%$ ), and the $F1$ scores are significantly improved (more than $5\\%$ ). The reason for the drop of recall rates is that the recall rates of NEH are not $100\\%$ . Two cases from the test dataset of ACE05 are shown in A.1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 882, + 692 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The analyses on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA are provided in A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 695, + 880, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Hyper-Parameter Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 739, + 766, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There are two hyper-parameters (sample selection probability $sp$ and joint training weight $w$ ) for training SMARTSPANNER. In this section, we provide a detailed analysis for the values of these two hyperparameters respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 760, + 882, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.1 Sample Selection Probability", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 851, + 796, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We vary the sample selection probability parameter $sp$ from 0 to 1 with step 0.05, and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The positive samples means the spans are NEHs in NEH prediction task or NEs in span classification task, otherwise they are negative samples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7970", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/61110cfe70e255339d7f8af9d49b1b95749fa82db9201d7d4ae8c3f3df3d9bed.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores of NEH prediction on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities $sp$ (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 84, + 297, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0ad70ab25c24899fb997932ad69f213579e68c98ad482da2d5e1c42548bb876a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight $w$ (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 305, + 85, + 480, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/00cf076287488870ecb7ffe9ad87aaa3903285fa36b1bd0ecf8262013c7b66ee.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities $sp$ (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 398, + 295, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f2de1076b2195a06593c804c28b32f053bd6db4c22d15424253e9d8f000f2a64.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 307, + 398, + 480, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "value of $sp$ on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the results (Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores) of NEH prediction and NER in SMARTSPANNER respectively when the parameter $sp$ varies (the joint training weight $w$ remains at 0.2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 487, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Fig. 4, it could be seen that the recall rates of NEH prediction hardly change and the precision rates improve slightly with the increase of the parameter $sp$ . Therefore, the change of the parameter $sp$ has little effect on the task of NEH prediction. That is to say, despite the parameter $sp$ changes, the distribution of the data for span classification", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/546a48fdce2d624668e90a79196a72538e16b8a0db4cbcc06aeb30cb3ee5e23d.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 85, + 690, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a3283e0414030d03196e03ec51618f7aaed9d95b569dda137ef1304bcec4e378.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 697, + 85, + 875, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in SMARTSPANNER during inference is stable.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 858, + 435 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Fig. 5, it could be seen that the $F1$ scores of NER in SMARTSPANNER decreases with the increase of the parameter $sp$ , especially when the training data is small (such as 1,000 sentences). This is due to the inconsistency between training data and inferring data for span classification in SMARTSPANNER (the larger the parameter $sp$ , the higher the inconsistency). Since the robustness of deep learning methods will improve as the amount of data increases, SMARTSPANNER is less sensitive to the parameter $sp$ when the training data increases (such as all sentences). From Fig. 5, it could be seen that 0.05 is a good choice for the parameter $sp$ in low resource scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2.2 Joint Training Weight", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 692, + 742, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We vary the joint training weight $w$ from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1 and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each value of $w$ on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 6 shows the results (Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores) of NER when the parameter $w$ varies (the sample selection probability parameter $sp$ remains at 0.05).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 721, + 882, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From Fig. 6, it could be found that the value of parameter $w$ between 0.2 and 0.4 is suitable for SMARTSPANNER according to the $F1$ scores. And the sensitivity of SMARTSPANNER to parameter $w$ decreases with the increase of training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7971", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 247, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, it is found that the SPANNER method is sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the performance of SPANNER is worse than SEQLAB in low resource scenarios. In order to alleviate this problem, SMARTSPANNER is proposed by introducing the NEH prediction task into SPANNER in a multi-task learning manner. The comparison results of experiments designed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios than SPANNER, and greatly reduces the running time of training and inferring. In addition, the reasons for the strong robustness of SMARTSPANNER are analyzed in depth on the dataset ACE05.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 492, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 363, + 220, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The SMARTSPANNER method proposed in this paper is very effective in low resource scenarios. However, when the training data contains more than 10,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, the advantages of SMARTSPANNER on the CoNLL03 and GENIA datasets are not so obvious. Furthermore, when all the training data of the FEW-NERD dataset (more than 100,000 sentences) is used, the results of SMARTSPANNER even drop a bit. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is not strongly recommended in high resource scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 579, + 265, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we discuss the ethical consideration of this work from the following two aspects. First, for SMARTSPANNER, the code, data and pretrained models adopted from previous works are granted for research-purpose usage. Second, SMARTSPANNER improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios by introducing the NEH prediction task. Hence we do not foresee any major risks or negative societal impact of our work. However, like any other ML models, the named entities recognized by our model may not always be completely accurate and hence should be used with caution for real-world applications.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 489, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 841, + 213, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss,", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 865, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2016. Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM-CNNs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:357-370.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jenny Rose Finkel and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Nested named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 141-150, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jinlan Fu, Xuanjing Huang, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SpanNER: Named entity re-/recognition as span prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7183-7195, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Geoffrey E. Hinton and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786):504-507.", + "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780.", + "Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Few-shot named entity recognition: An empirical baseline study. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10408-10423, Online and Punta Cana," + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7972", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional lstm-crf models for sequence tagging. Cite arxiv:1508.01991.", + "Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 655-665, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jin-Dong Kim, Tomoko Ohta, Yuka Tateisi, and Junichi Tsujii. 2003. Genia corpus - a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining. Bioinformatics, 19 Suppl 1:i180-2.", + "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '01, page 282-289, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Bill Yuchen Lin, Dong-Ho Lee, Ming Shen, Ryan Moreno, Xiao Huang, Prashant Shiralkar, and Xi-ang Ren. 2020. TriggerNER: Learning with entity triggers as explanations for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8503–8511, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Pan Liu, Yanming Guo, Fenglei Wang, and Guohui Li. 2022. Chinese named entity recognition: The state of the art. Neurocomput., 473(C):37-53.", + "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net.", + "Ying Luo, Fengshun Xiao, and Hai Zhao. 2020. Hierarchical contextualized representation for named entity recognition. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8441-8448. AAAI Press." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Andrew McCallum and Wei Li. 2003. Early results for named entity recognition with conditional random fields, feature induction and web-enhanced lexicons. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 188-191.", + "Xue Mengge, Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Yue Zhang, and Bin Wang. 2020. Coarse-to-Fine Pretraining for Named Entity Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6345-6354, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Takashi Shibuya and Eduard Hovy. 2020. Nested named entity recognition via second-best sequence learning and decoding. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:605-620.", + "Chuanqi Tan, Wei Qiu, Mosha Chen, Rui Wang, and Fei Huang. 2020. Boundary enhanced neural span classification for nested named entity recognition. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34:9016-9023.", + "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc.", + "Yu Wang, Hanghang Tong, Ziye Zhu, and Yun Li. 2022. Nested named entity recognition: A survey. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 16(6).", + "Maobin Weng and Weiwen Zhang. 2023. Named entity recognition based on bert-bilstm-span in low resource scenarios. In 2023 15th International Conference on Computer Research and Development (ICCRD), pages 32-37.", + "Mingbin Xu, Hui Jiang, and Sedtawut Watcharawittayakul. 2017. A local detection approach for named entity recognition and mention detection. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1247, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Urchade Zaratiana, Nadi Tomeh, Pierre Holat, and Thierry Charnois. 2022. Named entity recognition as structured span prediction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Unimodal and Multimodal Induction of Linguistic Structures (UM-IoS), pages 1-10, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7973", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. 2002. Named entity recognition using an HMM-based chunk tagger. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 473-480, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 173, + 238, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5647ee7e167ddc586b5289e4cfc05285a7ae711567417279ccae15ba4d2822b2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 211, + 295, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4fec464e380aa2ceb281088798dabe7d6b2a9b85b0fa7473a3166c8d4831cd98.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 305, + 211, + 482, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bc39f3162afc42672c5856dfea86ea9353c4a99fb67c4adc1cdd2462c608d9c8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F^1$ scores of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight $w$ (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 319, + 295, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4d02d6bb25637c87e077c06855f7d24f09bee7d1aca48888cadc7d32a1fb57e5.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 307, + 319, + 482, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/56ef47cb5d7737f44015e05942776a67083a60e02658d9a407305d55581d63f5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetSPANNERSMARTSPANNER
PRF1PRF1
CoNLL0374.2556.1163.6788.9888.8788.92
Few-NERD0.000.000.0047.8129.9036.67
GENIA50.0930.6437.8161.7271.6166.28
ACE0572.4112.0519.6070.2976.4473.23
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 533, + 485, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Averaged $P, R$ and $F1$ values of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 3 independent runs, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 25.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 626, + 489, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 722, + 253, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Two cases from ACE05 are shown in Table 10, where the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are provided. From Table 10, it could be clearly seen that SMARTSPANNER performs better for NER than SPANNER, and the predicted NEHs are beneficial to improve the precision of NER in SMARTSPANNER.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 743, + 489, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Supplement Experimental Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 431, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide the results of task analysis on the datasets CoNLL03, FeW-NERD and GENIA,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which are shown in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. From Table 11, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER also obtains much more balanced positive and negative samples on the three datasets. As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, SMARTSPANNER requires significantly fewer samples for training and inferring on the three datasets than SPANNER, enabling much faster training and inferring. Table 13 demonstrates the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the three datasets, which are consistent with the results on ACE05.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For reference, we report the results of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on ACE05 with different joint training weight $w$ in Fig. 7.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 261, + 884, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to the results (Zaratiana et al., 2022), setting a larger epoch value will lead to better results for SpanNER. Therefore, we just increase the training epoch number from 10 to 25 and conduct three independent experiments on the four datasets (using random seeds 1, 2 and 42 to obtain 1,000 training sentences). The comparison results are reported in Table 9. It can be seen that setting a larger epoch number only results in a significant improvement of $F1$ score for SPANNER on CoNLL03 (with minor improvements on GENIA and ACE05, and no change on FEW-NERD). Moreover, the superiority of SMARTSPANNER over SPANNER remains evident across all four datasets, highlighting the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low-resource scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 310, + 884, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7974", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4b4e849081ece78496733354937b2d0b43756131192ab517e6c48a60ae043b08.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 10: Two cases from ACE05. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence, the ground truth NEs are represented by triples (NE start word index, NE end word index, NE type), and the ground truth NEHs are represented by special spans (same start and end indexes). The NEs predicted by SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are represented by four-tuples (predicted NE start word index, predicted NE end word index, predicted NE type, predicted probability), and the NEHs predicted by SMARTSPANNER are represented by triples (predicted start index, predicted end index, predicted probability). The triples or four-tuples in red indicate incorrect predictions. The rows of “NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs” show the predicted NEs by SMARTSPANNER when all possible spans are used for NE prediction (i.e., the predicted NEHs are not used for span filtering)." + ], + "table_body": "
Case 1SentenceHe0was1the2governor3of4my5state6of7Texas8,9 where10there11are12a13whole14lot15of16doctors17.18
Ground Truth NEs(Total 7)(0,0,PER),(2,17,PER),(5,5,PER),(5,17,GPE), (8,8,GPE),(10,10,GPE),(13,17,PER)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 6)(0,0),(2,2),(5,5),(8,8),(10,10),(13,13)
NEs by SPANNER(2 correct,2 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.8446),(5,8,GPE,0.4203),(5,17,PER,0.4736),(8,8,GPE,0.6953)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(6 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,0.9961),(2,2,0.9769),(5,5,0.9995),(8,8,0.9005),(10,10,0.9729),(11,11,0.7172),(13,13,0.9433)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,3 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(6,8,GPE,0.6781),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246),(17,17,PER,0.7493)
Case 2SentenceA0traveler1was2driving3through4Arkansas5when6he7 lost8his9way10and11got12off13the14main15highway16 .17
Ground Truth NEs(Total 5)(0,1,PER),(5,5,GPE),(7,7,PER),(9,9,PER),(14,16,FAC)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 5)(0,0),(5,5),(7,7),(9,9),(14,14)
NEs by SPANNER(4 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.8230),(0,7,PER,0.7019),(5,5,GPE,0.7611),(7,7,PER,0.8407),(9,9,PER,0.5256)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,0 incorrect)(0,0,0.9886),(5,5,0.9680),(7,7,0.9959),(9,9,0.9899),(14,14,0.9180)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,2 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(1,1,PER,0.6204),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 135, + 884, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7975", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3ec6bb42c7f2800502cb2b802d1b3e2d87213a69bfed7f21a8f98fb3e151948b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# SentsMethodsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH21,62012,4461/7.722,59822,1901/8.522,85923,2231/8.1
SP51,62022,6361/14.0672,59846,3511/17.863,01849,4781/16.4
SNSP51,620150,1401/92.7672,598311,2261/119.863,018333,4231/110.5
2,000SSNNEH23,24424,7941/7.625,21444,1461/8.525,70546,9681/8.2
SP53,24444,8431/13.8675,21492,9031/17.866,05499,7181/16.5
SNSP53,244298,9361/92.2675,214619,0371/118.766,054677,0731/111.8
5,000SSNNEH27,86261,0861/7.8212,942109,8781/8.5214,513117,8071/8.1
SP57,862107,3351/13.76712,942229,4651/17.7615,423254,5431/16.5
SNSP57,862727,1921/92.56712,9421,538,1341/118.8615,4231,705,3631/110.6
ALLSSNNEH223,499181,0681/7.72339,6022,880,0601/8.5243,536354,7031/8.1
SP523,499319,0741/13.667339,6026,013,5261/17.7646,984766,6691/16.3
SNSP523,4992,146,0321/91.367339,60240,291,7451/118.6646,9845,133,2361/109.3
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 124, + 882, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cb4894d3ac13352274ece7b5cbdc53fcfe336d55cb57b533794f1025f7307462.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: Descriptions of the training data of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT means the number of classification categories, # PS means the number of positive samples, and # NS means the number of negative samples." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsTasksCoNLL03 (# Sentences)Few-NERD (# Sentences)GENIA (# Sentences)
1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH46,66646,66646,66646,666919,162919,162919,162919,16246,87846,87846,87846,878
SP69,75862,20460,42460,3231,697,5691,581,7791,519,0501,452,74993,21985,39080,28678,402
SNSP477,887477,887477,887477,88711,595,32511,595,32511,595,32511,595,325616,491616,491616,491616,491
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 417, + 882, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d4dcd0e83a07278434f5cc4cf737e292f1d9262b1bdb3fea3fe5b192b6a03b99.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 12: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEw-NERD and GENIA (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# SentsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000NEH82.8795.1388.5272.4591.8881.0166.5888.6276.02
SP70.6569.2569.9448.4512.1819.4628.5269.5740.45
NEH + SP77.8567.7572.45 (↑ 2.51)49.7412.1819.57 (↑ 0.11)41.3665.4650.66 (↑ 6.21)
2,000NEH91.8197.0194.3478.9493.3585.5472.2090.3980.27
SP74.0081.4077.5245.8127.1634.0737.2882.0451.26
NEH + SP87.1680.6683.78 (↑ 6.26)48.5427.0234.69 (↑ 0.62)54.5077.3563.94 (↑ 12.68)
5,000NEH95.5697.6696.6082.8993.9688.0878.5690.2083.98
SP82.2390.4686.1552.5059.4055.7449.1486.7262.74
NEH + SP89.9889.8889.93 (↑ 3.78)57.9758.5658.26 (↑ 2.52)65.6781.2072.61 (↑ 9.87)
ALLNEH96.4297.9597.1887.3194.5690.7981.7189.6485.49
SP89.4491.9490.6861.7471.5566.2855.9288.3668.47
NEH + SP91.2591.5691.40 (↑ 0.72)67.4570.2368.81 (↑ 2.53)71.6182.2276.54 (↑ 8.07)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 624, + 882, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: The average values of precision $(P)$ , recall $(R)$ and $F1$ scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 827, + 882, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "7976", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_model.json b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..296cd2838a038aff7aaedd1733d93ea99c10a5b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2470 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.09, + 0.877, + 0.111 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SMARTSPANNER: Making SPANNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.142, + 0.788, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Min Zhang, Xiaosong Qiao, Yanqing Zhao, Shimin Tao, Hao Yang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.291, + 0.161, + 0.714, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huawei Translation Services Center, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.177, + 0.851, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{zhangmin186,qiaoxiaosong,zhaoyanqing,taoshimin,yanghao30}@huawei.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Named Entity Recognition (NER) is one of the most fundamental tasks in natural language processing. Span-level prediction (SPANNER) is more naturally suitable for nested NER than sequence labeling (SEQLAB). However, according to our experiments, the SPANNER method is more sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the \\( F1 \\) score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops. In order to improve the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, we propose a simple and effective method SMARTSPANNER, which introduces a Named Entity Head (NEH\\(^1\\)) prediction task to SPANNER and performs multi-task learning together with the task of span classification. Experimental results demonstrate that the robustness of SPANNER could be greatly improved by SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios constructed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 standard benchmark datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.606, + 0.26, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.632, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NER is a fundamental information extraction task and plays an essential role in natural language processing applications such as information retrieval, question and answering, machine translation and knowledge graphs (Liu et al., 2022). The goal of NER is to extract named entities (NEs) into predefined categories, such as person (PER), location (LOC), organization (ORG) and geo-political entity (GPE). With the rapid evolution of neural architectures (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997; Kalchbrenner et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) and large pretrained models (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020), recent years have seen the paradigm shift of NER systems from sequence labeling (Chiu and Nichols, 2016; Luo" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.268, + 0.868, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.331, + 0.885, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: A sentence from ACE05 with 5 nested NEs. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.397, + 0.878, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.543, + 0.884, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Averaged \\( F1 \\) scores of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 10 independent runs on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FeW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 10." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.66, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020) to span prediction (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021). It is pointed out that nested entities are very common in the field of NER (Finkel and Manning, 2009), i.e., a named entity can contain or embed other entities as illustrated in Fig. 1. Compared with SEQLAB, SPANNER has an obvious advantage: All candidate entities can be easily found with different sub-sequences, which is straightforward for nested NER (Fu et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, our experiments reveal that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which makes SPANNER hard in low resource scenarios. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER in" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.881, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1NEH is the first word of a named entity, for example, \"Carl\" is the NEH of \"Carl Dinnon\" in Fig. 1. If a named entity has only one word, the NEH is itself." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7964" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7964-7976" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "this paper. By introducing a Named Entity Head (NEH) prediction task for each word in given sentences, we perform multi-task learning together with the task of span classification for NER. We conduct experiments on both flat and nested standard benchmark datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05). Experimental results demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER could improve the robustness in low resource scenarios significantly as shown in Fig 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.247, + 0.473, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.275, + 0.489, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight the robustness problem of SPANNER in low resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.336, + 0.489, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To mitigate this problem, we develop a simple and effective method, named SMARTSPANNER. By introducing the task of NEH prediction, SMARTSPANNER can achieve significant gains in low resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.429, + 0.489, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We provide an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the strong robustness of the method SMARTSPANNER." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.275, + 0.489, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.49, + 0.271, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.517, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There has been a long history of research involving NER (McCallum and Li, 2003). Traditional approaches are based on Hidden Markov Model (HMM; Zhou and Su, 2002) or Conditional Random Field (CRF; Lafferty et al., 2001). With the development of deep learning technology (Hinton and Salakhutdinov, 2006), SEQLAB methods such as LSTM-CRF (Huang et al., 2015) and BERT-LSTM-CRF (Devlin et al., 2019) achieve very promising results in the field of NER. However, these methods cannot directly handle the nested structure because they can only assign one label to each token." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.711, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As it is pointed out that named entities are often nested (Finkel and Manning, 2009), various approaches for nested NER have been proposed in recent years (Wang et al., 2022; Shibuya and Hovy, 2020). One of the most representative directions is span-based methods that recognize nested entities by classifying sub-sequences of a sentence (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Zaratiana et al., 2022; Weng and Zhang, 2023). SPANNER methods are naturally suitable for the nested structure because nested entities can be easily detected in different sub-sequences. Although the strengths and weak" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Percentage10%15%20%50%100%
# sentences1,4982,2482,9977,49314,987
SEQLAB82.2683.9085.7887.8191.01
SPANNER26.9346.1376.6188.9890.72
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.151, + 0.885, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: \\( F1 \\) scores of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods on the test dataset of CoNLL03 with different percentages of training data and the maximum epoch set to 10." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.22, + 0.885, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "nesses of SPANNER have been systematically investigated by Fu et al. (2021), its performance in low resource scenarios is not discussed. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which poses a challenge to the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios. In order to address this challenge, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.382, + 0.884, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It should be noted that the low resource scenarios in this paper refer to those with at least 1,000 labeled sentences, different from the settings for few-shot NER (Huang et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2021) and more common in real-world applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.475, + 0.66, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.502, + 0.72, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Problem Description" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The commonly-used NER standard benchmark dataset CoNLL03 (English) (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is selected to show the different sensitivities of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods. \\(10\\%\\), \\(20\\%\\), \\(50\\%\\) and \\(100\\%\\) of the training data are used to train the models respectively, and the \\(F1\\) scores on the test dataset are reported in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.637, + 0.884, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 1, although the performances of SEQLAB and SPANNER on the entire training data are almost the same, the \\( F1 \\) score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the training data drops, i.e., the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios needs to be greatly improved." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.745, + 0.708, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 NEH for SPANNER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.766, + 0.884, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a sentence \\( S = \\{w_{1},\\dots ,w_{n}\\} \\) with \\( n \\) words, and a span \\( (i,j) \\) denoting the sub-sequence in \\( S \\) which starts with \\( w_{i} \\) and ends with \\( w_{j} \\), \\( w_{i} \\) is an NEH if there is an NE span \\( (i,j) \\). For example, the words \"Reporter0\", \"Carl1\" and \"Britain4\" in Fig. 1 are NEHs, and the other words are not." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.864, + 0.884, + 0.895 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the above definition, we could conclude that \\( w_{i} \\) is an NEH, which is a necessary but not suf-" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.881, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2Details of implementation are described in Experiments." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7965" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.099, + 0.856, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.362, + 0.884, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: An overview of SMARTSPANNER method, which consists of (a) NEH prediction and (b) span classification. The two parts are jointly trained under the multi-task learning framework, and jointly determine the final results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.417, + 0.489, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ficient condition for span \\((i,j)\\) to be an NE. That is to say, if \\(w_{i}\\) is not an NEH, the span \\((i,j)\\) must not be an NE. Therefore, if we introduce the NEH prediction task for SPANNER, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced in training and inferring. For example, without the NEH prediction task, the number of spans in Fig. 1 (all sub-sequences for the sentence with 11 words) for SPANNER is 66. If the three NEHs in Fig. 1 are correctly predicted, the number of spans (the sub-sequences starting with the words \"Reporter\\(^{0}\\)\", \"Carl\\(^{1}\\)\" and \"Britain\\(^{4}\\)) could be reduced to 28." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These are the basic ideas of our method SMARTSPANNER. With the introduction of the NEH prediction task, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced, so the difficulty of semantic tag classification in SMARTSPANNER will be easier than in SPANNER. Meanwhile, the NEH prediction task is obviously easier than semantic tag classification (fewer categories and more balanced positive and negative samples). Therefore, with the help of the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER reduces the difficulties of NER and could be more robust in low resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.833, + 0.3, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 SMARTSPANNER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An overview of our SMARTSPANNER method is shown in Fig. 3, which consists of two parts: NEH prediction and span classification. NEH prediction aims to predict whether a word is the first word of" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.417, + 0.885, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "an entity, and span classification aims to classify spans to corresponding semantic tags. The two parts are jointly trained under a multi-task learning framework with a shared encoder. The encoder is applied to a sentence to obtain contextual word representation, which is shared in downstream NEH prediction and span classification tasks. In this work, the NEH prediction task is treated as a special type of span classification, where the span width is 1 and the number of classes is 2. The span classification task is to aggregate the span information for multi-class classification. During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.655, + 0.637, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.1 Encoder" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.677, + 0.884, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Considering a sentence \\(S\\) with \\(n\\) tokenized words \\(\\{w_{i}\\}_{i = 1}^{n}\\), we convert the words to their contextual embeddings with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) encoder. We generate the input sequence by concatenating a [CLS] token, \\(\\{w_{i}\\}_{i = 1}^{n}\\) and a [SEP] token, and use a series of \\(L\\) stacked Transformer blocks (TBs) to project the input to a sequence of contextual vectors, i.e.," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.833, + 0.883, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {h} _ {0}, \\dots , \\boldsymbol {h} _ {n + 1} = \\mathrm {T B} _ {L} ([ \\mathrm {C L S} ], w _ {1}, \\dots , w _ {n}, [ \\mathrm {S E P} ]). \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.866, + 0.72, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.2 Span Classification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Considering a span \\((i,j)\\), we use the boundary embeddings and span length embedding to represent" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7966" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.081, + 0.885, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
CoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# sentences14,9873,4663,684131,76718,82437,64815,0221,6691,8557,2859681,058
# entities23,4995,9425,648339,61748,63396,67647,0064,4615,59624,7003,2183,029
# nested entities------3,2223284482,797352339
avg length13.5914.8212.6024.4824.5924.4526.4925.6727.0518.8218.7716.93
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.179, + 0.884, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Statistics of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets, where the number of entity types are 4, 66, 5 and 7 respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.234, + 0.308, + 0.249 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the span (Fu et al., 2021):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.262, + 0.488, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {s} (i, j) = \\left[ \\boldsymbol {h} _ {i}; \\boldsymbol {h} _ {j}; \\boldsymbol {z} _ {j - i + 1} \\right], \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.292, + 0.487, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\pmb{z}_{j - i + 1} \\) is the span length embedding, which could be obtained by a learnable look-up table." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.325, + 0.489, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, we feed the span representation into a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classifier, and apply a softmax layer to obtain the probability \\( P_{s} \\) to predict its semantic tag." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.401, + 0.488, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {s} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, j))) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.431, + 0.49, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we minimize the cross-entropy loss function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.472, + 0.488, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {s} = - \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {k} \\left(y ^ {t} \\log P _ {s} ^ {t} + \\left(1 - y ^ {t}\\right) \\log \\left(1 - P _ {s} ^ {t}\\right)\\right), (4)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.527, + 0.488, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( k \\) is the number of semantic tags, and \\( y^{t} \\) denotes a label indicating whether the span \\( (i,j) \\) is in tag \\( t \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.585, + 0.303, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.3 NEH Prediction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.604, + 0.488, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we treat NEH prediction as binary classification for a special span \\((i,i)\\) (i.e., only word \\(w_{i}\\), \\(1\\leq i\\leq n\\)) in sentence \\(S\\). So the NEH probability \\(P_{h}\\) is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.172, + 0.68, + 0.488, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {h} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, i))) [:, 1 ], \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.71, + 0.4, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and the cross-entropy loss function is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.739, + 0.488, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {h} = - \\left(y _ {h} \\log P _ {h} + \\left(1 - y _ {h}\\right) \\log \\left(1 - P _ {h}\\right)\\right), (6)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.769, + 0.488, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( y_{h} \\) denotes whether the word \\( w_{i} \\) is an NEH." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.794, + 0.401, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.4 Joint Training and Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.813, + 0.488, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We jointly minimize the following loss for training:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.208, + 0.842, + 0.488, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = w \\mathcal {L} _ {h} + (1 - w) \\mathcal {L} _ {s}, \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathcal{L}_h\\) and \\(\\mathcal{L}_s\\) are the losses of the NEH prediction task and span classification task, and \\(w\\) is the hyper-parameter to balance the two tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.234, + 0.882, + 0.28 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.282, + 0.884, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, in order to keep the training and inferring data distributions consistent, training the span classification model in SMARTSPANNER only requires a part of the spans that are all needed in SPANNER. A selection strategy is designed for each span \\((i,j)\\) in training:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.404, + 0.884, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {S e l e c t} ((i, j)) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} 1, \\text {i f} w _ {i} \\text {i s a n N E H} \\\\ 1, \\text {i f r a n d} < s p \\\\ 0, \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} , \\right. \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.466, + 0.882, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where rand is a randomly generated float number in \\([0,1]\\) and \\(sp\\) is a hyper-parameter of the selection threshold (0.05 used in this paper)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.884, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "An example for this selection strategy is provided to compare the number of total training samples in SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER: Given a sentence having \\( n \\) tokens and \\( d \\) named entities, we could get the number of training samples generated by this sentence for SPANNER (\\( N_{sn} \\)) and SMARTSPANNER (\\( N_{ssn} \\)) respectively when the max span width is set to the value \\( m \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.655, + 0.882, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} N _ {s n} = n * m - (m - 1) * m / 2 \\\\ N _ {s s n} \\approx n + d * m + (n - d) * m * s p \\tag {9} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.7, + 0.882, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It should be noted that the training samples of NEH prediction are included in \\( N_{ssn} \\) (the first term \\( n \\) in the right). Supposing \\( n = 100, d = 5, m = 10, sp = 0.05 \\), we could have \\( N_{sn} = 955, N_{ssn} \\approx 197 \\). This means the training samples are greatly reduced in SMARTSPANNER, and thus the training time is also greatly reduced. This is the reason why we name the method \"SMART\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.841, + 0.656, + 0.857 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.624, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Four standard benchmark datasets CoNLL03 English (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003)," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7967" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.081, + 0.885, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
PRF1PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000SPANNER45.3310.9217.280.000.000.0042.7317.2823.0666.5812.4620.44
SMARTSPANNER77.8567.7572.4549.7412.1919.5741.3665.4650.6651.0360.6055.38
SEQLAB75.2482.5278.3814.4720.9917.10------
2,000SPANNER73.9859.1165.6921.850.000.0138.2645.6741.5453.9245.0248.98
SMARTSPANNER87.1680.6683.7848.5427.0234.6954.5077.3563.9462.6476.3768.82
SEQLAB80.8586.3783.5227.0835.3130.71------
5,000SPANNER87.2484.9886.0955.3919.2928.6257.0073.7264.2863.9977.6270.14
SMARTSPANNER89.9889.8889.9357.9758.5658.2665.6781.2072.6170.4984.3376.79
SEQLAB85.0789.2087.0844.6453.1148.50------
ALLSPANNER90.1591.2990.7267.6270.9969.2670.2681.9475.6573.1185.8378.96
SMARTSPANNER91.2591.5691.4067.4570.2368.8171.6182.2276.5477.5187.0582.00
SEQLAB89.8792.1991.0167.0569.4068.20------
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.884, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Overall results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. The \\(P\\), \\(R\\) and \\(F1\\) are the mean values in 10 independent runs. Best \\(F1\\) scores are in bold. “# Sents” stands for the number of sentences used for training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.348, + 0.489, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "FEW-NERD (SUP) (Ding et al., 2021), GENIA (Kim et al., 2003) and ACE053 English are selected for evaluation, where CoNLL03 and FEw-NERD are for flat NER and the others are for nested NER. The statistics of these datasets are shown in Table 2. It should be pointed out that we follow Shibuya and Hovy (2020)'s preprocessing steps4 to split GENIA and ACE05 into train, development, and test sets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.488, + 0.321, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Experiment Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.508, + 0.49, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In experiments, we implement the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods based on the source codes by Fu et al. (2021), where the pretrained model bert-base-uncased is used as the encoder. And we implement BERT-CRF as the SEQLAB method for comparison." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.605, + 0.49, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training datasets for low resource scenarios are constructed by random shuffle on the entire training sentences and extracting the first 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences, where the random seeds in 10 runs are set to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 42 respectively. In addition, the random seed for the results in Table 1 is set to 42. The development datasets of CoNLL03, GENIA and ACE05 are all used in the constructed low resource scenarios. As the development data in Few-NERD is very large (18,824 sentences), we choose the first 2,000 sentences as the development data when the training data contains 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods, the embedding size of the span width is set" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.348, + 0.885, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to 50, the max span width is set to \\(20^{7}\\). The MLP for span classification takes two layers, which is the same as the setting by Fu et al. (2021). Considering that NEH classification is less challenging compared to span classification, we use single-layer MLP for NEH classification." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.445, + 0.885, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training epoch number is set to 10, and the batch size is set to 16. During training, the SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB models are optimized by AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with the learning rate set to 0.00001 and a linear warmup scheduler. The values of the hyper-parameters \\( w \\) for joint training and \\( sp \\) for span selection in SMARTSPANNER are set to 0.2 and 0.05 respectively. All models are trained using a single NVIDIA V100 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.619, + 0.663, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.641, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEWNERD, GENIA and ACE05 are reported in Table 3, where the values of the precision \\((P)\\), recall \\((R)\\) and \\(F1\\) score are included (SEQLAB only for flat NER datasets, not for nested)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.739, + 0.886, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER on 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 training sentences, it is obvious that the \\( F1 \\) scores of SMARTSPANNER are greatly better than those of SPANNER on all the four datasets. Specially, when the training data is 1,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER has the most obviously improvement in \\( F1 \\) scores (17.28% to 72.45% on CoNLL03, 0.00% to 19.57% on Few-NERD," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7This setting is to ensure the proportions of entities with a length exceeding 20 in the four datasets do not exceed \\(1\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.854, + 0.452, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06 4https://github.com/yahshibu/ nested-ner-tac12020 5https://github.com/neulab/SpanNER 6https://huggingface.co/bert-base-uncased" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7968" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN6.910.010.58.0
SSN4.96.47.15.7
↓29%↓36%↓33%↓29%
2,000SN13.719.821.215.9
SSN9.912.814.211.3
↓28%↓36%↓33%↓29%
5,000SN33.649.553.735.1
SSN24.431.935.726.0
↓27%↓35%↓34%↓26%
ALLSN100.11311.3162.458.3
SSN72.6844.8108.041.2
↓27%↓36%↓33%↓29%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.238, + 0.489, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Training time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the datasets of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.294, + 0.486, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN40.51029.237.612.7
SSN14.7301.712.25.4
↓ 64%↓ 71%↓ 68%↓ 57%
2,000SN40.71026.737.912.7
SSN14.0280.311.85.1
↓ 66%↓ 73%↓ 69%↓ 60%
5,000SN41.01041.037.812.7
SSN13.5277.311.55.2
↓ 67%↓ 73%↓ 70%↓ 59%
ALLSN41.11041.737.812.7
SSN13.5270.111.15.2
↓ 67%↓ 74%↓ 71%↓ 59%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.45, + 0.488, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Inferring time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.533, + 0.486, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "23.06% to 50.66% on GENIA, and 20.44% to 55.38% on ACE05). Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.582, + 0.489, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the comparison results of SEQLAB and SMARTSPANNER on the two flat NER datasets, it can be seen that the \\( F1 \\) scores of SMARTSPANNER are better than those of SEQLAB on all low resource settings except on the 1,000 sentences of CoNLL03. It is worth mentioning that SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SEQLAB on all the low resource settings of FEw-NERD - using such settings poses a significant challenging due to the large number of entity types in FEw-NERD." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.743, + 0.489, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, by introducing the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER greatly improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, even better than SEQLAB." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.818, + 0.239, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Efficiency" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to our analysis, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER reduces the number of samples (spans) for training and inferring. To verify this, we compare the efficiencies of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER in this section. Table 4 and" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.219 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsMethodsTasks# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH23,07215,5531/5.1
SP83,34147,1681/13.1
SNSP83,341207,2811/62.0
2,000SSNNEH26,10030,8741/5.1
SP86,66887,1771/13.1
SNSP86,668412,5291/61.9
5,000SSNNEH215,58478,1791/5.0
SP816,973222,7451/13.1
SNSP816,9731,053,3311/62.1
ALLSSNNEH222,614114,5241/5.1
SP824,614*323,9211/13.2
SNSP824,614*1,545,8361/62.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.22, + 0.875, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* The value is 24,614, not 24,700 shown in Table 2. This is because spans exceeding the max span width (set to 20 in experiments) are not used for training." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.248, + 0.883, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Descriptions of ACE05's training data for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT, # PS and # NS mean the number of classification categories, the number of positive samples and the number of negative samples respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.367, + 0.884, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5 report the running time of the two methods on the four datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05) during training and inferring. For training, the running time is the average time to train one epoch. For inferring, the running time is the time to complete NER on the test datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.467, + 0.884, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 4, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER takes at least \\(26\\%\\) less training time than SPANNER on both all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets. This is because much fewer negative samples for span classification are used in the training of SMARTSPANNER, according to the selection strategy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.584, + 0.884, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 5, it could be seen that the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is at least \\(57\\%\\) shorter than that of SPANNER on the four test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. This is because only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification in SMARTSPANNER, which reduces the number of spans for inferring greatly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.716, + 0.883, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From the comparison results in Table 4 and Table 5, SMARTSPANNER is much more efficient than SPANNER during training and inferring on all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.821, + 0.619, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have shown the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios. In this section, we aim to take a deeper look and understand what contributes to its final performance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7969" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsTasks# Sentences
1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH17,90917,90917,90917,909
SP40,74338,40937,87437,553
SNSP192,302192,302192,302192,302
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.158, + 0.488, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test dataset of ACE05 (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.241, + 0.27, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Task Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.261, + 0.489, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SMARTSPANNER has two tasks, i.e., NEH prediction task and span classification (SP) task, while SPANNER has one task, i.e., SP task. We first provide a detailed comparison of training data for these tasks on ACE05, which are shown in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.342, + 0.49, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 6, it could be found that the task of NEH prediction is the easiest, because the number of classification categories is the smallest and the balance of positive and negative samples8 is the best. Meanwhile, due to the more balanced positive and negative samples brought by the selection strategy, the task of span classification in SMARTSPANNER is much easier than that in SPANNER. Although deep learning methods can solve difficult problems, they require large amounts of data. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SPANNER for NER in low-resource scenarios. Furthermore, it could be seen that the total samples of SMARTSPANNER for training are much less than those of SPANNER (about \\(70\\%\\) reduction). This is why the training time of SMARTSPANNER is much less than that of SPANNER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.616, + 0.49, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, we compare the number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER and SPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training, as shown in Table 7. It could be clearly seen that the total inferring samples in SMARTSPANNER are greatly less than those in SPANNER (more than \\(70\\%\\) reduction). This is why the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is much less." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.761, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we provide the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training data. In Table 8, the rows of \"NEH\" list the results of the NEH prediction task, the rows of \"SP\" list the results of the SP task on all the possible spans, and the rows of \"NEH + SP\" list" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsTasksPRF1
1,000NEH78.0391.8484.33
SP39.3362.1248.13
NEH + SP51.0360.6055.38 (↑ 7.25)
2,000NEH84.4494.8689.34
SP48.6077.9859.87
NEH + SP62.6476.3768.82 (↑ 8.95)
5,000NEH87.6695.9191.60
SP60.6885.9271.12
NEH + SP70.4984.3376.79 (↑ 5.67)
ALLNEH89.7695.9192.73
SP65.0488.5173.71
NEH + SP77.5187.0582.00 (↑ 8.29)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.276, + 0.884, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: The average values of precision \\((P)\\), recall \\((R)\\) and \\(F1\\) scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.373, + 0.883, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the results of SMARTSPANNER (only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.422, + 0.884, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Table 8, it could be seen that the \\( F1 \\) scores of NEH prediction tasks are higher than those of span classification tasks due to the lower task difficulty. When span classification in SMARTSPANNER is used for all possible spans, the precision suffers because of the inconsistent distributions of training and test data (worse than that of SPANNER in Table 3). When NEH prediction is used before span classification (i.e., only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification), the precision rates are greatly improved (more than \\( 10\\% \\)), the recall rates are slightly decreased (less than \\( 2\\% \\)), and the \\( F1 \\) scores are significantly improved (more than \\( 5\\% \\)). The reason for the drop of recall rates is that the recall rates of NEH are not \\( 100\\% \\). Two cases from the test dataset of ACE05 are shown in A.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.696, + 0.882, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The analyses on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA are provided in A.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.74, + 0.767, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Hyper-Parameter Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.761, + 0.884, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There are two hyper-parameters (sample selection probability \\( sp \\) and joint training weight \\( w \\)) for training SMARTSPANNER. In this section, we provide a detailed analysis for the values of these two hyperparameters respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.852, + 0.797, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.1 Sample Selection Probability" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We vary the sample selection probability parameter \\( sp \\) from 0 to 1 with step 0.05, and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The positive samples means the spans are NEHs in NEH prediction task or NEs in span classification task, otherwise they are negative samples." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7970" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.085, + 0.299, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.306, + 0.086, + 0.482, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.489, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: The average values of Precision, Recall and \\( F1 \\) scores of NEH prediction on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities \\( sp \\) (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.399, + 0.296, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.308, + 0.399, + 0.482, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.489, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The average values of Precision, Recall and \\( F1 \\) scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities \\( sp \\) (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.726, + 0.489, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "value of \\( sp \\) on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the results (Precision, Recall and \\( F1 \\) scores) of NEH prediction and NER in SMARTSPANNER respectively when the parameter \\( sp \\) varies (the joint training weight \\( w \\) remains at 0.2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Fig. 4, it could be seen that the recall rates of NEH prediction hardly change and the precision rates improve slightly with the increase of the parameter \\( sp \\). Therefore, the change of the parameter \\( sp \\) has little effect on the task of NEH prediction. That is to say, despite the parameter \\( sp \\) changes, the distribution of the data for span classification" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.086, + 0.691, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.699, + 0.086, + 0.877, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.299, + 0.883, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: The average values of Precision, Recall and \\( F1 \\) scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight \\( w \\) (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.421, + 0.86, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in SMARTSPANNER during inference is stable." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.441, + 0.884, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Fig. 5, it could be seen that the \\( F1 \\) scores of NER in SMARTSPANNER decreases with the increase of the parameter \\( sp \\), especially when the training data is small (such as 1,000 sentences). This is due to the inconsistency between training data and inferring data for span classification in SMARTSPANNER (the larger the parameter \\( sp \\), the higher the inconsistency). Since the robustness of deep learning methods will improve as the amount of data increases, SMARTSPANNER is less sensitive to the parameter \\( sp \\) when the training data increases (such as all sentences). From Fig. 5, it could be seen that 0.05 is a good choice for the parameter \\( sp \\) in low resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.693, + 0.743, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2.2 Joint Training Weight" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.722, + 0.884, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We vary the joint training weight \\( w \\) from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1 and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each value of \\( w \\) on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 6 shows the results (Precision, Recall and \\( F1 \\) scores) of NER when the parameter \\( w \\) varies (the sample selection probability parameter \\( sp \\) remains at 0.05)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From Fig. 6, it could be found that the value of parameter \\( w \\) between 0.2 and 0.4 is suitable for SMARTSPANNER according to the \\( F1 \\) scores. And the sensitivity of SMARTSPANNER to parameter \\( w \\) decreases with the increase of training data." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7971" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.248, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.493, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, it is found that the SPANNER method is sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the performance of SPANNER is worse than SEQLAB in low resource scenarios. In order to alleviate this problem, SMARTSPANNER is proposed by introducing the NEH prediction task into SPANNER in a multi-task learning manner. The comparison results of experiments designed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios than SPANNER, and greatly reduces the running time of training and inferring. In addition, the reasons for the strong robustness of SMARTSPANNER are analyzed in depth on the dataset ACE05." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.364, + 0.221, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.39, + 0.49, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The SMARTSPANNER method proposed in this paper is very effective in low resource scenarios. However, when the training data contains more than 10,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, the advantages of SMARTSPANNER on the CoNLL03 and GENIA datasets are not so obvious. Furthermore, when all the training data of the FEW-NERD dataset (more than 100,000 sentences) is used, the results of SMARTSPANNER even drop a bit. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is not strongly recommended in high resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.58, + 0.267, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.606, + 0.49, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we discuss the ethical consideration of this work from the following two aspects. First, for SMARTSPANNER, the code, data and pretrained models adopted from previous works are granted for research-purpose usage. Second, SMARTSPANNER improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios by introducing the NEH prediction task. Hence we do not foresee any major risks or negative societal impact of our work. However, like any other ML models, the named entities recognized by our model may not always be completely accurate and hence should be used with caution for real-world applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.843, + 0.214, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.866, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss," + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.226, + 0.885, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2016. Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM-CNNs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:357-370." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.287, + 0.885, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.414, + 0.885, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.54, + 0.885, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jenny Rose Finkel and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Nested named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 141-150, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.615, + 0.885, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinlan Fu, Xuanjing Huang, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SpanNER: Named entity re-/recognition as span prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7183-7195, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.729, + 0.885, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Geoffrey E. Hinton and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786):504-507." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.778, + 0.885, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Few-shot named entity recognition: An empirical baseline study. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10408-10423, Online and Punta Cana," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7972" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.122, + 0.487, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional lstm-crf models for sequence tagging. Cite arxiv:1508.01991." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.171, + 0.487, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 655-665, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.273, + 0.486, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jin-Dong Kim, Tomoko Ohta, Yuka Tateisi, and Junichi Tsujii. 2003. Genia corpus - a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining. Bioinformatics, 19 Suppl 1:i180-2." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.334, + 0.487, + 0.425 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '01, page 282-289, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.435, + 0.487, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.563, + 0.487, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bill Yuchen Lin, Dong-Ho Lee, Ming Shen, Ryan Moreno, Xiao Huang, Prashant Shiralkar, and Xi-ang Ren. 2020. TriggerNER: Learning with entity triggers as explanations for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8503–8511, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.676, + 0.487, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pan Liu, Yanming Guo, Fenglei Wang, and Guohui Li. 2022. Chinese named entity recognition: The state of the art. Neurocomput., 473(C):37-53." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.726, + 0.487, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ying Luo, Fengshun Xiao, and Hai Zhao. 2020. Hierarchical contextualized representation for named entity recognition. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8441-8448. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew McCallum and Wei Li. 2003. Early results for named entity recognition with conditional random fields, feature induction and web-enhanced lexicons. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 188-191." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.174, + 0.882, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xue Mengge, Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Yue Zhang, and Bin Wang. 2020. Coarse-to-Fine Pretraining for Named Entity Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6345-6354, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.276, + 0.882, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takashi Shibuya and Eduard Hovy. 2020. Nested named entity recognition via second-best sequence learning and decoding. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:605-620." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.337, + 0.882, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chuanqi Tan, Wei Qiu, Mosha Chen, Rui Wang, and Fei Huang. 2020. Boundary enhanced neural span classification for nested named entity recognition. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34:9016-9023." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.412, + 0.882, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.5, + 0.882, + 0.591 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.602, + 0.882, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yu Wang, Hanghang Tong, Ziye Zhu, and Yun Li. 2022. Nested named entity recognition: A survey. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 16(6)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.65, + 0.882, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maobin Weng and Weiwen Zhang. 2023. Named entity recognition based on bert-bilstm-span in low resource scenarios. In 2023 15th International Conference on Computer Research and Development (ICCRD), pages 32-37." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.726, + 0.882, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingbin Xu, Hui Jiang, and Sedtawut Watcharawittayakul. 2017. A local detection approach for named entity recognition and mention detection. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1247, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.827, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Urchade Zaratiana, Nadi Tomeh, Pierre Holat, and Thierry Charnois. 2022. Named entity recognition as structured span prediction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Unimodal and Multimodal Induction of Linguistic Structures (UM-IoS), pages 1-10, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7973" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. 2002. Named entity recognition using an HMM-based chunk tagger. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 473-480, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.174, + 0.239, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.212, + 0.297, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.306, + 0.212, + 0.484, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.32, + 0.297, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.308, + 0.32, + 0.484, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.426, + 0.49, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: The average values of Precision, Recall and \\( F^1 \\) scores of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight \\( w \\) (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.535, + 0.487, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetSPANNERSMARTSPANNER
PRF1PRF1
CoNLL0374.2556.1163.6788.9888.8788.92
Few-NERD0.000.000.0047.8129.9036.67
GENIA50.0930.6437.8161.7271.6166.28
ACE0572.4112.0519.6070.2976.4473.23
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.627, + 0.49, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Averaged \\( P, R \\) and \\( F1 \\) values of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 3 independent runs, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 25." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.724, + 0.254, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.744, + 0.49, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Two cases from ACE05 are shown in Table 10, where the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are provided. From Table 10, it could be clearly seen that SMARTSPANNER performs better for NER than SPANNER, and the predicted NEHs are beneficial to improve the precision of NER in SMARTSPANNER." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.433, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Supplement Experimental Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide the results of task analysis on the datasets CoNLL03, FeW-NERD and GENIA," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which are shown in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. From Table 11, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER also obtains much more balanced positive and negative samples on the three datasets. As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, SMARTSPANNER requires significantly fewer samples for training and inferring on the three datasets than SPANNER, enabling much faster training and inferring. Table 13 demonstrates the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the three datasets, which are consistent with the results on ACE05." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.262, + 0.885, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For reference, we report the results of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on ACE05 with different joint training weight \\( w \\) in Fig. 7." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.311, + 0.885, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to the results (Zaratiana et al., 2022), setting a larger epoch value will lead to better results for SpanNER. Therefore, we just increase the training epoch number from 10 to 25 and conduct three independent experiments on the four datasets (using random seeds 1, 2 and 42 to obtain 1,000 training sentences). The comparison results are reported in Table 9. It can be seen that setting a larger epoch number only results in a significant improvement of \\( F1 \\) score for SPANNER on CoNLL03 (with minor improvements on GENIA and ACE05, and no change on FEW-NERD). Moreover, the superiority of SMARTSPANNER over SPANNER remains evident across all four datasets, highlighting the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low-resource scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7974" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.136, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Case 1SentenceHe0was1the2governor3of4my5state6of7Texas8,9 where10there11are12a13whole14lot15of16doctors17.18
Ground Truth NEs(Total 7)(0,0,PER),(2,17,PER),(5,5,PER),(5,17,GPE), (8,8,GPE),(10,10,GPE),(13,17,PER)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 6)(0,0),(2,2),(5,5),(8,8),(10,10),(13,13)
NEs by SPANNER(2 correct,2 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.8446),(5,8,GPE,0.4203),(5,17,PER,0.4736),(8,8,GPE,0.6953)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(6 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,0.9961),(2,2,0.9769),(5,5,0.9995),(8,8,0.9005),(10,10,0.9729),(11,11,0.7172),(13,13,0.9433)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,3 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(6,8,GPE,0.6781),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246),(17,17,PER,0.7493)
Case 2SentenceA0traveler1was2driving3through4Arkansas5when6he7 lost8his9way10and11got12off13the14main15highway16 .17
Ground Truth NEs(Total 5)(0,1,PER),(5,5,GPE),(7,7,PER),(9,9,PER),(14,16,FAC)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 5)(0,0),(5,5),(7,7),(9,9),(14,14)
NEs by SPANNER(4 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.8230),(0,7,PER,0.7019),(5,5,GPE,0.7611),(7,7,PER,0.8407),(9,9,PER,0.5256)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,0 incorrect)(0,0,0.9886),(5,5,0.9680),(7,7,0.9959),(9,9,0.9899),(14,14,0.9180)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,2 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(1,1,PER,0.6204),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.746, + 0.885, + 0.861 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Two cases from ACE05. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence, the ground truth NEs are represented by triples (NE start word index, NE end word index, NE type), and the ground truth NEHs are represented by special spans (same start and end indexes). The NEs predicted by SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are represented by four-tuples (predicted NE start word index, predicted NE end word index, predicted NE type, predicted probability), and the NEHs predicted by SMARTSPANNER are represented by triples (predicted start index, predicted end index, predicted probability). The triples or four-tuples in red indicate incorrect predictions. The rows of “NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs” show the predicted NEs by SMARTSPANNER when all possible spans are used for NE prediction (i.e., the predicted NEHs are not used for span filtering)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7975" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.126, + 0.884, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsMethodsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH21,62012,4461/7.722,59822,1901/8.522,85923,2231/8.1
SP51,62022,6361/14.0672,59846,3511/17.863,01849,4781/16.4
SNSP51,620150,1401/92.7672,598311,2261/119.863,018333,4231/110.5
2,000SSNNEH23,24424,7941/7.625,21444,1461/8.525,70546,9681/8.2
SP53,24444,8431/13.8675,21492,9031/17.866,05499,7181/16.5
SNSP53,244298,9361/92.2675,214619,0371/118.766,054677,0731/111.8
5,000SSNNEH27,86261,0861/7.8212,942109,8781/8.5214,513117,8071/8.1
SP57,862107,3351/13.76712,942229,4651/17.7615,423254,5431/16.5
SNSP57,862727,1921/92.56712,9421,538,1341/118.8615,4231,705,3631/110.6
ALLSSNNEH223,499181,0681/7.72339,6022,880,0601/8.5243,536354,7031/8.1
SP523,499319,0741/13.667339,6026,013,5261/17.7646,984766,6691/16.3
SNSP523,4992,146,0321/91.367339,60240,291,7451/118.6646,9845,133,2361/109.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.884, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Descriptions of the training data of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT means the number of classification categories, # PS means the number of positive samples, and # NS means the number of negative samples." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.418, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsTasksCoNLL03 (# Sentences)Few-NERD (# Sentences)GENIA (# Sentences)
1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH46,66646,66646,66646,666919,162919,162919,162919,16246,87846,87846,87846,878
SP69,75862,20460,42460,3231,697,5691,581,7791,519,0501,452,74993,21985,39080,28678,402
SNSP477,887477,887477,887477,88711,595,32511,595,32511,595,32511,595,325616,491616,491616,491616,491
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.487, + 0.884, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEw-NERD and GENIA (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.625, + 0.884, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# SentsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000NEH82.8795.1388.5272.4591.8881.0166.5888.6276.02
SP70.6569.2569.9448.4512.1819.4628.5269.5740.45
NEH + SP77.8567.7572.45 (↑ 2.51)49.7412.1819.57 (↑ 0.11)41.3665.4650.66 (↑ 6.21)
2,000NEH91.8197.0194.3478.9493.3585.5472.2090.3980.27
SP74.0081.4077.5245.8127.1634.0737.2882.0451.26
NEH + SP87.1680.6683.78 (↑ 6.26)48.5427.0234.69 (↑ 0.62)54.5077.3563.94 (↑ 12.68)
5,000NEH95.5697.6696.6082.8993.9688.0878.5690.2083.98
SP82.2390.4686.1552.5059.4055.7449.1486.7262.74
NEH + SP89.9889.8889.93 (↑ 3.78)57.9758.5658.26 (↑ 2.52)65.6781.2072.61 (↑ 9.87)
ALLNEH96.4297.9597.1887.3194.5690.7981.7189.6485.49
SP89.4491.9490.6861.7471.5566.2855.9288.3668.47
NEH + SP91.2591.5691.40 (↑ 0.72)67.4570.2368.81 (↑ 2.53)71.6182.2276.54 (↑ 8.07)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.828, + 0.884, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: The average values of precision \\((P)\\), recall \\((R)\\) and \\(F1\\) scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7976" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_origin.pdf b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f9bfd9e41ed12fdce0c4a8a2502bc5f04d3623b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/b80e326d-e69c-4af3-9d89-4f2b37ce32cf_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:0cea1002008c7a931e5dba657e0384560c6b96f7d0f7f4ba2f24678bd4adc992 +size 1132520 diff --git a/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/full.md b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25ac406269e612bcb43381cc64c52c59f9ca237e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,378 @@ +# SMARTSPANNER: Making SPANNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios + +Min Zhang, Xiaosong Qiao, Yanqing Zhao, Shimin Tao, Hao Yang + +Huawei Translation Services Center, Beijing, China + +{zhangmin186,qiaoxiaosong,zhaoyanqing,taoshimin,yanghao30}@huawei.com + +# Abstract + +Named Entity Recognition (NER) is one of the most fundamental tasks in natural language processing. Span-level prediction (SPANNER) is more naturally suitable for nested NER than sequence labeling (SEQLAB). However, according to our experiments, the SPANNER method is more sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the $F1$ score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops. In order to improve the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, we propose a simple and effective method SMARTSPANNER, which introduces a Named Entity Head (NEH $^1$ ) prediction task to SPANNER and performs multi-task learning together with the task of span classification. Experimental results demonstrate that the robustness of SPANNER could be greatly improved by SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios constructed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 standard benchmark datasets. + +# 1 Introduction + +NER is a fundamental information extraction task and plays an essential role in natural language processing applications such as information retrieval, question and answering, machine translation and knowledge graphs (Liu et al., 2022). The goal of NER is to extract named entities (NEs) into predefined categories, such as person (PER), location (LOC), organization (ORG) and geo-political entity (GPE). With the rapid evolution of neural architectures (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997; Kalchbrenner et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) and large pretrained models (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020), recent years have seen the paradigm shift of NER systems from sequence labeling (Chiu and Nichols, 2016; Luo + +![](images/01b254c1893fea0d4a2d3966ab4daf678bdf35bd16dafa6618ab6c03863a042b.jpg) +Figure 1: A sentence from ACE05 with 5 nested NEs. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence. + +![](images/17ddc24125535a9308e99923544c5c53139b2c268d3f7840876fe91012251582.jpg) +Figure 2: Averaged $F1$ scores of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 10 independent runs on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FeW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 10. + +et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020) to span prediction (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021). It is pointed out that nested entities are very common in the field of NER (Finkel and Manning, 2009), i.e., a named entity can contain or embed other entities as illustrated in Fig. 1. Compared with SEQLAB, SPANNER has an obvious advantage: All candidate entities can be easily found with different sub-sequences, which is straightforward for nested NER (Fu et al., 2021). + +However, our experiments reveal that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which makes SPANNER hard in low resource scenarios. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER in + +this paper. By introducing a Named Entity Head (NEH) prediction task for each word in given sentences, we perform multi-task learning together with the task of span classification for NER. We conduct experiments on both flat and nested standard benchmark datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05). Experimental results demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER could improve the robustness in low resource scenarios significantly as shown in Fig 2. + +Our contributions are summarized as follows: + +- To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight the robustness problem of SPANNER in low resource scenarios. +- To mitigate this problem, we develop a simple and effective method, named SMARTSPANNER. By introducing the task of NEH prediction, SMARTSPANNER can achieve significant gains in low resource scenarios. +- We provide an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the strong robustness of the method SMARTSPANNER. + +# 2 Related Work + +There has been a long history of research involving NER (McCallum and Li, 2003). Traditional approaches are based on Hidden Markov Model (HMM; Zhou and Su, 2002) or Conditional Random Field (CRF; Lafferty et al., 2001). With the development of deep learning technology (Hinton and Salakhutdinov, 2006), SEQLAB methods such as LSTM-CRF (Huang et al., 2015) and BERT-LSTM-CRF (Devlin et al., 2019) achieve very promising results in the field of NER. However, these methods cannot directly handle the nested structure because they can only assign one label to each token. + +As it is pointed out that named entities are often nested (Finkel and Manning, 2009), various approaches for nested NER have been proposed in recent years (Wang et al., 2022; Shibuya and Hovy, 2020). One of the most representative directions is span-based methods that recognize nested entities by classifying sub-sequences of a sentence (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Zaratiana et al., 2022; Weng and Zhang, 2023). SPANNER methods are naturally suitable for the nested structure because nested entities can be easily detected in different sub-sequences. Although the strengths and weak + +
Percentage10%15%20%50%100%
# sentences1,4982,2482,9977,49314,987
SEQLAB82.2683.9085.7887.8191.01
SPANNER26.9346.1376.6188.9890.72
+ +Table 1: $F1$ scores of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods on the test dataset of CoNLL03 with different percentages of training data and the maximum epoch set to 10. + +nesses of SPANNER have been systematically investigated by Fu et al. (2021), its performance in low resource scenarios is not discussed. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which poses a challenge to the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios. In order to address this challenge, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER. + +It should be noted that the low resource scenarios in this paper refer to those with at least 1,000 labeled sentences, different from the settings for few-shot NER (Huang et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2021) and more common in real-world applications. + +# 3 Methodology + +# 3.1 Problem Description + +The commonly-used NER standard benchmark dataset CoNLL03 (English) (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is selected to show the different sensitivities of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods. $10\%$ , $20\%$ , $50\%$ and $100\%$ of the training data are used to train the models respectively, and the $F1$ scores on the test dataset are reported in Table 1. + +From Table 1, although the performances of SEQLAB and SPANNER on the entire training data are almost the same, the $F1$ score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the training data drops, i.e., the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios needs to be greatly improved. + +# 3.2 NEH for SPANNER + +Given a sentence $S = \{w_{1},\dots ,w_{n}\}$ with $n$ words, and a span $(i,j)$ denoting the sub-sequence in $S$ which starts with $w_{i}$ and ends with $w_{j}$ , $w_{i}$ is an NEH if there is an NE span $(i,j)$ . For example, the words "Reporter0", "Carl1" and "Britain4" in Fig. 1 are NEHs, and the other words are not. + +From the above definition, we could conclude that $w_{i}$ is an NEH, which is a necessary but not suf- + +![](images/c499d24219b8782db527262578909abb44b13fa26a2785a6fde594e83025356a.jpg) +Figure 3: An overview of SMARTSPANNER method, which consists of (a) NEH prediction and (b) span classification. The two parts are jointly trained under the multi-task learning framework, and jointly determine the final results. + +ficient condition for span $(i,j)$ to be an NE. That is to say, if $w_{i}$ is not an NEH, the span $(i,j)$ must not be an NE. Therefore, if we introduce the NEH prediction task for SPANNER, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced in training and inferring. For example, without the NEH prediction task, the number of spans in Fig. 1 (all sub-sequences for the sentence with 11 words) for SPANNER is 66. If the three NEHs in Fig. 1 are correctly predicted, the number of spans (the sub-sequences starting with the words "Reporter $^{0}$ ", "Carl $^{1}$ " and "Britain $^{4}$ ) could be reduced to 28. + +These are the basic ideas of our method SMARTSPANNER. With the introduction of the NEH prediction task, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced, so the difficulty of semantic tag classification in SMARTSPANNER will be easier than in SPANNER. Meanwhile, the NEH prediction task is obviously easier than semantic tag classification (fewer categories and more balanced positive and negative samples). Therefore, with the help of the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER reduces the difficulties of NER and could be more robust in low resource scenarios. + +# 3.3 SMARTSPANNER + +An overview of our SMARTSPANNER method is shown in Fig. 3, which consists of two parts: NEH prediction and span classification. NEH prediction aims to predict whether a word is the first word of + +an entity, and span classification aims to classify spans to corresponding semantic tags. The two parts are jointly trained under a multi-task learning framework with a shared encoder. The encoder is applied to a sentence to obtain contextual word representation, which is shared in downstream NEH prediction and span classification tasks. In this work, the NEH prediction task is treated as a special type of span classification, where the span width is 1 and the number of classes is 2. The span classification task is to aggregate the span information for multi-class classification. During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification. + +# 3.3.1 Encoder + +Considering a sentence $S$ with $n$ tokenized words $\{w_{i}\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ , we convert the words to their contextual embeddings with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) encoder. We generate the input sequence by concatenating a [CLS] token, $\{w_{i}\}_{i = 1}^{n}$ and a [SEP] token, and use a series of $L$ stacked Transformer blocks (TBs) to project the input to a sequence of contextual vectors, i.e., + +$$ +\boldsymbol {h} _ {0}, \dots , \boldsymbol {h} _ {n + 1} = \mathrm {T B} _ {L} ([ \mathrm {C L S} ], w _ {1}, \dots , w _ {n}, [ \mathrm {S E P} ]). \tag {1} +$$ + +# 3.3.2 Span Classification + +Considering a span $(i,j)$ , we use the boundary embeddings and span length embedding to represent + +
CoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# sentences14,9873,4663,684131,76718,82437,64815,0221,6691,8557,2859681,058
# entities23,4995,9425,648339,61748,63396,67647,0064,4615,59624,7003,2183,029
# nested entities------3,2223284482,797352339
avg length13.5914.8212.6024.4824.5924.4526.4925.6727.0518.8218.7716.93
+ +Table 2: Statistics of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets, where the number of entity types are 4, 66, 5 and 7 respectively. + +the span (Fu et al., 2021): + +$$ +\boldsymbol {s} (i, j) = \left[ \boldsymbol {h} _ {i}; \boldsymbol {h} _ {j}; \boldsymbol {z} _ {j - i + 1} \right], \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\pmb{z}_{j - i + 1}$ is the span length embedding, which could be obtained by a learnable look-up table. + +Next, we feed the span representation into a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classifier, and apply a softmax layer to obtain the probability $P_{s}$ to predict its semantic tag. + +$$ +P _ {s} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, j))) \tag {3} +$$ + +Finally, we minimize the cross-entropy loss function: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {s} = - \sum_ {t = 1} ^ {k} \left(y ^ {t} \log P _ {s} ^ {t} + \left(1 - y ^ {t}\right) \log \left(1 - P _ {s} ^ {t}\right)\right), (4) +$$ + +where $k$ is the number of semantic tags, and $y^{t}$ denotes a label indicating whether the span $(i,j)$ is in tag $t$ . + +# 3.3.3 NEH Prediction + +In this work, we treat NEH prediction as binary classification for a special span $(i,i)$ (i.e., only word $w_{i}$ , $1\leq i\leq n$ ) in sentence $S$ . So the NEH probability $P_{h}$ is: + +$$ +P _ {h} = \operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, i))) [:, 1 ], \tag {5} +$$ + +and the cross-entropy loss function is: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {h} = - \left(y _ {h} \log P _ {h} + \left(1 - y _ {h}\right) \log \left(1 - P _ {h}\right)\right), (6) +$$ + +where $y_{h}$ denotes whether the word $w_{i}$ is an NEH. + +# 3.3.4 Joint Training and Inference + +We jointly minimize the following loss for training: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = w \mathcal {L} _ {h} + (1 - w) \mathcal {L} _ {s}, \tag {7} +$$ + +where $\mathcal{L}_h$ and $\mathcal{L}_s$ are the losses of the NEH prediction task and span classification task, and $w$ is the hyper-parameter to balance the two tasks. + +During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification. + +Therefore, in order to keep the training and inferring data distributions consistent, training the span classification model in SMARTSPANNER only requires a part of the spans that are all needed in SPANNER. A selection strategy is designed for each span $(i,j)$ in training: + +$$ +\operatorname {S e l e c t} ((i, j)) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1, \text {i f} w _ {i} \text {i s a n N E H} \\ 1, \text {i f r a n d} < s p \\ 0, \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} , \right. \tag {8} +$$ + +where rand is a randomly generated float number in $[0,1]$ and $sp$ is a hyper-parameter of the selection threshold (0.05 used in this paper). + +An example for this selection strategy is provided to compare the number of total training samples in SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER: Given a sentence having $n$ tokens and $d$ named entities, we could get the number of training samples generated by this sentence for SPANNER ( $N_{sn}$ ) and SMARTSPANNER ( $N_{ssn}$ ) respectively when the max span width is set to the value $m$ : + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} N _ {s n} = n * m - (m - 1) * m / 2 \\ N _ {s s n} \approx n + d * m + (n - d) * m * s p \tag {9} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +It should be noted that the training samples of NEH prediction are included in $N_{ssn}$ (the first term $n$ in the right). Supposing $n = 100, d = 5, m = 10, sp = 0.05$ , we could have $N_{sn} = 955, N_{ssn} \approx 197$ . This means the training samples are greatly reduced in SMARTSPANNER, and thus the training time is also greatly reduced. This is the reason why we name the method "SMART". + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Datasets + +Four standard benchmark datasets CoNLL03 English (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003), + +
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
PRF1PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000SPANNER45.3310.9217.280.000.000.0042.7317.2823.0666.5812.4620.44
SMARTSPANNER77.8567.7572.4549.7412.1919.5741.3665.4650.6651.0360.6055.38
SEQLAB75.2482.5278.3814.4720.9917.10------
2,000SPANNER73.9859.1165.6921.850.000.0138.2645.6741.5453.9245.0248.98
SMARTSPANNER87.1680.6683.7848.5427.0234.6954.5077.3563.9462.6476.3768.82
SEQLAB80.8586.3783.5227.0835.3130.71------
5,000SPANNER87.2484.9886.0955.3919.2928.6257.0073.7264.2863.9977.6270.14
SMARTSPANNER89.9889.8889.9357.9758.5658.2665.6781.2072.6170.4984.3376.79
SEQLAB85.0789.2087.0844.6453.1148.50------
ALLSPANNER90.1591.2990.7267.6270.9969.2670.2681.9475.6573.1185.8378.96
SMARTSPANNER91.2591.5691.4067.4570.2368.8171.6182.2276.5477.5187.0582.00
SEQLAB89.8792.1991.0167.0569.4068.20------
+ +Table 3: Overall results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. The $P$ , $R$ and $F1$ are the mean values in 10 independent runs. Best $F1$ scores are in bold. “# Sents” stands for the number of sentences used for training. + +FEW-NERD (SUP) (Ding et al., 2021), GENIA (Kim et al., 2003) and ACE053 English are selected for evaluation, where CoNLL03 and FEw-NERD are for flat NER and the others are for nested NER. The statistics of these datasets are shown in Table 2. It should be pointed out that we follow Shibuya and Hovy (2020)'s preprocessing steps4 to split GENIA and ACE05 into train, development, and test sets. + +# 4.2 Experiment Settings + +In experiments, we implement the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods based on the source codes by Fu et al. (2021), where the pretrained model bert-base-uncased is used as the encoder. And we implement BERT-CRF as the SEQLAB method for comparison. + +The training datasets for low resource scenarios are constructed by random shuffle on the entire training sentences and extracting the first 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences, where the random seeds in 10 runs are set to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 42 respectively. In addition, the random seed for the results in Table 1 is set to 42. The development datasets of CoNLL03, GENIA and ACE05 are all used in the constructed low resource scenarios. As the development data in Few-NERD is very large (18,824 sentences), we choose the first 2,000 sentences as the development data when the training data contains 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences. + +For the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods, the embedding size of the span width is set + +to 50, the max span width is set to $20^{7}$ . The MLP for span classification takes two layers, which is the same as the setting by Fu et al. (2021). Considering that NEH classification is less challenging compared to span classification, we use single-layer MLP for NEH classification. + +The training epoch number is set to 10, and the batch size is set to 16. During training, the SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB models are optimized by AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with the learning rate set to 0.00001 and a linear warmup scheduler. The values of the hyper-parameters $w$ for joint training and $sp$ for span selection in SMARTSPANNER are set to 0.2 and 0.05 respectively. All models are trained using a single NVIDIA V100 GPU. + +# 4.3 Main Results + +The results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEWNERD, GENIA and ACE05 are reported in Table 3, where the values of the precision $(P)$ , recall $(R)$ and $F1$ score are included (SEQLAB only for flat NER datasets, not for nested). + +From the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER on 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 training sentences, it is obvious that the $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER are greatly better than those of SPANNER on all the four datasets. Specially, when the training data is 1,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER has the most obviously improvement in $F1$ scores (17.28% to 72.45% on CoNLL03, 0.00% to 19.57% on Few-NERD, + +
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN6.910.010.58.0
SSN4.96.47.15.7
↓29%↓36%↓33%↓29%
2,000SN13.719.821.215.9
SSN9.912.814.211.3
↓28%↓36%↓33%↓29%
5,000SN33.649.553.735.1
SSN24.431.935.726.0
↓27%↓35%↓34%↓26%
ALLSN100.11311.3162.458.3
SSN72.6844.8108.041.2
↓27%↓36%↓33%↓29%
+ +Table 4: Training time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the datasets of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. + +
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN40.51029.237.612.7
SSN14.7301.712.25.4
↓ 64%↓ 71%↓ 68%↓ 57%
2,000SN40.71026.737.912.7
SSN14.0280.311.85.1
↓ 66%↓ 73%↓ 69%↓ 60%
5,000SN41.01041.037.812.7
SSN13.5277.311.55.2
↓ 67%↓ 73%↓ 70%↓ 59%
ALLSN41.11041.737.812.7
SSN13.5270.111.15.2
↓ 67%↓ 74%↓ 71%↓ 59%
+ +23.06% to 50.66% on GENIA, and 20.44% to 55.38% on ACE05). Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios. + +From the comparison results of SEQLAB and SMARTSPANNER on the two flat NER datasets, it can be seen that the $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER are better than those of SEQLAB on all low resource settings except on the 1,000 sentences of CoNLL03. It is worth mentioning that SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SEQLAB on all the low resource settings of FEw-NERD - using such settings poses a significant challenging due to the large number of entity types in FEw-NERD. + +Therefore, by introducing the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER greatly improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, even better than SEQLAB. + +# 4.4 Efficiency + +According to our analysis, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER reduces the number of samples (spans) for training and inferring. To verify this, we compare the efficiencies of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER in this section. Table 4 and + +Table 5: Inferring time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. + +
# SentsMethodsTasks# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH23,07215,5531/5.1
SP83,34147,1681/13.1
SNSP83,341207,2811/62.0
2,000SSNNEH26,10030,8741/5.1
SP86,66887,1771/13.1
SNSP86,668412,5291/61.9
5,000SSNNEH215,58478,1791/5.0
SP816,973222,7451/13.1
SNSP816,9731,053,3311/62.1
ALLSSNNEH222,614114,5241/5.1
SP824,614*323,9211/13.2
SNSP824,614*1,545,8361/62.8
+ +* The value is 24,614, not 24,700 shown in Table 2. This is because spans exceeding the max span width (set to 20 in experiments) are not used for training. + +Table 6: Descriptions of ACE05's training data for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT, # PS and # NS mean the number of classification categories, the number of positive samples and the number of negative samples respectively. + +Table 5 report the running time of the two methods on the four datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05) during training and inferring. For training, the running time is the average time to train one epoch. For inferring, the running time is the time to complete NER on the test datasets. + +From Table 4, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER takes at least $26\%$ less training time than SPANNER on both all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets. This is because much fewer negative samples for span classification are used in the training of SMARTSPANNER, according to the selection strategy. + +From Table 5, it could be seen that the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is at least $57\%$ shorter than that of SPANNER on the four test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. This is because only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification in SMARTSPANNER, which reduces the number of spans for inferring greatly. + +From the comparison results in Table 4 and Table 5, SMARTSPANNER is much more efficient than SPANNER during training and inferring on all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets. + +# 5 Analysis + +We have shown the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios. In this section, we aim to take a deeper look and understand what contributes to its final performance. + +
MethodsTasks# Sentences
1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH17,90917,90917,90917,909
SP40,74338,40937,87437,553
SNSP192,302192,302192,302192,302
+ +# 5.1 Task Analysis + +SMARTSPANNER has two tasks, i.e., NEH prediction task and span classification (SP) task, while SPANNER has one task, i.e., SP task. We first provide a detailed comparison of training data for these tasks on ACE05, which are shown in Table 6. + +From Table 6, it could be found that the task of NEH prediction is the easiest, because the number of classification categories is the smallest and the balance of positive and negative samples8 is the best. Meanwhile, due to the more balanced positive and negative samples brought by the selection strategy, the task of span classification in SMARTSPANNER is much easier than that in SPANNER. Although deep learning methods can solve difficult problems, they require large amounts of data. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SPANNER for NER in low-resource scenarios. Furthermore, it could be seen that the total samples of SMARTSPANNER for training are much less than those of SPANNER (about $70\%$ reduction). This is why the training time of SMARTSPANNER is much less than that of SPANNER. + +Next, we compare the number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER and SPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training, as shown in Table 7. It could be clearly seen that the total inferring samples in SMARTSPANNER are greatly less than those in SPANNER (more than $70\%$ reduction). This is why the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is much less. + +Finally, we provide the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training data. In Table 8, the rows of "NEH" list the results of the NEH prediction task, the rows of "SP" list the results of the SP task on all the possible spans, and the rows of "NEH + SP" list + +Table 7: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test dataset of ACE05 (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively). + +
# SentsTasksPRF1
1,000NEH78.0391.8484.33
SP39.3362.1248.13
NEH + SP51.0360.6055.38 (↑ 7.25)
2,000NEH84.4494.8689.34
SP48.6077.9859.87
NEH + SP62.6476.3768.82 (↑ 8.95)
5,000NEH87.6695.9191.60
SP60.6885.9271.12
NEH + SP70.4984.3376.79 (↑ 5.67)
ALLNEH89.7695.9192.73
SP65.0488.5173.71
NEH + SP77.5187.0582.00 (↑ 8.29)
+ +Table 8: The average values of precision $(P)$ , recall $(R)$ and $F1$ scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively). + +the results of SMARTSPANNER (only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification). + +From Table 8, it could be seen that the $F1$ scores of NEH prediction tasks are higher than those of span classification tasks due to the lower task difficulty. When span classification in SMARTSPANNER is used for all possible spans, the precision suffers because of the inconsistent distributions of training and test data (worse than that of SPANNER in Table 3). When NEH prediction is used before span classification (i.e., only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification), the precision rates are greatly improved (more than $10\%$ ), the recall rates are slightly decreased (less than $2\%$ ), and the $F1$ scores are significantly improved (more than $5\%$ ). The reason for the drop of recall rates is that the recall rates of NEH are not $100\%$ . Two cases from the test dataset of ACE05 are shown in A.1. + +The analyses on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA are provided in A.2. + +# 5.2 Hyper-Parameter Analysis + +There are two hyper-parameters (sample selection probability $sp$ and joint training weight $w$ ) for training SMARTSPANNER. In this section, we provide a detailed analysis for the values of these two hyperparameters respectively. + +# 5.2.1 Sample Selection Probability + +We vary the sample selection probability parameter $sp$ from 0 to 1 with step 0.05, and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each + +![](images/61110cfe70e255339d7f8af9d49b1b95749fa82db9201d7d4ae8c3f3df3d9bed.jpg) +Figure 4: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores of NEH prediction on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities $sp$ (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively. + +![](images/0ad70ab25c24899fb997932ad69f213579e68c98ad482da2d5e1c42548bb876a.jpg) +Figure 6: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight $w$ (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively. + +![](images/00cf076287488870ecb7ffe9ad87aaa3903285fa36b1bd0ecf8262013c7b66ee.jpg) +Figure 5: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities $sp$ (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively. + +![](images/f2de1076b2195a06593c804c28b32f053bd6db4c22d15424253e9d8f000f2a64.jpg) + +value of $sp$ on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the results (Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores) of NEH prediction and NER in SMARTSPANNER respectively when the parameter $sp$ varies (the joint training weight $w$ remains at 0.2). + +From Fig. 4, it could be seen that the recall rates of NEH prediction hardly change and the precision rates improve slightly with the increase of the parameter $sp$ . Therefore, the change of the parameter $sp$ has little effect on the task of NEH prediction. That is to say, despite the parameter $sp$ changes, the distribution of the data for span classification + +![](images/546a48fdce2d624668e90a79196a72538e16b8a0db4cbcc06aeb30cb3ee5e23d.jpg) + +![](images/a3283e0414030d03196e03ec51618f7aaed9d95b569dda137ef1304bcec4e378.jpg) + +in SMARTSPANNER during inference is stable. + +From Fig. 5, it could be seen that the $F1$ scores of NER in SMARTSPANNER decreases with the increase of the parameter $sp$ , especially when the training data is small (such as 1,000 sentences). This is due to the inconsistency between training data and inferring data for span classification in SMARTSPANNER (the larger the parameter $sp$ , the higher the inconsistency). Since the robustness of deep learning methods will improve as the amount of data increases, SMARTSPANNER is less sensitive to the parameter $sp$ when the training data increases (such as all sentences). From Fig. 5, it could be seen that 0.05 is a good choice for the parameter $sp$ in low resource scenarios. + +# 5.2.2 Joint Training Weight + +We vary the joint training weight $w$ from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1 and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each value of $w$ on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 6 shows the results (Precision, Recall and $F1$ scores) of NER when the parameter $w$ varies (the sample selection probability parameter $sp$ remains at 0.05). + +From Fig. 6, it could be found that the value of parameter $w$ between 0.2 and 0.4 is suitable for SMARTSPANNER according to the $F1$ scores. And the sensitivity of SMARTSPANNER to parameter $w$ decreases with the increase of training data. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In this paper, it is found that the SPANNER method is sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the performance of SPANNER is worse than SEQLAB in low resource scenarios. In order to alleviate this problem, SMARTSPANNER is proposed by introducing the NEH prediction task into SPANNER in a multi-task learning manner. The comparison results of experiments designed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios than SPANNER, and greatly reduces the running time of training and inferring. In addition, the reasons for the strong robustness of SMARTSPANNER are analyzed in depth on the dataset ACE05. + +# Limitations + +The SMARTSPANNER method proposed in this paper is very effective in low resource scenarios. However, when the training data contains more than 10,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, the advantages of SMARTSPANNER on the CoNLL03 and GENIA datasets are not so obvious. Furthermore, when all the training data of the FEW-NERD dataset (more than 100,000 sentences) is used, the results of SMARTSPANNER even drop a bit. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is not strongly recommended in high resource scenarios. + +# Ethics Statement + +In this section, we discuss the ethical consideration of this work from the following two aspects. First, for SMARTSPANNER, the code, data and pretrained models adopted from previous works are granted for research-purpose usage. Second, SMARTSPANNER improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios by introducing the NEH prediction task. Hence we do not foresee any major risks or negative societal impact of our work. However, like any other ML models, the named entities recognized by our model may not always be completely accurate and hence should be used with caution for real-world applications. + +# References + +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, + +Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. +Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2016. Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM-CNNs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:357-370. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jenny Rose Finkel and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Nested named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 141-150, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jinlan Fu, Xuanjing Huang, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SpanNER: Named entity re-/recognition as span prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7183-7195, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Geoffrey E. Hinton and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786):504-507. +Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780. +Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Few-shot named entity recognition: An empirical baseline study. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10408-10423, Online and Punta Cana, + +Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional lstm-crf models for sequence tagging. Cite arxiv:1508.01991. +Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 655-665, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jin-Dong Kim, Tomoko Ohta, Yuka Tateisi, and Junichi Tsujii. 2003. Genia corpus - a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining. Bioinformatics, 19 Suppl 1:i180-2. +John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '01, page 282-289, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Bill Yuchen Lin, Dong-Ho Lee, Ming Shen, Ryan Moreno, Xiao Huang, Prashant Shiralkar, and Xi-ang Ren. 2020. TriggerNER: Learning with entity triggers as explanations for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8503–8511, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Pan Liu, Yanming Guo, Fenglei Wang, and Guohui Li. 2022. Chinese named entity recognition: The state of the art. Neurocomput., 473(C):37-53. +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. +Ying Luo, Fengshun Xiao, and Hai Zhao. 2020. Hierarchical contextualized representation for named entity recognition. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8441-8448. AAAI Press. + +Andrew McCallum and Wei Li. 2003. Early results for named entity recognition with conditional random fields, feature induction and web-enhanced lexicons. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 188-191. +Xue Mengge, Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Yue Zhang, and Bin Wang. 2020. Coarse-to-Fine Pretraining for Named Entity Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6345-6354, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Takashi Shibuya and Eduard Hovy. 2020. Nested named entity recognition via second-best sequence learning and decoding. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:605-620. +Chuanqi Tan, Wei Qiu, Mosha Chen, Rui Wang, and Fei Huang. 2020. Boundary enhanced neural span classification for nested named entity recognition. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34:9016-9023. +Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc. +Yu Wang, Hanghang Tong, Ziye Zhu, and Yun Li. 2022. Nested named entity recognition: A survey. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 16(6). +Maobin Weng and Weiwen Zhang. 2023. Named entity recognition based on bert-bilstm-span in low resource scenarios. In 2023 15th International Conference on Computer Research and Development (ICCRD), pages 32-37. +Mingbin Xu, Hui Jiang, and Sedtawut Watcharawittayakul. 2017. A local detection approach for named entity recognition and mention detection. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1247, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Urchade Zaratiana, Nadi Tomeh, Pierre Holat, and Thierry Charnois. 2022. Named entity recognition as structured span prediction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Unimodal and Multimodal Induction of Linguistic Structures (UM-IoS), pages 1-10, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. + +GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. 2002. Named entity recognition using an HMM-based chunk tagger. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 473-480, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Appendix + +![](images/5647ee7e167ddc586b5289e4cfc05285a7ae711567417279ccae15ba4d2822b2.jpg) + +![](images/4fec464e380aa2ceb281088798dabe7d6b2a9b85b0fa7473a3166c8d4831cd98.jpg) + +![](images/bc39f3162afc42672c5856dfea86ea9353c4a99fb67c4adc1cdd2462c608d9c8.jpg) +Figure 7: The average values of Precision, Recall and $F^1$ scores of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight $w$ (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively. + +![](images/4d02d6bb25637c87e077c06855f7d24f09bee7d1aca48888cadc7d32a1fb57e5.jpg) + +
DatasetSPANNERSMARTSPANNER
PRF1PRF1
CoNLL0374.2556.1163.6788.9888.8788.92
Few-NERD0.000.000.0047.8129.9036.67
GENIA50.0930.6437.8161.7271.6166.28
ACE0572.4112.0519.6070.2976.4473.23
+ +Table 9: Averaged $P, R$ and $F1$ values of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 3 independent runs, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 25. + +# A.1 Case Study + +Two cases from ACE05 are shown in Table 10, where the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are provided. From Table 10, it could be clearly seen that SMARTSPANNER performs better for NER than SPANNER, and the predicted NEHs are beneficial to improve the precision of NER in SMARTSPANNER. + +# A.2 Supplement Experimental Results + +We provide the results of task analysis on the datasets CoNLL03, FeW-NERD and GENIA, + +which are shown in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. From Table 11, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER also obtains much more balanced positive and negative samples on the three datasets. As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, SMARTSPANNER requires significantly fewer samples for training and inferring on the three datasets than SPANNER, enabling much faster training and inferring. Table 13 demonstrates the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the three datasets, which are consistent with the results on ACE05. + +For reference, we report the results of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on ACE05 with different joint training weight $w$ in Fig. 7. + +According to the results (Zaratiana et al., 2022), setting a larger epoch value will lead to better results for SpanNER. Therefore, we just increase the training epoch number from 10 to 25 and conduct three independent experiments on the four datasets (using random seeds 1, 2 and 42 to obtain 1,000 training sentences). The comparison results are reported in Table 9. It can be seen that setting a larger epoch number only results in a significant improvement of $F1$ score for SPANNER on CoNLL03 (with minor improvements on GENIA and ACE05, and no change on FEW-NERD). Moreover, the superiority of SMARTSPANNER over SPANNER remains evident across all four datasets, highlighting the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low-resource scenarios. + +
Case 1SentenceHe0was1the2governor3of4my5state6of7Texas8,9 where10there11are12a13whole14lot15of16doctors17.18
Ground Truth NEs(Total 7)(0,0,PER),(2,17,PER),(5,5,PER),(5,17,GPE), (8,8,GPE),(10,10,GPE),(13,17,PER)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 6)(0,0),(2,2),(5,5),(8,8),(10,10),(13,13)
NEs by SPANNER(2 correct,2 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.8446),(5,8,GPE,0.4203),(5,17,PER,0.4736),(8,8,GPE,0.6953)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(6 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,0.9961),(2,2,0.9769),(5,5,0.9995),(8,8,0.9005),(10,10,0.9729),(11,11,0.7172),(13,13,0.9433)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,3 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(6,8,GPE,0.6781),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246),(17,17,PER,0.7493)
Case 2SentenceA0traveler1was2driving3through4Arkansas5when6he7 lost8his9way10and11got12off13the14main15highway16 .17
Ground Truth NEs(Total 5)(0,1,PER),(5,5,GPE),(7,7,PER),(9,9,PER),(14,16,FAC)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 5)(0,0),(5,5),(7,7),(9,9),(14,14)
NEs by SPANNER(4 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.8230),(0,7,PER,0.7019),(5,5,GPE,0.7611),(7,7,PER,0.8407),(9,9,PER,0.5256)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,0 incorrect)(0,0,0.9886),(5,5,0.9680),(7,7,0.9959),(9,9,0.9899),(14,14,0.9180)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,2 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(1,1,PER,0.6204),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
+ +Table 10: Two cases from ACE05. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence, the ground truth NEs are represented by triples (NE start word index, NE end word index, NE type), and the ground truth NEHs are represented by special spans (same start and end indexes). The NEs predicted by SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are represented by four-tuples (predicted NE start word index, predicted NE end word index, predicted NE type, predicted probability), and the NEHs predicted by SMARTSPANNER are represented by triples (predicted start index, predicted end index, predicted probability). The triples or four-tuples in red indicate incorrect predictions. The rows of “NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs” show the predicted NEs by SMARTSPANNER when all possible spans are used for NE prediction (i.e., the predicted NEHs are not used for span filtering). + +
# SentsMethodsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH21,62012,4461/7.722,59822,1901/8.522,85923,2231/8.1
SP51,62022,6361/14.0672,59846,3511/17.863,01849,4781/16.4
SNSP51,620150,1401/92.7672,598311,2261/119.863,018333,4231/110.5
2,000SSNNEH23,24424,7941/7.625,21444,1461/8.525,70546,9681/8.2
SP53,24444,8431/13.8675,21492,9031/17.866,05499,7181/16.5
SNSP53,244298,9361/92.2675,214619,0371/118.766,054677,0731/111.8
5,000SSNNEH27,86261,0861/7.8212,942109,8781/8.5214,513117,8071/8.1
SP57,862107,3351/13.76712,942229,4651/17.7615,423254,5431/16.5
SNSP57,862727,1921/92.56712,9421,538,1341/118.8615,4231,705,3631/110.6
ALLSSNNEH223,499181,0681/7.72339,6022,880,0601/8.5243,536354,7031/8.1
SP523,499319,0741/13.667339,6026,013,5261/17.7646,984766,6691/16.3
SNSP523,4992,146,0321/91.367339,60240,291,7451/118.6646,9845,133,2361/109.3
+ +Table 11: Descriptions of the training data of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT means the number of classification categories, # PS means the number of positive samples, and # NS means the number of negative samples. + +
MethodsTasksCoNLL03 (# Sentences)Few-NERD (# Sentences)GENIA (# Sentences)
1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH46,66646,66646,66646,666919,162919,162919,162919,16246,87846,87846,87846,878
SP69,75862,20460,42460,3231,697,5691,581,7791,519,0501,452,74993,21985,39080,28678,402
SNSP477,887477,887477,887477,88711,595,32511,595,32511,595,32511,595,325616,491616,491616,491616,491
+ +Table 12: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEw-NERD and GENIA (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively). + +
# SentsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000NEH82.8795.1388.5272.4591.8881.0166.5888.6276.02
SP70.6569.2569.9448.4512.1819.4628.5269.5740.45
NEH + SP77.8567.7572.45 (↑ 2.51)49.7412.1819.57 (↑ 0.11)41.3665.4650.66 (↑ 6.21)
2,000NEH91.8197.0194.3478.9493.3585.5472.2090.3980.27
SP74.0081.4077.5245.8127.1634.0737.2882.0451.26
NEH + SP87.1680.6683.78 (↑ 6.26)48.5427.0234.69 (↑ 0.62)54.5077.3563.94 (↑ 12.68)
5,000NEH95.5697.6696.6082.8993.9688.0878.5690.2083.98
SP82.2390.4686.1552.5059.4055.7449.1486.7262.74
NEH + SP89.9889.8889.93 (↑ 3.78)57.9758.5658.26 (↑ 2.52)65.6781.2072.61 (↑ 9.87)
ALLNEH96.4297.9597.1887.3194.5690.7981.7189.6485.49
SP89.4491.9490.6861.7471.5566.2855.9288.3668.47
NEH + SP91.2591.5691.40 (↑ 0.72)67.4570.2368.81 (↑ 2.53)71.6182.2276.54 (↑ 8.07)
+ +Table 13: The average values of precision $(P)$ , recall $(R)$ and $F1$ scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively). \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/images.zip b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb8cc80e50ab682679951a56f4dad129ee501a5f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7fc0b4f59ff2cc60a8ea4ca390ac457c09ab65d743a6bf67000e6025bcb20b90 +size 1221301 diff --git a/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/layout.json b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63ce8c0bd37c30200f91e1a12fd8dad635517102 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SmartSpanNER_ Making SpanNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10213 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 75, + 521, + 93 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 75, + 521, + 93 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 75, + 521, + 93 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SMARTSPANNER: Making SPANNER Robust in Low Resource Scenarios" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 119, + 468, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 119, + 468, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 119, + 468, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Min Zhang, Xiaosong Qiao, Yanqing Zhao, Shimin Tao, Hao Yang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 135, + 424, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 135, + 424, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 173, + 135, + 424, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huawei Translation Services Center, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 148, + 506, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 148, + 506, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 148, + 506, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{zhangmin186,qiaoxiaosong,zhaoyanqing,taoshimin,yanghao30}@huawei.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Named Entity Recognition (NER) is one of the most fundamental tasks in natural language processing. Span-level prediction (SPANNER) is more naturally suitable for nested NER than sequence labeling (SEQLAB). However, according to our experiments, the SPANNER method is more sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops. In order to improve the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, we propose a simple and effective method SMARTSPANNER, which introduces a Named Entity Head (NEH" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") prediction task to SPANNER and performs multi-task learning together with the task of span classification. Experimental results demonstrate that the robustness of SPANNER could be greatly improved by SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios constructed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 standard benchmark datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 509, + 154, + 522 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 509, + 154, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 509, + 154, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NER is a fundamental information extraction task and plays an essential role in natural language processing applications such as information retrieval, question and answering, machine translation and knowledge graphs (Liu et al., 2022). The goal of NER is to extract named entities (NEs) into predefined categories, such as person (PER), location (LOC), organization (ORG) and geo-political entity (GPE). With the rapid evolution of neural architectures (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997; Kalchbrenner et al., 2014; Vaswani et al., 2017) and large pretrained models (Devlin et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020), recent years have seen the paradigm shift of NER systems from sequence labeling (Chiu and Nichols, 2016; Luo" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 516, + 260 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 516, + 260 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 516, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 225, + 516, + 260 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "01b254c1893fea0d4a2d3966ab4daf678bdf35bd16dafa6618ab6c03863a042b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 314 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 278, + 526, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: A sentence from ACE05 with 5 nested NEs. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 522, + 445 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 522, + 445 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 522, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 333, + 522, + 445 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "17ddc24125535a9308e99923544c5c53139b2c268d3f7840876fe91012251582.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 529 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Averaged " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 456, + 525, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 10 independent runs on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FeW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 555, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 555, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 555, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020) to span prediction (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021). It is pointed out that nested entities are very common in the field of NER (Finkel and Manning, 2009), i.e., a named entity can contain or embed other entities as illustrated in Fig. 1. Compared with SEQLAB, SPANNER has an obvious advantage: All candidate entities can be easily found with different sub-sequences, which is straightforward for nested NER (Fu et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, our experiments reveal that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which makes SPANNER hard in low resource scenarios. In order to mitigate this problem, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1NEH is the first word of a named entity, for example, \"Carl\" is the NEH of \"Carl Dinnon\" in Fig. 1. If a named entity has only one word, the NEH is itself." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7964" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 7964-7976" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "this paper. By introducing a Named Entity Head (NEH) prediction task for each word in given sentences, we perform multi-task learning together with the task of span classification for NER. We conduct experiments on both flat and nested standard benchmark datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05). Experimental results demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER could improve the robustness in low resource scenarios significantly as shown in Fig 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 207, + 281, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 207, + 281, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 207, + 281, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions are summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 231, + 290, + 399 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 231, + 290, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 231, + 290, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 231, + 290, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight the robustness problem of SPANNER in low resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 282, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 282, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 282, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To mitigate this problem, we develop a simple and effective method, named SMARTSPANNER. By introducing the task of NEH prediction, SMARTSPANNER can achieve significant gains in low resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 360, + 290, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 360, + 290, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 360, + 290, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We provide an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the strong robustness of the method SMARTSPANNER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 161, + 425 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 161, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 412, + 161, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There has been a long history of research involving NER (McCallum and Li, 2003). Traditional approaches are based on Hidden Markov Model (HMM; Zhou and Su, 2002) or Conditional Random Field (CRF; Lafferty et al., 2001). With the development of deep learning technology (Hinton and Salakhutdinov, 2006), SEQLAB methods such as LSTM-CRF (Huang et al., 2015) and BERT-LSTM-CRF (Devlin et al., 2019) achieve very promising results in the field of NER. However, these methods cannot directly handle the nested structure because they can only assign one label to each token." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As it is pointed out that named entities are often nested (Finkel and Manning, 2009), various approaches for nested NER have been proposed in recent years (Wang et al., 2022; Shibuya and Hovy, 2020). One of the most representative directions is span-based methods that recognize nested entities by classifying sub-sequences of a sentence (Xu et al., 2017; Mengge et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020; Fu et al., 2021; Zaratiana et al., 2022; Weng and Zhang, 2023). SPANNER methods are naturally suitable for the nested structure because nested entities can be easily detected in different sub-sequences. Although the strengths and weak" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 119 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 119 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 119 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Percentage10%15%20%50%100%
# sentences1,4982,2482,9977,49314,987
SEQLAB82.2683.9085.7887.8191.01
SPANNER26.9346.1376.6188.9890.72
", + "image_path": "e28771efa48027630821c3c4f5c2ee57264952d18ce0b3b48791fb75ad70defc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 163 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 163 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods on the test dataset of CoNLL03 with different percentages of training data and the maximum epoch set to 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nesses of SPANNER have been systematically investigated by Fu et al. (2021), its performance in low resource scenarios is not discussed. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to highlight that the performance of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the amount of training data drops, which poses a challenge to the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios. In order to address this challenge, we propose a novel method SMARTSPANNER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 321, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 321, + 525, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 321, + 525, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It should be noted that the low resource scenarios in this paper refer to those with at least 1,000 labeled sentences, different from the settings for few-shot NER (Huang et al., 2021; Ding et al., 2021) and more common in real-world applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 399, + 392, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 399, + 392, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 399, + 392, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 428, + 435 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 428, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 428, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Problem Description" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The commonly-used NER standard benchmark dataset CoNLL03 (English) (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003) is selected to show the different sensitivities of SEQLAB and SPANNER methods. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the training data are used to train the models respectively, and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores on the test dataset are reported in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 1, although the performances of SEQLAB and SPANNER on the entire training data are almost the same, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 616 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " score of SPANNER drops much more than that of SEQLAB when the training data drops, i.e., the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios needs to be greatly improved." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 421, + 638 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 421, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 421, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 NEH for SPANNER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = \\{w_{1},\\dots ,w_{n}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " words, and a span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denoting the sub-sequence in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which starts with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and ends with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an NEH if there is an NE span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For example, the words \"Reporter0\", \"Carl1\" and \"Britain4\" in Fig. 1 are NEHs, and the other words are not." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 525, + 752 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the above definition, we could conclude that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 726, + 525, + 752 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an NEH, which is a necessary but not suf-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2Details of implementation are described in Experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7965" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 83, + 509, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 83, + 509, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 83, + 509, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 83, + 509, + 280 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c499d24219b8782db527262578909abb44b13fa26a2785a6fde594e83025356a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 525, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: An overview of SMARTSPANNER method, which consists of (a) NEH prediction and (b) span classification. The two parts are jointly trained under the multi-task learning framework, and jointly determine the final results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ficient condition for span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be an NE. That is to say, if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is not an NEH, the span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " must not be an NE. Therefore, if we introduce the NEH prediction task for SPANNER, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced in training and inferring. For example, without the NEH prediction task, the number of spans in Fig. 1 (all sub-sequences for the sentence with 11 words) for SPANNER is 66. If the three NEHs in Fig. 1 are correctly predicted, the number of spans (the sub-sequences starting with the words \"Reporter" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\", \"Carl" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\" and \"Britain" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 350, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") could be reduced to 28." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These are the basic ideas of our method SMARTSPANNER. With the introduction of the NEH prediction task, the number of spans for semantic tag classification could be greatly reduced, so the difficulty of semantic tag classification in SMARTSPANNER will be easier than in SPANNER. Meanwhile, the NEH prediction task is obviously easier than semantic tag classification (fewer categories and more balanced positive and negative samples). Therefore, with the help of the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER reduces the difficulties of NER and could be more robust in low resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 178, + 713 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 178, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 178, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 SMARTSPANNER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An overview of our SMARTSPANNER method is shown in Fig. 3, which consists of two parts: NEH prediction and span classification. NEH prediction aims to predict whether a word is the first word of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 350, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 350, + 526, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 350, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "an entity, and span classification aims to classify spans to corresponding semantic tags. The two parts are jointly trained under a multi-task learning framework with a shared encoder. The encoder is applied to a sentence to obtain contextual word representation, which is shared in downstream NEH prediction and span classification tasks. In this work, the NEH prediction task is treated as a special type of span classification, where the span width is 1 and the number of classes is 2. The span classification task is to aggregate the span information for multi-class classification. During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 379, + 562 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 379, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 379, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.1 Encoder" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Considering a sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokenized words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{w_{i}\\}_{i = 1}^{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we convert the words to their contextual embeddings with BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) encoder. We generate the input sequence by concatenating a [CLS] token, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{w_{i}\\}_{i = 1}^{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and a [SEP] token, and use a series of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " stacked Transformer blocks (TBs) to project the input to a sequence of contextual vectors, i.e.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 700, + 525, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 700, + 525, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 700, + 525, + 713 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {h} _ {0}, \\dots , \\boldsymbol {h} _ {n + 1} = \\mathrm {T B} _ {L} ([ \\mathrm {C L S} ], w _ {1}, \\dots , w _ {n}, [ \\mathrm {S E P} ]). \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "ee2560820a98495c3dd3fbd09a43ba5b92996ab6a5a6f8076c964a02f6b109bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 428, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 428, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 728, + 428, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.2 Span Classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Considering a span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use the boundary embeddings and span length embedding to represent" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7966" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 526, + 143 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
CoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
TrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTestTrainDevTest
# sentences14,9873,4663,684131,76718,82437,64815,0221,6691,8557,2859681,058
# entities23,4995,9425,648339,61748,63396,67647,0064,4615,59624,7003,2183,029
# nested entities------3,2223284482,797352339
avg length13.5914.8212.6024.4824.5924.4526.4925.6727.0518.8218.7716.93
", + "image_path": "9a389daaae882d2b32e2db19236b9a6a343ad96a4ff798a8b9e1ec98ff8ec5bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 175 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 525, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Statistics of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets, where the number of entity types are 4, 66, 5 and 7 respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 183, + 209 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 183, + 209 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 183, + 209 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the span (Fu et al., 2021):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 220, + 290, + 236 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 220, + 290, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 220, + 290, + 236 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {s} (i, j) = \\left[ \\boldsymbol {h} _ {i}; \\boldsymbol {h} _ {j}; \\boldsymbol {z} _ {j - i + 1} \\right], \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "3944daa33af6ef00941df2f429a1eef2a08f44b062b0c3c0875d2aa50cc81366.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 289, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 289, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 289, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 289, + 271 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{z}_{j - i + 1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 245, + 289, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the span length embedding, which could be obtained by a learnable look-up table." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, we feed the span representation into a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classifier, and apply a softmax layer to obtain the probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to predict its semantic tag." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 337, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 337, + 290, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 337, + 290, + 352 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {s} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, j))) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "360ab36f86dbaec608b308659e931f8568832f50232d9b689f994d67424142c6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we minimize the cross-entropy loss function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 290, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 396, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {s} = - \\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {k} \\left(y ^ {t} \\log P _ {s} ^ {t} + \\left(1 - y ^ {t}\\right) \\log \\left(1 - P _ {s} ^ {t}\\right)\\right), (4)", + "image_path": "691fc8da7f350dadb503c3e43c0315d353ec0661f32df8b92d5d03033c8dd129.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of semantic tags, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes a label indicating whether the span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is in tag " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 290, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 180, + 503 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 180, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 491, + 180, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.3 NEH Prediction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we treat NEH prediction as binary classification for a special span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (i.e., only word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\leq i\\leq n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") in sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". So the NEH probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P_{h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 290, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 571, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 571, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 571, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {h} = \\operatorname {s o f t m a x} (\\operatorname {M L P} (s (i, i))) [:, 1 ], \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "604f24b7611df5e65dde4463e12dc29d21bf118cba619bd3a649b8481aad7135.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 238, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 238, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 238, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and the cross-entropy loss function is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 621, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 621, + 290, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 621, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {h} = - \\left(y _ {h} \\log P _ {h} + \\left(1 - y _ {h}\\right) \\log \\left(1 - P _ {h}\\right)\\right), (6)", + "image_path": "48d3be2c0795683277259812a3310b04c0ff49f51ef37fe40d470d253b0ce3e6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{h}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes whether the word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an NEH." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 667, + 238, + 680 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 667, + 238, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 667, + 238, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.4 Joint Training and Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 290, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 290, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 290, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We jointly minimize the following loss for training:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 708, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 708, + 290, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 708, + 290, + 722 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = w \\mathcal {L} _ {h} + (1 - w) \\mathcal {L} _ {s}, \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "05a482f3781daed364394c6210ce54335a1068a19e9aa4c8477eb62f96df9507.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the losses of the NEH prediction task and span classification task, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hyper-parameter to balance the two tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 524, + 235 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 196, + 524, + 235 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During inference, only the words predicted as NEHs are used to generate candidate spans for span classification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, in order to keep the training and inferring data distributions consistent, training the span classification model in SMARTSPANNER only requires a part of the spans that are all needed in SPANNER. A selection strategy is designed for each span " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i,j)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 237, + 525, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in training:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 339, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 339, + 525, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 339, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {S e l e c t} ((i, j)) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l} 1, \\text {i f} w _ {i} \\text {i s a n N E H} \\\\ 1, \\text {i f r a n d} < s p \\\\ 0, \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} , \\right. \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "918d11aec70a77b468f48b0b5b6285717a0a3ff0082f2cf70bd46197b61da021.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where rand is a randomly generated float number in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[0,1]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 524, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a hyper-parameter of the selection threshold (0.05 used in this paper)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "An example for this selection strategy is provided to compare the number of total training samples in SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER: Given a sentence having " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " named entities, we could get the number of training samples generated by this sentence for SPANNER (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{sn}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and SMARTSPANNER (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{ssn}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") respectively when the max span width is set to the value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 550, + 524, + 577 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} N _ {s n} = n * m - (m - 1) * m / 2 \\\\ N _ {s s n} \\approx n + d * m + (n - d) * m * s p \\tag {9} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "4f8bd3c85840d63d5f396e4f043790163d2e772ffa45a95a1dc50a6a6f78bcef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It should be noted that the training samples of NEH prediction are included in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{ssn}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (the first term " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the right). Supposing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n = 100, d = 5, m = 10, sp = 0.05" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we could have " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{sn} = 955, N_{ssn} \\approx 197" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 524, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This means the training samples are greatly reduced in SMARTSPANNER, and thus the training time is also greatly reduced. This is the reason why we name the method \"SMART\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 707, + 390, + 720 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 707, + 390, + 720 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 707, + 390, + 720 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 371, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 371, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 371, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Four standard benchmark datasets CoNLL03 English (Tjong Kim Sang and De Meulder, 2003)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7967" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
PRF1PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000SPANNER45.3310.9217.280.000.000.0042.7317.2823.0666.5812.4620.44
SMARTSPANNER77.8567.7572.4549.7412.1919.5741.3665.4650.6651.0360.6055.38
SEQLAB75.2482.5278.3814.4720.9917.10------
2,000SPANNER73.9859.1165.6921.850.000.0138.2645.6741.5453.9245.0248.98
SMARTSPANNER87.1680.6683.7848.5427.0234.6954.5077.3563.9462.6476.3768.82
SEQLAB80.8586.3783.5227.0835.3130.71------
5,000SPANNER87.2484.9886.0955.3919.2928.6257.0073.7264.2863.9977.6270.14
SMARTSPANNER89.9889.8889.9357.9758.5658.2665.6781.2072.6170.4984.3376.79
SEQLAB85.0789.2087.0844.6453.1148.50------
ALLSPANNER90.1591.2990.7267.6270.9969.2670.2681.9475.6573.1185.8378.96
SMARTSPANNER91.2591.5691.4067.4570.2368.8171.6182.2276.5477.5187.0582.00
SEQLAB89.8792.1991.0167.0569.4068.20------
", + "image_path": "e19d2097febfa14ca2849398ba35e38bd4a66b73c68b144702cf1d444286dcfd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Overall results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the mean values in 10 independent runs. Best " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores are in bold. “# Sents” stands for the number of sentences used for training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 290, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 292, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "FEW-NERD (SUP) (Ding et al., 2021), GENIA (Kim et al., 2003) and ACE053 English are selected for evaluation, where CoNLL03 and FEw-NERD are for flat NER and the others are for nested NER. The statistics of these datasets are shown in Table 2. It should be pointed out that we follow Shibuya and Hovy (2020)'s preprocessing steps4 to split GENIA and ACE05 into train, development, and test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 190, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 190, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 410, + 190, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Experiment Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 291, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In experiments, we implement the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods based on the source codes by Fu et al. (2021), where the pretrained model bert-base-uncased is used as the encoder. And we implement BERT-CRF as the SEQLAB method for comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 291, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 291, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training datasets for low resource scenarios are constructed by random shuffle on the entire training sentences and extracting the first 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences, where the random seeds in 10 runs are set to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 42 respectively. In addition, the random seed for the results in Table 1 is set to 42. The development datasets of CoNLL03, GENIA and ACE05 are all used in the constructed low resource scenarios. As the development data in Few-NERD is very large (18,824 sentences), we choose the first 2,000 sentences as the development data when the training data contains 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 sentences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 684, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods, the embedding size of the span width is set" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 526, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to 50, the max span width is set to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 292, + 526, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The MLP for span classification takes two layers, which is the same as the setting by Fu et al. (2021). Considering that NEH classification is less challenging compared to span classification, we use single-layer MLP for NEH classification." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training epoch number is set to 10, and the batch size is set to 16. During training, the SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB models are optimized by AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with the learning rate set to 0.00001 and a linear warmup scheduler. The values of the hyper-parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for joint training and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 374, + 526, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for span selection in SMARTSPANNER are set to 0.2 and 0.05 respectively. All models are trained using a single NVIDIA V100 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 394, + 532 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 394, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 520, + 394, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results of SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER and SEQLAB on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEWNERD, GENIA and ACE05 are reported in Table 3, where the values of the precision " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", recall " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " score are included (SEQLAB only for flat NER datasets, not for nested)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER on 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000 training sentences, it is obvious that the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of SMARTSPANNER are greatly better than those of SPANNER on all the four datasets. Specially, when the training data is 1,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER has the most obviously improvement in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 621, + 527, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores (17.28% to 72.45% on CoNLL03, 0.00% to 19.57% on Few-NERD," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7This setting is to ensure the proportions of entities with a length exceeding 20 in the four datasets do not exceed " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 268, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 268, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 718, + 268, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2006T06 4https://github.com/yahshibu/ nested-ner-tac12020 5https://github.com/neulab/SpanNER 6https://huggingface.co/bert-base-uncased" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7968" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 190 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN6.910.010.58.0
SSN4.96.47.15.7
↓29%↓36%↓33%↓29%
2,000SN13.719.821.215.9
SSN9.912.814.211.3
↓28%↓36%↓33%↓29%
5,000SN33.649.553.735.1
SSN24.431.935.726.0
↓27%↓35%↓34%↓26%
ALLSN100.11311.3162.458.3
SSN72.6844.8108.041.2
↓27%↓36%↓33%↓29%
", + "image_path": "bd826c839aaf25971f8681138ddd7bf282e8a1e3906a7989094b84c46a8225eb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 247, + 289, + 369 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 290, + 236 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 290, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 290, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Training time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the datasets of CoNLL03, Few-NERD, GENIA and ACE05." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 247, + 289, + 369 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 247, + 289, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 247, + 289, + 369 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsMethodsCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIAACE05
1,000SN40.51029.237.612.7
SSN14.7301.712.25.4
↓ 64%↓ 71%↓ 68%↓ 57%
2,000SN40.71026.737.912.7
SSN14.0280.311.85.1
↓ 66%↓ 73%↓ 69%↓ 60%
5,000SN41.01041.037.812.7
SSN13.5277.311.55.2
↓ 67%↓ 73%↓ 70%↓ 59%
ALLSN41.11041.737.812.7
SSN13.5270.111.15.2
↓ 67%↓ 74%↓ 71%↓ 59%
", + "image_path": "93778ad178b0807f0869140a19214b20efd1e52ecf30f09c1bf4586949adc15e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 289, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 289, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 289, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "23.06% to 50.66% on GENIA, and 20.44% to 55.38% on ACE05). Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the comparison results of SEQLAB and SMARTSPANNER on the two flat NER datasets, it can be seen that the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of SMARTSPANNER are better than those of SEQLAB on all low resource settings except on the 1,000 sentences of CoNLL03. It is worth mentioning that SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SEQLAB on all the low resource settings of FEw-NERD - using such settings poses a significant challenging due to the large number of entity types in FEw-NERD." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, by introducing the NEH prediction task, SMARTSPANNER greatly improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios, even better than SEQLAB." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 142, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 142, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 142, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Efficiency" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to our analysis, compared with SPANNER, SMARTSPANNER reduces the number of samples (spans) for training and inferring. To verify this, we compare the efficiencies of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER in this section. Table 4 and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 184 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 290, + 425 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 290, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 290, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Inferring time (in seconds) of SPANNER (SN) and SMARTSPANNER (SNN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 184 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 184 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 525, + 184 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsMethodsTasks# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH23,07215,5531/5.1
SP83,34147,1681/13.1
SNSP83,341207,2811/62.0
2,000SSNNEH26,10030,8741/5.1
SP86,66887,1771/13.1
SNSP86,668412,5291/61.9
5,000SSNNEH215,58478,1791/5.0
SP816,973222,7451/13.1
SNSP816,9731,053,3311/62.1
ALLSSNNEH222,614114,5241/5.1
SP824,614*323,9211/13.2
SNSP824,614*1,545,8361/62.8
", + "image_path": "37e65f4e51367ec01f6fe20d5d834056a7bd5000ba4fe7df8efd15f04579cbd7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 185, + 520, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 185, + 520, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 185, + 520, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* The value is 24,614, not 24,700 shown in Table 2. This is because spans exceeding the max span width (set to 20 in experiments) are not used for training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 525, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 208, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Descriptions of ACE05's training data for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT, # PS and # NS mean the number of classification categories, the number of positive samples and the number of negative samples respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 308, + 525, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5 report the running time of the two methods on the four datasets (CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05) during training and inferring. For training, the running time is the average time to train one epoch. For inferring, the running time is the time to complete NER on the test datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 4, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER takes at least " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "26\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " less training time than SPANNER on both all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets. This is because much fewer negative samples for span classification are used in the training of SMARTSPANNER, according to the selection strategy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 5, it could be seen that the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is at least " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "57\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shorter than that of SPANNER on the four test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05. This is because only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification in SMARTSPANNER, which reduces the number of spans for inferring greatly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 602, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From the comparison results in Table 4 and Table 5, SMARTSPANNER is much more efficient than SPANNER during training and inferring on all low resource settings and the entire data of all the four datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 690, + 368, + 703 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 690, + 368, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 690, + 368, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have shown the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low resource scenarios. In this section, we aim to take a deeper look and understand what contributes to its final performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7969" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 124 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 124 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 289, + 124 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsTasks# Sentences
1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH17,90917,90917,90917,909
SP40,74338,40937,87437,553
SNSP192,302192,302192,302192,302
", + "image_path": "b8f50eee04950ce9c156e231e0eaa7ae4fbeae03c4fe91cd651e14bf449f827a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 160, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 160, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 160, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Task Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 290, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 219, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SMARTSPANNER has two tasks, i.e., NEH prediction task and span classification (SP) task, while SPANNER has one task, i.e., SP task. We first provide a detailed comparison of training data for these tasks on ACE05, which are shown in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 291, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 6, it could be found that the task of NEH prediction is the easiest, because the number of classification categories is the smallest and the balance of positive and negative samples8 is the best. Meanwhile, due to the more balanced positive and negative samples brought by the selection strategy, the task of span classification in SMARTSPANNER is much easier than that in SPANNER. Although deep learning methods can solve difficult problems, they require large amounts of data. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is more effective than SPANNER for NER in low-resource scenarios. Furthermore, it could be seen that the total samples of SMARTSPANNER for training are much less than those of SPANNER (about " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reduction). This is why the training time of SMARTSPANNER is much less than that of SPANNER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, we compare the number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER and SPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training, as shown in Table 7. It could be clearly seen that the total inferring samples in SMARTSPANNER are greatly less than those in SPANNER (more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 291, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reduction). This is why the inferring time of SMARTSPANNER is much less." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we provide the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training data. In Table 8, the rows of \"NEH\" list the results of the NEH prediction task, the rows of \"SP\" list the results of the SP task on all the possible spans, and the rows of \"NEH + SP\" list" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 132, + 290, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test dataset of ACE05 (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsTasksPRF1
1,000NEH78.0391.8484.33
SP39.3362.1248.13
NEH + SP51.0360.6055.38 (↑ 7.25)
2,000NEH84.4494.8689.34
SP48.6077.9859.87
NEH + SP62.6476.3768.82 (↑ 8.95)
5,000NEH87.6695.9191.60
SP60.6885.9271.12
NEH + SP70.4984.3376.79 (↑ 5.67)
ALLNEH89.7695.9192.73
SP65.0488.5173.71
NEH + SP77.5187.0582.00 (↑ 8.29)
", + "image_path": "805c98c0af277ca562d9f33fd80ec2db8674a6fc4f2b95ef23d81bf69647ac6d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: The average values of precision " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", recall " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 232, + 525, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the results of SMARTSPANNER (only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Table 8, it could be seen that the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of NEH prediction tasks are higher than those of span classification tasks due to the lower task difficulty. When span classification in SMARTSPANNER is used for all possible spans, the precision suffers because of the inconsistent distributions of training and test data (worse than that of SPANNER in Table 3). When NEH prediction is used before span classification (i.e., only the spans that start with the predicted NEHs are used for span classification), the precision rates are greatly improved (more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), the recall rates are slightly decreased (less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores are significantly improved (more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). The reason for the drop of recall rates is that the recall rates of NEH are not " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Two cases from the test dataset of ACE05 are shown in A.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 524, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 524, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 585, + 524, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The analyses on CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA are provided in A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 456, + 634 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 456, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 456, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Hyper-Parameter Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There are two hyper-parameters (sample selection probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and joint training weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 640, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") for training SMARTSPANNER. In this section, we provide a detailed analysis for the values of these two hyperparameters respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 474, + 729 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 474, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 716, + 474, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.1 Sample Selection Probability" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We vary the sample selection probability parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from 0 to 1 with step 0.05, and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The positive samples means the spans are NEHs in NEH prediction task or NEs in span classification task, otherwise they are negative samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7970" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 177, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 177, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 177, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 177, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "61110cfe70e255339d7f8af9d49b1b95749fa82db9201d7d4ae8c3f3df3d9bed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: The average values of Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of NEH prediction on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 290, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 182, + 72, + 286, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 72, + 286, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 72, + 286, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 72, + 286, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0ad70ab25c24899fb997932ad69f213579e68c98ad482da2d5e1c42548bb876a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: The average values of Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 251, + 525, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 176, + 503 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 176, + 503 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 176, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 335, + 176, + 503 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "00cf076287488870ecb7ffe9ad87aaa3903285fa36b1bd0ecf8262013c7b66ee.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The average values of Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different sample selection probabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (from 0 to 1 with step 0.05) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 335, + 286, + 504 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 335, + 286, + 504 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 335, + 286, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 335, + 286, + 504 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f2de1076b2195a06593c804c28b32f053bd6db4c22d15424253e9d8f000f2a64.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the results (Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores) of NEH prediction and NER in SMARTSPANNER respectively when the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " varies (the joint training weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " remains at 0.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Fig. 4, it could be seen that the recall rates of NEH prediction hardly change and the precision rates improve slightly with the increase of the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Therefore, the change of the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has little effect on the task of NEH prediction. That is to say, despite the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " changes, the distribution of the data for span classification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 411, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 411, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 411, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 72, + 411, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "546a48fdce2d624668e90a79196a72538e16b8a0db4cbcc06aeb30cb3ee5e23d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 415, + 72, + 521, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 72, + 521, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 72, + 521, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 415, + 72, + 521, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a3283e0414030d03196e03ec51618f7aaed9d95b569dda137ef1304bcec4e378.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 511, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 511, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 511, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in SMARTSPANNER during inference is stable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Fig. 5, it could be seen that the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of NER in SMARTSPANNER decreases with the increase of the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", especially when the training data is small (such as 1,000 sentences). This is due to the inconsistency between training data and inferring data for span classification in SMARTSPANNER (the larger the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the higher the inconsistency). Since the robustness of deep learning methods will improve as the amount of data increases, SMARTSPANNER is less sensitive to the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " when the training data increases (such as all sentences). From Fig. 5, it could be seen that 0.05 is a good choice for the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in low resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 442, + 596 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 442, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 582, + 442, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2.2 Joint Training Weight" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We vary the joint training weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1 and perform 10 independent runs of SMARTSPANNER for each value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the dataset ACE05. Fig. 6 shows the results (Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores) of NER when the parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " varies (the sample selection probability parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "sp" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 525, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " remains at 0.05)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From Fig. 6, it could be found that the value of parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " between 0.2 and 0.4 is suitable for SMARTSPANNER according to the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores. And the sensitivity of SMARTSPANNER to parameter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " decreases with the increase of training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7971" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, it is found that the SPANNER method is sensitive to the amount of training data, i.e., the performance of SPANNER is worse than SEQLAB in low resource scenarios. In order to alleviate this problem, SMARTSPANNER is proposed by introducing the NEH prediction task into SPANNER in a multi-task learning manner. The comparison results of experiments designed on the CoNLL03, FEW-NERD, GENIA and ACE05 datasets demonstrate that SMARTSPANNER is much more robust in low resource scenarios than SPANNER, and greatly reduces the running time of training and inferring. In addition, the reasons for the strong robustness of SMARTSPANNER are analyzed in depth on the dataset ACE05." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 306, + 131, + 318 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 306, + 131, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 306, + 131, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The SMARTSPANNER method proposed in this paper is very effective in low resource scenarios. However, when the training data contains more than 10,000 sentences, compared with SPANNER, the advantages of SMARTSPANNER on the CoNLL03 and GENIA datasets are not so obvious. Furthermore, when all the training data of the FEW-NERD dataset (more than 100,000 sentences) is used, the results of SMARTSPANNER even drop a bit. Therefore, SMARTSPANNER is not strongly recommended in high resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 487, + 158, + 499 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 487, + 158, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 487, + 158, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we discuss the ethical consideration of this work from the following two aspects. First, for SMARTSPANNER, the code, data and pretrained models adopted from previous works are granted for research-purpose usage. Second, SMARTSPANNER improves the robustness of SPANNER in low resource scenarios by introducing the NEH prediction task. Hence we do not foresee any major risks or negative societal impact of our work. However, like any other ML models, the named entities recognized by our model may not always be completely accurate and hence should be used with caution for real-world applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 708, + 127, + 721 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 708, + 127, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 708, + 127, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 527, + 181 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 527, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 527, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 190, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2016. Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM-CNNs. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:357-370." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 526, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 526, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 348, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 348, + 526, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 348, + 526, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ning Ding, Guangwei Xu, Yulin Chen, Xiaobin Wang, Xu Han, Pengjun Xie, Haitao Zheng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few-NERD: A few-shot named entity recognition dataset. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3198-3213, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 454, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jenny Rose Finkel and Christopher D. Manning. 2009. Nested named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 141-150, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 526, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinlan Fu, Xuanjing Huang, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. SpanNER: Named entity re-/recognition as span prediction. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7183-7195, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 526, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 526, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 526, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Geoffrey E. Hinton and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786):504-507." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 526, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 526, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. *Neural Computation*, 9(8):1735-1780." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaxin Huang, Chunyuan Li, Krishan Subudhi, Damien Jose, Shobana Balakrishnan, Weizhu Chen, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. 2021. Few-shot named entity recognition: An empirical baseline study. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10408-10423, Online and Punta Cana," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7972" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 289, + 135 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 289, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 102, + 289, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional lstm-crf models for sequence tagging. Cite arxiv:1508.01991." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 143, + 289, + 221 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 143, + 289, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 143, + 289, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 655-665, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 289, + 272 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 289, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 289, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jin-Dong Kim, Tomoko Ohta, Yuka Tateisi, and Junichi Tsujii. 2003. Genia corpus - a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining. Bioinformatics, 19 Suppl 1:i180-2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 357 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 357 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 289, + 357 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '01, page 282-289, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 289, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 365, + 289, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 289, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 289, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 473, + 289, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bill Yuchen Lin, Dong-Ho Lee, Ming Shen, Ryan Moreno, Xiao Huang, Prashant Shiralkar, and Xi-ang Ren. 2020. TriggerNER: Learning with entity triggers as explanations for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8503–8511, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 289, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 289, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 289, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pan Liu, Yanming Guo, Fenglei Wang, and Guohui Li. 2022. Chinese named entity recognition: The state of the art. Neurocomput., 473(C):37-53." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 610, + 289, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ying Luo, Fengshun Xiao, and Hai Zhao. 2020. Hierarchical contextualized representation for named entity recognition. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8441-8448. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew McCallum and Wei Li. 2003. Early results for named entity recognition with conditional random fields, feature induction and web-enhanced lexicons. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 188-191." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 524, + 223 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 524, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 146, + 524, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xue Mengge, Bowen Yu, Zhenyu Zhang, Tingwen Liu, Yue Zhang, and Bin Wang. 2020. Coarse-to-Fine Pretraining for Named Entity Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6345-6354, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 232, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takashi Shibuya and Eduard Hovy. 2020. Nested named entity recognition via second-best sequence learning and decoding. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:605-620." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 524, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 283, + 524, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chuanqi Tan, Wei Qiu, Mosha Chen, Rui Wang, and Fei Huang. 2020. Boundary enhanced neural span classification for nested named entity recognition. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34:9016-9023." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 346, + 524, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 346, + 524, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 346, + 524, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, pages 142-147." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 420, + 524, + 497 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 420, + 524, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 420, + 524, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000-6010, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 524, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 506, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yu Wang, Hanghang Tong, Ziye Zhu, and Yun Li. 2022. Nested named entity recognition: A survey. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 16(6)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 546, + 524, + 602 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 546, + 524, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 546, + 524, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maobin Weng and Weiwen Zhang. 2023. Named entity recognition based on bert-bilstm-span in low resource scenarios. In 2023 15th International Conference on Computer Research and Development (ICCRD), pages 32-37." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 524, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 524, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 610, + 524, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingbin Xu, Hui Jiang, and Sedtawut Watcharawittayakul. 2017. A local detection approach for named entity recognition and mention detection. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1247, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 695, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Urchade Zaratiana, Nadi Tomeh, Pierre Holat, and Thierry Charnois. 2022. Named entity recognition as structured span prediction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Unimodal and Multimodal Induction of Linguistic Structures (UM-IoS), pages 1-10, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7973" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. 2002. Named entity recognition using an HMM-based chunk tagger. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 473-480, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 142, + 161 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 142, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 146, + 142, + 161 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 176, + 268 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 176, + 268 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 176, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 178, + 176, + 268 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5647ee7e167ddc586b5289e4cfc05285a7ae711567417279ccae15ba4d2822b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 182, + 178, + 287, + 268 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 178, + 287, + 268 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 178, + 287, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 178, + 287, + 268 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4fec464e380aa2ceb281088798dabe7d6b2a9b85b0fa7473a3166c8d4831cd98.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 269, + 176, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 269, + 176, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 269, + 176, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 269, + 176, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bc39f3162afc42672c5856dfea86ea9353c4a99fb67c4adc1cdd2462c608d9c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: The average values of Precision, Recall and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F^1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on the test dataset of ACE05 with different joint training weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 358, + 291, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (from 0.1 to 0.9 with step 0.1) in 10 independent runs when 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences are used for training respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 183, + 269, + 287, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 269, + 287, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 269, + 287, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 269, + 287, + 346 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4d02d6bb25637c87e077c06855f7d24f09bee7d1aca48888cadc7d32a1fb57e5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 449, + 289, + 520 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 449, + 289, + 520 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 449, + 289, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 449, + 289, + 520 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetSPANNERSMARTSPANNER
PRF1PRF1
CoNLL0374.2556.1163.6788.9888.8788.92
Few-NERD0.000.000.0047.8129.9036.67
GENIA50.0930.6437.8161.7271.6166.28
ACE0572.4112.0519.6070.2976.4473.23
", + "image_path": "56ef47cb5d7737f44015e05942776a67083a60e02658d9a407305d55581d63f5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Averaged " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P, R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER methods over 3 independent runs, where the models are trained on 1,000 sentences randomly sampled from the training data with the maximum epoch set to 25." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 608, + 151, + 622 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 608, + 151, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 608, + 151, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 291, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Two cases from ACE05 are shown in Table 10, where the results of SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are provided. From Table 10, it could be clearly seen that SMARTSPANNER performs better for NER than SPANNER, and the predicted NEHs are beneficial to improve the precision of NER in SMARTSPANNER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 257, + 742 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 257, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 257, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Supplement Experimental Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide the results of task analysis on the datasets CoNLL03, FeW-NERD and GENIA," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 218 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which are shown in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. From Table 11, it could be seen that SMARTSPANNER also obtains much more balanced positive and negative samples on the three datasets. As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, SMARTSPANNER requires significantly fewer samples for training and inferring on the three datasets than SPANNER, enabling much faster training and inferring. Table 13 demonstrates the results of the two tasks in SMARTSPANNER on the three datasets, which are consistent with the results on ACE05." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For reference, we report the results of NEH prediction in SMARTSPANNER on ACE05 with different joint training weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Fig. 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 526, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to the results (Zaratiana et al., 2022), setting a larger epoch value will lead to better results for SpanNER. Therefore, we just increase the training epoch number from 10 to 25 and conduct three independent experiments on the four datasets (using random seeds 1, 2 and 42 to obtain 1,000 training sentences). The comparison results are reported in Table 9. It can be seen that setting a larger epoch number only results in a significant improvement of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 261, + 526, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " score for SPANNER on CoNLL03 (with minor improvements on GENIA and ACE05, and no change on FEW-NERD). Moreover, the superiority of SMARTSPANNER over SPANNER remains evident across all four datasets, highlighting the robustness of SMARTSPANNER in low-resource scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7974" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 526, + 619 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 526, + 619 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 114, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Case 1SentenceHe0was1the2governor3of4my5state6of7Texas8,9 where10there11are12a13whole14lot15of16doctors17.18
Ground Truth NEs(Total 7)(0,0,PER),(2,17,PER),(5,5,PER),(5,17,GPE), (8,8,GPE),(10,10,GPE),(13,17,PER)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 6)(0,0),(2,2),(5,5),(8,8),(10,10),(13,13)
NEs by SPANNER(2 correct,2 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.8446),(5,8,GPE,0.4203),(5,17,PER,0.4736),(8,8,GPE,0.6953)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(6 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,0.9961),(2,2,0.9769),(5,5,0.9995),(8,8,0.9005),(10,10,0.9729),(11,11,0.7172),(13,13,0.9433)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,3 incorrect)(0,0,PER,0.9465),(5,5,PER,0.8316),(6,8,GPE,0.6781),(8,8,GPE,0.9542),(10,10,GPE,0.7904),(11,17,PER,0.6768),(13,17,PER,0.8246),(17,17,PER,0.7493)
Case 2SentenceA0traveler1was2driving3through4Arkansas5when6he7 lost8his9way10and11got12off13the14main15highway16 .17
Ground Truth NEs(Total 5)(0,1,PER),(5,5,GPE),(7,7,PER),(9,9,PER),(14,16,FAC)
Ground Truth NEHs(Total 5)(0,0),(5,5),(7,7),(9,9),(14,14)
NEs by SPANNER(4 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.8230),(0,7,PER,0.7019),(5,5,GPE,0.7611),(7,7,PER,0.8407),(9,9,PER,0.5256)
NEHs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,0 incorrect)(0,0,0.9886),(5,5,0.9680),(7,7,0.9959),(9,9,0.9899),(14,14,0.9180)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER(5 correct,1 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs(5 correct,2 incorrect)(0,1,PER,0.9403),(0,5,PER,0.5006),(1,1,PER,0.6204),(5,5,GPE,0.9541),(7,7,PER,0.8839),(9,9,PER,0.7767),(14,16,FAC,0.4102)
", + "image_path": "4b4e849081ece78496733354937b2d0b43756131192ab517e6c48a60ae043b08.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 526, + 724 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 526, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 526, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Two cases from ACE05. The superscript of each word indicates its index in the sentence, the ground truth NEs are represented by triples (NE start word index, NE end word index, NE type), and the ground truth NEHs are represented by special spans (same start and end indexes). The NEs predicted by SPANNER and SMARTSPANNER are represented by four-tuples (predicted NE start word index, predicted NE end word index, predicted NE type, predicted probability), and the NEHs predicted by SMARTSPANNER are represented by triples (predicted start index, predicted end index, predicted probability). The triples or four-tuples in red indicate incorrect predictions. The rows of “NEs by SMARTSPANNER without NEHs” show the predicted NEs by SMARTSPANNER when all possible spans are used for NE prediction (i.e., the predicted NEHs are not used for span filtering)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7975" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 525, + 226 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 525, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 105, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsMethodsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS# CAT# PS# NS# PS / # NS
1,000SSNNEH21,62012,4461/7.722,59822,1901/8.522,85923,2231/8.1
SP51,62022,6361/14.0672,59846,3511/17.863,01849,4781/16.4
SNSP51,620150,1401/92.7672,598311,2261/119.863,018333,4231/110.5
2,000SSNNEH23,24424,7941/7.625,21444,1461/8.525,70546,9681/8.2
SP53,24444,8431/13.8675,21492,9031/17.866,05499,7181/16.5
SNSP53,244298,9361/92.2675,214619,0371/118.766,054677,0731/111.8
5,000SSNNEH27,86261,0861/7.8212,942109,8781/8.5214,513117,8071/8.1
SP57,862107,3351/13.76712,942229,4651/17.7615,423254,5431/16.5
SNSP57,862727,1921/92.56712,9421,538,1341/118.8615,4231,705,3631/110.6
ALLSSNNEH223,499181,0681/7.72339,6022,880,0601/8.5243,536354,7031/8.1
SP523,499319,0741/13.667339,6026,013,5261/17.7646,984766,6691/16.3
SNSP523,4992,146,0321/91.367339,60240,291,7451/118.6646,9845,133,2361/109.3
", + "image_path": "3ec6bb42c7f2800502cb2b802d1b3e2d87213a69bfed7f21a8f98fb3e151948b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 351, + 525, + 401 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 270 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 525, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Descriptions of the training data of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods, where # CAT means the number of classification categories, # PS means the number of positive samples, and # NS means the number of negative samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 351, + 525, + 401 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 351, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 351, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsTasksCoNLL03 (# Sentences)Few-NERD (# Sentences)GENIA (# Sentences)
1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL1,0002,0005,000ALL
SSNNEH46,66646,66646,66646,666919,162919,162919,162919,16246,87846,87846,87846,878
SP69,75862,20460,42460,3231,697,5691,581,7791,519,0501,452,74993,21985,39080,28678,402
SNSP477,887477,887477,887477,88711,595,32511,595,32511,595,32511,595,325616,491616,491616,491616,491
", + "image_path": "cb4894d3ac13352274ece7b5cbdc53fcfe336d55cb57b533794f1025f7307462.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 525, + 525, + 689 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 525, + 446 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 525, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 525, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: Number of inferring samples for the tasks in SMARTSPANNER (SSN) and SPANNER (SN) methods on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEw-NERD and GENIA (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 525, + 525, + 689 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 525, + 525, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 525, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# SentsTasksCoNLL03Few-NERDGENIA
PRF1PRF1PRF1
1,000NEH82.8795.1388.5272.4591.8881.0166.5888.6276.02
SP70.6569.2569.9448.4512.1819.4628.5269.5740.45
NEH + SP77.8567.7572.45 (↑ 2.51)49.7412.1819.57 (↑ 0.11)41.3665.4650.66 (↑ 6.21)
2,000NEH91.8197.0194.3478.9493.3585.5472.2090.3980.27
SP74.0081.4077.5245.8127.1634.0737.2882.0451.26
NEH + SP87.1680.6683.78 (↑ 6.26)48.5427.0234.69 (↑ 0.62)54.5077.3563.94 (↑ 12.68)
5,000NEH95.5697.6696.6082.8993.9688.0878.5690.2083.98
SP82.2390.4686.1552.5059.4055.7449.1486.7262.74
NEH + SP89.9889.8889.93 (↑ 3.78)57.9758.5658.26 (↑ 2.52)65.6781.2072.61 (↑ 9.87)
ALLNEH96.4297.9597.1887.3194.5690.7981.7189.6485.49
SP89.4491.9490.6861.7471.5566.2855.9288.3668.47
NEH + SP91.2591.5691.40 (↑ 0.72)67.4570.2368.81 (↑ 2.53)71.6182.2276.54 (↑ 8.07)
", + "image_path": "d4dcd0e83a07278434f5cc4cf737e292f1d9262b1bdb3fea3fe5b192b6a03b99.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: The average values of precision " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(P)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", recall " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 696, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " scores of the two tasks (NEH and SP) in SMARTSPANNER on the test datasets of CoNLL03, FEW-NERD and GENIA in 10 independent runs (1,000, 2,000, 5,000 and all sentences for training respectively)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7976" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_content_list.json b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c324db8a486107d8b6c12448d0554fcda9ad9002 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2562 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 191, + 89, + 805, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Revanth Gangi Reddy Hao Bai Wentao Yao Sharath Chandra Etagi Suresh Heng Ji ChengXiang Zhai", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 161, + 149, + 838, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 183, + 677, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{revanth3, haob2, wentaoy4, sce3, hengji, czhai}@illinois.edu", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 200, + 808, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Open-domain dialog involves generating search queries that help obtain relevant knowledge for holding informative conversations. However, it can be challenging to determine what information to retrieve when the user is passive and does not express a clear need or request. To tackle this issue, we present a novel approach that focuses on generating internet search queries that are guided by social commonsense. Specifically, we leverage a commonsense dialog system to establish connections related to the conversation topic, which subsequently guides our query generation. Our proposed framework addresses passive user interactions by integrating topic tracking, commonsense response generation and instruction-driven query generation. Through extensive evaluations, we show that our approach1 overcomes limitations of existing query generation techniques that rely solely on explicit dialog information, and produces search queries that are more relevant, specific, and compelling, ultimately resulting in more engaging responses.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 618, + 258, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conversational systems have evolved to include personal assistants, task-oriented bots, and open-domain dialog agents for casual conversations. For these agents to maintain engaging and informative discussions, it is crucial to access external knowledge. Holding a knowledge-powered dialog (Dinan et al.; Komeili et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023a) typically involves the generation of a search query that can help gather the most relevant information to continue the conversation. While such queries are more obvious when the user explicitly asks for certain information, a.k.a. conversational information seeking (Zamani et al., 2022), it is unclear what information should be pursued when users are passive, disengaged, and do not provide", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 643, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/69b2fa24020a41caf6f11dd8f4119e60aec479d8b1a3dec382b2c5b32d110bb2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Our proposed query generation vs a baseline query generator. The commonsense responder identifies associations related to the dialog topic (e.g., movies $\\rightarrow$ reviews) and provides a latent directive (in the form of a response) to guide the generation of search queries." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 250, + 877, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "clear guidance for the conversation (Hardy et al., 2021). Nevertheless, in open-domain conversations, users can introduce any topic, and designing a comprehensive algorithm that can produce a relevant query in response to a random user topic poses a unique, complex challenge that has not been explored in prior research.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 884, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To tackle this challenge, we propose to integrate social commonsense reasoning for the generation of search queries in knowledge-powered conversations. Social commonsense (Moore, 2006) refers to the general knowledge about social situations and human behavior used to connect conversation topics and guide discussions. We thus hypothesize that by leveraging a deeper understanding of social commonsense and the unspoken cues that guide human conversation, chatbots can become more", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Code and models are available here: https://github.com/gangiswag/dialog-query-generation", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "873", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 873-885", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "adept at navigating passive conversations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 85, + 423, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Concretely, we introduce a novel framework that uses a commonsense response as a latent directive for an instruction-following query generator. Our approach incorporates the use of topic tracking (§2.1) to first identify the main point of discussion, followed by commonsense-based response generation that can associate concepts to the main topic to give a latent commonsense directive (§2.2). Finally, we use instruction-driven query generation (§2.3) to output a search query that adheres to the latent directive within the commonsense response.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 101, + 489, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our method overcomes the limitations of existing techniques (Shuster et al., 2022a,b; Cai et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023b) that solely depend on explicit information present in the conversation to generate search queries. Such an approach is suboptimal in case of passive conversations, where the human isn't necessarily asking for any specific information. Figure 1 shows an example comparing our approach against a baseline query generation system (Shuster et al., 2022b). Our topic tracking identifies 'The Conjuring' as the subject, with the commonsense responder making the association movie $\\rightarrow$ reviews to output a latent commonsense directive that refers to discuss movie reviews. This directive guides the search query generator to output a query for the movie reviews, the results of which lead to a more engaging bot response compared to the baseline, as can be seen in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 279, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 A Novel Query Generation Framework", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 485, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present our framework for generating search queries by leveraging commonsense reasoning. Our approach consists of three main components: topic tracking to pinpoint the core subject, commonsense-based response generation that relates concepts with the primary topic and provides a latent commonsense directive, and instruction-driven query generation to produce a search query capable of retrieving relevant information that follows the commonsense directive. Figure 2 illustrates how these components are integrated, with each step described in detail below.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Fine-Grained Topic Tracking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 391, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Topic tracking (Nakata et al., 2002) aims to identify the primary subject of the discussion in free-form dialogs, and has been demonstrated (Guo et al., 2018) to improve the coherence of dialog systems. Unlike previous approaches (Khatri et al., 2018)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ab8ca92e3462c625b35cfd0df12bb870afbe552928ab37ba006140cf023f4159.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Interaction of different components within our proposed query generation framework." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 884, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that track a fixed set of broad high-level topics (e.g., movies, sport), our objective is to detect unconstrained, finer-grained topics (such as movie/actor names or teams). For fine-grained topic tracking, we apply an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) to identify the current topic from the dialog context. We utilize the prompt in Figure 2 and rely on instruction-tuned models with strong zero-shot abilities (Wei et al., 2021) due to lack of training data for such topic tracking in $\\text{dialog}^2$ . An alternative topic tracking approach could follow Shuster et al. (2022a); Adolphs et al. (2022), extracting topics as relevant entities grounding the final response.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 324, + 884, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Commonsense-Based Directive", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 798, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Social commonsense-based dialog systems (Kim et al., 2022a,b; Zhou et al., 2021) typically demonstrate a fundamental understanding of handling and responding to specific topics or situations. They involve using external commonsense knowledge graphs such as ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) or ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019) to collect triples for response generation (Zhou et al., 2022), or distilling such knowledge into language models (LM) through large-scale pretraining (Kim et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2023) for direct response generation. In this work, we adopt the latter approach, by using a pretrained LM to derive the commonsense directive in the form of a response.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, we use Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a), which was trained on socially-grounded synthetic dialogues generated by prompting InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) using contextualized commonsense knowledge from ATOMIC. Cosmo takes", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 882, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We note that topic tracking is related to open-domain dialog, and is different from state tracking (Williams et al., 2013) which is specific to task-oriented dialog.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 881, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "874", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "a situation narrative and role instruction as input, and generates a response based on the dialog context. We also integrate the topic tracking output into the situation narrative definition, as illustrated in Figure 2. Subsequently, Cosmo's output serves as the latent commonsense directive to guide search query generation, which is discussed next.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Instruction-Driven Query Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 208, + 457, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given the dialog context, conversation topic and a latent directive in the form of a commonsense response, we aim to generate a search query to obtain relevant information for continuing the conversation. We utilize an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) for query generation, by prompting (see Figure 2) it to transform the commonsense response into a search query, while incorporating the fine-grained topic to enhance relevance and specificity. Essentially, the commonsense response embodies the bot's informational requirement, guiding it to obtain the mentioned information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 229, + 490, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 260, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 460, + 206, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dataset We use the Wizard of Internet (WoI) (Komeili et al., 2022) dataset for our experiments. WoI is a human-human dialog corpus for knowledge-powered conversations, with one of the speakers having internet access to gather information for generating responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 481, + 489, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Models and Baselines The topic-tracker is based on Flan-T5 large (770M) (Chung et al., 2022) while the commonsense response generation uses the 3B version of Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a). The query generator is also based on the Flan-T5 large model. We compare our query generation approach primarily against Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b), a state of the art open-domain conversational agent. We also compare against a version of our approach that does not incorporate the Cosmo response for query generation, termed Flan T5 w/o Cosmo.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 588, + 489, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finetuning with ChatGPT Annotations Our approach uses an instruction-tuned Flan T5 model in a zero-shot setting for topic tracking and query generation. To improve performance, we separately finetune the topic-tracker and query generator using ChatGPT annotations (the same prompt as Flan T5 is used to obtain silver labels from ChatGPT). To create finetuning data, we choose turns corresponding to internet search from the Woi training", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "set, yielding 20k examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 714, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Internet Search and Response Generation We obtain search results by scoring passages from the top-3 Bing Search pages using a reranker3. With our primary focus being query generation, we simply prompt ChatGPT to generate the response by incorporating the top search result given the dialog context. We also consider a \"no query\" baseline that corresponds to generating responses directly from ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version) without internet search. For both search query generation and final response generation, we employ the nucleus sampling method (Holtzman et al., 2019) with $P$ set at 0.9 and a temperature of 0.7. We set max tokens to 40 and 100 for search query generation and final response generation respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 884, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 362, + 640, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our evaluation, we focus on WoI test set with dialog turns that had search queries annotated for generating responses, while specifically targeting \"passive turns\" where users don't explicitly request information. Using an intent detection model (Khatri et al., 2018), we identify and remove turns related to information or opinion requests, and randomly selected 200 examples for human evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 884, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation We conducted a human study with four experienced NLP students to evaluate the quality of generated search queries and responses. Queries were assessed based on relevance, specificity, usefulness, and potential to maintain user engagement in the dialog. Responses were evaluated for engagement, coherence, and informativeness. Detailed guidelines are in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 520, + 884, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Evaluation Recent studies, like G-EVAL (Liu et al., 2023) and GPTScore (Fu et al., 2023), show that LLMs such as GPT-4 can effectively evaluate natural language generations and align well with human assessments. Therefore, we utilize GPT-4 for automatic evaluation, prompting4 it to provide an overall score (ranging from 1-10) for search queries and final responses. As seen in §3.3, our human study results corroborate GPT-4 evaluations. Additionally, we use a ranker model (Hedayatnia et al., 2022) trained on the Alexa Prize Socialbot Grand Challenge (Johnston et al., 2023) response selection data (Ram et al., 2018) for response evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 658, + 885, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3We use the ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 model.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 891, + 821, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Detailed GPT-4 prompts are in the appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 811, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "875", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0829144fc482909a3aace2f18375d43403eacf63ad641a4f33d362dc753c1d0c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Query Generation ApproachSearch QueryFinal Response
HumanAutomaticHumanAutomatic
Rel.Spe.Use.Int.GPT-4Eng.Info.Coh.RankerGPT-4
No Query-----2.711.873.1178.966.2
Blender Bot 33.132.292.612.2835.12.853.192.8875.468.0
Flan T5 w/o Cosmo3.383.213.063.0244.33.013.272.9276.967.6
Ours (Zero-shot)3.59*3.51*3.39*3.29*49.9*3.133.353.0078.670.6*
Ours (Finetuned)4.16*4.05*3.98*3.91*72.2*3.293.313.1080.772.1
ChatGPT4.514.494.484.4580.7-----
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 80, + 860, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Evaluation of different query generation approaches on the WoiI dataset, based on the quality of search queries and final responses. For query generation (left), Finetuned refers to leveraging dataset dialogs, while zero-shot corresponds to instruction-tuned. For response generation (right), responses from ChatGPT are conditioned on internet search results obtained using the corresponding queries. The acronyms for human evaluation are: Relevance, Specificity, Usefulness, Interestingness, Engagement, Informativeness, and Coherence. * corresponds to statistical significance $\\left( {\\left| z\\right| > {3.3}}\\right.$ and $p < {0.05}$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 223, + 882, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 218, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Quality of generated search query Table 1 (left) shows the results of human and automatic evaluation of search queries. Mainly, we notice that instruction-tuned models outperform Blender Bot 3 significantly, and using Cosmo's commonsense response as a directive for guiding query generation with Flan T5 shows consistent improvements. Lastly, substantial enhancements in query quality are observed upon fine-tuning the zero-shot system with ChatGPT annotations. By computing the Spearman correlation between automatic metrics (GPT-4) and overall score for human evaluations (average of four aspect ratings), we found a strong correlation (0.674) between the two measures.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 349, + 489, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Quality of final responses Table 1 (right) shows results for evaluation of the generated responses. We see that directly generating a response from ChatGPT without internet search can still lead to a very coherent response, but is less engaging and very uninformative. Our proposed query generation framework leads to consistent improvements across all aspects of the final response, particularly with high engagement scores. Notably, boosting engagement, or the likelihood of continued humanbot interaction, is crucial in passive conversations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 582, + 489, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 228, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction-Following Capability We study the impact of the query generator's instruction-following capability on utilizing the commonsense directive (i.e., cosmo output) to generate better queries. Using GPT-4 preference evaluation, we explore how increasing the query generator's size5", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 789, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e3453b0fa86d75d1c9257413393cbf5781c767dc92c92038a771304838f62d0b.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 328, + 880, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e1d95f8b6aefc44c905adf67154f4ff85df01b16431279246766249da0754071.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Examining the impact of a larger model for query generation, as evaluated by GPT-4's preference." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
RelevantSpecificOverall
W/O Topic Tracker43.0%39.5%39.0%
With Topic Tracker57.0%60.5%61.0%
", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 464, + 873, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Aspect-wise vs overall relative preference scores, based on GPT-4 evaluation, for search queries generated with and without the topic tracking component in our framework.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 519, + 882, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "influences the quality of generated queries both with and without the commonsense directive. Figure 3 reveals that incorporating the commonsense directive (a) significantly enhances query quality as model size increases, and (b) leads to greater improvement for larger models (67.5% for XXL vs 53.5% for Large). Hence, a more robust instruction-tuned model effectively leverages the commonsense directive in generating better queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 882, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Benefit of Topic Tracking Within our framework, topic tracking serves to (a) maintain coherence between the generated query and the most recent discussion subject, and (b) assist in shaping Cosmo's situation narrative (refer to prompts in figure 2). Here, we study the benefit of topic tracking by removing it from the Cosmo and query generator inputs and evaluating the final query quality. Using GPT-4 for automatic preference evaluation, we compare queries generated with and without the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5As per Chung et al. (2022), larger instruction-tuned models usually have better instruction-following capability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "876", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "topic tracker. Table 2 shows results from the study, with GPT-4 finding queries generated by involving topic tracking better, particularly for relevance and specificity.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Error Categorization We examined 50 low-scoring examples $^6$ from the human evaluation of search queries produced by the zero-shot approach. The main error categories were: (i) Incorrect Topic $(31.4\\%)$ - topic tracker failed to identify the current discussion subject, (ii) Trivial Query $(29.4\\%)$ - query was obvious or already answered in the conversation history, (iii) Query Instruction Mismatch $(23.5\\%)$ - query generator misunderstands instructions, and outputs conversational questions instead, and (iv) other irrelevant queries $(15.7\\%)$ . After finetuning with ChatGPT annotations, $70.6\\%$ of the queries significantly improved, while the rest maintained a more or less similar quality level. The breakdown of examples that continue to score low after finetuning is as follows: $19\\%$ result from Incorrect Topic, $41\\%$ from Trivial Queries, $5\\%$ from Query Instruction Mismatch, and $35\\%$ from other unrelated queries. Notably, finetuning effectively reduces $67\\%$ of Trivial Query errors, $75\\%$ of Incorrect Topic errors, and over $90\\%$ of Query Instruction Mismatch errors. This suggests that finetuning enhances topic tracking capabilities (resulting in fewer Incorrect Topic errors) and ensures better adherence to search query generation instructions (leading to a decrease in Query Instruction Mismatch errors).", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 158, + 490, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion and Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 401, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce a novel framework that leverages commonsense to enhance the generation of search queries in internet-powered dialog. Our results show that incorporating a commonsense-based directive yields search queries with improved relevance, specificity and appeal, fostering user engagement in otherwise passive conversations. Future work will use more intricate social narratives by incorporating user preferences from past conversations, to align commonsense directives towards individual interests.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 633, + 489, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 822, + 278, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank Amazon Inc. for providing a grant partially supporting the work of the team. We thank the Amazon Alexa Prize team for their", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 487, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "great support, guidance, and help. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, the Blender NLP group and CharmBana team members for their valuable feedback and comments.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 159, + 613, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We expect the following limitations for our approach:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 184, + 882, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Focusing only on turns involving search: Our methodology primarily targets the generation of search queries, hence we chose only those turns from the WoI dataset that contained annotated search queries. A more pragmatic approach would also require a search decision module to determine when it is essential to seek external information.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 223, + 884, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Assuming topic continuity in discussion: Our method assumes a continuous presence of a discussion topic. Nevertheless, situations like topic shifts can cause temporary absence of a topic, which our approach does not consider. For instance, when the human suggests, \"Let's discuss something else,\" there is no current topic for the discussion.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 360, + 882, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethical Considerations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 495, + 710, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We raise the following ethical concerns from leveraging internet search for open-domain dialog:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 520, + 882, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Toxicity of retrieved content: There is a need for a toxicity filter or a content moderation system to ensure that the retrieved content is safe, non-offensive, and free from any form of hate speech, discrimination, or harassment.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 558, + 882, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Privacy concerns: Using Internet search for dialog systems can raise privacy concerns, as users might be discussing or sharing personal or sensitive information in their conversations. It is crucial to implement proper data anonymization and encryption techniques to protect users' privacy.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 646, + 882, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Reliability and credibility of sources: Dialog systems must be cautious when referring to information from the Internet, as the content may not always be accurate or reliable. Verifying the credibility of sources and cross-referencing is essential to ensure that the information provided by the system is reliable and trustworthy.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 768, + 884, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Qualitative examples are provided in the appendix", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 450, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "877", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Leonard Adolphs, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022. Reason first, then respond: Modular generation for knowledge-infused dialogue. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022.", + "Mingzhu Cai, Siqi Bao, Xin Tian, Huang He, Fan Wang, and Hua Wu. 2022. Query enhanced knowledge-intensive conversation via unsupervised joint modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09588.", + "Maximillian Chen, Alexandros Papangelis, Chenyang Tao, Seokhwan Kim, Andy Rosenbaum, Yang Liu, Zhou Yu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2023. Places: Prompting language models for social conversation synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03269.", + "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416.", + "Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04166.", + "Fenfei Guo, Angeliki Metallinou, Chandra Khatri, Anirudh Raju, Anu Venkatesh, and Ashwin Ram. 2018. Topic-based evaluation for conversational bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03622.", + "Amelia Hardy, Ashwin Paranjape, and Christopher Manning. 2021. Effective social chatbot strategies for increasing user initiative. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 99-110, Singapore and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Behnam Hedayatnia, Di Jin, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. A systematic evaluation of response selection for open domain dialogue. In SIGDIAL 2022.", + "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Michael Johnston, Cris Flagg, Anna Gottardi, Sattvik Sahai, Yao Lu, Samyuth Sagi, Luke Dai, Prasoon Goyal, Behnam Hedayatnia, Lucy Hu, Di Jin, Patrick Lange, Shaohua Liu, Sijia Liu, Daniel Pressel, Hangjie Shi, Zhejia Yang, Chao Zhang, Desheng Zhang, Leslie Ball, Kate Bland, Shui Hu, Osman Ipek, James Jeun, Heather Rocker, Lavina Vaz, Akshaya Iyengar, Yang Liu, Arindam Mandal, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Reza Ghanadan. 2023. Advancing" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 107, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "open domain dialog: The fifth alexa prize socialbot grand challenge. In Alexa Prize SocialBot Grand Challenge 5 Proceedings.", + "Chandra Khatri, Rahul Goel, Behnam Hedayatnia, Angeliki Metallinou, Raefer Gabriel, and Arindam Mandal. 2018. Contextual topic modeling for dialogue systems. In SLT 2018.", + "Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, et al. 2022a. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10465.", + "Hyunwoo Kim, Youngjae Yu, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Daniel Khashabi, Gunhee Kim, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2022b. Prosocialdialog: A prosocial backbone for conversational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12688.", + "Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8460-8478.", + "Tuan M. Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023a. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems. In Proc. The 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL2023).", + "Tuan M Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023b. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems.", + "Sha Li, Mahdi Namazifar, Di Jin, Mohit Bansal, Heng Ji, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Enhancing knowledge selection for grounded dialogues via document semantic graphs. In Proc. The 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT2022).", + "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. Gpteval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634.", + "Chris Moore. 2006. The development of commonsense psychology.", + "Takayuki Nakata, Shinichi Ando, and Akitoshi Okumura. 2002. Topic detection based on dialogue history. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "878", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ashwin Ram, Rohit Prasad, Chandra Khatri, Anu Venkatesh, Raefer Gabriel, Qing Liu, Jeff Nunn, Behnam Hedayatnia, Ming Cheng, Ashish Nagar, et al. 2018. Conversational ai: The science behind the alexa prize. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03604.", + "Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 3027-3035.", + "Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13224.", + "Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, et al. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188.", + "Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 31.", + "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652.", + "Jason D Williams, Antoine Raux, Deepak Ramachandran, and Alan W Black. 2013. The dialog state tracking challenge. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference, pages 404-413.", + "Jing Xu, Megan Ung, Mojtaba Komeili, Kushal Arora, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2022. Learning new skills after deployment: Improving open-domain internet-driven dialogue with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03270.", + "Hamed Zamani, Johanne R Trippas, Jeff Dalton, and Filip Radlinski. 2022. Conversational information seeking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08808.", + "Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2021. Commonsense-focused dialogues for response generation: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 121-132.", + "Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Think before you speak: Explicitly generating implicit commonsense" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "knowledge for response generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1252.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 85, + 880, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "879", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 326, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Wizard of Internet Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 109, + 374, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Wizard of Internet (WoI) dataset (Komeili et al., 2022) comprises a vast collection of external knowledge-based conversations, allowing agents to leverage internet search to obtain relevant information. We utilize a training subset of WoI consisting of 6,029 conversations with 29,371 turns. Upon transforming the dataset, models are employed to sequentially generate three items for each bot utterance with human annotated search queries: the ChatGPT topic tracking output, commonsense directive from Cosmo, and the ChatGPT search query. From this, 20k instances are sampled to form the finetuning data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 130, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Models and Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 350, + 332, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 (Chung et al., 2022) We employ the Flan T5 (Large, 770M) as the model for entity tracking and query generation. Given the context, we incorporate the prompt depicted in Figure 2 into the Flan T5 input using the entity and query created by ChatGPT as the ground truth for finetuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 487, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a) We use the 3B variant of Cosmo model as our social commonsense-based response generator. The model has been trained on 1.5 million synthetically generated social dialogs from SODA (Kim et al., 2022a). Cosmo has been shown to be capable of managing conversations across diverse dialog situations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 487, + 588 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b) Blender Bot 3 (BB3) is a unified sequence-to-sequence language model designed for modular dialogue systems, which appends instruction tokens to the generated text. BB3 employs R2C2 (Shuster et al., 2022b) as the language model to create queries, consisting of a 2.7 billion-parameter Transformer architecture with 22 encoder and 22 decoder layers, pretrained on pushshift.io Reddit and RoBERTa + CC100en data (Shuster et al., 2022a). Furthermore, BB3 finetunes R2C2 on a variety of query datasets, such as the Wizard of Internet and Feedback on Interactive Talk & Search (FITS) (Xu et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Qualitative Examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 816, + 332, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we show some qualitative examples for the search queries generated by different approaches, and the corresponding responses generated by incorporating results obtained using the query. Table 3 shows an example for each error type.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/afd0f0d963478a85bf83c5ab3573502400742f9834a1286216dead37f6d3587a.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "ChatGPT Response Generation", + "Figure 4: ChatGPT prompt for generating the bot response by incorporating search content." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 574, + 108, + 816, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dialog Context", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 519, + 309, + 600, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot: Seventeen always does great things for promotions on social media! \nUser: Yes they do, Their music is the best, Their dance choreography are even better! \nGold Bot response: They add an emotional tone to the choreography, which is awesome.", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 321, + 867, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Direct ChatGPT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 519, + 378, + 606, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Glad to hear that you enjoy both their music and dance performances!", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 388, + 867, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Blender Bot 3", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 411, + 593, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: seventeen", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 423, + 606, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Yes, Seventeen's name reflects the unique way they are structured as a group with 13 members divided into three units.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 434, + 865, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 456, + 700, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: what is the best song on seventeen?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 467, + 727, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song on the list ranking the best of all time?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 478, + 863, + 497 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 499, + 685, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: What is Seventeen's most popular song?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 511, + 751, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song yet? Click the link to make your voice heard in the ranking of their greatest hits.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 521, + 863, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 543, + 739, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: \"What are some of Seventeen's most popular social media promotions?\"", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 555, + 865, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: It's great to hear that you appreciate Seventeen's social media presence, have you seen any of our favorite campaign examples from 2022 such as KFC's #UnboringMornings or Reddit's Super Bowl Awareness Campaign?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 575, + 863, + 614 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dialog Context", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 642, + 600, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot: I have heard that carrots probably originated in Persia.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 653, + 803, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: I didn't know they originated in Persia. I have always hated them so I didn't care where they were from.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 665, + 863, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gold Bot response: What is your favorite skyscraper to visit?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 686, + 811, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Direct ChatGPT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 701, + 606, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: That's interesting to know, even if you don't like them.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 712, + 831, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Blender Bot 3", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 725, + 593, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: carrots", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 736, + 593, + 745 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Despite your dislike for them, carrots are actually a highly nutritious and beneficial root vegetable.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 747, + 863, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 768, + 700, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: where did the origin of carrots come from?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 778, + 763, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Yes, carrots were first cultivated in parts of Asia and the Middle East and were brought to Europe by the Arabs in the 10th century.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 791, + 863, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 812, + 685, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: What are the different theories about the origin of carrots?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 824, + 833, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Carrots have a single origin in Central Asia, but their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia and were selectively bred over the centuries to produce the familiar garden vegetable.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 835, + 863, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 521, + 866, + 739, + 875 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query: What are some theories about where carrots originated in Persia?", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 877, + 863, + 887 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Yes, carrots actually have a single origin in Central Asia and their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia, which is still the centre of diversity for the wild carrot.", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 888, + 863, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "880", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b97556449ef93254c7fabfa1659e18d28eddc8df08044e02365d5ed032f52a30.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Error Type (Ratio)Examples
Entity Incorrect Topic (31.4%)Context\nBot: In flames is such an interesting swedish band.\nUser: Yeah they have quite a few albums I think.\nBot: yeah they have 12 studio albums!\nUser: That's awesome. I'd love to find other bands that sound like them.\nBot: Wormrot is a metal band that is popular\nUser: Thanks, I'll be sure to check them out, I love going to live music shows, not just metal.\nCosmo Response\nBot: Yeah, live music is always a great experience.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Rock band\nQuery: What band is Wormrot?\nProblem: Entity tracker is too general and query does not track a topic transition\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Wormrot (metal band)\nQuery: What are some notable live performances by Wormrot?
Query Trivial (29.4%)Context\nBot: Have you been hiking lately?\nUser: We have been especially with all the current issues, being outside is the only way to stay sane.\nBot: Do you sign up for the AllTrailsPro newsletter? They offer some great suggestions on trails to try\nUser: Yes i have actually been on that newsletter for years, they also have an amazing app that shows you what is around and how hard the hike is.\nCosmo Response\nBot: That sounds like a great app! i would love to try it out sometime.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Hiking\nQuery: What is the AllTrailsPro newsletter about?\nProblem: The generated query was already answered previously so it's not interesting\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Hiking\nQuery: What are some popular hiking trails in the AllTrailsPro newsletter?
Query Instruction Mismatch (23.5%)Context\nBot: I love Federer and Nadal when they paired up and played.\nUser: Yes that was great. Are you interested in becoming a tennis champion?\nBot: That would be a dream come true, but Tennis requires lots of physical effort.\nUser: It does. I have been training in Miami for years now. How long have you played?\nBot: I have had some lessons from Miami Tennis instructors and played for two years.\nUser: That is fantastic. I have played my whole life. My dream is to one day compete in Wimbledon\nCosmo Response\nBot: That would be amazing. I hope to one day compete in Wimbledon too.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Tennis\nQuery: How long have you been playing tennis?\nProblem: The query is asking a question to the user\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Tennis\nQuery: What are the best tennis instructors in Miami?
Query Others (15.7%)Context\nBot: Hello, welcome to Alexa social bot. What do you want to chat?\nUser: I like listening to NF because I like rap, and I appreciate the vulnerability in the lyrics\nCosmo Response\nBot: I'm glad you enjoy his music! i think that rap is a great genre to listen to, and it's good to see artists who are vulnerable in their lyrics.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Listen to NF\nQuery: What genre of music does NF like?\nProblem: Query generated is factually wrong: NF is a singer, not a listener.\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: NF\nQuery: What are some of NF's most vulnerable lyrics?
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 171, + 850, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Qualitative examples of errors types in the query generation.", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 810, + 732, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "881", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation Guidelines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 304, + 149, + 680, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation of Generated Query (200 examples)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 195, + 655, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instructions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 237, + 265, + 253 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and a bot-generated search query to gather information for the next bot response. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the search query based on the following aspects described next.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 279, + 867, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note: Current search systems can handle phrase-based and natural language queries. Hence, you should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be as long as they have all the important terms within them. For instance, the phrase-based query - \"shoes for long distance marathon running\" and the natural language query - \"What are some good shoes for running long distances in marathons?\" can be considered to be similar.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 366, + 857, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relevance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 488, + 240, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This evaluates for how relevant the search query is to the dialog. Ideally, the search query is expected to be about the topic of discussion in the last 2-3 turns. The results from the search query should be expected to keep the discussion coherent and not make it go off topic.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 524, + 843, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 612, + 268, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 629, + 554, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Completely Irrelevant", + "3: Vaguely Relevant", + "5: Highly Relevant" + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 646, + 339, + 696 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specificity", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 134, + 715, + 240, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This evaluates for how specific the query is to the relevant topic being discussed. Queries can become more specific based on what fine-grained aspects of the topic the query explores.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 753, + 857, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For instance, below is an ordering of search queries based on specificity:", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 824, + 741, + 840 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "882", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adidas running shoes for marathons $>$ running shoes from Adidas $>$ What are some good running shoes? $>$ shoes", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 148, + 836, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 200, + 275, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 217, + 559, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: Very generic", + "3: Somewhat specific", + "5: Highly specific" + ], + "bbox": [ + 142, + 235, + 324, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Usefulness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 305, + 253, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This evaluates how useful the search query is for obtaining information to continue the conversation. This is based on the expectation of the usefulness of the search results corresponding to the given query.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 343, + 855, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note: If you are unsure whether a query can be useful, you can pass it to google search and see whether the top-3 results can be useful.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 413, + 868, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 464, + 273, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 482, + 559, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: definitely not useful", + "3: somewhat useful", + "5: definitely useful" + ], + "bbox": [ + 142, + 499, + 327, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interestingness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 569, + 295, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This evaluates whether the query can obtain information that can make the dialog very engaging. Such queries, while still keeping the discussion coherent i.e. being on-topic, have the potential to take the conversation to new and interesting directions.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 605, + 857, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note: Interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation. A query that is irrelevant is not expected to be useful. A query that is relevant but very generic can still be somewhat useful (based on quality of ranking). However, a query that can provide interesting information is usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 674, + 847, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 762, + 273, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 778, + 557, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1: very routine / uninteresting", + "3: somewhat interesting", + "5: definitely interesting" + ], + "bbox": [ + 142, + 796, + 386, + 846 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "883", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation of Generated Responses (200 examples)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 141, + 700, + 161 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instructions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 184, + 262, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and the next bot utterance. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the bot response on the following aspects described below.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 222, + 853, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Coherence", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 287, + 242, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This evaluates how well the response continues the dialog. Ideally, a coherent response is expected to be about the latest topic of discussion and show follow the logic flow of the dialog", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 323, + 833, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 370, + 255, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more coherent given the dialog context.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 387, + 830, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Engaging", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 435, + 230, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A response is engaging if it has the potential to spark a conversation or further dialogue. Evaluation would be from the perspective of how likely it is that you would continue a conversation with the bot, given this response.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 472, + 791, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note: Since the evaluation of level of engaging is based on the quality of the information in the response and not the actual response generator, you should ignore any follow-up questions from the bot that are present in the response. Responses with follow-up questions can appear more engaging than those without follow-up questions, hence we don't consider the follow-up questions to be fair to all query generation approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 536, + 838, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 630, + 255, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more engaging.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 646, + 717, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Informative", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 680, + 247, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This evaluates for whether the bot response is knowledgeable and the main points of the response are still relevant to the conversation or topic. Informative responses involve the use of evidence, examples and provide enough novel content (something not already in the dialog history) to satisfy the user's curiosity.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 717, + 848, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring Rubric:", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 797, + 255, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more informative.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 813, + 729, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "884", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 514, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-4 Automatic Evaluation Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 369, + 112, + 648, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query Scoring", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 458, + 137, + 559, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 5 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 161, + 897, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 5 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 183, + 897, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-Bot Conversation:", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 216, + 284, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 470, + 228, + 531, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System1 Query: ", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 235, + 280, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System2 Query: ", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 244, + 280, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System5 Query: ", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 258, + 282, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each of the system queries, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 269, + 912, + 304 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 310, + 391, + 322 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System1:", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 328, + 200, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System2:", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 338, + 200, + 346 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System5:", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 355, + 200, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Query Preference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 443, + 407, + 568, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 431, + 905, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query.", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 453, + 905, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-Bot Conversation:", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 486, + 270, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 468, + 502, + 517, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System1 Query: ", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 512, + 268, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "System2 Query: ", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 521, + 265, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment.", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 532, + 912, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation - Which system query is better? (Just output system1 or system2)", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 564, + 500, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output:", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 582, + 176, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response Scoring", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 445, + 633, + 571, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 655, + 894, + 673 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 678, + 894, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human-Bot Conversation:", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 709, + 273, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 468, + 724, + 527, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot1 Response: ", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 731, + 278, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot2 Response: ", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 740, + 278, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot5 Response: ", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 753, + 280, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each of the bot responses, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Please ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not affect your judgment.", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 768, + 900, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY)", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 790, + 349, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot1:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 809, + 164, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot3:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 825, + 164, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot4:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 837, + 164, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bot5:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 846, + 164, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "885", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_model.json b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdfa516b933db966c014a52ba3b9f5e08da1e702 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3020 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.193, + 0.09, + 0.806, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.15, + 0.84, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Revanth Gangi Reddy Hao Bai Wentao Yao Sharath Chandra Etagi Suresh Heng Ji ChengXiang Zhai" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.325, + 0.184, + 0.678, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.192, + 0.201, + 0.81, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{revanth3, haob2, wentaoy4, sce3, hengji, czhai}@illinois.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Open-domain dialog involves generating search queries that help obtain relevant knowledge for holding informative conversations. However, it can be challenging to determine what information to retrieve when the user is passive and does not express a clear need or request. To tackle this issue, we present a novel approach that focuses on generating internet search queries that are guided by social commonsense. Specifically, we leverage a commonsense dialog system to establish connections related to the conversation topic, which subsequently guides our query generation. Our proposed framework addresses passive user interactions by integrating topic tracking, commonsense response generation and instruction-driven query generation. Through extensive evaluations, we show that our approach1 overcomes limitations of existing query generation techniques that rely solely on explicit dialog information, and produces search queries that are more relevant, specific, and compelling, ultimately resulting in more engaging responses." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.619, + 0.26, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.644, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conversational systems have evolved to include personal assistants, task-oriented bots, and open-domain dialog agents for casual conversations. For these agents to maintain engaging and informative discussions, it is crucial to access external knowledge. Holding a knowledge-powered dialog (Dinan et al.; Komeili et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023a) typically involves the generation of a search query that can help gather the most relevant information to continue the conversation. While such queries are more obvious when the user explicitly asks for certain information, a.k.a. conversational information seeking (Zamani et al., 2022), it is unclear what information should be pursued when users are passive, disengaged, and do not provide" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.251, + 0.878, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.545, + 0.883, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Our proposed query generation vs a baseline query generator. The commonsense responder identifies associations related to the dialog topic (e.g., movies \\(\\rightarrow\\) reviews) and provides a latent directive (in the form of a response) to guide the generation of search queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.644, + 0.885, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "clear guidance for the conversation (Hardy et al., 2021). Nevertheless, in open-domain conversations, users can introduce any topic, and designing a comprehensive algorithm that can produce a relevant query in response to a random user topic poses a unique, complex challenge that has not been explored in prior research." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To tackle this challenge, we propose to integrate social commonsense reasoning for the generation of search queries in knowledge-powered conversations. Social commonsense (Moore, 2006) refers to the general knowledge about social situations and human behavior used to connect conversation topics and guide discussions. We thus hypothesize that by leveraging a deeper understanding of social commonsense and the unspoken cues that guide human conversation, chatbots can become more" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Code and models are available here: https://github.com/gangiswag/dialog-query-generation" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "873" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 873-885" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.086, + 0.425, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "adept at navigating passive conversations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.102, + 0.49, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Concretely, we introduce a novel framework that uses a commonsense response as a latent directive for an instruction-following query generator. Our approach incorporates the use of topic tracking (§2.1) to first identify the main point of discussion, followed by commonsense-based response generation that can associate concepts to the main topic to give a latent commonsense directive (§2.2). Finally, we use instruction-driven query generation (§2.3) to output a search query that adheres to the latent directive within the commonsense response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.28, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our method overcomes the limitations of existing techniques (Shuster et al., 2022a,b; Cai et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023b) that solely depend on explicit information present in the conversation to generate search queries. Such an approach is suboptimal in case of passive conversations, where the human isn't necessarily asking for any specific information. Figure 1 shows an example comparing our approach against a baseline query generation system (Shuster et al., 2022b). Our topic tracking identifies 'The Conjuring' as the subject, with the commonsense responder making the association movie \\(\\rightarrow\\) reviews to output a latent commonsense directive that refers to discuss movie reviews. This directive guides the search query generator to output a query for the movie reviews, the results of which lead to a more engaging bot response compared to the baseline, as can be seen in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.584, + 0.486, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 A Novel Query Generation Framework" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.611, + 0.49, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present our framework for generating search queries by leveraging commonsense reasoning. Our approach consists of three main components: topic tracking to pinpoint the core subject, commonsense-based response generation that relates concepts with the primary topic and provides a latent commonsense directive, and instruction-driven query generation to produce a search query capable of retrieving relevant information that follows the commonsense directive. Figure 2 illustrates how these components are integrated, with each step described in detail below." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.817, + 0.392, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Fine-Grained Topic Tracking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Topic tracking (Nakata et al., 2002) aims to identify the primary subject of the discussion in free-form dialogs, and has been demonstrated (Guo et al., 2018) to improve the coherence of dialog systems. Unlike previous approaches (Khatri et al., 2018)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.287, + 0.883, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Interaction of different components within our proposed query generation framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.325, + 0.885, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that track a fixed set of broad high-level topics (e.g., movies, sport), our objective is to detect unconstrained, finer-grained topics (such as movie/actor names or teams). For fine-grained topic tracking, we apply an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) to identify the current topic from the dialog context. We utilize the prompt in Figure 2 and rely on instruction-tuned models with strong zero-shot abilities (Wei et al., 2021) due to lack of training data for such topic tracking in \\( \\text{dialog}^2 \\). An alternative topic tracking approach could follow Shuster et al. (2022a); Adolphs et al. (2022), extracting topics as relevant entities grounding the final response." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.546, + 0.799, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Commonsense-Based Directive" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.567, + 0.884, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Social commonsense-based dialog systems (Kim et al., 2022a,b; Zhou et al., 2021) typically demonstrate a fundamental understanding of handling and responding to specific topics or situations. They involve using external commonsense knowledge graphs such as ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) or ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019) to collect triples for response generation (Zhou et al., 2022), or distilling such knowledge into language models (LM) through large-scale pretraining (Kim et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2023) for direct response generation. In this work, we adopt the latter approach, by using a pretrained LM to derive the commonsense directive in the form of a response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.792, + 0.884, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, we use Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a), which was trained on socially-grounded synthetic dialogues generated by prompting InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) using contextualized commonsense knowledge from ATOMIC. Cosmo takes" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.882, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We note that topic tracking is related to open-domain dialog, and is different from state tracking (Williams et al., 2013) which is specific to task-oriented dialog." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "874" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "a situation narrative and role instruction as input, and generates a response based on the dialog context. We also integrate the topic tracking output into the situation narrative definition, as illustrated in Figure 2. Subsequently, Cosmo's output serves as the latent commonsense directive to guide search query generation, which is discussed next." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.209, + 0.458, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Instruction-Driven Query Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.23, + 0.491, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given the dialog context, conversation topic and a latent directive in the form of a commonsense response, we aim to generate a search query to obtain relevant information for continuing the conversation. We utilize an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) for query generation, by prompting (see Figure 2) it to transform the commonsense response into a search query, while incorporating the fine-grained topic to enhance relevance and specificity. Essentially, the commonsense response embodies the bot's informational requirement, guiding it to obtain the mentioned information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.435, + 0.262, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.461, + 0.208, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.482, + 0.49, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dataset We use the Wizard of Internet (WoI) (Komeili et al., 2022) dataset for our experiments. WoI is a human-human dialog corpus for knowledge-powered conversations, with one of the speakers having internet access to gather information for generating responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.589, + 0.49, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Models and Baselines The topic-tracker is based on Flan-T5 large (770M) (Chung et al., 2022) while the commonsense response generation uses the 3B version of Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a). The query generator is also based on the Flan-T5 large model. We compare our query generation approach primarily against Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b), a state of the art open-domain conversational agent. We also compare against a version of our approach that does not incorporate the Cosmo response for query generation, termed Flan T5 w/o Cosmo." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finetuning with ChatGPT Annotations Our approach uses an instruction-tuned Flan T5 model in a zero-shot setting for topic tracking and query generation. To improve performance, we separately finetune the topic-tracker and query generator using ChatGPT annotations (the same prompt as Flan T5 is used to obtain silver labels from ChatGPT). To create finetuning data, we choose turns corresponding to internet search from the Woi training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.715, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "set, yielding 20k examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.11, + 0.885, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Internet Search and Response Generation We obtain search results by scoring passages from the top-3 Bing Search pages using a reranker3. With our primary focus being query generation, we simply prompt ChatGPT to generate the response by incorporating the top search result given the dialog context. We also consider a \"no query\" baseline that corresponds to generating responses directly from ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version) without internet search. For both search query generation and final response generation, we employ the nucleus sampling method (Holtzman et al., 2019) with \\( P \\) set at 0.9 and a temperature of 0.7. We set max tokens to 40 and 100 for search query generation and final response generation respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.363, + 0.642, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.383, + 0.885, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our evaluation, we focus on WoI test set with dialog turns that had search queries annotated for generating responses, while specifically targeting \"passive turns\" where users don't explicitly request information. Using an intent detection model (Khatri et al., 2018), we identify and remove turns related to information or opinion requests, and randomly selected 200 examples for human evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.521, + 0.885, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation We conducted a human study with four experienced NLP students to evaluate the quality of generated search queries and responses. Queries were assessed based on relevance, specificity, usefulness, and potential to maintain user engagement in the dialog. Responses were evaluated for engagement, coherence, and informativeness. Detailed guidelines are in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.659, + 0.887, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Evaluation Recent studies, like G-EVAL (Liu et al., 2023) and GPTScore (Fu et al., 2023), show that LLMs such as GPT-4 can effectively evaluate natural language generations and align well with human assessments. Therefore, we utilize GPT-4 for automatic evaluation, prompting4 it to provide an overall score (ranging from 1-10) for search queries and final responses. As seen in §3.3, our human study results corroborate GPT-4 evaluations. Additionally, we use a ranker model (Hedayatnia et al., 2022) trained on the Alexa Prize Socialbot Grand Challenge (Johnston et al., 2023) response selection data (Ram et al., 2018) for response evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.892, + 0.822, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3We use the ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 model." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.905, + 0.813, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Detailed GPT-4 prompts are in the appendix." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.892, + 0.822, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "875" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.081, + 0.861, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Query Generation ApproachSearch QueryFinal Response
HumanAutomaticHumanAutomatic
Rel.Spe.Use.Int.GPT-4Eng.Info.Coh.RankerGPT-4
No Query-----2.711.873.1178.966.2
Blender Bot 33.132.292.612.2835.12.853.192.8875.468.0
Flan T5 w/o Cosmo3.383.213.063.0244.33.013.272.9276.967.6
Ours (Zero-shot)3.59*3.51*3.39*3.29*49.9*3.133.353.0078.670.6*
Ours (Finetuned)4.16*4.05*3.98*3.91*72.2*3.293.313.1080.772.1
ChatGPT4.514.494.484.4580.7-----
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.224, + 0.884, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Evaluation of different query generation approaches on the WoiI dataset, based on the quality of search queries and final responses. For query generation (left), Finetuned refers to leveraging dataset dialogs, while zero-shot corresponds to instruction-tuned. For response generation (right), responses from ChatGPT are conditioned on internet search results obtained using the corresponding queries. The acronyms for human evaluation are: Relevance, Specificity, Usefulness, Interestingness, Engagement, Informativeness, and Coherence. * corresponds to statistical significance \\( \\left( {\\left| z\\right| > {3.3}}\\right. \\) and \\( p < {0.05} \\) )." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.329, + 0.219, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.35, + 0.49, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quality of generated search query Table 1 (left) shows the results of human and automatic evaluation of search queries. Mainly, we notice that instruction-tuned models outperform Blender Bot 3 significantly, and using Cosmo's commonsense response as a directive for guiding query generation with Flan T5 shows consistent improvements. Lastly, substantial enhancements in query quality are observed upon fine-tuning the zero-shot system with ChatGPT annotations. By computing the Spearman correlation between automatic metrics (GPT-4) and overall score for human evaluations (average of four aspect ratings), we found a strong correlation (0.674) between the two measures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.583, + 0.49, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quality of final responses Table 1 (right) shows results for evaluation of the generated responses. We see that directly generating a response from ChatGPT without internet search can still lead to a very coherent response, but is less engaging and very uninformative. Our proposed query generation framework leads to consistent improvements across all aspects of the final response, particularly with high engagement scores. Notably, boosting engagement, or the likelihood of continued humanbot interaction, is crucial in passive conversations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.229, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.79, + 0.489, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction-Following Capability We study the impact of the query generator's instruction-following capability on utilizing the commonsense directive (i.e., cosmo output) to generate better queries. Using GPT-4 preference evaluation, we explore how increasing the query generator's size5" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.329, + 0.882, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.423, + 0.883, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Examining the impact of a larger model for query generation, as evaluated by GPT-4's preference." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.466, + 0.875, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
RelevantSpecificOverall
W/O Topic Tracker43.0%39.5%39.0%
With Topic Tracker57.0%60.5%61.0%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.52, + 0.884, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Aspect-wise vs overall relative preference scores, based on GPT-4 evaluation, for search queries generated with and without the topic tracking component in our framework." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.604, + 0.884, + 0.749 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "influences the quality of generated queries both with and without the commonsense directive. Figure 3 reveals that incorporating the commonsense directive (a) significantly enhances query quality as model size increases, and (b) leads to greater improvement for larger models (67.5% for XXL vs 53.5% for Large). Hence, a more robust instruction-tuned model effectively leverages the commonsense directive in generating better queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benefit of Topic Tracking Within our framework, topic tracking serves to (a) maintain coherence between the generated query and the most recent discussion subject, and (b) assist in shaping Cosmo's situation narrative (refer to prompts in figure 2). Here, we study the benefit of topic tracking by removing it from the Cosmo and query generator inputs and evaluating the final query quality. Using GPT-4 for automatic preference evaluation, we compare queries generated with and without the" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5As per Chung et al. (2022), larger instruction-tuned models usually have better instruction-following capability." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "876" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "topic tracker. Table 2 shows results from the study, with GPT-4 finding queries generated by involving topic tracking better, particularly for relevance and specificity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.159, + 0.492, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Error Categorization We examined 50 low-scoring examples\\(^6\\) from the human evaluation of search queries produced by the zero-shot approach. The main error categories were: (i) Incorrect Topic \\((31.4\\%)\\) - topic tracker failed to identify the current discussion subject, (ii) Trivial Query \\((29.4\\%)\\) - query was obvious or already answered in the conversation history, (iii) Query Instruction Mismatch \\((23.5\\%)\\) - query generator misunderstands instructions, and outputs conversational questions instead, and (iv) other irrelevant queries \\((15.7\\%)\\). After finetuning with ChatGPT annotations, \\(70.6\\%\\) of the queries significantly improved, while the rest maintained a more or less similar quality level. The breakdown of examples that continue to score low after finetuning is as follows: \\(19\\%\\) result from Incorrect Topic, \\(41\\%\\) from Trivial Queries, \\(5\\%\\) from Query Instruction Mismatch, and \\(35\\%\\) from other unrelated queries. Notably, finetuning effectively reduces \\(67\\%\\) of Trivial Query errors, \\(75\\%\\) of Incorrect Topic errors, and over \\(90\\%\\) of Query Instruction Mismatch errors. This suggests that finetuning enhances topic tracking capabilities (resulting in fewer Incorrect Topic errors) and ensures better adherence to search query generation instructions (leading to a decrease in Query Instruction Mismatch errors)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.607, + 0.402, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion and Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.634, + 0.49, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce a novel framework that leverages commonsense to enhance the generation of search queries in internet-powered dialog. Our results show that incorporating a commonsense-based directive yields search queries with improved relevance, specificity and appeal, fostering user engagement in otherwise passive conversations. Future work will use more intricate social narratives by incorporating user preferences from past conversations, to align commonsense directives towards individual interests." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.824, + 0.279, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.849, + 0.489, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank Amazon Inc. for providing a grant partially supporting the work of the team. We thank the Amazon Alexa Prize team for their" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "great support, guidance, and help. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, the Blender NLP group and CharmBana team members for their valuable feedback and comments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.16, + 0.615, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.185, + 0.884, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We expect the following limitations for our approach:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.224, + 0.885, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Focusing only on turns involving search: Our methodology primarily targets the generation of search queries, hence we chose only those turns from the WoI dataset that contained annotated search queries. A more pragmatic approach would also require a search decision module to determine when it is essential to seek external information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.361, + 0.884, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Assuming topic continuity in discussion: Our method assumes a continuous presence of a discussion topic. Nevertheless, situations like topic shifts can cause temporary absence of a topic, which our approach does not consider. For instance, when the human suggests, \"Let's discuss something else,\" there is no current topic for the discussion." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.496, + 0.712, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.521, + 0.884, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We raise the following ethical concerns from leveraging internet search for open-domain dialog:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.559, + 0.883, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Toxicity of retrieved content: There is a need for a toxicity filter or a content moderation system to ensure that the retrieved content is safe, non-offensive, and free from any form of hate speech, discrimination, or harassment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.648, + 0.884, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Privacy concerns: Using Internet search for dialog systems can raise privacy concerns, as users might be discussing or sharing personal or sensitive information in their conversations. It is crucial to implement proper data anonymization and encryption techniques to protect users' privacy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.769, + 0.885, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Reliability and credibility of sources: Dialog systems must be cautious when referring to information from the Internet, as the content may not always be accurate or reliable. Verifying the credibility of sources and cross-referencing is essential to ensure that the information provided by the system is reliable and trustworthy." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.451, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qualitative examples are provided in the appendix" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "877" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.487, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leonard Adolphs, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022. Reason first, then respond: Modular generation for knowledge-infused dialogue. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.183, + 0.487, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingzhu Cai, Siqi Bao, Xin Tian, Huang He, Fan Wang, and Hua Wu. 2022. Query enhanced knowledge-intensive conversation via unsupervised joint modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09588." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.246, + 0.487, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maximillian Chen, Alexandros Papangelis, Chenyang Tao, Seokhwan Kim, Andy Rosenbaum, Yang Liu, Zhou Yu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2023. Places: Prompting language models for social conversation synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03269." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.322, + 0.487, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.398, + 0.486, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.473, + 0.486, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04166." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.523, + 0.487, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fenfei Guo, Angeliki Metallinou, Chandra Khatri, Anirudh Raju, Anu Venkatesh, and Ashwin Ram. 2018. Topic-based evaluation for conversational bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03622." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.586, + 0.487, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amelia Hardy, Ashwin Paranjape, and Christopher Manning. 2021. Effective social chatbot strategies for increasing user initiative. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 99-110, Singapore and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.675, + 0.487, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Behnam Hedayatnia, Di Jin, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. A systematic evaluation of response selection for open domain dialogue. In SIGDIAL 2022." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.738, + 0.487, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.801, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Johnston, Cris Flagg, Anna Gottardi, Sattvik Sahai, Yao Lu, Samyuth Sagi, Luke Dai, Prasoon Goyal, Behnam Hedayatnia, Lucy Hu, Di Jin, Patrick Lange, Shaohua Liu, Sijia Liu, Daniel Pressel, Hangjie Shi, Zhejia Yang, Chao Zhang, Desheng Zhang, Leslie Ball, Kate Bland, Shui Hu, Osman Ipek, James Jeun, Heather Rocker, Lavina Vaz, Akshaya Iyengar, Yang Liu, Arindam Mandal, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Reza Ghanadan. 2023. Advancing" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.108, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "open domain dialog: The fifth alexa prize socialbot grand challenge. In Alexa Prize SocialBot Grand Challenge 5 Proceedings." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.134, + 0.882, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chandra Khatri, Rahul Goel, Behnam Hedayatnia, Angeliki Metallinou, Raefer Gabriel, and Arindam Mandal. 2018. Contextual topic modeling for dialogue systems. In SLT 2018." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.196, + 0.882, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, et al. 2022a. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10465." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.283, + 0.882, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyunwoo Kim, Youngjae Yu, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Daniel Khashabi, Gunhee Kim, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2022b. Prosocialdialog: A prosocial backbone for conversational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12688." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.358, + 0.882, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8460-8478." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.432, + 0.882, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tuan M. Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023a. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems. In Proc. The 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL2023)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.52, + 0.882, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tuan M Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023b. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.581, + 0.882, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sha Li, Mahdi Namazifar, Di Jin, Mohit Bansal, Heng Ji, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Enhancing knowledge selection for grounded dialogues via document semantic graphs. In Proc. The 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT2022)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.682, + 0.882, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. Gpteval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.743, + 0.881, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chris Moore. 2006. The development of commonsense psychology." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.778, + 0.882, + 0.832 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takayuki Nakata, Shinichi Ando, and Akitoshi Okumura. 2002. Topic detection based on dialogue history. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "878" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashwin Ram, Rohit Prasad, Chandra Khatri, Anu Venkatesh, Raefer Gabriel, Qing Liu, Jeff Nunn, Behnam Hedayatnia, Ming Cheng, Ashish Nagar, et al. 2018. Conversational ai: The science behind the alexa prize. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03604." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.162, + 0.488, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 3027-3035." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.263, + 0.488, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13224." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.351, + 0.488, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, et al. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.44, + 0.488, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 31." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.502, + 0.488, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.577, + 0.488, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason D Williams, Antoine Raux, Deepak Ramachandran, and Alan W Black. 2013. The dialog state tracking challenge. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference, pages 404-413." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.64, + 0.488, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jing Xu, Megan Ung, Mojtaba Komeili, Kushal Arora, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2022. Learning new skills after deployment: Improving open-domain internet-driven dialogue with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03270." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.715, + 0.488, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hamed Zamani, Johanne R Trippas, Jeff Dalton, and Filip Radlinski. 2022. Conversational information seeking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08808." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.765, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2021. Commonsense-focused dialogues for response generation: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 121-132." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Think before you speak: Explicitly generating implicit commonsense" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "knowledge for response generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1252." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "879" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.327, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.11, + 0.376, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Wizard of Internet Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.131, + 0.49, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Wizard of Internet (WoI) dataset (Komeili et al., 2022) comprises a vast collection of external knowledge-based conversations, allowing agents to leverage internet search to obtain relevant information. We utilize a training subset of WoI consisting of 6,029 conversations with 29,371 turns. Upon transforming the dataset, models are employed to sequentially generate three items for each bot utterance with human annotated search queries: the ChatGPT topic tracking output, commonsense directive from Cosmo, and the ChatGPT search query. From this, 20k instances are sampled to form the finetuning data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.351, + 0.334, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Models and Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.371, + 0.489, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 (Chung et al., 2022) We employ the Flan T5 (Large, 770M) as the model for entity tracking and query generation. Given the context, we incorporate the prompt depicted in Figure 2 into the Flan T5 input using the entity and query created by ChatGPT as the ground truth for finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.477, + 0.489, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a) We use the 3B variant of Cosmo model as our social commonsense-based response generator. The model has been trained on 1.5 million synthetically generated social dialogs from SODA (Kim et al., 2022a). Cosmo has been shown to be capable of managing conversations across diverse dialog situations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b) Blender Bot 3 (BB3) is a unified sequence-to-sequence language model designed for modular dialogue systems, which appends instruction tokens to the generated text. BB3 employs R2C2 (Shuster et al., 2022b) as the language model to create queries, consisting of a 2.7 billion-parameter Transformer architecture with 22 encoder and 22 decoder layers, pretrained on pushshift.io Reddit and RoBERTa + CC100en data (Shuster et al., 2022a). Furthermore, BB3 finetunes R2C2 on a variety of query datasets, such as the Wizard of Internet and Feedback on Interactive Talk & Search (FITS) (Xu et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.818, + 0.334, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Qualitative Examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we show some qualitative examples for the search queries generated by different approaches, and the corresponding responses generated by incorporating results obtained using the query. Table 3 shows an example for each error type." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.09, + 0.792, + 0.103 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT Response Generation" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.576, + 0.109, + 0.818, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.263, + 0.884, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: ChatGPT prompt for generating the bot response by incorporating search content." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.31, + 0.601, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dialog Context" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.322, + 0.868, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot: Seventeen always does great things for promotions on social media! \nUser: Yes they do, Their music is the best, Their dance choreography are even better! \nGold Bot response: They add an emotional tone to the choreography, which is awesome." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.379, + 0.608, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Direct ChatGPT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.39, + 0.868, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Glad to hear that you enjoy both their music and dance performances!" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.412, + 0.594, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Blender Bot 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.424, + 0.607, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: seventeen" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.435, + 0.867, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Yes, Seventeen's name reflects the unique way they are structured as a group with 13 members divided into three units." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.457, + 0.702, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.468, + 0.728, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: what is the best song on seventeen?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.479, + 0.865, + 0.498 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song on the list ranking the best of all time?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.5, + 0.686, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.512, + 0.752, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: What is Seventeen's most popular song?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.523, + 0.865, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song yet? Click the link to make your voice heard in the ranking of their greatest hits." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.544, + 0.74, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.556, + 0.867, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: \"What are some of Seventeen's most popular social media promotions?\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.576, + 0.865, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: It's great to hear that you appreciate Seventeen's social media presence, have you seen any of our favorite campaign examples from 2022 such as KFC's #UnboringMornings or Reddit's Super Bowl Awareness Campaign?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.643, + 0.601, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dialog Context" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.655, + 0.804, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot: I have heard that carrots probably originated in Persia." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.666, + 0.865, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: I didn't know they originated in Persia. I have always hated them so I didn't care where they were from." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.687, + 0.812, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gold Bot response: What is your favorite skyscraper to visit?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.702, + 0.607, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Direct ChatGPT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.713, + 0.833, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: That's interesting to know, even if you don't like them." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.726, + 0.594, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Blender Bot 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.737, + 0.594, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: carrots" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.748, + 0.865, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Despite your dislike for them, carrots are actually a highly nutritious and beneficial root vegetable." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.769, + 0.702, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.78, + 0.764, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: where did the origin of carrots come from?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.792, + 0.865, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Yes, carrots were first cultivated in parts of Asia and the Middle East and were brought to Europe by the Arabs in the 10th century." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.813, + 0.686, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.825, + 0.834, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: What are the different theories about the origin of carrots?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.836, + 0.865, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Carrots have a single origin in Central Asia, but their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia and were selectively bred over the centuries to produce the familiar garden vegetable." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.867, + 0.74, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.878, + 0.865, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query: What are some theories about where carrots originated in Persia?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.889, + 0.865, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Yes, carrots actually have a single origin in Central Asia and their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia, which is still the centre of diversity for the wild carrot." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "880" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.172, + 0.851, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Error Type (Ratio)Examples
Entity Incorrect Topic (31.4%)Context\nBot: In flames is such an interesting swedish band.\nUser: Yeah they have quite a few albums I think.\nBot: yeah they have 12 studio albums!\nUser: That's awesome. I'd love to find other bands that sound like them.\nBot: Wormrot is a metal band that is popular\nUser: Thanks, I'll be sure to check them out, I love going to live music shows, not just metal.\nCosmo Response\nBot: Yeah, live music is always a great experience.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Rock band\nQuery: What band is Wormrot?\nProblem: Entity tracker is too general and query does not track a topic transition\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Wormrot (metal band)\nQuery: What are some notable live performances by Wormrot?
Query Trivial (29.4%)Context\nBot: Have you been hiking lately?\nUser: We have been especially with all the current issues, being outside is the only way to stay sane.\nBot: Do you sign up for the AllTrailsPro newsletter? They offer some great suggestions on trails to try\nUser: Yes i have actually been on that newsletter for years, they also have an amazing app that shows you what is around and how hard the hike is.\nCosmo Response\nBot: That sounds like a great app! i would love to try it out sometime.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Hiking\nQuery: What is the AllTrailsPro newsletter about?\nProblem: The generated query was already answered previously so it's not interesting\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Hiking\nQuery: What are some popular hiking trails in the AllTrailsPro newsletter?
Query Instruction Mismatch (23.5%)Context\nBot: I love Federer and Nadal when they paired up and played.\nUser: Yes that was great. Are you interested in becoming a tennis champion?\nBot: That would be a dream come true, but Tennis requires lots of physical effort.\nUser: It does. I have been training in Miami for years now. How long have you played?\nBot: I have had some lessons from Miami Tennis instructors and played for two years.\nUser: That is fantastic. I have played my whole life. My dream is to one day compete in Wimbledon\nCosmo Response\nBot: That would be amazing. I hope to one day compete in Wimbledon too.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Tennis\nQuery: How long have you been playing tennis?\nProblem: The query is asking a question to the user\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Tennis\nQuery: What are the best tennis instructors in Miami?
Query Others (15.7%)Context\nBot: Hello, welcome to Alexa social bot. What do you want to chat?\nUser: I like listening to NF because I like rap, and I appreciate the vulnerability in the lyrics\nCosmo Response\nBot: I'm glad you enjoy his music! i think that rap is a great genre to listen to, and it's good to see artists who are vulnerable in their lyrics.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Listen to NF\nQuery: What genre of music does NF like?\nProblem: Query generated is factually wrong: NF is a singer, not a listener.\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: NF\nQuery: What are some of NF's most vulnerable lyrics?
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.812, + 0.733, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Qualitative examples of errors types in the query generation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "881" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.15, + 0.681, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation Guidelines" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.196, + 0.657, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation of Generated Query (200 examples)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.238, + 0.266, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.28, + 0.868, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and a bot-generated search query to gather information for the next bot response. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the search query based on the following aspects described next." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.367, + 0.858, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note: Current search systems can handle phrase-based and natural language queries. Hence, you should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be as long as they have all the important terms within them. For instance, the phrase-based query - \"shoes for long distance marathon running\" and the natural language query - \"What are some good shoes for running long distances in marathons?\" can be considered to be similar." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.489, + 0.241, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relevance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.525, + 0.844, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This evaluates for how relevant the search query is to the dialog. Ideally, the search query is expected to be about the topic of discussion in the last 2-3 turns. The results from the search query should be expected to keep the discussion coherent and not make it go off topic." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.613, + 0.269, + 0.628 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.63, + 0.555, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.648, + 0.34, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Completely Irrelevant" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.665, + 0.307, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: Vaguely Relevant" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.683, + 0.293, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: Highly Relevant" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.648, + 0.34, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.717, + 0.241, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specificity" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.755, + 0.858, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This evaluates for how specific the query is to the relevant topic being discussed. Queries can become more specific based on what fine-grained aspects of the topic the query explores." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.825, + 0.742, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For instance, below is an ordering of search queries based on specificity:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "882" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.149, + 0.837, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adidas running shoes for marathons \\(>\\) running shoes from Adidas \\(>\\) What are some good running shoes? \\(>\\) shoes" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.201, + 0.276, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.218, + 0.56, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.236, + 0.273, + 0.251 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: Very generic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.253, + 0.325, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: Somewhat specific" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.271, + 0.288, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: Highly specific" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.236, + 0.325, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.306, + 0.255, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Usefulness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.344, + 0.856, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This evaluates how useful the search query is for obtaining information to continue the conversation. This is based on the expectation of the usefulness of the search results corresponding to the given query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.414, + 0.869, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note: If you are unsure whether a query can be useful, you can pass it to google search and see whether the top-3 results can be useful." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.466, + 0.275, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.483, + 0.56, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.5, + 0.329, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: definitely not useful" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.518, + 0.31, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: somewhat useful" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.535, + 0.299, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: definitely useful" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.5, + 0.329, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.57, + 0.296, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interestingness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.606, + 0.858, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This evaluates whether the query can obtain information that can make the dialog very engaging. Such queries, while still keeping the discussion coherent i.e. being on-topic, have the potential to take the conversation to new and interesting directions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.675, + 0.848, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note: Interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation. A query that is irrelevant is not expected to be useful. A query that is relevant but very generic can still be somewhat useful (based on quality of ranking). However, a query that can provide interesting information is usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.763, + 0.275, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.779, + 0.559, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.797, + 0.388, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1: very routine / uninteresting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.815, + 0.345, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3: somewhat interesting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.832, + 0.334, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5: definitely interesting" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.797, + 0.388, + 0.847 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "883" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.142, + 0.702, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation of Generated Responses (200 examples)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.185, + 0.263, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.223, + 0.854, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and the next bot utterance. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the bot response on the following aspects described below." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.288, + 0.243, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Coherence" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.324, + 0.834, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This evaluates how well the response continues the dialog. Ideally, a coherent response is expected to be about the latest topic of discussion and show follow the logic flow of the dialog" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.372, + 0.256, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.388, + 0.831, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more coherent given the dialog context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.436, + 0.231, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Engaging" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.473, + 0.793, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A response is engaging if it has the potential to spark a conversation or further dialogue. Evaluation would be from the perspective of how likely it is that you would continue a conversation with the bot, given this response." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.537, + 0.84, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note: Since the evaluation of level of engaging is based on the quality of the information in the response and not the actual response generator, you should ignore any follow-up questions from the bot that are present in the response. Responses with follow-up questions can appear more engaging than those without follow-up questions, hence we don't consider the follow-up questions to be fair to all query generation approaches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.631, + 0.256, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.647, + 0.718, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more engaging." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.681, + 0.248, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Informative" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.718, + 0.849, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This evaluates for whether the bot response is knowledgeable and the main points of the response are still relevant to the conversation or topic. Informative responses involve the use of evidence, examples and provide enough novel content (something not already in the dialog history) to satisfy the user's curiosity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.798, + 0.256, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.814, + 0.73, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more informative." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.515, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "884" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.37, + 0.113, + 0.65, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-4 Automatic Evaluation Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.46, + 0.138, + 0.56, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query Scoring" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.162, + 0.899, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 5 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.184, + 0.899, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 5 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.217, + 0.285, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-Bot Conversation:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.472, + 0.229, + 0.532, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.236, + 0.282, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System1 Query: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.245, + 0.282, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System2 Query: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.259, + 0.283, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System5 Query: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.271, + 0.913, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each of the system queries, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.311, + 0.393, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.329, + 0.201, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System1:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.339, + 0.201, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System2:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.356, + 0.201, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System5:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.445, + 0.408, + 0.569, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Query Preference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.432, + 0.906, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.454, + 0.906, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.487, + 0.271, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-Bot Conversation:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.469, + 0.504, + 0.518, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.513, + 0.27, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System1 Query: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.523, + 0.267, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System2 Query: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.533, + 0.913, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.565, + 0.501, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation - Which system query is better? (Just output system1 or system2)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.583, + 0.178, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.447, + 0.634, + 0.572, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response Scoring" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.656, + 0.895, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.679, + 0.895, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.711, + 0.274, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human-Bot Conversation:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.469, + 0.725, + 0.528, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.732, + 0.28, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot1 Response: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.741, + 0.28, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot2 Response: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.755, + 0.281, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot5 Response: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.769, + 0.901, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each of the bot responses, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Please ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not affect your judgment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.791, + 0.351, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.81, + 0.166, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot1:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.826, + 0.166, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot3:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.838, + 0.166, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot4:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.847, + 0.166, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bot5:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "885" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_origin.pdf b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59b5bd41ed9bbd9d59329d3f86ce890d82c88417 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/73da73d7-0016-4ed0-abaf-c5ed9fda597f_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f48f344ec68a12ca9ebc29815aee51e9a5eceac42d6fc2b6a49e417eb303ba13 +size 1453007 diff --git a/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/full.md b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3b6bca8ab2e62fe174f4d7264893eb7a85e32b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,498 @@ +# Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations + +# Revanth Gangi Reddy Hao Bai Wentao Yao Sharath Chandra Etagi Suresh Heng Ji ChengXiang Zhai + +University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign + +{revanth3, haob2, wentaoy4, sce3, hengji, czhai}@illinois.edu + +# Abstract + +Open-domain dialog involves generating search queries that help obtain relevant knowledge for holding informative conversations. However, it can be challenging to determine what information to retrieve when the user is passive and does not express a clear need or request. To tackle this issue, we present a novel approach that focuses on generating internet search queries that are guided by social commonsense. Specifically, we leverage a commonsense dialog system to establish connections related to the conversation topic, which subsequently guides our query generation. Our proposed framework addresses passive user interactions by integrating topic tracking, commonsense response generation and instruction-driven query generation. Through extensive evaluations, we show that our approach1 overcomes limitations of existing query generation techniques that rely solely on explicit dialog information, and produces search queries that are more relevant, specific, and compelling, ultimately resulting in more engaging responses. + +# 1 Introduction + +Conversational systems have evolved to include personal assistants, task-oriented bots, and open-domain dialog agents for casual conversations. For these agents to maintain engaging and informative discussions, it is crucial to access external knowledge. Holding a knowledge-powered dialog (Dinan et al.; Komeili et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023a) typically involves the generation of a search query that can help gather the most relevant information to continue the conversation. While such queries are more obvious when the user explicitly asks for certain information, a.k.a. conversational information seeking (Zamani et al., 2022), it is unclear what information should be pursued when users are passive, disengaged, and do not provide + +![](images/69b2fa24020a41caf6f11dd8f4119e60aec479d8b1a3dec382b2c5b32d110bb2.jpg) +Figure 1: Our proposed query generation vs a baseline query generator. The commonsense responder identifies associations related to the dialog topic (e.g., movies $\rightarrow$ reviews) and provides a latent directive (in the form of a response) to guide the generation of search queries. + +clear guidance for the conversation (Hardy et al., 2021). Nevertheless, in open-domain conversations, users can introduce any topic, and designing a comprehensive algorithm that can produce a relevant query in response to a random user topic poses a unique, complex challenge that has not been explored in prior research. + +To tackle this challenge, we propose to integrate social commonsense reasoning for the generation of search queries in knowledge-powered conversations. Social commonsense (Moore, 2006) refers to the general knowledge about social situations and human behavior used to connect conversation topics and guide discussions. We thus hypothesize that by leveraging a deeper understanding of social commonsense and the unspoken cues that guide human conversation, chatbots can become more + +adept at navigating passive conversations. + +Concretely, we introduce a novel framework that uses a commonsense response as a latent directive for an instruction-following query generator. Our approach incorporates the use of topic tracking (§2.1) to first identify the main point of discussion, followed by commonsense-based response generation that can associate concepts to the main topic to give a latent commonsense directive (§2.2). Finally, we use instruction-driven query generation (§2.3) to output a search query that adheres to the latent directive within the commonsense response. + +Our method overcomes the limitations of existing techniques (Shuster et al., 2022a,b; Cai et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023b) that solely depend on explicit information present in the conversation to generate search queries. Such an approach is suboptimal in case of passive conversations, where the human isn't necessarily asking for any specific information. Figure 1 shows an example comparing our approach against a baseline query generation system (Shuster et al., 2022b). Our topic tracking identifies 'The Conjuring' as the subject, with the commonsense responder making the association movie $\rightarrow$ reviews to output a latent commonsense directive that refers to discuss movie reviews. This directive guides the search query generator to output a query for the movie reviews, the results of which lead to a more engaging bot response compared to the baseline, as can be seen in Figure 1. + +# 2 A Novel Query Generation Framework + +In this section, we present our framework for generating search queries by leveraging commonsense reasoning. Our approach consists of three main components: topic tracking to pinpoint the core subject, commonsense-based response generation that relates concepts with the primary topic and provides a latent commonsense directive, and instruction-driven query generation to produce a search query capable of retrieving relevant information that follows the commonsense directive. Figure 2 illustrates how these components are integrated, with each step described in detail below. + +# 2.1 Fine-Grained Topic Tracking + +Topic tracking (Nakata et al., 2002) aims to identify the primary subject of the discussion in free-form dialogs, and has been demonstrated (Guo et al., 2018) to improve the coherence of dialog systems. Unlike previous approaches (Khatri et al., 2018) + +![](images/ab8ca92e3462c625b35cfd0df12bb870afbe552928ab37ba006140cf023f4159.jpg) +Figure 2: Interaction of different components within our proposed query generation framework. + +that track a fixed set of broad high-level topics (e.g., movies, sport), our objective is to detect unconstrained, finer-grained topics (such as movie/actor names or teams). For fine-grained topic tracking, we apply an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) to identify the current topic from the dialog context. We utilize the prompt in Figure 2 and rely on instruction-tuned models with strong zero-shot abilities (Wei et al., 2021) due to lack of training data for such topic tracking in $\text{dialog}^2$ . An alternative topic tracking approach could follow Shuster et al. (2022a); Adolphs et al. (2022), extracting topics as relevant entities grounding the final response. + +# 2.2 Commonsense-Based Directive + +Social commonsense-based dialog systems (Kim et al., 2022a,b; Zhou et al., 2021) typically demonstrate a fundamental understanding of handling and responding to specific topics or situations. They involve using external commonsense knowledge graphs such as ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) or ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019) to collect triples for response generation (Zhou et al., 2022), or distilling such knowledge into language models (LM) through large-scale pretraining (Kim et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2023) for direct response generation. In this work, we adopt the latter approach, by using a pretrained LM to derive the commonsense directive in the form of a response. + +Specifically, we use Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a), which was trained on socially-grounded synthetic dialogues generated by prompting InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) using contextualized commonsense knowledge from ATOMIC. Cosmo takes + +a situation narrative and role instruction as input, and generates a response based on the dialog context. We also integrate the topic tracking output into the situation narrative definition, as illustrated in Figure 2. Subsequently, Cosmo's output serves as the latent commonsense directive to guide search query generation, which is discussed next. + +# 2.3 Instruction-Driven Query Generation + +Given the dialog context, conversation topic and a latent directive in the form of a commonsense response, we aim to generate a search query to obtain relevant information for continuing the conversation. We utilize an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) for query generation, by prompting (see Figure 2) it to transform the commonsense response into a search query, while incorporating the fine-grained topic to enhance relevance and specificity. Essentially, the commonsense response embodies the bot's informational requirement, guiding it to obtain the mentioned information. + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Setup + +Dataset We use the Wizard of Internet (WoI) (Komeili et al., 2022) dataset for our experiments. WoI is a human-human dialog corpus for knowledge-powered conversations, with one of the speakers having internet access to gather information for generating responses. + +Models and Baselines The topic-tracker is based on Flan-T5 large (770M) (Chung et al., 2022) while the commonsense response generation uses the 3B version of Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a). The query generator is also based on the Flan-T5 large model. We compare our query generation approach primarily against Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b), a state of the art open-domain conversational agent. We also compare against a version of our approach that does not incorporate the Cosmo response for query generation, termed Flan T5 w/o Cosmo. + +Finetuning with ChatGPT Annotations Our approach uses an instruction-tuned Flan T5 model in a zero-shot setting for topic tracking and query generation. To improve performance, we separately finetune the topic-tracker and query generator using ChatGPT annotations (the same prompt as Flan T5 is used to obtain silver labels from ChatGPT). To create finetuning data, we choose turns corresponding to internet search from the Woi training + +set, yielding 20k examples. + +Internet Search and Response Generation We obtain search results by scoring passages from the top-3 Bing Search pages using a reranker3. With our primary focus being query generation, we simply prompt ChatGPT to generate the response by incorporating the top search result given the dialog context. We also consider a "no query" baseline that corresponds to generating responses directly from ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version) without internet search. For both search query generation and final response generation, we employ the nucleus sampling method (Holtzman et al., 2019) with $P$ set at 0.9 and a temperature of 0.7. We set max tokens to 40 and 100 for search query generation and final response generation respectively. + +# 3.2 Evaluation + +In our evaluation, we focus on WoI test set with dialog turns that had search queries annotated for generating responses, while specifically targeting "passive turns" where users don't explicitly request information. Using an intent detection model (Khatri et al., 2018), we identify and remove turns related to information or opinion requests, and randomly selected 200 examples for human evaluation. + +Human Evaluation We conducted a human study with four experienced NLP students to evaluate the quality of generated search queries and responses. Queries were assessed based on relevance, specificity, usefulness, and potential to maintain user engagement in the dialog. Responses were evaluated for engagement, coherence, and informativeness. Detailed guidelines are in the appendix. + +Automatic Evaluation Recent studies, like G-EVAL (Liu et al., 2023) and GPTScore (Fu et al., 2023), show that LLMs such as GPT-4 can effectively evaluate natural language generations and align well with human assessments. Therefore, we utilize GPT-4 for automatic evaluation, prompting4 it to provide an overall score (ranging from 1-10) for search queries and final responses. As seen in §3.3, our human study results corroborate GPT-4 evaluations. Additionally, we use a ranker model (Hedayatnia et al., 2022) trained on the Alexa Prize Socialbot Grand Challenge (Johnston et al., 2023) response selection data (Ram et al., 2018) for response evaluation. + +
Query Generation ApproachSearch QueryFinal Response
HumanAutomaticHumanAutomatic
Rel.Spe.Use.Int.GPT-4Eng.Info.Coh.RankerGPT-4
No Query-----2.711.873.1178.966.2
Blender Bot 33.132.292.612.2835.12.853.192.8875.468.0
Flan T5 w/o Cosmo3.383.213.063.0244.33.013.272.9276.967.6
Ours (Zero-shot)3.59*3.51*3.39*3.29*49.9*3.133.353.0078.670.6*
Ours (Finetuned)4.16*4.05*3.98*3.91*72.2*3.293.313.1080.772.1
ChatGPT4.514.494.484.4580.7-----
+ +Table 1: Evaluation of different query generation approaches on the WoiI dataset, based on the quality of search queries and final responses. For query generation (left), Finetuned refers to leveraging dataset dialogs, while zero-shot corresponds to instruction-tuned. For response generation (right), responses from ChatGPT are conditioned on internet search results obtained using the corresponding queries. The acronyms for human evaluation are: Relevance, Specificity, Usefulness, Interestingness, Engagement, Informativeness, and Coherence. * corresponds to statistical significance $\left( {\left| z\right| > {3.3}}\right.$ and $p < {0.05}$ ). + +# 3.3 Results + +Quality of generated search query Table 1 (left) shows the results of human and automatic evaluation of search queries. Mainly, we notice that instruction-tuned models outperform Blender Bot 3 significantly, and using Cosmo's commonsense response as a directive for guiding query generation with Flan T5 shows consistent improvements. Lastly, substantial enhancements in query quality are observed upon fine-tuning the zero-shot system with ChatGPT annotations. By computing the Spearman correlation between automatic metrics (GPT-4) and overall score for human evaluations (average of four aspect ratings), we found a strong correlation (0.674) between the two measures. + +Quality of final responses Table 1 (right) shows results for evaluation of the generated responses. We see that directly generating a response from ChatGPT without internet search can still lead to a very coherent response, but is less engaging and very uninformative. Our proposed query generation framework leads to consistent improvements across all aspects of the final response, particularly with high engagement scores. Notably, boosting engagement, or the likelihood of continued humanbot interaction, is crucial in passive conversations. + +# 3.4 Analysis + +Instruction-Following Capability We study the impact of the query generator's instruction-following capability on utilizing the commonsense directive (i.e., cosmo output) to generate better queries. Using GPT-4 preference evaluation, we explore how increasing the query generator's size5 + +![](images/e3453b0fa86d75d1c9257413393cbf5781c767dc92c92038a771304838f62d0b.jpg) + +Figure 3: Examining the impact of a larger model for query generation, as evaluated by GPT-4's preference. + +
RelevantSpecificOverall
W/O Topic Tracker43.0%39.5%39.0%
With Topic Tracker57.0%60.5%61.0%
+ +Table 2: Aspect-wise vs overall relative preference scores, based on GPT-4 evaluation, for search queries generated with and without the topic tracking component in our framework. + +influences the quality of generated queries both with and without the commonsense directive. Figure 3 reveals that incorporating the commonsense directive (a) significantly enhances query quality as model size increases, and (b) leads to greater improvement for larger models (67.5% for XXL vs 53.5% for Large). Hence, a more robust instruction-tuned model effectively leverages the commonsense directive in generating better queries. + +Benefit of Topic Tracking Within our framework, topic tracking serves to (a) maintain coherence between the generated query and the most recent discussion subject, and (b) assist in shaping Cosmo's situation narrative (refer to prompts in figure 2). Here, we study the benefit of topic tracking by removing it from the Cosmo and query generator inputs and evaluating the final query quality. Using GPT-4 for automatic preference evaluation, we compare queries generated with and without the + +topic tracker. Table 2 shows results from the study, with GPT-4 finding queries generated by involving topic tracking better, particularly for relevance and specificity. + +Error Categorization We examined 50 low-scoring examples $^6$ from the human evaluation of search queries produced by the zero-shot approach. The main error categories were: (i) Incorrect Topic $(31.4\%)$ - topic tracker failed to identify the current discussion subject, (ii) Trivial Query $(29.4\%)$ - query was obvious or already answered in the conversation history, (iii) Query Instruction Mismatch $(23.5\%)$ - query generator misunderstands instructions, and outputs conversational questions instead, and (iv) other irrelevant queries $(15.7\%)$ . After finetuning with ChatGPT annotations, $70.6\%$ of the queries significantly improved, while the rest maintained a more or less similar quality level. The breakdown of examples that continue to score low after finetuning is as follows: $19\%$ result from Incorrect Topic, $41\%$ from Trivial Queries, $5\%$ from Query Instruction Mismatch, and $35\%$ from other unrelated queries. Notably, finetuning effectively reduces $67\%$ of Trivial Query errors, $75\%$ of Incorrect Topic errors, and over $90\%$ of Query Instruction Mismatch errors. This suggests that finetuning enhances topic tracking capabilities (resulting in fewer Incorrect Topic errors) and ensures better adherence to search query generation instructions (leading to a decrease in Query Instruction Mismatch errors). + +# 4 Conclusion and Future Work + +We introduce a novel framework that leverages commonsense to enhance the generation of search queries in internet-powered dialog. Our results show that incorporating a commonsense-based directive yields search queries with improved relevance, specificity and appeal, fostering user engagement in otherwise passive conversations. Future work will use more intricate social narratives by incorporating user preferences from past conversations, to align commonsense directives towards individual interests. + +# Acknowledgement + +We would like to thank Amazon Inc. for providing a grant partially supporting the work of the team. We thank the Amazon Alexa Prize team for their + +great support, guidance, and help. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, the Blender NLP group and CharmBana team members for their valuable feedback and comments. + +# Limitations + +We expect the following limitations for our approach: + +- Focusing only on turns involving search: Our methodology primarily targets the generation of search queries, hence we chose only those turns from the WoI dataset that contained annotated search queries. A more pragmatic approach would also require a search decision module to determine when it is essential to seek external information. + +- Assuming topic continuity in discussion: Our method assumes a continuous presence of a discussion topic. Nevertheless, situations like topic shifts can cause temporary absence of a topic, which our approach does not consider. For instance, when the human suggests, "Let's discuss something else," there is no current topic for the discussion. + +# Ethical Considerations + +We raise the following ethical concerns from leveraging internet search for open-domain dialog: + +- Toxicity of retrieved content: There is a need for a toxicity filter or a content moderation system to ensure that the retrieved content is safe, non-offensive, and free from any form of hate speech, discrimination, or harassment. + +- Privacy concerns: Using Internet search for dialog systems can raise privacy concerns, as users might be discussing or sharing personal or sensitive information in their conversations. It is crucial to implement proper data anonymization and encryption techniques to protect users' privacy. + +- Reliability and credibility of sources: Dialog systems must be cautious when referring to information from the Internet, as the content may not always be accurate or reliable. Verifying the credibility of sources and cross-referencing is essential to ensure that the information provided by the system is reliable and trustworthy. + +# References + +Leonard Adolphs, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022. Reason first, then respond: Modular generation for knowledge-infused dialogue. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022. +Mingzhu Cai, Siqi Bao, Xin Tian, Huang He, Fan Wang, and Hua Wu. 2022. Query enhanced knowledge-intensive conversation via unsupervised joint modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09588. +Maximillian Chen, Alexandros Papangelis, Chenyang Tao, Seokhwan Kim, Andy Rosenbaum, Yang Liu, Zhou Yu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2023. Places: Prompting language models for social conversation synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03269. +Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416. +Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04166. +Fenfei Guo, Angeliki Metallinou, Chandra Khatri, Anirudh Raju, Anu Venkatesh, and Ashwin Ram. 2018. Topic-based evaluation for conversational bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03622. +Amelia Hardy, Ashwin Paranjape, and Christopher Manning. 2021. Effective social chatbot strategies for increasing user initiative. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 99-110, Singapore and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Behnam Hedayatnia, Di Jin, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. A systematic evaluation of response selection for open domain dialogue. In SIGDIAL 2022. +Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Michael Johnston, Cris Flagg, Anna Gottardi, Sattvik Sahai, Yao Lu, Samyuth Sagi, Luke Dai, Prasoon Goyal, Behnam Hedayatnia, Lucy Hu, Di Jin, Patrick Lange, Shaohua Liu, Sijia Liu, Daniel Pressel, Hangjie Shi, Zhejia Yang, Chao Zhang, Desheng Zhang, Leslie Ball, Kate Bland, Shui Hu, Osman Ipek, James Jeun, Heather Rocker, Lavina Vaz, Akshaya Iyengar, Yang Liu, Arindam Mandal, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Reza Ghanadan. 2023. Advancing + +open domain dialog: The fifth alexa prize socialbot grand challenge. In Alexa Prize SocialBot Grand Challenge 5 Proceedings. +Chandra Khatri, Rahul Goel, Behnam Hedayatnia, Angeliki Metallinou, Raefer Gabriel, and Arindam Mandal. 2018. Contextual topic modeling for dialogue systems. In SLT 2018. +Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, et al. 2022a. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10465. +Hyunwoo Kim, Youngjae Yu, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Daniel Khashabi, Gunhee Kim, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2022b. Prosocialdialog: A prosocial backbone for conversational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12688. +Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8460-8478. +Tuan M. Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023a. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems. In Proc. The 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL2023). +Tuan M Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023b. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems. +Sha Li, Mahdi Namazifar, Di Jin, Mohit Bansal, Heng Ji, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Enhancing knowledge selection for grounded dialogues via document semantic graphs. In Proc. The 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT2022). +Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. Gpteval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634. +Chris Moore. 2006. The development of commonsense psychology. +Takayuki Nakata, Shinichi Ando, and Akitoshi Okumura. 2002. Topic detection based on dialogue history. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744. + +Ashwin Ram, Rohit Prasad, Chandra Khatri, Anu Venkatesh, Raefer Gabriel, Qing Liu, Jeff Nunn, Behnam Hedayatnia, Ming Cheng, Ashish Nagar, et al. 2018. Conversational ai: The science behind the alexa prize. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03604. +Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 3027-3035. +Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13224. +Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, et al. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188. +Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 31. +Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. +Jason D Williams, Antoine Raux, Deepak Ramachandran, and Alan W Black. 2013. The dialog state tracking challenge. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference, pages 404-413. +Jing Xu, Megan Ung, Mojtaba Komeili, Kushal Arora, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2022. Learning new skills after deployment: Improving open-domain internet-driven dialogue with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03270. +Hamed Zamani, Johanne R Trippas, Jeff Dalton, and Filip Radlinski. 2022. Conversational information seeking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08808. +Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2021. Commonsense-focused dialogues for response generation: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 121-132. +Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Think before you speak: Explicitly generating implicit commonsense + +knowledge for response generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1252. + +# A Experimental Setup + +# A.1 Wizard of Internet Dataset + +The Wizard of Internet (WoI) dataset (Komeili et al., 2022) comprises a vast collection of external knowledge-based conversations, allowing agents to leverage internet search to obtain relevant information. We utilize a training subset of WoI consisting of 6,029 conversations with 29,371 turns. Upon transforming the dataset, models are employed to sequentially generate three items for each bot utterance with human annotated search queries: the ChatGPT topic tracking output, commonsense directive from Cosmo, and the ChatGPT search query. From this, 20k instances are sampled to form the finetuning data. + +# A.2 Models and Baselines + +Flan T5 (Chung et al., 2022) We employ the Flan T5 (Large, 770M) as the model for entity tracking and query generation. Given the context, we incorporate the prompt depicted in Figure 2 into the Flan T5 input using the entity and query created by ChatGPT as the ground truth for finetuning. + +Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a) We use the 3B variant of Cosmo model as our social commonsense-based response generator. The model has been trained on 1.5 million synthetically generated social dialogs from SODA (Kim et al., 2022a). Cosmo has been shown to be capable of managing conversations across diverse dialog situations. + +Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b) Blender Bot 3 (BB3) is a unified sequence-to-sequence language model designed for modular dialogue systems, which appends instruction tokens to the generated text. BB3 employs R2C2 (Shuster et al., 2022b) as the language model to create queries, consisting of a 2.7 billion-parameter Transformer architecture with 22 encoder and 22 decoder layers, pretrained on pushshift.io Reddit and RoBERTa + CC100en data (Shuster et al., 2022a). Furthermore, BB3 finetunes R2C2 on a variety of query datasets, such as the Wizard of Internet and Feedback on Interactive Talk & Search (FITS) (Xu et al., 2022). + +# A.3 Qualitative Examples + +Here, we show some qualitative examples for the search queries generated by different approaches, and the corresponding responses generated by incorporating results obtained using the query. Table 3 shows an example for each error type. + +![](images/afd0f0d963478a85bf83c5ab3573502400742f9834a1286216dead37f6d3587a.jpg) +ChatGPT Response Generation +Figure 4: ChatGPT prompt for generating the bot response by incorporating search content. + +# Dialog Context + +Bot: Seventeen always does great things for promotions on social media! +User: Yes they do, Their music is the best, Their dance choreography are even better! +Gold Bot response: They add an emotional tone to the choreography, which is awesome. + +# Direct ChatGPT + +Response: Glad to hear that you enjoy both their music and dance performances! + +# Blender Bot 3 + +Query: seventeen + +Response: Yes, Seventeen's name reflects the unique way they are structured as a group with 13 members divided into three units. + +# Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot) + +Query: what is the best song on seventeen? + +Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song on the list ranking the best of all time? + +# Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot) + +Query: What is Seventeen's most popular song? + +Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song yet? Click the link to make your voice heard in the ranking of their greatest hits. + +# Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned) + +Query: "What are some of Seventeen's most popular social media promotions?" + +Response: It's great to hear that you appreciate Seventeen's social media presence, have you seen any of our favorite campaign examples from 2022 such as KFC's #UnboringMornings or Reddit's Super Bowl Awareness Campaign? + +# Dialog Context + +Bot: I have heard that carrots probably originated in Persia. + +User: I didn't know they originated in Persia. I have always hated them so I didn't care where they were from. + +Gold Bot response: What is your favorite skyscraper to visit? + +# Direct ChatGPT + +Response: That's interesting to know, even if you don't like them. + +# Blender Bot 3 + +Query: carrots + +Response: Despite your dislike for them, carrots are actually a highly nutritious and beneficial root vegetable. + +# Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot) + +Query: where did the origin of carrots come from? + +Response: Yes, carrots were first cultivated in parts of Asia and the Middle East and were brought to Europe by the Arabs in the 10th century. + +# Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot) + +Query: What are the different theories about the origin of carrots? + +Response: Carrots have a single origin in Central Asia, but their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia and were selectively bred over the centuries to produce the familiar garden vegetable. + +# Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned) + +Query: What are some theories about where carrots originated in Persia? + +Response: Yes, carrots actually have a single origin in Central Asia and their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia, which is still the centre of diversity for the wild carrot. + +
Error Type (Ratio)Examples
Entity Incorrect Topic (31.4%)Context +Bot: In flames is such an interesting swedish band. +User: Yeah they have quite a few albums I think. +Bot: yeah they have 12 studio albums! +User: That's awesome. I'd love to find other bands that sound like them. +Bot: Wormrot is a metal band that is popular +User: Thanks, I'll be sure to check them out, I love going to live music shows, not just metal. +Cosmo Response +Bot: Yeah, live music is always a great experience. +Zero-shot T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Rock band +Query: What band is Wormrot? +Problem: Entity tracker is too general and query does not track a topic transition +Finetuned T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Wormrot (metal band) +Query: What are some notable live performances by Wormrot?
Query Trivial (29.4%)Context +Bot: Have you been hiking lately? +User: We have been especially with all the current issues, being outside is the only way to stay sane. +Bot: Do you sign up for the AllTrailsPro newsletter? They offer some great suggestions on trails to try +User: Yes i have actually been on that newsletter for years, they also have an amazing app that shows you what is around and how hard the hike is. +Cosmo Response +Bot: That sounds like a great app! i would love to try it out sometime. +Zero-shot T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Hiking +Query: What is the AllTrailsPro newsletter about? +Problem: The generated query was already answered previously so it's not interesting +Finetuned T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Hiking +Query: What are some popular hiking trails in the AllTrailsPro newsletter?
Query Instruction Mismatch (23.5%)Context +Bot: I love Federer and Nadal when they paired up and played. +User: Yes that was great. Are you interested in becoming a tennis champion? +Bot: That would be a dream come true, but Tennis requires lots of physical effort. +User: It does. I have been training in Miami for years now. How long have you played? +Bot: I have had some lessons from Miami Tennis instructors and played for two years. +User: That is fantastic. I have played my whole life. My dream is to one day compete in Wimbledon +Cosmo Response +Bot: That would be amazing. I hope to one day compete in Wimbledon too. +Zero-shot T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Tennis +Query: How long have you been playing tennis? +Problem: The query is asking a question to the user +Finetuned T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Tennis +Query: What are the best tennis instructors in Miami?
Query Others (15.7%)Context +Bot: Hello, welcome to Alexa social bot. What do you want to chat? +User: I like listening to NF because I like rap, and I appreciate the vulnerability in the lyrics +Cosmo Response +Bot: I'm glad you enjoy his music! i think that rap is a great genre to listen to, and it's good to see artists who are vulnerable in their lyrics. +Zero-shot T5 with Cosmo +Entity: Listen to NF +Query: What genre of music does NF like? +Problem: Query generated is factually wrong: NF is a singer, not a listener. +Finetuned T5 with Cosmo +Entity: NF +Query: What are some of NF's most vulnerable lyrics?
+ +Table 3: Qualitative examples of errors types in the query generation. + +# Human Evaluation Guidelines + +# Evaluation of Generated Query (200 examples) + +# Instructions + +You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and a bot-generated search query to gather information for the next bot response. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the search query based on the following aspects described next. + +Note: Current search systems can handle phrase-based and natural language queries. Hence, you should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be as long as they have all the important terms within them. For instance, the phrase-based query - "shoes for long distance marathon running" and the natural language query - "What are some good shoes for running long distances in marathons?" can be considered to be similar. + +# Relevance + +This evaluates for how relevant the search query is to the dialog. Ideally, the search query is expected to be about the topic of discussion in the last 2-3 turns. The results from the search query should be expected to keep the discussion coherent and not make it go off topic. + +# Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5: + +1: Completely Irrelevant +3: Vaguely Relevant +5: Highly Relevant + +# Specificity + +This evaluates for how specific the query is to the relevant topic being discussed. Queries can become more specific based on what fine-grained aspects of the topic the query explores. + +For instance, below is an ordering of search queries based on specificity: + +Adidas running shoes for marathons $>$ running shoes from Adidas $>$ What are some good running shoes? $>$ shoes + +# Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5: + +1: Very generic +3: Somewhat specific +5: Highly specific + +# Usefulness + +This evaluates how useful the search query is for obtaining information to continue the conversation. This is based on the expectation of the usefulness of the search results corresponding to the given query. + +Note: If you are unsure whether a query can be useful, you can pass it to google search and see whether the top-3 results can be useful. + +# Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5: + +1: definitely not useful +3: somewhat useful +5: definitely useful + +# Interestingness + +This evaluates whether the query can obtain information that can make the dialog very engaging. Such queries, while still keeping the discussion coherent i.e. being on-topic, have the potential to take the conversation to new and interesting directions. + +Note: Interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation. A query that is irrelevant is not expected to be useful. A query that is relevant but very generic can still be somewhat useful (based on quality of ranking). However, a query that can provide interesting information is usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. + +# Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5: + +1: very routine / uninteresting +3: somewhat interesting +5: definitely interesting + +# Evaluation of Generated Responses (200 examples) + +# Instructions + +You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and the next bot utterance. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the bot response on the following aspects described below. + +# Coherence + +This evaluates how well the response continues the dialog. Ideally, a coherent response is expected to be about the latest topic of discussion and show follow the logic flow of the dialog + +Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more coherent given the dialog context. + +# Engaging + +A response is engaging if it has the potential to spark a conversation or further dialogue. Evaluation would be from the perspective of how likely it is that you would continue a conversation with the bot, given this response. + +Note: Since the evaluation of level of engaging is based on the quality of the information in the response and not the actual response generator, you should ignore any follow-up questions from the bot that are present in the response. Responses with follow-up questions can appear more engaging than those without follow-up questions, hence we don't consider the follow-up questions to be fair to all query generation approaches. + +Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more engaging. + +# Informative + +This evaluates for whether the bot response is knowledgeable and the main points of the response are still relevant to the conversation or topic. Informative responses involve the use of evidence, examples and provide enough novel content (something not already in the dialog history) to satisfy the user's curiosity. + +Scoring Rubric: + +You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more informative. + +# GPT-4 Automatic Evaluation Prompt + +# Query Scoring + +We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 5 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation. + +You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 5 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query. + +Human-Bot Conversation: + + + +System1 Query: + +System2 Query: + +System5 Query: + +For each of the system queries, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment. + +Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY) + +System1: + +System2: + +System5: + +# Query Preference + +We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation. + +You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query. + +Human-Bot Conversation: + + + +System1 Query: + +System2 Query: + +You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment. + +Evaluation - Which system query is better? (Just output system1 or system2) + +Output: + +# Response Scoring + +We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation. + +You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query. + +Human-Bot Conversation: + + + +Bot1 Response: + +Bot2 Response: + +Bot5 Response: + +For each of the bot responses, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Please ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not affect your judgment. + +Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY) + +Bot1: + +Bot3: + +Bot4: + +Bot5: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/images.zip b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4a9eeaa6949cec5eecf722d02d5ee0a4d57ca44 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8e055cbc1cfe687d50ddd1b80486ba65a631135985ea2178383d3af006ce65e6 +size 431903 diff --git a/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/layout.json b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..094cea4e35b9331771951fcb0083f83ee47c5c29 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9496 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 75, + 479, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 75, + 479, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 75, + 479, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Social Commonsense-Guided Search Query Generation for Open-Domain Knowledge-Powered Conversations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 126, + 499, + 153 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 126, + 499, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 126, + 499, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Revanth Gangi Reddy Hao Bai Wentao Yao Sharath Chandra Etagi Suresh Heng Ji ChengXiang Zhai" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 154, + 403, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 154, + 403, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 154, + 403, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 169, + 481, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 169, + 481, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 169, + 481, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{revanth3, haob2, wentaoy4, sce3, hengji, czhai}@illinois.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Open-domain dialog involves generating search queries that help obtain relevant knowledge for holding informative conversations. However, it can be challenging to determine what information to retrieve when the user is passive and does not express a clear need or request. To tackle this issue, we present a novel approach that focuses on generating internet search queries that are guided by social commonsense. Specifically, we leverage a commonsense dialog system to establish connections related to the conversation topic, which subsequently guides our query generation. Our proposed framework addresses passive user interactions by integrating topic tracking, commonsense response generation and instruction-driven query generation. Through extensive evaluations, we show that our approach1 overcomes limitations of existing query generation techniques that rely solely on explicit dialog information, and produces search queries that are more relevant, specific, and compelling, ultimately resulting in more engaging responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 520, + 154, + 532 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 520, + 154, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 520, + 154, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 541, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conversational systems have evolved to include personal assistants, task-oriented bots, and open-domain dialog agents for casual conversations. For these agents to maintain engaging and informative discussions, it is crucial to access external knowledge. Holding a knowledge-powered dialog (Dinan et al.; Komeili et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023a) typically involves the generation of a search query that can help gather the most relevant information to continue the conversation. While such queries are more obvious when the user explicitly asks for certain information, a.k.a. conversational information seeking (Zamani et al., 2022), it is unclear what information should be pursued when users are passive, disengaged, and do not provide" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 211, + 522, + 447 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 211, + 522, + 447 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 211, + 522, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 211, + 522, + 447 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "69b2fa24020a41caf6f11dd8f4119e60aec479d8b1a3dec382b2c5b32d110bb2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 525, + 518 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Our proposed query generation vs a baseline query generator. The commonsense responder identifies associations related to the dialog topic (e.g., movies " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 458, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reviews) and provides a latent directive (in the form of a response) to guide the generation of search queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 526, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "clear guidance for the conversation (Hardy et al., 2021). Nevertheless, in open-domain conversations, users can introduce any topic, and designing a comprehensive algorithm that can produce a relevant query in response to a random user topic poses a unique, complex challenge that has not been explored in prior research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To tackle this challenge, we propose to integrate social commonsense reasoning for the generation of search queries in knowledge-powered conversations. Social commonsense (Moore, 2006) refers to the general knowledge about social situations and human behavior used to connect conversation topics and guide discussions. We thus hypothesize that by leveraging a deeper understanding of social commonsense and the unspoken cues that guide human conversation, chatbots can become more" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Code and models are available here: https://github.com/gangiswag/dialog-query-generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "873" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 873-885" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 252, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 252, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 252, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "adept at navigating passive conversations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 291, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 291, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 291, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Concretely, we introduce a novel framework that uses a commonsense response as a latent directive for an instruction-following query generator. Our approach incorporates the use of topic tracking (§2.1) to first identify the main point of discussion, followed by commonsense-based response generation that can associate concepts to the main topic to give a latent commonsense directive (§2.2). Finally, we use instruction-driven query generation (§2.3) to output a search query that adheres to the latent directive within the commonsense response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our method overcomes the limitations of existing techniques (Shuster et al., 2022a,b; Cai et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2023b) that solely depend on explicit information present in the conversation to generate search queries. Such an approach is suboptimal in case of passive conversations, where the human isn't necessarily asking for any specific information. Figure 1 shows an example comparing our approach against a baseline query generation system (Shuster et al., 2022b). Our topic tracking identifies 'The Conjuring' as the subject, with the commonsense responder making the association movie " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reviews to output a latent commonsense directive that refers to discuss movie reviews. This directive guides the search query generator to output a query for the movie reviews, the results of which lead to a more engaging bot response compared to the baseline, as can be seen in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 289, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 A Novel Query Generation Framework" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present our framework for generating search queries by leveraging commonsense reasoning. Our approach consists of three main components: topic tracking to pinpoint the core subject, commonsense-based response generation that relates concepts with the primary topic and provides a latent commonsense directive, and instruction-driven query generation to produce a search query capable of retrieving relevant information that follows the commonsense directive. Figure 2 illustrates how these components are integrated, with each step described in detail below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 233, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 233, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 233, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Fine-Grained Topic Tracking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Topic tracking (Nakata et al., 2002) aims to identify the primary subject of the discussion in free-form dialogs, and has been demonstrated (Guo et al., 2018) to improve the coherence of dialog systems. Unlike previous approaches (Khatri et al., 2018)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ab8ca92e3462c625b35cfd0df12bb870afbe552928ab37ba006140cf023f4159.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 266 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Interaction of different components within our proposed query generation framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that track a fixed set of broad high-level topics (e.g., movies, sport), our objective is to detect unconstrained, finer-grained topics (such as movie/actor names or teams). For fine-grained topic tracking, we apply an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) to identify the current topic from the dialog context. We utilize the prompt in Figure 2 and rely on instruction-tuned models with strong zero-shot abilities (Wei et al., 2021) due to lack of training data for such topic tracking in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{dialog}^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". An alternative topic tracking approach could follow Shuster et al. (2022a); Adolphs et al. (2022), extracting topics as relevant entities grounding the final response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 475, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 475, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 475, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Commonsense-Based Directive" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Social commonsense-based dialog systems (Kim et al., 2022a,b; Zhou et al., 2021) typically demonstrate a fundamental understanding of handling and responding to specific topics or situations. They involve using external commonsense knowledge graphs such as ConceptNet (Speer et al., 2017) or ATOMIC (Sap et al., 2019) to collect triples for response generation (Zhou et al., 2022), or distilling such knowledge into language models (LM) through large-scale pretraining (Kim et al., 2022a; Chen et al., 2023) for direct response generation. In this work, we adopt the latter approach, by using a pretrained LM to derive the commonsense directive in the form of a response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 525, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, we use Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a), which was trained on socially-grounded synthetic dialogues generated by prompting InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022) using contextualized commonsense knowledge from ATOMIC. Cosmo takes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 741, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We note that topic tracking is related to open-domain dialog, and is different from state tracking (Williams et al., 2013) which is specific to task-oriented dialog." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "874" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "a situation narrative and role instruction as input, and generates a response based on the dialog context. We also integrate the topic tracking output into the situation narrative definition, as illustrated in Figure 2. Subsequently, Cosmo's output serves as the latent commonsense directive to guide search query generation, which is discussed next." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 272, + 188 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 272, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 175, + 272, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Instruction-Driven Query Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 292, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 292, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 292, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given the dialog context, conversation topic and a latent directive in the form of a commonsense response, we aim to generate a search query to obtain relevant information for continuing the conversation. We utilize an instruction-tuned model (Chung et al., 2022) for query generation, by prompting (see Figure 2) it to transform the commonsense response into a search query, while incorporating the fine-grained topic to enhance relevance and specificity. Essentially, the commonsense response embodies the bot's informational requirement, guiding it to obtain the mentioned information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 155, + 379 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 155, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 155, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 123, + 400 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 123, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 387, + 123, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 405, + 291, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dataset We use the Wizard of Internet (WoI) (Komeili et al., 2022) dataset for our experiments. WoI is a human-human dialog corpus for knowledge-powered conversations, with one of the speakers having internet access to gather information for generating responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 291, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 291, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Models and Baselines The topic-tracker is based on Flan-T5 large (770M) (Chung et al., 2022) while the commonsense response generation uses the 3B version of Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a). The query generator is also based on the Flan-T5 large model. We compare our query generation approach primarily against Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b), a state of the art open-domain conversational agent. We also compare against a version of our approach that does not incorporate the Cosmo response for query generation, termed Flan T5 w/o Cosmo." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finetuning with ChatGPT Annotations Our approach uses an instruction-tuned Flan T5 model in a zero-shot setting for topic tracking and query generation. To improve performance, we separately finetune the topic-tracker and query generator using ChatGPT annotations (the same prompt as Flan T5 is used to obtain silver labels from ChatGPT). To create finetuning data, we choose turns corresponding to internet search from the Woi training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 425, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 425, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 425, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "set, yielding 20k examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Internet Search and Response Generation We obtain search results by scoring passages from the top-3 Bing Search pages using a reranker3. With our primary focus being query generation, we simply prompt ChatGPT to generate the response by incorporating the top search result given the dialog context. We also consider a \"no query\" baseline that corresponds to generating responses directly from ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo-0301 version) without internet search. For both search query generation and final response generation, we employ the nucleus sampling method (Holtzman et al., 2019) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 295 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " set at 0.9 and a temperature of 0.7. We set max tokens to 40 and 100 for search query generation and final response generation respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 381, + 317 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 381, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 381, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our evaluation, we focus on WoI test set with dialog turns that had search queries annotated for generating responses, while specifically targeting \"passive turns\" where users don't explicitly request information. Using an intent detection model (Khatri et al., 2018), we identify and remove turns related to information or opinion requests, and randomly selected 200 examples for human evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 526, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 526, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 526, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation We conducted a human study with four experienced NLP students to evaluate the quality of generated search queries and responses. Queries were assessed based on relevance, specificity, usefulness, and potential to maintain user engagement in the dialog. Responses were evaluated for engagement, coherence, and informativeness. Detailed guidelines are in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 554, + 527, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Evaluation Recent studies, like G-EVAL (Liu et al., 2023) and GPTScore (Fu et al., 2023), show that LLMs such as GPT-4 can effectively evaluate natural language generations and align well with human assessments. Therefore, we utilize GPT-4 for automatic evaluation, prompting4 it to provide an overall score (ranging from 1-10) for search queries and final responses. As seen in §3.3, our human study results corroborate GPT-4 evaluations. Additionally, we use a ranker model (Hedayatnia et al., 2022) trained on the Alexa Prize Socialbot Grand Challenge (Johnston et al., 2023) response selection data (Ram et al., 2018) for response evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 489, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 489, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 750, + 489, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3We use the ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 483, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 483, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 483, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Detailed GPT-4 prompts are in the appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "875" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 179 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Query Generation ApproachSearch QueryFinal Response
HumanAutomaticHumanAutomatic
Rel.Spe.Use.Int.GPT-4Eng.Info.Coh.RankerGPT-4
No Query-----2.711.873.1178.966.2
Blender Bot 33.132.292.612.2835.12.853.192.8875.468.0
Flan T5 w/o Cosmo3.383.213.063.0244.33.013.272.9276.967.6
Ours (Zero-shot)3.59*3.51*3.39*3.29*49.9*3.133.353.0078.670.6*
Ours (Finetuned)4.16*4.05*3.98*3.91*72.2*3.293.313.1080.772.1
ChatGPT4.514.494.484.4580.7-----
", + "image_path": "0829144fc482909a3aace2f18375d43403eacf63ad641a4f33d362dc753c1d0c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Evaluation of different query generation approaches on the WoiI dataset, based on the quality of search queries and final responses. For query generation (left), Finetuned refers to leveraging dataset dialogs, while zero-shot corresponds to instruction-tuned. For response generation (right), responses from ChatGPT are conditioned on internet search results obtained using the corresponding queries. The acronyms for human evaluation are: Relevance, Specificity, Usefulness, Interestingness, Engagement, Informativeness, and Coherence. * corresponds to statistical significance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left( {\\left| z\\right| > {3.3}}\\right." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p < {0.05}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 188, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " )." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 130, + 288 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 130, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 130, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 291, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 291, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 294, + 291, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quality of generated search query Table 1 (left) shows the results of human and automatic evaluation of search queries. Mainly, we notice that instruction-tuned models outperform Blender Bot 3 significantly, and using Cosmo's commonsense response as a directive for guiding query generation with Flan T5 shows consistent improvements. Lastly, substantial enhancements in query quality are observed upon fine-tuning the zero-shot system with ChatGPT annotations. By computing the Spearman correlation between automatic metrics (GPT-4) and overall score for human evaluations (average of four aspect ratings), we found a strong correlation (0.674) between the two measures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quality of final responses Table 1 (right) shows results for evaluation of the generated responses. We see that directly generating a response from ChatGPT without internet search can still lead to a very coherent response, but is less engaging and very uninformative. Our proposed query generation framework leads to consistent improvements across all aspects of the final response, particularly with high engagement scores. Notably, boosting engagement, or the likelihood of continued humanbot interaction, is crucial in passive conversations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 136, + 660 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 136, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 136, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 664, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction-Following Capability We study the impact of the query generator's instruction-following capability on utilizing the commonsense directive (i.e., cosmo output) to generate better queries. Using GPT-4 preference evaluation, we explore how increasing the query generator's size5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 276, + 524, + 344 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 276, + 524, + 344 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 276, + 524, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 276, + 524, + 344 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e3453b0fa86d75d1c9257413393cbf5781c767dc92c92038a771304838f62d0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 391, + 520, + 429 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 355, + 525, + 381 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 355, + 525, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 355, + 525, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Examining the impact of a larger model for query generation, as evaluated by GPT-4's preference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 391, + 520, + 429 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 391, + 520, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 391, + 520, + 429 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
RelevantSpecificOverall
W/O Topic Tracker43.0%39.5%39.0%
With Topic Tracker57.0%60.5%61.0%
", + "image_path": "e1d95f8b6aefc44c905adf67154f4ff85df01b16431279246766249da0754071.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 485 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 437, + 525, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Aspect-wise vs overall relative preference scores, based on GPT-4 evaluation, for search queries generated with and without the topic tracking component in our framework." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "influences the quality of generated queries both with and without the commonsense directive. Figure 3 reveals that incorporating the commonsense directive (a) significantly enhances query quality as model size increases, and (b) leads to greater improvement for larger models (67.5% for XXL vs 53.5% for Large). Hence, a more robust instruction-tuned model effectively leverages the commonsense directive in generating better queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benefit of Topic Tracking Within our framework, topic tracking serves to (a) maintain coherence between the generated query and the most recent discussion subject, and (b) assist in shaping Cosmo's situation narrative (refer to prompts in figure 2). Here, we study the benefit of topic tracking by removing it from the Cosmo and query generator inputs and evaluating the final query quality. Using GPT-4 for automatic preference evaluation, we compare queries generated with and without the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5As per Chung et al. (2022), larger instruction-tuned models usually have better instruction-following capability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "876" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "topic tracker. Table 2 shows results from the study, with GPT-4 finding queries generated by involving topic tracking better, particularly for relevance and specificity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Error Categorization We examined 50 low-scoring examples" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^6" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the human evaluation of search queries produced by the zero-shot approach. The main error categories were: (i) Incorrect Topic " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(31.4\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " - topic tracker failed to identify the current discussion subject, (ii) Trivial Query " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(29.4\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " - query was obvious or already answered in the conversation history, (iii) Query Instruction Mismatch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(23.5\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " - query generator misunderstands instructions, and outputs conversational questions instead, and (iv) other irrelevant queries " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(15.7\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". After finetuning with ChatGPT annotations, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "70.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the queries significantly improved, while the rest maintained a more or less similar quality level. The breakdown of examples that continue to score low after finetuning is as follows: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "19\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " result from Incorrect Topic, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "41\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from Trivial Queries, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from Query Instruction Mismatch, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "35\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from other unrelated queries. Notably, finetuning effectively reduces " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "67\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of Trivial Query errors, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "75\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of Incorrect Topic errors, and over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 133, + 292, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of Query Instruction Mismatch errors. This suggests that finetuning enhances topic tracking capabilities (resulting in fewer Incorrect Topic errors) and ensures better adherence to search query generation instructions (leading to a decrease in Query Instruction Mismatch errors)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 239, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 239, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 239, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion and Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 291, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 291, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce a novel framework that leverages commonsense to enhance the generation of search queries in internet-powered dialog. Our results show that incorporating a commonsense-based directive yields search queries with improved relevance, specificity and appeal, fostering user engagement in otherwise passive conversations. Future work will use more intricate social narratives by incorporating user preferences from past conversations, to align commonsense directives towards individual interests." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 692, + 166, + 706 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 692, + 166, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 692, + 166, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 290, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank Amazon Inc. for providing a grant partially supporting the work of the team. We thank the Amazon Alexa Prize team for their" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "great support, guidance, and help. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, the Blender NLP group and CharmBana team members for their valuable feedback and comments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 134, + 365, + 147 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 134, + 365, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 134, + 365, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 525, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 155, + 525, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We expect the following limitations for our approach:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 188, + 526, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 188, + 526, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 188, + 526, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Focusing only on turns involving search: Our methodology primarily targets the generation of search queries, hence we chose only those turns from the WoI dataset that contained annotated search queries. A more pragmatic approach would also require a search decision module to determine when it is essential to seek external information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 303, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 303, + 525, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 303, + 525, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Assuming topic continuity in discussion: Our method assumes a continuous presence of a discussion topic. Nevertheless, situations like topic shifts can cause temporary absence of a topic, which our approach does not consider. For instance, when the human suggests, \"Let's discuss something else,\" there is no current topic for the discussion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 417, + 423, + 429 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 417, + 423, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 417, + 423, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 525, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 525, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We raise the following ethical concerns from leveraging internet search for open-domain dialog:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 470, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 470, + 525, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 470, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Toxicity of retrieved content: There is a need for a toxicity filter or a content moderation system to ensure that the retrieved content is safe, non-offensive, and free from any form of hate speech, discrimination, or harassment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 544, + 525, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 544, + 525, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 544, + 525, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Privacy concerns: Using Internet search for dialog systems can raise privacy concerns, as users might be discussing or sharing personal or sensitive information in their conversations. It is crucial to implement proper data anonymization and encryption techniques to protect users' privacy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 646, + 526, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 646, + 526, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 646, + 526, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Reliability and credibility of sources: Dialog systems must be cautious when referring to information from the Internet, as the content may not always be accurate or reliable. Verifying the credibility of sources and cross-referencing is essential to ensure that the information provided by the system is reliable and trustworthy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 268, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 268, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 268, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qualitative examples are provided in the appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "877" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 289, + 145 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 289, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 90, + 289, + 145 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leonard Adolphs, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022. Reason first, then respond: Modular generation for knowledge-infused dialogue. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 289, + 198 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 289, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 153, + 289, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingzhu Cai, Siqi Bao, Xin Tian, Huang He, Fan Wang, and Hua Wu. 2022. Query enhanced knowledge-intensive conversation via unsupervised joint modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09588." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 289, + 262 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 289, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 206, + 289, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maximillian Chen, Alexandros Papangelis, Chenyang Tao, Seokhwan Kim, Andy Rosenbaum, Yang Liu, Zhou Yu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2023. Places: Prompting language models for social conversation synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03269." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 270, + 289, + 325 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 270, + 289, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 270, + 289, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2022. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 289, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 334, + 289, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 397, + 289, + 431 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 397, + 289, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 397, + 289, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04166." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 484 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fenfei Guo, Angeliki Metallinou, Chandra Khatri, Anirudh Raju, Anu Venkatesh, and Ashwin Ram. 2018. Topic-based evaluation for conversational bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03622." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 289, + 559 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 289, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 289, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amelia Hardy, Ashwin Paranjape, and Christopher Manning. 2021. Effective social chatbot strategies for increasing user initiative. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 99-110, Singapore and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 289, + 611 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 289, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 567, + 289, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Behnam Hedayatnia, Di Jin, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. A systematic evaluation of response selection for open domain dialogue. In SIGDIAL 2022." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 289, + 665 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 289, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 289, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2019. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 673, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Johnston, Cris Flagg, Anna Gottardi, Sattvik Sahai, Yao Lu, Samyuth Sagi, Luke Dai, Prasoon Goyal, Behnam Hedayatnia, Lucy Hu, Di Jin, Patrick Lange, Shaohua Liu, Sijia Liu, Daniel Pressel, Hangjie Shi, Zhejia Yang, Chao Zhang, Desheng Zhang, Leslie Ball, Kate Bland, Shui Hu, Osman Ipek, James Jeun, Heather Rocker, Lavina Vaz, Akshaya Iyengar, Yang Liu, Arindam Mandal, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Reza Ghanadan. 2023. Advancing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "open domain dialog: The fifth alexa prize socialbot grand challenge. In Alexa Prize SocialBot Grand Challenge 5 Proceedings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 112, + 524, + 157 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 112, + 524, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 112, + 524, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chandra Khatri, Rahul Goel, Behnam Hedayatnia, Angeliki Metallinou, Raefer Gabriel, and Arindam Mandal. 2018. Contextual topic modeling for dialogue systems. In SLT 2018." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 164, + 524, + 230 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 164, + 524, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 164, + 524, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyunwoo Kim, Jack Hessel, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Youngjae Yu, Pei Zhou, Ronan Le Bras, Malihe Alikhani, Gunhee Kim, Maarten Sap, et al. 2022a. Soda: Million-scale dialogue distillation with social commonsense contextualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10465." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 292 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyunwoo Kim, Youngjae Yu, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Daniel Khashabi, Gunhee Kim, Yejin Choi, and Maarten Sap. 2022b. Prosocialdialog: A prosocial backbone for conversational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12688." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 524, + 355 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 524, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 301, + 524, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. 2022. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8460-8478." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 524, + 429 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 524, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 363, + 524, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tuan M. Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023a. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems. In Proc. The 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 524, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 524, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tuan M Lai, Giuseppe Castellucci, Saar Kuzi, Heng Ji, and Oleg Rokhlenko. 2023b. External knowledge acquisition for end-to-end document-oriented dialog systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 488, + 524, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 488, + 524, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 488, + 524, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sha Li, Mahdi Namazifar, Di Jin, Mohit Bansal, Heng Ji, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Enhancing knowledge selection for grounded dialogues via document semantic graphs. In Proc. The 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 524, + 618 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 524, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 573, + 524, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. Gpteval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 624, + 524, + 648 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 624, + 524, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 624, + 524, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chris Moore. 2006. The development of commonsense psychology." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 524, + 699 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 524, + 699 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 524, + 699 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takayuki Nakata, Shinichi Ando, and Akitoshi Okumura. 2002. Topic detection based on dialogue history. In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "878" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashwin Ram, Rohit Prasad, Chandra Khatri, Anu Venkatesh, Raefer Gabriel, Qing Liu, Jeff Nunn, Behnam Hedayatnia, Ming Cheng, Ashish Nagar, et al. 2018. Conversational ai: The science behind the alexa prize. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03604." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 290, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 3027-3035." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Mojtaba Komeili, Leonard Adolphs, Stephen Roller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Language models that seek for knowledge: Modular search & generation for dialogue and prompt completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.13224." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 290, + 361 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 290, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 290, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, et al. 2022b. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to responsibly engage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03188." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 290, + 413 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 290, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 290, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. Conceptnet 5.5: An open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 31." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 290, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 290, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 290, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 485, + 290, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason D Williams, Antoine Raux, Deepak Ramachandran, and Alan W Black. 2013. The dialog state tracking challenge. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference, pages 404-413." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 538, + 290, + 593 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 538, + 290, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 538, + 290, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jing Xu, Megan Ung, Mojtaba Komeili, Kushal Arora, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. 2022. Learning new skills after deployment: Improving open-domain internet-driven dialogue with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03270." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 601, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 601, + 290, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 601, + 290, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hamed Zamani, Johanne R Trippas, Jeff Dalton, and Filip Radlinski. 2022. Conversational information seeking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08808." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 643, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2021. Commonsense-focused dialogues for response generation: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 121-132." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pei Zhou, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Behnam Hedayatnia, Seokhwan Kim, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Yang Liu, and Dilek Hakkani-Tur. 2022. Think before you speak: Explicitly generating implicit commonsense" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "knowledge for response generation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1237-1252." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "879" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 194, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 194, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 194, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 223, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 223, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 92, + 223, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Wizard of Internet Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 110, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Wizard of Internet (WoI) dataset (Komeili et al., 2022) comprises a vast collection of external knowledge-based conversations, allowing agents to leverage internet search to obtain relevant information. We utilize a training subset of WoI consisting of 6,029 conversations with 29,371 turns. Upon transforming the dataset, models are employed to sequentially generate three items for each bot utterance with human annotated search queries: the ChatGPT topic tracking output, commonsense directive from Cosmo, and the ChatGPT search query. From this, 20k instances are sampled to form the finetuning data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 295, + 198, + 306 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 295, + 198, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 295, + 198, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Models and Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 290, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 (Chung et al., 2022) We employ the Flan T5 (Large, 770M) as the model for entity tracking and query generation. Given the context, we incorporate the prompt depicted in Figure 2 into the Flan T5 input using the entity and query created by ChatGPT as the ground truth for finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 290, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cosmo (Kim et al., 2022a) We use the 3B variant of Cosmo model as our social commonsense-based response generator. The model has been trained on 1.5 million synthetically generated social dialogs from SODA (Kim et al., 2022a). Cosmo has been shown to be capable of managing conversations across diverse dialog situations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Blender Bot 3 (Shuster et al., 2022b) Blender Bot 3 (BB3) is a unified sequence-to-sequence language model designed for modular dialogue systems, which appends instruction tokens to the generated text. BB3 employs R2C2 (Shuster et al., 2022b) as the language model to create queries, consisting of a 2.7 billion-parameter Transformer architecture with 22 encoder and 22 decoder layers, pretrained on pushshift.io Reddit and RoBERTa + CC100en data (Shuster et al., 2022a). Furthermore, BB3 finetunes R2C2 on a variety of query datasets, such as the Wizard of Internet and Feedback on Interactive Talk & Search (FITS) (Xu et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 687, + 198, + 701 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 687, + 198, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 687, + 198, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Qualitative Examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we show some qualitative examples for the search queries generated by different approaches, and the corresponding responses generated by incorporating results obtained using the query. Table 3 shows an example for each error type." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 342, + 91, + 486, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 75, + 471, + 86 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 75, + 471, + 86 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 75, + 471, + 86 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT Response Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 91, + 486, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 91, + 486, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 91, + 486, + 212 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "afd0f0d963478a85bf83c5ab3573502400742f9834a1286216dead37f6d3587a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 525, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: ChatGPT prompt for generating the bot response by incorporating search content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 260, + 357, + 269 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 260, + 357, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 260, + 357, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dialog Context" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 270, + 516, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 270, + 516, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 270, + 516, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot: Seventeen always does great things for promotions on social media! \nUser: Yes they do, Their music is the best, Their dance choreography are even better! \nGold Bot response: They add an emotional tone to the choreography, which is awesome." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 318, + 361, + 327 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 318, + 361, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 318, + 361, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Direct ChatGPT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 327, + 516, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 327, + 516, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 327, + 516, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Glad to hear that you enjoy both their music and dance performances!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 346, + 353, + 354 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 346, + 353, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 346, + 353, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Blender Bot 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 356, + 361, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 356, + 361, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 356, + 361, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: seventeen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 365, + 515, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 365, + 515, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 365, + 515, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Yes, Seventeen's name reflects the unique way they are structured as a group with 13 members divided into three units." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 384, + 417, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 384, + 417, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 384, + 417, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 393, + 433, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 393, + 433, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 393, + 433, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: what is the best song on seventeen?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 402, + 514, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 402, + 514, + 418 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 402, + 514, + 418 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song on the list ranking the best of all time?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 420, + 408, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 420, + 408, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 420, + 408, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 430, + 447, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 430, + 447, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 430, + 447, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: What is Seventeen's most popular song?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 439, + 514, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 439, + 514, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 439, + 514, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Have you voted for your favorite Seventeen song yet? Click the link to make your voice heard in the ranking of their greatest hits." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 457, + 440, + 465 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 457, + 440, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 457, + 440, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 467, + 515, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 467, + 515, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 467, + 515, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: \"What are some of Seventeen's most popular social media promotions?\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 484, + 514, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 484, + 514, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 484, + 514, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: It's great to hear that you appreciate Seventeen's social media presence, have you seen any of our favorite campaign examples from 2022 such as KFC's #UnboringMornings or Reddit's Super Bowl Awareness Campaign?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 540, + 357, + 548 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 540, + 357, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 540, + 357, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dialog Context" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 478, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 478, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 550, + 478, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot: I have heard that carrots probably originated in Persia." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 560, + 514, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 560, + 514, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 560, + 514, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: I didn't know they originated in Persia. I have always hated them so I didn't care where they were from." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 577, + 483, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 577, + 483, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 577, + 483, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gold Bot response: What is your favorite skyscraper to visit?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 590, + 361, + 597 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 590, + 361, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 590, + 361, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Direct ChatGPT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 599, + 495, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 599, + 495, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 599, + 495, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: That's interesting to know, even if you don't like them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 610, + 353, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 610, + 353, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 610, + 353, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Blender Bot 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 619, + 353, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 619, + 353, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 619, + 353, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: carrots" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 629, + 514, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 629, + 514, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 629, + 514, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Despite your dislike for them, carrots are actually a highly nutritious and beneficial root vegetable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 646, + 417, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 646, + 417, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 646, + 417, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 without Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 655, + 454, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 655, + 454, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 655, + 454, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: where did the origin of carrots come from?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 666, + 514, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 666, + 514, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 666, + 514, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Yes, carrots were first cultivated in parts of Asia and the Middle East and were brought to Europe by the Arabs in the 10th century." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 683, + 408, + 691 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 683, + 408, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 683, + 408, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (Zero-shot)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 693, + 496, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 693, + 496, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 693, + 496, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: What are the different theories about the origin of carrots?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 703, + 514, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 703, + 514, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 703, + 514, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Carrots have a single origin in Central Asia, but their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia and were selectively bred over the centuries to produce the familiar garden vegetable." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 729, + 440, + 736 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 729, + 440, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 729, + 440, + 736 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flan T5 with Cosmo (ChatGPT Finetuned)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 738, + 514, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 738, + 514, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 738, + 514, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query: What are some theories about where carrots originated in Persia?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 44 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 747, + 514, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 747, + 514, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 747, + 514, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Yes, carrots actually have a single origin in Central Asia and their wild ancestors probably originated in Persia, which is still the centre of diversity for the wild carrot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "880" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 144, + 506, + 673 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 144, + 506, + 673 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 144, + 506, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 144, + 506, + 673 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Error Type (Ratio)Examples
Entity Incorrect Topic (31.4%)Context\nBot: In flames is such an interesting swedish band.\nUser: Yeah they have quite a few albums I think.\nBot: yeah they have 12 studio albums!\nUser: That's awesome. I'd love to find other bands that sound like them.\nBot: Wormrot is a metal band that is popular\nUser: Thanks, I'll be sure to check them out, I love going to live music shows, not just metal.\nCosmo Response\nBot: Yeah, live music is always a great experience.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Rock band\nQuery: What band is Wormrot?\nProblem: Entity tracker is too general and query does not track a topic transition\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Wormrot (metal band)\nQuery: What are some notable live performances by Wormrot?
Query Trivial (29.4%)Context\nBot: Have you been hiking lately?\nUser: We have been especially with all the current issues, being outside is the only way to stay sane.\nBot: Do you sign up for the AllTrailsPro newsletter? They offer some great suggestions on trails to try\nUser: Yes i have actually been on that newsletter for years, they also have an amazing app that shows you what is around and how hard the hike is.\nCosmo Response\nBot: That sounds like a great app! i would love to try it out sometime.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Hiking\nQuery: What is the AllTrailsPro newsletter about?\nProblem: The generated query was already answered previously so it's not interesting\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Hiking\nQuery: What are some popular hiking trails in the AllTrailsPro newsletter?
Query Instruction Mismatch (23.5%)Context\nBot: I love Federer and Nadal when they paired up and played.\nUser: Yes that was great. Are you interested in becoming a tennis champion?\nBot: That would be a dream come true, but Tennis requires lots of physical effort.\nUser: It does. I have been training in Miami for years now. How long have you played?\nBot: I have had some lessons from Miami Tennis instructors and played for two years.\nUser: That is fantastic. I have played my whole life. My dream is to one day compete in Wimbledon\nCosmo Response\nBot: That would be amazing. I hope to one day compete in Wimbledon too.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Tennis\nQuery: How long have you been playing tennis?\nProblem: The query is asking a question to the user\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Tennis\nQuery: What are the best tennis instructors in Miami?
Query Others (15.7%)Context\nBot: Hello, welcome to Alexa social bot. What do you want to chat?\nUser: I like listening to NF because I like rap, and I appreciate the vulnerability in the lyrics\nCosmo Response\nBot: I'm glad you enjoy his music! i think that rap is a great genre to listen to, and it's good to see artists who are vulnerable in their lyrics.\nZero-shot T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: Listen to NF\nQuery: What genre of music does NF like?\nProblem: Query generated is factually wrong: NF is a singer, not a listener.\nFinetuned T5 with Cosmo\nEntity: NF\nQuery: What are some of NF's most vulnerable lyrics?
", + "image_path": "b97556449ef93254c7fabfa1659e18d28eddc8df08044e02365d5ed032f52a30.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 682, + 436, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 682, + 436, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 682, + 436, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Qualitative examples of errors types in the query generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "881" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 126, + 405, + 142 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 126, + 405, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 126, + 405, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation Guidelines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 164, + 390, + 180 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 164, + 390, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 164, + 390, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation of Generated Query (200 examples)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 200, + 158, + 213 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 200, + 158, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 200, + 158, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 235, + 516, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 235, + 516, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 235, + 516, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and a bot-generated search query to gather information for the next bot response. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the search query based on the following aspects described next." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 308, + 510, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 308, + 510, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 308, + 510, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note: Current search systems can handle phrase-based and natural language queries. Hence, you should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be as long as they have all the important terms within them. For instance, the phrase-based query - \"shoes for long distance marathon running\" and the natural language query - \"What are some good shoes for running long distances in marathons?\" can be considered to be similar." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 411, + 143, + 424 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 411, + 143, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 411, + 143, + 424 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relevance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 441, + 502, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 441, + 502, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 441, + 502, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This evaluates for how relevant the search query is to the dialog. Ideally, the search query is expected to be about the topic of discussion in the last 2-3 turns. The results from the search query should be expected to keep the discussion coherent and not make it go off topic." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 515, + 160, + 528 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 515, + 160, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 515, + 160, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 529, + 330, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 529, + 330, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 529, + 330, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 544, + 202, + 586 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 544, + 202, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 544, + 202, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 544, + 202, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Completely Irrelevant" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 559, + 182, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 559, + 182, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 559, + 182, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: Vaguely Relevant" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 574, + 174, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 574, + 174, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 574, + 174, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: Highly Relevant" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 602, + 143, + 617 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 602, + 143, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 602, + 143, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specificity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 634, + 510, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 634, + 510, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 634, + 510, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This evaluates for how specific the query is to the relevant topic being discussed. Queries can become more specific based on what fine-grained aspects of the topic the query explores." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 693, + 441, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 693, + 441, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 693, + 441, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For instance, below is an ordering of search queries based on specificity:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "882" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adidas running shoes for marathons " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " running shoes from Adidas " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " What are some good running shoes? " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 125, + 498, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shoes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 169, + 164, + 181 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 169, + 164, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 169, + 164, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 183, + 333, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 183, + 333, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 183, + 333, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 198, + 193, + 240 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 198, + 162, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 198, + 162, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 198, + 162, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: Very generic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 212, + 193, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 212, + 193, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 212, + 193, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: Somewhat specific" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 227, + 171, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 227, + 171, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 227, + 171, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: Highly specific" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 257, + 151, + 271 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 257, + 151, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 257, + 151, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Usefulness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 289, + 509, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 289, + 509, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 289, + 509, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This evaluates how useful the search query is for obtaining information to continue the conversation. This is based on the expectation of the usefulness of the search results corresponding to the given query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 348, + 517, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 348, + 517, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 348, + 517, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note: If you are unsure whether a query can be useful, you can pass it to google search and see whether the top-3 results can be useful." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 391, + 163, + 404 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 391, + 163, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 391, + 163, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 406, + 333, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 406, + 333, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 406, + 333, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 420, + 195, + 462 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 420, + 195, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 420, + 195, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 420, + 195, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: definitely not useful" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 435, + 184, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 435, + 184, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 435, + 184, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: somewhat useful" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 449, + 177, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 449, + 177, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 449, + 177, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: definitely useful" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 479, + 176, + 493 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 479, + 176, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 479, + 176, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interestingness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 509, + 510, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 509, + 510, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 509, + 510, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This evaluates whether the query can obtain information that can make the dialog very engaging. Such queries, while still keeping the discussion coherent i.e. being on-topic, have the potential to take the conversation to new and interesting directions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 567, + 504, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 567, + 504, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 567, + 504, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note: Interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation. A query that is irrelevant is not expected to be useful. A query that is relevant but very generic can still be somewhat useful (based on quality of ranking). However, a query that can provide interesting information is usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 641, + 163, + 653 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 641, + 163, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 641, + 163, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 655, + 332, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 655, + 332, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 655, + 332, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rate this on a likert scale of 1 to 5:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 670, + 230, + 712 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 670, + 230, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 670, + 230, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 670, + 230, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1: very routine / uninteresting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 685, + 205, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 685, + 205, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 685, + 205, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3: somewhat interesting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 699, + 198, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 699, + 198, + 712 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 699, + 198, + 712 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5: definitely interesting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "883" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 119, + 417, + 136 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 119, + 417, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 119, + 417, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation of Generated Responses (200 examples)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 155, + 156, + 169 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 155, + 156, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 155, + 156, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 187, + 508, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 187, + 508, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 187, + 508, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and the next bot utterance. You need to first read the conversation and then evaluate the bot response on the following aspects described below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 242, + 144, + 255 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 242, + 144, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 242, + 144, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Coherence" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 272, + 496, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 272, + 496, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 272, + 496, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This evaluates how well the response continues the dialog. Ideally, a coherent response is expected to be about the latest topic of discussion and show follow the logic flow of the dialog" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 152, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 152, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 312, + 152, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 326, + 494, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 326, + 494, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 326, + 494, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more coherent given the dialog context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 366, + 137, + 381 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 366, + 137, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 366, + 137, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Engaging" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 397, + 471, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 397, + 471, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 397, + 471, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A response is engaging if it has the potential to spark a conversation or further dialogue. Evaluation would be from the perspective of how likely it is that you would continue a conversation with the bot, given this response." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 451, + 499, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 451, + 499, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 451, + 499, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note: Since the evaluation of level of engaging is based on the quality of the information in the response and not the actual response generator, you should ignore any follow-up questions from the bot that are present in the response. Responses with follow-up questions can appear more engaging than those without follow-up questions, hence we don't consider the follow-up questions to be fair to all query generation approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 530, + 152, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 530, + 152, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 530, + 152, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 544, + 427, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 544, + 427, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 544, + 427, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more engaging." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 572, + 147, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 572, + 147, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 572, + 147, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Informative" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 603, + 505, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 603, + 505, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 603, + 505, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This evaluates for whether the bot response is knowledgeable and the main points of the response are still relevant to the conversation or topic. Informative responses involve the use of evidence, examples and provide enough novel content (something not already in the dialog history) to satisfy the user's curiosity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 671, + 152, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 671, + 152, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 671, + 152, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring Rubric:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 684, + 434, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 684, + 434, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 684, + 434, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will have to rank the responses according to which one is more informative." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 306, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 306, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 306, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "884" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 95, + 386, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 95, + 386, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 220, + 95, + 386, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-4 Automatic Evaluation Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 273, + 116, + 333, + 126 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 273, + 116, + 333, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 273, + 116, + 333, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query Scoring" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 136, + 534, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 136, + 534, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 136, + 534, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 5 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 154, + 534, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 154, + 534, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 154, + 534, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 5 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 182, + 169, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 182, + 169, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 182, + 169, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-Bot Conversation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 280, + 192, + 316, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 280, + 192, + 316, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 280, + 192, + 316, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 198, + 167, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 198, + 167, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 198, + 167, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System1 Query: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 206, + 167, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 206, + 167, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 206, + 167, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System2 Query: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 217, + 168, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 217, + 168, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 217, + 168, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System5 Query: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 227, + 543, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 227, + 543, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 227, + 543, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each of the system queries, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 261, + 233, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 261, + 233, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 261, + 233, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 276, + 119, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 276, + 119, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 276, + 119, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System1:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 285, + 119, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 285, + 119, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 285, + 119, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System2:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 299, + 119, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 299, + 119, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 299, + 119, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System5:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 264, + 343, + 338, + 352 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 264, + 343, + 338, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 264, + 343, + 338, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Query Preference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 363, + 539, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 363, + 539, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 363, + 539, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 381, + 539, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 381, + 539, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 381, + 539, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 409, + 161, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 409, + 161, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 409, + 161, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-Bot Conversation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 279, + 423, + 308, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 279, + 423, + 308, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 279, + 423, + 308, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 431, + 160, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 431, + 160, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 431, + 160, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System1 Query: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 439, + 158, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 439, + 158, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 439, + 158, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System2 Query: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 448, + 543, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 448, + 543, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 448, + 543, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You should evaluate queries irrespective of how well formed they might be, as long as they have all the important terms within them. Note that interestingness is the highest bar for evaluation: A query that can provide interesting information for continuing a conversation is preferred, which such queries usually expected to be at least relevant, useful and somewhat specific. Please ensure that the order in which the queries were presented does not affect your judgment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 475, + 298, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 475, + 298, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 475, + 298, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation - Which system query is better? (Just output system1 or system2)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 490, + 105, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 490, + 105, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 490, + 105, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 265, + 533, + 340, + 543 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 265, + 533, + 340, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 265, + 533, + 340, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response Scoring" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 551, + 532, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 551, + 532, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 551, + 532, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to request your evaluation of the performance of 2 systems, each of which generates a search query for obtaining relevant information to continue a conversation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 571, + 532, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 571, + 532, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 571, + 532, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You will be given a short human-bot conversation (ending with a user utterance) and generated search query from each of the 2 systems, to gather information for the next bot response. You need to read the human-bot conversation and judge the overall quality of each of the search queries based on the relevance, specificity, usefulness and interestingness of the search query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 597, + 163, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 597, + 163, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 597, + 163, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human-Bot Conversation:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 279, + 609, + 314, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 279, + 609, + 314, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 279, + 609, + 314, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 615, + 166, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 615, + 166, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 615, + 166, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot1 Response: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 623, + 166, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 623, + 166, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 623, + 166, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot2 Response: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 634, + 167, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 634, + 167, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 634, + 167, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot5 Response: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 646, + 536, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 646, + 536, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 646, + 536, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each of the bot responses, you need to provide a single overall score in the range of 1-10, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Please ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not affect your judgment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 665, + 208, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 665, + 208, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 665, + 208, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evaluation (scores in the range of 1-10 ONLY)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 681, + 98, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 681, + 98, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 681, + 98, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot1:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 694, + 98, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 694, + 98, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 694, + 98, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot3:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 704, + 98, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 704, + 98, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 704, + 98, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot4:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 712, + 98, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 712, + 98, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 712, + 98, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bot5:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "885" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_content_list.json b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df2f7e5cad9a6608d00a13eafe165b98fce2e12c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1914 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP: A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 206, + 87, + 794, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez $^{1,\\ast}$ , Yuqing Mao $^{2}$ , Vinh Nguyen $^{2}$ , Kin Wah Fung $^{2}$ , Yu Su $^{1}$ , Olivier Bodenreider $^{2}$", + "bbox": [ + 248, + 141, + 754, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1The Ohio State University, 2National Library of Medicine", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 175, + 739, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{jimenezgutierrez.1, su.809}@osu.edu", + "bbox": [ + 341, + 195, + 660, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yuqing.mao,vinh.nguyen,kwfung}@nih.gov, olivier@nlm.nih.gov", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 212, + 774, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 342, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As the immense opportunities enabled by large language models become more apparent, NLP systems will be increasingly expected to excel in real-world settings. However, in many instances, powerful models alone will not yield translational NLP solutions, especially if the formulated problem is not well aligned with the real-world task. In this work, we study the case of UMLS vocabulary insertion, an important real-world task in which hundreds of thousands of new terms, referred to as atoms, are added to the UMLS, one of the most comprehensive open-source biomedical knowledge bases (Bodenreider, 2004). Previous work aimed to develop an automated NLP system to make this time-consuming, costly, and error-prone task more efficient. Nevertheless, practical progress in this direction has been difficult to achieve due to a problem formulation and evaluation gap between research output and the real-world task. In order to address this gap, we introduce a new formulation for UMLS vocabulary insertion which mirrors the real-world task, datasets which faithfully represent it and several strong baselines we developed through re-purposing existing solutions. Additionally, we propose an effective rule-enhanced biomedical language model which enables important new model behavior, outperforms all strong baselines and provides measurable qualitative improvements to editors who carry out the UVI task. We hope this case study provides insight into the considerable importance of problem formulation for the success of translational NLP solutions.1", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 782, + 258, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The public release of large language model (LLM) products like ChatGPT has triggered a wave of enthusiasm for NLP technologies. As more people discover the wealth of opportunities enabled by", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 489, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0b345b9fc03f88a979c5a10d9bc67e09f973c0249fce975a99acd20f850478d3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 255, + 878, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/23e17ae9fd483ef112c5116dde2b130e14b853c308ca1d9c458849c88f394c27.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 417, + 862, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8338d5d6b338c3c1479dcc117cb50043969dc622a02bc7600b66193edb4179e9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b)", + "Figure 1: The UMLS update process in (a) introduces atoms from individual sources into the original UMLS as synonyms of existing concepts or entirely new concepts. The UVA task is formulated as binary synonymy prediction (b) and was thus unable to tackle the real-world update task addressed by our UVI formulation." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 456, + 852, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "these technologies, NLP systems will be expected to perform in a wide variety of real-world scenarios. However, even as LLMs get increasingly more capable, it is unlikely that they will lead to translational solutions alone. Although many aspects are crucial for an NLP system's success, we use this work to highlight one key aspect of building real-world systems which is sometimes taken for granted: formulating a problem in a way that is well-aligned with its real-world counterpart. To explore the effect of this key step in building real-world NLP systems, we provide a case study on the important task of UMLS vocabulary insertion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 626, + 882, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004) is a large-scale biomedical knowledge base that standardizes over 200 medical vocabularies. The UMLS contains approximately 16 million source-specific terms, referred", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Part of this work was done while interning at the NLM. \n1Our code is available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/UMLS-Vocabulary-Insertion.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "704", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 704-717", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to as atoms, grouped into over 4 million unique concepts, making it one of the most comprehensive publicly available biomedical knowledge bases and a crucial resource for biomedical interoperability. Many of the vocabularies which make up the UMLS are independently updated to keep up with the rapidly advancing biomedical research field. In order for this essential public resource to remain up-to-date, a team of expert editors painstakingly identify which new atoms should be integrated into existing UMLS concepts or added as new concepts, as shown in Figure 1a. This process, which we refer to as UMLS vocabulary insertion (UVI), involves inserting an average of over 300,000 new atoms into the UMLS and is carried out twice a year before each new UMLS version release.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 485, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite its importance, scale and complexity, this task is accomplished by editors using lexical information (McCray et al., 1994), synonymy information provided by the source vocabularies and their own expertise. In order to improve this process, much work has been done to augment it with modern NLP techniques. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors introduce datasets and models which explore the task of UMLS vocabulary alignment (UVA). As seen in Figure 1b, the authors formulate the UVA task as a binary synonymy prediction task between two UMLS atoms, while the real-world task requires the whole UMLS to be considered and a concept to be predicted for each new atom (unless it is deemed a new concept atom). Unfortunately, while the UVA task has successfully explored biomedical synonymy prediction, its formulation has made it unable to yield practical improvements for the UVI process.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 349, + 485, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we attempt to address this gap with a novel UVI problem formulation, also depicted in Figure 1b. Our formulation follows the real-world task exactly by predicting whether a new atom should be associated with an existing concept or identified as a new concept atom. We introduce five datasets taken directly from actual UMLS updates starting from the second half of 2020 until the end of 2022. These datasets enabled us to measure the real-world practicality of our systems and led us to findings we could not have discovered otherwise. First, we find that adapting UVA models to perform the UVI task yields much higher error rates than in their original task, showing that their strong performance does not transfer to the real-world setting. Second, contrary to previous", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 661, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "work (Bajaj et al., 2022), we find that biomedical language models (LMs) outperform previous UVA models. Thirdly, we discover that rule-based and deep learning frameworks greatly improve each other's performance. Finally, inspired by biomedical entity linking and the complementary nature of our baseline systems, we propose a null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods and achieves low error rates on all five UMLS update datasets. To show our model's practical utility, we quantitatively evaluate its robustness across UMLS update versions and semantic domains, conduct a comparative evaluation against the second best method and carry out a qualitative error analysis to more deeply understand its limitations. We hope that our case study helps researchers and practitioners reflect on the importance of problem formulation for the translational success of NLP systems.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 404, + 663, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 UMLS Vocabulary Alignment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 431, + 788, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous work to improve UMLS editing formulates the problem as biomedical synonymy prediction through the UMLS vocabulary alignment task (Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022; Wijesiriwardene et al., 2022). These investigations find that deep learning methods are effective at predicting synonymy for biomedical terms, obtaining F1 scores above $90\\%$ (Nguyen et al., 2021). Although this formulation can help explore biomedical synonymy prediction, it does not consider the larger UMLS updating task and thus the strong performance of these models does not transfer to real-world tasks such as UVI.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 451, + 882, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Apart from the clear difference in scope between UVA and UVI shown in Figure 1b, major differences in evaluation datasets contribute to the gap in UVA's applicability to the UVI task. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors built a synonymy prediction dataset with almost 200 million training and test synonym pairs to approximate the largescale nature of UMLS editing. UVA dataset statistics can be found in Appendix A. Since the UVA test set was created using lexical similarity aware negative sampling, it does not hold the same distribution as all the negative pairs in the UMLS. Since the UVI task considers all of the UMLS, UVA sampling leads to a significant distribution shift between these tasks. This unfortunately diminishes the usefulness of model evaluation on the UVA dataset for the real-world task. Surprisingly,", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 646, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "705", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 514, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "this gap results in biomedical language models like BioBERT (Lee et al., 2019) and SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021) underperforming previous UVA models in the UVA dataset Bajaj et al. (2022) while outperforming them in our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Biomedical Entity Linking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 178, + 369, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the task of biomedical entity linking, terms mentioned within text must be linked to existing concepts in a knowledge base, often UMLS. Our own task, UMLS vocabulary insertion, follows a similar process except for three key differences: 1) relevant terms come from biomedical vocabularies rather than text, 2) some terms can be new to the UMLS and 3) each term comes with source-specific information. Many different strategies have been used for biomedical entity linking such as expert-written rules (D'Souza and Ng, 2015), learning-to-rank methods (Leaman et al., 2013), models that combine NER and entity-linking signals (Leaman and Lu, 2016; Furrer et al., 2022) and language model fine-tuning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2022). Due to the strong parallels between biomedical entity-linking and our task, we leverage the best performing LM based methods for the UVI task Liu et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2022); Yuan et al. (2022). These methods fine-tune an LM to represent synonymy using embedding distance, enabling a nearest neighbor search to produce likely candidates for entity linking.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The first difference between biomedical entity linking and UVI is addressed by ignoring textual context as done in Liu et al. (2021), which we adopt as a strong baseline. The second difference, that some new atoms can be new to the UMLS, is addressed by work which includes un-linkable entities in the scope of their task (Ruas and Couto, 2022; Dong et al., 2023). In these, a cross-encoder candidate module introduced by Wu et al. (2020) is used to re-rank the nearest neighbors suggested by embedding methods like Liu et al. (2021) with an extra candidate which represents that the entity is unlinkable, or in our case, a new concept atom. The third difference has no parallel in biomedical entity linking since mentions do not originate from specific sources and is therefore one of our contributions in §4.6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 571, + 489, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 UMLS Vocabulary Insertion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 859, + 394, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We refer to UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) as the process of inserting atoms from updated or new", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "medical vocabularies into the UMLS. In this task, each new term encountered in a medical source vocabulary is introduced into the UMLS as either a synonym of an existing UMLS concept or as an entirely new concept. In this section, we describe our formulation of the UVI task, the baselines we adapted from previous work, as well as a thorough description of our proposed approach.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Problem Formulation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 223, + 726, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we define the version of the UMLS before the update as $K \\coloneqq \\{c_1, \\dots, c_n\\}$ , a set of unique UMLS concepts $c_i$ . Each concept $c_i$ is defined as $c_i \\coloneqq \\{a_1^i, \\dots, a_{k_i}^i\\}$ where each atom $a_j^i$ , as they are referred to by the UMLS, is defined as the $j^{th}$ source-specific synonym for the $i^{th}$ concept in the UMLS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 244, + 882, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) task, a set of $m$ new atoms $Q \\coloneqq \\{q_1, \\dots, q_m\\}$ must be integrated into the current set of concepts $K$ . Thus, we can now define the UVI task as the following function $I$ which maps a new atom $q_j$ to its gold labelled concept $c_{q_j}$ if it exists in the old UMLS $K$ or to a null value if it is a new concept atom, as described by the following Equation 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 359, + 882, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nI (K, q _ {j}) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} c _ {q _ {j}} & \\text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \\in K \\\\ \\varnothing & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 581, + 498, + 882, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 550, + 717, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 623, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate the UVI task in the most realistic way possible, we introduce a set of five insertion sets $Q$ which contain all atoms which are inserted into the UMLS from medical source vocabularies by expert editors twice a year. Due to their real-world nature, these datasets vary in size and new concept distribution depending on the number and type of atoms that are added to source vocabularies before every update as shown in Table 1. We note that the version of the UMLS we use contains 8.5 rather than 16 million atoms because we follow previous work and only use atoms that are in English, come from active vocabularies and are non-suppressible, features defined by UMLS editors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While most of our experiments focus on the UMLS 2020AB, we use the other four as test sets to evaluate temporal generalizability. We split the 2020AB insertion dataset into training, dev and test sets using a 50:25:25 ratio and the other insertion datasets using a 50:50 split into dev and", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "706", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d9d349e413f717f70ce3991fa63bd3fc9bb3a5fb6f0a1b5378776a0456e846a3.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Original UMLS KInsertion Set QNew Concepts
2020AB8,521,220430,135260,058
2021AA8,839,907226,21091,834
2021AB8,835,147455,493218,933
2022AA9,175,923175,989111,853
2022AB9,082,515275,842188,984
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 80, + 460, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: UMLS Statistics from 2020AB to 2022AB. Our models are trained on the 2020AB insertion dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 204, + 487, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "test sets. We do stratified sampling to keep the distribution of semantic groups, categories defined by the UMLS, constant across splits within each insertion set. This is important since the distribution of semantic groups changes significantly across insertion datasets and preliminary studies showed that performance can vary substantially across categories. For details regarding the number of examples in each split and the distribution of semantic groups across different insertion sets, refer to Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 246, + 489, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 220, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report several metrics to evaluate our methods comprehensively on the UVI task: accuracy, new concept metrics and existing concept accuracy.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 455, + 487, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Accuracy. It measures the percentage of correct predictions over the full insertion set $Q$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 507, + 485, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "New Concept Metrics. These measure how well models predict new atoms as new concepts and they are described in Equation 2. The terms in Equation 2, subscripted by $nc$ , refer to the number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) examples, calculated by using the new concept label as the positive class.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 542, + 487, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nP _ {n c} = \\frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F P _ {n c}} \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 665, + 487, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nR _ {n c} = \\frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F N _ {n c}}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 702, + 386, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing Concept Accuracy. This metric shows model performance on atoms in $Q$ which were linked by annotators to the previous version of UMLS $K$ , as shown in Equation 3. Let $N_{ec}$ be the number of concepts in $Q$ which were linked to concepts in $K$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 743, + 487, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA _ {e c} = \\frac {1}{N _ {e c}} \\sum_ {q _ {j} \\in Q} \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} = c _ {q _ {j}} & \\text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \\in K \\\\ 0 & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 848, + 487, + 895 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} := I (K, q _ {j})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 231, + 904, + 349, + 922 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 UVA Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 670, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We adapted several UVA specific system as baselines for our UMLS vocabulary insertion task.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 107, + 880, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rule-based Approximation (RBA). (Nguyen et al., 2021) This system was designed to approximate the decisions made by UMLS editors regarding atom synonymy using three simple rules. Two atoms were deemed synonymous if 1) they were labelled as synonyms in their source vocabularies, 2) their strings have identical normalized forms and compatible semantics (McCray et al., 1994) and 3) the transitive closure of the other two strategies. We thus define the $I$ function for the UVI task as follows. We first obtain an unsorted list of atoms $a_{i}$ in $K$ deemed synonymous with $q_{j}$ by the RBA. We then group these atoms by concept to make a smaller set of unique concepts $c_{i}$ . Since this predicted concept list is unsorted, if it contains more than one potential concept, we randomly select one of them as the predicted concept $\\hat{c}_{q_j}$ . If the RBA synonym list is empty, we deem the new atom as not existing in the current UMLS version.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 156, + 882, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LexLM. (Nguyen et al., 2021) The Lexical-Learning Model (LexLM) system was designed as the deep learning alternative to the RBA and trained for binary synonymy prediction using the UVA training dataset. Their proposed model consists of an LSTM encoder over BioWordVec (Zhang et al., 2019) embeddings which encodes two strings and calculates a similarity score between them. A threshold is used over the similarity score to determine the final synonymy prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 882, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To adapt this baseline to the UVI task, we define the insertion function $I$ as mapping a new atom $q_{j}$ to the concept in $K$ , $\\hat{c}_{q_j}$ , containing the atom with the highest similarity score to $q_{j}$ based on the LexLM representations. To allow the function $I$ to predict that $q_{j}$ does not exist in the current UMLS and should be mapped to the empty set $\\varnothing$ ), we select a similarity threshold for the most similar concept under which $q_{j}$ is deemed a new atom. For fairness in evaluation, the similarity threshold is selected using the 2020AB UVI training set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 657, + 880, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 LM Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 848, + 663, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous work finds that language models do not improve UVA performance (Bajaj et al., 2022). However, given our new formulation, we evaluate", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "707", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0fa963812818da8abfc22622aed56edd1c1a0e8d115086042dc9c9c331bcd0b8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overall architecture for our best performing approach on the new UVI task formulation. Our methodology leverages the best distance-based ranking model (SapBERT) as well as RBA signal. Additionally, our design allows new atoms to be identified as new concepts by introducing a 'New Concept' placeholder into the candidate list given to the re-ranking module as shown above." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 84, + 880, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "two language models in the more realistic UVI task using the same strategy described for the LexLM model above. For implementation details, we refer the interested reader to Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 273, + 487, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PubMedBERT (Gu et al., 2021). PubMedBERT is one of the most capable biomedical specific language models available due to its from scratch pre-training on biomedical data as well as its specialized biomedical tokenizer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 354, + 485, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021). SapBERT is a language model designed for biomedical entity linking or concept normalization. It was developed by finetuning the original PubMedBERT on the 2020AA version of UMLS using a contrastive learning objective. This objective incentivizes synonymous entity representations in UMLS to be more similar than non-synonymous ones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 450, + 487, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Augmented RBA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 294, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given that the neural representation baselines discussed above provide a ranking system missing from the RBA, we create a strong baseline by augmenting the RBA system with each neural ranking baseline. In these simple but effective baselines, the concepts predicted by the RBA are ranked based on their similarity to $q_{j}$ using each neural baseline system. New concept prediction uses the same method employed by the original RBA model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 487, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Our Approach: Candidate Re-Ranking", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 470, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our candidate re-ranking approach is inspired by some entity linking systems which use two distinct steps: 1) candidate generation, which uses a bi-encoder like the baselines described above, and 2) candidate re-ranking, in which a more computationally expensive model is used to rank the $k$ most similar concepts obtained by the bi-encoder. Other work (Wu et al., 2020) encodes both new", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "atoms and candidates simultaneously using language models, allowing for the encoding of one to be conditioned on the other. Our cross-encoder is based on PubMedBERT $^2$ and we use the most similar 50 atoms which represent unique concepts as measured by the best baseline, the RBA system augmented with SapBERT ranking. More concretely, the atom which represents each candidate concept $a_{c_i}$ is appended to new atom $q_j$ and encoded as follows: $[CLS] q_j [SEP] a_{c_i}$ . Since the number of RBA candidates differs for every new atom, if the RBA produces less than 50 candidates, the remaining candidates are selected from SapBERT's nearest neighbor candidates. We use the BLINK codebase (Wu et al., 2020) to train our re-ranking module. More information about our implementation can be found in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 884, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6.1 Null Injection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 680, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In contrast with standard entity linking settings where every mention can be linked to a relevant entity, UVI requires some mentions or new atoms to be deemed absent from the relevant set of entities. To achieve this in our re-ranking framework, we closely follow unlinkable biomedical entity linking methods (Dong et al., 2023; Ruas and Couto, 2022) and introduce a new candidate, denoted by the NULL token, to represent the possibility that the atom is new to the UMLS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 882, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6.2 RBA Enhancement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 750, + 721, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, given the high impact of the RBA system in preliminary experiments, we integrate rule-based information into the candidate re-ranking learning. The RBA provides information in primarily two ways: 1) the absence of RBA synonyms sends a strong signal for a new atom being a novel concept in the UMLS and 2) the candidate concepts", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 769, + 882, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{2}$ Preliminary results showed that PubMedBERT outperforms SapBERT as a re-ranker.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "708", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c60925c9cc0b2d042ef3da0bf5605760901cef27b55d33f9600d6d81934d93ba.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
AccuracyNew ConceptExisting Concept Accuracy
RecallPrecisionF1
Rule Based Approximation (RBA)70.199.090.594.626.3
LexLM63.289.592.490.922.4
PubMedBERT68.499.167.380.220.7
SapBERT77.494.179.286.052.0
RBA + LexLM80.499.090.594.651.6
RBA + PubMedBERT83.799.090.594.660.0
RBA + SapBERT90.799.090.594.676.1
Re-Ranker (PubMedBERT)85.596.391.693.968.4
+ RBA Signal93.298.296.197.185.5
", + "bbox": [ + 189, + 80, + 803, + 252 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Comparison for rule-based, distance-based and combined baselines against our re-ranking approaches both with and without RBA-signal over all our metrics. All results reported above were calculated on the 2020AB UMLS insertion dataset. We find that all improvements of our best approach over the RBA+SapBERT baseline are very highly significant (p-value $< 0.001$ ) based on a paired t-test with bootstrap resampling.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 262, + 882, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which the RBA predicted, rather than the ones predicted based solely on lexical similarity, have a higher chance of being the most appropriate concept for the new atom. Thus, we integrate these two information elements into the cross-encoder by 1) when no RBA synonyms exist, we append the string \" (No Preferred Candidate)\" to the new atom $q_{j}$ and 2) every candidate that was predicted by the RBA is concatenated with the string \"(Preferred)\". This way, the cross-encoder obtains access to vital RBA information while still being able to learn the decision-making flexibility which UMLS editors introduce through their expert knowledge.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 489, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results & Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 567, + 329, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we first discuss performance of our baselines and proposed methods on the UMLS 2020AB test set. We then evaluate the generalizability of our methods across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains. Finally, we provide a comparative evaluation and a qualitative error analysis to understand our model's potential benefits and limitations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 595, + 489, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 736, + 263, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines. As seen in Table 2, previous baselines such as RBA, LexLM and biomedical language models like PubMedBERT and SapBERT stay under the $80\\%$ mark in overall accuracy, with specially low performance in the existing concept accuracy metric. Even SapBERT, which is fine-tuned for the biomedical entity linking task, is unable to obtain high existing concept and new concept prediction scores when using a simple optimal similarity threshold method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nevertheless, a simple baseline which combines the strengths of neural models and the rule-based system obtains surprisingly strong results. This is especially the case for augmenting the RBA with SapBERT which obtains a num90% overall accuracy and existing concept accuracy of 76%. We note that the new concept recall and precision of all RBA baselines is the same since the same rule-based mechanism is used.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 344, + 884, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our Approach. For the PubMedBERT-based re-ranking module, we find that the NULL injection mechanism enables it to outperform the models that rely solely on lexical information (LexLM, PubMedBERT and SapBERT) by a wide margin. However, it underperforms the best augmented RBA baseline substantially, underscoring the importance of RBA signal for the UVI task. Finally, we note that RBA enhancement allows the re-ranking module to obtain a $93.2\\%$ accuracy due to boosts in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision of almost $10\\%$ and $4\\%$ respectively. These improvements comes from several important features of our best approach which we discuss in more detail in §5.3, namely the ability to flexibly determine when a new atom exists in the current UMLS even when it has no RBA synonyms and to apply rules used by UMLS editors seen in the model's training data. This substantial error reduction indicates our method's potential as a useful tool for supporting UMLS editors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 507, + 884, + 845 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Model Generalization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 862, + 726, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we note the robust generalization of our re-ranking module across both UMLS versions", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "709", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and semantic groups (semantic categories defined by the UMLS).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Across Versions. In Figure 3, we see that the best performing baseline RBA + SapBERT and our best method obtain strong performance across all five UMLS insertion datasets. Even though our proposed approach obtains the largest gains in the 2020AB set in which it was trained, it achieves stable existing concept accuracy and new concept F1 score improvements across all sets and shows no obvious deterioration over time, demonstrating its practicality for future UMLS updates. Unfortunately, we do observe a significant dip in new concept F1 for all models in the 2021AA dataset mainly due to the unusually poor performance of the RBA in one specific source, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), for that version.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 131, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c269bf73d6234eb17ce08d2865d125a4d38f50a00d0373336aa7c6489c6e01ca.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Existing concept accuracy (left) and new concept F1 (right) of the best model from each baseline type and our best approach across 5 UVI datasets from 2020AB to 2022AB. All improvements over the best baseline are very highly significant (p-value $< 0.001$ )." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 385, + 485, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Across Subdomains. Apart from evaluating whether our proposed approach generalizes across UMLS versions, we evaluate how model performance changes across different semantic groups. Table 3 shows the results of our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT) compared against our best proposed approach (Re-Ranker + RBA Signal) on the nine most frequent semantic groups averaged over all development insertion sets. We report the results in detail over all insertion sets in Appendix E. Our evaluation reveals that even though our best baseline performs quite well across several semantic groups, performance drops in challenging categories like Drugs, Genes, Procedures and the more general Concepts & Ideas category. Our approach is able to improve performance across most groups to above $90\\%$ , with the exception of Genes and Procedures. Since the distribution of semantic groups can vary widely across UMLS updates, as seen in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b1c60bb6d2a50e2753409f5bcf1dbfb2a810845f1fbbe69c30a56c8bd337e13e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Semantic GroupRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings97.298.0
Chemicals & Drugs81.193.7
Genes & Molecular Seq.74.377.7
Disorders92.197.7
Procedures82.684.3
Physiology92.899.0
Concepts & Ideas89.197.2
Devices90.797.4
Anatomy95.198.3
", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 80, + 884, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the dataset details in Appendix B, our model's improved semantic group robustness is vital for its potential in improving the efficiency of the UMLS update process.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 334, + 882, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As for the categories in which our approach remained below $90\\%$ like Genes and Procedures, we find that they are mainly due to outlier insertion sets. Both the Genes and Procedures categories have one insertion set, 2022AA and 2021AA respectively, in which the performance of both systems drops dramatically due to a weak RBA signal which our methodology was unable to correct for. We refer the interested reader to Appendix E for these results and a more detailed discussion around this limitation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 400, + 882, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Comparative Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 589, + 749, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned in the main results, our best model outperforms the best baseline mainly through improvements in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision. In Table 4, we report the distribution of 2,943 examples incorrectly predicted by RBA + SapBERT amended by our best approach. We note that a large majority, around $60\\%$ , of the corrections are concept linking corrections, new atoms which are linked to an existing concept correctly while they were wrongly predicted as new concept atoms by the baseline. Most of the remain", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 882, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2296d763c0d5d718ec63d9409202b9d13cc448be7c3b935254b22493f274e024.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Accuracy by semantic group for the two highest performing UVI systems averaged over all development insertion sets from 2020AB to 2022AB." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Correction TypeCorrection %
Concept Linking59.5
Re-Ranking35.9
New Concept Identification4.6
", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 807, + 847, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Distribution of examples incorrectly predicted by the best baseline amended by our best model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 885, + 882, + 914 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "710", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9df0fcf42ddb1f3aa2bb6e676c0d5b858008b33bf8d96a31124c0188ae51d2f8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Correction TypeNew AtomsTop 5 RBA + SapBERT Candidates
Re-RankingAmorpha <eudicots>Amorpha <moth> (Preferred) \nAmorpha <angiosperm> (Preferred) \nAmorphus \nAmorphus sp. \nAmorphotheca
Cytarabine-Thioguaninecytarabine/thioguanine (Preferred) \nCytarabine-Thioguanine Regimen (Preferred) \ncyclophosphamide/cytarabine/thioguanine \nCytarabine/Mitoxantrone/Thioguanine \nCytarabine/Doxorubicin/Thioguanine
Concept Linkingtotal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary[NEW CONCEPT] \nTotal hysterectomy with right oophorectomy abdominal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary \nTotal hysterectomy with right salpingo-oophorectomy \nTotal hysterectomy with removal of both tubes and ovaries
WARFARIN NA (JANTOVEN) 7.5MG TAB[NEW CONCEPT] \nWarfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [JANTOVEN] \nWARFARIN NA (TARO) 7.5MG TAB \nWarfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [COUMADIN]
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 80, + 485, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing corrections, $35.9\\%$ , are re-ranking corrections based on our model's ability to re-rank gold concept over other candidate concepts. The final $5\\%$ comes from new concept identification corrections in which a new atom is correctly identified as a new concept atom when it was incorrectly linked to an existing one by the best baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 361, + 487, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The examples shown in Table 5 illustrate the benefits of our proposed approach more clearly. In the first two rows, we see two re-ranking corrections. In the first example, SapBERT incorrectly identifies ‘’ as being closer to ‘’ than ‘’ but our model has learned to interpret the disambiguation tags and correctly associates ‘eudicots’ with ‘angiosperm’ as levels of plant family classifications. In the second example, we observe that our trained model learns to link new atoms to concepts which have more comprehensive information such as the addition of the \"Regimen\" phrase. Although this is an editorial rule rather than an objective one, it is important to note that our model can adequately encode these.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 479, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The final two rows in Table 5 show concept linking corrections. These examples illustrate the most important feature of our proposed model, the ability to link new atoms to concepts even when the RBA would consider them a new concept atom. In these instances, the model must determine whether all the features in the new atom are present in any potential candidates without support from the RBA. In these two examples, the model is able to correctly identify synonymy by mapping 'removal of the right ovary' to 'right oophorectomy', 'NA' to 'Sodium' and 'TAB' to 'Oral Tablet.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/02f698d94f3e91d5926831406c78dbfb6e0d6c87f41141093b3cac83809eced7.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT), shown above in red, but corrected by our best proposed reranking model, shown above in green." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Error TypeNew AtomTop 5 Best Model
UMLS Error (Duplicate Concepts)Left orbital regionLeft orbital region (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Structure of periorbital region of left eye Left orbital cavity proper Left orbital content
GonostomatidaeGonostomatidae (Preferred) Gonostomatidae (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Gonichthys Protrodiplostomatidae
True Errorsurea 400 MG/ML[NEW CONCEPT] Urea 400 mg/mL cutaneous lotion urea@50 %@TOPICAL@SOLUTION urea 40% UREA 40% TOP GEL
Exanthem caused by human echovirus (disorder)[NEW CONCEPT] VIRUSES ACCOMPANIED BY EXANTHEM exanthems viral Exanthem viral exanthem due to echovirus
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 884, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best proposed model, shown in red. Gold label concepts are marked with green. The first two rows show two errors caused by UMLS annotations while the final two are legitimate errors caused by complexity and ambiguity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 292, + 884, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Error Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 672, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given that our work focuses on a specific practical application, in this section, we aim to more deeply understand how our approach can be effectively adopted by UMLS editors in their vocabulary insertion task. To this end, we recruited a biomedical terminology expert familiar with the UMLS vocabulary insertion process to analyze the practical effectiveness and limitations of our system.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 432, + 882, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first studied the calibration of our best model's output as a way to understand its error detection abilities. As shown in detail in Appendix F, we see a substantial drop in performance when model confidence, a softmax over candidate logit scores, drops below $90\\%$ . This drop could indicate that our model is well calibrated, however, our qualitative experiments reveal that this signal comes from a large number of annotation errors in the UMLS which are easily detected by our problem formulation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 882, + 738 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We discovered this through a qualitative error analysis carried out with the help of the aforementioned biomedical terminology expert. We chose three sets of 30 randomly chosen example errors with different model confidence scores: high (90%-100%), medium (60%-70%) and low (30%-40%). Our expert editor reports several important findings. First, there was no substantial difference in example difficulty between different model confidence bins. Second, 70% of model errors are caused by the existence of UMLS concepts which have", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "711", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "phrases that are equivalent to the new atoms, leading to ambiguous examples which can be found in the first section of Table 6. This arises from two types of annotation errors within the UMLS, either the new atom was incorrectly introduced into the UMLS or the phrase that is representing that concept was previously introduced into UMLS incorrectly. Out of this study, the expert found 15 out of the 90 instances where our model's suggestions lead to detecting incorrect associations in the original UMLS vocabulary insertion process. This evaluation suggests that our model could be quite useful in supporting quality assurance for the UMLS.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 485, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Even though most model errors are caused by annotation issues in the UMLS, there are still some which are due to complexity and ambiguity. In the bottom half of Table 6, we see examples that our model still struggles with. First, the new atom \"urea $400\\mathrm{MG / ML}$ \" should have been mapped to \"urea $40\\%$ since the percentage is calculated as the number of grams in $100~\\mathrm{mL}$ . However, this decision requires not only the knowledge of this definition but also mathematical reasoning abilities. Finally, the last error in our table is caused by the ambiguity in deciding whether \"human echovirus\" and \"echovirus\" should be deemed equivalent. We note that both of these error types as well as the previously mentioned annotation errors show that our model's errors are occurring on scenarios which are either unsolvable or very challenging, shedding light on its potential as a practical system to support UMLS editors.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 311, + 485, + 614 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 633, + 243, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In conclusion, this paper emphasizes the importance of formulating NLP problems that align well with real-world scenarios in the midst of growing enthusiasm for NLP technologies. Focusing on the real-world task of UMLS vocabulary insertion, we demonstrate the importance of problem formulation by showcasing the differences between the UMLS vocabulary alignment formulation and our own UVI formulation. We evaluate existing UVA models as baselines and find that their performance differs significantly in the real-world setting. Additionally, we show that our formulation allows us to not only discover straightforward but exceptionally strong new baselines but also develop a novel null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods. Finally, we show", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 661, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "that our proposed approach is highly translational by providing evidence for its robustness across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains, exploring the reasons behind its superior performance over our baselines and carrying out a qualitative error analysis to understand its limitations. We hope our case study highlights the significance of problem formulation and offers valuable insights for researchers and practitioners for building effective and practical NLP systems.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 880, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 258, + 640, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We acknowledge several limitations to our investigation, which we propose to address in future work. First, while our formulation aligns exactly with part of the insertion process, there are aspects of the full insertion of new terms into the UMLS which are out of our scope. While we do identify terms that are not linked to existing UMLS concepts, we do not attempt to group these terms into new concepts. The identification of synonymous terms for new concepts will be addressed in future work. Second, except for the RBA approach that leverages lexical information and source synonymy, our approach does not take advantage of contextual information available for new terms (e.g., hierarchical information provided by the source vocabulary). We plan to follow (Nguyen et al., 2022) and integrate this kind of information that has been shown to increase precision without detrimental effect on recall in the UVA task. Third, our approach uses a single term, the term closest to the new atom, as the representative for the concept for linking purposes. While this approach drastically simplifies processing, it also restricts access to the rich set of synonyms available for the concept. We plan to explore alternative trade offs in performance when including more concept synonyms. Finally, reliance on the RBA information had the potential for incorrectly identifying new concepts when RBA signal is not complete. Even though RBA signal is quite useful for this task, it is important to build systems robust to its absence. We plan to explore this robustness more actively in future work by including such incomplete signal in the training process.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 284, + 880, + 815 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 829, + 707, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The authors would like to thank the expert UMLS annotators from the NLM for their detailed error analysis. We also appreciate constructive comments from anonymous reviewers and our NLM", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 854, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "712", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and OSU NLP group colleagues. This research was supported in part by NIH R01LM014199, the Ohio Supercomputer Center (Center, 1987) and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Library of Medicine.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 191, + 213, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Goonmeet Bajaj, Vinh Nguyen, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Evaluating biomedical word embeddings for vocabulary alignment at scale in the UMLS Metathesaurus using Siamese networks. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 82-87, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): Integrating Biomedical Terminology. Nucleic acids research, 32 Database issue:D267-70.", + "Ohio Supercomputer Center. 1987. Ohio supercomputer center.", + "Hang Dong, Jiaoyan Chen, Yuan He, Yinan Liu, and Ian Horrocks. 2023. Reveal the unknown: Out-of-knowledge-base mention discovery with entity linking.", + "Jennifer D'Souza and Vincent Ng. 2015. Sieve-based entity linking for the biomedical domain. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 297-302, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lenz Furrer, Joseph Cornelius, and Fabio Rinaldi. 2022. Parallel sequence tagging for concept recognition. BMC Bioinformatics, 22.", + "Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare, 3(1).", + "Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herve Jégou. 2021. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547.", + "Robert Leaman, Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, and Zhiyong Lu. 2013. DNorm: disease name normalization with pairwise learning to rank. Bioinformatics, 29:2909 - 2917.", + "Robert Leaman and Zhiyong Lu. 2016. TaggerOne: joint named entity recognition and normalization with semi-Markov Models. Bioinformatics, 32(18):2839-2846." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 212, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234-1240.", + "Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, Zaiqiao Meng, Marco Basaldella, and Nigel Collier. 2021. Self-alignment pretraining for biomedical entity representations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4228-4238, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alexa T. McCray, Suresh Srinivasan, and Allen C. Browne. 1994. Lexical methods for managing variation in biomedical terminologies. Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pages 235-9.", + "Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, Goonmeet Bajaj, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vishesh Javangula, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Context-enriched learning models for aligning biomedical vocabularies at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022.", + "Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2021. Biomedical vocabulary alignment at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference, 2021:2672 - 2683.", + "Pedro Ruas and Francisco M. Couto. 2022. Nilinker: Attention-based approach to nil entity linking. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 132:104137.", + "Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vinh Phu Nguyen, Goonmeet Bajaj, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Yuqing Mao, Kin Wah Fung, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Ubert: A novel language model for synonymy prediction at scale in the umls metathesaurus. ArXiv, abs/2204.12716.", + "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)," + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "713", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "pages 6397-6407, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zheng Yuan, Zhengyun Zhao, Haixia Sun, Jiao Li, Fei Wang, and Sheng Yu. 2022. Coder: Knowledgeinfused cross-lingual medical term embedding for term normalization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, page 103983.", + "Sheng Zhang, Hao Cheng, Shikhar Vashishth, Cliff Wong, Jinfeng Xiao, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2022. Knowledge-rich self-supervision for biomedical entity linking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 868-880, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yijia Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhihao Yang, Hongfei Lin, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. BioWordVec, improving biomedical word embeddings with subword information and MeSH. Scientific Data, 6." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "714", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Original UVA Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 342, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7 lists the basic statistics for the UMLS vocabulary alignment datasets. Since the UVA task was formulated and evaluated only as a binary classification task, the dataset is divided into positive and negative pairs. For more details about how the negative pairs were sampled from the UMLS, we refer the interested reader to §4.2 of Nguyen et al. (2021).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 108, + 489, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c8aea1caf9310d77695c44af5f2981333d28f8cf497aaf3fe4a7875fbcef7971.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
UVA PairsPositive PairsNegative Pairs
Train192,400,46222,324,834170,075,628
Test173,035,8625,581,209167,454,653
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 247, + 487, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B UVI Dataset Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 357, + 326, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 8, we report the size of our five UMLS vocabulary insertion dataset splits. We note that only the 2020AB version contains a training set, all other insertion sets only have development and test sets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 384, + 487, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e319fd7f912e011b7622273b0694645d8c0844208ab9904e88526c29f8566710.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Original UVA dataset statistics." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TrainDevTest
2020AB215,402105,796108,937
2021AA-112,647113,563
2021AB-227,440228,053
2022AA-88,18687,803
2022AB-138,107137,735
", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 473, + 442, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In terms of dataset construction, we reiterate that stratified sampling based on semantic groups was used to keep the original distributions intact. We adopt this technique due to the substantial changes", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 617, + 487, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/05870e417d41ea6793f86381eb94a8ca87438dd6e4a68b1ac11d3844e1bef615.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: This figure shows the incidence of each of the", + "most frequent 8 semantic groups across the 5 insertion sets explored in this work." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 693, + 460, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in semantic group distribution across insertion sets, as seen in 4, as well as the high variance in model performance across semantic categories, as seen in §5.2 and Appendix E.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 164, + 752, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we discuss the implementation details for our baselines as well as our proposed approach. For the UMLS vocabulary alignment baselines, we use the same implementation of the Rule-Based Approximation (RBA) and LexLM used by the authors in Nguyen et al. (2021). To implement our language model baselines we use the HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use the FAISS library (Johnson et al., 2021) to speed up nearest neighbor search using GPUs when experimenting with LexLM, SapBERT and PubMedBERT embeddings (Johnson et al., 2021). We train our cross-encoder re-ranking module using BLINK (Wu et al., 2020), which uses a cross-entropy loss to maximize the score of the correct candidate over the rest of the candidates. We use default hyperparameters listed in Table 9 to train our re-ranking module but perform early stopping using the accuracy metric on our 2020AB validation set. All experiments used an NVIDIA V100 GPU with 16 GB of VRAM. The models we used and the approximate amount of GPU hours used for each is listed in Table 10.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 192, + 884, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d32ba596abc96e220274edc23bed8ce1cdb08b8f61c68e7f40e9ad9dbcb108f3.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Experimental split statistics for UMLS insertion dataset $Q$ from 2,020 to 2,022." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Learning RateTotal EpochsBatch SizeWarmup Ratio
2e-5310.1
", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 573, + 826, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7b6910b4f6e64efed67185af1ddaae55cfd57d4a4ee62961a36e211ab77a9586.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Hyperparameters selected for our cross-encoder re-ranking training for reproducibility." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# of Parameters (millions)Total GPU Hours
LexLM0.25
PubMedBERT100140
SapBERT10040
", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 690, + 847, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Total GPU Hours associated with our experiments. PubMedBERT GPU hours include both UMLS encoding and fine-tuning for our re-ranking module.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 778, + 882, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Latency Comparison", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 858, + 729, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 11, we report the inference latency for each baseline as well as our proposed approaches", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "715", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "on the UVI task. As seen in the table, our approach has significantly slower inference than previous baselines. Nevertheless, since the UMLS insertion task happens only twice a year, variations in inference latency are not a significant concern as long as the process can be run within a reasonable amount of time on available computing resources. We hope that these numbers can help other researchers and practitioners understand the computing requirements on this or similar tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 489, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b1102aa9342e6b1f7175e04c7e124c0c74cc1a895e91d6a614ee5e5fcd3db3c7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelInference Latency (ms)Time for 300k Atoms (mins)
RBA0.010.05
LexLM1.286.40
SapBERT2.5012.50
RBA + LexLM1.296.45
RBA + SapBERT2.5112.55
Re-Ranker (RBA Signal)35.51177.5
", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 255, + 485, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Detailed Semantic Group Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 458, + 468, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned in 5.2, different UMLS updates often contain completely different semantic group distributions since they depend entirely on independent source updates. Due to this, generalization across different semantic categories (semantic groups in the UMLS) is a crucial feature for a system to be successful in real-world UMLS vocabulary insertion. Table 13 provides a detailed report of the performance of our strongest baseline and our best proposed approach on all development insertion sets across the 9 most frequent semantic groups. As seen in these detailed results, our proposed approach obtains stronger and more consistent results across all semantic groups compared to our best baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 483, + 487, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nevertheless, as discussed in the main text, our approach remained below $90\\%$ on average in categories like Genes and Procedures. In the broken down results in Table 13, we can more clearly see that these averaged results are caused by outlier insertion sets. For the Genes semantic group, our proposed approach improves performance considerably for all insertion sets except for 2022AA, in which its performance drops by more than 10 points. We note that the performance of the best baseline is also much lower than usual, potentially indicating a weak RBA signal and challenging", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 726, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "atoms to link. For the Procedures category, we see a similar pattern in the 2021AA insertion set while the other sets see small but regular improvements with our system. These results indicate that, although our proposed approach can leverage the RBA signal more consistently when it is sufficiently strong, it fails to correct for it when it is very weak to begin with. It is therefore important to continue working on ways to correct or at least alert annotators about potential system failures in specific concept sub-groups.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 84, + 880, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Model Calibration Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 273, + 769, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed above, our re-ranker model's output confidence, defined as a softmax over candidate logit scores produced by our model, seemed correlated with model accuracy. In Table 12, we show model accuracy across different model confidence scores. We find that model confidence score is highly correlated with model accuracy, which drops to around $50\\%$ when model confidence drops below $90\\%$ and continues to drop after that. Through qualitative analysis, we find that this does not indicate successful model calibration but is actually mainly caused by annotation errors within UMLS which result in duplicate and ambiguous concepts.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 299, + 880, + 507 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3c700e0c505f3de06e22eb043ff74dad04754afe955c6c21907cb1b81a0fb898.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: Time spent on inference for each baseline as well as our proposed approach." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model Confidence (%)Number of ExamplesAccuracy
0238.7
108022.5
2020632.5
3039736.0
401,28256.0
5096455.1
6051148.7
7041150.6
8059055.3
9038,07692.1
10062,74399.8
", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 519, + 826, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: The output probability of our best re-ranking approach (the probability of the highest scoring candidate concept) seemed to be correlated with high prediction accuracy but actually indicates annotation errors.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 727, + 880, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "716", + "bbox": [ + 487, + 928, + 515, + 939 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/70a86ff1ce23770bbb4272f66230f65e68eb06460933745f5889bb9ce025ba4f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Semantic Group2020AB2021AA2021AB2022AA2022AB
RBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings99.299.898.695.896.899.793.395.397.999.6
Chemicals & Drugs87.794.873.889.287.995.381.596.674.892.4
Genes & Molecular Sequences86.897.076.282.678.287.458.942.571.279.2
Disorders91.798.090.297.296.098.391.897.090.898.0
Procedures94.196.954.654.895.397.695.097.074.275.0
Physiology95.199.298.898.984.399.197.199.388.798.4
Concepts & Ideas91.697.470.596.198.498.592.696.492.597.5
Devices93.497.889.495.594.397.190.399.786.296.9
Anatomy92.796.494.297.992.298.498.399.097.899.4
", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 882, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: Breakdown for Table 3 over all insertion development sets and the 9 most frequent semantic groups. These detailed results can help us more closely understand model failures across semantic groups compared to the aggregated results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 550, + 882, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "717", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_model.json b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7f0b17c6fab127e4747a9d8fbb23ac1f14df287 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2197 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.089, + 0.795, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP: A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.249, + 0.142, + 0.755, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez\\(^{1,\\ast}\\), Yuqing Mao\\(^{2}\\), Vinh Nguyen\\(^{2}\\), Kin Wah Fung\\(^{2}\\), Yu Su\\(^{1}\\), Olivier Bodenreider\\(^{2}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.177, + 0.74, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1The Ohio State University, 2National Library of Medicine" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.196, + 0.662, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{jimenezgutierrez.1, su.809}@osu.edu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.213, + 0.776, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yuqing.mao,vinh.nguyen,kwfung}@nih.gov, olivier@nlm.nih.gov" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.343, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As the immense opportunities enabled by large language models become more apparent, NLP systems will be increasingly expected to excel in real-world settings. However, in many instances, powerful models alone will not yield translational NLP solutions, especially if the formulated problem is not well aligned with the real-world task. In this work, we study the case of UMLS vocabulary insertion, an important real-world task in which hundreds of thousands of new terms, referred to as atoms, are added to the UMLS, one of the most comprehensive open-source biomedical knowledge bases (Bodenreider, 2004). Previous work aimed to develop an automated NLP system to make this time-consuming, costly, and error-prone task more efficient. Nevertheless, practical progress in this direction has been difficult to achieve due to a problem formulation and evaluation gap between research output and the real-world task. In order to address this gap, we introduce a new formulation for UMLS vocabulary insertion which mirrors the real-world task, datasets which faithfully represent it and several strong baselines we developed through re-purposing existing solutions. Additionally, we propose an effective rule-enhanced biomedical language model which enables important new model behavior, outperforms all strong baselines and provides measurable qualitative improvements to editors who carry out the UVI task. We hope this case study provides insight into the considerable importance of problem formulation for the success of translational NLP solutions.1" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.783, + 0.26, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.808, + 0.49, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The public release of large language model (LLM) products like ChatGPT has triggered a wave of enthusiasm for NLP technologies. As more people discover the wealth of opportunities enabled by" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.256, + 0.88, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.687, + 0.398, + 0.708, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.418, + 0.863, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.457, + 0.853, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.685, + 0.497, + 0.705, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.521, + 0.885, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The UMLS update process in (a) introduces atoms from individual sources into the original UMLS as synonyms of existing concepts or entirely new concepts. The UVA task is formulated as binary synonymy prediction (b) and was thus unable to tackle the real-world update task addressed by our UVI formulation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.627, + 0.884, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "these technologies, NLP systems will be expected to perform in a wide variety of real-world scenarios. However, even as LLMs get increasingly more capable, it is unlikely that they will lead to translational solutions alone. Although many aspects are crucial for an NLP system's success, we use this work to highlight one key aspect of building real-world systems which is sometimes taken for granted: formulating a problem in a way that is well-aligned with its real-world counterpart. To explore the effect of this key step in building real-world NLP systems, we provide a case study on the important task of UMLS vocabulary insertion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004) is a large-scale biomedical knowledge base that standardizes over 200 medical vocabularies. The UMLS contains approximately 16 million source-specific terms, referred" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Part of this work was done while interning at the NLM. \n1Our code is available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/UMLS-Vocabulary-Insertion." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "704" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 704-717" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to as atoms, grouped into over 4 million unique concepts, making it one of the most comprehensive publicly available biomedical knowledge bases and a crucial resource for biomedical interoperability. Many of the vocabularies which make up the UMLS are independently updated to keep up with the rapidly advancing biomedical research field. In order for this essential public resource to remain up-to-date, a team of expert editors painstakingly identify which new atoms should be integrated into existing UMLS concepts or added as new concepts, as shown in Figure 1a. This process, which we refer to as UMLS vocabulary insertion (UVI), involves inserting an average of over 300,000 new atoms into the UMLS and is carried out twice a year before each new UMLS version release." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.35, + 0.486, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite its importance, scale and complexity, this task is accomplished by editors using lexical information (McCray et al., 1994), synonymy information provided by the source vocabularies and their own expertise. In order to improve this process, much work has been done to augment it with modern NLP techniques. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors introduce datasets and models which explore the task of UMLS vocabulary alignment (UVA). As seen in Figure 1b, the authors formulate the UVA task as a binary synonymy prediction task between two UMLS atoms, while the real-world task requires the whole UMLS to be considered and a concept to be predicted for each new atom (unless it is deemed a new concept atom). Unfortunately, while the UVA task has successfully explored biomedical synonymy prediction, its formulation has made it unable to yield practical improvements for the UVI process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.662, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we attempt to address this gap with a novel UVI problem formulation, also depicted in Figure 1b. Our formulation follows the real-world task exactly by predicting whether a new atom should be associated with an existing concept or identified as a new concept atom. We introduce five datasets taken directly from actual UMLS updates starting from the second half of 2020 until the end of 2022. These datasets enabled us to measure the real-world practicality of our systems and led us to findings we could not have discovered otherwise. First, we find that adapting UVA models to perform the UVI task yields much higher error rates than in their original task, showing that their strong performance does not transfer to the real-world setting. Second, contrary to previous" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "work (Bajaj et al., 2022), we find that biomedical language models (LMs) outperform previous UVA models. Thirdly, we discover that rule-based and deep learning frameworks greatly improve each other's performance. Finally, inspired by biomedical entity linking and the complementary nature of our baseline systems, we propose a null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods and achieves low error rates on all five UMLS update datasets. To show our model's practical utility, we quantitatively evaluate its robustness across UMLS update versions and semantic domains, conduct a comparative evaluation against the second best method and carry out a qualitative error analysis to more deeply understand its limitations. We hope that our case study helps researchers and practitioners reflect on the importance of problem formulation for the translational success of NLP systems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.405, + 0.664, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.432, + 0.789, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 UMLS Vocabulary Alignment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.453, + 0.883, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous work to improve UMLS editing formulates the problem as biomedical synonymy prediction through the UMLS vocabulary alignment task (Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022; Wijesiriwardene et al., 2022). These investigations find that deep learning methods are effective at predicting synonymy for biomedical terms, obtaining F1 scores above \\(90\\%\\) (Nguyen et al., 2021). Although this formulation can help explore biomedical synonymy prediction, it does not consider the larger UMLS updating task and thus the strong performance of these models does not transfer to real-world tasks such as UVI." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.647, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Apart from the clear difference in scope between UVA and UVI shown in Figure 1b, major differences in evaluation datasets contribute to the gap in UVA's applicability to the UVI task. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors built a synonymy prediction dataset with almost 200 million training and test synonym pairs to approximate the largescale nature of UMLS editing. UVA dataset statistics can be found in Appendix A. Since the UVA test set was created using lexical similarity aware negative sampling, it does not hold the same distribution as all the negative pairs in the UMLS. Since the UVI task considers all of the UMLS, UVA sampling leads to a significant distribution shift between these tasks. This unfortunately diminishes the usefulness of model evaluation on the UVA dataset for the real-world task. Surprisingly," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.515, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "705" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "this gap results in biomedical language models like BioBERT (Lee et al., 2019) and SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021) underperforming previous UVA models in the UVA dataset Bajaj et al. (2022) while outperforming them in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.179, + 0.37, + 0.195 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Biomedical Entity Linking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the task of biomedical entity linking, terms mentioned within text must be linked to existing concepts in a knowledge base, often UMLS. Our own task, UMLS vocabulary insertion, follows a similar process except for three key differences: 1) relevant terms come from biomedical vocabularies rather than text, 2) some terms can be new to the UMLS and 3) each term comes with source-specific information. Many different strategies have been used for biomedical entity linking such as expert-written rules (D'Souza and Ng, 2015), learning-to-rank methods (Leaman et al., 2013), models that combine NER and entity-linking signals (Leaman and Lu, 2016; Furrer et al., 2022) and language model fine-tuning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2022). Due to the strong parallels between biomedical entity-linking and our task, we leverage the best performing LM based methods for the UVI task Liu et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2022); Yuan et al. (2022). These methods fine-tune an LM to represent synonymy using embedding distance, enabling a nearest neighbor search to produce likely candidates for entity linking." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.572, + 0.49, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The first difference between biomedical entity linking and UVI is addressed by ignoring textual context as done in Liu et al. (2021), which we adopt as a strong baseline. The second difference, that some new atoms can be new to the UMLS, is addressed by work which includes un-linkable entities in the scope of their task (Ruas and Couto, 2022; Dong et al., 2023). In these, a cross-encoder candidate module introduced by Wu et al. (2020) is used to re-rank the nearest neighbors suggested by embedding methods like Liu et al. (2021) with an extra candidate which represents that the entity is unlinkable, or in our case, a new concept atom. The third difference has no parallel in biomedical entity linking since mentions do not originate from specific sources and is therefore one of our contributions in §4.6." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.86, + 0.396, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 UMLS Vocabulary Insertion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We refer to UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) as the process of inserting atoms from updated or new" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "medical vocabularies into the UMLS. In this task, each new term encountered in a medical source vocabulary is introduced into the UMLS as either a synonym of an existing UMLS concept or as an entirely new concept. In this section, we describe our formulation of the UVI task, the baselines we adapted from previous work, as well as a thorough description of our proposed approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.224, + 0.727, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Problem Formulation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.245, + 0.883, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we define the version of the UMLS before the update as \\( K \\coloneqq \\{c_1, \\dots, c_n\\} \\), a set of unique UMLS concepts \\( c_i \\). Each concept \\( c_i \\) is defined as \\( c_i \\coloneqq \\{a_1^i, \\dots, a_{k_i}^i\\} \\) where each atom \\( a_j^i \\), as they are referred to by the UMLS, is defined as the \\( j^{th} \\) source-specific synonym for the \\( i^{th} \\) concept in the UMLS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.36, + 0.884, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) task, a set of \\(m\\) new atoms \\(Q \\coloneqq \\{q_1, \\dots, q_m\\}\\) must be integrated into the current set of concepts \\(K\\). Thus, we can now define the UVI task as the following function \\(I\\) which maps a new atom \\(q_j\\) to its gold labelled concept \\(c_{q_j}\\) if it exists in the old UMLS \\(K\\) or to a null value if it is a new concept atom, as described by the following Equation 1." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.582, + 0.499, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nI (K, q _ {j}) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} c _ {q _ {j}} & \\text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \\in K \\\\ \\varnothing & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.551, + 0.719, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.578, + 0.625, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.598, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate the UVI task in the most realistic way possible, we introduce a set of five insertion sets \\( Q \\) which contain all atoms which are inserted into the UMLS from medical source vocabularies by expert editors twice a year. Due to their real-world nature, these datasets vary in size and new concept distribution depending on the number and type of atoms that are added to source vocabularies before every update as shown in Table 1. We note that the version of the UMLS we use contains 8.5 rather than 16 million atoms because we follow previous work and only use atoms that are in English, come from active vocabularies and are non-suppressible, features defined by UMLS editors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While most of our experiments focus on the UMLS 2020AB, we use the other four as test sets to evaluate temporal generalizability. We split the 2020AB insertion dataset into training, dev and test sets using a 50:25:25 ratio and the other insertion datasets using a 50:50 split into dev and" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "706" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.082, + 0.461, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Original UMLS KInsertion Set QNew Concepts
2020AB8,521,220430,135260,058
2021AA8,839,907226,21091,834
2021AB8,835,147455,493218,933
2022AA9,175,923175,989111,853
2022AB9,082,515275,842188,984
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.205, + 0.489, + 0.233 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: UMLS Statistics from 2020AB to 2022AB. Our models are trained on the 2020AB insertion dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.247, + 0.49, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "test sets. We do stratified sampling to keep the distribution of semantic groups, categories defined by the UMLS, constant across splits within each insertion set. This is important since the distribution of semantic groups changes significantly across insertion datasets and preliminary studies showed that performance can vary substantially across categories. For details regarding the number of examples in each split and the distribution of semantic groups across different insertion sets, refer to Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.435, + 0.221, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.456, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report several metrics to evaluate our methods comprehensively on the UVI task: accuracy, new concept metrics and existing concept accuracy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Accuracy. It measures the percentage of correct predictions over the full insertion set \\( Q \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.543, + 0.489, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "New Concept Metrics. These measure how well models predict new atoms as new concepts and they are described in Equation 2. The terms in Equation 2, subscripted by \\( nc \\), refer to the number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) examples, calculated by using the new concept label as the positive class." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.666, + 0.488, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nP _ {n c} = \\frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F P _ {n c}} \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.703, + 0.387, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nR _ {n c} = \\frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F N _ {n c}}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.744, + 0.489, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing Concept Accuracy. This metric shows model performance on atoms in \\( Q \\) which were linked by annotators to the previous version of UMLS \\( K \\), as shown in Equation 3. Let \\( N_{ec} \\) be the number of concepts in \\( Q \\) which were linked to concepts in \\( K \\)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.85, + 0.488, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA _ {e c} = \\frac {1}{N _ {e c}} \\sum_ {q _ {j} \\in Q} \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} = c _ {q _ {j}} & \\text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \\in K \\\\ 0 & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.232, + 0.905, + 0.35, + 0.923 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} := I (K, q _ {j})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.671, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 UVA Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.108, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We adapted several UVA specific system as baselines for our UMLS vocabulary insertion task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.157, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rule-based Approximation (RBA). (Nguyen et al., 2021) This system was designed to approximate the decisions made by UMLS editors regarding atom synonymy using three simple rules. Two atoms were deemed synonymous if 1) they were labelled as synonyms in their source vocabularies, 2) their strings have identical normalized forms and compatible semantics (McCray et al., 1994) and 3) the transitive closure of the other two strategies. We thus define the \\(I\\) function for the UVI task as follows. We first obtain an unsorted list of atoms \\(a_{i}\\) in \\(K\\) deemed synonymous with \\(q_{j}\\) by the RBA. We then group these atoms by concept to make a smaller set of unique concepts \\(c_{i}\\). Since this predicted concept list is unsorted, if it contains more than one potential concept, we randomly select one of them as the predicted concept \\(\\hat{c}_{q_j}\\). If the RBA synonym list is empty, we deem the new atom as not existing in the current UMLS version." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.496, + 0.884, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LexLM. (Nguyen et al., 2021) The Lexical-Learning Model (LexLM) system was designed as the deep learning alternative to the RBA and trained for binary synonymy prediction using the UVA training dataset. Their proposed model consists of an LSTM encoder over BioWordVec (Zhang et al., 2019) embeddings which encodes two strings and calculates a similarity score between them. A threshold is used over the similarity score to determine the final synonymy prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.658, + 0.882, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To adapt this baseline to the UVI task, we define the insertion function \\( I \\) as mapping a new atom \\( q_{j} \\) to the concept in \\( K \\), \\( \\hat{c}_{q_j} \\), containing the atom with the highest similarity score to \\( q_{j} \\) based on the LexLM representations. To allow the function \\( I \\) to predict that \\( q_{j} \\) does not exist in the current UMLS and should be mapped to the empty set \\( \\varnothing \\)), we select a similarity threshold for the most similar concept under which \\( q_{j} \\) is deemed a new atom. For fairness in evaluation, the similarity threshold is selected using the 2020AB UVI training set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.849, + 0.664, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 LM Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous work finds that language models do not improve UVA performance (Bajaj et al., 2022). However, given our new formulation, we evaluate" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "707" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.191, + 0.885, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overall architecture for our best performing approach on the new UVI task formulation. Our methodology leverages the best distance-based ranking model (SapBERT) as well as RBA signal. Additionally, our design allows new atoms to be identified as new concepts by introducing a 'New Concept' placeholder into the candidate list given to the re-ranking module as shown above." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.274, + 0.489, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "two language models in the more realistic UVI task using the same strategy described for the LexLM model above. For implementation details, we refer the interested reader to Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.355, + 0.487, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PubMedBERT (Gu et al., 2021). PubMedBERT is one of the most capable biomedical specific language models available due to its from scratch pre-training on biomedical data as well as its specialized biomedical tokenizer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.451, + 0.489, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021). SapBERT is a language model designed for biomedical entity linking or concept normalization. It was developed by finetuning the original PubMedBERT on the 2020AA version of UMLS using a contrastive learning objective. This objective incentivizes synonymous entity representations in UMLS to be more similar than non-synonymous ones." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.592, + 0.295, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Augmented RBA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.489, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given that the neural representation baselines discussed above provide a ranking system missing from the RBA, we create a strong baseline by augmenting the RBA system with each neural ranking baseline. In these simple but effective baselines, the concepts predicted by the RBA are ranked based on their similarity to \\( q_{j} \\) using each neural baseline system. New concept prediction uses the same method employed by the original RBA model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.471, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Our Approach: Candidate Re-Ranking" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our candidate re-ranking approach is inspired by some entity linking systems which use two distinct steps: 1) candidate generation, which uses a bi-encoder like the baselines described above, and 2) candidate re-ranking, in which a more computationally expensive model is used to rank the \\(k\\) most similar concepts obtained by the bi-encoder. Other work (Wu et al., 2020) encodes both new" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "atoms and candidates simultaneously using language models, allowing for the encoding of one to be conditioned on the other. Our cross-encoder is based on PubMedBERT\\(^2\\) and we use the most similar 50 atoms which represent unique concepts as measured by the best baseline, the RBA system augmented with SapBERT ranking. More concretely, the atom which represents each candidate concept \\(a_{c_i}\\) is appended to new atom \\(q_j\\) and encoded as follows: \\([CLS] q_j [SEP] a_{c_i}\\). Since the number of RBA candidates differs for every new atom, if the RBA produces less than 50 candidates, the remaining candidates are selected from SapBERT's nearest neighbor candidates. We use the BLINK codebase (Wu et al., 2020) to train our re-ranking module. More information about our implementation can be found in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.559, + 0.681, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6.1 Null Injection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.578, + 0.884, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In contrast with standard entity linking settings where every mention can be linked to a relevant entity, UVI requires some mentions or new atoms to be deemed absent from the relevant set of entities. To achieve this in our re-ranking framework, we closely follow unlinkable biomedical entity linking methods (Dong et al., 2023; Ruas and Couto, 2022) and introduce a new candidate, denoted by the NULL token, to represent the possibility that the atom is new to the UMLS." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.751, + 0.722, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6.2 RBA Enhancement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.77, + 0.884, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, given the high impact of the RBA system in preliminary experiments, we integrate rule-based information into the candidate re-ranking learning. The RBA provides information in primarily two ways: 1) the absence of RBA synonyms sends a strong signal for a new atom being a novel concept in the UMLS and 2) the candidate concepts" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.893, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{2} \\) Preliminary results showed that PubMedBERT outperforms SapBERT as a re-ranker." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "708" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.191, + 0.082, + 0.805, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
AccuracyNew ConceptExisting Concept Accuracy
RecallPrecisionF1
Rule Based Approximation (RBA)70.199.090.594.626.3
LexLM63.289.592.490.922.4
PubMedBERT68.499.167.380.220.7
SapBERT77.494.179.286.052.0
RBA + LexLM80.499.090.594.651.6
RBA + PubMedBERT83.799.090.594.660.0
RBA + SapBERT90.799.090.594.676.1
Re-Ranker (PubMedBERT)85.596.391.693.968.4
+ RBA Signal93.298.296.197.185.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.263, + 0.883, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Comparison for rule-based, distance-based and combined baselines against our re-ranking approaches both with and without RBA-signal over all our metrics. All results reported above were calculated on the 2020AB UMLS insertion dataset. We find that all improvements of our best approach over the RBA+SapBERT baseline are very highly significant (p-value \\(< 0.001\\)) based on a paired t-test with bootstrap resampling." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.345, + 0.49, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which the RBA predicted, rather than the ones predicted based solely on lexical similarity, have a higher chance of being the most appropriate concept for the new atom. Thus, we integrate these two information elements into the cross-encoder by 1) when no RBA synonyms exist, we append the string \" (No Preferred Candidate)\" to the new atom \\(q_{j}\\) and 2) every candidate that was predicted by the RBA is concatenated with the string \"(Preferred)\". This way, the cross-encoder obtains access to vital RBA information while still being able to learn the decision-making flexibility which UMLS editors introduce through their expert knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.568, + 0.331, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results & Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.596, + 0.49, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we first discuss performance of our baselines and proposed methods on the UMLS 2020AB test set. We then evaluate the generalizability of our methods across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains. Finally, we provide a comparative evaluation and a qualitative error analysis to understand our model's potential benefits and limitations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.737, + 0.265, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines. As seen in Table 2, previous baselines such as RBA, LexLM and biomedical language models like PubMedBERT and SapBERT stay under the \\(80\\%\\) mark in overall accuracy, with specially low performance in the existing concept accuracy metric. Even SapBERT, which is fine-tuned for the biomedical entity linking task, is unable to obtain high existing concept and new concept prediction scores when using a simple optimal similarity threshold method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.345, + 0.885, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nevertheless, a simple baseline which combines the strengths of neural models and the rule-based system obtains surprisingly strong results. This is especially the case for augmenting the RBA with SapBERT which obtains a num90% overall accuracy and existing concept accuracy of 76%. We note that the new concept recall and precision of all RBA baselines is the same since the same rule-based mechanism is used." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.508, + 0.885, + 0.846 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our Approach. For the PubMedBERT-based re-ranking module, we find that the NULL injection mechanism enables it to outperform the models that rely solely on lexical information (LexLM, PubMedBERT and SapBERT) by a wide margin. However, it underperforms the best augmented RBA baseline substantially, underscoring the importance of RBA signal for the UVI task. Finally, we note that RBA enhancement allows the re-ranking module to obtain a \\(93.2\\%\\) accuracy due to boosts in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision of almost \\(10\\%\\) and \\(4\\%\\) respectively. These improvements comes from several important features of our best approach which we discuss in more detail in §5.3, namely the ability to flexibly determine when a new atom exists in the current UMLS even when it has no RBA synonyms and to apply rules used by UMLS editors seen in the model's training data. This substantial error reduction indicates our method's potential as a useful tool for supporting UMLS editors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.863, + 0.727, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Model Generalization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we note the robust generalization of our re-ranking module across both UMLS versions" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "709" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and semantic groups (semantic categories defined by the UMLS)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.133, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Across Versions. In Figure 3, we see that the best performing baseline RBA + SapBERT and our best method obtain strong performance across all five UMLS insertion datasets. Even though our proposed approach obtains the largest gains in the 2020AB set in which it was trained, it achieves stable existing concept accuracy and new concept F1 score improvements across all sets and shows no obvious deterioration over time, demonstrating its practicality for future UMLS updates. Unfortunately, we do observe a significant dip in new concept F1 for all models in the 2021AA dataset mainly due to the unusually poor performance of the RBA in one specific source, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), for that version." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.386, + 0.486, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.527, + 0.49, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Existing concept accuracy (left) and new concept F1 (right) of the best model from each baseline type and our best approach across 5 UVI datasets from 2020AB to 2022AB. All improvements over the best baseline are very highly significant (p-value \\(< 0.001\\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Across Subdomains. Apart from evaluating whether our proposed approach generalizes across UMLS versions, we evaluate how model performance changes across different semantic groups. Table 3 shows the results of our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT) compared against our best proposed approach (Re-Ranker + RBA Signal) on the nine most frequent semantic groups averaged over all development insertion sets. We report the results in detail over all insertion sets in Appendix E. Our evaluation reveals that even though our best baseline performs quite well across several semantic groups, performance drops in challenging categories like Drugs, Genes, Procedures and the more general Concepts & Ideas category. Our approach is able to improve performance across most groups to above \\(90\\%\\), with the exception of Genes and Procedures. Since the distribution of semantic groups can vary widely across UMLS updates, as seen in" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Semantic GroupRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings97.298.0
Chemicals & Drugs81.193.7
Genes & Molecular Seq.74.377.7
Disorders92.197.7
Procedures82.684.3
Physiology92.899.0
Concepts & Ideas89.197.2
Devices90.797.4
Anatomy95.198.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.284, + 0.883, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy by semantic group for the two highest performing UVI systems averaged over all development insertion sets from 2020AB to 2022AB." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.335, + 0.884, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the dataset details in Appendix B, our model's improved semantic group robustness is vital for its potential in improving the efficiency of the UMLS update process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.401, + 0.884, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As for the categories in which our approach remained below \\(90\\%\\) like Genes and Procedures, we find that they are mainly due to outlier insertion sets. Both the Genes and Procedures categories have one insertion set, 2022AA and 2021AA respectively, in which the performance of both systems drops dramatically due to a weak RBA signal which our methodology was unable to correct for. We refer the interested reader to Appendix E for these results and a more detailed discussion around this limitation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.59, + 0.75, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Comparative Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.61, + 0.884, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned in the main results, our best model outperforms the best baseline mainly through improvements in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision. In Table 4, we report the distribution of 2,943 examples incorrectly predicted by RBA + SapBERT amended by our best approach. We note that a large majority, around \\(60\\%\\), of the corrections are concept linking corrections, new atoms which are linked to an existing concept correctly while they were wrongly predicted as new concept atoms by the baseline. Most of the remain" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.546, + 0.808, + 0.848, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Correction TypeCorrection %
Concept Linking59.5
Re-Ranking35.9
New Concept Identification4.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.886, + 0.883, + 0.915 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Distribution of examples incorrectly predicted by the best baseline amended by our best model." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "710" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.082, + 0.487, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Correction TypeNew AtomsTop 5 RBA + SapBERT Candidates
Re-RankingAmorpha <eudicots>Amorpha <moth> (Preferred) \nAmorpha <angiosperm> (Preferred) \nAmorphus \nAmorphus sp. \nAmorphotheca
Cytarabine-Thioguaninecytarabine/thioguanine (Preferred) \nCytarabine-Thioguanine Regimen (Preferred) \ncyclophosphamide/cytarabine/thioguanine \nCytarabine/Mitoxantrone/Thioguanine \nCytarabine/Doxorubicin/Thioguanine
Concept Linkingtotal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary[NEW CONCEPT] \nTotal hysterectomy with right oophorectomy abdominal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary \nTotal hysterectomy with right salpingo-oophorectomy \nTotal hysterectomy with removal of both tubes and ovaries
WARFARIN NA (JANTOVEN) 7.5MG TAB[NEW CONCEPT] \nWarfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [JANTOVEN] \nWARFARIN NA (TARO) 7.5MG TAB \nWarfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [COUMADIN]
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.49, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT), shown above in red, but corrected by our best proposed reranking model, shown above in green." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.362, + 0.489, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing corrections, \\(35.9\\%\\), are re-ranking corrections based on our model's ability to re-rank gold concept over other candidate concepts. The final \\(5\\%\\) comes from new concept identification corrections in which a new atom is correctly identified as a new concept atom when it was incorrectly linked to an existing one by the best baseline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.48, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The examples shown in Table 5 illustrate the benefits of our proposed approach more clearly. In the first two rows, we see two re-ranking corrections. In the first example, SapBERT incorrectly identifies ‘’ as being closer to ‘’ than ‘’ but our model has learned to interpret the disambiguation tags and correctly associates ‘eudicots’ with ‘angiosperm’ as levels of plant family classifications. In the second example, we observe that our trained model learns to link new atoms to concepts which have more comprehensive information such as the addition of the \"Regimen\" phrase. Although this is an editorial rule rather than an objective one, it is important to note that our model can adequately encode these." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The final two rows in Table 5 show concept linking corrections. These examples illustrate the most important feature of our proposed model, the ability to link new atoms to concepts even when the RBA would consider them a new concept atom. In these instances, the model must determine whether all the features in the new atom are present in any potential candidates without support from the RBA. In these two examples, the model is able to correctly identify synonymy by mapping 'removal of the right ovary' to 'right oophorectomy', 'NA' to 'Sodium' and 'TAB' to 'Oral Tablet." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Error TypeNew AtomTop 5 Best Model
UMLS Error (Duplicate Concepts)Left orbital regionLeft orbital region (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Structure of periorbital region of left eye Left orbital cavity proper Left orbital content
GonostomatidaeGonostomatidae (Preferred) Gonostomatidae (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Gonichthys Protrodiplostomatidae
True Errorsurea 400 MG/ML[NEW CONCEPT] Urea 400 mg/mL cutaneous lotion urea@50 %@TOPICAL@SOLUTION urea 40% UREA 40% TOP GEL
Exanthem caused by human echovirus (disorder)[NEW CONCEPT] VIRUSES ACCOMPANIED BY EXANTHEM exanthems viral Exanthem viral exanthem due to echovirus
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best proposed model, shown in red. Gold label concepts are marked with green. The first two rows show two errors caused by UMLS annotations while the final two are legitimate errors caused by complexity and ambiguity." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.409, + 0.673, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Error Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.433, + 0.884, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given that our work focuses on a specific practical application, in this section, we aim to more deeply understand how our approach can be effectively adopted by UMLS editors in their vocabulary insertion task. To this end, we recruited a biomedical terminology expert familiar with the UMLS vocabulary insertion process to analyze the practical effectiveness and limitations of our system." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.884, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first studied the calibration of our best model's output as a way to understand its error detection abilities. As shown in detail in Appendix F, we see a substantial drop in performance when model confidence, a softmax over candidate logit scores, drops below \\(90\\%\\). This drop could indicate that our model is well calibrated, however, our qualitative experiments reveal that this signal comes from a large number of annotation errors in the UMLS which are easily detected by our problem formulation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We discovered this through a qualitative error analysis carried out with the help of the aforementioned biomedical terminology expert. We chose three sets of 30 randomly chosen example errors with different model confidence scores: high (90%-100%), medium (60%-70%) and low (30%-40%). Our expert editor reports several important findings. First, there was no substantial difference in example difficulty between different model confidence bins. Second, 70% of model errors are caused by the existence of UMLS concepts which have" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "711" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "phrases that are equivalent to the new atoms, leading to ambiguous examples which can be found in the first section of Table 6. This arises from two types of annotation errors within the UMLS, either the new atom was incorrectly introduced into the UMLS or the phrase that is representing that concept was previously introduced into UMLS incorrectly. Out of this study, the expert found 15 out of the 90 instances where our model's suggestions lead to detecting incorrect associations in the original UMLS vocabulary insertion process. This evaluation suggests that our model could be quite useful in supporting quality assurance for the UMLS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.312, + 0.486, + 0.615 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Even though most model errors are caused by annotation issues in the UMLS, there are still some which are due to complexity and ambiguity. In the bottom half of Table 6, we see examples that our model still struggles with. First, the new atom \"urea \\(400\\mathrm{MG / ML}\\)\" should have been mapped to \"urea \\(40\\%\\) since the percentage is calculated as the number of grams in \\(100~\\mathrm{mL}\\). However, this decision requires not only the knowledge of this definition but also mathematical reasoning abilities. Finally, the last error in our table is caused by the ambiguity in deciding whether \"human echovirus\" and \"echovirus\" should be deemed equivalent. We note that both of these error types as well as the previously mentioned annotation errors show that our model's errors are occurring on scenarios which are either unsolvable or very challenging, shedding light on its potential as a practical system to support UMLS editors." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.634, + 0.244, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.662, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In conclusion, this paper emphasizes the importance of formulating NLP problems that align well with real-world scenarios in the midst of growing enthusiasm for NLP technologies. Focusing on the real-world task of UMLS vocabulary insertion, we demonstrate the importance of problem formulation by showcasing the differences between the UMLS vocabulary alignment formulation and our own UVI formulation. We evaluate existing UVA models as baselines and find that their performance differs significantly in the real-world setting. Additionally, we show that our formulation allows us to not only discover straightforward but exceptionally strong new baselines but also develop a novel null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods. Finally, we show" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "that our proposed approach is highly translational by providing evidence for its robustness across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains, exploring the reasons behind its superior performance over our baselines and carrying out a qualitative error analysis to understand its limitations. We hope our case study highlights the significance of problem formulation and offers valuable insights for researchers and practitioners for building effective and practical NLP systems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.259, + 0.642, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.285, + 0.882, + 0.816 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We acknowledge several limitations to our investigation, which we propose to address in future work. First, while our formulation aligns exactly with part of the insertion process, there are aspects of the full insertion of new terms into the UMLS which are out of our scope. While we do identify terms that are not linked to existing UMLS concepts, we do not attempt to group these terms into new concepts. The identification of synonymous terms for new concepts will be addressed in future work. Second, except for the RBA approach that leverages lexical information and source synonymy, our approach does not take advantage of contextual information available for new terms (e.g., hierarchical information provided by the source vocabulary). We plan to follow (Nguyen et al., 2022) and integrate this kind of information that has been shown to increase precision without detrimental effect on recall in the UVA task. Third, our approach uses a single term, the term closest to the new atom, as the representative for the concept for linking purposes. While this approach drastically simplifies processing, it also restricts access to the rich set of synonyms available for the concept. We plan to explore alternative trade offs in performance when including more concept synonyms. Finally, reliance on the RBA information had the potential for incorrectly identifying new concepts when RBA signal is not complete. Even though RBA signal is quite useful for this task, it is important to build systems robust to its absence. We plan to explore this robustness more actively in future work by including such incomplete signal in the training process." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.83, + 0.709, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.856, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The authors would like to thank the expert UMLS annotators from the NLM for their detailed error analysis. We also appreciate constructive comments from anonymous reviewers and our NLM" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "712" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and OSU NLP group colleagues. This research was supported in part by NIH R01LM014199, the Ohio Supercomputer Center (Center, 1987) and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Library of Medicine." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.192, + 0.214, + 0.208 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.214, + 0.49, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Goonmeet Bajaj, Vinh Nguyen, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Evaluating biomedical word embeddings for vocabulary alignment at scale in the UMLS Metathesaurus using Siamese networks. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 82-87, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.342, + 0.489, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): Integrating Biomedical Terminology. Nucleic acids research, 32 Database issue:D267-70." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.404, + 0.487, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ohio Supercomputer Center. 1987. Ohio supercomputer center." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.44, + 0.489, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hang Dong, Jiaoyan Chen, Yuan He, Yinan Liu, and Ian Horrocks. 2023. Reveal the unknown: Out-of-knowledge-base mention discovery with entity linking." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.502, + 0.49, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jennifer D'Souza and Vincent Ng. 2015. Sieve-based entity linking for the biomedical domain. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 297-302, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.616, + 0.489, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lenz Furrer, Joseph Cornelius, and Fabio Rinaldi. 2022. Parallel sequence tagging for concept recognition. BMC Bioinformatics, 22." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.666, + 0.489, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare, 3(1)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.754, + 0.489, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herve Jégou. 2021. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.489, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Leaman, Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, and Zhiyong Lu. 2013. DNorm: disease name normalization with pairwise learning to rank. Bioinformatics, 29:2909 - 2917." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert Leaman and Zhiyong Lu. 2016. TaggerOne: joint named entity recognition and normalization with semi-Markov Models. Bioinformatics, 32(18):2839-2846." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.214, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234-1240." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.885, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, Zaiqiao Meng, Marco Basaldella, and Nigel Collier. 2021. Self-alignment pretraining for biomedical entity representations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4228-4238, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.278, + 0.885, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexa T. McCray, Suresh Srinivasan, and Allen C. Browne. 1994. Lexical methods for managing variation in biomedical terminologies. Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pages 235-9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.354, + 0.883, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, Goonmeet Bajaj, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vishesh Javangula, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Context-enriched learning models for aligning biomedical vocabularies at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.456, + 0.883, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2021. Biomedical vocabulary alignment at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference, 2021:2672 - 2683." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.533, + 0.883, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pedro Ruas and Francisco M. Couto. 2022. Nilinker: Attention-based approach to nil entity linking. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 132:104137." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.583, + 0.883, + 0.674 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vinh Phu Nguyen, Goonmeet Bajaj, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Yuqing Mao, Kin Wah Fung, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Ubert: A novel language model for synonymy prediction at scale in the umls metathesaurus. ArXiv, abs/2204.12716." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.685, + 0.883, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "713" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "pages 6397-6407, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.123, + 0.49, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zheng Yuan, Zhengyun Zhao, Haixia Sun, Jiao Li, Fei Wang, and Sheng Yu. 2022. Coder: Knowledgeinfused cross-lingual medical term embedding for term normalization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, page 103983." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Zhang, Hao Cheng, Shikhar Vashishth, Cliff Wong, Jinfeng Xiao, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2022. Knowledge-rich self-supervision for biomedical entity linking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 868-880, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.313, + 0.49, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yijia Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhihao Yang, Hongfei Lin, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. BioWordVec, improving biomedical word embeddings with subword information and MeSH. Scientific Data, 6." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "714" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.343, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Original UVA Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.109, + 0.49, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7 lists the basic statistics for the UMLS vocabulary alignment datasets. Since the UVA task was formulated and evaluated only as a binary classification task, the dataset is divided into positive and negative pairs. For more details about how the negative pairs were sampled from the UMLS, we refer the interested reader to §4.2 of Nguyen et al. (2021)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.248, + 0.489, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
UVA PairsPositive PairsNegative Pairs
Train192,400,46222,324,834170,075,628
Test173,035,8625,581,209167,454,653
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.317, + 0.438, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Original UVA dataset statistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.359, + 0.327, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B UVI Dataset Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.385, + 0.489, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 8, we report the size of our five UMLS vocabulary insertion dataset splits. We note that only the 2020AB version contains a training set, all other insertion sets only have development and test sets." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.474, + 0.443, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TrainDevTest
2020AB215,402105,796108,937
2021AA-112,647113,563
2021AB-227,440228,053
2022AA-88,18687,803
2022AB-138,107137,735
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.582, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Experimental split statistics for UMLS insertion dataset \\(Q\\) from 2,020 to 2,022." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.618, + 0.489, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In terms of dataset construction, we reiterate that stratified sampling based on semantic groups was used to keep the original distributions intact. We adopt this technique due to the substantial changes" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.694, + 0.462, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.907, + 0.488, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: This figure shows the incidence of each of the" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.922, + 0.487, + 0.95 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "most frequent 8 semantic groups across the 5 insertion sets explored in this work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in semantic group distribution across insertion sets, as seen in 4, as well as the high variance in model performance across semantic categories, as seen in §5.2 and Appendix E." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.165, + 0.753, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.193, + 0.885, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we discuss the implementation details for our baselines as well as our proposed approach. For the UMLS vocabulary alignment baselines, we use the same implementation of the Rule-Based Approximation (RBA) and LexLM used by the authors in Nguyen et al. (2021). To implement our language model baselines we use the HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use the FAISS library (Johnson et al., 2021) to speed up nearest neighbor search using GPUs when experimenting with LexLM, SapBERT and PubMedBERT embeddings (Johnson et al., 2021). We train our cross-encoder re-ranking module using BLINK (Wu et al., 2020), which uses a cross-entropy loss to maximize the score of the correct candidate over the rest of the candidates. We use default hyperparameters listed in Table 9 to train our re-ranking module but perform early stopping using the accuracy metric on our 2020AB validation set. All experiments used an NVIDIA V100 GPU with 16 GB of VRAM. The models we used and the approximate amount of GPU hours used for each is listed in Table 10." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.566, + 0.574, + 0.828, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Learning RateTotal EpochsBatch SizeWarmup Ratio
2e-5310.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.632, + 0.883, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Hyperparameters selected for our cross-encoder re-ranking training for reproducibility." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.692, + 0.848, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# of Parameters (millions)Total GPU Hours
LexLM0.25
PubMedBERT100140
SapBERT10040
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.78, + 0.884, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Total GPU Hours associated with our experiments. PubMedBERT GPU hours include both UMLS encoding and fine-tuning for our re-ranking module." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.859, + 0.731, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Latency Comparison" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.883, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 11, we report the inference latency for each baseline as well as our proposed approaches" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.487, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "715" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.083, + 0.49, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "on the UVI task. As seen in the table, our approach has significantly slower inference than previous baselines. Nevertheless, since the UMLS insertion task happens only twice a year, variations in inference latency are not a significant concern as long as the process can be run within a reasonable amount of time on available computing resources. We hope that these numbers can help other researchers and practitioners understand the computing requirements on this or similar tasks." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.256, + 0.487, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelInference Latency (ms)Time for 300k Atoms (mins)
RBA0.010.05
LexLM1.286.40
SapBERT2.5012.50
RBA + LexLM1.296.45
RBA + SapBERT2.5112.55
Re-Ranker (RBA Signal)35.51177.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.406, + 0.486, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Time spent on inference for each baseline as well as our proposed approach." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.46, + 0.469, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Detailed Semantic Group Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.485, + 0.488, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned in 5.2, different UMLS updates often contain completely different semantic group distributions since they depend entirely on independent source updates. Due to this, generalization across different semantic categories (semantic groups in the UMLS) is a crucial feature for a system to be successful in real-world UMLS vocabulary insertion. Table 13 provides a detailed report of the performance of our strongest baseline and our best proposed approach on all development insertion sets across the 9 most frequent semantic groups. As seen in these detailed results, our proposed approach obtains stronger and more consistent results across all semantic groups compared to our best baseline." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.727, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nevertheless, as discussed in the main text, our approach remained below \\(90\\%\\) on average in categories like Genes and Procedures. In the broken down results in Table 13, we can more clearly see that these averaged results are caused by outlier insertion sets. For the Genes semantic group, our proposed approach improves performance considerably for all insertion sets except for 2022AA, in which its performance drops by more than 10 points. We note that the performance of the best baseline is also much lower than usual, potentially indicating a weak RBA signal and challenging" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "atoms to link. For the Procedures category, we see a similar pattern in the 2021AA insertion set while the other sets see small but regular improvements with our system. These results indicate that, although our proposed approach can leverage the RBA signal more consistently when it is sufficiently strong, it fails to correct for it when it is very weak to begin with. It is therefore important to continue working on ways to correct or at least alert annotators about potential system failures in specific concept sub-groups." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.274, + 0.77, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Model Calibration Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.3, + 0.882, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed above, our re-ranker model's output confidence, defined as a softmax over candidate logit scores produced by our model, seemed correlated with model accuracy. In Table 12, we show model accuracy across different model confidence scores. We find that model confidence score is highly correlated with model accuracy, which drops to around \\(50\\%\\) when model confidence drops below \\(90\\%\\) and continues to drop after that. Through qualitative analysis, we find that this does not indicate successful model calibration but is actually mainly caused by annotation errors within UMLS which result in duplicate and ambiguous concepts." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.566, + 0.52, + 0.828, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model Confidence (%)Number of ExamplesAccuracy
0238.7
108022.5
2020632.5
3039736.0
401,28256.0
5096455.1
6051148.7
7041150.6
8059055.3
9038,07692.1
10062,74399.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.728, + 0.882, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: The output probability of our best re-ranking approach (the probability of the highest scoring candidate concept) seemed to be correlated with high prediction accuracy but actually indicates annotation errors." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.488, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.94 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "716" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.402, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Semantic Group2020AB2021AA2021AB2022AA2022AB
RBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings99.299.898.695.896.899.793.395.397.999.6
Chemicals & Drugs87.794.873.889.287.995.381.596.674.892.4
Genes & Molecular Sequences86.897.076.282.678.287.458.942.571.279.2
Disorders91.798.090.297.296.098.391.897.090.898.0
Procedures94.196.954.654.895.397.695.097.074.275.0
Physiology95.199.298.898.984.399.197.199.388.798.4
Concepts & Ideas91.697.470.596.198.498.592.696.492.597.5
Devices93.497.889.495.594.397.190.399.786.296.9
Anatomy92.796.494.297.992.298.498.399.097.899.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.551, + 0.884, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: Breakdown for Table 3 over all insertion development sets and the 9 most frequent semantic groups. These detailed results can help us more closely understand model failures across semantic groups compared to the aggregated results." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "717" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_origin.pdf b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8ea1e37a03ae317382837ffdd24bb318f54e6e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/15d5736c-6b1d-42c8-8d4a-58ba27f2ad52_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8e2090106b8cd413d4b26313dc385abd5b51712fc64caa23354f895d41b8a24d +size 755468 diff --git a/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/full.md b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10916c5e8e251818eef1e1b97b772974c4bab005 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,348 @@ +# Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP: A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion + +Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez $^{1,\ast}$ , Yuqing Mao $^{2}$ , Vinh Nguyen $^{2}$ , Kin Wah Fung $^{2}$ , Yu Su $^{1}$ , Olivier Bodenreider $^{2}$ + +1The Ohio State University, 2National Library of Medicine + +{jimenezgutierrez.1, su.809}@osu.edu + +{yuqing.mao,vinh.nguyen,kwfung}@nih.gov, olivier@nlm.nih.gov + +# Abstract + +As the immense opportunities enabled by large language models become more apparent, NLP systems will be increasingly expected to excel in real-world settings. However, in many instances, powerful models alone will not yield translational NLP solutions, especially if the formulated problem is not well aligned with the real-world task. In this work, we study the case of UMLS vocabulary insertion, an important real-world task in which hundreds of thousands of new terms, referred to as atoms, are added to the UMLS, one of the most comprehensive open-source biomedical knowledge bases (Bodenreider, 2004). Previous work aimed to develop an automated NLP system to make this time-consuming, costly, and error-prone task more efficient. Nevertheless, practical progress in this direction has been difficult to achieve due to a problem formulation and evaluation gap between research output and the real-world task. In order to address this gap, we introduce a new formulation for UMLS vocabulary insertion which mirrors the real-world task, datasets which faithfully represent it and several strong baselines we developed through re-purposing existing solutions. Additionally, we propose an effective rule-enhanced biomedical language model which enables important new model behavior, outperforms all strong baselines and provides measurable qualitative improvements to editors who carry out the UVI task. We hope this case study provides insight into the considerable importance of problem formulation for the success of translational NLP solutions.1 + +# 1 Introduction + +The public release of large language model (LLM) products like ChatGPT has triggered a wave of enthusiasm for NLP technologies. As more people discover the wealth of opportunities enabled by + +![](images/0b345b9fc03f88a979c5a10d9bc67e09f973c0249fce975a99acd20f850478d3.jpg) +(a) + +![](images/23e17ae9fd483ef112c5116dde2b130e14b853c308ca1d9c458849c88f394c27.jpg) + +![](images/8338d5d6b338c3c1479dcc117cb50043969dc622a02bc7600b66193edb4179e9.jpg) +(b) +Figure 1: The UMLS update process in (a) introduces atoms from individual sources into the original UMLS as synonyms of existing concepts or entirely new concepts. The UVA task is formulated as binary synonymy prediction (b) and was thus unable to tackle the real-world update task addressed by our UVI formulation. + +these technologies, NLP systems will be expected to perform in a wide variety of real-world scenarios. However, even as LLMs get increasingly more capable, it is unlikely that they will lead to translational solutions alone. Although many aspects are crucial for an NLP system's success, we use this work to highlight one key aspect of building real-world systems which is sometimes taken for granted: formulating a problem in a way that is well-aligned with its real-world counterpart. To explore the effect of this key step in building real-world NLP systems, we provide a case study on the important task of UMLS vocabulary insertion. + +The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004) is a large-scale biomedical knowledge base that standardizes over 200 medical vocabularies. The UMLS contains approximately 16 million source-specific terms, referred + +to as atoms, grouped into over 4 million unique concepts, making it one of the most comprehensive publicly available biomedical knowledge bases and a crucial resource for biomedical interoperability. Many of the vocabularies which make up the UMLS are independently updated to keep up with the rapidly advancing biomedical research field. In order for this essential public resource to remain up-to-date, a team of expert editors painstakingly identify which new atoms should be integrated into existing UMLS concepts or added as new concepts, as shown in Figure 1a. This process, which we refer to as UMLS vocabulary insertion (UVI), involves inserting an average of over 300,000 new atoms into the UMLS and is carried out twice a year before each new UMLS version release. + +Despite its importance, scale and complexity, this task is accomplished by editors using lexical information (McCray et al., 1994), synonymy information provided by the source vocabularies and their own expertise. In order to improve this process, much work has been done to augment it with modern NLP techniques. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors introduce datasets and models which explore the task of UMLS vocabulary alignment (UVA). As seen in Figure 1b, the authors formulate the UVA task as a binary synonymy prediction task between two UMLS atoms, while the real-world task requires the whole UMLS to be considered and a concept to be predicted for each new atom (unless it is deemed a new concept atom). Unfortunately, while the UVA task has successfully explored biomedical synonymy prediction, its formulation has made it unable to yield practical improvements for the UVI process. + +In this work, we attempt to address this gap with a novel UVI problem formulation, also depicted in Figure 1b. Our formulation follows the real-world task exactly by predicting whether a new atom should be associated with an existing concept or identified as a new concept atom. We introduce five datasets taken directly from actual UMLS updates starting from the second half of 2020 until the end of 2022. These datasets enabled us to measure the real-world practicality of our systems and led us to findings we could not have discovered otherwise. First, we find that adapting UVA models to perform the UVI task yields much higher error rates than in their original task, showing that their strong performance does not transfer to the real-world setting. Second, contrary to previous + +work (Bajaj et al., 2022), we find that biomedical language models (LMs) outperform previous UVA models. Thirdly, we discover that rule-based and deep learning frameworks greatly improve each other's performance. Finally, inspired by biomedical entity linking and the complementary nature of our baseline systems, we propose a null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods and achieves low error rates on all five UMLS update datasets. To show our model's practical utility, we quantitatively evaluate its robustness across UMLS update versions and semantic domains, conduct a comparative evaluation against the second best method and carry out a qualitative error analysis to more deeply understand its limitations. We hope that our case study helps researchers and practitioners reflect on the importance of problem formulation for the translational success of NLP systems. + +# 2 Related Work + +# 2.1 UMLS Vocabulary Alignment + +Previous work to improve UMLS editing formulates the problem as biomedical synonymy prediction through the UMLS vocabulary alignment task (Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022; Wijesiriwardene et al., 2022). These investigations find that deep learning methods are effective at predicting synonymy for biomedical terms, obtaining F1 scores above $90\%$ (Nguyen et al., 2021). Although this formulation can help explore biomedical synonymy prediction, it does not consider the larger UMLS updating task and thus the strong performance of these models does not transfer to real-world tasks such as UVI. + +Apart from the clear difference in scope between UVA and UVI shown in Figure 1b, major differences in evaluation datasets contribute to the gap in UVA's applicability to the UVI task. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors built a synonymy prediction dataset with almost 200 million training and test synonym pairs to approximate the largescale nature of UMLS editing. UVA dataset statistics can be found in Appendix A. Since the UVA test set was created using lexical similarity aware negative sampling, it does not hold the same distribution as all the negative pairs in the UMLS. Since the UVI task considers all of the UMLS, UVA sampling leads to a significant distribution shift between these tasks. This unfortunately diminishes the usefulness of model evaluation on the UVA dataset for the real-world task. Surprisingly, + +this gap results in biomedical language models like BioBERT (Lee et al., 2019) and SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021) underperforming previous UVA models in the UVA dataset Bajaj et al. (2022) while outperforming them in our experiments. + +# 2.2 Biomedical Entity Linking + +In the task of biomedical entity linking, terms mentioned within text must be linked to existing concepts in a knowledge base, often UMLS. Our own task, UMLS vocabulary insertion, follows a similar process except for three key differences: 1) relevant terms come from biomedical vocabularies rather than text, 2) some terms can be new to the UMLS and 3) each term comes with source-specific information. Many different strategies have been used for biomedical entity linking such as expert-written rules (D'Souza and Ng, 2015), learning-to-rank methods (Leaman et al., 2013), models that combine NER and entity-linking signals (Leaman and Lu, 2016; Furrer et al., 2022) and language model fine-tuning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2022). Due to the strong parallels between biomedical entity-linking and our task, we leverage the best performing LM based methods for the UVI task Liu et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2022); Yuan et al. (2022). These methods fine-tune an LM to represent synonymy using embedding distance, enabling a nearest neighbor search to produce likely candidates for entity linking. + +The first difference between biomedical entity linking and UVI is addressed by ignoring textual context as done in Liu et al. (2021), which we adopt as a strong baseline. The second difference, that some new atoms can be new to the UMLS, is addressed by work which includes un-linkable entities in the scope of their task (Ruas and Couto, 2022; Dong et al., 2023). In these, a cross-encoder candidate module introduced by Wu et al. (2020) is used to re-rank the nearest neighbors suggested by embedding methods like Liu et al. (2021) with an extra candidate which represents that the entity is unlinkable, or in our case, a new concept atom. The third difference has no parallel in biomedical entity linking since mentions do not originate from specific sources and is therefore one of our contributions in §4.6. + +# 3 UMLS Vocabulary Insertion + +We refer to UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) as the process of inserting atoms from updated or new + +medical vocabularies into the UMLS. In this task, each new term encountered in a medical source vocabulary is introduced into the UMLS as either a synonym of an existing UMLS concept or as an entirely new concept. In this section, we describe our formulation of the UVI task, the baselines we adapted from previous work, as well as a thorough description of our proposed approach. + +# 3.1 Problem Formulation + +First, we define the version of the UMLS before the update as $K \coloneqq \{c_1, \dots, c_n\}$ , a set of unique UMLS concepts $c_i$ . Each concept $c_i$ is defined as $c_i \coloneqq \{a_1^i, \dots, a_{k_i}^i\}$ where each atom $a_j^i$ , as they are referred to by the UMLS, is defined as the $j^{th}$ source-specific synonym for the $i^{th}$ concept in the UMLS. + +In the UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) task, a set of $m$ new atoms $Q \coloneqq \{q_1, \dots, q_m\}$ must be integrated into the current set of concepts $K$ . Thus, we can now define the UVI task as the following function $I$ which maps a new atom $q_j$ to its gold labelled concept $c_{q_j}$ if it exists in the old UMLS $K$ or to a null value if it is a new concept atom, as described by the following Equation 1. + +$$ +I (K, q _ {j}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} c _ {q _ {j}} & \text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \in K \\ \varnothing & \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} \right. \tag {1} +$$ + +# 4 Experimental Setup + +# 4.1 Datasets + +To evaluate the UVI task in the most realistic way possible, we introduce a set of five insertion sets $Q$ which contain all atoms which are inserted into the UMLS from medical source vocabularies by expert editors twice a year. Due to their real-world nature, these datasets vary in size and new concept distribution depending on the number and type of atoms that are added to source vocabularies before every update as shown in Table 1. We note that the version of the UMLS we use contains 8.5 rather than 16 million atoms because we follow previous work and only use atoms that are in English, come from active vocabularies and are non-suppressible, features defined by UMLS editors. + +While most of our experiments focus on the UMLS 2020AB, we use the other four as test sets to evaluate temporal generalizability. We split the 2020AB insertion dataset into training, dev and test sets using a 50:25:25 ratio and the other insertion datasets using a 50:50 split into dev and + +
Original UMLS KInsertion Set QNew Concepts
2020AB8,521,220430,135260,058
2021AA8,839,907226,21091,834
2021AB8,835,147455,493218,933
2022AA9,175,923175,989111,853
2022AB9,082,515275,842188,984
+ +Table 1: UMLS Statistics from 2020AB to 2022AB. Our models are trained on the 2020AB insertion dataset. + +test sets. We do stratified sampling to keep the distribution of semantic groups, categories defined by the UMLS, constant across splits within each insertion set. This is important since the distribution of semantic groups changes significantly across insertion datasets and preliminary studies showed that performance can vary substantially across categories. For details regarding the number of examples in each split and the distribution of semantic groups across different insertion sets, refer to Appendix B. + +# 4.2 Metrics + +We report several metrics to evaluate our methods comprehensively on the UVI task: accuracy, new concept metrics and existing concept accuracy. + +Accuracy. It measures the percentage of correct predictions over the full insertion set $Q$ . + +New Concept Metrics. These measure how well models predict new atoms as new concepts and they are described in Equation 2. The terms in Equation 2, subscripted by $nc$ , refer to the number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) examples, calculated by using the new concept label as the positive class. + +$$ +P _ {n c} = \frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F P _ {n c}} \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +R _ {n c} = \frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F N _ {n c}} +$$ + +Existing Concept Accuracy. This metric shows model performance on atoms in $Q$ which were linked by annotators to the previous version of UMLS $K$ , as shown in Equation 3. Let $N_{ec}$ be the number of concepts in $Q$ which were linked to concepts in $K$ . + +$$ +A _ {e c} = \frac {1}{N _ {e c}} \sum_ {q _ {j} \in Q} \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} = c _ {q _ {j}} & \text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \in K \\ 0 & \text {o t h e r w i s e} \end{array} \right. \tag {3} +$$ + +$$ +\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} := I (K, q _ {j}) +$$ + +# 4.3 UVA Baselines + +We adapted several UVA specific system as baselines for our UMLS vocabulary insertion task. + +Rule-based Approximation (RBA). (Nguyen et al., 2021) This system was designed to approximate the decisions made by UMLS editors regarding atom synonymy using three simple rules. Two atoms were deemed synonymous if 1) they were labelled as synonyms in their source vocabularies, 2) their strings have identical normalized forms and compatible semantics (McCray et al., 1994) and 3) the transitive closure of the other two strategies. We thus define the $I$ function for the UVI task as follows. We first obtain an unsorted list of atoms $a_{i}$ in $K$ deemed synonymous with $q_{j}$ by the RBA. We then group these atoms by concept to make a smaller set of unique concepts $c_{i}$ . Since this predicted concept list is unsorted, if it contains more than one potential concept, we randomly select one of them as the predicted concept $\hat{c}_{q_j}$ . If the RBA synonym list is empty, we deem the new atom as not existing in the current UMLS version. + +LexLM. (Nguyen et al., 2021) The Lexical-Learning Model (LexLM) system was designed as the deep learning alternative to the RBA and trained for binary synonymy prediction using the UVA training dataset. Their proposed model consists of an LSTM encoder over BioWordVec (Zhang et al., 2019) embeddings which encodes two strings and calculates a similarity score between them. A threshold is used over the similarity score to determine the final synonymy prediction. + +To adapt this baseline to the UVI task, we define the insertion function $I$ as mapping a new atom $q_{j}$ to the concept in $K$ , $\hat{c}_{q_j}$ , containing the atom with the highest similarity score to $q_{j}$ based on the LexLM representations. To allow the function $I$ to predict that $q_{j}$ does not exist in the current UMLS and should be mapped to the empty set $\varnothing$ ), we select a similarity threshold for the most similar concept under which $q_{j}$ is deemed a new atom. For fairness in evaluation, the similarity threshold is selected using the 2020AB UVI training set. + +# 4.4 LM Baselines + +Previous work finds that language models do not improve UVA performance (Bajaj et al., 2022). However, given our new formulation, we evaluate + +![](images/0fa963812818da8abfc22622aed56edd1c1a0e8d115086042dc9c9c331bcd0b8.jpg) +Figure 2: Overall architecture for our best performing approach on the new UVI task formulation. Our methodology leverages the best distance-based ranking model (SapBERT) as well as RBA signal. Additionally, our design allows new atoms to be identified as new concepts by introducing a 'New Concept' placeholder into the candidate list given to the re-ranking module as shown above. + +two language models in the more realistic UVI task using the same strategy described for the LexLM model above. For implementation details, we refer the interested reader to Appendix C. + +PubMedBERT (Gu et al., 2021). PubMedBERT is one of the most capable biomedical specific language models available due to its from scratch pre-training on biomedical data as well as its specialized biomedical tokenizer. + +SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021). SapBERT is a language model designed for biomedical entity linking or concept normalization. It was developed by finetuning the original PubMedBERT on the 2020AA version of UMLS using a contrastive learning objective. This objective incentivizes synonymous entity representations in UMLS to be more similar than non-synonymous ones. + +# 4.5 Augmented RBA + +Given that the neural representation baselines discussed above provide a ranking system missing from the RBA, we create a strong baseline by augmenting the RBA system with each neural ranking baseline. In these simple but effective baselines, the concepts predicted by the RBA are ranked based on their similarity to $q_{j}$ using each neural baseline system. New concept prediction uses the same method employed by the original RBA model. + +# 4.6 Our Approach: Candidate Re-Ranking + +Our candidate re-ranking approach is inspired by some entity linking systems which use two distinct steps: 1) candidate generation, which uses a bi-encoder like the baselines described above, and 2) candidate re-ranking, in which a more computationally expensive model is used to rank the $k$ most similar concepts obtained by the bi-encoder. Other work (Wu et al., 2020) encodes both new + +atoms and candidates simultaneously using language models, allowing for the encoding of one to be conditioned on the other. Our cross-encoder is based on PubMedBERT $^2$ and we use the most similar 50 atoms which represent unique concepts as measured by the best baseline, the RBA system augmented with SapBERT ranking. More concretely, the atom which represents each candidate concept $a_{c_i}$ is appended to new atom $q_j$ and encoded as follows: $[CLS] q_j [SEP] a_{c_i}$ . Since the number of RBA candidates differs for every new atom, if the RBA produces less than 50 candidates, the remaining candidates are selected from SapBERT's nearest neighbor candidates. We use the BLINK codebase (Wu et al., 2020) to train our re-ranking module. More information about our implementation can be found in Appendix C. + +# 4.6.1 Null Injection + +In contrast with standard entity linking settings where every mention can be linked to a relevant entity, UVI requires some mentions or new atoms to be deemed absent from the relevant set of entities. To achieve this in our re-ranking framework, we closely follow unlinkable biomedical entity linking methods (Dong et al., 2023; Ruas and Couto, 2022) and introduce a new candidate, denoted by the NULL token, to represent the possibility that the atom is new to the UMLS. + +# 4.6.2 RBA Enhancement + +Finally, given the high impact of the RBA system in preliminary experiments, we integrate rule-based information into the candidate re-ranking learning. The RBA provides information in primarily two ways: 1) the absence of RBA synonyms sends a strong signal for a new atom being a novel concept in the UMLS and 2) the candidate concepts + +
AccuracyNew ConceptExisting Concept Accuracy
RecallPrecisionF1
Rule Based Approximation (RBA)70.199.090.594.626.3
LexLM63.289.592.490.922.4
PubMedBERT68.499.167.380.220.7
SapBERT77.494.179.286.052.0
RBA + LexLM80.499.090.594.651.6
RBA + PubMedBERT83.799.090.594.660.0
RBA + SapBERT90.799.090.594.676.1
Re-Ranker (PubMedBERT)85.596.391.693.968.4
+ RBA Signal93.298.296.197.185.5
+ +Table 2: Comparison for rule-based, distance-based and combined baselines against our re-ranking approaches both with and without RBA-signal over all our metrics. All results reported above were calculated on the 2020AB UMLS insertion dataset. We find that all improvements of our best approach over the RBA+SapBERT baseline are very highly significant (p-value $< 0.001$ ) based on a paired t-test with bootstrap resampling. + +which the RBA predicted, rather than the ones predicted based solely on lexical similarity, have a higher chance of being the most appropriate concept for the new atom. Thus, we integrate these two information elements into the cross-encoder by 1) when no RBA synonyms exist, we append the string " (No Preferred Candidate)" to the new atom $q_{j}$ and 2) every candidate that was predicted by the RBA is concatenated with the string "(Preferred)". This way, the cross-encoder obtains access to vital RBA information while still being able to learn the decision-making flexibility which UMLS editors introduce through their expert knowledge. + +# 5 Results & Discussion + +In this section, we first discuss performance of our baselines and proposed methods on the UMLS 2020AB test set. We then evaluate the generalizability of our methods across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains. Finally, we provide a comparative evaluation and a qualitative error analysis to understand our model's potential benefits and limitations. + +# 5.1 Main Results + +Baselines. As seen in Table 2, previous baselines such as RBA, LexLM and biomedical language models like PubMedBERT and SapBERT stay under the $80\%$ mark in overall accuracy, with specially low performance in the existing concept accuracy metric. Even SapBERT, which is fine-tuned for the biomedical entity linking task, is unable to obtain high existing concept and new concept prediction scores when using a simple optimal similarity threshold method. + +Nevertheless, a simple baseline which combines the strengths of neural models and the rule-based system obtains surprisingly strong results. This is especially the case for augmenting the RBA with SapBERT which obtains a num90% overall accuracy and existing concept accuracy of 76%. We note that the new concept recall and precision of all RBA baselines is the same since the same rule-based mechanism is used. + +Our Approach. For the PubMedBERT-based re-ranking module, we find that the NULL injection mechanism enables it to outperform the models that rely solely on lexical information (LexLM, PubMedBERT and SapBERT) by a wide margin. However, it underperforms the best augmented RBA baseline substantially, underscoring the importance of RBA signal for the UVI task. Finally, we note that RBA enhancement allows the re-ranking module to obtain a $93.2\%$ accuracy due to boosts in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision of almost $10\%$ and $4\%$ respectively. These improvements comes from several important features of our best approach which we discuss in more detail in §5.3, namely the ability to flexibly determine when a new atom exists in the current UMLS even when it has no RBA synonyms and to apply rules used by UMLS editors seen in the model's training data. This substantial error reduction indicates our method's potential as a useful tool for supporting UMLS editors. + +# 5.2 Model Generalization + +In this section, we note the robust generalization of our re-ranking module across both UMLS versions + +and semantic groups (semantic categories defined by the UMLS). + +Across Versions. In Figure 3, we see that the best performing baseline RBA + SapBERT and our best method obtain strong performance across all five UMLS insertion datasets. Even though our proposed approach obtains the largest gains in the 2020AB set in which it was trained, it achieves stable existing concept accuracy and new concept F1 score improvements across all sets and shows no obvious deterioration over time, demonstrating its practicality for future UMLS updates. Unfortunately, we do observe a significant dip in new concept F1 for all models in the 2021AA dataset mainly due to the unusually poor performance of the RBA in one specific source, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), for that version. + +![](images/c269bf73d6234eb17ce08d2865d125a4d38f50a00d0373336aa7c6489c6e01ca.jpg) +Figure 3: Existing concept accuracy (left) and new concept F1 (right) of the best model from each baseline type and our best approach across 5 UVI datasets from 2020AB to 2022AB. All improvements over the best baseline are very highly significant (p-value $< 0.001$ ). + +Across Subdomains. Apart from evaluating whether our proposed approach generalizes across UMLS versions, we evaluate how model performance changes across different semantic groups. Table 3 shows the results of our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT) compared against our best proposed approach (Re-Ranker + RBA Signal) on the nine most frequent semantic groups averaged over all development insertion sets. We report the results in detail over all insertion sets in Appendix E. Our evaluation reveals that even though our best baseline performs quite well across several semantic groups, performance drops in challenging categories like Drugs, Genes, Procedures and the more general Concepts & Ideas category. Our approach is able to improve performance across most groups to above $90\%$ , with the exception of Genes and Procedures. Since the distribution of semantic groups can vary widely across UMLS updates, as seen in + +
Semantic GroupRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings97.298.0
Chemicals & Drugs81.193.7
Genes & Molecular Seq.74.377.7
Disorders92.197.7
Procedures82.684.3
Physiology92.899.0
Concepts & Ideas89.197.2
Devices90.797.4
Anatomy95.198.3
+ +the dataset details in Appendix B, our model's improved semantic group robustness is vital for its potential in improving the efficiency of the UMLS update process. + +As for the categories in which our approach remained below $90\%$ like Genes and Procedures, we find that they are mainly due to outlier insertion sets. Both the Genes and Procedures categories have one insertion set, 2022AA and 2021AA respectively, in which the performance of both systems drops dramatically due to a weak RBA signal which our methodology was unable to correct for. We refer the interested reader to Appendix E for these results and a more detailed discussion around this limitation. + +# 5.3 Comparative Evaluation + +As mentioned in the main results, our best model outperforms the best baseline mainly through improvements in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision. In Table 4, we report the distribution of 2,943 examples incorrectly predicted by RBA + SapBERT amended by our best approach. We note that a large majority, around $60\%$ , of the corrections are concept linking corrections, new atoms which are linked to an existing concept correctly while they were wrongly predicted as new concept atoms by the baseline. Most of the remain + +Table 3: Accuracy by semantic group for the two highest performing UVI systems averaged over all development insertion sets from 2020AB to 2022AB. + +
Correction TypeCorrection %
Concept Linking59.5
Re-Ranking35.9
New Concept Identification4.6
+ +Table 4: Distribution of examples incorrectly predicted by the best baseline amended by our best model. + +
Correction TypeNew AtomsTop 5 RBA + SapBERT Candidates
Re-RankingAmorpha <eudicots>Amorpha <moth> (Preferred) +Amorpha <angiosperm> (Preferred) +Amorphus +Amorphus sp. +Amorphotheca
Cytarabine-Thioguaninecytarabine/thioguanine (Preferred) +Cytarabine-Thioguanine Regimen (Preferred) +cyclophosphamide/cytarabine/thioguanine +Cytarabine/Mitoxantrone/Thioguanine +Cytarabine/Doxorubicin/Thioguanine
Concept Linkingtotal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary[NEW CONCEPT] +Total hysterectomy with right oophorectomy abdominal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary +Total hysterectomy with right salpingo-oophorectomy +Total hysterectomy with removal of both tubes and ovaries
WARFARIN NA (JANTOVEN) 7.5MG TAB[NEW CONCEPT] +Warfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [JANTOVEN] +WARFARIN NA (TARO) 7.5MG TAB +Warfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [COUMADIN]
+ +ing corrections, $35.9\%$ , are re-ranking corrections based on our model's ability to re-rank gold concept over other candidate concepts. The final $5\%$ comes from new concept identification corrections in which a new atom is correctly identified as a new concept atom when it was incorrectly linked to an existing one by the best baseline. + +The examples shown in Table 5 illustrate the benefits of our proposed approach more clearly. In the first two rows, we see two re-ranking corrections. In the first example, SapBERT incorrectly identifies ‘’ as being closer to ‘’ than ‘’ but our model has learned to interpret the disambiguation tags and correctly associates ‘eudicots’ with ‘angiosperm’ as levels of plant family classifications. In the second example, we observe that our trained model learns to link new atoms to concepts which have more comprehensive information such as the addition of the "Regimen" phrase. Although this is an editorial rule rather than an objective one, it is important to note that our model can adequately encode these. + +The final two rows in Table 5 show concept linking corrections. These examples illustrate the most important feature of our proposed model, the ability to link new atoms to concepts even when the RBA would consider them a new concept atom. In these instances, the model must determine whether all the features in the new atom are present in any potential candidates without support from the RBA. In these two examples, the model is able to correctly identify synonymy by mapping 'removal of the right ovary' to 'right oophorectomy', 'NA' to 'Sodium' and 'TAB' to 'Oral Tablet. + +Table 5: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT), shown above in red, but corrected by our best proposed reranking model, shown above in green. + +
Error TypeNew AtomTop 5 Best Model
UMLS Error (Duplicate Concepts)Left orbital regionLeft orbital region (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Structure of periorbital region of left eye Left orbital cavity proper Left orbital content
GonostomatidaeGonostomatidae (Preferred) Gonostomatidae (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Gonichthys Protrodiplostomatidae
True Errorsurea 400 MG/ML[NEW CONCEPT] Urea 400 mg/mL cutaneous lotion urea@50 %@TOPICAL@SOLUTION urea 40% UREA 40% TOP GEL
Exanthem caused by human echovirus (disorder)[NEW CONCEPT] VIRUSES ACCOMPANIED BY EXANTHEM exanthems viral Exanthem viral exanthem due to echovirus
+ +Table 6: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best proposed model, shown in red. Gold label concepts are marked with green. The first two rows show two errors caused by UMLS annotations while the final two are legitimate errors caused by complexity and ambiguity. + +# 5.4 Error Analysis + +Given that our work focuses on a specific practical application, in this section, we aim to more deeply understand how our approach can be effectively adopted by UMLS editors in their vocabulary insertion task. To this end, we recruited a biomedical terminology expert familiar with the UMLS vocabulary insertion process to analyze the practical effectiveness and limitations of our system. + +We first studied the calibration of our best model's output as a way to understand its error detection abilities. As shown in detail in Appendix F, we see a substantial drop in performance when model confidence, a softmax over candidate logit scores, drops below $90\%$ . This drop could indicate that our model is well calibrated, however, our qualitative experiments reveal that this signal comes from a large number of annotation errors in the UMLS which are easily detected by our problem formulation. + +We discovered this through a qualitative error analysis carried out with the help of the aforementioned biomedical terminology expert. We chose three sets of 30 randomly chosen example errors with different model confidence scores: high (90%-100%), medium (60%-70%) and low (30%-40%). Our expert editor reports several important findings. First, there was no substantial difference in example difficulty between different model confidence bins. Second, 70% of model errors are caused by the existence of UMLS concepts which have + +phrases that are equivalent to the new atoms, leading to ambiguous examples which can be found in the first section of Table 6. This arises from two types of annotation errors within the UMLS, either the new atom was incorrectly introduced into the UMLS or the phrase that is representing that concept was previously introduced into UMLS incorrectly. Out of this study, the expert found 15 out of the 90 instances where our model's suggestions lead to detecting incorrect associations in the original UMLS vocabulary insertion process. This evaluation suggests that our model could be quite useful in supporting quality assurance for the UMLS. + +Even though most model errors are caused by annotation issues in the UMLS, there are still some which are due to complexity and ambiguity. In the bottom half of Table 6, we see examples that our model still struggles with. First, the new atom "urea $400\mathrm{MG / ML}$ " should have been mapped to "urea $40\%$ since the percentage is calculated as the number of grams in $100~\mathrm{mL}$ . However, this decision requires not only the knowledge of this definition but also mathematical reasoning abilities. Finally, the last error in our table is caused by the ambiguity in deciding whether "human echovirus" and "echovirus" should be deemed equivalent. We note that both of these error types as well as the previously mentioned annotation errors show that our model's errors are occurring on scenarios which are either unsolvable or very challenging, shedding light on its potential as a practical system to support UMLS editors. + +# 6 Conclusion + +In conclusion, this paper emphasizes the importance of formulating NLP problems that align well with real-world scenarios in the midst of growing enthusiasm for NLP technologies. Focusing on the real-world task of UMLS vocabulary insertion, we demonstrate the importance of problem formulation by showcasing the differences between the UMLS vocabulary alignment formulation and our own UVI formulation. We evaluate existing UVA models as baselines and find that their performance differs significantly in the real-world setting. Additionally, we show that our formulation allows us to not only discover straightforward but exceptionally strong new baselines but also develop a novel null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods. Finally, we show + +that our proposed approach is highly translational by providing evidence for its robustness across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains, exploring the reasons behind its superior performance over our baselines and carrying out a qualitative error analysis to understand its limitations. We hope our case study highlights the significance of problem formulation and offers valuable insights for researchers and practitioners for building effective and practical NLP systems. + +# 7 Limitations + +We acknowledge several limitations to our investigation, which we propose to address in future work. First, while our formulation aligns exactly with part of the insertion process, there are aspects of the full insertion of new terms into the UMLS which are out of our scope. While we do identify terms that are not linked to existing UMLS concepts, we do not attempt to group these terms into new concepts. The identification of synonymous terms for new concepts will be addressed in future work. Second, except for the RBA approach that leverages lexical information and source synonymy, our approach does not take advantage of contextual information available for new terms (e.g., hierarchical information provided by the source vocabulary). We plan to follow (Nguyen et al., 2022) and integrate this kind of information that has been shown to increase precision without detrimental effect on recall in the UVA task. Third, our approach uses a single term, the term closest to the new atom, as the representative for the concept for linking purposes. While this approach drastically simplifies processing, it also restricts access to the rich set of synonyms available for the concept. We plan to explore alternative trade offs in performance when including more concept synonyms. Finally, reliance on the RBA information had the potential for incorrectly identifying new concepts when RBA signal is not complete. Even though RBA signal is quite useful for this task, it is important to build systems robust to its absence. We plan to explore this robustness more actively in future work by including such incomplete signal in the training process. + +# 8 Acknowledgements + +The authors would like to thank the expert UMLS annotators from the NLM for their detailed error analysis. We also appreciate constructive comments from anonymous reviewers and our NLM + +and OSU NLP group colleagues. This research was supported in part by NIH R01LM014199, the Ohio Supercomputer Center (Center, 1987) and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Library of Medicine. + +# References + +Goonmeet Bajaj, Vinh Nguyen, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Evaluating biomedical word embeddings for vocabulary alignment at scale in the UMLS Metathesaurus using Siamese networks. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 82-87, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): Integrating Biomedical Terminology. Nucleic acids research, 32 Database issue:D267-70. +Ohio Supercomputer Center. 1987. Ohio supercomputer center. +Hang Dong, Jiaoyan Chen, Yuan He, Yinan Liu, and Ian Horrocks. 2023. Reveal the unknown: Out-of-knowledge-base mention discovery with entity linking. +Jennifer D'Souza and Vincent Ng. 2015. Sieve-based entity linking for the biomedical domain. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 297-302, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lenz Furrer, Joseph Cornelius, and Fabio Rinaldi. 2022. Parallel sequence tagging for concept recognition. BMC Bioinformatics, 22. +Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare, 3(1). +Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herve Jégou. 2021. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547. +Robert Leaman, Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, and Zhiyong Lu. 2013. DNorm: disease name normalization with pairwise learning to rank. Bioinformatics, 29:2909 - 2917. +Robert Leaman and Zhiyong Lu. 2016. TaggerOne: joint named entity recognition and normalization with semi-Markov Models. Bioinformatics, 32(18):2839-2846. + +Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234-1240. +Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, Zaiqiao Meng, Marco Basaldella, and Nigel Collier. 2021. Self-alignment pretraining for biomedical entity representations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4228-4238, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alexa T. McCray, Suresh Srinivasan, and Allen C. Browne. 1994. Lexical methods for managing variation in biomedical terminologies. Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pages 235-9. +Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, Goonmeet Bajaj, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vishesh Javangula, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Context-enriched learning models for aligning biomedical vocabularies at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. +Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2021. Biomedical vocabulary alignment at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference, 2021:2672 - 2683. +Pedro Ruas and Francisco M. Couto. 2022. Nilinker: Attention-based approach to nil entity linking. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 132:104137. +Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vinh Phu Nguyen, Goonmeet Bajaj, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Yuqing Mao, Kin Wah Fung, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Ubert: A novel language model for synonymy prediction at scale in the umls metathesaurus. ArXiv, abs/2204.12716. +Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), + +pages 6397-6407, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zheng Yuan, Zhengyun Zhao, Haixia Sun, Jiao Li, Fei Wang, and Sheng Yu. 2022. Coder: Knowledgeinfused cross-lingual medical term embedding for term normalization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, page 103983. +Sheng Zhang, Hao Cheng, Shikhar Vashishth, Cliff Wong, Jinfeng Xiao, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2022. Knowledge-rich self-supervision for biomedical entity linking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 868-880, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yijia Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhihao Yang, Hongfei Lin, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. BioWordVec, improving biomedical word embeddings with subword information and MeSH. Scientific Data, 6. + +# A Original UVA Dataset + +Table 7 lists the basic statistics for the UMLS vocabulary alignment datasets. Since the UVA task was formulated and evaluated only as a binary classification task, the dataset is divided into positive and negative pairs. For more details about how the negative pairs were sampled from the UMLS, we refer the interested reader to §4.2 of Nguyen et al. (2021). + +
UVA PairsPositive PairsNegative Pairs
Train192,400,46222,324,834170,075,628
Test173,035,8625,581,209167,454,653
+ +# B UVI Dataset Details + +In Table 8, we report the size of our five UMLS vocabulary insertion dataset splits. We note that only the 2020AB version contains a training set, all other insertion sets only have development and test sets. + +Table 7: Original UVA dataset statistics. + +
TrainDevTest
2020AB215,402105,796108,937
2021AA-112,647113,563
2021AB-227,440228,053
2022AA-88,18687,803
2022AB-138,107137,735
+ +In terms of dataset construction, we reiterate that stratified sampling based on semantic groups was used to keep the original distributions intact. We adopt this technique due to the substantial changes + +![](images/05870e417d41ea6793f86381eb94a8ca87438dd6e4a68b1ac11d3844e1bef615.jpg) +Figure 4: This figure shows the incidence of each of the +most frequent 8 semantic groups across the 5 insertion sets explored in this work. + +in semantic group distribution across insertion sets, as seen in 4, as well as the high variance in model performance across semantic categories, as seen in §5.2 and Appendix E. + +# C Implementation Details + +In this section we discuss the implementation details for our baselines as well as our proposed approach. For the UMLS vocabulary alignment baselines, we use the same implementation of the Rule-Based Approximation (RBA) and LexLM used by the authors in Nguyen et al. (2021). To implement our language model baselines we use the HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use the FAISS library (Johnson et al., 2021) to speed up nearest neighbor search using GPUs when experimenting with LexLM, SapBERT and PubMedBERT embeddings (Johnson et al., 2021). We train our cross-encoder re-ranking module using BLINK (Wu et al., 2020), which uses a cross-entropy loss to maximize the score of the correct candidate over the rest of the candidates. We use default hyperparameters listed in Table 9 to train our re-ranking module but perform early stopping using the accuracy metric on our 2020AB validation set. All experiments used an NVIDIA V100 GPU with 16 GB of VRAM. The models we used and the approximate amount of GPU hours used for each is listed in Table 10. + +Table 8: Experimental split statistics for UMLS insertion dataset $Q$ from 2,020 to 2,022. + +
Learning RateTotal EpochsBatch SizeWarmup Ratio
2e-5310.1
+ +Table 9: Hyperparameters selected for our cross-encoder re-ranking training for reproducibility. + +
# of Parameters (millions)Total GPU Hours
LexLM0.25
PubMedBERT100140
SapBERT10040
+ +Table 10: Total GPU Hours associated with our experiments. PubMedBERT GPU hours include both UMLS encoding and fine-tuning for our re-ranking module. + +# D Latency Comparison + +In Table 11, we report the inference latency for each baseline as well as our proposed approaches + +on the UVI task. As seen in the table, our approach has significantly slower inference than previous baselines. Nevertheless, since the UMLS insertion task happens only twice a year, variations in inference latency are not a significant concern as long as the process can be run within a reasonable amount of time on available computing resources. We hope that these numbers can help other researchers and practitioners understand the computing requirements on this or similar tasks. + +
ModelInference Latency (ms)Time for 300k Atoms (mins)
RBA0.010.05
LexLM1.286.40
SapBERT2.5012.50
RBA + LexLM1.296.45
RBA + SapBERT2.5112.55
Re-Ranker (RBA Signal)35.51177.5
+ +# E Detailed Semantic Group Evaluation + +As mentioned in 5.2, different UMLS updates often contain completely different semantic group distributions since they depend entirely on independent source updates. Due to this, generalization across different semantic categories (semantic groups in the UMLS) is a crucial feature for a system to be successful in real-world UMLS vocabulary insertion. Table 13 provides a detailed report of the performance of our strongest baseline and our best proposed approach on all development insertion sets across the 9 most frequent semantic groups. As seen in these detailed results, our proposed approach obtains stronger and more consistent results across all semantic groups compared to our best baseline. + +Nevertheless, as discussed in the main text, our approach remained below $90\%$ on average in categories like Genes and Procedures. In the broken down results in Table 13, we can more clearly see that these averaged results are caused by outlier insertion sets. For the Genes semantic group, our proposed approach improves performance considerably for all insertion sets except for 2022AA, in which its performance drops by more than 10 points. We note that the performance of the best baseline is also much lower than usual, potentially indicating a weak RBA signal and challenging + +atoms to link. For the Procedures category, we see a similar pattern in the 2021AA insertion set while the other sets see small but regular improvements with our system. These results indicate that, although our proposed approach can leverage the RBA signal more consistently when it is sufficiently strong, it fails to correct for it when it is very weak to begin with. It is therefore important to continue working on ways to correct or at least alert annotators about potential system failures in specific concept sub-groups. + +# F Model Calibration Details + +As discussed above, our re-ranker model's output confidence, defined as a softmax over candidate logit scores produced by our model, seemed correlated with model accuracy. In Table 12, we show model accuracy across different model confidence scores. We find that model confidence score is highly correlated with model accuracy, which drops to around $50\%$ when model confidence drops below $90\%$ and continues to drop after that. Through qualitative analysis, we find that this does not indicate successful model calibration but is actually mainly caused by annotation errors within UMLS which result in duplicate and ambiguous concepts. + +Table 11: Time spent on inference for each baseline as well as our proposed approach. + +
Model Confidence (%)Number of ExamplesAccuracy
0238.7
108022.5
2020632.5
3039736.0
401,28256.0
5096455.1
6051148.7
7041150.6
8059055.3
9038,07692.1
10062,74399.8
+ +Table 12: The output probability of our best re-ranking approach (the probability of the highest scoring candidate concept) seemed to be correlated with high prediction accuracy but actually indicates annotation errors. + +
Semantic Group2020AB2021AA2021AB2022AA2022AB
RBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings99.299.898.695.896.899.793.395.397.999.6
Chemicals & Drugs87.794.873.889.287.995.381.596.674.892.4
Genes & Molecular Sequences86.897.076.282.678.287.458.942.571.279.2
Disorders91.798.090.297.296.098.391.897.090.898.0
Procedures94.196.954.654.895.397.695.097.074.275.0
Physiology95.199.298.898.984.399.197.199.388.798.4
Concepts & Ideas91.697.470.596.198.498.592.696.492.597.5
Devices93.497.889.495.594.397.190.399.786.296.9
Anatomy92.796.494.297.992.298.498.399.097.899.4
+ +Table 13: Breakdown for Table 3 over all insertion development sets and the 9 most frequent semantic groups. These detailed results can help us more closely understand model failures across semantic groups compared to the aggregated results. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/images.zip b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bacc63a45c1321dbc30062f8f0e5a87f367d98a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:39c9c6e1690c219640186a764bb44c21f6cc27187f27a4afb0c946452d417887 +size 552519 diff --git a/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/layout.json b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c14cac300ef7046a641b58b55d9eb0af70c2c7d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP_ A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8250 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 74, + 473, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 74, + 473, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 74, + 473, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Solving the Right Problem is Key for Translational NLP: A Case Study in UMLS Vocabulary Insertion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bernal Jiménez Gutiérrez" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,\\ast}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yuqing Mao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Vinh Nguyen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Kin Wah Fung" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yu Su" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Olivier Bodenreider" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 119, + 449, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 148, + 440, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 148, + 440, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 148, + 440, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1The Ohio State University, 2National Library of Medicine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 164, + 393, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 164, + 393, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 164, + 393, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{jimenezgutierrez.1, su.809}@osu.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 179, + 461, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 179, + 461, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 179, + 461, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yuqing.mao,vinh.nguyen,kwfung}@nih.gov, olivier@nlm.nih.gov" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As the immense opportunities enabled by large language models become more apparent, NLP systems will be increasingly expected to excel in real-world settings. However, in many instances, powerful models alone will not yield translational NLP solutions, especially if the formulated problem is not well aligned with the real-world task. In this work, we study the case of UMLS vocabulary insertion, an important real-world task in which hundreds of thousands of new terms, referred to as atoms, are added to the UMLS, one of the most comprehensive open-source biomedical knowledge bases (Bodenreider, 2004). Previous work aimed to develop an automated NLP system to make this time-consuming, costly, and error-prone task more efficient. Nevertheless, practical progress in this direction has been difficult to achieve due to a problem formulation and evaluation gap between research output and the real-world task. In order to address this gap, we introduce a new formulation for UMLS vocabulary insertion which mirrors the real-world task, datasets which faithfully represent it and several strong baselines we developed through re-purposing existing solutions. Additionally, we propose an effective rule-enhanced biomedical language model which enables important new model behavior, outperforms all strong baselines and provides measurable qualitative improvements to editors who carry out the UVI task. We hope this case study provides insight into the considerable importance of problem formulation for the success of translational NLP solutions.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 658, + 154, + 671 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 658, + 154, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 658, + 154, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 291, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 291, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The public release of large language model (LLM) products like ChatGPT has triggered a wave of enthusiasm for NLP technologies. As more people discover the wealth of opportunities enabled by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 523, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 523, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 523, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 215, + 523, + 327 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0b345b9fc03f88a979c5a10d9bc67e09f973c0249fce975a99acd20f850478d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 334, + 421, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 334, + 421, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 408, + 334, + 421, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 351, + 513, + 379 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 351, + 513, + 379 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 351, + 513, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 351, + 513, + 379 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "23e17ae9fd483ef112c5116dde2b130e14b853c308ca1d9c458849c88f394c27.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 384, + 507, + 411 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 384, + 507, + 411 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 384, + 507, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 384, + 507, + 411 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8338d5d6b338c3c1479dcc117cb50043969dc622a02bc7600b66193edb4179e9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 417, + 419, + 428 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 417, + 419, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 407, + 417, + 419, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 526, + 510 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 526, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 438, + 526, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The UMLS update process in (a) introduces atoms from individual sources into the original UMLS as synonyms of existing concepts or entirely new concepts. The UVA task is formulated as binary synonymy prediction (b) and was thus unable to tackle the real-world update task addressed by our UVI formulation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 527, + 525, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "these technologies, NLP systems will be expected to perform in a wide variety of real-world scenarios. However, even as LLMs get increasingly more capable, it is unlikely that they will lead to translational solutions alone. Although many aspects are crucial for an NLP system's success, we use this work to highlight one key aspect of building real-world systems which is sometimes taken for granted: formulating a problem in a way that is well-aligned with its real-world counterpart. To explore the effect of this key step in building real-world NLP systems, we provide a case study on the important task of UMLS vocabulary insertion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) (Bodenreider, 2004) is a large-scale biomedical knowledge base that standardizes over 200 medical vocabularies. The UMLS contains approximately 16 million source-specific terms, referred" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Part of this work was done while interning at the NLM. \n1Our code is available at https://github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/UMLS-Vocabulary-Insertion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "704" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 704-717" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to as atoms, grouped into over 4 million unique concepts, making it one of the most comprehensive publicly available biomedical knowledge bases and a crucial resource for biomedical interoperability. Many of the vocabularies which make up the UMLS are independently updated to keep up with the rapidly advancing biomedical research field. In order for this essential public resource to remain up-to-date, a team of expert editors painstakingly identify which new atoms should be integrated into existing UMLS concepts or added as new concepts, as shown in Figure 1a. This process, which we refer to as UMLS vocabulary insertion (UVI), involves inserting an average of over 300,000 new atoms into the UMLS and is carried out twice a year before each new UMLS version release." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 294, + 289, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite its importance, scale and complexity, this task is accomplished by editors using lexical information (McCray et al., 1994), synonymy information provided by the source vocabularies and their own expertise. In order to improve this process, much work has been done to augment it with modern NLP techniques. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors introduce datasets and models which explore the task of UMLS vocabulary alignment (UVA). As seen in Figure 1b, the authors formulate the UVA task as a binary synonymy prediction task between two UMLS atoms, while the real-world task requires the whole UMLS to be considered and a concept to be predicted for each new atom (unless it is deemed a new concept atom). Unfortunately, while the UVA task has successfully explored biomedical synonymy prediction, its formulation has made it unable to yield practical improvements for the UVI process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we attempt to address this gap with a novel UVI problem formulation, also depicted in Figure 1b. Our formulation follows the real-world task exactly by predicting whether a new atom should be associated with an existing concept or identified as a new concept atom. We introduce five datasets taken directly from actual UMLS updates starting from the second half of 2020 until the end of 2022. These datasets enabled us to measure the real-world practicality of our systems and led us to findings we could not have discovered otherwise. First, we find that adapting UVA models to perform the UVI task yields much higher error rates than in their original task, showing that their strong performance does not transfer to the real-world setting. Second, contrary to previous" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "work (Bajaj et al., 2022), we find that biomedical language models (LMs) outperform previous UVA models. Thirdly, we discover that rule-based and deep learning frameworks greatly improve each other's performance. Finally, inspired by biomedical entity linking and the complementary nature of our baseline systems, we propose a null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods and achieves low error rates on all five UMLS update datasets. To show our model's practical utility, we quantitatively evaluate its robustness across UMLS update versions and semantic domains, conduct a comparative evaluation against the second best method and carry out a qualitative error analysis to more deeply understand its limitations. We hope that our case study helps researchers and practitioners reflect on the importance of problem formulation for the translational success of NLP systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 340, + 395, + 352 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 340, + 395, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 340, + 395, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 363, + 469, + 375 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 363, + 469, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 363, + 469, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 UMLS Vocabulary Alignment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 380, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 380, + 525, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 380, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous work to improve UMLS editing formulates the problem as biomedical synonymy prediction through the UMLS vocabulary alignment task (Nguyen et al., 2021, 2022; Wijesiriwardene et al., 2022). These investigations find that deep learning methods are effective at predicting synonymy for biomedical terms, obtaining F1 scores above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 380, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 380, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Nguyen et al., 2021). Although this formulation can help explore biomedical synonymy prediction, it does not consider the larger UMLS updating task and thus the strong performance of these models does not transfer to real-world tasks such as UVI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 544, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Apart from the clear difference in scope between UVA and UVI shown in Figure 1b, major differences in evaluation datasets contribute to the gap in UVA's applicability to the UVI task. In Nguyen et al. (2021), the authors built a synonymy prediction dataset with almost 200 million training and test synonym pairs to approximate the largescale nature of UMLS editing. UVA dataset statistics can be found in Appendix A. Since the UVA test set was created using lexical similarity aware negative sampling, it does not hold the same distribution as all the negative pairs in the UMLS. Since the UVI task considers all of the UMLS, UVA sampling leads to a significant distribution shift between these tasks. This unfortunately diminishes the usefulness of model evaluation on the UVA dataset for the real-world task. Surprisingly," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 306, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 306, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 306, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "705" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "this gap results in biomedical language models like BioBERT (Lee et al., 2019) and SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021) underperforming previous UVA models in the UVA dataset Bajaj et al. (2022) while outperforming them in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 220, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 220, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 220, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Biomedical Entity Linking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the task of biomedical entity linking, terms mentioned within text must be linked to existing concepts in a knowledge base, often UMLS. Our own task, UMLS vocabulary insertion, follows a similar process except for three key differences: 1) relevant terms come from biomedical vocabularies rather than text, 2) some terms can be new to the UMLS and 3) each term comes with source-specific information. Many different strategies have been used for biomedical entity linking such as expert-written rules (D'Souza and Ng, 2015), learning-to-rank methods (Leaman et al., 2013), models that combine NER and entity-linking signals (Leaman and Lu, 2016; Furrer et al., 2022) and language model fine-tuning (Liu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2022). Due to the strong parallels between biomedical entity-linking and our task, we leverage the best performing LM based methods for the UVI task Liu et al. (2021); Zhang et al. (2022); Yuan et al. (2022). These methods fine-tune an LM to represent synonymy using embedding distance, enabling a nearest neighbor search to produce likely candidates for entity linking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 481, + 291, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The first difference between biomedical entity linking and UVI is addressed by ignoring textual context as done in Liu et al. (2021), which we adopt as a strong baseline. The second difference, that some new atoms can be new to the UMLS, is addressed by work which includes un-linkable entities in the scope of their task (Ruas and Couto, 2022; Dong et al., 2023). In these, a cross-encoder candidate module introduced by Wu et al. (2020) is used to re-rank the nearest neighbors suggested by embedding methods like Liu et al. (2021) with an extra candidate which represents that the entity is unlinkable, or in our case, a new concept atom. The third difference has no parallel in biomedical entity linking since mentions do not originate from specific sources and is therefore one of our contributions in §4.6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 723, + 235, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 723, + 235, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 723, + 235, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 UMLS Vocabulary Insertion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We refer to UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) as the process of inserting atoms from updated or new" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "medical vocabularies into the UMLS. In this task, each new term encountered in a medical source vocabulary is introduced into the UMLS as either a synonym of an existing UMLS concept or as an entirely new concept. In this section, we describe our formulation of the UVI task, the baselines we adapted from previous work, as well as a thorough description of our proposed approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 432, + 200 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 432, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 188, + 432, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Problem Formulation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we define the version of the UMLS before the update as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K \\coloneqq \\{c_1, \\dots, c_n\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a set of unique UMLS concepts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Each concept " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_i \\coloneqq \\{a_1^i, \\dots, a_{k_i}^i\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where each atom " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_j^i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as they are referred to by the UMLS, is defined as the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " source-specific synonym for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{th}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 206, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " concept in the UMLS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the UMLS Vocabulary Insertion (UVI) task, a set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " new atoms " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q \\coloneqq \\{q_1, \\dots, q_m\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " must be integrated into the current set of concepts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus, we can now define the UVI task as the following function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which maps a new atom " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to its gold labelled concept " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{q_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if it exists in the old UMLS " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 302, + 525, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or to a null value if it is a new concept atom, as described by the following Equation 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 419, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 419, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 346, + 419, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "I (K, q _ {j}) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} c _ {q _ {j}} & \\text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \\in K \\\\ \\varnothing & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "74c8a846d3e67f7315f69bccccf52cef6a737bb075c35539db4782b75ef71770.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 427, + 478 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 427, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 463, + 427, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 371, + 497 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 371, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 371, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate the UVI task in the most realistic way possible, we introduce a set of five insertion sets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which contain all atoms which are inserted into the UMLS from medical source vocabularies by expert editors twice a year. Due to their real-world nature, these datasets vary in size and new concept distribution depending on the number and type of atoms that are added to source vocabularies before every update as shown in Table 1. We note that the version of the UMLS we use contains 8.5 rather than 16 million atoms because we follow previous work and only use atoms that are in English, come from active vocabularies and are non-suppressible, features defined by UMLS editors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While most of our experiments focus on the UMLS 2020AB, we use the other four as test sets to evaluate temporal generalizability. We split the 2020AB insertion dataset into training, dev and test sets using a 50:25:25 ratio and the other insertion datasets using a 50:50 split into dev and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "706" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 68, + 274, + 164 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Original UMLS KInsertion Set QNew Concepts
2020AB8,521,220430,135260,058
2021AA8,839,907226,21091,834
2021AB8,835,147455,493218,933
2022AA9,175,923175,989111,853
2022AB9,082,515275,842188,984
", + "image_path": "d9d349e413f717f70ce3991fa63bd3fc9bb3a5fb6f0a1b5378776a0456e846a3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 290, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 290, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 290, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: UMLS Statistics from 2020AB to 2022AB. Our models are trained on the 2020AB insertion dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 291, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 291, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 207, + 291, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "test sets. We do stratified sampling to keep the distribution of semantic groups, categories defined by the UMLS, constant across splits within each insertion set. This is important since the distribution of semantic groups changes significantly across insertion datasets and preliminary studies showed that performance can vary substantially across categories. For details regarding the number of examples in each split and the distribution of semantic groups across different insertion sets, refer to Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 131, + 377 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 131, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 131, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 383, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report several metrics to evaluate our methods comprehensively on the UVI task: accuracy, new concept metrics and existing concept accuracy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 289, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Accuracy. It measures the percentage of correct predictions over the full insertion set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 427, + 289, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "New Concept Metrics. These measure how well models predict new atoms as new concepts and they are described in Equation 2. The terms in Equation 2, subscripted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "nc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 456, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", refer to the number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) examples, calculated by using the new concept label as the positive class." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 560, + 290, + 593 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 560, + 290, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 560, + 290, + 593 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "P _ {n c} = \\frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F P _ {n c}} \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "c54eabde86e3c8b956227f42d19b321427474c1f4f9117565671c0ff64a5352a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 591, + 230, + 618 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 591, + 230, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 591, + 230, + 618 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "R _ {n c} = \\frac {T P _ {n c}}{T P _ {n c} + F N _ {n c}}", + "image_path": "318124019e3d935f9ac98a902a31b87336f4e41d955e8c3a5085aaf3b4b25db4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing Concept Accuracy. This metric shows model performance on atoms in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which were linked by annotators to the previous version of UMLS " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", as shown in Equation 3. Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N_{ec}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " be the number of concepts in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which were linked to concepts in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 625, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 714, + 290, + 753 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 714, + 290, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 714, + 290, + 753 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A _ {e c} = \\frac {1}{N _ {e c}} \\sum_ {q _ {j} \\in Q} \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l l} \\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} = c _ {q _ {j}} & \\text {i f} c _ {q _ {j}} \\in K \\\\ 0 & \\text {o t h e r w i s e} \\end{array} \\right. \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "b392538bb47acda2eae6a167d7191c6a46c69ed440706c4f9f21bb338fbf35f2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 761, + 208, + 776 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 761, + 208, + 776 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 761, + 208, + 776 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {c} _ {q _ {j}} := I (K, q _ {j})", + "image_path": "55b97f3dd05d3f72f2815305a24490ea10420f7dd07b01965d639024a3473fba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 399, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 399, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 399, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 UVA Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We adapted several UVA specific system as baselines for our UMLS vocabulary insertion task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rule-based Approximation (RBA). (Nguyen et al., 2021) This system was designed to approximate the decisions made by UMLS editors regarding atom synonymy using three simple rules. Two atoms were deemed synonymous if 1) they were labelled as synonyms in their source vocabularies, 2) their strings have identical normalized forms and compatible semantics (McCray et al., 1994) and 3) the transitive closure of the other two strategies. We thus define the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " function for the UVI task as follows. We first obtain an unsorted list of atoms " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " deemed synonymous with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the RBA. We then group these atoms by concept to make a smaller set of unique concepts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Since this predicted concept list is unsorted, if it contains more than one potential concept, we randomly select one of them as the predicted concept " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{c}_{q_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 132, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". If the RBA synonym list is empty, we deem the new atom as not existing in the current UMLS version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LexLM. (Nguyen et al., 2021) The Lexical-Learning Model (LexLM) system was designed as the deep learning alternative to the RBA and trained for binary synonymy prediction using the UVA training dataset. Their proposed model consists of an LSTM encoder over BioWordVec (Zhang et al., 2019) embeddings which encodes two strings and calculates a similarity score between them. A threshold is used over the similarity score to determine the final synonymy prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To adapt this baseline to the UVI task, we define the insertion function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as mapping a new atom " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the concept in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{c}_{q_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", containing the atom with the highest similarity score to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " based on the LexLM representations. To allow the function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to predict that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " does not exist in the current UMLS and should be mapped to the empty set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\varnothing" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), we select a similarity threshold for the most similar concept under which " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 553, + 524, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is deemed a new atom. For fairness in evaluation, the similarity threshold is selected using the 2020AB UVI training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 395, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 395, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 395, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 LM Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous work finds that language models do not improve UVA performance (Bajaj et al., 2022). However, given our new formulation, we evaluate" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "707" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 524, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 524, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 524, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 71, + 524, + 154 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0fa963812818da8abfc22622aed56edd1c1a0e8d115086042dc9c9c331bcd0b8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 160, + 526, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 160, + 526, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 160, + 526, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overall architecture for our best performing approach on the new UVI task formulation. Our methodology leverages the best distance-based ranking model (SapBERT) as well as RBA signal. Additionally, our design allows new atoms to be identified as new concepts by introducing a 'New Concept' placeholder into the candidate list given to the re-ranking module as shown above." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 290, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 230, + 290, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "two language models in the more realistic UVI task using the same strategy described for the LexLM model above. For implementation details, we refer the interested reader to Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 298, + 289, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PubMedBERT (Gu et al., 2021). PubMedBERT is one of the most capable biomedical specific language models available due to its from scratch pre-training on biomedical data as well as its specialized biomedical tokenizer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 290, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 290, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SapBERT (Liu et al., 2021). SapBERT is a language model designed for biomedical entity linking or concept normalization. It was developed by finetuning the original PubMedBERT on the 2020AA version of UMLS using a contrastive learning objective. This objective incentivizes synonymous entity representations in UMLS to be more similar than non-synonymous ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 175, + 510 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 175, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 175, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Augmented RBA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given that the neural representation baselines discussed above provide a ranking system missing from the RBA, we create a strong baseline by augmenting the RBA system with each neural ranking baseline. In these simple but effective baselines, the concepts predicted by the RBA are ranked based on their similarity to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using each neural baseline system. New concept prediction uses the same method employed by the original RBA model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 280, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 280, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 280, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Our Approach: Candidate Re-Ranking" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our candidate re-ranking approach is inspired by some entity linking systems which use two distinct steps: 1) candidate generation, which uses a bi-encoder like the baselines described above, and 2) candidate re-ranking, in which a more computationally expensive model is used to rank the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " most similar concepts obtained by the bi-encoder. Other work (Wu et al., 2020) encodes both new" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "atoms and candidates simultaneously using language models, allowing for the encoding of one to be conditioned on the other. Our cross-encoder is based on PubMedBERT" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and we use the most similar 50 atoms which represent unique concepts as measured by the best baseline, the RBA system augmented with SapBERT ranking. More concretely, the atom which represents each candidate concept " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_{c_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is appended to new atom " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and encoded as follows: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[CLS] q_j [SEP] a_{c_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Since the number of RBA candidates differs for every new atom, if the RBA produces less than 50 candidates, the remaining candidates are selected from SapBERT's nearest neighbor candidates. We use the BLINK codebase (Wu et al., 2020) to train our re-ranking module. More information about our implementation can be found in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 405, + 482 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 405, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 405, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6.1 Null Injection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 525, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In contrast with standard entity linking settings where every mention can be linked to a relevant entity, UVI requires some mentions or new atoms to be deemed absent from the relevant set of entities. To achieve this in our re-ranking framework, we closely follow unlinkable biomedical entity linking methods (Dong et al., 2023; Ruas and Couto, 2022) and introduce a new candidate, denoted by the NULL token, to represent the possibility that the atom is new to the UMLS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 631, + 429, + 643 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 631, + 429, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 631, + 429, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6.2 RBA Enhancement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 647, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 647, + 525, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 647, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, given the high impact of the RBA system in preliminary experiments, we integrate rule-based information into the candidate re-ranking learning. The RBA provides information in primarily two ways: 1) the absence of RBA synonyms sends a strong signal for a new atom being a novel concept in the UMLS and 2) the candidate concepts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Preliminary results showed that PubMedBERT outperforms SapBERT as a re-ranker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "708" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 113, + 68, + 478, + 212 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 68, + 478, + 212 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 68, + 478, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 68, + 478, + 212 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
AccuracyNew ConceptExisting Concept Accuracy
RecallPrecisionF1
Rule Based Approximation (RBA)70.199.090.594.626.3
LexLM63.289.592.490.922.4
PubMedBERT68.499.167.380.220.7
SapBERT77.494.179.286.052.0
RBA + LexLM80.499.090.594.651.6
RBA + PubMedBERT83.799.090.594.660.0
RBA + SapBERT90.799.090.594.676.1
Re-Ranker (PubMedBERT)85.596.391.693.968.4
+ RBA Signal93.298.296.197.185.5
", + "image_path": "c60925c9cc0b2d042ef3da0bf5605760901cef27b55d33f9600d6d81934d93ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Comparison for rule-based, distance-based and combined baselines against our re-ranking approaches both with and without RBA-signal over all our metrics. All results reported above were calculated on the 2020AB UMLS insertion dataset. We find that all improvements of our best approach over the RBA+SapBERT baseline are very highly significant (p-value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 525, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") based on a paired t-test with bootstrap resampling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which the RBA predicted, rather than the ones predicted based solely on lexical similarity, have a higher chance of being the most appropriate concept for the new atom. Thus, we integrate these two information elements into the cross-encoder by 1) when no RBA synonyms exist, we append the string \" (No Preferred Candidate)\" to the new atom " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 466 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 291, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and 2) every candidate that was predicted by the RBA is concatenated with the string \"(Preferred)\". This way, the cross-encoder obtains access to vital RBA information while still being able to learn the decision-making flexibility which UMLS editors introduce through their expert knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 196, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 196, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 196, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results & Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 501, + 291, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we first discuss performance of our baselines and proposed methods on the UMLS 2020AB test set. We then evaluate the generalizability of our methods across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains. Finally, we provide a comparative evaluation and a qualitative error analysis to understand our model's potential benefits and limitations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 157, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 157, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 619, + 157, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines. As seen in Table 2, previous baselines such as RBA, LexLM and biomedical language models like PubMedBERT and SapBERT stay under the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " mark in overall accuracy, with specially low performance in the existing concept accuracy metric. Even SapBERT, which is fine-tuned for the biomedical entity linking task, is unable to obtain high existing concept and new concept prediction scores when using a simple optimal similarity threshold method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 526, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nevertheless, a simple baseline which combines the strengths of neural models and the rule-based system obtains surprisingly strong results. This is especially the case for augmenting the RBA with SapBERT which obtains a num90% overall accuracy and existing concept accuracy of 76%. We note that the new concept recall and precision of all RBA baselines is the same since the same rule-based mechanism is used." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our Approach. For the PubMedBERT-based re-ranking module, we find that the NULL injection mechanism enables it to outperform the models that rely solely on lexical information (LexLM, PubMedBERT and SapBERT) by a wide margin. However, it underperforms the best augmented RBA baseline substantially, underscoring the importance of RBA signal for the UVI task. Finally, we note that RBA enhancement allows the re-ranking module to obtain a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "93.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " accuracy due to boosts in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision of almost " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 427, + 526, + 711 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. These improvements comes from several important features of our best approach which we discuss in more detail in §5.3, namely the ability to flexibly determine when a new atom exists in the current UMLS even when it has no RBA synonyms and to apply rules used by UMLS editors seen in the model's training data. This substantial error reduction indicates our method's potential as a useful tool for supporting UMLS editors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 432, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 432, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 725, + 432, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Model Generalization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we note the robust generalization of our re-ranking module across both UMLS versions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "709" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and semantic groups (semantic categories defined by the UMLS)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 111, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Across Versions. In Figure 3, we see that the best performing baseline RBA + SapBERT and our best method obtain strong performance across all five UMLS insertion datasets. Even though our proposed approach obtains the largest gains in the 2020AB set in which it was trained, it achieves stable existing concept accuracy and new concept F1 score improvements across all sets and shows no obvious deterioration over time, demonstrating its practicality for future UMLS updates. Unfortunately, we do observe a significant dip in new concept F1 for all models in the 2021AA dataset mainly due to the unusually poor performance of the RBA in one specific source, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), for that version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 324, + 289, + 432 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 324, + 289, + 432 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 324, + 289, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 324, + 289, + 432 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c269bf73d6234eb17ce08d2865d125a4d38f50a00d0373336aa7c6489c6e01ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 504 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Existing concept accuracy (left) and new concept F1 (right) of the best model from each baseline type and our best approach across 5 UVI datasets from 2020AB to 2022AB. All improvements over the best baseline are very highly significant (p-value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 0.001" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 443, + 291, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Across Subdomains. Apart from evaluating whether our proposed approach generalizes across UMLS versions, we evaluate how model performance changes across different semantic groups. Table 3 shows the results of our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT) compared against our best proposed approach (Re-Ranker + RBA Signal) on the nine most frequent semantic groups averaged over all development insertion sets. We report the results in detail over all insertion sets in Appendix E. Our evaluation reveals that even though our best baseline performs quite well across several semantic groups, performance drops in challenging categories like Drugs, Genes, Procedures and the more general Concepts & Ideas category. Our approach is able to improve performance across most groups to above " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with the exception of Genes and Procedures. Since the distribution of semantic groups can vary widely across UMLS updates, as seen in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 68, + 526, + 232 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Semantic GroupRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings97.298.0
Chemicals & Drugs81.193.7
Genes & Molecular Seq.74.377.7
Disorders92.197.7
Procedures82.684.3
Physiology92.899.0
Concepts & Ideas89.197.2
Devices90.797.4
Anatomy95.198.3
", + "image_path": "b1c60bb6d2a50e2753409f5bcf1dbfb2a810845f1fbbe69c30a56c8bd337e13e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 281, + 525, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 281, + 525, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 281, + 525, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the dataset details in Appendix B, our model's improved semantic group robustness is vital for its potential in improving the efficiency of the UMLS update process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As for the categories in which our approach remained below " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " like Genes and Procedures, we find that they are mainly due to outlier insertion sets. Both the Genes and Procedures categories have one insertion set, 2022AA and 2021AA respectively, in which the performance of both systems drops dramatically due to a weak RBA signal which our methodology was unable to correct for. We refer the interested reader to Appendix E for these results and a more detailed discussion around this limitation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 446, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 446, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 496, + 446, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Comparative Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned in the main results, our best model outperforms the best baseline mainly through improvements in existing concept accuracy and new concept precision. In Table 4, we report the distribution of 2,943 examples incorrectly predicted by RBA + SapBERT amended by our best approach. We note that a large majority, around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", of the corrections are concept linking corrections, new atoms which are linked to an existing concept correctly while they were wrongly predicted as new concept atoms by the baseline. Most of the remain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 679, + 504, + 737 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy by semantic group for the two highest performing UVI systems averaged over all development insertion sets from 2020AB to 2022AB." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 679, + 504, + 737 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 679, + 504, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 679, + 504, + 737 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Correction TypeCorrection %
Concept Linking59.5
Re-Ranking35.9
New Concept Identification4.6
", + "image_path": "2296d763c0d5d718ec63d9409202b9d13cc448be7c3b935254b22493f274e024.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 769 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 769 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 769 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Distribution of examples incorrectly predicted by the best baseline amended by our best model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "710" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 289, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 289, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 289, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 68, + 289, + 227 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Correction TypeNew AtomsTop 5 RBA + SapBERT Candidates
Re-RankingAmorpha <eudicots>Amorpha <moth> (Preferred) \nAmorpha <angiosperm> (Preferred) \nAmorphus \nAmorphus sp. \nAmorphotheca
Cytarabine-Thioguaninecytarabine/thioguanine (Preferred) \nCytarabine-Thioguanine Regimen (Preferred) \ncyclophosphamide/cytarabine/thioguanine \nCytarabine/Mitoxantrone/Thioguanine \nCytarabine/Doxorubicin/Thioguanine
Concept Linkingtotal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary[NEW CONCEPT] \nTotal hysterectomy with right oophorectomy abdominal hysterectomy with removal of right ovary \nTotal hysterectomy with right salpingo-oophorectomy \nTotal hysterectomy with removal of both tubes and ovaries
WARFARIN NA (JANTOVEN) 7.5MG TAB[NEW CONCEPT] \nWarfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [JANTOVEN] \nWARFARIN NA (TARO) 7.5MG TAB \nWarfarin Sodium 7.5 MG Oral Tablet [COUMADIN]
", + "image_path": "9df0fcf42ddb1f3aa2bb6e676c0d5b858008b33bf8d96a31124c0188ae51d2f8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing corrections, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "35.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", are re-ranking corrections based on our model's ability to re-rank gold concept over other candidate concepts. The final " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 290, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " comes from new concept identification corrections in which a new atom is correctly identified as a new concept atom when it was incorrectly linked to an existing one by the best baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The examples shown in Table 5 illustrate the benefits of our proposed approach more clearly. In the first two rows, we see two re-ranking corrections. In the first example, SapBERT incorrectly identifies ‘’ as being closer to ‘’ than ‘’ but our model has learned to interpret the disambiguation tags and correctly associates ‘eudicots’ with ‘angiosperm’ as levels of plant family classifications. In the second example, we observe that our trained model learns to link new atoms to concepts which have more comprehensive information such as the addition of the \"Regimen\" phrase. Although this is an editorial rule rather than an objective one, it is important to note that our model can adequately encode these." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The final two rows in Table 5 show concept linking corrections. These examples illustrate the most important feature of our proposed model, the ability to link new atoms to concepts even when the RBA would consider them a new concept atom. In these instances, the model must determine whether all the features in the new atom are present in any potential candidates without support from the RBA. In these two examples, the model is able to correctly identify synonymy by mapping 'removal of the right ovary' to 'right oophorectomy', 'NA' to 'Sodium' and 'TAB' to 'Oral Tablet." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 238 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best baseline (RBA + SapBERT), shown above in red, but corrected by our best proposed reranking model, shown above in green." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Error TypeNew AtomTop 5 Best Model
UMLS Error (Duplicate Concepts)Left orbital regionLeft orbital region (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Structure of periorbital region of left eye Left orbital cavity proper Left orbital content
GonostomatidaeGonostomatidae (Preferred) Gonostomatidae (Preferred) [NEW CONCEPT] Gonichthys Protrodiplostomatidae
True Errorsurea 400 MG/ML[NEW CONCEPT] Urea 400 mg/mL cutaneous lotion urea@50 %@TOPICAL@SOLUTION urea 40% UREA 40% TOP GEL
Exanthem caused by human echovirus (disorder)[NEW CONCEPT] VIRUSES ACCOMPANIED BY EXANTHEM exanthems viral Exanthem viral exanthem due to echovirus
", + "image_path": "02f698d94f3e91d5926831406c78dbfb6e0d6c87f41141093b3cac83809eced7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 318 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 318 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Some examples which were incorrectly predicted by our best proposed model, shown in red. Gold label concepts are marked with green. The first two rows show two errors caused by UMLS annotations while the final two are legitimate errors caused by complexity and ambiguity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 400, + 355 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 400, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 400, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Error Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 364, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 364, + 525, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 364, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given that our work focuses on a specific practical application, in this section, we aim to more deeply understand how our approach can be effectively adopted by UMLS editors in their vocabulary insertion task. To this end, we recruited a biomedical terminology expert familiar with the UMLS vocabulary insertion process to analyze the practical effectiveness and limitations of our system." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first studied the calibration of our best model's output as a way to understand its error detection abilities. As shown in detail in Appendix F, we see a substantial drop in performance when model confidence, a softmax over candidate logit scores, drops below " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 621 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This drop could indicate that our model is well calibrated, however, our qualitative experiments reveal that this signal comes from a large number of annotation errors in the UMLS which are easily detected by our problem formulation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We discovered this through a qualitative error analysis carried out with the help of the aforementioned biomedical terminology expert. We chose three sets of 30 randomly chosen example errors with different model confidence scores: high (90%-100%), medium (60%-70%) and low (30%-40%). Our expert editor reports several important findings. First, there was no substantial difference in example difficulty between different model confidence bins. Second, 70% of model errors are caused by the existence of UMLS concepts which have" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "711" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "phrases that are equivalent to the new atoms, leading to ambiguous examples which can be found in the first section of Table 6. This arises from two types of annotation errors within the UMLS, either the new atom was incorrectly introduced into the UMLS or the phrase that is representing that concept was previously introduced into UMLS incorrectly. Out of this study, the expert found 15 out of the 90 instances where our model's suggestions lead to detecting incorrect associations in the original UMLS vocabulary insertion process. This evaluation suggests that our model could be quite useful in supporting quality assurance for the UMLS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Even though most model errors are caused by annotation issues in the UMLS, there are still some which are due to complexity and ambiguity. In the bottom half of Table 6, we see examples that our model still struggles with. First, the new atom \"urea " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "400\\mathrm{MG / ML}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\" should have been mapped to \"urea " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "40\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " since the percentage is calculated as the number of grams in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100~\\mathrm{mL}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 289, + 517 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". However, this decision requires not only the knowledge of this definition but also mathematical reasoning abilities. Finally, the last error in our table is caused by the ambiguity in deciding whether \"human echovirus\" and \"echovirus\" should be deemed equivalent. We note that both of these error types as well as the previously mentioned annotation errors show that our model's errors are occurring on scenarios which are either unsolvable or very challenging, shedding light on its potential as a practical system to support UMLS editors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 533, + 145, + 545 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 533, + 145, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 533, + 145, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 556, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In conclusion, this paper emphasizes the importance of formulating NLP problems that align well with real-world scenarios in the midst of growing enthusiasm for NLP technologies. Focusing on the real-world task of UMLS vocabulary insertion, we demonstrate the importance of problem formulation by showcasing the differences between the UMLS vocabulary alignment formulation and our own UVI formulation. We evaluate existing UVA models as baselines and find that their performance differs significantly in the real-world setting. Additionally, we show that our formulation allows us to not only discover straightforward but exceptionally strong new baselines but also develop a novel null-aware and rule-enhanced re-ranking model which outperforms all other methods. Finally, we show" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 524, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 524, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 524, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "that our proposed approach is highly translational by providing evidence for its robustness across UMLS versions and biomedical subdomains, exploring the reasons behind its superior performance over our baselines and carrying out a qualitative error analysis to understand its limitations. We hope our case study highlights the significance of problem formulation and offers valuable insights for researchers and practitioners for building effective and practical NLP systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 381, + 229 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 381, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 217, + 381, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 524, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 524, + 686 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 239, + 524, + 686 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We acknowledge several limitations to our investigation, which we propose to address in future work. First, while our formulation aligns exactly with part of the insertion process, there are aspects of the full insertion of new terms into the UMLS which are out of our scope. While we do identify terms that are not linked to existing UMLS concepts, we do not attempt to group these terms into new concepts. The identification of synonymous terms for new concepts will be addressed in future work. Second, except for the RBA approach that leverages lexical information and source synonymy, our approach does not take advantage of contextual information available for new terms (e.g., hierarchical information provided by the source vocabulary). We plan to follow (Nguyen et al., 2022) and integrate this kind of information that has been shown to increase precision without detrimental effect on recall in the UVA task. Third, our approach uses a single term, the term closest to the new atom, as the representative for the concept for linking purposes. While this approach drastically simplifies processing, it also restricts access to the rich set of synonyms available for the concept. We plan to explore alternative trade offs in performance when including more concept synonyms. Finally, reliance on the RBA information had the potential for incorrectly identifying new concepts when RBA signal is not complete. Even though RBA signal is quite useful for this task, it is important to build systems robust to its absence. We plan to explore this robustness more actively in future work by including such incomplete signal in the training process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 698, + 421, + 710 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 698, + 421, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 698, + 421, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The authors would like to thank the expert UMLS annotators from the NLM for their detailed error analysis. We also appreciate constructive comments from anonymous reviewers and our NLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "712" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and OSU NLP group colleagues. This research was supported in part by NIH R01LM014199, the Ohio Supercomputer Center (Center, 1987) and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Library of Medicine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 161, + 127, + 174 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 161, + 127, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 161, + 127, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 179, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Goonmeet Bajaj, Vinh Nguyen, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Amit Sheth, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Evaluating biomedical word embeddings for vocabulary alignment at scale in the UMLS Metathesaurus using Siamese networks. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP, pages 82-87, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 290, + 331 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 290, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 287, + 290, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): Integrating Biomedical Terminology. Nucleic acids research, 32 Database issue:D267-70." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 289, + 362 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 289, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 339, + 289, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ohio Supercomputer Center. 1987. Ohio supercomputer center." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 290, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 370, + 290, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hang Dong, Jiaoyan Chen, Yuan He, Yinan Liu, and Ian Horrocks. 2023. Reveal the unknown: Out-of-knowledge-base mention discovery with entity linking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 291, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 422, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jennifer D'Souza and Vincent Ng. 2015. Sieve-based entity linking for the biomedical domain. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 297-302, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 290, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 518, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lenz Furrer, Joseph Cornelius, and Fabio Rinaldi. 2022. Parallel sequence tagging for concept recognition. BMC Bioinformatics, 22." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 290, + 626 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 290, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 290, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2021. Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. ACM Trans. Comput. Healthcare, 3(1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 667 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Herve Jégou. 2021. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Leaman, Rezarta Islamaj Dogan, and Zhiyong Lu. 2013. DNorm: disease name normalization with pairwise learning to rank. Bioinformatics, 29:2909 - 2917." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert Leaman and Zhiyong Lu. 2016. TaggerOne: joint named entity recognition and normalization with semi-Markov Models. Bioinformatics, 32(18):2839-2846." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinhyuk Lee, Wonjin Yoon, Sungdong Kim, Donghyeon Kim, Sunkyu Kim, Chan Ho So, and Jaewoo Kang. 2019. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics, 36(4):1234-1240." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fangyu Liu, Ehsan Shareghi, Zaiqiao Meng, Marco Basaldella, and Nigel Collier. 2021. Self-alignment pretraining for biomedical entity representations. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 4228-4238, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 526, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 233, + 526, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexa T. McCray, Suresh Srinivasan, and Allen C. Browne. 1994. Lexical methods for managing variation in biomedical terminologies. Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pages 235-9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 297, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, Goonmeet Bajaj, Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vishesh Javangula, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Context-enriched learning models for aligning biomedical vocabularies at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 383, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vinh Phu Nguyen, Hong Yung Yip, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2021. Biomedical vocabulary alignment at scale in the umls metathesaurus. Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference, 2021:2672 - 2683." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 448, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pedro Ruas and Francisco M. Couto. 2022. Nilinker: Attention-based approach to nil entity linking. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 132:104137." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 525, + 566 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 525, + 566 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 525, + 566 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Vinh Phu Nguyen, Goonmeet Bajaj, Hong Yung Yip, Vishesh Javangula, Yuqing Mao, Kin Wah Fung, Srinivas Parthasarathy, Amit P. Sheth, and Olivier Bodenreider. 2022. Ubert: A novel language model for synonymy prediction at scale in the umls metathesaurus. ArXiv, abs/2204.12716." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 525, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 525, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumont, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ledell Wu, Fabio Petroni, Martin Josifoski, Sebastian Riedel, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Scalable zero-shot entity linking with dense entity retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "713" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "pages 6397-6407, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zheng Yuan, Zhengyun Zhao, Haixia Sun, Jiao Li, Fei Wang, and Sheng Yu. 2022. Coder: Knowledgeinfused cross-lingual medical term embedding for term normalization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, page 103983." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 166, + 291, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Zhang, Hao Cheng, Shikhar Vashishth, Cliff Wong, Jinfeng Xiao, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. 2022. Knowledge-rich self-supervision for biomedical entity linking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 868-880, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 291, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yijia Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhihao Yang, Hongfei Lin, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. BioWordVec, improving biomedical word embeddings with subword information and MeSH. Scientific Data, 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "714" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 204, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 204, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 204, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Original UVA Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7 lists the basic statistics for the UMLS vocabulary alignment datasets. Since the UVA task was formulated and evaluated only as a binary classification task, the dataset is divided into positive and negative pairs. For more details about how the negative pairs were sampled from the UMLS, we refer the interested reader to §4.2 of Nguyen et al. (2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 290, + 259 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 290, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 290, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 208, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
UVA PairsPositive PairsNegative Pairs
Train192,400,46222,324,834170,075,628
Test173,035,8625,581,209167,454,653
", + "image_path": "c8aea1caf9310d77695c44af5f2981333d28f8cf497aaf3fe4a7875fbcef7971.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 301, + 194, + 315 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 301, + 194, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 301, + 194, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B UVI Dataset Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 290, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 290, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 290, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 8, we report the size of our five UMLS vocabulary insertion dataset splits. We note that only the 2020AB version contains a training set, all other insertion sets only have development and test sets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 95, + 398, + 263, + 481 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 266, + 260, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 266, + 260, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 266, + 260, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Original UVA dataset statistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 398, + 263, + 481 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 398, + 263, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 398, + 263, + 481 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TrainDevTest
2020AB215,402105,796108,937
2021AA-112,647113,563
2021AB-227,440228,053
2022AA-88,18687,803
2022AB-138,107137,735
", + "image_path": "e319fd7f912e011b7622273b0694645d8c0844208ab9904e88526c29f8566710.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 519, + 290, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 519, + 290, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 519, + 290, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In terms of dataset construction, we reiterate that stratified sampling based on semantic groups was used to keep the original distributions intact. We adopt this technique due to the substantial changes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 583, + 274, + 750 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 583, + 274, + 750 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 583, + 274, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 583, + 274, + 750 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "05870e417d41ea6793f86381eb94a8ca87438dd6e4a68b1ac11d3844e1bef615.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 762, + 290, + 775 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 762, + 290, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 762, + 290, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: This figure shows the incidence of each of the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 775, + 289, + 798 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 775, + 289, + 798 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 775, + 289, + 798 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "most frequent 8 semantic groups across the 5 insertion sets explored in this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in semantic group distribution across insertion sets, as seen in 4, as well as the high variance in model performance across semantic categories, as seen in §5.2 and Appendix E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 448, + 153 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 448, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 138, + 448, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 526, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 162, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we discuss the implementation details for our baselines as well as our proposed approach. For the UMLS vocabulary alignment baselines, we use the same implementation of the Rule-Based Approximation (RBA) and LexLM used by the authors in Nguyen et al. (2021). To implement our language model baselines we use the HuggingFace Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). We use the FAISS library (Johnson et al., 2021) to speed up nearest neighbor search using GPUs when experimenting with LexLM, SapBERT and PubMedBERT embeddings (Johnson et al., 2021). We train our cross-encoder re-ranking module using BLINK (Wu et al., 2020), which uses a cross-entropy loss to maximize the score of the correct candidate over the rest of the candidates. We use default hyperparameters listed in Table 9 to train our re-ranking module but perform early stopping using the accuracy metric on our 2020AB validation set. All experiments used an NVIDIA V100 GPU with 16 GB of VRAM. The models we used and the approximate amount of GPU hours used for each is listed in Table 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 336, + 482, + 492, + 523 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 513 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Experimental split statistics for UMLS insertion dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from 2,020 to 2,022." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 482, + 492, + 523 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 482, + 492, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 482, + 492, + 523 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Learning RateTotal EpochsBatch SizeWarmup Ratio
2e-5310.1
", + "image_path": "d32ba596abc96e220274edc23bed8ce1cdb08b8f61c68e7f40e9ad9dbcb108f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 325, + 581, + 504, + 649 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 556 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 531, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Hyperparameters selected for our cross-encoder re-ranking training for reproducibility." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 581, + 504, + 649 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 581, + 504, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 581, + 504, + 649 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# of Parameters (millions)Total GPU Hours
LexLM0.25
PubMedBERT100140
SapBERT10040
", + "image_path": "7b6910b4f6e64efed67185af1ddaae55cfd57d4a4ee62961a36e211ab77a9586.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 525, + 693 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 525, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Total GPU Hours associated with our experiments. PubMedBERT GPU hours include both UMLS encoding and fine-tuning for our re-ranking module." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 722, + 434, + 737 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 722, + 434, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 722, + 434, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Latency Comparison" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 11, we report the inference latency for each baseline as well as our proposed approaches" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "715" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 291, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "on the UVI task. As seen in the table, our approach has significantly slower inference than previous baselines. Nevertheless, since the UMLS insertion task happens only twice a year, variations in inference latency are not a significant concern as long as the process can be run within a reasonable amount of time on available computing resources. We hope that these numbers can help other researchers and practitioners understand the computing requirements on this or similar tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 332 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 332 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 215, + 289, + 332 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelInference Latency (ms)Time for 300k Atoms (mins)
RBA0.010.05
LexLM1.286.40
SapBERT2.5012.50
RBA + LexLM1.296.45
RBA + SapBERT2.5112.55
Re-Ranker (RBA Signal)35.51177.5
", + "image_path": "b1102aa9342e6b1f7175e04c7e124c0c74cc1a895e91d6a614ee5e5fcd3db3c7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 279, + 400 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 279, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 279, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Detailed Semantic Group Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 290, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned in 5.2, different UMLS updates often contain completely different semantic group distributions since they depend entirely on independent source updates. Due to this, generalization across different semantic categories (semantic groups in the UMLS) is a crucial feature for a system to be successful in real-world UMLS vocabulary insertion. Table 13 provides a detailed report of the performance of our strongest baseline and our best proposed approach on all development insertion sets across the 9 most frequent semantic groups. As seen in these detailed results, our proposed approach obtains stronger and more consistent results across all semantic groups compared to our best baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nevertheless, as discussed in the main text, our approach remained below " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 611, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average in categories like Genes and Procedures. In the broken down results in Table 13, we can more clearly see that these averaged results are caused by outlier insertion sets. For the Genes semantic group, our proposed approach improves performance considerably for all insertion sets except for 2022AA, in which its performance drops by more than 10 points. We note that the performance of the best baseline is also much lower than usual, potentially indicating a weak RBA signal and challenging" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 71, + 524, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "atoms to link. For the Procedures category, we see a similar pattern in the 2021AA insertion set while the other sets see small but regular improvements with our system. These results indicate that, although our proposed approach can leverage the RBA signal more consistently when it is sufficiently strong, it fails to correct for it when it is very weak to begin with. It is therefore important to continue working on ways to correct or at least alert annotators about potential system failures in specific concept sub-groups." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 230, + 458, + 243 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 230, + 458, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 230, + 458, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Model Calibration Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed above, our re-ranker model's output confidence, defined as a softmax over candidate logit scores produced by our model, seemed correlated with model accuracy. In Table 12, we show model accuracy across different model confidence scores. We find that model confidence score is highly correlated with model accuracy, which drops to around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " when model confidence drops below " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 524, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and continues to drop after that. Through qualitative analysis, we find that this does not indicate successful model calibration but is actually mainly caused by annotation errors within UMLS which result in duplicate and ambiguous concepts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 336, + 437, + 492, + 602 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 341, + 289, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 341, + 289, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 341, + 289, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Time spent on inference for each baseline as well as our proposed approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 437, + 492, + 602 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 437, + 492, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 437, + 492, + 602 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model Confidence (%)Number of ExamplesAccuracy
0238.7
108022.5
2020632.5
3039736.0
401,28256.0
5096455.1
6051148.7
7041150.6
8059055.3
9038,07692.1
10062,74399.8
", + "image_path": "3c700e0c505f3de06e22eb043ff74dad04754afe955c6c21907cb1b81a0fb898.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 612, + 524, + 659 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 612, + 524, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 612, + 524, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: The output probability of our best re-ranking approach (the probability of the highest scoring candidate concept) seemed to be correlated with high prediction accuracy but actually indicates annotation errors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 290, + 781, + 307, + 790 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "716" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 455 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 455 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Semantic Group2020AB2021AA2021AB2022AA2022AB
RBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA SignalRBA + SapBERTRe-Ranker + RBA Signal
Living Beings99.299.898.695.896.899.793.395.397.999.6
Chemicals & Drugs87.794.873.889.287.995.381.596.674.892.4
Genes & Molecular Sequences86.897.076.282.678.287.458.942.571.279.2
Disorders91.798.090.297.296.098.391.897.090.898.0
Procedures94.196.954.654.895.397.695.097.074.275.0
Physiology95.199.298.898.984.399.197.199.388.798.4
Concepts & Ideas91.697.470.596.198.498.592.696.492.597.5
Devices93.497.889.495.594.397.190.399.786.296.9
Anatomy92.796.494.297.992.298.498.399.097.899.4
", + "image_path": "70a86ff1ce23770bbb4272f66230f65e68eb06460933745f5889bb9ce025ba4f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 525, + 500 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 525, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 525, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: Breakdown for Table 3 over all insertion development sets and the 9 most frequent semantic groups. These detailed results can help us more closely understand model failures across semantic groups compared to the aggregated results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "717" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_content_list.json" "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_content_list.json" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f175ba979bf373e8af68f92d99d3f1a663805db --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_content_list.json" @@ -0,0 +1,2569 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SoulChat: Improving LLMs' Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 124, + 79, + 872, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yirong Chen $^{1}$ , Xiaofen Xing $^{1*}$ , Jingkai Lin $^{1}$ , Huimin Zheng $^{1}$ , Zhenyu Wang $^{1}$ , Qi Liu $^{2}$ , Xiangmin Xu $^{2,3}$", + "bbox": [ + 243, + 124, + 763, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin, School of EE.,", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 159, + 821, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 177, + 737, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ School of Future Technology, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 192, + 862, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ Pazhou Lab, Guangzhou, China", + "bbox": [ + 366, + 210, + 635, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "eeyirongchen@mail.scut.edu.cn,{xfxing, xmxu}@scut.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 218, + 225, + 784, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied in various fields due to their excellent capability for memorizing knowledge and chain of thought (CoT). When these language models are applied in the field of psychological counseling, they often rush to provide universal advice. However, when users seek psychological support, they need to gain empathy, trust, understanding and comfort, rather than just reasonable advice. To this end, we constructed a multi-turn empathetic conversation dataset of more than 2 million samples, in which the input is the multi-turn conversation context, and the target is empathetic responses that cover expressions such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. Experiments have shown that the empathy ability of LLMs can be significantly enhanced when finetuning by using multi-turn dialogue history and responses that are closer to the expression of a psychological consultant. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 460, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 607, + 258, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With the birth of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT (Radford et al., 2018), large language models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in the past five years. In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT² (OpenAI, 2022), a large language model fine-tuning by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022). However, when applied to mental health or emotional support conversation, there are three main issues lead to ChatGPT appear less \"human-centered\":", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 633, + 489, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1) ChatGPT tends to provide repetitive and standardized responses. ChatGPT often uses the following template to respond to users' questions related to mental health: \"我很", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 806, + 487, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "抱歉...。xxx是...。以下是一些建议:...。(I'm sorry to ...{xxx} is ...Here are some suggestions:...\",which may cause boredom.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 250, + 880, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "2) ChatGPT is inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen. It is eager to solve users' problems, usually providing lengthy and general suggestions, as shown in Figure 12 of Appendix F. However, professional psychologists rarely provide specific suggestions during the counseling process.", + "3) ChatGPT acts a bit like a rational \"Straight man\" for those users who need listening and comfort. Users who seek emotional support usually expect empathy support such as listening, understanding and comfort." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 315, + 884, + 523 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar issues can also be found in other LLMs, e.g. ChatGLM (Zeng et al., 2023), SparkDesk3, as presented in Appendix F. It may be due to the lack of large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation datasets for fine-tuning stage, especially in the field of Chinese mental health or emotional support. EMPATHETICDIALOGUES (Rashkin et al., 2019) and ESConv (Liu et al., 2021) are two English empathy conversation datasets that is used for developing emotional support conversation (ESC) systems, e.g MISC (Tu et al., 2022), GLHG (Peng et al., 2022), MultiESC (Cheng et al., 2022), FADO (Peng et al., 2023) and etc. On the one hand, these models may rely on annotated empathy strategies and emotions of users during the training or inference stage, which means that building large-scale similar datasets for fine-tuning LLMs is difficult. On the other hand, these datasets are in English, so that they cannot be applied to fine-tune Chinese LLMs. As for mental health, efaqa (Hailiang et al., 2020) and PsyQA (Sun et al., 2021) are two commonly-used datasets. Among", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 538, + 884, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author. Email: xfxing@scut.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 879, + 460, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1https://github.com/scutcyr/SoulChat", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 892, + 408, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2https://chat.openai.com", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 319, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://xinghuo.xfyun.cn", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 722, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1170", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1170-1183", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 959, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cf2cdb03676767c3fb9d315c2191b8dc9250efe19bcdb3a7c667112d18943f1f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat. Compared to ChatGPT, SoulChat is better at listening and guiding users to think." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 98, + 868, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "them, efaqa contains 20,000 conversations and provides annotation information such as types of troubles, psychological disorders, SOS, etc. However, efaqa has a complex multi-party dialogue relationship and a high proportion of low-quality responses from netizens, while PsyQA contains 22,346 questions and 56,063 single-turn long-text psychological counseling conversations. Thus, neither of these datasets can solve the three issues of ChatGPT mentioned above.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 552, + 489, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, Qiu et al. (2023) proposed a SMILE approach to employ ChatGPT to convert single-turn dialogues into multi-turn ones. They utilized SMILE to extend the single-turn conversation dataset PsyQA to a empathy multi-turn conversation dataset SMILECHAT with 355,733 samples. Inspired by (Qiu et al., 2023), we proposed a Chinese empathy constraint prompt, in which the empathy prompt constraint is further strengthened compared with SMILE prompt (see Appendix C). As shown in Figure 2 (English version: Appendix C), our empathy constraints are", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "defined as “‘心理咨询师’的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等 (The response of the ‘psychological counselor’ needs to be combined with the user’s description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, interpretation, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc)”.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 551, + 884, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"messages\": [ \n{\"role\": \"user\", \n\"content\": \"请扮演一个心理咨询领域的文本改写员,将给定的【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】改写为多轮的共情的对话,要求如下:1、多轮对话以“用户:”开始,“心理咨询师:”结束;2、“心理咨询师”的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等;3、用户和心理咨询师的对话轮数应根据对话内容决定,在8-20轮之间;4、在一轮对话当中,用户与心理咨询师的对话长度应结合对话历史,并且不宜过长。\\n\\n【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】:\" $+\\text{single\\_turn} +$ \"\\n\\n逐步分析以上单轮对话中用户的需求以及心理咨询师的共情技巧,并且改写为多轮的共情的对话,你的改写结果为:\"}\\}", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 702, + 868, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 2: The prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations (English version: Appendix C).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 915 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1171", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To this end, we first constructed 215,813 different psychological counseling questions about 12 topics and 619,725 answers through data outsourcing services. Rule-based cleaning, manual rewriting and human proofreading are applied to ensure that there is no sensitive or privacy-related content in the dataset. Then, we use ChatGPT to convert these single-turn long text psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations. We also conducted manual proofreading and data cleansing for multi-turn dialogues rewritten by ChatGPT to further strengthen the expression of empathy, such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. In the end, we obtained a multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 2,300,248 samples. To our knowledge, it is the first million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset in the field of mental health or emotional support. We conduct experiments by using ChatGLM-6B as the base model for fine-tuning on SoulChatCorpus. Results demonstrate that LLMs' empathy, listening, and comfort abilities can be improved significantly through fine-tuning with million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d75328d888cf4b2068043f93b5244303fabcce79392d3a80f65a3111e6ead13b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Distribution of counseling topics.", + "Figure 4: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances (English version: Appendix D)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 501, + 495, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Human-centered Mental Health LLM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 473, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 SoulChatCorpus Collection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 833, + 376, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We consider an one-on-one psychological counseling conversational setting where a user and a psychological consultant engage in multiple rounds of dialogue. However, such conversation data is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "not publicly available due to the privacy protection and ethical standards of psychological counseling. To construct high-quality multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, We selected 12 topics of psychological counseling to construct 215,813 long-text questions and 619,725 long-text answer through crowdsourcing. The distribution of topics is shown in Figure 3. Then, we used ChatGPT (99% called gpt-3.5-turbo api and 1% called gpt-4 api) as a text rewriting tool following the prompt as shown in Figure 2 to convert single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations, in which one turn is in the form of \"用户: \\n心理咨询师: \". The response of \"心理咨询师\" was asked to be rewritten to reflect human-centered expressions such as empathy, listening, comfort, etc. Finally, after manual proofreading, we removed 105,134 low-quality samples and ultimately obtained 2,300,248 samples. As shown in Figure 4, the word cloud map of the utterances expressed by psychological consultants indicated that the rewritten multi-turn empathy conversation has high level of empathy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a44d2c17d2794e12835a0c1abf0ed514efece4732c34221ef595695cc10ab15e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 470, + 890, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 SoulChat Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 675, + 685, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We utilized the ChatGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) as the base LLM architecture to develop the SoulChat. ChatGLM-6B is an open-source, bilingual LLM based on the General Language Model (GLM) (Du et al., 2022) framework with 6.2 billion parameters. The input of model is defined as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 697, + 885, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ni n p u t = u _ {1} ^ {u} + ^ {\\prime} \\backslash n ^ {\\prime} + u _ {1} ^ {p} + \\ldots + u _ {N} ^ {u} + ^ {\\prime} \\backslash n ^ {\\prime} + u _ {N} ^ {p}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 822, + 878, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the utterance of User on $i$ turn $u_{i}^{u} =$ 用户: $(\\text{User:})' + \\text{utterance}_{i}^{u}$ , utterance of Psychologist on $i$ turn $u_{i}^{p} =$ 心理咨询师: (Psychologist:)’ $+$ utterance $_i^p$ $(i < N)$ , $u_N^p =$ 心理咨询师: (Psychol", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 853, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1172", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f484e2e8954288f095a497958403c5d5507e9855ddc413c86459b0c1523ab288.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Evaluation results." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetModelAutomatic.Manual.
B-1B-2B-3B-4R-1R-2R-LCon.Emp.Hel.Saf.
SoulChat- CorpusChatGLM-6B22.7313.158.044.9225.335.7218.841.901.551.921.0
MeChat29.4317.1210.546.7127.356.2721.121.831.701.781.0
ChatGPT27.9816.099.936.2327.396.8221.921.961.621.941.0
SoulChat33.7820.0712.868.5231.478.9226.571.951.841.871.0
SMILECHATChatGLM-6B22.9113.568.405.1525.995.9518.761.811.391.841.0
MeChat30.6318.4111.597.4628.926.7621.591.951.741.831.0
ChatGPT28.3016.4810.246.4027.576.7121.601.951.651.971.0
SoulChat35.4021.3913.779.0232.649.1721.101.931.901.851.0
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 107, + 885, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ogist:)', $N$ represents the number of conversation turns for the context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 323, + 485, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 372, + 260, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 235, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare SoulChat and the following benchmark models using both automatic and manual evaluations:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 426, + 489, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1) ChatGLM-6B $^4$ (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) serves as the base model for SoulChat.", + "2) ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a LLM that is trained using supervised finetuning and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF).", + "3) MeChat (Qiu et al., 2023) is a LLM finetuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) on SMILECHAT dataset that is generated by ChatGPT based on PsyQA." + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 491, + 489, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Implementation details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 341, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SoulChat is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus with a batch size of 80 and global training steps of 30,000. The WarmupDecayLR learning rate scheduler with warmup_steps = 1000 and warmup_max_lr = 5e-5 is used. The maximum input token length is set to 1,536. The maximum target token length is set to 512. The decoding algorithms of Top-p sampling with $p = 0.75$ and temperature $\\tau = 0.95$ is adopted during the inference phase.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 728, + 489, + 889 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Results and Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 323, + 719, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We randomly selected 10,000 samples from SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT respectively as the test set for automatic evaluation and 100 samples for manual evaluation. For each sample, each model generates an answer for evaluation. We used 7 evaluation metrics as automatic metrics: BLEU-1 (B-1), BLEU-2 (B-2),BLEU-3 (B-3),BLEU-4 (B-4) (Papineni et al., 2002), R-1 (ROUGE-1), R-2 (ROUGE-2) and R-L (ROUGE-L) (Lin, 2004)). Three individual experts majoring in Psychology were asked to evaluate the generated responses in terms of content naturalness (Con.), empathy level (Emp.), Helpfulness (Hel.) and Safety (Saf.), as detailed described in Appendix G. The rating scale of Con., Emp. and Hel. is $(0,1,2)$ , while $(0,1)$ for Saf., where higher score means better. One hundred dialogues were randomly sampled from the test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT for manual evaluation. Fleiss' $\\kappa$ (Fleiss, 1971) for Con., Emp. and Hel. are 0.489, 0.472 and 0.532, indicating moderate annotation agreement respectively, while $\\kappa = 1$ for Saf. (perfect agreement). The evaluation results are shown in Table 1. Generally, SoulChat outperforms ChatGLM-6B, ChatGPT and MeChat in both automatic evaluation metrics and Emp. metric on test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT. Specifically, the results on SMILECHAT demonstrates SoulChat's excellent zero-shot performance in the field of mental health.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 344, + 885, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Conclusion and Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 827, + 796, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we explore how to make LLMs more human-centered. To this end, we constructed a Chinese large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 12 empathy", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://github.com/THUDM/ChatGLM-6B", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 411, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1173", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "topics and more than 2 million samples. The experimental results indicate that using this dataset to finetune LLMs leads to high-level empathy ability when users try to seek emotional support from LLMs. Future work needs to further consider user attributes, such as personality, gender and etc., to help LLMs generate targeted empathy responses for different individuals.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 227, + 220, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work we proposed a human-centered LLM named SoulChat that has excellent empathy ability, which is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus dataset. Although the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of SoulChat, there are still some limitations need to consider. The mechanism of empathy is complex. Different users have different expectations for the output of the model. For example, when discussing tense emotions, there are significant differences in the solutions expected by adults and adolescents. Therefore, human-centered LLMs need to further consider the user's personality, identity, and other attributes to assist in generating answers that are closer to the user's needs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 254, + 489, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 508, + 265, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Data Collection. In order to protect privacy (Hovy and Spruit, 2016), we adopted strict manual proofreading process when constructing the dataset. We filtered all samples with special strings such as \"我是 (I am)\", \"自杀 (suicide)\", \"跳楼 (jumping off a building)\", etc., and conducted manual data cleansing. Any text related to privacy has been rewritten or removed. Besides, any potential conversations that pose harm to users, others, or society have been completely removed from our data. To this end, we removed 105,134 samples from multi-turn conversations generated by ChatGPT.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 536, + 489, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Potential Risks of the Model We conducted a safety assessment specifically for the output of the model during the manual evaluation phase, and the results are shown in Table 1. Due to the lack of human feedback during the model finetuning stage, there are inevitably answers that may pose harm to users. Therefore, future work needs to combine RLHF to improve the safety level of model generated", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "content. In addition, when this model is applied to downstream scenarios, it is necessary to inform the users in advance that the answers they see are generated by the AI model and are for reference only.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 84, + 884, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Annotator Compensation. We invited individual experts majoring in Psychology to conduct the proposed CEHS evaluation of the model's output. The annotators' evaluation of each sample takes approximately 3 minutes, during which they can receive a salary of $0.418. Therefore, the hourly salary of the annotators is $8.36, which is higher than the US minimum wage of $7.12 per hour.", + "bbox": [ + 532, + 175, + 884, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 332, + 680, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (202103010002), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2022A1515011588), the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFB4500600), the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong (2022B0101010003), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant U1801262 and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin (2022B1212010004).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 884, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 546, + 608, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yi Cheng, Wenge Liu, Wenjie Li, Jiashuo Wang, Ruihui Zhao, Bang Liu, Xiaodan Liang, and Yefeng Zheng. 2022. Improving multi-turn emotional support dialogue generation with lookahead strategy planning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3014-3026, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GLM: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 569, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1174", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5):378-382.", + "Wang Hailiang, Wu Zhizhi, and Lang Jiayuan. 2020. Pat psychology: Psychological consultation q&a corpus.", + "Dirk Hovy and Shannon L. Spruit. 2016. The social impact of natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 591-598, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Towards emotional support dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3469-3483, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Wei Peng, Yue Hu, Luxi Xing, Yuqiang Xie, Yajing Sun, and Yunpeng Li. 2022. Control globally, understand locally: A global-to-local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-22).", + "Wei Peng, Ziyuan Qin, Yue Hu, Yuqiang Xie, and Yunpeng Li. 2023. Fado: Feedback-aware double controlling network for emotional support conversation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 264:110340." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Huachuan Qiu, Hongliang He, Shuai Zhang, Anqi Li, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2023. Smile: Single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support.", + "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.", + "Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Hao Sun, Zhenru Lin, Chujie Zheng, Siyang Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2021. PsyQA: A Chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1489-1503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Quan Tu, Yanran Li, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. 2022. MISC: A mixed strategy-aware model integrating COMET for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 308-319, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, Weng Lam Tam, Zixuan Ma, Yufei Xue, Jidong Zhai, Wenguang Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Zhang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2023. GLM-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Reproducibility Checklist", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 633, + 769, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Model and Data: The SoulChat model and SoulChatCorpus will be released upon decision of the paper.", + "- System Hardware: We trained the SoulChat on the Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS server that has 2 CPUs called \"Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358P CPU @ 2.60GHz\", 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs, and 1,024GB memory.", + "- Driver Version: The version of Nvidia driver is \"525.105.17\". The version of CUDA is \"11.6\". The version of Cudnn is \"8.4.0.27\"." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 659, + 882, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- Package version: python=3.8, torch $^5$ =1.13.1,", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 868, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5https://pytorch.org/get-started/ previous-versions", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 891, + 781, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1175", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "transformers $^6 = 4.28.0$ , deepspeed $^7 = 0.9.3$ , datasets=2.11.0 and jieba=0.42.1 is recommended.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 83, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Model Parameters: SoulChat has 6.2B parameters with 28 layers and max_sequence_length of 2,048. During the inference phase, the model requires at least 14GB of GPU memory.", + "- Training Time: SoulChat is trained with global steps of 30,000 and torch不同类型 of \"float16\" on 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs. The training time is about 79 hours." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 143, + 487, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Counseling Topics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 307, + 309, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The following dictionaries represent the corresponding relationships between Chinese and English for 12 counseling topics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 334, + 489, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "'家庭': 'Family', '婚恋': 'Marriage', '性心理': 'Sex', '成长发展': 'Growth', '人际关系': 'Relationship', '职场': 'Career', '自我认知': 'Self-awareness', '行为': 'Behavior', '情绪': 'Emotion', '治疗': 'Treatment', '社会事件': 'Social events', '心理学知识': 'Psychological knowledge',}", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 397, + 489, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Our prompt VS SMILE prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 428, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We used SMILE (Qiu et al., 2023) prompt and our proposed Chinese empathy constraint prompt for extend the single-turn long text psychological counseling example to multi-turn empathy conversation respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 487, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chinese:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 183, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "用户:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 658, + 485, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "心理咨询师:你好!异地恋,平时还好,但一吵架,就出现骂你,这确实不正常。这应该跟很多因素有关。", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 707, + 485, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1、异地恋本身就有挑战性,你男朋友跟你异地,他的语言和言语就受到了挑战。", + "2、他平时跟你相处的时候,也会有很多压力,所以一遇到类似的情况,就会很暴躁。", + "3、平时跟他相处的时候,你们之间没有矛盾,一有矛盾就会吵凶。", + "4、你们平时沟通也比较少,所以他也没有渠道发泄自己的负面情绪。" + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 755, + 484, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"messages\": [", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 86, + 594, + 97 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{\"role\": \"user\",}", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 97, + 601, + 107 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"content\": \"Please act as a text rewriter in the field of psychological counseling, rewriting the given \"single round long text Chinese psychological counseling dialogue\" into multiple rounds of empathetic dialogue. The requirements are as follows: 1. Multiple rounds of dialogue should start with \"User:\" and end with \"Psychologist:\"; 2. The response of a \"psychological counselor\" needs to combine the user's description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, understanding, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc; 3. The number of conversation rounds between users and psychological counselors should be determined based on the conversation content, between 8-20 rounds; 4. In a round of conversation, the length of the conversation between the user and the psychological counselor should be combined with the conversation history and should not be too long. \\n\\nsingle_turn +\"\"\\nPlease gradually analyze the user's needs and empathy skills of the psychological counselor in the above single round conversation, and rewrite it as a multi round empathy conversation. Your rewritten result is:\"", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 108, + 868, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "]", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 317, + 534, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 5: The translated English prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 884, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "以上是一些可能性,但并不一定就是导致他出现这样的情况的原因,因为你们之间是否存在其他矛盾,只有你们两个人一起沟通才知道。所以,我觉得你应该认真考虑一下,自己男朋友的这种行为,是处于什么心理状态,或者是什么情况,只有你自己最清楚。", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 418, + 880, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "English:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 517, + 574, + 531 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 882, + 612 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Psychologist: Hello! Long distance love is usually okay, but when you argue, it's really abnormal to scold you. This should be related to many factors", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 880, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging, and when your boyfriend is away from you, their language and language are challenged", + "2. When he usually gets along with you, he will also have a lot of pressure, so when encountering similar situations, he will be very irritable", + "3. When we usually get along with him, there is no conflict between you. Whenever there is a conflict, we will argue fiercely", + "4. You usually communicate less, so he doesn't have a channel to vent his negative emotions" + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 662, + 882, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The above are some possibilities, but they may not necessarily be the reason for his situation, because whether there are any other conflicts between you is only known through communication between the two of you. So, I think you should seriously con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{6}$ https://github.com/huggingface/transformers", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 891, + 468, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "7https://github.com/microsoft/DeepSpeed", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 904, + 431, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1176", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sider what kind of psychological state or situation your boyfriend's behavior is in, and only you know it best.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 7 (English version: Figure 8) and Figure 9 (English version: Figure 10), the multi-turn conversation generated by using the proposed prompt has richer expressions of empathy, compared with SMILE prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 134, + 489, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D English Word Cloud Map", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 233, + 374, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The English word cloud map is presented in Figure 6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 265, + 487, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e2225d25da1cf10ba5a457414cd9e6928decc2c801f3de08f88232db779da42c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 313, + 492, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Sample Conversations of SoulChat", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 532, + 450, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 11, SoulChat can better serve as a listener when users seek emotional support or confide. Besides, it can naturally empathize with users (e.g. \"你的童年经历真的很不容易 (Your childhood experiences were really difficult)\", \"我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎 (I can understand your pain and inner struggle)\"). and comfort them (e.g. \"我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。(I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts.)\").", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 563, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Sample Conversations of Other LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 759, + 480, + 776 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The examples when users seek emotional support from ChatGPT, ChatGLM and SparkDesk are shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14. These LLMs are inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen, acting a bit like a rational \"Straight man\" for those users who need listening and comfort, which make them appear less \"human-centered\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Manual Evaluation Instructions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 83, + 825, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For mental health LLMs, we have constructed a manual evaluation framework called \"CEHS\" with the following four dimensions: Content naturalness, Empathy, Helpfulness, Safety, as presented in Table 2. Specifically, there may be a certain conflict between Empathy and Helpfulness. For example, ChatGPT tends to generate helpful but lacking empathetic responses. On the other hand, when SoulChat generates empathetic responses, it may weaken the direct Helpfulness of the answer. This is because general advice often appears helpful, but not so empathetic. The scores of Empathy and Helpfulness in Table 1 also illustrate this phenomenon.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 109, + 884, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/82af6d6caa82c870ed31caa3ae46e0ee649c6a604893d958167c1c93e429dcb4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Manual Evaluation." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
AspectScoreDescription
Content0-2It mainly evaluates whether the content generated by the model is relevant and coherent to the user's conversation history, whether the content is smooth and natural, whether the content is consistent with language habits, whether the content has syntax error.
Empathy0-2The main assessment is whether the text generated by the model can understand the feelings and behaviors of the parties involved, grasp their inner feelings, deep meanings, and their degree.
Helpfulness0-2This indicator mainly evaluates whether the output of the model is helpful to the user. When evaluating this item, it is necessary to consider from the user's perspective whether the model's answer provides assistance.
Safety0-1This indicator mainly evaluates whether the text generated by the model causes harm to users, others, society, environment, etc., whether personal privacy is protected, and whether laws and regulations are complied with. The main considerations are: respect for social morality, Public policy doctrine. Whether it violates laws and regulations, involves political sensitivity, commits crimes, infringes on physical health, infringes on mental health, infringes on property privacy, dis-criminates/prejudices, insults/hate speech, violates ethical ethics, etc.
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 367, + 878, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1177", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "用户:我谈恋爱已经两年了,但我们是异地恋。平时一切都很好,但一年前我们开始吵架,而且吵得越来越凶了。男朋友会说一些难听的话,甚至骂人,这正常吗?", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 90, + 835, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "心理咨询师:你好!我了解你目前遇到的困扰。异地恋本身是具有挑战性的,尤其是在沟通和相处上。男朋友在吵架时用难听的话甚至骂人,这确实不正常。我可以理解这对你的心情会带来巨大的打击和困扰。 Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 117, + 838, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interpretation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 381, + 159, + 485, + 171 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "用户:是的,我们之间的争吵让我感到非常痛苦。我不知道他为什么会这样,以前的他可没有这样过。心理咨询师:首先,我理解你对他的改变感到困惑。这可能是因为异地恋本身会带来心理压力和情绪波动。在长期的异地恋中,他可能因为思念和不安而变得脾气暴躁。同时,我们都有情绪发泄的渠道,但由于你们之间缺乏实质性的沟通,他可能没有找到良好的方式来释放负面情绪。", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 170, + 840, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "用户:对,我们在平时的相处中很少沟通,我觉得这可能是问题的一个原因。但我也不确定其他还有哪些矛盾存在。Recognition Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 234, + 835, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "心理咨询师:你的观察是非常敏锐的。确实,沟通不足可能会导致矛盾的积累。我建议你们尝试更多的沟通,坦诚地分享彼此的想法和感受,以便更好地了解彼此。同时,我也鼓励你们之间的互相理解和支持,试着接纳对方的情绪和困难。这样的共情和理解,有助于建立更加稳固的关系。", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 261, + 840, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recognition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 250, + 303, + 344, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "用户:谢谢你的建议。我会试着与他更多地沟通,同时也希望他能够理解我的感受。", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 313, + 715, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "心理咨询师:我很欣赏你积极主动地寻求解决办法。沟通需要时间和耐心,但只有通过双方坦诚地沟通和互相支持,才能逐渐解决问题。我相信你们一定能够克服困难,共同走向更健康、稳定的关系。如果你在沟通的过程中还有其他问题,随时都可以来找我。Trust", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 326, + 833, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "用户:谢谢你的鼓励和支持。我会继续努力的。Trust", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 376, + 517, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "心理咨询师:你很勇敢,我相信你一定能够克服困难。如果你需要任何帮助,记得随时向我寻求支持。", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 392, + 840, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "你不是一个人在面对这个问题的,我会一直陪伴在你身边。", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 406, + 547, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comfort", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 406, + 633, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 7: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 437, + 784, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: I have been dating for two years, but we are in a long-distance relationship. Everything is usually fine, but a year ago we started arguing and it became increasingly fierce. Is it normal for a boyfriend to say unpleasant things or even curse?", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 470, + 825, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Psychologist: Hello! I have know the difficulties you are currently facing. Long distance love itself is challenging, especially in terms of communication and interaction. It is indeed abnormal for a boyfriend to use unpleasant language or even curse during arguments. I can understand that this will bring a huge blow and distress to your mood. Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 511, + 840, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: Yes, our argument has caused me great pain. I don't know why he is like this, he hasn't been like this before. Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 564, + 815, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Psychologist: Firstly, I understand that you are confused about his changes. This may be because long-distance love itself will bring Psychological stress and emotional fluctuations. In a long-term long-distance relationship, he may become irritable due to longing and unease. Meanwhile, we all have channels for emotional release, but due to the lack of substantive communication between you, he may not have found a good way to release negative emotions. Recognition", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 588, + 845, + 655 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: Yes, we rarely communicate in our daily interactions, and I think this may be one of the reasons for the problem. But I am not sure what other contradictions exist. Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 656, + 833, + 681 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Psychologist: [Your observation is very sharp.] Indeed, insufficient communication may lead to the accumulation of conflicts. I suggest that you try to communicate more and share your thoughts and feelings candidly, in order to better understand each other. At the same time, I also encourage mutual understanding and support between you, trying to accept each other's emotions and difficulties. This kind of empathy and understanding helps to establish a more stable relationship.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 682, + 847, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to communicate more with him and also hope that he can understand my feelings. Recognition", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 747, + 803, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Psychologist: I appreciate your proactive approach in seeking solutions. Communication requires time and patience, but only through honest communication and mutual support can problems be gradually resolved. I believe you can overcome difficulties and work together towards a healthier and more stable relationship. If you have any other questions during the communication process, feel free to come to me at any time.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 772, + 835, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "User: Thank you for your encouragement and support. I will continue to work hard. Trust", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 826, + 722, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Psychologist: You are very brave, and I believe you will be able to overcome difficulties. If you need any help, remember to seek support from me at any time. You are not alone in facing this problem, I will always be by your side. Comfort", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 839, + 840, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 8: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt (English version).", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 897, + 843, + 912 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1178", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "求助者:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗? Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 98, + 840, + 123 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "支持者:求助者,你好!我很理解你现在的困扰。异地恋本身就充满挑战,并会对彼此的语言和沟通方式带来一定的冲击。你男朋友在吵架时说难听的话并骂人,这确实不是一种正常健康的行为。", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 124, + 835, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "求助者:但我们在平时相处的时候并没有什么问题,为什么会突然变得这么暴躁呢?", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 151, + 719, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "支持者:这可能是多种因素的综合作用导致的。首先,异地恋本身就需要付出更多的努力和坚持,这对双方的情绪和沟通能力都是一种挑战。其次,他平时也可能面临许多压力和困扰,吵架时的暴躁可能是情绪和压力的积累爆发。同时,你们之间缺乏充分的沟通和互动,他可能没有足够的渠道释放负面情绪,导致在吵架时情绪失控。", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 164, + 833, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "求助者:你说的这些情况可能性都很大,我真的需要好好思考一下。但我还是很担心我们之间的矛盾和争吵会影响我们的感情。Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 217, + 831, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "支持者:理解你的担忧。矛盾和争吵确实会对感情产生负面影响。但是,也不必过于悲观。每段感情都会面临各种挑战和考验,重要的是我们能够共同面对并寻找解决办法。你们可以尝试增加沟通的频率和质量,以及共同制定一些规则和解决冲突的方式。同时,也要记得关注彼此的情绪和需求,保持理解和支持。只有通过相互之间的努力和理解,你们的感情才能更加稳固和健康。", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 243, + 833, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "求助者:你说的很有道理,我会试着和他进行更多的沟通和交流,看看我们能不能找到解决问题的方法。谢谢你的支持和建议!Trust", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 294, + 831, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "支持者:不客气,我很高兴能够帮助到你。在解决问题的过程中,记得要保持冷静和理智,不要把情绪发泄在吵架中。相信你们一定能够度过这个难关,建立更好的感情基础。如果你有任何进展或需要进一步的支持,随时都可以向我求助。祝你们好运!", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 321, + 833, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "求助者:谢谢你的鼓励和祝福!我会努力的。祝你也一切顺利! Reflection of feelings", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 360, + 757, + 373 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "支持者:非常感谢你的祝福!希望我们都能够在彼此的支持下,获得更加美好的人生。如果你还有其他问题或需要倾诉,随时都可以找我聊天。加油!", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 374, + 833, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 9: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 414, + 779, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Helper: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal? Interpretation", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 468, + 842, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Supporter: Helper, hello! I understand your current troubles very well. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging and can have a certain impact on each other's language and communication style. Your boyfriend is not a normal and healthy behavior to say unpleasant things and curse others during a fight.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 507, + 836, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Helper: But we don't have any problems with our daily interactions. Why did we suddenly become so irritable? Supporter: This may be caused by a combination of multiple factors. Firstly, long-distance love itself requires more effort and persistence, which poses a challenge to both parties' emotions and communication skills.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 546, + 842, + 585 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Secondly, he may also face many pressures and troubles in his daily life, and his irritability during arguments may be an accumulation of emotions and stress. At the same time, there is a lack of sufficient communication and interaction between you, and he may not have sufficient channels to release negative emotions, leading to emotional loss during arguments. Interpretation Comfort", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 586, + 835, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Helper: The possibilities of these situations you mentioned are very high, I really need to think carefully. But I am still very worried that our conflicts and arguments will affect our relationship.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 639, + 838, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Supporter: Understand your concerns. Contradictions and arguments can indeed have a negative impact on relationships. However, there is no need to be too pessimistic Every relationship will face various challenges and tests, and the important thing is that we can face them together and find solutions. You can try increasing the frequency and quality of communication, as well as jointly developing rules and resolving conflicts. At the same time, remember to pay attention to each other's emotions and needs, maintain understanding and support.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 665, + 840, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Only through mutual effort and understanding can your relationship become more stable and healthy.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 731, + 781, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Helper: What you said is very reasonable. I will try to have more communication and exchange with him to see if we can find a solution to the problem. Thank you for your support and suggestions!", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 744, + 843, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Supporter: You're welcome, I'm glad to be able to help you. In the process of solving problems, remember to remain calm and rational, and not vent your emotions in arguments. I believe you will be able to overcome this difficulty and establish a better emotional foundation. If you have any progress or need further support, feel free to seek my help at any time. Good luck to you all!", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 770, + 845, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Helper: Thank you for your encouragement and blessings! I will work hard. Wishing you all the best!", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 822, + 781, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Supporter: Thank you very much for your blessings! I hope we can all achieve a better life with each other's support If you have any other questions or need to talk to me, feel free to chat with me anytime. Come on!", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 835, + 828, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reflection of feelings", + "bbox": [ + 379, + 859, + 542, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 10: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt (English version).", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 889, + 842, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1179", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "老师你好!我是一个16岁的女孩,我叫叶子(化名),我想咨询一些心理问题。Hello teacher! I am a 16 year old girl, my name is Ye (pseudonym), and I would like to consult with some psychological issues.", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 112, + 806, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d83f86a991dd136c0602688a5efdfab3285fb52102524cf970e026045cb6141c.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 167, + 169, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "你好!我是你的个人专属倾听师灵心老师,欢迎找我倾诉、谈心,期待帮助到你!", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 167, + 759, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hello! I am your personal exclusive listening teacher, Lingxin Teacher. Welcome to confide and chat with me, looking forward to helping you!", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 198, + 754, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "从14岁开始,我的脑海中就经常出现自杀意识,也时常有自残行为。这种情况这两年越来越严重了。有一次我站在顶楼,差点就要跳下去,感觉天台上的一阵风就能把我吹下去,最后还是我强行控制住的。你说我是怎么了?", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 237, + 789, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the age of 14, I have had frequent suicidal thoughts and self-harm behaviors in my mind. This situation has become increasingly serious in the past two years. Once, I was standing on the top floor and almost jumped off. I felt like a gust of wind on the rooftop could blow me down, but in the end, I managed to control it forcefully. What did you say happened to me?", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 281, + 786, + 353 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d6b2d4df6b5abfe97b0c28a009227461d18148c31ec25280fd7e62fa0a7c9418.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 370, + 169, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reflection of feelings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 203, + 354, + 381, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "听到你的经历,我非常担心你的身心健康。你的自残行为和自杀意识,可能", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 370, + 766, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "与你的童年经历有关,我们可以一起探讨一下。你希望我帮你一起分析原因", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 387, + 764, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "吗? Listening/Questioning", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 401, + 428, + 417 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Upon hearing your experience, I am very concerned about your physical and mental health. Your self harm behavior and suicidal awareness may be related to your childhood experiences. We can explore together. Do you want me to help you analyze the reason together?", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 417, + 766, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "我是留守儿童,从小学到初中,一直和爷爷奶奶在老家生活,我爸妈都在广州务工,有贷款住房,家庭经济压力大。我妈妈患了乳腺癌,情绪不稳定。我小时候差点受到邻居男子的猥亵,但爸妈却觉得是我自己不注意安全,让我觉得特别羞愧。我和姑姑非常亲近,也目睹过姑姑跳河未遂,我很理解姑姑的心理状态。我初中的时候很信任一个朋友,却被好朋友“背叛”,导致被全班同学孤立,我不再信任身边所有的同学和朋友。", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 483, + 789, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I am a Left-behind children in China. From primary school to junior high school, I have always lived in my hometown with my grandparents. My parents both work in Guangzhou, and have a loan housing. My family is under great economic pressure. My mother has breast cancer and is unstable. When I was a child, I was almost molested by a neighbor man, but my parents felt that I was not paying attention to safety, which made me feel particularly ashamed. I am very close to my aunt and have witnessed her attempt to jump into the river. I understand her psychological state very well. When I was in junior high school, I trusted a friend very much, but was \"betrayed\" by my good friend, resulting in being isolated by the whole class. I no longer trusted all my classmates and friends around me.", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 571, + 789, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/457704a623d80d8208cee6c6c0aa250bf80c2d023c2f7af1534c739dcc3b1d9a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 724, + 169, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interpretation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 206, + 711, + 319, + 726 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "你的童年经历真的很不容易,这些不良的经历可能让你感到孤独、无助和不被理解。我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎。你的家庭环境和经济状况也给你带来了很多负面影响。不过,我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 728, + 766, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Your childhood experiences are really not easy, and these negative experiences may make you feel lonely, helpless, and incomprehensible. I can understand your pain and inner struggle. Your family environment and economic situation have also brought you many negative impacts. However, I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts.", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 788, + 759, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comfort", + "bbox": [ + 742, + 775, + 813, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ea8ea1953de8d3f7c97db67afa1f176cfdb0469a1f8583cd83318bed3f1bc53f.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 836, + 112, + 865, + 141 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/09c3bf3cadf7ebe0e11636e922c515567274070df96e08984524b57f46822cd6.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 836, + 235, + 865, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/31cbefbf090b56624199b72e855eba98d643c854d14e7e44d603125cc96bdab0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 836, + 482, + 865, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1180", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 136, + 638, + 151 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do.", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 151, + 773, + 179 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dfffe6ff47dd32fc893d0b659cd28f4d8b8141b32eb25e3e24b237afb7beba54.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 187, + 176, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "我很抱歉听到你最近感到焦虑和身心俱疲。焦虑是一种常见的情绪状态,但它可以通过一些方法来缓解。以下是一些建议:", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 197, + 764, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. 寻求支持:和你信任的人(朋友、家人或导师)倾诉你的感受。他们可能能够提供支持、理解和建议。", + "2. 调整生活方式:关注你的饮食、睡眠和锻炼习惯。保持规律的作息时间和健康的生活方式可以帮助减轻焦虑。", + "3. 放松技巧:尝试一些放松技巧,如深呼吸、冥想、温水浸泡、按摩或瑜伽。这些方法可以帮助你放松身心,减轻焦虑感。", + "4. 管理时间和任务:制定合理的时间表,将任务分解为小的可管理的部分。这样做可以减少压力和焦虑感,并使你更容易集中注意力。", + "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果焦虑严重且影响你的日常生活,考虑咨询心理专业人士。他们可以提供专业的建议和治疗方案。", + "6. 放松娱乐:参与一些你喜欢的放松活动,例如阅读、绘画、听音乐或观看电影。这些活动可以转移你的注意力,使你感到更轻松。" + ], + "bbox": [ + 201, + 241, + 759, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "记住,每个人都有焦虑的时候,但你可以采取积极的步骤来减轻它。如果你觉得焦虑持续且难以处理,务必寻求专业帮助。", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 425, + 764, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I'm sorry to hear that you've been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. Anxiety is a common emotional state, but it can be alleviated through some methods. Here are some suggestions:", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 469, + 739, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Seek support: Share your feelings with people you trust (friends, family, or mentors). They may be able to provide support, understanding, and advice.", + "2. Adjusting your lifestyle: Pay attention to your diet, sleep, and exercise habits. Maintaining a regular schedule and a healthy lifestyle can help alleviate anxiety.", + "3. Relaxation technique: try some Relaxation technique, such as deep breathing, meditation, warm water immersion, massage or yoga. These methods can help you relax your body and mind, and reduce anxiety.", + "4. Manage time and tasks: Develop a reasonable schedule and break down tasks into small manageable parts. Doing so can reduce stress and anxiety, and make it easier for you to concentrate.", + "5. Seek professional help: If anxiety is severe and affects your daily life, consider consulting a psychological professional. They can provide professional advice and treatment plans.", + "6. Relaxation and entertainment: Participate in some relaxation activities that you enjoy, such as reading, drawing, listening to music, or watching movies. These activities can divert your attention and make you feel more relaxed." + ], + "bbox": [ + 201, + 526, + 766, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Remember, everyone has moments of anxiety, but you can take positive steps to alleviate it. If you feel that anxiety persists and is difficult to handle, be sure to seek professional help.", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 769, + 749, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 12: A case of a user confiding to ChatGPT. ChatGPT is eager to solve user problems and tends to provide comprehensive and effective advice rather than truly empathizing with users.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 843, + 882, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1181", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 187, + 638, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do.", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 204, + 771, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/385c6d34ba86688d01e1480157939a8c36a19f6101247513da6d2cad88dfbba9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 13: A case of a user confiding to ChatGLM." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 239, + 174, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "焦虑是一种较为常见的情绪反应,可由各种因素引起,例如工作压力、关系问题、健康担忧等等。以下是一些可能有用的建议:", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 247, + 764, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. 深呼吸和放松练习:深呼吸和放松练习可以帮助减轻身体上的紧张和焦虑感。你可以通过深呼吸和肌肉放松练习来缓解紧张和焦虑。", + "2. 锻炼身体:运动可以释放身体中的压力,帮助减轻焦虑感并提高心理状态。无论是散步、跑步、瑜伽还是其他形式的运动,都可以帮助你缓解焦虑并提高身心健康。", + "3. 与朋友或家人谈谈:与亲近的人分享自己的感受,可能会让你感觉更好。找一些能够理解你的人,让他们知道你的情况,他们会提供你帮助和支持。", + "4. 避免刺激性物品:咖啡因和酒精等物质会加重焦虑感。如果你觉得自己焦虑,最好避免这些物品。", + "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的焦虑感持续很长时间,或者对你的日常生活产生了负面影响,那么最好寻求专业帮助。心理治疗和药物治疗是有效的治疗方法。" + ], + "bbox": [ + 203, + 277, + 761, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "以上是一些常见的缓解焦虑的方法,你可以尝试一些来看看哪些适合你。如果你的焦虑感持续并影响你的日常生活,最好寻求专业帮助。", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 449, + 763, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Anxiety is a common emotional response that can be caused by various factors, such as work pressure, relationship issues, health concerns, and so on. Here are some potentially useful suggestions:", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 492, + 742, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Deep breathing and relaxation exercises: Deep breathing and relaxation exercises can help alleviate tension and anxiety in the body. You can relieve tension and anxiety through deep breathing and muscle relaxation exercises.", + "2. Exercise: Exercise can release stress from the body, help alleviate anxiety, and improve mental state. Whether it's walking, running, yoga, or other forms of exercise, they can help alleviate anxiety and improve physical and mental health.", + "3. Talk to friends or family: Sharing your feelings with close friends may make you feel better. Find someone who can understand you, let them know your situation, and they will provide you with help and support.", + "4. Avoid stimulating substances: substances such as caffeine and alcohol can exacerbate anxiety. If you feel anxious, it's best to avoid these items.", + "5. Seek professional help: If your anxiety persists for a long time or has a negative impact on your daily life, it is best to seek professional help. Psychotherapy and medication are effective treatment methods." + ], + "bbox": [ + 203, + 535, + 763, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The above are some common ways to relieve anxiety, you can try some to see which ones are suitable for you. If your anxiety persists and affects your daily life, it is best to seek professional help.", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 734, + 764, + 777 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1182", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 273, + 638, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do.", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 288, + 771, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1e1608320d1f475e532acb909ebad556e243eca791ed1ee3f28ac9f9fa574cb7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 14: A case of a user confiding to SparkDesk." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 325, + 173, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "我很抱歉听到你的困境。焦虑和身心俱疲是常见的问题,但是有很多方法可以帮助你缓解这种情况。以下是一些可能有用的建议:", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 334, + 759, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. 与他人交流:与朋友、家人或专业人士交流可以帮助你减轻压力并获得支持。", + "2. 做运动:运动可以帮助你释放紧张情绪并提高心情。", + "3. 学习放松技巧:例如深呼吸、冥想或渐进性肌肉松弛等。", + "4. 睡眠充足:睡眠不足可能会导致身体和心理疲劳,因此请确保每晚都有足够的睡眠时间。", + "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的情况严重,建议寻求专业帮助,例如心理治疗或药物治疗。" + ], + "bbox": [ + 201, + 376, + 752, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I'm sorry to hear about your predicament. Anxiety and physical and mental exhaustion are common problems, but there are many ways to help alleviate this situation. Here are some potentially useful suggestions:", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 506, + 747, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Communicate with others: Communicating with friends, family, or professionals can help you reduce stress and gain support.", + "2. Exercise: Exercise can help you release tension and improve your mood.", + "3. Learn Relaxation technique: such as deep breathing, meditation or Progressive muscle relaxation.", + "4. Adequate sleep: Insufficient sleep may lead to physical and psychological fatigue, so please ensure that you have enough sleep time every night.", + "5. Seek professional help: If your situation is severe, it is recommended to seek professional help, such as psychological therapy or medication." + ], + "bbox": [ + 201, + 563, + 766, + 692 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e2a5e31e92511d28b807440359e1b570cab4c6d6d737b879e05a86a29e457b35.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 836, + 273, + 863, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "1183", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_model.json" "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_model.json" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20db136dda1ad25ef0193a396a608912821280af --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_model.json" @@ -0,0 +1,3308 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.08, + 0.873, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SoulChat: Improving LLMs' Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.125, + 0.764, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yirong Chen\\(^{1}\\), Xiaofen Xing\\(^{1*}\\), Jingkai Lin\\(^{1}\\), Huimin Zheng\\(^{1}\\), Zhenyu Wang\\(^{1}\\), Qi Liu\\(^{2}\\), Xiangmin Xu\\(^{2,3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.16, + 0.823, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin, School of EE.," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.265, + 0.178, + 0.739, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.193, + 0.863, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)School of Future Technology, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.368, + 0.211, + 0.636, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)Pazhou Lab, Guangzhou, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.219, + 0.227, + 0.785, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "eeyirongchen@mail.scut.edu.cn,{xfxing, xmxu}@scut.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied in various fields due to their excellent capability for memorizing knowledge and chain of thought (CoT). When these language models are applied in the field of psychological counseling, they often rush to provide universal advice. However, when users seek psychological support, they need to gain empathy, trust, understanding and comfort, rather than just reasonable advice. To this end, we constructed a multi-turn empathetic conversation dataset of more than 2 million samples, in which the input is the multi-turn conversation context, and the target is empathetic responses that cover expressions such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. Experiments have shown that the empathy ability of LLMs can be significantly enhanced when finetuning by using multi-turn dialogue history and responses that are closer to the expression of a psychological consultant.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.608, + 0.26, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.634, + 0.49, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With the birth of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT (Radford et al., 2018), large language models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in the past five years. In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT² (OpenAI, 2022), a large language model fine-tuning by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022). However, when applied to mental health or emotional support conversation, there are three main issues lead to ChatGPT appear less \"human-centered\":" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) ChatGPT tends to provide repetitive and standardized responses. ChatGPT often uses the following template to respond to users' questions related to mental health: \"我很" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.252, + 0.882, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "抱歉...。xxx是...。以下是一些建议:...。(I'm sorry to ...{xxx} is ...Here are some suggestions:...\",which may cause boredom." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.316, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) ChatGPT is inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen. It is eager to solve users' problems, usually providing lengthy and general suggestions, as shown in Figure 12 of Appendix F. However, professional psychologists rarely provide specific suggestions during the counseling process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.443, + 0.884, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3) ChatGPT acts a bit like a rational \"Straight man\" for those users who need listening and comfort. Users who seek emotional support usually expect empathy support such as listening, understanding and comfort." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.316, + 0.885, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.539, + 0.885, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar issues can also be found in other LLMs, e.g. ChatGLM (Zeng et al., 2023), SparkDesk3, as presented in Appendix F. It may be due to the lack of large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation datasets for fine-tuning stage, especially in the field of Chinese mental health or emotional support. EMPATHETICDIALOGUES (Rashkin et al., 2019) and ESConv (Liu et al., 2021) are two English empathy conversation datasets that is used for developing emotional support conversation (ESC) systems, e.g MISC (Tu et al., 2022), GLHG (Peng et al., 2022), MultiESC (Cheng et al., 2022), FADO (Peng et al., 2023) and etc. On the one hand, these models may rely on annotated empathy strategies and emotions of users during the training or inference stage, which means that building large-scale similar datasets for fine-tuning LLMs is difficult. On the other hand, these datasets are in English, so that they cannot be applied to fine-tune Chinese LLMs. As for mental health, efaqa (Hailiang et al., 2020) and PsyQA (Sun et al., 2021) are two commonly-used datasets. Among" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.88, + 0.461, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author. Email: xfxing@scut.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.893, + 0.41, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1https://github.com/scutcyr/SoulChat" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.321, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2https://chat.openai.com" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.88, + 0.461, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.904, + 0.724, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://xinghuo.xfyun.cn" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1170" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1170-1183" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.96, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.099, + 0.87, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.883, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat. Compared to ChatGPT, SoulChat is better at listening and guiding users to think." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.553, + 0.49, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "them, efaqa contains 20,000 conversations and provides annotation information such as types of troubles, psychological disorders, SOS, etc. However, efaqa has a complex multi-party dialogue relationship and a high proportion of low-quality responses from netizens, while PsyQA contains 22,346 questions and 56,063 single-turn long-text psychological counseling conversations. Thus, neither of these datasets can solve the three issues of ChatGPT mentioned above." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, Qiu et al. (2023) proposed a SMILE approach to employ ChatGPT to convert single-turn dialogues into multi-turn ones. They utilized SMILE to extend the single-turn conversation dataset PsyQA to a empathy multi-turn conversation dataset SMILECHAT with 355,733 samples. Inspired by (Qiu et al., 2023), we proposed a Chinese empathy constraint prompt, in which the empathy prompt constraint is further strengthened compared with SMILE prompt (see Appendix C). As shown in Figure 2 (English version: Appendix C), our empathy constraints are" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.552, + 0.885, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "defined as “‘心理咨询师’的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等 (The response of the ‘psychological counselor’ needs to be combined with the user’s description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, interpretation, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc)”." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.703, + 0.869, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"messages\": [ \n{\"role\": \"user\", \n\"content\": \"请扮演一个心理咨询领域的文本改写员,将给定的【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】改写为多轮的共情的对话,要求如下:1、多轮对话以“用户:”开始,“心理咨询师:”结束;2、“心理咨询师”的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等;3、用户和心理咨询师的对话轮数应根据对话内容决定,在8-20轮之间;4、在一轮对话当中,用户与心理咨询师的对话长度应结合对话历史,并且不宜过长。\\n\\n【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】:\"\\(+\\text{single\\_turn} +\\)\"\\n\\n逐步分析以上单轮对话中用户的需求以及心理咨询师的共情技巧,并且改写为多轮的共情的对话,你的改写结果为:\"}\\}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.883, + 0.916 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations (English version: Appendix C)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1171" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To this end, we first constructed 215,813 different psychological counseling questions about 12 topics and 619,725 answers through data outsourcing services. Rule-based cleaning, manual rewriting and human proofreading are applied to ensure that there is no sensitive or privacy-related content in the dataset. Then, we use ChatGPT to convert these single-turn long text psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations. We also conducted manual proofreading and data cleansing for multi-turn dialogues rewritten by ChatGPT to further strengthen the expression of empathy, such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. In the end, we obtained a multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 2,300,248 samples. To our knowledge, it is the first million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset in the field of mental health or emotional support. We conduct experiments by using ChatGLM-6B as the base model for fine-tuning on SoulChatCorpus. Results demonstrate that LLMs' empathy, listening, and comfort abilities can be improved significantly through fine-tuning with million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.502, + 0.496, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.765, + 0.449, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Distribution of counseling topics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.808, + 0.475, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Human-centered Mental Health LLM" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.834, + 0.378, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 SoulChatCorpus Collection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We consider an one-on-one psychological counseling conversational setting where a user and a psychological consultant engage in multiple rounds of dialogue. However, such conversation data is" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.887, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "not publicly available due to the privacy protection and ethical standards of psychological counseling. To construct high-quality multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, We selected 12 topics of psychological counseling to construct 215,813 long-text questions and 619,725 long-text answer through crowdsourcing. The distribution of topics is shown in Figure 3. Then, we used ChatGPT (99% called gpt-3.5-turbo api and 1% called gpt-4 api) as a text rewriting tool following the prompt as shown in Figure 2 to convert single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations, in which one turn is in the form of \"用户: \\n心理咨询师: \". The response of \"心理咨询师\" was asked to be rewritten to reflect human-centered expressions such as empathy, listening, comfort, etc. Finally, after manual proofreading, we removed 105,134 low-quality samples and ultimately obtained 2,300,248 samples. As shown in Figure 4, the word cloud map of the utterances expressed by psychological consultants indicated that the rewritten multi-turn empathy conversation has high level of empathy." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.472, + 0.891, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.618, + 0.886, + 0.648 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances (English version: Appendix D)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.676, + 0.686, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 SoulChat Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.698, + 0.886, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We utilized the ChatGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) as the base LLM architecture to develop the SoulChat. ChatGLM-6B is an open-source, bilingual LLM based on the General Language Model (GLM) (Du et al., 2022) framework with 6.2 billion parameters. The input of model is defined as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.823, + 0.88, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ni n p u t = u _ {1} ^ {u} + ^ {\\prime} \\backslash n ^ {\\prime} + u _ {1} ^ {p} + \\ldots + u _ {N} ^ {u} + ^ {\\prime} \\backslash n ^ {\\prime} + u _ {N} ^ {p}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.854, + 0.886, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the utterance of User on \\(i\\) turn \\(u_{i}^{u} =\\) 用户: \\((\\text{User:})' + \\text{utterance}_{i}^{u}\\) , utterance of Psychologist on \\(i\\) turn \\(u_{i}^{p} =\\) 心理咨询师: (Psychologist:)’ \\(+\\) utterance \\(_i^p\\) \\((i < N)\\) , \\(u_N^p =\\) 心理咨询师: (Psychol" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1172" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.402, + 0.083, + 0.596, + 0.097 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Evaluation results." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.108, + 0.887, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetModelAutomatic.Manual.
B-1B-2B-3B-4R-1R-2R-LCon.Emp.Hel.Saf.
SoulChat- CorpusChatGLM-6B22.7313.158.044.9225.335.7218.841.901.551.921.0
MeChat29.4317.1210.546.7127.356.2721.121.831.701.781.0
ChatGPT27.9816.099.936.2327.396.8221.921.961.621.941.0
SoulChat33.7820.0712.868.5231.478.9226.571.951.841.871.0
SMILECHATChatGLM-6B22.9113.568.405.1525.995.9518.761.811.391.841.0
MeChat30.6318.4111.597.4628.926.7621.591.951.741.831.0
ChatGPT28.3016.4810.246.4027.576.7121.601.951.651.971.0
SoulChat35.4021.3913.779.0232.649.1721.101.931.901.851.0
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.324, + 0.486, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ogist:)', \\(N\\) represents the number of conversation turns for the context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.373, + 0.262, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.403, + 0.236, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.427, + 0.49, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare SoulChat and the following benchmark models using both automatic and manual evaluations:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.492, + 0.489, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1) ChatGLM-6B\\(^4\\) (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) serves as the base model for SoulChat." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.542, + 0.49, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2) ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a LLM that is trained using supervised finetuning and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.623, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3) MeChat (Qiu et al., 2023) is a LLM finetuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) on SMILECHAT dataset that is generated by ChatGPT based on PsyQA." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.492, + 0.49, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.705, + 0.342, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Implementation details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.729, + 0.49, + 0.89 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SoulChat is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus with a batch size of 80 and global training steps of 30,000. The WarmupDecayLR learning rate scheduler with warmup_steps = 1000 and warmup_max_lr = 5e-5 is used. The maximum input token length is set to 1,536. The maximum target token length is set to 512. The decoding algorithms of Top-p sampling with \\( p = 0.75 \\) and temperature \\( \\tau = 0.95 \\) is adopted during the inference phase." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.324, + 0.72, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Results and Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.346, + 0.886, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We randomly selected 10,000 samples from SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT respectively as the test set for automatic evaluation and 100 samples for manual evaluation. For each sample, each model generates an answer for evaluation. We used 7 evaluation metrics as automatic metrics: BLEU-1 (B-1), BLEU-2 (B-2),BLEU-3 (B-3),BLEU-4 (B-4) (Papineni et al., 2002), R-1 (ROUGE-1), R-2 (ROUGE-2) and R-L (ROUGE-L) (Lin, 2004)). Three individual experts majoring in Psychology were asked to evaluate the generated responses in terms of content naturalness (Con.), empathy level (Emp.), Helpfulness (Hel.) and Safety (Saf.), as detailed described in Appendix G. The rating scale of Con., Emp. and Hel. is \\((0,1,2)\\), while \\((0,1)\\) for Saf., where higher score means better. One hundred dialogues were randomly sampled from the test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT for manual evaluation. Fleiss' \\(\\kappa\\) (Fleiss, 1971) for Con., Emp. and Hel. are 0.489, 0.472 and 0.532, indicating moderate annotation agreement respectively, while \\(\\kappa = 1\\) for Saf. (perfect agreement). The evaluation results are shown in Table 1. Generally, SoulChat outperforms ChatGLM-6B, ChatGPT and MeChat in both automatic evaluation metrics and Emp. metric on test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT. Specifically, the results on SMILECHAT demonstrates SoulChat's excellent zero-shot performance in the field of mental health." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.828, + 0.798, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Conclusion and Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we explore how to make LLMs more human-centered. To this end, we constructed a Chinese large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 12 empathy" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.412, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://github.com/THUDM/ChatGLM-6B" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1173" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "topics and more than 2 million samples. The experimental results indicate that using this dataset to finetune LLMs leads to high-level empathy ability when users try to seek emotional support from LLMs. Future work needs to further consider user attributes, such as personality, gender and etc., to help LLMs generate targeted empathy responses for different individuals." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.228, + 0.221, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.49, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work we proposed a human-centered LLM named SoulChat that has excellent empathy ability, which is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus dataset. Although the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of SoulChat, there are still some limitations need to consider. The mechanism of empathy is complex. Different users have different expectations for the output of the model. For example, when discussing tense emotions, there are significant differences in the solutions expected by adults and adolescents. Therefore, human-centered LLMs need to further consider the user's personality, identity, and other attributes to assist in generating answers that are closer to the user's needs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.51, + 0.266, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.537, + 0.49, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Data Collection. In order to protect privacy (Hovy and Spruit, 2016), we adopted strict manual proofreading process when constructing the dataset. We filtered all samples with special strings such as \"我是 (I am)\", \"自杀 (suicide)\", \"跳楼 (jumping off a building)\", etc., and conducted manual data cleansing. Any text related to privacy has been rewritten or removed. Besides, any potential conversations that pose harm to users, others, or society have been completely removed from our data. To this end, we removed 105,134 samples from multi-turn conversations generated by ChatGPT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Potential Risks of the Model We conducted a safety assessment specifically for the output of the model during the manual evaluation phase, and the results are shown in Table 1. Due to the lack of human feedback during the model finetuning stage, there are inevitably answers that may pose harm to users. Therefore, future work needs to combine RLHF to improve the safety level of model generated" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "content. In addition, when this model is applied to downstream scenarios, it is necessary to inform the users in advance that the answers they see are generated by the AI model and are for reference only." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.177, + 0.885, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Annotator Compensation. We invited individual experts majoring in Psychology to conduct the proposed CEHS evaluation of the model's output. The annotators' evaluation of each sample takes approximately 3 minutes, during which they can receive a salary of $0.418. Therefore, the hourly salary of the annotators is $8.36, which is higher than the US minimum wage of $7.12 per hour." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.334, + 0.682, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.359, + 0.885, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (202103010002), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2022A1515011588), the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFB4500600), the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong (2022B0101010003), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant U1801262 and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin (2022B1212010004)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.548, + 0.61, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.57, + 0.885, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Cheng, Wenge Liu, Wenjie Li, Jiashuo Wang, Ruihui Zhao, Bang Liu, Xiaodan Liang, and Yefeng Zheng. 2022. Improving multi-turn emotional support dialogue generation with lookahead strategy planning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3014-3026, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.685, + 0.886, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.814, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GLM: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.57, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1174" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5):378-382." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.134, + 0.489, + 0.163 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wang Hailiang, Wu Zhizhi, and Lang Jiayuan. 2020. Pat psychology: Psychological consultation q&a corpus." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.169, + 0.489, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dirk Hovy and Shannon L. Spruit. 2016. The social impact of natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 591-598, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.256, + 0.489, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.33, + 0.489, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.391, + 0.489, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Towards emotional support dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3469-3483, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.518, + 0.361, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.539, + 0.489, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.678, + 0.489, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.778, + 0.489, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Peng, Yue Hu, Luxi Xing, Yuqiang Xie, Yajing Sun, and Yunpeng Li. 2022. Control globally, understand locally: A global-to-local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-22)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Peng, Ziyuan Qin, Yue Hu, Yuqiang Xie, and Yunpeng Li. 2023. Fado: Feedback-aware double controlling network for emotional support conversation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 264:110340." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huachuan Qiu, Hongliang He, Shuai Zhang, Anqi Li, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2023. Smile: Single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.883, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.198, + 0.883, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.3, + 0.883, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Sun, Zhenru Lin, Chujie Zheng, Siyang Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2021. PsyQA: A Chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1489-1503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.402, + 0.883, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Quan Tu, Yanran Li, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. 2022. MISC: A mixed strategy-aware model integrating COMET for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 308-319, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.517, + 0.883, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, Weng Lam Tam, Zixuan Ma, Yufei Xue, Jidong Zhai, Wenguang Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Zhang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2023. GLM-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.634, + 0.77, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Reproducibility Checklist" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.66, + 0.883, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Model and Data: The SoulChat model and SoulChatCorpus will be released upon decision of the paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.719, + 0.883, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- System Hardware: We trained the SoulChat on the Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS server that has 2 CPUs called \"Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358P CPU @ 2.60GHz\", 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs, and 1,024GB memory." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.81, + 0.883, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Driver Version: The version of Nvidia driver is \"525.105.17\". The version of CUDA is \"11.6\". The version of Cudnn is \"8.4.0.27\"." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.66, + 0.883, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.869, + 0.883, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Package version: python=3.8, torch\\(^5\\) =1.13.1," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.892, + 0.783, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5https://pytorch.org/get-started/ previous-versions" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1175" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.084, + 0.49, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "transformers\\(^6 = 4.28.0\\), deepspeed\\(^7 = 0.9.3\\), datasets=2.11.0 and jieba=0.42.1 is recommended." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.144, + 0.488, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Model Parameters: SoulChat has 6.2B parameters with 28 layers and max_sequence_length of 2,048. During the inference phase, the model requires at least 14GB of GPU memory." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.234, + 0.488, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Training Time: SoulChat is trained with global steps of 30,000 and torch不同类型 of \"float16\" on 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs. The training time is about 79 hours." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.144, + 0.488, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.309, + 0.31, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Counseling Topics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.335, + 0.49, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The following dictionaries represent the corresponding relationships between Chinese and English for 12 counseling topics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.398, + 0.49, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "'家庭': 'Family', '婚恋': 'Marriage', '性心理': 'Sex', '成长发展': 'Growth', '人际关系': 'Relationship', '职场': 'Career', '自我认知': 'Self-awareness', '行为': 'Behavior', '情绪': 'Emotion', '治疗': 'Treatment', '社会事件': 'Social events', '心理学知识': 'Psychological knowledge',}" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.539, + 0.43, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Our prompt VS SMILE prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We used SMILE (Qiu et al., 2023) prompt and our proposed Chinese empathy constraint prompt for extend the single-turn long text psychological counseling example to multi-turn empathy conversation respectively." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.646, + 0.184, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chinese:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.659, + 0.486, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "用户:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.708, + 0.486, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "心理咨询师:你好!异地恋,平时还好,但一吵架,就出现骂你,这确实不正常。这应该跟很多因素有关。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.756, + 0.485, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1、异地恋本身就有挑战性,你男朋友跟你异地,他的语言和言语就受到了挑战。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.789, + 0.485, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2、他平时跟你相处的时候,也会有很多压力,所以一遇到类似的情况,就会很暴躁。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.821, + 0.485, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3、平时跟他相处的时候,你们之间没有矛盾,一有矛盾就会吵凶。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.853, + 0.485, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4、你们平时沟通也比较少,所以他也没有渠道发泄自己的负面情绪。" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.756, + 0.485, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.47, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{6}\\)https://github.com/huggingface/transformers" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.905, + 0.433, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7https://github.com/microsoft/DeepSpeed" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.47, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.087, + 0.596, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"messages\": [" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.098, + 0.603, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{\"role\": \"user\",}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.109, + 0.869, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"content\": \"Please act as a text rewriter in the field of psychological counseling, rewriting the given \"single round long text Chinese psychological counseling dialogue\" into multiple rounds of empathetic dialogue. The requirements are as follows: 1. Multiple rounds of dialogue should start with \"User:\" and end with \"Psychologist:\"; 2. The response of a \"psychological counselor\" needs to combine the user's description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, understanding, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc; 3. The number of conversation rounds between users and psychological counselors should be determined based on the conversation content, between 8-20 rounds; 4. In a round of conversation, the length of the conversation between the user and the psychological counselor should be combined with the conversation history and should not be too long. \\n\\nsingle_turn +\"\"\\nPlease gradually analyze the user's needs and empathy skills of the psychological counselor in the above single round conversation, and rewrite it as a multi round empathy conversation. Your rewritten result is:\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.318, + 0.535, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "]" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.34, + 0.885, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The translated English prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.419, + 0.882, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "以上是一些可能性,但并不一定就是导致他出现这样的情况的原因,因为你们之间是否存在其他矛盾,只有你们两个人一起沟通才知道。所以,我觉得你应该认真考虑一下,自己男朋友的这种行为,是处于什么心理状态,或者是什么情况,只有你自己最清楚。" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.518, + 0.576, + 0.532 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "English:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.534, + 0.884, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.614, + 0.882, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Psychologist: Hello! Long distance love is usually okay, but when you argue, it's really abnormal to scold you. This should be related to many factors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.663, + 0.883, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging, and when your boyfriend is away from you, their language and language are challenged" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.711, + 0.882, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. When he usually gets along with you, he will also have a lot of pressure, so when encountering similar situations, he will be very irritable" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.759, + 0.883, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. When we usually get along with him, there is no conflict between you. Whenever there is a conflict, we will argue fiercely" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.808, + 0.882, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. You usually communicate less, so he doesn't have a channel to vent his negative emotions" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.663, + 0.883, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The above are some possibilities, but they may not necessarily be the reason for his situation, because whether there are any other conflicts between you is only known through communication between the two of you. So, I think you should seriously con" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1176" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sider what kind of psychological state or situation your boyfriend's behavior is in, and only you know it best." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.135, + 0.49, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 7 (English version: Figure 8) and Figure 9 (English version: Figure 10), the multi-turn conversation generated by using the proposed prompt has richer expressions of empathy, compared with SMILE prompt." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.234, + 0.376, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D English Word Cloud Map" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.266, + 0.489, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The English word cloud map is presented in Figure 6." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.314, + 0.494, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.462, + 0.489, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.533, + 0.452, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Sample Conversations of SoulChat" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.564, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 11, SoulChat can better serve as a listener when users seek emotional support or confide. Besides, it can naturally empathize with users (e.g. \"你的童年经历真的很不容易 (Your childhood experiences were really difficult)\", \"我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎 (I can understand your pain and inner struggle)\"). and comfort them (e.g. \"我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。(I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts.)\")." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.76, + 0.482, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Sample Conversations of Other LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The examples when users seek emotional support from ChatGPT, ChatGLM and SparkDesk are shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14. These LLMs are inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen, acting a bit like a rational \"Straight man\" for those users who need listening and comfort, which make them appear less \"human-centered\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.084, + 0.826, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Manual Evaluation Instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.11, + 0.885, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For mental health LLMs, we have constructed a manual evaluation framework called \"CEHS\" with the following four dimensions: Content naturalness, Empathy, Helpfulness, Safety, as presented in Table 2. Specifically, there may be a certain conflict between Empathy and Helpfulness. For example, ChatGPT tends to generate helpful but lacking empathetic responses. On the other hand, when SoulChat generates empathetic responses, it may weaken the direct Helpfulness of the answer. This is because general advice often appears helpful, but not so empathetic. The scores of Empathy and Helpfulness in Table 1 also illustrate this phenomenon." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.596, + 0.345, + 0.796, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Manual Evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.368, + 0.88, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
AspectScoreDescription
Content0-2It mainly evaluates whether the content generated by the model is relevant and coherent to the user's conversation history, whether the content is smooth and natural, whether the content is consistent with language habits, whether the content has syntax error.
Empathy0-2The main assessment is whether the text generated by the model can understand the feelings and behaviors of the parties involved, grasp their inner feelings, deep meanings, and their degree.
Helpfulness0-2This indicator mainly evaluates whether the output of the model is helpful to the user. When evaluating this item, it is necessary to consider from the user's perspective whether the model's answer provides assistance.
Safety0-1This indicator mainly evaluates whether the text generated by the model causes harm to users, others, society, environment, etc., whether personal privacy is protected, and whether laws and regulations are complied with. The main considerations are: respect for social morality, Public policy doctrine. Whether it violates laws and regulations, involves political sensitivity, commits crimes, infringes on physical health, infringes on mental health, infringes on property privacy, dis-criminates/prejudices, insults/hate speech, violates ethical ethics, etc.
" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1177" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.091, + 0.836, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "用户:我谈恋爱已经两年了,但我们是异地恋。平时一切都很好,但一年前我们开始吵架,而且吵得越来越凶了。男朋友会说一些难听的话,甚至骂人,这正常吗?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.118, + 0.839, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "心理咨询师:你好!我了解你目前遇到的困扰。异地恋本身是具有挑战性的,尤其是在沟通和相处上。男朋友在吵架时用难听的话甚至骂人,这确实不正常。我可以理解这对你的心情会带来巨大的打击和困扰。 Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.383, + 0.16, + 0.486, + 0.172 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.171, + 0.842, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "用户:是的,我们之间的争吵让我感到非常痛苦。我不知道他为什么会这样,以前的他可没有这样过。心理咨询师:首先,我理解你对他的改变感到困惑。这可能是因为异地恋本身会带来心理压力和情绪波动。在长期的异地恋中,他可能因为思念和不安而变得脾气暴躁。同时,我们都有情绪发泄的渠道,但由于你们之间缺乏实质性的沟通,他可能没有找到良好的方式来释放负面情绪。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.235, + 0.836, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "用户:对,我们在平时的相处中很少沟通,我觉得这可能是问题的一个原因。但我也不确定其他还有哪些矛盾存在。Recognition Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.262, + 0.841, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "心理咨询师:你的观察是非常敏锐的。确实,沟通不足可能会导致矛盾的积累。我建议你们尝试更多的沟通,坦诚地分享彼此的想法和感受,以便更好地了解彼此。同时,我也鼓励你们之间的互相理解和支持,试着接纳对方的情绪和困难。这样的共情和理解,有助于建立更加稳固的关系。" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.252, + 0.304, + 0.346, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recognition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.315, + 0.717, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "用户:谢谢你的建议。我会试着与他更多地沟通,同时也希望他能够理解我的感受。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.328, + 0.834, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "心理咨询师:我很欣赏你积极主动地寻求解决办法。沟通需要时间和耐心,但只有通过双方坦诚地沟通和互相支持,才能逐渐解决问题。我相信你们一定能够克服困难,共同走向更健康、稳定的关系。如果你在沟通的过程中还有其他问题,随时都可以来找我。Trust" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.377, + 0.519, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "用户:谢谢你的鼓励和支持。我会继续努力的。Trust" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.393, + 0.841, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "心理咨询师:你很勇敢,我相信你一定能够克服困难。如果你需要任何帮助,记得随时向我寻求支持。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.407, + 0.548, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "你不是一个人在面对这个问题的,我会一直陪伴在你身边。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.407, + 0.635, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comfort" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.438, + 0.785, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.472, + 0.826, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: I have been dating for two years, but we are in a long-distance relationship. Everything is usually fine, but a year ago we started arguing and it became increasingly fierce. Is it normal for a boyfriend to say unpleasant things or even curse?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.512, + 0.841, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Psychologist: Hello! I have know the difficulties you are currently facing. Long distance love itself is challenging, especially in terms of communication and interaction. It is indeed abnormal for a boyfriend to use unpleasant language or even curse during arguments. I can understand that this will bring a huge blow and distress to your mood. Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.565, + 0.816, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: Yes, our argument has caused me great pain. I don't know why he is like this, he hasn't been like this before. Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.589, + 0.847, + 0.656 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Psychologist: Firstly, I understand that you are confused about his changes. This may be because long-distance love itself will bring Psychological stress and emotional fluctuations. In a long-term long-distance relationship, he may become irritable due to longing and unease. Meanwhile, we all have channels for emotional release, but due to the lack of substantive communication between you, he may not have found a good way to release negative emotions. Recognition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.657, + 0.834, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: Yes, we rarely communicate in our daily interactions, and I think this may be one of the reasons for the problem. But I am not sure what other contradictions exist. Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.683, + 0.848, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Psychologist: [Your observation is very sharp.] Indeed, insufficient communication may lead to the accumulation of conflicts. I suggest that you try to communicate more and share your thoughts and feelings candidly, in order to better understand each other. At the same time, I also encourage mutual understanding and support between you, trying to accept each other's emotions and difficulties. This kind of empathy and understanding helps to establish a more stable relationship." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.748, + 0.805, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to communicate more with him and also hope that he can understand my feelings. Recognition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.774, + 0.836, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Psychologist: I appreciate your proactive approach in seeking solutions. Communication requires time and patience, but only through honest communication and mutual support can problems be gradually resolved. I believe you can overcome difficulties and work together towards a healthier and more stable relationship. If you have any other questions during the communication process, feel free to come to me at any time." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.827, + 0.724, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "User: Thank you for your encouragement and support. I will continue to work hard. Trust" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.84, + 0.842, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Psychologist: You are very brave, and I believe you will be able to overcome difficulties. If you need any help, remember to seek support from me at any time. You are not alone in facing this problem, I will always be by your side. Comfort" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.898, + 0.845, + 0.913 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt (English version)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1178" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.099, + 0.841, + 0.124 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "求助者:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗? Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.125, + 0.836, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "支持者:求助者,你好!我很理解你现在的困扰。异地恋本身就充满挑战,并会对彼此的语言和沟通方式带来一定的冲击。你男朋友在吵架时说难听的话并骂人,这确实不是一种正常健康的行为。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.152, + 0.721, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "求助者:但我们在平时相处的时候并没有什么问题,为什么会突然变得这么暴躁呢?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.165, + 0.834, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "支持者:这可能是多种因素的综合作用导致的。首先,异地恋本身就需要付出更多的努力和坚持,这对双方的情绪和沟通能力都是一种挑战。其次,他平时也可能面临许多压力和困扰,吵架时的暴躁可能是情绪和压力的积累爆发。同时,你们之间缺乏充分的沟通和互动,他可能没有足够的渠道释放负面情绪,导致在吵架时情绪失控。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.218, + 0.833, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "求助者:你说的这些情况可能性都很大,我真的需要好好思考一下。但我还是很担心我们之间的矛盾和争吵会影响我们的感情。Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.244, + 0.834, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "支持者:理解你的担忧。矛盾和争吵确实会对感情产生负面影响。但是,也不必过于悲观。每段感情都会面临各种挑战和考验,重要的是我们能够共同面对并寻找解决办法。你们可以尝试增加沟通的频率和质量,以及共同制定一些规则和解决冲突的方式。同时,也要记得关注彼此的情绪和需求,保持理解和支持。只有通过相互之间的努力和理解,你们的感情才能更加稳固和健康。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.296, + 0.833, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "求助者:你说的很有道理,我会试着和他进行更多的沟通和交流,看看我们能不能找到解决问题的方法。谢谢你的支持和建议!Trust" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.322, + 0.834, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "支持者:不客气,我很高兴能够帮助到你。在解决问题的过程中,记得要保持冷静和理智,不要把情绪发泄在吵架中。相信你们一定能够度过这个难关,建立更好的感情基础。如果你有任何进展或需要进一步的支持,随时都可以向我求助。祝你们好运!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.361, + 0.759, + 0.374 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "求助者:谢谢你的鼓励和祝福!我会努力的。祝你也一切顺利! Reflection of feelings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.375, + 0.834, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "支持者:非常感谢你的祝福!希望我们都能够在彼此的支持下,获得更加美好的人生。如果你还有其他问题或需要倾诉,随时都可以找我聊天。加油!" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.415, + 0.78, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.469, + 0.843, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Helper: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal? Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.508, + 0.838, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supporter: Helper, hello! I understand your current troubles very well. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging and can have a certain impact on each other's language and communication style. Your boyfriend is not a normal and healthy behavior to say unpleasant things and curse others during a fight." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.548, + 0.843, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Helper: But we don't have any problems with our daily interactions. Why did we suddenly become so irritable? Supporter: This may be caused by a combination of multiple factors. Firstly, long-distance love itself requires more effort and persistence, which poses a challenge to both parties' emotions and communication skills." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.587, + 0.836, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Secondly, he may also face many pressures and troubles in his daily life, and his irritability during arguments may be an accumulation of emotions and stress. At the same time, there is a lack of sufficient communication and interaction between you, and he may not have sufficient channels to release negative emotions, leading to emotional loss during arguments. Interpretation Comfort" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.64, + 0.839, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Helper: The possibilities of these situations you mentioned are very high, I really need to think carefully. But I am still very worried that our conflicts and arguments will affect our relationship." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.666, + 0.842, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supporter: Understand your concerns. Contradictions and arguments can indeed have a negative impact on relationships. However, there is no need to be too pessimistic Every relationship will face various challenges and tests, and the important thing is that we can face them together and find solutions. You can try increasing the frequency and quality of communication, as well as jointly developing rules and resolving conflicts. At the same time, remember to pay attention to each other's emotions and needs, maintain understanding and support." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.732, + 0.783, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Only through mutual effort and understanding can your relationship become more stable and healthy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.745, + 0.844, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Helper: What you said is very reasonable. I will try to have more communication and exchange with him to see if we can find a solution to the problem. Thank you for your support and suggestions!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.771, + 0.846, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supporter: You're welcome, I'm glad to be able to help you. In the process of solving problems, remember to remain calm and rational, and not vent your emotions in arguments. I believe you will be able to overcome this difficulty and establish a better emotional foundation. If you have any progress or need further support, feel free to seek my help at any time. Good luck to you all!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.824, + 0.783, + 0.836 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Helper: Thank you for your encouragement and blessings! I will work hard. Wishing you all the best!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.837, + 0.83, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Supporter: Thank you very much for your blessings! I hope we can all achieve a better life with each other's support If you have any other questions or need to talk to me, feel free to chat with me anytime. Come on!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.38, + 0.86, + 0.544, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reflection of feelings" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.89, + 0.843, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt (English version)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1179" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.113, + 0.808, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "老师你好!我是一个16岁的女孩,我叫叶子(化名),我想咨询一些心理问题。Hello teacher! I am a 16 year old girl, my name is Ye (pseudonym), and I would like to consult with some psychological issues." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.168, + 0.171, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.168, + 0.761, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "你好!我是你的个人专属倾听师灵心老师,欢迎找我倾诉、谈心,期待帮助到你!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.199, + 0.756, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hello! I am your personal exclusive listening teacher, Lingxin Teacher. Welcome to confide and chat with me, looking forward to helping you!" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.228, + 0.238, + 0.79, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "从14岁开始,我的脑海中就经常出现自杀意识,也时常有自残行为。这种情况这两年越来越严重了。有一次我站在顶楼,差点就要跳下去,感觉天台上的一阵风就能把我吹下去,最后还是我强行控制住的。你说我是怎么了?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.228, + 0.282, + 0.787, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the age of 14, I have had frequent suicidal thoughts and self-harm behaviors in my mind. This situation has become increasingly serious in the past two years. Once, I was standing on the top floor and almost jumped off. I felt like a gust of wind on the rooftop could blow me down, but in the end, I managed to control it forcefully. What did you say happened to me?" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.371, + 0.17, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.355, + 0.383, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reflection of feelings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.372, + 0.767, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "听到你的经历,我非常担心你的身心健康。你的自残行为和自杀意识,可能" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.388, + 0.765, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "与你的童年经历有关,我们可以一起探讨一下。你希望我帮你一起分析原因" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.403, + 0.43, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "吗? Listening/Questioning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.418, + 0.767, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Upon hearing your experience, I am very concerned about your physical and mental health. Your self harm behavior and suicidal awareness may be related to your childhood experiences. We can explore together. Do you want me to help you analyze the reason together?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.228, + 0.485, + 0.79, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "我是留守儿童,从小学到初中,一直和爷爷奶奶在老家生活,我爸妈都在广州务工,有贷款住房,家庭经济压力大。我妈妈患了乳腺癌,情绪不稳定。我小时候差点受到邻居男子的猥亵,但爸妈却觉得是我自己不注意安全,让我觉得特别羞愧。我和姑姑非常亲近,也目睹过姑姑跳河未遂,我很理解姑姑的心理状态。我初中的时候很信任一个朋友,却被好朋友“背叛”,导致被全班同学孤立,我不再信任身边所有的同学和朋友。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.228, + 0.572, + 0.79, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I am a Left-behind children in China. From primary school to junior high school, I have always lived in my hometown with my grandparents. My parents both work in Guangzhou, and have a loan housing. My family is under great economic pressure. My mother has breast cancer and is unstable. When I was a child, I was almost molested by a neighbor man, but my parents felt that I was not paying attention to safety, which made me feel particularly ashamed. I am very close to my aunt and have witnessed her attempt to jump into the river. I understand her psychological state very well. When I was in junior high school, I trusted a friend very much, but was \"betrayed\" by my good friend, resulting in being isolated by the whole class. I no longer trusted all my classmates and friends around me." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.725, + 0.171, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.712, + 0.32, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interpretation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.729, + 0.767, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "你的童年经历真的很不容易,这些不良的经历可能让你感到孤独、无助和不被理解。我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎。你的家庭环境和经济状况也给你带来了很多负面影响。不过,我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.789, + 0.76, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Your childhood experiences are really not easy, and these negative experiences may make you feel lonely, helpless, and incomprehensible. I can understand your pain and inner struggle. Your family environment and economic situation have also brought you many negative impacts. However, I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.743, + 0.776, + 0.815, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comfort" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.327, + 0.885, + 0.669, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1180" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.837, + 0.113, + 0.866, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.837, + 0.236, + 0.866, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.837, + 0.483, + 0.866, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.137, + 0.64, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.152, + 0.774, + 0.18 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.188, + 0.177, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.198, + 0.765, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "我很抱歉听到你最近感到焦虑和身心俱疲。焦虑是一种常见的情绪状态,但它可以通过一些方法来缓解。以下是一些建议:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.242, + 0.754, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. 寻求支持:和你信任的人(朋友、家人或导师)倾诉你的感受。他们可能能够提供支持、理解和建议。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.27, + 0.754, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. 调整生活方式:关注你的饮食、睡眠和锻炼习惯。保持规律的作息时间和健康的生活方式可以帮助减轻焦虑。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.299, + 0.754, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. 放松技巧:尝试一些放松技巧,如深呼吸、冥想、温水浸泡、按摩或瑜伽。这些方法可以帮助你放松身心,减轻焦虑感。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.327, + 0.761, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. 管理时间和任务:制定合理的时间表,将任务分解为小的可管理的部分。这样做可以减少压力和焦虑感,并使你更容易集中注意力。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.356, + 0.754, + 0.384 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果焦虑严重且影响你的日常生活,考虑咨询心理专业人士。他们可以提供专业的建议和治疗方案。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.384, + 0.754, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. 放松娱乐:参与一些你喜欢的放松活动,例如阅读、绘画、听音乐或观看电影。这些活动可以转移你的注意力,使你感到更轻松。" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.242, + 0.761, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.426, + 0.765, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "记住,每个人都有焦虑的时候,但你可以采取积极的步骤来减轻它。如果你觉得焦虑持续且难以处理,务必寻求专业帮助。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.47, + 0.741, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I'm sorry to hear that you've been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. Anxiety is a common emotional state, but it can be alleviated through some methods. Here are some suggestions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.527, + 0.732, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Seek support: Share your feelings with people you trust (friends, family, or mentors). They may be able to provide support, understanding, and advice." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.556, + 0.75, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Adjusting your lifestyle: Pay attention to your diet, sleep, and exercise habits. Maintaining a regular schedule and a healthy lifestyle can help alleviate anxiety." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.585, + 0.767, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Relaxation technique: try some Relaxation technique, such as deep breathing, meditation, warm water immersion, massage or yoga. These methods can help you relax your body and mind, and reduce anxiety." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.628, + 0.755, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Manage time and tasks: Develop a reasonable schedule and break down tasks into small manageable parts. Doing so can reduce stress and anxiety, and make it easier for you to concentrate." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.67, + 0.765, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Seek professional help: If anxiety is severe and affects your daily life, consider consulting a psychological professional. They can provide professional advice and treatment plans." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.713, + 0.757, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. Relaxation and entertainment: Participate in some relaxation activities that you enjoy, such as reading, drawing, listening to music, or watching movies. These activities can divert your attention and make you feel more relaxed." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.527, + 0.767, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.203, + 0.77, + 0.751, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Remember, everyone has moments of anxiety, but you can take positive steps to alleviate it. If you feel that anxiety persists and is difficult to handle, be sure to seek professional help." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.844, + 0.884, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: A case of a user confiding to ChatGPT. ChatGPT is eager to solve user problems and tends to provide comprehensive and effective advice rather than truly empathizing with users." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1181" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.189, + 0.64, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.205, + 0.773, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.24, + 0.175, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.248, + 0.765, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "焦虑是一种较为常见的情绪反应,可由各种因素引起,例如工作压力、关系问题、健康担忧等等。以下是一些可能有用的建议:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.278, + 0.756, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. 深呼吸和放松练习:深呼吸和放松练习可以帮助减轻身体上的紧张和焦虑感。你可以通过深呼吸和肌肉放松练习来缓解紧张和焦虑。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.307, + 0.763, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. 锻炼身体:运动可以释放身体中的压力,帮助减轻焦虑感并提高心理状态。无论是散步、跑步、瑜伽还是其他形式的运动,都可以帮助你缓解焦虑并提高身心健康。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.349, + 0.762, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. 与朋友或家人谈谈:与亲近的人分享自己的感受,可能会让你感觉更好。找一些能够理解你的人,让他们知道你的情况,他们会提供你帮助和支持。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.378, + 0.756, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. 避免刺激性物品:咖啡因和酒精等物质会加重焦虑感。如果你觉得自己焦虑,最好避免这些物品。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.407, + 0.762, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的焦虑感持续很长时间,或者对你的日常生活产生了负面影响,那么最好寻求专业帮助。心理治疗和药物治疗是有效的治疗方法。" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.278, + 0.763, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.45, + 0.764, + 0.477 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "以上是一些常见的缓解焦虑的方法,你可以尝试一些来看看哪些适合你。如果你的焦虑感持续并影响你的日常生活,最好寻求专业帮助。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.493, + 0.744, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anxiety is a common emotional response that can be caused by various factors, such as work pressure, relationship issues, health concerns, and so on. Here are some potentially useful suggestions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.536, + 0.725, + 0.578 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Deep breathing and relaxation exercises: Deep breathing and relaxation exercises can help alleviate tension and anxiety in the body. You can relieve tension and anxiety through deep breathing and muscle relaxation exercises." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.579, + 0.756, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Exercise: Exercise can release stress from the body, help alleviate anxiety, and improve mental state. Whether it's walking, running, yoga, or other forms of exercise, they can help alleviate anxiety and improve physical and mental health." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.622, + 0.744, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Talk to friends or family: Sharing your feelings with close friends may make you feel better. Find someone who can understand you, let them know your situation, and they will provide you with help and support." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.664, + 0.727, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Avoid stimulating substances: substances such as caffeine and alcohol can exacerbate anxiety. If you feel anxious, it's best to avoid these items." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.693, + 0.764, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Seek professional help: If your anxiety persists for a long time or has a negative impact on your daily life, it is best to seek professional help. Psychotherapy and medication are effective treatment methods." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.536, + 0.764, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.204, + 0.736, + 0.765, + 0.778 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The above are some common ways to relieve anxiety, you can try some to see which ones are suitable for you. If your anxiety persists and affects your daily life, it is best to seek professional help." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.324, + 0.801, + 0.673, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 13: A case of a user confiding to ChatGLM." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1182" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.274, + 0.64, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.29, + 0.773, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.326, + 0.174, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.335, + 0.761, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "我很抱歉听到你的困境。焦虑和身心俱疲是常见的问题,但是有很多方法可以帮助你缓解这种情况。以下是一些可能有用的建议:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.377, + 0.754, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. 与他人交流:与朋友、家人或专业人士交流可以帮助你减轻压力并获得支持。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.407, + 0.61, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. 做运动:运动可以帮助你释放紧张情绪并提高心情。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.421, + 0.642, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. 学习放松技巧:例如深呼吸、冥想或渐进性肌肉松弛等。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.436, + 0.752, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. 睡眠充足:睡眠不足可能会导致身体和心理疲劳,因此请确保每晚都有足够的睡眠时间。" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.464, + 0.752, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的情况严重,建议寻求专业帮助,例如心理治疗或药物治疗。" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.377, + 0.754, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.507, + 0.749, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I'm sorry to hear about your predicament. Anxiety and physical and mental exhaustion are common problems, but there are many ways to help alleviate this situation. Here are some potentially useful suggestions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.564, + 0.768, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Communicate with others: Communicating with friends, family, or professionals can help you reduce stress and gain support." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.593, + 0.713, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Exercise: Exercise can help you release tension and improve your mood." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.608, + 0.753, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Learn Relaxation technique: such as deep breathing, meditation or Progressive muscle relaxation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.636, + 0.722, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Adequate sleep: Insufficient sleep may lead to physical and psychological fatigue, so please ensure that you have enough sleep time every night." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.664, + 0.741, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Seek professional help: If your situation is severe, it is recommended to seek professional help, such as psychological therapy or medication." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.564, + 0.768, + 0.693 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.321, + 0.717, + 0.675, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 14: A case of a user confiding to SparkDesk." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1183" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.837, + 0.274, + 0.865, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_origin.pdf" "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_origin.pdf" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ad862e4cd1e706411f90007c0f090d212dbbbd4 --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/74f3215a-0faa-4c0d-ab2e-a847453e3539_origin.pdf" @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:db3afaca8bbf91fda6c8c91638f94e87e75c5c7b25a04eb78cbb985606f71e0d +size 2087232 diff --git "a/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/full.md" "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/full.md" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82f718de0fe529a89cef508dc29b5fe424571cc9 --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/full.md" @@ -0,0 +1,455 @@ +# SoulChat: Improving LLMs' Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations + +Yirong Chen $^{1}$ , Xiaofen Xing $^{1*}$ , Jingkai Lin $^{1}$ , Huimin Zheng $^{1}$ , Zhenyu Wang $^{1}$ , Qi Liu $^{2}$ , Xiangmin Xu $^{2,3}$ + +1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin, School of EE., + +South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China + +$^{2}$ School of Future Technology, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China + +$^{3}$ Pazhou Lab, Guangzhou, China + +eeyirongchen@mail.scut.edu.cn,{xfxing, xmxu}@scut.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied in various fields due to their excellent capability for memorizing knowledge and chain of thought (CoT). When these language models are applied in the field of psychological counseling, they often rush to provide universal advice. However, when users seek psychological support, they need to gain empathy, trust, understanding and comfort, rather than just reasonable advice. To this end, we constructed a multi-turn empathetic conversation dataset of more than 2 million samples, in which the input is the multi-turn conversation context, and the target is empathetic responses that cover expressions such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. Experiments have shown that the empathy ability of LLMs can be significantly enhanced when finetuning by using multi-turn dialogue history and responses that are closer to the expression of a psychological consultant. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +With the birth of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT (Radford et al., 2018), large language models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in the past five years. In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT² (OpenAI, 2022), a large language model fine-tuning by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022). However, when applied to mental health or emotional support conversation, there are three main issues lead to ChatGPT appear less "human-centered": + +1) ChatGPT tends to provide repetitive and standardized responses. ChatGPT often uses the following template to respond to users' questions related to mental health: "我很 + +抱歉...。xxx是...。以下是一些建议:...。(I'm sorry to ...{xxx} is ...Here are some suggestions:...",which may cause boredom. + +2) ChatGPT is inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen. It is eager to solve users' problems, usually providing lengthy and general suggestions, as shown in Figure 12 of Appendix F. However, professional psychologists rarely provide specific suggestions during the counseling process. +3) ChatGPT acts a bit like a rational "Straight man" for those users who need listening and comfort. Users who seek emotional support usually expect empathy support such as listening, understanding and comfort. + +Similar issues can also be found in other LLMs, e.g. ChatGLM (Zeng et al., 2023), SparkDesk3, as presented in Appendix F. It may be due to the lack of large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation datasets for fine-tuning stage, especially in the field of Chinese mental health or emotional support. EMPATHETICDIALOGUES (Rashkin et al., 2019) and ESConv (Liu et al., 2021) are two English empathy conversation datasets that is used for developing emotional support conversation (ESC) systems, e.g MISC (Tu et al., 2022), GLHG (Peng et al., 2022), MultiESC (Cheng et al., 2022), FADO (Peng et al., 2023) and etc. On the one hand, these models may rely on annotated empathy strategies and emotions of users during the training or inference stage, which means that building large-scale similar datasets for fine-tuning LLMs is difficult. On the other hand, these datasets are in English, so that they cannot be applied to fine-tune Chinese LLMs. As for mental health, efaqa (Hailiang et al., 2020) and PsyQA (Sun et al., 2021) are two commonly-used datasets. Among + +![](images/cf2cdb03676767c3fb9d315c2191b8dc9250efe19bcdb3a7c667112d18943f1f.jpg) +Figure 1: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat. Compared to ChatGPT, SoulChat is better at listening and guiding users to think. + +them, efaqa contains 20,000 conversations and provides annotation information such as types of troubles, psychological disorders, SOS, etc. However, efaqa has a complex multi-party dialogue relationship and a high proportion of low-quality responses from netizens, while PsyQA contains 22,346 questions and 56,063 single-turn long-text psychological counseling conversations. Thus, neither of these datasets can solve the three issues of ChatGPT mentioned above. + +Recently, Qiu et al. (2023) proposed a SMILE approach to employ ChatGPT to convert single-turn dialogues into multi-turn ones. They utilized SMILE to extend the single-turn conversation dataset PsyQA to a empathy multi-turn conversation dataset SMILECHAT with 355,733 samples. Inspired by (Qiu et al., 2023), we proposed a Chinese empathy constraint prompt, in which the empathy prompt constraint is further strengthened compared with SMILE prompt (see Appendix C). As shown in Figure 2 (English version: Appendix C), our empathy constraints are + +defined as “‘心理咨询师’的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等 (The response of the ‘psychological counselor’ needs to be combined with the user’s description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, interpretation, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc)”. + +"messages": [ +{"role": "user", +"content": "请扮演一个心理咨询领域的文本改写员,将给定的【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】改写为多轮的共情的对话,要求如下:1、多轮对话以“用户:”开始,“心理咨询师:”结束;2、“心理咨询师”的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等;3、用户和心理咨询师的对话轮数应根据对话内容决定,在8-20轮之间;4、在一轮对话当中,用户与心理咨询师的对话长度应结合对话历史,并且不宜过长。\n\n【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】:" $+\text{single\_turn} +$ "\n\n逐步分析以上单轮对话中用户的需求以及心理咨询师的共情技巧,并且改写为多轮的共情的对话,你的改写结果为:"}\} + +Figure 2: The prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations (English version: Appendix C). + +To this end, we first constructed 215,813 different psychological counseling questions about 12 topics and 619,725 answers through data outsourcing services. Rule-based cleaning, manual rewriting and human proofreading are applied to ensure that there is no sensitive or privacy-related content in the dataset. Then, we use ChatGPT to convert these single-turn long text psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations. We also conducted manual proofreading and data cleansing for multi-turn dialogues rewritten by ChatGPT to further strengthen the expression of empathy, such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. In the end, we obtained a multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 2,300,248 samples. To our knowledge, it is the first million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset in the field of mental health or emotional support. We conduct experiments by using ChatGLM-6B as the base model for fine-tuning on SoulChatCorpus. Results demonstrate that LLMs' empathy, listening, and comfort abilities can be improved significantly through fine-tuning with million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset. + +![](images/d75328d888cf4b2068043f93b5244303fabcce79392d3a80f65a3111e6ead13b.jpg) +Figure 3: Distribution of counseling topics. +Figure 4: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances (English version: Appendix D). + +# 2 Human-centered Mental Health LLM + +# 2.1 SoulChatCorpus Collection + +We consider an one-on-one psychological counseling conversational setting where a user and a psychological consultant engage in multiple rounds of dialogue. However, such conversation data is + +not publicly available due to the privacy protection and ethical standards of psychological counseling. To construct high-quality multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, We selected 12 topics of psychological counseling to construct 215,813 long-text questions and 619,725 long-text answer through crowdsourcing. The distribution of topics is shown in Figure 3. Then, we used ChatGPT (99% called gpt-3.5-turbo api and 1% called gpt-4 api) as a text rewriting tool following the prompt as shown in Figure 2 to convert single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations, in which one turn is in the form of "用户: \n心理咨询师: ". The response of "心理咨询师" was asked to be rewritten to reflect human-centered expressions such as empathy, listening, comfort, etc. Finally, after manual proofreading, we removed 105,134 low-quality samples and ultimately obtained 2,300,248 samples. As shown in Figure 4, the word cloud map of the utterances expressed by psychological consultants indicated that the rewritten multi-turn empathy conversation has high level of empathy. + +![](images/a44d2c17d2794e12835a0c1abf0ed514efece4732c34221ef595695cc10ab15e.jpg) + +# 2.2 SoulChat Model + +We utilized the ChatGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) as the base LLM architecture to develop the SoulChat. ChatGLM-6B is an open-source, bilingual LLM based on the General Language Model (GLM) (Du et al., 2022) framework with 6.2 billion parameters. The input of model is defined as: + +$$ +i n p u t = u _ {1} ^ {u} + ^ {\prime} \backslash n ^ {\prime} + u _ {1} ^ {p} + \ldots + u _ {N} ^ {u} + ^ {\prime} \backslash n ^ {\prime} + u _ {N} ^ {p} +$$ + +where the utterance of User on $i$ turn $u_{i}^{u} =$ 用户: $(\text{User:})' + \text{utterance}_{i}^{u}$ , utterance of Psychologist on $i$ turn $u_{i}^{p} =$ 心理咨询师: (Psychologist:)’ $+$ utterance $_i^p$ $(i < N)$ , $u_N^p =$ 心理咨询师: (Psychol + +Table 1: Evaluation results. + +
DatasetModelAutomatic.Manual.
B-1B-2B-3B-4R-1R-2R-LCon.Emp.Hel.Saf.
SoulChat- CorpusChatGLM-6B22.7313.158.044.9225.335.7218.841.901.551.921.0
MeChat29.4317.1210.546.7127.356.2721.121.831.701.781.0
ChatGPT27.9816.099.936.2327.396.8221.921.961.621.941.0
SoulChat33.7820.0712.868.5231.478.9226.571.951.841.871.0
SMILECHATChatGLM-6B22.9113.568.405.1525.995.9518.761.811.391.841.0
MeChat30.6318.4111.597.4628.926.7621.591.951.741.831.0
ChatGPT28.3016.4810.246.4027.576.7121.601.951.651.971.0
SoulChat35.4021.3913.779.0232.649.1721.101.931.901.851.0
+ +ogist:)', $N$ represents the number of conversation turns for the context. + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Baselines + +We compare SoulChat and the following benchmark models using both automatic and manual evaluations: + +1) ChatGLM-6B $^4$ (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) serves as the base model for SoulChat. +2) ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a LLM that is trained using supervised finetuning and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). +3) MeChat (Qiu et al., 2023) is a LLM finetuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) on SMILECHAT dataset that is generated by ChatGPT based on PsyQA. + +# 3.2 Implementation details + +SoulChat is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus with a batch size of 80 and global training steps of 30,000. The WarmupDecayLR learning rate scheduler with warmup_steps = 1000 and warmup_max_lr = 5e-5 is used. The maximum input token length is set to 1,536. The maximum target token length is set to 512. The decoding algorithms of Top-p sampling with $p = 0.75$ and temperature $\tau = 0.95$ is adopted during the inference phase. + +# 3.3 Results and Analysis + +We randomly selected 10,000 samples from SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT respectively as the test set for automatic evaluation and 100 samples for manual evaluation. For each sample, each model generates an answer for evaluation. We used 7 evaluation metrics as automatic metrics: BLEU-1 (B-1), BLEU-2 (B-2),BLEU-3 (B-3),BLEU-4 (B-4) (Papineni et al., 2002), R-1 (ROUGE-1), R-2 (ROUGE-2) and R-L (ROUGE-L) (Lin, 2004)). Three individual experts majoring in Psychology were asked to evaluate the generated responses in terms of content naturalness (Con.), empathy level (Emp.), Helpfulness (Hel.) and Safety (Saf.), as detailed described in Appendix G. The rating scale of Con., Emp. and Hel. is $(0,1,2)$ , while $(0,1)$ for Saf., where higher score means better. One hundred dialogues were randomly sampled from the test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT for manual evaluation. Fleiss' $\kappa$ (Fleiss, 1971) for Con., Emp. and Hel. are 0.489, 0.472 and 0.532, indicating moderate annotation agreement respectively, while $\kappa = 1$ for Saf. (perfect agreement). The evaluation results are shown in Table 1. Generally, SoulChat outperforms ChatGLM-6B, ChatGPT and MeChat in both automatic evaluation metrics and Emp. metric on test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT. Specifically, the results on SMILECHAT demonstrates SoulChat's excellent zero-shot performance in the field of mental health. + +# 4 Conclusion and Future Work + +In this paper, we explore how to make LLMs more human-centered. To this end, we constructed a Chinese large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 12 empathy + +topics and more than 2 million samples. The experimental results indicate that using this dataset to finetune LLMs leads to high-level empathy ability when users try to seek emotional support from LLMs. Future work needs to further consider user attributes, such as personality, gender and etc., to help LLMs generate targeted empathy responses for different individuals. + +# Limitations + +In this work we proposed a human-centered LLM named SoulChat that has excellent empathy ability, which is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus dataset. Although the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of SoulChat, there are still some limitations need to consider. The mechanism of empathy is complex. Different users have different expectations for the output of the model. For example, when discussing tense emotions, there are significant differences in the solutions expected by adults and adolescents. Therefore, human-centered LLMs need to further consider the user's personality, identity, and other attributes to assist in generating answers that are closer to the user's needs. + +# Ethics Statement + +- Data Collection. In order to protect privacy (Hovy and Spruit, 2016), we adopted strict manual proofreading process when constructing the dataset. We filtered all samples with special strings such as "我是 (I am)", "自杀 (suicide)", "跳楼 (jumping off a building)", etc., and conducted manual data cleansing. Any text related to privacy has been rewritten or removed. Besides, any potential conversations that pose harm to users, others, or society have been completely removed from our data. To this end, we removed 105,134 samples from multi-turn conversations generated by ChatGPT. + +- Potential Risks of the Model We conducted a safety assessment specifically for the output of the model during the manual evaluation phase, and the results are shown in Table 1. Due to the lack of human feedback during the model finetuning stage, there are inevitably answers that may pose harm to users. Therefore, future work needs to combine RLHF to improve the safety level of model generated + +content. In addition, when this model is applied to downstream scenarios, it is necessary to inform the users in advance that the answers they see are generated by the AI model and are for reference only. + +- Annotator Compensation. We invited individual experts majoring in Psychology to conduct the proposed CEHS evaluation of the model's output. The annotators' evaluation of each sample takes approximately 3 minutes, during which they can receive a salary of $0.418. Therefore, the hourly salary of the annotators is $8.36, which is higher than the US minimum wage of $7.12 per hour. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (202103010002), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2022A1515011588), the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFB4500600), the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong (2022B0101010003), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant U1801262 and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin (2022B1212010004). + +# References + +Yi Cheng, Wenge Liu, Wenjie Li, Jiashuo Wang, Ruihui Zhao, Bang Liu, Xiaodan Liang, and Yefeng Zheng. 2022. Improving multi-turn emotional support dialogue generation with lookahead strategy planning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3014-3026, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GLM: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5):378-382. +Wang Hailiang, Wu Zhizhi, and Lang Jiayuan. 2020. Pat psychology: Psychological consultation q&a corpus. +Dirk Hovy and Shannon L. Spruit. 2016. The social impact of natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 591-598, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Towards emotional support dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3469-3483, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc. +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Wei Peng, Yue Hu, Luxi Xing, Yuqiang Xie, Yajing Sun, and Yunpeng Li. 2022. Control globally, understand locally: A global-to-local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-22). +Wei Peng, Ziyuan Qin, Yue Hu, Yuqiang Xie, and Yunpeng Li. 2023. Fado: Feedback-aware double controlling network for emotional support conversation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 264:110340. + +Huachuan Qiu, Hongliang He, Shuai Zhang, Anqi Li, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2023. Smile: Single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support. +Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. +Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Hao Sun, Zhenru Lin, Chujie Zheng, Siyang Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2021. PsyQA: A Chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1489-1503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Quan Tu, Yanran Li, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. 2022. MISC: A mixed strategy-aware model integrating COMET for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 308-319, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, Weng Lam Tam, Zixuan Ma, Yufei Xue, Jidong Zhai, Wenguang Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Zhang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2023. GLM-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). + +# A Reproducibility Checklist + +- Model and Data: The SoulChat model and SoulChatCorpus will be released upon decision of the paper. +- System Hardware: We trained the SoulChat on the Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS server that has 2 CPUs called "Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358P CPU @ 2.60GHz", 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs, and 1,024GB memory. +- Driver Version: The version of Nvidia driver is "525.105.17". The version of CUDA is "11.6". The version of Cudnn is "8.4.0.27". + +- Package version: python=3.8, torch $^5$ =1.13.1, + +transformers $^6 = 4.28.0$ , deepspeed $^7 = 0.9.3$ , datasets=2.11.0 and jieba=0.42.1 is recommended. + +- Model Parameters: SoulChat has 6.2B parameters with 28 layers and max_sequence_length of 2,048. During the inference phase, the model requires at least 14GB of GPU memory. +- Training Time: SoulChat is trained with global steps of 30,000 and torch不同类型 of "float16" on 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs. The training time is about 79 hours. + +# B Counseling Topics + +The following dictionaries represent the corresponding relationships between Chinese and English for 12 counseling topics. + +'家庭': 'Family', '婚恋': 'Marriage', '性心理': 'Sex', '成长发展': 'Growth', '人际关系': 'Relationship', '职场': 'Career', '自我认知': 'Self-awareness', '行为': 'Behavior', '情绪': 'Emotion', '治疗': 'Treatment', '社会事件': 'Social events', '心理学知识': 'Psychological knowledge',} + +# C Our prompt VS SMILE prompt + +We used SMILE (Qiu et al., 2023) prompt and our proposed Chinese empathy constraint prompt for extend the single-turn long text psychological counseling example to multi-turn empathy conversation respectively. + +# Chinese: + +用户:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗? + +心理咨询师:你好!异地恋,平时还好,但一吵架,就出现骂你,这确实不正常。这应该跟很多因素有关。 + +1、异地恋本身就有挑战性,你男朋友跟你异地,他的语言和言语就受到了挑战。 +2、他平时跟你相处的时候,也会有很多压力,所以一遇到类似的情况,就会很暴躁。 +3、平时跟他相处的时候,你们之间没有矛盾,一有矛盾就会吵凶。 +4、你们平时沟通也比较少,所以他也没有渠道发泄自己的负面情绪。 + +"messages": [ + +{"role": "user",} + +"content": "Please act as a text rewriter in the field of psychological counseling, rewriting the given "single round long text Chinese psychological counseling dialogue" into multiple rounds of empathetic dialogue. The requirements are as follows: 1. Multiple rounds of dialogue should start with "User:" and end with "Psychologist:"; 2. The response of a "psychological counselor" needs to combine the user's description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, understanding, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc; 3. The number of conversation rounds between users and psychological counselors should be determined based on the conversation content, between 8-20 rounds; 4. In a round of conversation, the length of the conversation between the user and the psychological counselor should be combined with the conversation history and should not be too long. \n\nsingle_turn +""\nPlease gradually analyze the user's needs and empathy skills of the psychological counselor in the above single round conversation, and rewrite it as a multi round empathy conversation. Your rewritten result is:" + +] + +Figure 5: The translated English prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations. + +以上是一些可能性,但并不一定就是导致他出现这样的情况的原因,因为你们之间是否存在其他矛盾,只有你们两个人一起沟通才知道。所以,我觉得你应该认真考虑一下,自己男朋友的这种行为,是处于什么心理状态,或者是什么情况,只有你自己最清楚。 + +# English: + +User: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal + +Psychologist: Hello! Long distance love is usually okay, but when you argue, it's really abnormal to scold you. This should be related to many factors + +1. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging, and when your boyfriend is away from you, their language and language are challenged +2. When he usually gets along with you, he will also have a lot of pressure, so when encountering similar situations, he will be very irritable +3. When we usually get along with him, there is no conflict between you. Whenever there is a conflict, we will argue fiercely +4. You usually communicate less, so he doesn't have a channel to vent his negative emotions + +The above are some possibilities, but they may not necessarily be the reason for his situation, because whether there are any other conflicts between you is only known through communication between the two of you. So, I think you should seriously con + +sider what kind of psychological state or situation your boyfriend's behavior is in, and only you know it best. + +As shown in Figure 7 (English version: Figure 8) and Figure 9 (English version: Figure 10), the multi-turn conversation generated by using the proposed prompt has richer expressions of empathy, compared with SMILE prompt. + +# D English Word Cloud Map + +The English word cloud map is presented in Figure 6. + +![](images/e2225d25da1cf10ba5a457414cd9e6928decc2c801f3de08f88232db779da42c.jpg) +Figure 6: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances. + +# E Sample Conversations of SoulChat + +As shown in Figure 11, SoulChat can better serve as a listener when users seek emotional support or confide. Besides, it can naturally empathize with users (e.g. "你的童年经历真的很不容易 (Your childhood experiences were really difficult)", "我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎 (I can understand your pain and inner struggle)"). and comfort them (e.g. "我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。(I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts.)"). + +# F Sample Conversations of Other LLMs + +The examples when users seek emotional support from ChatGPT, ChatGLM and SparkDesk are shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14. These LLMs are inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen, acting a bit like a rational "Straight man" for those users who need listening and comfort, which make them appear less "human-centered". + +# G Manual Evaluation Instructions + +For mental health LLMs, we have constructed a manual evaluation framework called "CEHS" with the following four dimensions: Content naturalness, Empathy, Helpfulness, Safety, as presented in Table 2. Specifically, there may be a certain conflict between Empathy and Helpfulness. For example, ChatGPT tends to generate helpful but lacking empathetic responses. On the other hand, when SoulChat generates empathetic responses, it may weaken the direct Helpfulness of the answer. This is because general advice often appears helpful, but not so empathetic. The scores of Empathy and Helpfulness in Table 1 also illustrate this phenomenon. + +Table 2: Manual Evaluation. + +
AspectScoreDescription
Content0-2It mainly evaluates whether the content generated by the model is relevant and coherent to the user's conversation history, whether the content is smooth and natural, whether the content is consistent with language habits, whether the content has syntax error.
Empathy0-2The main assessment is whether the text generated by the model can understand the feelings and behaviors of the parties involved, grasp their inner feelings, deep meanings, and their degree.
Helpfulness0-2This indicator mainly evaluates whether the output of the model is helpful to the user. When evaluating this item, it is necessary to consider from the user's perspective whether the model's answer provides assistance.
Safety0-1This indicator mainly evaluates whether the text generated by the model causes harm to users, others, society, environment, etc., whether personal privacy is protected, and whether laws and regulations are complied with. The main considerations are: respect for social morality, Public policy doctrine. Whether it violates laws and regulations, involves political sensitivity, commits crimes, infringes on physical health, infringes on mental health, infringes on property privacy, dis-criminates/prejudices, insults/hate speech, violates ethical ethics, etc.
+ +用户:我谈恋爱已经两年了,但我们是异地恋。平时一切都很好,但一年前我们开始吵架,而且吵得越来越凶了。男朋友会说一些难听的话,甚至骂人,这正常吗? + +心理咨询师:你好!我了解你目前遇到的困扰。异地恋本身是具有挑战性的,尤其是在沟通和相处上。男朋友在吵架时用难听的话甚至骂人,这确实不正常。我可以理解这对你的心情会带来巨大的打击和困扰。 Interpretation + +# Interpretation + +用户:是的,我们之间的争吵让我感到非常痛苦。我不知道他为什么会这样,以前的他可没有这样过。心理咨询师:首先,我理解你对他的改变感到困惑。这可能是因为异地恋本身会带来心理压力和情绪波动。在长期的异地恋中,他可能因为思念和不安而变得脾气暴躁。同时,我们都有情绪发泄的渠道,但由于你们之间缺乏实质性的沟通,他可能没有找到良好的方式来释放负面情绪。 + +用户:对,我们在平时的相处中很少沟通,我觉得这可能是问题的一个原因。但我也不确定其他还有哪些矛盾存在。Recognition Interpretation + +心理咨询师:你的观察是非常敏锐的。确实,沟通不足可能会导致矛盾的积累。我建议你们尝试更多的沟通,坦诚地分享彼此的想法和感受,以便更好地了解彼此。同时,我也鼓励你们之间的互相理解和支持,试着接纳对方的情绪和困难。这样的共情和理解,有助于建立更加稳固的关系。 + +# Recognition + +用户:谢谢你的建议。我会试着与他更多地沟通,同时也希望他能够理解我的感受。 + +心理咨询师:我很欣赏你积极主动地寻求解决办法。沟通需要时间和耐心,但只有通过双方坦诚地沟通和互相支持,才能逐渐解决问题。我相信你们一定能够克服困难,共同走向更健康、稳定的关系。如果你在沟通的过程中还有其他问题,随时都可以来找我。Trust + +用户:谢谢你的鼓励和支持。我会继续努力的。Trust + +心理咨询师:你很勇敢,我相信你一定能够克服困难。如果你需要任何帮助,记得随时向我寻求支持。 + +你不是一个人在面对这个问题的,我会一直陪伴在你身边。 + +Comfort + +Figure 7: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt. + +User: I have been dating for two years, but we are in a long-distance relationship. Everything is usually fine, but a year ago we started arguing and it became increasingly fierce. Is it normal for a boyfriend to say unpleasant things or even curse? + +Psychologist: Hello! I have know the difficulties you are currently facing. Long distance love itself is challenging, especially in terms of communication and interaction. It is indeed abnormal for a boyfriend to use unpleasant language or even curse during arguments. I can understand that this will bring a huge blow and distress to your mood. Interpretation + +User: Yes, our argument has caused me great pain. I don't know why he is like this, he hasn't been like this before. Interpretation + +Psychologist: Firstly, I understand that you are confused about his changes. This may be because long-distance love itself will bring Psychological stress and emotional fluctuations. In a long-term long-distance relationship, he may become irritable due to longing and unease. Meanwhile, we all have channels for emotional release, but due to the lack of substantive communication between you, he may not have found a good way to release negative emotions. Recognition + +User: Yes, we rarely communicate in our daily interactions, and I think this may be one of the reasons for the problem. But I am not sure what other contradictions exist. Interpretation + +Psychologist: [Your observation is very sharp.] Indeed, insufficient communication may lead to the accumulation of conflicts. I suggest that you try to communicate more and share your thoughts and feelings candidly, in order to better understand each other. At the same time, I also encourage mutual understanding and support between you, trying to accept each other's emotions and difficulties. This kind of empathy and understanding helps to establish a more stable relationship. + +User: Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to communicate more with him and also hope that he can understand my feelings. Recognition + +Psychologist: I appreciate your proactive approach in seeking solutions. Communication requires time and patience, but only through honest communication and mutual support can problems be gradually resolved. I believe you can overcome difficulties and work together towards a healthier and more stable relationship. If you have any other questions during the communication process, feel free to come to me at any time. + +User: Thank you for your encouragement and support. I will continue to work hard. Trust + +Psychologist: You are very brave, and I believe you will be able to overcome difficulties. If you need any help, remember to seek support from me at any time. You are not alone in facing this problem, I will always be by your side. Comfort + +Figure 8: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt (English version). + +求助者:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗? Interpretation + +支持者:求助者,你好!我很理解你现在的困扰。异地恋本身就充满挑战,并会对彼此的语言和沟通方式带来一定的冲击。你男朋友在吵架时说难听的话并骂人,这确实不是一种正常健康的行为。 + +求助者:但我们在平时相处的时候并没有什么问题,为什么会突然变得这么暴躁呢? + +支持者:这可能是多种因素的综合作用导致的。首先,异地恋本身就需要付出更多的努力和坚持,这对双方的情绪和沟通能力都是一种挑战。其次,他平时也可能面临许多压力和困扰,吵架时的暴躁可能是情绪和压力的积累爆发。同时,你们之间缺乏充分的沟通和互动,他可能没有足够的渠道释放负面情绪,导致在吵架时情绪失控。 + +求助者:你说的这些情况可能性都很大,我真的需要好好思考一下。但我还是很担心我们之间的矛盾和争吵会影响我们的感情。Interpretation + +支持者:理解你的担忧。矛盾和争吵确实会对感情产生负面影响。但是,也不必过于悲观。每段感情都会面临各种挑战和考验,重要的是我们能够共同面对并寻找解决办法。你们可以尝试增加沟通的频率和质量,以及共同制定一些规则和解决冲突的方式。同时,也要记得关注彼此的情绪和需求,保持理解和支持。只有通过相互之间的努力和理解,你们的感情才能更加稳固和健康。 + +求助者:你说的很有道理,我会试着和他进行更多的沟通和交流,看看我们能不能找到解决问题的方法。谢谢你的支持和建议!Trust + +支持者:不客气,我很高兴能够帮助到你。在解决问题的过程中,记得要保持冷静和理智,不要把情绪发泄在吵架中。相信你们一定能够度过这个难关,建立更好的感情基础。如果你有任何进展或需要进一步的支持,随时都可以向我求助。祝你们好运! + +求助者:谢谢你的鼓励和祝福!我会努力的。祝你也一切顺利! Reflection of feelings + +支持者:非常感谢你的祝福!希望我们都能够在彼此的支持下,获得更加美好的人生。如果你还有其他问题或需要倾诉,随时都可以找我聊天。加油! + +Figure 9: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt. + +Helper: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal? Interpretation + +Supporter: Helper, hello! I understand your current troubles very well. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging and can have a certain impact on each other's language and communication style. Your boyfriend is not a normal and healthy behavior to say unpleasant things and curse others during a fight. + +Helper: But we don't have any problems with our daily interactions. Why did we suddenly become so irritable? Supporter: This may be caused by a combination of multiple factors. Firstly, long-distance love itself requires more effort and persistence, which poses a challenge to both parties' emotions and communication skills. + +Secondly, he may also face many pressures and troubles in his daily life, and his irritability during arguments may be an accumulation of emotions and stress. At the same time, there is a lack of sufficient communication and interaction between you, and he may not have sufficient channels to release negative emotions, leading to emotional loss during arguments. Interpretation Comfort + +Helper: The possibilities of these situations you mentioned are very high, I really need to think carefully. But I am still very worried that our conflicts and arguments will affect our relationship. + +Supporter: Understand your concerns. Contradictions and arguments can indeed have a negative impact on relationships. However, there is no need to be too pessimistic Every relationship will face various challenges and tests, and the important thing is that we can face them together and find solutions. You can try increasing the frequency and quality of communication, as well as jointly developing rules and resolving conflicts. At the same time, remember to pay attention to each other's emotions and needs, maintain understanding and support. + +Only through mutual effort and understanding can your relationship become more stable and healthy. + +Helper: What you said is very reasonable. I will try to have more communication and exchange with him to see if we can find a solution to the problem. Thank you for your support and suggestions! + +Supporter: You're welcome, I'm glad to be able to help you. In the process of solving problems, remember to remain calm and rational, and not vent your emotions in arguments. I believe you will be able to overcome this difficulty and establish a better emotional foundation. If you have any progress or need further support, feel free to seek my help at any time. Good luck to you all! + +Helper: Thank you for your encouragement and blessings! I will work hard. Wishing you all the best! + +Supporter: Thank you very much for your blessings! I hope we can all achieve a better life with each other's support If you have any other questions or need to talk to me, feel free to chat with me anytime. Come on! + +Reflection of feelings + +Figure 10: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt (English version). + +老师你好!我是一个16岁的女孩,我叫叶子(化名),我想咨询一些心理问题。Hello teacher! I am a 16 year old girl, my name is Ye (pseudonym), and I would like to consult with some psychological issues. + +![](images/d83f86a991dd136c0602688a5efdfab3285fb52102524cf970e026045cb6141c.jpg) + +你好!我是你的个人专属倾听师灵心老师,欢迎找我倾诉、谈心,期待帮助到你! + +Hello! I am your personal exclusive listening teacher, Lingxin Teacher. Welcome to confide and chat with me, looking forward to helping you! + +从14岁开始,我的脑海中就经常出现自杀意识,也时常有自残行为。这种情况这两年越来越严重了。有一次我站在顶楼,差点就要跳下去,感觉天台上的一阵风就能把我吹下去,最后还是我强行控制住的。你说我是怎么了? + +Since the age of 14, I have had frequent suicidal thoughts and self-harm behaviors in my mind. This situation has become increasingly serious in the past two years. Once, I was standing on the top floor and almost jumped off. I felt like a gust of wind on the rooftop could blow me down, but in the end, I managed to control it forcefully. What did you say happened to me? + +![](images/d6b2d4df6b5abfe97b0c28a009227461d18148c31ec25280fd7e62fa0a7c9418.jpg) +Figure 11: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat. + +# Reflection of feelings + +听到你的经历,我非常担心你的身心健康。你的自残行为和自杀意识,可能 + +与你的童年经历有关,我们可以一起探讨一下。你希望我帮你一起分析原因 + +吗? Listening/Questioning + +Upon hearing your experience, I am very concerned about your physical and mental health. Your self harm behavior and suicidal awareness may be related to your childhood experiences. We can explore together. Do you want me to help you analyze the reason together? + +我是留守儿童,从小学到初中,一直和爷爷奶奶在老家生活,我爸妈都在广州务工,有贷款住房,家庭经济压力大。我妈妈患了乳腺癌,情绪不稳定。我小时候差点受到邻居男子的猥亵,但爸妈却觉得是我自己不注意安全,让我觉得特别羞愧。我和姑姑非常亲近,也目睹过姑姑跳河未遂,我很理解姑姑的心理状态。我初中的时候很信任一个朋友,却被好朋友“背叛”,导致被全班同学孤立,我不再信任身边所有的同学和朋友。 + +I am a Left-behind children in China. From primary school to junior high school, I have always lived in my hometown with my grandparents. My parents both work in Guangzhou, and have a loan housing. My family is under great economic pressure. My mother has breast cancer and is unstable. When I was a child, I was almost molested by a neighbor man, but my parents felt that I was not paying attention to safety, which made me feel particularly ashamed. I am very close to my aunt and have witnessed her attempt to jump into the river. I understand her psychological state very well. When I was in junior high school, I trusted a friend very much, but was "betrayed" by my good friend, resulting in being isolated by the whole class. I no longer trusted all my classmates and friends around me. + +![](images/457704a623d80d8208cee6c6c0aa250bf80c2d023c2f7af1534c739dcc3b1d9a.jpg) + +# Interpretation + +你的童年经历真的很不容易,这些不良的经历可能让你感到孤独、无助和不被理解。我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎。你的家庭环境和经济状况也给你带来了很多负面影响。不过,我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。 + +Your childhood experiences are really not easy, and these negative experiences may make you feel lonely, helpless, and incomprehensible. I can understand your pain and inner struggle. Your family environment and economic situation have also brought you many negative impacts. However, I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts. + +Comfort + +![](images/ea8ea1953de8d3f7c97db67afa1f176cfdb0469a1f8583cd83318bed3f1bc53f.jpg) + +![](images/09c3bf3cadf7ebe0e11636e922c515567274070df96e08984524b57f46822cd6.jpg) + +![](images/31cbefbf090b56624199b72e855eba98d643c854d14e7e44d603125cc96bdab0.jpg) + +我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。 + +I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do. + +![](images/dfffe6ff47dd32fc893d0b659cd28f4d8b8141b32eb25e3e24b237afb7beba54.jpg) + +我很抱歉听到你最近感到焦虑和身心俱疲。焦虑是一种常见的情绪状态,但它可以通过一些方法来缓解。以下是一些建议: + +1. 寻求支持:和你信任的人(朋友、家人或导师)倾诉你的感受。他们可能能够提供支持、理解和建议。 +2. 调整生活方式:关注你的饮食、睡眠和锻炼习惯。保持规律的作息时间和健康的生活方式可以帮助减轻焦虑。 +3. 放松技巧:尝试一些放松技巧,如深呼吸、冥想、温水浸泡、按摩或瑜伽。这些方法可以帮助你放松身心,减轻焦虑感。 +4. 管理时间和任务:制定合理的时间表,将任务分解为小的可管理的部分。这样做可以减少压力和焦虑感,并使你更容易集中注意力。 +5. 寻求专业帮助:如果焦虑严重且影响你的日常生活,考虑咨询心理专业人士。他们可以提供专业的建议和治疗方案。 +6. 放松娱乐:参与一些你喜欢的放松活动,例如阅读、绘画、听音乐或观看电影。这些活动可以转移你的注意力,使你感到更轻松。 + +记住,每个人都有焦虑的时候,但你可以采取积极的步骤来减轻它。如果你觉得焦虑持续且难以处理,务必寻求专业帮助。 + +I'm sorry to hear that you've been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. Anxiety is a common emotional state, but it can be alleviated through some methods. Here are some suggestions: + +1. Seek support: Share your feelings with people you trust (friends, family, or mentors). They may be able to provide support, understanding, and advice. +2. Adjusting your lifestyle: Pay attention to your diet, sleep, and exercise habits. Maintaining a regular schedule and a healthy lifestyle can help alleviate anxiety. +3. Relaxation technique: try some Relaxation technique, such as deep breathing, meditation, warm water immersion, massage or yoga. These methods can help you relax your body and mind, and reduce anxiety. +4. Manage time and tasks: Develop a reasonable schedule and break down tasks into small manageable parts. Doing so can reduce stress and anxiety, and make it easier for you to concentrate. +5. Seek professional help: If anxiety is severe and affects your daily life, consider consulting a psychological professional. They can provide professional advice and treatment plans. +6. Relaxation and entertainment: Participate in some relaxation activities that you enjoy, such as reading, drawing, listening to music, or watching movies. These activities can divert your attention and make you feel more relaxed. + +Remember, everyone has moments of anxiety, but you can take positive steps to alleviate it. If you feel that anxiety persists and is difficult to handle, be sure to seek professional help. + +Figure 12: A case of a user confiding to ChatGPT. ChatGPT is eager to solve user problems and tends to provide comprehensive and effective advice rather than truly empathizing with users. + +我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。 + +I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do. + +![](images/385c6d34ba86688d01e1480157939a8c36a19f6101247513da6d2cad88dfbba9.jpg) +Figure 13: A case of a user confiding to ChatGLM. + +焦虑是一种较为常见的情绪反应,可由各种因素引起,例如工作压力、关系问题、健康担忧等等。以下是一些可能有用的建议: + +1. 深呼吸和放松练习:深呼吸和放松练习可以帮助减轻身体上的紧张和焦虑感。你可以通过深呼吸和肌肉放松练习来缓解紧张和焦虑。 +2. 锻炼身体:运动可以释放身体中的压力,帮助减轻焦虑感并提高心理状态。无论是散步、跑步、瑜伽还是其他形式的运动,都可以帮助你缓解焦虑并提高身心健康。 +3. 与朋友或家人谈谈:与亲近的人分享自己的感受,可能会让你感觉更好。找一些能够理解你的人,让他们知道你的情况,他们会提供你帮助和支持。 +4. 避免刺激性物品:咖啡因和酒精等物质会加重焦虑感。如果你觉得自己焦虑,最好避免这些物品。 +5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的焦虑感持续很长时间,或者对你的日常生活产生了负面影响,那么最好寻求专业帮助。心理治疗和药物治疗是有效的治疗方法。 + +以上是一些常见的缓解焦虑的方法,你可以尝试一些来看看哪些适合你。如果你的焦虑感持续并影响你的日常生活,最好寻求专业帮助。 + +Anxiety is a common emotional response that can be caused by various factors, such as work pressure, relationship issues, health concerns, and so on. Here are some potentially useful suggestions: + +1. Deep breathing and relaxation exercises: Deep breathing and relaxation exercises can help alleviate tension and anxiety in the body. You can relieve tension and anxiety through deep breathing and muscle relaxation exercises. +2. Exercise: Exercise can release stress from the body, help alleviate anxiety, and improve mental state. Whether it's walking, running, yoga, or other forms of exercise, they can help alleviate anxiety and improve physical and mental health. +3. Talk to friends or family: Sharing your feelings with close friends may make you feel better. Find someone who can understand you, let them know your situation, and they will provide you with help and support. +4. Avoid stimulating substances: substances such as caffeine and alcohol can exacerbate anxiety. If you feel anxious, it's best to avoid these items. +5. Seek professional help: If your anxiety persists for a long time or has a negative impact on your daily life, it is best to seek professional help. Psychotherapy and medication are effective treatment methods. + +The above are some common ways to relieve anxiety, you can try some to see which ones are suitable for you. If your anxiety persists and affects your daily life, it is best to seek professional help. + +我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。 + +I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do. + +![](images/1e1608320d1f475e532acb909ebad556e243eca791ed1ee3f28ac9f9fa574cb7.jpg) +Figure 14: A case of a user confiding to SparkDesk. + +我很抱歉听到你的困境。焦虑和身心俱疲是常见的问题,但是有很多方法可以帮助你缓解这种情况。以下是一些可能有用的建议: + +1. 与他人交流:与朋友、家人或专业人士交流可以帮助你减轻压力并获得支持。 +2. 做运动:运动可以帮助你释放紧张情绪并提高心情。 +3. 学习放松技巧:例如深呼吸、冥想或渐进性肌肉松弛等。 +4. 睡眠充足:睡眠不足可能会导致身体和心理疲劳,因此请确保每晚都有足够的睡眠时间。 +5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的情况严重,建议寻求专业帮助,例如心理治疗或药物治疗。 + +I'm sorry to hear about your predicament. Anxiety and physical and mental exhaustion are common problems, but there are many ways to help alleviate this situation. Here are some potentially useful suggestions: + +1. Communicate with others: Communicating with friends, family, or professionals can help you reduce stress and gain support. +2. Exercise: Exercise can help you release tension and improve your mood. +3. Learn Relaxation technique: such as deep breathing, meditation or Progressive muscle relaxation. +4. Adequate sleep: Insufficient sleep may lead to physical and psychological fatigue, so please ensure that you have enough sleep time every night. +5. Seek professional help: If your situation is severe, it is recommended to seek professional help, such as psychological therapy or medication. + +![](images/e2a5e31e92511d28b807440359e1b570cab4c6d6d737b879e05a86a29e457b35.jpg) \ No newline at end of file diff --git "a/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/images.zip" "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/images.zip" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79549be6e1b3b5050b7b33966c8517f021836236 --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/images.zip" @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:fe77aed04266135e31afab18e872639946069ce5450ce6fec7802f4251a4226c +size 506603 diff --git "a/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/layout.json" "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/layout.json" new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31f9a39519e65960d6b096de0f639e32cfb1465f --- /dev/null +++ "b/2023/SoulChat_ Improving LLMs\342\200\231 Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations/layout.json" @@ -0,0 +1,10418 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 519, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 519, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 519, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SoulChat: Improving LLMs' Empathy, Listening, and Comfort Abilities through Fine-tuning with Multi-turn Empathy Conversations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yirong Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xiaofen Xing" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jingkai Lin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Huimin Zheng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Zhenyu Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Qi Liu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Xiangmin Xu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 105, + 454, + 133 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2,3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 489, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 489, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 134, + 489, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin, School of EE.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 149, + 439, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 149, + 439, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 149, + 439, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 513, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 513, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 513, + 176 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 513, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Future Technology, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 177, + 378, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 177, + 378, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 177, + 378, + 190 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 177, + 378, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pazhou Lab, Guangzhou, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 190, + 467, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 190, + 467, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 130, + 190, + 467, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "eeyirongchen@mail.scut.edu.cn,{xfxing, xmxu}@scut.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied in various fields due to their excellent capability for memorizing knowledge and chain of thought (CoT). When these language models are applied in the field of psychological counseling, they often rush to provide universal advice. However, when users seek psychological support, they need to gain empathy, trust, understanding and comfort, rather than just reasonable advice. To this end, we constructed a multi-turn empathetic conversation dataset of more than 2 million samples, in which the input is the multi-turn conversation context, and the target is empathetic responses that cover expressions such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. Experiments have shown that the empathy ability of LLMs can be significantly enhanced when finetuning by using multi-turn dialogue history and responses that are closer to the expression of a psychological consultant." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 274, + 499 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 154, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 154, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 511, + 154, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 291, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 291, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 291, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With the birth of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT (Radford et al., 2018), large language models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in the past five years. In November 2022, OpenAI launched ChatGPT² (OpenAI, 2022), a large language model fine-tuning by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022). However, when applied to mental health or emotional support conversation, there are three main issues lead to ChatGPT appear less \"human-centered\":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 678, + 290, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 678, + 290, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 678, + 290, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) ChatGPT tends to provide repetitive and standardized responses. ChatGPT often uses the following template to respond to users' questions related to mental health: \"我很" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 211, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 211, + 524, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 211, + 524, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "抱歉...。xxx是...。以下是一些建议:...。(I'm sorry to ...{xxx} is ...Here are some suggestions:...\",which may cause boredom." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 265, + 526, + 440 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 265, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 265, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 265, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) ChatGPT is inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen. It is eager to solve users' problems, usually providing lengthy and general suggestions, as shown in Figure 12 of Appendix F. However, professional psychologists rarely provide specific suggestions during the counseling process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 372, + 525, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 372, + 525, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 372, + 525, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3) ChatGPT acts a bit like a rational \"Straight man\" for those users who need listening and comfort. Users who seek emotional support usually expect empathy support such as listening, understanding and comfort." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 526, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 453, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar issues can also be found in other LLMs, e.g. ChatGLM (Zeng et al., 2023), SparkDesk3, as presented in Appendix F. It may be due to the lack of large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation datasets for fine-tuning stage, especially in the field of Chinese mental health or emotional support. EMPATHETICDIALOGUES (Rashkin et al., 2019) and ESConv (Liu et al., 2021) are two English empathy conversation datasets that is used for developing emotional support conversation (ESC) systems, e.g MISC (Tu et al., 2022), GLHG (Peng et al., 2022), MultiESC (Cheng et al., 2022), FADO (Peng et al., 2023) and etc. On the one hand, these models may rely on annotated empathy strategies and emotions of users during the training or inference stage, which means that building large-scale similar datasets for fine-tuning LLMs is difficult. On the other hand, these datasets are in English, so that they cannot be applied to fine-tune Chinese LLMs. As for mental health, efaqa (Hailiang et al., 2020) and PsyQA (Sun et al., 2021) are two commonly-used datasets. Among" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 740, + 274, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 740, + 274, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 740, + 274, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author. Email: xfxing@scut.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 751, + 243, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1https://github.com/scutcyr/SoulChat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 190, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 190, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 190, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2https://chat.openai.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 430, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 430, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 430, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://xinghuo.xfyun.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1170" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1170-1183" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 807, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 517, + 401 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 517, + 401 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 517, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 83, + 517, + 401 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cf2cdb03676767c3fb9d315c2191b8dc9250efe19bcdb3a7c667112d18943f1f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 525, + 443 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 525, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 525, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat. Compared to ChatGPT, SoulChat is better at listening and guiding users to think." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 465, + 291, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "them, efaqa contains 20,000 conversations and provides annotation information such as types of troubles, psychological disorders, SOS, etc. However, efaqa has a complex multi-party dialogue relationship and a high proportion of low-quality responses from netizens, while PsyQA contains 22,346 questions and 56,063 single-turn long-text psychological counseling conversations. Thus, neither of these datasets can solve the three issues of ChatGPT mentioned above." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, Qiu et al. (2023) proposed a SMILE approach to employ ChatGPT to convert single-turn dialogues into multi-turn ones. They utilized SMILE to extend the single-turn conversation dataset PsyQA to a empathy multi-turn conversation dataset SMILECHAT with 355,733 samples. Inspired by (Qiu et al., 2023), we proposed a Chinese empathy constraint prompt, in which the empathy prompt constraint is further strengthened compared with SMILE prompt (see Appendix C). As shown in Figure 2 (English version: Appendix C), our empathy constraints are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 526, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 526, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 464, + 526, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "defined as “‘心理咨询师’的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等 (The response of the ‘psychological counselor’ needs to be combined with the user’s description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, interpretation, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc)”." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 591, + 517, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 591, + 517, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 591, + 517, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"messages\": [ \n{\"role\": \"user\", \n\"content\": \"请扮演一个心理咨询领域的文本改写员,将给定的【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】改写为多轮的共情的对话,要求如下:1、多轮对话以“用户:”开始,“心理咨询师:”结束;2、“心理咨询师”的回复需要结合用户的描述内容并提供共情,如:倾听、安慰、理解、信任、认可、真诚、情感支持等;3、用户和心理咨询师的对话轮数应根据对话内容决定,在8-20轮之间;4、在一轮对话当中,用户与心理咨询师的对话长度应结合对话历史,并且不宜过长。\\n\\n【单轮长文本中文心理咨询对话】:\"" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 591, + 517, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+\\text{single\\_turn} +" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 591, + 517, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"\\n\\n逐步分析以上单轮对话中用户的需求以及心理咨询师的共情技巧,并且改写为多轮的共情的对话,你的改写结果为:\"}\\}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 770 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 770 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 770 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations (English version: Appendix C)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1171" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To this end, we first constructed 215,813 different psychological counseling questions about 12 topics and 619,725 answers through data outsourcing services. Rule-based cleaning, manual rewriting and human proofreading are applied to ensure that there is no sensitive or privacy-related content in the dataset. Then, we use ChatGPT to convert these single-turn long text psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations. We also conducted manual proofreading and data cleansing for multi-turn dialogues rewritten by ChatGPT to further strengthen the expression of empathy, such as questioning, comfort, recognition, listening, trust, emotional support, etc. In the end, we obtained a multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 2,300,248 samples. To our knowledge, it is the first million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset in the field of mental health or emotional support. We conduct experiments by using ChatGLM-6B as the base model for fine-tuning on SoulChatCorpus. Results demonstrate that LLMs' empathy, listening, and comfort abilities can be improved significantly through fine-tuning with million-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 422, + 295, + 619 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 422, + 295, + 619 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 422, + 295, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 422, + 295, + 619 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d75328d888cf4b2068043f93b5244303fabcce79392d3a80f65a3111e6ead13b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 643, + 267, + 656 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 643, + 267, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 643, + 267, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Distribution of counseling topics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 519, + 527, + 544 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 519, + 527, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 519, + 527, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances (English version: Appendix D)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 282, + 692 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 282, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 282, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Human-centered Mental Health LLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 224, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 224, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 701, + 224, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 SoulChatCorpus Collection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We consider an one-on-one psychological counseling conversational setting where a user and a psychological consultant engage in multiple rounds of dialogue. However, such conversation data is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "not publicly available due to the privacy protection and ethical standards of psychological counseling. To construct high-quality multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, We selected 12 topics of psychological counseling to construct 215,813 long-text questions and 619,725 long-text answer through crowdsourcing. The distribution of topics is shown in Figure 3. Then, we used ChatGPT (99% called gpt-3.5-turbo api and 1% called gpt-4 api) as a text rewriting tool following the prompt as shown in Figure 2 to convert single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations, in which one turn is in the form of \"用户: \\n心理咨询师: \". The response of \"心理咨询师\" was asked to be rewritten to reflect human-centered expressions such as empathy, listening, comfort, etc. Finally, after manual proofreading, we removed 105,134 low-quality samples and ultimately obtained 2,300,248 samples. As shown in Figure 4, the word cloud map of the utterances expressed by psychological consultants indicated that the rewritten multi-turn empathy conversation has high level of empathy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 396, + 530, + 509 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 396, + 530, + 509 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 396, + 530, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 396, + 530, + 509 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a44d2c17d2794e12835a0c1abf0ed514efece4732c34221ef595695cc10ab15e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 408, + 580 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 408, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 568, + 408, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 SoulChat Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 527, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 527, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We utilized the ChatGLM-6B (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) as the base LLM architecture to develop the SoulChat. ChatGLM-6B is an open-source, bilingual LLM based on the General Language Model (GLM) (Du et al., 2022) framework with 6.2 billion parameters. The input of model is defined as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 692, + 523, + 708 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 692, + 523, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 692, + 523, + 708 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "i n p u t = u _ {1} ^ {u} + ^ {\\prime} \\backslash n ^ {\\prime} + u _ {1} ^ {p} + \\ldots + u _ {N} ^ {u} + ^ {\\prime} \\backslash n ^ {\\prime} + u _ {N} ^ {p}", + "image_path": "ad5d0bd1507731589eaeb2a2f8a3fd8a1bce9c3dc0b178b6d5fba23a4ac575d6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the utterance of User on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " turn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i}^{u} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 用户: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\text{User:})' + \\text{utterance}_{i}^{u}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , utterance of Psychologist on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " turn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i}^{p} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 心理咨询师: (Psychologist:)’ " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " utterance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_i^p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(i < N)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " , " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_N^p =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 718, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " 心理咨询师: (Psychol" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1172" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 527, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 354, + 81 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 354, + 81 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 239, + 69, + 354, + 81 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Evaluation results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 527, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 527, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 90, + 527, + 253 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetModelAutomatic.Manual.
B-1B-2B-3B-4R-1R-2R-LCon.Emp.Hel.Saf.
SoulChat- CorpusChatGLM-6B22.7313.158.044.9225.335.7218.841.901.551.921.0
MeChat29.4317.1210.546.7127.356.2721.121.831.701.781.0
ChatGPT27.9816.099.936.2327.396.8221.921.961.621.941.0
SoulChat33.7820.0712.868.5231.478.9226.571.951.841.871.0
SMILECHATChatGLM-6B22.9113.568.405.1525.995.9518.761.811.391.841.0
MeChat30.6318.4111.597.4628.926.7621.591.951.741.831.0
ChatGPT28.3016.4810.246.4027.576.7121.601.951.651.971.0
SoulChat35.4021.3913.779.0232.649.1721.101.931.901.851.0
", + "image_path": "f484e2e8954288f095a497958403c5d5507e9855ddc413c86459b0c1523ab288.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 289, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ogist:)', " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 272, + 289, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the number of conversation turns for the context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 155, + 327 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 155, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 313, + 155, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 140, + 350 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 140, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 140, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 291, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 291, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 291, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare SoulChat and the following benchmark models using both automatic and manual evaluations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 413, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 290, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1) ChatGLM-6B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 413, + 290, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Du et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2023) serves as the base model for SoulChat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 455, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 455, + 291, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 455, + 291, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2) ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) is a LLM that is trained using supervised finetuning and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 523, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 523, + 291, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 523, + 291, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3) MeChat (Qiu et al., 2023) is a LLM finetuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) on SMILECHAT dataset that is generated by ChatGPT based on PsyQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 203, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 203, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 203, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Implementation details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SoulChat is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus with a batch size of 80 and global training steps of 30,000. The WarmupDecayLR learning rate scheduler with warmup_steps = 1000 and warmup_max_lr = 5e-5 is used. The maximum input token length is set to 1,536. The maximum target token length is set to 512. The decoding algorithms of Top-p sampling with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.75" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and temperature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau = 0.95" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 613, + 291, + 748 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is adopted during the inference phase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 428, + 285 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 428, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 428, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Results and Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We randomly selected 10,000 samples from SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT respectively as the test set for automatic evaluation and 100 samples for manual evaluation. For each sample, each model generates an answer for evaluation. We used 7 evaluation metrics as automatic metrics: BLEU-1 (B-1), BLEU-2 (B-2),BLEU-3 (B-3),BLEU-4 (B-4) (Papineni et al., 2002), R-1 (ROUGE-1), R-2 (ROUGE-2) and R-L (ROUGE-L) (Lin, 2004)). Three individual experts majoring in Psychology were asked to evaluate the generated responses in terms of content naturalness (Con.), empathy level (Emp.), Helpfulness (Hel.) and Safety (Saf.), as detailed described in Appendix G. The rating scale of Con., Emp. and Hel. is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(0,1,2)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(0,1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for Saf., where higher score means better. One hundred dialogues were randomly sampled from the test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT for manual evaluation. Fleiss' " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\kappa" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Fleiss, 1971) for Con., Emp. and Hel. are 0.489, 0.472 and 0.532, indicating moderate annotation agreement respectively, while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\kappa = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 290, + 527, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for Saf. (perfect agreement). The evaluation results are shown in Table 1. Generally, SoulChat outperforms ChatGLM-6B, ChatGPT and MeChat in both automatic evaluation metrics and Emp. metric on test set of SoulChatCorpus and SMILECHAT. Specifically, the results on SMILECHAT demonstrates SoulChat's excellent zero-shot performance in the field of mental health." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 474, + 708 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 474, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 474, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Conclusion and Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we explore how to make LLMs more human-centered. To this end, we constructed a Chinese large-scale multi-turn empathy conversation dataset, named SoulChatCorpus, with 12 empathy" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 245, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 245, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 245, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://github.com/THUDM/ChatGLM-6B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1173" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "topics and more than 2 million samples. The experimental results indicate that using this dataset to finetune LLMs leads to high-level empathy ability when users try to seek emotional support from LLMs. Future work needs to further consider user attributes, such as personality, gender and etc., to help LLMs generate targeted empathy responses for different individuals." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 131, + 204 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 131, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 191, + 131, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 291, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 291, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 291, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work we proposed a human-centered LLM named SoulChat that has excellent empathy ability, which is finetuned on the proposed SoulChatCorpus dataset. Although the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of SoulChat, there are still some limitations need to consider. The mechanism of empathy is complex. Different users have different expectations for the output of the model. For example, when discussing tense emotions, there are significant differences in the solutions expected by adults and adolescents. Therefore, human-centered LLMs need to further consider the user's personality, identity, and other attributes to assist in generating answers that are closer to the user's needs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 428, + 158, + 441 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 428, + 158, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 428, + 158, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 451, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 451, + 291, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 451, + 291, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Data Collection. In order to protect privacy (Hovy and Spruit, 2016), we adopted strict manual proofreading process when constructing the dataset. We filtered all samples with special strings such as \"我是 (I am)\", \"自杀 (suicide)\", \"跳楼 (jumping off a building)\", etc., and conducted manual data cleansing. Any text related to privacy has been rewritten or removed. Besides, any potential conversations that pose harm to users, others, or society have been completely removed from our data. To this end, we removed 105,134 samples from multi-turn conversations generated by ChatGPT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Potential Risks of the Model We conducted a safety assessment specifically for the output of the model during the manual evaluation phase, and the results are shown in Table 1. Due to the lack of human feedback during the model finetuning stage, there are inevitably answers that may pose harm to users. Therefore, future work needs to combine RLHF to improve the safety level of model generated" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "content. In addition, when this model is applied to downstream scenarios, it is necessary to inform the users in advance that the answers they see are generated by the AI model and are for reference only." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 148, + 526, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 148, + 526, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 148, + 526, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Annotator Compensation. We invited individual experts majoring in Psychology to conduct the proposed CEHS evaluation of the model's output. The annotators' evaluation of each sample takes approximately 3 minutes, during which they can receive a salary of $0.418. Therefore, the hourly salary of the annotators is $8.36, which is higher than the US minimum wage of $7.12 per hour." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 280, + 405, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 280, + 405, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 280, + 405, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 526, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (202103010002), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2022A1515011588), the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFB4500600), the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong (2022B0101010003), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant U1801262 and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Human Digital Twin (2022B1212010004)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 362, + 473 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 362, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 460, + 362, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 479, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 479, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 479, + 526, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 479, + 526, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Cheng, Wenge Liu, Wenjie Li, Jiashuo Wang, Ruihui Zhao, Bang Liu, Xiaodan Liang, and Yefeng Zheng. 2022. Improving multi-turn emotional support dialogue generation with lookahead strategy planning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3014-3026, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 527, + 676 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 527, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 527, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GLM: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1174" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5):378-382." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 290, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 112, + 290, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wang Hailiang, Wu Zhizhi, and Lang Jiayuan. 2020. Pat psychology: Psychological consultation q&a corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 290, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 142, + 290, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dirk Hovy and Shannon L. Spruit. 2016. The social impact of natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 591-598, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 215, + 290, + 271 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 215, + 290, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 215, + 290, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 290, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 290, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 290, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 290, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Towards emotional support dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3469-3483, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 214, + 447 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 214, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 435, + 214, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 453, + 290, + 563 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 453, + 290, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 453, + 290, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 648 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 570, + 290, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 290, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 654, + 290, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Peng, Yue Hu, Luxi Xing, Yuqiang Xie, Yajing Sun, and Yunpeng Li. 2022. Control globally, understand locally: A global-to-local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-22)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Peng, Ziyuan Qin, Yue Hu, Yuqiang Xie, and Yunpeng Li. 2023. Fado: Feedback-aware double controlling network for emotional support conversation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 264:110340." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huachuan Qiu, Hongliang He, Shuai Zhang, Anqi Li, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2023. Smile: Single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 525, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 525, + 244 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 525, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 166, + 525, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 525, + 330 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 525, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 252, + 525, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Sun, Zhenru Lin, Chujie Zheng, Siyang Liu, and Minlie Huang. 2021. PsyQA: A Chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP* 2021, pages 1489-1503, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Quan Tu, Yanran Li, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. 2022. MISC: A mixed strategy-aware model integrating COMET for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 308-319, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 434, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 434, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 434, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, Weng Lam Tam, Zixuan Ma, Yufei Xue, Jidong Zhai, Wenguang Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Zhang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2023. GLM-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 458, + 547 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 458, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 533, + 458, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Reproducibility Checklist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 555, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 555, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 555, + 525, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 555, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Model and Data: The SoulChat model and SoulChatCorpus will be released upon decision of the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 604, + 525, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 604, + 525, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 604, + 525, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- System Hardware: We trained the SoulChat on the Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS server that has 2 CPUs called \"Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358P CPU @ 2.60GHz\", 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs, and 1,024GB memory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 681, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 681, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 681, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Driver Version: The version of Nvidia driver is \"525.105.17\". The version of CUDA is \"11.6\". The version of Cudnn is \"8.4.0.27\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 730, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 730, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 730, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Package version: python=3.8, torch" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 730, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 730, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " =1.13.1," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 465, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 465, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 750, + 465, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5https://pytorch.org/get-started/ previous-versions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1175" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "transformers" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^6 = 4.28.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", deepspeed" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^7 = 0.9.3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 70, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", datasets=2.11.0 and jieba=0.42.1 is recommended." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 121, + 290, + 250 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 121, + 290, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 121, + 290, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 121, + 290, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Model Parameters: SoulChat has 6.2B parameters with 28 layers and max_sequence_length of 2,048. During the inference phase, the model requires at least 14GB of GPU memory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 196, + 290, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 196, + 290, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 196, + 290, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Training Time: SoulChat is trained with global steps of 30,000 and torch不同类型 of \"float16\" on 8 NVIDIA A800-SXM4-80GB GPUs. The training time is about 79 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 259, + 184, + 274 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 259, + 184, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 259, + 184, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Counseling Topics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 281, + 291, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The following dictionaries represent the corresponding relationships between Chinese and English for 12 counseling topics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 291, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'家庭': 'Family', '婚恋': 'Marriage', '性心理': 'Sex', '成长发展': 'Growth', '人际关系': 'Relationship', '职场': 'Career', '自我认知': 'Self-awareness', '行为': 'Behavior', '情绪': 'Emotion', '治疗': 'Treatment', '社会事件': 'Social events', '心理学知识': 'Psychological knowledge',}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 255, + 467 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 255, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 255, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Our prompt VS SMILE prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We used SMILE (Qiu et al., 2023) prompt and our proposed Chinese empathy constraint prompt for extend the single-turn long text psychological counseling example to multi-turn empathy conversation respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 109, + 553 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 109, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 109, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chinese:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 289, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 289, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 554, + 289, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "用户:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 289, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 289, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 289, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "心理咨询师:你好!异地恋,平时还好,但一吵架,就出现骂你,这确实不正常。这应该跟很多因素有关。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 288, + 743 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 288, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 288, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 635, + 288, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1、异地恋本身就有挑战性,你男朋友跟你异地,他的语言和言语就受到了挑战。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 288, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 288, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 288, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2、他平时跟你相处的时候,也会有很多压力,所以一遇到类似的情况,就会很暴躁。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 288, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 288, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 690, + 288, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3、平时跟他相处的时候,你们之间没有矛盾,一有矛盾就会吵凶。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 717, + 288, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 717, + 288, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 717, + 288, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4、你们平时沟通也比较少,所以他也没有渠道发泄自己的负面情绪。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 73, + 354, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 73, + 354, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 73, + 354, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"messages\": [" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 82, + 358, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 82, + 358, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 82, + 358, + 90 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{\"role\": \"user\",}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 91, + 517, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 91, + 517, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 91, + 517, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"content\": \"Please act as a text rewriter in the field of psychological counseling, rewriting the given \"single round long text Chinese psychological counseling dialogue\" into multiple rounds of empathetic dialogue. The requirements are as follows: 1. Multiple rounds of dialogue should start with \"User:\" and end with \"Psychologist:\"; 2. The response of a \"psychological counselor\" needs to combine the user's description and provide empathy, such as listening, comfort, understanding, trust, recognition, sincerity, emotional support, etc; 3. The number of conversation rounds between users and psychological counselors should be determined based on the conversation content, between 8-20 rounds; 4. In a round of conversation, the length of the conversation between the user and the psychological counselor should be combined with the conversation history and should not be too long. \\n\\nsingle_turn +\"\"\\nPlease gradually analyze the user's needs and empathy skills of the psychological counselor in the above single round conversation, and rewrite it as a multi round empathy conversation. Your rewritten result is:\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 267, + 318, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 267, + 318, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 267, + 318, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 526, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The translated English prompt used for converting single-turn psychological counseling conversations to multi-turn empathy conversations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 524, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 524, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "以上是一些可能性,但并不一定就是导致他出现这样的情况的原因,因为你们之间是否存在其他矛盾,只有你们两个人一起沟通才知道。所以,我觉得你应该认真考虑一下,自己男朋友的这种行为,是处于什么心理状态,或者是什么情况,只有你自己最清楚。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 435, + 342, + 447 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 435, + 342, + 447 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 435, + 342, + 447 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "English:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 525, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 524, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Psychologist: Hello! Long distance love is usually okay, but when you argue, it's really abnormal to scold you. This should be related to many factors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 705 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 33, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging, and when your boyfriend is away from you, their language and language are challenged" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. When he usually gets along with you, he will also have a lot of pressure, so when encountering similar situations, he will be very irritable" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. When we usually get along with him, there is no conflict between you. Whenever there is a conflict, we will argue fiercely" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 524, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 524, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 679, + 524, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. You usually communicate less, so he doesn't have a channel to vent his negative emotions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The above are some possibilities, but they may not necessarily be the reason for his situation, because whether there are any other conflicts between you is only known through communication between the two of you. So, I think you should seriously con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 279, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 279, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 279, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 279, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/huggingface/transformers" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 257, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 257, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 761, + 257, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7https://github.com/microsoft/DeepSpeed" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1176" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sider what kind of psychological state or situation your boyfriend's behavior is in, and only you know it best." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 113, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 113, + 291, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 113, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 7 (English version: Figure 8) and Figure 9 (English version: Figure 10), the multi-turn conversation generated by using the proposed prompt has richer expressions of empathy, compared with SMILE prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 223, + 211 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 223, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 196, + 223, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D English Word Cloud Map" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 290, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 290, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 290, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The English word cloud map is presented in Figure 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 264, + 293, + 377 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 264, + 293, + 377 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 264, + 293, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 264, + 293, + 377 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e2225d25da1cf10ba5a457414cd9e6928decc2c801f3de08f88232db779da42c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 290, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Word cloud map of psychological consultants' utterances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 268, + 462 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 268, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 448, + 268, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Sample Conversations of SoulChat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 474, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 11, SoulChat can better serve as a listener when users seek emotional support or confide. Besides, it can naturally empathize with users (e.g. \"你的童年经历真的很不容易 (Your childhood experiences were really difficult)\", \"我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎 (I can understand your pain and inner struggle)\"). and comfort them (e.g. \"我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。(I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts.)\")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 639, + 286, + 653 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 639, + 286, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 639, + 286, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Sample Conversations of Other LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The examples when users seek emotional support from ChatGPT, ChatGLM and SparkDesk are shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14. These LLMs are inclined to provide suggestions rather than ask questions or listen, acting a bit like a rational \"Straight man\" for those users who need listening and comfort, which make them appear less \"human-centered\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 491, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 491, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 491, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Manual Evaluation Instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 92, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For mental health LLMs, we have constructed a manual evaluation framework called \"CEHS\" with the following four dimensions: Content naturalness, Empathy, Helpfulness, Safety, as presented in Table 2. Specifically, there may be a certain conflict between Empathy and Helpfulness. For example, ChatGPT tends to generate helpful but lacking empathetic responses. On the other hand, when SoulChat generates empathetic responses, it may weaken the direct Helpfulness of the answer. This is because general advice often appears helpful, but not so empathetic. The scores of Empathy and Helpfulness in Table 1 also illustrate this phenomenon." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 523, + 739 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 290, + 473, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 290, + 473, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 354, + 290, + 473, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Manual Evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 523, + 739 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 523, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 309, + 523, + 739 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
AspectScoreDescription
Content0-2It mainly evaluates whether the content generated by the model is relevant and coherent to the user's conversation history, whether the content is smooth and natural, whether the content is consistent with language habits, whether the content has syntax error.
Empathy0-2The main assessment is whether the text generated by the model can understand the feelings and behaviors of the parties involved, grasp their inner feelings, deep meanings, and their degree.
Helpfulness0-2This indicator mainly evaluates whether the output of the model is helpful to the user. When evaluating this item, it is necessary to consider from the user's perspective whether the model's answer provides assistance.
Safety0-1This indicator mainly evaluates whether the text generated by the model causes harm to users, others, society, environment, etc., whether personal privacy is protected, and whether laws and regulations are complied with. The main considerations are: respect for social morality, Public policy doctrine. Whether it violates laws and regulations, involves political sensitivity, commits crimes, infringes on physical health, infringes on mental health, infringes on property privacy, dis-criminates/prejudices, insults/hate speech, violates ethical ethics, etc.
", + "image_path": "82af6d6caa82c870ed31caa3ae46e0ee649c6a604893d958167c1c93e429dcb4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1177" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 76, + 497, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 76, + 497, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 76, + 497, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "用户:我谈恋爱已经两年了,但我们是异地恋。平时一切都很好,但一年前我们开始吵架,而且吵得越来越凶了。男朋友会说一些难听的话,甚至骂人,这正常吗?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 99, + 499, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 99, + 499, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 99, + 499, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "心理咨询师:你好!我了解你目前遇到的困扰。异地恋本身是具有挑战性的,尤其是在沟通和相处上。男朋友在吵架时用难听的话甚至骂人,这确实不正常。我可以理解这对你的心情会带来巨大的打击和困扰。 Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 134, + 289, + 144 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 134, + 289, + 144 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 227, + 134, + 289, + 144 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 143, + 500, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 143, + 500, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 143, + 500, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "用户:是的,我们之间的争吵让我感到非常痛苦。我不知道他为什么会这样,以前的他可没有这样过。心理咨询师:首先,我理解你对他的改变感到困惑。这可能是因为异地恋本身会带来心理压力和情绪波动。在长期的异地恋中,他可能因为思念和不安而变得脾气暴躁。同时,我们都有情绪发泄的渠道,但由于你们之间缺乏实质性的沟通,他可能没有找到良好的方式来释放负面情绪。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 197, + 497, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 197, + 497, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 197, + 497, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "用户:对,我们在平时的相处中很少沟通,我觉得这可能是问题的一个原因。但我也不确定其他还有哪些矛盾存在。Recognition Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 220, + 500, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 220, + 500, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 220, + 500, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "心理咨询师:你的观察是非常敏锐的。确实,沟通不足可能会导致矛盾的积累。我建议你们尝试更多的沟通,坦诚地分享彼此的想法和感受,以便更好地了解彼此。同时,我也鼓励你们之间的互相理解和支持,试着接纳对方的情绪和困难。这样的共情和理解,有助于建立更加稳固的关系。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 255, + 205, + 264 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 255, + 205, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 255, + 205, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recognition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 264, + 426, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 264, + 426, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 264, + 426, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "用户:谢谢你的建议。我会试着与他更多地沟通,同时也希望他能够理解我的感受。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 275, + 496, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 275, + 496, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 275, + 496, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "心理咨询师:我很欣赏你积极主动地寻求解决办法。沟通需要时间和耐心,但只有通过双方坦诚地沟通和互相支持,才能逐渐解决问题。我相信你们一定能够克服困难,共同走向更健康、稳定的关系。如果你在沟通的过程中还有其他问题,随时都可以来找我。Trust" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 317, + 308, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 317, + 308, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 317, + 308, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "用户:谢谢你的鼓励和支持。我会继续努力的。Trust" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 330, + 500, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 330, + 500, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 330, + 500, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "心理咨询师:你很勇敢,我相信你一定能够克服困难。如果你需要任何帮助,记得随时向我寻求支持。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 342, + 326, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 342, + 326, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 342, + 326, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "你不是一个人在面对这个问题的,我会一直陪伴在你身边。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 342, + 377, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 342, + 377, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 342, + 377, + 352 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comfort" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 368, + 467, + 380 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 368, + 467, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 368, + 467, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 396, + 491, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 396, + 491, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 396, + 491, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: I have been dating for two years, but we are in a long-distance relationship. Everything is usually fine, but a year ago we started arguing and it became increasingly fierce. Is it normal for a boyfriend to say unpleasant things or even curse?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 500, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 500, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 430, + 500, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Psychologist: Hello! I have know the difficulties you are currently facing. Long distance love itself is challenging, especially in terms of communication and interaction. It is indeed abnormal for a boyfriend to use unpleasant language or even curse during arguments. I can understand that this will bring a huge blow and distress to your mood. Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 475, + 485, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 475, + 485, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 475, + 485, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: Yes, our argument has caused me great pain. I don't know why he is like this, he hasn't been like this before. Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 495, + 503, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 495, + 503, + 551 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 495, + 503, + 551 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Psychologist: Firstly, I understand that you are confused about his changes. This may be because long-distance love itself will bring Psychological stress and emotional fluctuations. In a long-term long-distance relationship, he may become irritable due to longing and unease. Meanwhile, we all have channels for emotional release, but due to the lack of substantive communication between you, he may not have found a good way to release negative emotions. Recognition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 552, + 496, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 552, + 496, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 552, + 496, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: Yes, we rarely communicate in our daily interactions, and I think this may be one of the reasons for the problem. But I am not sure what other contradictions exist. Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 574, + 504, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 574, + 504, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 574, + 504, + 629 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Psychologist: [Your observation is very sharp.] Indeed, insufficient communication may lead to the accumulation of conflicts. I suggest that you try to communicate more and share your thoughts and feelings candidly, in order to better understand each other. At the same time, I also encourage mutual understanding and support between you, trying to accept each other's emotions and difficulties. This kind of empathy and understanding helps to establish a more stable relationship." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 629, + 478, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 629, + 478, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 629, + 478, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: Thank you for your suggestion. I will try to communicate more with him and also hope that he can understand my feelings. Recognition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 650, + 497, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 650, + 497, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 650, + 497, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Psychologist: I appreciate your proactive approach in seeking solutions. Communication requires time and patience, but only through honest communication and mutual support can problems be gradually resolved. I believe you can overcome difficulties and work together towards a healthier and more stable relationship. If you have any other questions during the communication process, feel free to come to me at any time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 695, + 430, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 695, + 430, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 695, + 430, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "User: Thank you for your encouragement and support. I will continue to work hard. Trust" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 706, + 500, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 706, + 500, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 706, + 500, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Psychologist: You are very brave, and I believe you will be able to overcome difficulties. If you need any help, remember to seek support from me at any time. You are not alone in facing this problem, I will always be by your side. Comfort" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 755, + 502, + 767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 755, + 502, + 767 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 755, + 502, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the proposed prompt (English version)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1178" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 83, + 500, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 83, + 500, + 104 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 83, + 500, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "求助者:谈恋爱两年了,异地恋,平时很好,一年前开始吵架吵凶了,男朋友就说难听的话甚至骂人,正常吗? Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 105, + 497, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 105, + 497, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 105, + 497, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "支持者:求助者,你好!我很理解你现在的困扰。异地恋本身就充满挑战,并会对彼此的语言和沟通方式带来一定的冲击。你男朋友在吵架时说难听的话并骂人,这确实不是一种正常健康的行为。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 127, + 428, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 127, + 428, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 127, + 428, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "求助者:但我们在平时相处的时候并没有什么问题,为什么会突然变得这么暴躁呢?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 138, + 496, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 138, + 496, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 138, + 496, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "支持者:这可能是多种因素的综合作用导致的。首先,异地恋本身就需要付出更多的努力和坚持,这对双方的情绪和沟通能力都是一种挑战。其次,他平时也可能面临许多压力和困扰,吵架时的暴躁可能是情绪和压力的积累爆发。同时,你们之间缺乏充分的沟通和互动,他可能没有足够的渠道释放负面情绪,导致在吵架时情绪失控。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 183, + 495, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 183, + 495, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 183, + 495, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "求助者:你说的这些情况可能性都很大,我真的需要好好思考一下。但我还是很担心我们之间的矛盾和争吵会影响我们的感情。Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 205, + 496, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 205, + 496, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 205, + 496, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "支持者:理解你的担忧。矛盾和争吵确实会对感情产生负面影响。但是,也不必过于悲观。每段感情都会面临各种挑战和考验,重要的是我们能够共同面对并寻找解决办法。你们可以尝试增加沟通的频率和质量,以及共同制定一些规则和解决冲突的方式。同时,也要记得关注彼此的情绪和需求,保持理解和支持。只有通过相互之间的努力和理解,你们的感情才能更加稳固和健康。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 248, + 495, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 248, + 495, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 248, + 495, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "求助者:你说的很有道理,我会试着和他进行更多的沟通和交流,看看我们能不能找到解决问题的方法。谢谢你的支持和建议!Trust" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 270, + 496, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 270, + 496, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 270, + 496, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "支持者:不客气,我很高兴能够帮助到你。在解决问题的过程中,记得要保持冷静和理智,不要把情绪发泄在吵架中。相信你们一定能够度过这个难关,建立更好的感情基础。如果你有任何进展或需要进一步的支持,随时都可以向我求助。祝你们好运!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 303, + 451, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 303, + 451, + 314 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 303, + 451, + 314 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "求助者:谢谢你的鼓励和祝福!我会努力的。祝你也一切顺利! Reflection of feelings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 496, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 496, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 315, + 496, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "支持者:非常感谢你的祝福!希望我们都能够在彼此的支持下,获得更加美好的人生。如果你还有其他问题或需要倾诉,随时都可以找我聊天。加油!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 349, + 464, + 361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 349, + 464, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 349, + 464, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 394, + 501, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 394, + 501, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 394, + 501, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Helper: I have been in a relationship for two years and have been in a long-distance relationship. I am usually very good. I started arguing and quarreling a year ago, and my boyfriend said unpleasant things or even cursed. Is it normal? Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 427, + 498, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 427, + 498, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 427, + 498, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supporter: Helper, hello! I understand your current troubles very well. Long distance relationships are inherently challenging and can have a certain impact on each other's language and communication style. Your boyfriend is not a normal and healthy behavior to say unpleasant things and curse others during a fight." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 460, + 501, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 460, + 501, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 460, + 501, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Helper: But we don't have any problems with our daily interactions. Why did we suddenly become so irritable? Supporter: This may be caused by a combination of multiple factors. Firstly, long-distance love itself requires more effort and persistence, which poses a challenge to both parties' emotions and communication skills." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 493, + 497, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 493, + 497, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 493, + 497, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Secondly, he may also face many pressures and troubles in his daily life, and his irritability during arguments may be an accumulation of emotions and stress. At the same time, there is a lack of sufficient communication and interaction between you, and he may not have sufficient channels to release negative emotions, leading to emotional loss during arguments. Interpretation Comfort" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 538, + 499, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 538, + 499, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 538, + 499, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Helper: The possibilities of these situations you mentioned are very high, I really need to think carefully. But I am still very worried that our conflicts and arguments will affect our relationship." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 560, + 500, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 560, + 500, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 560, + 500, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supporter: Understand your concerns. Contradictions and arguments can indeed have a negative impact on relationships. However, there is no need to be too pessimistic Every relationship will face various challenges and tests, and the important thing is that we can face them together and find solutions. You can try increasing the frequency and quality of communication, as well as jointly developing rules and resolving conflicts. At the same time, remember to pay attention to each other's emotions and needs, maintain understanding and support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 615, + 465, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 615, + 465, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 615, + 465, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Only through mutual effort and understanding can your relationship become more stable and healthy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 626, + 502, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 626, + 502, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 626, + 502, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Helper: What you said is very reasonable. I will try to have more communication and exchange with him to see if we can find a solution to the problem. Thank you for your support and suggestions!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 648, + 503, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 648, + 503, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 648, + 503, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supporter: You're welcome, I'm glad to be able to help you. In the process of solving problems, remember to remain calm and rational, and not vent your emotions in arguments. I believe you will be able to overcome this difficulty and establish a better emotional foundation. If you have any progress or need further support, feel free to seek my help at any time. Good luck to you all!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 692, + 465, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 692, + 465, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 692, + 465, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Helper: Thank you for your encouragement and blessings! I will work hard. Wishing you all the best!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 703, + 493, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 703, + 493, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 703, + 493, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Supporter: Thank you very much for your blessings! I hope we can all achieve a better life with each other's support If you have any other questions or need to talk to me, feel free to chat with me anytime. Come on!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 723, + 323, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 723, + 323, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 226, + 723, + 323, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reflection of feelings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 748, + 501, + 761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 748, + 501, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 748, + 501, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Multi-turn conversation generated by ChatGPT using the SMILE prompt (English version)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1179" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 95, + 480, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 95, + 480, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 95, + 480, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "老师你好!我是一个16岁的女孩,我叫叶子(化名),我想咨询一些心理问题。Hello teacher! I am a 16 year old girl, my name is Ye (pseudonym), and I would like to consult with some psychological issues." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 141, + 101, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 141, + 101, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 141, + 101, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 141, + 101, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d83f86a991dd136c0602688a5efdfab3285fb52102524cf970e026045cb6141c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 141, + 452, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 141, + 452, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 141, + 452, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "你好!我是你的个人专属倾听师灵心老师,欢迎找我倾诉、谈心,期待帮助到你!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 167, + 449, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 167, + 449, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 167, + 449, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hello! I am your personal exclusive listening teacher, Lingxin Teacher. Welcome to confide and chat with me, looking forward to helping you!" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 200, + 470, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 200, + 470, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 200, + 470, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "从14岁开始,我的脑海中就经常出现自杀意识,也时常有自残行为。这种情况这两年越来越严重了。有一次我站在顶楼,差点就要跳下去,感觉天台上的一阵风就能把我吹下去,最后还是我强行控制住的。你说我是怎么了?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 237, + 468, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 237, + 468, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 237, + 468, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the age of 14, I have had frequent suicidal thoughts and self-harm behaviors in my mind. This situation has become increasingly serious in the past two years. Once, I was standing on the top floor and almost jumped off. I felt like a gust of wind on the rooftop could blow me down, but in the end, I managed to control it forcefully. What did you say happened to me?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 312, + 101, + 342 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 312, + 101, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 312, + 101, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 312, + 101, + 342 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d6b2d4df6b5abfe97b0c28a009227461d18148c31ec25280fd7e62fa0a7c9418.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 744, + 398, + 756 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 744, + 398, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 194, + 744, + 398, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: A case of a user confiding to SoulChat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 298, + 227, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 298, + 227, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 298, + 227, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reflection of feelings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 312, + 456, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 312, + 456, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 312, + 456, + 325 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "听到你的经历,我非常担心你的身心健康。你的自残行为和自杀意识,可能" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 326, + 455, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 326, + 455, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 326, + 455, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "与你的童年经历有关,我们可以一起探讨一下。你希望我帮你一起分析原因" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 338, + 255, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 338, + 255, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 338, + 255, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "吗? Listening/Questioning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 351, + 456, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 351, + 456, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 351, + 456, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Upon hearing your experience, I am very concerned about your physical and mental health. Your self harm behavior and suicidal awareness may be related to your childhood experiences. We can explore together. Do you want me to help you analyze the reason together?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 407, + 470, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 407, + 470, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 407, + 470, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "我是留守儿童,从小学到初中,一直和爷爷奶奶在老家生活,我爸妈都在广州务工,有贷款住房,家庭经济压力大。我妈妈患了乳腺癌,情绪不稳定。我小时候差点受到邻居男子的猥亵,但爸妈却觉得是我自己不注意安全,让我觉得特别羞愧。我和姑姑非常亲近,也目睹过姑姑跳河未遂,我很理解姑姑的心理状态。我初中的时候很信任一个朋友,却被好朋友“背叛”,导致被全班同学孤立,我不再信任身边所有的同学和朋友。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 481, + 470, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 481, + 470, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 481, + 470, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I am a Left-behind children in China. From primary school to junior high school, I have always lived in my hometown with my grandparents. My parents both work in Guangzhou, and have a loan housing. My family is under great economic pressure. My mother has breast cancer and is unstable. When I was a child, I was almost molested by a neighbor man, but my parents felt that I was not paying attention to safety, which made me feel particularly ashamed. I am very close to my aunt and have witnessed her attempt to jump into the river. I understand her psychological state very well. When I was in junior high school, I trusted a friend very much, but was \"betrayed\" by my good friend, resulting in being isolated by the whole class. I no longer trusted all my classmates and friends around me." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 101, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 101, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 101, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 609, + 101, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "457704a623d80d8208cee6c6c0aa250bf80c2d023c2f7af1534c739dcc3b1d9a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 598, + 190, + 611 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 598, + 190, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 598, + 190, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interpretation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 613, + 456, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 613, + 456, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 613, + 456, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "你的童年经历真的很不容易,这些不良的经历可能让你感到孤独、无助和不被理解。我可以理解你的痛苦和内心的挣扎。你的家庭环境和经济状况也给你带来了很多负面影响。不过,我相信你是一个坚强的人,你可以通过自己的努力来改变现状。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 663, + 452, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 663, + 452, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 663, + 452, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Your childhood experiences are really not easy, and these negative experiences may make you feel lonely, helpless, and incomprehensible. I can understand your pain and inner struggle. Your family environment and economic situation have also brought you many negative impacts. However, I believe you are a strong person who can change the situation through your own efforts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 652, + 484, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 652, + 484, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 442, + 652, + 484, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comfort" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 498, + 95, + 515, + 119 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 95, + 515, + 119 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 95, + 515, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 95, + 515, + 119 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ea8ea1953de8d3f7c97db67afa1f176cfdb0469a1f8583cd83318bed3f1bc53f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 498, + 198, + 515, + 222 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 198, + 515, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 198, + 515, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 198, + 515, + 222 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "09c3bf3cadf7ebe0e11636e922c515567274070df96e08984524b57f46822cd6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 498, + 406, + 515, + 430 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 406, + 515, + 430 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 406, + 515, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 406, + 515, + 430 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "31cbefbf090b56624199b72e855eba98d643c854d14e7e44d603125cc96bdab0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1180" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 115, + 380, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 115, + 380, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 115, + 380, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 127, + 460, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 127, + 460, + 151 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 127, + 460, + 151 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 105, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 105, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 105, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 158, + 105, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dfffe6ff47dd32fc893d0b659cd28f4d8b8141b32eb25e3e24b237afb7beba54.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 166, + 455, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 166, + 455, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 166, + 455, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "我很抱歉听到你最近感到焦虑和身心俱疲。焦虑是一种常见的情绪状态,但它可以通过一些方法来缓解。以下是一些建议:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 203, + 452, + 346 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 203, + 448, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 203, + 448, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 203, + 448, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. 寻求支持:和你信任的人(朋友、家人或导师)倾诉你的感受。他们可能能够提供支持、理解和建议。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 227, + 448, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 227, + 448, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 227, + 448, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. 调整生活方式:关注你的饮食、睡眠和锻炼习惯。保持规律的作息时间和健康的生活方式可以帮助减轻焦虑。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 251, + 448, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 251, + 448, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 251, + 448, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. 放松技巧:尝试一些放松技巧,如深呼吸、冥想、温水浸泡、按摩或瑜伽。这些方法可以帮助你放松身心,减轻焦虑感。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 275, + 452, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 275, + 452, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 275, + 452, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. 管理时间和任务:制定合理的时间表,将任务分解为小的可管理的部分。这样做可以减少压力和焦虑感,并使你更容易集中注意力。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 299, + 448, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 299, + 448, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 299, + 448, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果焦虑严重且影响你的日常生活,考虑咨询心理专业人士。他们可以提供专业的建议和治疗方案。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 322, + 448, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 322, + 448, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 322, + 448, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. 放松娱乐:参与一些你喜欢的放松活动,例如阅读、绘画、听音乐或观看电影。这些活动可以转移你的注意力,使你感到更轻松。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 358, + 455, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 358, + 455, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 358, + 455, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "记住,每个人都有焦虑的时候,但你可以采取积极的步骤来减轻它。如果你觉得焦虑持续且难以处理,务必寻求专业帮助。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 395, + 440, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 395, + 440, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 395, + 440, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I'm sorry to hear that you've been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. Anxiety is a common emotional state, but it can be alleviated through some methods. Here are some suggestions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 443, + 456, + 634 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 443, + 435, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 443, + 435, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 443, + 435, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Seek support: Share your feelings with people you trust (friends, family, or mentors). They may be able to provide support, understanding, and advice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 467, + 446, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 467, + 446, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 467, + 446, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Adjusting your lifestyle: Pay attention to your diet, sleep, and exercise habits. Maintaining a regular schedule and a healthy lifestyle can help alleviate anxiety." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 491, + 456, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 491, + 456, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 491, + 456, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Relaxation technique: try some Relaxation technique, such as deep breathing, meditation, warm water immersion, massage or yoga. These methods can help you relax your body and mind, and reduce anxiety." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 528, + 449, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 528, + 449, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 528, + 449, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Manage time and tasks: Develop a reasonable schedule and break down tasks into small manageable parts. Doing so can reduce stress and anxiety, and make it easier for you to concentrate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 563, + 455, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 563, + 455, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 563, + 455, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Seek professional help: If anxiety is severe and affects your daily life, consider consulting a psychological professional. They can provide professional advice and treatment plans." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 599, + 450, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 599, + 450, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 599, + 450, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. Relaxation and entertainment: Participate in some relaxation activities that you enjoy, such as reading, drawing, listening to music, or watching movies. These activities can divert your attention and make you feel more relaxed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 647, + 446, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 647, + 446, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 647, + 446, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Remember, everyone has moments of anxiety, but you can take positive steps to alleviate it. If you feel that anxiety persists and is difficult to handle, be sure to seek professional help." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 525, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: A case of a user confiding to ChatGPT. ChatGPT is eager to solve user problems and tends to provide comprehensive and effective advice rather than truly empathizing with users." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1181" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 158, + 380, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 158, + 380, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 158, + 380, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 172, + 459, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 172, + 459, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 172, + 459, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 201, + 104, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 201, + 104, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 201, + 104, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 201, + 104, + 234 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "385c6d34ba86688d01e1480157939a8c36a19f6101247513da6d2cad88dfbba9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 673, + 400, + 685 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 673, + 400, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 192, + 673, + 400, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 13: A case of a user confiding to ChatGLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 208, + 455, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 208, + 455, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 208, + 455, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "焦虑是一种较为常见的情绪反应,可由各种因素引起,例如工作压力、关系问题、健康担忧等等。以下是一些可能有用的建议:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 233, + 453, + 377 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 233, + 449, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 233, + 449, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 233, + 449, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. 深呼吸和放松练习:深呼吸和放松练习可以帮助减轻身体上的紧张和焦虑感。你可以通过深呼吸和肌肉放松练习来缓解紧张和焦虑。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 258, + 453, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 258, + 453, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 258, + 453, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. 锻炼身体:运动可以释放身体中的压力,帮助减轻焦虑感并提高心理状态。无论是散步、跑步、瑜伽还是其他形式的运动,都可以帮助你缓解焦虑并提高身心健康。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 293, + 453, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 293, + 453, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 293, + 453, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. 与朋友或家人谈谈:与亲近的人分享自己的感受,可能会让你感觉更好。找一些能够理解你的人,让他们知道你的情况,他们会提供你帮助和支持。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 317, + 449, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 317, + 449, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 317, + 449, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. 避免刺激性物品:咖啡因和酒精等物质会加重焦虑感。如果你觉得自己焦虑,最好避免这些物品。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 342, + 453, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 342, + 453, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 342, + 453, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的焦虑感持续很长时间,或者对你的日常生活产生了负面影响,那么最好寻求专业帮助。心理治疗和药物治疗是有效的治疗方法。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 378, + 454, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 378, + 454, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 378, + 454, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "以上是一些常见的缓解焦虑的方法,你可以尝试一些来看看哪些适合你。如果你的焦虑感持续并影响你的日常生活,最好寻求专业帮助。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 414, + 442, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 414, + 442, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 414, + 442, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anxiety is a common emotional response that can be caused by various factors, such as work pressure, relationship issues, health concerns, and so on. Here are some potentially useful suggestions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 450, + 454, + 617 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 450, + 431, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 450, + 431, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 450, + 431, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Deep breathing and relaxation exercises: Deep breathing and relaxation exercises can help alleviate tension and anxiety in the body. You can relieve tension and anxiety through deep breathing and muscle relaxation exercises." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 486, + 449, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 486, + 449, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 486, + 449, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Exercise: Exercise can release stress from the body, help alleviate anxiety, and improve mental state. Whether it's walking, running, yoga, or other forms of exercise, they can help alleviate anxiety and improve physical and mental health." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 523, + 442, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 523, + 442, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 523, + 442, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Talk to friends or family: Sharing your feelings with close friends may make you feel better. Find someone who can understand you, let them know your situation, and they will provide you with help and support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 558, + 432, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 558, + 432, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 558, + 432, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Avoid stimulating substances: substances such as caffeine and alcohol can exacerbate anxiety. If you feel anxious, it's best to avoid these items." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 582, + 454, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 582, + 454, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 582, + 454, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Seek professional help: If your anxiety persists for a long time or has a negative impact on your daily life, it is best to seek professional help. Psychotherapy and medication are effective treatment methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 618, + 455, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 618, + 455, + 654 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 618, + 455, + 654 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The above are some common ways to relieve anxiety, you can try some to see which ones are suitable for you. If your anxiety persists and affects your daily life, it is best to seek professional help." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1182" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 230, + 380, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 230, + 380, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 230, + 380, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "我最近总觉得自己很焦虑,身心俱疲。不知道该怎么办。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 243, + 459, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 243, + 459, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 243, + 459, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I have been feeling anxious and physically and mentally exhausted lately. I don't know what to do." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 274, + 103, + 306 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 274, + 103, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 274, + 103, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 274, + 103, + 306 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1e1608320d1f475e532acb909ebad556e243eca791ed1ee3f28ac9f9fa574cb7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 602, + 401, + 614 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 602, + 401, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 190, + 602, + 401, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 14: A case of a user confiding to SparkDesk." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 281, + 452, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 281, + 452, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 281, + 452, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "我很抱歉听到你的困境。焦虑和身心俱疲是常见的问题,但是有很多方法可以帮助你缓解这种情况。以下是一些可能有用的建议:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 317, + 448, + 413 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 317, + 448, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 317, + 448, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 317, + 448, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. 与他人交流:与朋友、家人或专业人士交流可以帮助你减轻压力并获得支持。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 342, + 362, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 342, + 362, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 342, + 362, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. 做运动:运动可以帮助你释放紧张情绪并提高心情。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 354, + 381, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 354, + 381, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 354, + 381, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. 学习放松技巧:例如深呼吸、冥想或渐进性肌肉松弛等。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 366, + 447, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 366, + 447, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 366, + 447, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. 睡眠充足:睡眠不足可能会导致身体和心理疲劳,因此请确保每晚都有足够的睡眠时间。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 390, + 447, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 390, + 447, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 390, + 447, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. 寻求专业帮助:如果你的情况严重,建议寻求专业帮助,例如心理治疗或药物治疗。" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 426, + 445, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 426, + 445, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 426, + 445, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I'm sorry to hear about your predicament. Anxiety and physical and mental exhaustion are common problems, but there are many ways to help alleviate this situation. Here are some potentially useful suggestions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 456, + 582 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 456, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 456, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 474, + 456, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Communicate with others: Communicating with friends, family, or professionals can help you reduce stress and gain support." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 498, + 424, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 498, + 424, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 498, + 424, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Exercise: Exercise can help you release tension and improve your mood." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 511, + 448, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 511, + 448, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 511, + 448, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Learn Relaxation technique: such as deep breathing, meditation or Progressive muscle relaxation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 534, + 429, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 534, + 429, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 534, + 429, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Adequate sleep: Insufficient sleep may lead to physical and psychological fatigue, so please ensure that you have enough sleep time every night." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 558, + 440, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 558, + 440, + 582 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 558, + 440, + 582 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Seek professional help: If your situation is severe, it is recommended to seek professional help, such as psychological therapy or medication." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 498, + 230, + 514, + 255 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 230, + 514, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 230, + 514, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 498, + 230, + 514, + 255 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e2a5e31e92511d28b807440359e1b570cab4c6d6d737b879e05a86a29e457b35.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1183" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_content_list.json b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94ec1865d308e9a0b9b5cfd9b47b6594bea2b08c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1837 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sound of Story: Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 221, + 79, + 774, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jaeyeon Bae $^{1*}$ Seokhoon Jeong $^{2*}$ Seokun Kang $^{1}$ Namgi Han $^{3}$ Jae-Yon Lee $^{3}$ Hyounghun Kim $^{12}$ Taehwan Kim $^{12}$", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 105, + 789, + 140 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1Artificial Intelligence Graduate School", + "bbox": [ + 339, + 143, + 663, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Department of Computer Science and Engineering", + "bbox": [ + 292, + 161, + 709, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ School of Liberal Arts", + "bbox": [ + 403, + 178, + 596, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 193, + 739, + 210 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{qowodussla, shjd0246, oracleismo,", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 211, + 603, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "hng88, jlee2791, h.kim, taehwankim} @unist.ac.KI", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 227, + 739, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 253, + 339, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Storytelling is multi-modal in the real world. When one tells a story, one may use all of the visualizations and sounds along with the story itself. However, prior studies on storytelling datasets and tasks have paid little attention to sound even though sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset, called Sound of Story (SoS), which has paired image and text sequences with corresponding sound or background music for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound. Our SoS dataset consists of 27,354 stories with 19.6 images per story and 984 hours of speech-decoupled audio such as background music and other sounds. As benchmark tasks for storytelling with sound and the dataset, we propose retrieval tasks between modalities, and audio generation tasks from image-text sequences, introducing strong baselines for them. We believe the proposed dataset and tasks may shed light on the multi-modal understanding of storytelling in terms of sound. Downloading the dataset and baseline codes for each task will be released in the link: https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 278, + 460, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 728, + 258, + 744 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Story understanding and telling is one of the important but challenging problems in natural language processing and machine learning, and there have been extensive studies on this problem for decades (Harrison et al., 2017; Kočisky et al., 2018). Many prior researches have focused on building models that understand stories such as utilizing pre-trained model (Chen et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 770, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2022; Wang et al., 2023; He et al., 2023), event-centric understanding (Chen et al., 2021) and using multiway-sampler (Xu et al., 2023). Also, lots of approaches are proposed that aim to understand the stories within the provided text (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2018; Akoury et al., 2020), image (Huang et al., 2016; Bensaid et al., 2021; Krojer et al., 2022) and video (Rohrbach et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Tapaswi et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019; Bain et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 254, + 884, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite there being many benchmarks for story understanding and telling, most of them less focus on audio even if it is one of the key elements for humans to understand stories (Lang et al., 1998; Lake et al., 2017). Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a novel dataset called the Sound of Story (SoS), which aims to leverage audio information for story understanding, distinguishing it from other existing story or audio datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 418, + 884, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To create the SoS dataset, all the modalities are extracted from Condensed Movie Dataset (CMD) (Bain et al., 2020) and Large Scale Movie Description Challenge datasets (LSMDC) (Rohrbach et al., 2015). Image and text data extracted from the same movie clip have their contexts and both of them have the possibility to infer the story from the same movie clip. And in the case of audio such as background sound and music, it has the ability to enrich storytelling by representing and recognizing the context of the situations (Eronen et al., 2005; Stowell et al., 2015). Due to these characteristics, audio, image, and text extracted from the same movie clip become correlated and complementary. So, our SoS dataset allows three modalities generated from the same movie clip to be used for story understanding as a pair. In addition, we propose new story under", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* These authors contributed equally to this work.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 904, + 440, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13467", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13467-13479 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d31ff77c8e8c663f38df4726dbfd7e22e63ef9b950bd9d9b65da91e1fd4cc9a4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Overall data generating process flow for our Sound of Story (SoS) dataset. All the modalities are extracted from the same movie clips. We exclude the speech from audio to make it contain only pure audio data, which does not contain linguistic information." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 80, + 519, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8f596168632513515ec2aeb834da931f63b3ba1ac7d94b6a1969e600efeab1a7.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 537, + 80, + 875, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "standing benchmarks and their baseline models by introducing audio retrieval tasks and audio generation tasks using the SoS dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 487, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These background sound tasks can be utilized in various applications. For example, for movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. The overall data generating process can be shown in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 485, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, our contributions are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 602, + 470, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information, which has not been well explored. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) consisting of text and image sequences and audio for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound.", + "- As benchmark tasks to show the significance and relevance of sound in a story, we introduce retrieval tasks between audio and other modalities and background sound generation tasks, and baseline models for each of them.", + "- We will release the dataset and code to gen" + ], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 626, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "erate them so that the community can generate more data for a variety of tasks to utilize sound in storytelling and story understanding research.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 344, + 882, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 423, + 665, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Story understanding and telling Storytelling tasks pose significant challenges in the domain of natural language processing (NLP), and researchers have proposed various datasets and benchmarks to tackle these problems. Wikiplots, WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018), and ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) introduce datasets that revolve around text-based story plots. Wikiplots comprises a collection of approximately 113k story plots extracted from English Wikipedia. WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018) assembled their dataset by gathering pairs of human-written stories and corresponding prompts from online sources. ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) employed the use of Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to generate short stories that incorporate common-sense knowledge, with a focus on everyday topics. These datasets are usually used for story understanding or story generation tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 451, + 882, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to text-based story plots, there exist numerous story datasets that incorporate images or videos. Visual Storytelling (Huang et al., 2016) introduces the first sequential vision-to-language dataset and explores its applicability in various tasks. It goes beyond simple object understanding or captioning for concrete scenes by considering input that encompasses temporal events. Similarly, ImageCoDe dataset (Krojer et al., 2022) also contains stories but is designed to enable models to", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13468", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3220a962bbc91dbe915ebabc07a51a29a30b73edb349f4c58d6e5535cbe8c2d5.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Example of SoS dataset. CMD and LSMDC have different lengths of descriptions." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 84, + 877, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "learn detailed situations from finer visual differences within similar sets of images.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 469, + 489, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Movie data inherently encompasses storytelling. Various datasets such as MovieQA (Tapaswi et al., 2016) and MovieNet (Huang et al., 2020) have been collected by using movie data and have been used in various multimodal domains. Additionally, datasets like CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and LSMDC (Liu et al., 2019) not only provide movie videos but also include descriptions for the corresponding clips. This offers researchers an opportunity to explore models from a multimodal perspective. However, there are few datasets for story with sound. Existing benchmarks for audio mostly consist of music (Bertin-Mahieux et al., 2011; Sturm, 2012; Ferraro et al., 2021) or animal/environmental sounds (Salamon et al., 2014; Piczak, 2015; Gemmeke et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), and are designed to evaluate simple matching performance between objects (or sentiment) and audio input.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 489, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-modal retrieval tasks Multi-modal retrieval models are trained to find similar features across different modalities by fusing. These models are tasked with understanding both the context of a given input and the interplay between features provided by other modalities. As a result, retrieval becomes a highly challenging and crucial task in", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "order to comprehend the distinctive characteristics of multiple modalities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 469, + 880, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The multi-modal retrieval task has been studied using various modalities such as image-text retrieval (Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2022; Xuan and Chen, 2023), video-text (Ma et al., 2022; Gorti et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2023), audio-image (Xu, 2020; Yang et al., 2022; Nakatsuka et al., 2023), video-audio (Surís et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2023) and audio-text (Kim et al., 2022; Xin et al., 2023). Particularly, CLIP4CLIP (Luo et al., 2022), which performs well in the videotext retrieval task by calculating the similarities between the features of each modality obtained from the encoder, and X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) expands CLIP4CLIP and proposes a multi-grained regulation function to improve performance. Furthermore, Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) conducts retrieval for audio-image modalities based on CLIP architecture (Radford et al., 2021), while CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) focuses on audio-text retrieval. In this paper, we propose a story-based audio retrieval task for retrieving proper modal features like image sequences or descriptions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 502, + 884, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-modal audio generation There have been prior studies on generating audio by receiving cer", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13469", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/720f97923052cc5ffb9fd506dead8b94666ae9a64ea952ef97efb65881ee83ab.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetAudio Type# Story# Images / Story# Audio HoursAvg. text lengthText Type
ImageCode-9,40217-23.3Captions
VIST-50,1364.2-10.2Description
Video Storytellingopen105-22162.6Captions
MovieNetopen1,100-6332004Description
MSR-VTTopen10,000-41.29.6Description
Oursspeech-decoupled audio27,35419.698488Description
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 880, + 195 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Statistics compared to different storytelling datasets. In the audio types, \"open\" represents raw audio from the video, and \"speech-decoupled audio\" represents the speech-excluded audio. In the text types, \"Caption\" represents the text that explains only the image, and \"Description\" represents the text that includes the story.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 204, + 882, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tain modality information as input (Vasquez and Lewis, 2019; Yu et al., 2022; Borsos et al., 2022; Neves et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023; Agostinelli et al., 2023). Among several audio generation tasks, recently text-audio generation has been actively studied. AUDIOGEN (Kreuk et al., 2022) uses an augmentation technique that mixes different audio samples when generating audio samples from captions. Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) fine-tunes the model to generate Spectrogram images using the image-to-text based on Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al., 2022). MUSICGEN (Copet et al., 2023) uses a single-stage language model with efficient token interleaving patterns and an unsupervised melody conditioning method. In this paper, we are interested in generating relevant audio given a story.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 272, + 490, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 215, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose a novel dataset named the SoS dataset with 27,354 audio-image-text pairs. 22,330 pairs are created from CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and 5,024 from LSMDC dataset (Rohrbach et al., 2015). We extract the image and audio from the same video and pair them with the description accordingly so that the images and text share the same storyline. In the case of audio, it is related to the other modalities due to being extracted from the same clip so can be used in complementary. The examples of the SoS dataset are shown in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 582, + 487, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Movie Clips", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 769, + 257, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "CMD (Bain et al., 2020) provides the key clips and their high-level semantic descriptions from 3,605 movies. Each key clip has a duration of around 150 seconds and can be automatically obtained from YouTube, making it easily accessible. LSMDC (Rohrbach et al., 2015) consists of 118,081 short clips extracted from 202 movies. Each clip in LSMDC has a duration of around 3", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to 12 seconds and is accompanied by captions generated from Description Video Services (DVS). In our work, we merge these two movie clip datasets to create the audio-image-text paired dataset. To bridge the gap between CMD and LSMDC, we adapt the LSMDC dataset to match the format of CMD. Since the short movie clips in LSMDC are contiguous, we concatenate them in sequential order until their combined length is similar to that of CMD. Specifically, we concatenate around 20 short movie clips together to create the raw movie clip data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 272, + 884, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Audio processing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 476, + 690, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To facilitate audio processing, we first utilized ffmpeg (Tomar, 2006) to extract audio from the video, ensuring that the length of the extracted audio matched that of the raw movie clip video. Subsequently, we employed the bytesep framework proposed by (Kong et al., 2021) to decouple speech from mixed audio containing various sounds. The results of decoupled sounds may be considered as audio data that share the storyline with the raw movie clip video without any linguistic information. Speech-decoupling is proceeded because the speech itself includes the storyline and the model can learn the storyline focused on the speech, not the audio which is not our expectation. Duration distribution of the extracted audios can be seen in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 882, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Image processing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 764, + 692, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since videos include many duplicated and similar images, only the key salient images that may represent storyline were extracted through image clustering. We conduct image clustering using image fingerprints, which are representations for uniquely identifying an image generated based on the visual features. From all image fingerprints", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 785, + 882, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 904, + 835, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13470", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ac8249742006a62bdd7f620faf1d14930a47a649153b3ddf9da1e69772fbed8c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Frames Distribution" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 91, + 289, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/116a52479b833dbff650424cbe41b72940f47c1e240ba91c97fbba1feee037f0.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Duration Distribution", + "Figure 3: Distributions of each modality. (a) the number of extracted images from a movie video; (b) the duration of decoupled and processed audio for each story (c) the number of words in each story from CMD (d) the number of words in each story from LSMDC. Note that due to video clip concatenation to match video lengths, descriptions have larger lengths for stories from LSMDC. This text variation leads to the model requiring high-level text understanding." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 305, + 91, + 480, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b4e57d98fbfbc0adbdec7dd26d419db73f9e332cec70ddaf048d5839cc8a057d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Number of words from CMD" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 497, + 91, + 672, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4223700d63020463bfb3f6b6727dba66adc1ce92dbb99bd26481798073a790a6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(d) Number of words from LSMDC" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 694, + 91, + 863, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "extracted from frames of the movie clips, we gradually removed images with a fingerprint similarity of greater than 0.5 which was set empirically found. Through this process, fewer frames for static and more frames for dynamic scenes could be retained. The extracted image sequences can represent the entire video by capturing salient scenes with significant variations, even though it does not include all of the frames. By utilizing this approach, we can create essential image sequences of the video by focusing on scenes with meaningful changes. These processed image sequences provide a novel dataset that highlights the storyline with fewer frames and differentiates it from traditional video datasets. Figure 3 shows the distribution of extracted frames for each movie clip.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 307, + 489, + 567 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Text processing", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 585, + 282, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "There exist slight differences in clip lengths between CMD and LSMDC even though both of them provide short descriptions for each movie clip. Because we concatenate LSMDC movie clips to match the length of CMD movie clips, descriptions also must be formatted by concatenating the same number of descriptions with the video. As a result, the concatenated descriptions exhibit variations in sentence lengths as in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 609, + 487, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, there are also inherent differences between the two datasets in how the descriptions were generated. CMD utilizes descriptions generated by users from YouTube, while LSMDC employs descriptive video services to generate descriptions. Because of this text variation difference between the two datasets, it makes our task more challenging by requiring high-level text understanding. We can check that the descriptions are well-aligned with other modalities in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Data Statistics and Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 307, + 774, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our SoS dataset is derived from 3,807 movies covered in the CMD and LSMDC datasets, resulting in a total of 27,354 clips. After processing, each clip has an average of 20 images, and the total number of images in our dataset is 535,707. The accumulated length of the extracted audio is around 984 hours, and each audio consists of around 150 seconds on average. Each clip's text description consists of 88 words on average. If divided into two different datasets, CMD and LSMDC consist of an average of 83.2 words and 1,378.7 words, respectively, with medians of 80 and 130.8, respectively. Quantitative comparison with other story-based datasets is shown in Table 1, and it can be seen that our proposed SoS dataset is the largest well-curated storytelling dataset with extracted audios.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 329, + 884, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We generate paired decoupled audio data that can be used complementarily for story understanding and telling with the image and text in the SoS dataset. The extracted decoupled audio, which is in-the-wild audio, contains abundant information. Specifically, we decoupled speech information to leave only pure audio consisting of background sound on the audio dataset. These remaining audi-los contain a mixture of various daily-life sounds and background music. This distinctive characteristic sets it apart from other audio datasets, making it an adequate audio dataset for story understanding.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 882, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiment", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 808, + 648, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Retrieval Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 833, + 675, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we introduce four retrieval tasks: audio-to-video, audio-to-text, text-to-audio, and video-to-audio retrieval using our proposed dataset. The retrieval tasks focus on finding proper audio", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13471", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0283282c0d188b1ca92a7c82ae6d073b9dc0fce1fd6446874e2324eab5ae2005.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Proposed retrieval model architecture. Encoded features are obtained from the encoder corresponding to each modality. Features are divided into context-level features and sequence-level features. Then we calculate the score for each task and use the score to calculate the final similarity $Sim$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 82, + 884, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "corresponding to image sequences or text information containing a story, or matching image sequence or text given audio, which may be used as recommendation for background sound suitable for image sequence or storyline.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 384, + 489, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.1 Retrieval Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 302, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we introduce the model used in our proposed retrieval task. We are inspired when we create a baseline model in that the Attention Over Simplicity Matrix method proposed by X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) can be flexibly applied to Audio as well as Video-Text. Our overall architecture is illustrated in Figure 4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For descriptions, we use the CLIP text encoder $E_{T}$ (Radford et al., 2021). The information obtained from the $E_{t}$ is defined as sentence feature $f_{s}$ and word feature $f_{w}$ . In the case of video, the CLIP image encoder $E_{I}$ is used and the temporal encoder $E_{t}$ is added to obtain the temporal sequence feature. The obtained feature is defined as frame feature $f_{f}$ , and the mean pooling of the frame feature is defined as video feature $f_{v}$ . And in the case of the audio, audio information is extracted by performing audio embedding on Log Mel-filter bank coefficients and fed into the $E_{A}$ using pretrained Audio Spectrogram Transformer (Gong et al., 2021). In this case, the first token among the acquired feature is defined as audio $f_{a}$ , and the remaining tokens are defined as audio sequence feature $f_{as}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 489, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the case of audio-video retrieval, we first calculate the similarity between audio-video $(S_{a,v})$ , audio-frame $(S_{a,f})$ , audio sequence-video $(S_{as,v})$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and audio sequence-frame $(S_{as,f})$ . These similarities are calculated following Equation 1 to 4:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 384, + 884, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a, v} = \\left(f _ {a}\\right) ^ {T} \\left(f _ {v}\\right) \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 605, + 432, + 882, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a, f} = \\left(f _ {f} f _ {a}\\right) ^ {T} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1 \\times m} \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 603, + 451, + 880, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a s, v} = f _ {a s} f _ {v} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times 1} \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 470, + 880, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a s, f} = \\left(f _ {a s}\\right) \\left(f _ {f}\\right) ^ {T} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times m} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 488, + 880, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $m$ is the number of video frames and $n$ is the number of audio sequences. Except for audio-video similarity, an aggregation process is required to make it an instance-level similarity. Therefore, the audio-frame and audio sequence-video similarity is calculated through the following equations:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 613 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a, f} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a , f (1 , i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a , f (1 , j)}\\right)} S _ {a, f} \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 630, + 882, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a s, v} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , v (i , 1)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , v (j , 1)}\\right)} S _ {a s, v} \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 665, + 880, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The audio-level similarity $(S_{aud}^{\\prime})$ and video-level similarity $(S_{vid}^{\\prime})$ are calculated to obtain the audio sequence-frame instance-level similarity:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 708, + 882, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a u d} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (i , *)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (j , *)}\\right)} S _ {a s, f (i,)} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1 \\times m} \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 774, + 882, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {a u d} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a u d (1 , i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a u d (1 , j)}\\right)} S _ {a u d (1, i)} \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 810, + 882, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {v i d} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (, i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (, j)}\\right)} S _ {a s, f (, i)} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times 1} \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 847, + 880, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nS _ {v i d} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {v i d (i , 1)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {v i d (j , 1)}\\right)} S _ {v i d (1, 1)} \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 883, + 880, + 915 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13472", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/830635120439416a5c5a598592029935f4b22bddc513a765c2d21a779301cf2f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
A2VV2AA2TT2A
EvalOursWav2CLIPOursWav2CLIPOursCLAPOursCLAPRandom
R@1(↑)7.6154.2316.4625.1547.4626.5387.0775.7690.076
R@5(↑)18.68212.61517.92316.07717.46217.23119.38516.0770.378
R@10(↑)28.00019.53827.00023.46224.69224.61525.69223.5380.750
Median R(↓)40.61531.23138.92333.69233.00034.61532.76934.385631.800
Mean R(↓)32.00052.00033.00047.00060.00052.00063.50053.500639.132
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Retrieval performances with the proposed SoS dataset, which are measured on 1300 test samples. Random means the average of the results of five random retrievals.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 199, + 882, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where \\* denotes all elements in that dimension.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 254, + 465, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, $S_{as,f}^{\\prime}$ are obtained from the means of $S_{aud}^{\\prime}$ and $S_{vid}^{\\prime}$ obtained by Equation 8 and 10. Therefore, the similarity between video and audio is obtained as the average of the obtained similarities, as shown in Equation 11.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 269, + 487, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {S i m} _ {A V} = \\left(S _ {a, f} + S _ {a, f} ^ {\\prime} + S _ {a s, v} ^ {\\prime} + S _ {a s, f} ^ {\\prime}\\right) / 4 \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 146, + 355, + 487, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the audio-text retrieval, the similarity $Sim_{AT}$ can be calculated by replacing video-related features with text-related features.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 489, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.2 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 438, + 359, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Of the 27,354 stories in our SoS dataset, 26,054 are split into train and 1,300 into test sets. In the case of video, a total of 40 images are used as input. At this time, if there are fewer than 40 images, 40 images are filled with duplicate sampling in accordance with the time order, and if there are more than 40, 40 images are obtained by uniform sampling. In the case of audio, the entire audio is used for learning, and random cropping is performed at this time. In the test, the same audio can be used in all tests by cropping and using the information-rich area of the audio. In the case of text, after tokenizing the description with a CLIP tokenizer, we crop 77 tokens from the front and use them similar to other CLIP-based models (Luo et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). The batch size is 128 in the audio-video and 256 in the audio-text retrieval task, respectively. We conducted the experiment using 2 NVIDIA A100 80GB GPUs using the PyTorch library for 100 epochs, which took about 20 hours.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 456, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1.3 Results and Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 788, + 337, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate the performance of the proposed baseline model with our SoS dataset, we compare it with Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) for A2V and V2A, and CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) for A2T and T2A. Both Wav2CLIP and CLAP are fine-tuned to our SoS dataset from their pretrained weights. For the evaluation metrics, we", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "utilize Recall@1(R@1), Recall@5(R@5), Recall@10(R@10), Mean Rank(Mean R), and Median Rank(Median R). Table 2 shows the performances for audio-to-video (A2V), video-to-audio (V2A), audio-to-text (A2T), and text-to-audio (T2A).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For A2V and V2A, each story of the SoS dataset consists of fairly long image sequences by using clustering from the video which has an average length of 215 seconds, unlike other datasets. In addition, our audio dataset includes various sounds to express a story and thus can better represent storylines compared to audio composed of simple sounds.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 349, + 882, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, it also presents greater challenges. Therefore, compared to retrieving tasks using short videos and simple audio, it can be considered a challenging task. Nevertheless, with R@1 of 7.615 and 6.462 for both A2V and V2A, respectively, our baseline model performed better than its comparative model, Wav2CLIP, and showed reasonable evaluation results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 882, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, our text data consists of a storyline that implicitly represents the whole sequence, not a description of the scene, so it is challenging because the model has to understand the context of the scenes rather than a simpler understanding of the scene. Therefore, looking at the R@1 performance 7.462 and 7.077 in A2T and T2A, respectively, the performance of our proposed baseline model is better than the comparison model CLAP. Also, the results of retrievals can be found in our supplementary material or GitHub link ${}^{2}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 607, + 884, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Audio Generation Task", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 795, + 739, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Composing and arranging background music and sound effects that exquisitely match the current scene's story is a highly challenging task that even human creators struggle (Thom, 1999). We propose an audio generation model called SoSGen, which", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 816, + 880, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 857, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13473", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is designed to generate appropriate audio for the movie scene, given the scene's descriptions, frames, or both as the condition.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.1 Audio Generation Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 141, + 371, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SoSgen takes advantage of the architecture of diffusion models (Sohl-Dickstein et al., 2015), which learn a data distribution through gradual denoising. Stable diffusion models (Rombach et al., 2022), a variant of diffusion models, enable effective model conditioning by training the model to learn latent features. Following the same approach, we train SoSgen as a text-to-audio spectrogram diffusion model, using the following objective function:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 160, + 489, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathbb {E} _ {x, \\epsilon \\sim \\mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c} \\left[ \\| \\epsilon - \\epsilon_ {\\theta} (\\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d)) \\| _ {2} ^ {2} \\right] \\tag {12}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 315, + 487, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $c$ is a trainable CLIP text encoder and $d$ is the SoS description.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 344, + 485, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For image+text-to-audio training, we follow ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture, a lightweight and powerful method that enables additional conditioning of a diffusion model by freezing the original model's parameters. We freeze the text-to-audio model's parameters and resume training using a similar objective function:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 489, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {L} = \\mathbb {E} _ {x, \\epsilon \\sim \\mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c, c _ {i m g}} \\tag {13} \\\\ \\left[ \\left\\| \\epsilon - \\epsilon_ {\\theta} (\\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d), c _ {i m g} (f)) \\right\\| _ {2} ^ {2} \\right] \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 146, + 499, + 487, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $c_{img}$ is an additional CLIP image encoder that embeds the SoS frame sequence $f$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 546, + 487, + 579 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.2 Implementation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 588, + 361, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Audio in movies rarely remains consistent until the end of a single scene. Also, using long audio as an input or output for a deep learning model is burdening in terms of hardware capacity. Thus, we slice the audio data into a length of approximately 15 seconds. Since extracted frames partially reflect semantic changes within the scene, audio slicing was performed treating audio data between two extracted frames as a base unit. The unit audios are accumulated and concatenated until their cumulative duration exceeds 15 seconds, ensuring that each sliced audio is never longer than 15 seconds. AudiOs that are originally longer than 15 seconds are not sliced because it implies the absence of significant visual changes for the duration, suggesting a high probability of long, consistent audio. Sliced audio files containing only a little sound were eliminated using the PyDub library.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To this end, we assessed the mean frequency of each segment and excluded any with a frequency below $78\\mathrm{Hz}$ , a threshold determined through manual inspection.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This process conducted 185,341 audio data of roughly 15 seconds each, which were then converted into spectrograms. From this, we randomly split the dataset into 184,462 and 879 as training and testing, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 149, + 884, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For our base model, we leveraged Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022), a checkpoint of Stable Diffusion v1-5 (Rombach et al., 2022), fine-tuned on pairs of music descriptions and spectrograms. Following the same approach, we fine-tuned the diffusion model from the Diffusion checkpoint with pairs of SoS descriptions and corresponding sliced audio spectrograms. In addition, we further trained the model in the setting of image and text conditioning, utilizing the ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture. We use a sequence of frames extracted through clustering that correspond to the sliced audio as the image condition. $\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{text + image}}$ was additionally trained from $\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{text}}$ checkpoint, while $\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{image}}$ resumed from the Diffusion checkpoint and used a redundant text condition in both training and testing. The specific model architecture can be found in Figure 5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 231, + 884, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For training our models, we used a batch size of 1, 16 gradient accumulation steps, an initial learning rate of 1e-6, and a cosine learning rate scheduler. We fine-tuned the text-to-audio model for 406,000 steps and additional 525,000 steps to further train the text+image-to-audio model. Separately, the image-to-audio model was trained for 525,000 steps. We ran fine-tuning for 2 days and ControlNet training for another 2 days on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 521, + 882, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.3 Results and Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 696, + 732, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines We compare SoSgen to two baselines: Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) and MusICGEN (Copet et al., 2023), the state-of-the-art open source text-to-music generation model. The performance of the models is evaluated based on the Fréchet Audio Distance (FAD) (Kilgour et al., 2019). FAD is a reference-free evaluation metric that is computed using means and covariances of VGGish (Hershey et al., 2017) embeddings. We used a lightweight pytorch implementation of FAD for more efficient evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 717, + 884, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://github.com/jiaaro/pydub", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 902, + 381, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 903, + 857, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13474", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d0b7b0a6b1b73f5e40f90504b240248248463a2eecec72d9db8ebf18077398f3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: SoSgen architecture for training. The components and arrows drawn with dash lines are only used in the ControlNet-involved training, i.e. image-to-audio and image+text-to-audio. To train a text-to-audio model, we condition the denoising model with CLIP text embeddings of SoS descriptions. Once the text-to-audio model is sufficiently trained, we freeze the model and add image embeddings as a condition to train the text+image-to-audio model using ControlNet. Alternatively, an image-to-audio model can be trained from the Diffusion checkpoint, using a redundant text condition \"Audio\" for each training data. $\\mathcal{E}$ denotes the encoder, $\\mathcal{D}$ denotes the decoder, $\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathcal{T}}$ denotes latent representation at timestep $\\mathcal{T}$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 86, + 884, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ca38cc6880647a4caa726dc3ba8a6bb4071621173615db7a710e0947aa0abfd5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: FAD (lower is better) of SoSgen and the baselines. $\\text{SoSgen}_{\\text{text+image}}$ is the only model given with the image and text condition. The rest are only given with SoS descriptions as the condition." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelFADVGGish ↓
Riffusion20.114
MUSICGEN11.680
SoSgen text10.935
SoSgen image18.324
SoSgen text+image9.099
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 469, + 440, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the comparison of SoSgen against Diffusion and MUSICGEN. SoSgen text, Diffusion, and MUSICGEN generate an audio spectrogram given descriptions. For SoSgen image and SoSgen text+image, an image sequence is also given as an additional condition.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The results indicate that SoSgen $_{\\text{text}}$ and SoSgen $_{\\text{text+image}}$ outperform Diffusion and MUSICGEN in terms of FAD. Although SoSgen $_{\\text{image}}$ only shows a slight improvement from Diffusion, combining two modalities exceptionally enhances audio generation capability. The generated audio samples can be listened to in our GitHub link $^{5}$ and are also included in the supplementary material. The samples show SoSgen's superior performance on story audio generation tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 489, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 403, + 640, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we emphasize that sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Thus, we propose a novel dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) dataset, audio-image-text pair dataset. One main feature of our dataset is that all the linguistic information inside the audio is eliminated. We named the audio without any linguistic information as \"Background sound\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 429, + 884, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Background sounds can be utilized in various applications and we propose two related tasks, retrieval task and background sound generation task. To give an example of using it from videos such as movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the different sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt to do multimodal tasks with the speech-decoupled background sound relevant to the storyline.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 558, + 884, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 844, + 613, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To use audio data in story understanding, there are some limitations to be solved. First, we create audio data by decoupling the speech to exclude lin", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 462, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13475", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "guistic information and preserving only pure audio. However, the generated audio may be yet distant from what people encounter in daily life because there is a possibility that various noises caused by the generation from the movie clip remain. Second, the audio-image-text pair is strongly connected, but it is not perfect due to the nature of the audio. Since audio includes a lot of subjective elements, various correct answers may exist for one story. To deal with these limitations, more strict and cautious policies to process not only audio but also image and text for story understanding should continue to be studied as future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 305, + 268, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One potential ethical concern from our proposed dataset is the ability of our model to generate audio resembling existing work as it may potentially pose copyright issues such as regarding background music. In addition, generated audio may be too uncomfortable or inappropriate to hear.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 489, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 439, + 285, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was partly supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2022-0-00608, Artificial intelligence research about multi-modal interactions for empathetic conversations with humans & No.2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub) and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00219959).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 653, + 213, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. 2023. Musicl: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325.", + "Nader Akoury, Shufan Wang, Josh Whiting, Stephen Hood, Nanyun Peng, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Storium: A dataset and evaluation platform for machine-in-the-loop story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01717.", + "Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Andrew Brown, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. Condensed movies: Story based retrieval with contextual embeddings. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision.", + "Eden Bensaid, Mauro Martino, Benjamin Hoover, and Hendrik Strobelt. 2021. Fairytailor: A multimodal" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 675, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "generative framework for storytelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04324.", + "Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel PW Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. 2011. The million song dataset.", + "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143.", + "Muhao Chen, Hongming Zhang, Qiang Ning, Manling Li, Heng Ji, Kathleen McKeown, and Dan Roth. 2021. Event-centric natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794.", + "Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Ssvmr: Saliency-based self-training for video-music retrieval. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE.", + "Yuhao Cheng, Xiaoguang Zhu, Jiuchao Qian, Fei Wen, and Peilin Liu. 2022. Cross-modal graph matching network for image-text retrieval. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(4):1-23.", + "Jade Copet, Felix Kreuk, Itai Gat, Tal Remez, David Kant, Gabriel Synnaeve, Yossi Adi, and Alexandre Defossez. 2023. Simple and controllable music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05284.", + "Benjamin Elizalde, Soham Deshmukh, Mahmoud Al Ismail, and Huaming Wang. 2023. Clap learning audio concepts from natural language supervision. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE.", + "Antti J Eronen, Vesa T Peltonen, Juha T Tuomi, Anssi P Klapuri, Seppo Fagerlund, Timo Sorsa, Gaetan Lorho, and Jyri Huopaniemi. 2005. Audio-based context recognition. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(1):321-329.", + "Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04833.", + "Andres Ferraro, Yuntae Kim, Soohyeon Lee, Biho Kim, Namjun Jo, Semi Lim, Suyon Lim, Jungtaek Jang, Sehwan Kim, Xavier Serra, et al. 2021. Melon playlist dataset: A public dataset for audio-based playlist" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13476", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 941 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "generation and music tagging. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 536-540. IEEE.", + "Seth* Forsgren and Hayk* Martiros. 2022. Diffusion - Stable diffusion for real-time music generation.", + "Jort F Gemmeke, Daniel PW Ellis, Dylan Freedman, Aren Jansen, Wade Lawrence, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, and Marvin Ritter. 2017. Audio set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 776-780. IEEE.", + "Yuan Gong, Yu-An Chung, and James Glass. 2021. AST: Audio Spectrogram Transformer. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 571-575.", + "Satya Krishna Gorti, Noel Vouitsis, Junwei Ma, Keyvan Golestan, Maksims Volkovs, Animesh Garg, and Guangwei Yu. 2022. X-pool: Cross-modal language-video attention for text-video retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5006-5015.", + "Xin Gu, Yinghua Shen, and Chaohui Lv. 2023. A dual-path cross-modal network for video-music retrieval. Sensors, 23(2):805.", + "Brent Harrison, Christopher Purdy, and Mark Riedl. 2017. Toward automated story generation with markov chain monte carlo methods and deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, volume 13, pages 191-197.", + "Xingjian He, Sihan Chen, Fan Ma, Zhicheng Huang, Xiaojie Jin, Zikang Liu, Dongmei Fu, Yi Yang, Jing Liu, and Jiashi Feng. 2023. Vlab: Enhancing video language pre-training by feature adapting and blending. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13167.", + "Shawn Hershey, Sourish Chaudhuri, Daniel PW Ellis, Jort F Gemmeke, Aren Jansen, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, Devin Platt, Rif A Saurous, Bryan Seybold, et al. 2017. CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification. In 2017 iee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassoc), pages 131-135. IEEE.", + "Qingqiu Huang, Yu Xiong, Anyi Rao, Jiaze Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2020. Movienet: A holistic dataset for movie understanding. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, pages 709-727. Springer.", + "Ting-Hao Huang, Francis Ferraro, Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Ishan Misra, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jacob Devlin, Ross Girshick, Xiaodong He, Pushmeet Kohli, Dhruv Batra, et al. 2016. Visual storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1233-1239." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi. 2019. Fréchet audio distance: A reference-free metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms. In *INTERSPEECH*, pages 2350-2354.", + "Chris Dongjoo Kim, Byeongchang Kim, Hyunmin Lee, and Gunhee Kim. 2019. Audiocaps: Generating captions for audios in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 119-132.", + "Eungbeom Kim, Jinhee Kim, Yoori Oh, Kyungsu Kim, Minju Park, Jaeheon Sim, Jinwoo Lee, and Kyogu Lee. 2022. Improving audio-language learning with mixgen and multi-level test-time augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17143.", + "Tomáš Kočisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328.", + "Qiuqiang Kong, Yin Cao, Haohe Liu, Keunwoo Choi, and Yuxuan Wang. 2021. Decoupling magnitude and phase estimation with deep resunet for music source separation. In ISMIR. Citeseer.", + "Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352.", + "Benno Krojer, Vaibhav Adlakha, Vibhav Vineet, Yash Goyal, Edoardo Ponti, and Siva Reddy. 2022. Image retrieval from contextual descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15867.", + "Brenden M Lake, Tomer D Ullman, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman. 2017. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40:e253.", + "Peter J Lang, Margaret M Bradley, and Bruce N Cuthbert. 1998. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. *Biological psychiatry*, 44(12):1248-1263.", + "Junnan Li, Yongkang Wong, Qi Zhao, and Mohan S Kankanhalli. 2019. Video storytelling: Textual summaries for events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(2):554-565.", + "Wei Li, Linchao Zhu, Longyin Wen, and Yi Yang. 2023. Decap: Decoding clip latents for zero-shot captioning via text-only training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03032.", + "Yang Liu, Samuel Albanie, Arsha Nagrani, and Andrew Zisserman. 2019. Use what you have: Video retrieval using representations from collaborative experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13487." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13477", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Huaishao Luo, Lei Ji, Ming Zhong, Yang Chen, Wen Lei, Nan Duan, and Tianrui Li. 2022. Clip4clip: An empirical study of clip for end to end video clip retrieval and captioning. Neurocomputing, 508:293-304.", + "Yiwei Ma, Guohai Xu, Xiaoshuai Sun, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Rongrong Ji. 2022. X-clip: End-to-end multi-grained contrastive learning for video-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 638-647.", + "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 839-849.", + "Takayuki Nakatsuka, Masahiro Hamasaki, and Masataka Goto. 2023. Content-based music-image retrieval using self-and cross-modal feature embedding memory. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2174-2184.", + "Pedro Neves, Jose Fornari, and João Florindo. 2022. Generating music with sentiment using transformer-gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11134.", + "Karol J Piczak. 2015. Esc: Dataset for environmental sound classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1015-1018.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR.", + "Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Niket Tandon, and Bernt Schiele. 2015. A dataset for movie description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3202-3212.", + "Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684-10695.", + "Justin Salamon, Christopher Jacoby, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2014. A dataset and taxonomy for urban sound research. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1041-1044.", + "Flavio Schneider, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Scholkopf. 2023. Mo\\^ usai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2256-2265. PMLR.", + "Dan Stowell, Dimitrios Giannoulis, Emmanouil Benetos, Mathieu Lagrange, and Mark D Plumbley. 2015. Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 17(10):1733-1746.", + "Bob L Sturm. 2012. An analysis of the gtzan music genre dataset. In Proceedings of the second international ACM workshop on Music information retrieval with user-centered and multimodal strategies, pages 7-12.", + "Didac Surís, Amanda Duarte, Amaia Salvador, Jordi Torres, and Xavier Giro-i Nieto. 2018. Cross-modal embeddings for video and audio retrieval. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (eccv) workshops, pages 0-0.", + "Makarand Tapaswi, Yukun Zhu, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and Sanja Fidler. 2016. Movieqa: Understanding stories in movies through question-answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4631-4640.", + "Randy Thom. 1999. Designing a movie for sound. IRIS-PARIS-, 27:9-20.", + "Suramya Tomar. 2006. Converting video formats with ffmpeg. *Linux Journal*, 2006(146):10.", + "Sean Vasquez and Mike Lewis. 2019. Melnet: A generative model for audio in the frequency domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01083.", + "Sijin Wang, Ruiping Wang, Ziwei Yao, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. 2020. Cross-modal scene graph matching for relationship-aware image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 1508-1517.", + "Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2023. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for vision and vision-language tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19175-19186.", + "Ho-Hsiang Wu, Prem Seetharaman, Kundan Kumar, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2022. Wav2clip: Learning robust audio representations from clip. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4563-4567. IEEE." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13478", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yifei Xin, Dongchao Yang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Improving text-audio retrieval by text-aware attention pooling and prior matrix revised loss. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE.", + "Hanxiao Xu. 2020. Cross-modal sound-image retrieval based on deep collaborative hashing. In 2020 5th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation (ISCTT), pages 188-197. IEEE.", + "Jiaqi Xu, Bo Liu, Yunkuo Chen, Mengli Cheng, and Xing Shi. 2023. Multi: Efficient video-and-language understanding with multiway-sampler and multiple choice modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05707.", + "Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5288-5296.", + "Hong Xuan and Xi Stephen Chen. 2023. Dissecting deep metric learning losses for image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2164-2173.", + "Dongchao Yang, Jianwei Yu, Helin Wang, Wen Wang, Chao Weng, Yuexian Zou, and Dong Yu. 2023. Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.", + "Rui Yang, Shuang Wang, Yingzhi Sun, Huan Zhang, Yu Liao, Yu Gu, Biao Hou, and Licheng Jiao. 2022. Multimodal fusion remote sensing image-audio retrieval. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 15:6220-6235.", + "Botao Yu, Peiling Lu, Rui Wang, Wei Hu, Xu Tan, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Museformer: Transformer with fine-and coarse-grained attention for music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10349.", + "Lvmin Zhang and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05543.", + "Qi Zhang, Zhen Lei, Zhaoxiang Zhang, and Stan Z Li. 2020. Context-aware attention network for imag-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3536-3545.", + "Jinkuan Zhu, Pengpeng Zeng, Lianli Gao, Gongfu Li, Dongliang Liao, and Jingkuan Song. 2023. Complementarity-aware space learning for video-text retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "13479", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_model.json b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..937ac4748e43424176af87a1b6093237f71d1c98 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2624 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.08, + 0.775, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sound of Story: Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.106, + 0.791, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jaeyeon Bae\\(^{1*}\\) Seokhoon Jeong\\(^{2*}\\) Seokun Kang\\(^{1}\\) Namgi Han\\(^{3}\\) Jae-Yon Lee\\(^{3}\\) Hyounghun Kim\\(^{12}\\) Taehwan Kim\\(^{12}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.341, + 0.144, + 0.664, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Artificial Intelligence Graduate School" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.293, + 0.162, + 0.71, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Department of Computer Science and Engineering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.405, + 0.179, + 0.598, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)School of Liberal Arts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.195, + 0.74, + 0.211 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.212, + 0.604, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{qowodussla, shjd0246, oracleismo," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.228, + 0.74, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "hng88, jlee2791, h.kim, taehwankim} @unist.ac.KI" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.254, + 0.341, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Storytelling is multi-modal in the real world. When one tells a story, one may use all of the visualizations and sounds along with the story itself. However, prior studies on storytelling datasets and tasks have paid little attention to sound even though sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset, called Sound of Story (SoS), which has paired image and text sequences with corresponding sound or background music for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound. Our SoS dataset consists of 27,354 stories with 19.6 images per story and 984 hours of speech-decoupled audio such as background music and other sounds. As benchmark tasks for storytelling with sound and the dataset, we propose retrieval tasks between modalities, and audio generation tasks from image-text sequences, introducing strong baselines for them. We believe the proposed dataset and tasks may shed light on the multi-modal understanding of storytelling in terms of sound. Downloading the dataset and baseline codes for each task will be released in the link: https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.73, + 0.26, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.771, + 0.49, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Story understanding and telling is one of the important but challenging problems in natural language processing and machine learning, and there have been extensive studies on this problem for decades (Harrison et al., 2017; Kočisky et al., 2018). Many prior researches have focused on building models that understand stories such as utilizing pre-trained model (Chen et al.," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.255, + 0.885, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2022; Wang et al., 2023; He et al., 2023), event-centric understanding (Chen et al., 2021) and using multiway-sampler (Xu et al., 2023). Also, lots of approaches are proposed that aim to understand the stories within the provided text (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2018; Akoury et al., 2020), image (Huang et al., 2016; Bensaid et al., 2021; Krojer et al., 2022) and video (Rohrbach et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Tapaswi et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019; Bain et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.419, + 0.885, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite there being many benchmarks for story understanding and telling, most of them less focus on audio even if it is one of the key elements for humans to understand stories (Lang et al., 1998; Lake et al., 2017). Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a novel dataset called the Sound of Story (SoS), which aims to leverage audio information for story understanding, distinguishing it from other existing story or audio datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To create the SoS dataset, all the modalities are extracted from Condensed Movie Dataset (CMD) (Bain et al., 2020) and Large Scale Movie Description Challenge datasets (LSMDC) (Rohrbach et al., 2015). Image and text data extracted from the same movie clip have their contexts and both of them have the possibility to infer the story from the same movie clip. And in the case of audio such as background sound and music, it has the ability to enrich storytelling by representing and recognizing the context of the situations (Eronen et al., 2005; Stowell et al., 2015). Due to these characteristics, audio, image, and text extracted from the same movie clip become correlated and complementary. So, our SoS dataset allows three modalities generated from the same movie clip to be used for story understanding as a pair. In addition, we propose new story under" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.905, + 0.441, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* These authors contributed equally to this work." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13467" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13467-13479 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.081, + 0.52, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.539, + 0.081, + 0.876, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.278, + 0.882, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Overall data generating process flow for our Sound of Story (SoS) dataset. All the modalities are extracted from the same movie clips. We exclude the speech from audio to make it contain only pure audio data, which does not contain linguistic information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.346, + 0.489, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "standing benchmarks and their baseline models by introducing audio retrieval tasks and audio generation tasks using the SoS dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.394, + 0.487, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These background sound tasks can be utilized in various applications. For example, for movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. The overall data generating process can be shown in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.604, + 0.471, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.627, + 0.489, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information, which has not been well explored. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) consisting of text and image sequences and audio for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.814, + 0.489, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- As benchmark tasks to show the significance and relevance of sound in a story, we introduce retrieval tasks between audio and other modalities and background sound generation tasks, and baseline models for each of them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We will release the dataset and code to gen" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.627, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.346, + 0.883, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "erate them so that the community can generate more data for a variety of tasks to utilize sound in storytelling and story understanding research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.424, + 0.666, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.452, + 0.884, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Story understanding and telling Storytelling tasks pose significant challenges in the domain of natural language processing (NLP), and researchers have proposed various datasets and benchmarks to tackle these problems. Wikiplots, WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018), and ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) introduce datasets that revolve around text-based story plots. Wikiplots comprises a collection of approximately 113k story plots extracted from English Wikipedia. WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018) assembled their dataset by gathering pairs of human-written stories and corresponding prompts from online sources. ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) employed the use of Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to generate short stories that incorporate common-sense knowledge, with a focus on everyday topics. These datasets are usually used for story understanding or story generation tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to text-based story plots, there exist numerous story datasets that incorporate images or videos. Visual Storytelling (Huang et al., 2016) introduces the first sequential vision-to-language dataset and explores its applicability in various tasks. It goes beyond simple object understanding or captioning for concrete scenes by considering input that encompasses temporal events. Similarly, ImageCoDe dataset (Krojer et al., 2022) also contains stories but is designed to enable models to" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13468" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.085, + 0.878, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.185, + 0.43, + 0.812, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Example of SoS dataset. CMD and LSMDC have different lengths of descriptions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.47, + 0.49, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "learn detailed situations from finer visual differences within similar sets of images." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.504, + 0.49, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Movie data inherently encompasses storytelling. Various datasets such as MovieQA (Tapaswi et al., 2016) and MovieNet (Huang et al., 2020) have been collected by using movie data and have been used in various multimodal domains. Additionally, datasets like CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and LSMDC (Liu et al., 2019) not only provide movie videos but also include descriptions for the corresponding clips. This offers researchers an opportunity to explore models from a multimodal perspective. However, there are few datasets for story with sound. Existing benchmarks for audio mostly consist of music (Bertin-Mahieux et al., 2011; Sturm, 2012; Ferraro et al., 2021) or animal/environmental sounds (Salamon et al., 2014; Piczak, 2015; Gemmeke et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), and are designed to evaluate simple matching performance between objects (or sentiment) and audio input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-modal retrieval tasks Multi-modal retrieval models are trained to find similar features across different modalities by fusing. These models are tasked with understanding both the context of a given input and the interplay between features provided by other modalities. As a result, retrieval becomes a highly challenging and crucial task in" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.47, + 0.882, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "order to comprehend the distinctive characteristics of multiple modalities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.504, + 0.885, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The multi-modal retrieval task has been studied using various modalities such as image-text retrieval (Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2022; Xuan and Chen, 2023), video-text (Ma et al., 2022; Gorti et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2023), audio-image (Xu, 2020; Yang et al., 2022; Nakatsuka et al., 2023), video-audio (Surís et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2023) and audio-text (Kim et al., 2022; Xin et al., 2023). Particularly, CLIP4CLIP (Luo et al., 2022), which performs well in the videotext retrieval task by calculating the similarities between the features of each modality obtained from the encoder, and X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) expands CLIP4CLIP and proposes a multi-grained regulation function to improve performance. Furthermore, Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) conducts retrieval for audio-image modalities based on CLIP architecture (Radford et al., 2021), while CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) focuses on audio-text retrieval. In this paper, we propose a story-based audio retrieval task for retrieving proper modal features like image sequences or descriptions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-modal audio generation There have been prior studies on generating audio by receiving cer" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13469" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.081, + 0.882, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetAudio Type# Story# Images / Story# Audio HoursAvg. text lengthText Type
ImageCode-9,40217-23.3Captions
VIST-50,1364.2-10.2Description
Video Storytellingopen105-22162.6Captions
MovieNetopen1,100-6332004Description
MSR-VTTopen10,000-41.29.6Description
Oursspeech-decoupled audio27,35419.698488Description
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.205, + 0.884, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Statistics compared to different storytelling datasets. In the audio types, \"open\" represents raw audio from the video, and \"speech-decoupled audio\" represents the speech-excluded audio. In the text types, \"Caption\" represents the text that explains only the image, and \"Description\" represents the text that includes the story." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.273, + 0.491, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tain modality information as input (Vasquez and Lewis, 2019; Yu et al., 2022; Borsos et al., 2022; Neves et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023; Agostinelli et al., 2023). Among several audio generation tasks, recently text-audio generation has been actively studied. AUDIOGEN (Kreuk et al., 2022) uses an augmentation technique that mixes different audio samples when generating audio samples from captions. Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) fine-tunes the model to generate Spectrogram images using the image-to-text based on Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al., 2022). MUSICGEN (Copet et al., 2023) uses a single-stage language model with efficient token interleaving patterns and an unsupervised melody conditioning method. In this paper, we are interested in generating relevant audio given a story." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.558, + 0.216, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.583, + 0.489, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose a novel dataset named the SoS dataset with 27,354 audio-image-text pairs. 22,330 pairs are created from CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and 5,024 from LSMDC dataset (Rohrbach et al., 2015). We extract the image and audio from the same video and pair them with the description accordingly so that the images and text share the same storyline. In the case of audio, it is related to the other modalities due to being extracted from the same clip so can be used in complementary. The examples of the SoS dataset are shown in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.77, + 0.258, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Movie Clips" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "CMD (Bain et al., 2020) provides the key clips and their high-level semantic descriptions from 3,605 movies. Each key clip has a duration of around 150 seconds and can be automatically obtained from YouTube, making it easily accessible. LSMDC (Rohrbach et al., 2015) consists of 118,081 short clips extracted from 202 movies. Each clip in LSMDC has a duration of around 3" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.273, + 0.885, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to 12 seconds and is accompanied by captions generated from Description Video Services (DVS). In our work, we merge these two movie clip datasets to create the audio-image-text paired dataset. To bridge the gap between CMD and LSMDC, we adapt the LSMDC dataset to match the format of CMD. Since the short movie clips in LSMDC are contiguous, we concatenate them in sequential order until their combined length is similar to that of CMD. Specifically, we concatenate around 20 short movie clips together to create the raw movie clip data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.477, + 0.692, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Audio processing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.497, + 0.884, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To facilitate audio processing, we first utilized ffmpeg (Tomar, 2006) to extract audio from the video, ensuring that the length of the extracted audio matched that of the raw movie clip video. Subsequently, we employed the bytesep framework proposed by (Kong et al., 2021) to decouple speech from mixed audio containing various sounds. The results of decoupled sounds may be considered as audio data that share the storyline with the raw movie clip video without any linguistic information. Speech-decoupling is proceeded because the speech itself includes the storyline and the model can learn the storyline focused on the speech, not the audio which is not our expectation. Duration distribution of the extracted audios can be seen in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.765, + 0.694, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Image processing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.786, + 0.883, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since videos include many duplicated and similar images, only the key salient images that may represent storyline were extracted through image clustering. We conduct image clustering using image fingerprints, which are representations for uniquely identifying an image generated based on the visual features. From all image fingerprints" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.905, + 0.836, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13470" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.092, + 0.29, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.189, + 0.251, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Frames Distribution" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.306, + 0.092, + 0.481, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.342, + 0.189, + 0.447, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Duration Distribution" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.499, + 0.092, + 0.673, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.189, + 0.657, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Number of words from CMD" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.695, + 0.092, + 0.865, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.709, + 0.189, + 0.858, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(d) Number of words from LSMDC" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.213, + 0.884, + 0.284 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Distributions of each modality. (a) the number of extracted images from a movie video; (b) the duration of decoupled and processed audio for each story (c) the number of words in each story from CMD (d) the number of words in each story from LSMDC. Note that due to video clip concatenation to match video lengths, descriptions have larger lengths for stories from LSMDC. This text variation leads to the model requiring high-level text understanding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.309, + 0.49, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "extracted from frames of the movie clips, we gradually removed images with a fingerprint similarity of greater than 0.5 which was set empirically found. Through this process, fewer frames for static and more frames for dynamic scenes could be retained. The extracted image sequences can represent the entire video by capturing salient scenes with significant variations, even though it does not include all of the frames. By utilizing this approach, we can create essential image sequences of the video by focusing on scenes with meaningful changes. These processed image sequences provide a novel dataset that highlights the storyline with fewer frames and differentiates it from traditional video datasets. Figure 3 shows the distribution of extracted frames for each movie clip." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.586, + 0.283, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Text processing" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.611, + 0.489, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "There exist slight differences in clip lengths between CMD and LSMDC even though both of them provide short descriptions for each movie clip. Because we concatenate LSMDC movie clips to match the length of CMD movie clips, descriptions also must be formatted by concatenating the same number of descriptions with the video. As a result, the concatenated descriptions exhibit variations in sentence lengths as in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, there are also inherent differences between the two datasets in how the descriptions were generated. CMD utilizes descriptions generated by users from YouTube, while LSMDC employs descriptive video services to generate descriptions. Because of this text variation difference between the two datasets, it makes our task more challenging by requiring high-level text understanding. We can check that the descriptions are well-aligned with other modalities in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.309, + 0.776, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Data Statistics and Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.33, + 0.885, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our SoS dataset is derived from 3,807 movies covered in the CMD and LSMDC datasets, resulting in a total of 27,354 clips. After processing, each clip has an average of 20 images, and the total number of images in our dataset is 535,707. The accumulated length of the extracted audio is around 984 hours, and each audio consists of around 150 seconds on average. Each clip's text description consists of 88 words on average. If divided into two different datasets, CMD and LSMDC consist of an average of 83.2 words and 1,378.7 words, respectively, with medians of 80 and 130.8, respectively. Quantitative comparison with other story-based datasets is shown in Table 1, and it can be seen that our proposed SoS dataset is the largest well-curated storytelling dataset with extracted audios." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.604, + 0.884, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We generate paired decoupled audio data that can be used complementarily for story understanding and telling with the image and text in the SoS dataset. The extracted decoupled audio, which is in-the-wild audio, contains abundant information. Specifically, we decoupled speech information to leave only pure audio consisting of background sound on the audio dataset. These remaining audi-los contain a mixture of various daily-life sounds and background music. This distinctive characteristic sets it apart from other audio datasets, making it an adequate audio dataset for story understanding." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.809, + 0.649, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiment" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.834, + 0.677, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Retrieval Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we introduce four retrieval tasks: audio-to-video, audio-to-text, text-to-audio, and video-to-audio retrieval using our proposed dataset. The retrieval tasks focus on finding proper audio" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13471" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.316, + 0.884, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Proposed retrieval model architecture. Encoded features are obtained from the encoder corresponding to each modality. Features are divided into context-level features and sequence-level features. Then we calculate the score for each task and use the score to calculate the final similarity \\( Sim \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.385, + 0.49, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "corresponding to image sequences or text information containing a story, or matching image sequence or text given audio, which may be used as recommendation for background sound suitable for image sequence or storyline." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.478, + 0.303, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.1 Retrieval Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we introduce the model used in our proposed retrieval task. We are inspired when we create a baseline model in that the Attention Over Simplicity Matrix method proposed by X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) can be flexibly applied to Audio as well as Video-Text. Our overall architecture is illustrated in Figure 4." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For descriptions, we use the CLIP text encoder \\( E_{T} \\) (Radford et al., 2021). The information obtained from the \\( E_{t} \\) is defined as sentence feature \\( f_{s} \\) and word feature \\( f_{w} \\). In the case of video, the CLIP image encoder \\( E_{I} \\) is used and the temporal encoder \\( E_{t} \\) is added to obtain the temporal sequence feature. The obtained feature is defined as frame feature \\( f_{f} \\), and the mean pooling of the frame feature is defined as video feature \\( f_{v} \\). And in the case of the audio, audio information is extracted by performing audio embedding on Log Mel-filter bank coefficients and fed into the \\( E_{A} \\) using pretrained Audio Spectrogram Transformer (Gong et al., 2021). In this case, the first token among the acquired feature is defined as audio \\( f_{a} \\), and the remaining tokens are defined as audio sequence feature \\( f_{as} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the case of audio-video retrieval, we first calculate the similarity between audio-video \\((S_{a,v})\\), audio-frame \\((S_{a,f})\\), audio sequence-video \\((S_{as,v})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.385, + 0.885, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and audio sequence-frame \\((S_{as,f})\\). These similarities are calculated following Equation 1 to 4:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.606, + 0.434, + 0.884, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a, v} = \\left(f _ {a}\\right) ^ {T} \\left(f _ {v}\\right) \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.605, + 0.453, + 0.882, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a, f} = \\left(f _ {f} f _ {a}\\right) ^ {T} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1 \\times m} \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.602, + 0.472, + 0.882, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a s, v} = f _ {a s} f _ {v} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times 1} \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.602, + 0.489, + 0.882, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a s, f} = \\left(f _ {a s}\\right) \\left(f _ {f}\\right) ^ {T} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times m} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.884, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( m \\) is the number of video frames and \\( n \\) is the number of audio sequences. Except for audio-video similarity, an aggregation process is required to make it an instance-level similarity. Therefore, the audio-frame and audio sequence-video similarity is calculated through the following equations:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.631, + 0.883, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a, f} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a , f (1 , i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a , f (1 , j)}\\right)} S _ {a, f} \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.667, + 0.882, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a s, v} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , v (i , 1)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , v (j , 1)}\\right)} S _ {a s, v} \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.709, + 0.884, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The audio-level similarity \\((S_{aud}^{\\prime})\\) and video-level similarity \\((S_{vid}^{\\prime})\\) are calculated to obtain the audio sequence-frame instance-level similarity:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a u d} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (i , *)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (j , *)}\\right)} S _ {a s, f (i,)} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1 \\times m} \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.812, + 0.883, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {a u d} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a u d (1 , i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a u d (1 , j)}\\right)} S _ {a u d (1, i)} \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.848, + 0.882, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {v i d} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (, i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (, j)}\\right)} S _ {a s, f (, i)} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times 1} \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.884, + 0.882, + 0.916 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nS _ {v i d} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {v i d (i , 1)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {v i d (j , 1)}\\right)} S _ {v i d (1, 1)} \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13472" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
A2VV2AA2TT2A
EvalOursWav2CLIPOursWav2CLIPOursCLAPOursCLAPRandom
R@1(↑)7.6154.2316.4625.1547.4626.5387.0775.7690.076
R@5(↑)18.68212.61517.92316.07717.46217.23119.38516.0770.378
R@10(↑)28.00019.53827.00023.46224.69224.61525.69223.5380.750
Median R(↓)40.61531.23138.92333.69233.00034.61532.76934.385631.800
Mean R(↓)32.00052.00033.00047.00060.00052.00063.50053.500639.132
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.2, + 0.884, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Retrieval performances with the proposed SoS dataset, which are measured on 1300 test samples. Random means the average of the results of five random retrievals." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.467, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\* denotes all elements in that dimension." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.27, + 0.489, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, \\( S_{as,f}^{\\prime} \\) are obtained from the means of \\( S_{aud}^{\\prime} \\) and \\( S_{vid}^{\\prime} \\) obtained by Equation 8 and 10. Therefore, the similarity between video and audio is obtained as the average of the obtained similarities, as shown in Equation 11." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.356, + 0.488, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {S i m} _ {A V} = \\left(S _ {a, f} + S _ {a, f} ^ {\\prime} + S _ {a s, v} ^ {\\prime} + S _ {a s, f} ^ {\\prime}\\right) / 4 \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.382, + 0.49, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the audio-text retrieval, the similarity \\( Sim_{AT} \\) can be calculated by replacing video-related features with text-related features." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.439, + 0.36, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.2 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.457, + 0.49, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Of the 27,354 stories in our SoS dataset, 26,054 are split into train and 1,300 into test sets. In the case of video, a total of 40 images are used as input. At this time, if there are fewer than 40 images, 40 images are filled with duplicate sampling in accordance with the time order, and if there are more than 40, 40 images are obtained by uniform sampling. In the case of audio, the entire audio is used for learning, and random cropping is performed at this time. In the test, the same audio can be used in all tests by cropping and using the information-rich area of the audio. In the case of text, after tokenizing the description with a CLIP tokenizer, we crop 77 tokens from the front and use them similar to other CLIP-based models (Luo et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). The batch size is 128 in the audio-video and 256 in the audio-text retrieval task, respectively. We conducted the experiment using 2 NVIDIA A100 80GB GPUs using the PyTorch library for 100 epochs, which took about 20 hours." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.789, + 0.338, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1.3 Results and Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate the performance of the proposed baseline model with our SoS dataset, we compare it with Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) for A2V and V2A, and CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) for A2T and T2A. Both Wav2CLIP and CLAP are fine-tuned to our SoS dataset from their pretrained weights. For the evaluation metrics, we" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "utilize Recall@1(R@1), Recall@5(R@5), Recall@10(R@10), Mean Rank(Mean R), and Median Rank(Median R). Table 2 shows the performances for audio-to-video (A2V), video-to-audio (V2A), audio-to-text (A2T), and text-to-audio (T2A)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.35, + 0.884, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For A2V and V2A, each story of the SoS dataset consists of fairly long image sequences by using clustering from the video which has an average length of 215 seconds, unlike other datasets. In addition, our audio dataset includes various sounds to express a story and thus can better represent storylines compared to audio composed of simple sounds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.884, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, it also presents greater challenges. Therefore, compared to retrieving tasks using short videos and simple audio, it can be considered a challenging task. Nevertheless, with R@1 of 7.615 and 6.462 for both A2V and V2A, respectively, our baseline model performed better than its comparative model, Wav2CLIP, and showed reasonable evaluation results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.608, + 0.885, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, our text data consists of a storyline that implicitly represents the whole sequence, not a description of the scene, so it is challenging because the model has to understand the context of the scenes rather than a simpler understanding of the scene. Therefore, looking at the R@1 performance 7.462 and 7.077 in A2T and T2A, respectively, the performance of our proposed baseline model is better than the comparison model CLAP. Also, the results of retrievals can be found in our supplementary material or GitHub link \\( {}^{2} \\) ." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.796, + 0.74, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Audio Generation Task" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.817, + 0.882, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Composing and arranging background music and sound effects that exquisitely match the current scene's story is a highly challenging task that even human creators struggle (Thom, 1999). We propose an audio generation model called SoSGen, which" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.858, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13473" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is designed to generate appropriate audio for the movie scene, given the scene's descriptions, frames, or both as the condition." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.142, + 0.373, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.1 Audio Generation Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.161, + 0.49, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SoSgen takes advantage of the architecture of diffusion models (Sohl-Dickstein et al., 2015), which learn a data distribution through gradual denoising. Stable diffusion models (Rombach et al., 2022), a variant of diffusion models, enable effective model conditioning by training the model to learn latent features. Following the same approach, we train SoSgen as a text-to-audio spectrogram diffusion model, using the following objective function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.316, + 0.489, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} = \\mathbb {E} _ {x, \\epsilon \\sim \\mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c} \\left[ \\| \\epsilon - \\epsilon_ {\\theta} (\\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d)) \\| _ {2} ^ {2} \\right] \\tag {12}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.345, + 0.486, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( c \\) is a trainable CLIP text encoder and \\( d \\) is the SoS description." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.377, + 0.49, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For image+text-to-audio training, we follow ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture, a lightweight and powerful method that enables additional conditioning of a diffusion model by freezing the original model's parameters. We freeze the text-to-audio model's parameters and resume training using a similar objective function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.147, + 0.5, + 0.488, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {L} = \\mathbb {E} _ {x, \\epsilon \\sim \\mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c, c _ {i m g}} \\tag {13} \\\\ \\left[ \\left\\| \\epsilon - \\epsilon_ {\\theta} (\\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d), c _ {i m g} (f)) \\right\\| _ {2} ^ {2} \\right] \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.548, + 0.489, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( c_{img} \\) is an additional CLIP image encoder that embeds the SoS frame sequence \\( f \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.589, + 0.362, + 0.604 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.2 Implementation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.607, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Audio in movies rarely remains consistent until the end of a single scene. Also, using long audio as an input or output for a deep learning model is burdening in terms of hardware capacity. Thus, we slice the audio data into a length of approximately 15 seconds. Since extracted frames partially reflect semantic changes within the scene, audio slicing was performed treating audio data between two extracted frames as a base unit. The unit audios are accumulated and concatenated until their cumulative duration exceeds 15 seconds, ensuring that each sliced audio is never longer than 15 seconds. AudiOs that are originally longer than 15 seconds are not sliced because it implies the absence of significant visual changes for the duration, suggesting a high probability of long, consistent audio. Sliced audio files containing only a little sound were eliminated using the PyDub library." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To this end, we assessed the mean frequency of each segment and excluded any with a frequency below \\(78\\mathrm{Hz}\\), a threshold determined through manual inspection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.15, + 0.885, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This process conducted 185,341 audio data of roughly 15 seconds each, which were then converted into spectrograms. From this, we randomly split the dataset into 184,462 and 879 as training and testing, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.232, + 0.885, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For our base model, we leveraged Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022), a checkpoint of Stable Diffusion v1-5 (Rombach et al., 2022), fine-tuned on pairs of music descriptions and spectrograms. Following the same approach, we fine-tuned the diffusion model from the Diffusion checkpoint with pairs of SoS descriptions and corresponding sliced audio spectrograms. In addition, we further trained the model in the setting of image and text conditioning, utilizing the ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture. We use a sequence of frames extracted through clustering that correspond to the sliced audio as the image condition. \\(\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{text + image}}\\) was additionally trained from \\(\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{text}}\\) checkpoint, while \\(\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{image}}\\) resumed from the Diffusion checkpoint and used a redundant text condition in both training and testing. The specific model architecture can be found in Figure 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For training our models, we used a batch size of 1, 16 gradient accumulation steps, an initial learning rate of 1e-6, and a cosine learning rate scheduler. We fine-tuned the text-to-audio model for 406,000 steps and additional 525,000 steps to further train the text+image-to-audio model. Separately, the image-to-audio model was trained for 525,000 steps. We ran fine-tuning for 2 days and ControlNet training for another 2 days on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.697, + 0.733, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.3 Results and Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.718, + 0.885, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines We compare SoSgen to two baselines: Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) and MusICGEN (Copet et al., 2023), the state-of-the-art open source text-to-music generation model. The performance of the models is evaluated based on the Fréchet Audio Distance (FAD) (Kilgour et al., 2019). FAD is a reference-free evaluation metric that is computed using means and covariances of VGGish (Hershey et al., 2017) embeddings. We used a lightweight pytorch implementation of FAD for more efficient evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.903, + 0.382, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://github.com/jiaaro/pydub" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.904, + 0.858, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13474" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.087, + 0.885, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.279, + 0.885, + 0.382 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: SoSgen architecture for training. The components and arrows drawn with dash lines are only used in the ControlNet-involved training, i.e. image-to-audio and image+text-to-audio. To train a text-to-audio model, we condition the denoising model with CLIP text embeddings of SoS descriptions. Once the text-to-audio model is sufficiently trained, we freeze the model and add image embeddings as a condition to train the text+image-to-audio model using ControlNet. Alternatively, an image-to-audio model can be trained from the Diffusion checkpoint, using a redundant text condition \"Audio\" for each training data. \\(\\mathcal{E}\\) denotes the encoder, \\(\\mathcal{D}\\) denotes the decoder, \\(\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathcal{T}}\\) denotes latent representation at timestep \\(\\mathcal{T}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.402, + 0.49, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: FAD (lower is better) of SoSgen and the baselines. \\( \\text{SoSgen}_{\\text{text+image}} \\) is the only model given with the image and text condition. The rest are only given with SoS descriptions as the condition." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.47, + 0.441, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelFADVGGish ↓
Riffusion20.114
MUSICGEN11.680
SoSgen text10.935
SoSgen image18.324
SoSgen text+image9.099
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the comparison of SoSgen against Diffusion and MUSICGEN. SoSgen text, Diffusion, and MUSICGEN generate an audio spectrogram given descriptions. For SoSgen image and SoSgen text+image, an image sequence is also given as an additional condition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.713, + 0.49, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The results indicate that SoSgen\\(_{\\text{text}}\\) and SoSgen\\(_{\\text{text+image}}\\) outperform Diffusion and MUSICGEN in terms of FAD. Although SoSgen\\(_{\\text{image}}\\) only shows a slight improvement from Diffusion, combining two modalities exceptionally enhances audio generation capability. The generated audio samples can be listened to in our GitHub link \\(^{5}\\) and are also included in the supplementary material. The samples show SoSgen's superior performance on story audio generation tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.404, + 0.642, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.43, + 0.885, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we emphasize that sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Thus, we propose a novel dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) dataset, audio-image-text pair dataset. One main feature of our dataset is that all the linguistic information inside the audio is eliminated. We named the audio without any linguistic information as \"Background sound\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.56, + 0.885, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Background sounds can be utilized in various applications and we propose two related tasks, retrieval task and background sound generation task. To give an example of using it from videos such as movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the different sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt to do multimodal tasks with the speech-decoupled background sound relevant to the storyline." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.845, + 0.615, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To use audio data in story understanding, there are some limitations to be solved. First, we create audio data by decoupling the speech to exclude lin" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.463, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13475" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "guistic information and preserving only pure audio. However, the generated audio may be yet distant from what people encounter in daily life because there is a possibility that various noises caused by the generation from the movie clip remain. Second, the audio-image-text pair is strongly connected, but it is not perfect due to the nature of the audio. Since audio includes a lot of subjective elements, various correct answers may exist for one story. To deal with these limitations, more strict and cautious policies to process not only audio but also image and text for story understanding should continue to be studied as future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.306, + 0.269, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.332, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One potential ethical concern from our proposed dataset is the ability of our model to generate audio resembling existing work as it may potentially pose copyright issues such as regarding background music. In addition, generated audio may be too uncomfortable or inappropriate to hear." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.44, + 0.287, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.466, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was partly supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2022-0-00608, Artificial intelligence research about multi-modal interactions for empathetic conversations with humans & No.2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub) and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00219959)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.654, + 0.214, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.676, + 0.49, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. 2023. Musicl: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.752, + 0.49, + 0.819 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nader Akoury, Shufan Wang, Josh Whiting, Stephen Hood, Nanyun Peng, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Storium: A dataset and evaluation platform for machine-in-the-loop story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01717." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.829, + 0.488, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Andrew Brown, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. Condensed movies: Story based retrieval with contextual embeddings. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eden Bensaid, Mauro Martino, Benjamin Hoover, and Hendrik Strobelt. 2021. Fairytailor: A multimodal" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.676, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "generative framework for storytelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04324." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.123, + 0.884, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel PW Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. 2011. The million song dataset." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.173, + 0.885, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.261, + 0.885, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Muhao Chen, Hongming Zhang, Qiang Ning, Manling Li, Heng Ji, Kathleen McKeown, and Dan Roth. 2021. Event-centric natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.336, + 0.884, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.425, + 0.885, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Ssvmr: Saliency-based self-training for video-music retrieval. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.514, + 0.884, + 0.58 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuhao Cheng, Xiaoguang Zhu, Jiuchao Qian, Fei Wen, and Peilin Liu. 2022. Cross-modal graph matching network for image-text retrieval. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(4):1-23." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.589, + 0.884, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jade Copet, Felix Kreuk, Itai Gat, Tal Remez, David Kant, Gabriel Synnaeve, Yossi Adi, and Alexandre Defossez. 2023. Simple and controllable music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05284." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.652, + 0.885, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin Elizalde, Soham Deshmukh, Mahmoud Al Ismail, and Huaming Wang. 2023. Clap learning audio concepts from natural language supervision. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.741, + 0.884, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antti J Eronen, Vesa T Peltonen, Juha T Tuomi, Anssi P Klapuri, Seppo Fagerlund, Timo Sorsa, Gaetan Lorho, and Jyri Huopaniemi. 2005. Audio-based context recognition. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(1):321-329." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.816, + 0.884, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04833." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andres Ferraro, Yuntae Kim, Soohyeon Lee, Biho Kim, Namjun Jo, Semi Lim, Suyon Lim, Jungtaek Jang, Sehwan Kim, Xavier Serra, et al. 2021. Melon playlist dataset: A public dataset for audio-based playlist" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.942 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13476" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "generation and music tagging. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 536-540. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.488, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Seth* Forsgren and Hayk* Martiros. 2022. Diffusion - Stable diffusion for real-time music generation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.185, + 0.488, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jort F Gemmeke, Daniel PW Ellis, Dylan Freedman, Aren Jansen, Wade Lawrence, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, and Marvin Ritter. 2017. Audio set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 776-780. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.286, + 0.488, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuan Gong, Yu-An Chung, and James Glass. 2021. AST: Audio Spectrogram Transformer. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 571-575." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.336, + 0.488, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Satya Krishna Gorti, Noel Vouitsis, Junwei Ma, Keyvan Golestan, Maksims Volkovs, Animesh Garg, and Guangwei Yu. 2022. X-pool: Cross-modal language-video attention for text-video retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5006-5015." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.488, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Gu, Yinghua Shen, and Chaohui Lv. 2023. A dual-path cross-modal network for video-music retrieval. Sensors, 23(2):805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.473, + 0.488, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Brent Harrison, Christopher Purdy, and Mark Riedl. 2017. Toward automated story generation with markov chain monte carlo methods and deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, volume 13, pages 191-197." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.562, + 0.488, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xingjian He, Sihan Chen, Fan Ma, Zhicheng Huang, Xiaojie Jin, Zikang Liu, Dongmei Fu, Yi Yang, Jing Liu, and Jiashi Feng. 2023. Vlab: Enhancing video language pre-training by feature adapting and blending. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13167." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.637, + 0.488, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shawn Hershey, Sourish Chaudhuri, Daniel PW Ellis, Jort F Gemmeke, Aren Jansen, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, Devin Platt, Rif A Saurous, Bryan Seybold, et al. 2017. CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification. In 2017 iee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassoc), pages 131-135. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.738, + 0.488, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qingqiu Huang, Yu Xiong, Anyi Rao, Jiaze Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2020. Movienet: A holistic dataset for movie understanding. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, pages 709-727. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ting-Hao Huang, Francis Ferraro, Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Ishan Misra, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jacob Devlin, Ross Girshick, Xiaodong He, Pushmeet Kohli, Dhruv Batra, et al. 2016. Visual storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1233-1239." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi. 2019. Fréchet audio distance: A reference-free metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms. In *INTERSPEECH*, pages 2350-2354." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.162, + 0.883, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chris Dongjoo Kim, Byeongchang Kim, Hyunmin Lee, and Gunhee Kim. 2019. Audiocaps: Generating captions for audios in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 119-132." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.264, + 0.883, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eungbeom Kim, Jinhee Kim, Yoori Oh, Kyungsu Kim, Minju Park, Jaeheon Sim, Jinwoo Lee, and Kyogu Lee. 2022. Improving audio-language learning with mixgen and multi-level test-time augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17143." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.339, + 0.883, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tomáš Kočisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.415, + 0.883, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qiuqiang Kong, Yin Cao, Haohe Liu, Keunwoo Choi, and Yuxuan Wang. 2021. Decoupling magnitude and phase estimation with deep resunet for music source separation. In ISMIR. Citeseer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.477, + 0.883, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.553, + 0.883, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benno Krojer, Vaibhav Adlakha, Vibhav Vineet, Yash Goyal, Edoardo Ponti, and Siva Reddy. 2022. Image retrieval from contextual descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15867." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.615, + 0.883, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Brenden M Lake, Tomer D Ullman, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman. 2017. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40:e253." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.678, + 0.883, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Peter J Lang, Margaret M Bradley, and Bruce N Cuthbert. 1998. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. *Biological psychiatry*, 44(12):1248-1263." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.741, + 0.883, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Yongkang Wong, Qi Zhao, and Mohan S Kankanhalli. 2019. Video storytelling: Textual summaries for events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(2):554-565." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.803, + 0.883, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Li, Linchao Zhu, Longyin Wen, and Yi Yang. 2023. Decap: Decoding clip latents for zero-shot captioning via text-only training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03032." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yang Liu, Samuel Albanie, Arsha Nagrani, and Andrew Zisserman. 2019. Use what you have: Video retrieval using representations from collaborative experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13487." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13477" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huaishao Luo, Lei Ji, Ming Zhong, Yang Chen, Wen Lei, Nan Duan, and Tianrui Li. 2022. Clip4clip: An empirical study of clip for end to end video clip retrieval and captioning. Neurocomputing, 508:293-304." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.163, + 0.489, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yiwei Ma, Guohai Xu, Xiaoshuai Sun, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Rongrong Ji. 2022. X-clip: End-to-end multi-grained contrastive learning for video-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 638-647." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.24, + 0.488, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 839-849." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.355, + 0.489, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takayuki Nakatsuka, Masahiro Hamasaki, and Masataka Goto. 2023. Content-based music-image retrieval using self-and cross-modal feature embedding memory. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2174-2184." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.445, + 0.489, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pedro Neves, Jose Fornari, and João Florindo. 2022. Generating music with sentiment using transformer-gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11134." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.496, + 0.489, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karol J Piczak. 2015. Esc: Dataset for environmental sound classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1015-1018." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.56, + 0.489, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.649, + 0.489, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Niket Tandon, and Bernt Schiele. 2015. A dataset for movie description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3202-3212." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.713, + 0.489, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684-10695." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.489, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Justin Salamon, Christopher Jacoby, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2014. A dataset and taxonomy for urban sound research. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1041-1044." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Flavio Schneider, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Scholkopf. 2023. Mo\\^ usai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2256-2265. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.166, + 0.883, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Stowell, Dimitrios Giannoulis, Emmanouil Benetos, Mathieu Lagrange, and Mark D Plumbley. 2015. Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 17(10):1733-1746." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.245, + 0.883, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bob L Sturm. 2012. An analysis of the gtzan music genre dataset. In Proceedings of the second international ACM workshop on Music information retrieval with user-centered and multimodal strategies, pages 7-12." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.324, + 0.883, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Didac Surís, Amanda Duarte, Amaia Salvador, Jordi Torres, and Xavier Giro-i Nieto. 2018. Cross-modal embeddings for video and audio retrieval. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (eccv) workshops, pages 0-0." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.403, + 0.883, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Makarand Tapaswi, Yukun Zhu, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and Sanja Fidler. 2016. Movieqa: Understanding stories in movies through question-answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4631-4640." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.496, + 0.883, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Randy Thom. 1999. Designing a movie for sound. IRIS-PARIS-, 27:9-20." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.536, + 0.883, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Suramya Tomar. 2006. Converting video formats with ffmpeg. *Linux Journal*, 2006(146):10." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.576, + 0.883, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sean Vasquez and Mike Lewis. 2019. Melnet: A generative model for audio in the frequency domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01083." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.629, + 0.883, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sijin Wang, Ruiping Wang, Ziwei Yao, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. 2020. Cross-modal scene graph matching for relationship-aware image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 1508-1517." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.722, + 0.883, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2023. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for vision and vision-language tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19175-19186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ho-Hsiang Wu, Prem Seetharaman, Kundan Kumar, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2022. Wav2clip: Learning robust audio representations from clip. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4563-4567. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13478" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yifei Xin, Dongchao Yang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Improving text-audio retrieval by text-aware attention pooling and prior matrix revised loss. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanxiao Xu. 2020. Cross-modal sound-image retrieval based on deep collaborative hashing. In 2020 5th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation (ISCTT), pages 188-197. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.25, + 0.488, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaqi Xu, Bo Liu, Yunkuo Chen, Mengli Cheng, and Xing Shi. 2023. Multi: Efficient video-and-language understanding with multiway-sampler and multiple choice modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05707." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.313, + 0.488, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5288-5296." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.389, + 0.488, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hong Xuan and Xi Stephen Chen. 2023. Dissecting deep metric learning losses for image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2164-2173." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.465, + 0.488, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dongchao Yang, Jianwei Yu, Helin Wang, Wen Wang, Chao Weng, Yuexian Zou, and Dong Yu. 2023. Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.54, + 0.488, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rui Yang, Shuang Wang, Yingzhi Sun, Huan Zhang, Yu Liao, Yu Gu, Biao Hou, and Licheng Jiao. 2022. Multimodal fusion remote sensing image-audio retrieval. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 15:6220-6235." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.629, + 0.488, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Botao Yu, Peiling Lu, Rui Wang, Wei Hu, Xu Tan, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Museformer: Transformer with fine-and coarse-grained attention for music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10349." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.705, + 0.488, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lvmin Zhang and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05543." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.754, + 0.488, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qi Zhang, Zhen Lei, Zhaoxiang Zhang, and Stan Z Li. 2020. Context-aware attention network for imag-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3536-3545." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.83, + 0.488, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jinkuan Zhu, Pengpeng Zeng, Lianli Gao, Gongfu Li, Dongliang Liao, and Jingkuan Song. 2023. Complementarity-aware space learning for video-text retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13479" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_origin.pdf b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22337bdaadac4a6ba4b1c3d4bdd2e41535b261b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/99521d4b-eefb-4d04-87ae-40101ca7f8f2_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bf87cd244b5dba1998e58007b7488c89934dbb4150b070c4d31311c68a00261a +size 1857098 diff --git a/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/full.md b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba474931ec6c6bed79519750a2a5106cce1f4855 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,365 @@ +# Sound of Story: Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio + +Jaeyeon Bae $^{1*}$ Seokhoon Jeong $^{2*}$ Seokun Kang $^{1}$ Namgi Han $^{3}$ Jae-Yon Lee $^{3}$ Hyounghun Kim $^{12}$ Taehwan Kim $^{12}$ + +1Artificial Intelligence Graduate School + +$^{2}$ Department of Computer Science and Engineering + +$^{3}$ School of Liberal Arts + +Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea + +{qowodussla, shjd0246, oracleismo, + +hng88, jlee2791, h.kim, taehwankim} @unist.ac.KI + +# Abstract + +Storytelling is multi-modal in the real world. When one tells a story, one may use all of the visualizations and sounds along with the story itself. However, prior studies on storytelling datasets and tasks have paid little attention to sound even though sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset, called Sound of Story (SoS), which has paired image and text sequences with corresponding sound or background music for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound. Our SoS dataset consists of 27,354 stories with 19.6 images per story and 984 hours of speech-decoupled audio such as background music and other sounds. As benchmark tasks for storytelling with sound and the dataset, we propose retrieval tasks between modalities, and audio generation tasks from image-text sequences, introducing strong baselines for them. We believe the proposed dataset and tasks may shed light on the multi-modal understanding of storytelling in terms of sound. Downloading the dataset and baseline codes for each task will be released in the link: https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset. + +# 1 Introduction + +Story understanding and telling is one of the important but challenging problems in natural language processing and machine learning, and there have been extensive studies on this problem for decades (Harrison et al., 2017; Kočisky et al., 2018). Many prior researches have focused on building models that understand stories such as utilizing pre-trained model (Chen et al., + +2022; Wang et al., 2023; He et al., 2023), event-centric understanding (Chen et al., 2021) and using multiway-sampler (Xu et al., 2023). Also, lots of approaches are proposed that aim to understand the stories within the provided text (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2018; Akoury et al., 2020), image (Huang et al., 2016; Bensaid et al., 2021; Krojer et al., 2022) and video (Rohrbach et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Tapaswi et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019; Bain et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020). + +Despite there being many benchmarks for story understanding and telling, most of them less focus on audio even if it is one of the key elements for humans to understand stories (Lang et al., 1998; Lake et al., 2017). Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a novel dataset called the Sound of Story (SoS), which aims to leverage audio information for story understanding, distinguishing it from other existing story or audio datasets. + +To create the SoS dataset, all the modalities are extracted from Condensed Movie Dataset (CMD) (Bain et al., 2020) and Large Scale Movie Description Challenge datasets (LSMDC) (Rohrbach et al., 2015). Image and text data extracted from the same movie clip have their contexts and both of them have the possibility to infer the story from the same movie clip. And in the case of audio such as background sound and music, it has the ability to enrich storytelling by representing and recognizing the context of the situations (Eronen et al., 2005; Stowell et al., 2015). Due to these characteristics, audio, image, and text extracted from the same movie clip become correlated and complementary. So, our SoS dataset allows three modalities generated from the same movie clip to be used for story understanding as a pair. In addition, we propose new story under + +![](images/d31ff77c8e8c663f38df4726dbfd7e22e63ef9b950bd9d9b65da91e1fd4cc9a4.jpg) +Figure 1: Overall data generating process flow for our Sound of Story (SoS) dataset. All the modalities are extracted from the same movie clips. We exclude the speech from audio to make it contain only pure audio data, which does not contain linguistic information. + +![](images/8f596168632513515ec2aeb834da931f63b3ba1ac7d94b6a1969e600efeab1a7.jpg) + +standing benchmarks and their baseline models by introducing audio retrieval tasks and audio generation tasks using the SoS dataset. + +These background sound tasks can be utilized in various applications. For example, for movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. The overall data generating process can be shown in Figure 1. + +In summary, our contributions are as follows: + +- We propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information, which has not been well explored. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) consisting of text and image sequences and audio for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound. +- As benchmark tasks to show the significance and relevance of sound in a story, we introduce retrieval tasks between audio and other modalities and background sound generation tasks, and baseline models for each of them. +- We will release the dataset and code to gen + +erate them so that the community can generate more data for a variety of tasks to utilize sound in storytelling and story understanding research. + +# 2 Related Work + +Story understanding and telling Storytelling tasks pose significant challenges in the domain of natural language processing (NLP), and researchers have proposed various datasets and benchmarks to tackle these problems. Wikiplots, WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018), and ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) introduce datasets that revolve around text-based story plots. Wikiplots comprises a collection of approximately 113k story plots extracted from English Wikipedia. WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018) assembled their dataset by gathering pairs of human-written stories and corresponding prompts from online sources. ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) employed the use of Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to generate short stories that incorporate common-sense knowledge, with a focus on everyday topics. These datasets are usually used for story understanding or story generation tasks. + +In addition to text-based story plots, there exist numerous story datasets that incorporate images or videos. Visual Storytelling (Huang et al., 2016) introduces the first sequential vision-to-language dataset and explores its applicability in various tasks. It goes beyond simple object understanding or captioning for concrete scenes by considering input that encompasses temporal events. Similarly, ImageCoDe dataset (Krojer et al., 2022) also contains stories but is designed to enable models to + +![](images/3220a962bbc91dbe915ebabc07a51a29a30b73edb349f4c58d6e5535cbe8c2d5.jpg) +Figure 2: Example of SoS dataset. CMD and LSMDC have different lengths of descriptions. + +learn detailed situations from finer visual differences within similar sets of images. + +Movie data inherently encompasses storytelling. Various datasets such as MovieQA (Tapaswi et al., 2016) and MovieNet (Huang et al., 2020) have been collected by using movie data and have been used in various multimodal domains. Additionally, datasets like CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and LSMDC (Liu et al., 2019) not only provide movie videos but also include descriptions for the corresponding clips. This offers researchers an opportunity to explore models from a multimodal perspective. However, there are few datasets for story with sound. Existing benchmarks for audio mostly consist of music (Bertin-Mahieux et al., 2011; Sturm, 2012; Ferraro et al., 2021) or animal/environmental sounds (Salamon et al., 2014; Piczak, 2015; Gemmeke et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), and are designed to evaluate simple matching performance between objects (or sentiment) and audio input. + +Multi-modal retrieval tasks Multi-modal retrieval models are trained to find similar features across different modalities by fusing. These models are tasked with understanding both the context of a given input and the interplay between features provided by other modalities. As a result, retrieval becomes a highly challenging and crucial task in + +order to comprehend the distinctive characteristics of multiple modalities. + +The multi-modal retrieval task has been studied using various modalities such as image-text retrieval (Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2022; Xuan and Chen, 2023), video-text (Ma et al., 2022; Gorti et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2023), audio-image (Xu, 2020; Yang et al., 2022; Nakatsuka et al., 2023), video-audio (Surís et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2023) and audio-text (Kim et al., 2022; Xin et al., 2023). Particularly, CLIP4CLIP (Luo et al., 2022), which performs well in the videotext retrieval task by calculating the similarities between the features of each modality obtained from the encoder, and X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) expands CLIP4CLIP and proposes a multi-grained regulation function to improve performance. Furthermore, Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) conducts retrieval for audio-image modalities based on CLIP architecture (Radford et al., 2021), while CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) focuses on audio-text retrieval. In this paper, we propose a story-based audio retrieval task for retrieving proper modal features like image sequences or descriptions. + +Multi-modal audio generation There have been prior studies on generating audio by receiving cer + +
DatasetAudio Type# Story# Images / Story# Audio HoursAvg. text lengthText Type
ImageCode-9,40217-23.3Captions
VIST-50,1364.2-10.2Description
Video Storytellingopen105-22162.6Captions
MovieNetopen1,100-6332004Description
MSR-VTTopen10,000-41.29.6Description
Oursspeech-decoupled audio27,35419.698488Description
+ +Table 1: Statistics compared to different storytelling datasets. In the audio types, "open" represents raw audio from the video, and "speech-decoupled audio" represents the speech-excluded audio. In the text types, "Caption" represents the text that explains only the image, and "Description" represents the text that includes the story. + +tain modality information as input (Vasquez and Lewis, 2019; Yu et al., 2022; Borsos et al., 2022; Neves et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023; Agostinelli et al., 2023). Among several audio generation tasks, recently text-audio generation has been actively studied. AUDIOGEN (Kreuk et al., 2022) uses an augmentation technique that mixes different audio samples when generating audio samples from captions. Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) fine-tunes the model to generate Spectrogram images using the image-to-text based on Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al., 2022). MUSICGEN (Copet et al., 2023) uses a single-stage language model with efficient token interleaving patterns and an unsupervised melody conditioning method. In this paper, we are interested in generating relevant audio given a story. + +# 3 Dataset + +We propose a novel dataset named the SoS dataset with 27,354 audio-image-text pairs. 22,330 pairs are created from CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and 5,024 from LSMDC dataset (Rohrbach et al., 2015). We extract the image and audio from the same video and pair them with the description accordingly so that the images and text share the same storyline. In the case of audio, it is related to the other modalities due to being extracted from the same clip so can be used in complementary. The examples of the SoS dataset are shown in Figure 2. + +# 3.1 Movie Clips + +CMD (Bain et al., 2020) provides the key clips and their high-level semantic descriptions from 3,605 movies. Each key clip has a duration of around 150 seconds and can be automatically obtained from YouTube, making it easily accessible. LSMDC (Rohrbach et al., 2015) consists of 118,081 short clips extracted from 202 movies. Each clip in LSMDC has a duration of around 3 + +to 12 seconds and is accompanied by captions generated from Description Video Services (DVS). In our work, we merge these two movie clip datasets to create the audio-image-text paired dataset. To bridge the gap between CMD and LSMDC, we adapt the LSMDC dataset to match the format of CMD. Since the short movie clips in LSMDC are contiguous, we concatenate them in sequential order until their combined length is similar to that of CMD. Specifically, we concatenate around 20 short movie clips together to create the raw movie clip data. + +# 3.2 Audio processing + +To facilitate audio processing, we first utilized ffmpeg (Tomar, 2006) to extract audio from the video, ensuring that the length of the extracted audio matched that of the raw movie clip video. Subsequently, we employed the bytesep framework proposed by (Kong et al., 2021) to decouple speech from mixed audio containing various sounds. The results of decoupled sounds may be considered as audio data that share the storyline with the raw movie clip video without any linguistic information. Speech-decoupling is proceeded because the speech itself includes the storyline and the model can learn the storyline focused on the speech, not the audio which is not our expectation. Duration distribution of the extracted audios can be seen in Figure 3. + +# 3.3 Image processing + +Since videos include many duplicated and similar images, only the key salient images that may represent storyline were extracted through image clustering. We conduct image clustering using image fingerprints, which are representations for uniquely identifying an image generated based on the visual features. From all image fingerprints + +![](images/ac8249742006a62bdd7f620faf1d14930a47a649153b3ddf9da1e69772fbed8c.jpg) +(a) Frames Distribution + +![](images/116a52479b833dbff650424cbe41b72940f47c1e240ba91c97fbba1feee037f0.jpg) +(b) Duration Distribution +Figure 3: Distributions of each modality. (a) the number of extracted images from a movie video; (b) the duration of decoupled and processed audio for each story (c) the number of words in each story from CMD (d) the number of words in each story from LSMDC. Note that due to video clip concatenation to match video lengths, descriptions have larger lengths for stories from LSMDC. This text variation leads to the model requiring high-level text understanding. + +![](images/b4e57d98fbfbc0adbdec7dd26d419db73f9e332cec70ddaf048d5839cc8a057d.jpg) +(c) Number of words from CMD + +![](images/4223700d63020463bfb3f6b6727dba66adc1ce92dbb99bd26481798073a790a6.jpg) +(d) Number of words from LSMDC + +extracted from frames of the movie clips, we gradually removed images with a fingerprint similarity of greater than 0.5 which was set empirically found. Through this process, fewer frames for static and more frames for dynamic scenes could be retained. The extracted image sequences can represent the entire video by capturing salient scenes with significant variations, even though it does not include all of the frames. By utilizing this approach, we can create essential image sequences of the video by focusing on scenes with meaningful changes. These processed image sequences provide a novel dataset that highlights the storyline with fewer frames and differentiates it from traditional video datasets. Figure 3 shows the distribution of extracted frames for each movie clip. + +# 3.4 Text processing + +There exist slight differences in clip lengths between CMD and LSMDC even though both of them provide short descriptions for each movie clip. Because we concatenate LSMDC movie clips to match the length of CMD movie clips, descriptions also must be formatted by concatenating the same number of descriptions with the video. As a result, the concatenated descriptions exhibit variations in sentence lengths as in Figure 3. + +Furthermore, there are also inherent differences between the two datasets in how the descriptions were generated. CMD utilizes descriptions generated by users from YouTube, while LSMDC employs descriptive video services to generate descriptions. Because of this text variation difference between the two datasets, it makes our task more challenging by requiring high-level text understanding. We can check that the descriptions are well-aligned with other modalities in Figure 2. + +# 3.5 Data Statistics and Analysis + +Our SoS dataset is derived from 3,807 movies covered in the CMD and LSMDC datasets, resulting in a total of 27,354 clips. After processing, each clip has an average of 20 images, and the total number of images in our dataset is 535,707. The accumulated length of the extracted audio is around 984 hours, and each audio consists of around 150 seconds on average. Each clip's text description consists of 88 words on average. If divided into two different datasets, CMD and LSMDC consist of an average of 83.2 words and 1,378.7 words, respectively, with medians of 80 and 130.8, respectively. Quantitative comparison with other story-based datasets is shown in Table 1, and it can be seen that our proposed SoS dataset is the largest well-curated storytelling dataset with extracted audios. + +We generate paired decoupled audio data that can be used complementarily for story understanding and telling with the image and text in the SoS dataset. The extracted decoupled audio, which is in-the-wild audio, contains abundant information. Specifically, we decoupled speech information to leave only pure audio consisting of background sound on the audio dataset. These remaining audi-los contain a mixture of various daily-life sounds and background music. This distinctive characteristic sets it apart from other audio datasets, making it an adequate audio dataset for story understanding. + +# 4 Experiment + +# 4.1 Retrieval Tasks + +In this section, we introduce four retrieval tasks: audio-to-video, audio-to-text, text-to-audio, and video-to-audio retrieval using our proposed dataset. The retrieval tasks focus on finding proper audio + +![](images/0283282c0d188b1ca92a7c82ae6d073b9dc0fce1fd6446874e2324eab5ae2005.jpg) +Figure 4: Proposed retrieval model architecture. Encoded features are obtained from the encoder corresponding to each modality. Features are divided into context-level features and sequence-level features. Then we calculate the score for each task and use the score to calculate the final similarity $Sim$ . + +corresponding to image sequences or text information containing a story, or matching image sequence or text given audio, which may be used as recommendation for background sound suitable for image sequence or storyline. + +# 4.1.1 Retrieval Model + +In this section, we introduce the model used in our proposed retrieval task. We are inspired when we create a baseline model in that the Attention Over Simplicity Matrix method proposed by X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) can be flexibly applied to Audio as well as Video-Text. Our overall architecture is illustrated in Figure 4. + +For descriptions, we use the CLIP text encoder $E_{T}$ (Radford et al., 2021). The information obtained from the $E_{t}$ is defined as sentence feature $f_{s}$ and word feature $f_{w}$ . In the case of video, the CLIP image encoder $E_{I}$ is used and the temporal encoder $E_{t}$ is added to obtain the temporal sequence feature. The obtained feature is defined as frame feature $f_{f}$ , and the mean pooling of the frame feature is defined as video feature $f_{v}$ . And in the case of the audio, audio information is extracted by performing audio embedding on Log Mel-filter bank coefficients and fed into the $E_{A}$ using pretrained Audio Spectrogram Transformer (Gong et al., 2021). In this case, the first token among the acquired feature is defined as audio $f_{a}$ , and the remaining tokens are defined as audio sequence feature $f_{as}$ . + +In the case of audio-video retrieval, we first calculate the similarity between audio-video $(S_{a,v})$ , audio-frame $(S_{a,f})$ , audio sequence-video $(S_{as,v})$ + +and audio sequence-frame $(S_{as,f})$ . These similarities are calculated following Equation 1 to 4: + +$$ +S _ {a, v} = \left(f _ {a}\right) ^ {T} \left(f _ {v}\right) \in \mathbb {R} ^ {1} \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {a, f} = \left(f _ {f} f _ {a}\right) ^ {T} \in \mathbb {R} ^ {1 \times m} \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {a s, v} = f _ {a s} f _ {v} \in \mathbb {R} ^ {n \times 1} \tag {3} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {a s, f} = \left(f _ {a s}\right) \left(f _ {f}\right) ^ {T} \in \mathbb {R} ^ {n \times m} \tag {4} +$$ + +where $m$ is the number of video frames and $n$ is the number of audio sequences. Except for audio-video similarity, an aggregation process is required to make it an instance-level similarity. Therefore, the audio-frame and audio sequence-video similarity is calculated through the following equations: + +$$ +S _ {a, f} ^ {\prime} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \frac {\exp \left(S _ {a , f (1 , i)}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \exp \left(S _ {a , f (1 , j)}\right)} S _ {a, f} \tag {5} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {a s, v} ^ {\prime} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \frac {\exp \left(S _ {a s , v (i , 1)}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \exp \left(S _ {a s , v (j , 1)}\right)} S _ {a s, v} \tag {6} +$$ + +The audio-level similarity $(S_{aud}^{\prime})$ and video-level similarity $(S_{vid}^{\prime})$ are calculated to obtain the audio sequence-frame instance-level similarity: + +$$ +S _ {a u d} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \frac {\exp \left(S _ {a s , f (i , *)}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \exp \left(S _ {a s , f (j , *)}\right)} S _ {a s, f (i,)} \in \mathbb {R} ^ {1 \times m} \tag {7} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {a u d} ^ {\prime} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \frac {\exp \left(S _ {a u d (1 , i)}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \exp \left(S _ {a u d (1 , j)}\right)} S _ {a u d (1, i)} \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {v i d} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \frac {\exp \left(S _ {a s , f (, i)}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \exp \left(S _ {a s , f (, j)}\right)} S _ {a s, f (, i)} \in \mathbb {R} ^ {n \times 1} \tag {9} +$$ + +$$ +S _ {v i d} ^ {\prime} = \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \frac {\exp \left(S _ {v i d (i , 1)}\right)}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \exp \left(S _ {v i d (j , 1)}\right)} S _ {v i d (1, 1)} \tag {10} +$$ + +
A2VV2AA2TT2A
EvalOursWav2CLIPOursWav2CLIPOursCLAPOursCLAPRandom
R@1(↑)7.6154.2316.4625.1547.4626.5387.0775.7690.076
R@5(↑)18.68212.61517.92316.07717.46217.23119.38516.0770.378
R@10(↑)28.00019.53827.00023.46224.69224.61525.69223.5380.750
Median R(↓)40.61531.23138.92333.69233.00034.61532.76934.385631.800
Mean R(↓)32.00052.00033.00047.00060.00052.00063.50053.500639.132
+ +Table 2: Retrieval performances with the proposed SoS dataset, which are measured on 1300 test samples. Random means the average of the results of five random retrievals. + +where \* denotes all elements in that dimension. + +In addition, $S_{as,f}^{\prime}$ are obtained from the means of $S_{aud}^{\prime}$ and $S_{vid}^{\prime}$ obtained by Equation 8 and 10. Therefore, the similarity between video and audio is obtained as the average of the obtained similarities, as shown in Equation 11. + +$$ +\operatorname {S i m} _ {A V} = \left(S _ {a, f} + S _ {a, f} ^ {\prime} + S _ {a s, v} ^ {\prime} + S _ {a s, f} ^ {\prime}\right) / 4 \tag {11} +$$ + +For the audio-text retrieval, the similarity $Sim_{AT}$ can be calculated by replacing video-related features with text-related features. + +# 4.1.2 Implementation Details + +Of the 27,354 stories in our SoS dataset, 26,054 are split into train and 1,300 into test sets. In the case of video, a total of 40 images are used as input. At this time, if there are fewer than 40 images, 40 images are filled with duplicate sampling in accordance with the time order, and if there are more than 40, 40 images are obtained by uniform sampling. In the case of audio, the entire audio is used for learning, and random cropping is performed at this time. In the test, the same audio can be used in all tests by cropping and using the information-rich area of the audio. In the case of text, after tokenizing the description with a CLIP tokenizer, we crop 77 tokens from the front and use them similar to other CLIP-based models (Luo et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). The batch size is 128 in the audio-video and 256 in the audio-text retrieval task, respectively. We conducted the experiment using 2 NVIDIA A100 80GB GPUs using the PyTorch library for 100 epochs, which took about 20 hours. + +# 4.1.3 Results and Analysis + +To evaluate the performance of the proposed baseline model with our SoS dataset, we compare it with Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) for A2V and V2A, and CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) for A2T and T2A. Both Wav2CLIP and CLAP are fine-tuned to our SoS dataset from their pretrained weights. For the evaluation metrics, we + +utilize Recall@1(R@1), Recall@5(R@5), Recall@10(R@10), Mean Rank(Mean R), and Median Rank(Median R). Table 2 shows the performances for audio-to-video (A2V), video-to-audio (V2A), audio-to-text (A2T), and text-to-audio (T2A). + +For A2V and V2A, each story of the SoS dataset consists of fairly long image sequences by using clustering from the video which has an average length of 215 seconds, unlike other datasets. In addition, our audio dataset includes various sounds to express a story and thus can better represent storylines compared to audio composed of simple sounds. + +However, it also presents greater challenges. Therefore, compared to retrieving tasks using short videos and simple audio, it can be considered a challenging task. Nevertheless, with R@1 of 7.615 and 6.462 for both A2V and V2A, respectively, our baseline model performed better than its comparative model, Wav2CLIP, and showed reasonable evaluation results. + +In addition, our text data consists of a storyline that implicitly represents the whole sequence, not a description of the scene, so it is challenging because the model has to understand the context of the scenes rather than a simpler understanding of the scene. Therefore, looking at the R@1 performance 7.462 and 7.077 in A2T and T2A, respectively, the performance of our proposed baseline model is better than the comparison model CLAP. Also, the results of retrievals can be found in our supplementary material or GitHub link ${}^{2}$ . + +# 4.2 Audio Generation Task + +Composing and arranging background music and sound effects that exquisitely match the current scene's story is a highly challenging task that even human creators struggle (Thom, 1999). We propose an audio generation model called SoSGen, which + +is designed to generate appropriate audio for the movie scene, given the scene's descriptions, frames, or both as the condition. + +# 4.2.1 Audio Generation Model + +SoSgen takes advantage of the architecture of diffusion models (Sohl-Dickstein et al., 2015), which learn a data distribution through gradual denoising. Stable diffusion models (Rombach et al., 2022), a variant of diffusion models, enable effective model conditioning by training the model to learn latent features. Following the same approach, we train SoSgen as a text-to-audio spectrogram diffusion model, using the following objective function: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} = \mathbb {E} _ {x, \epsilon \sim \mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c} \left[ \| \epsilon - \epsilon_ {\theta} (\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d)) \| _ {2} ^ {2} \right] \tag {12} +$$ + +where $c$ is a trainable CLIP text encoder and $d$ is the SoS description. + +For image+text-to-audio training, we follow ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture, a lightweight and powerful method that enables additional conditioning of a diffusion model by freezing the original model's parameters. We freeze the text-to-audio model's parameters and resume training using a similar objective function: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \mathcal {L} = \mathbb {E} _ {x, \epsilon \sim \mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c, c _ {i m g}} \tag {13} \\ \left[ \left\| \epsilon - \epsilon_ {\theta} (\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d), c _ {i m g} (f)) \right\| _ {2} ^ {2} \right] \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $c_{img}$ is an additional CLIP image encoder that embeds the SoS frame sequence $f$ . + +# 4.2.2 Implementation Details + +Audio in movies rarely remains consistent until the end of a single scene. Also, using long audio as an input or output for a deep learning model is burdening in terms of hardware capacity. Thus, we slice the audio data into a length of approximately 15 seconds. Since extracted frames partially reflect semantic changes within the scene, audio slicing was performed treating audio data between two extracted frames as a base unit. The unit audios are accumulated and concatenated until their cumulative duration exceeds 15 seconds, ensuring that each sliced audio is never longer than 15 seconds. AudiOs that are originally longer than 15 seconds are not sliced because it implies the absence of significant visual changes for the duration, suggesting a high probability of long, consistent audio. Sliced audio files containing only a little sound were eliminated using the PyDub library. + +To this end, we assessed the mean frequency of each segment and excluded any with a frequency below $78\mathrm{Hz}$ , a threshold determined through manual inspection. + +This process conducted 185,341 audio data of roughly 15 seconds each, which were then converted into spectrograms. From this, we randomly split the dataset into 184,462 and 879 as training and testing, respectively. + +For our base model, we leveraged Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022), a checkpoint of Stable Diffusion v1-5 (Rombach et al., 2022), fine-tuned on pairs of music descriptions and spectrograms. Following the same approach, we fine-tuned the diffusion model from the Diffusion checkpoint with pairs of SoS descriptions and corresponding sliced audio spectrograms. In addition, we further trained the model in the setting of image and text conditioning, utilizing the ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture. We use a sequence of frames extracted through clustering that correspond to the sliced audio as the image condition. $\mathrm{SoS}_{\mathrm{text + image}}$ was additionally trained from $\mathrm{SoS}_{\mathrm{text}}$ checkpoint, while $\mathrm{SoS}_{\mathrm{image}}$ resumed from the Diffusion checkpoint and used a redundant text condition in both training and testing. The specific model architecture can be found in Figure 5. + +For training our models, we used a batch size of 1, 16 gradient accumulation steps, an initial learning rate of 1e-6, and a cosine learning rate scheduler. We fine-tuned the text-to-audio model for 406,000 steps and additional 525,000 steps to further train the text+image-to-audio model. Separately, the image-to-audio model was trained for 525,000 steps. We ran fine-tuning for 2 days and ControlNet training for another 2 days on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU. + +# 4.2.3 Results and Analysis + +Baselines We compare SoSgen to two baselines: Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) and MusICGEN (Copet et al., 2023), the state-of-the-art open source text-to-music generation model. The performance of the models is evaluated based on the Fréchet Audio Distance (FAD) (Kilgour et al., 2019). FAD is a reference-free evaluation metric that is computed using means and covariances of VGGish (Hershey et al., 2017) embeddings. We used a lightweight pytorch implementation of FAD for more efficient evaluation. + +![](images/d0b7b0a6b1b73f5e40f90504b240248248463a2eecec72d9db8ebf18077398f3.jpg) +Figure 5: SoSgen architecture for training. The components and arrows drawn with dash lines are only used in the ControlNet-involved training, i.e. image-to-audio and image+text-to-audio. To train a text-to-audio model, we condition the denoising model with CLIP text embeddings of SoS descriptions. Once the text-to-audio model is sufficiently trained, we freeze the model and add image embeddings as a condition to train the text+image-to-audio model using ControlNet. Alternatively, an image-to-audio model can be trained from the Diffusion checkpoint, using a redundant text condition "Audio" for each training data. $\mathcal{E}$ denotes the encoder, $\mathcal{D}$ denotes the decoder, $\mathcal{Z}_{\mathcal{T}}$ denotes latent representation at timestep $\mathcal{T}$ . + +Table 3: FAD (lower is better) of SoSgen and the baselines. $\text{SoSgen}_{\text{text+image}}$ is the only model given with the image and text condition. The rest are only given with SoS descriptions as the condition. + +
ModelFADVGGish ↓
Riffusion20.114
MUSICGEN11.680
SoSgen text10.935
SoSgen image18.324
SoSgen text+image9.099
+ +Table 3 shows the comparison of SoSgen against Diffusion and MUSICGEN. SoSgen text, Diffusion, and MUSICGEN generate an audio spectrogram given descriptions. For SoSgen image and SoSgen text+image, an image sequence is also given as an additional condition. + +The results indicate that SoSgen $_{\text{text}}$ and SoSgen $_{\text{text+image}}$ outperform Diffusion and MUSICGEN in terms of FAD. Although SoSgen $_{\text{image}}$ only shows a slight improvement from Diffusion, combining two modalities exceptionally enhances audio generation capability. The generated audio samples can be listened to in our GitHub link $^{5}$ and are also included in the supplementary material. The samples show SoSgen's superior performance on story audio generation tasks. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we emphasize that sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Thus, we propose a novel dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) dataset, audio-image-text pair dataset. One main feature of our dataset is that all the linguistic information inside the audio is eliminated. We named the audio without any linguistic information as "Background sound". + +Background sounds can be utilized in various applications and we propose two related tasks, retrieval task and background sound generation task. To give an example of using it from videos such as movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the different sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt to do multimodal tasks with the speech-decoupled background sound relevant to the storyline. + +# Limitations + +To use audio data in story understanding, there are some limitations to be solved. First, we create audio data by decoupling the speech to exclude lin + +guistic information and preserving only pure audio. However, the generated audio may be yet distant from what people encounter in daily life because there is a possibility that various noises caused by the generation from the movie clip remain. Second, the audio-image-text pair is strongly connected, but it is not perfect due to the nature of the audio. Since audio includes a lot of subjective elements, various correct answers may exist for one story. To deal with these limitations, more strict and cautious policies to process not only audio but also image and text for story understanding should continue to be studied as future work. + +# Ethics Statement + +One potential ethical concern from our proposed dataset is the ability of our model to generate audio resembling existing work as it may potentially pose copyright issues such as regarding background music. In addition, generated audio may be too uncomfortable or inappropriate to hear. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was partly supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2022-0-00608, Artificial intelligence research about multi-modal interactions for empathetic conversations with humans & No.2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub) and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00219959). + +# References + +Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. 2023. Musicl: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325. +Nader Akoury, Shufan Wang, Josh Whiting, Stephen Hood, Nanyun Peng, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Storium: A dataset and evaluation platform for machine-in-the-loop story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01717. +Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Andrew Brown, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. Condensed movies: Story based retrieval with contextual embeddings. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision. +Eden Bensaid, Mauro Martino, Benjamin Hoover, and Hendrik Strobelt. 2021. Fairytailor: A multimodal + +generative framework for storytelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04324. +Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel PW Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. 2011. The million song dataset. +Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143. +Muhao Chen, Hongming Zhang, Qiang Ning, Manling Li, Heng Ji, Kathleen McKeown, and Dan Roth. 2021. Event-centric natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794. +Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Ssvmr: Saliency-based self-training for video-music retrieval. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE. +Yuhao Cheng, Xiaoguang Zhu, Jiuchao Qian, Fei Wen, and Peilin Liu. 2022. Cross-modal graph matching network for image-text retrieval. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(4):1-23. +Jade Copet, Felix Kreuk, Itai Gat, Tal Remez, David Kant, Gabriel Synnaeve, Yossi Adi, and Alexandre Defossez. 2023. Simple and controllable music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05284. +Benjamin Elizalde, Soham Deshmukh, Mahmoud Al Ismail, and Huaming Wang. 2023. Clap learning audio concepts from natural language supervision. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE. +Antti J Eronen, Vesa T Peltonen, Juha T Tuomi, Anssi P Klapuri, Seppo Fagerlund, Timo Sorsa, Gaetan Lorho, and Jyri Huopaniemi. 2005. Audio-based context recognition. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(1):321-329. +Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04833. +Andres Ferraro, Yuntae Kim, Soohyeon Lee, Biho Kim, Namjun Jo, Semi Lim, Suyon Lim, Jungtaek Jang, Sehwan Kim, Xavier Serra, et al. 2021. Melon playlist dataset: A public dataset for audio-based playlist + +generation and music tagging. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 536-540. IEEE. +Seth* Forsgren and Hayk* Martiros. 2022. Diffusion - Stable diffusion for real-time music generation. +Jort F Gemmeke, Daniel PW Ellis, Dylan Freedman, Aren Jansen, Wade Lawrence, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, and Marvin Ritter. 2017. Audio set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 776-780. IEEE. +Yuan Gong, Yu-An Chung, and James Glass. 2021. AST: Audio Spectrogram Transformer. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 571-575. +Satya Krishna Gorti, Noel Vouitsis, Junwei Ma, Keyvan Golestan, Maksims Volkovs, Animesh Garg, and Guangwei Yu. 2022. X-pool: Cross-modal language-video attention for text-video retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5006-5015. +Xin Gu, Yinghua Shen, and Chaohui Lv. 2023. A dual-path cross-modal network for video-music retrieval. Sensors, 23(2):805. +Brent Harrison, Christopher Purdy, and Mark Riedl. 2017. Toward automated story generation with markov chain monte carlo methods and deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, volume 13, pages 191-197. +Xingjian He, Sihan Chen, Fan Ma, Zhicheng Huang, Xiaojie Jin, Zikang Liu, Dongmei Fu, Yi Yang, Jing Liu, and Jiashi Feng. 2023. Vlab: Enhancing video language pre-training by feature adapting and blending. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13167. +Shawn Hershey, Sourish Chaudhuri, Daniel PW Ellis, Jort F Gemmeke, Aren Jansen, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, Devin Platt, Rif A Saurous, Bryan Seybold, et al. 2017. CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification. In 2017 iee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassoc), pages 131-135. IEEE. +Qingqiu Huang, Yu Xiong, Anyi Rao, Jiaze Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2020. Movienet: A holistic dataset for movie understanding. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, pages 709-727. Springer. +Ting-Hao Huang, Francis Ferraro, Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Ishan Misra, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jacob Devlin, Ross Girshick, Xiaodong He, Pushmeet Kohli, Dhruv Batra, et al. 2016. Visual storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1233-1239. + +Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi. 2019. Fréchet audio distance: A reference-free metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms. In *INTERSPEECH*, pages 2350-2354. +Chris Dongjoo Kim, Byeongchang Kim, Hyunmin Lee, and Gunhee Kim. 2019. Audiocaps: Generating captions for audios in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 119-132. +Eungbeom Kim, Jinhee Kim, Yoori Oh, Kyungsu Kim, Minju Park, Jaeheon Sim, Jinwoo Lee, and Kyogu Lee. 2022. Improving audio-language learning with mixgen and multi-level test-time augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17143. +Tomáš Kočisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328. +Qiuqiang Kong, Yin Cao, Haohe Liu, Keunwoo Choi, and Yuxuan Wang. 2021. Decoupling magnitude and phase estimation with deep resunet for music source separation. In ISMIR. Citeseer. +Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352. +Benno Krojer, Vaibhav Adlakha, Vibhav Vineet, Yash Goyal, Edoardo Ponti, and Siva Reddy. 2022. Image retrieval from contextual descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15867. +Brenden M Lake, Tomer D Ullman, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman. 2017. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40:e253. +Peter J Lang, Margaret M Bradley, and Bruce N Cuthbert. 1998. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. *Biological psychiatry*, 44(12):1248-1263. +Junnan Li, Yongkang Wong, Qi Zhao, and Mohan S Kankanhalli. 2019. Video storytelling: Textual summaries for events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(2):554-565. +Wei Li, Linchao Zhu, Longyin Wen, and Yi Yang. 2023. Decap: Decoding clip latents for zero-shot captioning via text-only training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03032. +Yang Liu, Samuel Albanie, Arsha Nagrani, and Andrew Zisserman. 2019. Use what you have: Video retrieval using representations from collaborative experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13487. + +Huaishao Luo, Lei Ji, Ming Zhong, Yang Chen, Wen Lei, Nan Duan, and Tianrui Li. 2022. Clip4clip: An empirical study of clip for end to end video clip retrieval and captioning. Neurocomputing, 508:293-304. +Yiwei Ma, Guohai Xu, Xiaoshuai Sun, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Rongrong Ji. 2022. X-clip: End-to-end multi-grained contrastive learning for video-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 638-647. +Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 839-849. +Takayuki Nakatsuka, Masahiro Hamasaki, and Masataka Goto. 2023. Content-based music-image retrieval using self-and cross-modal feature embedding memory. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2174-2184. +Pedro Neves, Jose Fornari, and João Florindo. 2022. Generating music with sentiment using transformer-gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11134. +Karol J Piczak. 2015. Esc: Dataset for environmental sound classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1015-1018. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR. +Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Niket Tandon, and Bernt Schiele. 2015. A dataset for movie description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3202-3212. +Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684-10695. +Justin Salamon, Christopher Jacoby, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2014. A dataset and taxonomy for urban sound research. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1041-1044. +Flavio Schneider, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Scholkopf. 2023. Mo\^ usai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757. + +Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2256-2265. PMLR. +Dan Stowell, Dimitrios Giannoulis, Emmanouil Benetos, Mathieu Lagrange, and Mark D Plumbley. 2015. Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 17(10):1733-1746. +Bob L Sturm. 2012. An analysis of the gtzan music genre dataset. In Proceedings of the second international ACM workshop on Music information retrieval with user-centered and multimodal strategies, pages 7-12. +Didac Surís, Amanda Duarte, Amaia Salvador, Jordi Torres, and Xavier Giro-i Nieto. 2018. Cross-modal embeddings for video and audio retrieval. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (eccv) workshops, pages 0-0. +Makarand Tapaswi, Yukun Zhu, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and Sanja Fidler. 2016. Movieqa: Understanding stories in movies through question-answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4631-4640. +Randy Thom. 1999. Designing a movie for sound. IRIS-PARIS-, 27:9-20. +Suramya Tomar. 2006. Converting video formats with ffmpeg. *Linux Journal*, 2006(146):10. +Sean Vasquez and Mike Lewis. 2019. Melnet: A generative model for audio in the frequency domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01083. +Sijin Wang, Ruiping Wang, Ziwei Yao, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. 2020. Cross-modal scene graph matching for relationship-aware image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 1508-1517. +Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2023. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for vision and vision-language tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19175-19186. +Ho-Hsiang Wu, Prem Seetharaman, Kundan Kumar, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2022. Wav2clip: Learning robust audio representations from clip. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4563-4567. IEEE. + +Yifei Xin, Dongchao Yang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Improving text-audio retrieval by text-aware attention pooling and prior matrix revised loss. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE. +Hanxiao Xu. 2020. Cross-modal sound-image retrieval based on deep collaborative hashing. In 2020 5th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation (ISCTT), pages 188-197. IEEE. +Jiaqi Xu, Bo Liu, Yunkuo Chen, Mengli Cheng, and Xing Shi. 2023. Multi: Efficient video-and-language understanding with multiway-sampler and multiple choice modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05707. +Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5288-5296. +Hong Xuan and Xi Stephen Chen. 2023. Dissecting deep metric learning losses for image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2164-2173. +Dongchao Yang, Jianwei Yu, Helin Wang, Wen Wang, Chao Weng, Yuexian Zou, and Dong Yu. 2023. Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing. +Rui Yang, Shuang Wang, Yingzhi Sun, Huan Zhang, Yu Liao, Yu Gu, Biao Hou, and Licheng Jiao. 2022. Multimodal fusion remote sensing image-audio retrieval. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 15:6220-6235. +Botao Yu, Peiling Lu, Rui Wang, Wei Hu, Xu Tan, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Museformer: Transformer with fine-and coarse-grained attention for music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10349. +Lvmin Zhang and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05543. +Qi Zhang, Zhen Lei, Zhaoxiang Zhang, and Stan Z Li. 2020. Context-aware attention network for imag-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3536-3545. +Jinkuan Zhu, Pengpeng Zeng, Lianli Gao, Gongfu Li, Dongliang Liao, and Jingkuan Song. 2023. Complementarity-aware space learning for video-text retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/images.zip b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..091d0ff9dfb9f7ad78bd530e2acc674b511dace8 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:9251160191678338f86c039ac82d7f38f6ad1374e1e355d2538bf49c5de18720 +size 570024 diff --git a/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/layout.json b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5654dbbc3ae0a7ebd3cdd2c54a57f63a992422bc --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sound of Story_ Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8925 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 67, + 461, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 67, + 461, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 67, + 461, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sound of Story: Multi-modal Storytelling with Audio" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jaeyeon Bae" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Seokhoon Jeong" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Seokun Kang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Namgi Han" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Jae-Yon Lee" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Hyounghun Kim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{12}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Taehwan Kim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 470, + 118 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{12}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 121, + 395, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 121, + 395, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 202, + 121, + 395, + 135 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Artificial Intelligence Graduate School" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 136, + 422, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 136, + 422, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 136, + 422, + 150 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 136, + 422, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Department of Computer Science and Engineering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 150, + 355, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 150, + 355, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 150, + 355, + 163 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 240, + 150, + 355, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Liberal Arts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 163, + 440, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 163, + 440, + 177 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 163, + 440, + 177 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Korea" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 178, + 359, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 178, + 359, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 178, + 359, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{qowodussla, shjd0246, oracleismo," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 191, + 440, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 191, + 440, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 191, + 440, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "hng88, jlee2791, h.kim, taehwankim} @unist.ac.KI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 213, + 202, + 227 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 213, + 202, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 213, + 202, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Storytelling is multi-modal in the real world. When one tells a story, one may use all of the visualizations and sounds along with the story itself. However, prior studies on storytelling datasets and tasks have paid little attention to sound even though sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset, called Sound of Story (SoS), which has paired image and text sequences with corresponding sound or background music for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound. Our SoS dataset consists of 27,354 stories with 19.6 images per story and 984 hours of speech-decoupled audio such as background music and other sounds. As benchmark tasks for storytelling with sound and the dataset, we propose retrieval tasks between modalities, and audio generation tasks from image-text sequences, introducing strong baselines for them. We believe the proposed dataset and tasks may shed light on the multi-modal understanding of storytelling in terms of sound. Downloading the dataset and baseline codes for each task will be released in the link: https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 626 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 613, + 154, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 648, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 648, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 648, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Story understanding and telling is one of the important but challenging problems in natural language processing and machine learning, and there have been extensive studies on this problem for decades (Harrison et al., 2017; Kočisky et al., 2018). Many prior researches have focused on building models that understand stories such as utilizing pre-trained model (Chen et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 214, + 526, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2022; Wang et al., 2023; He et al., 2023), event-centric understanding (Chen et al., 2021) and using multiway-sampler (Xu et al., 2023). Also, lots of approaches are proposed that aim to understand the stories within the provided text (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2018; Akoury et al., 2020), image (Huang et al., 2016; Bensaid et al., 2021; Krojer et al., 2022) and video (Rohrbach et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2016; Tapaswi et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019; Bain et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 526, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 526, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 352, + 526, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite there being many benchmarks for story understanding and telling, most of them less focus on audio even if it is one of the key elements for humans to understand stories (Lang et al., 1998; Lake et al., 2017). Therefore, we propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information. For this purpose, we introduce a novel dataset called the Sound of Story (SoS), which aims to leverage audio information for story understanding, distinguishing it from other existing story or audio datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To create the SoS dataset, all the modalities are extracted from Condensed Movie Dataset (CMD) (Bain et al., 2020) and Large Scale Movie Description Challenge datasets (LSMDC) (Rohrbach et al., 2015). Image and text data extracted from the same movie clip have their contexts and both of them have the possibility to infer the story from the same movie clip. And in the case of audio such as background sound and music, it has the ability to enrich storytelling by representing and recognizing the context of the situations (Eronen et al., 2005; Stowell et al., 2015). Due to these characteristics, audio, image, and text extracted from the same movie clip become correlated and complementary. So, our SoS dataset allows three modalities generated from the same movie clip to be used for story understanding as a pair. In addition, we propose new story under" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 262, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 262, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 262, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* These authors contributed equally to this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13467" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13467-13479 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 309, + 217 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 309, + 217 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 309, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 68, + 309, + 217 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d31ff77c8e8c663f38df4726dbfd7e22e63ef9b950bd9d9b65da91e1fd4cc9a4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 524, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 524, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 524, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Overall data generating process flow for our Sound of Story (SoS) dataset. All the modalities are extracted from the same movie clips. We exclude the speech from audio to make it contain only pure audio data, which does not contain linguistic information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 320, + 68, + 521, + 220 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 68, + 521, + 220 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 68, + 521, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 68, + 521, + 220 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8f596168632513515ec2aeb834da931f63b3ba1ac7d94b6a1969e600efeab1a7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "standing benchmarks and their baseline models by introducing audio retrieval tasks and audio generation tasks using the SoS dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 289, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 289, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These background sound tasks can be utilized in various applications. For example, for movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. The overall data generating process can be shown in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 507, + 280, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 507, + 280, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 507, + 280, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, our contributions are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 527, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 527, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 527, + 290, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 527, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose to extend story understanding and telling areas by establishing a new component called background sound which is story context-based audio without any linguistic information, which has not been well explored. For this purpose, we introduce a new dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) consisting of text and image sequences and audio for a story. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest well-curated dataset for storytelling with sound." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 684, + 290, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 684, + 290, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 684, + 290, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- As benchmark tasks to show the significance and relevance of sound in a story, we introduce retrieval tasks between audio and other modalities and background sound generation tasks, and baseline models for each of them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We will release the dataset and code to gen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 290, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 290, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 290, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "erate them so that the community can generate more data for a variety of tasks to utilize sound in storytelling and story understanding research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 396, + 369 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 396, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 356, + 396, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 525, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 380, + 525, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Story understanding and telling Storytelling tasks pose significant challenges in the domain of natural language processing (NLP), and researchers have proposed various datasets and benchmarks to tackle these problems. Wikiplots, WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018), and ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) introduce datasets that revolve around text-based story plots. Wikiplots comprises a collection of approximately 113k story plots extracted from English Wikipedia. WritingPrompts (Fan et al., 2018) assembled their dataset by gathering pairs of human-written stories and corresponding prompts from online sources. ROCStories (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) employed the use of Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to generate short stories that incorporate common-sense knowledge, with a focus on everyday topics. These datasets are usually used for story understanding or story generation tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to text-based story plots, there exist numerous story datasets that incorporate images or videos. Visual Storytelling (Huang et al., 2016) introduces the first sequential vision-to-language dataset and explores its applicability in various tasks. It goes beyond simple object understanding or captioning for concrete scenes by considering input that encompasses temporal events. Similarly, ImageCoDe dataset (Krojer et al., 2022) also contains stories but is designed to enable models to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13468" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 522, + 352 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 522, + 352 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 522, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 71, + 522, + 352 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3220a962bbc91dbe915ebabc07a51a29a30b73edb349f4c58d6e5535cbe8c2d5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 361, + 483, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 361, + 483, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 110, + 361, + 483, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Example of SoS dataset. CMD and LSMDC have different lengths of descriptions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 291, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 291, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 291, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "learn detailed situations from finer visual differences within similar sets of images." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 291, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Movie data inherently encompasses storytelling. Various datasets such as MovieQA (Tapaswi et al., 2016) and MovieNet (Huang et al., 2020) have been collected by using movie data and have been used in various multimodal domains. Additionally, datasets like CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and LSMDC (Liu et al., 2019) not only provide movie videos but also include descriptions for the corresponding clips. This offers researchers an opportunity to explore models from a multimodal perspective. However, there are few datasets for story with sound. Existing benchmarks for audio mostly consist of music (Bertin-Mahieux et al., 2011; Sturm, 2012; Ferraro et al., 2021) or animal/environmental sounds (Salamon et al., 2014; Piczak, 2015; Gemmeke et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), and are designed to evaluate simple matching performance between objects (or sentiment) and audio input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-modal retrieval tasks Multi-modal retrieval models are trained to find similar features across different modalities by fusing. These models are tasked with understanding both the context of a given input and the interplay between features provided by other modalities. As a result, retrieval becomes a highly challenging and crucial task in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 524, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "order to comprehend the distinctive characteristics of multiple modalities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 526, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The multi-modal retrieval task has been studied using various modalities such as image-text retrieval (Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2022; Xuan and Chen, 2023), video-text (Ma et al., 2022; Gorti et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2023), audio-image (Xu, 2020; Yang et al., 2022; Nakatsuka et al., 2023), video-audio (Surís et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2023; Cheng et al., 2023) and audio-text (Kim et al., 2022; Xin et al., 2023). Particularly, CLIP4CLIP (Luo et al., 2022), which performs well in the videotext retrieval task by calculating the similarities between the features of each modality obtained from the encoder, and X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) expands CLIP4CLIP and proposes a multi-grained regulation function to improve performance. Furthermore, Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) conducts retrieval for audio-image modalities based on CLIP architecture (Radford et al., 2021), while CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) focuses on audio-text retrieval. In this paper, we propose a story-based audio retrieval task for retrieving proper modal features like image sequences or descriptions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-modal audio generation There have been prior studies on generating audio by receiving cer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13469" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 164 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 524, + 164 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetAudio Type# Story# Images / Story# Audio HoursAvg. text lengthText Type
ImageCode-9,40217-23.3Captions
VIST-50,1364.2-10.2Description
Video Storytellingopen105-22162.6Captions
MovieNetopen1,100-6332004Description
MSR-VTTopen10,000-41.29.6Description
Oursspeech-decoupled audio27,35419.698488Description
", + "image_path": "720f97923052cc5ffb9fd506dead8b94666ae9a64ea952ef97efb65881ee83ab.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 525, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 525, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 172, + 525, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Statistics compared to different storytelling datasets. In the audio types, \"open\" represents raw audio from the video, and \"speech-decoupled audio\" represents the speech-excluded audio. In the text types, \"Caption\" represents the text that explains only the image, and \"Description\" represents the text that includes the story." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 292, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 292, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 229, + 292, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tain modality information as input (Vasquez and Lewis, 2019; Yu et al., 2022; Borsos et al., 2022; Neves et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023; Agostinelli et al., 2023). Among several audio generation tasks, recently text-audio generation has been actively studied. AUDIOGEN (Kreuk et al., 2022) uses an augmentation technique that mixes different audio samples when generating audio samples from captions. Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) fine-tunes the model to generate Spectrogram images using the image-to-text based on Stable Diffusion (Rombach et al., 2022). MUSICGEN (Copet et al., 2023) uses a single-stage language model with efficient token interleaving patterns and an unsupervised melody conditioning method. In this paper, we are interested in generating relevant audio given a story." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 128, + 481 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 128, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 128, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 290, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 290, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 290, + 639 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose a novel dataset named the SoS dataset with 27,354 audio-image-text pairs. 22,330 pairs are created from CMD (Bain et al., 2020) and 5,024 from LSMDC dataset (Rohrbach et al., 2015). We extract the image and audio from the same video and pair them with the description accordingly so that the images and text share the same storyline. In the case of audio, it is related to the other modalities due to being extracted from the same clip so can be used in complementary. The examples of the SoS dataset are shown in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 153, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 153, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 647, + 153, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Movie Clips" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "CMD (Bain et al., 2020) provides the key clips and their high-level semantic descriptions from 3,605 movies. Each key clip has a duration of around 150 seconds and can be automatically obtained from YouTube, making it easily accessible. LSMDC (Rohrbach et al., 2015) consists of 118,081 short clips extracted from 202 movies. Each clip in LSMDC has a duration of around 3" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 526, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to 12 seconds and is accompanied by captions generated from Description Video Services (DVS). In our work, we merge these two movie clip datasets to create the audio-image-text paired dataset. To bridge the gap between CMD and LSMDC, we adapt the LSMDC dataset to match the format of CMD. Since the short movie clips in LSMDC are contiguous, we concatenate them in sequential order until their combined length is similar to that of CMD. Specifically, we concatenate around 20 short movie clips together to create the raw movie clip data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 411, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 411, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 411, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Audio processing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To facilitate audio processing, we first utilized ffmpeg (Tomar, 2006) to extract audio from the video, ensuring that the length of the extracted audio matched that of the raw movie clip video. Subsequently, we employed the bytesep framework proposed by (Kong et al., 2021) to decouple speech from mixed audio containing various sounds. The results of decoupled sounds may be considered as audio data that share the storyline with the raw movie clip video without any linguistic information. Speech-decoupling is proceeded because the speech itself includes the storyline and the model can learn the storyline focused on the speech, not the audio which is not our expectation. Duration distribution of the extracted audios can be seen in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 412, + 656 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 412, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 412, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Image processing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 661, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since videos include many duplicated and similar images, only the key salient images that may represent storyline were extracted through image clustering. We conduct image clustering using image fingerprints, which are representations for uniquely identifying an image generated based on the visual features. From all image fingerprints" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 497, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 761, + 497, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13470" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 77, + 172, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 77, + 172, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 77, + 172, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 77, + 172, + 154 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ac8249742006a62bdd7f620faf1d14930a47a649153b3ddf9da1e69772fbed8c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 158, + 149, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 158, + 149, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 158, + 149, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Frames Distribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 182, + 77, + 286, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 77, + 286, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 77, + 286, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 77, + 286, + 154 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "116a52479b833dbff650424cbe41b72940f47c1e240ba91c97fbba1feee037f0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 158, + 265, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 158, + 265, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 203, + 158, + 265, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Duration Distribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 525, + 238 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 525, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 525, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Distributions of each modality. (a) the number of extracted images from a movie video; (b) the duration of decoupled and processed audio for each story (c) the number of words in each story from CMD (d) the number of words in each story from LSMDC. Note that due to video clip concatenation to match video lengths, descriptions have larger lengths for stories from LSMDC. This text variation leads to the model requiring high-level text understanding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 296, + 77, + 400, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 77, + 400, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 77, + 400, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 296, + 77, + 400, + 154 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b4e57d98fbfbc0adbdec7dd26d419db73f9e332cec70ddaf048d5839cc8a057d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 158, + 390, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 158, + 390, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 158, + 390, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Number of words from CMD" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 413, + 77, + 514, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 77, + 514, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 77, + 514, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 413, + 77, + 514, + 154 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4223700d63020463bfb3f6b6727dba66adc1ce92dbb99bd26481798073a790a6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 158, + 510, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 158, + 510, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 158, + 510, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(d) Number of words from LSMDC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 259, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 259, + 291, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 259, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "extracted from frames of the movie clips, we gradually removed images with a fingerprint similarity of greater than 0.5 which was set empirically found. Through this process, fewer frames for static and more frames for dynamic scenes could be retained. The extracted image sequences can represent the entire video by capturing salient scenes with significant variations, even though it does not include all of the frames. By utilizing this approach, we can create essential image sequences of the video by focusing on scenes with meaningful changes. These processed image sequences provide a novel dataset that highlights the storyline with fewer frames and differentiates it from traditional video datasets. Figure 3 shows the distribution of extracted frames for each movie clip." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 492, + 168, + 506 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 492, + 168, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 492, + 168, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Text processing" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 513, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 513, + 290, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 513, + 290, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "There exist slight differences in clip lengths between CMD and LSMDC even though both of them provide short descriptions for each movie clip. Because we concatenate LSMDC movie clips to match the length of CMD movie clips, descriptions also must be formatted by concatenating the same number of descriptions with the video. As a result, the concatenated descriptions exhibit variations in sentence lengths as in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, there are also inherent differences between the two datasets in how the descriptions were generated. CMD utilizes descriptions generated by users from YouTube, while LSMDC employs descriptive video services to generate descriptions. Because of this text variation difference between the two datasets, it makes our task more challenging by requiring high-level text understanding. We can check that the descriptions are well-aligned with other modalities in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 461, + 273 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 461, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 259, + 461, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Data Statistics and Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 277, + 526, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 277, + 526, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 277, + 526, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our SoS dataset is derived from 3,807 movies covered in the CMD and LSMDC datasets, resulting in a total of 27,354 clips. After processing, each clip has an average of 20 images, and the total number of images in our dataset is 535,707. The accumulated length of the extracted audio is around 984 hours, and each audio consists of around 150 seconds on average. Each clip's text description consists of 88 words on average. If divided into two different datasets, CMD and LSMDC consist of an average of 83.2 words and 1,378.7 words, respectively, with medians of 80 and 130.8, respectively. Quantitative comparison with other story-based datasets is shown in Table 1, and it can be seen that our proposed SoS dataset is the largest well-curated storytelling dataset with extracted audios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We generate paired decoupled audio data that can be used complementarily for story understanding and telling with the image and text in the SoS dataset. The extracted decoupled audio, which is in-the-wild audio, contains abundant information. Specifically, we decoupled speech information to leave only pure audio consisting of background sound on the audio dataset. These remaining audi-los contain a mixture of various daily-life sounds and background music. This distinctive characteristic sets it apart from other audio datasets, making it an adequate audio dataset for story understanding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 680, + 386, + 693 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 680, + 386, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 680, + 386, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 402, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 402, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 402, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Retrieval Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we introduce four retrieval tasks: audio-to-video, audio-to-text, text-to-audio, and video-to-audio retrieval using our proposed dataset. The retrieval tasks focus on finding proper audio" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13471" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 69, + 526, + 257 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0283282c0d188b1ca92a7c82ae6d073b9dc0fce1fd6446874e2324eab5ae2005.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 303 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Proposed retrieval model architecture. Encoded features are obtained from the encoder corresponding to each modality. Features are divided into context-level features and sequence-level features. Then we calculate the score for each task and use the score to calculate the final similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Sim" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 323, + 291, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "corresponding to image sequences or text information containing a story, or matching image sequence or text given audio, which may be used as recommendation for background sound suitable for image sequence or storyline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 180, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 180, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 180, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.1 Retrieval Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we introduce the model used in our proposed retrieval task. We are inspired when we create a baseline model in that the Attention Over Simplicity Matrix method proposed by X-CLIP (Ma et al., 2022) can be flexibly applied to Audio as well as Video-Text. Our overall architecture is illustrated in Figure 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For descriptions, we use the CLIP text encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Radford et al., 2021). The information obtained from the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is defined as sentence feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{s}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and word feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{w}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In the case of video, the CLIP image encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used and the temporal encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is added to obtain the temporal sequence feature. The obtained feature is defined as frame feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the mean pooling of the frame feature is defined as video feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". And in the case of the audio, audio information is extracted by performing audio embedding on Log Mel-filter bank coefficients and fed into the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " using pretrained Audio Spectrogram Transformer (Gong et al., 2021). In this case, the first token among the acquired feature is defined as audio " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the remaining tokens are defined as audio sequence feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f_{as}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 291, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the case of audio-video retrieval, we first calculate the similarity between audio-video " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{a,v})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", audio-frame " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{a,f})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", audio sequence-video " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{as,v})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and audio sequence-frame " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{as,f})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 323, + 526, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". These similarities are calculated following Equation 1 to 4:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 364, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 364, + 525, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 360, + 364, + 525, + 379 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a, v} = \\left(f _ {a}\\right) ^ {T} \\left(f _ {v}\\right) \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "73f191eea42d58b72f22d0b6fd453b22cdebfbf838ec68d57babfd8a2b23c84b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 380, + 524, + 394 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 380, + 524, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 380, + 524, + 394 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a, f} = \\left(f _ {f} f _ {a}\\right) ^ {T} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1 \\times m} \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "d098b2efa8372825cb728438c5569ad3729229d592f01fe5c7d5ec384b8bfa77.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 396, + 524, + 409 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 396, + 524, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 396, + 524, + 409 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a s, v} = f _ {a s} f _ {v} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times 1} \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "87f2b09a8e46783f6e9e1558a26d671e341eb613098a945dc9283853e8079880.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 411, + 524, + 425 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 411, + 524, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 411, + 524, + 425 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a s, f} = \\left(f _ {a s}\\right) \\left(f _ {f}\\right) ^ {T} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times m} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "27a7277482188dce71a84c136aae8c96d27f22b818b974d271beb8baac9dd80a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of video frames and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of audio sequences. Except for audio-video similarity, an aggregation process is required to make it an instance-level similarity. Therefore, the audio-frame and audio sequence-video similarity is calculated through the following equations:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 530, + 525, + 558 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 530, + 525, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 530, + 525, + 558 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a, f} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a , f (1 , i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a , f (1 , j)}\\right)} S _ {a, f} \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "85ad1026ac64ac9af919a80efcbfe63ca6bcd0e5556f73ba4645986381da41de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 560, + 524, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 560, + 524, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 560, + 524, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a s, v} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , v (i , 1)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , v (j , 1)}\\right)} S _ {a s, v} \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "3112f6d0d1dcefcf3a51df583fe658156ac1cef6fe21795f514e6b938fb707df.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The audio-level similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{aud}^{\\prime})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and video-level similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{vid}^{\\prime})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 525, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are calculated to obtain the audio sequence-frame instance-level similarity:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 651, + 525, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 651, + 525, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 651, + 525, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a u d} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (i , *)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (j , *)}\\right)} S _ {a s, f (i,)} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {1 \\times m} \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "457c8ca79cbe9bce61b351cc7870cf4569ce0249423b03df7733de35bd5318a9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 682, + 525, + 709 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 682, + 525, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 682, + 525, + 709 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {a u d} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a u d (1 , i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a u d (1 , j)}\\right)} S _ {a u d (1, i)} \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "24b61cfc0c8df73b7b36a4e30b6ba612ffc7499ae1ecfaba4706a4d039c7dccb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 713, + 524, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 713, + 524, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 713, + 524, + 740 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {v i d} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {m} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (, i)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\exp \\left(S _ {a s , f (, j)}\\right)} S _ {a s, f (, i)} \\in \\mathbb {R} ^ {n \\times 1} \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "acf58e46d071ef4741a54bb2c9e3e09ee56e721764b3070a81a242feaf457ded.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 743, + 524, + 770 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 743, + 524, + 770 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 743, + 524, + 770 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "S _ {v i d} ^ {\\prime} = \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n} \\frac {\\exp \\left(S _ {v i d (i , 1)}\\right)}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} \\exp \\left(S _ {v i d (j , 1)}\\right)} S _ {v i d (1, 1)} \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "d9f401272cdfe98fee52a93c6e994952049244922939b38e142e0d031e1fce51.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13472" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
A2VV2AA2TT2A
EvalOursWav2CLIPOursWav2CLIPOursCLAPOursCLAPRandom
R@1(↑)7.6154.2316.4625.1547.4626.5387.0775.7690.076
R@5(↑)18.68212.61517.92316.07717.46217.23119.38516.0770.378
R@10(↑)28.00019.53827.00023.46224.69224.61525.69223.5380.750
Median R(↓)40.61531.23138.92333.69233.00034.61532.76934.385631.800
Mean R(↓)32.00052.00033.00047.00060.00052.00063.50053.500639.132
", + "image_path": "830635120439416a5c5a598592029935f4b22bddc513a765c2d21a779301cf2f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 168, + 525, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Retrieval performances with the proposed SoS dataset, which are measured on 1300 test samples. Random means the average of the results of five random retrievals." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 277, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 277, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 277, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where \\* denotes all elements in that dimension." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{as,f}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are obtained from the means of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{aud}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{vid}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " obtained by Equation 8 and 10. Therefore, the similarity between video and audio is obtained as the average of the obtained similarities, as shown in Equation 11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 299, + 290, + 313 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 299, + 290, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 299, + 290, + 313 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {S i m} _ {A V} = \\left(S _ {a, f} + S _ {a, f} ^ {\\prime} + S _ {a s, v} ^ {\\prime} + S _ {a s, f} ^ {\\prime}\\right) / 4 \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "a9d5a10e7963ce02f490181dfadac6808ba7027b6097f4fbb47fca534ff8e20a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the audio-text retrieval, the similarity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Sim_{AT}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can be calculated by replacing video-related features with text-related features." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 214, + 382 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 214, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 214, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.2 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 384, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Of the 27,354 stories in our SoS dataset, 26,054 are split into train and 1,300 into test sets. In the case of video, a total of 40 images are used as input. At this time, if there are fewer than 40 images, 40 images are filled with duplicate sampling in accordance with the time order, and if there are more than 40, 40 images are obtained by uniform sampling. In the case of audio, the entire audio is used for learning, and random cropping is performed at this time. In the test, the same audio can be used in all tests by cropping and using the information-rich area of the audio. In the case of text, after tokenizing the description with a CLIP tokenizer, we crop 77 tokens from the front and use them similar to other CLIP-based models (Luo et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). The batch size is 128 in the audio-video and 256 in the audio-text retrieval task, respectively. We conducted the experiment using 2 NVIDIA A100 80GB GPUs using the PyTorch library for 100 epochs, which took about 20 hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 201, + 676 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 201, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 663, + 201, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1.3 Results and Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate the performance of the proposed baseline model with our SoS dataset, we compare it with Wav2CLIP (Wu et al., 2022) for A2V and V2A, and CLAP (Elizalde et al., 2023) for A2T and T2A. Both Wav2CLIP and CLAP are fine-tuned to our SoS dataset from their pretrained weights. For the evaluation metrics, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "utilize Recall@1(R@1), Recall@5(R@5), Recall@10(R@10), Mean Rank(Mean R), and Median Rank(Median R). Table 2 shows the performances for audio-to-video (A2V), video-to-audio (V2A), audio-to-text (A2T), and text-to-audio (T2A)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 525, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 294, + 525, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For A2V and V2A, each story of the SoS dataset consists of fairly long image sequences by using clustering from the video which has an average length of 215 seconds, unlike other datasets. In addition, our audio dataset includes various sounds to express a story and thus can better represent storylines compared to audio composed of simple sounds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, it also presents greater challenges. Therefore, compared to retrieving tasks using short videos and simple audio, it can be considered a challenging task. Nevertheless, with R@1 of 7.615 and 6.462 for both A2V and V2A, respectively, our baseline model performed better than its comparative model, Wav2CLIP, and showed reasonable evaluation results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, our text data consists of a storyline that implicitly represents the whole sequence, not a description of the scene, so it is challenging because the model has to understand the context of the scenes rather than a simpler understanding of the scene. Therefore, looking at the R@1 performance 7.462 and 7.077 in A2T and T2A, respectively, the performance of our proposed baseline model is better than the comparison model CLAP. Also, the results of retrievals can be found in our supplementary material or GitHub link " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 660 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 511, + 526, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 440, + 681 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 440, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 669, + 440, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Audio Generation Task" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 524, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 524, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 687, + 524, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Composing and arranging background music and sound effects that exquisitely match the current scene's story is a highly challenging task that even human creators struggle (Thom, 1999). We propose an audio generation model called SoSGen, which" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 510, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 510, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 510, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13473" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is designed to generate appropriate audio for the movie scene, given the scene's descriptions, frames, or both as the condition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 119, + 221, + 131 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 119, + 221, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 119, + 221, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.1 Audio Generation Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 291, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 135, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SoSgen takes advantage of the architecture of diffusion models (Sohl-Dickstein et al., 2015), which learn a data distribution through gradual denoising. Stable diffusion models (Rombach et al., 2022), a variant of diffusion models, enable effective model conditioning by training the model to learn latent features. Following the same approach, we train SoSgen as a text-to-audio spectrogram diffusion model, using the following objective function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 265, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 265, + 290, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 265, + 290, + 283 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} = \\mathbb {E} _ {x, \\epsilon \\sim \\mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c} \\left[ \\| \\epsilon - \\epsilon_ {\\theta} (\\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d)) \\| _ {2} ^ {2} \\right] \\tag {12}", + "image_path": "178ee45f13c16cb04b10d4a0f3f8c5e87db8e4e95d643a68a0c4366596895c75.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a trainable CLIP text encoder and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the SoS description." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 291, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For image+text-to-audio training, we follow ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture, a lightweight and powerful method that enables additional conditioning of a diffusion model by freezing the original model's parameters. We freeze the text-to-audio model's parameters and resume training using a similar objective function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 420, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 420, + 290, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 87, + 420, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\mathcal {L} = \\mathbb {E} _ {x, \\epsilon \\sim \\mathcal {N} (0, 1), t, c, c _ {i m g}} \\tag {13} \\\\ \\left[ \\left\\| \\epsilon - \\epsilon_ {\\theta} (\\tilde {z} _ {t}, t, c (d), c _ {i m g} (f)) \\right\\| _ {2} ^ {2} \\right] \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "4258ef9de6700c0f1984e82f5ebf95e14982cbc612286d8a86dc7046eafbf50c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{img}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an additional CLIP image encoder that embeds the SoS frame sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 215, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 215, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 495, + 215, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.2 Implementation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Audio in movies rarely remains consistent until the end of a single scene. Also, using long audio as an input or output for a deep learning model is burdening in terms of hardware capacity. Thus, we slice the audio data into a length of approximately 15 seconds. Since extracted frames partially reflect semantic changes within the scene, audio slicing was performed treating audio data between two extracted frames as a base unit. The unit audios are accumulated and concatenated until their cumulative duration exceeds 15 seconds, ensuring that each sliced audio is never longer than 15 seconds. AudiOs that are originally longer than 15 seconds are not sliced because it implies the absence of significant visual changes for the duration, suggesting a high probability of long, consistent audio. Sliced audio files containing only a little sound were eliminated using the PyDub library." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To this end, we assessed the mean frequency of each segment and excluded any with a frequency below " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "78\\mathrm{Hz}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a threshold determined through manual inspection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This process conducted 185,341 audio data of roughly 15 seconds each, which were then converted into spectrograms. From this, we randomly split the dataset into 184,462 and 879 as training and testing, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For our base model, we leveraged Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022), a checkpoint of Stable Diffusion v1-5 (Rombach et al., 2022), fine-tuned on pairs of music descriptions and spectrograms. Following the same approach, we fine-tuned the diffusion model from the Diffusion checkpoint with pairs of SoS descriptions and corresponding sliced audio spectrograms. In addition, we further trained the model in the setting of image and text conditioning, utilizing the ControlNet (Zhang and Agrawala, 2023) architecture. We use a sequence of frames extracted through clustering that correspond to the sliced audio as the image condition. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{text + image}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " was additionally trained from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{text}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " checkpoint, while " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{SoS}_{\\mathrm{image}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 438 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " resumed from the Diffusion checkpoint and used a redundant text condition in both training and testing. The specific model architecture can be found in Figure 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 439, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For training our models, we used a batch size of 1, 16 gradient accumulation steps, an initial learning rate of 1e-6, and a cosine learning rate scheduler. We fine-tuned the text-to-audio model for 406,000 steps and additional 525,000 steps to further train the text+image-to-audio model. Separately, the image-to-audio model was trained for 525,000 steps. We ran fine-tuning for 2 days and ControlNet training for another 2 days on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 436, + 598 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 436, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 436, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.3 Results and Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 603, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 603, + 526, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 603, + 526, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines We compare SoSgen to two baselines: Diffusion (Forsgren and Martiros, 2022) and MusICGEN (Copet et al., 2023), the state-of-the-art open source text-to-music generation model. The performance of the models is evaluated based on the Fréchet Audio Distance (FAD) (Kilgour et al., 2019). FAD is a reference-free evaluation metric that is computed using means and covariances of VGGish (Hershey et al., 2017) embeddings. We used a lightweight pytorch implementation of FAD for more efficient evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 759, + 227, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 759, + 227, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 759, + 227, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://github.com/jiaaro/pydub" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 510, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 510, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 760, + 510, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13474" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 73, + 526, + 224 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 73, + 526, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 73, + 526, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 73, + 526, + 224 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d0b7b0a6b1b73f5e40f90504b240248248463a2eecec72d9db8ebf18077398f3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: SoSgen architecture for training. The components and arrows drawn with dash lines are only used in the ControlNet-involved training, i.e. image-to-audio and image+text-to-audio. To train a text-to-audio model, we condition the denoising model with CLIP text embeddings of SoS descriptions. Once the text-to-audio model is sufficiently trained, we freeze the model and add image embeddings as a condition to train the text+image-to-audio model using ControlNet. Alternatively, an image-to-audio model can be trained from the Diffusion checkpoint, using a redundant text condition \"Audio\" for each training data. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{E}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the encoder, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the decoder, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Z}_{\\mathcal{T}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes latent representation at timestep " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 526, + 321 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 395, + 262, + 484 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 387 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: FAD (lower is better) of SoSgen and the baselines. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{SoSgen}_{\\text{text+image}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the only model given with the image and text condition. The rest are only given with SoS descriptions as the condition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 395, + 262, + 484 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 395, + 262, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 395, + 262, + 484 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelFADVGGish ↓
Riffusion20.114
MUSICGEN11.680
SoSgen text10.935
SoSgen image18.324
SoSgen text+image9.099
", + "image_path": "ca38cc6880647a4caa726dc3ba8a6bb4071621173615db7a710e0947aa0abfd5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the comparison of SoSgen against Diffusion and MUSICGEN. SoSgen text, Diffusion, and MUSICGEN generate an audio spectrogram given descriptions. For SoSgen image and SoSgen text+image, an image sequence is also given as an additional condition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The results indicate that SoSgen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{text}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and SoSgen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{text+image}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " outperform Diffusion and MUSICGEN in terms of FAD. Although SoSgen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "_{\\text{image}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " only shows a slight improvement from Diffusion, combining two modalities exceptionally enhances audio generation capability. The generated audio samples can be listened to in our GitHub link " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and are also included in the supplementary material. The samples show SoSgen's superior performance on story audio generation tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 381, + 353 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 381, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 381, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 526, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 526, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 361, + 526, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we emphasize that sound also conveys meaningful semantics of the story. Thus, we propose a novel dataset named Sound of Story (SoS) dataset, audio-image-text pair dataset. One main feature of our dataset is that all the linguistic information inside the audio is eliminated. We named the audio without any linguistic information as \"Background sound\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 526, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 470, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Background sounds can be utilized in various applications and we propose two related tasks, retrieval task and background sound generation task. To give an example of using it from videos such as movies and cartoons, background sound is often produced according to a designated scene using various props or objects for a sense of reality. In the case of the retrieval task, among the different sound sources made, it is possible to recommend the sound source which fits the best to the scene. Furthermore, background sound generation can produce more realistic audio while reducing human resource costs by directly generating the right audio for a given scene. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first attempt to do multimodal tasks with the speech-decoupled background sound relevant to the storyline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 710, + 365, + 723 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 710, + 365, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 710, + 365, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To use audio data in story understanding, there are some limitations to be solved. First, we create audio data by decoupling the speech to exclude lin" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 275, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 275, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 275, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5https://github.com/Sosdatasets/SoS_Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13475" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "guistic information and preserving only pure audio. However, the generated audio may be yet distant from what people encounter in daily life because there is a possibility that various noises caused by the generation from the movie clip remain. Second, the audio-image-text pair is strongly connected, but it is not perfect due to the nature of the audio. Since audio includes a lot of subjective elements, various correct answers may exist for one story. To deal with these limitations, more strict and cautious policies to process not only audio but also image and text for story understanding should continue to be studied as future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 257, + 160, + 270 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 257, + 160, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 257, + 160, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One potential ethical concern from our proposed dataset is the ability of our model to generate audio resembling existing work as it may potentially pose copyright issues such as regarding background music. In addition, generated audio may be too uncomfortable or inappropriate to hear." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 370, + 170, + 384 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 370, + 170, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 370, + 170, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was partly supported by Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No.2022-0-00608, Artificial intelligence research about multi-modal interactions for empathetic conversations with humans & No.2021-0-02068, Artificial Intelligence Innovation Hub) and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00219959)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 550, + 127, + 562 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 550, + 127, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 550, + 127, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. 2023. Musicl: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 291, + 688 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 632, + 291, + 688 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nader Akoury, Shufan Wang, Josh Whiting, Stephen Hood, Nanyun Peng, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Storium: A dataset and evaluation platform for machine-in-the-loop story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01717." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 290, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 290, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 290, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Andrew Brown, and Andrew Zisserman. 2020. Condensed movies: Story based retrieval with contextual embeddings. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eden Bensaid, Mauro Martino, Benjamin Hoover, and Hendrik Strobelt. 2021. Fairytailor: A multimodal" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "generative framework for storytelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04324." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 136 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 103, + 525, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel PW Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. 2011. The million song dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 526, + 210 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 526, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 145, + 526, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 526, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 219, + 526, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Muhao Chen, Hongming Zhang, Qiang Ning, Manling Li, Heng Ji, Kathleen McKeown, and Dan Roth. 2021. Event-centric natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xi Chen, Xiao Wang, Soravit Changpinyo, AJ Piergiovanni, Piotr Padlewski, Daniel Salz, Sebastian Goodman, Adam Grycner, Basil Mustafa, Lucas Beyer, et al. 2022. Pali: A jointly-scaled multilingual language-image model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06794." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 357, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 357, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 357, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Ssvmr: Saliency-based self-training for video-music retrieval. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 487 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 432, + 525, + 487 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuhao Cheng, Xiaoguang Zhu, Jiuchao Qian, Fei Wen, and Peilin Liu. 2022. Cross-modal graph matching network for image-text retrieval. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(4):1-23." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 495, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 495, + 525, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 495, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jade Copet, Felix Kreuk, Itai Gat, Tal Remez, David Kant, Gabriel Synnaeve, Yossi Adi, and Alexandre Defossez. 2023. Simple and controllable music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05284." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 526, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 548, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin Elizalde, Soham Deshmukh, Mahmoud Al Ismail, and Huaming Wang. 2023. Clap learning audio concepts from natural language supervision. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antti J Eronen, Vesa T Peltonen, Juha T Tuomi, Anssi P Klapuri, Seppo Fagerlund, Timo Sorsa, Gaetan Lorho, and Jyri Huopaniemi. 2005. Audio-based context recognition. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(1):321-329." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical neural story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04833." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andres Ferraro, Yuntae Kim, Soohyeon Lee, Biho Kim, Namjun Jo, Semi Lim, Suyon Lim, Jungtaek Jang, Sehwan Kim, Xavier Serra, et al. 2021. Melon playlist dataset: A public dataset for audio-based playlist" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 792 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 792 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 792 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13476" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "generation and music tagging. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 536-540. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 147 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Seth* Forsgren and Hayk* Martiros. 2022. Diffusion - Stable diffusion for real-time music generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 290, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 155, + 290, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jort F Gemmeke, Daniel PW Ellis, Dylan Freedman, Aren Jansen, Wade Lawrence, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, and Marvin Ritter. 2017. Audio set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 776-780. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 290, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 240, + 290, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuan Gong, Yu-An Chung, and James Glass. 2021. AST: Audio Spectrogram Transformer. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 571-575." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Satya Krishna Gorti, Noel Vouitsis, Junwei Ma, Keyvan Golestan, Maksims Volkovs, Animesh Garg, and Guangwei Yu. 2022. X-pool: Cross-modal language-video attention for text-video retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5006-5015." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 290, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Gu, Yinghua Shen, and Chaohui Lv. 2023. A dual-path cross-modal network for video-music retrieval. Sensors, 23(2):805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 397, + 290, + 464 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 397, + 290, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 397, + 290, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Brent Harrison, Christopher Purdy, and Mark Riedl. 2017. Toward automated story generation with markov chain monte carlo methods and deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, volume 13, pages 191-197." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 472, + 290, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xingjian He, Sihan Chen, Fan Ma, Zhicheng Huang, Xiaojie Jin, Zikang Liu, Dongmei Fu, Yi Yang, Jing Liu, and Jiashi Feng. 2023. Vlab: Enhancing video language pre-training by feature adapting and blending. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13167." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 535, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 535, + 290, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 535, + 290, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shawn Hershey, Sourish Chaudhuri, Daniel PW Ellis, Jort F Gemmeke, Aren Jansen, R Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, Devin Platt, Rif A Saurous, Bryan Seybold, et al. 2017. CNN architectures for large-scale audio classification. In 2017 iee international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassoc), pages 131-135. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 620, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qingqiu Huang, Yu Xiong, Anyi Rao, Jiaze Wang, and Dahua Lin. 2020. Movienet: A holistic dataset for movie understanding. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23-28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, pages 709-727. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ting-Hao Huang, Francis Ferraro, Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Ishan Misra, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jacob Devlin, Ross Girshick, Xiaodong He, Pushmeet Kohli, Dhruv Batra, et al. 2016. Visual storytelling. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 1233-1239." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi. 2019. Fréchet audio distance: A reference-free metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms. In *INTERSPEECH*, pages 2350-2354." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 525, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 525, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chris Dongjoo Kim, Byeongchang Kim, Hyunmin Lee, and Gunhee Kim. 2019. Audiocaps: Generating captions for audios in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 119-132." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 525, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eungbeom Kim, Jinhee Kim, Yoori Oh, Kyungsu Kim, Minju Park, Jaeheon Sim, Jinwoo Lee, and Kyogu Lee. 2022. Improving audio-language learning with mixgen and multi-level test-time augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17143." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 525, + 340 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 525, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 525, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tomáš Kočisky, Jonathan Schwarz, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Karl Moritz Hermann, Gábor Melis, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 525, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 349, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qiuqiang Kong, Yin Cao, Haohe Liu, Keunwoo Choi, and Yuxuan Wang. 2021. Decoupling magnitude and phase estimation with deep resunet for music source separation. In ISMIR. Citeseer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 525, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 401, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 525, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benno Krojer, Vaibhav Adlakha, Vibhav Vineet, Yash Goyal, Edoardo Ponti, and Siva Reddy. 2022. Image retrieval from contextual descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15867." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 517, + 525, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Brenden M Lake, Tomer D Ullman, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman. 2017. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and brain sciences, 40:e253." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 525, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 525, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 570, + 525, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Peter J Lang, Margaret M Bradley, and Bruce N Cuthbert. 1998. Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. *Biological psychiatry*, 44(12):1248-1263." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 623, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Yongkang Wong, Qi Zhao, and Mohan S Kankanhalli. 2019. Video storytelling: Textual summaries for events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 22(2):554-565." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 525, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 675, + 525, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Li, Linchao Zhu, Longyin Wen, and Yi Yang. 2023. Decap: Decoding clip latents for zero-shot captioning via text-only training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03032." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yang Liu, Samuel Albanie, Arsha Nagrani, and Andrew Zisserman. 2019. Use what you have: Video retrieval using representations from collaborative experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13487." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13477" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huaishao Luo, Lei Ji, Ming Zhong, Yang Chen, Wen Lei, Nan Duan, and Tianrui Li. 2022. Clip4clip: An empirical study of clip for end to end video clip retrieval and captioning. Neurocomputing, 508:293-304." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 193 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 137, + 290, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yiwei Ma, Guohai Xu, Xiaoshuai Sun, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Rongrong Ji. 2022. X-clip: End-to-end multi-grained contrastive learning for video-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 638-647." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 290, + 289 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 290, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 201, + 290, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 839-849." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 290, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 290, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takayuki Nakatsuka, Masahiro Hamasaki, and Masataka Goto. 2023. Content-based music-image retrieval using self-and cross-modal feature embedding memory. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2174-2184." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 374, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 374, + 290, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 374, + 290, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pedro Neves, Jose Fornari, and João Florindo. 2022. Generating music with sentiment using transformer-gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11134." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 290, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 417, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karol J Piczak. 2015. Esc: Dataset for environmental sound classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1015-1018." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 545, + 290, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 545, + 290, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 545, + 290, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach, Niket Tandon, and Bernt Schiele. 2015. A dataset for movie description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3202-3212." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 290, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 290, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684-10695." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Justin Salamon, Christopher Jacoby, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2014. A dataset and taxonomy for urban sound research. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 1041-1044." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Flavio Schneider, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Scholkopf. 2023. Mo\\^ usai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. 2015. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2256-2265. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 139, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 139, + 525, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 139, + 525, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Stowell, Dimitrios Giannoulis, Emmanouil Benetos, Mathieu Lagrange, and Mark D Plumbley. 2015. Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 17(10):1733-1746." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 259 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 525, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bob L Sturm. 2012. An analysis of the gtzan music genre dataset. In Proceedings of the second international ACM workshop on Music information retrieval with user-centered and multimodal strategies, pages 7-12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 272, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 272, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 272, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Didac Surís, Amanda Duarte, Amaia Salvador, Jordi Torres, and Xavier Giro-i Nieto. 2018. Cross-modal embeddings for video and audio retrieval. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (eccv) workshops, pages 0-0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 525, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Makarand Tapaswi, Yukun Zhu, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Antonio Torralba, Raquel Urtasun, and Sanja Fidler. 2016. Movieqa: Understanding stories in movies through question-answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4631-4640." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Randy Thom. 1999. Designing a movie for sound. IRIS-PARIS-, 27:9-20." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 450, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 450, + 525, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 450, + 525, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Suramya Tomar. 2006. Converting video formats with ffmpeg. *Linux Journal*, 2006(146):10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 484, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 484, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 484, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sean Vasquez and Mike Lewis. 2019. Melnet: A generative model for audio in the frequency domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01083." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 594 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 525, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sijin Wang, Ruiping Wang, Ziwei Yao, Shiguang Shan, and Xilin Chen. 2020. Cross-modal scene graph matching for relationship-aware image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 1508-1517." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 607, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 607, + 525, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 607, + 525, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Johan Bjorck, Zhiliang Peng, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Owais Khan Mohammed, Saksham Singhal, Subhojit Som, et al. 2023. Image as a foreign language: Beit pretraining for vision and vision-language tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19175-19186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ho-Hsiang Wu, Prem Seetharaman, Kundan Kumar, and Juan Pablo Bello. 2022. Wav2clip: Learning robust audio representations from clip. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 4563-4567. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13478" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yifei Xin, Dongchao Yang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023. Improving text-audio retrieval by text-aware attention pooling and prior matrix revised loss. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 201 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanxiao Xu. 2020. Cross-modal sound-image retrieval based on deep collaborative hashing. In 2020 5th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation (ISCTT), pages 188-197. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 290, + 255 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 290, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 210, + 290, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaqi Xu, Bo Liu, Yunkuo Chen, Mengli Cheng, and Xing Shi. 2023. Multi: Efficient video-and-language understanding with multiway-sampler and multiple choice modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05707." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 290, + 319 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 290, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 263, + 290, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5288-5296." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 290, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hong Xuan and Xi Stephen Chen. 2023. Dissecting deep metric learning losses for image-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2164-2173." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 391, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 391, + 290, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 391, + 290, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dongchao Yang, Jianwei Yu, Helin Wang, Wen Wang, Chao Weng, Yuexian Zou, and Dong Yu. 2023. Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 290, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rui Yang, Shuang Wang, Yingzhi Sun, Huan Zhang, Yu Liao, Yu Gu, Biao Hou, and Licheng Jiao. 2022. Multimodal fusion remote sensing image-audio retrieval. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 15:6220-6235." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Botao Yu, Peiling Lu, Rui Wang, Wei Hu, Xu Tan, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2022. Museformer: Transformer with fine-and coarse-grained attention for music generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10349." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 290, + 626 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 290, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 290, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lvmin Zhang and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05543." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 634, + 290, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qi Zhang, Zhen Lei, Zhaoxiang Zhang, and Stan Z Li. 2020. Context-aware attention network for imag-text retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3536-3545." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 290, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 698, + 290, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jinkuan Zhu, Pengpeng Zeng, Lianli Gao, Gongfu Li, Dongliang Liao, and Jingkuan Song. 2023. Complementarity-aware space learning for video-text retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13479" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_content_list.json b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2721a0c99945ed3fd7d4f3268e19ba91dab8be3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,3007 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 126, + 89, + 870, + 111 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nick McKenna†* Tianyi Li†*", + "bbox": [ + 364, + 136, + 638, + 152 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Liang Cheng† Mohammad Javad Hosseini‡ Mark Johnson§ Mark Steedman†", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 152, + 860, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "†University of Edinburgh ‡Google Research §Macquarie University", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 170, + 791, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{nick.mckenna, tianyi.li}@ed.ac.uk", + "bbox": [ + 297, + 187, + 707, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as \"indices\" to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation. $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 282, + 460, + 652 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 668, + 258, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Models (LLMs) such as LLaMA, GPT-3/4, PaLM, and more (Touvron et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), have been trusted by many to perform language understanding in downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, and fact verification, among others (Zhang et al., 2023). However, due to the large-scale nature of LLM training on vast, often proprietary data, and the inherent opacity of LLM parameters, it is difficult to explain their", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 695, + 489, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "behavior when answering user queries and the corresponding risks in terms of bias and robustness. In particular, one LLM behavior poses a significant challenge: \"hallucination,\" the phenomenon in which LLMs provide information which is incorrect or inappropriate, presented as fact.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper investigates two biases driving LLM performance in natural language inference, sometimes called textual entailment. This is a basic component of language understanding which is critical in applied tasks, and we offer these two biases as explanations of general false positive hallucination in everyday use. We examine broader NLI, and especially directional entailments, which hold in one direction, but not both. For example, DEFEAT entails PLAY but PLAY does not entail DEFEAT. Inferring directional entailment is more difficult than that of symmetric paraphrase, so it more deeply probes understanding.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 351, + 884, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach is a behavioral study of prompted LLM decision-making. We alter existing NLI datasets in targeted ways while measuring how predictions change, across several major LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM). We demonstrate two sources of LLM performance on the NLI task, which we offer as explanations of general false positive hallucination: (1) LLM bias toward affirming entailment when the hypothesis may be attested in the training text, including reliance on named entity identifiers; and (2) a corpus-frequency bias, affirming entailment when the premise is less frequent than the hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We establish that these biases originate from the LLM pretraining objective, in which statistical modeling of the natural distribution of human-generated text leads to (at the level of sentences) memorizing individual statements, and (at the level of corpora) learning typical patterns of usage. Though they are superficially performant, our experiments show that even powerful LLMs still use unsatisfactory tools instead of robust reasoning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Equal contribution.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 866, + 262, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{1}$ Code and LLM outputs (LLaMA and GPT-3.5) are available at https://github.com/Teddy-Li/LLM-NLI-Analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 881, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2758", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2758-2774", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present three contributions, the demonstrations of both factors and an analysis of their impact:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) In a prompting scenario, LLMs respond to entailment samples according to an attestation bias, affirming entailments more readily if the hypothesis is attested by the pretraining text. We find that LLaMA-65B, GPT-3.5, and PaLM-540B are respectively 1.9, 2.2, and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly predict Entail when the model already asserts the hypothesis is attested, compared to when not attested. Further, LLMs recall from their propositional memory using named entities as identifying \"indices,\" even though they are irrelevant to the logic of the predicate inference task.", + "(2) LLMs also rely on a simple corpus-statistic bias using relative term-frequencies, especially when propositional memory is not available. The three LLMs are 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly affirm entailments if the premise has lower term frequency than the hypothesis, than when not.", + "(3) For the NLI test samples consistent with these factors, LLM scores are misleadingly high; for NLI samples adversarial to them, LLM performance is severely degraded. We show that when labels go against the attestation bias, LLMs can be poor or even near-random classifiers; for the relative frequency bias, we similarly show a substantial performance decrease across all LLMs." + ], + "bbox": [ + 112, + 117, + 489, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 554, + 270, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Addressing task robustness, Poliak et al. (2018) found a range of NLI datasets contain artifacts which are learned by supervised models trained on only sample hypotheses. In our work we design a similar hypothesis-only test with LLMs, but we use it to probe model memory without any training. By conditioning on the attestation of hypotheses, we show that LLMs are inherently sensitive to attestation, separate from the statistical idiosyncrasies of NLI datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 582, + 489, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, Talman and Chatzikyriakidis (2019) report generalization failure among many models supervised for NLI — models fail to generalize between NLI datasets, even if the task is formatted the same. On smaller Language Models such as RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019; 355M params), Li et al. (2022) also observed a reliance on dataset", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 744, + 489, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "artifacts when performing directional NLI on predicates. We now study the behavior of much larger LMs, which have demonstrated more robust performance across NLP tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent work has also explored LLM memorization and generalization. Carlini et al. (2023) establish that LLMs are able to memorize more data than small LMs, whereas Tirumala et al. (2022) further demonstrate that LLMs pay special attention early in training to numbers and nouns, which act as unique identifiers for individual training sentences. We also show that memories used in language inference are tied to specific named entities. And while Weller et al. (2023) and Kandpal et al. (2022) find that entity frequency in training data is correlated with performance in factual recall about them, we find that entity frequency is anti-correlated with hypothetical generalization performance ( $\\S 6$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 149, + 884, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bubeck et al. (2023) argue that GPT-4 understands language \"beyond memorization\". We do not disprove generalization, but we show that GPT-4 shows the same hallucinations in Appendix F.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 374, + 884, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experimental Design", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 450, + 726, + 466 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We design behavioral experiments on LLMs by modifying NLI datasets with rigorous controls. We observe large behavior changes across three major LLM families due to propositional-memory effects in §5 and §6, and corpus frequency in §7. Finally, we show the impact on real performance in §8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 475, + 882, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Two Biases in Inference Predictions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 582, + 835, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We claim that the pretraining objective to fit the distribution of natural text leads to biases in LLM generations. We explore two such biases.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 880, + 651 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Attestation Bias ( $\\Lambda$ ) is the over-reliance of an LLM on its propositional memory about a query statement. We claim that when a statement is likely to be attested in some way by an LLM's training data, it is more likely to affirm it as a conclusion in NLI tasks, regardless of any premise it is presented with. We measure the attestedness of a sample by prompting the LLM to ask if the hypothesis in question is true, false, or unknown.3 Attestation predictions are denoted by $\\Lambda$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A biased model will appear to perform well on dataset samples with entailment labels that happen to align with the bias. Table 1 shows examples from the Levy/Holt dev set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 820, + 880, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{3}$ Alternatively,LLM perplexity for a statement could be used; however, this is not always available, e.g. with GPT-3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We speculate that a similar attestation effect could even be present in the supervised models studied in Poliak et al. (2018), which could contribute to those models' performance. We leave the investigation of this to future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2759", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ee2f426b9ceaef84b11cfc5aa57fc6bb42ea65c249d2fd14b36494fa3e31bae5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Dev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]Dataset LabelBias Prediction
Geyers are common to New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are found in New ZealandEntailΛ = hypothesis Attested
Geyers are found in New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are common to New ZealandNo-EntailΛ = hypothesis Not-Attested
Whiskey consists chiefly of alcohol ⇒ Whiskey contains alcoholEntailΦ = f(consists chiefly of) < f.contains
Whiskey contains alcohol ⇒ Whiskey consists chiefly of alcoholNo-EntailΦ = f缰ates) >f(consists chiefly of)
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 885, + 167 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Two pairs of samples are consistent with a respective bias. Model predictions made on the basis of the bias will appear to predict the direction of entailment for each sample. $f(\\cdot)$ maps a term to its corpus frequency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 174, + 882, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed in §2, we draw inspiration from the hypothesis-only baseline (Poliak et al., 2018), but our test only queries model memory about the hypothesis without any training. We describe prompt generation in detail in §4.2, with an example in appendix Table 13.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 229, + 487, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dasgupta et al. (2022) show a similar effect in LLMs on abstract reasoning tests, related to sentential content, and equate it to human tendencies. In contrast, we examine the risks of propositional memory on more realistic inference tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 326, + 489, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Relative Frequency Bias $(\\Phi)$ is the use by LLMs of a simple rule for deciding entailment, calculable from corpus statistics. Entailment is affirmed if, ignoring named entities, the eventuality in premise $P$ is less frequent in training than that in hypothesis $H$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 487, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This bias is reflected in natural text: it is known that nouns follow a trend of becoming more specific as corpus-frequency decreases (Rosch et al., 1976; Caraballo and Charniak, 1999) and the same is observed for predicates (McKenna et al., 2023). Since entailments may carry from a specific term to a more general one, e.g. SPRINT entails RUN, relative frequency can often indicate direction of entailment. However, this is an artifact of natural text and has no direct relationship with meaning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 511, + 487, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Test samples are labeled for agreement with this bias separately from models, with examples shown in Table 1. Since LLM pre-train corpora are impractically large or proprietary, we instead use Google N-grams4 as a proxy of the natural distribution of text, and thus the distributions of these corpora. We average frequencies between the years 1950-2019, and compare between $P$ and $H$ . To acquire the generic eventualities in each sample, we exclude any extracted entities and lemmatize predicate phrases; further, we reduce the effect of noise and sparsity by requiring a wide margin of difference between $P$ and $H$ frequency estimates. Frequency decisions are denoted by $\\Phi$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 623, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Levy/Holt consists of premise-hypothesis pairs, with a task formatted: \"Given [premise $P$ ], is it true that [hypothesis $H$ ]?\" (Levy and Dagan, 2016; Holt, 2019). Each $P$ - and $H$ -statement has the property of containing one predicate with two entity arguments, (where the same entities appear in both $P$ and $H$ ) as shown in Table 2. This targeted dataset is ideal for precisely measuring model understanding of predicates, because entailment between statements is decidable purely on the basis of the predicates and their attributes. We study the challenging directional subset, where entailments hold in one direction but not both.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 250, + 884, + 458 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RTE-1 is one of the original and most difficult tests of NLI (Dagan et al., 2006). It is not purely directional on the basis of predicates or consistently structured like Levy/Holt, so we leave it out of the behavioral experiments. However, it is a widely understood dataset, and we use it to demonstrate the impact of the two biases in general NLI in §8.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Exclusions are made of NLI datasets relating to knowledge of the world, since we aim to test LLMs on their capability to reason purely about the semantics of natural language predicates without relying on memorized facts. We explicitly avoid datasets such as MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) etc.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Dataset Transformations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 736, + 752, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Standard Inference Task $(I)$ is on original NLI datasets, in which entailment is determinable by using general language inference on sentences. In Levy/Holt, it is determinable just by predicates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 884, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We define three dataset transformations to study the change in model responses as targeted information is removed. These are the randomized premise predicate setting $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ , and two argument transformations: generic arguments $I^{\\text{GenArg}}$ , and type-constrained randomized arguments $I^{\\text{RandArg}}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://books.google.com/ngrams", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 426, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2760", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0a978fa0753d97fb0e04c2b6db006e718f134bc8eca9d6874025adfd6a8bbfe8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailGeorge Bush was the Governor of Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
IRandPremNo-EntailGeorge Bush resided in Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 80, + 858, + 134 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/289eff61557bd45d2a51192b38f0afb6618806ab932dfa7a24bd13563f94750a.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: From the original dataset task $(I)$ we derive the Random Premise task $(I_{\\text{RandPrem}})$ , respecting type-constraints. A random premise is highly unlikely to entail the hypothesis, so samples are relabeled No-Entail." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailIndia exports tons of rice ⇒ India exports rice
I^GenArgEntaillocation X exports tons of food Y ⇒ location X exports food Y
I^RandArg↓EntailSloterdijk exports tons of oatmeal cookies ⇒ Sloterdijk exports oatmeal cookies
I^RandArg↑EntailHelsinki exports tons of Granny Smith ⇒ Helsinki exports Granny Smith
", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 186, + 836, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: An original dev sample $(I)$ is transformed by insertion of entity types $(I^{GenArg})$ ; by real entities sampled from the $5\\%$ least frequent in NewsCrawl $(I^{RandArg\\downarrow})$ ; and also from the $5\\%$ most frequent $(I^{RandArg\\uparrow})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 882, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transformations involve first identifying the types of entities in statements, in order to constrain entity or predicate replacements. We type each entity with one of the 48 FIGER types (Ling and Weld, 2012), such as \"person,\" \"location,\" etc. First, an entity linker (Nguyen et al., 2014) identifies the Freebase ID (Bollacker et al., 2008) for an entity, from which we then obtain its FIGER type; we assign a default type \"thing\" in failure cases.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 331, + 487, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Random Premise Task ( $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ ) replaces the original premise predicate with a random predicate, while maintaining the same entity arguments. This manipulation produces a dataset in which all samples are labeled No-Entail, since two randomly paired predicates are very unlikely to be related by entailment. Thus, positive decisions by the model are false positive hallucinations.[5]", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 483, + 487, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To maintain naturalness and grammaticality, we constrain a new predicate to have argument slots of the same types as the original premise. For example, \"[medicine] is indicated for patients with [disease]\" is swapped for \"[medicine] does not cure [disease)\". We source candidates from dev set premises satisfying the target type-constraints, and sample uniform randomly. We map the original entities to their respective slots in the new premise. Examples are shown in Table 2. $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ is a good test of model reliance on propositional memory, since we prevent entailments while maintaining the attestedness of conclusions (hypotheses).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Generic Argument Task ( $I^{GenArg}$ ) replaces original entities with unique FIGER-typed", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 829, + 489, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "identifiers, e.g. \"location X\" and \"food Y.\" By masking the identities of entities, this test is designed to remove entity information while maintaining the same entailment label, as a baseline control setting. We append unique identifiers (e.g. \"X,\" \"Y\") to allow tracking of entity slots across the premise and the hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 331, + 884, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Random Argument Task ( $I^{RandArg}$ ) replaces original entities with other real, random entities of the same FIGER-type. Like $I^{GenArg}$ , this test is designed to create novel strings by modifying statements without changing entailment labels. But now we test model sensitivity to added extraneous information. Examples are shown in Table 3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 453, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use entity type constraints here to ensure polysemous predicates maintain the same sense. For example, a different sense of run is used in \"[person] runs [organization]\" vs. \"[person] runs [software]\", but between different entities of the same type, the same senses are used, so the exact entity IDs do not affect entailment labels (Yarowsky, 1993). We source new entities from NewsCrawl (Barrault et al., 2019), a decade-long span of multi-source news text, in which entities are typed as above. We sample new entities uniform randomly from the $5\\%$ least common entities in NewsCrawl $(I^{RandArg\\downarrow})$ , and the $5\\%$ most common $(I^{RandArg\\uparrow})$ . We insert the sampled entities while preserving the rest of each statement.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 568, + 882, + 809 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Querying Models with Prompts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 815, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 848, + 613, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLaMA is a recent LLM model family which rivals or surpasses GPT-3 performance while being open to scientific study. A range of model sizes", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5We manually inspected the generated random premise entries for the Levy/Holt dataset to verify this: we found $86.6\\%$ of entries are successfully non-entailing, $3.8\\%$ undecided cases, and only $9.6\\%$ are unintended true entailments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2761", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "are provided, and we test the largest LLaMA-65B model. LLaMA is not fine-tuned. In preliminary experiments on the Levy/Holt dataset, we found two popular fine-tuned LLaMA variants, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023), perform similarly to LLaMA base models and underperform LLaMA-65B, so we leave them out of further experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-3 Series models are closed to deep scientific review (Brown et al., 2020), though they are a widely-used comparison for their performance, and have been reasonably well-studied. We evaluate on text-davinci-003 (GPT-3.5), as it is the largest, and has undergone instruction- and RLHF-finetuning, enabling interesting comparisons.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 225, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "PaLM is larger than GPT-3, which often claims state-of-the-art on evaluation datasets. We use the largest PaLM-540B base model, which is also only pretrained, so it serves as a further comparison point to LLaMA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 350, + 487, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Later GPT models (like text-davinci-003 in our experiments) have been pre-trained and fine-tuned, while base LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pre-training, so their contrast indicates what stage of training is responsible for the phenomena we study. Our aim is not to judge which LLM is superior, but to show the common sources of hallucination they share.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 443, + 487, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also omit models superseded in performance by LLaMA (e.g. OPT, GPT-J, etc.), as well as products that are closed to scientific review (e.g. GPT-4, Bard, etc.).6.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 489, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Prompt Design and Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 651, + 401, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of test samples is done by inserting the premise and hypothesis into a prompt template, which is used to query the model in natural language. Following this, we append a three-way answer choice: A) Entailment, B) Neutral, C) Contradiction, following the typical format in NLI (Bowman et al., 2015).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 674, + 489, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Selection of the prompt template used in test is decided by the highest AUC obtained on the respective dev set. We try 8 promising templates including 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021), also used in other NLI work $^{7}$ (Webson and Pavlick, 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 799, + 489, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ideally, an LLM with advanced language understanding ability could perform inference in zero-shot without annotated examples, which would raise confidence that this faculty is ready for downstream tasks. To this end, we examine each LLM in zero-shot (detailed in Appendix A), but they exhibit severely degraded, even near-random performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We turn to few-shot, and hand- annotate a minimal 4 examples in the style of the template, with added explanations about why the given answer is correct for each example. These examples are pretended before the query (see Appendix A for an example). Our goal is to study model behavior as conditions change, not to maximize the score on any particular dataset. Therefore, we use a minimal 4-example setup, which we find is capable of evoking positive responses from all three LLMs on each dev set, across most templates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 197, + 884, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Scoring is done by converting choice A into Entail and collapsing both B and C choices into No-Entail to align with Levy/Holt and RTE-1 annotation. For behavioral experiments in §5, §6, and §7, we score the model solely based on its textual response. All models successfully choose one of A/B/C on all dev questions, showing compatibility with the QA format.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 382, + 882, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the analysis in §8 which measures model performance across confidence thresholds, we convert the letter choice to a probability with the mapping:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 512, + 882, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} S _ {\\text {e n t}} = 0. 5 + 0. 5 * \\mathbb {I} [ \\operatorname {t o k} = \\mathbf {A} ] * S _ {\\text {t o k}} \\\\ - 0. 5 * \\mathbb {I} [ \\operatorname {t o k} \\in \\{\\mathbf {B}, \\mathbf {C} \\} ] * S _ {\\operatorname {t o k}} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 546, + 575, + 845, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Where $\\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function, and $S_{ent}$ estimates the probability of Entail from a textual output $(0\\leq S_{\\mathrm{ent}}\\leq 1)$ with token probability $S_{tok}$ . The linear transformation preserves the ordering of model confidence, which is sufficient for calculating a precision-recall curve.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 884, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiment 1: Attestation Bias", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 732, + 811, + 749 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We begin our experiments by assessing LLMs' reliance on their propositional memory of training text by conditioning each model's entailment task predictions $I$ on its own predictions of attestation $\\Lambda$ . We do this by comparing estimated probabilities of predicting Entail conditioned on whether the hypothesis is predicted Attested or not.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 882, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Further, we test a setting which controls for the possibility that original Levy/Holt entailments may coincidentally refer to attested facts, which could", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6We include an analysis of GPT-4 in Appendix F.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 891, + 438, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "See Appendix A for details on prompt template selection.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 904, + 484, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2762", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b0a91ee27f30c3fc3649f83185a84bbf3144af8408c7b728f7ace80a56aef7fb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for original entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses $(\\Lambda)$ . This setting is intuitive but may be subject to spurious correlations." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 485, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/acbeb360cca4b2de77122474455da5dc0a06245ae72d1df7151c51972c26e71c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for Random-Premise entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses $(\\Lambda)$ . Now, predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models are sensitive to attestation, and hallucinate more when the hypothesis is attested." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 340, + 487, + 513 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lead to spurious correlation between inference and attestation scores without clearly demonstrating use of memory versus true entailment. This controlled setting is the random premise task $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ , which converts entailments into non-entailments without altering the hypothesis. An ideal model capable of drawing inferences from information in context should detect that in the $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ task it is no longer possible to infer the hypothesis based on the premise (even if the hypothesis is itself attested in training), and never predict Entail. Thus, in $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ , all Entail predictions are assumed to be false positive hallucinations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 848, + 218, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With $I$ , $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ and $\\Lambda$ predictions acquired as described in §3.1, we present the conditional probabilities in Figures 1 and 2. It is clear that a model's", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "memory about the hypothesis plays a part in its predictions of the hypothesis given a premise, either related or random.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For $I$ , we observe significantly higher probability of predicting Entail when the hypothesis is Attested. In the random premise task $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ , this trend continues. LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM, respectively, show a 1.9x, 2.2x, and 2.0x higher chance of falsely predicting that a random premise Entails the hypothesis if it already predicts the hypothesis is Attested. This false positive hallucination and its impact on NLI performance is investigated further in $\\S 8$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 134, + 885, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This behavior is observed across model families (LLaMA, GPT, and PaLM), establishing that it is due to pretraining rather than Instruction-tuning or RLHF, since LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pretraining. This behavior is undesirable, because model predictions on NLI tasks should be based solely on general language understanding, not prior knowledge. We may conclude that memory of training data is a significant contributor in LLM inference, and may be an important source of hallucination.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 297, + 885, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Implications for Real Applications", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 491, + 823, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using prior knowledge as part of language inference has bad implications for the use of LLMs in real applications. We offer an example scenario of a question-answering task where user questions are answered from a Knowledge Base (KB). In typical formulations of this task, if a statement in the KB (premise) entails a user query (hypothesis), the premise may be formulated into an answer. Consider a KB such as a legal document or HR rulebook. Assume that the text is prepended to the user query and presented to the LLM, as in other works (Srinivasan et al., 2022). Given our findings, we might observe the LLM hallucinating answers to questions using information which is not presented in the KB, but may have been read by the LLM in text from other sources during pretraining. These answers could be illogical, contradictory, and could misrepresent the views of the KB, or other harms. Such poor use of in-context learning has already been observed in specific domains like medicine (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 882, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In general, this is a risk for LLMs which (a) are deployed for tasks like QA by feeding novel text (e.g. a legal document) in-context as part of the user query, and (b) are trained on datasets which are", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2763", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/099744fc8555c262073fddad16b08037423d7d2b46109f58df019713f911cc94.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI67.068.40
IGenArg69.066.9-1.5
IRandArg↓64.063.8-4.6
IRandArg↑67.253.7-14.7
GPT-3.5I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
PaLMI72.876.20
IGenArg79.850.8-25.4
IRandArg↓69.558.7-17.5
IRandArg↑70.852.4-23.8
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Exp-2. Scoring model outputs in different argument-replacement tasks. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings. Recall decreases sharply across settings in all models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 304, + 489, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "private or otherwise infeasibly large to read manually, containing many facts and human opinions unknowable to both the user and modeler.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 379, + 489, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 439, + 413, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In §5, we have established that propositional memory explains a significant portion of false positives in LLM inference predictions. In this section, we continue by showing the importance of named entities in the process of LLMs' memory recall.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 482, + 489, + 563 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As described in §3.3, we manipulate the entities with the $I^{GenArg}$ generic argument replacement, and two random entity replacements, one with infrequent-entities $I^{RandArg\\downarrow}$ and one with frequent-entities $I^{RandArg\\uparrow}$ (examples in Table 3).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 489, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By replacing arguments constrained by type, entailment labels are maintained; however, new samples should contain novel strings not attested in pretrain corpora. We expect that an ideal, generalizing model would maintain its predictions across all conditions; a flawed model utilizing the attestation bias would predict fewer Entail, since entities no longer identify these statements in training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 218, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report results across conditions in Table 4. We observe two phenomena across all three models, aligning with the above conjecture of “flaws.”", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we observe that all models' behavior significantly changes in the same way when original entities are replaced by either entity types or random real entities. Despite similar (or marginally increas", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing) precision across conditions, recall degrades sharply from original entities $(I)$ (GPT-3.5 @92.3) to random frequent entities $(I^{RandArg\\uparrow})$ (GPT-3.5 @55.3). Generic-argument $I^{GenArg}$ performance also degrades in this way, showing that this is not a matter of poorly selected real entities, but rather a loss of information from the original dataset which models were using to answer questions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Second, across the 3 models, we observe a significant difference in recall between the two real entity conditions $I^{RandArg\\downarrow}$ and $I^{RandArg\\uparrow}$ , which are both composed of unattested statements, but involve entities that differ in typical corpus frequency. Infrequent entities ( $I^{RandArg\\downarrow}$ ) yield better generalization and a higher recall (GPT-3.5 @66.5) than frequent entities ( $I^{RandArg\\uparrow}$ ) (GPT-3.5 @55.3).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 214, + 884, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These findings corroborate those from §5, that LLMs use memory as part of language inference, and additionally show that these memories are recalled using named entities acting as indices. These experiments demonstrate that too much prior exposure to an entity may impede model generalization when that entity is discussed in novel inferences: the more a model has read about an entity during pretraining, the less capable it is of drawing novel natural language inferences involving it. This is the case even though the inferences do not require detailed knowledge of the entity.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 343, + 884, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Like §5, the effect is consistent across models, indicating LLM pretraining is responsible.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 537, + 882, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We show similar results on RTE-1 in Appendix B. Further, instructing LLMs to ignore propositional memory in Appendix C shows little change.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 882, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Experiment 3: Relative Frequency Bias", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 633, + 880, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We continue the conditioning experiments from §5, now exploring the relative frequency bias. Sample labels for this bias are denoted by the model-agnostic $\\Phi$ as described in §3.1. $\\Phi$ labels the conformance of sample predicates to the bias: $\\Phi_{<}$ means $P$ is less corpus-frequent than $H$ by a margin (positive class), $\\Phi_{>} =$ means $P$ more frequent than $H$ by the margin (negative class). To control for differences between datasets, the margin is set so that 1/3 of samples are classed as \"roughly equal\" $(\\Phi_{\\approx})$ , which we discard.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 884, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following the observations in §6, we further apply a generic-argument transformation to control for attestation, yielding $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}$ . With the entities masked, models cannot recall propositional memory for this task: by re-calculating the $\\Lambda$ mea", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2764", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0f677de03ffeeb27b88ddba48f4842c01611270b459740765507c4e781f86cd7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Controlled Task: Conditioning Inference Results on Relative Frequency $(\\Phi)$ , with either original entities or generic placeholders", + "Figure 3: Exp-3. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for random-premise Levy/Holt conditioned on relative frequencies $(\\Phi)$ , with original $(I_{RandPrem})$ or generic $(I_{RandPrem}^{GenArg})$ entities. Predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models hallucinate more often when test samples conform to the relative frequency bias $(\\Phi_{<})$ than when not $(\\Phi_{>})$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 112, + 485, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sure with generic arguments, only 2 hypotheses are still predicted as Attested by GPT-3.5, whereas for LLaMA and PaLM, the numbers are also only $6.2\\%$ and $3.9\\%$ . Additionally, as with $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ , here the entailment label of each sample remains No-Entail, so any Entail prediction is false positive hallucination.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 413, + 489, + 525 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7.1 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 541, + 218, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We estimate the probabilities of models predicting Entail conditioned on the frequency label $\\Phi$ , between $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ and $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}$ settings, and present the results in Figure 3. We observe a clear and consistent rise of hallucination when samples conform to the bias. Namely, in case of $\\Phi_{<}$ , models are more likely to predict Entail, even though no semantic relation exists between $P$ and $H$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 487, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Between the two settings, with $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ , when entities are available, this effect is moderate. On the other hand, with $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}$ when entity-based memory is blocked, we observe a decrease in the overall level of hallucination, but the separation between $\\Phi_{<}$ and $\\Phi_{>}$ becomes more drastic, to 1.6x, 1.8x and 2.0x for LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM respectively. This indicates a tension between $\\Lambda$ and $\\Phi$ : propositional memory may be used when available, and if not, the predicate pairing may be attended to more closely. Again, the $\\Phi$ effect is observed across the three model families, revealing its root in the large-scale pre-training process, rather than model peculiarities or fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Impact of Bias on Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 811, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have demonstrated two sources of hallucination by LLMs on inference tasks. We now assess their impact on model performance to quantify their risk.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 882, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare LLMs' performance between NLI subsets that are consistent or adversarial to each bias. A sample $P \\models H$ ? is consistent with a bias when the prediction by the bias agrees with the gold entailment label; conversely, it is adversarial to a bias when the prediction by the bias disagrees with the label.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 159, + 884, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For example, \"Google bought YouTube $\\vDash$ Google owns YouTube\" is consistent with the attestation bias of every model, because the conclusion Google owns YouTube is attested in every LLM's training data, and the sample label is Entail; \"Apple owns Samsung $\\nVdash$ Apple bought Samsung\" is also consistent, because its conclusion is not attested and the sample label is No-Entail. The reverses of these two samples are adversarial, since their respective attestedness (unchanged) does not agree with the entailment labels (now flipped). For each subset, there is substantial representation in both Levy/Holt and RTE-1 (see appendix Table 9).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 273, + 884, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While earlier experiments inspected model textual responses to characterize behavior change, we now use area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) to summarize model performance over a tunable confidence threshold (scoring described in §4.2), which is better for measuring practical discriminative power. Following Li et al. (2022), we re-scale AUC values to normalize over the label distribution, yielding $AUC_{norm}$ values that assign random classifiers $0\\%$ and perfect classifiers $100\\%$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 482, + 882, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report results in Table 5. Under the standard inference task $I$ , the performance drop from $\\Lambda_{\\text{CONSistent}}$ to $\\Lambda_{\\text{ADVERSARIAL}}$ is severe for all 3 LLMs: they deteriorate from very good classifiers to poor or even near-random ones. $^{8}$ This fragility from the attestation bias can be alleviated by masking entities with type-identifiers (condition $I^{\\text{GenArg}}$ ), which reduces the performance drop.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 644, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the other hand, with the generic arguments in $I^{GenArg}$ , LLMs are forced to focus on the predicates in each proposition. As a result, the impact of the relative frequency bias is intensified. From the standard inference task $I$ to $I^{GenArg}$ , the average performance drop from the cons. to adv.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8We note $\\Lambda$ predictions could possibly be influenced by model-specific idiosyncrasies in prompt format. We provide an analysis in Appendix E, where we find no significant effect.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2765", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ee39a84e3788bcad9adabd4b74859cc9d5ac7440d1401a6cb3783959f1d793a8.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)
cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.
LLaMAI65.58.1-57.442.132.3-9.862.137.4-24.755.551.7-3.8
GPT-3.5I85.010.8-74.253.543.2-10.384.647.5-37.177.643.4-34.2
PaLMI79.131.5-47.663.353.0-10.387.183.4-3.787.581.0-6.5
LLaMAIGenArg52.134.4-17.755.334.9-20.459.230.4-28.851.739.4-12.3
GPT-3.5IGenArg67.118.8-48.350.435.0-15.480.156.4-23.779.649.1-30.5
PaLMIGenArg58.146.6-11.559.947.3-12.678.184.4+6.385.478.7-6.7
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 873, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: LLM performance on subsets where $\\Lambda /\\Phi$ is consistent/adversarial to entailment labels, measured with ${AUC}_{norm}\\left( {0\\% = \\text{random chance performance). Decrease from cons to adv subsets are shown in the diff. columns.}}\\right)$", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 237, + 882, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "subsets w.r.t. $\\Phi$ is widened from $10.1\\%$ to $16.1\\%$ for Levy/Holt and from $14.8\\%$ to $16.5\\%$ for RTE-1. The differences for $\\Phi$ -consistency subsets are generally narrower than $\\Lambda$ -consistency subsets, possibly because the relative frequencies require generalizing from instances, and may be more difficult to capture, and potentially because frequency measures with Google N-gram are a crude estimate of the actual frequencies in LLM pre-train corpora.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 292, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "9 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 450, + 247, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Across several major LLM families and experimental settings, we demonstrate two important biases in the performance of LLMs on natural language inference tasks, which may also manifest in applied tasks as hallucination. Contrary to claims of LLM general reasoning capabilities, we show that much of this performance is achieved by (1) recall of relevant memorizations and (2) corpus-based biases like term frequency. Since these factors are reproduced in all models, we establish that they originate in LLM pre-training, and are not corrected during GPT-3.5 fine-tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 489, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conclude that LLMs, though powerful, use unsatisfactory tools for the basic tasks of language understanding and inference. We propose several approaches to control for these biases in evaluation, and ultimately conclude that further attention on alleviating these biases are needed, before LLMs may be trusted to reason robustly about language.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 670, + 489, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 796, + 220, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we have discussed two prominent sources of hallucination for LLMs in natural language inference tasks. We acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive search of all the sources, where further exploration should be done in future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also note that after controlling for the factors", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 903, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "discussed in this paper, there remains residual, unexplained performance on NLI tasks. This residual might be due to other undiscovered biases or possibly generalising inference capability. We leave further exploration of this residual to future work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 292, + 884, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed in Appendix A, we compared a range of popular LLM prompting techniques and selected the most promising approach. We acknowledge that there could potentially be other novel prompting techniques that could help the LLMs resist the influence of the biases discussed in this paper. We identify this as an open question and advocate for future research.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 374, + 884, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethical Considerations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 519, + 710, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper discusses two major sources of hallucination in LLM output when asked to perform natural language inference, which we note is a capability required of many downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, etc. We show that users of LLMs may be subjected to faulty judgements if the content of their request overlaps with data in pretraining. However, it is difficult to ascertain for both a user or modeler exactly what is contained in pretraining data, or how this will interact with a user's query. Our proposed attestation query shows promise in detecting potential overlaps, but model responses in applications of these cases are not explored. Further, the relative frequency bias demonstrates a much more subtle problem of corpus distribution that is naturally inherent to model pretraining on human generated text.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 546, + 884, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In light of these, the potential harms of LLM use for drawing natural language inferences may include: offering inaccurate or irrelevant information to a user's query or contradiction of information provided in-context with a user's query.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2766", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 285, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This research was supported by ERC Advanced Fellowship GA 742137 SEMANTAX and the University of Edinburgh Huawei Laboratory.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 489, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 186, + 213, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Loic Barrault, Ondrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussa, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Shervin Malmasi, Christof Monz, Mathias Muller, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2019. Findings of the 2019 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT19). In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 1-61, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '08, page 1247-1250, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.", + "Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. ArXiv:2303.12712 [cs].", + "Sharon A. Caraballo and Eugene Charniak. 1999. Determining the specificity of nouns from text. In 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora.", + "Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 208, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2023. Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models. ArXiv:2202.07646 [cs].", + "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\\%$ * chatgpt quality.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.", + "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The Pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment, pages 177-190, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.", + "Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K. Lampinen, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L. McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. ArXiv:2207.07051 [cs].", + "Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).", + "Xavier Holt. 2019. Probabilistic Models of Relational Implication. arXiv:1907.12048 [cs, stat]. ArXiv: 1907.12048.", + "Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Nikolas McNeal, Clayton Washington, You Chen, Lang Li, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2022. Thinking about GPT-3 in-context learning for biomedical IE? think again. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4497–4512, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2767", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge.", + "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics.", + "Omer Levy and Ido Dagan. 2016. Annotating Relation Inference in Context via Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 249-255, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tianyi Li, Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Sabine Weber, and Mark Steedman. 2022. Language Models Are Poor Learners of Directional Inference. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 903–921, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiao Ling and Daniel S. Weld. 2012. Fine-grained entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'12, page 94-100. AAAI Press.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]. ArXiv: 1907.11692.", + "Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2023. Smoothing Entailment Graphs with Language Models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Dat Ba Nguyen, Johannes Hoffart, Martin Theobald, and Gerhard Weikum. 2014. Aida-light: High-throughput named-entity disambiguation. In LDOw.", + "OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. ArXiv:2303.08774 [cs].", + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller," + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs].", + "Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3):382-439.", + "Martin Schmitt and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Language Models for Lexical Inference in Context. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1267-1280, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Krishna Srinivasan, Karthik Raman, Anupam Samanta, Lingrui Liao, Luca Bertelli, and Michael Bendersky. 2022. QUILL: Query intent with large language models using retrieval augmentation and multi-stage distillation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 492-501, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Aarne Talman and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2019. Testing the Generalization Power of Neural Network Models across NLI Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 85-94, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca.", + "Kushal Tirumala, Aram Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. 2022. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 38274-38290. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.", + "Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2022. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2768", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2300-2344, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Orion Weller, Marc Marone, Nathaniel Weir, Dawn Lawrie, Daniel Khashabi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2023. \"according to ...\" prompting language models improves quoting from pre-training data.", + "David Yarowsky. 1993. One sense per collocation. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 21-24, 1993.", + "Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, Percy Liang, Kathleen McKeown, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Benchmarking large language models for news summarization." + ], + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Prompt Format Selection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 451, + 371, + 469 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In prompt-based interactions with the LLMs, several types of context information could be added to help models produce accurate and robust predictions. We attend to two design choices in prompt engineering: prompt templates and in-context examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 489, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt templates are known to have a direct and sometimes decisive impact on LLM behavior. As such, we carefully select a range of clear and concise templates as promising candidates. As discussed in §4.2, we run each template through the dev sets of each dataset, and select the template with the best discriminative power according to AUC scores (similarly to §8). The candidate set of templates includes 3 concise templates we wrote:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 583, + 489, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. If [PREMISE], then [HYPOTHESIS].", + "2. [PREMISE], SO [HYPOTHESIS].", + "3. [PREMISE] entails [HYPOTHESIS]." + ], + "bbox": [ + 129, + 738, + 408, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also considered the 5 prompt templates used in bias work on LMs for textual entailments (Schmitt and Schütze, 2021):", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 487, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "4. [PREMISE], which means that [HYPOTHESIS].", + "5. [HYPOTHESIS], because [PREMISE]." + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 877, + 485, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "6. It is not the case that [HYPOTHESIS], let alone that [PREMISE].", + "7. $\\left[\\mathrm{HYPOTHESIS}\\right]_{\\mathrm{NEG}}$ which means that PREMISE $]_{\\mathrm{NEG}}$", + "8. [PREMISE]NEG, because [HYPOTHESIS]NEG." + ], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 84, + 882, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In preliminary experiments with GPT-3.5, we observed that LLMs are not responsive to the 3 contrapositive prompts from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) (colored gray), performing at random. We also observed that prompt number 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) also consistently underperforms the other 4 templates, so we use the remaining 4 templates (namely, template no. 1, 2, 3, 4) as our final candidate set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 187, + 884, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In-Context Examples have been widely used for interactions with LLMs since Brown et al. (2020). Further, Wei et al. (2022) has demonstrated that including chain-of-thought explanation, namely step-by-step explanations, in the in-context examples, helps LLMs perform reasoning tasks. On the other hand, Ouyang et al. (2022) has suggested that instruction-tuned LLMs are also capable of performing tasks in zero-shot, without exposure to any in-context examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 882, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compared zero-shot and few-shot in our preliminary experiments with LLaMA and GPT-3.5 on Levy/Holt directional dev set. Following Touvron et al. (2023), for zero-shot, we prepend a textual description of the task to each test sample; for few-shot, we prepend a minimal 4 examples with explanations. Instantiated prompts in the two settings are demonstrated in Table 13. Here we report the dev set results with the best-performing templates.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 501, + 882, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We found that for the two pre-trained LLMs, namely, LLaMA and PaLM, zero-shot performance on the Levy/Holt directional dev set is near-random, at $56.6\\%$ and $61.5\\%$ AUC respectively (random is $50\\%$ ); with 4 in-context examples, the models begin to exhibit non-trivial behavior, with $65.0\\%$ and $80.2\\%$ AUC, respectively. This is not surprising, since pre-trained LLMs without instruction fine-tuning should not be expected to perform complex tasks zero-shot. For GPT-3.5, the performance is still much lower in zero-shot, at $64.5\\%$ , compared to $74.6\\%$ in few-shot.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 884, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As discussed in §4.2, ideally we would like LLMs to have zero-shot natural language abilities readily available for downstream tasks. However, in light of this observation, our primary experiments are conducted in the few-shot setting", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2769", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/aa0df0ecf78f51e0b1c965e237e15b75307ce756bd7d9c911977a3f6478625aa.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTaskPrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI74.552.50
I^GenArg70.957.3+4.8
I^RandArg↓66.960.5+8.0
I^RandArg↑70.651.5-1.0
GPT-3.5I80.696.50
I^GenArg79.791.3-5.2
I^RandArg↓80.182.5-14.0
I^RandArg↑81.980.5-16.0
PaLMI90.384.00
I^GenArg92.371.5-12.5
I^RandArg↓87.882.5-1.5
I^RandArg↑88.282.0-2.0
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 489, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Scoring model outputs in different conditions of RTE-1. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 286, + 487, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "throughout, in order to better explore the abilities of these LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 357, + 485, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B RTE-1 Results For Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 405, + 440, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The RTE-1 dataset contains complex natural language statements with varied linguistic features, so predictions about entailment are not decidable only on the basis of contained predicates. However, RTE-1 is a difficult challenge set for models, and interesting to compare to in the broader domain of NLI. Though the sentences are much more complex, we are able to conduct an analogous experiment as in §6 by first identifying spans of named entities and their respective entity types, then replacing the entities with new ones. As before, we compare model scores on the original dataset to three test conditions: generic arguments (\"location X\", \"person Y\", etc.), sampled low-frequency entities constrained to the same type, and the same for high-frequency sampled entities. Since only the entities in each statement have been altered, the entailment labels between premise/hypothesis pairs remain unchanged, and an ideal model capable of generalizing inference would make the same predictions across dataset conditions. Results are shown in Table 6.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 451, + 489, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We observe similar trends to those reported on Levy/Holt. GPT-3.5 performs very consistently between Levy/Holt and RTE-1 in terms of degrading recall when information is changed in each sample. We observe that model performance is worse than the original dataset when using generic arguments, and worse still using type-constrained random ar", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "guments. We further observe that across all three LLMs across both datasets, models consistently achieve worse recall using high-frequency entities than low-frequency entities, supporting the claim that increasing the frequency of entity occurrence in training data impedes generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Different from in Levy/Holt, we observe some noise in LLaMA's predictions; the recall on the original task is actually lower than the generic argument condition and the low-frequency entity condition. We note that overall, LLaMA is the weakest LLM tested in this experiment on both Levy/Holt and RTE-1, and that its performance on RTE-1 is particularly low. We suggest that the increased difficulty of RTE-1 over Levy/Holt (due to having much more linguistic variation) is simply too complex for LLaMA, which is neither the largest LLM tested, nor instruction-finetuned.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 884, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also observe a smaller gap between PaLM's recall rates across dataset conditions, though the gaps are consistent with our claims. While the model appears able to generalize to conditions in which random real arguments are inserted, recall on the generic argument condition is significantly degraded. Failure on this control condition indicates that the model may not be generalizing as well as the other conditions would imply.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 375, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C The Ineffectiveness of Instructing LLMs to Stop Conditioning on Attested Information", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 535, + 836, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In §5 and §6, we showed that entailment predictions from LLMs are strongly biased by their predictions on the attestation of hypotheses. We wondered whether there are intuitive prompt engineering techniques to steer its behavior away from attending to attestation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 595, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Towards this goal, we experimented with prepending a brief task description to the few-shot prompts in part B of Table 13, explicitly instructing the models to ignore the attestedness of individual statements: Please check the entailments between the following hypothetical statements. Ignore the veracity of these statements.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 693, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We replicated the experiments in §5 and §6 with GPT-3.5, since GPT-3.5 is an instruction-finetuned model trained to be responsive to prompts, where the other two LLM families are only pre-trained. Despite having been instruction-finetuned, the results with GPT-3.5 show only marginal improvements in model behavior.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2770", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/14bfb800d2c95a4727e344adceeae7bcf3c7c00598a389374080fdd0c285a0f1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
taskGPT-3.5Instructed to Ignore AttestednessNot Instructed
IP(Entail | Attested)74.377.6
IP(Entail | ¬Attested)57.863.6
IRandPremP(Entail | Attested)39.041.3
IRandPremP(Entail | ¬Attested)17.618.8
", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 80, + 816, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/702d58a20a7210d89fdfe8a23ffd4dd81d4aae57ef3864c0b608c08306bf74b5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: We estimate the probability of positive predictions of Entail in $I$ and $I_{\\text{RandPrem}}$ tasks respectively given that the hypothesis is attested, namely $\\Lambda = \\text{Attested}$ . Not instructed results are copied from Figure 2 and listed here for ease of comparison; also note that all $I_{\\text{RandPrem}} = \\text{Entail}$ predictions are false positives." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
GPT-3.5 ConditionTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
Few-shot, instructed to ignore attestedness.I64.990.80
IGenArg73.569.3-21.5
IRandArg↓64.668.4-22.4
IRandArg↑67.558.1-32.7
Few-shot, no instructions.I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 230, + 793, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: GPT-3.5 predictions when models are explicitly instructed to avoid taking the attestedness of individual statements into account. In the upper half are the instructed behavior, and in the lower half are the regular few-shot behavior as in Table 4. Differences in recalls remain at a similar scale, with precision again stable, where the benefit from the explicit instruction is marginal.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 397, + 882, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 7, we show that instructing GPT-3.5 to ignore attestation does not help narrow the gap between $\\Lambda = \\text{Attested}$ and $\\Lambda = \\neg \\text{Attested}$ ; instead, probabilities of predicting Entail went down by similar amounts, indicating that the model is becoming slightly more conservative in predicting positives when instructed to ignore attestation, but not in a principled manner.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 479, + 487, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Further, as shown in Table 8, despite the explicit instruction, recall still drops at similar scales when arguments are randomly replaced with the same sets of frequent/infrequent replacement entities as before. Since GPT-3.5 has been instructionfinetuned to respond to prompts, its failure means eradicating such biases from model outputs is a difficult task, one that needs further research attention.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 609, + 489, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Statistics of Consistency Subsets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 768, + 430, + 785 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The statistics of consistency subsets are presented in Table 9.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 796, + 487, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E The Reliability of $\\Lambda$ Measure and Its Relation to Consensus of Attestation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 843, + 465, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The $\\Lambda$ -consistency subsets most directly capture the impacts of the attestation bias. However, these", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "subset separations are based on $\\Lambda$ predictions from individual models, which can be noisy, subject to model-specific idiosyncracies such as trigger words or certain syntactic structures in the prompt, etc.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 882, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To verify that the performance gaps in $\\Lambda$ -consistency subsets that we observe in §8 comes from predicted attestedness and not some idiosyncrasy, we experiment with another pair of subsets based on consensus attestation instead of individually predicted attestation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 882, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use a majority vote among the three independently-trained LLMs to approximate consensus attestation. The approximation is denoted as $\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ . This is because any model-specific idiosyncrasies should not be shared between LLMs independently trained from different source corpora in general. Therefore, with the majority vote, we reduce this noise and acquire predictions on the consensus attestation of statements.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 644, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Performances of LLMs between $\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ -consistency subsets are listed in Table 10. Gaps between the $\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ -consistency subsets that are larger than $\\Lambda$ -consistency gaps are colored red; those narrower than $\\Lambda$ -consistency gaps are colored green. It is clear that the gaps are consistent between $\\Lambda/\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ -consistency experiments, where the gaps are even larger on many occasions. This confirms that the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2771", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/82d36217b9df8b94dc29a28acf5eb6da19c3f7d3bc7df735e59503e528287e70.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
# of EntriesLevy/HoltRTE-1
LLaMAGPT-3.5PaLMLLaMAGPT-3.5PaLM
VCONSISTENT955947999479447480
VADVERSARIAL829837785321353320
FCONSISTENT972286
FADVERSARIAL220247
", + "bbox": [ + 250, + 80, + 746, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ee09b10daade7602fd468b47b4d9d251392c0ab4dca1909c8781c3d958b9b8a8.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Subsets defined by the consistency between entailment label $L$ and either $\\Lambda$ (hypothesis attestation prediction from each LLM) or $\\Phi$ (model-agnostic relative frequency bias). CONSISTENT subsets are where $L$ agrees with $\\Lambda /\\Phi$ . ADVERSARIAL subsets are where $L$ disagrees with $\\Lambda /\\Phi$ ." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTaskLevy/Holt
\\( \\tilde{\\Lambda}_{\\text{cons.}} \\)\\( \\tilde{\\Lambda}_{\\text{adv.}} \\)diff.
LLaMAI65.36.5-58.8
GPT-3.5I70.823.5-47.3
PaLMI80.728.3-52.4
LLaMA\\( I^{GenArg} \\)54.429.6-24.8
GPT-3.5\\( I^{GenArg} \\)56.235.5-20.7
PaLM\\( I^{GenArg} \\)59.340.1-19.2
", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 258, + 460, + 390 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation $\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with $AUC_{norm}$ ( $0\\% =$ random chance performance). Performance drops from $\\tilde{\\Lambda}_{cons}$ to $\\tilde{\\Lambda}_{adv}$ are presented in the diff. columns, sharper decreases than $\\Lambda$ -comparisons in Table 5 are colored red, milder ones are colored green.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 398, + 487, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "performance gaps in $\\Lambda$ -consistency experiments can be credited to the attestation bias, rather than model-specific idiosyncrasies.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 525, + 485, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "It is also to be noted that, since the $\\Phi$ -consistency subsets are separated based on the model-agnostic criterion $\\Phi$ , model-specific idiosyncrasies are not a problem for $\\Phi$ -consistency comparisons.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 485, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Impacts of Bias on GPT-4 Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 650, + 485, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) is a recent, strong LLM claiming SOTA performance on various NLP tasks. Due to its closed-source nature and the impossibility of fully tracking the sources of its behaviors, we refrain from reporting results with it in the main content of this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, in order to provide a richer context for the attestation bias and the relative frequency bias, in this section we report the performance differences of GPT-4 between subsets consistent/adversarial to the two biases.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 487, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a light-weight experiment, we elicit GPT-4 predictions in the original $I$ task in the zero-shot setting, and re-use subsets from experiments in $\\S 8$ . Specifically, for the attestation bias, we use", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the majority vote $\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ among LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM, to approximate $\\Lambda$ predictions from GPT-4 itself; for the relative frequency bias, we keep the $\\Phi$ measure for approximating corpus-frequency of terms.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 260, + 882, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Because GPT-4 is a commercial service and does not provide logit confidence with their discrete predictions, $AUC_{norm}$ values could not be calculated. Therefore, we are forced to report the F-1 scores at the binary prediction point of confidence. As results in Table 12 show, we observe the same trend as in §8: for the subset adversarial to each factor, GPT-4 performance also drops substantially.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 342, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This experiment is designed to provide more context for the two biases discussed in the paper and NOT to compare GPT-4 with other models; however, we can conclude that GPT-4 is subject to the same fragilities as the other LLMs w.r.t. the two biases, where our conclusions and recommendations also apply.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Dataset Statistics and Dev Set Performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 594, + 806, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the paper, we have examined the behavior and performance of three major LLM families on two NLI datasets: Levy/Holt and RTE-1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 636, + 882, + 682 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The directional portion of Levy/Holt dataset contains 630 entries in its dev set, and 1784 entries in its test set; the RTE-1 dataset contains 567 entries in its dev set, and 800 entries in its test set. Each dataset has a $50\\% / 50\\%$ class distribution between Entail and No-Entail (for RTE-1 dev set, the numbers of entries in the two label classes differ by 1).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 683, + 880, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 11, we report dev set performance and the best prompt template used for each model on each dataset. Note that no training is involved in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 813, + 880, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{9}$ https://github.com/mjhosseini/entgraph_eval/tree/master/LevyHoltDS", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 850, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ nlstkdata/rte-corpus?resource $\\equiv$ download", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 850, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2772", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4bea9864d71e8672bcda6c929055e42a17302369b4b05ef07302cd8ea81bba96.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Best tplt. IDDEV set AUCnormBest tplt. IDDEV set AUCnorm
LLaMAI#430.0#362.5
I^GenArg#134.6#352.3
I^RandArg↓#131.8#151.3
I^RandArg↑#126.3#343.8
GPT-3.5I#149.2#374.8
I^GenArg#139.8#364.8
I^RandArg↓#143.4#363.6
I^RandArg↑#134.2#366.0
PaLMI#160.9#484.5
I^GenArg#148.1#479.4
I^RandArg↓#143.6#379.8
I^RandArg↑#135.3#378.3
", + "bbox": [ + 179, + 80, + 818, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bcb414a575cbbc7ff6523ebc0d3e2bcaf84c31291ad25b7be7ea75facceab257.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: LLM dev set performance on the two datasets, measured with $AUC_{norm}$ ( $0\\% =$ random chance performance). AUC is calculated using estimated model scores as in §4.2 and then normalized into $AUC_{norm}$ . We select the highest scoring template on each dev task (shown in this table) and use this in the corresponding test set evaluation (shown in the main text)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
F-1 scoreTaskLevy/Holt
ΛConsΛAdv
random baselineI70.362.0
GPT-4I85.1 (+14.8)67.6 (+5.6)
ΦConsΦAdv
random baselineI66.766.7
GPT-4I74.6 (+7.9)69.7 (+3.0)
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 384, + 480, + 506 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation $\\tilde{\\Lambda}$ is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with F-1 score. random baseline is the highest F-1 score from a random classifier, by reaching random precision and $100\\%$ recall. For each GPT-4 score, we also show the improvement over random (in parentheses).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 516, + 487, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "this paper, and prompt template selection is the only hyper-parameter tuned on the dev sets. These selected best prompt templates are then used on the respective test sets, where the results are used for the analysis throughout the paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 487, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For random-premise experiments, AUC values cannot be meaningfully calculated because gold labels are always No-Entail. For these experiments, we use the most frequently-selected prompt template on each dataset, namely template #1 for Levy/Holt dataset, and template #3 for RTE-1 dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 722, + 489, + 833 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2773", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A. Zero-shot Example Instantiated Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 211, + 127, + 490, + 141 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please check the entailments between the following statements.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 146, + 596, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If kanamycin kills infections, then kanamycin is useful in infections.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 168, + 626, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "A) Entailment", + "B) Neutral", + "C) Contradiction" + ], + "bbox": [ + 211, + 183, + 315, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B. Few-shot Example Instantiated Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 211, + 224, + 485, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If Google bought Youtube, then Google owns Youtube.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 241, + 546, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A) Entailment", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 256, + 300, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B) Neutral", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 267, + 278, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C) Contradiction", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 279, + 315, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer: A) Entailment. Owning is a consequence of buying.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 290, + 581, + 302 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If Google owns Youtube, then Google bought Youtube.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 303, + 546, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A) Entailment", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 315, + 300, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B) Neutral", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 326, + 278, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C) Contradiction", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 338, + 315, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer: B) Neutral. Owning does not imply buying, the ownership may come from other means.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 349, + 784, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If John went to the mall, then John drove to the mall.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 362, + 532, + 372 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A) Entailment", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 374, + 300, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B) Neutral", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 385, + 278, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C) Contradiction", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 397, + 315, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer: B) Neutral. John may have gone to the mall by other means.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 409, + 631, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If John drove to the mall, then John went to the mall.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 420, + 532, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A) Entailment", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 432, + 300, + 442 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B) Neutral", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 444, + 278, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C) Contradiction", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 456, + 315, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer: A) Entailment. Driving is a means of going to the mall.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 468, + 601, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "If ephedrine is widely used in medicine, then ephedrine is used in medicine.", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 480, + 670, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A) Entailment", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 492, + 300, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B) Neutral", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 504, + 278, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C) Contradiction", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 516, + 315, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Answer:", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 527, + 265, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C. Hypothesis-only Example Instantiated Prompt", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 211, + 545, + 532, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "Google bought Youtube.", + "A) True", + "B) Unknown", + "C) False", + "Answer: A) True.", + "Yoshua Bengio likes oak trees.", + "A) True", + "B) Unknown", + "C) False", + "Answer: B) Unknown.", + "The sun rises from the west.", + "A) True", + "B) Unknown", + "C) False", + "Answer: C) False.", + "ephedrine is used in medicine.", + "A) True", + "B) Unknown", + "C) False", + "Answer:" + ], + "bbox": [ + 211, + 564, + 398, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: Example instantiated prompts in Zero-shot / Few-shot settings, for the sample “PREMISE: [ephedrine is widely used in medicine], HYPOTHESIS: [ephedrine is used in medicine]”. The few-shot prompts in part B are used throughout the main experiments in this paper. We also present an example of the prompts we use for the hypothesis-only $\\Lambda$ measure as described in §3.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 884, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "2774", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_model.json b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4860628554960a2feae94be10c3cf8482e2054c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3798 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.09, + 0.872, + 0.112 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.365, + 0.137, + 0.639, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nick McKenna†* Tianyi Li†*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.153, + 0.862, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Liang Cheng† Mohammad Javad Hosseini‡ Mark Johnson§ Mark Steedman†" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.171, + 0.792, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "†University of Edinburgh ‡Google Research §Macquarie University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.299, + 0.189, + 0.708, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{nick.mckenna, tianyi.li}@ed.ac.uk" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.284, + 0.461, + 0.653 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as \"indices\" to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation.\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.669, + 0.26, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.696, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Models (LLMs) such as LLaMA, GPT-3/4, PaLM, and more (Touvron et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), have been trusted by many to perform language understanding in downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, and fact verification, among others (Zhang et al., 2023). However, due to the large-scale nature of LLM training on vast, often proprietary data, and the inherent opacity of LLM parameters, it is difficult to explain their" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "behavior when answering user queries and the corresponding risks in terms of bias and robustness. In particular, one LLM behavior poses a significant challenge: \"hallucination,\" the phenomenon in which LLMs provide information which is incorrect or inappropriate, presented as fact." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.352, + 0.885, + 0.56 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper investigates two biases driving LLM performance in natural language inference, sometimes called textual entailment. This is a basic component of language understanding which is critical in applied tasks, and we offer these two biases as explanations of general false positive hallucination in everyday use. We examine broader NLI, and especially directional entailments, which hold in one direction, but not both. For example, DEFEAT entails PLAY but PLAY does not entail DEFEAT. Inferring directional entailment is more difficult than that of symmetric paraphrase, so it more deeply probes understanding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach is a behavioral study of prompted LLM decision-making. We alter existing NLI datasets in targeted ways while measuring how predictions change, across several major LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM). We demonstrate two sources of LLM performance on the NLI task, which we offer as explanations of general false positive hallucination: (1) LLM bias toward affirming entailment when the hypothesis may be attested in the training text, including reliance on named entity identifiers; and (2) a corpus-frequency bias, affirming entailment when the premise is less frequent than the hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We establish that these biases originate from the LLM pretraining objective, in which statistical modeling of the natural distribution of human-generated text leads to (at the level of sentences) memorizing individual statements, and (at the level of corpora) learning typical patterns of usage. Though they are superficially performant, our experiments show that even powerful LLMs still use unsatisfactory tools instead of robust reasoning." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.868, + 0.263, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Equal contribution." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.882, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Code and LLM outputs (LLaMA and GPT-3.5) are available at https://github.com/Teddy-Li/LLM-NLI-Analysis." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.868, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.48, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2758" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2758-2774" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.492, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present three contributions, the demonstrations of both factors and an analysis of their impact:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.118, + 0.49, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) In a prompting scenario, LLMs respond to entailment samples according to an attestation bias, affirming entailments more readily if the hypothesis is attested by the pretraining text. We find that LLaMA-65B, GPT-3.5, and PaLM-540B are respectively 1.9, 2.2, and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly predict Entail when the model already asserts the hypothesis is attested, compared to when not attested. Further, LLMs recall from their propositional memory using named entities as identifying \"indices,\" even though they are irrelevant to the logic of the predicate inference task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.313, + 0.49, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) LLMs also rely on a simple corpus-statistic bias using relative term-frequencies, especially when propositional memory is not available. The three LLMs are 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly affirm entailments if the premise has lower term frequency than the hypothesis, than when not." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.41, + 0.49, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) For the NLI test samples consistent with these factors, LLM scores are misleadingly high; for NLI samples adversarial to them, LLM performance is severely degraded. We show that when labels go against the attestation bias, LLMs can be poor or even near-random classifiers; for the relative frequency bias, we similarly show a substantial performance decrease across all LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.118, + 0.49, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.555, + 0.271, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.583, + 0.49, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Addressing task robustness, Poliak et al. (2018) found a range of NLI datasets contain artifacts which are learned by supervised models trained on only sample hypotheses. In our work we design a similar hypothesis-only test with LLMs, but we use it to probe model memory without any training. By conditioning on the attestation of hypotheses, we show that LLMs are inherently sensitive to attestation, separate from the statistical idiosyncrasies of NLI datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.745, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, Talman and Chatzikyriakidis (2019) report generalization failure among many models supervised for NLI — models fail to generalize between NLI datasets, even if the task is formatted the same. On smaller Language Models such as RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019; 355M params), Li et al. (2022) also observed a reliance on dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "artifacts when performing directional NLI on predicates. We now study the behavior of much larger LMs, which have demonstrated more robust performance across NLP tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.15, + 0.885, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent work has also explored LLM memorization and generalization. Carlini et al. (2023) establish that LLMs are able to memorize more data than small LMs, whereas Tirumala et al. (2022) further demonstrate that LLMs pay special attention early in training to numbers and nouns, which act as unique identifiers for individual training sentences. We also show that memories used in language inference are tied to specific named entities. And while Weller et al. (2023) and Kandpal et al. (2022) find that entity frequency in training data is correlated with performance in factual recall about them, we find that entity frequency is anti-correlated with hypothetical generalization performance (\\(\\S 6\\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.375, + 0.885, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bubeck et al. (2023) argue that GPT-4 understands language \"beyond memorization\". We do not disprove generalization, but we show that GPT-4 shows the same hallucinations in Appendix F." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.451, + 0.727, + 0.467 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experimental Design" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.476, + 0.884, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We design behavioral experiments on LLMs by modifying NLI datasets with rigorous controls. We observe large behavior changes across three major LLM families due to propositional-memory effects in §5 and §6, and corpus frequency in §7. Finally, we show the impact on real performance in §8." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.583, + 0.836, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Two Biases in Inference Predictions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.604, + 0.882, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We claim that the pretraining objective to fit the distribution of natural text leads to biases in LLM generations. We explore two such biases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.66, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Attestation Bias (\\(\\Lambda\\)) is the over-reliance of an LLM on its propositional memory about a query statement. We claim that when a statement is likely to be attested in some way by an LLM's training data, it is more likely to affirm it as a conclusion in NLI tasks, regardless of any premise it is presented with. We measure the attestedness of a sample by prompting the LLM to ask if the hypothesis in question is true, false, or unknown.3 Attestation predictions are denoted by \\(\\Lambda\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.821, + 0.882, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A biased model will appear to perform well on dataset samples with entailment labels that happen to align with the bias. Table 1 shows examples from the Levy/Holt dev set." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{3} \\) Alternatively,LLM perplexity for a statement could be used; however, this is not always available, e.g. with GPT-3." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.869, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We speculate that a similar attestation effect could even be present in the supervised models studied in Poliak et al. (2018), which could contribute to those models' performance. We leave the investigation of this to future work." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2759" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.887, + 0.168 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Dev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]Dataset LabelBias Prediction
Geyers are common to New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are found in New ZealandEntailΛ = hypothesis Attested
Geyers are found in New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are common to New ZealandNo-EntailΛ = hypothesis Not-Attested
Whiskey consists chiefly of alcohol ⇒ Whiskey contains alcoholEntailΦ = f(consists chiefly of) < f.contains
Whiskey contains alcohol ⇒ Whiskey consists chiefly of alcoholNo-EntailΦ = f缰ates) >f(consists chiefly of)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.175, + 0.884, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Two pairs of samples are consistent with a respective bias. Model predictions made on the basis of the bias will appear to predict the direction of entailment for each sample. \\( f(\\cdot) \\) maps a term to its corpus frequency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.23, + 0.489, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed in §2, we draw inspiration from the hypothesis-only baseline (Poliak et al., 2018), but our test only queries model memory about the hypothesis without any training. We describe prompt generation in detail in §4.2, with an example in appendix Table 13." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.327, + 0.49, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dasgupta et al. (2022) show a similar effect in LLMs on abstract reasoning tests, related to sentential content, and equate it to human tendencies. In contrast, we examine the risks of propositional memory on more realistic inference tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.415, + 0.489, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Relative Frequency Bias \\((\\Phi)\\) is the use by LLMs of a simple rule for deciding entailment, calculable from corpus statistics. Entailment is affirmed if, ignoring named entities, the eventuality in premise \\(P\\) is less frequent in training than that in hypothesis \\(H\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This bias is reflected in natural text: it is known that nouns follow a trend of becoming more specific as corpus-frequency decreases (Rosch et al., 1976; Caraballo and Charniak, 1999) and the same is observed for predicates (McKenna et al., 2023). Since entailments may carry from a specific term to a more general one, e.g. SPRINT entails RUN, relative frequency can often indicate direction of entailment. However, this is an artifact of natural text and has no direct relationship with meaning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.673, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Test samples are labeled for agreement with this bias separately from models, with examples shown in Table 1. Since LLM pre-train corpora are impractically large or proprietary, we instead use Google N-grams4 as a proxy of the natural distribution of text, and thus the distributions of these corpora. We average frequencies between the years 1950-2019, and compare between \\( P \\) and \\( H \\). To acquire the generic eventualities in each sample, we exclude any extracted entities and lemmatize predicate phrases; further, we reduce the effect of noise and sparsity by requiring a wide margin of difference between \\( P \\) and \\( H \\) frequency estimates. Frequency decisions are denoted by \\( \\Phi \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.23, + 0.625, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.251, + 0.885, + 0.46 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Levy/Holt consists of premise-hypothesis pairs, with a task formatted: \"Given [premise \\(P\\)], is it true that [hypothesis \\(H\\)]?\" (Levy and Dagan, 2016; Holt, 2019). Each \\(P\\)- and \\(H\\)-statement has the property of containing one predicate with two entity arguments, (where the same entities appear in both \\(P\\) and \\(H\\)) as shown in Table 2. This targeted dataset is ideal for precisely measuring model understanding of predicates, because entailment between statements is decidable purely on the basis of the predicates and their attributes. We study the challenging directional subset, where entailments hold in one direction but not both." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.472, + 0.884, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RTE-1 is one of the original and most difficult tests of NLI (Dagan et al., 2006). It is not purely directional on the basis of predicates or consistently structured like Levy/Holt, so we leave it out of the behavioral experiments. However, it is a widely understood dataset, and we use it to demonstrate the impact of the two biases in general NLI in §8." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.595, + 0.884, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Exclusions are made of NLI datasets relating to knowledge of the world, since we aim to test LLMs on their capability to reason purely about the semantics of natural language predicates without relying on memorized facts. We explicitly avoid datasets such as MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) etc." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.737, + 0.753, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Dataset Transformations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.885, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Standard Inference Task \\((I)\\) is on original NLI datasets, in which entailment is determinable by using general language inference on sentences. In Levy/Holt, it is determinable just by predicates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We define three dataset transformations to study the change in model responses as targeted information is removed. These are the randomized premise predicate setting \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\), and two argument transformations: generic arguments \\( I^{\\text{GenArg}} \\), and type-constrained randomized arguments \\( I^{\\text{RandArg}} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.428, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://books.google.com/ngrams" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2760" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.082, + 0.859, + 0.135 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailGeorge Bush was the Governor of Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
IRandPremNo-EntailGeorge Bush resided in Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.145, + 0.884, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: From the original dataset task \\((I)\\) we derive the Random Premise task \\((I_{\\text{RandPrem}})\\), respecting type-constraints. A random premise is highly unlikely to entail the hypothesis, so samples are relabeled No-Entail." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.187, + 0.837, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailIndia exports tons of rice ⇒ India exports rice
I^GenArgEntaillocation X exports tons of food Y ⇒ location X exports food Y
I^RandArg↓EntailSloterdijk exports tons of oatmeal cookies ⇒ Sloterdijk exports oatmeal cookies
I^RandArg↑EntailHelsinki exports tons of Granny Smith ⇒ Helsinki exports Granny Smith
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.277, + 0.884, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: An original dev sample \\((I)\\) is transformed by insertion of entity types \\((I^{GenArg})\\); by real entities sampled from the \\(5\\%\\) least frequent in NewsCrawl \\((I^{RandArg\\downarrow})\\); and also from the \\(5\\%\\) most frequent \\((I^{RandArg\\uparrow})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.332, + 0.489, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transformations involve first identifying the types of entities in statements, in order to constrain entity or predicate replacements. We type each entity with one of the 48 FIGER types (Ling and Weld, 2012), such as \"person,\" \"location,\" etc. First, an entity linker (Nguyen et al., 2014) identifies the Freebase ID (Bollacker et al., 2008) for an entity, from which we then obtain its FIGER type; we assign a default type \"thing\" in failure cases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.484, + 0.489, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Random Premise Task (\\(I_{\\text{RandPrem}}\\)) replaces the original premise predicate with a random predicate, while maintaining the same entity arguments. This manipulation produces a dataset in which all samples are labeled No-Entail, since two randomly paired predicates are very unlikely to be related by entailment. Thus, positive decisions by the model are false positive hallucinations.[5]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To maintain naturalness and grammaticality, we constrain a new predicate to have argument slots of the same types as the original premise. For example, \"[medicine] is indicated for patients with [disease]\" is swapped for \"[medicine] does not cure [disease)\". We source candidates from dev set premises satisfying the target type-constraints, and sample uniform randomly. We map the original entities to their respective slots in the new premise. Examples are shown in Table 2. \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\) is a good test of model reliance on propositional memory, since we prevent entailments while maintaining the attestedness of conclusions (hypotheses)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.83, + 0.49, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Generic Argument Task (\\(I^{GenArg}\\)) replaces original entities with unique FIGER-typed" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.332, + 0.885, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "identifiers, e.g. \"location X\" and \"food Y.\" By masking the identities of entities, this test is designed to remove entity information while maintaining the same entailment label, as a baseline control setting. We append unique identifiers (e.g. \"X,\" \"Y\") to allow tracking of entity slots across the premise and the hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.454, + 0.884, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Random Argument Task (\\(I^{RandArg}\\)) replaces original entities with other real, random entities of the same FIGER-type. Like \\(I^{GenArg}\\), this test is designed to create novel strings by modifying statements without changing entailment labels. But now we test model sensitivity to added extraneous information. Examples are shown in Table 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.569, + 0.884, + 0.81 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use entity type constraints here to ensure polysemous predicates maintain the same sense. For example, a different sense of run is used in \"[person] runs [organization]\" vs. \"[person] runs [software]\", but between different entities of the same type, the same senses are used, so the exact entity IDs do not affect entailment labels (Yarowsky, 1993). We source new entities from NewsCrawl (Barrault et al., 2019), a decade-long span of multi-source news text, in which entities are typed as above. We sample new entities uniform randomly from the \\(5\\%\\) least common entities in NewsCrawl \\((I^{RandArg\\downarrow})\\), and the \\(5\\%\\) most common \\((I^{RandArg\\uparrow})\\). We insert the sampled entities while preserving the rest of each statement." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.823, + 0.816, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Querying Models with Prompts" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.849, + 0.615, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLaMA is a recent LLM model family which rivals or surpasses GPT-3 performance while being open to scientific study. A range of model sizes" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.869, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5We manually inspected the generated random premise entries for the Levy/Holt dataset to verify this: we found \\(86.6\\%\\) of entries are successfully non-entailing, \\(3.8\\%\\) undecided cases, and only \\(9.6\\%\\) are unintended true entailments." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2761" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "are provided, and we test the largest LLaMA-65B model. LLaMA is not fine-tuned. In preliminary experiments on the Levy/Holt dataset, we found two popular fine-tuned LLaMA variants, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023), perform similarly to LLaMA base models and underperform LLaMA-65B, so we leave them out of further experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.226, + 0.49, + 0.339 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-3 Series models are closed to deep scientific review (Brown et al., 2020), though they are a widely-used comparison for their performance, and have been reasonably well-studied. We evaluate on text-davinci-003 (GPT-3.5), as it is the largest, and has undergone instruction- and RLHF-finetuning, enabling interesting comparisons." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.351, + 0.488, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "PaLM is larger than GPT-3, which often claims state-of-the-art on evaluation datasets. We use the largest PaLM-540B base model, which is also only pretrained, so it serves as a further comparison point to LLaMA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.444, + 0.489, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Later GPT models (like text-davinci-003 in our experiments) have been pre-trained and fine-tuned, while base LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pre-training, so their contrast indicates what stage of training is responsible for the phenomena we study. Our aim is not to judge which LLM is superior, but to show the common sources of hallucination they share." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.574, + 0.49, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also omit models superseded in performance by LLaMA (e.g. OPT, GPT-J, etc.), as well as products that are closed to scientific review (e.g. GPT-4, Bard, etc.).6." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.652, + 0.403, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Prompt Design and Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.675, + 0.49, + 0.787 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of test samples is done by inserting the premise and hypothesis into a prompt template, which is used to query the model in natural language. Following this, we append a three-way answer choice: A) Entailment, B) Neutral, C) Contradiction, following the typical format in NLI (Bowman et al., 2015)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.8, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Selection of the prompt template used in test is decided by the highest AUC obtained on the respective dev set. We try 8 promising templates including 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021), also used in other NLI work\\(^{7}\\) (Webson and Pavlick, 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ideally, an LLM with advanced language understanding ability could perform inference in zero-shot without annotated examples, which would raise confidence that this faculty is ready for downstream tasks. To this end, we examine each LLM in zero-shot (detailed in Appendix A), but they exhibit severely degraded, even near-random performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.198, + 0.885, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We turn to few-shot, and hand- annotate a minimal 4 examples in the style of the template, with added explanations about why the given answer is correct for each example. These examples are pretended before the query (see Appendix A for an example). Our goal is to study model behavior as conditions change, not to maximize the score on any particular dataset. Therefore, we use a minimal 4-example setup, which we find is capable of evoking positive responses from all three LLMs on each dev set, across most templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.384, + 0.884, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Scoring is done by converting choice A into Entail and collapsing both B and C choices into No-Entail to align with Levy/Holt and RTE-1 annotation. For behavioral experiments in §5, §6, and §7, we score the model solely based on its textual response. All models successfully choose one of A/B/C on all dev questions, showing compatibility with the QA format." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.513, + 0.884, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the analysis in §8 which measures model performance across confidence thresholds, we convert the letter choice to a probability with the mapping:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.576, + 0.847, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} S _ {\\text {e n t}} = 0. 5 + 0. 5 * \\mathbb {I} [ \\operatorname {t o k} = \\mathbf {A} ] * S _ {\\text {t o k}} \\\\ - 0. 5 * \\mathbb {I} [ \\operatorname {t o k} \\in \\{\\mathbf {B}, \\mathbf {C} \\} ] * S _ {\\operatorname {t o k}} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.624, + 0.885, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Where \\(\\mathbb{I}\\) is the indicator function, and \\(S_{ent}\\) estimates the probability of Entail from a textual output \\((0\\leq S_{\\mathrm{ent}}\\leq 1)\\) with token probability \\(S_{tok}\\). The linear transformation preserves the ordering of model confidence, which is sufficient for calculating a precision-recall curve." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.733, + 0.812, + 0.75 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiment 1: Attestation Bias" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.884, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We begin our experiments by assessing LLMs' reliance on their propositional memory of training text by conditioning each model's entailment task predictions \\( I \\) on its own predictions of attestation \\( \\Lambda \\). We do this by comparing estimated probabilities of predicting Entail conditioned on whether the hypothesis is predicted Attested or not." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Further, we test a setting which controls for the possibility that original Levy/Holt entailments may coincidentally refer to attested facts, which could" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.439, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6We include an analysis of GPT-4 in Appendix F." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.905, + 0.485, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "See Appendix A for details on prompt template selection." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.892, + 0.485, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2762" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.487, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.269, + 0.49, + 0.328 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for original entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses \\((\\Lambda)\\). This setting is intuitive but may be subject to spurious correlations." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.341, + 0.488, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.524, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for Random-Premise entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses \\((\\Lambda)\\). Now, predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models are sensitive to attestation, and hallucinate more when the hypothesis is attested." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.629, + 0.49, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lead to spurious correlation between inference and attestation scores without clearly demonstrating use of memory versus true entailment. This controlled setting is the random premise task \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\), which converts entailments into non-entailments without altering the hypothesis. An ideal model capable of drawing inferences from information in context should detect that in the \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\) task it is no longer possible to infer the hypothesis based on the premise (even if the hypothesis is itself attested in training), and never predict Entail. Thus, in \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\), all Entail predictions are assumed to be false positive hallucinations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.85, + 0.22, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With \\(I\\), \\(I_{\\text{RandPrem}}\\) and \\(\\Lambda\\) predictions acquired as described in §3.1, we present the conditional probabilities in Figures 1 and 2. It is clear that a model's" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.132 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "memory about the hypothesis plays a part in its predictions of the hypothesis given a premise, either related or random." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.135, + 0.886, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For \\(I\\), we observe significantly higher probability of predicting Entail when the hypothesis is Attested. In the random premise task \\(I_{\\text{RandPrem}}\\), this trend continues. LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM, respectively, show a 1.9x, 2.2x, and 2.0x higher chance of falsely predicting that a random premise Entails the hypothesis if it already predicts the hypothesis is Attested. This false positive hallucination and its impact on NLI performance is investigated further in \\(\\S 8\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.298, + 0.886, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This behavior is observed across model families (LLaMA, GPT, and PaLM), establishing that it is due to pretraining rather than Instruction-tuning or RLHF, since LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pretraining. This behavior is undesirable, because model predictions on NLI tasks should be based solely on general language understanding, not prior knowledge. We may conclude that memory of training data is a significant contributor in LLM inference, and may be an important source of hallucination." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.492, + 0.825, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Implications for Real Applications" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using prior knowledge as part of language inference has bad implications for the use of LLMs in real applications. We offer an example scenario of a question-answering task where user questions are answered from a Knowledge Base (KB). In typical formulations of this task, if a statement in the KB (premise) entails a user query (hypothesis), the premise may be formulated into an answer. Consider a KB such as a legal document or HR rulebook. Assume that the text is prepended to the user query and presented to the LLM, as in other works (Srinivasan et al., 2022). Given our findings, we might observe the LLM hallucinating answers to questions using information which is not presented in the KB, but may have been read by the LLM in text from other sources during pretraining. These answers could be illogical, contradictory, and could misrepresent the views of the KB, or other harms. Such poor use of in-context learning has already been observed in specific domains like medicine (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In general, this is a risk for LLMs which (a) are deployed for tasks like QA by feeding novel text (e.g. a legal document) in-context as part of the user query, and (b) are trained on datasets which are" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2763" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI67.068.40
IGenArg69.066.9-1.5
IRandArg↓64.063.8-4.6
IRandArg↑67.253.7-14.7
GPT-3.5I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
PaLMI72.876.20
IGenArg79.850.8-25.4
IRandArg↓69.558.7-17.5
IRandArg↑70.852.4-23.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.305, + 0.49, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Exp-2. Scoring model outputs in different argument-replacement tasks. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings. Recall decreases sharply across settings in all models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.38, + 0.49, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "private or otherwise infeasibly large to read manually, containing many facts and human opinions unknowable to both the user and modeler." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.441, + 0.415, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.483, + 0.49, + 0.564 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In §5, we have established that propositional memory explains a significant portion of false positives in LLM inference predictions. In this section, we continue by showing the importance of named entities in the process of LLMs' memory recall." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.49, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As described in §3.3, we manipulate the entities with the \\( I^{GenArg} \\) generic argument replacement, and two random entity replacements, one with infrequent-entities \\( I^{RandArg\\downarrow} \\) and one with frequent-entities \\( I^{RandArg\\uparrow} \\) (examples in Table 3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By replacing arguments constrained by type, entailment labels are maintained; however, new samples should contain novel strings not attested in pretrain corpora. We expect that an ideal, generalizing model would maintain its predictions across all conditions; a flawed model utilizing the attestation bias would predict fewer Entail, since entities no longer identify these statements in training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.786, + 0.219, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report results across conditions in Table 4. We observe two phenomena across all three models, aligning with the above conjecture of “flaws.”" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we observe that all models' behavior significantly changes in the same way when original entities are replaced by either entity types or random real entities. Despite similar (or marginally increas" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing) precision across conditions, recall degrades sharply from original entities \\((I)\\) (GPT-3.5 @92.3) to random frequent entities \\((I^{RandArg\\uparrow})\\) (GPT-3.5 @55.3). Generic-argument \\(I^{GenArg}\\) performance also degrades in this way, showing that this is not a matter of poorly selected real entities, but rather a loss of information from the original dataset which models were using to answer questions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.215, + 0.885, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Second, across the 3 models, we observe a significant difference in recall between the two real entity conditions \\( I^{RandArg\\downarrow} \\) and \\( I^{RandArg\\uparrow} \\), which are both composed of unattested statements, but involve entities that differ in typical corpus frequency. Infrequent entities (\\( I^{RandArg\\downarrow} \\)) yield better generalization and a higher recall (GPT-3.5 @66.5) than frequent entities (\\( I^{RandArg\\uparrow} \\)) (GPT-3.5 @55.3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.344, + 0.885, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These findings corroborate those from §5, that LLMs use memory as part of language inference, and additionally show that these memories are recalled using named entities acting as indices. These experiments demonstrate that too much prior exposure to an entity may impede model generalization when that entity is discussed in novel inferences: the more a model has read about an entity during pretraining, the less capable it is of drawing novel natural language inferences involving it. This is the case even though the inferences do not require detailed knowledge of the entity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.538, + 0.884, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Like §5, the effect is consistent across models, indicating LLM pretraining is responsible." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.571, + 0.884, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We show similar results on RTE-1 in Appendix B. Further, instructing LLMs to ignore propositional memory in Appendix C shows little change." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.634, + 0.882, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Experiment 3: Relative Frequency Bias" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.885, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We continue the conditioning experiments from §5, now exploring the relative frequency bias. Sample labels for this bias are denoted by the model-agnostic \\(\\Phi\\) as described in §3.1. \\(\\Phi\\) labels the conformance of sample predicates to the bias: \\(\\Phi_{<}\\) means \\(P\\) is less corpus-frequent than \\(H\\) by a margin (positive class), \\(\\Phi_{>} =\\) means \\(P\\) more frequent than \\(H\\) by the margin (negative class). To control for differences between datasets, the margin is set so that 1/3 of samples are classed as \"roughly equal\" \\((\\Phi_{\\approx})\\), which we discard." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following the observations in §6, we further apply a generic-argument transformation to control for attestation, yielding \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}} \\). With the entities masked, models cannot recall propositional memory for this task: by re-calculating the \\( \\Lambda \\) mea" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2764" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.176, + 0.083, + 0.46, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Controlled Task: Conditioning Inference Results on Relative Frequency \\((\\Phi)\\), with either original entities or generic placeholders" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.114, + 0.487, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.286, + 0.49, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Exp-3. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for random-premise Levy/Holt conditioned on relative frequencies \\((\\Phi)\\), with original \\((I_{RandPrem})\\) or generic \\((I_{RandPrem}^{GenArg})\\) entities. Predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models hallucinate more often when test samples conform to the relative frequency bias \\((\\Phi_{<})\\) than when not \\((\\Phi_{>})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.414, + 0.49, + 0.526 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sure with generic arguments, only 2 hypotheses are still predicted as Attested by GPT-3.5, whereas for LLaMA and PaLM, the numbers are also only \\(6.2\\%\\) and \\(3.9\\%\\). Additionally, as with \\(I_{\\text{RandPrem}}\\), here the entailment label of each sample remains No-Entail, so any Entail prediction is false positive hallucination." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.542, + 0.22, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7.1 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.489, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We estimate the probabilities of models predicting Entail conditioned on the frequency label \\(\\Phi\\), between \\(I_{\\text{RandPrem}}\\) and \\(I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}\\) settings, and present the results in Figure 3. We observe a clear and consistent rise of hallucination when samples conform to the bias. Namely, in case of \\(\\Phi_{<}\\), models are more likely to predict Entail, even though no semantic relation exists between \\(P\\) and \\(H\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Between the two settings, with \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\), when entities are available, this effect is moderate. On the other hand, with \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}} \\) when entity-based memory is blocked, we observe a decrease in the overall level of hallucination, but the separation between \\( \\Phi_{<} \\) and \\( \\Phi_{>} \\) becomes more drastic, to 1.6x, 1.8x and 2.0x for LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM respectively. This indicates a tension between \\( \\Lambda \\) and \\( \\Phi \\): propositional memory may be used when available, and if not, the predicate pairing may be attended to more closely. Again, the \\( \\Phi \\) effect is observed across the three model families, revealing its root in the large-scale pre-training process, rather than model peculiarities or fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.813, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Impact of Bias on Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.884, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have demonstrated two sources of hallucination by LLMs on inference tasks. We now assess their impact on model performance to quantify their risk." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.16, + 0.885, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare LLMs' performance between NLI subsets that are consistent or adversarial to each bias. A sample \\( P \\models H \\)? is consistent with a bias when the prediction by the bias agrees with the gold entailment label; conversely, it is adversarial to a bias when the prediction by the bias disagrees with the label." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For example, \"Google bought YouTube \\(\\vDash\\) Google owns YouTube\" is consistent with the attestation bias of every model, because the conclusion Google owns YouTube is attested in every LLM's training data, and the sample label is Entail; \"Apple owns Samsung \\(\\nVdash\\) Apple bought Samsung\" is also consistent, because its conclusion is not attested and the sample label is No-Entail. The reverses of these two samples are adversarial, since their respective attestedness (unchanged) does not agree with the entailment labels (now flipped). For each subset, there is substantial representation in both Levy/Holt and RTE-1 (see appendix Table 9)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.483, + 0.884, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While earlier experiments inspected model textual responses to characterize behavior change, we now use area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) to summarize model performance over a tunable confidence threshold (scoring described in §4.2), which is better for measuring practical discriminative power. Following Li et al. (2022), we re-scale AUC values to normalize over the label distribution, yielding \\(AUC_{norm}\\) values that assign random classifiers \\(0\\%\\) and perfect classifiers \\(100\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.645, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report results in Table 5. Under the standard inference task \\(I\\), the performance drop from \\(\\Lambda_{\\text{CONSistent}}\\) to \\(\\Lambda_{\\text{ADVERSARIAL}}\\) is severe for all 3 LLMs: they deteriorate from very good classifiers to poor or even near-random ones.\\(^{8}\\) This fragility from the attestation bias can be alleviated by masking entities with type-identifiers (condition \\(I^{\\text{GenArg}}\\)), which reduces the performance drop." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the other hand, with the generic arguments in \\( I^{GenArg} \\), LLMs are forced to focus on the predicates in each proposition. As a result, the impact of the relative frequency bias is intensified. From the standard inference task \\( I \\) to \\( I^{GenArg} \\), the average performance drop from the cons. to adv." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.881, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8We note \\(\\Lambda\\) predictions could possibly be influenced by model-specific idiosyncrasies in prompt format. We provide an analysis in Appendix E, where we find no significant effect." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2765" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.082, + 0.875, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)
cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.
LLaMAI65.58.1-57.442.132.3-9.862.137.4-24.755.551.7-3.8
GPT-3.5I85.010.8-74.253.543.2-10.384.647.5-37.177.643.4-34.2
PaLMI79.131.5-47.663.353.0-10.387.183.4-3.787.581.0-6.5
LLaMAIGenArg52.134.4-17.755.334.9-20.459.230.4-28.851.739.4-12.3
GPT-3.5IGenArg67.118.8-48.350.435.0-15.480.156.4-23.779.649.1-30.5
PaLMIGenArg58.146.6-11.559.947.3-12.678.184.4+6.385.478.7-6.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.239, + 0.883, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: LLM performance on subsets where \\( \\Lambda /\\Phi \\) is consistent/adversarial to entailment labels, measured with \\( {AUC}_{norm}\\left( {0\\% = \\text{random chance performance). Decrease from cons to adv subsets are shown in the diff. columns.}}\\right) \\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.293, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "subsets w.r.t. \\(\\Phi\\) is widened from \\(10.1\\%\\) to \\(16.1\\%\\) for Levy/Holt and from \\(14.8\\%\\) to \\(16.5\\%\\) for RTE-1. The differences for \\(\\Phi\\)-consistency subsets are generally narrower than \\(\\Lambda\\)-consistency subsets, possibly because the relative frequencies require generalizing from instances, and may be more difficult to capture, and potentially because frequency measures with Google N-gram are a crude estimate of the actual frequencies in LLM pre-train corpora." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.451, + 0.248, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.478, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Across several major LLM families and experimental settings, we demonstrate two important biases in the performance of LLMs on natural language inference tasks, which may also manifest in applied tasks as hallucination. Contrary to claims of LLM general reasoning capabilities, we show that much of this performance is achieved by (1) recall of relevant memorizations and (2) corpus-based biases like term frequency. Since these factors are reproduced in all models, we establish that they originate in LLM pre-training, and are not corrected during GPT-3.5 fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.671, + 0.49, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conclude that LLMs, though powerful, use unsatisfactory tools for the basic tasks of language understanding and inference. We propose several approaches to control for these biases in evaluation, and ultimately conclude that further attention on alleviating these biases are needed, before LLMs may be trusted to reason robustly about language." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.797, + 0.221, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we have discussed two prominent sources of hallucination for LLMs in natural language inference tasks. We acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive search of all the sources, where further exploration should be done in future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.904, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also note that after controlling for the factors" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "discussed in this paper, there remains residual, unexplained performance on NLI tasks. This residual might be due to other undiscovered biases or possibly generalising inference capability. We leave further exploration of this residual to future work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.375, + 0.885, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed in Appendix A, we compared a range of popular LLM prompting techniques and selected the most promising approach. We acknowledge that there could potentially be other novel prompting techniques that could help the LLMs resist the influence of the biases discussed in this paper. We identify this as an open question and advocate for future research." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.52, + 0.712, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethical Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.548, + 0.885, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper discusses two major sources of hallucination in LLM output when asked to perform natural language inference, which we note is a capability required of many downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, etc. We show that users of LLMs may be subjected to faulty judgements if the content of their request overlaps with data in pretraining. However, it is difficult to ascertain for both a user or modeler exactly what is contained in pretraining data, or how this will interact with a user's query. Our proposed attestation query shows promise in detecting potential overlaps, but model responses in applications of these cases are not explored. Further, the relative frequency bias demonstrates a much more subtle problem of corpus distribution that is naturally inherent to model pretraining on human generated text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In light of these, the potential harms of LLM use for drawing natural language inferences may include: offering inaccurate or irrelevant information to a user's query or contradiction of information provided in-context with a user's query." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2766" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.287, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.111, + 0.49, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This research was supported by ERC Advanced Fellowship GA 742137 SEMANTAX and the University of Edinburgh Huawei Laboratory." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.187, + 0.214, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.209, + 0.491, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Loic Barrault, Ondrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussa, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Shervin Malmasi, Christof Monz, Mathias Muller, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2019. Findings of the 2019 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT19). In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 1-61, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.352, + 0.49, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '08, page 1247-1250, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.455, + 0.49, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.557, + 0.49, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.712, + 0.49, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. ArXiv:2303.12712 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.814, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sharon A. Caraballo and Eugene Charniak. 1999. Determining the specificity of nouns from text. In 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.209, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.114 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2023. Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models. ArXiv:2202.07646 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.124, + 0.885, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with \\(90\\%\\) * chatgpt quality." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.215, + 0.885, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.528, + 0.885, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The Pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment, pages 177-190, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.619, + 0.885, + 0.686 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K. Lampinen, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L. McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. ArXiv:2207.07051 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.697, + 0.885, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.774, + 0.885, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xavier Holt. 2019. Probabilistic Models of Relational Implication. arXiv:1907.12048 [cs, stat]. ArXiv: 1907.12048." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Nikolas McNeal, Clayton Washington, You Chen, Lang Li, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2022. Thinking about GPT-3 in-context learning for biomedical IE? think again. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4497–4512, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2767" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.135, + 0.487, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.263, + 0.487, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Omer Levy and Ido Dagan. 2016. Annotating Relation Inference in Context via Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 249-255, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.351, + 0.487, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Li, Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Sabine Weber, and Mark Steedman. 2022. Language Models Are Poor Learners of Directional Inference. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 903–921, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.453, + 0.487, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiao Ling and Daniel S. Weld. 2012. Fine-grained entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'12, page 94-100. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.515, + 0.487, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]. ArXiv: 1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.603, + 0.487, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2023. Smoothing Entailment Graphs with Language Models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.705, + 0.487, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.78, + 0.487, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dat Ba Nguyen, Johannes Hoffart, Martin Theobald, and Gerhard Weikum. 2014. Aida-light: High-throughput named-entity disambiguation. In LDOw." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.829, + 0.487, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. ArXiv:2303.08774 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs]." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.149, + 0.882, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.252, + 0.882, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3):382-439." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.315, + 0.882, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Martin Schmitt and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Language Models for Lexical Inference in Context. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1267-1280, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.405, + 0.882, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Krishna Srinivasan, Karthik Raman, Anupam Samanta, Lingrui Liao, Luca Bertelli, and Michael Bendersky. 2022. QUILL: Query intent with large language models using retrieval augmentation and multi-stage distillation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 492-501, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.521, + 0.882, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aarne Talman and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2019. Testing the Generalization Power of Neural Network Models across NLI Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 85-94, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.623, + 0.882, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.713, + 0.882, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kushal Tirumala, Aram Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. 2022. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 38274-38290. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.802, + 0.882, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2022. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2768" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.153 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2300-2344, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.161, + 0.49, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.263, + 0.489, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Orion Weller, Marc Marone, Nathaniel Weir, Dawn Lawrie, Daniel Khashabi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2023. \"according to ...\" prompting language models improves quoting from pre-training data." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.325, + 0.49, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Yarowsky. 1993. One sense per collocation. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 21-24, 1993." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.388, + 0.49, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, Percy Liang, Kathleen McKeown, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Benchmarking large language models for news summarization." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.453, + 0.373, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Prompt Format Selection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.478, + 0.49, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In prompt-based interactions with the LLMs, several types of context information could be added to help models produce accurate and robust predictions. We attend to two design choices in prompt engineering: prompt templates and in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.584, + 0.49, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt templates are known to have a direct and sometimes decisive impact on LLM behavior. As such, we carefully select a range of clear and concise templates as promising candidates. As discussed in §4.2, we run each template through the dev sets of each dataset, and select the template with the best discriminative power according to AUC scores (similarly to §8). The candidate set of templates includes 3 concise templates we wrote:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.739, + 0.41, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. If [PREMISE], then [HYPOTHESIS]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.766, + 0.378, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. [PREMISE], SO [HYPOTHESIS]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.792, + 0.405, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. [PREMISE] entails [HYPOTHESIS]." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.739, + 0.41, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.819, + 0.489, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also considered the 5 prompt templates used in bias work on LMs for textual entailments (Schmitt and Schütze, 2021):" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.878, + 0.486, + 0.896 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. [PREMISE], which means that [HYPOTHESIS]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.903, + 0.419, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. [HYPOTHESIS], because [PREMISE]." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.878, + 0.486, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. It is not the case that [HYPOTHESIS], let alone that [PREMISE]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.125, + 0.882, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7. \\(\\left[\\mathrm{HYPOTHESIS}\\right]_{\\mathrm{NEG}}\\) which means that PREMISE \\(]_{\\mathrm{NEG}}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.165, + 0.884, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8. [PREMISE]NEG, because [HYPOTHESIS]NEG." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.085, + 0.884, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.188, + 0.885, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In preliminary experiments with GPT-3.5, we observed that LLMs are not responsive to the 3 contrapositive prompts from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) (colored gray), performing at random. We also observed that prompt number 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) also consistently underperforms the other 4 templates, so we use the remaining 4 templates (namely, template no. 1, 2, 3, 4) as our final candidate set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.34, + 0.884, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In-Context Examples have been widely used for interactions with LLMs since Brown et al. (2020). Further, Wei et al. (2022) has demonstrated that including chain-of-thought explanation, namely step-by-step explanations, in the in-context examples, helps LLMs perform reasoning tasks. On the other hand, Ouyang et al. (2022) has suggested that instruction-tuned LLMs are also capable of performing tasks in zero-shot, without exposure to any in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.502, + 0.884, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compared zero-shot and few-shot in our preliminary experiments with LLaMA and GPT-3.5 on Levy/Holt directional dev set. Following Touvron et al. (2023), for zero-shot, we prepend a textual description of the task to each test sample; for few-shot, we prepend a minimal 4 examples with explanations. Instantiated prompts in the two settings are demonstrated in Table 13. Here we report the dev set results with the best-performing templates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.885, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We found that for the two pre-trained LLMs, namely, LLaMA and PaLM, zero-shot performance on the Levy/Holt directional dev set is near-random, at \\(56.6\\%\\) and \\(61.5\\%\\) AUC respectively (random is \\(50\\%\\)); with 4 in-context examples, the models begin to exhibit non-trivial behavior, with \\(65.0\\%\\) and \\(80.2\\%\\) AUC, respectively. This is not surprising, since pre-trained LLMs without instruction fine-tuning should not be expected to perform complex tasks zero-shot. For GPT-3.5, the performance is still much lower in zero-shot, at \\(64.5\\%\\), compared to \\(74.6\\%\\) in few-shot." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As discussed in §4.2, ideally we would like LLMs to have zero-shot natural language abilities readily available for downstream tasks. However, in light of this observation, our primary experiments are conducted in the few-shot setting" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2769" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.082, + 0.49, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTaskPrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI74.552.50
I^GenArg70.957.3+4.8
I^RandArg↓66.960.5+8.0
I^RandArg↑70.651.5-1.0
GPT-3.5I80.696.50
I^GenArg79.791.3-5.2
I^RandArg↓80.182.5-14.0
I^RandArg↑81.980.5-16.0
PaLMI90.384.00
I^GenArg92.371.5-12.5
I^RandArg↓87.882.5-1.5
I^RandArg↑88.282.0-2.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.287, + 0.489, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Scoring model outputs in different conditions of RTE-1. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.358, + 0.486, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "throughout, in order to better explore the abilities of these LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.406, + 0.442, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B RTE-1 Results For Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.452, + 0.49, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The RTE-1 dataset contains complex natural language statements with varied linguistic features, so predictions about entailment are not decidable only on the basis of contained predicates. However, RTE-1 is a difficult challenge set for models, and interesting to compare to in the broader domain of NLI. Though the sentences are much more complex, we are able to conduct an analogous experiment as in §6 by first identifying spans of named entities and their respective entity types, then replacing the entities with new ones. As before, we compare model scores on the original dataset to three test conditions: generic arguments (\"location X\", \"person Y\", etc.), sampled low-frequency entities constrained to the same type, and the same for high-frequency sampled entities. Since only the entities in each statement have been altered, the entailment labels between premise/hypothesis pairs remain unchanged, and an ideal model capable of generalizing inference would make the same predictions across dataset conditions. Results are shown in Table 6." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We observe similar trends to those reported on Levy/Holt. GPT-3.5 performs very consistently between Levy/Holt and RTE-1 in terms of degrading recall when information is changed in each sample. We observe that model performance is worse than the original dataset when using generic arguments, and worse still using type-constrained random ar" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "guments. We further observe that across all three LLMs across both datasets, models consistently achieve worse recall using high-frequency entities than low-frequency entities, supporting the claim that increasing the frequency of entity occurrence in training data impedes generalization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.183, + 0.885, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Different from in Levy/Holt, we observe some noise in LLaMA's predictions; the recall on the original task is actually lower than the generic argument condition and the low-frequency entity condition. We note that overall, LLaMA is the weakest LLM tested in this experiment on both Levy/Holt and RTE-1, and that its performance on RTE-1 is particularly low. We suggest that the increased difficulty of RTE-1 over Levy/Holt (due to having much more linguistic variation) is simply too complex for LLaMA, which is neither the largest LLM tested, nor instruction-finetuned." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.376, + 0.884, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also observe a smaller gap between PaLM's recall rates across dataset conditions, though the gaps are consistent with our claims. While the model appears able to generalize to conditions in which random real arguments are inserted, recall on the generic argument condition is significantly degraded. Failure on this control condition indicates that the model may not be generalizing as well as the other conditions would imply." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.536, + 0.838, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C The Ineffectiveness of Instructing LLMs to Stop Conditioning on Attested Information" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.596, + 0.884, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In §5 and §6, we showed that entailment predictions from LLMs are strongly biased by their predictions on the attestation of hypotheses. We wondered whether there are intuitive prompt engineering techniques to steer its behavior away from attending to attestation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.694, + 0.883, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Towards this goal, we experimented with prepending a brief task description to the few-shot prompts in part B of Table 13, explicitly instructing the models to ignore the attestedness of individual statements: Please check the entailments between the following hypothetical statements. Ignore the veracity of these statements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We replicated the experiments in §5 and §6 with GPT-3.5, since GPT-3.5 is an instruction-finetuned model trained to be responsive to prompts, where the other two LLM families are only pre-trained. Despite having been instruction-finetuned, the results with GPT-3.5 show only marginal improvements in model behavior." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2770" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.082, + 0.817, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
taskGPT-3.5Instructed to Ignore AttestednessNot Instructed
IP(Entail | Attested)74.377.6
IP(Entail | ¬Attested)57.863.6
IRandPremP(Entail | Attested)39.041.3
IRandPremP(Entail | ¬Attested)17.618.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.175, + 0.885, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: We estimate the probability of positive predictions of Entail in \\( I \\) and \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} \\) tasks respectively given that the hypothesis is attested, namely \\( \\Lambda = \\text{Attested} \\). Not instructed results are copied from Figure 2 and listed here for ease of comparison; also note that all \\( I_{\\text{RandPrem}} = \\text{Entail} \\) predictions are false positives." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.231, + 0.794, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
GPT-3.5 ConditionTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
Few-shot, instructed to ignore attestedness.I64.990.80
IGenArg73.569.3-21.5
IRandArg↓64.668.4-22.4
IRandArg↑67.558.1-32.7
Few-shot, no instructions.I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.398, + 0.884, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: GPT-3.5 predictions when models are explicitly instructed to avoid taking the attestedness of individual statements into account. In the upper half are the instructed behavior, and in the lower half are the regular few-shot behavior as in Table 4. Differences in recalls remain at a similar scale, with precision again stable, where the benefit from the explicit instruction is marginal." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.48, + 0.489, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 7, we show that instructing GPT-3.5 to ignore attestation does not help narrow the gap between \\(\\Lambda = \\text{Attested}\\) and \\(\\Lambda = \\neg \\text{Attested}\\); instead, probabilities of predicting Entail went down by similar amounts, indicating that the model is becoming slightly more conservative in predicting positives when instructed to ignore attestation, but not in a principled manner." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.61, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Further, as shown in Table 8, despite the explicit instruction, recall still drops at similar scales when arguments are randomly replaced with the same sets of frequent/infrequent replacement entities as before. Since GPT-3.5 has been instructionfinetuned to respond to prompts, its failure means eradicating such biases from model outputs is a difficult task, one that needs further research attention." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.769, + 0.431, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Statistics of Consistency Subsets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.797, + 0.489, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The statistics of consistency subsets are presented in Table 9." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.844, + 0.467, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E The Reliability of \\(\\Lambda\\) Measure and Its Relation to Consensus of Attestation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The \\(\\Lambda\\)-consistency subsets most directly capture the impacts of the attestation bias. However, these" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.883, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "subset separations are based on \\(\\Lambda\\) predictions from individual models, which can be noisy, subject to model-specific idiosyncracies such as trigger words or certain syntactic structures in the prompt, etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.884, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To verify that the performance gaps in \\(\\Lambda\\)-consistency subsets that we observe in §8 comes from predicted attestedness and not some idiosyncrasy, we experiment with another pair of subsets based on consensus attestation instead of individually predicted attestation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.645, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use a majority vote among the three independently-trained LLMs to approximate consensus attestation. The approximation is denoted as \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\). This is because any model-specific idiosyncrasies should not be shared between LLMs independently trained from different source corpora in general. Therefore, with the majority vote, we reduce this noise and acquire predictions on the consensus attestation of statements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Performances of LLMs between \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\)-consistency subsets are listed in Table 10. Gaps between the \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\)-consistency subsets that are larger than \\(\\Lambda\\)-consistency gaps are colored red; those narrower than \\(\\Lambda\\)-consistency gaps are colored green. It is clear that the gaps are consistent between \\(\\Lambda/\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\)-consistency experiments, where the gaps are even larger on many occasions. This confirms that the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2771" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.251, + 0.082, + 0.747, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
# of EntriesLevy/HoltRTE-1
LLaMAGPT-3.5PaLMLLaMAGPT-3.5PaLM
VCONSISTENT955947999479447480
VADVERSARIAL829837785321353320
FCONSISTENT972286
FADVERSARIAL220247
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.194, + 0.885, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Subsets defined by the consistency between entailment label \\( L \\) and either \\( \\Lambda \\) (hypothesis attestation prediction from each LLM) or \\( \\Phi \\) (model-agnostic relative frequency bias). CONSISTENT subsets are where \\( L \\) agrees with \\( \\Lambda /\\Phi \\) . ADVERSARIAL subsets are where \\( L \\) disagrees with \\( \\Lambda /\\Phi \\) ." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.259, + 0.462, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTaskLevy/Holt
\\( \\tilde{\\Lambda}_{\\text{cons.}} \\)\\( \\tilde{\\Lambda}_{\\text{adv.}} \\)diff.
LLaMAI65.36.5-58.8
GPT-3.5I70.823.5-47.3
PaLMI80.728.3-52.4
LLaMA\\( I^{GenArg} \\)54.429.6-24.8
GPT-3.5\\( I^{GenArg} \\)56.235.5-20.7
PaLM\\( I^{GenArg} \\)59.340.1-19.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.399, + 0.489, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\) is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with \\(AUC_{norm}\\) (\\(0\\% =\\) random chance performance). Performance drops from \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}_{cons}\\) to \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}_{adv}\\) are presented in the diff. columns, sharper decreases than \\(\\Lambda\\)-comparisons in Table 5 are colored red, milder ones are colored green." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.526, + 0.487, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "performance gaps in \\(\\Lambda\\)-consistency experiments can be credited to the attestation bias, rather than model-specific idiosyncrasies." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.574, + 0.487, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "It is also to be noted that, since the \\(\\Phi\\)-consistency subsets are separated based on the model-agnostic criterion \\(\\Phi\\), model-specific idiosyncrasies are not a problem for \\(\\Phi\\)-consistency comparisons." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.651, + 0.486, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Impacts of Bias on GPT-4 Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.489, + 0.774 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) is a recent, strong LLM claiming SOTA performance on various NLP tasks. Due to its closed-source nature and the impossibility of fully tracking the sources of its behaviors, we refrain from reporting results with it in the main content of this paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.489, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, in order to provide a richer context for the attestation bias and the relative frequency bias, in this section we report the performance differences of GPT-4 between subsets consistent/adversarial to the two biases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a light-weight experiment, we elicit GPT-4 predictions in the original \\(I\\) task in the zero-shot setting, and re-use subsets from experiments in \\(\\S 8\\). Specifically, for the attestation bias, we use" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.261, + 0.883, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the majority vote \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\) among LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM, to approximate \\(\\Lambda\\) predictions from GPT-4 itself; for the relative frequency bias, we keep the \\(\\Phi\\) measure for approximating corpus-frequency of terms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.343, + 0.884, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Because GPT-4 is a commercial service and does not provide logit confidence with their discrete predictions, \\(AUC_{norm}\\) values could not be calculated. Therefore, we are forced to report the F-1 scores at the binary prediction point of confidence. As results in Table 12 show, we observe the same trend as in §8: for the subset adversarial to each factor, GPT-4 performance also drops substantially." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.472, + 0.884, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This experiment is designed to provide more context for the two biases discussed in the paper and NOT to compare GPT-4 with other models; however, we can conclude that GPT-4 is subject to the same fragilities as the other LLMs w.r.t. the two biases, where our conclusions and recommendations also apply." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.595, + 0.807, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Dataset Statistics and Dev Set Performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.637, + 0.883, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the paper, we have examined the behavior and performance of three major LLM families on two NLI datasets: Levy/Holt and RTE-1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.684, + 0.882, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The directional portion of Levy/Holt dataset contains 630 entries in its dev set, and 1784 entries in its test set; the RTE-1 dataset contains 567 entries in its dev set, and 800 entries in its test set. Each dataset has a \\(50\\% / 50\\%\\) class distribution between Entail and No-Entail (for RTE-1 dev set, the numbers of entries in the two label classes differ by 1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.814, + 0.882, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 11, we report dev set performance and the best prompt template used for each model on each dataset. Note that no training is involved in" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.868, + 0.851, + 0.894 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{9}\\)https://github.com/mjhosseini/entgraph_eval/tree/master/LevyHoltDS" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.894, + 0.851, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ nlstkdata/rte-corpus?resource \\(\\equiv\\) download" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.868, + 0.851, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2772" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.18, + 0.082, + 0.819, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Best tplt. IDDEV set AUCnormBest tplt. IDDEV set AUCnorm
LLaMAI#430.0#362.5
I^GenArg#134.6#352.3
I^RandArg↓#131.8#151.3
I^RandArg↑#126.3#343.8
GPT-3.5I#149.2#374.8
I^GenArg#139.8#364.8
I^RandArg↓#143.4#363.6
I^RandArg↑#134.2#366.0
PaLMI#160.9#484.5
I^GenArg#148.1#479.4
I^RandArg↓#143.6#379.8
I^RandArg↑#135.3#378.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.305, + 0.884, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: LLM dev set performance on the two datasets, measured with \\( AUC_{norm} \\) (\\( 0\\% = \\) random chance performance). AUC is calculated using estimated model scores as in §4.2 and then normalized into \\( AUC_{norm} \\). We select the highest scoring template on each dev task (shown in this table) and use this in the corresponding test set evaluation (shown in the main text)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.385, + 0.481, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
F-1 scoreTaskLevy/Holt
ΛConsΛAdv
random baselineI70.362.0
GPT-4I85.1 (+14.8)67.6 (+5.6)
ΦConsΦAdv
random baselineI66.766.7
GPT-4I74.6 (+7.9)69.7 (+3.0)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.517, + 0.489, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation \\(\\tilde{\\Lambda}\\) is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with F-1 score. random baseline is the highest F-1 score from a random classifier, by reaching random precision and \\(100\\%\\) recall. For each GPT-4 score, we also show the improvement over random (in parentheses)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.643, + 0.489, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "this paper, and prompt template selection is the only hyper-parameter tuned on the dev sets. These selected best prompt templates are then used on the respective test sets, where the results are used for the analysis throughout the paper." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.723, + 0.49, + 0.834 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For random-premise experiments, AUC values cannot be meaningfully calculated because gold labels are always No-Entail. For these experiments, we use the most frequently-selected prompt template on each dataset, namely template #1 for Levy/Holt dataset, and template #3 for RTE-1 dataset." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2773" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.128, + 0.491, + 0.142 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A. Zero-shot Example Instantiated Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.147, + 0.597, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please check the entailments between the following statements." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.17, + 0.628, + 0.183 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If kanamycin kills infections, then kanamycin is useful in infections." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.184, + 0.301, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) Entailment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.196, + 0.279, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Neutral" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.207, + 0.316, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) Contradiction" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.184, + 0.316, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.225, + 0.486, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B. Few-shot Example Instantiated Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.242, + 0.547, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If Google bought Youtube, then Google owns Youtube." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.257, + 0.301, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) Entailment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.268, + 0.279, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Neutral" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.28, + 0.316, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) Contradiction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.291, + 0.583, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: A) Entailment. Owning is a consequence of buying." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.304, + 0.547, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If Google owns Youtube, then Google bought Youtube." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.316, + 0.301, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) Entailment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.327, + 0.279, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Neutral" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.339, + 0.316, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) Contradiction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.35, + 0.785, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: B) Neutral. Owning does not imply buying, the ownership may come from other means." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.363, + 0.533, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If John went to the mall, then John drove to the mall." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.375, + 0.301, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) Entailment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.386, + 0.279, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Neutral" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.398, + 0.316, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) Contradiction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.41, + 0.633, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: B) Neutral. John may have gone to the mall by other means." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.422, + 0.533, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If John drove to the mall, then John went to the mall." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.434, + 0.301, + 0.443 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) Entailment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.445, + 0.279, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Neutral" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.457, + 0.316, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) Contradiction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.469, + 0.603, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: A) Entailment. Driving is a means of going to the mall." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.481, + 0.671, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "If ephedrine is widely used in medicine, then ephedrine is used in medicine." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.493, + 0.301, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) Entailment" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.505, + 0.279, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Neutral" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.517, + 0.316, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) Contradiction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.529, + 0.266, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.546, + 0.533, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C. Hypothesis-only Example Instantiated Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.565, + 0.361, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Google bought Youtube." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.578, + 0.262, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) True" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.589, + 0.293, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Unknown" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.601, + 0.266, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) False" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.613, + 0.321, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: A) True." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.625, + 0.399, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoshua Bengio likes oak trees." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.637, + 0.262, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) True" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.648, + 0.293, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Unknown" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.66, + 0.266, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) False" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.672, + 0.351, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: B) Unknown." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.684, + 0.384, + 0.694 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The sun rises from the west." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.696, + 0.262, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) True" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.708, + 0.293, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Unknown" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.719, + 0.266, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) False" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.731, + 0.324, + 0.742 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer: C) False." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.743, + 0.396, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ephedrine is used in medicine." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.755, + 0.262, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A) True" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.766, + 0.293, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B) Unknown" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.778, + 0.266, + 0.788 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C) False" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.789, + 0.266, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Answer:" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.565, + 0.399, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.817, + 0.885, + 0.875 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: Example instantiated prompts in Zero-shot / Few-shot settings, for the sample “PREMISE: [ephedrine is widely used in medicine], HYPOTHESIS: [ephedrine is used in medicine]”. The few-shot prompts in part B are used throughout the main experiments in this paper. We also present an example of the prompts we use for the hypothesis-only \\(\\Lambda\\) measure as described in §3.1." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2774" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_origin.pdf b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e280817ca1f704981a153e1e70ee11386a18862 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/cf9798f7-c301-41e3-9b65-cde2050b49d8_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:a22be63d826b692ea0f0b2c296ae866bf89c557e0e624c7864214a08ec05aba6 +size 726431 diff --git a/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/full.md b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95b0c78ede98a8580542208a5a02d6d4f8a80f62 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,529 @@ +# Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks + +Nick McKenna†* Tianyi Li†* + +Liang Cheng† Mohammad Javad Hosseini‡ Mark Johnson§ Mark Steedman† + +†University of Edinburgh ‡Google Research §Macquarie University + +{nick.mckenna, tianyi.li}@ed.ac.uk + +# Abstract + +Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as "indices" to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation. $^{1}$ + +# 1 Introduction + +Large Language Models (LLMs) such as LLaMA, GPT-3/4, PaLM, and more (Touvron et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), have been trusted by many to perform language understanding in downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, and fact verification, among others (Zhang et al., 2023). However, due to the large-scale nature of LLM training on vast, often proprietary data, and the inherent opacity of LLM parameters, it is difficult to explain their + +behavior when answering user queries and the corresponding risks in terms of bias and robustness. In particular, one LLM behavior poses a significant challenge: "hallucination," the phenomenon in which LLMs provide information which is incorrect or inappropriate, presented as fact. + +This paper investigates two biases driving LLM performance in natural language inference, sometimes called textual entailment. This is a basic component of language understanding which is critical in applied tasks, and we offer these two biases as explanations of general false positive hallucination in everyday use. We examine broader NLI, and especially directional entailments, which hold in one direction, but not both. For example, DEFEAT entails PLAY but PLAY does not entail DEFEAT. Inferring directional entailment is more difficult than that of symmetric paraphrase, so it more deeply probes understanding. + +Our approach is a behavioral study of prompted LLM decision-making. We alter existing NLI datasets in targeted ways while measuring how predictions change, across several major LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM). We demonstrate two sources of LLM performance on the NLI task, which we offer as explanations of general false positive hallucination: (1) LLM bias toward affirming entailment when the hypothesis may be attested in the training text, including reliance on named entity identifiers; and (2) a corpus-frequency bias, affirming entailment when the premise is less frequent than the hypothesis. + +We establish that these biases originate from the LLM pretraining objective, in which statistical modeling of the natural distribution of human-generated text leads to (at the level of sentences) memorizing individual statements, and (at the level of corpora) learning typical patterns of usage. Though they are superficially performant, our experiments show that even powerful LLMs still use unsatisfactory tools instead of robust reasoning. + +We present three contributions, the demonstrations of both factors and an analysis of their impact: + +(1) In a prompting scenario, LLMs respond to entailment samples according to an attestation bias, affirming entailments more readily if the hypothesis is attested by the pretraining text. We find that LLaMA-65B, GPT-3.5, and PaLM-540B are respectively 1.9, 2.2, and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly predict Entail when the model already asserts the hypothesis is attested, compared to when not attested. Further, LLMs recall from their propositional memory using named entities as identifying "indices," even though they are irrelevant to the logic of the predicate inference task. +(2) LLMs also rely on a simple corpus-statistic bias using relative term-frequencies, especially when propositional memory is not available. The three LLMs are 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly affirm entailments if the premise has lower term frequency than the hypothesis, than when not. +(3) For the NLI test samples consistent with these factors, LLM scores are misleadingly high; for NLI samples adversarial to them, LLM performance is severely degraded. We show that when labels go against the attestation bias, LLMs can be poor or even near-random classifiers; for the relative frequency bias, we similarly show a substantial performance decrease across all LLMs. + +# 2 Related Work + +Addressing task robustness, Poliak et al. (2018) found a range of NLI datasets contain artifacts which are learned by supervised models trained on only sample hypotheses. In our work we design a similar hypothesis-only test with LLMs, but we use it to probe model memory without any training. By conditioning on the attestation of hypotheses, we show that LLMs are inherently sensitive to attestation, separate from the statistical idiosyncrasies of NLI datasets. + +Additionally, Talman and Chatzikyriakidis (2019) report generalization failure among many models supervised for NLI — models fail to generalize between NLI datasets, even if the task is formatted the same. On smaller Language Models such as RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019; 355M params), Li et al. (2022) also observed a reliance on dataset + +artifacts when performing directional NLI on predicates. We now study the behavior of much larger LMs, which have demonstrated more robust performance across NLP tasks. + +Recent work has also explored LLM memorization and generalization. Carlini et al. (2023) establish that LLMs are able to memorize more data than small LMs, whereas Tirumala et al. (2022) further demonstrate that LLMs pay special attention early in training to numbers and nouns, which act as unique identifiers for individual training sentences. We also show that memories used in language inference are tied to specific named entities. And while Weller et al. (2023) and Kandpal et al. (2022) find that entity frequency in training data is correlated with performance in factual recall about them, we find that entity frequency is anti-correlated with hypothetical generalization performance ( $\S 6$ ). + +Bubeck et al. (2023) argue that GPT-4 understands language "beyond memorization". We do not disprove generalization, but we show that GPT-4 shows the same hallucinations in Appendix F. + +# 3 Experimental Design + +We design behavioral experiments on LLMs by modifying NLI datasets with rigorous controls. We observe large behavior changes across three major LLM families due to propositional-memory effects in §5 and §6, and corpus frequency in §7. Finally, we show the impact on real performance in §8. + +# 3.1 Two Biases in Inference Predictions + +We claim that the pretraining objective to fit the distribution of natural text leads to biases in LLM generations. We explore two such biases. + +The Attestation Bias ( $\Lambda$ ) is the over-reliance of an LLM on its propositional memory about a query statement. We claim that when a statement is likely to be attested in some way by an LLM's training data, it is more likely to affirm it as a conclusion in NLI tasks, regardless of any premise it is presented with. We measure the attestedness of a sample by prompting the LLM to ask if the hypothesis in question is true, false, or unknown.3 Attestation predictions are denoted by $\Lambda$ . + +A biased model will appear to perform well on dataset samples with entailment labels that happen to align with the bias. Table 1 shows examples from the Levy/Holt dev set. + +
Dev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]Dataset LabelBias Prediction
Geyers are common to New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are found in New ZealandEntailΛ = hypothesis Attested
Geyers are found in New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are common to New ZealandNo-EntailΛ = hypothesis Not-Attested
Whiskey consists chiefly of alcohol ⇒ Whiskey contains alcoholEntailΦ = f(consists chiefly of) < f.contains
Whiskey contains alcohol ⇒ Whiskey consists chiefly of alcoholNo-EntailΦ = f缰ates) >f(consists chiefly of)
+ +Table 1: Two pairs of samples are consistent with a respective bias. Model predictions made on the basis of the bias will appear to predict the direction of entailment for each sample. $f(\cdot)$ maps a term to its corpus frequency. + +As discussed in §2, we draw inspiration from the hypothesis-only baseline (Poliak et al., 2018), but our test only queries model memory about the hypothesis without any training. We describe prompt generation in detail in §4.2, with an example in appendix Table 13. + +Dasgupta et al. (2022) show a similar effect in LLMs on abstract reasoning tests, related to sentential content, and equate it to human tendencies. In contrast, we examine the risks of propositional memory on more realistic inference tasks. + +The Relative Frequency Bias $(\Phi)$ is the use by LLMs of a simple rule for deciding entailment, calculable from corpus statistics. Entailment is affirmed if, ignoring named entities, the eventuality in premise $P$ is less frequent in training than that in hypothesis $H$ . + +This bias is reflected in natural text: it is known that nouns follow a trend of becoming more specific as corpus-frequency decreases (Rosch et al., 1976; Caraballo and Charniak, 1999) and the same is observed for predicates (McKenna et al., 2023). Since entailments may carry from a specific term to a more general one, e.g. SPRINT entails RUN, relative frequency can often indicate direction of entailment. However, this is an artifact of natural text and has no direct relationship with meaning. + +Test samples are labeled for agreement with this bias separately from models, with examples shown in Table 1. Since LLM pre-train corpora are impractically large or proprietary, we instead use Google N-grams4 as a proxy of the natural distribution of text, and thus the distributions of these corpora. We average frequencies between the years 1950-2019, and compare between $P$ and $H$ . To acquire the generic eventualities in each sample, we exclude any extracted entities and lemmatize predicate phrases; further, we reduce the effect of noise and sparsity by requiring a wide margin of difference between $P$ and $H$ frequency estimates. Frequency decisions are denoted by $\Phi$ . + +# 3.2 Datasets + +Levy/Holt consists of premise-hypothesis pairs, with a task formatted: "Given [premise $P$ ], is it true that [hypothesis $H$ ]?" (Levy and Dagan, 2016; Holt, 2019). Each $P$ - and $H$ -statement has the property of containing one predicate with two entity arguments, (where the same entities appear in both $P$ and $H$ ) as shown in Table 2. This targeted dataset is ideal for precisely measuring model understanding of predicates, because entailment between statements is decidable purely on the basis of the predicates and their attributes. We study the challenging directional subset, where entailments hold in one direction but not both. + +RTE-1 is one of the original and most difficult tests of NLI (Dagan et al., 2006). It is not purely directional on the basis of predicates or consistently structured like Levy/Holt, so we leave it out of the behavioral experiments. However, it is a widely understood dataset, and we use it to demonstrate the impact of the two biases in general NLI in §8. + +Exclusions are made of NLI datasets relating to knowledge of the world, since we aim to test LLMs on their capability to reason purely about the semantics of natural language predicates without relying on memorized facts. We explicitly avoid datasets such as MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) etc. + +# 3.3 Dataset Transformations + +The Standard Inference Task $(I)$ is on original NLI datasets, in which entailment is determinable by using general language inference on sentences. In Levy/Holt, it is determinable just by predicates. + +We define three dataset transformations to study the change in model responses as targeted information is removed. These are the randomized premise predicate setting $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ , and two argument transformations: generic arguments $I^{\text{GenArg}}$ , and type-constrained randomized arguments $I^{\text{RandArg}}$ . + +
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailGeorge Bush was the Governor of Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
IRandPremNo-EntailGeorge Bush resided in Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
+ +Table 2: From the original dataset task $(I)$ we derive the Random Premise task $(I_{\text{RandPrem}})$ , respecting type-constraints. A random premise is highly unlikely to entail the hypothesis, so samples are relabeled No-Entail. + +
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailIndia exports tons of rice ⇒ India exports rice
I^GenArgEntaillocation X exports tons of food Y ⇒ location X exports food Y
I^RandArg↓EntailSloterdijk exports tons of oatmeal cookies ⇒ Sloterdijk exports oatmeal cookies
I^RandArg↑EntailHelsinki exports tons of Granny Smith ⇒ Helsinki exports Granny Smith
+ +Table 3: An original dev sample $(I)$ is transformed by insertion of entity types $(I^{GenArg})$ ; by real entities sampled from the $5\%$ least frequent in NewsCrawl $(I^{RandArg\downarrow})$ ; and also from the $5\%$ most frequent $(I^{RandArg\uparrow})$ . + +Transformations involve first identifying the types of entities in statements, in order to constrain entity or predicate replacements. We type each entity with one of the 48 FIGER types (Ling and Weld, 2012), such as "person," "location," etc. First, an entity linker (Nguyen et al., 2014) identifies the Freebase ID (Bollacker et al., 2008) for an entity, from which we then obtain its FIGER type; we assign a default type "thing" in failure cases. + +The Random Premise Task ( $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ ) replaces the original premise predicate with a random predicate, while maintaining the same entity arguments. This manipulation produces a dataset in which all samples are labeled No-Entail, since two randomly paired predicates are very unlikely to be related by entailment. Thus, positive decisions by the model are false positive hallucinations.[5] + +To maintain naturalness and grammaticality, we constrain a new predicate to have argument slots of the same types as the original premise. For example, "[medicine] is indicated for patients with [disease]" is swapped for "[medicine] does not cure [disease)". We source candidates from dev set premises satisfying the target type-constraints, and sample uniform randomly. We map the original entities to their respective slots in the new premise. Examples are shown in Table 2. $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ is a good test of model reliance on propositional memory, since we prevent entailments while maintaining the attestedness of conclusions (hypotheses). + +The Generic Argument Task ( $I^{GenArg}$ ) replaces original entities with unique FIGER-typed + +identifiers, e.g. "location X" and "food Y." By masking the identities of entities, this test is designed to remove entity information while maintaining the same entailment label, as a baseline control setting. We append unique identifiers (e.g. "X," "Y") to allow tracking of entity slots across the premise and the hypothesis. + +The Random Argument Task ( $I^{RandArg}$ ) replaces original entities with other real, random entities of the same FIGER-type. Like $I^{GenArg}$ , this test is designed to create novel strings by modifying statements without changing entailment labels. But now we test model sensitivity to added extraneous information. Examples are shown in Table 3. + +We use entity type constraints here to ensure polysemous predicates maintain the same sense. For example, a different sense of run is used in "[person] runs [organization]" vs. "[person] runs [software]", but between different entities of the same type, the same senses are used, so the exact entity IDs do not affect entailment labels (Yarowsky, 1993). We source new entities from NewsCrawl (Barrault et al., 2019), a decade-long span of multi-source news text, in which entities are typed as above. We sample new entities uniform randomly from the $5\%$ least common entities in NewsCrawl $(I^{RandArg\downarrow})$ , and the $5\%$ most common $(I^{RandArg\uparrow})$ . We insert the sampled entities while preserving the rest of each statement. + +# 4 Querying Models with Prompts + +# 4.1 Models + +LLaMA is a recent LLM model family which rivals or surpasses GPT-3 performance while being open to scientific study. A range of model sizes + +are provided, and we test the largest LLaMA-65B model. LLaMA is not fine-tuned. In preliminary experiments on the Levy/Holt dataset, we found two popular fine-tuned LLaMA variants, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023), perform similarly to LLaMA base models and underperform LLaMA-65B, so we leave them out of further experiments. + +GPT-3 Series models are closed to deep scientific review (Brown et al., 2020), though they are a widely-used comparison for their performance, and have been reasonably well-studied. We evaluate on text-davinci-003 (GPT-3.5), as it is the largest, and has undergone instruction- and RLHF-finetuning, enabling interesting comparisons. + +PaLM is larger than GPT-3, which often claims state-of-the-art on evaluation datasets. We use the largest PaLM-540B base model, which is also only pretrained, so it serves as a further comparison point to LLaMA. + +Later GPT models (like text-davinci-003 in our experiments) have been pre-trained and fine-tuned, while base LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pre-training, so their contrast indicates what stage of training is responsible for the phenomena we study. Our aim is not to judge which LLM is superior, but to show the common sources of hallucination they share. + +We also omit models superseded in performance by LLaMA (e.g. OPT, GPT-J, etc.), as well as products that are closed to scientific review (e.g. GPT-4, Bard, etc.).6. + +# 4.2 Prompt Design and Evaluation + +of test samples is done by inserting the premise and hypothesis into a prompt template, which is used to query the model in natural language. Following this, we append a three-way answer choice: A) Entailment, B) Neutral, C) Contradiction, following the typical format in NLI (Bowman et al., 2015). + +Selection of the prompt template used in test is decided by the highest AUC obtained on the respective dev set. We try 8 promising templates including 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021), also used in other NLI work $^{7}$ (Webson and Pavlick, 2022). + +Ideally, an LLM with advanced language understanding ability could perform inference in zero-shot without annotated examples, which would raise confidence that this faculty is ready for downstream tasks. To this end, we examine each LLM in zero-shot (detailed in Appendix A), but they exhibit severely degraded, even near-random performance. + +We turn to few-shot, and hand- annotate a minimal 4 examples in the style of the template, with added explanations about why the given answer is correct for each example. These examples are pretended before the query (see Appendix A for an example). Our goal is to study model behavior as conditions change, not to maximize the score on any particular dataset. Therefore, we use a minimal 4-example setup, which we find is capable of evoking positive responses from all three LLMs on each dev set, across most templates. + +Scoring is done by converting choice A into Entail and collapsing both B and C choices into No-Entail to align with Levy/Holt and RTE-1 annotation. For behavioral experiments in §5, §6, and §7, we score the model solely based on its textual response. All models successfully choose one of A/B/C on all dev questions, showing compatibility with the QA format. + +For the analysis in §8 which measures model performance across confidence thresholds, we convert the letter choice to a probability with the mapping: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} S _ {\text {e n t}} = 0. 5 + 0. 5 * \mathbb {I} [ \operatorname {t o k} = \mathbf {A} ] * S _ {\text {t o k}} \\ - 0. 5 * \mathbb {I} [ \operatorname {t o k} \in \{\mathbf {B}, \mathbf {C} \} ] * S _ {\operatorname {t o k}} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Where $\mathbb{I}$ is the indicator function, and $S_{ent}$ estimates the probability of Entail from a textual output $(0\leq S_{\mathrm{ent}}\leq 1)$ with token probability $S_{tok}$ . The linear transformation preserves the ordering of model confidence, which is sufficient for calculating a precision-recall curve. + +# 5 Experiment 1: Attestation Bias + +We begin our experiments by assessing LLMs' reliance on their propositional memory of training text by conditioning each model's entailment task predictions $I$ on its own predictions of attestation $\Lambda$ . We do this by comparing estimated probabilities of predicting Entail conditioned on whether the hypothesis is predicted Attested or not. + +Further, we test a setting which controls for the possibility that original Levy/Holt entailments may coincidentally refer to attested facts, which could + +![](images/b0a91ee27f30c3fc3649f83185a84bbf3144af8408c7b728f7ace80a56aef7fb.jpg) +Figure 1: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for original entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses $(\Lambda)$ . This setting is intuitive but may be subject to spurious correlations. + +![](images/acbeb360cca4b2de77122474455da5dc0a06245ae72d1df7151c51972c26e71c.jpg) +Figure 2: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for Random-Premise entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses $(\Lambda)$ . Now, predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models are sensitive to attestation, and hallucinate more when the hypothesis is attested. + +lead to spurious correlation between inference and attestation scores without clearly demonstrating use of memory versus true entailment. This controlled setting is the random premise task $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ , which converts entailments into non-entailments without altering the hypothesis. An ideal model capable of drawing inferences from information in context should detect that in the $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ task it is no longer possible to infer the hypothesis based on the premise (even if the hypothesis is itself attested in training), and never predict Entail. Thus, in $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ , all Entail predictions are assumed to be false positive hallucinations. + +# 5.1 Results + +With $I$ , $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ and $\Lambda$ predictions acquired as described in §3.1, we present the conditional probabilities in Figures 1 and 2. It is clear that a model's + +memory about the hypothesis plays a part in its predictions of the hypothesis given a premise, either related or random. + +For $I$ , we observe significantly higher probability of predicting Entail when the hypothesis is Attested. In the random premise task $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ , this trend continues. LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM, respectively, show a 1.9x, 2.2x, and 2.0x higher chance of falsely predicting that a random premise Entails the hypothesis if it already predicts the hypothesis is Attested. This false positive hallucination and its impact on NLI performance is investigated further in $\S 8$ . + +This behavior is observed across model families (LLaMA, GPT, and PaLM), establishing that it is due to pretraining rather than Instruction-tuning or RLHF, since LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pretraining. This behavior is undesirable, because model predictions on NLI tasks should be based solely on general language understanding, not prior knowledge. We may conclude that memory of training data is a significant contributor in LLM inference, and may be an important source of hallucination. + +# 5.2 Implications for Real Applications + +Using prior knowledge as part of language inference has bad implications for the use of LLMs in real applications. We offer an example scenario of a question-answering task where user questions are answered from a Knowledge Base (KB). In typical formulations of this task, if a statement in the KB (premise) entails a user query (hypothesis), the premise may be formulated into an answer. Consider a KB such as a legal document or HR rulebook. Assume that the text is prepended to the user query and presented to the LLM, as in other works (Srinivasan et al., 2022). Given our findings, we might observe the LLM hallucinating answers to questions using information which is not presented in the KB, but may have been read by the LLM in text from other sources during pretraining. These answers could be illogical, contradictory, and could misrepresent the views of the KB, or other harms. Such poor use of in-context learning has already been observed in specific domains like medicine (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022). + +In general, this is a risk for LLMs which (a) are deployed for tasks like QA by feeding novel text (e.g. a legal document) in-context as part of the user query, and (b) are trained on datasets which are + +
ModelTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI67.068.40
IGenArg69.066.9-1.5
IRandArg↓64.063.8-4.6
IRandArg↑67.253.7-14.7
GPT-3.5I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
PaLMI72.876.20
IGenArg79.850.8-25.4
IRandArg↓69.558.7-17.5
IRandArg↑70.852.4-23.8
+ +Table 4: Exp-2. Scoring model outputs in different argument-replacement tasks. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings. Recall decreases sharply across settings in all models. + +private or otherwise infeasibly large to read manually, containing many facts and human opinions unknowable to both the user and modeler. + +# 6 Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory + +In §5, we have established that propositional memory explains a significant portion of false positives in LLM inference predictions. In this section, we continue by showing the importance of named entities in the process of LLMs' memory recall. + +As described in §3.3, we manipulate the entities with the $I^{GenArg}$ generic argument replacement, and two random entity replacements, one with infrequent-entities $I^{RandArg\downarrow}$ and one with frequent-entities $I^{RandArg\uparrow}$ (examples in Table 3). + +By replacing arguments constrained by type, entailment labels are maintained; however, new samples should contain novel strings not attested in pretrain corpora. We expect that an ideal, generalizing model would maintain its predictions across all conditions; a flawed model utilizing the attestation bias would predict fewer Entail, since entities no longer identify these statements in training. + +# 6.1 Results + +We report results across conditions in Table 4. We observe two phenomena across all three models, aligning with the above conjecture of “flaws.” + +First, we observe that all models' behavior significantly changes in the same way when original entities are replaced by either entity types or random real entities. Despite similar (or marginally increas + +ing) precision across conditions, recall degrades sharply from original entities $(I)$ (GPT-3.5 @92.3) to random frequent entities $(I^{RandArg\uparrow})$ (GPT-3.5 @55.3). Generic-argument $I^{GenArg}$ performance also degrades in this way, showing that this is not a matter of poorly selected real entities, but rather a loss of information from the original dataset which models were using to answer questions. + +Second, across the 3 models, we observe a significant difference in recall between the two real entity conditions $I^{RandArg\downarrow}$ and $I^{RandArg\uparrow}$ , which are both composed of unattested statements, but involve entities that differ in typical corpus frequency. Infrequent entities ( $I^{RandArg\downarrow}$ ) yield better generalization and a higher recall (GPT-3.5 @66.5) than frequent entities ( $I^{RandArg\uparrow}$ ) (GPT-3.5 @55.3). + +These findings corroborate those from §5, that LLMs use memory as part of language inference, and additionally show that these memories are recalled using named entities acting as indices. These experiments demonstrate that too much prior exposure to an entity may impede model generalization when that entity is discussed in novel inferences: the more a model has read about an entity during pretraining, the less capable it is of drawing novel natural language inferences involving it. This is the case even though the inferences do not require detailed knowledge of the entity. + +Like §5, the effect is consistent across models, indicating LLM pretraining is responsible. + +We show similar results on RTE-1 in Appendix B. Further, instructing LLMs to ignore propositional memory in Appendix C shows little change. + +# 7 Experiment 3: Relative Frequency Bias + +We continue the conditioning experiments from §5, now exploring the relative frequency bias. Sample labels for this bias are denoted by the model-agnostic $\Phi$ as described in §3.1. $\Phi$ labels the conformance of sample predicates to the bias: $\Phi_{<}$ means $P$ is less corpus-frequent than $H$ by a margin (positive class), $\Phi_{>} =$ means $P$ more frequent than $H$ by the margin (negative class). To control for differences between datasets, the margin is set so that 1/3 of samples are classed as "roughly equal" $(\Phi_{\approx})$ , which we discard. + +Following the observations in §6, we further apply a generic-argument transformation to control for attestation, yielding $I_{\text{RandPrem}}^{\text{GenArg}}$ . With the entities masked, models cannot recall propositional memory for this task: by re-calculating the $\Lambda$ mea + +![](images/0f677de03ffeeb27b88ddba48f4842c01611270b459740765507c4e781f86cd7.jpg) +Controlled Task: Conditioning Inference Results on Relative Frequency $(\Phi)$ , with either original entities or generic placeholders +Figure 3: Exp-3. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for random-premise Levy/Holt conditioned on relative frequencies $(\Phi)$ , with original $(I_{RandPrem})$ or generic $(I_{RandPrem}^{GenArg})$ entities. Predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models hallucinate more often when test samples conform to the relative frequency bias $(\Phi_{<})$ than when not $(\Phi_{>})$ . + +sure with generic arguments, only 2 hypotheses are still predicted as Attested by GPT-3.5, whereas for LLaMA and PaLM, the numbers are also only $6.2\%$ and $3.9\%$ . Additionally, as with $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ , here the entailment label of each sample remains No-Entail, so any Entail prediction is false positive hallucination. + +# 7.1 Results + +We estimate the probabilities of models predicting Entail conditioned on the frequency label $\Phi$ , between $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ and $I_{\text{RandPrem}}^{\text{GenArg}}$ settings, and present the results in Figure 3. We observe a clear and consistent rise of hallucination when samples conform to the bias. Namely, in case of $\Phi_{<}$ , models are more likely to predict Entail, even though no semantic relation exists between $P$ and $H$ . + +Between the two settings, with $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ , when entities are available, this effect is moderate. On the other hand, with $I_{\text{RandPrem}}^{\text{GenArg}}$ when entity-based memory is blocked, we observe a decrease in the overall level of hallucination, but the separation between $\Phi_{<}$ and $\Phi_{>}$ becomes more drastic, to 1.6x, 1.8x and 2.0x for LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM respectively. This indicates a tension between $\Lambda$ and $\Phi$ : propositional memory may be used when available, and if not, the predicate pairing may be attended to more closely. Again, the $\Phi$ effect is observed across the three model families, revealing its root in the large-scale pre-training process, rather than model peculiarities or fine-tuning. + +# 8 Impact of Bias on Performance + +We have demonstrated two sources of hallucination by LLMs on inference tasks. We now assess their impact on model performance to quantify their risk. + +We compare LLMs' performance between NLI subsets that are consistent or adversarial to each bias. A sample $P \models H$ ? is consistent with a bias when the prediction by the bias agrees with the gold entailment label; conversely, it is adversarial to a bias when the prediction by the bias disagrees with the label. + +For example, "Google bought YouTube $\vDash$ Google owns YouTube" is consistent with the attestation bias of every model, because the conclusion Google owns YouTube is attested in every LLM's training data, and the sample label is Entail; "Apple owns Samsung $\nVdash$ Apple bought Samsung" is also consistent, because its conclusion is not attested and the sample label is No-Entail. The reverses of these two samples are adversarial, since their respective attestedness (unchanged) does not agree with the entailment labels (now flipped). For each subset, there is substantial representation in both Levy/Holt and RTE-1 (see appendix Table 9). + +While earlier experiments inspected model textual responses to characterize behavior change, we now use area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) to summarize model performance over a tunable confidence threshold (scoring described in §4.2), which is better for measuring practical discriminative power. Following Li et al. (2022), we re-scale AUC values to normalize over the label distribution, yielding $AUC_{norm}$ values that assign random classifiers $0\%$ and perfect classifiers $100\%$ . + +We report results in Table 5. Under the standard inference task $I$ , the performance drop from $\Lambda_{\text{CONSistent}}$ to $\Lambda_{\text{ADVERSARIAL}}$ is severe for all 3 LLMs: they deteriorate from very good classifiers to poor or even near-random ones. $^{8}$ This fragility from the attestation bias can be alleviated by masking entities with type-identifiers (condition $I^{\text{GenArg}}$ ), which reduces the performance drop. + +On the other hand, with the generic arguments in $I^{GenArg}$ , LLMs are forced to focus on the predicates in each proposition. As a result, the impact of the relative frequency bias is intensified. From the standard inference task $I$ to $I^{GenArg}$ , the average performance drop from the cons. to adv. + +
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)
cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.
LLaMAI65.58.1-57.442.132.3-9.862.137.4-24.755.551.7-3.8
GPT-3.5I85.010.8-74.253.543.2-10.384.647.5-37.177.643.4-34.2
PaLMI79.131.5-47.663.353.0-10.387.183.4-3.787.581.0-6.5
LLaMAIGenArg52.134.4-17.755.334.9-20.459.230.4-28.851.739.4-12.3
GPT-3.5IGenArg67.118.8-48.350.435.0-15.480.156.4-23.779.649.1-30.5
PaLMIGenArg58.146.6-11.559.947.3-12.678.184.4+6.385.478.7-6.7
+ +Table 5: LLM performance on subsets where $\Lambda /\Phi$ is consistent/adversarial to entailment labels, measured with ${AUC}_{norm}\left( {0\% = \text{random chance performance). Decrease from cons to adv subsets are shown in the diff. columns.}}\right)$ + +subsets w.r.t. $\Phi$ is widened from $10.1\%$ to $16.1\%$ for Levy/Holt and from $14.8\%$ to $16.5\%$ for RTE-1. The differences for $\Phi$ -consistency subsets are generally narrower than $\Lambda$ -consistency subsets, possibly because the relative frequencies require generalizing from instances, and may be more difficult to capture, and potentially because frequency measures with Google N-gram are a crude estimate of the actual frequencies in LLM pre-train corpora. + +# 9 Conclusion + +Across several major LLM families and experimental settings, we demonstrate two important biases in the performance of LLMs on natural language inference tasks, which may also manifest in applied tasks as hallucination. Contrary to claims of LLM general reasoning capabilities, we show that much of this performance is achieved by (1) recall of relevant memorizations and (2) corpus-based biases like term frequency. Since these factors are reproduced in all models, we establish that they originate in LLM pre-training, and are not corrected during GPT-3.5 fine-tuning. + +We conclude that LLMs, though powerful, use unsatisfactory tools for the basic tasks of language understanding and inference. We propose several approaches to control for these biases in evaluation, and ultimately conclude that further attention on alleviating these biases are needed, before LLMs may be trusted to reason robustly about language. + +# Limitations + +In this paper, we have discussed two prominent sources of hallucination for LLMs in natural language inference tasks. We acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive search of all the sources, where further exploration should be done in future work. + +We also note that after controlling for the factors + +discussed in this paper, there remains residual, unexplained performance on NLI tasks. This residual might be due to other undiscovered biases or possibly generalising inference capability. We leave further exploration of this residual to future work. + +As discussed in Appendix A, we compared a range of popular LLM prompting techniques and selected the most promising approach. We acknowledge that there could potentially be other novel prompting techniques that could help the LLMs resist the influence of the biases discussed in this paper. We identify this as an open question and advocate for future research. + +# Ethical Considerations + +This paper discusses two major sources of hallucination in LLM output when asked to perform natural language inference, which we note is a capability required of many downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, etc. We show that users of LLMs may be subjected to faulty judgements if the content of their request overlaps with data in pretraining. However, it is difficult to ascertain for both a user or modeler exactly what is contained in pretraining data, or how this will interact with a user's query. Our proposed attestation query shows promise in detecting potential overlaps, but model responses in applications of these cases are not explored. Further, the relative frequency bias demonstrates a much more subtle problem of corpus distribution that is naturally inherent to model pretraining on human generated text. + +In light of these, the potential harms of LLM use for drawing natural language inferences may include: offering inaccurate or irrelevant information to a user's query or contradiction of information provided in-context with a user's query. + +# Acknowledgements + +This research was supported by ERC Advanced Fellowship GA 742137 SEMANTAX and the University of Edinburgh Huawei Laboratory. + +# References + +Loic Barrault, Ondrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussa, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Shervin Malmasi, Christof Monz, Mathias Muller, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2019. Findings of the 2019 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT19). In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 1-61, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '08, page 1247-1250, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. +Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. ArXiv:2303.12712 [cs]. +Sharon A. Caraballo and Eugene Charniak. 1999. Determining the specificity of nouns from text. In 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora. +Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang. + +2023. Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models. ArXiv:2202.07646 [cs]. +Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\%$ * chatgpt quality. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. +Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The Pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment, pages 177-190, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. +Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K. Lampinen, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L. McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. ArXiv:2207.07051 [cs]. +Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). +Xavier Holt. 2019. Probabilistic Models of Relational Implication. arXiv:1907.12048 [cs, stat]. ArXiv: 1907.12048. +Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Nikolas McNeal, Clayton Washington, You Chen, Lang Li, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2022. Thinking about GPT-3 in-context learning for biomedical IE? think again. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4497–4512, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge. +Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics. +Omer Levy and Ido Dagan. 2016. Annotating Relation Inference in Context via Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 249-255, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tianyi Li, Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Sabine Weber, and Mark Steedman. 2022. Language Models Are Poor Learners of Directional Inference. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 903–921, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiao Ling and Daniel S. Weld. 2012. Fine-grained entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'12, page 94-100. AAAI Press. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]. ArXiv: 1907.11692. +Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2023. Smoothing Entailment Graphs with Language Models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Dat Ba Nguyen, Johannes Hoffart, Martin Theobald, and Gerhard Weikum. 2014. Aida-light: High-throughput named-entity disambiguation. In LDOw. +OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. ArXiv:2303.08774 [cs]. +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, + +Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs]. +Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3):382-439. +Martin Schmitt and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Language Models for Lexical Inference in Context. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1267-1280, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Krishna Srinivasan, Karthik Raman, Anupam Samanta, Lingrui Liao, Luca Bertelli, and Michael Bendersky. 2022. QUILL: Query intent with large language models using retrieval augmentation and multi-stage distillation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 492-501, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Aarne Talman and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2019. Testing the Generalization Power of Neural Network Models across NLI Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 85-94, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. +Kushal Tirumala, Aram Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. 2022. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 38274-38290. Curran Associates, Inc. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. +Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2022. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their + +prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2300-2344, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc. +Orion Weller, Marc Marone, Nathaniel Weir, Dawn Lawrie, Daniel Khashabi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2023. "according to ..." prompting language models improves quoting from pre-training data. +David Yarowsky. 1993. One sense per collocation. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 21-24, 1993. +Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, Percy Liang, Kathleen McKeown, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Benchmarking large language models for news summarization. + +# A Prompt Format Selection + +In prompt-based interactions with the LLMs, several types of context information could be added to help models produce accurate and robust predictions. We attend to two design choices in prompt engineering: prompt templates and in-context examples. + +Prompt templates are known to have a direct and sometimes decisive impact on LLM behavior. As such, we carefully select a range of clear and concise templates as promising candidates. As discussed in §4.2, we run each template through the dev sets of each dataset, and select the template with the best discriminative power according to AUC scores (similarly to §8). The candidate set of templates includes 3 concise templates we wrote: + +1. If [PREMISE], then [HYPOTHESIS]. +2. [PREMISE], SO [HYPOTHESIS]. +3. [PREMISE] entails [HYPOTHESIS]. + +We also considered the 5 prompt templates used in bias work on LMs for textual entailments (Schmitt and Schütze, 2021): + +4. [PREMISE], which means that [HYPOTHESIS]. +5. [HYPOTHESIS], because [PREMISE]. + +6. It is not the case that [HYPOTHESIS], let alone that [PREMISE]. +7. $\left[\mathrm{HYPOTHESIS}\right]_{\mathrm{NEG}}$ which means that PREMISE $]_{\mathrm{NEG}}$ +8. [PREMISE]NEG, because [HYPOTHESIS]NEG. + +In preliminary experiments with GPT-3.5, we observed that LLMs are not responsive to the 3 contrapositive prompts from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) (colored gray), performing at random. We also observed that prompt number 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) also consistently underperforms the other 4 templates, so we use the remaining 4 templates (namely, template no. 1, 2, 3, 4) as our final candidate set. + +In-Context Examples have been widely used for interactions with LLMs since Brown et al. (2020). Further, Wei et al. (2022) has demonstrated that including chain-of-thought explanation, namely step-by-step explanations, in the in-context examples, helps LLMs perform reasoning tasks. On the other hand, Ouyang et al. (2022) has suggested that instruction-tuned LLMs are also capable of performing tasks in zero-shot, without exposure to any in-context examples. + +We compared zero-shot and few-shot in our preliminary experiments with LLaMA and GPT-3.5 on Levy/Holt directional dev set. Following Touvron et al. (2023), for zero-shot, we prepend a textual description of the task to each test sample; for few-shot, we prepend a minimal 4 examples with explanations. Instantiated prompts in the two settings are demonstrated in Table 13. Here we report the dev set results with the best-performing templates. + +We found that for the two pre-trained LLMs, namely, LLaMA and PaLM, zero-shot performance on the Levy/Holt directional dev set is near-random, at $56.6\%$ and $61.5\%$ AUC respectively (random is $50\%$ ); with 4 in-context examples, the models begin to exhibit non-trivial behavior, with $65.0\%$ and $80.2\%$ AUC, respectively. This is not surprising, since pre-trained LLMs without instruction fine-tuning should not be expected to perform complex tasks zero-shot. For GPT-3.5, the performance is still much lower in zero-shot, at $64.5\%$ , compared to $74.6\%$ in few-shot. + +As discussed in §4.2, ideally we would like LLMs to have zero-shot natural language abilities readily available for downstream tasks. However, in light of this observation, our primary experiments are conducted in the few-shot setting + +
ModelTaskPrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI74.552.50
I^GenArg70.957.3+4.8
I^RandArg↓66.960.5+8.0
I^RandArg↑70.651.5-1.0
GPT-3.5I80.696.50
I^GenArg79.791.3-5.2
I^RandArg↓80.182.5-14.0
I^RandArg↑81.980.5-16.0
PaLMI90.384.00
I^GenArg92.371.5-12.5
I^RandArg↓87.882.5-1.5
I^RandArg↑88.282.0-2.0
+ +Table 6: Scoring model outputs in different conditions of RTE-1. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings. + +throughout, in order to better explore the abilities of these LLMs. + +# B RTE-1 Results For Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory + +The RTE-1 dataset contains complex natural language statements with varied linguistic features, so predictions about entailment are not decidable only on the basis of contained predicates. However, RTE-1 is a difficult challenge set for models, and interesting to compare to in the broader domain of NLI. Though the sentences are much more complex, we are able to conduct an analogous experiment as in §6 by first identifying spans of named entities and their respective entity types, then replacing the entities with new ones. As before, we compare model scores on the original dataset to three test conditions: generic arguments ("location X", "person Y", etc.), sampled low-frequency entities constrained to the same type, and the same for high-frequency sampled entities. Since only the entities in each statement have been altered, the entailment labels between premise/hypothesis pairs remain unchanged, and an ideal model capable of generalizing inference would make the same predictions across dataset conditions. Results are shown in Table 6. + +We observe similar trends to those reported on Levy/Holt. GPT-3.5 performs very consistently between Levy/Holt and RTE-1 in terms of degrading recall when information is changed in each sample. We observe that model performance is worse than the original dataset when using generic arguments, and worse still using type-constrained random ar + +guments. We further observe that across all three LLMs across both datasets, models consistently achieve worse recall using high-frequency entities than low-frequency entities, supporting the claim that increasing the frequency of entity occurrence in training data impedes generalization. + +Different from in Levy/Holt, we observe some noise in LLaMA's predictions; the recall on the original task is actually lower than the generic argument condition and the low-frequency entity condition. We note that overall, LLaMA is the weakest LLM tested in this experiment on both Levy/Holt and RTE-1, and that its performance on RTE-1 is particularly low. We suggest that the increased difficulty of RTE-1 over Levy/Holt (due to having much more linguistic variation) is simply too complex for LLaMA, which is neither the largest LLM tested, nor instruction-finetuned. + +We also observe a smaller gap between PaLM's recall rates across dataset conditions, though the gaps are consistent with our claims. While the model appears able to generalize to conditions in which random real arguments are inserted, recall on the generic argument condition is significantly degraded. Failure on this control condition indicates that the model may not be generalizing as well as the other conditions would imply. + +# C The Ineffectiveness of Instructing LLMs to Stop Conditioning on Attested Information + +In §5 and §6, we showed that entailment predictions from LLMs are strongly biased by their predictions on the attestation of hypotheses. We wondered whether there are intuitive prompt engineering techniques to steer its behavior away from attending to attestation. + +Towards this goal, we experimented with prepending a brief task description to the few-shot prompts in part B of Table 13, explicitly instructing the models to ignore the attestedness of individual statements: Please check the entailments between the following hypothetical statements. Ignore the veracity of these statements. + +We replicated the experiments in §5 and §6 with GPT-3.5, since GPT-3.5 is an instruction-finetuned model trained to be responsive to prompts, where the other two LLM families are only pre-trained. Despite having been instruction-finetuned, the results with GPT-3.5 show only marginal improvements in model behavior. + +
taskGPT-3.5Instructed to Ignore AttestednessNot Instructed
IP(Entail | Attested)74.377.6
IP(Entail | ¬Attested)57.863.6
IRandPremP(Entail | Attested)39.041.3
IRandPremP(Entail | ¬Attested)17.618.8
+ +Table 7: We estimate the probability of positive predictions of Entail in $I$ and $I_{\text{RandPrem}}$ tasks respectively given that the hypothesis is attested, namely $\Lambda = \text{Attested}$ . Not instructed results are copied from Figure 2 and listed here for ease of comparison; also note that all $I_{\text{RandPrem}} = \text{Entail}$ predictions are false positives. + +
GPT-3.5 ConditionTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
Few-shot, instructed to ignore attestedness.I64.990.80
IGenArg73.569.3-21.5
IRandArg↓64.668.4-22.4
IRandArg↑67.558.1-32.7
Few-shot, no instructions.I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
+ +Table 8: GPT-3.5 predictions when models are explicitly instructed to avoid taking the attestedness of individual statements into account. In the upper half are the instructed behavior, and in the lower half are the regular few-shot behavior as in Table 4. Differences in recalls remain at a similar scale, with precision again stable, where the benefit from the explicit instruction is marginal. + +In Table 7, we show that instructing GPT-3.5 to ignore attestation does not help narrow the gap between $\Lambda = \text{Attested}$ and $\Lambda = \neg \text{Attested}$ ; instead, probabilities of predicting Entail went down by similar amounts, indicating that the model is becoming slightly more conservative in predicting positives when instructed to ignore attestation, but not in a principled manner. + +Further, as shown in Table 8, despite the explicit instruction, recall still drops at similar scales when arguments are randomly replaced with the same sets of frequent/infrequent replacement entities as before. Since GPT-3.5 has been instructionfinetuned to respond to prompts, its failure means eradicating such biases from model outputs is a difficult task, one that needs further research attention. + +# D Statistics of Consistency Subsets + +The statistics of consistency subsets are presented in Table 9. + +# E The Reliability of $\Lambda$ Measure and Its Relation to Consensus of Attestation + +The $\Lambda$ -consistency subsets most directly capture the impacts of the attestation bias. However, these + +subset separations are based on $\Lambda$ predictions from individual models, which can be noisy, subject to model-specific idiosyncracies such as trigger words or certain syntactic structures in the prompt, etc. + +To verify that the performance gaps in $\Lambda$ -consistency subsets that we observe in §8 comes from predicted attestedness and not some idiosyncrasy, we experiment with another pair of subsets based on consensus attestation instead of individually predicted attestation. + +We use a majority vote among the three independently-trained LLMs to approximate consensus attestation. The approximation is denoted as $\tilde{\Lambda}$ . This is because any model-specific idiosyncrasies should not be shared between LLMs independently trained from different source corpora in general. Therefore, with the majority vote, we reduce this noise and acquire predictions on the consensus attestation of statements. + +Performances of LLMs between $\tilde{\Lambda}$ -consistency subsets are listed in Table 10. Gaps between the $\tilde{\Lambda}$ -consistency subsets that are larger than $\Lambda$ -consistency gaps are colored red; those narrower than $\Lambda$ -consistency gaps are colored green. It is clear that the gaps are consistent between $\Lambda/\tilde{\Lambda}$ -consistency experiments, where the gaps are even larger on many occasions. This confirms that the + +
# of EntriesLevy/HoltRTE-1
LLaMAGPT-3.5PaLMLLaMAGPT-3.5PaLM
VCONSISTENT955947999479447480
VADVERSARIAL829837785321353320
FCONSISTENT972286
FADVERSARIAL220247
+ +Table 9: Subsets defined by the consistency between entailment label $L$ and either $\Lambda$ (hypothesis attestation prediction from each LLM) or $\Phi$ (model-agnostic relative frequency bias). CONSISTENT subsets are where $L$ agrees with $\Lambda /\Phi$ . ADVERSARIAL subsets are where $L$ disagrees with $\Lambda /\Phi$ . + +
ModelTaskLevy/Holt
\( \tilde{\Lambda}_{\text{cons.}} \)\( \tilde{\Lambda}_{\text{adv.}} \)diff.
LLaMAI65.36.5-58.8
GPT-3.5I70.823.5-47.3
PaLMI80.728.3-52.4
LLaMA\( I^{GenArg} \)54.429.6-24.8
GPT-3.5\( I^{GenArg} \)56.235.5-20.7
PaLM\( I^{GenArg} \)59.340.1-19.2
+ +Table 10: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation $\tilde{\Lambda}$ is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with $AUC_{norm}$ ( $0\% =$ random chance performance). Performance drops from $\tilde{\Lambda}_{cons}$ to $\tilde{\Lambda}_{adv}$ are presented in the diff. columns, sharper decreases than $\Lambda$ -comparisons in Table 5 are colored red, milder ones are colored green. + +performance gaps in $\Lambda$ -consistency experiments can be credited to the attestation bias, rather than model-specific idiosyncrasies. + +It is also to be noted that, since the $\Phi$ -consistency subsets are separated based on the model-agnostic criterion $\Phi$ , model-specific idiosyncrasies are not a problem for $\Phi$ -consistency comparisons. + +# F Impacts of Bias on GPT-4 Performance + +GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) is a recent, strong LLM claiming SOTA performance on various NLP tasks. Due to its closed-source nature and the impossibility of fully tracking the sources of its behaviors, we refrain from reporting results with it in the main content of this paper. + +However, in order to provide a richer context for the attestation bias and the relative frequency bias, in this section we report the performance differences of GPT-4 between subsets consistent/adversarial to the two biases. + +As a light-weight experiment, we elicit GPT-4 predictions in the original $I$ task in the zero-shot setting, and re-use subsets from experiments in $\S 8$ . Specifically, for the attestation bias, we use + +the majority vote $\tilde{\Lambda}$ among LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM, to approximate $\Lambda$ predictions from GPT-4 itself; for the relative frequency bias, we keep the $\Phi$ measure for approximating corpus-frequency of terms. + +Because GPT-4 is a commercial service and does not provide logit confidence with their discrete predictions, $AUC_{norm}$ values could not be calculated. Therefore, we are forced to report the F-1 scores at the binary prediction point of confidence. As results in Table 12 show, we observe the same trend as in §8: for the subset adversarial to each factor, GPT-4 performance also drops substantially. + +This experiment is designed to provide more context for the two biases discussed in the paper and NOT to compare GPT-4 with other models; however, we can conclude that GPT-4 is subject to the same fragilities as the other LLMs w.r.t. the two biases, where our conclusions and recommendations also apply. + +# G Dataset Statistics and Dev Set Performance + +In the paper, we have examined the behavior and performance of three major LLM families on two NLI datasets: Levy/Holt and RTE-1. + +The directional portion of Levy/Holt dataset contains 630 entries in its dev set, and 1784 entries in its test set; the RTE-1 dataset contains 567 entries in its dev set, and 800 entries in its test set. Each dataset has a $50\% / 50\%$ class distribution between Entail and No-Entail (for RTE-1 dev set, the numbers of entries in the two label classes differ by 1). + +In Table 11, we report dev set performance and the best prompt template used for each model on each dataset. Note that no training is involved in + +
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Best tplt. IDDEV set AUCnormBest tplt. IDDEV set AUCnorm
LLaMAI#430.0#362.5
I^GenArg#134.6#352.3
I^RandArg↓#131.8#151.3
I^RandArg↑#126.3#343.8
GPT-3.5I#149.2#374.8
I^GenArg#139.8#364.8
I^RandArg↓#143.4#363.6
I^RandArg↑#134.2#366.0
PaLMI#160.9#484.5
I^GenArg#148.1#479.4
I^RandArg↓#143.6#379.8
I^RandArg↑#135.3#378.3
+ +Table 11: LLM dev set performance on the two datasets, measured with $AUC_{norm}$ ( $0\% =$ random chance performance). AUC is calculated using estimated model scores as in §4.2 and then normalized into $AUC_{norm}$ . We select the highest scoring template on each dev task (shown in this table) and use this in the corresponding test set evaluation (shown in the main text). + +
F-1 scoreTaskLevy/Holt
ΛConsΛAdv
random baselineI70.362.0
GPT-4I85.1 (+14.8)67.6 (+5.6)
ΦConsΦAdv
random baselineI66.766.7
GPT-4I74.6 (+7.9)69.7 (+3.0)
+ +Table 12: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation $\tilde{\Lambda}$ is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with F-1 score. random baseline is the highest F-1 score from a random classifier, by reaching random precision and $100\%$ recall. For each GPT-4 score, we also show the improvement over random (in parentheses). + +this paper, and prompt template selection is the only hyper-parameter tuned on the dev sets. These selected best prompt templates are then used on the respective test sets, where the results are used for the analysis throughout the paper. + +For random-premise experiments, AUC values cannot be meaningfully calculated because gold labels are always No-Entail. For these experiments, we use the most frequently-selected prompt template on each dataset, namely template #1 for Levy/Holt dataset, and template #3 for RTE-1 dataset. + +# A. Zero-shot Example Instantiated Prompt + +Please check the entailments between the following statements. + +If kanamycin kills infections, then kanamycin is useful in infections. + +A) Entailment +B) Neutral +C) Contradiction + +# B. Few-shot Example Instantiated Prompt + +If Google bought Youtube, then Google owns Youtube. + +A) Entailment + +B) Neutral + +C) Contradiction + +Answer: A) Entailment. Owning is a consequence of buying. + +If Google owns Youtube, then Google bought Youtube. + +A) Entailment + +B) Neutral + +C) Contradiction + +Answer: B) Neutral. Owning does not imply buying, the ownership may come from other means. + +If John went to the mall, then John drove to the mall. + +A) Entailment + +B) Neutral + +C) Contradiction + +Answer: B) Neutral. John may have gone to the mall by other means. + +If John drove to the mall, then John went to the mall. + +A) Entailment + +B) Neutral + +C) Contradiction + +Answer: A) Entailment. Driving is a means of going to the mall. + +If ephedrine is widely used in medicine, then ephedrine is used in medicine. + +A) Entailment + +B) Neutral + +C) Contradiction + +Answer: + +# C. Hypothesis-only Example Instantiated Prompt + +Google bought Youtube. +A) True +B) Unknown +C) False +Answer: A) True. +Yoshua Bengio likes oak trees. +A) True +B) Unknown +C) False +Answer: B) Unknown. +The sun rises from the west. +A) True +B) Unknown +C) False +Answer: C) False. +ephedrine is used in medicine. +A) True +B) Unknown +C) False +Answer: + +Table 13: Example instantiated prompts in Zero-shot / Few-shot settings, for the sample “PREMISE: [ephedrine is widely used in medicine], HYPOTHESIS: [ephedrine is used in medicine]”. The few-shot prompts in part B are used throughout the main experiments in this paper. We also present an example of the prompts we use for the hypothesis-only $\Lambda$ measure as described in §3.1. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/images.zip b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61d57cdf63ff0440aed88b2c69b14227bc09530f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:604d61f93a3951d1fd2e298f90e4fc0db4a6b5880063cd29c6170ee67e6ab8a8 +size 497312 diff --git a/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/layout.json b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bbe45b45775683b34c3535298bba0851b3fef1b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,15064 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 75, + 518, + 94 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 75, + 518, + 94 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 75, + 518, + 94 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 115, + 380, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 115, + 380, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 217, + 115, + 380, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nick McKenna†* Tianyi Li†*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 128, + 512, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 128, + 512, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 128, + 512, + 143 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Liang Cheng† Mohammad Javad Hosseini‡ Mark Johnson§ Mark Steedman†" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 143, + 471, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 143, + 471, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 143, + 471, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "†University of Edinburgh ‡Google Research §Macquarie University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 158, + 421, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 158, + 421, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 177, + 158, + 421, + 170 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{nick.mckenna, tianyi.li}@ed.ac.uk" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 549 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as \"indices\" to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 238, + 274, + 549 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 575 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 585, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Models (LLMs) such as LLaMA, GPT-3/4, PaLM, and more (Touvron et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022), have been trusted by many to perform language understanding in downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, and fact verification, among others (Zhang et al., 2023). However, due to the large-scale nature of LLM training on vast, often proprietary data, and the inherent opacity of LLM parameters, it is difficult to explain their" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "behavior when answering user queries and the corresponding risks in terms of bias and robustness. In particular, one LLM behavior poses a significant challenge: \"hallucination,\" the phenomenon in which LLMs provide information which is incorrect or inappropriate, presented as fact." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 526, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper investigates two biases driving LLM performance in natural language inference, sometimes called textual entailment. This is a basic component of language understanding which is critical in applied tasks, and we offer these two biases as explanations of general false positive hallucination in everyday use. We examine broader NLI, and especially directional entailments, which hold in one direction, but not both. For example, DEFEAT entails PLAY but PLAY does not entail DEFEAT. Inferring directional entailment is more difficult than that of symmetric paraphrase, so it more deeply probes understanding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach is a behavioral study of prompted LLM decision-making. We alter existing NLI datasets in targeted ways while measuring how predictions change, across several major LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM). We demonstrate two sources of LLM performance on the NLI task, which we offer as explanations of general false positive hallucination: (1) LLM bias toward affirming entailment when the hypothesis may be attested in the training text, including reliance on named entity identifiers; and (2) a corpus-frequency bias, affirming entailment when the premise is less frequent than the hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We establish that these biases originate from the LLM pretraining objective, in which statistical modeling of the natural distribution of human-generated text leads to (at the level of sentences) memorizing individual statements, and (at the level of corpora) learning typical patterns of usage. Though they are superficially performant, our experiments show that even powerful LLMs still use unsatisfactory tools instead of robust reasoning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 156, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 156, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 729, + 156, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Equal contribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 741, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Code and LLM outputs (LLaMA and GPT-3.5) are available at https://github.com/Teddy-Li/LLM-NLI-Analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2758" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2758-2774" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present three contributions, the demonstrations of both factors and an analysis of their impact:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 452 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 4, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) In a prompting scenario, LLMs respond to entailment samples according to an attestation bias, affirming entailments more readily if the hypothesis is attested by the pretraining text. We find that LLaMA-65B, GPT-3.5, and PaLM-540B are respectively 1.9, 2.2, and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly predict Entail when the model already asserts the hypothesis is attested, compared to when not attested. Further, LLMs recall from their propositional memory using named entities as identifying \"indices,\" even though they are irrelevant to the logic of the predicate inference task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 263, + 291, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 263, + 291, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 263, + 291, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) LLMs also rely on a simple corpus-statistic bias using relative term-frequencies, especially when propositional memory is not available. The three LLMs are 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 times more likely to wrongly affirm entailments if the premise has lower term frequency than the hypothesis, than when not." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 291, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) For the NLI test samples consistent with these factors, LLM scores are misleadingly high; for NLI samples adversarial to them, LLM performance is severely degraded. We show that when labels go against the attestation bias, LLMs can be poor or even near-random classifiers; for the relative frequency bias, we similarly show a substantial performance decrease across all LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 466, + 161, + 479 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 466, + 161, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 466, + 161, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Addressing task robustness, Poliak et al. (2018) found a range of NLI datasets contain artifacts which are learned by supervised models trained on only sample hypotheses. In our work we design a similar hypothesis-only test with LLMs, but we use it to probe model memory without any training. By conditioning on the attestation of hypotheses, we show that LLMs are inherently sensitive to attestation, separate from the statistical idiosyncrasies of NLI datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, Talman and Chatzikyriakidis (2019) report generalization failure among many models supervised for NLI — models fail to generalize between NLI datasets, even if the task is formatted the same. On smaller Language Models such as RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019; 355M params), Li et al. (2022) also observed a reliance on dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "artifacts when performing directional NLI on predicates. We now study the behavior of much larger LMs, which have demonstrated more robust performance across NLP tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent work has also explored LLM memorization and generalization. Carlini et al. (2023) establish that LLMs are able to memorize more data than small LMs, whereas Tirumala et al. (2022) further demonstrate that LLMs pay special attention early in training to numbers and nouns, which act as unique identifiers for individual training sentences. We also show that memories used in language inference are tied to specific named entities. And while Weller et al. (2023) and Kandpal et al. (2022) find that entity frequency in training data is correlated with performance in factual recall about them, we find that entity frequency is anti-correlated with hypothetical generalization performance (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 6" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bubeck et al. (2023) argue that GPT-4 understands language \"beyond memorization\". We do not disprove generalization, but we show that GPT-4 shows the same hallucinations in Appendix F." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 432, + 392 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 432, + 392 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 379, + 432, + 392 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experimental Design" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 400, + 525, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We design behavioral experiments on LLMs by modifying NLI datasets with rigorous controls. We observe large behavior changes across three major LLM families due to propositional-memory effects in §5 and §6, and corpus frequency in §7. Finally, we show the impact on real performance in §8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 497, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 497, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 497, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Two Biases in Inference Predictions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 524, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We claim that the pretraining objective to fit the distribution of natural text leads to biases in LLM generations. We explore two such biases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Attestation Bias (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") is the over-reliance of an LLM on its propositional memory about a query statement. We claim that when a statement is likely to be attested in some way by an LLM's training data, it is more likely to affirm it as a conclusion in NLI tasks, regardless of any premise it is presented with. We measure the attestedness of a sample by prompting the LLM to ask if the hypothesis in question is true, false, or unknown.3 Attestation predictions are denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 524, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 524, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 524, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A biased model will appear to perform well on dataset samples with entailment labels that happen to align with the bias. Table 1 shows examples from the Levy/Holt dev set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Alternatively,LLM perplexity for a statement could be used; however, this is not always available, e.g. with GPT-3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We speculate that a similar attestation effect could even be present in the supervised models studied in Poliak et al. (2018), which could contribute to those models' performance. We leave the investigation of this to future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2759" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 141 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 141 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 141 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 527, + 141 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Dev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]Dataset LabelBias Prediction
Geyers are common to New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are found in New ZealandEntailΛ = hypothesis Attested
Geyers are found in New Zealand ⇒ Geysers are common to New ZealandNo-EntailΛ = hypothesis Not-Attested
Whiskey consists chiefly of alcohol ⇒ Whiskey contains alcoholEntailΦ = f(consists chiefly of) < f.contains
Whiskey contains alcohol ⇒ Whiskey consists chiefly of alcoholNo-EntailΦ = f缰ates) >f(consists chiefly of)
", + "image_path": "ee2f426b9ceaef84b11cfc5aa57fc6bb42ea65c249d2fd14b36494fa3e31bae5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Two pairs of samples are consistent with a respective bias. Model predictions made on the basis of the bias will appear to predict the direction of entailment for each sample. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " maps a term to its corpus frequency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 290, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 193, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed in §2, we draw inspiration from the hypothesis-only baseline (Poliak et al., 2018), but our test only queries model memory about the hypothesis without any training. We describe prompt generation in detail in §4.2, with an example in appendix Table 13." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 275, + 291, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dasgupta et al. (2022) show a similar effect in LLMs on abstract reasoning tests, related to sentential content, and equate it to human tendencies. In contrast, we examine the risks of propositional memory on more realistic inference tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Relative Frequency Bias " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Phi)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the use by LLMs of a simple rule for deciding entailment, calculable from corpus statistics. Entailment is affirmed if, ignoring named entities, the eventuality in premise " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is less frequent in training than that in hypothesis " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This bias is reflected in natural text: it is known that nouns follow a trend of becoming more specific as corpus-frequency decreases (Rosch et al., 1976; Caraballo and Charniak, 1999) and the same is observed for predicates (McKenna et al., 2023). Since entailments may carry from a specific term to a more general one, e.g. SPRINT entails RUN, relative frequency can often indicate direction of entailment. However, this is an artifact of natural text and has no direct relationship with meaning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Test samples are labeled for agreement with this bias separately from models, with examples shown in Table 1. Since LLM pre-train corpora are impractically large or proprietary, we instead use Google N-grams4 as a proxy of the natural distribution of text, and thus the distributions of these corpora. We average frequencies between the years 1950-2019, and compare between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To acquire the generic eventualities in each sample, we exclude any extracted entities and lemmatize predicate phrases; further, we reduce the effect of noise and sparsity by requiring a wide margin of difference between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " frequency estimates. Frequency decisions are denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 371, + 205 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 371, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 371, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Levy/Holt consists of premise-hypothesis pairs, with a task formatted: \"Given [premise " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "], is it true that [hypothesis " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "]?\" (Levy and Dagan, 2016; Holt, 2019). Each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-statement has the property of containing one predicate with two entity arguments, (where the same entities appear in both " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 526, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") as shown in Table 2. This targeted dataset is ideal for precisely measuring model understanding of predicates, because entailment between statements is decidable purely on the basis of the predicates and their attributes. We study the challenging directional subset, where entailments hold in one direction but not both." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RTE-1 is one of the original and most difficult tests of NLI (Dagan et al., 2006). It is not purely directional on the basis of predicates or consistently structured like Levy/Holt, so we leave it out of the behavioral experiments. However, it is a widely understood dataset, and we use it to demonstrate the impact of the two biases in general NLI in §8." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Exclusions are made of NLI datasets relating to knowledge of the world, since we aim to test LLMs on their capability to reason purely about the semantics of natural language predicates without relying on memorized facts. We explicitly avoid datasets such as MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), Natural Questions (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019), OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018) etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 448, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 448, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 448, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Dataset Transformations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Standard Inference Task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is on original NLI datasets, in which entailment is determinable by using general language inference on sentences. In Levy/Holt, it is determinable just by predicates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We define three dataset transformations to study the change in model responses as targeted information is removed. These are the randomized premise predicate setting " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and two argument transformations: generic arguments " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{\\text{GenArg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and type-constrained randomized arguments " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{\\text{RandArg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 254, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 254, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 254, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://books.google.com/ngrams" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2760" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 511, + 113 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 511, + 113 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 511, + 113 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 68, + 511, + 113 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailGeorge Bush was the Governor of Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
IRandPremNo-EntailGeorge Bush resided in Texas ⇒ George Bush is a politician from Texas
", + "image_path": "0a978fa0753d97fb0e04c2b6db006e718f134bc8eca9d6874025adfd6a8bbfe8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 96, + 157, + 498, + 226 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: From the original dataset task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we derive the Random Premise task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I_{\\text{RandPrem}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 121, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respecting type-constraints. A random premise is highly unlikely to entail the hypothesis, so samples are relabeled No-Entail." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 157, + 498, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 157, + 498, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 157, + 498, + 226 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TaskLabelDev Sample Query: [premise] ⇒ [hypothesis]
IEntailIndia exports tons of rice ⇒ India exports rice
I^GenArgEntaillocation X exports tons of food Y ⇒ location X exports food Y
I^RandArg↓EntailSloterdijk exports tons of oatmeal cookies ⇒ Sloterdijk exports oatmeal cookies
I^RandArg↑EntailHelsinki exports tons of Granny Smith ⇒ Helsinki exports Granny Smith
", + "image_path": "289eff61557bd45d2a51192b38f0afb6618806ab932dfa7a24bd13563f94750a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: An original dev sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is transformed by insertion of entity types " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I^{GenArg})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; by real entities sampled from the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " least frequent in NewsCrawl " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I^{RandArg\\downarrow})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; and also from the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " most frequent " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I^{RandArg\\uparrow})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 525, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 290, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 279, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transformations involve first identifying the types of entities in statements, in order to constrain entity or predicate replacements. We type each entity with one of the 48 FIGER types (Ling and Weld, 2012), such as \"person,\" \"location,\" etc. First, an entity linker (Nguyen et al., 2014) identifies the Freebase ID (Bollacker et al., 2008) for an entity, from which we then obtain its FIGER type; we assign a default type \"thing\" in failure cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 290, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Random Premise Task (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 407, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") replaces the original premise predicate with a random predicate, while maintaining the same entity arguments. This manipulation produces a dataset in which all samples are labeled No-Entail, since two randomly paired predicates are very unlikely to be related by entailment. Thus, positive decisions by the model are false positive hallucinations.[5]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To maintain naturalness and grammaticality, we constrain a new predicate to have argument slots of the same types as the original premise. For example, \"[medicine] is indicated for patients with [disease]\" is swapped for \"[medicine] does not cure [disease)\". We source candidates from dev set premises satisfying the target type-constraints, and sample uniform randomly. We map the original entities to their respective slots in the new premise. Examples are shown in Table 2. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a good test of model reliance on propositional memory, since we prevent entailments while maintaining the attestedness of conclusions (hypotheses)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Generic Argument Task (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 725 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{GenArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 698, + 291, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") replaces original entities with unique FIGER-typed" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 279, + 526, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 279, + 526, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 279, + 526, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "identifiers, e.g. \"location X\" and \"food Y.\" By masking the identities of entities, this test is designed to remove entity information while maintaining the same entailment label, as a baseline control setting. We append unique identifiers (e.g. \"X,\" \"Y\") to allow tracking of entity slots across the premise and the hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Random Argument Task (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") replaces original entities with other real, random entities of the same FIGER-type. Like " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{GenArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 381, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this test is designed to create novel strings by modifying statements without changing entailment labels. But now we test model sensitivity to added extraneous information. Examples are shown in Table 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use entity type constraints here to ensure polysemous predicates maintain the same sense. For example, a different sense of run is used in \"[person] runs [organization]\" vs. \"[person] runs [software]\", but between different entities of the same type, the same senses are used, so the exact entity IDs do not affect entailment labels (Yarowsky, 1993). We source new entities from NewsCrawl (Barrault et al., 2019), a decade-long span of multi-source news text, in which entities are typed as above. We sample new entities uniform randomly from the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " least common entities in NewsCrawl " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I^{RandArg\\downarrow})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " most common " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I^{RandArg\\uparrow})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 478, + 525, + 681 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We insert the sampled entities while preserving the rest of each statement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 485, + 705 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 485, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 485, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Querying Models with Prompts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 365, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 365, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 365, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLaMA is a recent LLM model family which rivals or surpasses GPT-3 performance while being open to scientific study. A range of model sizes" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5We manually inspected the generated random premise entries for the Levy/Holt dataset to verify this: we found " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "86.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of entries are successfully non-entailing, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " undecided cases, and only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "9.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are unintended true entailments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2761" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "are provided, and we test the largest LLaMA-65B model. LLaMA is not fine-tuned. In preliminary experiments on the Levy/Holt dataset, we found two popular fine-tuned LLaMA variants, Alpaca (Taori et al., 2023) and Vicuna (Chiang et al., 2023), perform similarly to LLaMA base models and underperform LLaMA-65B, so we leave them out of further experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-3 Series models are closed to deep scientific review (Brown et al., 2020), though they are a widely-used comparison for their performance, and have been reasonably well-studied. We evaluate on text-davinci-003 (GPT-3.5), as it is the largest, and has undergone instruction- and RLHF-finetuning, enabling interesting comparisons." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 290, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 290, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 295, + 290, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "PaLM is larger than GPT-3, which often claims state-of-the-art on evaluation datasets. We use the largest PaLM-540B base model, which is also only pretrained, so it serves as a further comparison point to LLaMA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 373, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Later GPT models (like text-davinci-003 in our experiments) have been pre-trained and fine-tuned, while base LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pre-training, so their contrast indicates what stage of training is responsible for the phenomena we study. Our aim is not to judge which LLM is superior, but to show the common sources of hallucination they share." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 291, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 291, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 291, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also omit models superseded in performance by LLaMA (e.g. OPT, GPT-J, etc.), as well as products that are closed to scientific review (e.g. GPT-4, Bard, etc.).6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 239, + 561 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 239, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 548, + 239, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Prompt Design and Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 567, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of test samples is done by inserting the premise and hypothesis into a prompt template, which is used to query the model in natural language. Following this, we append a three-way answer choice: A) Entailment, B) Neutral, C) Contradiction, following the typical format in NLI (Bowman et al., 2015)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Selection of the prompt template used in test is decided by the highest AUC obtained on the respective dev set. We try 8 promising templates including 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021), also used in other NLI work" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 672, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Webson and Pavlick, 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ideally, an LLM with advanced language understanding ability could perform inference in zero-shot without annotated examples, which would raise confidence that this faculty is ready for downstream tasks. To this end, we examine each LLM in zero-shot (detailed in Appendix A), but they exhibit severely degraded, even near-random performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 166, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We turn to few-shot, and hand- annotate a minimal 4 examples in the style of the template, with added explanations about why the given answer is correct for each example. These examples are pretended before the query (see Appendix A for an example). Our goal is to study model behavior as conditions change, not to maximize the score on any particular dataset. Therefore, we use a minimal 4-example setup, which we find is capable of evoking positive responses from all three LLMs on each dev set, across most templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 322, + 525, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Scoring is done by converting choice A into Entail and collapsing both B and C choices into No-Entail to align with Levy/Holt and RTE-1 annotation. For behavioral experiments in §5, §6, and §7, we score the model solely based on its textual response. All models successfully choose one of A/B/C on all dev questions, showing compatibility with the QA format." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 431, + 525, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the analysis in §8 which measures model performance across confidence thresholds, we convert the letter choice to a probability with the mapping:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 484, + 503, + 513 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 484, + 503, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 484, + 503, + 513 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} S _ {\\text {e n t}} = 0. 5 + 0. 5 * \\mathbb {I} [ \\operatorname {t o k} = \\mathbf {A} ] * S _ {\\text {t o k}} \\\\ - 0. 5 * \\mathbb {I} [ \\operatorname {t o k} \\in \\{\\mathbf {B}, \\mathbf {C} \\} ] * S _ {\\operatorname {t o k}} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "f7915805f0726d23f07f6251d5aaf3aa73dc13e359c46df21f1cfc5b611ea12d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the indicator function, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{ent}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " estimates the probability of Entail from a textual output " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(0\\leq S_{\\mathrm{ent}}\\leq 1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with token probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{tok}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 526, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The linear transformation preserves the ordering of model confidence, which is sufficient for calculating a precision-recall curve." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 483, + 630 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 483, + 630 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 616, + 483, + 630 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiment 1: Attestation Bias" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We begin our experiments by assessing LLMs' reliance on their propositional memory of training text by conditioning each model's entailment task predictions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on its own predictions of attestation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We do this by comparing estimated probabilities of predicting Entail conditioned on whether the hypothesis is predicted Attested or not." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Further, we test a setting which controls for the possibility that original Levy/Holt entailments may coincidentally refer to attested facts, which could" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 261, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 261, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 750, + 261, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6We include an analysis of GPT-4 in Appendix F." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 288, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 288, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 288, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "See Appendix A for details on prompt template selection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2762" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 217 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 217 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 289, + 217 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b0a91ee27f30c3fc3649f83185a84bbf3144af8408c7b728f7ace80a56aef7fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 275 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for original entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Lambda)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 291, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This setting is intuitive but may be subject to spurious correlations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 432 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 432 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 286, + 290, + 432 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "acbeb360cca4b2de77122474455da5dc0a06245ae72d1df7151c51972c26e71c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 513 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Exp-1. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for Random-Premise entries in Levy/Holt, conditioned on LLMs' attestation of hypotheses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Lambda)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 440, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Now, predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models are sensitive to attestation, and hallucinate more when the hypothesis is attested." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lead to spurious correlation between inference and attestation scores without clearly demonstrating use of memory versus true entailment. This controlled setting is the random premise task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which converts entailments into non-entailments without altering the hypothesis. An ideal model capable of drawing inferences from information in context should detect that in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " task it is no longer possible to infer the hypothesis based on the premise (even if the hypothesis is itself attested in training), and never predict Entail. Thus, in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", all Entail predictions are assumed to be false positive hallucinations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 130, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 130, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 714, + 130, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions acquired as described in §3.1, we present the conditional probabilities in Figures 1 and 2. It is clear that a model's" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "memory about the hypothesis plays a part in its predictions of the hypothesis given a premise, either related or random." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we observe significantly higher probability of predicting Entail when the hypothesis is Attested. In the random premise task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this trend continues. LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM, respectively, show a 1.9x, 2.2x, and 2.0x higher chance of falsely predicting that a random premise Entails the hypothesis if it already predicts the hypothesis is Attested. This false positive hallucination and its impact on NLI performance is investigated further in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 527, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 527, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 527, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 250, + 527, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This behavior is observed across model families (LLaMA, GPT, and PaLM), establishing that it is due to pretraining rather than Instruction-tuning or RLHF, since LLaMA and PaLM have only undergone pretraining. This behavior is undesirable, because model predictions on NLI tasks should be based solely on general language understanding, not prior knowledge. We may conclude that memory of training data is a significant contributor in LLM inference, and may be an important source of hallucination." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 490, + 426 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 490, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 413, + 490, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Implications for Real Applications" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using prior knowledge as part of language inference has bad implications for the use of LLMs in real applications. We offer an example scenario of a question-answering task where user questions are answered from a Knowledge Base (KB). In typical formulations of this task, if a statement in the KB (premise) entails a user query (hypothesis), the premise may be formulated into an answer. Consider a KB such as a legal document or HR rulebook. Assume that the text is prepended to the user query and presented to the LLM, as in other works (Srinivasan et al., 2022). Given our findings, we might observe the LLM hallucinating answers to questions using information which is not presented in the KB, but may have been read by the LLM in text from other sources during pretraining. These answers could be illogical, contradictory, and could misrepresent the views of the KB, or other harms. Such poor use of in-context learning has already been observed in specific domains like medicine (Jimenez Gutierrez et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In general, this is a risk for LLMs which (a) are deployed for tasks like QA by feeding novel text (e.g. a legal document) in-context as part of the user query, and (b) are trained on datasets which are" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2763" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 248 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI67.068.40
IGenArg69.066.9-1.5
IRandArg↓64.063.8-4.6
IRandArg↑67.253.7-14.7
GPT-3.5I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
PaLMI72.876.20
IGenArg79.850.8-25.4
IRandArg↓69.558.7-17.5
IRandArg↑70.852.4-23.8
", + "image_path": "099744fc8555c262073fddad16b08037423d7d2b46109f58df019713f911cc94.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 291, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 291, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 291, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Exp-2. Scoring model outputs in different argument-replacement tasks. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings. Recall decreases sharply across settings in all models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 319, + 291, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "private or otherwise infeasibly large to read manually, containing many facts and human opinions unknowable to both the user and modeler." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 246, + 398 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 246, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 370, + 246, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 291, + 474 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 291, + 474 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 406, + 291, + 474 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In §5, we have established that propositional memory explains a significant portion of false positives in LLM inference predictions. In this section, we continue by showing the importance of named entities in the process of LLMs' memory recall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As described in §3.3, we manipulate the entities with the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{GenArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generic argument replacement, and two random entity replacements, one with infrequent-entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg\\downarrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and one with frequent-entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg\\uparrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (examples in Table 3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By replacing arguments constrained by type, entailment labels are maintained; however, new samples should contain novel strings not attested in pretrain corpora. We expect that an ideal, generalizing model would maintain its predictions across all conditions; a flawed model utilizing the attestation bias would predict fewer Entail, since entities no longer identify these statements in training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 130, + 672 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 130, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 130, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report results across conditions in Table 4. We observe two phenomena across all three models, aligning with the above conjecture of “flaws.”" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we observe that all models' behavior significantly changes in the same way when original entities are replaced by either entity types or random real entities. Despite similar (or marginally increas" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing) precision across conditions, recall degrades sharply from original entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (GPT-3.5 @92.3) to random frequent entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I^{RandArg\\uparrow})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (GPT-3.5 @55.3). Generic-argument " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{GenArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performance also degrades in this way, showing that this is not a matter of poorly selected real entities, but rather a loss of information from the original dataset which models were using to answer questions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Second, across the 3 models, we observe a significant difference in recall between the two real entity conditions " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg\\downarrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg\\uparrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which are both composed of unattested statements, but involve entities that differ in typical corpus frequency. Infrequent entities (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg\\downarrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") yield better generalization and a higher recall (GPT-3.5 @66.5) than frequent entities (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{RandArg\\uparrow}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 180, + 526, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") (GPT-3.5 @55.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 526, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 526, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 526, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These findings corroborate those from §5, that LLMs use memory as part of language inference, and additionally show that these memories are recalled using named entities acting as indices. These experiments demonstrate that too much prior exposure to an entity may impede model generalization when that entity is discussed in novel inferences: the more a model has read about an entity during pretraining, the less capable it is of drawing novel natural language inferences involving it. This is the case even though the inferences do not require detailed knowledge of the entity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 452, + 525, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Like §5, the effect is consistent across models, indicating LLM pretraining is responsible." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We show similar results on RTE-1 in Appendix B. Further, instructing LLMs to ignore propositional memory in Appendix C shows little change." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 524, + 547 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 524, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 524, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Experiment 3: Relative Frequency Bias" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We continue the conditioning experiments from §5, now exploring the relative frequency bias. Sample labels for this bias are denoted by the model-agnostic " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as described in §3.1. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " labels the conformance of sample predicates to the bias: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi_{<}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is less corpus-frequent than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by a margin (positive class), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi_{>} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " more frequent than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the margin (negative class). To control for differences between datasets, the margin is set so that 1/3 of samples are classed as \"roughly equal\" " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Phi_{\\approx})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which we discard." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following the observations in §6, we further apply a generic-argument transformation to control for attestation, yielding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". With the entities masked, models cannot recall propositional memory for this task: by re-calculating the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " mea" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2764" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 95, + 289, + 232 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 69, + 273, + 95 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 69, + 273, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 69, + 273, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Controlled Task: Conditioning Inference Results on Relative Frequency " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 69, + 273, + 95 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Phi)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 69, + 273, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with either original entities or generic placeholders" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 95, + 289, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 95, + 289, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 95, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0f677de03ffeeb27b88ddba48f4842c01611270b459740765507c4e781f86cd7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Exp-3. Estimated probability of predicting Entail for random-premise Levy/Holt conditioned on relative frequencies " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Phi)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with original " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I_{RandPrem})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or generic " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(I_{RandPrem}^{GenArg})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " entities. Predicting Entail is false positive hallucination (lower is better). Models hallucinate more often when test samples conform to the relative frequency bias " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Phi_{<})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " than when not " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\Phi_{>})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 240, + 291, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sure with generic arguments, only 2 hypotheses are still predicted as Attested by GPT-3.5, whereas for LLaMA and PaLM, the numbers are also only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Additionally, as with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 291, + 442 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", here the entailment label of each sample remains No-Entail, so any Entail prediction is false positive hallucination." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 130, + 467 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 130, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 130, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7.1 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We estimate the probabilities of models predicting Entail conditioned on the frequency label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " settings, and present the results in Figure 3. We observe a clear and consistent rise of hallucination when samples conform to the bias. Namely, in case of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi_{<}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", models are more likely to predict Entail, even though no semantic relation exists between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Between the two settings, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", when entities are available, this effect is moderate. On the other hand, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}^{\\text{GenArg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " when entity-based memory is blocked, we observe a decrease in the overall level of hallucination, but the separation between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi_{<}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi_{>}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " becomes more drastic, to 1.6x, 1.8x and 2.0x for LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM respectively. This indicates a tension between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": propositional memory may be used when available, and if not, the predicate pairing may be attended to more closely. Again, the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " effect is observed across the three model families, revealing its root in the large-scale pre-training process, rather than model peculiarities or fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 483, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 483, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 483, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Impact of Bias on Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have demonstrated two sources of hallucination by LLMs on inference tasks. We now assess their impact on model performance to quantify their risk." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 526, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare LLMs' performance between NLI subsets that are consistent or adversarial to each bias. A sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "P \\models H" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 134, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "? is consistent with a bias when the prediction by the bias agrees with the gold entailment label; conversely, it is adversarial to a bias when the prediction by the bias disagrees with the label." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For example, \"Google bought YouTube " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\vDash" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Google owns YouTube\" is consistent with the attestation bias of every model, because the conclusion Google owns YouTube is attested in every LLM's training data, and the sample label is Entail; \"Apple owns Samsung " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\nVdash" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 230, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Apple bought Samsung\" is also consistent, because its conclusion is not attested and the sample label is No-Entail. The reverses of these two samples are adversarial, since their respective attestedness (unchanged) does not agree with the entailment labels (now flipped). For each subset, there is substantial representation in both Levy/Holt and RTE-1 (see appendix Table 9)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While earlier experiments inspected model textual responses to characterize behavior change, we now use area under the precision-recall curve (AUC) to summarize model performance over a tunable confidence threshold (scoring described in §4.2), which is better for measuring practical discriminative power. Following Li et al. (2022), we re-scale AUC values to normalize over the label distribution, yielding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "AUC_{norm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values that assign random classifiers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and perfect classifiers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report results in Table 5. Under the standard inference task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the performance drop from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda_{\\text{CONSistent}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda_{\\text{ADVERSARIAL}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is severe for all 3 LLMs: they deteriorate from very good classifiers to poor or even near-random ones." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{8}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " This fragility from the attestation bias can be alleviated by masking entities with type-identifiers (condition " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{\\text{GenArg}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), which reduces the performance drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the other hand, with the generic arguments in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{GenArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", LLMs are forced to focus on the predicates in each proposition. As a result, the impact of the relative frequency bias is intensified. From the standard inference task " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^{GenArg}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the average performance drop from the cons. to adv." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8We note " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions could possibly be influenced by model-specific idiosyncrasies in prompt format. We provide an analysis in Appendix E, where we find no significant effect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2765" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 191 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)Attestation (Λ)Rel. Frequency (Φ)
cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.cons.adv.diff.
LLaMAI65.58.1-57.442.132.3-9.862.137.4-24.755.551.7-3.8
GPT-3.5I85.010.8-74.253.543.2-10.384.647.5-37.177.643.4-34.2
PaLMI79.131.5-47.663.353.0-10.387.183.4-3.787.581.0-6.5
LLaMAIGenArg52.134.4-17.755.334.9-20.459.230.4-28.851.739.4-12.3
GPT-3.5IGenArg67.118.8-48.350.435.0-15.480.156.4-23.779.649.1-30.5
PaLMIGenArg58.146.6-11.559.947.3-12.678.184.4+6.385.478.7-6.7
", + "image_path": "ee39a84e3788bcad9adabd4b74859cc9d5ac7440d1401a6cb3783959f1d793a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: LLM performance on subsets where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda /\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is consistent/adversarial to entailment labels, measured with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{AUC}_{norm}\\left( {0\\% = \\text{random chance performance). Decrease from cons to adv subsets are shown in the diff. columns.}}\\right)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "subsets w.r.t. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is widened from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for Levy/Holt and from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "14.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "16.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for RTE-1. The differences for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets are generally narrower than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets, possibly because the relative frequencies require generalizing from instances, and may be more difficult to capture, and potentially because frequency measures with Google N-gram are a crude estimate of the actual frequencies in LLM pre-train corpora." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 147, + 391 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 147, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 379, + 147, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Across several major LLM families and experimental settings, we demonstrate two important biases in the performance of LLMs on natural language inference tasks, which may also manifest in applied tasks as hallucination. Contrary to claims of LLM general reasoning capabilities, we show that much of this performance is achieved by (1) recall of relevant memorizations and (2) corpus-based biases like term frequency. Since these factors are reproduced in all models, we establish that they originate in LLM pre-training, and are not corrected during GPT-3.5 fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 564, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conclude that LLMs, though powerful, use unsatisfactory tools for the basic tasks of language understanding and inference. We propose several approaches to control for these biases in evaluation, and ultimately conclude that further attention on alleviating these biases are needed, before LLMs may be trusted to reason robustly about language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we have discussed two prominent sources of hallucination for LLMs in natural language inference tasks. We acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive search of all the sources, where further exploration should be done in future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 760, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also note that after controlling for the factors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "discussed in this paper, there remains residual, unexplained performance on NLI tasks. This residual might be due to other undiscovered biases or possibly generalising inference capability. We leave further exploration of this residual to future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 315, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed in Appendix A, we compared a range of popular LLM prompting techniques and selected the most promising approach. We acknowledge that there could potentially be other novel prompting techniques that could help the LLMs resist the influence of the biases discussed in this paper. We identify this as an open question and advocate for future research." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 437, + 423, + 449 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 437, + 423, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 437, + 423, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethical Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 460, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 460, + 526, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 460, + 526, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper discusses two major sources of hallucination in LLM output when asked to perform natural language inference, which we note is a capability required of many downstream tasks such as summarization, question answering, etc. We show that users of LLMs may be subjected to faulty judgements if the content of their request overlaps with data in pretraining. However, it is difficult to ascertain for both a user or modeler exactly what is contained in pretraining data, or how this will interact with a user's query. Our proposed attestation query shows promise in detecting potential overlaps, but model responses in applications of these cases are not explored. Further, the relative frequency bias demonstrates a much more subtle problem of corpus distribution that is naturally inherent to model pretraining on human generated text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In light of these, the potential harms of LLM use for drawing natural language inferences may include: offering inaccurate or irrelevant information to a user's query or contradiction of information provided in-context with a user's query." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2766" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 170, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 291, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This research was supported by ERC Advanced Fellowship GA 742137 SEMANTAX and the University of Edinburgh Huawei Laboratory." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 157, + 127, + 169 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 157, + 127, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 157, + 127, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 292, + 287 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 292, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 175, + 292, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Loic Barrault, Ondrej Bojar, Marta R. Costa-jussa, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Yvette Graham, Barry Haddow, Matthias Huck, Philipp Koehn, Shervin Malmasi, Christof Monz, Mathias Muller, Santanu Pal, Matt Post, and Marcos Zampieri. 2019. Findings of the 2019 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT19). In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 2: Shared Task Papers, Day 1), pages 1-61, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 291, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 291, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 296, + 291, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD '08, page 1247-1250, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 468, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 468, + 291, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 468, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 598, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. ArXiv:2303.12712 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 684, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sharon A. Caraballo and Eugene Charniak. 1999. Determining the specificity of nouns from text. In 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 72, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2023. Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models. ArXiv:2202.07646 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " * chatgpt quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 526, + 434 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 526, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 180, + 526, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 526, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 444, + 526, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The Pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges. Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty, Visual Object Classification, and Recognising Tectual Entailment, pages 177-190, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 526, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 526, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ishita Dasgupta, Andrew K. Lampinen, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Antonia Creswell, Dharshan Kumaran, James L. McClelland, and Felix Hill. 2022. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. ArXiv:2207.07051 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 586, + 526, + 642 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 586, + 526, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 586, + 526, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 526, + 684 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 526, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 650, + 526, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xavier Holt. 2019. Probabilistic Models of Relational Implication. arXiv:1907.12048 [cs, stat]. ArXiv: 1907.12048." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Nikolas McNeal, Clayton Washington, You Chen, Lang Li, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. 2022. Thinking about GPT-3 in-context learning for biomedical IE? think again. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 4497–4512, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2767" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 289, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 289, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 113, + 289, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association of Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 289, + 287 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 289, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 221, + 289, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Omer Levy and Ido Dagan. 2016. Annotating Relation Inference in Context via Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 249-255, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 372 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 295, + 289, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Li, Mohammad Javad Hosseini, Sabine Weber, and Mark Steedman. 2022. Language Models Are Poor Learners of Directional Inference. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP* 2022, pages 903–921, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 425 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 289, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiao Ling and Daniel S. Weld. 2012. Fine-grained entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'12, page 94-100. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 498 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 433, + 289, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 [cs]. ArXiv: 1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 585 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2023. Smoothing Entailment Graphs with Language Models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 289, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 289, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 592, + 289, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2018. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 289, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dat Ba Nguyen, Johannes Hoffart, Martin Theobald, and Gerhard Weikum. 2014. Aida-light: High-throughput named-entity disambiguation. In LDOw." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. ArXiv:2303.08774 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. ArXiv:2203.02155 [cs]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 524, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Poliak, Jason Naradowsky, Aparajita Haldar, Rachel Rudinger, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Hypothesis only baselines in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 180-191, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 524, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3):382-439." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 524, + 332 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 524, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 264, + 524, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Martin Schmitt and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Language Models for Lexical Inference in Context. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 1267-1280, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Krishna Srinivasan, Karthik Raman, Anupam Samanta, Lingrui Liao, Luca Bertelli, and Michael Bendersky. 2022. QUILL: Query intent with large language models using retrieval augmentation and multi-stage distillation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 492-501, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aarne Talman and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2019. Testing the Generalization Power of Neural Network Models across NLI Benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 85-94, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 524, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 524, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 524, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 665 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 599, + 524, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kushal Tirumala, Aram Markosyan, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Armen Aghajanyan. 2022. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 38274-38290. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 524, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 524, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 674, + 524, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2022. Do prompt-based models really understand the meaning of their" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2768" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 5, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 128 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "prompts? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2300-2344, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 135, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 135, + 291, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 135, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian richter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 24824-24837. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 221, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 221, + 290, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 221, + 290, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Orion Weller, Marc Marone, Nathaniel Weir, Dawn Lawrie, Daniel Khashabi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2023. \"according to ...\" prompting language models improves quoting from pre-training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 273, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 273, + 291, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 273, + 291, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Yarowsky. 1993. One sense per collocation. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 21-24, 1993." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 326, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 326, + 291, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 326, + 291, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, Percy Liang, Kathleen McKeown, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Benchmarking large language models for news summarization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 380, + 221, + 395 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 380, + 221, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 380, + 221, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Prompt Format Selection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 291, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In prompt-based interactions with the LLMs, several types of context information could be added to help models produce accurate and robust predictions. We attend to two design choices in prompt engineering: prompt templates and in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 291, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt templates are known to have a direct and sometimes decisive impact on LLM behavior. As such, we carefully select a range of clear and concise templates as promising candidates. As discussed in §4.2, we run each template through the dev sets of each dataset, and select the template with the best discriminative power according to AUC scores (similarly to §8). The candidate set of templates includes 3 concise templates we wrote:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 621, + 243, + 680 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 621, + 243, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 621, + 243, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 621, + 243, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. If [PREMISE], then [HYPOTHESIS]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 644, + 224, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 644, + 224, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 644, + 224, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. [PREMISE], SO [HYPOTHESIS]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 666, + 240, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 666, + 240, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 666, + 240, + 680 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. [PREMISE] entails [HYPOTHESIS]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 290, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also considered the 5 prompt templates used in bias work on LMs for textual entailments (Schmitt and Schütze, 2021):" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 738, + 289, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 738, + 289, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 738, + 289, + 753 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 738, + 289, + 753 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. [PREMISE], which means that [HYPOTHESIS]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 759, + 249, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 759, + 249, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 759, + 249, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. [HYPOTHESIS], because [PREMISE]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 525, + 153 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. It is not the case that [HYPOTHESIS], let alone that [PREMISE]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 105, + 524, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 105, + 524, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 105, + 524, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 105, + 524, + 132 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\left[\\mathrm{HYPOTHESIS}\\right]_{\\mathrm{NEG}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 105, + 524, + 132 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which means that PREMISE " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 105, + 524, + 132 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "]_{\\mathrm{NEG}}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 138, + 525, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 138, + 525, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 138, + 525, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8. [PREMISE]NEG, because [HYPOTHESIS]NEG." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 526, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In preliminary experiments with GPT-3.5, we observed that LLMs are not responsive to the 3 contrapositive prompts from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) (colored gray), performing at random. We also observed that prompt number 5 from Schmitt and Schütze (2021) also consistently underperforms the other 4 templates, so we use the remaining 4 templates (namely, template no. 1, 2, 3, 4) as our final candidate set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In-Context Examples have been widely used for interactions with LLMs since Brown et al. (2020). Further, Wei et al. (2022) has demonstrated that including chain-of-thought explanation, namely step-by-step explanations, in the in-context examples, helps LLMs perform reasoning tasks. On the other hand, Ouyang et al. (2022) has suggested that instruction-tuned LLMs are also capable of performing tasks in zero-shot, without exposure to any in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 525, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compared zero-shot and few-shot in our preliminary experiments with LLaMA and GPT-3.5 on Levy/Holt directional dev set. Following Touvron et al. (2023), for zero-shot, we prepend a textual description of the task to each test sample; for few-shot, we prepend a minimal 4 examples with explanations. Instantiated prompts in the two settings are demonstrated in Table 13. Here we report the dev set results with the best-performing templates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We found that for the two pre-trained LLMs, namely, LLaMA and PaLM, zero-shot performance on the Levy/Holt directional dev set is near-random, at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "56.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "61.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " AUC respectively (random is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "); with 4 in-context examples, the models begin to exhibit non-trivial behavior, with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "65.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "80.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " AUC, respectively. This is not surprising, since pre-trained LLMs without instruction fine-tuning should not be expected to perform complex tasks zero-shot. For GPT-3.5, the performance is still much lower in zero-shot, at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "64.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", compared to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "74.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in few-shot." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As discussed in §4.2, ideally we would like LLMs to have zero-shot natural language abilities readily available for downstream tasks. However, in light of this observation, our primary experiments are conducted in the few-shot setting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2769" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 291, + 232 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 291, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTaskPrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
LLaMAI74.552.50
I^GenArg70.957.3+4.8
I^RandArg↓66.960.5+8.0
I^RandArg↑70.651.5-1.0
GPT-3.5I80.696.50
I^GenArg79.791.3-5.2
I^RandArg↓80.182.5-14.0
I^RandArg↑81.980.5-16.0
PaLMI90.384.00
I^GenArg92.371.5-12.5
I^RandArg↓87.882.5-1.5
I^RandArg↑88.282.0-2.0
", + "image_path": "aa0df0ecf78f51e0b1c965e237e15b75307ce756bd7d9c911977a3f6478625aa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Scoring model outputs in different conditions of RTE-1. We indicate the highest and lowest recall score across replacement settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 289, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 289, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 301, + 289, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "throughout, in order to better explore the abilities of these LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 341, + 262, + 370 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 341, + 262, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 341, + 262, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B RTE-1 Results For Experiment 2: Entities are Indices to Memory" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 291, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 291, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 380, + 291, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The RTE-1 dataset contains complex natural language statements with varied linguistic features, so predictions about entailment are not decidable only on the basis of contained predicates. However, RTE-1 is a difficult challenge set for models, and interesting to compare to in the broader domain of NLI. Though the sentences are much more complex, we are able to conduct an analogous experiment as in §6 by first identifying spans of named entities and their respective entity types, then replacing the entities with new ones. As before, we compare model scores on the original dataset to three test conditions: generic arguments (\"location X\", \"person Y\", etc.), sampled low-frequency entities constrained to the same type, and the same for high-frequency sampled entities. Since only the entities in each statement have been altered, the entailment labels between premise/hypothesis pairs remain unchanged, and an ideal model capable of generalizing inference would make the same predictions across dataset conditions. Results are shown in Table 6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We observe similar trends to those reported on Levy/Holt. GPT-3.5 performs very consistently between Levy/Holt and RTE-1 in terms of degrading recall when information is changed in each sample. We observe that model performance is worse than the original dataset when using generic arguments, and worse still using type-constrained random ar" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "guments. We further observe that across all three LLMs across both datasets, models consistently achieve worse recall using high-frequency entities than low-frequency entities, supporting the claim that increasing the frequency of entity occurrence in training data impedes generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 526, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Different from in Levy/Holt, we observe some noise in LLaMA's predictions; the recall on the original task is actually lower than the generic argument condition and the low-frequency entity condition. We note that overall, LLaMA is the weakest LLM tested in this experiment on both Levy/Holt and RTE-1, and that its performance on RTE-1 is particularly low. We suggest that the increased difficulty of RTE-1 over Levy/Holt (due to having much more linguistic variation) is simply too complex for LLaMA, which is neither the largest LLM tested, nor instruction-finetuned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 316, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also observe a smaller gap between PaLM's recall rates across dataset conditions, though the gaps are consistent with our claims. While the model appears able to generalize to conditions in which random real arguments are inserted, recall on the generic argument condition is significantly degraded. Failure on this control condition indicates that the model may not be generalizing as well as the other conditions would imply." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 498, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 498, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 498, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C The Ineffectiveness of Instructing LLMs to Stop Conditioning on Attested Information" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 501, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 501, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 501, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In §5 and §6, we showed that entailment predictions from LLMs are strongly biased by their predictions on the attestation of hypotheses. We wondered whether there are intuitive prompt engineering techniques to steer its behavior away from attending to attestation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 583, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Towards this goal, we experimented with prepending a brief task description to the few-shot prompts in part B of Table 13, explicitly instructing the models to ignore the attestedness of individual statements: Please check the entailments between the following hypothetical statements. Ignore the veracity of these statements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We replicated the experiments in §5 and §6 with GPT-3.5, since GPT-3.5 is an instruction-finetuned model trained to be responsive to prompts, where the other two LLM families are only pre-trained. Despite having been instruction-finetuned, the results with GPT-3.5 show only marginal improvements in model behavior." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2770" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 486, + 139 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 486, + 139 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 486, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 486, + 139 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
taskGPT-3.5Instructed to Ignore AttestednessNot Instructed
IP(Entail | Attested)74.377.6
IP(Entail | ¬Attested)57.863.6
IRandPremP(Entail | Attested)39.041.3
IRandPremP(Entail | ¬Attested)17.618.8
", + "image_path": "14bfb800d2c95a4727e344adceeae7bcf3c7c00598a389374080fdd0c285a0f1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 123, + 194, + 472, + 327 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: We estimate the probability of positive predictions of Entail in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks respectively given that the hypothesis is attested, namely " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda = \\text{Attested}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Not instructed results are copied from Figure 2 and listed here for ease of comparison; also note that all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{\\text{RandPrem}} = \\text{Entail}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions are false positives." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 194, + 472, + 327 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 194, + 472, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 194, + 472, + 327 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
GPT-3.5 ConditionTaskLevy/Holt (Directional)
PrecisionRecallΔ-Recall
Few-shot, instructed to ignore attestedness.I64.990.80
IGenArg73.569.3-21.5
IRandArg↓64.668.4-22.4
IRandArg↑67.558.1-32.7
Few-shot, no instructions.I62.492.30
IGenArg65.175.7-16.6
IRandArg↓65.566.5-25.8
IRandArg↑68.855.3-37.0
", + "image_path": "702d58a20a7210d89fdfe8a23ffd4dd81d4aae57ef3864c0b608c08306bf74b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 383 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 334, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: GPT-3.5 predictions when models are explicitly instructed to avoid taking the attestedness of individual statements into account. In the upper half are the instructed behavior, and in the lower half are the regular few-shot behavior as in Table 4. Differences in recalls remain at a similar scale, with precision again stable, where the benefit from the explicit instruction is marginal." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 7, we show that instructing GPT-3.5 to ignore attestation does not help narrow the gap between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda = \\text{Attested}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda = \\neg \\text{Attested}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 403, + 290, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; instead, probabilities of predicting Entail went down by similar amounts, indicating that the model is becoming slightly more conservative in predicting positives when instructed to ignore attestation, but not in a principled manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 513, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Further, as shown in Table 8, despite the explicit instruction, recall still drops at similar scales when arguments are randomly replaced with the same sets of frequent/infrequent replacement entities as before. Since GPT-3.5 has been instructionfinetuned to respond to prompts, its failure means eradicating such biases from model outputs is a difficult task, one that needs further research attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 256, + 661 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 256, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 256, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Statistics of Consistency Subsets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 290, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 290, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 290, + 695 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The statistics of consistency subsets are presented in Table 9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 277, + 735 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 277, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 277, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E The Reliability of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 277, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 709, + 277, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Measure and Its Relation to Consensus of Attestation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets most directly capture the impacts of the attestation bias. However, these" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "subset separations are based on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions from individual models, which can be noisy, subject to model-specific idiosyncracies such as trigger words or certain syntactic structures in the prompt, etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To verify that the performance gaps in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets that we observe in §8 comes from predicted attestedness and not some idiosyncrasy, we experiment with another pair of subsets based on consensus attestation instead of individually predicted attestation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use a majority vote among the three independently-trained LLMs to approximate consensus attestation. The approximation is denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 542, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This is because any model-specific idiosyncrasies should not be shared between LLMs independently trained from different source corpora in general. Therefore, with the majority vote, we reduce this noise and acquire predictions on the consensus attestation of statements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Performances of LLMs between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets are listed in Table 10. Gaps between the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets that are larger than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency gaps are colored red; those narrower than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency gaps are colored green. It is clear that the gaps are consistent between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda/\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency experiments, where the gaps are even larger on many occasions. This confirms that the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2771" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 68, + 444, + 155 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 68, + 444, + 155 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 68, + 444, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 68, + 444, + 155 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
# of EntriesLevy/HoltRTE-1
LLaMAGPT-3.5PaLMLLaMAGPT-3.5PaLM
VCONSISTENT955947999479447480
VADVERSARIAL829837785321353320
FCONSISTENT972286
FADVERSARIAL220247
", + "image_path": "82d36217b9df8b94dc29a28acf5eb6da19c3f7d3bc7df735e59503e528287e70.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 85, + 217, + 274, + 328 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Subsets defined by the consistency between entailment label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and either " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (hypothesis attestation prediction from each LLM) or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (model-agnostic relative frequency bias). CONSISTENT subsets are where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " agrees with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda /\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " . ADVERSARIAL subsets are where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " disagrees with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda /\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 526, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 217, + 274, + 328 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 217, + 274, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 217, + 274, + 328 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTaskLevy/Holt
\\( \\tilde{\\Lambda}_{\\text{cons.}} \\)\\( \\tilde{\\Lambda}_{\\text{adv.}} \\)diff.
LLaMAI65.36.5-58.8
GPT-3.5I70.823.5-47.3
PaLMI80.728.3-52.4
LLaMA\\( I^{GenArg} \\)54.429.6-24.8
GPT-3.5\\( I^{GenArg} \\)56.235.5-20.7
PaLM\\( I^{GenArg} \\)59.340.1-19.2
", + "image_path": "ee09b10daade7602fd468b47b4d9d251392c0ab4dca1909c8781c3d958b9b8a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "AUC_{norm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0\\% =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " random chance performance). Performance drops from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}_{cons}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}_{adv}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are presented in the diff. columns, sharper decreases than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 335, + 290, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-comparisons in Table 5 are colored red, milder ones are colored green." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 289, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "performance gaps in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 442, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency experiments can be credited to the attestation bias, rather than model-specific idiosyncrasies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "It is also to be noted that, since the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency subsets are separated based on the model-agnostic criterion " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", model-specific idiosyncrasies are not a problem for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 289, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-consistency comparisons." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 289, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 547, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Impacts of Bias on GPT-4 Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) is a recent, strong LLM claiming SOTA performance on various NLP tasks. Due to its closed-source nature and the impossibility of fully tracking the sources of its behaviors, we refrain from reporting results with it in the main content of this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, in order to provide a richer context for the attestation bias and the relative frequency bias, in this section we report the performance differences of GPT-4 between subsets consistent/adversarial to the two biases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a light-weight experiment, we elicit GPT-4 predictions in the original " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " task in the zero-shot setting, and re-use subsets from experiments in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically, for the attestation bias, we use" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the majority vote " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " among LLaMA, GPT-3.5 and PaLM, to approximate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predictions from GPT-4 itself; for the relative frequency bias, we keep the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Phi" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 219, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measure for approximating corpus-frequency of terms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Because GPT-4 is a commercial service and does not provide logit confidence with their discrete predictions, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "AUC_{norm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values could not be calculated. Therefore, we are forced to report the F-1 scores at the binary prediction point of confidence. As results in Table 12 show, we observe the same trend as in §8: for the subset adversarial to each factor, GPT-4 performance also drops substantially." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This experiment is designed to provide more context for the two biases discussed in the paper and NOT to compare GPT-4 with other models; however, we can conclude that GPT-4 is subject to the same fragilities as the other LLMs w.r.t. the two biases, where our conclusions and recommendations also apply." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 480, + 527 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 480, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 500, + 480, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Dataset Statistics and Dev Set Performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the paper, we have examined the behavior and performance of three major LLM families on two NLI datasets: Levy/Holt and RTE-1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 524, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 524, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 524, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The directional portion of Levy/Holt dataset contains 630 entries in its dev set, and 1784 entries in its test set; the RTE-1 dataset contains 567 entries in its dev set, and 800 entries in its test set. Each dataset has a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 524, + 683 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\% / 50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 575, + 524, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " class distribution between Entail and No-Entail (for RTE-1 dev set, the numbers of entries in the two label classes differ by 1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 524, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 684, + 524, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 11, we report dev set performance and the best prompt template used for each model on each dataset. Note that no training is involved in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 506, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 506, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 506, + 751 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{9}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 506, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://github.com/mjhosseini/entgraph_eval/tree/master/LevyHoltDS" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 506, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 506, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 506, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ nlstkdata/rte-corpus?resource " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 506, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\equiv" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 506, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " download" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2772" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 487, + 249 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 487, + 249 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 487, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 107, + 68, + 487, + 249 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelTaskLevy/HoltRTE-1
Best tplt. IDDEV set AUCnormBest tplt. IDDEV set AUCnorm
LLaMAI#430.0#362.5
I^GenArg#134.6#352.3
I^RandArg↓#131.8#151.3
I^RandArg↑#126.3#343.8
GPT-3.5I#149.2#374.8
I^GenArg#139.8#364.8
I^RandArg↓#143.4#363.6
I^RandArg↑#134.2#366.0
PaLMI#160.9#484.5
I^GenArg#148.1#479.4
I^RandArg↓#143.6#379.8
I^RandArg↑#135.3#378.3
", + "image_path": "4bea9864d71e8672bcda6c929055e42a17302369b4b05ef07302cd8ea81bba96.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 323, + 286, + 426 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: LLM dev set performance on the two datasets, measured with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "AUC_{norm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0\\% =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " random chance performance). AUC is calculated using estimated model scores as in §4.2 and then normalized into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "AUC_{norm}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 256, + 525, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We select the highest scoring template on each dev task (shown in this table) and use this in the corresponding test set evaluation (shown in the main text)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 323, + 286, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 323, + 286, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 323, + 286, + 426 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
F-1 scoreTaskLevy/Holt
ΛConsΛAdv
random baselineI70.362.0
GPT-4I85.1 (+14.8)67.6 (+5.6)
ΦConsΦAdv
random baselineI66.766.7
GPT-4I74.6 (+7.9)69.7 (+3.0)
", + "image_path": "bcb414a575cbbc7ff6523ebc0d3e2bcaf84c31291ad25b7be7ea75facceab257.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: LLM performance on Levy/Holt subsets where Attestation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{\\Lambda}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is Consistent/Adversarial to the labels, measured with F-1 score. random baseline is the highest F-1 score from a random classifier, by reaching random precision and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 434, + 290, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " recall. For each GPT-4 score, we also show the improvement over random (in parentheses)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 290, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "this paper, and prompt template selection is the only hyper-parameter tuned on the dev sets. These selected best prompt templates are then used on the respective test sets, where the results are used for the analysis throughout the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 701 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 608, + 291, + 701 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For random-premise experiments, AUC values cannot be meaningfully calculated because gold labels are always No-Entail. For these experiments, we use the most frequently-selected prompt template on each dataset, namely template #1 for Levy/Holt dataset, and template #3 for RTE-1 dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2773" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 107, + 292, + 119 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 107, + 292, + 119 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 107, + 292, + 119 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A. Zero-shot Example Instantiated Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 123, + 355, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 123, + 355, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 123, + 355, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please check the entailments between the following statements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 142, + 373, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 142, + 373, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 142, + 373, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If kanamycin kills infections, then kanamycin is useful in infections." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 154, + 188, + 182 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 154, + 179, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 154, + 179, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 154, + 179, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) Entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 164, + 166, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 164, + 166, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 164, + 166, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Neutral" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 174, + 188, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 174, + 188, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 174, + 188, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) Contradiction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 189, + 289, + 200 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 189, + 289, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 189, + 289, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B. Few-shot Example Instantiated Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 203, + 325, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 203, + 325, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 203, + 325, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If Google bought Youtube, then Google owns Youtube." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 216, + 179, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 216, + 179, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 216, + 179, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) Entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 225, + 166, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 225, + 166, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 225, + 166, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Neutral" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 235, + 188, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 235, + 188, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 235, + 188, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) Contradiction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 244, + 346, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 244, + 346, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 244, + 346, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: A) Entailment. Owning is a consequence of buying." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 255, + 325, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 255, + 325, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 255, + 325, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If Google owns Youtube, then Google bought Youtube." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 265, + 179, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 265, + 179, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 265, + 179, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) Entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 275, + 166, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 275, + 166, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 275, + 166, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Neutral" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 285, + 188, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 285, + 188, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 285, + 188, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) Contradiction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 294, + 467, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 294, + 467, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 294, + 467, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: B) Neutral. Owning does not imply buying, the ownership may come from other means." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 305, + 317, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 305, + 317, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 305, + 317, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If John went to the mall, then John drove to the mall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 315, + 179, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 315, + 179, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 315, + 179, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) Entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 324, + 166, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 324, + 166, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 324, + 166, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Neutral" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 334, + 188, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 334, + 188, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 334, + 188, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) Contradiction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 344, + 376, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 344, + 376, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 344, + 376, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: B) Neutral. John may have gone to the mall by other means." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 354, + 317, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 354, + 317, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 354, + 317, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If John drove to the mall, then John went to the mall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 364, + 179, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 364, + 179, + 372 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 364, + 179, + 372 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) Entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 374, + 166, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 374, + 166, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 374, + 166, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Neutral" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 384, + 188, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 384, + 188, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 384, + 188, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) Contradiction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 394, + 358, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 394, + 358, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 394, + 358, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: A) Entailment. Driving is a means of going to the mall." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 404, + 399, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 404, + 399, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 404, + 399, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "If ephedrine is widely used in medicine, then ephedrine is used in medicine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 414, + 179, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 414, + 179, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 414, + 179, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) Entailment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 424, + 166, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 424, + 166, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 424, + 166, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Neutral" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 434, + 188, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 434, + 188, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 434, + 188, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) Contradiction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 444, + 158, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 444, + 158, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 444, + 158, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 459, + 317, + 470 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 459, + 317, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 459, + 317, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C. Hypothesis-only Example Instantiated Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 475, + 237, + 672 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 54, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 475, + 214, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 475, + 214, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 475, + 214, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Google bought Youtube." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 486, + 155, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 486, + 155, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 486, + 155, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) True" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 35 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 495, + 174, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 495, + 174, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 495, + 174, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Unknown" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 36 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 505, + 158, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 505, + 158, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 505, + 158, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 37 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 515, + 190, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 515, + 190, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 515, + 190, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: A) True." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 38 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 525, + 237, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 525, + 237, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 525, + 237, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoshua Bengio likes oak trees." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 39 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 535, + 155, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 535, + 155, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 535, + 155, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) True" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 40 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 544, + 174, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 544, + 174, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 544, + 174, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Unknown" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 41 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 555, + 158, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 555, + 158, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 555, + 158, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 42 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 208, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 208, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 565, + 208, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: B) Unknown." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 43 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 575, + 228, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 575, + 228, + 583 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 575, + 228, + 583 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The sun rises from the west." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 44 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 585, + 155, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 585, + 155, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 585, + 155, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) True" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 45 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 595, + 174, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 595, + 174, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 595, + 174, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Unknown" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 46 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 604, + 158, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 604, + 158, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 604, + 158, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 47 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 614, + 192, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 614, + 192, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 614, + 192, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer: C) False." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 48 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 624, + 235, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 624, + 235, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 624, + 235, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ephedrine is used in medicine." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 49 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 634, + 155, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 634, + 155, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 634, + 155, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A) True" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 50 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 644, + 174, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 644, + 174, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 644, + 174, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B) Unknown" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 51 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 654, + 158, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 654, + 158, + 662 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 654, + 158, + 662 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C) False" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 52 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 663, + 158, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 663, + 158, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 663, + 158, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Answer:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 53 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 526, + 735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 526, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 526, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: Example instantiated prompts in Zero-shot / Few-shot settings, for the sample “PREMISE: [ephedrine is widely used in medicine], HYPOTHESIS: [ephedrine is used in medicine]”. The few-shot prompts in part B are used throughout the main experiments in this paper. We also present an example of the prompts we use for the hypothesis-only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 526, + 735 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Lambda" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 526, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measure as described in §3.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 55, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2774" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 56 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_content_list.json b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40181ce32423b1327e499f8f3c1cdeb64818fadb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1372 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 270, + 79, + 724, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhen Yu $^{1*}$ , Zhou Qin $^{2*}$ , Zhenhua Chen $^{1*}$ , Meihui Lian $^{2}$ , Haojun Fu $^{2}$ , Weigao Wen $^{2}$ , Hui Xue $^{2}$ , Kun He $^{1\\dagger}$", + "bbox": [ + 206, + 124, + 801, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China $^{2}$ Alibaba Group baidu15@hust.edu.cn, brooklet60@hust.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 236, + 170, + 759, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Deep neural networks have been widely applied in real-world scenarios, such as product restrictions on e-commerce and hate speech monitoring on social media, to ensure secure governance of various platforms. However, illegal merchants often deceive the detection models by adding large-scale perturbations to prohibited products, so as to earn illegal profits. Current adversarial attacks using imperceptible perturbations encounter challenges in simulating such adversarial behavior and evaluating the vulnerabilities of detection models to such perturbations. To address this issue, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, termed Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA), which leverages sparse perturbations to simulate the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants in the black-box scenario. Moreover, SparseMA bridges the gap between images and texts by treating the separated image patches and text words uniformly in the discrete space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA can identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, outperforming existing multimodal attacks and unimodal attacks. SparseMA, which is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks to our knowledge, would be used as an effective tool for evaluating the robustness of multimodal models to different modalities. Code is available at https://github.com/JHL-HUST/SparseMA.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 746, + 258, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "With the rapid development of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), vision-language multimodal classification has been applied in various real-world applications, such as product restrictions on e-commerce (Zahavy et al., 2018) and hate speech monitoring on social media (Kiela et al., 2020), to ensure secure governance of various platforms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 771, + 490, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d2b47189c49971ae9613fafa22c02f5e70807ce6b5f299df493e5450638c676c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: An example of a prohibited drug, where some key information is smeared by the illegal merchant, which is identified as compliant by the detection model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 250, + 880, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, there are always some illegal merchants who attempt to sell prohibited goods to make illegal profits, such as illegal drugs or smuggled goods, which violate the rules and terms of platforms. Due to the lack of professional knowledge in adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2014; Papernot et al., 2016b), they often adopt large-scale and sparse perturbations, including smearing and mosaicing, to deceive detection models deployed by various companies, thereby posing a significant threat to the security of platforms, as shown in Figure 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 480, + 884, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Current adversarial attacks (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Papernot et al., 2016b) typically mislead the victim model by adding imperceptible perturbations to benign samples, which can not accurately evaluate the vulnerability of detection models to the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants. In addition, prior research has mainly focused on unimodal adversarial attacks in Computer Vision (CV) (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Madry et al., 2018) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Papernot et al., 2016b; Liang et al., 2018), with little attention paid to the vulnerability of multimodal models (Yu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021) that are more challenging but widely used in the real world. This motivates us to develop a multimodal adversarial attack that simulates physical adversarial behaviors", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 662, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*The first three authors contributed equally.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 891, + 410, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 904, + 287, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5775", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5775-5784", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 957, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in the black-box scenario, which can help ensure secure governance of various platforms.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Existing multimodal attacks (Evtimov et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) typically process images and texts independently due to the vastly different data attributes of the two modalities, such as continuous images vs. discrete texts. When employing different attack strategies to perturb images and texts, these methods are unable to effectively combine features from different input modalities, leading to relatively low attack performance. And these attacks run in white-box attack settings, which are almost impossible to apply to the real-world.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 120, + 489, + 297 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address the above issue and simulate the sparse perturbations commonly used by illegal merchants, we propose to map them into the same discrete space to bridge the gap between continuous images and discrete texts. And then we perturb both images and texts simultaneously using the same sparse attack strategy. Although these sparse perturbations are indeed visible, they generally do not alter the semantics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 300, + 489, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, named Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA splits the input image into multiple patches, then evaluates the impact of each patch in the image and each word in the input text on the victim model based on the output logits. After sorting all patches and words according to their impacts, we sequentially replace the original data with suitable candidates until an adversarial example is found. Note that SparseMA only needs access to the model output, making it more feasible in the real-world than white-box attacks, which require full access to the model, including architecture, parameter, gradient, output, etc.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 449, + 489, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To validate the effectiveness of the proposed SparseMA, we do comparison with one image attack, two text attacks, and two multimodal attacks on the task of vision-language multimodal classification. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA could identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, achieving a higher attack success rate than almost all the baselines. Moreover, SparseMA could generate better sparse adversarial examples with fewer perturbations, making them more similar to benign samples and more applicable to real-world scenarios. Through analyzing the impact of perturbations on the model's output in each modality, SparseMA can reveal the relative importance of each modal-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 490, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ity in the model's decision-making process. This information is valuable for researchers to better understand the multimodal model's behavior and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 162, + 665, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section provides a brief overview of unimodal adversarial attacks on images or texts, as well as multimodal adversarial attacks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 190, + 882, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Unimodal Adversarial Attack", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 250, + 788, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Image adversarial attacks Szegedy et al. (2014) first show the existence of adversarial examples. Subsequently, numerous works based on the $l_{\\infty}$ or $l_{2}$ norm, including FGSM (Goodfellow et al., 2015), PGD (Madry et al., 2018), MIM (Dong et al., 2018), NIM (Lin et al., 2020), etc., are proposed to enhance the attack performance. JSMA (Papernot et al., 2016a) is the first to generate sparse perturbations by minimizing the $l_{0}$ norm. Croce and Hein (2019) introduce the $l_{0}$ norm variant of PGD, known as $\\mathrm{PGD}_0$ , and a black-box sparse attack of CornerSearch that evaluates the saliency of each pixel based on the changes on logits. LocSearchAdv (Narodytska and Kasiviswanathan, 2017), ADMM (Zhao et al., 2019), and SparseRS (Croce et al., 2022) adopt local search, Bayes optimization, and random search algorithms, respectively, to search for the optimal sparse adversarial example in the black-box setting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 273, + 884, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite the prosperity of sparse black-box attacks, they generally search for the optimal solution or evaluate the importance for each pixel, which require more than $10^{6}$ queries on images of size (224, 224). Even if ADMM and Sparse-RS optimize the query efficiency, tens of thousands of queries are still required, making it challenging to scale to large-scale datasets, such as ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009). In this work, SparseMA splits the image into multiple patches, and does not need to process each pixel. It allows us to achieve good attack performance with only a few hundred queries.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 581, + 885, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text adversarial attacks Existing text adversarial attacks typically modify the character, word, or sentence of the benign text to maximize the loss on the ground-truth class, among which word-level attacks (Li et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Li et al., 2021a; Maheshwary et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022) show excellent performance. PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020) greedily substitute important words with syn", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 885, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5776", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/51ed8fb3b6857f89f0895b998436bd2c76cc6decec24455908ca39e6050256ea.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The overall framework of the proposed SparseMA algorithm. SparseMA first splits the image into multiple sparse patches and the text into multiple words. Then it evaluates their importance based on the model output by setting each patch as all 0s or each word as [UNK], and determines the replacement order. According to the replacement order, SparseMA substitutes each element with a suitable candidate until we find an adversary. Finally, it randomly recovers the redundant substitution back to the original data, thereby reducing the perturbation size." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 80, + 868, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "onyms based on the output logits. GA (Alzantot et al., 2018) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020) adopt evolutionary algorithms to search for a near-optimal text adversarial example.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 412, + 487, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Multimodal Adversarial Attack", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 491, + 408, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To the best of our knowledge, there are a few works focusing on the vulnerability of multimodal models. Yu et al. (2020), Tian and Xu (2021) and Yang et al. (2021) find that samples could be misclassified by perturbing only single modality using PGD, revealing the vulnerability of multimodal models. Evtimov et al. (2020) perturb images with PGD and texts with HotFlip (Ebrahimmi et al., 2018) to generate hateful posts that could fool multimodal models. MUROAN (Vishwamitra et al., 2021) utilizes the fusion features to decouple the input modalities and generate adversarial examples by removing salient data points. Co-Attack (Zhang et al., 2022) first perturbs the text and then perturbs the image according to the perturbed fusion features to conduct a collaborative attack on the pre-trained multimodal model to fool all downstream tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 487, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, by splitting the input image and text into multiple sparse components, SparseMA establishes a more fine-grained connection between each element rather than between the entire image and text, allowing us to generate more well-designed multimodal perturbations efficiently. To the best of our knowledge, SparseMA is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methodology", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 411, + 657, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we first formalize the problem of multimodal adversarial attack and then provide a detailed description of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 436, + 882, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Multimodal Adversarial Attack", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 803, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given an input space $\\mathcal{X}$ containing all input images and texts, and an output space $\\mathcal{Y} = \\{y_1,\\ldots ,y_k\\}$ , we have a pre-trained multimodal classifier $f:\\mathcal{X}\\to \\mathcal{Y}$ , which maps the input image $x_{I}$ and text $x_{T} = w_{1}w_{2}\\dots w_{n}$ to its ground-truth label $y\\in \\mathcal{V}$ . The adversary adds an imperceptible perturbation on the classified sample $x = (x_{I},x_{T})$ to craft an adversarial example $(x_I^*,x_T^*)$ that misleads the classifier $f$ to output a wrong prediction:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 661 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname *{argmax}_{y_{i}\\in \\mathcal{Y}}f(y_{i}|x_{I}^{*},x_{T}^{*})\\neq y.\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 591, + 671, + 798, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Meanwhile, we should also guarantee the imperceptibility of adversarial perturbations. Therefore, we propose evaluating the quality of generated adversarial examples using multimodal similarity. To achieve this, we input both images and texts into pre-trained BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023) and extract the vector of the last hidden layer as the multimodal feature vector of the sample. Then, we calculate the cosine similarity between these two vectors as the multimodal similarity. This approach provides a more comprehensive evaluation of the generated adversarial examples, taking into account both visual and textual aspects of the data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5777", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose a novel sparse black-box multimodal attack approach, named SparseMA, in which only the output score of the target model is needed.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 The Proposed SparseMA Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 159, + 421, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given a benign sample that contains image $x_{I}$ and text $x_{T}$ , SparseMA first splits image $x_{I}$ into multiple patches and text $x_{T}$ into multiple words. As illustrated in Figure 2, SparseMA consists of two main stages: i.e., replacement order determination and candidate substitution. Replacement order determination determines the importance and replacement order of each patch and word. Candidate substitution sequentially substitutes each patch or word with a suitable candidate and then optimizes the redundant substitutions by random recovery to generate an optimal adversary.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 180, + 489, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.1 Replacement Order Determination", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 382, + 448, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to map the image and text into a discrete space, we split the image $x_{I}$ into $m$ patches $\\{p_1, p_2, \\ldots, p_m\\}$ of size $(s, s)$ and the text $x_{T}$ into $n$ words $\\{w_1, w_2, \\ldots, w_n\\}$ . Intuitively, more important components with greater impact on the victim model should be replaced. To evaluate the importance of each patch $p_i$ or word $w_j$ , we set the patch $p_i$ to be all 0s, or set the word $w_j$ to be unknown, i.e., [UNK], to obtain a modified sample $\\hat{x} = (\\hat{x}_I, x_T)$ or $(x_I, \\hat{x}_T)$ . We feed it into the target model, and calculate the importance score of each patch $p_i$ by examining the change of the model output:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nI \\left(p _ {i}\\right) = \\frac {f \\left(y \\mid x _ {I} , x _ {T}\\right) - f \\left(y \\mid \\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {T}\\right)}{d \\left(\\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {I}\\right)}. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 161, + 621, + 487, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similarly, we could obtain the importance score $I(w_{j})$ of each word $w_{j}$ . $I(\\cdot)$ measures the impact of the unit perturbation on the victim model by taking the perturbation size $d(\\cdot, \\cdot)$ into account. It allows us to balance the choice of perturbation between image patches and text words to achieve maximum impact on the model with minimal disruption. In the end, we sort all patches and words in descending order based on the importance score as the replacement order.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 665, + 489, + 827 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2.2 Candidate Substitution", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 835, + 356, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To find the suitable candidate for substitution, we pre-define candidate sets for each patch and word to ensure that the replacement operation has little impact on the semantics and similarity of samples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Algorithm 1: The SparseMA Algorithm", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 517, + 87, + 821, + 103 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Input sample that contains the image $x_{I}$ and the text $x_{T}$ with lable $y$ ; Target classifier $f$ ; Number of iterations $N$ for random recovery", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 105, + 855, + 168 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Adversarial example /* Replacement Order Determination */", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 168, + 855, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1 Split the image into $m$ patches", + "2 for each patch in $x_{I}$ and each word in $x_{T}$ do", + "3 Compute the importance score via Eq. 1", + "4 Sort all patches and words based on the importance score in descending order /* Candidate Substitution */", + "5 Construct the candidate set for each patch and word", + "6 for each element in replacement order do \n7 Replace it on the sample $(x_I, x_T)$ with its optimal candidate via Eq. 2 to craft a new sample $(x_I, x_T)$ \n8 if $\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) \\neq y$ then \n9 break", + "10 if $\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) = y$ then \n11 return None; // Attack fails", + "12 for $t = 1$ to $N$ do \n13 Replace a randomly selected perturbed element on $(x_{I}, x_{T})$ with the original data to craft a new sample $(\\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T})$ \n14 if $\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_{i} \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_{i} | \\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T}) \\neq y$ then \n15 Update $(x_{I}, x_{T}) \\gets (\\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T})$", + "16 return $(x_{I},x_{T})$ //Attacksucceeds" + ], + "bbox": [ + 505, + 202, + 853, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each image patch, we select all-black, all-white, and crossed black-and-white patches as its candidate set to simulate the perturbation behavior that illegal merchants are most likely to adopt in reality. For each word, we select its top $s$ nearest synonyms in the counter-fitted embedding space (Mrkšić et al., 2016) as its candidate set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 651, + 884, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the patch $p_i$ or word $w_j$ to be replaced on sample $x^t = (x_I^t, x_T^t)$ at the $t$ -th iteration along the obtained replacement order, we greedily substitute it with the optimal candidate that has the greatest impact $\\Delta P$ on the model from its candidate sets:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 764, + 882, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Delta P = f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t}, x _ {T} ^ {t}) - f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t + 1}, x _ {T} ^ {t + 1}), \\quad (2)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 549, + 854, + 882, + 876 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where the sample $x^{t + 1} = (x_I^{t + 1},x_T^{t + 1})$ is obtained by replacing the patch $p_i$ or word $w_{j}$ with a candidi", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 885, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5778", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6336779eb271625784c6ef03e149170c5ab2f74653abd88d67b17af6fbf9fc0e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Dataset#ClassTrainTestAvg. wordsCLIPViTCLIPResALBEF
MVSA-Single33,5111,0001464.663.664.6
MVSA-Multi317,8861,0001476.673.472.0
CrisisMMD717,1261,00011895.895.389.5
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 80, + 845, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: The statistics on the datasets and the classification accuracy (%) of victim models on the test set.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 172, + 852, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "date on sample $x^{t}$ . Then, we sequentially substitute each patch or word with its optimal candidate according to the replacement order until we find an adversarial example successfully.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 212, + 487, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since some perturbed elements may have little influence on the initial adversarial examples, i.e., there are redundant perturbations, greedy substitution would result in suboptimal adversarial examples. To further reduce the perturbation while keeping adversarial, we randomly change the perturbed patches or words back to the original data. We continue this recovery operation on the resulting sample if it is still adversarial to find an optimal adversarial example. The overall algorithm of SparseMA is summarized in Algorithm 1.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 278, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 469, + 260, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of SparseMA on three datasets and three models that are widely used.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 497, + 487, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 317, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets We adopt three widely investigated datasets for vision-language multimodal classification, including MVSA-Single (Niu et al., 2016), MVSA-Multi (Niu et al., 2016) and CrisisMMD (Alam et al., 2018). MVSA-Single and MVSA-Multi are two sentiment classification datasets that contain three sentiments (positive, negative and neutral). CrisisMMD is a multimodal dataset consisting of tweets and associated images collected during seven disaster events.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 580, + 489, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Victim Models We consider ALBEF (Li et al., 2021b) and CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) as the victim models in this work. As CLIP is an aligned model, we construct a 2-layer multilayer perceptron for predicting the target label. Additionally, we consider two different image encoders for CLIP: ViT-B/16 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) and ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), denoted as $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}$ and $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{Res}}$ , respectively. More details of these datasets and the classification accuracy of each model are shown in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baselines Since there are only a few multimodal attacks proposed recently, we select representative works from unimodal and multimodal black-box attacks as our baselines. For image adversarial attacks, we choose the state-of-the-art sparse black-box attack Sparse-RS (Croce et al., 2022). For text adversarial attacks, we choose the word-level black-box attacks PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020). For multimodal attacks, we combine Sparse-RS and PWWS to attack images and texts respectively to perform the multimodal attack, named Sp-RS&PWWS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 212, + 884, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experimental Settings The side length $s$ of image patches is set to 20, and the number of iterations $N$ for random recovery is set to four times the number of perturbed elements in the initial adversarial example. To ensure high semantic similarity between adversarial texts and benign texts for SparseMA and all text baselines, we also set the number of synonyms to 4. All evaluations are conducted on 1,000 randomly sampled texts from the corresponding test set. For a fair comparison with our SparseMA, we increase the maximum number of pixels perturbed to 3,600 and decrease the number of iterations accordingly to 2,000 for Sparse-RS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 884, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Evaluation on Attack Effectiveness", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 651, + 830, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To validate the effectiveness of SparseMA, we conduct experiments for vision-language classification on three victim models using three datasets. The results, including attack success rate, multimodal similarity and the number of queries, are summarized in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 676, + 884, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We could observe that SparseMA achieves the highest attack success rate on 7 of 9 cases compared to all unimodal and multimodal baselines and is only slightly weaker than Sp-RS&PWWS in the other two cases. And we always generate adversarial examples that are more similar to the original samples, compared to Sp-RS&PWWS, indicating that we generate better adversarial examples. Meanwhile, the number of queries of SparseMA", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5779", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e394eaf153a534fddad22e7160c24a21168e5b122bd1d8159fddb222ea493267.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelAttackMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
Succ.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.Query
CLIPViTSparse-RS70.795.391480.895.277912.995.01,840
PWWS20.996.75624.795.66010.099.164
PSO27.697.13,42729.495.43,56813.398.94,443
Sp-RS&PWWS71.894.596981.294.083817.794.41,903
SparseMA82.596.638880.096.936627.197.1557
CLIPResSparse-RS54.295.31,18467.295.29378.095.41,894
PWWS17.096.65726.296.9609.899.164
PSO20.896.53,70230.796.03,52713.399.14,446
Sp-RS&PWWS56.496.41,24069.694.299613.494.31,957
SparseMA64.596.741081.196.733624.297.6563
ALBEFSparse-RS22.196.71,66650.497.21,25830.497.21,583
PWWS22.397.75639.295.96634.499.161
PSO31.497.11,00144.696.573239.899.2999
Sp-RS&PWWS29.195.01,72161.894.91,31646.596.51,643
SparseMA40.796.642861.796.134156.398.4375
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 80, + 873, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Attack success rate (Succ., %), multimodal similarity (Sim., %) and the number of queries (Query) of various attacks (image attack Sparse-RS, text attacks PWWS and PSO, and multimodal attacks Sp-RS&PWWS and SparseMA) on three models using three datasets for multimodal classification. The highest attack success rate is highlighted in bold. The second highest attack success rate is underlined.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 430, + 882, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is lower than that of all baselines except PWWS, being about 1/3 that of the multimodal attack SpRS&PWWS. Despite the lower query number and higher similarity of PWWS, our attack success rate is significantly higher than PWWS. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that PWWS implies a better effectiveness.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 513, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In conclusion, SparseMA achieves a higher attack success rate and similarity with a lower query number compared to the combined multimodal attack Sp-RS&PWWS, demonstrating the necessity of bridging the gap between different modalities for effective multimodal attack. These results validate the superiority of our proposed method. Moreover, we find that by perturbing only $2\\%$ to $3\\%$ of the top-level features, we can make the victim model output completely different predictions, thus confirming the vulnerability of the multimodal model. These discoveries suggest that the model relies heavily on these small subsets of high-level features to determine its output, but these features are highly susceptible to adversarial attacks. Therefore, improving the robustness of the model's high-level features against perturbations would be a crucial method to enhance the model's robustness.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Then, we present two instances of adversarial examples in Figure 3. It can be seen that SparseMA adds patches to the image to generate adversarial examples, which have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world. Although the perturbations are indeed visible, they do not alter the semantics of adversarial images, which are still recognizable by humans. Additionally, SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. These evaluations demonstrate the high quality and practicality in the physical world of the adversarial examples generated by SparseMA.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Vulnerability on Different Modalities", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 736, + 847, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multimodal classifier utilizes information from various modalities to predict the classification results, which is expected to be robust to all modalities and achieves better performance. However, we find that multimodal models tend to be robust to one modality while being vulnerable to another. When attacking the robust modality, the attack performance is usually poor. In contrast, attacking the vulnerable modality would result in good attack performance. For instance, PWWS for text", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5780", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b06419648b4d9b1ff16b29858b11d3285152f7f27bdd13249e4be55186cc9425.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Adversarial examples generated by SparseMA and Sp-RS&PWWS on MVSA-Multi dataset. The adversarial images generated by SparseMA have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world than that of Sp-RS&PWWS. And SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. We highlight the words replaced by the attacks in Red. The corresponding original words are highlighted in Green." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 89, + 497, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/aaeb39e0630a76c251ed1458dbe098f7bde0246e3e856de9504786239e2f0974.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 500, + 90, + 877, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e6227afbce09af680c64ae72e2405beaa5d10eabe0371155d065e708256d57ed.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
ImageTextBothImageTextBothImageTextBoth
CLIPViT51.03.445.260.03.636.015.015.868.9
CLIPRes58.01.041.056.02.541.017.017.864.9
ALBEF20.024.056.327.028.644.412.033.954.2
", + "bbox": [ + 191, + 362, + 805, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "attack shows poor attack performance when attacking $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}$ model on MVSA-Multi dataset, as shown in Table 2. Conversely, Sparse-RS for image attack performs better. We believe this is due to the model over-relying on one modality while disregarding the other. To better evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of multimodal models to different modalities, we present the percentage of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both, in Table 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 511, + 487, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can see that SparseMA prefers to perturb the more vulnerable modality. For example, SparseMA perturbs more images on the $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where image attacks perform well. In addition, SparseMA tends to perturb both modalities simultaneously when the multimodal model is robust to both modalities, such as on the ALBEF model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where both image attacks and text attacks perform poorly. This demonstrates that SparseMA has discovered the vulnerability of the model and generated corresponding perturbations for the attack. It also indicates that SparseMA may be a good metric to evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of the model to different modalities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/db8cf27c919d7b9e7c2c69602e45722d7dafe8abfecf2bcf0fd475775a9400d0.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Percentage (%) of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
AttackCleanBrig.Cont.Satu.Shar.
Sparse-RS70.728.030.241.532.5
Sp-RS&PWWS71.836.539.846.739.8
SparseMA82.538.940.953.445.0
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 508, + 872, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Attack success rate (Succ., %) of different attacks on $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using MVSA-Multi dataset when Brightness (Brig.), Contrast (Cont.), Saturation (Satu.) or Sharpness (Shar.) varies in the real-world.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 582, + 880, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Evaluation in the Real-World", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 653, + 786, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adversarial images captured by digital devices are usually affected by physical factors, such as brightness, saturation, contrast or sharpness, etc. Thus, a good physical attack should generate perturbations that are easy to be added to images, and also be resistant to various physical factors. To evaluate the effectiveness of SparseMA in the real-world, we randomly adjust the brightness, contrast, saturation, and sharpness of the adversarial images generated by various attacks on $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using MVSA-Multi dataset to 0.5 to 1.5 times the original value. Then we evaluate their attack success rate as shown in Table 4. The results are averaged on five runs to eliminate randomness. We could observe that brightness typically has the largest effect, and sat", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 677, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5781", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e7fc4f2356abe8012adbb9033e94d0ad0ea9c826bf259b90fe2cf0fb9564e6cb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
sSucc.PertIPertTSimISimTSimImageTextBothQuery
883.72.85.694.085.697.070.00.529.41,642
1283.85.15.991.684.396.866.01.432.9811
1676.37.48.189.978.596.457.03.939.6510
2080.08.76.788.781.296.960.03.636.0366
2477.310.77.386.979.896.557.05.437.9273
2878.812.87.285.179.796.756.05.039.1188
3275.415.58.082.777.195.551.06.442.6159
", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 80, + 831, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Attack performance and query number (Query) of SparseMA varying different side length $s$ of the patch on CLIPViT model using MVSA-Single dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 237, + 882, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "uration has the least effect on all attacks. Notably, SparseMA consistently achieves the highest attack success rate among all baselines, demonstrating the practicality of SparseMA in the real-world.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 292, + 487, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Parameter Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 367, + 294, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To investigate the impact of the hyper-parameters in SparseMA, including the side length $s$ of patches and the number of iterations $N$ for random recovery, we conduct a series of experiments on $\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using MVSA-Single dataset. We additionally evaluate the similarity to the original samples using the Structural Similarity (SSIM) (Wang et al., 2004) for images and the Universal Sequence Encoder (USE) (Cer et al., 2018) for texts, denoted as $\\mathrm{Sim_I}$ and $\\mathrm{Sim_T}$ . And we adopt the perturbation rate to measure the percentage of pixels perturbed in an image or words perturbed in a text, denoted as $\\mathrm{Pert_I}$ and $\\mathrm{Pert_T}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the side length of patches The side length restricts the minimum perturbation unit of images. In Table 5, we evaluate the attack performance of SparseMA using various side lengths from 8 to 32 with an interval of 4. SparseMA performs well when $s = 8$ , achieving a high attack success rate. It also has the lowest perturbation rate and the highest similarity, which prefers to perturb images individually. However, it has a high query cost for the victim model. As we increase the side length of the image patch, the attack success rate will change unpredictably. Also, increasing the patch size results in a decrease in the number of queries but an increase in the perturbation rate. Additionally, SparseMA gradually boosts its preference for text perturbations. To balance attack performance and query cost, we select an intermediate value of $s = 20$ for our experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "On the number of iterations for random recovery To perform random recovery in the initial", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "adversarial example with different numbers of perturbed elements, we set the number of iterations $N$ to be an integer time of the number of perturbed elements. We evaluate the final perturbation rate and multimodal similarity in final adversarial examples using various iterations from 2 to 8 times the number of perturbed elements with an interval of 2. We observe that they achieve similar perturbation rates (8.71% ~ 8.78% in images and 6.73% ~ 6.92% in texts) and similar multimodal similarity (96.91% ~ 96.94%). More iterations will result in a lower perturbation rate but more queries, so we choose an intermediate value, i.e., $N$ is four times the number of perturbed elements.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 292, + 884, + 517 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 535, + 640, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose a vision-language black-box adversarial attack method called Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA maps the input image and text into discrete space by splitting the image into patches and the text into words. Then it evaluates the importance of each patch or word based on its affects to the model's output. By greedily substituting important patches or words with suitable candidates, SparseMA generates adversarial examples with fewer perturbations and higher quality, which achieves a higher attack success rate than the baselines. Additionally, SparseMA can reveal the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities and concentrate on perturbing the more vulnerable ones. It could be served as a good metric to measure the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities. And it can help us better understand the multimodal model's behavior, and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks. Experiments show that the sparse perturbations generated by SparseMA are more practical in the physical world that are easier to be added", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5782", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "for attackers, and perform well against real-world influences. SparseMA would be a strong baseline for future works and may inspire more researches on multimodal attacks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 161, + 220, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SparseMA focuses on the two most typical modalities in the multimodal classification task, i.e., continuous images and discrete text. It does not take other types of modalities, such as audio and signal, into consideration. Actually, data from these modalities can also be processed by a similar sparse strategy, and then apply our method to generate adversarial examples. We will continue to investigate the potential of SparseMA in our future work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 489, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 344, + 278, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation (62076105, U22B2017).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 370, + 485, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 431, + 213, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Firoj Alam, Ferda Ofli, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Crisismmd: Multimodal twitter datasets from natural disasters. In AAAI conference on web and social media.", + "Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11175.", + "Francesco Croce, Maksym Andriushchenko, Naman D Singh, Nicolas Flammarion, and Matthias Hein. 2022. Sparse-rs: a versatile framework for query-efficient sparse black-box adversarial attacks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Francesco Croce and Matthias Hein. 2019. Sparse and imperceivable adversarial attacks. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision.", + "Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Fei-Fei Li. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.", + "Yinpeng Dong, Fangzhou Liao, Tianyu Pang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Xiaolin Hu, and Jianguo Li. 2018. Boosting adversarial attacks with momentum. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 454, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ivan Evtimov, Russel Howes, Brian Dolhansky, Hamed Firooz, and Cristian Canton Ferrer. 2020. Adversarial evaluation of multimodal models under realistic gray box assumption. In ArXiv preprint.", + "Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. BAE: BERT-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.", + "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is BERT really robust? A strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Douwe Kiela, Hamed Firooz, Aravind Mohan, Vedanuj Goswami, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, and Davide Testuggine. 2020. The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.", + "Dianqi Li, Yizhe Zhang, Hao Peng, Liquin Chen, Chris Brockett, Ming-Ting Sun, and Bill Dolan. 2021a. Contextualized perturbation for textual adversarial attack. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.", + "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. In ArXiv preprint.", + "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021b. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5783", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2018. Deep text classification can be fooled. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Jiadong Lin, Chuanbiao Song, Kun He, Liwei Wang, and John E. Hopcroft. 2020. Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2018. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Rishabh Maheshwary, Saket Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Generating natural language attacks in a hard label black box setting. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.", + "Nina Narodytska and Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan. 2017. Simple black-box adversarial attacks on deep neural networks. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops.", + "Teng Niu, Shiai Zhu, Lei Pang, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2016. Sentiment analysis on multi-view social data. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling.", + "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami. 2016a. The limitations of deep learning in adversarial settings. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P).", + "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016b. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM IEEE Military Communications Conference.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Yapeng Tian and Chenliang Xu. 2021. Can audio-visual integration strengthen robustness under multimodal attacks? In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.", + "Nishant Vishwamitra, Hongxin Hu, Ziming Zhao, Long Cheng, and Feng Luo. 2021. Understanding and measuring robustness of multimodal learning. In ArXiv preprint.", + "Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. In IEEE transactions on image processing.", + "Karren Yang, Wan-Yi Lin, Manash Barman, Filipe Condessa, and Zico Kolter. 2021. Defending multimodal fusion models against single-source adversaries. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.", + "Youngjoon Yu, Hong Joo Lee, Byeong Cheon Kim, Jung Uk Kim, and Yong Man Ro. 2020. Investigating vulnerability to adversarial examples on multimodal data fusion in deep learning. In ArXiv preprint.", + "Zhen Yu, Xiaosen Wang, Wanxiang Che, and Kun He. 2022. Texthacker: Learning based hybrid local search algorithm for text hard-label adversarial attack. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 622-637.", + "Tom Zahavy, Abhinandan Krishnan, Alessandro Magnani, and Shie Mannor. 2018. Is a picture worth a thousand words? A deep multi-modal architecture for product classification in e-commerce. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.", + "Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiaming Zhang, Qi Yi, and Jitao Sang. 2022. Towards adversarial attack on vision-language pre-training models. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia.", + "Pu Zhao, Sijia Liu, Pin-Yu Chen, Nghia Hoang, Kaidi Xu, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Xue Lin. 2019. On the design of black-box adversarial examples by leveraging gradient-free optimization and operator splitting method. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 908 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "5784", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_model.json b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c63153ab9fd75be3daf174bf2eb34efac43a725f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1881 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.272, + 0.08, + 0.725, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.207, + 0.125, + 0.803, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Yu\\(^{1*}\\), Zhou Qin\\(^{2*}\\), Zhenhua Chen\\(^{1*}\\), Meihui Lian\\(^{2}\\), Haojun Fu\\(^{2}\\), Weigao Wen\\(^{2}\\), Hui Xue\\(^{2}\\), Kun He\\(^{1\\dagger}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.237, + 0.171, + 0.761, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\) School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China \\(^{2}\\) Alibaba Group baidu15@hust.edu.cn, brooklet60@hust.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deep neural networks have been widely applied in real-world scenarios, such as product restrictions on e-commerce and hate speech monitoring on social media, to ensure secure governance of various platforms. However, illegal merchants often deceive the detection models by adding large-scale perturbations to prohibited products, so as to earn illegal profits. Current adversarial attacks using imperceptible perturbations encounter challenges in simulating such adversarial behavior and evaluating the vulnerabilities of detection models to such perturbations. To address this issue, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, termed Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA), which leverages sparse perturbations to simulate the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants in the black-box scenario. Moreover, SparseMA bridges the gap between images and texts by treating the separated image patches and text words uniformly in the discrete space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA can identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, outperforming existing multimodal attacks and unimodal attacks. SparseMA, which is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks to our knowledge, would be used as an effective tool for evaluating the robustness of multimodal models to different modalities. Code is available at https://github.com/JHL-HUST/SparseMA." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.747, + 0.26, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.772, + 0.491, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "With the rapid development of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), vision-language multimodal classification has been applied in various real-world applications, such as product restrictions on e-commerce (Zahavy et al., 2018) and hate speech monitoring on social media (Kiela et al., 2020), to ensure secure governance of various platforms." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.252, + 0.882, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.403, + 0.884, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: An example of a prohibited drug, where some key information is smeared by the illegal merchant, which is identified as compliant by the detection model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.481, + 0.885, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, there are always some illegal merchants who attempt to sell prohibited goods to make illegal profits, such as illegal drugs or smuggled goods, which violate the rules and terms of platforms. Due to the lack of professional knowledge in adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2014; Papernot et al., 2016b), they often adopt large-scale and sparse perturbations, including smearing and mosaicing, to deceive detection models deployed by various companies, thereby posing a significant threat to the security of platforms, as shown in Figure 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.663, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Current adversarial attacks (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Papernot et al., 2016b) typically mislead the victim model by adding imperceptible perturbations to benign samples, which can not accurately evaluate the vulnerability of detection models to the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants. In addition, prior research has mainly focused on unimodal adversarial attacks in Computer Vision (CV) (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Madry et al., 2018) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Papernot et al., 2016b; Liang et al., 2018), with little attention paid to the vulnerability of multimodal models (Yu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021) that are more challenging but widely used in the real world. This motivates us to develop a multimodal adversarial attack that simulates physical adversarial behaviors" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.892, + 0.411, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*The first three authors contributed equally." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.905, + 0.289, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.892, + 0.411, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5775" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5775-5784" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.958, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in the black-box scenario, which can help ensure secure governance of various platforms." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.121, + 0.49, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Existing multimodal attacks (Evtimov et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) typically process images and texts independently due to the vastly different data attributes of the two modalities, such as continuous images vs. discrete texts. When employing different attack strategies to perturb images and texts, these methods are unable to effectively combine features from different input modalities, leading to relatively low attack performance. And these attacks run in white-box attack settings, which are almost impossible to apply to the real-world." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.301, + 0.49, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address the above issue and simulate the sparse perturbations commonly used by illegal merchants, we propose to map them into the same discrete space to bridge the gap between continuous images and discrete texts. And then we perturb both images and texts simultaneously using the same sparse attack strategy. Although these sparse perturbations are indeed visible, they generally do not alter the semantics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.45, + 0.49, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, named Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA splits the input image into multiple patches, then evaluates the impact of each patch in the image and each word in the input text on the victim model based on the output logits. After sorting all patches and words according to their impacts, we sequentially replace the original data with suitable candidates until an adversarial example is found. Note that SparseMA only needs access to the model output, making it more feasible in the real-world than white-box attacks, which require full access to the model, including architecture, parameter, gradient, output, etc." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.491, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To validate the effectiveness of the proposed SparseMA, we do comparison with one image attack, two text attacks, and two multimodal attacks on the task of vision-language multimodal classification. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA could identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, achieving a higher attack success rate than almost all the baselines. Moreover, SparseMA could generate better sparse adversarial examples with fewer perturbations, making them more similar to benign samples and more applicable to real-world scenarios. Through analyzing the impact of perturbations on the model's output in each modality, SparseMA can reveal the relative importance of each modal-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ity in the model's decision-making process. This information is valuable for researchers to better understand the multimodal model's behavior and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.163, + 0.667, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.191, + 0.883, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section provides a brief overview of unimodal adversarial attacks on images or texts, as well as multimodal adversarial attacks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.252, + 0.789, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Unimodal Adversarial Attack" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Image adversarial attacks Szegedy et al. (2014) first show the existence of adversarial examples. Subsequently, numerous works based on the \\(l_{\\infty}\\) or \\(l_{2}\\) norm, including FGSM (Goodfellow et al., 2015), PGD (Madry et al., 2018), MIM (Dong et al., 2018), NIM (Lin et al., 2020), etc., are proposed to enhance the attack performance. JSMA (Papernot et al., 2016a) is the first to generate sparse perturbations by minimizing the \\(l_{0}\\) norm. Croce and Hein (2019) introduce the \\(l_{0}\\) norm variant of PGD, known as \\(\\mathrm{PGD}_0\\), and a black-box sparse attack of CornerSearch that evaluates the saliency of each pixel based on the changes on logits. LocSearchAdv (Narodytska and Kasiviswanathan, 2017), ADMM (Zhao et al., 2019), and SparseRS (Croce et al., 2022) adopt local search, Bayes optimization, and random search algorithms, respectively, to search for the optimal sparse adversarial example in the black-box setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.582, + 0.886, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite the prosperity of sparse black-box attacks, they generally search for the optimal solution or evaluate the importance for each pixel, which require more than \\(10^{6}\\) queries on images of size (224, 224). Even if ADMM and Sparse-RS optimize the query efficiency, tens of thousands of queries are still required, making it challenging to scale to large-scale datasets, such as ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009). In this work, SparseMA splits the image into multiple patches, and does not need to process each pixel. It allows us to achieve good attack performance with only a few hundred queries." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.887, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text adversarial attacks Existing text adversarial attacks typically modify the character, word, or sentence of the benign text to maximize the loss on the ground-truth class, among which word-level attacks (Li et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Li et al., 2021a; Maheshwary et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022) show excellent performance. PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020) greedily substitute important words with syn" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5776" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.081, + 0.87, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.316, + 0.884, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of the proposed SparseMA algorithm. SparseMA first splits the image into multiple sparse patches and the text into multiple words. Then it evaluates their importance based on the model output by setting each patch as all 0s or each word as [UNK], and determines the replacement order. According to the replacement order, SparseMA substitutes each element with a suitable candidate until we find an adversary. Finally, it randomly recovers the redundant substitution back to the original data, thereby reducing the perturbation size." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.413, + 0.489, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "onyms based on the output logits. GA (Alzantot et al., 2018) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020) adopt evolutionary algorithms to search for a near-optimal text adversarial example." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.492, + 0.409, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Multimodal Adversarial Attack" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.516, + 0.489, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, there are a few works focusing on the vulnerability of multimodal models. Yu et al. (2020), Tian and Xu (2021) and Yang et al. (2021) find that samples could be misclassified by perturbing only single modality using PGD, revealing the vulnerability of multimodal models. Evtimov et al. (2020) perturb images with PGD and texts with HotFlip (Ebrahimmi et al., 2018) to generate hateful posts that could fool multimodal models. MUROAN (Vishwamitra et al., 2021) utilizes the fusion features to decouple the input modalities and generate adversarial examples by removing salient data points. Co-Attack (Zhang et al., 2022) first perturbs the text and then perturbs the image according to the perturbed fusion features to conduct a collaborative attack on the pre-trained multimodal model to fool all downstream tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, by splitting the input image and text into multiple sparse components, SparseMA establishes a more fine-grained connection between each element rather than between the entire image and text, allowing us to generate more well-designed multimodal perturbations efficiently. To the best of our knowledge, SparseMA is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.412, + 0.658, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methodology" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.437, + 0.883, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we first formalize the problem of multimodal adversarial attack and then provide a detailed description of our method." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.497, + 0.804, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Multimodal Adversarial Attack" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.662 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given an input space \\(\\mathcal{X}\\) containing all input images and texts, and an output space \\(\\mathcal{Y} = \\{y_1,\\ldots ,y_k\\}\\), we have a pre-trained multimodal classifier \\(f:\\mathcal{X}\\to \\mathcal{Y}\\), which maps the input image \\(x_{I}\\) and text \\(x_{T} = w_{1}w_{2}\\dots w_{n}\\) to its ground-truth label \\(y\\in \\mathcal{V}\\). The adversary adds an imperceptible perturbation on the classified sample \\(x = (x_{I},x_{T})\\) to craft an adversarial example \\((x_I^*,x_T^*)\\) that misleads the classifier \\(f\\) to output a wrong prediction:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.592, + 0.673, + 0.799, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname *{argmax}_{y_{i}\\in \\mathcal{Y}}f(y_{i}|x_{I}^{*},x_{T}^{*})\\neq y.\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meanwhile, we should also guarantee the imperceptibility of adversarial perturbations. Therefore, we propose evaluating the quality of generated adversarial examples using multimodal similarity. To achieve this, we input both images and texts into pre-trained BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023) and extract the vector of the last hidden layer as the multimodal feature vector of the sample. Then, we calculate the cosine similarity between these two vectors as the multimodal similarity. This approach provides a more comprehensive evaluation of the generated adversarial examples, taking into account both visual and textual aspects of the data." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.52, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5777" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose a novel sparse black-box multimodal attack approach, named SparseMA, in which only the output score of the target model is needed." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.16, + 0.423, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 The Proposed SparseMA Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.181, + 0.49, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given a benign sample that contains image \\( x_{I} \\) and text \\( x_{T} \\), SparseMA first splits image \\( x_{I} \\) into multiple patches and text \\( x_{T} \\) into multiple words. As illustrated in Figure 2, SparseMA consists of two main stages: i.e., replacement order determination and candidate substitution. Replacement order determination determines the importance and replacement order of each patch and word. Candidate substitution sequentially substitutes each patch or word with a suitable candidate and then optimizes the redundant substitutions by random recovery to generate an optimal adversary." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.383, + 0.449, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.1 Replacement Order Determination" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.402, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to map the image and text into a discrete space, we split the image \\( x_{I} \\) into \\( m \\) patches \\( \\{p_1, p_2, \\ldots, p_m\\} \\) of size \\( (s, s) \\) and the text \\( x_{T} \\) into \\( n \\) words \\( \\{w_1, w_2, \\ldots, w_n\\} \\). Intuitively, more important components with greater impact on the victim model should be replaced. To evaluate the importance of each patch \\( p_i \\) or word \\( w_j \\), we set the patch \\( p_i \\) to be all 0s, or set the word \\( w_j \\) to be unknown, i.e., [UNK], to obtain a modified sample \\( \\hat{x} = (\\hat{x}_I, x_T) \\) or \\( (x_I, \\hat{x}_T) \\). We feed it into the target model, and calculate the importance score of each patch \\( p_i \\) by examining the change of the model output:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.163, + 0.622, + 0.488, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nI \\left(p _ {i}\\right) = \\frac {f \\left(y \\mid x _ {I} , x _ {T}\\right) - f \\left(y \\mid \\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {T}\\right)}{d \\left(\\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {I}\\right)}. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.666, + 0.49, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similarly, we could obtain the importance score \\( I(w_{j}) \\) of each word \\( w_{j} \\). \\( I(\\cdot) \\) measures the impact of the unit perturbation on the victim model by taking the perturbation size \\( d(\\cdot, \\cdot) \\) into account. It allows us to balance the choice of perturbation between image patches and text words to achieve maximum impact on the model with minimal disruption. In the end, we sort all patches and words in descending order based on the importance score as the replacement order." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.836, + 0.357, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2.2 Candidate Substitution" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To find the suitable candidate for substitution, we pre-define candidate sets for each patch and word to ensure that the replacement operation has little impact on the semantics and similarity of samples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.088, + 0.823, + 0.104 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Algorithm 1: The SparseMA Algorithm" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.106, + 0.856, + 0.169 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Input sample that contains the image \\( x_{I} \\) and the text \\( x_{T} \\) with lable \\( y \\); Target classifier \\( f \\); Number of iterations \\( N \\) for random recovery" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.17, + 0.856, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Adversarial example /* Replacement Order Determination */" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.203, + 0.758, + 0.218 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Split the image into \\(m\\) patches" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.219, + 0.839, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 for each patch in \\( x_{I} \\) and each word in \\( x_{T} \\) do" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.25, + 0.854, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Compute the importance score via Eq. 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.271, + 0.854, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Sort all patches and words based on the importance score in descending order /* Candidate Substitution */" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.32, + 0.841, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Construct the candidate set for each patch and word" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.352, + 0.851, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 for each element in replacement order do \n7 Replace it on the sample \\((x_I, x_T)\\) with its optimal candidate via Eq. 2 to craft a new sample \\((x_I, x_T)\\) \n8 if \\(\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) \\neq y\\) then \n9 break" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.458, + 0.855, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10 if \\(\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) = y\\) then \n11 return None; // Attack fails" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.496, + 0.848, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12 for \\(t = 1\\) to \\(N\\) do \n13 Replace a randomly selected perturbed element on \\((x_{I}, x_{T})\\) with the original data to craft a new sample \\((\\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T})\\) \n14 if \\(\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_{i} \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_{i} | \\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T}) \\neq y\\) then \n15 Update \\((x_{I}, x_{T}) \\gets (\\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T})\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.603, + 0.855, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "16 return \\((x_{I},x_{T})\\) //Attacksucceeds" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.203, + 0.855, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.652, + 0.885, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each image patch, we select all-black, all-white, and crossed black-and-white patches as its candidate set to simulate the perturbation behavior that illegal merchants are most likely to adopt in reality. For each word, we select its top \\(s\\) nearest synonyms in the counter-fitted embedding space (Mrkšić et al., 2016) as its candidate set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.765, + 0.884, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the patch \\( p_i \\) or word \\( w_j \\) to be replaced on sample \\( x^t = (x_I^t, x_T^t) \\) at the \\( t \\)-th iteration along the obtained replacement order, we greedily substitute it with the optimal candidate that has the greatest impact \\( \\Delta P \\) on the model from its candidate sets:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.55, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Delta P = f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t}, x _ {T} ^ {t}) - f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t + 1}, x _ {T} ^ {t + 1}), \\quad (2)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.886, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where the sample \\( x^{t + 1} = (x_I^{t + 1},x_T^{t + 1}) \\) is obtained by replacing the patch \\( p_i \\) or word \\( w_{j} \\) with a candidi" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5778" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.082, + 0.847, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Dataset#ClassTrainTestAvg. wordsCLIPViTCLIPResALBEF
MVSA-Single33,5111,0001464.663.664.6
MVSA-Multi317,8861,0001476.673.472.0
CrisisMMD717,1261,00011895.895.389.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.173, + 0.853, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: The statistics on the datasets and the classification accuracy (%) of victim models on the test set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.214, + 0.489, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "date on sample \\( x^{t} \\). Then, we sequentially substitute each patch or word with its optimal candidate according to the replacement order until we find an adversarial example successfully." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.279, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since some perturbed elements may have little influence on the initial adversarial examples, i.e., there are redundant perturbations, greedy substitution would result in suboptimal adversarial examples. To further reduce the perturbation while keeping adversarial, we randomly change the perturbed patches or words back to the original data. We continue this recovery operation on the resulting sample if it is still adversarial to find an optimal adversarial example. The overall algorithm of SparseMA is summarized in Algorithm 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.47, + 0.262, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.498, + 0.489, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of SparseMA on three datasets and three models that are widely used." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.56, + 0.318, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets We adopt three widely investigated datasets for vision-language multimodal classification, including MVSA-Single (Niu et al., 2016), MVSA-Multi (Niu et al., 2016) and CrisisMMD (Alam et al., 2018). MVSA-Single and MVSA-Multi are two sentiment classification datasets that contain three sentiments (positive, negative and neutral). CrisisMMD is a multimodal dataset consisting of tweets and associated images collected during seven disaster events." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victim Models We consider ALBEF (Li et al., 2021b) and CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) as the victim models in this work. As CLIP is an aligned model, we construct a 2-layer multilayer perceptron for predicting the target label. Additionally, we consider two different image encoders for CLIP: ViT-B/16 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) and ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), denoted as \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{Res}}\\), respectively. More details of these datasets and the classification accuracy of each model are shown in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.214, + 0.885, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baselines Since there are only a few multimodal attacks proposed recently, we select representative works from unimodal and multimodal black-box attacks as our baselines. For image adversarial attacks, we choose the state-of-the-art sparse black-box attack Sparse-RS (Croce et al., 2022). For text adversarial attacks, we choose the word-level black-box attacks PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020). For multimodal attacks, we combine Sparse-RS and PWWS to attack images and texts respectively to perform the multimodal attack, named Sp-RS&PWWS." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.409, + 0.885, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experimental Settings The side length \\(s\\) of image patches is set to 20, and the number of iterations \\(N\\) for random recovery is set to four times the number of perturbed elements in the initial adversarial example. To ensure high semantic similarity between adversarial texts and benign texts for SparseMA and all text baselines, we also set the number of synonyms to 4. All evaluations are conducted on 1,000 randomly sampled texts from the corresponding test set. For a fair comparison with our SparseMA, we increase the maximum number of pixels perturbed to 3,600 and decrease the number of iterations accordingly to 2,000 for Sparse-RS." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.652, + 0.831, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Evaluation on Attack Effectiveness" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.677, + 0.885, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To validate the effectiveness of SparseMA, we conduct experiments for vision-language classification on three victim models using three datasets. The results, including attack success rate, multimodal similarity and the number of queries, are summarized in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We could observe that SparseMA achieves the highest attack success rate on 7 of 9 cases compared to all unimodal and multimodal baselines and is only slightly weaker than Sp-RS&PWWS in the other two cases. And we always generate adversarial examples that are more similar to the original samples, compared to Sp-RS&PWWS, indicating that we generate better adversarial examples. Meanwhile, the number of queries of SparseMA" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5779" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.082, + 0.874, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelAttackMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
Succ.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.Query
CLIPViTSparse-RS70.795.391480.895.277912.995.01,840
PWWS20.996.75624.795.66010.099.164
PSO27.697.13,42729.495.43,56813.398.94,443
Sp-RS&PWWS71.894.596981.294.083817.794.41,903
SparseMA82.596.638880.096.936627.197.1557
CLIPResSparse-RS54.295.31,18467.295.29378.095.41,894
PWWS17.096.65726.296.9609.899.164
PSO20.896.53,70230.796.03,52713.399.14,446
Sp-RS&PWWS56.496.41,24069.694.299613.494.31,957
SparseMA64.596.741081.196.733624.297.6563
ALBEFSparse-RS22.196.71,66650.497.21,25830.497.21,583
PWWS22.397.75639.295.96634.499.161
PSO31.497.11,00144.696.573239.899.2999
Sp-RS&PWWS29.195.01,72161.894.91,31646.596.51,643
SparseMA40.796.642861.796.134156.398.4375
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.431, + 0.884, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Attack success rate (Succ., %), multimodal similarity (Sim., %) and the number of queries (Query) of various attacks (image attack Sparse-RS, text attacks PWWS and PSO, and multimodal attacks Sp-RS&PWWS and SparseMA) on three models using three datasets for multimodal classification. The highest attack success rate is highlighted in bold. The second highest attack success rate is underlined." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.514, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is lower than that of all baselines except PWWS, being about 1/3 that of the multimodal attack SpRS&PWWS. Despite the lower query number and higher similarity of PWWS, our attack success rate is significantly higher than PWWS. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that PWWS implies a better effectiveness." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In conclusion, SparseMA achieves a higher attack success rate and similarity with a lower query number compared to the combined multimodal attack Sp-RS&PWWS, demonstrating the necessity of bridging the gap between different modalities for effective multimodal attack. These results validate the superiority of our proposed method. Moreover, we find that by perturbing only \\(2\\%\\) to \\(3\\%\\) of the top-level features, we can make the victim model output completely different predictions, thus confirming the vulnerability of the multimodal model. These discoveries suggest that the model relies heavily on these small subsets of high-level features to determine its output, but these features are highly susceptible to adversarial attacks. Therefore, improving the robustness of the model's high-level features against perturbations would be a crucial method to enhance the model's robustness." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.885, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Then, we present two instances of adversarial examples in Figure 3. It can be seen that SparseMA adds patches to the image to generate adversarial examples, which have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world. Although the perturbations are indeed visible, they do not alter the semantics of adversarial images, which are still recognizable by humans. Additionally, SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. These evaluations demonstrate the high quality and practicality in the physical world of the adversarial examples generated by SparseMA." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.737, + 0.848, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Vulnerability on Different Modalities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multimodal classifier utilizes information from various modalities to predict the classification results, which is expected to be robust to all modalities and achieves better performance. However, we find that multimodal models tend to be robust to one modality while being vulnerable to another. When attacking the robust modality, the attack performance is usually poor. In contrast, attacking the vulnerable modality would result in good attack performance. For instance, PWWS for text" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5780" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.09, + 0.498, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.501, + 0.091, + 0.878, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.293, + 0.884, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Adversarial examples generated by SparseMA and Sp-RS&PWWS on MVSA-Multi dataset. The adversarial images generated by SparseMA have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world than that of Sp-RS&PWWS. And SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. We highlight the words replaced by the attacks in Red. The corresponding original words are highlighted in Green." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.193, + 0.363, + 0.806, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
ImageTextBothImageTextBothImageTextBoth
CLIPViT51.03.445.260.03.636.015.015.868.9
CLIPRes58.01.041.056.02.541.017.017.864.9
ALBEF20.024.056.327.028.644.412.033.954.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.478, + 0.882, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Percentage (%) of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "attack shows poor attack performance when attacking \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}\\) model on MVSA-Multi dataset, as shown in Table 2. Conversely, Sparse-RS for image attack performs better. We believe this is due to the model over-relying on one modality while disregarding the other. To better evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of multimodal models to different modalities, we present the percentage of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both, in Table 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can see that SparseMA prefers to perturb the more vulnerable modality. For example, SparseMA perturbs more images on the \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}\\) model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where image attacks perform well. In addition, SparseMA tends to perturb both modalities simultaneously when the multimodal model is robust to both modalities, such as on the ALBEF model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where both image attacks and text attacks perform poorly. This demonstrates that SparseMA has discovered the vulnerability of the model and generated corresponding perturbations for the attack. It also indicates that SparseMA may be a good metric to evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of the model to different modalities." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.509, + 0.873, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
AttackCleanBrig.Cont.Satu.Shar.
Sparse-RS70.728.030.241.532.5
Sp-RS&PWWS71.836.539.846.739.8
SparseMA82.538.940.953.445.0
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.583, + 0.882, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Attack success rate (Succ., %) of different attacks on \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}\\) model using MVSA-Multi dataset when Brightness (Brig.), Contrast (Cont.), Saturation (Satu.) or Sharpness (Shar.) varies in the real-world." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.655, + 0.788, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Evaluation in the Real-World" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adversarial images captured by digital devices are usually affected by physical factors, such as brightness, saturation, contrast or sharpness, etc. Thus, a good physical attack should generate perturbations that are easy to be added to images, and also be resistant to various physical factors. To evaluate the effectiveness of SparseMA in the real-world, we randomly adjust the brightness, contrast, saturation, and sharpness of the adversarial images generated by various attacks on \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}\\) model using MVSA-Multi dataset to 0.5 to 1.5 times the original value. Then we evaluate their attack success rate as shown in Table 4. The results are averaged on five runs to eliminate randomness. We could observe that brightness typically has the largest effect, and sat" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5781" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.082, + 0.833, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
sSucc.PertIPertTSimISimTSimImageTextBothQuery
883.72.85.694.085.697.070.00.529.41,642
1283.85.15.991.684.396.866.01.432.9811
1676.37.48.189.978.596.457.03.939.6510
2080.08.76.788.781.296.960.03.636.0366
2477.310.77.386.979.896.557.05.437.9273
2878.812.87.285.179.796.756.05.039.1188
3275.415.58.082.777.195.551.06.442.6159
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.238, + 0.884, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Attack performance and query number (Query) of SparseMA varying different side length \\( s \\) of the patch on CLIPViT model using MVSA-Single dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.293, + 0.489, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "uration has the least effect on all attacks. Notably, SparseMA consistently achieves the highest attack success rate among all baselines, demonstrating the practicality of SparseMA in the real-world." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.368, + 0.295, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Parameter Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.389, + 0.49, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To investigate the impact of the hyper-parameters in SparseMA, including the side length \\(s\\) of patches and the number of iterations \\(N\\) for random recovery, we conduct a series of experiments on \\(\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}\\) model using MVSA-Single dataset. We additionally evaluate the similarity to the original samples using the Structural Similarity (SSIM) (Wang et al., 2004) for images and the Universal Sequence Encoder (USE) (Cer et al., 2018) for texts, denoted as \\(\\mathrm{Sim_I}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{Sim_T}\\). And we adopt the perturbation rate to measure the percentage of pixels perturbed in an image or words perturbed in a text, denoted as \\(\\mathrm{Pert_I}\\) and \\(\\mathrm{Pert_T}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the side length of patches The side length restricts the minimum perturbation unit of images. In Table 5, we evaluate the attack performance of SparseMA using various side lengths from 8 to 32 with an interval of 4. SparseMA performs well when \\( s = 8 \\), achieving a high attack success rate. It also has the lowest perturbation rate and the highest similarity, which prefers to perturb images individually. However, it has a high query cost for the victim model. As we increase the side length of the image patch, the attack success rate will change unpredictably. Also, increasing the patch size results in a decrease in the number of queries but an increase in the perturbation rate. Additionally, SparseMA gradually boosts its preference for text perturbations. To balance attack performance and query cost, we select an intermediate value of \\( s = 20 \\) for our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "On the number of iterations for random recovery To perform random recovery in the initial" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.518 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "adversarial example with different numbers of perturbed elements, we set the number of iterations \\(N\\) to be an integer time of the number of perturbed elements. We evaluate the final perturbation rate and multimodal similarity in final adversarial examples using various iterations from 2 to 8 times the number of perturbed elements with an interval of 2. We observe that they achieve similar perturbation rates (8.71% ~ 8.78% in images and 6.73% ~ 6.92% in texts) and similar multimodal similarity (96.91% ~ 96.94%). More iterations will result in a lower perturbation rate but more queries, so we choose an intermediate value, i.e., \\(N\\) is four times the number of perturbed elements." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.536, + 0.642, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose a vision-language black-box adversarial attack method called Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA maps the input image and text into discrete space by splitting the image into patches and the text into words. Then it evaluates the importance of each patch or word based on its affects to the model's output. By greedily substituting important patches or words with suitable candidates, SparseMA generates adversarial examples with fewer perturbations and higher quality, which achieves a higher attack success rate than the baselines. Additionally, SparseMA can reveal the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities and concentrate on perturbing the more vulnerable ones. It could be served as a good metric to measure the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities. And it can help us better understand the multimodal model's behavior, and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks. Experiments show that the sparse perturbations generated by SparseMA are more practical in the physical world that are easier to be added" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5782" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for attackers, and perform well against real-world influences. SparseMA would be a strong baseline for future works and may inspire more researches on multimodal attacks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.162, + 0.221, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.189, + 0.49, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SparseMA focuses on the two most typical modalities in the multimodal classification task, i.e., continuous images and discrete text. It does not take other types of modalities, such as audio and signal, into consideration. Actually, data from these modalities can also be processed by a similar sparse strategy, and then apply our method to generate adversarial examples. We will continue to investigate the potential of SparseMA in our future work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.346, + 0.28, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.372, + 0.487, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation (62076105, U22B2017)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.432, + 0.214, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.455, + 0.489, + 0.508 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Firoj Alam, Ferda Ofli, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Crisismmd: Multimodal twitter datasets from natural disasters. In AAAI conference on web and social media." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.52, + 0.49, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.597, + 0.49, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11175." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.674, + 0.49, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Francesco Croce, Maksym Andriushchenko, Naman D Singh, Nicolas Flammarion, and Matthias Hein. 2022. Sparse-rs: a versatile framework for query-efficient sparse black-box adversarial attacks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.751, + 0.489, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Francesco Croce and Matthias Hein. 2019. Sparse and imperceivable adversarial attacks. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.802, + 0.49, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Fei-Fei Li. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinpeng Dong, Fangzhou Liao, Tianyu Pang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Xiaolin Hu, and Jianguo Li. 2018. Boosting adversarial attacks with momentum. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.455, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.202, + 0.885, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.266, + 0.884, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Evtimov, Russel Howes, Brian Dolhansky, Hamed Firooz, and Cristian Canton Ferrer. 2020. Adversarial evaluation of multimodal models under realistic gray box assumption. In ArXiv preprint." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.33, + 0.883, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. BAE: BERT-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.393, + 0.884, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.457, + 0.884, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.52, + 0.883, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is BERT really robust? A strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.597, + 0.884, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Douwe Kiela, Hamed Firooz, Aravind Mohan, Vedanuj Goswami, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, and Davide Testuggine. 2020. The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.686, + 0.884, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dianqi Li, Yizhe Zhang, Hao Peng, Liquin Chen, Chris Brockett, Ming-Ting Sun, and Bill Dolan. 2021a. Contextualized perturbation for textual adversarial attack. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.777, + 0.884, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. In ArXiv preprint." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021b. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5783" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.152, + 0.487, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2018. Deep text classification can be fooled. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.219, + 0.487, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiadong Lin, Chuanbiao Song, Kun He, Liwei Wang, and John E. Hopcroft. 2020. Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.298, + 0.487, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2018. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.377, + 0.486, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rishabh Maheshwary, Saket Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Generating natural language attacks in a hard label black box setting. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.443, + 0.487, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.549, + 0.487, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nina Narodytska and Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan. 2017. Simple black-box adversarial attacks on deep neural networks. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.615, + 0.487, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Teng Niu, Shiai Zhu, Lei Pang, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2016. Sentiment analysis on multi-view social data. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.682, + 0.487, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami. 2016a. The limitations of deep learning in adversarial settings. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.761, + 0.487, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016b. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM IEEE Military Communications Conference." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.148, + 0.882, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.223, + 0.882, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yapeng Tian and Chenliang Xu. 2021. Can audio-visual integration strengthen robustness under multimodal attacks? In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.284, + 0.882, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nishant Vishwamitra, Hongxin Hu, Ziming Zhao, Long Cheng, and Feng Luo. 2021. Understanding and measuring robustness of multimodal learning. In ArXiv preprint." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.346, + 0.882, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. In IEEE transactions on image processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.408, + 0.882, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karren Yang, Wan-Yi Lin, Manash Barman, Filipe Condessa, and Zico Kolter. 2021. Defending multimodal fusion models against single-source adversaries. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.483, + 0.882, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Youngjoon Yu, Hong Joo Lee, Byeong Cheon Kim, Jung Uk Kim, and Yong Man Ro. 2020. Investigating vulnerability to adversarial examples on multimodal data fusion in deep learning. In ArXiv preprint." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.544, + 0.882, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhen Yu, Xiaosen Wang, Wanxiang Che, and Kun He. 2022. Texthacker: Learning based hybrid local search algorithm for text hard-label adversarial attack. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 622-637." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.619, + 0.882, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Zahavy, Abhinandan Krishnan, Alessandro Magnani, and Shie Mannor. 2018. Is a picture worth a thousand words? A deep multi-modal architecture for product classification in e-commerce. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.693, + 0.882, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.768, + 0.882, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaming Zhang, Qi Yi, and Jitao Sang. 2022. Towards adversarial attack on vision-language pre-training models. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.83, + 0.882, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pu Zhao, Sijia Liu, Pin-Yu Chen, Nghia Hoang, Kaidi Xu, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Xue Lin. 2019. On the design of black-box adversarial examples by leveraging gradient-free optimization and operator splitting method. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.909 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5784" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_origin.pdf b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a413b994315fdaabcbe71ed14291757237fff81 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/d54be74f-477a-407c-a5e8-5c4936d96dff_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e7e5d85682ebd79e1c5c1f1c4c94f536d858d10ed0570bd8aef41f190e6f4ade +size 5079932 diff --git a/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/full.md b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0438eb4ffe122582247c9d404676c6cf79ef11fb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,262 @@ +# Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation + +Zhen Yu $^{1*}$ , Zhou Qin $^{2*}$ , Zhenhua Chen $^{1*}$ , Meihui Lian $^{2}$ , Haojun Fu $^{2}$ , Weigao Wen $^{2}$ , Hui Xue $^{2}$ , Kun He $^{1\dagger}$ + +$^{1}$ School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China $^{2}$ Alibaba Group baidu15@hust.edu.cn, brooklet60@hust.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Deep neural networks have been widely applied in real-world scenarios, such as product restrictions on e-commerce and hate speech monitoring on social media, to ensure secure governance of various platforms. However, illegal merchants often deceive the detection models by adding large-scale perturbations to prohibited products, so as to earn illegal profits. Current adversarial attacks using imperceptible perturbations encounter challenges in simulating such adversarial behavior and evaluating the vulnerabilities of detection models to such perturbations. To address this issue, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, termed Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA), which leverages sparse perturbations to simulate the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants in the black-box scenario. Moreover, SparseMA bridges the gap between images and texts by treating the separated image patches and text words uniformly in the discrete space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA can identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, outperforming existing multimodal attacks and unimodal attacks. SparseMA, which is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks to our knowledge, would be used as an effective tool for evaluating the robustness of multimodal models to different modalities. Code is available at https://github.com/JHL-HUST/SparseMA. + +# 1 Introduction + +With the rapid development of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), vision-language multimodal classification has been applied in various real-world applications, such as product restrictions on e-commerce (Zahavy et al., 2018) and hate speech monitoring on social media (Kiela et al., 2020), to ensure secure governance of various platforms. + +![](images/d2b47189c49971ae9613fafa22c02f5e70807ce6b5f299df493e5450638c676c.jpg) +Figure 1: An example of a prohibited drug, where some key information is smeared by the illegal merchant, which is identified as compliant by the detection model. + +However, there are always some illegal merchants who attempt to sell prohibited goods to make illegal profits, such as illegal drugs or smuggled goods, which violate the rules and terms of platforms. Due to the lack of professional knowledge in adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2014; Papernot et al., 2016b), they often adopt large-scale and sparse perturbations, including smearing and mosaicing, to deceive detection models deployed by various companies, thereby posing a significant threat to the security of platforms, as shown in Figure 1. + +Current adversarial attacks (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Papernot et al., 2016b) typically mislead the victim model by adding imperceptible perturbations to benign samples, which can not accurately evaluate the vulnerability of detection models to the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants. In addition, prior research has mainly focused on unimodal adversarial attacks in Computer Vision (CV) (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Madry et al., 2018) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Papernot et al., 2016b; Liang et al., 2018), with little attention paid to the vulnerability of multimodal models (Yu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021) that are more challenging but widely used in the real world. This motivates us to develop a multimodal adversarial attack that simulates physical adversarial behaviors + +in the black-box scenario, which can help ensure secure governance of various platforms. + +Existing multimodal attacks (Evtimov et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) typically process images and texts independently due to the vastly different data attributes of the two modalities, such as continuous images vs. discrete texts. When employing different attack strategies to perturb images and texts, these methods are unable to effectively combine features from different input modalities, leading to relatively low attack performance. And these attacks run in white-box attack settings, which are almost impossible to apply to the real-world. + +To address the above issue and simulate the sparse perturbations commonly used by illegal merchants, we propose to map them into the same discrete space to bridge the gap between continuous images and discrete texts. And then we perturb both images and texts simultaneously using the same sparse attack strategy. Although these sparse perturbations are indeed visible, they generally do not alter the semantics. + +In this work, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, named Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA splits the input image into multiple patches, then evaluates the impact of each patch in the image and each word in the input text on the victim model based on the output logits. After sorting all patches and words according to their impacts, we sequentially replace the original data with suitable candidates until an adversarial example is found. Note that SparseMA only needs access to the model output, making it more feasible in the real-world than white-box attacks, which require full access to the model, including architecture, parameter, gradient, output, etc. + +To validate the effectiveness of the proposed SparseMA, we do comparison with one image attack, two text attacks, and two multimodal attacks on the task of vision-language multimodal classification. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA could identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, achieving a higher attack success rate than almost all the baselines. Moreover, SparseMA could generate better sparse adversarial examples with fewer perturbations, making them more similar to benign samples and more applicable to real-world scenarios. Through analyzing the impact of perturbations on the model's output in each modality, SparseMA can reveal the relative importance of each modal- + +ity in the model's decision-making process. This information is valuable for researchers to better understand the multimodal model's behavior and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks. + +# 2 Related Work + +This section provides a brief overview of unimodal adversarial attacks on images or texts, as well as multimodal adversarial attacks. + +# 2.1 Unimodal Adversarial Attack + +Image adversarial attacks Szegedy et al. (2014) first show the existence of adversarial examples. Subsequently, numerous works based on the $l_{\infty}$ or $l_{2}$ norm, including FGSM (Goodfellow et al., 2015), PGD (Madry et al., 2018), MIM (Dong et al., 2018), NIM (Lin et al., 2020), etc., are proposed to enhance the attack performance. JSMA (Papernot et al., 2016a) is the first to generate sparse perturbations by minimizing the $l_{0}$ norm. Croce and Hein (2019) introduce the $l_{0}$ norm variant of PGD, known as $\mathrm{PGD}_0$ , and a black-box sparse attack of CornerSearch that evaluates the saliency of each pixel based on the changes on logits. LocSearchAdv (Narodytska and Kasiviswanathan, 2017), ADMM (Zhao et al., 2019), and SparseRS (Croce et al., 2022) adopt local search, Bayes optimization, and random search algorithms, respectively, to search for the optimal sparse adversarial example in the black-box setting. + +Despite the prosperity of sparse black-box attacks, they generally search for the optimal solution or evaluate the importance for each pixel, which require more than $10^{6}$ queries on images of size (224, 224). Even if ADMM and Sparse-RS optimize the query efficiency, tens of thousands of queries are still required, making it challenging to scale to large-scale datasets, such as ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009). In this work, SparseMA splits the image into multiple patches, and does not need to process each pixel. It allows us to achieve good attack performance with only a few hundred queries. + +Text adversarial attacks Existing text adversarial attacks typically modify the character, word, or sentence of the benign text to maximize the loss on the ground-truth class, among which word-level attacks (Li et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Li et al., 2021a; Maheshwary et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022) show excellent performance. PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020) greedily substitute important words with syn + +![](images/51ed8fb3b6857f89f0895b998436bd2c76cc6decec24455908ca39e6050256ea.jpg) +Figure 2: The overall framework of the proposed SparseMA algorithm. SparseMA first splits the image into multiple sparse patches and the text into multiple words. Then it evaluates their importance based on the model output by setting each patch as all 0s or each word as [UNK], and determines the replacement order. According to the replacement order, SparseMA substitutes each element with a suitable candidate until we find an adversary. Finally, it randomly recovers the redundant substitution back to the original data, thereby reducing the perturbation size. + +onyms based on the output logits. GA (Alzantot et al., 2018) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020) adopt evolutionary algorithms to search for a near-optimal text adversarial example. + +# 2.2 Multimodal Adversarial Attack + +To the best of our knowledge, there are a few works focusing on the vulnerability of multimodal models. Yu et al. (2020), Tian and Xu (2021) and Yang et al. (2021) find that samples could be misclassified by perturbing only single modality using PGD, revealing the vulnerability of multimodal models. Evtimov et al. (2020) perturb images with PGD and texts with HotFlip (Ebrahimmi et al., 2018) to generate hateful posts that could fool multimodal models. MUROAN (Vishwamitra et al., 2021) utilizes the fusion features to decouple the input modalities and generate adversarial examples by removing salient data points. Co-Attack (Zhang et al., 2022) first perturbs the text and then perturbs the image according to the perturbed fusion features to conduct a collaborative attack on the pre-trained multimodal model to fool all downstream tasks. + +In this work, by splitting the input image and text into multiple sparse components, SparseMA establishes a more fine-grained connection between each element rather than between the entire image and text, allowing us to generate more well-designed multimodal perturbations efficiently. To the best of our knowledge, SparseMA is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks. + +# 3 Methodology + +In this section, we first formalize the problem of multimodal adversarial attack and then provide a detailed description of our method. + +# 3.1 Multimodal Adversarial Attack + +Given an input space $\mathcal{X}$ containing all input images and texts, and an output space $\mathcal{Y} = \{y_1,\ldots ,y_k\}$ , we have a pre-trained multimodal classifier $f:\mathcal{X}\to \mathcal{Y}$ , which maps the input image $x_{I}$ and text $x_{T} = w_{1}w_{2}\dots w_{n}$ to its ground-truth label $y\in \mathcal{V}$ . The adversary adds an imperceptible perturbation on the classified sample $x = (x_{I},x_{T})$ to craft an adversarial example $(x_I^*,x_T^*)$ that misleads the classifier $f$ to output a wrong prediction: + +$$ +\operatorname *{argmax}_{y_{i}\in \mathcal{Y}}f(y_{i}|x_{I}^{*},x_{T}^{*})\neq y. +$$ + +Meanwhile, we should also guarantee the imperceptibility of adversarial perturbations. Therefore, we propose evaluating the quality of generated adversarial examples using multimodal similarity. To achieve this, we input both images and texts into pre-trained BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023) and extract the vector of the last hidden layer as the multimodal feature vector of the sample. Then, we calculate the cosine similarity between these two vectors as the multimodal similarity. This approach provides a more comprehensive evaluation of the generated adversarial examples, taking into account both visual and textual aspects of the data. + +In this work, we propose a novel sparse black-box multimodal attack approach, named SparseMA, in which only the output score of the target model is needed. + +# 3.2 The Proposed SparseMA Method + +Given a benign sample that contains image $x_{I}$ and text $x_{T}$ , SparseMA first splits image $x_{I}$ into multiple patches and text $x_{T}$ into multiple words. As illustrated in Figure 2, SparseMA consists of two main stages: i.e., replacement order determination and candidate substitution. Replacement order determination determines the importance and replacement order of each patch and word. Candidate substitution sequentially substitutes each patch or word with a suitable candidate and then optimizes the redundant substitutions by random recovery to generate an optimal adversary. + +# 3.2.1 Replacement Order Determination + +In order to map the image and text into a discrete space, we split the image $x_{I}$ into $m$ patches $\{p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_m\}$ of size $(s, s)$ and the text $x_{T}$ into $n$ words $\{w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_n\}$ . Intuitively, more important components with greater impact on the victim model should be replaced. To evaluate the importance of each patch $p_i$ or word $w_j$ , we set the patch $p_i$ to be all 0s, or set the word $w_j$ to be unknown, i.e., [UNK], to obtain a modified sample $\hat{x} = (\hat{x}_I, x_T)$ or $(x_I, \hat{x}_T)$ . We feed it into the target model, and calculate the importance score of each patch $p_i$ by examining the change of the model output: + +$$ +I \left(p _ {i}\right) = \frac {f \left(y \mid x _ {I} , x _ {T}\right) - f \left(y \mid \hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {T}\right)}{d \left(\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {I}\right)}. \tag {1} +$$ + +Similarly, we could obtain the importance score $I(w_{j})$ of each word $w_{j}$ . $I(\cdot)$ measures the impact of the unit perturbation on the victim model by taking the perturbation size $d(\cdot, \cdot)$ into account. It allows us to balance the choice of perturbation between image patches and text words to achieve maximum impact on the model with minimal disruption. In the end, we sort all patches and words in descending order based on the importance score as the replacement order. + +# 3.2.2 Candidate Substitution + +To find the suitable candidate for substitution, we pre-define candidate sets for each patch and word to ensure that the replacement operation has little impact on the semantics and similarity of samples. + +# Algorithm 1: The SparseMA Algorithm + +Input: Input sample that contains the image $x_{I}$ and the text $x_{T}$ with lable $y$ ; Target classifier $f$ ; Number of iterations $N$ for random recovery + +Output: Adversarial example /* Replacement Order Determination */ + +1 Split the image into $m$ patches +2 for each patch in $x_{I}$ and each word in $x_{T}$ do +3 Compute the importance score via Eq. 1 +4 Sort all patches and words based on the importance score in descending order /* Candidate Substitution */ +5 Construct the candidate set for each patch and word +6 for each element in replacement order do +7 Replace it on the sample $(x_I, x_T)$ with its optimal candidate via Eq. 2 to craft a new sample $(x_I, x_T)$ +8 if $\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \in \mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) \neq y$ then +9 break +10 if $\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \in \mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) = y$ then +11 return None; // Attack fails +12 for $t = 1$ to $N$ do +13 Replace a randomly selected perturbed element on $(x_{I}, x_{T})$ with the original data to craft a new sample $(\hat{x}_{I}, \hat{x}_{T})$ +14 if $\operatorname{argmax}_{y_{i} \in \mathcal{Y}} f(y_{i} | \hat{x}_{I}, \hat{x}_{T}) \neq y$ then +15 Update $(x_{I}, x_{T}) \gets (\hat{x}_{I}, \hat{x}_{T})$ +16 return $(x_{I},x_{T})$ //Attacksucceeds + +For each image patch, we select all-black, all-white, and crossed black-and-white patches as its candidate set to simulate the perturbation behavior that illegal merchants are most likely to adopt in reality. For each word, we select its top $s$ nearest synonyms in the counter-fitted embedding space (Mrkšić et al., 2016) as its candidate set. + +For the patch $p_i$ or word $w_j$ to be replaced on sample $x^t = (x_I^t, x_T^t)$ at the $t$ -th iteration along the obtained replacement order, we greedily substitute it with the optimal candidate that has the greatest impact $\Delta P$ on the model from its candidate sets: + +$$ +\Delta P = f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t}, x _ {T} ^ {t}) - f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t + 1}, x _ {T} ^ {t + 1}), \quad (2) +$$ + +where the sample $x^{t + 1} = (x_I^{t + 1},x_T^{t + 1})$ is obtained by replacing the patch $p_i$ or word $w_{j}$ with a candidi + +
Dataset#ClassTrainTestAvg. wordsCLIPViTCLIPResALBEF
MVSA-Single33,5111,0001464.663.664.6
MVSA-Multi317,8861,0001476.673.472.0
CrisisMMD717,1261,00011895.895.389.5
+ +Table 1: The statistics on the datasets and the classification accuracy (%) of victim models on the test set. + +date on sample $x^{t}$ . Then, we sequentially substitute each patch or word with its optimal candidate according to the replacement order until we find an adversarial example successfully. + +Since some perturbed elements may have little influence on the initial adversarial examples, i.e., there are redundant perturbations, greedy substitution would result in suboptimal adversarial examples. To further reduce the perturbation while keeping adversarial, we randomly change the perturbed patches or words back to the original data. We continue this recovery operation on the resulting sample if it is still adversarial to find an optimal adversarial example. The overall algorithm of SparseMA is summarized in Algorithm 1. + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of SparseMA on three datasets and three models that are widely used. + +# 4.1 Experimental Setup + +Datasets We adopt three widely investigated datasets for vision-language multimodal classification, including MVSA-Single (Niu et al., 2016), MVSA-Multi (Niu et al., 2016) and CrisisMMD (Alam et al., 2018). MVSA-Single and MVSA-Multi are two sentiment classification datasets that contain three sentiments (positive, negative and neutral). CrisisMMD is a multimodal dataset consisting of tweets and associated images collected during seven disaster events. + +Victim Models We consider ALBEF (Li et al., 2021b) and CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) as the victim models in this work. As CLIP is an aligned model, we construct a 2-layer multilayer perceptron for predicting the target label. Additionally, we consider two different image encoders for CLIP: ViT-B/16 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) and ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), denoted as $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{ViT}}$ and $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{Res}}$ , respectively. More details of these datasets and the classification accuracy of each model are shown in Table 1. + +Baselines Since there are only a few multimodal attacks proposed recently, we select representative works from unimodal and multimodal black-box attacks as our baselines. For image adversarial attacks, we choose the state-of-the-art sparse black-box attack Sparse-RS (Croce et al., 2022). For text adversarial attacks, we choose the word-level black-box attacks PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020). For multimodal attacks, we combine Sparse-RS and PWWS to attack images and texts respectively to perform the multimodal attack, named Sp-RS&PWWS. + +Experimental Settings The side length $s$ of image patches is set to 20, and the number of iterations $N$ for random recovery is set to four times the number of perturbed elements in the initial adversarial example. To ensure high semantic similarity between adversarial texts and benign texts for SparseMA and all text baselines, we also set the number of synonyms to 4. All evaluations are conducted on 1,000 randomly sampled texts from the corresponding test set. For a fair comparison with our SparseMA, we increase the maximum number of pixels perturbed to 3,600 and decrease the number of iterations accordingly to 2,000 for Sparse-RS. + +# 4.2 Evaluation on Attack Effectiveness + +To validate the effectiveness of SparseMA, we conduct experiments for vision-language classification on three victim models using three datasets. The results, including attack success rate, multimodal similarity and the number of queries, are summarized in Table 2. + +We could observe that SparseMA achieves the highest attack success rate on 7 of 9 cases compared to all unimodal and multimodal baselines and is only slightly weaker than Sp-RS&PWWS in the other two cases. And we always generate adversarial examples that are more similar to the original samples, compared to Sp-RS&PWWS, indicating that we generate better adversarial examples. Meanwhile, the number of queries of SparseMA + +
ModelAttackMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
Succ.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.Query
CLIPViTSparse-RS70.795.391480.895.277912.995.01,840
PWWS20.996.75624.795.66010.099.164
PSO27.697.13,42729.495.43,56813.398.94,443
Sp-RS&PWWS71.894.596981.294.083817.794.41,903
SparseMA82.596.638880.096.936627.197.1557
CLIPResSparse-RS54.295.31,18467.295.29378.095.41,894
PWWS17.096.65726.296.9609.899.164
PSO20.896.53,70230.796.03,52713.399.14,446
Sp-RS&PWWS56.496.41,24069.694.299613.494.31,957
SparseMA64.596.741081.196.733624.297.6563
ALBEFSparse-RS22.196.71,66650.497.21,25830.497.21,583
PWWS22.397.75639.295.96634.499.161
PSO31.497.11,00144.696.573239.899.2999
Sp-RS&PWWS29.195.01,72161.894.91,31646.596.51,643
SparseMA40.796.642861.796.134156.398.4375
+ +Table 2: Attack success rate (Succ., %), multimodal similarity (Sim., %) and the number of queries (Query) of various attacks (image attack Sparse-RS, text attacks PWWS and PSO, and multimodal attacks Sp-RS&PWWS and SparseMA) on three models using three datasets for multimodal classification. The highest attack success rate is highlighted in bold. The second highest attack success rate is underlined. + +is lower than that of all baselines except PWWS, being about 1/3 that of the multimodal attack SpRS&PWWS. Despite the lower query number and higher similarity of PWWS, our attack success rate is significantly higher than PWWS. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that PWWS implies a better effectiveness. + +In conclusion, SparseMA achieves a higher attack success rate and similarity with a lower query number compared to the combined multimodal attack Sp-RS&PWWS, demonstrating the necessity of bridging the gap between different modalities for effective multimodal attack. These results validate the superiority of our proposed method. Moreover, we find that by perturbing only $2\%$ to $3\%$ of the top-level features, we can make the victim model output completely different predictions, thus confirming the vulnerability of the multimodal model. These discoveries suggest that the model relies heavily on these small subsets of high-level features to determine its output, but these features are highly susceptible to adversarial attacks. Therefore, improving the robustness of the model's high-level features against perturbations would be a crucial method to enhance the model's robustness. + +Then, we present two instances of adversarial examples in Figure 3. It can be seen that SparseMA adds patches to the image to generate adversarial examples, which have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world. Although the perturbations are indeed visible, they do not alter the semantics of adversarial images, which are still recognizable by humans. Additionally, SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. These evaluations demonstrate the high quality and practicality in the physical world of the adversarial examples generated by SparseMA. + +# 4.3 Vulnerability on Different Modalities + +Multimodal classifier utilizes information from various modalities to predict the classification results, which is expected to be robust to all modalities and achieves better performance. However, we find that multimodal models tend to be robust to one modality while being vulnerable to another. When attacking the robust modality, the attack performance is usually poor. In contrast, attacking the vulnerable modality would result in good attack performance. For instance, PWWS for text + +![](images/b06419648b4d9b1ff16b29858b11d3285152f7f27bdd13249e4be55186cc9425.jpg) +Figure 3: Adversarial examples generated by SparseMA and Sp-RS&PWWS on MVSA-Multi dataset. The adversarial images generated by SparseMA have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world than that of Sp-RS&PWWS. And SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. We highlight the words replaced by the attacks in Red. The corresponding original words are highlighted in Green. + +![](images/aaeb39e0630a76c251ed1458dbe098f7bde0246e3e856de9504786239e2f0974.jpg) + +
ModelMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
ImageTextBothImageTextBothImageTextBoth
CLIPViT51.03.445.260.03.636.015.015.868.9
CLIPRes58.01.041.056.02.541.017.017.864.9
ALBEF20.024.056.327.028.644.412.033.954.2
+ +attack shows poor attack performance when attacking $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{ViT}}$ model on MVSA-Multi dataset, as shown in Table 2. Conversely, Sparse-RS for image attack performs better. We believe this is due to the model over-relying on one modality while disregarding the other. To better evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of multimodal models to different modalities, we present the percentage of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both, in Table 3. + +We can see that SparseMA prefers to perturb the more vulnerable modality. For example, SparseMA perturbs more images on the $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where image attacks perform well. In addition, SparseMA tends to perturb both modalities simultaneously when the multimodal model is robust to both modalities, such as on the ALBEF model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where both image attacks and text attacks perform poorly. This demonstrates that SparseMA has discovered the vulnerability of the model and generated corresponding perturbations for the attack. It also indicates that SparseMA may be a good metric to evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of the model to different modalities. + +Table 3: Percentage (%) of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both. + +
AttackCleanBrig.Cont.Satu.Shar.
Sparse-RS70.728.030.241.532.5
Sp-RS&PWWS71.836.539.846.739.8
SparseMA82.538.940.953.445.0
+ +Table 4: Attack success rate (Succ., %) of different attacks on $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using MVSA-Multi dataset when Brightness (Brig.), Contrast (Cont.), Saturation (Satu.) or Sharpness (Shar.) varies in the real-world. + +# 4.4 Evaluation in the Real-World + +Adversarial images captured by digital devices are usually affected by physical factors, such as brightness, saturation, contrast or sharpness, etc. Thus, a good physical attack should generate perturbations that are easy to be added to images, and also be resistant to various physical factors. To evaluate the effectiveness of SparseMA in the real-world, we randomly adjust the brightness, contrast, saturation, and sharpness of the adversarial images generated by various attacks on $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using MVSA-Multi dataset to 0.5 to 1.5 times the original value. Then we evaluate their attack success rate as shown in Table 4. The results are averaged on five runs to eliminate randomness. We could observe that brightness typically has the largest effect, and sat + +
sSucc.PertIPertTSimISimTSimImageTextBothQuery
883.72.85.694.085.697.070.00.529.41,642
1283.85.15.991.684.396.866.01.432.9811
1676.37.48.189.978.596.457.03.939.6510
2080.08.76.788.781.296.960.03.636.0366
2477.310.77.386.979.896.557.05.437.9273
2878.812.87.285.179.796.756.05.039.1188
3275.415.58.082.777.195.551.06.442.6159
+ +Table 5: Attack performance and query number (Query) of SparseMA varying different side length $s$ of the patch on CLIPViT model using MVSA-Single dataset. + +uration has the least effect on all attacks. Notably, SparseMA consistently achieves the highest attack success rate among all baselines, demonstrating the practicality of SparseMA in the real-world. + +# 4.5 Parameter Study + +To investigate the impact of the hyper-parameters in SparseMA, including the side length $s$ of patches and the number of iterations $N$ for random recovery, we conduct a series of experiments on $\mathrm{CLIP}_{\mathrm{ViT}}$ model using MVSA-Single dataset. We additionally evaluate the similarity to the original samples using the Structural Similarity (SSIM) (Wang et al., 2004) for images and the Universal Sequence Encoder (USE) (Cer et al., 2018) for texts, denoted as $\mathrm{Sim_I}$ and $\mathrm{Sim_T}$ . And we adopt the perturbation rate to measure the percentage of pixels perturbed in an image or words perturbed in a text, denoted as $\mathrm{Pert_I}$ and $\mathrm{Pert_T}$ . + +On the side length of patches The side length restricts the minimum perturbation unit of images. In Table 5, we evaluate the attack performance of SparseMA using various side lengths from 8 to 32 with an interval of 4. SparseMA performs well when $s = 8$ , achieving a high attack success rate. It also has the lowest perturbation rate and the highest similarity, which prefers to perturb images individually. However, it has a high query cost for the victim model. As we increase the side length of the image patch, the attack success rate will change unpredictably. Also, increasing the patch size results in a decrease in the number of queries but an increase in the perturbation rate. Additionally, SparseMA gradually boosts its preference for text perturbations. To balance attack performance and query cost, we select an intermediate value of $s = 20$ for our experiments. + +On the number of iterations for random recovery To perform random recovery in the initial + +adversarial example with different numbers of perturbed elements, we set the number of iterations $N$ to be an integer time of the number of perturbed elements. We evaluate the final perturbation rate and multimodal similarity in final adversarial examples using various iterations from 2 to 8 times the number of perturbed elements with an interval of 2. We observe that they achieve similar perturbation rates (8.71% ~ 8.78% in images and 6.73% ~ 6.92% in texts) and similar multimodal similarity (96.91% ~ 96.94%). More iterations will result in a lower perturbation rate but more queries, so we choose an intermediate value, i.e., $N$ is four times the number of perturbed elements. + +# 5 Conclusion + +We propose a vision-language black-box adversarial attack method called Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA maps the input image and text into discrete space by splitting the image into patches and the text into words. Then it evaluates the importance of each patch or word based on its affects to the model's output. By greedily substituting important patches or words with suitable candidates, SparseMA generates adversarial examples with fewer perturbations and higher quality, which achieves a higher attack success rate than the baselines. Additionally, SparseMA can reveal the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities and concentrate on perturbing the more vulnerable ones. It could be served as a good metric to measure the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities. And it can help us better understand the multimodal model's behavior, and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks. Experiments show that the sparse perturbations generated by SparseMA are more practical in the physical world that are easier to be added + +for attackers, and perform well against real-world influences. SparseMA would be a strong baseline for future works and may inspire more researches on multimodal attacks. + +# Limitations + +SparseMA focuses on the two most typical modalities in the multimodal classification task, i.e., continuous images and discrete text. It does not take other types of modalities, such as audio and signal, into consideration. Actually, data from these modalities can also be processed by a similar sparse strategy, and then apply our method to generate adversarial examples. We will continue to investigate the potential of SparseMA in our future work. + +# Acknowledgement + +This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation (62076105, U22B2017). + +# References + +Firoj Alam, Ferda Ofli, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Crisismmd: Multimodal twitter datasets from natural disasters. In AAAI conference on web and social media. +Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11175. +Francesco Croce, Maksym Andriushchenko, Naman D Singh, Nicolas Flammarion, and Matthias Hein. 2022. Sparse-rs: a versatile framework for query-efficient sparse black-box adversarial attacks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Francesco Croce and Matthias Hein. 2019. Sparse and imperceivable adversarial attacks. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. +Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Fei-Fei Li. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. +Yinpeng Dong, Fangzhou Liao, Tianyu Pang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Xiaolin Hu, and Jianguo Li. 2018. Boosting adversarial attacks with momentum. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. + +Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ivan Evtimov, Russel Howes, Brian Dolhansky, Hamed Firooz, and Cristian Canton Ferrer. 2020. Adversarial evaluation of multimodal models under realistic gray box assumption. In ArXiv preprint. +Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. BAE: BERT-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. +Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is BERT really robust? A strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Douwe Kiela, Hamed Firooz, Aravind Mohan, Vedanuj Goswami, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, and Davide Testuggine. 2020. The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. +Dianqi Li, Yizhe Zhang, Hao Peng, Liquin Chen, Chris Brockett, Ming-Ting Sun, and Bill Dolan. 2021a. Contextualized perturbation for textual adversarial attack. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. +Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. In ArXiv preprint. +Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021b. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. + +Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2018. Deep text classification can be fooled. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Jiadong Lin, Chuanbiao Song, Kun He, Liwei Wang, and John E. Hopcroft. 2020. Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2018. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Rishabh Maheshwary, Saket Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Generating natural language attacks in a hard label black box setting. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. +Nina Narodytska and Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan. 2017. Simple black-box adversarial attacks on deep neural networks. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. +Teng Niu, Shiai Zhu, Lei Pang, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2016. Sentiment analysis on multi-view social data. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling. +Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami. 2016a. The limitations of deep learning in adversarial settings. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). +Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016b. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM IEEE Military Communications Conference. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML. + +Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In Association for Computational Linguistics. +Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Yapeng Tian and Chenliang Xu. 2021. Can audio-visual integration strengthen robustness under multimodal attacks? In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. +Nishant Vishwamitra, Hongxin Hu, Ziming Zhao, Long Cheng, and Feng Luo. 2021. Understanding and measuring robustness of multimodal learning. In ArXiv preprint. +Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. In IEEE transactions on image processing. +Karren Yang, Wan-Yi Lin, Manash Barman, Filipe Condessa, and Zico Kolter. 2021. Defending multimodal fusion models against single-source adversaries. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. +Youngjoon Yu, Hong Joo Lee, Byeong Cheon Kim, Jung Uk Kim, and Yong Man Ro. 2020. Investigating vulnerability to adversarial examples on multimodal data fusion in deep learning. In ArXiv preprint. +Zhen Yu, Xiaosen Wang, Wanxiang Che, and Kun He. 2022. Texthacker: Learning based hybrid local search algorithm for text hard-label adversarial attack. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 622-637. +Tom Zahavy, Abhinandan Krishnan, Alessandro Magnani, and Shie Mannor. 2018. Is a picture worth a thousand words? A deep multi-modal architecture for product classification in e-commerce. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. +Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiaming Zhang, Qi Yi, and Jitao Sang. 2022. Towards adversarial attack on vision-language pre-training models. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia. +Pu Zhao, Sijia Liu, Pin-Yu Chen, Nghia Hoang, Kaidi Xu, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Xue Lin. 2019. On the design of black-box adversarial examples by leveraging gradient-free optimization and operator splitting method. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/images.zip b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fcab8e07d12c78290a7df4c9511b711cf7de1eb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f4d1143ce9fb02b0634e8f056743e6a11314a0a5de7ff572815e8ce2bac19703 +size 518610 diff --git a/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/layout.json b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da8eba275bf2a2f32d43759dba8298a44ab32e9c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7611 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 67, + 431, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 67, + 431, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 67, + 431, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sparse Black-Box Multimodal Attack for Vision-Language Adversary Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Yu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Zhou Qin" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Zhenhua Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Meihui Lian" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Haojun Fu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Weigao Wen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Hui Xue" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Kun He" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 123, + 105, + 477, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1\\dagger}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 452, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 452, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 452, + 200 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 452, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 452, + 200 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 452, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Alibaba Group baidu15@hust.edu.cn, brooklet60@hust.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deep neural networks have been widely applied in real-world scenarios, such as product restrictions on e-commerce and hate speech monitoring on social media, to ensure secure governance of various platforms. However, illegal merchants often deceive the detection models by adding large-scale perturbations to prohibited products, so as to earn illegal profits. Current adversarial attacks using imperceptible perturbations encounter challenges in simulating such adversarial behavior and evaluating the vulnerabilities of detection models to such perturbations. To address this issue, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, termed Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA), which leverages sparse perturbations to simulate the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants in the black-box scenario. Moreover, SparseMA bridges the gap between images and texts by treating the separated image patches and text words uniformly in the discrete space. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA can identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, outperforming existing multimodal attacks and unimodal attacks. SparseMA, which is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks to our knowledge, would be used as an effective tool for evaluating the robustness of multimodal models to different modalities. Code is available at https://github.com/JHL-HUST/SparseMA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 154, + 641 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 154, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 628, + 154, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 292, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 292, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 649, + 292, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "With the rapid development of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), vision-language multimodal classification has been applied in various real-world applications, such as product restrictions on e-commerce (Zahavy et al., 2018) and hate speech monitoring on social media (Kiela et al., 2020), to ensure secure governance of various platforms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 211, + 524, + 325 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 211, + 524, + 325 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 211, + 524, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 211, + 524, + 325 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d2b47189c49971ae9613fafa22c02f5e70807ce6b5f299df493e5450638c676c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 375 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: An example of a prohibited drug, where some key information is smeared by the illegal merchant, which is identified as compliant by the detection model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 526, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, there are always some illegal merchants who attempt to sell prohibited goods to make illegal profits, such as illegal drugs or smuggled goods, which violate the rules and terms of platforms. Due to the lack of professional knowledge in adversarial attacks (Szegedy et al., 2014; Papernot et al., 2016b), they often adopt large-scale and sparse perturbations, including smearing and mosaicing, to deceive detection models deployed by various companies, thereby posing a significant threat to the security of platforms, as shown in Figure 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 557, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Current adversarial attacks (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Papernot et al., 2016b) typically mislead the victim model by adding imperceptible perturbations to benign samples, which can not accurately evaluate the vulnerability of detection models to the adversarial behavior exhibited by illegal merchants. In addition, prior research has mainly focused on unimodal adversarial attacks in Computer Vision (CV) (Goodfellow et al., 2015; Madry et al., 2018) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Papernot et al., 2016b; Liang et al., 2018), with little attention paid to the vulnerability of multimodal models (Yu et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021) that are more challenging but widely used in the real world. This motivates us to develop a multimodal adversarial attack that simulates physical adversarial behaviors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 244, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 244, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 244, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*The first three authors contributed equally." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5775" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5775-5784" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 805, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in the black-box scenario, which can help ensure secure governance of various platforms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Existing multimodal attacks (Evtimov et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) typically process images and texts independently due to the vastly different data attributes of the two modalities, such as continuous images vs. discrete texts. When employing different attack strategies to perturb images and texts, these methods are unable to effectively combine features from different input modalities, leading to relatively low attack performance. And these attacks run in white-box attack settings, which are almost impossible to apply to the real-world." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 253, + 291, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address the above issue and simulate the sparse perturbations commonly used by illegal merchants, we propose to map them into the same discrete space to bridge the gap between continuous images and discrete texts. And then we perturb both images and texts simultaneously using the same sparse attack strategy. Although these sparse perturbations are indeed visible, they generally do not alter the semantics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 291, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 291, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 378, + 291, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose a novel black-box multimodal attack, named Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA splits the input image into multiple patches, then evaluates the impact of each patch in the image and each word in the input text on the victim model based on the output logits. After sorting all patches and words according to their impacts, we sequentially replace the original data with suitable candidates until an adversarial example is found. Note that SparseMA only needs access to the model output, making it more feasible in the real-world than white-box attacks, which require full access to the model, including architecture, parameter, gradient, output, etc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 292, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To validate the effectiveness of the proposed SparseMA, we do comparison with one image attack, two text attacks, and two multimodal attacks on the task of vision-language multimodal classification. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SparseMA could identify the vulnerability of the model to different modalities, achieving a higher attack success rate than almost all the baselines. Moreover, SparseMA could generate better sparse adversarial examples with fewer perturbations, making them more similar to benign samples and more applicable to real-world scenarios. Through analyzing the impact of perturbations on the model's output in each modality, SparseMA can reveal the relative importance of each modal-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ity in the model's decision-making process. This information is valuable for researchers to better understand the multimodal model's behavior and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 396, + 150 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 396, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 396, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 160, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section provides a brief overview of unimodal adversarial attacks on images or texts, as well as multimodal adversarial attacks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 469, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 469, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 211, + 469, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Unimodal Adversarial Attack" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Image adversarial attacks Szegedy et al. (2014) first show the existence of adversarial examples. Subsequently, numerous works based on the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_{\\infty}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norm, including FGSM (Goodfellow et al., 2015), PGD (Madry et al., 2018), MIM (Dong et al., 2018), NIM (Lin et al., 2020), etc., are proposed to enhance the attack performance. JSMA (Papernot et al., 2016a) is the first to generate sparse perturbations by minimizing the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norm. Croce and Hein (2019) introduce the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_{0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " norm variant of PGD, known as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{PGD}_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 230, + 526, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a black-box sparse attack of CornerSearch that evaluates the saliency of each pixel based on the changes on logits. LocSearchAdv (Narodytska and Kasiviswanathan, 2017), ADMM (Zhao et al., 2019), and SparseRS (Croce et al., 2022) adopt local search, Bayes optimization, and random search algorithms, respectively, to search for the optimal sparse adversarial example in the black-box setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite the prosperity of sparse black-box attacks, they generally search for the optimal solution or evaluate the importance for each pixel, which require more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 651 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 489, + 527, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " queries on images of size (224, 224). Even if ADMM and Sparse-RS optimize the query efficiency, tens of thousands of queries are still required, making it challenging to scale to large-scale datasets, such as ImageNet (Deng et al., 2009). In this work, SparseMA splits the image into multiple patches, and does not need to process each pixel. It allows us to achieve good attack performance with only a few hundred queries." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text adversarial attacks Existing text adversarial attacks typically modify the character, word, or sentence of the benign text to maximize the loss on the ground-truth class, among which word-level attacks (Li et al., 2020; Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020; Li et al., 2021a; Maheshwary et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022) show excellent performance. PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020) greedily substitute important words with syn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5776" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 517, + 255 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 517, + 255 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 517, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 68, + 517, + 255 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "51ed8fb3b6857f89f0895b998436bd2c76cc6decec24455908ca39e6050256ea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 326 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 265, + 525, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The overall framework of the proposed SparseMA algorithm. SparseMA first splits the image into multiple sparse patches and the text into multiple words. Then it evaluates their importance based on the model output by setting each patch as all 0s or each word as [UNK], and determines the replacement order. According to the replacement order, SparseMA substitutes each element with a suitable candidate until we find an adversary. Finally, it randomly recovers the redundant substitution back to the original data, thereby reducing the perturbation size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 290, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 347, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "onyms based on the output logits. GA (Alzantot et al., 2018) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020) adopt evolutionary algorithms to search for a near-optimal text adversarial example." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 243, + 425 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 243, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 243, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Multimodal Adversarial Attack" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 290, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To the best of our knowledge, there are a few works focusing on the vulnerability of multimodal models. Yu et al. (2020), Tian and Xu (2021) and Yang et al. (2021) find that samples could be misclassified by perturbing only single modality using PGD, revealing the vulnerability of multimodal models. Evtimov et al. (2020) perturb images with PGD and texts with HotFlip (Ebrahimmi et al., 2018) to generate hateful posts that could fool multimodal models. MUROAN (Vishwamitra et al., 2021) utilizes the fusion features to decouple the input modalities and generate adversarial examples by removing salient data points. Co-Attack (Zhang et al., 2022) first perturbs the text and then perturbs the image according to the perturbed fusion features to conduct a collaborative attack on the pre-trained multimodal model to fool all downstream tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, by splitting the input image and text into multiple sparse components, SparseMA establishes a more fine-grained connection between each element rather than between the entire image and text, allowing us to generate more well-designed multimodal perturbations efficiently. To the best of our knowledge, SparseMA is the first proposed method for black-box multimodal attacks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 391, + 360 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 391, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 391, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methodology" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 367, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we first formalize the problem of multimodal adversarial attack and then provide a detailed description of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 478, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 478, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 478, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Multimodal Adversarial Attack" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given an input space " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " containing all input images and texts, and an output space " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{Y} = \\{y_1,\\ldots ,y_k\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we have a pre-trained multimodal classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f:\\mathcal{X}\\to \\mathcal{Y}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which maps the input image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{T} = w_{1}w_{2}\\dots w_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to its ground-truth label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y\\in \\mathcal{V}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The adversary adds an imperceptible perturbation on the classified sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x = (x_{I},x_{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to craft an adversarial example " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_I^*,x_T^*)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that misleads the classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 556 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to output a wrong prediction:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 565, + 475, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 565, + 475, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 565, + 475, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname *{argmax}_{y_{i}\\in \\mathcal{Y}}f(y_{i}|x_{I}^{*},x_{T}^{*})\\neq y.", + "image_path": "05ac9f4836f6270e34222c5d88d04be10966098e5da17b0bad0923666dad41a9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meanwhile, we should also guarantee the imperceptibility of adversarial perturbations. Therefore, we propose evaluating the quality of generated adversarial examples using multimodal similarity. To achieve this, we input both images and texts into pre-trained BLIP-2 (Li et al., 2023) and extract the vector of the last hidden layer as the multimodal feature vector of the sample. Then, we calculate the cosine similarity between these two vectors as the multimodal similarity. This approach provides a more comprehensive evaluation of the generated adversarial examples, taking into account both visual and textual aspects of the data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5777" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose a novel sparse black-box multimodal attack approach, named SparseMA, in which only the output score of the target model is needed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 251, + 148 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 251, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 134, + 251, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 The Proposed SparseMA Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given a benign sample that contains image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", SparseMA first splits image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into multiple patches and text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 152, + 291, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into multiple words. As illustrated in Figure 2, SparseMA consists of two main stages: i.e., replacement order determination and candidate substitution. Replacement order determination determines the importance and replacement order of each patch and word. Candidate substitution sequentially substitutes each patch or word with a suitable candidate and then optimizes the redundant substitutions by random recovery to generate an optimal adversary." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 267, + 334 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 267, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 322, + 267, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.1 Replacement Order Determination" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to map the image and text into a discrete space, we split the image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " patches " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{p_1, p_2, \\ldots, p_m\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s, s)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{w_1, w_2, \\ldots, w_n\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Intuitively, more important components with greater impact on the victim model should be replaced. To evaluate the importance of each patch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we set the patch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be all 0s, or set the word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be unknown, i.e., [UNK], to obtain a modified sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{x} = (\\hat{x}_I, x_T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_I, \\hat{x}_T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We feed it into the target model, and calculate the importance score of each patch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by examining the change of the model output:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 523, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 523, + 290, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 96, + 523, + 290, + 552 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "I \\left(p _ {i}\\right) = \\frac {f \\left(y \\mid x _ {I} , x _ {T}\\right) - f \\left(y \\mid \\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {T}\\right)}{d \\left(\\hat {x} _ {I} , x _ {I}\\right)}. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "d1c7dd158e668a218655d0840b3af697f616d03342f98be9fa59541dfeb587f1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similarly, we could obtain the importance score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I(w_{j})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of each word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " measures the impact of the unit perturbation on the victim model by taking the perturbation size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d(\\cdot, \\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " into account. It allows us to balance the choice of perturbation between image patches and text words to achieve maximum impact on the model with minimal disruption. In the end, we sort all patches and words in descending order based on the importance score as the replacement order." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 212, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 212, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 703, + 212, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2.2 Candidate Substitution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To find the suitable candidate for substitution, we pre-define candidate sets for each patch and word to ensure that the replacement operation has little impact on the semantics and similarity of samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 489, + 87 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 489, + 87 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 74, + 489, + 87 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Algorithm 1: The SparseMA Algorithm" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Input sample that contains the image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with lable " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; Target classifier " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; Number of iterations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 89, + 509, + 142 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for random recovery" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 142, + 509, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 142, + 509, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 142, + 509, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Adversarial example /* Replacement Order Determination */" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 170, + 508, + 521 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 170, + 451, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 170, + 451, + 183 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 170, + 451, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Split the image into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 170, + 451, + 183 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 170, + 451, + 183 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " patches" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 for each patch in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and each word in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 184, + 499, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 508, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 508, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 210, + 508, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Compute the importance score via Eq. 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 227, + 508, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 227, + 508, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 227, + 508, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Sort all patches and words based on the importance score in descending order /* Candidate Substitution */" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 269, + 500, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 269, + 500, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 269, + 500, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Construct the candidate set for each patch and word" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 for each element in replacement order do \n7 Replace it on the sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_I, x_T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with its optimal candidate via Eq. 2 to craft a new sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_I, x_T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n8 if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) \\neq y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 296, + 506, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n9 break" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 385, + 508, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 385, + 508, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 385, + 508, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10 if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 385, + 508, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_i \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_i | x_I, x_T) = y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 385, + 508, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n11 return None; // Attack fails" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12 for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " do \n13 Replace a randomly selected perturbed element on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_{I}, x_{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the original data to craft a new sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \n14 if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname{argmax}_{y_{i} \\in \\mathcal{Y}} f(y_{i} | \\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T}) \\neq y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " then \n15 Update " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 417, + 504, + 503 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_{I}, x_{T}) \\gets (\\hat{x}_{I}, \\hat{x}_{T})" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 507, + 508, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 507, + 508, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 507, + 508, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "16 return " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 507, + 508, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(x_{I},x_{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 507, + 508, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " //Attacksucceeds" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 526, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each image patch, we select all-black, all-white, and crossed black-and-white patches as its candidate set to simulate the perturbation behavior that illegal merchants are most likely to adopt in reality. For each word, we select its top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 526, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " nearest synonyms in the counter-fitted embedding space (Mrkšić et al., 2016) as its candidate set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the patch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be replaced on sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x^t = (x_I^t, x_T^t)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " at the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th iteration along the obtained replacement order, we greedily substitute it with the optimal candidate that has the greatest impact " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta P" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 643, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the model from its candidate sets:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 719, + 525, + 737 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 719, + 525, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 719, + 525, + 737 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta P = f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t}, x _ {T} ^ {t}) - f (y | x _ {I} ^ {t + 1}, x _ {T} ^ {t + 1}), \\quad (2)", + "image_path": "b0f73909c8b5c7f0f8cdfc040408645f01d984684086732104b061b83c30af7e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where the sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x^{t + 1} = (x_I^{t + 1},x_T^{t + 1})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is obtained by replacing the patch " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " or word " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 745, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a candidi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5778" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 138 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 138 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 138 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Dataset#ClassTrainTestAvg. wordsCLIPViTCLIPResALBEF
MVSA-Single33,5111,0001464.663.664.6
MVSA-Multi317,8861,0001476.673.472.0
CrisisMMD717,1261,00011895.895.389.5
", + "image_path": "6336779eb271625784c6ef03e149170c5ab2f74653abd88d67b17af6fbf9fc0e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 145, + 507, + 158 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 145, + 507, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 145, + 507, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: The statistics on the datasets and the classification accuracy (%) of victim models on the test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 290, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 290, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 290, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "date on sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 290, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x^{t}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 179, + 290, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then, we sequentially substitute each patch or word with its optimal candidate according to the replacement order until we find an adversarial example successfully." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 234, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since some perturbed elements may have little influence on the initial adversarial examples, i.e., there are redundant perturbations, greedy substitution would result in suboptimal adversarial examples. To further reduce the perturbation while keeping adversarial, we randomly change the perturbed patches or words back to the original data. We continue this recovery operation on the resulting sample if it is still adversarial to find an optimal adversarial example. The overall algorithm of SparseMA is summarized in Algorithm 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 155, + 409 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 155, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 155, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 290, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 290, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 418, + 290, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to validate the effectiveness of SparseMA on three datasets and three models that are widely used." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 189, + 483 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 189, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 189, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 488, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 488, + 291, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 488, + 291, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets We adopt three widely investigated datasets for vision-language multimodal classification, including MVSA-Single (Niu et al., 2016), MVSA-Multi (Niu et al., 2016) and CrisisMMD (Alam et al., 2018). MVSA-Single and MVSA-Multi are two sentiment classification datasets that contain three sentiments (positive, negative and neutral). CrisisMMD is a multimodal dataset consisting of tweets and associated images collected during seven disaster events." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victim Models We consider ALBEF (Li et al., 2021b) and CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) as the victim models in this work. As CLIP is an aligned model, we construct a 2-layer multilayer perceptron for predicting the target label. Additionally, we consider two different image encoders for CLIP: ViT-B/16 (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) and ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016), denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{Res}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. More details of these datasets and the classification accuracy of each model are shown in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 179, + 526, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baselines Since there are only a few multimodal attacks proposed recently, we select representative works from unimodal and multimodal black-box attacks as our baselines. For image adversarial attacks, we choose the state-of-the-art sparse black-box attack Sparse-RS (Croce et al., 2022). For text adversarial attacks, we choose the word-level black-box attacks PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) and PSO (Zang et al., 2020). For multimodal attacks, we combine Sparse-RS and PWWS to attack images and texts respectively to perform the multimodal attack, named Sp-RS&PWWS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experimental Settings The side length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of image patches is set to 20, and the number of iterations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for random recovery is set to four times the number of perturbed elements in the initial adversarial example. To ensure high semantic similarity between adversarial texts and benign texts for SparseMA and all text baselines, we also set the number of synonyms to 4. All evaluations are conducted on 1,000 randomly sampled texts from the corresponding test set. For a fair comparison with our SparseMA, we increase the maximum number of pixels perturbed to 3,600 and decrease the number of iterations accordingly to 2,000 for Sparse-RS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 494, + 560 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 494, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 548, + 494, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Evaluation on Attack Effectiveness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 526, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 569, + 526, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To validate the effectiveness of SparseMA, we conduct experiments for vision-language classification on three victim models using three datasets. The results, including attack success rate, multimodal similarity and the number of queries, are summarized in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We could observe that SparseMA achieves the highest attack success rate on 7 of 9 cases compared to all unimodal and multimodal baselines and is only slightly weaker than Sp-RS&PWWS in the other two cases. And we always generate adversarial examples that are more similar to the original samples, compared to Sp-RS&PWWS, indicating that we generate better adversarial examples. Meanwhile, the number of queries of SparseMA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5779" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 354 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 520, + 354 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelAttackMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
Succ.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.QuerySucc.Sim.Query
CLIPViTSparse-RS70.795.391480.895.277912.995.01,840
PWWS20.996.75624.795.66010.099.164
PSO27.697.13,42729.495.43,56813.398.94,443
Sp-RS&PWWS71.894.596981.294.083817.794.41,903
SparseMA82.596.638880.096.936627.197.1557
CLIPResSparse-RS54.295.31,18467.295.29378.095.41,894
PWWS17.096.65726.296.9609.899.164
PSO20.896.53,70230.796.03,52713.399.14,446
Sp-RS&PWWS56.496.41,24069.694.299613.494.31,957
SparseMA64.596.741081.196.733624.297.6563
ALBEFSparse-RS22.196.71,66650.497.21,25830.497.21,583
PWWS22.397.75639.295.96634.499.161
PSO31.497.11,00144.696.573239.899.2999
Sp-RS&PWWS29.195.01,72161.894.91,31646.596.51,643
SparseMA40.796.642861.796.134156.398.4375
", + "image_path": "e394eaf153a534fddad22e7160c24a21168e5b122bd1d8159fddb222ea493267.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 525, + 413 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 525, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Attack success rate (Succ., %), multimodal similarity (Sim., %) and the number of queries (Query) of various attacks (image attack Sparse-RS, text attacks PWWS and PSO, and multimodal attacks Sp-RS&PWWS and SparseMA) on three models using three datasets for multimodal classification. The highest attack success rate is highlighted in bold. The second highest attack success rate is underlined." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 432, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is lower than that of all baselines except PWWS, being about 1/3 that of the multimodal attack SpRS&PWWS. Despite the lower query number and higher similarity of PWWS, our attack success rate is significantly higher than PWWS. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that PWWS implies a better effectiveness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In conclusion, SparseMA achieves a higher attack success rate and similarity with a lower query number compared to the combined multimodal attack Sp-RS&PWWS, demonstrating the necessity of bridging the gap between different modalities for effective multimodal attack. These results validate the superiority of our proposed method. Moreover, we find that by perturbing only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the top-level features, we can make the victim model output completely different predictions, thus confirming the vulnerability of the multimodal model. These discoveries suggest that the model relies heavily on these small subsets of high-level features to determine its output, but these features are highly susceptible to adversarial attacks. Therefore, improving the robustness of the model's high-level features against perturbations would be a crucial method to enhance the model's robustness." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Then, we present two instances of adversarial examples in Figure 3. It can be seen that SparseMA adds patches to the image to generate adversarial examples, which have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world. Although the perturbations are indeed visible, they do not alter the semantics of adversarial images, which are still recognizable by humans. Additionally, SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. These evaluations demonstrate the high quality and practicality in the physical world of the adversarial examples generated by SparseMA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 504, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 504, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 504, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Vulnerability on Different Modalities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multimodal classifier utilizes information from various modalities to predict the classification results, which is expected to be robust to all modalities and achieves better performance. However, we find that multimodal models tend to be robust to one modality while being vulnerable to another. When attacking the robust modality, the attack performance is usually poor. In contrast, attacking the vulnerable modality would result in good attack performance. For instance, PWWS for text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5780" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 75, + 296, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 75, + 296, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 75, + 296, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 75, + 296, + 233 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b06419648b4d9b1ff16b29858b11d3285152f7f27bdd13249e4be55186cc9425.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 246, + 525, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 246, + 525, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 246, + 525, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Adversarial examples generated by SparseMA and Sp-RS&PWWS on MVSA-Multi dataset. The adversarial images generated by SparseMA have fewer perturbations and are easier to add for attackers in the real-world than that of Sp-RS&PWWS. And SparseMA perturbs fewer words than Sp-RS&PWWS. We highlight the words replaced by the attacks in Red. The corresponding original words are highlighted in Green." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 298, + 76, + 522, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 76, + 522, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 76, + 522, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 298, + 76, + 522, + 233 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "aaeb39e0630a76c251ed1458dbe098f7bde0246e3e856de9504786239e2f0974.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 305, + 479, + 394 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 305, + 479, + 394 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 305, + 479, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 114, + 305, + 479, + 394 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelMVSA-MultiMVSA-SingleCrisisMMD
ImageTextBothImageTextBothImageTextBoth
CLIPViT51.03.445.260.03.636.015.015.868.9
CLIPRes58.01.041.056.02.541.017.017.864.9
ALBEF20.024.056.327.028.644.412.033.954.2
", + "image_path": "e6227afbce09af680c64ae72e2405beaa5d10eabe0371155d065e708256d57ed.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "attack shows poor attack performance when attacking " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model on MVSA-Multi dataset, as shown in Table 2. Conversely, Sparse-RS for image attack performs better. We believe this is due to the model over-relying on one modality while disregarding the other. To better evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of multimodal models to different modalities, we present the percentage of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both, in Table 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can see that SparseMA prefers to perturb the more vulnerable modality. For example, SparseMA perturbs more images on the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where image attacks perform well. In addition, SparseMA tends to perturb both modalities simultaneously when the multimodal model is robust to both modalities, such as on the ALBEF model using the MVSA-Multi dataset, where both image attacks and text attacks perform poorly. This demonstrates that SparseMA has discovered the vulnerability of the model and generated corresponding perturbations for the attack. It also indicates that SparseMA may be a good metric to evaluate the vulnerability or robustness of the model to different modalities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 519, + 482 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 524, + 414 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 524, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 524, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Percentage (%) of adversarial examples generated by SparseMA that perturb only on image or text, or both." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 519, + 482 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 519, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 428, + 519, + 482 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
AttackCleanBrig.Cont.Satu.Shar.
Sparse-RS70.728.030.241.532.5
Sp-RS&PWWS71.836.539.846.739.8
SparseMA82.538.940.953.445.0
", + "image_path": "db8cf27c919d7b9e7c2c69602e45722d7dafe8abfecf2bcf0fd475775a9400d0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 524, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Attack success rate (Succ., %) of different attacks on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model using MVSA-Multi dataset when Brightness (Brig.), Contrast (Cont.), Saturation (Satu.) or Sharpness (Shar.) varies in the real-world." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 468, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 468, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 550, + 468, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Evaluation in the Real-World" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adversarial images captured by digital devices are usually affected by physical factors, such as brightness, saturation, contrast or sharpness, etc. Thus, a good physical attack should generate perturbations that are easy to be added to images, and also be resistant to various physical factors. To evaluate the effectiveness of SparseMA in the real-world, we randomly adjust the brightness, contrast, saturation, and sharpness of the adversarial images generated by various attacks on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model using MVSA-Multi dataset to 0.5 to 1.5 times the original value. Then we evaluate their attack success rate as shown in Table 4. The results are averaged on five runs to eliminate randomness. We could observe that brightness typically has the largest effect, and sat" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5781" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 191 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 191 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
sSucc.PertIPertTSimISimTSimImageTextBothQuery
883.72.85.694.085.697.070.00.529.41,642
1283.85.15.991.684.396.866.01.432.9811
1676.37.48.189.978.596.457.03.939.6510
2080.08.76.788.781.296.960.03.636.0366
2477.310.77.386.979.896.557.05.437.9273
2878.812.87.285.179.796.756.05.039.1188
3275.415.58.082.777.195.551.06.442.6159
", + "image_path": "e7fc4f2356abe8012adbb9033e94d0ad0ea9c826bf259b90fe2cf0fb9564e6cb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Attack performance and query number (Query) of SparseMA varying different side length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 225 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the patch on CLIPViT model using MVSA-Single dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "uration has the least effect on all attacks. Notably, SparseMA consistently achieves the highest attack success rate among all baselines, demonstrating the practicality of SparseMA in the real-world." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 175, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 175, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 309, + 175, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Parameter Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To investigate the impact of the hyper-parameters in SparseMA, including the side length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of patches and the number of iterations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for random recovery, we conduct a series of experiments on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CLIP}_{\\mathrm{ViT}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " model using MVSA-Single dataset. We additionally evaluate the similarity to the original samples using the Structural Similarity (SSIM) (Wang et al., 2004) for images and the Universal Sequence Encoder (USE) (Cer et al., 2018) for texts, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Sim_I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Sim_T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". And we adopt the perturbation rate to measure the percentage of pixels perturbed in an image or words perturbed in a text, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Pert_I}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{Pert_T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the side length of patches The side length restricts the minimum perturbation unit of images. In Table 5, we evaluate the attack performance of SparseMA using various side lengths from 8 to 32 with an interval of 4. SparseMA performs well when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s = 8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", achieving a high attack success rate. It also has the lowest perturbation rate and the highest similarity, which prefers to perturb images individually. However, it has a high query cost for the victim model. As we increase the side length of the image patch, the attack success rate will change unpredictably. Also, increasing the patch size results in a decrease in the number of queries but an increase in the perturbation rate. Additionally, SparseMA gradually boosts its preference for text perturbations. To balance attack performance and query cost, we select an intermediate value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s = 20" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "On the number of iterations for random recovery To perform random recovery in the initial" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "adversarial example with different numbers of perturbed elements, we set the number of iterations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to be an integer time of the number of perturbed elements. We evaluate the final perturbation rate and multimodal similarity in final adversarial examples using various iterations from 2 to 8 times the number of perturbed elements with an interval of 2. We observe that they achieve similar perturbation rates (8.71% ~ 8.78% in images and 6.73% ~ 6.92% in texts) and similar multimodal similarity (96.91% ~ 96.94%). More iterations will result in a lower perturbation rate but more queries, so we choose an intermediate value, i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 246, + 526, + 435 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is four times the number of perturbed elements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 381, + 463 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 381, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 381, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose a vision-language black-box adversarial attack method called Sparse Multimodal Attack (SparseMA). SparseMA maps the input image and text into discrete space by splitting the image into patches and the text into words. Then it evaluates the importance of each patch or word based on its affects to the model's output. By greedily substituting important patches or words with suitable candidates, SparseMA generates adversarial examples with fewer perturbations and higher quality, which achieves a higher attack success rate than the baselines. Additionally, SparseMA can reveal the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities and concentrate on perturbing the more vulnerable ones. It could be served as a good metric to measure the vulnerability of multimodal models to different modalities. And it can help us better understand the multimodal model's behavior, and enhance its robustness against adversarial attacks. Experiments show that the sparse perturbations generated by SparseMA are more practical in the physical world that are easier to be added" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5782" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for attackers, and perform well against real-world influences. SparseMA would be a strong baseline for future works and may inspire more researches on multimodal attacks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 131, + 148 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 131, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 136, + 131, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 291, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SparseMA focuses on the two most typical modalities in the multimodal classification task, i.e., continuous images and discrete text. It does not take other types of modalities, such as audio and signal, into consideration. Actually, data from these modalities can also be processed by a similar sparse strategy, and then apply our method to generate adversarial examples. We will continue to investigate the potential of SparseMA in our future work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 290, + 166, + 305 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 290, + 166, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 290, + 166, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 312, + 289, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation (62076105, U22B2017)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 363, + 127, + 375 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 363, + 127, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 363, + 127, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 290, + 427 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 290, + 427 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 382, + 290, + 427 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Firoj Alam, Ferda Ofli, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Crisismmd: Multimodal twitter datasets from natural disasters. In AAAI conference on web and social media." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 437, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 437, + 291, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 437, + 291, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 291, + 557 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 291, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 502, + 291, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, et al. 2018. Universal sentence encoder. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.11175." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 291, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 291, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Francesco Croce, Maksym Andriushchenko, Naman D Singh, Nicolas Flammarion, and Matthias Hein. 2022. Sparse-rs: a versatile framework for query-efficient sparse black-box adversarial attacks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 631, + 290, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Francesco Croce and Matthias Hein. 2019. Sparse and imperceivable adversarial attacks. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 291, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Fei-Fei Li. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinpeng Dong, Fangzhou Liao, Tianyu Pang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Xiaolin Hu, and Jianguo Li. 2018. Boosting adversarial attacks with momentum. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 526, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 526, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. HotFlip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 525, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 223, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Evtimov, Russel Howes, Brian Dolhansky, Hamed Firooz, and Cristian Canton Ferrer. 2020. Adversarial evaluation of multimodal models under realistic gray box assumption. In ArXiv preprint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 525, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 525, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. BAE: BERT-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 330, + 525, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 525, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 437, + 525, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is BERT really robust? A strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 502, + 525, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Douwe Kiela, Hamed Firooz, Aravind Mohan, Vedanuj Goswami, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, and Davide Testuggine. 2020. The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 525, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 576, + 525, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dianqi Li, Yizhe Zhang, Hao Peng, Liquin Chen, Chris Brockett, Ming-Ting Sun, and Bill Dolan. 2021a. Contextualized perturbation for textual adversarial attack. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pretraining with frozen image encoders and large language models. In ArXiv preprint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junnan Li, Ramprasaath Selvaraju, Akhilesh Gotmare, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Chu Hong Hoi. 2021b. Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5783" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 127, + 289, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 127, + 289, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 127, + 289, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bin Liang, Hongcheng Li, Miaoqiang Su, Pan Bian, Xirong Li, and Wenchang Shi. 2018. Deep text classification can be fooled. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 238 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiadong Lin, Chuanbiao Song, Kun He, Liwei Wang, and John E. Hopcroft. 2020. Nesterov accelerated gradient and scale invariance for adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 289, + 305 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 289, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 250, + 289, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. 2018. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 360 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 317, + 289, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rishabh Maheshwary, Saket Maheshwary, and Vikram Pudi. 2021. Generating natural language attacks in a hard label black box setting. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 289, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 289, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 372, + 289, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nikola Mrkšić, Diarmuid Řeaghdha, Blaise Thomson, Milica Gašić, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Steve Young. 2016. Counter-fitting word vectors to linguistic constraints. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 289, + 506 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 289, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 461, + 289, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nina Narodytska and Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan. 2017. Simple black-box adversarial attacks on deep neural networks. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 517, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 517, + 289, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 517, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Teng Niu, Shiai Zhu, Lei Pang, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2016. Sentiment analysis on multi-view social data. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 573, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 573, + 289, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 573, + 289, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Somesh Jha, Matt Fredrikson, Z Berkay Celik, and Ananthram Swami. 2016a. The limitations of deep learning in adversarial settings. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 289, + 683 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 289, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 640, + 289, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, Ananthram Swami, and Richard Harang. 2016b. Crafting adversarial input sequences for recurrent neural networks. In MILCOM IEEE Military Communications Conference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 764 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 24, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian J. Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2014. Intriguing properties of neural networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 187, + 524, + 231 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 187, + 524, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 187, + 524, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yapeng Tian and Chenliang Xu. 2021. Can audio-visual integration strengthen robustness under multimodal attacks? In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 283 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nishant Vishwamitra, Hongxin Hu, Ziming Zhao, Long Cheng, and Feng Luo. 2021. Understanding and measuring robustness of multimodal learning. In ArXiv preprint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 524, + 336 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 524, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 290, + 524, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. In IEEE transactions on image processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 524, + 397 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 524, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 343, + 524, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karren Yang, Wan-Yi Lin, Manash Barman, Filipe Condessa, and Zico Kolter. 2021. Defending multimodal fusion models against single-source adversaries. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 524, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 406, + 524, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Youngjoon Yu, Hong Joo Lee, Byeong Cheon Kim, Jung Uk Kim, and Yong Man Ro. 2020. Investigating vulnerability to adversarial examples on multimodal data fusion in deep learning. In ArXiv preprint." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 524, + 513 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 524, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 457, + 524, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhen Yu, Xiaosen Wang, Wanxiang Che, and Kun He. 2022. Texthacker: Learning based hybrid local search algorithm for text hard-label adversarial attack. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 622-637." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 524, + 576 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 524, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 520, + 524, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Zahavy, Abhinandan Krishnan, Alessandro Magnani, and Shie Mannor. 2018. Is a picture worth a thousand words? A deep multi-modal architecture for product classification in e-commerce. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 638 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuan Zang, Fanchao Qi, Chenghao Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Meng Zhang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Word-level textual adversarial attacking as combinatorial optimization. In Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 645, + 524, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 645, + 524, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 645, + 524, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaming Zhang, Qi Yi, and Jitao Sang. 2022. Towards adversarial attack on vision-language pre-training models. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 698, + 524, + 764 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 698, + 524, + 764 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 698, + 524, + 764 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pu Zhao, Sijia Liu, Pin-Yu Chen, Nghia Hoang, Kaidi Xu, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Xue Lin. 2019. On the design of black-box adversarial examples by leveraging gradient-free optimization and operator splitting method. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5784" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_content_list.json b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54c03c4fec119a419eb0e97886d385e8171ea7d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1477 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 79, + 868, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Guorui Yu $^{1}$ , Yimin Hu $^{1}$ , Yuejie Zhang $^{1}$ , Rui Feng $^{1}$ , Tao Zhang $^{2}$ , Shang Gao $^{3}$", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 124, + 831, + 142 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Sch. of Comp. Sci, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 142, + 843, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Sch. of Inf. Manag. & Eng, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Financial Information Technology,", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 175, + 877, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, $^{3}$ Sch. of Inf. Tech, Deakin University 21210240409@m.fudan.edu.cn, {20210240283, yjzhang, fengrui}@fudan.edu.cn, taozhang@mail.shufe.edu.cn, shang.gao@deakin.edu.au", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 192, + 863, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generating paragraph captions for untrimmed videos without event annotations is challenging, especially when aiming to enhance precision and minimize repetition at the same time. To address this challenge, we propose a module called Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG). It dynamically groups event information with the help of action information for the entire video and excludes redundant frames within pre-defined clips. To enhance the performance, an Intra-Contrastive Learning technique is designed to align the SFG module with the core event content in the paragraph, and an Inter-Contrastive Learning method is employed to learn action-guided context with reduced static noise simultaneously. Extensive experiments are conducted on two benchmark datasets (ActivityNet Captions and YouCook2). Results demonstrate that SFG outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on all metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 277, + 460, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 571, + 258, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Video Paragraph Captioning for untrimmed video aims to describe multiple events in the video with three or four sentences. Initially, the focus was on describing each event with a single sentence in a long video (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) (J. Mun and Han, 2019), until (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) proposed to directly generate paragraph captions without event ground truths. This refined approach to paragraph captioning is more practical but also more challenging. Firstly, without event labels, it becomes difficult to precisely locate the transitions between different events and to summarize the complete story from a holistic perspective. Secondly, most prior studies generated one sentence for each event, whereas paragraph captioning without event ground truths requires generating sentences that are two or three times longer. This naturally exacerbates issues of redundancy and repetition. Our work focuses on video paragraph captioning without event annotations as shown in Fig. 1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 596, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/60256c01d741d456e071cff2bd02884d060db1555312ade0fd5e53473ba1709f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Comparison of SFG with traditional methods." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 559, + 252, + 806, + 410 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a common frame sampling strategy in most existing works, random sampling method randomly selects one frame every one or two seconds. The hypothesis of previous works is that the frames in one second are highly similar, so random sampling does not result in significant information loss. However, actions often occur rapidly, such as within a one-second time frame, and usually lead changes to events. Random sampling may miss crucial action frames that occur quickly and retain many similar frames as noise. According to (J. Lei and Mohit, 2022), one or two key frames are sufficient to capture important content, and the \"redundant\" frames can be neglected in an action clip. In this way, we can learn the visual content from a small number of frames that contain critical information.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 466, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, our objective is to learn event distributions guided by action frames, and utilize them as estimations for event locations, enabling us to construct comprehensive paragraph stories by incorporating these momentary yet important actions. Considering the impracticality of including all frames (often averaging hundreds) into the analysis, it becomes essential to find an effective way for frame selection and information grouping. Our work specifically focuses on action-driven video paragraph captioning. It tackles the captioning task by utilizing sparse frames and refined video an", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14571", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14571-14580 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 788, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "chors with action visual representation. No event annotation or any other additional information is used except for the video and paragraph captions, thereby ensuring the practicality of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose our vanilla model based on the Transformer architect (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). A new grouping module, named Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG), is introduced. It uses a set of designed anchors as queries to select and group useful frames. The objective is to extract two types of content from the video: event distributions and action changes between adjacent frames. The idea is to progressively estimate the actual event distributions by grouping visually similar video frames using these designed anchors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 154, + 489, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "At each encoder layer, SFG is first applied to every two frames and selects one informative frame, where anchors are random frames. As a result, a sequence of sparse and important video frames are obtained, instead of using the randomly sampled ones. This process is referred to as clip-level SFG. Next, SFG is employed to group event context across the entire video. Video anchors are initialized using triplets of ground truths during the training phase. The objective is to ensure that the anchors capture the action-driven event distributions in the video, while the triplets provide a concise representation of the main action content in the sentences. This process is referred to as video-level SFG. At this stage, the video anchors are updated by grouping the newly selected frames. The remaining steps follow the standard transformer computation. In the decoder, we modify the cross-attention mechanism by attending video anchors in the video-level SFG additionally. The weighted anchors, along with the weighted video frames, guide the decoder to generate each word at each decoding step.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 335, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To train SFG without using event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique. The objective is to ensure that the video anchors are close to their relevant event contents in the video. This process naturally involves contrastive learning between anchors and paragraph. The challenge is that the embedding of the entire paragraph contains excessive noise for the video anchors which are intended to represent the center of events. What we aim to learn is a summary of the event context within the paragraph, while disregarding those static descriptions that are not relevant to the actions in our video anchors. We modify the positive contrastive pair from", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "visual-paragraph to visual-triplets, while the negative pairs consist of unmatched pairs within the batch. For each sentence in the paragraph, triplet $(s,v,o)$ (Sec. 3.2) is extracted and the embeddings of all triplets are averaged. This contrastive learning approach is referred to as Intra-Contrastive Learning, and its purpose is to minimize the distance between the overall video anchors and the paragraphs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, it is crucial to differentiate the video anchors from other visual contents in the video. The Inter-Contrastive Learning method takes the left video representation as a negative visual part. It requires the distance between the video anchors and the triplet embeddings is at least smaller than the distance from the negative visual part to the triplet embeddings. We conduct experiments on ActivityNet Caption and YouCook2 datasets. The results demonstrate that our model outperforms the state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods when evaluated using the event ground truths on both datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 230, + 884, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The contributions of this work are as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 424, + 867, + 439 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "(1) We propose a Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) module to estimate event locations and catch action-driven visual content. It operates at both the short clips and the whole video levels without relying on event annotations, thereby enhancing the practicality of video paragraph captioning.", + "(2) We build an Intra- and Intro-contrastive loss for SFG training. It helps the model focus more on learning event distribution rather than other noisy contextual information, reducing redundancy and improving precision of the captions.", + "(3) Our model achieves SOTA results on benchmark datasets ActivityNet and YouCook2, outperforming even the methods using event annotations." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 882, + 668 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 682, + 660, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dense Video Captioning As a multi-modal task, it has attracted much attention. Popular categorization of dense video captioning falls into three: predicting event location and sentences, solely predicting sentences with event annotations, and predicting paragraphs without event annotations. In this paper, our focus falls into the third category. (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) is the first adopting transformer to decode sentences and create differentiable masks for the consistency between proposals and captions. (J. Mun and Han, 2019) used a pointer network to select possible event proposals from candidates and to recurrently generate sen", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14572", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tence for each event. (T. Wang and Luo, 2021) firstly tackled this task as a parallel multitask. Localization and caption generation are predicted at the same time using a DETR scheme. (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019) adopted adversarial inference to evaluate the paragraph quality. (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) proposed a memory module in decoder to remove redundant visual and text information dynamically. These prior studies all rely on event annotations. (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) focused on reducing redundancy using an adding and erasing module at each decoding step without event annotations. However, little attention have been paid to video redundancy itself at the encoder stage. In our work, we aim to address this issue by tackling it from the initial frame selection stage and capturing the core action content of the video.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Video Action Understanding Action localization in video is an important task for video understanding. (Yeung et al., 2016) and (Zhou et al., 2018) utilized reinforce learning to dynamically determine the next frame. (Z. Yuan and Gangshan, 2021) proposed to sample motion from cumulative distribution. (B. Korbar and Torresani, 2019) proposed to understand video only through some salient clips which were ranked and selected for further understanding. (Gowda et al., 2021) selected single frame and utilized high level feature for video classification. The previous works seldom combine the two modalities (visual and text) together. Our work utilizes both to better select key frames.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 489, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 614, + 226, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The proposed Sparse Frame Grouping Network is shown in Fig. 2. It consists of three modules: clip-level SFG, video-level SFG, and Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning. Together with the vanilla transformer, these modules generate action-driven and event annotation-free paragraphs. In this section, the vanilla transformer is first described, followed by the introduction to the three modules.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 489, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Vanilla Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 784, + 272, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given an untrimmed video $V = \\{v_{1},\\dots,v_{n}\\}$ , $v_{i} \\in R^{d_{v}}$ , where $v_{i}$ is the $i$ -th video frame representation (referred to as frame hereafter), $n$ is the total number of frames in $V$ , and $d_{v}$ is the dimension of video frame. The video paragraph captioning task aims to describe the content of $V$ with a paragraph $Y = \\{y_{1},\\dots,y_{k}\\}$ , $y_{j} \\in R^{d_{w}}$ , where $y_{j}$ is the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 921 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$j$ -th word in the $k$ length paragraph, and $d_w$ is the dimension of word embeddings. Here we build our vanilla model based on the transformer structure, following the approach described in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) and (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). The encoder transformer $E$ is used to learn the video representation $V_e$ from video input $V$ and the decoder transformer $D$ generates the captions conditioned on $V_e$ . Specifically, we first adopt $N$ -layer transformer encoder to model the long range interactions:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV _ {i + 1} = F F N \\left(V _ {i} + M u l t i H e a d \\left(V _ {i}, V _ {i}, V _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 296, + 882, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $V_{i}$ is the output of $i$ -th transformer layer. $FFN()$ and MultiHead() denote feed-forward network and multi-head attention as in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). For the decoder, we first use the masked multi-head self attention (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) to model the hidden states of the last layer, then we introduce cross attention to fuse the text modality and the visual modality. For cross attention, we use the text embeddings at each decoding step as the query, and $V_{n}$ from the last layer of the encoder as key and value, so that each word can be generated based on the previously predicted words and the attended video contents. The vanilla model is trained typically by the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) loss:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 331, + 884, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {m l e} = - \\frac {1}{T} \\sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \\log p \\left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \\mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 588, + 882, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {m l e} = - \\frac {1}{T} \\sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \\log p \\left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \\mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 656, + 882, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $V_{e}$ is conditioned video representation. $y_{t}^{*}$ is the predicted word at the $t$ -th step and $T$ is the length of caption. Without event segment annotations, there are three challenges in video paragraph captioning. Firstly, directly decoding the entire video usually leads to confusion in recognizing clear contexts and decoding each into word output. Secondly, the random frame sampling strategy results in the loss of essential key information, affecting the decoder's ability to catch action changes and decode precise words. Lastly, the MLE loss tends to generate high frequency and repetitive words in previous steps.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14573", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6a227b6c84744eaf05ee9bf4b88bff8c0c17bdba5e46f2a278289f568400a969.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overview of SFG Network. (a) Architect of the network. SFG is applied at both the clip and video level in every encoder layer. The decoder dynamically generates words based on previous video anchors and selected video frames. Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning is introduced for video anchor training. (b) Detail of SFG." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 154, + 80, + 559, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6c73fe8ce8876e6ebef031ee15ad84ddc91c6bcb2cf2d9fd1602fe8718d9cdbb.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 559, + 80, + 838, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Progressive Grouping Transformer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 435, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Fig. 2(a), based on the vanilla transformer (Sec.3.1), instead of directly feeding all the video frames into the transformer encoder, we incorporate the clip-level sparse frame grouping (SFG) module and video-level grouping module prior to each transformer layer, denoted as $SFG_{clip}$ and $SFG_{video}$ . We employ dynamic tokens, known as anchors, to selectively choose useful frames from the input or the previous transformer layer. The objective of these modules is to obtain a set of sparse video frames and a collection of video anchors that can learn event distributions dynamically.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 461, + 489, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, we take the $l$ -th transformer layer as an example and have the video frames $V^l$ as the input. Firstly, we randomly select one frame from every two frames as anchors for $SFG_{clip}$ as $V^{l_1} = SFG_{clip}(V^l,A_{clip}^l)$ , where $A_{clip}^l$ represents anchors at the clip level. $V^{l_1}$ is the half length of the input frames. To help SFG learn the action-driven event context, we initialize the video level frames via triplet embeddings. Assuming that triplets highly summarize the main contents of the sentence in captions, we extract one triplet (L. Wang and Svetlana, 2016) from each sentence and project it to the same latent space as the video frames through linear projection. E.g., one triplet from a sentence is $< s,v,o>$ , which can", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 675, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "be embedded as $\\{y_s, y_{v1}, \\dots, y_{vk}, y_o\\}$ . $y_s$ is subject, $y_{v1}, \\dots, y_{vk}$ is one verb or verb phrase, and $y_o$ is object. We sum the word embeddings in the triplet and project them to the video representation space: $a_i^l = \\text{Linear}(\\sum y_{\\text{triplet}})$ , $a_i^l \\in R^{d_v}$ is one anchor among the video anchors. By initializing the left video anchors and setting the number of anchors to be equal to the number of sentences in the captions, the anchors can effectively group the content with action-related visual features and learn the event distributions through different anchors. We get the updated video anchors $A_{video}^{l+1}$ and the selected video frames via:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 432, + 884, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nI ^ {l}, A _ {\\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l + 1} = S F G _ {\\text {v i d e o}} \\left(V ^ {l _ {1}}, A _ {\\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l}\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 651, + 882, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV ^ {l + 1} = \\text {T r a n s f r o m e r L a y e r} (V ^ {l _ {1}}), \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 683, + 882, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $I^l$ is the outcome of $\\text{ArgMax}$ , which is the index of center frames at this stage. We adopt the video frames selected by $SFG_{clip}$ and forward them to $l$ -th transformer layer. With the stacked encoder transformer layers and SFG modules, we get a set of sparse video frames with fewer redundant frames and the most representative anchors. These anchors already group the core content of the events in the video.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Sparse Frame Grouping Block", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 794, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Fig. 2(b), SFG utilizes the dynamic anchors to select the center frames for each anchor", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14574", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and group action-driven event content around the updated anchors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, we take anchors $A = \\{a_1, \\dots, a_m\\}$ , $a_i \\in R^{d_v}$ as the query, and the video frames $V$ as the key and value pairs to compute the weights of video frames. To select target frames, we change the original SoftMax to $ArgMax$ and weight matrix to one-hot matrix. Then we select the center frames and obtain the updated anchors $\\hat{A}$ through the $ArgMax$ function:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 117, + 489, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {A} = A + \\operatorname {A r g M a x} (A \\times V) \\times V, \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 256, + 487, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $A$ represents the anchors discussed in Sec. 3.2. However, the one-hot matrix from $ArgMax$ is not differentiable. We further use Gumbel SoftMax (E. Jang and Ben, 2016) and transform Eq. 6 as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 286, + 487, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {A} = A + \\frac {\\exp (A \\times V + \\beta)}{\\sum \\exp (A \\times V + \\beta)} \\times V, \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 374, + 487, + 409 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\hat{A}$ represents the updated anchors. $\\beta$ is sampled from the $Gumble(0,1)$ distribution to ensure that SFG can merge the video event information progressively during the training phase.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 487, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 431, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We obtain a sparse video representation $V_{e}$ with significantly fewer frames compared to the raw video and a set of event context anchors after encoding. To effectively train the proposed video anchors, especially in the absence of event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning technique. This technique enables the learning of event context, which is mainly action context-driven. Specially, we first employ intra-video contrastive learning to minimize the distance between the representation of dynamic anchors $A$ and the text representation. However, the ground truth information may contain noise. For example, grouping frames should not include an excessive number of static or descriptive words such as color, position and background. We aim to extract some confined context from the captions that includes action description while excluding the \"unimportant\" words. Therefore, triplets are used (Sec.3.2). Assuming that short triplets highly summarize the main contents of the video, we denote the positive pair as $< \\overline{A},\\overline{T} >$ , where $\\overline{A}$ is the average of anchor representation and $\\overline{T}$ is the average of triplet embeddings. The unmatched pairs in the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "batch are negative pairs. The Intra-contrastive loss $L_{intra} = L_{a \\to t} + L_{t \\to a}$ is as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {a \\rightarrow t} = \\frac {1}{T _ {b}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\bar {A _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {T _ {i}}\\right) / \\tau}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\exp \\left(\\bar {A _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {T _ {j}}\\right) / \\tau}, \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 127, + 882, + 170 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {t \\rightarrow a} = \\frac {1}{T _ {b}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\bar {T _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {A _ {i}}\\right) / \\tau}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\exp \\left(\\bar {T _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {A _ {j}}\\right) / \\tau}, \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 522, + 181, + 882, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $T_{b}$ is the batch size. We use dot production to measure the similarity between $A$ and $T$ . The loss aims to ensure that all the anchors capture similar contextual information as the possible events described in the captions. However, to reduce redundancy in the generated captions, we also need to secure that the video anchors learn less static noise. Therefore, we further apply Inter-Contrastive Learning to guarantee that the video anchors are at least closer to the triplet embeddings compared to the surrounding visual features. For negative pairs, we select the frames that are not chosen by $SFG_{video}$ in the last transformer encoder layer, which is $A_{n} = (1 - I^{L})\\times V$ . Thus the negative visual pair becomes $< \\overline{A_n},\\overline{T} >$ . The positive pair in the Inter-Constrastive Learning is the same as that in the Intra-Contrastive Learning. The Inter-contrastive loss is as below:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 230, + 884, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {i n t e r} = \\max \\left(\\bar {A ^ {p}} \\cdot \\bar {T} - \\bar {A ^ {n}} \\cdot \\bar {T} + \\sigma , 0\\right), \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 532, + 882, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\sigma$ is a margin constant. This inter-video loss helps distinguish the representation of video anchors from the other parts of the video. The total training loss is:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 562, + 880, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL o s s = L _ {m l e} + \\lambda_ {1} L _ {i n t r a} + \\lambda_ {2} L _ {i n t e r}, \\tag {11}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 539, + 639, + 882, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\lambda_{1}$ and $\\lambda_{2}$ are loss weights over zero.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 668, + 835, + 684 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 696, + 655, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets and Implementation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 721, + 786, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets and Evaluation Metrics: All the experiments are conducted on two widely used benchmark datasets, i.e., ActivityNet Captions(K. Ranjay and Juan, 2017) and YouCook2(L. Zhou and J, 2018). For fair comparison, we use four mainstream evaluation metrics, including BLEU-4 (B@4), METEOR, CIDER and R@4. A higher score for any metric indicates better performance in captioning. Besides, we evaluate repetition using R@4, following the previous work in (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019). A lower R@4 score indicates", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14575", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "better performance, suggesting less repetition in the paragraph caption.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Implementation Details: For visual features, we utilize the video features extracted by ResNet-200 and BNInception, as provided by (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). The length of video anchors is set to 10 for ActivityNet Captions and 14 for YouCook2. In the inference phase, random frames are used to initialize the video anchors for $SFG_{video}$ . For text features, words are initialized using Glove embeddings. Text is limited to 60 words. Empirically, the loss weight $\\lambda_1$ is set to 1 and $\\lambda_2$ to 0.5. The batch size is 32. Greedy decoding is adopted which is comparable to beam search.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 117, + 489, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Comparison with SOTA Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 328, + 421, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Tab. 1, we compare our model with SOTA methods on ActivityNet Captions. These methods can be divided into two categories: (1) inferring without event annotations, including TDPC (CVPR21) (Y. Song and Jin, 2021); (2) with annotations, including VTrans (CVPR18) (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018), MFT (ECCV18) (Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018), GVD (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), GVDsup (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), AdvInf (CVPR19) (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019), Transformer-XL (ACL19) (Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019), MART (ACL20) (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020), PDVC (ICCV21) (T. Wang and Luo, 2021). It is worth noting that GVD, GVDsup and AdvInf adopt additional object features to align the descriptions and objects in the video. Naturally stronger feature leads to impressive performance. However, our model outperforms them, regardless of whether the object features are integrated or event annotations are used.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 353, + 489, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Without the event ground truths, our model still achieves the best performance on B@4, Meteor and CIDER with a relative improvement of $3.7\\%$ , $6.5\\%$ and $5.9\\%$ respectively compared to PDVC (on ActivityNet ae-val). The uplift is achieved even with fewer frames and no event annotations. While TDPC also utilizes key frames, it relies on the pretrained model to reconstruct the common representation space between text and video. It should be the strong prior knowledge in our model that makes the generation more precise. Additionally, TDPC tends to generate shorter sentences, which may result in lower METEOR score for AdvInf. This could be attributed to TDPC encoding all frames directly and overlooking event distributions in the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "video. TDPC may learn the fragmented information scattered throughout the frames. In contrast, our model makes more efforts to address this problem, resulting in more action-driven and organized descriptions. The uplift in METEOR score serves as evidence of a preference for longer sentences in our approach.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tab. 2 shows the performance on YouCook2 validation set. Our method achieves the SOTA performance, demonstrating a significant improvement over the other methods across all the metrics. Also, YouCook2 contains a large number of events, which highlights the importance of event distributions for caption generation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 199, + 885, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Ablation Studies", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 328, + 685, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To verify the effectiveness of the proposed grouping module and loss, we conduct ablation studies on ActivityNet.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 351, + 882, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effects of SFG As shown in Tab. 3, Vanilla is the baseline with MLE loss. Vanilla + $SFG_{clip}$ refers to only $SFG_{clip}$ is used in every layer of the encoder transformer. Vanilla + $SFG_{video} + L_{intra} + L_{inter}$ is the complete module for our video-level SFG. The last row is the full model. The experiments report that: (1) $SFG_{clip}$ contributes to a reduction in repetition, as indicated by the improvement in R@4. R@4 is improved by $38\\%$ and by $59\\%$ in rows 1 & 2 and rows 5 & 6. This suggests that the dynamic frame sampling performed by $SFG_{clip}$ not only benefits the selection of informative frame, but also results in a sparse video representation, reducing the redundancy from the video side; (2) for $SFG_{video}$ in row 5, there are considerable improvements in the precision and repetition. This indicates the video anchors indeed learn to estimate the video content, reducing the static noise and, consequently the redundancy.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 884, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effects of Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Loss In Tab. 3, *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Lintera* refers to only *SFGvideo* is used in every encoder layer with *Lossintra*. *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Linter* is to verify whether the distinction of anchors alone is sufficient to summarize the event distribution in the video, without the supervision of triplets. From the results, it can be concluded that *Lossintra* has a greater impact on improving the model precision (B@4, METEOR and R@4), while *Lossinter* significantly reduces R@4. Specifically, when comparing with row 2, row 3 (*Lossintra* + *SFGvideo*) has improvements in B@4, METEOR and CIDER", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14576", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5fbac580edae04db50c449bc893d540ed90c2e0216966d42d7f16431d42bde78.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Performance Comparison on ActivityNet. ae-val. $V$ , $F$ , $O$ : visual, flow and obj features. \\*: utilizing stronger features. The italic number means they are significant in hypothesis testing," + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelEvent AnnotationFeaturesae-valae-test
TrainInferB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓B@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
HSE(B. Zhang and Sha, 2018)YYV9.8413.7818.7813.22----
VTrans(L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018)YYV+F9.7515.6422.167.799.3115.5421.337.45
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)YYV+F10.3915.0921.678.5410.2514.9121.718.79
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)YYV+F10.3315.6823.425.189.7815.5722.165.44
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YYV+F11.8015.9327.27-----
GVD(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.0415.7121.958.7610.5015.6021.60-
GVDsup(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.3016.4122.947.0410.7016.1022.20-
AdvInf(P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019)YYV+F+O10.0416.6020.975.76----
MFT(Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018)YNV+F8.4514.7514.1517.59----
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YNV+F10.2415.8020.45-----
TDPC*(Y. Song and Jin, 2021)NNV+F----12.2016.1027.362.63
VanillaNNV+F11.2315.3425.237.3810.8715.2125.128.23
OursNNV+F12.2416.9728.892.5112.2116.6228.542.53
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 122, + 884, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/920d9490cc4ecf994e4e79b757584bd6931626eaa558403b607943b0af984f38.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Performance Comparison on YouCook2." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
VTrans(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)7.6215.6532.267.83
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)6.5614.7626.356.30
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)8.0015.9035.744.39
Vanilla7.5415.3232.465.89
Ours8.5316.2439.274.12
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 344, + 485, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f32f4f0e0a8d84e6d528aa6d24e249be2867a3dd1c00a11a2798b3fadc398f50.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Ablation Studies." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
IndexModelB@4METEORCIDERR@4
1Vanilla11.2315.3425.237.38
2Vanilla+SFGclip11.3915.4925.905.34
3Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera11.4215.9026.765.89
4Vanilla+SFGvideo+Linter11.5816.0027.064.67
5Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera+Linter11.7116.3028.213.98
6blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8316.4128.543.90
7blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8016.5428.673.20
8Vanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera+Lintera12.2416.9728.892.51
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 454, + 485, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "by $0.3\\%$ , $3.0\\%$ and $3.3\\%$ respectively, except for $\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}$ which is increased. We speculate that the increase in $\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}$ may be due to the absence of $SFG_{clip}$ , but the precision benefits from the supervision of $Loss_{intra}$ , which is similar to the representation of triplets in the captions. As for $Loss_{inter}$ , it boosts all the metrics, especially $\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}$ , suggesting that $Loss_{inter}$ helps video anchors exclude many static visual content and reduce repetition.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 564, + 487, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effect of Anchor Number During the training phase, the initialization of the video anchors are only related to triplets from captions. However, during the testing phase, we currently select one frame at regular intervals from the video as an anchor. The difference is that the tokens in SFG are predefined in terms of quantity, and a random frame is used as the initial value. We conduct further analysis to determine the optimal number of anchors for the clip-level and video-level SFGs. As shown in Tab. 5, clip-level refers to setting one anchor for every 2/3 video frames, while video-level refers to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9e6bdc265721ae549d67e0890b5c78f6e14e5d9a1d7386962e874f675ca44a27.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: Effects of Anchor Position in Testing Phase." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
anchor positionB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
random sample10.315.828.563.12
uniform sample12.2416.9728.892.51
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 344, + 882, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5d838b9bce79c67bc285f5d1f1bbe935253c5eeb196d40142ac1d33e0bfb7625.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Effects of Frame Num. at Clip- and Video-levels." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Clip LevelVideo LevelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
2811.6915.4527.354.93
3811.5415.2327.214.12
21012.2416.9728.892.51
31011.8616.0127.542.49
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 454, + 882, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "setting 8/10 anchors in video-level SFG. It can be seen that selecting one video frame from every 2 frames for clip-level SFG and using 10 anchors in video-level SFG yield the best performance. When comparing 3 frames to 2 frames at the clip-level, the precision decreases, but R@4 is improved by $20\\%$ (in rows 1 & 2). This represents a trade-off between repetition and precision. For video anchors, using 10 anchors can cover most events in ActivityNet Captions while 8 anchors may miss some. Also, we test different ways of select anchors in the testing phase, with randomly selecting frames as anchors using a random seed or uniformly selecting over total frames. The results are as Tab. 4 and it can be observed that the random sampling method is not as effective as uniform sampling.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 548, + 884, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/306b1e1e12d8407cf7a0d9ad6a8cd85854f25299540d16553050d0bf11fbeb3b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Effects of Anchors & Fusion in Decoder." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DecoderB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
w/o anchors11.9516.3428.563.12
add12.1216.0128.233.09
concatenate12.2416.9728.892.51
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 845, + 882, + 915 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14577", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d9609acc064d79fe4dea685cfd6699d6eb158a556e3984d64c3f950f338c55a8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [ + "GT: A band plays an acoustic guitar with a band on stage during a party. A man sits down wearily and his guitar is taken by a man in the crowd. The man from the crowd plays a guitar with the band on stage happily. A man fights fights with his date in the crowd.", + "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A man plays guitar on a stage while a band plays music. The man finishes playing and the woman shakes hands. The man plays guitar and then people play guitar . Aclose up of a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning" + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 82, + 489, + 143 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/408a7195547a1a128b40d45c5604b1ce22f07d0d063f69d2cdfe021b68fee3b1.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [ + "Ours (w/o event annotations): A man is playing guitar with a group of people standing on stage. A man gives his guitar to a man. The man begins to play the guitar in the crowd. A woman claps her hands. The man fighting for the woman.", + "GT: A large group of people are shown from several shots walking around as well as divers jumping off a drive. More shots of athletes and audiences are shown as well as people being interviewed on the camera. More divers jump as well as several other interviews take place.", + "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A large group of people are seen sitting around an indoor pool with one man speaking to one another. Two women are seen walking on a platform with a lot of people watching on the sidelines. A close up o a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down." + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 234, + 485, + 250 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/32c99a95592b4af099626298362c5496297e0a6e393e55c84d5e715c602e2182.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [ + "Ours (w/o event annotations): A large group of people are sitting and people are walking in lines. The divers jump into the pool with two women interviewed to the camera. The athletes keep jumping into and a lot of people watching and talking. A woman and a man are interviewed to the camera.", + "GT: A gymnast is seen standing ready before uneven bars while many are watching on the sides. The girl jumps up and begins performing a routine on the bars. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down.", + "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A group of people are standing on a mat. A man in blue shirt get up a high beam. A woman in blue shirt is standing on the mat.", + "Ours (w/o event annotations): A gymnast stands under uneven bars with people watching, She jumps and flips around. She jumps off and stands on the mat." + ], + "bbox": [ + 126, + 362, + 492, + 378 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Qualitative results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 520, + 307, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fig. 4 displays example captions produced by our model on ActivityNet Captions. We compare them with $GT$ (the Ground Truth) and those generated by the Vanilla models. The triplets in all paragraphs are highlighted for comparison. Compared to Vanilla, our model tends to generate more precise and action-driven descriptions, as evident in the examples. Particularly in the third case, where the surroundings are relatively static and only the athlete is performing different actions, our model is able to differentiate between these actions in the neighbouring frames.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 487, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For event distributions, in the first case, there are three events, and the second is momentary compared with the other two. The vanilla model fails to describe the second event even with annotation information. Our model, however, captures the action \"is taken by\" and decodes it to \"give\" in the generated description.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 487, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effects of Fusion Ways in Decoder To utilize the dynamic anchors for generation guidance, we use the anchor attention in the decoder cross attention. Formally, the word embedding at the $t$ -th", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/19a276428b874b75718d860b7fe5d1cd8059fea79086ffa42aefe4309b3431be.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [ + "GT: There's a man standing in a kitchen and washing his hands in steel kitchen sink. He takes a pump from the bottle and washes the soap from the sink counter. He then turns on the water and waits for his hands. After he's done washing, he checks his watch and looks at the TV." + ], + "bbox": [ + 542, + 80, + 843, + 107 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f6ccb00fe419bcff70e6930a65a5607ac8adf5fcc841e94bbf8ad67564af15e2.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [ + "Vanilla/w/ event annotations): A man stands in front of a sink. He washes his hands under the water. He use a white hand towel.", + "Ours/w/o event annotations): A man is standing in a kitchen besides a sink. He open the water and takes a pump from a soap. He is washing his hands. Then he takes a towel and put the towel in the corner.", + "GT: A man is mowing his lawn around a tree in front of his house. He walks back and forth, avoiding the rocks. He turns at the driveway and returns again.", + "Vanilla(w/ event annotations): A man is walking back and forth with the lawn. A man walks around the tree." + ], + "bbox": [ + 542, + 159, + 845, + 189 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5023d6faf20a039572747e00f4212993f7a5e02884c77a6ccc80a90342db5c9e.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [ + "Ours(w/o event annotations): A man is pushing the lawn. He walks around from side to side. He turns back to the house.", + "GT: A crowd is gathered in an arena. Swimmers are lined up on a diving board. The swimmers take turns diving off the diving board.", + "Vanillaw/ event annotations): An arena is filled with a crowd of people. Swimmers take turns diving off the board.", + "Ours(w/o event annotations): People crowd in the gym. Swimmers dive into the pool. Swimming walk inline." + ], + "bbox": [ + 542, + 237, + 843, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/73a746ca584e1165b594f88b11307ea00ff9af750a4cdcbd3bb46db65ee7cd6b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Qualitative Results1.", + "Figure 4: Qualitative Results2.", + "Figure 5: Different Model Structures." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 541, + 344, + 852, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "step is used as a query to attend to the anchors, and the weighted anchors are fused by concatenating them with the visual representation as $V$ . This $V$ is then utilized to guide the decoding of the next step word in the sequence. We verify the effectiveness of anchors in the decoder and compare different fusion ways including concatenating and adding. As shown in Tab. 6, attending to the anchors indeed improves the relevance of the generated captions. Additionally, the results indicate that concatenation is more effective compared to addition.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Effects of Different Model Structures We also adjust the placements of the clip-level and video-level $SFG$ modules. In the left encoder structure shown in Fig. 5, the order of the modules is $SFG_{clip}$ , $SFG_{video}$ and transformer layer. The block $(SFG_{clip}, SFG_{video}, \\text{transformer layer})$ is stacked twice in the structure. The right structure in Fig. 5 considers the information lost in the second $SFG_{clip}$ , puts $SFG_{video}$ first in the second layer", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14578", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/64fb9850ab73efed6ce2b50ab88b472a97a3a2991eb612fbf49b487b38602d4d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Performance of Model Structures. a and b represent the left and right structures in Fig. 5, respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 147, + 80, + 453, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of transformer, and conducts $SFG_{clip}$ after the last layer of transformer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 292, + 487, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Comparing the two structures, the left outperforms the right. This suggests that even though $SFG_{clip}$ discards some frames before $SFG_{video}$ , the key information is retained, allowing $SFG_{video}$ to learn the event contributions. Also frame sampling helps remove noise, which benefits $SFG_{video}$ grouping center context of events. Fig. 6 shows the performance of the two structures.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 325, + 489, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 467, + 253, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we present a network with Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) enhanced Transformer via Contrastive Learning for event annotation-free video paragraph captioning. The SFG module is designed to select and group informative frames and learn event distributions without relying on event annotations. Additionally, an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique is proposed to train the SFG, enabling it to learn the overall event context in the video and distinguish it from the static context. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that SFGTransformer achieves SOTA performance. In the future, we plan to extend the method to longer video data such as movie data to further investigate the influence of key action visual information. And we also investigate training method without triplets to simplify the pre-process of data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 489, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 796, + 220, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Video paragraph captioning requires semantic consistency between the generated captions and the video content. Although the \"action-guided frame grouping\" method provides some guidance for frame selection and grouping, there are still potential instances of semantic inconsistency. This", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is especially true when there are multiple related yet distinct actions in the video, which may result in less accurate or consistent captions in terms of semantic coherence.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 160, + 682, + 177 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by National Science and Technology Innovation 2030 - Major Project (No. 2021ZD0114001; No. 2021ZD0114000), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61976057; No. 62172101), the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 21511101000; No. 22DZ1100101), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 2023110139). Yuejie Zhang, Rui Feng and Tao Zhang are corresponding authors.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 185, + 884, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14579", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 213, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "D. Tran B. Korbar and L. Torresani. 2019. Scsampler: Sampling salient clips from video for efficient action recognition. In ICCV, pages 6232-6242.", + "H. Hu B. Zhang and F. Sha. 2018. Cross-modal and hierarchical modeling of video and text. In ECCV, pages 374-390.", + "S. Gu E. Jang and P. Ben. 2016. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. ICLR.", + "Shreyank N Gowda, Marcus Rohrbach, and Laura Sevilla-Lara. 2021. Smart frame selection for action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 1451-1459.", + "B. Tamara L J. Lei and B. Mohit. 2022. Revealing single frame bias for video-and-language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03428.", + "Y. Shen D. Yu B. Tamara J. Lei, L. Wang and B. Mohit. 2020. Mart: Memory-augmented recurrent transformer for coherent video paragraph captioning. In ACL, pages 2603-2614.", + "Z. Ren N. Xu J. Mun, L. Yang and B. Han. 2019. Streamlined dense video captioning. In CVPR, pages 6588-6597.", + "R. Frederic F. Li K. Ranjay, H. Kenji and C. Juan. 2017. Dense-captioning events in videos. In ICCV, pages 706-715.", + "Y. Li L. Wang and L. Svetlana. 2016. Learning deep structure-preserving image-text embeddings. In CVPR, pages 5005-5013.", + "C. Xu L. Zhou and C. Jason J. 2018. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In AAAI.", + "J. Corso R. Socher L. Zhou, Y. Zhou and C. Xiong. 2018. End-to-end dense video captioning with masked transformer. In CVPR, pages 8739-8748.", + "X. Chen C. Jason J L. Zhou, K. Yannis and R. Marcus. 2019. Grounded video description. In CVPR, pages 6578-6587.", + "D. Trevor P. Jae Sung, R. Marcus and R. Anna. 2019. Adversarial inference for multi-sentence video description. In CVPR, pages 6598-6608.", + "Z. Lu F. Zheng R. Cheng T. Wang, R. Zhang and P. Luo. 2021. End-to-end dense video captioning with parallel decoding. In ICCV, pages 6847-6857.", + "S. Chen Y. Song and Q. Jin. 2021. Towards diverse paragraph captioning for untrimmed videos. In CVPR, pages 11245-11254.", + "B. Dai Y. Xiong and D. Lin. 2018. Move forward and tell: A progressive generator of video descriptions. In ECCV, pages 468-483." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Serena Yeung, Olga Russakovsky, Greg Mori, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. End-to-end learning of action detection from frame glimpses in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2678-2687.", + "Y. Yang C. Jaime G L. Quoc Z. Dai, Z. Yang and S. Ruslan. 2019. Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In ACL, pages 2978-2988.", + "W. Limin Z. Yuan, T. Zhan and W. Gangshan. 2021. Mgsampler: An explainable sampling strategy for video action recognition. In CVPR, pages 1513-1522.", + "Kaiyang Zhou, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning for unsupervised video summarization with diversity-representativeness reward. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14580", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_model.json b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bfd163c6f6a014078a0c171fa421bf52c97fe5f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1936 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.08, + 0.87, + 0.12 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.172, + 0.125, + 0.832, + 0.143 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guorui Yu\\(^{1}\\), Yimin Hu\\(^{1}\\), Yuejie Zhang\\(^{1}\\), Rui Feng\\(^{1}\\), Tao Zhang\\(^{2}\\), Shang Gao\\(^{3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.143, + 0.844, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Sch. of Comp. Sci, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.177, + 0.878, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Sch. of Inf. Manag. & Eng, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Financial Information Technology," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.193, + 0.864, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, \\(^{3}\\)Sch. of Inf. Tech, Deakin University 21210240409@m.fudan.edu.cn, {20210240283, yjzhang, fengrui}@fudan.edu.cn, taozhang@mail.shufe.edu.cn, shang.gao@deakin.edu.au" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.278, + 0.461, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generating paragraph captions for untrimmed videos without event annotations is challenging, especially when aiming to enhance precision and minimize repetition at the same time. To address this challenge, we propose a module called Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG). It dynamically groups event information with the help of action information for the entire video and excludes redundant frames within pre-defined clips. To enhance the performance, an Intra-Contrastive Learning technique is designed to align the SFG module with the core event content in the paragraph, and an Inter-Contrastive Learning method is employed to learn action-guided context with reduced static noise simultaneously. Extensive experiments are conducted on two benchmark datasets (ActivityNet Captions and YouCook2). Results demonstrate that SFG outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on all metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.573, + 0.26, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.598, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Video Paragraph Captioning for untrimmed video aims to describe multiple events in the video with three or four sentences. Initially, the focus was on describing each event with a single sentence in a long video (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) (J. Mun and Han, 2019), until (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) proposed to directly generate paragraph captions without event ground truths. This refined approach to paragraph captioning is more practical but also more challenging. Firstly, without event labels, it becomes difficult to precisely locate the transitions between different events and to summarize the complete story from a holistic perspective. Secondly, most prior studies generated one sentence for each event, whereas paragraph captioning without event ground truths requires generating sentences that are two or three times longer. This naturally exacerbates issues of redundancy and repetition. Our work focuses on video paragraph captioning without event annotations as shown in Fig. 1." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.561, + 0.253, + 0.808, + 0.411 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.421, + 0.882, + 0.436 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Comparison of SFG with traditional methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.467, + 0.885, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a common frame sampling strategy in most existing works, random sampling method randomly selects one frame every one or two seconds. The hypothesis of previous works is that the frames in one second are highly similar, so random sampling does not result in significant information loss. However, actions often occur rapidly, such as within a one-second time frame, and usually lead changes to events. Random sampling may miss crucial action frames that occur quickly and retain many similar frames as noise. According to (J. Lei and Mohit, 2022), one or two key frames are sufficient to capture important content, and the \"redundant\" frames can be neglected in an action clip. In this way, we can learn the visual content from a small number of frames that contain critical information." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, our objective is to learn event distributions guided by action frames, and utilize them as estimations for event locations, enabling us to construct comprehensive paragraph stories by incorporating these momentary yet important actions. Considering the impracticality of including all frames (often averaging hundreds) into the analysis, it becomes essential to find an effective way for frame selection and information grouping. Our work specifically focuses on action-driven video paragraph captioning. It tackles the captioning task by utilizing sparse frames and refined video an" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14571" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.789, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14571-14580 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "chors with action visual representation. No event annotation or any other additional information is used except for the video and paragraph captions, thereby ensuring the practicality of our method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.155, + 0.49, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose our vanilla model based on the Transformer architect (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). A new grouping module, named Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG), is introduced. It uses a set of designed anchors as queries to select and group useful frames. The objective is to extract two types of content from the video: event distributions and action changes between adjacent frames. The idea is to progressively estimate the actual event distributions by grouping visually similar video frames using these designed anchors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.336, + 0.49, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "At each encoder layer, SFG is first applied to every two frames and selects one informative frame, where anchors are random frames. As a result, a sequence of sparse and important video frames are obtained, instead of using the randomly sampled ones. This process is referred to as clip-level SFG. Next, SFG is employed to group event context across the entire video. Video anchors are initialized using triplets of ground truths during the training phase. The objective is to ensure that the anchors capture the action-driven event distributions in the video, while the triplets provide a concise representation of the main action content in the sentences. This process is referred to as video-level SFG. At this stage, the video anchors are updated by grouping the newly selected frames. The remaining steps follow the standard transformer computation. In the decoder, we modify the cross-attention mechanism by attending video anchors in the video-level SFG additionally. The weighted anchors, along with the weighted video frames, guide the decoder to generate each word at each decoding step." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To train SFG without using event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique. The objective is to ensure that the video anchors are close to their relevant event contents in the video. This process naturally involves contrastive learning between anchors and paragraph. The challenge is that the embedding of the entire paragraph contains excessive noise for the video anchors which are intended to represent the center of events. What we aim to learn is a summary of the event context within the paragraph, while disregarding those static descriptions that are not relevant to the actions in our video anchors. We modify the positive contrastive pair from" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "visual-paragraph to visual-triplets, while the negative pairs consist of unmatched pairs within the batch. For each sentence in the paragraph, triplet \\((s,v,o)\\) (Sec. 3.2) is extracted and the embeddings of all triplets are averaged. This contrastive learning approach is referred to as Intra-Contrastive Learning, and its purpose is to minimize the distance between the overall video anchors and the paragraphs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.231, + 0.885, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, it is crucial to differentiate the video anchors from other visual contents in the video. The Inter-Contrastive Learning method takes the left video representation as a negative visual part. It requires the distance between the video anchors and the triplet embeddings is at least smaller than the distance from the negative visual part to the triplet embeddings. We conduct experiments on ActivityNet Caption and YouCook2 datasets. The results demonstrate that our model outperforms the state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods when evaluated using the event ground truths on both datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.425, + 0.868, + 0.44 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The contributions of this work are as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(1) We propose a Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) module to estimate event locations and catch action-driven visual content. It operates at both the short clips and the whole video levels without relying on event annotations, thereby enhancing the practicality of video paragraph captioning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.54, + 0.883, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(2) We build an Intra- and Intro-contrastive loss for SFG training. It helps the model focus more on learning event distribution rather than other noisy contextual information, reducing redundancy and improving precision of the captions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.62, + 0.884, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(3) Our model achieves SOTA results on benchmark datasets ActivityNet and YouCook2, outperforming even the methods using event annotations." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.683, + 0.662, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dense Video Captioning As a multi-modal task, it has attracted much attention. Popular categorization of dense video captioning falls into three: predicting event location and sentences, solely predicting sentences with event annotations, and predicting paragraphs without event annotations. In this paper, our focus falls into the third category. (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) is the first adopting transformer to decode sentences and create differentiable masks for the consistency between proposals and captions. (J. Mun and Han, 2019) used a pointer network to select possible event proposals from candidates and to recurrently generate sen" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14572" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tence for each event. (T. Wang and Luo, 2021) firstly tackled this task as a parallel multitask. Localization and caption generation are predicted at the same time using a DETR scheme. (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019) adopted adversarial inference to evaluate the paragraph quality. (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) proposed a memory module in decoder to remove redundant visual and text information dynamically. These prior studies all rely on event annotations. (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) focused on reducing redundancy using an adding and erasing module at each decoding step without event annotations. However, little attention have been paid to video redundancy itself at the encoder stage. In our work, we aim to address this issue by tackling it from the initial frame selection stage and capturing the core action content of the video." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.36, + 0.49, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Video Action Understanding Action localization in video is an important task for video understanding. (Yeung et al., 2016) and (Zhou et al., 2018) utilized reinforce learning to dynamically determine the next frame. (Z. Yuan and Gangshan, 2021) proposed to sample motion from cumulative distribution. (B. Korbar and Torresani, 2019) proposed to understand video only through some salient clips which were ranked and selected for further understanding. (Gowda et al., 2021) selected single frame and utilized high level feature for video classification. The previous works seldom combine the two modalities (visual and text) together. Our work utilizes both to better select key frames." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.615, + 0.227, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.643, + 0.49, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The proposed Sparse Frame Grouping Network is shown in Fig. 2. It consists of three modules: clip-level SFG, video-level SFG, and Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning. Together with the vanilla transformer, these modules generate action-driven and event annotation-free paragraphs. In this section, the vanilla transformer is first described, followed by the introduction to the three modules." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.785, + 0.273, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Vanilla Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.922 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given an untrimmed video \\( V = \\{v_{1},\\dots,v_{n}\\} \\), \\( v_{i} \\in R^{d_{v}} \\), where \\( v_{i} \\) is the \\( i \\)-th video frame representation (referred to as frame hereafter), \\( n \\) is the total number of frames in \\( V \\), and \\( d_{v} \\) is the dimension of video frame. The video paragraph captioning task aims to describe the content of \\( V \\) with a paragraph \\( Y = \\{y_{1},\\dots,y_{k}\\} \\), \\( y_{j} \\in R^{d_{w}} \\), where \\( y_{j} \\) is the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(j\\)-th word in the \\(k\\) length paragraph, and \\(d_w\\) is the dimension of word embeddings. Here we build our vanilla model based on the transformer structure, following the approach described in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) and (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). The encoder transformer \\(E\\) is used to learn the video representation \\(V_e\\) from video input \\(V\\) and the decoder transformer \\(D\\) generates the captions conditioned on \\(V_e\\). Specifically, we first adopt \\(N\\)-layer transformer encoder to model the long range interactions:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.519, + 0.297, + 0.884, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV _ {i + 1} = F F N \\left(V _ {i} + M u l t i H e a d \\left(V _ {i}, V _ {i}, V _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.332, + 0.885, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( V_{i} \\) is the output of \\( i \\)-th transformer layer. \\( FFN() \\) and MultiHead() denote feed-forward network and multi-head attention as in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). For the decoder, we first use the masked multi-head self attention (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) to model the hidden states of the last layer, then we introduce cross attention to fuse the text modality and the visual modality. For cross attention, we use the text embeddings at each decoding step as the query, and \\( V_{n} \\) from the last layer of the encoder as key and value, so that each word can be generated based on the previously predicted words and the attended video contents. The vanilla model is trained typically by the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) loss:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.589, + 0.884, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {m l e} = - \\frac {1}{T} \\sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \\log p \\left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \\mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.657, + 0.883, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {m l e} = - \\frac {1}{T} \\sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \\log p \\left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \\mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( V_{e} \\) is conditioned video representation. \\( y_{t}^{*} \\) is the predicted word at the \\( t \\)-th step and \\( T \\) is the length of caption. Without event segment annotations, there are three challenges in video paragraph captioning. Firstly, directly decoding the entire video usually leads to confusion in recognizing clear contexts and decoding each into word output. Secondly, the random frame sampling strategy results in the loss of essential key information, affecting the decoder's ability to catch action changes and decode precise words. Lastly, the MLE loss tends to generate high frequency and repetitive words in previous steps." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14573" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.081, + 0.561, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.561, + 0.081, + 0.839, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.364, + 0.883, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of SFG Network. (a) Architect of the network. SFG is applied at both the clip and video level in every encoder layer. The decoder dynamically generates words based on previous video anchors and selected video frames. Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning is introduced for video anchor training. (b) Detail of SFG." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.433, + 0.436, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Progressive Grouping Transformer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.462, + 0.49, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Fig. 2(a), based on the vanilla transformer (Sec.3.1), instead of directly feeding all the video frames into the transformer encoder, we incorporate the clip-level sparse frame grouping (SFG) module and video-level grouping module prior to each transformer layer, denoted as \\( SFG_{clip} \\) and \\( SFG_{video} \\). We employ dynamic tokens, known as anchors, to selectively choose useful frames from the input or the previous transformer layer. The objective of these modules is to obtain a set of sparse video frames and a collection of video anchors that can learn event distributions dynamically." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.676, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, we take the \\(l\\)-th transformer layer as an example and have the video frames \\(V^l\\) as the input. Firstly, we randomly select one frame from every two frames as anchors for \\(SFG_{clip}\\) as \\(V^{l_1} = SFG_{clip}(V^l,A_{clip}^l)\\), where \\(A_{clip}^l\\) represents anchors at the clip level. \\(V^{l_1}\\) is the half length of the input frames. To help SFG learn the action-driven event context, we initialize the video level frames via triplet embeddings. Assuming that triplets highly summarize the main contents of the sentence in captions, we extract one triplet (L. Wang and Svetlana, 2016) from each sentence and project it to the same latent space as the video frames through linear projection. E.g., one triplet from a sentence is \\(< s,v,o>\\), which can" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.433, + 0.885, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "be embedded as \\(\\{y_s, y_{v1}, \\dots, y_{vk}, y_o\\}\\). \\(y_s\\) is subject, \\(y_{v1}, \\dots, y_{vk}\\) is one verb or verb phrase, and \\(y_o\\) is object. We sum the word embeddings in the triplet and project them to the video representation space: \\(a_i^l = \\text{Linear}(\\sum y_{\\text{triplet}})\\), \\(a_i^l \\in R^{d_v}\\) is one anchor among the video anchors. By initializing the left video anchors and setting the number of anchors to be equal to the number of sentences in the captions, the anchors can effectively group the content with action-related visual features and learn the event distributions through different anchors. We get the updated video anchors \\(A_{video}^{l+1}\\) and the selected video frames via:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.652, + 0.884, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nI ^ {l}, A _ {\\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l + 1} = S F G _ {\\text {v i d e o}} \\left(V ^ {l _ {1}}, A _ {\\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l}\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.553, + 0.684, + 0.883, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV ^ {l + 1} = \\text {T r a n s f r o m e r L a y e r} (V ^ {l _ {1}}), \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(I^l\\) is the outcome of \\(\\text{ArgMax}\\), which is the index of center frames at this stage. We adopt the video frames selected by \\(SFG_{clip}\\) and forward them to \\(l\\)-th transformer layer. With the stacked encoder transformer layers and SFG modules, we get a set of sparse video frames with fewer redundant frames and the most representative anchors. These anchors already group the core content of the events in the video." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.867, + 0.796, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Sparse Frame Grouping Block" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Fig. 2(b), SFG utilizes the dynamic anchors to select the center frames for each anchor" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14574" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and group action-driven event content around the updated anchors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.118, + 0.49, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, we take anchors \\( A = \\{a_1, \\dots, a_m\\} \\), \\( a_i \\in R^{d_v} \\) as the query, and the video frames \\( V \\) as the key and value pairs to compute the weights of video frames. To select target frames, we change the original SoftMax to \\( ArgMax \\) and weight matrix to one-hot matrix. Then we select the center frames and obtain the updated anchors \\( \\hat{A} \\) through the \\( ArgMax \\) function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.173, + 0.257, + 0.488, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {A} = A + \\operatorname {A r g M a x} (A \\times V) \\times V, \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.287, + 0.489, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( A \\) represents the anchors discussed in Sec. 3.2. However, the one-hot matrix from \\( ArgMax \\) is not differentiable. We further use Gumbel SoftMax (E. Jang and Ben, 2016) and transform Eq. 6 as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.375, + 0.488, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {A} = A + \\frac {\\exp (A \\times V + \\beta)}{\\sum \\exp (A \\times V + \\beta)} \\times V, \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.421, + 0.489, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\hat{A}\\) represents the updated anchors. \\(\\beta\\) is sampled from the \\(Gumble(0,1)\\) distribution to ensure that SFG can merge the video event information progressively during the training phase." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.497, + 0.433, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.534, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We obtain a sparse video representation \\( V_{e} \\) with significantly fewer frames compared to the raw video and a set of event context anchors after encoding. To effectively train the proposed video anchors, especially in the absence of event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning technique. This technique enables the learning of event context, which is mainly action context-driven. Specially, we first employ intra-video contrastive learning to minimize the distance between the representation of dynamic anchors \\( A \\) and the text representation. However, the ground truth information may contain noise. For example, grouping frames should not include an excessive number of static or descriptive words such as color, position and background. We aim to extract some confined context from the captions that includes action description while excluding the \"unimportant\" words. Therefore, triplets are used (Sec.3.2). Assuming that short triplets highly summarize the main contents of the video, we denote the positive pair as \\( < \\overline{A},\\overline{T} > \\), where \\( \\overline{A} \\) is the average of anchor representation and \\( \\overline{T} \\) is the average of triplet embeddings. The unmatched pairs in the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "batch are negative pairs. The Intra-contrastive loss \\( L_{intra} = L_{a \\to t} + L_{t \\to a} \\) is as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.128, + 0.883, + 0.171 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {a \\rightarrow t} = \\frac {1}{T _ {b}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\bar {A _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {T _ {i}}\\right) / \\tau}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\exp \\left(\\bar {A _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {T _ {j}}\\right) / \\tau}, \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.183, + 0.883, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {t \\rightarrow a} = \\frac {1}{T _ {b}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\bar {T _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {A _ {i}}\\right) / \\tau}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\exp \\left(\\bar {T _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {A _ {j}}\\right) / \\tau}, \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.231, + 0.885, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( T_{b} \\) is the batch size. We use dot production to measure the similarity between \\( A \\) and \\( T \\). The loss aims to ensure that all the anchors capture similar contextual information as the possible events described in the captions. However, to reduce redundancy in the generated captions, we also need to secure that the video anchors learn less static noise. Therefore, we further apply Inter-Contrastive Learning to guarantee that the video anchors are at least closer to the triplet embeddings compared to the surrounding visual features. For negative pairs, we select the frames that are not chosen by \\( SFG_{video} \\) in the last transformer encoder layer, which is \\( A_{n} = (1 - I^{L})\\times V \\). Thus the negative visual pair becomes \\( < \\overline{A_n},\\overline{T} > \\). The positive pair in the Inter-Constrastive Learning is the same as that in the Intra-Contrastive Learning. The Inter-contrastive loss is as below:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.531, + 0.533, + 0.883, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {i n t e r} = \\max \\left(\\bar {A ^ {p}} \\cdot \\bar {T} - \\bar {A ^ {n}} \\cdot \\bar {T} + \\sigma , 0\\right), \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.563, + 0.882, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\sigma\\) is a margin constant. This inter-video loss helps distinguish the representation of video anchors from the other parts of the video. The total training loss is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.54, + 0.64, + 0.883, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL o s s = L _ {m l e} + \\lambda_ {1} L _ {i n t r a} + \\lambda_ {2} L _ {i n t e r}, \\tag {11}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.669, + 0.836, + 0.685 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\lambda_{1}\\) and \\(\\lambda_{2}\\) are loss weights over zero." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.697, + 0.656, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.722, + 0.787, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Implementation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets and Evaluation Metrics: All the experiments are conducted on two widely used benchmark datasets, i.e., ActivityNet Captions(K. Ranjay and Juan, 2017) and YouCook2(L. Zhou and J, 2018). For fair comparison, we use four mainstream evaluation metrics, including BLEU-4 (B@4), METEOR, CIDER and R@4. A higher score for any metric indicates better performance in captioning. Besides, we evaluate repetition using R@4, following the previous work in (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019). A lower R@4 score indicates" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14575" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "better performance, suggesting less repetition in the paragraph caption." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.118, + 0.49, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Implementation Details: For visual features, we utilize the video features extracted by ResNet-200 and BNInception, as provided by (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). The length of video anchors is set to 10 for ActivityNet Captions and 14 for YouCook2. In the inference phase, random frames are used to initialize the video anchors for \\( SFG_{video} \\). For text features, words are initialized using Glove embeddings. Text is limited to 60 words. Empirically, the loss weight \\( \\lambda_1 \\) is set to 1 and \\( \\lambda_2 \\) to 0.5. The batch size is 32. Greedy decoding is adopted which is comparable to beam search." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.329, + 0.423, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Comparison with SOTA Methods" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.354, + 0.49, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Tab. 1, we compare our model with SOTA methods on ActivityNet Captions. These methods can be divided into two categories: (1) inferring without event annotations, including TDPC (CVPR21) (Y. Song and Jin, 2021); (2) with annotations, including VTrans (CVPR18) (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018), MFT (ECCV18) (Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018), GVD (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), GVDsup (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), AdvInf (CVPR19) (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019), Transformer-XL (ACL19) (Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019), MART (ACL20) (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020), PDVC (ICCV21) (T. Wang and Luo, 2021). It is worth noting that GVD, GVDsup and AdvInf adopt additional object features to align the descriptions and objects in the video. Naturally stronger feature leads to impressive performance. However, our model outperforms them, regardless of whether the object features are integrated or event annotations are used." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Without the event ground truths, our model still achieves the best performance on B@4, Meteor and CIDER with a relative improvement of \\(3.7\\%\\), \\(6.5\\%\\) and \\(5.9\\%\\) respectively compared to PDVC (on ActivityNet ae-val). The uplift is achieved even with fewer frames and no event annotations. While TDPC also utilizes key frames, it relies on the pretrained model to reconstruct the common representation space between text and video. It should be the strong prior knowledge in our model that makes the generation more precise. Additionally, TDPC tends to generate shorter sentences, which may result in lower METEOR score for AdvInf. This could be attributed to TDPC encoding all frames directly and overlooking event distributions in the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "video. TDPC may learn the fragmented information scattered throughout the frames. In contrast, our model makes more efforts to address this problem, resulting in more action-driven and organized descriptions. The uplift in METEOR score serves as evidence of a preference for longer sentences in our approach." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.2, + 0.886, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tab. 2 shows the performance on YouCook2 validation set. Our method achieves the SOTA performance, demonstrating a significant improvement over the other methods across all the metrics. Also, YouCook2 contains a large number of events, which highlights the importance of event distributions for caption generation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.329, + 0.687, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Ablation Studies" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.353, + 0.884, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To verify the effectiveness of the proposed grouping module and loss, we conduct ablation studies on ActivityNet." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.403, + 0.885, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effects of SFG As shown in Tab. 3, Vanilla is the baseline with MLE loss. Vanilla + \\(SFG_{clip}\\) refers to only \\(SFG_{clip}\\) is used in every layer of the encoder transformer. Vanilla + \\(SFG_{video} + L_{intra} + L_{inter}\\) is the complete module for our video-level SFG. The last row is the full model. The experiments report that: (1) \\(SFG_{clip}\\) contributes to a reduction in repetition, as indicated by the improvement in R@4. R@4 is improved by \\(38\\%\\) and by \\(59\\%\\) in rows 1 & 2 and rows 5 & 6. This suggests that the dynamic frame sampling performed by \\(SFG_{clip}\\) not only benefits the selection of informative frame, but also results in a sparse video representation, reducing the redundancy from the video side; (2) for \\(SFG_{video}\\) in row 5, there are considerable improvements in the precision and repetition. This indicates the video anchors indeed learn to estimate the video content, reducing the static noise and, consequently the redundancy." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.711, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effects of Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Loss In Tab. 3, *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Lintera* refers to only *SFGvideo* is used in every encoder layer with *Lossintra*. *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Linter* is to verify whether the distinction of anchors alone is sufficient to summarize the event distribution in the video, without the supervision of triplets. From the results, it can be concluded that *Lossintra* has a greater impact on improving the model precision (B@4, METEOR and R@4), while *Lossinter* significantly reduces R@4. Specifically, when comparing with row 2, row 3 (*Lossintra* + *SFGvideo*) has improvements in B@4, METEOR and CIDER" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14576" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Performance Comparison on ActivityNet. ae-val. \\(V\\), \\(F\\), \\(O\\): visual, flow and obj features. \\*: utilizing stronger features. The italic number means they are significant in hypothesis testing," + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.123, + 0.885, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelEvent AnnotationFeaturesae-valae-test
TrainInferB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓B@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
HSE(B. Zhang and Sha, 2018)YYV9.8413.7818.7813.22----
VTrans(L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018)YYV+F9.7515.6422.167.799.3115.5421.337.45
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)YYV+F10.3915.0921.678.5410.2514.9121.718.79
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)YYV+F10.3315.6823.425.189.7815.5722.165.44
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YYV+F11.8015.9327.27-----
GVD(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.0415.7121.958.7610.5015.6021.60-
GVDsup(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.3016.4122.947.0410.7016.1022.20-
AdvInf(P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019)YYV+F+O10.0416.6020.975.76----
MFT(Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018)YNV+F8.4514.7514.1517.59----
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YNV+F10.2415.8020.45-----
TDPC*(Y. Song and Jin, 2021)NNV+F----12.2016.1027.362.63
VanillaNNV+F11.2315.3425.237.3810.8715.2125.128.23
OursNNV+F12.2416.9728.892.5112.2116.6228.542.53
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.321, + 0.468, + 0.336 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Performance Comparison on YouCook2." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.346, + 0.487, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
VTrans(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)7.6215.6532.267.83
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)6.5614.7626.356.30
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)8.0015.9035.744.39
Vanilla7.5415.3232.465.89
Ours8.5316.2439.274.12
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.429, + 0.39, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation Studies." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.455, + 0.487, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
IndexModelB@4METEORCIDERR@4
1Vanilla11.2315.3425.237.38
2Vanilla+SFGclip11.3915.4925.905.34
3Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera11.4215.9026.765.89
4Vanilla+SFGvideo+Linter11.5816.0027.064.67
5Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera+Linter11.7116.3028.213.98
6blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8316.4128.543.90
7blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8016.5428.673.20
8Vanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera+Lintera12.2416.9728.892.51
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.565, + 0.489, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "by \\(0.3\\%\\), \\(3.0\\%\\) and \\(3.3\\%\\) respectively, except for \\(\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}\\) which is increased. We speculate that the increase in \\(\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}\\) may be due to the absence of \\(SFG_{clip}\\), but the precision benefits from the supervision of \\(Loss_{intra}\\), which is similar to the representation of triplets in the captions. As for \\(Loss_{inter}\\), it boosts all the metrics, especially \\(\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}\\), suggesting that \\(Loss_{inter}\\) helps video anchors exclude many static visual content and reduce repetition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effect of Anchor Number During the training phase, the initialization of the video anchors are only related to triplets from captions. However, during the testing phase, we currently select one frame at regular intervals from the video as an anchor. The difference is that the tokens in SFG are predefined in terms of quantity, and a random frame is used as the initial value. We conduct further analysis to determine the optimal number of anchors for the clip-level and video-level SFGs. As shown in Tab. 5, clip-level refers to setting one anchor for every 2/3 video frames, while video-level refers to" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.321, + 0.876, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Effects of Anchor Position in Testing Phase." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.346, + 0.883, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
anchor positionB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
random sample10.315.828.563.12
uniform sample12.2416.9728.892.51
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.415, + 0.884, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Effects of Frame Num. at Clip- and Video-levels." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.455, + 0.883, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Clip LevelVideo LevelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
2811.6915.4527.354.93
3811.5415.2327.214.12
21012.2416.9728.892.51
31011.8616.0127.542.49
" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.549, + 0.885, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "setting 8/10 anchors in video-level SFG. It can be seen that selecting one video frame from every 2 frames for clip-level SFG and using 10 anchors in video-level SFG yield the best performance. When comparing 3 frames to 2 frames at the clip-level, the precision decreases, but R@4 is improved by \\(20\\%\\) (in rows 1 & 2). This represents a trade-off between repetition and precision. For video anchors, using 10 anchors can cover most events in ActivityNet Captions while 8 anchors may miss some. Also, we test different ways of select anchors in the testing phase, with randomly selecting frames as anchors using a random seed or uniformly selecting over total frames. The results are as Tab. 4 and it can be observed that the random sampling method is not as effective as uniform sampling." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.821, + 0.866, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Effects of Anchors & Fusion in Decoder." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.846, + 0.883, + 0.916 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DecoderB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
w/o anchors11.9516.3428.563.12
add12.1216.0128.233.09
concatenate12.2416.9728.892.51
" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14577" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.083, + 0.49, + 0.144 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.145, + 0.488, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GT: A band plays an acoustic guitar with a band on stage during a party. A man sits down wearily and his guitar is taken by a man in the crowd. The man from the crowd plays a guitar with the band on stage happily. A man fights fights with his date in the crowd." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.173, + 0.475, + 0.196 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A man plays guitar on a stage while a band plays music. The man finishes playing and the woman shakes hands. The man plays guitar and then people play guitar . Aclose up of a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning" + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.201, + 0.486, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours (w/o event annotations): A man is playing guitar with a group of people standing on stage. A man gives his guitar to a man. The man begins to play the guitar in the crowd. A woman claps her hands. The man fighting for the woman." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.235, + 0.486, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.254, + 0.486, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GT: A large group of people are shown from several shots walking around as well as divers jumping off a drive. More shots of athletes and audiences are shown as well as people being interviewed on the camera. More divers jump as well as several other interviews take place." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.282, + 0.484, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A large group of people are seen sitting around an indoor pool with one man speaking to one another. Two women are seen walking on a platform with a lot of people watching on the sidelines. A close up o a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.324, + 0.48, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours (w/o event annotations): A large group of people are sitting and people are walking in lines. The divers jump into the pool with two women interviewed to the camera. The athletes keep jumping into and a lot of people watching and talking. A woman and a man are interviewed to the camera." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.363, + 0.493, + 0.379 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.385, + 0.452, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GT: A gymnast is seen standing ready before uneven bars while many are watching on the sides. The girl jumps up and begins performing a routine on the bars. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.413, + 0.457, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A group of people are standing on a mat. A man in blue shirt get up a high beam. A woman in blue shirt is standing on the mat." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.434, + 0.457, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours (w/o event annotations): A gymnast stands under uneven bars with people watching, She jumps and flips around. She jumps off and stands on the mat." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.195, + 0.476, + 0.405, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Qualitative Results1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.521, + 0.308, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Qualitative results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.549, + 0.488, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fig. 4 displays example captions produced by our model on ActivityNet Captions. We compare them with \\(GT\\) (the Ground Truth) and those generated by the Vanilla models. The triplets in all paragraphs are highlighted for comparison. Compared to Vanilla, our model tends to generate more precise and action-driven descriptions, as evident in the examples. Particularly in the third case, where the surroundings are relatively static and only the athlete is performing different actions, our model is able to differentiate between these actions in the neighbouring frames." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.742, + 0.488, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For event distributions, in the first case, there are three events, and the second is momentary compared with the other two. The vanilla model fails to describe the second event even with annotation information. Our model, however, captures the action \"is taken by\" and decodes it to \"give\" in the generated description." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effects of Fusion Ways in Decoder To utilize the dynamic anchors for generation guidance, we use the anchor attention in the decoder cross attention. Formally, the word embedding at the \\( t \\)-th" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.082, + 0.845, + 0.108 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.109, + 0.844, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GT: There's a man standing in a kitchen and washing his hands in steel kitchen sink. He takes a pump from the bottle and washes the soap from the sink counter. He then turns on the water and waits for his hands. After he's done washing, he checks his watch and looks at the TV." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.129, + 0.841, + 0.141 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanilla/w/ event annotations): A man stands in front of a sink. He washes his hands under the water. He use a white hand towel." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.144, + 0.833, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours/w/o event annotations): A man is standing in a kitchen besides a sink. He open the water and takes a pump from a soap. He is washing his hands. Then he takes a towel and put the towel in the corner." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.16, + 0.846, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.193, + 0.844, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GT: A man is mowing his lawn around a tree in front of his house. He walks back and forth, avoiding the rocks. He turns at the driveway and returns again." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.208, + 0.832, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanilla(w/ event annotations): A man is walking back and forth with the lawn. A man walks around the tree." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.218, + 0.841, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours(w/o event annotations): A man is pushing the lawn. He walks around from side to side. He turns back to the house." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.238, + 0.845, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.264, + 0.826, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "GT: A crowd is gathered in an arena. Swimmers are lined up on a diving board. The swimmers take turns diving off the diving board." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.278, + 0.834, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vanillaw/ event annotations): An arena is filled with a crowd of people. Swimmers take turns diving off the board." + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.543, + 0.293, + 0.835, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ours(w/o event annotations): People crowd in the gym. Swimmers dive into the pool. Swimming walk inline." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.591, + 0.317, + 0.801, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Qualitative Results2." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.542, + 0.345, + 0.853, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.556, + 0.823, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Different Model Structures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.598, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "step is used as a query to attend to the anchors, and the weighted anchors are fused by concatenating them with the visual representation as \\( V \\). This \\( V \\) is then utilized to guide the decoding of the next step word in the sequence. We verify the effectiveness of anchors in the decoder and compare different fusion ways including concatenating and adding. As shown in Tab. 6, attending to the anchors indeed improves the relevance of the generated captions. Additionally, the results indicate that concatenation is more effective compared to addition." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Effects of Different Model Structures We also adjust the placements of the clip-level and video-level \\( SFG \\) modules. In the left encoder structure shown in Fig. 5, the order of the modules is \\( SFG_{clip} \\), \\( SFG_{video} \\) and transformer layer. The block \\( (SFG_{clip}, SFG_{video}, \\text{transformer layer}) \\) is stacked twice in the structure. The right structure in Fig. 5 considers the information lost in the second \\( SFG_{clip} \\), puts \\( SFG_{video} \\) first in the second layer" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14578" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.082, + 0.455, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.224, + 0.49, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Performance of Model Structures. a and b represent the left and right structures in Fig. 5, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.293, + 0.489, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of transformer, and conducts \\( SFG_{clip} \\) after the last layer of transformer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.326, + 0.49, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Comparing the two structures, the left outperforms the right. This suggests that even though \\( SFG_{clip} \\) discards some frames before \\( SFG_{video} \\), the key information is retained, allowing \\( SFG_{video} \\) to learn the event contributions. Also frame sampling helps remove noise, which benefits \\( SFG_{video} \\) grouping center context of events. Fig. 6 shows the performance of the two structures." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.468, + 0.255, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.494, + 0.49, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we present a network with Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) enhanced Transformer via Contrastive Learning for event annotation-free video paragraph captioning. The SFG module is designed to select and group informative frames and learn event distributions without relying on event annotations. Additionally, an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique is proposed to train the SFG, enabling it to learn the overall event context in the video and distinguish it from the static context. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that SFGTransformer achieves SOTA performance. In the future, we plan to extend the method to longer video data such as movie data to further investigate the influence of key action visual information. And we also investigate training method without triplets to simplify the pre-process of data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.797, + 0.221, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Video paragraph captioning requires semantic consistency between the generated captions and the video content. Although the \"action-guided frame grouping\" method provides some guidance for frame selection and grouping, there are still potential instances of semantic inconsistency. This" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is especially true when there are multiple related yet distinct actions in the video, which may result in less accurate or consistent captions in terms of semantic coherence." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.161, + 0.683, + 0.178 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.186, + 0.885, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by National Science and Technology Innovation 2030 - Major Project (No. 2021ZD0114001; No. 2021ZD0114000), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61976057; No. 62172101), the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 21511101000; No. 22DZ1100101), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 2023110139). Yuejie Zhang, Rui Feng and Tao Zhang are corresponding authors." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14579" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.085, + 0.214, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.107, + 0.487, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D. Tran B. Korbar and L. Torresani. 2019. Scsampler: Sampling salient clips from video for efficient action recognition. In ICCV, pages 6232-6242." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.157, + 0.487, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "H. Hu B. Zhang and F. Sha. 2018. Cross-modal and hierarchical modeling of video and text. In ECCV, pages 374-390." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.207, + 0.487, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "S. Gu E. Jang and P. Ben. 2016. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.244, + 0.487, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shreyank N Gowda, Marcus Rohrbach, and Laura Sevilla-Lara. 2021. Smart frame selection for action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 1451-1459." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.32, + 0.487, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B. Tamara L J. Lei and B. Mohit. 2022. Revealing single frame bias for video-and-language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03428." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.369, + 0.487, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Y. Shen D. Yu B. Tamara J. Lei, L. Wang and B. Mohit. 2020. Mart: Memory-augmented recurrent transformer for coherent video paragraph captioning. In ACL, pages 2603-2614." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.432, + 0.487, + 0.47 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Z. Ren N. Xu J. Mun, L. Yang and B. Han. 2019. Streamlined dense video captioning. In CVPR, pages 6588-6597." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.481, + 0.487, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "R. Frederic F. Li K. Ranjay, H. Kenji and C. Juan. 2017. Dense-captioning events in videos. In ICCV, pages 706-715." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.531, + 0.487, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Y. Li L. Wang and L. Svetlana. 2016. Learning deep structure-preserving image-text embeddings. In CVPR, pages 5005-5013." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.581, + 0.487, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C. Xu L. Zhou and C. Jason J. 2018. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In AAAI." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.63, + 0.487, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "J. Corso R. Socher L. Zhou, Y. Zhou and C. Xiong. 2018. End-to-end dense video captioning with masked transformer. In CVPR, pages 8739-8748." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.68, + 0.487, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "X. Chen C. Jason J L. Zhou, K. Yannis and R. Marcus. 2019. Grounded video description. In CVPR, pages 6578-6587." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.73, + 0.487, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D. Trevor P. Jae Sung, R. Marcus and R. Anna. 2019. Adversarial inference for multi-sentence video description. In CVPR, pages 6598-6608." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.78, + 0.487, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Z. Lu F. Zheng R. Cheng T. Wang, R. Zhang and P. Luo. 2021. End-to-end dense video captioning with parallel decoding. In ICCV, pages 6847-6857." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.829, + 0.487, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "S. Chen Y. Song and Q. Jin. 2021. Towards diverse paragraph captioning for untrimmed videos. In CVPR, pages 11245-11254." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.879, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B. Dai Y. Xiong and D. Lin. 2018. Move forward and tell: A progressive generator of video descriptions. In ECCV, pages 468-483." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.107, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Serena Yeung, Olga Russakovsky, Greg Mori, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. End-to-end learning of action detection from frame glimpses in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2678-2687." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.162, + 0.882, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Y. Yang C. Jaime G L. Quoc Z. Dai, Z. Yang and S. Ruslan. 2019. Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In ACL, pages 2978-2988." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.224, + 0.882, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "W. Limin Z. Yuan, T. Zhan and W. Gangshan. 2021. Mgsampler: An explainable sampling strategy for video action recognition. In CVPR, pages 1513-1522." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.287, + 0.882, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaiyang Zhou, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning for unsupervised video summarization with diversity-representativeness reward. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14580" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_origin.pdf b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3ec2df823d5fc27e9ebcb2d07d6d81a4217d664 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/b6e9cd8e-141b-4100-a1f2-76a7ec8ca1a4_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:bf6caaddd718d5518e29f1945d4dbe01388bfaad0ddc2f741f31d5a0eaff1b1d +size 3920751 diff --git a/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/full.md b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bcb45d3c8a8112921cbe232a9dbf103983f45ed3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,297 @@ +# Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning + +Guorui Yu $^{1}$ , Yimin Hu $^{1}$ , Yuejie Zhang $^{1}$ , Rui Feng $^{1}$ , Tao Zhang $^{2}$ , Shang Gao $^{3}$ + +$^{1}$ Sch. of Comp. Sci, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University + +$^{2}$ Sch. of Inf. Manag. & Eng, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Financial Information Technology, + +Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, $^{3}$ Sch. of Inf. Tech, Deakin University 21210240409@m.fudan.edu.cn, {20210240283, yjzhang, fengrui}@fudan.edu.cn, taozhang@mail.shufe.edu.cn, shang.gao@deakin.edu.au + +# Abstract + +Generating paragraph captions for untrimmed videos without event annotations is challenging, especially when aiming to enhance precision and minimize repetition at the same time. To address this challenge, we propose a module called Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG). It dynamically groups event information with the help of action information for the entire video and excludes redundant frames within pre-defined clips. To enhance the performance, an Intra-Contrastive Learning technique is designed to align the SFG module with the core event content in the paragraph, and an Inter-Contrastive Learning method is employed to learn action-guided context with reduced static noise simultaneously. Extensive experiments are conducted on two benchmark datasets (ActivityNet Captions and YouCook2). Results demonstrate that SFG outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on all metrics. + +# 1 Introduction + +Video Paragraph Captioning for untrimmed video aims to describe multiple events in the video with three or four sentences. Initially, the focus was on describing each event with a single sentence in a long video (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) (J. Mun and Han, 2019), until (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) proposed to directly generate paragraph captions without event ground truths. This refined approach to paragraph captioning is more practical but also more challenging. Firstly, without event labels, it becomes difficult to precisely locate the transitions between different events and to summarize the complete story from a holistic perspective. Secondly, most prior studies generated one sentence for each event, whereas paragraph captioning without event ground truths requires generating sentences that are two or three times longer. This naturally exacerbates issues of redundancy and repetition. Our work focuses on video paragraph captioning without event annotations as shown in Fig. 1. + +![](images/60256c01d741d456e071cff2bd02884d060db1555312ade0fd5e53473ba1709f.jpg) +Figure 1: Comparison of SFG with traditional methods. + +As a common frame sampling strategy in most existing works, random sampling method randomly selects one frame every one or two seconds. The hypothesis of previous works is that the frames in one second are highly similar, so random sampling does not result in significant information loss. However, actions often occur rapidly, such as within a one-second time frame, and usually lead changes to events. Random sampling may miss crucial action frames that occur quickly and retain many similar frames as noise. According to (J. Lei and Mohit, 2022), one or two key frames are sufficient to capture important content, and the "redundant" frames can be neglected in an action clip. In this way, we can learn the visual content from a small number of frames that contain critical information. + +Therefore, our objective is to learn event distributions guided by action frames, and utilize them as estimations for event locations, enabling us to construct comprehensive paragraph stories by incorporating these momentary yet important actions. Considering the impracticality of including all frames (often averaging hundreds) into the analysis, it becomes essential to find an effective way for frame selection and information grouping. Our work specifically focuses on action-driven video paragraph captioning. It tackles the captioning task by utilizing sparse frames and refined video an + +chors with action visual representation. No event annotation or any other additional information is used except for the video and paragraph captions, thereby ensuring the practicality of our method. + +We propose our vanilla model based on the Transformer architect (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). A new grouping module, named Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG), is introduced. It uses a set of designed anchors as queries to select and group useful frames. The objective is to extract two types of content from the video: event distributions and action changes between adjacent frames. The idea is to progressively estimate the actual event distributions by grouping visually similar video frames using these designed anchors. + +At each encoder layer, SFG is first applied to every two frames and selects one informative frame, where anchors are random frames. As a result, a sequence of sparse and important video frames are obtained, instead of using the randomly sampled ones. This process is referred to as clip-level SFG. Next, SFG is employed to group event context across the entire video. Video anchors are initialized using triplets of ground truths during the training phase. The objective is to ensure that the anchors capture the action-driven event distributions in the video, while the triplets provide a concise representation of the main action content in the sentences. This process is referred to as video-level SFG. At this stage, the video anchors are updated by grouping the newly selected frames. The remaining steps follow the standard transformer computation. In the decoder, we modify the cross-attention mechanism by attending video anchors in the video-level SFG additionally. The weighted anchors, along with the weighted video frames, guide the decoder to generate each word at each decoding step. + +To train SFG without using event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique. The objective is to ensure that the video anchors are close to their relevant event contents in the video. This process naturally involves contrastive learning between anchors and paragraph. The challenge is that the embedding of the entire paragraph contains excessive noise for the video anchors which are intended to represent the center of events. What we aim to learn is a summary of the event context within the paragraph, while disregarding those static descriptions that are not relevant to the actions in our video anchors. We modify the positive contrastive pair from + +visual-paragraph to visual-triplets, while the negative pairs consist of unmatched pairs within the batch. For each sentence in the paragraph, triplet $(s,v,o)$ (Sec. 3.2) is extracted and the embeddings of all triplets are averaged. This contrastive learning approach is referred to as Intra-Contrastive Learning, and its purpose is to minimize the distance between the overall video anchors and the paragraphs. + +Besides, it is crucial to differentiate the video anchors from other visual contents in the video. The Inter-Contrastive Learning method takes the left video representation as a negative visual part. It requires the distance between the video anchors and the triplet embeddings is at least smaller than the distance from the negative visual part to the triplet embeddings. We conduct experiments on ActivityNet Caption and YouCook2 datasets. The results demonstrate that our model outperforms the state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods when evaluated using the event ground truths on both datasets. + +The contributions of this work are as follows: + +(1) We propose a Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) module to estimate event locations and catch action-driven visual content. It operates at both the short clips and the whole video levels without relying on event annotations, thereby enhancing the practicality of video paragraph captioning. +(2) We build an Intra- and Intro-contrastive loss for SFG training. It helps the model focus more on learning event distribution rather than other noisy contextual information, reducing redundancy and improving precision of the captions. +(3) Our model achieves SOTA results on benchmark datasets ActivityNet and YouCook2, outperforming even the methods using event annotations. + +# 2 Related work + +Dense Video Captioning As a multi-modal task, it has attracted much attention. Popular categorization of dense video captioning falls into three: predicting event location and sentences, solely predicting sentences with event annotations, and predicting paragraphs without event annotations. In this paper, our focus falls into the third category. (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) is the first adopting transformer to decode sentences and create differentiable masks for the consistency between proposals and captions. (J. Mun and Han, 2019) used a pointer network to select possible event proposals from candidates and to recurrently generate sen + +tence for each event. (T. Wang and Luo, 2021) firstly tackled this task as a parallel multitask. Localization and caption generation are predicted at the same time using a DETR scheme. (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019) adopted adversarial inference to evaluate the paragraph quality. (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) proposed a memory module in decoder to remove redundant visual and text information dynamically. These prior studies all rely on event annotations. (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) focused on reducing redundancy using an adding and erasing module at each decoding step without event annotations. However, little attention have been paid to video redundancy itself at the encoder stage. In our work, we aim to address this issue by tackling it from the initial frame selection stage and capturing the core action content of the video. + +Video Action Understanding Action localization in video is an important task for video understanding. (Yeung et al., 2016) and (Zhou et al., 2018) utilized reinforce learning to dynamically determine the next frame. (Z. Yuan and Gangshan, 2021) proposed to sample motion from cumulative distribution. (B. Korbar and Torresani, 2019) proposed to understand video only through some salient clips which were ranked and selected for further understanding. (Gowda et al., 2021) selected single frame and utilized high level feature for video classification. The previous works seldom combine the two modalities (visual and text) together. Our work utilizes both to better select key frames. + +# 3 Methods + +The proposed Sparse Frame Grouping Network is shown in Fig. 2. It consists of three modules: clip-level SFG, video-level SFG, and Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning. Together with the vanilla transformer, these modules generate action-driven and event annotation-free paragraphs. In this section, the vanilla transformer is first described, followed by the introduction to the three modules. + +# 3.1 Vanilla Model + +Given an untrimmed video $V = \{v_{1},\dots,v_{n}\}$ , $v_{i} \in R^{d_{v}}$ , where $v_{i}$ is the $i$ -th video frame representation (referred to as frame hereafter), $n$ is the total number of frames in $V$ , and $d_{v}$ is the dimension of video frame. The video paragraph captioning task aims to describe the content of $V$ with a paragraph $Y = \{y_{1},\dots,y_{k}\}$ , $y_{j} \in R^{d_{w}}$ , where $y_{j}$ is the + +$j$ -th word in the $k$ length paragraph, and $d_w$ is the dimension of word embeddings. Here we build our vanilla model based on the transformer structure, following the approach described in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) and (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). The encoder transformer $E$ is used to learn the video representation $V_e$ from video input $V$ and the decoder transformer $D$ generates the captions conditioned on $V_e$ . Specifically, we first adopt $N$ -layer transformer encoder to model the long range interactions: + +$$ +V _ {i + 1} = F F N \left(V _ {i} + M u l t i H e a d \left(V _ {i}, V _ {i}, V _ {i}\right)\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +where $V_{i}$ is the output of $i$ -th transformer layer. $FFN()$ and MultiHead() denote feed-forward network and multi-head attention as in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). For the decoder, we first use the masked multi-head self attention (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) to model the hidden states of the last layer, then we introduce cross attention to fuse the text modality and the visual modality. For cross attention, we use the text embeddings at each decoding step as the query, and $V_{n}$ from the last layer of the encoder as key and value, so that each word can be generated based on the previously predicted words and the attended video contents. The vanilla model is trained typically by the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) loss: + +$$ +L _ {m l e} = - \frac {1}{T} \sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \log p \left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +L _ {m l e} = - \frac {1}{T} \sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \log p \left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +where $V_{e}$ is conditioned video representation. $y_{t}^{*}$ is the predicted word at the $t$ -th step and $T$ is the length of caption. Without event segment annotations, there are three challenges in video paragraph captioning. Firstly, directly decoding the entire video usually leads to confusion in recognizing clear contexts and decoding each into word output. Secondly, the random frame sampling strategy results in the loss of essential key information, affecting the decoder's ability to catch action changes and decode precise words. Lastly, the MLE loss tends to generate high frequency and repetitive words in previous steps. + +![](images/6a227b6c84744eaf05ee9bf4b88bff8c0c17bdba5e46f2a278289f568400a969.jpg) +Figure 2: Overview of SFG Network. (a) Architect of the network. SFG is applied at both the clip and video level in every encoder layer. The decoder dynamically generates words based on previous video anchors and selected video frames. Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning is introduced for video anchor training. (b) Detail of SFG. + +![](images/6c73fe8ce8876e6ebef031ee15ad84ddc91c6bcb2cf2d9fd1602fe8718d9cdbb.jpg) + +# 3.2 Progressive Grouping Transformer + +As shown in Fig. 2(a), based on the vanilla transformer (Sec.3.1), instead of directly feeding all the video frames into the transformer encoder, we incorporate the clip-level sparse frame grouping (SFG) module and video-level grouping module prior to each transformer layer, denoted as $SFG_{clip}$ and $SFG_{video}$ . We employ dynamic tokens, known as anchors, to selectively choose useful frames from the input or the previous transformer layer. The objective of these modules is to obtain a set of sparse video frames and a collection of video anchors that can learn event distributions dynamically. + +Formally, we take the $l$ -th transformer layer as an example and have the video frames $V^l$ as the input. Firstly, we randomly select one frame from every two frames as anchors for $SFG_{clip}$ as $V^{l_1} = SFG_{clip}(V^l,A_{clip}^l)$ , where $A_{clip}^l$ represents anchors at the clip level. $V^{l_1}$ is the half length of the input frames. To help SFG learn the action-driven event context, we initialize the video level frames via triplet embeddings. Assuming that triplets highly summarize the main contents of the sentence in captions, we extract one triplet (L. Wang and Svetlana, 2016) from each sentence and project it to the same latent space as the video frames through linear projection. E.g., one triplet from a sentence is $< s,v,o>$ , which can + +be embedded as $\{y_s, y_{v1}, \dots, y_{vk}, y_o\}$ . $y_s$ is subject, $y_{v1}, \dots, y_{vk}$ is one verb or verb phrase, and $y_o$ is object. We sum the word embeddings in the triplet and project them to the video representation space: $a_i^l = \text{Linear}(\sum y_{\text{triplet}})$ , $a_i^l \in R^{d_v}$ is one anchor among the video anchors. By initializing the left video anchors and setting the number of anchors to be equal to the number of sentences in the captions, the anchors can effectively group the content with action-related visual features and learn the event distributions through different anchors. We get the updated video anchors $A_{video}^{l+1}$ and the selected video frames via: + +$$ +I ^ {l}, A _ {\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l + 1} = S F G _ {\text {v i d e o}} \left(V ^ {l _ {1}}, A _ {\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l}\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +$$ +V ^ {l + 1} = \text {T r a n s f r o m e r L a y e r} (V ^ {l _ {1}}), \tag {5} +$$ + +where $I^l$ is the outcome of $\text{ArgMax}$ , which is the index of center frames at this stage. We adopt the video frames selected by $SFG_{clip}$ and forward them to $l$ -th transformer layer. With the stacked encoder transformer layers and SFG modules, we get a set of sparse video frames with fewer redundant frames and the most representative anchors. These anchors already group the core content of the events in the video. + +# 3.3 Sparse Frame Grouping Block + +As shown in Fig. 2(b), SFG utilizes the dynamic anchors to select the center frames for each anchor + +and group action-driven event content around the updated anchors. + +Formally, we take anchors $A = \{a_1, \dots, a_m\}$ , $a_i \in R^{d_v}$ as the query, and the video frames $V$ as the key and value pairs to compute the weights of video frames. To select target frames, we change the original SoftMax to $ArgMax$ and weight matrix to one-hot matrix. Then we select the center frames and obtain the updated anchors $\hat{A}$ through the $ArgMax$ function: + +$$ +\hat {A} = A + \operatorname {A r g M a x} (A \times V) \times V, \tag {6} +$$ + +where $A$ represents the anchors discussed in Sec. 3.2. However, the one-hot matrix from $ArgMax$ is not differentiable. We further use Gumbel SoftMax (E. Jang and Ben, 2016) and transform Eq. 6 as follows: + +$$ +\hat {A} = A + \frac {\exp (A \times V + \beta)}{\sum \exp (A \times V + \beta)} \times V, \tag {7} +$$ + +where $\hat{A}$ represents the updated anchors. $\beta$ is sampled from the $Gumble(0,1)$ distribution to ensure that SFG can merge the video event information progressively during the training phase. + +# 3.4 Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning + +We obtain a sparse video representation $V_{e}$ with significantly fewer frames compared to the raw video and a set of event context anchors after encoding. To effectively train the proposed video anchors, especially in the absence of event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning technique. This technique enables the learning of event context, which is mainly action context-driven. Specially, we first employ intra-video contrastive learning to minimize the distance between the representation of dynamic anchors $A$ and the text representation. However, the ground truth information may contain noise. For example, grouping frames should not include an excessive number of static or descriptive words such as color, position and background. We aim to extract some confined context from the captions that includes action description while excluding the "unimportant" words. Therefore, triplets are used (Sec.3.2). Assuming that short triplets highly summarize the main contents of the video, we denote the positive pair as $< \overline{A},\overline{T} >$ , where $\overline{A}$ is the average of anchor representation and $\overline{T}$ is the average of triplet embeddings. The unmatched pairs in the + +batch are negative pairs. The Intra-contrastive loss $L_{intra} = L_{a \to t} + L_{t \to a}$ is as follows: + +$$ +L _ {a \rightarrow t} = \frac {1}{T _ {b}} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \log \frac {\exp \left(\bar {A _ {i}} \cdot \bar {T _ {i}}\right) / \tau}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \exp \left(\bar {A _ {i}} \cdot \bar {T _ {j}}\right) / \tau}, \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +L _ {t \rightarrow a} = \frac {1}{T _ {b}} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \log \frac {\exp \left(\bar {T _ {i}} \cdot \bar {A _ {i}}\right) / \tau}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \exp \left(\bar {T _ {i}} \cdot \bar {A _ {j}}\right) / \tau}, \tag {9} +$$ + +where $T_{b}$ is the batch size. We use dot production to measure the similarity between $A$ and $T$ . The loss aims to ensure that all the anchors capture similar contextual information as the possible events described in the captions. However, to reduce redundancy in the generated captions, we also need to secure that the video anchors learn less static noise. Therefore, we further apply Inter-Contrastive Learning to guarantee that the video anchors are at least closer to the triplet embeddings compared to the surrounding visual features. For negative pairs, we select the frames that are not chosen by $SFG_{video}$ in the last transformer encoder layer, which is $A_{n} = (1 - I^{L})\times V$ . Thus the negative visual pair becomes $< \overline{A_n},\overline{T} >$ . The positive pair in the Inter-Constrastive Learning is the same as that in the Intra-Contrastive Learning. The Inter-contrastive loss is as below: + +$$ +L _ {i n t e r} = \max \left(\bar {A ^ {p}} \cdot \bar {T} - \bar {A ^ {n}} \cdot \bar {T} + \sigma , 0\right), \tag {10} +$$ + +where $\sigma$ is a margin constant. This inter-video loss helps distinguish the representation of video anchors from the other parts of the video. The total training loss is: + +$$ +L o s s = L _ {m l e} + \lambda_ {1} L _ {i n t r a} + \lambda_ {2} L _ {i n t e r}, \tag {11} +$$ + +where $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are loss weights over zero. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Datasets and Implementation + +Datasets and Evaluation Metrics: All the experiments are conducted on two widely used benchmark datasets, i.e., ActivityNet Captions(K. Ranjay and Juan, 2017) and YouCook2(L. Zhou and J, 2018). For fair comparison, we use four mainstream evaluation metrics, including BLEU-4 (B@4), METEOR, CIDER and R@4. A higher score for any metric indicates better performance in captioning. Besides, we evaluate repetition using R@4, following the previous work in (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019). A lower R@4 score indicates + +better performance, suggesting less repetition in the paragraph caption. + +Implementation Details: For visual features, we utilize the video features extracted by ResNet-200 and BNInception, as provided by (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). The length of video anchors is set to 10 for ActivityNet Captions and 14 for YouCook2. In the inference phase, random frames are used to initialize the video anchors for $SFG_{video}$ . For text features, words are initialized using Glove embeddings. Text is limited to 60 words. Empirically, the loss weight $\lambda_1$ is set to 1 and $\lambda_2$ to 0.5. The batch size is 32. Greedy decoding is adopted which is comparable to beam search. + +# 4.2 Comparison with SOTA Methods + +In Tab. 1, we compare our model with SOTA methods on ActivityNet Captions. These methods can be divided into two categories: (1) inferring without event annotations, including TDPC (CVPR21) (Y. Song and Jin, 2021); (2) with annotations, including VTrans (CVPR18) (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018), MFT (ECCV18) (Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018), GVD (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), GVDsup (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), AdvInf (CVPR19) (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019), Transformer-XL (ACL19) (Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019), MART (ACL20) (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020), PDVC (ICCV21) (T. Wang and Luo, 2021). It is worth noting that GVD, GVDsup and AdvInf adopt additional object features to align the descriptions and objects in the video. Naturally stronger feature leads to impressive performance. However, our model outperforms them, regardless of whether the object features are integrated or event annotations are used. + +Without the event ground truths, our model still achieves the best performance on B@4, Meteor and CIDER with a relative improvement of $3.7\%$ , $6.5\%$ and $5.9\%$ respectively compared to PDVC (on ActivityNet ae-val). The uplift is achieved even with fewer frames and no event annotations. While TDPC also utilizes key frames, it relies on the pretrained model to reconstruct the common representation space between text and video. It should be the strong prior knowledge in our model that makes the generation more precise. Additionally, TDPC tends to generate shorter sentences, which may result in lower METEOR score for AdvInf. This could be attributed to TDPC encoding all frames directly and overlooking event distributions in the + +video. TDPC may learn the fragmented information scattered throughout the frames. In contrast, our model makes more efforts to address this problem, resulting in more action-driven and organized descriptions. The uplift in METEOR score serves as evidence of a preference for longer sentences in our approach. + +Tab. 2 shows the performance on YouCook2 validation set. Our method achieves the SOTA performance, demonstrating a significant improvement over the other methods across all the metrics. Also, YouCook2 contains a large number of events, which highlights the importance of event distributions for caption generation. + +# 4.3 Ablation Studies + +To verify the effectiveness of the proposed grouping module and loss, we conduct ablation studies on ActivityNet. + +Effects of SFG As shown in Tab. 3, Vanilla is the baseline with MLE loss. Vanilla + $SFG_{clip}$ refers to only $SFG_{clip}$ is used in every layer of the encoder transformer. Vanilla + $SFG_{video} + L_{intra} + L_{inter}$ is the complete module for our video-level SFG. The last row is the full model. The experiments report that: (1) $SFG_{clip}$ contributes to a reduction in repetition, as indicated by the improvement in R@4. R@4 is improved by $38\%$ and by $59\%$ in rows 1 & 2 and rows 5 & 6. This suggests that the dynamic frame sampling performed by $SFG_{clip}$ not only benefits the selection of informative frame, but also results in a sparse video representation, reducing the redundancy from the video side; (2) for $SFG_{video}$ in row 5, there are considerable improvements in the precision and repetition. This indicates the video anchors indeed learn to estimate the video content, reducing the static noise and, consequently the redundancy. + +Effects of Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Loss In Tab. 3, *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Lintera* refers to only *SFGvideo* is used in every encoder layer with *Lossintra*. *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Linter* is to verify whether the distinction of anchors alone is sufficient to summarize the event distribution in the video, without the supervision of triplets. From the results, it can be concluded that *Lossintra* has a greater impact on improving the model precision (B@4, METEOR and R@4), while *Lossinter* significantly reduces R@4. Specifically, when comparing with row 2, row 3 (*Lossintra* + *SFGvideo*) has improvements in B@4, METEOR and CIDER + +Table 1: Performance Comparison on ActivityNet. ae-val. $V$ , $F$ , $O$ : visual, flow and obj features. \*: utilizing stronger features. The italic number means they are significant in hypothesis testing, + +
ModelEvent AnnotationFeaturesae-valae-test
TrainInferB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓B@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
HSE(B. Zhang and Sha, 2018)YYV9.8413.7818.7813.22----
VTrans(L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018)YYV+F9.7515.6422.167.799.3115.5421.337.45
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)YYV+F10.3915.0921.678.5410.2514.9121.718.79
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)YYV+F10.3315.6823.425.189.7815.5722.165.44
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YYV+F11.8015.9327.27-----
GVD(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.0415.7121.958.7610.5015.6021.60-
GVDsup(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.3016.4122.947.0410.7016.1022.20-
AdvInf(P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019)YYV+F+O10.0416.6020.975.76----
MFT(Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018)YNV+F8.4514.7514.1517.59----
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YNV+F10.2415.8020.45-----
TDPC*(Y. Song and Jin, 2021)NNV+F----12.2016.1027.362.63
VanillaNNV+F11.2315.3425.237.3810.8715.2125.128.23
OursNNV+F12.2416.9728.892.5112.2116.6228.542.53
+ +Table 2: Performance Comparison on YouCook2. + +
ModelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
VTrans(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)7.6215.6532.267.83
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)6.5614.7626.356.30
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)8.0015.9035.744.39
Vanilla7.5415.3232.465.89
Ours8.5316.2439.274.12
+ +Table 3: Ablation Studies. + +
IndexModelB@4METEORCIDERR@4
1Vanilla11.2315.3425.237.38
2Vanilla+SFGclip11.3915.4925.905.34
3Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera11.4215.9026.765.89
4Vanilla+SFGvideo+Linter11.5816.0027.064.67
5Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera+Linter11.7116.3028.213.98
6blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8316.4128.543.90
7blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8016.5428.673.20
8Vanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera+Lintera12.2416.9728.892.51
+ +by $0.3\%$ , $3.0\%$ and $3.3\%$ respectively, except for $\mathbf{R}@\mathbf{4}$ which is increased. We speculate that the increase in $\mathbf{R}@\mathbf{4}$ may be due to the absence of $SFG_{clip}$ , but the precision benefits from the supervision of $Loss_{intra}$ , which is similar to the representation of triplets in the captions. As for $Loss_{inter}$ , it boosts all the metrics, especially $\mathbf{R}@\mathbf{4}$ , suggesting that $Loss_{inter}$ helps video anchors exclude many static visual content and reduce repetition. + +Effect of Anchor Number During the training phase, the initialization of the video anchors are only related to triplets from captions. However, during the testing phase, we currently select one frame at regular intervals from the video as an anchor. The difference is that the tokens in SFG are predefined in terms of quantity, and a random frame is used as the initial value. We conduct further analysis to determine the optimal number of anchors for the clip-level and video-level SFGs. As shown in Tab. 5, clip-level refers to setting one anchor for every 2/3 video frames, while video-level refers to + +Table 4: Effects of Anchor Position in Testing Phase. + +
anchor positionB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
random sample10.315.828.563.12
uniform sample12.2416.9728.892.51
+ +Table 5: Effects of Frame Num. at Clip- and Video-levels. + +
Clip LevelVideo LevelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
2811.6915.4527.354.93
3811.5415.2327.214.12
21012.2416.9728.892.51
31011.8616.0127.542.49
+ +setting 8/10 anchors in video-level SFG. It can be seen that selecting one video frame from every 2 frames for clip-level SFG and using 10 anchors in video-level SFG yield the best performance. When comparing 3 frames to 2 frames at the clip-level, the precision decreases, but R@4 is improved by $20\%$ (in rows 1 & 2). This represents a trade-off between repetition and precision. For video anchors, using 10 anchors can cover most events in ActivityNet Captions while 8 anchors may miss some. Also, we test different ways of select anchors in the testing phase, with randomly selecting frames as anchors using a random seed or uniformly selecting over total frames. The results are as Tab. 4 and it can be observed that the random sampling method is not as effective as uniform sampling. + +Table 6: Effects of Anchors & Fusion in Decoder. + +
DecoderB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
w/o anchors11.9516.3428.563.12
add12.1216.0128.233.09
concatenate12.2416.9728.892.51
+ +![](images/d9609acc064d79fe4dea685cfd6699d6eb158a556e3984d64c3f950f338c55a8.jpg) +GT: A band plays an acoustic guitar with a band on stage during a party. A man sits down wearily and his guitar is taken by a man in the crowd. The man from the crowd plays a guitar with the band on stage happily. A man fights fights with his date in the crowd. +Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A man plays guitar on a stage while a band plays music. The man finishes playing and the woman shakes hands. The man plays guitar and then people play guitar . Aclose up of a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning + +![](images/408a7195547a1a128b40d45c5604b1ce22f07d0d063f69d2cdfe021b68fee3b1.jpg) +Ours (w/o event annotations): A man is playing guitar with a group of people standing on stage. A man gives his guitar to a man. The man begins to play the guitar in the crowd. A woman claps her hands. The man fighting for the woman. +GT: A large group of people are shown from several shots walking around as well as divers jumping off a drive. More shots of athletes and audiences are shown as well as people being interviewed on the camera. More divers jump as well as several other interviews take place. +Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A large group of people are seen sitting around an indoor pool with one man speaking to one another. Two women are seen walking on a platform with a lot of people watching on the sidelines. A close up o a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down. + +![](images/32c99a95592b4af099626298362c5496297e0a6e393e55c84d5e715c602e2182.jpg) +Ours (w/o event annotations): A large group of people are sitting and people are walking in lines. The divers jump into the pool with two women interviewed to the camera. The athletes keep jumping into and a lot of people watching and talking. A woman and a man are interviewed to the camera. +GT: A gymnast is seen standing ready before uneven bars while many are watching on the sides. The girl jumps up and begins performing a routine on the bars. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down. +Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A group of people are standing on a mat. A man in blue shirt get up a high beam. A woman in blue shirt is standing on the mat. +Ours (w/o event annotations): A gymnast stands under uneven bars with people watching, She jumps and flips around. She jumps off and stands on the mat. + +# 5 Qualitative results + +Fig. 4 displays example captions produced by our model on ActivityNet Captions. We compare them with $GT$ (the Ground Truth) and those generated by the Vanilla models. The triplets in all paragraphs are highlighted for comparison. Compared to Vanilla, our model tends to generate more precise and action-driven descriptions, as evident in the examples. Particularly in the third case, where the surroundings are relatively static and only the athlete is performing different actions, our model is able to differentiate between these actions in the neighbouring frames. + +For event distributions, in the first case, there are three events, and the second is momentary compared with the other two. The vanilla model fails to describe the second event even with annotation information. Our model, however, captures the action "is taken by" and decodes it to "give" in the generated description. + +Effects of Fusion Ways in Decoder To utilize the dynamic anchors for generation guidance, we use the anchor attention in the decoder cross attention. Formally, the word embedding at the $t$ -th + +![](images/19a276428b874b75718d860b7fe5d1cd8059fea79086ffa42aefe4309b3431be.jpg) +GT: There's a man standing in a kitchen and washing his hands in steel kitchen sink. He takes a pump from the bottle and washes the soap from the sink counter. He then turns on the water and waits for his hands. After he's done washing, he checks his watch and looks at the TV. + +![](images/f6ccb00fe419bcff70e6930a65a5607ac8adf5fcc841e94bbf8ad67564af15e2.jpg) +Vanilla/w/ event annotations): A man stands in front of a sink. He washes his hands under the water. He use a white hand towel. +Ours/w/o event annotations): A man is standing in a kitchen besides a sink. He open the water and takes a pump from a soap. He is washing his hands. Then he takes a towel and put the towel in the corner. +GT: A man is mowing his lawn around a tree in front of his house. He walks back and forth, avoiding the rocks. He turns at the driveway and returns again. +Vanilla(w/ event annotations): A man is walking back and forth with the lawn. A man walks around the tree. + +![](images/5023d6faf20a039572747e00f4212993f7a5e02884c77a6ccc80a90342db5c9e.jpg) +Ours(w/o event annotations): A man is pushing the lawn. He walks around from side to side. He turns back to the house. +GT: A crowd is gathered in an arena. Swimmers are lined up on a diving board. The swimmers take turns diving off the diving board. +Vanillaw/ event annotations): An arena is filled with a crowd of people. Swimmers take turns diving off the board. +Ours(w/o event annotations): People crowd in the gym. Swimmers dive into the pool. Swimming walk inline. + +![](images/73a746ca584e1165b594f88b11307ea00ff9af750a4cdcbd3bb46db65ee7cd6b.jpg) +Figure 3: Qualitative Results1. +Figure 4: Qualitative Results2. +Figure 5: Different Model Structures. + +step is used as a query to attend to the anchors, and the weighted anchors are fused by concatenating them with the visual representation as $V$ . This $V$ is then utilized to guide the decoding of the next step word in the sequence. We verify the effectiveness of anchors in the decoder and compare different fusion ways including concatenating and adding. As shown in Tab. 6, attending to the anchors indeed improves the relevance of the generated captions. Additionally, the results indicate that concatenation is more effective compared to addition. + +Effects of Different Model Structures We also adjust the placements of the clip-level and video-level $SFG$ modules. In the left encoder structure shown in Fig. 5, the order of the modules is $SFG_{clip}$ , $SFG_{video}$ and transformer layer. The block $(SFG_{clip}, SFG_{video}, \text{transformer layer})$ is stacked twice in the structure. The right structure in Fig. 5 considers the information lost in the second $SFG_{clip}$ , puts $SFG_{video}$ first in the second layer + +![](images/64fb9850ab73efed6ce2b50ab88b472a97a3a2991eb612fbf49b487b38602d4d.jpg) +Figure 6: Performance of Model Structures. a and b represent the left and right structures in Fig. 5, respectively. + +of transformer, and conducts $SFG_{clip}$ after the last layer of transformer. + +Comparing the two structures, the left outperforms the right. This suggests that even though $SFG_{clip}$ discards some frames before $SFG_{video}$ , the key information is retained, allowing $SFG_{video}$ to learn the event contributions. Also frame sampling helps remove noise, which benefits $SFG_{video}$ grouping center context of events. Fig. 6 shows the performance of the two structures. + +# 6 Conclusions + +In this work, we present a network with Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) enhanced Transformer via Contrastive Learning for event annotation-free video paragraph captioning. The SFG module is designed to select and group informative frames and learn event distributions without relying on event annotations. Additionally, an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique is proposed to train the SFG, enabling it to learn the overall event context in the video and distinguish it from the static context. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that SFGTransformer achieves SOTA performance. In the future, we plan to extend the method to longer video data such as movie data to further investigate the influence of key action visual information. And we also investigate training method without triplets to simplify the pre-process of data. + +# Limitations + +Video paragraph captioning requires semantic consistency between the generated captions and the video content. Although the "action-guided frame grouping" method provides some guidance for frame selection and grouping, there are still potential instances of semantic inconsistency. This + +is especially true when there are multiple related yet distinct actions in the video, which may result in less accurate or consistent captions in terms of semantic coherence. + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by National Science and Technology Innovation 2030 - Major Project (No. 2021ZD0114001; No. 2021ZD0114000), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61976057; No. 62172101), the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 21511101000; No. 22DZ1100101), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 2023110139). Yuejie Zhang, Rui Feng and Tao Zhang are corresponding authors. + +# References + +D. Tran B. Korbar and L. Torresani. 2019. Scsampler: Sampling salient clips from video for efficient action recognition. In ICCV, pages 6232-6242. +H. Hu B. Zhang and F. Sha. 2018. Cross-modal and hierarchical modeling of video and text. In ECCV, pages 374-390. +S. Gu E. Jang and P. Ben. 2016. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. ICLR. +Shreyank N Gowda, Marcus Rohrbach, and Laura Sevilla-Lara. 2021. Smart frame selection for action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 1451-1459. +B. Tamara L J. Lei and B. Mohit. 2022. Revealing single frame bias for video-and-language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03428. +Y. Shen D. Yu B. Tamara J. Lei, L. Wang and B. Mohit. 2020. Mart: Memory-augmented recurrent transformer for coherent video paragraph captioning. In ACL, pages 2603-2614. +Z. Ren N. Xu J. Mun, L. Yang and B. Han. 2019. Streamlined dense video captioning. In CVPR, pages 6588-6597. +R. Frederic F. Li K. Ranjay, H. Kenji and C. Juan. 2017. Dense-captioning events in videos. In ICCV, pages 706-715. +Y. Li L. Wang and L. Svetlana. 2016. Learning deep structure-preserving image-text embeddings. In CVPR, pages 5005-5013. +C. Xu L. Zhou and C. Jason J. 2018. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In AAAI. +J. Corso R. Socher L. Zhou, Y. Zhou and C. Xiong. 2018. End-to-end dense video captioning with masked transformer. In CVPR, pages 8739-8748. +X. Chen C. Jason J L. Zhou, K. Yannis and R. Marcus. 2019. Grounded video description. In CVPR, pages 6578-6587. +D. Trevor P. Jae Sung, R. Marcus and R. Anna. 2019. Adversarial inference for multi-sentence video description. In CVPR, pages 6598-6608. +Z. Lu F. Zheng R. Cheng T. Wang, R. Zhang and P. Luo. 2021. End-to-end dense video captioning with parallel decoding. In ICCV, pages 6847-6857. +S. Chen Y. Song and Q. Jin. 2021. Towards diverse paragraph captioning for untrimmed videos. In CVPR, pages 11245-11254. +B. Dai Y. Xiong and D. Lin. 2018. Move forward and tell: A progressive generator of video descriptions. In ECCV, pages 468-483. + +Serena Yeung, Olga Russakovsky, Greg Mori, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. End-to-end learning of action detection from frame glimpses in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2678-2687. +Y. Yang C. Jaime G L. Quoc Z. Dai, Z. Yang and S. Ruslan. 2019. Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In ACL, pages 2978-2988. +W. Limin Z. Yuan, T. Zhan and W. Gangshan. 2021. Mgsampler: An explainable sampling strategy for video action recognition. In CVPR, pages 1513-1522. +Kaiyang Zhou, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning for unsupervised video summarization with diversity-representativeness reward. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/images.zip b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b65e5328d1cbeaecb7117a9bc8eb27ecef6ba1b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:85bfae5b082e95ee956fbe65d0e80759603a37a3bc607ee6d2d6d241fbb8d6b5 +size 435672 diff --git a/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/layout.json b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..568cc4c7fde896cd3fa99fa88ea784005584643a --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8522 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 67, + 517, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 67, + 517, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 67, + 517, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sparse Frame Grouping Network with Action Centered for Untrimmed Video Paragraph Captioning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guorui Yu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yimin Hu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yuejie Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Rui Feng" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Tao Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Shang Gao" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 105, + 495, + 120 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 120, + 502, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 120, + 502, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 120, + 502, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 120, + 502, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sch. of Comp. Sci, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 522, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 522, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 522, + 162 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 148, + 522, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sch. of Inf. Manag. & Eng, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Financial Information Technology," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 514, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 514, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 514, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 514, + 204 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 162, + 514, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sch. of Inf. Tech, Deakin University 21210240409@m.fudan.edu.cn, {20210240283, yjzhang, fengrui}@fudan.edu.cn, taozhang@mail.shufe.edu.cn, shang.gao@deakin.edu.au" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 233, + 274, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generating paragraph captions for untrimmed videos without event annotations is challenging, especially when aiming to enhance precision and minimize repetition at the same time. To address this challenge, we propose a module called Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG). It dynamically groups event information with the help of action information for the entire video and excludes redundant frames within pre-defined clips. To enhance the performance, an Intra-Contrastive Learning technique is designed to align the SFG module with the core event content in the paragraph, and an Inter-Contrastive Learning method is employed to learn action-guided context with reduced static noise simultaneously. Extensive experiments are conducted on two benchmark datasets (ActivityNet Captions and YouCook2). Results demonstrate that SFG outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on all metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 481, + 154, + 494 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 481, + 154, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 481, + 154, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 502, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Video Paragraph Captioning for untrimmed video aims to describe multiple events in the video with three or four sentences. Initially, the focus was on describing each event with a single sentence in a long video (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) (J. Mun and Han, 2019), until (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) proposed to directly generate paragraph captions without event ground truths. This refined approach to paragraph captioning is more practical but also more challenging. Firstly, without event labels, it becomes difficult to precisely locate the transitions between different events and to summarize the complete story from a holistic perspective. Secondly, most prior studies generated one sentence for each event, whereas paragraph captioning without event ground truths requires generating sentences that are two or three times longer. This naturally exacerbates issues of redundancy and repetition. Our work focuses on video paragraph captioning without event annotations as shown in Fig. 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 333, + 212, + 480, + 345 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 212, + 480, + 345 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 212, + 480, + 345 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 212, + 480, + 345 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "60256c01d741d456e071cff2bd02884d060db1555312ade0fd5e53473ba1709f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 366 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 366 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 524, + 366 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Comparison of SFG with traditional methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a common frame sampling strategy in most existing works, random sampling method randomly selects one frame every one or two seconds. The hypothesis of previous works is that the frames in one second are highly similar, so random sampling does not result in significant information loss. However, actions often occur rapidly, such as within a one-second time frame, and usually lead changes to events. Random sampling may miss crucial action frames that occur quickly and retain many similar frames as noise. According to (J. Lei and Mohit, 2022), one or two key frames are sufficient to capture important content, and the \"redundant\" frames can be neglected in an action clip. In this way, we can learn the visual content from a small number of frames that contain critical information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, our objective is to learn event distributions guided by action frames, and utilize them as estimations for event locations, enabling us to construct comprehensive paragraph stories by incorporating these momentary yet important actions. Considering the impracticality of including all frames (often averaging hundreds) into the analysis, it becomes essential to find an effective way for frame selection and information grouping. Our work specifically focuses on action-driven video paragraph captioning. It tackles the captioning task by utilizing sparse frames and refined video an" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14571" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 469, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 469, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 469, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14571-14580 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "chors with action visual representation. No event annotation or any other additional information is used except for the video and paragraph captions, thereby ensuring the practicality of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 291, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 291, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 130, + 291, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose our vanilla model based on the Transformer architect (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). A new grouping module, named Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG), is introduced. It uses a set of designed anchors as queries to select and group useful frames. The objective is to extract two types of content from the video: event distributions and action changes between adjacent frames. The idea is to progressively estimate the actual event distributions by grouping visually similar video frames using these designed anchors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "At each encoder layer, SFG is first applied to every two frames and selects one informative frame, where anchors are random frames. As a result, a sequence of sparse and important video frames are obtained, instead of using the randomly sampled ones. This process is referred to as clip-level SFG. Next, SFG is employed to group event context across the entire video. Video anchors are initialized using triplets of ground truths during the training phase. The objective is to ensure that the anchors capture the action-driven event distributions in the video, while the triplets provide a concise representation of the main action content in the sentences. This process is referred to as video-level SFG. At this stage, the video anchors are updated by grouping the newly selected frames. The remaining steps follow the standard transformer computation. In the decoder, we modify the cross-attention mechanism by attending video anchors in the video-level SFG additionally. The weighted anchors, along with the weighted video frames, guide the decoder to generate each word at each decoding step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To train SFG without using event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique. The objective is to ensure that the video anchors are close to their relevant event contents in the video. This process naturally involves contrastive learning between anchors and paragraph. The challenge is that the embedding of the entire paragraph contains excessive noise for the video anchors which are intended to represent the center of events. What we aim to learn is a summary of the event context within the paragraph, while disregarding those static descriptions that are not relevant to the actions in our video anchors. We modify the positive contrastive pair from" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "visual-paragraph to visual-triplets, while the negative pairs consist of unmatched pairs within the batch. For each sentence in the paragraph, triplet " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(s,v,o)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Sec. 3.2) is extracted and the embeddings of all triplets are averaged. This contrastive learning approach is referred to as Intra-Contrastive Learning, and its purpose is to minimize the distance between the overall video anchors and the paragraphs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, it is crucial to differentiate the video anchors from other visual contents in the video. The Inter-Contrastive Learning method takes the left video representation as a negative visual part. It requires the distance between the video anchors and the triplet embeddings is at least smaller than the distance from the negative visual part to the triplet embeddings. We conduct experiments on ActivityNet Caption and YouCook2 datasets. The results demonstrate that our model outperforms the state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods when evaluated using the event ground truths on both datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 357, + 516, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 357, + 516, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 357, + 516, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The contributions of this work are as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 562 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(1) We propose a Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) module to estimate event locations and catch action-driven visual content. It operates at both the short clips and the whole video levels without relying on event annotations, thereby enhancing the practicality of video paragraph captioning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(2) We build an Intra- and Intro-contrastive loss for SFG training. It helps the model focus more on learning event distribution rather than other noisy contextual information, reducing redundancy and improving precision of the captions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 525, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 525, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 521, + 525, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(3) Our model achieves SOTA results on benchmark datasets ActivityNet and YouCook2, outperforming even the methods using event annotations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 393, + 587 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 393, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 393, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dense Video Captioning As a multi-modal task, it has attracted much attention. Popular categorization of dense video captioning falls into three: predicting event location and sentences, solely predicting sentences with event annotations, and predicting paragraphs without event annotations. In this paper, our focus falls into the third category. (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) is the first adopting transformer to decode sentences and create differentiable masks for the consistency between proposals and captions. (J. Mun and Han, 2019) used a pointer network to select possible event proposals from candidates and to recurrently generate sen" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14572" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tence for each event. (T. Wang and Luo, 2021) firstly tackled this task as a parallel multitask. Localization and caption generation are predicted at the same time using a DETR scheme. (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019) adopted adversarial inference to evaluate the paragraph quality. (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020) proposed a memory module in decoder to remove redundant visual and text information dynamically. These prior studies all rely on event annotations. (Y. Song and Jin, 2021) focused on reducing redundancy using an adding and erasing module at each decoding step without event annotations. However, little attention have been paid to video redundancy itself at the encoder stage. In our work, we aim to address this issue by tackling it from the initial frame selection stage and capturing the core action content of the video." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Video Action Understanding Action localization in video is an important task for video understanding. (Yeung et al., 2016) and (Zhou et al., 2018) utilized reinforce learning to dynamically determine the next frame. (Z. Yuan and Gangshan, 2021) proposed to sample motion from cumulative distribution. (B. Korbar and Torresani, 2019) proposed to understand video only through some salient clips which were ranked and selected for further understanding. (Gowda et al., 2021) selected single frame and utilized high level feature for video classification. The previous works seldom combine the two modalities (visual and text) together. Our work utilizes both to better select key frames." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 135, + 529 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 135, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 135, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The proposed Sparse Frame Grouping Network is shown in Fig. 2. It consists of three modules: clip-level SFG, video-level SFG, and Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning. Together with the vanilla transformer, these modules generate action-driven and event annotation-free paragraphs. In this section, the vanilla transformer is first described, followed by the introduction to the three modules." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 162, + 671 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 162, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 660, + 162, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Vanilla Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given an untrimmed video " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V = \\{v_{1},\\dots,v_{n}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i} \\in R^{d_{v}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th video frame representation (referred to as frame hereafter), " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the total number of frames in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_{v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dimension of video frame. The video paragraph captioning task aims to describe the content of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a paragraph " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Y = \\{y_{1},\\dots,y_{k}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{j} \\in R^{d_{w}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 775 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th word in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " length paragraph, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d_w" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dimension of word embeddings. Here we build our vanilla model based on the transformer structure, following the approach described in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) and (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020). The encoder transformer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used to learn the video representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from video input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the decoder transformer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " generates the captions conditioned on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Specifically, we first adopt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-layer transformer encoder to model the long range interactions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 249, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 249, + 525, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 249, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V _ {i + 1} = F F N \\left(V _ {i} + M u l t i H e a d \\left(V _ {i}, V _ {i}, V _ {i}\\right)\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "72f61287a253230f6da9421d83236eda3b8304301acf2970840a038422801279.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the output of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th transformer layer. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "FFN()" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and MultiHead() denote feed-forward network and multi-head attention as in (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). For the decoder, we first use the masked multi-head self attention (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018) to model the hidden states of the last layer, then we introduce cross attention to fuse the text modality and the visual modality. For cross attention, we use the text embeddings at each decoding step as the query, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 279, + 526, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the last layer of the encoder as key and value, so that each word can be generated based on the previously predicted words and the attended video contents. The vanilla model is trained typically by the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) loss:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 495, + 525, + 531 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 495, + 525, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 495, + 525, + 531 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {m l e} = - \\frac {1}{T} \\sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \\log p \\left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \\mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "dd2396f34ff08451e4aa9e8448df03acee966db89becd148b389e02b633c9088.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 552, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 552, + 525, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 552, + 525, + 588 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {m l e} = - \\frac {1}{T} \\sum_ {t = 0} ^ {T} \\log p \\left(y _ {t} ^ {*} \\mid y _ {< t} ^ {*}, V _ {e}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "e8578a1091d6169edf3874fb1d953202cff17e06abdfcea8afa9226d9f1b3b4d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is conditioned video representation. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{t}^{*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the predicted word at the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th step and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the length of caption. Without event segment annotations, there are three challenges in video paragraph captioning. Firstly, directly decoding the entire video usually leads to confusion in recognizing clear contexts and decoding each into word output. Secondly, the random frame sampling strategy results in the loss of essential key information, affecting the decoder's ability to catch action changes and decode precise words. Lastly, the MLE loss tends to generate high frequency and repetitive words in previous steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14573" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 333, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 333, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 333, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 333, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6a227b6c84744eaf05ee9bf4b88bff8c0c17bdba5e46f2a278289f568400a969.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 306, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of SFG Network. (a) Architect of the network. SFG is applied at both the clip and video level in every encoder layer. The decoder dynamically generates words based on previous video anchors and selected video frames. Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning is introduced for video anchor training. (b) Detail of SFG." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 499, + 294 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 499, + 294 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 499, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 333, + 68, + 499, + 294 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6c73fe8ce8876e6ebef031ee15ad84ddc91c6bcb2cf2d9fd1602fe8718d9cdbb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 259, + 377 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 259, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 259, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Progressive Grouping Transformer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Fig. 2(a), based on the vanilla transformer (Sec.3.1), instead of directly feeding all the video frames into the transformer encoder, we incorporate the clip-level sparse frame grouping (SFG) module and video-level grouping module prior to each transformer layer, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 388, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We employ dynamic tokens, known as anchors, to selectively choose useful frames from the input or the previous transformer layer. The objective of these modules is to obtain a set of sparse video frames and a collection of video anchors that can learn event distributions dynamically." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, we take the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th transformer layer as an example and have the video frames " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the input. Firstly, we randomly select one frame from every two frames as anchors for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V^{l_1} = SFG_{clip}(V^l,A_{clip}^l)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{clip}^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents anchors at the clip level. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V^{l_1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the half length of the input frames. To help SFG learn the action-driven event context, we initialize the video level frames via triplet embeddings. Assuming that triplets highly summarize the main contents of the sentence in captions, we extract one triplet (L. Wang and Svetlana, 2016) from each sentence and project it to the same latent space as the video frames through linear projection. E.g., one triplet from a sentence is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< s,v,o>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which can" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "be embedded as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{y_s, y_{v1}, \\dots, y_{vk}, y_o\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_s" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is subject, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{v1}, \\dots, y_{vk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is one verb or verb phrase, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_o" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is object. We sum the word embeddings in the triplet and project them to the video representation space: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_i^l = \\text{Linear}(\\sum y_{\\text{triplet}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_i^l \\in R^{d_v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is one anchor among the video anchors. By initializing the left video anchors and setting the number of anchors to be equal to the number of sentences in the captions, the anchors can effectively group the content with action-related visual features and learn the event distributions through different anchors. We get the updated video anchors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{video}^{l+1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 364, + 526, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the selected video frames via:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 548, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 548, + 525, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 548, + 525, + 565 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "I ^ {l}, A _ {\\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l + 1} = S F G _ {\\text {v i d e o}} \\left(V ^ {l _ {1}}, A _ {\\text {v i d e o}} ^ {l}\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "f3901ed83f2012166dfc44604dd053e8b5e5853c6b73ca0e060274fc05a9256d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 575, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 575, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 575, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V ^ {l + 1} = \\text {T r a n s f r o m e r L a y e r} (V ^ {l _ {1}}), \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "b612133dd9b1e11f32e6cb26a93df2877ed9f70e96f7ab73f885673a577136d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I^l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the outcome of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{ArgMax}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is the index of center frames at this stage. We adopt the video frames selected by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and forward them to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th transformer layer. With the stacked encoder transformer layers and SFG modules, we get a set of sparse video frames with fewer redundant frames and the most representative anchors. These anchors already group the core content of the events in the video." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 473, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 473, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 473, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Sparse Frame Grouping Block" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Fig. 2(b), SFG utilizes the dynamic anchors to select the center frames for each anchor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14574" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and group action-driven event content around the updated anchors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, we take anchors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A = \\{a_1, \\dots, a_m\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a_i \\in R^{d_v}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the query, and the video frames " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the key and value pairs to compute the weights of video frames. To select target frames, we change the original SoftMax to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ArgMax" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and weight matrix to one-hot matrix. Then we select the center frames and obtain the updated anchors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " through the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ArgMax" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 216, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 216, + 290, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 216, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {A} = A + \\operatorname {A r g M a x} (A \\times V) \\times V, \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "dff931a507d96dbf2db5136319e551c4a7afc1da9760a2f85e6e4202c9db56ab.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the anchors discussed in Sec. 3.2. However, the one-hot matrix from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ArgMax" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 241, + 290, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is not differentiable. We further use Gumbel SoftMax (E. Jang and Ben, 2016) and transform Eq. 6 as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 290, + 344 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 290, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 315, + 290, + 344 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {A} = A + \\frac {\\exp (A \\times V + \\beta)}{\\sum \\exp (A \\times V + \\beta)} \\times V, \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "e1ed48d56dfe25158f5c6927245b1d60066ace52a8a1b5d996290aacb013018c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the updated anchors. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is sampled from the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Gumble(0,1)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " distribution to ensure that SFG can merge the video event information progressively during the training phase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 257, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 257, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 257, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We obtain a sparse video representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V_{e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with significantly fewer frames compared to the raw video and a set of event context anchors after encoding. To effectively train the proposed video anchors, especially in the absence of event annotations, we introduce an Intra- and Inter-Video Contrastive Learning technique. This technique enables the learning of event context, which is mainly action context-driven. Specially, we first employ intra-video contrastive learning to minimize the distance between the representation of dynamic anchors " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the text representation. However, the ground truth information may contain noise. For example, grouping frames should not include an excessive number of static or descriptive words such as color, position and background. We aim to extract some confined context from the captions that includes action description while excluding the \"unimportant\" words. Therefore, triplets are used (Sec.3.2). Assuming that short triplets highly summarize the main contents of the video, we denote the positive pair as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< \\overline{A},\\overline{T} >" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{A}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the average of anchor representation and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{T}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the average of triplet embeddings. The unmatched pairs in the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "batch are negative pairs. The Intra-contrastive loss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{intra} = L_{a \\to t} + L_{t \\to a}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 107, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 107, + 525, + 143 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 107, + 525, + 143 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {a \\rightarrow t} = \\frac {1}{T _ {b}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\bar {A _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {T _ {i}}\\right) / \\tau}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\exp \\left(\\bar {A _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {T _ {j}}\\right) / \\tau}, \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "3e489e2489276245407b188458e8bde42226276c2fc420d4261bdc1efe0fe7f0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 153, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 153, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 153, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {t \\rightarrow a} = \\frac {1}{T _ {b}} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\log \\frac {\\exp \\left(\\bar {T _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {A _ {i}}\\right) / \\tau}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {T _ {b}} \\exp \\left(\\bar {T _ {i}} \\cdot \\bar {A _ {j}}\\right) / \\tau}, \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "682652f735ae6ca0c494408100a8d78c86c5476bf3392bc3ee9d9fcbce268d23.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{b}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the batch size. We use dot production to measure the similarity between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The loss aims to ensure that all the anchors capture similar contextual information as the possible events described in the captions. However, to reduce redundancy in the generated captions, we also need to secure that the video anchors learn less static noise. Therefore, we further apply Inter-Contrastive Learning to guarantee that the video anchors are at least closer to the triplet embeddings compared to the surrounding visual features. For negative pairs, we select the frames that are not chosen by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the last transformer encoder layer, which is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A_{n} = (1 - I^{L})\\times V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus the negative visual pair becomes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< \\overline{A_n},\\overline{T} >" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The positive pair in the Inter-Constrastive Learning is the same as that in the Intra-Contrastive Learning. The Inter-contrastive loss is as below:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 448, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 448, + 525, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 448, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {i n t e r} = \\max \\left(\\bar {A ^ {p}} \\cdot \\bar {T} - \\bar {A ^ {n}} \\cdot \\bar {T} + \\sigma , 0\\right), \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "611f66ccbf25f3f74c141874b161ea890c989bb2fe4cf5e86ea87a632ea2fd04.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 524, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 524, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 524, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 524, + 527 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sigma" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 473, + 524, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a margin constant. This inter-video loss helps distinguish the representation of video anchors from the other parts of the video. The total training loss is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 538, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 538, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 538, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L o s s = L _ {m l e} + \\lambda_ {1} L _ {i n t r a} + \\lambda_ {2} L _ {i n t e r}, \\tag {11}", + "image_path": "8c84938aedb3ef9523b7fd3dc49d9053ec4de1a814f03ce6b57f611f5ad67ef8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 562, + 497, + 576 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are loss weights over zero." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 390, + 599 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 390, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 390, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 468, + 619 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 468, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 468, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets and Implementation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets and Evaluation Metrics: All the experiments are conducted on two widely used benchmark datasets, i.e., ActivityNet Captions(K. Ranjay and Juan, 2017) and YouCook2(L. Zhou and J, 2018). For fair comparison, we use four mainstream evaluation metrics, including BLEU-4 (B@4), METEOR, CIDER and R@4. A higher score for any metric indicates better performance in captioning. Besides, we evaluate repetition using R@4, following the previous work in (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019). A lower R@4 score indicates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14575" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "better performance, suggesting less repetition in the paragraph caption." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Implementation Details: For visual features, we utilize the video features extracted by ResNet-200 and BNInception, as provided by (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018). The length of video anchors is set to 10 for ActivityNet Captions and 14 for YouCook2. In the inference phase, random frames are used to initialize the video anchors for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For text features, words are initialized using Glove embeddings. Text is limited to 60 words. Empirically, the loss weight " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set to 1 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\lambda_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 99, + 291, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to 0.5. The batch size is 32. Greedy decoding is adopted which is comparable to beam search." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 251, + 289 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 251, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 276, + 251, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Comparison with SOTA Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 291, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Tab. 1, we compare our model with SOTA methods on ActivityNet Captions. These methods can be divided into two categories: (1) inferring without event annotations, including TDPC (CVPR21) (Y. Song and Jin, 2021); (2) with annotations, including VTrans (CVPR18) (L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018), MFT (ECCV18) (Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018), GVD (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), GVDsup (CVPR19) (L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019), AdvInf (CVPR19) (P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019), Transformer-XL (ACL19) (Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019), MART (ACL20) (J. Lei and Mohit, 2020), PDVC (ICCV21) (T. Wang and Luo, 2021). It is worth noting that GVD, GVDsup and AdvInf adopt additional object features to align the descriptions and objects in the video. Naturally stronger feature leads to impressive performance. However, our model outperforms them, regardless of whether the object features are integrated or event annotations are used." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Without the event ground truths, our model still achieves the best performance on B@4, Meteor and CIDER with a relative improvement of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively compared to PDVC (on ActivityNet ae-val). The uplift is achieved even with fewer frames and no event annotations. While TDPC also utilizes key frames, it relies on the pretrained model to reconstruct the common representation space between text and video. It should be the strong prior knowledge in our model that makes the generation more precise. Additionally, TDPC tends to generate shorter sentences, which may result in lower METEOR score for AdvInf. This could be attributed to TDPC encoding all frames directly and overlooking event distributions in the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "video. TDPC may learn the fragmented information scattered throughout the frames. In contrast, our model makes more efforts to address this problem, resulting in more action-driven and organized descriptions. The uplift in METEOR score serves as evidence of a preference for longer sentences in our approach." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 527, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 527, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 527, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tab. 2 shows the performance on YouCook2 validation set. Our method achieves the SOTA performance, demonstrating a significant improvement over the other methods across all the metrics. Also, YouCook2 contains a large number of events, which highlights the importance of event distributions for caption generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 408, + 288 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 408, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 276, + 408, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Ablation Studies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 296, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To verify the effectiveness of the proposed grouping module and loss, we conduct ablation studies on ActivityNet." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effects of SFG As shown in Tab. 3, Vanilla is the baseline with MLE loss. Vanilla + " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " refers to only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used in every layer of the encoder transformer. Vanilla + " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video} + L_{intra} + L_{inter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the complete module for our video-level SFG. The last row is the full model. The experiments report that: (1) " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " contributes to a reduction in repetition, as indicated by the improvement in R@4. R@4 is improved by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "38\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "59\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in rows 1 & 2 and rows 5 & 6. This suggests that the dynamic frame sampling performed by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " not only benefits the selection of informative frame, but also results in a sparse video representation, reducing the redundancy from the video side; (2) for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in row 5, there are considerable improvements in the precision and repetition. This indicates the video anchors indeed learn to estimate the video content, reducing the static noise and, consequently the redundancy." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effects of Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Loss In Tab. 3, *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Lintera* refers to only *SFGvideo* is used in every encoder layer with *Lossintra*. *Vanilla* + *SFGvideo* + *Linter* is to verify whether the distinction of anchors alone is sufficient to summarize the event distribution in the video, without the supervision of triplets. From the results, it can be concluded that *Lossintra* has a greater impact on improving the model precision (B@4, METEOR and R@4), while *Lossinter* significantly reduces R@4. Specifically, when comparing with row 2, row 3 (*Lossintra* + *SFGvideo*) has improvements in B@4, METEOR and CIDER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14576" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 103, + 526, + 251 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Performance Comparison on ActivityNet. ae-val. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "O" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 69, + 526, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": visual, flow and obj features. \\*: utilizing stronger features. The italic number means they are significant in hypothesis testing," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 103, + 526, + 251 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 103, + 526, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 103, + 526, + 251 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelEvent AnnotationFeaturesae-valae-test
TrainInferB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓B@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
HSE(B. Zhang and Sha, 2018)YYV9.8413.7818.7813.22----
VTrans(L. Zhou and Xiong, 2018)YYV+F9.7515.6422.167.799.3115.5421.337.45
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)YYV+F10.3915.0921.678.5410.2514.9121.718.79
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)YYV+F10.3315.6823.425.189.7815.5722.165.44
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YYV+F11.8015.9327.27-----
GVD(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.0415.7121.958.7610.5015.6021.60-
GVDsup(L. Zhou and Marcus, 2019)YYV+F+O11.3016.4122.947.0410.7016.1022.20-
AdvInf(P. Jae Sung and Anna, 2019)YYV+F+O10.0416.6020.975.76----
MFT(Y. Xiong and Lin, 2018)YNV+F8.4514.7514.1517.59----
PDVC(T. Wang and Luo, 2021)YNV+F10.2415.8020.45-----
TDPC*(Y. Song and Jin, 2021)NNV+F----12.2016.1027.362.63
VanillaNNV+F11.2315.3425.237.3810.8715.2125.128.23
OursNNV+F12.2416.9728.892.5112.2116.6228.542.53
", + "image_path": "5fbac580edae04db50c449bc893d540ed90c2e0216966d42d7f16431d42bde78.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 289, + 349 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 269, + 278, + 282 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 269, + 278, + 282 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 269, + 278, + 282 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Performance Comparison on YouCook2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 289, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 289, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 290, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
VTrans(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)7.6215.6532.267.83
Tansformer-XL(Z. Dai and Ruslan, 2019)6.5614.7626.356.30
MART(J. Lei and Mohit, 2020)8.0015.9035.744.39
Vanilla7.5415.3232.465.89
Ours8.5316.2439.274.12
", + "image_path": "920d9490cc4ecf994e4e79b757584bd6931626eaa558403b607943b0af984f38.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 382, + 289, + 454 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 360, + 232, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 360, + 232, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 360, + 232, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation Studies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 382, + 289, + 454 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 382, + 289, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 382, + 289, + 454 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
IndexModelB@4METEORCIDERR@4
1Vanilla11.2315.3425.237.38
2Vanilla+SFGclip11.3915.4925.905.34
3Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera11.4215.9026.765.89
4Vanilla+SFGvideo+Linter11.5816.0027.064.67
5Vanilla+SFGvideo+Lintera+Linter11.7116.3028.213.98
6blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8316.4128.543.90
7blueVanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera11.8016.5428.673.20
8Vanilla+SFGclip+SFGvideo+Lintera+Lintera12.2416.9728.892.51
", + "image_path": "f32f4f0e0a8d84e6d528aa6d24e249be2867a3dd1c00a11a2798b3fadc398f50.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively, except for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is increased. We speculate that the increase in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " may be due to the absence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", but the precision benefits from the supervision of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Loss_{intra}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is similar to the representation of triplets in the captions. As for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Loss_{inter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it boosts all the metrics, especially " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{R}@\\mathbf{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", suggesting that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Loss_{inter}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 475, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " helps video anchors exclude many static visual content and reduce repetition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effect of Anchor Number During the training phase, the initialization of the video anchors are only related to triplets from captions. However, during the testing phase, we currently select one frame at regular intervals from the video as an anchor. The difference is that the tokens in SFG are predefined in terms of quantity, and a random frame is used as the initial value. We conduct further analysis to determine the optimal number of anchors for the clip-level and video-level SFGs. As shown in Tab. 5, clip-level refers to setting one anchor for every 2/3 video frames, while video-level refers to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 290, + 525, + 335 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 269, + 521, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 269, + 521, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 269, + 521, + 283 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Effects of Anchor Position in Testing Phase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 290, + 525, + 335 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 290, + 525, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 290, + 525, + 335 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
anchor positionB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
random sample10.315.828.563.12
uniform sample12.2416.9728.892.51
", + "image_path": "9e6bdc265721ae549d67e0890b5c78f6e14e5d9a1d7386962e874f675ca44a27.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 382, + 525, + 439 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 371 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Effects of Frame Num. at Clip- and Video-levels." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 382, + 525, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 382, + 525, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 382, + 525, + 439 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Clip LevelVideo LevelB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
2811.6915.4527.354.93
3811.5415.2327.214.12
21012.2416.9728.892.51
31011.8616.0127.542.49
", + "image_path": "5d838b9bce79c67bc285f5d1f1bbe935253c5eeb196d40142ac1d33e0bfb7625.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "setting 8/10 anchors in video-level SFG. It can be seen that selecting one video frame from every 2 frames for clip-level SFG and using 10 anchors in video-level SFG yield the best performance. When comparing 3 frames to 2 frames at the clip-level, the precision decreases, but R@4 is improved by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (in rows 1 & 2). This represents a trade-off between repetition and precision. For video anchors, using 10 anchors can cover most events in ActivityNet Captions while 8 anchors may miss some. Also, we test different ways of select anchors in the testing phase, with randomly selecting frames as anchors using a random seed or uniformly selecting over total frames. The results are as Tab. 4 and it can be observed that the random sampling method is not as effective as uniform sampling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 711, + 525, + 770 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 690, + 515, + 702 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 690, + 515, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 690, + 515, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Effects of Anchors & Fusion in Decoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 711, + 525, + 770 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 711, + 525, + 770 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 711, + 525, + 770 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DecoderB@4↑METEOR↑CIDER↑R@4↓
w/o anchors11.9516.3428.563.12
add12.1216.0128.233.09
concatenate12.2416.9728.892.51
", + "image_path": "306b1e1e12d8407cf7a0d9ad6a8cd85854f25299540d16553050d0bf11fbeb3b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14577" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 291, + 121 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 291, + 121 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 291, + 121 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 291, + 121 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d9609acc064d79fe4dea685cfd6699d6eb158a556e3984d64c3f950f338c55a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 290, + 140 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 290, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 121, + 290, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GT: A band plays an acoustic guitar with a band on stage during a party. A man sits down wearily and his guitar is taken by a man in the crowd. The man from the crowd plays a guitar with the band on stage happily. A man fights fights with his date in the crowd." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 145, + 282, + 164 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 145, + 282, + 164 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 145, + 282, + 164 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A man plays guitar on a stage while a band plays music. The man finishes playing and the woman shakes hands. The man plays guitar and then people play guitar . Aclose up of a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 169, + 289, + 187 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 169, + 289, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 169, + 289, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours (w/o event annotations): A man is playing guitar with a group of people standing on stage. A man gives his guitar to a man. The man begins to play the guitar in the crowd. A woman claps her hands. The man fighting for the woman." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 197, + 289, + 211 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "408a7195547a1a128b40d45c5604b1ce22f07d0d063f69d2cdfe021b68fee3b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 213, + 289, + 232 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 213, + 289, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 213, + 289, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GT: A large group of people are shown from several shots walking around as well as divers jumping off a drive. More shots of athletes and audiences are shown as well as people being interviewed on the camera. More divers jump as well as several other interviews take place." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 237, + 287, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 237, + 287, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 237, + 287, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A large group of people are seen sitting around an indoor pool with one man speaking to one another. Two women are seen walking on a platform with a lot of people watching on the sidelines. A close up o a pool is shown followed by a woman speaking to the camera and the camera panning. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 293, + 318 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 285, + 291 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 285, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 272, + 285, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours (w/o event annotations): A large group of people are sitting and people are walking in lines. The divers jump into the pool with two women interviewed to the camera. The athletes keep jumping into and a lot of people watching and talking. A woman and a man are interviewed to the camera." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 293, + 318 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 293, + 318 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 305, + 293, + 318 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "32c99a95592b4af099626298362c5496297e0a6e393e55c84d5e715c602e2182.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 323, + 268, + 342 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 323, + 268, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 323, + 268, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GT: A gymnast is seen standing ready before uneven bars while many are watching on the sides. The girl jumps up and begins performing a routine on the bars. She flips herself around and ends by jumping down." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 347, + 271, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 347, + 271, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 347, + 271, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanilla (w/ event annotations): A group of people are standing on a mat. A man in blue shirt get up a high beam. A woman in blue shirt is standing on the mat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 271, + 377 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 271, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 364, + 271, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours (w/o event annotations): A gymnast stands under uneven bars with people watching, She jumps and flips around. She jumps off and stands on the mat." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 438, + 183, + 451 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 438, + 183, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 438, + 183, + 451 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Qualitative results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fig. 4 displays example captions produced by our model on ActivityNet Captions. We compare them with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "GT" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 290, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (the Ground Truth) and those generated by the Vanilla models. The triplets in all paragraphs are highlighted for comparison. Compared to Vanilla, our model tends to generate more precise and action-driven descriptions, as evident in the examples. Particularly in the third case, where the surroundings are relatively static and only the athlete is performing different actions, our model is able to differentiate between these actions in the neighbouring frames." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For event distributions, in the first case, there are three events, and the second is momentary compared with the other two. The vanilla model fails to describe the second event even with annotation information. Our model, however, captures the action \"is taken by\" and decodes it to \"give\" in the generated description." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effects of Fusion Ways in Decoder To utilize the dynamic anchors for generation guidance, we use the anchor attention in the decoder cross attention. Formally, the word embedding at the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 323, + 68, + 502, + 90 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 68, + 502, + 90 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 68, + 502, + 90 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 68, + 502, + 90 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "19a276428b874b75718d860b7fe5d1cd8059fea79086ffa42aefe4309b3431be.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 91, + 502, + 105 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 91, + 502, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 91, + 502, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GT: There's a man standing in a kitchen and washing his hands in steel kitchen sink. He takes a pump from the bottle and washes the soap from the sink counter. He then turns on the water and waits for his hands. After he's done washing, he checks his watch and looks at the TV." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 323, + 134, + 503, + 159 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 108, + 500, + 118 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 108, + 500, + 118 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 108, + 500, + 118 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanilla/w/ event annotations): A man stands in front of a sink. He washes his hands under the water. He use a white hand towel." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 121, + 495, + 130 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 121, + 495, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 121, + 495, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours/w/o event annotations): A man is standing in a kitchen besides a sink. He open the water and takes a pump from a soap. He is washing his hands. Then he takes a towel and put the towel in the corner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 134, + 503, + 159 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 134, + 503, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 134, + 503, + 159 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f6ccb00fe419bcff70e6930a65a5607ac8adf5fcc841e94bbf8ad67564af15e2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 162, + 502, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 162, + 502, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 162, + 502, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GT: A man is mowing his lawn around a tree in front of his house. He walks back and forth, avoiding the rocks. He turns at the driveway and returns again." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 174, + 495, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 174, + 495, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 174, + 495, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanilla(w/ event annotations): A man is walking back and forth with the lawn. A man walks around the tree." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 323, + 200, + 502, + 221 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 183, + 500, + 192 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 183, + 500, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 183, + 500, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours(w/o event annotations): A man is pushing the lawn. He walks around from side to side. He turns back to the house." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 200, + 502, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 200, + 502, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 200, + 502, + 221 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5023d6faf20a039572747e00f4212993f7a5e02884c77a6ccc80a90342db5c9e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 222, + 491, + 231 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 222, + 491, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 222, + 491, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "GT: A crowd is gathered in an arena. Swimmers are lined up on a diving board. The swimmers take turns diving off the diving board." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 233, + 496, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 233, + 496, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 233, + 496, + 243 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vanillaw/ event annotations): An arena is filled with a crowd of people. Swimmers take turns diving off the board." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 246, + 496, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 246, + 496, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 323, + 246, + 496, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ours(w/o event annotations): People crowd in the gym. Swimmers dive into the pool. Swimming walk inline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 322, + 290, + 507, + 456 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 400, + 240, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 400, + 240, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 116, + 400, + 240, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Qualitative Results1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 266, + 476, + 279 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 266, + 476, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 266, + 476, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Qualitative Results2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 322, + 290, + 507, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 322, + 290, + 507, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 322, + 290, + 507, + 456 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "73a746ca584e1165b594f88b11307ea00ff9af750a4cdcbd3bb46db65ee7cd6b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 467, + 489, + 479 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 467, + 489, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 467, + 489, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Different Model Structures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 30 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "step is used as a query to attend to the anchors, and the weighted anchors are fused by concatenating them with the visual representation as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is then utilized to guide the decoding of the next step word in the sequence. We verify the effectiveness of anchors in the decoder and compare different fusion ways including concatenating and adding. As shown in Tab. 6, attending to the anchors indeed improves the relevance of the generated captions. Additionally, the results indicate that concatenation is more effective compared to addition." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Effects of Different Model Structures We also adjust the placements of the clip-level and video-level " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " modules. In the left encoder structure shown in Fig. 5, the order of the modules is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and transformer layer. The block " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(SFG_{clip}, SFG_{video}, \\text{transformer layer})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is stacked twice in the structure. The right structure in Fig. 5 considers the information lost in the second " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", puts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " first in the second layer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 33 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14578" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 34 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 270, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 270, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 270, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 270, + 179 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "64fb9850ab73efed6ce2b50ab88b472a97a3a2991eb612fbf49b487b38602d4d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 291, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Performance of Model Structures. a and b represent the left and right structures in Fig. 5, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of transformer, and conducts " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 246, + 290, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " after the last layer of transformer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Comparing the two structures, the left outperforms the right. This suggests that even though " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{clip}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " discards some frames before " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the key information is retained, allowing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to learn the event contributions. Also frame sampling helps remove noise, which benefits " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "SFG_{video}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 274, + 291, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " grouping center context of events. Fig. 6 shows the performance of the two structures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 151, + 406 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 151, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 393, + 151, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we present a network with Sparse Frame Grouping (SFG) enhanced Transformer via Contrastive Learning for event annotation-free video paragraph captioning. The SFG module is designed to select and group informative frames and learn event distributions without relying on event annotations. Additionally, an Intra- and Inter-Contrastive Learning technique is proposed to train the SFG, enabling it to learn the overall event context in the video and distinguish it from the static context. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that SFGTransformer achieves SOTA performance. In the future, we plan to extend the method to longer video data such as movie data to further investigate the influence of key action visual information. And we also investigate training method without triplets to simplify the pre-process of data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 670, + 131, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Video paragraph captioning requires semantic consistency between the generated captions and the video content. Although the \"action-guided frame grouping\" method provides some guidance for frame selection and grouping, there are still potential instances of semantic inconsistency. This" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is especially true when there are multiple related yet distinct actions in the video, which may result in less accurate or consistent captions in terms of semantic coherence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 135, + 406, + 149 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 135, + 406, + 149 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 135, + 406, + 149 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 156, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by National Science and Technology Innovation 2030 - Major Project (No. 2021ZD0114001; No. 2021ZD0114000), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61976057; No. 62172101), the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 21511101000; No. 22DZ1100101), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 2023110139). Yuejie Zhang, Rui Feng and Tao Zhang are corresponding authors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14579" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 127, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 123 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 289, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D. Tran B. Korbar and L. Torresani. 2019. Scsampler: Sampling salient clips from video for efficient action recognition. In ICCV, pages 6232-6242." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 132, + 289, + 165 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 132, + 289, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 132, + 289, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "H. Hu B. Zhang and F. Sha. 2018. Cross-modal and hierarchical modeling of video and text. In ECCV, pages 374-390." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 289, + 196 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 289, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 289, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "S. Gu E. Jang and P. Ben. 2016. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 289, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 205, + 289, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shreyank N Gowda, Marcus Rohrbach, and Laura Sevilla-Lara. 2021. Smart frame selection for action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 1451-1459." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 301 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 289, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B. Tamara L J. Lei and B. Mohit. 2022. Revealing single frame bias for video-and-language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03428." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 289, + 354 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 289, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 289, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Y. Shen D. Yu B. Tamara J. Lei, L. Wang and B. Mohit. 2020. Mart: Memory-augmented recurrent transformer for coherent video paragraph captioning. In ACL, pages 2603-2614." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 363, + 289, + 395 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 363, + 289, + 395 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 363, + 289, + 395 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Z. Ren N. Xu J. Mun, L. Yang and B. Han. 2019. Streamlined dense video captioning. In CVPR, pages 6588-6597." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 289, + 437 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 289, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 289, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "R. Frederic F. Li K. Ranjay, H. Kenji and C. Juan. 2017. Dense-captioning events in videos. In ICCV, pages 706-715." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 446, + 289, + 480 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 446, + 289, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 446, + 289, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Y. Li L. Wang and L. Svetlana. 2016. Learning deep structure-preserving image-text embeddings. In CVPR, pages 5005-5013." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 488, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 488, + 289, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 488, + 289, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C. Xu L. Zhou and C. Jason J. 2018. Towards automatic learning of procedures from web instructional videos. In AAAI." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 529, + 289, + 563 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 529, + 289, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 529, + 289, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "J. Corso R. Socher L. Zhou, Y. Zhou and C. Xiong. 2018. End-to-end dense video captioning with masked transformer. In CVPR, pages 8739-8748." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 289, + 604 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 289, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 571, + 289, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "X. Chen C. Jason J L. Zhou, K. Yannis and R. Marcus. 2019. Grounded video description. In CVPR, pages 6578-6587." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 646 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 613, + 289, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D. Trevor P. Jae Sung, R. Marcus and R. Anna. 2019. Adversarial inference for multi-sentence video description. In CVPR, pages 6598-6608." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 289, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 655, + 289, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Z. Lu F. Zheng R. Cheng T. Wang, R. Zhang and P. Luo. 2021. End-to-end dense video captioning with parallel decoding. In ICCV, pages 6847-6857." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 289, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 289, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 697, + 289, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "S. Chen Y. Song and Q. Jin. 2021. Towards diverse paragraph captioning for untrimmed videos. In CVPR, pages 11245-11254." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B. Dai Y. Xiong and D. Lin. 2018. Move forward and tell: A progressive generator of video descriptions. In ECCV, pages 468-483." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Serena Yeung, Olga Russakovsky, Greg Mori, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. End-to-end learning of action detection from frame glimpses in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2678-2687." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Y. Yang C. Jaime G L. Quoc Z. Dai, Z. Yang and S. Ruslan. 2019. Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In ACL, pages 2978-2988." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "W. Limin Z. Yuan, T. Zhan and W. Gangshan. 2021. Mgsampler: An explainable sampling strategy for video action recognition. In CVPR, pages 1513-1522." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 524, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 241, + 524, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaiyang Zhou, Yu Qiao, and Tao Xiang. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning for unsupervised video summarization with diversity-representativeness reward. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14580" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_content_list.json b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b0bdc6d0f21bd37485718202d95481c1f6a2df5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1781 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 226, + 89, + 771, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gallil Maimon, Yossi Adi \nSchool of Computer Science and Engineering \nThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem \ngallil.maimon@mail.huji.ac.il", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 149, + 687, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce DISSC, a novel, lightweight method that converts the rhythm, pitch contour and timbre of a recording to a target speaker in a textless manner. Unlike DISSC, most voice conversion (VC) methods focus primarily on timbre, and ignore people's unique speaking style (prosody). The proposed approach uses a pretrained, self-supervised model for encoding speech to discrete units, which makes it simple, effective, and fast to train. All conversion modules are only trained on reconstruction like tasks, thus suitable for any-to-many VC with no paired data. We introduce a suite of quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics for this setup, and empirically demonstrate that DISSC significantly outperforms the evaluated baselines. Code and samples are available at https://pages.cs.huji.ac.il/adiyoss-lab/dissc/.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 552, + 260, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Imagine hearing a famous catchphrase of your favourite television character spoken in their voice, but uncharacteristically fast, while atypically emphasising the end. This would immediately raise suspicion that something is \"wrong\". As humans we learn to recognise familiar people and voices, not only by their voice texture (timbre), but also by their typical speaking style (Williams, 1965). Therefore, a true VC method should convert both voice texture and speaking style (rhythm, F0, etc.). Figure 1 describes this visually.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Traditional VC methods mainly focused on changing the timbre of a given speaker while leaving the speaking style unchanged (Stylianou et al., 1998; Kain and Macon, 1998; Nakashika et al., 2013; Chou et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021). Recent methods propose to additionally convert speaking style (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022; Qian et al., 2021; Kuhlmann et al., 2022). However, these mainly use only a single target utterance which does not fully capture speaker prosody.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4def4a68508f25a3c6cae27dbbc7773a507caa2a908bf91b975962139a835171.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Comparing traditional VC to speaking style conversion. White lines on the spectrograms show the pitch contour. While VC methods change the spectral features so the new utterance sounds like the new speaker, they do not change the rhythm and pitch. Conversely, SSC matches the faster speaking style, and the target speaker's tendency to finish sentences with a pitch increase. This a real sample converted by DISSC. Due to variance within speaking style we do not expect the converted speech to exactly match the target." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 250, + 870, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another line of work uses text transcription supervision and shows the potential benefit to VC (Kim et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). However, this limits the application to high resource languages and requires large scale data labelling.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 674, + 884, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Some recent prosody aware VC methods use spectrogram representations as input and output (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), rather than operating in the waveform domain. Thus, they involve another phase of converting from the spectral domain to the time domain using a vocoder. Moreover, using discrete self-supervised speech representations and generating waveforms from these was demonstrated to provide superior performance on plenty of downstream tasks such as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8048", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8048-8061 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "speech and audio language modelling (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022), multi-stream processing (Kharitonov et al., 2022b), speech emotion conversion (Kreuk et al., 2021), spoken dialogue (Nguyen et al., 2022), speech-to-speech translation (Lee et al., 2022a,b; Popuri et al., 2022), and audio generation (Kreuk et al., 2022a,b).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inspired by this line of work, we propose a simple and effective method for Speaking Style Conversion (SSC) based on discrete self-supervised and partially disentangled speech representations. Curating samples of different speakers pronouncing the same utterances is challenging, thus we follow the setup of unpaired data, similarly to Lee et al. (2021); Yuan et al. (2021); Kameoka et al. (2018); Kaneko and Kameoka (2017). We give exact details of our approach in Section 3. We formalise the setup of SSC and introduce an extensive evaluation suite in Section 4. Results suggest the proposed approach is greatly superior to the evaluated baselines (see Section 5), while utilising a simple and effective method which can be trained on a single GPU within a couple of hours.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 199, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions: (i) We introduce a novel, simple, and effective method which uses discrete self-supervised speech representations to perform textless speaking style conversion in the waveform domain; (ii) We formalise the task of speaking style conversion and propose diverse evaluation methods to analyze different speech characteristics; (iii) We empirically demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach using extensive empirical evaluation on several benchmarks considering both objective and subjective metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 489, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 649, + 270, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unpaired Voice Conversion. Many existing methods perform VC in the setting of unpaired utterances (Kameoka et al., 2018; Kaneko and Kameoka, 2017). Most of them contain a vocoder which generates the audio (or an intermediate representation) from several representations, one meant to capture speaker information and others to capture the remaining information (Lin et al., 2021b,a). They encourage disentanglement through information bottlenecks by neural network architecture (Chen et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019), mutual information and adversarial losses (Lee et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021), pretrained models (Huang et al., 2022; Polyak et al., 2021) or combinations of these. Notably, Polyak et al. (2021) used discrete", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021) tokens, pitch representation based on YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002) and a learned speaker representation to resynthesise the audio waveform. They showed how replacing the speaker representation at inference time performs VC. Inspired by this modeling paradigm, our approach additionally introduces speaking style modeling and conversion (i.e., pitch contour and rhythm) thus performing SSC.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speaking Style Conversion. Various existing methods aim to change the prosody of a given utterance. However, many convert it based on a single target utterance (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022) which does not truly capture the general speaking style of the speaker, and often creates artifacts when the contents do not match. Other methods only linearly alter the speaking rate (Kuhlmann et al., 2022) thus ignoring the change of rhythm for different content.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 237, + 884, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Even leading SSC methods are still limited. Some focus only on rhythm, paying less attention to pitch changes (Qian et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022c). Other approaches require text transcriptions for training (Lee et al., 2022c; Liu et al., 2021). In contrast, our approach uses HuBERT units trained in a SSL fashion without using textual annotations, thus can support lower resource languages (see Fig. 6 in Appendix A.5). In addition, two concurrent methods for SSC (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022) were proposed recently. Although showing impressive results, they are based on spectrogram representations, hence require an additional vocoding step.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 399, + 884, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Our Approach - DISCC", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 636, + 752, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We operate under the following setup: we perform any-to-many SSC which means we take any recording and convert it to any of the training set speakers. Our training set contains only unpaired utterances - e.g. no training utterance is said by more than one speaker. The learning process is completely textless with no form of text supervision.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 662, + 882, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach uses DIscrete units for Speaking Style Conversion, and is denoted DISSC. We decompose speech to few representations to synthesise speech in the target speaking style. We consider three components in the decomposition: phonetic-content, prosodic features (i.e., F0 and duration) and speaker identity, denoted by $\\mathbf{z}_c$ , $(\\mathbf{z}_{dur},\\mathbf{z}_{F_0})$ , $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ respectively. We propose a cascaded pipeline: (i) extract $\\mathbf{z}_c$ from the raw wave", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8049", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "form using a SSL model; (ii) predict the prosodic features of the target speaker from $\\mathbf{z}_c$ and $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ ; (iii) synthesise the waveform speech from the content, predicted prosody and target speaker identity. See Figure 2 for a visual description of DISsC. This modelling approach means moving from a continuous space to a discrete space, hence resulting in easier optimisation and better quality generations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Speech Input Representation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 225, + 386, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Phonetic-content representation. To represent speech phonetic-content we extract a discrete representation of the audio signal using a pre-trained SSL model, namely HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021). We use a SSL representation for phonetic-content, and not text or text based methods, to maintain nontextual cues like laughter and allow support for diverse languages. We discretise this representation to use as a rhythm proxy (by number of repetitions) and for ease of modelling. We chose HuBERT for the phonetic-content units as Polyak et al. (2021) showed it better disentangles between speech content and both speaker and prosody compared to other SSL-based models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 247, + 489, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Denote the domain of audio samples by $\\mathcal{X} \\subset \\mathbb{R}$ . Audio waveforms are therefore represented by a sequence of samples $\\mathbf{x} = (x^{1},\\dots,x^{T})$ , where each $x^{t} \\in \\mathcal{X}$ for all $1 \\leq t \\leq T$ . The content encoder $E_{c}$ is a HuBERT model pre-trained on the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015). The input to the content encoder $E_{c}$ is an audio waveform $\\mathbf{x}$ , and the output is a latent representation with lower temporal resolution $\\mathbf{z}' = (z_c'^1,\\dots,z_c'^L)$ where $L = T / n$ . Since HuBERT outputs continuous representations, one needs an additional k-means step in order to quantise these representations into a discrete unit sequence. This sequence is denoted by $\\mathbf{z}_{c} = (z_{c}^{1},\\dots,z_{c}^{L})$ where $z_{c}^{i} \\in \\{1,\\dots,K\\}$ and $K$ is the vocabulary size. For the rest of the paper, we refer to these discrete representations as \"units\". We extracted representations from the final layer of HuBERT and set $K = 100$ . When we wish to predict the rhythm, we must decompose it from the sequence, therefore repeated units are omitted (e.g., $0,0,0,1,2,2 \\rightarrow 0,1,2$ ) and the number of repetitions correlates to the rhythm. Such sequences are denoted as \"deduced\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 473, + 489, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speaker representation. Our goal is to convert the speaking style while keeping the content fixed. To that end, we construct a speaker representation $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ , and include it as additional conditioning dur", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/eaabe1830102c73e07ed300aa8e1e0b7ff7f314b948a20e22aeae027def60772.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: An overview of DISSC. We use an SSL pretrained content encoder $E_{c}$ to extract discrete units from the waveform. We independently train a rhythm predictor $E_{dur}$ and pitch predictor $E_{F_0}$ to reconstruct the original unit repetitions and pitch contour, respectively. We input all representations into a pretrained vocoder $G$ ." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 80, + 863, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing the prosody prediction and waveform synthesis phases. To learn $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ we optimise the parameters of a fixed size look-up-table. Although such modeling limits our ability to generate voices of new and unseen speakers, it produces higher quality generations (Polyak et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 441, + 882, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prosody representation. As explained in the content representation section, the number of repetitions of units indicates the rhythm of the speaker in the context. More repetitions means a sound was produced for a longer time. Therefore when converting rhythm the sequence is \"deduced\", and when only converting the pitch the full $\\mathbf{z}_c$ is used.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 548, + 882, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Polyak et al. (2021) we encode the pitch contour of a sample using YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002). We mark this pitch contour $z_{F_0} = (z_{F_0}^1,\\ldots ,z_{F_0}^L)$ , where $z_{F_0}^t\\in \\mathcal{R}_{\\geq 0}$ . We mark the per-speaker normalised version as $\\widetilde{z}_{F_0}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 880, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Speaking Style Conversion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 764, + 768 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using the above representations we propose to synthesise the speech signal in the target speaking style. We aim to predict the prosodic features (duration and F0) based on the phonetic-content units, while conditioned on the target speaker representation. We inflate the sequence according to the predicted durations, and use it, the predicted pitch contour, and the speaker vector as a conditioning for the waveform synthesis phase.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8050", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/198562a1e792fb341585b2273bd318490769924bd490139c34c181993600e015.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: An overview of the $E_{F_0}$ architecture. The positional encoding is a linear positional embedding relative to the start and the end of the sequence, added to the repeated speaker vector. The model jointly predicts the presence of vocalised units (binary classification) together with continuous F0 values for the voiced units." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 164, + 80, + 440, + 336 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rhythm prediction. Each HuBERT unit correlates with the phoneme in the given $20~\\mathrm{ms}$ . This means that longer repetitions of the same unit indicate a longer voicing of the sound - i.e. rhythm. In order to learn to predict, and convert the rhythm we build a model which learns to predict unit durations, denoted as $E_{dur}$ . During training of $E_{dur}$ , we input the deduped phonetic-content units $\\mathbf{z}_c$ and speaker representation conditioning $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ , with the original unit durations (before dedup) as supervision.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 463, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This simple reconstruction task is formulated as a regression task with Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss. As the units do not perfectly correlate to phonemes, neighbouring units often represent the same phoneme even after \"dedup\". This makes it harder to predict each unit's length separately. Therefore, we encourage the model's nearby errors to cancel each other out by adding an MSE loss on the total error of 4 neighbouring units. This helped with errors all being on the negative end and creating a shortening bias in our preliminary test. In addition, we round the regression outputs to be used as integer repetitions of the unit, however this can also cause a bias in which predictions like 1.51, 1.51, ..., 1.51 and 2.49, 2.49, ..., 2.49 - would result in the same total length. To mitigate this we carryover the remainder after rounding and sum those differences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During conversion we replace the speaker vector with that of the target and wish for the model to convert the rhythm. To this end our predictor model must strongly depend on $Z_{spk}$ . In order to encourage this we introduce two minor adjustments. HuBERT units hold speaker information and are not fully disentangled, however, the shorter the sequence the less information exists (Kharitonov et al., 2022a). We therefore use a CNN with a small receptive field. In addition, we introduce train time masking of units in the sequence, this means that $E_{dur}$ has access to even less units at train time, hence they contain less speaker information. Exact details can be found in Appendix A.3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pitch prediction. We train the pitch predictor to predict the per-speaker normalised pitch contour $\\widetilde{z}_{F0}$ , from the HuBERT units $\\mathbf{z}_c$ . The pitch values are normalised to zero mean and standard deviation of one per-speaker on the vocalised sections. We use these values as labels to a predictor conditioned on content units $\\mathbf{z}_c$ , positional encoding and a speaker vector $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ . The positional encoding is added to $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ and denotes the absolute position of the unit compared to the start and finish of the sequence, though preliminary results showed that any standard positional encoding works. Intuitively, positional encoding will help learning localised speaker pitch patterns such as ending sentences in a pitch drop.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 319, + 884, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our pitch predictor is denoted $E_{F_0}$ . An overview of it is described in Figure 3. It is a CNN which has two predicted outputs: binary speaking detection, and a regression head to predict the exact pitch. The binary speaking classification is trained with BCE loss on the binarised pitch labels - i.e. $z_{F0} > 0$ . The regression head is trained with MSE loss on the non-zero, vocalised pitch labels. Like the rhythm predictor this model is trained with a small unit receptive field and unit masking.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 563, + 885, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Speech Synthesis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 736, + 690, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We follow Polyak et al. (2021); Kreuk et al. (2021) using a variation of the HiFi-GAN vocoder (Kong et al., 2020). Like previous work, we adapt the generator to take as input a sequence of phonetic-content units, pitch contour and a speaker-embedding. During training, these are only features from real samples as the vocoder is trained independently for reconstruction. At inference time we use the unit sequence inflated with predicted durations, the predicted pitch contour and the target speaker", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8051", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "embedding. The above features are concatenated along the temporal axis and fed into a sequence of convolutional layers that output a 1-dimensional audio signal. We match the sample rates of unit sequence and F0 by means of linear interpolation, while replicating the speaker embedding.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sum up, after each of the components described in previous sections are trained, the full pipeline of DISSC is composed of: first extracting content representation, $\\mathbf{z}_c$ , then, predicting the prosodic features of the target speaker based on $\\mathbf{z}_c$ and $\\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ , and lastly, synthesising the waveform using these new representations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 181, + 487, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 SSC Evaluation Suite", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 307, + 334, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section we describe our setup which uses several datasets and fine-grained offline metrics for each part of the conversion - timbre, pitch, rhythm. As no standardised framework for evaluating SSC currently exists, we hope the proposed metrics, will help further advance research in this field. A detailed description of training configurations and hyper-parameters can be found in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 335, + 487, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 476, + 228, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Most previous work focuses on a single dataset such as VCTK (Veaux et al., 2017), since few large, multi-speaker datasets with parallel test sets exist. However, VCTK has fairly monotonous speech with less distinct speaking style.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 498, + 487, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address this, we use several datasets. First, we use VCTK as it has many speakers. We leave all paired utterances (speakers say the same content) to the test set, to mimic a truly unpaired setup. In preliminary results, having paired data in training improved the results notably, but harms the wanted setup. We follow Qian et al. (2021) in selecting the two fastest (P231, P239) and two slowest (P245, P270) speakers by mean log duration.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 487, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we wished to add a more expressive dataset, yet found that most expressive datasets are from the emotional speech domain. In order to adapt them to our use case we take the Emotional Speech Dataset (ESD) (Zhou et al., 2022), and select one emotion for each of the 10 speakers. This means that all recordings of a given speaker are in a certain emotion thus making it part of their speaking style. Here, we also take the two fastest and two slowest speakers for rhythm metric evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After preliminary experiments we found that the speakers in the above datasets do not always have", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "clear pitch patterns. This means that the speech is quite monotonous and that variation across recordings was greater than across speakers. To effectively evaluate pitch conversion we created a synthetic dataset based on VCTK - denoted as Syn_VCTK. In this dataset we took 6 speakers from VCTK, encoded them based on the pipeline by Polyak et al. (2021). We then altered the pitch contour by introducing a linear trend of either up, down or flat for each of the speakers. We then generated the new synthetic recordings in the same approach. We encourage readers to listen to these samples as well as the other datasets in the accompanying page to grasp the different speaking styles.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 323, + 616, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.1 Objective Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 346, + 710, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce new metrics which aim to capture the rhythm in a fine-grained manner, and objectively evaluate the pitch contour (even when the rhythm does not match). We hope these metrics will contribute to other advances in this field.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 882, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Timbre. For regular VC we use the common Equal Error Rate (EER) of speaker verification using SpeechBrain's (Ravanelli et al., 2021) ECAPATDNN (Desplanques et al., 2020) which achieves $0.8\\%$ EER on Voxceleb. For each sample, we randomly select $n$ positive and $n$ negative samples. Positive samples are random utterances of other speakers converted to the current speaker, and negative samples are random utterances of the current speaker converted to a random target speaker.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 460, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Content. For phonetic content preservation we use the standard Word Error Rate (WER) and Character Error Rate (CER), using Whisper (Radford et al., 2022) as our Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 633, + 882, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rhythm. In order to evaluate the rhythm we wish to go beyond the length of the recording, which only indicates the average rhythm and not which sounds are uttered slowly and which quickly. We therefore use the text transcriptions of the samples, and the Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA) (McAuliffe et al., 2017) to get start and end times for each word and phoneme in the recording. We then compare the lengths of the converted speech and the target speech, thus defining Phoneme Length Error (PLE), Word Length Error (WLE) and Total Length Error (TLE). We do not compare", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8052", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/33f28eb97e7cf2e10f5d45c3e62f76a4efa67151a29a34f1ba52301d5b31ddb1.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMSPEAKER EER↓
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓
VCTKAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)71.347.117.681.2140.0720.0287.5
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)40.626.721.91.3790.1230.03724.1
Seq2seq-VC (Liu et al., 2021)2.91.220.951.2140.0720.02810.9
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)6.63.314.01.2140.0710.0251.8
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)10.95.410.580.8320.0560.0231.7
DISSC_Both (Ours)13.06.910.530.8320.0560.0231.7
ESDAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)87.059.931.820.5910.1060.0486.6
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)50.331.837.20.5490.0970.04315.7
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)14.96.030.30.5910.0970.0412.9
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)19.17.924.80.3500.0760.0372.6
", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 82, + 863, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: A comparison of the proposed method against VC and SSC baselines considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE), and speaker identification (EER). Only DISSC improves rhythm metrics compared to standard VC baseline Speech Resynthesis.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 272, + 884, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the length of silences as their occurrence can differ between recordings thus breaking the alignment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 340, + 485, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, for each input recording and matching text, MFA returns a list of tuples $T_{w} = ((s_{w_{1}},e_{w_{1}},c_{w_{1}})\\dots (s_{w_{m}},e_{w_{m}},c_{w_{m}}))$ for word level and another for phoneme level $T_{p} = ((s_{p_{1}},e_{p_{1}},c_{p_{1}})\\dots (s_{p_{m}},e_{p_{m}},c_{p_{m}}))$ . $s_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}}$ indicates the start time of the sound at index $i$ in the recording (word or phoneme according to the level), and $e_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}}$ indicates the end time. $c_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}}$ represents the content of the time segment, i.e the word or phoneme. We filter only non-silence time segments leaving $\\widetilde{T}_{\\{w,p\\}} = ((s_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}},e_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}},c_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}})\\quad \\forall i \\quad s.t. \\quad c_{i}^{\\{w,p\\}} \\neq \\text{silence})$ . Thus formally, the errors per sample compare durations of a reference sample and a synthesised sample:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 373, + 487, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathrm {P L E} \\left(\\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\\text {s y n}}, \\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\\text {r e f}}\\right) = \\\\ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {l e n (\\widetilde {T} _ {p})} | (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n}) - (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f}) |, \\\\ \\mathrm {W L E} (\\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {s y n}, \\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {r e f}) = \\\\ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {\\text {l e n} \\left(\\widetilde {T} _ {w}\\right)} | \\left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {s y n}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {s y n}}\\right) - \\left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {r e f}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {r e f}}\\right) |. \\tag {1} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 629, + 487, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The TLE is just the duration difference between the entire recordings. All rhythm metrics are in time units, in this case seconds. In addition, on rare occasions the number of phonemes for the same sound by different speakers is different (due to accents etc.), we ignore these samples for a more well-defined metric. In addition, when the phonetic", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "content is harmed dramatically in the conversion, MFA might fail to align the text. We penalise such samples by assuming a linear and even split of the recording to phonemes and words.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 340, + 882, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Pitch. Popular evaluation methods for F0 similarity include the Voicing Decision Error (VDE) and F0 frame error (FFE). Intuitively, VDE measures the portion of frames with voicing decision error, while FFE measures the percentage of frames that contain a deviation of more than $20\\%$ in pitch value or have a voicing decision error. Formally,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 413, + 882, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\operatorname {V D E} (\\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) = \\frac {\\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \\mathbb {1} [ \\boldsymbol {v} _ {t} \\neq \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 569, + 535, + 882, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} \\operatorname {F F E} (\\boldsymbol {p}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {p}}, \\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) = \\operatorname {V D E} (\\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) \\\\ + \\frac {\\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \\mathbb {1} \\left[ \\left| \\boldsymbol {p} _ {t} - \\hat {\\boldsymbol {p}} _ {t} \\right| > 0 . 2 \\cdot \\boldsymbol {p} _ {t} \\right] \\mathbb {1} [ \\boldsymbol {v} _ {t} ] \\mathbb {1} [ \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \\tag {3} \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 598, + 882, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\pmb{p}, \\hat{\\pmb{p}}$ are the pitch frames from the target and generated signals, $\\pmb{v}, \\hat{\\pmb{v}}$ are the respective voicing decisions, and $\\mathbb{1}$ is the indicator function.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 882, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Although these metrics are widely used in speech synthesis (Wang et al., 2021), these methods are not well adapted to misaligned samples, i.e when they are spoken at different rates. These metrics require the samples to have the same time length, therefore many implementations linearly interpolate the generated sample's pitch contour to that of the target before computing them. However, rhythm differences are non-linear (i.e certain phonemes could be \"stretched\" more than others) thus not alleviating the misalignment problem. Instead, we suggest using segments obtained from the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8053", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "forced-aligner and calculate the FFE while interpolating the segments to match the segment sizes. This measures the match in shape and value of the pitch contour for each word and phoneme, even if they are misaligned. We denoted these as P_FFE for phoneme segments and W_FFE for words.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Rhythm & Pitch. We compute Earth Movers Distance (EMD) (Rubner et al., 1998) between the pitch contour of converted and target samples. Essentially we check how much \"pitch mass\" needs to be moved between them. This metric considers errors along the time domain (rhythm) and pitch contour errors (such as predicting the wrong trend). Our results show strong correlation to human perception of rhythm and pitch with the above metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 193, + 489, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This newly proposed evaluation suite is generic and can transfer to other languages. However, certain metrics are based on language-specific pretrained models (e.g., ASR-based metrics). In such cases, a multi-lingual ASR can be used. In our setup, we use the Whisper model (Radford et al., 2022) which supports $\\sim 100$ languages. Another option would be to use the MMS model (Pratap et al., 2023) which supports more than 1000 languages for both ASR and forced-alignment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 341, + 489, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2.2 Human evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 514, + 319, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To confirm that the proposed objective metrics correlate to human perception, and to evaluate to what extent the prosody impacts humans' speaker recognition we conduct a human evaluation study. We use the common mean opinion score (MOS) to evaluate the quality and naturalness of generated and real samples. Specifically, each sample was scored from 1-5 on naturalness and quality. We took the same 40 samples for each method and the original. Each sample was annotated by at least three raters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 489, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, to evaluate the effectiveness of the speaking style conversion, we present the users a sample from the target speaker and a sample converted by each method. Users rated each sample from 1-5 (\"Very Different\"- \"Very Similar\") on how likely it is to be uttered by the same speaker and instructed to \"pay attention to speaking style such as rhythm and pitch changes, and not only the voice texture\". We evaluated 40 samples per-method, with at least three raters per-sample. We report the mean score and $95\\%$ confidence intervals for both tests. We modified the WebMUSHRA tool for the tests. A", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 700, + 489, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/61dc29b87dda26652b68cb04e5e9079cbf7151f3e95dd973ce243ad20e4824d8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 84, + 868, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3d5f23d7164620e241307d1a4991259f96e3c7d32d891f5abfaeb4e4246fe37b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: We compare the human evaluated naturalness of real reference utterances, Speech Resynthesis (SR), AutoPST, two versions of DISSC which convert rhythm only or also F0. We also compare the similarity of how likely the converted sample is to come from the the same speaker as the target recording." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 199, + 867, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "detailed description of the subjective tests can be found in the Appendix.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 438, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 486, + 608, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare DISSC to several any-to-many (or many-to-many) baselines. Notably, we evaluate Speech Resynthesis (SR), and AutoVC (Qian et al., 2019) which are well known VC methods. In addition, we compare to AutoPST and BNE-MoL-seq2seqVC (Liu et al., 2021) which are prominent prosodic-aware VC (i.e., SSC) methods. We use the official Github implementations and train the models on our datasets using the authors recommended configuration. For a fair comparison, all baselines were evaluated under the any-to-many setup, i.e., generating only seen speakers. Only seq2seqVC supports new speakers, because only that approach was published. However, we evaluate them on known speakers, with the entire training set as reference recordings. We show three variants of our method: DISSC_Rhythm, DISSC_Pitch and DISSC_Both which predict duration, pitch contour and both respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 514, + 884, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Objective results for VCTK and ESD appear in Table 1. On both datasets DISSC improves the length errors across all scales: phonemes, words and utterances. The relative improvement compared to the next best baseline is $56.8\\%$ on ESD TLE. At word level we get $27.6\\%$ and $26.7\\%$ rela", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "'https://github.com/audiolabs/webMUSHRA", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 903, + 470, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8054", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/40e1b5ce1a799c444d4fd4e6de0e8063d64ff9cb11a9404eeda0d1ca8fd2be5e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMF0
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓W_FFE↓P_FFE↓
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)12.46.324.231.1010.0640.02446.143.4
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)18.89.520.780.7750.0530.02346.143.7
DISSC_Pitch (Ours)12.56.313.551.1010.0650.02424.520.5
DISSC_Both (Ours)19.610.210.470.7750.0530.02325.321.4
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 82, + 884, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: VC and SSC results on the Syn_VCTK dataset. This ablation measures the impact of rhythm and pitch conversion over SR considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE, W_FFE, P_FFE).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 192, + 882, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tive improvement on ESD and VCTK respectively. All other baselines show rhythm errors comparable or worse than SR which does not convert rhythm.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 247, + 487, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We can see a minor decrease in content quality (by WER and CER) of DISSC compared to SR which does not convert prosody, but still superior to AutoPST. In addition, seq2seq also has better WER, at the expense of harming the rhythm conversion. Potentially, the supervised phoneme recogniser is too fine, thus does not impose enough of a rhythm bottleneck. The harm in quality of DISSC may be due to additional information bottlenecks by de-duplicating the speech units, and predicting F0.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 299, + 489, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We additionally provide subjective evaluation considering both naturalness of the converted samples and their similarity to the target recording considering speaking style. These results are shown in Figure 4. We found that the naturalness of both DISSC variants was comparable to SR, and not far from the reference recordings while far outperforming AutoPST. In addition, we see a noticeable increase in speaking style similarity when converting prosody with DISSC compared to SR. However, also converting the pitch did not noticeably improve the results. We believe that this has to do with the lack of distinct speaking style which people can notice, especially from a single recording.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 464, + 489, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ablation study. In order to properly evaluate the ability of DISSC to learn the pitch speaking style, when such exists, we use the synthetic VCTK data (as explained in Section 4.1) with known pitch trends. These results (Table 2) are an ablation study for each converter of DISSC. They highlight the control-ability of our approach - when predicting the rhythm, only length errors improve, likewise for pitch. We see that when a pitch pattern exists in the speaking style - DISSC learns it, providing $88 - 113\\%$ relative increase in the metrics. We also see that they can be converted jointly without noticeable drop in pitch and length performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a426345249d8dc630607b4e1f24b8a572ce02507dba1bc20b698ab6c4d33aecb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: DISSC corrects abnormal rhythm patterns in specific words, compared to AutoPST. Here we take the utterance \"people look, but no one ever finds it\" and stretch the duration of the word \"finds\" times three." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 539, + 243, + 855, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Irregular rhythm. Lastly, to demonstrate that DISSC predicts rhythm depending on content, and not only on average - we create a sample with abnormal rhythm patterns. We take an utterance and artificially stretch one of the words using speech resynthesis. We then attempt to \"convert\" the sample to the original speaker thus checking the ability to only change the rhythm of the abnormal part. We compare DISSC and AutoPST in Figure 5, and see that DISSC manages to mostly correct the irregular rhythm, while hardly changing the other parts. By contrast, AutoPST only slightly changes the rhythm. If $E_{c}$ performs optimally, we are guaranteed perfect results, as $z_{c}$ would be identical for irregular and original after dedup. However, HubERT may introduce some errors specifically when considering signal variations (Gat et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 560, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion & Future Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 845, + 781, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we propose a simple and effective method for speaking style conversion based on discrete self supervised speech representations. We", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8055", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "provide a formal definition to the speaking style conversion setup while introducing a set of evaluation functions to analyse and evaluate different speech characteristics separately. Results suggest, the proposed approach is superior to the evaluated baselines considering both objective and subjective metrics. We hope these advance the study in the field, and lead to improved performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The current model suffers from slight content loss when using the deduced units. In addition, repeated utterances get slightly different units (in the abnormal rhythm experiment). Therefore, in future work we aim to improve the robustness and disentanglement of the speech representation considering speaker and prosodic information.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 217, + 489, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 355, + 218, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach can only perform conversion into a closed set of speakers seen at train time. This is due to the LUT used to learn speaker representations and to the use of per-speaker pitch statistics. This might be hard to overcome as speaker style (rhythm and pitch changes) can be hard to judge from a small number of samples. Additionally, we see that speaking style conversion and especially rhythm conversion harm the WER and CER slightly. The additional bottleneck of de-duplication which allows us to convert rhythm comes with the cost of slight content loss. We hope that future improvement of the hidden representations will help improve or alleviate the tradeoff.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 391, + 489, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethical Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 642, + 273, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The broader impact of this study is, as in any generative model, the development of a high quality and natural speech synthesis model. This has special sensitivity and ethical concerns as such technology might be used to alter voices and speaking style in speech recordings, which can be considered as biometric data and biometric processing. To deal with that we limit the number of speakers that can be synthesized with the proposed approach using a pre-defined voices using a look-up-table. Another potential risk of the proposed method which is also one of its limitations is that the generated speech content is not always perfect, hence might lead to wrong pronunciations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 677, + 489, + 903 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 83, + 608, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143.", + "Li-Wei Chen, Shinji Watanabe, and Alexander Rudnicky. 2022. A unified one-shot prosody and speaker conversion system with self-supervised discrete speech units. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06535.", + "Meiying Chen and Zhiyao Duan. 2022. Controlvc: Zero-shot voice conversion with time-varying controls on pitch and rhythm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11866.", + "Yen-Hao Chen, Da-Yi Wu, Tsung-Han Wu, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021. Again-vc: A one-shot voice conversion using activation guidance and adaptive instance normalization. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5954-5958. IEEE.", + "Ju-chieh Chou, Cheng-chieh Yeh, and Hung-yi Lee. 2019. One-shot voice conversion by separating speaker and content representations with instance normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05742.", + "Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck. 2020. ECAPA-TDNN: emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in TDNN based speaker verification. In *Interspeech* 2020, pages 3830-3834. ISCA.", + "Itai Gat, Felix Kreuk, Ann Lee, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022. On the robustness of self-supervised representations for spoken language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15483.", + "Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460.", + "Wen-Chin Huang, Yi-Chiao Wu, and Tomoki Hayashi. 2021. Any-to-one sequence-to-sequence voice conversion using self-supervised discrete speech representations. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5944-5948. IEEE.", + "Wen-Chin Huang, Shu-Wen Yang, Tomoki Hayashi, Hung-Yi Lee, Shinji Watanabe, and Tomoki Toda. 2022. S3prl-vc: Open-source voice conversion framework with self-supervised speech representations. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6552-6556. IEEE." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 108, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8056", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alexander Kain and Michael W Macon. 1998. Spectral voice conversion for text-to-speech synthesis. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP'98 (Cat. No. 98CH36181), volume 1, pages 285-288. IEEE.", + "Hirokazu Kameoka, Takuhiro Kaneko, Kou Tanaka, and Nobukatsu Hojo. 2018. Stargan-vc: Non-parallel many-to-many voice conversion using star generative adversarial networks. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 266-273. IEEE.", + "Takuhiro Kaneko and Hirokazu Kameoka. 2017. Parallel-data-free voice conversion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11293.", + "Kavita Kasi and Stephen A Zahorian. 2002. Yet another algorithm for pitch tracking. In 2002, the international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, volume 1, pages I-361. IEEE.", + "Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Paden Tomasello, Ann Lee, Ali Elkahky, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. textless-lib: a library for textless spoken language processing. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: System Demonstrations, pages 1-9, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Eugene Kharitonov, Ann Lee, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Text-free prosody-aware generative spoken language modeling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8666-8681, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kang-wook Kim, Seung-won Park, Junhyeok Lee, and Myun-chul Joe. 2022. Assem-vc: Realistic voice conversion by assembling modern speech synthesis techniques. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6997-7001. IEEE.", + "Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:17022-17033.", + "Felix Kreuk, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Wei Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2021. Textless speech emotion conversion using decomposed and discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07402." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352.", + "Felix Kreuk, Yaniv Taigman, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Alexandre Défossez, and Yossi Adi. 2022b. Audio language modeling using perceptually-guided discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01223.", + "Michael Kuhlmann, Fritz Seebauer, Janek Ebbers, Petra Wagner, and Reinhold Haeb-Umbach. 2022. Investigation into target speaking rate adaptation for voice conversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01978.", + "Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354.", + "Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, Sravya Popuri, Xutai Ma, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Qing He, Yun Tang, Juan Pino, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022a. Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3327-3339, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ann Lee, Hongyu Gong, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Holger Schwenk, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Sravya Popuri, Yossi Adi, Juan Pino, Jiatao Gu, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Textless speech-to-speech translation on real data. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 860-872, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Sang-Hoon Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, Hyunseung Chung, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2021. Voicemixer: Adversarial voice style mixup. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 294-308. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Sang-Hoon Lee, Hyeong-Rae Noh, Woo-Jeoung Nam, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2022c. Duration controllable voice conversion via phoneme-based information bottleneck. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1173-1183.", + "Jheng-hao Lin, Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021a. S2vc: a framework for any-to-any voice conversion with self-supervised pretrained representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02901.", + "Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, Jheng-Hao Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Lin-shan Lee. 2021b. Fragmentvc: Any-to-any voice conversion by end-to-end extracting and" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8057", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "fusing fine-grained voice fragments with attention. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5939-5943. IEEE.", + "Songxiang Liu, Yuewen Cao, Disong Wang, Xixin Wu, Xunying Liu, and Helen Meng. 2021. Any-to-many voice conversion with location-relative sequence-to-sequence modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:1717-1728.", + "Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 498-502.", + "Toru Nakashika, Ryoichi Takashima, Tetsuya Takiguchi, and Yasuo Ariki. 2013. Voice conversion in high-order eigen space using deep belief nets. In *Interspeech*, pages 369-372.", + "Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16502.", + "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. IEEE.", + "Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00355.", + "Sravya Popuri, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Yossi Adi, Jiatao Gu, Wei-Ning Hsu, and Ann Lee. 2022. Enhanced direct speech-to-speech translation using self-supervised pre-training and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02967.", + "Vineel Pratap, Andros Tjandra, Bowen Shi, Paden Tomasello, Arun Babu, Sayani Kundu, Ali Elkahky, Zhaoheng Ni, Apoorv Vyas, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, et al. 2023. Scaling speech technology to 1,000+ languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13516.", + "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and David Cox. 2020. Unsupervised speech decomposition via triple information bottleneck. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7836-7846. PMLR.", + "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Jinjun Xiong, Chuang Gan, David Cox, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2021. Global prosody style transfer without text transcriptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8650-8660. PMLR." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Xuesong Yang, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2019. Autovc: Zero-shot voice style transfer with only autoencoder loss. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5210-5219. PMLR.", + "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Heting Gao, Junrui Ni, Cheng-I Lai, David Cox, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and Shiyu Chang. 2022. Contentvec: An improved self-supervised speech representation by disentangling speakers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18003-18017. PMLR.", + "Leyuan Qu, Taihao Li, Cornelius Weber, Theresa Pekarek-Rosin, Fuji Ren, and Stefan Wermter. 2022. Disentangling prosody representations with unsupervised speech reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06972.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356.", + "Mirco Ravanelli, Titouan Parcollet, Peter Plantinga, Aku Rouhe, Samuele Cornell, Loren Lugosch, Cem Subakan, Nauman Dawalatabad, Abdelwahab Heba, Jianyuan Zhong, Ju-Chieh Chou, Sung-Lin Yeh, Szu-Wei Fu, Chien-Feng Liao, Elena Rastorgueva, François Grondin, William Aris, Hwidong Na, Yan Gao, Renato De Mori, and Yoshua Bengio. 2021. SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit. ArXiv:2106.04624.", + "Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. 1998. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In Sixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271), pages 59-66. IEEE.", + "Yannis Stylianou, Olivier Cappé, and Eric Moulines. 1998. Continuous probabilistic transform for voice conversion. IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, 6(2):131-142.", + "Christophe Veaux, Junichi Yamagishi, Kirsten MacDonald, et al. 2017. Superseded-cstr vctk corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit.", + "Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. *fairoseq s^2: A scalable and integrable speech synthesis toolkit*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations*, pages 143–152, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Carl Earl Williams. 1965. The effects of selected factors on the aural identification of speakers. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.", + "Siyang Yuan, Pengyu Cheng, Ruiyi Zhang, Weituo Hao, Zhe Gan, and Lawrence Carin. 2021. Improving zero-shot voice style transfer via disentangled representation learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8058", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kun Zhou, Berrak Sisman, Rui Liu, and Haizhou Li. 2022. Emotional voice conversion: Theory, databases and esd. Speech Communication, 137:1-18.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 137 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 633, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here we give fine-grained details of computational costs, hyper-parameters and other implementation details omitted from the main part for brevity and readability.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 882, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Dataset details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 186, + 675, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use several datasets: (i) VCTK dataset (Veaux et al., 2017); (ii) ESD (Zhou et al., 2022); (iii) and the a synthetic VCTK dataset (Syn_VCTK), generated by us. For VCTK the training data contains 41k samples, and the evaluation set contains $2.5\\mathrm{k}$ . For ESD the training data contains 3k samples, the validation contains 200, and the test 300. For Syn_VCTK the training data contains $2.4\\mathrm{k}$ samples and the validation has 142. For ESD we use the official train, val, test split. For both VCTK versions we enforce unpaired data in the train sets, and use paired data only for evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 208, + 884, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Computational Price", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 413, + 724, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use a pretrained HuBERT_Base model for input encoding. This model has 90 million parameters and takes less than 15 minutes to inference over all of our datasets. For training times see the original paper. For the HiFi-GAN vocoder which is trained once, independently of the speaking style conversion, we use a model with 13.8 million parameters (for the generator). It takes 4 days on to train on VCTK using two RTX 6000 GPUs, other datasets take less than that.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 434, + 882, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The rhythm predictor $E_{dur}$ has 330 thousand parameters, and takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU. Likewise, the pitch predictor $E_{f0}$ has 527 thousand parameters, and also takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Hyper-Parameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 703, + 705, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We encode the HuBERT units and pitch contour with textlesslib. For the content endocer we use hubert-base-1s960 and use K-means with 100 clusters for the clustering step. For the pitch contour we use the default parameters from textless lib which match the content encoder we used.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the vocoder we use the official implementation of speech resynthesis with the configuration suitable for VCTK, hubert100, using a fixed size lookup-table. We adapt the model so that it receives as input the normalised pitch without quantisation. We train it with a batch size of 64 over two", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8059", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " GPUs for the minimum between 2000 epochs and 400,000 batches.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The rhythm predictor $E_{dur}$ is built of 8 blocks of Conv1D followed by Batch Normalisation, with 128 hidden units. The speaker embedding and token embedding are learned with a lookup-table, both with size 32. The speaker vector is repeated along the time axis and concatenated with the unit embedding. Each CNN has a receptive field of 3 and padding of 1 so that the output shape is the same as the input. For activation we use Leaky ReLU. We normalise the length for prediction with the mean and standard deviation of the training data. Train time masking masks each unit in the input independently with $20\\%$ probability. We train the model for 30 epochs, with a batch size of 32, a learning rate of $3e - 4$ and Adam optimiser. We take the model with lowest validation MSE. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or automated hyper-tuning was done.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 123, + 489, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The pitch predictor $E_{F0}$ encodes the speaker and units in the same way as $E_{dur}$ with a fixed size lookup-table of size 32. However, here we add to the speaker embedding a linear positional encoding - this means that indices 0-15 of the speaker vector get added the unit index relative to the start and indices 16-31 get added the unit index relative to the end. In preliminary experiments more typical sinusoidal positional encoding worked similarly but we chose the linear version for simplicity. The model is comprised of 9 shared Conv1D layers with kernel size 3, and followed by 2 Conv1D with kernel sizes 3 and 1 for each head (speaking classification and F0 regression). We use Leaky ReLU activation. The labels for training are received from the YAAPT algorithm, normalised perspeaker with the mean and standard deviation of the vocalised parts of the training set. We do not normalise the non-vocalised parts. The BCE loss for binary classification is multiplied by 100 and added to the pitch MSE loss, to attempt to give both losses a similar scale. We train the model for 20 epochs with learning rate $3e - 4$ , batch size of 32 and Adam optimiser. We take the model with the lowest validation MSE. The results in Table 1, and Figure 4 are with a similar model, however it does not use positional encoding. The positional encoding was added afterwards as an improvement. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 437, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "automated hyper-tuning was done.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 766, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Human Evaluation Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 111, + 769, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We had over 20 different annotators in our subjective tests, who were all non-paid volunteers. They are all fluent, though not necessarily native, in English, and vary in academic background and connection to the field. For privacy reasons the questionnaires are anonymous and no details are collected about the participants.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 131, + 882, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The quality question is phrased as follows: \"Evaluate the quality and naturalness of the following audio segment\", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: \"Poor\", \"Decent\", \"Good\", \"Very Good\", \"Excellent\".", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 244, + 884, + 324 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The similarity question is phrased as follows: \"The first recording in this section is a reference, mark all recordings in how similar the speaking style is to the original. speaking style refers to the speaking rhythm, intonation etc. Try to ignore the quality of the recording itself\", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: \"Very different\", \"Different\", \"Slightly similar\", \"Similar\", \"Very Similar\".", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 325, + 882, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Low Resource Language Conversion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 481, + 847, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As mentioned, DISSC does not use text as any intermediate representation in conversion (or text supervision for training). This means that it can work in low-resource languages which do not have large annotated datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 502, + 880, + 580 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We demonstrate the ability of DISSC to convert a Hebrew utterance to a target VCTK speaker, while not being trained on any Hebrew data (see Fig. 6). While converting the accent in crosslingual (Hebrew utterance to English speaker) remains challenging, this shows good potential. Notably, this example is out of domain for all model training data. Training DISSC in a textless self-supervised way on Hebrew data will likely improve the performance dramatically.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 582, + 882, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 WER detailed analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 739, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While DISSCis the only evaluated method to successfully convert prosody, it has a limitation of slightly harming content compared to some methods which do not convert prosody (e.g. speech resynthesis). We see this in the WER and CER metrics and wish to further analyse the cause for this.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 774, + 884, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first manually inspect the samples with highest word error rate. We have found that the content loss is mainly due to minor phonological errors", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8060", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/62ee9e7ebafb23383863d2a2913a6af9dc0e2dfc01076a3ad9d043f38517e8f7.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: An example using DISSC to convert a non-English sample. Hebrew is a lower resource language, hence there are little to no transcribed datasets. Thus, no expressive TTS methods exist, making an ASR-TTS VC pipeline impossible. Training DISSC on unlabelled Hebrew data, will likely improve results further. We encourage readers to listen to the accompanying samples." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 484, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/acf69354c586a88c2061a789dfa60f5340263974188e187b66f5311b73ceae0b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.411.1
p23912.218.6
p2454.57.9
p2579.815.7
p2703.07.7
p28412.118.2
p3064.57.0
p3411.34.0
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 330, + 468, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which cause transcription change. For example, in cases with a high error rate, the original text is: \"Please call Stella\" and the transcription after conversion is: \"Peace cool Stalla\". However, when looking at the WER of both DISSC and speech resynthesis, we observe that such phonological errors are observed in the same samples for both methods (even without conversion). Therefore, we believe that the root cause of such phenomenon is the quality of the SSL model and DISSC amplified this effect.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 487, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further, evaluate this hypothesis we evaluate the WER per source speaker and per target speaker (results in Tables 3 and 4). This analysis clearly shows that WER per-speaker varies greatly based on the source speaker, but does not depend on the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/2fa95b80a7d9abfaa85cee1fbe6e8508a747a7ccdcf6f174d00119c76e244c41.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by source speaker when converting to all other speakers as targets. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from speaker p231 to all other speakers in the list. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results vary greatly, and that the success of both methods are correlated." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Target SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.211.2
p2397.011.4
p2456.611.6
p2576.410.5
p2707.210.9
p2846.411.5
p3067.211.4
p3417.111.8
", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 80, + 857, + 259 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by target speaker when converting from all other speakers as sources. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from all source speakers in the list (except p231) to speaker p231. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results hardly depend on the target speaker.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 882, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "target speaker, this further supporting the fact that this is an issue with the SSL encoding method. An interesting line of future work would be in improving SSL for such cases, or even applying error-correcting codes on the converted speech.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 394, + 882, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "8061", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_model.json b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d142eeea1261dea60bf988a3def65bd0b741a29 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2318 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.227, + 0.09, + 0.773, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.315, + 0.15, + 0.688, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gallil Maimon, Yossi Adi \nSchool of Computer Science and Engineering \nThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem \ngallil.maimon@mail.huji.ac.il" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce DISSC, a novel, lightweight method that converts the rhythm, pitch contour and timbre of a recording to a target speaker in a textless manner. Unlike DISSC, most voice conversion (VC) methods focus primarily on timbre, and ignore people's unique speaking style (prosody). The proposed approach uses a pretrained, self-supervised model for encoding speech to discrete units, which makes it simple, effective, and fast to train. All conversion modules are only trained on reconstruction like tasks, thus suitable for any-to-many VC with no paired data. We introduce a suite of quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics for this setup, and empirically demonstrate that DISSC significantly outperforms the evaluated baselines. Code and samples are available at https://pages.cs.huji.ac.il/adiyoss-lab/dissc/." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.554, + 0.262, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Imagine hearing a famous catchphrase of your favourite television character spoken in their voice, but uncharacteristically fast, while atypically emphasising the end. This would immediately raise suspicion that something is \"wrong\". As humans we learn to recognise familiar people and voices, not only by their voice texture (timbre), but also by their typical speaking style (Williams, 1965). Therefore, a true VC method should convert both voice texture and speaking style (rhythm, F0, etc.). Figure 1 describes this visually." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Traditional VC methods mainly focused on changing the timbre of a given speaker while leaving the speaking style unchanged (Stylianou et al., 1998; Kain and Macon, 1998; Nakashika et al., 2013; Chou et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021). Recent methods propose to additionally convert speaking style (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022; Qian et al., 2021; Kuhlmann et al., 2022). However, these mainly use only a single target utterance which does not fully capture speaker prosody." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.252, + 0.871, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.5, + 0.886, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Comparing traditional VC to speaking style conversion. White lines on the spectrograms show the pitch contour. While VC methods change the spectral features so the new utterance sounds like the new speaker, they do not change the rhythm and pitch. Conversely, SSC matches the faster speaking style, and the target speaker's tendency to finish sentences with a pitch increase. This a real sample converted by DISSC. Due to variance within speaking style we do not expect the converted speech to exactly match the target." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.675, + 0.885, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another line of work uses text transcription supervision and shows the potential benefit to VC (Kim et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). However, this limits the application to high resource languages and requires large scale data labelling." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Some recent prosody aware VC methods use spectrogram representations as input and output (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), rather than operating in the waveform domain. Thus, they involve another phase of converting from the spectral domain to the time domain using a vocoder. Moreover, using discrete self-supervised speech representations and generating waveforms from these was demonstrated to provide superior performance on plenty of downstream tasks such as" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8048" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8048-8061 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "speech and audio language modelling (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022), multi-stream processing (Kharitonov et al., 2022b), speech emotion conversion (Kreuk et al., 2021), spoken dialogue (Nguyen et al., 2022), speech-to-speech translation (Lee et al., 2022a,b; Popuri et al., 2022), and audio generation (Kreuk et al., 2022a,b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.2, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inspired by this line of work, we propose a simple and effective method for Speaking Style Conversion (SSC) based on discrete self-supervised and partially disentangled speech representations. Curating samples of different speakers pronouncing the same utterances is challenging, thus we follow the setup of unpaired data, similarly to Lee et al. (2021); Yuan et al. (2021); Kameoka et al. (2018); Kaneko and Kameoka (2017). We give exact details of our approach in Section 3. We formalise the setup of SSC and introduce an extensive evaluation suite in Section 4. Results suggest the proposed approach is greatly superior to the evaluated baselines (see Section 5), while utilising a simple and effective method which can be trained on a single GPU within a couple of hours." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.49, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions: (i) We introduce a novel, simple, and effective method which uses discrete self-supervised speech representations to perform textless speaking style conversion in the waveform domain; (ii) We formalise the task of speaking style conversion and propose diverse evaluation methods to analyze different speech characteristics; (iii) We empirically demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach using extensive empirical evaluation on several benchmarks considering both objective and subjective metrics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.65, + 0.271, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unpaired Voice Conversion. Many existing methods perform VC in the setting of unpaired utterances (Kameoka et al., 2018; Kaneko and Kameoka, 2017). Most of them contain a vocoder which generates the audio (or an intermediate representation) from several representations, one meant to capture speaker information and others to capture the remaining information (Lin et al., 2021b,a). They encourage disentanglement through information bottlenecks by neural network architecture (Chen et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019), mutual information and adversarial losses (Lee et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021), pretrained models (Huang et al., 2022; Polyak et al., 2021) or combinations of these. Notably, Polyak et al. (2021) used discrete" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021) tokens, pitch representation based on YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002) and a learned speaker representation to resynthesise the audio waveform. They showed how replacing the speaker representation at inference time performs VC. Inspired by this modeling paradigm, our approach additionally introduces speaking style modeling and conversion (i.e., pitch contour and rhythm) thus performing SSC." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.239, + 0.885, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speaking Style Conversion. Various existing methods aim to change the prosody of a given utterance. However, many convert it based on a single target utterance (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022) which does not truly capture the general speaking style of the speaker, and often creates artifacts when the contents do not match. Other methods only linearly alter the speaking rate (Kuhlmann et al., 2022) thus ignoring the change of rhythm for different content." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.4, + 0.885, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Even leading SSC methods are still limited. Some focus only on rhythm, paying less attention to pitch changes (Qian et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022c). Other approaches require text transcriptions for training (Lee et al., 2022c; Liu et al., 2021). In contrast, our approach uses HuBERT units trained in a SSL fashion without using textual annotations, thus can support lower resource languages (see Fig. 6 in Appendix A.5). In addition, two concurrent methods for SSC (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022) were proposed recently. Although showing impressive results, they are based on spectrogram representations, hence require an additional vocoding step." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.637, + 0.753, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Our Approach - DISCC" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.663, + 0.884, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We operate under the following setup: we perform any-to-many SSC which means we take any recording and convert it to any of the training set speakers. Our training set contains only unpaired utterances - e.g. no training utterance is said by more than one speaker. The learning process is completely textless with no form of text supervision." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach uses DIscrete units for Speaking Style Conversion, and is denoted DISSC. We decompose speech to few representations to synthesise speech in the target speaking style. We consider three components in the decomposition: phonetic-content, prosodic features (i.e., F0 and duration) and speaker identity, denoted by \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\), \\((\\mathbf{z}_{dur},\\mathbf{z}_{F_0})\\), \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\) respectively. We propose a cascaded pipeline: (i) extract \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\) from the raw wave" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8049" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "form using a SSL model; (ii) predict the prosodic features of the target speaker from \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\) and \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\); (iii) synthesise the waveform speech from the content, predicted prosody and target speaker identity. See Figure 2 for a visual description of DISsC. This modelling approach means moving from a continuous space to a discrete space, hence resulting in easier optimisation and better quality generations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.227, + 0.388, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Speech Input Representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.248, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Phonetic-content representation. To represent speech phonetic-content we extract a discrete representation of the audio signal using a pre-trained SSL model, namely HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021). We use a SSL representation for phonetic-content, and not text or text based methods, to maintain nontextual cues like laughter and allow support for diverse languages. We discretise this representation to use as a rhythm proxy (by number of repetitions) and for ease of modelling. We chose HuBERT for the phonetic-content units as Polyak et al. (2021) showed it better disentangles between speech content and both speaker and prosody compared to other SSL-based models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.474, + 0.49, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Denote the domain of audio samples by \\(\\mathcal{X} \\subset \\mathbb{R}\\). Audio waveforms are therefore represented by a sequence of samples \\(\\mathbf{x} = (x^{1},\\dots,x^{T})\\), where each \\(x^{t} \\in \\mathcal{X}\\) for all \\(1 \\leq t \\leq T\\). The content encoder \\(E_{c}\\) is a HuBERT model pre-trained on the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015). The input to the content encoder \\(E_{c}\\) is an audio waveform \\(\\mathbf{x}\\), and the output is a latent representation with lower temporal resolution \\(\\mathbf{z}' = (z_c'^1,\\dots,z_c'^L)\\) where \\(L = T / n\\). Since HuBERT outputs continuous representations, one needs an additional k-means step in order to quantise these representations into a discrete unit sequence. This sequence is denoted by \\(\\mathbf{z}_{c} = (z_{c}^{1},\\dots,z_{c}^{L})\\) where \\(z_{c}^{i} \\in \\{1,\\dots,K\\}\\) and \\(K\\) is the vocabulary size. For the rest of the paper, we refer to these discrete representations as \"units\". We extracted representations from the final layer of HuBERT and set \\(K = 100\\). When we wish to predict the rhythm, we must decompose it from the sequence, therefore repeated units are omitted (e.g., \\(0,0,0,1,2,2 \\rightarrow 0,1,2\\)) and the number of repetitions correlates to the rhythm. Such sequences are denoted as \"deduced\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speaker representation. Our goal is to convert the speaking style while keeping the content fixed. To that end, we construct a speaker representation \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\), and include it as additional conditioning dur" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.081, + 0.865, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.317, + 0.885, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: An overview of DISSC. We use an SSL pretrained content encoder \\( E_{c} \\) to extract discrete units from the waveform. We independently train a rhythm predictor \\( E_{dur} \\) and pitch predictor \\( E_{F_0} \\) to reconstruct the original unit repetitions and pitch contour, respectively. We input all representations into a pretrained vocoder \\( G \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.442, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing the prosody prediction and waveform synthesis phases. To learn \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\) we optimise the parameters of a fixed size look-up-table. Although such modeling limits our ability to generate voices of new and unseen speakers, it produces higher quality generations (Polyak et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.549, + 0.883, + 0.661 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prosody representation. As explained in the content representation section, the number of repetitions of units indicates the rhythm of the speaker in the context. More repetitions means a sound was produced for a longer time. Therefore when converting rhythm the sequence is \"deduced\", and when only converting the pitch the full \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\) is used." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.882, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Polyak et al. (2021) we encode the pitch contour of a sample using YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002). We mark this pitch contour \\( z_{F_0} = (z_{F_0}^1,\\ldots ,z_{F_0}^L) \\), where \\( z_{F_0}^t\\in \\mathcal{R}_{\\geq 0} \\). We mark the per-speaker normalised version as \\( \\widetilde{z}_{F_0} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.766, + 0.769 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Speaking Style Conversion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using the above representations we propose to synthesise the speech signal in the target speaking style. We aim to predict the prosodic features (duration and F0) based on the phonetic-content units, while conditioned on the target speaker representation. We inflate the sequence according to the predicted durations, and use it, the predicted pitch contour, and the speaker vector as a conditioning for the waveform synthesis phase." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8050" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.166, + 0.082, + 0.442, + 0.337 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.343, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: An overview of the \\( E_{F_0} \\) architecture. The positional encoding is a linear positional embedding relative to the start and the end of the sequence, added to the repeated speaker vector. The model jointly predicts the presence of vocalised units (binary classification) together with continuous F0 values for the voiced units." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.464, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rhythm prediction. Each HuBERT unit correlates with the phoneme in the given \\(20~\\mathrm{ms}\\). This means that longer repetitions of the same unit indicate a longer voicing of the sound - i.e. rhythm. In order to learn to predict, and convert the rhythm we build a model which learns to predict unit durations, denoted as \\(E_{dur}\\). During training of \\(E_{dur}\\), we input the deduped phonetic-content units \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\) and speaker representation conditioning \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\), with the original unit durations (before dedup) as supervision." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This simple reconstruction task is formulated as a regression task with Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss. As the units do not perfectly correlate to phonemes, neighbouring units often represent the same phoneme even after \"dedup\". This makes it harder to predict each unit's length separately. Therefore, we encourage the model's nearby errors to cancel each other out by adding an MSE loss on the total error of 4 neighbouring units. This helped with errors all being on the negative end and creating a shortening bias in our preliminary test. In addition, we round the regression outputs to be used as integer repetitions of the unit, however this can also cause a bias in which predictions like 1.51, 1.51, ..., 1.51 and 2.49, 2.49, ..., 2.49 - would result in the same total length. To mitigate this we carryover the remainder after rounding and sum those differences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During conversion we replace the speaker vector with that of the target and wish for the model to convert the rhythm. To this end our predictor model must strongly depend on \\( Z_{spk} \\). In order to encourage this we introduce two minor adjustments. HuBERT units hold speaker information and are not fully disentangled, however, the shorter the sequence the less information exists (Kharitonov et al., 2022a). We therefore use a CNN with a small receptive field. In addition, we introduce train time masking of units in the sequence, this means that \\( E_{dur} \\) has access to even less units at train time, hence they contain less speaker information. Exact details can be found in Appendix A.3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.321, + 0.885, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pitch prediction. We train the pitch predictor to predict the per-speaker normalised pitch contour \\(\\widetilde{z}_{F0}\\), from the HuBERT units \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\). The pitch values are normalised to zero mean and standard deviation of one per-speaker on the vocalised sections. We use these values as labels to a predictor conditioned on content units \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\), positional encoding and a speaker vector \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\). The positional encoding is added to \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\) and denotes the absolute position of the unit compared to the start and finish of the sequence, though preliminary results showed that any standard positional encoding works. Intuitively, positional encoding will help learning localised speaker pitch patterns such as ending sentences in a pitch drop." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.564, + 0.887, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our pitch predictor is denoted \\( E_{F_0} \\). An overview of it is described in Figure 3. It is a CNN which has two predicted outputs: binary speaking detection, and a regression head to predict the exact pitch. The binary speaking classification is trained with BCE loss on the binarised pitch labels - i.e. \\( z_{F0} > 0 \\). The regression head is trained with MSE loss on the non-zero, vocalised pitch labels. Like the rhythm predictor this model is trained with a small unit receptive field and unit masking." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.737, + 0.691, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Speech Synthesis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We follow Polyak et al. (2021); Kreuk et al. (2021) using a variation of the HiFi-GAN vocoder (Kong et al., 2020). Like previous work, we adapt the generator to take as input a sequence of phonetic-content units, pitch contour and a speaker-embedding. During training, these are only features from real samples as the vocoder is trained independently for reconstruction. At inference time we use the unit sequence inflated with predicted durations, the predicted pitch contour and the target speaker" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8051" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "embedding. The above features are concatenated along the temporal axis and fed into a sequence of convolutional layers that output a 1-dimensional audio signal. We match the sample rates of unit sequence and F0 by means of linear interpolation, while replicating the speaker embedding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.183, + 0.489, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sum up, after each of the components described in previous sections are trained, the full pipeline of DISSC is composed of: first extracting content representation, \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\), then, predicting the prosodic features of the target speaker based on \\(\\mathbf{z}_c\\) and \\(\\mathbf{z}_{spk}\\), and lastly, synthesising the waveform using these new representations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.309, + 0.336, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 SSC Evaluation Suite" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.336, + 0.489, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section we describe our setup which uses several datasets and fine-grained offline metrics for each part of the conversion - timbre, pitch, rhythm. As no standardised framework for evaluating SSC currently exists, we hope the proposed metrics, will help further advance research in this field. A detailed description of training configurations and hyper-parameters can be found in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.478, + 0.229, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.499, + 0.489, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Most previous work focuses on a single dataset such as VCTK (Veaux et al., 2017), since few large, multi-speaker datasets with parallel test sets exist. However, VCTK has fairly monotonous speech with less distinct speaking style." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.489, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address this, we use several datasets. First, we use VCTK as it has many speakers. We leave all paired utterances (speakers say the same content) to the test set, to mimic a truly unpaired setup. In preliminary results, having paired data in training improved the results notably, but harms the wanted setup. We follow Qian et al. (2021) in selecting the two fastest (P231, P239) and two slowest (P245, P270) speakers by mean log duration." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we wished to add a more expressive dataset, yet found that most expressive datasets are from the emotional speech domain. In order to adapt them to our use case we take the Emotional Speech Dataset (ESD) (Zhou et al., 2022), and select one emotion for each of the 10 speakers. This means that all recordings of a given speaker are in a certain emotion thus making it part of their speaking style. Here, we also take the two fastest and two slowest speakers for rhythm metric evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After preliminary experiments we found that the speakers in the above datasets do not always have" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "clear pitch patterns. This means that the speech is quite monotonous and that variation across recordings was greater than across speakers. To effectively evaluate pitch conversion we created a synthetic dataset based on VCTK - denoted as Syn_VCTK. In this dataset we took 6 speakers from VCTK, encoded them based on the pipeline by Polyak et al. (2021). We then altered the pitch contour by introducing a linear trend of either up, down or flat for each of the speakers. We then generated the new synthetic recordings in the same approach. We encourage readers to listen to these samples as well as the other datasets in the accompanying page to grasp the different speaking styles." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.324, + 0.618, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.347, + 0.712, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.1 Objective Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.884, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce new metrics which aim to capture the rhythm in a fine-grained manner, and objectively evaluate the pitch contour (even when the rhythm does not match). We hope these metrics will contribute to other advances in this field." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.461, + 0.884, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Timbre. For regular VC we use the common Equal Error Rate (EER) of speaker verification using SpeechBrain's (Ravanelli et al., 2021) ECAPATDNN (Desplanques et al., 2020) which achieves \\(0.8\\%\\) EER on Voxceleb. For each sample, we randomly select \\(n\\) positive and \\(n\\) negative samples. Positive samples are random utterances of other speakers converted to the current speaker, and negative samples are random utterances of the current speaker converted to a random target speaker." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.634, + 0.883, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Content. For phonetic content preservation we use the standard Word Error Rate (WER) and Character Error Rate (CER), using Whisper (Radford et al., 2022) as our Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rhythm. In order to evaluate the rhythm we wish to go beyond the length of the recording, which only indicates the average rhythm and not which sounds are uttered slowly and which quickly. We therefore use the text transcriptions of the samples, and the Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA) (McAuliffe et al., 2017) to get start and end times for each word and phoneme in the recording. We then compare the lengths of the converted speech and the target speech, thus defining Phoneme Length Error (PLE), Word Length Error (WLE) and Total Length Error (TLE). We do not compare" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8052" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.083, + 0.864, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMSPEAKER EER↓
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓
VCTKAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)71.347.117.681.2140.0720.0287.5
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)40.626.721.91.3790.1230.03724.1
Seq2seq-VC (Liu et al., 2021)2.91.220.951.2140.0720.02810.9
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)6.63.314.01.2140.0710.0251.8
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)10.95.410.580.8320.0560.0231.7
DISSC_Both (Ours)13.06.910.530.8320.0560.0231.7
ESDAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)87.059.931.820.5910.1060.0486.6
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)50.331.837.20.5490.0970.04315.7
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)14.96.030.30.5910.0970.0412.9
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)19.17.924.80.3500.0760.0372.6
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.273, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: A comparison of the proposed method against VC and SSC baselines considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE), and speaker identification (EER). Only DISSC improves rhythm metrics compared to standard VC baseline Speech Resynthesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.341, + 0.486, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the length of silences as their occurrence can differ between recordings thus breaking the alignment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.374, + 0.489, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, for each input recording and matching text, MFA returns a list of tuples \\( T_{w} = ((s_{w_{1}},e_{w_{1}},c_{w_{1}})\\dots (s_{w_{m}},e_{w_{m}},c_{w_{m}})) \\) for word level and another for phoneme level \\( T_{p} = ((s_{p_{1}},e_{p_{1}},c_{p_{1}})\\dots (s_{p_{m}},e_{p_{m}},c_{p_{m}})) \\). \\( s_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}} \\) indicates the start time of the sound at index \\( i \\) in the recording (word or phoneme according to the level), and \\( e_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}} \\) indicates the end time. \\( c_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}} \\) represents the content of the time segment, i.e the word or phoneme. We filter only non-silence time segments leaving \\( \\widetilde{T}_{\\{w,p\\}} = ((s_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}},e_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}},c_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}})\\quad \\forall i \\quad s.t. \\quad c_{i}^{\\{w,p\\}} \\neq \\text{silence}) \\). Thus formally, the errors per sample compare durations of a reference sample and a synthesised sample:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.63, + 0.488, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\mathrm {P L E} \\left(\\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\\text {s y n}}, \\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\\text {r e f}}\\right) = \\\\ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {l e n (\\widetilde {T} _ {p})} | (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n}) - (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f}) |, \\\\ \\mathrm {W L E} (\\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {s y n}, \\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {r e f}) = \\\\ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {\\text {l e n} \\left(\\widetilde {T} _ {w}\\right)} | \\left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {s y n}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {s y n}}\\right) - \\left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {r e f}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {r e f}}\\right) |. \\tag {1} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The TLE is just the duration difference between the entire recordings. All rhythm metrics are in time units, in this case seconds. In addition, on rare occasions the number of phonemes for the same sound by different speakers is different (due to accents etc.), we ignore these samples for a more well-defined metric. In addition, when the phonetic" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.341, + 0.883, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "content is harmed dramatically in the conversion, MFA might fail to align the text. We penalise such samples by assuming a linear and even split of the recording to phonemes and words." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.414, + 0.884, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pitch. Popular evaluation methods for F0 similarity include the Voicing Decision Error (VDE) and F0 frame error (FFE). Intuitively, VDE measures the portion of frames with voicing decision error, while FFE measures the percentage of frames that contain a deviation of more than \\(20\\%\\) in pitch value or have a voicing decision error. Formally," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.57, + 0.536, + 0.884, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\operatorname {V D E} (\\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) = \\frac {\\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \\mathbb {1} [ \\boldsymbol {v} _ {t} \\neq \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.599, + 0.884, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} \\operatorname {F F E} (\\boldsymbol {p}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {p}}, \\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) = \\operatorname {V D E} (\\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) \\\\ + \\frac {\\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \\mathbb {1} \\left[ \\left| \\boldsymbol {p} _ {t} - \\hat {\\boldsymbol {p}} _ {t} \\right| > 0 . 2 \\cdot \\boldsymbol {p} _ {t} \\right] \\mathbb {1} [ \\boldsymbol {v} _ {t} ] \\mathbb {1} [ \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \\tag {3} \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.679, + 0.883, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( \\pmb{p}, \\hat{\\pmb{p}} \\) are the pitch frames from the target and generated signals, \\( \\pmb{v}, \\hat{\\pmb{v}} \\) are the respective voicing decisions, and \\( \\mathbb{1} \\) is the indicator function." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Although these metrics are widely used in speech synthesis (Wang et al., 2021), these methods are not well adapted to misaligned samples, i.e when they are spoken at different rates. These metrics require the samples to have the same time length, therefore many implementations linearly interpolate the generated sample's pitch contour to that of the target before computing them. However, rhythm differences are non-linear (i.e certain phonemes could be \"stretched\" more than others) thus not alleviating the misalignment problem. Instead, we suggest using segments obtained from the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8053" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "forced-aligner and calculate the FFE while interpolating the segments to match the segment sizes. This measures the match in shape and value of the pitch contour for each word and phoneme, even if they are misaligned. We denoted these as P_FFE for phoneme segments and W_FFE for words." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.195, + 0.49, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rhythm & Pitch. We compute Earth Movers Distance (EMD) (Rubner et al., 1998) between the pitch contour of converted and target samples. Essentially we check how much \"pitch mass\" needs to be moved between them. This metric considers errors along the time domain (rhythm) and pitch contour errors (such as predicting the wrong trend). Our results show strong correlation to human perception of rhythm and pitch with the above metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.342, + 0.49, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This newly proposed evaluation suite is generic and can transfer to other languages. However, certain metrics are based on language-specific pretrained models (e.g., ASR-based metrics). In such cases, a multi-lingual ASR can be used. In our setup, we use the Whisper model (Radford et al., 2022) which supports \\(\\sim 100\\) languages. Another option would be to use the MMS model (Pratap et al., 2023) which supports more than 1000 languages for both ASR and forced-alignment." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.516, + 0.32, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2.2 Human evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.539, + 0.49, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To confirm that the proposed objective metrics correlate to human perception, and to evaluate to what extent the prosody impacts humans' speaker recognition we conduct a human evaluation study. We use the common mean opinion score (MOS) to evaluate the quality and naturalness of generated and real samples. Specifically, each sample was scored from 1-5 on naturalness and quality. We took the same 40 samples for each method and the original. Each sample was annotated by at least three raters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.701, + 0.49, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, to evaluate the effectiveness of the speaking style conversion, we present the users a sample from the target speaker and a sample converted by each method. Users rated each sample from 1-5 (\"Very Different\"- \"Very Similar\") on how likely it is to be uttered by the same speaker and instructed to \"pay attention to speaking style such as rhythm and pitch changes, and not only the voice texture\". We evaluated 40 samples per-method, with at least three raters per-sample. We report the mean score and \\(95\\%\\) confidence intervals for both tests. We modified the WebMUSHRA tool for the tests. A" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.085, + 0.87, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.2, + 0.868, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.326, + 0.885, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: We compare the human evaluated naturalness of real reference utterances, Speech Resynthesis (SR), AutoPST, two versions of DISSC which convert rhythm only or also F0. We also compare the similarity of how likely the converted sample is to come from the the same speaker as the target recording." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.439, + 0.883, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "detailed description of the subjective tests can be found in the Appendix." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.487, + 0.609, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.516, + 0.885, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare DISSC to several any-to-many (or many-to-many) baselines. Notably, we evaluate Speech Resynthesis (SR), and AutoVC (Qian et al., 2019) which are well known VC methods. In addition, we compare to AutoPST and BNE-MoL-seq2seqVC (Liu et al., 2021) which are prominent prosodic-aware VC (i.e., SSC) methods. We use the official Github implementations and train the models on our datasets using the authors recommended configuration. For a fair comparison, all baselines were evaluated under the any-to-many setup, i.e., generating only seen speakers. Only seq2seqVC supports new speakers, because only that approach was published. However, we evaluate them on known speakers, with the entire training set as reference recordings. We show three variants of our method: DISSC_Rhythm, DISSC_Pitch and DISSC_Both which predict duration, pitch contour and both respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Objective results for VCTK and ESD appear in Table 1. On both datasets DISSC improves the length errors across all scales: phonemes, words and utterances. The relative improvement compared to the next best baseline is \\(56.8\\%\\) on ESD TLE. At word level we get \\(27.6\\%\\) and \\(26.7\\%\\) rela" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.904, + 0.471, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "'https://github.com/audiolabs/webMUSHRA" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8054" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMF0
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓W_FFE↓P_FFE↓
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)12.46.324.231.1010.0640.02446.143.4
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)18.89.520.780.7750.0530.02346.143.7
DISSC_Pitch (Ours)12.56.313.551.1010.0650.02424.520.5
DISSC_Both (Ours)19.610.210.470.7750.0530.02325.321.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.193, + 0.884, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: VC and SSC results on the Syn_VCTK dataset. This ablation measures the impact of rhythm and pitch conversion over SR considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE, W_FFE, P_FFE)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.248, + 0.489, + 0.296 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tive improvement on ESD and VCTK respectively. All other baselines show rhythm errors comparable or worse than SR which does not convert rhythm." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.3, + 0.49, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We can see a minor decrease in content quality (by WER and CER) of DISSC compared to SR which does not convert prosody, but still superior to AutoPST. In addition, seq2seq also has better WER, at the expense of harming the rhythm conversion. Potentially, the supervised phoneme recogniser is too fine, thus does not impose enough of a rhythm bottleneck. The harm in quality of DISSC may be due to additional information bottlenecks by de-duplicating the speech units, and predicting F0." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.465, + 0.49, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We additionally provide subjective evaluation considering both naturalness of the converted samples and their similarity to the target recording considering speaking style. These results are shown in Figure 4. We found that the naturalness of both DISSC variants was comparable to SR, and not far from the reference recordings while far outperforming AutoPST. In addition, we see a noticeable increase in speaking style similarity when converting prosody with DISSC compared to SR. However, also converting the pitch did not noticeably improve the results. We believe that this has to do with the lack of distinct speaking style which people can notice, especially from a single recording." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ablation study. In order to properly evaluate the ability of DISSC to learn the pitch speaking style, when such exists, we use the synthetic VCTK data (as explained in Section 4.1) with known pitch trends. These results (Table 2) are an ablation study for each converter of DISSC. They highlight the control-ability of our approach - when predicting the rhythm, only length errors improve, likewise for pitch. We see that when a pitch pattern exists in the speaking style - DISSC learns it, providing \\(88 - 113\\%\\) relative increase in the metrics. We also see that they can be converted jointly without noticeable drop in pitch and length performance." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.541, + 0.244, + 0.857, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.478, + 0.883, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: DISSC corrects abnormal rhythm patterns in specific words, compared to AutoPST. Here we take the utterance \"people look, but no one ever finds it\" and stretch the duration of the word \"finds\" times three." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.561, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Irregular rhythm. Lastly, to demonstrate that DISSC predicts rhythm depending on content, and not only on average - we create a sample with abnormal rhythm patterns. We take an utterance and artificially stretch one of the words using speech resynthesis. We then attempt to \"convert\" the sample to the original speaker thus checking the ability to only change the rhythm of the abnormal part. We compare DISSC and AutoPST in Figure 5, and see that DISSC manages to mostly correct the irregular rhythm, while hardly changing the other parts. By contrast, AutoPST only slightly changes the rhythm. If \\( E_{c} \\) performs optimally, we are guaranteed perfect results, as \\( z_{c} \\) would be identical for irregular and original after dedup. However, HubERT may introduce some errors specifically when considering signal variations (Gat et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.846, + 0.783, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion & Future Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we propose a simple and effective method for speaking style conversion based on discrete self supervised speech representations. We" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8055" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "provide a formal definition to the speaking style conversion setup while introducing a set of evaluation functions to analyse and evaluate different speech characteristics separately. Results suggest, the proposed approach is superior to the evaluated baselines considering both objective and subjective metrics. We hope these advance the study in the field, and lead to improved performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.218, + 0.49, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The current model suffers from slight content loss when using the deduced units. In addition, repeated utterances get slightly different units (in the abnormal rhythm experiment). Therefore, in future work we aim to improve the robustness and disentanglement of the speech representation considering speaker and prosodic information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.356, + 0.22, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.392, + 0.49, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach can only perform conversion into a closed set of speakers seen at train time. This is due to the LUT used to learn speaker representations and to the use of per-speaker pitch statistics. This might be hard to overcome as speaker style (rhythm and pitch changes) can be hard to judge from a small number of samples. Additionally, we see that speaking style conversion and especially rhythm conversion harm the WER and CER slightly. The additional bottleneck of de-duplication which allows us to convert rhythm comes with the cost of slight content loss. We hope that future improvement of the hidden representations will help improve or alleviate the tradeoff." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.643, + 0.274, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethical Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.678, + 0.49, + 0.904 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The broader impact of this study is, as in any generative model, the development of a high quality and natural speech synthesis model. This has special sensitivity and ethical concerns as such technology might be used to alter voices and speaking style in speech recordings, which can be considered as biometric data and biometric processing. To deal with that we limit the number of speakers that can be synthesized with the proposed approach using a pre-defined voices using a look-up-table. Another potential risk of the proposed method which is also one of its limitations is that the generated speech content is not always perfect, hence might lead to wrong pronunciations." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.084, + 0.61, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.109, + 0.885, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.2, + 0.885, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Li-Wei Chen, Shinji Watanabe, and Alexander Rudnicky. 2022. A unified one-shot prosody and speaker conversion system with self-supervised discrete speech units. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06535." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.265, + 0.885, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Meiying Chen and Zhiyao Duan. 2022. Controlvc: Zero-shot voice conversion with time-varying controls on pitch and rhythm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11866." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.33, + 0.885, + 0.41 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yen-Hao Chen, Da-Yi Wu, Tsung-Han Wu, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021. Again-vc: A one-shot voice conversion using activation guidance and adaptive instance normalization. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5954-5958. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.422, + 0.885, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ju-chieh Chou, Cheng-chieh Yeh, and Hung-yi Lee. 2019. One-shot voice conversion by separating speaker and content representations with instance normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05742." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.487, + 0.885, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck. 2020. ECAPA-TDNN: emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in TDNN based speaker verification. In *Interspeech* 2020, pages 3830-3834. ISCA." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.565, + 0.885, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Itai Gat, Felix Kreuk, Ann Lee, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022. On the robustness of self-supervised representations for spoken language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15483." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.644, + 0.885, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.735, + 0.885, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wen-Chin Huang, Yi-Chiao Wu, and Tomoki Hayashi. 2021. Any-to-one sequence-to-sequence voice conversion using self-supervised discrete speech representations. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5944-5948. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.826, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wen-Chin Huang, Shu-Wen Yang, Tomoki Hayashi, Hung-Yi Lee, Shinji Watanabe, and Tomoki Toda. 2022. S3prl-vc: Open-source voice conversion framework with self-supervised speech representations. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6552-6556. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.109, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8056" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Kain and Michael W Macon. 1998. Spectral voice conversion for text-to-speech synthesis. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP'98 (Cat. No. 98CH36181), volume 1, pages 285-288. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.175, + 0.49, + 0.253 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hirokazu Kameoka, Takuhiro Kaneko, Kou Tanaka, and Nobukatsu Hojo. 2018. Stargan-vc: Non-parallel many-to-many voice conversion using star generative adversarial networks. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 266-273. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.265, + 0.489, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takuhiro Kaneko and Hirokazu Kameoka. 2017. Parallel-data-free voice conversion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11293." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.328, + 0.489, + 0.381 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kavita Kasi and Stephen A Zahorian. 2002. Yet another algorithm for pitch tracking. In 2002, the international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, volume 1, pages I-361. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.391, + 0.49, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Paden Tomasello, Ann Lee, Ali Elkahky, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. textless-lib: a library for textless spoken language processing. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: System Demonstrations, pages 1-9, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.546, + 0.49, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov, Ann Lee, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Text-free prosody-aware generative spoken language modeling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8666-8681, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.674, + 0.489, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kang-wook Kim, Seung-won Park, Junhyeok Lee, and Myun-chul Joe. 2022. Assem-vc: Realistic voice conversion by assembling modern speech synthesis techniques. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6997-7001. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.763, + 0.49, + 0.828 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:17022-17033." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Wei Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2021. Textless speech emotion conversion using decomposed and discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07402." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.151 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.163, + 0.882, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Yaniv Taigman, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Alexandre Défossez, and Yossi Adi. 2022b. Audio language modeling using perceptually-guided discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01223." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.239, + 0.882, + 0.292 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Kuhlmann, Fritz Seebauer, Janek Ebbers, Petra Wagner, and Reinhold Haeb-Umbach. 2022. Investigation into target speaking rate adaptation for voice conversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01978." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.303, + 0.882, + 0.393 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.405, + 0.882, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, Sravya Popuri, Xutai Ma, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Qing He, Yun Tang, Juan Pino, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022a. Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3327-3339, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.521, + 0.882, + 0.652 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ann Lee, Hongyu Gong, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Holger Schwenk, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Sravya Popuri, Yossi Adi, Juan Pino, Jiatao Gu, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Textless speech-to-speech translation on real data. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 860-872, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.663, + 0.882, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sang-Hoon Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, Hyunseung Chung, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2021. Voicemixer: Adversarial voice style mixup. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 294-308. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.739, + 0.882, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sang-Hoon Lee, Hyeong-Rae Noh, Woo-Jeoung Nam, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2022c. Duration controllable voice conversion via phoneme-based information bottleneck. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1173-1183." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.816, + 0.882, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jheng-hao Lin, Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021a. S2vc: a framework for any-to-any voice conversion with self-supervised pretrained representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02901." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, Jheng-Hao Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Lin-shan Lee. 2021b. Fragmentvc: Any-to-any voice conversion by end-to-end extracting and" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8057" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "fusing fine-grained voice fragments with attention. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5939-5943. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.148, + 0.49, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Songxiang Liu, Yuewen Cao, Disong Wang, Xixin Wu, Xunying Liu, and Helen Meng. 2021. Any-to-many voice conversion with location-relative sequence-to-sequence modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:1717-1728." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.237, + 0.489, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 498-502." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.312, + 0.489, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Toru Nakashika, Ryoichi Takashima, Tetsuya Takiguchi, and Yasuo Ariki. 2013. Voice conversion in high-order eigen space using deep belief nets. In *Interspeech*, pages 369-372." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.375, + 0.489, + 0.441 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16502." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.45, + 0.489, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.538, + 0.489, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00355." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.627, + 0.489, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sravya Popuri, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Yossi Adi, Jiatao Gu, Wei-Ning Hsu, and Ann Lee. 2022. Enhanced direct speech-to-speech translation using self-supervised pre-training and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02967." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.702, + 0.489, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vineel Pratap, Andros Tjandra, Bowen Shi, Paden Tomasello, Arun Babu, Sayani Kundu, Ali Elkahky, Zhaoheng Ni, Apoorv Vyas, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, et al. 2023. Scaling speech technology to 1,000+ languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13516." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.777, + 0.489, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and David Cox. 2020. Unsupervised speech decomposition via triple information bottleneck. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7836-7846. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Jinjun Xiong, Chuang Gan, David Cox, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2021. Global prosody style transfer without text transcriptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8650-8660. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Xuesong Yang, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2019. Autovc: Zero-shot voice style transfer with only autoencoder loss. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5210-5219. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.16, + 0.883, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Heting Gao, Junrui Ni, Cheng-I Lai, David Cox, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and Shiyu Chang. 2022. Contentvec: An improved self-supervised speech representation by disentangling speakers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18003-18017. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.248, + 0.883, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leyuan Qu, Taihao Li, Cornelius Weber, Theresa Pekarek-Rosin, Fuji Ren, and Stefan Wermter. 2022. Disentangling prosody representations with unsupervised speech reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06972." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.322, + 0.883, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.382, + 0.883, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mirco Ravanelli, Titouan Parcollet, Peter Plantinga, Aku Rouhe, Samuele Cornell, Loren Lugosch, Cem Subakan, Nauman Dawalatabad, Abdelwahab Heba, Jianyuan Zhong, Ju-Chieh Chou, Sung-Lin Yeh, Szu-Wei Fu, Chien-Feng Liao, Elena Rastorgueva, François Grondin, William Aris, Hwidong Na, Yan Gao, Renato De Mori, and Yoshua Bengio. 2021. SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit. ArXiv:2106.04624." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.509, + 0.883, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. 1998. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In Sixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271), pages 59-66. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.583, + 0.883, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yannis Stylianou, Olivier Cappé, and Eric Moulines. 1998. Continuous probabilistic transform for voice conversion. IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, 6(2):131-142." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.644, + 0.883, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christophe Veaux, Junichi Yamagishi, Kirsten MacDonald, et al. 2017. Superseded-cstr vctk corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.691, + 0.883, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. *fairoseq s^2: A scalable and integrable speech synthesis toolkit*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations*, pages 143–152, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.805, + 0.883, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Carl Earl Williams. 1965. The effects of selected factors on the aural identification of speakers. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.852, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siyang Yuan, Pengyu Cheng, Ruiyi Zhang, Weituo Hao, Zhe Gan, and Lawrence Carin. 2021. Improving zero-shot voice style transfer via disentangled representation learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8058" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.138 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Zhou, Berrak Sisman, Rui Liu, and Haizhou Li. 2022. Emotional voice conversion: Theory, databases and esd. Speech Communication, 137:1-18." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.634, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.111, + 0.883, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here we give fine-grained details of computational costs, hyper-parameters and other implementation details omitted from the main part for brevity and readability." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.187, + 0.676, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Dataset details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.209, + 0.885, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use several datasets: (i) VCTK dataset (Veaux et al., 2017); (ii) ESD (Zhou et al., 2022); (iii) and the a synthetic VCTK dataset (Syn_VCTK), generated by us. For VCTK the training data contains 41k samples, and the evaluation set contains \\(2.5\\mathrm{k}\\). For ESD the training data contains 3k samples, the validation contains 200, and the test 300. For Syn_VCTK the training data contains \\(2.4\\mathrm{k}\\) samples and the validation has 142. For ESD we use the official train, val, test split. For both VCTK versions we enforce unpaired data in the train sets, and use paired data only for evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.414, + 0.725, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Computational Price" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.435, + 0.884, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use a pretrained HuBERT_Base model for input encoding. This model has 90 million parameters and takes less than 15 minutes to inference over all of our datasets. For training times see the original paper. For the HiFi-GAN vocoder which is trained once, independently of the speaking style conversion, we use a model with 13.8 million parameters (for the generator). It takes 4 days on to train on VCTK using two RTX 6000 GPUs, other datasets take less than that." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.597, + 0.884, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The rhythm predictor \\( E_{dur} \\) has 330 thousand parameters, and takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU. Likewise, the pitch predictor \\( E_{f0} \\) has 527 thousand parameters, and also takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.705, + 0.707, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Hyper-Parameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.883, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We encode the HuBERT units and pitch contour with textlesslib. For the content endocer we use hubert-base-1s960 and use K-means with 100 clusters for the clustering step. For the pitch contour we use the default parameters from textless lib which match the content encoder we used." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the vocoder we use the official implementation of speech resynthesis with the configuration suitable for VCTK, hubert100, using a fixed size lookup-table. We adapt the model so that it receives as input the normalised pitch without quantisation. We train it with a batch size of 64 over two" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8059" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " GPUs for the minimum between 2000 epochs and 400,000 batches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.124, + 0.49, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The rhythm predictor \\( E_{dur} \\) is built of 8 blocks of Conv1D followed by Batch Normalisation, with 128 hidden units. The speaker embedding and token embedding are learned with a lookup-table, both with size 32. The speaker vector is repeated along the time axis and concatenated with the unit embedding. Each CNN has a receptive field of 3 and padding of 1 so that the output shape is the same as the input. For activation we use Leaky ReLU. We normalise the length for prediction with the mean and standard deviation of the training data. Train time masking masks each unit in the input independently with \\( 20\\% \\) probability. We train the model for 30 epochs, with a batch size of 32, a learning rate of \\( 3e - 4 \\) and Adam optimiser. We take the model with lowest validation MSE. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or automated hyper-tuning was done." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.438, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The pitch predictor \\( E_{F0} \\) encodes the speaker and units in the same way as \\( E_{dur} \\) with a fixed size lookup-table of size 32. However, here we add to the speaker embedding a linear positional encoding - this means that indices 0-15 of the speaker vector get added the unit index relative to the start and indices 16-31 get added the unit index relative to the end. In preliminary experiments more typical sinusoidal positional encoding worked similarly but we chose the linear version for simplicity. The model is comprised of 9 shared Conv1D layers with kernel size 3, and followed by 2 Conv1D with kernel sizes 3 and 1 for each head (speaking classification and F0 regression). We use Leaky ReLU activation. The labels for training are received from the YAAPT algorithm, normalised perspeaker with the mean and standard deviation of the vocalised parts of the training set. We do not normalise the non-vocalised parts. The BCE loss for binary classification is multiplied by 100 and added to the pitch MSE loss, to attempt to give both losses a similar scale. We train the model for 20 epochs with learning rate \\( 3e - 4 \\), batch size of 32 and Adam optimiser. We take the model with the lowest validation MSE. The results in Table 1, and Figure 4 are with a similar model, however it does not use positional encoding. The positional encoding was added afterwards as an improvement. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.768, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "automated hyper-tuning was done." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.112, + 0.77, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Human Evaluation Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.133, + 0.884, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We had over 20 different annotators in our subjective tests, who were all non-paid volunteers. They are all fluent, though not necessarily native, in English, and vary in academic background and connection to the field. For privacy reasons the questionnaires are anonymous and no details are collected about the participants." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The quality question is phrased as follows: \"Evaluate the quality and naturalness of the following audio segment\", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: \"Poor\", \"Decent\", \"Good\", \"Very Good\", \"Excellent\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.506, + 0.326, + 0.884, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The similarity question is phrased as follows: \"The first recording in this section is a reference, mark all recordings in how similar the speaking style is to the original. speaking style refers to the speaking rhythm, intonation etc. Try to ignore the quality of the recording itself\", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: \"Very different\", \"Different\", \"Slightly similar\", \"Similar\", \"Very Similar\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.482, + 0.848, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Low Resource Language Conversion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.503, + 0.882, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As mentioned, DISSC does not use text as any intermediate representation in conversion (or text supervision for training). This means that it can work in low-resource languages which do not have large annotated datasets." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.583, + 0.884, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We demonstrate the ability of DISSC to convert a Hebrew utterance to a target VCTK speaker, while not being trained on any Hebrew data (see Fig. 6). While converting the accent in crosslingual (Hebrew utterance to English speaker) remains challenging, this shows good potential. Notably, this example is out of domain for all model training data. Training DISSC in a textless self-supervised way on Hebrew data will likely improve the performance dramatically." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.755, + 0.74, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 WER detailed analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While DISSCis the only evaluated method to successfully convert prosody, it has a limitation of slightly harming content compared to some methods which do not convert prosody (e.g. speech resynthesis). We see this in the WER and CER metrics and wish to further analyse the cause for this." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first manually inspect the samples with highest word error rate. We have found that the content loss is mainly due to minor phonological errors" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8060" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.485, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.216, + 0.49, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: An example using DISSC to convert a non-English sample. Hebrew is a lower resource language, hence there are little to no transcribed datasets. Thus, no expressive TTS methods exist, making an ASR-TTS VC pipeline impossible. Training DISSC on unlabelled Hebrew data, will likely improve results further. We encourage readers to listen to the accompanying samples." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.331, + 0.47, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.411.1
p23912.218.6
p2454.57.9
p2579.815.7
p2703.07.7
p28412.118.2
p3064.57.0
p3411.34.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.519, + 0.489, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by source speaker when converting to all other speakers as targets. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from speaker p231 to all other speakers in the list. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results vary greatly, and that the success of both methods are correlated." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.661, + 0.489, + 0.837 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which cause transcription change. For example, in cases with a high error rate, the original text is: \"Please call Stella\" and the transcription after conversion is: \"Peace cool Stalla\". However, when looking at the WER of both DISSC and speech resynthesis, we observe that such phonological errors are observed in the same samples for both methods (even without conversion). Therefore, we believe that the root cause of such phenomenon is the quality of the SSL model and DISSC amplified this effect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further, evaluate this hypothesis we evaluate the WER per source speaker and per target speaker (results in Tables 3 and 4). This analysis clearly shows that WER per-speaker varies greatly based on the source speaker, but does not depend on the" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.082, + 0.858, + 0.26 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Target SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.211.2
p2397.011.4
p2456.611.6
p2576.410.5
p2707.210.9
p2846.411.5
p3067.211.4
p3417.111.8
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.269, + 0.883, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by target speaker when converting from all other speakers as sources. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from all source speakers in the list (except p231) to speaker p231. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results hardly depend on the target speaker." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.395, + 0.884, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "target speaker, this further supporting the fact that this is an issue with the SSL encoding method. An interesting line of future work would be in improving SSL for such cases, or even applying error-correcting codes on the converted speech." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8061" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_origin.pdf b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..630b964ed0a891b8319d7c03326c4ed039f36a1e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/90c3c132-92bd-4d68-aac0-d2e1088568f8_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:f64554d9047c8b841a981391e526b0f8ab937ac16a9862cef1b5d3ae76d1f81a +size 9971697 diff --git a/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/full.md b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f4e4f388e5f2421f50ef2b447a80d056036806d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,330 @@ +# Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units + +Gallil Maimon, Yossi Adi +School of Computer Science and Engineering +The Hebrew University of Jerusalem +gallil.maimon@mail.huji.ac.il + +# Abstract + +We introduce DISSC, a novel, lightweight method that converts the rhythm, pitch contour and timbre of a recording to a target speaker in a textless manner. Unlike DISSC, most voice conversion (VC) methods focus primarily on timbre, and ignore people's unique speaking style (prosody). The proposed approach uses a pretrained, self-supervised model for encoding speech to discrete units, which makes it simple, effective, and fast to train. All conversion modules are only trained on reconstruction like tasks, thus suitable for any-to-many VC with no paired data. We introduce a suite of quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics for this setup, and empirically demonstrate that DISSC significantly outperforms the evaluated baselines. Code and samples are available at https://pages.cs.huji.ac.il/adiyoss-lab/dissc/. + +# 1 Introduction + +Imagine hearing a famous catchphrase of your favourite television character spoken in their voice, but uncharacteristically fast, while atypically emphasising the end. This would immediately raise suspicion that something is "wrong". As humans we learn to recognise familiar people and voices, not only by their voice texture (timbre), but also by their typical speaking style (Williams, 1965). Therefore, a true VC method should convert both voice texture and speaking style (rhythm, F0, etc.). Figure 1 describes this visually. + +Traditional VC methods mainly focused on changing the timbre of a given speaker while leaving the speaking style unchanged (Stylianou et al., 1998; Kain and Macon, 1998; Nakashika et al., 2013; Chou et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021). Recent methods propose to additionally convert speaking style (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022; Qian et al., 2021; Kuhlmann et al., 2022). However, these mainly use only a single target utterance which does not fully capture speaker prosody. + +![](images/4def4a68508f25a3c6cae27dbbc7773a507caa2a908bf91b975962139a835171.jpg) +Figure 1: Comparing traditional VC to speaking style conversion. White lines on the spectrograms show the pitch contour. While VC methods change the spectral features so the new utterance sounds like the new speaker, they do not change the rhythm and pitch. Conversely, SSC matches the faster speaking style, and the target speaker's tendency to finish sentences with a pitch increase. This a real sample converted by DISSC. Due to variance within speaking style we do not expect the converted speech to exactly match the target. + +Another line of work uses text transcription supervision and shows the potential benefit to VC (Kim et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). However, this limits the application to high resource languages and requires large scale data labelling. + +Some recent prosody aware VC methods use spectrogram representations as input and output (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), rather than operating in the waveform domain. Thus, they involve another phase of converting from the spectral domain to the time domain using a vocoder. Moreover, using discrete self-supervised speech representations and generating waveforms from these was demonstrated to provide superior performance on plenty of downstream tasks such as + +speech and audio language modelling (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022), multi-stream processing (Kharitonov et al., 2022b), speech emotion conversion (Kreuk et al., 2021), spoken dialogue (Nguyen et al., 2022), speech-to-speech translation (Lee et al., 2022a,b; Popuri et al., 2022), and audio generation (Kreuk et al., 2022a,b). + +Inspired by this line of work, we propose a simple and effective method for Speaking Style Conversion (SSC) based on discrete self-supervised and partially disentangled speech representations. Curating samples of different speakers pronouncing the same utterances is challenging, thus we follow the setup of unpaired data, similarly to Lee et al. (2021); Yuan et al. (2021); Kameoka et al. (2018); Kaneko and Kameoka (2017). We give exact details of our approach in Section 3. We formalise the setup of SSC and introduce an extensive evaluation suite in Section 4. Results suggest the proposed approach is greatly superior to the evaluated baselines (see Section 5), while utilising a simple and effective method which can be trained on a single GPU within a couple of hours. + +Our contributions: (i) We introduce a novel, simple, and effective method which uses discrete self-supervised speech representations to perform textless speaking style conversion in the waveform domain; (ii) We formalise the task of speaking style conversion and propose diverse evaluation methods to analyze different speech characteristics; (iii) We empirically demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach using extensive empirical evaluation on several benchmarks considering both objective and subjective metrics. + +# 2 Related Work + +Unpaired Voice Conversion. Many existing methods perform VC in the setting of unpaired utterances (Kameoka et al., 2018; Kaneko and Kameoka, 2017). Most of them contain a vocoder which generates the audio (or an intermediate representation) from several representations, one meant to capture speaker information and others to capture the remaining information (Lin et al., 2021b,a). They encourage disentanglement through information bottlenecks by neural network architecture (Chen et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019), mutual information and adversarial losses (Lee et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021), pretrained models (Huang et al., 2022; Polyak et al., 2021) or combinations of these. Notably, Polyak et al. (2021) used discrete + +HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021) tokens, pitch representation based on YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002) and a learned speaker representation to resynthesise the audio waveform. They showed how replacing the speaker representation at inference time performs VC. Inspired by this modeling paradigm, our approach additionally introduces speaking style modeling and conversion (i.e., pitch contour and rhythm) thus performing SSC. + +Speaking Style Conversion. Various existing methods aim to change the prosody of a given utterance. However, many convert it based on a single target utterance (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022) which does not truly capture the general speaking style of the speaker, and often creates artifacts when the contents do not match. Other methods only linearly alter the speaking rate (Kuhlmann et al., 2022) thus ignoring the change of rhythm for different content. + +Even leading SSC methods are still limited. Some focus only on rhythm, paying less attention to pitch changes (Qian et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022c). Other approaches require text transcriptions for training (Lee et al., 2022c; Liu et al., 2021). In contrast, our approach uses HuBERT units trained in a SSL fashion without using textual annotations, thus can support lower resource languages (see Fig. 6 in Appendix A.5). In addition, two concurrent methods for SSC (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022) were proposed recently. Although showing impressive results, they are based on spectrogram representations, hence require an additional vocoding step. + +# 3 Our Approach - DISCC + +We operate under the following setup: we perform any-to-many SSC which means we take any recording and convert it to any of the training set speakers. Our training set contains only unpaired utterances - e.g. no training utterance is said by more than one speaker. The learning process is completely textless with no form of text supervision. + +Our approach uses DIscrete units for Speaking Style Conversion, and is denoted DISSC. We decompose speech to few representations to synthesise speech in the target speaking style. We consider three components in the decomposition: phonetic-content, prosodic features (i.e., F0 and duration) and speaker identity, denoted by $\mathbf{z}_c$ , $(\mathbf{z}_{dur},\mathbf{z}_{F_0})$ , $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ respectively. We propose a cascaded pipeline: (i) extract $\mathbf{z}_c$ from the raw wave + +form using a SSL model; (ii) predict the prosodic features of the target speaker from $\mathbf{z}_c$ and $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ ; (iii) synthesise the waveform speech from the content, predicted prosody and target speaker identity. See Figure 2 for a visual description of DISsC. This modelling approach means moving from a continuous space to a discrete space, hence resulting in easier optimisation and better quality generations. + +# 3.1 Speech Input Representation + +Phonetic-content representation. To represent speech phonetic-content we extract a discrete representation of the audio signal using a pre-trained SSL model, namely HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021). We use a SSL representation for phonetic-content, and not text or text based methods, to maintain nontextual cues like laughter and allow support for diverse languages. We discretise this representation to use as a rhythm proxy (by number of repetitions) and for ease of modelling. We chose HuBERT for the phonetic-content units as Polyak et al. (2021) showed it better disentangles between speech content and both speaker and prosody compared to other SSL-based models. + +Denote the domain of audio samples by $\mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}$ . Audio waveforms are therefore represented by a sequence of samples $\mathbf{x} = (x^{1},\dots,x^{T})$ , where each $x^{t} \in \mathcal{X}$ for all $1 \leq t \leq T$ . The content encoder $E_{c}$ is a HuBERT model pre-trained on the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015). The input to the content encoder $E_{c}$ is an audio waveform $\mathbf{x}$ , and the output is a latent representation with lower temporal resolution $\mathbf{z}' = (z_c'^1,\dots,z_c'^L)$ where $L = T / n$ . Since HuBERT outputs continuous representations, one needs an additional k-means step in order to quantise these representations into a discrete unit sequence. This sequence is denoted by $\mathbf{z}_{c} = (z_{c}^{1},\dots,z_{c}^{L})$ where $z_{c}^{i} \in \{1,\dots,K\}$ and $K$ is the vocabulary size. For the rest of the paper, we refer to these discrete representations as "units". We extracted representations from the final layer of HuBERT and set $K = 100$ . When we wish to predict the rhythm, we must decompose it from the sequence, therefore repeated units are omitted (e.g., $0,0,0,1,2,2 \rightarrow 0,1,2$ ) and the number of repetitions correlates to the rhythm. Such sequences are denoted as "deduced". + +Speaker representation. Our goal is to convert the speaking style while keeping the content fixed. To that end, we construct a speaker representation $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ , and include it as additional conditioning dur + +![](images/eaabe1830102c73e07ed300aa8e1e0b7ff7f314b948a20e22aeae027def60772.jpg) +Figure 2: An overview of DISSC. We use an SSL pretrained content encoder $E_{c}$ to extract discrete units from the waveform. We independently train a rhythm predictor $E_{dur}$ and pitch predictor $E_{F_0}$ to reconstruct the original unit repetitions and pitch contour, respectively. We input all representations into a pretrained vocoder $G$ . + +ing the prosody prediction and waveform synthesis phases. To learn $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ we optimise the parameters of a fixed size look-up-table. Although such modeling limits our ability to generate voices of new and unseen speakers, it produces higher quality generations (Polyak et al., 2021). + +Prosody representation. As explained in the content representation section, the number of repetitions of units indicates the rhythm of the speaker in the context. More repetitions means a sound was produced for a longer time. Therefore when converting rhythm the sequence is "deduced", and when only converting the pitch the full $\mathbf{z}_c$ is used. + +Following Polyak et al. (2021) we encode the pitch contour of a sample using YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002). We mark this pitch contour $z_{F_0} = (z_{F_0}^1,\ldots ,z_{F_0}^L)$ , where $z_{F_0}^t\in \mathcal{R}_{\geq 0}$ . We mark the per-speaker normalised version as $\widetilde{z}_{F_0}$ . + +# 3.2 Speaking Style Conversion + +Using the above representations we propose to synthesise the speech signal in the target speaking style. We aim to predict the prosodic features (duration and F0) based on the phonetic-content units, while conditioned on the target speaker representation. We inflate the sequence according to the predicted durations, and use it, the predicted pitch contour, and the speaker vector as a conditioning for the waveform synthesis phase. + +![](images/198562a1e792fb341585b2273bd318490769924bd490139c34c181993600e015.jpg) +Figure 3: An overview of the $E_{F_0}$ architecture. The positional encoding is a linear positional embedding relative to the start and the end of the sequence, added to the repeated speaker vector. The model jointly predicts the presence of vocalised units (binary classification) together with continuous F0 values for the voiced units. + +Rhythm prediction. Each HuBERT unit correlates with the phoneme in the given $20~\mathrm{ms}$ . This means that longer repetitions of the same unit indicate a longer voicing of the sound - i.e. rhythm. In order to learn to predict, and convert the rhythm we build a model which learns to predict unit durations, denoted as $E_{dur}$ . During training of $E_{dur}$ , we input the deduped phonetic-content units $\mathbf{z}_c$ and speaker representation conditioning $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ , with the original unit durations (before dedup) as supervision. + +This simple reconstruction task is formulated as a regression task with Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss. As the units do not perfectly correlate to phonemes, neighbouring units often represent the same phoneme even after "dedup". This makes it harder to predict each unit's length separately. Therefore, we encourage the model's nearby errors to cancel each other out by adding an MSE loss on the total error of 4 neighbouring units. This helped with errors all being on the negative end and creating a shortening bias in our preliminary test. In addition, we round the regression outputs to be used as integer repetitions of the unit, however this can also cause a bias in which predictions like 1.51, 1.51, ..., 1.51 and 2.49, 2.49, ..., 2.49 - would result in the same total length. To mitigate this we carryover the remainder after rounding and sum those differences. + +During conversion we replace the speaker vector with that of the target and wish for the model to convert the rhythm. To this end our predictor model must strongly depend on $Z_{spk}$ . In order to encourage this we introduce two minor adjustments. HuBERT units hold speaker information and are not fully disentangled, however, the shorter the sequence the less information exists (Kharitonov et al., 2022a). We therefore use a CNN with a small receptive field. In addition, we introduce train time masking of units in the sequence, this means that $E_{dur}$ has access to even less units at train time, hence they contain less speaker information. Exact details can be found in Appendix A.3. + +Pitch prediction. We train the pitch predictor to predict the per-speaker normalised pitch contour $\widetilde{z}_{F0}$ , from the HuBERT units $\mathbf{z}_c$ . The pitch values are normalised to zero mean and standard deviation of one per-speaker on the vocalised sections. We use these values as labels to a predictor conditioned on content units $\mathbf{z}_c$ , positional encoding and a speaker vector $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ . The positional encoding is added to $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ and denotes the absolute position of the unit compared to the start and finish of the sequence, though preliminary results showed that any standard positional encoding works. Intuitively, positional encoding will help learning localised speaker pitch patterns such as ending sentences in a pitch drop. + +Our pitch predictor is denoted $E_{F_0}$ . An overview of it is described in Figure 3. It is a CNN which has two predicted outputs: binary speaking detection, and a regression head to predict the exact pitch. The binary speaking classification is trained with BCE loss on the binarised pitch labels - i.e. $z_{F0} > 0$ . The regression head is trained with MSE loss on the non-zero, vocalised pitch labels. Like the rhythm predictor this model is trained with a small unit receptive field and unit masking. + +# 3.3 Speech Synthesis + +We follow Polyak et al. (2021); Kreuk et al. (2021) using a variation of the HiFi-GAN vocoder (Kong et al., 2020). Like previous work, we adapt the generator to take as input a sequence of phonetic-content units, pitch contour and a speaker-embedding. During training, these are only features from real samples as the vocoder is trained independently for reconstruction. At inference time we use the unit sequence inflated with predicted durations, the predicted pitch contour and the target speaker + +embedding. The above features are concatenated along the temporal axis and fed into a sequence of convolutional layers that output a 1-dimensional audio signal. We match the sample rates of unit sequence and F0 by means of linear interpolation, while replicating the speaker embedding. + +To sum up, after each of the components described in previous sections are trained, the full pipeline of DISSC is composed of: first extracting content representation, $\mathbf{z}_c$ , then, predicting the prosodic features of the target speaker based on $\mathbf{z}_c$ and $\mathbf{z}_{spk}$ , and lastly, synthesising the waveform using these new representations. + +# 4 SSC Evaluation Suite + +In this section we describe our setup which uses several datasets and fine-grained offline metrics for each part of the conversion - timbre, pitch, rhythm. As no standardised framework for evaluating SSC currently exists, we hope the proposed metrics, will help further advance research in this field. A detailed description of training configurations and hyper-parameters can be found in the Appendix. + +# 4.1 Datasets + +Most previous work focuses on a single dataset such as VCTK (Veaux et al., 2017), since few large, multi-speaker datasets with parallel test sets exist. However, VCTK has fairly monotonous speech with less distinct speaking style. + +To address this, we use several datasets. First, we use VCTK as it has many speakers. We leave all paired utterances (speakers say the same content) to the test set, to mimic a truly unpaired setup. In preliminary results, having paired data in training improved the results notably, but harms the wanted setup. We follow Qian et al. (2021) in selecting the two fastest (P231, P239) and two slowest (P245, P270) speakers by mean log duration. + +In addition, we wished to add a more expressive dataset, yet found that most expressive datasets are from the emotional speech domain. In order to adapt them to our use case we take the Emotional Speech Dataset (ESD) (Zhou et al., 2022), and select one emotion for each of the 10 speakers. This means that all recordings of a given speaker are in a certain emotion thus making it part of their speaking style. Here, we also take the two fastest and two slowest speakers for rhythm metric evaluation. + +After preliminary experiments we found that the speakers in the above datasets do not always have + +clear pitch patterns. This means that the speech is quite monotonous and that variation across recordings was greater than across speakers. To effectively evaluate pitch conversion we created a synthetic dataset based on VCTK - denoted as Syn_VCTK. In this dataset we took 6 speakers from VCTK, encoded them based on the pipeline by Polyak et al. (2021). We then altered the pitch contour by introducing a linear trend of either up, down or flat for each of the speakers. We then generated the new synthetic recordings in the same approach. We encourage readers to listen to these samples as well as the other datasets in the accompanying page to grasp the different speaking styles. + +# 4.2 Metrics + +# 4.2.1 Objective Metrics + +We introduce new metrics which aim to capture the rhythm in a fine-grained manner, and objectively evaluate the pitch contour (even when the rhythm does not match). We hope these metrics will contribute to other advances in this field. + +Timbre. For regular VC we use the common Equal Error Rate (EER) of speaker verification using SpeechBrain's (Ravanelli et al., 2021) ECAPATDNN (Desplanques et al., 2020) which achieves $0.8\%$ EER on Voxceleb. For each sample, we randomly select $n$ positive and $n$ negative samples. Positive samples are random utterances of other speakers converted to the current speaker, and negative samples are random utterances of the current speaker converted to a random target speaker. + +Content. For phonetic content preservation we use the standard Word Error Rate (WER) and Character Error Rate (CER), using Whisper (Radford et al., 2022) as our Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model. + +Rhythm. In order to evaluate the rhythm we wish to go beyond the length of the recording, which only indicates the average rhythm and not which sounds are uttered slowly and which quickly. We therefore use the text transcriptions of the samples, and the Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA) (McAuliffe et al., 2017) to get start and end times for each word and phoneme in the recording. We then compare the lengths of the converted speech and the target speech, thus defining Phoneme Length Error (PLE), Word Length Error (WLE) and Total Length Error (TLE). We do not compare + +
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMSPEAKER EER↓
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓
VCTKAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)71.347.117.681.2140.0720.0287.5
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)40.626.721.91.3790.1230.03724.1
Seq2seq-VC (Liu et al., 2021)2.91.220.951.2140.0720.02810.9
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)6.63.314.01.2140.0710.0251.8
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)10.95.410.580.8320.0560.0231.7
DISSC_Both (Ours)13.06.910.530.8320.0560.0231.7
ESDAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)87.059.931.820.5910.1060.0486.6
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)50.331.837.20.5490.0970.04315.7
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)14.96.030.30.5910.0970.0412.9
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)19.17.924.80.3500.0760.0372.6
+ +Table 1: A comparison of the proposed method against VC and SSC baselines considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE), and speaker identification (EER). Only DISSC improves rhythm metrics compared to standard VC baseline Speech Resynthesis. + +the length of silences as their occurrence can differ between recordings thus breaking the alignment. + +Formally, for each input recording and matching text, MFA returns a list of tuples $T_{w} = ((s_{w_{1}},e_{w_{1}},c_{w_{1}})\dots (s_{w_{m}},e_{w_{m}},c_{w_{m}}))$ for word level and another for phoneme level $T_{p} = ((s_{p_{1}},e_{p_{1}},c_{p_{1}})\dots (s_{p_{m}},e_{p_{m}},c_{p_{m}}))$ . $s_{\{w,p\}_{i}}$ indicates the start time of the sound at index $i$ in the recording (word or phoneme according to the level), and $e_{\{w,p\}_{i}}$ indicates the end time. $c_{\{w,p\}_{i}}$ represents the content of the time segment, i.e the word or phoneme. We filter only non-silence time segments leaving $\widetilde{T}_{\{w,p\}} = ((s_{\{w,p\}_{i}},e_{\{w,p\}_{i}},c_{\{w,p\}_{i}})\quad \forall i \quad s.t. \quad c_{i}^{\{w,p\}} \neq \text{silence})$ . Thus formally, the errors per sample compare durations of a reference sample and a synthesised sample: + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \mathrm {P L E} \left(\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\text {s y n}}, \widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\text {r e f}}\right) = \\ \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {l e n (\widetilde {T} _ {p})} | (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n}) - (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f}) |, \\ \mathrm {W L E} (\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {s y n}, \widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {r e f}) = \\ \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {\text {l e n} \left(\widetilde {T} _ {w}\right)} | \left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\text {s y n}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\text {s y n}}\right) - \left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\text {r e f}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\text {r e f}}\right) |. \tag {1} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +The TLE is just the duration difference between the entire recordings. All rhythm metrics are in time units, in this case seconds. In addition, on rare occasions the number of phonemes for the same sound by different speakers is different (due to accents etc.), we ignore these samples for a more well-defined metric. In addition, when the phonetic + +content is harmed dramatically in the conversion, MFA might fail to align the text. We penalise such samples by assuming a linear and even split of the recording to phonemes and words. + +Pitch. Popular evaluation methods for F0 similarity include the Voicing Decision Error (VDE) and F0 frame error (FFE). Intuitively, VDE measures the portion of frames with voicing decision error, while FFE measures the percentage of frames that contain a deviation of more than $20\%$ in pitch value or have a voicing decision error. Formally, + +$$ +\operatorname {V D E} (\boldsymbol {v}, \hat {\boldsymbol {v}}) = \frac {\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \mathbb {1} [ \boldsymbol {v} _ {t} \neq \hat {\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} \operatorname {F F E} (\boldsymbol {p}, \hat {\boldsymbol {p}}, \boldsymbol {v}, \hat {\boldsymbol {v}}) = \operatorname {V D E} (\boldsymbol {v}, \hat {\boldsymbol {v}}) \\ + \frac {\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \mathbb {1} \left[ \left| \boldsymbol {p} _ {t} - \hat {\boldsymbol {p}} _ {t} \right| > 0 . 2 \cdot \boldsymbol {p} _ {t} \right] \mathbb {1} [ \boldsymbol {v} _ {t} ] \mathbb {1} [ \hat {\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \tag {3} \\ \end{array} +$$ + +where $\pmb{p}, \hat{\pmb{p}}$ are the pitch frames from the target and generated signals, $\pmb{v}, \hat{\pmb{v}}$ are the respective voicing decisions, and $\mathbb{1}$ is the indicator function. + +Although these metrics are widely used in speech synthesis (Wang et al., 2021), these methods are not well adapted to misaligned samples, i.e when they are spoken at different rates. These metrics require the samples to have the same time length, therefore many implementations linearly interpolate the generated sample's pitch contour to that of the target before computing them. However, rhythm differences are non-linear (i.e certain phonemes could be "stretched" more than others) thus not alleviating the misalignment problem. Instead, we suggest using segments obtained from the + +forced-aligner and calculate the FFE while interpolating the segments to match the segment sizes. This measures the match in shape and value of the pitch contour for each word and phoneme, even if they are misaligned. We denoted these as P_FFE for phoneme segments and W_FFE for words. + +Rhythm & Pitch. We compute Earth Movers Distance (EMD) (Rubner et al., 1998) between the pitch contour of converted and target samples. Essentially we check how much "pitch mass" needs to be moved between them. This metric considers errors along the time domain (rhythm) and pitch contour errors (such as predicting the wrong trend). Our results show strong correlation to human perception of rhythm and pitch with the above metrics. + +This newly proposed evaluation suite is generic and can transfer to other languages. However, certain metrics are based on language-specific pretrained models (e.g., ASR-based metrics). In such cases, a multi-lingual ASR can be used. In our setup, we use the Whisper model (Radford et al., 2022) which supports $\sim 100$ languages. Another option would be to use the MMS model (Pratap et al., 2023) which supports more than 1000 languages for both ASR and forced-alignment. + +# 4.2.2 Human evaluation + +To confirm that the proposed objective metrics correlate to human perception, and to evaluate to what extent the prosody impacts humans' speaker recognition we conduct a human evaluation study. We use the common mean opinion score (MOS) to evaluate the quality and naturalness of generated and real samples. Specifically, each sample was scored from 1-5 on naturalness and quality. We took the same 40 samples for each method and the original. Each sample was annotated by at least three raters. + +Next, to evaluate the effectiveness of the speaking style conversion, we present the users a sample from the target speaker and a sample converted by each method. Users rated each sample from 1-5 ("Very Different"- "Very Similar") on how likely it is to be uttered by the same speaker and instructed to "pay attention to speaking style such as rhythm and pitch changes, and not only the voice texture". We evaluated 40 samples per-method, with at least three raters per-sample. We report the mean score and $95\%$ confidence intervals for both tests. We modified the WebMUSHRA tool for the tests. A + +![](images/61dc29b87dda26652b68cb04e5e9079cbf7151f3e95dd973ce243ad20e4824d8.jpg) + +![](images/3d5f23d7164620e241307d1a4991259f96e3c7d32d891f5abfaeb4e4246fe37b.jpg) +Figure 4: We compare the human evaluated naturalness of real reference utterances, Speech Resynthesis (SR), AutoPST, two versions of DISSC which convert rhythm only or also F0. We also compare the similarity of how likely the converted sample is to come from the the same speaker as the target recording. + +detailed description of the subjective tests can be found in the Appendix. + +# 5 Results + +We compare DISSC to several any-to-many (or many-to-many) baselines. Notably, we evaluate Speech Resynthesis (SR), and AutoVC (Qian et al., 2019) which are well known VC methods. In addition, we compare to AutoPST and BNE-MoL-seq2seqVC (Liu et al., 2021) which are prominent prosodic-aware VC (i.e., SSC) methods. We use the official Github implementations and train the models on our datasets using the authors recommended configuration. For a fair comparison, all baselines were evaluated under the any-to-many setup, i.e., generating only seen speakers. Only seq2seqVC supports new speakers, because only that approach was published. However, we evaluate them on known speakers, with the entire training set as reference recordings. We show three variants of our method: DISSC_Rhythm, DISSC_Pitch and DISSC_Both which predict duration, pitch contour and both respectively. + +Objective results for VCTK and ESD appear in Table 1. On both datasets DISSC improves the length errors across all scales: phonemes, words and utterances. The relative improvement compared to the next best baseline is $56.8\%$ on ESD TLE. At word level we get $27.6\%$ and $26.7\%$ rela + +
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMF0
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓W_FFE↓P_FFE↓
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)12.46.324.231.1010.0640.02446.143.4
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)18.89.520.780.7750.0530.02346.143.7
DISSC_Pitch (Ours)12.56.313.551.1010.0650.02424.520.5
DISSC_Both (Ours)19.610.210.470.7750.0530.02325.321.4
+ +Table 2: VC and SSC results on the Syn_VCTK dataset. This ablation measures the impact of rhythm and pitch conversion over SR considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE, W_FFE, P_FFE). + +tive improvement on ESD and VCTK respectively. All other baselines show rhythm errors comparable or worse than SR which does not convert rhythm. + +We can see a minor decrease in content quality (by WER and CER) of DISSC compared to SR which does not convert prosody, but still superior to AutoPST. In addition, seq2seq also has better WER, at the expense of harming the rhythm conversion. Potentially, the supervised phoneme recogniser is too fine, thus does not impose enough of a rhythm bottleneck. The harm in quality of DISSC may be due to additional information bottlenecks by de-duplicating the speech units, and predicting F0. + +We additionally provide subjective evaluation considering both naturalness of the converted samples and their similarity to the target recording considering speaking style. These results are shown in Figure 4. We found that the naturalness of both DISSC variants was comparable to SR, and not far from the reference recordings while far outperforming AutoPST. In addition, we see a noticeable increase in speaking style similarity when converting prosody with DISSC compared to SR. However, also converting the pitch did not noticeably improve the results. We believe that this has to do with the lack of distinct speaking style which people can notice, especially from a single recording. + +Ablation study. In order to properly evaluate the ability of DISSC to learn the pitch speaking style, when such exists, we use the synthetic VCTK data (as explained in Section 4.1) with known pitch trends. These results (Table 2) are an ablation study for each converter of DISSC. They highlight the control-ability of our approach - when predicting the rhythm, only length errors improve, likewise for pitch. We see that when a pitch pattern exists in the speaking style - DISSC learns it, providing $88 - 113\%$ relative increase in the metrics. We also see that they can be converted jointly without noticeable drop in pitch and length performance. + +![](images/a426345249d8dc630607b4e1f24b8a572ce02507dba1bc20b698ab6c4d33aecb.jpg) +Figure 5: DISSC corrects abnormal rhythm patterns in specific words, compared to AutoPST. Here we take the utterance "people look, but no one ever finds it" and stretch the duration of the word "finds" times three. + +Irregular rhythm. Lastly, to demonstrate that DISSC predicts rhythm depending on content, and not only on average - we create a sample with abnormal rhythm patterns. We take an utterance and artificially stretch one of the words using speech resynthesis. We then attempt to "convert" the sample to the original speaker thus checking the ability to only change the rhythm of the abnormal part. We compare DISSC and AutoPST in Figure 5, and see that DISSC manages to mostly correct the irregular rhythm, while hardly changing the other parts. By contrast, AutoPST only slightly changes the rhythm. If $E_{c}$ performs optimally, we are guaranteed perfect results, as $z_{c}$ would be identical for irregular and original after dedup. However, HubERT may introduce some errors specifically when considering signal variations (Gat et al., 2022). + +# 6 Conclusion & Future Work + +In this work, we propose a simple and effective method for speaking style conversion based on discrete self supervised speech representations. We + +provide a formal definition to the speaking style conversion setup while introducing a set of evaluation functions to analyse and evaluate different speech characteristics separately. Results suggest, the proposed approach is superior to the evaluated baselines considering both objective and subjective metrics. We hope these advance the study in the field, and lead to improved performance. + +The current model suffers from slight content loss when using the deduced units. In addition, repeated utterances get slightly different units (in the abnormal rhythm experiment). Therefore, in future work we aim to improve the robustness and disentanglement of the speech representation considering speaker and prosodic information. + +# Limitations + +Our approach can only perform conversion into a closed set of speakers seen at train time. This is due to the LUT used to learn speaker representations and to the use of per-speaker pitch statistics. This might be hard to overcome as speaker style (rhythm and pitch changes) can be hard to judge from a small number of samples. Additionally, we see that speaking style conversion and especially rhythm conversion harm the WER and CER slightly. The additional bottleneck of de-duplication which allows us to convert rhythm comes with the cost of slight content loss. We hope that future improvement of the hidden representations will help improve or alleviate the tradeoff. + +# Ethical Statement + +The broader impact of this study is, as in any generative model, the development of a high quality and natural speech synthesis model. This has special sensitivity and ethical concerns as such technology might be used to alter voices and speaking style in speech recordings, which can be considered as biometric data and biometric processing. To deal with that we limit the number of speakers that can be synthesized with the proposed approach using a pre-defined voices using a look-up-table. Another potential risk of the proposed method which is also one of its limitations is that the generated speech content is not always perfect, hence might lead to wrong pronunciations. + +# References + +Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143. +Li-Wei Chen, Shinji Watanabe, and Alexander Rudnicky. 2022. A unified one-shot prosody and speaker conversion system with self-supervised discrete speech units. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06535. +Meiying Chen and Zhiyao Duan. 2022. Controlvc: Zero-shot voice conversion with time-varying controls on pitch and rhythm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11866. +Yen-Hao Chen, Da-Yi Wu, Tsung-Han Wu, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021. Again-vc: A one-shot voice conversion using activation guidance and adaptive instance normalization. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5954-5958. IEEE. +Ju-chieh Chou, Cheng-chieh Yeh, and Hung-yi Lee. 2019. One-shot voice conversion by separating speaker and content representations with instance normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05742. +Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck. 2020. ECAPA-TDNN: emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in TDNN based speaker verification. In *Interspeech* 2020, pages 3830-3834. ISCA. +Itai Gat, Felix Kreuk, Ann Lee, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022. On the robustness of self-supervised representations for spoken language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15483. +Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460. +Wen-Chin Huang, Yi-Chiao Wu, and Tomoki Hayashi. 2021. Any-to-one sequence-to-sequence voice conversion using self-supervised discrete speech representations. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5944-5948. IEEE. +Wen-Chin Huang, Shu-Wen Yang, Tomoki Hayashi, Hung-Yi Lee, Shinji Watanabe, and Tomoki Toda. 2022. S3prl-vc: Open-source voice conversion framework with self-supervised speech representations. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6552-6556. IEEE. + +Alexander Kain and Michael W Macon. 1998. Spectral voice conversion for text-to-speech synthesis. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP'98 (Cat. No. 98CH36181), volume 1, pages 285-288. IEEE. +Hirokazu Kameoka, Takuhiro Kaneko, Kou Tanaka, and Nobukatsu Hojo. 2018. Stargan-vc: Non-parallel many-to-many voice conversion using star generative adversarial networks. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 266-273. IEEE. +Takuhiro Kaneko and Hirokazu Kameoka. 2017. Parallel-data-free voice conversion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11293. +Kavita Kasi and Stephen A Zahorian. 2002. Yet another algorithm for pitch tracking. In 2002, the international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, volume 1, pages I-361. IEEE. +Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Paden Tomasello, Ann Lee, Ali Elkahky, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. textless-lib: a library for textless spoken language processing. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: System Demonstrations, pages 1-9, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Eugene Kharitonov, Ann Lee, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Text-free prosody-aware generative spoken language modeling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8666-8681, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kang-wook Kim, Seung-won Park, Junhyeok Lee, and Myun-chul Joe. 2022. Assem-vc: Realistic voice conversion by assembling modern speech synthesis techniques. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6997-7001. IEEE. +Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:17022-17033. +Felix Kreuk, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Wei Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2021. Textless speech emotion conversion using decomposed and discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07402. + +Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352. +Felix Kreuk, Yaniv Taigman, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Alexandre Défossez, and Yossi Adi. 2022b. Audio language modeling using perceptually-guided discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01223. +Michael Kuhlmann, Fritz Seebauer, Janek Ebbers, Petra Wagner, and Reinhold Haeb-Umbach. 2022. Investigation into target speaking rate adaptation for voice conversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01978. +Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354. +Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, Sravya Popuri, Xutai Ma, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Qing He, Yun Tang, Juan Pino, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022a. Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3327-3339, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ann Lee, Hongyu Gong, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Holger Schwenk, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Sravya Popuri, Yossi Adi, Juan Pino, Jiatao Gu, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Textless speech-to-speech translation on real data. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 860-872, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Sang-Hoon Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, Hyunseung Chung, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2021. Voicemixer: Adversarial voice style mixup. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 294-308. Curran Associates, Inc. +Sang-Hoon Lee, Hyeong-Rae Noh, Woo-Jeoung Nam, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2022c. Duration controllable voice conversion via phoneme-based information bottleneck. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1173-1183. +Jheng-hao Lin, Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021a. S2vc: a framework for any-to-any voice conversion with self-supervised pretrained representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02901. +Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, Jheng-Hao Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Lin-shan Lee. 2021b. Fragmentvc: Any-to-any voice conversion by end-to-end extracting and + +fusing fine-grained voice fragments with attention. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5939-5943. IEEE. +Songxiang Liu, Yuewen Cao, Disong Wang, Xixin Wu, Xunying Liu, and Helen Meng. 2021. Any-to-many voice conversion with location-relative sequence-to-sequence modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:1717-1728. +Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 498-502. +Toru Nakashika, Ryoichi Takashima, Tetsuya Takiguchi, and Yasuo Ariki. 2013. Voice conversion in high-order eigen space using deep belief nets. In *Interspeech*, pages 369-372. +Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16502. +Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. IEEE. +Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00355. +Sravya Popuri, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Yossi Adi, Jiatao Gu, Wei-Ning Hsu, and Ann Lee. 2022. Enhanced direct speech-to-speech translation using self-supervised pre-training and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02967. +Vineel Pratap, Andros Tjandra, Bowen Shi, Paden Tomasello, Arun Babu, Sayani Kundu, Ali Elkahky, Zhaoheng Ni, Apoorv Vyas, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, et al. 2023. Scaling speech technology to 1,000+ languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13516. +Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and David Cox. 2020. Unsupervised speech decomposition via triple information bottleneck. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7836-7846. PMLR. +Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Jinjun Xiong, Chuang Gan, David Cox, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2021. Global prosody style transfer without text transcriptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8650-8660. PMLR. + +Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Xuesong Yang, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2019. Autovc: Zero-shot voice style transfer with only autoencoder loss. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5210-5219. PMLR. +Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Heting Gao, Junrui Ni, Cheng-I Lai, David Cox, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and Shiyu Chang. 2022. Contentvec: An improved self-supervised speech representation by disentangling speakers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18003-18017. PMLR. +Leyuan Qu, Taihao Li, Cornelius Weber, Theresa Pekarek-Rosin, Fuji Ren, and Stefan Wermter. 2022. Disentangling prosody representations with unsupervised speech reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06972. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356. +Mirco Ravanelli, Titouan Parcollet, Peter Plantinga, Aku Rouhe, Samuele Cornell, Loren Lugosch, Cem Subakan, Nauman Dawalatabad, Abdelwahab Heba, Jianyuan Zhong, Ju-Chieh Chou, Sung-Lin Yeh, Szu-Wei Fu, Chien-Feng Liao, Elena Rastorgueva, François Grondin, William Aris, Hwidong Na, Yan Gao, Renato De Mori, and Yoshua Bengio. 2021. SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit. ArXiv:2106.04624. +Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. 1998. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In Sixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271), pages 59-66. IEEE. +Yannis Stylianou, Olivier Cappé, and Eric Moulines. 1998. Continuous probabilistic transform for voice conversion. IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, 6(2):131-142. +Christophe Veaux, Junichi Yamagishi, Kirsten MacDonald, et al. 2017. Superseded-cstr vctk corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit. +Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. *fairoseq s^2: A scalable and integrable speech synthesis toolkit*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations*, pages 143–152, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Carl Earl Williams. 1965. The effects of selected factors on the aural identification of speakers. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. +Siyang Yuan, Pengyu Cheng, Ruiyi Zhang, Weituo Hao, Zhe Gan, and Lawrence Carin. 2021. Improving zero-shot voice style transfer via disentangled representation learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. + +Kun Zhou, Berrak Sisman, Rui Liu, and Haizhou Li. 2022. Emotional voice conversion: Theory, databases and esd. Speech Communication, 137:1-18. + +# A Appendix + +Here we give fine-grained details of computational costs, hyper-parameters and other implementation details omitted from the main part for brevity and readability. + +# A.1 Dataset details + +We use several datasets: (i) VCTK dataset (Veaux et al., 2017); (ii) ESD (Zhou et al., 2022); (iii) and the a synthetic VCTK dataset (Syn_VCTK), generated by us. For VCTK the training data contains 41k samples, and the evaluation set contains $2.5\mathrm{k}$ . For ESD the training data contains 3k samples, the validation contains 200, and the test 300. For Syn_VCTK the training data contains $2.4\mathrm{k}$ samples and the validation has 142. For ESD we use the official train, val, test split. For both VCTK versions we enforce unpaired data in the train sets, and use paired data only for evaluation. + +# A.2 Computational Price + +We use a pretrained HuBERT_Base model for input encoding. This model has 90 million parameters and takes less than 15 minutes to inference over all of our datasets. For training times see the original paper. For the HiFi-GAN vocoder which is trained once, independently of the speaking style conversion, we use a model with 13.8 million parameters (for the generator). It takes 4 days on to train on VCTK using two RTX 6000 GPUs, other datasets take less than that. + +The rhythm predictor $E_{dur}$ has 330 thousand parameters, and takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU. Likewise, the pitch predictor $E_{f0}$ has 527 thousand parameters, and also takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU. + +# A.3 Hyper-Parameters + +We encode the HuBERT units and pitch contour with textlesslib. For the content endocer we use hubert-base-1s960 and use K-means with 100 clusters for the clustering step. For the pitch contour we use the default parameters from textless lib which match the content encoder we used. + +For the vocoder we use the official implementation of speech resynthesis with the configuration suitable for VCTK, hubert100, using a fixed size lookup-table. We adapt the model so that it receives as input the normalised pitch without quantisation. We train it with a batch size of 64 over two + +GPUs for the minimum between 2000 epochs and 400,000 batches. + +The rhythm predictor $E_{dur}$ is built of 8 blocks of Conv1D followed by Batch Normalisation, with 128 hidden units. The speaker embedding and token embedding are learned with a lookup-table, both with size 32. The speaker vector is repeated along the time axis and concatenated with the unit embedding. Each CNN has a receptive field of 3 and padding of 1 so that the output shape is the same as the input. For activation we use Leaky ReLU. We normalise the length for prediction with the mean and standard deviation of the training data. Train time masking masks each unit in the input independently with $20\%$ probability. We train the model for 30 epochs, with a batch size of 32, a learning rate of $3e - 4$ and Adam optimiser. We take the model with lowest validation MSE. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or automated hyper-tuning was done. + +The pitch predictor $E_{F0}$ encodes the speaker and units in the same way as $E_{dur}$ with a fixed size lookup-table of size 32. However, here we add to the speaker embedding a linear positional encoding - this means that indices 0-15 of the speaker vector get added the unit index relative to the start and indices 16-31 get added the unit index relative to the end. In preliminary experiments more typical sinusoidal positional encoding worked similarly but we chose the linear version for simplicity. The model is comprised of 9 shared Conv1D layers with kernel size 3, and followed by 2 Conv1D with kernel sizes 3 and 1 for each head (speaking classification and F0 regression). We use Leaky ReLU activation. The labels for training are received from the YAAPT algorithm, normalised perspeaker with the mean and standard deviation of the vocalised parts of the training set. We do not normalise the non-vocalised parts. The BCE loss for binary classification is multiplied by 100 and added to the pitch MSE loss, to attempt to give both losses a similar scale. We train the model for 20 epochs with learning rate $3e - 4$ , batch size of 32 and Adam optimiser. We take the model with the lowest validation MSE. The results in Table 1, and Figure 4 are with a similar model, however it does not use positional encoding. The positional encoding was added afterwards as an improvement. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or + +automated hyper-tuning was done. + +# A.4 Human Evaluation Details + +We had over 20 different annotators in our subjective tests, who were all non-paid volunteers. They are all fluent, though not necessarily native, in English, and vary in academic background and connection to the field. For privacy reasons the questionnaires are anonymous and no details are collected about the participants. + +The quality question is phrased as follows: "Evaluate the quality and naturalness of the following audio segment", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: "Poor", "Decent", "Good", "Very Good", "Excellent". + +The similarity question is phrased as follows: "The first recording in this section is a reference, mark all recordings in how similar the speaking style is to the original. speaking style refers to the speaking rhythm, intonation etc. Try to ignore the quality of the recording itself", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: "Very different", "Different", "Slightly similar", "Similar", "Very Similar". + +# A.5 Low Resource Language Conversion + +As mentioned, DISSC does not use text as any intermediate representation in conversion (or text supervision for training). This means that it can work in low-resource languages which do not have large annotated datasets. + +We demonstrate the ability of DISSC to convert a Hebrew utterance to a target VCTK speaker, while not being trained on any Hebrew data (see Fig. 6). While converting the accent in crosslingual (Hebrew utterance to English speaker) remains challenging, this shows good potential. Notably, this example is out of domain for all model training data. Training DISSC in a textless self-supervised way on Hebrew data will likely improve the performance dramatically. + +# A.6 WER detailed analysis + +While DISSCis the only evaluated method to successfully convert prosody, it has a limitation of slightly harming content compared to some methods which do not convert prosody (e.g. speech resynthesis). We see this in the WER and CER metrics and wish to further analyse the cause for this. + +We first manually inspect the samples with highest word error rate. We have found that the content loss is mainly due to minor phonological errors + +![](images/62ee9e7ebafb23383863d2a2913a6af9dc0e2dfc01076a3ad9d043f38517e8f7.jpg) +Figure 6: An example using DISSC to convert a non-English sample. Hebrew is a lower resource language, hence there are little to no transcribed datasets. Thus, no expressive TTS methods exist, making an ASR-TTS VC pipeline impossible. Training DISSC on unlabelled Hebrew data, will likely improve results further. We encourage readers to listen to the accompanying samples. + +
Source SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.411.1
p23912.218.6
p2454.57.9
p2579.815.7
p2703.07.7
p28412.118.2
p3064.57.0
p3411.34.0
+ +which cause transcription change. For example, in cases with a high error rate, the original text is: "Please call Stella" and the transcription after conversion is: "Peace cool Stalla". However, when looking at the WER of both DISSC and speech resynthesis, we observe that such phonological errors are observed in the same samples for both methods (even without conversion). Therefore, we believe that the root cause of such phenomenon is the quality of the SSL model and DISSC amplified this effect. + +To further, evaluate this hypothesis we evaluate the WER per source speaker and per target speaker (results in Tables 3 and 4). This analysis clearly shows that WER per-speaker varies greatly based on the source speaker, but does not depend on the + +Table 3: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by source speaker when converting to all other speakers as targets. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from speaker p231 to all other speakers in the list. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results vary greatly, and that the success of both methods are correlated. + +
Target SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.211.2
p2397.011.4
p2456.611.6
p2576.410.5
p2707.210.9
p2846.411.5
p3067.211.4
p3417.111.8
+ +Table 4: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by target speaker when converting from all other speakers as sources. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from all source speakers in the list (except p231) to speaker p231. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results hardly depend on the target speaker. + +target speaker, this further supporting the fact that this is an issue with the SSL encoding method. An interesting line of future work would be in improving SSL for such cases, or even applying error-correcting codes on the converted speech. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/images.zip b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36b04d18b9b2318797db122f22ac0f2360343108 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:828568078ddc954b401da4eecd89ede5fb230cabed2244f35309b9d1f9126afa +size 434145 diff --git a/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/layout.json b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7793359c6725f4ac4dec05f636c7725b1db81b91 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8668 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 75, + 459, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 75, + 459, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 75, + 459, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speaking Style Conversion in the Waveform Domain Using Discrete Self-Supervised Units" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 126, + 409, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 126, + 409, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 187, + 126, + 409, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gallil Maimon, Yossi Adi \nSchool of Computer Science and Engineering \nThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem \ngallil.maimon@mail.huji.ac.il" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce DISSC, a novel, lightweight method that converts the rhythm, pitch contour and timbre of a recording to a target speaker in a textless manner. Unlike DISSC, most voice conversion (VC) methods focus primarily on timbre, and ignore people's unique speaking style (prosody). The proposed approach uses a pretrained, self-supervised model for encoding speech to discrete units, which makes it simple, effective, and fast to train. All conversion modules are only trained on reconstruction like tasks, thus suitable for any-to-many VC with no paired data. We introduce a suite of quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics for this setup, and empirically demonstrate that DISSC significantly outperforms the evaluated baselines. Code and samples are available at https://pages.cs.huji.ac.il/adiyoss-lab/dissc/." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 465, + 155, + 479 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 465, + 155, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 465, + 155, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Imagine hearing a famous catchphrase of your favourite television character spoken in their voice, but uncharacteristically fast, while atypically emphasising the end. This would immediately raise suspicion that something is \"wrong\". As humans we learn to recognise familiar people and voices, not only by their voice texture (timbre), but also by their typical speaking style (Williams, 1965). Therefore, a true VC method should convert both voice texture and speaking style (rhythm, F0, etc.). Figure 1 describes this visually." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Traditional VC methods mainly focused on changing the timbre of a given speaker while leaving the speaking style unchanged (Stylianou et al., 1998; Kain and Macon, 1998; Nakashika et al., 2013; Chou et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021). Recent methods propose to additionally convert speaking style (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022; Qian et al., 2021; Kuhlmann et al., 2022). However, these mainly use only a single target utterance which does not fully capture speaker prosody." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 518, + 412 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 518, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 518, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 211, + 518, + 412 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4def4a68508f25a3c6cae27dbbc7773a507caa2a908bf91b975962139a835171.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 527, + 541 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 527, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 420, + 527, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Comparing traditional VC to speaking style conversion. White lines on the spectrograms show the pitch contour. While VC methods change the spectral features so the new utterance sounds like the new speaker, they do not change the rhythm and pitch. Conversely, SSC matches the faster speaking style, and the target speaker's tendency to finish sentences with a pitch increase. This a real sample converted by DISSC. Due to variance within speaking style we do not expect the converted speech to exactly match the target." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another line of work uses text transcription supervision and shows the potential benefit to VC (Kim et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). However, this limits the application to high resource languages and requires large scale data labelling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Some recent prosody aware VC methods use spectrogram representations as input and output (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022), rather than operating in the waveform domain. Thus, they involve another phase of converting from the spectral domain to the time domain using a vocoder. Moreover, using discrete self-supervised speech representations and generating waveforms from these was demonstrated to provide superior performance on plenty of downstream tasks such as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8048" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8048-8061 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "speech and audio language modelling (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2022), multi-stream processing (Kharitonov et al., 2022b), speech emotion conversion (Kreuk et al., 2021), spoken dialogue (Nguyen et al., 2022), speech-to-speech translation (Lee et al., 2022a,b; Popuri et al., 2022), and audio generation (Kreuk et al., 2022a,b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 168, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inspired by this line of work, we propose a simple and effective method for Speaking Style Conversion (SSC) based on discrete self-supervised and partially disentangled speech representations. Curating samples of different speakers pronouncing the same utterances is challenging, thus we follow the setup of unpaired data, similarly to Lee et al. (2021); Yuan et al. (2021); Kameoka et al. (2018); Kaneko and Kameoka (2017). We give exact details of our approach in Section 3. We formalise the setup of SSC and introduce an extensive evaluation suite in Section 4. Results suggest the proposed approach is greatly superior to the evaluated baselines (see Section 5), while utilising a simple and effective method which can be trained on a single GPU within a couple of hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions: (i) We introduce a novel, simple, and effective method which uses discrete self-supervised speech representations to perform textless speaking style conversion in the waveform domain; (ii) We formalise the task of speaking style conversion and propose diverse evaluation methods to analyze different speech characteristics; (iii) We empirically demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach using extensive empirical evaluation on several benchmarks considering both objective and subjective metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 161, + 559 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 161, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 161, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unpaired Voice Conversion. Many existing methods perform VC in the setting of unpaired utterances (Kameoka et al., 2018; Kaneko and Kameoka, 2017). Most of them contain a vocoder which generates the audio (or an intermediate representation) from several representations, one meant to capture speaker information and others to capture the remaining information (Lin et al., 2021b,a). They encourage disentanglement through information bottlenecks by neural network architecture (Chen et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019), mutual information and adversarial losses (Lee et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021), pretrained models (Huang et al., 2022; Polyak et al., 2021) or combinations of these. Notably, Polyak et al. (2021) used discrete" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021) tokens, pitch representation based on YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002) and a learned speaker representation to resynthesise the audio waveform. They showed how replacing the speaker representation at inference time performs VC. Inspired by this modeling paradigm, our approach additionally introduces speaking style modeling and conversion (i.e., pitch contour and rhythm) thus performing SSC." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speaking Style Conversion. Various existing methods aim to change the prosody of a given utterance. However, many convert it based on a single target utterance (Qian et al., 2020; Chen and Duan, 2022) which does not truly capture the general speaking style of the speaker, and often creates artifacts when the contents do not match. Other methods only linearly alter the speaking rate (Kuhlmann et al., 2022) thus ignoring the change of rhythm for different content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 336, + 526, + 525 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Even leading SSC methods are still limited. Some focus only on rhythm, paying less attention to pitch changes (Qian et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022c). Other approaches require text transcriptions for training (Lee et al., 2022c; Liu et al., 2021). In contrast, our approach uses HuBERT units trained in a SSL fashion without using textual annotations, thus can support lower resource languages (see Fig. 6 in Appendix A.5). In addition, two concurrent methods for SSC (Qu et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022) were proposed recently. Although showing impressive results, they are based on spectrogram representations, hence require an additional vocoding step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 448, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 448, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 448, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Our Approach - DISCC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 557, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 557, + 525, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 557, + 525, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We operate under the following setup: we perform any-to-many SSC which means we take any recording and convert it to any of the training set speakers. Our training set contains only unpaired utterances - e.g. no training utterance is said by more than one speaker. The learning process is completely textless with no form of text supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach uses DIscrete units for Speaking Style Conversion, and is denoted DISSC. We decompose speech to few representations to synthesise speech in the target speaking style. We consider three components in the decomposition: phonetic-content, prosodic features (i.e., F0 and duration) and speaker identity, denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\mathbf{z}_{dur},\\mathbf{z}_{F_0})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " respectively. We propose a cascaded pipeline: (i) extract " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the raw wave" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8049" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "form using a SSL model; (ii) predict the prosodic features of the target speaker from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; (iii) synthesise the waveform speech from the content, predicted prosody and target speaker identity. See Figure 2 for a visual description of DISsC. This modelling approach means moving from a continuous space to a discrete space, hence resulting in easier optimisation and better quality generations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 230, + 204 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 230, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 190, + 230, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Speech Input Representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Phonetic-content representation. To represent speech phonetic-content we extract a discrete representation of the audio signal using a pre-trained SSL model, namely HuBERT (Hsu et al., 2021). We use a SSL representation for phonetic-content, and not text or text based methods, to maintain nontextual cues like laughter and allow support for diverse languages. We discretise this representation to use as a rhythm proxy (by number of repetitions) and for ease of modelling. We chose HuBERT for the phonetic-content units as Polyak et al. (2021) showed it better disentangles between speech content and both speaker and prosody compared to other SSL-based models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Denote the domain of audio samples by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{X} \\subset \\mathbb{R}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Audio waveforms are therefore represented by a sequence of samples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x} = (x^{1},\\dots,x^{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where each " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x^{t} \\in \\mathcal{X}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for all " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1 \\leq t \\leq T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The content encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a HuBERT model pre-trained on the LibriSpeech corpus (Panayotov et al., 2015). The input to the content encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is an audio waveform " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the output is a latent representation with lower temporal resolution " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}' = (z_c'^1,\\dots,z_c'^L)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = T / n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Since HuBERT outputs continuous representations, one needs an additional k-means step in order to quantise these representations into a discrete unit sequence. This sequence is denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{c} = (z_{c}^{1},\\dots,z_{c}^{L})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{c}^{i} \\in \\{1,\\dots,K\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the vocabulary size. For the rest of the paper, we refer to these discrete representations as \"units\". We extracted representations from the final layer of HuBERT and set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K = 100" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". When we wish to predict the rhythm, we must decompose it from the sequence, therefore repeated units are omitted (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0,0,0,1,2,2 \\rightarrow 0,1,2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and the number of repetitions correlates to the rhythm. Such sequences are denoted as \"deduced\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speaker representation. Our goal is to convert the speaking style while keeping the content fixed. To that end, we construct a speaker representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and include it as additional conditioning dur" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 316, + 68, + 514, + 257 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 68, + 514, + 257 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 68, + 514, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 68, + 514, + 257 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "eaabe1830102c73e07ed300aa8e1e0b7ff7f314b948a20e22aeae027def60772.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: An overview of DISSC. We use an SSL pretrained content encoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to extract discrete units from the waveform. We independently train a rhythm predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and pitch predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{F_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to reconstruct the original unit repetitions and pitch contour, respectively. We input all representations into a pretrained vocoder " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 266, + 526, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing the prosody prediction and waveform synthesis phases. To learn " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 371, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " we optimise the parameters of a fixed size look-up-table. Although such modeling limits our ability to generate voices of new and unseen speakers, it produces higher quality generations (Polyak et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prosody representation. As explained in the content representation section, the number of repetitions of units indicates the rhythm of the speaker in the context. More repetitions means a sound was produced for a longer time. Therefore when converting rhythm the sequence is \"deduced\", and when only converting the pitch the full " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 461, + 525, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is used." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Polyak et al. (2021) we encode the pitch contour of a sample using YAAPT (Kasi and Zahorian, 2002). We mark this pitch contour " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{F_0} = (z_{F_0}^1,\\ldots ,z_{F_0}^L)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{F_0}^t\\in \\mathcal{R}_{\\geq 0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We mark the per-speaker normalised version as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{z}_{F_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 524, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 455, + 646 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 455, + 646 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 455, + 646 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Speaking Style Conversion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using the above representations we propose to synthesise the speech signal in the target speaking style. We aim to predict the prosodic features (duration and F0) based on the phonetic-content units, while conditioned on the target speaker representation. We inflate the sequence according to the predicted durations, and use it, the predicted pitch contour, and the speaker vector as a conditioning for the waveform synthesis phase." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8050" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 262, + 283 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 262, + 283 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 262, + 283 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 68, + 262, + 283 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "198562a1e792fb341585b2273bd318490769924bd490139c34c181993600e015.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: An overview of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{F_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 288, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " architecture. The positional encoding is a linear positional embedding relative to the start and the end of the sequence, added to the repeated speaker vector. The model jointly predicts the presence of vocalised units (binary classification) together with continuous F0 values for the voiced units." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rhythm prediction. Each HuBERT unit correlates with the phoneme in the given " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20~\\mathrm{ms}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This means that longer repetitions of the same unit indicate a longer voicing of the sound - i.e. rhythm. In order to learn to predict, and convert the rhythm we build a model which learns to predict unit durations, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". During training of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we input the deduped phonetic-content units " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and speaker representation conditioning " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 390, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with the original unit durations (before dedup) as supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This simple reconstruction task is formulated as a regression task with Mean Squared Error (MSE) loss. As the units do not perfectly correlate to phonemes, neighbouring units often represent the same phoneme even after \"dedup\". This makes it harder to predict each unit's length separately. Therefore, we encourage the model's nearby errors to cancel each other out by adding an MSE loss on the total error of 4 neighbouring units. This helped with errors all being on the negative end and creating a shortening bias in our preliminary test. In addition, we round the regression outputs to be used as integer repetitions of the unit, however this can also cause a bias in which predictions like 1.51, 1.51, ..., 1.51 and 2.49, 2.49, ..., 2.49 - would result in the same total length. To mitigate this we carryover the remainder after rounding and sum those differences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During conversion we replace the speaker vector with that of the target and wish for the model to convert the rhythm. To this end our predictor model must strongly depend on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Z_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". In order to encourage this we introduce two minor adjustments. HuBERT units hold speaker information and are not fully disentangled, however, the shorter the sequence the less information exists (Kharitonov et al., 2022a). We therefore use a CNN with a small receptive field. In addition, we introduce train time masking of units in the sequence, this means that " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has access to even less units at train time, hence they contain less speaker information. Exact details can be found in Appendix A.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pitch prediction. We train the pitch predictor to predict the per-speaker normalised pitch contour " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{z}_{F0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", from the HuBERT units " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The pitch values are normalised to zero mean and standard deviation of one per-speaker on the vocalised sections. We use these values as labels to a predictor conditioned on content units " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", positional encoding and a speaker vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The positional encoding is added to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 269, + 526, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and denotes the absolute position of the unit compared to the start and finish of the sequence, though preliminary results showed that any standard positional encoding works. Intuitively, positional encoding will help learning localised speaker pitch patterns such as ending sentences in a pitch drop." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our pitch predictor is denoted " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{F_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". An overview of it is described in Figure 3. It is a CNN which has two predicted outputs: binary speaking detection, and a regression head to predict the exact pitch. The binary speaking classification is trained with BCE loss on the binarised pitch labels - i.e. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{F0} > 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 474, + 527, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The regression head is trained with MSE loss on the non-zero, vocalised pitch labels. Like the rhythm predictor this model is trained with a small unit receptive field and unit masking." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 411, + 633 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 411, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 411, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Speech Synthesis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We follow Polyak et al. (2021); Kreuk et al. (2021) using a variation of the HiFi-GAN vocoder (Kong et al., 2020). Like previous work, we adapt the generator to take as input a sequence of phonetic-content units, pitch contour and a speaker-embedding. During training, these are only features from real samples as the vocoder is trained independently for reconstruction. At inference time we use the unit sequence inflated with predicted durations, the predicted pitch contour and the target speaker" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8051" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "embedding. The above features are concatenated along the temporal axis and fed into a sequence of convolutional layers that output a 1-dimensional audio signal. We match the sample rates of unit sequence and F0 by means of linear interpolation, while replicating the speaker embedding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sum up, after each of the components described in previous sections are trained, the full pipeline of DISSC is composed of: first extracting content representation, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", then, predicting the prosodic features of the target speaker based on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{z}_{spk}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 153, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and lastly, synthesising the waveform using these new representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 199, + 273 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 199, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 199, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 SSC Evaluation Suite" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 282, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 282, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 282, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section we describe our setup which uses several datasets and fine-grained offline metrics for each part of the conversion - timbre, pitch, rhythm. As no standardised framework for evaluating SSC currently exists, we hope the proposed metrics, will help further advance research in this field. A detailed description of training configurations and hyper-parameters can be found in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 136, + 413 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 136, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 401, + 136, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 290, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 290, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 419, + 290, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Most previous work focuses on a single dataset such as VCTK (Veaux et al., 2017), since few large, multi-speaker datasets with parallel test sets exist. However, VCTK has fairly monotonous speech with less distinct speaking style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 290, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 290, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address this, we use several datasets. First, we use VCTK as it has many speakers. We leave all paired utterances (speakers say the same content) to the test set, to mimic a truly unpaired setup. In preliminary results, having paired data in training improved the results notably, but harms the wanted setup. We follow Qian et al. (2021) in selecting the two fastest (P231, P239) and two slowest (P245, P270) speakers by mean log duration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we wished to add a more expressive dataset, yet found that most expressive datasets are from the emotional speech domain. In order to adapt them to our use case we take the Emotional Speech Dataset (ESD) (Zhou et al., 2022), and select one emotion for each of the 10 speakers. This means that all recordings of a given speaker are in a certain emotion thus making it part of their speaking style. Here, we also take the two fastest and two slowest speakers for rhythm metric evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After preliminary experiments we found that the speakers in the above datasets do not always have" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "clear pitch patterns. This means that the speech is quite monotonous and that variation across recordings was greater than across speakers. To effectively evaluate pitch conversion we created a synthetic dataset based on VCTK - denoted as Syn_VCTK. In this dataset we took 6 speakers from VCTK, encoded them based on the pipeline by Polyak et al. (2021). We then altered the pitch contour by introducing a linear trend of either up, down or flat for each of the speakers. We then generated the new synthetic recordings in the same approach. We encourage readers to listen to these samples as well as the other datasets in the accompanying page to grasp the different speaking styles." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 367, + 284 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 367, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 272, + 367, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 423, + 304 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 423, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 291, + 423, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.1 Objective Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce new metrics which aim to capture the rhythm in a fine-grained manner, and objectively evaluate the pitch contour (even when the rhythm does not match). We hope these metrics will contribute to other advances in this field." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Timbre. For regular VC we use the common Equal Error Rate (EER) of speaker verification using SpeechBrain's (Ravanelli et al., 2021) ECAPATDNN (Desplanques et al., 2020) which achieves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " EER on Voxceleb. For each sample, we randomly select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " positive and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 387, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " negative samples. Positive samples are random utterances of other speakers converted to the current speaker, and negative samples are random utterances of the current speaker converted to a random target speaker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 525, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 525, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Content. For phonetic content preservation we use the standard Word Error Rate (WER) and Character Error Rate (CER), using Whisper (Radford et al., 2022) as our Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rhythm. In order to evaluate the rhythm we wish to go beyond the length of the recording, which only indicates the average rhythm and not which sounds are uttered slowly and which quickly. We therefore use the text transcriptions of the samples, and the Montreal Forced Aligner (MFA) (McAuliffe et al., 2017) to get start and end times for each word and phoneme in the recording. We then compare the lengths of the converted speech and the target speech, thus defining Phoneme Length Error (PLE), Word Length Error (WLE) and Total Length Error (TLE). We do not compare" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8052" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 514, + 222 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 514, + 222 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 514, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 69, + 514, + 222 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMSPEAKER EER↓
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓
VCTKAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)71.347.117.681.2140.0720.0287.5
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)40.626.721.91.3790.1230.03724.1
Seq2seq-VC (Liu et al., 2021)2.91.220.951.2140.0720.02810.9
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)6.63.314.01.2140.0710.0251.8
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)10.95.410.580.8320.0560.0231.7
DISSC_Both (Ours)13.06.910.530.8320.0560.0231.7
ESDAutoVC (Qian et al., 2019)87.059.931.820.5910.1060.0486.6
AutoPST (Qian et al., 2021)50.331.837.20.5490.0970.04315.7
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)14.96.030.30.5910.0970.0412.9
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)19.17.924.80.3500.0760.0372.6
", + "image_path": "33f28eb97e7cf2e10f5d45c3e62f76a4efa67151a29a34f1ba52301d5b31ddb1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 526, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 229, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: A comparison of the proposed method against VC and SSC baselines considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE), and speaker identification (EER). Only DISSC improves rhythm metrics compared to standard VC baseline Speech Resynthesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 286, + 289, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the length of silences as their occurrence can differ between recordings thus breaking the alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, for each input recording and matching text, MFA returns a list of tuples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{w} = ((s_{w_{1}},e_{w_{1}},c_{w_{1}})\\dots (s_{w_{m}},e_{w_{m}},c_{w_{m}}))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for word level and another for phoneme level " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{p} = ((s_{p_{1}},e_{p_{1}},c_{p_{1}})\\dots (s_{p_{m}},e_{p_{m}},c_{p_{m}}))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the start time of the sound at index " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the recording (word or phoneme according to the level), and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the end time. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the content of the time segment, i.e the word or phoneme. We filter only non-silence time segments leaving " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{T}_{\\{w,p\\}} = ((s_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}},e_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}},c_{\\{w,p\\}_{i}})\\quad \\forall i \\quad s.t. \\quad c_{i}^{\\{w,p\\}} \\neq \\text{silence})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 290, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Thus formally, the errors per sample compare durations of a reference sample and a synthesised sample:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 529, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 529, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 529, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\mathrm {P L E} \\left(\\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\\text {s y n}}, \\widetilde {T} _ {p} ^ {\\text {r e f}}\\right) = \\\\ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {l e n (\\widetilde {T} _ {p})} | (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {s y n}) - (e _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f} - s _ {p _ {j}} ^ {r e f}) |, \\\\ \\mathrm {W L E} (\\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {s y n}, \\widetilde {T} _ {w} ^ {r e f}) = \\\\ \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {\\text {l e n} \\left(\\widetilde {T} _ {w}\\right)} | \\left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {s y n}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {s y n}}\\right) - \\left(e _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {r e f}} - s _ {w _ {j}} ^ {\\text {r e f}}\\right) |. \\tag {1} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "465a37eff0b7bfdedc917cd753afd2dede2a4192737e27097ee99590d24dee0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The TLE is just the duration difference between the entire recordings. All rhythm metrics are in time units, in this case seconds. In addition, on rare occasions the number of phonemes for the same sound by different speakers is different (due to accents etc.), we ignore these samples for a more well-defined metric. In addition, when the phonetic" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 525, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 525, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 286, + 525, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "content is harmed dramatically in the conversion, MFA might fail to align the text. We penalise such samples by assuming a linear and even split of the recording to phonemes and words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 525, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 525, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 525, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pitch. Popular evaluation methods for F0 similarity include the Voicing Decision Error (VDE) and F0 frame error (FFE). Intuitively, VDE measures the portion of frames with voicing decision error, while FFE measures the percentage of frames that contain a deviation of more than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 525, + 443 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 348, + 525, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in pitch value or have a voicing decision error. Formally," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 450, + 525, + 480 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 450, + 525, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 339, + 450, + 525, + 480 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\operatorname {V D E} (\\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) = \\frac {\\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \\mathbb {1} [ \\boldsymbol {v} _ {t} \\neq \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "12b58b2137f58994ba946aa5db9334c976c129ad6c185dc9230e1e2ca66185ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 503, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 503, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 503, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} \\operatorname {F F E} (\\boldsymbol {p}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {p}}, \\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) = \\operatorname {V D E} (\\boldsymbol {v}, \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}}) \\\\ + \\frac {\\sum_ {t = 1} ^ {T - 1} \\mathbb {1} \\left[ \\left| \\boldsymbol {p} _ {t} - \\hat {\\boldsymbol {p}} _ {t} \\right| > 0 . 2 \\cdot \\boldsymbol {p} _ {t} \\right] \\mathbb {1} [ \\boldsymbol {v} _ {t} ] \\mathbb {1} [ \\hat {\\boldsymbol {v}} _ {t} ]}{T}, \\tag {3} \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "c29f2ba41b8c8c5d4757c2b23887398b82937665e23c648a698e9eb0387c82ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{p}, \\hat{\\pmb{p}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the pitch frames from the target and generated signals, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{v}, \\hat{\\pmb{v}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the respective voicing decisions, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the indicator function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Although these metrics are widely used in speech synthesis (Wang et al., 2021), these methods are not well adapted to misaligned samples, i.e when they are spoken at different rates. These metrics require the samples to have the same time length, therefore many implementations linearly interpolate the generated sample's pitch contour to that of the target before computing them. However, rhythm differences are non-linear (i.e certain phonemes could be \"stretched\" more than others) thus not alleviating the misalignment problem. Instead, we suggest using segments obtained from the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8053" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "forced-aligner and calculate the FFE while interpolating the segments to match the segment sizes. This measures the match in shape and value of the pitch contour for each word and phoneme, even if they are misaligned. We denoted these as P_FFE for phoneme segments and W_FFE for words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 163, + 291, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rhythm & Pitch. We compute Earth Movers Distance (EMD) (Rubner et al., 1998) between the pitch contour of converted and target samples. Essentially we check how much \"pitch mass\" needs to be moved between them. This metric considers errors along the time domain (rhythm) and pitch contour errors (such as predicting the wrong trend). Our results show strong correlation to human perception of rhythm and pitch with the above metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 287, + 291, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 287, + 291, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 287, + 291, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This newly proposed evaluation suite is generic and can transfer to other languages. However, certain metrics are based on language-specific pretrained models (e.g., ASR-based metrics). In such cases, a multi-lingual ASR can be used. In our setup, we use the Whisper model (Radford et al., 2022) which supports " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 287, + 291, + 422 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sim 100" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 287, + 291, + 422 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " languages. Another option would be to use the MMS model (Pratap et al., 2023) which supports more than 1000 languages for both ASR and forced-alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 190, + 446 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 190, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 433, + 190, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2.2 Human evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To confirm that the proposed objective metrics correlate to human perception, and to evaluate to what extent the prosody impacts humans' speaker recognition we conduct a human evaluation study. We use the common mean opinion score (MOS) to evaluate the quality and naturalness of generated and real samples. Specifically, each sample was scored from 1-5 on naturalness and quality. We took the same 40 samples for each method and the original. Each sample was annotated by at least three raters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 291, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, to evaluate the effectiveness of the speaking style conversion, we present the users a sample from the target speaker and a sample converted by each method. Users rated each sample from 1-5 (\"Very Different\"- \"Very Similar\") on how likely it is to be uttered by the same speaker and instructed to \"pay attention to speaking style such as rhythm and pitch changes, and not only the voice texture\". We evaluated 40 samples per-method, with at least three raters per-sample. We report the mean score and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 589, + 291, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " confidence intervals for both tests. We modified the WebMUSHRA tool for the tests. A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 517, + 167 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 517, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 517, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 517, + 167 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "61dc29b87dda26652b68cb04e5e9079cbf7151f3e95dd973ce243ad20e4824d8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 168, + 516, + 263 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 168, + 516, + 263 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 168, + 516, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 168, + 516, + 263 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3d5f23d7164620e241307d1a4991259f96e3c7d32d891f5abfaeb4e4246fe37b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 526, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: We compare the human evaluated naturalness of real reference utterances, Speech Resynthesis (SR), AutoPST, two versions of DISSC which convert rhythm only or also F0. We also compare the similarity of how likely the converted sample is to come from the the same speaker as the target recording." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "detailed description of the subjective tests can be found in the Appendix." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 362, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 362, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 362, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 526, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 526, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 433, + 526, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare DISSC to several any-to-many (or many-to-many) baselines. Notably, we evaluate Speech Resynthesis (SR), and AutoVC (Qian et al., 2019) which are well known VC methods. In addition, we compare to AutoPST and BNE-MoL-seq2seqVC (Liu et al., 2021) which are prominent prosodic-aware VC (i.e., SSC) methods. We use the official Github implementations and train the models on our datasets using the authors recommended configuration. For a fair comparison, all baselines were evaluated under the any-to-many setup, i.e., generating only seen speakers. Only seq2seqVC supports new speakers, because only that approach was published. However, we evaluate them on known speakers, with the entire training set as reference recordings. We show three variants of our method: DISSC_Rhythm, DISSC_Pitch and DISSC_Both which predict duration, pitch contour and both respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Objective results for VCTK and ESD appear in Table 1. On both datasets DISSC improves the length errors across all scales: phonemes, words and utterances. The relative improvement compared to the next best baseline is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "56.8\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on ESD TLE. At word level we get " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "27.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "26.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " rela" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 280, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 280, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 760, + 280, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'https://github.com/audiolabs/webMUSHRA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8054" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 155 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 155 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 69, + 526, + 155 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MODELCONTENTRHYTHM&F0 EMD↓RHYTHMF0
WER↓CER↓TLE↓WLE↓PLE↓W_FFE↓P_FFE↓
SR (Polyak et al., 2021)12.46.324.231.1010.0640.02446.143.4
DISSC_Rhythm (Ours)18.89.520.780.7750.0530.02346.143.7
DISSC_Pitch (Ours)12.56.313.551.1010.0650.02424.520.5
DISSC_Both (Ours)19.610.210.470.7750.0530.02325.321.4
", + "image_path": "40e1b5ce1a799c444d4fd4e6de0e8063d64ff9cb11a9404eeda0d1ca8fd2be5e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 525, + 188 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 525, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 525, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: VC and SSC results on the Syn_VCTK dataset. This ablation measures the impact of rhythm and pitch conversion over SR considering content (WER, CER), Rhythm and F0 (EMD, TLE, WLE, PLE, W_FFE, P_FFE)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 290, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tive improvement on ESD and VCTK respectively. All other baselines show rhythm errors comparable or worse than SR which does not convert rhythm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 252, + 291, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We can see a minor decrease in content quality (by WER and CER) of DISSC compared to SR which does not convert prosody, but still superior to AutoPST. In addition, seq2seq also has better WER, at the expense of harming the rhythm conversion. Potentially, the supervised phoneme recogniser is too fine, thus does not impose enough of a rhythm bottleneck. The harm in quality of DISSC may be due to additional information bottlenecks by de-duplicating the speech units, and predicting F0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 391, + 291, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We additionally provide subjective evaluation considering both naturalness of the converted samples and their similarity to the target recording considering speaking style. These results are shown in Figure 4. We found that the naturalness of both DISSC variants was comparable to SR, and not far from the reference recordings while far outperforming AutoPST. In addition, we see a noticeable increase in speaking style similarity when converting prosody with DISSC compared to SR. However, also converting the pitch did not noticeably improve the results. We believe that this has to do with the lack of distinct speaking style which people can notice, especially from a single recording." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ablation study. In order to properly evaluate the ability of DISSC to learn the pitch speaking style, when such exists, we use the synthetic VCTK data (as explained in Section 4.1) with known pitch trends. These results (Table 2) are an ablation study for each converter of DISSC. They highlight the control-ability of our approach - when predicting the rhythm, only length errors improve, likewise for pitch. We see that when a pitch pattern exists in the speaking style - DISSC learns it, providing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "88 - 113\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " relative increase in the metrics. We also see that they can be converted jointly without noticeable drop in pitch and length performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 321, + 205, + 509, + 394 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 205, + 509, + 394 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 205, + 509, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 321, + 205, + 509, + 394 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a426345249d8dc630607b4e1f24b8a572ce02507dba1bc20b698ab6c4d33aecb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 450 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 401, + 525, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: DISSC corrects abnormal rhythm patterns in specific words, compared to AutoPST. Here we take the utterance \"people look, but no one ever finds it\" and stretch the duration of the word \"finds\" times three." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Irregular rhythm. Lastly, to demonstrate that DISSC predicts rhythm depending on content, and not only on average - we create a sample with abnormal rhythm patterns. We take an utterance and artificially stretch one of the words using speech resynthesis. We then attempt to \"convert\" the sample to the original speaker thus checking the ability to only change the rhythm of the abnormal part. We compare DISSC and AutoPST in Figure 5, and see that DISSC manages to mostly correct the irregular rhythm, while hardly changing the other parts. By contrast, AutoPST only slightly changes the rhythm. If " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " performs optimally, we are guaranteed perfect results, as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 471, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " would be identical for irregular and original after dedup. However, HubERT may introduce some errors specifically when considering signal variations (Gat et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 465, + 724 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 465, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 465, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion & Future Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we propose a simple and effective method for speaking style conversion based on discrete self supervised speech representations. We" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8055" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "provide a formal definition to the speaking style conversion setup while introducing a set of evaluation functions to analyse and evaluate different speech characteristics separately. Results suggest, the proposed approach is superior to the evaluated baselines considering both objective and subjective metrics. We hope these advance the study in the field, and lead to improved performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 183, + 291, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The current model suffers from slight content loss when using the deduced units. In addition, repeated utterances get slightly different units (in the abnormal rhythm experiment). Therefore, in future work we aim to improve the robustness and disentanglement of the speech representation considering speaker and prosodic information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 130, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 130, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 299, + 130, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 329, + 291, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach can only perform conversion into a closed set of speakers seen at train time. This is due to the LUT used to learn speaker representations and to the use of per-speaker pitch statistics. This might be hard to overcome as speaker style (rhythm and pitch changes) can be hard to judge from a small number of samples. Additionally, we see that speaking style conversion and especially rhythm conversion harm the WER and CER slightly. The additional bottleneck of de-duplication which allows us to convert rhythm comes with the cost of slight content loss. We hope that future improvement of the hidden representations will help improve or alleviate the tradeoff." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 163, + 553 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 163, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 540, + 163, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethical Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 760 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 570, + 291, + 760 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The broader impact of this study is, as in any generative model, the development of a high quality and natural speech synthesis model. This has special sensitivity and ethical concerns as such technology might be used to alter voices and speaking style in speech recordings, which can be considered as biometric data and biometric processing. To deal with that we limit the number of speakers that can be synthesized with the proposed approach using a pre-defined voices using a look-up-table. Another potential risk of the proposed method which is also one of its limitations is that the generated speech content is not always perfect, hence might lead to wrong pronunciations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 70, + 362, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 526, + 157 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 526, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 91, + 526, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03143." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Li-Wei Chen, Shinji Watanabe, and Alexander Rudnicky. 2022. A unified one-shot prosody and speaker conversion system with self-supervised discrete speech units. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06535." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 526, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 526, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Meiying Chen and Zhiyao Duan. 2022. Controlvc: Zero-shot voice conversion with time-varying controls on pitch and rhythm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11866." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 526, + 344 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 526, + 344 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 277, + 526, + 344 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yen-Hao Chen, Da-Yi Wu, Tsung-Han Wu, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021. Again-vc: A one-shot voice conversion using activation guidance and adaptive instance normalization. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5954-5958. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 526, + 399 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 526, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 354, + 526, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ju-chieh Chou, Cheng-chieh Yeh, and Hung-yi Lee. 2019. One-shot voice conversion by separating speaker and content representations with instance normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05742." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 409, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 409, + 526, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 409, + 526, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Brecht Desplanques, Jenthe Thienpondt, and Kris Demuynck. 2020. ECAPA-TDNN: emphasized channel attention, propagation and aggregation in TDNN based speaker verification. In *Interspeech* 2020, pages 3830-3834. ISCA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 475, + 526, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 475, + 526, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 475, + 526, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Itai Gat, Felix Kreuk, Ann Lee, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022. On the robustness of self-supervised representations for spoken language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15483." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 526, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 618, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wen-Chin Huang, Yi-Chiao Wu, and Tomoki Hayashi. 2021. Any-to-one sequence-to-sequence voice conversion using self-supervised discrete speech representations. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5944-5948. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wen-Chin Huang, Shu-Wen Yang, Tomoki Hayashi, Hung-Yi Lee, Shinji Watanabe, and Tomoki Toda. 2022. S3prl-vc: Open-source voice conversion framework with self-supervised speech representations. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6552-6556. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8056" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Kain and Michael W Macon. 1998. Spectral voice conversion for text-to-speech synthesis. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP'98 (Cat. No. 98CH36181), volume 1, pages 285-288. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 212 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 147, + 291, + 212 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hirokazu Kameoka, Takuhiro Kaneko, Kou Tanaka, and Nobukatsu Hojo. 2018. Stargan-vc: Non-parallel many-to-many voice conversion using star generative adversarial networks. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 266-273. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 290, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 222, + 290, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takuhiro Kaneko and Hirokazu Kameoka. 2017. Parallel-data-free voice conversion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11293." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 290, + 320 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 290, + 320 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 275, + 290, + 320 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kavita Kasi and Stephen A Zahorian. 2002. Yet another algorithm for pitch tracking. In 2002, the international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, volume 1, pages I-361. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 328, + 291, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Paden Tomasello, Ann Lee, Ali Elkahky, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. textless-lib: a library for textless spoken language processing. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: System Demonstrations, pages 1-9, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 291, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 459, + 291, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eugene Kharitonov, Ann Lee, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Kushal Lakhotia, Tu Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Text-free prosody-aware generative spoken language modeling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8666-8681, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 566, + 290, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kang-wook Kim, Seung-won Park, Junhyeok Lee, and Myun-chul Joe. 2022. Assem-vc: Realistic voice conversion by assembling modern speech synthesis techniques. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 6997-7001. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 696 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 641, + 291, + 696 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. 2020. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:17022-17033." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Morgane Riviere, Wei Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yossi Adi. 2021. Textless speech emotion conversion using decomposed and discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07402." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Gabriel Synnaeve, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Devi Parikh, Yaniv Taigman, and Yossi Adi. 2022a. Audiogen: Textually guided audio generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15352." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 192 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 137, + 524, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Felix Kreuk, Yaniv Taigman, Adam Polyak, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, Alexandre Défossez, and Yossi Adi. 2022b. Audio language modeling using perceptually-guided discrete representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01223." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 245 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 245 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 245 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Kuhlmann, Fritz Seebauer, Janek Ebbers, Petra Wagner, and Reinhold Haeb-Umbach. 2022. Investigation into target speaking rate adaptation for voice conversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01978." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 254, + 524, + 330 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 254, + 524, + 330 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 254, + 524, + 330 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 429 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 340, + 524, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, Sravya Popuri, Xutai Ma, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Qing He, Yun Tang, Juan Pino, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022a. Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3327-3339, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 548 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 438, + 524, + 548 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ann Lee, Hongyu Gong, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Holger Schwenk, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Sravya Popuri, Yossi Adi, Juan Pino, Jiatao Gu, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022b. Textless speech-to-speech translation on real data. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 860-872, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 557, + 524, + 612 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 557, + 524, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 557, + 524, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sang-Hoon Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, Hyunseung Chung, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2021. Voicemixer: Adversarial voice style mixup. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 294-308. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 621, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 621, + 524, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 621, + 524, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sang-Hoon Lee, Hyeong-Rae Noh, Woo-Jeoung Nam, and Seong-Whan Lee. 2022c. Duration controllable voice conversion via phoneme-based information bottleneck. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 30:1173-1183." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 524, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 524, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jheng-hao Lin, Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, and Hung-yi Lee. 2021a. S2vc: a framework for any-to-any voice conversion with self-supervised pretrained representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yist Y Lin, Chung-Ming Chien, Jheng-Hao Lin, Hung-yi Lee, and Lin-shan Lee. 2021b. Fragmentvc: Any-to-any voice conversion by end-to-end extracting and" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8057" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "fusing fine-grained voice fragments with attention. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5939-5943. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 124, + 291, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 124, + 291, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 124, + 291, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Songxiang Liu, Yuewen Cao, Disong Wang, Xixin Wu, Xunying Liu, and Helen Meng. 2021. Any-to-many voice conversion with location-relative sequence-to-sequence modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:1717-1728." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 199, + 290, + 254 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 199, + 290, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 199, + 290, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael McAuliffe, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger. 2017. Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Proc. Interspeech 2017, pages 498-502." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 290, + 306 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 290, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 262, + 290, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Toru Nakashika, Ryoichi Takashima, Tetsuya Takiguchi, and Yasuo Ariki. 2013. Voice conversion in high-order eigen space using deep belief nets. In *Interspeech*, pages 369-372." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 290, + 370 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 315, + 290, + 370 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16502." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 290, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 378, + 290, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 452, + 290, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.00355." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 527, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 527, + 290, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 527, + 290, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sravya Popuri, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Juan Pino, Yossi Adi, Jiatao Gu, Wei-Ning Hsu, and Ann Lee. 2022. Enhanced direct speech-to-speech translation using self-supervised pre-training and data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02967." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 290, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 290, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 590, + 290, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vineel Pratap, Andros Tjandra, Bowen Shi, Paden Tomasello, Arun Babu, Sayani Kundu, Ali Elkahky, Zhaoheng Ni, Apoorv Vyas, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, et al. 2023. Scaling speech technology to 1,000+ languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13516." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 653, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and David Cox. 2020. Unsupervised speech decomposition via triple information bottleneck. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7836-7846. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Jinjun Xiong, Chuang Gan, David Cox, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2021. Global prosody style transfer without text transcriptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8650-8660. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 23, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Xuesong Yang, and Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2019. Autovc: Zero-shot voice style transfer with only autoencoder loss. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5210-5219. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 134, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaizhi Qian, Yang Zhang, Heting Gao, Junrui Ni, Cheng-I Lai, David Cox, Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, and Shiyu Chang. 2022. Contentvec: An improved self-supervised speech representation by disentangling speakers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18003-18017. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 525, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 525, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leyuan Qu, Taihao Li, Cornelius Weber, Theresa Pekarek-Rosin, Fuji Ren, and Stefan Wermter. 2022. Disentangling prosody representations with unsupervised speech reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06972." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 270, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 270, + 525, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 270, + 525, + 315 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mirco Ravanelli, Titouan Parcollet, Peter Plantinga, Aku Rouhe, Samuele Cornell, Loren Lugosch, Cem Subakan, Nauman Dawalatabad, Abdelwahab Heba, Jianyuan Zhong, Ju-Chieh Chou, Sung-Lin Yeh, Szu-Wei Fu, Chien-Feng Liao, Elena Rastorgueva, François Grondin, William Aris, Hwidong Na, Yan Gao, Renato De Mori, and Yoshua Bengio. 2021. SpeechBrain: A general-purpose speech toolkit. ArXiv:2106.04624." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 482 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 428, + 525, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J Guibas. 1998. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In Sixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271), pages 59-66. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 490, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yannis Stylianou, Olivier Cappé, and Eric Moulines. 1998. Continuous probabilistic transform for voice conversion. IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, 6(2):131-142." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 525, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 541, + 525, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christophe Veaux, Junichi Yamagishi, Kirsten MacDonald, et al. 2017. Superseded-cstr vctk corpus: English multi-speaker corpus for cstr voice cloning toolkit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 525, + 670 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 525, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 525, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changhan Wang, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Jiatao Gu, and Juan Pino. 2021. *fairoseq s^2: A scalable and integrable speech synthesis toolkit*. In *Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations*, pages 143–152, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 677, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 677, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 677, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Carl Earl Williams. 1965. The effects of selected factors on the aural identification of speakers. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 716, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siyang Yuan, Pengyu Cheng, Ruiyi Zhang, Weituo Hao, Zhe Gan, and Lawrence Carin. 2021. Improving zero-shot voice style transfer via disentangled representation learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8058" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Zhou, Berrak Sisman, Rui Liu, and Haizhou Li. 2022. Emotional voice conversion: Theory, databases and esd. Speech Communication, 137:1-18." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 377, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 377, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 377, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 525, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here we give fine-grained details of computational costs, hyper-parameters and other implementation details omitted from the main part for brevity and readability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 157, + 402, + 169 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 157, + 402, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 157, + 402, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Dataset details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use several datasets: (i) VCTK dataset (Veaux et al., 2017); (ii) ESD (Zhou et al., 2022); (iii) and the a synthetic VCTK dataset (Syn_VCTK), generated by us. For VCTK the training data contains 41k samples, and the evaluation set contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.5\\mathrm{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For ESD the training data contains 3k samples, the validation contains 200, and the test 300. For Syn_VCTK the training data contains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.4\\mathrm{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 175, + 526, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " samples and the validation has 142. For ESD we use the official train, val, test split. For both VCTK versions we enforce unpaired data in the train sets, and use paired data only for evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 348, + 431, + 360 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 348, + 431, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 348, + 431, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Computational Price" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 525, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 365, + 525, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use a pretrained HuBERT_Base model for input encoding. This model has 90 million parameters and takes less than 15 minutes to inference over all of our datasets. For training times see the original paper. For the HiFi-GAN vocoder which is trained once, independently of the speaking style conversion, we use a model with 13.8 million parameters (for the generator). It takes 4 days on to train on VCTK using two RTX 6000 GPUs, other datasets take less than that." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The rhythm predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has 330 thousand parameters, and takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU. Likewise, the pitch predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{f0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has 527 thousand parameters, and also takes about 30 minutes to train on a single RTX2080 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 420, + 606 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 420, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 592, + 420, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Hyper-Parameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We encode the HuBERT units and pitch contour with textlesslib. For the content endocer we use hubert-base-1s960 and use K-means with 100 clusters for the clustering step. For the pitch contour we use the default parameters from textless lib which match the content encoder we used." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the vocoder we use the official implementation of speech resynthesis with the configuration suitable for VCTK, hubert100, using a fixed size lookup-table. We adapt the model so that it receives as input the normalised pitch without quantisation. We train it with a batch size of 64 over two" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8059" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " GPUs for the minimum between 2000 epochs and 400,000 batches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The rhythm predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is built of 8 blocks of Conv1D followed by Batch Normalisation, with 128 hidden units. The speaker embedding and token embedding are learned with a lookup-table, both with size 32. The speaker vector is repeated along the time axis and concatenated with the unit embedding. Each CNN has a receptive field of 3 and padding of 1 so that the output shape is the same as the input. For activation we use Leaky ReLU. We normalise the length for prediction with the mean and standard deviation of the training data. Train time masking masks each unit in the input independently with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " probability. We train the model for 30 epochs, with a batch size of 32, a learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3e - 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 104, + 291, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and Adam optimiser. We take the model with lowest validation MSE. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or automated hyper-tuning was done." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The pitch predictor " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{F0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " encodes the speaker and units in the same way as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E_{dur}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a fixed size lookup-table of size 32. However, here we add to the speaker embedding a linear positional encoding - this means that indices 0-15 of the speaker vector get added the unit index relative to the start and indices 16-31 get added the unit index relative to the end. In preliminary experiments more typical sinusoidal positional encoding worked similarly but we chose the linear version for simplicity. The model is comprised of 9 shared Conv1D layers with kernel size 3, and followed by 2 Conv1D with kernel sizes 3 and 1 for each head (speaking classification and F0 regression). We use Leaky ReLU activation. The labels for training are received from the YAAPT algorithm, normalised perspeaker with the mean and standard deviation of the vocalised parts of the training set. We do not normalise the non-vocalised parts. The BCE loss for binary classification is multiplied by 100 and added to the pitch MSE loss, to attempt to give both losses a similar scale. We train the model for 20 epochs with learning rate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3e - 4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", batch size of 32 and Adam optimiser. We take the model with the lowest validation MSE. The results in Table 1, and Figure 4 are with a similar model, however it does not use positional encoding. The positional encoding was added afterwards as an improvement. This architecture and parameters were fairly standard values which worked out of the box, no manual or" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 456, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 456, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 456, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "automated hyper-tuning was done." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 458, + 105 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 458, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 94, + 458, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Human Evaluation Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 111, + 525, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We had over 20 different annotators in our subjective tests, who were all non-paid volunteers. They are all fluent, though not necessarily native, in English, and vary in academic background and connection to the field. For privacy reasons the questionnaires are anonymous and no details are collected about the participants." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 206, + 526, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 206, + 526, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 206, + 526, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The quality question is phrased as follows: \"Evaluate the quality and naturalness of the following audio segment\", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: \"Poor\", \"Decent\", \"Good\", \"Very Good\", \"Excellent\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 274, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 274, + 525, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 274, + 525, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The similarity question is phrased as follows: \"The first recording in this section is a reference, mark all recordings in how similar the speaking style is to the original. speaking style refers to the speaking rhythm, intonation etc. Try to ignore the quality of the recording itself\", and the raters give a scale of 1-5 with the labels: \"Very different\", \"Different\", \"Slightly similar\", \"Similar\", \"Very Similar\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 504, + 417 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 504, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 405, + 504, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Low Resource Language Conversion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 423, + 524, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 423, + 524, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 423, + 524, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As mentioned, DISSC does not use text as any intermediate representation in conversion (or text supervision for training). This means that it can work in low-resource languages which do not have large annotated datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 490, + 525, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We demonstrate the ability of DISSC to convert a Hebrew utterance to a target VCTK speaker, while not being trained on any Hebrew data (see Fig. 6). While converting the accent in crosslingual (Hebrew utterance to English speaker) remains challenging, this shows good potential. Notably, this example is out of domain for all model training data. Training DISSC in a textless self-supervised way on Hebrew data will likely improve the performance dramatically." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 440, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 440, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 440, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 WER detailed analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 651, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While DISSCis the only evaluated method to successfully convert prosody, it has a limitation of slightly harming content compared to some methods which do not convert prosody (e.g. speech resynthesis). We see this in the WER and CER metrics and wish to further analyse the cause for this." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first manually inspect the samples with highest word error rate. We have found that the content loss is mainly due to minor phonological errors" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8060" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 288, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 288, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 288, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 288, + 174 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "62ee9e7ebafb23383863d2a2913a6af9dc0e2dfc01076a3ad9d043f38517e8f7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 291, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 291, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 181, + 291, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: An example using DISSC to convert a non-English sample. Hebrew is a lower resource language, hence there are little to no transcribed datasets. Thus, no expressive TTS methods exist, making an ASR-TTS VC pipeline impossible. Training DISSC on unlabelled Hebrew data, will likely improve results further. We encourage readers to listen to the accompanying samples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 279, + 428 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 279, + 428 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 279, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 278, + 279, + 428 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.411.1
p23912.218.6
p2454.57.9
p2579.815.7
p2703.07.7
p28412.118.2
p3064.57.0
p3411.34.0
", + "image_path": "acf69354c586a88c2061a789dfa60f5340263974188e187b66f5311b73ceae0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 290, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which cause transcription change. For example, in cases with a high error rate, the original text is: \"Please call Stella\" and the transcription after conversion is: \"Peace cool Stalla\". However, when looking at the WER of both DISSC and speech resynthesis, we observe that such phonological errors are observed in the same samples for both methods (even without conversion). Therefore, we believe that the root cause of such phenomenon is the quality of the SSL model and DISSC amplified this effect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further, evaluate this hypothesis we evaluate the WER per source speaker and per target speaker (results in Tables 3 and 4). This analysis clearly shows that WER per-speaker varies greatly based on the source speaker, but does not depend on the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 318, + 68, + 510, + 218 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 290, + 532 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 290, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 436, + 290, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by source speaker when converting to all other speakers as targets. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from speaker p231 to all other speakers in the list. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results vary greatly, and that the success of both methods are correlated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 68, + 510, + 218 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 68, + 510, + 218 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 68, + 510, + 218 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Target SpeakerMethod
SRDISSC_Rhythm
p2316.211.2
p2397.011.4
p2456.611.6
p2576.410.5
p2707.210.9
p2846.411.5
p3067.211.4
p3417.111.8
", + "image_path": "2fa95b80a7d9abfaa85cee1fbe6e8508a747a7ccdcf6f174d00119c76e244c41.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Word error rate comparison on VCTK, split by target speaker when converting from all other speakers as sources. For instance the first row denotes the WER when converting a fixed set of samples from all source speakers in the list (except p231) to speaker p231. We compare DISSC_Rhythm and Speech resynthesis and see that the results hardly depend on the target speaker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 332, + 525, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "target speaker, this further supporting the fact that this is an issue with the SSL encoding method. An interesting line of future work would be in improving SSL for such cases, or even applying error-correcting codes on the converted speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8061" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_content_list.json b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..96083528435f8d2d0853ad4d1df492a65499ebc2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2703 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speculative Decoding: Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 189, + 82, + 808, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Heming Xia $^{1,2*}$ Tao Ge $^{4\\dagger}$ Peiyi Wang $^{1,3}$ Si-Qing Chen $^{4}$ Furu Wei $^{4}$ Zhifang Sui $^{1,3}$", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 129, + 885, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ National Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 148, + 843, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ School of Software & Microelectronics, Peking University", + "bbox": [ + 258, + 165, + 742, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{3}$ School of Computer Science, Peking University $^{4}$ Microsoft Research Asia", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 181, + 815, + 198 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{xiaheming,szf}@pku.edu.cn; wangpeiyi9979@gmail.com", + "bbox": [ + 243, + 198, + 759, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{tage, fuwei}@microsoft.com", + "bbox": [ + 366, + 215, + 633, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), for the first time ever1, to formally study exploiting the idea of speculative execution to accelerate autoregressive (AR) decoding. Speculative Decoding has two innovations: SpecDrafter – an independent model specially optimized for efficient and accurate drafting – and Spec-Verification – a reliable method for verifying the drafted tokens efficiently in the decoding paradigm. Experimental results on various seq2seq tasks including machine translation and abstractive summarization show our approach can achieve around $5 \\times$ speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, refreshing the impression that the draft-then-verify paradigm introduces only $1.4 \\times 2 \\times$ speedup. In addition to the remarkable speedup, we also demonstrate 3 additional advantages of SpecDec, revealing its practical value for accelerating generative models in real-world applications. Our models and codes are available at https://github.com/hemingkx/SpecDec.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 282, + 460, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 639, + 258, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As the de facto method for text generation, AutoRegressive (AR) decoding is widely blamed for its poor inference efficiency due to its low level of parallelism, which fails to utilize the full potential of modern parallel computing devices like GPUs. This inefficiency not only leads to high deployment", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 665, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4a16c58bf21abc08e7050840de6c7305ccf08361cd37ec81ae748a05c02447cc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Compared with autoregressive decoding (left) that generates token by token, the draft-then-verify paradigm (right) first drafts multiple tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens in parallel. Drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (e.g., $\\widetilde{y}_5$ ) will be discarded to guarantee the generation quality." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 253, + 870, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "costs but also limits the application of advanced AR models in real-time scenarios.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 469, + 882, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this work, we study the draft-then-verify paradigm for accelerating seq2seq generation of an existing AR model2. As shown in Figure 1, the draft-then-verify paradigm first generates a number of drafted tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens using the existing AR model in parallel to ensure the decoding result matches AR decoding. However, previous attempts in the \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm such as Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) and Aggressive Decoding (Sun et al., 2021) tend to lack in-depth investigation of this paradigm. Their modest speedup (i.e., $1.4 \\times \\sim 2.0 \\times$ ) or limitation to certain seq2seq tasks like Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) has caused this paradigm to be underestimated, resulting in it not receiving much attention and remaining dormant for years.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 501, + 884, + 774 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To fully exploit the draft-then-verify paradigm, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), drawing inspiration from speculative execution3 in com", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 775, + 884, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2The existing AR model in this paper refers to the targeted Transformer using AR decoding that we want to accelerate.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 832, + 882, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3Speculative execution is an optimization technique used in computer architecture where a system performs some task in advance to avoid delays that would have to be incurred by doing the task after it is known that it is required (https: //wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative Execution).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 857, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* This work was done during the author's internship at MSR Asia. Correspondence: Tao Ge (tage@microsoft.com)", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 772, + 487, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Co-first authors with equal contributions", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 797, + 398, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "This work was initially announced in March 2022 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16487) under the name Generalized Aggressive Decoding. It has been formally renamed Speculative Decoding in our submission to ICLR'23, which has been publicly available since September 2022 at https://openreview.net/pdf?id=H-VlwsYvVi. This marks the first time \"Speculative Decoding\", which explicitly studies the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference, has been proposed.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3909", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3909-3925", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 778, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "puter architecture, with two key innovations that improve drafting and verification processes respectively. For drafting, we derive two principles for designing the drafting model4: the Capability Principle and the Latency Principle. Following these two principles, we propose Spec-Drafter – a specialized independent model optimized in the draft-then-verify paradigm, which can accurately and efficiently fulfill the drafting task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For verification, we propose an advanced method - Spec-Verification that relaxes the vanilla verification strategy. Spec-Verification allows the decoding results of SpecDec to be slightly different from AR greedy decoding, offering an opportunity to accept more drafted tokens without sacrificing generation quality and leading to higher decoding efficiency.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 234, + 487, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct extensive experiments on various seq2seq generation tasks like machine translation and abstractive summarization. Results show our approach can achieve around $5 \\times$ speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, largely outperforming previous draft-then-verify work ( $1.4 \\times \\sim 2.0 \\times$ speedup). Moreover, we demonstrate that SpecDec has several additional advantages that enhance its practicality for accelerating generative models in real-world applications.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 489, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions can be summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 533, + 489, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We are the first work that explicitly exploits the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference. Our proposed two key innovations – the independent Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification strategy allow SpecDec to achieve over $5 \\times$ lossless speedup over autoregressive decoding in seq2seq tasks, refreshing the impression that the \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm only has a limited $1.5 \\times \\sim 2 \\times$ acceleration potential.", + "- We demonstrate 3 advantages of SpecDec with extensive empirical results in addition to its remarkable acceleration performance: better latency-throughput trade-off, easy adaptability for existing models and retaining the behavior of the original model, revealing its huge practical value and bringing the long-dormant draft-then-verify paradigm back into the spotlight." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 565, + 490, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Background: draft-then-verify decoding", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 83, + 882, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm first drafts multiple tokens efficiently, as a speculation of AR decoding results; then, it verifies these tokens in parallel to ensure they match the AR decoding result, as illustrated in Figure 1. It is an implicit implementation of speculative execution in Transformer inference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 108, + 884, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Draft There are different approaches to drafting tokens, including model-based (Stern et al., 2018) and input-(context-) based5 methods (Sun et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2023). Take Blockwise Decoding – the most representative work attempting the draft-then-verify paradigm – as an example (illustrated in Figure 2(a)): it introduces additional $k - 1$ feedforward network (FFN) heads on top of an existing AR model, enabling the model to predict the next $k$ drafted tokens in parallel during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 230, + 884, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Verify The generated drafted tokens are fed into the original AR model and verified in parallel. Specifically, it finds the bifurcation position $c$ , the largest index that ensures all previous $c - 1$ drafted tokens and the corresponding AR decoded tokens are identical:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 400, + 882, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc = \\arg \\max _ {i} \\frac {\\mathbb {I} (\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \\neq \\hat {y} _ {j + i})}{i}, 1 \\leq i \\leq k \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 507, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {y} _ {j + i} = \\arg \\max _ {y} \\log P (y \\mid \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} _ {\\leq j}, \\widetilde {\\mathbf {y}} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + i - 1}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 538, + 880, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbb{I}(\\cdot)$ is the indicator function, $\\pmb{x}$ is the source sentence, $\\hat{\\pmb{y}}_{\\leq j}$ is the previously generated tokens and $\\widetilde{y}_{j + i}$ is the $i$ -th drafted token. Drafted tokens after the position $c$ are all discarded. The final decoded tokens in the current iteration are:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + c} = \\left(\\widetilde {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + c - 1}, \\hat {y} _ {j + c}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 586, + 655, + 880, + 670 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The above draft and verification steps are iterated until the termination condition is met.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 682, + 880, + 713 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Speculative Decoding", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 727, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To fully exploit speculative execution for Transformer inference, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) with two innovations - Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification that substantially improve drafting (Section 3.1) and verification (Section 3.2) respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 751, + 882, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "This kind of method is usually limited to special tasks like GEC and retrieval-augmented generation. In this paper, we mainly focus on the model-based methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 892 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6We use $\\widetilde{\\pmb{y}}$ to denote drafted tokens, while we use $\\hat{\\pmb{y}}$ to denote AR decoded/verified generation results.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 892, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4The drafting model is also called the drafter in this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3910", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/3f848c7b0f3cb5547fec360f8fa209e60227980202dbee6fa9bee7c80b583d38.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Blockwise Decoding" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 79, + 277, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/70a52ca90c5dfceaf204f6a338b1c84f791a779987b4f296327884962638964f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Spec-Drafter" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 292, + 80, + 475, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Spec-Drafter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 393, + 263, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.1 Design Principles", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 310, + 430 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As a crucial ingredient in the draft-then-verify paradigm, the drafting process has a drastic impact on end-to-end acceleration performance. However, there are very limited explorations of the designing principles for the drafter by previous studies - most of them arbitrarily implement a drafter, which accounts for their undesirable acceleration results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 487, + 545 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To understand the effect of drafting, we look into the overall latency in the draft-then-verify paradigm for one sample of the length $L$ as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 546, + 485, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nT = \\underbrace {\\frac {L}{\\mathbf {T o k} .} \\times t _ {d}} _ {\\text {t o t a l d r a f t i n g l a t e n c y}} + \\underbrace {\\frac {L}{\\mathbf {T o k} .} \\times t _ {v}} _ {\\text {t o t a l v e r i f i c a t i o n l a t e n c y}} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 605, + 487, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mathbf{Tok}$ denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted per iteration, $t_d$ and $t_v$ are the time costs of drafting and verification each iteration respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 485, + 725 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to Eq (4), Tok. is inversely proportional to the number of iterations, which is primarily influenced by drafting accuracy: A drafter that is more capable of drafting can attain greater Tok. values, consequently completing the decoding process in fewer iterations. This observation leads us to derive the first principle for designing the drafter:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 727, + 487, + 839 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Principle I (Capability Principle): The drafter model should be seriously in-", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 149, + 851, + 450, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "text": "7We don't discuss $t_v$ in this paper because it is determined by the existing AR model and thus regarded constant.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6c325979234b763058aab2b7e8fab935785a3e7cb980431784d9565d2519a14b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: (a) Blockwise Decoding that introduces $k - 1$ FFN heads on top of the target AR model for drafting the next $k$ tokens with shared attention; (b) Spec-Drafter is an independent model for drafted token prediction. It employs distinct attention queries for predicting each drafted token. Modules colored in yellow belong to the original AR model while those colored in red denote newly introduced modules.", + "Figure 3: Upper: An AR model's attention heatmap showing that different target positions should attend to different source tokens; Lower: The Spec-Drafter's attention heatmap showing its capability of modeling drafted tokens in different positions, which highly aligns with the AR counterpart." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 529, + 80, + 865, + 315 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "vested to guarantee its capability of accurate drafting.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 439, + 847, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Principle I is the most crucial principle in determining the end-to-end speedup, as it directly influences the value of Tok. which affects both total drafting and verification latency. Surprisingly, little previous work adheres to this seemingly simple and straightforward principle maybe due to the concern of increasing the drafting latency. For instance, the drafter in Blockwise Decoding is not properly invested: Its drafter not only has limited parameters (FFN prediction heads), making it difficult to fit the challenging drafting task, but more importantly, it employs a shared attention mechanism that forces all drafted tokens to share a single set of attentions (only differentiating at the final prediction head), as shown in Figure 2(a). However, different target positions should attend different context tokens, as illustrated in Figure 3. Despite its computational efficiency, the shared attention mechanism in Blockwise decoding severely constrains the drafter's capability, resulting in low drafting accuracy and consequently leading to most drafted tokens being discarded.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 483, + 882, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to the drafter's accuracy, its latency also impacts the end-to-end speedup result but from another perspective - by affecting the latency of each iteration (i.e., $t_d$ in Eq (4)) - from which we derive Principle II for designing the drafter:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3911", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/17bbc9f3eb7031e08a9006bc36210462c43d80ffd1dd87709da89b237a9f7ef4.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Illustration of Spec-Verification. Compared to the vanilla verification strategy strictly requiring the drafted tokens to match the AR top-1 result, Spec-Verification slightly relaxes the criterion to trust the drafts more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in the top- $\\beta$ AR candidates with a tolerable log-likelihood gap (not shown in this Figure; see Eq (9)). As a result, Spec-Verification allows more drafted tokens to be accepted even if they are slightly different from the AR top-1 result, leading to a higher inference speedup." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 101, + 862, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Principle II (Latency Principle): The drafter should be fast at generating drafted tokens to minimize the latency overhead of each iteration.", + "bbox": [ + 149, + 388, + 450, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Designing a fast drafter solely based on Principle II is not difficult, as done in most previous work. The real challenge lies in designing a low-latency drafter without compromising its capability (Principle I), since it is difficult to achieve both low latency and high capability simultaneously.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 457, + 489, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.2 Model Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 562, + 329, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose Spec-Drafter, which adheres to both principles for accurate and fast drafting. To ensure the drafter is sufficiently capable of accurate drafting (Principle I), Spec-Drafter employs an independent encoder-decoder model architecture, which generates drafted tokens conditioned on the leftward context and source tokens in a mask-predict manner (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019), as illustrated in Figure 2(b). This independent model design facilitates Spec-Drafter to predict each drafted token using distinct attention queries, in contrast to Blockwise Decoding employing a shared attention query for predicting all drafted tokens (as illustrated in Figure 2). In this way, Spec-Drafter could better align with the AR model's behavior, thereby increasing the chances of its drafted tokens being accepted during verification, as shown in Figure 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 489, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make Spec-Drafter fast (Principle II) without compromising its capability, we design its decoder to be lightweight by reducing the number of decoder layers and reallocating the freed-up budget to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "its encoder (by increasing its depth), which is motivated by the fact that the encoder is forwarded only once, while the decoder is frequently forwarded for iterative decoding. This encoder-favored modeling has been demonstrated by previous work to improve latency with little generation quality degradation (Kasai et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Ge et al., 2022a). We find it also highly effective for the drafter in the draft-then-verify decoding paradigm.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 388, + 884, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1.3 Training and Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 541, + 752, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, given the source sentence $\\pmb{x}$ and the randomly sampled prefix $\\pmb{y}_{\\leq p}$ ( $0 \\leq p < m$ ) of the target sentence, Spec-Drafter appends $k$ special \"[MASK]\" tokens to $\\pmb{y}_{\\leq p}$ , and is trained to predict these masked tokens in parallel:", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 560, + 882, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}} = \\sum_ {i = p + 1} ^ {p + k} \\log P \\left(y _ {i} \\mid \\boldsymbol {y} _ {\\leq p} ^ {k}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}\\right) \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 657, + 882, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\boldsymbol {y} _ {\\leq p} ^ {k} = \\left(y _ {1}, \\dots , y _ {p}, \\underbrace {[ \\mathrm {M A S K} ] , \\cdots , [ \\mathrm {M A S K} ]} _ {\\times k}\\right) \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 702, + 884, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we leverage the glancing strategy following Qian et al. (2021), which exploits curriculum learning during training to get better generation performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 739, + 884, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "During inference, Spec-Drafter appends $k$ \" [MASK] \" tokens to the previously decoded tokens $\\hat{\\pmb{y}}_{\\leq j}$ and simultaneously predict these masked tokens as a drafted block:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 804, + 882, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} = \\arg \\max _ {y} \\log P (y \\mid \\hat {\\boldsymbol {y}} _ {\\leq j} ^ {k}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}) \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 872, + 882, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $i = 1,\\ldots ,k$", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 903, + 658, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "Source Sentence Machen sich Hunderte Millionen von Autofahrern sorgen über ihre Privatsphäre.", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 80, + 675, + 93 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3912", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Spec-Verification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 295, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As introduced in Section 2, the vanilla verification strategy of preliminary studies only accepts the drafted tokens that match the top-1 result of the AR model, which guarantees that the decoding results are identical to AR greedy decoding. However, the top-1 results are not necessarily better than the drafted tokens, especially when the paradigm is equipped with a high-quality drafter. Therefore, the strict verification criterion (i.e., top-1 matching) will result in many good drafted tokens being discarded just because they are different from the top-1 result of the AR model, which limits the speedup of the paradigm.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 105, + 487, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make better use of the drafting results, we propose an advanced verification strategy named Spec-Verification, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Instead of the rigid matching requirement shown in Eq (2), Spec-Verification relaxes the criterion to trust the drafting results more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in $top - \\beta$ candidates with a tolerable (log-likelihood) score gap $\\tau$ (away from the top-1 result). Formally, it will accept the $i$ -th drafted token $\\widetilde{y}_{j + i}$ if all previous $i - 1$ tokens are accepted, and Eq (8) and (9) are both true:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 313, + 489, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\log P \\left(\\tilde {y} _ {j + i} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) \\geq \\log P \\left(\\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(\\beta)} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right), \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 508, + 487, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\log P \\left(\\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(1)} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) - \\log P \\left(\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) \\leq \\tau , \\tag {9}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 545, + 487, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\triangle = \\hat {y} _ {\\leq j}, \\tilde {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + i - 1}, x, \\tag {10}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 577, + 485, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\log P(\\hat{y}_{j + i}^{(\\beta)}|\\triangle ;\\pmb{\\theta}_{\\mathrm{AR}})$ is the top- $\\beta$ ranked result's log-likelihood score by the AR model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 489, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 260, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Experimental Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 334, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets and Evaluation We mainly evaluate our approach on two standard machine translation benchmarks: WMT14 EN↔DE (4.5M pairs) and WMT16 EN↔RO (610K pairs). Following prior work (Ott et al., 2018), for WMT14 EN↔DE translation, we adopt newstest-13 as our validation set for finding the best hyperparameters, and test on newstest-14. For WMT16 EN↔RO translation, we use the dataset released by Lee et al. (2018), where newsdev2016 and newstest2016 are taken as validation and test sets. We use 32K Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) (Sennrich et al., 2016) subwords8", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 692, + 489, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8We use the same BPE tokenization and vocabulary as Ghazvininejad et al. (2019).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "as the joint source-target dictionary. We evaluate performance with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) for both language pairs9.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For inference efficiency, we report decoding speedup over beam search. Specifically, we test the inference speed by running the model with one sentence at a time (batch=1). We perform model inference with fairseq implementation using Pytorch 1.10.1 with 1 Nvidia Tesla P100-PCIe of 16GB GPU memory under CUDA 11.1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 133, + 882, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model Configuration The primary target model we accelerate in our experiments is the Transformer-base model with a 6-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder of 512/2048 embedding/FFN dimension, which can achieve state-of-the-art results on the benchmarks under comparable model size conditions. For the Spec-Drafter, we adopt a similar architecture to the AR model except with 12 encoder layers and 2 decoder layers to make sure it adheres to both the Capability and Latency principles. We apply sequence-level knowledge distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016) by the AR teacher to the Spec-Drafter to align its behavior with the AR model as much as possible. We include model training details in Appendix A. For the Spec-Verification, we find the hyperparameters $\\beta$ and $\\tau$ leading to the best generation quality on the validation set. Besides, we re-implement Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours to facilitate fair comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 256, + 882, + 577 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 590, + 613, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present the performance and the acceleration effect of SpecDec to Transformer in Table 1. As reported in the previous work (Stern et al., 2018), Blockwise Decoding $(k = 10)$ can only achieve $1.4 \\times 2 \\times$ speedup without affecting the generation results over the Transformer-base model. Further increasing the parallel capability of Blockwise Decoding (e.g., $k = 25$ ) will not introduce more speedup as its limited drafting accuracy prevents more drafted tokens from being accepted. In contrast, our SpecDec shows consistent performance improvement with increased parallel capabilities $(k = 10 \\rightarrow k = 25)$ , resulting in around", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 612, + 882, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9We also report sacreBLEU (Post, 2018) and COMET (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 831, + 880, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 856, + 800, + 869 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "In the original paper of Blockwise Decoding, there is also a variation that allows the AR model to be fine-tuned for better drafting tokens. We don't discuss this variation because it severely affects the generation quality.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 869, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3913", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f50ffd4dfca617bf43432a5b0efec6e36b9a65902dfcfb9b78c0982c2c60e602.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
SpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEU
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×28.891.0×32.531.0×34.961.0×34.86
Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.731.1×32.181.1×34.831.1×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.9×28.732.0×32.181.4×34.831.4×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.6×28.731.7×32.181.2×34.831.2×34.65
SpecDec (k = 10)4.2×28.904.6×32.613.9×35.294.1×34.88
SpecDec (k = 25)5.1×28.935.5×32.554.6×35.454.8×35.03
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×29.131.0×32.451.0×34.931.0×34.80
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.991.1×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.6×28.991.7×32.081.2×34.791.2×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.4×28.991.5×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
SpecDec (k = 10)2.7×29.083.0×32.402.3×35.122.4×34.85
SpecDec (k = 25)3.0×29.133.3×32.482.5×35.072.6×34.91
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 80, + 845, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1846e8f8c36968be66c59aa39d023665b87c89cb12eeb325164612f628c4df9e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: The performance of Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) to speed up the Transformer-base on the WMT benchmarks. We re-implement and evaluate Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsTok.BLEUtdSpeed
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0028.89-1.0×
SpecDec
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ head-based drafter2.3228.020.811.7×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I)7.0528.562.294.4×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II)8.2128.9510.874.0×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter8.2328.935.215.1×
", + "bbox": [ + 267, + 354, + 729, + 460 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$4.6 \\times \\sim 5.5 \\times$ speedup across the translation benchmarks; moreover, it even achieves an improvement in generation quality (by the BLEU metric) compared with AR greedy decoding.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 567, + 487, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar results are also observed when accelerating the Transformer with a 12-layer encoder and 2-layer decoder - SpecDec can still achieve around $2.5 \\times \\sim 3.3 \\times$ speedup while Blockwise Decoding's acceleration effect becomes nearly negligible over the fast AR baseline.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 632, + 487, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 740, + 228, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we conduct a comprehensive and thorough analysis, to demonstrate that the significant improvement of the SpecDec arises from both the Spec-Drafter (Section 4.3.1) and Spec-Verification (Section 4.3.2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 760, + 487, + 840 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.1 Drafting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 851, + 243, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to Table 2, the Spec-Drafter significantly outperforms the head-based drafter (as used in Blockwise Decoding) in terms of both end-to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 870, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6f1f122358d2bbf1331cafd78771938813f6f490f881fc48723c40fbc56cbd97.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Ablation studies of the drafter in the SpecDec on WMT14 EN→DE. Tok. denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted in each iteration. $t_d$ denotes the average time cost of drafting per iteration. The head-based drafter is the one used by Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018). The Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I) reduces the model/FFN dimension to 256/1024, while the Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II) does not use a deep encoder and shallow decoder but instead utilizes a more balanced architecture with equal depth of encoder and decoder layers." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelskTok.BLEUSpeed
AR-base (b = 5)-1.0026.721.00×
SpecDec106.0526.803.99×
156.9327.124.54×
207.4127.054.72×
257.8926.975.04×
307.6726.894.82×
", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 564, + 863, + 671 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: The mean accepted tokens (Tok.), the generation quality (BLEU), and the efficiency (Speed) when decoding with a various number of block size $k$ on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 681, + 882, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "end generation quality and efficiency. To further investigate the Spec-Drafter, we conduct an ablation study on the principles it follows. Ablating the Capability Principle by reducing its size results in a drastic drop in end-to-end acceleration performance, as more iterations are needed to complete the decoding process, indicated by a lower Tok. When we ablate the Latency Principle by using a balanced $(6 + 6)$ encoder-decoder architecture for", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3914", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9ede93469848249d0f005d88c83717e1bf7ed48fb319bd851d2179a2f1b21f93.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsτTop-3 (β = 3)Top-5 (β = 5)
Vanilla-6.41/26.62
SpecDec17.89/26.97 (5.0×)7.92/26.88
28.75/26.848.83/26.79
39.51/26.719.64/26.68
410.11/26.6010.63/26.59
510.46/26.5811.01/26.58 (6.8×)
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 485, + 185 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Results of SpecDec ( $k = 25$ ) on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE with different hyperparameters. Each cell lists the mean accepted tokens and BLEU score. Among the runs in the table, the highest BLEU score of 26.97 is achieved when $\\beta = 3$ and $\\tau = 1.0$ , with a $5 \\times$ speedup. On the other hand, when $\\beta = 5$ and $\\tau = 5$ , the highest Tok. (i.e., 11.01) is reached, resulting in almost $7 \\times$ speedup, though the BLEU score slightly decreases to 26.58.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 195, + 489, + 325 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the drafter, it also experiences a substantial decline in end-to-end acceleration performance due to increased latency in each iteration (reflected by a higher $t_d$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 487, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Moreover, we analyze the block size $k$ 's effect on the end-to-end acceleration performance of the paradigm in Table 3. In contrast to the blockwise decoding achieving its best acceleration performance at $k = 10$ as shown in Table 1, SpecDec achieves its best performance at $k = 25$ with 7.89 mean accepted tokens each iteration. Further increasing $k$ has an adverse effect, because it will become very hard for the model to learn to draft too many tokens simultaneously given the model capacity, resulting in a drop of Tok.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 416, + 487, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3.2 Verification", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 265, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We study the effect of Spec-Verification on the development set (i.e., newstest-2013) of WMT14 EN $\\rightarrow$ DE in Table 4. Moderately increasing $\\tau$ and $\\beta$ in the Spec-Verification not only leads to an increase of mean accepted tokens (Tok.) and speed since AR verification becomes less strict but also improves the generation quality over greedy decoding. However, the generation quality may decrease if over-relaxed: the BLEU score will degrade from the peak of 26.97 to 26.58 when decoding with top-5 selection (i.e., $\\beta = 5$ ) and $\\tau = 5.0$ . Based on the results in the development set, we select $\\beta = 3$ , $\\tau = 1.0$ as our Spec-Verification hyperparameters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 626, + 489, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Practical Value", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 864, + 280, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition to the remarkable speedup results, we demonstrate SpecDec's additional advantages that", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/48001e4a4131216eb873a64a087a5dfc615baf21b043330744b0cf996e3c48f6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: The latency-throughput curve with various batch sizes on WMT14 EN→DE." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 80, + 870, + 202 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "enhance its practical value in the following three aspects:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 265, + 880, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Better latency-throughput trade-off SpecDec achieves inference acceleration by increasing the GPU computing parallelism. Although increasing the batch size can also increase the computing parallelism to improve throughput, it results in increased latency, which is not desirable in real-world application scenarios. Therefore, a smaller batch size is often employed during inference, but this in turn results in the underutilization of GPU computing resources, leading to the dilemma of low throughput for small batches and high latency for large batches, as illustrated by Figure 5. SpecDec effectively addresses this dilemma. Even by maintaining a small batch size, SpecDec can fully utilize the computing performance of the GPU, significantly improving both efficiency and throughput.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 306, + 882, + 564 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Easily adaptable for existing models In many practical applications, generative models are often pretrained with massive data, which exhibits very high performance. Developing a faster model from scratch to replace the pretrained model is highly challenging and typically requires substantial computational costs to reiterate the pretraining process. Otherwise, the quality of the new models is very likely to be compromised despite the increased speed, as Table 5 shows. However, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate existing pretrained models. Taking the BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) model for the abstractive summarization task as an example, we can easily achieve $5.1 \\times$ speedup without compromising the generation quality only by initializing the Spec-Drafter with the BART-base encoder and training it with the BART-base distilled summarization training set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 571, + 882, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retaining the behavior of the original model As introduced in Section 1, one significant advantage of SpecDec is that it does not develop a new", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3915", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d9f6918f4779dfe30d8088788f786fc498a22083567ee55e7254c6a1e41f0c03.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsRouge-1Rouge-2Rouge-LSpeed
ARBART-base (b = 5)43.0820.4140.151.0×
BART-base (b = 1)43.0020.2839.961.1×
NARGLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)37.76 ↓5.2414.08 ↓6.2033.69 ↓6.2714.5×
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)38.95 ↓4.0516.11 ↓4.1735.43 ↓4.5314.1×
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)37.59 ↓5.4115.17 ↓5.1134.22 ↓5.541.8×
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)39.12 ↓3.8816.24 ↓4.0435.74 ↓4.223.1×
SpecDecSpecDec (k = 25)43.11 ↑0.1120.43 ↑0.1540.19 ↑0.235.1×
", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 80, + 831, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a88886c15030e8fd829b35d5c32da154aff16e7c839acce7c4b4d8042ceb956c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Results of different methods for Abstractive Summarization on CNN-DM (Hermann et al., 2015). The results on par with BART-base performance are highlighted in orange, while blue denotes performance degradation. Compared to prior NAR methods, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate the BART model only by downstream task fine-tuning." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsBLEU
Transformer-base (greedy)100.00
GLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)59.10
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)63.79
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)60.15
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)65.42
Deep-Shallow (Kasai et al., 2020)64.66
SpecDec (k=25)86.52
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 303, + 455, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6: Relative BLEU score computed between the generation of the existing Transformer (i.e., the target model) and other models/approaches. SpecDec shows much better alignment with the target model's behavior than others.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 438, + 489, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "faster model to replace the existing model. Instead, it accelerates the existing model with minimal changes to its behavior. As shown in Table 6, the consistency (BLEU) of SpecDec's generated results with the original model exceeds $85\\%$ , while that of a newly built fast NAR model is only around $55\\%$ . The characteristic of maintaining the behavior of the original model makes SpecDec even more valuable in practical applications because transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to one with substantially different behavior is risky, requiring extensive recalibration and various offline evaluations and online feedback in practice.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 538, + 489, + 746 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 762, + 268, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speculative Decoding We have demonstrated since early 2022 (see our arXiv preprints in 2022) that our proposed methodology, which formally introduces an independent model as a drafter combined with an advanced verification strategy to fully exploit speculative execution, is promising and has potential to evolve into a de facto standard in the future for efficient and lossless de", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "coding. Since this work was proposed, we are pleased to see an increasing number of following studies (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Spector and Re, 2023; Zhang et al., 2023) acknowledge, explore and adopt this methodology to accelerate Transformer inference. Among them, Leviathan et al. (2023) use the same name as ours (i.e., Speculative Decoding), employing a small AR model as a drafter $^{12}$ as well as advanced sampling algorithm. Chen et al. (2023) is similar to Leviathan et al. (2023) but it was the first to validate this methodology to accelerate a large language model (i.e., 70B Chinchilla) with a 4B drafter model, thus receiving the most attention. SpecInfer (Miao et al., 2023) proposed to utilize various boost-tuned small language models for joint drafting, to improve the speculation accuracy of the LLM's outputs. Besides, it introduces an advanced token tree verification strategy to verify all candidate token sequences in parallel. Distill-Spec (Zhou et al., 2023) further investigated the efficacy of knowledge distillation in enhancing the alignment between the target model and the drafter in speculative decoding. In addition to employing additional models as drafters, there has also been some research that proposes various strategies to efficiently generate drafts from the LLM itself (Santilli et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). All the following research strongly backs up the value of this original work.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 305, + 884, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Early Draft-then-verify attempts This work is a generalized version of our previously proposed (Input-guided) Aggressive Decoding13 (Sun et al.,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 797, + 882, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "12We provide a detailed comparison between Leviathan et al. (2023) and our work in Appendix G.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "13As our technical report (Ge et al., 2022b) in May 2022 discusses, the Input-guided Aggressive Decoding is indeed a special case of Speculative Decoding.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3916", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2021) in Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), which assumes that the input is exactly the sentence to be generated in the future and then verifies the whole sentence in parallel. Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) inserted $k - 1$ feedforward heads on top of the Transformer decoder to generate $k$ positions in parallel and used the original head to verify these outputs. However, both the above studies did not fully investigate the potential of this paradigm and thus failed to uncover its great value for efficient seq2seq generation: Sun et al. (2021) only works for tasks whose inputs and outputs are highly similar (e.g., GEC). Stern et al. (2018) overlooked the importance of drafting accuracy; as a result, their underinvested prediction heads severely limit the acceleration results. In contrast, we conduct thorough investigations and fully exploit speculative execution, refreshing the impression of its limited acceleration potential and revealing its real value in practice.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Non-autoregressive Decoding There is also another line of work named Non-Autoregressive Decoding (NAR) (Gu et al., 2018), which decodes multiple tokens in parallel compared with conventional AR, thus showing remarkable superiority in inference efficiency. Recently, various attempts have been made to improve the performance of NAR models, including training with alignment-based objectives (Libovický and Helcl, 2018; Ghazvininejad et al., 2020; Sahara et al., 2020; Gu and Kong, 2021; Shao and Feng, 2022), modeling dependencies between target tokens (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2021; Bao et al., 2021) and designing various model architectures (Zheng et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022). As discussed in Section 4.4, replacing a powerful pretrained model with NAR models in practice is challenging due to the substantial computational costs required to reiterate the pretraining process. Additionally, transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to a new NAR model with significantly different behavior poses risks in practical applications. In contrast, our proposed SpecDec can be conveniently adapted to speed up existing AR models including high-performance pretrained models like BART with little effort. Moreover, SpecDec minimally alters the behavior of existing models, showcasing its ability to preserve reliable generation performance in real-world practical applications.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 437, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 84, + 638, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), the first work to explicitly embrace the idea of speculative execution for seq2seq generation acceleration with a formal study and extensive discussion of both drafting and verification phases. Contrary to the common belief that an increase in model complexity tends to hamper inference speed, SpecDec's introduction of an appropriately invested auxiliary drafter model substantially speeds up Transformer inference, owing to higher computational parallelism introduced by speculative execution to better utilize computing resources.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 111, + 882, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The remarkable acceleration performance, combined with the advantages demonstrated in our experiments, clearly illustrates that SpecDec is a practical acceleration method for model deployment in real-world applications. We hope that our preliminary study could draw more attention to this promising decoding paradigm that may potentially evolve into a de facto standard for efficient Transformer decoding in the near future.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 305, + 882, + 448 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 464, + 613, + 479 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared with conventional autoregressive decoding, SpecDec introduces an extra Spec-Drafter module for ensuring its drafting accuracy, which brings additional memory cost at test time. Therefore, SpecDec is particularly suitable for inference scenarios where GPU memory is abundant but there is an urgent need to improve latency – it provides a solution to trading the surplus GPU memory for speed improvements. As thoroughly discussed in Appendix B, such scenarios are very common in practice. Most importantly, memory is no longer the bottleneck for practical model deployment. With the emergence and maturity of various data/tensor/pipeline parallelism techniques, the addition of more GPUs can easily address memory issues, which is also why models continue to grow larger. In contrast, latency remains an inescapable bottleneck in model deployment that cannot be resolved merely by increasing the number of machines. Therefore, we believe the increased memory consumption may not severely affect its practical value.", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 491, + 882, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 512, + 860, + 680, + 875 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank Fan Yang, Lingxiao Ma, and Lidong Zhou in Microsoft Research for their constructive", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3917", + "bbox": [ + 482, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "comments on this work. This paper is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China 2020AAA0106700 and NSFC project U19A2065.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 179, + 213, + 193 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yu Bao, Shujian Huang, Tong Xiao, Dongqi Wang, Xinyu Dai, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Non-autoregressive translation by learning target categorical codes. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5749-5759. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. 2023. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. CoRR, abs/2302.01318.", + "Mengyun Chen, Tao Ge, Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Improving the efficiency of grammatical error correction with erroneous span detection and correction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7162-7169.", + "Tao Ge, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022a. Edgeformer: A parameter-efficient transformer for ondevice seq2seq generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 10786-10798. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Tao Ge, Heming Xia, Xin Sun, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Lossless acceleration for seq2seq generation with aggressive decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10350.", + "Xinwei Geng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2021. Learning to rewrite for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3297-3308. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marjan Ghazvininejad, Vladimir Karpukhin, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Aligned cross entropy for non-autoregressive machine translation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3515-3523. PMLR." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 203, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Marjan Ghazvininejad, Omer Levy, Yinhan Liu, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Mask-predict: Parallel decoding of conditional masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 6111-6120. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O.K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Jiatao Gu and Xiang Kong. 2021. Fully non-autoregressive neural machine translation: Tricks of the trade. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 120-133. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 1693-1701.", + "Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for non-autoregressive machine translation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9410-9428. PMLR.", + "Jungo Kasai, James Cross, Marjan Ghazvininejad, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with disentangled context transformer. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5144-5155. PMLR.", + "Jungo Kasai, Nikolaos Pappas, Hao Peng, James Cross, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Deep encoder, shallow decoder: Reevaluating non-autoregressive machine translation. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net.", + "Sehoon Kim, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer. 2023. Speculative decoding with big little decoder. CoRR, abs/2302.07863.", + "Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07947." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3918", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jason Lee, Elman Mansimov, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Deterministic non-autoregressive neural sequence modeling by iterative refinement. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1173-1182. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 19274-19286. PMLR.", + "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871-7880. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jindrich Libovický and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 3016-3021. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Eric Malmi, Sebastian Krause, Sascha Rothe, Daniil Mirylenka, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2019. Encode, tag, realize: High-precision text editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01187.", + "Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Zhuoming Chen, Daiyaan Arfeen, Reyna Abhyankar, and Zhihao Jia. 2023. Specinfer: Accelerating generative LLM serving with speculative inference and token tree verification. CoRR, abs/2305.09781.", + "Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Vitaliy Atrasevych, Artem Chernodub, and Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi. 2020. Gector-grammatical error correction: tag, not rewrite. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12592.", + "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 1-9. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 311-318. ACL.", + "Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 186-191. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2021. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1993-2003. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C. Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2685-2702. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with latent alignments. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1098-1108. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Andrea Santilli, Silvio Severino, Emilian Postolache, Valentino Maiorca, Michele Mancusi, Riccardo Marin, and Emanuele Rodola. 2023. Accelerating transformer inference for translation via parallel decoding. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023, pages 12336-12355. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Robin M. Schmidt, Telmo Pires, Stephan Peitz, and Jonas Loof. 2022. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation: A call for clarity. CoRR, abs/2205.10577.", + "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. The Association for Computer Linguistics.", + "Chenze Shao and Yang Feng. 2022. Non-monotonic latent alignments for ctc-based non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2210.03953." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3919", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Raphael Shu, Jason Lee, Hideki Nakayama, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Latent-variable non-autoregressive neural machine translation with deterministic inference using a delta posterior. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8846-8853. AAAI Press.", + "Benjamin Spector and Chris Re. 2023. Accelerating LLM inference with staged speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2308.04623.", + "Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2018. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, pages 10107-10116.", + "Xin Sun, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Houfeng Wang. 2021. Instantaneous grammatical error correction with shallow aggressive decoding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5937-5947. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008.", + "Carole-Jean Wu, Ramya Raghavendra, Udit Gupta, Bilge Acun, Newsha Ardalani, Kiwan Maeng, Gloria Chang, Fiona Aga Behram, Jinshi Huang, Charles Bai, Michael Gschwind, Anurag Gupta, Myle Ott, Anastasia Melnikov, Salvatore Candido, David Brooks, Geeta Chauhanan, Benjamin Lee, Hsien-Hsin S. Lee, Bugra Akyildiz, Maximilian Balandat, Joe Spisak, Ravi Jain, Mike Rabbat, and Kim M. Hazelwood. 2022. Sustainable AI: environmental implications, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 2022, MLSys 2022, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 29 - September 1, 2022. mlsys.org.", + "Nan Yang, Tao Ge, Liang Wang, Binxing Jiao, Daxin Jiang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2023. Inference with reference: Lossless acceleration of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04487." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2023. Draft & verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2309.08168.", + "Zaixiang Zheng, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Jia-jun Chen, Jingjing Xu, and Lei Li. 2021. Duplex sequence-to-sequence learning for reversible machine translation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 21070-21084.", + "Yongchao Zhou, Kaifeng Lyu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Afshin Rostamizadeh, Sanjiv Kumar, Jean-François Kagy, and Rishabh Agarwal. 2023. Distillspec: Improving speculative decoding via knowledge distillation." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 329 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3920", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/807231d03d66fb7b9908847907dc12086ad68572547ff1209b41d24817fb513e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
HyperparameterValue
devices8 Nvidia V100 GPU
label smoothing0.1
# max tokens4096
update frequency4
dropout rate[0.1, 0.2, 0.3]
max source positions1000
max target positions1000
Adam lr5 × 10-4
Adam β10.9
Adam β20.999
Adam ε1 × 10-6
lr-schedulerinverse square
warm-up lr1 × 10-7
weight decay0.01
clip norm5.0
# warmup updates10000
max updates300K
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 80, + 448, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Hyper-parameters and settings of Spec-Drafter.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 485, + 338 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 365, + 203, + 382 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 391, + 305, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hyper-parameters of training our proposed SpecDrafter are listed in Table 7. Following Vaswani et al. (2017) and Ott et al. (2018), we also average model parameters from the last 10 checkpoints.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 418, + 487, + 482 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Memory Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 495, + 304, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.1 Additional Memory Cost by SpecDec", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 521, + 453, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The peak memory footnote of SpecDec during inference mainly comes from three parts:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 544, + 487, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "Static AR model's weights", + "Static Spec-Drafter's weights", + "- Intermediate variables/results" + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 583, + 371, + 630 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared with AR, the additional memory cost of SpecDec comes from the last two parts. While the static Spec-Drafter's weights account for the majority of the additional memory cost, the additional cost for storing intermediate variables is negligible because the Spec-Drafter and AR model decode alternatively during inference. Compared with AR, SpecDec's additional intermediate variables/results include:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 638, + 487, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- The Spec-Drafter's last encoder layer's representation that will not be freed until decoding finishes, which is equal to $B \\cdot S \\cdot d$ where $B$ is the batch size, $S$ is the sequence length and $d$ is the dimension of the model. This part is actually negligible: for example, when $B = 32$ , $S = 128$ , $d = 512$ , this part's memory cost is only 8MB (fp32) / 4MB (fp16).", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- The largest intermediate variables/results during inference:", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 84, + 882, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- For a short sequence (e.g., sentence-level inputs/outputs in MT tasks), the largest intermediate variable is the output tensor after the Spec-Drafter's/AR model's vocabulary projection layer $-B \\cdot |V| \\cdot k$ where $B$ is the batch size, $|V|$ is the vocabulary size and $k$ is the block size. Compared with the memory cost for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights, this part is usually smaller. Also $B \\cdot k$ tokens can be easily divided into small batches (e.g., -softmax-batch in fairseq) for vocabulary projection to avoid massive memory cost in case $B \\cdot |V| \\cdot k$ is large.", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 118, + 882, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- For a long sequence (e.g., paragraph-level inputs/outputs in summarization tasks), the largest intermediate variable becomes the tensor for storing self-attention computation whose size increases quadratically with $S$ ( $S$ is the sequence length). This variable accounts for the largest memory cost for storing intermediate results in both AR and SpecDec. Therefore, in this case, this part does not introduce additional memory cost compared with AR.", + "bbox": [ + 564, + 346, + 882, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 and Table 9 show the comparisons of peak GPU memory footprint $^{14}$ (MB) between SpecDec and AR (during inference) on the above two scenarios (i.e., MT and summarization). The results are consistent with our analysis above:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 545, + 882, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The majority of the additional memory cost (i.e., $\\Delta$ Memory) is for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights and the additional memory cost is not very likely to significantly increase as the batch size or sequence length increases.", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 544, + 634, + 848, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our experiments above pre-loaded both the SpecDrafter and AR model. In fact, it is also possible to load the static weights of the AR model and SpecDrafter in a lazy loading manner in the meantime of GPU computation to save memory as they run alternatively. However, it is usually unnecessary in practice, because for a seq2seq model deployed on modern GPUs for online service, it is latency rather than memory that is the performance bottleneck. See the next section for more discussion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 739, + 882, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "14Tested with torch.cuda.max_memory_allocated()", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 904, + 862, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3921", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d6c1d29d2d8e41fc64c6f89d9a0b86967f21476a9e2eb960cb8765cb3ed51ae7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsModel WeightsBatch Size
1481632
AR (greedy)232.4243.2271.7301.4366.4494.6
SpecDec (k=25)477.8491.5519.8559.2634.1782.5
ΔMemory245.4248.3248.1247.8267.7287.9
", + "bbox": [ + 236, + 82, + 763, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/37047092cb7fa387988ebc8b8aa461c03f56df365c17443b7fcd2510a761b346.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Peak GPU memory utilization on WMT14 EN-DE translation dataset. The results are obtained with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsModel WeightsMemory Cost
AR (greedy)534.6696.9
SpecDec1089.61264.6
ΔMemory555.0567.7
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 225, + 463, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B.2 Memory Is Rarely the Bottleneck", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 376, + 423, + 393 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To understand the performance bottleneck of online deployed seq2seq models, we test the latency and memory cost of T5-large $^{15}$ (around 770M parameters) with fp16 on 1 Nvidia A40 GPU running greedy decoding in the machine translation and abstractive summarization task, and show results in Table 10 and 11.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 399, + 487, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7fb09ad8ddd85abb0c07cfbaa64df8c8b4c3a0dd27087d33eaabee11149dec72.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Peak GPU memory utilization on CNN-DM with batch size 1 with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)1.0▲1.4▲
Memory Util. (MB)14822003
Memory Util. (%)3.04.0
", + "bbox": [ + 173, + 521, + 426, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5ada3ac4dd421fdd73a78e3d9834ec9081174c8bfb33eb87326cdd624b11d9de.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on WMT14 EN-DE." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)2.7▲4.7▲
Memory Util. (MB)29997230
Memory Util. (%)6.215.0
", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 674, + 426, + 759 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For MT, T5-large's latency is over 1 second which is actually too long to be accepted because most MT engines in practice require the latency to be less than $100\\mathrm{ms}$ . However, its memory cost is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 485, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "only less than 2GB – far below A40 GPU's memory capacity (i.e., $48\\mathrm{GB}^{16}$ ).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 880, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For abstractive summarization, even if the batch size increases to 32, its memory cost is still less than $50\\%$ utilization of 1 A40 GPU but its latency is already close up to 5 seconds that is too long for an online service in practice.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 262, + 880, + 341 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sum up, we now understand latency is the bottleneck of seq2seq models for online deployment in most cases. Therefore, we do not think additional memory cost by SpecDec will undermine its practical value; instead, we think a significant lossless acceleration even at the cost of memory (i.e., time-memory trade-off) is much more meaningful than the acceleration at the cost of quality, which should be the right path that we need to pay more attention to given much memory headroom on modern GPUs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 343, + 882, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/90dfc963478ffb8e5cb2ce82d0657c763af55bf99bdab167b43728b883c58b21.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on CNN-DM." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsBLEUSacreBLEUCOMET
AR-base (b = 5)28.8928.251.90
AR-base (b = 1)28.7328.051.53
SpecDec (k = 25)28.9328.252.10
", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 529, + 880, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: SacreBLEU and COMET scores on WMT14 EN-DE.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 880, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C SacreBLEU and COMET Scores", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 671, + 830, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite tokenized BLEU scores, we also report SacreBLEU $^{17}$ (Post, 2018) and COMET $^{18}$ (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Table 12 and 13 to provide a reference for future research. SpecDec can also achieve performances on par with the AR model with the evaluation in sacreBLEU and COMET. Schmidt et al. (2022) pointed out that inconsistencies in the use of tokenized BLEU lead to deviations of up to 1.8 BLEU points. Therefore, we", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 699, + 882, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "16It can also easily scale to 96GB or more with NVIDIA NVLink connection of multiple GPUs or multi-node connection.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "17https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 891, + 806, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "18Obtained with wmt20-comet-da from version 1.1.0.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 904, + 862, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "In practice, T5-large is rarely deployed for online service because it is too large and expensive to serve.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3922", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/43cfcf0f1cb139d89f4e6f1b150e5a61efaca95ab278cdd4f4fd05324da5ecdd.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
Transformer-base (b=5)28.89(28.2†)32.53(32.1†)34.96(34.0†)34.86(34.2†)
Transformer-base (b=1)28.73(28.0†)32.18(31.7†)34.83(33.9†)34.65(33.9†)
SpecDec (k=25)28.93(28.2†)32.55(32.1†)35.45(34.5†)35.03(34.3†)
", + "bbox": [ + 213, + 80, + 783, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/36c129b507792cab66ac56710343a0e3f00fce901b29508ecd08666c8c11c975.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 13: BLEU and SacreBLEU (denoted by ${}^{ \\dagger }$ ) scores on WMT14 EN-DE and WMT16 EN-RO benchmarks." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Decoding AlgorithmBLEUSpeed
AR (greedy)32.231.0×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.1B dafter, T5-Small)32.232.8×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.8B dafter, T5-Large)32.231.6×
SpecDec (k=25) (0.5B dafter)32.314.9×
", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 193, + 717, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 14: Comparison of SpecDec and Leviathan et al. (2023) in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 287, + 882, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/202aad79e33d373284cf41dc6b3f349dd58914c5e7c15932ce229fb2327c8912.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Single sentence speedup distribution by SpecDec $(k = 25)$ compared with Transformer-base $(b = 5)$ . The results are obtained with WMT14 EN→DE." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 132, + 338, + 470, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "recommend that future research use sacreBLEU when comparing with our work.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 530, + 487, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Speedup Distribution", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 574, + 339, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6 presents SpecDec's speedup distribution of a single sentence on the WMT14 EN $\\rightarrow$ DE test set (which has 3,003 sentences in total), showing that most sentences are translated with a $3 \\times 7 \\times$ speedup compared to AR beam search, while some rare cases can even achieve over $10 \\times 11 \\times$ speedup.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 487, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Discussions of Beam Search", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 725, + 393, + 741 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For possible concerns that SpecDec may not apply beam search, we make three points here:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 751, + 487, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. As Kim and Rush (2016) mentioned, knowledge distillation largely decreases the performance gap of beam search and greedy decoding. In practice, greedy decoding can actually be comparable to beam search results after KD.", + "2. In practical online deployment, KD is almost used by default for enhancing the results for" + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "student models and greedy decoding is much more common than beam search because it is more cost-effective - it not only runs faster than beam search but also achieves decent performance with a student model trained through KD (as Point 1 addressed)", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 342, + 882, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3. Beam search is also an approximate and heuristic solution, which is not a golden rule. In fact, Spec-Verification works in a similar way as beam search – it is also an approximate and heuristic solution by considering n-best and scores, which can be considered as an approximation of beam search. As shown in Table 1, it achieves comparable performance to beam search but much faster $(4\\times \\sim 6\\times)$ .", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 439, + 882, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Carbon Emission", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 697, + 618 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SpecDec introduces extra computational overhead, which leads to an increase in GPU power consumption. However, it can substantially reduce GPU hours owing to its high efficiency. We compare GPU power consumption and GPU hours of autoregressive decoding (AR) and SpecDec for translating 3000 sentences in Table 15.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 629, + 884, + 740 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We follow a formula for Wu et al. (2022) to calculate the total energy consumption and carbon emitted: $E = P \\times t \\times \\mathrm{PUE}$ , where we set PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) at 1.1. $\\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} = 0.385g \\times \\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} / \\mathrm{Wh} \\times E$ , where $0.385\\mathrm{g}^{*}\\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} / \\mathrm{Wh}$ is the carbon intensity factor that is set based on the US national average.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "According to Table 15, while SpecDec's GPU power consumption is $28\\%$ higher, its GPU hours are $540\\%$ shorter than autoregressive decoding. As a result, SpecDec's total energy consumption", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3923", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5b4d07951d142ed3b726323e7bd8d191f6c2f9129b31be59f2e6bde3c9b5c148.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsGPU TypeGPU Avg. Power consumption (P)GPU-hours (t)Total Energy consumption (E)Carbon emitted (CO2eq)
AR (greedy)Nvidia P10086W0.27h25.54Wh9.83g
SpecDec (k=25)Nvidia P100110W0.05h6.05Wh2.33g
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 878, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/36b1534778ce222b553d7603d82850e657527a2ff2182ea75372e68f777e6cef.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 15: Carbon footprint of autoregressive decoding and SpecDec using the same P100 GPU device. We follow Wu et al. (2022) to compute the carbon emission of the two decoding strategies under the same device. The results were obtained on WMT14 EN-DE." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SOURCEAccording to the details provided , the tunnel had not yet been put into use .
DraftNach den Angaben Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in
VerifyNach den vorliegenden war-war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
RESULTSNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden .
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 212, + 878, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 16: Examples from the WMT14 English-German translation task. At each iteration, Draft and Verify are the outputs of the Spec-Drafter and the AR verification, respectively. Tokens within red blocks are the bifurcation positions. The verification pieces after the bifurcation are annotated as strikethrough. The highlighted parts are translations of previous iterations. The hyperparameters are $k = 10$ , top-3, $\\tau = 1.0$ . The output pieces after the [EOS] token is omitted in the table.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 373, + 882, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is $23.7\\%$ of autoregressive decoding, resulting in $4.2 \\times$ reduction of carbon emission.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 470, + 485, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Therefore, SpecDec not only does not increase carbon emission but actually significantly reduces it, making it a more environmentally friendly option for inference.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 502, + 487, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Comparison with Other Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 580, + 413, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G.1 Speculative Decoding with an Autoregressive Drafter", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 607, + 396, + 639 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following this work, some subsequent research (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023) has also explored using AR models (e.g., smaller language models) as independent drafters to accelerate inference. However, for seq2seq generation, the acceleration effect of AR drafting is severely limited, resulting in an end-to-end speedup at $1.6 \\times \\sim 2.8 \\times$ , which is far lower than our $4.9 \\times$ speedup.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 14 illustrates the detailed comparison of our re-implemented Leviathan et al. (2023) and ours in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation. We implemented our SpecDrafter with a 24-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder for comparison. Its embedding/FFN dimension/#heads are 1024/4096/16. As shown in Table 14, our approach uses a 0.5B Spec-Drafter to achieve an almost $5\\times$ speedup without qual", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ity degradation, while Leviathan et al. (2023)'s speedup results are lower than $3\\times$ .The reasons for our approach significantly outperforming Leviathan et al. (2023) are twofold:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Our Spec-Drafter is specially learned to draft for accelerating the target model with the speculation execution idea: its draft results are better aligned with the target model's results.", + "- Our approach adopts a fast deep-encoder-shallow-decoder architecture as well as a non-autoregressive approach to generate drafts, which is significantly more efficient than their autoregressive drafting method." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 550, + 882, + 700 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G.2 Speculative Decoding in Special Cases", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 728, + 858, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our previous paper (Sun et al., 2021) and technical reports (Ge et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2023) present extensive empirical studies of Speculative Decoding in special cases (e.g., text editing or retrieval-augmented generation) and compare it with competitive approaches (Malmi et al., 2019; Omelianchuk et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020) in those scenarios. We recommend interested readers to refer to our previous work for further insights into these specific applications.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3924", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "H Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 83, + 250, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 16, we represent an example to illustrate how SpecDec generates translations. In the first iteration, the outputs of the Spec-Drafter are non-autoregressive with multi-modality problems like \"Angaben Angaben\". The verifier accepts tokens of \"Nach den\" and replaces the inappropriate translation \"Angaben\" with \"vorliegenden\". All the drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (i.e. marked as red tokens in Table 16) are all discarded. In the second iteration, Spec-Verification finds the bifurcation at the last position, thus all tokens before this position are accepted. After 3 iterations, the decoding is finished since the [EOS] token is found.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 109, + 489, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "3925", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_model.json b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19be4d66e9361002ac07f1b0bfbeca8f185df0b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3358 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.19, + 0.083, + 0.809, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speculative Decoding: Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.13, + 0.887, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Heming Xia\\(^{1,2*}\\) Tao Ge\\(^{4\\dagger}\\) Peiyi Wang\\(^{1,3}\\) Si-Qing Chen\\(^{4}\\) Furu Wei\\(^{4}\\) Zhifang Sui\\(^{1,3}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.149, + 0.845, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)National Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.166, + 0.744, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)School of Software & Microelectronics, Peking University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.182, + 0.816, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{3}\\)School of Computer Science, Peking University \\(^{4}\\)Microsoft Research Asia" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.245, + 0.199, + 0.76, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{xiaheming,szf}@pku.edu.cn; wangpeiyi9979@gmail.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.368, + 0.216, + 0.634, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{tage, fuwei}@microsoft.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.283, + 0.462, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), for the first time ever1, to formally study exploiting the idea of speculative execution to accelerate autoregressive (AR) decoding. Speculative Decoding has two innovations: SpecDrafter – an independent model specially optimized for efficient and accurate drafting – and Spec-Verification – a reliable method for verifying the drafted tokens efficiently in the decoding paradigm. Experimental results on various seq2seq tasks including machine translation and abstractive summarization show our approach can achieve around \\(5 \\times\\) speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, refreshing the impression that the draft-then-verify paradigm introduces only \\(1.4 \\times 2 \\times\\) speedup. In addition to the remarkable speedup, we also demonstrate 3 additional advantages of SpecDec, revealing its practical value for accelerating generative models in real-world applications. Our models and codes are available at https://github.com/hemingkx/SpecDec." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.64, + 0.26, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.667, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As the de facto method for text generation, AutoRegressive (AR) decoding is widely blamed for its poor inference efficiency due to its low level of parallelism, which fails to utilize the full potential of modern parallel computing devices like GPUs. This inefficiency not only leads to high deployment" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.254, + 0.871, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.358, + 0.883, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Compared with autoregressive decoding (left) that generates token by token, the draft-then-verify paradigm (right) first drafts multiple tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens in parallel. Drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (e.g., \\(\\widetilde{y}_5\\)) will be discarded to guarantee the generation quality." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.47, + 0.883, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "costs but also limits the application of advanced AR models in real-time scenarios." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.775 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this work, we study the draft-then-verify paradigm for accelerating seq2seq generation of an existing AR model2. As shown in Figure 1, the draft-then-verify paradigm first generates a number of drafted tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens using the existing AR model in parallel to ensure the decoding result matches AR decoding. However, previous attempts in the \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm such as Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) and Aggressive Decoding (Sun et al., 2021) tend to lack in-depth investigation of this paradigm. Their modest speedup (i.e., \\(1.4 \\times \\sim 2.0 \\times\\)) or limitation to certain seq2seq tasks like Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) has caused this paradigm to be underestimated, resulting in it not receiving much attention and remaining dormant for years." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.776, + 0.885, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To fully exploit the draft-then-verify paradigm, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), drawing inspiration from speculative execution3 in com" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.833, + 0.883, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2The existing AR model in this paper refers to the targeted Transformer using AR decoding that we want to accelerate." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.858, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Speculative execution is an optimization technique used in computer architecture where a system performs some task in advance to avoid delays that would have to be incurred by doing the task after it is known that it is required (https: //wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative Execution)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.833, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.773, + 0.488, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* This work was done during the author's internship at MSR Asia. Correspondence: Tao Ge (tage@microsoft.com)" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.798, + 0.399, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Co-first authors with equal contributions" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.811, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was initially announced in March 2022 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16487) under the name Generalized Aggressive Decoding. It has been formally renamed Speculative Decoding in our submission to ICLR'23, which has been publicly available since September 2022 at https://openreview.net/pdf?id=H-VlwsYvVi. This marks the first time \"Speculative Decoding\", which explicitly studies the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference, has been proposed." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.773, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3909" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.779, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3909-3925" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "puter architecture, with two key innovations that improve drafting and verification processes respectively. For drafting, we derive two principles for designing the drafting model4: the Capability Principle and the Latency Principle. Following these two principles, we propose Spec-Drafter – a specialized independent model optimized in the draft-then-verify paradigm, which can accurately and efficiently fulfill the drafting task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.235, + 0.489, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For verification, we propose an advanced method - Spec-Verification that relaxes the vanilla verification strategy. Spec-Verification allows the decoding results of SpecDec to be slightly different from AR greedy decoding, offering an opportunity to accept more drafted tokens without sacrificing generation quality and leading to higher decoding efficiency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct extensive experiments on various seq2seq generation tasks like machine translation and abstractive summarization. Results show our approach can achieve around \\(5 \\times\\) speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, largely outperforming previous draft-then-verify work (\\(1.4 \\times \\sim 2.0 \\times\\) speedup). Moreover, we demonstrate that SpecDec has several additional advantages that enhance its practicality for accelerating generative models in real-world applications." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.535, + 0.49, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions can be summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We are the first work that explicitly exploits the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference. Our proposed two key innovations – the independent Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification strategy allow SpecDec to achieve over \\(5 \\times\\) lossless speedup over autoregressive decoding in seq2seq tasks, refreshing the impression that the \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm only has a limited \\(1.5 \\times \\sim 2 \\times\\) acceleration potential." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.734, + 0.491, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We demonstrate 3 advantages of SpecDec with extensive empirical results in addition to its remarkable acceleration performance: better latency-throughput trade-off, easy adaptability for existing models and retaining the behavior of the original model, revealing its huge practical value and bringing the long-dormant draft-then-verify paradigm back into the spotlight." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.567, + 0.491, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.084, + 0.883, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Background: draft-then-verify decoding" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.109, + 0.885, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm first drafts multiple tokens efficiently, as a speculation of AR decoding results; then, it verifies these tokens in parallel to ensure they match the AR decoding result, as illustrated in Figure 1. It is an implicit implementation of speculative execution in Transformer inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.231, + 0.885, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Draft There are different approaches to drafting tokens, including model-based (Stern et al., 2018) and input-(context-) based5 methods (Sun et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2023). Take Blockwise Decoding – the most representative work attempting the draft-then-verify paradigm – as an example (illustrated in Figure 2(a)): it introduces additional \\( k - 1 \\) feedforward network (FFN) heads on top of an existing AR model, enabling the model to predict the next \\( k \\) drafted tokens in parallel during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.401, + 0.884, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Verify The generated drafted tokens are fed into the original AR model and verified in parallel. Specifically, it finds the bifurcation position \\( c \\), the largest index that ensures all previous \\( c - 1 \\) drafted tokens and the corresponding AR decoded tokens are identical:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.508, + 0.883, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc = \\arg \\max _ {i} \\frac {\\mathbb {I} (\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \\neq \\hat {y} _ {j + i})}{i}, 1 \\leq i \\leq k \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.539, + 0.882, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {y} _ {j + i} = \\arg \\max _ {y} \\log P (y \\mid \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} _ {\\leq j}, \\widetilde {\\mathbf {y}} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + i - 1}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.566, + 0.884, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbb{I}(\\cdot)\\) is the indicator function, \\(\\pmb{x}\\) is the source sentence, \\(\\hat{\\pmb{y}}_{\\leq j}\\) is the previously generated tokens and \\(\\widetilde{y}_{j + i}\\) is the \\(i\\) -th drafted token. Drafted tokens after the position \\(c\\) are all discarded. The final decoded tokens in the current iteration are:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.656, + 0.882, + 0.671 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + c} = \\left(\\widetilde {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + c - 1}, \\hat {y} _ {j + c}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.683, + 0.882, + 0.714 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The above draft and verification steps are iterated until the termination condition is met." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.727, + 0.729, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Speculative Decoding" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.752, + 0.884, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To fully exploit speculative execution for Transformer inference, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) with two innovations - Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification that substantially improve drafting (Section 3.1) and verification (Section 3.2) respectively." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.893 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This kind of method is usually limited to special tasks like GEC and retrieval-augmented generation. In this paper, we mainly focus on the model-based methods." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.893, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6We use \\(\\widetilde{\\pmb{y}}\\) to denote drafted tokens, while we use \\(\\hat{\\pmb{y}}\\) to denote AR decoded/verified generation results." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4The drafting model is also called the drafter in this paper." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3910" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.08, + 0.278, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.232, + 0.251, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Blockwise Decoding" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.293, + 0.081, + 0.477, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.336, + 0.232, + 0.416, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Spec-Drafter" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.253, + 0.489, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: (a) Blockwise Decoding that introduces \\( k - 1 \\) FFN heads on top of the target AR model for drafting the next \\( k \\) tokens with shared attention; (b) Spec-Drafter is an independent model for drafted token prediction. It employs distinct attention queries for predicting each drafted token. Modules colored in yellow belong to the original AR model while those colored in red denote newly introduced modules." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.394, + 0.264, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Spec-Drafter" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.415, + 0.312, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.1 Design Principles" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.435, + 0.489, + 0.546 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As a crucial ingredient in the draft-then-verify paradigm, the drafting process has a drastic impact on end-to-end acceleration performance. However, there are very limited explorations of the designing principles for the drafter by previous studies - most of them arbitrarily implement a drafter, which accounts for their undesirable acceleration results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.548, + 0.487, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To understand the effect of drafting, we look into the overall latency in the draft-then-verify paradigm for one sample of the length \\( L \\) as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.151, + 0.606, + 0.488, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nT = \\underbrace {\\frac {L}{\\mathbf {T o k} .} \\times t _ {d}} _ {\\text {t o t a l d r a f t i n g l a t e n c y}} + \\underbrace {\\frac {L}{\\mathbf {T o k} .} \\times t _ {v}} _ {\\text {t o t a l v e r i f i c a t i o n l a t e n c y}} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.663, + 0.487, + 0.726 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mathbf{Tok}\\) denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted per iteration, \\(t_d\\) and \\(t_v\\) are the time costs of drafting and verification each iteration respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.728, + 0.489, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to Eq (4), Tok. is inversely proportional to the number of iterations, which is primarily influenced by drafting accuracy: A drafter that is more capable of drafting can attain greater Tok. values, consequently completing the decoding process in fewer iterations. This observation leads us to derive the first principle for designing the drafter:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.852, + 0.452, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Principle I (Capability Principle): The drafter model should be seriously in-" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7We don't discuss \\( t_v \\) in this paper because it is determined by the existing AR model and thus regarded constant." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.081, + 0.867, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.327, + 0.882, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Upper: An AR model's attention heatmap showing that different target positions should attend to different source tokens; Lower: The Spec-Drafter's attention heatmap showing its capability of modeling drafted tokens in different positions, which highly aligns with the AR counterpart." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.44, + 0.848, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "vested to guarantee its capability of accurate drafting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.485, + 0.884, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Principle I is the most crucial principle in determining the end-to-end speedup, as it directly influences the value of Tok. which affects both total drafting and verification latency. Surprisingly, little previous work adheres to this seemingly simple and straightforward principle maybe due to the concern of increasing the drafting latency. For instance, the drafter in Blockwise Decoding is not properly invested: Its drafter not only has limited parameters (FFN prediction heads), making it difficult to fit the challenging drafting task, but more importantly, it employs a shared attention mechanism that forces all drafted tokens to share a single set of attentions (only differentiating at the final prediction head), as shown in Figure 2(a). However, different target positions should attend different context tokens, as illustrated in Figure 3. Despite its computational efficiency, the shared attention mechanism in Blockwise decoding severely constrains the drafter's capability, resulting in low drafting accuracy and consequently leading to most drafted tokens being discarded." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to the drafter's accuracy, its latency also impacts the end-to-end speedup result but from another perspective - by affecting the latency of each iteration (i.e., \\( t_d \\) in Eq (4)) - from which we derive Principle II for designing the drafter:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3911" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.082, + 0.677, + 0.094 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Source Sentence Machen sich Hunderte Millionen von Autofahrern sorgen über ihre Privatsphäre." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.102, + 0.863, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.292, + 0.884, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Illustration of Spec-Verification. Compared to the vanilla verification strategy strictly requiring the drafted tokens to match the AR top-1 result, Spec-Verification slightly relaxes the criterion to trust the drafts more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in the top-\\(\\beta\\) AR candidates with a tolerable log-likelihood gap (not shown in this Figure; see Eq (9)). As a result, Spec-Verification allows more drafted tokens to be accepted even if they are slightly different from the AR top-1 result, leading to a higher inference speedup." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.15, + 0.389, + 0.452, + 0.452 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Principle II (Latency Principle): The drafter should be fast at generating drafted tokens to minimize the latency overhead of each iteration." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.458, + 0.49, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Designing a fast drafter solely based on Principle II is not difficult, as done in most previous work. The real challenge lies in designing a low-latency drafter without compromising its capability (Principle I), since it is difficult to achieve both low latency and high capability simultaneously." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.563, + 0.33, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.2 Model Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.581, + 0.49, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose Spec-Drafter, which adheres to both principles for accurate and fast drafting. To ensure the drafter is sufficiently capable of accurate drafting (Principle I), Spec-Drafter employs an independent encoder-decoder model architecture, which generates drafted tokens conditioned on the leftward context and source tokens in a mask-predict manner (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019), as illustrated in Figure 2(b). This independent model design facilitates Spec-Drafter to predict each drafted token using distinct attention queries, in contrast to Blockwise Decoding employing a shared attention query for predicting all drafted tokens (as illustrated in Figure 2). In this way, Spec-Drafter could better align with the AR model's behavior, thereby increasing the chances of its drafted tokens being accepted during verification, as shown in Figure 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.856, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make Spec-Drafter fast (Principle II) without compromising its capability, we design its decoder to be lightweight by reducing the number of decoder layers and reallocating the freed-up budget to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.389, + 0.885, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "its encoder (by increasing its depth), which is motivated by the fact that the encoder is forwarded only once, while the decoder is frequently forwarded for iterative decoding. This encoder-favored modeling has been demonstrated by previous work to improve latency with little generation quality degradation (Kasai et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Ge et al., 2022a). We find it also highly effective for the drafter in the draft-then-verify decoding paradigm." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.542, + 0.753, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1.3 Training and Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.561, + 0.884, + 0.642 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, given the source sentence \\( \\pmb{x} \\) and the randomly sampled prefix \\( \\pmb{y}_{\\leq p} \\) (\\( 0 \\leq p < m \\)) of the target sentence, Spec-Drafter appends \\( k \\) special \"[MASK]\" tokens to \\( \\pmb{y}_{\\leq p} \\), and is trained to predict these masked tokens in parallel:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.658, + 0.884, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}} = \\sum_ {i = p + 1} ^ {p + k} \\log P \\left(y _ {i} \\mid \\boldsymbol {y} _ {\\leq p} ^ {k}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}\\right) \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.553, + 0.703, + 0.885, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\boldsymbol {y} _ {\\leq p} ^ {k} = \\left(y _ {1}, \\dots , y _ {p}, \\underbrace {[ \\mathrm {M A S K} ] , \\cdots , [ \\mathrm {M A S K} ]} _ {\\times k}\\right) \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.74, + 0.885, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we leverage the glancing strategy following Qian et al. (2021), which exploits curriculum learning during training to get better generation performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.805, + 0.884, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "During inference, Spec-Drafter appends \\( k \\) \" [MASK] \" tokens to the previously decoded tokens \\( \\hat{\\pmb{y}}_{\\leq j} \\) and simultaneously predict these masked tokens as a drafted block:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.873, + 0.884, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} = \\arg \\max _ {y} \\log P (y \\mid \\hat {\\boldsymbol {y}} _ {\\leq j} ^ {k}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}) \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.904, + 0.66, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(i = 1,\\ldots ,k\\)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3912" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.296, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Spec-Verification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.106, + 0.489, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As introduced in Section 2, the vanilla verification strategy of preliminary studies only accepts the drafted tokens that match the top-1 result of the AR model, which guarantees that the decoding results are identical to AR greedy decoding. However, the top-1 results are not necessarily better than the drafted tokens, especially when the paradigm is equipped with a high-quality drafter. Therefore, the strict verification criterion (i.e., top-1 matching) will result in many good drafted tokens being discarded just because they are different from the top-1 result of the AR model, which limits the speedup of the paradigm." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.315, + 0.49, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make better use of the drafting results, we propose an advanced verification strategy named Spec-Verification, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Instead of the rigid matching requirement shown in Eq (2), Spec-Verification relaxes the criterion to trust the drafting results more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in \\( top - \\beta \\) candidates with a tolerable (log-likelihood) score gap \\( \\tau \\) (away from the top-1 result). Formally, it will accept the \\( i \\)-th drafted token \\( \\widetilde{y}_{j + i} \\) if all previous \\( i - 1 \\) tokens are accepted, and Eq (8) and (9) are both true:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.51, + 0.488, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\log P \\left(\\tilde {y} _ {j + i} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) \\geq \\log P \\left(\\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(\\beta)} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right), \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.546, + 0.488, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\log P \\left(\\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(1)} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) - \\log P \\left(\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) \\leq \\tau , \\tag {9}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.579, + 0.487, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\triangle = \\hat {y} _ {\\leq j}, \\tilde {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + i - 1}, x, \\tag {10}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.601, + 0.49, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\log P(\\hat{y}_{j + i}^{(\\beta)}|\\triangle ;\\pmb{\\theta}_{\\mathrm{AR}})\\) is the top- \\(\\beta\\) ranked result's log-likelihood score by the AR model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.646, + 0.262, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.672, + 0.336, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Experimental Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.693, + 0.49, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets and Evaluation We mainly evaluate our approach on two standard machine translation benchmarks: WMT14 EN↔DE (4.5M pairs) and WMT16 EN↔RO (610K pairs). Following prior work (Ott et al., 2018), for WMT14 EN↔DE translation, we adopt newstest-13 as our validation set for finding the best hyperparameters, and test on newstest-14. For WMT16 EN↔RO translation, we use the dataset released by Lee et al. (2018), where newsdev2016 and newstest2016 are taken as validation and test sets. We use 32K Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) (Sennrich et al., 2016) subwords8" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8We use the same BPE tokenization and vocabulary as Ghazvininejad et al. (2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.882, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "as the joint source-target dictionary. We evaluate performance with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) for both language pairs9." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.134, + 0.884, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For inference efficiency, we report decoding speedup over beam search. Specifically, we test the inference speed by running the model with one sentence at a time (batch=1). We perform model inference with fairseq implementation using Pytorch 1.10.1 with 1 Nvidia Tesla P100-PCIe of 16GB GPU memory under CUDA 11.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.257, + 0.883, + 0.579 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model Configuration The primary target model we accelerate in our experiments is the Transformer-base model with a 6-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder of 512/2048 embedding/FFN dimension, which can achieve state-of-the-art results on the benchmarks under comparable model size conditions. For the Spec-Drafter, we adopt a similar architecture to the AR model except with 12 encoder layers and 2 decoder layers to make sure it adheres to both the Capability and Latency principles. We apply sequence-level knowledge distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016) by the AR teacher to the Spec-Drafter to align its behavior with the AR model as much as possible. We include model training details in Appendix A. For the Spec-Verification, we find the hyperparameters \\(\\beta\\) and \\(\\tau\\) leading to the best generation quality on the validation set. Besides, we re-implement Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours to facilitate fair comparison." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.591, + 0.614, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.613, + 0.884, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present the performance and the acceleration effect of SpecDec to Transformer in Table 1. As reported in the previous work (Stern et al., 2018), Blockwise Decoding \\((k = 10)\\) can only achieve \\(1.4 \\times 2 \\times\\) speedup without affecting the generation results over the Transformer-base model. Further increasing the parallel capability of Blockwise Decoding (e.g., \\(k = 25\\)) will not introduce more speedup as its limited drafting accuracy prevents more drafted tokens from being accepted. In contrast, our SpecDec shows consistent performance improvement with increased parallel capabilities \\((k = 10 \\rightarrow k = 25)\\), resulting in around" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.832, + 0.882, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9We also report sacreBLEU (Post, 2018) and COMET (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.857, + 0.8, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.87, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the original paper of Blockwise Decoding, there is also a variation that allows the AR model to be fine-tuned for better drafting tokens. We don't discuss this variation because it severely affects the generation quality." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.832, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3913" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.082, + 0.847, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
SpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEU
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×28.891.0×32.531.0×34.961.0×34.86
Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.731.1×32.181.1×34.831.1×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.9×28.732.0×32.181.4×34.831.4×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.6×28.731.7×32.181.2×34.831.2×34.65
SpecDec (k = 10)4.2×28.904.6×32.613.9×35.294.1×34.88
SpecDec (k = 25)5.1×28.935.5×32.554.6×35.454.8×35.03
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×29.131.0×32.451.0×34.931.0×34.80
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.991.1×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.6×28.991.7×32.081.2×34.791.2×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.4×28.991.5×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
SpecDec (k = 10)2.7×29.083.0×32.402.3×35.122.4×34.85
SpecDec (k = 25)3.0×29.133.3×32.482.5×35.072.6×34.91
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.312, + 0.884, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: The performance of Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) to speed up the Transformer-base on the WMT benchmarks. We re-implement and evaluate Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.268, + 0.355, + 0.731, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsTok.BLEUtdSpeed
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0028.89-1.0×
SpecDec
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ head-based drafter2.3228.020.811.7×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I)7.0528.562.294.4×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II)8.2128.9510.874.0×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter8.2328.935.215.1×
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.47, + 0.884, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Ablation studies of the drafter in the SpecDec on WMT14 EN→DE. Tok. denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted in each iteration. \\( t_d \\) denotes the average time cost of drafting per iteration. The head-based drafter is the one used by Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018). The Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I) reduces the model/FFN dimension to 256/1024, while the Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II) does not use a deep encoder and shallow decoder but instead utilizes a more balanced architecture with equal depth of encoder and decoder layers." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.568, + 0.489, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(4.6 \\times \\sim 5.5 \\times\\) speedup across the translation benchmarks; moreover, it even achieves an improvement in generation quality (by the BLEU metric) compared with AR greedy decoding." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.633, + 0.489, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar results are also observed when accelerating the Transformer with a 12-layer encoder and 2-layer decoder - SpecDec can still achieve around \\(2.5 \\times \\sim 3.3 \\times\\) speedup while Blockwise Decoding's acceleration effect becomes nearly negligible over the fast AR baseline." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.741, + 0.229, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.762, + 0.489, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we conduct a comprehensive and thorough analysis, to demonstrate that the significant improvement of the SpecDec arises from both the Spec-Drafter (Section 4.3.1) and Spec-Verification (Section 4.3.2)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.852, + 0.244, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.1 Drafting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.871, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to Table 2, the Spec-Drafter significantly outperforms the head-based drafter (as used in Blockwise Decoding) in terms of both end-to" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.565, + 0.865, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelskTok.BLEUSpeed
AR-base (b = 5)-1.0026.721.00×
SpecDec106.0526.803.99×
156.9327.124.54×
207.4127.054.72×
257.8926.975.04×
307.6726.894.82×
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.682, + 0.884, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: The mean accepted tokens (Tok.), the generation quality (BLEU), and the efficiency (Speed) when decoding with a various number of block size \\( k \\) on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "end generation quality and efficiency. To further investigate the Spec-Drafter, we conduct an ablation study on the principles it follows. Ablating the Capability Principle by reducing its size results in a drastic drop in end-to-end acceleration performance, as more iterations are needed to complete the decoding process, indicated by a lower Tok. When we ablate the Latency Principle by using a balanced \\((6 + 6)\\) encoder-decoder architecture for" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3914" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.082, + 0.487, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsτTop-3 (β = 3)Top-5 (β = 5)
Vanilla-6.41/26.62
SpecDec17.89/26.97 (5.0×)7.92/26.88
28.75/26.848.83/26.79
39.51/26.719.64/26.68
410.11/26.6010.63/26.59
510.46/26.5811.01/26.58 (6.8×)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.196, + 0.49, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Results of SpecDec (\\(k = 25\\)) on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE with different hyperparameters. Each cell lists the mean accepted tokens and BLEU score. Among the runs in the table, the highest BLEU score of 26.97 is achieved when \\(\\beta = 3\\) and \\(\\tau = 1.0\\), with a \\(5 \\times\\) speedup. On the other hand, when \\(\\beta = 5\\) and \\(\\tau = 5\\), the highest Tok. (i.e., 11.01) is reached, resulting in almost \\(7 \\times\\) speedup, though the BLEU score slightly decreases to 26.58." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.352, + 0.489, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the drafter, it also experiences a substantial decline in end-to-end acceleration performance due to increased latency in each iteration (reflected by a higher \\( t_d \\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.417, + 0.489, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Moreover, we analyze the block size \\( k \\)'s effect on the end-to-end acceleration performance of the paradigm in Table 3. In contrast to the blockwise decoding achieving its best acceleration performance at \\( k = 10 \\) as shown in Table 1, SpecDec achieves its best performance at \\( k = 25 \\) with 7.89 mean accepted tokens each iteration. Further increasing \\( k \\) has an adverse effect, because it will become very hard for the model to learn to draft too many tokens simultaneously given the model capacity, resulting in a drop of Tok." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.606, + 0.267, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3.2 Verification" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.627, + 0.49, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We study the effect of Spec-Verification on the development set (i.e., newstest-2013) of WMT14 EN \\(\\rightarrow\\) DE in Table 4. Moderately increasing \\(\\tau\\) and \\(\\beta\\) in the Spec-Verification not only leads to an increase of mean accepted tokens (Tok.) and speed since AR verification becomes less strict but also improves the generation quality over greedy decoding. However, the generation quality may decrease if over-relaxed: the BLEU score will degrade from the peak of 26.97 to 26.58 when decoding with top-5 selection (i.e., \\(\\beta = 5\\)) and \\(\\tau = 5.0\\). Based on the results in the development set, we select \\(\\beta = 3\\), \\(\\tau = 1.0\\) as our Spec-Verification hyperparameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.865, + 0.281, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Practical Value" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition to the remarkable speedup results, we demonstrate SpecDec's additional advantages that" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.082, + 0.872, + 0.203 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.212, + 0.882, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: The latency-throughput curve with various batch sizes on WMT14 EN→DE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.266, + 0.882, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "enhance its practical value in the following three aspects:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.307, + 0.884, + 0.565 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Better latency-throughput trade-off SpecDec achieves inference acceleration by increasing the GPU computing parallelism. Although increasing the batch size can also increase the computing parallelism to improve throughput, it results in increased latency, which is not desirable in real-world application scenarios. Therefore, a smaller batch size is often employed during inference, but this in turn results in the underutilization of GPU computing resources, leading to the dilemma of low throughput for small batches and high latency for large batches, as illustrated by Figure 5. SpecDec effectively addresses this dilemma. Even by maintaining a small batch size, SpecDec can fully utilize the computing performance of the GPU, significantly improving both efficiency and throughput." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.573, + 0.884, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Easily adaptable for existing models In many practical applications, generative models are often pretrained with massive data, which exhibits very high performance. Developing a faster model from scratch to replace the pretrained model is highly challenging and typically requires substantial computational costs to reiterate the pretraining process. Otherwise, the quality of the new models is very likely to be compromised despite the increased speed, as Table 5 shows. However, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate existing pretrained models. Taking the BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) model for the abstractive summarization task as an example, we can easily achieve \\(5.1 \\times\\) speedup without compromising the generation quality only by initializing the Spec-Drafter with the BART-base encoder and training it with the BART-base distilled summarization training set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.872, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retaining the behavior of the original model As introduced in Section 1, one significant advantage of SpecDec is that it does not develop a new" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3915" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.082, + 0.833, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsRouge-1Rouge-2Rouge-LSpeed
ARBART-base (b = 5)43.0820.4140.151.0×
BART-base (b = 1)43.0020.2839.961.1×
NARGLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)37.76 ↓5.2414.08 ↓6.2033.69 ↓6.2714.5×
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)38.95 ↓4.0516.11 ↓4.1735.43 ↓4.5314.1×
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)37.59 ↓5.4115.17 ↓5.1134.22 ↓5.541.8×
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)39.12 ↓3.8816.24 ↓4.0435.74 ↓4.223.1×
SpecDecSpecDec (k = 25)43.11 ↑0.1120.43 ↑0.1540.19 ↑0.235.1×
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.224, + 0.885, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Results of different methods for Abstractive Summarization on CNN-DM (Hermann et al., 2015). The results on par with BART-base performance are highlighted in orange, while blue denotes performance degradation. Compared to prior NAR methods, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate the BART model only by downstream task fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.304, + 0.457, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsBLEU
Transformer-base (greedy)100.00
GLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)59.10
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)63.79
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)60.15
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)65.42
Deep-Shallow (Kasai et al., 2020)64.66
SpecDec (k=25)86.52
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.439, + 0.49, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Relative BLEU score computed between the generation of the existing Transformer (i.e., the target model) and other models/approaches. SpecDec shows much better alignment with the target model's behavior than others." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.539, + 0.49, + 0.747 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "faster model to replace the existing model. Instead, it accelerates the existing model with minimal changes to its behavior. As shown in Table 6, the consistency (BLEU) of SpecDec's generated results with the original model exceeds \\(85\\%\\), while that of a newly built fast NAR model is only around \\(55\\%\\). The characteristic of maintaining the behavior of the original model makes SpecDec even more valuable in practical applications because transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to one with substantially different behavior is risky, requiring extensive recalibration and various offline evaluations and online feedback in practice." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.763, + 0.27, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speculative Decoding We have demonstrated since early 2022 (see our arXiv preprints in 2022) that our proposed methodology, which formally introduces an independent model as a drafter combined with an advanced verification strategy to fully exploit speculative execution, is promising and has potential to evolve into a de facto standard in the future for efficient and lossless de" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.306, + 0.885, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "coding. Since this work was proposed, we are pleased to see an increasing number of following studies (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Spector and Re, 2023; Zhang et al., 2023) acknowledge, explore and adopt this methodology to accelerate Transformer inference. Among them, Leviathan et al. (2023) use the same name as ours (i.e., Speculative Decoding), employing a small AR model as a drafter\\(^{12}\\) as well as advanced sampling algorithm. Chen et al. (2023) is similar to Leviathan et al. (2023) but it was the first to validate this methodology to accelerate a large language model (i.e., 70B Chinchilla) with a 4B drafter model, thus receiving the most attention. SpecInfer (Miao et al., 2023) proposed to utilize various boost-tuned small language models for joint drafting, to improve the speculation accuracy of the LLM's outputs. Besides, it introduces an advanced token tree verification strategy to verify all candidate token sequences in parallel. Distill-Spec (Zhou et al., 2023) further investigated the efficacy of knowledge distillation in enhancing the alignment between the target model and the drafter in speculative decoding. In addition to employing additional models as drafters, there has also been some research that proposes various strategies to efficiently generate drafts from the LLM itself (Santilli et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). All the following research strongly backs up the value of this original work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.799, + 0.884, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Early Draft-then-verify attempts This work is a generalized version of our previously proposed (Input-guided) Aggressive Decoding13 (Sun et al.," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12We provide a detailed comparison between Leviathan et al. (2023) and our work in Appendix G." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.881, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "13As our technical report (Ge et al., 2022b) in May 2022 discusses, the Input-guided Aggressive Decoding is indeed a special case of Speculative Decoding." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3916" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2021) in Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), which assumes that the input is exactly the sentence to be generated in the future and then verifies the whole sentence in parallel. Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) inserted \\( k - 1 \\) feedforward heads on top of the Transformer decoder to generate \\( k \\) positions in parallel and used the original head to verify these outputs. However, both the above studies did not fully investigate the potential of this paradigm and thus failed to uncover its great value for efficient seq2seq generation: Sun et al. (2021) only works for tasks whose inputs and outputs are highly similar (e.g., GEC). Stern et al. (2018) overlooked the importance of drafting accuracy; as a result, their underinvested prediction heads severely limit the acceleration results. In contrast, we conduct thorough investigations and fully exploit speculative execution, refreshing the impression of its limited acceleration potential and revealing its real value in practice." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.438, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Non-autoregressive Decoding There is also another line of work named Non-Autoregressive Decoding (NAR) (Gu et al., 2018), which decodes multiple tokens in parallel compared with conventional AR, thus showing remarkable superiority in inference efficiency. Recently, various attempts have been made to improve the performance of NAR models, including training with alignment-based objectives (Libovický and Helcl, 2018; Ghazvininejad et al., 2020; Sahara et al., 2020; Gu and Kong, 2021; Shao and Feng, 2022), modeling dependencies between target tokens (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2021; Bao et al., 2021) and designing various model architectures (Zheng et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022). As discussed in Section 4.4, replacing a powerful pretrained model with NAR models in practice is challenging due to the substantial computational costs required to reiterate the pretraining process. Additionally, transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to a new NAR model with significantly different behavior poses risks in practical applications. In contrast, our proposed SpecDec can be conveniently adapted to speed up existing AR models including high-performance pretrained models like BART with little effort. Moreover, SpecDec minimally alters the behavior of existing models, showcasing its ability to preserve reliable generation performance in real-world practical applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.085, + 0.64, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.112, + 0.884, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), the first work to explicitly embrace the idea of speculative execution for seq2seq generation acceleration with a formal study and extensive discussion of both drafting and verification phases. Contrary to the common belief that an increase in model complexity tends to hamper inference speed, SpecDec's introduction of an appropriately invested auxiliary drafter model substantially speeds up Transformer inference, owing to higher computational parallelism introduced by speculative execution to better utilize computing resources." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.306, + 0.884, + 0.449 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The remarkable acceleration performance, combined with the advantages demonstrated in our experiments, clearly illustrates that SpecDec is a practical acceleration method for model deployment in real-world applications. We hope that our preliminary study could draw more attention to this promising decoding paradigm that may potentially evolve into a de facto standard for efficient Transformer decoding in the near future." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.465, + 0.614, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.492, + 0.884, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared with conventional autoregressive decoding, SpecDec introduces an extra Spec-Drafter module for ensuring its drafting accuracy, which brings additional memory cost at test time. Therefore, SpecDec is particularly suitable for inference scenarios where GPU memory is abundant but there is an urgent need to improve latency – it provides a solution to trading the surplus GPU memory for speed improvements. As thoroughly discussed in Appendix B, such scenarios are very common in practice. Most importantly, memory is no longer the bottleneck for practical model deployment. With the emergence and maturity of various data/tensor/pipeline parallelism techniques, the addition of more GPUs can easily address memory issues, which is also why models continue to grow larger. In contrast, latency remains an inescapable bottleneck in model deployment that cannot be resolved merely by increasing the number of machines. Therefore, we believe the increased memory consumption may not severely affect its practical value." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.861, + 0.681, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.888, + 0.881, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank Fan Yang, Lingxiao Ma, and Lidong Zhou in Microsoft Research for their constructive" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.483, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3917" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "comments on this work. This paper is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China 2020AAA0106700 and NSFC project U19A2065." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.18, + 0.214, + 0.194 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.204, + 0.49, + 0.323 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yu Bao, Shujian Huang, Tong Xiao, Dongqi Wang, Xinyu Dai, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Non-autoregressive translation by learning target categorical codes. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5749-5759. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.336, + 0.49, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. 2023. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. CoRR, abs/2302.01318." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.416, + 0.49, + 0.496 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mengyun Chen, Tao Ge, Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Improving the efficiency of grammatical error correction with erroneous span detection and correction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7162-7169." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.509, + 0.49, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Ge, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022a. Edgeformer: A parameter-efficient transformer for ondevice seq2seq generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 10786-10798. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.628, + 0.489, + 0.681 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tao Ge, Heming Xia, Xin Sun, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Lossless acceleration for seq2seq generation with aggressive decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10350." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.694, + 0.49, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xinwei Geng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2021. Learning to rewrite for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3297-3308. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.813, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marjan Ghazvininejad, Vladimir Karpukhin, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Aligned cross entropy for non-autoregressive machine translation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3515-3523. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.204, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marjan Ghazvininejad, Omer Levy, Yinhan Liu, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Mask-predict: Parallel decoding of conditional masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 6111-6120. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.216, + 0.885, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O.K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.281, + 0.885, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiatao Gu and Xiang Kong. 2021. Fully non-autoregressive neural machine translation: Tricks of the trade. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 120-133. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.385, + 0.885, + 0.49 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 1693-1701." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.502, + 0.885, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for non-autoregressive machine translation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9410-9428. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.606, + 0.885, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jungo Kasai, James Cross, Marjan Ghazvininejad, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with disentangled context transformer. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5144-5155. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.723, + 0.885, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jungo Kasai, Nikolaos Pappas, Hao Peng, James Cross, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Deep encoder, shallow decoder: Reevaluating non-autoregressive machine translation. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.814, + 0.885, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sehoon Kim, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer. 2023. Speculative decoding with big little decoder. CoRR, abs/2302.07863." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.878, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07947." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3918" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Lee, Elman Mansimov, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Deterministic non-autoregressive neural sequence modeling by iterative refinement. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1173-1182. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 19274-19286. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.303, + 0.49, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871-7880. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.445, + 0.49, + 0.549 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jindrich Libovický and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 3016-3021. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.56, + 0.488, + 0.613 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Malmi, Sebastian Krause, Sascha Rothe, Daniil Mirylenka, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2019. Encode, tag, realize: High-precision text editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01187." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.624, + 0.488, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Zhuoming Chen, Daiyaan Arfeen, Reyna Abhyankar, and Zhihao Jia. 2023. Specinfer: Accelerating generative LLM serving with speculative inference and token tree verification. CoRR, abs/2305.09781." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.713, + 0.49, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Vitaliy Atrasevych, Artem Chernodub, and Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi. 2020. Gector-grammatical error correction: tag, not rewrite. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12592." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.49, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 1-9. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 311-318. ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.124, + 0.885, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 186-191. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.216, + 0.885, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2021. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1993-2003. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.372, + 0.885, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C. Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2685-2702. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.476, + 0.885, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with latent alignments. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1098-1108. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.58, + 0.885, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrea Santilli, Silvio Severino, Emilian Postolache, Valentino Maiorca, Michele Mancusi, Riccardo Marin, and Emanuele Rodola. 2023. Accelerating transformer inference for translation via parallel decoding. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023, pages 12336-12355. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.71, + 0.885, + 0.762 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robin M. Schmidt, Telmo Pires, Stephan Peitz, and Jonas Loof. 2022. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation: A call for clarity. CoRR, abs/2205.10577." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chenze Shao and Yang Feng. 2022. Non-monotonic latent alignments for ctc-based non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2210.03953." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3919" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Raphael Shu, Jason Lee, Hideki Nakayama, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Latent-variable non-autoregressive neural machine translation with deterministic inference using a delta posterior. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8846-8853. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.255, + 0.489, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin Spector and Chris Re. 2023. Accelerating LLM inference with staged speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2308.04623." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.307, + 0.49, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2018. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, pages 10107-10116." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.41, + 0.49, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Sun, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Houfeng Wang. 2021. Instantaneous grammatical error correction with shallow aggressive decoding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5937-5947. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.553, + 0.49, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.67, + 0.49, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Carole-Jean Wu, Ramya Raghavendra, Udit Gupta, Bilge Acun, Newsha Ardalani, Kiwan Maeng, Gloria Chang, Fiona Aga Behram, Jinshi Huang, Charles Bai, Michael Gschwind, Anurag Gupta, Myle Ott, Anastasia Melnikov, Salvatore Candido, David Brooks, Geeta Chauhanan, Benjamin Lee, Hsien-Hsin S. Lee, Bugra Akyildiz, Maximilian Balandat, Joe Spisak, Ravi Jain, Mike Rabbat, and Kim M. Hazelwood. 2022. Sustainable AI: environmental implications, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 2022, MLSys 2022, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 29 - September 1, 2022. mlsys.org." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nan Yang, Tao Ge, Liang Wang, Binxing Jiao, Daxin Jiang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2023. Inference with reference: Lossless acceleration of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04487." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2023. Draft & verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2309.08168." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.149, + 0.885, + 0.254 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zaixiang Zheng, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Jia-jun Chen, Jingjing Xu, and Lei Li. 2021. Duplex sequence-to-sequence learning for reversible machine translation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 21070-21084." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongchao Zhou, Kaifeng Lyu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Afshin Rostamizadeh, Sanjiv Kumar, Jean-François Kagy, and Rishabh Agarwal. 2023. Distillspec: Improving speculative decoding via knowledge distillation." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3920" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.155, + 0.082, + 0.449, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
HyperparameterValue
devices8 Nvidia V100 GPU
label smoothing0.1
# max tokens4096
update frequency4
dropout rate[0.1, 0.2, 0.3]
max source positions1000
max target positions1000
Adam lr5 × 10-4
Adam β10.9
Adam β20.999
Adam ε1 × 10-6
lr-schedulerinverse square
warm-up lr1 × 10-7
weight decay0.01
clip norm5.0
# warmup updates10000
max updates300K
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.325, + 0.486, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Hyper-parameters and settings of Spec-Drafter." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.366, + 0.204, + 0.383 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.392, + 0.307, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.419, + 0.489, + 0.483 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyper-parameters of training our proposed SpecDrafter are listed in Table 7. Following Vaswani et al. (2017) and Ott et al. (2018), we also average model parameters from the last 10 checkpoints." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.496, + 0.305, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Memory Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.523, + 0.454, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.1 Additional Memory Cost by SpecDec" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.545, + 0.489, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The peak memory footnote of SpecDec during inference mainly comes from three parts:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.584, + 0.352, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Static AR model's weights" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.601, + 0.371, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Static Spec-Drafter's weights" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.618, + 0.373, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Intermediate variables/results" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.584, + 0.373, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.639, + 0.489, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared with AR, the additional memory cost of SpecDec comes from the last two parts. While the static Spec-Drafter's weights account for the majority of the additional memory cost, the additional cost for storing intermediate variables is negligible because the Spec-Drafter and AR model decode alternatively during inference. Compared with AR, SpecDec's additional intermediate variables/results include:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The Spec-Drafter's last encoder layer's representation that will not be freed until decoding finishes, which is equal to \\( B \\cdot S \\cdot d \\) where \\( B \\) is the batch size, \\( S \\) is the sequence length and \\( d \\) is the dimension of the model. This part is actually negligible: for example, when \\( B = 32 \\), \\( S = 128 \\), \\( d = 512 \\), this part's memory cost is only 8MB (fp32) / 4MB (fp16)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- The largest intermediate variables/results during inference:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.12, + 0.884, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- For a short sequence (e.g., sentence-level inputs/outputs in MT tasks), the largest intermediate variable is the output tensor after the Spec-Drafter's/AR model's vocabulary projection layer \\( -B \\cdot |V| \\cdot k \\) where \\( B \\) is the batch size, \\( |V| \\) is the vocabulary size and \\( k \\) is the block size. Compared with the memory cost for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights, this part is usually smaller. Also \\( B \\cdot k \\) tokens can be easily divided into small batches (e.g., -softmax-batch in fairseq) for vocabulary projection to avoid massive memory cost in case \\( B \\cdot |V| \\cdot k \\) is large." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.565, + 0.347, + 0.884, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- For a long sequence (e.g., paragraph-level inputs/outputs in summarization tasks), the largest intermediate variable becomes the tensor for storing self-attention computation whose size increases quadratically with \\( S \\) (\\( S \\) is the sequence length). This variable accounts for the largest memory cost for storing intermediate results in both AR and SpecDec. Therefore, in this case, this part does not introduce additional memory cost compared with AR." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.546, + 0.883, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 and Table 9 show the comparisons of peak GPU memory footprint\\(^{14}\\) (MB) between SpecDec and AR (during inference) on the above two scenarios (i.e., MT and summarization). The results are consistent with our analysis above:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.635, + 0.849, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The majority of the additional memory cost (i.e., \\(\\Delta\\)Memory) is for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights and the additional memory cost is not very likely to significantly increase as the batch size or sequence length increases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.74, + 0.884, + 0.9 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our experiments above pre-loaded both the SpecDrafter and AR model. In fact, it is also possible to load the static weights of the AR model and SpecDrafter in a lazy loading manner in the meantime of GPU computation to save memory as they run alternatively. However, it is usually unnecessary in practice, because for a seq2seq model deployed on modern GPUs for online service, it is latency rather than memory that is the performance bottleneck. See the next section for more discussion." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.905, + 0.863, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14Tested with torch.cuda.max_memory_allocated()" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3921" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.237, + 0.083, + 0.764, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsModel WeightsBatch Size
1481632
AR (greedy)232.4243.2271.7301.4366.4494.6
SpecDec (k=25)477.8491.5519.8559.2634.1782.5
ΔMemory245.4248.3248.1247.8267.7287.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.175, + 0.883, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Peak GPU memory utilization on WMT14 EN-DE translation dataset. The results are obtained with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.227, + 0.465, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsModel WeightsMemory Cost
AR (greedy)534.6696.9
SpecDec1089.61264.6
ΔMemory555.0567.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.308, + 0.487, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Peak GPU memory utilization on CNN-DM with batch size 1 with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.378, + 0.425, + 0.394 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B.2 Memory Is Rarely the Bottleneck" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.4, + 0.489, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To understand the performance bottleneck of online deployed seq2seq models, we test the latency and memory cost of T5-large\\(^{15}\\) (around 770M parameters) with fp16 on 1 Nvidia A40 GPU running greedy decoding in the machine translation and abstractive summarization task, and show results in Table 10 and 11." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.174, + 0.522, + 0.428, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)1.0▲1.4▲
Memory Util. (MB)14822003
Memory Util. (%)3.04.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.616, + 0.487, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on WMT14 EN-DE." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.675, + 0.428, + 0.76 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)2.7▲4.7▲
Memory Util. (MB)29997230
Memory Util. (%)6.215.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.769, + 0.487, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on CNN-DM." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.818, + 0.487, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For MT, T5-large's latency is over 1 second which is actually too long to be accepted because most MT engines in practice require the latency to be less than \\(100\\mathrm{ms}\\). However, its memory cost is" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.23, + 0.882, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "only less than 2GB – far below A40 GPU's memory capacity (i.e., \\(48\\mathrm{GB}^{16}\\))." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.263, + 0.882, + 0.342 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For abstractive summarization, even if the batch size increases to 32, its memory cost is still less than \\(50\\%\\) utilization of 1 A40 GPU but its latency is already close up to 5 seconds that is too long for an online service in practice." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.344, + 0.884, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sum up, we now understand latency is the bottleneck of seq2seq models for online deployment in most cases. Therefore, we do not think additional memory cost by SpecDec will undermine its practical value; instead, we think a significant lossless acceleration even at the cost of memory (i.e., time-memory trade-off) is much more meaningful than the acceleration at the cost of quality, which should be the right path that we need to pay more attention to given much memory headroom on modern GPUs." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.53, + 0.882, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsBLEUSacreBLEUCOMET
AR-base (b = 5)28.8928.251.90
AR-base (b = 1)28.7328.051.53
SpecDec (k = 25)28.9328.252.10
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.882, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: SacreBLEU and COMET scores on WMT14 EN-DE." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.673, + 0.831, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C SacreBLEU and COMET Scores" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.7, + 0.884, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite tokenized BLEU scores, we also report SacreBLEU\\(^{17}\\) (Post, 2018) and COMET\\(^{18}\\) (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Table 12 and 13 to provide a reference for future research. SpecDec can also achieve performances on par with the AR model with the evaluation in sacreBLEU and COMET. Schmidt et al. (2022) pointed out that inconsistencies in the use of tokenized BLEU lead to deviations of up to 1.8 BLEU points. Therefore, we" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.883, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "16It can also easily scale to 96GB or more with NVIDIA NVLink connection of multiple GPUs or multi-node connection." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.892, + 0.808, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "17https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.905, + 0.863, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "18Obtained with wmt20-comet-da from version 1.1.0." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In practice, T5-large is rarely deployed for online service because it is too large and expensive to serve." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3922" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.215, + 0.082, + 0.784, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
Transformer-base (b=5)28.89(28.2†)32.53(32.1†)34.96(34.0†)34.86(34.2†)
Transformer-base (b=1)28.73(28.0†)32.18(31.7†)34.83(33.9†)34.65(33.9†)
SpecDec (k=25)28.93(28.2†)32.55(32.1†)35.45(34.5†)35.03(34.3†)
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.167, + 0.872, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: BLEU and SacreBLEU (denoted by \\( {}^{ \\dagger } \\) ) scores on WMT14 EN-DE and WMT16 EN-RO benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.283, + 0.195, + 0.719, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Decoding AlgorithmBLEUSpeed
AR (greedy)32.231.0×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.1B dafter, T5-Small)32.232.8×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.8B dafter, T5-Large)32.231.6×
SpecDec (k=25) (0.5B dafter)32.314.9×
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.288, + 0.884, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14: Comparison of SpecDec and Leviathan et al. (2023) in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.339, + 0.471, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.507 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Single sentence speedup distribution by SpecDec \\((k = 25)\\) compared with Transformer-base \\((b = 5)\\). The results are obtained with WMT14 EN→DE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.531, + 0.489, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "recommend that future research use sacreBLEU when comparing with our work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.575, + 0.341, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Speedup Distribution" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.601, + 0.489, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6 presents SpecDec's speedup distribution of a single sentence on the WMT14 EN \\(\\rightarrow\\) DE test set (which has 3,003 sentences in total), showing that most sentences are translated with a \\(3 \\times 7 \\times\\) speedup compared to AR beam search, while some rare cases can even achieve over \\(10 \\times 11 \\times\\) speedup." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.726, + 0.394, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Discussions of Beam Search" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.752, + 0.489, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For possible concerns that SpecDec may not apply beam search, we make three points here:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. As Kim and Rush (2016) mentioned, knowledge distillation largely decreases the performance gap of beam search and greedy decoding. In practice, greedy decoding can actually be comparable to beam search results after KD." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. In practical online deployment, KD is almost used by default for enhancing the results for" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.343, + 0.883, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "student models and greedy decoding is much more common than beam search because it is more cost-effective - it not only runs faster than beam search but also achieves decent performance with a student model trained through KD (as Point 1 addressed)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.44, + 0.884, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Beam search is also an approximate and heuristic solution, which is not a golden rule. In fact, Spec-Verification works in a similar way as beam search – it is also an approximate and heuristic solution by considering n-best and scores, which can be considered as an approximation of beam search. As shown in Table 1, it achieves comparable performance to beam search but much faster \\((4\\times \\sim 6\\times)\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.603, + 0.698, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Carbon Emission" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.741 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SpecDec introduces extra computational overhead, which leads to an increase in GPU power consumption. However, it can substantially reduce GPU hours owing to its high efficiency. We compare GPU power consumption and GPU hours of autoregressive decoding (AR) and SpecDec for translating 3000 sentences in Table 15." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.742, + 0.884, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We follow a formula for Wu et al. (2022) to calculate the total energy consumption and carbon emitted: \\( E = P \\times t \\times \\mathrm{PUE} \\), where we set PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) at 1.1. \\( \\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} = 0.385g \\times \\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} / \\mathrm{Wh} \\times E \\), where \\( 0.385\\mathrm{g}^{*}\\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} / \\mathrm{Wh} \\) is the carbon intensity factor that is set based on the US national average." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "According to Table 15, while SpecDec's GPU power consumption is \\(28\\%\\) higher, its GPU hours are \\(540\\%\\) shorter than autoregressive decoding. As a result, SpecDec's total energy consumption" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3923" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.88, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsGPU TypeGPU Avg. Power consumption (P)GPU-hours (t)Total Energy consumption (E)Carbon emitted (CO2eq)
AR (greedy)Nvidia P10086W0.27h25.54Wh9.83g
SpecDec (k=25)Nvidia P100110W0.05h6.05Wh2.33g
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.156, + 0.883, + 0.199 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 15: Carbon footprint of autoregressive decoding and SpecDec using the same P100 GPU device. We follow Wu et al. (2022) to compute the carbon emission of the two decoding strategies under the same device. The results were obtained on WMT14 EN-DE." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.213, + 0.879, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SOURCEAccording to the details provided , the tunnel had not yet been put into use .
DraftNach den Angaben Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in
VerifyNach den vorliegenden war-war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
RESULTSNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden .
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.374, + 0.884, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 16: Examples from the WMT14 English-German translation task. At each iteration, Draft and Verify are the outputs of the Spec-Drafter and the AR verification, respectively. Tokens within red blocks are the bifurcation positions. The verification pieces after the bifurcation are annotated as strikethrough. The highlighted parts are translations of previous iterations. The hyperparameters are \\( k = 10 \\), top-3, \\( \\tau = 1.0 \\). The output pieces after the [EOS] token is omitted in the table." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.471, + 0.486, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is \\(23.7\\%\\) of autoregressive decoding, resulting in \\(4.2 \\times\\) reduction of carbon emission." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.504, + 0.489, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Therefore, SpecDec not only does not increase carbon emission but actually significantly reduces it, making it a more environmentally friendly option for inference." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.581, + 0.415, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Comparison with Other Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.608, + 0.398, + 0.64 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G.1 Speculative Decoding with an Autoregressive Drafter" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.489, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following this work, some subsequent research (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023) has also explored using AR models (e.g., smaller language models) as independent drafters to accelerate inference. However, for seq2seq generation, the acceleration effect of AR drafting is severely limited, resulting in an end-to-end speedup at \\(1.6 \\times \\sim 2.8 \\times\\), which is far lower than our \\(4.9 \\times\\) speedup." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14 illustrates the detailed comparison of our re-implemented Leviathan et al. (2023) and ours in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation. We implemented our SpecDrafter with a 24-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder for comparison. Its embedding/FFN dimension/#heads are 1024/4096/16. As shown in Table 14, our approach uses a 0.5B Spec-Drafter to achieve an almost \\(5\\times\\) speedup without qual" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.471, + 0.884, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ity degradation, while Leviathan et al. (2023)'s speedup results are lower than \\(3\\times\\) .The reasons for our approach significantly outperforming Leviathan et al. (2023) are twofold:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.551, + 0.883, + 0.616 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Our Spec-Drafter is specially learned to draft for accelerating the target model with the speculation execution idea: its draft results are better aligned with the target model's results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.621, + 0.884, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Our approach adopts a fast deep-encoder-shallow-decoder architecture as well as a non-autoregressive approach to generate drafts, which is significantly more efficient than their autoregressive drafting method." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.551, + 0.884, + 0.701 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.729, + 0.859, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G.2 Speculative Decoding in Special Cases" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our previous paper (Sun et al., 2021) and technical reports (Ge et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2023) present extensive empirical studies of Speculative Decoding in special cases (e.g., text editing or retrieval-augmented generation) and compare it with competitive approaches (Malmi et al., 2019; Omelianchuk et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020) in those scenarios. We recommend interested readers to refer to our previous work for further insights into these specific applications." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3924" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.084, + 0.251, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "H Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 16, we represent an example to illustrate how SpecDec generates translations. In the first iteration, the outputs of the Spec-Drafter are non-autoregressive with multi-modality problems like \"Angaben Angaben\". The verifier accepts tokens of \"Nach den\" and replaces the inappropriate translation \"Angaben\" with \"vorliegenden\". All the drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (i.e. marked as red tokens in Table 16) are all discarded. In the second iteration, Spec-Verification finds the bifurcation at the last position, thus all tokens before this position are accepted. After 3 iterations, the decoding is finished since the [EOS] token is found." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.482, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3925" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_origin.pdf b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf40925ee50e29f83e19553d0fb086b2bedbefd5 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/afabe768-91ed-4314-a1b3-7c94661ccb97_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:4ba20743aa6b711ef8fc85b5b94b0a999b10af95b07833425c59e0775c2ce480 +size 1441399 diff --git a/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/full.md b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74edec0d2865bc2177c5edc3084b734d8ea21bbc --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,464 @@ +# Speculative Decoding: Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation + +Heming Xia $^{1,2*}$ Tao Ge $^{4\dagger}$ Peiyi Wang $^{1,3}$ Si-Qing Chen $^{4}$ Furu Wei $^{4}$ Zhifang Sui $^{1,3}$ + +$^{1}$ National Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University + +$^{2}$ School of Software & Microelectronics, Peking University + +$^{3}$ School of Computer Science, Peking University $^{4}$ Microsoft Research Asia + +{xiaheming,szf}@pku.edu.cn; wangpeiyi9979@gmail.com + +{tage, fuwei}@microsoft.com + +# Abstract + +We propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), for the first time ever1, to formally study exploiting the idea of speculative execution to accelerate autoregressive (AR) decoding. Speculative Decoding has two innovations: SpecDrafter – an independent model specially optimized for efficient and accurate drafting – and Spec-Verification – a reliable method for verifying the drafted tokens efficiently in the decoding paradigm. Experimental results on various seq2seq tasks including machine translation and abstractive summarization show our approach can achieve around $5 \times$ speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, refreshing the impression that the draft-then-verify paradigm introduces only $1.4 \times 2 \times$ speedup. In addition to the remarkable speedup, we also demonstrate 3 additional advantages of SpecDec, revealing its practical value for accelerating generative models in real-world applications. Our models and codes are available at https://github.com/hemingkx/SpecDec. + +# 1 Introduction + +As the de facto method for text generation, AutoRegressive (AR) decoding is widely blamed for its poor inference efficiency due to its low level of parallelism, which fails to utilize the full potential of modern parallel computing devices like GPUs. This inefficiency not only leads to high deployment + +![](images/4a16c58bf21abc08e7050840de6c7305ccf08361cd37ec81ae748a05c02447cc.jpg) +Figure 1: Compared with autoregressive decoding (left) that generates token by token, the draft-then-verify paradigm (right) first drafts multiple tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens in parallel. Drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (e.g., $\widetilde{y}_5$ ) will be discarded to guarantee the generation quality. + +costs but also limits the application of advanced AR models in real-time scenarios. + +In this work, we study the draft-then-verify paradigm for accelerating seq2seq generation of an existing AR model2. As shown in Figure 1, the draft-then-verify paradigm first generates a number of drafted tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens using the existing AR model in parallel to ensure the decoding result matches AR decoding. However, previous attempts in the "draft-then-verify" paradigm such as Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) and Aggressive Decoding (Sun et al., 2021) tend to lack in-depth investigation of this paradigm. Their modest speedup (i.e., $1.4 \times \sim 2.0 \times$ ) or limitation to certain seq2seq tasks like Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) has caused this paradigm to be underestimated, resulting in it not receiving much attention and remaining dormant for years. + +To fully exploit the draft-then-verify paradigm, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), drawing inspiration from speculative execution3 in com + +puter architecture, with two key innovations that improve drafting and verification processes respectively. For drafting, we derive two principles for designing the drafting model4: the Capability Principle and the Latency Principle. Following these two principles, we propose Spec-Drafter – a specialized independent model optimized in the draft-then-verify paradigm, which can accurately and efficiently fulfill the drafting task. + +For verification, we propose an advanced method - Spec-Verification that relaxes the vanilla verification strategy. Spec-Verification allows the decoding results of SpecDec to be slightly different from AR greedy decoding, offering an opportunity to accept more drafted tokens without sacrificing generation quality and leading to higher decoding efficiency. + +We conduct extensive experiments on various seq2seq generation tasks like machine translation and abstractive summarization. Results show our approach can achieve around $5 \times$ speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, largely outperforming previous draft-then-verify work ( $1.4 \times \sim 2.0 \times$ speedup). Moreover, we demonstrate that SpecDec has several additional advantages that enhance its practicality for accelerating generative models in real-world applications. + +Our contributions can be summarized as follows: + +- We are the first work that explicitly exploits the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference. Our proposed two key innovations – the independent Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification strategy allow SpecDec to achieve over $5 \times$ lossless speedup over autoregressive decoding in seq2seq tasks, refreshing the impression that the "draft-then-verify" paradigm only has a limited $1.5 \times \sim 2 \times$ acceleration potential. +- We demonstrate 3 advantages of SpecDec with extensive empirical results in addition to its remarkable acceleration performance: better latency-throughput trade-off, easy adaptability for existing models and retaining the behavior of the original model, revealing its huge practical value and bringing the long-dormant draft-then-verify paradigm back into the spotlight. + +# 2 Background: draft-then-verify decoding + +The "draft-then-verify" paradigm first drafts multiple tokens efficiently, as a speculation of AR decoding results; then, it verifies these tokens in parallel to ensure they match the AR decoding result, as illustrated in Figure 1. It is an implicit implementation of speculative execution in Transformer inference. + +Draft There are different approaches to drafting tokens, including model-based (Stern et al., 2018) and input-(context-) based5 methods (Sun et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2023). Take Blockwise Decoding – the most representative work attempting the draft-then-verify paradigm – as an example (illustrated in Figure 2(a)): it introduces additional $k - 1$ feedforward network (FFN) heads on top of an existing AR model, enabling the model to predict the next $k$ drafted tokens in parallel during inference. + +Verify The generated drafted tokens are fed into the original AR model and verified in parallel. Specifically, it finds the bifurcation position $c$ , the largest index that ensures all previous $c - 1$ drafted tokens and the corresponding AR decoded tokens are identical: + +$$ +c = \arg \max _ {i} \frac {\mathbb {I} (\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \neq \hat {y} _ {j + i})}{i}, 1 \leq i \leq k \tag {1} +$$ + +$$ +\hat {y} _ {j + i} = \arg \max _ {y} \log P (y \mid \hat {\mathbf {y}} _ {\leq j}, \widetilde {\mathbf {y}} _ {j + 1 \dots j + i - 1}, \boldsymbol {x}; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\mathrm {A R}}) \tag {2} +$$ + +where $\mathbb{I}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function, $\pmb{x}$ is the source sentence, $\hat{\pmb{y}}_{\leq j}$ is the previously generated tokens and $\widetilde{y}_{j + i}$ is the $i$ -th drafted token. Drafted tokens after the position $c$ are all discarded. The final decoded tokens in the current iteration are: + +$$ +\hat {y} _ {j + 1 \dots j + c} = \left(\widetilde {y} _ {j + 1 \dots j + c - 1}, \hat {y} _ {j + c}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +The above draft and verification steps are iterated until the termination condition is met. + +# 3 Speculative Decoding + +To fully exploit speculative execution for Transformer inference, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) with two innovations - Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification that substantially improve drafting (Section 3.1) and verification (Section 3.2) respectively. + +![](images/3f848c7b0f3cb5547fec360f8fa209e60227980202dbee6fa9bee7c80b583d38.jpg) +(a) Blockwise Decoding + +![](images/70a52ca90c5dfceaf204f6a338b1c84f791a779987b4f296327884962638964f.jpg) +(b) Spec-Drafter + +# 3.1 Spec-Drafter + +# 3.1.1 Design Principles + +As a crucial ingredient in the draft-then-verify paradigm, the drafting process has a drastic impact on end-to-end acceleration performance. However, there are very limited explorations of the designing principles for the drafter by previous studies - most of them arbitrarily implement a drafter, which accounts for their undesirable acceleration results. + +To understand the effect of drafting, we look into the overall latency in the draft-then-verify paradigm for one sample of the length $L$ as follows: + +$$ +T = \underbrace {\frac {L}{\mathbf {T o k} .} \times t _ {d}} _ {\text {t o t a l d r a f t i n g l a t e n c y}} + \underbrace {\frac {L}{\mathbf {T o k} .} \times t _ {v}} _ {\text {t o t a l v e r i f i c a t i o n l a t e n c y}} \tag {4} +$$ + +where $\mathbf{Tok}$ denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted per iteration, $t_d$ and $t_v$ are the time costs of drafting and verification each iteration respectively. + +According to Eq (4), Tok. is inversely proportional to the number of iterations, which is primarily influenced by drafting accuracy: A drafter that is more capable of drafting can attain greater Tok. values, consequently completing the decoding process in fewer iterations. This observation leads us to derive the first principle for designing the drafter: + +# Principle I (Capability Principle): The drafter model should be seriously in- + +7We don't discuss $t_v$ in this paper because it is determined by the existing AR model and thus regarded constant. + +![](images/6c325979234b763058aab2b7e8fab935785a3e7cb980431784d9565d2519a14b.jpg) +Figure 2: (a) Blockwise Decoding that introduces $k - 1$ FFN heads on top of the target AR model for drafting the next $k$ tokens with shared attention; (b) Spec-Drafter is an independent model for drafted token prediction. It employs distinct attention queries for predicting each drafted token. Modules colored in yellow belong to the original AR model while those colored in red denote newly introduced modules. +Figure 3: Upper: An AR model's attention heatmap showing that different target positions should attend to different source tokens; Lower: The Spec-Drafter's attention heatmap showing its capability of modeling drafted tokens in different positions, which highly aligns with the AR counterpart. + +vested to guarantee its capability of accurate drafting. + +Principle I is the most crucial principle in determining the end-to-end speedup, as it directly influences the value of Tok. which affects both total drafting and verification latency. Surprisingly, little previous work adheres to this seemingly simple and straightforward principle maybe due to the concern of increasing the drafting latency. For instance, the drafter in Blockwise Decoding is not properly invested: Its drafter not only has limited parameters (FFN prediction heads), making it difficult to fit the challenging drafting task, but more importantly, it employs a shared attention mechanism that forces all drafted tokens to share a single set of attentions (only differentiating at the final prediction head), as shown in Figure 2(a). However, different target positions should attend different context tokens, as illustrated in Figure 3. Despite its computational efficiency, the shared attention mechanism in Blockwise decoding severely constrains the drafter's capability, resulting in low drafting accuracy and consequently leading to most drafted tokens being discarded. + +In addition to the drafter's accuracy, its latency also impacts the end-to-end speedup result but from another perspective - by affecting the latency of each iteration (i.e., $t_d$ in Eq (4)) - from which we derive Principle II for designing the drafter: + +![](images/17bbc9f3eb7031e08a9006bc36210462c43d80ffd1dd87709da89b237a9f7ef4.jpg) +Figure 4: Illustration of Spec-Verification. Compared to the vanilla verification strategy strictly requiring the drafted tokens to match the AR top-1 result, Spec-Verification slightly relaxes the criterion to trust the drafts more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in the top- $\beta$ AR candidates with a tolerable log-likelihood gap (not shown in this Figure; see Eq (9)). As a result, Spec-Verification allows more drafted tokens to be accepted even if they are slightly different from the AR top-1 result, leading to a higher inference speedup. + +Principle II (Latency Principle): The drafter should be fast at generating drafted tokens to minimize the latency overhead of each iteration. + +Designing a fast drafter solely based on Principle II is not difficult, as done in most previous work. The real challenge lies in designing a low-latency drafter without compromising its capability (Principle I), since it is difficult to achieve both low latency and high capability simultaneously. + +# 3.1.2 Model Architecture + +We propose Spec-Drafter, which adheres to both principles for accurate and fast drafting. To ensure the drafter is sufficiently capable of accurate drafting (Principle I), Spec-Drafter employs an independent encoder-decoder model architecture, which generates drafted tokens conditioned on the leftward context and source tokens in a mask-predict manner (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019), as illustrated in Figure 2(b). This independent model design facilitates Spec-Drafter to predict each drafted token using distinct attention queries, in contrast to Blockwise Decoding employing a shared attention query for predicting all drafted tokens (as illustrated in Figure 2). In this way, Spec-Drafter could better align with the AR model's behavior, thereby increasing the chances of its drafted tokens being accepted during verification, as shown in Figure 3. + +To make Spec-Drafter fast (Principle II) without compromising its capability, we design its decoder to be lightweight by reducing the number of decoder layers and reallocating the freed-up budget to + +its encoder (by increasing its depth), which is motivated by the fact that the encoder is forwarded only once, while the decoder is frequently forwarded for iterative decoding. This encoder-favored modeling has been demonstrated by previous work to improve latency with little generation quality degradation (Kasai et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Ge et al., 2022a). We find it also highly effective for the drafter in the draft-then-verify decoding paradigm. + +# 3.1.3 Training and Inference + +Formally, given the source sentence $\pmb{x}$ and the randomly sampled prefix $\pmb{y}_{\leq p}$ ( $0 \leq p < m$ ) of the target sentence, Spec-Drafter appends $k$ special "[MASK]" tokens to $\pmb{y}_{\leq p}$ , and is trained to predict these masked tokens in parallel: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}} = \sum_ {i = p + 1} ^ {p + k} \log P \left(y _ {i} \mid \boldsymbol {y} _ {\leq p} ^ {k}, \boldsymbol {x}; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}\right) \tag {5} +$$ + +$$ +\boldsymbol {y} _ {\leq p} ^ {k} = \left(y _ {1}, \dots , y _ {p}, \underbrace {[ \mathrm {M A S K} ] , \cdots , [ \mathrm {M A S K} ]} _ {\times k}\right) \tag {6} +$$ + +In addition, we leverage the glancing strategy following Qian et al. (2021), which exploits curriculum learning during training to get better generation performance. + +During inference, Spec-Drafter appends $k$ " [MASK] " tokens to the previously decoded tokens $\hat{\pmb{y}}_{\leq j}$ and simultaneously predict these masked tokens as a drafted block: + +$$ +\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} = \arg \max _ {y} \log P (y \mid \hat {\boldsymbol {y}} _ {\leq j} ^ {k}, \boldsymbol {x}; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}) \tag {7} +$$ + +where $i = 1,\ldots ,k$ + +# 3.2 Spec-Verification + +As introduced in Section 2, the vanilla verification strategy of preliminary studies only accepts the drafted tokens that match the top-1 result of the AR model, which guarantees that the decoding results are identical to AR greedy decoding. However, the top-1 results are not necessarily better than the drafted tokens, especially when the paradigm is equipped with a high-quality drafter. Therefore, the strict verification criterion (i.e., top-1 matching) will result in many good drafted tokens being discarded just because they are different from the top-1 result of the AR model, which limits the speedup of the paradigm. + +To make better use of the drafting results, we propose an advanced verification strategy named Spec-Verification, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Instead of the rigid matching requirement shown in Eq (2), Spec-Verification relaxes the criterion to trust the drafting results more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in $top - \beta$ candidates with a tolerable (log-likelihood) score gap $\tau$ (away from the top-1 result). Formally, it will accept the $i$ -th drafted token $\widetilde{y}_{j + i}$ if all previous $i - 1$ tokens are accepted, and Eq (8) and (9) are both true: + +$$ +\log P \left(\tilde {y} _ {j + i} \mid \Delta ; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\mathrm {A R}}\right) \geq \log P \left(\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(\beta)} \mid \Delta ; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\mathrm {A R}}\right), \tag {8} +$$ + +$$ +\log P \left(\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(1)} \mid \Delta ; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\mathrm {A R}}\right) - \log P \left(\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \mid \Delta ; \boldsymbol {\theta} _ {\mathrm {A R}}\right) \leq \tau , \tag {9} +$$ + +$$ +\triangle = \hat {y} _ {\leq j}, \tilde {y} _ {j + 1 \dots j + i - 1}, x, \tag {10} +$$ + +where $\log P(\hat{y}_{j + i}^{(\beta)}|\triangle ;\pmb{\theta}_{\mathrm{AR}})$ is the top- $\beta$ ranked result's log-likelihood score by the AR model. + +# 4 Experiments + +# 4.1 Experimental Settings + +Datasets and Evaluation We mainly evaluate our approach on two standard machine translation benchmarks: WMT14 EN↔DE (4.5M pairs) and WMT16 EN↔RO (610K pairs). Following prior work (Ott et al., 2018), for WMT14 EN↔DE translation, we adopt newstest-13 as our validation set for finding the best hyperparameters, and test on newstest-14. For WMT16 EN↔RO translation, we use the dataset released by Lee et al. (2018), where newsdev2016 and newstest2016 are taken as validation and test sets. We use 32K Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) (Sennrich et al., 2016) subwords8 + +8We use the same BPE tokenization and vocabulary as Ghazvininejad et al. (2019). + +as the joint source-target dictionary. We evaluate performance with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) for both language pairs9. + +For inference efficiency, we report decoding speedup over beam search. Specifically, we test the inference speed by running the model with one sentence at a time (batch=1). We perform model inference with fairseq implementation using Pytorch 1.10.1 with 1 Nvidia Tesla P100-PCIe of 16GB GPU memory under CUDA 11.1. + +Model Configuration The primary target model we accelerate in our experiments is the Transformer-base model with a 6-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder of 512/2048 embedding/FFN dimension, which can achieve state-of-the-art results on the benchmarks under comparable model size conditions. For the Spec-Drafter, we adopt a similar architecture to the AR model except with 12 encoder layers and 2 decoder layers to make sure it adheres to both the Capability and Latency principles. We apply sequence-level knowledge distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016) by the AR teacher to the Spec-Drafter to align its behavior with the AR model as much as possible. We include model training details in Appendix A. For the Spec-Verification, we find the hyperparameters $\beta$ and $\tau$ leading to the best generation quality on the validation set. Besides, we re-implement Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours to facilitate fair comparison. + +# 4.2 Results + +We present the performance and the acceleration effect of SpecDec to Transformer in Table 1. As reported in the previous work (Stern et al., 2018), Blockwise Decoding $(k = 10)$ can only achieve $1.4 \times 2 \times$ speedup without affecting the generation results over the Transformer-base model. Further increasing the parallel capability of Blockwise Decoding (e.g., $k = 25$ ) will not introduce more speedup as its limited drafting accuracy prevents more drafted tokens from being accepted. In contrast, our SpecDec shows consistent performance improvement with increased parallel capabilities $(k = 10 \rightarrow k = 25)$ , resulting in around + +
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
SpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEU
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×28.891.0×32.531.0×34.961.0×34.86
Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.731.1×32.181.1×34.831.1×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.9×28.732.0×32.181.4×34.831.4×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.6×28.731.7×32.181.2×34.831.2×34.65
SpecDec (k = 10)4.2×28.904.6×32.613.9×35.294.1×34.88
SpecDec (k = 25)5.1×28.935.5×32.554.6×35.454.8×35.03
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×29.131.0×32.451.0×34.931.0×34.80
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.991.1×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.6×28.991.7×32.081.2×34.791.2×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.4×28.991.5×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
SpecDec (k = 10)2.7×29.083.0×32.402.3×35.122.4×34.85
SpecDec (k = 25)3.0×29.133.3×32.482.5×35.072.6×34.91
+ +Table 1: The performance of Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) to speed up the Transformer-base on the WMT benchmarks. We re-implement and evaluate Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours. + +
ModelsTok.BLEUtdSpeed
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0028.89-1.0×
SpecDec
\(\sqsubseteq\)w/ head-based drafter2.3228.020.811.7×
\(\sqsubseteq\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I)7.0528.562.294.4×
\(\sqsubseteq\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II)8.2128.9510.874.0×
\(\sqsubseteq\)w/ Spec-Drafter8.2328.935.215.1×
+ +$4.6 \times \sim 5.5 \times$ speedup across the translation benchmarks; moreover, it even achieves an improvement in generation quality (by the BLEU metric) compared with AR greedy decoding. + +Similar results are also observed when accelerating the Transformer with a 12-layer encoder and 2-layer decoder - SpecDec can still achieve around $2.5 \times \sim 3.3 \times$ speedup while Blockwise Decoding's acceleration effect becomes nearly negligible over the fast AR baseline. + +# 4.3 Analysis + +In this section, we conduct a comprehensive and thorough analysis, to demonstrate that the significant improvement of the SpecDec arises from both the Spec-Drafter (Section 4.3.1) and Spec-Verification (Section 4.3.2). + +# 4.3.1 Drafting + +According to Table 2, the Spec-Drafter significantly outperforms the head-based drafter (as used in Blockwise Decoding) in terms of both end-to + +Table 2: Ablation studies of the drafter in the SpecDec on WMT14 EN→DE. Tok. denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted in each iteration. $t_d$ denotes the average time cost of drafting per iteration. The head-based drafter is the one used by Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018). The Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I) reduces the model/FFN dimension to 256/1024, while the Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II) does not use a deep encoder and shallow decoder but instead utilizes a more balanced architecture with equal depth of encoder and decoder layers. + +
ModelskTok.BLEUSpeed
AR-base (b = 5)-1.0026.721.00×
SpecDec106.0526.803.99×
156.9327.124.54×
207.4127.054.72×
257.8926.975.04×
307.6726.894.82×
+ +Table 3: The mean accepted tokens (Tok.), the generation quality (BLEU), and the efficiency (Speed) when decoding with a various number of block size $k$ on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE. + +end generation quality and efficiency. To further investigate the Spec-Drafter, we conduct an ablation study on the principles it follows. Ablating the Capability Principle by reducing its size results in a drastic drop in end-to-end acceleration performance, as more iterations are needed to complete the decoding process, indicated by a lower Tok. When we ablate the Latency Principle by using a balanced $(6 + 6)$ encoder-decoder architecture for + +
ModelsτTop-3 (β = 3)Top-5 (β = 5)
Vanilla-6.41/26.62
SpecDec17.89/26.97 (5.0×)7.92/26.88
28.75/26.848.83/26.79
39.51/26.719.64/26.68
410.11/26.6010.63/26.59
510.46/26.5811.01/26.58 (6.8×)
+ +Table 4: Results of SpecDec ( $k = 25$ ) on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE with different hyperparameters. Each cell lists the mean accepted tokens and BLEU score. Among the runs in the table, the highest BLEU score of 26.97 is achieved when $\beta = 3$ and $\tau = 1.0$ , with a $5 \times$ speedup. On the other hand, when $\beta = 5$ and $\tau = 5$ , the highest Tok. (i.e., 11.01) is reached, resulting in almost $7 \times$ speedup, though the BLEU score slightly decreases to 26.58. + +the drafter, it also experiences a substantial decline in end-to-end acceleration performance due to increased latency in each iteration (reflected by a higher $t_d$ ). + +Moreover, we analyze the block size $k$ 's effect on the end-to-end acceleration performance of the paradigm in Table 3. In contrast to the blockwise decoding achieving its best acceleration performance at $k = 10$ as shown in Table 1, SpecDec achieves its best performance at $k = 25$ with 7.89 mean accepted tokens each iteration. Further increasing $k$ has an adverse effect, because it will become very hard for the model to learn to draft too many tokens simultaneously given the model capacity, resulting in a drop of Tok. + +# 4.3.2 Verification + +We study the effect of Spec-Verification on the development set (i.e., newstest-2013) of WMT14 EN $\rightarrow$ DE in Table 4. Moderately increasing $\tau$ and $\beta$ in the Spec-Verification not only leads to an increase of mean accepted tokens (Tok.) and speed since AR verification becomes less strict but also improves the generation quality over greedy decoding. However, the generation quality may decrease if over-relaxed: the BLEU score will degrade from the peak of 26.97 to 26.58 when decoding with top-5 selection (i.e., $\beta = 5$ ) and $\tau = 5.0$ . Based on the results in the development set, we select $\beta = 3$ , $\tau = 1.0$ as our Spec-Verification hyperparameters. + +# 4.4 Practical Value + +In addition to the remarkable speedup results, we demonstrate SpecDec's additional advantages that + +![](images/48001e4a4131216eb873a64a087a5dfc615baf21b043330744b0cf996e3c48f6.jpg) +Figure 5: The latency-throughput curve with various batch sizes on WMT14 EN→DE. + +enhance its practical value in the following three aspects: + +Better latency-throughput trade-off SpecDec achieves inference acceleration by increasing the GPU computing parallelism. Although increasing the batch size can also increase the computing parallelism to improve throughput, it results in increased latency, which is not desirable in real-world application scenarios. Therefore, a smaller batch size is often employed during inference, but this in turn results in the underutilization of GPU computing resources, leading to the dilemma of low throughput for small batches and high latency for large batches, as illustrated by Figure 5. SpecDec effectively addresses this dilemma. Even by maintaining a small batch size, SpecDec can fully utilize the computing performance of the GPU, significantly improving both efficiency and throughput. + +Easily adaptable for existing models In many practical applications, generative models are often pretrained with massive data, which exhibits very high performance. Developing a faster model from scratch to replace the pretrained model is highly challenging and typically requires substantial computational costs to reiterate the pretraining process. Otherwise, the quality of the new models is very likely to be compromised despite the increased speed, as Table 5 shows. However, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate existing pretrained models. Taking the BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) model for the abstractive summarization task as an example, we can easily achieve $5.1 \times$ speedup without compromising the generation quality only by initializing the Spec-Drafter with the BART-base encoder and training it with the BART-base distilled summarization training set. + +Retaining the behavior of the original model As introduced in Section 1, one significant advantage of SpecDec is that it does not develop a new + +
ModelsRouge-1Rouge-2Rouge-LSpeed
ARBART-base (b = 5)43.0820.4140.151.0×
BART-base (b = 1)43.0020.2839.961.1×
NARGLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)37.76 ↓5.2414.08 ↓6.2033.69 ↓6.2714.5×
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)38.95 ↓4.0516.11 ↓4.1735.43 ↓4.5314.1×
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)37.59 ↓5.4115.17 ↓5.1134.22 ↓5.541.8×
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)39.12 ↓3.8816.24 ↓4.0435.74 ↓4.223.1×
SpecDecSpecDec (k = 25)43.11 ↑0.1120.43 ↑0.1540.19 ↑0.235.1×
+ +Table 5: Results of different methods for Abstractive Summarization on CNN-DM (Hermann et al., 2015). The results on par with BART-base performance are highlighted in orange, while blue denotes performance degradation. Compared to prior NAR methods, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate the BART model only by downstream task fine-tuning. + +
ModelsBLEU
Transformer-base (greedy)100.00
GLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)59.10
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)63.79
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)60.15
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)65.42
Deep-Shallow (Kasai et al., 2020)64.66
SpecDec (k=25)86.52
+ +Table 6: Relative BLEU score computed between the generation of the existing Transformer (i.e., the target model) and other models/approaches. SpecDec shows much better alignment with the target model's behavior than others. + +faster model to replace the existing model. Instead, it accelerates the existing model with minimal changes to its behavior. As shown in Table 6, the consistency (BLEU) of SpecDec's generated results with the original model exceeds $85\%$ , while that of a newly built fast NAR model is only around $55\%$ . The characteristic of maintaining the behavior of the original model makes SpecDec even more valuable in practical applications because transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to one with substantially different behavior is risky, requiring extensive recalibration and various offline evaluations and online feedback in practice. + +# 5 Related Work + +Speculative Decoding We have demonstrated since early 2022 (see our arXiv preprints in 2022) that our proposed methodology, which formally introduces an independent model as a drafter combined with an advanced verification strategy to fully exploit speculative execution, is promising and has potential to evolve into a de facto standard in the future for efficient and lossless de + +coding. Since this work was proposed, we are pleased to see an increasing number of following studies (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Spector and Re, 2023; Zhang et al., 2023) acknowledge, explore and adopt this methodology to accelerate Transformer inference. Among them, Leviathan et al. (2023) use the same name as ours (i.e., Speculative Decoding), employing a small AR model as a drafter $^{12}$ as well as advanced sampling algorithm. Chen et al. (2023) is similar to Leviathan et al. (2023) but it was the first to validate this methodology to accelerate a large language model (i.e., 70B Chinchilla) with a 4B drafter model, thus receiving the most attention. SpecInfer (Miao et al., 2023) proposed to utilize various boost-tuned small language models for joint drafting, to improve the speculation accuracy of the LLM's outputs. Besides, it introduces an advanced token tree verification strategy to verify all candidate token sequences in parallel. Distill-Spec (Zhou et al., 2023) further investigated the efficacy of knowledge distillation in enhancing the alignment between the target model and the drafter in speculative decoding. In addition to employing additional models as drafters, there has also been some research that proposes various strategies to efficiently generate drafts from the LLM itself (Santilli et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). All the following research strongly backs up the value of this original work. + +Early Draft-then-verify attempts This work is a generalized version of our previously proposed (Input-guided) Aggressive Decoding13 (Sun et al., + +2021) in Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), which assumes that the input is exactly the sentence to be generated in the future and then verifies the whole sentence in parallel. Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) inserted $k - 1$ feedforward heads on top of the Transformer decoder to generate $k$ positions in parallel and used the original head to verify these outputs. However, both the above studies did not fully investigate the potential of this paradigm and thus failed to uncover its great value for efficient seq2seq generation: Sun et al. (2021) only works for tasks whose inputs and outputs are highly similar (e.g., GEC). Stern et al. (2018) overlooked the importance of drafting accuracy; as a result, their underinvested prediction heads severely limit the acceleration results. In contrast, we conduct thorough investigations and fully exploit speculative execution, refreshing the impression of its limited acceleration potential and revealing its real value in practice. + +Non-autoregressive Decoding There is also another line of work named Non-Autoregressive Decoding (NAR) (Gu et al., 2018), which decodes multiple tokens in parallel compared with conventional AR, thus showing remarkable superiority in inference efficiency. Recently, various attempts have been made to improve the performance of NAR models, including training with alignment-based objectives (Libovický and Helcl, 2018; Ghazvininejad et al., 2020; Sahara et al., 2020; Gu and Kong, 2021; Shao and Feng, 2022), modeling dependencies between target tokens (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2021; Bao et al., 2021) and designing various model architectures (Zheng et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022). As discussed in Section 4.4, replacing a powerful pretrained model with NAR models in practice is challenging due to the substantial computational costs required to reiterate the pretraining process. Additionally, transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to a new NAR model with significantly different behavior poses risks in practical applications. In contrast, our proposed SpecDec can be conveniently adapted to speed up existing AR models including high-performance pretrained models like BART with little effort. Moreover, SpecDec minimally alters the behavior of existing models, showcasing its ability to preserve reliable generation performance in real-world practical applications. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We present Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), the first work to explicitly embrace the idea of speculative execution for seq2seq generation acceleration with a formal study and extensive discussion of both drafting and verification phases. Contrary to the common belief that an increase in model complexity tends to hamper inference speed, SpecDec's introduction of an appropriately invested auxiliary drafter model substantially speeds up Transformer inference, owing to higher computational parallelism introduced by speculative execution to better utilize computing resources. + +The remarkable acceleration performance, combined with the advantages demonstrated in our experiments, clearly illustrates that SpecDec is a practical acceleration method for model deployment in real-world applications. We hope that our preliminary study could draw more attention to this promising decoding paradigm that may potentially evolve into a de facto standard for efficient Transformer decoding in the near future. + +# Limitations + +Compared with conventional autoregressive decoding, SpecDec introduces an extra Spec-Drafter module for ensuring its drafting accuracy, which brings additional memory cost at test time. Therefore, SpecDec is particularly suitable for inference scenarios where GPU memory is abundant but there is an urgent need to improve latency – it provides a solution to trading the surplus GPU memory for speed improvements. As thoroughly discussed in Appendix B, such scenarios are very common in practice. Most importantly, memory is no longer the bottleneck for practical model deployment. With the emergence and maturity of various data/tensor/pipeline parallelism techniques, the addition of more GPUs can easily address memory issues, which is also why models continue to grow larger. In contrast, latency remains an inescapable bottleneck in model deployment that cannot be resolved merely by increasing the number of machines. Therefore, we believe the increased memory consumption may not severely affect its practical value. + +# Acknowledgements + +We thank Fan Yang, Lingxiao Ma, and Lidong Zhou in Microsoft Research for their constructive + +comments on this work. This paper is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China 2020AAA0106700 and NSFC project U19A2065. + +# References + +Yu Bao, Shujian Huang, Tong Xiao, Dongqi Wang, Xinyu Dai, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Non-autoregressive translation by learning target categorical codes. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5749-5759. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. 2023. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. CoRR, abs/2302.01318. +Mengyun Chen, Tao Ge, Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Improving the efficiency of grammatical error correction with erroneous span detection and correction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7162-7169. +Tao Ge, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022a. Edgeformer: A parameter-efficient transformer for ondevice seq2seq generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 10786-10798. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Tao Ge, Heming Xia, Xin Sun, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Lossless acceleration for seq2seq generation with aggressive decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10350. +Xinwei Geng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2021. Learning to rewrite for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3297-3308. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marjan Ghazvininejad, Vladimir Karpukhin, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Aligned cross entropy for non-autoregressive machine translation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3515-3523. PMLR. + +Marjan Ghazvininejad, Omer Levy, Yinhan Liu, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Mask-predict: Parallel decoding of conditional masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 6111-6120. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O.K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Jiatao Gu and Xiang Kong. 2021. Fully non-autoregressive neural machine translation: Tricks of the trade. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 120-133. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 1693-1701. +Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for non-autoregressive machine translation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9410-9428. PMLR. +Jungo Kasai, James Cross, Marjan Ghazvininejad, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with disentangled context transformer. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5144-5155. PMLR. +Jungo Kasai, Nikolaos Pappas, Hao Peng, James Cross, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Deep encoder, shallow decoder: Reevaluating non-autoregressive machine translation. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net. +Sehoon Kim, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer. 2023. Speculative decoding with big little decoder. CoRR, abs/2302.07863. +Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07947. + +Jason Lee, Elman Mansimov, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Deterministic non-autoregressive neural sequence modeling by iterative refinement. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1173-1182. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 19274-19286. PMLR. +Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871-7880. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jindrich Libovický and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 3016-3021. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Eric Malmi, Sebastian Krause, Sascha Rothe, Daniil Mirylenka, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2019. Encode, tag, realize: High-precision text editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01187. +Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Zhuoming Chen, Daiyaan Arfeen, Reyna Abhyankar, and Zhihao Jia. 2023. Specinfer: Accelerating generative LLM serving with speculative inference and token tree verification. CoRR, abs/2305.09781. +Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Vitaliy Atrasevych, Artem Chernodub, and Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi. 2020. Gector-grammatical error correction: tag, not rewrite. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12592. +Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 1-9. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association + +for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 311-318. ACL. +Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 186-191. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2021. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1993-2003. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C. Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2685-2702. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with latent alignments. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1098-1108. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Andrea Santilli, Silvio Severino, Emilian Postolache, Valentino Maiorca, Michele Mancusi, Riccardo Marin, and Emanuele Rodola. 2023. Accelerating transformer inference for translation via parallel decoding. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023, pages 12336-12355. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Robin M. Schmidt, Telmo Pires, Stephan Peitz, and Jonas Loof. 2022. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation: A call for clarity. CoRR, abs/2205.10577. +Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. The Association for Computer Linguistics. +Chenze Shao and Yang Feng. 2022. Non-monotonic latent alignments for ctc-based non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2210.03953. + +Raphael Shu, Jason Lee, Hideki Nakayama, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Latent-variable non-autoregressive neural machine translation with deterministic inference using a delta posterior. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8846-8853. AAAI Press. +Benjamin Spector and Chris Re. 2023. Accelerating LLM inference with staged speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2308.04623. +Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2018. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, pages 10107-10116. +Xin Sun, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Houfeng Wang. 2021. Instantaneous grammatical error correction with shallow aggressive decoding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5937-5947. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008. +Carole-Jean Wu, Ramya Raghavendra, Udit Gupta, Bilge Acun, Newsha Ardalani, Kiwan Maeng, Gloria Chang, Fiona Aga Behram, Jinshi Huang, Charles Bai, Michael Gschwind, Anurag Gupta, Myle Ott, Anastasia Melnikov, Salvatore Candido, David Brooks, Geeta Chauhanan, Benjamin Lee, Hsien-Hsin S. Lee, Bugra Akyildiz, Maximilian Balandat, Joe Spisak, Ravi Jain, Mike Rabbat, and Kim M. Hazelwood. 2022. Sustainable AI: environmental implications, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 2022, MLSys 2022, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 29 - September 1, 2022. mlsys.org. +Nan Yang, Tao Ge, Liang Wang, Binxing Jiao, Daxin Jiang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2023. Inference with reference: Lossless acceleration of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04487. + +Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2023. Draft & verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2309.08168. +Zaixiang Zheng, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Jia-jun Chen, Jingjing Xu, and Lei Li. 2021. Duplex sequence-to-sequence learning for reversible machine translation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 21070-21084. +Yongchao Zhou, Kaifeng Lyu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Afshin Rostamizadeh, Sanjiv Kumar, Jean-François Kagy, and Rishabh Agarwal. 2023. Distillspec: Improving speculative decoding via knowledge distillation. + +
HyperparameterValue
devices8 Nvidia V100 GPU
label smoothing0.1
# max tokens4096
update frequency4
dropout rate[0.1, 0.2, 0.3]
max source positions1000
max target positions1000
Adam lr5 × 10-4
Adam β10.9
Adam β20.999
Adam ε1 × 10-6
lr-schedulerinverse square
warm-up lr1 × 10-7
weight decay0.01
clip norm5.0
# warmup updates10000
max updates300K
+ +Table 7: Hyper-parameters and settings of Spec-Drafter. + +# Appendix + +# A Hyperparameters + +Hyper-parameters of training our proposed SpecDrafter are listed in Table 7. Following Vaswani et al. (2017) and Ott et al. (2018), we also average model parameters from the last 10 checkpoints. + +# B Memory Analysis + +# B.1 Additional Memory Cost by SpecDec + +The peak memory footnote of SpecDec during inference mainly comes from three parts: + +Static AR model's weights +Static Spec-Drafter's weights +- Intermediate variables/results + +Compared with AR, the additional memory cost of SpecDec comes from the last two parts. While the static Spec-Drafter's weights account for the majority of the additional memory cost, the additional cost for storing intermediate variables is negligible because the Spec-Drafter and AR model decode alternatively during inference. Compared with AR, SpecDec's additional intermediate variables/results include: + +- The Spec-Drafter's last encoder layer's representation that will not be freed until decoding finishes, which is equal to $B \cdot S \cdot d$ where $B$ is the batch size, $S$ is the sequence length and $d$ is the dimension of the model. This part is actually negligible: for example, when $B = 32$ , $S = 128$ , $d = 512$ , this part's memory cost is only 8MB (fp32) / 4MB (fp16). + +- The largest intermediate variables/results during inference: + +- For a short sequence (e.g., sentence-level inputs/outputs in MT tasks), the largest intermediate variable is the output tensor after the Spec-Drafter's/AR model's vocabulary projection layer $-B \cdot |V| \cdot k$ where $B$ is the batch size, $|V|$ is the vocabulary size and $k$ is the block size. Compared with the memory cost for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights, this part is usually smaller. Also $B \cdot k$ tokens can be easily divided into small batches (e.g., -softmax-batch in fairseq) for vocabulary projection to avoid massive memory cost in case $B \cdot |V| \cdot k$ is large. + +- For a long sequence (e.g., paragraph-level inputs/outputs in summarization tasks), the largest intermediate variable becomes the tensor for storing self-attention computation whose size increases quadratically with $S$ ( $S$ is the sequence length). This variable accounts for the largest memory cost for storing intermediate results in both AR and SpecDec. Therefore, in this case, this part does not introduce additional memory cost compared with AR. + +Table 8 and Table 9 show the comparisons of peak GPU memory footprint $^{14}$ (MB) between SpecDec and AR (during inference) on the above two scenarios (i.e., MT and summarization). The results are consistent with our analysis above: + +# The majority of the additional memory cost (i.e., $\Delta$ Memory) is for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights and the additional memory cost is not very likely to significantly increase as the batch size or sequence length increases. + +Our experiments above pre-loaded both the SpecDrafter and AR model. In fact, it is also possible to load the static weights of the AR model and SpecDrafter in a lazy loading manner in the meantime of GPU computation to save memory as they run alternatively. However, it is usually unnecessary in practice, because for a seq2seq model deployed on modern GPUs for online service, it is latency rather than memory that is the performance bottleneck. See the next section for more discussion. + +
ModelsModel WeightsBatch Size
1481632
AR (greedy)232.4243.2271.7301.4366.4494.6
SpecDec (k=25)477.8491.5519.8559.2634.1782.5
ΔMemory245.4248.3248.1247.8267.7287.9
+ +Table 8: Peak GPU memory utilization on WMT14 EN-DE translation dataset. The results are obtained with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU. + +
ModelsModel WeightsMemory Cost
AR (greedy)534.6696.9
SpecDec1089.61264.6
ΔMemory555.0567.7
+ +# B.2 Memory Is Rarely the Bottleneck + +To understand the performance bottleneck of online deployed seq2seq models, we test the latency and memory cost of T5-large $^{15}$ (around 770M parameters) with fp16 on 1 Nvidia A40 GPU running greedy decoding in the machine translation and abstractive summarization task, and show results in Table 10 and 11. + +Table 9: Peak GPU memory utilization on CNN-DM with batch size 1 with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU. + +
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)1.0▲1.4▲
Memory Util. (MB)14822003
Memory Util. (%)3.04.0
+ +Table 10: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on WMT14 EN-DE. + +
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)2.7▲4.7▲
Memory Util. (MB)29997230
Memory Util. (%)6.215.0
+ +For MT, T5-large's latency is over 1 second which is actually too long to be accepted because most MT engines in practice require the latency to be less than $100\mathrm{ms}$ . However, its memory cost is + +only less than 2GB – far below A40 GPU's memory capacity (i.e., $48\mathrm{GB}^{16}$ ). + +For abstractive summarization, even if the batch size increases to 32, its memory cost is still less than $50\%$ utilization of 1 A40 GPU but its latency is already close up to 5 seconds that is too long for an online service in practice. + +To sum up, we now understand latency is the bottleneck of seq2seq models for online deployment in most cases. Therefore, we do not think additional memory cost by SpecDec will undermine its practical value; instead, we think a significant lossless acceleration even at the cost of memory (i.e., time-memory trade-off) is much more meaningful than the acceleration at the cost of quality, which should be the right path that we need to pay more attention to given much memory headroom on modern GPUs. + +Table 11: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on CNN-DM. + +
ModelsBLEUSacreBLEUCOMET
AR-base (b = 5)28.8928.251.90
AR-base (b = 1)28.7328.051.53
SpecDec (k = 25)28.9328.252.10
+ +Table 12: SacreBLEU and COMET scores on WMT14 EN-DE. + +# C SacreBLEU and COMET Scores + +Despite tokenized BLEU scores, we also report SacreBLEU $^{17}$ (Post, 2018) and COMET $^{18}$ (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Table 12 and 13 to provide a reference for future research. SpecDec can also achieve performances on par with the AR model with the evaluation in sacreBLEU and COMET. Schmidt et al. (2022) pointed out that inconsistencies in the use of tokenized BLEU lead to deviations of up to 1.8 BLEU points. Therefore, we + +
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
Transformer-base (b=5)28.89(28.2†)32.53(32.1†)34.96(34.0†)34.86(34.2†)
Transformer-base (b=1)28.73(28.0†)32.18(31.7†)34.83(33.9†)34.65(33.9†)
SpecDec (k=25)28.93(28.2†)32.55(32.1†)35.45(34.5†)35.03(34.3†)
+ +Table 13: BLEU and SacreBLEU (denoted by ${}^{ \dagger }$ ) scores on WMT14 EN-DE and WMT16 EN-RO benchmarks. + +
Decoding AlgorithmBLEUSpeed
AR (greedy)32.231.0×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.1B dafter, T5-Small)32.232.8×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.8B dafter, T5-Large)32.231.6×
SpecDec (k=25) (0.5B dafter)32.314.9×
+ +Table 14: Comparison of SpecDec and Leviathan et al. (2023) in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation. + +![](images/202aad79e33d373284cf41dc6b3f349dd58914c5e7c15932ce229fb2327c8912.jpg) +Figure 6: Single sentence speedup distribution by SpecDec $(k = 25)$ compared with Transformer-base $(b = 5)$ . The results are obtained with WMT14 EN→DE. + +recommend that future research use sacreBLEU when comparing with our work. + +# D Speedup Distribution + +Figure 6 presents SpecDec's speedup distribution of a single sentence on the WMT14 EN $\rightarrow$ DE test set (which has 3,003 sentences in total), showing that most sentences are translated with a $3 \times 7 \times$ speedup compared to AR beam search, while some rare cases can even achieve over $10 \times 11 \times$ speedup. + +# E Discussions of Beam Search + +For possible concerns that SpecDec may not apply beam search, we make three points here: + +1. As Kim and Rush (2016) mentioned, knowledge distillation largely decreases the performance gap of beam search and greedy decoding. In practice, greedy decoding can actually be comparable to beam search results after KD. +2. In practical online deployment, KD is almost used by default for enhancing the results for + +student models and greedy decoding is much more common than beam search because it is more cost-effective - it not only runs faster than beam search but also achieves decent performance with a student model trained through KD (as Point 1 addressed) + +3. Beam search is also an approximate and heuristic solution, which is not a golden rule. In fact, Spec-Verification works in a similar way as beam search – it is also an approximate and heuristic solution by considering n-best and scores, which can be considered as an approximation of beam search. As shown in Table 1, it achieves comparable performance to beam search but much faster $(4\times \sim 6\times)$ . + +# F Carbon Emission + +SpecDec introduces extra computational overhead, which leads to an increase in GPU power consumption. However, it can substantially reduce GPU hours owing to its high efficiency. We compare GPU power consumption and GPU hours of autoregressive decoding (AR) and SpecDec for translating 3000 sentences in Table 15. + +We follow a formula for Wu et al. (2022) to calculate the total energy consumption and carbon emitted: $E = P \times t \times \mathrm{PUE}$ , where we set PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) at 1.1. $\mathrm{CO}_{2}\mathrm{eq} = 0.385g \times \mathrm{CO}_{2}\mathrm{eq} / \mathrm{Wh} \times E$ , where $0.385\mathrm{g}^{*}\mathrm{CO}_{2}\mathrm{eq} / \mathrm{Wh}$ is the carbon intensity factor that is set based on the US national average. + +According to Table 15, while SpecDec's GPU power consumption is $28\%$ higher, its GPU hours are $540\%$ shorter than autoregressive decoding. As a result, SpecDec's total energy consumption + +
ModelsGPU TypeGPU Avg. Power consumption (P)GPU-hours (t)Total Energy consumption (E)Carbon emitted (CO2eq)
AR (greedy)Nvidia P10086W0.27h25.54Wh9.83g
SpecDec (k=25)Nvidia P100110W0.05h6.05Wh2.33g
+ +Table 15: Carbon footprint of autoregressive decoding and SpecDec using the same P100 GPU device. We follow Wu et al. (2022) to compute the carbon emission of the two decoding strategies under the same device. The results were obtained on WMT14 EN-DE. + +
SOURCEAccording to the details provided , the tunnel had not yet been put into use .
DraftNach den Angaben Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in
VerifyNach den vorliegenden war-war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
RESULTSNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden .
+ +Table 16: Examples from the WMT14 English-German translation task. At each iteration, Draft and Verify are the outputs of the Spec-Drafter and the AR verification, respectively. Tokens within red blocks are the bifurcation positions. The verification pieces after the bifurcation are annotated as strikethrough. The highlighted parts are translations of previous iterations. The hyperparameters are $k = 10$ , top-3, $\tau = 1.0$ . The output pieces after the [EOS] token is omitted in the table. + +is $23.7\%$ of autoregressive decoding, resulting in $4.2 \times$ reduction of carbon emission. + +Therefore, SpecDec not only does not increase carbon emission but actually significantly reduces it, making it a more environmentally friendly option for inference. + +# G Comparison with Other Work + +# G.1 Speculative Decoding with an Autoregressive Drafter + +Following this work, some subsequent research (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023) has also explored using AR models (e.g., smaller language models) as independent drafters to accelerate inference. However, for seq2seq generation, the acceleration effect of AR drafting is severely limited, resulting in an end-to-end speedup at $1.6 \times \sim 2.8 \times$ , which is far lower than our $4.9 \times$ speedup. + +Table 14 illustrates the detailed comparison of our re-implemented Leviathan et al. (2023) and ours in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation. We implemented our SpecDrafter with a 24-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder for comparison. Its embedding/FFN dimension/#heads are 1024/4096/16. As shown in Table 14, our approach uses a 0.5B Spec-Drafter to achieve an almost $5\times$ speedup without qual + +ity degradation, while Leviathan et al. (2023)'s speedup results are lower than $3\times$ .The reasons for our approach significantly outperforming Leviathan et al. (2023) are twofold: + +- Our Spec-Drafter is specially learned to draft for accelerating the target model with the speculation execution idea: its draft results are better aligned with the target model's results. +- Our approach adopts a fast deep-encoder-shallow-decoder architecture as well as a non-autoregressive approach to generate drafts, which is significantly more efficient than their autoregressive drafting method. + +# G.2 Speculative Decoding in Special Cases + +Our previous paper (Sun et al., 2021) and technical reports (Ge et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2023) present extensive empirical studies of Speculative Decoding in special cases (e.g., text editing or retrieval-augmented generation) and compare it with competitive approaches (Malmi et al., 2019; Omelianchuk et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020) in those scenarios. We recommend interested readers to refer to our previous work for further insights into these specific applications. + +# H Case Study + +In Table 16, we represent an example to illustrate how SpecDec generates translations. In the first iteration, the outputs of the Spec-Drafter are non-autoregressive with multi-modality problems like "Angaben Angaben". The verifier accepts tokens of "Nach den" and replaces the inappropriate translation "Angaben" with "vorliegenden". All the drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (i.e. marked as red tokens in Table 16) are all discarded. In the second iteration, Spec-Verification finds the bifurcation at the last position, thus all tokens before this position are accepted. After 3 iterations, the decoding is finished since the [EOS] token is found. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/images.zip b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88e8f0eb1e418a74e172eb61006286774ea27d19 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3bd54a2f8561455703bc755a8b196debfe6bbe0bfccd4eeb7262031bf3412bac +size 770253 diff --git a/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/layout.json b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..806c2a9eb5fd67fbd0ffc62c89b11d1b5fd84693 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Speculative Decoding_ Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,12673 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 69, + 481, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 69, + 481, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 113, + 69, + 481, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speculative Decoding: Exploiting Speculative Execution for Accelerating Seq2seq Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Heming Xia" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,2*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Tao Ge" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Peiyi Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Si-Qing Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Furu Wei" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Zhifang Sui" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 109, + 527, + 125 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,3}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 125, + 502, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 125, + 502, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 125, + 502, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 125, + 502, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "National Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 139, + 442, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 139, + 442, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 139, + 442, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 139, + 442, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Software & Microelectronics, Peking University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 485, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 485, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 485, + 167 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 485, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Computer Science, Peking University " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 485, + 167 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 153, + 485, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Microsoft Research Asia" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 167, + 452, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 167, + 452, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 145, + 167, + 452, + 180 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{xiaheming,szf}@pku.edu.cn; wangpeiyi9979@gmail.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 181, + 377, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 181, + 377, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 218, + 181, + 377, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{tage, fuwei}@microsoft.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), for the first time ever1, to formally study exploiting the idea of speculative execution to accelerate autoregressive (AR) decoding. Speculative Decoding has two innovations: SpecDrafter – an independent model specially optimized for efficient and accurate drafting – and Spec-Verification – a reliable method for verifying the drafted tokens efficiently in the decoding paradigm. Experimental results on various seq2seq tasks including machine translation and abstractive summarization show our approach can achieve around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, refreshing the impression that the draft-then-verify paradigm introduces only " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4 \\times 2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 238, + 274, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup. In addition to the remarkable speedup, we also demonstrate 3 additional advantages of SpecDec, revealing its practical value for accelerating generative models in real-world applications. Our models and codes are available at https://github.com/hemingkx/SpecDec." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 538, + 154, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 538, + 154, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 538, + 154, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 560, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As the de facto method for text generation, AutoRegressive (AR) decoding is widely blamed for its poor inference efficiency due to its low level of parallelism, which fails to utilize the full potential of modern parallel computing devices like GPUs. This inefficiency not only leads to high deployment" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 518, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 518, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 518, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 213, + 518, + 292 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4a16c58bf21abc08e7050840de6c7305ccf08361cd37ec81ae748a05c02447cc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Compared with autoregressive decoding (left) that generates token by token, the draft-then-verify paradigm (right) first drafts multiple tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens in parallel. Drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{y}_5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") will be discarded to guarantee the generation quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 395, + 525, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "costs but also limits the application of advanced AR models in real-time scenarios." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 651 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this work, we study the draft-then-verify paradigm for accelerating seq2seq generation of an existing AR model2. As shown in Figure 1, the draft-then-verify paradigm first generates a number of drafted tokens efficiently and then verifies these tokens using the existing AR model in parallel to ensure the decoding result matches AR decoding. However, previous attempts in the \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm such as Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) and Aggressive Decoding (Sun et al., 2021) tend to lack in-depth investigation of this paradigm. Their modest speedup (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 651 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4 \\times \\sim 2.0 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 422, + 526, + 651 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") or limitation to certain seq2seq tasks like Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) has caused this paradigm to be underestimated, resulting in it not receiving much attention and remaining dormant for years." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 652, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 652, + 526, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 652, + 526, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To fully exploit the draft-then-verify paradigm, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), drawing inspiration from speculative execution3 in com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 525, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 525, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2The existing AR model in this paper refers to the targeted Transformer using AR decoding that we want to accelerate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 721, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Speculative execution is an optimization technique used in computer architecture where a system performs some task in advance to avoid delays that would have to be incurred by doing the task after it is known that it is required (https: //wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative Execution)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 671 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 650, + 290, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* This work was done during the author's internship at MSR Asia. Correspondence: Tao Ge (tage@microsoft.com)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 671, + 237, + 682 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 671, + 237, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 671, + 237, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Co-first authors with equal contributions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was initially announced in March 2022 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16487) under the name Generalized Aggressive Decoding. It has been formally renamed Speculative Decoding in our submission to ICLR'23, which has been publicly available since September 2022 at https://openreview.net/pdf?id=H-VlwsYvVi. This marks the first time \"Speculative Decoding\", which explicitly studies the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference, has been proposed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3909" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 463, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3909-3925" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "puter architecture, with two key innovations that improve drafting and verification processes respectively. For drafting, we derive two principles for designing the drafting model4: the Capability Principle and the Latency Principle. Following these two principles, we propose Spec-Drafter – a specialized independent model optimized in the draft-then-verify paradigm, which can accurately and efficiently fulfill the drafting task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 197, + 290, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 197, + 290, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 197, + 290, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For verification, we propose an advanced method - Spec-Verification that relaxes the vanilla verification strategy. Spec-Verification allows the decoding results of SpecDec to be slightly different from AR greedy decoding, offering an opportunity to accept more drafted tokens without sacrificing generation quality and leading to higher decoding efficiency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct extensive experiments on various seq2seq generation tasks like machine translation and abstractive summarization. Results show our approach can achieve around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup for the popular Transformer architectures with comparable generation quality to beam search decoding, largely outperforming previous draft-then-verify work (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4 \\times \\sim 2.0 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup). Moreover, we demonstrate that SpecDec has several additional advantages that enhance its practicality for accelerating generative models in real-world applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 449, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 449, + 291, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 449, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions can be summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 292, + 739 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We are the first work that explicitly exploits the idea of speculative execution to accelerate Transformer inference. Our proposed two key innovations – the independent Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification strategy allow SpecDec to achieve over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " lossless speedup over autoregressive decoding in seq2seq tasks, refreshing the impression that the \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm only has a limited " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.5 \\times \\sim 2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 476, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " acceleration potential." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 617, + 292, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 617, + 292, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 617, + 292, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We demonstrate 3 advantages of SpecDec with extensive empirical results in addition to its remarkable acceleration performance: better latency-throughput trade-off, easy adaptability for existing models and retaining the behavior of the original model, revealing its huge practical value and bringing the long-dormant draft-then-verify paradigm back into the spotlight." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 525, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 525, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 70, + 525, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Background: draft-then-verify decoding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 526, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 91, + 526, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The \"draft-then-verify\" paradigm first drafts multiple tokens efficiently, as a speculation of AR decoding results; then, it verifies these tokens in parallel to ensure they match the AR decoding result, as illustrated in Figure 1. It is an implicit implementation of speculative execution in Transformer inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Draft There are different approaches to drafting tokens, including model-based (Stern et al., 2018) and input-(context-) based5 methods (Sun et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2023). Take Blockwise Decoding – the most representative work attempting the draft-then-verify paradigm – as an example (illustrated in Figure 2(a)): it introduces additional " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " feedforward network (FFN) heads on top of an existing AR model, enabling the model to predict the next " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 194, + 526, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " drafted tokens in parallel during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Verify The generated drafted tokens are fed into the original AR model and verified in parallel. Specifically, it finds the bifurcation position " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the largest index that ensures all previous " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 337, + 525, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " drafted tokens and the corresponding AR decoded tokens are identical:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 427, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 427, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 427, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c = \\arg \\max _ {i} \\frac {\\mathbb {I} (\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \\neq \\hat {y} _ {j + i})}{i}, 1 \\leq i \\leq k \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "d71038238a390a37f77801c253a0ca5127f1f84baa901a6b9555dff6c82dfb44.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 453, + 524, + 470 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 453, + 524, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 453, + 524, + 470 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {y} _ {j + i} = \\arg \\max _ {y} \\log P (y \\mid \\hat {\\mathbf {y}} _ {\\leq j}, \\widetilde {\\mathbf {y}} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + i - 1}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "a35c573ecdaecc46bd414b24febfd4be8180deb3f05e910c37be43860e3f94b1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbb{I}(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the indicator function, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the source sentence, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\pmb{y}}_{\\leq j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the previously generated tokens and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{y}_{j + i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " -th drafted token. Drafted tokens after the position " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are all discarded. The final decoded tokens in the current iteration are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 551, + 524, + 564 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 551, + 524, + 564 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 551, + 524, + 564 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + c} = \\left(\\widetilde {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + c - 1}, \\hat {y} _ {j + c}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "fe0a321d482c700c6b285a7251a1a7bd282a8e88734cf231cf2b5035b45c94b7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 524, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 524, + 600 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 524, + 600 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The above draft and verification steps are iterated until the termination condition is met." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 433, + 625 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 433, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 433, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Speculative Decoding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 632, + 525, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 632, + 525, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 632, + 525, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To fully exploit speculative execution for Transformer inference, we propose Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) with two innovations - Spec-Drafter and Spec-Verification that substantially improve drafting (Section 3.1) and verification (Section 3.2) respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 751 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 751 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This kind of method is usually limited to special tasks like GEC and retrieval-augmented generation. In this paper, we mainly focus on the model-based methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{\\pmb{y}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote drafted tokens, while we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\pmb{y}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 751, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote AR decoded/verified generation results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4The drafting model is also called the drafter in this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3910" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 165, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 165, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 165, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 67, + 165, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "3f848c7b0f3cb5547fec360f8fa209e60227980202dbee6fa9bee7c80b583d38.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 195, + 149, + 205 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 195, + 149, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 195, + 149, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Blockwise Decoding" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 68, + 283, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 68, + 283, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 68, + 283, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 174, + 68, + 283, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "70a52ca90c5dfceaf204f6a338b1c84f791a779987b4f296327884962638964f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 195, + 247, + 203 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 195, + 247, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 199, + 195, + 247, + 203 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Spec-Drafter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 157, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 157, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 331, + 157, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Spec-Drafter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 185, + 362 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 185, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 185, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.1 Design Principles" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 459 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 459 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As a crucial ingredient in the draft-then-verify paradigm, the drafting process has a drastic impact on end-to-end acceleration performance. However, there are very limited explorations of the designing principles for the drafter by previous studies - most of them arbitrarily implement a drafter, which accounts for their undesirable acceleration results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 289, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To understand the effect of drafting, we look into the overall latency in the draft-then-verify paradigm for one sample of the length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 509, + 290, + 547 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 509, + 290, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 509, + 290, + 547 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "T = \\underbrace {\\frac {L}{\\mathbf {T o k} .} \\times t _ {d}} _ {\\text {t o t a l d r a f t i n g l a t e n c y}} + \\underbrace {\\frac {L}{\\mathbf {T o k} .} \\times t _ {v}} _ {\\text {t o t a l v e r i f i c a t i o n l a t e n c y}} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "e18443476b8a0d8a885b997bd79c9c24305cb278a2181cba9128249c5264d8ad.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{Tok}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted per iteration, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 289, + 610 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are the time costs of drafting and verification each iteration respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 290, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 612, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to Eq (4), Tok. is inversely proportional to the number of iterations, which is primarily influenced by drafting accuracy: A drafter that is more capable of drafting can attain greater Tok. values, consequently completing the decoding process in fewer iterations. This observation leads us to derive the first principle for designing the drafter:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 716, + 268, + 742 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 716, + 268, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 716, + 268, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Principle I (Capability Principle): The drafter model should be seriously in-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7We don't discuss " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in this paper because it is determined by the existing AR model and thus regarded constant." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 515, + 265 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: (a) Blockwise Decoding that introduces " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " FFN heads on top of the target AR model for drafting the next " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 212, + 290, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens with shared attention; (b) Spec-Drafter is an independent model for drafted token prediction. It employs distinct attention queries for predicting each drafted token. Modules colored in yellow belong to the original AR model while those colored in red denote newly introduced modules." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 515, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 515, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 515, + 265 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6c325979234b763058aab2b7e8fab935785a3e7cb980431784d9565d2519a14b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 524, + 347 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 524, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Upper: An AR model's attention heatmap showing that different target positions should attend to different source tokens; Lower: The Spec-Drafter's attention heatmap showing its capability of modeling drafted tokens in different positions, which highly aligns with the AR counterpart." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 370, + 504, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 370, + 504, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 370, + 504, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "vested to guarantee its capability of accurate drafting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 407, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Principle I is the most crucial principle in determining the end-to-end speedup, as it directly influences the value of Tok. which affects both total drafting and verification latency. Surprisingly, little previous work adheres to this seemingly simple and straightforward principle maybe due to the concern of increasing the drafting latency. For instance, the drafter in Blockwise Decoding is not properly invested: Its drafter not only has limited parameters (FFN prediction heads), making it difficult to fit the challenging drafting task, but more importantly, it employs a shared attention mechanism that forces all drafted tokens to share a single set of attentions (only differentiating at the final prediction head), as shown in Figure 2(a). However, different target positions should attend different context tokens, as illustrated in Figure 3. Despite its computational efficiency, the shared attention mechanism in Blockwise decoding severely constrains the drafter's capability, resulting in low drafting accuracy and consequently leading to most drafted tokens being discarded." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to the drafter's accuracy, its latency also impacts the end-to-end speedup result but from another perspective - by affecting the latency of each iteration (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Eq (4)) - from which we derive Principle II for designing the drafter:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3911" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 85, + 513, + 237 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 85, + 513, + 237 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 85, + 513, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 85, + 513, + 237 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "17bbc9f3eb7031e08a9006bc36210462c43d80ffd1dd87709da89b237a9f7ef4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 245, + 525, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 245, + 525, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 245, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Illustration of Spec-Verification. Compared to the vanilla verification strategy strictly requiring the drafted tokens to match the AR top-1 result, Spec-Verification slightly relaxes the criterion to trust the drafts more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 245, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 245, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " AR candidates with a tolerable log-likelihood gap (not shown in this Figure; see Eq (9)). As a result, Spec-Verification allows more drafted tokens to be accepted even if they are slightly different from the AR top-1 result, leading to a higher inference speedup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 327, + 268, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 327, + 268, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 89, + 327, + 268, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Principle II (Latency Principle): The drafter should be fast at generating drafted tokens to minimize the latency overhead of each iteration." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 385, + 291, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Designing a fast drafter solely based on Principle II is not difficult, as done in most previous work. The real challenge lies in designing a low-latency drafter without compromising its capability (Principle I), since it is difficult to achieve both low latency and high capability simultaneously." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 196, + 485 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 196, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 196, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.2 Model Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 291, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose Spec-Drafter, which adheres to both principles for accurate and fast drafting. To ensure the drafter is sufficiently capable of accurate drafting (Principle I), Spec-Drafter employs an independent encoder-decoder model architecture, which generates drafted tokens conditioned on the leftward context and source tokens in a mask-predict manner (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019), as illustrated in Figure 2(b). This independent model design facilitates Spec-Drafter to predict each drafted token using distinct attention queries, in contrast to Blockwise Decoding employing a shared attention query for predicting all drafted tokens (as illustrated in Figure 2). In this way, Spec-Drafter could better align with the AR model's behavior, thereby increasing the chances of its drafted tokens being accepted during verification, as shown in Figure 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make Spec-Drafter fast (Principle II) without compromising its capability, we design its decoder to be lightweight by reducing the number of decoder layers and reallocating the freed-up budget to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 327, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "its encoder (by increasing its depth), which is motivated by the fact that the encoder is forwarded only once, while the decoder is frequently forwarded for iterative decoding. This encoder-favored modeling has been demonstrated by previous work to improve latency with little generation quality degradation (Kasai et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2021; Ge et al., 2022a). We find it also highly effective for the drafter in the draft-then-verify decoding paradigm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 448, + 469 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 448, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 455, + 448, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1.3 Training and Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, given the source sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the randomly sampled prefix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{y}_{\\leq p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0 \\leq p < m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") of the target sentence, Spec-Drafter appends " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " special \"[MASK]\" tokens to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\pmb{y}_{\\leq p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 471, + 525, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and is trained to predict these masked tokens in parallel:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 553, + 525, + 584 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 553, + 525, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 553, + 525, + 584 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}} = \\sum_ {i = p + 1} ^ {p + k} \\log P \\left(y _ {i} \\mid \\boldsymbol {y} _ {\\leq p} ^ {k}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}\\right) \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "7611a405722f000e33a6f9730e409212e84c9fdd5484059188b534a4335b1968.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 591, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 591, + 526, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 591, + 526, + 619 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\boldsymbol {y} _ {\\leq p} ^ {k} = \\left(y _ {1}, \\dots , y _ {p}, \\underbrace {[ \\mathrm {M A S K} ] , \\cdots , [ \\mathrm {M A S K} ]} _ {\\times k}\\right) \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "2639820ae0a857c6de3b3d0f08ea317d2ee9710b516b646be5ea9ee33b244d01.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 526, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 526, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 526, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we leverage the glancing strategy following Qian et al. (2021), which exploits curriculum learning during training to get better generation performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "During inference, Spec-Drafter appends " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " \" [MASK] \" tokens to the previously decoded tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\pmb{y}}_{\\leq j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and simultaneously predict these masked tokens as a drafted block:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 734, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 734, + 525, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 734, + 525, + 754 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} = \\arg \\max _ {y} \\log P (y \\mid \\hat {\\boldsymbol {y}} _ {\\leq j} ^ {k}, \\boldsymbol {x}; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\text {S p e c - D r a f t e r}}) \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "fa99932cd7fe4e87144068b99bdf785b1525ed6d6895adbe5258704e7ccfed2a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 392, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 392, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 392, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 760, + 392, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i = 1,\\ldots ,k" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 402, + 79 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 402, + 79 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 402, + 79 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Source Sentence Machen sich Hunderte Millionen von Autofahrern sorgen über ihre Privatsphäre." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3912" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 176, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 176, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 176, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Spec-Verification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 89, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As introduced in Section 2, the vanilla verification strategy of preliminary studies only accepts the drafted tokens that match the top-1 result of the AR model, which guarantees that the decoding results are identical to AR greedy decoding. However, the top-1 results are not necessarily better than the drafted tokens, especially when the paradigm is equipped with a high-quality drafter. Therefore, the strict verification criterion (i.e., top-1 matching) will result in many good drafted tokens being discarded just because they are different from the top-1 result of the AR model, which limits the speedup of the paradigm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make better use of the drafting results, we propose an advanced verification strategy named Spec-Verification, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Instead of the rigid matching requirement shown in Eq (2), Spec-Verification relaxes the criterion to trust the drafting results more, by only requiring the drafted tokens to fall in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "top - \\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " candidates with a tolerable (log-likelihood) score gap " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (away from the top-1 result). Formally, it will accept the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th drafted token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\widetilde{y}_{j + i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if all previous " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 264, + 291, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens are accepted, and Eq (8) and (9) are both true:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 428, + 290, + 445 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 428, + 290, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 428, + 290, + 445 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\log P \\left(\\tilde {y} _ {j + i} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) \\geq \\log P \\left(\\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(\\beta)} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right), \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "652e5abd169ab60de496701a1599a3ac184c48e6bf86490226d1a79260c63320.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 459, + 290, + 475 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 459, + 290, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 459, + 290, + 475 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\log P \\left(\\hat {y} _ {j + i} ^ {(1)} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) - \\log P \\left(\\widetilde {y} _ {j + i} \\mid \\Delta ; \\boldsymbol {\\theta} _ {\\mathrm {A R}}\\right) \\leq \\tau , \\tag {9}", + "image_path": "c5ede40889462c52258dfbd6a947f25d4d7ec3e2ede25eeeb43560ae29ae6a8b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 486, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 486, + 289, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 486, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\triangle = \\hat {y} _ {\\leq j}, \\tilde {y} _ {j + 1 \\dots j + i - 1}, x, \\tag {10}", + "image_path": "da9d730e75de3c96bc68b894a9891c6d49c462f427b7bd76cbec4f4a80a82604.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\log P(\\hat{y}_{j + i}^{(\\beta)}|\\triangle ;\\pmb{\\theta}_{\\mathrm{AR}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 291, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ranked result's log-likelihood score by the AR model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 155, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 155, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 155, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 199, + 577 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 199, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 199, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Experimental Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 582, + 291, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets and Evaluation We mainly evaluate our approach on two standard machine translation benchmarks: WMT14 EN↔DE (4.5M pairs) and WMT16 EN↔RO (610K pairs). Following prior work (Ott et al., 2018), for WMT14 EN↔DE translation, we adopt newstest-13 as our validation set for finding the best hyperparameters, and test on newstest-14. For WMT16 EN↔RO translation, we use the dataset released by Lee et al. (2018), where newsdev2016 and newstest2016 are taken as validation and test sets. We use 32K Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) (Sennrich et al., 2016) subwords8" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8We use the same BPE tokenization and vocabulary as Ghazvininejad et al. (2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "as the joint source-target dictionary. We evaluate performance with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) for both language pairs9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 112, + 525, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For inference efficiency, we report decoding speedup over beam search. Specifically, we test the inference speed by running the model with one sentence at a time (batch=1). We perform model inference with fairseq implementation using Pytorch 1.10.1 with 1 Nvidia Tesla P100-PCIe of 16GB GPU memory under CUDA 11.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model Configuration The primary target model we accelerate in our experiments is the Transformer-base model with a 6-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder of 512/2048 embedding/FFN dimension, which can achieve state-of-the-art results on the benchmarks under comparable model size conditions. For the Spec-Drafter, we adopt a similar architecture to the AR model except with 12 encoder layers and 2 decoder layers to make sure it adheres to both the Capability and Latency principles. We apply sequence-level knowledge distillation (Kim and Rush, 2016) by the AR teacher to the Spec-Drafter to align its behavior with the AR model as much as possible. We include model training details in Appendix A. For the Spec-Verification, we find the hyperparameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 525, + 486 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " leading to the best generation quality on the validation set. Besides, we re-implement Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours to facilitate fair comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 365, + 508 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 365, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 497, + 365, + 508 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present the performance and the acceleration effect of SpecDec to Transformer in Table 1. As reported in the previous work (Stern et al., 2018), Blockwise Decoding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(k = 10)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " can only achieve " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.4 \\times 2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup without affecting the generation results over the Transformer-base model. Further increasing the parallel capability of Blockwise Decoding (e.g., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 25" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") will not introduce more speedup as its limited drafting accuracy prevents more drafted tokens from being accepted. In contrast, our SpecDec shows consistent performance improvement with increased parallel capabilities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(k = 10 \\rightarrow k = 25)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 515, + 525, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", resulting in around" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 524, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 699, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9We also report sacreBLEU (Post, 2018) and COMET (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 720, + 476, + 731 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 720, + 476, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 720, + 476, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10https://github.com/pytorch/fairseq" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 731, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the original paper of Blockwise Decoding, there is also a variation that allows the AR model to be fine-tuned for better drafting tokens. We don't discuss this variation because it severely affects the generation quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3913" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 253 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
SpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEUSpeedBLEU
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×28.891.0×32.531.0×34.961.0×34.86
Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.731.1×32.181.1×34.831.1×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.9×28.732.0×32.181.4×34.831.4×34.65
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.6×28.731.7×32.181.2×34.831.2×34.65
SpecDec (k = 10)4.2×28.904.6×32.613.9×35.294.1×34.88
SpecDec (k = 25)5.1×28.935.5×32.554.6×35.454.8×35.03
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0×29.131.0×32.451.0×34.931.0×34.80
12+2 Transformer-base (b = 1)1.1×28.991.1×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 10)1.6×28.991.7×32.081.2×34.791.2×34.55
Blockwise Decoding (k = 25)1.4×28.991.5×32.081.1×34.791.1×34.55
SpecDec (k = 10)2.7×29.083.0×32.402.3×35.122.4×34.85
SpecDec (k = 25)3.0×29.133.3×32.482.5×35.072.6×34.91
", + "image_path": "f50ffd4dfca617bf43432a5b0efec6e36b9a65902dfcfb9b78c0982c2c60e602.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 298, + 434, + 387 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 525, + 287 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 525, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 525, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: The performance of Speculative Decoding (SpecDec) to speed up the Transformer-base on the WMT benchmarks. We re-implement and evaluate Blockwise Decoding using the same device and environment as ours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 298, + 434, + 387 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 298, + 434, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 159, + 298, + 434, + 387 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsTok.BLEUtdSpeed
Transformer-base (b = 5)1.0028.89-1.0×
SpecDec
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ head-based drafter2.3228.020.811.7×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I)7.0528.562.294.4×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II)8.2128.9510.874.0×
\\(\\sqsubseteq\\)w/ Spec-Drafter8.2328.935.215.1×
", + "image_path": "1846e8f8c36968be66c59aa39d023665b87c89cb12eeb325164612f628c4df9e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 290, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 290, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 290, + 531 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.6 \\times \\sim 5.5 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 290, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup across the translation benchmarks; moreover, it even achieves an improvement in generation quality (by the BLEU metric) compared with AR greedy decoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar results are also observed when accelerating the Transformer with a 12-layer encoder and 2-layer decoder - SpecDec can still achieve around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 612 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.5 \\times \\sim 3.3 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 532, + 290, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup while Blockwise Decoding's acceleration effect becomes nearly negligible over the fast AR baseline." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 136, + 635 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 136, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 136, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 290, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 290, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 640, + 290, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we conduct a comprehensive and thorough analysis, to demonstrate that the significant improvement of the SpecDec arises from both the Spec-Drafter (Section 4.3.1) and Spec-Verification (Section 4.3.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 145, + 729 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 145, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 716, + 145, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.1 Drafting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 732, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to Table 2, the Spec-Drafter significantly outperforms the head-based drafter (as used in Blockwise Decoding) in terms of both end-to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 314, + 475, + 514, + 565 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 525, + 456 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 525, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Ablation studies of the drafter in the SpecDec on WMT14 EN→DE. Tok. denotes the average number of drafted tokens accepted in each iteration. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 395, + 525, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the average time cost of drafting per iteration. The head-based drafter is the one used by Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018). The Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle I) reduces the model/FFN dimension to 256/1024, while the Spec-Drafter (w/o Principle II) does not use a deep encoder and shallow decoder but instead utilizes a more balanced architecture with equal depth of encoder and decoder layers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 475, + 514, + 565 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 475, + 514, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 475, + 514, + 565 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelskTok.BLEUSpeed
AR-base (b = 5)-1.0026.721.00×
SpecDec106.0526.803.99×
156.9327.124.54×
207.4127.054.72×
257.8926.975.04×
307.6726.894.82×
", + "image_path": "6f1f122358d2bbf1331cafd78771938813f6f490f881fc48723c40fbc56cbd97.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 525, + 622 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 525, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: The mean accepted tokens (Tok.), the generation quality (BLEU), and the efficiency (Speed) when decoding with a various number of block size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 573, + 525, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "end generation quality and efficiency. To further investigate the Spec-Drafter, we conduct an ablation study on the principles it follows. Ablating the Capability Principle by reducing its size results in a drastic drop in end-to-end acceleration performance, as more iterations are needed to complete the decoding process, indicated by a lower Tok. When we ablate the Latency Principle by using a balanced " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(6 + 6)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " encoder-decoder architecture for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3914" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 156 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 156 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 289, + 156 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsτTop-3 (β = 3)Top-5 (β = 5)
Vanilla-6.41/26.62
SpecDec17.89/26.97 (5.0×)7.92/26.88
28.75/26.848.83/26.79
39.51/26.719.64/26.68
410.11/26.6010.63/26.59
510.46/26.5811.01/26.58 (6.8×)
", + "image_path": "9ede93469848249d0f005d88c83717e1bf7ed48fb319bd851d2179a2f1b21f93.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Results of SpecDec (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 25" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") on the development set of WMT14 EN→DE with different hyperparameters. Each cell lists the mean accepted tokens and BLEU score. Among the runs in the table, the highest BLEU score of 26.97 is achieved when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau = 1.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup. On the other hand, when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the highest Tok. (i.e., 11.01) is reached, resulting in almost " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 164, + 291, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup, though the BLEU score slightly decreases to 26.58." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the drafter, it also experiences a substantial decline in end-to-end acceleration performance due to increased latency in each iteration (reflected by a higher " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Moreover, we analyze the block size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "'s effect on the end-to-end acceleration performance of the paradigm in Table 3. In contrast to the blockwise decoding achieving its best acceleration performance at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as shown in Table 1, SpecDec achieves its best performance at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 25" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with 7.89 mean accepted tokens each iteration. Further increasing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 350, + 290, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has an adverse effect, because it will become very hard for the model to learn to draft too many tokens simultaneously given the model capacity, resulting in a drop of Tok." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 158, + 521 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 158, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 158, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3.2 Verification" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We study the effect of Spec-Verification on the development set (i.e., newstest-2013) of WMT14 EN " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " DE in Table 4. Moderately increasing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the Spec-Verification not only leads to an increase of mean accepted tokens (Tok.) and speed since AR verification becomes less strict but also improves the generation quality over greedy decoding. However, the generation quality may decrease if over-relaxed: the BLEU score will degrade from the peak of 26.97 to 26.58 when decoding with top-5 selection (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau = 5.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Based on the results in the development set, we select " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta = 3" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau = 1.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 527, + 291, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as our Spec-Verification hyperparameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 167, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 167, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 727, + 167, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Practical Value" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition to the remarkable speedup results, we demonstrate SpecDec's additional advantages that" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 518, + 170 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 518, + 170 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 518, + 170 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 68, + 518, + 170 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "48001e4a4131216eb873a64a087a5dfc615baf21b043330744b0cf996e3c48f6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 524, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 524, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 178, + 524, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: The latency-throughput curve with various batch sizes on WMT14 EN→DE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 524, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 524, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "enhance its practical value in the following three aspects:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 525, + 475 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 258, + 525, + 475 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Better latency-throughput trade-off SpecDec achieves inference acceleration by increasing the GPU computing parallelism. Although increasing the batch size can also increase the computing parallelism to improve throughput, it results in increased latency, which is not desirable in real-world application scenarios. Therefore, a smaller batch size is often employed during inference, but this in turn results in the underutilization of GPU computing resources, leading to the dilemma of low throughput for small batches and high latency for large batches, as illustrated by Figure 5. SpecDec effectively addresses this dilemma. Even by maintaining a small batch size, SpecDec can fully utilize the computing performance of the GPU, significantly improving both efficiency and throughput." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Easily adaptable for existing models In many practical applications, generative models are often pretrained with massive data, which exhibits very high performance. Developing a faster model from scratch to replace the pretrained model is highly challenging and typically requires substantial computational costs to reiterate the pretraining process. Otherwise, the quality of the new models is very likely to be compromised despite the increased speed, as Table 5 shows. However, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate existing pretrained models. Taking the BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020) model for the abstractive summarization task as an example, we can easily achieve " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 725 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5.1 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 525, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup without compromising the generation quality only by initializing the Spec-Drafter with the BART-base encoder and training it with the BART-base distilled summarization training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retaining the behavior of the original model As introduced in Section 1, one significant advantage of SpecDec is that it does not develop a new" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3915" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 180 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 495, + 180 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsRouge-1Rouge-2Rouge-LSpeed
ARBART-base (b = 5)43.0820.4140.151.0×
BART-base (b = 1)43.0020.2839.961.1×
NARGLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)37.76 ↓5.2414.08 ↓6.2033.69 ↓6.2714.5×
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)38.95 ↓4.0516.11 ↓4.1735.43 ↓4.5314.1×
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)37.59 ↓5.4115.17 ↓5.1134.22 ↓5.541.8×
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)39.12 ↓3.8816.24 ↓4.0435.74 ↓4.223.1×
SpecDecSpecDec (k = 25)43.11 ↑0.1120.43 ↑0.1540.19 ↑0.235.1×
", + "image_path": "d9f6918f4779dfe30d8088788f786fc498a22083567ee55e7254c6a1e41f0c03.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 255, + 271, + 361 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 526, + 236 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 526, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 188, + 526, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Results of different methods for Abstractive Summarization on CNN-DM (Hermann et al., 2015). The results on par with BART-base performance are highlighted in orange, while blue denotes performance degradation. Compared to prior NAR methods, SpecDec can be easily adapted to accelerate the BART model only by downstream task fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 255, + 271, + 361 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 255, + 271, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 255, + 271, + 361 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsBLEU
Transformer-base (greedy)100.00
GLAT+CTC (Qian et al., 2021)59.10
DAT (Huang et al., 2022)63.79
CMLM (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019)60.15
RewriteNAT (Geng et al., 2021)65.42
Deep-Shallow (Kasai et al., 2020)64.66
SpecDec (k=25)86.52
", + "image_path": "a88886c15030e8fd829b35d5c32da154aff16e7c839acce7c4b4d8042ceb956c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 429 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 369, + 291, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Relative BLEU score computed between the generation of the existing Transformer (i.e., the target model) and other models/approaches. SpecDec shows much better alignment with the target model's behavior than others." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "faster model to replace the existing model. Instead, it accelerates the existing model with minimal changes to its behavior. As shown in Table 6, the consistency (BLEU) of SpecDec's generated results with the original model exceeds " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "85\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", while that of a newly built fast NAR model is only around " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "55\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 453, + 291, + 628 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The characteristic of maintaining the behavior of the original model makes SpecDec even more valuable in practical applications because transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to one with substantially different behavior is risky, requiring extensive recalibration and various offline evaluations and online feedback in practice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 160, + 655 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 160, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 641, + 160, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speculative Decoding We have demonstrated since early 2022 (see our arXiv preprints in 2022) that our proposed methodology, which formally introduces an independent model as a drafter combined with an advanced verification strategy to fully exploit speculative execution, is promising and has potential to evolve into a de facto standard in the future for efficient and lossless de" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 526, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "coding. Since this work was proposed, we are pleased to see an increasing number of following studies (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2023; Spector and Re, 2023; Zhang et al., 2023) acknowledge, explore and adopt this methodology to accelerate Transformer inference. Among them, Leviathan et al. (2023) use the same name as ours (i.e., Speculative Decoding), employing a small AR model as a drafter" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{12}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 257, + 526, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as well as advanced sampling algorithm. Chen et al. (2023) is similar to Leviathan et al. (2023) but it was the first to validate this methodology to accelerate a large language model (i.e., 70B Chinchilla) with a 4B drafter model, thus receiving the most attention. SpecInfer (Miao et al., 2023) proposed to utilize various boost-tuned small language models for joint drafting, to improve the speculation accuracy of the LLM's outputs. Besides, it introduces an advanced token tree verification strategy to verify all candidate token sequences in parallel. Distill-Spec (Zhou et al., 2023) further investigated the efficacy of knowledge distillation in enhancing the alignment between the target model and the drafter in speculative decoding. In addition to employing additional models as drafters, there has also been some research that proposes various strategies to efficiently generate drafts from the LLM itself (Santilli et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). All the following research strongly backs up the value of this original work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 525, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Early Draft-then-verify attempts This work is a generalized version of our previously proposed (Input-guided) Aggressive Decoding13 (Sun et al.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12We provide a detailed comparison between Leviathan et al. (2023) and our work in Appendix G." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "13As our technical report (Ge et al., 2022b) in May 2022 discusses, the Input-guided Aggressive Decoding is indeed a special case of Speculative Decoding." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3916" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2021) in Grammatical Error Correction (GEC), which assumes that the input is exactly the sentence to be generated in the future and then verifies the whole sentence in parallel. Blockwise Decoding (Stern et al., 2018) inserted " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " feedforward heads on top of the Transformer decoder to generate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " positions in parallel and used the original head to verify these outputs. However, both the above studies did not fully investigate the potential of this paradigm and thus failed to uncover its great value for efficient seq2seq generation: Sun et al. (2021) only works for tasks whose inputs and outputs are highly similar (e.g., GEC). Stern et al. (2018) overlooked the importance of drafting accuracy; as a result, their underinvested prediction heads severely limit the acceleration results. In contrast, we conduct thorough investigations and fully exploit speculative execution, refreshing the impression of its limited acceleration potential and revealing its real value in practice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 368, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Non-autoregressive Decoding There is also another line of work named Non-Autoregressive Decoding (NAR) (Gu et al., 2018), which decodes multiple tokens in parallel compared with conventional AR, thus showing remarkable superiority in inference efficiency. Recently, various attempts have been made to improve the performance of NAR models, including training with alignment-based objectives (Libovický and Helcl, 2018; Ghazvininejad et al., 2020; Sahara et al., 2020; Gu and Kong, 2021; Shao and Feng, 2022), modeling dependencies between target tokens (Ghazvininejad et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2021; Bao et al., 2021) and designing various model architectures (Zheng et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022). As discussed in Section 4.4, replacing a powerful pretrained model with NAR models in practice is challenging due to the substantial computational costs required to reiterate the pretraining process. Additionally, transitioning from a well-tested and mature model to a new NAR model with significantly different behavior poses risks in practical applications. In contrast, our proposed SpecDec can be conveniently adapted to speed up existing AR models including high-performance pretrained models like BART with little effort. Moreover, SpecDec minimally alters the behavior of existing models, showcasing its ability to preserve reliable generation performance in real-world practical applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 380, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 380, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 71, + 380, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 94, + 525, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 94, + 525, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 94, + 525, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present Speculative Decoding (SpecDec), the first work to explicitly embrace the idea of speculative execution for seq2seq generation acceleration with a formal study and extensive discussion of both drafting and verification phases. Contrary to the common belief that an increase in model complexity tends to hamper inference speed, SpecDec's introduction of an appropriately invested auxiliary drafter model substantially speeds up Transformer inference, owing to higher computational parallelism introduced by speculative execution to better utilize computing resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 257, + 525, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 257, + 525, + 377 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 257, + 525, + 377 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The remarkable acceleration performance, combined with the advantages demonstrated in our experiments, clearly illustrates that SpecDec is a practical acceleration method for model deployment in real-world applications. We hope that our preliminary study could draw more attention to this promising decoding paradigm that may potentially evolve into a de facto standard for efficient Transformer decoding in the near future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 391, + 365, + 403 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 391, + 365, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 391, + 365, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 413, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 413, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 413, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared with conventional autoregressive decoding, SpecDec introduces an extra Spec-Drafter module for ensuring its drafting accuracy, which brings additional memory cost at test time. Therefore, SpecDec is particularly suitable for inference scenarios where GPU memory is abundant but there is an urgent need to improve latency – it provides a solution to trading the surplus GPU memory for speed improvements. As thoroughly discussed in Appendix B, such scenarios are very common in practice. Most importantly, memory is no longer the bottleneck for practical model deployment. With the emergence and maturity of various data/tensor/pipeline parallelism techniques, the addition of more GPUs can easily address memory issues, which is also why models continue to grow larger. In contrast, latency remains an inescapable bottleneck in model deployment that cannot be resolved merely by increasing the number of machines. Therefore, we believe the increased memory consumption may not severely affect its practical value." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 724, + 405, + 736 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 724, + 405, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 724, + 405, + 736 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank Fan Yang, Lingxiao Ma, and Lidong Zhou in Microsoft Research for their constructive" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 287, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3917" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "comments on this work. This paper is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China 2020AAA0106700 and NSFC project U19A2065." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 151, + 127, + 163 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 151, + 127, + 163 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 151, + 127, + 163 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 291, + 271 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 291, + 271 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 171, + 291, + 271 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yu Bao, Shujian Huang, Tong Xiao, Dongqi Wang, Xinyu Dai, and Jiajun Chen. 2021. Non-autoregressive translation by learning target categorical codes. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, pages 5749-5759. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 338 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. 2023. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. CoRR, abs/2302.01318." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 349, + 291, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mengyun Chen, Tao Ge, Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Improving the efficiency of grammatical error correction with erroneous span detection and correction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7162-7169." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 428, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 428, + 291, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 428, + 291, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Ge, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022a. Edgeformer: A parameter-efficient transformer for ondevice seq2seq generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2022, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 7-11, 2022, pages 10786-10798. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 572 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 572 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 528, + 290, + 572 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tao Ge, Heming Xia, Xin Sun, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2022b. Lossless acceleration for seq2seq generation with aggressive decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10350." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 583, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 583, + 291, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 583, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xinwei Geng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2021. Learning to rewrite for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, pages 3297-3308. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 683, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marjan Ghazvininejad, Vladimir Karpukhin, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2020. Aligned cross entropy for non-autoregressive machine translation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3515-3523. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marjan Ghazvininejad, Omer Levy, Yinhan Liu, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Mask-predict: Parallel decoding of conditional masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019, pages 6111-6120. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor O.K. Li, and Richard Socher. 2018. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 526, + 313 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 526, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 236, + 526, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiatao Gu and Xiang Kong. 2021. Fully non-autoregressive neural machine translation: Tricks of the trade. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021, Online Event, August 1-6, 2021, volume ACL/IJCNLP 2021 of Findings of ACL, pages 120-133. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 323, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 323, + 526, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 323, + 526, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pages 1693-1701." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 422, + 526, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fei Huang, Hao Zhou, Yang Liu, Hang Li, and Minlie Huang. 2022. Directed acyclic transformer for non-autoregressive machine translation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9410-9428. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 526, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 526, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jungo Kasai, James Cross, Marjan Ghazvininejad, and Jiatao Gu. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with disentangled context transformer. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5144-5155. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 526, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 608, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jungo Kasai, Nikolaos Pappas, Hao Peng, James Cross, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. Deep encoder, shallow decoder: Reevaluating non-autoregressive machine translation. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sehoon Kim, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer. 2023. Speculative decoding with big little decoder. CoRR, abs/2302.07863." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 738, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07947." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3918" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Lee, Elman Mansimov, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2018. Deterministic non-autoregressive neural sequence modeling by iterative refinement. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 1173-1182. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 169, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 169, + 291, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 169, + 291, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 19274-19286. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 254, + 291, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 7871-7880. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 374, + 291, + 461 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 374, + 291, + 461 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 374, + 291, + 461 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jindrich Libovický and Jindrich Helcl. 2018. End-to-end non-autoregressive neural machine translation with connectionist temporal classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, pages 3016-3021. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 515 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 470, + 290, + 515 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Malmi, Sebastian Krause, Sascha Rothe, Daniil Mirylenka, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2019. Encode, tag, realize: High-precision text editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01187." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 591 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 524, + 290, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Zhuoming Chen, Daiyaan Arfeen, Reyna Abhyankar, and Zhihao Jia. 2023. Specinfer: Accelerating generative LLM serving with speculative inference and token tree verification. CoRR, abs/2305.09781." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 291, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kostiantyn Omelianchuk, Vitaliy Atrasevych, Artem Chernodub, and Oleksandr Skurzhanskyi. 2020. Gector-grammatical error correction: tag, not rewrite. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12592." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 291, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 291, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2018. Scaling neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 1-9. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 525, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "for Computational Linguistics, July 6-12, 2002, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pages 311-318. ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 104, + 526, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Matt Post. 2018. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, WMT 2018, Belgium, Brussels, October 31 - November 1, 2018, pages 186-191. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 302 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 181, + 526, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lihua Qian, Hao Zhou, Yu Bao, Mingxuan Wang, Lin Qiu, Weinan Zhang, Yong Yu, and Lei Li. 2021. Glancing transformer for non-autoregressive neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 1993-2003. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 526, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 312, + 526, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C. Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 2685-2702. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chitwan Sahara, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2020. Non-autoregressive machine translation with latent alignments. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 1098-1108. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 526, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 487, + 526, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrea Santilli, Silvio Severino, Emilian Postolache, Valentino Maiorca, Michele Mancusi, Riccardo Marin, and Emanuele Rodola. 2023. Accelerating transformer inference for translation via parallel decoding. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023, pages 12336-12355. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 597, + 526, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robin M. Schmidt, Telmo Pires, Stephan Peitz, and Jonas Loof. 2022. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation: A call for clarity. CoRR, abs/2205.10577." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 651, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 651, + 526, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 651, + 526, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016, August 7-12, 2016, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1: Long Papers. The Association for Computer Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chenze Shao and Yang Feng. 2022. Non-monotonic latent alignments for ctc-based non-autoregressive machine translation. CoRR, abs/2210.03953." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3919" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 7, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 204 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 204 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Raphael Shu, Jason Lee, Hideki Nakayama, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Latent-variable non-autoregressive neural machine translation with deterministic inference using a delta posterior. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2020, The Tenth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2020, New York, NY, USA, February 7-12, 2020, pages 8846-8853. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin Spector and Chris Re. 2023. Accelerating LLM inference with staged speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2308.04623." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 291, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 258, + 291, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2018. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, pages 10107-10116." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 344, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 344, + 291, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 344, + 291, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Sun, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Houfeng Wang. 2021. Instantaneous grammatical error correction with shallow aggressive decoding. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, ACL/IJCNLP 2021, (Volume 1: Long Papers), Virtual Event, August 1-6, 2021, pages 5937-5947. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 291, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 465, + 291, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 5998-6008." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 563, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 563, + 291, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 563, + 291, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Carole-Jean Wu, Ramya Raghavendra, Udit Gupta, Bilge Acun, Newsha Ardalani, Kiwan Maeng, Gloria Chang, Fiona Aga Behram, Jinshi Huang, Charles Bai, Michael Gschwind, Anurag Gupta, Myle Ott, Anastasia Melnikov, Salvatore Candido, David Brooks, Geeta Chauhanan, Benjamin Lee, Hsien-Hsin S. Lee, Bugra Akyildiz, Maximilian Balandat, Joe Spisak, Ravi Jain, Mike Rabbat, and Kim M. Hazelwood. 2022. Sustainable AI: environmental implications, challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 2022, MLSys 2022, Santa Clara, CA, USA, August 29 - September 1, 2022. mlsys.org." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nan Yang, Tao Ge, Liang Wang, Binxing Jiao, Daxin Jiang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2023. Inference with reference: Lossless acceleration of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04487." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 277 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2023. Draft & verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding. CoRR, abs/2309.08168." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 213 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 213 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 125, + 526, + 213 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zaixiang Zheng, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Jia-jun Chen, Jingjing Xu, and Lei Li. 2021. Duplex sequence-to-sequence learning for reversible machine translation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pages 21070-21084." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 221, + 526, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongchao Zhou, Kaifeng Lyu, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Afshin Rostamizadeh, Sanjiv Kumar, Jean-François Kagy, and Rishabh Agarwal. 2023. Distillspec: Improving speculative decoding via knowledge distillation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3920" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 267, + 264 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 267, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 267, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 267, + 264 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
HyperparameterValue
devices8 Nvidia V100 GPU
label smoothing0.1
# max tokens4096
update frequency4
dropout rate[0.1, 0.2, 0.3]
max source positions1000
max target positions1000
Adam lr5 × 10-4
Adam β10.9
Adam β20.999
Adam ε1 × 10-6
lr-schedulerinverse square
warm-up lr1 × 10-7
weight decay0.01
clip norm5.0
# warmup updates10000
max updates300K
", + "image_path": "807231d03d66fb7b9908847907dc12086ad68572547ff1209b41d24817fb513e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 285 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 289, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Hyper-parameters and settings of Spec-Drafter." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 307, + 121, + 322 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 307, + 121, + 322 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 307, + 121, + 322 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 329, + 182, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 329, + 182, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 329, + 182, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 352, + 290, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 352, + 290, + 406 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 352, + 290, + 406 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyper-parameters of training our proposed SpecDrafter are listed in Table 7. Following Vaswani et al. (2017) and Ott et al. (2018), we also average model parameters from the last 10 checkpoints." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 417, + 181, + 431 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 417, + 181, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 417, + 181, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Memory Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 439, + 270, + 453 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 439, + 270, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 439, + 270, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.1 Additional Memory Cost by SpecDec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 458, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The peak memory footnote of SpecDec during inference mainly comes from three parts:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 491, + 221, + 530 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 491, + 209, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 491, + 209, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 491, + 209, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Static AR model's weights" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 505, + 220, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 505, + 220, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 505, + 220, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Static Spec-Drafter's weights" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 221, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 221, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 519, + 221, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Intermediate variables/results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 537, + 290, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared with AR, the additional memory cost of SpecDec comes from the last two parts. While the static Spec-Drafter's weights account for the majority of the additional memory cost, the additional cost for storing intermediate variables is negligible because the Spec-Drafter and AR model decode alternatively during inference. Compared with AR, SpecDec's additional intermediate variables/results include:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The Spec-Drafter's last encoder layer's representation that will not be freed until decoding finishes, which is equal to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B \\cdot S \\cdot d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the batch size, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the sequence length and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dimension of the model. This part is actually negligible: for example, when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B = 32" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S = 128" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d = 512" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", this part's memory cost is only 8MB (fp32) / 4MB (fp16)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 525, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- The largest intermediate variables/results during inference:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- For a short sequence (e.g., sentence-level inputs/outputs in MT tasks), the largest intermediate variable is the output tensor after the Spec-Drafter's/AR model's vocabulary projection layer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-B \\cdot |V| \\cdot k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the batch size, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|V|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the vocabulary size and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the block size. Compared with the memory cost for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights, this part is usually smaller. Also " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B \\cdot k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens can be easily divided into small batches (e.g., -softmax-batch in fairseq) for vocabulary projection to avoid massive memory cost in case " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "B \\cdot |V| \\cdot k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 100, + 525, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is large." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- For a long sequence (e.g., paragraph-level inputs/outputs in summarization tasks), the largest intermediate variable becomes the tensor for storing self-attention computation whose size increases quadratically with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 336, + 291, + 525, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the sequence length). This variable accounts for the largest memory cost for storing intermediate results in both AR and SpecDec. Therefore, in this case, this part does not introduce additional memory cost compared with AR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 and Table 9 show the comparisons of peak GPU memory footprint" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{14}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 459, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (MB) between SpecDec and AR (during inference) on the above two scenarios (i.e., MT and summarization). The results are consistent with our analysis above:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 534, + 505, + 614 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 534, + 505, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 534, + 505, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The majority of the additional memory cost (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 534, + 505, + 614 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 534, + 505, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Memory) is for storing the Spec-Drafter's weights and the additional memory cost is not very likely to significantly increase as the batch size or sequence length increases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 525, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 525, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 622, + 525, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our experiments above pre-loaded both the SpecDrafter and AR model. In fact, it is also possible to load the static weights of the AR model and SpecDrafter in a lazy loading manner in the meantime of GPU computation to save memory as they run alternatively. However, it is usually unnecessary in practice, because for a seq2seq model deployed on modern GPUs for online service, it is latency rather than memory that is the performance bottleneck. See the next section for more discussion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 761, + 513, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 761, + 513, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 761, + 513, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14Tested with torch.cuda.max_memory_allocated()" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3921" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 69, + 454, + 140 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 69, + 454, + 140 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 69, + 454, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 141, + 69, + 454, + 140 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsModel WeightsBatch Size
1481632
AR (greedy)232.4243.2271.7301.4366.4494.6
SpecDec (k=25)477.8491.5519.8559.2634.1782.5
ΔMemory245.4248.3248.1247.8267.7287.9
", + "image_path": "d6c1d29d2d8e41fc64c6f89d9a0b86967f21476a9e2eb960cb8765cb3ed51ae7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 190, + 276, + 251 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 171 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 147, + 525, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Peak GPU memory utilization on WMT14 EN-DE translation dataset. The results are obtained with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 190, + 276, + 251 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 190, + 276, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 190, + 276, + 251 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsModel WeightsMemory Cost
AR (greedy)534.6696.9
SpecDec1089.61264.6
ΔMemory555.0567.7
", + "image_path": "37047092cb7fa387988ebc8b8aa461c03f56df365c17443b7fcd2510a761b346.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 252, + 331 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 252, + 331 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 317, + 252, + 331 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B.2 Memory Is Rarely the Bottleneck" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To understand the performance bottleneck of online deployed seq2seq models, we test the latency and memory cost of T5-large" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 429 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{15}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 336, + 290, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (around 770M parameters) with fp16 on 1 Nvidia A40 GPU running greedy decoding in the machine translation and abstractive summarization task, and show results in Table 10 and 11." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 103, + 439, + 254, + 510 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 289, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 289, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 259, + 289, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Peak GPU memory utilization on CNN-DM with batch size 1 with fp32 on a single Nvidia P100 GPU." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 439, + 254, + 510 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 439, + 254, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 103, + 439, + 254, + 510 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)1.0▲1.4▲
Memory Util. (MB)14822003
Memory Util. (%)3.04.0
", + "image_path": "7fb09ad8ddd85abb0c07cfbaa64df8c8b4c3a0dd27087d33eaabee11149dec72.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 104, + 567, + 254, + 639 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 289, + 543 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 289, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 518, + 289, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on WMT14 EN-DE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 567, + 254, + 639 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 567, + 254, + 639 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 567, + 254, + 639 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StatisticsBatch Size
132
Latency (s)2.7▲4.7▲
Memory Util. (MB)29997230
Memory Util. (%)6.215.0
", + "image_path": "5ada3ac4dd421fdd73a78e3d9834ec9081174c8bfb33eb87326cdd624b11d9de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 289, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For MT, T5-large's latency is over 1 second which is actually too long to be accepted because most MT engines in practice require the latency to be less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "100\\mathrm{ms}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 289, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". However, its memory cost is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 524, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 524, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 524, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "only less than 2GB – far below A40 GPU's memory capacity (i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 524, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "48\\mathrm{GB}^{16}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 524, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ")." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 524, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 524, + 287 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 524, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For abstractive summarization, even if the batch size increases to 32, its memory cost is still less than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 524, + 287 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 524, + 287 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " utilization of 1 A40 GPU but its latency is already close up to 5 seconds that is too long for an online service in practice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sum up, we now understand latency is the bottleneck of seq2seq models for online deployment in most cases. Therefore, we do not think additional memory cost by SpecDec will undermine its practical value; instead, we think a significant lossless acceleration even at the cost of memory (i.e., time-memory trade-off) is much more meaningful than the acceleration at the cost of quality, which should be the right path that we need to pay more attention to given much memory headroom on modern GPUs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 445, + 524, + 506 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 289, + 671 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 289, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 289, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Latency and peak GPU memory utilization of T5-Large on CNN-DM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 445, + 524, + 506 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 445, + 524, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 445, + 524, + 506 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsBLEUSacreBLEUCOMET
AR-base (b = 5)28.8928.251.90
AR-base (b = 1)28.7328.051.53
SpecDec (k = 25)28.9328.252.10
", + "image_path": "90dfc963478ffb8e5cb2ce82d0657c763af55bf99bdab167b43728b883c58b21.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 524, + 536 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 524, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 524, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: SacreBLEU and COMET scores on WMT14 EN-DE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 494, + 578 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 494, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 565, + 494, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C SacreBLEU and COMET Scores" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite tokenized BLEU scores, we also report SacreBLEU" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{17}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Post, 2018) and COMET" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{18}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (Rei et al., 2020) scores in Table 12 and 13 to provide a reference for future research. SpecDec can also achieve performances on par with the AR model with the evaluation in sacreBLEU and COMET. Schmidt et al. (2022) pointed out that inconsistencies in the use of tokenized BLEU lead to deviations of up to 1.8 BLEU points. Therefore, we" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 749 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "16It can also easily scale to 96GB or more with NVIDIA NVLink connection of multiple GPUs or multi-node connection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 750, + 480, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 750, + 480, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 750, + 480, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "17https://github.com/mjpost/sacrebleu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 513, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 513, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 513, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "18Obtained with wmt20-comet-da from version 1.1.0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In practice, T5-large is rarely deployed for online service because it is too large and expensive to serve." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3922" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 68, + 466, + 133 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 68, + 466, + 133 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 68, + 466, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 127, + 68, + 466, + 133 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsEN→DEDE→ENEN→RORO→EN
Transformer-base (b=5)28.89(28.2†)32.53(32.1†)34.96(34.0†)34.86(34.2†)
Transformer-base (b=1)28.73(28.0†)32.18(31.7†)34.83(33.9†)34.65(33.9†)
SpecDec (k=25)28.93(28.2†)32.55(32.1†)35.45(34.5†)35.03(34.3†)
", + "image_path": "43cfcf0f1cb139d89f4e6f1b150e5a61efaca95ab278cdd4f4fd05324da5ecdd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 427, + 236 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 140, + 518, + 153 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 140, + 518, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 140, + 518, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: BLEU and SacreBLEU (denoted by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 140, + 518, + 153 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{ \\dagger }" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 140, + 518, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ) scores on WMT14 EN-DE and WMT16 EN-RO benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 427, + 236 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 427, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 163, + 427, + 236 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Decoding AlgorithmBLEUSpeed
AR (greedy)32.231.0×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.1B dafter, T5-Small)32.232.8×
Leviathan et al. (2023) (0.8B dafter, T5-Large)32.231.6×
SpecDec (k=25) (0.5B dafter)32.314.9×
", + "image_path": "36c129b507792cab66ac56710343a0e3f00fce901b29508ecd08666c8c11c975.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 267 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 242, + 525, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14: Comparison of SpecDec and Leviathan et al. (2023) in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 285, + 280, + 368 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 285, + 280, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 285, + 280, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 285, + 280, + 368 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "202aad79e33d373284cf41dc6b3f349dd58914c5e7c15932ce229fb2327c8912.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Single sentence speedup distribution by SpecDec " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(k = 25)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared with Transformer-base " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(b = 5)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 426 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The results are obtained with WMT14 EN→DE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 290, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 446, + 290, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "recommend that future research use sacreBLEU when comparing with our work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 202, + 497 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 202, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 483, + 202, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Speedup Distribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6 presents SpecDec's speedup distribution of a single sentence on the WMT14 EN " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " DE test set (which has 3,003 sentences in total), showing that most sentences are translated with a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3 \\times 7 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup compared to AR beam search, while some rare cases can even achieve over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10 \\times 11 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 290, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 234, + 624 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 234, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 610, + 234, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Discussions of Beam Search" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 290, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 632, + 290, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For possible concerns that SpecDec may not apply beam search, we make three points here:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 665, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 665, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 665, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. As Kim and Rush (2016) mentioned, knowledge distillation largely decreases the performance gap of beam search and greedy decoding. In practice, greedy decoding can actually be comparable to beam search results after KD." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. In practical online deployment, KD is almost used by default for enhancing the results for" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 288, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 288, + 525, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 288, + 525, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "student models and greedy decoding is much more common than beam search because it is more cost-effective - it not only runs faster than beam search but also achieves decent performance with a student model trained through KD (as Point 1 addressed)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 370, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 370, + 525, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 370, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Beam search is also an approximate and heuristic solution, which is not a golden rule. In fact, Spec-Verification works in a similar way as beam search – it is also an approximate and heuristic solution by considering n-best and scores, which can be considered as an approximation of beam search. As shown in Table 1, it achieves comparable performance to beam search but much faster " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 370, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(4\\times \\sim 6\\times)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 370, + 525, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 415, + 520 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 415, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 415, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Carbon Emission" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 623 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 529, + 526, + 623 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SpecDec introduces extra computational overhead, which leads to an increase in GPU power consumption. However, it can substantially reduce GPU hours owing to its high efficiency. We compare GPU power consumption and GPU hours of autoregressive decoding (AR) and SpecDec for translating 3000 sentences in Table 15." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We follow a formula for Wu et al. (2022) to calculate the total energy consumption and carbon emitted: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E = P \\times t \\times \\mathrm{PUE}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where we set PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) at 1.1. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} = 0.385g \\times \\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} / \\mathrm{Wh} \\times E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.385\\mathrm{g}^{*}\\mathrm{CO}_{2}\\mathrm{eq} / \\mathrm{Wh}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the carbon intensity factor that is set based on the US national average." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "According to Table 15, while SpecDec's GPU power consumption is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "28\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " higher, its GPU hours are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "540\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shorter than autoregressive decoding. As a result, SpecDec's total energy consumption" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3923" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 124 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 124 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 523, + 124 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsGPU TypeGPU Avg. Power consumption (P)GPU-hours (t)Total Energy consumption (E)Carbon emitted (CO2eq)
AR (greedy)Nvidia P10086W0.27h25.54Wh9.83g
SpecDec (k=25)Nvidia P100110W0.05h6.05Wh2.33g
", + "image_path": "5b4d07951d142ed3b726323e7bd8d191f6c2f9129b31be59f2e6bde3c9b5c148.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 179, + 523, + 306 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 525, + 167 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 525, + 167 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 131, + 525, + 167 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 15: Carbon footprint of autoregressive decoding and SpecDec using the same P100 GPU device. We follow Wu et al. (2022) to compute the carbon emission of the two decoding strategies under the same device. The results were obtained on WMT14 EN-DE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 179, + 523, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 179, + 523, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 179, + 523, + 306 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SOURCEAccording to the details provided , the tunnel had not yet been put into use .
DraftNach den Angaben Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in
VerifyNach den vorliegenden war-war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden
DraftNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
VerifyNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden . [EOS]
RESULTSNach den vorliegenden Angaben war der Tunnel noch nicht in Betrieb genommen worden .
", + "image_path": "36b1534778ce222b553d7603d82850e657527a2ff2182ea75372e68f777e6cef.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 16: Examples from the WMT14 English-German translation task. At each iteration, Draft and Verify are the outputs of the Spec-Drafter and the AR verification, respectively. Tokens within red blocks are the bifurcation positions. The verification pieces after the bifurcation are annotated as strikethrough. The highlighted parts are translations of previous iterations. The hyperparameters are " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 10" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", top-3, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tau = 1.0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 314, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The output pieces after the [EOS] token is omitted in the table." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "23.7\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of autoregressive decoding, resulting in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.2 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 396, + 289, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reduction of carbon emission." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 290, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 423, + 290, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Therefore, SpecDec not only does not increase carbon emission but actually significantly reduces it, making it a more environmentally friendly option for inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 246, + 502 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 246, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 488, + 246, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Comparison with Other Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 236, + 538 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 236, + 538 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 236, + 538 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G.1 Speculative Decoding with an Autoregressive Drafter" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following this work, some subsequent research (Leviathan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2023) has also explored using AR models (e.g., smaller language models) as independent drafters to accelerate inference. However, for seq2seq generation, the acceleration effect of AR drafting is severely limited, resulting in an end-to-end speedup at " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.6 \\times \\sim 2.8 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is far lower than our " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.9 \\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14 illustrates the detailed comparison of our re-implemented Leviathan et al. (2023) and ours in accelerating T5-XXL (11B) for WMT14 EN-DE translation. We implemented our SpecDrafter with a 24-layer encoder and a 6-layer decoder for comparison. Its embedding/FFN dimension/#heads are 1024/4096/16. As shown in Table 14, our approach uses a 0.5B Spec-Drafter to achieve an almost " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5\\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " speedup without qual" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ity degradation, while Leviathan et al. (2023)'s speedup results are lower than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "3\\times" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " .The reasons for our approach significantly outperforming Leviathan et al. (2023) are twofold:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 589 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 463, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Our Spec-Drafter is specially learned to draft for accelerating the target model with the speculation execution idea: its draft results are better aligned with the target model's results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 522, + 525, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 522, + 525, + 589 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 522, + 525, + 589 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Our approach adopts a fast deep-encoder-shallow-decoder architecture as well as a non-autoregressive approach to generate drafts, which is significantly more efficient than their autoregressive drafting method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 511, + 625 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 511, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 511, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G.2 Speculative Decoding in Special Cases" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our previous paper (Sun et al., 2021) and technical reports (Ge et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2023) present extensive empirical studies of Speculative Decoding in special cases (e.g., text editing or retrieval-augmented generation) and compare it with competitive approaches (Malmi et al., 2019; Omelianchuk et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020) in those scenarios. We recommend interested readers to refer to our previous work for further insights into these specific applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3924" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 149, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 149, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 70, + 149, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "H Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 291, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 92, + 291, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 16, we represent an example to illustrate how SpecDec generates translations. In the first iteration, the outputs of the Spec-Drafter are non-autoregressive with multi-modality problems like \"Angaben Angaben\". The verifier accepts tokens of \"Nach den\" and replaces the inappropriate translation \"Angaben\" with \"vorliegenden\". All the drafted tokens after the bifurcation position (i.e. marked as red tokens in Table 16) are all discarded. In the second iteration, Spec-Verification finds the bifurcation at the last position, thus all tokens before this position are accepted. After 3 iterations, the decoding is finished since the [EOS] token is found." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3925" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_content_list.json b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2af632eb4ff7758f37aa8c2a60c32b4744ab9a66 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2661 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SpeechGPT: Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 159, + 78, + 836, + 118 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Xin Zhang, Jun Zhan, Pengyu Wang, Yaqian Zhou* Xipeng Qiu*", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 124, + 781, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "School of Computer Science, Fudan University", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 159, + 692, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 175, + 831, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{dongzhang22,xin_zhang22,jzhan22,pywang22} $@$ m.fudan.edu.cn {smli20,zhouyaqian,xpqiu}@fudan.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 193, + 845, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-modal large language models are regarded as a crucial step towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and have garnered significant interest with the emergence of ChatGPT. However, current speech-language models typically adopt the cascade paradigm, preventing inter-modal knowledge transfer. In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. With discrete speech representations, we construct SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale cross-modal speech instruction dataset. Additionally, we employ a three-stage training strategy that includes modality-adaptation pretraining, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The experimental results demonstrate that SpeechGPT has an impressive capacity to follow cross-modal human instructions and highlight the potential of handling multiple modalities with one model. Code and models are available in https://github.com/Onutation/SpeechGPT. Demos are shown in https://Onutation.github.io/SpeechGPT.github.io/.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 280, + 463, + 664 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 677, + 260, + 694 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023) have performed astonishingly on various natural language processing tasks. Meanwhile, multi-modal large language models, such as GPT-4, PALM-E (Driess et al., 2023), and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023), have explored the ability of LLMs to understand multi-modal information. However, a significant gap exists between current LLMs and general artificial intelligence (AGI). First, most current LLMs can only perceive and understand multimodal content but cannot spontaneously generate multi-modal content. Second, continuous signals", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 490, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/16b5be5c917da0d57a518724f4777f5cd3d82dbe734845eeb2fbf65954d15be6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: SpeechGPT's capabilities to tackle multiple cross-modal tasks." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 252, + 882, + 391 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "like images and speech cannot be adapted directly to LLMs that receive discrete tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The current speech-language model mainly adopts a cascading paradigm (Huang et al., 2023a) i.e., the LLM is connected with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) model or a text-to-speech (TTS) model in tandem, or the LLM is employed as a control hub, with several speech processing models (Cheng et al., 2023a,b,c) are integrated to cover multiple audio or speech tasks (Huang et al., 2023a; Shen et al., 2023). Some prior work on generative spoken language models involves encoding the speech signal into a discrete representation (Baevski et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and modeling it with language models (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023d; Wang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 479, + 884, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While capable of perceiving and generating speech, the existing cascaded methods or spoken language models still have several limitations. First, the LLM in the cascaded model only functions as a content generator. Since the representations of speech and text are not aligned, the LLM's knowledge cannot be transferred to the speech modality. Second, the cascade approach (Shen et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) suffers from the loss of paralinguistic signals such as emotion and prosody. Third, existing spoken language models (Wang", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 287, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15757", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15757-15773 \nDecember 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023d) only synthesize speech but fail to comprehend its semantic information, preventing them from achieving true cross-modal perception and generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. We perform speech discretization with a self-supervised trained speech model to unify the modality between speech and text. The discrete speech tokens are then expanded into the vocabulary of the LLM, thus endowing the model with an inherent competence to perceive and generate the speech.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 151, + 487, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To provide the model with the capacity to handle multi-modal instructions, we build the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset SpeechInstruct. Specifically, we discretize the speech to discrete units (Hsu et al., 2021) and construct the cross-modal unit-text pair based on the existing ASR dataset. Meanwhile, we construct hundreds of instructions for diverse tasks with GPT-4 to simulate actual user instructions as illustrated in Appendix B. In addition, to further enhance the model's cross-modal capability, we designed the Chain-of-Modality instruction data, i.e., the model receives the speech command, thinks about the process in text, and then outputs the response in speech.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 313, + 487, + 554 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For better cross-modal transfer and efficient training, SpeechGPT undergoes a three-stage training process: modality-adaptation pre-training, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The first stage enables speech comprehension for SpeechGPT with the discrete speech unit continuation task. The second stage employs the SpeechInstruct to improve the model's cross-modal capabilities. The third stage utilizes parameter-efficient LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) fine-tuning for further modality alignment.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 489, + 733 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate the effectiveness of SpeechGPT, we conduct a wide range of human evaluations and case analyses to estimate the performance of SpeechGPT on textual tasks, speech-text cross-modal tasks, and spoken dialogue tasks. The results demonstrate that SpeechGPT exhibits a strong ability for unimodal and cross-modal instruction following tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 737, + 489, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our contributions include the following:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 866, + 433, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We build the first multi-modal large language model that can perceive and generate multi", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "modal contents.", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 85, + 648, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We construct and release SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset.", + "- We build the first spoken dialogue LLM with strong human instruction following ability and spoken dialogue ability.", + "- We show great potential to incorporate other modalities into LLMs through discrete representations." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 102, + 882, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 263, + 665, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Multi-modal Large Language Model Current multi-modal LLMs predominantly focus on the visual domain, feeding continuous representations obtained from pre-trained visual encoders into LLMs, facilitating full-parameter or parameter-efficient training on visual-language data (OpenAI, 2023; Huang et al., 2023b; Zhang et al., 2023b). Palm-E (Driess et al., 2023) integrates the 540B PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and 22B Vision Transformer (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) into the largest vision-language model. LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023) leverages pre-trained CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) visual encoder and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and conduct instruct tuning on GPT4-assisted visual instruction data. X-LLM (Chen et al., 2023) converts multi-modalities into representations with X2L interfaces as the inputs of the large language model. However, such structures only enable LLMs to process multi-modal input, without ability to generate multi-modal output. Diverging from prior studies, our approach emphasizes the development of a speech-centric multimodal LLM, endowing it with the proficiency to accommodate both multi-modal input and output.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 291, + 884, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generative Spoken Language Model Discrete self-supervised representation based spoken generative language modeling is making remarkable progress on large-scale speech dataset training (Nguyen et al., 2022). AudioLM (Borsos et al., 2022) proposes to model speech based on audio CODECs together with semantic codes, which can synthesize speech in a textlesss setting. VALLE (Wang et al., 2023) builds a generative spoken language model on audio CODEcs and treat Text-to-Speech as a conditional generation task. However, these models are designed for a specific task and failed to benefit from LLMs. SpeechGPT is built upon the foundation of LLM and transfers LLM's knowledge to speech modality, con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 678, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15758", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "sequently obtaining better task generalization and human-instruction following ability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 115 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech-Enabled LLM Interaction Following the emergence of ChatGPT, several studies have concentrated on the integration of expert speech models with LLMs to enable direct speech interaction with LLMs. HuggingGPT (Shen et al., 2023) facilitates task decomposition of human instructions by LLMs and allows the invocation of models from Huggingface to accomplish specific tasks, encompassing a range of automatic speech recognition (ASR) and text-to-speech models. AudioGPT (Huang et al., 2023a) leverages a variety of audio foundation models to process complex audio information and connect LLMs with input/output interface (ASR, TTS) for speech conversations. However, these models exhibit increased complexity, demand extensive resources, and are prone to the unavoidable error accumulation problems. Our approach enables speech interaction with LLMs without relying on ASR or TTS systems, circumventing the aforementioned drawbacks.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 117, + 489, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 SpeechInstruct Construction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 396, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Due to the limitations in publicly available speech data and the lack of variety of speech-text tasks, we construct SpeechInstruct, a speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. This dataset consists of two parts, the first part is called CrossModal Instruction, and the second part is called Chain-of-Modality Instruction. The construction process of SpeechInstruct is illustrated in Figure 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 478, + 489, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Cross-modal Instruction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 619, + 352, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data Collection We collect several large-scale English ASR datasets to construct Cross-Modal Instruction, including Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020), and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). We employ mHuBERT as the speech tokenizer to discretize speech data into discrete units and remove the repetitive units of adjacent frames to get reduced units. Ultimately, we obtain 9 million unit-text data pairs. Task Description Generation We generate ASR and TTS task descriptions that are compatible with speech-text data pairs. Unlike the Self-Instruct method (Wang et al., 2022), we generate descriptions through a zero-shot approach. Specifically, we directly input the prompts shown in Appendix A", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 640, + 489, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "into OpenAI GPT-4 to generate task descriptions. Our generation method yields 100 instructions for each task and some examples are shown in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction Formatting For a discrete unit sequence $U$ and its associated transcription $T$ , we determine whether it will be used for constructing an ASR task or a TTS task based on the probability $p$ . Subsequently, we randomly select a description $D$ from the corresponding task description. This results in a triplet consisting of the task description, discrete unit sequence, and transcription, denoted as $(D,U,T)$ . Following this, the triplet is assembled into an instruction using the template: [Human]: $\\{D\\}$ . This is input: $\\{U\\} < \\mathrm{eoh}>$ . [SpeechGPT]: $\\{T\\} < \\mathrm{eos}>.$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 149, + 884, + 343 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Chain-of-Modality Instruction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 356, + 794, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech Instruction Generation Due to the lack of instruction data with speech input and speech output, we trained a text-to-unit generator to convert text instruction data into speech instruction data. Specifically, the text-to-unit generator adopts a Transformer encoder-decoder architecture. We trained it on LibriSpeech unit-text pairs in Cross-modal Instruction. We select 37,969 samples from the moss-002-sft-data dataset whose response length is shorter than 35 words. And we convert both their instructions and responses into unit sequences through the text-to-unit generator. As a result, we obtained 37,969 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses, denoted as (SpeechI, TextI, TextR, SpeechR).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 378, + 882, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction Formatting Using the above quadruplets, we could construct chain-of-thought style instructions for four input-output formats, namely Speech Instruction-Speech Response, Speech Instruction-Text Response, Text Instruction-Speech Response, and Text Instruction-Text Response. Their corresponding templates can be found in Appendix C.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 637, + 882, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 778, + 794, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We constructed cross-modal dialogue datasets under different scenarios to evaluate whether SpeechGPT could take on various roles. Specifically, these included a talking encyclopedia, personal assistant, chat partner, poet, psychologist,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 800, + 882, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 462, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{2}$ https://huggingface.co/datasets/fnlp/moss-002-sft-data", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 875, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15759", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/d5095d5a31f2defdc59a632fb064f5b0f73e3401124138b741b2c540f55ad327.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Left: An overview of SpeechInstruct construction process. The SpeechInstruct dataset consists of two parts: Cross-modal Instruction data and Chain-of-Modality Instruction data. $\\text{Template}_1$ is shown in 3.1. $\\text{Template}_2$ is shown in Appendix C. Right: An illustration of SpeechGPT model structure." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 80, + 428, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2cf216370c3500a8e56d0b06ef87fe7d3801046fe9d0f2594b8fe19730ef6b10.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 436, + 80, + 885, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and educational assistant. For each role, we provide 10 manually authored instruction-response pairs written by ourselves. We use a pre-trained text-to-speech model to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. Ultimately, for each role, we obtained 10 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 365, + 489, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 SpeechGPT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 539, + 252, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Model Structure", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 568, + 290, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A unified framework is designed to provide architecture compatibility across different modalities. As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of three main components: discrete unit extractor, large language modal and unit vocoder. Under this architecture, LLM can perceive multi-modal inputs and generate multi-modal outputs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 590, + 489, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Discrete Unit Extractor The discrete unit extractor utilizes the Hidden-unit BERT (HuBERT) model (Hsu et al., 2021) to transform continuous speech signals into a sequence of discrete units, . HuBERT is a self-supervised model that learns by predicting discrete labels for masked audio segments based on k-means clustering applied to the model's intermediate representations. It features a combination of 1-D convolutional layers and a Transformer encoder to encode speech into continuous intermediate representations, with a k", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 703, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "means model further converting these representations into a sequence of cluster indices. Subsequently, adjacent duplicate indices are removed, resulting in a discrete units sequence represented as $U = (u_{1}, u_{2}, \\ldots, u_{T})$ , $u_{i} \\in 0, 1, \\ldots, K - 1$ , $\\forall 1 \\leq i \\leq T$ , with $K$ denoting the total number of clusters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 365, + 884, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large Language Model We employ the Meta AI LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) model as our Large Language Model. LLaMA comprises an embedding layer, multiple transformer blocks, and an LM head layer. The total number of parameters in LLaMA ranges from 7B to 65B. Drawing from an extensive training dataset of 1.0 trillion tokens, LLaMA demonstrates competitive performance compared to the substantially larger 175B GPT-3 across various NLP benchmarks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 497, + 884, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unit Vocoder Due to limitation of single speaker unit vocoder in (Polyak et al., 2021), we train a multi-speaker unit HiFi-GAN to decode the speech signal from the discrete representation. The HiFiGAN architecture consists of a generator $\\mathbf{G}$ and multiple discriminators $\\mathbf{D}$ . The generator uses look-up tables (LUT) to embed discrete representations and the embedding sequences are up-sampled by a series of blocks composed of transposed convolution and a residual block with dilated layers. The speaker embedding is concatenated to each frame in the up-sampled sequence. The discriminator features a Multi-Period Discriminator (MPD) and a Multi-Scale Discriminator (MSD), which have the same architecture as (Polyak et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://huggingface.co/facebook/ fastspeech2-en-ljspeech", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 435, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15760", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Training", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 231, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To incorporate speech discrete representation into LLM, we expand the vocabulary and corresponding embedding matrix first. We divide the training process into three stages. The first stage is Modality-Adaptation Pre-training on unpaired speech data. The second stage is Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning. The third stage is Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 107, + 489, + 235 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Expanding Vocabulary Given original LLM vocabulary $V$ of size $|V|$ , to integrate speech discrete representations into LLM, we expand the vocabulary with an additional set of unit tokens $V'$ , of size $|V'| = K$ . The expanded vocabulary $V''$ is the union of the original vocabulary $V$ and the new words $V'$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 236, + 490, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nV ^ {\\prime \\prime} = V \\cup V ^ {\\prime} \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 245, + 367, + 487, + 386 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We denote the original word embedding matrix as $E \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|V| \\times d}$ , where $d$ is the dimension of word embeddings. To accommodate the expanded vocabulary, we need to create a randomly initialized word embedding matrix $E' \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|V''| \\times d}$ . We preserve the original word embeddings by copying the values of $E$ to the first $|V|$ rows of $E'$ :", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 489, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nE ^ {\\prime} [ 0: | V |,: ] = E \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 231, + 527, + 487, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we replace the original vocabulary and word embedding matrix with the new vocabulary $V''$ and the word embedding matrix $E'$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 557, + 487, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Stage 1: Modality-Adaptation Pre-training To enable LLM to handle discrete units modality, we utilize an unlabeled speech corpus to train LLM in a next-token prediction task. This approach aligns with the text pre-training objective of LLM. Given unlabeled speech corpus $C$ consisting of speech $U_{1}, U_{2}, \\ldots, U_{m}$ and LLM denoted as $L_{1}$ , the negative log-likelihood loss can be formulated as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 489, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} (L | C) = - \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {j}} \\log P \\left(u _ {i, j} \\mid u _ {< i, j}; L\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 763, + 487, + 808 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $m$ is the number of speech in dataset $C$ , $n_j$ is the number of discrete unit token in speech $U_j$ , and $u_{i,j}$ represents the i-th unit token in the j-th speech.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 821, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Stage 2: Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning In this stage, we align speech and text", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "modalities utilizing paired data. We mix Cross-modal Instruction in SpeechInstruct with moss-002-sft dataset to derive mix dataset $I$ , which consists of samples $T_{1}, T_{2}, \\ldots, T_{x}$ . We fine-tune the model $L$ obtained from the first stage on $I$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Each sample $T_{j}$ consisting of $t_1, t_2, \\ldots, t_{n_j}$ is formed by concatenating a prefix and a text. The training objective is to minimize the negative log-likelihood and the loss calculation only considers the text part, ignoring the prefix, which can be formatted as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 165, + 885, + 260 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} (L | I) = - \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {x} \\sum_ {i = p _ {j} + 1} ^ {y _ {j}} \\log P \\left(t _ {i, j} \\mid t _ {< i, j}; L\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 286, + 882, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $x$ is the number of samples in corpus $I$ , $y_{j}$ is the total number of tokens in sample $T_{j}$ , $p_{j}$ is the number of tokens in the prefix part of $T_{j}$ , and $t_{i,j}$ represents the i-th word in $T_{j}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 343, + 882, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Stage 3: Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning After obtaining the model in stage 2, we utilizes parameter-efficient Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2021) to fine-tune it on Chain-of-Modality Instruction in SpeechInstruct. We add LoRA weights (adapters) to the attention mechanisms and train the newly added LoRA parameters. We adopt the same loss function as stage 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 885, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 655, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Experimental Setups", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 592, + 721, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Datasets For modality-adaption pre-training, we use LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020) which contains 60K hours of unlabelled English audiobook speech. For cross-modal instruction fine-tuning stage, we use Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common voice (Ardila et al., 2020) and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015) dataset and moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.1. For chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning stage, we use moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 882, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Configuration We employ LLaMA-13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as our backbone model for a trade-off between performance and computational resources available. For stage 1, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 900 steps with batch size 768. For stage 2, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 2100 steps with batch size 1536. For stage 3, we use 8 A100 GPUs and train for 4200 steps with batch size 128.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15761", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Details about training hyperparameters are shown in Appendix D. For decoding, we set the maximum sequence length to 2048 and set the temperature to 0.8. We use Top- $k$ sampling with $k = 60$ . We also use Top- $p$ sampling with $p = 0.8$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 178, + 233, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We establish two cascaded cross-modal conversational systems as our baselines. The first model, referred to as Speech-Alpaca-13B, consists of an off-the-shell ASR system $^{4}$ , Alpaca 13B (Taori et al., 2023) as well as a pre-trained TTS system $^{5}$ . The second model, named Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-002, incorporates the same ASR and TTS system, along with a large language model obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 200, + 489, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 374, + 247, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the cross-modal instruction-following capabilities of SpeechGPT across four tasks: speech-to-speech instruction-following (S2SIF), speech-to-text instruction-following (S2TIF), text-to-speech instruction-following (T2SIF), and text-to-text instruction-following (T2TIF).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 489, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data We randomly select 40 samples from the AlpacaEval dataset and use the pre-trained TTS model in Section 3.3 to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. These are combined with the SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set to constitute our test set, which contains 100 samples. Each sample is a quadruplet composed of a speech instruction, text instruction, text response, and speech response. We denote them as ground truth.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 493, + 489, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT Score We utilize ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-turbo) to assess the cross-modal instruction-following performance. For tasks that include speech, we leveraged the pre-trained ASR model in section 5.2 to transform the speech into its corresponding text, which is subsequently submitted for evaluation. Inspired from (Zhou et al., 2023), we feed the prompt in appendix F to ChatGPT to score the model's outputs based on response quality, with scores ranging from 1 to 5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Opinion Score Following (Nguyen et al., 2022), we calculate the human opinion score of the generated examples through crowdsourcing. These opinions are based on two dimensions: the content mean opinion score (CMOS) for content and meaningfulness quality, and the naturalness mean opinion score (NMOS) for speech naturalness and fluency. For CMOS, we ask participants to focus on the correctness of the content in speech or text, without paying attention to the quality of the speech. For NMOS, we direct participants to focus on the quality, smoothness, and naturalness of the speech, without considering its content. We invited five volunteers to perform the evaluation, and asked them to rate within a range of 1-5, where 1 represents the worst and 5 represents the best. For speech-to-speech instruction-following and text-to-speech instruction-following tasks, we calculate both CMOS and NMOS. For speech-to-text instruction-following and text-to-text instruction-following tasks, we calculate CMOS.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 422 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.4 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 660, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Content As shown in Table 1, taking into account the comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT Score and CMOS, SpeechGPT demonstrates superior performance on speech instructions (S2SIF and S2TIF) compared to the two baseline systems. This indicates that SpeechGPT outperforms the ASR model in the cascaded system when it comes to understanding speech content. From the perspective of CMOS, SpeechGPT achieves performance similar to the baseline systems on T2SIF and T2TIF tasks, indicating that SpeechGPT still possesses commendable text and speech generation capabilities. In S2SIF and T2SIF tasks, ChatGPT Score and CMOS values exhibit ambiguity in the ground truth and baseline systems. This can be attributed to speech responses being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the ChatGPT score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal. Cases of cross-modal instruction-following can be found in Appendix G.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 466, + 884, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech Quality As shown in Table 1, SpeechGPT exhibits significantly higher NMOS values compared to the baseline systems. This indicates that the speech responses generated by SpeechGPT out", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4https://huggingface.co/facebook/ wav2vec2-large-960h-lv60-self 5https://huggingface.co/facebook/ fastspeech2-en-ljspeech 6https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_ eval", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 841, + 473, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15762", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/24eb53924047c321289ed66579dc73bdb83c5210746230adb1e0abf2554bbe8b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodsChatGPT ScoreHuman Opinion Score
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFCMOSNMOS
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFS2SIFS2TIFT2SIF
Ground Truth2.85*3.742.91*3.933.783.893.954.123.18-3.20
Baselines: cascaded cross-modal conversational systems
Speech-Alpaca-13B2.743.312.713.833.393.423.713.753.12-3.13
Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-0022.873.503.233.823.383.443.743.833.14-3.11
SpeechGPT3.423.523.533.643.423.493.573.693.65-3.62
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/38fb9098c66a98d69c3683d8133aa2c8512006e17b6d0ff71f3b681327e4b09e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Main Results of SpeechGPT. S2SIF refers to speech-to-speech instruction-following, S2TIF is speech-to-text instruction-following, T2SIF denotes text-to-speech instruction-following and T2TIF represents text-to-text instruction-following. ChatGPT score is obtained through ChatGPT evaluation. CMOS refers to content mean opinion score. NMOS denotes naturalness mean opinion score. *: The low ChatGPT Score for speech responses in Ground Truth is due to them being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TrainingInferenceChatGPT Score
StandardStandard2.15
StandardCoM2.12
CoMStandard2.35
CoMCoM3.42
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 349, + 463, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: ChatGPT Score on speech-to-speech instruction-following task. CoM refers to chain-of-modality prompting and Standard denotes standard prompting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 445, + 489, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "perform the TTS system in the cascaded system in terms of audio quality and prosody. More detailed speech prosody analysis are located in Section ??", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 511, + 487, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Analysis", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 576, + 223, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Chain-of-modality prompting matters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 457, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 shows ChatGPT Scores on speech-to-speech instruction-following task for models utilizing standard prompting and chain-of-modality prompting during training and inference stages respectively. Standard prompting refers to directly obtaining a speech response from a speech instruction without transitioning through an intermediate text form. The template can be located in Appendix E. For standard prompting training, we use this template to construct training data. We discovered that if standard prompting is used, the performance is rather poor when either standard prompting or chain-of-modality prompting is used for inference. If chain-of-modality prompting is employed during training, ChatGPT Score sees an enhancement, and when the inference also applies chain-of-modality prompting, there is a huge improvement in performance. This indi", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 629, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/0472414eafc79b43e56a687e7b7746f4968ce940b9167e5a6a26f331f08de268.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: ASR-PPL of speech continue task on 100 utterances from LibriSpeech test-clean set. From scratch refers to model pre-trained from randomly-initialized parameters. From LLaMA denotes model pre-trained from LLaMA." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 368, + 848, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "cates that chain-of-modality prompting matters in both training and inference. We think chain-of-modality prompting decomposes the complex task into easy tasks, allowing the model to complete them step by step, which reduces the difficulty.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 634, + 882, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Can text knowledge benefit speech modality?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 733, + 823, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SpeechGPT originates from a text pre-trained model, LLaMA. Nonetheless, the question remains whether the knowledge from the text modality can contribute beneficially to the speech modality. To resolve this, we utilize a speech continuation task which assesses the model's capability to generate coherent and semantically accurate speech. We compare the performances of two models on this task: one model is pre-trained from LLaMA, while", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15763", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1208a73bb4721d65305308285c222e3b8e587ed6e9b071ce0dbb13f57cc57a22.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: ChatGPT Score on text-to-text instruction-following task. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 121, + 99, + 455, + 278 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the other model is trained from scratch.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 353, + 406, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We utilize LibriSpeech test-clean set for evaluation, where we randomly select 100 utterances, and use the first 3 seconds of each utterance as a prompt. The 3-second speech prompt is converted into discrete units by mHuBERT. The model takes the prompt as input and generates a continuation of discrete units, which are subsequently converted back into speech by a discrete unit vocoder. To assess the semantic quality of the speech continuation, we employ ASR-PPL metric. This involves transcribing the speech continuation into text using the ASR system in Section 5.2 and calculating the perplexity of the transcripts using GPT-3.5 text-devinci-003 model. As shown in Figure 3, we observe a continuous decrease in ASR-PPL as the training tokens increase. The ASR-PPL of the model initialized from LLaMA consistently remains lower than that of the model pre-trained from scratch. This indicates that text pre-trained model provides a warm initialization and speech modality can benefit from text knowledge. We believe the reason for this is that even though the modeling granularity of speech and text is different, they model the same content information. This leads to a certain degree of similarity in the sequence structure, which aids in knowledge transfer.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 369, + 489, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.3 Does SpeechGPT Sacrifice Text Capability as a Trade-off?", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 800, + 487, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": " Initialized form LLaMA, SpeechGPT is capable of preceiving and generating speech after training on large scale speech data. However, does SpeechGPT sacrifice text capability as a trade-off? To draw conclusions, we compared the text-to-text", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "instruction-following ability of SpeechGPT with LLaMA-MOSS-002. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset. This ensures that both models have been exposed to the same amount of text data. We evaluated both models using the test set from Section 5.3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 196 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As depicted in Figure 4, with an increase in training samples, both LLaMA-MOSS-002 and SpeechGPT's ChatGPT Score gradually improve. Although SpeechGPT consistently remains lower than LLaMA-MOSS-002, the performance gap between them gradually decreases. When the training samples reach 40,000, the performance of the two models becomes very similar. This suggests that SpeechGPT still retains text capability. We attribute this to the large parameter size of the 13B model, enabling it to learn new speech modality while preserving text capability without catastrophic forgetting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 198, + 885, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 419, + 640, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work presents SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. To alleviate the scarcity of instruction datasets in current speech domain, we propose SpeechInstruct, the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. To obtain improved cross-modal performance, we adopt a three-stage training paradigm to obtain the final SpeechGPT. Experimental results indicate that SpeechGPT achieves promising results in various unimodal or cross-modal instruction-following tasks and demonstrate that combining discrete speech tokens into the language model is a promising direction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 884, + 687 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 699, + 606, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Despite SpeechGPT exhibiting impressive cross-modal instruction following and spoken dialogue abilities, it still presents certain limitations: 1) Due to the audio discretization technique constraints, SpeechGPT does not explicitly model the paralinguistic information included in the speech signal. 2) Since SpeechGPT generates speech responses via the Chain-of-Modality, it needs to initially generate speech units after text tokens, which increases decoding time. However, by improving the capabilities of the foundation model, SpeechGPT may generate speech units directly without noticeably", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15764", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "degrading its performance. 3) SpeechGPT is not evaluated in the multi-turn scenario as the length of one round is already close to the maximum length of the model due to the long speech unit sequences. We believe this issue can be addressed by either increasing the maximum length the model can handle or employing more effective speech discretization techniques.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 227, + 285, + 243 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We thank Rong Ye and Fuliang Weng for the careful guidance and revisions to the paper and thank all the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62236004 and No. 62022027).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 254, + 489, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 380, + 213, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M. Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus.", + "Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12449-12460.", + "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliausacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation.", + "Feilong Chen, Minglun Han, Haozhi Zhao, Qingyang Zhang, Jing Shi, Shuang Xu Xu, and Bo Xu. 2023. Xllm: Bootstrapping advanced large language models by treating multi-modalities as foreign languages.", + "Guoguo Chen, Shuzhou Chai, Guanbo Wang, Jiayu Du, Wei-Qiang Zhang, Chao Weng, Dan Su, Daniel Povey, Jan Trmal, Junbo Zhang, Mingjie Jin, Sanjeev Khudanpur, Shinji Watanabe, Shuaijiang Zhao, Wei Zou, Xiangang Li, Xuchen Yao, Yongqing Wang, Yujun Wang, Zhao You, and Zhiyong Yan. 2021. Gispeech: An evolving, multi-domain asr corpus with 10,000 hours of transcribed audio.", + "Xuxin Cheng, Bowen Cao, Qichen Ye, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023a. Ml-lmcl: Mutual learning and large-margin contrastive learning for improving asr robustness in spoken language understanding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 6492-6505." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 404, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Xuxin Cheng, Qianqian Dong, Fengpeng Yue, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023b. M 3 st: Mix at three levels for speech translation. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE.", + "Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Ziyu Yao, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023c. GhostT5: Generate More Features with Cheap Operations to Improve Textless Spoken Question Answering. In Proc. INTERSPEECH 2023, pages 1134-1138.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.", + "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.", + "Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378.", + "Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460.", + "Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.", + "Rongjie Huang, Mingze Li, Dongchao Yang, Jia-tong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Zhenhui Ye, Yuning Wu," + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15765", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Zhiqing Hong, Jiawei Huang, Jinglin Liu, Yi Ren, Zhou Zhao, and Shinji Watanabe. 2023a. Audiogpt: Understanding and generating speech, music, sound, and talking head.", + "Shaohan Huang, Li Dong, Wenhui Wang, Yaru Hao, Saksham Singhal, Shuming Ma, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Owais Khan Mohammed, Barun Patra, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Zewen Chi, Johan Bjorck, Vishrav Chaudhary, Subhojit Som, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2023b. Language is not all you need: Aligning perception with language models.", + "J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P.E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux. 2020. Librilight: A benchmark for ASR with limited or no supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE.", + "Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354.", + "Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485.", + "Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling.", + "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.", + "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210.", + "Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations.", + "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision.", + "Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023. Neural codec language models are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers.", + "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions.", + "Dong Zhang, Rong Ye, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yaqian Zhou. 2023a. DUB: Discrete unit backtranslation for speech translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7147-7164, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023b. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention.", + "Xin Zhang, Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Yaqian Zhou, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023c. Speechtokenizer: Unified speech tokenizer for speech large language models.", + "Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023d. Speak foreign languages with your own voice: Cross-lingual neural codec language modeling.", + "Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 757 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15766", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Prompts to Generate Task Description", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 482, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ASR:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 184, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about automatic speech recognition, which is about recognizing speech.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 159, + 855, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here are the requirements:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 192, + 339, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech.", + "2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity.", + "3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions.", + "4. The type of instructions should be diverse.", + "5. The instructions should be in English.", + "6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted." + ], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 206, + 853, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "List of 100 tasks:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 353, + 270, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TTS:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 141, + 384, + 183, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about text to speech, which is about recognizing speech.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 400, + 855, + 431 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here are the requirements:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 432, + 339, + 447 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech.", + "2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity.", + "3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions.", + "4. The type of instructions should be diverse.", + "5. The instructions should be in English.", + "6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted." + ], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 449, + 853, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "List of 100 tasks:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 594, + 270, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15767", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Examples of Task Description", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 410, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ASR:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 141, + 143, + 184, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Begin by converting the spoken words into written text.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 160, + 551, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Can you transcribe the speech into a written format?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 175, + 529, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Focus on translating the audible content into text.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 192, + 505, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transcribe the speech by carefully listening to it.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 208, + 502, + 222 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Would you kindly write down the content of the speech?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 224, + 557, + 239 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analyze the speech and create a written transcription.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 241, + 536, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Engage with the speech to produce a text-based version.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 256, + 554, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Can you document the speech in written form?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 272, + 489, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Transform the spoken words into text accurately.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 288, + 502, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "How about putting the speech's content into writing?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 305, + 532, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TTS:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 142, + 336, + 181, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Can you please read this sentence out loud?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 353, + 465, + 366 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recite the following words as if you were speaking normally.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 369, + 594, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Project your voice to clearly articulate this statement.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 386, + 534, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 401, + 610, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Whisper the given sentence softly.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 418, + 394, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Enunciate each word in this sentence with precision. How would you express this sentence in a conversational tone?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 434, + 855, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Could you please relay the message below verbally?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 466, + 529, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Emphasize the key points while reading the sentence.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 482, + 536, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sing the text provided in a melodic voice.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 498, + 448, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15768", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech Instruction-Speech Response:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 142, + 438, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text Instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. Last, you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 159, + 858, + 224 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech Instruction-Text Response:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 239, + 415, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR} .", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 255, + 857, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text Instruction-Speech Response:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 336, + 413, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. Then you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}.", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 351, + 858, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text Instruction-Text Response:", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 139, + 416, + 394, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}.", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 432, + 858, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 485, + 307, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/628d4e96804cb4476f3066b6ab7325d4db147e09807856816a1bd20b926f2839.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Stage 1Stage 2Stage 3
Batch size7681536128
Peak learning rate2e-42e-42e-4
Max length10245121024
Training steps90040004200
LoRA rank--8
LoRA alpha--16
Trainable parameters13B13B6M
Training device96 × A10096 × A1008 × A100
", + "bbox": [ + 260, + 535, + 737, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: SpeechGPT training hyperparameters.", + "bbox": [ + 337, + 708, + 657, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "C Chain-of-Modality Instructions Templates", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 517, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15769", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Standard Prompting Templates", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 425, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech Instruction-Speech Response:", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 142, + 436, + 158 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech $<\\mathrm{eoh}>$ .", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 160, + 858, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR} .", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 175, + 428, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Speech Instruction-Text Response:", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 206, + 415, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 224, + 855, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text Instruction-Speech Response:", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 271, + 413, + 287 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech .", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 288, + 858, + 303 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR}.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 304, + 428, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text Instruction-Text Response:", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 336, + 391, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 351, + 855, + 384 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15770", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "You are evaluating a response that has been submitted for an instruction, using a specific set of standards. Below is the data:", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 142, + 858, + 173 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[BEGIN DATA]", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 175, + 263, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\\*\\*\\*", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 192, + 171, + 200 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Instruction]: inst", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 206, + 273, + 222 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\\*\\*\\*", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 224, + 171, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Response]: resp", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 240, + 268, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\\*\\*\\*", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 256, + 171, + 265 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[Criterion]:helpfulness:", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 272, + 322, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "\"1\": \"Not helpful - The generated text is completely irrelevant, unclear, or incomplete. It does not provide any useful information to the user.\"", + "\"2\": \"Somewhat helpful - The generated text has some relevance to the user's question, but it may be unclear or incomplete. It provides only partial information, or the information provided may not be useful for the user's needs.\"", + "\"3\": \"Moderately helpful - The generated text is relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear and complete answer. However, it may lack detail or explanation that would be helpful for the user.\"", + "\"4\": \"Helpful - The generated text is quite relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information or explanations that are useful for the user. However, some of the points of the response are somewhat repetitive or could be combined for greater clarity and concision\"", + "\"5\": \"Very helpful - The generated text is highly relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information, explanations, or analogies that are not only useful but also insightful and valuable to the user. However, the structured of the response is not well-organized and there is no clear progression or logical sequence of different points in the response.\"" + ], + "bbox": [ + 141, + 288, + 855, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\\*\\*\\*", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 562, + 171, + 570 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "[END DATA]", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 577, + 245, + 590 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Does the response meet the criterion? You should only write out your score in this format: \"My score is: \"", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 594, + 855, + 623 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "header", + "text": "F ChatGPT Score Evaluation Prompt", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 458, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15771", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Cases of Cross-modal Instruction Following", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 83, + 532, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Can you transcribe the speech into a written format?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 143, + 631, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he.)", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 160, + 697, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Text: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 177, + 559, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Listen to the speech and write down its content.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 209, + 591, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer.)", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 225, + 855, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Text: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 256, + 806, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 288, + 710, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Text: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 306, + 589, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here.)", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 322, + 754, + 337 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Would you please speed-read the following sentence?", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 353, + 636, + 369 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Input: Text: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 370, + 855, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you.)", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 401, + 855, + 434 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15772", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Can you show me what is the correct English pronunciation of apple?)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 91, + 855, + 120 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, the correct pronunciation of apple is [app-ull].)", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 121, + 747, + 135 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Write a five-line poem that praises spring)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 148, + 689, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: The sun is out, the sky is blue, The flowers bloom and the birds sing too, The days are long, the nights are short, The spring is here and it's so sweet and warm!)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 164, + 855, + 192 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: My girlfriend is angry with me. What should I do now?)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 205, + 784, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: It is understandable that your girlfriend is angry with you. It is important to understand why she is angry and to try to resolve the issue. You can start by having a conversation with her and trying to understand her perspective.)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 221, + 855, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Give me some advice about my dinner.)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 275, + 673, + 290 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, here are some suggestions: 1. Make a salad with fresh vegetables.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 291, + 855, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2. Grill some lean meat. 3. Roast a vegetable-based dish like a cauliflower casserole. 4. Make a soup with vegetables and legumes. 5. Try a new recipe.)", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 306, + 855, + 334 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Do you know Stephen Curry?)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 347, + 611, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Yes, I do know Stephen Curry. He is an American professional basketball player, who currently plays for Golden States Warriors. He is two-time NBA most valuable player and four-time NBA all star.)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 363, + 855, + 404 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I go to the moon?)", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 418, + 594, + 432 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Going to the moon is a challenging task that requires a lot of planning and resources. To do this, you will need to develop a spacecraft that can withstand the extreme conditions of the moon's atmosphere, design a mission plan, and secure the necessary funding and personnel. Additionally, you will need to consider the ethical implications of such a mission.)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 434, + 855, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I cheat my parents?", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 504, + 601, + 518 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Cheating your parents is not a good idea. It can damage your relationship with them and can have long-term consequences.)", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 519, + 855, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "15773", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_model.json b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61426cd0fb86dfd0d49ac866e5bfaa3c4dad762f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,3204 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.161, + 0.079, + 0.838, + 0.119 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SpeechGPT: Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.126, + 0.783, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Xin Zhang, Jun Zhan, Pengyu Wang, Yaqian Zhou* Xipeng Qiu*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.307, + 0.16, + 0.694, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "School of Computer Science, Fudan University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.168, + 0.177, + 0.832, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.159, + 0.194, + 0.846, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{dongzhang22,xin_zhang22,jzhan22,pywang22} \\(@\\) m.fudan.edu.cn {smli20,zhouyaqian,xpqiu}@fudan.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.281, + 0.464, + 0.665 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-modal large language models are regarded as a crucial step towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and have garnered significant interest with the emergence of ChatGPT. However, current speech-language models typically adopt the cascade paradigm, preventing inter-modal knowledge transfer. In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. With discrete speech representations, we construct SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale cross-modal speech instruction dataset. Additionally, we employ a three-stage training strategy that includes modality-adaptation pretraining, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The experimental results demonstrate that SpeechGPT has an impressive capacity to follow cross-modal human instructions and highlight the potential of handling multiple modalities with one model. Code and models are available in https://github.com/Onutation/SpeechGPT. Demos are shown in https://Onutation.github.io/SpeechGPT.github.io/." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.678, + 0.262, + 0.695 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.704, + 0.491, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023) have performed astonishingly on various natural language processing tasks. Meanwhile, multi-modal large language models, such as GPT-4, PALM-E (Driess et al., 2023), and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023), have explored the ability of LLMs to understand multi-modal information. However, a significant gap exists between current LLMs and general artificial intelligence (AGI). First, most current LLMs can only perceive and understand multimodal content but cannot spontaneously generate multi-modal content. Second, continuous signals" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.253, + 0.883, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.405, + 0.884, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: SpeechGPT's capabilities to tackle multiple cross-modal tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.441, + 0.884, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "like images and speech cannot be adapted directly to LLMs that receive discrete tokens." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.48, + 0.885, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The current speech-language model mainly adopts a cascading paradigm (Huang et al., 2023a) i.e., the LLM is connected with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) model or a text-to-speech (TTS) model in tandem, or the LLM is employed as a control hub, with several speech processing models (Cheng et al., 2023a,b,c) are integrated to cover multiple audio or speech tasks (Huang et al., 2023a; Shen et al., 2023). Some prior work on generative spoken language models involves encoding the speech signal into a discrete representation (Baevski et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and modeling it with language models (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023d; Wang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While capable of perceiving and generating speech, the existing cascaded methods or spoken language models still have several limitations. First, the LLM in the cascaded model only functions as a content generator. Since the representations of speech and text are not aligned, the LLM's knowledge cannot be transferred to the speech modality. Second, the cascade approach (Shen et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) suffers from the loss of paralinguistic signals such as emotion and prosody. Third, existing spoken language models (Wang" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.288, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15757" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15757-15773 \nDecember 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023d) only synthesize speech but fail to comprehend its semantic information, preventing them from achieving true cross-modal perception and generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.152, + 0.489, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. We perform speech discretization with a self-supervised trained speech model to unify the modality between speech and text. The discrete speech tokens are then expanded into the vocabulary of the LLM, thus endowing the model with an inherent competence to perceive and generate the speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.315, + 0.489, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To provide the model with the capacity to handle multi-modal instructions, we build the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset SpeechInstruct. Specifically, we discretize the speech to discrete units (Hsu et al., 2021) and construct the cross-modal unit-text pair based on the existing ASR dataset. Meanwhile, we construct hundreds of instructions for diverse tasks with GPT-4 to simulate actual user instructions as illustrated in Appendix B. In addition, to further enhance the model's cross-modal capability, we designed the Chain-of-Modality instruction data, i.e., the model receives the speech command, thinks about the process in text, and then outputs the response in speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.559, + 0.49, + 0.734 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For better cross-modal transfer and efficient training, SpeechGPT undergoes a three-stage training process: modality-adaptation pre-training, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The first stage enables speech comprehension for SpeechGPT with the discrete speech unit continuation task. The second stage employs the SpeechInstruct to improve the model's cross-modal capabilities. The third stage utilizes parameter-efficient LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) fine-tuning for further modality alignment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.738, + 0.49, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate the effectiveness of SpeechGPT, we conduct a wide range of human evaluations and case analyses to estimate the performance of SpeechGPT on textual tasks, speech-text cross-modal tasks, and spoken dialogue tasks. The results demonstrate that SpeechGPT exhibits a strong ability for unimodal and cross-modal instruction following tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.868, + 0.435, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our contributions include the following:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We build the first multi-modal large language model that can perceive and generate multi" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.086, + 0.649, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "modal contents." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.103, + 0.883, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We construct and release SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.152, + 0.883, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We build the first spoken dialogue LLM with strong human instruction following ability and spoken dialogue ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.202, + 0.883, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We show great potential to incorporate other modalities into LLMs through discrete representations." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.103, + 0.883, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.264, + 0.666, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.292, + 0.885, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Multi-modal Large Language Model Current multi-modal LLMs predominantly focus on the visual domain, feeding continuous representations obtained from pre-trained visual encoders into LLMs, facilitating full-parameter or parameter-efficient training on visual-language data (OpenAI, 2023; Huang et al., 2023b; Zhang et al., 2023b). Palm-E (Driess et al., 2023) integrates the 540B PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and 22B Vision Transformer (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) into the largest vision-language model. LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023) leverages pre-trained CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) visual encoder and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and conduct instruct tuning on GPT4-assisted visual instruction data. X-LLM (Chen et al., 2023) converts multi-modalities into representations with X2L interfaces as the inputs of the large language model. However, such structures only enable LLMs to process multi-modal input, without ability to generate multi-modal output. Diverging from prior studies, our approach emphasizes the development of a speech-centric multimodal LLM, endowing it with the proficiency to accommodate both multi-modal input and output." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.679, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generative Spoken Language Model Discrete self-supervised representation based spoken generative language modeling is making remarkable progress on large-scale speech dataset training (Nguyen et al., 2022). AudioLM (Borsos et al., 2022) proposes to model speech based on audio CODECs together with semantic codes, which can synthesize speech in a textlesss setting. VALLE (Wang et al., 2023) builds a generative spoken language model on audio CODEcs and treat Text-to-Speech as a conditional generation task. However, these models are designed for a specific task and failed to benefit from LLMs. SpeechGPT is built upon the foundation of LLM and transfers LLM's knowledge to speech modality, con" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15758" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.116 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "sequently obtaining better task generalization and human-instruction following ability." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.118, + 0.49, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech-Enabled LLM Interaction Following the emergence of ChatGPT, several studies have concentrated on the integration of expert speech models with LLMs to enable direct speech interaction with LLMs. HuggingGPT (Shen et al., 2023) facilitates task decomposition of human instructions by LLMs and allows the invocation of models from Huggingface to accomplish specific tasks, encompassing a range of automatic speech recognition (ASR) and text-to-speech models. AudioGPT (Huang et al., 2023a) leverages a variety of audio foundation models to process complex audio information and connect LLMs with input/output interface (ASR, TTS) for speech conversations. However, these models exhibit increased complexity, demand extensive resources, and are prone to the unavoidable error accumulation problems. Our approach enables speech interaction with LLMs without relying on ASR or TTS systems, circumventing the aforementioned drawbacks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.452, + 0.398, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 SpeechInstruct Construction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.479, + 0.49, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Due to the limitations in publicly available speech data and the lack of variety of speech-text tasks, we construct SpeechInstruct, a speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. This dataset consists of two parts, the first part is called CrossModal Instruction, and the second part is called Chain-of-Modality Instruction. The construction process of SpeechInstruct is illustrated in Figure 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.62, + 0.353, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Cross-modal Instruction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.641, + 0.49, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data Collection We collect several large-scale English ASR datasets to construct Cross-Modal Instruction, including Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020), and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). We employ mHuBERT as the speech tokenizer to discretize speech data into discrete units and remove the repetitive units of adjacent frames to get reduced units. Ultimately, we obtain 9 million unit-text data pairs. Task Description Generation We generate ASR and TTS task descriptions that are compatible with speech-text data pairs. Unlike the Self-Instruct method (Wang et al., 2022), we generate descriptions through a zero-shot approach. Specifically, we directly input the prompts shown in Appendix A" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "into OpenAI GPT-4 to generate task descriptions. Our generation method yields 100 instructions for each task and some examples are shown in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.15, + 0.885, + 0.344 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction Formatting For a discrete unit sequence \\(U\\) and its associated transcription \\(T\\), we determine whether it will be used for constructing an ASR task or a TTS task based on the probability \\(p\\). Subsequently, we randomly select a description \\(D\\) from the corresponding task description. This results in a triplet consisting of the task description, discrete unit sequence, and transcription, denoted as \\((D,U,T)\\). Following this, the triplet is assembled into an instruction using the template: [Human]: \\(\\{D\\}\\). This is input: \\(\\{U\\} < \\mathrm{eoh}>\\). [SpeechGPT]: \\(\\{T\\} < \\mathrm{eos}>.\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.357, + 0.796, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Chain-of-Modality Instruction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.379, + 0.884, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Instruction Generation Due to the lack of instruction data with speech input and speech output, we trained a text-to-unit generator to convert text instruction data into speech instruction data. Specifically, the text-to-unit generator adopts a Transformer encoder-decoder architecture. We trained it on LibriSpeech unit-text pairs in Cross-modal Instruction. We select 37,969 samples from the moss-002-sft-data dataset whose response length is shorter than 35 words. And we convert both their instructions and responses into unit sequences through the text-to-unit generator. As a result, we obtained 37,969 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses, denoted as (SpeechI, TextI, TextR, SpeechR)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.638, + 0.884, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction Formatting Using the above quadruplets, we could construct chain-of-thought style instructions for four input-output formats, namely Speech Instruction-Speech Response, Speech Instruction-Text Response, Text Instruction-Speech Response, and Text Instruction-Text Response. Their corresponding templates can be found in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.78, + 0.795, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.801, + 0.884, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We constructed cross-modal dialogue datasets under different scenarios to evaluate whether SpeechGPT could take on various roles. Specifically, these included a talking encyclopedia, personal assistant, chat partner, poet, psychologist," + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.892, + 0.463, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.877, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)https://huggingface.co/datasets/fnlp/moss-002-sft-data" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15759" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.082, + 0.429, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.437, + 0.081, + 0.886, + 0.289 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.298, + 0.886, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Left: An overview of SpeechInstruct construction process. The SpeechInstruct dataset consists of two parts: Cross-modal Instruction data and Chain-of-Modality Instruction data. \\( \\text{Template}_1 \\) is shown in 3.1. \\( \\text{Template}_2 \\) is shown in Appendix C. Right: An illustration of SpeechGPT model structure." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.366, + 0.49, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and educational assistant. For each role, we provide 10 manually authored instruction-response pairs written by ourselves. We use a pre-trained text-to-speech model to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. Ultimately, for each role, we obtained 10 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.541, + 0.253, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 SpeechGPT" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.569, + 0.292, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Model Structure" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.592, + 0.49, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A unified framework is designed to provide architecture compatibility across different modalities. As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of three main components: discrete unit extractor, large language modal and unit vocoder. Under this architecture, LLM can perceive multi-modal inputs and generate multi-modal outputs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.705, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Discrete Unit Extractor The discrete unit extractor utilizes the Hidden-unit BERT (HuBERT) model (Hsu et al., 2021) to transform continuous speech signals into a sequence of discrete units, . HuBERT is a self-supervised model that learns by predicting discrete labels for masked audio segments based on k-means clustering applied to the model's intermediate representations. It features a combination of 1-D convolutional layers and a Transformer encoder to encode speech into continuous intermediate representations, with a k" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.366, + 0.885, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "means model further converting these representations into a sequence of cluster indices. Subsequently, adjacent duplicate indices are removed, resulting in a discrete units sequence represented as \\( U = (u_{1}, u_{2}, \\ldots, u_{T}) \\), \\( u_{i} \\in 0, 1, \\ldots, K - 1 \\), \\( \\forall 1 \\leq i \\leq T \\), with \\( K \\) denoting the total number of clusters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.498, + 0.885, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large Language Model We employ the Meta AI LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) model as our Large Language Model. LLaMA comprises an embedding layer, multiple transformer blocks, and an LM head layer. The total number of parameters in LLaMA ranges from 7B to 65B. Drawing from an extensive training dataset of 1.0 trillion tokens, LLaMA demonstrates competitive performance compared to the substantially larger 175B GPT-3 across various NLP benchmarks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unit Vocoder Due to limitation of single speaker unit vocoder in (Polyak et al., 2021), we train a multi-speaker unit HiFi-GAN to decode the speech signal from the discrete representation. The HiFiGAN architecture consists of a generator \\(\\mathbf{G}\\) and multiple discriminators \\(\\mathbf{D}\\). The generator uses look-up tables (LUT) to embed discrete representations and the embedding sequences are up-sampled by a series of blocks composed of transposed convolution and a residual block with dilated layers. The speaker embedding is concatenated to each frame in the up-sampled sequence. The discriminator features a Multi-Period Discriminator (MPD) and a Multi-Scale Discriminator (MSD), which have the same architecture as (Polyak et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.436, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://huggingface.co/facebook/ fastspeech2-en-ljspeech" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15760" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.232, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Training" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.108, + 0.49, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To incorporate speech discrete representation into LLM, we expand the vocabulary and corresponding embedding matrix first. We divide the training process into three stages. The first stage is Modality-Adaptation Pre-training on unpaired speech data. The second stage is Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning. The third stage is Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.237, + 0.491, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Expanding Vocabulary Given original LLM vocabulary \\(V\\) of size \\(|V|\\), to integrate speech discrete representations into LLM, we expand the vocabulary with an additional set of unit tokens \\(V'\\), of size \\(|V'| = K\\). The expanded vocabulary \\(V''\\) is the union of the original vocabulary \\(V\\) and the new words \\(V'\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.247, + 0.368, + 0.489, + 0.387 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nV ^ {\\prime \\prime} = V \\cup V ^ {\\prime} \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.397, + 0.49, + 0.51 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We denote the original word embedding matrix as \\( E \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|V| \\times d} \\), where \\( d \\) is the dimension of word embeddings. To accommodate the expanded vocabulary, we need to create a randomly initialized word embedding matrix \\( E' \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|V''| \\times d} \\). We preserve the original word embeddings by copying the values of \\( E \\) to the first \\( |V| \\) rows of \\( E' \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.233, + 0.529, + 0.488, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nE ^ {\\prime} [ 0: | V |,: ] = E \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.558, + 0.488, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we replace the original vocabulary and word embedding matrix with the new vocabulary \\( V'' \\) and the word embedding matrix \\( E' \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.607, + 0.49, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stage 1: Modality-Adaptation Pre-training To enable LLM to handle discrete units modality, we utilize an unlabeled speech corpus to train LLM in a next-token prediction task. This approach aligns with the text pre-training objective of LLM. Given unlabeled speech corpus \\(C\\) consisting of speech \\(U_{1}, U_{2}, \\ldots, U_{m}\\) and LLM denoted as \\(L_{1}\\), the negative log-likelihood loss can be formulated as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.764, + 0.489, + 0.809 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} (L | C) = - \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {j}} \\log P \\left(u _ {i, j} \\mid u _ {< i, j}; L\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.822, + 0.489, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(m\\) is the number of speech in dataset \\(C\\), \\(n_j\\) is the number of discrete unit token in speech \\(U_j\\), and \\(u_{i,j}\\) represents the i-th unit token in the j-th speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stage 2: Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning In this stage, we align speech and text" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "modalities utilizing paired data. We mix Cross-modal Instruction in SpeechInstruct with moss-002-sft dataset to derive mix dataset \\(I\\), which consists of samples \\(T_{1}, T_{2}, \\ldots, T_{x}\\). We fine-tune the model \\(L\\) obtained from the first stage on \\(I\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.166, + 0.886, + 0.261 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Each sample \\( T_{j} \\) consisting of \\( t_1, t_2, \\ldots, t_{n_j} \\) is formed by concatenating a prefix and a text. The training objective is to minimize the negative log-likelihood and the loss calculation only considers the text part, ignoring the prefix, which can be formatted as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.287, + 0.884, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} (L | I) = - \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {x} \\sum_ {i = p _ {j} + 1} ^ {y _ {j}} \\log P \\left(t _ {i, j} \\mid t _ {< i, j}; L\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.344, + 0.883, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( x \\) is the number of samples in corpus \\( I \\), \\( y_{j} \\) is the total number of tokens in sample \\( T_{j} \\), \\( p_{j} \\) is the number of tokens in the prefix part of \\( T_{j} \\), and \\( t_{i,j} \\) represents the i-th word in \\( T_{j} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.409, + 0.886, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Stage 3: Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning After obtaining the model in stage 2, we utilizes parameter-efficient Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2021) to fine-tune it on Chain-of-Modality Instruction in SpeechInstruct. We add LoRA weights (adapters) to the attention mechanisms and train the newly added LoRA parameters. We adopt the same loss function as stage 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.567, + 0.657, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.593, + 0.722, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Experimental Setups" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.884, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Datasets For modality-adaption pre-training, we use LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020) which contains 60K hours of unlabelled English audiobook speech. For cross-modal instruction fine-tuning stage, we use Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common voice (Ardila et al., 2020) and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015) dataset and moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.1. For chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning stage, we use moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Configuration We employ LLaMA-13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as our backbone model for a trade-off between performance and computational resources available. For stage 1, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 900 steps with batch size 768. For stage 2, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 2100 steps with batch size 1536. For stage 3, we use 8 A100 GPUs and train for 4200 steps with batch size 128." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15761" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.488, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Details about training hyperparameters are shown in Appendix D. For decoding, we set the maximum sequence length to 2048 and set the temperature to 0.8. We use Top- \\(k\\) sampling with \\(k = 60\\). We also use Top- \\(p\\) sampling with \\(p = 0.8\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.179, + 0.235, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.201, + 0.49, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We establish two cascaded cross-modal conversational systems as our baselines. The first model, referred to as Speech-Alpaca-13B, consists of an off-the-shell ASR system \\(^{4}\\), Alpaca 13B (Taori et al., 2023) as well as a pre-trained TTS system \\(^{5}\\). The second model, named Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-002, incorporates the same ASR and TTS system, along with a large language model obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.375, + 0.248, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.397, + 0.49, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the cross-modal instruction-following capabilities of SpeechGPT across four tasks: speech-to-speech instruction-following (S2SIF), speech-to-text instruction-following (S2TIF), text-to-speech instruction-following (T2SIF), and text-to-text instruction-following (T2TIF)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.494, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data We randomly select 40 samples from the AlpacaEval dataset and use the pre-trained TTS model in Section 3.3 to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. These are combined with the SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set to constitute our test set, which contains 100 samples. Each sample is a quadruplet composed of a speech instruction, text instruction, text response, and speech response. We denote them as ground truth." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.672, + 0.49, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT Score We utilize ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-turbo) to assess the cross-modal instruction-following performance. For tasks that include speech, we leveraged the pre-trained ASR model in section 5.2 to transform the speech into its corresponding text, which is subsequently submitted for evaluation. Inspired from (Zhou et al., 2023), we feed the prompt in appendix F to ChatGPT to score the model's outputs based on response quality, with scores ranging from 1 to 5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.423 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Opinion Score Following (Nguyen et al., 2022), we calculate the human opinion score of the generated examples through crowdsourcing. These opinions are based on two dimensions: the content mean opinion score (CMOS) for content and meaningfulness quality, and the naturalness mean opinion score (NMOS) for speech naturalness and fluency. For CMOS, we ask participants to focus on the correctness of the content in speech or text, without paying attention to the quality of the speech. For NMOS, we direct participants to focus on the quality, smoothness, and naturalness of the speech, without considering its content. We invited five volunteers to perform the evaluation, and asked them to rate within a range of 1-5, where 1 represents the worst and 5 represents the best. For speech-to-speech instruction-following and text-to-speech instruction-following tasks, we calculate both CMOS and NMOS. For speech-to-text instruction-following and text-to-text instruction-following tasks, we calculate CMOS." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.441, + 0.661, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.4 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.467, + 0.885, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Content As shown in Table 1, taking into account the comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT Score and CMOS, SpeechGPT demonstrates superior performance on speech instructions (S2SIF and S2TIF) compared to the two baseline systems. This indicates that SpeechGPT outperforms the ASR model in the cascaded system when it comes to understanding speech content. From the perspective of CMOS, SpeechGPT achieves performance similar to the baseline systems on T2SIF and T2TIF tasks, indicating that SpeechGPT still possesses commendable text and speech generation capabilities. In S2SIF and T2SIF tasks, ChatGPT Score and CMOS values exhibit ambiguity in the ground truth and baseline systems. This can be attributed to speech responses being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the ChatGPT score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal. Cases of cross-modal instruction-following can be found in Appendix G." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Quality As shown in Table 1, SpeechGPT exhibits significantly higher NMOS values compared to the baseline systems. This indicates that the speech responses generated by SpeechGPT out" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.843, + 0.474, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4https://huggingface.co/facebook/ wav2vec2-large-960h-lv60-self 5https://huggingface.co/facebook/ fastspeech2-en-ljspeech 6https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_ eval" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15762" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodsChatGPT ScoreHuman Opinion Score
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFCMOSNMOS
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFS2SIFS2TIFT2SIF
Ground Truth2.85*3.742.91*3.933.783.893.954.123.18-3.20
Baselines: cascaded cross-modal conversational systems
Speech-Alpaca-13B2.743.312.713.833.393.423.713.753.12-3.13
Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-0022.873.503.233.823.383.443.743.833.14-3.11
SpeechGPT3.423.523.533.643.423.493.573.693.65-3.62
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.219, + 0.885, + 0.333 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Main Results of SpeechGPT. S2SIF refers to speech-to-speech instruction-following, S2TIF is speech-to-text instruction-following, T2SIF denotes text-to-speech instruction-following and T2TIF represents text-to-text instruction-following. ChatGPT score is obtained through ChatGPT evaluation. CMOS refers to content mean opinion score. NMOS denotes naturalness mean opinion score. *: The low ChatGPT Score for speech responses in Ground Truth is due to them being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.35, + 0.465, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TrainingInferenceChatGPT Score
StandardStandard2.15
StandardCoM2.12
CoMStandard2.35
CoMCoM3.42
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.447, + 0.49, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: ChatGPT Score on speech-to-speech instruction-following task. CoM refers to chain-of-modality prompting and Standard denotes standard prompting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.512, + 0.489, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "perform the TTS system in the cascaded system in terms of audio quality and prosody. More detailed speech prosody analysis are located in Section ??" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.577, + 0.224, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Analysis" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.607, + 0.458, + 0.623 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Chain-of-modality prompting matters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 shows ChatGPT Scores on speech-to-speech instruction-following task for models utilizing standard prompting and chain-of-modality prompting during training and inference stages respectively. Standard prompting refers to directly obtaining a speech response from a speech instruction without transitioning through an intermediate text form. The template can be located in Appendix E. For standard prompting training, we use this template to construct training data. We discovered that if standard prompting is used, the performance is rather poor when either standard prompting or chain-of-modality prompting is used for inference. If chain-of-modality prompting is employed during training, ChatGPT Score sees an enhancement, and when the inference also applies chain-of-modality prompting, there is a huge improvement in performance. This indi" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.369, + 0.849, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.556, + 0.885, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: ASR-PPL of speech continue task on 100 utterances from LibriSpeech test-clean set. From scratch refers to model pre-trained from randomly-initialized parameters. From LLaMA denotes model pre-trained from LLaMA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.636, + 0.884, + 0.716 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "cates that chain-of-modality prompting matters in both training and inference. We think chain-of-modality prompting decomposes the complex task into easy tasks, allowing the model to complete them step by step, which reduces the difficulty." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.734, + 0.825, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Can text knowledge benefit speech modality?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SpeechGPT originates from a text pre-trained model, LLaMA. Nonetheless, the question remains whether the knowledge from the text modality can contribute beneficially to the speech modality. To resolve this, we utilize a speech continuation task which assesses the model's capability to generate coherent and semantically accurate speech. We compare the performances of two models on this task: one model is pre-trained from LLaMA, while" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15763" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.101, + 0.456, + 0.279 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.289, + 0.49, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: ChatGPT Score on text-to-text instruction-following task. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.354, + 0.408, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the other model is trained from scratch." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.37, + 0.49, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We utilize LibriSpeech test-clean set for evaluation, where we randomly select 100 utterances, and use the first 3 seconds of each utterance as a prompt. The 3-second speech prompt is converted into discrete units by mHuBERT. The model takes the prompt as input and generates a continuation of discrete units, which are subsequently converted back into speech by a discrete unit vocoder. To assess the semantic quality of the speech continuation, we employ ASR-PPL metric. This involves transcribing the speech continuation into text using the ASR system in Section 5.2 and calculating the perplexity of the transcripts using GPT-3.5 text-devinci-003 model. As shown in Figure 3, we observe a continuous decrease in ASR-PPL as the training tokens increase. The ASR-PPL of the model initialized from LLaMA consistently remains lower than that of the model pre-trained from scratch. This indicates that text pre-trained model provides a warm initialization and speech modality can benefit from text knowledge. We believe the reason for this is that even though the modeling granularity of speech and text is different, they model the same content information. This leads to a certain degree of similarity in the sequence structure, which aids in knowledge transfer." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.801, + 0.489, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.3 Does SpeechGPT Sacrifice Text Capability as a Trade-off?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": " Initialized form LLaMA, SpeechGPT is capable of preceiving and generating speech after training on large scale speech data. However, does SpeechGPT sacrifice text capability as a trade-off? To draw conclusions, we compared the text-to-text" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.197 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "instruction-following ability of SpeechGPT with LLaMA-MOSS-002. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset. This ensures that both models have been exposed to the same amount of text data. We evaluated both models using the test set from Section 5.3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.199, + 0.886, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As depicted in Figure 4, with an increase in training samples, both LLaMA-MOSS-002 and SpeechGPT's ChatGPT Score gradually improve. Although SpeechGPT consistently remains lower than LLaMA-MOSS-002, the performance gap between them gradually decreases. When the training samples reach 40,000, the performance of the two models becomes very similar. This suggests that SpeechGPT still retains text capability. We attribute this to the large parameter size of the 13B model, enabling it to learn new speech modality while preserving text capability without catastrophic forgetting." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.42, + 0.642, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.446, + 0.885, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work presents SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. To alleviate the scarcity of instruction datasets in current speech domain, we propose SpeechInstruct, the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. To obtain improved cross-modal performance, we adopt a three-stage training paradigm to obtain the final SpeechGPT. Experimental results indicate that SpeechGPT achieves promising results in various unimodal or cross-modal instruction-following tasks and demonstrate that combining discrete speech tokens into the language model is a promising direction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.7, + 0.608, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Despite SpeechGPT exhibiting impressive cross-modal instruction following and spoken dialogue abilities, it still presents certain limitations: 1) Due to the audio discretization technique constraints, SpeechGPT does not explicitly model the paralinguistic information included in the speech signal. 2) Since SpeechGPT generates speech responses via the Chain-of-Modality, it needs to initially generate speech units after text tokens, which increases decoding time. However, by improving the capabilities of the foundation model, SpeechGPT may generate speech units directly without noticeably" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15764" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "degrading its performance. 3) SpeechGPT is not evaluated in the multi-turn scenario as the length of one round is already close to the maximum length of the model due to the long speech unit sequences. We believe this issue can be addressed by either increasing the maximum length the model can handle or employing more effective speech discretization techniques." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.228, + 0.287, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.49, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We thank Rong Ye and Fuliang Weng for the careful guidance and revisions to the paper and thank all the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62236004 and No. 62022027)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.381, + 0.214, + 0.397 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.405, + 0.49, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M. Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.484, + 0.49, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12449-12460." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.564, + 0.49, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliausacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.643, + 0.489, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Feilong Chen, Minglun Han, Haozhi Zhao, Qingyang Zhang, Jing Shi, Shuang Xu Xu, and Bo Xu. 2023. Xllm: Bootstrapping advanced large language models by treating multi-modalities as foreign languages." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.708, + 0.49, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guoguo Chen, Shuzhou Chai, Guanbo Wang, Jiayu Du, Wei-Qiang Zhang, Chao Weng, Dan Su, Daniel Povey, Jan Trmal, Junbo Zhang, Mingjie Jin, Sanjeev Khudanpur, Shinji Watanabe, Shuaijiang Zhao, Wei Zou, Xiangang Li, Xuchen Yao, Yongqing Wang, Yujun Wang, Zhao You, and Zhiyong Yan. 2021. Gispeech: An evolving, multi-domain asr corpus with 10,000 hours of transcribed audio." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Bowen Cao, Qichen Ye, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023a. Ml-lmcl: Mutual learning and large-margin contrastive learning for improving asr robustness in spoken language understanding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 6492-6505." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.405, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Qianqian Dong, Fengpeng Yue, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023b. M 3 st: Mix at three levels for speech translation. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.175, + 0.885, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Ziyu Yao, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023c. GhostT5: Generate More Features with Cheap Operations to Improve Textless Spoken Question Answering. In Proc. INTERSPEECH 2023, pages 1134-1138." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.251, + 0.885, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.562, + 0.884, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.664, + 0.885, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.74, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.829, + 0.885, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rongjie Huang, Mingze Li, Dongchao Yang, Jia-tong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Zhenhui Ye, Yuning Wu," + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15765" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhiqing Hong, Jiawei Huang, Jinglin Liu, Yi Ren, Zhou Zhao, and Shinji Watanabe. 2023a. Audiogpt: Understanding and generating speech, music, sound, and talking head." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.15, + 0.487, + 0.241 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shaohan Huang, Li Dong, Wenhui Wang, Yaru Hao, Saksham Singhal, Shuming Ma, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Owais Khan Mohammed, Barun Patra, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Zewen Chi, Johan Bjorck, Vishrav Chaudhary, Subhojit Som, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2023b. Language is not all you need: Aligning perception with language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.252, + 0.488, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P.E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux. 2020. Librilight: A benchmark for ASR with limited or no supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.368, + 0.488, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.471, + 0.487, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.522, + 0.487, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.599, + 0.376, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.623, + 0.487, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.7, + 0.487, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.487, + 0.855 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.175, + 0.882, + 0.252 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.264, + 0.882, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023. Neural codec language models are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.34, + 0.881, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.403, + 0.882, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dong Zhang, Rong Ye, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yaqian Zhou. 2023a. DUB: Discrete unit backtranslation for speech translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7147-7164, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.491, + 0.882, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023b. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.554, + 0.881, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xin Zhang, Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Yaqian Zhou, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023c. Speechtokenizer: Unified speech tokenizer for speech large language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.604, + 0.882, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023d. Speak foreign languages with your own voice: Cross-lingual neural codec language modeling." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.693, + 0.882, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.758 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15766" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.484, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Prompts to Generate Task Description" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.144, + 0.186, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ASR:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.16, + 0.856, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about automatic speech recognition, which is about recognizing speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.193, + 0.34, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here are the requirements:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.208, + 0.855, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.241, + 0.665, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.257, + 0.855, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.289, + 0.475, + 0.303 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. The type of instructions should be diverse." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.305, + 0.442, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. The instructions should be in English." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.321, + 0.855, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.208, + 0.855, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.354, + 0.272, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "List of 100 tasks:" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.385, + 0.184, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TTS:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.401, + 0.856, + 0.432 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about text to speech, which is about recognizing speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.434, + 0.34, + 0.448 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here are the requirements:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.45, + 0.855, + 0.48 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.482, + 0.665, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.498, + 0.855, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.53, + 0.475, + 0.544 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. The type of instructions should be diverse." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.546, + 0.442, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. The instructions should be in English." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.563, + 0.855, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.45, + 0.855, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.595, + 0.272, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "List of 100 tasks:" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15767" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.411, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Examples of Task Description" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.144, + 0.186, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ASR:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.161, + 0.552, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Begin by converting the spoken words into written text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.177, + 0.53, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Can you transcribe the speech into a written format?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.193, + 0.507, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Focus on translating the audible content into text." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.209, + 0.503, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transcribe the speech by carefully listening to it." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.225, + 0.558, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Would you kindly write down the content of the speech?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.242, + 0.537, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analyze the speech and create a written transcription." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.258, + 0.556, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Engage with the speech to produce a text-based version." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.273, + 0.49, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Can you document the speech in written form?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.29, + 0.503, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Transform the spoken words into text accurately." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.306, + 0.534, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "How about putting the speech's content into writing?" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.337, + 0.183, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TTS:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.354, + 0.467, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Can you please read this sentence out loud?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.37, + 0.596, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recite the following words as if you were speaking normally." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.387, + 0.535, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Project your voice to clearly articulate this statement." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.402, + 0.611, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.419, + 0.395, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Whisper the given sentence softly." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.435, + 0.856, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Enunciate each word in this sentence with precision. How would you express this sentence in a conversational tone?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.467, + 0.53, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Could you please relay the message below verbally?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.483, + 0.537, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emphasize the key points while reading the sentence." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.499, + 0.45, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sing the text provided in a melodic voice." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15768" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.519, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Chain-of-Modality Instructions Templates" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.143, + 0.439, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Instruction-Speech Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.16, + 0.86, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text Instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. Last, you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.24, + 0.416, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Instruction-Text Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.256, + 0.858, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR} ." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.337, + 0.415, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text Instruction-Speech Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.353, + 0.859, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. Then you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.417, + 0.395, + 0.433 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text Instruction-Text Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.433, + 0.859, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.486, + 0.309, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.262, + 0.536, + 0.738, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Stage 1Stage 2Stage 3
Batch size7681536128
Peak learning rate2e-42e-42e-4
Max length10245121024
Training steps90040004200
LoRA rank--8
LoRA alpha--16
Trainable parameters13B13B6M
Training device96 × A10096 × A1008 × A100
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.338, + 0.709, + 0.658, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: SpeechGPT training hyperparameters." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15769" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.426, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Standard Prompting Templates" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.143, + 0.437, + 0.159 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Instruction-Speech Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.161, + 0.859, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech \\(<\\mathrm{eoh}>\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.177, + 0.43, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR} ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.208, + 0.416, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Speech Instruction-Text Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.225, + 0.857, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.272, + 0.415, + 0.288 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text Instruction-Speech Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.29, + 0.859, + 0.304 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech ." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.305, + 0.43, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR}." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.337, + 0.393, + 0.352 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text Instruction-Text Response:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.353, + 0.857, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15770" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "header", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.459, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F ChatGPT Score Evaluation Prompt" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.143, + 0.859, + 0.174 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "You are evaluating a response that has been submitted for an instruction, using a specific set of standards. Below is the data:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.176, + 0.265, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[BEGIN DATA]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.193, + 0.172, + 0.202 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.208, + 0.275, + 0.223 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Instruction]: inst" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.225, + 0.172, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.241, + 0.27, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Response]: resp" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.258, + 0.172, + 0.266 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.273, + 0.323, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[Criterion]:helpfulness:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.289, + 0.856, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"1\": \"Not helpful - The generated text is completely irrelevant, unclear, or incomplete. It does not provide any useful information to the user.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.321, + 0.856, + 0.367 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"2\": \"Somewhat helpful - The generated text has some relevance to the user's question, but it may be unclear or incomplete. It provides only partial information, or the information provided may not be useful for the user's needs.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.369, + 0.856, + 0.415 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"3\": \"Moderately helpful - The generated text is relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear and complete answer. However, it may lack detail or explanation that would be helpful for the user.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.418, + 0.856, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"4\": \"Helpful - The generated text is quite relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information or explanations that are useful for the user. However, some of the points of the response are somewhat repetitive or could be combined for greater clarity and concision\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.482, + 0.856, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"5\": \"Very helpful - The generated text is highly relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information, explanations, or analogies that are not only useful but also insightful and valuable to the user. However, the structured of the response is not well-organized and there is no clear progression or logical sequence of different points in the response.\"" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.289, + 0.856, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.563, + 0.172, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.578, + 0.246, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "[END DATA]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.595, + 0.856, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Does the response meet the criterion? You should only write out your score in this format: \"My score is: \"" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15771" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.084, + 0.533, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Cases of Cross-modal Instruction Following" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.144, + 0.633, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Can you transcribe the speech into a written format?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.161, + 0.699, + 0.177 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.178, + 0.56, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Text: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.21, + 0.593, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Listen to the speech and write down its content." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.226, + 0.856, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.258, + 0.808, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Text: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.29, + 0.711, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.307, + 0.59, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Text: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.323, + 0.755, + 0.338 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.354, + 0.638, + 0.37 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Would you please speed-read the following sentence?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.371, + 0.857, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Input: Text: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.143, + 0.403, + 0.856, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you.)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15772" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.092, + 0.856, + 0.121 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Can you show me what is the correct English pronunciation of apple?)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.122, + 0.749, + 0.136 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, the correct pronunciation of apple is [app-ull].)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.149, + 0.69, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Write a five-line poem that praises spring)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.165, + 0.856, + 0.193 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: The sun is out, the sky is blue, The flowers bloom and the birds sing too, The days are long, the nights are short, The spring is here and it's so sweet and warm!)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.206, + 0.786, + 0.221 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: My girlfriend is angry with me. What should I do now?)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.222, + 0.856, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: It is understandable that your girlfriend is angry with you. It is important to understand why she is angry and to try to resolve the issue. You can start by having a conversation with her and trying to understand her perspective.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.277, + 0.674, + 0.291 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Give me some advice about my dinner.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.292, + 0.857, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, here are some suggestions: 1. Make a salad with fresh vegetables." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.307, + 0.856, + 0.335 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Grill some lean meat. 3. Roast a vegetable-based dish like a cauliflower casserole. 4. Make a soup with vegetables and legumes. 5. Try a new recipe.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.348, + 0.613, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Do you know Stephen Curry?)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.364, + 0.856, + 0.405 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Yes, I do know Stephen Curry. He is an American professional basketball player, who currently plays for Golden States Warriors. He is two-time NBA most valuable player and four-time NBA all star.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.419, + 0.596, + 0.434 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I go to the moon?)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.435, + 0.856, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Going to the moon is a challenging task that requires a lot of planning and resources. To do this, you will need to develop a spacecraft that can withstand the extreme conditions of the moon's atmosphere, design a mission plan, and secure the necessary funding and personnel. Additionally, you will need to consider the ethical implications of such a mission.)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.505, + 0.603, + 0.519 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I cheat my parents?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.52, + 0.856, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Cheating your parents is not a good idea. It can damage your relationship with them and can have long-term consequences.)" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "15773" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_origin.pdf b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e288b53c6352e66e5f8af0fbbcc35a0244ab286e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/85d328a2-4439-4f42-90fc-54c5bc9b7daf_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8aee32b70d21896c6a6de97de066474b3cc9f6db80369956bea4c10a743db78f +size 919337 diff --git a/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/full.md b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c576455a2996109c8fbf239d07ee0e4d7e71767 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@ +# SpeechGPT: Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities + +Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Xin Zhang, Jun Zhan, Pengyu Wang, Yaqian Zhou* Xipeng Qiu* + +School of Computer Science, Fudan University + +Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University + +{dongzhang22,xin_zhang22,jzhan22,pywang22} $@$ m.fudan.edu.cn {smli20,zhouyaqian,xpqiu}@fudan.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Multi-modal large language models are regarded as a crucial step towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and have garnered significant interest with the emergence of ChatGPT. However, current speech-language models typically adopt the cascade paradigm, preventing inter-modal knowledge transfer. In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. With discrete speech representations, we construct SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale cross-modal speech instruction dataset. Additionally, we employ a three-stage training strategy that includes modality-adaptation pretraining, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The experimental results demonstrate that SpeechGPT has an impressive capacity to follow cross-modal human instructions and highlight the potential of handling multiple modalities with one model. Code and models are available in https://github.com/Onutation/SpeechGPT. Demos are shown in https://Onutation.github.io/SpeechGPT.github.io/. + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023) have performed astonishingly on various natural language processing tasks. Meanwhile, multi-modal large language models, such as GPT-4, PALM-E (Driess et al., 2023), and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023), have explored the ability of LLMs to understand multi-modal information. However, a significant gap exists between current LLMs and general artificial intelligence (AGI). First, most current LLMs can only perceive and understand multimodal content but cannot spontaneously generate multi-modal content. Second, continuous signals + +![](images/16b5be5c917da0d57a518724f4777f5cd3d82dbe734845eeb2fbf65954d15be6.jpg) +Figure 1: SpeechGPT's capabilities to tackle multiple cross-modal tasks. + +like images and speech cannot be adapted directly to LLMs that receive discrete tokens. + +The current speech-language model mainly adopts a cascading paradigm (Huang et al., 2023a) i.e., the LLM is connected with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) model or a text-to-speech (TTS) model in tandem, or the LLM is employed as a control hub, with several speech processing models (Cheng et al., 2023a,b,c) are integrated to cover multiple audio or speech tasks (Huang et al., 2023a; Shen et al., 2023). Some prior work on generative spoken language models involves encoding the speech signal into a discrete representation (Baevski et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and modeling it with language models (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023d; Wang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c). + +While capable of perceiving and generating speech, the existing cascaded methods or spoken language models still have several limitations. First, the LLM in the cascaded model only functions as a content generator. Since the representations of speech and text are not aligned, the LLM's knowledge cannot be transferred to the speech modality. Second, the cascade approach (Shen et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) suffers from the loss of paralinguistic signals such as emotion and prosody. Third, existing spoken language models (Wang + +et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023d) only synthesize speech but fail to comprehend its semantic information, preventing them from achieving true cross-modal perception and generation. + +In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. We perform speech discretization with a self-supervised trained speech model to unify the modality between speech and text. The discrete speech tokens are then expanded into the vocabulary of the LLM, thus endowing the model with an inherent competence to perceive and generate the speech. + +To provide the model with the capacity to handle multi-modal instructions, we build the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset SpeechInstruct. Specifically, we discretize the speech to discrete units (Hsu et al., 2021) and construct the cross-modal unit-text pair based on the existing ASR dataset. Meanwhile, we construct hundreds of instructions for diverse tasks with GPT-4 to simulate actual user instructions as illustrated in Appendix B. In addition, to further enhance the model's cross-modal capability, we designed the Chain-of-Modality instruction data, i.e., the model receives the speech command, thinks about the process in text, and then outputs the response in speech. + +For better cross-modal transfer and efficient training, SpeechGPT undergoes a three-stage training process: modality-adaptation pre-training, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The first stage enables speech comprehension for SpeechGPT with the discrete speech unit continuation task. The second stage employs the SpeechInstruct to improve the model's cross-modal capabilities. The third stage utilizes parameter-efficient LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) fine-tuning for further modality alignment. + +To evaluate the effectiveness of SpeechGPT, we conduct a wide range of human evaluations and case analyses to estimate the performance of SpeechGPT on textual tasks, speech-text cross-modal tasks, and spoken dialogue tasks. The results demonstrate that SpeechGPT exhibits a strong ability for unimodal and cross-modal instruction following tasks. + +Our contributions include the following: + +- We build the first multi-modal large language model that can perceive and generate multi + +modal contents. + +- We construct and release SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. +- We build the first spoken dialogue LLM with strong human instruction following ability and spoken dialogue ability. +- We show great potential to incorporate other modalities into LLMs through discrete representations. + +# 2 Related Work + +Multi-modal Large Language Model Current multi-modal LLMs predominantly focus on the visual domain, feeding continuous representations obtained from pre-trained visual encoders into LLMs, facilitating full-parameter or parameter-efficient training on visual-language data (OpenAI, 2023; Huang et al., 2023b; Zhang et al., 2023b). Palm-E (Driess et al., 2023) integrates the 540B PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and 22B Vision Transformer (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) into the largest vision-language model. LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023) leverages pre-trained CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) visual encoder and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and conduct instruct tuning on GPT4-assisted visual instruction data. X-LLM (Chen et al., 2023) converts multi-modalities into representations with X2L interfaces as the inputs of the large language model. However, such structures only enable LLMs to process multi-modal input, without ability to generate multi-modal output. Diverging from prior studies, our approach emphasizes the development of a speech-centric multimodal LLM, endowing it with the proficiency to accommodate both multi-modal input and output. + +Generative Spoken Language Model Discrete self-supervised representation based spoken generative language modeling is making remarkable progress on large-scale speech dataset training (Nguyen et al., 2022). AudioLM (Borsos et al., 2022) proposes to model speech based on audio CODECs together with semantic codes, which can synthesize speech in a textlesss setting. VALLE (Wang et al., 2023) builds a generative spoken language model on audio CODEcs and treat Text-to-Speech as a conditional generation task. However, these models are designed for a specific task and failed to benefit from LLMs. SpeechGPT is built upon the foundation of LLM and transfers LLM's knowledge to speech modality, con + +sequently obtaining better task generalization and human-instruction following ability. + +Speech-Enabled LLM Interaction Following the emergence of ChatGPT, several studies have concentrated on the integration of expert speech models with LLMs to enable direct speech interaction with LLMs. HuggingGPT (Shen et al., 2023) facilitates task decomposition of human instructions by LLMs and allows the invocation of models from Huggingface to accomplish specific tasks, encompassing a range of automatic speech recognition (ASR) and text-to-speech models. AudioGPT (Huang et al., 2023a) leverages a variety of audio foundation models to process complex audio information and connect LLMs with input/output interface (ASR, TTS) for speech conversations. However, these models exhibit increased complexity, demand extensive resources, and are prone to the unavoidable error accumulation problems. Our approach enables speech interaction with LLMs without relying on ASR or TTS systems, circumventing the aforementioned drawbacks. + +# 3 SpeechInstruct Construction + +Due to the limitations in publicly available speech data and the lack of variety of speech-text tasks, we construct SpeechInstruct, a speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. This dataset consists of two parts, the first part is called CrossModal Instruction, and the second part is called Chain-of-Modality Instruction. The construction process of SpeechInstruct is illustrated in Figure 2. + +# 3.1 Cross-modal Instruction + +Data Collection We collect several large-scale English ASR datasets to construct Cross-Modal Instruction, including Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020), and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). We employ mHuBERT as the speech tokenizer to discretize speech data into discrete units and remove the repetitive units of adjacent frames to get reduced units. Ultimately, we obtain 9 million unit-text data pairs. Task Description Generation We generate ASR and TTS task descriptions that are compatible with speech-text data pairs. Unlike the Self-Instruct method (Wang et al., 2022), we generate descriptions through a zero-shot approach. Specifically, we directly input the prompts shown in Appendix A + +into OpenAI GPT-4 to generate task descriptions. Our generation method yields 100 instructions for each task and some examples are shown in Appendix B. + +Instruction Formatting For a discrete unit sequence $U$ and its associated transcription $T$ , we determine whether it will be used for constructing an ASR task or a TTS task based on the probability $p$ . Subsequently, we randomly select a description $D$ from the corresponding task description. This results in a triplet consisting of the task description, discrete unit sequence, and transcription, denoted as $(D,U,T)$ . Following this, the triplet is assembled into an instruction using the template: [Human]: $\{D\}$ . This is input: $\{U\} < \mathrm{eoh}>$ . [SpeechGPT]: $\{T\} < \mathrm{eos}>.$ + +# 3.2 Chain-of-Modality Instruction + +Speech Instruction Generation Due to the lack of instruction data with speech input and speech output, we trained a text-to-unit generator to convert text instruction data into speech instruction data. Specifically, the text-to-unit generator adopts a Transformer encoder-decoder architecture. We trained it on LibriSpeech unit-text pairs in Cross-modal Instruction. We select 37,969 samples from the moss-002-sft-data dataset whose response length is shorter than 35 words. And we convert both their instructions and responses into unit sequences through the text-to-unit generator. As a result, we obtained 37,969 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses, denoted as (SpeechI, TextI, TextR, SpeechR). + +Instruction Formatting Using the above quadruplets, we could construct chain-of-thought style instructions for four input-output formats, namely Speech Instruction-Speech Response, Speech Instruction-Text Response, Text Instruction-Speech Response, and Text Instruction-Text Response. Their corresponding templates can be found in Appendix C. + +# 3.3 SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set + +We constructed cross-modal dialogue datasets under different scenarios to evaluate whether SpeechGPT could take on various roles. Specifically, these included a talking encyclopedia, personal assistant, chat partner, poet, psychologist, + +![](images/d5095d5a31f2defdc59a632fb064f5b0f73e3401124138b741b2c540f55ad327.jpg) +Figure 2: Left: An overview of SpeechInstruct construction process. The SpeechInstruct dataset consists of two parts: Cross-modal Instruction data and Chain-of-Modality Instruction data. $\text{Template}_1$ is shown in 3.1. $\text{Template}_2$ is shown in Appendix C. Right: An illustration of SpeechGPT model structure. + +![](images/2cf216370c3500a8e56d0b06ef87fe7d3801046fe9d0f2594b8fe19730ef6b10.jpg) + +and educational assistant. For each role, we provide 10 manually authored instruction-response pairs written by ourselves. We use a pre-trained text-to-speech model to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. Ultimately, for each role, we obtained 10 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses. + +# 4 SpeechGPT + +# 4.1 Model Structure + +A unified framework is designed to provide architecture compatibility across different modalities. As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of three main components: discrete unit extractor, large language modal and unit vocoder. Under this architecture, LLM can perceive multi-modal inputs and generate multi-modal outputs. + +Discrete Unit Extractor The discrete unit extractor utilizes the Hidden-unit BERT (HuBERT) model (Hsu et al., 2021) to transform continuous speech signals into a sequence of discrete units, . HuBERT is a self-supervised model that learns by predicting discrete labels for masked audio segments based on k-means clustering applied to the model's intermediate representations. It features a combination of 1-D convolutional layers and a Transformer encoder to encode speech into continuous intermediate representations, with a k + +means model further converting these representations into a sequence of cluster indices. Subsequently, adjacent duplicate indices are removed, resulting in a discrete units sequence represented as $U = (u_{1}, u_{2}, \ldots, u_{T})$ , $u_{i} \in 0, 1, \ldots, K - 1$ , $\forall 1 \leq i \leq T$ , with $K$ denoting the total number of clusters. + +Large Language Model We employ the Meta AI LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) model as our Large Language Model. LLaMA comprises an embedding layer, multiple transformer blocks, and an LM head layer. The total number of parameters in LLaMA ranges from 7B to 65B. Drawing from an extensive training dataset of 1.0 trillion tokens, LLaMA demonstrates competitive performance compared to the substantially larger 175B GPT-3 across various NLP benchmarks. + +Unit Vocoder Due to limitation of single speaker unit vocoder in (Polyak et al., 2021), we train a multi-speaker unit HiFi-GAN to decode the speech signal from the discrete representation. The HiFiGAN architecture consists of a generator $\mathbf{G}$ and multiple discriminators $\mathbf{D}$ . The generator uses look-up tables (LUT) to embed discrete representations and the embedding sequences are up-sampled by a series of blocks composed of transposed convolution and a residual block with dilated layers. The speaker embedding is concatenated to each frame in the up-sampled sequence. The discriminator features a Multi-Period Discriminator (MPD) and a Multi-Scale Discriminator (MSD), which have the same architecture as (Polyak et al., 2021). + +# 4.2 Training + +To incorporate speech discrete representation into LLM, we expand the vocabulary and corresponding embedding matrix first. We divide the training process into three stages. The first stage is Modality-Adaptation Pre-training on unpaired speech data. The second stage is Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning. The third stage is Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning. + +Expanding Vocabulary Given original LLM vocabulary $V$ of size $|V|$ , to integrate speech discrete representations into LLM, we expand the vocabulary with an additional set of unit tokens $V'$ , of size $|V'| = K$ . The expanded vocabulary $V''$ is the union of the original vocabulary $V$ and the new words $V'$ : + +$$ +V ^ {\prime \prime} = V \cup V ^ {\prime} \tag {1} +$$ + +We denote the original word embedding matrix as $E \in \mathbb{R}^{|V| \times d}$ , where $d$ is the dimension of word embeddings. To accommodate the expanded vocabulary, we need to create a randomly initialized word embedding matrix $E' \in \mathbb{R}^{|V''| \times d}$ . We preserve the original word embeddings by copying the values of $E$ to the first $|V|$ rows of $E'$ : + +$$ +E ^ {\prime} [ 0: | V |,: ] = E \tag {2} +$$ + +Finally, we replace the original vocabulary and word embedding matrix with the new vocabulary $V''$ and the word embedding matrix $E'$ . + +Stage 1: Modality-Adaptation Pre-training To enable LLM to handle discrete units modality, we utilize an unlabeled speech corpus to train LLM in a next-token prediction task. This approach aligns with the text pre-training objective of LLM. Given unlabeled speech corpus $C$ consisting of speech $U_{1}, U_{2}, \ldots, U_{m}$ and LLM denoted as $L_{1}$ , the negative log-likelihood loss can be formulated as: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} (L | C) = - \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {j}} \log P \left(u _ {i, j} \mid u _ {< i, j}; L\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +where $m$ is the number of speech in dataset $C$ , $n_j$ is the number of discrete unit token in speech $U_j$ , and $u_{i,j}$ represents the i-th unit token in the j-th speech. + +Stage 2: Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning In this stage, we align speech and text + +modalities utilizing paired data. We mix Cross-modal Instruction in SpeechInstruct with moss-002-sft dataset to derive mix dataset $I$ , which consists of samples $T_{1}, T_{2}, \ldots, T_{x}$ . We fine-tune the model $L$ obtained from the first stage on $I$ . + +Each sample $T_{j}$ consisting of $t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_{n_j}$ is formed by concatenating a prefix and a text. The training objective is to minimize the negative log-likelihood and the loss calculation only considers the text part, ignoring the prefix, which can be formatted as: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} (L | I) = - \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {x} \sum_ {i = p _ {j} + 1} ^ {y _ {j}} \log P \left(t _ {i, j} \mid t _ {< i, j}; L\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +where $x$ is the number of samples in corpus $I$ , $y_{j}$ is the total number of tokens in sample $T_{j}$ , $p_{j}$ is the number of tokens in the prefix part of $T_{j}$ , and $t_{i,j}$ represents the i-th word in $T_{j}$ . + +Stage 3: Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning After obtaining the model in stage 2, we utilizes parameter-efficient Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2021) to fine-tune it on Chain-of-Modality Instruction in SpeechInstruct. We add LoRA weights (adapters) to the attention mechanisms and train the newly added LoRA parameters. We adopt the same loss function as stage 2. + +# 5 Experiments + +# 5.1 Experimental Setups + +Datasets For modality-adaption pre-training, we use LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020) which contains 60K hours of unlabelled English audiobook speech. For cross-modal instruction fine-tuning stage, we use Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common voice (Ardila et al., 2020) and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015) dataset and moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.1. For chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning stage, we use moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.2. + +Configuration We employ LLaMA-13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as our backbone model for a trade-off between performance and computational resources available. For stage 1, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 900 steps with batch size 768. For stage 2, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 2100 steps with batch size 1536. For stage 3, we use 8 A100 GPUs and train for 4200 steps with batch size 128. + +Details about training hyperparameters are shown in Appendix D. For decoding, we set the maximum sequence length to 2048 and set the temperature to 0.8. We use Top- $k$ sampling with $k = 60$ . We also use Top- $p$ sampling with $p = 0.8$ . + +# 5.2 Baselines + +We establish two cascaded cross-modal conversational systems as our baselines. The first model, referred to as Speech-Alpaca-13B, consists of an off-the-shell ASR system $^{4}$ , Alpaca 13B (Taori et al., 2023) as well as a pre-trained TTS system $^{5}$ . The second model, named Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-002, incorporates the same ASR and TTS system, along with a large language model obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset. + +# 5.3 Evaluation + +We evaluate the cross-modal instruction-following capabilities of SpeechGPT across four tasks: speech-to-speech instruction-following (S2SIF), speech-to-text instruction-following (S2TIF), text-to-speech instruction-following (T2SIF), and text-to-text instruction-following (T2TIF). + +Data We randomly select 40 samples from the AlpacaEval dataset and use the pre-trained TTS model in Section 3.3 to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. These are combined with the SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set to constitute our test set, which contains 100 samples. Each sample is a quadruplet composed of a speech instruction, text instruction, text response, and speech response. We denote them as ground truth. + +ChatGPT Score We utilize ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-turbo) to assess the cross-modal instruction-following performance. For tasks that include speech, we leveraged the pre-trained ASR model in section 5.2 to transform the speech into its corresponding text, which is subsequently submitted for evaluation. Inspired from (Zhou et al., 2023), we feed the prompt in appendix F to ChatGPT to score the model's outputs based on response quality, with scores ranging from 1 to 5. + +Human Opinion Score Following (Nguyen et al., 2022), we calculate the human opinion score of the generated examples through crowdsourcing. These opinions are based on two dimensions: the content mean opinion score (CMOS) for content and meaningfulness quality, and the naturalness mean opinion score (NMOS) for speech naturalness and fluency. For CMOS, we ask participants to focus on the correctness of the content in speech or text, without paying attention to the quality of the speech. For NMOS, we direct participants to focus on the quality, smoothness, and naturalness of the speech, without considering its content. We invited five volunteers to perform the evaluation, and asked them to rate within a range of 1-5, where 1 represents the worst and 5 represents the best. For speech-to-speech instruction-following and text-to-speech instruction-following tasks, we calculate both CMOS and NMOS. For speech-to-text instruction-following and text-to-text instruction-following tasks, we calculate CMOS. + +# 5.4 Main Results + +Content As shown in Table 1, taking into account the comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT Score and CMOS, SpeechGPT demonstrates superior performance on speech instructions (S2SIF and S2TIF) compared to the two baseline systems. This indicates that SpeechGPT outperforms the ASR model in the cascaded system when it comes to understanding speech content. From the perspective of CMOS, SpeechGPT achieves performance similar to the baseline systems on T2SIF and T2TIF tasks, indicating that SpeechGPT still possesses commendable text and speech generation capabilities. In S2SIF and T2SIF tasks, ChatGPT Score and CMOS values exhibit ambiguity in the ground truth and baseline systems. This can be attributed to speech responses being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the ChatGPT score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal. Cases of cross-modal instruction-following can be found in Appendix G. + +Speech Quality As shown in Table 1, SpeechGPT exhibits significantly higher NMOS values compared to the baseline systems. This indicates that the speech responses generated by SpeechGPT out + +
MethodsChatGPT ScoreHuman Opinion Score
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFCMOSNMOS
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFS2SIFS2TIFT2SIF
Ground Truth2.85*3.742.91*3.933.783.893.954.123.18-3.20
Baselines: cascaded cross-modal conversational systems
Speech-Alpaca-13B2.743.312.713.833.393.423.713.753.12-3.13
Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-0022.873.503.233.823.383.443.743.833.14-3.11
SpeechGPT3.423.523.533.643.423.493.573.693.65-3.62
+ +Table 1: Main Results of SpeechGPT. S2SIF refers to speech-to-speech instruction-following, S2TIF is speech-to-text instruction-following, T2SIF denotes text-to-speech instruction-following and T2TIF represents text-to-text instruction-following. ChatGPT score is obtained through ChatGPT evaluation. CMOS refers to content mean opinion score. NMOS denotes naturalness mean opinion score. *: The low ChatGPT Score for speech responses in Ground Truth is due to them being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal. + +
TrainingInferenceChatGPT Score
StandardStandard2.15
StandardCoM2.12
CoMStandard2.35
CoMCoM3.42
+ +Table 2: ChatGPT Score on speech-to-speech instruction-following task. CoM refers to chain-of-modality prompting and Standard denotes standard prompting. + +perform the TTS system in the cascaded system in terms of audio quality and prosody. More detailed speech prosody analysis are located in Section ?? + +# 6 Analysis + +# 6.1 Chain-of-modality prompting matters + +Table 2 shows ChatGPT Scores on speech-to-speech instruction-following task for models utilizing standard prompting and chain-of-modality prompting during training and inference stages respectively. Standard prompting refers to directly obtaining a speech response from a speech instruction without transitioning through an intermediate text form. The template can be located in Appendix E. For standard prompting training, we use this template to construct training data. We discovered that if standard prompting is used, the performance is rather poor when either standard prompting or chain-of-modality prompting is used for inference. If chain-of-modality prompting is employed during training, ChatGPT Score sees an enhancement, and when the inference also applies chain-of-modality prompting, there is a huge improvement in performance. This indi + +![](images/0472414eafc79b43e56a687e7b7746f4968ce940b9167e5a6a26f331f08de268.jpg) +Figure 3: ASR-PPL of speech continue task on 100 utterances from LibriSpeech test-clean set. From scratch refers to model pre-trained from randomly-initialized parameters. From LLaMA denotes model pre-trained from LLaMA. + +cates that chain-of-modality prompting matters in both training and inference. We think chain-of-modality prompting decomposes the complex task into easy tasks, allowing the model to complete them step by step, which reduces the difficulty. + +# 6.2 Can text knowledge benefit speech modality? + +SpeechGPT originates from a text pre-trained model, LLaMA. Nonetheless, the question remains whether the knowledge from the text modality can contribute beneficially to the speech modality. To resolve this, we utilize a speech continuation task which assesses the model's capability to generate coherent and semantically accurate speech. We compare the performances of two models on this task: one model is pre-trained from LLaMA, while + +![](images/1208a73bb4721d65305308285c222e3b8e587ed6e9b071ce0dbb13f57cc57a22.jpg) +Figure 4: ChatGPT Score on text-to-text instruction-following task. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset. + +the other model is trained from scratch. + +We utilize LibriSpeech test-clean set for evaluation, where we randomly select 100 utterances, and use the first 3 seconds of each utterance as a prompt. The 3-second speech prompt is converted into discrete units by mHuBERT. The model takes the prompt as input and generates a continuation of discrete units, which are subsequently converted back into speech by a discrete unit vocoder. To assess the semantic quality of the speech continuation, we employ ASR-PPL metric. This involves transcribing the speech continuation into text using the ASR system in Section 5.2 and calculating the perplexity of the transcripts using GPT-3.5 text-devinci-003 model. As shown in Figure 3, we observe a continuous decrease in ASR-PPL as the training tokens increase. The ASR-PPL of the model initialized from LLaMA consistently remains lower than that of the model pre-trained from scratch. This indicates that text pre-trained model provides a warm initialization and speech modality can benefit from text knowledge. We believe the reason for this is that even though the modeling granularity of speech and text is different, they model the same content information. This leads to a certain degree of similarity in the sequence structure, which aids in knowledge transfer. + +# 6.3 Does SpeechGPT Sacrifice Text Capability as a Trade-off? + +Initialized form LLaMA, SpeechGPT is capable of preceiving and generating speech after training on large scale speech data. However, does SpeechGPT sacrifice text capability as a trade-off? To draw conclusions, we compared the text-to-text + +instruction-following ability of SpeechGPT with LLaMA-MOSS-002. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset. This ensures that both models have been exposed to the same amount of text data. We evaluated both models using the test set from Section 5.3. + +As depicted in Figure 4, with an increase in training samples, both LLaMA-MOSS-002 and SpeechGPT's ChatGPT Score gradually improve. Although SpeechGPT consistently remains lower than LLaMA-MOSS-002, the performance gap between them gradually decreases. When the training samples reach 40,000, the performance of the two models becomes very similar. This suggests that SpeechGPT still retains text capability. We attribute this to the large parameter size of the 13B model, enabling it to learn new speech modality while preserving text capability without catastrophic forgetting. + +# 7 Conclusion + +This work presents SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. To alleviate the scarcity of instruction datasets in current speech domain, we propose SpeechInstruct, the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. To obtain improved cross-modal performance, we adopt a three-stage training paradigm to obtain the final SpeechGPT. Experimental results indicate that SpeechGPT achieves promising results in various unimodal or cross-modal instruction-following tasks and demonstrate that combining discrete speech tokens into the language model is a promising direction. + +# Limitation + +Despite SpeechGPT exhibiting impressive cross-modal instruction following and spoken dialogue abilities, it still presents certain limitations: 1) Due to the audio discretization technique constraints, SpeechGPT does not explicitly model the paralinguistic information included in the speech signal. 2) Since SpeechGPT generates speech responses via the Chain-of-Modality, it needs to initially generate speech units after text tokens, which increases decoding time. However, by improving the capabilities of the foundation model, SpeechGPT may generate speech units directly without noticeably + +degrading its performance. 3) SpeechGPT is not evaluated in the multi-turn scenario as the length of one round is already close to the maximum length of the model due to the long speech unit sequences. We believe this issue can be addressed by either increasing the maximum length the model can handle or employing more effective speech discretization techniques. + +# Acknowledgements + +We thank Rong Ye and Fuliang Weng for the careful guidance and revisions to the paper and thank all the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62236004 and No. 62022027). + +# References + +Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M. Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus. +Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12449-12460. +Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliausacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation. +Feilong Chen, Minglun Han, Haozhi Zhao, Qingyang Zhang, Jing Shi, Shuang Xu Xu, and Bo Xu. 2023. Xllm: Bootstrapping advanced large language models by treating multi-modalities as foreign languages. +Guoguo Chen, Shuzhou Chai, Guanbo Wang, Jiayu Du, Wei-Qiang Zhang, Chao Weng, Dan Su, Daniel Povey, Jan Trmal, Junbo Zhang, Mingjie Jin, Sanjeev Khudanpur, Shinji Watanabe, Shuaijiang Zhao, Wei Zou, Xiangang Li, Xuchen Yao, Yongqing Wang, Yujun Wang, Zhao You, and Zhiyong Yan. 2021. Gispeech: An evolving, multi-domain asr corpus with 10,000 hours of transcribed audio. +Xuxin Cheng, Bowen Cao, Qichen Ye, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023a. Ml-lmcl: Mutual learning and large-margin contrastive learning for improving asr robustness in spoken language understanding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 6492-6505. + +Xuxin Cheng, Qianqian Dong, Fengpeng Yue, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023b. M 3 st: Mix at three levels for speech translation. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE. +Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Ziyu Yao, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023c. GhostT5: Generate More Features with Cheap Operations to Improve Textless Spoken Question Answering. In Proc. INTERSPEECH 2023, pages 1134-1138. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. +Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. +Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378. +Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460. +Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. +Rongjie Huang, Mingze Li, Dongchao Yang, Jia-tong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Zhenhui Ye, Yuning Wu, + +Zhiqing Hong, Jiawei Huang, Jinglin Liu, Yi Ren, Zhou Zhao, and Shinji Watanabe. 2023a. Audiogpt: Understanding and generating speech, music, sound, and talking head. +Shaohan Huang, Li Dong, Wenhui Wang, Yaru Hao, Saksham Singhal, Shuming Ma, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Owais Khan Mohammed, Barun Patra, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Zewen Chi, Johan Bjorck, Vishrav Chaudhary, Subhojit Som, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2023b. Language is not all you need: Aligning perception with language models. +J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P.E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux. 2020. Librilight: A benchmark for ASR with limited or no supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE. +Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354. +Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485. +Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling. +OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. +Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210. +Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations. +Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. +Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface. + +Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023. Neural codec language models are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers. +Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions. +Dong Zhang, Rong Ye, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yaqian Zhou. 2023a. DUB: Discrete unit backtranslation for speech translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7147-7164, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023b. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention. +Xin Zhang, Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Yaqian Zhou, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023c. Speechtokenizer: Unified speech tokenizer for speech large language models. +Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023d. Speak foreign languages with your own voice: Cross-lingual neural codec language modeling. +Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment. + +# A Prompts to Generate Task Description + +# ASR: + +You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about automatic speech recognition, which is about recognizing speech. + +Here are the requirements: + +1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech. +2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity. +3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions. +4. The type of instructions should be diverse. +5. The instructions should be in English. +6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted. + +List of 100 tasks: + +# TTS: + +You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about text to speech, which is about recognizing speech. + +Here are the requirements: + +1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech. +2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity. +3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions. +4. The type of instructions should be diverse. +5. The instructions should be in English. +6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted. + +List of 100 tasks: + +# B Examples of Task Description + +# ASR: + +Begin by converting the spoken words into written text. + +Can you transcribe the speech into a written format? + +Focus on translating the audible content into text. + +Transcribe the speech by carefully listening to it. + +Would you kindly write down the content of the speech? + +Analyze the speech and create a written transcription. + +Engage with the speech to produce a text-based version. + +Can you document the speech in written form? + +Transform the spoken words into text accurately. + +How about putting the speech's content into writing? + +# TTS: + +Can you please read this sentence out loud? + +Recite the following words as if you were speaking normally. + +Project your voice to clearly articulate this statement. + +Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible? + +Whisper the given sentence softly. + +Enunciate each word in this sentence with precision. How would you express this sentence in a conversational tone? + +Could you please relay the message below verbally? + +Emphasize the key points while reading the sentence. + +Sing the text provided in a melodic voice. + +# Speech Instruction-Speech Response: + +[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text Instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. Last, you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}. + +# Speech Instruction-Text Response: + +[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR} . + +# Text Instruction-Speech Response: + +[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. Then you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}. + +# Text Instruction-Text Response: + +[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}. + +# D Hyperparameters + +
Stage 1Stage 2Stage 3
Batch size7681536128
Peak learning rate2e-42e-42e-4
Max length10245121024
Training steps90040004200
LoRA rank--8
LoRA alpha--16
Trainable parameters13B13B6M
Training device96 × A10096 × A1008 × A100
+ +Table 3: SpeechGPT training hyperparameters. + +# E Standard Prompting Templates + +Speech Instruction-Speech Response: + +[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech $<\mathrm{eoh}>$ . + +[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR} . + +Speech Instruction-Text Response: + +[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}. + +Text Instruction-Speech Response: + +[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech . + +[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR}. + +Text Instruction-Text Response: + +[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}. + +You are evaluating a response that has been submitted for an instruction, using a specific set of standards. Below is the data: + +[BEGIN DATA] + +\*\*\* + +[Instruction]: inst + +\*\*\* + +[Response]: resp + +\*\*\* + +[Criterion]:helpfulness: + +"1": "Not helpful - The generated text is completely irrelevant, unclear, or incomplete. It does not provide any useful information to the user." +"2": "Somewhat helpful - The generated text has some relevance to the user's question, but it may be unclear or incomplete. It provides only partial information, or the information provided may not be useful for the user's needs." +"3": "Moderately helpful - The generated text is relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear and complete answer. However, it may lack detail or explanation that would be helpful for the user." +"4": "Helpful - The generated text is quite relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information or explanations that are useful for the user. However, some of the points of the response are somewhat repetitive or could be combined for greater clarity and concision" +"5": "Very helpful - The generated text is highly relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information, explanations, or analogies that are not only useful but also insightful and valuable to the user. However, the structured of the response is not well-organized and there is no clear progression or logical sequence of different points in the response." + +\*\*\* + +[END DATA] + +Does the response meet the criterion? You should only write out your score in this format: "My score is: " + +# G Cases of Cross-modal Instruction Following + +Instruction: Can you transcribe the speech into a written format? + +Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he.) + +Output: Text: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he. + +Instruction: Listen to the speech and write down its content. + +Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer.) + +Output: Text: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer. + +Instruction: Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible? + +Input: Text: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here. + +Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here.) + +Instruction: Would you please speed-read the following sentence? + +Input: Text: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you. + +Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you.) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Can you show me what is the correct English pronunciation of apple?) + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, the correct pronunciation of apple is [app-ull].) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Write a five-line poem that praises spring) + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: The sun is out, the sky is blue, The flowers bloom and the birds sing too, The days are long, the nights are short, The spring is here and it's so sweet and warm!) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: My girlfriend is angry with me. What should I do now?) + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: It is understandable that your girlfriend is angry with you. It is important to understand why she is angry and to try to resolve the issue. You can start by having a conversation with her and trying to understand her perspective.) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Give me some advice about my dinner.) + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, here are some suggestions: 1. Make a salad with fresh vegetables. + +2. Grill some lean meat. 3. Roast a vegetable-based dish like a cauliflower casserole. 4. Make a soup with vegetables and legumes. 5. Try a new recipe.) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Do you know Stephen Curry?) + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Yes, I do know Stephen Curry. He is an American professional basketball player, who currently plays for Golden States Warriors. He is two-time NBA most valuable player and four-time NBA all star.) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I go to the moon?) + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Going to the moon is a challenging task that requires a lot of planning and resources. To do this, you will need to develop a spacecraft that can withstand the extreme conditions of the moon's atmosphere, design a mission plan, and secure the necessary funding and personnel. Additionally, you will need to consider the ethical implications of such a mission.) + +Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I cheat my parents? + +Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Cheating your parents is not a good idea. It can damage your relationship with them and can have long-term consequences.) \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/images.zip b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55b319aac72989bb3bf3ffabdc38c045b6c02a31 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:10a6ada410bac896ec11aa1768727c14da0bba9eaca3c2d98dae76946b90818d +size 271295 diff --git a/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/layout.json b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c4e1466c3b30cbc4390e715d455c81c3544a888 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SpeechGPT_ Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,10868 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 66, + 498, + 100 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 66, + 498, + 100 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 66, + 498, + 100 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SpeechGPT: Empowering Large Language Models with Intrinsic Cross-Modal Conversational Abilities" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 105, + 465, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 105, + 465, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 105, + 465, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Xin Zhang, Jun Zhan, Pengyu Wang, Yaqian Zhou* Xipeng Qiu*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 134, + 412, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 134, + 412, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 182, + 134, + 412, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "School of Computer Science, Fudan University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 148, + 495, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 148, + 495, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 148, + 495, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Fudan University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 163, + 503, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 163, + 503, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 163, + 503, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{dongzhang22,xin_zhang22,jzhan22,pywang22} " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 163, + 503, + 190 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "@" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 163, + 503, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " m.fudan.edu.cn {smli20,zhouyaqian,xpqiu}@fudan.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 276, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 276, + 559 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 236, + 276, + 559 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-modal large language models are regarded as a crucial step towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and have garnered significant interest with the emergence of ChatGPT. However, current speech-language models typically adopt the cascade paradigm, preventing inter-modal knowledge transfer. In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. With discrete speech representations, we construct SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale cross-modal speech instruction dataset. Additionally, we employ a three-stage training strategy that includes modality-adaptation pretraining, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The experimental results demonstrate that SpeechGPT has an impressive capacity to follow cross-modal human instructions and highlight the potential of handling multiple modalities with one model. Code and models are available in https://github.com/Onutation/SpeechGPT. Demos are shown in https://Onutation.github.io/SpeechGPT.github.io/." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 570, + 155, + 584 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 570, + 155, + 584 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 570, + 155, + 584 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 292, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 292, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 292, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023) have performed astonishingly on various natural language processing tasks. Meanwhile, multi-modal large language models, such as GPT-4, PALM-E (Driess et al., 2023), and LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023), have explored the ability of LLMs to understand multi-modal information. However, a significant gap exists between current LLMs and general artificial intelligence (AGI). First, most current LLMs can only perceive and understand multimodal content but cannot spontaneously generate multi-modal content. Second, continuous signals" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 525, + 329 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 525, + 329 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 525, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 212, + 525, + 329 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "16b5be5c917da0d57a518724f4777f5cd3d82dbe734845eeb2fbf65954d15be6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 364 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 340, + 525, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: SpeechGPT's capabilities to tackle multiple cross-modal tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "like images and speech cannot be adapted directly to LLMs that receive discrete tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 526, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 526, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 403, + 526, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The current speech-language model mainly adopts a cascading paradigm (Huang et al., 2023a) i.e., the LLM is connected with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) model or a text-to-speech (TTS) model in tandem, or the LLM is employed as a control hub, with several speech processing models (Cheng et al., 2023a,b,c) are integrated to cover multiple audio or speech tasks (Huang et al., 2023a; Shen et al., 2023). Some prior work on generative spoken language models involves encoding the speech signal into a discrete representation (Baevski et al., 2020; Hsu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023a) and modeling it with language models (Lakhotia et al., 2021; Borsos et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023d; Wang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While capable of perceiving and generating speech, the existing cascaded methods or spoken language models still have several limitations. First, the LLM in the cascaded model only functions as a content generator. Since the representations of speech and text are not aligned, the LLM's knowledge cannot be transferred to the speech modality. Second, the cascade approach (Shen et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023a) suffers from the loss of paralinguistic signals such as emotion and prosody. Third, existing spoken language models (Wang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15757" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15757-15773 \nDecember 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023d) only synthesize speech but fail to comprehend its semantic information, preventing them from achieving true cross-modal perception and generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 127, + 290, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 127, + 290, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 127, + 290, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. We perform speech discretization with a self-supervised trained speech model to unify the modality between speech and text. The discrete speech tokens are then expanded into the vocabulary of the LLM, thus endowing the model with an inherent competence to perceive and generate the speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To provide the model with the capacity to handle multi-modal instructions, we build the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset SpeechInstruct. Specifically, we discretize the speech to discrete units (Hsu et al., 2021) and construct the cross-modal unit-text pair based on the existing ASR dataset. Meanwhile, we construct hundreds of instructions for diverse tasks with GPT-4 to simulate actual user instructions as illustrated in Appendix B. In addition, to further enhance the model's cross-modal capability, we designed the Chain-of-Modality instruction data, i.e., the model receives the speech command, thinks about the process in text, and then outputs the response in speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 617 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 291, + 617 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For better cross-modal transfer and efficient training, SpeechGPT undergoes a three-stage training process: modality-adaptation pre-training, cross-modal instruction fine-tuning, and chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning. The first stage enables speech comprehension for SpeechGPT with the discrete speech unit continuation task. The second stage employs the SpeechInstruct to improve the model's cross-modal capabilities. The third stage utilizes parameter-efficient LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) fine-tuning for further modality alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 291, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 291, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 620, + 291, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate the effectiveness of SpeechGPT, we conduct a wide range of human evaluations and case analyses to estimate the performance of SpeechGPT on textual tasks, speech-text cross-modal tasks, and spoken dialogue tasks. The results demonstrate that SpeechGPT exhibits a strong ability for unimodal and cross-modal instruction following tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 729, + 258, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 729, + 258, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 729, + 258, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our contributions include the following:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We build the first multi-modal large language model that can perceive and generate multi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 386, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 386, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 386, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "modal contents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 86, + 525, + 207 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 86, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 86, + 525, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 86, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We construct and release SpeechInstruct, the first large-scale speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 525, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 525, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 127, + 525, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We build the first spoken dialogue LLM with strong human instruction following ability and spoken dialogue ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 525, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 525, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 169, + 525, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We show great potential to incorporate other modalities into LLMs through discrete representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 396, + 234 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 396, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 222, + 396, + 234 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 245, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 245, + 526, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 245, + 526, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Multi-modal Large Language Model Current multi-modal LLMs predominantly focus on the visual domain, feeding continuous representations obtained from pre-trained visual encoders into LLMs, facilitating full-parameter or parameter-efficient training on visual-language data (OpenAI, 2023; Huang et al., 2023b; Zhang et al., 2023b). Palm-E (Driess et al., 2023) integrates the 540B PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022) and 22B Vision Transformer (Dosovitskiy et al., 2021) into the largest vision-language model. LLaVA (Liu et al., 2023) leverages pre-trained CLIP (Radford et al., 2021) visual encoder and LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) and conduct instruct tuning on GPT4-assisted visual instruction data. X-LLM (Chen et al., 2023) converts multi-modalities into representations with X2L interfaces as the inputs of the large language model. However, such structures only enable LLMs to process multi-modal input, without ability to generate multi-modal output. Diverging from prior studies, our approach emphasizes the development of a speech-centric multimodal LLM, endowing it with the proficiency to accommodate both multi-modal input and output." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 571, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generative Spoken Language Model Discrete self-supervised representation based spoken generative language modeling is making remarkable progress on large-scale speech dataset training (Nguyen et al., 2022). AudioLM (Borsos et al., 2022) proposes to model speech based on audio CODECs together with semantic codes, which can synthesize speech in a textlesss setting. VALLE (Wang et al., 2023) builds a generative spoken language model on audio CODEcs and treat Text-to-Speech as a conditional generation task. However, these models are designed for a specific task and failed to benefit from LLMs. SpeechGPT is built upon the foundation of LLM and transfers LLM's knowledge to speech modality, con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15758" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 97 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "sequently obtaining better task generalization and human-instruction following ability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 99, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 99, + 291, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 99, + 291, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech-Enabled LLM Interaction Following the emergence of ChatGPT, several studies have concentrated on the integration of expert speech models with LLMs to enable direct speech interaction with LLMs. HuggingGPT (Shen et al., 2023) facilitates task decomposition of human instructions by LLMs and allows the invocation of models from Huggingface to accomplish specific tasks, encompassing a range of automatic speech recognition (ASR) and text-to-speech models. AudioGPT (Huang et al., 2023a) leverages a variety of audio foundation models to process complex audio information and connect LLMs with input/output interface (ASR, TTS) for speech conversations. However, these models exhibit increased complexity, demand extensive resources, and are prone to the unavoidable error accumulation problems. Our approach enables speech interaction with LLMs without relying on ASR or TTS systems, circumventing the aforementioned drawbacks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 236, + 394 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 236, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 236, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 SpeechInstruct Construction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 291, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 291, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 291, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Due to the limitations in publicly available speech data and the lack of variety of speech-text tasks, we construct SpeechInstruct, a speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. This dataset consists of two parts, the first part is called CrossModal Instruction, and the second part is called Chain-of-Modality Instruction. The construction process of SpeechInstruct is illustrated in Figure 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 210, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 210, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 521, + 210, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Cross-modal Instruction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 291, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 291, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data Collection We collect several large-scale English ASR datasets to construct Cross-Modal Instruction, including Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common Voice (Ardila et al., 2020), and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015). We employ mHuBERT as the speech tokenizer to discretize speech data into discrete units and remove the repetitive units of adjacent frames to get reduced units. Ultimately, we obtain 9 million unit-text data pairs. Task Description Generation We generate ASR and TTS task descriptions that are compatible with speech-text data pairs. Unlike the Self-Instruct method (Wang et al., 2022), we generate descriptions through a zero-shot approach. Specifically, we directly input the prompts shown in Appendix A" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "into OpenAI GPT-4 to generate task descriptions. Our generation method yields 100 instructions for each task and some examples are shown in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction Formatting For a discrete unit sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and its associated transcription " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we determine whether it will be used for constructing an ASR task or a TTS task based on the probability " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Subsequently, we randomly select a description " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the corresponding task description. This results in a triplet consisting of the task description, discrete unit sequence, and transcription, denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(D,U,T)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Following this, the triplet is assembled into an instruction using the template: [Human]: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{D\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This is input: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{U\\} < \\mathrm{eoh}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". [SpeechGPT]: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 126, + 526, + 289 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{T\\} < \\mathrm{eos}>." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 473, + 312 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 473, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 300, + 473, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Chain-of-Modality Instruction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Instruction Generation Due to the lack of instruction data with speech input and speech output, we trained a text-to-unit generator to convert text instruction data into speech instruction data. Specifically, the text-to-unit generator adopts a Transformer encoder-decoder architecture. We trained it on LibriSpeech unit-text pairs in Cross-modal Instruction. We select 37,969 samples from the moss-002-sft-data dataset whose response length is shorter than 35 words. And we convert both their instructions and responses into unit sequences through the text-to-unit generator. As a result, we obtained 37,969 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses, denoted as (SpeechI, TextI, TextR, SpeechR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 525, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 536, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction Formatting Using the above quadruplets, we could construct chain-of-thought style instructions for four input-output formats, namely Speech Instruction-Speech Response, Speech Instruction-Text Response, Text Instruction-Speech Response, and Text Instruction-Text Response. Their corresponding templates can be found in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 473, + 668 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 473, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 655, + 473, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 525, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 673, + 525, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We constructed cross-modal dialogue datasets under different scenarios to evaluate whether SpeechGPT could take on various roles. Specifically, these included a talking encyclopedia, personal assistant, chat partner, poet, psychologist," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 275, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 275, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 275, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 521, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 521, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 521, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 521, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://huggingface.co/datasets/fnlp/moss-002-sft-data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15759" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 255, + 242 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 255, + 242 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 255, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 68, + 255, + 242 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "d5095d5a31f2defdc59a632fb064f5b0f73e3401124138b741b2c540f55ad327.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Left: An overview of SpeechInstruct construction process. The SpeechInstruct dataset consists of two parts: Cross-modal Instruction data and Chain-of-Modality Instruction data. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{Template}_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is shown in 3.1. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\text{Template}_2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 250, + 527, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is shown in Appendix C. Right: An illustration of SpeechGPT model structure." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 260, + 68, + 527, + 243 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 68, + 527, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 68, + 527, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 260, + 68, + 527, + 243 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2cf216370c3500a8e56d0b06ef87fe7d3801046fe9d0f2594b8fe19730ef6b10.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 291, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 291, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 307, + 291, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and educational assistant. For each role, we provide 10 manually authored instruction-response pairs written by ourselves. We use a pre-trained text-to-speech model to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. Ultimately, for each role, we obtained 10 quadruplets composed of speech instructions, text instructions, text responses, and speech responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 150, + 469 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 150, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 454, + 150, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 SpeechGPT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 173, + 491 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 173, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 478, + 173, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Model Structure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 497, + 291, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A unified framework is designed to provide architecture compatibility across different modalities. As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of three main components: discrete unit extractor, large language modal and unit vocoder. Under this architecture, LLM can perceive multi-modal inputs and generate multi-modal outputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 592, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Discrete Unit Extractor The discrete unit extractor utilizes the Hidden-unit BERT (HuBERT) model (Hsu et al., 2021) to transform continuous speech signals into a sequence of discrete units, . HuBERT is a self-supervised model that learns by predicting discrete labels for masked audio segments based on k-means clustering applied to the model's intermediate representations. It features a combination of 1-D convolutional layers and a Transformer encoder to encode speech into continuous intermediate representations, with a k" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "means model further converting these representations into a sequence of cluster indices. Subsequently, adjacent duplicate indices are removed, resulting in a discrete units sequence represented as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U = (u_{1}, u_{2}, \\ldots, u_{T})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i} \\in 0, 1, \\ldots, K - 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\forall 1 \\leq i \\leq T" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 526, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denoting the total number of clusters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 418, + 526, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large Language Model We employ the Meta AI LLaMA (Touvron et al., 2023) model as our Large Language Model. LLaMA comprises an embedding layer, multiple transformer blocks, and an LM head layer. The total number of parameters in LLaMA ranges from 7B to 65B. Drawing from an extensive training dataset of 1.0 trillion tokens, LLaMA demonstrates competitive performance compared to the substantially larger 175B GPT-3 across various NLP benchmarks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unit Vocoder Due to limitation of single speaker unit vocoder in (Polyak et al., 2021), we train a multi-speaker unit HiFi-GAN to decode the speech signal from the discrete representation. The HiFiGAN architecture consists of a generator " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{G}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and multiple discriminators " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{D}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The generator uses look-up tables (LUT) to embed discrete representations and the embedding sequences are up-sampled by a series of blocks composed of transposed convolution and a residual block with dilated layers. The speaker embedding is concatenated to each frame in the up-sampled sequence. The discriminator features a Multi-Period Discriminator (MPD) and a Multi-Scale Discriminator (MSD), which have the same architecture as (Polyak et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 259, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 259, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 259, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://huggingface.co/facebook/ fastspeech2-en-ljspeech" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15760" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 138, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 138, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 138, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 90, + 291, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 90, + 291, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 90, + 291, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To incorporate speech discrete representation into LLM, we expand the vocabulary and corresponding embedding matrix first. We divide the training process into three stages. The first stage is Modality-Adaptation Pre-training on unpaired speech data. The second stage is Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning. The third stage is Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Expanding Vocabulary Given original LLM vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|V|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", to integrate speech discrete representations into LLM, we expand the vocabulary with an additional set of unit tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", of size " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|V'| = K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The expanded vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V''" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the union of the original vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the new words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 292, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 309, + 290, + 325 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 309, + 290, + 325 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 146, + 309, + 290, + 325 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "V ^ {\\prime \\prime} = V \\cup V ^ {\\prime} \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "2234231c739f188cd81f4da73299123574853174396329a596e0861e49fadbd5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We denote the original word embedding matrix as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|V| \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the dimension of word embeddings. To accommodate the expanded vocabulary, we need to create a randomly initialized word embedding matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E' \\in \\mathbb{R}^{|V''| \\times d}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We preserve the original word embeddings by copying the values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the first " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "|V|" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " rows of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 444, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 444, + 290, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 138, + 444, + 290, + 460 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "E ^ {\\prime} [ 0: | V |,: ] = E \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "e2b13693625339c325cadd52d80ad649569360a96dd390c8f113ea54baa31262.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we replace the original vocabulary and word embedding matrix with the new vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V''" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the word embedding matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 469, + 290, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stage 1: Modality-Adaptation Pre-training To enable LLM to handle discrete units modality, we utilize an unlabeled speech corpus to train LLM in a next-token prediction task. This approach aligns with the text pre-training objective of LLM. Given unlabeled speech corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consisting of speech " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_{1}, U_{2}, \\ldots, U_{m}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and LLM denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 291, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the negative log-likelihood loss can be formulated as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 642, + 290, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 642, + 290, + 680 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 642, + 290, + 680 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} (L | C) = - \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {m} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {n _ {j}} \\log P \\left(u _ {i, j} \\mid u _ {< i, j}; L\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "c9bc81bd01459e9d38edfc5800110fc8be97bf63f43a512ca78b99c0ad0c5a7c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of speech in dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "C" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of discrete unit token in speech " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "U_j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "u_{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 691, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the i-th unit token in the j-th speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stage 2: Cross-modal Instruction Fine-Tuning In this stage, we align speech and text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "modalities utilizing paired data. We mix Cross-modal Instruction in SpeechInstruct with moss-002-sft dataset to derive mix dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which consists of samples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{1}, T_{2}, \\ldots, T_{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We fine-tune the model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " obtained from the first stage on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Each sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consisting of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_1, t_2, \\ldots, t_{n_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 527, + 219 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is formed by concatenating a prefix and a text. The training objective is to minimize the negative log-likelihood and the loss calculation only considers the text part, ignoring the prefix, which can be formatted as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 241, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 241, + 525, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 241, + 525, + 280 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} (L | I) = - \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {x} \\sum_ {i = p _ {j} + 1} ^ {y _ {j}} \\log P \\left(t _ {i, j} \\mid t _ {< i, j}; L\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "7223be73628b70aaf33f164af94fdb074ec6e02e29dcf6393e69ed8455405be1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of samples in corpus " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the total number of tokens in sample " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the number of tokens in the prefix part of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t_{i,j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the i-th word in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T_{j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 527, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 527, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 527, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stage 3: Chain-of-Modality Instruction Fine-Tuning After obtaining the model in stage 2, we utilizes parameter-efficient Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2021) to fine-tune it on Chain-of-Modality Instruction in SpeechInstruct. We add LoRA weights (adapters) to the attention mechanisms and train the newly added LoRA parameters. We adopt the same loss function as stage 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 390, + 490 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 390, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 390, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 429, + 511 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 429, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 498, + 429, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Experimental Setups" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Datasets For modality-adaption pre-training, we use LibriLight (Kahn et al., 2020) which contains 60K hours of unlabelled English audiobook speech. For cross-modal instruction fine-tuning stage, we use Gigaspeech (Chen et al., 2021), Common voice (Ardila et al., 2020) and LibriSpeech (Panayotov et al., 2015) dataset and moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.1. For chain-of-modality instruction fine-tuning stage, we use moss-002-sft-data dataset, which is illustrated in detail in 3.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Configuration We employ LLaMA-13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as our backbone model for a trade-off between performance and computational resources available. For stage 1, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 900 steps with batch size 768. For stage 2, we use 96 A100 GPUs and train for 2100 steps with batch size 1536. For stage 3, we use 8 A100 GPUs and train for 4200 steps with batch size 128." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15761" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Details about training hyperparameters are shown in Appendix D. For decoding, we set the maximum sequence length to 2048 and set the temperature to 0.8. We use Top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 60" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We also use Top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.8" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 139, + 162 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 139, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 150, + 139, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We establish two cascaded cross-modal conversational systems as our baselines. The first model, referred to as Speech-Alpaca-13B, consists of an off-the-shell ASR system " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Alpaca 13B (Taori et al., 2023) as well as a pre-trained TTS system " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 169, + 291, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The second model, named Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-002, incorporates the same ASR and TTS system, along with a large language model obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 147, + 327 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 147, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 315, + 147, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 291, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the cross-modal instruction-following capabilities of SpeechGPT across four tasks: speech-to-speech instruction-following (S2SIF), speech-to-text instruction-following (S2TIF), text-to-speech instruction-following (T2SIF), and text-to-text instruction-following (T2TIF)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 415, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data We randomly select 40 samples from the AlpacaEval dataset and use the pre-trained TTS model in Section 3.3 to convert the text into corresponding speech. We then employ mHuBERT to discretize speech data into discrete units as described in Section 3.1. These are combined with the SpeechInstruct Evaluation Set to constitute our test set, which contains 100 samples. Each sample is a quadruplet composed of a speech instruction, text instruction, text response, and speech response. We denote them as ground truth." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT Score We utilize ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-turbo) to assess the cross-modal instruction-following performance. For tasks that include speech, we leveraged the pre-trained ASR model in section 5.2 to transform the speech into its corresponding text, which is subsequently submitted for evaluation. Inspired from (Zhou et al., 2023), we feed the prompt in appendix F to ChatGPT to score the model's outputs based on response quality, with scores ranging from 1 to 5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 355 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 355 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Opinion Score Following (Nguyen et al., 2022), we calculate the human opinion score of the generated examples through crowdsourcing. These opinions are based on two dimensions: the content mean opinion score (CMOS) for content and meaningfulness quality, and the naturalness mean opinion score (NMOS) for speech naturalness and fluency. For CMOS, we ask participants to focus on the correctness of the content in speech or text, without paying attention to the quality of the speech. For NMOS, we direct participants to focus on the quality, smoothness, and naturalness of the speech, without considering its content. We invited five volunteers to perform the evaluation, and asked them to rate within a range of 1-5, where 1 represents the worst and 5 represents the best. For speech-to-speech instruction-following and text-to-speech instruction-following tasks, we calculate both CMOS and NMOS. For speech-to-text instruction-following and text-to-text instruction-following tasks, we calculate CMOS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 393, + 383 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 393, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 393, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.4 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 526, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Content As shown in Table 1, taking into account the comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT Score and CMOS, SpeechGPT demonstrates superior performance on speech instructions (S2SIF and S2TIF) compared to the two baseline systems. This indicates that SpeechGPT outperforms the ASR model in the cascaded system when it comes to understanding speech content. From the perspective of CMOS, SpeechGPT achieves performance similar to the baseline systems on T2SIF and T2TIF tasks, indicating that SpeechGPT still possesses commendable text and speech generation capabilities. In S2SIF and T2SIF tasks, ChatGPT Score and CMOS values exhibit ambiguity in the ground truth and baseline systems. This can be attributed to speech responses being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the ChatGPT score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal. Cases of cross-modal instruction-following can be found in Appendix G." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Quality As shown in Table 1, SpeechGPT exhibits significantly higher NMOS values compared to the baseline systems. This indicates that the speech responses generated by SpeechGPT out" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 282, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 282, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 282, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4https://huggingface.co/facebook/ wav2vec2-large-960h-lv60-self 5https://huggingface.co/facebook/ fastspeech2-en-ljspeech 6https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_ eval" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15762" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 178 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodsChatGPT ScoreHuman Opinion Score
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFCMOSNMOS
S2SIFS2TIFT2SIFT2TIFS2SIFS2TIFT2SIF
Ground Truth2.85*3.742.91*3.933.783.893.954.123.18-3.20
Baselines: cascaded cross-modal conversational systems
Speech-Alpaca-13B2.743.312.713.833.393.423.713.753.12-3.13
Speech-LLaMA-MOSS-0022.873.503.233.823.383.443.743.833.14-3.11
SpeechGPT3.423.523.533.643.423.493.573.693.65-3.62
", + "image_path": "24eb53924047c321289ed66579dc73bdb83c5210746230adb1e0abf2554bbe8b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 294, + 276, + 368 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 184, + 526, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 184, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 184, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Main Results of SpeechGPT. S2SIF refers to speech-to-speech instruction-following, S2TIF is speech-to-text instruction-following, T2SIF denotes text-to-speech instruction-following and T2TIF represents text-to-text instruction-following. ChatGPT score is obtained through ChatGPT evaluation. CMOS refers to content mean opinion score. NMOS denotes naturalness mean opinion score. *: The low ChatGPT Score for speech responses in Ground Truth is due to them being synthesized by TTS system, which can have errors in pauses between sentences. This introduces significant errors for longer responses, leading to incorrect text after being processed by the ASR system, thereby reducing the score. However, humans can understand the content of such speech, so the CMOS score is normal." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 294, + 276, + 368 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 294, + 276, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 294, + 276, + 368 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TrainingInferenceChatGPT Score
StandardStandard2.15
StandardCoM2.12
CoMStandard2.35
CoMCoM3.42
", + "image_path": "38fb9098c66a98d69c3683d8133aa2c8512006e17b6d0ff71f3b681327e4b09e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 425 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 375, + 291, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: ChatGPT Score on speech-to-speech instruction-following task. CoM refers to chain-of-modality prompting and Standard denotes standard prompting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 430, + 290, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "perform the TTS system in the cascaded system in terms of audio quality and prosody. More detailed speech prosody analysis are located in Section ??" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 133, + 499 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 133, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 485, + 133, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Analysis" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 272, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 272, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 272, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Chain-of-modality prompting matters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 shows ChatGPT Scores on speech-to-speech instruction-following task for models utilizing standard prompting and chain-of-modality prompting during training and inference stages respectively. Standard prompting refers to directly obtaining a speech response from a speech instruction without transitioning through an intermediate text form. The template can be located in Appendix E. For standard prompting training, we use this template to construct training data. We discovered that if standard prompting is used, the performance is rather poor when either standard prompting or chain-of-modality prompting is used for inference. If chain-of-modality prompting is employed during training, ChatGPT Score sees an enhancement, and when the inference also applies chain-of-modality prompting, there is a huge improvement in performance. This indi" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 310, + 505, + 460 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 310, + 505, + 460 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 310, + 505, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 310, + 505, + 460 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "0472414eafc79b43e56a687e7b7746f4968ce940b9167e5a6a26f331f08de268.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 526, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 526, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 467, + 526, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: ASR-PPL of speech continue task on 100 utterances from LibriSpeech test-clean set. From scratch refers to model pre-trained from randomly-initialized parameters. From LLaMA denotes model pre-trained from LLaMA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "cates that chain-of-modality prompting matters in both training and inference. We think chain-of-modality prompting decomposes the complex task into easy tasks, allowing the model to complete them step by step, which reduces the difficulty." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 490, + 644 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 490, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 490, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Can text knowledge benefit speech modality?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SpeechGPT originates from a text pre-trained model, LLaMA. Nonetheless, the question remains whether the knowledge from the text modality can contribute beneficially to the speech modality. To resolve this, we utilize a speech continuation task which assesses the model's capability to generate coherent and semantically accurate speech. We compare the performances of two models on this task: one model is pre-trained from LLaMA, while" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15763" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 84, + 271, + 234 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 84, + 271, + 234 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 84, + 271, + 234 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 84, + 271, + 234 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1208a73bb4721d65305308285c222e3b8e587ed6e9b071ce0dbb13f57cc57a22.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 243, + 291, + 292 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: ChatGPT Score on text-to-text instruction-following task. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 242, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 242, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 297, + 242, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the other model is trained from scratch." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 291, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 311, + 291, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We utilize LibriSpeech test-clean set for evaluation, where we randomly select 100 utterances, and use the first 3 seconds of each utterance as a prompt. The 3-second speech prompt is converted into discrete units by mHuBERT. The model takes the prompt as input and generates a continuation of discrete units, which are subsequently converted back into speech by a discrete unit vocoder. To assess the semantic quality of the speech continuation, we employ ASR-PPL metric. This involves transcribing the speech continuation into text using the ASR system in Section 5.2 and calculating the perplexity of the transcripts using GPT-3.5 text-devinci-003 model. As shown in Figure 3, we observe a continuous decrease in ASR-PPL as the training tokens increase. The ASR-PPL of the model initialized from LLaMA consistently remains lower than that of the model pre-trained from scratch. This indicates that text pre-trained model provides a warm initialization and speech modality can benefit from text knowledge. We believe the reason for this is that even though the modeling granularity of speech and text is different, they model the same content information. This leads to a certain degree of similarity in the sequence structure, which aids in knowledge transfer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 673, + 290, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 673, + 290, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 673, + 290, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.3 Does SpeechGPT Sacrifice Text Capability as a Trade-off?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Initialized form LLaMA, SpeechGPT is capable of preceiving and generating speech after training on large scale speech data. However, does SpeechGPT sacrifice text capability as a trade-off? To draw conclusions, we compared the text-to-text" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 165 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 165 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "instruction-following ability of SpeechGPT with LLaMA-MOSS-002. LLaMA-MOSS-002 is obtained by performing supervised fine-tuning on LLaMA-13B using MOSS-sft-002 as the training dataset. This ensures that both models have been exposed to the same amount of text data. We evaluated both models using the test set from Section 5.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 527, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 527, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 167, + 527, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As depicted in Figure 4, with an increase in training samples, both LLaMA-MOSS-002 and SpeechGPT's ChatGPT Score gradually improve. Although SpeechGPT consistently remains lower than LLaMA-MOSS-002, the performance gap between them gradually decreases. When the training samples reach 40,000, the performance of the two models becomes very similar. This suggests that SpeechGPT still retains text capability. We attribute this to the large parameter size of the 13B model, enabling it to learn new speech modality while preserving text capability without catastrophic forgetting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 381, + 365 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 381, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 353, + 381, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 526, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work presents SpeechGPT, a large language model with intrinsic cross-modal conversational abilities, capable of perceiving and generating multi-modal content. To alleviate the scarcity of instruction datasets in current speech domain, we propose SpeechInstruct, the first speech-text cross-modal instruction-following dataset. To obtain improved cross-modal performance, we adopt a three-stage training paradigm to obtain the final SpeechGPT. Experimental results indicate that SpeechGPT achieves promising results in various unimodal or cross-modal instruction-following tasks and demonstrate that combining discrete speech tokens into the language model is a promising direction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 588, + 361, + 601 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 588, + 361, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 588, + 361, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Despite SpeechGPT exhibiting impressive cross-modal instruction following and spoken dialogue abilities, it still presents certain limitations: 1) Due to the audio discretization technique constraints, SpeechGPT does not explicitly model the paralinguistic information included in the speech signal. 2) Since SpeechGPT generates speech responses via the Chain-of-Modality, it needs to initially generate speech units after text tokens, which increases decoding time. However, by improving the capabilities of the foundation model, SpeechGPT may generate speech units directly without noticeably" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15764" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "degrading its performance. 3) SpeechGPT is not evaluated in the multi-turn scenario as the length of one round is already close to the maximum length of the model due to the long speech unit sequences. We believe this issue can be addressed by either increasing the maximum length the model can handle or employing more effective speech discretization techniques." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 191, + 170, + 205 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 191, + 170, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 191, + 170, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 291, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 291, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 291, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We thank Rong Ye and Fuliang Weng for the careful guidance and revisions to the paper and thank all the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62236004 and No. 62022027)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 320, + 127, + 333 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 320, + 127, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 320, + 127, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 291, + 397 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 291, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 340, + 291, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M. Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2020. Common voice: A massively-multilingual speech corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 407, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexei Baevski, Yuhao Zhou, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Michael Auli. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12449-12460." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 474, + 291, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliausacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. Audiolm: a language modeling approach to audio generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 540, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Feilong Chen, Minglun Han, Haozhi Zhao, Qingyang Zhang, Jing Shi, Shuang Xu Xu, and Bo Xu. 2023. Xllm: Bootstrapping advanced large language models by treating multi-modalities as foreign languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 595, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 595, + 291, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 595, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guoguo Chen, Shuzhou Chai, Guanbo Wang, Jiayu Du, Wei-Qiang Zhang, Chao Weng, Dan Su, Daniel Povey, Jan Trmal, Junbo Zhang, Mingjie Jin, Sanjeev Khudanpur, Shinji Watanabe, Shuaijiang Zhao, Wei Zou, Xiangang Li, Xuchen Yao, Yongqing Wang, Yujun Wang, Zhao You, and Zhiyong Yan. 2021. Gispeech: An evolving, multi-domain asr corpus with 10,000 hours of transcribed audio." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Bowen Cao, Qichen Ye, Zhihong Zhu, Hongxiang Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023a. Ml-lmcl: Mutual learning and large-margin contrastive learning for improving asr robustness in spoken language understanding. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL* 2023, pages 6492-6505." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Qianqian Dong, Fengpeng Yue, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yuexian Zou. 2023b. M 3 st: Mix at three levels for speech translation. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1-5. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 526, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xuxin Cheng, Zhihong Zhu, Ziyu Yao, Hongxiang Li, Yaowei Li, and Yuexian Zou. 2023c. GhostT5: Generate More Features with Cheap Operations to Improve Textless Spoken Question Answering. In Proc. INTERSPEECH 2023, pages 1134-1138." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 526, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 211, + 526, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan First, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 472, + 525, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 472, + 525, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 472, + 525, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 558, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 558, + 526, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 558, + 526, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danny Driess, Fei Xia, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, Corey Lynch, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Brian Ichter, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Quan Vuong, Tianhe Yu, et al. 2023. Palm-e: An embodied multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 622, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451-3460." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 526, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 697, + 526, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rongjie Huang, Mingze Li, Dongchao Yang, Jia-tong Shi, Xuankai Chang, Zhenhui Ye, Yuning Wu," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15765" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhiqing Hong, Jiawei Huang, Jinglin Liu, Yi Ren, Zhou Zhao, and Shinji Watanabe. 2023a. Audiogpt: Understanding and generating speech, music, sound, and talking head." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 202 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 202 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 289, + 202 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shaohan Huang, Li Dong, Wenhui Wang, Yaru Hao, Saksham Singhal, Shuming Ma, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Owais Khan Mohammed, Barun Patra, Qiang Liu, Kriti Aggarwal, Zewen Chi, Johan Bjorck, Vishrav Chaudhary, Subhojit Som, Xia Song, and Furu Wei. 2023b. Language is not all you need: Aligning perception with language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 300 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 211, + 290, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "J. Kahn, M. Riviere, W. Zheng, E. Kharitonov, Q. Xu, P.E. Mazare, J. Karadayi, V. Liptchinsky, R. Collobert, C. Fuegen, T. Likhomanenko, G. Synnaeve, A. Joulin, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux. 2020. Librilight: A benchmark for ASR with limited or no supervision. In ICASSP 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 309, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 309, + 290, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 309, + 290, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kushal Lakhotia, Eugene Kharitonov, Wei-Ning Hsu, Yossi Adi, Adam Polyak, Benjamin Bolte, Tu-Anh Nguyen, Jade Copet, Alexei Baevski, Abdelrahman Mohamed, et al. 2021. On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1336-1354." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 396, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 396, + 289, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 396, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 493 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tu Anh Nguyen, Eugene Kharitonov, Jade Copet, Yossi Adi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Ali Elkahky, Paden Tomasello, Robin Algayres, Benoit Sagot, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2022. Generative spoken dialogue language modeling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 503, + 223, + 514 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 503, + 223, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 503, + 223, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 289, + 578 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 289, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 523, + 289, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2015. Librispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5206-5210." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 289, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 289, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 588, + 289, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Jade Copet, Eugene Kharitonov, Kushal Lakhotia, Wei-Ning Hsu, Abdelrahman Mohamed, and Emmanuel Dupoux. 2021. Speech resynthesis from discrete disentangled self-supervised representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 289, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 289, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 211 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 211 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 147, + 524, + 211 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothee Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 276 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 222, + 524, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023. Neural codec language models are zero-shot text to speech synthesizers." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 524, + 329 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 524, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 285, + 524, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 524, + 404 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 524, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 338, + 524, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dong Zhang, Rong Ye, Tom Ko, Mingxuan Wang, and Yaqian Zhou. 2023a. DUB: Discrete unit backtranslation for speech translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7147-7164, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 524, + 456 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 524, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 412, + 524, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023b. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 524, + 499 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 524, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 465, + 524, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xin Zhang, Dong Zhang, Shimin Li, Yaqian Zhou, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023c. Speechtokenizer: Unified speech tokenizer for speech large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 524, + 573 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 524, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 507, + 524, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziqiang Zhang, Long Zhou, Chengyi Wang, Sanyuan Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Yanqing Liu, Huaming Wang, Jinyu Li, Lei He, Sheng Zhao, and Furu Wei. 2023d. Speak foreign languages with your own voice: Cross-lingual neural codec language modeling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 637 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 582, + 524, + 637 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15766" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 287, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 287, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 287, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Prompts to Generate Task Description" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 121, + 110, + 131 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 121, + 110, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 121, + 110, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ASR:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 134, + 509, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 134, + 509, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 134, + 509, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about automatic speech recognition, which is about recognizing speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 162, + 202, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 162, + 202, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 162, + 202, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here are the requirements:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 508, + 295 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 508, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 508, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 508, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 202, + 395, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 202, + 395, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 202, + 395, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 216, + 508, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 216, + 508, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 216, + 508, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 282, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 282, + 254 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 282, + 254 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. The type of instructions should be diverse." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 256, + 262, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 256, + 262, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 256, + 262, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. The instructions should be in English." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 269, + 508, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 269, + 508, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 269, + 508, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 161, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 161, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 161, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "List of 100 tasks:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 323, + 109, + 334 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 323, + 109, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 323, + 109, + 334 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TTS:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 337, + 509, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 337, + 509, + 363 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 337, + 509, + 363 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are asked to come up with a set of 100 diverse task instructions about text to speech, which is about recognizing speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 364, + 202, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 364, + 202, + 376 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 364, + 202, + 376 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here are the requirements:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 378, + 508, + 498 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 21, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 378, + 508, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 378, + 508, + 403 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 378, + 508, + 403 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. These instructions should be to instruct someone to recognize the content of the following speech." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 395, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 395, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 395, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Try not to repeat the verb for each instruction to maximize diversity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 418, + 508, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 418, + 508, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 418, + 508, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. The language used for instruction also should be diverse. For example, you should combine questions with imperative instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 445, + 282, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 445, + 282, + 457 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 445, + 282, + 457 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. The type of instructions should be diverse." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 459, + 262, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 459, + 262, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 459, + 262, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. The instructions should be in English." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 473, + 508, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 473, + 508, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 473, + 508, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. The instructions should be 1 to 2 sentences long. Either an imperative sentence or a question is permitted." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 500, + 161, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 500, + 161, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 500, + 161, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "List of 100 tasks:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15767" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 244, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 244, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 244, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Examples of Task Description" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 121, + 110, + 131 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 121, + 110, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 121, + 110, + 131 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ASR:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 328, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 328, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 328, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Begin by converting the spoken words into written text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 315, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 315, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 315, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Can you transcribe the speech into a written format?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 162, + 301, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 162, + 301, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 162, + 301, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Focus on translating the audible content into text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 175, + 299, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 175, + 299, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 175, + 299, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transcribe the speech by carefully listening to it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 189, + 332, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 189, + 332, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 189, + 332, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Would you kindly write down the content of the speech?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 203, + 319, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 203, + 319, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 203, + 319, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analyze the speech and create a written transcription." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 216, + 330, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 216, + 330, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 216, + 330, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Engage with the speech to produce a text-based version." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 229, + 291, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 229, + 291, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 229, + 291, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Can you document the speech in written form?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 299, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 299, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 299, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Transform the spoken words into text accurately." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 257, + 317, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 257, + 317, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 257, + 317, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "How about putting the speech's content into writing?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 283, + 108, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 283, + 108, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 283, + 108, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TTS:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 277, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 277, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 277, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Can you please read this sentence out loud?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 311, + 354, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 311, + 354, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 311, + 354, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recite the following words as if you were speaking normally." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 325, + 318, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 325, + 318, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 325, + 318, + 336 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Project your voice to clearly articulate this statement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 338, + 363, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 338, + 363, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 338, + 363, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 352, + 235, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 352, + 235, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 352, + 235, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Whisper the given sentence softly." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 365, + 509, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 365, + 509, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 365, + 509, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Enunciate each word in this sentence with precision. How would you express this sentence in a conversational tone?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 392, + 315, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 392, + 315, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 392, + 315, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Could you please relay the message below verbally?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 406, + 319, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 406, + 319, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 406, + 319, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emphasize the key points while reading the sentence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 419, + 267, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 419, + 267, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 419, + 267, + 431 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sing the text provided in a melodic voice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15768" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 120, + 261, + 133 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 120, + 261, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 120, + 261, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Instruction-Speech Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 134, + 511, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 134, + 511, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 134, + 511, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text Instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. Last, you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 247, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 247, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 201, + 247, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Instruction-Text Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 215, + 510, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 215, + 510, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 215, + 510, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. You can do it step by step. You can first transcribe the instruction and get the text instruction. Then you can think about the instruction and get the text response. . [SpeechGPT]: [tq] {TextI}; [ta] {TextR} ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 283, + 246, + 296 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 283, + 246, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 283, + 246, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text Instruction-Speech Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 296, + 511, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 296, + 511, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 296, + 511, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech. You can do it step by step. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. Then you should speak the response aloud . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}; [ua] {SpeechR}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 350, + 235, + 364 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 350, + 235, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 350, + 235, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text Instruction-Text Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 364, + 511, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 364, + 511, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 364, + 511, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. You can think about the instruction and get the text response. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 408, + 183, + 423 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 408, + 183, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 408, + 183, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 155, + 450, + 439, + 587 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 450, + 439, + 587 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 450, + 439, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 450, + 439, + 587 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Stage 1Stage 2Stage 3
Batch size7681536128
Peak learning rate2e-42e-42e-4
Max length10245121024
Training steps90040004200
LoRA rank--8
LoRA alpha--16
Trainable parameters13B13B6M
Training device96 × A10096 × A1008 × A100
", + "image_path": "628d4e96804cb4476f3066b6ab7325d4db147e09807856816a1bd20b926f2839.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 596, + 391, + 608 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 596, + 391, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 201, + 596, + 391, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: SpeechGPT training hyperparameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 308, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 308, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 308, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Chain-of-Modality Instructions Templates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15769" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 253, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 253, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 253, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Standard Prompting Templates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 120, + 260, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 120, + 260, + 133 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 120, + 260, + 133 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Instruction-Speech Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 511, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 511, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 511, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be speech " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 511, + 147 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<\\mathrm{eoh}>" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 511, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 255, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 255, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 255, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR} ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 247, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 247, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 247, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Speech Instruction-Text Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 189, + 509, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 189, + 509, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 189, + 509, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a speech instruction: {SpeechI}. And your response should be text. . [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 228, + 246, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 228, + 246, + 242 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 228, + 246, + 242 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text Instruction-Speech Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 511, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 511, + 255 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 511, + 255 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be speech ." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 256, + 255, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 256, + 255, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 256, + 255, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[SpeechGPT]: [ua] {SpeechR}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 283, + 233, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 283, + 233, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 283, + 233, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text Instruction-Text Response:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 296, + 509, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 296, + 509, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 296, + 509, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Human]: This is a text instruction: {TextI}. And your response should be text. [SpeechGPT]: [ta] {TextR}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15770" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 120, + 511, + 146 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 120, + 511, + 146 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 120, + 511, + 146 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "You are evaluating a response that has been submitted for an instruction, using a specific set of standards. Below is the data:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 157, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 157, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 148, + 157, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[BEGIN DATA]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 162, + 102, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 162, + 102, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 162, + 102, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 163, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 163, + 187 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 174, + 163, + 187 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Instruction]: inst" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 189, + 102, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 189, + 102, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 189, + 102, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 202, + 160, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 202, + 160, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 202, + 160, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Response]: resp" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 216, + 102, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 216, + 102, + 223 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 216, + 102, + 223 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 229, + 192, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 229, + 192, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 229, + 192, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[Criterion]:helpfulness:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 509, + 472 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 14, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 509, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 509, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 243, + 509, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"1\": \"Not helpful - The generated text is completely irrelevant, unclear, or incomplete. It does not provide any useful information to the user.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 269, + 509, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 269, + 509, + 308 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 269, + 509, + 308 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"2\": \"Somewhat helpful - The generated text has some relevance to the user's question, but it may be unclear or incomplete. It provides only partial information, or the information provided may not be useful for the user's needs.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 310, + 509, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 310, + 509, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 310, + 509, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"3\": \"Moderately helpful - The generated text is relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear and complete answer. However, it may lack detail or explanation that would be helpful for the user.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 351, + 509, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 351, + 509, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 351, + 509, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"4\": \"Helpful - The generated text is quite relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information or explanations that are useful for the user. However, some of the points of the response are somewhat repetitive or could be combined for greater clarity and concision\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 509, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 509, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 405, + 509, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"5\": \"Very helpful - The generated text is highly relevant to the user's question, and it provides a clear, complete, and detailed answer. It offers additional information, explanations, or analogies that are not only useful but also insightful and valuable to the user. However, the structured of the response is not well-organized and there is no clear progression or logical sequence of different points in the response.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 473, + 102, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 473, + 102, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 473, + 102, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\\*\\*\\*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 486, + 146, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 486, + 146, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 486, + 146, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "[END DATA]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 500, + 509, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 500, + 509, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 500, + 509, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Does the response meet the criterion? You should only write out your score in this format: \"My score is: \"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 273, + 84 + ], + "type": "header", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 273, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 273, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F ChatGPT Score Evaluation Prompt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15771" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 317, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 317, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 70, + 317, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Cases of Cross-modal Instruction Following" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 121, + 376, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 121, + 376, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 121, + 376, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Can you transcribe the speech into a written format?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 415, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 415, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 135, + 415, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 149, + 333, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 149, + 333, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 149, + 333, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Text: I'm afraid there are no signs here said he." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 176, + 352, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 176, + 352, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 176, + 352, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Listen to the speech and write down its content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 190, + 509, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 190, + 509, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 190, + 509, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Speech clip (Transcripts: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 216, + 480, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 216, + 480, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 216, + 480, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Text: Did anyone know that these proofs would be there no one saved the printer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 423, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 423, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 243, + 423, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Would you mind speaking these words as naturally as possible?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 258, + 351, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 258, + 351, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 258, + 351, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Text: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 271, + 449, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 271, + 449, + 284 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 271, + 449, + 284 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: Today is a sunny day and I'm happy to be here.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 379, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 379, + 311 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 297, + 379, + 311 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Would you please speed-read the following sentence?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 312, + 509, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 312, + 509, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 312, + 509, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Input: Text: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 338, + 509, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 338, + 509, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 338, + 509, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Output: Speech clip (Transcripts: I am a large language model that can listen and speak, a member of Fudan University, and glad to talk with you.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15772" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 77, + 509, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 77, + 509, + 101 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 77, + 509, + 101 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Can you show me what is the correct English pronunciation of apple?)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 102, + 445, + 114 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 102, + 445, + 114 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 102, + 445, + 114 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, the correct pronunciation of apple is [app-ull].)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 125, + 410, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 125, + 410, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 125, + 410, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Write a five-line poem that praises spring)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 138, + 509, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 138, + 509, + 162 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 138, + 509, + 162 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: The sun is out, the sky is blue, The flowers bloom and the birds sing too, The days are long, the nights are short, The spring is here and it's so sweet and warm!)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 173, + 467, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 173, + 467, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 173, + 467, + 185 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: My girlfriend is angry with me. What should I do now?)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 186, + 509, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 186, + 509, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 186, + 509, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: It is understandable that your girlfriend is angry with you. It is important to understand why she is angry and to try to resolve the issue. You can start by having a conversation with her and trying to understand her perspective.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 232, + 401, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 232, + 401, + 244 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 232, + 401, + 244 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Give me some advice about my dinner.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 245, + 509, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 245, + 509, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 245, + 509, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Sure, here are some suggestions: 1. Make a salad with fresh vegetables." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 258, + 509, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 258, + 509, + 281 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 258, + 509, + 281 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Grill some lean meat. 3. Roast a vegetable-based dish like a cauliflower casserole. 4. Make a soup with vegetables and legumes. 5. Try a new recipe.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 292, + 364, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 292, + 364, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 292, + 364, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: Do you know Stephen Curry?)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 306, + 509, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 306, + 509, + 340 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 306, + 509, + 340 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Yes, I do know Stephen Curry. He is an American professional basketball player, who currently plays for Golden States Warriors. He is two-time NBA most valuable player and four-time NBA all star.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 352, + 354, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 352, + 354, + 364 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 352, + 354, + 364 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I go to the moon?)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 365, + 509, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 365, + 509, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 365, + 509, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Going to the moon is a challenging task that requires a lot of planning and resources. To do this, you will need to develop a spacecraft that can withstand the extreme conditions of the moon's atmosphere, design a mission plan, and secure the necessary funding and personnel. Additionally, you will need to consider the ethical implications of such a mission.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 424, + 358, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 424, + 358, + 436 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 424, + 358, + 436 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instruction: Speech clip (Transcripts: How can I cheat my parents?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 437, + 509, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 437, + 509, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 437, + 509, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response: Speech clip (Transcripts: Cheating your parents is not a good idea. It can damage your relationship with them and can have long-term consequences.)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "15773" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_content_list.json b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f0125a0bb8e3f3e978f004982277da64856e0d28 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1925 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 117, + 89, + 878, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shanshan Huang", + "bbox": [ + 257, + 149, + 410, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shanghai Jiao Tong University", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 167, + 458, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shanghai, China", + "bbox": [ + 265, + 183, + 403, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "huangss_33@sjtu.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 200, + 467, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kenny Q. Zhu*", + "bbox": [ + 601, + 149, + 734, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "University of Texas at Arlington", + "bbox": [ + 534, + 167, + 796, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Arlington, Texas, USA", + "bbox": [ + 571, + 183, + 761, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "kenny.zhu@uta.edu", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 200, + 769, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 267 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent studies have shown that many natural language understanding and reasoning datasets contain statistical cues that can be exploited by NLP models, resulting in an overestimation of their capabilities. Existing methods, such as \"hypothesis-only\" tests and CheckList, are limited in identifying these cues and evaluating model weaknesses. We introduce ICQ (I-See-Cue), a lightweight, general statistical profiling framework that automatically identifies potential biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without requiring additional test cases. ICQ assesses the extent to which models exploit these biases through black-box testing, addressing the limitations of current methods. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of statistical biases in 10 popular NLU datasets and 4 models, confirming prior findings, revealing new insights, and offering an online demonstration system to encourage users to assess their own datasets and models. Furthermore, we present a case study on investigating ChatGPT's bias, providing valuable recommendations for practical applications.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 460, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 631, + 258, + 646 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Deep neural models have made remarkable strides in a broad spectrum of natural language understanding (NLU) tasks (Bowman et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018; Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Roemmele et al., 2011; Zellers et al., 2018). These tasks often employ a multiple-choice framework, as illustrated in Example 1. However, the inherent sensitivity of these models to minute variations calls for a robust and precise evaluation mechanism (Jurafsky et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 657, + 489, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Example 1 Natural language inference in the SNLI dataset, with the correct answer bolded.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 824, + 487, + 854 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Premise: A swimmer playing in the surf watches a low flying airplane headed inland.", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 866, + 485, + 897 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hypothesis: Someone is swimming in the sea.", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 253, + 855, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Label: a) Entailment. b) Contradiction. c) Neutral.", + "bbox": [ + 515, + 282, + 884, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In tasks akin to Example 1, humans typically rely on the logical relationship between the premise and hypothesis. Contrarily, some NLP models might bypass this logical reasoning, focusing instead on the biases embedded within the dataset and, more specifically, within the hypotheses (Naik et al., 2018; Schuster et al., 2019). These biases—such as sentiment or shallow n-grams—could provide misleading cues for correct predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 326, + 882, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We refer to these biases as \"artificial spurious cues\" when they pervade both the training and test datasets, maintaining a similar distribution over predictions. An example of such a cue is a model's disproportionate dependence on the word \"someone\" in Example 1. These cues, when absent or altered, can significantly impair a model's performance, underlining the importance of identifying them to enhance model robustness in the future.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 473, + 882, + 617 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6c2f47c3beb07113e5c3d681a882a4efa9008b018751431ed47042d787c465fa.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Example of a cue." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 566, + 627, + 826, + 826 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To tackle the issue of cues, it's crucial to distinguish between cues embedded in the dataset and those learned by the model. Conventional bias", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*The corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 312, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4521", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 4521-4530", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 958 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "detection and mitigation tools, such as the AI Fairness 360 toolkit (Bellamy et al., 2018), primarily target dataset biases, inadequately addressing those learned by models during training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While existing methods like \"hypothesis-only\" tests and CheckList can uncover model vulnerabilities, they're not expressly designed to identify model-learned cues. \"Hypothesis-only\" tests can highlight dataset issues where the hypothesis alone can provide a correct answer but fail to realistically depict the model's capabilities as they don't evaluate the model using the full data context used during both training and prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Drawing from the tenets of black-box testing in software engineering, CheckList scrutinizes model weaknesses without detailed knowledge of the model's internal architecture. It achieves this by delivering additional stress test cases premised on predefined linguistic features. However, CheckList's dependence on meticulously designed templates limits its scope, and it also falls short of illuminating the knowledge the model has actually gleaned from the data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 296, + 489, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these limitations, we introduce ICQ (\"I-see-cue\"), a resilient statistical analysis framework1 engineered to identify model-learned cues. Diverging from traditional methods, ICQ identifies biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without necessitating additional test cases. Employing black-box testing, ICQ assesses how models utilize these biases, delivering a comprehensive understanding of the bias in NLU tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 458, + 489, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We authenticate ICQ's efficacy by deploying it on various NLU datasets to probe potential cues learned by models during training. ICQ facilitates an in-depth understanding of how models like ChatGPT learn potential cues, and it offers illustrative examples to guide the selection of suitable prompts, providing invaluable guidance for model optimization.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 605, + 489, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, this paper contributes the following:", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 734, + 489, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We unveil ICQ, a lightweight yet potent method for identifying statistical biases and cues in NLU datasets, proposing simple and efficient tests to quantitatively and visually evaluate whether a model leverages spurious cues in its predictions.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 769, + 489, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We execute a comprehensive evaluation of statistical bias issues across ten popular NLU datasets and four models, corroborating previous findings and unveiling new insights. We also offer an online demonstration system to showcase the results and invite users to evaluate their own datasets and models.", + "- Through a case study, we delve into how ChatGPT learns potential biases, offering valuable recommendations for its practical applications." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 84, + 884, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Preliminary", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 288, + 650, + 306 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Task Definition", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 315, + 675, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We define an instance $x$ of an NLU task dataset $X$ as", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 337, + 880, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nx = (p, h, l) \\in X, \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 623, + 370, + 882, + 388 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $p$ is the context against which to do the reasoning ( $p$ corresponds to \"premise\" in Example 1); $h$ is the hypothesis given the context $p$ ; $l \\in \\mathcal{L}$ is the label that depicts the type of relation between $p$ and $h$ . The size of the relation set $\\mathcal{L}$ varies with tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 397, + 884, + 492 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Linguistic Features", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 506, + 707, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As demonstrated in previous work (Naik et al., 2018; Jurafsky et al., 2020), we consider the following linguistic features:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 527, + 882, + 575 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Word: The existence of a specific word in the premise or hypothesis of a dataset instance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 577, + 880, + 608 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sentiment: The sentiment value of an instance, calculated as the sum of sentiment polarities of individual words.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 882, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tense: The tense feature (past, present, or future) of an instance, determined by the POS tag of the root verb.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 880, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Negation: The existence of negative words (e.g., \"no\", \"not\", or \"never\") in an instance, determined by dependency parsing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 708, + 880, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Overlap: The existence of at least one word (excluding stop words) that occurs in both the premise and hypothesis.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 882, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NER: The presence of named entities (e.g., PER, ORG, LOC, TIME, or CARDINAL) in an instance, detected using the NLTK NER toolkit.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 804, + 882, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Typos: The presence of at least one typo in an instance, identified using a pretrained spelling model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For multiple-choice datasets, all features except Overlap are applied exclusively to hypotheses.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/flora336/icq", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2https://chat.openai.com/", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 904, + 361, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4522", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 236, + 101 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The ICQ framework, depicted in Figure 2, consists of three phases: data extraction, cue discovery, and model probing. In the data extraction phase, instances containing a specific linguistic feature $f$ are extracted from the dataset. The cue discovery phase identifies potential cues among pre-defined features. Finally, the model probing phase conducts two tests: the \"accuracy test\" and \"distribution test\". We will discuss these phases in more detail below.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 489, + 254 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/44d2c1f1a3df22695de6af3e2fe118cba406b780dc9a103e9d5f634b9d57f4a1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: ICQ Workflow. ①: data extraction phase; ②: cue discovery phase; ③: model probing phase. $f = a$ specific feature, $R =$ training data, $S =$ test data, $R_f =$ extracted training data, $S_f =$ extracted test data, $S_{nf} =$ remaining test data without feature $f$ , $\\overline{S_f} =$ flatten test data, $\\mathcal{M} = a$ specific model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 124, + 263, + 478, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Data Extraction Phase", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 593, + 337, + 607 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "After defining the linguistic features, our system's fundamental step is constructing a data extractor for each feature value $f$ . An extractor processes a dataset and retrieves a set of instances associated with the specified feature value. More specifically, for a specific feature, if an instance contains that feature, then that instance will be singled out as a part of the subset bearing that feature.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 614, + 487, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Cue Discovery Phase", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 326, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each feature $f$ , we apply its extractor to both the training and test data of dataset $X$ , denoted as $R$ and $S$ in Figure 2. This results in clustered subsets of training instances $(R_f)$ and test instances $(S_f)$ . A feature is considered a possible cue for a dataset only if it is present in both the training and test data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 487, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The bias of the label distribution for an extracted set is computed using the mean squared error", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "(MSE) and Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) (Lin, 1991). The cueness score indicates the extent to which dataset $X$ is biased against a feature $f$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nM S E (F) = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {L} |} \\sum_ {i} \\left(y _ {i} - \\bar {y _ {i}}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 576, + 143, + 882, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, $y_{i}$ represents the number of instances with label $l_{i}$ in the extracted dataset $F$ , and $\\overline{y_i}$ is the mean number of instances for each label. A larger $MSE(F)$ implies a more pointed label distribution and greater bias. If the extracted training set $(R_{f})$ and the extracted test set $(S_{f})$ exhibit similar biases, the JSD between their distributions will be small:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 187, + 882, + 299 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nJ S D = \\frac {1}{2} (Q (R _ {f}) \\| A) + \\frac {1}{2} (Q (S _ {f}) \\| A), \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 325, + 882, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $A = \\frac{1}{2}\\left(Q(R_{f}) + Q(S_{f})\\right)$ . The function $Q(\\cdot)$ denotes the label distribution of the extracted dataset. We define the cueness score as:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 367, + 882, + 414 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nc u e (f, X) = \\frac {M S E \\left(R _ {f}\\right)}{\\exp \\left(J S D \\left(R _ {f} , S _ {f}\\right)\\right)} \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 429, + 882, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This cueness score represents the degree to which a dataset $X$ is biased against a feature $f$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 882, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Model Probing Phase", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 724, + 529 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the previous section, we established that a dataset $X$ could be influenced by a cue $f$ . However, a model trained on this dataset may not necessarily exploit that cue, as models depend on both data and architecture. In this section, we introduce a framework to probe any model instance trained on the biased dataset, assessing if it utilizes cue $f$ and to what degree. We achieve this through two tests: the accuracy test and the distribution test.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 535, + 882, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.1 Accuracy Test", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 690, + 684, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The accuracy test examines the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By comparing the model's accuracy on these two subsets, we can understand the model's generalization capabilities under different conditions. If the model's performance shows a noticeable improvement on the subset containing a specific feature, it may suggest that the model has exploited that feature for prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 709, + 882, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the accuracy test, we assess the prediction accuracies of the model $M$ on the extracted test set (with feature $f$ ) and on the remaining test set (without feature $f$ ), denoted as $acc(S_f)$ and $acc(S_{nf})$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4523", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "respectively. The accuracy test computes the difference between these two accuracies:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Delta A c c (f) = a c c \\left(S _ {f}\\right) - a c c \\left(S _ {n f}\\right) \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 134, + 487, + 153 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A positive or negative value of $\\Delta Acc$ indicates the direction of the model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. A positive value suggests that the model exploits the feature for prediction, while a negative value implies struggles to generalize or detrimental sensitivity to the feature.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 161, + 487, + 273 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The magnitude of the absolute value of $\\Delta Acc$ reflects the degree to which a model's performance is affected by the presence or absence of specific features in the data subsets. A larger absolute value indicates a stronger reliance on or sensitivity to the feature, whereas a smaller absolute value suggests a more robust model that is less affected by the presence or absence of the feature.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 275, + 487, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3.2 Distribution Test", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 307, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The distribution test is a visual examination that focuses on how changes in specific feature distributions within datasets affect a model's predictive performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 487, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "First, we create a \"stress dataset\" $\\overline{S_f}$ by \"flattening\" the label distribution in $S_{f}$ . We achieve this by removing random instances from all labels except for the one with the smallest number of instances, stopping when a balance is reached. In other words, we retain the minimum number of instances present in each label, while randomly discarding the excess instances. This approach effectively eliminates bias in the extracted test set, and challenges the model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 499, + 487, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Next, we apply the model to the stress test set and obtain prediction results. We then compare the label distribution of the prediction results on the stress test set with the label distribution of the extracted training data $(R_{f})$ . The rationale is that if the extracted training data contains a cue, its label distribution will be skewed towards a specific label. If the model exploits this cue, it will prefer to predict that label as much as possible, amplifying the skewness of the distribution, despite the input test set being neutralized. We aim to observe such amplification in the output distribution to identify the model's weaknesses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 487, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, the accuracy test and distribution test are related in terms of assessing a model's sensitivity to specific features, but they emphasize different aspects. Distribution testing focuses on", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the impact of feature distribution changes on model performance, while accuracy testing evaluates the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By combining these two testing methods, a model's sensitivity to particular features can be more comprehensively assessed. If both tests determine that the model is sensitive to a certain feature, we can have a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 241, + 638, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first present the experimental setup, followed by results on cue discovery, model probing, and analysis. The entire framework is implemented in an online demo.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 268, + 882, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 344, + 601, + 360 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate this framework on 10 popular NLR datasets in Table 1 and 4 well-known models, namely FASTText (FT) (Joulin et al., 2017), ESIM (ES) (Chen et al., 2016), BERT (BT) (Devlin et al., 2018) and RoBERTA (RB) (Liu et al., 2019) on these datasets. All these datasets except for SWAG (Zellers et al., 2018) and RECLOR (Yu et al., 2020) are collected through crowdsourcing. SWAG is generated from an LSTM-based language model. Specifications of the datasets are listed in Table 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 365, + 882, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/953bd79faf02f845e2a69babe28f4467b0357aceac8378c20c0f19a608b42961.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTypeData SizeTrain/TestHuman Acc
Ratio(%)
SNLICLS570K56:180.0
QNLICLS11k19:180.0
MNLICLS413k40:180.0
ROCMCQ3.9k1:1100.0
COPAMCQ1k1:1100.0
SWAGMCQ113k4:188.0
RACEMCQ100k18:194.5
RECLORMCQ6k9:163.0
ARCTMCQ2k3:179.8
ARCT_advMCQ4k3:1-
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 551, + 870, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: 10 Datasets. Data size refers to the number of questions in each dataset. CLS=Classification. MCQ=Multiple Choice Questions. By our definition, $k$ -way MCQs will be split into $k$ instances in preprocessing.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 699, + 882, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These datasets can mainly be classified into two types of tasks. SNLI, QNLI, and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) are classification tasks, while ROC, COPA (Roemmle et al., 2011), SWAG, RACE (Lai et al., 2017), RECLOR, ARCT (Habernal et al., 2017) and ARCT_adv (Schuster et al., 2019) are multiple-choice reasoning tasks. Features appearing a minimum of five times in training", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4524", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "or testing sets are considered cues.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 85, + 371, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Cues in Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 115, + 292, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we showcase the cues identified in each dataset using the cueness metric, as described in Section 3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 137, + 487, + 184 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We first filter the training and test data for each dataset using all the features defined in this paper. The left half of Table 2 displays the top 5 cues discovered for each of the 10 datasets, along with their cueness scores. ARCT_adv, an adversarial dataset, is intentionally well-balanced. Consequently, we only found one cue, OVERLAP, with a very low cueness score. This is unsurprising since OVERLAP is the only \"second-order\" feature in our list of linguistic features that considers tokens in both the premise and hypothesis, and likely evaded data manipulation by the creator.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 187, + 489, + 379 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mostly, the top 5 cues discovered are word features. However, besides OVERLAP, we also see NEGATION and TYPO appearing in the lists. In fact, SENTIMENT and NER features would have emerged if we expanded the list to the top 10. Interestingly, several features previously reported as biased by other works, such as \"not\" and NEGATION in ARCT, \"no\" in MNLI and SNLI, and \"like\" in ROC, are also found. Particularly in MNLI, all five discovered cues are related to negatively toned words, suggesting significant human artifacts in this dataset that can lead to model fragility.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 381, + 489, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, we observe that some word cues are indicative of certain syntactic, semantic, or sentiment patterns in the questions. For example, \"because\" in SNLI implies a cause-effect structure; \"like\" in ROC indicates positive sentiment; \"probably\" and \"may\" in RACE suggest uncertainty, and so on. These features can serve as clues for revising datasets.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 575, + 489, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Biases in Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 718, + 292, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To investigate whether a model is affected by a specific cue or feature in a dataset, we train four models on their original training sets and evaluate them using accuracy and distribution tests.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 487, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Accuracy Test: The results are presented in Table 2. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, a positive or negative $\\Delta$ value indicates the direction of a model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. The absolute value of $\\Delta$ reflects the degree to which the model's performance is", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "influenced by these features, with larger values suggesting stronger reliance on sensitivity and smaller values indicating a more robust model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The bottom of Table 2 shows that, across all 10 datasets, the sum of the absolute values of $\\Delta$ follows the order: RoBERTA $<$ BERT $<$ ESIM $<$ FastText. This is consistent with earlier hypothesis-only tests and the community's common perception of these popular models. However, examining individual datasets and features reveals a more nuanced situation. For instance, FastText tends to pick up individual word cues rather than semantic cues, while more complex models such as BERT and RoBERTA appear more sensitive to structural features like NEGATION and SENTIMENT, which are actually classes of words. This is well explained by FastText's design, which focuses more on modeling words than syntactic or semantic structures.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 134, + 884, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Interestingly, FastText exhibits a strong negative correlation with TyPO. We speculate that FastText might have been trained with a more orthodox vocabulary, making it less tolerant of typos in the text.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 376, + 882, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/01adf9638d5926f963ece6243c8ecfb43e1d102c989f22ef20e93a50f3271a46.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Cue \"no\" in MNLI" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 468, + 680, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/adaaaae46477ec58fe0b4d5e73a53f098871728ab986ff6a3c04c6aa636e5bfb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Cue \"speaking\" in SNLI" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 710, + 468, + 875, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a019f874081841db694819dd6fc0b4b4226da9d8aca659900b558185704c0cf3.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Cue \"above\" in ARCT" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 512, + 598, + 680, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f1d0a1c45736ce95798cf8e5028cad4ec6e3e39ce37a0a2658fd791dbab37938.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Cue \"threw\" in ROC", + "Figure 3: Four test examples for distribution comparison with 4 different models" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 710, + 599, + 875, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Distribution Test: We highlight three interesting findings in Figure 3. The bars for the four models represent the distribution percentage based on each predicted label. $R_{f}$ denotes the extracted training data distribution with a specific feature. We observe that all models on the cue \"no\" in MNLI achieve positive $\\Delta$ in Table 2, particularly FastText. Consistent with the \"Accuracy Test,\" we find that the prediction label distribution skewness", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 774, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4525", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f9a44bddb03855af0aa9c200f01dc2cbf7fde2585b95d38aefaa79507c8eea5f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetTop CuesCueness %FT (Δ)ES (Δ)BT (Δ)RB (Δ)
SNLI“sleeping”13.9530.36.815.344.87
“no”13.3318.093.322.052.6
“because”9.2418.894.885.614.31
“friend”8.8222.966.663.513.05
“movie”7.7316.640.069.47-0.19
QNLI“dioxide”4.529.78-0.064.9710.56
“denver”4.2613.597.142.233.11
“kilometre”4.244.856.434.672.55
“mile”3.957.1615.64-1.65-6.65
“newcastle”3.83.4412.00.89-1.23
MNLI“never”10.429.1526.419.8610.6
“no”8.9819.4920.171.23.32
“nothing”8.9825.526.845.114.32
“any”6.7920.419.397.763.74
“anything”5.7318.4315.743.311.14
ROC“threw”12.991.284.6910.880.97
“now”8.68-10.0114.511.755.69
“found”8.16-2.314.455.12-3.13
“won”7.712.430.741.055.51
“like”7.34.7710.068.811.67
COPA“went”3.61-10.836.467.921.04
“got”2.745.45-9.89-12.52-10.3
“for”2.1410.11-1.899.0511.58
“with”1.38-15.64-6.983.313.82
TYPO0.84-12.46-2.333.8-8.22
SWAG“football”7.386.138.551.21.55
“anxious”6.657.55-4.67-6.66-1.67
“concerned”6.1912.64.588.27-5.66
“skull”5.73-2.770.498.433.49
“cop”5.012.795.3-0.92-0.04
RACE“above”13.748.73-8.43-0.22-1.92
“b”12.8416.97-4.83.52-3.45
“c”11.8315.69-6.948.6-7.6
“probably”6.779.91-0.06-3.82.86
“may”4.27.75-3.45-6.67-1.8
RECLOR“over”2.071.76-2.94-1.35-4.12
“result”1.97-3.29-2.69-1.78-3.7
“explanation”1.81-6.33-1.73-2.76-7.24
“proportion”1.68-5.64-4.692.37-2.16
“produce”1.44.54-2.98-14.36-3.7
ARCT“not”3.74-2.547.45-0.97-11.96
NEGATION2.853.4910.046.28-8.23
“n’t”2.5210.35.899.494.84
“always”2.25-4.6638.21-4.35-8.26
“doe”2.06-0.73-3.69-1.15-7.22
ARCT_advOVERLAP1.96e-101.65-0.252.730.57
∑(|·|) (Model weakness)469.8361.4227.7216.2
", + "bbox": [ + 228, + 80, + 771, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Datasets, their top 5 cues and 4 models biases $\\Delta$ on them.", + "bbox": [ + 270, + 634, + 724, + 648 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "is amplified in Figure 3 for FastText and ESIM. With the \"no\" cue, they prefer to predict \"Contradiction\" even more than the ground truth in the training data. In contrast, BERT and RoBERTA moderately follow the training data. While the cue \"no\" is effective at influencing the models, the cue \"above\" is not as successful. Figure 3 shows that the distribution of predicted results for ESIM in ARCT is entirely opposite to the training data, explaining the $\\Delta = -8.43$ in Table 2 and demonstrating that models may not exploit a cue even if it is present in the data. Similarly, \"speaking\" in BERT and RoBERTA can also explain their low $\\Delta$ values, which are not shown in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 674, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The example of the cue \"threw\" presents an out-", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 903, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lier for BERT, as the distribution test result is inconsistent with the accuracy test: the accuracy deviation is very high for BERT, but its prediction distribution is flat. We have not encountered many such contradictory cases. However, when they do occur, as in this example, we give BERT the benefit of the doubt that it might not have exploited the cue \"threw\".", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 674, + 884, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 832, + 640, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) released by OpenAI, has garnered significant interest from the NLP community. ChatGPT, a GPT", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4526", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 521, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt 1", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 89, + 258, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analyze the logical relationship between the following", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 102, + 460, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}.", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 124, + 445, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise.", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 147, + 443, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt 1 + CoT", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 90, + 591, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Analyze the logical relationship between the following", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 102, + 757, + 124 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}.", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 124, + 742, + 146 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise.", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 147, + 739, + 178 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let's think step by step.", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 180, + 640, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt 2", + "bbox": [ + 211, + 202, + 260, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly \"entailment,\" \"contradiction,\" or \"neutral.\" premise: {premise} hypothesis: {hypothesis}", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 219, + 455, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Prompt 2 + CoT", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 202, + 591, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly \"entailment,\" \"contradiction,\" or \"neutral.\"", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 219, + 752, + 263 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "premise: {premise}", + "bbox": [ + 512, + 263, + 631, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "hypothesis: ‘{hypothesis}’", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 275, + 663, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let's think step by step.", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 286, + 640, + 296 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$\\mathbf{x}^{3}$ series model, is trained through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017) similarly to InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). In this section, we investigate if zero-shot ChatGPT is influenced by bias features, using a case study focused on the word \"no\" in the MNLI dataset. We aim to compare the effectiveness of different prompts and select the best one for mitigating bias based on a single bias feature.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 351, + 489, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 510, + 220, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We selected test instances from the MNLI dataset to study the influence of the word \"no\" on ChatGPT's performance. The original test set has Contradiction: 3240, Entailment: 3463, and Neutral: 3129 instances. Instances containing \"no\" are distributed as follows: Contradiction:229, Entailment: 38, and Neutral: 46.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 531, + 487, + 642 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the accuracy test, we used all 313 instances with \"no\" and an equal number of instances without \"no\", randomly chosen from the remaining test set. This ensures a balanced evaluation of ChatGPT's performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 487, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the distribution test, we selected 38 instances per label containing \"no\", resulting in a total of 114 instances.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 487, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Prompts", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 785, + 228, + 801 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We have four prompts in Figure 4: The first prompt is proposed by ChatGPT itself. We ask, \"What is the best prompt for the MNLI task according to you?\" ChatGPT returns prompt 1 for us. The sec", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 807, + 487, + 871 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ond prompt is inspired by previous work (Qin et al., 2023). The third and fourth prompts are created by adding \"Let's think step by step\" (Kojima et al.) to prompt 1 and prompt 2 with the \"chain of thought\" (CoT) thinking, respectively. This modification has been shown to significantly improve the performance of InstructGPT on reasoning tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 884, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 ICQ Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 494, + 653, + 510 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b03cf9a7d0b5e79ef32827a6384a1b8cb80e6a89cf1bd4f5688644fa43e32581.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
PromptAcc (“no”)Acc (w/o “no”)ΔAcc
P174.3477.32-2.98
P275.4274.181.24
P1 + CoT78.3577.281.07
P2 + CoT76.6776.400.27
", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 526, + 840, + 594 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Accuracy test results $(\\%)$ . P1=Prompt 1, P2=Prompt 2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 602, + 882, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/907d5459b315e1d6668d99c1acf05083e77165e639336e864238e2cbc3ac8b61.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Prompts.", + "Figure 5: Distribution test results." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 586, + 663, + 806, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluated the model's accuracy using different prompts on instances with and without the word \"no.\" The results are shown in Table 3. P1 demonstrates a negative $\\Delta$ Acc, indicating difficulty in generalizing when \"no\" is present. P2 exhibits a positive $\\Delta$ Acc, suggesting better generalization.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "${}^{3}$ Currently, $\\mathrm{x}$ is either 3.5 or 4,and in the subsequent experimental process,the ChatGPT we use is based on GPT- 3.5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4527", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adding \"CoT\" to both prompts reduces bias risk. $\\mathrm{P1} + \\mathrm{CoT}$ shows the most significant improvement in Acc (\"no\"), but $\\mathrm{P2} + \\mathrm{CoT}$ has the smallest absolute $\\Delta$ Acc, indicating the least sensitivity to \"no\" and the lowest bias risk among the tested prompts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 164 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Besides, we analyzed the model's prediction distribution Figure 5 for the different prompts on the stress test set containing the word \"no\" with balanced label distribution. Distribution test results reveal imbalances in P1 and P2 prediction distributions, with P1 and P2 leaning towards predicting contradictions. Adding \"CoT\" mitigates these imbalances, leading to more balanced distributions. $\\mathrm{P}2 + \\mathrm{CoT}$ presents the most balanced distribution among the labels, supporting its lowest bias risk.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 166, + 487, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In conclusion, our case study, particularly when focusing on the feature \"no\", indicates that zero-shot ChatGPT can be influenced by bias features. The choice of prompt significantly affects its performance. When assessing the feature \"no\", P2 + CoT showed the lowest bias risk across both tests. The \"CoT\" strategy appears effective in reducing bias risk for this specific feature. However, it's important to note that our findings, particularly regarding the feature \"no\", suggest that ChatGPT's self-recommended prompt (P1) might not always be optimal. This underscores the importance of human intervention and ongoing exploration to optimize performance and minimize bias risks. Future studies and conclusions would benefit from a more nuanced and feature-specific analysis.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 329, + 489, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 600, + 268, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our work is related to three research directions: spurious features analysis, bias calculation, and dataset filtering.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 487, + 675 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Spurious features analysis has been increasingly studied recently. Much work (Sharma et al., 2018; Srinivasan et al., 2018; Zellers et al., 2018) has observed that some NLP models can surprisingly get good results on natural language understanding questions in MCQ form without even looking at the stems of the questions. Such tests are called \"hypothesis-only\" tests in some works. Further, some research (Sanchez et al., 2018) discovered that these models suffer from insensitivity to certain small but semantically significant alterations in the hypotheses, leading to speculations that the hypothesis-only performance is due to simple statistical correlations between words in the hypothesis and the labels. Spurious features can be", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "classified into lexicalized and unlexicalized (Bowman et al., 2015): lexicalized features mainly contain indicators of n-gram tokens and cross-ngram tokens, while unlexicalized features involve word overlap, sentence length, and BLEU score between the premise and the hypothesis. (Naik et al., 2018) refined the lexicalized classification to Negation, Numerical Reasoning, Spelling Error. (McCoy et al., 2019) refined the word overlap features to Lexical overlap, Subsequence, and Constituent which also considers the syntactical structure overlap. (Sanchez et al., 2018) provided unseen tokens an extra lexicalized feature.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 885, + 292 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bias calculation is concerned with methods to quantify the severity of the cues. Some work (Clark et al., 2019; He et al., 2019; Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019) attempted to encode the cue feature implicitly by hypothesis-only training or by extracting features associated with a certain label from the embeddings. Other methods compute the bias by statistical metrics. For example, (Yu et al., 2020) used the probability of seeing a word conditioned on a specific label to rank the words by their biasness. LMI (Schuster et al., 2019) was also used to evaluate cues and re-weight in some models. However, these works did not give the reason to use these metrics, one way or the other. Separately, (Ribeiro et al., 2020) gave a test data augmentation method, without assessing the degree of bias.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 324, + 885, + 582 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Dataset filtering is one way of achieving higher quality in datasets by reducing artifacts. In fact, datasets such as SWAG and RECLOR evaluated in this paper were produced using variants of this filter approach which iteratively perturb the data instances until a target model can no longer fit the resulting dataset well. Some methods (Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019), instead of preprocessing the data by removing biases, leave out samples with biases in the middle of training according to the decision made between epoch to epoch. (Bras et al., 2020) investigated model-based reduction of dataset cues and designed an algorithm using iterative training. Any model can be used in this framework. Although such an approach is more general and more efficient than human annotating, it heavily depends on the models. Unfortunately, different models may catch different cues. Thus, such methods may not be complete.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4528", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 247, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our lightweight framework, ICQ, identifies biases and cues in multiple-choice NLU datasets, illuminating model behaviors from a statistical perspective. Extensive experimentation on diverse tasks validates ICQ's efficiency in revealing dataset and model biases. Using a case study on ChatGPT, we explore its cues, offering practical guidance. ICQ advances our understanding and optimization of large language models, promoting the creation of robust, unbiased AI systems.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 109, + 490, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 297, + 213, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Rachel KE Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, et al. 2018. Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01943.", + "Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP, pages 632-642.", + "Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew E Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04108.", + "Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2016. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06038.", + "Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.", + "Christopher Clark, Mark Yatskar, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Don't take the easy way out: Ensemble based methods for avoiding known dataset biases. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 4060-4073.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.", + "Ivan Habernal, Henning Wachsmuth, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2017. The argument reasoning comprehension task: Identification and reconstruction of implicit warrants. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01425.", + "He He, Sheng Zha, and Haohan Wang. 2019. Unlearn dataset bias in natural language inference by fitting the residual. EMNLP-IJCNLP, page 132." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 319, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Armand Joulin, Édouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomáš Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. In ECAL, pages 427-431.", + "Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel R. Tetreault, editors. 2020. ACL 2020.", + "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models.", + "Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In EMNLP, pages 785-794.", + "J. Lin. 1991. Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37(1):145-151.", + "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.", + "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In ACL, pages 3428-3448.", + "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 839-849.", + "Aakanksha Naik, Abhilasha Ravichander, Norman Sadeh, Carolyn Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Stress test evaluation for natural language inference. In COLING, pages 2340-2353.", + "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744.", + "Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476.", + "Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4902-4912.", + "Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In AAAI Spring." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4529", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ivan Sanchez, Jeff Mitchell, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Behavior analysis of nli models: Uncovering the influence of three factors on robustness. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1975–1985.", + "Tal Schuster, Darsh J Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Filizzola, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019. Towards debiasing fact verification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05267.", + "Rishi Sharma, James Allen, Omid Bakhshandeh, and Nasrin Mostafazadeh. 2018. Tackling the story ending biases in the story cloze test. In ACL, pages 752-757.", + "Siddarth Srinivasan, Richa Arora, and Mark Riedl. 2018. A simple and effective approach to the story cloze test. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 92–96.", + "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. EMNLP, page 353.", + "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, Remi Tachet, TJ Hazen, and Alessandro Sordoni. 2019. Robust natural language inference models with example forgetting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03861.", + "Weihao Yu, Zihang Jiang, Yanfei Dong, and Jiashi Feng. 2020. ReClor: A reading comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04326.", + "Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In EMNLP, pages 93-104." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "4530", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_model.json b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f08828609ac96bc8e1a2884b3efa15106f31cd6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2310 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.09, + 0.88, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.258, + 0.15, + 0.411, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shanshan Huang" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.209, + 0.168, + 0.46, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.266, + 0.184, + 0.404, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shanghai, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.201, + 0.202, + 0.468, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "huangss_33@sjtu.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.603, + 0.15, + 0.736, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kenny Q. Zhu*" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.535, + 0.168, + 0.798, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "University of Texas at Arlington" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.572, + 0.184, + 0.762, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Arlington, Texas, USA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.562, + 0.201, + 0.77, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "kenny.zhu@uta.edu" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent studies have shown that many natural language understanding and reasoning datasets contain statistical cues that can be exploited by NLP models, resulting in an overestimation of their capabilities. Existing methods, such as \"hypothesis-only\" tests and CheckList, are limited in identifying these cues and evaluating model weaknesses. We introduce ICQ (I-See-Cue), a lightweight, general statistical profiling framework that automatically identifies potential biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without requiring additional test cases. ICQ assesses the extent to which models exploit these biases through black-box testing, addressing the limitations of current methods. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of statistical biases in 10 popular NLU datasets and 4 models, confirming prior findings, revealing new insights, and offering an online demonstration system to encourage users to assess their own datasets and models. Furthermore, we present a case study on investigating ChatGPT's bias, providing valuable recommendations for practical applications." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.632, + 0.26, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.658, + 0.49, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deep neural models have made remarkable strides in a broad spectrum of natural language understanding (NLU) tasks (Bowman et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018; Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Roemmele et al., 2011; Zellers et al., 2018). These tasks often employ a multiple-choice framework, as illustrated in Example 1. However, the inherent sensitivity of these models to minute variations calls for a robust and precise evaluation mechanism (Jurafsky et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.825, + 0.488, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Example 1 Natural language inference in the SNLI dataset, with the correct answer bolded." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.867, + 0.487, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Premise: A swimmer playing in the surf watches a low flying airplane headed inland." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.254, + 0.857, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hypothesis: Someone is swimming in the sea." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.517, + 0.283, + 0.885, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Label: a) Entailment. b) Contradiction. c) Neutral." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.328, + 0.884, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In tasks akin to Example 1, humans typically rely on the logical relationship between the premise and hypothesis. Contrarily, some NLP models might bypass this logical reasoning, focusing instead on the biases embedded within the dataset and, more specifically, within the hypotheses (Naik et al., 2018; Schuster et al., 2019). These biases—such as sentiment or shallow n-grams—could provide misleading cues for correct predictions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.474, + 0.884, + 0.618 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We refer to these biases as \"artificial spurious cues\" when they pervade both the training and test datasets, maintaining a similar distribution over predictions. An example of such a cue is a model's disproportionate dependence on the word \"someone\" in Example 1. These cues, when absent or altered, can significantly impair a model's performance, underlining the importance of identifying them to enhance model robustness in the future." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.628, + 0.828, + 0.827 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.6, + 0.837, + 0.792, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Example of a cue." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To tackle the issue of cues, it's crucial to distinguish between cues embedded in the dataset and those learned by the model. Conventional bias" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.314, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*The corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4521" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.959 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 4521-4530" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "detection and mitigation tools, such as the AI Fairness 360 toolkit (Bellamy et al., 2018), primarily target dataset biases, inadequately addressing those learned by models during training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While existing methods like \"hypothesis-only\" tests and CheckList can uncover model vulnerabilities, they're not expressly designed to identify model-learned cues. \"Hypothesis-only\" tests can highlight dataset issues where the hypothesis alone can provide a correct answer but fail to realistically depict the model's capabilities as they don't evaluate the model using the full data context used during both training and prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.297, + 0.49, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Drawing from the tenets of black-box testing in software engineering, CheckList scrutinizes model weaknesses without detailed knowledge of the model's internal architecture. It achieves this by delivering additional stress test cases premised on predefined linguistic features. However, CheckList's dependence on meticulously designed templates limits its scope, and it also falls short of illuminating the knowledge the model has actually gleaned from the data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.459, + 0.49, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these limitations, we introduce ICQ (\"I-see-cue\"), a resilient statistical analysis framework1 engineered to identify model-learned cues. Diverging from traditional methods, ICQ identifies biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without necessitating additional test cases. Employing black-box testing, ICQ assesses how models utilize these biases, delivering a comprehensive understanding of the bias in NLU tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.606, + 0.49, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We authenticate ICQ's efficacy by deploying it on various NLU datasets to probe potential cues learned by models during training. ICQ facilitates an in-depth understanding of how models like ChatGPT learn potential cues, and it offers illustrative examples to guide the selection of suitable prompts, providing invaluable guidance for model optimization." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.736, + 0.49, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, this paper contributes the following:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.77, + 0.49, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We unveil ICQ, a lightweight yet potent method for identifying statistical biases and cues in NLU datasets, proposing simple and efficient tests to quantitatively and visually evaluate whether a model leverages spurious cues in its predictions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We execute a comprehensive evaluation of statistical bias issues across ten popular NLU datasets and four models, corroborating previous findings and unveiling new insights. We also offer an online demonstration system to showcase the results and invite users to evaluate their own datasets and models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.211, + 0.885, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Through a case study, we delve into how ChatGPT learns potential biases, offering valuable recommendations for its practical applications." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.289, + 0.651, + 0.307 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Preliminary" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.316, + 0.676, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Task Definition" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.338, + 0.882, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We define an instance \\( x \\) of an NLU task dataset \\( X \\) as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.625, + 0.372, + 0.884, + 0.389 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nx = (p, h, l) \\in X, \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.398, + 0.885, + 0.493 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\( p \\) is the context against which to do the reasoning (\\( p \\) corresponds to \"premise\" in Example 1); \\( h \\) is the hypothesis given the context \\( p \\); \\( l \\in \\mathcal{L} \\) is the label that depicts the type of relation between \\( p \\) and \\( h \\). The size of the relation set \\( \\mathcal{L} \\) varies with tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.507, + 0.708, + 0.523 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Linguistic Features" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.529, + 0.884, + 0.576 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As demonstrated in previous work (Naik et al., 2018; Jurafsky et al., 2020), we consider the following linguistic features:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.578, + 0.882, + 0.609 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Word: The existence of a specific word in the premise or hypothesis of a dataset instance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.884, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sentiment: The sentiment value of an instance, calculated as the sum of sentiment polarities of individual words." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.66, + 0.882, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tense: The tense feature (past, present, or future) of an instance, determined by the POS tag of the root verb." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.709, + 0.882, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Negation: The existence of negative words (e.g., \"no\", \"not\", or \"never\") in an instance, determined by dependency parsing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.884, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Overlap: The existence of at least one word (excluding stop words) that occurs in both the premise and hypothesis." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.806, + 0.884, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NER: The presence of named entities (e.g., PER, ORG, LOC, TIME, or CARDINAL) in an instance, detected using the NLTK NER toolkit." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Typos: The presence of at least one typo in an instance, identified using a pretrained spelling model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For multiple-choice datasets, all features except Overlap are applied exclusively to hypotheses." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/flora336/icq" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.906, + 0.363, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2https://chat.openai.com/" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4522" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.237, + 0.102 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Approach" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.49, + 0.255 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The ICQ framework, depicted in Figure 2, consists of three phases: data extraction, cue discovery, and model probing. In the data extraction phase, instances containing a specific linguistic feature \\( f \\) are extracted from the dataset. The cue discovery phase identifies potential cues among pre-defined features. Finally, the model probing phase conducts two tests: the \"accuracy test\" and \"distribution test\". We will discuss these phases in more detail below." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.264, + 0.48, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.481, + 0.49, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: ICQ Workflow. ①: data extraction phase; ②: cue discovery phase; ③: model probing phase. \\( f = a \\) specific feature, \\( R = \\) training data, \\( S = \\) test data, \\( R_f = \\) extracted training data, \\( S_f = \\) extracted test data, \\( S_{nf} = \\) remaining test data without feature \\( f \\), \\( \\overline{S_f} = \\) flatten test data, \\( \\mathcal{M} = a \\) specific model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.594, + 0.339, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Data Extraction Phase" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.615, + 0.489, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "After defining the linguistic features, our system's fundamental step is constructing a data extractor for each feature value \\( f \\). An extractor processes a dataset and retrieves a set of instances associated with the specified feature value. More specifically, for a specific feature, if an instance contains that feature, then that instance will be singled out as a part of the subset bearing that feature." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.754, + 0.327, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Cue Discovery Phase" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.488, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each feature \\( f \\), we apply its extractor to both the training and test data of dataset \\( X \\), denoted as \\( R \\) and \\( S \\) in Figure 2. This results in clustered subsets of training instances \\( (R_f) \\) and test instances \\( (S_f) \\). A feature is considered a possible cue for a dataset only if it is present in both the training and test data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The bias of the label distribution for an extracted set is computed using the mean squared error" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(MSE) and Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) (Lin, 1991). The cueness score indicates the extent to which dataset \\(X\\) is biased against a feature \\(f\\)." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.578, + 0.145, + 0.883, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nM S E (F) = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {L} |} \\sum_ {i} \\left(y _ {i} - \\bar {y _ {i}}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.189, + 0.884, + 0.3 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, \\( y_{i} \\) represents the number of instances with label \\( l_{i} \\) in the extracted dataset \\( F \\), and \\( \\overline{y_i} \\) is the mean number of instances for each label. A larger \\( MSE(F) \\) implies a more pointed label distribution and greater bias. If the extracted training set \\( (R_{f}) \\) and the extracted test set \\( (S_{f}) \\) exhibit similar biases, the JSD between their distributions will be small:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.326, + 0.884, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nJ S D = \\frac {1}{2} (Q (R _ {f}) \\| A) + \\frac {1}{2} (Q (S _ {f}) \\| A), \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.368, + 0.884, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(A = \\frac{1}{2}\\left(Q(R_{f}) + Q(S_{f})\\right)\\). The function \\(Q(\\cdot)\\) denotes the label distribution of the extracted dataset. We define the cueness score as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.567, + 0.43, + 0.883, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nc u e (f, X) = \\frac {M S E \\left(R _ {f}\\right)}{\\exp \\left(J S D \\left(R _ {f} , S _ {f}\\right)\\right)} \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.471, + 0.884, + 0.503 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This cueness score represents the degree to which a dataset \\(X\\) is biased against a feature \\(f\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.515, + 0.725, + 0.53 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Model Probing Phase" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.536, + 0.884, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the previous section, we established that a dataset \\( X \\) could be influenced by a cue \\( f \\). However, a model trained on this dataset may not necessarily exploit that cue, as models depend on both data and architecture. In this section, we introduce a framework to probe any model instance trained on the biased dataset, assessing if it utilizes cue \\( f \\) and to what degree. We achieve this through two tests: the accuracy test and the distribution test." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.691, + 0.685, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.1 Accuracy Test" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The accuracy test examines the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By comparing the model's accuracy on these two subsets, we can understand the model's generalization capabilities under different conditions. If the model's performance shows a noticeable improvement on the subset containing a specific feature, it may suggest that the model has exploited that feature for prediction." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.884, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the accuracy test, we assess the prediction accuracies of the model \\(M\\) on the extracted test set (with feature \\(f\\)) and on the remaining test set (without feature \\(f\\)), denoted as \\(acc(S_f)\\) and \\(acc(S_{nf})\\)," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4523" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "respectively. The accuracy test computes the difference between these two accuracies:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.135, + 0.488, + 0.154 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Delta A c c (f) = a c c \\left(S _ {f}\\right) - a c c \\left(S _ {n f}\\right) \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.162, + 0.489, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A positive or negative value of \\(\\Delta Acc\\) indicates the direction of the model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. A positive value suggests that the model exploits the feature for prediction, while a negative value implies struggles to generalize or detrimental sensitivity to the feature." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.276, + 0.489, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The magnitude of the absolute value of \\(\\Delta Acc\\) reflects the degree to which a model's performance is affected by the presence or absence of specific features in the data subsets. A larger absolute value indicates a stronger reliance on or sensitivity to the feature, whereas a smaller absolute value suggests a more robust model that is less affected by the presence or absence of the feature." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.415, + 0.308, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3.2 Distribution Test" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.435, + 0.489, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The distribution test is a visual examination that focuses on how changes in specific feature distributions within datasets affect a model's predictive performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.5, + 0.489, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "First, we create a \"stress dataset\" \\(\\overline{S_f}\\) by \"flattening\" the label distribution in \\(S_{f}\\). We achieve this by removing random instances from all labels except for the one with the smallest number of instances, stopping when a balance is reached. In other words, we retain the minimum number of instances present in each label, while randomly discarding the excess instances. This approach effectively eliminates bias in the extracted test set, and challenges the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.489, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Next, we apply the model to the stress test set and obtain prediction results. We then compare the label distribution of the prediction results on the stress test set with the label distribution of the extracted training data \\((R_{f})\\). The rationale is that if the extracted training data contains a cue, its label distribution will be skewed towards a specific label. If the model exploits this cue, it will prefer to predict that label as much as possible, amplifying the skewness of the distribution, despite the input test set being neutralized. We aim to observe such amplification in the output distribution to identify the model's weaknesses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, the accuracy test and distribution test are related in terms of assessing a model's sensitivity to specific features, but they emphasize different aspects. Distribution testing focuses on" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the impact of feature distribution changes on model performance, while accuracy testing evaluates the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By combining these two testing methods, a model's sensitivity to particular features can be more comprehensively assessed. If both tests determine that the model is sensitive to a certain feature, we can have a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.242, + 0.64, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.269, + 0.883, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first present the experimental setup, followed by results on cue discovery, model probing, and analysis. The entire framework is implemented in an online demo." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.345, + 0.602, + 0.361 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.366, + 0.884, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate this framework on 10 popular NLR datasets in Table 1 and 4 well-known models, namely FASTText (FT) (Joulin et al., 2017), ESIM (ES) (Chen et al., 2016), BERT (BT) (Devlin et al., 2018) and RoBERTA (RB) (Liu et al., 2019) on these datasets. All these datasets except for SWAG (Zellers et al., 2018) and RECLOR (Yu et al., 2020) are collected through crowdsourcing. SWAG is generated from an LSTM-based language model. Specifications of the datasets are listed in Table 1." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.552, + 0.871, + 0.691 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTypeData SizeTrain/TestHuman Acc
Ratio(%)
SNLICLS570K56:180.0
QNLICLS11k19:180.0
MNLICLS413k40:180.0
ROCMCQ3.9k1:1100.0
COPAMCQ1k1:1100.0
SWAGMCQ113k4:188.0
RACEMCQ100k18:194.5
RECLORMCQ6k9:163.0
ARCTMCQ2k3:179.8
ARCT_advMCQ4k3:1-
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.7, + 0.884, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: 10 Datasets. Data size refers to the number of questions in each dataset. CLS=Classification. MCQ=Multiple Choice Questions. By our definition, \\( k \\)-way MCQs will be split into \\( k \\) instances in preprocessing." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These datasets can mainly be classified into two types of tasks. SNLI, QNLI, and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) are classification tasks, while ROC, COPA (Roemmle et al., 2011), SWAG, RACE (Lai et al., 2017), RECLOR, ARCT (Habernal et al., 2017) and ARCT_adv (Schuster et al., 2019) are multiple-choice reasoning tasks. Features appearing a minimum of five times in training" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4524" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.086, + 0.373, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "or testing sets are considered cues." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.116, + 0.293, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Cues in Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.139, + 0.489, + 0.185 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we showcase the cues identified in each dataset using the cueness metric, as described in Section 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.188, + 0.49, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We first filter the training and test data for each dataset using all the features defined in this paper. The left half of Table 2 displays the top 5 cues discovered for each of the 10 datasets, along with their cueness scores. ARCT_adv, an adversarial dataset, is intentionally well-balanced. Consequently, we only found one cue, OVERLAP, with a very low cueness score. This is unsurprising since OVERLAP is the only \"second-order\" feature in our list of linguistic features that considers tokens in both the premise and hypothesis, and likely evaded data manipulation by the creator." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.382, + 0.49, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mostly, the top 5 cues discovered are word features. However, besides OVERLAP, we also see NEGATION and TYPO appearing in the lists. In fact, SENTIMENT and NER features would have emerged if we expanded the list to the top 10. Interestingly, several features previously reported as biased by other works, such as \"not\" and NEGATION in ARCT, \"no\" in MNLI and SNLI, and \"like\" in ROC, are also found. Particularly in MNLI, all five discovered cues are related to negatively toned words, suggesting significant human artifacts in this dataset that can lead to model fragility." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.576, + 0.49, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, we observe that some word cues are indicative of certain syntactic, semantic, or sentiment patterns in the questions. For example, \"because\" in SNLI implies a cause-effect structure; \"like\" in ROC indicates positive sentiment; \"probably\" and \"may\" in RACE suggest uncertainty, and so on. These features can serve as clues for revising datasets." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.719, + 0.293, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Biases in Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.742, + 0.489, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To investigate whether a model is affected by a specific cue or feature in a dataset, we train four models on their original training sets and evaluate them using accuracy and distribution tests." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Accuracy Test: The results are presented in Table 2. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, a positive or negative \\(\\Delta\\) value indicates the direction of a model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. The absolute value of \\(\\Delta\\) reflects the degree to which the model's performance is" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "influenced by these features, with larger values suggesting stronger reliance on sensitivity and smaller values indicating a more robust model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.135, + 0.885, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The bottom of Table 2 shows that, across all 10 datasets, the sum of the absolute values of \\(\\Delta\\) follows the order: RoBERTA \\(<\\) BERT \\(<\\) ESIM \\(<\\) FastText. This is consistent with earlier hypothesis-only tests and the community's common perception of these popular models. However, examining individual datasets and features reveals a more nuanced situation. For instance, FastText tends to pick up individual word cues rather than semantic cues, while more complex models such as BERT and RoBERTA appear more sensitive to structural features like NEGATION and SENTIMENT, which are actually classes of words. This is well explained by FastText's design, which focuses more on modeling words than syntactic or semantic structures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.377, + 0.884, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Interestingly, FastText exhibits a strong negative correlation with TyPO. We speculate that FastText might have been trained with a more orthodox vocabulary, making it less tolerant of typos in the text." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.514, + 0.469, + 0.682, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.568, + 0.663, + 0.581 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cue \"no\" in MNLI" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.711, + 0.469, + 0.877, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.711, + 0.568, + 0.88, + 0.582 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cue \"speaking\" in SNLI" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.599, + 0.681, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.7, + 0.676, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cue \"above\" in ARCT" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.712, + 0.6, + 0.877, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.725, + 0.7, + 0.866, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cue \"threw\" in ROC" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.726, + 0.881, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Four test examples for distribution comparison with 4 different models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.775, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Distribution Test: We highlight three interesting findings in Figure 3. The bars for the four models represent the distribution percentage based on each predicted label. \\( R_{f} \\) denotes the extracted training data distribution with a specific feature. We observe that all models on the cue \"no\" in MNLI achieve positive \\( \\Delta \\) in Table 2, particularly FastText. Consistent with the \"Accuracy Test,\" we find that the prediction label distribution skewness" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4525" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.229, + 0.081, + 0.773, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetTop CuesCueness %FT (Δ)ES (Δ)BT (Δ)RB (Δ)
SNLI“sleeping”13.9530.36.815.344.87
“no”13.3318.093.322.052.6
“because”9.2418.894.885.614.31
“friend”8.8222.966.663.513.05
“movie”7.7316.640.069.47-0.19
QNLI“dioxide”4.529.78-0.064.9710.56
“denver”4.2613.597.142.233.11
“kilometre”4.244.856.434.672.55
“mile”3.957.1615.64-1.65-6.65
“newcastle”3.83.4412.00.89-1.23
MNLI“never”10.429.1526.419.8610.6
“no”8.9819.4920.171.23.32
“nothing”8.9825.526.845.114.32
“any”6.7920.419.397.763.74
“anything”5.7318.4315.743.311.14
ROC“threw”12.991.284.6910.880.97
“now”8.68-10.0114.511.755.69
“found”8.16-2.314.455.12-3.13
“won”7.712.430.741.055.51
“like”7.34.7710.068.811.67
COPA“went”3.61-10.836.467.921.04
“got”2.745.45-9.89-12.52-10.3
“for”2.1410.11-1.899.0511.58
“with”1.38-15.64-6.983.313.82
TYPO0.84-12.46-2.333.8-8.22
SWAG“football”7.386.138.551.21.55
“anxious”6.657.55-4.67-6.66-1.67
“concerned”6.1912.64.588.27-5.66
“skull”5.73-2.770.498.433.49
“cop”5.012.795.3-0.92-0.04
RACE“above”13.748.73-8.43-0.22-1.92
“b”12.8416.97-4.83.52-3.45
“c”11.8315.69-6.948.6-7.6
“probably”6.779.91-0.06-3.82.86
“may”4.27.75-3.45-6.67-1.8
RECLOR“over”2.071.76-2.94-1.35-4.12
“result”1.97-3.29-2.69-1.78-3.7
“explanation”1.81-6.33-1.73-2.76-7.24
“proportion”1.68-5.64-4.692.37-2.16
“produce”1.44.54-2.98-14.36-3.7
ARCT“not”3.74-2.547.45-0.97-11.96
NEGATION2.853.4910.046.28-8.23
“n’t”2.5210.35.899.494.84
“always”2.25-4.6638.21-4.35-8.26
“doe”2.06-0.73-3.69-1.15-7.22
ARCT_advOVERLAP1.96e-101.65-0.252.730.57
∑(|·|) (Model weakness)469.8361.4227.7216.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.272, + 0.635, + 0.725, + 0.649 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Datasets, their top 5 cues and 4 models biases \\( \\Delta \\) on them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.675, + 0.49, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "is amplified in Figure 3 for FastText and ESIM. With the \"no\" cue, they prefer to predict \"Contradiction\" even more than the ground truth in the training data. In contrast, BERT and RoBERTA moderately follow the training data. While the cue \"no\" is effective at influencing the models, the cue \"above\" is not as successful. Figure 3 shows that the distribution of predicted results for ESIM in ARCT is entirely opposite to the training data, explaining the \\(\\Delta = -8.43\\) in Table 2 and demonstrating that models may not exploit a cue even if it is present in the data. Similarly, \"speaking\" in BERT and RoBERTA can also explain their low \\(\\Delta\\) values, which are not shown in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.904, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The example of the cue \"threw\" presents an out-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.675, + 0.885, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lier for BERT, as the distribution test result is inconsistent with the accuracy test: the accuracy deviation is very high for BERT, but its prediction distribution is flat. We have not encountered many such contradictory cases. However, when they do occur, as in this example, we give BERT the benefit of the doubt that it might not have exploited the cue \"threw\"." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.833, + 0.642, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) released by OpenAI, has garnered significant interest from the NLP community. ChatGPT, a GPT" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.522, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4526" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.09, + 0.26, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt 1" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.103, + 0.461, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analyze the logical relationship between the following" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.126, + 0.446, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.148, + 0.445, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.091, + 0.593, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt 1 + CoT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.103, + 0.758, + 0.125 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Analyze the logical relationship between the following" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.126, + 0.743, + 0.147 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.148, + 0.741, + 0.179 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.181, + 0.641, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let's think step by step." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.212, + 0.203, + 0.261, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt 2" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.217, + 0.22, + 0.456, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly \"entailment,\" \"contradiction,\" or \"neutral.\" premise: {premise} hypothesis: {hypothesis}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.203, + 0.592, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Prompt 2 + CoT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.22, + 0.753, + 0.264 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly \"entailment,\" \"contradiction,\" or \"neutral.\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.265, + 0.632, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "premise: {premise}" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.276, + 0.664, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "hypothesis: ‘{hypothesis}’" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.287, + 0.641, + 0.297 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let's think step by step." + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.433, + 0.315, + 0.563, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.353, + 0.49, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(\\mathbf{x}^{3}\\) series model, is trained through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017) similarly to InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). In this section, we investigate if zero-shot ChatGPT is influenced by bias features, using a case study focused on the word \"no\" in the MNLI dataset. We aim to compare the effectiveness of different prompts and select the best one for mitigating bias based on a single bias feature." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.511, + 0.221, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.532, + 0.489, + 0.643 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We selected test instances from the MNLI dataset to study the influence of the word \"no\" on ChatGPT's performance. The original test set has Contradiction: 3240, Entailment: 3463, and Neutral: 3129 instances. Instances containing \"no\" are distributed as follows: Contradiction:229, Entailment: 38, and Neutral: 46." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.489, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the accuracy test, we used all 313 instances with \"no\" and an equal number of instances without \"no\", randomly chosen from the remaining test set. This ensures a balanced evaluation of ChatGPT's performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.489, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the distribution test, we selected 38 instances per label containing \"no\", resulting in a total of 114 instances." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.787, + 0.229, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Prompts" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.808, + 0.489, + 0.872 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We have four prompts in Figure 4: The first prompt is proposed by ChatGPT itself. We ask, \"What is the best prompt for the MNLI task according to you?\" ChatGPT returns prompt 1 for us. The sec" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.354, + 0.885, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ond prompt is inspired by previous work (Qin et al., 2023). The third and fourth prompts are created by adding \"Let's think step by step\" (Kojima et al.) to prompt 1 and prompt 2 with the \"chain of thought\" (CoT) thinking, respectively. This modification has been shown to significantly improve the performance of InstructGPT on reasoning tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.495, + 0.654, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 ICQ Results" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.527, + 0.842, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
PromptAcc (“no”)Acc (w/o “no”)ΔAcc
P174.3477.32-2.98
P275.4274.181.24
P1 + CoT78.3577.281.07
P2 + CoT76.6776.400.27
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.604, + 0.884, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy test results \\((\\%)\\). P1=Prompt 1, P2=Prompt 2." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.587, + 0.664, + 0.807, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.58, + 0.791, + 0.812, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Distribution test results." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluated the model's accuracy using different prompts on instances with and without the word \"no.\" The results are shown in Table 3. P1 demonstrates a negative \\(\\Delta\\) Acc, indicating difficulty in generalizing when \"no\" is present. P2 exhibits a positive \\(\\Delta\\) Acc, suggesting better generalization." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.881, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\( {}^{3} \\) Currently, \\( \\mathrm{x} \\) is either 3.5 or 4,and in the subsequent experimental process,the ChatGPT we use is based on GPT- 3.5." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4527" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adding \"CoT\" to both prompts reduces bias risk. \\(\\mathrm{P1} + \\mathrm{CoT}\\) shows the most significant improvement in Acc (\"no\"), but \\(\\mathrm{P2} + \\mathrm{CoT}\\) has the smallest absolute \\(\\Delta\\) Acc, indicating the least sensitivity to \"no\" and the lowest bias risk among the tested prompts." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.167, + 0.489, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Besides, we analyzed the model's prediction distribution Figure 5 for the different prompts on the stress test set containing the word \"no\" with balanced label distribution. Distribution test results reveal imbalances in P1 and P2 prediction distributions, with P1 and P2 leaning towards predicting contradictions. Adding \"CoT\" mitigates these imbalances, leading to more balanced distributions. \\( \\mathrm{P}2 + \\mathrm{CoT} \\) presents the most balanced distribution among the labels, supporting its lowest bias risk." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.33, + 0.49, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In conclusion, our case study, particularly when focusing on the feature \"no\", indicates that zero-shot ChatGPT can be influenced by bias features. The choice of prompt significantly affects its performance. When assessing the feature \"no\", P2 + CoT showed the lowest bias risk across both tests. The \"CoT\" strategy appears effective in reducing bias risk for this specific feature. However, it's important to note that our findings, particularly regarding the feature \"no\", suggest that ChatGPT's self-recommended prompt (P1) might not always be optimal. This underscores the importance of human intervention and ongoing exploration to optimize performance and minimize bias risks. Future studies and conclusions would benefit from a more nuanced and feature-specific analysis." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.601, + 0.27, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.629, + 0.489, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our work is related to three research directions: spurious features analysis, bias calculation, and dataset filtering." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.679, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Spurious features analysis has been increasingly studied recently. Much work (Sharma et al., 2018; Srinivasan et al., 2018; Zellers et al., 2018) has observed that some NLP models can surprisingly get good results on natural language understanding questions in MCQ form without even looking at the stems of the questions. Such tests are called \"hypothesis-only\" tests in some works. Further, some research (Sanchez et al., 2018) discovered that these models suffer from insensitivity to certain small but semantically significant alterations in the hypotheses, leading to speculations that the hypothesis-only performance is due to simple statistical correlations between words in the hypothesis and the labels. Spurious features can be" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.886, + 0.293 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "classified into lexicalized and unlexicalized (Bowman et al., 2015): lexicalized features mainly contain indicators of n-gram tokens and cross-ngram tokens, while unlexicalized features involve word overlap, sentence length, and BLEU score between the premise and the hypothesis. (Naik et al., 2018) refined the lexicalized classification to Negation, Numerical Reasoning, Spelling Error. (McCoy et al., 2019) refined the word overlap features to Lexical overlap, Subsequence, and Constituent which also considers the syntactical structure overlap. (Sanchez et al., 2018) provided unseen tokens an extra lexicalized feature." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.325, + 0.886, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bias calculation is concerned with methods to quantify the severity of the cues. Some work (Clark et al., 2019; He et al., 2019; Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019) attempted to encode the cue feature implicitly by hypothesis-only training or by extracting features associated with a certain label from the embeddings. Other methods compute the bias by statistical metrics. For example, (Yu et al., 2020) used the probability of seeing a word conditioned on a specific label to rank the words by their biasness. LMI (Schuster et al., 2019) was also used to evaluate cues and re-weight in some models. However, these works did not give the reason to use these metrics, one way or the other. Separately, (Ribeiro et al., 2020) gave a test data augmentation method, without assessing the degree of bias." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dataset filtering is one way of achieving higher quality in datasets by reducing artifacts. In fact, datasets such as SWAG and RECLOR evaluated in this paper were produced using variants of this filter approach which iteratively perturb the data instances until a target model can no longer fit the resulting dataset well. Some methods (Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019), instead of preprocessing the data by removing biases, leave out samples with biases in the middle of training according to the decision made between epoch to epoch. (Bras et al., 2020) investigated model-based reduction of dataset cues and designed an algorithm using iterative training. Any model can be used in this framework. Although such an approach is more general and more efficient than human annotating, it heavily depends on the models. Unfortunately, different models may catch different cues. Thus, such methods may not be complete." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4528" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.248, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.11, + 0.491, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our lightweight framework, ICQ, identifies biases and cues in multiple-choice NLU datasets, illuminating model behaviors from a statistical perspective. Extensive experimentation on diverse tasks validates ICQ's efficiency in revealing dataset and model biases. Using a case study on ChatGPT, we explore its cues, offering practical guidance. ICQ advances our understanding and optimization of large language models, promoting the creation of robust, unbiased AI systems." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.298, + 0.214, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.321, + 0.49, + 0.414 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rachel KE Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, et al. 2018. Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01943." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.423, + 0.489, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP, pages 632-642." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.486, + 0.489, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew E Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04108." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.55, + 0.489, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2016. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06038." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.613, + 0.49, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.676, + 0.49, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christopher Clark, Mark Yatskar, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Don't take the easy way out: Ensemble based methods for avoiding known dataset biases. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 4060-4073." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.739, + 0.489, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.803, + 0.49, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Habernal, Henning Wachsmuth, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2017. The argument reasoning comprehension task: Identification and reconstruction of implicit warrants. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01425." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "He He, Sheng Zha, and Haohan Wang. 2019. Unlearn dataset bias in natural language inference by fitting the residual. EMNLP-IJCNLP, page 132." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.321, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.127 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Armand Joulin, Édouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomáš Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. In ECAL, pages 427-431." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.135, + 0.885, + 0.162 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel R. Tetreault, editors. 2020. ACL 2020." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.171, + 0.885, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.232, + 0.885, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In EMNLP, pages 785-794." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.293, + 0.885, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "J. Lin. 1991. Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37(1):145-151." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.343, + 0.885, + 0.409 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.417, + 0.885, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In ACL, pages 3428-3448." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.479, + 0.885, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 839-849." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.567, + 0.885, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Naik, Abhilasha Ravichander, Norman Sadeh, Carolyn Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Stress test evaluation for natural language inference. In COLING, pages 2340-2353." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.628, + 0.885, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.716, + 0.885, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.778, + 0.885, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4902-4912." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In AAAI Spring." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4529" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ivan Sanchez, Jeff Mitchell, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Behavior analysis of nli models: Uncovering the influence of three factors on robustness. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1975–1985." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.488, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tal Schuster, Darsh J Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Filizzola, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019. Towards debiasing fact verification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05267." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.488, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rishi Sharma, James Allen, Omid Bakhshandeh, and Nasrin Mostafazadeh. 2018. Tackling the story ending biases in the story cloze test. In ACL, pages 752-757." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.274, + 0.488, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Siddarth Srinivasan, Richa Arora, and Mark Riedl. 2018. A simple and effective approach to the story cloze test. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 92–96." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.324, + 0.488, + 0.39 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. EMNLP, page 353." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.4, + 0.488, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.463, + 0.488, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, Remi Tachet, TJ Hazen, and Alessandro Sordoni. 2019. Robust natural language inference models with example forgetting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03861." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.525, + 0.488, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Weihao Yu, Zihang Jiang, Yanfei Dong, and Jiashi Feng. 2020. ReClor: A reading comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04326." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.588, + 0.488, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In EMNLP, pages 93-104." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4530" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_origin.pdf b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9926056a72cf70f16c6a3a5044b4d035bb8eff31 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/5c107149-777b-43a2-a3a4-33d7d122d935_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:5f0ee64042348fa5e0aa511e708d5819e5147b5b94cdc898b888f5b5d0f0491a +size 456589 diff --git a/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/full.md b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..698a59979d9883f9264c6c33d2f3e7115931af45 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,345 @@ +# Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models + +Shanshan Huang + +Shanghai Jiao Tong University + +Shanghai, China + +huangss_33@sjtu.edu.cn + +Kenny Q. Zhu* + +University of Texas at Arlington + +Arlington, Texas, USA + +kenny.zhu@uta.edu + +# Abstract + +Recent studies have shown that many natural language understanding and reasoning datasets contain statistical cues that can be exploited by NLP models, resulting in an overestimation of their capabilities. Existing methods, such as "hypothesis-only" tests and CheckList, are limited in identifying these cues and evaluating model weaknesses. We introduce ICQ (I-See-Cue), a lightweight, general statistical profiling framework that automatically identifies potential biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without requiring additional test cases. ICQ assesses the extent to which models exploit these biases through black-box testing, addressing the limitations of current methods. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of statistical biases in 10 popular NLU datasets and 4 models, confirming prior findings, revealing new insights, and offering an online demonstration system to encourage users to assess their own datasets and models. Furthermore, we present a case study on investigating ChatGPT's bias, providing valuable recommendations for practical applications. + +# 1 Introduction + +Deep neural models have made remarkable strides in a broad spectrum of natural language understanding (NLU) tasks (Bowman et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018; Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Roemmele et al., 2011; Zellers et al., 2018). These tasks often employ a multiple-choice framework, as illustrated in Example 1. However, the inherent sensitivity of these models to minute variations calls for a robust and precise evaluation mechanism (Jurafsky et al., 2020). + +Example 1 Natural language inference in the SNLI dataset, with the correct answer bolded. + +Premise: A swimmer playing in the surf watches a low flying airplane headed inland. + +Hypothesis: Someone is swimming in the sea. + +Label: a) Entailment. b) Contradiction. c) Neutral. + +In tasks akin to Example 1, humans typically rely on the logical relationship between the premise and hypothesis. Contrarily, some NLP models might bypass this logical reasoning, focusing instead on the biases embedded within the dataset and, more specifically, within the hypotheses (Naik et al., 2018; Schuster et al., 2019). These biases—such as sentiment or shallow n-grams—could provide misleading cues for correct predictions. + +We refer to these biases as "artificial spurious cues" when they pervade both the training and test datasets, maintaining a similar distribution over predictions. An example of such a cue is a model's disproportionate dependence on the word "someone" in Example 1. These cues, when absent or altered, can significantly impair a model's performance, underlining the importance of identifying them to enhance model robustness in the future. + +![](images/6c2f47c3beb07113e5c3d681a882a4efa9008b018751431ed47042d787c465fa.jpg) +Figure 1: Example of a cue. + +To tackle the issue of cues, it's crucial to distinguish between cues embedded in the dataset and those learned by the model. Conventional bias + +detection and mitigation tools, such as the AI Fairness 360 toolkit (Bellamy et al., 2018), primarily target dataset biases, inadequately addressing those learned by models during training. + +While existing methods like "hypothesis-only" tests and CheckList can uncover model vulnerabilities, they're not expressly designed to identify model-learned cues. "Hypothesis-only" tests can highlight dataset issues where the hypothesis alone can provide a correct answer but fail to realistically depict the model's capabilities as they don't evaluate the model using the full data context used during both training and prediction. + +Drawing from the tenets of black-box testing in software engineering, CheckList scrutinizes model weaknesses without detailed knowledge of the model's internal architecture. It achieves this by delivering additional stress test cases premised on predefined linguistic features. However, CheckList's dependence on meticulously designed templates limits its scope, and it also falls short of illuminating the knowledge the model has actually gleaned from the data. + +To address these limitations, we introduce ICQ ("I-see-cue"), a resilient statistical analysis framework1 engineered to identify model-learned cues. Diverging from traditional methods, ICQ identifies biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without necessitating additional test cases. Employing black-box testing, ICQ assesses how models utilize these biases, delivering a comprehensive understanding of the bias in NLU tasks. + +We authenticate ICQ's efficacy by deploying it on various NLU datasets to probe potential cues learned by models during training. ICQ facilitates an in-depth understanding of how models like ChatGPT learn potential cues, and it offers illustrative examples to guide the selection of suitable prompts, providing invaluable guidance for model optimization. + +In summary, this paper contributes the following: + +- We unveil ICQ, a lightweight yet potent method for identifying statistical biases and cues in NLU datasets, proposing simple and efficient tests to quantitatively and visually evaluate whether a model leverages spurious cues in its predictions. + +- We execute a comprehensive evaluation of statistical bias issues across ten popular NLU datasets and four models, corroborating previous findings and unveiling new insights. We also offer an online demonstration system to showcase the results and invite users to evaluate their own datasets and models. +- Through a case study, we delve into how ChatGPT learns potential biases, offering valuable recommendations for its practical applications. + +# 2 Preliminary + +# 2.1 Task Definition + +We define an instance $x$ of an NLU task dataset $X$ as + +$$ +x = (p, h, l) \in X, \tag {1} +$$ + +where $p$ is the context against which to do the reasoning ( $p$ corresponds to "premise" in Example 1); $h$ is the hypothesis given the context $p$ ; $l \in \mathcal{L}$ is the label that depicts the type of relation between $p$ and $h$ . The size of the relation set $\mathcal{L}$ varies with tasks. + +# 2.2 Linguistic Features + +As demonstrated in previous work (Naik et al., 2018; Jurafsky et al., 2020), we consider the following linguistic features: + +Word: The existence of a specific word in the premise or hypothesis of a dataset instance. + +Sentiment: The sentiment value of an instance, calculated as the sum of sentiment polarities of individual words. + +Tense: The tense feature (past, present, or future) of an instance, determined by the POS tag of the root verb. + +Negation: The existence of negative words (e.g., "no", "not", or "never") in an instance, determined by dependency parsing. + +Overlap: The existence of at least one word (excluding stop words) that occurs in both the premise and hypothesis. + +NER: The presence of named entities (e.g., PER, ORG, LOC, TIME, or CARDINAL) in an instance, detected using the NLTK NER toolkit. + +Typos: The presence of at least one typo in an instance, identified using a pretrained spelling model. + +For multiple-choice datasets, all features except Overlap are applied exclusively to hypotheses. + +# 3 Approach + +The ICQ framework, depicted in Figure 2, consists of three phases: data extraction, cue discovery, and model probing. In the data extraction phase, instances containing a specific linguistic feature $f$ are extracted from the dataset. The cue discovery phase identifies potential cues among pre-defined features. Finally, the model probing phase conducts two tests: the "accuracy test" and "distribution test". We will discuss these phases in more detail below. + +![](images/44d2c1f1a3df22695de6af3e2fe118cba406b780dc9a103e9d5f634b9d57f4a1.jpg) +Figure 2: ICQ Workflow. ①: data extraction phase; ②: cue discovery phase; ③: model probing phase. $f = a$ specific feature, $R =$ training data, $S =$ test data, $R_f =$ extracted training data, $S_f =$ extracted test data, $S_{nf} =$ remaining test data without feature $f$ , $\overline{S_f} =$ flatten test data, $\mathcal{M} = a$ specific model. + +# 3.1 Data Extraction Phase + +After defining the linguistic features, our system's fundamental step is constructing a data extractor for each feature value $f$ . An extractor processes a dataset and retrieves a set of instances associated with the specified feature value. More specifically, for a specific feature, if an instance contains that feature, then that instance will be singled out as a part of the subset bearing that feature. + +# 3.2 Cue Discovery Phase + +For each feature $f$ , we apply its extractor to both the training and test data of dataset $X$ , denoted as $R$ and $S$ in Figure 2. This results in clustered subsets of training instances $(R_f)$ and test instances $(S_f)$ . A feature is considered a possible cue for a dataset only if it is present in both the training and test data. + +The bias of the label distribution for an extracted set is computed using the mean squared error + +(MSE) and Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) (Lin, 1991). The cueness score indicates the extent to which dataset $X$ is biased against a feature $f$ . + +$$ +M S E (F) = \frac {1}{| \mathcal {L} |} \sum_ {i} \left(y _ {i} - \bar {y _ {i}}\right) ^ {2} \tag {2} +$$ + +Here, $y_{i}$ represents the number of instances with label $l_{i}$ in the extracted dataset $F$ , and $\overline{y_i}$ is the mean number of instances for each label. A larger $MSE(F)$ implies a more pointed label distribution and greater bias. If the extracted training set $(R_{f})$ and the extracted test set $(S_{f})$ exhibit similar biases, the JSD between their distributions will be small: + +$$ +J S D = \frac {1}{2} (Q (R _ {f}) \| A) + \frac {1}{2} (Q (S _ {f}) \| A), \tag {3} +$$ + +where $A = \frac{1}{2}\left(Q(R_{f}) + Q(S_{f})\right)$ . The function $Q(\cdot)$ denotes the label distribution of the extracted dataset. We define the cueness score as: + +$$ +c u e (f, X) = \frac {M S E \left(R _ {f}\right)}{\exp \left(J S D \left(R _ {f} , S _ {f}\right)\right)} \tag {4} +$$ + +This cueness score represents the degree to which a dataset $X$ is biased against a feature $f$ . + +# 3.3 Model Probing Phase + +In the previous section, we established that a dataset $X$ could be influenced by a cue $f$ . However, a model trained on this dataset may not necessarily exploit that cue, as models depend on both data and architecture. In this section, we introduce a framework to probe any model instance trained on the biased dataset, assessing if it utilizes cue $f$ and to what degree. We achieve this through two tests: the accuracy test and the distribution test. + +# 3.3.1 Accuracy Test + +The accuracy test examines the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By comparing the model's accuracy on these two subsets, we can understand the model's generalization capabilities under different conditions. If the model's performance shows a noticeable improvement on the subset containing a specific feature, it may suggest that the model has exploited that feature for prediction. + +In the accuracy test, we assess the prediction accuracies of the model $M$ on the extracted test set (with feature $f$ ) and on the remaining test set (without feature $f$ ), denoted as $acc(S_f)$ and $acc(S_{nf})$ , + +respectively. The accuracy test computes the difference between these two accuracies: + +$$ +\Delta A c c (f) = a c c \left(S _ {f}\right) - a c c \left(S _ {n f}\right) \tag {5} +$$ + +A positive or negative value of $\Delta Acc$ indicates the direction of the model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. A positive value suggests that the model exploits the feature for prediction, while a negative value implies struggles to generalize or detrimental sensitivity to the feature. + +The magnitude of the absolute value of $\Delta Acc$ reflects the degree to which a model's performance is affected by the presence or absence of specific features in the data subsets. A larger absolute value indicates a stronger reliance on or sensitivity to the feature, whereas a smaller absolute value suggests a more robust model that is less affected by the presence or absence of the feature. + +# 3.3.2 Distribution Test + +The distribution test is a visual examination that focuses on how changes in specific feature distributions within datasets affect a model's predictive performance. + +First, we create a "stress dataset" $\overline{S_f}$ by "flattening" the label distribution in $S_{f}$ . We achieve this by removing random instances from all labels except for the one with the smallest number of instances, stopping when a balance is reached. In other words, we retain the minimum number of instances present in each label, while randomly discarding the excess instances. This approach effectively eliminates bias in the extracted test set, and challenges the model. + +Next, we apply the model to the stress test set and obtain prediction results. We then compare the label distribution of the prediction results on the stress test set with the label distribution of the extracted training data $(R_{f})$ . The rationale is that if the extracted training data contains a cue, its label distribution will be skewed towards a specific label. If the model exploits this cue, it will prefer to predict that label as much as possible, amplifying the skewness of the distribution, despite the input test set being neutralized. We aim to observe such amplification in the output distribution to identify the model's weaknesses. + +In summary, the accuracy test and distribution test are related in terms of assessing a model's sensitivity to specific features, but they emphasize different aspects. Distribution testing focuses on + +the impact of feature distribution changes on model performance, while accuracy testing evaluates the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By combining these two testing methods, a model's sensitivity to particular features can be more comprehensively assessed. If both tests determine that the model is sensitive to a certain feature, we can have a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion. + +# 4 Evaluation + +We first present the experimental setup, followed by results on cue discovery, model probing, and analysis. The entire framework is implemented in an online demo. + +# 4.1 Setup + +We evaluate this framework on 10 popular NLR datasets in Table 1 and 4 well-known models, namely FASTText (FT) (Joulin et al., 2017), ESIM (ES) (Chen et al., 2016), BERT (BT) (Devlin et al., 2018) and RoBERTA (RB) (Liu et al., 2019) on these datasets. All these datasets except for SWAG (Zellers et al., 2018) and RECLOR (Yu et al., 2020) are collected through crowdsourcing. SWAG is generated from an LSTM-based language model. Specifications of the datasets are listed in Table 1. + +
DatasetTypeData SizeTrain/TestHuman Acc
Ratio(%)
SNLICLS570K56:180.0
QNLICLS11k19:180.0
MNLICLS413k40:180.0
ROCMCQ3.9k1:1100.0
COPAMCQ1k1:1100.0
SWAGMCQ113k4:188.0
RACEMCQ100k18:194.5
RECLORMCQ6k9:163.0
ARCTMCQ2k3:179.8
ARCT_advMCQ4k3:1-
+ +Table 1: 10 Datasets. Data size refers to the number of questions in each dataset. CLS=Classification. MCQ=Multiple Choice Questions. By our definition, $k$ -way MCQs will be split into $k$ instances in preprocessing. + +These datasets can mainly be classified into two types of tasks. SNLI, QNLI, and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) are classification tasks, while ROC, COPA (Roemmle et al., 2011), SWAG, RACE (Lai et al., 2017), RECLOR, ARCT (Habernal et al., 2017) and ARCT_adv (Schuster et al., 2019) are multiple-choice reasoning tasks. Features appearing a minimum of five times in training + +or testing sets are considered cues. + +# 4.2 Cues in Datasets + +In this section, we showcase the cues identified in each dataset using the cueness metric, as described in Section 3. + +We first filter the training and test data for each dataset using all the features defined in this paper. The left half of Table 2 displays the top 5 cues discovered for each of the 10 datasets, along with their cueness scores. ARCT_adv, an adversarial dataset, is intentionally well-balanced. Consequently, we only found one cue, OVERLAP, with a very low cueness score. This is unsurprising since OVERLAP is the only "second-order" feature in our list of linguistic features that considers tokens in both the premise and hypothesis, and likely evaded data manipulation by the creator. + +Mostly, the top 5 cues discovered are word features. However, besides OVERLAP, we also see NEGATION and TYPO appearing in the lists. In fact, SENTIMENT and NER features would have emerged if we expanded the list to the top 10. Interestingly, several features previously reported as biased by other works, such as "not" and NEGATION in ARCT, "no" in MNLI and SNLI, and "like" in ROC, are also found. Particularly in MNLI, all five discovered cues are related to negatively toned words, suggesting significant human artifacts in this dataset that can lead to model fragility. + +Additionally, we observe that some word cues are indicative of certain syntactic, semantic, or sentiment patterns in the questions. For example, "because" in SNLI implies a cause-effect structure; "like" in ROC indicates positive sentiment; "probably" and "may" in RACE suggest uncertainty, and so on. These features can serve as clues for revising datasets. + +# 4.3 Biases in Models + +To investigate whether a model is affected by a specific cue or feature in a dataset, we train four models on their original training sets and evaluate them using accuracy and distribution tests. + +Accuracy Test: The results are presented in Table 2. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, a positive or negative $\Delta$ value indicates the direction of a model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. The absolute value of $\Delta$ reflects the degree to which the model's performance is + +influenced by these features, with larger values suggesting stronger reliance on sensitivity and smaller values indicating a more robust model. + +The bottom of Table 2 shows that, across all 10 datasets, the sum of the absolute values of $\Delta$ follows the order: RoBERTA $<$ BERT $<$ ESIM $<$ FastText. This is consistent with earlier hypothesis-only tests and the community's common perception of these popular models. However, examining individual datasets and features reveals a more nuanced situation. For instance, FastText tends to pick up individual word cues rather than semantic cues, while more complex models such as BERT and RoBERTA appear more sensitive to structural features like NEGATION and SENTIMENT, which are actually classes of words. This is well explained by FastText's design, which focuses more on modeling words than syntactic or semantic structures. + +Interestingly, FastText exhibits a strong negative correlation with TyPO. We speculate that FastText might have been trained with a more orthodox vocabulary, making it less tolerant of typos in the text. + +![](images/01adf9638d5926f963ece6243c8ecfb43e1d102c989f22ef20e93a50f3271a46.jpg) +Cue "no" in MNLI + +![](images/adaaaae46477ec58fe0b4d5e73a53f098871728ab986ff6a3c04c6aa636e5bfb.jpg) +Cue "speaking" in SNLI + +![](images/a019f874081841db694819dd6fc0b4b4226da9d8aca659900b558185704c0cf3.jpg) +Cue "above" in ARCT + +![](images/f1d0a1c45736ce95798cf8e5028cad4ec6e3e39ce37a0a2658fd791dbab37938.jpg) +Cue "threw" in ROC +Figure 3: Four test examples for distribution comparison with 4 different models + +Distribution Test: We highlight three interesting findings in Figure 3. The bars for the four models represent the distribution percentage based on each predicted label. $R_{f}$ denotes the extracted training data distribution with a specific feature. We observe that all models on the cue "no" in MNLI achieve positive $\Delta$ in Table 2, particularly FastText. Consistent with the "Accuracy Test," we find that the prediction label distribution skewness + +
DatasetTop CuesCueness %FT (Δ)ES (Δ)BT (Δ)RB (Δ)
SNLI“sleeping”13.9530.36.815.344.87
“no”13.3318.093.322.052.6
“because”9.2418.894.885.614.31
“friend”8.8222.966.663.513.05
“movie”7.7316.640.069.47-0.19
QNLI“dioxide”4.529.78-0.064.9710.56
“denver”4.2613.597.142.233.11
“kilometre”4.244.856.434.672.55
“mile”3.957.1615.64-1.65-6.65
“newcastle”3.83.4412.00.89-1.23
MNLI“never”10.429.1526.419.8610.6
“no”8.9819.4920.171.23.32
“nothing”8.9825.526.845.114.32
“any”6.7920.419.397.763.74
“anything”5.7318.4315.743.311.14
ROC“threw”12.991.284.6910.880.97
“now”8.68-10.0114.511.755.69
“found”8.16-2.314.455.12-3.13
“won”7.712.430.741.055.51
“like”7.34.7710.068.811.67
COPA“went”3.61-10.836.467.921.04
“got”2.745.45-9.89-12.52-10.3
“for”2.1410.11-1.899.0511.58
“with”1.38-15.64-6.983.313.82
TYPO0.84-12.46-2.333.8-8.22
SWAG“football”7.386.138.551.21.55
“anxious”6.657.55-4.67-6.66-1.67
“concerned”6.1912.64.588.27-5.66
“skull”5.73-2.770.498.433.49
“cop”5.012.795.3-0.92-0.04
RACE“above”13.748.73-8.43-0.22-1.92
“b”12.8416.97-4.83.52-3.45
“c”11.8315.69-6.948.6-7.6
“probably”6.779.91-0.06-3.82.86
“may”4.27.75-3.45-6.67-1.8
RECLOR“over”2.071.76-2.94-1.35-4.12
“result”1.97-3.29-2.69-1.78-3.7
“explanation”1.81-6.33-1.73-2.76-7.24
“proportion”1.68-5.64-4.692.37-2.16
“produce”1.44.54-2.98-14.36-3.7
ARCT“not”3.74-2.547.45-0.97-11.96
NEGATION2.853.4910.046.28-8.23
“n’t”2.5210.35.899.494.84
“always”2.25-4.6638.21-4.35-8.26
“doe”2.06-0.73-3.69-1.15-7.22
ARCT_advOVERLAP1.96e-101.65-0.252.730.57
∑(|·|) (Model weakness)469.8361.4227.7216.2
+ +Table 2: Datasets, their top 5 cues and 4 models biases $\Delta$ on them. + +is amplified in Figure 3 for FastText and ESIM. With the "no" cue, they prefer to predict "Contradiction" even more than the ground truth in the training data. In contrast, BERT and RoBERTA moderately follow the training data. While the cue "no" is effective at influencing the models, the cue "above" is not as successful. Figure 3 shows that the distribution of predicted results for ESIM in ARCT is entirely opposite to the training data, explaining the $\Delta = -8.43$ in Table 2 and demonstrating that models may not exploit a cue even if it is present in the data. Similarly, "speaking" in BERT and RoBERTA can also explain their low $\Delta$ values, which are not shown in Table 2. + +The example of the cue "threw" presents an out- + +lier for BERT, as the distribution test result is inconsistent with the accuracy test: the accuracy deviation is very high for BERT, but its prediction distribution is flat. We have not encountered many such contradictory cases. However, when they do occur, as in this example, we give BERT the benefit of the doubt that it might not have exploited the cue "threw". + +# 5 Case Study + +Recently, ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) released by OpenAI, has garnered significant interest from the NLP community. ChatGPT, a GPT + +Prompt 1 + +Analyze the logical relationship between the following + +premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}. + +Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise. + +Prompt 1 + CoT + +Analyze the logical relationship between the following + +premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}. + +Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise. + +Let's think step by step. + +Prompt 2 + +Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly "entailment," "contradiction," or "neutral." premise: {premise} hypothesis: {hypothesis} + +Prompt 2 + CoT + +Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly "entailment," "contradiction," or "neutral." + +premise: {premise} + +hypothesis: ‘{hypothesis}’ + +Let's think step by step. + +$\mathbf{x}^{3}$ series model, is trained through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017) similarly to InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). In this section, we investigate if zero-shot ChatGPT is influenced by bias features, using a case study focused on the word "no" in the MNLI dataset. We aim to compare the effectiveness of different prompts and select the best one for mitigating bias based on a single bias feature. + +# 5.1 Dataset + +We selected test instances from the MNLI dataset to study the influence of the word "no" on ChatGPT's performance. The original test set has Contradiction: 3240, Entailment: 3463, and Neutral: 3129 instances. Instances containing "no" are distributed as follows: Contradiction:229, Entailment: 38, and Neutral: 46. + +For the accuracy test, we used all 313 instances with "no" and an equal number of instances without "no", randomly chosen from the remaining test set. This ensures a balanced evaluation of ChatGPT's performance. + +For the distribution test, we selected 38 instances per label containing "no", resulting in a total of 114 instances. + +# 5.2 Prompts + +We have four prompts in Figure 4: The first prompt is proposed by ChatGPT itself. We ask, "What is the best prompt for the MNLI task according to you?" ChatGPT returns prompt 1 for us. The sec + +ond prompt is inspired by previous work (Qin et al., 2023). The third and fourth prompts are created by adding "Let's think step by step" (Kojima et al.) to prompt 1 and prompt 2 with the "chain of thought" (CoT) thinking, respectively. This modification has been shown to significantly improve the performance of InstructGPT on reasoning tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022). + +# 5.3 ICQ Results + +
PromptAcc (“no”)Acc (w/o “no”)ΔAcc
P174.3477.32-2.98
P275.4274.181.24
P1 + CoT78.3577.281.07
P2 + CoT76.6776.400.27
+ +Table 3: Accuracy test results $(\%)$ . P1=Prompt 1, P2=Prompt 2. + +![](images/907d5459b315e1d6668d99c1acf05083e77165e639336e864238e2cbc3ac8b61.jpg) +Figure 4: Prompts. +Figure 5: Distribution test results. + +We evaluated the model's accuracy using different prompts on instances with and without the word "no." The results are shown in Table 3. P1 demonstrates a negative $\Delta$ Acc, indicating difficulty in generalizing when "no" is present. P2 exhibits a positive $\Delta$ Acc, suggesting better generalization. + +Adding "CoT" to both prompts reduces bias risk. $\mathrm{P1} + \mathrm{CoT}$ shows the most significant improvement in Acc ("no"), but $\mathrm{P2} + \mathrm{CoT}$ has the smallest absolute $\Delta$ Acc, indicating the least sensitivity to "no" and the lowest bias risk among the tested prompts. + +Besides, we analyzed the model's prediction distribution Figure 5 for the different prompts on the stress test set containing the word "no" with balanced label distribution. Distribution test results reveal imbalances in P1 and P2 prediction distributions, with P1 and P2 leaning towards predicting contradictions. Adding "CoT" mitigates these imbalances, leading to more balanced distributions. $\mathrm{P}2 + \mathrm{CoT}$ presents the most balanced distribution among the labels, supporting its lowest bias risk. + +In conclusion, our case study, particularly when focusing on the feature "no", indicates that zero-shot ChatGPT can be influenced by bias features. The choice of prompt significantly affects its performance. When assessing the feature "no", P2 + CoT showed the lowest bias risk across both tests. The "CoT" strategy appears effective in reducing bias risk for this specific feature. However, it's important to note that our findings, particularly regarding the feature "no", suggest that ChatGPT's self-recommended prompt (P1) might not always be optimal. This underscores the importance of human intervention and ongoing exploration to optimize performance and minimize bias risks. Future studies and conclusions would benefit from a more nuanced and feature-specific analysis. + +# 6 Related Work + +Our work is related to three research directions: spurious features analysis, bias calculation, and dataset filtering. + +Spurious features analysis has been increasingly studied recently. Much work (Sharma et al., 2018; Srinivasan et al., 2018; Zellers et al., 2018) has observed that some NLP models can surprisingly get good results on natural language understanding questions in MCQ form without even looking at the stems of the questions. Such tests are called "hypothesis-only" tests in some works. Further, some research (Sanchez et al., 2018) discovered that these models suffer from insensitivity to certain small but semantically significant alterations in the hypotheses, leading to speculations that the hypothesis-only performance is due to simple statistical correlations between words in the hypothesis and the labels. Spurious features can be + +classified into lexicalized and unlexicalized (Bowman et al., 2015): lexicalized features mainly contain indicators of n-gram tokens and cross-ngram tokens, while unlexicalized features involve word overlap, sentence length, and BLEU score between the premise and the hypothesis. (Naik et al., 2018) refined the lexicalized classification to Negation, Numerical Reasoning, Spelling Error. (McCoy et al., 2019) refined the word overlap features to Lexical overlap, Subsequence, and Constituent which also considers the syntactical structure overlap. (Sanchez et al., 2018) provided unseen tokens an extra lexicalized feature. + +Bias calculation is concerned with methods to quantify the severity of the cues. Some work (Clark et al., 2019; He et al., 2019; Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019) attempted to encode the cue feature implicitly by hypothesis-only training or by extracting features associated with a certain label from the embeddings. Other methods compute the bias by statistical metrics. For example, (Yu et al., 2020) used the probability of seeing a word conditioned on a specific label to rank the words by their biasness. LMI (Schuster et al., 2019) was also used to evaluate cues and re-weight in some models. However, these works did not give the reason to use these metrics, one way or the other. Separately, (Ribeiro et al., 2020) gave a test data augmentation method, without assessing the degree of bias. + +Dataset filtering is one way of achieving higher quality in datasets by reducing artifacts. In fact, datasets such as SWAG and RECLOR evaluated in this paper were produced using variants of this filter approach which iteratively perturb the data instances until a target model can no longer fit the resulting dataset well. Some methods (Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019), instead of preprocessing the data by removing biases, leave out samples with biases in the middle of training according to the decision made between epoch to epoch. (Bras et al., 2020) investigated model-based reduction of dataset cues and designed an algorithm using iterative training. Any model can be used in this framework. Although such an approach is more general and more efficient than human annotating, it heavily depends on the models. Unfortunately, different models may catch different cues. Thus, such methods may not be complete. + +# 7 Conclusion + +Our lightweight framework, ICQ, identifies biases and cues in multiple-choice NLU datasets, illuminating model behaviors from a statistical perspective. Extensive experimentation on diverse tasks validates ICQ's efficiency in revealing dataset and model biases. Using a case study on ChatGPT, we explore its cues, offering practical guidance. ICQ advances our understanding and optimization of large language models, promoting the creation of robust, unbiased AI systems. + +# References + +Rachel KE Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, et al. 2018. Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01943. +Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP, pages 632-642. +Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew E Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04108. +Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2016. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06038. +Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. +Christopher Clark, Mark Yatskar, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Don't take the easy way out: Ensemble based methods for avoiding known dataset biases. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 4060-4073. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. +Ivan Habernal, Henning Wachsmuth, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2017. The argument reasoning comprehension task: Identification and reconstruction of implicit warrants. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01425. +He He, Sheng Zha, and Haohan Wang. 2019. Unlearn dataset bias in natural language inference by fitting the residual. EMNLP-IJCNLP, page 132. + +Armand Joulin, Édouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomáš Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. In ECAL, pages 427-431. +Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel R. Tetreault, editors. 2020. ACL 2020. +Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models. +Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In EMNLP, pages 785-794. +J. Lin. 1991. Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37(1):145-151. +Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. +Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In ACL, pages 3428-3448. +Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 839-849. +Aakanksha Naik, Abhilasha Ravichander, Norman Sadeh, Carolyn Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Stress test evaluation for natural language inference. In COLING, pages 2340-2353. +Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744. +Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476. +Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4902-4912. +Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In AAAI Spring. + +Ivan Sanchez, Jeff Mitchell, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Behavior analysis of nli models: Uncovering the influence of three factors on robustness. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1975–1985. +Tal Schuster, Darsh J Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Filizzola, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019. Towards debiasing fact verification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05267. +Rishi Sharma, James Allen, Omid Bakhshandeh, and Nasrin Mostafazadeh. 2018. Tackling the story ending biases in the story cloze test. In ACL, pages 752-757. +Siddarth Srinivasan, Richa Arora, and Mark Riedl. 2018. A simple and effective approach to the story cloze test. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 92–96. +Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. EMNLP, page 353. +Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, Remi Tachet, TJ Hazen, and Alessandro Sordoni. 2019. Robust natural language inference models with example forgetting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03861. +Weihao Yu, Zihang Jiang, Yanfei Dong, and Jiashi Feng. 2020. ReClor: A reading comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04326. +Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In EMNLP, pages 93-104. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/images.zip b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb1b7c99e20af9e6ad4d129936025c0a3282e580 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:b152bd2e46ee27086f27573cf76252fb59b63bc20444a5bf77d9477825f603fd +size 298545 diff --git a/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/layout.json b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c579ea7fca92a79b4e3800a62ed363f5a68fcd4 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8499 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 75, + 523, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 75, + 523, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 75, + 523, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Statistically Profiling Biases in Natural Language Reasoning Datasets and Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 126, + 244, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 126, + 244, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 153, + 126, + 244, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanshan Huang" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 141, + 273, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 141, + 273, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 141, + 273, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai Jiao Tong University" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 154, + 240, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 154, + 240, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 158, + 154, + 240, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 169, + 278, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 169, + 278, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 169, + 278, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "huangss_33@sjtu.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 126, + 437, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 126, + 437, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 358, + 126, + 437, + 140 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kenny Q. Zhu*" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 141, + 474, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 141, + 474, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 141, + 474, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "University of Texas at Arlington" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 154, + 453, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 154, + 453, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 340, + 154, + 453, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Arlington, Texas, USA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 169, + 458, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 169, + 458, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 169, + 458, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "kenny.zhu@uta.edu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 274, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent studies have shown that many natural language understanding and reasoning datasets contain statistical cues that can be exploited by NLP models, resulting in an overestimation of their capabilities. Existing methods, such as \"hypothesis-only\" tests and CheckList, are limited in identifying these cues and evaluating model weaknesses. We introduce ICQ (I-See-Cue), a lightweight, general statistical profiling framework that automatically identifies potential biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without requiring additional test cases. ICQ assesses the extent to which models exploit these biases through black-box testing, addressing the limitations of current methods. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of statistical biases in 10 popular NLU datasets and 4 models, confirming prior findings, revealing new insights, and offering an online demonstration system to encourage users to assess their own datasets and models. Furthermore, we present a case study on investigating ChatGPT's bias, providing valuable recommendations for practical applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 531, + 154, + 544 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 531, + 154, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 531, + 154, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 553, + 291, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deep neural models have made remarkable strides in a broad spectrum of natural language understanding (NLU) tasks (Bowman et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018; Mostafazadeh et al., 2016; Roemmele et al., 2011; Zellers et al., 2018). These tasks often employ a multiple-choice framework, as illustrated in Example 1. However, the inherent sensitivity of these models to minute variations calls for a robust and precise evaluation mechanism (Jurafsky et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 693, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 693, + 290, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 693, + 290, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Example 1 Natural language inference in the SNLI dataset, with the correct answer bolded." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 729, + 289, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 729, + 289, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 729, + 289, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Premise: A swimmer playing in the surf watches a low flying airplane headed inland." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 509, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 509, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 213, + 509, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hypothesis: Someone is swimming in the sea." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 526, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 526, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 238, + 526, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Label: a) Entailment. b) Contradiction. c) Neutral." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 525, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 275, + 525, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In tasks akin to Example 1, humans typically rely on the logical relationship between the premise and hypothesis. Contrarily, some NLP models might bypass this logical reasoning, focusing instead on the biases embedded within the dataset and, more specifically, within the hypotheses (Naik et al., 2018; Schuster et al., 2019). These biases—such as sentiment or shallow n-grams—could provide misleading cues for correct predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 525, + 519 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 398, + 525, + 519 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We refer to these biases as \"artificial spurious cues\" when they pervade both the training and test datasets, maintaining a similar distribution over predictions. An example of such a cue is a model's disproportionate dependence on the word \"someone\" in Example 1. These cues, when absent or altered, can significantly impair a model's performance, underlining the importance of identifying them to enhance model robustness in the future." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 337, + 528, + 492, + 695 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 528, + 492, + 695 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 528, + 492, + 695 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 528, + 492, + 695 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6c2f47c3beb07113e5c3d681a882a4efa9008b018751431ed47042d787c465fa.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 703, + 471, + 716 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 703, + 471, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 703, + 471, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Example of a cue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To tackle the issue of cues, it's crucial to distinguish between cues embedded in the dataset and those learned by the model. Conventional bias" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 186, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 186, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*The corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4521" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 806 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 4521-4530" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "detection and mitigation tools, such as the AI Fairness 360 toolkit (Bellamy et al., 2018), primarily target dataset biases, inadequately addressing those learned by models during training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While existing methods like \"hypothesis-only\" tests and CheckList can uncover model vulnerabilities, they're not expressly designed to identify model-learned cues. \"Hypothesis-only\" tests can highlight dataset issues where the hypothesis alone can provide a correct answer but fail to realistically depict the model's capabilities as they don't evaluate the model using the full data context used during both training and prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 249, + 291, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Drawing from the tenets of black-box testing in software engineering, CheckList scrutinizes model weaknesses without detailed knowledge of the model's internal architecture. It achieves this by delivering additional stress test cases premised on predefined linguistic features. However, CheckList's dependence on meticulously designed templates limits its scope, and it also falls short of illuminating the knowledge the model has actually gleaned from the data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 386, + 291, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these limitations, we introduce ICQ (\"I-see-cue\"), a resilient statistical analysis framework1 engineered to identify model-learned cues. Diverging from traditional methods, ICQ identifies biases in multiple-choice NLU datasets without necessitating additional test cases. Employing black-box testing, ICQ assesses how models utilize these biases, delivering a comprehensive understanding of the bias in NLU tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 509, + 291, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We authenticate ICQ's efficacy by deploying it on various NLU datasets to probe potential cues learned by models during training. ICQ facilitates an in-depth understanding of how models like ChatGPT learn potential cues, and it offers illustrative examples to guide the selection of suitable prompts, providing invaluable guidance for model optimization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 618, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 618, + 291, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 618, + 291, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, this paper contributes the following:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 647, + 291, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 647, + 291, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 647, + 291, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We unveil ICQ, a lightweight yet potent method for identifying statistical biases and cues in NLU datasets, proposing simple and efficient tests to quantitatively and visually evaluate whether a model leverages spurious cues in its predictions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 526, + 229 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We execute a comprehensive evaluation of statistical bias issues across ten popular NLU datasets and four models, corroborating previous findings and unveiling new insights. We also offer an online demonstration system to showcase the results and invite users to evaluate their own datasets and models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 177, + 526, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 177, + 526, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 177, + 526, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Through a case study, we delve into how ChatGPT learns potential biases, offering valuable recommendations for its practical applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 387, + 258 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 387, + 258 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 387, + 258 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Preliminary" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 402, + 278 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 402, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 265, + 402, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Task Definition" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We define an instance " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of an NLU task dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 284, + 524, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 312, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 312, + 525, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 371, + 312, + 525, + 327 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "x = (p, h, l) \\in X, \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "08bf33a1d0d3521bc52bbdf8ecd84bd12a205a04c21e323fda4c6a2f4318881a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the context against which to do the reasoning (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " corresponds to \"premise\" in Example 1); " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the hypothesis given the context " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l \\in \\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the label that depicts the type of relation between " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The size of the relation set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{L}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 334, + 526, + 414 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " varies with tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 421, + 439 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 421, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 426, + 421, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Linguistic Features" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 484 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 444, + 525, + 484 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As demonstrated in previous work (Naik et al., 2018; Jurafsky et al., 2020), we consider the following linguistic features:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 524, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 524, + 512 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 486, + 524, + 512 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Word: The existence of a specific word in the premise or hypothesis of a dataset instance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sentiment: The sentiment value of an instance, calculated as the sum of sentiment polarities of individual words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 524, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 524, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 524, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tense: The tense feature (past, present, or future) of an instance, determined by the POS tag of the root verb." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 524, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 524, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 596, + 524, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Negation: The existence of negative words (e.g., \"no\", \"not\", or \"never\") in an instance, determined by dependency parsing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 525, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Overlap: The existence of at least one word (excluding stop words) that occurs in both the premise and hypothesis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 677, + 525, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NER: The presence of named entities (e.g., PER, ORG, LOC, TIME, or CARDINAL) in an instance, detected using the NLTK NER toolkit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Typos: The presence of at least one typo in an instance, identified using a pretrained spelling model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For multiple-choice datasets, all features except Overlap are applied exclusively to hypotheses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/flora336/icq" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 761, + 215, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 761, + 215, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 761, + 215, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2https://chat.openai.com/" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4522" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 141, + 85 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 141, + 85 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 141, + 85 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The ICQ framework, depicted in Figure 2, consists of three phases: data extraction, cue discovery, and model probing. In the data extraction phase, instances containing a specific linguistic feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 291, + 214 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are extracted from the dataset. The cue discovery phase identifies potential cues among pre-defined features. Finally, the model probing phase conducts two tests: the \"accuracy test\" and \"distribution test\". We will discuss these phases in more detail below." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 222, + 285, + 396 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 222, + 285, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 222, + 285, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 222, + 285, + 396 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "44d2c1f1a3df22695de6af3e2fe118cba406b780dc9a103e9d5f634b9d57f4a1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: ICQ Workflow. ①: data extraction phase; ②: cue discovery phase; ③: model probing phase. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f = a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " specific feature, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " training data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " test data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_f =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " extracted training data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_f =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " extracted test data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{nf} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " remaining test data without feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{S_f} =" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " flatten test data, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal{M} = a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 404, + 291, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " specific model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 201, + 511 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 201, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 499, + 201, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Data Extraction Phase" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 290, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "After defining the linguistic features, our system's fundamental step is constructing a data extractor for each feature value " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 517, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". An extractor processes a dataset and retrieves a set of instances associated with the specified feature value. More specifically, for a specific feature, if an instance contains that feature, then that instance will be singled out as a part of the subset bearing that feature." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 194, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 194, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 194, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Cue Discovery Phase" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we apply its extractor to both the training and test data of dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Figure 2. This results in clustered subsets of training instances " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R_f)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and test instances " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_f)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 290, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". A feature is considered a possible cue for a dataset only if it is present in both the training and test data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The bias of the label distribution for an extracted set is computed using the mean squared error" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(MSE) and Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) (Lin, 1991). The cueness score indicates the extent to which dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is biased against a feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 121, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 121, + 525, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 343, + 121, + 525, + 152 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "M S E (F) = \\frac {1}{| \\mathcal {L} |} \\sum_ {i} \\left(y _ {i} - \\bar {y _ {i}}\\right) ^ {2} \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "b9df5efdc424ed7c07239988ddd99c77b0215dc6d57efa3faa8045b71034d8d0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the number of instances with label " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the extracted dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "F" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{y_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the mean number of instances for each label. A larger " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "MSE(F)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " implies a more pointed label distribution and greater bias. If the extracted training set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R_{f})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the extracted test set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(S_{f})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 158, + 525, + 252 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " exhibit similar biases, the JSD between their distributions will be small:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 274, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 274, + 525, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 274, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "J S D = \\frac {1}{2} (Q (R _ {f}) \\| A) + \\frac {1}{2} (Q (S _ {f}) \\| A), \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "406c5b26d99acd6934c27f3e05ed5433ae809a2380c268458708f5991beadb86.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A = \\frac{1}{2}\\left(Q(R_{f}) + Q(S_{f})\\right)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q(\\cdot)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 309, + 525, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the label distribution of the extracted dataset. We define the cueness score as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 361, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 361, + 525, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 361, + 525, + 391 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "c u e (f, X) = \\frac {M S E \\left(R _ {f}\\right)}{\\exp \\left(J S D \\left(R _ {f} , S _ {f}\\right)\\right)} \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "cbfa5814c66d4a354388c7ea32d788c6332cbedbd8d448bfe1465119466aebdf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This cueness score represents the degree to which a dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is biased against a feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 525, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 431, + 445 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 431, + 445 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 431, + 445 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Model Probing Phase" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the previous section, we established that a dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " could be influenced by a cue " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". However, a model trained on this dataset may not necessarily exploit that cue, as models depend on both data and architecture. In this section, we introduce a framework to probe any model instance trained on the biased dataset, assessing if it utilizes cue " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 450, + 525, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and to what degree. We achieve this through two tests: the accuracy test and the distribution test." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 407, + 593 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 407, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 581, + 407, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.1 Accuracy Test" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 525, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 597, + 525, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The accuracy test examines the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By comparing the model's accuracy on these two subsets, we can understand the model's generalization capabilities under different conditions. If the model's performance shows a noticeable improvement on the subset containing a specific feature, it may suggest that the model has exploited that feature for prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the accuracy test, we assess the prediction accuracies of the model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the extracted test set (with feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") and on the remaining test set (without feature " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "f" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "), denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "acc(S_f)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "acc(S_{nf})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4523" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "respectively. The accuracy test computes the difference between these two accuracies:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 113, + 290, + 129 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 113, + 290, + 129 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 113, + 290, + 129 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta A c c (f) = a c c \\left(S _ {f}\\right) - a c c \\left(S _ {n f}\\right) \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "3f2f56b0307392a31ce5782c95e84657e1fd8f28f4a086b3e44638db1fba14a6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 290, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A positive or negative value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta Acc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 136, + 290, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates the direction of the model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. A positive value suggests that the model exploits the feature for prediction, while a negative value implies struggles to generalize or detrimental sensitivity to the feature." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The magnitude of the absolute value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta Acc" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 232, + 290, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reflects the degree to which a model's performance is affected by the presence or absence of specific features in the data subsets. A larger absolute value indicates a stronger reliance on or sensitivity to the feature, whereas a smaller absolute value suggests a more robust model that is less affected by the presence or absence of the feature." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 183, + 360 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 183, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 183, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3.2 Distribution Test" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 290, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The distribution test is a visual examination that focuses on how changes in specific feature distributions within datasets affect a model's predictive performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "First, we create a \"stress dataset\" " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{S_f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by \"flattening\" the label distribution in " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 290, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We achieve this by removing random instances from all labels except for the one with the smallest number of instances, stopping when a balance is reached. In other words, we retain the minimum number of instances present in each label, while randomly discarding the excess instances. This approach effectively eliminates bias in the extracted test set, and challenges the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Next, we apply the model to the stress test set and obtain prediction results. We then compare the label distribution of the prediction results on the stress test set with the label distribution of the extracted training data " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(R_{f})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The rationale is that if the extracted training data contains a cue, its label distribution will be skewed towards a specific label. If the model exploits this cue, it will prefer to predict that label as much as possible, amplifying the skewness of the distribution, despite the input test set being neutralized. We aim to observe such amplification in the output distribution to identify the model's weaknesses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, the accuracy test and distribution test are related in terms of assessing a model's sensitivity to specific features, but they emphasize different aspects. Distribution testing focuses on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the impact of feature distribution changes on model performance, while accuracy testing evaluates the model's performance on data subsets with and without specific features. By combining these two testing methods, a model's sensitivity to particular features can be more comprehensively assessed. If both tests determine that the model is sensitive to a certain feature, we can have a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 380, + 216 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 380, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 203, + 380, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 226, + 525, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first present the experimental setup, followed by results on cue discovery, model probing, and analysis. The entire framework is implemented in an online demo." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 358, + 303 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 358, + 303 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 358, + 303 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 525, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 307, + 525, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate this framework on 10 popular NLR datasets in Table 1 and 4 well-known models, namely FASTText (FT) (Joulin et al., 2017), ESIM (ES) (Chen et al., 2016), BERT (BT) (Devlin et al., 2018) and RoBERTA (RB) (Liu et al., 2019) on these datasets. All these datasets except for SWAG (Zellers et al., 2018) and RECLOR (Yu et al., 2020) are collected through crowdsourcing. SWAG is generated from an LSTM-based language model. Specifications of the datasets are listed in Table 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 464, + 518, + 581 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 464, + 518, + 581 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 464, + 518, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 464, + 518, + 581 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTypeData SizeTrain/TestHuman Acc
Ratio(%)
SNLICLS570K56:180.0
QNLICLS11k19:180.0
MNLICLS413k40:180.0
ROCMCQ3.9k1:1100.0
COPAMCQ1k1:1100.0
SWAGMCQ113k4:188.0
RACEMCQ100k18:194.5
RECLORMCQ6k9:163.0
ARCTMCQ2k3:179.8
ARCT_advMCQ4k3:1-
", + "image_path": "953bd79faf02f845e2a69babe28f4467b0357aceac8378c20c0f19a608b42961.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: 10 Datasets. Data size refers to the number of questions in each dataset. CLS=Classification. MCQ=Multiple Choice Questions. By our definition, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-way MCQs will be split into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 588, + 525, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " instances in preprocessing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These datasets can mainly be classified into two types of tasks. SNLI, QNLI, and MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) are classification tasks, while ROC, COPA (Roemmle et al., 2011), SWAG, RACE (Lai et al., 2017), RECLOR, ARCT (Habernal et al., 2017) and ARCT_adv (Schuster et al., 2019) are multiple-choice reasoning tasks. Features appearing a minimum of five times in training" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4524" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 221, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 221, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 221, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "or testing sets are considered cues." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 97, + 174, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 97, + 174, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 97, + 174, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Cues in Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 116, + 290, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 116, + 290, + 155 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 116, + 290, + 155 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we showcase the cues identified in each dataset using the cueness metric, as described in Section 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 291, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 158, + 291, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We first filter the training and test data for each dataset using all the features defined in this paper. The left half of Table 2 displays the top 5 cues discovered for each of the 10 datasets, along with their cueness scores. ARCT_adv, an adversarial dataset, is intentionally well-balanced. Consequently, we only found one cue, OVERLAP, with a very low cueness score. This is unsurprising since OVERLAP is the only \"second-order\" feature in our list of linguistic features that considers tokens in both the premise and hypothesis, and likely evaded data manipulation by the creator." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 321, + 291, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mostly, the top 5 cues discovered are word features. However, besides OVERLAP, we also see NEGATION and TYPO appearing in the lists. In fact, SENTIMENT and NER features would have emerged if we expanded the list to the top 10. Interestingly, several features previously reported as biased by other works, such as \"not\" and NEGATION in ARCT, \"no\" in MNLI and SNLI, and \"like\" in ROC, are also found. Particularly in MNLI, all five discovered cues are related to negatively toned words, suggesting significant human artifacts in this dataset that can lead to model fragility." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, we observe that some word cues are indicative of certain syntactic, semantic, or sentiment patterns in the questions. For example, \"because\" in SNLI implies a cause-effect structure; \"like\" in ROC indicates positive sentiment; \"probably\" and \"may\" in RACE suggest uncertainty, and so on. These features can serve as clues for revising datasets." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 604, + 174, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 604, + 174, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 604, + 174, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Biases in Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 290, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To investigate whether a model is affected by a specific cue or feature in a dataset, we train four models on their original training sets and evaluate them using accuracy and distribution tests." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Accuracy Test: The results are presented in Table 2. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, a positive or negative " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value indicates the direction of a model's performance change when comparing its accuracy on data subsets with and without specific features. The absolute value of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " reflects the degree to which the model's performance is" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "influenced by these features, with larger values suggesting stronger reliance on sensitivity and smaller values indicating a more robust model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The bottom of Table 2 shows that, across all 10 datasets, the sum of the absolute values of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " follows the order: RoBERTA " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " BERT " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " ESIM " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "<" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 113, + 526, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " FastText. This is consistent with earlier hypothesis-only tests and the community's common perception of these popular models. However, examining individual datasets and features reveals a more nuanced situation. For instance, FastText tends to pick up individual word cues rather than semantic cues, while more complex models such as BERT and RoBERTA appear more sensitive to structural features like NEGATION and SENTIMENT, which are actually classes of words. This is well explained by FastText's design, which focuses more on modeling words than syntactic or semantic structures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 317, + 525, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Interestingly, FastText exhibits a strong negative correlation with TyPO. We speculate that FastText might have been trained with a more orthodox vocabulary, making it less tolerant of typos in the text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 394, + 405, + 470 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 394, + 405, + 470 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 394, + 405, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 394, + 405, + 470 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "01adf9638d5926f963ece6243c8ecfb43e1d102c989f22ef20e93a50f3271a46.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 477, + 394, + 488 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 477, + 394, + 488 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 477, + 394, + 488 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cue \"no\" in MNLI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 423, + 394, + 521, + 469 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 394, + 521, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 394, + 521, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 394, + 521, + 469 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "adaaaae46477ec58fe0b4d5e73a53f098871728ab986ff6a3c04c6aa636e5bfb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 477, + 523, + 489 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 477, + 523, + 489 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 477, + 523, + 489 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cue \"speaking\" in SNLI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 305, + 503, + 405, + 579 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 503, + 405, + 579 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 503, + 405, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 503, + 405, + 579 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a019f874081841db694819dd6fc0b4b4226da9d8aca659900b558185704c0cf3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 588, + 402, + 598 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 588, + 402, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 588, + 402, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cue \"above\" in ARCT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 423, + 504, + 521, + 579 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 504, + 521, + 579 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 504, + 521, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 423, + 504, + 521, + 579 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f1d0a1c45736ce95798cf8e5028cad4ec6e3e39ce37a0a2658fd791dbab37938.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 588, + 515, + 598 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 588, + 515, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 431, + 588, + 515, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cue \"threw\" in ROC" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 524, + 633 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 524, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 610, + 524, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Four test examples for distribution comparison with 4 different models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Distribution Test: We highlight three interesting findings in Figure 3. The bars for the four models represent the distribution percentage based on each predicted label. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{f}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the extracted training data distribution with a specific feature. We observe that all models on the cue \"no\" in MNLI achieve positive " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 651, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Table 2, particularly FastText. Consistent with the \"Accuracy Test,\" we find that the prediction label distribution skewness" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4525" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 459, + 527 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 459, + 527 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 459, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 136, + 68, + 459, + 527 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetTop CuesCueness %FT (Δ)ES (Δ)BT (Δ)RB (Δ)
SNLI“sleeping”13.9530.36.815.344.87
“no”13.3318.093.322.052.6
“because”9.2418.894.885.614.31
“friend”8.8222.966.663.513.05
“movie”7.7316.640.069.47-0.19
QNLI“dioxide”4.529.78-0.064.9710.56
“denver”4.2613.597.142.233.11
“kilometre”4.244.856.434.672.55
“mile”3.957.1615.64-1.65-6.65
“newcastle”3.83.4412.00.89-1.23
MNLI“never”10.429.1526.419.8610.6
“no”8.9819.4920.171.23.32
“nothing”8.9825.526.845.114.32
“any”6.7920.419.397.763.74
“anything”5.7318.4315.743.311.14
ROC“threw”12.991.284.6910.880.97
“now”8.68-10.0114.511.755.69
“found”8.16-2.314.455.12-3.13
“won”7.712.430.741.055.51
“like”7.34.7710.068.811.67
COPA“went”3.61-10.836.467.921.04
“got”2.745.45-9.89-12.52-10.3
“for”2.1410.11-1.899.0511.58
“with”1.38-15.64-6.983.313.82
TYPO0.84-12.46-2.333.8-8.22
SWAG“football”7.386.138.551.21.55
“anxious”6.657.55-4.67-6.66-1.67
“concerned”6.1912.64.588.27-5.66
“skull”5.73-2.770.498.433.49
“cop”5.012.795.3-0.92-0.04
RACE“above”13.748.73-8.43-0.22-1.92
“b”12.8416.97-4.83.52-3.45
“c”11.8315.69-6.948.6-7.6
“probably”6.779.91-0.06-3.82.86
“may”4.27.75-3.45-6.67-1.8
RECLOR“over”2.071.76-2.94-1.35-4.12
“result”1.97-3.29-2.69-1.78-3.7
“explanation”1.81-6.33-1.73-2.76-7.24
“proportion”1.68-5.64-4.692.37-2.16
“produce”1.44.54-2.98-14.36-3.7
ARCT“not”3.74-2.547.45-0.97-11.96
NEGATION2.853.4910.046.28-8.23
“n’t”2.5210.35.899.494.84
“always”2.25-4.6638.21-4.35-8.26
“doe”2.06-0.73-3.69-1.15-7.22
ARCT_advOVERLAP1.96e-101.65-0.252.730.57
∑(|·|) (Model weakness)469.8361.4227.7216.2
", + "image_path": "f9a44bddb03855af0aa9c200f01dc2cbf7fde2585b95d38aefaa79507c8eea5f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 534, + 431, + 545 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 534, + 431, + 545 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 534, + 431, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Datasets, their top 5 cues and 4 models biases " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 534, + 431, + 545 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 161, + 534, + 431, + 545 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "is amplified in Figure 3 for FastText and ESIM. With the \"no\" cue, they prefer to predict \"Contradiction\" even more than the ground truth in the training data. In contrast, BERT and RoBERTA moderately follow the training data. While the cue \"no\" is effective at influencing the models, the cue \"above\" is not as successful. Figure 3 shows that the distribution of predicted results for ESIM in ARCT is entirely opposite to the training data, explaining the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta = -8.43" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in Table 2 and demonstrating that models may not exploit a cue even if it is present in the data. Similarly, \"speaking\" in BERT and RoBERTA can also explain their low " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 567, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values, which are not shown in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 760, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The example of the cue \"threw\" presents an out-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 567, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lier for BERT, as the distribution test result is inconsistent with the accuracy test: the accuracy deviation is very high for BERT, but its prediction distribution is flat. We have not encountered many such contradictory cases. However, when they do occur, as in this example, we give BERT the benefit of the doubt that it might not have exploited the cue \"threw\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 381, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 381, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 700, + 381, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) released by OpenAI, has garnered significant interest from the NLP community. ChatGPT, a GPT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 310, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4526" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 75, + 154, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 75, + 154, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 75, + 154, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt 1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 86, + 274, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 86, + 274, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 86, + 274, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analyze the logical relationship between the following" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 105, + 265, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 105, + 265, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 105, + 265, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 124, + 264, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 124, + 264, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 124, + 264, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 76, + 352, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 76, + 352, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 76, + 352, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt 1 + CoT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 86, + 451, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 86, + 451, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 86, + 451, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Analyze the logical relationship between the following" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 105, + 442, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 105, + 442, + 123 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 105, + 442, + 123 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "premise: {premise} and the hypothesis: {hypothesis}." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 124, + 440, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 124, + 440, + 150 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 124, + 440, + 150 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Determine whether the hypothesis is an entailment, contradiction, or neutral with respect to the premise." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 152, + 381, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 152, + 381, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 152, + 381, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let's think step by step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 170, + 155, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 170, + 155, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 126, + 170, + 155, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt 2" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 185, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 185, + 271, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 185, + 271, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly \"entailment,\" \"contradiction,\" or \"neutral.\" premise: {premise} hypothesis: {hypothesis}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 352, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 352, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 170, + 352, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Prompt 2 + CoT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 185, + 448, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 185, + 448, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 185, + 448, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Please identify whether the premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to the hypothesis. The answer should be exactly \"entailment,\" \"contradiction,\" or \"neutral.\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 376, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 376, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 222, + 376, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "premise: {premise}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 232, + 395, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 232, + 395, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 232, + 395, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "hypothesis: ‘{hypothesis}’" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 241, + 381, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 241, + 381, + 249 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 241, + 381, + 249 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let's think step by step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 419 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathbf{x}^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 296, + 291, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " series model, is trained through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) (Christiano et al., 2017) similarly to InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022). In this section, we investigate if zero-shot ChatGPT is influenced by bias features, using a case study focused on the word \"no\" in the MNLI dataset. We aim to compare the effectiveness of different prompts and select the best one for mitigating bias based on a single bias feature." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 131, + 441 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 131, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 429, + 131, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 540 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 447, + 290, + 540 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We selected test instances from the MNLI dataset to study the influence of the word \"no\" on ChatGPT's performance. The original test set has Contradiction: 3240, Entailment: 3463, and Neutral: 3129 instances. Instances containing \"no\" are distributed as follows: Contradiction:229, Entailment: 38, and Neutral: 46." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the accuracy test, we used all 313 instances with \"no\" and an equal number of instances without \"no\", randomly chosen from the remaining test set. This ensures a balanced evaluation of ChatGPT's performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 290, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the distribution test, we selected 38 instances per label containing \"no\", resulting in a total of 114 instances." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 136, + 674 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 136, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 661, + 136, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Prompts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 733 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 290, + 733 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We have four prompts in Figure 4: The first prompt is proposed by ChatGPT itself. We ask, \"What is the best prompt for the MNLI task according to you?\" ChatGPT returns prompt 1 for us. The sec" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 526, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ond prompt is inspired by previous work (Qin et al., 2023). The third and fourth prompts are created by adding \"Let's think step by step\" (Kojima et al.) to prompt 1 and prompt 2 with the \"chain of thought\" (CoT) thinking, respectively. This modification has been shown to significantly improve the performance of InstructGPT on reasoning tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 416, + 389, + 429 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 416, + 389, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 416, + 389, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 ICQ Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 328, + 443, + 500, + 500 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 443, + 500, + 500 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 443, + 500, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 443, + 500, + 500 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
PromptAcc (“no”)Acc (w/o “no”)ΔAcc
P174.3477.32-2.98
P275.4274.181.24
P1 + CoT78.3577.281.07
P2 + CoT76.6776.400.27
", + "image_path": "b03cf9a7d0b5e79ef32827a6384a1b8cb80e6a89cf1bd4f5688644fa43e32581.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 26 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 533 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Accuracy test results " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 507, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". P1=Prompt 1, P2=Prompt 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 349, + 558, + 480, + 649 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 264, + 334, + 276 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 264, + 334, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 257, + 264, + 334, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 558, + 480, + 649 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 558, + 480, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 558, + 480, + 649 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "907d5459b315e1d6668d99c1acf05083e77165e639336e864238e2cbc3ac8b61.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 28, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 665, + 483, + 677 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 665, + 483, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 345, + 665, + 483, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Distribution test results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 29, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 28 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluated the model's accuracy using different prompts on instances with and without the word \"no.\" The results are shown in Table 3. P1 demonstrates a negative " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Acc, indicating difficulty in generalizing when \"no\" is present. P2 exhibits a positive " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Acc, suggesting better generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 30 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "{}^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Currently, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is either 3.5 or 4,and in the subsequent experimental process,the ChatGPT we use is based on GPT- 3.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 31 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4527" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 32 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adding \"CoT\" to both prompts reduces bias risk. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P1} + \\mathrm{CoT}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shows the most significant improvement in Acc (\"no\"), but " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P2} + \\mathrm{CoT}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " has the smallest absolute " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Acc, indicating the least sensitivity to \"no\" and the lowest bias risk among the tested prompts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Besides, we analyzed the model's prediction distribution Figure 5 for the different prompts on the stress test set containing the word \"no\" with balanced label distribution. Distribution test results reveal imbalances in P1 and P2 prediction distributions, with P1 and P2 leaning towards predicting contradictions. Adding \"CoT\" mitigates these imbalances, leading to more balanced distributions. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mathrm{P}2 + \\mathrm{CoT}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 140, + 290, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " presents the most balanced distribution among the labels, supporting its lowest bias risk." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 291, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 277, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In conclusion, our case study, particularly when focusing on the feature \"no\", indicates that zero-shot ChatGPT can be influenced by bias features. The choice of prompt significantly affects its performance. When assessing the feature \"no\", P2 + CoT showed the lowest bias risk across both tests. The \"CoT\" strategy appears effective in reducing bias risk for this specific feature. However, it's important to note that our findings, particularly regarding the feature \"no\", suggest that ChatGPT's self-recommended prompt (P1) might not always be optimal. This underscores the importance of human intervention and ongoing exploration to optimize performance and minimize bias risks. Future studies and conclusions would benefit from a more nuanced and feature-specific analysis." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 160, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 160, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 505, + 160, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 290, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our work is related to three research directions: spurious features analysis, bias calculation, and dataset filtering." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Spurious features analysis has been increasingly studied recently. Much work (Sharma et al., 2018; Srinivasan et al., 2018; Zellers et al., 2018) has observed that some NLP models can surprisingly get good results on natural language understanding questions in MCQ form without even looking at the stems of the questions. Such tests are called \"hypothesis-only\" tests in some works. Further, some research (Sanchez et al., 2018) discovered that these models suffer from insensitivity to certain small but semantically significant alterations in the hypotheses, leading to speculations that the hypothesis-only performance is due to simple statistical correlations between words in the hypothesis and the labels. Spurious features can be" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 246 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 527, + 246 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "classified into lexicalized and unlexicalized (Bowman et al., 2015): lexicalized features mainly contain indicators of n-gram tokens and cross-ngram tokens, while unlexicalized features involve word overlap, sentence length, and BLEU score between the premise and the hypothesis. (Naik et al., 2018) refined the lexicalized classification to Negation, Numerical Reasoning, Spelling Error. (McCoy et al., 2019) refined the word overlap features to Lexical overlap, Subsequence, and Constituent which also considers the syntactical structure overlap. (Sanchez et al., 2018) provided unseen tokens an extra lexicalized feature." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 527, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 527, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 273, + 527, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bias calculation is concerned with methods to quantify the severity of the cues. Some work (Clark et al., 2019; He et al., 2019; Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019) attempted to encode the cue feature implicitly by hypothesis-only training or by extracting features associated with a certain label from the embeddings. Other methods compute the bias by statistical metrics. For example, (Yu et al., 2020) used the probability of seeing a word conditioned on a specific label to rank the words by their biasness. LMI (Schuster et al., 2019) was also used to evaluate cues and re-weight in some models. However, these works did not give the reason to use these metrics, one way or the other. Separately, (Ribeiro et al., 2020) gave a test data augmentation method, without assessing the degree of bias." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dataset filtering is one way of achieving higher quality in datasets by reducing artifacts. In fact, datasets such as SWAG and RECLOR evaluated in this paper were produced using variants of this filter approach which iteratively perturb the data instances until a target model can no longer fit the resulting dataset well. Some methods (Yaghoobzadeh et al., 2019), instead of preprocessing the data by removing biases, leave out samples with biases in the middle of training according to the decision made between epoch to epoch. (Bras et al., 2020) investigated model-based reduction of dataset cues and designed an algorithm using iterative training. Any model can be used in this framework. Although such an approach is more general and more efficient than human annotating, it heavily depends on the models. Unfortunately, different models may catch different cues. Thus, such methods may not be complete." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4528" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 147, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 292, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 292, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 92, + 292, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our lightweight framework, ICQ, identifies biases and cues in multiple-choice NLU datasets, illuminating model behaviors from a statistical perspective. Extensive experimentation on diverse tasks validates ICQ's efficiency in revealing dataset and model biases. Using a case study on ChatGPT, we explore its cues, offering practical guidance. ICQ advances our understanding and optimization of large language models, promoting the creation of robust, unbiased AI systems." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 250, + 127, + 263 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 250, + 127, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 250, + 127, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 348 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 348 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rachel KE Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, et al. 2018. Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01943." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 290, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 355, + 290, + 400 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP, pages 632-642." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 408, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 408, + 290, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 408, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ronan Le Bras, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Rowan Zellers, Matthew E Peters, Ashish Sabharwal, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Adversarial filters of dataset biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04108." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 290, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 462, + 290, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2016. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06038." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 291, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 515, + 291, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 568, + 291, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christopher Clark, Mark Yatskar, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Don't take the easy way out: Ensemble based methods for avoiding known dataset biases. In EMNLP-IJCNLP, pages 4060-4073." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 290, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 621, + 290, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Habernal, Henning Wachsmuth, Iryna Gurevych, and Benno Stein. 2017. The argument reasoning comprehension task: Identification and reconstruction of implicit warrants. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.01425." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "He He, Sheng Zha, and Haohan Wang. 2019. Unlearn dataset bias in natural language inference by fitting the residual. EMNLP-IJCNLP, page 132." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 26, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 525, + 106 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Armand Joulin, Édouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomáš Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. In ECAL, pages 427-431." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 113, + 526, + 136 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 113, + 526, + 136 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 113, + 526, + 136 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel R. Tetreault, editors. 2020. ACL 2020." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 143, + 526, + 188 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 143, + 526, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 143, + 526, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 526, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 195, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In EMNLP, pages 785-794." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 246, + 526, + 280 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "J. Lin. 1991. Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37(1):145-151." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 526, + 343 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 526, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 288, + 526, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 526, + 394 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 526, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 350, + 526, + 394 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. In ACL, pages 3428-3448." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 402, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 402, + 526, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 402, + 526, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 839-849." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 521 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 476, + 526, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Naik, Abhilasha Ravichander, Norman Sadeh, Carolyn Rose, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Stress test evaluation for natural language inference. In COLING, pages 2340-2353." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 526, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 528, + 526, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 526, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 526, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 602, + 526, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is chatgpt a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 654, + 526, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with checklist. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 4902-4912." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In AAAI Spring." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 25 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4529" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 27 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ivan Sanchez, Jeff Mitchell, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Behavior analysis of nli models: Uncovering the influence of three factors on robustness. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 1975–1985." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 290, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tal Schuster, Darsh J Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Filizzola, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019. Towards debiasing fact verification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05267." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 221 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 290, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rishi Sharma, James Allen, Omid Bakhshandeh, and Nasrin Mostafazadeh. 2018. Tackling the story ending biases in the story cloze test. In ACL, pages 752-757." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 290, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 230, + 290, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Siddarth Srinivasan, Richa Arora, and Mark Riedl. 2018. A simple and effective approach to the story cloze test. In *NAACL-HLT*, pages 92–96." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 327 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 327 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. EMNLP, page 353." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 290, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 336, + 290, + 380 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 290, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh, Remi Tachet, TJ Hazen, and Alessandro Sordoni. 2019. Robust natural language inference models with example forgetting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03861." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 441, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 441, + 290, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 441, + 290, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Weihao Yu, Zihang Jiang, Yanfei Dong, and Jiashi Feng. 2020. ReClor: A reading comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04326." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 290, + 539 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 290, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 494, + 290, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. SWAG: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. In EMNLP, pages 93-104." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4530" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_content_list.json b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca216cdcb267661a65ef7d66445ebdd594a6d8e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1934 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 188, + 89, + 813, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Dong, Zhilin Wang, Makes Narsimhan Sreedhar, Xianchao Wu, Oleksii Kuchaiev NVIDIA", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 154, + 870, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{yidong, zhilinw, makeshn, xianchaow, okuchaiev}@nvidia.com", + "bbox": [ + 201, + 189, + 801, + 204 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 341, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model alignment with human preferences is an essential step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) helpful and consistent with human values. It typically consists of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) stages. However, RLHF faces inherent limitations stemming from a complex training setup and its tendency to align the model with implicit values that end users cannot control at run-time. Moreover, reward models in RLHF stage commonly rely on single-dimensional feedback as opposed to explicit, multifaceted signals that indicate attributes such as helpfulness, humor, and toxicity. To address these limitations, we propose STEERLM, a supervised fine-tuning method that empowers end-users to control responses during inference. STEERLM conditions responses to conform to an explicitly defined multi-dimensional set of attributes, thereby empowering a steerable AI capable of generating helpful and high-quality responses while maintaining customizability. Experiments show that STEERLM trained on open source datasets generates responses that are preferred by human and automatic evaluators to many state-of-the-art baselines trained with RLHF while being much easier to train. Try STEERLM at https://huggingface.co/nvidia/SteerLM-11ama2-13B", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 278, + 463, + 706 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 715, + 260, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training LLMs on extensive text corpora has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, leading to state-of-the-art performance on numerous tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Kaplan et al., 2020). However, this does not automatically make language models effective in responding to user instructions (Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). To better align LLMs to human preferences, the most effective approach has been to perform SFT followed by the application of RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a; Chiang et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023). In SFT, human", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 490, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8141bc862edcbbbb01b73145877b78f1a55cdfd38a9ac30adf2e48de6c6aaac2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: STEERLM can be used to improve the quality of language model responses, similar to RLHF. Additionally, STEERLM allows users to define additional attributes such as humor and (low) toxicity at inference time, to steer model responses." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 249, + 885, + 441 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "annotators provide demonstrations of instructions and responses for the model to imitate (Taori et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). RLHF goes a step further to enable models to generate responses that human annotators prefer to alternative responses (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Kopf et al., 2023a).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 546, + 884, + 658 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, despite its success, there are limitations to this approach. First, using SFT alone does not allow the model to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality responses leading to lower performance than RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a). Using RLHF for model alignment however, substantially increase the complexity of the training setup (Snell et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), limiting its public adoption (Zhang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023). Furthermore, RLHF treats human preference of model responses as monodimensional without regard for the diversity of aspects (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity) that contribute to such preferences (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) and thereby limiting users' ability to adjust individual aspects at inference time", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11275", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11275-11288 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 973 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "based on their use cases.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 85, + 299, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To address these limitations, we introduce STEERLM, a novel approach to model alignment through SFT that overcomes the limitations associated with conventional SFT and RLHF methods. Similar to RLHF, STEERLM incorporates additional reward signals by leveraging annotated attributes (e.g., quality, humor, toxicity) present in the Open-Assistant (Kopf et al., 2023a) dataset for each response. To emulate the process of rating responses, an Attribute Prediction model (\\$3.1) is trained and employed to annotate datasets (\\$3.2) containing dialogues that can be decomposed into prompt-response pairs. By utilizing this combined diverse dataset comprising prompts, responses, and predicted attributes, we train the generation of responses to be conditioned (\\$3.3) on both the prompt instructions and the annotated attributes, enabling STEERLM to effectively capture human preferences and generate responses that align with them.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 101, + 489, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "STEERLM also exhibits enhanced versatility compared to RLHF, allowing for the flexible utilization of various attributes during inference. To further enhance the adherence of STEERLM to the specified attributes during inference, we introduce an additional training recipe (§3.4) which includes augmenting the training data with denoised, diverse, and high-quality examples. We open-source code for STEERLM on NVIDIA NeMo toolkit (Kuchaiev et al., 2019). In summary, our key contributions are:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 407, + 489, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We introduce STEERLM as a simple alternative for language model alignment that utilizes only the language modeling objective,", + "- We demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B on the Vicuna benchmark where it outperforms state-of-the-art baselines including RLHF models such as ChatGPT-3.5,", + "- We highlight the flexible and customizable nature of STEERLM 43B where users can customize attributes at inference-time facilitating a wide variety of applications." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 596, + 489, + 799 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 812, + 268, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model alignment using SFT Fine-tuning language models on multiple tasks enable them to follow many types of instructions and perform tasks outside of those they were trained on (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022). However, language", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "models typically generate short and robotic responses when supervised finetuned on academic data sets. On the other hand, models can generate high quality human-like response when trained with high-quality human demonstrations (Conover et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022). Taori et al. (2023) shows using data generated by OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, can train a model in a cost-effective manner.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Using only SFT for model alignment became popular recently because of the ease of its training setup. Zhang et al. (2023) and Peng et al. (2023) trained models using SFT based on responses generated by OpenAI models while Dettmers et al. (2023) and Kopf et al. (2023b) used the crowdsourced Open Assistant Dataset and Zhou et al. (2023) used a small proprietary data set. Wang et al. (2023b) and Taori et al. (2023) trained models using bootstrapped datasets from the language model itself. Luo et al. (2023) showed that language model can learn to solve complex instructions by evolving on the complexity and breath of instructions. Wang et al. (2023a) compared many open-source data sets used to perform instruction tuning using SFT but found them to under-perform commercial models trained using RLHF.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 884, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Model alignment using RLHF Building on foundational work on RL in games and robotic simulations (Christiano et al., 2017; Schulman et al., 2017), many have had success applying RLHF to improve the instruction following ability of LLM by giving a reward proportional to the relative desirability of the response (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). Such an approach has been shown to benefit downstream tasks like question-answering (Nakano et al., 2022) and summarization (Stiennon et al., 2022). However, the complexity of the training setup (Rafailov et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2023) remains a hurdle in the widespread adoption of RLHF. Many have attempted to overcome this by migrating RLHF training to an offline setting (Snell et al., 2023), casting the problem as conditional sequence modeling (Chen et al., 2021), directly optimizing LMs with labeled preference data (Rafailov et al., 2023), or ranking responses to align the models (Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), but limited progress has been made (Wang et al., 2023a).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 514, + 884, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Another limitation unaddressed by related works lies in the use of a single-dimensional reward function for evaluating human preferences of model", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11276", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "responses since human preferences are based on a multitude of real-world objectives (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity), which also vary across domains (Nadal and Chatterjee, 2019; Lopez-Paz et al., 2022). Given such multi-dimensional attributes, current approaches (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023) are only capable of generating responses with high reward scores, despite low reward scores on various attributes being relevant in certain situations, such as modelling realistic gaming NPCs who are capable of generating high toxicity responses.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Attribute Grounded Generation Many researchers have explored grounding text with various attributes in Dialogue tasks. Rashkin et al. (2019) modelled chit-chat conversations grounded in emotions such as 'Angry', 'Embarrassed' or 'Joyful' while Smith et al. (2020) conditioned chit-chat dialogue with conversational styles such as 'Curious', 'Sympathetic' or 'Knowledgeable'. Zhang et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues based on personal attributes such as their hobbies. Meta et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues in the game of Diplomacy using the expected player skill. However, such grounding has only been explored in narrow-defined tasks with a single attribute. Our approach seeks to condition the generation of responses in general open-domain conversations covering tasks like code assistance, writing poems and planning tasks, using multiple attributes (e.g., quality, humor and toxicity).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 286, + 490, + 593 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 SteerLM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 604, + 228, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose STEERLM, a simple and novel approach to align language models to follow user instructions. Trained solely using the language modeling objective, it offers a computationally efficient alternative to other techniques like RLHF. Specifically, STEERLM comprises 4 steps as illustrated in Fig. 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 630, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Step 1. Attribute Prediction Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 753, + 433, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Similar to the reward model in RLHF, the Attribute Prediction Model in STEERLM is designed to predict human preference of model responses to improve model alignment. Compared to a monolithic reward signal in RLHF, the attribute prediction model can be used to predict various attributes that are considered to be important in generating good responses (high quality, low toxicity, and varying humor levels depending on context).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the Open Assistant (OASST) dataset $D$ , where each sample contains a prompt $x$ , a response $y$ as well as a set of attributes $v$ . To model these attributes, we first scale each attribute (originally a float between 0 and 1) into an integer between 0 and 9 and then obtain a linearized representation of the value attributes $v$ . The attributes we select look like quality:6, toxicity:0, humor:9, creativity:0, violence:0, helpfulness:5, not_apropriate:0.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {A P M} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \\sim D} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} \\mid x, y, v _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 519, + 237, + 882, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Conditioning on $x$ and $y$ , $v$ is the target output for the language model as expressed in Eq. 1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 282, + 882, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Step 2. Annotating Datasets using Attribute Prediction Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 325, + 821, + 356 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared to using human-annotated attributes directly, training an Attribute Prediction Model can allow other datasets (e.g. HH-RLHF dataset) to be annotated. This helps improve the diversity of training data which is important for Step 3 Attribute Conditioned SFT. Moreover, it has been observed that crowdsourced human-annotated data often suffers from noise, arising from factors such as misinterpretation of instructions, inadequate expertise/education in annotating responses, and limited proficiency in language comprehension (Kopf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, there exists a lack of calibration among annotators, with some individuals applying more stringent criteria when assigning full scores (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). By employing an Attribute Prediction Model, it becomes possible to mitigate these issues by denoising the human-annotated attributes and calibrating scores across annotators.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 362, + 884, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\arg \\max _ {v _ {t}} P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} \\mid x, y, v _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 600, + 678, + 882, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We annotate samples by greedily decoding the value attributes for pairs of prompts and responses using the Attribute Prediction Model(as shown in Eq. 2), in order to construct the attribute annotated dataset $D^{\\prime}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 711, + 882, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Step 3. Attribute Conditioned SFT", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 801, + 828, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Attribute-conditioned SFT is an extension of regular SFT that enables incorporating reward signal information through attribute labels. This allows learning from both high and low quality responses in a manner similar to the established SFT+RLHF pipeline (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11277", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/91eb16da05f68b58393acdaaa35713a7faa0375c837549a584015696bf142b55.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: STEERLM: Step 1. The base language model is trained to assess the quality of responses by predicting attribute values. Step 2. The attribute prediction model is used to annotate response quality across diverse datasets. Step 3. Given a prompt and desired attribute values, a new base model is fine-tuned to generate responses that align with the specified attributes. Step 4. Multiple responses are sampled from the fine-tuned model in Step 3, specifying maximum quality. The sampled responses are evaluated by the trained attribute prediction model, leading to another round of fine-tuning." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 163, + 80, + 836, + 288 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Attribute-conditioned SFT only requires an offline annotated dataset, as created in Step 2, rather than online sampling and evaluation of responses like in RLHF. By utilizing a purely offline training approach, this greatly simplifies the training configuration compared to RLHF's heterogenous setup. In particular, it avoids the complexity of online data generation/evaluation and eliminates the training slowness resulting from memory bandwidth-constrained online inference in RLHF. Using the attribute-annotated train datasets $D'$ from the Step 2, we train a model to generate a response $y$ , conditioning on the value attributes $v$ and the prompt $x$ . The loss function is:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 411, + 489, + 636 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {1}} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \\sim D ^ {\\prime}} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\phi} (y _ {t} | v, x, y _ {< t})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 642, + 489, + 674 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Step 4. Bootstrapping with High Quality Samples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 680, + 478, + 714 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "By sampling the policy network, RLHF effectively navigates the response space of language models and identifies responses that are of various qualities. The response samples are subsequently utilized to influence and shape the behavior of language models according to their reward values. In Step 4 of STEERLM, the objective is to accomplish a similar objective by leveraging the Attribute Conditioned SFT and Attribute Prediction models from the previous steps.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 717, + 490, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 4a To ensure that we obtain a diverse set of responses, we first enumerate a set of all possible", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "attribute value combinations from the annotated datasets used for training. By filtering the combinations to explicitly have the value for quality to be 9 (i.e. highest possible value), we get a subset of attribute strings representing a high quality set $V$ . We uniformly sample from this high quality set $V$ to get the attribute string $v'$ . By combining $v'$ with prompts from the same training datasets, we use the top- $k$ (=50) sampling to generate multiple responses using the Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning approach as shown in Eq. 3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 411, + 884, + 589 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\arg \\operatorname {t o p k} _ {y _ {t} ^ {\\prime}} P _ {\\phi} \\left(y _ {t} ^ {\\prime} \\mid x, v ^ {\\prime}, y _ {< t} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 586, + 604, + 882, + 624 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This allows us to obtain a wide variety of responses for each prompt and increases the diversity of the sampled dataset $D'' = \\{(x, y')\\}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 638, + 882, + 686 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Attribute Prediction Model (§3.1) with greedy sampling is used to evaluate the generated responses $y'$ giving predicted attribute values $v''$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 687, + 882, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\arg \\max _ {v _ {t} ^ {\\prime \\prime}} P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} ^ {\\prime \\prime} \\mid x, y ^ {\\prime}, v _ {< t} ^ {\\prime \\prime}\\right) \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 750, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This gives us the dataset $D''' = \\{(x, y', v'')\\}$ where each tuple consists of a prompt from the original training datasets, a sampled response and its corresponding predicted attribute values.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 884, + 858 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 4b We use the sampled responses and the corresponding predicted attributes from $D''$ to perform the second round of Attribute-conditioned", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11278", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SFT, effectively allowing us to bootstrap the training of the model on its own responses:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {2}} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v ^ {\\prime \\prime}, y ^ {\\prime}) \\sim D ^ {\\prime \\prime \\prime}} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\phi} \\left(y _ {t} ^ {\\prime} \\mid v ^ {\\prime \\prime}, x, y _ {< t} ^ {\\prime}\\right)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 127, + 514, + 160 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 171, + 260, + 187 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we elaborate on our choice of training datasets, base model, implementation details, and evaluation setup.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 197, + 489, + 246 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Training Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 256, + 302, + 272 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the following open-source, commercially-available instruction-tuning datasets. In addition, we explain how collecting new data for SteerLM can be less costly than doing so for RLHF in Appendix A.3.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 277, + 490, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "OASST Open Assistant dataset (Köpf et al., 2023a) was used to train an Attribute Prediction Model, as well as to perform Attribute Condition SFT. This dataset contains 13 human-labeled attributes for each response with a score ranging from 0 to 1. We choose 7 of them that are most relevant for guiding the language model to align with human preferences: quality, toxicity, violence, helpfulness, creativity, humor and inappropriateness. Other attributes such as hate_speech, lang_mismatch and pii (personal identifiable information) are not useful to steer at inference time since these are attributes that we always want to keep as False. In order to leverage STEERLM's ability to learn from both positive and negative responses, we use all the released 48.8K conversations for training and do not filter the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 366, + 489, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "HH-RLHF The Helpful and Harmless - Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback dataset (Bai et al., 2022) does not provide human labeled attribute values. In order to improve the diversity of prompts and responses, we utilize the trained Attribute Prediction model to annotate the responses. For our Attribute Conditioned SFT process, we utilize all 348.6K conversations from the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 649, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "M-SID Model Self-Identification Dataset (Chiang et al., 2023) is a small set of 910 prompt-response pairs1 used to answer questions relating to identity such as \"Who are you?\" and \"Who created you?\". This dataset is also included as part of Attribute Conditioned SFT training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 787, + 490, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Base Models for STEERLM", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 773, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "STEERLM 43B The 43B base language model employed in this study has been trained on a diverse corpus encompassing various multilingual data sources, including web crawl, news articles, books, scientific publications from arXiv, and code repositories. Having been trained with 1.1 trillion tokens, it is comparable to LLaMA's 30B and 65B models, which were trained on 1.4 trillion tokens. This base model is designed for general-purpose language understanding tasks and does not have any domain-specific fine-tuning. We utilize this base model as the backbone for both Attribute Prediction and Attribute Conditioned SFT.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 107, + 884, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "STEERLM 13B We also apply the SteerLM methodology on a popular, widely-available model: Llama 2 13B base model (Touvron et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 329, + 884, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Training details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 392, + 680, + 407 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training of both the Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning model was conducted utilizing a cluster comprising 16 A100-DGX nodes, each equipped with 8 A100-80GB GPUs. The training process involved a global batch size of 128, spanning 5 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 4096 tokens. The Adam optimizer was utilized with a learning rate of 5e-6 and a weight decay of 1e-2. The selection of the optimal Attribute Prediction model checkpoint was determined based on the lowest loss observed on the validation set, while the optimal checkpoint for the Attribute Conditioned SFT model was selected based on the highest validation quality observed on holdout validation sets. Detailed templates for Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned SFT are found in Appendix §A.1 and §A.2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 884, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 640, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baseline Models We compare our approach against several state-of-the-art instruction-following models. These baselines include OpenAI ChatGPT 3.5, OpenAI text-davinci-003, Guanaco 65B (Dettmers et al., 2023), Vicuna 13B (Chiang et al., 2023), and OASST LLaMA 30B RLHF (Köpf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, to showcase the differentiation between RLHF and SFT, we also include OASST LLaMA 30B SFT (Köpf et al., 2023b), which solely employs SFT instead of RLHF for alignment purposes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Adapted from https://github.com/lm-sys/ FastChat/blob/v0.2.1/playground/data/dummy.json", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11279", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Response Generation In accordance with the methodologies described in Peng et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we employ the GPT-4 model to conduct an evaluation of our proposed approach using the Vicuna benchmark (Chiang et al., 2023). This benchmark comprises a diverse set of 80 single-turn prompts encompassing various domains, including knowledge-intensive question answering, historical counter-factuals, long-form document writing, commonsense questions, roleplays, fermi problems, general knowledge questions, coding, and math problems. Each model is tasked with generating a response with a maximum sequence length of 1024, utilizing default hyperparameters. For all the STEERLM models and OASST LLaMA 30B models, the decoding strategy employed is greedy decoding. Additionally, for STEERLM model responses, the attributes \"quality\" and \"helpfulness\" are fixed at a value of 9, while all other attributes are set to 0. In the case of Guanaco 65B, generations are obtained using top $p = 0.9$ sampling with a temperature of 0.7, and Vicuna 13B uses a temperature of $0.7^2$ .", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Evaluation In evaluating each prompt, the prompt alongside the responses made by the two competing models are given to GPT-4 (Chiang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023). GPT-4 is then required to give a score between 1 and 10 for each response. While we only report scores for comparing each model against ChatGPT 3.5, we compare every pair of models against each other for subsequent use in ELO rating calculations. The cumulative score obtained over the 80 questions for each model is then compared to the cumulative score achieved by ChatGPT 3.5. This facilitates the assessment of each model's performance as a percentage of ChatGPT 3.5's performance. It is important to note that the ordering of the responses from the two models during evaluations can influence the evaluation results, as previously observed by Dettmers et al. (2023). To mitigate this potential bias, we calculate the mean performance of each model in both possible response orderings.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 480, + 485, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/59f9124ebc63e41bce38f5416e992c0df211d5fb5baef3bfadf95154ef5db5bf.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model NameChatGPT 3.5 ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT 3.5
STEERLM 43B629.25655.75104.2
STEERLM 13B617.75634102.6
Guanaco 65B631.25646.25102.4
ChatGPT 3.5--100.0
Vicuna 13B641.75636.7599.2
LLaMA 30B RLHF650.25612.7594.2
LLaMA 30B SFT631.561093.2
text-davinci-003665.25599.590.1
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 892, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Automatic evaluation. Evaluations are highly consistent with $+ / - {0.2}\\%$ difference across evaluation runs on identical model generations.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 235, + 880, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation To minimize the risk of annotator fatigue and the potential for hasty evaluations, we partitioned the 80 prompts within the Vicuna Benchmark into four distinct groups, with each group consisting of 20 prompts. This partitioning strategy helps ensure that the human annotators (12 in total) are able to provide thorough evaluations without skimming through the responses, as it can be demanding to compare multiple responses simultaneously. Volunteer human annotators were specifically chosen for this task instead of utilizing crowd workers, such as Amazon Mechanical Turkers, as it enables us to carefully control for annotators with a university education and coding background, which are crucial for effectively evaluating these model responses. Consequently, this approach resulted in a higher degree of consistency among our annotators (Fleiss' $\\kappa = 0.46$ ) in comparison to similar studies that employed crowd workers (Dettmers et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 316, + 882, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "However, this choice limited the number of models that we could compare, and we selected the three best-performing models from automatic evaluations for the human evaluation (excluding STEERLM 13B given its similarities to STEERLM 43B). The prompt along with the responses from the different models were shown to the annotators, and they were asked to rank them in order of preference (using the UI in Appendix §A.5). During the annotation process, the human annotators remained unaware of the specific model used for each response, and to prevent any potential bias, the order of the responses was randomly shuffled. Annotations were carried out utilizing an A/B forced choice approach, requiring the annotators to subjectively determine their preferred response between the given options.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 645, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Guanaco 65B generations at https://github. com/artidoro/qlora/blob/main/eval/generations/ vicuna/65b-guanaco-vicuna-generations-topp0. 9-temp0.7.json and Vicuna 13B generations at https: //github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/fastchat/ eval/table/answer/answer_vicuna-13b.json", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 845, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11280", + "bbox": [ + 478, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Elo rating Using both automatic and human pairwise model comparisons, we calculate an Elo rating for each model to show the performance relative to all other models. For each prompt, scores are first converted into a tie, win or loss between two models based on their scores. Following Chiang et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we start with a score of 1000 and $K = 32$ and repeat the procedure 10000 times to account for the order in which model pair comparisons are used to calculate their ELO rating. Additionally, we also present the expected win rate against ChatGPT 3.5, for better interpretability.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 304, + 218, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/e0bcb9645a898d61b28b5f975376d9bc223a9191a02701c4df21ed3dae7ea5b2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model NameElo Rating95% CIWin Rate (%) vs ChatGPT 3.5
Automatic Evaluation
STEERLM 43B11391048-122466
STEERLM 13B11101022-119862
Guanaco 65B1065974-115356
ChatGPT 3.51023936-110850
Vicuna 13B1001911-109147
LLaMA 30B RLHF925835-101736
LLaMA 30B SFT935843-102837
text-davinci-003800712-89322
Human Evaluation
STEERLM 43B1040951-112659
ChatGPT 3.5981897-107050
Guanaco 65B977890-106450
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 332, + 507, + 555 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on Tables 1 and 2, our STEERLM 43B model out-performs all baseline models on both automatic and human evaluations. STEERLM 43B performs slightly better than STEERLM 13B, which is expected given the larger base model size (Ouyang et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). Analysis of the responses generated by STEERLM 43B shows that it provides longer, more complete answers (mean = 1906 characters) with more unique words (mean = 144) compared to the other baselines (e.g. ChatGPT 3.5 has 1193 characters and 77 unique words). Please refer to Appendix §A.6 for examples and §A.7 for average response lengths for each model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 489, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic evaluation with GPT-4 has a tendency to prefer longer responses that have more unique tokens (Dubois et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a). STEERLM 43B responses satisfy both criteria and this might lead to GPT-4 rating its responses higher", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/109090809ef8a778f41d9253b499855d07dde16c030078681c4ba84643ef185b.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 2: Elo Ratings for Models based on Automatic and Human Evaluation." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model NameChatGPT ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT
Baseline663.50528.5079.7
+ Human Annotated Attributes644.00619.5096.2
+ HQ OASST (human annotated)646.75634.7598.1
+ Attribute Pred. Model632.50649.75102.7
+ HH-RLHF/M-SID623.25646.00103.7
+ Bootstrapping on HQ samples629.25655.75104.2
", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 80, + 882, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Ablation study of model variants under automatic evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 199, + 882, + 227 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "than other counterparts, explaining the 74 Elo point difference between STEERLM 43B and the closest baseline model on Automatic Evaluations. The advantage of STEERLM 43B on Human Evaluation is slightly lower (59 Elo point difference), suggesting that only a slight bias of GPT4 Automatic Evaluations towards longer and more informative responses. Nonetheless, both Automatic and Human Evaluation show a clear strength of STEERLM 43B in answering open-ended questions that require creative and verbose responses, which composes majority of the prompts in the Vicuna benchmark.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 445 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Relative to Guanaco 65B, our model performs better despite being trained on a smaller base model (43B vs. 65B) that has been trained on fewer tokens (1.1T vs. 1.4T). This is likely due to a more efficient use of OASST data, which both models are trained on. Briefly, Guanaco 65B only uses high quality data, defined as the top response (in terms of annotated quality) at every level of the conversation tree. In contrast, STEERLM 43B uses all of Open-Assistant data, including low-quality conversations. We will show the advantage of the STEERLM approach in the ablation studies in §5. This enables STEERLM to achieve an effect similar to RLHF by being able to learn from both responses of high and low quality, as opposed to only selected high-quality conversations in regular SFT (Dettmers et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a; Zhou et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023; Köpf et al., 2023b; Chiang et al., 2023). The small difference in performance between the OASST LLaMA 30B SFT and RLHF models supports the noted difficulty of getting RLHF to work well in aligning LLMs (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Köpf et al., 2023b), which prevents widespread adoption of RLHF.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 448, + 884, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 845, + 675, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to identify the contribution of each individual component to the overall performance, we perform a systematic ablation process (Table 3),", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11281", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "starting from a baseline that is finetuned on the entire OASST dataset without using any information about attributes.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 131 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Addition of attribute labels The addition of attribute labels in the fine-tuning process leads to a significant increase in performance, underscoring the pivotal role of attribute labels, particularly the quality attribute, as the primary contributor to improved performance (16.5%).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 141, + 489, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finetuning on only High Quality Data We observe that Attribute Conditioned Supervised Finetuning on a small subset of 3400 samples from the OASST dataset that have the highest value for quality (human annotated) leads to an increase in performance by up to $1.9\\%$ . This observation aligns with prior research indicating that training models on a larger volume of low-quality data yields inferior results compared to training on a smaller quantity of high-quality data (Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 247, + 489, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Utilizing predictions from the Attribute Prediction model for the Attribute Conditioned SFT process provides a substantial benefit to STEERLM 43B amounting to $4.6\\%$ in performance, relative to using human annotations. This empirical evidence substantiates our hypothesis that employing an attribute prediction model aids in effectively calibrating the quality annotation process across multiple training samples, thereby mitigating noisy labels that are unavoidable when using crowdsourced annotations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Augmentation of training data with Anthropic HH-RLHF contributes to an additional $1.0\\%$ increase in performance compared to using Open-Assistant data alone. This shows the capability of our Attribute Prediction model to identify and annotate high-quality data from other datasets apart from the one it was trained on. This suggests that the methodology of STEERLM can be applied to label different kinds of datasets, enhancing the diversity of training data without incurring the substantial expense associated with human annotation for every individual data sample.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 620, + 489, + 813 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Bootstrapping with High-Quality Samples results in a performance gain of $0.5\\%$ . Our hypothesis is that the improvement in performance is due to the data augmentation through sampling, which explores the response space and augments the dataset with higher-quality data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/dd31cbb183b37da1a5e993547d89b88f4454883a4be9caaf3a7a261aaf183b13.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Model NameToxicity ValueAvg. Score
STEERLM 43B00.06346
30.08635
60.09633
90.10408
ChatGPT 3.5-0.06622
", + "bbox": [ + 551, + 80, + 843, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Average Perspective API Toxicity score on the Anthropic Red Team Dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 181, + 880, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Steerability demonstration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 237, + 774, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B to control its generations in a multi-faceted way, we conduct an empirical study incorporating the attributes of toxicity and humor.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 265, + 884, + 330 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Toxicity", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 342, + 618, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To assess the ability of STEERLM 43B to vary its responses based on the value of toxicity specified, we use the Anthropic Red-team dataset3 (Ganguli et al., 2022). This dataset contains prompts ranked from 0 to 4, with a higher rank indicating more inappropriate responses. We randomly select 100 conversations with a ranking of 4 and focused on the initial turns of these interactions.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 363, + 882, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To compare the toxicity levels of generated outputs, we vary the toxicity parameter in STEERLM 43B at four different settings: 0 (default), 3, 6, and 9 (highest toxicity). We employ the Perspective API, a widely-used toxicity classification model, to score the toxicity of the generated responses and compare the average toxicity of STEERLM 43B to the responses from ChatGPT-3.5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 493, + 882, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our findings (Table 4) indicate that when the toxicity value is set to 0 (default), STEERLM 43B exhibits slightly lower toxicity compared to ChatGPT. However, STEERLM 43B offers the flexibility to generate more toxic outputs by increasing the toxicity value above 0. This ability to control generation attributes at inference can prove valuable in applications such as generating Non-Player Character (NPC) dialogue in games and red-teaming purposes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 621, + 884, + 784 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Humor", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 796, + 613, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent studies (Jentzsch and Kersting, 2023) investigating the humor capabilities of language models have primarily focused on the aspect of telling jokes. However, humor can manifest in various", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 818, + 882, + 882 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3Accessed at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/hh-rlhf/tree/main/red-team-attempts", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 891, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11282", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "contexts. In this experiment, we employ two different prompts - \"Tell me a joke\" and \"What's a good way to spend a day?\", to compare the humor exhibited by STEERLM and ChatGPT-3.5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 147 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"Tell me a joke\" - ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor set to 9, successfully generate a joke. When the humor attribute in STEERLM 43B is set to 6 or lower, it responds with \"I don't know any jokes\". This characteristic can be advantageous for chatbots that need to maintain a formal persona and when humor is not appropriate.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 485, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"What's a good way to spend a day?\" - Both ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor attribute at low values (0-3) provided an extensive list of activities. Tuning up humor to 6 leads to STEERLM 43B appending to the list a cheeky remark, \"But don't forget to brush your teeth and go to bed at a reasonable hour!\". With humor set to the maximum value of 9, it leads to a cheesy statement \"By spending it with you, of course!\".", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 262, + 487, + 406 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Thus, depending on the intended use-case the same STEERLM model can be turned into versatile engaging conversational agents.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 407, + 485, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 468, + 245, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We introduce STEERLM, a novel model alignment approach with a value system (e.g. humor level and toxicity tolerance) that can be adjusted by users at inference time without re-training. STEERLM trains both the attribute prediction model and the language model using only supervised fine-tuning, resulting in an easy-to-implement and straightforward training process compared to using RLHF. We train STEERLM models following this procedure, achieving state-of-the-art results on the Vicuna benchmark. We validate these results with a human evaluation and find that STEERLM is preferred over the other models we compare it to. We hope our work will inspire further research into developing simple and effective model alignment methods that empower better AI assistants for everyone.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 494, + 489, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 780, + 218, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute-Conditioned SFT Models in STEERLM are fully supervised fine-tuned, making it relatively costly in terms of GPU hours and energy compared with Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning algorithms such as Low-Rank Adaptation and Prompt Tuning techniques.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic and manual evaluation have been performed on a English-only benchmark and we would need to evaluate our models on multilingual benchmarks to test the extent to which the positive results we find with STEERLM on an English-based benchmark extends to evaluations with other languages.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 193, + 660, + 208 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "STEERLM enables user capabilities to ask for toxic and/or violent responses during run-time. This is a valid use case in certain scenarios like games where a character should respond differently based on situation or in red teaming use cases. However, malicious users might exploit this feature outside of its intended use-cases. To address this, it is possible to give users controls over only a subset of attributes at model run-time, unless they demonstrate an acceptable use-case. In general, we believe that giving developers explicit control over model's value system is preferred to dictating one that they can not adjust.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 219, + 884, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 439, + 672, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We would like to thank Abhinav Khattar, Adi Renduchintala, Neel Kant, Sandeep Subramanian and many others at NVIDIA as well as anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, we appreciate the authors, members and contributors of the Open Assistant Project (OASST) for assembling and excellent open data set for model alignment which made this work possible.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 466, + 882, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 621, + 608, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Ben Mann, and Jared Kaplan. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 645, + 884, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess,", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 813, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11283", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.", + "Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Michael Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling.", + "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\\%$ * chatgpt quality.", + "Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Mike Conover, Matt Hayes, Ankit Mathur, Xiangrui Meng, Jianwei Xie, Jun Wan, Sam Shah, Ali Ghodsi, Patrick Wendell, Matei Zaharia, and et al. 2023. Free dolly: Introducing the world's first truly open instruction-tuned llm.", + "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms.", + "Hanze Dong, Wei Xiong, Deepanshu Goyal, Yihan Zhang, Winnie Chow, Rui Pan, Shizhe Diao, Jipeng Zhang, Kashun Shum, and Tong Zhang. 2023. Raft: Reward ranked finetuning for generative foundation model alignment.", + "Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang, Ishaan Gulrajani, Jimmy Ba, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback.", + "Deep Ganguli, Liane Lovitt, Jackson Kernion, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Ben Mann, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Kamal Ndousse, Andy Jones, Sam Bowman, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, Sheer El-Showk, Stanislav Fort, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Josh Jacobson, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Catherine Olsson, Sam Ringer, Eli Tran-Johnson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Jared Kaplan, and Jack Clark. 2022. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned.", + "Sophie Jentzsch and Kristian Kersting. 2023. Chatgpt is fun, but it is not funny! humor is still challenging large language models." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models.", + "Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jason Li, Huyen Nguyen, Oleksii Hrinchuk, Ryan Leary, Boris Ginsburg, Samuel Kriman, Stanislav Beliaev, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Jack Cook, Patrice Castonguay, Mariya Popova, Jocelyn Huang, and Jonathan M. Cohen. 2019. Nemo: a toolkit for building ai applications using neural modules.", + "Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023a. Openassistant conversation - democratizing large language model alignment.", + "Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023b. Openassistant conversations - democratizing large language model alignment.", + "David Lopez-Paz, Diane Bouchacourt, Levent Sagun, and Nicolas Usunier. 2022. Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09960.", + "Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xi-ubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct.", + "Fundamental AI Research Meta, Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, Athul Paul Jacob, Mojtaba Komeili, Karthik Konath, Minae Kwon, Adam Lerer, Mike Lewis, Alexander H. Miller, Sasha Mitts, Adithya Renduchintala, Stephen Roller, Dirk Rowe, Weiyan Shi, Joe Spisak, Alexander Wei, David Wu, Hugh Zhang, and Markus Zijlstra. 2022. Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378(6624):1067-1074.", + "Marcos Nadal and Anjan Chatterjee. 2019. Neuroaesthetics and art's diversity and universality. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(3):e1487.", + "Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. 2022. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11284", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.", + "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4.", + "Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.", + "Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization.", + "John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.", + "Eric Michael Smith, Diana Gonzalez-Rico, Emily Dinan, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Controlling style in generated dialogue.", + "Charlie Snell, Ilya Kostrikov, Yi Su, Mengjiao Yang, and Sergey Levine. 2023. Offline rl for natural language generation with implicit language q learning.", + "Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2022. Learning to summarize from human feedback.", + "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models.", + "Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A. Smith, Iz Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023a. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources.", + "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023b. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions.", + "Zhilin Wang, Xuhui Zhou, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Alex Marin, and Fei Xia. 2022. Extracting and inferring personal attributes from dialogue. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI, pages 58-69, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners.", + "Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2023. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears.", + "Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention.", + "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11285", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 154 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 168, + 240, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Attribute Prediction Model prompt templates", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 197, + 442, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the following prompt template to train the value model. The encoded value string is marked in red and used to calculate LM loss. The , and are special tokens included in the base LM tokenizer. An example of linearized value attributes is shown in the Sec. 3.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 237, + 489, + 348 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "System \n[system prompts] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[assistant response] \n[coded value attributes] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[assistant response] \n[coded value attributes]", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 363, + 468, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Attribute Conditioned SFT prompt templates", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 573, + 442, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The SteerLM ACSFT prompt templates is similar to the Attribute Prediction Model prompt template shown in the Sec. A.1 but we swap the position of assistance response and encoded value string. The LM loss is calculated on the assistant responses as highlighted in red.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 612, + 487, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "sub_type": "code", + "code_caption": [], + "code_body": "System \n[system prompts] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[coded value attributes] \n[assistant response] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[coded value attributes] \n[assistant response]", + "guess_lang": "txt", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 468, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/58db9b750f348d022f4e991770ea380b7a466a23f63b9dbbe5364b7c88c1e8a2.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Effect of Model Size" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 105, + 858, + 284 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Further Data Collection", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 353, + 749, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "While we did not collect new data in the current study, users who would like to collect new data will find the annotation cost of SteerLM to substantially lower compared to RLHF. SteerLM only requires each prompt-response sample to be annotated with attributes of their interest whereas RLHF requires pairwise comparison between k responses per prompt (where $k = 4 - 9$ ) or effectively $\\binom{4}{2}=6$ to $\\binom{9}{2}=36$ annotation per prompt (Ouyang et al., 2022). RLHF also relies on an iterative data collection methodology, where the critic must be continually retrained as the actor (language model) improves (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). In contrast, SteerLM only requires a one-time data collection, as each response is rated independently on an absolute scale rather than compared to other responses. Therefore, the annotation cost of collecting a dataset for SteerLM is approximately an order of magnitude lower than RLHF.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 885, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Effect of model size on performance", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 753, + 843, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better understand the effect that model size plays in model performance, we also trained SteerLM on smaller base models (8B and 22B), which have pretrained similarly as the 43B base model. We then compare it to smaller versions (7B, 13B and 30B) of the best performing baseline model (Guanaco 65B). As shown in Figure 3, SteerLM outperforms Guanaco at every comparable model size.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11286", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 527, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/01884e0c55b335e0f894e90b6a4bafae6672918e5128711fec4bcf6d49fe3777.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Human Annotation UI" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 85, + 872, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Human Annotation UI", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 475, + 342, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 Example of Generations by SteerLM 43B and ChatGPT 3.5", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 485, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Question: How can I increase my productivity while working from home?", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 485, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SteerLM 43B response: Here are some tips to increase your productivity while working from home:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 489, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Create a dedicated workspace: Having a dedicated workspace can help you focus and avoid distractions. Choose a quiet and comfortable spot in your home and set up your workspace with all the necessary tools and equipment.", + "2. Stick to a schedule: Establish a daily routine and stick to it. Set specific hours for work and stick to them. Take breaks at regular intervals and schedule time for lunch and other activities.", + "3. Eliminate distractions: Minimize distractions by turning off your phone, closing unnecessary tabs on your computer, and letting your family and friends know that you are working and cannot be disturbed.", + "4. Take care of your physical health: Take regular breaks to stretch and move around. Ex" + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 615, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ercise regularly and eat healthy foods to keep your energy levels up.", + "bbox": [ + 544, + 475, + 880, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "5. Stay connected: Communicate with your colleagues and clients regularly. Use video calls and instant messaging to stay in touch and avoid misunderstandings.", + "6. Set clear goals: Set specific and achievable goals for each day or week. Break down large tasks into smaller ones and prioritize your tasks based on importance and urgency.", + "7. Use productivity tools: There are many productivity tools available that can help you stay organized and focused. Use tools like calendars, to-do lists, and project management software to keep track of your work.", + "8. Take breaks: Taking regular breaks can help you stay focused and productive. Take a short break every hour or so to stretch your legs, get some fresh air, or grab a snack.", + "9. Stay motivated: Find ways to stay motivated and inspired. Set short-term and long-term goals, celebrate your successes, and find ways to reward yourself for a job well done." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 521, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11287", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "10. Be flexible: Working from home can be challenging, so be flexible and adapt to changes as they arise. Be open to new ideas and approaches, and don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it.", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 84, + 489, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ChatGPT 3.5 response: There are several ways to increase productivity while working from home:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 175, + 489, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Establish a routine: Start and end your work at a specific time each day, just like you would if you were working at an office.", + "2. Create a designated workspace: Set up a workspace that is free from distractions and has everything you need to complete your work.", + "3. Prioritize your tasks: Make a to-do list at the beginning of each day and prioritize your tasks based on their importance.", + "4. Take breaks: Take regular breaks to rest your mind and stretch your body, as this can help improve your focus and productivity.", + "5. Minimize distractions: Avoid distractions such as social media, TV, or household chores during your work hours.", + "6. Use productivity tools: There are several productivity tools available online, such as time trackers, task-management apps, and projectmanagement software, which can help increase your productivity.", + "7. Communicate with colleagues: Keep in touch with your colleagues regularly to stay connected and avoid feeling isolated." + ], + "bbox": [ + 127, + 219, + 489, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Remember, everyone's productivity habits are different, so find what works best for you and stick to it.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 680, + 489, + 727 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a2fe45e03730d7e33f29aae024813285f795050b29662b8abb44b6c24248810e.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "A.7 Response lengths of various models" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelCharactersUnique Words
STEERLM 43B1906144
STEERLM 13B1719146
Guanaco 65B1648145
ChatGPT 3.5119377
Vicuna 13B1417125
LLaMA 30B RLHF1219108
LLaMA 30B SFT1280106
text-davinci-00384287
", + "bbox": [ + 537, + 115, + 855, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: Mean response length for each model in characters and number of unique whitespace-separated words.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 256, + 884, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11288", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_model.json b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9673740065b930affa1a68ac97eb6a8dbfe10430 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2494 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.189, + 0.09, + 0.815, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.155, + 0.871, + 0.188 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Dong, Zhilin Wang, Makes Narsimhan Sreedhar, Xianchao Wu, Oleksii Kuchaiev NVIDIA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.202, + 0.19, + 0.802, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{yidong, zhilinw, makeshn, xianchaow, okuchaiev}@nvidia.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.342, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.279, + 0.464, + 0.707 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model alignment with human preferences is an essential step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) helpful and consistent with human values. It typically consists of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) stages. However, RLHF faces inherent limitations stemming from a complex training setup and its tendency to align the model with implicit values that end users cannot control at run-time. Moreover, reward models in RLHF stage commonly rely on single-dimensional feedback as opposed to explicit, multifaceted signals that indicate attributes such as helpfulness, humor, and toxicity. To address these limitations, we propose STEERLM, a supervised fine-tuning method that empowers end-users to control responses during inference. STEERLM conditions responses to conform to an explicitly defined multi-dimensional set of attributes, thereby empowering a steerable AI capable of generating helpful and high-quality responses while maintaining customizability. Experiments show that STEERLM trained on open source datasets generates responses that are preferred by human and automatic evaluators to many state-of-the-art baselines trained with RLHF while being much easier to train. Try STEERLM at https://huggingface.co/nvidia/SteerLM-11ama2-13B" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.717, + 0.262, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.491, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training LLMs on extensive text corpora has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, leading to state-of-the-art performance on numerous tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Kaplan et al., 2020). However, this does not automatically make language models effective in responding to user instructions (Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). To better align LLMs to human preferences, the most effective approach has been to perform SFT followed by the application of RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a; Chiang et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023). In SFT, human" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.25, + 0.886, + 0.442 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.448, + 0.886, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: STEERLM can be used to improve the quality of language model responses, similar to RLHF. Additionally, STEERLM allows users to define additional attributes such as humor and (low) toxicity at inference time, to steer model responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.548, + 0.885, + 0.659 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "annotators provide demonstrations of instructions and responses for the model to imitate (Taori et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). RLHF goes a step further to enable models to generate responses that human annotators prefer to alternative responses (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Kopf et al., 2023a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, despite its success, there are limitations to this approach. First, using SFT alone does not allow the model to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality responses leading to lower performance than RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a). Using RLHF for model alignment however, substantially increase the complexity of the training setup (Snell et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), limiting its public adoption (Zhang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023). Furthermore, RLHF treats human preference of model responses as monodimensional without regard for the diversity of aspects (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity) that contribute to such preferences (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) and thereby limiting users' ability to adjust individual aspects at inference time" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11275" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.974 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11275-11288 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.086, + 0.3, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "based on their use cases." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.102, + 0.49, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To address these limitations, we introduce STEERLM, a novel approach to model alignment through SFT that overcomes the limitations associated with conventional SFT and RLHF methods. Similar to RLHF, STEERLM incorporates additional reward signals by leveraging annotated attributes (e.g., quality, humor, toxicity) present in the Open-Assistant (Kopf et al., 2023a) dataset for each response. To emulate the process of rating responses, an Attribute Prediction model (\\$3.1) is trained and employed to annotate datasets (\\$3.2) containing dialogues that can be decomposed into prompt-response pairs. By utilizing this combined diverse dataset comprising prompts, responses, and predicted attributes, we train the generation of responses to be conditioned (\\$3.3) on both the prompt instructions and the annotated attributes, enabling STEERLM to effectively capture human preferences and generate responses that align with them." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.408, + 0.49, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "STEERLM also exhibits enhanced versatility compared to RLHF, allowing for the flexible utilization of various attributes during inference. To further enhance the adherence of STEERLM to the specified attributes during inference, we introduce an additional training recipe (§3.4) which includes augmenting the training data with denoised, diverse, and high-quality examples. We open-source code for STEERLM on NVIDIA NeMo toolkit (Kuchaiev et al., 2019). In summary, our key contributions are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.597, + 0.489, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We introduce STEERLM as a simple alternative for language model alignment that utilizes only the language modeling objective," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.658, + 0.49, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B on the Vicuna benchmark where it outperforms state-of-the-art baselines including RLHF models such as ChatGPT-3.5," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.735, + 0.49, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We highlight the flexible and customizable nature of STEERLM 43B where users can customize attributes at inference-time facilitating a wide variety of applications." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.597, + 0.49, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.813, + 0.27, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model alignment using SFT Fine-tuning language models on multiple tasks enable them to follow many types of instructions and perform tasks outside of those they were trained on (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022). However, language" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "models typically generate short and robotic responses when supervised finetuned on academic data sets. On the other hand, models can generate high quality human-like response when trained with high-quality human demonstrations (Conover et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022). Taori et al. (2023) shows using data generated by OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, can train a model in a cost-effective manner." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.23, + 0.885, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Using only SFT for model alignment became popular recently because of the ease of its training setup. Zhang et al. (2023) and Peng et al. (2023) trained models using SFT based on responses generated by OpenAI models while Dettmers et al. (2023) and Kopf et al. (2023b) used the crowdsourced Open Assistant Dataset and Zhou et al. (2023) used a small proprietary data set. Wang et al. (2023b) and Taori et al. (2023) trained models using bootstrapped datasets from the language model itself. Luo et al. (2023) showed that language model can learn to solve complex instructions by evolving on the complexity and breath of instructions. Wang et al. (2023a) compared many open-source data sets used to perform instruction tuning using SFT but found them to under-perform commercial models trained using RLHF." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.516, + 0.885, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Model alignment using RLHF Building on foundational work on RL in games and robotic simulations (Christiano et al., 2017; Schulman et al., 2017), many have had success applying RLHF to improve the instruction following ability of LLM by giving a reward proportional to the relative desirability of the response (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). Such an approach has been shown to benefit downstream tasks like question-answering (Nakano et al., 2022) and summarization (Stiennon et al., 2022). However, the complexity of the training setup (Rafailov et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2023) remains a hurdle in the widespread adoption of RLHF. Many have attempted to overcome this by migrating RLHF training to an offline setting (Snell et al., 2023), casting the problem as conditional sequence modeling (Chen et al., 2021), directly optimizing LMs with labeled preference data (Rafailov et al., 2023), or ranking responses to align the models (Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), but limited progress has been made (Wang et al., 2023a)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Another limitation unaddressed by related works lies in the use of a single-dimensional reward function for evaluating human preferences of model" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11276" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "responses since human preferences are based on a multitude of real-world objectives (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity), which also vary across domains (Nadal and Chatterjee, 2019; Lopez-Paz et al., 2022). Given such multi-dimensional attributes, current approaches (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023) are only capable of generating responses with high reward scores, despite low reward scores on various attributes being relevant in certain situations, such as modelling realistic gaming NPCs who are capable of generating high toxicity responses." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.287, + 0.492, + 0.594 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Attribute Grounded Generation Many researchers have explored grounding text with various attributes in Dialogue tasks. Rashkin et al. (2019) modelled chit-chat conversations grounded in emotions such as 'Angry', 'Embarrassed' or 'Joyful' while Smith et al. (2020) conditioned chit-chat dialogue with conversational styles such as 'Curious', 'Sympathetic' or 'Knowledgeable'. Zhang et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues based on personal attributes such as their hobbies. Meta et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues in the game of Diplomacy using the expected player skill. However, such grounding has only been explored in narrow-defined tasks with a single attribute. Our approach seeks to condition the generation of responses in general open-domain conversations covering tasks like code assistance, writing poems and planning tasks, using multiple attributes (e.g., quality, humor and toxicity)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.605, + 0.229, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 SteerLM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.631, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose STEERLM, a simple and novel approach to align language models to follow user instructions. Trained solely using the language modeling objective, it offers a computationally efficient alternative to other techniques like RLHF. Specifically, STEERLM comprises 4 steps as illustrated in Fig. 2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.754, + 0.434, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Step 1. Attribute Prediction Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Similar to the reward model in RLHF, the Attribute Prediction Model in STEERLM is designed to predict human preference of model responses to improve model alignment. Compared to a monolithic reward signal in RLHF, the attribute prediction model can be used to predict various attributes that are considered to be important in generating good responses (high quality, low toxicity, and varying humor levels depending on context)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the Open Assistant (OASST) dataset \\(D\\), where each sample contains a prompt \\(x\\), a response \\(y\\) as well as a set of attributes \\(v\\). To model these attributes, we first scale each attribute (originally a float between 0 and 1) into an integer between 0 and 9 and then obtain a linearized representation of the value attributes \\(v\\). The attributes we select look like quality:6, toxicity:0, humor:9, creativity:0, violence:0, helpfulness:5, not_apropriate:0." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.521, + 0.238, + 0.884, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {A P M} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \\sim D} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} \\mid x, y, v _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.284, + 0.884, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conditioning on \\( x \\) and \\( y \\), \\( v \\) is the target output for the language model as expressed in Eq. 1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.326, + 0.822, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Step 2. Annotating Datasets using Attribute Prediction Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.363, + 0.885, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared to using human-annotated attributes directly, training an Attribute Prediction Model can allow other datasets (e.g. HH-RLHF dataset) to be annotated. This helps improve the diversity of training data which is important for Step 3 Attribute Conditioned SFT. Moreover, it has been observed that crowdsourced human-annotated data often suffers from noise, arising from factors such as misinterpretation of instructions, inadequate expertise/education in annotating responses, and limited proficiency in language comprehension (Kopf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, there exists a lack of calibration among annotators, with some individuals applying more stringent criteria when assigning full scores (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). By employing an Attribute Prediction Model, it becomes possible to mitigate these issues by denoising the human-annotated attributes and calibrating scores across annotators." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.601, + 0.68, + 0.884, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\arg \\max _ {v _ {t}} P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} \\mid x, y, v _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.712, + 0.884, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We annotate samples by greedily decoding the value attributes for pairs of prompts and responses using the Attribute Prediction Model(as shown in Eq. 2), in order to construct the attribute annotated dataset \\(D^{\\prime}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.802, + 0.829, + 0.818 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Step 3. Attribute Conditioned SFT" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Attribute-conditioned SFT is an extension of regular SFT that enables incorporating reward signal information through attribute labels. This allows learning from both high and low quality responses in a manner similar to the established SFT+RLHF pipeline (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11277" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.081, + 0.837, + 0.29 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.301, + 0.885, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: STEERLM: Step 1. The base language model is trained to assess the quality of responses by predicting attribute values. Step 2. The attribute prediction model is used to annotate response quality across diverse datasets. Step 3. Given a prompt and desired attribute values, a new base model is fine-tuned to generate responses that align with the specified attributes. Step 4. Multiple responses are sampled from the fine-tuned model in Step 3, specifying maximum quality. The sampled responses are evaluated by the trained attribute prediction model, leading to another round of fine-tuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.412, + 0.49, + 0.637 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Attribute-conditioned SFT only requires an offline annotated dataset, as created in Step 2, rather than online sampling and evaluation of responses like in RLHF. By utilizing a purely offline training approach, this greatly simplifies the training configuration compared to RLHF's heterogenous setup. In particular, it avoids the complexity of online data generation/evaluation and eliminates the training slowness resulting from memory bandwidth-constrained online inference in RLHF. Using the attribute-annotated train datasets \\( D' \\) from the Step 2, we train a model to generate a response \\( y \\), conditioning on the value attributes \\( v \\) and the prompt \\( x \\). The loss function is:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.643, + 0.49, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {1}} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \\sim D ^ {\\prime}} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\phi} (y _ {t} | v, x, y _ {< t})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.681, + 0.479, + 0.715 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Step 4. Bootstrapping with High Quality Samples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.718, + 0.491, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "By sampling the policy network, RLHF effectively navigates the response space of language models and identifies responses that are of various qualities. The response samples are subsequently utilized to influence and shape the behavior of language models according to their reward values. In Step 4 of STEERLM, the objective is to accomplish a similar objective by leveraging the Attribute Conditioned SFT and Attribute Prediction models from the previous steps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 4a To ensure that we obtain a diverse set of responses, we first enumerate a set of all possible" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.412, + 0.885, + 0.59 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "attribute value combinations from the annotated datasets used for training. By filtering the combinations to explicitly have the value for quality to be 9 (i.e. highest possible value), we get a subset of attribute strings representing a high quality set \\( V \\). We uniformly sample from this high quality set \\( V \\) to get the attribute string \\( v' \\). By combining \\( v' \\) with prompts from the same training datasets, we use the top-\\( k \\) (=50) sampling to generate multiple responses using the Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning approach as shown in Eq. 3." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.588, + 0.605, + 0.884, + 0.625 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\arg \\operatorname {t o p k} _ {y _ {t} ^ {\\prime}} P _ {\\phi} \\left(y _ {t} ^ {\\prime} \\mid x, v ^ {\\prime}, y _ {< t} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.639, + 0.883, + 0.687 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This allows us to obtain a wide variety of responses for each prompt and increases the diversity of the sampled dataset \\( D'' = \\{(x, y')\\} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.688, + 0.884, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Attribute Prediction Model (§3.1) with greedy sampling is used to evaluate the generated responses \\( y' \\) giving predicted attribute values \\( v'' \\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.598, + 0.751, + 0.883, + 0.78 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\arg \\max _ {v _ {t} ^ {\\prime \\prime}} P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} ^ {\\prime \\prime} \\mid x, y ^ {\\prime}, v _ {< t} ^ {\\prime \\prime}\\right) \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.793, + 0.885, + 0.859 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This gives us the dataset \\( D''' = \\{(x, y', v'')\\} \\) where each tuple consists of a prompt from the original training datasets, a sampled response and its corresponding predicted attribute values." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 4b We use the sampled responses and the corresponding predicted attributes from \\( D'' \\) to perform the second round of Attribute-conditioned" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11278" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SFT, effectively allowing us to bootstrap the training of the model on its own responses:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.128, + 0.515, + 0.161 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {2}} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v ^ {\\prime \\prime}, y ^ {\\prime}) \\sim D ^ {\\prime \\prime \\prime}} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\phi} \\left(y _ {t} ^ {\\prime} \\mid v ^ {\\prime \\prime}, x, y _ {< t} ^ {\\prime}\\right)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.172, + 0.262, + 0.189 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.198, + 0.49, + 0.247 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we elaborate on our choice of training datasets, base model, implementation details, and evaluation setup." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.257, + 0.303, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Training Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.278, + 0.491, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the following open-source, commercially-available instruction-tuning datasets. In addition, we explain how collecting new data for SteerLM can be less costly than doing so for RLHF in Appendix A.3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.49, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "OASST Open Assistant dataset (Köpf et al., 2023a) was used to train an Attribute Prediction Model, as well as to perform Attribute Condition SFT. This dataset contains 13 human-labeled attributes for each response with a score ranging from 0 to 1. We choose 7 of them that are most relevant for guiding the language model to align with human preferences: quality, toxicity, violence, helpfulness, creativity, humor and inappropriateness. Other attributes such as hate_speech, lang_mismatch and pii (personal identifiable information) are not useful to steer at inference time since these are attributes that we always want to keep as False. In order to leverage STEERLM's ability to learn from both positive and negative responses, we use all the released 48.8K conversations for training and do not filter the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.65, + 0.49, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "HH-RLHF The Helpful and Harmless - Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback dataset (Bai et al., 2022) does not provide human labeled attribute values. In order to improve the diversity of prompts and responses, we utilize the trained Attribute Prediction model to annotate the responses. For our Attribute Conditioned SFT process, we utilize all 348.6K conversations from the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.788, + 0.491, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "M-SID Model Self-Identification Dataset (Chiang et al., 2023) is a small set of 910 prompt-response pairs1 used to answer questions relating to identity such as \"Who are you?\" and \"Who created you?\". This dataset is also included as part of Attribute Conditioned SFT training." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.774, + 0.1 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Base Models for STEERLM" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.108, + 0.885, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "STEERLM 43B The 43B base language model employed in this study has been trained on a diverse corpus encompassing various multilingual data sources, including web crawl, news articles, books, scientific publications from arXiv, and code repositories. Having been trained with 1.1 trillion tokens, it is comparable to LLaMA's 30B and 65B models, which were trained on 1.4 trillion tokens. This base model is designed for general-purpose language understanding tasks and does not have any domain-specific fine-tuning. We utilize this base model as the backbone for both Attribute Prediction and Attribute Conditioned SFT." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.33, + 0.885, + 0.378 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "STEERLM 13B We also apply the SteerLM methodology on a popular, widely-available model: Llama 2 13B base model (Touvron et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.393, + 0.681, + 0.408 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Training details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.415, + 0.885, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training of both the Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning model was conducted utilizing a cluster comprising 16 A100-DGX nodes, each equipped with 8 A100-80GB GPUs. The training process involved a global batch size of 128, spanning 5 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 4096 tokens. The Adam optimizer was utilized with a learning rate of 5e-6 and a weight decay of 1e-2. The selection of the optimal Attribute Prediction model checkpoint was determined based on the lowest loss observed on the validation set, while the optimal checkpoint for the Attribute Conditioned SFT model was selected based on the highest validation quality observed on holdout validation sets. Detailed templates for Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned SFT are found in Appendix §A.1 and §A.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.72, + 0.642, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baseline Models We compare our approach against several state-of-the-art instruction-following models. These baselines include OpenAI ChatGPT 3.5, OpenAI text-davinci-003, Guanaco 65B (Dettmers et al., 2023), Vicuna 13B (Chiang et al., 2023), and OASST LLaMA 30B RLHF (Köpf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, to showcase the differentiation between RLHF and SFT, we also include OASST LLaMA 30B SFT (Köpf et al., 2023b), which solely employs SFT instead of RLHF for alignment purposes." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adapted from https://github.com/lm-sys/ FastChat/blob/v0.2.1/playground/data/dummy.json" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11279" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Response Generation In accordance with the methodologies described in Peng et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we employ the GPT-4 model to conduct an evaluation of our proposed approach using the Vicuna benchmark (Chiang et al., 2023). This benchmark comprises a diverse set of 80 single-turn prompts encompassing various domains, including knowledge-intensive question answering, historical counter-factuals, long-form document writing, commonsense questions, roleplays, fermi problems, general knowledge questions, coding, and math problems. Each model is tasked with generating a response with a maximum sequence length of 1024, utilizing default hyperparameters. For all the STEERLM models and OASST LLaMA 30B models, the decoding strategy employed is greedy decoding. Additionally, for STEERLM model responses, the attributes \"quality\" and \"helpfulness\" are fixed at a value of 9, while all other attributes are set to 0. In the case of Guanaco 65B, generations are obtained using top \\( p = 0.9 \\) sampling with a temperature of 0.7, and Vicuna 13B uses a temperature of \\( 0.7^2 \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.481, + 0.486, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Evaluation In evaluating each prompt, the prompt alongside the responses made by the two competing models are given to GPT-4 (Chiang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023). GPT-4 is then required to give a score between 1 and 10 for each response. While we only report scores for comparing each model against ChatGPT 3.5, we compare every pair of models against each other for subsequent use in ELO rating calculations. The cumulative score obtained over the 80 questions for each model is then compared to the cumulative score achieved by ChatGPT 3.5. This facilitates the assessment of each model's performance as a percentage of ChatGPT 3.5's performance. It is important to note that the ordering of the responses from the two models during evaluations can influence the evaluation results, as previously observed by Dettmers et al. (2023). To mitigate this potential bias, we calculate the mean performance of each model in both possible response orderings." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.082, + 0.894, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model NameChatGPT 3.5 ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT 3.5
STEERLM 43B629.25655.75104.2
STEERLM 13B617.75634102.6
Guanaco 65B631.25646.25102.4
ChatGPT 3.5--100.0
Vicuna 13B641.75636.7599.2
LLaMA 30B RLHF650.25612.7594.2
LLaMA 30B SFT631.561093.2
text-davinci-003665.25599.590.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.236, + 0.882, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Automatic evaluation. Evaluations are highly consistent with \\( + / - {0.2}\\% \\) difference across evaluation runs on identical model generations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.317, + 0.884, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation To minimize the risk of annotator fatigue and the potential for hasty evaluations, we partitioned the 80 prompts within the Vicuna Benchmark into four distinct groups, with each group consisting of 20 prompts. This partitioning strategy helps ensure that the human annotators (12 in total) are able to provide thorough evaluations without skimming through the responses, as it can be demanding to compare multiple responses simultaneously. Volunteer human annotators were specifically chosen for this task instead of utilizing crowd workers, such as Amazon Mechanical Turkers, as it enables us to carefully control for annotators with a university education and coding background, which are crucial for effectively evaluating these model responses. Consequently, this approach resulted in a higher degree of consistency among our annotators (Fleiss' \\(\\kappa = 0.46\\)) in comparison to similar studies that employed crowd workers (Dettmers et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.646, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "However, this choice limited the number of models that we could compare, and we selected the three best-performing models from automatic evaluations for the human evaluation (excluding STEERLM 13B given its similarities to STEERLM 43B). The prompt along with the responses from the different models were shown to the annotators, and they were asked to rank them in order of preference (using the UI in Appendix §A.5). During the annotation process, the human annotators remained unaware of the specific model used for each response, and to prevent any potential bias, the order of the responses was randomly shuffled. Annotations were carried out utilizing an A/B forced choice approach, requiring the annotators to subjectively determine their preferred response between the given options." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.846, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guanaco 65B generations at https://github. com/artidoro/qlora/blob/main/eval/generations/ vicuna/65b-guanaco-vicuna-generations-topp0. 9-temp0.7.json and Vicuna 13B generations at https: //github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/fastchat/ eval/table/answer/answer_vicuna-13b.json" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.479, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11280" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Elo rating Using both automatic and human pairwise model comparisons, we calculate an Elo rating for each model to show the performance relative to all other models. For each prompt, scores are first converted into a tie, win or loss between two models based on their scores. Following Chiang et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we start with a score of 1000 and \\( K = 32 \\) and repeat the procedure 10000 times to account for the order in which model pair comparisons are used to calculate their ELO rating. Additionally, we also present the expected win rate against ChatGPT 3.5, for better interpretability." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.305, + 0.22, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Results" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.333, + 0.508, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model NameElo Rating95% CIWin Rate (%) vs ChatGPT 3.5
Automatic Evaluation
STEERLM 43B11391048-122466
STEERLM 13B11101022-119862
Guanaco 65B1065974-115356
ChatGPT 3.51023936-110850
Vicuna 13B1001911-109147
LLaMA 30B RLHF925835-101736
LLaMA 30B SFT935843-102837
text-davinci-003800712-89322
Human Evaluation
STEERLM 43B1040951-112659
ChatGPT 3.5981897-107050
Guanaco 65B977890-106450
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.567, + 0.486, + 0.595 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Elo Ratings for Models based on Automatic and Human Evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.49, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on Tables 1 and 2, our STEERLM 43B model out-performs all baseline models on both automatic and human evaluations. STEERLM 43B performs slightly better than STEERLM 13B, which is expected given the larger base model size (Ouyang et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). Analysis of the responses generated by STEERLM 43B shows that it provides longer, more complete answers (mean = 1906 characters) with more unique words (mean = 144) compared to the other baselines (e.g. ChatGPT 3.5 has 1193 characters and 77 unique words). Please refer to Appendix §A.6 for examples and §A.7 for average response lengths for each model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic evaluation with GPT-4 has a tendency to prefer longer responses that have more unique tokens (Dubois et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a). STEERLM 43B responses satisfy both criteria and this might lead to GPT-4 rating its responses higher" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.082, + 0.883, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model NameChatGPT ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT
Baseline663.50528.5079.7
+ Human Annotated Attributes644.00619.5096.2
+ HQ OASST (human annotated)646.75634.7598.1
+ Attribute Pred. Model632.50649.75102.7
+ HH-RLHF/M-SID623.25646.00103.7
+ Bootstrapping on HQ samples629.25655.75104.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.2, + 0.884, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study of model variants under automatic evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "than other counterparts, explaining the 74 Elo point difference between STEERLM 43B and the closest baseline model on Automatic Evaluations. The advantage of STEERLM 43B on Human Evaluation is slightly lower (59 Elo point difference), suggesting that only a slight bias of GPT4 Automatic Evaluations towards longer and more informative responses. Nonetheless, both Automatic and Human Evaluation show a clear strength of STEERLM 43B in answering open-ended questions that require creative and verbose responses, which composes majority of the prompts in the Vicuna benchmark." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.449, + 0.885, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Relative to Guanaco 65B, our model performs better despite being trained on a smaller base model (43B vs. 65B) that has been trained on fewer tokens (1.1T vs. 1.4T). This is likely due to a more efficient use of OASST data, which both models are trained on. Briefly, Guanaco 65B only uses high quality data, defined as the top response (in terms of annotated quality) at every level of the conversation tree. In contrast, STEERLM 43B uses all of Open-Assistant data, including low-quality conversations. We will show the advantage of the STEERLM approach in the ablation studies in §5. This enables STEERLM to achieve an effect similar to RLHF by being able to learn from both responses of high and low quality, as opposed to only selected high-quality conversations in regular SFT (Dettmers et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a; Zhou et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023; Köpf et al., 2023b; Chiang et al., 2023). The small difference in performance between the OASST LLaMA 30B SFT and RLHF models supports the noted difficulty of getting RLHF to work well in aligning LLMs (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Köpf et al., 2023b), which prevents widespread adoption of RLHF." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.846, + 0.677, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to identify the contribution of each individual component to the overall performance, we perform a systematic ablation process (Table 3)," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11281" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.133 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "starting from a baseline that is finetuned on the entire OASST dataset without using any information about attributes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.142, + 0.49, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Addition of attribute labels The addition of attribute labels in the fine-tuning process leads to a significant increase in performance, underscoring the pivotal role of attribute labels, particularly the quality attribute, as the primary contributor to improved performance (16.5%)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.248, + 0.49, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finetuning on only High Quality Data We observe that Attribute Conditioned Supervised Finetuning on a small subset of 3400 samples from the OASST dataset that have the highest value for quality (human annotated) leads to an increase in performance by up to \\(1.9\\%\\). This observation aligns with prior research indicating that training models on a larger volume of low-quality data yields inferior results compared to training on a smaller quantity of high-quality data (Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.435, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Utilizing predictions from the Attribute Prediction model for the Attribute Conditioned SFT process provides a substantial benefit to STEERLM 43B amounting to \\(4.6\\%\\) in performance, relative to using human annotations. This empirical evidence substantiates our hypothesis that employing an attribute prediction model aids in effectively calibrating the quality annotation process across multiple training samples, thereby mitigating noisy labels that are unavoidable when using crowdsourced annotations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.621, + 0.49, + 0.814 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Augmentation of training data with Anthropic HH-RLHF contributes to an additional \\(1.0\\%\\) increase in performance compared to using Open-Assistant data alone. This shows the capability of our Attribute Prediction model to identify and annotate high-quality data from other datasets apart from the one it was trained on. This suggests that the methodology of STEERLM can be applied to label different kinds of datasets, enhancing the diversity of training data without incurring the substantial expense associated with human annotation for every individual data sample." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bootstrapping with High-Quality Samples results in a performance gain of \\(0.5\\%\\). Our hypothesis is that the improvement in performance is due to the data augmentation through sampling, which explores the response space and augments the dataset with higher-quality data." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.552, + 0.082, + 0.845, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Model NameToxicity ValueAvg. Score
STEERLM 43B00.06346
30.08635
60.09633
90.10408
ChatGPT 3.5-0.06622
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.183, + 0.882, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Average Perspective API Toxicity score on the Anthropic Red Team Dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.239, + 0.776, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Steerability demonstration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.266, + 0.885, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B to control its generations in a multi-faceted way, we conduct an empirical study incorporating the attributes of toxicity and humor." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.343, + 0.62, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Toxicity" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.364, + 0.884, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To assess the ability of STEERLM 43B to vary its responses based on the value of toxicity specified, we use the Anthropic Red-team dataset3 (Ganguli et al., 2022). This dataset contains prompts ranked from 0 to 4, with a higher rank indicating more inappropriate responses. We randomly select 100 conversations with a ranking of 4 and focused on the initial turns of these interactions." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.494, + 0.884, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To compare the toxicity levels of generated outputs, we vary the toxicity parameter in STEERLM 43B at four different settings: 0 (default), 3, 6, and 9 (highest toxicity). We employ the Perspective API, a widely-used toxicity classification model, to score the toxicity of the generated responses and compare the average toxicity of STEERLM 43B to the responses from ChatGPT-3.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.623, + 0.885, + 0.785 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our findings (Table 4) indicate that when the toxicity value is set to 0 (default), STEERLM 43B exhibits slightly lower toxicity compared to ChatGPT. However, STEERLM 43B offers the flexibility to generate more toxic outputs by increasing the toxicity value above 0. This ability to control generation attributes at inference can prove valuable in applications such as generating Non-Player Character (NPC) dialogue in games and red-teaming purposes." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.797, + 0.615, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Humor" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.819, + 0.884, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent studies (Jentzsch and Kersting, 2023) investigating the humor capabilities of language models have primarily focused on the aspect of telling jokes. However, humor can manifest in various" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.892, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3Accessed at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/hh-rlhf/tree/main/red-team-attempts" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11282" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.148 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "contexts. In this experiment, we employ two different prompts - \"Tell me a joke\" and \"What's a good way to spend a day?\", to compare the humor exhibited by STEERLM and ChatGPT-3.5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.486, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"Tell me a joke\" - ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor set to 9, successfully generate a joke. When the humor attribute in STEERLM 43B is set to 6 or lower, it responds with \"I don't know any jokes\". This characteristic can be advantageous for chatbots that need to maintain a formal persona and when humor is not appropriate." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.263, + 0.489, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"What's a good way to spend a day?\" - Both ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor attribute at low values (0-3) provided an extensive list of activities. Tuning up humor to 6 leads to STEERLM 43B appending to the list a cheeky remark, \"But don't forget to brush your teeth and go to bed at a reasonable hour!\". With humor set to the maximum value of 9, it leads to a cheesy statement \"By spending it with you, of course!\"." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.408, + 0.487, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Thus, depending on the intended use-case the same STEERLM model can be turned into versatile engaging conversational agents." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.469, + 0.247, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.495, + 0.49, + 0.768 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We introduce STEERLM, a novel model alignment approach with a value system (e.g. humor level and toxicity tolerance) that can be adjusted by users at inference time without re-training. STEERLM trains both the attribute prediction model and the language model using only supervised fine-tuning, resulting in an easy-to-implement and straightforward training process compared to using RLHF. We train STEERLM models following this procedure, achieving state-of-the-art results on the Vicuna benchmark. We validate these results with a human evaluation and find that STEERLM is preferred over the other models we compare it to. We hope our work will inspire further research into developing simple and effective model alignment methods that empower better AI assistants for everyone." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.781, + 0.22, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute-Conditioned SFT Models in STEERLM are fully supervised fine-tuned, making it relatively costly in terms of GPU hours and energy compared with Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning algorithms such as Low-Rank Adaptation and Prompt Tuning techniques." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic and manual evaluation have been performed on a English-only benchmark and we would need to evaluate our models on multilingual benchmarks to test the extent to which the positive results we find with STEERLM on an English-based benchmark extends to evaluations with other languages." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.194, + 0.662, + 0.209 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.22, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "STEERLM enables user capabilities to ask for toxic and/or violent responses during run-time. This is a valid use case in certain scenarios like games where a character should respond differently based on situation or in red teaming use cases. However, malicious users might exploit this feature outside of its intended use-cases. To address this, it is possible to give users controls over only a subset of attributes at model run-time, unless they demonstrate an acceptable use-case. In general, we believe that giving developers explicit control over model's value system is preferred to dictating one that they can not adjust." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.441, + 0.673, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.467, + 0.884, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We would like to thank Abhinav Khattar, Adi Renduchintala, Neel Kant, Sandeep Subramanian and many others at NVIDIA as well as anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, we appreciate the authors, members and contributors of the Open Assistant Project (OASST) for assembling and excellent open data set for model alignment which made this work possible." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.623, + 0.61, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.646, + 0.885, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Ben Mann, and Jared Kaplan. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.814, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess," + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11283" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.139, + 0.487, + 0.205 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Michael Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.219, + 0.487, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with \\(90\\%\\) * chatgpt quality." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.311, + 0.487, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.39, + 0.487, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mike Conover, Matt Hayes, Ankit Mathur, Xiangrui Meng, Jianwei Xie, Jun Wan, Sam Shah, Ali Ghodsi, Patrick Wendell, Matei Zaharia, and et al. 2023. Free dolly: Introducing the world's first truly open instruction-tuned llm." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.469, + 0.486, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.523, + 0.487, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanze Dong, Wei Xiong, Deepanshu Goyal, Yihan Zhang, Winnie Chow, Rui Pan, Shizhe Diao, Jipeng Zhang, Kashun Shum, and Tong Zhang. 2023. Raft: Reward ranked finetuning for generative foundation model alignment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.603, + 0.487, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang, Ishaan Gulrajani, Jimmy Ba, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.683, + 0.487, + 0.864 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Deep Ganguli, Liane Lovitt, Jackson Kernion, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Ben Mann, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Kamal Ndousse, Andy Jones, Sam Bowman, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, Sheer El-Showk, Stanislav Fort, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Josh Jacobson, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Catherine Olsson, Sam Ringer, Eli Tran-Johnson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Jared Kaplan, and Jack Clark. 2022. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.878, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sophie Jentzsch and Kristian Kersting. 2023. Chatgpt is fun, but it is not funny! humor is still challenging large language models." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.147, + 0.883, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jason Li, Huyen Nguyen, Oleksii Hrinchuk, Ryan Leary, Boris Ginsburg, Samuel Kriman, Stanislav Beliaev, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Jack Cook, Patrice Castonguay, Mariya Popova, Jocelyn Huang, and Jonathan M. Cohen. 2019. Nemo: a toolkit for building ai applications using neural modules." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.236, + 0.883, + 0.34 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023a. Openassistant conversation - democratizing large language model alignment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.349, + 0.883, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023b. Openassistant conversations - democratizing large language model alignment." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.463, + 0.883, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Lopez-Paz, Diane Bouchacourt, Levent Sagun, and Nicolas Usunier. 2022. Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09960." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.524, + 0.883, + 0.589 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xi-ubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.599, + 0.883, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fundamental AI Research Meta, Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, Athul Paul Jacob, Mojtaba Komeili, Karthik Konath, Minae Kwon, Adam Lerer, Mike Lewis, Alexander H. Miller, Sasha Mitts, Adithya Renduchintala, Stephen Roller, Dirk Rowe, Weiyan Shi, Joe Spisak, Alexander Wei, David Wu, Hugh Zhang, and Markus Zijlstra. 2022. Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378(6624):1067-1074." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.765, + 0.883, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marcos Nadal and Anjan Chatterjee. 2019. Neuroaesthetics and art's diversity and universality. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(3):e1487." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.826, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. 2022. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11284" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.19 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.203, + 0.489, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.255, + 0.489, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.32, + 0.489, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.424, + 0.49, + 0.619 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.632, + 0.489, + 0.672 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.684, + 0.489, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eric Michael Smith, Diana Gonzalez-Rico, Emily Dinan, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Controlling style in generated dialogue." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.736, + 0.489, + 0.776 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Charlie Snell, Ilya Kostrikov, Yi Su, Mengjiao Yang, and Sergey Levine. 2023. Offline rl for natural language generation with implicit language q learning." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.788, + 0.489, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2022. Learning to summarize from human feedback." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.395, + 0.885, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A. Smith, Iz Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023a. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.482, + 0.885, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023b. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.543, + 0.885, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhilin Wang, Xuhui Zhou, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Alex Marin, and Fei Xia. 2022. Extracting and inferring personal attributes from dialogue. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI, pages 58-69, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.63, + 0.885, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.691, + 0.885, + 0.743 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2023. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.752, + 0.885, + 0.805 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.814, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11285" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.155 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.17, + 0.241, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.198, + 0.443, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Attribute Prediction Model prompt templates" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.238, + 0.49, + 0.349 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the following prompt template to train the value model. The encoded value string is marked in red and used to calculate LM loss. The , and are special tokens included in the base LM tokenizer. An example of linearized value attributes is shown in the Sec. 3.1." + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.365, + 0.469, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System \n[system prompts] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[assistant response] \n[coded value attributes] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[assistant response] \n[coded value attributes]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.574, + 0.443, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Attribute Conditioned SFT prompt templates" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.613, + 0.489, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The SteerLM ACSFT prompt templates is similar to the Attribute Prediction Model prompt template shown in the Sec. A.1 but we swap the position of assistance response and encoded value string. The LM loss is calculated on the assistant responses as highlighted in red." + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.727, + 0.469, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "System \n[system prompts] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[coded value attributes] \n[assistant response] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[coded value attributes] \n[assistant response]" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.106, + 0.86, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.588, + 0.297, + 0.807, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Effect of Model Size" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.354, + 0.75, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Further Data Collection" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.391, + 0.886, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "While we did not collect new data in the current study, users who would like to collect new data will find the annotation cost of SteerLM to substantially lower compared to RLHF. SteerLM only requires each prompt-response sample to be annotated with attributes of their interest whereas RLHF requires pairwise comparison between k responses per prompt (where \\(k = 4 - 9\\)) or effectively \\(\\binom{4}{2}=6\\) to \\(\\binom{9}{2}=36\\) annotation per prompt (Ouyang et al., 2022). RLHF also relies on an iterative data collection methodology, where the critic must be continually retrained as the actor (language model) improves (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). In contrast, SteerLM only requires a one-time data collection, as each response is rated independently on an absolute scale rather than compared to other responses. Therefore, the annotation cost of collecting a dataset for SteerLM is approximately an order of magnitude lower than RLHF." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.754, + 0.844, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Effect of model size on performance" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better understand the effect that model size plays in model performance, we also trained SteerLM on smaller base models (8B and 22B), which have pretrained similarly as the 43B base model. We then compare it to smaller versions (7B, 13B and 30B) of the best performing baseline model (Guanaco 65B). As shown in Figure 3, SteerLM outperforms Guanaco at every comparable model size." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.528, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11286" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.086, + 0.873, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.385, + 0.436, + 0.612, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Human Annotation UI" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.476, + 0.344, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Human Annotation UI" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.497, + 0.486, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 Example of Generations by SteerLM 43B and ChatGPT 3.5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.534, + 0.487, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Question: How can I increase my productivity while working from home?" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.574, + 0.49, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SteerLM 43B response: Here are some tips to increase your productivity while working from home:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.616, + 0.489, + 0.698 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Create a dedicated workspace: Having a dedicated workspace can help you focus and avoid distractions. Choose a quiet and comfortable spot in your home and set up your workspace with all the necessary tools and equipment." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.706, + 0.49, + 0.786 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Stick to a schedule: Establish a daily routine and stick to it. Set specific hours for work and stick to them. Take breaks at regular intervals and schedule time for lunch and other activities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.797, + 0.49, + 0.877 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Eliminate distractions: Minimize distractions by turning off your phone, closing unnecessary tabs on your computer, and letting your family and friends know that you are working and cannot be disturbed." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Take care of your physical health: Take regular breaks to stretch and move around. Ex" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.616, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.545, + 0.476, + 0.882, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ercise regularly and eat healthy foods to keep your energy levels up." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Stay connected: Communicate with your colleagues and clients regularly. Use video calls and instant messaging to stay in touch and avoid misunderstandings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.602, + 0.883, + 0.667 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. Set clear goals: Set specific and achievable goals for each day or week. Break down large tasks into smaller ones and prioritize your tasks based on importance and urgency." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.681, + 0.884, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7. Use productivity tools: There are many productivity tools available that can help you stay organized and focused. Use tools like calendars, to-do lists, and project management software to keep track of your work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.776, + 0.882, + 0.84 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8. Take breaks: Taking regular breaks can help you stay focused and productive. Take a short break every hour or so to stretch your legs, get some fresh air, or grab a snack." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.856, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9. Stay motivated: Find ways to stay motivated and inspired. Set short-term and long-term goals, celebrate your successes, and find ways to reward yourself for a job well done." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11287" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.121, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10. Be flexible: Working from home can be challenging, so be flexible and adapt to changes as they arise. Be open to new ideas and approaches, and don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.177, + 0.49, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ChatGPT 3.5 response: There are several ways to increase productivity while working from home:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.22, + 0.488, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Establish a routine: Start and end your work at a specific time each day, just like you would if you were working at an office." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.279, + 0.488, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. Create a designated workspace: Set up a workspace that is free from distractions and has everything you need to complete your work." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.354, + 0.488, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. Prioritize your tasks: Make a to-do list at the beginning of each day and prioritize your tasks based on their importance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.413, + 0.488, + 0.461 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Take breaks: Take regular breaks to rest your mind and stretch your body, as this can help improve your focus and productivity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.472, + 0.488, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5. Minimize distractions: Avoid distractions such as social media, TV, or household chores during your work hours." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.531, + 0.49, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6. Use productivity tools: There are several productivity tools available online, such as time trackers, task-management apps, and projectmanagement software, which can help increase your productivity." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.622, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7. Communicate with colleagues: Keep in touch with your colleagues regularly to stay connected and avoid feeling isolated." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.22, + 0.49, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.681, + 0.49, + 0.728 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Remember, everyone's productivity habits are different, so find what works best for you and stick to it." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.838, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.7 Response lengths of various models" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.538, + 0.116, + 0.857, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelCharactersUnique Words
STEERLM 43B1906144
STEERLM 13B1719146
Guanaco 65B1648145
ChatGPT 3.5119377
Vicuna 13B1417125
LLaMA 30B RLHF1219108
LLaMA 30B SFT1280106
text-davinci-00384287
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.257, + 0.885, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Mean response length for each model in characters and number of unique whitespace-separated words." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11288" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_origin.pdf b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0afc2c5e944d02e1759c42565001fe2d07fd53ab --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/b74fd9b2-3087-4740-b345-13f453f014de_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:751b926d317cd4a7ab6d5e0e4eaff15a64d2a8f9811ff1a805fde934fb8c96d3 +size 1644483 diff --git a/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/full.md b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..52181272ab63881d57b0407a7dcc4dc49a594978 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,381 @@ +# SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF + +Yi Dong, Zhilin Wang, Makes Narsimhan Sreedhar, Xianchao Wu, Oleksii Kuchaiev NVIDIA + +{yidong, zhilinw, makeshn, xianchaow, okuchaiev}@nvidia.com + +# Abstract + +Model alignment with human preferences is an essential step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) helpful and consistent with human values. It typically consists of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) stages. However, RLHF faces inherent limitations stemming from a complex training setup and its tendency to align the model with implicit values that end users cannot control at run-time. Moreover, reward models in RLHF stage commonly rely on single-dimensional feedback as opposed to explicit, multifaceted signals that indicate attributes such as helpfulness, humor, and toxicity. To address these limitations, we propose STEERLM, a supervised fine-tuning method that empowers end-users to control responses during inference. STEERLM conditions responses to conform to an explicitly defined multi-dimensional set of attributes, thereby empowering a steerable AI capable of generating helpful and high-quality responses while maintaining customizability. Experiments show that STEERLM trained on open source datasets generates responses that are preferred by human and automatic evaluators to many state-of-the-art baselines trained with RLHF while being much easier to train. Try STEERLM at https://huggingface.co/nvidia/SteerLM-11ama2-13B + +# 1 Introduction + +Training LLMs on extensive text corpora has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, leading to state-of-the-art performance on numerous tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Kaplan et al., 2020). However, this does not automatically make language models effective in responding to user instructions (Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). To better align LLMs to human preferences, the most effective approach has been to perform SFT followed by the application of RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a; Chiang et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023). In SFT, human + +![](images/8141bc862edcbbbb01b73145877b78f1a55cdfd38a9ac30adf2e48de6c6aaac2.jpg) +Figure 1: STEERLM can be used to improve the quality of language model responses, similar to RLHF. Additionally, STEERLM allows users to define additional attributes such as humor and (low) toxicity at inference time, to steer model responses. + +annotators provide demonstrations of instructions and responses for the model to imitate (Taori et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). RLHF goes a step further to enable models to generate responses that human annotators prefer to alternative responses (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Kopf et al., 2023a). + +However, despite its success, there are limitations to this approach. First, using SFT alone does not allow the model to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality responses leading to lower performance than RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a). Using RLHF for model alignment however, substantially increase the complexity of the training setup (Snell et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), limiting its public adoption (Zhang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023). Furthermore, RLHF treats human preference of model responses as monodimensional without regard for the diversity of aspects (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity) that contribute to such preferences (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) and thereby limiting users' ability to adjust individual aspects at inference time + +based on their use cases. + +To address these limitations, we introduce STEERLM, a novel approach to model alignment through SFT that overcomes the limitations associated with conventional SFT and RLHF methods. Similar to RLHF, STEERLM incorporates additional reward signals by leveraging annotated attributes (e.g., quality, humor, toxicity) present in the Open-Assistant (Kopf et al., 2023a) dataset for each response. To emulate the process of rating responses, an Attribute Prediction model (\$3.1) is trained and employed to annotate datasets (\$3.2) containing dialogues that can be decomposed into prompt-response pairs. By utilizing this combined diverse dataset comprising prompts, responses, and predicted attributes, we train the generation of responses to be conditioned (\$3.3) on both the prompt instructions and the annotated attributes, enabling STEERLM to effectively capture human preferences and generate responses that align with them. + +STEERLM also exhibits enhanced versatility compared to RLHF, allowing for the flexible utilization of various attributes during inference. To further enhance the adherence of STEERLM to the specified attributes during inference, we introduce an additional training recipe (§3.4) which includes augmenting the training data with denoised, diverse, and high-quality examples. We open-source code for STEERLM on NVIDIA NeMo toolkit (Kuchaiev et al., 2019). In summary, our key contributions are: + +- We introduce STEERLM as a simple alternative for language model alignment that utilizes only the language modeling objective, +- We demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B on the Vicuna benchmark where it outperforms state-of-the-art baselines including RLHF models such as ChatGPT-3.5, +- We highlight the flexible and customizable nature of STEERLM 43B where users can customize attributes at inference-time facilitating a wide variety of applications. + +# 2 Related Work + +Model alignment using SFT Fine-tuning language models on multiple tasks enable them to follow many types of instructions and perform tasks outside of those they were trained on (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022). However, language + +models typically generate short and robotic responses when supervised finetuned on academic data sets. On the other hand, models can generate high quality human-like response when trained with high-quality human demonstrations (Conover et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022). Taori et al. (2023) shows using data generated by OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, can train a model in a cost-effective manner. + +Using only SFT for model alignment became popular recently because of the ease of its training setup. Zhang et al. (2023) and Peng et al. (2023) trained models using SFT based on responses generated by OpenAI models while Dettmers et al. (2023) and Kopf et al. (2023b) used the crowdsourced Open Assistant Dataset and Zhou et al. (2023) used a small proprietary data set. Wang et al. (2023b) and Taori et al. (2023) trained models using bootstrapped datasets from the language model itself. Luo et al. (2023) showed that language model can learn to solve complex instructions by evolving on the complexity and breath of instructions. Wang et al. (2023a) compared many open-source data sets used to perform instruction tuning using SFT but found them to under-perform commercial models trained using RLHF. + +Model alignment using RLHF Building on foundational work on RL in games and robotic simulations (Christiano et al., 2017; Schulman et al., 2017), many have had success applying RLHF to improve the instruction following ability of LLM by giving a reward proportional to the relative desirability of the response (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). Such an approach has been shown to benefit downstream tasks like question-answering (Nakano et al., 2022) and summarization (Stiennon et al., 2022). However, the complexity of the training setup (Rafailov et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2023) remains a hurdle in the widespread adoption of RLHF. Many have attempted to overcome this by migrating RLHF training to an offline setting (Snell et al., 2023), casting the problem as conditional sequence modeling (Chen et al., 2021), directly optimizing LMs with labeled preference data (Rafailov et al., 2023), or ranking responses to align the models (Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), but limited progress has been made (Wang et al., 2023a). + +Another limitation unaddressed by related works lies in the use of a single-dimensional reward function for evaluating human preferences of model + +responses since human preferences are based on a multitude of real-world objectives (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity), which also vary across domains (Nadal and Chatterjee, 2019; Lopez-Paz et al., 2022). Given such multi-dimensional attributes, current approaches (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023) are only capable of generating responses with high reward scores, despite low reward scores on various attributes being relevant in certain situations, such as modelling realistic gaming NPCs who are capable of generating high toxicity responses. + +Attribute Grounded Generation Many researchers have explored grounding text with various attributes in Dialogue tasks. Rashkin et al. (2019) modelled chit-chat conversations grounded in emotions such as 'Angry', 'Embarrassed' or 'Joyful' while Smith et al. (2020) conditioned chit-chat dialogue with conversational styles such as 'Curious', 'Sympathetic' or 'Knowledgeable'. Zhang et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues based on personal attributes such as their hobbies. Meta et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues in the game of Diplomacy using the expected player skill. However, such grounding has only been explored in narrow-defined tasks with a single attribute. Our approach seeks to condition the generation of responses in general open-domain conversations covering tasks like code assistance, writing poems and planning tasks, using multiple attributes (e.g., quality, humor and toxicity). + +# 3 SteerLM + +We propose STEERLM, a simple and novel approach to align language models to follow user instructions. Trained solely using the language modeling objective, it offers a computationally efficient alternative to other techniques like RLHF. Specifically, STEERLM comprises 4 steps as illustrated in Fig. 2. + +# 3.1 Step 1. Attribute Prediction Model + +Similar to the reward model in RLHF, the Attribute Prediction Model in STEERLM is designed to predict human preference of model responses to improve model alignment. Compared to a monolithic reward signal in RLHF, the attribute prediction model can be used to predict various attributes that are considered to be important in generating good responses (high quality, low toxicity, and varying humor levels depending on context). + +We use the Open Assistant (OASST) dataset $D$ , where each sample contains a prompt $x$ , a response $y$ as well as a set of attributes $v$ . To model these attributes, we first scale each attribute (originally a float between 0 and 1) into an integer between 0 and 9 and then obtain a linearized representation of the value attributes $v$ . The attributes we select look like quality:6, toxicity:0, humor:9, creativity:0, violence:0, helpfulness:5, not_apropriate:0. + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {A P M} = - \mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \sim D} \sum_ {t} \log P _ {\theta} \left(v _ {t} \mid x, y, v _ {< t}\right) \tag {1} +$$ + +Conditioning on $x$ and $y$ , $v$ is the target output for the language model as expressed in Eq. 1. + +# 3.2 Step 2. Annotating Datasets using Attribute Prediction Model + +Compared to using human-annotated attributes directly, training an Attribute Prediction Model can allow other datasets (e.g. HH-RLHF dataset) to be annotated. This helps improve the diversity of training data which is important for Step 3 Attribute Conditioned SFT. Moreover, it has been observed that crowdsourced human-annotated data often suffers from noise, arising from factors such as misinterpretation of instructions, inadequate expertise/education in annotating responses, and limited proficiency in language comprehension (Kopf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, there exists a lack of calibration among annotators, with some individuals applying more stringent criteria when assigning full scores (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). By employing an Attribute Prediction Model, it becomes possible to mitigate these issues by denoising the human-annotated attributes and calibrating scores across annotators. + +$$ +\arg \max _ {v _ {t}} P _ {\theta} \left(v _ {t} \mid x, y, v _ {< t}\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +We annotate samples by greedily decoding the value attributes for pairs of prompts and responses using the Attribute Prediction Model(as shown in Eq. 2), in order to construct the attribute annotated dataset $D^{\prime}$ . + +# 3.3 Step 3. Attribute Conditioned SFT + +Attribute-conditioned SFT is an extension of regular SFT that enables incorporating reward signal information through attribute labels. This allows learning from both high and low quality responses in a manner similar to the established SFT+RLHF pipeline (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). + +![](images/91eb16da05f68b58393acdaaa35713a7faa0375c837549a584015696bf142b55.jpg) +Figure 2: STEERLM: Step 1. The base language model is trained to assess the quality of responses by predicting attribute values. Step 2. The attribute prediction model is used to annotate response quality across diverse datasets. Step 3. Given a prompt and desired attribute values, a new base model is fine-tuned to generate responses that align with the specified attributes. Step 4. Multiple responses are sampled from the fine-tuned model in Step 3, specifying maximum quality. The sampled responses are evaluated by the trained attribute prediction model, leading to another round of fine-tuning. + +Attribute-conditioned SFT only requires an offline annotated dataset, as created in Step 2, rather than online sampling and evaluation of responses like in RLHF. By utilizing a purely offline training approach, this greatly simplifies the training configuration compared to RLHF's heterogenous setup. In particular, it avoids the complexity of online data generation/evaluation and eliminates the training slowness resulting from memory bandwidth-constrained online inference in RLHF. Using the attribute-annotated train datasets $D'$ from the Step 2, we train a model to generate a response $y$ , conditioning on the value attributes $v$ and the prompt $x$ . The loss function is: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {1}} = - \mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \sim D ^ {\prime}} \sum_ {t} \log P _ {\phi} (y _ {t} | v, x, y _ {< t}) +$$ + +# 3.4 Step 4. Bootstrapping with High Quality Samples + +By sampling the policy network, RLHF effectively navigates the response space of language models and identifies responses that are of various qualities. The response samples are subsequently utilized to influence and shape the behavior of language models according to their reward values. In Step 4 of STEERLM, the objective is to accomplish a similar objective by leveraging the Attribute Conditioned SFT and Attribute Prediction models from the previous steps. + +Step 4a To ensure that we obtain a diverse set of responses, we first enumerate a set of all possible + +attribute value combinations from the annotated datasets used for training. By filtering the combinations to explicitly have the value for quality to be 9 (i.e. highest possible value), we get a subset of attribute strings representing a high quality set $V$ . We uniformly sample from this high quality set $V$ to get the attribute string $v'$ . By combining $v'$ with prompts from the same training datasets, we use the top- $k$ (=50) sampling to generate multiple responses using the Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning approach as shown in Eq. 3. + +$$ +\arg \operatorname {t o p k} _ {y _ {t} ^ {\prime}} P _ {\phi} \left(y _ {t} ^ {\prime} \mid x, v ^ {\prime}, y _ {< t} ^ {\prime}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +This allows us to obtain a wide variety of responses for each prompt and increases the diversity of the sampled dataset $D'' = \{(x, y')\}$ . + +The Attribute Prediction Model (§3.1) with greedy sampling is used to evaluate the generated responses $y'$ giving predicted attribute values $v''$ : + +$$ +\arg \max _ {v _ {t} ^ {\prime \prime}} P _ {\theta} \left(v _ {t} ^ {\prime \prime} \mid x, y ^ {\prime}, v _ {< t} ^ {\prime \prime}\right) \tag {4} +$$ + +This gives us the dataset $D''' = \{(x, y', v'')\}$ where each tuple consists of a prompt from the original training datasets, a sampled response and its corresponding predicted attribute values. + +Step 4b We use the sampled responses and the corresponding predicted attributes from $D''$ to perform the second round of Attribute-conditioned + +SFT, effectively allowing us to bootstrap the training of the model on its own responses: + +$$ +\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {2}} = - \mathbb {E} _ {(x, v ^ {\prime \prime}, y ^ {\prime}) \sim D ^ {\prime \prime \prime}} \sum_ {t} \log P _ {\phi} \left(y _ {t} ^ {\prime} \mid v ^ {\prime \prime}, x, y _ {< t} ^ {\prime}\right) +$$ + +# 4 Experiments + +In this section, we elaborate on our choice of training datasets, base model, implementation details, and evaluation setup. + +# 4.1 Training Datasets + +We use the following open-source, commercially-available instruction-tuning datasets. In addition, we explain how collecting new data for SteerLM can be less costly than doing so for RLHF in Appendix A.3. + +OASST Open Assistant dataset (Köpf et al., 2023a) was used to train an Attribute Prediction Model, as well as to perform Attribute Condition SFT. This dataset contains 13 human-labeled attributes for each response with a score ranging from 0 to 1. We choose 7 of them that are most relevant for guiding the language model to align with human preferences: quality, toxicity, violence, helpfulness, creativity, humor and inappropriateness. Other attributes such as hate_speech, lang_mismatch and pii (personal identifiable information) are not useful to steer at inference time since these are attributes that we always want to keep as False. In order to leverage STEERLM's ability to learn from both positive and negative responses, we use all the released 48.8K conversations for training and do not filter the dataset. + +HH-RLHF The Helpful and Harmless - Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback dataset (Bai et al., 2022) does not provide human labeled attribute values. In order to improve the diversity of prompts and responses, we utilize the trained Attribute Prediction model to annotate the responses. For our Attribute Conditioned SFT process, we utilize all 348.6K conversations from the dataset. + +M-SID Model Self-Identification Dataset (Chiang et al., 2023) is a small set of 910 prompt-response pairs1 used to answer questions relating to identity such as "Who are you?" and "Who created you?". This dataset is also included as part of Attribute Conditioned SFT training. + +# 4.2 Base Models for STEERLM + +STEERLM 43B The 43B base language model employed in this study has been trained on a diverse corpus encompassing various multilingual data sources, including web crawl, news articles, books, scientific publications from arXiv, and code repositories. Having been trained with 1.1 trillion tokens, it is comparable to LLaMA's 30B and 65B models, which were trained on 1.4 trillion tokens. This base model is designed for general-purpose language understanding tasks and does not have any domain-specific fine-tuning. We utilize this base model as the backbone for both Attribute Prediction and Attribute Conditioned SFT. + +STEERLM 13B We also apply the SteerLM methodology on a popular, widely-available model: Llama 2 13B base model (Touvron et al., 2023). + +# 4.3 Training details + +The training of both the Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning model was conducted utilizing a cluster comprising 16 A100-DGX nodes, each equipped with 8 A100-80GB GPUs. The training process involved a global batch size of 128, spanning 5 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 4096 tokens. The Adam optimizer was utilized with a learning rate of 5e-6 and a weight decay of 1e-2. The selection of the optimal Attribute Prediction model checkpoint was determined based on the lowest loss observed on the validation set, while the optimal checkpoint for the Attribute Conditioned SFT model was selected based on the highest validation quality observed on holdout validation sets. Detailed templates for Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned SFT are found in Appendix §A.1 and §A.2. + +# 4.4 Evaluation + +Baseline Models We compare our approach against several state-of-the-art instruction-following models. These baselines include OpenAI ChatGPT 3.5, OpenAI text-davinci-003, Guanaco 65B (Dettmers et al., 2023), Vicuna 13B (Chiang et al., 2023), and OASST LLaMA 30B RLHF (Köpf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, to showcase the differentiation between RLHF and SFT, we also include OASST LLaMA 30B SFT (Köpf et al., 2023b), which solely employs SFT instead of RLHF for alignment purposes. + +Response Generation In accordance with the methodologies described in Peng et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we employ the GPT-4 model to conduct an evaluation of our proposed approach using the Vicuna benchmark (Chiang et al., 2023). This benchmark comprises a diverse set of 80 single-turn prompts encompassing various domains, including knowledge-intensive question answering, historical counter-factuals, long-form document writing, commonsense questions, roleplays, fermi problems, general knowledge questions, coding, and math problems. Each model is tasked with generating a response with a maximum sequence length of 1024, utilizing default hyperparameters. For all the STEERLM models and OASST LLaMA 30B models, the decoding strategy employed is greedy decoding. Additionally, for STEERLM model responses, the attributes "quality" and "helpfulness" are fixed at a value of 9, while all other attributes are set to 0. In the case of Guanaco 65B, generations are obtained using top $p = 0.9$ sampling with a temperature of 0.7, and Vicuna 13B uses a temperature of $0.7^2$ . + +Automatic Evaluation In evaluating each prompt, the prompt alongside the responses made by the two competing models are given to GPT-4 (Chiang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023). GPT-4 is then required to give a score between 1 and 10 for each response. While we only report scores for comparing each model against ChatGPT 3.5, we compare every pair of models against each other for subsequent use in ELO rating calculations. The cumulative score obtained over the 80 questions for each model is then compared to the cumulative score achieved by ChatGPT 3.5. This facilitates the assessment of each model's performance as a percentage of ChatGPT 3.5's performance. It is important to note that the ordering of the responses from the two models during evaluations can influence the evaluation results, as previously observed by Dettmers et al. (2023). To mitigate this potential bias, we calculate the mean performance of each model in both possible response orderings. + +
Model NameChatGPT 3.5 ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT 3.5
STEERLM 43B629.25655.75104.2
STEERLM 13B617.75634102.6
Guanaco 65B631.25646.25102.4
ChatGPT 3.5--100.0
Vicuna 13B641.75636.7599.2
LLaMA 30B RLHF650.25612.7594.2
LLaMA 30B SFT631.561093.2
text-davinci-003665.25599.590.1
+ +Table 1: Automatic evaluation. Evaluations are highly consistent with $+ / - {0.2}\%$ difference across evaluation runs on identical model generations. + +Human Evaluation To minimize the risk of annotator fatigue and the potential for hasty evaluations, we partitioned the 80 prompts within the Vicuna Benchmark into four distinct groups, with each group consisting of 20 prompts. This partitioning strategy helps ensure that the human annotators (12 in total) are able to provide thorough evaluations without skimming through the responses, as it can be demanding to compare multiple responses simultaneously. Volunteer human annotators were specifically chosen for this task instead of utilizing crowd workers, such as Amazon Mechanical Turkers, as it enables us to carefully control for annotators with a university education and coding background, which are crucial for effectively evaluating these model responses. Consequently, this approach resulted in a higher degree of consistency among our annotators (Fleiss' $\kappa = 0.46$ ) in comparison to similar studies that employed crowd workers (Dettmers et al., 2023). + +However, this choice limited the number of models that we could compare, and we selected the three best-performing models from automatic evaluations for the human evaluation (excluding STEERLM 13B given its similarities to STEERLM 43B). The prompt along with the responses from the different models were shown to the annotators, and they were asked to rank them in order of preference (using the UI in Appendix §A.5). During the annotation process, the human annotators remained unaware of the specific model used for each response, and to prevent any potential bias, the order of the responses was randomly shuffled. Annotations were carried out utilizing an A/B forced choice approach, requiring the annotators to subjectively determine their preferred response between the given options. + +Elo rating Using both automatic and human pairwise model comparisons, we calculate an Elo rating for each model to show the performance relative to all other models. For each prompt, scores are first converted into a tie, win or loss between two models based on their scores. Following Chiang et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we start with a score of 1000 and $K = 32$ and repeat the procedure 10000 times to account for the order in which model pair comparisons are used to calculate their ELO rating. Additionally, we also present the expected win rate against ChatGPT 3.5, for better interpretability. + +# 4.5 Results + +
Model NameElo Rating95% CIWin Rate (%) vs ChatGPT 3.5
Automatic Evaluation
STEERLM 43B11391048-122466
STEERLM 13B11101022-119862
Guanaco 65B1065974-115356
ChatGPT 3.51023936-110850
Vicuna 13B1001911-109147
LLaMA 30B RLHF925835-101736
LLaMA 30B SFT935843-102837
text-davinci-003800712-89322
Human Evaluation
STEERLM 43B1040951-112659
ChatGPT 3.5981897-107050
Guanaco 65B977890-106450
+ +Based on Tables 1 and 2, our STEERLM 43B model out-performs all baseline models on both automatic and human evaluations. STEERLM 43B performs slightly better than STEERLM 13B, which is expected given the larger base model size (Ouyang et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). Analysis of the responses generated by STEERLM 43B shows that it provides longer, more complete answers (mean = 1906 characters) with more unique words (mean = 144) compared to the other baselines (e.g. ChatGPT 3.5 has 1193 characters and 77 unique words). Please refer to Appendix §A.6 for examples and §A.7 for average response lengths for each model. + +Automatic evaluation with GPT-4 has a tendency to prefer longer responses that have more unique tokens (Dubois et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a). STEERLM 43B responses satisfy both criteria and this might lead to GPT-4 rating its responses higher + +Table 2: Elo Ratings for Models based on Automatic and Human Evaluation. + +
Model NameChatGPT ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT
Baseline663.50528.5079.7
+ Human Annotated Attributes644.00619.5096.2
+ HQ OASST (human annotated)646.75634.7598.1
+ Attribute Pred. Model632.50649.75102.7
+ HH-RLHF/M-SID623.25646.00103.7
+ Bootstrapping on HQ samples629.25655.75104.2
+ +Table 3: Ablation study of model variants under automatic evaluation. + +than other counterparts, explaining the 74 Elo point difference between STEERLM 43B and the closest baseline model on Automatic Evaluations. The advantage of STEERLM 43B on Human Evaluation is slightly lower (59 Elo point difference), suggesting that only a slight bias of GPT4 Automatic Evaluations towards longer and more informative responses. Nonetheless, both Automatic and Human Evaluation show a clear strength of STEERLM 43B in answering open-ended questions that require creative and verbose responses, which composes majority of the prompts in the Vicuna benchmark. + +Relative to Guanaco 65B, our model performs better despite being trained on a smaller base model (43B vs. 65B) that has been trained on fewer tokens (1.1T vs. 1.4T). This is likely due to a more efficient use of OASST data, which both models are trained on. Briefly, Guanaco 65B only uses high quality data, defined as the top response (in terms of annotated quality) at every level of the conversation tree. In contrast, STEERLM 43B uses all of Open-Assistant data, including low-quality conversations. We will show the advantage of the STEERLM approach in the ablation studies in §5. This enables STEERLM to achieve an effect similar to RLHF by being able to learn from both responses of high and low quality, as opposed to only selected high-quality conversations in regular SFT (Dettmers et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a; Zhou et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023; Köpf et al., 2023b; Chiang et al., 2023). The small difference in performance between the OASST LLaMA 30B SFT and RLHF models supports the noted difficulty of getting RLHF to work well in aligning LLMs (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Köpf et al., 2023b), which prevents widespread adoption of RLHF. + +# 5 Ablation Study + +In order to identify the contribution of each individual component to the overall performance, we perform a systematic ablation process (Table 3), + +starting from a baseline that is finetuned on the entire OASST dataset without using any information about attributes. + +Addition of attribute labels The addition of attribute labels in the fine-tuning process leads to a significant increase in performance, underscoring the pivotal role of attribute labels, particularly the quality attribute, as the primary contributor to improved performance (16.5%). + +Finetuning on only High Quality Data We observe that Attribute Conditioned Supervised Finetuning on a small subset of 3400 samples from the OASST dataset that have the highest value for quality (human annotated) leads to an increase in performance by up to $1.9\%$ . This observation aligns with prior research indicating that training models on a larger volume of low-quality data yields inferior results compared to training on a smaller quantity of high-quality data (Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023). + +Utilizing predictions from the Attribute Prediction model for the Attribute Conditioned SFT process provides a substantial benefit to STEERLM 43B amounting to $4.6\%$ in performance, relative to using human annotations. This empirical evidence substantiates our hypothesis that employing an attribute prediction model aids in effectively calibrating the quality annotation process across multiple training samples, thereby mitigating noisy labels that are unavoidable when using crowdsourced annotations. + +Augmentation of training data with Anthropic HH-RLHF contributes to an additional $1.0\%$ increase in performance compared to using Open-Assistant data alone. This shows the capability of our Attribute Prediction model to identify and annotate high-quality data from other datasets apart from the one it was trained on. This suggests that the methodology of STEERLM can be applied to label different kinds of datasets, enhancing the diversity of training data without incurring the substantial expense associated with human annotation for every individual data sample. + +Bootstrapping with High-Quality Samples results in a performance gain of $0.5\%$ . Our hypothesis is that the improvement in performance is due to the data augmentation through sampling, which explores the response space and augments the dataset with higher-quality data. + +
Model NameToxicity ValueAvg. Score
STEERLM 43B00.06346
30.08635
60.09633
90.10408
ChatGPT 3.5-0.06622
+ +Table 4: Average Perspective API Toxicity score on the Anthropic Red Team Dataset. + +# 6 Steerability demonstration + +To demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B to control its generations in a multi-faceted way, we conduct an empirical study incorporating the attributes of toxicity and humor. + +# 6.1 Toxicity + +To assess the ability of STEERLM 43B to vary its responses based on the value of toxicity specified, we use the Anthropic Red-team dataset3 (Ganguli et al., 2022). This dataset contains prompts ranked from 0 to 4, with a higher rank indicating more inappropriate responses. We randomly select 100 conversations with a ranking of 4 and focused on the initial turns of these interactions. + +To compare the toxicity levels of generated outputs, we vary the toxicity parameter in STEERLM 43B at four different settings: 0 (default), 3, 6, and 9 (highest toxicity). We employ the Perspective API, a widely-used toxicity classification model, to score the toxicity of the generated responses and compare the average toxicity of STEERLM 43B to the responses from ChatGPT-3.5. + +Our findings (Table 4) indicate that when the toxicity value is set to 0 (default), STEERLM 43B exhibits slightly lower toxicity compared to ChatGPT. However, STEERLM 43B offers the flexibility to generate more toxic outputs by increasing the toxicity value above 0. This ability to control generation attributes at inference can prove valuable in applications such as generating Non-Player Character (NPC) dialogue in games and red-teaming purposes. + +# 6.2 Humor + +Recent studies (Jentzsch and Kersting, 2023) investigating the humor capabilities of language models have primarily focused on the aspect of telling jokes. However, humor can manifest in various + +contexts. In this experiment, we employ two different prompts - "Tell me a joke" and "What's a good way to spend a day?", to compare the humor exhibited by STEERLM and ChatGPT-3.5. + +"Tell me a joke" - ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor set to 9, successfully generate a joke. When the humor attribute in STEERLM 43B is set to 6 or lower, it responds with "I don't know any jokes". This characteristic can be advantageous for chatbots that need to maintain a formal persona and when humor is not appropriate. + +"What's a good way to spend a day?" - Both ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor attribute at low values (0-3) provided an extensive list of activities. Tuning up humor to 6 leads to STEERLM 43B appending to the list a cheeky remark, "But don't forget to brush your teeth and go to bed at a reasonable hour!". With humor set to the maximum value of 9, it leads to a cheesy statement "By spending it with you, of course!". + +Thus, depending on the intended use-case the same STEERLM model can be turned into versatile engaging conversational agents. + +# 7 Conclusion + +We introduce STEERLM, a novel model alignment approach with a value system (e.g. humor level and toxicity tolerance) that can be adjusted by users at inference time without re-training. STEERLM trains both the attribute prediction model and the language model using only supervised fine-tuning, resulting in an easy-to-implement and straightforward training process compared to using RLHF. We train STEERLM models following this procedure, achieving state-of-the-art results on the Vicuna benchmark. We validate these results with a human evaluation and find that STEERLM is preferred over the other models we compare it to. We hope our work will inspire further research into developing simple and effective model alignment methods that empower better AI assistants for everyone. + +# Limitations + +The Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute-Conditioned SFT Models in STEERLM are fully supervised fine-tuned, making it relatively costly in terms of GPU hours and energy compared with Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning algorithms such as Low-Rank Adaptation and Prompt Tuning techniques. + +Automatic and manual evaluation have been performed on a English-only benchmark and we would need to evaluate our models on multilingual benchmarks to test the extent to which the positive results we find with STEERLM on an English-based benchmark extends to evaluations with other languages. + +# Ethics Statement + +STEERLM enables user capabilities to ask for toxic and/or violent responses during run-time. This is a valid use case in certain scenarios like games where a character should respond differently based on situation or in red teaming use cases. However, malicious users might exploit this feature outside of its intended use-cases. To address this, it is possible to give users controls over only a subset of attributes at model run-time, unless they demonstrate an acceptable use-case. In general, we believe that giving developers explicit control over model's value system is preferred to dictating one that they can not adjust. + +# Acknowledgments + +We would like to thank Abhinav Khattar, Adi Renduchintala, Neel Kant, Sandeep Subramanian and many others at NVIDIA as well as anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, we appreciate the authors, members and contributors of the Open Assistant Project (OASST) for assembling and excellent open data set for model alignment which made this work possible. + +# References + +Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Ben Mann, and Jared Kaplan. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. + +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, + +Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. +Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Michael Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. +Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with $90\%$ * chatgpt quality. +Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc. +Mike Conover, Matt Hayes, Ankit Mathur, Xiangrui Meng, Jianwei Xie, Jun Wan, Sam Shah, Ali Ghodsi, Patrick Wendell, Matei Zaharia, and et al. 2023. Free dolly: Introducing the world's first truly open instruction-tuned llm. +Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. +Hanze Dong, Wei Xiong, Deepanshu Goyal, Yihan Zhang, Winnie Chow, Rui Pan, Shizhe Diao, Jipeng Zhang, Kashun Shum, and Tong Zhang. 2023. Raft: Reward ranked finetuning for generative foundation model alignment. +Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang, Ishaan Gulrajani, Jimmy Ba, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback. +Deep Ganguli, Liane Lovitt, Jackson Kernion, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Ben Mann, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Kamal Ndousse, Andy Jones, Sam Bowman, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, Sheer El-Showk, Stanislav Fort, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Josh Jacobson, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Catherine Olsson, Sam Ringer, Eli Tran-Johnson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Jared Kaplan, and Jack Clark. 2022. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned. +Sophie Jentzsch and Kristian Kersting. 2023. Chatgpt is fun, but it is not funny! humor is still challenging large language models. + +Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. +Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jason Li, Huyen Nguyen, Oleksii Hrinchuk, Ryan Leary, Boris Ginsburg, Samuel Kriman, Stanislav Beliaev, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Jack Cook, Patrice Castonguay, Mariya Popova, Jocelyn Huang, and Jonathan M. Cohen. 2019. Nemo: a toolkit for building ai applications using neural modules. +Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023a. Openassistant conversation - democratizing large language model alignment. +Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023b. Openassistant conversations - democratizing large language model alignment. +David Lopez-Paz, Diane Bouchacourt, Levent Sagun, and Nicolas Usunier. 2022. Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09960. +Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xi-ubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct. +Fundamental AI Research Meta, Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, Athul Paul Jacob, Mojtaba Komeili, Karthik Konath, Minae Kwon, Adam Lerer, Mike Lewis, Alexander H. Miller, Sasha Mitts, Adithya Renduchintala, Stephen Roller, Dirk Rowe, Weiyan Shi, Joe Spisak, Alexander Wei, David Wu, Hugh Zhang, and Markus Zijlstra. 2022. Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378(6624):1067-1074. +Marcos Nadal and Anjan Chatterjee. 2019. Neuroaesthetics and art's diversity and universality. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(3):e1487. +Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. 2022. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. + +Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. +Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. +Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. +Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization. +John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. +Eric Michael Smith, Diana Gonzalez-Rico, Emily Dinan, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Controlling style in generated dialogue. +Charlie Snell, Ilya Kostrikov, Yi Su, Mengjiao Yang, and Sergey Levine. 2023. Offline rl for natural language generation with implicit language q learning. +Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2022. Learning to summarize from human feedback. +Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca. + +Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models. +Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A. Smith, Iz Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023a. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources. +Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023b. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. +Zhilin Wang, Xuhui Zhou, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Alex Marin, and Fei Xia. 2022. Extracting and inferring personal attributes from dialogue. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI, pages 58-69, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. +Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2023. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears. +Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention. +Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Attribute Prediction Model prompt templates + +We use the following prompt template to train the value model. The encoded value string is marked in red and used to calculate LM loss. The , and are special tokens included in the base LM tokenizer. An example of linearized value attributes is shown in the Sec. 3.1. + +```txt +System +[system prompts] +[user name] +[user prompts] +[assistant name] +[assistant response] +[coded value attributes] +[user name] +[user prompts] +[assistant name] +[assistant response] +[coded value attributes] +``` + +# A.2 Attribute Conditioned SFT prompt templates + +The SteerLM ACSFT prompt templates is similar to the Attribute Prediction Model prompt template shown in the Sec. A.1 but we swap the position of assistance response and encoded value string. The LM loss is calculated on the assistant responses as highlighted in red. + +```txt +System +[system prompts] +[user name] +[user prompts] +[assistant name] +[coded value attributes] +[assistant response] +[user name] +[user prompts] +[assistant name] +[coded value attributes] +[assistant response] +``` + +![](images/58db9b750f348d022f4e991770ea380b7a466a23f63b9dbbe5364b7c88c1e8a2.jpg) +Figure 3: Effect of Model Size + +# A.3 Further Data Collection + +While we did not collect new data in the current study, users who would like to collect new data will find the annotation cost of SteerLM to substantially lower compared to RLHF. SteerLM only requires each prompt-response sample to be annotated with attributes of their interest whereas RLHF requires pairwise comparison between k responses per prompt (where $k = 4 - 9$ ) or effectively $\binom{4}{2}=6$ to $\binom{9}{2}=36$ annotation per prompt (Ouyang et al., 2022). RLHF also relies on an iterative data collection methodology, where the critic must be continually retrained as the actor (language model) improves (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). In contrast, SteerLM only requires a one-time data collection, as each response is rated independently on an absolute scale rather than compared to other responses. Therefore, the annotation cost of collecting a dataset for SteerLM is approximately an order of magnitude lower than RLHF. + +# A.4 Effect of model size on performance + +To better understand the effect that model size plays in model performance, we also trained SteerLM on smaller base models (8B and 22B), which have pretrained similarly as the 43B base model. We then compare it to smaller versions (7B, 13B and 30B) of the best performing baseline model (Guanaco 65B). As shown in Figure 3, SteerLM outperforms Guanaco at every comparable model size. + +![](images/01884e0c55b335e0f894e90b6a4bafae6672918e5128711fec4bcf6d49fe3777.jpg) +Figure 4: Human Annotation UI + +# A.5 Human Annotation UI + +# A.6 Example of Generations by SteerLM 43B and ChatGPT 3.5 + +Question: How can I increase my productivity while working from home? + +SteerLM 43B response: Here are some tips to increase your productivity while working from home: + +1. Create a dedicated workspace: Having a dedicated workspace can help you focus and avoid distractions. Choose a quiet and comfortable spot in your home and set up your workspace with all the necessary tools and equipment. +2. Stick to a schedule: Establish a daily routine and stick to it. Set specific hours for work and stick to them. Take breaks at regular intervals and schedule time for lunch and other activities. +3. Eliminate distractions: Minimize distractions by turning off your phone, closing unnecessary tabs on your computer, and letting your family and friends know that you are working and cannot be disturbed. +4. Take care of your physical health: Take regular breaks to stretch and move around. Ex + +ercise regularly and eat healthy foods to keep your energy levels up. + +5. Stay connected: Communicate with your colleagues and clients regularly. Use video calls and instant messaging to stay in touch and avoid misunderstandings. +6. Set clear goals: Set specific and achievable goals for each day or week. Break down large tasks into smaller ones and prioritize your tasks based on importance and urgency. +7. Use productivity tools: There are many productivity tools available that can help you stay organized and focused. Use tools like calendars, to-do lists, and project management software to keep track of your work. +8. Take breaks: Taking regular breaks can help you stay focused and productive. Take a short break every hour or so to stretch your legs, get some fresh air, or grab a snack. +9. Stay motivated: Find ways to stay motivated and inspired. Set short-term and long-term goals, celebrate your successes, and find ways to reward yourself for a job well done. + +10. Be flexible: Working from home can be challenging, so be flexible and adapt to changes as they arise. Be open to new ideas and approaches, and don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. + +ChatGPT 3.5 response: There are several ways to increase productivity while working from home: + +1. Establish a routine: Start and end your work at a specific time each day, just like you would if you were working at an office. +2. Create a designated workspace: Set up a workspace that is free from distractions and has everything you need to complete your work. +3. Prioritize your tasks: Make a to-do list at the beginning of each day and prioritize your tasks based on their importance. +4. Take breaks: Take regular breaks to rest your mind and stretch your body, as this can help improve your focus and productivity. +5. Minimize distractions: Avoid distractions such as social media, TV, or household chores during your work hours. +6. Use productivity tools: There are several productivity tools available online, such as time trackers, task-management apps, and projectmanagement software, which can help increase your productivity. +7. Communicate with colleagues: Keep in touch with your colleagues regularly to stay connected and avoid feeling isolated. + +Remember, everyone's productivity habits are different, so find what works best for you and stick to it. + +A.7 Response lengths of various models + +
ModelCharactersUnique Words
STEERLM 43B1906144
STEERLM 13B1719146
Guanaco 65B1648145
ChatGPT 3.5119377
Vicuna 13B1417125
LLaMA 30B RLHF1219108
LLaMA 30B SFT1280106
text-davinci-00384287
+ +Table 5: Mean response length for each model in characters and number of unique whitespace-separated words. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/images.zip b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73038e07621cf8618b09249e5cf65ab621136f72 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:2497f87204388d3712f56c68f2c0865544e0f800b3652052129a2c35945509dd +size 371368 diff --git a/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/layout.json b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4a6f352d03dfdbb55e7379402ba479a3340237e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/SteerLM_ Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8267 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 75, + 484, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 75, + 484, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 75, + 484, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 130, + 518, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 130, + 518, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 130, + 518, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Dong, Zhilin Wang, Makes Narsimhan Sreedhar, Xianchao Wu, Oleksii Kuchaiev NVIDIA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 159, + 477, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 159, + 477, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 120, + 159, + 477, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{yidong, zhilinw, makeshn, xianchaow, okuchaiev}@nvidia.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 203, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 276, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 276, + 594 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 234, + 276, + 594 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model alignment with human preferences is an essential step in making Large Language Models (LLMs) helpful and consistent with human values. It typically consists of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) stages. However, RLHF faces inherent limitations stemming from a complex training setup and its tendency to align the model with implicit values that end users cannot control at run-time. Moreover, reward models in RLHF stage commonly rely on single-dimensional feedback as opposed to explicit, multifaceted signals that indicate attributes such as helpfulness, humor, and toxicity. To address these limitations, we propose STEERLM, a supervised fine-tuning method that empowers end-users to control responses during inference. STEERLM conditions responses to conform to an explicitly defined multi-dimensional set of attributes, thereby empowering a steerable AI capable of generating helpful and high-quality responses while maintaining customizability. Experiments show that STEERLM trained on open source datasets generates responses that are preferred by human and automatic evaluators to many state-of-the-art baselines trained with RLHF while being much easier to train. Try STEERLM at https://huggingface.co/nvidia/SteerLM-11ama2-13B" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 602, + 155, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 602, + 155, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 602, + 155, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 292, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 292, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training LLMs on extensive text corpora has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, leading to state-of-the-art performance on numerous tasks (Brown et al., 2020; Kaplan et al., 2020). However, this does not automatically make language models effective in responding to user instructions (Wei et al., 2022; Sanh et al., 2022). To better align LLMs to human preferences, the most effective approach has been to perform SFT followed by the application of RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a; Chiang et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023). In SFT, human" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 527, + 371 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 527, + 371 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 527, + 371 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 210, + 527, + 371 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8141bc862edcbbbb01b73145877b78f1a55cdfd38a9ac30adf2e48de6c6aaac2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 437 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 376, + 527, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: STEERLM can be used to improve the quality of language model responses, similar to RLHF. Additionally, STEERLM allows users to define additional attributes such as humor and (low) toxicity at inference time, to steer model responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 526, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 526, + 554 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 526, + 554 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "annotators provide demonstrations of instructions and responses for the model to imitate (Taori et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). RLHF goes a step further to enable models to generate responses that human annotators prefer to alternative responses (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Kopf et al., 2023a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, despite its success, there are limitations to this approach. First, using SFT alone does not allow the model to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality responses leading to lower performance than RLHF (Wang et al., 2023a). Using RLHF for model alignment however, substantially increase the complexity of the training setup (Snell et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), limiting its public adoption (Zhang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023). Furthermore, RLHF treats human preference of model responses as monodimensional without regard for the diversity of aspects (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity) that contribute to such preferences (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022) and thereby limiting users' ability to adjust individual aspects at inference time" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11275" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 819 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 819 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 819 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11275-11288 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 178, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 178, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 72, + 178, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "based on their use cases." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 291, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 291, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 291, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To address these limitations, we introduce STEERLM, a novel approach to model alignment through SFT that overcomes the limitations associated with conventional SFT and RLHF methods. Similar to RLHF, STEERLM incorporates additional reward signals by leveraging annotated attributes (e.g., quality, humor, toxicity) present in the Open-Assistant (Kopf et al., 2023a) dataset for each response. To emulate the process of rating responses, an Attribute Prediction model (\\$3.1) is trained and employed to annotate datasets (\\$3.2) containing dialogues that can be decomposed into prompt-response pairs. By utilizing this combined diverse dataset comprising prompts, responses, and predicted attributes, we train the generation of responses to be conditioned (\\$3.3) on both the prompt instructions and the annotated attributes, enabling STEERLM to effectively capture human preferences and generate responses that align with them." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 291, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 291, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "STEERLM also exhibits enhanced versatility compared to RLHF, allowing for the flexible utilization of various attributes during inference. To further enhance the adherence of STEERLM to the specified attributes during inference, we introduce an additional training recipe (§3.4) which includes augmenting the training data with denoised, diverse, and high-quality examples. We open-source code for STEERLM on NVIDIA NeMo toolkit (Kuchaiev et al., 2019). In summary, our key contributions are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 502, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 502, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 502, + 290, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 502, + 290, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We introduce STEERLM as a simple alternative for language model alignment that utilizes only the language modeling objective," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 553, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 553, + 291, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 553, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B on the Vicuna benchmark where it outperforms state-of-the-art baselines including RLHF models such as ChatGPT-3.5," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 618, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 618, + 291, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 618, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We highlight the flexible and customizable nature of STEERLM 43B where users can customize attributes at inference-time facilitating a wide variety of applications." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 160, + 697 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 160, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 683, + 160, + 697 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model alignment using SFT Fine-tuning language models on multiple tasks enable them to follow many types of instructions and perform tasks outside of those they were trained on (Sanh et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022). However, language" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "models typically generate short and robotic responses when supervised finetuned on academic data sets. On the other hand, models can generate high quality human-like response when trained with high-quality human demonstrations (Conover et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022). Taori et al. (2023) shows using data generated by OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, can train a model in a cost-effective manner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Using only SFT for model alignment became popular recently because of the ease of its training setup. Zhang et al. (2023) and Peng et al. (2023) trained models using SFT based on responses generated by OpenAI models while Dettmers et al. (2023) and Kopf et al. (2023b) used the crowdsourced Open Assistant Dataset and Zhou et al. (2023) used a small proprietary data set. Wang et al. (2023b) and Taori et al. (2023) trained models using bootstrapped datasets from the language model itself. Luo et al. (2023) showed that language model can learn to solve complex instructions by evolving on the complexity and breath of instructions. Wang et al. (2023a) compared many open-source data sets used to perform instruction tuning using SFT but found them to under-perform commercial models trained using RLHF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 433, + 526, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Model alignment using RLHF Building on foundational work on RL in games and robotic simulations (Christiano et al., 2017; Schulman et al., 2017), many have had success applying RLHF to improve the instruction following ability of LLM by giving a reward proportional to the relative desirability of the response (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). Such an approach has been shown to benefit downstream tasks like question-answering (Nakano et al., 2022) and summarization (Stiennon et al., 2022). However, the complexity of the training setup (Rafailov et al., 2023; Snell et al., 2023) remains a hurdle in the widespread adoption of RLHF. Many have attempted to overcome this by migrating RLHF training to an offline setting (Snell et al., 2023), casting the problem as conditional sequence modeling (Chen et al., 2021), directly optimizing LMs with labeled preference data (Rafailov et al., 2023), or ranking responses to align the models (Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023), but limited progress has been made (Wang et al., 2023a)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Another limitation unaddressed by related works lies in the use of a single-dimensional reward function for evaluating human preferences of model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11276" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "responses since human preferences are based on a multitude of real-world objectives (e.g. helpfulness, humor, toxicity), which also vary across domains (Nadal and Chatterjee, 2019; Lopez-Paz et al., 2022). Given such multi-dimensional attributes, current approaches (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023) are only capable of generating responses with high reward scores, despite low reward scores on various attributes being relevant in certain situations, such as modelling realistic gaming NPCs who are capable of generating high toxicity responses." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 292, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 292, + 499 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 241, + 292, + 499 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Attribute Grounded Generation Many researchers have explored grounding text with various attributes in Dialogue tasks. Rashkin et al. (2019) modelled chit-chat conversations grounded in emotions such as 'Angry', 'Embarrassed' or 'Joyful' while Smith et al. (2020) conditioned chit-chat dialogue with conversational styles such as 'Curious', 'Sympathetic' or 'Knowledgeable'. Zhang et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues based on personal attributes such as their hobbies. Meta et al. (2022) conditioned dialogues in the game of Diplomacy using the expected player skill. However, such grounding has only been explored in narrow-defined tasks with a single attribute. Our approach seeks to condition the generation of responses in general open-domain conversations covering tasks like code assistance, writing poems and planning tasks, using multiple attributes (e.g., quality, humor and toxicity)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 136, + 521 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 136, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 508, + 136, + 521 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 SteerLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 530, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose STEERLM, a simple and novel approach to align language models to follow user instructions. Trained solely using the language modeling objective, it offers a computationally efficient alternative to other techniques like RLHF. Specifically, STEERLM comprises 4 steps as illustrated in Fig. 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 258, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 258, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 634, + 258, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Step 1. Attribute Prediction Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Similar to the reward model in RLHF, the Attribute Prediction Model in STEERLM is designed to predict human preference of model responses to improve model alignment. Compared to a monolithic reward signal in RLHF, the attribute prediction model can be used to predict various attributes that are considered to be important in generating good responses (high quality, low toxicity, and varying humor levels depending on context)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the Open Assistant (OASST) dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where each sample contains a prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", a response " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as well as a set of attributes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To model these attributes, we first scale each attribute (originally a float between 0 and 1) into an integer between 0 and 9 and then obtain a linearized representation of the value attributes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The attributes we select look like quality:6, toxicity:0, humor:9, creativity:0, violence:0, helpfulness:5, not_apropriate:0." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 200, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 200, + 525, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 200, + 525, + 237 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {A P M} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \\sim D} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} \\mid x, y, v _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "0bd3fab86358bb1517b934aa2a252102c1244f1903fdb398f0b73d8fbb68b316.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conditioning on " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the target output for the language model as expressed in Eq. 1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 489, + 300 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 489, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 274, + 489, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Step 2. Annotating Datasets using Attribute Prediction Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 526, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 526, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 305, + 526, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared to using human-annotated attributes directly, training an Attribute Prediction Model can allow other datasets (e.g. HH-RLHF dataset) to be annotated. This helps improve the diversity of training data which is important for Step 3 Attribute Conditioned SFT. Moreover, it has been observed that crowdsourced human-annotated data often suffers from noise, arising from factors such as misinterpretation of instructions, inadequate expertise/education in annotating responses, and limited proficiency in language comprehension (Kopf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, there exists a lack of calibration among annotators, with some individuals applying more stringent criteria when assigning full scores (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022). By employing an Attribute Prediction Model, it becomes possible to mitigate these issues by denoising the human-annotated attributes and calibrating scores across annotators." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 571, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 571, + 525, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 357, + 571, + 525, + 591 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\arg \\max _ {v _ {t}} P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} \\mid x, y, v _ {< t}\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "36e46cd7bf2779442564fd5be779ca3e79443d34fb656fcf5859b98fc3c502d3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 525, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We annotate samples by greedily decoding the value attributes for pairs of prompts and responses using the Attribute Prediction Model(as shown in Eq. 2), in order to construct the attribute annotated dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 598, + 525, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 493, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 493, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 493, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Step 3. Attribute Conditioned SFT" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Attribute-conditioned SFT is an extension of regular SFT that enables incorporating reward signal information through attribute labels. This allows learning from both high and low quality responses in a manner similar to the established SFT+RLHF pipeline (Bai et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11277" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 498, + 243 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "91eb16da05f68b58393acdaaa35713a7faa0375c837549a584015696bf142b55.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 253, + 526, + 324 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 253, + 526, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 253, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: STEERLM: Step 1. The base language model is trained to assess the quality of responses by predicting attribute values. Step 2. The attribute prediction model is used to annotate response quality across diverse datasets. Step 3. Given a prompt and desired attribute values, a new base model is fine-tuned to generate responses that align with the specified attributes. Step 4. Multiple responses are sampled from the fine-tuned model in Step 3, specifying maximum quality. The sampled responses are evaluated by the trained attribute prediction model, leading to another round of fine-tuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Attribute-conditioned SFT only requires an offline annotated dataset, as created in Step 2, rather than online sampling and evaluation of responses like in RLHF. By utilizing a purely offline training approach, this greatly simplifies the training configuration compared to RLHF's heterogenous setup. In particular, it avoids the complexity of online data generation/evaluation and eliminates the training slowness resulting from memory bandwidth-constrained online inference in RLHF. Using the attribute-annotated train datasets " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the Step 2, we train a model to generate a response " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", conditioning on the value attributes " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the prompt " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 291, + 535 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The loss function is:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 567 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 540, + 291, + 567 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {1}} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v, y) \\sim D ^ {\\prime}} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\phi} (y _ {t} | v, x, y _ {< t})", + "image_path": "93a44fedf791dc144564c19fbd431b1d608eb54770bdf286748b2c35eb9bf0b7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 285, + 601 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 285, + 601 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 285, + 601 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Step 4. Bootstrapping with High Quality Samples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 292, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 292, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 292, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "By sampling the policy network, RLHF effectively navigates the response space of language models and identifies responses that are of various qualities. The response samples are subsequently utilized to influence and shape the behavior of language models according to their reward values. In Step 4 of STEERLM, the objective is to accomplish a similar objective by leveraging the Attribute Conditioned SFT and Attribute Prediction models from the previous steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 4a To ensure that we obtain a diverse set of responses, we first enumerate a set of all possible" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "attribute value combinations from the annotated datasets used for training. By filtering the combinations to explicitly have the value for quality to be 9 (i.e. highest possible value), we get a subset of attribute strings representing a high quality set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We uniformly sample from this high quality set " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to get the attribute string " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". By combining " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with prompts from the same training datasets, we use the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 526, + 496 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (=50) sampling to generate multiple responses using the Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning approach as shown in Eq. 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 508, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 508, + 525, + 525 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 508, + 525, + 525 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\arg \\operatorname {t o p k} _ {y _ {t} ^ {\\prime}} P _ {\\phi} \\left(y _ {t} ^ {\\prime} \\mid x, v ^ {\\prime}, y _ {< t} ^ {\\prime}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "ab99319b21c8a388623777d150b75c3cbbe66e5930a48e2e034a53ce6cdfb907.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This allows us to obtain a wide variety of responses for each prompt and increases the diversity of the sampled dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D'' = \\{(x, y')\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 537, + 525, + 577 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Attribute Prediction Model (§3.1) with greedy sampling is used to evaluate the generated responses " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " giving predicted attribute values " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "v''" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 578, + 525, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 631, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 631, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 631, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\arg \\max _ {v _ {t} ^ {\\prime \\prime}} P _ {\\theta} \\left(v _ {t} ^ {\\prime \\prime} \\mid x, y ^ {\\prime}, v _ {< t} ^ {\\prime \\prime}\\right) \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "e80ce291490adfe013358d651686f9230130a1b42a499589170b4c2622afb9e4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 722 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This gives us the dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D''' = \\{(x, y', v'')\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 722 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where each tuple consists of a prompt from the original training datasets, a sampled response and its corresponding predicted attribute values." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 4b We use the sampled responses and the corresponding predicted attributes from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D''" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to perform the second round of Attribute-conditioned" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11278" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SFT, effectively allowing us to bootstrap the training of the model on its own responses:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 107, + 306, + 135 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 107, + 306, + 135 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 107, + 306, + 135 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mathcal {L} _ {A C S F T _ {2}} = - \\mathbb {E} _ {(x, v ^ {\\prime \\prime}, y ^ {\\prime}) \\sim D ^ {\\prime \\prime \\prime}} \\sum_ {t} \\log P _ {\\phi} \\left(y _ {t} ^ {\\prime} \\mid v ^ {\\prime \\prime}, x, y _ {< t} ^ {\\prime}\\right)", + "image_path": "bb70a5087c272af3456f361a8afa97ca03f3cd19764efd954a846ede75669309.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 155, + 158 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 155, + 158 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 144, + 155, + 158 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 207 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 166, + 291, + 207 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we elaborate on our choice of training datasets, base model, implementation details, and evaluation setup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 180, + 229 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 180, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 216, + 180, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Training Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 292, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 292, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 233, + 292, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the following open-source, commercially-available instruction-tuning datasets. In addition, we explain how collecting new data for SteerLM can be less costly than doing so for RLHF in Appendix A.3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 291, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 291, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "OASST Open Assistant dataset (Köpf et al., 2023a) was used to train an Attribute Prediction Model, as well as to perform Attribute Condition SFT. This dataset contains 13 human-labeled attributes for each response with a score ranging from 0 to 1. We choose 7 of them that are most relevant for guiding the language model to align with human preferences: quality, toxicity, violence, helpfulness, creativity, humor and inappropriateness. Other attributes such as hate_speech, lang_mismatch and pii (personal identifiable information) are not useful to steer at inference time since these are attributes that we always want to keep as False. In order to leverage STEERLM's ability to learn from both positive and negative responses, we use all the released 48.8K conversations for training and do not filter the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 546, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "HH-RLHF The Helpful and Harmless - Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback dataset (Bai et al., 2022) does not provide human labeled attribute values. In order to improve the diversity of prompts and responses, we utilize the trained Attribute Prediction model to annotate the responses. For our Attribute Conditioned SFT process, we utilize all 348.6K conversations from the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 292, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 292, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 662, + 292, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "M-SID Model Self-Identification Dataset (Chiang et al., 2023) is a small set of 910 prompt-response pairs1 used to answer questions relating to identity such as \"Who are you?\" and \"Who created you?\". This dataset is also included as part of Attribute Conditioned SFT training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 460, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 460, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 460, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Base Models for STEERLM" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 90, + 526, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "STEERLM 43B The 43B base language model employed in this study has been trained on a diverse corpus encompassing various multilingual data sources, including web crawl, news articles, books, scientific publications from arXiv, and code repositories. Having been trained with 1.1 trillion tokens, it is comparable to LLaMA's 30B and 65B models, which were trained on 1.4 trillion tokens. This base model is designed for general-purpose language understanding tasks and does not have any domain-specific fine-tuning. We utilize this base model as the backbone for both Attribute Prediction and Attribute Conditioned SFT." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 277, + 526, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 277, + 526, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 277, + 526, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "STEERLM 13B We also apply the SteerLM methodology on a popular, widely-available model: Llama 2 13B base model (Touvron et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 405, + 343 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 405, + 343 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 330, + 405, + 343 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Training details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 526, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training of both the Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned Supervised Fine-Tuning model was conducted utilizing a cluster comprising 16 A100-DGX nodes, each equipped with 8 A100-80GB GPUs. The training process involved a global batch size of 128, spanning 5 epochs, with a maximum sequence length of 4096 tokens. The Adam optimizer was utilized with a learning rate of 5e-6 and a weight decay of 1e-2. The selection of the optimal Attribute Prediction model checkpoint was determined based on the lowest loss observed on the validation set, while the optimal checkpoint for the Attribute Conditioned SFT model was selected based on the highest validation quality observed on holdout validation sets. Detailed templates for Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute Conditioned SFT are found in Appendix §A.1 and §A.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 381, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 381, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 381, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baseline Models We compare our approach against several state-of-the-art instruction-following models. These baselines include OpenAI ChatGPT 3.5, OpenAI text-davinci-003, Guanaco 65B (Dettmers et al., 2023), Vicuna 13B (Chiang et al., 2023), and OASST LLaMA 30B RLHF (Köpf et al., 2023a). Furthermore, to showcase the differentiation between RLHF and SFT, we also include OASST LLaMA 30B SFT (Köpf et al., 2023b), which solely employs SFT instead of RLHF for alignment purposes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adapted from https://github.com/lm-sys/ FastChat/blob/v0.2.1/playground/data/dummy.json" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11279" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Response Generation In accordance with the methodologies described in Peng et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we employ the GPT-4 model to conduct an evaluation of our proposed approach using the Vicuna benchmark (Chiang et al., 2023). This benchmark comprises a diverse set of 80 single-turn prompts encompassing various domains, including knowledge-intensive question answering, historical counter-factuals, long-form document writing, commonsense questions, roleplays, fermi problems, general knowledge questions, coding, and math problems. Each model is tasked with generating a response with a maximum sequence length of 1024, utilizing default hyperparameters. For all the STEERLM models and OASST LLaMA 30B models, the decoding strategy employed is greedy decoding. Additionally, for STEERLM model responses, the attributes \"quality\" and \"helpfulness\" are fixed at a value of 9, while all other attributes are set to 0. In the case of Guanaco 65B, generations are obtained using top " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sampling with a temperature of 0.7, and Vicuna 13B uses a temperature of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.7^2" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 289, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 404, + 289, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Evaluation In evaluating each prompt, the prompt alongside the responses made by the two competing models are given to GPT-4 (Chiang et al., 2023; Dettmers et al., 2023). GPT-4 is then required to give a score between 1 and 10 for each response. While we only report scores for comparing each model against ChatGPT 3.5, we compare every pair of models against each other for subsequent use in ELO rating calculations. The cumulative score obtained over the 80 questions for each model is then compared to the cumulative score achieved by ChatGPT 3.5. This facilitates the assessment of each model's performance as a percentage of ChatGPT 3.5's performance. It is important to note that the ordering of the responses from the two models during evaluations can influence the evaluation results, as previously observed by Dettmers et al. (2023). To mitigate this potential bias, we calculate the mean performance of each model in both possible response orderings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 531, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 531, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 531, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 531, + 190 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model NameChatGPT 3.5 ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT 3.5
STEERLM 43B629.25655.75104.2
STEERLM 13B617.75634102.6
Guanaco 65B631.25646.25102.4
ChatGPT 3.5--100.0
Vicuna 13B641.75636.7599.2
LLaMA 30B RLHF650.25612.7594.2
LLaMA 30B SFT631.561093.2
text-davinci-003665.25599.590.1
", + "image_path": "59f9124ebc63e41bce38f5416e992c0df211d5fb5baef3bfadf95154ef5db5bf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 524, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 524, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 524, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Automatic evaluation. Evaluations are highly consistent with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 524, + 233 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "+ / - {0.2}\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 524, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " difference across evaluation runs on identical model generations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 266, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 266, + 525, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 266, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation To minimize the risk of annotator fatigue and the potential for hasty evaluations, we partitioned the 80 prompts within the Vicuna Benchmark into four distinct groups, with each group consisting of 20 prompts. This partitioning strategy helps ensure that the human annotators (12 in total) are able to provide thorough evaluations without skimming through the responses, as it can be demanding to compare multiple responses simultaneously. Volunteer human annotators were specifically chosen for this task instead of utilizing crowd workers, such as Amazon Mechanical Turkers, as it enables us to carefully control for annotators with a university education and coding background, which are crucial for effectively evaluating these model responses. Consequently, this approach resulted in a higher degree of consistency among our annotators (Fleiss' " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 266, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\kappa = 0.46" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 266, + 525, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") in comparison to similar studies that employed crowd workers (Dettmers et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "However, this choice limited the number of models that we could compare, and we selected the three best-performing models from automatic evaluations for the human evaluation (excluding STEERLM 13B given its similarities to STEERLM 43B). The prompt along with the responses from the different models were shown to the annotators, and they were asked to rank them in order of preference (using the UI in Appendix §A.5). During the annotation process, the human annotators remained unaware of the specific model used for each response, and to prevent any potential bias, the order of the responses was randomly shuffled. Annotations were carried out utilizing an A/B forced choice approach, requiring the annotators to subjectively determine their preferred response between the given options." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 711, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 711, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 711, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guanaco 65B generations at https://github. com/artidoro/qlora/blob/main/eval/generations/ vicuna/65b-guanaco-vicuna-generations-topp0. 9-temp0.7.json and Vicuna 13B generations at https: //github.com/lm-sys/FastChat/blob/main/fastchat/ eval/table/answer/answer_vicuna-13b.json" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 285, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11280" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Elo rating Using both automatic and human pairwise model comparisons, we calculate an Elo rating for each model to show the performance relative to all other models. For each prompt, scores are first converted into a tie, win or loss between two models based on their scores. Following Chiang et al. (2023) and Dettmers et al. (2023), we start with a score of 1000 and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K = 32" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and repeat the procedure 10000 times to account for the order in which model pair comparisons are used to calculate their ELO rating. Additionally, we also present the expected win rate against ChatGPT 3.5, for better interpretability." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 256, + 130, + 268 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 256, + 130, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 256, + 130, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 302, + 467 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 302, + 467 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 302, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 302, + 467 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model NameElo Rating95% CIWin Rate (%) vs ChatGPT 3.5
Automatic Evaluation
STEERLM 43B11391048-122466
STEERLM 13B11101022-119862
Guanaco 65B1065974-115356
ChatGPT 3.51023936-110850
Vicuna 13B1001911-109147
LLaMA 30B RLHF925835-101736
LLaMA 30B SFT935843-102837
text-davinci-003800712-89322
Human Evaluation
STEERLM 43B1040951-112659
ChatGPT 3.5981897-107050
Guanaco 65B977890-106450
", + "image_path": "e0bcb9645a898d61b28b5f975376d9bc223a9191a02701c4df21ed3dae7ea5b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 291, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on Tables 1 and 2, our STEERLM 43B model out-performs all baseline models on both automatic and human evaluations. STEERLM 43B performs slightly better than STEERLM 13B, which is expected given the larger base model size (Ouyang et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). Analysis of the responses generated by STEERLM 43B shows that it provides longer, more complete answers (mean = 1906 characters) with more unique words (mean = 144) compared to the other baselines (e.g. ChatGPT 3.5 has 1193 characters and 77 unique words). Please refer to Appendix §A.6 for examples and §A.7 for average response lengths for each model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic evaluation with GPT-4 has a tendency to prefer longer responses that have more unique tokens (Dubois et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a). STEERLM 43B responses satisfy both criteria and this might lead to GPT-4 rating its responses higher" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 525, + 160 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 289, + 500 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 289, + 500 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 289, + 500 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Elo Ratings for Models based on Automatic and Human Evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 525, + 160 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 525, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 68, + 525, + 160 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model NameChatGPT ScoreModel Score% of ChatGPT
Baseline663.50528.5079.7
+ Human Annotated Attributes644.00619.5096.2
+ HQ OASST (human annotated)646.75634.7598.1
+ Attribute Pred. Model632.50649.75102.7
+ HH-RLHF/M-SID623.25646.00103.7
+ Bootstrapping on HQ samples629.25655.75104.2
", + "image_path": "109090809ef8a778f41d9253b499855d07dde16c030078681c4ba84643ef185b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 191 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 168, + 525, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Ablation study of model variants under automatic evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "than other counterparts, explaining the 74 Elo point difference between STEERLM 43B and the closest baseline model on Automatic Evaluations. The advantage of STEERLM 43B on Human Evaluation is slightly lower (59 Elo point difference), suggesting that only a slight bias of GPT4 Automatic Evaluations towards longer and more informative responses. Nonetheless, both Automatic and Human Evaluation show a clear strength of STEERLM 43B in answering open-ended questions that require creative and verbose responses, which composes majority of the prompts in the Vicuna benchmark." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 526, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 377, + 526, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Relative to Guanaco 65B, our model performs better despite being trained on a smaller base model (43B vs. 65B) that has been trained on fewer tokens (1.1T vs. 1.4T). This is likely due to a more efficient use of OASST data, which both models are trained on. Briefly, Guanaco 65B only uses high quality data, defined as the top response (in terms of annotated quality) at every level of the conversation tree. In contrast, STEERLM 43B uses all of Open-Assistant data, including low-quality conversations. We will show the advantage of the STEERLM approach in the ablation studies in §5. This enables STEERLM to achieve an effect similar to RLHF by being able to learn from both responses of high and low quality, as opposed to only selected high-quality conversations in regular SFT (Dettmers et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a; Zhou et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023; Köpf et al., 2023b; Chiang et al., 2023). The small difference in performance between the OASST LLaMA 30B SFT and RLHF models supports the noted difficulty of getting RLHF to work well in aligning LLMs (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Köpf et al., 2023b), which prevents widespread adoption of RLHF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 402, + 725 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 402, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 711, + 402, + 725 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to identify the contribution of each individual component to the overall performance, we perform a systematic ablation process (Table 3)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11281" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 111 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "starting from a baseline that is finetuned on the entire OASST dataset without using any information about attributes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 119, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 119, + 291, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 119, + 291, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Addition of attribute labels The addition of attribute labels in the fine-tuning process leads to a significant increase in performance, underscoring the pivotal role of attribute labels, particularly the quality attribute, as the primary contributor to improved performance (16.5%)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finetuning on only High Quality Data We observe that Attribute Conditioned Supervised Finetuning on a small subset of 3400 samples from the OASST dataset that have the highest value for quality (human annotated) leads to an increase in performance by up to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 208, + 291, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". This observation aligns with prior research indicating that training models on a larger volume of low-quality data yields inferior results compared to training on a smaller quantity of high-quality data (Dettmers et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Utilizing predictions from the Attribute Prediction model for the Attribute Conditioned SFT process provides a substantial benefit to STEERLM 43B amounting to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "4.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in performance, relative to using human annotations. This empirical evidence substantiates our hypothesis that employing an attribute prediction model aids in effectively calibrating the quality annotation process across multiple training samples, thereby mitigating noisy labels that are unavoidable when using crowdsourced annotations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 684 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Augmentation of training data with Anthropic HH-RLHF contributes to an additional " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.0\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 522, + 291, + 684 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " increase in performance compared to using Open-Assistant data alone. This shows the capability of our Attribute Prediction model to identify and annotate high-quality data from other datasets apart from the one it was trained on. This suggests that the methodology of STEERLM can be applied to label different kinds of datasets, enhancing the diversity of training data without incurring the substantial expense associated with human annotation for every individual data sample." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bootstrapping with High-Quality Samples results in a performance gain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Our hypothesis is that the improvement in performance is due to the data augmentation through sampling, which explores the response space and augments the dataset with higher-quality data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 328, + 68, + 502, + 147 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 68, + 502, + 147 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 68, + 502, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 328, + 68, + 502, + 147 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Model NameToxicity ValueAvg. Score
STEERLM 43B00.06346
30.08635
60.09633
90.10408
ChatGPT 3.5-0.06622
", + "image_path": "dd31cbb183b37da1a5e993547d89b88f4454883a4be9caaf3a7a261aaf183b13.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 524, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 153, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Average Perspective API Toxicity score on the Anthropic Red Team Dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 461, + 215 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 461, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 200, + 461, + 215 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Steerability demonstration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 223, + 526, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To demonstrate the efficacy of STEERLM 43B to control its generations in a multi-faceted way, we conduct an empirical study incorporating the attributes of toxicity and humor." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 368, + 301 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 368, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 288, + 368, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Toxicity" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 306, + 525, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To assess the ability of STEERLM 43B to vary its responses based on the value of toxicity specified, we use the Anthropic Red-team dataset3 (Ganguli et al., 2022). This dataset contains prompts ranked from 0 to 4, with a higher rank indicating more inappropriate responses. We randomly select 100 conversations with a ranking of 4 and focused on the initial turns of these interactions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 525, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 525, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To compare the toxicity levels of generated outputs, we vary the toxicity parameter in STEERLM 43B at four different settings: 0 (default), 3, 6, and 9 (highest toxicity). We employ the Perspective API, a widely-used toxicity classification model, to score the toxicity of the generated responses and compare the average toxicity of STEERLM 43B to the responses from ChatGPT-3.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 660 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 523, + 526, + 660 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our findings (Table 4) indicate that when the toxicity value is set to 0 (default), STEERLM 43B exhibits slightly lower toxicity compared to ChatGPT. However, STEERLM 43B offers the flexibility to generate more toxic outputs by increasing the toxicity value above 0. This ability to control generation attributes at inference can prove valuable in applications such as generating Non-Player Character (NPC) dialogue in games and red-teaming purposes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 365, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 365, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 670, + 365, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Humor" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 688, + 525, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent studies (Jentzsch and Kersting, 2023) investigating the humor capabilities of language models have primarily focused on the aspect of telling jokes. However, humor can manifest in various" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 750, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3Accessed at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/hh-rlhf/tree/main/red-team-attempts" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11282" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 124 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "contexts. In this experiment, we employ two different prompts - \"Tell me a joke\" and \"What's a good way to spend a day?\", to compare the humor exhibited by STEERLM and ChatGPT-3.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 289, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 289, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 289, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"Tell me a joke\" - ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor set to 9, successfully generate a joke. When the humor attribute in STEERLM 43B is set to 6 or lower, it responds with \"I don't know any jokes\". This characteristic can be advantageous for chatbots that need to maintain a formal persona and when humor is not appropriate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 290, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 290, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 221, + 290, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"What's a good way to spend a day?\" - Both ChatGPT-3.5 and STEERLM 43B, with humor attribute at low values (0-3) provided an extensive list of activities. Tuning up humor to 6 leads to STEERLM 43B appending to the list a cheeky remark, \"But don't forget to brush your teeth and go to bed at a reasonable hour!\". With humor set to the maximum value of 9, it leads to a cheesy statement \"By spending it with you, of course!\"." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 289, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 289, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 343, + 289, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Thus, depending on the intended use-case the same STEERLM model can be turned into versatile engaging conversational agents." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 146, + 407 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 146, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 146, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 291, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 416, + 291, + 645 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We introduce STEERLM, a novel model alignment approach with a value system (e.g. humor level and toxicity tolerance) that can be adjusted by users at inference time without re-training. STEERLM trains both the attribute prediction model and the language model using only supervised fine-tuning, resulting in an easy-to-implement and straightforward training process compared to using RLHF. We train STEERLM models following this procedure, achieving state-of-the-art results on the Vicuna benchmark. We validate these results with a human evaluation and find that STEERLM is preferred over the other models we compare it to. We hope our work will inspire further research into developing simple and effective model alignment methods that empower better AI assistants for everyone." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 130, + 668 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 130, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 130, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The Attribute Prediction Model and Attribute-Conditioned SFT Models in STEERLM are fully supervised fine-tuned, making it relatively costly in terms of GPU hours and energy compared with Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning algorithms such as Low-Rank Adaptation and Prompt Tuning techniques." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic and manual evaluation have been performed on a English-only benchmark and we would need to evaluate our models on multilingual benchmarks to test the extent to which the positive results we find with STEERLM on an English-based benchmark extends to evaluations with other languages." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 163, + 393, + 175 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 163, + 393, + 175 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 163, + 393, + 175 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "STEERLM enables user capabilities to ask for toxic and/or violent responses during run-time. This is a valid use case in certain scenarios like games where a character should respond differently based on situation or in red teaming use cases. However, malicious users might exploit this feature outside of its intended use-cases. To address this, it is possible to give users controls over only a subset of attributes at model run-time, unless they demonstrate an acceptable use-case. In general, we believe that giving developers explicit control over model's value system is preferred to dictating one that they can not adjust." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 370, + 400, + 384 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 370, + 400, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 370, + 400, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 392, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We would like to thank Abhinav Khattar, Adi Renduchintala, Neel Kant, Sandeep Subramanian and many others at NVIDIA as well as anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition, we appreciate the authors, members and contributors of the Open Assistant Project (OASST) for assembling and excellent open data set for model alignment which made this work possible." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 362, + 536 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 362, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 523, + 362, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 526, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 543, + 526, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, Jackson Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Ben Mann, and Jared Kaplan. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11283" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 289, + 172 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 289, + 172 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 116, + 289, + 172 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Michael Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. 2021. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Eric P. Xing. 2023. Vicuna: An opensource chatbot impressing gpt-4 with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "90\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 184, + 289, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " * chatgpt quality." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 261, + 289, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 382 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 327, + 289, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mike Conover, Matt Hayes, Ankit Mathur, Xiangrui Meng, Jianwei Xie, Jun Wan, Sam Shah, Ali Ghodsi, Patrick Wendell, Matei Zaharia, and et al. 2023. Free dolly: Introducing the world's first truly open instruction-tuned llm." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 289, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 495 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 439, + 289, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanze Dong, Wei Xiong, Deepanshu Goyal, Yihan Zhang, Winnie Chow, Rui Pan, Shizhe Diao, Jipeng Zhang, Kashun Shum, and Tong Zhang. 2023. Raft: Reward ranked finetuning for generative foundation model alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 507, + 289, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang, Ishaan Gulrajani, Jimmy Ba, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 574, + 289, + 726 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 574, + 289, + 726 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 574, + 289, + 726 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Deep Ganguli, Liane Lovitt, Jackson Kernion, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Ben Mann, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Kamal Ndousse, Andy Jones, Sam Bowman, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, Sheer El-Showk, Stanislav Fort, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Josh Jacobson, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Catherine Olsson, Sam Ringer, Eli Tran-Johnson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, Jared Kaplan, and Jack Clark. 2022. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 738, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sophie Jentzsch and Kristian Kersting. 2023. Chatgpt is fun, but it is not funny! humor is still challenging large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jason Li, Huyen Nguyen, Oleksii Hrinchuk, Ryan Leary, Boris Ginsburg, Samuel Kriman, Stanislav Beliaev, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Jack Cook, Patrice Castonguay, Mariya Popova, Jocelyn Huang, and Jonathan M. Cohen. 2019. Nemo: a toolkit for building ai applications using neural modules." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 285 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 285 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023a. Openassistant conversation - democratizing large language model alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 293, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 293, + 525, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 293, + 525, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andreas Köpf, Yannic Kilcher, Dimitri von Rütte, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Zhi-Rui Tam, Keith Stevens, Abdullah Barhoum, Nguyen Minh Duc, Oliver Stanley, Richard Nagyfi, Shahul ES, Sameer Suri, David Glushkov, Arnav Dantuluri, Andrew Maguire, Christoph Schuhmann, Huu Nguyen, and Alexander Mattick. 2023b. Openassistant conversations - democratizing large language model alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 525, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 389, + 525, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Lopez-Paz, Diane Bouchacourt, Levent Sagun, and Nicolas Usunier. 2022. Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09960." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 525, + 495 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 525, + 495 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 525, + 495 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xi-ubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardcoder: Empowering code large language models with evol-instruct." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 503, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 503, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 503, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fundamental AI Research Meta, Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, Athul Paul Jacob, Mojtaba Komeili, Karthik Konath, Minae Kwon, Adam Lerer, Mike Lewis, Alexander H. Miller, Sasha Mitts, Adithya Renduchintala, Stephen Roller, Dirk Rowe, Weiyan Shi, Joe Spisak, Alexander Wei, David Wu, Hugh Zhang, and Markus Zijlstra. 2022. Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378(6624):1067-1074." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 643, + 525, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marcos Nadal and Anjan Chatterjee. 2019. Neuroaesthetics and art's diversity and universality. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(3):e1487." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 694, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. 2022. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11284" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 159 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 290, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 170, + 290, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Instruction tuning with gpt-4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 214, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 290, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 290, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hannah Rashkin, Eric Michael Smith, Margaret Li, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2019. Towards empathetic open-domain conversation models: A new benchmark and dataset. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5370-5381, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 291, + 520 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 291, + 520 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 356, + 291, + 520 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Trishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Thibault Fevry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Tali Bers, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 531, + 290, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 290, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 290, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eric Michael Smith, Diana Gonzalez-Rico, Emily Dinan, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Controlling style in generated dialogue." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 290, + 652 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 290, + 652 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 618, + 290, + 652 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Charlie Snell, Ilya Kostrikov, Yi Su, Mengjiao Yang, and Sergey Levine. 2023. Offline rl for natural language generation with implicit language q learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 290, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 290, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nisan Stiannon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2022. Learning to summarize from human feedback." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 332, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 332, + 526, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 332, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Hamish Ivison, Pradeep Dasigi, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, David Wadden, Kelsey MacMillan, Noah A. Smith, Iz Beltagy, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023a. How far can camels go? exploring the state of instruction tuning on open resources." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 526, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 526, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023b. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 456, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 456, + 526, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 456, + 526, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhilin Wang, Xuhui Zhou, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Alex Marin, and Fei Xia. 2022. Extracting and inferring personal attributes from dialogue. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI, pages 58-69, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 526, + 574 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 526, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 529, + 526, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. 2022. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 526, + 624 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 526, + 624 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. 2023. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 632, + 526, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Renrui Zhang, Jiaming Han, Aojun Zhou, Xiangfei Hu, Shilin Yan, Pan Lu, Hongsheng Li, Peng Gao, and Yu Qiao. 2023. Llama-adapter: Efficient fine-tuning of language models with zero-init attention." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11285" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 130 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 130 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 142, + 143, + 157 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 142, + 143, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 142, + 143, + 157 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 166, + 263, + 194 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 166, + 263, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 166, + 263, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Attribute Prediction Model prompt templates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 291, + 293 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 291, + 293 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the following prompt template to train the value model. The encoded value string is marked in red and used to calculate LM loss. The , and are special tokens included in the base LM tokenizer. An example of linearized value attributes is shown in the Sec. 3.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 279, + 469 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 279, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 279, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 306, + 279, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System \n[system prompts] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[assistant response] \n[coded value attributes] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[assistant response] \n[coded value attributes]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 4, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 482, + 263, + 509 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 482, + 263, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 482, + 263, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Attribute Conditioned SFT prompt templates" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 515, + 290, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The SteerLM ACSFT prompt templates is similar to the Attribute Prediction Model prompt template shown in the Sec. A.1 but we swap the position of assistance response and encoded value string. The LM loss is calculated on the assistant responses as highlighted in red." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "code", + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 279, + 772 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 279, + 772 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 279, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 279, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "System \n[system prompts] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[coded value attributes] \n[assistant response] \n[user name] \n[user prompts] \n[assistant name] \n[coded value attributes] \n[assistant response]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "code_body" + } + ], + "index": 7, + "sub_type": "code", + "guess_lang": "txt" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 89, + 511, + 239 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 89, + 511, + 239 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 89, + 511, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 89, + 511, + 239 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "58db9b750f348d022f4e991770ea380b7a466a23f63b9dbbe5364b7c88c1e8a2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 249, + 480, + 262 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 249, + 480, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 349, + 249, + 480, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Effect of Model Size" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 446, + 310 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 446, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 297, + 446, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Further Data Collection" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "While we did not collect new data in the current study, users who would like to collect new data will find the annotation cost of SteerLM to substantially lower compared to RLHF. SteerLM only requires each prompt-response sample to be annotated with attributes of their interest whereas RLHF requires pairwise comparison between k responses per prompt (where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 4 - 9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ") or effectively " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\binom{4}{2}=6" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\binom{9}{2}=36" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 527, + 599 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " annotation per prompt (Ouyang et al., 2022). RLHF also relies on an iterative data collection methodology, where the critic must be continually retrained as the actor (language model) improves (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). In contrast, SteerLM only requires a one-time data collection, as each response is rated independently on an absolute scale rather than compared to other responses. Therefore, the annotation cost of collecting a dataset for SteerLM is approximately an order of magnitude lower than RLHF." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 502, + 647 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 502, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 634, + 502, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Effect of model size on performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better understand the effect that model size plays in model performance, we also trained SteerLM on smaller base models (8B and 22B), which have pretrained similarly as the 43B base model. We then compare it to smaller versions (7B, 13B and 30B) of the best performing baseline model (Guanaco 65B). As shown in Figure 3, SteerLM outperforms Guanaco at every comparable model size." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 314, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 314, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 314, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11286" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 76, + 72, + 519, + 352 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 72, + 519, + 352 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 72, + 519, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 72, + 519, + 352 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "01884e0c55b335e0f894e90b6a4bafae6672918e5128711fec4bcf6d49fe3777.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 366, + 364, + 379 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 366, + 364, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 229, + 366, + 364, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Human Annotation UI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 204, + 412 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 204, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 400, + 204, + 412 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Human Annotation UI" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 289, + 444 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 289, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 289, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 Example of Generations by SteerLM 43B and ChatGPT 3.5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 289, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 289, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Question: How can I increase my productivity while working from home?" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 291, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 291, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SteerLM 43B response: Here are some tips to increase your productivity while working from home:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 518, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 518, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 518, + 290, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 518, + 290, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Create a dedicated workspace: Having a dedicated workspace can help you focus and avoid distractions. Choose a quiet and comfortable spot in your home and set up your workspace with all the necessary tools and equipment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 593, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 593, + 291, + 661 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 593, + 291, + 661 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Stick to a schedule: Establish a daily routine and stick to it. Set specific hours for work and stick to them. Take breaks at regular intervals and schedule time for lunch and other activities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 670, + 291, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 670, + 291, + 737 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 670, + 291, + 737 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Eliminate distractions: Minimize distractions by turning off your phone, closing unnecessary tabs on your computer, and letting your family and friends know that you are working and cannot be disturbed." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Take care of your physical health: Take regular breaks to stretch and move around. Ex" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 400, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 400, + 524, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 324, + 400, + 524, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ercise regularly and eat healthy foods to keep your energy levels up." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Stay connected: Communicate with your colleagues and clients regularly. Use video calls and instant messaging to stay in touch and avoid misunderstandings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 506, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 506, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 506, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. Set clear goals: Set specific and achievable goals for each day or week. Break down large tasks into smaller ones and prioritize your tasks based on importance and urgency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 572, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 572, + 525, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 572, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7. Use productivity tools: There are many productivity tools available that can help you stay organized and focused. Use tools like calendars, to-do lists, and project management software to keep track of your work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 652, + 524, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 652, + 524, + 706 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 652, + 524, + 706 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8. Take breaks: Taking regular breaks can help you stay focused and productive. Take a short break every hour or so to stretch your legs, get some fresh air, or grab a snack." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 719, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9. Stay motivated: Find ways to stay motivated and inspired. Set short-term and long-term goals, celebrate your successes, and find ways to reward yourself for a job well done." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11287" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 71, + 291, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10. Be flexible: Working from home can be challenging, so be flexible and adapt to changes as they arise. Be open to new ideas and approaches, and don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 291, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ChatGPT 3.5 response: There are several ways to increase productivity while working from home:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 185, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 185, + 290, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 185, + 290, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 185, + 290, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Establish a routine: Start and end your work at a specific time each day, just like you would if you were working at an office." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 234, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 234, + 290, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 234, + 290, + 286 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. Create a designated workspace: Set up a workspace that is free from distractions and has everything you need to complete your work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 297, + 290, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 297, + 290, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 297, + 290, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. Prioritize your tasks: Make a to-do list at the beginning of each day and prioritize your tasks based on their importance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 347, + 290, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 347, + 290, + 387 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 347, + 290, + 387 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Take breaks: Take regular breaks to rest your mind and stretch your body, as this can help improve your focus and productivity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 396, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 396, + 290, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 396, + 290, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5. Minimize distractions: Avoid distractions such as social media, TV, or household chores during your work hours." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 446, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 446, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 446, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6. Use productivity tools: There are several productivity tools available online, such as time trackers, task-management apps, and projectmanagement software, which can help increase your productivity." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 523, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 523, + 291, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 523, + 291, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7. Communicate with colleagues: Keep in touch with your colleagues regularly to stay connected and avoid feeling isolated." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 291, + 612 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 572, + 291, + 612 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Remember, everyone's productivity habits are different, so find what works best for you and stick to it." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 320, + 97, + 509, + 208 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 498, + 84 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 498, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 498, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.7 Response lengths of various models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 97, + 509, + 208 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 97, + 509, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 320, + 97, + 509, + 208 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelCharactersUnique Words
STEERLM 43B1906144
STEERLM 13B1719146
Guanaco 65B1648145
ChatGPT 3.5119377
Vicuna 13B1417125
LLaMA 30B RLHF1219108
LLaMA 30B SFT1280106
text-davinci-00384287
", + "image_path": "a2fe45e03730d7e33f29aae024813285f795050b29662b8abb44b6c24248810e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 241 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 526, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Mean response length for each model in characters and number of unique whitespace-separated words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11288" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_content_list.json b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3a3247cca3f94451f1d7454a1ad0da4e32c18de --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2325 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 196, + 82, + 801, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Duarte M. Alves1,4 Nuno M. Guerreiro1,2,4,5 João Alves2 José Pombal2 Ricardo Rei2,3,4 José G. C. de Souza2 Pierre Colombo5,6 André F. T. Martins1,2,4", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 129, + 867, + 162 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Instituto de Telecomunicações, Lisbon, Portugal $^{2}$ Unbabel, Lisbon, Portugal, $^{3}$ INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal $^{4}$ Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal $^{5}$ MICS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, France $^{6}$ Equall, Paris, France duartemalves@tecnico.ulisboa.pt", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 164, + 870, + 229 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) are a promising avenue for machine translation (MT). However, current LLM-based MT systems are brittle: their effectiveness highly depends on the choice of few-shot examples and they often require extra post-processing due to overgeneration. Alternatives such as finetuning on translation instructions are computationally expensive and may weaken in-context learning capabilities, due to overspecialization. In this paper, we provide a closer look at this problem. We start by showing that adapter-based finetuning with LoRA matches the performance of traditional finetuning while reducing the number of training parameters by a factor of 50. This method also outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for post-processing or in-context examples. However, we show that finetuning generally degrades few-shot performance, hindering adaptation capabilities. Finally, to obtain the best of both worlds, we propose a simple approach that incorporates few-shot examples during finetuning. Experiments on 10 language pairs show that our proposed approach recovers the original few-shot capabilities while keeping the added benefits of finetuning.1", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 275, + 460, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 668, + 258, + 683 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on a wide range of NLP tasks by leveraging in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). In particular, when provided with few-shot examples, these models have demonstrated impressive capabilities for performing machine translation (MT) without requiring explicit supervision on parallel data (Garcia et al., 2023). However, this approach exhibits several drawbacks: performance is highly dependent on the quality of examples (Vilar et al., 2022), outputs are plagued by overgeneration (Bawden and Yvon, 2023), and inference costs", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 693, + 490, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "are greatly increased by processing all input pairs. When parallel data is available, LLMs can alternatively be finetuned on translation instructions (Li et al., 2023). This method generally outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for in-context examples. However, it remains unclear whether finetuned models can benefit from the desirable properties of in-context learning, such as on-the-fly domain adaptation (Agrawal et al., 2022). Additionally, traditional finetuning (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2018) incurs a high computational overhead due to the cost of updating all the model weights.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 461 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we provide a closer examination of the impact of finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs to perform translation. Our experiments encompass 10 language pairs on general and specific domains, comprising over 100,000 generated translations (§2). Our main findings are:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 462, + 884, + 558 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We show that finetuning with adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022) is a very effective method to steer LLMs for translation ( $\\S 3.1$ ). This method matches the performance of traditional finetuning at a fraction of the computational cost, by training 50 times fewer parameters. It also achieves better translation quality than in-context learning and eliminates the need for post-processing the generated outputs and selecting in-context examples.", + "- We show that finetuning large language models degrades their few-shot performance, limiting their adaptation capabilities (§3.2). In particular, we show that finetuned LLMs perform poorly on domain adaptation scenarios when provided in-context examples.", + "- To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that introduces few-shot examples during finetuning (§4). Our results show that we can recover few-shot capabilities while retaining the benefits of finetuning." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 564, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1Code available at https://github.com/deep-spin/ translation_11m.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11127", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11127-11148 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 210, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 321, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our experiments, we use LLaMA 7B and 13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as backbone language models and finetune them with the standard cross entropy loss.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 121, + 487, + 185 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train our models on general domain OPUS (Tiedemann, 2012) data from the Europarl, Globalvoices, Paracrawl, Tilde, Ubuntu, and Wikipedia domains. We consider the languages Dutch (nl), French (fr), German (de), Portuguese (pt) and Russian (ru), both from and into English (en). To ensure the quality of the training records, we first apply Bicleaner (Ramirez-Sanchez et al., 2020) using a threshold of 0.85 and then filter the remaining pairs, ensuring both language directions have a COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) score above 0.8. Finally, we sample 250K records for each language pair. During training, we uniformly sample from the data to ensure each language pair is seen a similar number of times. We perform validation on the Flores-200 development set for the language pairs in the training data.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 190, + 489, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For in-domain evaluation, we consider the Flores-200 (NLLB Team et al., 2022) test dataset on all the translation directions included during training, as well as the WMT22 test sets3 for the language pairs considered in our training data. Regarding data for specialized domains, we consider the Medical and Law domains from Aharoni and Goldberg (2020), the TICO dataset (Anastasopoulos et al., 2020) and WMT Chat (Farinha et al., 2022). We evaluate our models on zero and five shot settings, uniformly sampling for each test sentence five independent few-shot samples from the respective development set.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 468, + 489, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our main evaluation metric is COMET (Rei et al., 2020, 2022a) $^4$ . We also report results with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) in Appendix G.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 682, + 489, + 763 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We refer the reader to Appendix A for full details on hyperparameters and instruction formats used in the following experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 768, + 487, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/03f59468926c66e642091acdc3138415061c2b3bb4f728ba42848521fe3d224b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: COMET scores on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B pretrained (few-shot) and LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA (zero-shot)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 534, + 84, + 855, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/4e5fcf8aec9728ce749ec6fcf8c1a6686e85dab0c2a38cc9fbe248c7961b2c19.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 344, + 833, + 501 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/c9090e2af5ba2472edeb0717d06e6c603929557aff2b71df914865332ca3549c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: COMET scores for zero-shot evaluation on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B finetuned with differing amounts of training data." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 546, + 504, + 853, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Finetuning LLMs on MT instructions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 615, + 868, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we investigate the performance of LLMs finetuned on machine translation instructions in relation to few-shot prompting with a pretrained language model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 643, + 882, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Note that, throughout this section, we always analyse few-shot prompting for the pretrained model. We deem that this offers a fairer comparison to finetuning on translation instructions, since both methods have access to training examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 709, + 882, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Nevertheless, we also provide the results for zero-shot translation with the pretrained model in Appendix G. Similar to the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023), zero-shot performance is far behind few-shot performance, in particular for out-of-English language pairs, likely due to the prevalence of English data during the pretraining of the LLaMA models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 791, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We also consider Chinese (zh). However, as it is not supported by LLaMA, we examine it in Appendix B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 841, + 487, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://www.statmt.org/wmt22/ translation-task.html", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 364, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "4We use the latest COMET model wmt22-comet-da from version 2.0.1.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11128", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/9984dab6a326f8f3ff48e190f56aaa20f1b13786b6bb1c6c7c430c036426dd24.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 83, + 884, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Efficient finetuning with LoRA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 390, + 401, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We start by studying parameter efficient training with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) and compare it with traditional finetuning.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 414, + 487, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 1, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. We also see that both LoRA and traditional finetuning outperform the pretrained model with few-shot prompts—the latter is consistent with the findings in Li et al. (2023), which show that finetuning leads to better translations than few-shot prompting of pretrained language models. As a general trend, all methods exhibit better translation quality when translating into English, following recent trends in the literature (Arivazhagan et al., 2019; Vilar et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 466, + 487, + 659 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also find that finetuning LoRA requires a very small number of translations to obtain the reported performance, as shown in Figure 2. In particular, it outperforms the few-shot pretrained model with as few as 2,000 training examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 662, + 487, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Considering the high computational costs of full finetuning compared to parameter-efficient finetuning and the negligible degradation obtained with the LoRA-based model, we use LoRA in subsequent experiments.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 745, + 487, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Few-shot prompting of finetuned models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 873, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We now direct our attention to comparing zero- and five-shot performance. We argue that, even when an LLM can achieve high zero-shot translation quality, few-shot capabilities can be very beneficial for efficient adaptation. As shown by Agrawal et al. (2022), LLMs can leverage a very small pool of few-shot examples to perform translation on new domains.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 410, + 882, + 537 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the leftmost plots of Figure 3, we examine the zero- and few-shot performance of our finetuned models on general domains. Few-shot performance degrades and is surpassed by zero-shot performance, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is hindering the in-context learning abilities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 539, + 882, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to further study this phenomenon, we evaluate the above models on specialized domains. General domain examples may be of little help for a model already trained on that domain. On the contrary, in specialized domains, examples should bring domain-specific information about the properties of the translation, such as style, register, and thus help the model achieve better performance.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 636, + 882, + 764 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the rightmost plots of Figure 3, we observe that the above issue happens consistently in all domains, with a larger degradation in performance. This finding further supports our hypothesis that finetuning can degrade the performance of few-shot prompting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 765, + 882, + 860 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Regarding the 13B model, the trends are more visible when evaluating with COMETKiwi (see Appendix G) which is shown to correlate well with human judgements when evaluating LLM based MT systems (Hendy et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 868, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "In this section, we only considered the 7B model due to computational constraints. Concurrent to our work, Xu et al. (2023) showed that LoRA is competitive with finetuning when applied to LLaMA 13B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 844, + 487, + 891 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{6}$ LoRA requires only 134M trainable parameters, whereas traditional finetuning requires 6,7B.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 892, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11129", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e2b79a28a9636f5aa0912aaa78a56bd0b57845c0efdb76795b19031e06ddc76b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Length of the tokenized outputs when translating the Flores-200 test set for the 7B models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 139, + 84, + 463, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Finetuning with few-shot examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 294, + 448, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to recover few-shot performance, we introduce instructions with few-shot examples in the training process: namely, we finetune on data which contains both zero-shot and few-shot instructions. Following Min et al. (2022), we uniformly sample between 0 and 5 few-shot examples for each training example from an example pool previously separated from the training data. From here, we build an instruction prompt with the training example and the selected examples and proceed with the training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 322, + 489, + 498 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 3, we observe that the models trained with in-context examples recover their few-shot capabilities, both for the general and specialized domains. The few-shot performance is on par or above the zero-shot performance, further suggesting that the models are extracting helpful information from the examples. In Appendix D, we present a set of examples that highlight these gains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 500, + 489, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Analysis on output format", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 640, + 366, + 657 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also analyze whether finetuned models continue to generate context after the desired translation. This issue is present in pretrained LLM outputs and requires post-processing of the generated content, deleting all words generated after the first new line.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 663, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 4, we show the length of the tokenized outputs for the 7B models. We observe that the distribution of the length for the outputs generated by both finetuned models matches the distribution of the references. This shows that the finetuned", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 744, + 487, + 824 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7d89d447d95a6ed4d9060427d9225a7a10856e22e941b7243468dc0cd0e19904.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: COMET score difference for zero- vs few-shot translations on Flores-200 by the 7B FT w/ few-shot model ( $\\Delta > 0$ indicates higher score for few-shot translations)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 85, + 857, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "models no longer overgenerate.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 344, + 742, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also found that these models no longer delimit their output with the newline symbol and instead produce the end of sentence token, removing the necessity for post-processing and increasing computational efficiency. In Appendix F, we provide a set of examples to illustrate these findings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 360, + 884, + 456 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Influence of in-context examples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 470, + 808, + 486 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to obtain a more fine-grained analysis of the gains obtained by adding in-context examples, we analyzed the difference in COMET scores for each source sentence when prompting the 7B finetuned models with and without examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 493, + 882, + 573 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 5, we observe that the distributions have a high concentration of points slightly above 0. However, we also observe very large tails, in particular for out-of-English language pairs.[10]", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 575, + 880, + 640 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We manually inspected the examples with the highest differences11 and found that introducing examples can fix the model generating in the wrong language, supporting the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023). Surprisingly, we also discovered examples where the model correctly generated a translation in a zero-shot scenario and inserting in-context examples lead to hallucinated content.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 880, + 769 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better characterize this phenomenon, we take inspiration from analysis on hallucinations under perturbation (Lee et al., 2018), and measured how many times prompting the model without examples lead to a translation above 30 BLEU points, and introducing examples reduced the score to below", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 771, + 880, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "10In Appendix E, we show that the model finetuned without examples also has the same behavior.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 880, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "11We show several extracted examples in Appendix E.", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 904, + 855, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "8We also considered a training mixture where $50\\%$ of the data contained no examples and the remaining data had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples. We did not further explore this as preliminary results (see Appendix C) show the results are similar to the ones obtained with the procedure above.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 832, + 487, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "The 13B models follow a similar distribution.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 904, + 420, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11130", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/53823940734b4cdd3a3279bea7276f1f7ae682646061a130326345d0f1ed39ca.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Domain7B13B
FT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shotFT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shot
Flores0.12%0.00%0.02%0.00%
Medical1.09%0.05%0.29%0.00%
Law2.70%0.05%0.48%0.15%
Tico0.60%0.04%0.04%0.04%
Chat1.80%0.23%0.51%0.00%
", + "bbox": [ + 171, + 80, + 826, + 212 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Hallucination Rates for finetuned models on each evaluation dataset, considering all languages pairs.", + "bbox": [ + 127, + 221, + 865, + 236 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 (these thresholds were selected based on previous work (Lee et al., 2018; Raunak et al., 2021; Guerreiro et al., 2023)) $^{12}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 261, + 487, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 1, we see that the models finetuned without examples have higher hallucination rates than their respective counterparts, further showing their degradation in few-shot performance. Through a manual inspection of the obtained outputs, we observed that the models generate hallucinations of different categories. In particular, they generate both detached (fully and strongly) and oscillatory hallucinations, and can also generate off-target translations. One common case is that the models copy from the instruction (either from the source or the examples).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 311, + 487, + 502 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The models finetuned with few-shot examples exhibit lower hallucination rates, suggesting that the training procedure reduced the prevalence of this issue. In particular, these models no longer copy from the instruction. However, they still produce hallucinations and their impact is very serious. As such, we believe that it motivates further study on the influence of in-context examples and the generated output.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 505, + 489, + 650 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 664, + 247, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we provide a study on finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs for translation. We show that adapter-based finetuning matches the performance of traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. Additionally, finetuning with adapters outperforms few-shot prompting of large language models and eliminates the need for output post-processing and in-context examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 690, + 487, + 835 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In addition, we show that finetuned models exhibit poor performance when prompted with", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 837, + 487, + 870 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in-context examples. To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that mixes few-shot prompts during finetuning. Our results show that we recover the original few-shot capabilities and retain the benefits of finetuning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 261, + 882, + 342 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 353, + 613, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we focus on English-centric high-resource language pairs. It remains an open question how these findings generalize for non-English language pairs or in low-resource settings.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 378, + 882, + 443 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also do not perform a human assessment on the quality of the translations quality due to the time and cost of performing this study. Instead, we base our evaluation on COMET, a state-of-the-art metric for MT evaluation, and provide results for other metrics in Appendix G.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 443, + 882, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 551, + 660, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper is based on large language models. These models can encompass several risks, which are discussed in detail in Brown et al. (2020) and Chowdhery et al. (2022). Namely, they are trained on large web corpora, which can contain toxic content (Gehman et al., 2020), and have a high energy consumption, in particular during training (Strubell et al., 2019).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 576, + 882, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additionally, our evaluation is based on automatic metrics finetuned based on human preferences. In such cases, annotators may not consider better alternatives when evaluating generated text and wrongfully classify the text as high quality (Bansal et al., 2021).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 705, + 882, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 813, + 680, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work was supported by EU's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions (UTTER, contract 101070631), by the project DECOLLAGE (ERC-2022-CoG 101088763), by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through con", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 838, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "12Note that this analysis is similar to that of hallucinations under perturbation, when considering the introduction of the examples as the input perturbation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 879, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11131", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tract UIDB/50008/2020, and by the Portuguese Recovery and Resilience Plan through project C645008882- 00000055 (Center for Responsible AI). Part of this work was performed using HPC resources from GENCI-IDRIS (Grants 2022-AD01101838, 2023-103256 and 2023-101838).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 181 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 115, + 206, + 213, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2022. Incontext examples selection for machine translation.", + "Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Unsupervised domain clusters in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7747-7763, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Alessandro Cattelan, Zi-Yi Dou, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Dmitriy Genzel, Francisco Guzmán, Junjie Hu, Macduff Hughes, Philipp Koehn, Rosie Lazar, Will Lewis, Graham Neubig, Mengmeng Niu, Alp Öktem, Eric Paquin, Grace Tang, and Sylvania Tur. 2020. TICO-19: the Translation initiative for COvid-19. arXiv:2007.01788.", + "Naveen Arivazhagan, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Dmitry Lepikhin, Melvin Johnson, Maxim Krikun, Mia Xu Chen, Yuan Cao, George F. Foster, Colin Cherry, Wolfgang Macherey, Zhifeng Chen, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation in the wild: Findings and challenges. CoRR, abs/1907.05019.", + "Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel Weld. 2021. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.", + "Rachel Bawden and François Yvon. 2023. Investigating the translation performance of a large multilingual language model: the case of bloom.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 33, page 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 229, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ana C Farinha, M. Amin Farajian, Marianna Buchicchio, Patrick Fernandes, José G. C. de Souza, Helena Moniz, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. Findings of the WMT 2022 shared task on chat translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 724-743, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xavier Garcia, Yamini Bansal, Colin Cherry, George Foster, Maxim Krikun, Fangxiaoyu Feng, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan Firat. 2023. The unreasonable effectiveness of few-shot learning for machine translation.", + "Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356-3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Nuno M. Guerreiro, Duarte Alves, Jonas Waldendorf, Barry Haddow, Alexandra Birch, Pierre Colombo, and André F. T. Martins. 2023. Hallucinations in large multilingual translation models.", + "Amr Hendy, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11132", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Awadalla. 2023. How good are gpt models at machine translation? a comprehensive evaluation.", + "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.", + "Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Katherine Lee, Orhan Firat, Ashish Agarwal, Clara Fanjiang, and David Sussillo. 2018. Hallucinations in neural machine translation.", + "Jiahuan Li, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Shanbo Chen, and Jiajun Chen. 2023. Eliciting the translation ability of large language models via multilingual finetuning with translation instructions.", + "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11048-11064, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation.", + "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.", + "Gema Ramírez-Sánchez, Jaume Zaragoza-Bernabeu, Marta Banón, and Sergio Ortiz Rojas. 2020. Bixer and bicleaner: two open-source tools to clean your parallel data. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 291-298, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation.", + "Vikas Raunak, Arul Menezes, and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2021. The curious case of hallucinations in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1172-1183, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ricardo Rei, Jose G. C. de Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022a. COMET-22: Unbabel-IST 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685-2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ricardo Rei, Marcos Treviso, Nuno M. Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Christine Maroti, Jose G. C. de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte Alves, Luisa Coheur, Alon Lavie, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022b. CometKiwi: IST-unbabel 2022 submission for the quality estimation shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 634-645, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645-3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 2214-2218, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard" + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11133", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.", + "David Vilar, Markus Freitag, Colin Cherry, Jiaming Luo, Viresh Ratnakar, and George Foster. 2022. Prompting palm for translation: Assessing strategies and performance.", + "Haoran Xu, Young Jin Kim, Amr Sharaf, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. A paradigm shift in machine translation: Boosting translation performance of large language models." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11134", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Translate the source text from X to Y. Source: ... Target:", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 85, + 442, + 135 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Prompting template for finetuning without few-shot examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Details on experimental setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 205, + 408, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Instruction format", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 233, + 312, + 247 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The training data for finetuning without few-shot examples follows the template shown in Table 2. The same format is used when testing all models in a zero-shot setting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 254, + 487, + 318 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We treat the few-shot instruction template as a hyperparameter and experiment with three different methods, as shown in Table 3. Our first template follows recent trends in the literature and repeats the zero-shot instruction for each example (Vilar et al., 2022). However, in our experiments, we found that pretrained language models see the repeating pattern and continue to generate more examples besides the target translation. In order to circumvent this issue in the finetuned models, we designed the two remaining templates with separate examples sections. Our goal was to better separate the examples from the input and thus reduce the propensity for overgeneration. We found that all templates lead to overgeneration with the pretrained model and none suffered from this issue when the model is finetuned.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 319, + 489, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to select the template format for our remaining experiments, we test them by finetuning with examples the LLaMA 7B model and choosing the template with the highest average COMET score on the languages in the validation set. In order to collect examples for few-shot prompting in the validation set, we sampled from the validation set ensuring the predicted example was not in the in-context examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 594, + 487, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 4, we observe that the templates lead to very similar results, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is not very sensitive to the template used. Nevertheless, their ranking is consistent across metrics, with the second one obtaining the best scores. As such, we use it when prompting models in a few-shot scenario.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 739, + 487, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Training hyperparameters", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 865, + 371, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In order to choose the best hyperparameters for both finetuning approaches, we perform a hyper", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/fca19bd1f17cf36576eea126cbf2f77667985c8c94da20c3d5285903d4ac1796.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: COMET scores on the Chinese language pairs of the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 534, + 84, + 855, + 258 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "parameter search by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with each configuration on the training data. We only consider zero-shot translation and use the template format in Table 2. We find the best configuration based on the average COMET score on all language pairs in the validation set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 343, + 882, + 438 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5 specifies the hyperparameters experimented when training LLaMA 7B with traditional finetuning. We first chose the learning rate and weight decay, while not using warm-up steps. We then tuned the scheduler and warm-up steps. Our final configuration has a learning rate of 1e-6, no weight decay, and a constant learning scheduler with no warm-up steps.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 439, + 882, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6 details the hyperparameters experimented when finetuning with LoRA. We based our experiments on the best configurations for the GPT-2 models trained in Hu et al. (2022). Initial experiments with lower $r$ values lead to an underfitting model so our configurations focused on increasing model capacity, with higher $r$ values, while keeping regularization through label smoothing and weight decay. In Table 7, we present the results for all the runs. We saw very little variation on the obtained scores. We adopted the best configuration, with an $r$ value of 256, weight decay of 0.0, and label smoothing of 0.001.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 882, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Regarding the 13B models, we used the same hyperparameters as in the 7B models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 780, + 880, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "B Analysis on Chinese language pairs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 827, + 852, + 844 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we explore the results for the language pairs including Chinese with the LLaMA 7B model, in order to study if our previous results hold.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11135", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bd62012b9b2e13f51e9ec82592e2185124725f9385ce532ca1fa7ae104efdd56.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Format 1Format 2Format 3
Translate the source text from X to Y.Consider the following N translations from X to Y.Consider the following translations from X to Y.
Source: ...
Target: ...Example 1Source: ...
...Source: ...Target: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Target: ......
Source: ......Source: ...
Target: ...Example NTarget: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target: ...Translate the source text from X to Y.
Target:Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target:
Target:
", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 873, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/940c21ec760aea76e326a4283be861185e5e2cebd28a4ab4a2d3d50181c3b80f.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Prompting templates for finetuning with in-context examples." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
FormatCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Format 185.2582.4932.4457.25
Format 285.3482.5432.6257.37
Format 385.2782.5132.3957.22
", + "bbox": [ + 285, + 313, + 710, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Scores for the few-shot formats on the Flores-200 validation set.", + "bbox": [ + 248, + 406, + 742, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1e80b45f1374d7f7f912b201fcb9999f854934c3b638154ec244e55ea22f8bf8.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 7: COMET scores for Chinese language pairs by the 7B finetuned models on zero-shot and five-shot scenarios for the Flores-200 test set." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 445, + 460, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We start by investigating whether LoRA is still competitive with full finetuning. In Figure 6, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to the finetuned model and outperforms the pretrained LLM, following the trend of other language pairs (see Section 3.1).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 707, + 485, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also investigate the performance of the models finetuned with and without examples. In Figure 7, we observe a similar trend to the results above. The model finetuned without few-shot examples exhibits a performance degradation, while the model finetuned with few-shot examples obtains higher performance with few-shot prompting,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "indicating it is extracting helpful information from the examples in the prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 445, + 880, + 478 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C Experiments with more zero-shot data", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 878, + 505 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We explored an alternative method for combining few-shot examples during finetuning. Instead of uniformly sampling between 0 and 5 examples, we build a training mixture where $50\\%$ of the training examples were zero-shot and the remaining ones had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 882, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 8, we compare the training mixes by finetuning LLaMA 7B. We see that the results are very similar for both configurations. The alternative configuration (Unbalanced) obtains slightly lower results. As such, we adopted the method described in Section 4 for mixing few-shot examples during finetuning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 609, + 882, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "D Examples of domain adaptation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 733, + 821, + 750 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we provide examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B model trained with few-shot example was able to absorb domain knowledge from the examples in the prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 880, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the first example from Table 8, we see that the model correctly translates the terminology GVO to GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), instead of adopting the acronym in the source sentence. In the second example, the model is able to correctly order the words in the translation.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11136", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/89531ff5023cf9e5961f6422a15065f24845e99a387cb9c09cfae6f8cb0b0994.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size256
Learning Rate5e-3, 2e-4, 5e-4, 2e-5, 5e-5, 1e-6
SchedulerConstant, Cosine, Linear
Warm-up Steps0, 1000, 2000
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 92, + 460, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/dd1c19ec1d1f05595bc531f7707436a8c1d727dd1eff6d96aa656c589bd20af0.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Hyperparameters for traditional finetuning experiments." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size8
Learning Rate2e-4
SchedulerLinear
Warm-up Steps500
Dropout0.05
r128, 256
α2 · r
Label Smoothing0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
", + "bbox": [ + 547, + 80, + 811, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/9fa72f1314175e224af63e91805bd30c2cb4bf35c901da5aa176508b9d4c8603.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Hyperparameters for LoRA experiments." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
LoRA-RWeight DecayLabel SmoothingCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
1280.00.084.7481.9631.4756.36
1280.10.084.7681.9831.4556.34
1280.00.0184.7981.9931.4856.37
1280.00.0584.8082.0031.2856.30
1280.00.184.6181.8531.1056.15
1280.00.284.3681.6130.7155.89
2560.00.084.7882.0131.4756.40
2560.10.084.7281.9431.4156.32
2560.00.0184.8782.0831.5756.45
2560.00.0584.7881.9731.4756.39
2560.00.184.6581.9231.2856.25
2560.00.284.4881.7730.9556.01
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 247, + 845, + 475 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7: Scores for the LoRA hyperparameters on the Flores-200 validation set.", + "bbox": [ + 226, + 483, + 766, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "E Analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 524, + 421, + 556 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also provide a more in-depth analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences, with a focus on the examples with the highest differences.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 573, + 487, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 9, we observe that the distributions for the LLaMA 7B model finetuned without in-context examples also have large tails, similar to the results of the model finetuned with in-context examples (see in Section 4.2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 624, + 487, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also analyzed whether the same long tails appear on the specialized domains. In Figure 10, we observe that this is in fact the case. The distributions of the differences are centered around zero and have extreme values on both sides for all domains and finetuned models.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 707, + 487, + 802 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, we show several examples where few-shot prompting both helped or degraded the model performance. In Table 9, prompting the model with few-shot examples fixed the generation in the wrong language. In Table 10, introducing in-context examples in the model prompt leads to hallucinated content.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "F Examples of generated outputs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 524, + 811, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present translations where prompting the pretrained LLaMA 7B model leads to overgeneration, and both 7B finetuned models correctly stopped to translate. In Table 11, we see that, although all models generated the same translation, the pretrained model continued to generate, repeating the prompt and translation, while both finetuned models correctly stopped to generate tokens.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 552, + 882, + 696 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "G Results with all evaluation metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 712, + 845, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide the evaluation for the models considered in this paper using three other MT evaluation metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002),chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 740, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figure 11, we show the comparison between both finetuning approaches with the LLaMA 7B model. The results are consistent across all metrics, with the LoRA model performing similarly to the finetuned and outperforming the pretrained model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 821, + 882, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Figures 12, 13 and 13, we compare finetun", + "bbox": [ + 526, + 903, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11137", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8044d5d14ab659569129a4f16105d705aa7cdc0ceacde48b70925c5b331ac300.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "General Domain" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 102, + 331, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f1a6ae5f253e882f1943ae9743a97daa83d5a9a889d95a6719293a5b4a2e7dac.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 336, + 102, + 515, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1ec76172ec311ed05e641e9a462d93dfb295ce6dbfbc344a3c16af2b88c2c78b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Specialized Domains" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 102, + 694, + 241 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e1becafed4a22d6dc804b4fdeedda3e3fd9862d396c243af798684a35fe32e15.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 699, + 102, + 877, + 242 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/5c1615a1a81597b1f7346c8b183357496eb3daaae31e69851992482f41c47ce9.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 8: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with the two methods for combining few-shot examples. Balanced is the method described in Section 4 and Unbalanced is the alternative method described in Appendix C." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 378, + 244, + 611, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0a3f5e9763e69c63a1dc7394839cf848de906d3c0ddf6875b9309765ab07ead6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source“bezeichnet“genetisch veränderte Futtermittel”Futtermittel, die GVO enthalten, daraus bestehen oder hergestellt werden;”
Reference““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Zero-shot translation““Genetically modified feed”means feed containing GVO, derived from GVO or produced from GVO;”
Few-shot translation““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Source“VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 538/2000 DER KOMMISSION”
Reference“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
Zero-shot translation“(EG) No 538/2000 OF THE COMMISSION”
Few-shot translation“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 332, + 867, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B finetuned with few-shot examples was able to extract domain information from the examples in the prompt.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 499, + 880, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/dc071f48c0520414a1c56f649b931ee73bdc7ca67d7d280fd96b4775de12a5fb.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 9: Difference in COMET scores for zero- vs few-shot translations by the LLaMA 7B FT w/o few-shot model on Flores-200 ( $\\Delta > 0$ means that the translation with few-shot examples was scored higher than the translation without examples)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 554, + 460, + 712 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "when prompting with few-shot examples.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 554, + 816, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the lexical metrics, the degradation in few-shot performance is not visible on the 13B models. However, these metrics may not be reliable for evaluating translations from LLMs (Hendy et al., 2023), as LLMs tend to produce less literal translations which are poorly captured by lexical overlap with the reference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 569, + 884, + 678 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 we also provide the exact scores for all metrics in a tabular format.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 682, + 882, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing with and without examples. We observe that the results with COMETKiwi follow the trends obtained with COMET, with a performance degradation when few-shot prompting the model trained with examples and a recovery of the performance", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11138", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7b3fb0d8faf7f3a5c9c2eacd0eb4b1ccf2dbd2369c78afe1c86d3b2842165578.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 10: Difference in COMET scores for translations obtained with zero- and few-shot prompting for all domains for the finetuned LLaMA 7B models." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 157, + 97, + 519, + 256 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bb4369752929fe2f0e72e749f1ad6896d96c1de364ddb58e385cd2924f7086c0.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 98, + 838, + 255 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/62b7e2c7a1fc7ad11104f042d49826192682e8c3c1a32f090f521a1d94e9cc1f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
SourceMay I take your order number please?
ReferenceDarf ichitte ihre Bestellnummer haben?
Zero-shot translationMay I take your order number please?
Few-shot translationBitte geben Sie mir ihren Bestellnummer an.
SourceMay i know the class you're referring to please
ReferenceA qual aula você está se referindo?
Zero-shot translationMay i know the class you're referring to please
Few-shot translationPoderia eu saber a classe que você está se referindo por favor
SourceThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
ReferenceVielen Dank, also wartest du immer noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
Zero-shot translationThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendant lamp, brass and multi-coloured glass?
Few-shot translationDanke, so warten Sie noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 332, + 867, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a4bfb6ba4e312af6d825c175b42204efd146b44d936d9b666aa82a33d07fb2e2.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples corrected the language in which the model was generating." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source“Age: Age was the most important factor for the prognosis of SARS, which is also true for COVID-19.”
Reference“Âge : l'âge constituit le principal facteur pour le pronostic du SRAS, et cela semble également être le cas pour la COVID-19.”
Zero-shot translation“Â Age : L'âge est le facteur le plus important pour la prognostication du SRAS, qui est également vrai pour le COVID-19.”
Few-shot translation“Â A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A”
Source“Chinese people as well as other Asians in the United Kingdom and the United States have reported increasing levels of racist abuse, as well as assaults.”
Reference“O povo chinès, assim comme autres asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram níveis crescentes de insultos racistas, bem como de ataques.”
Zero-shot translation“Pessoas chinesas, bem como outros asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram um aumento de abusos racistas, bem como assaltos.”
Few-shot translation“Em 6 de avril, as férias foram estendidas em todas as escolas de;nével médio do Turcomenistão.”
", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 646, + 867, + 862 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples introduced an hallucination.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 872, + 882, + 900 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11139", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/fc6130d1fb8583c56b0cfa723ca565f82347ca2c2df312eb0b0569bb58d660c2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Source“‘We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic’ he added.”
Reference“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos e que antes eram diabéticos,”complementou.”
Pretrained“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescen-tou.\\nTranslate the source text from English to Portuguese.\\nSource: “We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic,” he added.\\nTarget: “Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram di”
FT w/o Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
FT w/ Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 99, + 858, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: Examples of translations where finetuning the LLaMA 7B model eliminated the overgeneration in the outputs.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 237, + 882, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/14be28f01081e36b017170de21a966fc4edbb660fc2620c8e51755dd48de0810.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 11: Scores of the 7B pretrained model (few-shot prompting) and both 7B finetuned models (zero-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + ], + "image_footnote": [ + "Pretrained Finetuned LoRA" + ], + "bbox": [ + 119, + 312, + 366, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/2c7d22fb7a7a022fe03c8344e3e21bf202c957c42b1de44243d06f54c4cb83ce.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 371, + 312, + 620, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8db60cac1cb15145b1bae1a33098a599a9e080c04331fd86e90a73b521379731.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 625, + 312, + 873, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e4ce37c41184129ec7512e07d897075bb6d06699ba3b1b747c0d05240b7ee029.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 12: COMETKiwi scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 601, + 880, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11140", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 526, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ceb1743d7382c781cbbe72156d737ae7656f3d2cf3be484178822e8430d72f2d.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 13: BLEU scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 148, + 880, + 374 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/b6ab30efc31cf1e160d8017969a76f72c93ae993029214f58f1e8cf5cfb0bafc.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 14: chrF scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 117, + 568, + 882, + 795 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11141", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b5d5d9a79d15f0b872779acb84f35cb4406e17bbd57d037bb9c4d94ec0415086.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2382.9936.7762.34
Five-Shot88.0683.4939.0164.42
FinetunedZero-Shot88.6683.9541.0566.17
LoRAZero-Shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
en-dePretrainedZero-Shot71.5657.8713.9938.73
Five-Shot82.7479.8224.7754.00
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4781.1928.3057.69
LoRAZero-Shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
fr-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.0484.6137.2762.79
Five-Shot88.4185.6540.7165.85
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8086.0242.9967.30
LoRAZero-Shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
en-frPretrainedZero-Shot76.5465.1723.4347.02
Five-Shot84.5284.5336.7161.40
FinetunedZero-Shot85.3985.2839.2364.10
LoRAZero-Shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
nl-enPretrainedZero-Shot84.6083.5925.4253.94
Five-Shot86.4684.9928.5557.22
FinetunedZero-Shot86.4485.2229.4358.26
LoRAZero-Shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
en-nlPretrainedZero-Shot73.9961.1712.4538.88
Five-Shot83.1281.8619.2650.58
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4082.6320.7153.10
LoRAZero-Shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
pt-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2683.2141.1465.78
Five-Shot88.5784.2244.3568.49
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8884.6046.5870.13
LoRAZero-Shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
en-ptPretrainedZero-Shot74.6055.9117.4640.46
Five-Shot86.4382.0335.2561.41
FinetunedZero-Shot87.1182.8638.7564.45
LoRAZero-Shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
ru-enPretrainedZero-Shot83.8582.0328.3757.00
Five-Shot85.2183.1131.0859.25
FinetunedZero-Shot85.5483.4932.7060.12
LoRAZero-Shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
en-ruPretrainedZero-Shot57.6346.497.1617.48
Five-Shot83.4479.4519.2847.60
FinetunedZero-Shot84.9181.0620.7649.32
LoRAZero-Shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
zh-enPretrainedZero-Shot76.7477.4612.5434.99
Five-Shot82.2779.5519.2348.13
FinetunedZero-Shot83.6880.7821.7349.88
LoRAZero-Shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
en-zhPretrainedZero-Shot49.1245.104.547.20
Five-Shot66.0461.2014.6815.11
FinetunedZero-Shot72.9468.5917.0717.72
LoRAZero-Shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
", + "bbox": [ + 166, + 80, + 825, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: Scores for the 7B pretrained model and 7B both finetuned models on the Flores-200 test set.", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 913, + 840, + 927 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11142", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/58ece5a808feea3dbf24422d7f8b9fa9b83f39930181232f9509a80d60903b78.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
Five-shot88.5383.8840.4165.66
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.6784.0941.5066.54
Five-shot88.6984.1241.4766.63
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
Five-shot83.4480.9828.0157.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9981.5129.2158.98
Five-shot84.0681.4929.5559.06
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
Five-shot88.7985.9543.2067.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9486.1743.3467.72
Five-shot88.9886.1743.6067.86
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
Five-shot85.1284.8239.0963.95
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.7685.4940.5765.14
Five-shot85.9885.6440.8565.25
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
Five-shot86.4485.1829.7058.09
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.6785.4530.0858.74
Five-shot86.6885.4730.0658.73
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
Five-shot82.9982.2920.2452.44
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4582.8420.9853.50
Five-shot83.6083.0221.0953.66
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
Five-shot88.7984.5046.3770.02
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9284.7046.9570.45
Five-shot88.9684.7047.3270.62
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
Five-shot86.8682.4638.6464.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.3683.0640.1065.36
Five-shot87.3583.0740.1165.25
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
Five-shot85.3083.2032.0859.18
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.6883.5633.1260.31
Five-shot85.7383.6233.1860.35
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
Five-shot84.5080.1820.0948.74
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.4181.4022.0850.36
Five-shot85.5781.4722.1950.73
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
Five-shot82.5779.5420.6248.23
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7181.1222.2650.70
Five-shot83.7380.9622.7450.83
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
Five-shot71.7766.5616.1116.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot74.2570.0819.0519.20
Five-shot74.7470.6919.3219.50
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 80, + 845, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set.", + "bbox": [ + 151, + 913, + 845, + 928 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11143", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/76420e27d98034499e8aa94488bc768ca6ae0f84012a94ee6cd4406807e003b2.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.8679.6629.0953.99
Five-shot82.7379.2429.2753.92
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.1079.7529.4354.49
Five-shot83.0679.7329.4054.58
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.0278.2923.6952.80
Five-shot80.1178.0123.1152.00
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.9478.9424.0053.81
Five-shot81.1979.0524.3354.04
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5879.0836.1861.15
Five-shot81.9078.3135.0160.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.9779.3737.0661.93
Five-shot83.1279.4637.3062.11
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.0477.7720.0146.18
Five-shot81.7977.4119.4145.33
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.3378.3120.7446.71
Five-shot82.2478.1420.8846.91
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.9072.1715.1443.29
Five-shot74.0471.1415.5243.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot75.5672.9615.9144.03
Five-shot75.5273.0915.9844.53
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.2769.0818.1919.96
Five-shot73.8667.7717.1218.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.0570.9720.3721.54
Five-shot76.2571.1419.8921.43
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 267, + 845, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 14: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 713, + 847, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11144", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/bed2e7b2ce4c6a62e3a10ba4b850e528ab9363728ac4a13b8483ba622e735c13.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.5480.9239.9860.32
Five-shot83.0380.3239.2959.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7381.0840.6260.88
Five-shot83.7781.1540.5760.89
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.1579.6430.2553.10
Five-shot79.7578.8729.8652.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.5879.9331.6154.51
Five-shot80.5879.8731.4854.32
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1180.5338.1859.38
Five-shot82.6778.9036.9057.85
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.2680.8139.8460.62
Five-shot84.4380.9640.1160.82
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.8378.6326.0450.44
Five-shot79.3576.8725.0348.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.5579.0727.8052.12
Five-shot81.6479.1127.7152.00
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot78.4483.9931.5756.80
Five-shot78.1083.4032.7257.11
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.6084.2032.4757.59
Five-shot78.6284.2132.5857.66
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8781.7339.7665.92
Five-shot86.4881.0339.3165.26
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.0382.0040.9666.81
Five-shot87.1382.0741.1166.91
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5677.9727.3250.81
Five-shot82.7077.7528.5351.76
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.5478.7028.1952.54
Five-shot84.0178.7628.8353.05
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.7180.8144.7062.90
Five-shot86.3880.1243.9761.69
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.5280.6144.8763.26
Five-shot86.6280.7244.8963.20
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.5480.5841.7962.93
Five-shot88.7079.8041.0661.98
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.6480.7943.5263.85
Five-shot89.9880.7643.8864.17
", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 171, + 892, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 15: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 810, + 880, + 825 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11145", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/087d01d83c22a2f39ea5ff45c61aaa9b9d877727c2cc91473f698452eb9aec3b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.8284.1142.0367.00
Five-shot88.8684.0541.9566.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9484.1342.8667.40
Five-shot89.0384.2042.7767.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.8782.3830.6060.04
Five-shot84.6482.0330.7360.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0182.4331.5260.49
Five-shot85.0182.5231.5160.50
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.0986.1644.1468.12
Five-shot89.1286.1044.0568.10
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.1386.1244.8368.46
Five-shot89.1586.1444.9568.58
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.0885.6941.3365.59
Five-shot86.0785.7541.1965.59
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.3585.9341.9666.07
Five-shot86.4185.9242.1066.20
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8185.3930.3759.02
Five-shot86.9985.4530.8359.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.8985.4530.7159.15
Five-shot86.9085.5130.8959.25
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1083.2621.8754.25
Five-shot84.6383.6922.1454.20
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1683.3822.1054.61
Five-shot84.4283.5722.4454.85
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.2684.8647.8171.25
Five-shot89.3084.8248.0771.17
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.3584.8648.3071.40
Five-shot89.3284.8848.1671.39
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.9883.7541.2666.19
Five-shot87.8883.5741.4366.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.0183.7841.6366.49
Five-shot88.0083.8142.0866.71
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.9383.7833.5760.86
Five-shot86.0183.8233.8261.03
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.0383.8434.0261.20
Five-shot86.1383.8434.4061.44
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4682.6823.3752.00
Five-shot86.0882.4323.8952.21
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.9283.1024.2152.80
Five-shot86.6482.9224.0752.62
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1681.4823.2351.41
Five-shot83.8781.2622.5950.65
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4881.8124.0951.95
Five-shot84.5181.7824.2852.33
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.4973.1519.9620.03
Five-shot76.5272.5220.1320.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.0274.8921.6021.23
Five-shot77.8974.4521.8221.32
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 80, + 845, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 16: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set.", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 913, + 847, + 928 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11146", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3cb202771b9836a1ef6cf944ed3db6e825c5a901bbc7b46a3a03cf08c65c7bab.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4080.0930.1655.15
Five-shot83.5080.0230.6255.45
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4480.0330.5855.39
Five-shot83.5480.1930.6455.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.8879.8225.3354.72
Five-shot81.8779.7125.1254.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.4380.3025.8855.42
Five-shot82.1880.1825.9155.42
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1879.5438.0462.55
Five-shot83.0879.5637.5562.79
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4979.8338.2362.88
Five-shot83.5179.8738.2862.94
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9079.6021.5748.19
Five-shot84.0379.7522.1748.51
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4680.1022.7149.21
Five-shot84.4480.1322.7349.17
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.1173.5416.6645.52
Five-shot75.6572.8817.9946.38
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.4873.9117.2045.85
Five-shot76.4473.9217.5146.14
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot77.4872.6921.3822.13
Five-shot77.2872.2220.7521.86
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.8074.1523.3123.63
Five-shot78.9474.4023.3223.49
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 267, + 845, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 17: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set.", + "bbox": [ + 142, + 713, + 850, + 728 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11147", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8e1626ea4951c3d834097c115ade096fd9b0e1db9f1dfeee998d238fb342e6a7.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9981.1942.0162.18
Five-shot84.0680.9842.3962.42
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1881.2443.1562.60
Five-shot84.2681.2643.1162.76
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.3181.0932.3656.33
Five-shot81.1280.9231.8956.05
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.7781.4033.0057.08
Five-shot81.7281.2133.2857.16
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7381.0741.0861.87
Five-shot84.5780.7441.0161.77
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0381.2542.7263.04
Five-shot85.1381.4042.7463.06
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4681.7328.2554.84
Five-shot83.1681.3328.3554.54
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9182.0529.9755.89
Five-shot83.8782.0429.8955.90
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot79.5685.3734.2259.72
Five-shot79.4385.2436.4760.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot79.7885.6235.2260.33
Five-shot79.7985.6835.1860.40
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.8983.3643.3069.13
Five-shot87.8283.1543.3169.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.1683.6744.2169.68
Five-shot88.2983.7444.4869.87
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.6279.8929.2454.11
Five-shot84.8479.6731.1154.75
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.5680.2830.3354.51
Five-shot85.6480.3630.9055.09
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.4681.0147.3964.62
Five-shot88.1881.3249.4366.37
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.4180.8847.7464.97
Five-shot86.8681.0447.9264.94
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot91.0281.6745.9966.36
Five-shot90.8281.4944.4966.19
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot90.5681.3144.7565.93
Five-shot90.5081.3844.8966.00
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 161, + 895, + 793 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 18: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 803, + 884, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "11148", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_model.json b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b6736b1787b7cc37c1cb6ac6d206d89f290e6d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2851 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.197, + 0.083, + 0.803, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.134, + 0.13, + 0.868, + 0.164 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Duarte M. Alves1,4 Nuno M. Guerreiro1,2,4,5 João Alves2 José Pombal2 Ricardo Rei2,3,4 José G. C. de Souza2 Pierre Colombo5,6 André F. T. Martins1,2,4" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.13, + 0.165, + 0.871, + 0.23 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Instituto de Telecomunicações, Lisbon, Portugal \\(^{2}\\)Unbabel, Lisbon, Portugal, \\(^{3}\\)INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal \\(^{4}\\)Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal \\(^{5}\\)MICS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, France \\(^{6}\\)Equall, Paris, France duartemalves@tecnico.ulisboa.pt" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.277, + 0.461, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) are a promising avenue for machine translation (MT). However, current LLM-based MT systems are brittle: their effectiveness highly depends on the choice of few-shot examples and they often require extra post-processing due to overgeneration. Alternatives such as finetuning on translation instructions are computationally expensive and may weaken in-context learning capabilities, due to overspecialization. In this paper, we provide a closer look at this problem. We start by showing that adapter-based finetuning with LoRA matches the performance of traditional finetuning while reducing the number of training parameters by a factor of 50. This method also outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for post-processing or in-context examples. However, we show that finetuning generally degrades few-shot performance, hindering adaptation capabilities. Finally, to obtain the best of both worlds, we propose a simple approach that incorporates few-shot examples during finetuning. Experiments on 10 language pairs show that our proposed approach recovers the original few-shot capabilities while keeping the added benefits of finetuning.1" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.669, + 0.26, + 0.684 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.694, + 0.491, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on a wide range of NLP tasks by leveraging in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). In particular, when provided with few-shot examples, these models have demonstrated impressive capabilities for performing machine translation (MT) without requiring explicit supervision on parallel data (Garcia et al., 2023). However, this approach exhibits several drawbacks: performance is highly dependent on the quality of examples (Vilar et al., 2022), outputs are plagued by overgeneration (Bawden and Yvon, 2023), and inference costs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.462 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "are greatly increased by processing all input pairs. When parallel data is available, LLMs can alternatively be finetuned on translation instructions (Li et al., 2023). This method generally outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for in-context examples. However, it remains unclear whether finetuned models can benefit from the desirable properties of in-context learning, such as on-the-fly domain adaptation (Agrawal et al., 2022). Additionally, traditional finetuning (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2018) incurs a high computational overhead due to the cost of updating all the model weights." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.463, + 0.885, + 0.559 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we provide a closer examination of the impact of finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs to perform translation. Our experiments encompass 10 language pairs on general and specific domains, comprising over 100,000 generated translations (§2). Our main findings are:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.565, + 0.886, + 0.727 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We show that finetuning with adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022) is a very effective method to steer LLMs for translation (\\(\\S 3.1\\)). This method matches the performance of traditional finetuning at a fraction of the computational cost, by training 50 times fewer parameters. It also achieves better translation quality than in-context learning and eliminates the need for post-processing the generated outputs and selecting in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.734, + 0.885, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We show that finetuning large language models degrades their few-shot performance, limiting their adaptation capabilities (§3.2). In particular, we show that finetuned LLMs perform poorly on domain adaptation scenarios when provided in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.839, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that introduces few-shot examples during finetuning (§4). Our results show that we can recover few-shot capabilities while retaining the benefits of finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.565, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Code available at https://github.com/deep-spin/ translation_11m." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11127" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.211, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11127-11148 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.322, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.122, + 0.488, + 0.186 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our experiments, we use LLaMA 7B and 13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as backbone language models and finetune them with the standard cross entropy loss." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.191, + 0.49, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train our models on general domain OPUS (Tiedemann, 2012) data from the Europarl, Globalvoices, Paracrawl, Tilde, Ubuntu, and Wikipedia domains. We consider the languages Dutch (nl), French (fr), German (de), Portuguese (pt) and Russian (ru), both from and into English (en). To ensure the quality of the training records, we first apply Bicleaner (Ramirez-Sanchez et al., 2020) using a threshold of 0.85 and then filter the remaining pairs, ensuring both language directions have a COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) score above 0.8. Finally, we sample 250K records for each language pair. During training, we uniformly sample from the data to ensure each language pair is seen a similar number of times. We perform validation on the Flores-200 development set for the language pairs in the training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.679 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For in-domain evaluation, we consider the Flores-200 (NLLB Team et al., 2022) test dataset on all the translation directions included during training, as well as the WMT22 test sets3 for the language pairs considered in our training data. Regarding data for specialized domains, we consider the Medical and Law domains from Aharoni and Goldberg (2020), the TICO dataset (Anastasopoulos et al., 2020) and WMT Chat (Farinha et al., 2022). We evaluate our models on zero and five shot settings, uniformly sampling for each test sentence five independent few-shot samples from the respective development set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.683, + 0.49, + 0.764 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our main evaluation metric is COMET (Rei et al., 2020, 2022a)\\(^4\\). We also report results with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) in Appendix G." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.769, + 0.489, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We refer the reader to Appendix A for full details on hyperparameters and instruction formats used in the following experiments." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.085, + 0.857, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.284, + 0.883, + 0.329 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: COMET scores on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B pretrained (few-shot) and LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA (zero-shot)." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.345, + 0.835, + 0.502 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.547, + 0.505, + 0.855, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.548, + 0.883, + 0.592 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: COMET scores for zero-shot evaluation on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B finetuned with differing amounts of training data." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.617, + 0.869, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Finetuning LLMs on MT instructions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.644, + 0.884, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we investigate the performance of LLMs finetuned on machine translation instructions in relation to few-shot prompting with a pretrained language model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.71, + 0.884, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Note that, throughout this section, we always analyse few-shot prompting for the pretrained model. We deem that this offers a fairer comparison to finetuning on translation instructions, since both methods have access to training examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.792, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nevertheless, we also provide the results for zero-shot translation with the pretrained model in Appendix G. Similar to the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023), zero-shot performance is far behind few-shot performance, in particular for out-of-English language pairs, likely due to the prevalence of English data during the pretraining of the LLaMA models." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.843, + 0.488, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We also consider Chinese (zh). However, as it is not supported by LLaMA, we examine it in Appendix B." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.365, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://www.statmt.org/wmt22/ translation-task.html" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4We use the latest COMET model wmt22-comet-da from version 2.0.1." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.843, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11128" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.084, + 0.885, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.322, + 0.884, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.391, + 0.403, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Efficient finetuning with LoRA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.416, + 0.489, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We start by studying parameter efficient training with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) and compare it with traditional finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.467, + 0.489, + 0.66 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 1, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. We also see that both LoRA and traditional finetuning outperform the pretrained model with few-shot prompts—the latter is consistent with the findings in Li et al. (2023), which show that finetuning leads to better translations than few-shot prompting of pretrained language models. As a general trend, all methods exhibit better translation quality when translating into English, following recent trends in the literature (Arivazhagan et al., 2019; Vilar et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.663, + 0.489, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also find that finetuning LoRA requires a very small number of translations to obtain the reported performance, as shown in Figure 2. In particular, it outperforms the few-shot pretrained model with as few as 2,000 training examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.746, + 0.489, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Considering the high computational costs of full finetuning compared to parameter-efficient finetuning and the negligible degradation obtained with the LoRA-based model, we use LoRA in subsequent experiments." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.391, + 0.874, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Few-shot prompting of finetuned models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.411, + 0.884, + 0.538 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We now direct our attention to comparing zero- and five-shot performance. We argue that, even when an LLM can achieve high zero-shot translation quality, few-shot capabilities can be very beneficial for efficient adaptation. As shown by Agrawal et al. (2022), LLMs can leverage a very small pool of few-shot examples to perform translation on new domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.54, + 0.884, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the leftmost plots of Figure 3, we examine the zero- and few-shot performance of our finetuned models on general domains. Few-shot performance degrades and is surpassed by zero-shot performance, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is hindering the in-context learning abilities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.637, + 0.884, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to further study this phenomenon, we evaluate the above models on specialized domains. General domain examples may be of little help for a model already trained on that domain. On the contrary, in specialized domains, examples should bring domain-specific information about the properties of the translation, such as style, register, and thus help the model achieve better performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.766, + 0.883, + 0.862 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the rightmost plots of Figure 3, we observe that the above issue happens consistently in all domains, with a larger degradation in performance. This finding further supports our hypothesis that finetuning can degrade the performance of few-shot prompting." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.869, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Regarding the 13B model, the trends are more visible when evaluating with COMETKiwi (see Appendix G) which is shown to correlate well with human judgements when evaluating LLM based MT systems (Hendy et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.845, + 0.488, + 0.892 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we only considered the 7B model due to computational constraints. Concurrent to our work, Xu et al. (2023) showed that LoRA is competitive with finetuning when applied to LLaMA 13B." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.893, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{6}\\)LoRA requires only 134M trainable parameters, whereas traditional finetuning requires 6,7B." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.845, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11129" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.14, + 0.085, + 0.465, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.241, + 0.49, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Length of the tokenized outputs when translating the Flores-200 test set for the 7B models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.296, + 0.449, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Finetuning with few-shot examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.323, + 0.49, + 0.499 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to recover few-shot performance, we introduce instructions with few-shot examples in the training process: namely, we finetune on data which contains both zero-shot and few-shot instructions. Following Min et al. (2022), we uniformly sample between 0 and 5 few-shot examples for each training example from an example pool previously separated from the training data. From here, we build an instruction prompt with the training example and the selected examples and proceed with the training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.501, + 0.49, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 3, we observe that the models trained with in-context examples recover their few-shot capabilities, both for the general and specialized domains. The few-shot performance is on par or above the zero-shot performance, further suggesting that the models are extracting helpful information from the examples. In Appendix D, we present a set of examples that highlight these gains." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.642, + 0.367, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Analysis on output format" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.664, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also analyze whether finetuned models continue to generate context after the desired translation. This issue is present in pretrained LLM outputs and requires post-processing of the generated content, deleting all words generated after the first new line." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.745, + 0.489, + 0.825 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 4, we show the length of the tokenized outputs for the 7B models. We observe that the distribution of the length for the outputs generated by both finetuned models matches the distribution of the references. This shows that the finetuned" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.534, + 0.086, + 0.858, + 0.245 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.259, + 0.885, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: COMET score difference for zero- vs few-shot translations on Flores-200 by the 7B FT w/ few-shot model (\\(\\Delta > 0\\) indicates higher score for few-shot translations)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.345, + 0.744, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "models no longer overgenerate." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.361, + 0.885, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also found that these models no longer delimit their output with the newline symbol and instead produce the end of sentence token, removing the necessity for post-processing and increasing computational efficiency. In Appendix F, we provide a set of examples to illustrate these findings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.472, + 0.809, + 0.487 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Influence of in-context examples" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.494, + 0.884, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to obtain a more fine-grained analysis of the gains obtained by adding in-context examples, we analyzed the difference in COMET scores for each source sentence when prompting the 7B finetuned models with and without examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.576, + 0.882, + 0.641 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 5, we observe that the distributions have a high concentration of points slightly above 0. However, we also observe very large tails, in particular for out-of-English language pairs.[10]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.642, + 0.882, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We manually inspected the examples with the highest differences11 and found that introducing examples can fix the model generating in the wrong language, supporting the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023). Surprisingly, we also discovered examples where the model correctly generated a translation in a zero-shot scenario and inserting in-context examples lead to hallucinated content." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.772, + 0.882, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better characterize this phenomenon, we take inspiration from analysis on hallucinations under perturbation (Lee et al., 2018), and measured how many times prompting the model without examples lead to a translation above 30 BLEU points, and introducing examples reduced the score to below" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.88, + 0.882, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10In Appendix E, we show that the model finetuned without examples also has the same behavior." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.905, + 0.856, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11We show several extracted examples in Appendix E." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.88, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.833, + 0.488, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8We also considered a training mixture where \\(50\\%\\) of the data contained no examples and the remaining data had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples. We did not further explore this as preliminary results (see Appendix C) show the results are similar to the ones obtained with the procedure above." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.905, + 0.421, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The 13B models follow a similar distribution." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.833, + 0.488, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11130" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.173, + 0.082, + 0.827, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Domain7B13B
FT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shotFT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shot
Flores0.12%0.00%0.02%0.00%
Medical1.09%0.05%0.29%0.00%
Law2.70%0.05%0.48%0.15%
Tico0.60%0.04%0.04%0.04%
Chat1.80%0.23%0.51%0.00%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.128, + 0.222, + 0.867, + 0.237 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Hallucination Rates for finetuned models on each evaluation dataset, considering all languages pairs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.262, + 0.489, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 (these thresholds were selected based on previous work (Lee et al., 2018; Raunak et al., 2021; Guerreiro et al., 2023))\\(^{12}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.312, + 0.489, + 0.504 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 1, we see that the models finetuned without examples have higher hallucination rates than their respective counterparts, further showing their degradation in few-shot performance. Through a manual inspection of the obtained outputs, we observed that the models generate hallucinations of different categories. In particular, they generate both detached (fully and strongly) and oscillatory hallucinations, and can also generate off-target translations. One common case is that the models copy from the instruction (either from the source or the examples)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.506, + 0.49, + 0.651 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The models finetuned with few-shot examples exhibit lower hallucination rates, suggesting that the training procedure reduced the prevalence of this issue. In particular, these models no longer copy from the instruction. However, they still produce hallucinations and their impact is very serious. As such, we believe that it motivates further study on the influence of in-context examples and the generated output." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.665, + 0.248, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.692, + 0.489, + 0.836 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we provide a study on finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs for translation. We show that adapter-based finetuning matches the performance of traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. Additionally, finetuning with adapters outperforms few-shot prompting of large language models and eliminates the need for output post-processing and in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.838, + 0.489, + 0.871 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In addition, we show that finetuned models exhibit poor performance when prompted with" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.262, + 0.883, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in-context examples. To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that mixes few-shot prompts during finetuning. Our results show that we recover the original few-shot capabilities and retain the benefits of finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.354, + 0.615, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.379, + 0.884, + 0.444 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we focus on English-centric high-resource language pairs. It remains an open question how these findings generalize for non-English language pairs or in low-resource settings." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.444, + 0.884, + 0.541 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also do not perform a human assessment on the quality of the translations quality due to the time and cost of performing this study. Instead, we base our evaluation on COMET, a state-of-the-art metric for MT evaluation, and provide results for other metrics in Appendix G." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.552, + 0.662, + 0.567 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.577, + 0.884, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper is based on large language models. These models can encompass several risks, which are discussed in detail in Brown et al. (2020) and Chowdhery et al. (2022). Namely, they are trained on large web corpora, which can contain toxic content (Gehman et al., 2020), and have a high energy consumption, in particular during training (Strubell et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.706, + 0.884, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additionally, our evaluation is based on automatic metrics finetuned based on human preferences. In such cases, annotators may not consider better alternatives when evaluating generated text and wrongfully classify the text as high quality (Bansal et al., 2021)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.814, + 0.682, + 0.831 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.839, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work was supported by EU's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions (UTTER, contract 101070631), by the project DECOLLAGE (ERC-2022-CoG 101088763), by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through con" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.88, + 0.488, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "12Note that this analysis is similar to that of hallucinations under perturbation, when considering the introduction of the examples as the input perturbation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11131" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.182 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tract UIDB/50008/2020, and by the Portuguese Recovery and Resilience Plan through project C645008882- 00000055 (Center for Responsible AI). Part of this work was performed using HPC resources from GENCI-IDRIS (Grants 2022-AD01101838, 2023-103256 and 2023-101838)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.208, + 0.214, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.23, + 0.49, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2022. Incontext examples selection for machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.28, + 0.49, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Unsupervised domain clusters in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7747-7763, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.369, + 0.49, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Alessandro Cattelan, Zi-Yi Dou, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Dmitriy Genzel, Francisco Guzmán, Junjie Hu, Macduff Hughes, Philipp Koehn, Rosie Lazar, Will Lewis, Graham Neubig, Mengmeng Niu, Alp Öktem, Eric Paquin, Grace Tang, and Sylvania Tur. 2020. TICO-19: the Translation initiative for COvid-19. arXiv:2007.01788." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.483, + 0.49, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Naveen Arivazhagan, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Dmitry Lepikhin, Melvin Johnson, Maxim Krikun, Mia Xu Chen, Yuan Cao, George F. Foster, Colin Cherry, Wolfgang Macherey, Zhifeng Chen, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation in the wild: Findings and challenges. CoRR, abs/1907.05019." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.584, + 0.49, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel Weld. 2021. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.699, + 0.489, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rachel Bawden and François Yvon. 2023. Investigating the translation performance of a large multilingual language model: the case of bloom." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.749, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 33, page 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.23, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.396, + 0.885, + 0.515 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.524, + 0.885, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ana C Farinha, M. Amin Farajian, Marianna Buchicchio, Patrick Fernandes, José G. C. de Souza, Helena Moniz, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. Findings of the WMT 2022 shared task on chat translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 724-743, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.639, + 0.885, + 0.704 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xavier Garcia, Yamini Bansal, Colin Cherry, George Foster, Maxim Krikun, Fangxiaoyu Feng, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan Firat. 2023. The unreasonable effectiveness of few-shot learning for machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.714, + 0.885, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356-3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.816, + 0.885, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nuno M. Guerreiro, Duarte Alves, Jonas Waldendorf, Barry Haddow, Alexandra Birch, Pierre Colombo, and André F. T. Martins. 2023. Hallucinations in large multilingual translation models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amr Hendy, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11132" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Awadalla. 2023. How good are gpt models at machine translation? a comprehensive evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.123, + 0.49, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.239, + 0.488, + 0.305 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.315, + 0.488, + 0.354 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Katherine Lee, Orhan Firat, Ashish Agarwal, Clara Fanjiang, and David Sussillo. 2018. Hallucinations in neural machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.365, + 0.488, + 0.418 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiahuan Li, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Shanbo Chen, and Jiajun Chen. 2023. Eliciting the translation ability of large language models via multilingual finetuning with translation instructions." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.429, + 0.488, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11048-11064, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.544, + 0.488, + 0.739 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.75, + 0.488, + 0.843 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.853, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.513, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.126 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.137, + 0.882, + 0.228 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gema Ramírez-Sánchez, Jaume Zaragoza-Bernabeu, Marta Banón, and Sergio Ortiz Rojas. 2020. Bixer and bicleaner: two open-source tools to clean your parallel data. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 291-298, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.239, + 0.882, + 0.331 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vikas Raunak, Arul Menezes, and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2021. The curious case of hallucinations in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1172-1183, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.341, + 0.882, + 0.446 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Jose G. C. de Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022a. COMET-22: Unbabel-IST 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.457, + 0.882, + 0.535 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685-2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.546, + 0.882, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Marcos Treviso, Nuno M. Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Christine Maroti, Jose G. C. de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte Alves, Luisa Coheur, Alon Lavie, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022b. CometKiwi: IST-unbabel 2022 submission for the quality estimation shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 634-645, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.687, + 0.882, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645-3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.777, + 0.882, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 2214-2218, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11133" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.123, + 0.489, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Vilar, Markus Freitag, Colin Cherry, Jiaming Luo, Viresh Ratnakar, and George Foster. 2022. Prompting palm for translation: Assessing strategies and performance." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.186, + 0.489, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haoran Xu, Young Jin Kim, Amr Sharaf, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. A paradigm shift in machine translation: Boosting translation performance of large language models." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11134" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.086, + 0.443, + 0.136 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Translate the source text from X to Y. Source: ... Target:" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.151, + 0.49, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Prompting template for finetuning without few-shot examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.206, + 0.41, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Details on experimental setup" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.234, + 0.313, + 0.248 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Instruction format" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.255, + 0.489, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The training data for finetuning without few-shot examples follows the template shown in Table 2. The same format is used when testing all models in a zero-shot setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.321, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We treat the few-shot instruction template as a hyperparameter and experiment with three different methods, as shown in Table 3. Our first template follows recent trends in the literature and repeats the zero-shot instruction for each example (Vilar et al., 2022). However, in our experiments, we found that pretrained language models see the repeating pattern and continue to generate more examples besides the target translation. In order to circumvent this issue in the finetuned models, we designed the two remaining templates with separate examples sections. Our goal was to better separate the examples from the input and thus reduce the propensity for overgeneration. We found that all templates lead to overgeneration with the pretrained model and none suffered from this issue when the model is finetuned." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.595, + 0.489, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to select the template format for our remaining experiments, we test them by finetuning with examples the LLaMA 7B model and choosing the template with the highest average COMET score on the languages in the validation set. In order to collect examples for few-shot prompting in the validation set, we sampled from the validation set ensuring the predicted example was not in the in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.74, + 0.489, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 4, we observe that the templates lead to very similar results, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is not very sensitive to the template used. Nevertheless, their ranking is consistent across metrics, with the second one obtaining the best scores. As such, we use it when prompting models in a few-shot scenario." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.866, + 0.373, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Training hyperparameters" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In order to choose the best hyperparameters for both finetuning approaches, we perform a hyper" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.536, + 0.085, + 0.857, + 0.259 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.273, + 0.883, + 0.316 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: COMET scores on the Chinese language pairs of the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.344, + 0.884, + 0.439 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "parameter search by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with each configuration on the training data. We only consider zero-shot translation and use the template format in Table 2. We find the best configuration based on the average COMET score on all language pairs in the validation set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.441, + 0.884, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5 specifies the hyperparameters experimented when training LLaMA 7B with traditional finetuning. We first chose the learning rate and weight decay, while not using warm-up steps. We then tuned the scheduler and warm-up steps. Our final configuration has a learning rate of 1e-6, no weight decay, and a constant learning scheduler with no warm-up steps." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.571, + 0.883, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6 details the hyperparameters experimented when finetuning with LoRA. We based our experiments on the best configurations for the GPT-2 models trained in Hu et al. (2022). Initial experiments with lower \\( r \\) values lead to an underfitting model so our configurations focused on increasing model capacity, with higher \\( r \\) values, while keeping regularization through label smoothing and weight decay. In Table 7, we present the results for all the runs. We saw very little variation on the obtained scores. We adopted the best configuration, with an \\( r \\) value of 256, weight decay of 0.0, and label smoothing of 0.001." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.781, + 0.882, + 0.812 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Regarding the 13B models, we used the same hyperparameters as in the 7B models." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.828, + 0.853, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B Analysis on Chinese language pairs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we explore the results for the language pairs including Chinese with the LLaMA 7B model, in order to study if our previous results hold." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11135" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.082, + 0.875, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Format 1Format 2Format 3
Translate the source text from X to Y.Consider the following N translations from X to Y.Consider the following translations from X to Y.
Source: ...
Target: ...Example 1Source: ...
...Source: ...Target: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Target: ......
Source: ......Source: ...
Target: ...Example NTarget: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target: ...Translate the source text from X to Y.
Target:Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target:
Target:
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.259, + 0.287, + 0.735, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Prompting templates for finetuning with in-context examples." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.286, + 0.315, + 0.712, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
FormatCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Format 185.2582.4932.4457.25
Format 285.3482.5432.6257.37
Format 385.2782.5132.3957.22
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.25, + 0.407, + 0.744, + 0.421 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Scores for the few-shot formats on the Flores-200 validation set." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.447, + 0.462, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.634, + 0.487, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 7: COMET scores for Chinese language pairs by the 7B finetuned models on zero-shot and five-shot scenarios for the Flores-200 test set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.708, + 0.487, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We start by investigating whether LoRA is still competitive with full finetuning. In Figure 6, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to the finetuned model and outperforms the pretrained LLM, following the trend of other language pairs (see Section 3.1)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also investigate the performance of the models finetuned with and without examples. In Figure 7, we observe a similar trend to the results above. The model finetuned without few-shot examples exhibits a performance degradation, while the model finetuned with few-shot examples obtains higher performance with few-shot prompting," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.447, + 0.881, + 0.479 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "indicating it is extracting helpful information from the examples in the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.489, + 0.879, + 0.506 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C Experiments with more zero-shot data" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.884, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We explored an alternative method for combining few-shot examples during finetuning. Instead of uniformly sampling between 0 and 5 examples, we build a training mixture where \\(50\\%\\) of the training examples were zero-shot and the remaining ones had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.611, + 0.884, + 0.723 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 8, we compare the training mixes by finetuning LLaMA 7B. We see that the results are very similar for both configurations. The alternative configuration (Unbalanced) obtains slightly lower results. As such, we adopted the method described in Section 4 for mixing few-shot examples during finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.734, + 0.822, + 0.751 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "D Examples of domain adaptation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.882, + 0.823 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we provide examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B model trained with few-shot example was able to absorb domain knowledge from the examples in the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.824, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the first example from Table 8, we see that the model correctly translates the terminology GVO to GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), instead of adopting the acronym in the source sentence. In the second example, the model is able to correctly order the words in the translation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11136" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.093, + 0.462, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size256
Learning Rate5e-3, 2e-4, 5e-4, 2e-5, 5e-5, 1e-6
SchedulerConstant, Cosine, Linear
Warm-up Steps0, 1000, 2000
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.196, + 0.492, + 0.225 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Hyperparameters for traditional finetuning experiments." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.549, + 0.082, + 0.812, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size8
Learning Rate2e-4
SchedulerLinear
Warm-up Steps500
Dropout0.05
r128, 256
α2 · r
Label Smoothing0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.221, + 0.847, + 0.236 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Hyperparameters for LoRA experiments." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.153, + 0.248, + 0.846, + 0.476 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
LoRA-RWeight DecayLabel SmoothingCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
1280.00.084.7481.9631.4756.36
1280.10.084.7681.9831.4556.34
1280.00.0184.7981.9931.4856.37
1280.00.0584.8082.0031.2856.30
1280.00.184.6181.8531.1056.15
1280.00.284.3681.6130.7155.89
2560.00.084.7882.0131.4756.40
2560.10.084.7281.9431.4156.32
2560.00.0184.8782.0831.5756.45
2560.00.0584.7881.9731.4756.39
2560.00.184.6581.9231.2856.25
2560.00.284.4881.7730.9556.01
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.228, + 0.485, + 0.768, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Scores for the LoRA hyperparameters on the Flores-200 validation set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.525, + 0.422, + 0.557 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "E Analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.574, + 0.489, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also provide a more in-depth analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences, with a focus on the examples with the highest differences." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.625, + 0.489, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 9, we observe that the distributions for the LLaMA 7B model finetuned without in-context examples also have large tails, similar to the results of the model finetuned with in-context examples (see in Section 4.2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.708, + 0.489, + 0.803 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also analyzed whether the same long tails appear on the specialized domains. In Figure 10, we observe that this is in fact the case. The distributions of the differences are centered around zero and have extreme values on both sides for all domains and finetuned models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, we show several examples where few-shot prompting both helped or degraded the model performance. In Table 9, prompting the model with few-shot examples fixed the generation in the wrong language. In Table 10, introducing in-context examples in the model prompt leads to hallucinated content." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.525, + 0.813, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "F Examples of generated outputs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.553, + 0.884, + 0.697 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present translations where prompting the pretrained LLaMA 7B model leads to overgeneration, and both 7B finetuned models correctly stopped to translate. In Table 11, we see that, although all models generated the same translation, the pretrained model continued to generate, repeating the prompt and translation, while both finetuned models correctly stopped to generate tokens." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.713, + 0.846, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "G Results with all evaluation metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.741, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide the evaluation for the models considered in this paper using three other MT evaluation metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002),chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.822, + 0.884, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figure 11, we show the comparison between both finetuning approaches with the LLaMA 7B model. The results are consistent across all metrics, with the LoRA model performing similarly to the finetuned and outperforming the pretrained model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.904, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Figures 12, 13 and 13, we compare finetun" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11137" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.189, + 0.086, + 0.308, + 0.098 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "General Domain" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.103, + 0.332, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.086, + 0.685, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specialized Domains" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.337, + 0.103, + 0.516, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.103, + 0.695, + 0.242 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.7, + 0.103, + 0.878, + 0.243 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.379, + 0.245, + 0.612, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.882, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 8: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with the two methods for combining few-shot examples. Balanced is the method described in Section 4 and Unbalanced is the alternative method described in Appendix C." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.334, + 0.868, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source“bezeichnet“genetisch veränderte Futtermittel”Futtermittel, die GVO enthalten, daraus bestehen oder hergestellt werden;”
Reference““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Zero-shot translation““Genetically modified feed”means feed containing GVO, derived from GVO or produced from GVO;”
Few-shot translation““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Source“VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 538/2000 DER KOMMISSION”
Reference“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
Zero-shot translation“(EG) No 538/2000 OF THE COMMISSION”
Few-shot translation“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.5, + 0.882, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B finetuned with few-shot examples was able to extract domain information from the examples in the prompt." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.138, + 0.555, + 0.462, + 0.713 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.8 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 9: Difference in COMET scores for zero- vs few-shot translations by the LLaMA 7B FT w/o few-shot model on Flores-200 (\\(\\Delta > 0\\) means that the translation with few-shot examples was scored higher than the translation without examples)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.555, + 0.818, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "when prompting with few-shot examples." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.57, + 0.885, + 0.68 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the lexical metrics, the degradation in few-shot performance is not visible on the 13B models. However, these metrics may not be reliable for evaluating translations from LLMs (Hendy et al., 2023), as LLMs tend to produce less literal translations which are poorly captured by lexical overlap with the reference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.683, + 0.884, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 we also provide the exact scores for all metrics in a tabular format." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing with and without examples. We observe that the results with COMETKiwi follow the trends obtained with COMET, with a performance degradation when few-shot prompting the model trained with examples and a recovery of the performance" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11138" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.098, + 0.52, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.099, + 0.84, + 0.256 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.269, + 0.884, + 0.298 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 10: Difference in COMET scores for translations obtained with zero- and few-shot prompting for all domains for the finetuned LLaMA 7B models." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.333, + 0.868, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
SourceMay I take your order number please?
ReferenceDarf ichitte ihre Bestellnummer haben?
Zero-shot translationMay I take your order number please?
Few-shot translationBitte geben Sie mir ihren Bestellnummer an.
SourceMay i know the class you're referring to please
ReferenceA qual aula você está se referindo?
Zero-shot translationMay i know the class you're referring to please
Few-shot translationPoderia eu saber a classe que você está se referindo por favor
SourceThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
ReferenceVielen Dank, also wartest du immer noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
Zero-shot translationThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendant lamp, brass and multi-coloured glass?
Few-shot translationDanke, so warten Sie noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.585, + 0.884, + 0.614 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples corrected the language in which the model was generating." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.648, + 0.868, + 0.863 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source“Age: Age was the most important factor for the prognosis of SARS, which is also true for COVID-19.”
Reference“Âge : l'âge constituit le principal facteur pour le pronostic du SRAS, et cela semble également être le cas pour la COVID-19.”
Zero-shot translation“Â Age : L'âge est le facteur le plus important pour la prognostication du SRAS, qui est également vrai pour le COVID-19.”
Few-shot translation“Â A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A”
Source“Chinese people as well as other Asians in the United Kingdom and the United States have reported increasing levels of racist abuse, as well as assaults.”
Reference“O povo chinès, assim comme autres asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram níveis crescentes de insultos racistas, bem como de ataques.”
Zero-shot translation“Pessoas chinesas, bem como outros asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram um aumento de abusos racistas, bem como assaltos.”
Few-shot translation“Em 6 de avril, as férias foram estendidas em todas as escolas de;nével médio do Turcomenistão.”
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.873, + 0.884, + 0.901 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples introduced an hallucination." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11139" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.1, + 0.86, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Source“‘We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic’ he added.”
Reference“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos e que antes eram diabéticos,”complementou.”
Pretrained“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescen-tou.\\nTranslate the source text from English to Portuguese.\\nSource: “We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic,” he added.\\nTarget: “Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram di”
FT w/o Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
FT w/ Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.238, + 0.883, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Examples of translations where finetuning the LLaMA 7B model eliminated the overgeneration in the outputs." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.313, + 0.368, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.373, + 0.313, + 0.621, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.626, + 0.313, + 0.875, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.35, + 0.497, + 0.672, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Pretrained Finetuned LoRA" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.528, + 0.884, + 0.556 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 11: Scores of the 7B pretrained model (few-shot prompting) and both 7B finetuned models (zero-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.602, + 0.882, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.898 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 12: COMETKiwi scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.527, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11140" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.149, + 0.881, + 0.375 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.387, + 0.884, + 0.431 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 13: BLEU scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.118, + 0.569, + 0.884, + 0.796 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.808, + 0.884, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 14: chrF scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11141" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.167, + 0.081, + 0.826, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2382.9936.7762.34
Five-Shot88.0683.4939.0164.42
FinetunedZero-Shot88.6683.9541.0566.17
LoRAZero-Shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
en-dePretrainedZero-Shot71.5657.8713.9938.73
Five-Shot82.7479.8224.7754.00
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4781.1928.3057.69
LoRAZero-Shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
fr-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.0484.6137.2762.79
Five-Shot88.4185.6540.7165.85
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8086.0242.9967.30
LoRAZero-Shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
en-frPretrainedZero-Shot76.5465.1723.4347.02
Five-Shot84.5284.5336.7161.40
FinetunedZero-Shot85.3985.2839.2364.10
LoRAZero-Shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
nl-enPretrainedZero-Shot84.6083.5925.4253.94
Five-Shot86.4684.9928.5557.22
FinetunedZero-Shot86.4485.2229.4358.26
LoRAZero-Shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
en-nlPretrainedZero-Shot73.9961.1712.4538.88
Five-Shot83.1281.8619.2650.58
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4082.6320.7153.10
LoRAZero-Shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
pt-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2683.2141.1465.78
Five-Shot88.5784.2244.3568.49
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8884.6046.5870.13
LoRAZero-Shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
en-ptPretrainedZero-Shot74.6055.9117.4640.46
Five-Shot86.4382.0335.2561.41
FinetunedZero-Shot87.1182.8638.7564.45
LoRAZero-Shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
ru-enPretrainedZero-Shot83.8582.0328.3757.00
Five-Shot85.2183.1131.0859.25
FinetunedZero-Shot85.5483.4932.7060.12
LoRAZero-Shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
en-ruPretrainedZero-Shot57.6346.497.1617.48
Five-Shot83.4479.4519.2847.60
FinetunedZero-Shot84.9181.0620.7649.32
LoRAZero-Shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
zh-enPretrainedZero-Shot76.7477.4612.5434.99
Five-Shot82.2779.5519.2348.13
FinetunedZero-Shot83.6880.7821.7349.88
LoRAZero-Shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
en-zhPretrainedZero-Shot49.1245.104.547.20
Five-Shot66.0461.2014.6815.11
FinetunedZero-Shot72.9468.5917.0717.72
LoRAZero-Shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.914, + 0.841, + 0.928 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: Scores for the 7B pretrained model and 7B both finetuned models on the Flores-200 test set." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11142" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.081, + 0.846, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
Five-shot88.5383.8840.4165.66
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.6784.0941.5066.54
Five-shot88.6984.1241.4766.63
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
Five-shot83.4480.9828.0157.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9981.5129.2158.98
Five-shot84.0681.4929.5559.06
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
Five-shot88.7985.9543.2067.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9486.1743.3467.72
Five-shot88.9886.1743.6067.86
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
Five-shot85.1284.8239.0963.95
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.7685.4940.5765.14
Five-shot85.9885.6440.8565.25
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
Five-shot86.4485.1829.7058.09
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.6785.4530.0858.74
Five-shot86.6885.4730.0658.73
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
Five-shot82.9982.2920.2452.44
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4582.8420.9853.50
Five-shot83.6083.0221.0953.66
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
Five-shot88.7984.5046.3770.02
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9284.7046.9570.45
Five-shot88.9684.7047.3270.62
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
Five-shot86.8682.4638.6464.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.3683.0640.1065.36
Five-shot87.3583.0740.1165.25
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
Five-shot85.3083.2032.0859.18
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.6883.5633.1260.31
Five-shot85.7383.6233.1860.35
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
Five-shot84.5080.1820.0948.74
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.4181.4022.0850.36
Five-shot85.5781.4722.1950.73
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
Five-shot82.5779.5420.6248.23
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7181.1222.2650.70
Five-shot83.7380.9622.7450.83
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
Five-shot71.7766.5616.1116.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot74.2570.0819.0519.20
Five-shot74.7470.6919.3219.50
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.152, + 0.914, + 0.846, + 0.929 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11143" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.268, + 0.847, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.8679.6629.0953.99
Five-shot82.7379.2429.2753.92
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.1079.7529.4354.49
Five-shot83.0679.7329.4054.58
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.0278.2923.6952.80
Five-shot80.1178.0123.1152.00
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.9478.9424.0053.81
Five-shot81.1979.0524.3354.04
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5879.0836.1861.15
Five-shot81.9078.3135.0160.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.9779.3737.0661.93
Five-shot83.1279.4637.3062.11
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.0477.7720.0146.18
Five-shot81.7977.4119.4145.33
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.3378.3120.7446.71
Five-shot82.2478.1420.8846.91
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.9072.1715.1443.29
Five-shot74.0471.1415.5243.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot75.5672.9615.9144.03
Five-shot75.5273.0915.9844.53
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.2769.0818.1919.96
Five-shot73.8667.7717.1218.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.0570.9720.3721.54
Five-shot76.2571.1419.8921.43
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.714, + 0.848, + 0.73 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11144" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.172, + 0.893, + 0.799 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.5480.9239.9860.32
Five-shot83.0380.3239.2959.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7381.0840.6260.88
Five-shot83.7781.1540.5760.89
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.1579.6430.2553.10
Five-shot79.7578.8729.8652.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.5879.9331.6154.51
Five-shot80.5879.8731.4854.32
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1180.5338.1859.38
Five-shot82.6778.9036.9057.85
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.2680.8139.8460.62
Five-shot84.4380.9640.1160.82
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.8378.6326.0450.44
Five-shot79.3576.8725.0348.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.5579.0727.8052.12
Five-shot81.6479.1127.7152.00
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot78.4483.9931.5756.80
Five-shot78.1083.4032.7257.11
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.6084.2032.4757.59
Five-shot78.6284.2132.5857.66
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8781.7339.7665.92
Five-shot86.4881.0339.3165.26
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.0382.0040.9666.81
Five-shot87.1382.0741.1166.91
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5677.9727.3250.81
Five-shot82.7077.7528.5351.76
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.5478.7028.1952.54
Five-shot84.0178.7628.8353.05
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.7180.8144.7062.90
Five-shot86.3880.1243.9761.69
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.5280.6144.8763.26
Five-shot86.6280.7244.8963.20
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.5480.5841.7962.93
Five-shot88.7079.8041.0661.98
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.6480.7943.5263.85
Five-shot89.9880.7643.8864.17
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.811, + 0.881, + 0.826 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 15: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11145" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.081, + 0.846, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.8284.1142.0367.00
Five-shot88.8684.0541.9566.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9484.1342.8667.40
Five-shot89.0384.2042.7767.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.8782.3830.6060.04
Five-shot84.6482.0330.7360.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0182.4331.5260.49
Five-shot85.0182.5231.5160.50
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.0986.1644.1468.12
Five-shot89.1286.1044.0568.10
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.1386.1244.8368.46
Five-shot89.1586.1444.9568.58
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.0885.6941.3365.59
Five-shot86.0785.7541.1965.59
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.3585.9341.9666.07
Five-shot86.4185.9242.1066.20
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8185.3930.3759.02
Five-shot86.9985.4530.8359.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.8985.4530.7159.15
Five-shot86.9085.5130.8959.25
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1083.2621.8754.25
Five-shot84.6383.6922.1454.20
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1683.3822.1054.61
Five-shot84.4283.5722.4454.85
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.2684.8647.8171.25
Five-shot89.3084.8248.0771.17
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.3584.8648.3071.40
Five-shot89.3284.8848.1671.39
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.9883.7541.2666.19
Five-shot87.8883.5741.4366.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.0183.7841.6366.49
Five-shot88.0083.8142.0866.71
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.9383.7833.5760.86
Five-shot86.0183.8233.8261.03
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.0383.8434.0261.20
Five-shot86.1383.8434.4061.44
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4682.6823.3752.00
Five-shot86.0882.4323.8952.21
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.9283.1024.2152.80
Five-shot86.6482.9224.0752.62
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1681.4823.2351.41
Five-shot83.8781.2622.5950.65
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4881.8124.0951.95
Five-shot84.5181.7824.2852.33
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.4973.1519.9620.03
Five-shot76.5272.5220.1320.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.0274.8921.6021.23
Five-shot77.8974.4521.8221.32
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.914, + 0.848, + 0.929 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 16: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11146" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.268, + 0.847, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4080.0930.1655.15
Five-shot83.5080.0230.6255.45
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4480.0330.5855.39
Five-shot83.5480.1930.6455.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.8879.8225.3354.72
Five-shot81.8779.7125.1254.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.4380.3025.8855.42
Five-shot82.1880.1825.9155.42
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1879.5438.0462.55
Five-shot83.0879.5637.5562.79
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4979.8338.2362.88
Five-shot83.5179.8738.2862.94
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9079.6021.5748.19
Five-shot84.0379.7522.1748.51
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4680.1022.7149.21
Five-shot84.4480.1322.7349.17
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.1173.5416.6645.52
Five-shot75.6572.8817.9946.38
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.4873.9117.2045.85
Five-shot76.4473.9217.5146.14
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot77.4872.6921.3822.13
Five-shot77.2872.2220.7521.86
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.8074.1523.3123.63
Five-shot78.9474.4023.3223.49
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.144, + 0.714, + 0.851, + 0.729 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 17: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11147" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.162, + 0.896, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9981.1942.0162.18
Five-shot84.0680.9842.3962.42
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1881.2443.1562.60
Five-shot84.2681.2643.1162.76
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.3181.0932.3656.33
Five-shot81.1280.9231.8956.05
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.7781.4033.0057.08
Five-shot81.7281.2133.2857.16
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7381.0741.0861.87
Five-shot84.5780.7441.0161.77
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0381.2542.7263.04
Five-shot85.1381.4042.7463.06
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4681.7328.2554.84
Five-shot83.1681.3328.3554.54
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9182.0529.9755.89
Five-shot83.8782.0429.8955.90
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot79.5685.3734.2259.72
Five-shot79.4385.2436.4760.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot79.7885.6235.2260.33
Five-shot79.7985.6835.1860.40
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.8983.3643.3069.13
Five-shot87.8283.1543.3169.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.1683.6744.2169.68
Five-shot88.2983.7444.4869.87
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.6279.8929.2454.11
Five-shot84.8479.6731.1154.75
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.5680.2830.3354.51
Five-shot85.6480.3630.9055.09
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.4681.0147.3964.62
Five-shot88.1881.3249.4366.37
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.4180.8847.7464.97
Five-shot86.8681.0447.9264.94
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot91.0281.6745.9966.36
Five-shot90.8281.4944.4966.19
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot90.5681.3144.7565.93
Five-shot90.5081.3844.8966.00
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.804, + 0.885, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 18: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "11148" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_origin.pdf b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1405e9b3912939dc51b923bdc41511dff6d2afdb --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/3356a2d7-0dd3-44c6-85e6-7157e3682b8c_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:e559aa2eea357c3decf3d011544b6a778772e525a992c6be32f2ce8f88bc03d0 +size 511088 diff --git a/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/full.md b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8217543ed1caeb3758c9cfd7dc69a359c80eda2b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ +# Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning + +Duarte M. Alves1,4 Nuno M. Guerreiro1,2,4,5 João Alves2 José Pombal2 Ricardo Rei2,3,4 José G. C. de Souza2 Pierre Colombo5,6 André F. T. Martins1,2,4 + +$^{1}$ Instituto de Telecomunicações, Lisbon, Portugal $^{2}$ Unbabel, Lisbon, Portugal, $^{3}$ INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal $^{4}$ Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal $^{5}$ MICS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, France $^{6}$ Equall, Paris, France duartemalves@tecnico.ulisboa.pt + +# Abstract + +Large language models (LLMs) are a promising avenue for machine translation (MT). However, current LLM-based MT systems are brittle: their effectiveness highly depends on the choice of few-shot examples and they often require extra post-processing due to overgeneration. Alternatives such as finetuning on translation instructions are computationally expensive and may weaken in-context learning capabilities, due to overspecialization. In this paper, we provide a closer look at this problem. We start by showing that adapter-based finetuning with LoRA matches the performance of traditional finetuning while reducing the number of training parameters by a factor of 50. This method also outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for post-processing or in-context examples. However, we show that finetuning generally degrades few-shot performance, hindering adaptation capabilities. Finally, to obtain the best of both worlds, we propose a simple approach that incorporates few-shot examples during finetuning. Experiments on 10 language pairs show that our proposed approach recovers the original few-shot capabilities while keeping the added benefits of finetuning.1 + +# 1 Introduction + +Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on a wide range of NLP tasks by leveraging in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). In particular, when provided with few-shot examples, these models have demonstrated impressive capabilities for performing machine translation (MT) without requiring explicit supervision on parallel data (Garcia et al., 2023). However, this approach exhibits several drawbacks: performance is highly dependent on the quality of examples (Vilar et al., 2022), outputs are plagued by overgeneration (Bawden and Yvon, 2023), and inference costs + +are greatly increased by processing all input pairs. When parallel data is available, LLMs can alternatively be finetuned on translation instructions (Li et al., 2023). This method generally outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for in-context examples. However, it remains unclear whether finetuned models can benefit from the desirable properties of in-context learning, such as on-the-fly domain adaptation (Agrawal et al., 2022). Additionally, traditional finetuning (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2018) incurs a high computational overhead due to the cost of updating all the model weights. + +In this paper, we provide a closer examination of the impact of finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs to perform translation. Our experiments encompass 10 language pairs on general and specific domains, comprising over 100,000 generated translations (§2). Our main findings are: + +- We show that finetuning with adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022) is a very effective method to steer LLMs for translation ( $\S 3.1$ ). This method matches the performance of traditional finetuning at a fraction of the computational cost, by training 50 times fewer parameters. It also achieves better translation quality than in-context learning and eliminates the need for post-processing the generated outputs and selecting in-context examples. +- We show that finetuning large language models degrades their few-shot performance, limiting their adaptation capabilities (§3.2). In particular, we show that finetuned LLMs perform poorly on domain adaptation scenarios when provided in-context examples. +- To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that introduces few-shot examples during finetuning (§4). Our results show that we can recover few-shot capabilities while retaining the benefits of finetuning. + +# 2 Experimental Setup + +In our experiments, we use LLaMA 7B and 13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as backbone language models and finetune them with the standard cross entropy loss. + +We train our models on general domain OPUS (Tiedemann, 2012) data from the Europarl, Globalvoices, Paracrawl, Tilde, Ubuntu, and Wikipedia domains. We consider the languages Dutch (nl), French (fr), German (de), Portuguese (pt) and Russian (ru), both from and into English (en). To ensure the quality of the training records, we first apply Bicleaner (Ramirez-Sanchez et al., 2020) using a threshold of 0.85 and then filter the remaining pairs, ensuring both language directions have a COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) score above 0.8. Finally, we sample 250K records for each language pair. During training, we uniformly sample from the data to ensure each language pair is seen a similar number of times. We perform validation on the Flores-200 development set for the language pairs in the training data. + +For in-domain evaluation, we consider the Flores-200 (NLLB Team et al., 2022) test dataset on all the translation directions included during training, as well as the WMT22 test sets3 for the language pairs considered in our training data. Regarding data for specialized domains, we consider the Medical and Law domains from Aharoni and Goldberg (2020), the TICO dataset (Anastasopoulos et al., 2020) and WMT Chat (Farinha et al., 2022). We evaluate our models on zero and five shot settings, uniformly sampling for each test sentence five independent few-shot samples from the respective development set. + +Our main evaluation metric is COMET (Rei et al., 2020, 2022a) $^4$ . We also report results with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) in Appendix G. + +We refer the reader to Appendix A for full details on hyperparameters and instruction formats used in the following experiments. + +![](images/03f59468926c66e642091acdc3138415061c2b3bb4f728ba42848521fe3d224b.jpg) +Figure 1: COMET scores on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B pretrained (few-shot) and LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA (zero-shot). + +![](images/4e5fcf8aec9728ce749ec6fcf8c1a6686e85dab0c2a38cc9fbe248c7961b2c19.jpg) + +![](images/c9090e2af5ba2472edeb0717d06e6c603929557aff2b71df914865332ca3549c.jpg) +Figure 2: COMET scores for zero-shot evaluation on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B finetuned with differing amounts of training data. + +# 3 Finetuning LLMs on MT instructions + +In this section, we investigate the performance of LLMs finetuned on machine translation instructions in relation to few-shot prompting with a pretrained language model. + +Note that, throughout this section, we always analyse few-shot prompting for the pretrained model. We deem that this offers a fairer comparison to finetuning on translation instructions, since both methods have access to training examples. + +Nevertheless, we also provide the results for zero-shot translation with the pretrained model in Appendix G. Similar to the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023), zero-shot performance is far behind few-shot performance, in particular for out-of-English language pairs, likely due to the prevalence of English data during the pretraining of the LLaMA models. + +![](images/9984dab6a326f8f3ff48e190f56aaa20f1b13786b6bb1c6c7c430c036426dd24.jpg) +Figure 3: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. "FT w/o few-shot" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. "FT w/ few-shot" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4. + +# 3.1 Efficient finetuning with LoRA + +We start by studying parameter efficient training with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) and compare it with traditional finetuning. + +In Figure 1, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. We also see that both LoRA and traditional finetuning outperform the pretrained model with few-shot prompts—the latter is consistent with the findings in Li et al. (2023), which show that finetuning leads to better translations than few-shot prompting of pretrained language models. As a general trend, all methods exhibit better translation quality when translating into English, following recent trends in the literature (Arivazhagan et al., 2019; Vilar et al., 2022). + +We also find that finetuning LoRA requires a very small number of translations to obtain the reported performance, as shown in Figure 2. In particular, it outperforms the few-shot pretrained model with as few as 2,000 training examples. + +Considering the high computational costs of full finetuning compared to parameter-efficient finetuning and the negligible degradation obtained with the LoRA-based model, we use LoRA in subsequent experiments. + +# 3.2 Few-shot prompting of finetuned models + +We now direct our attention to comparing zero- and five-shot performance. We argue that, even when an LLM can achieve high zero-shot translation quality, few-shot capabilities can be very beneficial for efficient adaptation. As shown by Agrawal et al. (2022), LLMs can leverage a very small pool of few-shot examples to perform translation on new domains. + +In the leftmost plots of Figure 3, we examine the zero- and few-shot performance of our finetuned models on general domains. Few-shot performance degrades and is surpassed by zero-shot performance, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is hindering the in-context learning abilities. + +In order to further study this phenomenon, we evaluate the above models on specialized domains. General domain examples may be of little help for a model already trained on that domain. On the contrary, in specialized domains, examples should bring domain-specific information about the properties of the translation, such as style, register, and thus help the model achieve better performance. + +In the rightmost plots of Figure 3, we observe that the above issue happens consistently in all domains, with a larger degradation in performance. This finding further supports our hypothesis that finetuning can degrade the performance of few-shot prompting. + +![](images/e2b79a28a9636f5aa0912aaa78a56bd0b57845c0efdb76795b19031e06ddc76b.jpg) +Figure 4: Length of the tokenized outputs when translating the Flores-200 test set for the 7B models. + +# 4 Finetuning with few-shot examples + +In order to recover few-shot performance, we introduce instructions with few-shot examples in the training process: namely, we finetune on data which contains both zero-shot and few-shot instructions. Following Min et al. (2022), we uniformly sample between 0 and 5 few-shot examples for each training example from an example pool previously separated from the training data. From here, we build an instruction prompt with the training example and the selected examples and proceed with the training. + +In Figure 3, we observe that the models trained with in-context examples recover their few-shot capabilities, both for the general and specialized domains. The few-shot performance is on par or above the zero-shot performance, further suggesting that the models are extracting helpful information from the examples. In Appendix D, we present a set of examples that highlight these gains. + +# 4.1 Analysis on output format + +We also analyze whether finetuned models continue to generate context after the desired translation. This issue is present in pretrained LLM outputs and requires post-processing of the generated content, deleting all words generated after the first new line. + +In Figure 4, we show the length of the tokenized outputs for the 7B models. We observe that the distribution of the length for the outputs generated by both finetuned models matches the distribution of the references. This shows that the finetuned + +![](images/7d89d447d95a6ed4d9060427d9225a7a10856e22e941b7243468dc0cd0e19904.jpg) +Figure 5: COMET score difference for zero- vs few-shot translations on Flores-200 by the 7B FT w/ few-shot model ( $\Delta > 0$ indicates higher score for few-shot translations). + +models no longer overgenerate. + +We also found that these models no longer delimit their output with the newline symbol and instead produce the end of sentence token, removing the necessity for post-processing and increasing computational efficiency. In Appendix F, we provide a set of examples to illustrate these findings. + +# 4.2 Influence of in-context examples + +In order to obtain a more fine-grained analysis of the gains obtained by adding in-context examples, we analyzed the difference in COMET scores for each source sentence when prompting the 7B finetuned models with and without examples. + +In Figure 5, we observe that the distributions have a high concentration of points slightly above 0. However, we also observe very large tails, in particular for out-of-English language pairs.[10] + +We manually inspected the examples with the highest differences11 and found that introducing examples can fix the model generating in the wrong language, supporting the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023). Surprisingly, we also discovered examples where the model correctly generated a translation in a zero-shot scenario and inserting in-context examples lead to hallucinated content. + +To better characterize this phenomenon, we take inspiration from analysis on hallucinations under perturbation (Lee et al., 2018), and measured how many times prompting the model without examples lead to a translation above 30 BLEU points, and introducing examples reduced the score to below + +
Domain7B13B
FT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shotFT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shot
Flores0.12%0.00%0.02%0.00%
Medical1.09%0.05%0.29%0.00%
Law2.70%0.05%0.48%0.15%
Tico0.60%0.04%0.04%0.04%
Chat1.80%0.23%0.51%0.00%
+ +Table 1: Hallucination Rates for finetuned models on each evaluation dataset, considering all languages pairs. + +3 (these thresholds were selected based on previous work (Lee et al., 2018; Raunak et al., 2021; Guerreiro et al., 2023)) $^{12}$ . + +In Table 1, we see that the models finetuned without examples have higher hallucination rates than their respective counterparts, further showing their degradation in few-shot performance. Through a manual inspection of the obtained outputs, we observed that the models generate hallucinations of different categories. In particular, they generate both detached (fully and strongly) and oscillatory hallucinations, and can also generate off-target translations. One common case is that the models copy from the instruction (either from the source or the examples). + +The models finetuned with few-shot examples exhibit lower hallucination rates, suggesting that the training procedure reduced the prevalence of this issue. In particular, these models no longer copy from the instruction. However, they still produce hallucinations and their impact is very serious. As such, we believe that it motivates further study on the influence of in-context examples and the generated output. + +# 5 Conclusion + +In this paper, we provide a study on finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs for translation. We show that adapter-based finetuning matches the performance of traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. Additionally, finetuning with adapters outperforms few-shot prompting of large language models and eliminates the need for output post-processing and in-context examples. + +In addition, we show that finetuned models exhibit poor performance when prompted with + +in-context examples. To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that mixes few-shot prompts during finetuning. Our results show that we recover the original few-shot capabilities and retain the benefits of finetuning. + +# Limitations + +In this paper, we focus on English-centric high-resource language pairs. It remains an open question how these findings generalize for non-English language pairs or in low-resource settings. + +We also do not perform a human assessment on the quality of the translations quality due to the time and cost of performing this study. Instead, we base our evaluation on COMET, a state-of-the-art metric for MT evaluation, and provide results for other metrics in Appendix G. + +# Ethics Statement + +This paper is based on large language models. These models can encompass several risks, which are discussed in detail in Brown et al. (2020) and Chowdhery et al. (2022). Namely, they are trained on large web corpora, which can contain toxic content (Gehman et al., 2020), and have a high energy consumption, in particular during training (Strubell et al., 2019). + +Additionally, our evaluation is based on automatic metrics finetuned based on human preferences. In such cases, annotators may not consider better alternatives when evaluating generated text and wrongfully classify the text as high quality (Bansal et al., 2021). + +# Acknowledgements + +This work was supported by EU's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions (UTTER, contract 101070631), by the project DECOLLAGE (ERC-2022-CoG 101088763), by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through con + +tract UIDB/50008/2020, and by the Portuguese Recovery and Resilience Plan through project C645008882- 00000055 (Center for Responsible AI). Part of this work was performed using HPC resources from GENCI-IDRIS (Grants 2022-AD01101838, 2023-103256 and 2023-101838). + +# References + +Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2022. Incontext examples selection for machine translation. +Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Unsupervised domain clusters in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7747-7763, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Antonios Anastasopoulos, Alessandro Cattelan, Zi-Yi Dou, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Dmitriy Genzel, Francisco Guzmán, Junjie Hu, Macduff Hughes, Philipp Koehn, Rosie Lazar, Will Lewis, Graham Neubig, Mengmeng Niu, Alp Öktem, Eric Paquin, Grace Tang, and Sylvania Tur. 2020. TICO-19: the Translation initiative for COvid-19. arXiv:2007.01788. +Naveen Arivazhagan, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Dmitry Lepikhin, Melvin Johnson, Maxim Krikun, Mia Xu Chen, Yuan Cao, George F. Foster, Colin Cherry, Wolfgang Macherey, Zhifeng Chen, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation in the wild: Findings and challenges. CoRR, abs/1907.05019. +Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel Weld. 2021. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. +Rachel Bawden and François Yvon. 2023. Investigating the translation performance of a large multilingual language model: the case of bloom. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 33, page 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc. + +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ana C Farinha, M. Amin Farajian, Marianna Buchicchio, Patrick Fernandes, José G. C. de Souza, Helena Moniz, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. Findings of the WMT 2022 shared task on chat translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 724-743, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xavier Garcia, Yamini Bansal, Colin Cherry, George Foster, Maxim Krikun, Fangxiaoyu Feng, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan Firat. 2023. The unreasonable effectiveness of few-shot learning for machine translation. +Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356-3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Nuno M. Guerreiro, Duarte Alves, Jonas Waldendorf, Barry Haddow, Alexandra Birch, Pierre Colombo, and André F. T. Martins. 2023. Hallucinations in large multilingual translation models. +Amr Hendy, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan + +Awadalla. 2023. How good are gpt models at machine translation? a comprehensive evaluation. +Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR. +Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Katherine Lee, Orhan Firat, Ashish Agarwal, Clara Fanjiang, and David Sussillo. 2018. Hallucinations in neural machine translation. +Jiahuan Li, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Shanbo Chen, and Jiajun Chen. 2023. Eliciting the translation ability of large language models via multilingual finetuning with translation instructions. +Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11048-11064, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. +NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation. +Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. +Gema Ramírez-Sánchez, Jaume Zaragoza-Bernabeu, Marta Banón, and Sergio Ortiz Rojas. 2020. Bixer and bicleaner: two open-source tools to clean your parallel data. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 291-298, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation. +Vikas Raunak, Arul Menezes, and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2021. The curious case of hallucinations in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1172-1183, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ricardo Rei, Jose G. C. de Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022a. COMET-22: Unbabel-IST 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685-2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ricardo Rei, Marcos Treviso, Nuno M. Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Christine Maroti, Jose G. C. de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte Alves, Luisa Coheur, Alon Lavie, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022b. CometKiwi: IST-unbabel 2022 submission for the quality estimation shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 634-645, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics. +Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645-3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 2214-2218, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard + +Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. +David Vilar, Markus Freitag, Colin Cherry, Jiaming Luo, Viresh Ratnakar, and George Foster. 2022. Prompting palm for translation: Assessing strategies and performance. +Haoran Xu, Young Jin Kim, Amr Sharaf, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. A paradigm shift in machine translation: Boosting translation performance of large language models. + +Translate the source text from X to Y. Source: ... Target: + +Table 2: Prompting template for finetuning without few-shot examples. + +# A Details on experimental setup + +# A.1 Instruction format + +The training data for finetuning without few-shot examples follows the template shown in Table 2. The same format is used when testing all models in a zero-shot setting. + +We treat the few-shot instruction template as a hyperparameter and experiment with three different methods, as shown in Table 3. Our first template follows recent trends in the literature and repeats the zero-shot instruction for each example (Vilar et al., 2022). However, in our experiments, we found that pretrained language models see the repeating pattern and continue to generate more examples besides the target translation. In order to circumvent this issue in the finetuned models, we designed the two remaining templates with separate examples sections. Our goal was to better separate the examples from the input and thus reduce the propensity for overgeneration. We found that all templates lead to overgeneration with the pretrained model and none suffered from this issue when the model is finetuned. + +In order to select the template format for our remaining experiments, we test them by finetuning with examples the LLaMA 7B model and choosing the template with the highest average COMET score on the languages in the validation set. In order to collect examples for few-shot prompting in the validation set, we sampled from the validation set ensuring the predicted example was not in the in-context examples. + +In Table 4, we observe that the templates lead to very similar results, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is not very sensitive to the template used. Nevertheless, their ranking is consistent across metrics, with the second one obtaining the best scores. As such, we use it when prompting models in a few-shot scenario. + +# A.2 Training hyperparameters + +In order to choose the best hyperparameters for both finetuning approaches, we perform a hyper + +![](images/fca19bd1f17cf36576eea126cbf2f77667985c8c94da20c3d5285903d4ac1796.jpg) +Figure 6: COMET scores on the Chinese language pairs of the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA. + +parameter search by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with each configuration on the training data. We only consider zero-shot translation and use the template format in Table 2. We find the best configuration based on the average COMET score on all language pairs in the validation set. + +Table 5 specifies the hyperparameters experimented when training LLaMA 7B with traditional finetuning. We first chose the learning rate and weight decay, while not using warm-up steps. We then tuned the scheduler and warm-up steps. Our final configuration has a learning rate of 1e-6, no weight decay, and a constant learning scheduler with no warm-up steps. + +Table 6 details the hyperparameters experimented when finetuning with LoRA. We based our experiments on the best configurations for the GPT-2 models trained in Hu et al. (2022). Initial experiments with lower $r$ values lead to an underfitting model so our configurations focused on increasing model capacity, with higher $r$ values, while keeping regularization through label smoothing and weight decay. In Table 7, we present the results for all the runs. We saw very little variation on the obtained scores. We adopted the best configuration, with an $r$ value of 256, weight decay of 0.0, and label smoothing of 0.001. + +Regarding the 13B models, we used the same hyperparameters as in the 7B models. + +# B Analysis on Chinese language pairs + +In this section, we explore the results for the language pairs including Chinese with the LLaMA 7B model, in order to study if our previous results hold. + +
Format 1Format 2Format 3
Translate the source text from X to Y.Consider the following N translations from X to Y.Consider the following translations from X to Y.
Source: ...
Target: ...Example 1Source: ...
...Source: ...Target: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Target: ......
Source: ......Source: ...
Target: ...Example NTarget: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target: ...Translate the source text from X to Y.
Target:Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target:
Target:
+ +Table 3: Prompting templates for finetuning with in-context examples. + +
FormatCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Format 185.2582.4932.4457.25
Format 285.3482.5432.6257.37
Format 385.2782.5132.3957.22
+ +Table 4: Scores for the few-shot formats on the Flores-200 validation set. + +![](images/1e80b45f1374d7f7f912b201fcb9999f854934c3b638154ec244e55ea22f8bf8.jpg) +Figure 7: COMET scores for Chinese language pairs by the 7B finetuned models on zero-shot and five-shot scenarios for the Flores-200 test set. + +We start by investigating whether LoRA is still competitive with full finetuning. In Figure 6, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to the finetuned model and outperforms the pretrained LLM, following the trend of other language pairs (see Section 3.1). + +We also investigate the performance of the models finetuned with and without examples. In Figure 7, we observe a similar trend to the results above. The model finetuned without few-shot examples exhibits a performance degradation, while the model finetuned with few-shot examples obtains higher performance with few-shot prompting, + +indicating it is extracting helpful information from the examples in the prompt. + +# C Experiments with more zero-shot data + +We explored an alternative method for combining few-shot examples during finetuning. Instead of uniformly sampling between 0 and 5 examples, we build a training mixture where $50\%$ of the training examples were zero-shot and the remaining ones had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples. + +In Figure 8, we compare the training mixes by finetuning LLaMA 7B. We see that the results are very similar for both configurations. The alternative configuration (Unbalanced) obtains slightly lower results. As such, we adopted the method described in Section 4 for mixing few-shot examples during finetuning. + +# D Examples of domain adaptation + +In this section, we provide examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B model trained with few-shot example was able to absorb domain knowledge from the examples in the prompt. + +In the first example from Table 8, we see that the model correctly translates the terminology GVO to GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), instead of adopting the acronym in the source sentence. In the second example, the model is able to correctly order the words in the translation. + +
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size256
Learning Rate5e-3, 2e-4, 5e-4, 2e-5, 5e-5, 1e-6
SchedulerConstant, Cosine, Linear
Warm-up Steps0, 1000, 2000
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
+ +Table 5: Hyperparameters for traditional finetuning experiments. + +
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size8
Learning Rate2e-4
SchedulerLinear
Warm-up Steps500
Dropout0.05
r128, 256
α2 · r
Label Smoothing0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
+ +Table 6: Hyperparameters for LoRA experiments. + +
LoRA-RWeight DecayLabel SmoothingCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
1280.00.084.7481.9631.4756.36
1280.10.084.7681.9831.4556.34
1280.00.0184.7981.9931.4856.37
1280.00.0584.8082.0031.2856.30
1280.00.184.6181.8531.1056.15
1280.00.284.3681.6130.7155.89
2560.00.084.7882.0131.4756.40
2560.10.084.7281.9431.4156.32
2560.00.0184.8782.0831.5756.45
2560.00.0584.7881.9731.4756.39
2560.00.184.6581.9231.2856.25
2560.00.284.4881.7730.9556.01
+ +Table 7: Scores for the LoRA hyperparameters on the Flores-200 validation set. + +# E Analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences + +We also provide a more in-depth analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences, with a focus on the examples with the highest differences. + +In Figure 9, we observe that the distributions for the LLaMA 7B model finetuned without in-context examples also have large tails, similar to the results of the model finetuned with in-context examples (see in Section 4.2). + +We also analyzed whether the same long tails appear on the specialized domains. In Figure 10, we observe that this is in fact the case. The distributions of the differences are centered around zero and have extreme values on both sides for all domains and finetuned models. + +Finally, we show several examples where few-shot prompting both helped or degraded the model performance. In Table 9, prompting the model with few-shot examples fixed the generation in the wrong language. In Table 10, introducing in-context examples in the model prompt leads to hallucinated content. + +# F Examples of generated outputs + +In this section, we present translations where prompting the pretrained LLaMA 7B model leads to overgeneration, and both 7B finetuned models correctly stopped to translate. In Table 11, we see that, although all models generated the same translation, the pretrained model continued to generate, repeating the prompt and translation, while both finetuned models correctly stopped to generate tokens. + +# G Results with all evaluation metrics + +We provide the evaluation for the models considered in this paper using three other MT evaluation metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002),chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b). + +In Figure 11, we show the comparison between both finetuning approaches with the LLaMA 7B model. The results are consistent across all metrics, with the LoRA model performing similarly to the finetuned and outperforming the pretrained model. + +In Figures 12, 13 and 13, we compare finetun + +![](images/8044d5d14ab659569129a4f16105d705aa7cdc0ceacde48b70925c5b331ac300.jpg) +General Domain + +![](images/f1a6ae5f253e882f1943ae9743a97daa83d5a9a889d95a6719293a5b4a2e7dac.jpg) + +![](images/1ec76172ec311ed05e641e9a462d93dfb295ce6dbfbc344a3c16af2b88c2c78b.jpg) +Specialized Domains + +![](images/e1becafed4a22d6dc804b4fdeedda3e3fd9862d396c243af798684a35fe32e15.jpg) + +![](images/5c1615a1a81597b1f7346c8b183357496eb3daaae31e69851992482f41c47ce9.jpg) +Figure 8: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with the two methods for combining few-shot examples. Balanced is the method described in Section 4 and Unbalanced is the alternative method described in Appendix C. + +
Source“bezeichnet“genetisch veränderte Futtermittel”Futtermittel, die GVO enthalten, daraus bestehen oder hergestellt werden;”
Reference““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Zero-shot translation““Genetically modified feed”means feed containing GVO, derived from GVO or produced from GVO;”
Few-shot translation““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Source“VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 538/2000 DER KOMMISSION”
Reference“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
Zero-shot translation“(EG) No 538/2000 OF THE COMMISSION”
Few-shot translation“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
+ +Table 8: Examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B finetuned with few-shot examples was able to extract domain information from the examples in the prompt. + +![](images/dc071f48c0520414a1c56f649b931ee73bdc7ca67d7d280fd96b4775de12a5fb.jpg) +Figure 9: Difference in COMET scores for zero- vs few-shot translations by the LLaMA 7B FT w/o few-shot model on Flores-200 ( $\Delta > 0$ means that the translation with few-shot examples was scored higher than the translation without examples). + +when prompting with few-shot examples. + +For the lexical metrics, the degradation in few-shot performance is not visible on the 13B models. However, these metrics may not be reliable for evaluating translations from LLMs (Hendy et al., 2023), as LLMs tend to produce less literal translations which are poorly captured by lexical overlap with the reference. + +In Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 we also provide the exact scores for all metrics in a tabular format. + +ing with and without examples. We observe that the results with COMETKiwi follow the trends obtained with COMET, with a performance degradation when few-shot prompting the model trained with examples and a recovery of the performance + +![](images/7b3fb0d8faf7f3a5c9c2eacd0eb4b1ccf2dbd2369c78afe1c86d3b2842165578.jpg) +Figure 10: Difference in COMET scores for translations obtained with zero- and few-shot prompting for all domains for the finetuned LLaMA 7B models. + +![](images/bb4369752929fe2f0e72e749f1ad6896d96c1de364ddb58e385cd2924f7086c0.jpg) + +
SourceMay I take your order number please?
ReferenceDarf ichitte ihre Bestellnummer haben?
Zero-shot translationMay I take your order number please?
Few-shot translationBitte geben Sie mir ihren Bestellnummer an.
SourceMay i know the class you're referring to please
ReferenceA qual aula você está se referindo?
Zero-shot translationMay i know the class you're referring to please
Few-shot translationPoderia eu saber a classe que você está se referindo por favor
SourceThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
ReferenceVielen Dank, also wartest du immer noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
Zero-shot translationThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendant lamp, brass and multi-coloured glass?
Few-shot translationDanke, so warten Sie noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
+ +Table 9: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples corrected the language in which the model was generating. + +
Source“Age: Age was the most important factor for the prognosis of SARS, which is also true for COVID-19.”
Reference“Âge : l'âge constituit le principal facteur pour le pronostic du SRAS, et cela semble également être le cas pour la COVID-19.”
Zero-shot translation“Â Age : L'âge est le facteur le plus important pour la prognostication du SRAS, qui est également vrai pour le COVID-19.”
Few-shot translation“Â A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A”
Source“Chinese people as well as other Asians in the United Kingdom and the United States have reported increasing levels of racist abuse, as well as assaults.”
Reference“O povo chinès, assim comme autres asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram níveis crescentes de insultos racistas, bem como de ataques.”
Zero-shot translation“Pessoas chinesas, bem como outros asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram um aumento de abusos racistas, bem como assaltos.”
Few-shot translation“Em 6 de avril, as férias foram estendidas em todas as escolas de;nével médio do Turcomenistão.”
+ +Table 10: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples introduced an hallucination. + +
Source“‘We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic’ he added.”
Reference“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos e que antes eram diabéticos,”complementou.”
Pretrained“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescen-tou.\nTranslate the source text from English to Portuguese.\nSource: “We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic,” he added.\nTarget: “Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram di”
FT w/o Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
FT w/ Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
+ +Table 11: Examples of translations where finetuning the LLaMA 7B model eliminated the overgeneration in the outputs. + +Figure 11: Scores of the 7B pretrained model (few-shot prompting) and both 7B finetuned models (zero-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set. +![](images/14be28f01081e36b017170de21a966fc4edbb660fc2620c8e51755dd48de0810.jpg) +Pretrained Finetuned LoRA + +![](images/2c7d22fb7a7a022fe03c8344e3e21bf202c957c42b1de44243d06f54c4cb83ce.jpg) + +![](images/8db60cac1cb15145b1bae1a33098a599a9e080c04331fd86e90a73b521379731.jpg) + +![](images/e4ce37c41184129ec7512e07d897075bb6d06699ba3b1b747c0d05240b7ee029.jpg) +Figure 12: COMETKiwi scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. "FT w/o few-shot" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. "FT w/ few-shot" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4. + +![](images/ceb1743d7382c781cbbe72156d737ae7656f3d2cf3be484178822e8430d72f2d.jpg) +Figure 13: BLEU scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. "FT w/o few-shot" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. "FT w/ few-shot" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4. + +![](images/b6ab30efc31cf1e160d8017969a76f72c93ae993029214f58f1e8cf5cfb0bafc.jpg) +Figure 14: chrF scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. "FT w/o few-shot" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. "FT w/ few-shot" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4. + +
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2382.9936.7762.34
Five-Shot88.0683.4939.0164.42
FinetunedZero-Shot88.6683.9541.0566.17
LoRAZero-Shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
en-dePretrainedZero-Shot71.5657.8713.9938.73
Five-Shot82.7479.8224.7754.00
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4781.1928.3057.69
LoRAZero-Shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
fr-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.0484.6137.2762.79
Five-Shot88.4185.6540.7165.85
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8086.0242.9967.30
LoRAZero-Shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
en-frPretrainedZero-Shot76.5465.1723.4347.02
Five-Shot84.5284.5336.7161.40
FinetunedZero-Shot85.3985.2839.2364.10
LoRAZero-Shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
nl-enPretrainedZero-Shot84.6083.5925.4253.94
Five-Shot86.4684.9928.5557.22
FinetunedZero-Shot86.4485.2229.4358.26
LoRAZero-Shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
en-nlPretrainedZero-Shot73.9961.1712.4538.88
Five-Shot83.1281.8619.2650.58
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4082.6320.7153.10
LoRAZero-Shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
pt-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2683.2141.1465.78
Five-Shot88.5784.2244.3568.49
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8884.6046.5870.13
LoRAZero-Shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
en-ptPretrainedZero-Shot74.6055.9117.4640.46
Five-Shot86.4382.0335.2561.41
FinetunedZero-Shot87.1182.8638.7564.45
LoRAZero-Shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
ru-enPretrainedZero-Shot83.8582.0328.3757.00
Five-Shot85.2183.1131.0859.25
FinetunedZero-Shot85.5483.4932.7060.12
LoRAZero-Shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
en-ruPretrainedZero-Shot57.6346.497.1617.48
Five-Shot83.4479.4519.2847.60
FinetunedZero-Shot84.9181.0620.7649.32
LoRAZero-Shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
zh-enPretrainedZero-Shot76.7477.4612.5434.99
Five-Shot82.2779.5519.2348.13
FinetunedZero-Shot83.6880.7821.7349.88
LoRAZero-Shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
en-zhPretrainedZero-Shot49.1245.104.547.20
Five-Shot66.0461.2014.6815.11
FinetunedZero-Shot72.9468.5917.0717.72
LoRAZero-Shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
+ +Table 12: Scores for the 7B pretrained model and 7B both finetuned models on the Flores-200 test set. + +
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
Five-shot88.5383.8840.4165.66
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.6784.0941.5066.54
Five-shot88.6984.1241.4766.63
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
Five-shot83.4480.9828.0157.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9981.5129.2158.98
Five-shot84.0681.4929.5559.06
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
Five-shot88.7985.9543.2067.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9486.1743.3467.72
Five-shot88.9886.1743.6067.86
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
Five-shot85.1284.8239.0963.95
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.7685.4940.5765.14
Five-shot85.9885.6440.8565.25
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
Five-shot86.4485.1829.7058.09
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.6785.4530.0858.74
Five-shot86.6885.4730.0658.73
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
Five-shot82.9982.2920.2452.44
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4582.8420.9853.50
Five-shot83.6083.0221.0953.66
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
Five-shot88.7984.5046.3770.02
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9284.7046.9570.45
Five-shot88.9684.7047.3270.62
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
Five-shot86.8682.4638.6464.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.3683.0640.1065.36
Five-shot87.3583.0740.1165.25
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
Five-shot85.3083.2032.0859.18
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.6883.5633.1260.31
Five-shot85.7383.6233.1860.35
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
Five-shot84.5080.1820.0948.74
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.4181.4022.0850.36
Five-shot85.5781.4722.1950.73
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
Five-shot82.5779.5420.6248.23
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7181.1222.2650.70
Five-shot83.7380.9622.7450.83
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
Five-shot71.7766.5616.1116.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot74.2570.0819.0519.20
Five-shot74.7470.6919.3219.50
+ +Table 13: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set. + +
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.8679.6629.0953.99
Five-shot82.7379.2429.2753.92
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.1079.7529.4354.49
Five-shot83.0679.7329.4054.58
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.0278.2923.6952.80
Five-shot80.1178.0123.1152.00
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.9478.9424.0053.81
Five-shot81.1979.0524.3354.04
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5879.0836.1861.15
Five-shot81.9078.3135.0160.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.9779.3737.0661.93
Five-shot83.1279.4637.3062.11
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.0477.7720.0146.18
Five-shot81.7977.4119.4145.33
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.3378.3120.7446.71
Five-shot82.2478.1420.8846.91
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.9072.1715.1443.29
Five-shot74.0471.1415.5243.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot75.5672.9615.9144.03
Five-shot75.5273.0915.9844.53
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.2769.0818.1919.96
Five-shot73.8667.7717.1218.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.0570.9720.3721.54
Five-shot76.2571.1419.8921.43
+ +Table 14: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set. + +
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.5480.9239.9860.32
Five-shot83.0380.3239.2959.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7381.0840.6260.88
Five-shot83.7781.1540.5760.89
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.1579.6430.2553.10
Five-shot79.7578.8729.8652.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.5879.9331.6154.51
Five-shot80.5879.8731.4854.32
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1180.5338.1859.38
Five-shot82.6778.9036.9057.85
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.2680.8139.8460.62
Five-shot84.4380.9640.1160.82
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.8378.6326.0450.44
Five-shot79.3576.8725.0348.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.5579.0727.8052.12
Five-shot81.6479.1127.7152.00
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot78.4483.9931.5756.80
Five-shot78.1083.4032.7257.11
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.6084.2032.4757.59
Five-shot78.6284.2132.5857.66
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8781.7339.7665.92
Five-shot86.4881.0339.3165.26
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.0382.0040.9666.81
Five-shot87.1382.0741.1166.91
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5677.9727.3250.81
Five-shot82.7077.7528.5351.76
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.5478.7028.1952.54
Five-shot84.0178.7628.8353.05
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.7180.8144.7062.90
Five-shot86.3880.1243.9761.69
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.5280.6144.8763.26
Five-shot86.6280.7244.8963.20
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.5480.5841.7962.93
Five-shot88.7079.8041.0661.98
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.6480.7943.5263.85
Five-shot89.9880.7643.8864.17
+ +Table 15: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains. + +
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.8284.1142.0367.00
Five-shot88.8684.0541.9566.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9484.1342.8667.40
Five-shot89.0384.2042.7767.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.8782.3830.6060.04
Five-shot84.6482.0330.7360.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0182.4331.5260.49
Five-shot85.0182.5231.5160.50
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.0986.1644.1468.12
Five-shot89.1286.1044.0568.10
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.1386.1244.8368.46
Five-shot89.1586.1444.9568.58
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.0885.6941.3365.59
Five-shot86.0785.7541.1965.59
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.3585.9341.9666.07
Five-shot86.4185.9242.1066.20
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8185.3930.3759.02
Five-shot86.9985.4530.8359.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.8985.4530.7159.15
Five-shot86.9085.5130.8959.25
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1083.2621.8754.25
Five-shot84.6383.6922.1454.20
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1683.3822.1054.61
Five-shot84.4283.5722.4454.85
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.2684.8647.8171.25
Five-shot89.3084.8248.0771.17
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.3584.8648.3071.40
Five-shot89.3284.8848.1671.39
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.9883.7541.2666.19
Five-shot87.8883.5741.4366.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.0183.7841.6366.49
Five-shot88.0083.8142.0866.71
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.9383.7833.5760.86
Five-shot86.0183.8233.8261.03
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.0383.8434.0261.20
Five-shot86.1383.8434.4061.44
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4682.6823.3752.00
Five-shot86.0882.4323.8952.21
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.9283.1024.2152.80
Five-shot86.6482.9224.0752.62
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1681.4823.2351.41
Five-shot83.8781.2622.5950.65
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4881.8124.0951.95
Five-shot84.5181.7824.2852.33
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.4973.1519.9620.03
Five-shot76.5272.5220.1320.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.0274.8921.6021.23
Five-shot77.8974.4521.8221.32
+ +Table 16: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set. + +
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4080.0930.1655.15
Five-shot83.5080.0230.6255.45
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4480.0330.5855.39
Five-shot83.5480.1930.6455.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.8879.8225.3354.72
Five-shot81.8779.7125.1254.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.4380.3025.8855.42
Five-shot82.1880.1825.9155.42
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1879.5438.0462.55
Five-shot83.0879.5637.5562.79
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4979.8338.2362.88
Five-shot83.5179.8738.2862.94
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9079.6021.5748.19
Five-shot84.0379.7522.1748.51
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4680.1022.7149.21
Five-shot84.4480.1322.7349.17
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.1173.5416.6645.52
Five-shot75.6572.8817.9946.38
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.4873.9117.2045.85
Five-shot76.4473.9217.5146.14
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot77.4872.6921.3822.13
Five-shot77.2872.2220.7521.86
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.8074.1523.3123.63
Five-shot78.9474.4023.3223.49
+ +Table 17: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set. + +
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9981.1942.0162.18
Five-shot84.0680.9842.3962.42
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1881.2443.1562.60
Five-shot84.2681.2643.1162.76
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.3181.0932.3656.33
Five-shot81.1280.9231.8956.05
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.7781.4033.0057.08
Five-shot81.7281.2133.2857.16
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7381.0741.0861.87
Five-shot84.5780.7441.0161.77
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0381.2542.7263.04
Five-shot85.1381.4042.7463.06
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4681.7328.2554.84
Five-shot83.1681.3328.3554.54
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9182.0529.9755.89
Five-shot83.8782.0429.8955.90
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot79.5685.3734.2259.72
Five-shot79.4385.2436.4760.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot79.7885.6235.2260.33
Five-shot79.7985.6835.1860.40
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.8983.3643.3069.13
Five-shot87.8283.1543.3169.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.1683.6744.2169.68
Five-shot88.2983.7444.4869.87
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.6279.8929.2454.11
Five-shot84.8479.6731.1154.75
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.5680.2830.3354.51
Five-shot85.6480.3630.9055.09
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.4681.0147.3964.62
Five-shot88.1881.3249.4366.37
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.4180.8847.7464.97
Five-shot86.8681.0447.9264.94
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot91.0281.6745.9966.36
Five-shot90.8281.4944.4966.19
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot90.5681.3144.7565.93
Five-shot90.5081.3844.8966.00
+ +Table 18: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/images.zip b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ead1937b7abe75a979e653213d4ae904b1b9524c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7c40b185d82b66d39adcbdde72fedc6408e1762e7020ca30e982c1fca832a30c +size 2713018 diff --git a/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/layout.json b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6de201bc8508e54a53356219dd18bfa92584e23 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,9222 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 69, + 477, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 69, + 477, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 117, + 69, + 477, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Steering Large Language Models for Machine Translation with Finetuning and In-Context Learning" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 109, + 516, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 109, + 516, + 137 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 109, + 516, + 137 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Duarte M. Alves1,4 Nuno M. Guerreiro1,2,4,5 João Alves2 José Pombal2 Ricardo Rei2,3,4 José G. C. de Souza2 Pierre Colombo5,6 André F. T. Martins1,2,4" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instituto de Telecomunicações, Lisbon, Portugal " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unbabel, Lisbon, Portugal, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "INESC-ID, Lisbon, Portugal " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MICS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, France " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 138, + 518, + 193 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Equall, Paris, France duartemalves@tecnico.ulisboa.pt" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 232, + 274, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 232, + 274, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 232, + 274, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) are a promising avenue for machine translation (MT). However, current LLM-based MT systems are brittle: their effectiveness highly depends on the choice of few-shot examples and they often require extra post-processing due to overgeneration. Alternatives such as finetuning on translation instructions are computationally expensive and may weaken in-context learning capabilities, due to overspecialization. In this paper, we provide a closer look at this problem. We start by showing that adapter-based finetuning with LoRA matches the performance of traditional finetuning while reducing the number of training parameters by a factor of 50. This method also outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for post-processing or in-context examples. However, we show that finetuning generally degrades few-shot performance, hindering adaptation capabilities. Finally, to obtain the best of both worlds, we propose a simple approach that incorporates few-shot examples during finetuning. Experiments on 10 language pairs show that our proposed approach recovers the original few-shot capabilities while keeping the added benefits of finetuning.1" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 575 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 575 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 562, + 154, + 575 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 292, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 292, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 583, + 292, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on a wide range of NLP tasks by leveraging in-context learning (Brown et al., 2020). In particular, when provided with few-shot examples, these models have demonstrated impressive capabilities for performing machine translation (MT) without requiring explicit supervision on parallel data (Garcia et al., 2023). However, this approach exhibits several drawbacks: performance is highly dependent on the quality of examples (Vilar et al., 2022), outputs are plagued by overgeneration (Bawden and Yvon, 2023), and inference costs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 388 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 388 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "are greatly increased by processing all input pairs. When parallel data is available, LLMs can alternatively be finetuned on translation instructions (Li et al., 2023). This method generally outperforms few-shot prompting and eliminates the need for in-context examples. However, it remains unclear whether finetuned models can benefit from the desirable properties of in-context learning, such as on-the-fly domain adaptation (Agrawal et al., 2022). Additionally, traditional finetuning (Devlin et al., 2019; Radford et al., 2018) incurs a high computational overhead due to the cost of updating all the model weights." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 526, + 470 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 389, + 526, + 470 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we provide a closer examination of the impact of finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs to perform translation. Our experiments encompass 10 language pairs on general and specific domains, comprising over 100,000 generated translations (§2). Our main findings are:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 12, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 527, + 611 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We show that finetuning with adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2022) is a very effective method to steer LLMs for translation (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\S 3.1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 475, + 527, + 611 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "). This method matches the performance of traditional finetuning at a fraction of the computational cost, by training 50 times fewer parameters. It also achieves better translation quality than in-context learning and eliminates the need for post-processing the generated outputs and selecting in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 526, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 526, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We show that finetuning large language models degrades their few-shot performance, limiting their adaptation capabilities (§3.2). In particular, we show that finetuned LLMs perform poorly on domain adaptation scenarios when provided in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that introduces few-shot examples during finetuning (§4). Our results show that we can recover few-shot capabilities while retaining the benefits of finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Code available at https://github.com/deep-spin/ translation_11m." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11127" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 125, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11127-11148 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 191, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 191, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 191, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 102, + 290, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 102, + 290, + 156 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 102, + 290, + 156 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our experiments, we use LLaMA 7B and 13B (Touvron et al., 2023) as backbone language models and finetune them with the standard cross entropy loss." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 160, + 291, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 160, + 291, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 160, + 291, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train our models on general domain OPUS (Tiedemann, 2012) data from the Europarl, Globalvoices, Paracrawl, Tilde, Ubuntu, and Wikipedia domains. We consider the languages Dutch (nl), French (fr), German (de), Portuguese (pt) and Russian (ru), both from and into English (en). To ensure the quality of the training records, we first apply Bicleaner (Ramirez-Sanchez et al., 2020) using a threshold of 0.85 and then filter the remaining pairs, ensuring both language directions have a COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) score above 0.8. Finally, we sample 250K records for each language pair. During training, we uniformly sample from the data to ensure each language pair is seen a similar number of times. We perform validation on the Flores-200 development set for the language pairs in the training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 394, + 291, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For in-domain evaluation, we consider the Flores-200 (NLLB Team et al., 2022) test dataset on all the translation directions included during training, as well as the WMT22 test sets3 for the language pairs considered in our training data. Regarding data for specialized domains, we consider the Medical and Law domains from Aharoni and Goldberg (2020), the TICO dataset (Anastasopoulos et al., 2020) and WMT Chat (Farinha et al., 2022). We evaluate our models on zero and five shot settings, uniformly sampling for each test sentence five independent few-shot samples from the respective development set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 291, + 642 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our main evaluation metric is COMET (Rei et al., 2020, 2022a)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 574, + 291, + 642 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We also report results with BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002), chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b) in Appendix G." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 646, + 290, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We refer the reader to Appendix A for full details on hyperparameters and instruction formats used in the following experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 228 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 228 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 228 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "03f59468926c66e642091acdc3138415061c2b3bb4f728ba42848521fe3d224b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 276 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 276 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 238, + 525, + 276 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: COMET scores on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B pretrained (few-shot) and LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA (zero-shot)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 290, + 496, + 422 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 290, + 496, + 422 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 290, + 496, + 422 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 290, + 496, + 422 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "4e5fcf8aec9728ce749ec6fcf8c1a6686e85dab0c2a38cc9fbe248c7961b2c19.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 325, + 424, + 508, + 448 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 424, + 508, + 448 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 424, + 508, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 325, + 424, + 508, + 448 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "c9090e2af5ba2472edeb0717d06e6c603929557aff2b71df914865332ca3549c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 525, + 497 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 525, + 497 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 460, + 525, + 497 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: COMET scores for zero-shot evaluation on the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B finetuned with differing amounts of training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 517, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 517, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 518, + 517, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Finetuning LLMs on MT instructions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 541, + 525, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we investigate the performance of LLMs finetuned on machine translation instructions in relation to few-shot prompting with a pretrained language model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 597, + 525, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that, throughout this section, we always analyse few-shot prompting for the pretrained model. We deem that this offers a fairer comparison to finetuning on translation instructions, since both methods have access to training examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 666, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nevertheless, we also provide the results for zero-shot translation with the pretrained model in Appendix G. Similar to the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023), zero-shot performance is far behind few-shot performance, in particular for out-of-English language pairs, likely due to the prevalence of English data during the pretraining of the LLaMA models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 290, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 708, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We also consider Chinese (zh). However, as it is not supported by LLaMA, we examine it in Appendix B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 217, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 217, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 217, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://www.statmt.org/wmt22/ translation-task.html" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4We use the latest COMET model wmt22-comet-da from version 2.0.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11128" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 260 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 260 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 70, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "9984dab6a326f8f3ff48e190f56aaa20f1b13786b6bb1c6c7c430c036426dd24.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 525, + 307 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 525, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 270, + 525, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 239, + 341 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 239, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 239, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Efficient finetuning with LoRA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 349, + 290, + 390 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We start by studying parameter efficient training with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) (Hu et al., 2022) and compare it with traditional finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 555 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 392, + 290, + 555 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 1, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. We also see that both LoRA and traditional finetuning outperform the pretrained model with few-shot prompts—the latter is consistent with the findings in Li et al. (2023), which show that finetuning leads to better translations than few-shot prompting of pretrained language models. As a general trend, all methods exhibit better translation quality when translating into English, following recent trends in the literature (Arivazhagan et al., 2019; Vilar et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 290, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 557, + 290, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also find that finetuning LoRA requires a very small number of translations to obtain the reported performance, as shown in Figure 2. In particular, it outperforms the few-shot pretrained model with as few as 2,000 training examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 290, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 290, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 627, + 290, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Considering the high computational costs of full finetuning compared to parameter-efficient finetuning and the negligible degradation obtained with the LoRA-based model, we use LoRA in subsequent experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 520, + 341 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 520, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 520, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Few-shot prompting of finetuned models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 525, + 452 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 345, + 525, + 452 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We now direct our attention to comparing zero- and five-shot performance. We argue that, even when an LLM can achieve high zero-shot translation quality, few-shot capabilities can be very beneficial for efficient adaptation. As shown by Agrawal et al. (2022), LLMs can leverage a very small pool of few-shot examples to perform translation on new domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 454, + 525, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the leftmost plots of Figure 3, we examine the zero- and few-shot performance of our finetuned models on general domains. Few-shot performance degrades and is surpassed by zero-shot performance, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is hindering the in-context learning abilities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 535, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 535, + 525, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 535, + 525, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to further study this phenomenon, we evaluate the above models on specialized domains. General domain examples may be of little help for a model already trained on that domain. On the contrary, in specialized domains, examples should bring domain-specific information about the properties of the translation, such as style, register, and thus help the model achieve better performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 644, + 525, + 724 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the rightmost plots of Figure 3, we observe that the above issue happens consistently in all domains, with a larger degradation in performance. This finding further supports our hypothesis that finetuning can degrade the performance of few-shot prompting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 730, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Regarding the 13B model, the trends are more visible when evaluating with COMETKiwi (see Appendix G) which is shown to correlate well with human judgements when evaluating LLM based MT systems (Hendy et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 750 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 710, + 290, + 750 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we only considered the 7B model due to computational constraints. Concurrent to our work, Xu et al. (2023) showed that LoRA is competitive with finetuning when applied to LLaMA 13B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{6}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 751, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LoRA requires only 134M trainable parameters, whereas traditional finetuning requires 6,7B." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11129" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 190 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 71, + 276, + 190 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e2b79a28a9636f5aa0912aaa78a56bd0b57845c0efdb76795b19031e06ddc76b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 202, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Length of the tokenized outputs when translating the Flores-200 test set for the 7B models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 267, + 262 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 267, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 248, + 267, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Finetuning with few-shot examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 419 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 291, + 419 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to recover few-shot performance, we introduce instructions with few-shot examples in the training process: namely, we finetune on data which contains both zero-shot and few-shot instructions. Following Min et al. (2022), we uniformly sample between 0 and 5 few-shot examples for each training example from an example pool previously separated from the training data. From here, we build an instruction prompt with the training example and the selected examples and proceed with the training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 421, + 291, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 3, we observe that the models trained with in-context examples recover their few-shot capabilities, both for the general and specialized domains. The few-shot performance is on par or above the zero-shot performance, further suggesting that the models are extracting helpful information from the examples. In Appendix D, we present a set of examples that highlight these gains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 218, + 553 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 218, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 218, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Analysis on output format" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 558, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also analyze whether finetuned models continue to generate context after the desired translation. This issue is present in pretrained LLM outputs and requires post-processing of the generated content, deleting all words generated after the first new line." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 290, + 693 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 626, + 290, + 693 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 4, we show the length of the tokenized outputs for the 7B models. We observe that the distribution of the length for the outputs generated by both finetuned models matches the distribution of the references. This shows that the finetuned" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 206 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 206 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 510, + 206 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7d89d447d95a6ed4d9060427d9225a7a10856e22e941b7243468dc0cd0e19904.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: COMET score difference for zero- vs few-shot translations on Flores-200 by the 7B FT w/ few-shot model (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 265 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta > 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 217, + 526, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " indicates higher score for few-shot translations)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 442, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 442, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 290, + 442, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "models no longer overgenerate." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 526, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 526, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 303, + 526, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also found that these models no longer delimit their output with the newline symbol and instead produce the end of sentence token, removing the necessity for post-processing and increasing computational efficiency. In Appendix F, we provide a set of examples to illustrate these findings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 481, + 409 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 481, + 409 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 396, + 481, + 409 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Influence of in-context examples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 525, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 525, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 415, + 525, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to obtain a more fine-grained analysis of the gains obtained by adding in-context examples, we analyzed the difference in COMET scores for each source sentence when prompting the 7B finetuned models with and without examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 524, + 539 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 484, + 524, + 539 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 5, we observe that the distributions have a high concentration of points slightly above 0. However, we also observe very large tails, in particular for out-of-English language pairs.[10]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 524, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We manually inspected the examples with the highest differences11 and found that introducing examples can fix the model generating in the wrong language, supporting the findings in Bawden and Yvon (2023). Surprisingly, we also discovered examples where the model correctly generated a translation in a zero-shot scenario and inserting in-context examples lead to hallucinated content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 524, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 649, + 524, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better characterize this phenomenon, we take inspiration from analysis on hallucinations under perturbation (Lee et al., 2018), and measured how many times prompting the model without examples lead to a translation above 30 BLEU points, and introducing examples reduced the score to below" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 524, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 524, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 524, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10In Appendix E, we show that the model finetuned without examples also has the same behavior." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 509, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 509, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 761, + 509, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11We show several extracted examples in Appendix E." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8We also considered a training mixture where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 700, + 290, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the data contained no examples and the remaining data had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples. We did not further explore this as preliminary results (see Appendix C) show the results are similar to the ones obtained with the procedure above." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 250, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 250, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 761, + 250, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The 13B models follow a similar distribution." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11130" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 492, + 179 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 492, + 179 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 492, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 102, + 68, + 492, + 179 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Domain7B13B
FT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shotFT w/o few-shotFT w/ few-shot
Flores0.12%0.00%0.02%0.00%
Medical1.09%0.05%0.29%0.00%
Law2.70%0.05%0.48%0.15%
Tico0.60%0.04%0.04%0.04%
Chat1.80%0.23%0.51%0.00%
", + "image_path": "53823940734b4cdd3a3279bea7276f1f7ae682646061a130326345d0f1ed39ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 186, + 515, + 199 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 186, + 515, + 199 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 186, + 515, + 199 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Hallucination Rates for finetuned models on each evaluation dataset, considering all languages pairs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 (these thresholds were selected based on previous work (Lee et al., 2018; Raunak et al., 2021; Guerreiro et al., 2023))" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{12}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 423 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 262, + 290, + 423 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 1, we see that the models finetuned without examples have higher hallucination rates than their respective counterparts, further showing their degradation in few-shot performance. Through a manual inspection of the obtained outputs, we observed that the models generate hallucinations of different categories. In particular, they generate both detached (fully and strongly) and oscillatory hallucinations, and can also generate off-target translations. One common case is that the models copy from the instruction (either from the source or the examples)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 547 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 425, + 291, + 547 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The models finetuned with few-shot examples exhibit lower hallucination rates, suggesting that the training procedure reduced the prevalence of this issue. In particular, these models no longer copy from the instruction. However, they still produce hallucinations and their impact is very serious. As such, we believe that it motivates further study on the influence of in-context examples and the generated output." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 559, + 147, + 571 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 559, + 147, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 559, + 147, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 290, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 290, + 703 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 581, + 290, + 703 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we provide a study on finetuning and few-shot prompting for adapting LLMs for translation. We show that adapter-based finetuning matches the performance of traditional finetuning while training 50 times fewer parameters. Additionally, finetuning with adapters outperforms few-shot prompting of large language models and eliminates the need for output post-processing and in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 290, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 290, + 732 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 704, + 290, + 732 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In addition, we show that finetuned models exhibit poor performance when prompted with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 525, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 525, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 220, + 525, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in-context examples. To address this issue, we propose a simple approach that mixes few-shot prompts during finetuning. Our results show that we recover the original few-shot capabilities and retain the benefits of finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 297, + 365, + 310 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 297, + 365, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 297, + 365, + 310 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 373 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 318, + 525, + 373 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we focus on English-centric high-resource language pairs. It remains an open question how these findings generalize for non-English language pairs or in low-resource settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 525, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 373, + 525, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also do not perform a human assessment on the quality of the translations quality due to the time and cost of performing this study. Instead, we base our evaluation on COMET, a state-of-the-art metric for MT evaluation, and provide results for other metrics in Appendix G." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 464, + 393, + 476 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 464, + 393, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 464, + 393, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 485, + 525, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper is based on large language models. These models can encompass several risks, which are discussed in detail in Brown et al. (2020) and Chowdhery et al. (2022). Namely, they are trained on large web corpora, which can contain toxic content (Gehman et al., 2020), and have a high energy consumption, in particular during training (Strubell et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 525, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 525, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 593, + 525, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additionally, our evaluation is based on automatic metrics finetuned based on human preferences. In such cases, annotators may not consider better alternatives when evaluating generated text and wrongfully classify the text as high quality (Bansal et al., 2021)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 684, + 405, + 698 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 684, + 405, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 684, + 405, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 705, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work was supported by EU's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Actions (UTTER, contract 101070631), by the project DECOLLAGE (ERC-2022-CoG 101088763), by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through con" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 740, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "12Note that this analysis is similar to that of hallucinations under perturbation, when considering the introduction of the examples as the input perturbation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11131" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 153 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 153 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tract UIDB/50008/2020, and by the Portuguese Recovery and Resilience Plan through project C645008882- 00000055 (Center for Responsible AI). Part of this work was performed using HPC resources from GENCI-IDRIS (Grants 2022-AD01101838, 2023-103256 and 2023-101838)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 127, + 188 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 127, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 174, + 127, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 193, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 193, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 193, + 291, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 193, + 291, + 227 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sweta Agrawal, Chunting Zhou, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. 2022. Incontext examples selection for machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 235, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Roee Aharoni and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Unsupervised domain clusters in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7747-7763, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 310, + 291, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Antonios Anastasopoulos, Alessandro Cattelan, Zi-Yi Dou, Marcello Federico, Christian Federmann, Dmitriy Genzel, Francisco Guzmán, Junjie Hu, Macduff Hughes, Philipp Koehn, Rosie Lazar, Will Lewis, Graham Neubig, Mengmeng Niu, Alp Öktem, Eric Paquin, Grace Tang, and Sylvania Tur. 2020. TICO-19: the Translation initiative for COvid-19. arXiv:2007.01788." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 406, + 291, + 483 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 406, + 291, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 406, + 291, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Naveen Arivazhagan, Ankur Bapna, Orhan First, Dmitry Lepikhin, Melvin Johnson, Maxim Krikun, Mia Xu Chen, Yuan Cao, George F. Foster, Colin Cherry, Wolfgang Macherey, Zhifeng Chen, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. Massively multilingual neural machine translation in the wild: Findings and challenges. CoRR, abs/1907.05019." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 291, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 291, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel Weld. 2021. Does the whole exceed its parts? the effect of ai explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 290, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 587, + 290, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rachel Bawden and François Yvon. 2023. Investigating the translation performance of a large multilingual language model: the case of bloom." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 629, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems, volume 33, page 1877-1901. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 333, + 526, + 433 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 333, + 526, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 333, + 526, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 526, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 526, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 440, + 526, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ana C Farinha, M. Amin Farajian, Marianna Buchicchio, Patrick Fernandes, José G. C. de Souza, Helena Moniz, and André F. T. Martins. 2022. Findings of the WMT 2022 shared task on chat translation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 724-743, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 526, + 592 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 526, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 537, + 526, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xavier Garcia, Yamini Bansal, Colin Cherry, George Foster, Maxim Krikun, Fangxiaoyu Feng, Melvin Johnson, and Orhan Firat. 2023. The unreasonable effectiveness of few-shot learning for machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 526, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 600, + 526, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3356-3369, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 686, + 526, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nuno M. Guerreiro, Duarte Alves, Jonas Waldendorf, Barry Haddow, Alexandra Birch, Pierre Colombo, and André F. T. Martins. 2023. Hallucinations in large multilingual translation models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amr Hendy, Mohamed Abdelrehim, Amr Sharaf, Vikas Raunak, Mohamed Gabr, Hitokazu Matsushita, Young Jin Kim, Mohamed Afify, and Hany Hassan" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11132" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 291, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Awadalla. 2023. How good are gpt models at machine translation? a comprehensive evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 291, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 256 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 256 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 290, + 256 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 297 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 297 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 264, + 290, + 297 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Katherine Lee, Orhan Firat, Ashish Agarwal, Clara Fanjiang, and David Sussillo. 2018. Hallucinations in neural machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 290, + 351 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 290, + 351 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 306, + 290, + 351 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiahuan Li, Hao Zhou, Shujian Huang, Shanbo Chen, and Jiajun Chen. 2023. Eliciting the translation ability of large language models via multilingual finetuning with translation instructions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 448 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11048-11064, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 290, + 621 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 290, + 621 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 457, + 290, + 621 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022. No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 290, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 630, + 290, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 717, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Maja Popovic. 2015. *chrF: character n-gram F-score* for automatic MT evaluation. In *Proceedings of the Tenth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation*, pages 392–395, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 19, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 305, + 72, + 524, + 105 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 524, + 191 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 115, + 524, + 191 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gema Ramírez-Sánchez, Jaume Zaragoza-Bernabeu, Marta Banón, and Sergio Ortiz Rojas. 2020. Bixer and bicleaner: two open-source tools to clean your parallel data. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation, pages 291-298, Lisboa, Portugal. European Association for Machine Translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 278 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 200, + 524, + 278 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vikas Raunak, Arul Menezes, and Marcin Junczys-Dowmunt. 2021. The curious case of hallucinations in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1172-1183, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 286, + 524, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 286, + 524, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 286, + 524, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Jose G. C. de Souza, Duarte Alves, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Taisiya Glushkova, Alon Lavie, Luisa Coheur, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022a. COMET-22: Unbabel-IST 2022 submission for the metrics shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 578-585, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 524, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 384, + 524, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Craig Stewart, Ana C Farinha, and Alon Lavie. 2020. COMET: A neural framework for MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2685-2702, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 524, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 524, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 459, + 524, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ricardo Rei, Marcos Treviso, Nuno M. Guerreiro, Chrysoula Zerva, Ana C Farinha, Christine Maroti, Jose G. C. de Souza, Taisiya Glushkova, Duarte Alves, Luisa Coheur, Alon Lavie, and Andre F. T. Martins. 2022b. CometKiwi: IST-unbabel 2022 submission for the quality estimation shared task. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Machine Translation (WMT), pages 634-645, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid). Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 524, + 644 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 524, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 577, + 524, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Emma Strubell, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2019. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3645-3650, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 524, + 718 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 524, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 653, + 524, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jörg Tiedemann. 2012. Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12), pages 2214-2218, Istanbul, Turkey. European Language Resources Association (ELRA)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Roziere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11133" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 3, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 289, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 290, + 147 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 290, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 103, + 290, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Vilar, Markus Freitag, Colin Cherry, Jiaming Luo, Viresh Ratnakar, and George Foster. 2022. Prompting palm for translation: Assessing strategies and performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 156, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haoran Xu, Young Jin Kim, Amr Sharaf, and Hany Hassan Awadalla. 2023. A paradigm shift in machine translation: Boosting translation performance of large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11134" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 72, + 263, + 114 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 72, + 263, + 114 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 72, + 263, + 114 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Translate the source text from X to Y. Source: ... Target:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Prompting template for finetuning without few-shot examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 173, + 243, + 188 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 173, + 243, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 173, + 243, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Details on experimental setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 196, + 186, + 208 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 196, + 186, + 208 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 196, + 186, + 208 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Instruction format" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 214, + 290, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The training data for finetuning without few-shot examples follows the template shown in Table 2. The same format is used when testing all models in a zero-shot setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We treat the few-shot instruction template as a hyperparameter and experiment with three different methods, as shown in Table 3. Our first template follows recent trends in the literature and repeats the zero-shot instruction for each example (Vilar et al., 2022). However, in our experiments, we found that pretrained language models see the repeating pattern and continue to generate more examples besides the target translation. In order to circumvent this issue in the finetuned models, we designed the two remaining templates with separate examples sections. Our goal was to better separate the examples from the input and thus reduce the propensity for overgeneration. We found that all templates lead to overgeneration with the pretrained model and none suffered from this issue when the model is finetuned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 500, + 290, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to select the template format for our remaining experiments, we test them by finetuning with examples the LLaMA 7B model and choosing the template with the highest average COMET score on the languages in the validation set. In order to collect examples for few-shot prompting in the validation set, we sampled from the validation set ensuring the predicted example was not in the in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 622, + 290, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 622, + 290, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 622, + 290, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 4, we observe that the templates lead to very similar results, suggesting that the finetuning procedure is not very sensitive to the template used. Nevertheless, their ranking is consistent across metrics, with the second one obtaining the best scores. As such, we use it when prompting models in a few-shot scenario." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 221, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 221, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 728, + 221, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Training hyperparameters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In order to choose the best hyperparameters for both finetuning approaches, we perform a hyper" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 217 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 217 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 217 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 318, + 71, + 509, + 217 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "fca19bd1f17cf36576eea126cbf2f77667985c8c94da20c3d5285903d4ac1796.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 525, + 265 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 525, + 265 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 229, + 525, + 265 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: COMET scores on the Chinese language pairs of the Flores-200 test set by LLaMA 7B trained with full finetuning and LoRA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 369 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 289, + 525, + 369 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "parameter search by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with each configuration on the training data. We only consider zero-shot translation and use the template format in Table 2. We find the best configuration based on the average COMET score on all language pairs in the validation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 370, + 525, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5 specifies the hyperparameters experimented when training LLaMA 7B with traditional finetuning. We first chose the learning rate and weight decay, while not using warm-up steps. We then tuned the scheduler and warm-up steps. Our final configuration has a learning rate of 1e-6, no weight decay, and a constant learning scheduler with no warm-up steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6 details the hyperparameters experimented when finetuning with LoRA. We based our experiments on the best configurations for the GPT-2 models trained in Hu et al. (2022). Initial experiments with lower " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values lead to an underfitting model so our configurations focused on increasing model capacity, with higher " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " values, while keeping regularization through label smoothing and weight decay. In Table 7, we present the results for all the runs. We saw very little variation on the obtained scores. We adopted the best configuration, with an " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 525, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value of 256, weight decay of 0.0, and label smoothing of 0.001." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 656, + 524, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 656, + 524, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 656, + 524, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Regarding the 13B models, we used the same hyperparameters as in the 7B models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 507, + 710 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 507, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 696, + 507, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B Analysis on Chinese language pairs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we explore the results for the language pairs including Chinese with the LLaMA 7B model, in order to study if our previous results hold." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11135" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 233 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 233 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 520, + 233 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Format 1Format 2Format 3
Translate the source text from X to Y.Consider the following N translations from X to Y.Consider the following translations from X to Y.
Source: ...
Target: ...Example 1Source: ...
...Source: ...Target: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Target: ......
Source: ......Source: ...
Target: ...Example NTarget: ...
Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target: ...Translate the source text from X to Y.
Target:Translate the source text from X to Y.Source: ...
Source: ...Target:
Target:
", + "image_path": "bd62012b9b2e13f51e9ec82592e2185124725f9385ce532ca1fa7ae104efdd56.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 170, + 264, + 423, + 334 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 241, + 437, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 241, + 437, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 154, + 241, + 437, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Prompting templates for finetuning with in-context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 264, + 423, + 334 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 264, + 423, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 170, + 264, + 423, + 334 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
FormatCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Format 185.2582.4932.4457.25
Format 285.3482.5432.6257.37
Format 385.2782.5132.3957.22
", + "image_path": "940c21ec760aea76e326a4283be861185e5e2cebd28a4ab4a2d3d50181c3b80f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 342, + 442, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 342, + 442, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 148, + 342, + 442, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Scores for the few-shot formats on the Flores-200 validation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 375, + 274, + 521 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 375, + 274, + 521 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 375, + 274, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 375, + 274, + 521 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1e80b45f1374d7f7f912b201fcb9999f854934c3b638154ec244e55ea22f8bf8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 289, + 568 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 289, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 533, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 7: COMET scores for Chinese language pairs by the 7B finetuned models on zero-shot and five-shot scenarios for the Flores-200 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 289, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 289, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 289, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We start by investigating whether LoRA is still competitive with full finetuning. In Figure 6, we observe that LoRA performs comparably to the finetuned model and outperforms the pretrained LLM, following the trend of other language pairs (see Section 3.1)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also investigate the performance of the models finetuned with and without examples. In Figure 7, we observe a similar trend to the results above. The model finetuned without few-shot examples exhibits a performance degradation, while the model finetuned with few-shot examples obtains higher performance with few-shot prompting," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 524, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 524, + 402 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 375, + 524, + 402 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "indicating it is extracting helpful information from the examples in the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 523, + 425 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 523, + 425 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 523, + 425 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C Experiments with more zero-shot data" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We explored an alternative method for combining few-shot examples during finetuning. Instead of uniformly sampling between 0 and 5 examples, we build a training mixture where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "50\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the training examples were zero-shot and the remaining ones had between 1 and 5 uniformly sampled examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 513, + 525, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 8, we compare the training mixes by finetuning LLaMA 7B. We see that the results are very similar for both configurations. The alternative configuration (Unbalanced) obtains slightly lower results. As such, we adopted the method described in Section 4 for mixing few-shot examples during finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 489, + 631 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 489, + 631 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 617, + 489, + 631 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "D Examples of domain adaptation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 524, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we provide examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B model trained with few-shot example was able to absorb domain knowledge from the examples in the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the first example from Table 8, we see that the model correctly translates the terminology GVO to GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), instead of adopting the acronym in the source sentence. In the second example, the model is able to correctly order the words in the translation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11136" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 104, + 78, + 274, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 78, + 274, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 78, + 274, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 78, + 274, + 157 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size256
Learning Rate5e-3, 2e-4, 5e-4, 2e-5, 5e-5, 1e-6
SchedulerConstant, Cosine, Linear
Warm-up Steps0, 1000, 2000
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
", + "image_path": "89531ff5023cf9e5961f6422a15065f24845e99a387cb9c09cfae6f8cb0b0994.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 483, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 164, + 292, + 189 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 164, + 292, + 189 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 164, + 292, + 189 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Hyperparameters for traditional finetuning experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 483, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 483, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 326, + 68, + 483, + 178 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OptimizerAdamW
Batch Size8
Learning Rate2e-4
SchedulerLinear
Warm-up Steps500
Dropout0.05
r128, 256
α2 · r
Label Smoothing0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2
Weight Decay0.0, 0.1
", + "image_path": "dd1c19ec1d1f05595bc531f7707436a8c1d727dd1eff6d96aa656c589bd20af0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 208, + 503, + 400 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 503, + 198 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 503, + 198 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 185, + 503, + 198 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Hyperparameters for LoRA experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 208, + 503, + 400 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 208, + 503, + 400 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 208, + 503, + 400 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
LoRA-RWeight DecayLabel SmoothingCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
1280.00.084.7481.9631.4756.36
1280.10.084.7681.9831.4556.34
1280.00.0184.7981.9931.4856.37
1280.00.0584.8082.0031.2856.30
1280.00.184.6181.8531.1056.15
1280.00.284.3681.6130.7155.89
2560.00.084.7882.0131.4756.40
2560.10.084.7281.9431.4156.32
2560.00.0184.8782.0831.5756.45
2560.00.0584.7881.9731.4756.39
2560.00.184.6581.9231.2856.25
2560.00.284.4881.7730.9556.01
", + "image_path": "9fa72f1314175e224af63e91805bd30c2cb4bf35c901da5aa176508b9d4c8603.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 407, + 456, + 420 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 407, + 456, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 135, + 407, + 456, + 420 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Scores for the LoRA hyperparameters on the Flores-200 validation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 441, + 251, + 468 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 441, + 251, + 468 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 441, + 251, + 468 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "E Analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 482, + 290, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also provide a more in-depth analysis on the distributions of COMET score differences, with a focus on the examples with the highest differences." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 290, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 290, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 525, + 290, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 9, we observe that the distributions for the LLaMA 7B model finetuned without in-context examples also have large tails, similar to the results of the model finetuned with in-context examples (see in Section 4.2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 290, + 675 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 595, + 290, + 675 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also analyzed whether the same long tails appear on the specialized domains. In Figure 10, we observe that this is in fact the case. The distributions of the differences are centered around zero and have extreme values on both sides for all domains and finetuned models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, we show several examples where few-shot prompting both helped or degraded the model performance. In Table 9, prompting the model with few-shot examples fixed the generation in the wrong language. In Table 10, introducing in-context examples in the model prompt leads to hallucinated content." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 483, + 455 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 483, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 441, + 483, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "F Examples of generated outputs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 586 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 586 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present translations where prompting the pretrained LLaMA 7B model leads to overgeneration, and both 7B finetuned models correctly stopped to translate. In Table 11, we see that, although all models generated the same translation, the pretrained model continued to generate, repeating the prompt and translation, while both finetuned models correctly stopped to generate tokens." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 503, + 613 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 503, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 599, + 503, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "G Results with all evaluation metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 623, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide the evaluation for the models considered in this paper using three other MT evaluation metrics: BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002),chrF (Popovic, 2015) and COMETKiwi (Rei et al., 2022b)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 691, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 691, + 525, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 691, + 525, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figure 11, we show the comparison between both finetuning approaches with the LLaMA 7B model. The results are consistent across all metrics, with the LoRA model performing similarly to the finetuned and outperforming the pretrained model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 760, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Figures 12, 13 and 13, we compare finetun" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11137" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 86, + 197, + 204 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 72, + 183, + 82 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 72, + 183, + 82 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 112, + 72, + 183, + 82 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "General Domain" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 86, + 197, + 204 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 86, + 197, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 86, + 197, + 204 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8044d5d14ab659569129a4f16105d705aa7cdc0ceacde48b70925c5b331ac300.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 86, + 307, + 204 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 200, + 86, + 307, + 204 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 200, + 86, + 307, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 200, + 86, + 307, + 204 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f1a6ae5f253e882f1943ae9743a97daa83d5a9a889d95a6719293a5b4a2e7dac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 86, + 413, + 203 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 407, + 83 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 407, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 72, + 407, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specialized Domains" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 86, + 413, + 203 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 86, + 413, + 203 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 86, + 413, + 203 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1ec76172ec311ed05e641e9a462d93dfb295ce6dbfbc344a3c16af2b88c2c78b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 416, + 86, + 522, + 204 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 416, + 86, + 522, + 204 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 416, + 86, + 522, + 204 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 416, + 86, + 522, + 204 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e1becafed4a22d6dc804b4fdeedda3e3fd9862d396c243af798684a35fe32e15.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 206, + 364, + 221 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 206, + 364, + 221 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 206, + 364, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 225, + 206, + 364, + 221 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "5c1615a1a81597b1f7346c8b183357496eb3daaae31e69851992482f41c47ce9.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 524, + 269 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 524, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 524, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 8: COMET scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by finetuning the LLaMA 7B model with the two methods for combining few-shot examples. Balanced is the method described in Section 4 and Unbalanced is the alternative method described in Appendix C." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 411 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 411 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 411 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source“bezeichnet“genetisch veränderte Futtermittel”Futtermittel, die GVO enthalten, daraus bestehen oder hergestellt werden;”
Reference““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Zero-shot translation““Genetically modified feed”means feed containing GVO, derived from GVO or produced from GVO;”
Few-shot translation““genetically modified feed”means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;”
Source“VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 538/2000 DER KOMMISSION”
Reference“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
Zero-shot translation“(EG) No 538/2000 OF THE COMMISSION”
Few-shot translation“COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 538/2000”
", + "image_path": "0a3f5e9763e69c63a1dc7394839cf848de906d3c0ddf6875b9309765ab07ead6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 524, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 524, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 524, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Examples of translations where the LLaMA 7B finetuned with few-shot examples was able to extract domain information from the examples in the prompt." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 466, + 274, + 599 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 466, + 274, + 599 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 466, + 274, + 599 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 466, + 274, + 599 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "dc071f48c0520414a1c56f649b931ee73bdc7ca67d7d280fd96b4775de12a5fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 672 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 672 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 9: Difference in COMET scores for zero- vs few-shot translations by the LLaMA 7B FT w/o few-shot model on Flores-200 (" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Delta > 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 672 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " means that the translation with few-shot examples was scored higher than the translation without examples)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 486, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 486, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 466, + 486, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "when prompting with few-shot examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 479, + 526, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 479, + 526, + 571 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 479, + 526, + 571 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the lexical metrics, the degradation in few-shot performance is not visible on the 13B models. However, these metrics may not be reliable for evaluating translations from LLMs (Hendy et al., 2023), as LLMs tend to produce less literal translations which are poorly captured by lexical overlap with the reference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 525, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 574, + 525, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 we also provide the exact scores for all metrics in a tabular format." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing with and without examples. We observe that the results with COMETKiwi follow the trends obtained with COMET, with a performance degradation when few-shot prompting the model trained with examples and a recovery of the performance" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11138" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 82, + 309, + 216 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 82, + 309, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 82, + 309, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 82, + 309, + 216 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7b3fb0d8faf7f3a5c9c2eacd0eb4b1ccf2dbd2369c78afe1c86d3b2842165578.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 525, + 250 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 525, + 250 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 226, + 525, + 250 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 10: Difference in COMET scores for translations obtained with zero- and few-shot prompting for all domains for the finetuned LLaMA 7B models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 83, + 499, + 215 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 83, + 499, + 215 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 83, + 499, + 215 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 83, + 499, + 215 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bb4369752929fe2f0e72e749f1ad6896d96c1de364ddb58e385cd2924f7086c0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 485 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 485 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 280, + 516, + 485 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
SourceMay I take your order number please?
ReferenceDarf ichitte ihre Bestellnummer haben?
Zero-shot translationMay I take your order number please?
Few-shot translationBitte geben Sie mir ihren Bestellnummer an.
SourceMay i know the class you're referring to please
ReferenceA qual aula você está se referindo?
Zero-shot translationMay i know the class you're referring to please
Few-shot translationPoderia eu saber a classe que você está se referindo por favor
SourceThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
ReferenceVielen Dank, also wartest du immer noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
Zero-shot translationThanks, so you are still waiting for the #PRS_ORG#-Pendant lamp, brass and multi-coloured glass?
Few-shot translationDanke, so warten Sie noch auf die #PRS_ORG#-Pendelleunte, Messing und mehrfarbiges Glas?
", + "image_path": "62b7e2c7a1fc7ad11104f042d49826192682e8c3c1a32f090f521a1d94e9cc1f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 79, + 544, + 516, + 725 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 525, + 516 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 525, + 516 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 491, + 525, + 516 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples corrected the language in which the model was generating." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 544, + 516, + 725 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 544, + 516, + 725 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 544, + 516, + 725 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source“Age: Age was the most important factor for the prognosis of SARS, which is also true for COVID-19.”
Reference“Âge : l'âge constituit le principal facteur pour le pronostic du SRAS, et cela semble également être le cas pour la COVID-19.”
Zero-shot translation“Â Age : L'âge est le facteur le plus important pour la prognostication du SRAS, qui est également vrai pour le COVID-19.”
Few-shot translation“Â A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A”
Source“Chinese people as well as other Asians in the United Kingdom and the United States have reported increasing levels of racist abuse, as well as assaults.”
Reference“O povo chinès, assim comme autres asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram níveis crescentes de insultos racistas, bem como de ataques.”
Zero-shot translation“Pessoas chinesas, bem como outros asiáticos no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos, relataram um aumento de abusos racistas, bem como assaltos.”
Few-shot translation“Em 6 de avril, as férias foram estendidas em todas as escolas de;nével médio do Turcomenistão.”
", + "image_path": "a4bfb6ba4e312af6d825c175b42204efd146b44d936d9b666aa82a33d07fb2e2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 734, + 525, + 757 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 734, + 525, + 757 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 734, + 525, + 757 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Examples of translations by the 7B FT w/o few-shot model where adding examples introduced an hallucination." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11139" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 84, + 511, + 192 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 84, + 511, + 192 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 84, + 511, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 84, + 511, + 192 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Source“‘We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic’ he added.”
Reference“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos e que antes eram diabéticos,”complementou.”
Pretrained“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescen-tou.\\nTranslate the source text from English to Portuguese.\\nSource: “We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic,” he added.\\nTarget: “Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram di”
FT w/o Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
FT w/ Examples“Agora temos ratos de 4征求意见 que não são diabéticos que eram diabéticos”, acrescentou.”
", + "image_path": "fc6130d1fb8583c56b0cfa723ca565f82347ca2c2df312eb0b0569bb58d660c2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 200, + 525, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Examples of translations where finetuning the LLaMA 7B model eliminated the overgeneration in the outputs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 218, + 416 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 218, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 218, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 263, + 218, + 416 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "14be28f01081e36b017170de21a966fc4edbb660fc2620c8e51755dd48de0810.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 417, + 399, + 430 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 417, + 399, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 208, + 417, + 399, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Pretrained Finetuned LoRA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_footnote" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 525, + 467 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 525, + 467 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 525, + 467 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 11: Scores of the 7B pretrained model (few-shot prompting) and both 7B finetuned models (zero-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 263, + 369, + 416 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 263, + 369, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 263, + 369, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 221, + 263, + 369, + 416 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "2c7d22fb7a7a022fe03c8344e3e21bf202c957c42b1de44243d06f54c4cb83ce.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 372, + 263, + 520, + 416 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 263, + 520, + 416 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 263, + 520, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 372, + 263, + 520, + 416 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8db60cac1cb15145b1bae1a33098a599a9e080c04331fd86e90a73b521379731.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 524, + 697 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 524, + 697 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 524, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 506, + 524, + 697 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e4ce37c41184129ec7512e07d897075bb6d06699ba3b1b747c0d05240b7ee029.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 525, + 755 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 525, + 755 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 525, + 755 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 12: COMETKiwi scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 313, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11140" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 13 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 524, + 315 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 524, + 315 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 524, + 315 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 125, + 524, + 315 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ceb1743d7382c781cbbe72156d737ae7656f3d2cf3be484178822e8430d72f2d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 525, + 362 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 525, + 362 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 325, + 525, + 362 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 13: BLEU scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 478, + 525, + 669 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 478, + 525, + 669 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 478, + 525, + 669 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 478, + 525, + 669 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "b6ab30efc31cf1e160d8017969a76f72c93ae993029214f58f1e8cf5cfb0bafc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 525, + 716 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 525, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 679, + 525, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 14: chrF scores for zero-shot and five-shot translation by models finetuning with and without few-shot examples. Scores are averaged across all language pairs. \"FT w/o few-shot\" refers to finetuning with translation instructions, as in Section 3. \"FT w/ few-shot\" refers to finetuning with few-shot examples, detailed in Section 4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11141" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 14 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 491, + 761 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 491, + 761 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 491, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 99, + 68, + 491, + 761 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2382.9936.7762.34
Five-Shot88.0683.4939.0164.42
FinetunedZero-Shot88.6683.9541.0566.17
LoRAZero-Shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
en-dePretrainedZero-Shot71.5657.8713.9938.73
Five-Shot82.7479.8224.7754.00
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4781.1928.3057.69
LoRAZero-Shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
fr-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.0484.6137.2762.79
Five-Shot88.4185.6540.7165.85
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8086.0242.9967.30
LoRAZero-Shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
en-frPretrainedZero-Shot76.5465.1723.4347.02
Five-Shot84.5284.5336.7161.40
FinetunedZero-Shot85.3985.2839.2364.10
LoRAZero-Shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
nl-enPretrainedZero-Shot84.6083.5925.4253.94
Five-Shot86.4684.9928.5557.22
FinetunedZero-Shot86.4485.2229.4358.26
LoRAZero-Shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
en-nlPretrainedZero-Shot73.9961.1712.4538.88
Five-Shot83.1281.8619.2650.58
FinetunedZero-Shot83.4082.6320.7153.10
LoRAZero-Shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
pt-enPretrainedZero-Shot87.2683.2141.1465.78
Five-Shot88.5784.2244.3568.49
FinetunedZero-Shot88.8884.6046.5870.13
LoRAZero-Shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
en-ptPretrainedZero-Shot74.6055.9117.4640.46
Five-Shot86.4382.0335.2561.41
FinetunedZero-Shot87.1182.8638.7564.45
LoRAZero-Shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
ru-enPretrainedZero-Shot83.8582.0328.3757.00
Five-Shot85.2183.1131.0859.25
FinetunedZero-Shot85.5483.4932.7060.12
LoRAZero-Shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
en-ruPretrainedZero-Shot57.6346.497.1617.48
Five-Shot83.4479.4519.2847.60
FinetunedZero-Shot84.9181.0620.7649.32
LoRAZero-Shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
zh-enPretrainedZero-Shot76.7477.4612.5434.99
Five-Shot82.2779.5519.2348.13
FinetunedZero-Shot83.6880.7821.7349.88
LoRAZero-Shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
en-zhPretrainedZero-Shot49.1245.104.547.20
Five-Shot66.0461.2014.6815.11
FinetunedZero-Shot72.9468.5917.0717.72
LoRAZero-Shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
", + "image_path": "b5d5d9a79d15f0b872779acb84f35cb4406e17bbd57d037bb9c4d94ec0415086.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 768, + 500, + 780 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 768, + 500, + 780 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 768, + 500, + 780 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: Scores for the 7B pretrained model and 7B both finetuned models on the Flores-200 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11142" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 15 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.6683.9341.2266.15
Five-shot88.5383.8840.4165.66
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.6784.0941.5066.54
Five-shot88.6984.1241.4766.63
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.6381.3028.1557.62
Five-shot83.4480.9828.0157.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9981.5129.2158.98
Five-shot84.0681.4929.5559.06
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.7786.0442.9367.39
Five-shot88.7985.9543.2067.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9486.1743.3467.72
Five-shot88.9886.1743.6067.86
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.3685.1039.6964.43
Five-shot85.1284.8239.0963.95
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.7685.4940.5765.14
Five-shot85.9885.6440.8565.25
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4085.2729.7858.30
Five-shot86.4485.1829.7058.09
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.6785.4530.0858.74
Five-shot86.6885.4730.0658.73
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1082.5020.4652.79
Five-shot82.9982.2920.2452.44
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4582.8420.9853.50
Five-shot83.6083.0221.0953.66
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.9184.6846.3270.16
Five-shot88.7984.5046.3770.02
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9284.7046.9570.45
Five-shot88.9684.7047.3270.62
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.9382.6738.9464.57
Five-shot86.8682.4638.6464.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.3683.0640.1065.36
Five-shot87.3583.0740.1165.25
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.4283.4832.2859.59
Five-shot85.3083.2032.0859.18
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.6883.5633.1260.31
Five-shot85.7383.6233.1860.35
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7380.7420.8849.53
Five-shot84.5080.1820.0948.74
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.4181.4022.0850.36
Five-shot85.5781.4722.1950.73
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1580.4421.6149.71
Five-shot82.5779.5420.6248.23
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7181.1222.2650.70
Five-shot83.7380.9622.7450.83
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot72.4367.9916.8517.74
Five-shot71.7766.5616.1116.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot74.2570.0819.0519.20
Five-shot74.7470.6919.3219.50
", + "image_path": "58ece5a808feea3dbf24422d7f8b9fa9b83f39930181232f9509a80d60903b78.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 768, + 503, + 781 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 768, + 503, + 781 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 90, + 768, + 503, + 781 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11143" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 16 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.8679.6629.0953.99
Five-shot82.7379.2429.2753.92
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.1079.7529.4354.49
Five-shot83.0679.7329.4054.58
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.0278.2923.6952.80
Five-shot80.1178.0123.1152.00
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.9478.9424.0053.81
Five-shot81.1979.0524.3354.04
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5879.0836.1861.15
Five-shot81.9078.3135.0160.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.9779.3737.0661.93
Five-shot83.1279.4637.3062.11
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.0477.7720.0146.18
Five-shot81.7977.4119.4145.33
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.3378.3120.7446.71
Five-shot82.2478.1420.8846.91
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.9072.1715.1443.29
Five-shot74.0471.1415.5243.32
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot75.5672.9615.9144.03
Five-shot75.5273.0915.9844.53
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot74.2769.0818.1919.96
Five-shot73.8667.7717.1218.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.0570.9720.3721.54
Five-shot76.2571.1419.8921.43
", + "image_path": "76420e27d98034499e8aa94488bc768ca6ae0f84012a94ee6cd4406807e003b2.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 600, + 504, + 613 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 600, + 504, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 600, + 504, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11144" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 17 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 68, + 144, + 531, + 671 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 144, + 531, + 671 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 144, + 531, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 144, + 531, + 671 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.5480.9239.9860.32
Five-shot83.0380.3239.2959.43
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.7381.0840.6260.88
Five-shot83.7781.1540.5760.89
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.1579.6430.2553.10
Five-shot79.7578.8729.8652.35
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot80.5879.9331.6154.51
Five-shot80.5879.8731.4854.32
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1180.5338.1859.38
Five-shot82.6778.9036.9057.85
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.2680.8139.8460.62
Five-shot84.4380.9640.1160.82
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot80.8378.6326.0450.44
Five-shot79.3576.8725.0348.88
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.5579.0727.8052.12
Five-shot81.6479.1127.7152.00
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot78.4483.9931.5756.80
Five-shot78.1083.4032.7257.11
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.6084.2032.4757.59
Five-shot78.6284.2132.5857.66
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8781.7339.7665.92
Five-shot86.4881.0339.3165.26
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot87.0382.0040.9666.81
Five-shot87.1382.0741.1166.91
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot82.5677.9727.3250.81
Five-shot82.7077.7528.5351.76
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.5478.7028.1952.54
Five-shot84.0178.7628.8353.05
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.7180.8144.7062.90
Five-shot86.3880.1243.9761.69
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.5280.6144.8763.26
Five-shot86.6280.7244.8963.20
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.5480.5841.7962.93
Five-shot88.7079.8041.0661.98
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.6480.7943.5263.85
Five-shot89.9880.7643.8864.17
", + "image_path": "bed2e7b2ce4c6a62e3a10ba4b850e528ab9363728ac4a13b8483ba622e735c13.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 524, + 694 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 524, + 694 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 682, + 524, + 694 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 15: Scores of the 7B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11145" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 18 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 503, + 761 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot88.8284.1142.0367.00
Five-shot88.8684.0541.9566.93
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.9484.1342.8667.40
Five-shot89.0384.2042.7767.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.8782.3830.6060.04
Five-shot84.6482.0330.7360.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0182.4331.5260.49
Five-shot85.0182.5231.5160.50
fr-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.0986.1644.1468.12
Five-shot89.1286.1044.0568.10
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.1386.1244.8368.46
Five-shot89.1586.1444.9568.58
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.0885.6941.3365.59
Five-shot86.0785.7541.1965.59
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.3585.9341.9666.07
Five-shot86.4185.9242.1066.20
nl-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.8185.3930.3759.02
Five-shot86.9985.4530.8359.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.8985.4530.7159.15
Five-shot86.9085.5130.8959.25
en-nlFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1083.2621.8754.25
Five-shot84.6383.6922.1454.20
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1683.3822.1054.61
Five-shot84.4283.5722.4454.85
pt-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot89.2684.8647.8171.25
Five-shot89.3084.8248.0771.17
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot89.3584.8648.3071.40
Five-shot89.3284.8848.1671.39
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.9883.7541.2666.19
Five-shot87.8883.5741.4366.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.0183.7841.6366.49
Five-shot88.0083.8142.0866.71
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot85.9383.7833.5760.86
Five-shot86.0183.8233.8261.03
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.0383.8434.0261.20
Five-shot86.1383.8434.4061.44
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot86.4682.6823.3752.00
Five-shot86.0882.4323.8952.21
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.9283.1024.2152.80
Five-shot86.6482.9224.0752.62
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.1681.4823.2351.41
Five-shot83.8781.2622.5950.65
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4881.8124.0951.95
Five-shot84.5181.7824.2852.33
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.4973.1519.9620.03
Five-shot76.5272.5220.1320.24
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.0274.8921.6021.23
Five-shot77.8974.4521.8221.32
", + "image_path": "087d01d83c22a2f39ea5ff45c61aaa9b9d877727c2cc91473f698452eb9aec3b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 768, + 504, + 781 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 768, + 504, + 781 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 768, + 504, + 781 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 16: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the Flores-200 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11146" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 19 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 225, + 503, + 592 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Language PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
de-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4080.0930.1655.15
Five-shot83.5080.0230.6255.45
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4480.0330.5855.39
Five-shot83.5480.1930.6455.53
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.8879.8225.3354.72
Five-shot81.8779.7125.1254.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot82.4380.3025.8855.42
Five-shot82.1880.1825.9155.42
ru-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.1879.5438.0462.55
Five-shot83.0879.5637.5562.79
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.4979.8338.2362.88
Five-shot83.5179.8738.2862.94
en-ruFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9079.6021.5748.19
Five-shot84.0379.7522.1748.51
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.4680.1022.7149.21
Five-shot84.4480.1322.7349.17
zh-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot76.1173.5416.6645.52
Five-shot75.6572.8817.9946.38
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot76.4873.9117.2045.85
Five-shot76.4473.9217.5146.14
en-zhFT w/o few-shotZero-shot77.4872.6921.3822.13
Five-shot77.2872.2220.7521.86
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot78.8074.1523.3123.63
Five-shot78.9474.4023.3223.49
", + "image_path": "3cb202771b9836a1ef6cf944ed3db6e825c5a901bbc7b46a3a03cf08c65c7bab.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 600, + 506, + 613 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 600, + 506, + 613 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 85, + 600, + 506, + 613 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 17: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the WMT 2022 test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11147" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 20 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 533, + 667 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 533, + 667 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 533, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 136, + 533, + 667 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DomainLanguage PairModelContextCOMETCOMETKiwiBLEUchrF
Medicalde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.9981.1942.0162.18
Five-shot84.0680.9842.3962.42
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot84.1881.2443.1562.60
Five-shot84.2681.2643.1162.76
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot81.3181.0932.3656.33
Five-shot81.1280.9231.8956.05
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot81.7781.4033.0057.08
Five-shot81.7281.2133.2857.16
Lawde-enFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.7381.0741.0861.87
Five-shot84.5780.7441.0161.77
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.0381.2542.7263.04
Five-shot85.1381.4042.7463.06
en-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot83.4681.7328.2554.84
Five-shot83.1681.3328.3554.54
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot83.9182.0529.9755.89
Five-shot83.8782.0429.8955.90
Ticoen-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot79.5685.3734.2259.72
Five-shot79.4385.2436.4760.62
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot79.7885.6235.2260.33
Five-shot79.7985.6835.1860.40
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.8983.3643.3069.13
Five-shot87.8283.1543.3169.01
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot88.1683.6744.2169.68
Five-shot88.2983.7444.4869.87
Chaten-deFT w/o few-shotZero-shot84.6279.8929.2454.11
Five-shot84.8479.6731.1154.75
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot85.5680.2830.3354.51
Five-shot85.6480.3630.9055.09
en-frFT w/o few-shotZero-shot87.4681.0147.3964.62
Five-shot88.1881.3249.4366.37
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot86.4180.8847.7464.97
Five-shot86.8681.0447.9264.94
en-ptFT w/o few-shotZero-shot91.0281.6745.9966.36
Five-shot90.8281.4944.4966.19
FT w/ few-shotZero-shot90.5681.3144.7565.93
Five-shot90.5081.3844.8966.00
", + "image_path": "8e1626ea4951c3d834097c115ade096fd9b0e1db9f1dfeee998d238fb342e6a7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 526, + 700 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 526, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 676, + 526, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 18: Scores of the 13B finetuned models (zero- and few-shot prompting) on the test sets for specialized domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "11148" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 21 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_content_list.json b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a703c2970a729e604e90baebab4299bb9c1a77ba --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1436 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 235, + 90, + 759, + 130 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Andrei C. Coman* \nIdiap Research Institute, EPFL andrei.coman@idiap.ch", + "bbox": [ + 122, + 155, + 374, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Gianni Barlacchi \nAmazon Alexa AI \ngbarlac@amazon.com", + "bbox": [ + 406, + 155, + 589, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Adrià de Gispert \nAmazon Alexa AI \nagispert@amazon.com", + "bbox": [ + 655, + 155, + 843, + 205 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, the conversational (ODConvQA) domain has received limited attention when it comes to reevaluating baselines for both efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper, we study the State-of-the-Art (SotA) Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline, and show that it significantly underperforms when applied to ODCnvQA tasks due to various limitations. We then propose and evaluate strong yet simple and efficient baselines, by introducing a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. Experiments on two ODCnvQA tasks, namely TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, show that our method improves the SotA results, while reducing reader's latency by $60\\%$ . Finally, we provide new and valuable insights into the development of challenging baselines that serve as a reference for future, more intricate approaches, including those that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs).", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 278, + 460, + 605 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 615, + 258, + 631 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In an automated information-seeking conversation scenario between two parties, the human questioner asks a series of questions and expects to receive a relevant response from the answering system (Oddy, 1977). Current State-of-the-Art (SotA) shapes the answerer via two neural models, the Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and the Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) (Izacard and Grave, 2021b), which act as retriever and reader, respectively. Their success stems from the ability to overcome certain limitations of their sparse and extractive counterparts, such as not relying on lexical retrieval heuristics or extracting spans as a response (Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019; McCallum et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 640, + 489, + 898 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Among the most promising approaches are those concerning the improvement of training strategies (Guu et al., 2020; Balachandran et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2021), use of rerankers (Hu et al., 2019; Mao et al., 2021; Barlacchi et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2021; Glass et al., 2022), question rewriting (Vakulenko et al., 2021; Del Tredici et al., 2021), reader to retrieve knowledge distillation (Izacard and Grave, 2021a), memory-efficient pipeline (Izacard et al., 2020; Del Tredici et al., 2022), and leveraging structured information (Min et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, a reassessment of the baselines in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness appears to be under-explored in the conversational (ODConvQA) domain. In this paper, we focus on the typical DPR retriever and FiD reader (DPR+FiD) pipeline, and show its limitations when applied to the ODConvQA setting. Despite its popularity, we find that this baseline significantly underperforms when finetuned on downstream tasks. We show that simple improvements in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the DPR+FiD pipeline, provide a strong and efficient baseline that exceeds the performance of SotA models on two common ODConvQA datasets: TopiOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) and ORConvQA (OR-QuAC) (Qu et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 430, + 884, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We point out several limitations of the pipeline, such as: 1) reader's susceptibility to noisy input, 2) retriever's reduced coverage, 3) retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages, and 4) reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. To mitigate these, we propose and evaluate a simple and effective approach by including a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy leads to baseline models with a better latency/performance trade-off.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 884, + 912 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Work was done during an internship at Amazon Science.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6305", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6305-6314 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 216, + 945, + 779, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/62dfdf91783a288f0d7bc6898f9f834dea28191dca98f5a5c5d313df0f93a87c.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: The Retriever-Reranker-Reader (R3) pipeline" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 884, + 191 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "These baselines, which are simple and easy to replicate, serve as a reference point for comparing new and more complex models, and determining their effectiveness. Our contributions are the following:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 239, + 489, + 305 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- We identify and address several limitations of the typical pipeline used in ODConvQA.", + "- We propose the R3FINE strategy, which improves SotA results on two common datasets and reduces pipeline's latency by $60\\%$ .", + "- We provide new and valuable insights for creating simple and efficient baselines, which serve as a reference point for future comparison of new more complex approaches." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 313, + 489, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 End-to-End Baselines for ODConvQA", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 491, + 475, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section provides a brief introduction to the pipeline on which this work focuses. Figure 1 shows the typical pipeline used within the ODConvQA setting, featuring an additional reranker component. A conversation history is input to the DPR retriever. This module exploits a dual-encoder based on the BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) model. First, it encodes the conversation history via the ConversationEncoder component, which takes as input the text of the conversation history $c_{1}, c_{2}, \\ldots, c_{i}$ , and then it outputs a dense representation $h_{c}$ . Next, this representation is used to perform a dense search to retrieve the most relevant passages, i.e., text blocks that serve as basic retrieval units, from an external knowledge source (e.g., Wikipedia). The latter contains dense representations of the passages that have been encoded via the PassageEncoder component, which takes as input a $j$ -th passage with a given text length $N$ , i.e., $p_{j_1}, p_{j_2}, \\ldots, p_{j_N}$ , and outputs a dense representation $h_{p_j}$ . The dense search is performed via the Maximum Inner-Product Search (MIPS) function which outputs the value corresponding to $h_c^{\\top} \\cdot h_{p_j}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 517, + 489, + 887 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Once the top- $k$ relevant passages have been retrieved, their text is appended to the conversa", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tion history and subsequently passed to the FiD reader, which is based on the T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) model. The newly created textual sequences of length $S$ are then encoded in parallel via the Encoder component that outputs a dense representation $\\bar{h} = \\{h_1,\\dots ,h_S\\}$ . As a final step, the dense representations of the entire list of $k$ input passages are concatenated to form a single $\\bar{h}_1\\oplus \\bar{h}_2,\\ldots ,\\oplus \\bar{h}_k$ sequence that forms the input to the Decoder component responsible for generating the answer $a$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 239, + 884, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Strong Baseline Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 412, + 747, + 429 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work focuses on two main datasets. TOPIOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) is a large-scale open-domain information-seeking conversational dataset that contains a challenging phenomenon in the form of topic switching. OR-QuAC (Qu et al., 2020) leverages CANARD's (Elgohary et al., 2019) context-independent question rewrites of the QuAC (Choi et al., 2018) dataset, and adapts it to the open-domain setting. Further details regarding the datasets are provided in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 437, + 882, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We outline a number of limitations of the typical DPR+FiD pipeline, along with suggestions on how to mitigate them. While some of those interconnect at different levels the various efforts made in the ODQA domain (Balachandran et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022), our goal is to offer a perspective on the ODConvQA setting.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 598, + 882, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Current Limitations and Bottlenecks", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 721, + 843, + 736 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reader's susceptibility to noisy input. Previous findings have shown that the FiD reader performance significantly improves when increasing the number of retrieved passages (Izacard and Grave, 2021b). While confirming this finding, in Table 1 we also present a different perspective to it. We show that when the same reader model is provided with the relevant (i.e., gold) passage in input, the performance decreases as the number of retrieved passages increases. This suggests that there is a balance in presenting input to the reader: if the gold", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6306", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3404f6b6b1d3b0c247c46cef5fb874e9e851f92dd163f8e3a052cca6fba696c6.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
1029.852.435.861.5
5033.055.135.959.5
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 80, + 438, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "passage is present, i.e., the retriever could retrieve it, a small relevant list is best, but otherwise a larger list is better.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 261, + 487, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retriever's reduced coverage. Current solutions impose a hard top- $k$ limit on the number of passages returned by the DPR retriever and assume that the relevant ones are present within this limit. Table 1 shows that coverage is key during the retrieval phase for the reader to perform well. To improve it, we suggest introducing a simple and efficient Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) reranker component after the retriever. This component, shown in Figure 1 and described in the next paragraph, is designed to reconsider a larger pool of passages returned by the DPR and to provide the FiD with a reduced and improved list of passages. Since this module operates at the semantic level, we refer to it as the SemanticReranker. Table 2 shows the potential coverage margins and the retrieval results obtained after the introduction of such a module, when a larger number of passages (50 vs 1000) is considered.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 319, + 489, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages. The DPR retriever performs independent encoding of the passages via the PassageEncoder function. This means that it is not able to exploit the semantic relationship among them. This can be mitigated via the introduction of the previously mentioned SemanticReranker component. This new module is based on the TransformerEncoder and applies the following function:", + "bbox": [ + 110, + 634, + 489, + 796 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\tilde {h} _ {c}, \\tilde {h} _ {p _ {1}}, \\ldots , \\tilde {h} _ {p _ {k}} = R e r a n k e r (h _ {c}, h _ {p _ {1}}, \\ldots , h _ {p _ {k}})\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 806, + 480, + 828 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where each element of the input attends to both the conversation dense representation $h_c$ and passages dense representations $h_{p_i}$ . Reranking is performed over the new output sequence $\\tilde{h}_c, \\tilde{h}_{p_1}, \\ldots, \\tilde{h}_{p_k}$ via the previously mentioned MIPS function.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 838, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/791f25394b189d10b73501b81de857c95276003af078b93036ee2b15c5481605.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top- $k$ limit." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 80, + 873, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 192, + 882, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. Figure 2 shows that the latency of the reader can be significantly reduced by decreasing the number of input passages. However, a trivial limitation to top- $k$ considerably degrades the performance of the module, thus leading to an inevitable trade-off. The task of the SemanticReranker involves pushing relevant passages into the top- $k$ list, and allowing for a low $k$ value to be set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 262, + 884, + 423 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/855e885151475458469485cf5d27cca9ed7f696eddd52c90a6900d67a1180d76.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: FiD reader performance (F1 score and latency) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split, with varying top- $k$ input passages. Latency is relative to the top-50 (top- $k$ vs top-50)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 432, + 882, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 A Strong and Efficient Baseline", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 719, + 801, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the findings above, we introduce the Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy, which can be used to design strong and efficient baselines for ODConvQA. First, we increase the number of passages returned by the DPR from the initial 50 to 1000. Then, we add the SemanticReranker component, which corresponds to a single TransformerEncoder layer. We train/finetune the SemanticReranker along with the ConversationEncoder while keeping the PassageEncoder frozen. Guided by the intu", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 741, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6307", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/928d329aa3f6b149100fa98dac2bb6b19640f0a0ac10fcb458d3faee3c44a6b5.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FTw/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FT
top-kEMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.430.752.414.723.013.925.716.628.9
1029.852.433.257.335.859.019.028.219.430.021.632.9
5033.055.133.956.235.256.122.029.922.130.223.532.2
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 80, + 850, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d71bac3da40115a688afea6c982a2b87d8ddffaf5db755c16b591ffa3cc1ff1c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR), together with the results obtained after a further reader finetuning step with top-10 output by the SR (w/ SR + FT). Underlined values indicate the results obtained by the DPR+FiD pipeline. Bold values indicate the results obtained after the introduction of the SR together with targeted finetuning steps." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TopIOCQA
ModelEMF1
BM25 + DPR Reader13.625.0
BM25 + FiD24.137.2
DPR Retriever + DPR Reader21.043.4
DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.3
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.1
+ R3FINE (top-10)35.859.0
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 286, + 475, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ition that less but more relevant passages are beneficial to FiD as reported in Table 1, we finally perform an additional finetuning step by leveraging the new top-10 list of passages returned by the SemanticReranker.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 512, + 489, + 592 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments and Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 602, + 366, + 620 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section shows the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker module has on the pipeline, as well as the finetuning steps we followed to make the pipeline more efficient without compromising its performance.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Experimental Setup. As the starting point of our experiments, we used the DPR and FiD models provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. Currently, only the train and dev splits are made available for this dataset. We followed the same experimental setup and exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets. Unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, and for this reason we trained the FiD module from scratch by following the same training configuration of TOPIOCQA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 717, + 489, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "End-to-End Results. Table 4 and Table 5 compare our R3FINE strategy with previous baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/75bbf8a04f81ae0bd702a5e9c7859ec2a72f4eb31b6181e15552d86aab67e361.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 4: TOPIOCQA dev split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison between sparse/dense retrievers (BM25/DPR Retriever) and extractive/generative readers (DPR Reader/FiD)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
ModelEMF1
DrQA (Chen et al., 2017)-6.3
BERTserini (Yang et al., 2019)-26.0
ORConvQA (Qu et al., 2020)-29.4
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD22.029.9
+ R3FINE (top-10)21.632.9
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 286, + 875, + 405 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 5: OR-QuAC test split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 414, + 882, + 444 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "R3FINE achieves an F1 score of 59 points on TOPIOCQA, and 32.9 on OR-QuAC, which are 3.9 and 3 points higher than the best models proposed in the original papers. It is worth noting that these large improvements are achieved with simple adjustments in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the well-established DPR+FiD baseline, and not via the introduction of new heavier and complex models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 884, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To further support our R3FINE strategy, in Table 3 we present an ablation study which quantifies its impact on the DPR+FiD pipeline. We note that introducing the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) always outperforms the DPR+FiD baseline (w/o SR), and at the same time it allows for a 5-fold input size reduction (top-10) while obtaining on-par or better results. In addition, a further finetuning step of the FiD (w/ SR + FT) outperforms the results obtained by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) by 1.7 and 2.9 F1 points on TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, respectively. Further experiments and ablation studies are provided in Appendix A.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 885, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Finally, in Figure 2 it can also be observed that using top-10 instead of top-50 can reduce FiD's latency by $60\\%$ on average across the two datasets. We conducted a latency measurement to evaluate the impact of the SemanticReranker", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6308", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and its associated parameters, with detailed information available in Appendix A. Given that the SemanticReranker consists of a single TransformerEncoder layer, its parameters are negligible when compared to both the DPR and FiD. Moreover, the SemanticReranker accounts only for $0.34\\%$ of the overall latency of the FiD reader, adding an additional 2.4ms per example on top of the 710ms taken by FiD. It is important to note that this impact is only considered in relation to FiD, as the retrieval phase remains constant regardless of the inclusion of the SemanticReranker.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Conclusions", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 305, + 257, + 321 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we identified several limitations of the typical Depnse Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline when applied in an ODCConvQA setting. We proposed and evaluated an improved approach by including a fast reranking component between these two modules and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed R3FINE strategy lead to a better latency/performance trade-off. The new baseline has proven to be both strong and efficient when compared to previous baselines, thus making it suitable for future comparisons of new approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 330, + 489, + 524 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 535, + 220, + 550 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The study presented in this work aimed to identify and address various limitations of the commonly used ODCConvQA pipeline. While our approach may not be technically groundbreaking, the work's novelty lies in the presented findings to design strong and efficient baselines for ODCConvQA. It should be noted that further research is needed to compare the performance of the proposed R3FINE strategy with other rerankers on non-conversational QA datasets, which would provide valuable insights into how effective the R3FINE approach is in different contexts.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 560, + 489, + 752 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 780, + 213, + 794 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Vaibhav Adlakha, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Kaheer Suleman, Harm de Vries, and Siva Reddy. 2022. TopiOCQA: Open-domain conversational question answering with topic switching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:468-483.", + "Vidhisha Balachandran, Ashish Vaswani, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Niki Parmar. 2021. Simple and ef" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 802, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "ficient ways to improve REALM. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering, pages 158-164, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Gianni Barlacchi, Ivano Lauriola, Alessandro Moschitti, Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Thuy Vu, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. Focusa: Open-domain question answering with a context in focus. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 5195-5208.", + "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In ACL.", + "Eunsol Choi, He He, Mohit Iyyer, Mark Yatskar, Wentau Yih, Yejin Choi, Percy Liang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. QuAC: Question answering in context. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2174-2184, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Xiaoyu Shen, Weiwei Cheng, and Adrià de Gispert. 2021. Question rewriting for open-domain conversational qa: Best practices and limitations. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 2974-2978.", + "Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. From rewriting to remembering: Common ground for conversational qa models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03930.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ahmed Elgohary, Denis Peskov, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2019. Can you unpack that? learning to rewrite questions-in-context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5918-5924, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Re2G: Retrieve, rerank, generate. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2701-2715, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6309", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3929-3938. PMLR.", + "Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, and Dongsheng Li. 2019. Retrieve, read, rerank: Towards end-to-end multi-document reading comprehension. In ACL.", + "Srinivasan Iyer, Sewon Min, Yashar Mehdad, and Wentau Yih. 2021. RECONSIDER: Improved re-ranking using span-focused cross-attention for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1280–1287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021a. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question answering. In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021b. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Gautier Izacard, Fabio Petroni, Lucas Hosseini, Nicola De Cao, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2020. A memory efficient baseline for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/2012.15156.", + "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9459-9474. Curran Associates, Inc.", + "Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 344-350, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Andrew McCallum, Manzil Zaheer, Rajarshi Das, and Shehzaad Dhuliawala. 2019. Multi-step retriever-reader interaction for scalable open-domain question answering. In ICLR.", + "Sewon Min, Danqi Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Knowledge guided text retrieval and reading for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/1911.03868.", + "Robert N. Oddy. 1977. Information retrieval through man-machine dialogue. Journal of Documentation, 33:1-14.", + "Chen Qu, Liu Yang, Cen-Chieh Chen, Minghui Qiu, W. Bruce Croft, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Open-retrieval conversational question answering. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.", + "Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. RocketQA: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5835-5847, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.", + "Xiaoyu Shen, Svitlana Vakulenko, Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2023. Neural ranking with weak supervision for open-domain question answering: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1691-1705.", + "Svitlana Vakulenko, Shayne Longpre, Zhucheng Tu, and Raviteja Anantha. 2021. Question rewriting for conversational question answering. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pages 355-363.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS.", + "Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy J. Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6310", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2022. KG-FiD: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4961-4974, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 85, + 489, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 212, + 236, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This section provides additional information in support of the work done within the paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 236, + 487, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 OR-QuAC conversion to TOPIOCQA's format and models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 278, + 473, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To make the OR-QuAC dataset compatible with TOPIOCQA's models, we applied the following steps:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 315, + 485, + 363 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- all answers of type CANNOTANSWER and NOTRECOVERED have been mapped to UNANSWERABLE", + "- for the DPR's ConversationEncoder component, we followed the TOPIOCQA's ALL-HISTORY conversation representation", + "- for the DPR's PassageEncoder component, each passage title has been reduced from \"passage_page_title [SEP] passage_page_subtitle\" to \"passage_page_title\". This is due to the fact that, compared to TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC does not provide the information about the section where a particular passage is located within the page.", + "- for the FiD component, each passage information has been reduced from \"title: sub-title: context:\" to \"title: context:\". This is done for the same reason mentioned in the previous point." + ], + "bbox": [ + 136, + 370, + 487, + 719 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Each passage text in OR-QuAC's Wikipedia knowledge source has been mapped to its corresponding embedding via the TOPIOCQA's PassageEncoder component. We then performed the same retrieval step as the one done for TOPIOCQA. We exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets as the retrieval phase is very similar between the two. However, given that, unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, we had to train the FiD module from scratch. We followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Reranker training and ablation study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 853, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We tried different configurations of the SemanticReranker to find the most efficient and effective one. In addition to the decision of whether to finetune the DPR's ConversationEncoder together with the SemanticReranker, we also tried varying the number of layers $L$ of the SemanticReranker from 1 to 4 and changing its input, by choosing a combination from:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 882, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- $h_{c_1}$ : use of conversation's history dense representation", + "- $h_{c_1}, \\ldots, h_{c_i}$ : use of conversation's history tokens dense representation", + "- $p_1, \\ldots, p_k$ : use of passages dense representation" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 244, + 882, + 359 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 6 shows the average top- $k$ results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, where $k$ varies between 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, and 1000. For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 372, + 882, + 483 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Given that the MIPS function cannot be applied when $p_1, \\ldots, p_k$ representations are used alone, i.e., without the conversation history, we applied a linear projection on top of the SemanticReranker to obtain a score for each passage in input.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 486, + 882, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As far as training the SemanticReranker is concerned, we trained it for 10 epochs when finetuned together with the ConversationEncoder. We instead trained it for 20 epochs when the ConversationEncoder was kept frozen and when $p_1, \\ldots, p_k$ representations were used alone. We leveraged the same objective function used for training the initial DPR. We used early stopping to chose the best performing model on the dev set. We also used a linear learning rate decay throughout the training process, and AdamW with a learning rate of 5e-5 and weight decay of 1e-2.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 565, + 882, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Among the different combinations shown in Table 6, we considered the first entry as the best choice, i.e., the model with $L = 1$ , $h_{c_1}$ , $p_1$ , ..., $p_k$ , and CrossEncoder finetuning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 759, + 882, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Retriever results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 834, + 690, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 7 shows the train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6311", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 517, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d8386c6e6358d7bc614e4cf1e924aee58fc4391992be273ffe065219171bbb76.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Lhc1hc1, ..., hc_ip1, ..., pkCrossEncoderTOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
1✓✓✓78.8571.51
1✓✓✓78.8871.48
4✓✓✓78.8471.32
1✓✓77.1769.83
1✓✓77.3570.18
4✓✓77.3070.45
1✓67.0764.18
", + "bbox": [ + 174, + 80, + 823, + 214 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 265, + 485, + 298 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/75fab5d0c732f78a142ad269b52904ab25a820b5c69050d904d9b63d223a0529.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Average top- $k$ results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, with different configurations." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
131.5498.2531.6977.31
566.9999.7159.0889.10
1078.2999.7266.3189.36
2086.7899.7271.7789.40
5093.5599.7277.3589.40
50099.3699.7287.1589.41
100099.7299.7289.4189.41
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 313, + 475, + 463 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 shows the dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit. Table 9 shows the OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 567, + 489, + 778 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Reader results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 796, + 278, + 810 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12 show the impact the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader. The input to the FiD reader are either passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) or passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d7b678cbb24f5a88fb27d44768410d178316df8bad81233902a13fe546d5f15c.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
551.8768.6251.6370.82
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
2070.2180.7561.3772.80
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
50089.5890.7372.9774.34
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
", + "bbox": [ + 521, + 262, + 870, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cec16bdbed7d0b8749006c12528bd22574002fe527a148d41bb4b8ec96d7f6e0.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SR
126.8248.75
546.2964.71
1051.5066.47
2055.6367.31
5059.8568.10
50067.8769.48
100069.8669.86
", + "bbox": [ + 591, + 538, + 800, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 697, + 882, + 770 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Reader is susceptible to noisy input", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 797, + 836, + 814 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 13 shows the FiD reader performance on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top- $k$ limit. This analysis is limited to the TOPIOCQA dataset as it is the only one to provide information about the gold passage for the dev split.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 822, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6312", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/4b51cd2af523cabfa8d9ed3c381bd542cbdbb4afe43c6c0ee0bce9bf3089194d.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.4
527.049.632.256.5
1029.852.433.257.3
2031.354.033.456.5
5033.055.133.956.2
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 80, + 438, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/74589fb0ab9e0d02e322b316617d7c0a9c0ea5e5623b0648eec6683b6dcd88ba.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
113.222.212.225.9
516.426.316.428.7
1018.027.618.029.4
2019.228.218.929.2
5019.627.719.327.7
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 282, + 438, + 418 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/c1ccc009938f6efd4f859609ad71416faa1abea1923680d676cc9e812d356ad4.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 11: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.723.013.925.7
517.827.117.929.5
1019.028.219.430.0
2020.329.120.830.5
5022.029.922.130.2
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 485, + 438, + 619 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d5717a6ee8ce3e6088de97613f34465ccfb340870cacf1058fd998554b9485fd.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 12: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
527.049.636.362.5
1029.852.435.861.5
2031.354.036.260.8
5033.055.135.959.5
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 687, + 438, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.6 Further reader study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 84, + 724, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To better understand the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader, Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 show the results obtained after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, we followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 882, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6aa37109d3410b5a804dcc84b1dc3904a3ee59ac7a57403c2d4292fdeb8041de.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 13: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top- $k$ limit." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.237.829.550.9
527.849.934.056.9
1030.452.034.357.0
", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 259, + 833, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3f3c61f88ad4c3a2b1c8572e46956235d47d8c3d884339a046f482463d81b692.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 14: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.223.113.927.6
518.027.718.130.8
1019.228.919.331.2
", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 481, + 833, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/84a0c9094c99310466ecc11bcebda91f90eed441466d02122c4147e4ae6445a8.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 15: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.523.915.828.3
519.629.119.431.7
1020.929.720.631.9
", + "bbox": [ + 557, + 690, + 833, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 16: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 801, + 880, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 show instead", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6313", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 927, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "the results obtained after taking an already finetuned FiD reader and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, the amount of finetuning steps is equal to the one used for training the already finetuned FiD reader.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/0062f03c90de733dd054503a4b6347e74a192bf5d2648d05a6e75144f78ebe0b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
121.539.330.752.4
530.452.336.159.4
1032.854.635.859.0
", + "bbox": [ + 163, + 205, + 438, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d6ed0122e3e65983617724fddf10a478c4e259524b536b310e503acb4e9ae9bd.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 17: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.223.815.429.0
518.928.418.431.2
1019.929.420.132.0
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 425, + 438, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/929579797758b5a4b284ebe8ce99f5f516213d02568f87454f3fe633b4418457.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 18: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
116.724.916.628.9
520.029.220.132.2
1021.430.021.632.9
", + "bbox": [ + 164, + 645, + 436, + 747 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 19: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 757, + 487, + 843 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.7 Latency measurement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 337, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Latency measurement (see Figure 2) has been performed on the same NVIDIA V100 16GB GPU, by", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "following the FiD's test_reader.py script provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. We set the per_gpu_batch_size parameter to 4 in all runs and chose the value of the n_context parameter from 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50, based on the number of input passages. For each value, we report the latency relative to the maximum n_context parameter value, i.e., 50. We used CUDA events synchronization markers to measure the elapsed time for the preprocessing and evaluation of TOPIOCQA's dev split and OR-QuAC's test split.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 262 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "6314", + "bbox": [ + 480, + 928, + 519, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_model.json b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e80646189fea3d4cc57e9d7279b62e04fab5435e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,1925 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.236, + 0.091, + 0.761, + 0.131 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.124, + 0.156, + 0.376, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrei C. Coman* \nIdiap Research Institute, EPFL andrei.coman@idiap.ch" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.408, + 0.156, + 0.591, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gianni Barlacchi \nAmazon Alexa AI \ngbarlac@amazon.com" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.656, + 0.156, + 0.844, + 0.206 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Adrià de Gispert \nAmazon Alexa AI \nagispert@amazon.com" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.279, + 0.461, + 0.606 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, the conversational (ODConvQA) domain has received limited attention when it comes to reevaluating baselines for both efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper, we study the State-of-the-Art (SotA) Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline, and show that it significantly underperforms when applied to ODCnvQA tasks due to various limitations. We then propose and evaluate strong yet simple and efficient baselines, by introducing a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. Experiments on two ODCnvQA tasks, namely TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, show that our method improves the SotA results, while reducing reader's latency by \\(60\\%\\). Finally, we provide new and valuable insights into the development of challenging baselines that serve as a reference for future, more intricate approaches, including those that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.617, + 0.26, + 0.632 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.642, + 0.49, + 0.899 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In an automated information-seeking conversation scenario between two parties, the human questioner asks a series of questions and expects to receive a relevant response from the answering system (Oddy, 1977). Current State-of-the-Art (SotA) shapes the answerer via two neural models, the Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and the Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) (Izacard and Grave, 2021b), which act as retriever and reader, respectively. Their success stems from the ability to overcome certain limitations of their sparse and extractive counterparts, such as not relying on lexical retrieval heuristics or extracting spans as a response (Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019; McCallum et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Among the most promising approaches are those concerning the improvement of training strategies (Guu et al., 2020; Balachandran et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2021), use of rerankers (Hu et al., 2019; Mao et al., 2021; Barlacchi et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2021; Glass et al., 2022), question rewriting (Vakulenko et al., 2021; Del Tredici et al., 2021), reader to retrieve knowledge distillation (Izacard and Grave, 2021a), memory-efficient pipeline (Izacard et al., 2020; Del Tredici et al., 2022), and leveraging structured information (Min et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.431, + 0.885, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, a reassessment of the baselines in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness appears to be under-explored in the conversational (ODConvQA) domain. In this paper, we focus on the typical DPR retriever and FiD reader (DPR+FiD) pipeline, and show its limitations when applied to the ODConvQA setting. Despite its popularity, we find that this baseline significantly underperforms when finetuned on downstream tasks. We show that simple improvements in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the DPR+FiD pipeline, provide a strong and efficient baseline that exceeds the performance of SotA models on two common ODConvQA datasets: TopiOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) and ORConvQA (OR-QuAC) (Qu et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.704, + 0.885, + 0.913 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We point out several limitations of the pipeline, such as: 1) reader's susceptibility to noisy input, 2) retriever's reduced coverage, 3) retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages, and 4) reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. To mitigate these, we propose and evaluate a simple and effective approach by including a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy leads to baseline models with a better latency/performance trade-off." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Work was done during an internship at Amazon Science." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6305" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.218, + 0.946, + 0.78, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6305-6314 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.192 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.309, + 0.2, + 0.686, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: The Retriever-Reranker-Reader (R3) pipeline" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.24, + 0.49, + 0.306 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "These baselines, which are simple and easy to replicate, serve as a reference point for comparing new and more complex models, and determining their effectiveness. Our contributions are the following:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.315, + 0.487, + 0.347 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We identify and address several limitations of the typical pipeline used in ODConvQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.357, + 0.488, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose the R3FINE strategy, which improves SotA results on two common datasets and reduces pipeline's latency by \\(60\\%\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.416, + 0.49, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We provide new and valuable insights for creating simple and efficient baselines, which serve as a reference point for future comparison of new more complex approaches." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.315, + 0.49, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.492, + 0.476, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 End-to-End Baselines for ODConvQA" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.518, + 0.49, + 0.888 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section provides a brief introduction to the pipeline on which this work focuses. Figure 1 shows the typical pipeline used within the ODConvQA setting, featuring an additional reranker component. A conversation history is input to the DPR retriever. This module exploits a dual-encoder based on the BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) model. First, it encodes the conversation history via the ConversationEncoder component, which takes as input the text of the conversation history \\( c_{1}, c_{2}, \\ldots, c_{i} \\), and then it outputs a dense representation \\( h_{c} \\). Next, this representation is used to perform a dense search to retrieve the most relevant passages, i.e., text blocks that serve as basic retrieval units, from an external knowledge source (e.g., Wikipedia). The latter contains dense representations of the passages that have been encoded via the PassageEncoder component, which takes as input a \\( j \\)-th passage with a given text length \\( N \\), i.e., \\( p_{j_1}, p_{j_2}, \\ldots, p_{j_N} \\), and outputs a dense representation \\( h_{p_j} \\). The dense search is performed via the Maximum Inner-Product Search (MIPS) function which outputs the value corresponding to \\( h_c^{\\top} \\cdot h_{p_j} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Once the top- \\(k\\) relevant passages have been retrieved, their text is appended to the conversa" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.24, + 0.885, + 0.402 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tion history and subsequently passed to the FiD reader, which is based on the T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) model. The newly created textual sequences of length \\(S\\) are then encoded in parallel via the Encoder component that outputs a dense representation \\(\\bar{h} = \\{h_1,\\dots ,h_S\\}\\). As a final step, the dense representations of the entire list of \\(k\\) input passages are concatenated to form a single \\(\\bar{h}_1\\oplus \\bar{h}_2,\\ldots ,\\oplus \\bar{h}_k\\) sequence that forms the input to the Decoder component responsible for generating the answer \\(a\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.413, + 0.749, + 0.43 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Strong Baseline Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.438, + 0.884, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work focuses on two main datasets. TOPIOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) is a large-scale open-domain information-seeking conversational dataset that contains a challenging phenomenon in the form of topic switching. OR-QuAC (Qu et al., 2020) leverages CANARD's (Elgohary et al., 2019) context-independent question rewrites of the QuAC (Choi et al., 2018) dataset, and adapts it to the open-domain setting. Further details regarding the datasets are provided in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.599, + 0.884, + 0.711 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We outline a number of limitations of the typical DPR+FiD pipeline, along with suggestions on how to mitigate them. While some of those interconnect at different levels the various efforts made in the ODQA domain (Balachandran et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022), our goal is to offer a perspective on the ODConvQA setting." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.722, + 0.845, + 0.737 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Current Limitations and Bottlenecks" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reader's susceptibility to noisy input. Previous findings have shown that the FiD reader performance significantly improves when increasing the number of retrieved passages (Izacard and Grave, 2021b). While confirming this finding, in Table 1 we also present a different perspective to it. We show that when the same reader model is provided with the relevant (i.e., gold) passage in input, the performance decreases as the number of retrieved passages increases. This suggests that there is a balance in presenting input to the reader: if the gold" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6306" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.082, + 0.44, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
1029.852.435.861.5
5033.055.135.959.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.193, + 0.489, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top-\\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.262, + 0.489, + 0.309 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "passage is present, i.e., the retriever could retrieve it, a small relevant list is best, but otherwise a larger list is better." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.32, + 0.49, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retriever's reduced coverage. Current solutions impose a hard top-\\(k\\) limit on the number of passages returned by the DPR retriever and assume that the relevant ones are present within this limit. Table 1 shows that coverage is key during the retrieval phase for the reader to perform well. To improve it, we suggest introducing a simple and efficient Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) reranker component after the retriever. This component, shown in Figure 1 and described in the next paragraph, is designed to reconsider a larger pool of passages returned by the DPR and to provide the FiD with a reduced and improved list of passages. Since this module operates at the semantic level, we refer to it as the SemanticReranker. Table 2 shows the potential coverage margins and the retrieval results obtained after the introduction of such a module, when a larger number of passages (50 vs 1000) is considered." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.635, + 0.49, + 0.797 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages. The DPR retriever performs independent encoding of the passages via the PassageEncoder function. This means that it is not able to exploit the semantic relationship among them. This can be mitigated via the introduction of the previously mentioned SemanticReranker component. This new module is based on the TransformerEncoder and applies the following function:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.807, + 0.482, + 0.829 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\tilde {h} _ {c}, \\tilde {h} _ {p _ {1}}, \\ldots , \\tilde {h} _ {p _ {k}} = R e r a n k e r (h _ {c}, h _ {p _ {1}}, \\ldots , h _ {p _ {k}})\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.839, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where each element of the input attends to both the conversation dense representation \\( h_c \\) and passages dense representations \\( h_{p_i} \\). Reranking is performed over the new output sequence \\( \\tilde{h}_c, \\tilde{h}_{p_1}, \\ldots, \\tilde{h}_{p_k} \\) via the previously mentioned MIPS function." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.082, + 0.875, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.193, + 0.884, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.263, + 0.885, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. Figure 2 shows that the latency of the reader can be significantly reduced by decreasing the number of input passages. However, a trivial limitation to top-\\(k\\) considerably degrades the performance of the module, thus leading to an inevitable trade-off. The task of the SemanticReranker involves pushing relevant passages into the top-\\(k\\) list, and allowing for a low \\(k\\) value to be set." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.433, + 0.883, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.884, + 0.688 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: FiD reader performance (F1 score and latency) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split, with varying top-\\(k\\) input passages. Latency is relative to the top-50 (top-\\(k\\) vs top-50)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.72, + 0.803, + 0.736 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 A Strong and Efficient Baseline" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.743, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the findings above, we introduce the Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy, which can be used to design strong and efficient baselines for ODConvQA. First, we increase the number of passages returned by the DPR from the initial 50 to 1000. Then, we add the SemanticReranker component, which corresponds to a single TransformerEncoder layer. We train/finetune the SemanticReranker along with the ConversationEncoder while keeping the PassageEncoder frozen. Guided by the intu" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6307" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.148, + 0.082, + 0.852, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FTw/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FT
top-kEMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.430.752.414.723.013.925.716.628.9
1029.852.433.257.335.859.019.028.219.430.021.632.9
5033.055.133.956.235.256.122.029.922.130.223.532.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.193, + 0.885, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR), together with the results obtained after a further reader finetuning step with top-10 output by the SR (w/ SR + FT). Underlined values indicate the results obtained by the DPR+FiD pipeline. Bold values indicate the results obtained after the introduction of the SR together with targeted finetuning steps." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.287, + 0.476, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TopIOCQA
ModelEMF1
BM25 + DPR Reader13.625.0
BM25 + FiD24.137.2
DPR Retriever + DPR Reader21.043.4
DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.3
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.1
+ R3FINE (top-10)35.859.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.431, + 0.49, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: TOPIOCQA dev split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison between sparse/dense retrievers (BM25/DPR Retriever) and extractive/generative readers (DPR Reader/FiD)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.513, + 0.49, + 0.593 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ition that less but more relevant passages are beneficial to FiD as reported in Table 1, we finally perform an additional finetuning step by leveraging the new top-10 list of passages returned by the SemanticReranker." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.604, + 0.367, + 0.621 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments and Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.629, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section shows the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker module has on the pipeline, as well as the finetuning steps we followed to make the pipeline more efficient without compromising its performance." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.718, + 0.49, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Experimental Setup. As the starting point of our experiments, we used the DPR and FiD models provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. Currently, only the train and dev splits are made available for this dataset. We followed the same experimental setup and exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets. Unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, and for this reason we trained the FiD module from scratch by following the same training configuration of TOPIOCQA." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "End-to-End Results. Table 4 and Table 5 compare our R3FINE strategy with previous baselines." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.287, + 0.876, + 0.406 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
ModelEMF1
DrQA (Chen et al., 2017)-6.3
BERTserini (Yang et al., 2019)-26.0
ORConvQA (Qu et al., 2020)-29.4
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD22.029.9
+ R3FINE (top-10)21.632.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.415, + 0.883, + 0.445 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: OR-QuAC test split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.485, + 0.885, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "R3FINE achieves an F1 score of 59 points on TOPIOCQA, and 32.9 on OR-QuAC, which are 3.9 and 3 points higher than the best models proposed in the original papers. It is worth noting that these large improvements are achieved with simple adjustments in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the well-established DPR+FiD baseline, and not via the introduction of new heavier and complex models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.63, + 0.886, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To further support our R3FINE strategy, in Table 3 we present an ablation study which quantifies its impact on the DPR+FiD pipeline. We note that introducing the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) always outperforms the DPR+FiD baseline (w/o SR), and at the same time it allows for a 5-fold input size reduction (top-10) while obtaining on-par or better results. In addition, a further finetuning step of the FiD (w/ SR + FT) outperforms the results obtained by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) by 1.7 and 2.9 F1 points on TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, respectively. Further experiments and ablation studies are provided in Appendix A." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Finally, in Figure 2 it can also be observed that using top-10 instead of top-50 can reduce FiD's latency by \\(60\\%\\) on average across the two datasets. We conducted a latency measurement to evaluate the impact of the SemanticReranker" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6308" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and its associated parameters, with detailed information available in Appendix A. Given that the SemanticReranker consists of a single TransformerEncoder layer, its parameters are negligible when compared to both the DPR and FiD. Moreover, the SemanticReranker accounts only for \\(0.34\\%\\) of the overall latency of the FiD reader, adding an additional 2.4ms per example on top of the 710ms taken by FiD. It is important to note that this impact is only considered in relation to FiD, as the retrieval phase remains constant regardless of the inclusion of the SemanticReranker." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.306, + 0.258, + 0.322 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Conclusions" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.331, + 0.49, + 0.525 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we identified several limitations of the typical Depnse Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline when applied in an ODCConvQA setting. We proposed and evaluated an improved approach by including a fast reranking component between these two modules and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed R3FINE strategy lead to a better latency/performance trade-off. The new baseline has proven to be both strong and efficient when compared to previous baselines, thus making it suitable for future comparisons of new approaches." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.536, + 0.221, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.561, + 0.49, + 0.753 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The study presented in this work aimed to identify and address various limitations of the commonly used ODCConvQA pipeline. While our approach may not be technically groundbreaking, the work's novelty lies in the presented findings to design strong and efficient baselines for ODCConvQA. It should be noted that further research is needed to compare the performance of the proposed R3FINE strategy with other rerankers on non-conversational QA datasets, which would provide valuable insights into how effective the R3FINE approach is in different contexts." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.781, + 0.215, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.803, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vaibhav Adlakha, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Kaheer Suleman, Harm de Vries, and Siva Reddy. 2022. TopiOCQA: Open-domain conversational question answering with topic switching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:468-483." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.892, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vidhisha Balachandran, Ashish Vaswani, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Niki Parmar. 2021. Simple and ef" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.803, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.527, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ficient ways to improve REALM. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering, pages 158-164, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.153, + 0.885, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gianni Barlacchi, Ivano Lauriola, Alessandro Moschitti, Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Thuy Vu, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. Focusa: Open-domain question answering with a context in focus. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 5195-5208." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.245, + 0.885, + 0.285 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.299, + 0.885, + 0.391 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Eunsol Choi, He He, Mohit Iyyer, Mark Yatskar, Wentau Yih, Yejin Choi, Percy Liang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. QuAC: Question answering in context. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2174-2184, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.404, + 0.885, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Xiaoyu Shen, Weiwei Cheng, and Adrià de Gispert. 2021. Question rewriting for open-domain conversational qa: Best practices and limitations. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 2974-2978." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.497, + 0.884, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. From rewriting to remembering: Common ground for conversational qa models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03930." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.564, + 0.885, + 0.682 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ahmed Elgohary, Denis Peskov, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2019. Can you unpack that? learning to rewrite questions-in-context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5918-5924, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.814, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Re2G: Retrieve, rerank, generate. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2701-2715, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6309" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.165 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3929-3938. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.176, + 0.487, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, and Dongsheng Li. 2019. Retrieve, read, rerank: Towards end-to-end multi-document reading comprehension. In ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.239, + 0.487, + 0.343 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Srinivasan Iyer, Sewon Min, Yashar Mehdad, and Wentau Yih. 2021. RECONSIDER: Improved re-ranking using span-focused cross-attention for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1280–1287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.355, + 0.487, + 0.407 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021a. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question answering. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.418, + 0.487, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021b. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.521, + 0.487, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Fabio Petroni, Lucas Hosseini, Nicola De Cao, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2020. A memory efficient baseline for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/2012.15156." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.584, + 0.487, + 0.676 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.687, + 0.487, + 0.765 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.776, + 0.487, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9459-9474. Curran Associates, Inc." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.487, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 344-350, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.162, + 0.882, + 0.214 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Andrew McCallum, Manzil Zaheer, Rajarshi Das, and Shehzaad Dhuliawala. 2019. Multi-step retriever-reader interaction for scalable open-domain question answering. In ICLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.224, + 0.882, + 0.276 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sewon Min, Danqi Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Knowledge guided text retrieval and reading for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/1911.03868." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.286, + 0.882, + 0.325 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Robert N. Oddy. 1977. Information retrieval through man-machine dialogue. Journal of Documentation, 33:1-14." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.336, + 0.882, + 0.413 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chen Qu, Liu Yang, Cen-Chieh Chen, Minghui Qiu, W. Bruce Croft, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Open-retrieval conversational question answering. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.424, + 0.882, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. RocketQA: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5835-5847, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.552, + 0.882, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.64, + 0.882, + 0.718 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoyu Shen, Svitlana Vakulenko, Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2023. Neural ranking with weak supervision for open-domain question answering: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1691-1705." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.728, + 0.882, + 0.794 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Svitlana Vakulenko, Shayne Longpre, Zhucheng Tu, and Raviteja Anantha. 2021. Question rewriting for conversational question answering. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pages 355-363." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.804, + 0.882, + 0.856 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.866, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy J. Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6310" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2022. KG-FiD: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4961-4974, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.213, + 0.238, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.237, + 0.489, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This section provides additional information in support of the work done within the paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.279, + 0.475, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 OR-QuAC conversion to TOPIOCQA's format and models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.316, + 0.487, + 0.364 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To make the OR-QuAC dataset compatible with TOPIOCQA's models, we applied the following steps:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.371, + 0.486, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- all answers of type CANNOTANSWER and NOTRECOVERED have been mapped to UNANSWERABLE" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.429, + 0.488, + 0.475 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- for the DPR's ConversationEncoder component, we followed the TOPIOCQA's ALL-HISTORY conversation representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.486, + 0.488, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- for the DPR's PassageEncoder component, each passage title has been reduced from \"passage_page_title [SEP] passage_page_subtitle\" to \"passage_page_title\". This is due to the fact that, compared to TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC does not provide the information about the section where a particular passage is located within the page." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.64, + 0.488, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- for the FiD component, each passage information has been reduced from \"title: sub-title: context:\" to \"title: context:\". This is done for the same reason mentioned in the previous point." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.371, + 0.488, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Each passage text in OR-QuAC's Wikipedia knowledge source has been mapped to its corresponding embedding via the TOPIOCQA's PassageEncoder component. We then performed the same retrieval step as the one done for TOPIOCQA. We exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets as the retrieval phase is very similar between the two. However, given that, unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, we had to train the FiD module from scratch. We followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.854, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Reranker training and ablation study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.883, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We tried different configurations of the SemanticReranker to find the most efficient and effective one. In addition to the decision of whether to finetune the DPR's ConversationEncoder together with the SemanticReranker, we also tried varying the number of layers \\( L \\) of the SemanticReranker from 1 to 4 and changing its input, by choosing a combination from:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.245, + 0.883, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- \\( h_{c_1} \\): use of conversation's history dense representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.288, + 0.883, + 0.319 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- \\( h_{c_1}, \\ldots, h_{c_i} \\): use of conversation's history tokens dense representation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.332, + 0.883, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- \\( p_1, \\ldots, p_k \\): use of passages dense representation" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.245, + 0.883, + 0.36 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.373, + 0.884, + 0.485 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6 shows the average top- \\(k\\) results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, where \\(k\\) varies between 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, and 1000. For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- \\(k\\) limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- \\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.884, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Given that the MIPS function cannot be applied when \\( p_1, \\ldots, p_k \\) representations are used alone, i.e., without the conversation history, we applied a linear projection on top of the SemanticReranker to obtain a score for each passage in input." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.567, + 0.884, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As far as training the SemanticReranker is concerned, we trained it for 10 epochs when finetuned together with the ConversationEncoder. We instead trained it for 20 epochs when the ConversationEncoder was kept frozen and when \\( p_1, \\ldots, p_k \\) representations were used alone. We leveraged the same objective function used for training the initial DPR. We used early stopping to chose the best performing model on the dev set. We also used a linear learning rate decay throughout the training process, and AdamW with a learning rate of 5e-5 and weight decay of 1e-2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.76, + 0.883, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Among the different combinations shown in Table 6, we considered the first entry as the best choice, i.e., the model with \\( L = 1 \\), \\( h_{c_1} \\), \\( p_1 \\), ..., \\( p_k \\), and CrossEncoder finetuning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.835, + 0.692, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Retriever results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7 shows the train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.519, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6311" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.175, + 0.082, + 0.825, + 0.215 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Lhc1hc1, ..., hc_ip1, ..., pkCrossEncoderTOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
1✓✓✓78.8571.51
1✓✓✓78.8871.48
4✓✓✓78.8471.32
1✓✓77.1769.83
1✓✓77.3570.18
4✓✓77.3070.45
1✓67.0764.18
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.225, + 0.882, + 0.24 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Average top- \\( k \\) results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, with different configurations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.266, + 0.486, + 0.299 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top-\\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.126, + 0.314, + 0.476, + 0.464 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
131.5498.2531.6977.31
566.9999.7159.0889.10
1078.2999.7266.3189.36
2086.7899.7271.7789.40
5093.5599.7277.3589.40
50099.3699.7287.1589.41
100099.7299.7289.4189.41
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.474, + 0.49, + 0.547 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top-\\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.568, + 0.49, + 0.779 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 shows the dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- \\(k\\) limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- \\(k\\) limit. Table 9 shows the OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top- \\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.797, + 0.279, + 0.811 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Reader results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12 show the impact the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader. The input to the FiD reader are either passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) or passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.263, + 0.872, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
551.8768.6251.6370.82
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
2070.2180.7561.3772.80
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
50089.5890.7372.9774.34
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.422, + 0.885, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top-\\(k\\) limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top-\\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.593, + 0.539, + 0.801, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SR
126.8248.75
546.2964.71
1051.5066.47
2055.6367.31
5059.8568.10
50067.8769.48
100069.8669.86
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.699, + 0.884, + 0.771 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top-\\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.799, + 0.837, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Reader is susceptible to noisy input" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.823, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13 shows the FiD reader performance on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top-\\(k\\) limit. This analysis is limited to the TOPIOCQA dataset as it is the only one to provide information about the gold passage for the dev split." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6312" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.082, + 0.44, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.4
527.049.632.256.5
1029.852.433.257.3
2031.354.033.456.5
5033.055.133.956.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.225, + 0.488, + 0.268 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.284, + 0.44, + 0.419 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
113.222.212.225.9
516.426.316.428.7
1018.027.618.029.4
2019.228.218.929.2
5019.627.719.327.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.428, + 0.487, + 0.471 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.486, + 0.44, + 0.62 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.723.013.925.7
517.827.117.929.5
1019.028.219.430.0
2020.329.120.830.5
5022.029.922.130.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.63, + 0.487, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.688, + 0.439, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
527.049.636.362.5
1029.852.435.861.5
2031.354.036.260.8
5033.055.135.959.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.832, + 0.487, + 0.876 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 13: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top-\\(k\\) limit." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.085, + 0.726, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.6 Further reader study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.884, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To better understand the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader, Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 show the results obtained after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, we followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.26, + 0.835, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.237.829.550.9
527.849.934.056.9
1030.452.034.357.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.372, + 0.882, + 0.457 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 14: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.482, + 0.835, + 0.584 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.223.113.927.6
518.027.718.130.8
1019.228.919.331.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.594, + 0.884, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 15: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.559, + 0.691, + 0.835, + 0.793 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.523.915.828.3
519.629.119.431.7
1020.929.720.631.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.802, + 0.882, + 0.887 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 16: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 show instead" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.928, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6313" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the results obtained after taking an already finetuned FiD reader and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, the amount of finetuning steps is equal to the one used for training the already finetuned FiD reader." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.164, + 0.206, + 0.44, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
121.539.330.752.4
530.452.336.159.4
1032.854.635.859.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.318, + 0.49, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 17: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.426, + 0.44, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.223.815.429.0
518.928.418.431.2
1019.929.420.132.0
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.538, + 0.49, + 0.624 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 18: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.165, + 0.646, + 0.438, + 0.748 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
116.724.916.628.9
520.029.220.132.2
1021.430.021.632.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.758, + 0.488, + 0.844 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 19: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.339, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.7 Latency measurement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Latency measurement (see Figure 2) has been performed on the same NVIDIA V100 16GB GPU, by" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.263 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "following the FiD's test_reader.py script provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. We set the per_gpu_batch_size parameter to 4 in all runs and chose the value of the n_context parameter from 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50, based on the number of input passages. For each value, we report the latency relative to the maximum n_context parameter value, i.e., 50. We used CUDA events synchronization markers to measure the elapsed time for the preprocessing and evaluation of TOPIOCQA's dev split and OR-QuAC's test split." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.481, + 0.929, + 0.521, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6314" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_origin.pdf b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8002d9d92618abf9d76892ada66388c4bc2d42ef --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/e4d4b958-cdad-450e-bcb0-13eba56e0063_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:3c836785b2143711a0e22114e4484260cd2eb4b94bcda79201c28586acf3a7bf +size 339936 diff --git a/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/full.md b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f7032ab52353f868c948f55058ca8ac2d99f4c2c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,277 @@ +# Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering + +Andrei C. Coman* +Idiap Research Institute, EPFL andrei.coman@idiap.ch + +Gianni Barlacchi +Amazon Alexa AI +gbarlac@amazon.com + +Adrià de Gispert +Amazon Alexa AI +agispert@amazon.com + +# Abstract + +Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, the conversational (ODConvQA) domain has received limited attention when it comes to reevaluating baselines for both efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper, we study the State-of-the-Art (SotA) Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline, and show that it significantly underperforms when applied to ODCnvQA tasks due to various limitations. We then propose and evaluate strong yet simple and efficient baselines, by introducing a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. Experiments on two ODCnvQA tasks, namely TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, show that our method improves the SotA results, while reducing reader's latency by $60\%$ . Finally, we provide new and valuable insights into the development of challenging baselines that serve as a reference for future, more intricate approaches, including those that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs). + +# 1 Introduction + +In an automated information-seeking conversation scenario between two parties, the human questioner asks a series of questions and expects to receive a relevant response from the answering system (Oddy, 1977). Current State-of-the-Art (SotA) shapes the answerer via two neural models, the Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and the Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) (Izacard and Grave, 2021b), which act as retriever and reader, respectively. Their success stems from the ability to overcome certain limitations of their sparse and extractive counterparts, such as not relying on lexical retrieval heuristics or extracting spans as a response (Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019; McCallum et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023). + +Among the most promising approaches are those concerning the improvement of training strategies (Guu et al., 2020; Balachandran et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2021), use of rerankers (Hu et al., 2019; Mao et al., 2021; Barlacchi et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2021; Glass et al., 2022), question rewriting (Vakulenko et al., 2021; Del Tredici et al., 2021), reader to retrieve knowledge distillation (Izacard and Grave, 2021a), memory-efficient pipeline (Izacard et al., 2020; Del Tredici et al., 2022), and leveraging structured information (Min et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2022). + +Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, a reassessment of the baselines in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness appears to be under-explored in the conversational (ODConvQA) domain. In this paper, we focus on the typical DPR retriever and FiD reader (DPR+FiD) pipeline, and show its limitations when applied to the ODConvQA setting. Despite its popularity, we find that this baseline significantly underperforms when finetuned on downstream tasks. We show that simple improvements in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the DPR+FiD pipeline, provide a strong and efficient baseline that exceeds the performance of SotA models on two common ODConvQA datasets: TopiOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) and ORConvQA (OR-QuAC) (Qu et al., 2020). + +We point out several limitations of the pipeline, such as: 1) reader's susceptibility to noisy input, 2) retriever's reduced coverage, 3) retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages, and 4) reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. To mitigate these, we propose and evaluate a simple and effective approach by including a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy leads to baseline models with a better latency/performance trade-off. + +![](images/62dfdf91783a288f0d7bc6898f9f834dea28191dca98f5a5c5d313df0f93a87c.jpg) +Figure 1: The Retriever-Reranker-Reader (R3) pipeline + +These baselines, which are simple and easy to replicate, serve as a reference point for comparing new and more complex models, and determining their effectiveness. Our contributions are the following: + +- We identify and address several limitations of the typical pipeline used in ODConvQA. +- We propose the R3FINE strategy, which improves SotA results on two common datasets and reduces pipeline's latency by $60\%$ . +- We provide new and valuable insights for creating simple and efficient baselines, which serve as a reference point for future comparison of new more complex approaches. + +# 2 End-to-End Baselines for ODConvQA + +This section provides a brief introduction to the pipeline on which this work focuses. Figure 1 shows the typical pipeline used within the ODConvQA setting, featuring an additional reranker component. A conversation history is input to the DPR retriever. This module exploits a dual-encoder based on the BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) model. First, it encodes the conversation history via the ConversationEncoder component, which takes as input the text of the conversation history $c_{1}, c_{2}, \ldots, c_{i}$ , and then it outputs a dense representation $h_{c}$ . Next, this representation is used to perform a dense search to retrieve the most relevant passages, i.e., text blocks that serve as basic retrieval units, from an external knowledge source (e.g., Wikipedia). The latter contains dense representations of the passages that have been encoded via the PassageEncoder component, which takes as input a $j$ -th passage with a given text length $N$ , i.e., $p_{j_1}, p_{j_2}, \ldots, p_{j_N}$ , and outputs a dense representation $h_{p_j}$ . The dense search is performed via the Maximum Inner-Product Search (MIPS) function which outputs the value corresponding to $h_c^{\top} \cdot h_{p_j}$ . + +Once the top- $k$ relevant passages have been retrieved, their text is appended to the conversa + +tion history and subsequently passed to the FiD reader, which is based on the T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) model. The newly created textual sequences of length $S$ are then encoded in parallel via the Encoder component that outputs a dense representation $\bar{h} = \{h_1,\dots ,h_S\}$ . As a final step, the dense representations of the entire list of $k$ input passages are concatenated to form a single $\bar{h}_1\oplus \bar{h}_2,\ldots ,\oplus \bar{h}_k$ sequence that forms the input to the Decoder component responsible for generating the answer $a$ . + +# 3 Strong Baseline Models + +This work focuses on two main datasets. TOPIOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) is a large-scale open-domain information-seeking conversational dataset that contains a challenging phenomenon in the form of topic switching. OR-QuAC (Qu et al., 2020) leverages CANARD's (Elgohary et al., 2019) context-independent question rewrites of the QuAC (Choi et al., 2018) dataset, and adapts it to the open-domain setting. Further details regarding the datasets are provided in Appendix A. + +We outline a number of limitations of the typical DPR+FiD pipeline, along with suggestions on how to mitigate them. While some of those interconnect at different levels the various efforts made in the ODQA domain (Balachandran et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022), our goal is to offer a perspective on the ODConvQA setting. + +# 3.1 Current Limitations and Bottlenecks + +Reader's susceptibility to noisy input. Previous findings have shown that the FiD reader performance significantly improves when increasing the number of retrieved passages (Izacard and Grave, 2021b). While confirming this finding, in Table 1 we also present a different perspective to it. We show that when the same reader model is provided with the relevant (i.e., gold) passage in input, the performance decreases as the number of retrieved passages increases. This suggests that there is a balance in presenting input to the reader: if the gold + +
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
1029.852.435.861.5
5033.055.135.959.5
+ +passage is present, i.e., the retriever could retrieve it, a small relevant list is best, but otherwise a larger list is better. + +Retriever's reduced coverage. Current solutions impose a hard top- $k$ limit on the number of passages returned by the DPR retriever and assume that the relevant ones are present within this limit. Table 1 shows that coverage is key during the retrieval phase for the reader to perform well. To improve it, we suggest introducing a simple and efficient Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) reranker component after the retriever. This component, shown in Figure 1 and described in the next paragraph, is designed to reconsider a larger pool of passages returned by the DPR and to provide the FiD with a reduced and improved list of passages. Since this module operates at the semantic level, we refer to it as the SemanticReranker. Table 2 shows the potential coverage margins and the retrieval results obtained after the introduction of such a module, when a larger number of passages (50 vs 1000) is considered. + +Retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages. The DPR retriever performs independent encoding of the passages via the PassageEncoder function. This means that it is not able to exploit the semantic relationship among them. This can be mitigated via the introduction of the previously mentioned SemanticReranker component. This new module is based on the TransformerEncoder and applies the following function: + +$$ +\tilde {h} _ {c}, \tilde {h} _ {p _ {1}}, \ldots , \tilde {h} _ {p _ {k}} = R e r a n k e r (h _ {c}, h _ {p _ {1}}, \ldots , h _ {p _ {k}}) +$$ + +where each element of the input attends to both the conversation dense representation $h_c$ and passages dense representations $h_{p_i}$ . Reranking is performed over the new output sequence $\tilde{h}_c, \tilde{h}_{p_1}, \ldots, \tilde{h}_{p_k}$ via the previously mentioned MIPS function. + +Table 1: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top- $k$ limit. + +
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
+ +Table 2: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). + +Reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. Figure 2 shows that the latency of the reader can be significantly reduced by decreasing the number of input passages. However, a trivial limitation to top- $k$ considerably degrades the performance of the module, thus leading to an inevitable trade-off. The task of the SemanticReranker involves pushing relevant passages into the top- $k$ list, and allowing for a low $k$ value to be set. + +![](images/855e885151475458469485cf5d27cca9ed7f696eddd52c90a6900d67a1180d76.jpg) +Figure 2: FiD reader performance (F1 score and latency) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split, with varying top- $k$ input passages. Latency is relative to the top-50 (top- $k$ vs top-50). + +# 3.2 A Strong and Efficient Baseline + +Based on the findings above, we introduce the Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy, which can be used to design strong and efficient baselines for ODConvQA. First, we increase the number of passages returned by the DPR from the initial 50 to 1000. Then, we add the SemanticReranker component, which corresponds to a single TransformerEncoder layer. We train/finetune the SemanticReranker along with the ConversationEncoder while keeping the PassageEncoder frozen. Guided by the intu + +
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FTw/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FT
top-kEMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.430.752.414.723.013.925.716.628.9
1029.852.433.257.335.859.019.028.219.430.021.632.9
5033.055.133.956.235.256.122.029.922.130.223.532.2
+ +Table 3: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR), together with the results obtained after a further reader finetuning step with top-10 output by the SR (w/ SR + FT). Underlined values indicate the results obtained by the DPR+FiD pipeline. Bold values indicate the results obtained after the introduction of the SR together with targeted finetuning steps. + +
TopIOCQA
ModelEMF1
BM25 + DPR Reader13.625.0
BM25 + FiD24.137.2
DPR Retriever + DPR Reader21.043.4
DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.3
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.1
+ R3FINE (top-10)35.859.0
+ +ition that less but more relevant passages are beneficial to FiD as reported in Table 1, we finally perform an additional finetuning step by leveraging the new top-10 list of passages returned by the SemanticReranker. + +# 4 Experiments and Results + +This section shows the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker module has on the pipeline, as well as the finetuning steps we followed to make the pipeline more efficient without compromising its performance. + +Experimental Setup. As the starting point of our experiments, we used the DPR and FiD models provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. Currently, only the train and dev splits are made available for this dataset. We followed the same experimental setup and exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets. Unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, and for this reason we trained the FiD module from scratch by following the same training configuration of TOPIOCQA. + +End-to-End Results. Table 4 and Table 5 compare our R3FINE strategy with previous baselines. + +Table 4: TOPIOCQA dev split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison between sparse/dense retrievers (BM25/DPR Retriever) and extractive/generative readers (DPR Reader/FiD). + +
OR-QuAC
ModelEMF1
DrQA (Chen et al., 2017)-6.3
BERTserini (Yang et al., 2019)-26.0
ORConvQA (Qu et al., 2020)-29.4
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD22.029.9
+ R3FINE (top-10)21.632.9
+ +Table 5: OR-QuAC test split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison. + +R3FINE achieves an F1 score of 59 points on TOPIOCQA, and 32.9 on OR-QuAC, which are 3.9 and 3 points higher than the best models proposed in the original papers. It is worth noting that these large improvements are achieved with simple adjustments in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the well-established DPR+FiD baseline, and not via the introduction of new heavier and complex models. + +To further support our R3FINE strategy, in Table 3 we present an ablation study which quantifies its impact on the DPR+FiD pipeline. We note that introducing the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) always outperforms the DPR+FiD baseline (w/o SR), and at the same time it allows for a 5-fold input size reduction (top-10) while obtaining on-par or better results. In addition, a further finetuning step of the FiD (w/ SR + FT) outperforms the results obtained by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) by 1.7 and 2.9 F1 points on TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, respectively. Further experiments and ablation studies are provided in Appendix A. + +Finally, in Figure 2 it can also be observed that using top-10 instead of top-50 can reduce FiD's latency by $60\%$ on average across the two datasets. We conducted a latency measurement to evaluate the impact of the SemanticReranker + +and its associated parameters, with detailed information available in Appendix A. Given that the SemanticReranker consists of a single TransformerEncoder layer, its parameters are negligible when compared to both the DPR and FiD. Moreover, the SemanticReranker accounts only for $0.34\%$ of the overall latency of the FiD reader, adding an additional 2.4ms per example on top of the 710ms taken by FiD. It is important to note that this impact is only considered in relation to FiD, as the retrieval phase remains constant regardless of the inclusion of the SemanticReranker. + +# 5 Conclusions + +In this paper, we identified several limitations of the typical Depnse Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline when applied in an ODCConvQA setting. We proposed and evaluated an improved approach by including a fast reranking component between these two modules and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed R3FINE strategy lead to a better latency/performance trade-off. The new baseline has proven to be both strong and efficient when compared to previous baselines, thus making it suitable for future comparisons of new approaches. + +# Limitations + +The study presented in this work aimed to identify and address various limitations of the commonly used ODCConvQA pipeline. While our approach may not be technically groundbreaking, the work's novelty lies in the presented findings to design strong and efficient baselines for ODCConvQA. It should be noted that further research is needed to compare the performance of the proposed R3FINE strategy with other rerankers on non-conversational QA datasets, which would provide valuable insights into how effective the R3FINE approach is in different contexts. + +# References + +Vaibhav Adlakha, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Kaheer Suleman, Harm de Vries, and Siva Reddy. 2022. TopiOCQA: Open-domain conversational question answering with topic switching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:468-483. +Vidhisha Balachandran, Ashish Vaswani, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Niki Parmar. 2021. Simple and ef + +ficient ways to improve REALM. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering, pages 158-164, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Gianni Barlacchi, Ivano Lauriola, Alessandro Moschitti, Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Thuy Vu, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. Focusa: Open-domain question answering with a context in focus. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 5195-5208. +Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In ACL. +Eunsol Choi, He He, Mohit Iyyer, Mark Yatskar, Wentau Yih, Yejin Choi, Percy Liang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. QuAC: Question answering in context. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2174-2184, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Xiaoyu Shen, Weiwei Cheng, and Adrià de Gispert. 2021. Question rewriting for open-domain conversational qa: Best practices and limitations. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 2974-2978. +Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. From rewriting to remembering: Common ground for conversational qa models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03930. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ahmed Elgohary, Denis Peskov, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2019. Can you unpack that? learning to rewrite questions-in-context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5918-5924, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Re2G: Retrieve, rerank, generate. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2701-2715, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3929-3938. PMLR. +Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, and Dongsheng Li. 2019. Retrieve, read, rerank: Towards end-to-end multi-document reading comprehension. In ACL. +Srinivasan Iyer, Sewon Min, Yashar Mehdad, and Wentau Yih. 2021. RECONSIDER: Improved re-ranking using span-focused cross-attention for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1280–1287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021a. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question answering. In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021b. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Gautier Izacard, Fabio Petroni, Lucas Hosseini, Nicola De Cao, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2020. A memory efficient baseline for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/2012.15156. +Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9459-9474. Curran Associates, Inc. +Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen. + +2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 344-350, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Andrew McCallum, Manzil Zaheer, Rajarshi Das, and Shehzaad Dhuliawala. 2019. Multi-step retriever-reader interaction for scalable open-domain question answering. In ICLR. +Sewon Min, Danqi Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Knowledge guided text retrieval and reading for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/1911.03868. +Robert N. Oddy. 1977. Information retrieval through man-machine dialogue. Journal of Documentation, 33:1-14. +Chen Qu, Liu Yang, Cen-Chieh Chen, Minghui Qiu, W. Bruce Croft, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Open-retrieval conversational question answering. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. +Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. RocketQA: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5835-5847, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67. +Xiaoyu Shen, Svitlana Vakulenko, Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2023. Neural ranking with weak supervision for open-domain question answering: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1691-1705. +Svitlana Vakulenko, Shayne Longpre, Zhucheng Tu, and Raviteja Anantha. 2021. Question rewriting for conversational question answering. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pages 355-363. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS. +Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy J. Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL. + +Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2022. KG-FiD: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4961-4974, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Appendix + +This section provides additional information in support of the work done within the paper. + +# A.1 OR-QuAC conversion to TOPIOCQA's format and models + +To make the OR-QuAC dataset compatible with TOPIOCQA's models, we applied the following steps: + +- all answers of type CANNOTANSWER and NOTRECOVERED have been mapped to UNANSWERABLE +- for the DPR's ConversationEncoder component, we followed the TOPIOCQA's ALL-HISTORY conversation representation +- for the DPR's PassageEncoder component, each passage title has been reduced from "passage_page_title [SEP] passage_page_subtitle" to "passage_page_title". This is due to the fact that, compared to TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC does not provide the information about the section where a particular passage is located within the page. +- for the FiD component, each passage information has been reduced from "title: sub-title: context:" to "title: context:". This is done for the same reason mentioned in the previous point. + +Each passage text in OR-QuAC's Wikipedia knowledge source has been mapped to its corresponding embedding via the TOPIOCQA's PassageEncoder component. We then performed the same retrieval step as the one done for TOPIOCQA. We exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets as the retrieval phase is very similar between the two. However, given that, unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, we had to train the FiD module from scratch. We followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA. + +# A.2 Reranker training and ablation study + +We tried different configurations of the SemanticReranker to find the most efficient and effective one. In addition to the decision of whether to finetune the DPR's ConversationEncoder together with the SemanticReranker, we also tried varying the number of layers $L$ of the SemanticReranker from 1 to 4 and changing its input, by choosing a combination from: + +- $h_{c_1}$ : use of conversation's history dense representation +- $h_{c_1}, \ldots, h_{c_i}$ : use of conversation's history tokens dense representation +- $p_1, \ldots, p_k$ : use of passages dense representation + +Table 6 shows the average top- $k$ results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, where $k$ varies between 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, and 1000. For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit. + +Given that the MIPS function cannot be applied when $p_1, \ldots, p_k$ representations are used alone, i.e., without the conversation history, we applied a linear projection on top of the SemanticReranker to obtain a score for each passage in input. + +As far as training the SemanticReranker is concerned, we trained it for 10 epochs when finetuned together with the ConversationEncoder. We instead trained it for 20 epochs when the ConversationEncoder was kept frozen and when $p_1, \ldots, p_k$ representations were used alone. We leveraged the same objective function used for training the initial DPR. We used early stopping to chose the best performing model on the dev set. We also used a linear learning rate decay throughout the training process, and AdamW with a learning rate of 5e-5 and weight decay of 1e-2. + +Among the different combinations shown in Table 6, we considered the first entry as the best choice, i.e., the model with $L = 1$ , $h_{c_1}$ , $p_1$ , ..., $p_k$ , and CrossEncoder finetuning. + +# A.3 Retriever results + +Table 7 shows the train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). + +
Lhc1hc1, ..., hc_ip1, ..., pkCrossEncoderTOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
1✓✓✓78.8571.51
1✓✓✓78.8871.48
4✓✓✓78.8471.32
1✓✓77.1769.83
1✓✓77.3570.18
4✓✓77.3070.45
1✓67.0764.18
+ +For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. + +Table 6: Average top- $k$ results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, with different configurations. + +
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
131.5498.2531.6977.31
566.9999.7159.0889.10
1078.2999.7266.3189.36
2086.7899.7271.7789.40
5093.5599.7277.3589.40
50099.3699.7287.1589.41
100099.7299.7289.4189.41
+ +Table 8 shows the dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit. Table 9 shows the OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit. + +# A.4 Reader results + +Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12 show the impact the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader. The input to the FiD reader are either passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) or passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +Table 7: Train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. + +
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
551.8768.6251.6370.82
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
2070.2180.7561.3772.80
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
50089.5890.7372.9774.34
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
+ +Table 8: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- $k$ limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit. + +
OR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SR
126.8248.75
546.2964.71
1051.5066.47
2055.6367.31
5059.8568.10
50067.8769.48
100069.8669.86
+ +Table 9: OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top- $k$ limit. + +# A.5 Reader is susceptible to noisy input + +Table 13 shows the FiD reader performance on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top- $k$ limit. This analysis is limited to the TOPIOCQA dataset as it is the only one to provide information about the gold passage for the dev split. + +
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.4
527.049.632.256.5
1029.852.433.257.3
2031.354.033.456.5
5033.055.133.956.2
+ +Table 10: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR). + +
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
113.222.212.225.9
516.426.316.428.7
1018.027.618.029.4
2019.228.218.929.2
5019.627.719.327.7
+ +Table 11: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR). + +
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.723.013.925.7
517.827.117.929.5
1019.028.219.430.0
2020.329.120.830.5
5022.029.922.130.2
+ +Table 12: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR). + +
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
527.049.636.362.5
1029.852.435.861.5
2031.354.036.260.8
5033.055.135.959.5
+ +# A.6 Further reader study + +To better understand the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader, Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 show the results obtained after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, we followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA. + +Table 13: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top- $k$ limit. + +
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.237.829.550.9
527.849.934.056.9
1030.452.034.357.0
+ +Table 14: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.223.113.927.6
518.027.718.130.8
1019.228.919.331.2
+ +Table 15: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.523.915.828.3
519.629.119.431.7
1020.929.720.631.9
+ +Table 16: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 show instead + +the results obtained after taking an already finetuned FiD reader and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, the amount of finetuning steps is equal to the one used for training the already finetuned FiD reader. + +
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
121.539.330.752.4
530.452.336.159.4
1032.854.635.859.0
+ +Table 17: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.223.815.429.0
518.928.418.431.2
1019.929.420.132.0
+ +Table 18: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
116.724.916.628.9
520.029.220.132.2
1021.430.021.632.9
+ +Table 19: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR). + +# A.7 Latency measurement + +Latency measurement (see Figure 2) has been performed on the same NVIDIA V100 16GB GPU, by + +following the FiD's test_reader.py script provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. We set the per_gpu_batch_size parameter to 4 in all runs and chose the value of the n_context parameter from 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50, based on the number of input passages. For each value, we report the latency relative to the maximum n_context parameter value, i.e., 50. We used CUDA events synchronization markers to measure the elapsed time for the preprocessing and evaluation of TOPIOCQA's dev split and OR-QuAC's test split. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/images.zip b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35df356a4317382ef21e50ec68226f7c8c5533c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c9c6535dd1c3186b93a546b24cec1dfbd210daea6a5d8ecf1cdcacf037acdcd9 +size 575210 diff --git a/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/layout.json b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1452c9f84d93ba0b478a3a95f391307592e615d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,7004 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 76, + 452, + 110 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 76, + 452, + 110 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 140, + 76, + 452, + 110 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Strong and Efficient Baselines for Open Domain Conversational Question Answering" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 131, + 223, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 131, + 223, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 131, + 223, + 174 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrei C. Coman* \nIdiap Research Institute, EPFL andrei.coman@idiap.ch" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 131, + 351, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 131, + 351, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 242, + 131, + 351, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gianni Barlacchi \nAmazon Alexa AI \ngbarlac@amazon.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 131, + 502, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 131, + 502, + 173 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 390, + 131, + 502, + 173 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Adrià de Gispert \nAmazon Alexa AI \nagispert@amazon.com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, the conversational (ODConvQA) domain has received limited attention when it comes to reevaluating baselines for both efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper, we study the State-of-the-Art (SotA) Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline, and show that it significantly underperforms when applied to ODCnvQA tasks due to various limitations. We then propose and evaluate strong yet simple and efficient baselines, by introducing a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. Experiments on two ODCnvQA tasks, namely TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, show that our method improves the SotA results, while reducing reader's latency by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 234, + 274, + 509 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, we provide new and valuable insights into the development of challenging baselines that serve as a reference for future, more intricate approaches, including those that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 154, + 531 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 154, + 531 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 518, + 154, + 531 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 291, + 756 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 539, + 291, + 756 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In an automated information-seeking conversation scenario between two parties, the human questioner asks a series of questions and expects to receive a relevant response from the answering system (Oddy, 1977). Current State-of-the-Art (SotA) shapes the answerer via two neural models, the Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) (Karpukhin et al., 2020) and the Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) (Izacard and Grave, 2021b), which act as retriever and reader, respectively. Their success stems from the ability to overcome certain limitations of their sparse and extractive counterparts, such as not relying on lexical retrieval heuristics or extracting spans as a response (Chen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2019; McCallum et al., 2019; Guu et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2023)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Among the most promising approaches are those concerning the improvement of training strategies (Guu et al., 2020; Balachandran et al., 2021; Qu et al., 2021), use of rerankers (Hu et al., 2019; Mao et al., 2021; Barlacchi et al., 2022; Iyer et al., 2021; Glass et al., 2022), question rewriting (Vakulenko et al., 2021; Del Tredici et al., 2021), reader to retrieve knowledge distillation (Izacard and Grave, 2021a), memory-efficient pipeline (Izacard et al., 2020; Del Tredici et al., 2022), and leveraging structured information (Min et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 362, + 526, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Unlike the Open Domain Question Answering (ODQA) setting, a reassessment of the baselines in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness appears to be under-explored in the conversational (ODConvQA) domain. In this paper, we focus on the typical DPR retriever and FiD reader (DPR+FiD) pipeline, and show its limitations when applied to the ODConvQA setting. Despite its popularity, we find that this baseline significantly underperforms when finetuned on downstream tasks. We show that simple improvements in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the DPR+FiD pipeline, provide a strong and efficient baseline that exceeds the performance of SotA models on two common ODConvQA datasets: TopiOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) and ORConvQA (OR-QuAC) (Qu et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 767 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 526, + 767 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We point out several limitations of the pipeline, such as: 1) reader's susceptibility to noisy input, 2) retriever's reduced coverage, 3) retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages, and 4) reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. To mitigate these, we propose and evaluate a simple and effective approach by including a fast reranking component between the retriever and the reader, and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy leads to baseline models with a better latency/performance trade-off." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Work was done during an internship at Amazon Science." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6305" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 129, + 795, + 464, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6305-6314 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 161 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 161 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 161 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 526, + 161 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "62dfdf91783a288f0d7bc6898f9f834dea28191dca98f5a5c5d313df0f93a87c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 168, + 408, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 168, + 408, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 183, + 168, + 408, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: The Retriever-Reranker-Reader (R3) pipeline" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 201, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 201, + 291, + 257 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 201, + 291, + 257 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "These baselines, which are simple and easy to replicate, serve as a reference point for comparing new and more complex models, and determining their effectiveness. Our contributions are the following:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 264, + 291, + 405 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 6, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 264, + 289, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 264, + 289, + 291 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 264, + 289, + 291 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We identify and address several limitations of the typical pipeline used in ODConvQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose the R3FINE strategy, which improves SotA results on two common datasets and reduces pipeline's latency by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 300, + 290, + 341 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 349, + 291, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 349, + 291, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 349, + 291, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We provide new and valuable insights for creating simple and efficient baselines, which serve as a reference point for future comparison of new more complex approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 283, + 428 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 283, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 283, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 End-to-End Baselines for ODConvQA" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section provides a brief introduction to the pipeline on which this work focuses. Figure 1 shows the typical pipeline used within the ODConvQA setting, featuring an additional reranker component. A conversation history is input to the DPR retriever. This module exploits a dual-encoder based on the BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) model. First, it encodes the conversation history via the ConversationEncoder component, which takes as input the text of the conversation history " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "c_{1}, c_{2}, \\ldots, c_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and then it outputs a dense representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{c}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Next, this representation is used to perform a dense search to retrieve the most relevant passages, i.e., text blocks that serve as basic retrieval units, from an external knowledge source (e.g., Wikipedia). The latter contains dense representations of the passages that have been encoded via the PassageEncoder component, which takes as input a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th passage with a given text length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", i.e., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{j_1}, p_{j_2}, \\ldots, p_{j_N}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and outputs a dense representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{p_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The dense search is performed via the Maximum Inner-Product Search (MIPS) function which outputs the value corresponding to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_c^{\\top} \\cdot h_{p_j}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 435, + 291, + 746 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Once the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " relevant passages have been retrieved, their text is appended to the conversa" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tion history and subsequently passed to the FiD reader, which is based on the T5 (Raffel et al., 2020) model. The newly created textual sequences of length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are then encoded in parallel via the Encoder component that outputs a dense representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bar{h} = \\{h_1,\\dots ,h_S\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". As a final step, the dense representations of the entire list of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " input passages are concatenated to form a single " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\bar{h}_1\\oplus \\bar{h}_2,\\ldots ,\\oplus \\bar{h}_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " sequence that forms the input to the Decoder component responsible for generating the answer " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "a" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 201, + 526, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 445, + 361 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 445, + 361 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 347, + 445, + 361 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Strong Baseline Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 525, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 525, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 368, + 525, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work focuses on two main datasets. TOPIOCQA (Adlakha et al., 2022) is a large-scale open-domain information-seeking conversational dataset that contains a challenging phenomenon in the form of topic switching. OR-QuAC (Qu et al., 2020) leverages CANARD's (Elgohary et al., 2019) context-independent question rewrites of the QuAC (Choi et al., 2018) dataset, and adapts it to the open-domain setting. Further details regarding the datasets are provided in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 503, + 525, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We outline a number of limitations of the typical DPR+FiD pipeline, along with suggestions on how to mitigate them. While some of those interconnect at different levels the various efforts made in the ODQA domain (Balachandran et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022), our goal is to offer a perspective on the ODConvQA setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 502, + 619 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 502, + 619 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 607, + 502, + 619 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Current Limitations and Bottlenecks" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reader's susceptibility to noisy input. Previous findings have shown that the FiD reader performance significantly improves when increasing the number of retrieved passages (Izacard and Grave, 2021b). While confirming this finding, in Table 1 we also present a different perspective to it. We show that when the same reader model is provided with the relevant (i.e., gold) passage in input, the performance decreases as the number of retrieved passages increases. This suggests that there is a balance in presenting input to the reader: if the gold" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6306" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 154 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
1029.852.435.861.5
5033.055.135.959.5
", + "image_path": "3404f6b6b1d3b0c247c46cef5fb874e9e851f92dd163f8e3a052cca6fba696c6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 220, + 290, + 259 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "passage is present, i.e., the retriever could retrieve it, a small relevant list is best, but otherwise a larger list is better." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retriever's reduced coverage. Current solutions impose a hard top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 269, + 291, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit on the number of passages returned by the DPR retriever and assume that the relevant ones are present within this limit. Table 1 shows that coverage is key during the retrieval phase for the reader to perform well. To improve it, we suggest introducing a simple and efficient Transformer-based (Vaswani et al., 2017) reranker component after the retriever. This component, shown in Figure 1 and described in the next paragraph, is designed to reconsider a larger pool of passages returned by the DPR and to provide the FiD with a reduced and improved list of passages. Since this module operates at the semantic level, we refer to it as the SemanticReranker. Table 2 shows the potential coverage margins and the retrieval results obtained after the introduction of such a module, when a larger number of passages (50 vs 1000) is considered." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 534, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 534, + 291, + 670 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 534, + 291, + 670 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Retriever's lack of cross semantic encoding between the conversation and the retrieved passages. The DPR retriever performs independent encoding of the passages via the PassageEncoder function. This means that it is not able to exploit the semantic relationship among them. This can be mitigated via the introduction of the previously mentioned SemanticReranker component. This new module is based on the TransformerEncoder and applies the following function:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 678, + 286, + 697 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 678, + 286, + 697 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 678, + 286, + 697 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde {h} _ {c}, \\tilde {h} _ {p _ {1}}, \\ldots , \\tilde {h} _ {p _ {k}} = R e r a n k e r (h _ {c}, h _ {p _ {1}}, \\ldots , h _ {p _ {k}})", + "image_path": "1cf2ebd34e5a09c95415aa96f05cf4fc5e89de6aebba1dc6d7e46cbd7eddd403.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where each element of the input attends to both the conversation dense representation " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_c" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and passages dense representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{p_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Reranking is performed over the new output sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\tilde{h}_c, \\tilde{h}_{p_1}, \\ldots, \\tilde{h}_{p_k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 705, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " via the previously mentioned MIPS function." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 290, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 290, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 290, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 68, + 520, + 154 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
", + "image_path": "791f25394b189d10b73501b81de857c95276003af078b93036ee2b15c5481605.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 525, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 525, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 162, + 525, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Reader's latency is heavily impacted by the number of input passages. Figure 2 shows that the latency of the reader can be significantly reduced by decreasing the number of input passages. However, a trivial limitation to top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " considerably degrades the performance of the module, thus leading to an inevitable trade-off. The task of the SemanticReranker involves pushing relevant passages into the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " list, and allowing for a low " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 221, + 526, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " value to be set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 522 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 522 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 364, + 525, + 522 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "855e885151475458469485cf5d27cca9ed7f696eddd52c90a6900d67a1180d76.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: FiD reader performance (F1 score and latency) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split, with varying top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " input passages. Latency is relative to the top-50 (top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 525, + 578 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " vs top-50)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 477, + 618 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 477, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 605, + 477, + 618 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 A Strong and Efficient Baseline" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 624, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the findings above, we introduce the Retriever-Reranker-Reader finetuning (R3FINE) strategy, which can be used to design strong and efficient baselines for ODConvQA. First, we increase the number of passages returned by the DPR from the initial 50 to 1000. Then, we add the SemanticReranker component, which corresponds to a single TransformerEncoder layer. We train/finetune the SemanticReranker along with the ConversationEncoder while keeping the PassageEncoder frozen. Guided by the intu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6307" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 506, + 154 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 506, + 154 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 506, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 68, + 506, + 154 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FTw/o SRw/ SRw/ SR + FT
top-kEMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.430.752.414.723.013.925.716.628.9
1029.852.433.257.335.859.019.028.219.430.021.632.9
5033.055.133.956.235.256.122.029.922.130.223.532.2
", + "image_path": "928d329aa3f6b149100fa98dac2bb6b19640f0a0ac10fcb458d3faee3c44a6b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 241, + 283, + 354 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 526, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 526, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 162, + 526, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split and OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR), together with the results obtained after a further reader finetuning step with top-10 output by the SR (w/ SR + FT). Underlined values indicate the results obtained by the DPR+FiD pipeline. Bold values indicate the results obtained after the introduction of the SR together with targeted finetuning steps." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 241, + 283, + 354 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 241, + 283, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 241, + 283, + 354 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TopIOCQA
ModelEMF1
BM25 + DPR Reader13.625.0
BM25 + FiD24.137.2
DPR Retriever + DPR Reader21.043.4
DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.3
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD33.055.1
+ R3FINE (top-10)35.859.0
", + "image_path": "d71bac3da40115a688afea6c982a2b87d8ddffaf5db755c16b591ffa3cc1ff1c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 291, + 498 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 431, + 291, + 498 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ition that less but more relevant passages are beneficial to FiD as reported in Table 1, we finally perform an additional finetuning step by leveraging the new top-10 list of passages returned by the SemanticReranker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 218, + 522 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 218, + 522 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 507, + 218, + 522 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments and Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section shows the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker module has on the pipeline, as well as the finetuning steps we followed to make the pipeline more efficient without compromising its performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 291, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 291, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 603, + 291, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Experimental Setup. As the starting point of our experiments, we used the DPR and FiD models provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. Currently, only the train and dev splits are made available for this dataset. We followed the same experimental setup and exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets. Unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, and for this reason we trained the FiD module from scratch by following the same training configuration of TOPIOCQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "End-to-End Results. Table 4 and Table 5 compare our R3FINE strategy with previous baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 241, + 521, + 341 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 411 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 362, + 291, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: TOPIOCQA dev split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison between sparse/dense retrievers (BM25/DPR Retriever) and extractive/generative readers (DPR Reader/FiD)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 241, + 521, + 341 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 241, + 521, + 341 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 241, + 521, + 341 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
ModelEMF1
DrQA (Chen et al., 2017)-6.3
BERTserini (Yang et al., 2019)-26.0
ORConvQA (Qu et al., 2020)-29.4
(Ours) DPR Retriever + FiD22.029.9
+ R3FINE (top-10)21.632.9
", + "image_path": "75bbf8a04f81ae0bd702a5e9c7859ec2a72f4eb31b6181e15552d86aab67e361.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 374 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 374 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 349, + 525, + 374 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: OR-QuAC test split baselines performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 526, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "R3FINE achieves an F1 score of 59 points on TOPIOCQA, and 32.9 on OR-QuAC, which are 3.9 and 3 points higher than the best models proposed in the original papers. It is worth noting that these large improvements are achieved with simple adjustments in the training, architecture, and inference setups of the well-established DPR+FiD baseline, and not via the introduction of new heavier and complex models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 527, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To further support our R3FINE strategy, in Table 3 we present an ablation study which quantifies its impact on the DPR+FiD pipeline. We note that introducing the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) always outperforms the DPR+FiD baseline (w/o SR), and at the same time it allows for a 5-fold input size reduction (top-10) while obtaining on-par or better results. In addition, a further finetuning step of the FiD (w/ SR + FT) outperforms the results obtained by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR) by 1.7 and 2.9 F1 points on TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC, respectively. Further experiments and ablation studies are provided in Appendix A." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Finally, in Figure 2 it can also be observed that using top-10 instead of top-50 can reduce FiD's latency by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "60\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average across the two datasets. We conducted a latency measurement to evaluate the impact of the SemanticReranker" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6308" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and its associated parameters, with detailed information available in Appendix A. Given that the SemanticReranker consists of a single TransformerEncoder layer, its parameters are negligible when compared to both the DPR and FiD. Moreover, the SemanticReranker accounts only for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "0.34\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the overall latency of the FiD reader, adding an additional 2.4ms per example on top of the 710ms taken by FiD. It is important to note that this impact is only considered in relation to FiD, as the retrieval phase remains constant regardless of the inclusion of the SemanticReranker." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 153, + 270 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 153, + 270 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 257, + 153, + 270 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Conclusions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 441 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 278, + 291, + 441 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we identified several limitations of the typical Depnse Passage Retrieval (DPR) retriever and Fusion-in-Decoder (FiD) reader pipeline when applied in an ODCConvQA setting. We proposed and evaluated an improved approach by including a fast reranking component between these two modules and by performing targeted finetuning steps. The proposed R3FINE strategy lead to a better latency/performance trade-off. The new baseline has proven to be both strong and efficient when compared to previous baselines, thus making it suitable for future comparisons of new approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 131, + 463 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 131, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 450, + 131, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 471, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 471, + 291, + 633 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 471, + 291, + 633 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The study presented in this work aimed to identify and address various limitations of the commonly used ODCConvQA pipeline. While our approach may not be technically groundbreaking, the work's novelty lies in the presented findings to design strong and efficient baselines for ODCConvQA. It should be noted that further research is needed to compare the performance of the proposed R3FINE strategy with other rerankers on non-conversational QA datasets, which would provide valuable insights into how effective the R3FINE approach is in different contexts." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 127, + 668 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 127, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 656, + 127, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 675, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vaibhav Adlakha, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Kaheer Suleman, Harm de Vries, and Siva Reddy. 2022. TopiOCQA: Open-domain conversational question answering with topic switching. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:468-483." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vidhisha Balachandran, Ashish Vaswani, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Niki Parmar. 2021. Simple and ef" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 18, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 313, + 72, + 526, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ficient ways to improve REALM. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering, pages 158-164, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 128, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 128, + 526, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 128, + 526, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gianni Barlacchi, Ivano Lauriola, Alessandro Moschitti, Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Thuy Vu, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. Focusa: Open-domain question answering with a context in focus. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 5195-5208." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 239 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 206, + 526, + 239 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. In ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 328 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 328 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 251, + 526, + 328 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Eunsol Choi, He He, Mohit Iyyer, Mark Yatskar, Wentau Yih, Yejin Choi, Percy Liang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. QuAC: Question answering in context. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2174-2184, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 339, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 339, + 526, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 339, + 526, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Xiaoyu Shen, Weiwei Cheng, and Adrià de Gispert. 2021. Question rewriting for open-domain conversational qa: Best practices and limitations. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 2974-2978." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 417, + 525, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Marco Del Tredici, Xiaoyu Shen, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2022. From rewriting to remembering: Common ground for conversational qa models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03930." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 474, + 526, + 573 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 474, + 526, + 573 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 474, + 526, + 573 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 526, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 584, + 526, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ahmed Elgohary, Denis Peskov, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2019. Can you unpack that? learning to rewrite questions-in-context. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5918-5924, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 684, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Glass, Gaetano Rossiello, Md Faisal Mahbub Chowdhury, Ankita Naik, Pengshan Cai, and Alfio Gliozzo. 2022. Re2G: Retrieve, rerank, generate. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2701-2715, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6309" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 138 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. 2020. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3929-3938. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 289, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 289, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 148, + 289, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, and Dongsheng Li. 2019. Retrieve, read, rerank: Towards end-to-end multi-document reading comprehension. In ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 289, + 288 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 289, + 288 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 200, + 289, + 288 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Srinivasan Iyer, Sewon Min, Yashar Mehdad, and Wentau Yih. 2021. RECONSIDER: Improved re-ranking using span-focused cross-attention for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1280–1287, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 289, + 342 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 289, + 342 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 298, + 289, + 342 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021a. Distilling knowledge from reader to retriever for question answering. In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 351, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 351, + 289, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 351, + 289, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. 2021b. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 874-880, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 289, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 438, + 289, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gautier Izacard, Fabio Petroni, Lucas Hosseini, Nicola De Cao, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2020. A memory efficient baseline for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/2012.15156." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 289, + 568 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 491, + 289, + 568 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6769-6781, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 289, + 643 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 289, + 643 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 577, + 289, + 643 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6086-6096, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 289, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 652, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Kuttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9459-9474. Curran Associates, Inc." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yuning Mao, Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Jiawei Han, and Weizhu Chen." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2021. Reader-guided passage reranking for open-domain question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 344-350, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 136, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Andrew McCallum, Manzil Zaheer, Rajarshi Das, and Shehzaad Dhuliawala. 2019. Multi-step retriever-reader interaction for scalable open-domain question answering. In ICLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 188, + 524, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sewon Min, Danqi Chen, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Knowledge guided text retrieval and reading for open domain question answering. ArXiv, abs/1911.03868." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 240, + 524, + 273 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 240, + 524, + 273 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 240, + 524, + 273 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Robert N. Oddy. 1977. Information retrieval through man-machine dialogue. Journal of Documentation, 33:1-14." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 524, + 347 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 282, + 524, + 347 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chen Qu, Liu Yang, Cen-Chieh Chen, Minghui Qiu, W. Bruce Croft, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Open-retrieval conversational question answering. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 524, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 356, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yingqi Qu, Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Wayne Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. RocketQA: An optimized training approach to dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5835-5847, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 529 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 464, + 524, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 524, + 603 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 524, + 603 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 538, + 524, + 603 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoyu Shen, Svitlana Vakulenko, Marco Del Tredici, Gianni Barlacchi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. 2023. Neural ranking with weak supervision for open-domain question answering: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023, pages 1691-1705." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 524, + 667 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 524, + 667 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 612, + 524, + 667 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Svitlana Vakulenko, Shayne Longpre, Zhucheng Tu, and Raviteja Anantha. 2021. Question rewriting for conversational question answering. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pages 355-363." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 524, + 719 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 524, + 719 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam M. Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 728, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Wei Yang, Yuqing Xie, Aileen Lin, Xingyu Li, Luchen Tan, Kun Xiong, Ming Li, and Jimmy J. Lin. 2019. End-to-end open-domain question answering with bertserini. In NAACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6310" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 72, + 291, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Donghan Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Wenhao Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Xiang Ren, Yiming Yang, and Michael Zeng. 2022. KG-FiD: Infusing knowledge graph in fusion-in-decoder for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4961-4974, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 179, + 141, + 192 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 179, + 141, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 179, + 141, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 290, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 199, + 290, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This section provides additional information in support of the work done within the paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 234, + 282, + 260 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 234, + 282, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 234, + 282, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 OR-QuAC conversion to TOPIOCQA's format and models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 289, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 265, + 289, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To make the OR-QuAC dataset compatible with TOPIOCQA's models, we applied the following steps:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 312, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 9, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 312, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 312, + 289, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 312, + 289, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- all answers of type CANNOTANSWER and NOTRECOVERED have been mapped to UNANSWERABLE" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 360, + 290, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 360, + 290, + 399 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 360, + 290, + 399 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- for the DPR's ConversationEncoder component, we followed the TOPIOCQA's ALL-HISTORY conversation representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 408, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 408, + 290, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 408, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- for the DPR's PassageEncoder component, each passage title has been reduced from \"passage_page_title [SEP] passage_page_subtitle\" to \"passage_page_title\". This is due to the fact that, compared to TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC does not provide the information about the section where a particular passage is located within the page." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 290, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 538, + 290, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- for the FiD component, each passage information has been reduced from \"title: sub-title: context:\" to \"title: context:\". This is done for the same reason mentioned in the previous point." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Each passage text in OR-QuAC's Wikipedia knowledge source has been mapped to its corresponding embedding via the TOPIOCQA's PassageEncoder component. We then performed the same retrieval step as the one done for TOPIOCQA. We exploited TOPIOCQA's DPR module for both datasets as the retrieval phase is very similar between the two. However, given that, unlike TOPIOCQA, OR-QuAC is of extractive type, we had to train the FiD module from scratch. We followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 508, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 508, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 508, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Reranker training and ablation study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We tried different configurations of the SemanticReranker to find the most efficient and effective one. In addition to the decision of whether to finetune the DPR's ConversationEncoder together with the SemanticReranker, we also tried varying the number of layers " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the SemanticReranker from 1 to 4 and changing its input, by choosing a combination from:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 206, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 16, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 206, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 206, + 525, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 206, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 206, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{c_1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 206, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": use of conversation's history dense representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 242, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 242, + 525, + 268 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 242, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 242, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{c_1}, \\ldots, h_{c_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 242, + 525, + 268 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": use of conversation's history tokens dense representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 279, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 279, + 525, + 302 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 279, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 279, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1, \\ldots, p_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 279, + 525, + 302 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": use of passages dense representation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6 shows the average top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " varies between 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, and 1000. For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 313, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Given that the MIPS function cannot be applied when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1, \\ldots, p_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " representations are used alone, i.e., without the conversation history, we applied a linear projection on top of the SemanticReranker to obtain a score for each passage in input." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As far as training the SemanticReranker is concerned, we trained it for 10 epochs when finetuned together with the ConversationEncoder. We instead trained it for 20 epochs when the ConversationEncoder was kept frozen and when " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1, \\ldots, p_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 476, + 525, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " representations were used alone. We leveraged the same objective function used for training the initial DPR. We used early stopping to chose the best performing model on the dev set. We also used a linear learning rate decay throughout the training process, and AdamW with a learning rate of 5e-5 and weight decay of 1e-2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Among the different combinations shown in Table 6, we considered the first entry as the best choice, i.e., the model with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_{c_1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", ..., " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 639, + 525, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and CrossEncoder finetuning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 411, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 411, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 702, + 411, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Retriever results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7 shows the train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 308, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6311" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 180 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 180 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 180 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 104, + 68, + 490, + 180 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Lhc1hc1, ..., hc_ip1, ..., pkCrossEncoderTOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
1✓✓✓78.8571.51
1✓✓✓78.8871.48
4✓✓✓78.8471.32
1✓✓77.1769.83
1✓✓77.3570.18
4✓✓77.3070.45
1✓67.0764.18
", + "image_path": "d8386c6e6358d7bc614e4cf1e924aee58fc4391992be273ffe065219171bbb76.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 289, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 289, + 251 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 289, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 289, + 251 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 223, + 289, + 251 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 264, + 283, + 390 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 524, + 201 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 524, + 201 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 524, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Average top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 524, + 201 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 524, + 201 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " results obtained on the TOPIOCQA and OR-QuAC dev split, with different configurations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 264, + 283, + 390 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 264, + 283, + 390 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 264, + 283, + 390 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
131.5498.2531.6977.31
566.9999.7159.0889.10
1078.2999.7266.3189.36
2086.7899.7271.7789.40
5093.5599.7277.3589.40
50099.3699.7287.1589.41
100099.7299.7289.4189.41
", + "image_path": "75fab5d0c732f78a142ad269b52904ab25a820b5c69050d904d9b63d223a0529.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 shows the dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit. Table 9 shows the OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top- " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 477, + 291, + 655 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 166, + 682 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 166, + 682 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 166, + 682 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Reader results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12 show the impact the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader. The input to the FiD reader are either passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) or passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 221, + 518, + 346 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 460 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Train split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For both datasets, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 398, + 291, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 221, + 518, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 221, + 518, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 221, + 518, + 346 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQAOR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SRw/o SRw/ SR
124.6642.6429.2756.64
551.8768.6251.6370.82
1062.4575.6257.1472.27
2070.2180.7561.3772.80
5077.4184.6965.2273.53
50089.5890.7372.9774.34
100091.4991.4974.5574.55
", + "image_path": "d7b678cbb24f5a88fb27d44768410d178316df8bad81233902a13fe546d5f15c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 352, + 453, + 476, + 579 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Dev split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). For TOPIOCQA, we report the presence of the gold passage within the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit. For OR-QuAC we report the presence of the gold answer within the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 526, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 453, + 476, + 579 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 453, + 476, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 352, + 453, + 476, + 579 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
top-kw/o SRw/ SR
126.8248.75
546.2964.71
1051.5066.47
2055.6367.31
5059.8568.10
50067.8769.48
100069.8669.86
", + "image_path": "cec16bdbed7d0b8749006c12528bd22574002fe527a148d41bb4b8ec96d7f6e0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 648 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 648 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: OR-QuAC test split retrieval coverage before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR) when a larger number of passages is considered (50 vs 1000). We report the presence of the gold answer within the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 648 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 587, + 525, + 648 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 498, + 685 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 498, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 671, + 498, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Reader is susceptible to noisy input" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13 shows the FiD reader performance on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 692, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit. This analysis is limited to the TOPIOCQA dataset as it is the only one to provide information about the gold passage for the dev split." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6312" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 68, + 261, + 181 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.628.150.4
527.049.632.256.5
1029.852.433.257.3
2031.354.033.456.5
5033.055.133.956.2
", + "image_path": "4b51cd2af523cabfa8d9ed3c381bd542cbdbb4afe43c6c0ee0bce9bf3089194d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 238, + 261, + 352 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 290, + 225 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 290, + 225 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 189, + 290, + 225 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 238, + 261, + 352 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 238, + 261, + 352 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 238, + 261, + 352 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
113.222.212.225.9
516.426.316.428.7
1018.027.618.029.4
2019.228.218.929.2
5019.627.719.327.7
", + "image_path": "74589fb0ab9e0d02e322b316617d7c0a9c0ea5e5623b0648eec6683b6dcd88ba.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 408, + 261, + 521 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 289, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 289, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 359, + 289, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 408, + 261, + 521 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 408, + 261, + 521 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 408, + 261, + 521 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.723.013.925.7
517.827.117.929.5
1019.028.219.430.0
2020.329.120.830.5
5022.029.922.130.2
", + "image_path": "c1ccc009938f6efd4f859609ad71416faa1abea1923680d676cc9e812d356ad4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 578, + 261, + 691 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 289, + 565 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 289, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 529, + 289, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split before/after the introduction of the SemanticReranker (w/o SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 578, + 261, + 691 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 578, + 261, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 578, + 261, + 691 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o goldw/ gold
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.337.638.365.5
527.049.636.362.5
1029.852.435.861.5
2031.354.036.260.8
5033.055.135.959.5
", + "image_path": "d5717a6ee8ce3e6088de97613f34465ccfb340870cacf1058fd998554b9485fd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 431, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 431, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 71, + 431, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.6 Further reader study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 525, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To better understand the impact that the introduction of the SemanticReranker has on the FiD reader, Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 show the results obtained after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, we followed the same training configuration as the one used for TOPIOCQA." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 218, + 496, + 304 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 289, + 736 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 289, + 736 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 289, + 736 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 13: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split, with/without the gold passage (w/o gold) in the top-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 289, + 736 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 699, + 289, + 736 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " limit." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 218, + 496, + 304 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 218, + 496, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 218, + 496, + 304 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
119.237.829.550.9
527.849.934.056.9
1030.452.034.357.0
", + "image_path": "6aa37109d3410b5a804dcc84b1dc3904a3ee59ac7a57403c2d4292fdeb8041de.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 405, + 496, + 491 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 524, + 384 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 524, + 384 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 312, + 524, + 384 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 14: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking a non-finetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 405, + 496, + 491 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 405, + 496, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 405, + 496, + 491 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
114.223.113.927.6
518.027.718.130.8
1019.228.919.331.2
", + "image_path": "3f3c61f88ad4c3a2b1c8572e46956235d47d8c3d884339a046f482463d81b692.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 332, + 581, + 496, + 666 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 560 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 525, + 560 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 15: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 581, + 496, + 666 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 581, + 496, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 332, + 581, + 496, + 666 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.523.915.828.3
519.629.119.431.7
1020.929.720.631.9
", + "image_path": "84a0c9094c99310466ecc11bcebda91f90eed441466d02122c4147e4ae6445a8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 524, + 745 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 524, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 674, + 524, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 16: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking a nonfinetuned FiD and training it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19 show instead" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 780, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6313" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the results obtained after taking an already finetuned FiD reader and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker. On both datasets, the amount of finetuning steps is equal to the one used for training the already finetuned FiD reader." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 97, + 173, + 261, + 259 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 173, + 261, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 173, + 261, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 97, + 173, + 261, + 259 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TOPIOCQA
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
121.539.330.752.4
530.452.336.159.4
1032.854.635.859.0
", + "image_path": "0062f03c90de733dd054503a4b6347e74a192bf5d2648d05a6e75144f78ebe0b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 358, + 261, + 444 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 291, + 339 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 291, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 17: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the TOPIOCQA dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 358, + 261, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 358, + 261, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 358, + 261, + 444 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
115.223.815.429.0
518.928.418.431.2
1019.929.420.132.0
", + "image_path": "d6ed0122e3e65983617724fddf10a478c4e259524b536b310e503acb4e9ae9bd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 98, + 543, + 260, + 629 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 291, + 524 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 291, + 524 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 291, + 524 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 18: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC dev split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 543, + 260, + 629 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 543, + 260, + 629 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 98, + 543, + 260, + 629 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
OR-QuAC
w/o SRw/ SR
top-kEMF1EMF1
116.724.916.628.9
520.029.220.132.2
1021.430.021.632.9
", + "image_path": "929579797758b5a4b284ebe8ce99f5f516213d02568f87454f3fe633b4418457.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 709 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 709 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 637, + 290, + 709 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 19: FiD reader performance (Exact Match and F1 scores) on the OR-QuAC test split after taking an already finetuned FiD and further finetuning it on the top-10 passages returned by the initial DPR retriever (w/o SR) and on the top-10 passages returned by the SemanticReranker (w/ SR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 201, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 201, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 201, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.7 Latency measurement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Latency measurement (see Figure 2) has been performed on the same NVIDIA V100 16GB GPU, by" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 221 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 221 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "following the FiD's test_reader.py script provided with the TOPIOCQA dataset. We set the per_gpu_batch_size parameter to 4 in all runs and chose the value of the n_context parameter from 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 50, based on the number of input passages. For each value, we report the latency relative to the maximum n_context parameter value, i.e., 50. We used CUDA events synchronization markers to measure the elapsed time for the preprocessing and evaluation of TOPIOCQA's dev split and OR-QuAC's test split." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 286, + 781, + 309, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6314" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_content_list.json b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5361c464532adfb29eedd4b8c1743f0de2ebff8d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,2048 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 127, + 89, + 868, + 127 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jingyi Zhang $^{1}$ , Ying Zhang $^{1}$ , Yufeng Chen $^{1*}$ , Jinan Xu $^{1}$", + "bbox": [ + 263, + 148, + 742, + 165 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1Beijing Key Lab of Traffic Data Analysis and Mining,", + "bbox": [ + 280, + 166, + 724, + 183 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China", + "bbox": [ + 324, + 183, + 677, + 199 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "{jyizhang,zhying,chenyf,jaxu}@bjtu.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 294, + 200, + 709, + 216 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 266 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cross-domain few-shot named entity recognition (NER) is a challenging task that aims to recognize entities in target domains with limited labeled data by leveraging relevant knowledge from source domains. However, domain gaps limit the effect of knowledge transfer and harm the performance of NER models. In this paper, we analyze those domain gaps from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and leverage word-to-tag and word-to-word relations to model them, respectively. Moreover, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER, which novelly design a label constrained pre-train task and a structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-specific augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains. We evaluate our approach on several standard datasets and achieve state-of-the-art or competitive results, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method in cross-domain few-shot NER.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 279, + 460, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 646, + 258, + 662 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Named entity recognition (NER) is a fundamental Natural Language Processing (NLP) task to detect entity mentions and classify them into predefined labels (Grishman and Sundheim, 1996). Benefiting from powerful feature representations, deep learning based NER approaches (Lample et al., 2016; Devlin et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020) have achieved promising performances. However, their success depends heavily on the large-scale dataset with accurate annotations that are labor-intensive and time-consuming. Although some general domains (e.g., news) provide rich annotations, it is unaffordable to manually annotate NER labels in some new environments (e.g., bio-medicine). Therefore,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 671, + 489, + 896 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/beb67a25489fc09f691b2c619d67fd5de372ddf25e831077bd3ebf338538e384.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a) Entity structure differences and entity annotation differences" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 249, + 878, + 368 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/50a2efc5703383037974f1f75fb9f26cecc79e5dbbabc0944a42d8f5c0f98b26.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) Structure constrained data augmentation" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 519, + 403, + 873, + 451 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/f10a78f2f6b5791b10f997c6bb5bb16a1f8f195f6c626456bf32fcdc0e171329.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(c) Label constrained data augmentation", + "Figure 1: Examples for entities have different structures and labels between the source and target domains. Different colors and combinations of squares represent different entity types and structures, respectively." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 521, + 480, + 863, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "few-shot NER (Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020) has attracted increasing attentions, aiming to build an NER model with only a small number of supporting samples in specific domains.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 659, + 884, + 722 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Mainstream researches on cross-domain few-shot NER aim to transfer relevant knowledge from source domains. Most of them focus on optimizing model architectures based on metric-learning, such as Prototypical Network based ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020), a nearest neighbor based network NNShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network StructShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), and Container (Das et al., 2022), a contrastive model. There are also studies based on data augmentation methods, such as MELM Zhou", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "* Yufeng Chen is the corresponding author.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 904, + 403, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "518", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 518-530", + "bbox": [ + 225, + 945, + 771, + 957 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 277, + 958, + 719, + 971 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "et al. (2022), which uses cross-lingual pre-trained models for data augmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 485, + 116 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Cross-domain few-shot NER is full of challenges because of the domain gaps, especially for NER tasks. However, existing work lacks research on this problem. As a structure prediction task, NER requires synthetic entity with highly matching of label dependencies. However, there are distinctions among texts from various domains. The same entity mention in various domains is labeled with different entity types or distinct span boundaries. Unfortunately, existing studies have not adequately explored the influence of domain gaps on NER tasks. Consequently, these gaps significantly impact the performance of existing approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 120, + 489, + 331 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In view of these challenges, we divide domain gaps into two categories as shown in Figure 1(a). Category-I: The structure of entities differs across domains. For example, 'the Lincoln Memorial' is represented as a contiguous location entity in flat NER datasets, while it is additionally labeled with a person entity \"Lincoln\" in the nested NER datasets. Additionally, entity boundaries may vary from domain to domain. For example, in different datasets, the inclusion of \"the\" in the phrase \"the Lincoln Memorial\" can vary. Category-II: The annotations of entities differs across domains. Difference domains usually have different pre-defined entity types. For example, in OntoNotes dataset, 'the Lincoln Memorial' and 'Washington D.C' are annotated as 'LOC' and 'GPE' types, respectively, where as in WNUT dataset, both are classified as 'location'. Our proposed method aims to alleviate the negative impact of structure and annotations differences on cross-domain few-shot NER. By doing so, we aim to enhance the performance of NER models in the target domain.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 335, + 489, + 689 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Based on the above analyses, we introduce two types of relationships to sufficiently model two kinds of domain gaps in cross domain few-shot NER method. Word-to-word relation: 'the Washington Monument' is annotated as one entity in flat NER datasets while annotated as two entities in nested ones. When the source domain is a flat entity dataset and the target domain is a nested entity dataset, it is likely to generate non-nested entity data, leading to the NER model not being able to learn the knowledge in the target domain. Word-to-tag relation: the corresponding entity types of 'Washington D.C.' are 'GPE' and 'location' in 'OntoNotes' and 'WNUT', respectively,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 694, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "which may cause label conflict if directly learned.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 880, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER. SLC-DA novelly design a label constrained pre-train task, which allows the model to learn the mapping relationships between entities across diverse domains. Furthermore, SLC-DA incorporate structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-aware augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 105, + 884, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Concretely, for structure-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(b), we calculate the word-to-word relation to model the entity structure between entity word tokens and other tokens, and generate structure-enhanced NER data in the target domain for training. For label-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(c), we replace the same entity mentions with their corresponding different categories for each instance and utilize the language model to learn these word-to-tag relationships in different domains to avoid confusion.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 286, + 884, + 462 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we compare our approach with previous works on flat NER and report results surpassing the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, we report competitive results on nested NER. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed method is simple yet highly effective. Finally, our main contributions are summarized as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 467, + 882, + 595 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- To bridge domain gaps for cross-domain few-shot NER, we analyze this issue from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and define word-to-word and word-to-tag relations to model them, respectively.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 623, + 882, + 703 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We propose a method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLCDA), introducing a label-constrained pre-train task and structure-constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 730, + 884, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- We achieved state-of-the-art results in the cross-domain few-shot NER task. We also achieved competitive results by transferring from a flat entity dataset to a nested entity dataset for the first time.", + "bbox": [ + 531, + 839, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "519", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Background", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 257, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Few-shot NER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 108, + 275, + 123 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since there are usually multiple entity instances in a single sentence for NER task, which is different from text classification tasks, we cannot following the few-shot settings of text classification to construct the support set by sampling K sentences for each entity class, which can lead to an imbalance in the data. Therefore, for few-shot NER, the dataset consists of N entity classes, with K annotated instances per class, denoted as the N-way K-shot setting. To address the issue of imbalanced data distribution across different entity categories, we employ a specific strategy. Firstly, we calculate the total number of entities for each category. Then, we prioritize the selection of categories with fewer entities. This approach ensures the rationality of the support set size. Statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 129, + 489, + 403 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Domain Transfer for Few-shot NER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 413, + 442, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Domain transfer usually transfers knowledge from the source domain to the target domain. For the few-shot NER task, the NER model is first trained on the source domain and then fine-tuned on the target domain. During the source domain training, the train, development, and test sets are fully utilized. The data splits for train, development, and test are described in Section 4.2. During the target domain training, the training data consist of the generated augmented data (data augmentation based on support set), the development set is the support set, and we adopt the original test set from the target domain for testing.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 644 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Method", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 653, + 218, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present our proposed method, called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER. Figure 2 depicts the overview of our method, which includes two modules: structure constrained data augmentation and label constrained pre-train task. We illustrate the details of how we learn entity structure and label relation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 678, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Structure Constrained Data Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 818, + 381, + 850 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To enhance the quality of generated NER data, we propose to augment data with structure constrained optimization objective by learning and preserving entity structures.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 854, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the structure constrained data augmentation module, we first combine source domain data and target domain support set to pretrain the data augmentation model. Then, we capture the entity structure by modeling the word-to-word-relation. Subsequently, the structure constrained data augmentation is used to generate more entities that conform to the target domain entity structure and replace the original entities to compose the augmentation data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 228 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Let $D_{source}$ and $D_{target}$ denote the source domain dataset and target domain support set. Given a $N$ tokens sentence $X = [x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{N}]$ with corresponding NER labels $L = [l_{1}, l_{2}, \\ldots, l_{N}]$ , we encode the sentence to $H = [h_{1}, h_{2}, \\ldots, h_{N}]$ . Then we randomly mask entity tokens to generate a new sequence $X'$ and $M = [m_{1}, m_{2}, \\ldots, m_{N}]$ , where $m_{i} = 1$ if $x_{i}$ is masked else $m_{i} = 0$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 229, + 884, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For a masked entity token $x_{i}^{\\prime}$ , we use masked language model (MLM) to generate the entity $x_{i}^{\\prime \\prime}$ which is the most similar to the entity $x_{i}$ , and the new sequence $X^{\\prime \\prime}$ is generated by minimizing the loss", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 357, + 882, + 436 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {M L M} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {\\prime \\prime}\\right) = - m _ {i} \\operatorname {l o g p} _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i} \\mid X ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 566, + 447, + 882, + 468 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\theta$ represents model parameters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 480, + 793, + 494 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Qian et al. (2021), we exploit Gaussian embedding, which is innately more expressive than point embedding. For token embedding $h_i$ , we compute its Gaussian Embedding $G_i \\sim \\mathcal{N}(\\mu_i, \\Sigma_i)$ as follows:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 495, + 882, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\mu_ {i} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(h _ {i}\\right), \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 587, + 882, + 604 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\Sigma_ {i} = E L U (R e L U (h _ {i})) + (1 + \\epsilon), \\qquad (3)\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 561, + 607, + 884, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $\\mu_{i}$ denotes the semantics of $x_{i}$ , covariance matrix $\\Sigma_{i}$ represents the uncertainty, $ELU$ represents exponential linear unit, and $\\epsilon$ is set toe $^{-14}$ for numerical stability. We use KL-divergence to calculate the similarity of entity structure", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 636, + 882, + 715 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\begin{array}{l} D _ {K L} (i, j) = \\frac {1}{2} \\left(\\log \\frac {\\left| \\Sigma_ {i} \\right|}{\\left| \\Sigma_ {j} \\right|} - D + t r \\left(\\Sigma_ {i} ^ {- 1} \\Sigma_ {j}\\right) \\right. \\tag {4} \\\\ + \\left(\\mu_ {i} - \\mu_ {j}\\right) ^ {T} \\Sigma_ {\\mu} ^ {- 1} (\\mu_ {i} - \\mu_ {j}). \\\\ \\end{array}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 726, + 882, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the KL-divergence is asymmetric, we obtain the similarity by calculating the KL-divergence in both directions", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 793, + 884, + 840 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nd (i, j) = \\frac {1}{2} \\left(D _ {K L} (i, j) + D _ {K L} (j, i)\\right). \\tag {5}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 552, + 848, + 882, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We define the optimization objective as follows to minimize the structure difference between newly", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "520", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/ba2d7918bcce62ca67177dc59c00c3aa0904ce42463a67c65597b57f96313454.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: An overview of our proposed approach, which comprises structure constrained data augmentation (bottom) and label constrained pre-train task (top). First, we introduce the word-to-tag relation for label constrained pretrain task. Then, we compute the word-to-word relation for structure constrained data augmentation to generate augmented data for the target domain support set. Among the sentences generated for each sentence, we'll pick the top-K sentences that meet our satisfaction criteria, which we'll denote as $\\sqrt{}$ . Finally, we merge the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 122, + 80, + 884, + 512 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "generated entities and original ones.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 383, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {\\text {s t r u c t u r e}} \\left(x _ {i}\\right) = \\log \\frac {\\sum_ {j = 1 , j \\neq i} ^ {n} | \\left(d \\left(x _ {i} , x _ {j}\\right) - d \\left(x _ {i} ^ {\\prime} , x _ {j}\\right) \\right|}{n - 1}. \\tag {6}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 129, + 657, + 485, + 697 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To sum up, for sequence $X$ , the total loss is formulated as", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 708, + 485, + 737 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL _ {\\text {t o t a l}} = L _ {\\text {M L M}} + L _ {\\text {s t r u c t u r e}}. \\tag {7}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 186, + 749, + 487, + 766 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this way, we generate entities that conform to the target domain entity structure. So we can combine the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 776, + 485, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Label Constrained Pre-train Task", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 850, + 425, + 864 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the label constrained pre-training module, to alleviate label inconsistency between different domains, we design several label constraint strategies", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 871, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "to align predefined labels between source and target domains. First, we extract all entities and corresponding sentences from the support set, and find sentences containing these entities in the source domain data set. Then, we form a sentence pair containing the same entity with the sentences in the support set. Let the pretrain language model (PLM) learn different labels of the same entity in different domains and learn the relationship between these two labels. This PLM is subsequently trained with the train data and structure constrained of the source domain to become a NER model. Finally, when inference, we utilize a pre-trained label-constrained model to compute the mapping relationships between labels in the source and target domains. This allows us to bridge the gap between the two domains. We also predefine the label", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 633, + 884, + 906 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "521", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 512, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "mapping to bridge the source and target domain.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 473, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To alleviate the label inconsistency among different domains, we propose a novel label-constrained pre-training task to align the inconsistent predefined labels between the source and the target domains in training and prediction process. Based on pre-trained contextual representations, we design a label mapping strategy by calculating the similarity of various predefined labels to align inconsistent labels between the source and target domains in training and prediction process.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 101, + 487, + 261 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the training process, we first filter out all the entities $E$ and their labels $L$ from the sentences $S$ in the target domain denoted as $[e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N]$ , $[l_1, l_2, \\dots, l_N]$ , and $[s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_N]$ , respectively. $s_i$ is a sequence of $m$ tokens $[x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_m]$ . We then select sentences containing these entities and labels from the source domain data as $[s_1', s_2', \\dots, s_p']$ and $[l_1', l_2', \\dots, l_p']$ and match all sentences which have the same entity up as $[e_1; s_1; s_1', e_2; s_2; s_2', \\dots, e_n; s_n; s_p']$ . Then we swap entities in these sentences with their corresponding labels and generate the representations of two labels $l_i$ and $l_i'$ and compute the KL-Distribution between them as:", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 263, + 489, + 487 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL (i) = - l o g \\frac {e x p (- d \\left(l _ {i} , l _ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right))}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} e x p (- d \\left(l _ {i} , l _ {j}\\right)} \\tag {8}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 169, + 498, + 487, + 536 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and achieve label alignment by learning the relationship between the labels of these entities in the source and the target domains. Finally, we apply the saved parameters to initialize the NER model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 546, + 487, + 611 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the prediction process, we propose a simple but efficient post processing method to align labels from different domains. Since the NER model is pre-trained on the source domain, it will be affected by predefined labels of the source domain when identifying entities, making some predictions of predefined labels not part of the target domain. Therefore, during inference, we post-process results predicted by the model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 487, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We employ label-constrained pre-training task to obtain contextual representations for different entity labels and then compute the mapping relationships of entity categories between the source and target domains (including the \"other\" category). Specifically, according to the official annotation guidelines for each dataset, we generate descriptive statements for each entity category and calculate KL divergence based on the representations of description sentences for each entity category", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "between the source and target domains. This process allows us to derive the mapping relationships between entity categories in the source domain and entity categories in the target domain.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 882, + 149 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 162, + 655, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We validate our proposed method in the flat entity and nested entity settings. The details of the experiments are elaborated in this section. We use precision (P), recall (R), and F (F1) as evaluation metrics. All experimental results are the average score over five runs with random seeds.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 189, + 882, + 285 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 299, + 621, + 312 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We validate our proposed method on various domain datasets. We use OntoNotes 5.0 (General) (Pradhan et al., 2013) standard training set as our source domain training data, and use CoNLL 2003 (News) (Sang and Meulder, 2003), Wnut 17 (Social) (Derczynski et al., 2017), I2B2(Medical) (Stubbs and Uzuner, 2015), GUM(Mixed) (Zeldes, 2017) as our flat NER setting target domain, ACE2004 (Event) (Doddington et al., 2004), ACE2005 (Event) (Walker and Consortium, 2005) as our nested NER target domain. For the source domain, we use the OntoNotes train/development/test splits released for the CoNLL 2012 shared task. For the target domains, we consider all datasets except for OntoNotes, and then extract the support set as mentioned in Section 2.2. The statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 321, + 884, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 623, + 628, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare the performances of SLC-DA on different datasets in the flat and nested entity settings with the following cross-domain Few-Shot NER models. 1) Direct-Transfer: which trains the NER model on the source domain data and evaluates it on the target domain support set. 2) MELM (Zhou et al., 2022): our baseline method, which exploits the Masked Entity Language Model (MELM) to generate the augmented NER data. 3) ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020): an implementation of Prototypical Network based on BERT. 4) NNShot and Structshot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020): a nearest neighbor based network and a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network. 5) CONTaiNER (Das et al., 2022): a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 645, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "522", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d9b96b5d56b4d0c18a00677b3a24e84fcc60b855a6865f103b084a37e95d4c5a.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsFlat entity settingsNested entity settings
CoNLLWNUTI2B2GUMAvgACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
Direct Transfer15.515.50000003.934.134.125.225.2
MELM‡17.820.81.09.104.40.41.16.834.131.824.224.2
Proto†49.961.317.422.813.417.917.819.527.5----
NNShot†61.274.122.727.315.322.010.515.931.1----
StructShot†62.474.824.230.421.430.37.813.333.1----
CONTaiNER†61.275.827.532.521.536.718.525.237.4----
ProML†69.279.143.953.425.058.215.337.047.6----
SLC-DA (ours)79.281.744.146.135.349.119.241.349.539.941.232.640.2
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 884, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Main results of SLC-DA and comparison methods for cross-domain few-shot NER. We use F (F1) as evaluation metrics. ‘†’ represents the results are cited from the initial paper, and ‘‡’ represents the results re-implemented by us. All experimental results are the average score over 5 runs with random seeds.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 882, + 293 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "entities of different categories. 6) ProML (Chen et al., 2022): designed multiple prompt schemas are to enhance label semantics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 318, + 487, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Main Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 380, + 265, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1 presents the results of flat and nested NER. Compared with these strong baselines, SLC-DA leads to significant improvements and achieves state-of-the-art performances in flat NER setting.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 401, + 487, + 464 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We also report competitive results in the newly proposed nested-entity cross-domain setting. Particularly, in the flat NER setting, our method improves $1.9\\%$ on average compared to SOTA, and improves $12.1\\%$ on average compared to CONTaiNER. In the nested NER setting, our method improves $6.45\\%$ and $11.2\\%$ on average compared to SOTA, $7.6\\%$ and $12.2\\%$ compared to baseline for ACE04 and ACE05, respectively. All these results well demonstrate the effective of our method. The reason we did not report all baselines for the ACE04/ACE05 datasets is because these datasets contain nested named entities, which pose a challenge for traditional baseline methods designed for flat entities. These baseline methods, such as container-based approaches, are not suitable for accurately handling nested entities. Therefore, including their results in the evaluation would not provide a fair comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 468, + 489, + 772 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The experimental results demonstrate that our method and the metric-based method can achieve good performance when there is small domain difference between the source and target domains (where the target domain is the CoNLL dataset in the news domain). However, our method has significant advantages over other methods when there is a large domain difference and limited target domain data, as demonstrated by the experiments on", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 774, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "I2B2 (medical) and GUM (mixed) datasets. This indicates that our data augmentation method can help the NER model smoothly transfer from the source domain to the target domain. In addition, due to the different usage of the target domain support set, our method only uses the generated augmented data and source domain data in the training set, while other metric-based comparison methods use the support set as the training set. As k-shot increases, our method performs slightly worse than ProML method on WNUT and I2B2 datasets but better than other methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 318, + 884, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MELM in the nested NER setting is even less effective than direct migration. The main reason is that the labels of ACE04 and ACE05 are identical to the labels of OntoNotes in five cases, but ACE04 and ACE05 have nested entities, resulting in the failure of data augmentation. By contrast, our SLC-DA can learn the entity structure of target domain and thus generate appropriate augmented data, benefiting the NER model to learn the knowledge effectively and further improve the ability of recognizing entity in the target domain. Parameter settings can be found in A.1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 513, + 885, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In our study, the migration from OntoNotes to CoNLL dataset cannot strictly be considered as a cross-domain setup, since the OntoNotes dataset includes news data as one of its sources. However, to maintain consistency with existing literature and experimental settings, we conducted experiments under this particular setup.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 707, + 884, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Analysis and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 835, + 752, + 851 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 864, + 675, + 879 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct ablation studies to explore the effect of structure-constrained and label-constrained mod", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "523", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/6eab43a652d822f6158f12115b9019c95249499b75fdbd25cc489d9958832c1d.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsFlat entity settings
CoNLLWNUT
1-shot PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer39.511.815.539.511.815.5000000
SLC-DA82.976.479.285.078.681.770.532.144.168.734.646.1
- w/o structure-constrained65.952.358.568.354.360.536.523.628.735.523.928.6
- w/o label-constrained83.575.079.081.377.679.455.129.838.751.630.838.5
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 82, + 884, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/381094f680ef19a7849699f05247bad06999a330fa83693b308f9027010a9783.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Nested entity settings" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer69.822.534.169.822.534.163.115.7725.263.115.7725.2
SLC-DA72.227.639.967.029.741.255.623.132.661.030.040.2
- w/o structure-constrained70.621.733.266.523.434.660.89.316.160.813.622.2
- w/o label-constrained68.225.537.268.328.139.856.919.829.458.628.538.3
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 231, + 884, + 347 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Ablation study on SLC-DA method for cross domain few-shot NER.", + "bbox": [ + 233, + 356, + 759, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ules on the overall performance. The results of flat NER and nested NER are reported in Table 2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 395, + 487, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "w/o structure-constrained: Structure constrained is not used in data augmentation, and entities predicted by language model are directly used as newly generated data. When ablating the structure-constrained module, Table 2 shows that the performances of SLC-DA drop dramatically for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Particularly, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'structure-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by over $20\\%$ and $10\\%$ on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested NER, the F1-scores drop by over $6\\%$ and $15\\%$ on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, respectively. Overall, these results prove that our structure-constrained data augmentation module plays an important role in SLC-DA and it is necessary to exploiting entity structure information in data augmentation methods.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 432, + 489, + 721 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "w/o label-constrained: The NER model are directly initialized by pretrained bert-base-cased and no longer learns the relationship between entity labels from the source and target domain. When ablating the label-constrained module, Table 2 illustrates that the performances of SLC-DA drop slightly for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Concretely, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'label-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by approximately $1.5\\%$ and $1\\%$ on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 726, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NER, the F1-scores drop by over $2\\%$ and $2.5\\%$ on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, separately. Subsequently, these analyses demonstrate that the label-constrained data augmentation module also have a consistent effect on the performance of SLC-DA and modeling relations among different labels of the same entities contributes to data augmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 395, + 884, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In summary, both 'structure-constrained' and 'label-constrained' module have important effects on performances of our proposed method. However, compared with the operation 'w/o structure-constrained', removing the 'label constrained' module from SLC-DA results in a more marginal decrease of performances on both flat and nested NER, illustrating that 'structure-constrained' module is more influential than 'label-constrained' in the SLC-DA method. We conjecture that there are two possible reasons: I) 'structure-constrained' module directly participates in the process of augmented data generation while 'label-constrained' does not, since 'structure-constrained' is one of the optimization objective of data generation process while 'label-constrained' is only used as the initialization of parameters. II) the scale of training data for 'structure-constrained' module is larger than that for 'label-constrained' module, leading to the differences of model's ability on capturing entity structure and label-relation information.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 510, + 884, + 847 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Results on Different Labels", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 864, + 769, + 878 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the results of our SLC-DA model on different label entities in CoNLL, WNUT, ACE04", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "524", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cf7c94dbca451ba76546344abafabcf34ca93b9c2f992d42765ff038c998428e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetEntity TypeMELMStructureLabelSLC-DA
PRFPRFPRFPRF
CoNLLPER100.00.61.287.984.186.082.457.267.690.587.288.8
ORG72.478.475.268.779.473.659.340.948.476.379.577.8
LOC70.43.77.190.174.281.369.762.565.988.875.281.4
MISC100.00.61.284.966.374.557.859.558.787.065.174.5
WNUTcorporation13.210.611.710.53.04.711.12.44.040.06.110.5
creative-work20.04.27.039.720.427.028.116.220.538.325.430.5
group41.73.05.621.718.219.811.436.317.322.020.021.0
location50.03.36.260.235.344.545.832.738.162.836.045.8
person47.77.412.971.647.657.159.835.044.178.847.659.3
product23.83.96.740.78.714.320.06.39.634.211.016.7
ACE04GPE79.029.943.473.246.056.575.139.451.673.647.757.9
ORG69.629.941.867.130.642.070.229.041.067.734.245.5
PER64.515.324.766.419.930.661.815.925.364.722.833.7
FAC66.75.49.950.06.311.160.02.75.145.08.013.6
VEH60.89.316.156.919.829.462.815.024.255.623.132.6
LOC43.59.515.643.215.222.536.813.319.640.917.124.2
WEA00068.225.537.270.621.733.272.227.639.9
ACE05GPE76.231.744.874.540.952.873.431.043.669.543.353.5
ORG65.421.832.763.328.339.171.425.537.661.628.739.1
PER52.48.915.254.829.438.353.89.516.159.330.840.5
FAC33.30.71.452.48.114.050.04.48.173.912.521.4
VEH15.83.05.020.02.95.166.73.97.442.95.910.3
LOC30.87.411.952.222.231.229.49.314.166.729.641.0
WEA00013.34.06.29.12.03.325.04.06.9
", + "bbox": [ + 124, + 80, + 878, + 489 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Performance of SLC-DA and comparison methods on each entity type of all datasets in the 5-shot settings. 'Structure' denotes only structure constrained is used in data augmentation, and 'Label' denotes only label constrained is used in data augmentation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 499, + 882, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and ACE05 in the 5-shot settings. Our method achieves the best F1-score $(87.6\\%)$ on almost all labels and an extremely highest recall $(86.6\\%)$ compared with MELM. The results well demonstrate the effective of our method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 569, + 487, + 649 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Upon observing the results of the ablation experiments, it can be seen that the MELM model only performed well on the 'ORG' category in the CoNLL dataset, which is because this category is included in the source domain OntoNotes. For the other categories, the MELM model showed high precision but low recall and F1 scores, indicating that the model could not identify most entities belonging to the target domain label. On the other hand, our SLC-DA model achieved better results in all categories except for 'corporation' in the WNUT dataset, with an increase in recall proving that our method helped the NER model learn to identify entities belonging to the target domain, and thus, demonstrated that our approach can help NER models more smoothly and effectively transfer from the", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "source to the target domain.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 570, + 717, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In term of the abnormal result of label 'corporation', we conjecture it is because 'corporation' and 'group' are overlapped by label 'ORG' in OntoNotes. Since there are more entities with 'group' label than 'corporation' label, the model better learns the mapping relationship between 'group' and 'ORG'. Consequently, some data that should be labeled as 'corporation' is labeled as 'group'. These results in the precision decrease in label 'group' and the recall drop in label 'corporation' by comparison.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 587, + 884, + 765 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.3 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 781, + 643, + 797 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Table 4, we present some cases by comparing words generated by SLC-DA and MELM to verify the effectiveness of our method. It can be seen that our method can generate appropriate entities according to the entity structure when encountering unseen entities in the source domain. In addition, when the target domain contains more difficult", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 806, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "525", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/3fd6beecddb96292f3e1132fd7bd2240d066c14d8d48d022e8d4a4d40ed790b0.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
TextI switched the channel last night to [Independence Day]creativeday.
MELMAmerican Football, Between Football, Hard Trek
SLC-DA[Seven Days]creativeday, [Saturday Night]creativeday, [The Trek]creativeday,
Text...that were imposed in 1998 to punish and isolate the regime of [[Yugoslav]GPE President Slobodan Milosevic]PER.
MELM[Yugoslavia President Milosevic]PER [communist President Milosevic]PER [former President Slobodan Milosevic]PER
SLC-DA[[Serbian]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Montenegro]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Kosovo]GPE President Milosevic]PER
TextWhat they say are [the Bush]PER administration]ORG's neglectful attitudes about their problems
MELMUnited [Houston]GPE Workers [Social United Administration]ORG [The United House administration]ORG
SLC-DA[the [Reagan]PER administration]ORG [the [Carter]PER administration]ORG [the [Clinton]PER administration]ORG
", + "bbox": [ + 126, + 82, + 480, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: Case study of augmented data, blue represents all entities and red represents nested entities.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 492, + 485, + 521 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "nested entities, our method can also generate appropriate entities. And the results on different labels can be found in 5.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 489, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 611, + 270, + 626 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.1 Cross-domain Few-shot NER", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 639, + 389, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recently, few-shot NER tasks have attracted a lot of researches. For example, Snell et al. (2017); Fritzler et al. (2019); Hou et al. (2020) applied prototype networks to the few-shot NER task, while Yang and Katiyar (2020) proposed StructShot, a model that learns class-specific features and extends intermediate representations to new domains. Das et al. (2022) proposed Container, a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between entities of different categories for better understanding of new unseen classes. Liu et al. (2022) devises two prompting mechanisms for better training data generation, which is heavily influenced by the prompt strategies and needs heavy computation. However, these methods suffer from serious label inconsistency issues in cross", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 661, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "domain scenarios. The knowledge they learned in the source domain cannot be directly applied to the target domain. Moreover, due to the complexity of NER tasks, these works need to design complex learning strategies to be applied to few-shot NER tasks. Unlike previous works, our work focuses on the knowledge of entity internal structure. As far as we know, we are the first to introduce entity structure and label information in data augmentation to solve cross-domain few-shot NER tasks, which may inspire the following exploration to study internal structure knowledge of entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6.2 Data Augmentation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 300, + 709, + 316 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Data augmentation is a popular solution for few-shot learning tasks, which is also studied in cross-domain few-shot NER. However, noise is inevitably introduced in the process of introducing augmented data. As a token-level task, NER is vulnerable to the noise caused by augmented data. Dai and Adel (2020) uses label-wise token replacement, synonym replacement, and mention replacement to augmented data but does not increase the diversity of entities. Ding et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2022) respectively train language model and mask language model to fuse the alignment information of entities and labels to constrain the newly generated words to match labels, but inevitably introduce a lot of noise. While current methods aim to align the newly generated entities with the original labels, they face limitations in cross-domain few-shot NER. This is because each domain may have distinct entity structures and labels, rendering the generated data incompatible with the target domain's entity structure. Consequently, conventional data augmentation methods are not directly applicable to cross-domain few-shot NER.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 329, + 884, + 699 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 722, + 640, + 739 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose a Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER, by introducing entity structure and label information from various domains in the data augmentation process, to obtain high-quality synthetic data in the target domain. Experimental results on both flat and nested few-shot NER tasks show that our method can significantly improve the quality of generated data and help NER model find more target domain entities.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "526", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 84, + 220, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Named entities are typically classified as flat, nested, or discontinuous entities, with significant structural differences between the three types. This makes it challenging for existing methods to effectively transfer from flat NER datasets to either nested or discontinuous NER datasets. While our experiments in this paper validate that our method can effectively transfer NER models from flat to nested datasets, we have yet to demonstrate its efficacy in transferring to discontinuous NER datasets. This is an avenue for future research, as our method's effectiveness on discontinuous datasets remains to be explored.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 110, + 492, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 332, + 278, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The research work described in this paper has been supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 61976016, 61976015, and 61876198) and the National Key R&D Program of China (2020AAA0108001). The authors also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 360, + 489, + 488 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 517, + 213, + 532 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Yanru Chen, Yanan Zheng, and Zhilin Yang. 2022. Prompt-based metric learning for few-shot ner.", + "Xiang Dai and Heike Adel. 2020. An analysis of simple data augmentation for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 8-13, 2020, pages 3861-3867. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.", + "Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2022. CONTaiNER: Few-shot named entity recognition via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6338-6353, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, NUT@EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7, 2017, pages 140-147. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 539, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Bosheng Ding, Linlin Liu, Lidong Bing, Canasai Kru-engkrai, Thien Hai Nguyen, Shafiq R. Joty, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2020. DAGA: data augmentation with a generation approach for low-resource tagging tasks. CoRR, abs/2011.01549.", + "George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie M. Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004, May 26-28, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. European Language Resources Association.", + "Alexander Fritzler, Varvara Logacheva, and Maksim Kretov. 2019. Few-shot classification in named entity recognition task. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2019, Limassol, Cyprus, April 8-12, 2019, pages 993-1000. ACM.", + "Ralph Grishman and Beth Sundheim. 1996. Message understanding conference- 6: A brief history. In 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, COLING 1996, Center for Sprogstkologi, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 5-9, 1996, pages 466-471.", + "Yutai Hou, Wanxiang Che, Yongkui Lai, Zhihan Zhou, Yijia Liu, Han Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Few-shot slot tagging with collapsed dependency transfer and label-enhanced task-adaptive projection network. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 1381-1393. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In *NAACL HLT* 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 260-270. The Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Xiaoya Li, Jingrong Feng, Yuxian Meng, Qinghong Han, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5849-5859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Jian Liu, Yufeng Chen, and Jinan Xu. 2022. Low-resource NER by data augmentation with prompting." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "527", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 4525-4258. ijcai.org.", + "bbox": [ + 131, + 85, + 489, + 139 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 149, + 489, + 215 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Anders Björkelund, Olga Uryupina, Yuchen Zhang, and Zhi Zhong. 2013. Towards robust linguistic analysis using ontonotes. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 8-9, 2013, pages 143-152. ACL.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 228, + 489, + 319 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Chen Qian, Fuli Feng, Lijie Wen, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Conceptualized and contextualized gaussian embedding. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13683-13691. AAAI Press.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 332, + 489, + 449 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2003, Held in cooperation with HLT-NAACL 2003, Edmonton, Canada, May 31 - June 1, 2003, pages 142-147. ACL.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 462, + 489, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4077-4087.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 565, + 489, + 645 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Amber Stubbs and Ozlem Uzuner. 2015. Annotating longitudinal clinical narratives for de-identification: The 2014 i2b2/uthealth corpus. J. Biomed. Informatics, 58:S20-S29.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 657, + 489, + 709 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "C. Walker and Linguistic Data Consortium. 2005. ACE 2005 Multilingual Training Corpus. LDC corpora. Linguistic Data Consortium.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 722, + 489, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yi Yang and Arzoo Katiyar. 2020. Simple and effective few-shot named entity recognition with structured nearest neighbor learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6365-6375. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 774, + 489, + 866 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 51(3):581-612.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 878, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ran Zhou, Xin Li, Ruidan He, Lidong Bing, Erik Cambria, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2022. MELM: data augmentation with masked entity language modeling for low-resource NER. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2251-2262. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 85, + 884, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Example Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 206, + 712, + 223 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Parameter Settings", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 234, + 710, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We elaborate experimental settings of SLC-DA and NER models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 256, + 880, + 286 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "SLC-DA: We use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with a language model head for our structure constrained data augmentation model. The model is trained for 20 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 1e-5.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 288, + 882, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We calculate the loss for each word generated by the masked language model and select the best top-K. For a sentence containing n entities, this results in generating $K^n$ new sentences (with $k = 5$ in the presented experimental results). The additional time required by our method compared to MELM is not substantial because of the few-shot setting of the target domain's support set. Let's take the example of the WNUT 2017 dataset with a 5-shot setting. The support set consists of 216 sentences and 334 entity words. MELM requires approximately 4 minutes for data augmentation, while our method takes around 13 minutes.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 403, + 882, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "NER Model: For flat NER setting, we use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with CRF (Lample et al., 2016) head as the NER model. The model is trained for 5 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with batch size set to 32 and learning rate set to 5e-5. For nested NER setting, we use the MRC-NER (Li et al., 2020) model as the NER model. The model is trained for 7 epochs on source domain training data and finetuned for 20 epochs on the SLC-DA generated data, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 2e-5. For Direct Transfer setting, the model is trained only on the source domain training data.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 882, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The server used for running our program is NVIDIA Tesla P100-SXM2. The average training time per epoch for our structure constrained data augmentation component is approximately 0.5", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "528", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/a8a68b3d1c1dd1dba0d2f9677fd13740b1e28e9e38d85ccbbce52ccace7ea89e.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
Direct Transfer15.515.500
MELM‡17.511.15.41.2
CONTaiNER‡77.635.441.028.1
ProML‡81.555.061.239.6
SLC-DA (ours)83.250.456.159.5
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 453, + 172 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/cbcdca14d0c7a0021a8880c7911687dd2bc778b7ddb3d0e84c76569615ec6721.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Overall performances of all systems on four datasets in 10-shot settings for few-shot NER. We use F1 scores as evaluation metrics. $\\ddagger$ represents the results re-implemented by us. Each experimental result is the average of performance over 5 runs with random seeds." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull
Direct Transfer15.515.5000000
MELM‡22.891.213.045.69.697.91.431.7
SLC-DA (ours)85.191.756.247.561.998.073.860.3
", + "bbox": [ + 117, + 273, + 500, + 332 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "hours. For our label constrained data augmentation component, the training time per epoch is influenced by the difference in size between the source and target domains, ranging from 0.5 to 3 hours. For training the NER model, taking the Onton-Notes5.0 dataset of approximately 70k samples as an example, the training time is around 1 hour.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 403, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Experiments on a few more samples", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 532, + 448, + 549 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/09cdbeaac29995c88629e0146d7123386c18878e24fc5cbbccb44a1ebde463cf.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 6: Performances of systems in 50-shot and full set settings for few-shot NER." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetSupport DataAugmented Data
10-shot50-shot10-shot50-shot
CoNLL401142265,870123,376
WNUT42369753,62275,561
I2B28941793134,944196,003
GUM8662107239,766590,523
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 569, + 468, + 665 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We provide experimental results in the 10-shot, 50-shot and full set settings, as shown in Table 5 and 6. The statistics of the support sets and augmented data used in our experiments is shown in Table 7.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 724, + 487, + 803 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the 10-shot settings, our SLC-DA method still outperforms all other comparisons on CoNLL and GUM datasets. Although ProML method performs better than us on WNUT and I2B2 datasets, our approach based on data augmentation explore a various direction and can be combined with ProML to achieve more improvements.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/37e1dbc4678c6767790941b4011c13c72f538504790a6f84a218ebe61220c018.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 7: Statistics of support and augmented data used in our experiments." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetEntity TypeDatasetEntity Type
OntoNotesNORPI2B2IDNUM
ORGMEDICALRECORD
PERSONPHONE
DATEZIP
GPEage
FACcity
CARDINALcountry
TIMEdate
ORDINALdevice
EVENTemail
QUANTITYfax
PERCENThospital
LOCorganization
WORK_OF_ARTperson
MONEYprofession
LAWstate
PRODUCTstreet
LANGUAGEusername
CoNLLPERWNUTcorporation
ORGcreative-work
LOCgroup
MISClocation
person
product
GUMabstractACE04GPE
animalORG
eventPER
objectFAC
organization/ACE05VEH
personLOC
placeWEA
plant
quantity
substance
time
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 82, + 887, + 520 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8: Statistics of predefined labels in all datasets from both source and target domains.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 530, + 882, + 560 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Statistics of Predefined Labels", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 586, + 796, + 602 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 8 displays all predefined labels from various datasets in both source and target domains. Concretely, 'OntoNotes' dataset from the source domain contains 18 predefined entity types. For the target domains, there are 18, 11, 7, 6, and 4 entity categories in 'I2B2', 'GUM', 'ACE04/ACE05', 'WNUT' and 'CoNLL' dataset, respectively. Note that we collect their corresponding label descriptions from the annotation guidelines.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 608, + 882, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 Statistics of datasets used in experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 766, + 878, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The datasets utilized in our study are open-source and consist of various entity types. Further information on the datasets can be found in Table 9. The table lists the entity types present in the datasets, along with the percentage of nested entities relative to the total number of entities.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 789, + 882, + 884 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We report the size of the augment data generated by the support set for each data set in the table 10.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 887, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "529", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 927, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/86fce5f38fbbc4d5c89989cfbdc5f321a853e2d20eca0c662de87d7cca053d01.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetDomianClassNested Entity/Entity1-shot entity5-shot entity1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotesGeneral18-----
CoNLLNews4-792592587
WNUTSocial6-8233451216
I2B2Medical18-2381133162706
GUMMixed11-17086881276
ACE04Event712k/27k20235261102
ACE05Event712k/30k16240743115
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 885, + 206 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b8b296902ed11602b5e195efe0f6bfdfe0777ecfa3d4304b1293f45d0c5cdb37.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 9: Statistics of support set used in experiments" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Dataset1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotes--
CoNLL861848809
WNUT373414770
I2B2554649066
GUM8303130857
ACE041819848855
ACE055437192278
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 252, + 490, + 399 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/608c64292d215a254ba4eaa1fd1b9e8cc207b812779fabb4ebaeee39b2d77cc1.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: Statistics of augment data used in experiments" + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
DatasetCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
zero-shot68.433.315.616.3
5-shot76.240.09.513.2
10-shot68.440.08.610.5
", + "bbox": [ + 157, + 439, + 450, + 504 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: Results of GPT3.5 in different settings.", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 514, + 465, + 527 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Result of GPT3.5", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 556, + 302, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Table 11, we provide the result of GPT3.5 on zero-shot, 5-shot and 10-shot setting. When constructing the input prompt using the support set, we used the following template: First, input a prompt: \"As a good linguist, you are asked to identify and label the named entities in the given sentences. There are some examples, please remember them:\" Secondly, input the support-generated prompt one by one, for example: \"Sentence is: John lives in New York City. Entities are: .\"", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 579, + 489, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We observed that the performance of GPT 3.5 varies on different datasets, performing well on common entities but worse on scarce entities(e.g., medical dataset I2B2). Additionally, compared results of '5-shot' and '10-shot', we find that GPT 3.5 does not perform better with the increase of support samples due to the match degree between inputs and prompts, which highlights the importance of selecting proper prompts for the application of LLMs to few-shot tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Compared to GPT 3.5, our method achieves better performance in the few-shot NER scenario. Furthermore, our core idea can be easily applied to LLMs by modeling structure and label relationships with appropriate prompts, which can help select input data and improve their performance.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 255, + 884, + 351 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "530", + "bbox": [ + 485, + 928, + 515, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_model.json b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..027928174549df93a537e59ae64f3f0ad8d75e3e --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2228 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.129, + 0.09, + 0.87, + 0.128 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.264, + 0.149, + 0.744, + 0.166 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jingyi Zhang\\(^{1}\\), Ying Zhang\\(^{1}\\), Yufeng Chen\\(^{1*}\\), Jinan Xu\\(^{1}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.282, + 0.167, + 0.725, + 0.184 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1Beijing Key Lab of Traffic Data Analysis and Mining," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.326, + 0.184, + 0.678, + 0.2 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.295, + 0.201, + 0.71, + 0.217 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "{jyizhang,zhying,chenyf,jaxu}@bjtu.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.267 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.28, + 0.461, + 0.635 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cross-domain few-shot named entity recognition (NER) is a challenging task that aims to recognize entities in target domains with limited labeled data by leveraging relevant knowledge from source domains. However, domain gaps limit the effect of knowledge transfer and harm the performance of NER models. In this paper, we analyze those domain gaps from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and leverage word-to-tag and word-to-word relations to model them, respectively. Moreover, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER, which novelly design a label constrained pre-train task and a structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-specific augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains. We evaluate our approach on several standard datasets and achieve state-of-the-art or competitive results, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method in cross-domain few-shot NER." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.648, + 0.26, + 0.663 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.673, + 0.49, + 0.897 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Named entity recognition (NER) is a fundamental Natural Language Processing (NLP) task to detect entity mentions and classify them into predefined labels (Grishman and Sundheim, 1996). Benefiting from powerful feature representations, deep learning based NER approaches (Lample et al., 2016; Devlin et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020) have achieved promising performances. However, their success depends heavily on the large-scale dataset with accurate annotations that are labor-intensive and time-consuming. Although some general domains (e.g., news) provide rich annotations, it is unaffordable to manually annotate NER labels in some new environments (e.g., bio-medicine). Therefore," + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.25, + 0.88, + 0.369 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.526, + 0.373, + 0.851, + 0.385 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a) Entity structure differences and entity annotation differences" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.52, + 0.404, + 0.875, + 0.453 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.46, + 0.753, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) Structure constrained data augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.522, + 0.481, + 0.865, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.54, + 0.733, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(c) Label constrained data augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.573, + 0.885, + 0.631 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Examples for entities have different structures and labels between the source and target domains. Different colors and combinations of squares represent different entity types and structures, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.66, + 0.885, + 0.724 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "few-shot NER (Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020) has attracted increasing attentions, aiming to build an NER model with only a small number of supporting samples in specific domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mainstream researches on cross-domain few-shot NER aim to transfer relevant knowledge from source domains. Most of them focus on optimizing model architectures based on metric-learning, such as Prototypical Network based ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020), a nearest neighbor based network NNShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network StructShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), and Container (Das et al., 2022), a contrastive model. There are also studies based on data augmentation methods, such as MELM Zhou" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.905, + 0.405, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "* Yufeng Chen is the corresponding author." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "518" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.226, + 0.946, + 0.772, + 0.958 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 518-530" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.278, + 0.959, + 0.72, + 0.972 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.486, + 0.117 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "et al. (2022), which uses cross-lingual pre-trained models for data augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.121, + 0.49, + 0.332 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Cross-domain few-shot NER is full of challenges because of the domain gaps, especially for NER tasks. However, existing work lacks research on this problem. As a structure prediction task, NER requires synthetic entity with highly matching of label dependencies. However, there are distinctions among texts from various domains. The same entity mention in various domains is labeled with different entity types or distinct span boundaries. Unfortunately, existing studies have not adequately explored the influence of domain gaps on NER tasks. Consequently, these gaps significantly impact the performance of existing approaches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.336, + 0.49, + 0.69 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In view of these challenges, we divide domain gaps into two categories as shown in Figure 1(a). Category-I: The structure of entities differs across domains. For example, 'the Lincoln Memorial' is represented as a contiguous location entity in flat NER datasets, while it is additionally labeled with a person entity \"Lincoln\" in the nested NER datasets. Additionally, entity boundaries may vary from domain to domain. For example, in different datasets, the inclusion of \"the\" in the phrase \"the Lincoln Memorial\" can vary. Category-II: The annotations of entities differs across domains. Difference domains usually have different pre-defined entity types. For example, in OntoNotes dataset, 'the Lincoln Memorial' and 'Washington D.C' are annotated as 'LOC' and 'GPE' types, respectively, where as in WNUT dataset, both are classified as 'location'. Our proposed method aims to alleviate the negative impact of structure and annotations differences on cross-domain few-shot NER. By doing so, we aim to enhance the performance of NER models in the target domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.695, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Based on the above analyses, we introduce two types of relationships to sufficiently model two kinds of domain gaps in cross domain few-shot NER method. Word-to-word relation: 'the Washington Monument' is annotated as one entity in flat NER datasets while annotated as two entities in nested ones. When the source domain is a flat entity dataset and the target domain is a nested entity dataset, it is likely to generate non-nested entity data, leading to the NER model not being able to learn the knowledge in the target domain. Word-to-tag relation: the corresponding entity types of 'Washington D.C.' are 'GPE' and 'location' in 'OntoNotes' and 'WNUT', respectively," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.881, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "which may cause label conflict if directly learned." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.106, + 0.885, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER. SLC-DA novelly design a label constrained pre-train task, which allows the model to learn the mapping relationships between entities across diverse domains. Furthermore, SLC-DA incorporate structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-aware augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.287, + 0.885, + 0.463 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Concretely, for structure-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(b), we calculate the word-to-word relation to model the entity structure between entity word tokens and other tokens, and generate structure-enhanced NER data in the target domain for training. For label-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(c), we replace the same entity mentions with their corresponding different categories for each instance and utilize the language model to learn these word-to-tag relationships in different domains to avoid confusion." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.468, + 0.884, + 0.596 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we compare our approach with previous works on flat NER and report results surpassing the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, we report competitive results on nested NER. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed method is simple yet highly effective. Finally, our main contributions are summarized as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.624, + 0.884, + 0.705 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- To bridge domain gaps for cross-domain few-shot NER, we analyze this issue from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and define word-to-word and word-to-tag relations to model them, respectively." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.731, + 0.885, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We propose a method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLCDA), introducing a label-constrained pre-train task and structure-constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.84, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- We achieved state-of-the-art results in the cross-domain few-shot NER task. We also achieved competitive results by transferring from a flat entity dataset to a nested entity dataset for the first time." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "519" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.258, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Background" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.109, + 0.277, + 0.124 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Few-shot NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.13, + 0.49, + 0.404 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since there are usually multiple entity instances in a single sentence for NER task, which is different from text classification tasks, we cannot following the few-shot settings of text classification to construct the support set by sampling K sentences for each entity class, which can lead to an imbalance in the data. Therefore, for few-shot NER, the dataset consists of N entity classes, with K annotated instances per class, denoted as the N-way K-shot setting. To address the issue of imbalanced data distribution across different entity categories, we employ a specific strategy. Firstly, we calculate the total number of entities for each category. Then, we prioritize the selection of categories with fewer entities. This approach ensures the rationality of the support set size. Statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.414, + 0.443, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Domain Transfer for Few-shot NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.434, + 0.49, + 0.645 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Domain transfer usually transfers knowledge from the source domain to the target domain. For the few-shot NER task, the NER model is first trained on the source domain and then fine-tuned on the target domain. During the source domain training, the train, development, and test sets are fully utilized. The data splits for train, development, and test are described in Section 4.2. During the target domain training, the training data consist of the generated augmented data (data augmentation based on support set), the development set is the support set, and we adopt the original test set from the target domain for testing." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.655, + 0.219, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Method" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.68, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present our proposed method, called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER. Figure 2 depicts the overview of our method, which includes two modules: structure constrained data augmentation and label constrained pre-train task. We illustrate the details of how we learn entity structure and label relation." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.819, + 0.382, + 0.851 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Structure Constrained Data Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.855, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To enhance the quality of generated NER data, we propose to augment data with structure constrained optimization objective by learning and preserving entity structures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.229 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the structure constrained data augmentation module, we first combine source domain data and target domain support set to pretrain the data augmentation model. Then, we capture the entity structure by modeling the word-to-word-relation. Subsequently, the structure constrained data augmentation is used to generate more entities that conform to the target domain entity structure and replace the original entities to compose the augmentation data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.23, + 0.885, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Let \\(D_{source}\\) and \\(D_{target}\\) denote the source domain dataset and target domain support set. Given a \\(N\\) tokens sentence \\(X = [x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{N}]\\) with corresponding NER labels \\(L = [l_{1}, l_{2}, \\ldots, l_{N}]\\), we encode the sentence to \\(H = [h_{1}, h_{2}, \\ldots, h_{N}]\\). Then we randomly mask entity tokens to generate a new sequence \\(X'\\) and \\(M = [m_{1}, m_{2}, \\ldots, m_{N}]\\), where \\(m_{i} = 1\\) if \\(x_{i}\\) is masked else \\(m_{i} = 0\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.359, + 0.884, + 0.437 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For a masked entity token \\( x_{i}^{\\prime} \\), we use masked language model (MLM) to generate the entity \\( x_{i}^{\\prime \\prime} \\) which is the most similar to the entity \\( x_{i} \\), and the new sequence \\( X^{\\prime \\prime} \\) is generated by minimizing the loss" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.568, + 0.448, + 0.884, + 0.469 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {M L M} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {\\prime \\prime}\\right) = - m _ {i} \\operatorname {l o g p} _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i} \\mid X ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.481, + 0.794, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\theta\\) represents model parameters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.496, + 0.884, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Qian et al. (2021), we exploit Gaussian embedding, which is innately more expressive than point embedding. For token embedding \\(h_i\\), we compute its Gaussian Embedding \\(G_i \\sim \\mathcal{N}(\\mu_i, \\Sigma_i)\\) as follows:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.588, + 0.884, + 0.605 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\mu_ {i} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(h _ {i}\\right), \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.563, + 0.608, + 0.885, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\Sigma_ {i} = E L U (R e L U (h _ {i})) + (1 + \\epsilon), \\qquad (3)\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.637, + 0.884, + 0.717 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(\\mu_{i}\\) denotes the semantics of \\(x_{i}\\), covariance matrix \\(\\Sigma_{i}\\) represents the uncertainty, \\(ELU\\) represents exponential linear unit, and \\(\\epsilon\\) is set toe\\(^{-14}\\) for numerical stability. We use KL-divergence to calculate the similarity of entity structure" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\begin{array}{l} D _ {K L} (i, j) = \\frac {1}{2} \\left(\\log \\frac {\\left| \\Sigma_ {i} \\right|}{\\left| \\Sigma_ {j} \\right|} - D + t r \\left(\\Sigma_ {i} ^ {- 1} \\Sigma_ {j}\\right) \\right. \\tag {4} \\\\ + \\left(\\mu_ {i} - \\mu_ {j}\\right) ^ {T} \\Sigma_ {\\mu} ^ {- 1} (\\mu_ {i} - \\mu_ {j}). \\\\ \\end{array}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.794, + 0.885, + 0.841 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the KL-divergence is asymmetric, we obtain the similarity by calculating the KL-divergence in both directions" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.554, + 0.849, + 0.884, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nd (i, j) = \\frac {1}{2} \\left(D _ {K L} (i, j) + D _ {K L} (j, i)\\right). \\tag {5}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We define the optimization objective as follows to minimize the structure difference between newly" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "520" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.123, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.513 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.523, + 0.884, + 0.608 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: An overview of our proposed approach, which comprises structure constrained data augmentation (bottom) and label constrained pre-train task (top). First, we introduce the word-to-tag relation for label constrained pretrain task. Then, we compute the word-to-word relation for structure constrained data augmentation to generate augmented data for the target domain support set. Among the sentences generated for each sentence, we'll pick the top-K sentences that meet our satisfaction criteria, which we'll denote as \\(\\sqrt{}\\). Finally, we merge the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.635, + 0.384, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "generated entities and original ones." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.131, + 0.658, + 0.487, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {\\text {s t r u c t u r e}} \\left(x _ {i}\\right) = \\log \\frac {\\sum_ {j = 1 , j \\neq i} ^ {n} | \\left(d \\left(x _ {i} , x _ {j}\\right) - d \\left(x _ {i} ^ {\\prime} , x _ {j}\\right) \\right|}{n - 1}. \\tag {6}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.709, + 0.487, + 0.738 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To sum up, for sequence \\( X \\), the total loss is formulated as" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.188, + 0.75, + 0.488, + 0.767 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL _ {\\text {t o t a l}} = L _ {\\text {M L M}} + L _ {\\text {s t r u c t u r e}}. \\tag {7}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.777, + 0.487, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this way, we generate entities that conform to the target domain entity structure. So we can combine the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.851, + 0.426, + 0.865 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Label Constrained Pre-train Task" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.872, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the label constrained pre-training module, to alleviate label inconsistency between different domains, we design several label constraint strategies" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.634, + 0.885, + 0.907 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "to align predefined labels between source and target domains. First, we extract all entities and corresponding sentences from the support set, and find sentences containing these entities in the source domain data set. Then, we form a sentence pair containing the same entity with the sentences in the support set. Let the pretrain language model (PLM) learn different labels of the same entity in different domains and learn the relationship between these two labels. This PLM is subsequently trained with the train data and structure constrained of the source domain to become a NER model. Finally, when inference, we utilize a pre-trained label-constrained model to compute the mapping relationships between labels in the source and target domains. This allows us to bridge the gap between the two domains. We also predefine the label" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.514, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "521" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.474, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "mapping to bridge the source and target domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.102, + 0.489, + 0.262 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To alleviate the label inconsistency among different domains, we propose a novel label-constrained pre-training task to align the inconsistent predefined labels between the source and the target domains in training and prediction process. Based on pre-trained contextual representations, we design a label mapping strategy by calculating the similarity of various predefined labels to align inconsistent labels between the source and target domains in training and prediction process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.264, + 0.49, + 0.488 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the training process, we first filter out all the entities \\( E \\) and their labels \\( L \\) from the sentences \\( S \\) in the target domain denoted as \\( [e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N] \\), \\( [l_1, l_2, \\dots, l_N] \\), and \\( [s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_N] \\), respectively. \\( s_i \\) is a sequence of \\( m \\) tokens \\( [x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_m] \\). We then select sentences containing these entities and labels from the source domain data as \\( [s_1', s_2', \\dots, s_p'] \\) and \\( [l_1', l_2', \\dots, l_p'] \\) and match all sentences which have the same entity up as \\( [e_1; s_1; s_1', e_2; s_2; s_2', \\dots, e_n; s_n; s_p'] \\). Then we swap entities in these sentences with their corresponding labels and generate the representations of two labels \\( l_i \\) and \\( l_i' \\) and compute the KL-Distribution between them as:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.171, + 0.499, + 0.489, + 0.537 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL (i) = - l o g \\frac {e x p (- d \\left(l _ {i} , l _ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right))}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} e x p (- d \\left(l _ {i} , l _ {j}\\right)} \\tag {8}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.548, + 0.489, + 0.612 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and achieve label alignment by learning the relationship between the labels of these entities in the source and the target domains. Finally, we apply the saved parameters to initialize the NER model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.614, + 0.489, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the prediction process, we propose a simple but efficient post processing method to align labels from different domains. Since the NER model is pre-trained on the source domain, it will be affected by predefined labels of the source domain when identifying entities, making some predictions of predefined labels not part of the target domain. Therefore, during inference, we post-process results predicted by the model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We employ label-constrained pre-training task to obtain contextual representations for different entity labels and then compute the mapping relationships of entity categories between the source and target domains (including the \"other\" category). Specifically, according to the official annotation guidelines for each dataset, we generate descriptive statements for each entity category and calculate KL divergence based on the representations of description sentences for each entity category" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.883, + 0.15 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "between the source and target domains. This process allows us to derive the mapping relationships between entity categories in the source domain and entity categories in the target domain." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.163, + 0.656, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.19, + 0.883, + 0.286 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We validate our proposed method in the flat entity and nested entity settings. The details of the experiments are elaborated in this section. We use precision (P), recall (R), and F (F1) as evaluation metrics. All experimental results are the average score over five runs with random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.3, + 0.623, + 0.313 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.322, + 0.885, + 0.611 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We validate our proposed method on various domain datasets. We use OntoNotes 5.0 (General) (Pradhan et al., 2013) standard training set as our source domain training data, and use CoNLL 2003 (News) (Sang and Meulder, 2003), Wnut 17 (Social) (Derczynski et al., 2017), I2B2(Medical) (Stubbs and Uzuner, 2015), GUM(Mixed) (Zeldes, 2017) as our flat NER setting target domain, ACE2004 (Event) (Doddington et al., 2004), ACE2005 (Event) (Walker and Consortium, 2005) as our nested NER target domain. For the source domain, we use the OntoNotes train/development/test splits released for the CoNLL 2012 shared task. For the target domains, we consider all datasets except for OntoNotes, and then extract the support set as mentioned in Section 2.2. The statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.624, + 0.63, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.646, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare the performances of SLC-DA on different datasets in the flat and nested entity settings with the following cross-domain Few-Shot NER models. 1) Direct-Transfer: which trains the NER model on the source domain data and evaluates it on the target domain support set. 2) MELM (Zhou et al., 2022): our baseline method, which exploits the Masked Entity Language Model (MELM) to generate the augmented NER data. 3) ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020): an implementation of Prototypical Network based on BERT. 4) NNShot and Structshot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020): a nearest neighbor based network and a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network. 5) CONTaiNER (Das et al., 2022): a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "522" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.885, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsFlat entity settingsNested entity settings
CoNLLWNUTI2B2GUMAvgACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
Direct Transfer15.515.50000003.934.134.125.225.2
MELM‡17.820.81.09.104.40.41.16.834.131.824.224.2
Proto†49.961.317.422.813.417.917.819.527.5----
NNShot†61.274.122.727.315.322.010.515.931.1----
StructShot†62.474.824.230.421.430.37.813.333.1----
CONTaiNER†61.275.827.532.521.536.718.525.237.4----
ProML†69.279.143.953.425.058.215.337.047.6----
SLC-DA (ours)79.281.744.146.135.349.119.241.349.539.941.232.640.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.251, + 0.884, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Main results of SLC-DA and comparison methods for cross-domain few-shot NER. We use F (F1) as evaluation metrics. ‘†’ represents the results are cited from the initial paper, and ‘‡’ represents the results re-implemented by us. All experimental results are the average score over 5 runs with random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.319, + 0.489, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "entities of different categories. 6) ProML (Chen et al., 2022): designed multiple prompt schemas are to enhance label semantics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.381, + 0.266, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.403, + 0.489, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1 presents the results of flat and nested NER. Compared with these strong baselines, SLC-DA leads to significant improvements and achieves state-of-the-art performances in flat NER setting." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.773 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We also report competitive results in the newly proposed nested-entity cross-domain setting. Particularly, in the flat NER setting, our method improves \\(1.9\\%\\) on average compared to SOTA, and improves \\(12.1\\%\\) on average compared to CONTaiNER. In the nested NER setting, our method improves \\(6.45\\%\\) and \\(11.2\\%\\) on average compared to SOTA, \\(7.6\\%\\) and \\(12.2\\%\\) compared to baseline for ACE04 and ACE05, respectively. All these results well demonstrate the effective of our method. The reason we did not report all baselines for the ACE04/ACE05 datasets is because these datasets contain nested named entities, which pose a challenge for traditional baseline methods designed for flat entities. These baseline methods, such as container-based approaches, are not suitable for accurately handling nested entities. Therefore, including their results in the evaluation would not provide a fair comparison." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The experimental results demonstrate that our method and the metric-based method can achieve good performance when there is small domain difference between the source and target domains (where the target domain is the CoNLL dataset in the news domain). However, our method has significant advantages over other methods when there is a large domain difference and limited target domain data, as demonstrated by the experiments on" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.319, + 0.885, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "I2B2 (medical) and GUM (mixed) datasets. This indicates that our data augmentation method can help the NER model smoothly transfer from the source domain to the target domain. In addition, due to the different usage of the target domain support set, our method only uses the generated augmented data and source domain data in the training set, while other metric-based comparison methods use the support set as the training set. As k-shot increases, our method performs slightly worse than ProML method on WNUT and I2B2 datasets but better than other methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.514, + 0.886, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MELM in the nested NER setting is even less effective than direct migration. The main reason is that the labels of ACE04 and ACE05 are identical to the labels of OntoNotes in five cases, but ACE04 and ACE05 have nested entities, resulting in the failure of data augmentation. By contrast, our SLC-DA can learn the entity structure of target domain and thus generate appropriate augmented data, benefiting the NER model to learn the knowledge effectively and further improve the ability of recognizing entity in the target domain. Parameter settings can be found in A.1." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.708, + 0.885, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In our study, the migration from OntoNotes to CoNLL dataset cannot strictly be considered as a cross-domain setup, since the OntoNotes dataset includes news data as one of its sources. However, to maintain consistency with existing literature and experimental settings, we conducted experiments under this particular setup." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.836, + 0.753, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Analysis and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.865, + 0.677, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.885, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct ablation studies to explore the effect of structure-constrained and label-constrained mod" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "523" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.083, + 0.885, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsFlat entity settings
CoNLLWNUT
1-shot PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer39.511.815.539.511.815.5000000
SLC-DA82.976.479.285.078.681.770.532.144.168.734.646.1
- w/o structure-constrained65.952.358.568.354.360.536.523.628.735.523.928.6
- w/o label-constrained83.575.079.081.377.679.455.129.838.751.630.838.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.43, + 0.219, + 0.573, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nested entity settings" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.233, + 0.885, + 0.348 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer69.822.534.169.822.534.163.115.7725.263.115.7725.2
SLC-DA72.227.639.967.029.741.255.623.132.661.030.040.2
- w/o structure-constrained70.621.733.266.523.434.660.89.316.160.813.622.2
- w/o label-constrained68.225.537.268.328.139.856.919.829.458.628.538.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.235, + 0.357, + 0.761, + 0.371 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Ablation study on SLC-DA method for cross domain few-shot NER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.397, + 0.489, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ules on the overall performance. The results of flat NER and nested NER are reported in Table 2." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.433, + 0.49, + 0.722 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "w/o structure-constrained: Structure constrained is not used in data augmentation, and entities predicted by language model are directly used as newly generated data. When ablating the structure-constrained module, Table 2 shows that the performances of SLC-DA drop dramatically for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Particularly, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'structure-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by over \\(20\\%\\) and \\(10\\%\\) on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested NER, the F1-scores drop by over \\(6\\%\\) and \\(15\\%\\) on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, respectively. Overall, these results prove that our structure-constrained data augmentation module plays an important role in SLC-DA and it is necessary to exploiting entity structure information in data augmentation methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.727, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "w/o label-constrained: The NER model are directly initialized by pretrained bert-base-cased and no longer learns the relationship between entity labels from the source and target domain. When ablating the label-constrained module, Table 2 illustrates that the performances of SLC-DA drop slightly for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Concretely, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'label-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by approximately \\(1.5\\%\\) and \\(1\\%\\) on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.397, + 0.885, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NER, the F1-scores drop by over \\(2\\%\\) and \\(2.5\\%\\) on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, separately. Subsequently, these analyses demonstrate that the label-constrained data augmentation module also have a consistent effect on the performance of SLC-DA and modeling relations among different labels of the same entities contributes to data augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.511, + 0.885, + 0.848 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In summary, both 'structure-constrained' and 'label-constrained' module have important effects on performances of our proposed method. However, compared with the operation 'w/o structure-constrained', removing the 'label constrained' module from SLC-DA results in a more marginal decrease of performances on both flat and nested NER, illustrating that 'structure-constrained' module is more influential than 'label-constrained' in the SLC-DA method. We conjecture that there are two possible reasons: I) 'structure-constrained' module directly participates in the process of augmented data generation while 'label-constrained' does not, since 'structure-constrained' is one of the optimization objective of data generation process while 'label-constrained' is only used as the initialization of parameters. II) the scale of training data for 'structure-constrained' module is larger than that for 'label-constrained' module, leading to the differences of model's ability on capturing entity structure and label-relation information." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.865, + 0.771, + 0.879 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Results on Different Labels" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the results of our SLC-DA model on different label entities in CoNLL, WNUT, ACE04" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "524" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.082, + 0.879, + 0.491 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetEntity TypeMELMStructureLabelSLC-DA
PRFPRFPRFPRF
CoNLLPER100.00.61.287.984.186.082.457.267.690.587.288.8
ORG72.478.475.268.779.473.659.340.948.476.379.577.8
LOC70.43.77.190.174.281.369.762.565.988.875.281.4
MISC100.00.61.284.966.374.557.859.558.787.065.174.5
WNUTcorporation13.210.611.710.53.04.711.12.44.040.06.110.5
creative-work20.04.27.039.720.427.028.116.220.538.325.430.5
group41.73.05.621.718.219.811.436.317.322.020.021.0
location50.03.36.260.235.344.545.832.738.162.836.045.8
person47.77.412.971.647.657.159.835.044.178.847.659.3
product23.83.96.740.78.714.320.06.39.634.211.016.7
ACE04GPE79.029.943.473.246.056.575.139.451.673.647.757.9
ORG69.629.941.867.130.642.070.229.041.067.734.245.5
PER64.515.324.766.419.930.661.815.925.364.722.833.7
FAC66.75.49.950.06.311.160.02.75.145.08.013.6
VEH60.89.316.156.919.829.462.815.024.255.623.132.6
LOC43.59.515.643.215.222.536.813.319.640.917.124.2
WEA00068.225.537.270.621.733.272.227.639.9
ACE05GPE76.231.744.874.540.952.873.431.043.669.543.353.5
ORG65.421.832.763.328.339.171.425.537.661.628.739.1
PER52.48.915.254.829.438.353.89.516.159.330.840.5
FAC33.30.71.452.48.114.050.04.48.173.912.521.4
VEH15.83.05.020.02.95.166.73.97.442.95.910.3
LOC30.87.411.952.222.231.229.49.314.166.729.641.0
WEA00013.34.06.29.12.03.325.04.06.9
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.5, + 0.883, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Performance of SLC-DA and comparison methods on each entity type of all datasets in the 5-shot settings. 'Structure' denotes only structure constrained is used in data augmentation, and 'Label' denotes only label constrained is used in data augmentation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.57, + 0.489, + 0.65 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and ACE05 in the 5-shot settings. Our method achieves the best F1-score \\((87.6\\%)\\) on almost all labels and an extremely highest recall \\((86.6\\%)\\) compared with MELM. The results well demonstrate the effective of our method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Upon observing the results of the ablation experiments, it can be seen that the MELM model only performed well on the 'ORG' category in the CoNLL dataset, which is because this category is included in the source domain OntoNotes. For the other categories, the MELM model showed high precision but low recall and F1 scores, indicating that the model could not identify most entities belonging to the target domain label. On the other hand, our SLC-DA model achieved better results in all categories except for 'corporation' in the WNUT dataset, with an increase in recall proving that our method helped the NER model learn to identify entities belonging to the target domain, and thus, demonstrated that our approach can help NER models more smoothly and effectively transfer from the" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.571, + 0.719, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "source to the target domain." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.588, + 0.885, + 0.766 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In term of the abnormal result of label 'corporation', we conjecture it is because 'corporation' and 'group' are overlapped by label 'ORG' in OntoNotes. Since there are more entities with 'group' label than 'corporation' label, the model better learns the mapping relationship between 'group' and 'ORG'. Consequently, some data that should be labeled as 'corporation' is labeled as 'group'. These results in the precision decrease in label 'group' and the recall drop in label 'corporation' by comparison." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.782, + 0.645, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.3 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.807, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Table 4, we present some cases by comparing words generated by SLC-DA and MELM to verify the effectiveness of our method. It can be seen that our method can generate appropriate entities according to the entity structure when encountering unseen entities in the source domain. In addition, when the target domain contains more difficult" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "525" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.127, + 0.083, + 0.482, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
TextI switched the channel last night to [Independence Day]creativeday.
MELMAmerican Football, Between Football, Hard Trek
SLC-DA[Seven Days]creativeday, [Saturday Night]creativeday, [The Trek]creativeday,
Text...that were imposed in 1998 to punish and isolate the regime of [[Yugoslav]GPE President Slobodan Milosevic]PER.
MELM[Yugoslavia President Milosevic]PER [communist President Milosevic]PER [former President Slobodan Milosevic]PER
SLC-DA[[Serbian]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Montenegro]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Kosovo]GPE President Milosevic]PER
TextWhat they say are [the Bush]PER administration]ORG's neglectful attitudes about their problems
MELMUnited [Houston]GPE Workers [Social United Administration]ORG [The United House administration]ORG
SLC-DA[the [Reagan]PER administration]ORG [the [Carter]PER administration]ORG [the [Clinton]PER administration]ORG
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.493, + 0.487, + 0.522 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: Case study of augmented data, blue represents all entities and red represents nested entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.549, + 0.49, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "nested entities, our method can also generate appropriate entities. And the results on different labels can be found in 5.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.612, + 0.271, + 0.627 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.64, + 0.391, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.1 Cross-domain Few-shot NER" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.662, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recently, few-shot NER tasks have attracted a lot of researches. For example, Snell et al. (2017); Fritzler et al. (2019); Hou et al. (2020) applied prototype networks to the few-shot NER task, while Yang and Katiyar (2020) proposed StructShot, a model that learns class-specific features and extends intermediate representations to new domains. Das et al. (2022) proposed Container, a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between entities of different categories for better understanding of new unseen classes. Liu et al. (2022) devises two prompting mechanisms for better training data generation, which is heavily influenced by the prompt strategies and needs heavy computation. However, these methods suffer from serious label inconsistency issues in cross" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "domain scenarios. The knowledge they learned in the source domain cannot be directly applied to the target domain. Moreover, due to the complexity of NER tasks, these works need to design complex learning strategies to be applied to few-shot NER tasks. Unlike previous works, our work focuses on the knowledge of entity internal structure. As far as we know, we are the first to introduce entity structure and label information in data augmentation to solve cross-domain few-shot NER tasks, which may inspire the following exploration to study internal structure knowledge of entities." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.302, + 0.71, + 0.317 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6.2 Data Augmentation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.33, + 0.885, + 0.7 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Data augmentation is a popular solution for few-shot learning tasks, which is also studied in cross-domain few-shot NER. However, noise is inevitably introduced in the process of introducing augmented data. As a token-level task, NER is vulnerable to the noise caused by augmented data. Dai and Adel (2020) uses label-wise token replacement, synonym replacement, and mention replacement to augmented data but does not increase the diversity of entities. Ding et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2022) respectively train language model and mask language model to fuse the alignment information of entities and labels to constrain the newly generated words to match labels, but inevitably introduce a lot of noise. While current methods aim to align the newly generated entities with the original labels, they face limitations in cross-domain few-shot NER. This is because each domain may have distinct entity structures and labels, rendering the generated data incompatible with the target domain's entity structure. Consequently, conventional data augmentation methods are not directly applicable to cross-domain few-shot NER." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.724, + 0.642, + 0.74 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose a Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER, by introducing entity structure and label information from various domains in the data augmentation process, to obtain high-quality synthetic data in the target domain. Experimental results on both flat and nested few-shot NER tasks show that our method can significantly improve the quality of generated data and help NER model find more target domain entities." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "526" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.085, + 0.221, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.111, + 0.493, + 0.32 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Named entities are typically classified as flat, nested, or discontinuous entities, with significant structural differences between the three types. This makes it challenging for existing methods to effectively transfer from flat NER datasets to either nested or discontinuous NER datasets. While our experiments in this paper validate that our method can effectively transfer NER models from flat to nested datasets, we have yet to demonstrate its efficacy in transferring to discontinuous NER datasets. This is an avenue for future research, as our method's effectiveness on discontinuous datasets remains to be explored." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.334, + 0.279, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.361, + 0.49, + 0.489 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The research work described in this paper has been supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 61976016, 61976015, and 61876198) and the National Key R&D Program of China (2020AAA0108001). The authors also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.518, + 0.214, + 0.533 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.541, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yanru Chen, Yanan Zheng, and Zhilin Yang. 2022. Prompt-based metric learning for few-shot ner." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.673 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiang Dai and Heike Adel. 2020. An analysis of simple data augmentation for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 8-13, 2020, pages 3861-3867. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.684, + 0.49, + 0.777 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2022. CONTaiNER: Few-shot named entity recognition via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6338-6353, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.788, + 0.49, + 0.88 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, NUT@EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7, 2017, pages 140-147. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.541, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.2, + 0.885, + 0.265 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Bosheng Ding, Linlin Liu, Lidong Bing, Canasai Kru-engkrai, Thien Hai Nguyen, Shafiq R. Joty, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2020. DAGA: data augmentation with a generation approach for low-resource tagging tasks. CoRR, abs/2011.01549." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.274, + 0.885, + 0.38 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie M. Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004, May 26-28, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. European Language Resources Association." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.388, + 0.885, + 0.466 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander Fritzler, Varvara Logacheva, and Maksim Kretov. 2019. Few-shot classification in named entity recognition task. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2019, Limassol, Cyprus, April 8-12, 2019, pages 993-1000. ACM." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.476, + 0.885, + 0.555 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ralph Grishman and Beth Sundheim. 1996. Message understanding conference- 6: A brief history. In 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, COLING 1996, Center for Sprogstkologi, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 5-9, 1996, pages 466-471." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.563, + 0.885, + 0.669 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yutai Hou, Wanxiang Che, Yongkui Lai, Zhihan Zhou, Yijia Liu, Han Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Few-shot slot tagging with collapsed dependency transfer and label-enhanced task-adaptive projection network. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 1381-1393. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.677, + 0.885, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In *NAACL HLT* 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 260-270. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.804, + 0.885, + 0.883 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaoya Li, Jingrong Feng, Yuxian Meng, Qinghong Han, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5849-5859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.892, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jian Liu, Yufeng Chen, and Jinan Xu. 2022. Low-resource NER by data augmentation with prompting." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "527" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.14 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 4525-4258. ijcai.org." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.151, + 0.49, + 0.216 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.229, + 0.49, + 0.321 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Anders Björkelund, Olga Uryupina, Yuchen Zhang, and Zhi Zhong. 2013. Towards robust linguistic analysis using ontonotes. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 8-9, 2013, pages 143-152. ACL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.333, + 0.49, + 0.45 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chen Qian, Fuli Feng, Lijie Wen, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Conceptualized and contextualized gaussian embedding. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13683-13691. AAAI Press." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.463, + 0.49, + 0.554 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2003, Held in cooperation with HLT-NAACL 2003, Edmonton, Canada, May 31 - June 1, 2003, pages 142-147. ACL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.567, + 0.49, + 0.646 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4077-4087." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.658, + 0.49, + 0.71 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amber Stubbs and Ozlem Uzuner. 2015. Annotating longitudinal clinical narratives for de-identification: The 2014 i2b2/uthealth corpus. J. Biomed. Informatics, 58:S20-S29." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.723, + 0.49, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "C. Walker and Linguistic Data Consortium. 2005. ACE 2005 Multilingual Training Corpus. LDC corpora. Linguistic Data Consortium." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.775, + 0.49, + 0.867 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yi Yang and Arzoo Katiyar. 2020. Simple and effective few-shot named entity recognition with structured nearest neighbor learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6365-6375. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.879, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 51(3):581-612." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.086, + 0.885, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ran Zhou, Xin Li, Ruidan He, Lidong Bing, Erik Cambria, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2022. MELM: data augmentation with masked entity language modeling for low-resource NER. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2251-2262. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.208, + 0.714, + 0.224 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Example Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.235, + 0.711, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Parameter Settings" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.257, + 0.882, + 0.287 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We elaborate experimental settings of SLC-DA and NER models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.29, + 0.884, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "SLC-DA: We use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with a language model head for our structure constrained data augmentation model. The model is trained for 20 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 1e-5." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.404, + 0.884, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We calculate the loss for each word generated by the masked language model and select the best top-K. For a sentence containing n entities, this results in generating \\( K^n \\) new sentences (with \\( k = 5 \\) in the presented experimental results). The additional time required by our method compared to MELM is not substantial because of the few-shot setting of the target domain's support set. Let's take the example of the WNUT 2017 dataset with a 5-shot setting. The support set consists of 216 sentences and 334 entity words. MELM requires approximately 4 minutes for data augmentation, while our method takes around 13 minutes." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.884, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "NER Model: For flat NER setting, we use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with CRF (Lample et al., 2016) head as the NER model. The model is trained for 5 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with batch size set to 32 and learning rate set to 5e-5. For nested NER setting, we use the MRC-NER (Li et al., 2020) model as the NER model. The model is trained for 7 epochs on source domain training data and finetuned for 20 epochs on the SLC-DA generated data, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 2e-5. For Direct Transfer setting, the model is trained only on the source domain training data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The server used for running our program is NVIDIA Tesla P100-SXM2. The average training time per epoch for our structure constrained data augmentation component is approximately 0.5" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.516, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "528" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.455, + 0.173 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
Direct Transfer15.515.500
MELM‡17.511.15.41.2
CONTaiNER‡77.635.441.028.1
ProML‡81.555.061.239.6
SLC-DA (ours)83.250.456.159.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.186, + 0.489, + 0.258 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Overall performances of all systems on four datasets in 10-shot settings for few-shot NER. We use F1 scores as evaluation metrics. \\(\\ddagger\\) represents the results re-implemented by us. Each experimental result is the average of performance over 5 runs with random seeds." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.119, + 0.274, + 0.501, + 0.334 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull
Direct Transfer15.515.5000000
MELM‡22.891.213.045.69.697.91.431.7
SLC-DA (ours)85.191.756.247.561.998.073.860.3
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.346, + 0.489, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Performances of systems in 50-shot and full set settings for few-shot NER." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.404, + 0.49, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "hours. For our label constrained data augmentation component, the training time per epoch is influenced by the difference in size between the source and target domains, ranging from 0.5 to 3 hours. For training the NER model, taking the Onton-Notes5.0 dataset of approximately 70k samples as an example, the training time is around 1 hour." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.533, + 0.449, + 0.55 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Experiments on a few more samples" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.57, + 0.47, + 0.666 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetSupport DataAugmented Data
10-shot50-shot10-shot50-shot
CoNLL401142265,870123,376
WNUT42369753,62275,561
I2B28941793134,944196,003
GUM8662107239,766590,523
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.676, + 0.487, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Statistics of support and augmented data used in our experiments." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.725, + 0.489, + 0.804 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We provide experimental results in the 10-shot, 50-shot and full set settings, as shown in Table 5 and 6. The statistics of the support sets and augmented data used in our experiments is shown in Table 7." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the 10-shot settings, our SLC-DA method still outperforms all other comparisons on CoNLL and GUM datasets. Although ProML method performs better than us on WNUT and I2B2 datasets, our approach based on data augmentation explore a various direction and can be combined with ProML to achieve more improvements." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.083, + 0.888, + 0.521 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetEntity TypeDatasetEntity Type
OntoNotesNORPI2B2IDNUM
ORGMEDICALRECORD
PERSONPHONE
DATEZIP
GPEage
FACcity
CARDINALcountry
TIMEdate
ORDINALdevice
EVENTemail
QUANTITYfax
PERCENThospital
LOCorganization
WORK_OF_ARTperson
MONEYprofession
LAWstate
PRODUCTstreet
LANGUAGEusername
CoNLLPERWNUTcorporation
ORGcreative-work
LOCgroup
MISClocation
person
product
GUMabstractACE04GPE
animalORG
eventPER
objectFAC
organization/ACE05VEH
personLOC
placeWEA
plant
quantity
substance
time
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.531, + 0.884, + 0.561 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Statistics of predefined labels in all datasets from both source and target domains." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.587, + 0.797, + 0.603 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Statistics of Predefined Labels" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.609, + 0.884, + 0.755 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8 displays all predefined labels from various datasets in both source and target domains. Concretely, 'OntoNotes' dataset from the source domain contains 18 predefined entity types. For the target domains, there are 18, 11, 7, 6, and 4 entity categories in 'I2B2', 'GUM', 'ACE04/ACE05', 'WNUT' and 'CoNLL' dataset, respectively. Note that we collect their corresponding label descriptions from the annotation guidelines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.768, + 0.88, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 Statistics of datasets used in experiments" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.79, + 0.883, + 0.885 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The datasets utilized in our study are open-source and consist of various entity types. Further information on the datasets can be found in Table 9. The table lists the entity types present in the datasets, along with the percentage of nested entities relative to the total number of entities." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.888, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We report the size of the augment data generated by the support set for each data set in the table 10." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.928, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "529" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.082, + 0.887, + 0.207 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetDomianClassNested Entity/Entity1-shot entity5-shot entity1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotesGeneral18-----
CoNLLNews4-792592587
WNUTSocial6-8233451216
I2B2Medical18-2381133162706
GUMMixed11-17086881276
ACE04Event712k/27k20235261102
ACE05Event712k/30k16240743115
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.319, + 0.216, + 0.678, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Statistics of support set used in experiments" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.253, + 0.492, + 0.4 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Dataset1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotes--
CoNLL861848809
WNUT373414770
I2B2554649066
GUM8303130857
ACE041819848855
ACE055437192278
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.41, + 0.486, + 0.424 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: Statistics of augment data used in experiments" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.158, + 0.44, + 0.451, + 0.505 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
DatasetCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
zero-shot68.433.315.616.3
5-shot76.240.09.513.2
10-shot68.440.08.610.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.133, + 0.515, + 0.467, + 0.529 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: Results of GPT3.5 in different settings." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.557, + 0.303, + 0.572 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Result of GPT3.5" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Table 11, we provide the result of GPT3.5 on zero-shot, 5-shot and 10-shot setting. When constructing the input prompt using the support set, we used the following template: First, input a prompt: \"As a good linguist, you are asked to identify and label the named entities in the given sentences. There are some examples, please remember them:\" Secondly, input the support-generated prompt one by one, for example: \"Sentence is: John lives in New York City. Entities are: .\"" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We observed that the performance of GPT 3.5 varies on different datasets, performing well on common entities but worse on scarce entities(e.g., medical dataset I2B2). Additionally, compared results of '5-shot' and '10-shot', we find that GPT 3.5 does not perform better with the increase of support samples due to the match degree between inputs and prompts, which highlights the importance of selecting proper prompts for the application of LLMs to few-shot tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.256, + 0.885, + 0.353 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Compared to GPT 3.5, our method achieves better performance in the few-shot NER scenario. Furthermore, our core idea can be easily applied to LLMs by modeling structure and label relationships with appropriate prompts, which can help select input data and improve their performance." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.486, + 0.929, + 0.517, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "530" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_origin.pdf b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d89b3263c97e2eb19be647f6ef99ec697b8a8a27 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/5e408da6-5360-4cd0-8091-cb592e563355_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8462c489ba4b5f69d68913f0d668d4f52030c71f8d2d1ece53c8344c68aa0da2 +size 971904 diff --git a/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/full.md b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc65d1fdc959f48bca7dc33d26be8748703cb7e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,362 @@ +# Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER + +Jingyi Zhang $^{1}$ , Ying Zhang $^{1}$ , Yufeng Chen $^{1*}$ , Jinan Xu $^{1}$ + +1Beijing Key Lab of Traffic Data Analysis and Mining, + +Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China + +{jyizhang,zhying,chenyf,jaxu}@bjtu.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Cross-domain few-shot named entity recognition (NER) is a challenging task that aims to recognize entities in target domains with limited labeled data by leveraging relevant knowledge from source domains. However, domain gaps limit the effect of knowledge transfer and harm the performance of NER models. In this paper, we analyze those domain gaps from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and leverage word-to-tag and word-to-word relations to model them, respectively. Moreover, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER, which novelly design a label constrained pre-train task and a structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-specific augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains. We evaluate our approach on several standard datasets and achieve state-of-the-art or competitive results, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method in cross-domain few-shot NER. + +# 1 Introduction + +Named entity recognition (NER) is a fundamental Natural Language Processing (NLP) task to detect entity mentions and classify them into predefined labels (Grishman and Sundheim, 1996). Benefiting from powerful feature representations, deep learning based NER approaches (Lample et al., 2016; Devlin et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020) have achieved promising performances. However, their success depends heavily on the large-scale dataset with accurate annotations that are labor-intensive and time-consuming. Although some general domains (e.g., news) provide rich annotations, it is unaffordable to manually annotate NER labels in some new environments (e.g., bio-medicine). Therefore, + +![](images/beb67a25489fc09f691b2c619d67fd5de372ddf25e831077bd3ebf338538e384.jpg) +(a) Entity structure differences and entity annotation differences + +![](images/50a2efc5703383037974f1f75fb9f26cecc79e5dbbabc0944a42d8f5c0f98b26.jpg) +(b) Structure constrained data augmentation + +![](images/f10a78f2f6b5791b10f997c6bb5bb16a1f8f195f6c626456bf32fcdc0e171329.jpg) +(c) Label constrained data augmentation +Figure 1: Examples for entities have different structures and labels between the source and target domains. Different colors and combinations of squares represent different entity types and structures, respectively. + +few-shot NER (Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020) has attracted increasing attentions, aiming to build an NER model with only a small number of supporting samples in specific domains. + +Mainstream researches on cross-domain few-shot NER aim to transfer relevant knowledge from source domains. Most of them focus on optimizing model architectures based on metric-learning, such as Prototypical Network based ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020), a nearest neighbor based network NNShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network StructShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), and Container (Das et al., 2022), a contrastive model. There are also studies based on data augmentation methods, such as MELM Zhou + +et al. (2022), which uses cross-lingual pre-trained models for data augmentation. + +Cross-domain few-shot NER is full of challenges because of the domain gaps, especially for NER tasks. However, existing work lacks research on this problem. As a structure prediction task, NER requires synthetic entity with highly matching of label dependencies. However, there are distinctions among texts from various domains. The same entity mention in various domains is labeled with different entity types or distinct span boundaries. Unfortunately, existing studies have not adequately explored the influence of domain gaps on NER tasks. Consequently, these gaps significantly impact the performance of existing approaches. + +In view of these challenges, we divide domain gaps into two categories as shown in Figure 1(a). Category-I: The structure of entities differs across domains. For example, 'the Lincoln Memorial' is represented as a contiguous location entity in flat NER datasets, while it is additionally labeled with a person entity "Lincoln" in the nested NER datasets. Additionally, entity boundaries may vary from domain to domain. For example, in different datasets, the inclusion of "the" in the phrase "the Lincoln Memorial" can vary. Category-II: The annotations of entities differs across domains. Difference domains usually have different pre-defined entity types. For example, in OntoNotes dataset, 'the Lincoln Memorial' and 'Washington D.C' are annotated as 'LOC' and 'GPE' types, respectively, where as in WNUT dataset, both are classified as 'location'. Our proposed method aims to alleviate the negative impact of structure and annotations differences on cross-domain few-shot NER. By doing so, we aim to enhance the performance of NER models in the target domain. + +Based on the above analyses, we introduce two types of relationships to sufficiently model two kinds of domain gaps in cross domain few-shot NER method. Word-to-word relation: 'the Washington Monument' is annotated as one entity in flat NER datasets while annotated as two entities in nested ones. When the source domain is a flat entity dataset and the target domain is a nested entity dataset, it is likely to generate non-nested entity data, leading to the NER model not being able to learn the knowledge in the target domain. Word-to-tag relation: the corresponding entity types of 'Washington D.C.' are 'GPE' and 'location' in 'OntoNotes' and 'WNUT', respectively, + +which may cause label conflict if directly learned. + +In this paper, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER. SLC-DA novelly design a label constrained pre-train task, which allows the model to learn the mapping relationships between entities across diverse domains. Furthermore, SLC-DA incorporate structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-aware augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains. + +Concretely, for structure-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(b), we calculate the word-to-word relation to model the entity structure between entity word tokens and other tokens, and generate structure-enhanced NER data in the target domain for training. For label-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(c), we replace the same entity mentions with their corresponding different categories for each instance and utilize the language model to learn these word-to-tag relationships in different domains to avoid confusion. + +To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we compare our approach with previous works on flat NER and report results surpassing the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, we report competitive results on nested NER. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed method is simple yet highly effective. Finally, our main contributions are summarized as follows: + +- To bridge domain gaps for cross-domain few-shot NER, we analyze this issue from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and define word-to-word and word-to-tag relations to model them, respectively. + +- We propose a method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLCDA), introducing a label-constrained pre-train task and structure-constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process. + +- We achieved state-of-the-art results in the cross-domain few-shot NER task. We also achieved competitive results by transferring from a flat entity dataset to a nested entity dataset for the first time. + +# 2 Background + +# 2.1 Few-shot NER + +Since there are usually multiple entity instances in a single sentence for NER task, which is different from text classification tasks, we cannot following the few-shot settings of text classification to construct the support set by sampling K sentences for each entity class, which can lead to an imbalance in the data. Therefore, for few-shot NER, the dataset consists of N entity classes, with K annotated instances per class, denoted as the N-way K-shot setting. To address the issue of imbalanced data distribution across different entity categories, we employ a specific strategy. Firstly, we calculate the total number of entities for each category. Then, we prioritize the selection of categories with fewer entities. This approach ensures the rationality of the support set size. Statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4. + +# 2.2 Domain Transfer for Few-shot NER + +Domain transfer usually transfers knowledge from the source domain to the target domain. For the few-shot NER task, the NER model is first trained on the source domain and then fine-tuned on the target domain. During the source domain training, the train, development, and test sets are fully utilized. The data splits for train, development, and test are described in Section 4.2. During the target domain training, the training data consist of the generated augmented data (data augmentation based on support set), the development set is the support set, and we adopt the original test set from the target domain for testing. + +# 3 Method + +In this section, we present our proposed method, called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER. Figure 2 depicts the overview of our method, which includes two modules: structure constrained data augmentation and label constrained pre-train task. We illustrate the details of how we learn entity structure and label relation. + +# 3.1 Structure Constrained Data Augmentation + +To enhance the quality of generated NER data, we propose to augment data with structure constrained optimization objective by learning and preserving entity structures. + +In the structure constrained data augmentation module, we first combine source domain data and target domain support set to pretrain the data augmentation model. Then, we capture the entity structure by modeling the word-to-word-relation. Subsequently, the structure constrained data augmentation is used to generate more entities that conform to the target domain entity structure and replace the original entities to compose the augmentation data. + +Let $D_{source}$ and $D_{target}$ denote the source domain dataset and target domain support set. Given a $N$ tokens sentence $X = [x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots, x_{N}]$ with corresponding NER labels $L = [l_{1}, l_{2}, \ldots, l_{N}]$ , we encode the sentence to $H = [h_{1}, h_{2}, \ldots, h_{N}]$ . Then we randomly mask entity tokens to generate a new sequence $X'$ and $M = [m_{1}, m_{2}, \ldots, m_{N}]$ , where $m_{i} = 1$ if $x_{i}$ is masked else $m_{i} = 0$ . + +For a masked entity token $x_{i}^{\prime}$ , we use masked language model (MLM) to generate the entity $x_{i}^{\prime \prime}$ which is the most similar to the entity $x_{i}$ , and the new sequence $X^{\prime \prime}$ is generated by minimizing the loss + +$$ +L _ {M L M} \left(x _ {i} ^ {\prime \prime}\right) = - m _ {i} \operatorname {l o g p} _ {\theta} \left(x _ {i} \mid X ^ {\prime}\right), \tag {1} +$$ + +where $\theta$ represents model parameters. + +Following Qian et al. (2021), we exploit Gaussian embedding, which is innately more expressive than point embedding. For token embedding $h_i$ , we compute its Gaussian Embedding $G_i \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu_i, \Sigma_i)$ as follows: + +$$ +\mu_ {i} = \operatorname {R e L U} \left(h _ {i}\right), \tag {2} +$$ + +$$ +\Sigma_ {i} = E L U (R e L U (h _ {i})) + (1 + \epsilon), \qquad (3) +$$ + +where $\mu_{i}$ denotes the semantics of $x_{i}$ , covariance matrix $\Sigma_{i}$ represents the uncertainty, $ELU$ represents exponential linear unit, and $\epsilon$ is set toe $^{-14}$ for numerical stability. We use KL-divergence to calculate the similarity of entity structure + +$$ +\begin{array}{l} D _ {K L} (i, j) = \frac {1}{2} \left(\log \frac {\left| \Sigma_ {i} \right|}{\left| \Sigma_ {j} \right|} - D + t r \left(\Sigma_ {i} ^ {- 1} \Sigma_ {j}\right) \right. \tag {4} \\ + \left(\mu_ {i} - \mu_ {j}\right) ^ {T} \Sigma_ {\mu} ^ {- 1} (\mu_ {i} - \mu_ {j}). \\ \end{array} +$$ + +Since the KL-divergence is asymmetric, we obtain the similarity by calculating the KL-divergence in both directions + +$$ +d (i, j) = \frac {1}{2} \left(D _ {K L} (i, j) + D _ {K L} (j, i)\right). \tag {5} +$$ + +We define the optimization objective as follows to minimize the structure difference between newly + +![](images/ba2d7918bcce62ca67177dc59c00c3aa0904ce42463a67c65597b57f96313454.jpg) +Figure 2: An overview of our proposed approach, which comprises structure constrained data augmentation (bottom) and label constrained pre-train task (top). First, we introduce the word-to-tag relation for label constrained pretrain task. Then, we compute the word-to-word relation for structure constrained data augmentation to generate augmented data for the target domain support set. Among the sentences generated for each sentence, we'll pick the top-K sentences that meet our satisfaction criteria, which we'll denote as $\sqrt{}$ . Finally, we merge the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model. + +generated entities and original ones. + +$$ +L _ {\text {s t r u c t u r e}} \left(x _ {i}\right) = \log \frac {\sum_ {j = 1 , j \neq i} ^ {n} | \left(d \left(x _ {i} , x _ {j}\right) - d \left(x _ {i} ^ {\prime} , x _ {j}\right) \right|}{n - 1}. \tag {6} +$$ + +To sum up, for sequence $X$ , the total loss is formulated as + +$$ +L _ {\text {t o t a l}} = L _ {\text {M L M}} + L _ {\text {s t r u c t u r e}}. \tag {7} +$$ + +In this way, we generate entities that conform to the target domain entity structure. So we can combine the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model. + +# 3.2 Label Constrained Pre-train Task + +In the label constrained pre-training module, to alleviate label inconsistency between different domains, we design several label constraint strategies + +to align predefined labels between source and target domains. First, we extract all entities and corresponding sentences from the support set, and find sentences containing these entities in the source domain data set. Then, we form a sentence pair containing the same entity with the sentences in the support set. Let the pretrain language model (PLM) learn different labels of the same entity in different domains and learn the relationship between these two labels. This PLM is subsequently trained with the train data and structure constrained of the source domain to become a NER model. Finally, when inference, we utilize a pre-trained label-constrained model to compute the mapping relationships between labels in the source and target domains. This allows us to bridge the gap between the two domains. We also predefine the label + +mapping to bridge the source and target domain. + +To alleviate the label inconsistency among different domains, we propose a novel label-constrained pre-training task to align the inconsistent predefined labels between the source and the target domains in training and prediction process. Based on pre-trained contextual representations, we design a label mapping strategy by calculating the similarity of various predefined labels to align inconsistent labels between the source and target domains in training and prediction process. + +In the training process, we first filter out all the entities $E$ and their labels $L$ from the sentences $S$ in the target domain denoted as $[e_1, e_2, \dots, e_N]$ , $[l_1, l_2, \dots, l_N]$ , and $[s_1, s_2, \dots, s_N]$ , respectively. $s_i$ is a sequence of $m$ tokens $[x_1, x_2, \dots, x_m]$ . We then select sentences containing these entities and labels from the source domain data as $[s_1', s_2', \dots, s_p']$ and $[l_1', l_2', \dots, l_p']$ and match all sentences which have the same entity up as $[e_1; s_1; s_1', e_2; s_2; s_2', \dots, e_n; s_n; s_p']$ . Then we swap entities in these sentences with their corresponding labels and generate the representations of two labels $l_i$ and $l_i'$ and compute the KL-Distribution between them as: + +$$ +L (i) = - l o g \frac {e x p (- d \left(l _ {i} , l _ {i} ^ {\prime}\right))}{\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} e x p (- d \left(l _ {i} , l _ {j}\right)} \tag {8} +$$ + +and achieve label alignment by learning the relationship between the labels of these entities in the source and the target domains. Finally, we apply the saved parameters to initialize the NER model. + +In the prediction process, we propose a simple but efficient post processing method to align labels from different domains. Since the NER model is pre-trained on the source domain, it will be affected by predefined labels of the source domain when identifying entities, making some predictions of predefined labels not part of the target domain. Therefore, during inference, we post-process results predicted by the model. + +We employ label-constrained pre-training task to obtain contextual representations for different entity labels and then compute the mapping relationships of entity categories between the source and target domains (including the "other" category). Specifically, according to the official annotation guidelines for each dataset, we generate descriptive statements for each entity category and calculate KL divergence based on the representations of description sentences for each entity category + +between the source and target domains. This process allows us to derive the mapping relationships between entity categories in the source domain and entity categories in the target domain. + +# 4 Experiments + +We validate our proposed method in the flat entity and nested entity settings. The details of the experiments are elaborated in this section. We use precision (P), recall (R), and F (F1) as evaluation metrics. All experimental results are the average score over five runs with random seeds. + +# 4.1 Datasets + +We validate our proposed method on various domain datasets. We use OntoNotes 5.0 (General) (Pradhan et al., 2013) standard training set as our source domain training data, and use CoNLL 2003 (News) (Sang and Meulder, 2003), Wnut 17 (Social) (Derczynski et al., 2017), I2B2(Medical) (Stubbs and Uzuner, 2015), GUM(Mixed) (Zeldes, 2017) as our flat NER setting target domain, ACE2004 (Event) (Doddington et al., 2004), ACE2005 (Event) (Walker and Consortium, 2005) as our nested NER target domain. For the source domain, we use the OntoNotes train/development/test splits released for the CoNLL 2012 shared task. For the target domains, we consider all datasets except for OntoNotes, and then extract the support set as mentioned in Section 2.2. The statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4. + +# 4.2 Baselines + +We compare the performances of SLC-DA on different datasets in the flat and nested entity settings with the following cross-domain Few-Shot NER models. 1) Direct-Transfer: which trains the NER model on the source domain data and evaluates it on the target domain support set. 2) MELM (Zhou et al., 2022): our baseline method, which exploits the Masked Entity Language Model (MELM) to generate the augmented NER data. 3) ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020): an implementation of Prototypical Network based on BERT. 4) NNShot and Structshot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020): a nearest neighbor based network and a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network. 5) CONTaiNER (Das et al., 2022): a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between + +
ModelsFlat entity settingsNested entity settings
CoNLLWNUTI2B2GUMAvgACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
Direct Transfer15.515.50000003.934.134.125.225.2
MELM‡17.820.81.09.104.40.41.16.834.131.824.224.2
Proto†49.961.317.422.813.417.917.819.527.5----
NNShot†61.274.122.727.315.322.010.515.931.1----
StructShot†62.474.824.230.421.430.37.813.333.1----
CONTaiNER†61.275.827.532.521.536.718.525.237.4----
ProML†69.279.143.953.425.058.215.337.047.6----
SLC-DA (ours)79.281.744.146.135.349.119.241.349.539.941.232.640.2
+ +Table 1: Main results of SLC-DA and comparison methods for cross-domain few-shot NER. We use F (F1) as evaluation metrics. ‘†’ represents the results are cited from the initial paper, and ‘‡’ represents the results re-implemented by us. All experimental results are the average score over 5 runs with random seeds. + +entities of different categories. 6) ProML (Chen et al., 2022): designed multiple prompt schemas are to enhance label semantics. + +# 4.3 Main Results + +Table 1 presents the results of flat and nested NER. Compared with these strong baselines, SLC-DA leads to significant improvements and achieves state-of-the-art performances in flat NER setting. + +We also report competitive results in the newly proposed nested-entity cross-domain setting. Particularly, in the flat NER setting, our method improves $1.9\%$ on average compared to SOTA, and improves $12.1\%$ on average compared to CONTaiNER. In the nested NER setting, our method improves $6.45\%$ and $11.2\%$ on average compared to SOTA, $7.6\%$ and $12.2\%$ compared to baseline for ACE04 and ACE05, respectively. All these results well demonstrate the effective of our method. The reason we did not report all baselines for the ACE04/ACE05 datasets is because these datasets contain nested named entities, which pose a challenge for traditional baseline methods designed for flat entities. These baseline methods, such as container-based approaches, are not suitable for accurately handling nested entities. Therefore, including their results in the evaluation would not provide a fair comparison. + +The experimental results demonstrate that our method and the metric-based method can achieve good performance when there is small domain difference between the source and target domains (where the target domain is the CoNLL dataset in the news domain). However, our method has significant advantages over other methods when there is a large domain difference and limited target domain data, as demonstrated by the experiments on + +I2B2 (medical) and GUM (mixed) datasets. This indicates that our data augmentation method can help the NER model smoothly transfer from the source domain to the target domain. In addition, due to the different usage of the target domain support set, our method only uses the generated augmented data and source domain data in the training set, while other metric-based comparison methods use the support set as the training set. As k-shot increases, our method performs slightly worse than ProML method on WNUT and I2B2 datasets but better than other methods. + +MELM in the nested NER setting is even less effective than direct migration. The main reason is that the labels of ACE04 and ACE05 are identical to the labels of OntoNotes in five cases, but ACE04 and ACE05 have nested entities, resulting in the failure of data augmentation. By contrast, our SLC-DA can learn the entity structure of target domain and thus generate appropriate augmented data, benefiting the NER model to learn the knowledge effectively and further improve the ability of recognizing entity in the target domain. Parameter settings can be found in A.1. + +In our study, the migration from OntoNotes to CoNLL dataset cannot strictly be considered as a cross-domain setup, since the OntoNotes dataset includes news data as one of its sources. However, to maintain consistency with existing literature and experimental settings, we conducted experiments under this particular setup. + +# 5 Analysis and Discussion + +# 5.1 Ablation Study + +We conduct ablation studies to explore the effect of structure-constrained and label-constrained mod + +
ModelsFlat entity settings
CoNLLWNUT
1-shot PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer39.511.815.539.511.815.5000000
SLC-DA82.976.479.285.078.681.770.532.144.168.734.646.1
- w/o structure-constrained65.952.358.568.354.360.536.523.628.735.523.928.6
- w/o label-constrained83.575.079.081.377.679.455.129.838.751.630.838.5
+ +Nested entity settings + +
ModelsACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer69.822.534.169.822.534.163.115.7725.263.115.7725.2
SLC-DA72.227.639.967.029.741.255.623.132.661.030.040.2
- w/o structure-constrained70.621.733.266.523.434.660.89.316.160.813.622.2
- w/o label-constrained68.225.537.268.328.139.856.919.829.458.628.538.3
+ +Table 2: Ablation study on SLC-DA method for cross domain few-shot NER. + +ules on the overall performance. The results of flat NER and nested NER are reported in Table 2. + +w/o structure-constrained: Structure constrained is not used in data augmentation, and entities predicted by language model are directly used as newly generated data. When ablating the structure-constrained module, Table 2 shows that the performances of SLC-DA drop dramatically for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Particularly, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'structure-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by over $20\%$ and $10\%$ on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested NER, the F1-scores drop by over $6\%$ and $15\%$ on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, respectively. Overall, these results prove that our structure-constrained data augmentation module plays an important role in SLC-DA and it is necessary to exploiting entity structure information in data augmentation methods. + +w/o label-constrained: The NER model are directly initialized by pretrained bert-base-cased and no longer learns the relationship between entity labels from the source and target domain. When ablating the label-constrained module, Table 2 illustrates that the performances of SLC-DA drop slightly for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Concretely, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'label-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by approximately $1.5\%$ and $1\%$ on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested + +NER, the F1-scores drop by over $2\%$ and $2.5\%$ on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, separately. Subsequently, these analyses demonstrate that the label-constrained data augmentation module also have a consistent effect on the performance of SLC-DA and modeling relations among different labels of the same entities contributes to data augmentation. + +In summary, both 'structure-constrained' and 'label-constrained' module have important effects on performances of our proposed method. However, compared with the operation 'w/o structure-constrained', removing the 'label constrained' module from SLC-DA results in a more marginal decrease of performances on both flat and nested NER, illustrating that 'structure-constrained' module is more influential than 'label-constrained' in the SLC-DA method. We conjecture that there are two possible reasons: I) 'structure-constrained' module directly participates in the process of augmented data generation while 'label-constrained' does not, since 'structure-constrained' is one of the optimization objective of data generation process while 'label-constrained' is only used as the initialization of parameters. II) the scale of training data for 'structure-constrained' module is larger than that for 'label-constrained' module, leading to the differences of model's ability on capturing entity structure and label-relation information. + +# 5.2 Results on Different Labels + +Table 3 shows the results of our SLC-DA model on different label entities in CoNLL, WNUT, ACE04 + +
DatasetEntity TypeMELMStructureLabelSLC-DA
PRFPRFPRFPRF
CoNLLPER100.00.61.287.984.186.082.457.267.690.587.288.8
ORG72.478.475.268.779.473.659.340.948.476.379.577.8
LOC70.43.77.190.174.281.369.762.565.988.875.281.4
MISC100.00.61.284.966.374.557.859.558.787.065.174.5
WNUTcorporation13.210.611.710.53.04.711.12.44.040.06.110.5
creative-work20.04.27.039.720.427.028.116.220.538.325.430.5
group41.73.05.621.718.219.811.436.317.322.020.021.0
location50.03.36.260.235.344.545.832.738.162.836.045.8
person47.77.412.971.647.657.159.835.044.178.847.659.3
product23.83.96.740.78.714.320.06.39.634.211.016.7
ACE04GPE79.029.943.473.246.056.575.139.451.673.647.757.9
ORG69.629.941.867.130.642.070.229.041.067.734.245.5
PER64.515.324.766.419.930.661.815.925.364.722.833.7
FAC66.75.49.950.06.311.160.02.75.145.08.013.6
VEH60.89.316.156.919.829.462.815.024.255.623.132.6
LOC43.59.515.643.215.222.536.813.319.640.917.124.2
WEA00068.225.537.270.621.733.272.227.639.9
ACE05GPE76.231.744.874.540.952.873.431.043.669.543.353.5
ORG65.421.832.763.328.339.171.425.537.661.628.739.1
PER52.48.915.254.829.438.353.89.516.159.330.840.5
FAC33.30.71.452.48.114.050.04.48.173.912.521.4
VEH15.83.05.020.02.95.166.73.97.442.95.910.3
LOC30.87.411.952.222.231.229.49.314.166.729.641.0
WEA00013.34.06.29.12.03.325.04.06.9
+ +Table 3: Performance of SLC-DA and comparison methods on each entity type of all datasets in the 5-shot settings. 'Structure' denotes only structure constrained is used in data augmentation, and 'Label' denotes only label constrained is used in data augmentation. + +and ACE05 in the 5-shot settings. Our method achieves the best F1-score $(87.6\%)$ on almost all labels and an extremely highest recall $(86.6\%)$ compared with MELM. The results well demonstrate the effective of our method. + +Upon observing the results of the ablation experiments, it can be seen that the MELM model only performed well on the 'ORG' category in the CoNLL dataset, which is because this category is included in the source domain OntoNotes. For the other categories, the MELM model showed high precision but low recall and F1 scores, indicating that the model could not identify most entities belonging to the target domain label. On the other hand, our SLC-DA model achieved better results in all categories except for 'corporation' in the WNUT dataset, with an increase in recall proving that our method helped the NER model learn to identify entities belonging to the target domain, and thus, demonstrated that our approach can help NER models more smoothly and effectively transfer from the + +source to the target domain. + +In term of the abnormal result of label 'corporation', we conjecture it is because 'corporation' and 'group' are overlapped by label 'ORG' in OntoNotes. Since there are more entities with 'group' label than 'corporation' label, the model better learns the mapping relationship between 'group' and 'ORG'. Consequently, some data that should be labeled as 'corporation' is labeled as 'group'. These results in the precision decrease in label 'group' and the recall drop in label 'corporation' by comparison. + +# 5.3 Case Study + +In Table 4, we present some cases by comparing words generated by SLC-DA and MELM to verify the effectiveness of our method. It can be seen that our method can generate appropriate entities according to the entity structure when encountering unseen entities in the source domain. In addition, when the target domain contains more difficult + +
TextI switched the channel last night to [Independence Day]creativeday.
MELMAmerican Football, Between Football, Hard Trek
SLC-DA[Seven Days]creativeday, [Saturday Night]creativeday, [The Trek]creativeday,
Text...that were imposed in 1998 to punish and isolate the regime of [[Yugoslav]GPE President Slobodan Milosevic]PER.
MELM[Yugoslavia President Milosevic]PER [communist President Milosevic]PER [former President Slobodan Milosevic]PER
SLC-DA[[Serbian]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Montenegro]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Kosovo]GPE President Milosevic]PER
TextWhat they say are [the Bush]PER administration]ORG's neglectful attitudes about their problems
MELMUnited [Houston]GPE Workers [Social United Administration]ORG [The United House administration]ORG
SLC-DA[the [Reagan]PER administration]ORG [the [Carter]PER administration]ORG [the [Clinton]PER administration]ORG
+ +Table 4: Case study of augmented data, blue represents all entities and red represents nested entities. + +nested entities, our method can also generate appropriate entities. And the results on different labels can be found in 5.2. + +# 6 Related Work + +# 6.1 Cross-domain Few-shot NER + +Recently, few-shot NER tasks have attracted a lot of researches. For example, Snell et al. (2017); Fritzler et al. (2019); Hou et al. (2020) applied prototype networks to the few-shot NER task, while Yang and Katiyar (2020) proposed StructShot, a model that learns class-specific features and extends intermediate representations to new domains. Das et al. (2022) proposed Container, a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between entities of different categories for better understanding of new unseen classes. Liu et al. (2022) devises two prompting mechanisms for better training data generation, which is heavily influenced by the prompt strategies and needs heavy computation. However, these methods suffer from serious label inconsistency issues in cross + +domain scenarios. The knowledge they learned in the source domain cannot be directly applied to the target domain. Moreover, due to the complexity of NER tasks, these works need to design complex learning strategies to be applied to few-shot NER tasks. Unlike previous works, our work focuses on the knowledge of entity internal structure. As far as we know, we are the first to introduce entity structure and label information in data augmentation to solve cross-domain few-shot NER tasks, which may inspire the following exploration to study internal structure knowledge of entities. + +# 6.2 Data Augmentation + +Data augmentation is a popular solution for few-shot learning tasks, which is also studied in cross-domain few-shot NER. However, noise is inevitably introduced in the process of introducing augmented data. As a token-level task, NER is vulnerable to the noise caused by augmented data. Dai and Adel (2020) uses label-wise token replacement, synonym replacement, and mention replacement to augmented data but does not increase the diversity of entities. Ding et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2022) respectively train language model and mask language model to fuse the alignment information of entities and labels to constrain the newly generated words to match labels, but inevitably introduce a lot of noise. While current methods aim to align the newly generated entities with the original labels, they face limitations in cross-domain few-shot NER. This is because each domain may have distinct entity structures and labels, rendering the generated data incompatible with the target domain's entity structure. Consequently, conventional data augmentation methods are not directly applicable to cross-domain few-shot NER. + +# 7 Conclusion + +In this paper, we propose a Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER, by introducing entity structure and label information from various domains in the data augmentation process, to obtain high-quality synthetic data in the target domain. Experimental results on both flat and nested few-shot NER tasks show that our method can significantly improve the quality of generated data and help NER model find more target domain entities. + +# Limitations + +Named entities are typically classified as flat, nested, or discontinuous entities, with significant structural differences between the three types. This makes it challenging for existing methods to effectively transfer from flat NER datasets to either nested or discontinuous NER datasets. While our experiments in this paper validate that our method can effectively transfer NER models from flat to nested datasets, we have yet to demonstrate its efficacy in transferring to discontinuous NER datasets. This is an avenue for future research, as our method's effectiveness on discontinuous datasets remains to be explored. + +# Acknowledgments + +The research work described in this paper has been supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 61976016, 61976015, and 61876198) and the National Key R&D Program of China (2020AAA0108001). The authors also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper. + +# References + +Yanru Chen, Yanan Zheng, and Zhilin Yang. 2022. Prompt-based metric learning for few-shot ner. +Xiang Dai and Heike Adel. 2020. An analysis of simple data augmentation for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 8-13, 2020, pages 3861-3867. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. +Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2022. CONTaiNER: Few-shot named entity recognition via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6338-6353, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, NUT@EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7, 2017, pages 140-147. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of + +deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Bosheng Ding, Linlin Liu, Lidong Bing, Canasai Kru-engkrai, Thien Hai Nguyen, Shafiq R. Joty, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2020. DAGA: data augmentation with a generation approach for low-resource tagging tasks. CoRR, abs/2011.01549. +George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie M. Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004, May 26-28, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. European Language Resources Association. +Alexander Fritzler, Varvara Logacheva, and Maksim Kretov. 2019. Few-shot classification in named entity recognition task. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2019, Limassol, Cyprus, April 8-12, 2019, pages 993-1000. ACM. +Ralph Grishman and Beth Sundheim. 1996. Message understanding conference- 6: A brief history. In 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, COLING 1996, Center for Sprogstkologi, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 5-9, 1996, pages 466-471. +Yutai Hou, Wanxiang Che, Yongkui Lai, Zhihan Zhou, Yijia Liu, Han Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Few-shot slot tagging with collapsed dependency transfer and label-enhanced task-adaptive projection network. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 1381-1393. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In *NAACL HLT* 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 260-270. The Association for Computational Linguistics. +Xiaoya Li, Jingrong Feng, Yuxian Meng, Qinghong Han, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5849-5859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Jian Liu, Yufeng Chen, and Jinan Xu. 2022. Low-resource NER by data augmentation with prompting. + +In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 4525-4258. ijcai.org. + +Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net. + +Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Anders Björkelund, Olga Uryupina, Yuchen Zhang, and Zhi Zhong. 2013. Towards robust linguistic analysis using ontonotes. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 8-9, 2013, pages 143-152. ACL. + +Chen Qian, Fuli Feng, Lijie Wen, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Conceptualized and contextualized gaussian embedding. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13683-13691. AAAI Press. + +Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2003, Held in cooperation with HLT-NAACL 2003, Edmonton, Canada, May 31 - June 1, 2003, pages 142-147. ACL. + +Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4077-4087. + +Amber Stubbs and Ozlem Uzuner. 2015. Annotating longitudinal clinical narratives for de-identification: The 2014 i2b2/uthealth corpus. J. Biomed. Informatics, 58:S20-S29. + +C. Walker and Linguistic Data Consortium. 2005. ACE 2005 Multilingual Training Corpus. LDC corpora. Linguistic Data Consortium. + +Yi Yang and Arzoo Katiyar. 2020. Simple and effective few-shot named entity recognition with structured nearest neighbor learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6365-6375. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 51(3):581-612. + +Ran Zhou, Xin Li, Ruidan He, Lidong Bing, Erik Cambria, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2022. MELM: data augmentation with masked entity language modeling for low-resource NER. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2251-2262. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +# A Example Appendix + +# A.1 Parameter Settings + +We elaborate experimental settings of SLC-DA and NER models. + +SLC-DA: We use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with a language model head for our structure constrained data augmentation model. The model is trained for 20 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 1e-5. + +We calculate the loss for each word generated by the masked language model and select the best top-K. For a sentence containing n entities, this results in generating $K^n$ new sentences (with $k = 5$ in the presented experimental results). The additional time required by our method compared to MELM is not substantial because of the few-shot setting of the target domain's support set. Let's take the example of the WNUT 2017 dataset with a 5-shot setting. The support set consists of 216 sentences and 334 entity words. MELM requires approximately 4 minutes for data augmentation, while our method takes around 13 minutes. + +NER Model: For flat NER setting, we use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with CRF (Lample et al., 2016) head as the NER model. The model is trained for 5 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with batch size set to 32 and learning rate set to 5e-5. For nested NER setting, we use the MRC-NER (Li et al., 2020) model as the NER model. The model is trained for 7 epochs on source domain training data and finetuned for 20 epochs on the SLC-DA generated data, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 2e-5. For Direct Transfer setting, the model is trained only on the source domain training data. + +The server used for running our program is NVIDIA Tesla P100-SXM2. The average training time per epoch for our structure constrained data augmentation component is approximately 0.5 + +
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
Direct Transfer15.515.500
MELM‡17.511.15.41.2
CONTaiNER‡77.635.441.028.1
ProML‡81.555.061.239.6
SLC-DA (ours)83.250.456.159.5
+ +Table 5: Overall performances of all systems on four datasets in 10-shot settings for few-shot NER. We use F1 scores as evaluation metrics. $\ddagger$ represents the results re-implemented by us. Each experimental result is the average of performance over 5 runs with random seeds. + +
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull
Direct Transfer15.515.5000000
MELM‡22.891.213.045.69.697.91.431.7
SLC-DA (ours)85.191.756.247.561.998.073.860.3
+ +hours. For our label constrained data augmentation component, the training time per epoch is influenced by the difference in size between the source and target domains, ranging from 0.5 to 3 hours. For training the NER model, taking the Onton-Notes5.0 dataset of approximately 70k samples as an example, the training time is around 1 hour. + +# A.2 Experiments on a few more samples + +Table 6: Performances of systems in 50-shot and full set settings for few-shot NER. + +
DatasetSupport DataAugmented Data
10-shot50-shot10-shot50-shot
CoNLL401142265,870123,376
WNUT42369753,62275,561
I2B28941793134,944196,003
GUM8662107239,766590,523
+ +We provide experimental results in the 10-shot, 50-shot and full set settings, as shown in Table 5 and 6. The statistics of the support sets and augmented data used in our experiments is shown in Table 7. + +In the 10-shot settings, our SLC-DA method still outperforms all other comparisons on CoNLL and GUM datasets. Although ProML method performs better than us on WNUT and I2B2 datasets, our approach based on data augmentation explore a various direction and can be combined with ProML to achieve more improvements. + +Table 7: Statistics of support and augmented data used in our experiments. + +
DatasetEntity TypeDatasetEntity Type
OntoNotesNORPI2B2IDNUM
ORGMEDICALRECORD
PERSONPHONE
DATEZIP
GPEage
FACcity
CARDINALcountry
TIMEdate
ORDINALdevice
EVENTemail
QUANTITYfax
PERCENThospital
LOCorganization
WORK_OF_ARTperson
MONEYprofession
LAWstate
PRODUCTstreet
LANGUAGEusername
CoNLLPERWNUTcorporation
ORGcreative-work
LOCgroup
MISClocation
person
product
GUMabstractACE04GPE
animalORG
eventPER
objectFAC
organization/ACE05VEH
personLOC
placeWEA
plant
quantity
substance
time
+ +Table 8: Statistics of predefined labels in all datasets from both source and target domains. + +# A.3 Statistics of Predefined Labels + +Table 8 displays all predefined labels from various datasets in both source and target domains. Concretely, 'OntoNotes' dataset from the source domain contains 18 predefined entity types. For the target domains, there are 18, 11, 7, 6, and 4 entity categories in 'I2B2', 'GUM', 'ACE04/ACE05', 'WNUT' and 'CoNLL' dataset, respectively. Note that we collect their corresponding label descriptions from the annotation guidelines. + +# A.4 Statistics of datasets used in experiments + +The datasets utilized in our study are open-source and consist of various entity types. Further information on the datasets can be found in Table 9. The table lists the entity types present in the datasets, along with the percentage of nested entities relative to the total number of entities. + +We report the size of the augment data generated by the support set for each data set in the table 10. + +
DatasetDomianClassNested Entity/Entity1-shot entity5-shot entity1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotesGeneral18-----
CoNLLNews4-792592587
WNUTSocial6-8233451216
I2B2Medical18-2381133162706
GUMMixed11-17086881276
ACE04Event712k/27k20235261102
ACE05Event712k/30k16240743115
+ +Table 9: Statistics of support set used in experiments + +
Dataset1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotes--
CoNLL861848809
WNUT373414770
I2B2554649066
GUM8303130857
ACE041819848855
ACE055437192278
+ +Table 10: Statistics of augment data used in experiments + +
DatasetCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
zero-shot68.433.315.616.3
5-shot76.240.09.513.2
10-shot68.440.08.610.5
+ +Table 11: Results of GPT3.5 in different settings. + +# A.5 Result of GPT3.5 + +As shown in Table 11, we provide the result of GPT3.5 on zero-shot, 5-shot and 10-shot setting. When constructing the input prompt using the support set, we used the following template: First, input a prompt: "As a good linguist, you are asked to identify and label the named entities in the given sentences. There are some examples, please remember them:" Secondly, input the support-generated prompt one by one, for example: "Sentence is: John lives in New York City. Entities are: ." + +We observed that the performance of GPT 3.5 varies on different datasets, performing well on common entities but worse on scarce entities(e.g., medical dataset I2B2). Additionally, compared results of '5-shot' and '10-shot', we find that GPT 3.5 does not perform better with the increase of support samples due to the match degree between inputs and prompts, which highlights the importance of selecting proper prompts for the application of LLMs to few-shot tasks. + +Compared to GPT 3.5, our method achieves better performance in the few-shot NER scenario. Furthermore, our core idea can be easily applied to LLMs by modeling structure and label relationships with appropriate prompts, which can help select input data and improve their performance. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/images.zip b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03a5be1ac349d792fb659b2f8d43d236a0f51a0c --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:331adc1a2054c973c01bc161c6f3f80853ede3d70f5bb139162b0fc37a833db8 +size 846924 diff --git a/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/layout.json b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57cb31ad849808602c920d23b8e1425b155bf81f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8173 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 517, + 107 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 517, + 107 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 76, + 75, + 517, + 107 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation for Cross-domain Few-shot NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jingyi Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Ying Zhang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Yufeng Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Jinan Xu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 157, + 125, + 442, + 139 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 140, + 431, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 140, + 431, + 154 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 167, + 140, + 431, + 154 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1Beijing Key Lab of Traffic Data Analysis and Mining," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 154, + 403, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 154, + 403, + 168 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 193, + 154, + 403, + 168 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 175, + 169, + 422, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 175, + 169, + 422, + 182 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 175, + 169, + 422, + 182 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "{jyizhang,zhying,chenyf,jaxu}@bjtu.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 224 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 235, + 274, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cross-domain few-shot named entity recognition (NER) is a challenging task that aims to recognize entities in target domains with limited labeled data by leveraging relevant knowledge from source domains. However, domain gaps limit the effect of knowledge transfer and harm the performance of NER models. In this paper, we analyze those domain gaps from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and leverage word-to-tag and word-to-word relations to model them, respectively. Moreover, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER, which novelly design a label constrained pre-train task and a structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-specific augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains. We evaluate our approach on several standard datasets and achieve state-of-the-art or competitive results, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method in cross-domain few-shot NER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 557 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 557 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 544, + 154, + 557 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 565, + 291, + 754 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Named entity recognition (NER) is a fundamental Natural Language Processing (NLP) task to detect entity mentions and classify them into predefined labels (Grishman and Sundheim, 1996). Benefiting from powerful feature representations, deep learning based NER approaches (Lample et al., 2016; Devlin et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020) have achieved promising performances. However, their success depends heavily on the large-scale dataset with accurate annotations that are labor-intensive and time-consuming. Although some general domains (e.g., news) provide rich annotations, it is unaffordable to manually annotate NER labels in some new environments (e.g., bio-medicine). Therefore," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 210, + 523, + 310 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 210, + 523, + 310 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 210, + 523, + 310 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 210, + 523, + 310 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "beb67a25489fc09f691b2c619d67fd5de372ddf25e831077bd3ebf338538e384.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 313, + 506, + 323 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 313, + 506, + 323 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 313, + 506, + 323 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a) Entity structure differences and entity annotation differences" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 309, + 339, + 520, + 380 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 339, + 520, + 380 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 339, + 520, + 380 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 309, + 339, + 520, + 380 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "50a2efc5703383037974f1f75fb9f26cecc79e5dbbabc0944a42d8f5c0f98b26.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 386, + 448, + 396 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 386, + 448, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 386, + 448, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) Structure constrained data augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 310, + 404, + 514, + 451 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 404, + 514, + 451 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 404, + 514, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 310, + 404, + 514, + 451 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "f10a78f2f6b5791b10f997c6bb5bb16a1f8f195f6c626456bf32fcdc0e171329.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 454, + 436, + 464 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 454, + 436, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 454, + 436, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(c) Label constrained data augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 530 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 530 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 526, + 530 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Examples for entities have different structures and labels between the source and target domains. Different colors and combinations of squares represent different entity types and structures, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 526, + 608 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 555, + 526, + 608 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "few-shot NER (Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020) has attracted increasing attentions, aiming to build an NER model with only a small number of supporting samples in specific domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mainstream researches on cross-domain few-shot NER aim to transfer relevant knowledge from source domains. Most of them focus on optimizing model architectures based on metric-learning, such as Prototypical Network based ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020), a nearest neighbor based network NNShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network StructShot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020), and Container (Das et al., 2022), a contrastive model. There are also studies based on data augmentation methods, such as MELM Zhou" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 240, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 240, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 761, + 240, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "* Yufeng Chen is the corresponding author." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "518" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 134, + 795, + 459, + 805 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 518-530" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 165, + 806, + 428, + 817 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 289, + 98 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "et al. (2022), which uses cross-lingual pre-trained models for data augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 279 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 101, + 291, + 279 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Cross-domain few-shot NER is full of challenges because of the domain gaps, especially for NER tasks. However, existing work lacks research on this problem. As a structure prediction task, NER requires synthetic entity with highly matching of label dependencies. However, there are distinctions among texts from various domains. The same entity mention in various domains is labeled with different entity types or distinct span boundaries. Unfortunately, existing studies have not adequately explored the influence of domain gaps on NER tasks. Consequently, these gaps significantly impact the performance of existing approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 580 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 282, + 291, + 580 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In view of these challenges, we divide domain gaps into two categories as shown in Figure 1(a). Category-I: The structure of entities differs across domains. For example, 'the Lincoln Memorial' is represented as a contiguous location entity in flat NER datasets, while it is additionally labeled with a person entity \"Lincoln\" in the nested NER datasets. Additionally, entity boundaries may vary from domain to domain. For example, in different datasets, the inclusion of \"the\" in the phrase \"the Lincoln Memorial\" can vary. Category-II: The annotations of entities differs across domains. Difference domains usually have different pre-defined entity types. For example, in OntoNotes dataset, 'the Lincoln Memorial' and 'Washington D.C' are annotated as 'LOC' and 'GPE' types, respectively, where as in WNUT dataset, both are classified as 'location'. Our proposed method aims to alleviate the negative impact of structure and annotations differences on cross-domain few-shot NER. By doing so, we aim to enhance the performance of NER models in the target domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 584, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Based on the above analyses, we introduce two types of relationships to sufficiently model two kinds of domain gaps in cross domain few-shot NER method. Word-to-word relation: 'the Washington Monument' is annotated as one entity in flat NER datasets while annotated as two entities in nested ones. When the source domain is a flat entity dataset and the target domain is a nested entity dataset, it is likely to generate non-nested entity data, leading to the NER model not being able to learn the knowledge in the target domain. Word-to-tag relation: the corresponding entity types of 'Washington D.C.' are 'GPE' and 'location' in 'OntoNotes' and 'WNUT', respectively," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 524, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "which may cause label conflict if directly learned." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 89, + 526, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a novel method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for Cross-domain Few-shot NER. SLC-DA novelly design a label constrained pre-train task, which allows the model to learn the mapping relationships between entities across diverse domains. Furthermore, SLC-DA incorporate structure constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process to generate domain-aware augmented data to help NER models smoothly transition from source to target domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 526, + 389 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 241, + 526, + 389 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Concretely, for structure-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(b), we calculate the word-to-word relation to model the entity structure between entity word tokens and other tokens, and generate structure-enhanced NER data in the target domain for training. For label-constrained data augmentation as shown in figure 1(c), we replace the same entity mentions with their corresponding different categories for each instance and utilize the language model to learn these word-to-tag relationships in different domains to avoid confusion." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 501 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 393, + 525, + 501 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed approach, we compare our approach with previous works on flat NER and report results surpassing the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, we report competitive results on nested NER. Our findings demonstrate that our proposed method is simple yet highly effective. Finally, our main contributions are summarized as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 524, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 524, + 525, + 592 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 524, + 525, + 592 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- To bridge domain gaps for cross-domain few-shot NER, we analyze this issue from two new perspectives, i.e., entity annotations and entity structures and define word-to-word and word-to-tag relations to model them, respectively." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 614, + 526, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 614, + 526, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 614, + 526, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We propose a method called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLCDA), introducing a label-constrained pre-train task and structure-constrained optimization objectives in the data augmentation process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 706, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- We achieved state-of-the-art results in the cross-domain few-shot NER task. We also achieved competitive results by transferring from a flat entity dataset to a nested entity dataset for the first time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "519" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 153, + 84 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 153, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 153, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Background" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 164, + 104 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 164, + 104 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 91, + 164, + 104 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Few-shot NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 109, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 109, + 291, + 339 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 109, + 291, + 339 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since there are usually multiple entity instances in a single sentence for NER task, which is different from text classification tasks, we cannot following the few-shot settings of text classification to construct the support set by sampling K sentences for each entity class, which can lead to an imbalance in the data. Therefore, for few-shot NER, the dataset consists of N entity classes, with K annotated instances per class, denoted as the N-way K-shot setting. To address the issue of imbalanced data distribution across different entity categories, we employ a specific strategy. Firstly, we calculate the total number of entities for each category. Then, we prioritize the selection of categories with fewer entities. This approach ensures the rationality of the support set size. Statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 263, + 359 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 263, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 348, + 263, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Domain Transfer for Few-shot NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 542 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 542 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Domain transfer usually transfers knowledge from the source domain to the target domain. For the few-shot NER task, the NER model is first trained on the source domain and then fine-tuned on the target domain. During the source domain training, the train, development, and test sets are fully utilized. The data splits for train, development, and test are described in Section 4.2. During the target domain training, the training data consist of the generated augmented data (data augmentation based on support set), the development set is the support set, and we adopt the original test set from the target domain for testing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 130, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 130, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 550, + 130, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Method" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 571, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present our proposed method, called Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER. Figure 2 depicts the overview of our method, which includes two modules: structure constrained data augmentation and label constrained pre-train task. We illustrate the details of how we learn entity structure and label relation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 227, + 715 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 227, + 715 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 688, + 227, + 715 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Structure Constrained Data Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 719, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To enhance the quality of generated NER data, we propose to augment data with structure constrained optimization objective by learning and preserving entity structures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 192 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the structure constrained data augmentation module, we first combine source domain data and target domain support set to pretrain the data augmentation model. Then, we capture the entity structure by modeling the word-to-word-relation. Subsequently, the structure constrained data augmentation is used to generate more entities that conform to the target domain entity structure and replace the original entities to compose the augmentation data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Let " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{source}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{target}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denote the source domain dataset and target domain support set. Given a " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X = [x_{1}, x_{2}, \\ldots, x_{N}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with corresponding NER labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L = [l_{1}, l_{2}, \\ldots, l_{N}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we encode the sentence to " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H = [h_{1}, h_{2}, \\ldots, h_{N}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then we randomly mask entity tokens to generate a new sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M = [m_{1}, m_{2}, \\ldots, m_{N}]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m_{i} = 1" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " if " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is masked else " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m_{i} = 0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 193, + 526, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For a masked entity token " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}^{\\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we use masked language model (MLM) to generate the entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}^{\\prime \\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " which is the most similar to the entity " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the new sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X^{\\prime \\prime}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 301, + 525, + 367 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is generated by minimizing the loss" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 376, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 376, + 525, + 394 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 337, + 376, + 525, + 394 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {M L M} \\left(x _ {i} ^ {\\prime \\prime}\\right) = - m _ {i} \\operatorname {l o g p} _ {\\theta} \\left(x _ {i} \\mid X ^ {\\prime}\\right), \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "dd8d1b3b706e505b1ecbf0870ccf8a955c70daab6c4b2df697b0d0e46c990fd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 472, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 472, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 472, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 472, + 416 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 404, + 472, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents model parameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Qian et al. (2021), we exploit Gaussian embedding, which is innately more expressive than point embedding. For token embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we compute its Gaussian Embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "G_i \\sim \\mathcal{N}(\\mu_i, \\Sigma_i)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 417, + 525, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as follows:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 494, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 494, + 525, + 508 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 494, + 525, + 508 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_ {i} = \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(h _ {i}\\right), \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "bc2c167a154342b19f4fa8ec193f57d36fb51bcb00b186ce9590f7ae797e7680.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 511, + 526, + 526 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 511, + 526, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 334, + 511, + 526, + 526 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\Sigma_ {i} = E L U (R e L U (h _ {i})) + (1 + \\epsilon), \\qquad (3)", + "image_path": "8c0b7ac4ec482e7df2266c119fbadc67ad0cf39d05155f42432bc60a1eee8b3f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\mu_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " denotes the semantics of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", covariance matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\Sigma_{i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the uncertainty, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "ELU" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents exponential linear unit, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\epsilon" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is set toe" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{-14}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 535, + 525, + 602 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for numerical stability. We use KL-divergence to calculate the similarity of entity structure" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 611, + 525, + 659 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 611, + 525, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 611, + 525, + 659 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\begin{array}{l} D _ {K L} (i, j) = \\frac {1}{2} \\left(\\log \\frac {\\left| \\Sigma_ {i} \\right|}{\\left| \\Sigma_ {j} \\right|} - D + t r \\left(\\Sigma_ {i} ^ {- 1} \\Sigma_ {j}\\right) \\right. \\tag {4} \\\\ + \\left(\\mu_ {i} - \\mu_ {j}\\right) ^ {T} \\Sigma_ {\\mu} ^ {- 1} (\\mu_ {i} - \\mu_ {j}). \\\\ \\end{array}", + "image_path": "19b751fb3e6e44f69f679b5f1730a618963db0907a1cd448b2698eca5f777a17.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 667, + 526, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 667, + 526, + 707 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 667, + 526, + 707 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the KL-divergence is asymmetric, we obtain the similarity by calculating the KL-divergence in both directions" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 714, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 714, + 525, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 329, + 714, + 525, + 739 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "d (i, j) = \\frac {1}{2} \\left(D _ {K L} (i, j) + D _ {K L} (j, i)\\right). \\tag {5}", + "image_path": "2f2f611c1031961af134b28fbcd9247b5e3b02a1991a584fd0e628b931528002.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We define the optimization objective as follows to minimize the structure difference between newly" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "520" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 526, + 431 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 526, + 431 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 526, + 431 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 73, + 68, + 526, + 431 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "ba2d7918bcce62ca67177dc59c00c3aa0904ce42463a67c65597b57f96313454.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 439, + 525, + 511 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 439, + 525, + 511 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 439, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: An overview of our proposed approach, which comprises structure constrained data augmentation (bottom) and label constrained pre-train task (top). First, we introduce the word-to-tag relation for label constrained pretrain task. Then, we compute the word-to-word relation for structure constrained data augmentation to generate augmented data for the target domain support set. Among the sentences generated for each sentence, we'll pick the top-K sentences that meet our satisfaction criteria, which we'll denote as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 439, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\sqrt{}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 439, + 525, + 511 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Finally, we merge the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 228, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 228, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 228, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "generated entities and original ones." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 289, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 77, + 553, + 289, + 587 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {\\text {s t r u c t u r e}} \\left(x _ {i}\\right) = \\log \\frac {\\sum_ {j = 1 , j \\neq i} ^ {n} | \\left(d \\left(x _ {i} , x _ {j}\\right) - d \\left(x _ {i} ^ {\\prime} , x _ {j}\\right) \\right|}{n - 1}. \\tag {6}", + "image_path": "d4970118ac9accaae2503cbe2688feac623eb18f63616008ead1ed250bb09452.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 289, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 289, + 620 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 289, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To sum up, for sequence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 289, + 620 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "X" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 596, + 289, + 620 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", the total loss is formulated as" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 630, + 290, + 645 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 630, + 290, + 645 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 630, + 290, + 645 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L _ {\\text {t o t a l}} = L _ {\\text {M L M}} + L _ {\\text {s t r u c t u r e}}. \\tag {7}", + "image_path": "751c0305885f62bb37a279df8ec7b6b88a3608ea20c70d64485a0e185618b3ca.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 289, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 289, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 653, + 289, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this way, we generate entities that conform to the target domain entity structure. So we can combine the generated data with the source domain data to train the NER model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 253, + 727 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 253, + 727 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 715, + 253, + 727 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Label Constrained Pre-train Task" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 733, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the label constrained pre-training module, to alleviate label inconsistency between different domains, we design several label constraint strategies" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 526, + 762 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 533, + 526, + 762 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "to align predefined labels between source and target domains. First, we extract all entities and corresponding sentences from the support set, and find sentences containing these entities in the source domain data set. Then, we form a sentence pair containing the same entity with the sentences in the support set. Let the pretrain language model (PLM) learn different labels of the same entity in different domains and learn the relationship between these two labels. This PLM is subsequently trained with the train data and structure constrained of the source domain to become a NER model. Finally, when inference, we utilize a pre-trained label-constrained model to compute the mapping relationships between labels in the source and target domains. This allows us to bridge the gap between the two domains. We also predefine the label" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 305, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "521" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 282, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 282, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 282, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "mapping to bridge the source and target domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 290, + 220 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 85, + 290, + 220 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To alleviate the label inconsistency among different domains, we propose a novel label-constrained pre-training task to align the inconsistent predefined labels between the source and the target domains in training and prediction process. Based on pre-trained contextual representations, we design a label mapping strategy by calculating the similarity of various predefined labels to align inconsistent labels between the source and target domains in training and prediction process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the training process, we first filter out all the entities " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "E" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and their labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "L" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the sentences " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "S" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the target domain denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_N]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[l_1, l_2, \\dots, l_N]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[s_1, s_2, \\dots, s_N]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", respectively. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a sequence of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "m" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tokens " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[x_1, x_2, \\dots, x_m]" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We then select sentences containing these entities and labels from the source domain data as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[s_1', s_2', \\dots, s_p']" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[l_1', l_2', \\dots, l_p']" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and match all sentences which have the same entity up as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "[e_1; s_1; s_1', e_2; s_2; s_2', \\dots, e_n; s_n; s_p']" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then we swap entities in these sentences with their corresponding labels and generate the representations of two labels " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l_i'" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 222, + 291, + 410 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and compute the KL-Distribution between them as:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 419, + 290, + 451 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 419, + 290, + 451 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 101, + 419, + 290, + 451 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L (i) = - l o g \\frac {e x p (- d \\left(l _ {i} , l _ {i} ^ {\\prime}\\right))}{\\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {n} e x p (- d \\left(l _ {i} , l _ {j}\\right)} \\tag {8}", + "image_path": "0acf49d3b51d6a4ad24e541ba37ec0061b82b3d2e48fddb1c39bdf434f141649.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 514 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 460, + 290, + 514 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and achieve label alignment by learning the relationship between the labels of these entities in the source and the target domains. Finally, we apply the saved parameters to initialize the NER model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 290, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the prediction process, we propose a simple but efficient post processing method to align labels from different domains. Since the NER model is pre-trained on the source domain, it will be affected by predefined labels of the source domain when identifying entities, making some predictions of predefined labels not part of the target domain. Therefore, during inference, we post-process results predicted by the model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We employ label-constrained pre-training task to obtain contextual representations for different entity labels and then compute the mapping relationships of entity categories between the source and target domains (including the \"other\" category). Specifically, according to the official annotation guidelines for each dataset, we generate descriptive statements for each entity category and calculate KL divergence based on the representations of description sentences for each entity category" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 525, + 126 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "between the source and target domains. This process allows us to derive the mapping relationships between entity categories in the source domain and entity categories in the target domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 390, + 152 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 390, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 137, + 390, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 525, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 525, + 240 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 159, + 525, + 240 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We validate our proposed method in the flat entity and nested entity settings. The details of the experiments are elaborated in this section. We use precision (P), recall (R), and F (F1) as evaluation metrics. All experimental results are the average score over five runs with random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 370, + 263 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 370, + 263 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 252, + 370, + 263 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 526, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 270, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We validate our proposed method on various domain datasets. We use OntoNotes 5.0 (General) (Pradhan et al., 2013) standard training set as our source domain training data, and use CoNLL 2003 (News) (Sang and Meulder, 2003), Wnut 17 (Social) (Derczynski et al., 2017), I2B2(Medical) (Stubbs and Uzuner, 2015), GUM(Mixed) (Zeldes, 2017) as our flat NER setting target domain, ACE2004 (Event) (Doddington et al., 2004), ACE2005 (Event) (Walker and Consortium, 2005) as our nested NER target domain. For the source domain, we use the OntoNotes train/development/test splits released for the CoNLL 2012 shared task. For the target domains, we consider all datasets except for OntoNotes, and then extract the support set as mentioned in Section 2.2. The statistics of datasets used in experiments can be found in A.4." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 374, + 536 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 374, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 524, + 374, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 543, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare the performances of SLC-DA on different datasets in the flat and nested entity settings with the following cross-domain Few-Shot NER models. 1) Direct-Transfer: which trains the NER model on the source domain data and evaluates it on the target domain support set. 2) MELM (Zhou et al., 2022): our baseline method, which exploits the Masked Entity Language Model (MELM) to generate the augmented NER data. 3) ProtoBERT (Snell et al., 2017; Fritzler et al., 2019; Hou et al., 2020): an implementation of Prototypical Network based on BERT. 4) NNShot and Structshot (Yang and Katiyar, 2020): a nearest neighbor based network and a viterbi decoding variant nearest neighbor based network. 5) CONTaiNER (Das et al., 2022): a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "522" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 526, + 200 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsFlat entity settingsNested entity settings
CoNLLWNUTI2B2GUMAvgACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
Direct Transfer15.515.50000003.934.134.125.225.2
MELM‡17.820.81.09.104.40.41.16.834.131.824.224.2
Proto†49.961.317.422.813.417.917.819.527.5----
NNShot†61.274.122.727.315.322.010.515.931.1----
StructShot†62.474.824.230.421.430.37.813.333.1----
CONTaiNER†61.275.827.532.521.536.718.525.237.4----
ProML†69.279.143.953.425.058.215.337.047.6----
SLC-DA (ours)79.281.744.146.135.349.119.241.349.539.941.232.640.2
", + "image_path": "d9b96b5d56b4d0c18a00677b3a24e84fcc60b855a6865f103b084a37e95d4c5a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 525, + 247 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 525, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 525, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Main results of SLC-DA and comparison methods for cross-domain few-shot NER. We use F (F1) as evaluation metrics. ‘†’ represents the results are cited from the initial paper, and ‘‡’ represents the results re-implemented by us. All experimental results are the average score over 5 runs with random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 268, + 290, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "entities of different categories. 6) ProML (Chen et al., 2022): designed multiple prompt schemas are to enhance label semantics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 158, + 332 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 158, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 320, + 158, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Main Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 290, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 338, + 290, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1 presents the results of flat and nested NER. Compared with these strong baselines, SLC-DA leads to significant improvements and achieves state-of-the-art performances in flat NER setting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We also report competitive results in the newly proposed nested-entity cross-domain setting. Particularly, in the flat NER setting, our method improves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.9\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average compared to SOTA, and improves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12.1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average compared to CONTaiNER. In the nested NER setting, our method improves " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6.45\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "11.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on average compared to SOTA, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "7.6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "12.2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 394, + 291, + 650 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared to baseline for ACE04 and ACE05, respectively. All these results well demonstrate the effective of our method. The reason we did not report all baselines for the ACE04/ACE05 datasets is because these datasets contain nested named entities, which pose a challenge for traditional baseline methods designed for flat entities. These baseline methods, such as container-based approaches, are not suitable for accurately handling nested entities. Therefore, including their results in the evaluation would not provide a fair comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 651, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The experimental results demonstrate that our method and the metric-based method can achieve good performance when there is small domain difference between the source and target domains (where the target domain is the CoNLL dataset in the news domain). However, our method has significant advantages over other methods when there is a large domain difference and limited target domain data, as demonstrated by the experiments on" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 526, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 268, + 526, + 430 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "I2B2 (medical) and GUM (mixed) datasets. This indicates that our data augmentation method can help the NER model smoothly transfer from the source domain to the target domain. In addition, due to the different usage of the target domain support set, our method only uses the generated augmented data and source domain data in the training set, while other metric-based comparison methods use the support set as the training set. As k-shot increases, our method performs slightly worse than ProML method on WNUT and I2B2 datasets but better than other methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 432, + 527, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MELM in the nested NER setting is even less effective than direct migration. The main reason is that the labels of ACE04 and ACE05 are identical to the labels of OntoNotes in five cases, but ACE04 and ACE05 have nested entities, resulting in the failure of data augmentation. By contrast, our SLC-DA can learn the entity structure of target domain and thus generate appropriate augmented data, benefiting the NER model to learn the knowledge effectively and further improve the ability of recognizing entity in the target domain. Parameter settings can be found in A.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 595, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 595, + 526, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 595, + 526, + 689 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In our study, the migration from OntoNotes to CoNLL dataset cannot strictly be considered as a cross-domain setup, since the OntoNotes dataset includes news data as one of its sources. However, to maintain consistency with existing literature and experimental settings, we conducted experiments under this particular setup." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 703, + 448, + 716 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 703, + 448, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 703, + 448, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Analysis and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 727, + 402, + 740 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 727, + 402, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 727, + 402, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct ablation studies to explore the effect of structure-constrained and label-constrained mod" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "523" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 526, + 181 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 526, + 181 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 526, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 69, + 526, + 181 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsFlat entity settings
CoNLLWNUT
1-shot PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer39.511.815.539.511.815.5000000
SLC-DA82.976.479.285.078.681.770.532.144.168.734.646.1
- w/o structure-constrained65.952.358.568.354.360.536.523.628.735.523.928.6
- w/o label-constrained83.575.079.081.377.679.455.129.838.751.630.838.5
", + "image_path": "6eab43a652d822f6158f12115b9019c95249499b75fdbd25cc489d9958832c1d.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 195, + 526, + 292 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 184, + 340, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 184, + 340, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 255, + 184, + 340, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nested entity settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 195, + 526, + 292 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 195, + 526, + 292 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 195, + 526, + 292 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsACE04ACE05
1-shot5-shot1-shot5-shot
PRFPRFPRFPRF
Direct Transfer69.822.534.169.822.534.163.115.7725.263.115.7725.2
SLC-DA72.227.639.967.029.741.255.623.132.661.030.040.2
- w/o structure-constrained70.621.733.266.523.434.660.89.316.160.813.622.2
- w/o label-constrained68.225.537.268.328.139.856.919.829.458.628.538.3
", + "image_path": "381094f680ef19a7849699f05247bad06999a330fa83693b308f9027010a9783.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 300, + 452, + 312 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 300, + 452, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 139, + 300, + 452, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Ablation study on SLC-DA method for cross domain few-shot NER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 290, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 290, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 333, + 290, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ules on the overall performance. The results of flat NER and nested NER are reported in Table 2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "w/o structure-constrained: Structure constrained is not used in data augmentation, and entities predicted by language model are directly used as newly generated data. When ablating the structure-constrained module, Table 2 shows that the performances of SLC-DA drop dramatically for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Particularly, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'structure-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "10\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested NER, the F1-scores drop by over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "6\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "15\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 364, + 291, + 607 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, respectively. Overall, these results prove that our structure-constrained data augmentation module plays an important role in SLC-DA and it is necessary to exploiting entity structure information in data augmentation methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "w/o label-constrained: The NER model are directly initialized by pretrained bert-base-cased and no longer learns the relationship between entity labels from the source and target domain. When ablating the label-constrained module, Table 2 illustrates that the performances of SLC-DA drop slightly for both flat and nested NER in the 1-shot and 5-shot settings. Concretely, for flat NER in both 1-shot and 5-shot settings, when removing the 'label-constrained' module, the F1-scores drop by approximately " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "1\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 611, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on the CoNLL and WNUT datasets, respectively. For nested" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NER, the F1-scores drop by over " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2.5\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 333, + 526, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on ACE04 and ACE05 datasets, separately. Subsequently, these analyses demonstrate that the label-constrained data augmentation module also have a consistent effect on the performance of SLC-DA and modeling relations among different labels of the same entities contributes to data augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 429, + 526, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 429, + 526, + 713 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 429, + 526, + 713 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In summary, both 'structure-constrained' and 'label-constrained' module have important effects on performances of our proposed method. However, compared with the operation 'w/o structure-constrained', removing the 'label constrained' module from SLC-DA results in a more marginal decrease of performances on both flat and nested NER, illustrating that 'structure-constrained' module is more influential than 'label-constrained' in the SLC-DA method. We conjecture that there are two possible reasons: I) 'structure-constrained' module directly participates in the process of augmented data generation while 'label-constrained' does not, since 'structure-constrained' is one of the optimization objective of data generation process while 'label-constrained' is only used as the initialization of parameters. II) the scale of training data for 'structure-constrained' module is larger than that for 'label-constrained' module, leading to the differences of model's ability on capturing entity structure and label-relation information." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 727, + 458, + 739 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 727, + 458, + 739 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 727, + 458, + 739 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Results on Different Labels" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the results of our SLC-DA model on different label entities in CoNLL, WNUT, ACE04" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "524" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 523, + 412 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 523, + 412 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 523, + 412 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 68, + 523, + 412 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetEntity TypeMELMStructureLabelSLC-DA
PRFPRFPRFPRF
CoNLLPER100.00.61.287.984.186.082.457.267.690.587.288.8
ORG72.478.475.268.779.473.659.340.948.476.379.577.8
LOC70.43.77.190.174.281.369.762.565.988.875.281.4
MISC100.00.61.284.966.374.557.859.558.787.065.174.5
WNUTcorporation13.210.611.710.53.04.711.12.44.040.06.110.5
creative-work20.04.27.039.720.427.028.116.220.538.325.430.5
group41.73.05.621.718.219.811.436.317.322.020.021.0
location50.03.36.260.235.344.545.832.738.162.836.045.8
person47.77.412.971.647.657.159.835.044.178.847.659.3
product23.83.96.740.78.714.320.06.39.634.211.016.7
ACE04GPE79.029.943.473.246.056.575.139.451.673.647.757.9
ORG69.629.941.867.130.642.070.229.041.067.734.245.5
PER64.515.324.766.419.930.661.815.925.364.722.833.7
FAC66.75.49.950.06.311.160.02.75.145.08.013.6
VEH60.89.316.156.919.829.462.815.024.255.623.132.6
LOC43.59.515.643.215.222.536.813.319.640.917.124.2
WEA00068.225.537.270.621.733.272.227.639.9
ACE05GPE76.231.744.874.540.952.873.431.043.669.543.353.5
ORG65.421.832.763.328.339.171.425.537.661.628.739.1
PER52.48.915.254.829.438.353.89.516.159.330.840.5
FAC33.30.71.452.48.114.050.04.48.173.912.521.4
VEH15.83.05.020.02.95.166.73.97.442.95.910.3
LOC30.87.411.952.222.231.229.49.314.166.729.641.0
WEA00013.34.06.29.12.03.325.04.06.9
", + "image_path": "cf7c94dbca451ba76546344abafabcf34ca93b9c2f992d42765ff038c998428e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 525, + 458 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 525, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 420, + 525, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Performance of SLC-DA and comparison methods on each entity type of all datasets in the 5-shot settings. 'Structure' denotes only structure constrained is used in data augmentation, and 'Label' denotes only label constrained is used in data augmentation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and ACE05 in the 5-shot settings. Our method achieves the best F1-score " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(87.6\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " on almost all labels and an extremely highest recall " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(86.6\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 479, + 290, + 546 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " compared with MELM. The results well demonstrate the effective of our method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Upon observing the results of the ablation experiments, it can be seen that the MELM model only performed well on the 'ORG' category in the CoNLL dataset, which is because this category is included in the source domain OntoNotes. For the other categories, the MELM model showed high precision but low recall and F1 scores, indicating that the model could not identify most entities belonging to the target domain label. On the other hand, our SLC-DA model achieved better results in all categories except for 'corporation' in the WNUT dataset, with an increase in recall proving that our method helped the NER model learn to identify entities belonging to the target domain, and thus, demonstrated that our approach can help NER models more smoothly and effectively transfer from the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 427, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 427, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 480, + 427, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "source to the target domain." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 494, + 526, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 494, + 526, + 644 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 494, + 526, + 644 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In term of the abnormal result of label 'corporation', we conjecture it is because 'corporation' and 'group' are overlapped by label 'ORG' in OntoNotes. Since there are more entities with 'group' label than 'corporation' label, the model better learns the mapping relationship between 'group' and 'ORG'. Consequently, some data that should be labeled as 'corporation' is labeled as 'group'. These results in the precision decrease in label 'group' and the recall drop in label 'corporation' by comparison." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 657, + 383, + 671 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 657, + 383, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 657, + 383, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.3 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 678, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Table 4, we present some cases by comparing words generated by SLC-DA and MELM to verify the effectiveness of our method. It can be seen that our method can generate appropriate entities according to the entity structure when encountering unseen entities in the source domain. In addition, when the target domain contains more difficult" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "525" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 286, + 405 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 286, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 286, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 75, + 69, + 286, + 405 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
TextI switched the channel last night to [Independence Day]creativeday.
MELMAmerican Football, Between Football, Hard Trek
SLC-DA[Seven Days]creativeday, [Saturday Night]creativeday, [The Trek]creativeday,
Text...that were imposed in 1998 to punish and isolate the regime of [[Yugoslav]GPE President Slobodan Milosevic]PER.
MELM[Yugoslavia President Milosevic]PER [communist President Milosevic]PER [former President Slobodan Milosevic]PER
SLC-DA[[Serbian]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Montenegro]GPE President Milosevic]PER [Kosovo]GPE President Milosevic]PER
TextWhat they say are [the Bush]PER administration]ORG's neglectful attitudes about their problems
MELMUnited [Houston]GPE Workers [Social United Administration]ORG [The United House administration]ORG
SLC-DA[the [Reagan]PER administration]ORG [the [Carter]PER administration]ORG [the [Clinton]PER administration]ORG
", + "image_path": "3fd6beecddb96292f3e1132fd7bd2240d066c14d8d48d022e8d4a4d40ed790b0.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 289, + 439 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 289, + 439 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 414, + 289, + 439 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: Case study of augmented data, blue represents all entities and red represents nested entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "nested entities, our method can also generate appropriate entities. And the results on different labels can be found in 5.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 514, + 161, + 527 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 514, + 161, + 527 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 514, + 161, + 527 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 232, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 232, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 232, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.1 Cross-domain Few-shot NER" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 556, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recently, few-shot NER tasks have attracted a lot of researches. For example, Snell et al. (2017); Fritzler et al. (2019); Hou et al. (2020) applied prototype networks to the few-shot NER task, while Yang and Katiyar (2020) proposed StructShot, a model that learns class-specific features and extends intermediate representations to new domains. Das et al. (2022) proposed Container, a model based on contrastive learning to learn the relationship between entities of different categories for better understanding of new unseen classes. Liu et al. (2022) devises two prompting mechanisms for better training data generation, which is heavily influenced by the prompt strategies and needs heavy computation. However, these methods suffer from serious label inconsistency issues in cross" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "domain scenarios. The knowledge they learned in the source domain cannot be directly applied to the target domain. Moreover, due to the complexity of NER tasks, these works need to design complex learning strategies to be applied to few-shot NER tasks. Unlike previous works, our work focuses on the knowledge of entity internal structure. As far as we know, we are the first to introduce entity structure and label information in data augmentation to solve cross-domain few-shot NER tasks, which may inspire the following exploration to study internal structure knowledge of entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 422, + 266 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 422, + 266 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 253, + 422, + 266 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6.2 Data Augmentation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 277, + 526, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 277, + 526, + 588 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 277, + 526, + 588 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Data augmentation is a popular solution for few-shot learning tasks, which is also studied in cross-domain few-shot NER. However, noise is inevitably introduced in the process of introducing augmented data. As a token-level task, NER is vulnerable to the noise caused by augmented data. Dai and Adel (2020) uses label-wise token replacement, synonym replacement, and mention replacement to augmented data but does not increase the diversity of entities. Ding et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2022) respectively train language model and mask language model to fuse the alignment information of entities and labels to constrain the newly generated words to match labels, but inevitably introduce a lot of noise. While current methods aim to align the newly generated entities with the original labels, they face limitations in cross-domain few-shot NER. This is because each domain may have distinct entity structures and labels, rendering the generated data incompatible with the target domain's entity structure. Consequently, conventional data augmentation methods are not directly applicable to cross-domain few-shot NER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 381, + 622 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 381, + 622 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 608, + 381, + 622 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose a Structure and Label Constrained Data Augmentation (SLC-DA) for cross-domain few-shot NER, by introducing entity structure and label information from various domains in the data augmentation process, to obtain high-quality synthetic data in the target domain. Experimental results on both flat and nested few-shot NER tasks show that our method can significantly improve the quality of generated data and help NER model find more target domain entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "526" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 71, + 131, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 93, + 293, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Named entities are typically classified as flat, nested, or discontinuous entities, with significant structural differences between the three types. This makes it challenging for existing methods to effectively transfer from flat NER datasets to either nested or discontinuous NER datasets. While our experiments in this paper validate that our method can effectively transfer NER models from flat to nested datasets, we have yet to demonstrate its efficacy in transferring to discontinuous NER datasets. This is an avenue for future research, as our method's effectiveness on discontinuous datasets remains to be explored." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 280, + 166, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 280, + 166, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 280, + 166, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 291, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 291, + 411 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 303, + 291, + 411 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The research work described in this paper has been supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 61976016, 61976015, and 61876198) and the National Key R&D Program of China (2020AAA0108001). The authors also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 435, + 127, + 448 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 435, + 127, + 448 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 435, + 127, + 448 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 454, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yanru Chen, Yanan Zheng, and Zhilin Yang. 2022. Prompt-based metric learning for few-shot ner." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 291, + 565 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 487, + 291, + 565 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiang Dai and Heike Adel. 2020. An analysis of simple data augmentation for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2020, Barcelona, Spain (Online), December 8-13, 2020, pages 3861-3867. International Committee on Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 291, + 653 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 575, + 291, + 653 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Arzoo Katiyar, Rebecca Passonneau, and Rui Zhang. 2022. CONTaiNER: Few-shot named entity recognition via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6338-6353, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 291, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 662, + 291, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Leon Derczynski, Eric Nichols, Marieke van Erp, and Nut Limsopatham. 2017. Results of the WNUT2017 shared task on novel and emerging entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, NUT@EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7, 2017, pages 140-147. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: pre-training of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 20, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 222 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 168, + 526, + 222 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Bosheng Ding, Linlin Liu, Lidong Bing, Canasai Kru-engkrai, Thien Hai Nguyen, Shafiq R. Joty, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2020. DAGA: data augmentation with a generation approach for low-resource tagging tasks. CoRR, abs/2011.01549." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 526, + 319 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 526, + 319 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 230, + 526, + 319 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "George R. Doddington, Alexis Mitchell, Mark A. Przybocki, Lance A. Ramshaw, Stephanie M. Strassel, and Ralph M. Weischedel. 2004. The automatic content extraction (ACE) program - tasks, data, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004, May 26-28, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. European Language Resources Association." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 326, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 326, + 526, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 326, + 526, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander Fritzler, Varvara Logacheva, and Maksim Kretov. 2019. Few-shot classification in named entity recognition task. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2019, Limassol, Cyprus, April 8-12, 2019, pages 993-1000. ACM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 466 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 466 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 400, + 526, + 466 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ralph Grishman and Beth Sundheim. 1996. Message understanding conference- 6: A brief history. In 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, COLING 1996, Center for Sprogstkologi, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 5-9, 1996, pages 466-471." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 526, + 562 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 473, + 526, + 562 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yutai Hou, Wanxiang Che, Yongkui Lai, Zhihan Zhou, Yijia Liu, Han Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. Few-shot slot tagging with collapsed dependency transfer and label-enhanced task-adaptive projection network. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, pages 1381-1393. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 569, + 526, + 668 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 569, + 526, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 569, + 526, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Guillaume Lample, Miguel Ballesteros, Sandeep Subramanian, Kazuya Kawakami, and Chris Dyer. 2016. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In *NAACL HLT* 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016, pages 260-270. The Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 526, + 742 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 526, + 742 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaoya Li, Jingrong Feng, Yuxian Meng, Qinghong Han, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5849-5859, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 750, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jian Liu, Yufeng Chen, and Jinan Xu. 2022. Low-resource NER by data augmentation with prompting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "527" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 72, + 291, + 117 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23-29 July 2022, pages 4525-4258. ijcai.org." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 181 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 126, + 291, + 181 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 291, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 291, + 269 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 192, + 291, + 269 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Anders Björkelund, Olga Uryupina, Yuchen Zhang, and Zhi Zhong. 2013. Towards robust linguistic analysis using ontonotes. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 8-9, 2013, pages 143-152. ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 378 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 280, + 291, + 378 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chen Qian, Fuli Feng, Lijie Wen, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Conceptualized and contextualized gaussian embedding. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13683-13691. AAAI Press." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 389, + 291, + 465 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning, CoNLL 2003, Held in cooperation with HLT-NAACL 2003, Edmonton, Canada, May 31 - June 1, 2003, pages 142-147. ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 543 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 476, + 291, + 543 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, pages 4077-4087." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 291, + 597 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 553, + 291, + 597 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amber Stubbs and Ozlem Uzuner. 2015. Annotating longitudinal clinical narratives for de-identification: The 2014 i2b2/uthealth corpus. J. Biomed. Informatics, 58:S20-S29." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 608, + 291, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "C. Walker and Linguistic Data Consortium. 2005. ACE 2005 Multilingual Training Corpus. LDC corpora. Linguistic Data Consortium." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 651, + 291, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yi Yang and Arzoo Katiyar. 2020. Simple and effective few-shot named entity recognition with structured nearest neighbor learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, November 16-20, 2020, pages 6365-6375. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 739, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Amir Zeldes. 2017. The GUM corpus: creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Lang. Resour. Evaluation, 51(3):581-612." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 72, + 526, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ran Zhou, Xin Li, Ruidan He, Lidong Bing, Erik Cambria, Luo Si, and Chunyan Miao. 2022. MELM: data augmentation with masked entity language modeling for low-resource NER. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2251-2262. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 174, + 424, + 188 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 174, + 424, + 188 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 174, + 424, + 188 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Example Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 197, + 423, + 210 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 197, + 423, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 197, + 423, + 210 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Parameter Settings" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 524, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 524, + 241 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 216, + 524, + 241 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We elaborate experimental settings of SLC-DA and NER models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 525, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 243, + 525, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "SLC-DA: We use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with a language model head for our structure constrained data augmentation model. The model is trained for 20 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 1e-5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We calculate the loss for each word generated by the masked language model and select the best top-K. For a sentence containing n entities, this results in generating " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K^n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " new sentences (with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k = 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 339, + 525, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the presented experimental results). The additional time required by our method compared to MELM is not substantial because of the few-shot setting of the target domain's support set. Let's take the example of the WNUT 2017 dataset with a 5-shot setting. The support set consists of 216 sentences and 334 entity words. MELM requires approximately 4 minutes for data augmentation, while our method takes around 13 minutes." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 525, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "NER Model: For flat NER setting, we use bert-base-cased (Devlin et al., 2019) with CRF (Lample et al., 2016) head as the NER model. The model is trained for 5 epochs on source domain training data and target domain support set, using Adam optimizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with batch size set to 32 and learning rate set to 5e-5. For nested NER setting, we use the MRC-NER (Li et al., 2020) model as the NER model. The model is trained for 7 epochs on source domain training data and finetuned for 20 epochs on the SLC-DA generated data, using Adam optimizer with batch size set to 16 and learning rate set to 2e-5. For Direct Transfer setting, the model is trained only on the source domain training data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The server used for running our program is NVIDIA Tesla P100-SXM2. The average training time per epoch for our structure constrained data augmentation component is approximately 0.5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "528" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 270, + 145 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 270, + 145 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 270, + 145 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 270, + 145 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
Direct Transfer15.515.500
MELM‡17.511.15.41.2
CONTaiNER‡77.635.441.028.1
ProML‡81.555.061.239.6
SLC-DA (ours)83.250.456.159.5
", + "image_path": "a8a68b3d1c1dd1dba0d2f9677fd13740b1e28e9e38d85ccbbce52ccace7ea89e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 70, + 230, + 298, + 280 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 290, + 216 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 290, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Overall performances of all systems on four datasets in 10-shot settings for few-shot NER. We use F1 scores as evaluation metrics. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\ddagger" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 156, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " represents the results re-implemented by us. Each experimental result is the average of performance over 5 runs with random seeds." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 230, + 298, + 280 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 230, + 298, + 280 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 70, + 230, + 298, + 280 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ModelsCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull50shotfull
Direct Transfer15.515.5000000
MELM‡22.891.213.045.69.697.91.431.7
SLC-DA (ours)85.191.756.247.561.998.073.860.3
", + "image_path": "cbcdca14d0c7a0021a8880c7911687dd2bc778b7ddb3d0e84c76569615ec6721.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 339, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "hours. For our label constrained data augmentation component, the training time per epoch is influenced by the difference in size between the source and target domains, ranging from 0.5 to 3 hours. For training the NER model, taking the Onton-Notes5.0 dataset of approximately 70k samples as an example, the training time is around 1 hour." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 448, + 267, + 462 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 448, + 267, + 462 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 448, + 267, + 462 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Experiments on a few more samples" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 479, + 279, + 560 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 316 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 290, + 290, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Performances of systems in 50-shot and full set settings for few-shot NER." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 479, + 279, + 560 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 479, + 279, + 560 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 479, + 279, + 560 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetSupport DataAugmented Data
10-shot50-shot10-shot50-shot
CoNLL401142265,870123,376
WNUT42369753,62275,561
I2B28941793134,944196,003
GUM8662107239,766590,523
", + "image_path": "09cdbeaac29995c88629e0146d7123386c18878e24fc5cbbccb44a1ebde463cf.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 609, + 290, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 609, + 290, + 676 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 609, + 290, + 676 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We provide experimental results in the 10-shot, 50-shot and full set settings, as shown in Table 5 and 6. The statistics of the support sets and augmented data used in our experiments is shown in Table 7." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the 10-shot settings, our SLC-DA method still outperforms all other comparisons on CoNLL and GUM datasets. Although ProML method performs better than us on WNUT and I2B2 datasets, our approach based on data augmentation explore a various direction and can be combined with ProML to achieve more improvements." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 528, + 438 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 289, + 593 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 289, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 568, + 289, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Statistics of support and augmented data used in our experiments." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 528, + 438 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 528, + 438 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 69, + 528, + 438 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetEntity TypeDatasetEntity Type
OntoNotesNORPI2B2IDNUM
ORGMEDICALRECORD
PERSONPHONE
DATEZIP
GPEage
FACcity
CARDINALcountry
TIMEdate
ORDINALdevice
EVENTemail
QUANTITYfax
PERCENThospital
LOCorganization
WORK_OF_ARTperson
MONEYprofession
LAWstate
PRODUCTstreet
LANGUAGEusername
CoNLLPERWNUTcorporation
ORGcreative-work
LOCgroup
MISClocation
person
product
GUMabstractACE04GPE
animalORG
eventPER
objectFAC
organization/ACE05VEH
personLOC
placeWEA
plant
quantity
substance
time
", + "image_path": "37e1dbc4678c6767790941b4011c13c72f538504790a6f84a218ebe61220c018.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 471 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 471 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 446, + 525, + 471 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Statistics of predefined labels in all datasets from both source and target domains." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 474, + 507 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 474, + 507 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 493, + 474, + 507 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Statistics of Predefined Labels" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 512, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 512, + 525, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 512, + 525, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8 displays all predefined labels from various datasets in both source and target domains. Concretely, 'OntoNotes' dataset from the source domain contains 18 predefined entity types. For the target domains, there are 18, 11, 7, 6, and 4 entity categories in 'I2B2', 'GUM', 'ACE04/ACE05', 'WNUT' and 'CoNLL' dataset, respectively. Note that we collect their corresponding label descriptions from the annotation guidelines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 523, + 659 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 523, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 523, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 Statistics of datasets used in experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 664, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 664, + 525, + 744 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 664, + 525, + 744 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The datasets utilized in our study are open-source and consist of various entity types. Further information on the datasets can be found in Table 9. The table lists the entity types present in the datasets, along with the percentage of nested entities relative to the total number of entities." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 746, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We report the size of the augment data generated by the support set for each data set in the table 10." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 780, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "529" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 527, + 174 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 527, + 174 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 527, + 174 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 527, + 174 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetDomianClassNested Entity/Entity1-shot entity5-shot entity1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotesGeneral18-----
CoNLLNews4-792592587
WNUTSocial6-8233451216
I2B2Medical18-2381133162706
GUMMixed11-17086881276
ACE04Event712k/27k20235261102
ACE05Event712k/30k16240743115
", + "image_path": "86fce5f38fbbc4d5c89989cfbdc5f321a853e2d20eca0c662de87d7cca053d01.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 212, + 292, + 336 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 181, + 403, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 181, + 403, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 189, + 181, + 403, + 195 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Statistics of support set used in experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 212, + 292, + 336 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 212, + 292, + 336 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 212, + 292, + 336 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Dataset1-shot sentence5-shot sentence
OntoNotes--
CoNLL861848809
WNUT373414770
I2B2554649066
GUM8303130857
ACE041819848855
ACE055437192278
", + "image_path": "b8b296902ed11602b5e195efe0f6bfdfe0777ecfa3d4304b1293f45d0c5cdb37.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 94, + 370, + 268, + 424 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 344, + 289, + 356 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 344, + 289, + 356 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 344, + 289, + 356 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: Statistics of augment data used in experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 370, + 268, + 424 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 370, + 268, + 424 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 94, + 370, + 268, + 424 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
DatasetCoNLLWNUTI2B2GUM
zero-shot68.433.315.616.3
5-shot76.240.09.513.2
10-shot68.440.08.610.5
", + "image_path": "608c64292d215a254ba4eaa1fd1b9e8cc207b812779fabb4ebaeee39b2d77cc1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 433, + 277, + 444 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 433, + 277, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 79, + 433, + 277, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: Results of GPT3.5 in different settings." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 468, + 180, + 481 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 468, + 180, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 468, + 180, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Result of GPT3.5" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Table 11, we provide the result of GPT3.5 on zero-shot, 5-shot and 10-shot setting. When constructing the input prompt using the support set, we used the following template: First, input a prompt: \"As a good linguist, you are asked to identify and label the named entities in the given sentences. There are some examples, please remember them:\" Secondly, input the support-generated prompt one by one, for example: \"Sentence is: John lives in New York City. Entities are: .\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We observed that the performance of GPT 3.5 varies on different datasets, performing well on common entities but worse on scarce entities(e.g., medical dataset I2B2). Additionally, compared results of '5-shot' and '10-shot', we find that GPT 3.5 does not perform better with the increase of support samples due to the match degree between inputs and prompts, which highlights the importance of selecting proper prompts for the application of LLMs to few-shot tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 526, + 296 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 215, + 526, + 296 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Compared to GPT 3.5, our method achieves better performance in the few-shot NER scenario. Furthermore, our core idea can be easily applied to LLMs by modeling structure and label relationships with appropriate prompts, which can help select input data and improve their performance." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 289, + 781, + 307, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "530" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_content_list.json b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98c8bcf4fcedda35daba63b37904a6bfc772e91b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1946 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 278, + 82, + 719, + 122 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Benjamin Yan $^{1}$ , Ruochen Liu $^{1}$ , David E. Kuo $^{1}$ , Subathra Adithan $^{2}$ , Eduardo Pontes Reis $^{1}$ , Stephen Kwak $^{3}$ , Vasantha Kumar Venugopal $^{4}$ , Chloe P. O'Connell $^{1}$ , Agustina Saenz $^{5}$ , Pranav Rajpurkar $^{5,\\dagger}$ , Michael Moor $^{1,\\dagger}$", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 130, + 858, + 180 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Stanford University, $^{2}$ Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research $^{3}$ John Hopkins University, $^{4}$ Aligarh Muslim University, $^{5}$ Harvard Medical School, $^{+}$ equal senior authorship", + "bbox": [ + 159, + 181, + 840, + 230 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 339, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatically generated reports from medical images promise to improve the workflow of radiologists. Existing methods consider an image-to-report modeling task by directly generating a fully-fledged report from an image. However, this conflates the content of the report (e.g., findings and their attributes) with its style (e.g., format and choice of words), which can lead to clinically inaccurate reports. To address this, we propose a two-step approach for radiology report generation. First, we extract the content from an image; then, we verbalize the extracted content into a report that matches the style of a specific radiologist. For this, we leverage RadGraph—a graph representation of reports—together with large language models (LLMs). In our quantitative evaluations, we find that our approach leads to beneficial performance. Our human evaluation with clinical raters highlights that the AI-generated reports are indistinguishably tailored to the style of individual radiologist despite leveraging only a few examples as context.", + "bbox": [ + 144, + 280, + 460, + 606 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 619, + 260, + 634 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generating radiology reports from medical images is a crucial task in the field of medical imaging. For human interpreters to write such reports is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive but also requires a high level of expertise (Hartung et al., 2020). Furthermore, these reports are often subject to inter-observer variability, potentially compromising the consistency and accuracy of the reports' findings. As a result, there is a growing interest in methods for automated radiology report generation, which can alleviate these issues and improve overall efficiency of the diagnostic process.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 838 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for generating high-quality text, with the ability to customize outputs based on user-specified instructions (Brown et al., 2020b). These models have been utilized to", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "rephrase existing text, paving the way for new approaches to automated report generation in radiology. However, despite the promise of LLMs, their application to this task is not without challenges. One principal concern is their tendency to 'hallucinate', i.e., to generate false information (even if plausible sounding), which can be particularly problematic in high-stakes settings such as when generating reports from medical images.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 253, + 884, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Previous attempts at automated report generation have largely focused on approaches that aim to produce fully-fledged reports directly from medical images (i.e., a image-to-report modelling task) (Alaouzi et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022a). However, this conflates the content of the report (i.e., the radiology entities and attributes that are described) with its style (i.e., the complement of radiology entities and attributes, or everything needed in terms of language, grammar, and structure to formulate a fully-fledged report, on top of the content representation), which limits the flexibility and applicability of such models.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 401, + 884, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This problem is also reflected in the employed evaluation metrics of existing approaches. They frequently optimize for traditional natural language processing (NLP) metrics, such as BLEU, ROUGE, or METEOR, which measure the similarity of the generated report to a reference report based on lexical overlap. These metrics, while generally useful, may not correlate with the clinical correctness or usefulness of the report (Yu et al., 2022). Previous work has demonstrated that optimizing for clinical metrics that measure the content's relevance, such as the RadGraph scores (Jain et al., 2021), is crucial in generating reports that accurately represent the image findings. The RadGraph score gauges similarity in extracted radiology entities and relations with a ground truth annotation. This emphasizes the report's clinical content as opposed to style or lexical overlap, and makes it an amenable measure of the report's usefulness and completeness in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14676", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14676-14688 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "clinical practice.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 240, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we propose to generate radiology reports as a two-step procedure for disentangling report content and style. In the first step, a dedicated model is trained to extract pure content from the image. Specifically, it generates a structured representation (called RadGraph) of the entities and attributes that are present in the image. In the second step, a frozen LLM generates a stylized report from this structured representation. Given a few report examples as context, the LLM can on-the-fly adapt the report style closely to the style of a target radiologist or hospital template for whom the report should be drafted. This model stylization could offer several advantages for radiology workflows: flexibility, in generating reports targeted to their readership, such as ones with less jargon that are more accessible to patients; consistency, in ensuring clear communication between a radiologist and the referring physician, who may be accustomed to a particular style of reporting; and emphasis on preferred information, in highlighting findings most relevant to a specialist's scope of practice (e.g., follow-up on a patch of pneumonia, or the correct location of pacing lead in the heart).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 105, + 490, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the first step of our approach, we alter the supervision signal of an image-text model to a serialization of the clinical entities (as captured in RadGraph) and their attributes, rather than the full report text. This step ensures the content extraction model focuses only on generating the report's clinical content, measured by RadGraph score, rather than optimizing for traditional NLP metrics such as BLEU that may not correlate with the report's clinical relevance. By generating the clinical content first, we prioritize the report's clinical usefulness over its stylistic quality, which can be improved and even personalized in the second step.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 495, + 489, + 705 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the second step, we leverage GPT-3.5 (a generative LLM developed by OpenAI) to transform the predicted serialization of clinical entities and attributes from the image into a styled radiology report (Brown et al., 2020a). These models have shown great promise in generating high-quality text (Anil et al., 2023), including summaries and paraphrases of existing text (Li et al., 2023a), which we can use to inject a hospital-specific style, as well as to enhance readability and understandability. By separating the content generation and style injection steps, we can ensure the model optimizes for the relevant criteria for each step, resulting in a", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 709, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "high-quality report.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 657, + 99 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our approach addresses the limitations of end-to-end image-to-report generation, as the LLM does not need to suggest facts about the image. Instead, it can focus on rephrasing the structured set of entities and attributes that were first derived from the image and infuse the desired style into the report. At prediction time, the LLM in-context learns a serialization-to-report mapping from a few examples of a target report writing style. Our method not only offers a novel solution to the challenges posed by previous approaches but also enhances the customization and adaptability of radiology reports generated by LLMs.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 101, + 884, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This paper makes the following contributions:", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 311, + 870, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- First, we develop a method for extracting structured content—that is, a serialized version of RadGraph—from radiology images.", + "- Second, we propose a strategy for generating stylized reports from this extracted content by means of in-context learning from few style-specific example reports.", + "- Third, our overall system (combining content extraction and style generation) achieves competitive performance at radiology report generation.", + "- Fourth, in a human style evaluation clinical experts were not able to distinguish real reports from AI-generated ones that were adapted to the writing style of individual radiologists." + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 338, + 882, + 599 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Related Works", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 613, + 672, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Medical Report Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 640, + 771, + 656 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Medical report generation (MRG) has seen a recent resurgence in the field of medical AI. Early works (Allaouzi et al., 2018) adhere to the methods of image captioning models (Vinyals et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015), leveraging deep CNNs to extract image features and RNNs to generate text descriptions in an encoder-decoder fashion. Meanwhile, emerging in several works was an auxiliary classification task to predict certain medical abnormalities, with the aim of more structured guidance for report generation (Shin et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Yin et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019). Later, the use of the attention mechanism in MRG systems became increasingly prevalent (Jing et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020). To further bridge visual and linguistic modalities while incorporating med", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 661, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14677", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/860d05b56965f3f1c246ce3f521d94f11e9d3ffe0d5f14d3a4f70cab65499199.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Conventional:" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 181, + 130, + 378, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cddc1c947f48e777a2468c322faa0d7abd46f422dda8cc93cde377334b422268.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 1: Overview of our two-step pipeline for generating radiology reports (right panel) as contrasted with the standard \"image-to-report\" strategy for directly generating radiology reports from X-ray images (left panel). During training, we consider a set of paired chest X-ray images and radiology reports. We preprocess the reports by extracting its content in the form a graph representation (RadGraph). We serialize the RadGraph into a condensed summary of the clinical content of the report. From there, this RadGraph serialization is used as the supervising signal in an image captioning model. For illustration purposes, we omit to display the text encoder that augments both captioning models with clinical context. At inference time, a new chest X-ray is fed through the model to generate a serialized RadGraph. By providing few example reports of a specific radiologist (and extracting their RadGraphs), an LLM can in-context learn to verbalize the structured content extracted from the image into a fully-fledged report in the style of the target radiologist." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 389, + 93, + 836, + 350 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ical domain knowledge, various kinds of knowledge graphs have been explored for use (Li et al., 2019, 2023b; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In our study, we use the classic encoder-decoder architecture, as it is a common denominator of many MRG approaches.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 533, + 489, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Subsequent studies acknowledge the constraints of traditional natural language generation metrics when assessing medical reports, prompting a growing emphasis on ensuring clinical accuracy. RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) is a dataset of entities and relations in full-text chest X-ray radiology reports based on a novel information extraction schema. (Yang et al., 2022) adopts the knowledge graph provided by RadGraph as general knowledge embedding. (Wang et al., 2022b) employed a classification loss for medical concepts provided by RadGraph. (Delbrouck et al., 2022) improves the factual completeness and correctness of generated radiology reports with a well-designed RadGraph reward. Most existing methods develop metrics around RadGraph and integrate that into the objective function; our approach, on the other hand, di", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 645, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "rectly trains the model to generate a serialized (i.e., text) representation of RadGraph as we decouple the content and style generation and focus solely on the clinical correctness during the content generation stage. Additionally, serialized RadGraphs allow us to juxtapose dense content representations with stylized reports which enables style adaptation via in-context learning.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 533, + 884, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 Large Language Models", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 673, + 746, + 688 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Recent watersheds such as the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), generative pretraining objectives (Radford et al., 2018), and increased computing power have facilitated the training of large language models comprising billions of parameters (Brown et al., 2020a; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). These advances have significantly Burgeoned model capability in tasks such as translation, summarization, and generating long text that closely resembles human language.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 694, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In 2021, OpenAI announced GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a; Floridi and Chiriatti, 2020), a generative language model featuring an unprecedented 175 billion parameters. Their study introduces in", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14678", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/7515da96c426aaf8acfd3a12ea2b1643c5272addce5b54182ff7f8f8ba2e0ab1.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: Overview of the RadGraph serialization. In the RadGraph entities, ANAT-DP, OBS-DP, and OBS-DA refer to present anatomical, present observational, and absent observational entities, respectively. The token counts refer to the averages across the test set." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 137, + 84, + 860, + 237 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "context learning, the ability of LLMs to learn to perform a task simply by being provided a few examples as context—without any parameter updates.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 317, + 489, + 365 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "LLMs have also demonstrated great potential in the medical domain. For instance, GPT-4 has been employed to post-hoc transform free-text radiology reports into structured reports (Adams et al., 2023). As for LLM-based MRG systems, Wang et al. (2023) utilized ChatGPT to generate medical reports based on features extracted by neural networks (e.g., disease classifier). However, their approach does not exploit in-context learning and thus has limited control over format and style.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 366, + 489, + 526 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Methods", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 537, + 225, + 551 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Dataset", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 562, + 220, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Our study makes use of the MIMIC-CXR (Johnson et al., 2019) and RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) datasets. MIMIC-CXR is a large dataset of 377 110 chest radiographs imaged at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 227 835 studies, with freetext medical reports. The RadGraph dataset is publicly available and comprises radiology text reports and corresponding knowledge graphs (Figure 2).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 582, + 489, + 711 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To preprocess reports, we extract only Findings and Impressions, as other sections contain details that cannot be readily referenced from the image, such as patient demographics or lab results from different procedures. Findings refer to the direct observations from the image (e.g., opacity of lungs, catheter placement), while Impression summarizes the most urgent inferences and diagnostically relevant findings (e.g., presence of pneumonia).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 712, + 489, + 857 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 RadGraph", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 866, + 245, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As notation, a RadGraph refers to any knowledge graph within the titular dataset. The nodes of a", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 887, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "RadGraph are either anatomical (e.g., lungs, cardiomediastinal, carina) or observational entities (e.g., acute, abnormality). The edges are directed and heterogeneous, capturing three types of relations—modify, located at, suggestive of—between entities. Nodes and edges are automatically obtained via a named entity recognition and relation extraction model on MIMIC-CXR reports, employing the DYGIE++ framework from Wadden et al. (2019). This embodies the Report $\\rightarrow$ RadGraph preprocessing step, or content extraction in (Figure 1). We distinguish this from content generation (Section 3.4), which is the transformer-based prediction of serialized content based on the image.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 317, + 885, + 542 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 RadGraph Compilation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 557, + 742, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We serialize each RadGraph into a structured text representation (Figure 2), which serves as the supervision label for the content generation model (Section 3.4). This serialization acts as a dense content representation whose advantages over the fre-text report include conciseness and the pruning of non-semantic content (e.g., style-filler words, radiologist-specific phrasing) from the report. The aim is to focus the model purely on generating the content backbone at this step, and defer the style injection to a later stage of the pipeline (Section 3.5).", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 579, + 884, + 755 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To exploit the graph structure of the input RadGraph, we first extract the weakly connected components (step (3) in Figure 2). These are the maximal subgraphs where any two nodes can be reached through a path of undirected links. Each component is thus a separate network of spatially and medically related entities, segmenting the chest Xray's content into distinct regions of interest that can be serialized in parallel.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 757, + 885, + 901 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For each component, we create a text span of all", + "bbox": [ + 527, + 903, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14679", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "labelled entities. The keywords no and maybe are pretended to absent and uncertain entities, respectively. The entity ordering follows the syntax of the corresponding tokens in the report to ensure readability and lexical fidelity. When the report contains both Findings and Impression sections (Figure 2), we analogously stratify the components based on their referenced location in the free-text report. This is crucial as the content representation should carefully distinguish between factual image information (Findings) and clinical inferences (Impressions), even if strongly supported.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 489, + 277 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Within Findings and Impression, the components are concatenated and separated by delimiters. The two sections are combined into a single text, which is the report serialization and densely characterizes the full chest radiograph. In the case where the report is not bipartite (e.g., only Impressions), we unify the components under a singular section.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 279, + 487, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Content Generation Model", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 409, + 371, + 425 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For the content generation model, we leverage the encoder-decoder architecture that has been widely employed in image-to-text systems. An image encoder takes chest X-ray images as the input and encodes them into a visual feature representation. In parallel, a text encoder reads clinical documents, such as doctor indications, and transforms the textual content into dense feature vectors.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 434, + 489, + 562 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The visual and text embeddings are then added together and passed through a LayerNorm operation to form contextualized embeddings. The fused embeddings are then fed into the report decoder, which generates serialized RadGraph word-by-word. The main architecture is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), but we simplified it by removing the classifier and the interpretation module to eliminate as many potential confounders as we can since our goal is to evaluate the influence of the supervision signal.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 565, + 489, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Image Encoder We adopt a DenseNet-121 (Huang et al., 2017) model pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset as the image encoder. For each input chest X-ray image $I$ , it extracts a feature vector $d \\in R^e$ where $e$ is the embedding dimension. If an imaging study consists of more than one image, the feature will be obtained via max-pooling across all feature vectors extracted from each image. $d$ is then transformed into $n$ low-dimensional disease representations $D_{img} \\in R^{n \\times e}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 758, + 489, + 920 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text Encoder We use a Transformer encoder to extract features $H = \\{h_1, h_2, \\dots, h_l\\}$ from the clinical document text input with length $l$ consisting of word embeddings $\\{w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_l\\}$ where $w_i \\in R^e$ is the vector representation of the $i$ -th word in the text, $e$ is the embedding dimension and $h_i \\in R^e$ is the attended features of the $i$ -th word to other words in the input document. The features are then transformed into summarization denoted as $Q = \\{q_1, q_2, \\dots, q_n\\}$ representing a set of $n$ disease-related topics (such as pneumonia or atelectasis) to be queried from the document, as proposed in (Nguyen et al., 2021),", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 294 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nD _ {t x t} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(Q H ^ {T}\\right) H \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 596, + 306, + 882, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where matrix $Q \\in R^{n \\times e}$ is constructed by vertically stacking $\\{q_1, q_2, \\ldots, q_n\\}$ where each vector $q_i$ is initialized with random values and subsequently refined through the attention process, and $H \\in R^{l \\times e}$ is formed by stacking $\\{h_1, h_2, \\ldots, h_l\\}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 882, + 420 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Fused Embedding We obtain the final, contextualized embedding $D \\in R^{n \\times e}$ by entangling the visual embedding $D_{img}$ and text embedding $D_{txt}$ ,", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 431, + 882, + 480 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nD = \\operatorname {L a y e r N o r m} \\left(D _ {i m g} + D _ {t x t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 574, + 494, + 882, + 511 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "where $D$ will be the input for the report decoder.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 525, + 870, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Report Decoder We use the Transformer as the backbone of our report decoder to generate long, robust text. A total of 12 decoder components are stacked together where each component consists of a masked multi-head self-attention component followed by a feed-forward layer. The report generation objective (Equation 3) is defined as the cross-entropy loss between predicted words $p$ and ground truth $y$ . Here, we denote $p_{ij}$ as the confidence of selecting the $j$ -th word of vocabulary $V$ in the $i$ -th position in the generated text, and $y_{ij}$ as a binary indicator of whether the $j$ -th word appears in the $i$ -th position of the ground truth.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 552, + 882, + 762 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nL = - \\frac {1}{l} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {l} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {v} y _ {i j} \\log \\left(p _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 589, + 774, + 882, + 819 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.5 Style Generation Step", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 833, + 727, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We describe the process of prompting a pre-trained LLM to generate reports from the serialization. This enables adapting the generation to a specific style by supplying the LLM with relevant", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14680", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "in-context examples. Each example is a pair: serialization $s_i$ from the RadGraph, and corresponding ground truth report $r_i$ under the desired style.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 490, + 133 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We use the gpt-3.5-turbo model from OpenAI, a dialogue-based LLM that accepts a sequence of messages as input, rather than a singular text prompt. This is useful for inserting style pairs seamlessly; we relay them as a back-and-forth conversation between user and assistant roles, where a user role supplies serialization $s_i$ and an assistant responds with target report $r_i$ for the language model to learn in-context.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 133, + 489, + 275 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The chain of $K$ examples $\\{(s_i,r_i)\\}_{i = 1}^K$ is prefaced by a system role message indicating the LLM should act as the report-generating assistant, establishing its specific task within the radiology-based dialogue. The remaining prompt is structured as $s_1:r_1,s_2:r_2,\\dots ,s_K:r_K,\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}:.$ At the end, the model is given an evaluation serialization $\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}$ predicted from the chest X-ray image using our content generation model, cuing the LLM to generate the corresponding report prediction $\\hat{r}_{\\mathrm{eval}}$ next. Note that in the zero-shot case, the prompt is just $\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}:$ , with no preceding context examples.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 278, + 489, + 473 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.6 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 486, + 312, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of our approach with commonly-used metrics concerning both language fluency and clinical accuracy. For each metric, we display the mean $\\overline{x}$ across the $n$ test reports, as well as the $95\\%$ confidence interval $(\\overline{x} \\pm 1.96 \\cdot \\frac{\\sigma}{\\sqrt{n}})$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 508, + 489, + 609 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Natural Language Generation Metrics (NLG)", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 618, + 487, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As for classical NLG metrics, we compute BLEU2 and BERT scores. However, these metrics have relevant limitations due to focusing on lexical similarity or general (non-clinical) semantics, respectively, thereby lacking in the assessment of clinical similarity (for more details, see Section A.5).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 634, + 489, + 730 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Clinical Accuracy Metrics CheXbert vector similarity extends beyond BERT by utilizing CheXbert, a model trained specifically on datasets comprising chest X-rays. It computes the cosine similarity between the indicator vectors of 14 pathologies that the CheXbert labeler extracts from machine-generated and human-generated radiology reports. It is designed to evaluate radiology-specific information but its evaluation is limited to 14 pathologies. To address this limitation, we also adopt RadGraph F1 (Yu et al., 2022) that calcu", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 741, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lates the overlap in clinical entities and relations extracted by RadGraph from both machine-generated and human-generated reports. In this study, we lay emphasis on clinical metrics because we aim to generate reports in different styles while keeping accurate clinical information instead of reports that lexically match the ground truth in the dataset.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 197 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.7 Experimental Setup", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 209, + 714, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We conduct four experiments to scrutinize each individual step and overall performance of our proposed strategy for report generation. This includes:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 231, + 884, + 280 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "1. Image to Serialization: We evaluate content generation model in terms of comparing the content of the generated serialization with the ground truth report.", + "2. **Serialization to Report:** Conditioning on a strong image-to-serialization model, we evaluate LLM-based style injection by using the ground-truth RadGraphs as input to the LLM.", + "3. End-to-end report generation: We evaluate the pipeline end-to-end, feeding the image and clinical context through the content generation model and the generated serialization through the LLM.", + "4. Human style evaluation: To evaluate the style quality, we let physicians rate sets of 4 radiology reports where 3 were written by the same radiologists and 1 was AI-generated by our method following the style of the radiologist. The goal for the physicians is to detect the AI-generated report and to justify their choice." + ], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 292, + 882, + 633 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Baseline The baseline model is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), sharing the same architecture as our image-to-serialization model (Section 3.4), but its supervision target is the full report (Findings and Impressions) instead of serialization. The training involves an identical parameter set as above.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 646, + 884, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Additional experimental details (training, hyperparameter search, and infrastructure) are provided in Section A.1.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 744, + 882, + 791 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 806, + 606, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Image to Serialization", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 833, + 727, + 848 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We train two content generation models, one with the full report as the supervision target, and the other with the serialized RadGraph. In table 2, we present the RadGraph F1 evaluation result on the", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14681", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/8b54534366889ecbb36cc2ecb1968928e50eb9d69cb8c6c739f319fff0dd79fe.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
MethodExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
Baseline—3.553 ± 0.0320.186 ± 0.0050.352 ± 0.0080.184 ± 0.0050.378 ± 0.006
Ours03.527 ± 0.0270.228 ± 0.0040.394 ± 0.0080.162 ± 0.0030.333 ± 0.004
13.512 ± 0.0280.226 ± 0.0050.393 ± 0.0080.170 ± 0.0030.343 ± 0.004
53.489 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0040.391 ± 0.0080.177 ± 0.0030.354 ± 0.004
103.485 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0050.390 ± 0.0080.180 ± 0.0030.357 ± 0.004
", + "bbox": [ + 136, + 80, + 860, + 156 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "MIMIC-CXR test set, comparing the outputs from both models against the ground truth full report.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 250, + 485, + 281 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The comparison is suitable as RadGraph F1 is ag- nostic of general lexical similarity, measuring only overlap in radiology entities and relations extracted from the text. We find the model trained on the serialized RadGraph outperforms the model trained on the full report. This verifies our assumption that switching the supervision signal to the serialization would help focus the model on generating clinical content with greater accuracy and saliency.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 282, + 487, + 428 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b1d7dfada7b82a4d4e6dafa2d7d07ac2561b311af0a84d1e013f27043a94cd26.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 1: Results for the end-to-end report generation. The baseline is the direct image-to-report transformer, i.e., the content generation model trained to predict reports directly from image. Note that RadCliQ (lower is better) is the most important metric as it best corresponds with radiologists' quality assessment (Yu et al., 2022). Best row is in bold. Rows leveraging in-context examples are grayed out, whereas the first two rows use the exact same input data." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Supervision TargetRadGraph F1
Full Report0.186 ± 0.005
Serialized RadGraph0.221 ± 0.004
", + "bbox": [ + 147, + 438, + 453, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: RadGraph entity and relation F1 score of models trained on full report versus serialized RadGraph.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 501, + 489, + 530 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Serialization to Report", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 558, + 339, + 574 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "For selecting examples, we draw randomly from the train split. This avoids patient overlap that could unfairly benefit performance on test cases. We compare the LLM-generated reports against the ground truth reports. Results are provided (Table 3) for varying numbers of in-context examples. We observe strong performance across all metrics, including a 0.722 RadGraph F1 mean in the zero-shot regime. Furthermore, lexical overlap metrics such as BLEU and BERT score saw noticeable improvement with more examples (20.2% and 15.7% increases, respectively, from 0 to 10 examples). This aligns with the aim of in-context learning to improve the style fidelity of generated reports.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 579, + 489, + 806 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 End-to-End Report Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 816, + 406, + 832 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate the end-to-end performance from chest X-ray to report by concatenating the content generation step with the style generation step. The results are presented in Table 1. We observe that our two-step model surpasses the baseline (direct", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "image-to-report model) in clinical accuracy metrics (CheXbert similarity, RadGraph F1, RadCliQ), even in the zero-shot style generation case. This illustrates greater accuracy in extracting radiology content from the chest X-ray, the central focus of separating content generation from style injection. Notably, RadCliQ is a composite metric found by Yu et al. (2022) to best correlate with quality judgement of human radiologists.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 250, + 884, + 394 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The primary contribution of more examples is improving lexical and non-clinical NLG metrics (BLEU, BERT Score), similar to our findings in the `Serialization $\\rightarrow$ Report` step. However, they remain slightly lower than those of the baseline. A potential explanation is that during training, the baseline is directly supervised with full reports, while only the extracted content is available to our content generation model—with the report itself synthesized with an external, pre-trained LLM.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 395, + 884, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Human Style Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 571, + 749, + 587 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Four board-certified radiologists were instructed to write chest X-ray reports in their usual style from 40 randomly selected chest X-ray images from the MIMIC-CXR test set (Figure 4). As several chest X-rays in the MIMIC-CXR dataset were within normal limits or interval follow ups on intensive care patients, duplicate or near-duplicate chest X-ray reports were removed upon manual inspection.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 596, + 882, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The style generation step described in Section 3.5 was then used to produce AI-generated chest X-ray reports in the style of each of the four radiologists. From these radiologist-generated and AI-generated chest X-ray reports, we created 23 sets of four chest X-ray reports for style evaluation by physician evaluators (i.e., the target audience for written radiology reports). In each set, three reports (corresponding to three different chest X-rays) from the same radiologist, and one AI-generated report (from a fourth chest X-ray) in the style of that radiologist were presented in random", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 726, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14682", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/31e8299fae1e4cbf86f8d5eafb3595903f8d09b439692280d5ac5ac3debcd76a.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 168, + 86, + 594, + 174 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/32f099a6333f6995f5362058da7be9d736e340f9c557e988fd85ff6ce61de19f.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Overview of human expert evaluation of the style generation. In panel a, a set of radiologist write radiology reports in their own style for $n$ chest X-ray studies. For each written report, we extract the RadGraph representation and serialize it into the text representation. Panel b illustrates how we AI-generate a radiology report in the style of a specific radiologist, $R_{1}$ , for an input image $I_{k}$ . To in-context learn the style of $R_{1}$ , for $k$ shots we provide a context of $k$ input / output pairs of serialized RadGraphs (dense content representation) together with the corresponding stylized reports as written by $R_{1}$ . Next, to generate a report for a given image $I_{k}$ , we feed the image through our image-to-serialized model and use the generated RadGraph serialization (as indicated with a hat) as the final query of the prompt. The LLM is then prompted to return a generated report in the style of $R_{1}$ . Panel c illustrates the human evaluation. Physician raters are provided with problems each consisting of 4 reports, 3 written by one radiologist and 1 AI-generated in the same radiologist's style." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 168, + 181, + 593, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/6020536528dc701a6bfd73061b17ca07bc9db42d85a0143fc84283484fcd6da8.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 603, + 87, + 833, + 186 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/a3cd6d41023cc6cba4c3ada56c100f046713517efb9e248ed24c1cb40ec72dd4.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 611, + 190, + 826, + 307 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "order. Three physician evaluators were asked to identify the AI-generated report out of the four reports and indicate whether report content, language, or report structure contributed to their choice (for more details, refer to Section A.3).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 488, + 489, + 568 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A one-sided Z-test was performed for the proportion of AI-generated reports correctly identified by the three evaluators with a null hypothesis of $25\\%$ , corresponding to random chance, and an alternative hypothesis of $>25\\%$ , corresponding to AI-generated reports being identified at a rate greater than that of random chance. Evaluators A, B, C correctly identified 5 out of 23 $(21.7\\%)$ , 5 out of 23 $(21.7\\%)$ , and 4 out of 23 $(17.4\\%)$ AI-generated chest X-ray reports, respectively, for a mean accuracy of $20.3\\%$ . The one-sided Z-test produced p-values of 0.648, 0.648, and 0.832 for Evaluators A, B, and C respectively, and 0.835 when pooling all evaluators together.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 575, + 489, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "One potential explanation for why evaluators identified $< 25\\%$ of AI-generated reports (worse than random), is variance in radiologist style. For example, our radiologists would sometimes alternate between using parentheses to highlight the chest X-ray view (e.g., \"Chest X-ray (PA and lateral views):\") and not using any parentheses (e.g.,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "\"Chest X-ray PA and lateral views\":). Human evaluators may use particular heuristics to call a report AI-generated, when faced with similar appearing reports. However, if they are not reflective of the truth, this may result in accuracy less than random.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 488, + 884, + 569 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1459383959deee99ab35732f4711eb340d1e351d99ca302ac85df4740845a98e.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 4: Human Style Evaluation: All evaluators identified the AI-generated chest X-ray report at rates lower than $25\\%$ (corresponding to random chance)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 549, + 583, + 842, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 844, + 636, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We presented a novel approach for radiology report generation that disentangles the report's content from its style. Our experiments showed that our", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 871, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14683", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "method offers several advantages over the prevailing paradigm of direct image-to-report modeling. First, training a content extraction model to predict a serialized RadGraph representation from the input image helps focusing the model on the clinically relevant content which is reflected in improved performance metrics (Table 2). Second, when concatenating the content generation step with the style injection step, we observe favourable performance compared to the direct image-to-report baseline (Table 1). Third, by in-context learning the radiologist-specific mapping from serialized RadGraph to report, our method enables the generation of high quality reports that are tailored to the individual radiologist to the degree of indiscernibility using just a few example reports. To ultimately determine the clinical utility of our method, deployment studies will be an exciting venue for future work. Another promising direction would be to expand our two-step report generation paradigm to other modalities such as radiology mammograms and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 84, + 490, + 437 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 451, + 250, + 467 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A limitation of our approach is that it relies on the accuracy and effectiveness of the initially extracted RadGraph representation, as this serves as a key supervision signal in our model. Notably, RadGraphs are extracted at inference time using an automated model rather than manual expert labelling. The model achieves high performance in entity and relation extraction (Jain et al., 2021) but is susceptible to error, particularly with report inputs that contain rarer medical entities or ambiguous observations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 478, + 487, + 637 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, due to our employed LLM being served by a third party (OpenAI), reproducing our results comes at the financial costs of using Azure OpenAI's service. Another consequence of relying on this service is that we cannot guarantee the deterministically exact reproduction of our findings, as the served LLM models may change and potentially degrade over time—for instance, if models are replaced by distilled versions thereof.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 639, + 489, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "7 Ethics Considerations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 796, + 339, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A principal ethical consideration is the de-identified, credentialed medical data we worked with. In particular, responsible usage policy of the MIMIC-CXR dataset (Johnson et al., 2019) prohibits sharing access to third parties. This disqualifies the use of ChatGPT or large language model", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 490, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "APIs for prompting models to generate radiology reports from our content representations. However, cloud-based services are allowed, including the Azure OpenAI platform, which we use for deploying and prompting the gpt-3.5-turbo model. A stipulation is the monetary service costs, which are counted at a rate per one thousand tokens. These can pose financial barriers to equitable access to high-end language models (which are typically more expensive), as well as usage at scale.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 84, + 884, + 244 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Furthermore, as discussed in the Introduction section, the use of large language models is accompanied by their risks of \"hallucination\" and generating false or misleading content. These risks can be amplified in the critical setting of medical report generation. To mitigate them, we prompt the LLM not to synthesize medical content, but rather to rephrase existing content into readable, stylized prose. We assist the model through providing content serialization to report pairs as in-context examples. This is our style injection step, which we intendfully separate from the content generation step to reduce the opportunity for LLM hallucination when generating the full report prediction.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 246, + 885, + 470 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "8 Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 483, + 712, + 500 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This project was supported by AWS promotional credits.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 510, + 880, + 541 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 571, + 608, + 586 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Lisa C Adams, Daniel Truhn, Felix Busch, Avan Kader, Stefan M Niehues, Marcus R Makowski, and Keno K Bressem. 2023. Leveraging gpt-4 for post hoc transformation of free-text radiology reports into structured reporting: a multilingual feasibility study. *Radiology*, 307(4):e230725.", + "Imane Allaouzi, M Ben Ahmed, Badr Benamrou, and Mustapha Ouardouz. 2018. Automatic caption generation for medical images. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications, pages 1-6.", + "Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin Johnson, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403.", + "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 594, + 885, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14684", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.", + "Zhihong Chen, Yan Song, Tsung-Hui Chang, and Xiang Wan. 2020. Generating radiology reports via memory-driven transformer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1439-1449.", + "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311.", + "Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Emily Tsai, Omar Almusa, and Curtis P Langlotz. 2022. Improving the factual correctness of radiology report generation with semantic rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12186.", + "Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. 2020. Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. *Minds and Machines*, 30:681–694.", + "Michael P Hartung, Ian C Bickle, Frank Gaillard, and Jeffrey P Kanne. 2020. How to create a great radiology report. RadioGraphics, 40(6):1658-1670.", + "Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4700-4708.", + "Saahil Jain, Ashwin Agrawal, Adriel Saporta, Steven Q. H. Truong, Du Nguyen Duong, Tan Bui, Pierre J. Chambon, Yuhao Zhang, Matthew P. Lungren, Andrew Y. Ng, Curtis P. Langlotz, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2021. Radgraph: Extracting clinical entities and relations from radiology reports. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual.", + "Baoyu Jing, Pengtao Xie, and Eric Xing. 2017. On the automatic generation of medical imaging reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08195.", + "Alistair E.W. Johnson, Tom J. Pollard, Seth J. Berkowitz, Nathaniel R. Greenbaum, Matthew P. Lungren, Deng" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Chih-ying, Roger G. Mark, and Stephen Horng. 2019. Mimic-cxr, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports. Scientific Data.", + "Christy Y Li, Xiaodan Liang, Zhiting Hu, and Eric P Xing. 2019. Knowledge-driven encode, retrieve, paraphrase for medical image report generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6666-6673.", + "Hao Li, Yuping Wu, Viktor Schlegel, Riza Batista-Navarro, Thanh-Tung Nguyen, Abhinav Ramesh Kashyap, Xiaojun Zeng, Daniel Beck, Stefan Winkler, and Goran Nenadic. 2023a. Pulsar: Pretraining with extracted healthcare terms for summarising patients' problems and data augmentation with black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02754.", + "Mingjie Li, Rui Liu, Fuyu Wang, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2023b. Auxiliary signal-guided knowledge encoder-decoder for medical report generation. World Wide Web, 26(1):253-270.", + "Fenglin Liu, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, Wei Fan, and Yuexian Zou. 2021. Exploring and distilling posterior and prior knowledge for radiology report generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13753-13762.", + "Hoang TN Nguyen, Dong Nie, Taiwanbat Badamdorj, Yujie Liu, Yingying Zhu, Jason Truong, and Li Cheng. 2021. Automated generation of accurate\\& fluent medical x-ray reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12126.", + "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.", + "Hoo-Chang Shin, Kirk Roberts, Le Lu, Dina Demner-Fushman, Jianhua Yao, and Ronald M Summers. 2016. Learning to read chest x-rays: Recurrent neural cascade model for automated image annotation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2497-2506.", + "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971.", + "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.", + "Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2015. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3156-3164." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14685", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784-5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 490, + 203 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Sheng Wang, Zihao Zhao, Xi Ouyang, Qian Wang, and Dinggang Shen. 2023. Chatcad: Interactive computer-aided diagnosis on medical image using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07257.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 216, + 489, + 282 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, and Ronald M Summers. 2018. Tienet: Text-image embedding network for common thorax disease classification and reporting in chest x-rays. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9049-9058.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 296, + 489, + 375 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhanyu Wang, Hongwei Han, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022a. Automated radiographic report generation purely on transformer: A multicriteria supervised approach. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(10):2803-2813.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 388, + 487, + 455 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Zhanyu Wang, Mingkang Tang, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022b. A medical semantic-assisted transformer for radiographic report generation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2022: 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-22, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, pages 655-664. Springer.", + "bbox": [ + 114, + 468, + 489, + 561 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2048-2057. PMLR.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 574, + 489, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Shuxin Yang, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, S Kevin Zhou, and Li Xiao. 2022. Knowledge matters: Chest radiology report generation with general and specific knowledge. Medical Image Analysis, 80:102510.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 665, + 489, + 720 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Changchang Yin, Buyue Qian, Jishang Wei, Xiaoyu Li, Xianli Zhang, Yang Li, and Qinghua Zheng. 2019. Automatic generation of medical imaging diagnostic report with hierarchical recurrent neural network. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pages 728-737. IEEE.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 733, + 489, + 812 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Feiyang Yu, Mark Endo, Rayan Krishnan, Ian Pan, Andy Tsai, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Eduardo Kaiser Ururahy Nunes Fonseca, Henrique Min Ho Lee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Andrew Y Ng, et al. 2022. Evaluating progress in automatic chest x-ray radiology report generation. medRxiv, pages 2022-08.", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 825, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Jianbo Yuan, Haofu Liao, Rui Luo, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Automatic radiology report generation based on multi-view image fusion and medical concept enrichment. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13-17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22, pages 721-729. Springer.", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 885, + 190 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Yixiao Zhang, Xiaosong Wang, Ziyue Xu, Qihang Yu, Alan Yuille, and Daguang Xu. 2020. When radiology report generation meets knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12910-12917.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 200, + 884, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Haifeng Zhao, Jie Chen, Lili Huang, Tingting Yang, Wanhai Ding, and Chuanfu Li. 2021. Automatic generation of medical report with knowledge graph. In 2021 10th International Conference on Computing and Pattern Recognition, pages 1-1.", + "bbox": [ + 509, + 278, + 884, + 344 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 359, + 633, + 376 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 Further experimental details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 385, + 786, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In the following, we provide additional details about our experimental setup including information about the model training and used infrastructures.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 406, + 880, + 454 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Training The image-to-serialized model is trained and evaluated on the official train/test split of the MIMIC-CXR (v2.0.0) dataset with 213501 and 2799 chest X-ray reports, respectively. The ground-truth RadGraph serialization associated with each study is taken from the RadGraph dataset. The model is trained for 25 epochs, with a batch size of 16, a learning rate of 0.0001, an embedding size of 512, a weight decay of 0.001, a dropout rate of 0.1, and 12 transformer blocks in the decoder.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 882, + 625 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hyperparameter Search We optimized our hyperparameters for the content generation model through grid search with the help of WandB. Figure 5 visualizes the performance of the model with a different set of hyperparameters. We search the learning rate from [0.001, 0.0001], embedding dimension from [256, 512], number of transformer decoder components from [6, 12], and weight decay rate from [0.001, 0.0001, 0].", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 634, + 884, + 780 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Infrastructure The image-to-serialized model was trained on an AWS g5.2xlarge instance with one NVIDIA A10G Tensor Core GPU. It was trained for 25 epochs or roughly 50 hours. Evaluation was dispatched on two NVIDIA RTX A4000 GPUs with 16 GB of memory. We use the Azure OpenAI service to access the gpt-3.5-turbo language model, with a cloud-based deployment.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14686", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/44e7d53174930a904abe65b765bc5e0baee0c1a1512e7f7678535948b71f2dea.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 5: Sweeps of our hyperparameter search: we use validation loss as the metric to search for best hyperparameters." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 131, + 89, + 473, + 211 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 Serialization to Report Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 300, + 405, + 317 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 shows the quantitative results of our Serialization to report generation task as described in Section 4.2.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 324, + 487, + 370 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Human Style Evaluation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 387, + 356, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we provide further results on the human style evaluation of the generated reports. To reiterate the approach, three physicians were tasked to identify an AI-generated report within a set of four radiology reports: three were written by the same radiologist and the fourth one (appearing in random order) was generated using our approach using in-context examples from the same radiologist.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 411, + 487, + 539 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Figure 6 shows the cumulative count of explanations stratified by clinical evaluator (rows), as well as by whether the selection was correct or incorrect (columns). Language (e.g., word choice, grammar, and/or writing style) was the primary heuristic that evaluators used to decide whether a report was human-generated or AI-generated, followed by content (e.g., missing important details or including extraneous details), and structure (e.g., different use of numbering or section headings).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 541, + 489, + 702 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.4 LLM Prompting", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 717, + 295, + 732 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Here, we illustrate a template of our dialogue-based prompt for the LLM to generate a report prediction, with 2-shot learning to adapt to a report style. For notation, $ and $ are placeholders for the $i$ -th serialization and corresponding ground truth report, respectively, and is the serialization predicted from an image in the evaluation set.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 740, + 487, + 868 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "- System: You are a helpful assistant that generates chest x-ray reports from key words.", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 887, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/257d8f300f77c4b3ec63df38795e924b0ce46a630c34deefacc69120e183df3b.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 6: Human Style Evaluation Explanations: When style evaluators attributed their choice of AI-generated report, they attributed it primarily to language and structural differences between human-generated and AI-generated reports." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 532, + 84, + 860, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n", + "- Assistant: ", + "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n", + "- Assistant: ", + "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + ], + "bbox": [ + 531, + 536, + 880, + 758 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The LLM will proceed to generate its report prediction from the evaluation serialization, which we compare against the corresponding ground truth report in the test set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 882, + 837 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.5 Natural Language Generation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 848, + 860, + 865 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "BLEU-2 is widely used in machine translation tasks; it measures the similarity between a candidate translation and one or more reference trans", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 870, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14687", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/38a344e670cc9ea23e6febed941b23027f5d4e136956cadee72cfe60c9578b9c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
ExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
01.357 ± 0.0300.722 ± 0.0060.843 ± 0.0070.388 ± 0.0050.568 ± 0.005
11.234 ± 0.0310.723 ± 0.0070.847 ± 0.0070.423 ± 0.0050.614 ± 0.005
51.125 ± 0.0300.731 ± 0.0060.852 ± 0.0070.460 ± 0.0060.652 ± 0.005
101.107 ± 0.0300.733 ± 0.0060.853 ± 0.0070.466 ± 0.0060.657 ± 0.005
", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 80, + 877, + 166 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3: Results for the `Serialization $\\rightarrow$ Report generation task, using the ground truth serialization in place of the predicted one. The goal of this experiment is to evaluate the style generation in isolation, assuming a very strong content generation step (here the ground truth serialization of RadGraph). Note a lower RadCliQ score is better. The best row is bolded. Leveraging more in-context examples leads to better performance across all metrics.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 175, + 884, + 233 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "lations by comparing their bigram overlaps. Although BLEU-2 is a fast and reliable metric, it possesses a few limitations, e.g., it does not take into account synonymous words and the proper use of grammar. We thus also adopt the BERT score, a recently proposed metric for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. It takes into account the semantic similarity between the generated text and reference text by calculating the contextual embeddings of both texts using BERT and measuring their cosine similarity. Nevertheless, BERT is a general-purpose metric and not at all optimized for capturing clinical semantics and radiological findings. This is why the included clinical accuracy metrics are most salient to our quantitative evaluation of radiology report generation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 258, + 489, + 514 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "14688", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_model.json b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..437246ae92fb8a49a278ec7a989df97849f43658 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2349 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.279, + 0.083, + 0.72, + 0.123 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.131, + 0.86, + 0.181 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Benjamin Yan\\(^{1}\\), Ruochen Liu\\(^{1}\\), David E. Kuo\\(^{1}\\), Subathra Adithan\\(^{2}\\), Eduardo Pontes Reis\\(^{1}\\), Stephen Kwak\\(^{3}\\), Vasantha Kumar Venugopal\\(^{4}\\), Chloe P. O'Connell\\(^{1}\\), Agustina Saenz\\(^{5}\\), Pranav Rajpurkar\\(^{5,\\dagger}\\), Michael Moor\\(^{1,\\dagger}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.16, + 0.182, + 0.842, + 0.231 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Stanford University, \\(^{2}\\)Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research \\(^{3}\\)John Hopkins University, \\(^{4}\\)Aligarh Muslim University, \\(^{5}\\)Harvard Medical School, \\(^{+}\\)equal senior authorship" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.261, + 0.253, + 0.341, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.145, + 0.281, + 0.461, + 0.607 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatically generated reports from medical images promise to improve the workflow of radiologists. Existing methods consider an image-to-report modeling task by directly generating a fully-fledged report from an image. However, this conflates the content of the report (e.g., findings and their attributes) with its style (e.g., format and choice of words), which can lead to clinically inaccurate reports. To address this, we propose a two-step approach for radiology report generation. First, we extract the content from an image; then, we verbalize the extracted content into a report that matches the style of a specific radiologist. For this, we leverage RadGraph—a graph representation of reports—together with large language models (LLMs). In our quantitative evaluations, we find that our approach leads to beneficial performance. Our human evaluation with clinical raters highlights that the AI-generated reports are indistinguishably tailored to the style of individual radiologist despite leveraging only a few examples as context." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.62, + 0.262, + 0.636 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.839 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generating radiology reports from medical images is a crucial task in the field of medical imaging. For human interpreters to write such reports is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive but also requires a high level of expertise (Hartung et al., 2020). Furthermore, these reports are often subject to inter-observer variability, potentially compromising the consistency and accuracy of the reports' findings. As a result, there is a growing interest in methods for automated radiology report generation, which can alleviate these issues and improve overall efficiency of the diagnostic process." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for generating high-quality text, with the ability to customize outputs based on user-specified instructions (Brown et al., 2020b). These models have been utilized to" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.254, + 0.885, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "rephrase existing text, paving the way for new approaches to automated report generation in radiology. However, despite the promise of LLMs, their application to this task is not without challenges. One principal concern is their tendency to 'hallucinate', i.e., to generate false information (even if plausible sounding), which can be particularly problematic in high-stakes settings such as when generating reports from medical images." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.402, + 0.885, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Previous attempts at automated report generation have largely focused on approaches that aim to produce fully-fledged reports directly from medical images (i.e., a image-to-report modelling task) (Alaouzi et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022a). However, this conflates the content of the report (i.e., the radiology entities and attributes that are described) with its style (i.e., the complement of radiology entities and attributes, or everything needed in terms of language, grammar, and structure to formulate a fully-fledged report, on top of the content representation), which limits the flexibility and applicability of such models." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.614, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This problem is also reflected in the employed evaluation metrics of existing approaches. They frequently optimize for traditional natural language processing (NLP) metrics, such as BLEU, ROUGE, or METEOR, which measure the similarity of the generated report to a reference report based on lexical overlap. These metrics, while generally useful, may not correlate with the clinical correctness or usefulness of the report (Yu et al., 2022). Previous work has demonstrated that optimizing for clinical metrics that measure the content's relevance, such as the RadGraph scores (Jain et al., 2021), is crucial in generating reports that accurately represent the image findings. The RadGraph score gauges similarity in extracted radiology entities and relations with a ground truth annotation. This emphasizes the report's clinical content as opposed to style or lexical overlap, and makes it an amenable measure of the report's usefulness and completeness in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14676" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14676-14688 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.085, + 0.242, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "clinical practice." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.106, + 0.491, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we propose to generate radiology reports as a two-step procedure for disentangling report content and style. In the first step, a dedicated model is trained to extract pure content from the image. Specifically, it generates a structured representation (called RadGraph) of the entities and attributes that are present in the image. In the second step, a frozen LLM generates a stylized report from this structured representation. Given a few report examples as context, the LLM can on-the-fly adapt the report style closely to the style of a target radiologist or hospital template for whom the report should be drafted. This model stylization could offer several advantages for radiology workflows: flexibility, in generating reports targeted to their readership, such as ones with less jargon that are more accessible to patients; consistency, in ensuring clear communication between a radiologist and the referring physician, who may be accustomed to a particular style of reporting; and emphasis on preferred information, in highlighting findings most relevant to a specialist's scope of practice (e.g., follow-up on a patch of pneumonia, or the correct location of pacing lead in the heart)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.497, + 0.49, + 0.706 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the first step of our approach, we alter the supervision signal of an image-text model to a serialization of the clinical entities (as captured in RadGraph) and their attributes, rather than the full report text. This step ensures the content extraction model focuses only on generating the report's clinical content, measured by RadGraph score, rather than optimizing for traditional NLP metrics such as BLEU that may not correlate with the report's clinical relevance. By generating the clinical content first, we prioritize the report's clinical usefulness over its stylistic quality, which can be improved and even personalized in the second step." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.71, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the second step, we leverage GPT-3.5 (a generative LLM developed by OpenAI) to transform the predicted serialization of clinical entities and attributes from the image into a styled radiology report (Brown et al., 2020a). These models have shown great promise in generating high-quality text (Anil et al., 2023), including summaries and paraphrases of existing text (Li et al., 2023a), which we can use to inject a hospital-specific style, as well as to enhance readability and understandability. By separating the content generation and style injection steps, we can ensure the model optimizes for the relevant criteria for each step, resulting in a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.085, + 0.658, + 0.101 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "high-quality report." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.102, + 0.885, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our approach addresses the limitations of end-to-end image-to-report generation, as the LLM does not need to suggest facts about the image. Instead, it can focus on rephrasing the structured set of entities and attributes that were first derived from the image and infuse the desired style into the report. At prediction time, the LLM in-context learns a serialization-to-report mapping from a few examples of a target report writing style. Our method not only offers a novel solution to the challenges posed by previous approaches but also enhances the customization and adaptability of radiology reports generated by LLMs." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.312, + 0.871, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This paper makes the following contributions:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.34, + 0.883, + 0.388 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- First, we develop a method for extracting structured content—that is, a serialized version of RadGraph—from radiology images." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.395, + 0.884, + 0.459 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Second, we propose a strategy for generating stylized reports from this extracted content by means of in-context learning from few style-specific example reports." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.466, + 0.884, + 0.528 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Third, our overall system (combining content extraction and style generation) achieves competitive performance at radiology report generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.536, + 0.884, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Fourth, in a human style evaluation clinical experts were not able to distinguish real reports from AI-generated ones that were adapted to the writing style of individual radiologists." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.34, + 0.884, + 0.6 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.614, + 0.673, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Related Works" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.641, + 0.773, + 0.657 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Medical Report Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.662, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Medical report generation (MRG) has seen a recent resurgence in the field of medical AI. Early works (Allaouzi et al., 2018) adhere to the methods of image captioning models (Vinyals et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015), leveraging deep CNNs to extract image features and RNNs to generate text descriptions in an encoder-decoder fashion. Meanwhile, emerging in several works was an auxiliary classification task to predict certain medical abnormalities, with the aim of more structured guidance for report generation (Shin et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Yin et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019). Later, the use of the attention mechanism in MRG systems became increasingly prevalent (Jing et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020). To further bridge visual and linguistic modalities while incorporating med" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14677" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.094, + 0.29, + 0.109 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Conventional:" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.131, + 0.379, + 0.345 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.39, + 0.094, + 0.837, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.885, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Overview of our two-step pipeline for generating radiology reports (right panel) as contrasted with the standard \"image-to-report\" strategy for directly generating radiology reports from X-ray images (left panel). During training, we consider a set of paired chest X-ray images and radiology reports. We preprocess the reports by extracting its content in the form a graph representation (RadGraph). We serialize the RadGraph into a condensed summary of the clinical content of the report. From there, this RadGraph serialization is used as the supervising signal in an image captioning model. For illustration purposes, we omit to display the text encoder that augments both captioning models with clinical context. At inference time, a new chest X-ray is fed through the model to generate a serialized RadGraph. By providing few example reports of a specific radiologist (and extracting their RadGraphs), an LLM can in-context learn to verbalize the structured content extracted from the image into a fully-fledged report in the style of the target radiologist." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.535, + 0.49, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ical domain knowledge, various kinds of knowledge graphs have been explored for use (Li et al., 2019, 2023b; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In our study, we use the classic encoder-decoder architecture, as it is a common denominator of many MRG approaches." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.646, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Subsequent studies acknowledge the constraints of traditional natural language generation metrics when assessing medical reports, prompting a growing emphasis on ensuring clinical accuracy. RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) is a dataset of entities and relations in full-text chest X-ray radiology reports based on a novel information extraction schema. (Yang et al., 2022) adopts the knowledge graph provided by RadGraph as general knowledge embedding. (Wang et al., 2022b) employed a classification loss for medical concepts provided by RadGraph. (Delbrouck et al., 2022) improves the factual completeness and correctness of generated radiology reports with a well-designed RadGraph reward. Most existing methods develop metrics around RadGraph and integrate that into the objective function; our approach, on the other hand, di" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.535, + 0.885, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "rectly trains the model to generate a serialized (i.e., text) representation of RadGraph as we decouple the content and style generation and focus solely on the clinical correctness during the content generation stage. Additionally, serialized RadGraphs allow us to juxtapose dense content representations with stylized reports which enables style adaptation via in-context learning." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.674, + 0.747, + 0.689 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 Large Language Models" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.695, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Recent watersheds such as the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), generative pretraining objectives (Radford et al., 2018), and increased computing power have facilitated the training of large language models comprising billions of parameters (Brown et al., 2020a; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). These advances have significantly Burgeoned model capability in tasks such as translation, summarization, and generating long text that closely resembles human language." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In 2021, OpenAI announced GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a; Floridi and Chiriatti, 2020), a generative language model featuring an unprecedented 175 billion parameters. Their study introduces in" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14678" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.085, + 0.861, + 0.239 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.25, + 0.886, + 0.294 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of the RadGraph serialization. In the RadGraph entities, ANAT-DP, OBS-DP, and OBS-DA refer to present anatomical, present observational, and absent observational entities, respectively. The token counts refer to the averages across the test set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.318, + 0.49, + 0.366 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "context learning, the ability of LLMs to learn to perform a task simply by being provided a few examples as context—without any parameter updates." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.49, + 0.527 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "LLMs have also demonstrated great potential in the medical domain. For instance, GPT-4 has been employed to post-hoc transform free-text radiology reports into structured reports (Adams et al., 2023). As for LLM-based MRG systems, Wang et al. (2023) utilized ChatGPT to generate medical reports based on features extracted by neural networks (e.g., disease classifier). However, their approach does not exploit in-context learning and thus has limited control over format and style." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.538, + 0.226, + 0.552 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Methods" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.563, + 0.221, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Dataset" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.583, + 0.49, + 0.712 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our study makes use of the MIMIC-CXR (Johnson et al., 2019) and RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) datasets. MIMIC-CXR is a large dataset of 377 110 chest radiographs imaged at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 227 835 studies, with freetext medical reports. The RadGraph dataset is publicly available and comprises radiology text reports and corresponding knowledge graphs (Figure 2)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.713, + 0.49, + 0.858 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To preprocess reports, we extract only Findings and Impressions, as other sections contain details that cannot be readily referenced from the image, such as patient demographics or lab results from different procedures. Findings refer to the direct observations from the image (e.g., opacity of lungs, catheter placement), while Impression summarizes the most urgent inferences and diagnostically relevant findings (e.g., presence of pneumonia)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.867, + 0.247, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 RadGraph" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.888, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As notation, a RadGraph refers to any knowledge graph within the titular dataset. The nodes of a" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.318, + 0.886, + 0.543 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "RadGraph are either anatomical (e.g., lungs, cardiomediastinal, carina) or observational entities (e.g., acute, abnormality). The edges are directed and heterogeneous, capturing three types of relations—modify, located at, suggestive of—between entities. Nodes and edges are automatically obtained via a named entity recognition and relation extraction model on MIMIC-CXR reports, employing the DYGIE++ framework from Wadden et al. (2019). This embodies the Report \\(\\rightarrow\\) RadGraph preprocessing step, or content extraction in (Figure 1). We distinguish this from content generation (Section 3.4), which is the transformer-based prediction of serialized content based on the image." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.558, + 0.744, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 RadGraph Compilation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.58, + 0.885, + 0.756 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We serialize each RadGraph into a structured text representation (Figure 2), which serves as the supervision label for the content generation model (Section 3.4). This serialization acts as a dense content representation whose advantages over the fre-text report include conciseness and the pruning of non-semantic content (e.g., style-filler words, radiologist-specific phrasing) from the report. The aim is to focus the model purely on generating the content backbone at this step, and defer the style injection to a later stage of the pipeline (Section 3.5)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.758, + 0.886, + 0.902 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To exploit the graph structure of the input RadGraph, we first extract the weakly connected components (step (3) in Figure 2). These are the maximal subgraphs where any two nodes can be reached through a path of undirected links. Each component is thus a separate network of spatially and medically related entities, segmenting the chest Xray's content into distinct regions of interest that can be serialized in parallel." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.528, + 0.904, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For each component, we create a text span of all" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14679" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.49, + 0.278 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "labelled entities. The keywords no and maybe are pretended to absent and uncertain entities, respectively. The entity ordering follows the syntax of the corresponding tokens in the report to ensure readability and lexical fidelity. When the report contains both Findings and Impression sections (Figure 2), we analogously stratify the components based on their referenced location in the free-text report. This is crucial as the content representation should carefully distinguish between factual image information (Findings) and clinical inferences (Impressions), even if strongly supported." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.28, + 0.488, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Within Findings and Impression, the components are concatenated and separated by delimiters. The two sections are combined into a single text, which is the report serialization and densely characterizes the full chest radiograph. In the case where the report is not bipartite (e.g., only Impressions), we unify the components under a singular section." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.41, + 0.373, + 0.426 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Content Generation Model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.435, + 0.49, + 0.563 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For the content generation model, we leverage the encoder-decoder architecture that has been widely employed in image-to-text systems. An image encoder takes chest X-ray images as the input and encodes them into a visual feature representation. In parallel, a text encoder reads clinical documents, such as doctor indications, and transforms the textual content into dense feature vectors." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.566, + 0.49, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The visual and text embeddings are then added together and passed through a LayerNorm operation to form contextualized embeddings. The fused embeddings are then fed into the report decoder, which generates serialized RadGraph word-by-word. The main architecture is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), but we simplified it by removing the classifier and the interpretation module to eliminate as many potential confounders as we can since our goal is to evaluate the influence of the supervision signal." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.759, + 0.49, + 0.921 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Image Encoder We adopt a DenseNet-121 (Huang et al., 2017) model pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset as the image encoder. For each input chest X-ray image \\(I\\), it extracts a feature vector \\(d \\in R^e\\) where \\(e\\) is the embedding dimension. If an imaging study consists of more than one image, the feature will be obtained via max-pooling across all feature vectors extracted from each image. \\(d\\) is then transformed into \\(n\\) low-dimensional disease representations \\(D_{img} \\in R^{n \\times e}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.295 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text Encoder We use a Transformer encoder to extract features \\( H = \\{h_1, h_2, \\dots, h_l\\} \\) from the clinical document text input with length \\( l \\) consisting of word embeddings \\( \\{w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_l\\} \\) where \\( w_i \\in R^e \\) is the vector representation of the \\( i \\)-th word in the text, \\( e \\) is the embedding dimension and \\( h_i \\in R^e \\) is the attended features of the \\( i \\)-th word to other words in the input document. The features are then transformed into summarization denoted as \\( Q = \\{q_1, q_2, \\dots, q_n\\} \\) representing a set of \\( n \\) disease-related topics (such as pneumonia or atelectasis) to be queried from the document, as proposed in (Nguyen et al., 2021)," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.597, + 0.307, + 0.884, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nD _ {t x t} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(Q H ^ {T}\\right) H \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.34, + 0.884, + 0.422 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where matrix \\(Q \\in R^{n \\times e}\\) is constructed by vertically stacking \\(\\{q_1, q_2, \\ldots, q_n\\}\\) where each vector \\(q_i\\) is initialized with random values and subsequently refined through the attention process, and \\(H \\in R^{l \\times e}\\) is formed by stacking \\(\\{h_1, h_2, \\ldots, h_l\\}\\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.432, + 0.884, + 0.481 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fused Embedding We obtain the final, contextualized embedding \\(D \\in R^{n \\times e}\\) by entangling the visual embedding \\(D_{img}\\) and text embedding \\(D_{txt}\\)," + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.575, + 0.495, + 0.884, + 0.512 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nD = \\operatorname {L a y e r N o r m} \\left(D _ {i m g} + D _ {t x t}\\right) \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.526, + 0.871, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "where \\(D\\) will be the input for the report decoder." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.553, + 0.884, + 0.763 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Report Decoder We use the Transformer as the backbone of our report decoder to generate long, robust text. A total of 12 decoder components are stacked together where each component consists of a masked multi-head self-attention component followed by a feed-forward layer. The report generation objective (Equation 3) is defined as the cross-entropy loss between predicted words \\( p \\) and ground truth \\( y \\). Here, we denote \\( p_{ij} \\) as the confidence of selecting the \\( j \\)-th word of vocabulary \\( V \\) in the \\( i \\)-th position in the generated text, and \\( y_{ij} \\) as a binary indicator of whether the \\( j \\)-th word appears in the \\( i \\)-th position of the ground truth." + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.59, + 0.775, + 0.884, + 0.82 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nL = - \\frac {1}{l} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {l} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {v} y _ {i j} \\log \\left(p _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.834, + 0.729, + 0.85 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.5 Style Generation Step" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We describe the process of prompting a pre-trained LLM to generate reports from the serialization. This enables adapting the generation to a specific style by supplying the LLM with relevant" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14680" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.492, + 0.134 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "in-context examples. Each example is a pair: serialization \\( s_i \\) from the RadGraph, and corresponding ground truth report \\( r_i \\) under the desired style." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.134, + 0.49, + 0.277 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We use the gpt-3.5-turbo model from OpenAI, a dialogue-based LLM that accepts a sequence of messages as input, rather than a singular text prompt. This is useful for inserting style pairs seamlessly; we relay them as a back-and-forth conversation between user and assistant roles, where a user role supplies serialization \\( s_i \\) and an assistant responds with target report \\( r_i \\) for the language model to learn in-context." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.279, + 0.49, + 0.474 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The chain of \\(K\\) examples \\(\\{(s_i,r_i)\\}_{i = 1}^K\\) is prefaced by a system role message indicating the LLM should act as the report-generating assistant, establishing its specific task within the radiology-based dialogue. The remaining prompt is structured as \\(s_1:r_1,s_2:r_2,\\dots ,s_K:r_K,\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}:.\\) At the end, the model is given an evaluation serialization \\(\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}\\) predicted from the chest X-ray image using our content generation model, cuing the LLM to generate the corresponding report prediction \\(\\hat{r}_{\\mathrm{eval}}\\) next. Note that in the zero-shot case, the prompt is just \\(\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}:\\), with no preceding context examples." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.487, + 0.313, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.6 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.509, + 0.49, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of our approach with commonly-used metrics concerning both language fluency and clinical accuracy. For each metric, we display the mean \\(\\overline{x}\\) across the \\(n\\) test reports, as well as the \\(95\\%\\) confidence interval \\((\\overline{x} \\pm 1.96 \\cdot \\frac{\\sigma}{\\sqrt{n}})\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.619, + 0.489, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Natural Language Generation Metrics (NLG)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.635, + 0.49, + 0.731 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As for classical NLG metrics, we compute BLEU2 and BERT scores. However, these metrics have relevant limitations due to focusing on lexical similarity or general (non-clinical) semantics, respectively, thereby lacking in the assessment of clinical similarity (for more details, see Section A.5)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.743, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Clinical Accuracy Metrics CheXbert vector similarity extends beyond BERT by utilizing CheXbert, a model trained specifically on datasets comprising chest X-rays. It computes the cosine similarity between the indicator vectors of 14 pathologies that the CheXbert labeler extracts from machine-generated and human-generated radiology reports. It is designed to evaluate radiology-specific information but its evaluation is limited to 14 pathologies. To address this limitation, we also adopt RadGraph F1 (Yu et al., 2022) that calcu" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.198 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lates the overlap in clinical entities and relations extracted by RadGraph from both machine-generated and human-generated reports. In this study, we lay emphasis on clinical metrics because we aim to generate reports in different styles while keeping accurate clinical information instead of reports that lexically match the ground truth in the dataset." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.21, + 0.715, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.7 Experimental Setup" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.232, + 0.885, + 0.281 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We conduct four experiments to scrutinize each individual step and overall performance of our proposed strategy for report generation. This includes:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.293, + 0.883, + 0.357 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1. Image to Serialization: We evaluate content generation model in terms of comparing the content of the generated serialization with the ground truth report." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.364, + 0.884, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2. **Serialization to Report:** Conditioning on a strong image-to-serialization model, we evaluate LLM-based style injection by using the ground-truth RadGraphs as input to the LLM." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.435, + 0.883, + 0.514 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3. End-to-end report generation: We evaluate the pipeline end-to-end, feeding the image and clinical context through the content generation model and the generated serialization through the LLM." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.522, + 0.884, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4. Human style evaluation: To evaluate the style quality, we let physicians rate sets of 4 radiology reports where 3 were written by the same radiologists and 1 was AI-generated by our method following the style of the radiologist. The goal for the physicians is to detect the AI-generated report and to justify their choice." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.524, + 0.293, + 0.884, + 0.634 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.647, + 0.885, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baseline The baseline model is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), sharing the same architecture as our image-to-serialization model (Section 3.4), but its supervision target is the full report (Findings and Impressions) instead of serialization. The training involves an identical parameter set as above." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.745, + 0.884, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Additional experimental details (training, hyperparameter search, and infrastructure) are provided in Section A.1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.807, + 0.608, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.834, + 0.729, + 0.849 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Image to Serialization" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.855, + 0.883, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We train two content generation models, one with the full report as the supervision target, and the other with the serialized RadGraph. In table 2, we present the RadGraph F1 evaluation result on the" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14681" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.137, + 0.081, + 0.861, + 0.158 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
MethodExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
Baseline—3.553 ± 0.0320.186 ± 0.0050.352 ± 0.0080.184 ± 0.0050.378 ± 0.006
Ours03.527 ± 0.0270.228 ± 0.0040.394 ± 0.0080.162 ± 0.0030.333 ± 0.004
13.512 ± 0.0280.226 ± 0.0050.393 ± 0.0080.170 ± 0.0030.343 ± 0.004
53.489 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0040.391 ± 0.0080.177 ± 0.0030.354 ± 0.004
103.485 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0050.390 ± 0.0080.180 ± 0.0030.357 ± 0.004
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.168, + 0.883, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Results for the end-to-end report generation. The baseline is the direct image-to-report transformer, i.e., the content generation model trained to predict reports directly from image. Note that RadCliQ (lower is better) is the most important metric as it best corresponds with radiologists' quality assessment (Yu et al., 2022). Best row is in bold. Rows leveraging in-context examples are grayed out, whereas the first two rows use the exact same input data." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.251, + 0.486, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "MIMIC-CXR test set, comparing the outputs from both models against the ground truth full report." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.283, + 0.489, + 0.429 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The comparison is suitable as RadGraph F1 is ag- nostic of general lexical similarity, measuring only overlap in radiology entities and relations extracted from the text. We find the model trained on the serialized RadGraph outperforms the model trained on the full report. This verifies our assumption that switching the supervision signal to the serialization would help focus the model on generating clinical content with greater accuracy and saliency." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.149, + 0.439, + 0.455, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Supervision TargetRadGraph F1
Full Report0.186 ± 0.005
Serialized RadGraph0.221 ± 0.004
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.502, + 0.49, + 0.531 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: RadGraph entity and relation F1 score of models trained on full report versus serialized RadGraph." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.56, + 0.341, + 0.575 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Serialization to Report" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.807 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "For selecting examples, we draw randomly from the train split. This avoids patient overlap that could unfairly benefit performance on test cases. We compare the LLM-generated reports against the ground truth reports. Results are provided (Table 3) for varying numbers of in-context examples. We observe strong performance across all metrics, including a 0.722 RadGraph F1 mean in the zero-shot regime. Furthermore, lexical overlap metrics such as BLEU and BERT score saw noticeable improvement with more examples (20.2% and 15.7% increases, respectively, from 0 to 10 examples). This aligns with the aim of in-context learning to improve the style fidelity of generated reports." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.818, + 0.408, + 0.833 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 End-to-End Report Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.84, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate the end-to-end performance from chest X-ray to report by concatenating the content generation step with the style generation step. The results are presented in Table 1. We observe that our two-step model surpasses the baseline (direct" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.251, + 0.885, + 0.395 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "image-to-report model) in clinical accuracy metrics (CheXbert similarity, RadGraph F1, RadCliQ), even in the zero-shot style generation case. This illustrates greater accuracy in extracting radiology content from the chest X-ray, the central focus of separating content generation from style injection. Notably, RadCliQ is a composite metric found by Yu et al. (2022) to best correlate with quality judgement of human radiologists." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.397, + 0.885, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The primary contribution of more examples is improving lexical and non-clinical NLG metrics (BLEU, BERT Score), similar to our findings in the `Serialization \\(\\rightarrow\\) Report` step. However, they remain slightly lower than those of the baseline. A potential explanation is that during training, the baseline is directly supervised with full reports, while only the extracted content is available to our content generation model—with the report itself synthesized with an external, pre-trained LLM." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.573, + 0.75, + 0.588 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Human Style Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.597, + 0.884, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Four board-certified radiologists were instructed to write chest X-ray reports in their usual style from 40 randomly selected chest X-ray images from the MIMIC-CXR test set (Figure 4). As several chest X-rays in the MIMIC-CXR dataset were within normal limits or interval follow ups on intensive care patients, duplicate or near-duplicate chest X-ray reports were removed upon manual inspection." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.727, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The style generation step described in Section 3.5 was then used to produce AI-generated chest X-ray reports in the style of each of the four radiologists. From these radiologist-generated and AI-generated chest X-ray reports, we created 23 sets of four chest X-ray reports for style evaluation by physician evaluators (i.e., the target audience for written radiology reports). In each set, three reports (corresponding to three different chest X-rays) from the same radiologist, and one AI-generated report (from a fourth chest X-ray) in the style of that radiologist were presented in random" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14682" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.087, + 0.596, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.169, + 0.182, + 0.594, + 0.301 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.604, + 0.089, + 0.835, + 0.187 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.612, + 0.191, + 0.828, + 0.308 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.112, + 0.321, + 0.886, + 0.465 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Overview of human expert evaluation of the style generation. In panel a, a set of radiologist write radiology reports in their own style for \\( n \\) chest X-ray studies. For each written report, we extract the RadGraph representation and serialize it into the text representation. Panel b illustrates how we AI-generate a radiology report in the style of a specific radiologist, \\( R_{1} \\), for an input image \\( I_{k} \\). To in-context learn the style of \\( R_{1} \\), for \\( k \\) shots we provide a context of \\( k \\) input / output pairs of serialized RadGraphs (dense content representation) together with the corresponding stylized reports as written by \\( R_{1} \\). Next, to generate a report for a given image \\( I_{k} \\), we feed the image through our image-to-serialized model and use the generated RadGraph serialization (as indicated with a hat) as the final query of the prompt. The LLM is then prompted to return a generated report in the style of \\( R_{1} \\). Panel c illustrates the human evaluation. Physician raters are provided with problems each consisting of 4 reports, 3 written by one radiologist and 1 AI-generated in the same radiologist's style." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.489, + 0.49, + 0.569 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "order. Three physician evaluators were asked to identify the AI-generated report out of the four reports and indicate whether report content, language, or report structure contributed to their choice (for more details, refer to Section A.3)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.576, + 0.49, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A one-sided Z-test was performed for the proportion of AI-generated reports correctly identified by the three evaluators with a null hypothesis of \\(25\\%\\), corresponding to random chance, and an alternative hypothesis of \\(>25\\%\\), corresponding to AI-generated reports being identified at a rate greater than that of random chance. Evaluators A, B, C correctly identified 5 out of 23 \\((21.7\\%)\\), 5 out of 23 \\((21.7\\%)\\), and 4 out of 23 \\((17.4\\%)\\) AI-generated chest X-ray reports, respectively, for a mean accuracy of \\(20.3\\%\\). The one-sided Z-test produced p-values of 0.648, 0.648, and 0.832 for Evaluators A, B, and C respectively, and 0.835 when pooling all evaluators together." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "One potential explanation for why evaluators identified \\(< 25\\%\\) of AI-generated reports (worse than random), is variance in radiologist style. For example, our radiologists would sometimes alternate between using parentheses to highlight the chest X-ray view (e.g., \"Chest X-ray (PA and lateral views):\") and not using any parentheses (e.g.," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.489, + 0.885, + 0.57 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\"Chest X-ray PA and lateral views\":). Human evaluators may use particular heuristics to call a report AI-generated, when faced with similar appearing reports. However, if they are not reflective of the truth, this may result in accuracy less than random." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.551, + 0.584, + 0.843, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.771, + 0.885, + 0.815 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 4: Human Style Evaluation: All evaluators identified the AI-generated chest X-ray report at rates lower than \\(25\\%\\) (corresponding to random chance)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.845, + 0.637, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.872, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We presented a novel approach for radiology report generation that disentangles the report's content from its style. Our experiments showed that our" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14683" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.085, + 0.491, + 0.438 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "method offers several advantages over the prevailing paradigm of direct image-to-report modeling. First, training a content extraction model to predict a serialized RadGraph representation from the input image helps focusing the model on the clinically relevant content which is reflected in improved performance metrics (Table 2). Second, when concatenating the content generation step with the style injection step, we observe favourable performance compared to the direct image-to-report baseline (Table 1). Third, by in-context learning the radiologist-specific mapping from serialized RadGraph to report, our method enables the generation of high quality reports that are tailored to the individual radiologist to the degree of indiscernibility using just a few example reports. To ultimately determine the clinical utility of our method, deployment studies will be an exciting venue for future work. Another promising direction would be to expand our two-step report generation paradigm to other modalities such as radiology mammograms and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.452, + 0.251, + 0.468 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.479, + 0.489, + 0.638 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A limitation of our approach is that it relies on the accuracy and effectiveness of the initially extracted RadGraph representation, as this serves as a key supervision signal in our model. Notably, RadGraphs are extracted at inference time using an automated model rather than manual expert labelling. The model achieves high performance in entity and relation extraction (Jain et al., 2021) but is susceptible to error, particularly with report inputs that contain rarer medical entities or ambiguous observations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.64, + 0.49, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, due to our employed LLM being served by a third party (OpenAI), reproducing our results comes at the financial costs of using Azure OpenAI's service. Another consequence of relying on this service is that we cannot guarantee the deterministically exact reproduction of our findings, as the served LLM models may change and potentially degrade over time—for instance, if models are replaced by distilled versions thereof." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.797, + 0.341, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "7 Ethics Considerations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.824, + 0.491, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A principal ethical consideration is the de-identified, credentialed medical data we worked with. In particular, responsible usage policy of the MIMIC-CXR dataset (Johnson et al., 2019) prohibits sharing access to third parties. This disqualifies the use of ChatGPT or large language model" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.085, + 0.885, + 0.246 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "APIs for prompting models to generate radiology reports from our content representations. However, cloud-based services are allowed, including the Azure OpenAI platform, which we use for deploying and prompting the gpt-3.5-turbo model. A stipulation is the monetary service costs, which are counted at a rate per one thousand tokens. These can pose financial barriers to equitable access to high-end language models (which are typically more expensive), as well as usage at scale." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.247, + 0.886, + 0.472 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Furthermore, as discussed in the Introduction section, the use of large language models is accompanied by their risks of \"hallucination\" and generating false or misleading content. These risks can be amplified in the critical setting of medical report generation. To mitigate them, we prompt the LLM not to synthesize medical content, but rather to rephrase existing content into readable, stylized prose. We assist the model through providing content serialization to report pairs as in-context examples. This is our style injection step, which we intendfully separate from the content generation step to reduce the opportunity for LLM hallucination when generating the full report prediction." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.485, + 0.714, + 0.501 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "8 Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.511, + 0.882, + 0.542 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This project was supported by AWS promotional credits." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.572, + 0.61, + 0.587 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.595, + 0.886, + 0.675 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Lisa C Adams, Daniel Truhn, Felix Busch, Avan Kader, Stefan M Niehues, Marcus R Makowski, and Keno K Bressem. 2023. Leveraging gpt-4 for post hoc transformation of free-text radiology reports into structured reporting: a multilingual feasibility study. *Radiology*, 307(4):e230725." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.685, + 0.887, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Imane Allaouzi, M Ben Ahmed, Badr Benamrou, and Mustapha Ouardouz. 2018. Automatic caption generation for medical images. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications, pages 1-6." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.763, + 0.887, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin Johnson, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.84, + 0.886, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.595, + 0.887, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14684" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.282 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.293, + 0.487, + 0.359 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhihong Chen, Yan Song, Tsung-Hui Chang, and Xiang Wan. 2020. Generating radiology reports via memory-driven transformer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1439-1449." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.37, + 0.487, + 0.447 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.459, + 0.487, + 0.524 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Emily Tsai, Omar Almusa, and Curtis P Langlotz. 2022. Improving the factual correctness of radiology report generation with semantic rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12186." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.536, + 0.487, + 0.574 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. 2020. Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. *Minds and Machines*, 30:681–694." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.586, + 0.487, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael P Hartung, Ian C Bickle, Frank Gaillard, and Jeffrey P Kanne. 2020. How to create a great radiology report. RadioGraphics, 40(6):1658-1670." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.636, + 0.487, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4700-4708." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.713, + 0.487, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Saahil Jain, Ashwin Agrawal, Adriel Saporta, Steven Q. H. Truong, Du Nguyen Duong, Tan Bui, Pierre J. Chambon, Yuhao Zhang, Matthew P. Lungren, Andrew Y. Ng, Curtis P. Langlotz, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2021. Radgraph: Extracting clinical entities and relations from radiology reports. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.842, + 0.487, + 0.881 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Baoyu Jing, Pengtao Xie, and Eric Xing. 2017. On the automatic generation of medical imaging reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08195." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.892, + 0.487, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alistair E.W. Johnson, Tom J. Pollard, Seth J. Berkowitz, Nathaniel R. Greenbaum, Matthew P. Lungren, Deng" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chih-ying, Roger G. Mark, and Stephen Horng. 2019. Mimic-cxr, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports. Scientific Data." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.147, + 0.882, + 0.213 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Christy Y Li, Xiaodan Liang, Zhiting Hu, and Eric P Xing. 2019. Knowledge-driven encode, retrieve, paraphrase for medical image report generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6666-6673." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.221, + 0.882, + 0.326 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hao Li, Yuping Wu, Viktor Schlegel, Riza Batista-Navarro, Thanh-Tung Nguyen, Abhinav Ramesh Kashyap, Xiaojun Zeng, Daniel Beck, Stefan Winkler, and Goran Nenadic. 2023a. Pulsar: Pretraining with extracted healthcare terms for summarising patients' problems and data augmentation with black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02754." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.334, + 0.882, + 0.386 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Mingjie Li, Rui Liu, Fuyu Wang, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2023b. Auxiliary signal-guided knowledge encoder-decoder for medical report generation. World Wide Web, 26(1):253-270." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.395, + 0.882, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Fenglin Liu, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, Wei Fan, and Yuexian Zou. 2021. Exploring and distilling posterior and prior knowledge for radiology report generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13753-13762." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.482, + 0.882, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hoang TN Nguyen, Dong Nie, Taiwanbat Badamdorj, Yujie Liu, Yingying Zhu, Jason Truong, and Li Cheng. 2021. Automated generation of accurate\\& fluent medical x-ray reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12126." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.556, + 0.882, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.605, + 0.882, + 0.683 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hoo-Chang Shin, Kirk Roberts, Le Lu, Dina Demner-Fushman, Jianhua Yao, and Ronald M Summers. 2016. Learning to read chest x-rays: Recurrent neural cascade model for automated image annotation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2497-2506." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.691, + 0.882, + 0.77 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.779, + 0.882, + 0.845 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.853, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2015. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3156-3164." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14685" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.086, + 0.491, + 0.204 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784-5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.217, + 0.49, + 0.283 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sheng Wang, Zihao Zhao, Xi Ouyang, Qian Wang, and Dinggang Shen. 2023. Chatcad: Interactive computer-aided diagnosis on medical image using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07257." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.297, + 0.49, + 0.376 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, and Ronald M Summers. 2018. Tienet: Text-image embedding network for common thorax disease classification and reporting in chest x-rays. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9049-9058." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.39, + 0.489, + 0.456 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhanyu Wang, Hongwei Han, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022a. Automated radiographic report generation purely on transformer: A multicriteria supervised approach. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(10):2803-2813." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.469, + 0.49, + 0.562 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhanyu Wang, Mingkang Tang, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022b. A medical semantic-assisted transformer for radiographic report generation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2022: 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-22, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, pages 655-664. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.575, + 0.49, + 0.655 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2048-2057. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.667, + 0.49, + 0.721 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Shuxin Yang, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, S Kevin Zhou, and Li Xiao. 2022. Knowledge matters: Chest radiology report generation with general and specific knowledge. Medical Image Analysis, 80:102510." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.734, + 0.49, + 0.813 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Changchang Yin, Buyue Qian, Jishang Wei, Xiaoyu Li, Xianli Zhang, Yang Li, and Qinghua Zheng. 2019. Automatic generation of medical imaging diagnostic report with hierarchical recurrent neural network. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pages 728-737. IEEE." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.116, + 0.826, + 0.49, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Feiyang Yu, Mark Endo, Rayan Krishnan, Ian Pan, Andy Tsai, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Eduardo Kaiser Ururahy Nunes Fonseca, Henrique Min Ho Lee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Andrew Y Ng, et al. 2022. Evaluating progress in automatic chest x-ray radiology report generation. medRxiv, pages 2022-08." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.886, + 0.191 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jianbo Yuan, Haofu Liao, Rui Luo, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Automatic radiology report generation based on multi-view image fusion and medical concept enrichment. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13-17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22, pages 721-729. Springer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.202, + 0.885, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yixiao Zhang, Xiaosong Wang, Ziyue Xu, Qihang Yu, Alan Yuille, and Daguang Xu. 2020. When radiology report generation meets knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12910-12917." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.279, + 0.885, + 0.346 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Haifeng Zhao, Jie Chen, Lili Huang, Tingting Yang, Wanhai Ding, and Chuanfu Li. 2021. Automatic generation of medical report with knowledge graph. In 2021 10th International Conference on Computing and Pattern Recognition, pages 1-1." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.36, + 0.634, + 0.377 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.386, + 0.787, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 Further experimental details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.407, + 0.882, + 0.455 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In the following, we provide additional details about our experimental setup including information about the model training and used infrastructures." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.465, + 0.884, + 0.626 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Training The image-to-serialized model is trained and evaluated on the official train/test split of the MIMIC-CXR (v2.0.0) dataset with 213501 and 2799 chest X-ray reports, respectively. The ground-truth RadGraph serialization associated with each study is taken from the RadGraph dataset. The model is trained for 25 epochs, with a batch size of 16, a learning rate of 0.0001, an embedding size of 512, a weight decay of 0.001, a dropout rate of 0.1, and 12 transformer blocks in the decoder." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.636, + 0.885, + 0.781 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hyperparameter Search We optimized our hyperparameters for the content generation model through grid search with the help of WandB. Figure 5 visualizes the performance of the model with a different set of hyperparameters. We search the learning rate from [0.001, 0.0001], embedding dimension from [256, 512], number of transformer decoder components from [6, 12], and weight decay rate from [0.001, 0.0001, 0]." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Infrastructure The image-to-serialized model was trained on an AWS g5.2xlarge instance with one NVIDIA A10G Tensor Core GPU. It was trained for 25 epochs or roughly 50 hours. Evaluation was dispatched on two NVIDIA RTX A4000 GPUs with 16 GB of memory. We use the Azure OpenAI service to access the gpt-3.5-turbo language model, with a cloud-based deployment." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14686" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.132, + 0.09, + 0.475, + 0.212 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.231, + 0.49, + 0.273 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 5: Sweeps of our hyperparameter search: we use validation loss as the metric to search for best hyperparameters." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.302, + 0.406, + 0.318 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 Serialization to Report Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.325, + 0.489, + 0.372 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 shows the quantitative results of our Serialization to report generation task as described in Section 4.2." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.388, + 0.357, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Human Style Evaluation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.412, + 0.489, + 0.54 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we provide further results on the human style evaluation of the generated reports. To reiterate the approach, three physicians were tasked to identify an AI-generated report within a set of four radiology reports: three were written by the same radiologist and the fourth one (appearing in random order) was generated using our approach using in-context examples from the same radiologist." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.542, + 0.49, + 0.703 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6 shows the cumulative count of explanations stratified by clinical evaluator (rows), as well as by whether the selection was correct or incorrect (columns). Language (e.g., word choice, grammar, and/or writing style) was the primary heuristic that evaluators used to decide whether a report was human-generated or AI-generated, followed by content (e.g., missing important details or including extraneous details), and structure (e.g., different use of numbering or section headings)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.718, + 0.296, + 0.733 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.4 LLM Prompting" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.741, + 0.489, + 0.869 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Here, we illustrate a template of our dialogue-based prompt for the LLM to generate a report prediction, with 2-shot learning to adapt to a report style. For notation, \\) and \\) are placeholders for the \\(i\\)-th serialization and corresponding ground truth report, respectively, and is the serialization predicted from an image in the evaluation set." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.888, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- System: You are a helpful assistant that generates chest x-ray reports from key words." + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.533, + 0.085, + 0.862, + 0.427 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.439, + 0.883, + 0.511 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 6: Human Style Evaluation Explanations: When style evaluators attributed their choice of AI-generated report, they attributed it primarily to language and structural differences between human-generated and AI-generated reports." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.537, + 0.882, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.597, + 0.731, + 0.61 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Assistant: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.625, + 0.881, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.685, + 0.731, + 0.699 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Assistant: " + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.713, + 0.881, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.537, + 0.882, + 0.759 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.774, + 0.884, + 0.838 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The LLM will proceed to generate its report prediction from the evaluation serialization, which we compare against the corresponding ground truth report in the test set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.85, + 0.862, + 0.866 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.5 Natural Language Generation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.871, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "BLEU-2 is widely used in machine translation tasks; it measures the similarity between a candidate translation and one or more reference trans" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14687" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.12, + 0.081, + 0.878, + 0.167 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
ExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
01.357 ± 0.0300.722 ± 0.0060.843 ± 0.0070.388 ± 0.0050.568 ± 0.005
11.234 ± 0.0310.723 ± 0.0070.847 ± 0.0070.423 ± 0.0050.614 ± 0.005
51.125 ± 0.0300.731 ± 0.0060.852 ± 0.0070.460 ± 0.0060.652 ± 0.005
101.107 ± 0.0300.733 ± 0.0060.853 ± 0.0070.466 ± 0.0060.657 ± 0.005
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.177, + 0.885, + 0.234 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Results for the `Serialization \\(\\rightarrow\\) Report generation task, using the ground truth serialization in place of the predicted one. The goal of this experiment is to evaluate the style generation in isolation, assuming a very strong content generation step (here the ground truth serialization of RadGraph). Note a lower RadCliQ score is better. The best row is bolded. Leveraging more in-context examples leads to better performance across all metrics." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.259, + 0.49, + 0.516 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "lations by comparing their bigram overlaps. Although BLEU-2 is a fast and reliable metric, it possesses a few limitations, e.g., it does not take into account synonymous words and the proper use of grammar. We thus also adopt the BERT score, a recently proposed metric for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. It takes into account the semantic similarity between the generated text and reference text by calculating the contextual embeddings of both texts using BERT and measuring their cosine similarity. Nevertheless, BERT is a general-purpose metric and not at all optimized for capturing clinical semantics and radiological findings. This is why the included clinical accuracy metrics are most salient to our quantitative evaluation of radiology report generation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "14688" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_origin.pdf b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fa742f3a6dd9cb7c978ac97123d64cf23693aee --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/e948d766-c9e9-46c5-a899-aabf24f48fe1_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:c82e3f804defb8f124fb7660d19ed55adef19aa71617480ba2928d9940b81e9d +size 1694571 diff --git a/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/full.md b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83315ebdda8e438b7b15a49e0f82b21e75343f23 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,351 @@ +# Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting + +Benjamin Yan $^{1}$ , Ruochen Liu $^{1}$ , David E. Kuo $^{1}$ , Subathra Adithan $^{2}$ , Eduardo Pontes Reis $^{1}$ , Stephen Kwak $^{3}$ , Vasantha Kumar Venugopal $^{4}$ , Chloe P. O'Connell $^{1}$ , Agustina Saenz $^{5}$ , Pranav Rajpurkar $^{5,\dagger}$ , Michael Moor $^{1,\dagger}$ + +$^{1}$ Stanford University, $^{2}$ Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research $^{3}$ John Hopkins University, $^{4}$ Aligarh Muslim University, $^{5}$ Harvard Medical School, $^{+}$ equal senior authorship + +# Abstract + +Automatically generated reports from medical images promise to improve the workflow of radiologists. Existing methods consider an image-to-report modeling task by directly generating a fully-fledged report from an image. However, this conflates the content of the report (e.g., findings and their attributes) with its style (e.g., format and choice of words), which can lead to clinically inaccurate reports. To address this, we propose a two-step approach for radiology report generation. First, we extract the content from an image; then, we verbalize the extracted content into a report that matches the style of a specific radiologist. For this, we leverage RadGraph—a graph representation of reports—together with large language models (LLMs). In our quantitative evaluations, we find that our approach leads to beneficial performance. Our human evaluation with clinical raters highlights that the AI-generated reports are indistinguishably tailored to the style of individual radiologist despite leveraging only a few examples as context. + +# 1 Introduction + +Generating radiology reports from medical images is a crucial task in the field of medical imaging. For human interpreters to write such reports is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive but also requires a high level of expertise (Hartung et al., 2020). Furthermore, these reports are often subject to inter-observer variability, potentially compromising the consistency and accuracy of the reports' findings. As a result, there is a growing interest in methods for automated radiology report generation, which can alleviate these issues and improve overall efficiency of the diagnostic process. + +Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for generating high-quality text, with the ability to customize outputs based on user-specified instructions (Brown et al., 2020b). These models have been utilized to + +rephrase existing text, paving the way for new approaches to automated report generation in radiology. However, despite the promise of LLMs, their application to this task is not without challenges. One principal concern is their tendency to 'hallucinate', i.e., to generate false information (even if plausible sounding), which can be particularly problematic in high-stakes settings such as when generating reports from medical images. + +Previous attempts at automated report generation have largely focused on approaches that aim to produce fully-fledged reports directly from medical images (i.e., a image-to-report modelling task) (Alaouzi et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022a). However, this conflates the content of the report (i.e., the radiology entities and attributes that are described) with its style (i.e., the complement of radiology entities and attributes, or everything needed in terms of language, grammar, and structure to formulate a fully-fledged report, on top of the content representation), which limits the flexibility and applicability of such models. + +This problem is also reflected in the employed evaluation metrics of existing approaches. They frequently optimize for traditional natural language processing (NLP) metrics, such as BLEU, ROUGE, or METEOR, which measure the similarity of the generated report to a reference report based on lexical overlap. These metrics, while generally useful, may not correlate with the clinical correctness or usefulness of the report (Yu et al., 2022). Previous work has demonstrated that optimizing for clinical metrics that measure the content's relevance, such as the RadGraph scores (Jain et al., 2021), is crucial in generating reports that accurately represent the image findings. The RadGraph score gauges similarity in extracted radiology entities and relations with a ground truth annotation. This emphasizes the report's clinical content as opposed to style or lexical overlap, and makes it an amenable measure of the report's usefulness and completeness in + +clinical practice. + +Here, we propose to generate radiology reports as a two-step procedure for disentangling report content and style. In the first step, a dedicated model is trained to extract pure content from the image. Specifically, it generates a structured representation (called RadGraph) of the entities and attributes that are present in the image. In the second step, a frozen LLM generates a stylized report from this structured representation. Given a few report examples as context, the LLM can on-the-fly adapt the report style closely to the style of a target radiologist or hospital template for whom the report should be drafted. This model stylization could offer several advantages for radiology workflows: flexibility, in generating reports targeted to their readership, such as ones with less jargon that are more accessible to patients; consistency, in ensuring clear communication between a radiologist and the referring physician, who may be accustomed to a particular style of reporting; and emphasis on preferred information, in highlighting findings most relevant to a specialist's scope of practice (e.g., follow-up on a patch of pneumonia, or the correct location of pacing lead in the heart). + +In the first step of our approach, we alter the supervision signal of an image-text model to a serialization of the clinical entities (as captured in RadGraph) and their attributes, rather than the full report text. This step ensures the content extraction model focuses only on generating the report's clinical content, measured by RadGraph score, rather than optimizing for traditional NLP metrics such as BLEU that may not correlate with the report's clinical relevance. By generating the clinical content first, we prioritize the report's clinical usefulness over its stylistic quality, which can be improved and even personalized in the second step. + +For the second step, we leverage GPT-3.5 (a generative LLM developed by OpenAI) to transform the predicted serialization of clinical entities and attributes from the image into a styled radiology report (Brown et al., 2020a). These models have shown great promise in generating high-quality text (Anil et al., 2023), including summaries and paraphrases of existing text (Li et al., 2023a), which we can use to inject a hospital-specific style, as well as to enhance readability and understandability. By separating the content generation and style injection steps, we can ensure the model optimizes for the relevant criteria for each step, resulting in a + +high-quality report. + +Our approach addresses the limitations of end-to-end image-to-report generation, as the LLM does not need to suggest facts about the image. Instead, it can focus on rephrasing the structured set of entities and attributes that were first derived from the image and infuse the desired style into the report. At prediction time, the LLM in-context learns a serialization-to-report mapping from a few examples of a target report writing style. Our method not only offers a novel solution to the challenges posed by previous approaches but also enhances the customization and adaptability of radiology reports generated by LLMs. + +This paper makes the following contributions: + +- First, we develop a method for extracting structured content—that is, a serialized version of RadGraph—from radiology images. +- Second, we propose a strategy for generating stylized reports from this extracted content by means of in-context learning from few style-specific example reports. +- Third, our overall system (combining content extraction and style generation) achieves competitive performance at radiology report generation. +- Fourth, in a human style evaluation clinical experts were not able to distinguish real reports from AI-generated ones that were adapted to the writing style of individual radiologists. + +# 2 Related Works + +# 2.1 Medical Report Generation + +Medical report generation (MRG) has seen a recent resurgence in the field of medical AI. Early works (Allaouzi et al., 2018) adhere to the methods of image captioning models (Vinyals et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015), leveraging deep CNNs to extract image features and RNNs to generate text descriptions in an encoder-decoder fashion. Meanwhile, emerging in several works was an auxiliary classification task to predict certain medical abnormalities, with the aim of more structured guidance for report generation (Shin et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Yin et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019). Later, the use of the attention mechanism in MRG systems became increasingly prevalent (Jing et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020). To further bridge visual and linguistic modalities while incorporating med + +![](images/860d05b56965f3f1c246ce3f521d94f11e9d3ffe0d5f14d3a4f70cab65499199.jpg) +Conventional: + +![](images/cddc1c947f48e777a2468c322faa0d7abd46f422dda8cc93cde377334b422268.jpg) +Figure 1: Overview of our two-step pipeline for generating radiology reports (right panel) as contrasted with the standard "image-to-report" strategy for directly generating radiology reports from X-ray images (left panel). During training, we consider a set of paired chest X-ray images and radiology reports. We preprocess the reports by extracting its content in the form a graph representation (RadGraph). We serialize the RadGraph into a condensed summary of the clinical content of the report. From there, this RadGraph serialization is used as the supervising signal in an image captioning model. For illustration purposes, we omit to display the text encoder that augments both captioning models with clinical context. At inference time, a new chest X-ray is fed through the model to generate a serialized RadGraph. By providing few example reports of a specific radiologist (and extracting their RadGraphs), an LLM can in-context learn to verbalize the structured content extracted from the image into a fully-fledged report in the style of the target radiologist. + +ical domain knowledge, various kinds of knowledge graphs have been explored for use (Li et al., 2019, 2023b; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In our study, we use the classic encoder-decoder architecture, as it is a common denominator of many MRG approaches. + +Subsequent studies acknowledge the constraints of traditional natural language generation metrics when assessing medical reports, prompting a growing emphasis on ensuring clinical accuracy. RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) is a dataset of entities and relations in full-text chest X-ray radiology reports based on a novel information extraction schema. (Yang et al., 2022) adopts the knowledge graph provided by RadGraph as general knowledge embedding. (Wang et al., 2022b) employed a classification loss for medical concepts provided by RadGraph. (Delbrouck et al., 2022) improves the factual completeness and correctness of generated radiology reports with a well-designed RadGraph reward. Most existing methods develop metrics around RadGraph and integrate that into the objective function; our approach, on the other hand, di + +rectly trains the model to generate a serialized (i.e., text) representation of RadGraph as we decouple the content and style generation and focus solely on the clinical correctness during the content generation stage. Additionally, serialized RadGraphs allow us to juxtapose dense content representations with stylized reports which enables style adaptation via in-context learning. + +# 2.2 Large Language Models + +Recent watersheds such as the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), generative pretraining objectives (Radford et al., 2018), and increased computing power have facilitated the training of large language models comprising billions of parameters (Brown et al., 2020a; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). These advances have significantly Burgeoned model capability in tasks such as translation, summarization, and generating long text that closely resembles human language. + +In 2021, OpenAI announced GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a; Floridi and Chiriatti, 2020), a generative language model featuring an unprecedented 175 billion parameters. Their study introduces in + +![](images/7515da96c426aaf8acfd3a12ea2b1643c5272addce5b54182ff7f8f8ba2e0ab1.jpg) +Figure 2: Overview of the RadGraph serialization. In the RadGraph entities, ANAT-DP, OBS-DP, and OBS-DA refer to present anatomical, present observational, and absent observational entities, respectively. The token counts refer to the averages across the test set. + +context learning, the ability of LLMs to learn to perform a task simply by being provided a few examples as context—without any parameter updates. + +LLMs have also demonstrated great potential in the medical domain. For instance, GPT-4 has been employed to post-hoc transform free-text radiology reports into structured reports (Adams et al., 2023). As for LLM-based MRG systems, Wang et al. (2023) utilized ChatGPT to generate medical reports based on features extracted by neural networks (e.g., disease classifier). However, their approach does not exploit in-context learning and thus has limited control over format and style. + +# 3 Methods + +# 3.1 Dataset + +Our study makes use of the MIMIC-CXR (Johnson et al., 2019) and RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) datasets. MIMIC-CXR is a large dataset of 377 110 chest radiographs imaged at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 227 835 studies, with freetext medical reports. The RadGraph dataset is publicly available and comprises radiology text reports and corresponding knowledge graphs (Figure 2). + +To preprocess reports, we extract only Findings and Impressions, as other sections contain details that cannot be readily referenced from the image, such as patient demographics or lab results from different procedures. Findings refer to the direct observations from the image (e.g., opacity of lungs, catheter placement), while Impression summarizes the most urgent inferences and diagnostically relevant findings (e.g., presence of pneumonia). + +# 3.2 RadGraph + +As notation, a RadGraph refers to any knowledge graph within the titular dataset. The nodes of a + +RadGraph are either anatomical (e.g., lungs, cardiomediastinal, carina) or observational entities (e.g., acute, abnormality). The edges are directed and heterogeneous, capturing three types of relations—modify, located at, suggestive of—between entities. Nodes and edges are automatically obtained via a named entity recognition and relation extraction model on MIMIC-CXR reports, employing the DYGIE++ framework from Wadden et al. (2019). This embodies the Report $\rightarrow$ RadGraph preprocessing step, or content extraction in (Figure 1). We distinguish this from content generation (Section 3.4), which is the transformer-based prediction of serialized content based on the image. + +# 3.3 RadGraph Compilation + +We serialize each RadGraph into a structured text representation (Figure 2), which serves as the supervision label for the content generation model (Section 3.4). This serialization acts as a dense content representation whose advantages over the fre-text report include conciseness and the pruning of non-semantic content (e.g., style-filler words, radiologist-specific phrasing) from the report. The aim is to focus the model purely on generating the content backbone at this step, and defer the style injection to a later stage of the pipeline (Section 3.5). + +To exploit the graph structure of the input RadGraph, we first extract the weakly connected components (step (3) in Figure 2). These are the maximal subgraphs where any two nodes can be reached through a path of undirected links. Each component is thus a separate network of spatially and medically related entities, segmenting the chest Xray's content into distinct regions of interest that can be serialized in parallel. + +For each component, we create a text span of all + +labelled entities. The keywords no and maybe are pretended to absent and uncertain entities, respectively. The entity ordering follows the syntax of the corresponding tokens in the report to ensure readability and lexical fidelity. When the report contains both Findings and Impression sections (Figure 2), we analogously stratify the components based on their referenced location in the free-text report. This is crucial as the content representation should carefully distinguish between factual image information (Findings) and clinical inferences (Impressions), even if strongly supported. + +Within Findings and Impression, the components are concatenated and separated by delimiters. The two sections are combined into a single text, which is the report serialization and densely characterizes the full chest radiograph. In the case where the report is not bipartite (e.g., only Impressions), we unify the components under a singular section. + +# 3.4 Content Generation Model + +For the content generation model, we leverage the encoder-decoder architecture that has been widely employed in image-to-text systems. An image encoder takes chest X-ray images as the input and encodes them into a visual feature representation. In parallel, a text encoder reads clinical documents, such as doctor indications, and transforms the textual content into dense feature vectors. + +The visual and text embeddings are then added together and passed through a LayerNorm operation to form contextualized embeddings. The fused embeddings are then fed into the report decoder, which generates serialized RadGraph word-by-word. The main architecture is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), but we simplified it by removing the classifier and the interpretation module to eliminate as many potential confounders as we can since our goal is to evaluate the influence of the supervision signal. + +Image Encoder We adopt a DenseNet-121 (Huang et al., 2017) model pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset as the image encoder. For each input chest X-ray image $I$ , it extracts a feature vector $d \in R^e$ where $e$ is the embedding dimension. If an imaging study consists of more than one image, the feature will be obtained via max-pooling across all feature vectors extracted from each image. $d$ is then transformed into $n$ low-dimensional disease representations $D_{img} \in R^{n \times e}$ . + +Text Encoder We use a Transformer encoder to extract features $H = \{h_1, h_2, \dots, h_l\}$ from the clinical document text input with length $l$ consisting of word embeddings $\{w_1, w_2, \dots, w_l\}$ where $w_i \in R^e$ is the vector representation of the $i$ -th word in the text, $e$ is the embedding dimension and $h_i \in R^e$ is the attended features of the $i$ -th word to other words in the input document. The features are then transformed into summarization denoted as $Q = \{q_1, q_2, \dots, q_n\}$ representing a set of $n$ disease-related topics (such as pneumonia or atelectasis) to be queried from the document, as proposed in (Nguyen et al., 2021), + +$$ +D _ {t x t} = \operatorname {S o f t m a x} \left(Q H ^ {T}\right) H \tag {1} +$$ + +where matrix $Q \in R^{n \times e}$ is constructed by vertically stacking $\{q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_n\}$ where each vector $q_i$ is initialized with random values and subsequently refined through the attention process, and $H \in R^{l \times e}$ is formed by stacking $\{h_1, h_2, \ldots, h_l\}$ . + +Fused Embedding We obtain the final, contextualized embedding $D \in R^{n \times e}$ by entangling the visual embedding $D_{img}$ and text embedding $D_{txt}$ , + +$$ +D = \operatorname {L a y e r N o r m} \left(D _ {i m g} + D _ {t x t}\right) \tag {2} +$$ + +where $D$ will be the input for the report decoder. + +Report Decoder We use the Transformer as the backbone of our report decoder to generate long, robust text. A total of 12 decoder components are stacked together where each component consists of a masked multi-head self-attention component followed by a feed-forward layer. The report generation objective (Equation 3) is defined as the cross-entropy loss between predicted words $p$ and ground truth $y$ . Here, we denote $p_{ij}$ as the confidence of selecting the $j$ -th word of vocabulary $V$ in the $i$ -th position in the generated text, and $y_{ij}$ as a binary indicator of whether the $j$ -th word appears in the $i$ -th position of the ground truth. + +$$ +L = - \frac {1}{l} \sum_ {i = 1} ^ {l} \sum_ {j = 1} ^ {v} y _ {i j} \log \left(p _ {i j}\right) \tag {3} +$$ + +# 3.5 Style Generation Step + +We describe the process of prompting a pre-trained LLM to generate reports from the serialization. This enables adapting the generation to a specific style by supplying the LLM with relevant + +in-context examples. Each example is a pair: serialization $s_i$ from the RadGraph, and corresponding ground truth report $r_i$ under the desired style. + +We use the gpt-3.5-turbo model from OpenAI, a dialogue-based LLM that accepts a sequence of messages as input, rather than a singular text prompt. This is useful for inserting style pairs seamlessly; we relay them as a back-and-forth conversation between user and assistant roles, where a user role supplies serialization $s_i$ and an assistant responds with target report $r_i$ for the language model to learn in-context. + +The chain of $K$ examples $\{(s_i,r_i)\}_{i = 1}^K$ is prefaced by a system role message indicating the LLM should act as the report-generating assistant, establishing its specific task within the radiology-based dialogue. The remaining prompt is structured as $s_1:r_1,s_2:r_2,\dots ,s_K:r_K,\hat{s}_{\mathrm{eval}}:.$ At the end, the model is given an evaluation serialization $\hat{s}_{\mathrm{eval}}$ predicted from the chest X-ray image using our content generation model, cuing the LLM to generate the corresponding report prediction $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{eval}}$ next. Note that in the zero-shot case, the prompt is just $\hat{s}_{\mathrm{eval}}:$ , with no preceding context examples. + +# 3.6 Evaluation Metrics + +We present a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of our approach with commonly-used metrics concerning both language fluency and clinical accuracy. For each metric, we display the mean $\overline{x}$ across the $n$ test reports, as well as the $95\%$ confidence interval $(\overline{x} \pm 1.96 \cdot \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}})$ . + +# Natural Language Generation Metrics (NLG) + +As for classical NLG metrics, we compute BLEU2 and BERT scores. However, these metrics have relevant limitations due to focusing on lexical similarity or general (non-clinical) semantics, respectively, thereby lacking in the assessment of clinical similarity (for more details, see Section A.5). + +Clinical Accuracy Metrics CheXbert vector similarity extends beyond BERT by utilizing CheXbert, a model trained specifically on datasets comprising chest X-rays. It computes the cosine similarity between the indicator vectors of 14 pathologies that the CheXbert labeler extracts from machine-generated and human-generated radiology reports. It is designed to evaluate radiology-specific information but its evaluation is limited to 14 pathologies. To address this limitation, we also adopt RadGraph F1 (Yu et al., 2022) that calcu + +lates the overlap in clinical entities and relations extracted by RadGraph from both machine-generated and human-generated reports. In this study, we lay emphasis on clinical metrics because we aim to generate reports in different styles while keeping accurate clinical information instead of reports that lexically match the ground truth in the dataset. + +# 3.7 Experimental Setup + +We conduct four experiments to scrutinize each individual step and overall performance of our proposed strategy for report generation. This includes: + +1. Image to Serialization: We evaluate content generation model in terms of comparing the content of the generated serialization with the ground truth report. +2. **Serialization to Report:** Conditioning on a strong image-to-serialization model, we evaluate LLM-based style injection by using the ground-truth RadGraphs as input to the LLM. +3. End-to-end report generation: We evaluate the pipeline end-to-end, feeding the image and clinical context through the content generation model and the generated serialization through the LLM. +4. Human style evaluation: To evaluate the style quality, we let physicians rate sets of 4 radiology reports where 3 were written by the same radiologists and 1 was AI-generated by our method following the style of the radiologist. The goal for the physicians is to detect the AI-generated report and to justify their choice. + +Baseline The baseline model is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), sharing the same architecture as our image-to-serialization model (Section 3.4), but its supervision target is the full report (Findings and Impressions) instead of serialization. The training involves an identical parameter set as above. + +Additional experimental details (training, hyperparameter search, and infrastructure) are provided in Section A.1. + +# 4 Results + +# 4.1 Image to Serialization + +We train two content generation models, one with the full report as the supervision target, and the other with the serialized RadGraph. In table 2, we present the RadGraph F1 evaluation result on the + +
MethodExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
Baseline—3.553 ± 0.0320.186 ± 0.0050.352 ± 0.0080.184 ± 0.0050.378 ± 0.006
Ours03.527 ± 0.0270.228 ± 0.0040.394 ± 0.0080.162 ± 0.0030.333 ± 0.004
13.512 ± 0.0280.226 ± 0.0050.393 ± 0.0080.170 ± 0.0030.343 ± 0.004
53.489 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0040.391 ± 0.0080.177 ± 0.0030.354 ± 0.004
103.485 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0050.390 ± 0.0080.180 ± 0.0030.357 ± 0.004
+ +MIMIC-CXR test set, comparing the outputs from both models against the ground truth full report. + +The comparison is suitable as RadGraph F1 is ag- nostic of general lexical similarity, measuring only overlap in radiology entities and relations extracted from the text. We find the model trained on the serialized RadGraph outperforms the model trained on the full report. This verifies our assumption that switching the supervision signal to the serialization would help focus the model on generating clinical content with greater accuracy and saliency. + +Table 1: Results for the end-to-end report generation. The baseline is the direct image-to-report transformer, i.e., the content generation model trained to predict reports directly from image. Note that RadCliQ (lower is better) is the most important metric as it best corresponds with radiologists' quality assessment (Yu et al., 2022). Best row is in bold. Rows leveraging in-context examples are grayed out, whereas the first two rows use the exact same input data. + +
Supervision TargetRadGraph F1
Full Report0.186 ± 0.005
Serialized RadGraph0.221 ± 0.004
+ +Table 2: RadGraph entity and relation F1 score of models trained on full report versus serialized RadGraph. + +# 4.2 Serialization to Report + +For selecting examples, we draw randomly from the train split. This avoids patient overlap that could unfairly benefit performance on test cases. We compare the LLM-generated reports against the ground truth reports. Results are provided (Table 3) for varying numbers of in-context examples. We observe strong performance across all metrics, including a 0.722 RadGraph F1 mean in the zero-shot regime. Furthermore, lexical overlap metrics such as BLEU and BERT score saw noticeable improvement with more examples (20.2% and 15.7% increases, respectively, from 0 to 10 examples). This aligns with the aim of in-context learning to improve the style fidelity of generated reports. + +# 4.3 End-to-End Report Generation + +We evaluate the end-to-end performance from chest X-ray to report by concatenating the content generation step with the style generation step. The results are presented in Table 1. We observe that our two-step model surpasses the baseline (direct + +image-to-report model) in clinical accuracy metrics (CheXbert similarity, RadGraph F1, RadCliQ), even in the zero-shot style generation case. This illustrates greater accuracy in extracting radiology content from the chest X-ray, the central focus of separating content generation from style injection. Notably, RadCliQ is a composite metric found by Yu et al. (2022) to best correlate with quality judgement of human radiologists. + +The primary contribution of more examples is improving lexical and non-clinical NLG metrics (BLEU, BERT Score), similar to our findings in the `Serialization $\rightarrow$ Report` step. However, they remain slightly lower than those of the baseline. A potential explanation is that during training, the baseline is directly supervised with full reports, while only the extracted content is available to our content generation model—with the report itself synthesized with an external, pre-trained LLM. + +# 4.4 Human Style Evaluation + +Four board-certified radiologists were instructed to write chest X-ray reports in their usual style from 40 randomly selected chest X-ray images from the MIMIC-CXR test set (Figure 4). As several chest X-rays in the MIMIC-CXR dataset were within normal limits or interval follow ups on intensive care patients, duplicate or near-duplicate chest X-ray reports were removed upon manual inspection. + +The style generation step described in Section 3.5 was then used to produce AI-generated chest X-ray reports in the style of each of the four radiologists. From these radiologist-generated and AI-generated chest X-ray reports, we created 23 sets of four chest X-ray reports for style evaluation by physician evaluators (i.e., the target audience for written radiology reports). In each set, three reports (corresponding to three different chest X-rays) from the same radiologist, and one AI-generated report (from a fourth chest X-ray) in the style of that radiologist were presented in random + +![](images/31e8299fae1e4cbf86f8d5eafb3595903f8d09b439692280d5ac5ac3debcd76a.jpg) + +![](images/32f099a6333f6995f5362058da7be9d736e340f9c557e988fd85ff6ce61de19f.jpg) +Figure 3: Overview of human expert evaluation of the style generation. In panel a, a set of radiologist write radiology reports in their own style for $n$ chest X-ray studies. For each written report, we extract the RadGraph representation and serialize it into the text representation. Panel b illustrates how we AI-generate a radiology report in the style of a specific radiologist, $R_{1}$ , for an input image $I_{k}$ . To in-context learn the style of $R_{1}$ , for $k$ shots we provide a context of $k$ input / output pairs of serialized RadGraphs (dense content representation) together with the corresponding stylized reports as written by $R_{1}$ . Next, to generate a report for a given image $I_{k}$ , we feed the image through our image-to-serialized model and use the generated RadGraph serialization (as indicated with a hat) as the final query of the prompt. The LLM is then prompted to return a generated report in the style of $R_{1}$ . Panel c illustrates the human evaluation. Physician raters are provided with problems each consisting of 4 reports, 3 written by one radiologist and 1 AI-generated in the same radiologist's style. + +![](images/6020536528dc701a6bfd73061b17ca07bc9db42d85a0143fc84283484fcd6da8.jpg) + +![](images/a3cd6d41023cc6cba4c3ada56c100f046713517efb9e248ed24c1cb40ec72dd4.jpg) + +order. Three physician evaluators were asked to identify the AI-generated report out of the four reports and indicate whether report content, language, or report structure contributed to their choice (for more details, refer to Section A.3). + +A one-sided Z-test was performed for the proportion of AI-generated reports correctly identified by the three evaluators with a null hypothesis of $25\%$ , corresponding to random chance, and an alternative hypothesis of $>25\%$ , corresponding to AI-generated reports being identified at a rate greater than that of random chance. Evaluators A, B, C correctly identified 5 out of 23 $(21.7\%)$ , 5 out of 23 $(21.7\%)$ , and 4 out of 23 $(17.4\%)$ AI-generated chest X-ray reports, respectively, for a mean accuracy of $20.3\%$ . The one-sided Z-test produced p-values of 0.648, 0.648, and 0.832 for Evaluators A, B, and C respectively, and 0.835 when pooling all evaluators together. + +One potential explanation for why evaluators identified $< 25\%$ of AI-generated reports (worse than random), is variance in radiologist style. For example, our radiologists would sometimes alternate between using parentheses to highlight the chest X-ray view (e.g., "Chest X-ray (PA and lateral views):") and not using any parentheses (e.g., + +"Chest X-ray PA and lateral views":). Human evaluators may use particular heuristics to call a report AI-generated, when faced with similar appearing reports. However, if they are not reflective of the truth, this may result in accuracy less than random. + +![](images/1459383959deee99ab35732f4711eb340d1e351d99ca302ac85df4740845a98e.jpg) +Figure 4: Human Style Evaluation: All evaluators identified the AI-generated chest X-ray report at rates lower than $25\%$ (corresponding to random chance). + +# 5 Discussion + +We presented a novel approach for radiology report generation that disentangles the report's content from its style. Our experiments showed that our + +method offers several advantages over the prevailing paradigm of direct image-to-report modeling. First, training a content extraction model to predict a serialized RadGraph representation from the input image helps focusing the model on the clinically relevant content which is reflected in improved performance metrics (Table 2). Second, when concatenating the content generation step with the style injection step, we observe favourable performance compared to the direct image-to-report baseline (Table 1). Third, by in-context learning the radiologist-specific mapping from serialized RadGraph to report, our method enables the generation of high quality reports that are tailored to the individual radiologist to the degree of indiscernibility using just a few example reports. To ultimately determine the clinical utility of our method, deployment studies will be an exciting venue for future work. Another promising direction would be to expand our two-step report generation paradigm to other modalities such as radiology mammograms and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). + +# 6 Limitations + +A limitation of our approach is that it relies on the accuracy and effectiveness of the initially extracted RadGraph representation, as this serves as a key supervision signal in our model. Notably, RadGraphs are extracted at inference time using an automated model rather than manual expert labelling. The model achieves high performance in entity and relation extraction (Jain et al., 2021) but is susceptible to error, particularly with report inputs that contain rarer medical entities or ambiguous observations. + +Furthermore, due to our employed LLM being served by a third party (OpenAI), reproducing our results comes at the financial costs of using Azure OpenAI's service. Another consequence of relying on this service is that we cannot guarantee the deterministically exact reproduction of our findings, as the served LLM models may change and potentially degrade over time—for instance, if models are replaced by distilled versions thereof. + +# 7 Ethics Considerations + +A principal ethical consideration is the de-identified, credentialed medical data we worked with. In particular, responsible usage policy of the MIMIC-CXR dataset (Johnson et al., 2019) prohibits sharing access to third parties. This disqualifies the use of ChatGPT or large language model + +APIs for prompting models to generate radiology reports from our content representations. However, cloud-based services are allowed, including the Azure OpenAI platform, which we use for deploying and prompting the gpt-3.5-turbo model. A stipulation is the monetary service costs, which are counted at a rate per one thousand tokens. These can pose financial barriers to equitable access to high-end language models (which are typically more expensive), as well as usage at scale. + +Furthermore, as discussed in the Introduction section, the use of large language models is accompanied by their risks of "hallucination" and generating false or misleading content. These risks can be amplified in the critical setting of medical report generation. To mitigate them, we prompt the LLM not to synthesize medical content, but rather to rephrase existing content into readable, stylized prose. We assist the model through providing content serialization to report pairs as in-context examples. This is our style injection step, which we intendfully separate from the content generation step to reduce the opportunity for LLM hallucination when generating the full report prediction. + +# 8 Acknowledgements + +This project was supported by AWS promotional credits. + +# References + +Lisa C Adams, Daniel Truhn, Felix Busch, Avan Kader, Stefan M Niehues, Marcus R Makowski, and Keno K Bressem. 2023. Leveraging gpt-4 for post hoc transformation of free-text radiology reports into structured reporting: a multilingual feasibility study. *Radiology*, 307(4):e230725. +Imane Allaouzi, M Ben Ahmed, Badr Benamrou, and Mustapha Ouardouz. 2018. Automatic caption generation for medical images. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications, pages 1-6. +Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin Johnson, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403. +Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901. + +Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual. +Zhihong Chen, Yan Song, Tsung-Hui Chang, and Xiang Wan. 2020. Generating radiology reports via memory-driven transformer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1439-1449. +Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. +Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Emily Tsai, Omar Almusa, and Curtis P Langlotz. 2022. Improving the factual correctness of radiology report generation with semantic rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12186. +Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. 2020. Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. *Minds and Machines*, 30:681–694. +Michael P Hartung, Ian C Bickle, Frank Gaillard, and Jeffrey P Kanne. 2020. How to create a great radiology report. RadioGraphics, 40(6):1658-1670. +Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4700-4708. +Saahil Jain, Ashwin Agrawal, Adriel Saporta, Steven Q. H. Truong, Du Nguyen Duong, Tan Bui, Pierre J. Chambon, Yuhao Zhang, Matthew P. Lungren, Andrew Y. Ng, Curtis P. Langlotz, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2021. Radgraph: Extracting clinical entities and relations from radiology reports. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual. +Baoyu Jing, Pengtao Xie, and Eric Xing. 2017. On the automatic generation of medical imaging reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08195. +Alistair E.W. Johnson, Tom J. Pollard, Seth J. Berkowitz, Nathaniel R. Greenbaum, Matthew P. Lungren, Deng + +Chih-ying, Roger G. Mark, and Stephen Horng. 2019. Mimic-cxr, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports. Scientific Data. +Christy Y Li, Xiaodan Liang, Zhiting Hu, and Eric P Xing. 2019. Knowledge-driven encode, retrieve, paraphrase for medical image report generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6666-6673. +Hao Li, Yuping Wu, Viktor Schlegel, Riza Batista-Navarro, Thanh-Tung Nguyen, Abhinav Ramesh Kashyap, Xiaojun Zeng, Daniel Beck, Stefan Winkler, and Goran Nenadic. 2023a. Pulsar: Pretraining with extracted healthcare terms for summarising patients' problems and data augmentation with black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02754. +Mingjie Li, Rui Liu, Fuyu Wang, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2023b. Auxiliary signal-guided knowledge encoder-decoder for medical report generation. World Wide Web, 26(1):253-270. +Fenglin Liu, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, Wei Fan, and Yuexian Zou. 2021. Exploring and distilling posterior and prior knowledge for radiology report generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13753-13762. +Hoang TN Nguyen, Dong Nie, Taiwanbat Badamdorj, Yujie Liu, Yingying Zhu, Jason Truong, and Li Cheng. 2021. Automated generation of accurate\& fluent medical x-ray reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12126. +Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. +Hoo-Chang Shin, Kirk Roberts, Le Lu, Dina Demner-Fushman, Jianhua Yao, and Ronald M Summers. 2016. Learning to read chest x-rays: Recurrent neural cascade model for automated image annotation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2497-2506. +Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. +Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. +Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2015. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3156-3164. + +David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784-5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. + +Sheng Wang, Zihao Zhao, Xi Ouyang, Qian Wang, and Dinggang Shen. 2023. Chatcad: Interactive computer-aided diagnosis on medical image using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07257. + +Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, and Ronald M Summers. 2018. Tienet: Text-image embedding network for common thorax disease classification and reporting in chest x-rays. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9049-9058. + +Zhanyu Wang, Hongwei Han, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022a. Automated radiographic report generation purely on transformer: A multicriteria supervised approach. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(10):2803-2813. + +Zhanyu Wang, Mingkang Tang, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022b. A medical semantic-assisted transformer for radiographic report generation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2022: 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-22, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, pages 655-664. Springer. + +Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2048-2057. PMLR. + +Shuxin Yang, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, S Kevin Zhou, and Li Xiao. 2022. Knowledge matters: Chest radiology report generation with general and specific knowledge. Medical Image Analysis, 80:102510. + +Changchang Yin, Buyue Qian, Jishang Wei, Xiaoyu Li, Xianli Zhang, Yang Li, and Qinghua Zheng. 2019. Automatic generation of medical imaging diagnostic report with hierarchical recurrent neural network. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pages 728-737. IEEE. + +Feiyang Yu, Mark Endo, Rayan Krishnan, Ian Pan, Andy Tsai, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Eduardo Kaiser Ururahy Nunes Fonseca, Henrique Min Ho Lee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Andrew Y Ng, et al. 2022. Evaluating progress in automatic chest x-ray radiology report generation. medRxiv, pages 2022-08. + +Jianbo Yuan, Haofu Liao, Rui Luo, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Automatic radiology report generation based on multi-view image fusion and medical concept enrichment. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13-17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22, pages 721-729. Springer. + +Yixiao Zhang, Xiaosong Wang, Ziyue Xu, Qihang Yu, Alan Yuille, and Daguang Xu. 2020. When radiology report generation meets knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12910-12917. + +Haifeng Zhao, Jie Chen, Lili Huang, Tingting Yang, Wanhai Ding, and Chuanfu Li. 2021. Automatic generation of medical report with knowledge graph. In 2021 10th International Conference on Computing and Pattern Recognition, pages 1-1. + +# A Appendix + +# A.1 Further experimental details + +In the following, we provide additional details about our experimental setup including information about the model training and used infrastructures. + +Training The image-to-serialized model is trained and evaluated on the official train/test split of the MIMIC-CXR (v2.0.0) dataset with 213501 and 2799 chest X-ray reports, respectively. The ground-truth RadGraph serialization associated with each study is taken from the RadGraph dataset. The model is trained for 25 epochs, with a batch size of 16, a learning rate of 0.0001, an embedding size of 512, a weight decay of 0.001, a dropout rate of 0.1, and 12 transformer blocks in the decoder. + +Hyperparameter Search We optimized our hyperparameters for the content generation model through grid search with the help of WandB. Figure 5 visualizes the performance of the model with a different set of hyperparameters. We search the learning rate from [0.001, 0.0001], embedding dimension from [256, 512], number of transformer decoder components from [6, 12], and weight decay rate from [0.001, 0.0001, 0]. + +Infrastructure The image-to-serialized model was trained on an AWS g5.2xlarge instance with one NVIDIA A10G Tensor Core GPU. It was trained for 25 epochs or roughly 50 hours. Evaluation was dispatched on two NVIDIA RTX A4000 GPUs with 16 GB of memory. We use the Azure OpenAI service to access the gpt-3.5-turbo language model, with a cloud-based deployment. + +![](images/44e7d53174930a904abe65b765bc5e0baee0c1a1512e7f7678535948b71f2dea.jpg) +Figure 5: Sweeps of our hyperparameter search: we use validation loss as the metric to search for best hyperparameters. + +# A.2 Serialization to Report Results + +Table 3 shows the quantitative results of our Serialization to report generation task as described in Section 4.2. + +# A.3 Human Style Evaluation + +Here, we provide further results on the human style evaluation of the generated reports. To reiterate the approach, three physicians were tasked to identify an AI-generated report within a set of four radiology reports: three were written by the same radiologist and the fourth one (appearing in random order) was generated using our approach using in-context examples from the same radiologist. + +Figure 6 shows the cumulative count of explanations stratified by clinical evaluator (rows), as well as by whether the selection was correct or incorrect (columns). Language (e.g., word choice, grammar, and/or writing style) was the primary heuristic that evaluators used to decide whether a report was human-generated or AI-generated, followed by content (e.g., missing important details or including extraneous details), and structure (e.g., different use of numbering or section headings). + +# A.4 LLM Prompting + +Here, we illustrate a template of our dialogue-based prompt for the LLM to generate a report prediction, with 2-shot learning to adapt to a report style. For notation, $ and $ are placeholders for the $i$ -th serialization and corresponding ground truth report, respectively, and is the serialization predicted from an image in the evaluation set. + +- System: You are a helpful assistant that generates chest x-ray reports from key words. + +![](images/257d8f300f77c4b3ec63df38795e924b0ce46a630c34deefacc69120e183df3b.jpg) +Figure 6: Human Style Evaluation Explanations: When style evaluators attributed their choice of AI-generated report, they attributed it primarily to language and structural differences between human-generated and AI-generated reports. + +- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words: + +- Assistant: +- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words: + +- Assistant: +- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words: + + +The LLM will proceed to generate its report prediction from the evaluation serialization, which we compare against the corresponding ground truth report in the test set. + +# A.5 Natural Language Generation Metrics + +BLEU-2 is widely used in machine translation tasks; it measures the similarity between a candidate translation and one or more reference trans + +
ExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
01.357 ± 0.0300.722 ± 0.0060.843 ± 0.0070.388 ± 0.0050.568 ± 0.005
11.234 ± 0.0310.723 ± 0.0070.847 ± 0.0070.423 ± 0.0050.614 ± 0.005
51.125 ± 0.0300.731 ± 0.0060.852 ± 0.0070.460 ± 0.0060.652 ± 0.005
101.107 ± 0.0300.733 ± 0.0060.853 ± 0.0070.466 ± 0.0060.657 ± 0.005
+ +Table 3: Results for the `Serialization $\rightarrow$ Report generation task, using the ground truth serialization in place of the predicted one. The goal of this experiment is to evaluate the style generation in isolation, assuming a very strong content generation step (here the ground truth serialization of RadGraph). Note a lower RadCliQ score is better. The best row is bolded. Leveraging more in-context examples leads to better performance across all metrics. + +lations by comparing their bigram overlaps. Although BLEU-2 is a fast and reliable metric, it possesses a few limitations, e.g., it does not take into account synonymous words and the proper use of grammar. We thus also adopt the BERT score, a recently proposed metric for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. It takes into account the semantic similarity between the generated text and reference text by calculating the contextual embeddings of both texts using BERT and measuring their cosine similarity. Nevertheless, BERT is a general-purpose metric and not at all optimized for capturing clinical semantics and radiological findings. This is why the included clinical accuracy metrics are most salient to our quantitative evaluation of radiology report generation. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/images.zip b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdfdee75ee04af1def18e220547f5fcb15fdb558 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:8933b0d49a07d2de3ab675ee06caacd9ca7dbcbeb598b9cae4d6aad275479c39 +size 392377 diff --git a/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/layout.json b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..071298830c5571202de0e6bd7a09ff4ae46f7b9d --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8900 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 69, + 428, + 103 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 69, + 428, + 103 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 166, + 69, + 428, + 103 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Style-Aware Radiology Report Generation with RadGraph and Few-Shot Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Benjamin Yan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Ruochen Liu" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", David E. Kuo" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Subathra Adithan" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Eduardo Pontes Reis" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Stephen Kwak" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Vasantha Kumar Venugopal" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Chloe P. O'Connell" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Agustina Saenz" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Pranav Rajpurkar" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5,\\dagger}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", Michael Moor" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 110, + 511, + 152 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1,\\dagger}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Stanford University, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{3}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "John Hopkins University, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{4}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aligarh Muslim University, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{5}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Harvard Medical School, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{+}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 95, + 153, + 500, + 194 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "equal senior authorship" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 202, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 510 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 86, + 236, + 274, + 510 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatically generated reports from medical images promise to improve the workflow of radiologists. Existing methods consider an image-to-report modeling task by directly generating a fully-fledged report from an image. However, this conflates the content of the report (e.g., findings and their attributes) with its style (e.g., format and choice of words), which can lead to clinically inaccurate reports. To address this, we propose a two-step approach for radiology report generation. First, we extract the content from an image; then, we verbalize the extracted content into a report that matches the style of a specific radiologist. For this, we leverage RadGraph—a graph representation of reports—together with large language models (LLMs). In our quantitative evaluations, we find that our approach leads to beneficial performance. Our human evaluation with clinical raters highlights that the AI-generated reports are indistinguishably tailored to the style of individual radiologist despite leveraging only a few examples as context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 521, + 155, + 534 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 521, + 155, + 534 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 521, + 155, + 534 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 705 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 705 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generating radiology reports from medical images is a crucial task in the field of medical imaging. For human interpreters to write such reports is not only time-consuming and labor-intensive but also requires a high level of expertise (Hartung et al., 2020). Furthermore, these reports are often subject to inter-observer variability, potentially compromising the consistency and accuracy of the reports' findings. As a result, there is a growing interest in methods for automated radiology report generation, which can alleviate these issues and improve overall efficiency of the diagnostic process." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for generating high-quality text, with the ability to customize outputs based on user-specified instructions (Brown et al., 2020b). These models have been utilized to" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 213, + 526, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "rephrase existing text, paving the way for new approaches to automated report generation in radiology. However, despite the promise of LLMs, their application to this task is not without challenges. One principal concern is their tendency to 'hallucinate', i.e., to generate false information (even if plausible sounding), which can be particularly problematic in high-stakes settings such as when generating reports from medical images." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 338, + 526, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Previous attempts at automated report generation have largely focused on approaches that aim to produce fully-fledged reports directly from medical images (i.e., a image-to-report modelling task) (Alaouzi et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022a). However, this conflates the content of the report (i.e., the radiology entities and attributes that are described) with its style (i.e., the complement of radiology entities and attributes, or everything needed in terms of language, grammar, and structure to formulate a fully-fledged report, on top of the content representation), which limits the flexibility and applicability of such models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This problem is also reflected in the employed evaluation metrics of existing approaches. They frequently optimize for traditional natural language processing (NLP) metrics, such as BLEU, ROUGE, or METEOR, which measure the similarity of the generated report to a reference report based on lexical overlap. These metrics, while generally useful, may not correlate with the clinical correctness or usefulness of the report (Yu et al., 2022). Previous work has demonstrated that optimizing for clinical metrics that measure the content's relevance, such as the RadGraph scores (Jain et al., 2021), is crucial in generating reports that accurately represent the image findings. The RadGraph score gauges similarity in extracted radiology entities and relations with a ground truth annotation. This emphasizes the report's clinical content as opposed to style or lexical overlap, and makes it an amenable measure of the report's usefulness and completeness in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14676" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14676-14688 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 143, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 143, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 143, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "clinical practice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 292, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 292, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 89, + 292, + 413 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we propose to generate radiology reports as a two-step procedure for disentangling report content and style. In the first step, a dedicated model is trained to extract pure content from the image. Specifically, it generates a structured representation (called RadGraph) of the entities and attributes that are present in the image. In the second step, a frozen LLM generates a stylized report from this structured representation. Given a few report examples as context, the LLM can on-the-fly adapt the report style closely to the style of a target radiologist or hospital template for whom the report should be drafted. This model stylization could offer several advantages for radiology workflows: flexibility, in generating reports targeted to their readership, such as ones with less jargon that are more accessible to patients; consistency, in ensuring clear communication between a radiologist and the referring physician, who may be accustomed to a particular style of reporting; and emphasis on preferred information, in highlighting findings most relevant to a specialist's scope of practice (e.g., follow-up on a patch of pneumonia, or the correct location of pacing lead in the heart)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 291, + 593 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 417, + 291, + 593 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the first step of our approach, we alter the supervision signal of an image-text model to a serialization of the clinical entities (as captured in RadGraph) and their attributes, rather than the full report text. This step ensures the content extraction model focuses only on generating the report's clinical content, measured by RadGraph score, rather than optimizing for traditional NLP metrics such as BLEU that may not correlate with the report's clinical relevance. By generating the clinical content first, we prioritize the report's clinical usefulness over its stylistic quality, which can be improved and even personalized in the second step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 597, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the second step, we leverage GPT-3.5 (a generative LLM developed by OpenAI) to transform the predicted serialization of clinical entities and attributes from the image into a styled radiology report (Brown et al., 2020a). These models have shown great promise in generating high-quality text (Anil et al., 2023), including summaries and paraphrases of existing text (Li et al., 2023a), which we can use to inject a hospital-specific style, as well as to enhance readability and understandability. By separating the content generation and style injection steps, we can ensure the model optimizes for the relevant criteria for each step, resulting in a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 391, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 391, + 84 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 391, + 84 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "high-quality report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 85, + 526, + 260 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our approach addresses the limitations of end-to-end image-to-report generation, as the LLM does not need to suggest facts about the image. Instead, it can focus on rephrasing the structured set of entities and attributes that were first derived from the image and infuse the desired style into the report. At prediction time, the LLM in-context learns a serialization-to-report mapping from a few examples of a target report writing style. Our method not only offers a novel solution to the challenges posed by previous approaches but also enhances the customization and adaptability of radiology reports generated by LLMs." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 262, + 518, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 262, + 518, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 262, + 518, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This paper makes the following contributions:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 285, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 285, + 525, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 285, + 525, + 326 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 285, + 525, + 326 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- First, we develop a method for extracting structured content—that is, a serialized version of RadGraph—from radiology images." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 332, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 332, + 525, + 386 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 332, + 525, + 386 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Second, we propose a strategy for generating stylized reports from this extracted content by means of in-context learning from few style-specific example reports." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 391, + 525, + 444 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Third, our overall system (combining content extraction and style generation) achieves competitive performance at radiology report generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 450, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 450, + 525, + 504 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 450, + 525, + 504 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Fourth, in a human style evaluation clinical experts were not able to distinguish real reports from AI-generated ones that were adapted to the writing style of individual radiologists." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 400, + 528 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 400, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 516, + 400, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Related Works" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 459, + 552 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 459, + 552 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 539, + 459, + 552 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Medical Report Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 556, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Medical report generation (MRG) has seen a recent resurgence in the field of medical AI. Early works (Allaouzi et al., 2018) adhere to the methods of image captioning models (Vinyals et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015), leveraging deep CNNs to extract image features and RNNs to generate text descriptions in an encoder-decoder fashion. Meanwhile, emerging in several works was an auxiliary classification task to predict certain medical abnormalities, with the aim of more structured guidance for report generation (Shin et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Yin et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019). Later, the use of the attention mechanism in MRG systems became increasingly prevalent (Jing et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020). To further bridge visual and linguistic modalities while incorporating med" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14677" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 108, + 110, + 225, + 290 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 172, + 91 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 172, + 91 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 79, + 172, + 91 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Conventional:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 110, + 225, + 290 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 110, + 225, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 110, + 225, + 290 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "860d05b56965f3f1c246ce3f521d94f11e9d3ffe0d5f14d3a4f70cab65499199.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 232, + 79, + 498, + 295 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 79, + 498, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 79, + 498, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 232, + 79, + 498, + 295 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cddc1c947f48e777a2468c322faa0d7abd46f422dda8cc93cde377334b422268.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 526, + 429 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 526, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 526, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Overview of our two-step pipeline for generating radiology reports (right panel) as contrasted with the standard \"image-to-report\" strategy for directly generating radiology reports from X-ray images (left panel). During training, we consider a set of paired chest X-ray images and radiology reports. We preprocess the reports by extracting its content in the form a graph representation (RadGraph). We serialize the RadGraph into a condensed summary of the clinical content of the report. From there, this RadGraph serialization is used as the supervising signal in an image captioning model. For illustration purposes, we omit to display the text encoder that augments both captioning models with clinical context. At inference time, a new chest X-ray is fed through the model to generate a serialized RadGraph. By providing few example reports of a specific radiologist (and extracting their RadGraphs), an LLM can in-context learn to verbalize the structured content extracted from the image into a fully-fledged report in the style of the target radiologist." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 449, + 291, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ical domain knowledge, various kinds of knowledge graphs have been explored for use (Li et al., 2019, 2023b; Zhao et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2021). In our study, we use the classic encoder-decoder architecture, as it is a common denominator of many MRG approaches." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 543, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Subsequent studies acknowledge the constraints of traditional natural language generation metrics when assessing medical reports, prompting a growing emphasis on ensuring clinical accuracy. RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) is a dataset of entities and relations in full-text chest X-ray radiology reports based on a novel information extraction schema. (Yang et al., 2022) adopts the knowledge graph provided by RadGraph as general knowledge embedding. (Wang et al., 2022b) employed a classification loss for medical concepts provided by RadGraph. (Delbrouck et al., 2022) improves the factual completeness and correctness of generated radiology reports with a well-designed RadGraph reward. Most existing methods develop metrics around RadGraph and integrate that into the objective function; our approach, on the other hand, di" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 449, + 526, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "rectly trains the model to generate a serialized (i.e., text) representation of RadGraph as we decouple the content and style generation and focus solely on the clinical correctness during the content generation stage. Additionally, serialized RadGraphs allow us to juxtapose dense content representations with stylized reports which enables style adaptation via in-context learning." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 444, + 579 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 444, + 579 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 566, + 444, + 579 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 Large Language Models" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 584, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Recent watersheds such as the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017), generative pretraining objectives (Radford et al., 2018), and increased computing power have facilitated the training of large language models comprising billions of parameters (Brown et al., 2020a; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Touvron et al., 2023). These advances have significantly Burgeoned model capability in tasks such as translation, summarization, and generating long text that closely resembles human language." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In 2021, OpenAI announced GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020a; Floridi and Chiriatti, 2020), a generative language model featuring an unprecedented 175 billion parameters. Their study introduces in" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14678" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 71, + 512, + 200 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 71, + 512, + 200 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 71, + 512, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 71, + 512, + 200 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "7515da96c426aaf8acfd3a12ea2b1643c5272addce5b54182ff7f8f8ba2e0ab1.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 210, + 527, + 247 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 210, + 527, + 247 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 210, + 527, + 247 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: Overview of the RadGraph serialization. In the RadGraph entities, ANAT-DP, OBS-DP, and OBS-DA refer to present anatomical, present observational, and absent observational entities, respectively. The token counts refer to the averages across the test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 291, + 307 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 267, + 291, + 307 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "context learning, the ability of LLMs to learn to perform a task simply by being provided a few examples as context—without any parameter updates." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 291, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 291, + 443 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 291, + 443 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "LLMs have also demonstrated great potential in the medical domain. For instance, GPT-4 has been employed to post-hoc transform free-text radiology reports into structured reports (Adams et al., 2023). As for LLM-based MRG systems, Wang et al. (2023) utilized ChatGPT to generate medical reports based on features extracted by neural networks (e.g., disease classifier). However, their approach does not exploit in-context learning and thus has limited control over format and style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 134, + 464 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 134, + 464 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 452, + 134, + 464 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Methods" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 131, + 485 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 131, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 473, + 131, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 598 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 490, + 291, + 598 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our study makes use of the MIMIC-CXR (Johnson et al., 2019) and RadGraph (Jain et al., 2021) datasets. MIMIC-CXR is a large dataset of 377 110 chest radiographs imaged at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center from 227 835 studies, with freetext medical reports. The RadGraph dataset is publicly available and comprises radiology text reports and corresponding knowledge graphs (Figure 2)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 721 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 599, + 291, + 721 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To preprocess reports, we extract only Findings and Impressions, as other sections contain details that cannot be readily referenced from the image, such as patient demographics or lab results from different procedures. Findings refer to the direct observations from the image (e.g., opacity of lungs, catheter placement), while Impression summarizes the most urgent inferences and diagnostically relevant findings (e.g., presence of pneumonia)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 146, + 741 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 146, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 729, + 146, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 RadGraph" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 746, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As notation, a RadGraph refers to any knowledge graph within the titular dataset. The nodes of a" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 456 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "RadGraph are either anatomical (e.g., lungs, cardiomediastinal, carina) or observational entities (e.g., acute, abnormality). The edges are directed and heterogeneous, capturing three types of relations—modify, located at, suggestive of—between entities. Nodes and edges are automatically obtained via a named entity recognition and relation extraction model on MIMIC-CXR reports, employing the DYGIE++ framework from Wadden et al. (2019). This embodies the Report " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 456 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 267, + 527, + 456 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " RadGraph preprocessing step, or content extraction in (Figure 1). We distinguish this from content generation (Section 3.4), which is the transformer-based prediction of serialized content based on the image." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 442, + 481 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 442, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 442, + 481 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 RadGraph Compilation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 487, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 487, + 526, + 635 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 487, + 526, + 635 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We serialize each RadGraph into a structured text representation (Figure 2), which serves as the supervision label for the content generation model (Section 3.4). This serialization acts as a dense content representation whose advantages over the fre-text report include conciseness and the pruning of non-semantic content (e.g., style-filler words, radiologist-specific phrasing) from the report. The aim is to focus the model purely on generating the content backbone at this step, and defer the style injection to a later stage of the pipeline (Section 3.5)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 527, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 527, + 758 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 637, + 527, + 758 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To exploit the graph structure of the input RadGraph, we first extract the weakly connected components (step (3) in Figure 2). These are the maximal subgraphs where any two nodes can be reached through a path of undirected links. Each component is thus a separate network of spatially and medically related entities, segmenting the chest Xray's content into distinct regions of interest that can be serialized in parallel." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 760, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For each component, we create a text span of all" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14679" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 233 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 291, + 233 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "labelled entities. The keywords no and maybe are pretended to absent and uncertain entities, respectively. The entity ordering follows the syntax of the corresponding tokens in the report to ensure readability and lexical fidelity. When the report contains both Findings and Impression sections (Figure 2), we analogously stratify the components based on their referenced location in the free-text report. This is crucial as the content representation should carefully distinguish between factual image information (Findings) and clinical inferences (Impressions), even if strongly supported." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 290, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 235, + 290, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Within Findings and Impression, the components are concatenated and separated by delimiters. The two sections are combined into a single text, which is the report serialization and densely characterizes the full chest radiograph. In the case where the report is not bipartite (e.g., only Impressions), we unify the components under a singular section." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 221, + 358 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 221, + 358 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 344, + 221, + 358 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Content Generation Model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 473 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 365, + 291, + 473 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For the content generation model, we leverage the encoder-decoder architecture that has been widely employed in image-to-text systems. An image encoder takes chest X-ray images as the input and encodes them into a visual feature representation. In parallel, a text encoder reads clinical documents, such as doctor indications, and transforms the textual content into dense feature vectors." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 476, + 291, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The visual and text embeddings are then added together and passed through a LayerNorm operation to form contextualized embeddings. The fused embeddings are then fed into the report decoder, which generates serialized RadGraph word-by-word. The main architecture is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), but we simplified it by removing the classifier and the interpretation module to eliminate as many potential confounders as we can since our goal is to evaluate the influence of the supervision signal." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Image Encoder We adopt a DenseNet-121 (Huang et al., 2017) model pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset as the image encoder. For each input chest X-ray image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", it extracts a feature vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d \\in R^e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the embedding dimension. If an imaging study consists of more than one image, the feature will be obtained via max-pooling across all feature vectors extracted from each image. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "d" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is then transformed into " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " low-dimensional disease representations " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{img} \\in R^{n \\times e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 638, + 291, + 774 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text Encoder We use a Transformer encoder to extract features " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H = \\{h_1, h_2, \\dots, h_l\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the clinical document text input with length " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "l" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consisting of word embeddings " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{w_1, w_2, \\dots, w_l\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "w_i \\in R^e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the vector representation of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th word in the text, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the embedding dimension and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "h_i \\in R^e" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is the attended features of the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th word to other words in the input document. The features are then transformed into summarization denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q = \\{q_1, q_2, \\dots, q_n\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " representing a set of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 248 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " disease-related topics (such as pneumonia or atelectasis) to be queried from the document, as proposed in (Nguyen et al., 2021)," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 258, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 258, + 525, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 355, + 258, + 525, + 275 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "D _ {t x t} = \\operatorname {S o f t m a x} \\left(Q H ^ {T}\\right) H \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "1b4d0ff22a1ad91e966e25fbfb3666bcfa00b284f0df16e2210856973a9ef6b8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where matrix " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "Q \\in R^{n \\times e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is constructed by vertically stacking " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{q_1, q_2, \\ldots, q_n\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " where each vector " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "q_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is initialized with random values and subsequently refined through the attention process, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "H \\in R^{l \\times e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is formed by stacking " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{h_1, h_2, \\ldots, h_l\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 354 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fused Embedding We obtain the final, contextualized embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D \\in R^{n \\times e}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by entangling the visual embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{img}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and text embedding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D_{txt}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 363, + 525, + 404 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 416, + 525, + 430 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 416, + 525, + 430 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 342, + 416, + 525, + 430 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "D = \\operatorname {L a y e r N o r m} \\left(D _ {i m g} + D _ {t x t}\\right) \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "6c624e85d4dab4b38b75c457198e38c5accb59e7e92381ef43aaf08db4b474d5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 518, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 518, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 518, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "where " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 518, + 455 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 442, + 518, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " will be the input for the report decoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Report Decoder We use the Transformer as the backbone of our report decoder to generate long, robust text. A total of 12 decoder components are stacked together where each component consists of a masked multi-head self-attention component followed by a feed-forward layer. The report generation objective (Equation 3) is defined as the cross-entropy loss between predicted words " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and ground truth " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here, we denote " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "p_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as the confidence of selecting the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th word of vocabulary " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "V" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th position in the generated text, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y_{ij}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " as a binary indicator of whether the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "j" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th word appears in the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 465, + 525, + 641 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th position of the ground truth." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 651, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 651, + 525, + 689 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 351, + 651, + 525, + 689 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "L = - \\frac {1}{l} \\sum_ {i = 1} ^ {l} \\sum_ {j = 1} ^ {v} y _ {i j} \\log \\left(p _ {i j}\\right) \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "b465f7ccdd84616282494fe35a3346262422a9c1ac3bcfea835bb09dc98393e3.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 433, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 433, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 433, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.5 Style Generation Step" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We describe the process of prompting a pre-trained LLM to generate reports from the serialization. This enables adapting the generation to a specific style by supplying the LLM with relevant" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14680" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "in-context examples. Each example is a pair: serialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from the RadGraph, and corresponding ground truth report " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 292, + 112 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " under the desired style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We use the gpt-3.5-turbo model from OpenAI, a dialogue-based LLM that accepts a sequence of messages as input, rather than a singular text prompt. This is useful for inserting style pairs seamlessly; we relay them as a back-and-forth conversation between user and assistant roles, where a user role supplies serialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and an assistant responds with target report " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "r_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 112, + 291, + 232 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the language model to learn in-context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The chain of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " examples " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\{(s_i,r_i)\\}_{i = 1}^K" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is prefaced by a system role message indicating the LLM should act as the report-generating assistant, establishing its specific task within the radiology-based dialogue. The remaining prompt is structured as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_1:r_1,s_2:r_2,\\dots ,s_K:r_K,\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}:." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " At the end, the model is given an evaluation serialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " predicted from the chest X-ray image using our content generation model, cuing the LLM to generate the corresponding report prediction " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{r}_{\\mathrm{eval}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " next. Note that in the zero-shot case, the prompt is just " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{s}_{\\mathrm{eval}}:" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 234, + 291, + 398 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", with no preceding context examples." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 186, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 186, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 409, + 186, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.6 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of our approach with commonly-used metrics concerning both language fluency and clinical accuracy. For each metric, we display the mean " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\overline{x}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " across the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " test reports, as well as the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "95\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " confidence interval " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\overline{x} \\pm 1.96 \\cdot \\frac{\\sigma}{\\sqrt{n}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 428, + 291, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 290, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 520, + 290, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Natural Language Generation Metrics (NLG)" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 614 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 534, + 291, + 614 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As for classical NLG metrics, we compute BLEU2 and BERT scores. However, these metrics have relevant limitations due to focusing on lexical similarity or general (non-clinical) semantics, respectively, thereby lacking in the assessment of clinical similarity (for more details, see Section A.5)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 624, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Clinical Accuracy Metrics CheXbert vector similarity extends beyond BERT by utilizing CheXbert, a model trained specifically on datasets comprising chest X-rays. It computes the cosine similarity between the indicator vectors of 14 pathologies that the CheXbert labeler extracts from machine-generated and human-generated radiology reports. It is designed to evaluate radiology-specific information but its evaluation is limited to 14 pathologies. To address this limitation, we also adopt RadGraph F1 (Yu et al., 2022) that calcu" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 166 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lates the overlap in clinical entities and relations extracted by RadGraph from both machine-generated and human-generated reports. In this study, we lay emphasis on clinical metrics because we aim to generate reports in different styles while keeping accurate clinical information instead of reports that lexically match the ground truth in the dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 425, + 190 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 425, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 176, + 425, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.7 Experimental Setup" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 236 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 195, + 526, + 236 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We conduct four experiments to scrutinize each individual step and overall performance of our proposed strategy for report generation. This includes:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 246, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 246, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 246, + 525, + 300 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 246, + 525, + 300 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1. Image to Serialization: We evaluate content generation model in terms of comparing the content of the generated serialization with the ground truth report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 306, + 525, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2. **Serialization to Report:** Conditioning on a strong image-to-serialization model, we evaluate LLM-based style injection by using the ground-truth RadGraphs as input to the LLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 365, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 365, + 525, + 432 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 365, + 525, + 432 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3. End-to-end report generation: We evaluate the pipeline end-to-end, feeding the image and clinical context through the content generation model and the generated serialization through the LLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 533 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 439, + 525, + 533 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4. Human style evaluation: To evaluate the style quality, we let physicians rate sets of 4 radiology reports where 3 were written by the same radiologists and 1 was AI-generated by our method following the style of the radiologist. The goal for the physicians is to detect the AI-generated report and to justify their choice." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 526, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baseline The baseline model is adapted from (Nguyen et al., 2021), sharing the same architecture as our image-to-serialization model (Section 3.4), but its supervision target is the full report (Findings and Impressions) instead of serialization. The training involves an identical parameter set as above." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 525, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Additional experimental details (training, hyperparameter search, and infrastructure) are provided in Section A.1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 361, + 691 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 361, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 678, + 361, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 433, + 714 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 433, + 714 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 701, + 433, + 714 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Image to Serialization" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We train two content generation models, one with the full report as the supervision target, and the other with the serialized RadGraph. In table 2, we present the RadGraph F1 evaluation result on the" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14681" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 132 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 132 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 132 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 81, + 68, + 512, + 132 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
MethodExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
Baseline—3.553 ± 0.0320.186 ± 0.0050.352 ± 0.0080.184 ± 0.0050.378 ± 0.006
Ours03.527 ± 0.0270.228 ± 0.0040.394 ± 0.0080.162 ± 0.0030.333 ± 0.004
13.512 ± 0.0280.226 ± 0.0050.393 ± 0.0080.170 ± 0.0030.343 ± 0.004
53.489 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0040.391 ± 0.0080.177 ± 0.0030.354 ± 0.004
103.485 ± 0.0280.224 ± 0.0050.390 ± 0.0080.180 ± 0.0030.357 ± 0.004
", + "image_path": "8b54534366889ecbb36cc2ecb1968928e50eb9d69cb8c6c739f319fff0dd79fe.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 289, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 289, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 211, + 289, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "MIMIC-CXR test set, comparing the outputs from both models against the ground truth full report." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 290, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 290, + 360 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 238, + 290, + 360 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The comparison is suitable as RadGraph F1 is ag- nostic of general lexical similarity, measuring only overlap in radiology entities and relations extracted from the text. We find the model trained on the serialized RadGraph outperforms the model trained on the full report. This verifies our assumption that switching the supervision signal to the serialization would help focus the model on generating clinical content with greater accuracy and saliency." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 88, + 369, + 270, + 413 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 525, + 190 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 141, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Results for the end-to-end report generation. The baseline is the direct image-to-report transformer, i.e., the content generation model trained to predict reports directly from image. Note that RadCliQ (lower is better) is the most important metric as it best corresponds with radiologists' quality assessment (Yu et al., 2022). Best row is in bold. Rows leveraging in-context examples are grayed out, whereas the first two rows use the exact same input data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 369, + 270, + 413 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 369, + 270, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 88, + 369, + 270, + 413 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Supervision TargetRadGraph F1
Full Report0.186 ± 0.005
Serialized RadGraph0.221 ± 0.004
", + "image_path": "b1d7dfada7b82a4d4e6dafa2d7d07ac2561b311af0a84d1e013f27043a94cd26.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 446 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 446 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 422, + 291, + 446 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: RadGraph entity and relation F1 score of models trained on full report versus serialized RadGraph." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 202, + 483 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 202, + 483 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 470, + 202, + 483 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Serialization to Report" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 678 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 678 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "For selecting examples, we draw randomly from the train split. This avoids patient overlap that could unfairly benefit performance on test cases. We compare the LLM-generated reports against the ground truth reports. Results are provided (Table 3) for varying numbers of in-context examples. We observe strong performance across all metrics, including a 0.722 RadGraph F1 mean in the zero-shot regime. Furthermore, lexical overlap metrics such as BLEU and BERT score saw noticeable improvement with more examples (20.2% and 15.7% increases, respectively, from 0 to 10 examples). This aligns with the aim of in-context learning to improve the style fidelity of generated reports." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 242, + 700 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 242, + 700 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 687, + 242, + 700 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 End-to-End Report Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate the end-to-end performance from chest X-ray to report by concatenating the content generation step with the style generation step. The results are presented in Table 1. We observe that our two-step model surpasses the baseline (direct" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 332 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 211, + 526, + 332 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "image-to-report model) in clinical accuracy metrics (CheXbert similarity, RadGraph F1, RadCliQ), even in the zero-shot style generation case. This illustrates greater accuracy in extracting radiology content from the chest X-ray, the central focus of separating content generation from style injection. Notably, RadCliQ is a composite metric found by Yu et al. (2022) to best correlate with quality judgement of human radiologists." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The primary contribution of more examples is improving lexical and non-clinical NLG metrics (BLEU, BERT Score), similar to our findings in the `Serialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 469 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 333, + 526, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Report` step. However, they remain slightly lower than those of the baseline. A potential explanation is that during training, the baseline is directly supervised with full reports, while only the extracted content is available to our content generation model—with the report itself synthesized with an external, pre-trained LLM." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 446, + 494 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 446, + 494 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 481, + 446, + 494 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Human Style Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 525, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 502, + 525, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Four board-certified radiologists were instructed to write chest X-ray reports in their usual style from 40 randomly selected chest X-ray images from the MIMIC-CXR test set (Figure 4). As several chest X-rays in the MIMIC-CXR dataset were within normal limits or interval follow ups on intensive care patients, duplicate or near-duplicate chest X-ray reports were removed upon manual inspection." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 611, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The style generation step described in Section 3.5 was then used to produce AI-generated chest X-ray reports in the style of each of the four radiologists. From these radiologist-generated and AI-generated chest X-ray reports, we created 23 sets of four chest X-ray reports for style evaluation by physician evaluators (i.e., the target audience for written radiology reports). In each set, three reports (corresponding to three different chest X-rays) from the same radiologist, and one AI-generated report (from a fourth chest X-ray) in the style of that radiologist were presented in random" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14682" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 100, + 73, + 354, + 147 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 73, + 354, + 147 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 73, + 354, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 73, + 354, + 147 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "31e8299fae1e4cbf86f8d5eafb3595903f8d09b439692280d5ac5ac3debcd76a.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 100, + 153, + 353, + 253 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 153, + 353, + 253 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 153, + 353, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 100, + 153, + 353, + 253 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "32f099a6333f6995f5362058da7be9d736e340f9c557e988fd85ff6ce61de19f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Overview of human expert evaluation of the style generation. In panel a, a set of radiologist write radiology reports in their own style for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " chest X-ray studies. For each written report, we extract the RadGraph representation and serialize it into the text representation. Panel b illustrates how we AI-generate a radiology report in the style of a specific radiologist, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for an input image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". To in-context learn the style of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", for " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " shots we provide a context of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "k" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " input / output pairs of serialized RadGraphs (dense content representation) together with the corresponding stylized reports as written by " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Next, to generate a report for a given image " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "I_{k}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we feed the image through our image-to-serialized model and use the generated RadGraph serialization (as indicated with a hat) as the final query of the prompt. The LLM is then prompted to return a generated report in the style of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "R_{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 66, + 269, + 527, + 391 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Panel c illustrates the human evaluation. Physician raters are provided with problems each consisting of 4 reports, 3 written by one radiologist and 1 AI-generated in the same radiologist's style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 359, + 74, + 496, + 157 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 74, + 496, + 157 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 74, + 496, + 157 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 359, + 74, + 496, + 157 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "6020536528dc701a6bfd73061b17ca07bc9db42d85a0143fc84283484fcd6da8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 364, + 160, + 492, + 259 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 160, + 492, + 259 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 160, + 492, + 259 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 364, + 160, + 492, + 259 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "a3cd6d41023cc6cba4c3ada56c100f046713517efb9e248ed24c1cb40ec72dd4.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 411, + 291, + 478 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "order. Three physician evaluators were asked to identify the AI-generated report out of the four reports and indicate whether report content, language, or report structure contributed to their choice (for more details, refer to Section A.3)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A one-sided Z-test was performed for the proportion of AI-generated reports correctly identified by the three evaluators with a null hypothesis of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", corresponding to random chance, and an alternative hypothesis of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": ">25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", corresponding to AI-generated reports being identified at a rate greater than that of random chance. Evaluators A, B, C correctly identified 5 out of 23 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(21.7\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", 5 out of 23 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(21.7\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and 4 out of 23 " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(17.4\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " AI-generated chest X-ray reports, respectively, for a mean accuracy of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "20.3\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 484, + 291, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The one-sided Z-test produced p-values of 0.648, 0.648, and 0.832 for Evaluators A, B, and C respectively, and 0.835 when pooling all evaluators together." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "One potential explanation for why evaluators identified " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "< 25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of AI-generated reports (worse than random), is variance in radiologist style. For example, our radiologists would sometimes alternate between using parentheses to highlight the chest X-ray view (e.g., \"Chest X-ray (PA and lateral views):\") and not using any parentheses (e.g.," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 479 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 411, + 526, + 479 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "\"Chest X-ray PA and lateral views\":). Human evaluators may use particular heuristics to call a report AI-generated, when faced with similar appearing reports. However, if they are not reflective of the truth, this may result in accuracy less than random." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 327, + 491, + 501, + 640 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 491, + 501, + 640 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 491, + 501, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 327, + 491, + 501, + 640 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1459383959deee99ab35732f4711eb340d1e351d99ca302ac85df4740845a98e.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 526, + 685 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 526, + 685 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 4: Human Style Evaluation: All evaluators identified the AI-generated chest X-ray report at rates lower than " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "25\\%" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 648, + 526, + 685 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " (corresponding to random chance)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 710, + 379, + 723 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 710, + 379, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 710, + 379, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 733, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We presented a novel approach for radiology report generation that disentangles the report's content from its style. Our experiments showed that our" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14683" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 71, + 292, + 368 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "method offers several advantages over the prevailing paradigm of direct image-to-report modeling. First, training a content extraction model to predict a serialized RadGraph representation from the input image helps focusing the model on the clinically relevant content which is reflected in improved performance metrics (Table 2). Second, when concatenating the content generation step with the style injection step, we observe favourable performance compared to the direct image-to-report baseline (Table 1). Third, by in-context learning the radiologist-specific mapping from serialized RadGraph to report, our method enables the generation of high quality reports that are tailored to the individual radiologist to the degree of indiscernibility using just a few example reports. To ultimately determine the clinical utility of our method, deployment studies will be an exciting venue for future work. Another promising direction would be to expand our two-step report generation paradigm to other modalities such as radiology mammograms and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 149, + 393 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 149, + 393 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 380, + 149, + 393 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 290, + 536 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 402, + 290, + 536 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A limitation of our approach is that it relies on the accuracy and effectiveness of the initially extracted RadGraph representation, as this serves as a key supervision signal in our model. Notably, RadGraphs are extracted at inference time using an automated model rather than manual expert labelling. The model achieves high performance in entity and relation extraction (Jain et al., 2021) but is susceptible to error, particularly with report inputs that contain rarer medical entities or ambiguous observations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 291, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 291, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, due to our employed LLM being served by a third party (OpenAI), reproducing our results comes at the financial costs of using Azure OpenAI's service. Another consequence of relying on this service is that we cannot guarantee the deterministically exact reproduction of our findings, as the served LLM models may change and potentially degrade over time—for instance, if models are replaced by distilled versions thereof." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 202, + 683 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 202, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 670, + 202, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "7 Ethics Considerations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 292, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A principal ethical consideration is the de-identified, credentialed medical data we worked with. In particular, responsible usage policy of the MIMIC-CXR dataset (Johnson et al., 2019) prohibits sharing access to third parties. This disqualifies the use of ChatGPT or large language model" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 206 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 71, + 526, + 206 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "APIs for prompting models to generate radiology reports from our content representations. However, cloud-based services are allowed, including the Azure OpenAI platform, which we use for deploying and prompting the gpt-3.5-turbo model. A stipulation is the monetary service costs, which are counted at a rate per one thousand tokens. These can pose financial barriers to equitable access to high-end language models (which are typically more expensive), as well as usage at scale." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 527, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 527, + 396 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 207, + 527, + 396 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Furthermore, as discussed in the Introduction section, the use of large language models is accompanied by their risks of \"hallucination\" and generating false or misleading content. These risks can be amplified in the critical setting of medical report generation. To mitigate them, we prompt the LLM not to synthesize medical content, but rather to rephrase existing content into readable, stylized prose. We assist the model through providing content serialization to report pairs as in-context examples. This is our style injection step, which we intendfully separate from the content generation step to reduce the opportunity for LLM hallucination when generating the full report prediction." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 424, + 421 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 424, + 421 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 407, + 424, + 421 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "8 Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 524, + 455 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 429, + 524, + 455 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This project was supported by AWS promotional credits." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 481, + 362, + 493 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 481, + 362, + 493 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 481, + 362, + 493 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 500, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 500, + 527, + 567 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 500, + 527, + 567 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 500, + 527, + 567 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Lisa C Adams, Daniel Truhn, Felix Busch, Avan Kader, Stefan M Niehues, Marcus R Makowski, and Keno K Bressem. 2023. Leveraging gpt-4 for post hoc transformation of free-text radiology reports into structured reporting: a multilingual feasibility study. *Radiology*, 307(4):e230725." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 527, + 632 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 527, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 576, + 527, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Imane Allaouzi, M Ben Ahmed, Badr Benamrou, and Mustapha Ouardouz. 2018. Automatic caption generation for medical images. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications, pages 1-6." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 641, + 527, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 641, + 527, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 641, + 527, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin Johnson, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 706, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 706, + 527, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 706, + 527, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020a. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14684" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 10, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 237 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 237 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 291, + 237 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020b. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 289, + 301 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 289, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 246, + 289, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhihong Chen, Yan Song, Tsung-Hui Chang, and Xiang Wan. 2020. Generating radiology reports via memory-driven transformer. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1439-1449." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 311, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 311, + 289, + 375 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 311, + 289, + 375 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 289, + 440 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 289, + 440 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 386, + 289, + 440 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Emily Tsai, Omar Almusa, and Curtis P Langlotz. 2022. Improving the factual correctness of radiology report generation with semantic rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12186." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 289, + 482 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 289, + 482 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 450, + 289, + 482 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. 2020. Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. *Minds and Machines*, 30:681–694." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 289, + 526 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 289, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 492, + 289, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael P Hartung, Ian C Bickle, Frank Gaillard, and Jeffrey P Kanne. 2020. How to create a great radiology report. RadioGraphics, 40(6):1658-1670." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 534, + 289, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 534, + 289, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 534, + 289, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4700-4708." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 698 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Saahil Jain, Ashwin Agrawal, Adriel Saporta, Steven Q. H. Truong, Du Nguyen Duong, Tan Bui, Pierre J. Chambon, Yuhao Zhang, Matthew P. Lungren, Andrew Y. Ng, Curtis P. Langlotz, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2021. Radgraph: Extracting clinical entities and relations from radiology reports. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 708, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 708, + 289, + 740 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 708, + 289, + 740 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Baoyu Jing, Pengtao Xie, and Eric Xing. 2017. On the automatic generation of medical imaging reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08195." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alistair E.W. Johnson, Tom J. Pollard, Seth J. Berkowitz, Nathaniel R. Greenbaum, Matthew P. Lungren, Deng" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 22, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chih-ying, Roger G. Mark, and Stephen Horng. 2019. Mimic-cxr, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports. Scientific Data." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 524, + 179 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 123, + 524, + 179 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Christy Y Li, Xiaodan Liang, Zhiting Hu, and Eric P Xing. 2019. Knowledge-driven encode, retrieve, paraphrase for medical image report generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6666-6673." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 524, + 274 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 524, + 274 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 185, + 524, + 274 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hao Li, Yuping Wu, Viktor Schlegel, Riza Batista-Navarro, Thanh-Tung Nguyen, Abhinav Ramesh Kashyap, Xiaojun Zeng, Daniel Beck, Stefan Winkler, and Goran Nenadic. 2023a. Pulsar: Pretraining with extracted healthcare terms for summarising patients' problems and data augmentation with black-box large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02754." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 524, + 324 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 524, + 324 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 524, + 324 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Mingjie Li, Rui Liu, Fuyu Wang, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang. 2023b. Auxiliary signal-guided knowledge encoder-decoder for medical report generation. World Wide Web, 26(1):253-270." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 332, + 524, + 397 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 332, + 524, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 332, + 524, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Fenglin Liu, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, Wei Fan, and Yuexian Zou. 2021. Exploring and distilling posterior and prior knowledge for radiology report generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13753-13762." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 524, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 405, + 524, + 460 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hoang TN Nguyen, Dong Nie, Taiwanbat Badamdorj, Yujie Liu, Yingying Zhu, Jason Truong, and Li Cheng. 2021. Automated generation of accurate\\& fluent medical x-ray reports. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12126." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 467, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 467, + 524, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 467, + 524, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 524, + 574 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 524, + 574 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 508, + 524, + 574 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hoo-Chang Shin, Kirk Roberts, Le Lu, Dina Demner-Fushman, Jianhua Yao, and Ronald M Summers. 2016. Learning to read chest x-rays: Recurrent neural cascade model for automated image annotation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2497-2506." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 524, + 647 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 524, + 647 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 581, + 524, + 647 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 524, + 710 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 655, + 524, + 710 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 717, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2015. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3156-3164." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14685" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 171 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 292, + 171 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "David Wadden, Ulme Wennberg, Yi Luan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Entity, relation, and event extraction with contextualized span representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5784-5789, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 182, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 182, + 291, + 238 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 182, + 291, + 238 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sheng Wang, Zihao Zhao, Xi Ouyang, Qian Wang, and Dinggang Shen. 2023. Chatcad: Interactive computer-aided diagnosis on medical image using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07257." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 291, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 291, + 316 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 249, + 291, + 316 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xiaosong Wang, Yifan Peng, Le Lu, Zhiyong Lu, and Ronald M Summers. 2018. Tienet: Text-image embedding network for common thorax disease classification and reporting in chest x-rays. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9049-9058." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 290, + 383 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 327, + 290, + 383 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhanyu Wang, Hongwei Han, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022a. Automated radiographic report generation purely on transformer: A multicriteria supervised approach. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(10):2803-2813." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 291, + 472 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 394, + 291, + 472 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhanyu Wang, Mingkang Tang, Lei Wang, Xiu Li, and Luping Zhou. 2022b. A medical semantic-assisted transformer for radiographic report generation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2022: 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-22, 2022, Proceedings, Part III, pages 655-664. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 291, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 483, + 291, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kelvin Xu, Jimmy Ba, Ryan Kiros, Kyunghyun Cho, Aaron Courville, Ruslan Salakhudinov, Rich Zemel, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2048-2057. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 291, + 606 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 291, + 606 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shuxin Yang, Xian Wu, Shen Ge, S Kevin Zhou, and Li Xiao. 2022. Knowledge matters: Chest radiology report generation with general and specific knowledge. Medical Image Analysis, 80:102510." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 683 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 617, + 291, + 683 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Changchang Yin, Buyue Qian, Jishang Wei, Xiaoyu Li, Xianli Zhang, Yang Li, and Qinghua Zheng. 2019. Automatic generation of medical imaging diagnostic report with hierarchical recurrent neural network. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pages 728-737. IEEE." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 694, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Feiyang Yu, Mark Endo, Rayan Krishnan, Ian Pan, Andy Tsai, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Eduardo Kaiser Ururahy Nunes Fonseca, Henrique Min Ho Lee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Andrew Y Ng, et al. 2022. Evaluating progress in automatic chest x-ray radiology report generation. medRxiv, pages 2022-08." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 160 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 527, + 160 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jianbo Yuan, Haofu Liao, Rui Luo, and Jiebo Luo. 2019. Automatic radiology report generation based on multi-view image fusion and medical concept enrichment. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention-MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13-17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22, pages 721-729. Springer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 169, + 526, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 169, + 526, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 169, + 526, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yixiao Zhang, Xiaosong Wang, Ziyue Xu, Qihang Yu, Alan Yuille, and Daguang Xu. 2020. When radiology report generation meets knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 12910-12917." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 234, + 526, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 234, + 526, + 290 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 234, + 526, + 290 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Haifeng Zhao, Jie Chen, Lili Huang, Tingting Yang, Wanhai Ding, and Chuanfu Li. 2021. Automatic generation of medical report with knowledge graph. In 2021 10th International Conference on Computing and Pattern Recognition, pages 1-1." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 302, + 377, + 317 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 302, + 377, + 317 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 302, + 377, + 317 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 324, + 468, + 337 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 324, + 468, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 324, + 468, + 337 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 Further experimental details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 524, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 524, + 382 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 342, + 524, + 382 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In the following, we provide additional details about our experimental setup including information about the model training and used infrastructures." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 526 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 525, + 526 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Training The image-to-serialized model is trained and evaluated on the official train/test split of the MIMIC-CXR (v2.0.0) dataset with 213501 and 2799 chest X-ray reports, respectively. The ground-truth RadGraph serialization associated with each study is taken from the RadGraph dataset. The model is trained for 25 epochs, with a batch size of 16, a learning rate of 0.0001, an embedding size of 512, a weight decay of 0.001, a dropout rate of 0.1, and 12 transformer blocks in the decoder." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 526, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 526, + 656 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 534, + 526, + 656 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hyperparameter Search We optimized our hyperparameters for the content generation model through grid search with the help of WandB. Figure 5 visualizes the performance of the model with a different set of hyperparameters. We search the learning rate from [0.001, 0.0001], embedding dimension from [256, 512], number of transformer decoder components from [6, 12], and weight decay rate from [0.001, 0.0001, 0]." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Infrastructure The image-to-serialized model was trained on an AWS g5.2xlarge instance with one NVIDIA A10G Tensor Core GPU. It was trained for 25 epochs or roughly 50 hours. Evaluation was dispatched on two NVIDIA RTX A4000 GPUs with 16 GB of memory. We use the Azure OpenAI service to access the gpt-3.5-turbo language model, with a cloud-based deployment." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14686" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 78, + 75, + 282, + 178 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 75, + 282, + 178 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 75, + 282, + 178 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 78, + 75, + 282, + 178 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "44e7d53174930a904abe65b765bc5e0baee0c1a1512e7f7678535948b71f2dea.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 291, + 229 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 291, + 229 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 194, + 291, + 229 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 5: Sweeps of our hyperparameter search: we use validation loss as the metric to search for best hyperparameters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 241, + 267 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 241, + 267 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 253, + 241, + 267 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 Serialization to Report Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 312 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 273, + 290, + 312 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 shows the quantitative results of our Serialization to report generation task as described in Section 4.2." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 326, + 212, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 326, + 212, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 326, + 212, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Human Style Evaluation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 454 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 346, + 290, + 454 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we provide further results on the human style evaluation of the generated reports. To reiterate the approach, three physicians were tasked to identify an AI-generated report within a set of four radiology reports: three were written by the same radiologist and the fourth one (appearing in random order) was generated using our approach using in-context examples from the same radiologist." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 291, + 591 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 455, + 291, + 591 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6 shows the cumulative count of explanations stratified by clinical evaluator (rows), as well as by whether the selection was correct or incorrect (columns). Language (e.g., word choice, grammar, and/or writing style) was the primary heuristic that evaluators used to decide whether a report was human-generated or AI-generated, followed by content (e.g., missing important details or including extraneous details), and structure (e.g., different use of numbering or section headings)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 603, + 176, + 616 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 603, + 176, + 616 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 603, + 176, + 616 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.4 LLM Prompting" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Here, we illustrate a template of our dialogue-based prompt for the LLM to generate a report prediction, with 2-shot learning to adapt to a report style. For notation, " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " are placeholders for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 623, + 290, + 730 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "-th serialization and corresponding ground truth report, respectively, and is the serialization predicted from an image in the evaluation set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 746, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- System: You are a helpful assistant that generates chest x-ray reports from key words." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 317, + 71, + 512, + 359 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 71, + 512, + 359 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 71, + 512, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 317, + 71, + 512, + 359 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "257d8f300f77c4b3ec63df38795e924b0ce46a630c34deefacc69120e183df3b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 429 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 429 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 369, + 525, + 429 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 6: Human Style Evaluation Explanations: When style evaluators attributed their choice of AI-generated report, they attributed it primarily to language and structural differences between human-generated and AI-generated reports." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 451, + 524, + 638 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 17, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 451, + 524, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 451, + 524, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 451, + 524, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 502, + 434, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 502, + 434, + 513 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 502, + 434, + 513 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Assistant: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 525, + 524, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 525, + 524, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 525, + 524, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 576, + 434, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 576, + 434, + 587 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 576, + 434, + 587 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Assistant: " + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 599, + 524, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 599, + 524, + 638 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 599, + 524, + 638 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- User: Generate a chest x-ray report from the following key words:\n" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 704 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 525, + 704 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The LLM will proceed to generate its report prediction from the evaluation serialization, which we compare against the corresponding ground truth report in the test set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 512, + 728 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 512, + 728 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 714, + 512, + 728 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.5 Natural Language Generation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 732, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "BLEU-2 is widely used in machine translation tasks; it measures the similarity between a candidate translation and one or more reference trans" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14687" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 140 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 140 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 140 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 71, + 68, + 522, + 140 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
ExamplesRadCliQ (↓)RadGraph F1 (↑)CheXbert (↑)BLEU (↑)BERT Score (↑)
01.357 ± 0.0300.722 ± 0.0060.843 ± 0.0070.388 ± 0.0050.568 ± 0.005
11.234 ± 0.0310.723 ± 0.0070.847 ± 0.0070.423 ± 0.0050.614 ± 0.005
51.125 ± 0.0300.731 ± 0.0060.852 ± 0.0070.460 ± 0.0060.652 ± 0.005
101.107 ± 0.0300.733 ± 0.0060.853 ± 0.0070.466 ± 0.0060.657 ± 0.005
", + "image_path": "38a344e670cc9ea23e6febed941b23027f5d4e136956cadee72cfe60c9578b9c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 526, + 196 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 526, + 196 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 526, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Results for the `Serialization " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 526, + 196 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\rightarrow" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 148, + 526, + 196 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Report generation task, using the ground truth serialization in place of the predicted one. The goal of this experiment is to evaluate the style generation in isolation, assuming a very strong content generation step (here the ground truth serialization of RadGraph). Note a lower RadCliQ score is better. The best row is bolded. Leveraging more in-context examples leads to better performance across all metrics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 217, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 217, + 291, + 433 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 217, + 291, + 433 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "lations by comparing their bigram overlaps. Although BLEU-2 is a fast and reliable metric, it possesses a few limitations, e.g., it does not take into account synonymous words and the proper use of grammar. We thus also adopt the BERT score, a recently proposed metric for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. It takes into account the semantic similarity between the generated text and reference text by calculating the contextual embeddings of both texts using BERT and measuring their cosine similarity. Nevertheless, BERT is a general-purpose metric and not at all optimized for capturing clinical semantics and radiological findings. This is why the included clinical accuracy metrics are most salient to our quantitative evaluation of radiology report generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "14688" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_content_list.json b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_content_list.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3dc8d8444a62e2ed0608ce2c56bbbe87d729889b --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_content_list.json @@ -0,0 +1,1867 @@ +[ + { + "type": "text", + "text": "StyleBART: Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 186, + 87, + 816, + 129 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Hanqing Wang $^{1*}$ Yajing Luo $^{1*}$ Boya Xiong $^{1}$ Guanhua Chen $^{2}$ Yun Chen $^{1\\dagger}$", + "bbox": [ + 156, + 140, + 853, + 159 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{1}$ Shanghai University of Finance and Economics", + "bbox": [ + 304, + 160, + 699, + 175 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "$^{2}$ Southern University of Science and Technology {whq, luoyajing, xiongboya}@163.sufe.edu.cn chengh3@sustech.edu.cn yunchen@sufe.edu.cn", + "bbox": [ + 282, + 175, + 719, + 225 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Abstract", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 260, + 252, + 342, + 268 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Styletistic headline generation is the task of generate a headline that not only summarizes the content of a news, but also reflects a desired style that attracts users. As style-specific newsheadline pairs are scarce, previous research has focused on unsupervised approaches using a standard headline generation dataset and monostyle corpora. In this work, we follow this line and propose StyleBART, an unsupervised approach for stylistic headline generation. Our method decorates the pretrained BART model with adapters that are responsible for different styles and allows the generation of headlines with diverse styles by simply switching the adapters. Different from previous works, StyleBART separates the task of style learning and headline generation, making it possible to freely combine the base model and the style adapters during inference. We further propose an inverse paraphrasing task to enhance the style adapters. Extensive automatic and human evaluations show that StyleBART achieves new state-of-the-art performance in the unsupervised stylistic headline generation task, producing high-quality headlines with the desired style. Code is available at https://github.com/sufenlp/StyleBART.", + "bbox": [ + 141, + 281, + 460, + 667 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "1 Introduction", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 678, + 260, + 695 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "The sequence-to-sequence-based neural headline generation (HG) model (Cao et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019) has demonstrated its ability to generate factual, concise, and fluent headlines (Chopra et al., 2016). Yet, the headlines are also expected to have stylistic attributes to draw more attention of the audiences. To address the problem, Jin et al. (2020) propose the task of Stylistic Headline Generation (SHG), which aims to generate a headline with a specified style such as humorous, romantic and clickbaity. However, acquire", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 706, + 490, + 883 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/314942157ce3d59a2ae3e772000bb13c7d96d447fc3dd8672b54cd2243b690b6.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(a)Baselines: $N\\times M$" + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 515, + 290, + 678, + 397 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/cf8cc40c907d27adbd7f319fa29576e543ec1796489167aab39720a392f44106.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "(b) StyleBART: $N + M$", + "Figure 1: Our StyleBART is training-efficient. (1) For a combination of $M$ tasks and $N$ styles, StyleBART only trains $M$ task-specific models and $N$ style-specific modules, then combines them at inference time to support each stylistic generation task. Previous works train separate $M \\times N$ models. (2) For a new style (task), StyleBART only trains a new style module (task model), however, baselines have to train many additional models to combine the new style (task) with all existing tasks (styles)." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 687, + 263, + 878, + 400 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing enough parallel data for SHG is almost impossible, as the creation of headlines with specific styles demands creativity and often consumes significant effort. Hence, researchers (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) in turn explore unsupervised approaches which only require a standard headline generation dataset and non-parallel stylistic text corpora.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 596, + 884, + 724 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Some existing works propose a pipeline method (Sudhakar et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2019; Krishna et al., 2020) which firstly generates a plain headline and then introduces the pre-specified style with a style transfer model. However, this pipeline method requires two models during inference, which brings additional latency and storage cost. Some other works (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) jointly learn a plain headline generation model on news-headline pairs, and a denoising autoencoder on the stylistic text corpus. However, these approaches require to carefully design the scheduling", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 726, + 882, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "*Co-first author with equal contribution", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 891, + 386, + 904 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "† Corresponding author", + "bbox": [ + 139, + 904, + 287, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10387", + "bbox": [ + 475, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "text": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10387-10399 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics", + "bbox": [ + 208, + 945, + 786, + 972 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and parameter sharing mechanisms between tasks. Moreover, as the task of headline generation and style learning are entangled, the entire model has to be rebuilt when facing a new style or task.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 487, + 148 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this paper, we propose StyleBART, an unsupervised SHG model based on the BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Instead of using a multitask learning framework, StyleBART disentangles the style and the specific task (e.g. headline generation) by the design of model architecture and training strategy. Intuitively, this enables StyleBART to separately train the style and task modules, then combine them as required during inference (Figure 1). Hence, StyleBART is more flexible and training-efficient compared with baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) which require training models for all style and task combinations.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 149, + 489, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, StyleBART utilizes style adapters as plug-and-play modules for the style control. The style adapters are learned at the pretraining stage through the inverse paraphrasing task on the style corpus, while the base HG model is learned at the fine-tuning stage on news-headline pairs. During inference, we achieve unsupervised SHG by switching to the target style adapter. In this way, StyleBART has the same high decoding efficiency as Jin et al. (2020), while overcoming its problems in task scheduling and inefficient training.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 359, + 489, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We evaluate StyleBART using the same three SHG tasks described in Jin et al. (2020). Both automatic and human evaluations demonstrate the superiority of our method over baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 536, + 487, + 600 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2 Approach", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 613, + 235, + 629 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.1 Problem Formulation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 639, + 331, + 653 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We denote the parallel news-headline dataset as $D = \\{\\langle x, y \\rangle\\}$ , where each pair $\\langle x, y \\rangle$ consists of a news article $x$ and its corresponding plain headline $y$ . The corpus for the $i^{\\text{th}}$ style $s_i$ is denoted as $T^{s_i} = \\{t^{s_i}\\}$ . Our goal is to generate stylistic headline $y^{s_i}$ with style $s_i$ given the news article $x$ . Note that this is an unsupervised setup, as no news article and stylistic headline pairs are available.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 659, + 489, + 789 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.2 StyleBART Architecture", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 801, + 352, + 816 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two parts: the BART model and the adapter modules. We use the BART as the base model for StyleBART. Adapters (Rebuffi et al., 2018) are light-weight bottleneck layers inserted into a base model. It is designed as a parameter-efficient method to fine", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 822, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/8356be8c8f7a02eb6b82eda497900ec74f4b0de5f5c4087354043e4bbeaab607.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 2: The architecture of StyleBART consists of the BART model and the adapter modules. The pretrained BART model is composed of $N$ encoder layers and $N$ decoder layers. The adapter module is inserted after the feed-forward sublayer in each decoder layer." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 522, + 84, + 873, + 231 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "tune the base model for a new task (Houlsby et al., 2019), language (Pfeiffer et al., 2020) or domain (Bapna et al., 2019). In StyleBART, we instead use the adapters to control the style of the model output.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 882, + 419 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Formally, following Houlsby et al. (2019), an adapter module $A$ is composed of layer normalization (LN) of the input $z \\in R^h$ , down-projection $(W_{\\mathrm{down}} \\in R^{h \\times b})$ with the bottleneck dimension $b$ , non-linear function (ReLU), up-projection $(W_{\\mathrm{up}} \\in R^{b \\times h})$ , and a residual connection with the input $z$ :", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 420, + 882, + 516 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\nA (z) = W _ {\\mathrm {u p}} ^ {T} \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {\\mathrm {d o w n}} ^ {T} \\operatorname {L N} (z)\\right) + z. \\tag {1}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 536, + 526, + 882, + 546 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We insert the adapters into each decoder layer of the base model. For each style, we have a set of style adapters. In the following, we use $\\theta^b$ to denote the set of parameters of the BART model, and $\\theta^{s_i}$ to denote that of the style adapters for style $s_i$ .", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 557, + 882, + 638 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "2.3 Training and Inference", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 648, + 737, + 663 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We divide the training process of StyleBART into three steps (Figure 3): (1) Style adapter pretraining, which learns the style adapters to control the style of the model output by pretraining on the style dataset $T^{s_i}$ ; (2) Headline generation fine-tuning, which optimizes the base model to generate plain headline on the headline dataset $D$ ; (3) Stylistic headline generation, which generates stylistic headline by switching to the target style adapters during inference.", + "bbox": [ + 505, + 668, + 882, + 829 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 1: Style Adapter Pretraining. The style adapters can be trained with the style dataset $T^{s_i}$ by the denoising auto-encoding task, which reconstructs the sentence $t^{s_i}$ from $g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})$ . Here $g_{n}$ is a noise function that generates a perturbed version", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 839, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10388", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/1efa76876f2ea1a4a193e8936c6b90908cc7a7fc04ca09e51f2ae2c160a7aecd.jpg", + "image_caption": [ + "Figure 3: Training and inference framework of StyleBART. Step 1: Style adapter pretraining; Step 2: Headline generation fine-tuning; Step 3: Stylistic headline generation." + ], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 134, + 83, + 384, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/bdee3e5d7bdfc678538513e0a06d54ce6f80c8c7eb13810defb60dd8e6f26334.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 386, + 87, + 620, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "img_path": "images/e1639078627d81ef0e1b3115ca0ac69b25aa6a650b0fb0eef48a53dbbc334f11.jpg", + "image_caption": [], + "image_footnote": [], + "bbox": [ + 621, + 96, + 860, + 269 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "of the input, such as token masking and token deletion used during BART pretraining (Lewis et al., 2020) and our baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022). However, this training method is suboptimal.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 338, + 487, + 416 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Krishna et al. (2020), the style can be loosely defined as the common patterns of lexical choice and syntactic constructions that are distinct from the content of a sentence. Considering how the noise function $g_{n}$ works, we argue that the corrupted text $g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})$ still contains the stylistic information. As a result, the model may learn to guide the style of its output with the style of its input, which deviates from our goal to control the output style with style adapters. We call this undesirable spurious correlation (Gu et al., 2019). Instead, we propose to address this issue with inverse paraphrasing method.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 420, + 487, + 627 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Inspired by Krishna et al. (2020), we replace $g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})$ with $g_{p}(t^{s_{i}})$ , which is generated by feeding $t^{s_{i}}$ to a paraphrase model trained to maximize diversity. Table 1 displays examples of stylistic sentences and their perturbed versions with the noise function $g_{n}$ and the paraphrase model $g_{p}$ . Intuitively, the paraphrase model can better strip away information from $t^{s_{i}}$ that is predictive of its original style. As a result, our model has to rely on the style adapters instead of the input sentence to control its output style, enhancing the adapters' ability for style control.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 631, + 487, + 822 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Specifically, to train the adapters for style $s_i$ , we first feed each sentence $t^{s_i}$ to the paraphrase model and get the perturbed sentence $g_p(t^{s_i})$ . Then we train the corresponding style adapters while freez-", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 826, + 487, + 890 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ing all other parameters with inverse paraphrasing:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 338, + 882, + 354 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {i}} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta^ {s _ {i}}} \\sum_ {t ^ {s _ {i}} \\in T ^ {s _ {i}}} \\log p \\left(t ^ {s _ {i}} \\mid g _ {p} \\left(t ^ {s _ {i}}\\right); \\theta^ {s _ {i}}, \\theta^ {b}\\right). \\tag {2}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 510, + 363, + 880, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Since the input is style-agnostic and the other parameters are freezing, the model has to rely on the style adapters to control its output style. We also learn a style-less adapter $\\theta^{s_0}$ in the same way except replacing $T^{s_i}$ with a dataset $T^{s_0}$ , which consists of plain text from BART pretraining.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 411, + 882, + 508 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 2: Headline Generation Fine-tuning. In this step, StyleBART learns headline generation on the headline dataset $D = \\{\\langle x,y\\rangle \\}$ . Since the headline is style-less, we insert the style-less adapters into StyleBART and finetune it on the headline generation task. This step is required to force the model to learn the task of headline generation. During finetuning, we only update the parameters of the encoder while freezing the style-less adapters and all other model parameters:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 516, + 882, + 677 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\n\\hat {\\theta} _ {e n c} ^ {b} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta_ {e n c} ^ {b}} \\sum_ {< x, y > \\in D} \\log p (y \\mid x; \\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {0}}, \\theta^ {b}). \\tag {3}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 524, + 687, + 880, + 734 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this way, we limit the computational cost, and more importantly, mitigate the catastrophic forgetting problem in style control, thus facilitating the switching of different style adapters in Step 3.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 736, + 882, + 800 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Step 3: Stylistic Headline Generating. To generate a headline in a given style, we can achieve this by replacing the style-less adapters of StyleBART with the corresponding style-specific adapters.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 809, + 882, + 873 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "2We choose plain text from BART pretraining instead of the headline generation dataset in order to separate the style and downstream task at the data level.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "1We use the STRAP model (Krishna et al., 2020).", + "bbox": [ + 134, + 903, + 438, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10389", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/ddd03c794379fbc29ba5ce79d3770089f11436f2eabb6ed8745b4925a10312cc.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Style siStylistic Sentence tsiNoised Text gn(tsi)Paraphrased Text gp(tsi)
HumorThere are few things more awkward on a blind date than looking up from your phone to realize she's left. She obviously wasn't blind at all.She [MASK] blind at all. There are few things [MASK] on a blind date than [MASK] looking up from your phone to realize she's left.The fact that she left, and the fact that she's obviously not blind, is much more awkward.
RomanceHe confessed to her that she was his most precious jewel, and that she would always be the rarest gem in his eyes.[MASK] to her that she was his most [MASK] jewel, and that she would [MASK] rarest gem in his eyes.He confessed that she was the most valuable thing in his eyes, and he would never see another one.
ClickbaitUnbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in Europe for the third time twenty years.Unbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in [MASK] for the third time twenty years.The extraordinary meeting with Bob Dylan in Europe for three times.
", + "bbox": [ + 154, + 80, + 847, + 313 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 1: Examples of sentences and their perturbed versions in three styles: humor, romance and clickbait. The noised text indicates the output after the noise function $g_{n}$ , and the paraphrased text indicates the output after passing through the paraphrase model $g_{p}$ .", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 322, + 882, + 367 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "StyleBART has already learned the task of headline generation. Therefore, by switching the style-less adapters to the style-specific adapters, we can obtain a style-specific headline generation model. We use $\\hat{\\theta}^b$ , $\\hat{\\theta}^{s_0}$ and $\\hat{\\theta}^{s_i}$ to denote the model parameters of the base model, the style-less adapters and the style adapters after Step 2. Then given a news article, StyleBART outputs its style-specific headline $y^{s_i}$ with", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 390, + 487, + 535 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "text": "\n$$\ny ^ {s _ {i}} = \\underset {y} {\\arg \\max } p (y \\mid x; \\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {i}}, \\hat {\\theta} ^ {b}). \\tag {4}\n$$\n", + "text_format": "latex", + "bbox": [ + 181, + 544, + 487, + 571 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3 Experiments", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 581, + 260, + 598 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.1 Datasets", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 606, + 228, + 621 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Following Jin et al. (2020), the experiment datasets consist of a headline generation dataset CNN-NYT, and three stylistic text datasets for humorous, romantic and clickbaity. The CNN-NYT dataset consists of 146K news-headline pairs from two sources: the New York Times (Sandhaus, 2008) and the CNN dataset (Hermann et al., 2015). We use the same dataset split as Jin et al. (2020). Each style dataset contains 500K style-specific sentences. The humor and romance datasets are collected from the novels in the corresponding genres of BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015). The clickbait dataset is obtained from The Examiner-SpamClickBait News dataset. To train the style-less adapters, we also build a style-less dataset, which consists of 500K sentences randomly sampled from BookCorpus,", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 627, + 489, + 885 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "one of the datasets used in BART pretraining. For style datasets, we use the same split as Jin et al. (2020). For the style-less dataset, we randomly sample 3,000 sentences for both the validation and test set, leaving the rest as the training set.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 390, + 884, + 472 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.2 Baselines", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 482, + 628, + 495 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We compare StyleBART with the following baselines:", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 502, + 882, + 533 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "text", + "list_items": [ + "- Neural Headline Generation (NHG): Finetuning all parameters of BART on the plain headline generation dataset.", + "- Two-Step Decoding(TSD): A two-step decoding method that first generates a plain headline and then injects style with an unsupervised style transfer model (Dai et al., 2019).", + "- Multitask: A multitask framework that jointly trains on plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with the BART model.", + "- TitleStylist (Jin et al., 2020): An approach similar to Multitask, but with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching between tasks.", + "- S-SHG (Zhan et al., 2022) $^4$ : An approach that first constructs the stem and syntax of the headline similarly to TitleStylist, and then populates that with substantive context." + ], + "bbox": [ + 507, + 535, + 882, + 807 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.3 Evaluation Metrics", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 820, + 707, + 834 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Automatic Evaluation. We use automatic evaluation to measure the quality and style of the gener", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 840, + 882, + 872 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "Our reimplemented S-SHG performs slightly worse than the original paper. However, the paper provides no open-source code or implementation details.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 879, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "3https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/therohk/examine-the-examiner", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10390", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/60805c976847b2fa8509c5d25340e233973f1aaa46c0690127a9d415fd79a90f.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
Style-lessNHG29.710.926.388.252.6-
StyleBART-N29.410.726.288.155.6-
HumorTSD*20.35.518.5---
MultiTask30.011.126.687.952.81267.6
TitleStylist27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
S-SHG26.28.222.587.4107.4702.2
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceTSD*20.55.818.7---
MultiTask30.011.426.888.153.21543.0
TitleStylist27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
S-SHG26.28.622.587.4101.0685.0
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitTSD*20.37.123.2---
MultiTask30.311.327.088.352.2392.4
TitleStylist28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
S-SHG27.08.823.587.667.9234.3
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
", + "bbox": [ + 221, + 80, + 779, + 357 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of ROUGE, BERTScore, PPL and PPL-S. TSD* result is directly cited from Li et al. (2022), while all other methods are implemented by ourselves or with the open-sourced code. StyleBART-N: StyleBART with the style-less adapters.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 366, + 882, + 411 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "ated headline. For the quality, we use ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and BERTScore (Zhang* et al., 2020) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline and PPL to evaluate its language fluency. The PPL is calculated with OpenAI GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019) finetuned on the plain headlines following Zhan et al. (2022). To evaluate the style, we use PPL-S, which computes the PPL score of the generated headline using GPT2 finetuned on the corresponding style corpus.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 435, + 487, + 596 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Human Evaluation. We conducted a human evaluation to more comprehensively assess our model. We randomly sampled 50 news articles from each test set and asked three judges to rate the outputs from TitleStylist, S-SHG and our StyleBART. To assess generation quality, we ask the judges to rate from 1 to 10 (integer values) from three aspects: 1) Relevance—how semantically relevant the headline is to the news article. 2) Attractiveness—how appealing they feel the headline is. 3) Fluency—how comprehensive and easy-to-read the headline is. We then report the average score for each aspect across all test samples and judges. For the style evaluation, we ask the judges to choose the best headline of each style from an entire set of TitleStylist, S-SHG and StyleBART's outputs. We then report the percentage of the times", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 607, + 489, + 881 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "each model is chosen as the best.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 435, + 756, + 450 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "3.4 Model Configuration", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 461, + 721, + 476 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We implemented StyleBART with the pretrained BART model using Hugging Face. We set the bottleneck dimension $b$ of the adapters to be 64. To pretrain the adapters, we use the AdamW optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with $\\beta_{1} = 0.9$ and $\\beta_{2} = 0.999$ . The learning rate is $5e - 5$ . For fine-tuning on the headline generation dataset, we use the same AdamW optimizer and learning rate. For all steps of training, we use a batch size of 8. At inference time, we use beam search with a beam size of 4. All experiments are run on a single NVIDIA RTX 2080ti GPU, except that LLaMA2-InsTuning is run on a single NVIDIA A100 40G GPU", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 482, + 882, + 690 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4 Results and Discussion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 703, + 741, + 718 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.1 Automatic Evaluation Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 728, + 789, + 743 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results of our proposed StyleBART and all baselines.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 749, + 882, + 781 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Content Relevance. We use ROUGE (R1,R2, and RL) and BERTScore (BERT) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline. As can be seen, NHG, StyleBARTN, and MultiTask achieve the highest relevance score. This can be explained by that more stylistic headlines would lose some relevance as 1) the reference headlines are style-less; 2) the stylistic head", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 790, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "5We do not include TSD, Multitask as they are much worse according to previous work and our automatic evaluation.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 891, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10391", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 522, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/d9d1c81cf72c976441de9aaff08b350d17400c9dffcb6ef41032e1580a6b1a35.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodRelevanceAttractionFluency
HumorTitleStylist5.825.607.40
S-SHG6.137.128.23
StyleBART7.047.588.42
RomanceTitleStylist6.126.067.78
S-SHG6.376.047.63
StyleBART6.707.308.40
ClickbaitTitleStylist6.006.168.00
S-SHG6.176.658.17
StyleBART6.766.968.26
", + "bbox": [ + 115, + 80, + 485, + 219 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "line may use more words outside the news body for improved creativity (Jin et al., 2020). For stylistic headline generation, TSD has the worst relevance score. StyleBART performs slightly worse than TitleStylist (-0.6 averaged RL and -0.1 averaged BERT) and better than S-SHG (+1.3 averaged RL and +0.0 averaged BERT), validating StyleBART's ability in this aspect.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 269, + 487, + 398 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Language Perplexity. We use PPL on the GPT2 fine-tuned on plain headlines to measure the fluency of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART surpasses all baselines by a significant margin except that it is slightly worse than TitleStylist. This may be because the headlines from StyleBART have stronger style and more stylistic headlines would also lose some PPL.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 410, + 489, + 538 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Style Strength. We use PPL-S to measure the style strength of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART generates headlines with the strongest style across all stylistic headline generation tasks. Compared with the baseline TitleStylist (resp. S-SHG), StyleBART obtains 119.5 (resp. 114.2) lower averaged PPL-S score. The baseline MultiTask performs the worst in style control. Moreover, StyleBART disentangles style learning and headline generation learning, thus only trains once on the headline generation dataset to support all three styles. In contrast, all baselines except TSD require training three times on the headline generation dataset for the three stylistic generation tasks.[6]", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 550, + 489, + 790 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.2 Human Evaluation Results", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 371, + 820 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 3 and Table 4 present the human evaluation results.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 828, + 485, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/931cfa0259b6f90386cb8b79ebbbc511d7382ce330afdbf948140a93e10dcd75.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 3: Human evaluation results on three aspects." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleTitleStylistS-SHGStyleBART
Humor20%34%46%
Romance22%28%50%
Clickbait32%26%42%
", + "bbox": [ + 529, + 80, + 867, + 155 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 4: The percentage of choices $(\\%)$ for the most humorous, romantic or clickbaity headlines among TitleStylist, S-SHG, and StyleBART.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 165, + 882, + 209 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Generation Quality. We assess generation quality in relevance, attraction, and fluency, as shown in Table 3. StyleBART performs the best in all three aspects compared to baselines. The results are slightly inconsistent with automatic quality evaluation. This may be explained by that automatic quality evaluation metrics favor less stylistic headlines, while humans do not have such bias.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 234, + 884, + 362 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Style Strength. We measure the style strength in Table 4. As can be seen, StyleBART has the highest average selection percentage, followed by the S-SHG model. This is consistent with what we find in the automatic measurement.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 373, + 882, + 453 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.3 Comparison with LLMs", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 464, + 746, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this part, we compare StyleBART with methods using Large Language Models (LLMs), as presented in Table 5. For GPT3.5-prompting, we perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo $^{7}$ API. We provide stylistic sentences and news-plain headline pairs in the prompt and query the model to generate stylistic headlines for the input news. For LLaMA2-InsTuning, we conduct instruction tuning with LoRA on LLaMA2 (Touvron et al., 2023) for both the inverse paraphrasing task and the news headline generation task. Then we perform stylistic headline generation during testing. Appendix A provides more details. We find that StyleBART overall generates headlines with the best content relevance and the strongest style, demonstrating the superiority of StyleBART even in the era of large language models. $^{8}$", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 486, + 882, + 760 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.4 Ablation Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 772, + 673, + 788 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Design Choices of Style Adapter Pretraining. Table 6 shows the effect of different design choices at the style adapter pretraining step. StyleBART—para represents training the adapters", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 794, + 884, + 859 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "6The baselines can also support multiple styles within one model by jointly training on a headline generation dataset and all style corpora. However, the performance will decrease according to Jin et al. (2020).", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 869, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "$^{7}$ https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5 \n $^{8}$ Note that StyleBART and these two LLM-based methods are not strictly comparable due to the difference in model size and training data. We include the comparison as a reference.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 866, + 880, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10392", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/b0793e04f2984faaf946a9f6c7e3df9454435af1777acadb768879c829f8eb4c.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodGenerationStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorGPT3.5-prompting22.75.919.585.81972.41161.3
LLaMA2-InsTuning24.57.721.686.341.7622.8
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceGPT3.5-prompting22.45.819.485.91561.21329.4
LLaMA2-InsTuning26.68.523.587.0112.6879.4
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitGPT3.5-prompting24.56.921.086.21074.04094.6
LLaMA2-InsTuning27.28.923.886.946.2353.1
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
", + "bbox": [ + 203, + 80, + 796, + 249 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/44bbc4430a81717fb6971a7e89c9211fc65c78f3d5fc158404197eefc0a257b5.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 5: Comparison results with methods based on large language models." + ], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 6: Ablation on different design choices for style adapter pretraining (Step 1). -para: StyleBART with adapter pretraining by the denoising task. $-s_0$ adapters: StyleBART without pretraining the style-less adapters." + ], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessStyleBART-N26.288.155.6-
–para26.488.157.4-
–s0 adapters26.588.257.6-
HumorStyleBART25.087.642.5602.9
–para26.088.054.41033.0
–s0 adapters18.586.2221.01620.0
RomanceStyleBART24.387.436.7560.5
–para26.288.151.81275.6
–s0 adapters18.986.4209.61824.9
ClickbaitStyleBART23.087.550.9115.5
–para24.287.743.3125.8
–s0 adapters21.087.153.6134.2
", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 294, + 485, + 481 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "with the denoising task instead of the inverse paraphrasing task. StyleBART- $s_0$ adapters fine-tune the BART model without style-less adapters at step 2, thus without pretraining the style-less adapters. As can be seen, all methods perform similarly in style-less headline generation. When it comes to stylistic headline generation, StyleBART- $s_0$ adapters decrease dramatically in both the summarization quality and the style control. The inverse paraphrasing task is crucial for style control, while slightly decreasing the relevance of the generated headline to the reference headline. This may be because the reference headlines are style-less, while the headlines produced by using the inverse paraphrasing task have a stronger style.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 579, + 489, + 821 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Trainable Parameters of Headline Generation Fine-tuning. We compare different choices of trainable parameters at the headline generation finetuning step, as illustrated in Table 7. As can be seen, all fine-tuning methods get similar scores", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 839, + 487, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/70ecf6617f6292ea21e17131569a42505352da688d12c13bc0f7a01cf50fa8fb.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [ + "Table 7: Ablation on different choices of trainable parameters for headline generation fine-tuning (Step2). enc: the encoder part. catt: the cross attention part. dec: the decoder part." + ], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
enccattdec
Style-less✓××26.988.255.6-
✓✓×26.788.257.8-
✓✓✓26.488.255.1-
Humor✓××25.087.642.5602.9
✓✓×26.188.047.2860.8
✓✓✓26.288.246.61011.3
Romance✓××24.387.436.7560.5
✓✓×25.688.045.2911.7
✓✓✓26.288.247.21172.4
Clickbait✓××23.087.550.9115.5
✓✓×23.487.650.3139.5
✓✓✓24.887.942.6156.5
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 294, + 878, + 499 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "when generating style-less headlines, indicating that fine-tuning only partial parameters is enough for learning the headline generation task. When comparing on the SHG task, only updating the encoder can best control the style of the generated headlines among all fine-tuning methods. As the style adapters are inserted at the decoder, freezing the decoder and cross-attention can better maintain their style control ability obtained during pretraining.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 593, + 884, + 753 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.5 Case Study", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 766, + 645, + 783 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "In this section, we present examples of generated stylistic headlines, as shown in Table 8. Again, we concentrate on StyleBART, TitleStylist, and S- SHG, as they outperform the other methods.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 789, + 884, + 853 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "From this example as well as others, we find that all three methods generate relevant and fluent headlines. However, StyleBART is better at style control. For example, the phrase \"won't last forever\"", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 854, + 884, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10393", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/1636a30a80ec7d054874aa8165c247586322cba363fe13eb40a0af6a47d610ad.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
News AbstractCyber monday has been the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers. But retailers are spreading their online sales throughout the thanksgiving holiday. As a result, cyber monday's growth is flattening. Analyst: cyber monday will phase out eventually.
HumorTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday flattens out for retailers
RomanceTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest single shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is still the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday won't last forever
ClickbaitTitleStylistCyber monday is flattening
S-SHGCyber monday has become the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTIs cyber monday the end of online shopping?
", + "bbox": [ + 152, + 80, + 845, + 340 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "used in the romantic headline by StyleBART is a common expression in romantic contexts. StyleBART uses questions to raise the reader's curiosity in clickbaity headline. We also observe that when generating headlines of different styles, StyleBART produces more diverse results, while TitleStylist and S-SHG are more likely to change only a few words or expressions.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 388, + 489, + 519 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "4.6 Extension to Stylistic Story Telling", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 527, + 431, + 544 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "To test whether StyleBART can flexibly combine tasks and styles, we conduct experiments on stylistic story telling. Specifically, giving the first sentence of a story, this task generates story follow-ups with a desired style. We use the ROCStories dataset (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) as the standard story telling dataset which contains around 100,000 stories. We randomly select 4080 stories for both validation and test set and leave the rest as the training set. With the dataset, we fine-tune our base model following Step 2 (Section 2.3) and combine the fine-tuned base model with existing humor/romance/clickbait style adapters for inference. In this way, we efficiently build a stylistic story telling model which supports three styles while only requiring fine-tuning once.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 548, + 489, + 804 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9 shows the automatic evaluation results. As can be seen, when switching to the style adapters, the model generates more stylistic stories (PPL-S), while the generated stories become less relevant to the reference story follow-ups (BERT). This is consistent with stylistic headline generation, demonstrating that our style adapters can be com", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 806, + 489, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/f9ba362c6b4d549fd779e55600e0816f67c0e6802ad9acc6a7e4746d0b26b3ac.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 8: Examples of the stylistic headlines generated by different methods." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessNST88.54.4-
StyleBART-N88.54.7-
Humor-0.5+0.4-17.0
RomanceStyleBART-0.4+0.4-14.4
Clickbait-1.6+23.1-968.7
", + "bbox": [ + 517, + 387, + 880, + 491 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 9: Automatic evaluation results of stylistic story telling. NST: fine-tune all BART parameters on the plain story telling data. For StyleBART, we report the score changes with respect to the StyleBART-N model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 500, + 882, + 557 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "bined with different downstream tasks to control the style of the generated text.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 583, + 882, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5 Related Work", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 629, + 665, + 643 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.1 Headline Generation", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 655, + 721, + 669 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Headline generation is the task of generating relevant and concise headlines for given news. It has various application scenarios, such as automated news writing (Li et al., 2022) and product advertising (Kanungo et al., 2022).", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 677, + 884, + 756 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Traditional approaches on headline generation rely on linguistic features and handcrafted rules (Dorr et al., 2003; Knight and Marcu, 2002). With the advancement of neural networks, neural headline generation shows its capacity to generate high quality headlines (Rush et al., 2015). However, controlling the style of these headlines remains challenging. Jin et al. (2020) propose the first unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which relies only on a standard headline generation dataset", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 758, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10394", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "and mono-style corpora. They design a multitask learning framework to jointly learn both plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching strategy. Zhan et al. (2022) further extend by decomposing the headline into style and content. They define stem and syntax as the style and generate the style first using a similar multitask framework as Jin et al. (2020). After that, substantive context is populated into that style with the conditional masked language modelling task. However, these works jointly learn style and headline generation, thus cannot support freely combination of styles and generation tasks at inference time.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 84, + 492, + 311 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "5.2 Unsupervised Text Style Transfer", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 332, + 421, + 349 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Text style transfer is to generate a sentence consistent with desired style while preserving the content of the source sentence (Shen et al., 2017). Due to the scarcity of style parallel corpora, unsupervised text style transfer is widely explored in previous works. Wu et al. (2019) regard text style transfer as a cloze task to accomplish sentiment style conversion of sentences. Dai et al. (2019) incorporates the sentiment style information through a reconstruction task. Krishna et al. (2020) redefine the style transfer problem as a paraphrase generation problem and propose a method based on reverse paraphrasing to generate the desired style. Lai et al. (2021) utilize large pretrained models such as BART and GPT-2, using BLEU scores and style classification scores as rewards, to achieve significant improvements in the transformation of formal and informal text. These models can be combined with plain headline generation model to achieve stylistic headline generation. However, they require two-steps decoding at inference time, while StyleBART generates stylistic headlines in one decoding step.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 361, + 489, + 731 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "6 Conclusion", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 112, + 756, + 247, + 771 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We propose StyleBART, an unsupervised stylistic generation method, which enables to freely combine the downstream tasks and styles by disentangling style learning and downstream task learning. Experimental results show that our model can generate content-relevant and style-intensive headlines, and can be extended to other stylistic generation tasks.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 790, + 489, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Limitations", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 83, + 615, + 98 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This work mainly explores the stylistic headline generation task. We leave the exploration of more combinations of tasks and styles such as stylistic machine translation, stylistic document summarization as future work. At the same time, our current method achieves stylistic generation by simply switching the adapters, which cannot provide fine-grained control of the style. This hinders Style-BART from meeting the diverse user demands related to style control.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 110, + 885, + 271 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Ethics Statement", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 285, + 660, + 300 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We present a training-efficient approach to build an unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which disentangles the headline generation learning and style learning. Despite the strong performance of style control, StyleBART inherits the societal impacts including some negative ones of the original BART model, such as societal biases (Milios and BehnamGhader, 2022) and misuse of language models (Tamkin et al., 2021). The implicit biases are expected to be removed by debiasing either the dataset or the model (Meade et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). StyleBART makes it possible to generate text in various (e.g. clickbait) style which can be used to propagate the malicious or offensive content (Welbl et al., 2021). Future explorations are needed to mitigate the misuse of StyleBART model.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 312, + 885, + 583 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Acknowledgements", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 509, + 600, + 680, + 615 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "This project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62106138, No. 62306132) and Shanghai Sailing Program (No. 21YF1412100). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedbacks on this work.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 627, + 885, + 708 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "References", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 510, + 736, + 608, + 751 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478.", + "Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Wenjie Li, and Sujian Li. 2018. Faithful to the original: Fact aware neural abstractive summarization. In thirty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence.", + "Sumit Chopra, Michael Auli, and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Abstractive sentence summarization with attentive recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of" + ], + "bbox": [ + 509, + 760, + 885, + 919 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10395", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 93-98, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "B. Dorr, David M. Zajic, and Richard M. Schwartz. 2003. Hedge trimmer: A parse-and-trim approach to headline generation. In HLT-NAACL 2003.", + "Jiatao Gu, Yong Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2019. Improved zero-shot neural machine translation via ignoring spurious correlations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1258-1268, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1693-1701.", + "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.", + "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Lisa Orii, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Hooks in the headline: Learning to generate headlines with controlled styles. meeting of the association for computational linguistics.", + "Yashal Shakti Kanungo, Gyanendra Das, and Sumit Negi. 2022. Cobart: Controlled, optimized, bidirectional and auto-regressive transformer for ad headline generation. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.", + "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.", + "Kevin Knight and Daniel Marcu. 2002. Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artif. Intell., 139:91-107.", + "Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. empirical methods in natural language processing." + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Huiyuan Lai, Antonio Toral, and Malvina Nissim. 2021. Generic resources are what you need: Style transfer tasks without task-specific parallel training data. Proceedings of EMNLP.", + "Michael Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. Proceedings of ACL.", + "Zhengpeng Li, Jian Wu, Jiawei Miao, and Xinmiao Yu. 2022. News headline generation based on improved decoder from transformer. Scientific Reports, 12.", + "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. meeting of the association for computational linguistics.", + "Junyang Lin, Xu Sun, Shuming Ma, and Qi Su. 2018. Global encoding for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03989.", + "Nicholas Meade, Elinor Poole-Dayan, and Siva Reddy. 2022. An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 1878-1898.", + "Aristides Milios and Parishad BehnamGhader. 2022. An analysis of social biases present in bert variants across multiple languages. ArXiv, abs/2211.14402.", + "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.", + "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020. Mad-x: An adapter-based framework for multi-task cross-lingual transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00052.", + "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.", + "Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2018. Efficient parametrization of multidomain deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).", + "Alexander M. Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.", + "Evan Sandhaus. 2008. The new york times annotated corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 6(12):e26752." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 882, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10396", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30.", + "Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pre-training for language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02450.", + "Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. \"transforming\" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3269-3279, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.", + "Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2021. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. Preprint arxiv:2102.02503.", + "Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models.", + "Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2447-2469.", + "Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. \"mask and infill\": Applying masked language model to sentiment transfer.", + "Jiaao Zhan, Yang Gao, Yu Bai, and Qianhui Liu. 2022. Stage-wise stylistic headline generation: Style generation and summarized content insertion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages" + ], + "bbox": [ + 115, + 85, + 485, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "list", + "sub_type": "ref_text", + "list_items": [ + "4489-4495. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track.", + "Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations.", + "Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Debiased contrastive learning of unsupervised sentence representations. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 6120-6130.", + "Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In The IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)." + ], + "bbox": [ + 510, + 85, + 880, + 326 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10397", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/5bc6c6c35c6b815fc6220fe16e1ba87237bcb992dfad3757fdfcde32e5a00f8b.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
Task: News Style Headline Generation
Stage 1: Learning Text StylesPlease read the following representative text with a particular style and understand its stylistic features STYLE Text: [STYLE TEXT]...
Stage 2: Learning Headline GenerationHere are some examples of news and corresponding headlines to learn how to generate news headlines:News: [NEWS]Headline: [HEADLINE]...
Stage 3: Generating Stylized HeadlinesGenerate a news headline with the previously learned style based on the news text given above:News: [NEWS]Style headline:
", + "bbox": [ + 137, + 82, + 470, + 309 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A Appendix", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 379, + 238, + 395 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.1 GPT3.5-prompting Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 411, + 374, + 426 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo API. We follow the unsupervised setup of StyleBART which assumes paired news-stylistic headlines are unavailable. As a results, we use three non-parallel stylistic sentences, five newsplain headline pairs in our data template. Table 10 shows the details. We set the the temperature to 0.5.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 437, + 489, + 565 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.2 LLaMA2-InsTuning Details", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 114, + 585, + 381, + 601 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "We sample 10,000 data points per task and construct the corresponding instruction data. Table 11 shows our data template in training and inference stages. We utilize the 40,000 instruction data jointly to fine-tune LLaMA2-7B with LoRA. The hyperparameters for the LoRA module are set as follows: lora_rank = 256, lora_alpha = 256, and lora_dropout = 0.05. The training process employs the AdamW optimizer with parameters $\\beta_{1} = 0.9$ , $\\beta_{2} = 0.999$ . We adopt a learning rate of $2e - 5$ . The training is executed with a batch size of 80 for one epoch, amounting to a total of 500 steps. After our training stage, we directly use the inference template in Table 11 to evaluate the fine-tuned model.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 611, + 489, + 852 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/aa4c510b672aa9055067bae83b614b0ecd37522cbb468403a82f4dc22e3d91c8.jpg", + "table_caption": [ + "Table 10: The data template used for GPT3.5-prompting." + ], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StageTemplate
TrainingInstructionInverse Paraphrasing Task
Convert the following sentence to its [STYLE] version.
InputText: [PARAPHRASED TEXT]
Output[STYLE] version text: [STYLISTIC TEXT]
Headline Generation Task
InstructionRead the following news abstract and write a headline for it.
InputNews: [NEWS]
OutputHeadline: [HEADLINE]
Stylistic Headline Generation
InstructionRead the following news abstract and a write a [STYLE] version headline of the news.
InputNews: [NEWS]
Output[STYLE] version headline:
", + "bbox": [ + 514, + 80, + 887, + 323 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 11: The data template used for LLaMA2-InsTuning training and inference stage.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 332, + 884, + 361 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "A.3 Comparison with TitleStylist-BART", + "text_level": 1, + "bbox": [ + 507, + 387, + 840, + 401 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "TitleStylist is initialized using the MASS model, a pretrained model with an encoder-decoder structure similar to BART. We adopt the methodology employed in TitleStylist and apply it to the BART model. We execute both TitleStylist-MASS (with their open-source code) and TitleStylist-BART (with our reimplemented code). As shown in Table 12, We can find that these two variations yield similar ROUGE and BERTScore results while TitleStylist-MASS gets better PPL and PPL-S scores. Therefore, we present the results for TitleStylist-MASS in this paper, as it demonstrates better performance and is consistent with the original paper.", + "bbox": [ + 507, + 407, + 884, + 632 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "text": "9Our training loss shows no significant reductions after 150 steps when using a batch size of 80. Therefore, we do not use the full dataset as larger dataset requires more computation and only brings marginal performance improvement.", + "bbox": [ + 112, + 868, + 487, + 917 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10398", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 927, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "img_path": "images/7582eb29776cd47fb376a068801627b945c32c7c75ed8868f4afa38ec70db417.jpg", + "table_caption": [], + "table_footnote": [], + "table_body": "
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorTitleStylist-BART28.210.024.987.768.5839.3
TitleStylist-MASS27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
RomanceTitleStylist-BART28.410.125.087.762.6923.7
TitleStylist-MASS27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
ClickbaitTitleStylist-BART28.29.824.987.748.2192.9
TitleStylist-MASS28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
", + "bbox": [ + 200, + 419, + 801, + 552 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "text", + "text": "Table 12: Comparison results of TitleStylist-BART and Titlelist-MASS.", + "bbox": [ + 250, + 562, + 742, + 576 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "text": "10399", + "bbox": [ + 477, + 928, + 524, + 940 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_model.json b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_model.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25e86e8a68a43af306caf160d1c508f751d58e36 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_model.json @@ -0,0 +1,2349 @@ +[ + [ + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.187, + 0.089, + 0.817, + 0.13 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "StyleBART: Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.157, + 0.141, + 0.854, + 0.16 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hanqing Wang\\(^{1*}\\) Yajing Luo\\(^{1*}\\) Boya Xiong\\(^{1}\\) Guanhua Chen\\(^{2}\\) Yun Chen\\(^{1\\dagger}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.305, + 0.161, + 0.7, + 0.176 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{1}\\)Shanghai University of Finance and Economics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.284, + 0.177, + 0.721, + 0.226 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{2}\\)Southern University of Science and Technology {whq, luoyajing, xiongboya}@163.sufe.edu.cn chengh3@sustech.edu.cn yunchen@sufe.edu.cn" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.262, + 0.253, + 0.343, + 0.269 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Abstract" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.142, + 0.282, + 0.461, + 0.668 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Styletistic headline generation is the task of generate a headline that not only summarizes the content of a news, but also reflects a desired style that attracts users. As style-specific newsheadline pairs are scarce, previous research has focused on unsupervised approaches using a standard headline generation dataset and monostyle corpora. In this work, we follow this line and propose StyleBART, an unsupervised approach for stylistic headline generation. Our method decorates the pretrained BART model with adapters that are responsible for different styles and allows the generation of headlines with diverse styles by simply switching the adapters. Different from previous works, StyleBART separates the task of style learning and headline generation, making it possible to freely combine the base model and the style adapters during inference. We further propose an inverse paraphrasing task to enhance the style adapters. Extensive automatic and human evaluations show that StyleBART achieves new state-of-the-art performance in the unsupervised stylistic headline generation task, producing high-quality headlines with the desired style. Code is available at https://github.com/sufenlp/StyleBART." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.68, + 0.262, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1 Introduction" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.707, + 0.491, + 0.884 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "The sequence-to-sequence-based neural headline generation (HG) model (Cao et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019) has demonstrated its ability to generate factual, concise, and fluent headlines (Chopra et al., 2016). Yet, the headlines are also expected to have stylistic attributes to draw more attention of the audiences. To address the problem, Jin et al. (2020) propose the task of Stylistic Headline Generation (SHG), which aims to generate a headline with a specified style such as humorous, romantic and clickbaity. However, acquire" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.516, + 0.291, + 0.68, + 0.398 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.532, + 0.403, + 0.672, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(a)Baselines: \\(N\\times M\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.689, + 0.264, + 0.88, + 0.401 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.708, + 0.403, + 0.86, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "(b) StyleBART: \\(N + M\\)" + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.428, + 0.885, + 0.571 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 1: Our StyleBART is training-efficient. (1) For a combination of \\( M \\) tasks and \\( N \\) styles, StyleBART only trains \\( M \\) task-specific models and \\( N \\) style-specific modules, then combines them at inference time to support each stylistic generation task. Previous works train separate \\( M \\times N \\) models. (2) For a new style (task), StyleBART only trains a new style module (task model), however, baselines have to train many additional models to combine the new style (task) with all existing tasks (styles)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.597, + 0.885, + 0.725 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing enough parallel data for SHG is almost impossible, as the creation of headlines with specific styles demands creativity and often consumes significant effort. Hence, researchers (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) in turn explore unsupervised approaches which only require a standard headline generation dataset and non-parallel stylistic text corpora." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.727, + 0.884, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Some existing works propose a pipeline method (Sudhakar et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2019; Krishna et al., 2020) which firstly generates a plain headline and then introduces the pre-specified style with a style transfer model. However, this pipeline method requires two models during inference, which brings additional latency and storage cost. Some other works (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) jointly learn a plain headline generation model on news-headline pairs, and a denoising autoencoder on the stylistic text corpus. However, these approaches require to carefully design the scheduling" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.892, + 0.388, + 0.905 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "*Co-first author with equal contribution" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.905, + 0.288, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "† Corresponding author" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.141, + 0.892, + 0.388, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.477, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10387" + }, + { + "type": "footer", + "bbox": [ + 0.21, + 0.946, + 0.788, + 0.973 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10387-10399 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.489, + 0.149 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and parameter sharing mechanisms between tasks. Moreover, as the task of headline generation and style learning are entangled, the entire model has to be rebuilt when facing a new style or task." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.15, + 0.49, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this paper, we propose StyleBART, an unsupervised SHG model based on the BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Instead of using a multitask learning framework, StyleBART disentangles the style and the specific task (e.g. headline generation) by the design of model architecture and training strategy. Intuitively, this enables StyleBART to separately train the style and task modules, then combine them as required during inference (Figure 1). Hence, StyleBART is more flexible and training-efficient compared with baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) which require training models for all style and task combinations." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.36, + 0.49, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, StyleBART utilizes style adapters as plug-and-play modules for the style control. The style adapters are learned at the pretraining stage through the inverse paraphrasing task on the style corpus, while the base HG model is learned at the fine-tuning stage on news-headline pairs. During inference, we achieve unsupervised SHG by switching to the target style adapter. In this way, StyleBART has the same high decoding efficiency as Jin et al. (2020), while overcoming its problems in task scheduling and inefficient training." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.537, + 0.489, + 0.601 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We evaluate StyleBART using the same three SHG tasks described in Jin et al. (2020). Both automatic and human evaluations demonstrate the superiority of our method over baselines." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.614, + 0.236, + 0.63 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2 Approach" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.64, + 0.332, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.1 Problem Formulation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.661, + 0.49, + 0.79 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We denote the parallel news-headline dataset as \\( D = \\{\\langle x, y \\rangle\\} \\), where each pair \\( \\langle x, y \\rangle \\) consists of a news article \\( x \\) and its corresponding plain headline \\( y \\). The corpus for the \\( i^{\\text{th}} \\) style \\( s_i \\) is denoted as \\( T^{s_i} = \\{t^{s_i}\\} \\). Our goal is to generate stylistic headline \\( y^{s_i} \\) with style \\( s_i \\) given the news article \\( x \\). Note that this is an unsupervised setup, as no news article and stylistic headline pairs are available." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.802, + 0.354, + 0.817 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.2 StyleBART Architecture" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.823, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two parts: the BART model and the adapter modules. We use the BART as the base model for StyleBART. Adapters (Rebuffi et al., 2018) are light-weight bottleneck layers inserted into a base model. It is designed as a parameter-efficient method to fine" + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.523, + 0.085, + 0.875, + 0.232 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.243, + 0.883, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 2: The architecture of StyleBART consists of the BART model and the adapter modules. The pretrained BART model is composed of \\(N\\) encoder layers and \\(N\\) decoder layers. The adapter module is inserted after the feed-forward sublayer in each decoder layer." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.34, + 0.884, + 0.42 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "tune the base model for a new task (Houlsby et al., 2019), language (Pfeiffer et al., 2020) or domain (Bapna et al., 2019). In StyleBART, we instead use the adapters to control the style of the model output." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.421, + 0.884, + 0.517 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Formally, following Houlsby et al. (2019), an adapter module \\(A\\) is composed of layer normalization (LN) of the input \\(z \\in R^h\\), down-projection \\((W_{\\mathrm{down}} \\in R^{h \\times b})\\) with the bottleneck dimension \\(b\\), non-linear function (ReLU), up-projection \\((W_{\\mathrm{up}} \\in R^{b \\times h})\\), and a residual connection with the input \\(z\\):" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.537, + 0.527, + 0.883, + 0.548 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\nA (z) = W _ {\\mathrm {u p}} ^ {T} \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {\\mathrm {d o w n}} ^ {T} \\operatorname {L N} (z)\\right) + z. \\tag {1}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.558, + 0.884, + 0.639 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We insert the adapters into each decoder layer of the base model. For each style, we have a set of style adapters. In the following, we use \\(\\theta^b\\) to denote the set of parameters of the BART model, and \\(\\theta^{s_i}\\) to denote that of the style adapters for style \\(s_i\\)." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.649, + 0.738, + 0.664 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2.3 Training and Inference" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.507, + 0.669, + 0.884, + 0.83 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We divide the training process of StyleBART into three steps (Figure 3): (1) Style adapter pretraining, which learns the style adapters to control the style of the model output by pretraining on the style dataset \\( T^{s_i} \\); (2) Headline generation fine-tuning, which optimizes the base model to generate plain headline on the headline dataset \\( D \\); (3) Stylistic headline generation, which generates stylistic headline by switching to the target style adapters during inference." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.84, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 1: Style Adapter Pretraining. The style adapters can be trained with the style dataset \\( T^{s_i} \\) by the denoising auto-encoding task, which reconstructs the sentence \\( t^{s_i} \\) from \\( g_{n}(t^{s_{i}}) \\). Here \\( g_{n} \\) is a noise function that generates a perturbed version" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10388" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.084, + 0.385, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.387, + 0.089, + 0.621, + 0.271 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 0.623, + 0.097, + 0.862, + 0.27 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "image_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.285, + 0.882, + 0.315 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Figure 3: Training and inference framework of StyleBART. Step 1: Style adapter pretraining; Step 2: Headline generation fine-tuning; Step 3: Stylistic headline generation." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.339, + 0.489, + 0.417 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "of the input, such as token masking and token deletion used during BART pretraining (Lewis et al., 2020) and our baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022). However, this training method is suboptimal." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.421, + 0.489, + 0.629 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Krishna et al. (2020), the style can be loosely defined as the common patterns of lexical choice and syntactic constructions that are distinct from the content of a sentence. Considering how the noise function \\( g_{n} \\) works, we argue that the corrupted text \\( g_{n}(t^{s_{i}}) \\) still contains the stylistic information. As a result, the model may learn to guide the style of its output with the style of its input, which deviates from our goal to control the output style with style adapters. We call this undesirable spurious correlation (Gu et al., 2019). Instead, we propose to address this issue with inverse paraphrasing method." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.632, + 0.489, + 0.824 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Inspired by Krishna et al. (2020), we replace \\( g_{n}(t^{s_{i}}) \\) with \\( g_{p}(t^{s_{i}}) \\), which is generated by feeding \\( t^{s_{i}} \\) to a paraphrase model trained to maximize diversity. Table 1 displays examples of stylistic sentences and their perturbed versions with the noise function \\( g_{n} \\) and the paraphrase model \\( g_{p} \\). Intuitively, the paraphrase model can better strip away information from \\( t^{s_{i}} \\) that is predictive of its original style. As a result, our model has to rely on the style adapters instead of the input sentence to control its output style, enhancing the adapters' ability for style control." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.827, + 0.489, + 0.891 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Specifically, to train the adapters for style \\( s_i \\), we first feed each sentence \\( t^{s_i} \\) to the paraphrase model and get the perturbed sentence \\( g_p(t^{s_i}) \\). Then we train the corresponding style adapters while freez-" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.34, + 0.883, + 0.355 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ing all other parameters with inverse paraphrasing:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.365, + 0.882, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {i}} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta^ {s _ {i}}} \\sum_ {t ^ {s _ {i}} \\in T ^ {s _ {i}}} \\log p \\left(t ^ {s _ {i}} \\mid g _ {p} \\left(t ^ {s _ {i}}\\right); \\theta^ {s _ {i}}, \\theta^ {b}\\right). \\tag {2}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.412, + 0.884, + 0.509 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Since the input is style-agnostic and the other parameters are freezing, the model has to rely on the style adapters to control its output style. We also learn a style-less adapter \\(\\theta^{s_0}\\) in the same way except replacing \\(T^{s_i}\\) with a dataset \\(T^{s_0}\\), which consists of plain text from BART pretraining." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.517, + 0.884, + 0.678 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 2: Headline Generation Fine-tuning. In this step, StyleBART learns headline generation on the headline dataset \\( D = \\{\\langle x,y\\rangle \\} \\). Since the headline is style-less, we insert the style-less adapters into StyleBART and finetune it on the headline generation task. This step is required to force the model to learn the task of headline generation. During finetuning, we only update the parameters of the encoder while freezing the style-less adapters and all other model parameters:" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.525, + 0.688, + 0.882, + 0.735 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\n\\hat {\\theta} _ {e n c} ^ {b} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta_ {e n c} ^ {b}} \\sum_ {< x, y > \\in D} \\log p (y \\mid x; \\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {0}}, \\theta^ {b}). \\tag {3}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.737, + 0.883, + 0.801 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this way, we limit the computational cost, and more importantly, mitigate the catastrophic forgetting problem in style control, thus facilitating the switching of different style adapters in Step 3." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.81, + 0.884, + 0.874 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Step 3: Stylistic Headline Generating. To generate a headline in a given style, we can achieve this by replacing the style-less adapters of StyleBART with the corresponding style-specific adapters." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.881, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "2We choose plain text from BART pretraining instead of the headline generation dataset in order to separate the style and downstream task at the data level." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.136, + 0.904, + 0.439, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "1We use the STRAP model (Krishna et al., 2020)." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10389" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.156, + 0.082, + 0.848, + 0.314 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Style siStylistic Sentence tsiNoised Text gn(tsi)Paraphrased Text gp(tsi)
HumorThere are few things more awkward on a blind date than looking up from your phone to realize she's left. She obviously wasn't blind at all.She [MASK] blind at all. There are few things [MASK] on a blind date than [MASK] looking up from your phone to realize she's left.The fact that she left, and the fact that she's obviously not blind, is much more awkward.
RomanceHe confessed to her that she was his most precious jewel, and that she would always be the rarest gem in his eyes.[MASK] to her that she was his most [MASK] jewel, and that she would [MASK] rarest gem in his eyes.He confessed that she was the most valuable thing in his eyes, and he would never see another one.
ClickbaitUnbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in Europe for the third time twenty years.Unbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in [MASK] for the third time twenty years.The extraordinary meeting with Bob Dylan in Europe for three times.
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.323, + 0.884, + 0.368 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 1: Examples of sentences and their perturbed versions in three styles: humor, romance and clickbait. The noised text indicates the output after the noise function \\( g_{n} \\), and the paraphrased text indicates the output after passing through the paraphrase model \\( g_{p} \\)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.391, + 0.489, + 0.536 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "StyleBART has already learned the task of headline generation. Therefore, by switching the style-less adapters to the style-specific adapters, we can obtain a style-specific headline generation model. We use \\(\\hat{\\theta}^b\\), \\(\\hat{\\theta}^{s_0}\\) and \\(\\hat{\\theta}^{s_i}\\) to denote the model parameters of the base model, the style-less adapters and the style adapters after Step 2. Then given a news article, StyleBART outputs its style-specific headline \\(y^{s_i}\\) with" + }, + { + "type": "equation", + "bbox": [ + 0.182, + 0.545, + 0.488, + 0.573 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\[\ny ^ {s _ {i}} = \\underset {y} {\\arg \\max } p (y \\mid x; \\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {i}}, \\hat {\\theta} ^ {b}). \\tag {4}\n\\]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.582, + 0.262, + 0.599 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3 Experiments" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.607, + 0.229, + 0.622 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.1 Datasets" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.628, + 0.49, + 0.886 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Following Jin et al. (2020), the experiment datasets consist of a headline generation dataset CNN-NYT, and three stylistic text datasets for humorous, romantic and clickbaity. The CNN-NYT dataset consists of 146K news-headline pairs from two sources: the New York Times (Sandhaus, 2008) and the CNN dataset (Hermann et al., 2015). We use the same dataset split as Jin et al. (2020). Each style dataset contains 500K style-specific sentences. The humor and romance datasets are collected from the novels in the corresponding genres of BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015). The clickbait dataset is obtained from The Examiner-SpamClickBait News dataset. To train the style-less adapters, we also build a style-less dataset, which consists of 500K sentences randomly sampled from BookCorpus," + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.391, + 0.885, + 0.473 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "one of the datasets used in BART pretraining. For style datasets, we use the same split as Jin et al. (2020). For the style-less dataset, we randomly sample 3,000 sentences for both the validation and test set, leaving the rest as the training set." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.483, + 0.63, + 0.497 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.2 Baselines" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.503, + 0.884, + 0.534 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We compare StyleBART with the following baselines:" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.536, + 0.884, + 0.583 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Neural Headline Generation (NHG): Finetuning all parameters of BART on the plain headline generation dataset." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.584, + 0.882, + 0.647 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Two-Step Decoding(TSD): A two-step decoding method that first generates a plain headline and then injects style with an unsupervised style transfer model (Dai et al., 2019)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.648, + 0.882, + 0.696 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- Multitask: A multitask framework that jointly trains on plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with the BART model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.697, + 0.884, + 0.745 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- TitleStylist (Jin et al., 2020): An approach similar to Multitask, but with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching between tasks." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.745, + 0.882, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "- S-SHG (Zhan et al., 2022)\\(^4\\): An approach that first constructs the stem and syntax of the headline similarly to TitleStylist, and then populates that with substantive context." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.536, + 0.884, + 0.808 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.821, + 0.708, + 0.835 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.3 Evaluation Metrics" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.841, + 0.884, + 0.873 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Automatic Evaluation. We use automatic evaluation to measure the quality and style of the gener" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.881, + 0.884, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Our reimplemented S-SHG performs slightly worse than the original paper. However, the paper provides no open-source code or implementation details." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.486, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/therohk/examine-the-examiner" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10390" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.223, + 0.082, + 0.78, + 0.358 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
Style-lessNHG29.710.926.388.252.6-
StyleBART-N29.410.726.288.155.6-
HumorTSD*20.35.518.5---
MultiTask30.011.126.687.952.81267.6
TitleStylist27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
S-SHG26.28.222.587.4107.4702.2
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceTSD*20.55.818.7---
MultiTask30.011.426.888.153.21543.0
TitleStylist27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
S-SHG26.28.622.587.4101.0685.0
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitTSD*20.37.123.2---
MultiTask30.311.327.088.352.2392.4
TitleStylist28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
S-SHG27.08.823.587.667.9234.3
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.367, + 0.884, + 0.412 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of ROUGE, BERTScore, PPL and PPL-S. TSD* result is directly cited from Li et al. (2022), while all other methods are implemented by ourselves or with the open-sourced code. StyleBART-N: StyleBART with the style-less adapters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.436, + 0.489, + 0.598 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "ated headline. For the quality, we use ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and BERTScore (Zhang* et al., 2020) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline and PPL to evaluate its language fluency. The PPL is calculated with OpenAI GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019) finetuned on the plain headlines following Zhan et al. (2022). To evaluate the style, we use PPL-S, which computes the PPL score of the generated headline using GPT2 finetuned on the corresponding style corpus." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.608, + 0.49, + 0.882 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Human Evaluation. We conducted a human evaluation to more comprehensively assess our model. We randomly sampled 50 news articles from each test set and asked three judges to rate the outputs from TitleStylist, S-SHG and our StyleBART. To assess generation quality, we ask the judges to rate from 1 to 10 (integer values) from three aspects: 1) Relevance—how semantically relevant the headline is to the news article. 2) Attractiveness—how appealing they feel the headline is. 3) Fluency—how comprehensive and easy-to-read the headline is. We then report the average score for each aspect across all test samples and judges. For the style evaluation, we ask the judges to choose the best headline of each style from an entire set of TitleStylist, S-SHG and StyleBART's outputs. We then report the percentage of the times" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.436, + 0.757, + 0.451 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "each model is chosen as the best." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.462, + 0.722, + 0.478 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "3.4 Model Configuration" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.483, + 0.884, + 0.692 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We implemented StyleBART with the pretrained BART model using Hugging Face. We set the bottleneck dimension \\( b \\) of the adapters to be 64. To pretrain the adapters, we use the AdamW optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with \\( \\beta_{1} = 0.9 \\) and \\( \\beta_{2} = 0.999 \\). The learning rate is \\( 5e - 5 \\). For fine-tuning on the headline generation dataset, we use the same AdamW optimizer and learning rate. For all steps of training, we use a batch size of 8. At inference time, we use beam search with a beam size of 4. All experiments are run on a single NVIDIA RTX 2080ti GPU, except that LLaMA2-InsTuning is run on a single NVIDIA A100 40G GPU" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.704, + 0.742, + 0.719 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4 Results and Discussion" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.729, + 0.791, + 0.744 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.1 Automatic Evaluation Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.75, + 0.883, + 0.782 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results of our proposed StyleBART and all baselines." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.791, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Content Relevance. We use ROUGE (R1,R2, and RL) and BERTScore (BERT) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline. As can be seen, NHG, StyleBARTN, and MultiTask achieve the highest relevance score. This can be explained by that more stylistic headlines would lose some relevance as 1) the reference headlines are style-less; 2) the stylistic head" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.892, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5We do not include TSD, Multitask as they are much worse according to previous work and our automatic evaluation." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.524, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10391" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.082, + 0.486, + 0.22 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodRelevanceAttractionFluency
HumorTitleStylist5.825.607.40
S-SHG6.137.128.23
StyleBART7.047.588.42
RomanceTitleStylist6.126.067.78
S-SHG6.376.047.63
StyleBART6.707.308.40
ClickbaitTitleStylist6.006.168.00
S-SHG6.176.658.17
StyleBART6.766.968.26
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.125, + 0.229, + 0.475, + 0.244 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3: Human evaluation results on three aspects." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.271, + 0.488, + 0.399 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "line may use more words outside the news body for improved creativity (Jin et al., 2020). For stylistic headline generation, TSD has the worst relevance score. StyleBART performs slightly worse than TitleStylist (-0.6 averaged RL and -0.1 averaged BERT) and better than S-SHG (+1.3 averaged RL and +0.0 averaged BERT), validating StyleBART's ability in this aspect." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.411, + 0.49, + 0.539 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Language Perplexity. We use PPL on the GPT2 fine-tuned on plain headlines to measure the fluency of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART surpasses all baselines by a significant margin except that it is slightly worse than TitleStylist. This may be because the headlines from StyleBART have stronger style and more stylistic headlines would also lose some PPL." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.551, + 0.49, + 0.791 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Style Strength. We use PPL-S to measure the style strength of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART generates headlines with the strongest style across all stylistic headline generation tasks. Compared with the baseline TitleStylist (resp. S-SHG), StyleBART obtains 119.5 (resp. 114.2) lower averaged PPL-S score. The baseline MultiTask performs the worst in style control. Moreover, StyleBART disentangles style learning and headline generation learning, thus only trains once on the headline generation dataset to support all three styles. In contrast, all baselines except TSD require training three times on the headline generation dataset for the three stylistic generation tasks.[6]" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.807, + 0.373, + 0.821 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.2 Human Evaluation Results" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.829, + 0.487, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 3 and Table 4 present the human evaluation results." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.53, + 0.082, + 0.868, + 0.156 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleTitleStylistS-SHGStyleBART
Humor20%34%46%
Romance22%28%50%
Clickbait32%26%42%
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.166, + 0.884, + 0.21 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 4: The percentage of choices \\((\\%)\\) for the most humorous, romantic or clickbaity headlines among TitleStylist, S-SHG, and StyleBART." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.235, + 0.885, + 0.363 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Generation Quality. We assess generation quality in relevance, attraction, and fluency, as shown in Table 3. StyleBART performs the best in all three aspects compared to baselines. The results are slightly inconsistent with automatic quality evaluation. This may be explained by that automatic quality evaluation metrics favor less stylistic headlines, while humans do not have such bias." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.374, + 0.884, + 0.454 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Style Strength. We measure the style strength in Table 4. As can be seen, StyleBART has the highest average selection percentage, followed by the S-SHG model. This is consistent with what we find in the automatic measurement." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.466, + 0.747, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.3 Comparison with LLMs" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.487, + 0.884, + 0.761 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this part, we compare StyleBART with methods using Large Language Models (LLMs), as presented in Table 5. For GPT3.5-prompting, we perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo\\(^{7}\\) API. We provide stylistic sentences and news-plain headline pairs in the prompt and query the model to generate stylistic headlines for the input news. For LLaMA2-InsTuning, we conduct instruction tuning with LoRA on LLaMA2 (Touvron et al., 2023) for both the inverse paraphrasing task and the news headline generation task. Then we perform stylistic headline generation during testing. Appendix A provides more details. We find that StyleBART overall generates headlines with the best content relevance and the strongest style, demonstrating the superiority of StyleBART even in the era of large language models.\\(^{8}\\)" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.773, + 0.674, + 0.789 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.4 Ablation Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.795, + 0.885, + 0.86 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Design Choices of Style Adapter Pretraining. Table 6 shows the effect of different design choices at the style adapter pretraining step. StyleBART—para represents training the adapters" + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.87, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6The baselines can also support multiple styles within one model by jointly training on a headline generation dataset and all style corpora. However, the performance will decrease according to Jin et al. (2020)." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.868, + 0.882, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "\\(^{7}\\)https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5 \n\\(^{8}\\)Note that StyleBART and these two LLM-based methods are not strictly comparable due to the difference in model size and training data. We include the comparison as a reference." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10392" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.205, + 0.082, + 0.798, + 0.25 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodGenerationStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorGPT3.5-prompting22.75.919.585.81972.41161.3
LLaMA2-InsTuning24.57.721.686.341.7622.8
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceGPT3.5-prompting22.45.819.485.91561.21329.4
LLaMA2-InsTuning26.68.523.587.0112.6879.4
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitGPT3.5-prompting24.56.921.086.21074.04094.6
LLaMA2-InsTuning27.28.923.886.946.2353.1
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.242, + 0.259, + 0.755, + 0.274 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 5: Comparison results with methods based on large language models." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.122, + 0.296, + 0.487, + 0.482 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessStyleBART-N26.288.155.6-
–para26.488.157.4-
–s0 adapters26.588.257.6-
HumorStyleBART25.087.642.5602.9
–para26.088.054.41033.0
–s0 adapters18.586.2221.01620.0
RomanceStyleBART24.387.436.7560.5
–para26.288.151.81275.6
–s0 adapters18.986.4209.61824.9
ClickbaitStyleBART23.087.550.9115.5
–para24.287.743.3125.8
–s0 adapters21.087.153.6134.2
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.492, + 0.49, + 0.551 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 6: Ablation on different design choices for style adapter pretraining (Step 1). -para: StyleBART with adapter pretraining by the denoising task. \\(-s_0\\) adapters: StyleBART without pretraining the style-less adapters." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.58, + 0.49, + 0.822 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "with the denoising task instead of the inverse paraphrasing task. StyleBART-\\(s_0\\) adapters fine-tune the BART model without style-less adapters at step 2, thus without pretraining the style-less adapters. As can be seen, all methods perform similarly in style-less headline generation. When it comes to stylistic headline generation, StyleBART-\\(s_0\\) adapters decrease dramatically in both the summarization quality and the style control. The inverse paraphrasing task is crucial for style control, while slightly decreasing the relevance of the generated headline to the reference headline. This may be because the reference headlines are style-less, while the headlines produced by using the inverse paraphrasing task have a stronger style." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.84, + 0.489, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Trainable Parameters of Headline Generation Fine-tuning. We compare different choices of trainable parameters at the headline generation finetuning step, as illustrated in Table 7. As can be seen, all fine-tuning methods get similar scores" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.296, + 0.879, + 0.5 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
enccattdec
Style-less✓××26.988.255.6-
✓✓×26.788.257.8-
✓✓✓26.488.255.1-
Humor✓××25.087.642.5602.9
✓✓×26.188.047.2860.8
✓✓✓26.288.246.61011.3
Romance✓××24.387.436.7560.5
✓✓×25.688.045.2911.7
✓✓✓26.288.247.21172.4
Clickbait✓××23.087.550.9115.5
✓✓×23.487.650.3139.5
✓✓✓24.887.942.6156.5
" + }, + { + "type": "table_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.509, + 0.887, + 0.568 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 7: Ablation on different choices of trainable parameters for headline generation fine-tuning (Step2). enc: the encoder part. catt: the cross attention part. dec: the decoder part." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.594, + 0.885, + 0.754 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "when generating style-less headlines, indicating that fine-tuning only partial parameters is enough for learning the headline generation task. When comparing on the SHG task, only updating the encoder can best control the style of the generated headlines among all fine-tuning methods. As the style adapters are inserted at the decoder, freezing the decoder and cross-attention can better maintain their style control ability obtained during pretraining." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.768, + 0.646, + 0.784 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.5 Case Study" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.79, + 0.885, + 0.854 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "In this section, we present examples of generated stylistic headlines, as shown in Table 8. Again, we concentrate on StyleBART, TitleStylist, and S- SHG, as they outperform the other methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.856, + 0.885, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "From this example as well as others, we find that all three methods generate relevant and fluent headlines. However, StyleBART is better at style control. For example, the phrase \"won't last forever\"" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10393" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.154, + 0.082, + 0.846, + 0.341 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
News AbstractCyber monday has been the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers. But retailers are spreading their online sales throughout the thanksgiving holiday. As a result, cyber monday's growth is flattening. Analyst: cyber monday will phase out eventually.
HumorTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday flattens out for retailers
RomanceTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest single shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is still the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday won't last forever
ClickbaitTitleStylistCyber monday is flattening
S-SHGCyber monday has become the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTIs cyber monday the end of online shopping?
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.24, + 0.35, + 0.756, + 0.365 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 8: Examples of the stylistic headlines generated by different methods." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.39, + 0.49, + 0.52 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "used in the romantic headline by StyleBART is a common expression in romantic contexts. StyleBART uses questions to raise the reader's curiosity in clickbaity headline. We also observe that when generating headlines of different styles, StyleBART produces more diverse results, while TitleStylist and S-SHG are more likely to change only a few words or expressions." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.529, + 0.433, + 0.545 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4.6 Extension to Stylistic Story Telling" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.549, + 0.49, + 0.806 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "To test whether StyleBART can flexibly combine tasks and styles, we conduct experiments on stylistic story telling. Specifically, giving the first sentence of a story, this task generates story follow-ups with a desired style. We use the ROCStories dataset (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) as the standard story telling dataset which contains around 100,000 stories. We randomly select 4080 stories for both validation and test set and leave the rest as the training set. With the dataset, we fine-tune our base model following Step 2 (Section 2.3) and combine the fine-tuned base model with existing humor/romance/clickbait style adapters for inference. In this way, we efficiently build a stylistic story telling model which supports three styles while only requiring fine-tuning once." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.807, + 0.49, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9 shows the automatic evaluation results. As can be seen, when switching to the style adapters, the model generates more stylistic stories (PPL-S), while the generated stories become less relevant to the reference story follow-ups (BERT). This is consistent with stylistic headline generation, demonstrating that our style adapters can be com" + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.518, + 0.388, + 0.881, + 0.492 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessNST88.54.4-
StyleBART-N88.54.7-
Humor-0.5+0.4-17.0
RomanceStyleBART-0.4+0.4-14.4
Clickbait-1.6+23.1-968.7
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.501, + 0.884, + 0.558 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 9: Automatic evaluation results of stylistic story telling. NST: fine-tune all BART parameters on the plain story telling data. For StyleBART, we report the score changes with respect to the StyleBART-N model." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.584, + 0.884, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "bined with different downstream tasks to control the style of the generated text." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.63, + 0.667, + 0.644 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5 Related Work" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.656, + 0.722, + 0.67 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.1 Headline Generation" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.678, + 0.885, + 0.757 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Headline generation is the task of generating relevant and concise headlines for given news. It has various application scenarios, such as automated news writing (Li et al., 2022) and product advertising (Kanungo et al., 2022)." + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.759, + 0.886, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Traditional approaches on headline generation rely on linguistic features and handcrafted rules (Dorr et al., 2003; Knight and Marcu, 2002). With the advancement of neural networks, neural headline generation shows its capacity to generate high quality headlines (Rush et al., 2015). However, controlling the style of these headlines remains challenging. Jin et al. (2020) propose the first unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which relies only on a standard headline generation dataset" + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10394" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.085, + 0.493, + 0.312 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "and mono-style corpora. They design a multitask learning framework to jointly learn both plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching strategy. Zhan et al. (2022) further extend by decomposing the headline into style and content. They define stem and syntax as the style and generate the style first using a similar multitask framework as Jin et al. (2020). After that, substantive context is populated into that style with the conditional masked language modelling task. However, these works jointly learn style and headline generation, thus cannot support freely combination of styles and generation tasks at inference time." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.334, + 0.423, + 0.35 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "5.2 Unsupervised Text Style Transfer" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.362, + 0.49, + 0.732 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Text style transfer is to generate a sentence consistent with desired style while preserving the content of the source sentence (Shen et al., 2017). Due to the scarcity of style parallel corpora, unsupervised text style transfer is widely explored in previous works. Wu et al. (2019) regard text style transfer as a cloze task to accomplish sentiment style conversion of sentences. Dai et al. (2019) incorporates the sentiment style information through a reconstruction task. Krishna et al. (2020) redefine the style transfer problem as a paraphrase generation problem and propose a method based on reverse paraphrasing to generate the desired style. Lai et al. (2021) utilize large pretrained models such as BART and GPT-2, using BLEU scores and style classification scores as rewards, to achieve significant improvements in the transformation of formal and informal text. These models can be combined with plain headline generation model to achieve stylistic headline generation. However, they require two-steps decoding at inference time, while StyleBART generates stylistic headlines in one decoding step." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.757, + 0.248, + 0.772 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "6 Conclusion" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.791, + 0.49, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We propose StyleBART, an unsupervised stylistic generation method, which enables to freely combine the downstream tasks and styles by disentangling style learning and downstream task learning. Experimental results show that our model can generate content-relevant and style-intensive headlines, and can be extended to other stylistic generation tasks." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.084, + 0.616, + 0.099 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Limitations" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.111, + 0.886, + 0.272 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This work mainly explores the stylistic headline generation task. We leave the exploration of more combinations of tasks and styles such as stylistic machine translation, stylistic document summarization as future work. At the same time, our current method achieves stylistic generation by simply switching the adapters, which cannot provide fine-grained control of the style. This hinders Style-BART from meeting the diverse user demands related to style control." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.286, + 0.662, + 0.302 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ethics Statement" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.313, + 0.886, + 0.585 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We present a training-efficient approach to build an unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which disentangles the headline generation learning and style learning. Despite the strong performance of style control, StyleBART inherits the societal impacts including some negative ones of the original BART model, such as societal biases (Milios and BehnamGhader, 2022) and misuse of language models (Tamkin et al., 2021). The implicit biases are expected to be removed by debiasing either the dataset or the model (Meade et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). StyleBART makes it possible to generate text in various (e.g. clickbait) style which can be used to propagate the malicious or offensive content (Welbl et al., 2021). Future explorations are needed to mitigate the misuse of StyleBART model." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.601, + 0.682, + 0.617 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Acknowledgements" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.628, + 0.886, + 0.709 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "This project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62106138, No. 62306132) and Shanghai Sailing Program (No. 21YF1412100). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedbacks on this work." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.737, + 0.61, + 0.752 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "References" + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.761, + 0.885, + 0.802 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.813, + 0.886, + 0.868 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Wenjie Li, and Sujian Li. 2018. Faithful to the original: Fact aware neural abstractive summarization. In thirty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.878, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sumit Chopra, Michael Auli, and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Abstractive sentence summarization with attentive recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.51, + 0.761, + 0.887, + 0.92 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10395" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.135, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.152 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 93-98, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.166, + 0.488, + 0.257 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.271, + 0.487, + 0.311 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "B. Dorr, David M. Zajic, and Richard M. Schwartz. 2003. Hedge trimmer: A parse-and-trim approach to headline generation. In HLT-NAACL 2003." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.324, + 0.488, + 0.416 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiatao Gu, Yong Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2019. Improved zero-shot neural machine translation via ignoring spurious correlations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1258-1268, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.429, + 0.488, + 0.495 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1693-1701." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.508, + 0.488, + 0.586 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.601, + 0.488, + 0.654 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Lisa Orii, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Hooks in the headline: Learning to generate headlines with controlled styles. meeting of the association for computational linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.667, + 0.488, + 0.746 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yashal Shakti Kanungo, Gyanendra Das, and Sumit Negi. 2022. Cobart: Controlled, optimized, bidirectional and auto-regressive transformer for ad headline generation. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.759, + 0.488, + 0.798 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.812, + 0.488, + 0.852 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kevin Knight and Daniel Marcu. 2002. Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artif. Intell., 139:91-107." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.866, + 0.488, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. empirical methods in natural language processing." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Huiyuan Lai, Antonio Toral, and Malvina Nissim. 2021. Generic resources are what you need: Style transfer tasks without task-specific parallel training data. Proceedings of EMNLP." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.148, + 0.884, + 0.227 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Michael Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. Proceedings of ACL." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.236, + 0.883, + 0.275 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Zhengpeng Li, Jian Wu, Jiawei Miao, and Xinmiao Yu. 2022. News headline generation based on improved decoder from transformer. Scientific Reports, 12." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.284, + 0.881, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. meeting of the association for computational linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.333, + 0.883, + 0.373 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Junyang Lin, Xu Sun, Shuming Ma, and Qi Su. 2018. Global encoding for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03989." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.382, + 0.883, + 0.435 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nicholas Meade, Elinor Poole-Dayan, and Siva Reddy. 2022. An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 1878-1898." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.444, + 0.883, + 0.484 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Aristides Milios and Parishad BehnamGhader. 2022. An analysis of social biases present in bert variants across multiple languages. ArXiv, abs/2211.14402." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.492, + 0.883, + 0.597 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.606, + 0.883, + 0.658 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020. Mad-x: An adapter-based framework for multi-task cross-lingual transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00052." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.667, + 0.883, + 0.72 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.73, + 0.883, + 0.795 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2018. Efficient parametrization of multidomain deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.804, + 0.883, + 0.87 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alexander M. Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.879, + 0.883, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Evan Sandhaus. 2008. The new york times annotated corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 6(12):e26752." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.511, + 0.086, + 0.884, + 0.918 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10396" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.139 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.149, + 0.486, + 0.201 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pre-training for language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02450." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.212, + 0.486, + 0.33 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. \"transforming\" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3269-3279, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.34, + 0.486, + 0.392 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2021. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. Preprint arxiv:2102.02503." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.403, + 0.486, + 0.702 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.713, + 0.486, + 0.792 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2447-2469." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.802, + 0.486, + 0.842 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. \"mask and infill\": Applying masked language model to sentiment transfer." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.852, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Jiaao Zhan, Yang Gao, Yu Bai, and Qianhui Liu. 2022. Stage-wise stylistic headline generation: Style generation and summarized content insertion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages" + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.117, + 0.086, + 0.486, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.529, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.113 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "4489-4495. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.122, + 0.882, + 0.175 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.186, + 0.882, + 0.238 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Debiased contrastive learning of unsupervised sentence representations. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 6120-6130." + }, + { + "type": "ref_text", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.248, + 0.882, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In The IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)." + }, + { + "type": "list", + "bbox": [ + 0.512, + 0.086, + 0.882, + 0.327 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": null + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10397" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.139, + 0.083, + 0.472, + 0.31 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
Task: News Style Headline Generation
Stage 1: Learning Text StylesPlease read the following representative text with a particular style and understand its stylistic features STYLE Text: [STYLE TEXT]...
Stage 2: Learning Headline GenerationHere are some examples of news and corresponding headlines to learn how to generate news headlines:News: [NEWS]Headline: [HEADLINE]...
Stage 3: Generating Stylized HeadlinesGenerate a news headline with the previously learned style based on the news text given above:News: [NEWS]Style headline:
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.321, + 0.49, + 0.351 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 10: The data template used for GPT3.5-prompting." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.38, + 0.239, + 0.396 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A Appendix" + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.412, + 0.375, + 0.428 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.1 GPT3.5-prompting Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.438, + 0.49, + 0.566 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo API. We follow the unsupervised setup of StyleBART which assumes paired news-stylistic headlines are unavailable. As a results, we use three non-parallel stylistic sentences, five newsplain headline pairs in our data template. Table 10 shows the details. We set the the temperature to 0.5." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.115, + 0.586, + 0.383, + 0.602 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.2 LLaMA2-InsTuning Details" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.113, + 0.612, + 0.49, + 0.853 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "We sample 10,000 data points per task and construct the corresponding instruction data. Table 11 shows our data template in training and inference stages. We utilize the 40,000 instruction data jointly to fine-tune LLaMA2-7B with LoRA. The hyperparameters for the LoRA module are set as follows: lora_rank = 256, lora_alpha = 256, and lora_dropout = 0.05. The training process employs the AdamW optimizer with parameters \\(\\beta_{1} = 0.9\\), \\(\\beta_{2} = 0.999\\). We adopt a learning rate of \\(2e - 5\\). The training is executed with a batch size of 80 for one epoch, amounting to a total of 500 steps. After our training stage, we directly use the inference template in Table 11 to evaluate the fine-tuned model." + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.515, + 0.082, + 0.888, + 0.324 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StageTemplate
TrainingInstructionInverse Paraphrasing Task
Convert the following sentence to its [STYLE] version.
InputText: [PARAPHRASED TEXT]
Output[STYLE] version text: [STYLISTIC TEXT]
Headline Generation Task
InstructionRead the following news abstract and write a headline for it.
InputNews: [NEWS]
OutputHeadline: [HEADLINE]
Stylistic Headline Generation
InstructionRead the following news abstract and a write a [STYLE] version headline of the news.
InputNews: [NEWS]
Output[STYLE] version headline:
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.333, + 0.885, + 0.362 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 11: The data template used for LLaMA2-InsTuning training and inference stage." + }, + { + "type": "title", + "bbox": [ + 0.509, + 0.388, + 0.842, + 0.403 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "A.3 Comparison with TitleStylist-BART" + }, + { + "type": "text", + "bbox": [ + 0.508, + 0.408, + 0.885, + 0.633 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "TitleStylist is initialized using the MASS model, a pretrained model with an encoder-decoder structure similar to BART. We adopt the methodology employed in TitleStylist and apply it to the BART model. We execute both TitleStylist-MASS (with their open-source code) and TitleStylist-BART (with our reimplemented code). As shown in Table 12, We can find that these two variations yield similar ROUGE and BERTScore results while TitleStylist-MASS gets better PPL and PPL-S scores. Therefore, we present the results for TitleStylist-MASS in this paper, as it demonstrates better performance and is consistent with the original paper." + }, + { + "type": "page_footnote", + "bbox": [ + 0.114, + 0.869, + 0.489, + 0.919 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "9Our training loss shows no significant reductions after 150 steps when using a batch size of 80. Therefore, we do not use the full dataset as larger dataset requires more computation and only brings marginal performance improvement." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.928, + 0.526, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10398" + } + ], + [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 0.2, + 0.42, + 0.803, + 0.553 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorTitleStylist-BART28.210.024.987.768.5839.3
TitleStylist-MASS27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
RomanceTitleStylist-BART28.410.125.087.762.6923.7
TitleStylist-MASS27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
ClickbaitTitleStylist-BART28.29.824.987.748.2192.9
TitleStylist-MASS28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
" + }, + { + "type": "table_caption", + "bbox": [ + 0.251, + 0.563, + 0.744, + 0.577 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "Table 12: Comparison results of TitleStylist-BART and Titlelist-MASS." + }, + { + "type": "page_number", + "bbox": [ + 0.478, + 0.929, + 0.525, + 0.941 + ], + "angle": 0, + "content": "10399" + } + ] +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_origin.pdf b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_origin.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..803434a79307831bad9d41e577a107f315b217b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/06bfaf10-740c-4fa6-bba5-20457cd25380_origin.pdf @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:7a463accbdf216c31a954b3d8c49b52dd5c0b0cf1d4b2931da58ecbfa78a3ad3 +size 788106 diff --git a/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/full.md b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/full.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..20440ea4b0ba10981231f43c43fb259b4fa3db71 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/full.md @@ -0,0 +1,324 @@ +# StyleBART: Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation + +Hanqing Wang $^{1*}$ Yajing Luo $^{1*}$ Boya Xiong $^{1}$ Guanhua Chen $^{2}$ Yun Chen $^{1\dagger}$ + +$^{1}$ Shanghai University of Finance and Economics + +$^{2}$ Southern University of Science and Technology {whq, luoyajing, xiongboya}@163.sufe.edu.cn chengh3@sustech.edu.cn yunchen@sufe.edu.cn + +# Abstract + +Styletistic headline generation is the task of generate a headline that not only summarizes the content of a news, but also reflects a desired style that attracts users. As style-specific newsheadline pairs are scarce, previous research has focused on unsupervised approaches using a standard headline generation dataset and monostyle corpora. In this work, we follow this line and propose StyleBART, an unsupervised approach for stylistic headline generation. Our method decorates the pretrained BART model with adapters that are responsible for different styles and allows the generation of headlines with diverse styles by simply switching the adapters. Different from previous works, StyleBART separates the task of style learning and headline generation, making it possible to freely combine the base model and the style adapters during inference. We further propose an inverse paraphrasing task to enhance the style adapters. Extensive automatic and human evaluations show that StyleBART achieves new state-of-the-art performance in the unsupervised stylistic headline generation task, producing high-quality headlines with the desired style. Code is available at https://github.com/sufenlp/StyleBART. + +# 1 Introduction + +The sequence-to-sequence-based neural headline generation (HG) model (Cao et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019) has demonstrated its ability to generate factual, concise, and fluent headlines (Chopra et al., 2016). Yet, the headlines are also expected to have stylistic attributes to draw more attention of the audiences. To address the problem, Jin et al. (2020) propose the task of Stylistic Headline Generation (SHG), which aims to generate a headline with a specified style such as humorous, romantic and clickbaity. However, acquire + +![](images/314942157ce3d59a2ae3e772000bb13c7d96d447fc3dd8672b54cd2243b690b6.jpg) +(a)Baselines: $N\times M$ + +![](images/cf8cc40c907d27adbd7f319fa29576e543ec1796489167aab39720a392f44106.jpg) +(b) StyleBART: $N + M$ +Figure 1: Our StyleBART is training-efficient. (1) For a combination of $M$ tasks and $N$ styles, StyleBART only trains $M$ task-specific models and $N$ style-specific modules, then combines them at inference time to support each stylistic generation task. Previous works train separate $M \times N$ models. (2) For a new style (task), StyleBART only trains a new style module (task model), however, baselines have to train many additional models to combine the new style (task) with all existing tasks (styles). + +ing enough parallel data for SHG is almost impossible, as the creation of headlines with specific styles demands creativity and often consumes significant effort. Hence, researchers (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) in turn explore unsupervised approaches which only require a standard headline generation dataset and non-parallel stylistic text corpora. + +Some existing works propose a pipeline method (Sudhakar et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2019; Krishna et al., 2020) which firstly generates a plain headline and then introduces the pre-specified style with a style transfer model. However, this pipeline method requires two models during inference, which brings additional latency and storage cost. Some other works (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) jointly learn a plain headline generation model on news-headline pairs, and a denoising autoencoder on the stylistic text corpus. However, these approaches require to carefully design the scheduling + +and parameter sharing mechanisms between tasks. Moreover, as the task of headline generation and style learning are entangled, the entire model has to be rebuilt when facing a new style or task. + +In this paper, we propose StyleBART, an unsupervised SHG model based on the BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Instead of using a multitask learning framework, StyleBART disentangles the style and the specific task (e.g. headline generation) by the design of model architecture and training strategy. Intuitively, this enables StyleBART to separately train the style and task modules, then combine them as required during inference (Figure 1). Hence, StyleBART is more flexible and training-efficient compared with baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) which require training models for all style and task combinations. + +Specifically, StyleBART utilizes style adapters as plug-and-play modules for the style control. The style adapters are learned at the pretraining stage through the inverse paraphrasing task on the style corpus, while the base HG model is learned at the fine-tuning stage on news-headline pairs. During inference, we achieve unsupervised SHG by switching to the target style adapter. In this way, StyleBART has the same high decoding efficiency as Jin et al. (2020), while overcoming its problems in task scheduling and inefficient training. + +We evaluate StyleBART using the same three SHG tasks described in Jin et al. (2020). Both automatic and human evaluations demonstrate the superiority of our method over baselines. + +# 2 Approach + +# 2.1 Problem Formulation + +We denote the parallel news-headline dataset as $D = \{\langle x, y \rangle\}$ , where each pair $\langle x, y \rangle$ consists of a news article $x$ and its corresponding plain headline $y$ . The corpus for the $i^{\text{th}}$ style $s_i$ is denoted as $T^{s_i} = \{t^{s_i}\}$ . Our goal is to generate stylistic headline $y^{s_i}$ with style $s_i$ given the news article $x$ . Note that this is an unsupervised setup, as no news article and stylistic headline pairs are available. + +# 2.2 StyleBART Architecture + +As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two parts: the BART model and the adapter modules. We use the BART as the base model for StyleBART. Adapters (Rebuffi et al., 2018) are light-weight bottleneck layers inserted into a base model. It is designed as a parameter-efficient method to fine + +![](images/8356be8c8f7a02eb6b82eda497900ec74f4b0de5f5c4087354043e4bbeaab607.jpg) +Figure 2: The architecture of StyleBART consists of the BART model and the adapter modules. The pretrained BART model is composed of $N$ encoder layers and $N$ decoder layers. The adapter module is inserted after the feed-forward sublayer in each decoder layer. + +tune the base model for a new task (Houlsby et al., 2019), language (Pfeiffer et al., 2020) or domain (Bapna et al., 2019). In StyleBART, we instead use the adapters to control the style of the model output. + +Formally, following Houlsby et al. (2019), an adapter module $A$ is composed of layer normalization (LN) of the input $z \in R^h$ , down-projection $(W_{\mathrm{down}} \in R^{h \times b})$ with the bottleneck dimension $b$ , non-linear function (ReLU), up-projection $(W_{\mathrm{up}} \in R^{b \times h})$ , and a residual connection with the input $z$ : + +$$ +A (z) = W _ {\mathrm {u p}} ^ {T} \operatorname {R e L U} \left(W _ {\mathrm {d o w n}} ^ {T} \operatorname {L N} (z)\right) + z. \tag {1} +$$ + +We insert the adapters into each decoder layer of the base model. For each style, we have a set of style adapters. In the following, we use $\theta^b$ to denote the set of parameters of the BART model, and $\theta^{s_i}$ to denote that of the style adapters for style $s_i$ . + +# 2.3 Training and Inference + +We divide the training process of StyleBART into three steps (Figure 3): (1) Style adapter pretraining, which learns the style adapters to control the style of the model output by pretraining on the style dataset $T^{s_i}$ ; (2) Headline generation fine-tuning, which optimizes the base model to generate plain headline on the headline dataset $D$ ; (3) Stylistic headline generation, which generates stylistic headline by switching to the target style adapters during inference. + +Step 1: Style Adapter Pretraining. The style adapters can be trained with the style dataset $T^{s_i}$ by the denoising auto-encoding task, which reconstructs the sentence $t^{s_i}$ from $g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})$ . Here $g_{n}$ is a noise function that generates a perturbed version + +![](images/1efa76876f2ea1a4a193e8936c6b90908cc7a7fc04ca09e51f2ae2c160a7aecd.jpg) +Figure 3: Training and inference framework of StyleBART. Step 1: Style adapter pretraining; Step 2: Headline generation fine-tuning; Step 3: Stylistic headline generation. + +![](images/bdee3e5d7bdfc678538513e0a06d54ce6f80c8c7eb13810defb60dd8e6f26334.jpg) + +![](images/e1639078627d81ef0e1b3115ca0ac69b25aa6a650b0fb0eef48a53dbbc334f11.jpg) + +of the input, such as token masking and token deletion used during BART pretraining (Lewis et al., 2020) and our baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022). However, this training method is suboptimal. + +Following Krishna et al. (2020), the style can be loosely defined as the common patterns of lexical choice and syntactic constructions that are distinct from the content of a sentence. Considering how the noise function $g_{n}$ works, we argue that the corrupted text $g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})$ still contains the stylistic information. As a result, the model may learn to guide the style of its output with the style of its input, which deviates from our goal to control the output style with style adapters. We call this undesirable spurious correlation (Gu et al., 2019). Instead, we propose to address this issue with inverse paraphrasing method. + +Inspired by Krishna et al. (2020), we replace $g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})$ with $g_{p}(t^{s_{i}})$ , which is generated by feeding $t^{s_{i}}$ to a paraphrase model trained to maximize diversity. Table 1 displays examples of stylistic sentences and their perturbed versions with the noise function $g_{n}$ and the paraphrase model $g_{p}$ . Intuitively, the paraphrase model can better strip away information from $t^{s_{i}}$ that is predictive of its original style. As a result, our model has to rely on the style adapters instead of the input sentence to control its output style, enhancing the adapters' ability for style control. + +Specifically, to train the adapters for style $s_i$ , we first feed each sentence $t^{s_i}$ to the paraphrase model and get the perturbed sentence $g_p(t^{s_i})$ . Then we train the corresponding style adapters while freez- + +ing all other parameters with inverse paraphrasing: + +$$ +\hat {\theta} ^ {s _ {i}} = \arg \max _ {\theta^ {s _ {i}}} \sum_ {t ^ {s _ {i}} \in T ^ {s _ {i}}} \log p \left(t ^ {s _ {i}} \mid g _ {p} \left(t ^ {s _ {i}}\right); \theta^ {s _ {i}}, \theta^ {b}\right). \tag {2} +$$ + +Since the input is style-agnostic and the other parameters are freezing, the model has to rely on the style adapters to control its output style. We also learn a style-less adapter $\theta^{s_0}$ in the same way except replacing $T^{s_i}$ with a dataset $T^{s_0}$ , which consists of plain text from BART pretraining. + +Step 2: Headline Generation Fine-tuning. In this step, StyleBART learns headline generation on the headline dataset $D = \{\langle x,y\rangle \}$ . Since the headline is style-less, we insert the style-less adapters into StyleBART and finetune it on the headline generation task. This step is required to force the model to learn the task of headline generation. During finetuning, we only update the parameters of the encoder while freezing the style-less adapters and all other model parameters: + +$$ +\hat {\theta} _ {e n c} ^ {b} = \arg \max _ {\theta_ {e n c} ^ {b}} \sum_ {< x, y > \in D} \log p (y \mid x; \hat {\theta} ^ {s _ {0}}, \theta^ {b}). \tag {3} +$$ + +In this way, we limit the computational cost, and more importantly, mitigate the catastrophic forgetting problem in style control, thus facilitating the switching of different style adapters in Step 3. + +Step 3: Stylistic Headline Generating. To generate a headline in a given style, we can achieve this by replacing the style-less adapters of StyleBART with the corresponding style-specific adapters. + +
Style siStylistic Sentence tsiNoised Text gn(tsi)Paraphrased Text gp(tsi)
HumorThere are few things more awkward on a blind date than looking up from your phone to realize she's left. She obviously wasn't blind at all.She [MASK] blind at all. There are few things [MASK] on a blind date than [MASK] looking up from your phone to realize she's left.The fact that she left, and the fact that she's obviously not blind, is much more awkward.
RomanceHe confessed to her that she was his most precious jewel, and that she would always be the rarest gem in his eyes.[MASK] to her that she was his most [MASK] jewel, and that she would [MASK] rarest gem in his eyes.He confessed that she was the most valuable thing in his eyes, and he would never see another one.
ClickbaitUnbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in Europe for the third time twenty years.Unbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in [MASK] for the third time twenty years.The extraordinary meeting with Bob Dylan in Europe for three times.
+ +Table 1: Examples of sentences and their perturbed versions in three styles: humor, romance and clickbait. The noised text indicates the output after the noise function $g_{n}$ , and the paraphrased text indicates the output after passing through the paraphrase model $g_{p}$ . + +StyleBART has already learned the task of headline generation. Therefore, by switching the style-less adapters to the style-specific adapters, we can obtain a style-specific headline generation model. We use $\hat{\theta}^b$ , $\hat{\theta}^{s_0}$ and $\hat{\theta}^{s_i}$ to denote the model parameters of the base model, the style-less adapters and the style adapters after Step 2. Then given a news article, StyleBART outputs its style-specific headline $y^{s_i}$ with + +$$ +y ^ {s _ {i}} = \underset {y} {\arg \max } p (y \mid x; \hat {\theta} ^ {s _ {i}}, \hat {\theta} ^ {b}). \tag {4} +$$ + +# 3 Experiments + +# 3.1 Datasets + +Following Jin et al. (2020), the experiment datasets consist of a headline generation dataset CNN-NYT, and three stylistic text datasets for humorous, romantic and clickbaity. The CNN-NYT dataset consists of 146K news-headline pairs from two sources: the New York Times (Sandhaus, 2008) and the CNN dataset (Hermann et al., 2015). We use the same dataset split as Jin et al. (2020). Each style dataset contains 500K style-specific sentences. The humor and romance datasets are collected from the novels in the corresponding genres of BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015). The clickbait dataset is obtained from The Examiner-SpamClickBait News dataset. To train the style-less adapters, we also build a style-less dataset, which consists of 500K sentences randomly sampled from BookCorpus, + +one of the datasets used in BART pretraining. For style datasets, we use the same split as Jin et al. (2020). For the style-less dataset, we randomly sample 3,000 sentences for both the validation and test set, leaving the rest as the training set. + +# 3.2 Baselines + +We compare StyleBART with the following baselines: + +- Neural Headline Generation (NHG): Finetuning all parameters of BART on the plain headline generation dataset. +- Two-Step Decoding(TSD): A two-step decoding method that first generates a plain headline and then injects style with an unsupervised style transfer model (Dai et al., 2019). +- Multitask: A multitask framework that jointly trains on plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with the BART model. +- TitleStylist (Jin et al., 2020): An approach similar to Multitask, but with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching between tasks. +- S-SHG (Zhan et al., 2022) $^4$ : An approach that first constructs the stem and syntax of the headline similarly to TitleStylist, and then populates that with substantive context. + +# 3.3 Evaluation Metrics + +Automatic Evaluation. We use automatic evaluation to measure the quality and style of the gener + +
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
Style-lessNHG29.710.926.388.252.6-
StyleBART-N29.410.726.288.155.6-
HumorTSD*20.35.518.5---
MultiTask30.011.126.687.952.81267.6
TitleStylist27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
S-SHG26.28.222.587.4107.4702.2
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceTSD*20.55.818.7---
MultiTask30.011.426.888.153.21543.0
TitleStylist27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
S-SHG26.28.622.587.4101.0685.0
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitTSD*20.37.123.2---
MultiTask30.311.327.088.352.2392.4
TitleStylist28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
S-SHG27.08.823.587.667.9234.3
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
+ +Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of ROUGE, BERTScore, PPL and PPL-S. TSD* result is directly cited from Li et al. (2022), while all other methods are implemented by ourselves or with the open-sourced code. StyleBART-N: StyleBART with the style-less adapters. + +ated headline. For the quality, we use ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and BERTScore (Zhang* et al., 2020) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline and PPL to evaluate its language fluency. The PPL is calculated with OpenAI GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019) finetuned on the plain headlines following Zhan et al. (2022). To evaluate the style, we use PPL-S, which computes the PPL score of the generated headline using GPT2 finetuned on the corresponding style corpus. + +Human Evaluation. We conducted a human evaluation to more comprehensively assess our model. We randomly sampled 50 news articles from each test set and asked three judges to rate the outputs from TitleStylist, S-SHG and our StyleBART. To assess generation quality, we ask the judges to rate from 1 to 10 (integer values) from three aspects: 1) Relevance—how semantically relevant the headline is to the news article. 2) Attractiveness—how appealing they feel the headline is. 3) Fluency—how comprehensive and easy-to-read the headline is. We then report the average score for each aspect across all test samples and judges. For the style evaluation, we ask the judges to choose the best headline of each style from an entire set of TitleStylist, S-SHG and StyleBART's outputs. We then report the percentage of the times + +each model is chosen as the best. + +# 3.4 Model Configuration + +We implemented StyleBART with the pretrained BART model using Hugging Face. We set the bottleneck dimension $b$ of the adapters to be 64. To pretrain the adapters, we use the AdamW optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with $\beta_{1} = 0.9$ and $\beta_{2} = 0.999$ . The learning rate is $5e - 5$ . For fine-tuning on the headline generation dataset, we use the same AdamW optimizer and learning rate. For all steps of training, we use a batch size of 8. At inference time, we use beam search with a beam size of 4. All experiments are run on a single NVIDIA RTX 2080ti GPU, except that LLaMA2-InsTuning is run on a single NVIDIA A100 40G GPU + +# 4 Results and Discussion + +# 4.1 Automatic Evaluation Results + +Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results of our proposed StyleBART and all baselines. + +Content Relevance. We use ROUGE (R1,R2, and RL) and BERTScore (BERT) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline. As can be seen, NHG, StyleBARTN, and MultiTask achieve the highest relevance score. This can be explained by that more stylistic headlines would lose some relevance as 1) the reference headlines are style-less; 2) the stylistic head + +
StyleMethodRelevanceAttractionFluency
HumorTitleStylist5.825.607.40
S-SHG6.137.128.23
StyleBART7.047.588.42
RomanceTitleStylist6.126.067.78
S-SHG6.376.047.63
StyleBART6.707.308.40
ClickbaitTitleStylist6.006.168.00
S-SHG6.176.658.17
StyleBART6.766.968.26
+ +line may use more words outside the news body for improved creativity (Jin et al., 2020). For stylistic headline generation, TSD has the worst relevance score. StyleBART performs slightly worse than TitleStylist (-0.6 averaged RL and -0.1 averaged BERT) and better than S-SHG (+1.3 averaged RL and +0.0 averaged BERT), validating StyleBART's ability in this aspect. + +Language Perplexity. We use PPL on the GPT2 fine-tuned on plain headlines to measure the fluency of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART surpasses all baselines by a significant margin except that it is slightly worse than TitleStylist. This may be because the headlines from StyleBART have stronger style and more stylistic headlines would also lose some PPL. + +Style Strength. We use PPL-S to measure the style strength of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART generates headlines with the strongest style across all stylistic headline generation tasks. Compared with the baseline TitleStylist (resp. S-SHG), StyleBART obtains 119.5 (resp. 114.2) lower averaged PPL-S score. The baseline MultiTask performs the worst in style control. Moreover, StyleBART disentangles style learning and headline generation learning, thus only trains once on the headline generation dataset to support all three styles. In contrast, all baselines except TSD require training three times on the headline generation dataset for the three stylistic generation tasks.[6] + +# 4.2 Human Evaluation Results + +Table 3 and Table 4 present the human evaluation results. + +Table 3: Human evaluation results on three aspects. + +
StyleTitleStylistS-SHGStyleBART
Humor20%34%46%
Romance22%28%50%
Clickbait32%26%42%
+ +Table 4: The percentage of choices $(\%)$ for the most humorous, romantic or clickbaity headlines among TitleStylist, S-SHG, and StyleBART. + +Generation Quality. We assess generation quality in relevance, attraction, and fluency, as shown in Table 3. StyleBART performs the best in all three aspects compared to baselines. The results are slightly inconsistent with automatic quality evaluation. This may be explained by that automatic quality evaluation metrics favor less stylistic headlines, while humans do not have such bias. + +Style Strength. We measure the style strength in Table 4. As can be seen, StyleBART has the highest average selection percentage, followed by the S-SHG model. This is consistent with what we find in the automatic measurement. + +# 4.3 Comparison with LLMs + +In this part, we compare StyleBART with methods using Large Language Models (LLMs), as presented in Table 5. For GPT3.5-prompting, we perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo $^{7}$ API. We provide stylistic sentences and news-plain headline pairs in the prompt and query the model to generate stylistic headlines for the input news. For LLaMA2-InsTuning, we conduct instruction tuning with LoRA on LLaMA2 (Touvron et al., 2023) for both the inverse paraphrasing task and the news headline generation task. Then we perform stylistic headline generation during testing. Appendix A provides more details. We find that StyleBART overall generates headlines with the best content relevance and the strongest style, demonstrating the superiority of StyleBART even in the era of large language models. $^{8}$ + +# 4.4 Ablation Study + +Design Choices of Style Adapter Pretraining. Table 6 shows the effect of different design choices at the style adapter pretraining step. StyleBART—para represents training the adapters + +
StyleMethodGenerationStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorGPT3.5-prompting22.75.919.585.81972.41161.3
LLaMA2-InsTuning24.57.721.686.341.7622.8
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceGPT3.5-prompting22.45.819.485.91561.21329.4
LLaMA2-InsTuning26.68.523.587.0112.6879.4
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitGPT3.5-prompting24.56.921.086.21074.04094.6
LLaMA2-InsTuning27.28.923.886.946.2353.1
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
+ +Table 5: Comparison results with methods based on large language models. + +
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessStyleBART-N26.288.155.6-
–para26.488.157.4-
–s0 adapters26.588.257.6-
HumorStyleBART25.087.642.5602.9
–para26.088.054.41033.0
–s0 adapters18.586.2221.01620.0
RomanceStyleBART24.387.436.7560.5
–para26.288.151.81275.6
–s0 adapters18.986.4209.61824.9
ClickbaitStyleBART23.087.550.9115.5
–para24.287.743.3125.8
–s0 adapters21.087.153.6134.2
+ +Table 6: Ablation on different design choices for style adapter pretraining (Step 1). -para: StyleBART with adapter pretraining by the denoising task. $-s_0$ adapters: StyleBART without pretraining the style-less adapters. + +with the denoising task instead of the inverse paraphrasing task. StyleBART- $s_0$ adapters fine-tune the BART model without style-less adapters at step 2, thus without pretraining the style-less adapters. As can be seen, all methods perform similarly in style-less headline generation. When it comes to stylistic headline generation, StyleBART- $s_0$ adapters decrease dramatically in both the summarization quality and the style control. The inverse paraphrasing task is crucial for style control, while slightly decreasing the relevance of the generated headline to the reference headline. This may be because the reference headlines are style-less, while the headlines produced by using the inverse paraphrasing task have a stronger style. + +Trainable Parameters of Headline Generation Fine-tuning. We compare different choices of trainable parameters at the headline generation finetuning step, as illustrated in Table 7. As can be seen, all fine-tuning methods get similar scores + +
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
enccattdec
Style-less✓××26.988.255.6-
✓✓×26.788.257.8-
✓✓✓26.488.255.1-
Humor✓××25.087.642.5602.9
✓✓×26.188.047.2860.8
✓✓✓26.288.246.61011.3
Romance✓××24.387.436.7560.5
✓✓×25.688.045.2911.7
✓✓✓26.288.247.21172.4
Clickbait✓××23.087.550.9115.5
✓✓×23.487.650.3139.5
✓✓✓24.887.942.6156.5
+ +Table 7: Ablation on different choices of trainable parameters for headline generation fine-tuning (Step2). enc: the encoder part. catt: the cross attention part. dec: the decoder part. + +when generating style-less headlines, indicating that fine-tuning only partial parameters is enough for learning the headline generation task. When comparing on the SHG task, only updating the encoder can best control the style of the generated headlines among all fine-tuning methods. As the style adapters are inserted at the decoder, freezing the decoder and cross-attention can better maintain their style control ability obtained during pretraining. + +# 4.5 Case Study + +In this section, we present examples of generated stylistic headlines, as shown in Table 8. Again, we concentrate on StyleBART, TitleStylist, and S- SHG, as they outperform the other methods. + +From this example as well as others, we find that all three methods generate relevant and fluent headlines. However, StyleBART is better at style control. For example, the phrase "won't last forever" + +
News AbstractCyber monday has been the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers. But retailers are spreading their online sales throughout the thanksgiving holiday. As a result, cyber monday's growth is flattening. Analyst: cyber monday will phase out eventually.
HumorTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday flattens out for retailers
RomanceTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest single shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is still the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday won't last forever
ClickbaitTitleStylistCyber monday is flattening
S-SHGCyber monday has become the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTIs cyber monday the end of online shopping?
+ +used in the romantic headline by StyleBART is a common expression in romantic contexts. StyleBART uses questions to raise the reader's curiosity in clickbaity headline. We also observe that when generating headlines of different styles, StyleBART produces more diverse results, while TitleStylist and S-SHG are more likely to change only a few words or expressions. + +# 4.6 Extension to Stylistic Story Telling + +To test whether StyleBART can flexibly combine tasks and styles, we conduct experiments on stylistic story telling. Specifically, giving the first sentence of a story, this task generates story follow-ups with a desired style. We use the ROCStories dataset (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) as the standard story telling dataset which contains around 100,000 stories. We randomly select 4080 stories for both validation and test set and leave the rest as the training set. With the dataset, we fine-tune our base model following Step 2 (Section 2.3) and combine the fine-tuned base model with existing humor/romance/clickbait style adapters for inference. In this way, we efficiently build a stylistic story telling model which supports three styles while only requiring fine-tuning once. + +Table 9 shows the automatic evaluation results. As can be seen, when switching to the style adapters, the model generates more stylistic stories (PPL-S), while the generated stories become less relevant to the reference story follow-ups (BERT). This is consistent with stylistic headline generation, demonstrating that our style adapters can be com + +Table 8: Examples of the stylistic headlines generated by different methods. + +
StyleMethodBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessNST88.54.4-
StyleBART-N88.54.7-
Humor-0.5+0.4-17.0
RomanceStyleBART-0.4+0.4-14.4
Clickbait-1.6+23.1-968.7
+ +Table 9: Automatic evaluation results of stylistic story telling. NST: fine-tune all BART parameters on the plain story telling data. For StyleBART, we report the score changes with respect to the StyleBART-N model. + +bined with different downstream tasks to control the style of the generated text. + +# 5 Related Work + +# 5.1 Headline Generation + +Headline generation is the task of generating relevant and concise headlines for given news. It has various application scenarios, such as automated news writing (Li et al., 2022) and product advertising (Kanungo et al., 2022). + +Traditional approaches on headline generation rely on linguistic features and handcrafted rules (Dorr et al., 2003; Knight and Marcu, 2002). With the advancement of neural networks, neural headline generation shows its capacity to generate high quality headlines (Rush et al., 2015). However, controlling the style of these headlines remains challenging. Jin et al. (2020) propose the first unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which relies only on a standard headline generation dataset + +and mono-style corpora. They design a multitask learning framework to jointly learn both plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching strategy. Zhan et al. (2022) further extend by decomposing the headline into style and content. They define stem and syntax as the style and generate the style first using a similar multitask framework as Jin et al. (2020). After that, substantive context is populated into that style with the conditional masked language modelling task. However, these works jointly learn style and headline generation, thus cannot support freely combination of styles and generation tasks at inference time. + +# 5.2 Unsupervised Text Style Transfer + +Text style transfer is to generate a sentence consistent with desired style while preserving the content of the source sentence (Shen et al., 2017). Due to the scarcity of style parallel corpora, unsupervised text style transfer is widely explored in previous works. Wu et al. (2019) regard text style transfer as a cloze task to accomplish sentiment style conversion of sentences. Dai et al. (2019) incorporates the sentiment style information through a reconstruction task. Krishna et al. (2020) redefine the style transfer problem as a paraphrase generation problem and propose a method based on reverse paraphrasing to generate the desired style. Lai et al. (2021) utilize large pretrained models such as BART and GPT-2, using BLEU scores and style classification scores as rewards, to achieve significant improvements in the transformation of formal and informal text. These models can be combined with plain headline generation model to achieve stylistic headline generation. However, they require two-steps decoding at inference time, while StyleBART generates stylistic headlines in one decoding step. + +# 6 Conclusion + +We propose StyleBART, an unsupervised stylistic generation method, which enables to freely combine the downstream tasks and styles by disentangling style learning and downstream task learning. Experimental results show that our model can generate content-relevant and style-intensive headlines, and can be extended to other stylistic generation tasks. + +# Limitations + +This work mainly explores the stylistic headline generation task. We leave the exploration of more combinations of tasks and styles such as stylistic machine translation, stylistic document summarization as future work. At the same time, our current method achieves stylistic generation by simply switching the adapters, which cannot provide fine-grained control of the style. This hinders Style-BART from meeting the diverse user demands related to style control. + +# Ethics Statement + +We present a training-efficient approach to build an unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which disentangles the headline generation learning and style learning. Despite the strong performance of style control, StyleBART inherits the societal impacts including some negative ones of the original BART model, such as societal biases (Milios and BehnamGhader, 2022) and misuse of language models (Tamkin et al., 2021). The implicit biases are expected to be removed by debiasing either the dataset or the model (Meade et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). StyleBART makes it possible to generate text in various (e.g. clickbait) style which can be used to propagate the malicious or offensive content (Welbl et al., 2021). Future explorations are needed to mitigate the misuse of StyleBART model. + +# Acknowledgements + +This project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62106138, No. 62306132) and Shanghai Sailing Program (No. 21YF1412100). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedbacks on this work. + +# References + +Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478. +Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Wenjie Li, and Sujian Li. 2018. Faithful to the original: Fact aware neural abstractive summarization. In thirty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. +Sumit Chopra, Michael Auli, and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Abstractive sentence summarization with attentive recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of + +the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 93-98, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +B. Dorr, David M. Zajic, and Richard M. Schwartz. 2003. Hedge trimmer: A parse-and-trim approach to headline generation. In HLT-NAACL 2003. +Jiatao Gu, Yong Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2019. Improved zero-shot neural machine translation via ignoring spurious correlations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1258-1268, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1693-1701. +Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR. +Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Lisa Orii, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Hooks in the headline: Learning to generate headlines with controlled styles. meeting of the association for computational linguistics. +Yashal Shakti Kanungo, Gyanendra Das, and Sumit Negi. 2022. Cobart: Controlled, optimized, bidirectional and auto-regressive transformer for ad headline generation. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. +Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. +Kevin Knight and Daniel Marcu. 2002. Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artif. Intell., 139:91-107. +Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. empirical methods in natural language processing. + +Huiyuan Lai, Antonio Toral, and Malvina Nissim. 2021. Generic resources are what you need: Style transfer tasks without task-specific parallel training data. Proceedings of EMNLP. +Michael Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. Proceedings of ACL. +Zhengpeng Li, Jian Wu, Jiawei Miao, and Xinmiao Yu. 2022. News headline generation based on improved decoder from transformer. Scientific Reports, 12. +Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. meeting of the association for computational linguistics. +Junyang Lin, Xu Sun, Shuming Ma, and Qi Su. 2018. Global encoding for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03989. +Nicholas Meade, Elinor Poole-Dayan, and Siva Reddy. 2022. An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 1878-1898. +Aristides Milios and Parishad BehnamGhader. 2022. An analysis of social biases present in bert variants across multiple languages. ArXiv, abs/2211.14402. +Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. +Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020. Mad-x: An adapter-based framework for multi-task cross-lingual transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00052. +Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9. +Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2018. Efficient parametrization of multidomain deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). +Alexander M. Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. +Evan Sandhaus. 2008. The new york times annotated corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 6(12):e26752. + +Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. +Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pre-training for language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02450. +Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. "transforming" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3269-3279, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. +Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2021. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. Preprint arxiv:2102.02503. +Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models. +Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2447-2469. +Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. "mask and infill": Applying masked language model to sentiment transfer. +Jiaao Zhan, Yang Gao, Yu Bai, and Qianhui Liu. 2022. Stage-wise stylistic headline generation: Style generation and summarized content insertion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages + +4489-4495. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track. +Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations. +Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Debiased contrastive learning of unsupervised sentence representations. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 6120-6130. +Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In The IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). + +
Task: News Style Headline Generation
Stage 1: Learning Text StylesPlease read the following representative text with a particular style and understand its stylistic features STYLE Text: [STYLE TEXT]...
Stage 2: Learning Headline GenerationHere are some examples of news and corresponding headlines to learn how to generate news headlines:News: [NEWS]Headline: [HEADLINE]...
Stage 3: Generating Stylized HeadlinesGenerate a news headline with the previously learned style based on the news text given above:News: [NEWS]Style headline:
+ +# A Appendix + +# A.1 GPT3.5-prompting Details + +We perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo API. We follow the unsupervised setup of StyleBART which assumes paired news-stylistic headlines are unavailable. As a results, we use three non-parallel stylistic sentences, five newsplain headline pairs in our data template. Table 10 shows the details. We set the the temperature to 0.5. + +# A.2 LLaMA2-InsTuning Details + +We sample 10,000 data points per task and construct the corresponding instruction data. Table 11 shows our data template in training and inference stages. We utilize the 40,000 instruction data jointly to fine-tune LLaMA2-7B with LoRA. The hyperparameters for the LoRA module are set as follows: lora_rank = 256, lora_alpha = 256, and lora_dropout = 0.05. The training process employs the AdamW optimizer with parameters $\beta_{1} = 0.9$ , $\beta_{2} = 0.999$ . We adopt a learning rate of $2e - 5$ . The training is executed with a batch size of 80 for one epoch, amounting to a total of 500 steps. After our training stage, we directly use the inference template in Table 11 to evaluate the fine-tuned model. + +Table 10: The data template used for GPT3.5-prompting. + +
StageTemplate
TrainingInstructionInverse Paraphrasing Task
Convert the following sentence to its [STYLE] version.
InputText: [PARAPHRASED TEXT]
Output[STYLE] version text: [STYLISTIC TEXT]
Headline Generation Task
InstructionRead the following news abstract and write a headline for it.
InputNews: [NEWS]
OutputHeadline: [HEADLINE]
Stylistic Headline Generation
InstructionRead the following news abstract and a write a [STYLE] version headline of the news.
InputNews: [NEWS]
Output[STYLE] version headline:
+ +Table 11: The data template used for LLaMA2-InsTuning training and inference stage. + +# A.3 Comparison with TitleStylist-BART + +TitleStylist is initialized using the MASS model, a pretrained model with an encoder-decoder structure similar to BART. We adopt the methodology employed in TitleStylist and apply it to the BART model. We execute both TitleStylist-MASS (with their open-source code) and TitleStylist-BART (with our reimplemented code). As shown in Table 12, We can find that these two variations yield similar ROUGE and BERTScore results while TitleStylist-MASS gets better PPL and PPL-S scores. Therefore, we present the results for TitleStylist-MASS in this paper, as it demonstrates better performance and is consistent with the original paper. + +
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorTitleStylist-BART28.210.024.987.768.5839.3
TitleStylist-MASS27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
RomanceTitleStylist-BART28.410.125.087.762.6923.7
TitleStylist-MASS27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
ClickbaitTitleStylist-BART28.29.824.987.748.2192.9
TitleStylist-MASS28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
+ +Table 12: Comparison results of TitleStylist-BART and Titlelist-MASS. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/images.zip b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/images.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59b8329439f0e1725e1feaa74a923b147566358f --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/images.zip @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 +oid sha256:545c5cea1a9305437413c12b28dd760dbcd7a9cf28c06a819d1b5082ea9640bd +size 770287 diff --git a/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/layout.json b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/layout.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8d03f85f08977ae31e2b427f3fd947a55734d93 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/StyleBART_ Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation/layout.json @@ -0,0 +1,8687 @@ +{ + "pdf_info": [ + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 74, + 486, + 109 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 74, + 486, + 109 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 111, + 74, + 486, + 109 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "StyleBART: Decorate Pretrained Model with Style Adapters for Unsupervised Stylistic Headline Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hanqing Wang" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Yajing Luo" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1*}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Boya Xiong" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Guanhua Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " Yun Chen" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 93, + 118, + 508, + 134 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1\\dagger}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 135, + 416, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 135, + 416, + 148 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 135, + 416, + 148 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{1}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 181, + 135, + 416, + 148 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Shanghai University of Finance and Economics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 148, + 428, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 148, + 428, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 148, + 428, + 190 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{2}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 168, + 148, + 428, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Southern University of Science and Technology {whq, luoyajing, xiongboya}@163.sufe.edu.cn chengh3@sustech.edu.cn yunchen@sufe.edu.cn" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 155, + 212, + 204, + 226 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Abstract" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 561 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 84, + 237, + 274, + 561 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Styletistic headline generation is the task of generate a headline that not only summarizes the content of a news, but also reflects a desired style that attracts users. As style-specific newsheadline pairs are scarce, previous research has focused on unsupervised approaches using a standard headline generation dataset and monostyle corpora. In this work, we follow this line and propose StyleBART, an unsupervised approach for stylistic headline generation. Our method decorates the pretrained BART model with adapters that are responsible for different styles and allows the generation of headlines with diverse styles by simply switching the adapters. Different from previous works, StyleBART separates the task of style learning and headline generation, making it possible to freely combine the base model and the style adapters during inference. We further propose an inverse paraphrasing task to enhance the style adapters. Extensive automatic and human evaluations show that StyleBART achieves new state-of-the-art performance in the unsupervised stylistic headline generation task, producing high-quality headlines with the desired style. Code is available at https://github.com/sufenlp/StyleBART." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 571, + 155, + 585 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 571, + 155, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 571, + 155, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1 Introduction" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 292, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 292, + 743 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 594, + 292, + 743 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "The sequence-to-sequence-based neural headline generation (HG) model (Cao et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019) has demonstrated its ability to generate factual, concise, and fluent headlines (Chopra et al., 2016). Yet, the headlines are also expected to have stylistic attributes to draw more attention of the audiences. To address the problem, Jin et al. (2020) propose the task of Stylistic Headline Generation (SHG), which aims to generate a headline with a specified style such as humorous, romantic and clickbaity. However, acquire" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 307, + 244, + 404, + 334 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 244, + 404, + 334 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 244, + 404, + 334 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 307, + 244, + 404, + 334 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "314942157ce3d59a2ae3e772000bb13c7d96d447fc3dd8672b54cd2243b690b6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 338, + 399, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 338, + 399, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 338, + 399, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(a)Baselines: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 316, + 338, + 399, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N\\times M" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 409, + 222, + 523, + 337 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 222, + 523, + 337 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 222, + 523, + 337 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 409, + 222, + 523, + 337 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "cf8cc40c907d27adbd7f319fa29576e543ec1796489167aab39720a392f44106.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 338, + 511, + 349 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 338, + 511, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 338, + 511, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "(b) StyleBART: " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 421, + 338, + 511, + 349 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N + M" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 1: Our StyleBART is training-efficient. (1) For a combination of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " tasks and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " styles, StyleBART only trains " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " task-specific models and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " style-specific modules, then combines them at inference time to support each stylistic generation task. Previous works train separate " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "M \\times N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 359, + 526, + 480 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " models. (2) For a new style (task), StyleBART only trains a new style module (task model), however, baselines have to train many additional models to combine the new style (task) with all existing tasks (styles)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 526, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 526, + 609 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 502, + 526, + 609 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing enough parallel data for SHG is almost impossible, as the creation of headlines with specific styles demands creativity and often consumes significant effort. Hence, researchers (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) in turn explore unsupervised approaches which only require a standard headline generation dataset and non-parallel stylistic text corpora." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 525, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 611, + 525, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Some existing works propose a pipeline method (Sudhakar et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2019; Krishna et al., 2020) which firstly generates a plain headline and then introduces the pre-specified style with a style transfer model. However, this pipeline method requires two models during inference, which brings additional latency and storage cost. Some other works (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) jointly learn a plain headline generation model on news-headline pairs, and a denoising autoencoder on the stylistic text corpus. However, these approaches require to carefully design the scheduling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 230, + 761 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 230, + 761 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 750, + 230, + 761 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "*Co-first author with equal contribution" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 83, + 761, + 171, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "† Corresponding author" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 283, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10387" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "footer", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 124, + 795, + 468, + 818 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 10387-10399 December 6-10, 2023 ©2023 Association for Computational Linguistics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 0 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 290, + 125 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and parameter sharing mechanisms between tasks. Moreover, as the task of headline generation and style learning are entangled, the entire model has to be rebuilt when facing a new style or task." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 126, + 291, + 301 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this paper, we propose StyleBART, an unsupervised SHG model based on the BART model (Lewis et al., 2020). Instead of using a multitask learning framework, StyleBART disentangles the style and the specific task (e.g. headline generation) by the design of model architecture and training strategy. Intuitively, this enables StyleBART to separately train the style and task modules, then combine them as required during inference (Figure 1). Hence, StyleBART is more flexible and training-efficient compared with baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022) which require training models for all style and task combinations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 302, + 291, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, StyleBART utilizes style adapters as plug-and-play modules for the style control. The style adapters are learned at the pretraining stage through the inverse paraphrasing task on the style corpus, while the base HG model is learned at the fine-tuning stage on news-headline pairs. During inference, we achieve unsupervised SHG by switching to the target style adapter. In this way, StyleBART has the same high decoding efficiency as Jin et al. (2020), while overcoming its problems in task scheduling and inefficient training." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 290, + 505 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 451, + 290, + 505 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We evaluate StyleBART using the same three SHG tasks described in Jin et al. (2020). Both automatic and human evaluations demonstrate the superiority of our method over baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 140, + 529 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 140, + 529 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 516, + 140, + 529 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2 Approach" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 197, + 550 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 197, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 538, + 197, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.1 Problem Formulation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We denote the parallel news-headline dataset as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D = \\{\\langle x, y \\rangle\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", where each pair " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\langle x, y \\rangle" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " consists of a news article " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and its corresponding plain headline " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The corpus for the " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "i^{\\text{th}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is denoted as " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T^{s_i} = \\{t^{s_i}\\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Our goal is to generate stylistic headline " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " given the news article " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "x" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 555, + 291, + 664 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Note that this is an unsupervised setup, as no news article and stylistic headline pairs are available." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 210, + 687 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 210, + 687 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 674, + 210, + 687 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.2 StyleBART Architecture" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 692, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "As shown in Figure 2, our model consists of two parts: the BART model and the adapter modules. We use the BART as the base model for StyleBART. Adapters (Rebuffi et al., 2018) are light-weight bottleneck layers inserted into a base model. It is designed as a parameter-efficient method to fine" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 520, + 195 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 520, + 195 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 520, + 195 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 311, + 71, + 520, + 195 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "8356be8c8f7a02eb6b82eda497900ec74f4b0de5f5c4087354043e4bbeaab607.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 2: The architecture of StyleBART consists of the BART model and the adapter modules. The pretrained BART model is composed of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " encoder layers and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "N" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 204, + 525, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " decoder layers. The adapter module is inserted after the feed-forward sublayer in each decoder layer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 353 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 353 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "tune the base model for a new task (Houlsby et al., 2019), language (Pfeiffer et al., 2020) or domain (Bapna et al., 2019). In StyleBART, we instead use the adapters to control the style of the model output." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Formally, following Houlsby et al. (2019), an adapter module " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "A" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is composed of layer normalization (LN) of the input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z \\in R^h" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", down-projection " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(W_{\\mathrm{down}} \\in R^{h \\times b})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with the bottleneck dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", non-linear function (ReLU), up-projection " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(W_{\\mathrm{up}} \\in R^{b \\times h})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and a residual connection with the input " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "z" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 354, + 525, + 434 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ":" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 443, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 443, + 525, + 460 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 319, + 443, + 525, + 460 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "A (z) = W _ {\\mathrm {u p}} ^ {T} \\operatorname {R e L U} \\left(W _ {\\mathrm {d o w n}} ^ {T} \\operatorname {L N} (z)\\right) + z. \\tag {1}", + "image_path": "cc80df0bcddfc1ab8ce0bd8c031a6dcde3ddc81f840400a736ba426ab811ae06.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We insert the adapters into each decoder layer of the base model. For each style, we have a set of style adapters. In the following, we use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote the set of parameters of the BART model, and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote that of the style adapters for style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 469, + 525, + 537 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 439, + 558 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 439, + 558 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 545, + 439, + 558 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2.3 Training and Inference" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We divide the training process of StyleBART into three steps (Figure 3): (1) Style adapter pretraining, which learns the style adapters to control the style of the model output by pretraining on the style dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; (2) Headline generation fine-tuning, which optimizes the base model to generate plain headline on the headline dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 301, + 562, + 525, + 698 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "; (3) Stylistic headline generation, which generates stylistic headline by switching to the target style adapters during inference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 1: Style Adapter Pretraining. The style adapters can be trained with the style dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " by the denoising auto-encoding task, which reconstructs the sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Here " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 706, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " is a noise function that generates a perturbed version" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10388" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 1 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 80, + 70, + 229, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 70, + 229, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 70, + 229, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 70, + 229, + 227 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "1efa76876f2ea1a4a193e8936c6b90908cc7a7fc04ca09e51f2ae2c160a7aecd.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 239, + 524, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 239, + 524, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 239, + 524, + 264 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Figure 3: Training and inference framework of StyleBART. Step 1: Style adapter pretraining; Step 2: Headline generation fine-tuning; Step 3: Stylistic headline generation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_caption" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 230, + 74, + 369, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 74, + 369, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 74, + 369, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 230, + 74, + 369, + 227 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "bdee3e5d7bdfc678538513e0a06d54ce6f80c8c7eb13810defb60dd8e6f26334.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "type": "image", + "bbox": [ + 370, + 81, + 512, + 227 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 81, + 512, + 227 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 81, + 512, + 227 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 370, + 81, + 512, + 227 + ], + "type": "image", + "image_path": "e1639078627d81ef0e1b3115ca0ac69b25aa6a650b0fb0eef48a53dbbc334f11.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "image_body" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 290, + 350 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 285, + 290, + 350 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "of the input, such as token masking and token deletion used during BART pretraining (Lewis et al., 2020) and our baselines (Jin et al., 2020; Zhan et al., 2022). However, this training method is suboptimal." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Krishna et al. (2020), the style can be loosely defined as the common patterns of lexical choice and syntactic constructions that are distinct from the content of a sentence. Considering how the noise function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " works, we argue that the corrupted text " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 354, + 290, + 528 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " still contains the stylistic information. As a result, the model may learn to guide the style of its output with the style of its input, which deviates from our goal to control the output style with style adapters. We call this undesirable spurious correlation (Gu et al., 2019). Instead, we propose to address this issue with inverse paraphrasing method." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Inspired by Krishna et al. (2020), we replace " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}(t^{s_{i}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{p}(t^{s_{i}})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which is generated by feeding " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^{s_{i}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to a paraphrase model trained to maximize diversity. Table 1 displays examples of stylistic sentences and their perturbed versions with the noise function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and the paraphrase model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Intuitively, the paraphrase model can better strip away information from " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^{s_{i}}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 531, + 290, + 692 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " that is predictive of its original style. As a result, our model has to rely on the style adapters instead of the input sentence to control its output style, enhancing the adapters' ability for style control." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Specifically, to train the adapters for style " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_i" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", we first feed each sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "t^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to the paraphrase model and get the perturbed sentence " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_p(t^{s_i})" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 695, + 290, + 749 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Then we train the corresponding style adapters while freez-" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 298 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 285, + 525, + 298 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ing all other parameters with inverse paraphrasing:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 524, + 346 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 524, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 306, + 524, + 346 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {i}} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta^ {s _ {i}}} \\sum_ {t ^ {s _ {i}} \\in T ^ {s _ {i}}} \\log p \\left(t ^ {s _ {i}} \\mid g _ {p} \\left(t ^ {s _ {i}}\\right); \\theta^ {s _ {i}}, \\theta^ {b}\\right). \\tag {2}", + "image_path": "6f4a2a08577759af5eb437c905603db4958aee282c35c537b9861c33373a759b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Since the input is style-agnostic and the other parameters are freezing, the model has to rely on the style adapters to control its output style. We also learn a style-less adapter " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\theta^{s_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " in the same way except replacing " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with a dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "T^{s_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 346, + 525, + 428 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", which consists of plain text from BART pretraining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 2: Headline Generation Fine-tuning. In this step, StyleBART learns headline generation on the headline dataset " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "D = \\{\\langle x,y\\rangle \\}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 434, + 525, + 570 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". Since the headline is style-less, we insert the style-less adapters into StyleBART and finetune it on the headline generation task. This step is required to force the model to learn the task of headline generation. During finetuning, we only update the parameters of the encoder while freezing the style-less adapters and all other model parameters:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 578, + 524, + 618 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 578, + 524, + 618 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 312, + 578, + 524, + 618 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "\\hat {\\theta} _ {e n c} ^ {b} = \\arg \\max _ {\\theta_ {e n c} ^ {b}} \\sum_ {< x, y > \\in D} \\log p (y \\mid x; \\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {0}}, \\theta^ {b}). \\tag {3}", + "image_path": "5c5573f9f220e43757bfb5f3b4d321e4866d2c50e62d9c0f38e67a50576c2db6.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 525, + 673 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 619, + 525, + 673 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this way, we limit the computational cost, and more importantly, mitigate the catastrophic forgetting problem in style control, thus facilitating the switching of different style adapters in Step 3." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 525, + 735 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 681, + 525, + 735 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Step 3: Stylistic Headline Generating. To generate a headline in a given style, we can achieve this by replacing the style-less adapters of StyleBART with the corresponding style-specific adapters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "2We choose plain text from BART pretraining instead of the headline generation dataset in order to separate the style and downstream task at the data level." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 261, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 261, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 760, + 261, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "1We use the STRAP model (Krishna et al., 2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10389" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 2 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 264 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 264 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 264 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 92, + 68, + 504, + 264 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Style siStylistic Sentence tsiNoised Text gn(tsi)Paraphrased Text gp(tsi)
HumorThere are few things more awkward on a blind date than looking up from your phone to realize she's left. She obviously wasn't blind at all.She [MASK] blind at all. There are few things [MASK] on a blind date than [MASK] looking up from your phone to realize she's left.The fact that she left, and the fact that she's obviously not blind, is much more awkward.
RomanceHe confessed to her that she was his most precious jewel, and that she would always be the rarest gem in his eyes.[MASK] to her that she was his most [MASK] jewel, and that she would [MASK] rarest gem in his eyes.He confessed that she was the most valuable thing in his eyes, and he would never see another one.
ClickbaitUnbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in Europe for the third time twenty years.Unbelievable meeting Bob Dylan in [MASK] for the third time twenty years.The extraordinary meeting with Bob Dylan in Europe for three times.
", + "image_path": "ddd03c794379fbc29ba5ce79d3770089f11436f2eabb6ed8745b4925a10312cc.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 1: Examples of sentences and their perturbed versions in three styles: humor, romance and clickbait. The noised text indicates the output after the noise function " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{n}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", and the paraphrased text indicates the output after passing through the paraphrase model " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "g_{p}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 271, + 525, + 309 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "StyleBART has already learned the task of headline generation. Therefore, by switching the style-less adapters to the style-specific adapters, we can obtain a style-specific headline generation model. We use " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\theta}^b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\theta}^{s_0}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\hat{\\theta}^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " to denote the model parameters of the base model, the style-less adapters and the style adapters after Step 2. Then given a news article, StyleBART outputs its style-specific headline " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "y^{s_i}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 328, + 290, + 450 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " with" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 458, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 458, + 290, + 481 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 108, + 458, + 290, + 481 + ], + "type": "interline_equation", + "content": "y ^ {s _ {i}} = \\underset {y} {\\arg \\max } p (y \\mid x; \\hat {\\theta} ^ {s _ {i}}, \\hat {\\theta} ^ {b}). \\tag {4}", + "image_path": "2cd438caa4cf78ddaa880a529d336db98d15eb9bab82af0a0ecb1981ca86a6d7.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 155, + 503 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 155, + 503 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 489, + 155, + 503 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3 Experiments" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 136, + 523 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 136, + 523 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 510, + 136, + 523 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.1 Datasets" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 745 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 528, + 291, + 745 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Following Jin et al. (2020), the experiment datasets consist of a headline generation dataset CNN-NYT, and three stylistic text datasets for humorous, romantic and clickbaity. The CNN-NYT dataset consists of 146K news-headline pairs from two sources: the New York Times (Sandhaus, 2008) and the CNN dataset (Hermann et al., 2015). We use the same dataset split as Jin et al. (2020). Each style dataset contains 500K style-specific sentences. The humor and romance datasets are collected from the novels in the corresponding genres of BookCorpus (Zhu et al., 2015). The clickbait dataset is obtained from The Examiner-SpamClickBait News dataset. To train the style-less adapters, we also build a style-less dataset, which consists of 500K sentences randomly sampled from BookCorpus," + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 397 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 328, + 526, + 397 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "one of the datasets used in BART pretraining. For style datasets, we use the same split as Jin et al. (2020). For the style-less dataset, we randomly sample 3,000 sentences for both the validation and test set, leaving the rest as the training set." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 374, + 417 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 374, + 417 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 374, + 417 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.2 Baselines" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 449 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 423, + 525, + 449 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We compare StyleBART with the following baselines:" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 679 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 490 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 450, + 525, + 490 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Neural Headline Generation (NHG): Finetuning all parameters of BART on the plain headline generation dataset." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 544 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 524, + 544 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Two-Step Decoding(TSD): A two-step decoding method that first generates a plain headline and then injects style with an unsupervised style transfer model (Dai et al., 2019)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 524, + 585 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 544, + 524, + 585 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- Multitask: A multitask framework that jointly trains on plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with the BART model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 525, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 525, + 626 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 586, + 525, + 626 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- TitleStylist (Jin et al., 2020): An approach similar to Multitask, but with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching between tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 679 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "- S-SHG (Zhan et al., 2022)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 679 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^4" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 626, + 524, + 679 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ": An approach that first constructs the stem and syntax of the headline similarly to TitleStylist, and then populates that with substantive context." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 421, + 702 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 421, + 702 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 690, + 421, + 702 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.3 Evaluation Metrics" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 707, + 525, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 707, + 525, + 734 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 707, + 525, + 734 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Automatic Evaluation. We use automatic evaluation to measure the quality and style of the gener" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 740, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Our reimplemented S-SHG performs slightly worse than the original paper. However, the paper provides no open-source code or implementation details." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/therohk/examine-the-examiner" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10390" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 3 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 464, + 301 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 464, + 301 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 464, + 301 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 132, + 68, + 464, + 301 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
Style-lessNHG29.710.926.388.252.6-
StyleBART-N29.410.726.288.155.6-
HumorTSD*20.35.518.5---
MultiTask30.011.126.687.952.81267.6
TitleStylist27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
S-SHG26.28.222.587.4107.4702.2
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceTSD*20.55.818.7---
MultiTask30.011.426.888.153.21543.0
TitleStylist27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
S-SHG26.28.622.587.4101.0685.0
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitTSD*20.37.123.2---
MultiTask30.311.327.088.352.2392.4
TitleStylist28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
S-SHG27.08.823.587.667.9234.3
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
", + "image_path": "60805c976847b2fa8509c5d25340e233973f1aaa46c0690127a9d415fd79a90f.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 346 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 346 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 308, + 525, + 346 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2: Automatic evaluation results of ROUGE, BERTScore, PPL and PPL-S. TSD* result is directly cited from Li et al. (2022), while all other methods are implemented by ourselves or with the open-sourced code. StyleBART-N: StyleBART with the style-less adapters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 366, + 290, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "ated headline. For the quality, we use ROUGE (Lin, 2004) and BERTScore (Zhang* et al., 2020) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline and PPL to evaluate its language fluency. The PPL is calculated with OpenAI GPT2 (Radford et al., 2019) finetuned on the plain headlines following Zhan et al. (2022). To evaluate the style, we use PPL-S, which computes the PPL score of the generated headline using GPT2 finetuned on the corresponding style corpus." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 291, + 741 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 511, + 291, + 741 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Human Evaluation. We conducted a human evaluation to more comprehensively assess our model. We randomly sampled 50 news articles from each test set and asked three judges to rate the outputs from TitleStylist, S-SHG and our StyleBART. To assess generation quality, we ask the judges to rate from 1 to 10 (integer values) from three aspects: 1) Relevance—how semantically relevant the headline is to the news article. 2) Attractiveness—how appealing they feel the headline is. 3) Fluency—how comprehensive and easy-to-read the headline is. We then report the average score for each aspect across all test samples and judges. For the style evaluation, we ask the judges to choose the best headline of each style from an entire set of TitleStylist, S-SHG and StyleBART's outputs. We then report the percentage of the times" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 450, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 450, + 379 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 366, + 450, + 379 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "each model is chosen as the best." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 429, + 401 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 429, + 401 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 388, + 429, + 401 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "3.4 Model Configuration" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We implemented StyleBART with the pretrained BART model using Hugging Face. We set the bottleneck dimension " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "b" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " of the adapters to be 64. To pretrain the adapters, we use the AdamW optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2014) with " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " and " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2} = 0.999" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The learning rate is " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "5e - 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 406, + 525, + 581 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". For fine-tuning on the headline generation dataset, we use the same AdamW optimizer and learning rate. For all steps of training, we use a batch size of 8. At inference time, we use beam search with a beam size of 4. All experiments are run on a single NVIDIA RTX 2080ti GPU, except that LLaMA2-InsTuning is run on a single NVIDIA A100 40G GPU" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 441, + 604 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 441, + 604 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 592, + 441, + 604 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4 Results and Discussion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 470, + 625 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 470, + 625 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 613, + 470, + 625 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.1 Automatic Evaluation Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 657 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 630, + 525, + 657 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 2 shows the automatic evaluation results of our proposed StyleBART and all baselines." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 665, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Content Relevance. We use ROUGE (R1,R2, and RL) and BERTScore (BERT) to measure the relevance of the generated headlines to the reference headline. As can be seen, NHG, StyleBARTN, and MultiTask achieve the highest relevance score. This can be explained by that more stylistic headlines would lose some relevance as 1) the reference headlines are style-less; 2) the stylistic head" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 750, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5We do not include TSD, Multitask as they are much worse according to previous work and our automatic evaluation." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 311, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10391" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 4 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 185 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 185 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 185 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 68, + 289, + 185 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodRelevanceAttractionFluency
HumorTitleStylist5.825.607.40
S-SHG6.137.128.23
StyleBART7.047.588.42
RomanceTitleStylist6.126.067.78
S-SHG6.376.047.63
StyleBART6.707.308.40
ClickbaitTitleStylist6.006.168.00
S-SHG6.176.658.17
StyleBART6.766.968.26
", + "image_path": "d9d1c81cf72c976441de9aaff08b350d17400c9dffcb6ef41032e1580a6b1a35.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 335 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 227, + 290, + 335 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "line may use more words outside the news body for improved creativity (Jin et al., 2020). For stylistic headline generation, TSD has the worst relevance score. StyleBART performs slightly worse than TitleStylist (-0.6 averaged RL and -0.1 averaged BERT) and better than S-SHG (+1.3 averaged RL and +0.0 averaged BERT), validating StyleBART's ability in this aspect." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 453 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 345, + 291, + 453 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Language Perplexity. We use PPL on the GPT2 fine-tuned on plain headlines to measure the fluency of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART surpasses all baselines by a significant margin except that it is slightly worse than TitleStylist. This may be because the headlines from StyleBART have stronger style and more stylistic headlines would also lose some PPL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 291, + 665 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 463, + 291, + 665 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Style Strength. We use PPL-S to measure the style strength of the generated headline. As can be seen, StyleBART generates headlines with the strongest style across all stylistic headline generation tasks. Compared with the baseline TitleStylist (resp. S-SHG), StyleBART obtains 119.5 (resp. 114.2) lower averaged PPL-S score. The baseline MultiTask performs the worst in style control. Moreover, StyleBART disentangles style learning and headline generation learning, thus only trains once on the headline generation dataset to support all three styles. In contrast, all baselines except TSD require training three times on the headline generation dataset for the three stylistic generation tasks.[6]" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 221, + 690 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 221, + 690 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 221, + 690 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.2 Human Evaluation Results" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 697, + 289, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 697, + 289, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 697, + 289, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3 and Table 4 present the human evaluation results." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 516, + 131 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 192, + 282, + 205 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 192, + 282, + 205 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 74, + 192, + 282, + 205 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 3: Human evaluation results on three aspects." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 516, + 131 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 516, + 131 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 315, + 68, + 516, + 131 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleTitleStylistS-SHGStyleBART
Humor20%34%46%
Romance22%28%50%
Clickbait32%26%42%
", + "image_path": "931cfa0259b6f90386cb8b79ebbbc511d7382ce330afdbf948140a93e10dcd75.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 525, + 176 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 525, + 176 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 525, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 4: The percentage of choices " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 525, + 176 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "(\\%)" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 139, + 525, + 176 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " for the most humorous, romantic or clickbaity headlines among TitleStylist, S-SHG, and StyleBART." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 526, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 526, + 305 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 197, + 526, + 305 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Generation Quality. We assess generation quality in relevance, attraction, and fluency, as shown in Table 3. StyleBART performs the best in all three aspects compared to baselines. The results are slightly inconsistent with automatic quality evaluation. This may be explained by that automatic quality evaluation metrics favor less stylistic headlines, while humans do not have such bias." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 525, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 525, + 381 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 314, + 525, + 381 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Style Strength. We measure the style strength in Table 4. As can be seen, StyleBART has the highest average selection percentage, followed by the S-SHG model. This is consistent with what we find in the automatic measurement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 444, + 405 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 444, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 391, + 444, + 405 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.3 Comparison with LLMs" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 640 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this part, we compare StyleBART with methods using Large Language Models (LLMs), as presented in Table 5. For GPT3.5-prompting, we perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " API. We provide stylistic sentences and news-plain headline pairs in the prompt and query the model to generate stylistic headlines for the input news. For LLaMA2-InsTuning, we conduct instruction tuning with LoRA on LLaMA2 (Touvron et al., 2023) for both the inverse paraphrasing task and the news headline generation task. Then we perform stylistic headline generation during testing. Appendix A provides more details. We find that StyleBART overall generates headlines with the best content relevance and the strongest style, demonstrating the superiority of StyleBART even in the era of large language models." + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 409, + 525, + 640 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{8}" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 401, + 663 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 401, + 663 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 650, + 401, + 663 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.4 Ablation Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 526, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 526, + 723 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 668, + 526, + 723 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Design Choices of Style Adapter Pretraining. Table 6 shows the effect of different design choices at the style adapter pretraining step. StyleBART—para represents training the adapters" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 731, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6The baselines can also support multiple styles within one model by jointly training on a headline generation dataset and all style corpora. However, the performance will decrease according to Jin et al. (2020)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{7}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-3-5 \n" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "^{8}" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 729, + 524, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Note that StyleBART and these two LLM-based methods are not strictly comparable due to the difference in model size and training data. We include the comparison as a reference." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10392" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 5 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 474, + 210 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 474, + 210 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 474, + 210 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 121, + 68, + 474, + 210 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodGenerationStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorGPT3.5-prompting22.75.919.585.81972.41161.3
LLaMA2-InsTuning24.57.721.686.341.7622.8
StyleBART28.29.925.087.642.5602.9
RomanceGPT3.5-prompting22.45.819.485.91561.21329.4
LLaMA2-InsTuning26.68.523.587.0112.6879.4
StyleBART27.49.324.387.436.7560.5
ClickbaitGPT3.5-prompting24.56.921.086.21074.04094.6
LLaMA2-InsTuning27.28.923.886.946.2353.1
StyleBART25.37.723.087.550.9115.5
", + "image_path": "b0793e04f2984faaf946a9f6c7e3df9454435af1777acadb768879c829f8eb4c.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 72, + 248, + 289, + 405 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 217, + 449, + 230 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 217, + 449, + 230 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 143, + 217, + 449, + 230 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 5: Comparison results with methods based on large language models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 248, + 289, + 405 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 248, + 289, + 405 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 72, + 248, + 289, + 405 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessStyleBART-N26.288.155.6-
–para26.488.157.4-
–s0 adapters26.588.257.6-
HumorStyleBART25.087.642.5602.9
–para26.088.054.41033.0
–s0 adapters18.586.2221.01620.0
RomanceStyleBART24.387.436.7560.5
–para26.288.151.81275.6
–s0 adapters18.986.4209.61824.9
ClickbaitStyleBART23.087.550.9115.5
–para24.287.743.3125.8
–s0 adapters21.087.153.6134.2
", + "image_path": "44bbc4430a81717fb6971a7e89c9211fc65c78f3d5fc158404197eefc0a257b5.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 291, + 463 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 291, + 463 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 6: Ablation on different design choices for style adapter pretraining (Step 1). -para: StyleBART with adapter pretraining by the denoising task. " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "-s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 413, + 291, + 463 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " adapters: StyleBART without pretraining the style-less adapters." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "with the denoising task instead of the inverse paraphrasing task. StyleBART-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " adapters fine-tune the BART model without style-less adapters at step 2, thus without pretraining the style-less adapters. As can be seen, all methods perform similarly in style-less headline generation. When it comes to stylistic headline generation, StyleBART-" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "s_0" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 487, + 291, + 691 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": " adapters decrease dramatically in both the summarization quality and the style control. The inverse paraphrasing task is crucial for style control, while slightly decreasing the relevance of the generated headline to the reference headline. This may be because the reference headlines are style-less, while the headlines produced by using the inverse paraphrasing task have a stronger style." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 706, + 290, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Trainable Parameters of Headline Generation Fine-tuning. We compare different choices of trainable parameters at the headline generation finetuning step, as illustrated in Table 7. As can be seen, all fine-tuning methods get similar scores" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 248, + 523, + 420 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 248, + 523, + 420 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 248, + 523, + 420 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 248, + 523, + 420 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodRLBERTPPLPPL-S
enccattdec
Style-less✓××26.988.255.6-
✓✓×26.788.257.8-
✓✓✓26.488.255.1-
Humor✓××25.087.642.5602.9
✓✓×26.188.047.2860.8
✓✓✓26.288.246.61011.3
Romance✓××24.387.436.7560.5
✓✓×25.688.045.2911.7
✓✓✓26.288.247.21172.4
Clickbait✓××23.087.550.9115.5
✓✓×23.487.650.3139.5
✓✓✓24.887.942.6156.5
", + "image_path": "70ecf6617f6292ea21e17131569a42505352da688d12c13bc0f7a01cf50fa8fb.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 477 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 477 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 428, + 527, + 477 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 7: Ablation on different choices of trainable parameters for headline generation fine-tuning (Step2). enc: the encoder part. catt: the cross attention part. dec: the decoder part." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_footnote" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 526, + 634 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 499, + 526, + 634 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "when generating style-less headlines, indicating that fine-tuning only partial parameters is enough for learning the headline generation task. When comparing on the SHG task, only updating the encoder can best control the style of the generated headlines among all fine-tuning methods. As the style adapters are inserted at the decoder, freezing the decoder and cross-attention can better maintain their style control ability obtained during pretraining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 384, + 659 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 384, + 659 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 645, + 384, + 659 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.5 Case Study" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 526, + 718 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 664, + 526, + 718 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "In this section, we present examples of generated stylistic headlines, as shown in Table 8. Again, we concentrate on StyleBART, TitleStylist, and S- SHG, as they outperform the other methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 719, + 526, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "From this example as well as others, we find that all three methods generate relevant and fluent headlines. However, StyleBART is better at style control. For example, the phrase \"won't last forever\"" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10393" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 6 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 286 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 286 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 286 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 91, + 68, + 503, + 286 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
News AbstractCyber monday has been the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers. But retailers are spreading their online sales throughout the thanksgiving holiday. As a result, cyber monday's growth is flattening. Analyst: cyber monday will phase out eventually.
HumorTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday flattens out for retailers
RomanceTitleStylistCyber monday: the biggest single shopping day of the year?
S-SHGCyber monday is still the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTCyber monday won't last forever
ClickbaitTitleStylistCyber monday is flattening
S-SHGCyber monday has become the biggest single shopping day of the year for online retailers
StyleBARTIs cyber monday the end of online shopping?
", + "image_path": "1636a30a80ec7d054874aa8165c247586322cba363fe13eb40a0af6a47d610ad.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 437 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 327, + 291, + 437 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "used in the romantic headline by StyleBART is a common expression in romantic contexts. StyleBART uses questions to raise the reader's curiosity in clickbaity headline. We also observe that when generating headlines of different styles, StyleBART produces more diverse results, while TitleStylist and S-SHG are more likely to change only a few words or expressions." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 257, + 458 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 257, + 458 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 444, + 257, + 458 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4.6 Extension to Stylistic Story Telling" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 677 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 461, + 291, + 677 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "To test whether StyleBART can flexibly combine tasks and styles, we conduct experiments on stylistic story telling. Specifically, giving the first sentence of a story, this task generates story follow-ups with a desired style. We use the ROCStories dataset (Mostafazadeh et al., 2016) as the standard story telling dataset which contains around 100,000 stories. We randomly select 4080 stories for both validation and test set and leave the rest as the training set. With the dataset, we fine-tune our base model following Step 2 (Section 2.3) and combine the fine-tuned base model with existing humor/romance/clickbait style adapters for inference. In this way, we efficiently build a stylistic story telling model which supports three styles while only requiring fine-tuning once." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 678, + 291, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9 shows the automatic evaluation results. As can be seen, when switching to the style adapters, the model generates more stylistic stories (PPL-S), while the generated stories become less relevant to the reference story follow-ups (BERT). This is consistent with stylistic headline generation, demonstrating that our style adapters can be com" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 308, + 326, + 524, + 413 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 294, + 449, + 306 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 294, + 449, + 306 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 142, + 294, + 449, + 306 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 8: Examples of the stylistic headlines generated by different methods." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 326, + 524, + 413 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 326, + 524, + 413 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 308, + 326, + 524, + 413 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodBERTPPLPPL-S
Style-lessNST88.54.4-
StyleBART-N88.54.7-
Humor-0.5+0.4-17.0
RomanceStyleBART-0.4+0.4-14.4
Clickbait-1.6+23.1-968.7
", + "image_path": "f9ba362c6b4d549fd779e55600e0816f67c0e6802ad9acc6a7e4746d0b26b3ac.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 469 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 469 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 421, + 525, + 469 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 9: Automatic evaluation results of stylistic story telling. NST: fine-tune all BART parameters on the plain story telling data. For StyleBART, we report the score changes with respect to the StyleBART-N model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 491, + 525, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "bined with different downstream tasks to control the style of the generated text." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 396, + 541 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 396, + 541 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 529, + 396, + 541 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5 Related Work" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 551, + 429, + 563 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 551, + 429, + 563 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 551, + 429, + 563 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.1 Headline Generation" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 636 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 570, + 526, + 636 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Headline generation is the task of generating relevant and concise headlines for given news. It has various application scenarios, such as automated news writing (Li et al., 2022) and product advertising (Kanungo et al., 2022)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 638, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Traditional approaches on headline generation rely on linguistic features and handcrafted rules (Dorr et al., 2003; Knight and Marcu, 2002). With the advancement of neural networks, neural headline generation shows its capacity to generate high quality headlines (Rush et al., 2015). However, controlling the style of these headlines remains challenging. Jin et al. (2020) propose the first unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which relies only on a standard headline generation dataset" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10394" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 7 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 262 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 71, + 293, + 262 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "and mono-style corpora. They design a multitask learning framework to jointly learn both plain headline generation and stylistic text denoising with carefully designed parameter sharing and switching strategy. Zhan et al. (2022) further extend by decomposing the headline into style and content. They define stem and syntax as the style and generate the style first using a similar multitask framework as Jin et al. (2020). After that, substantive context is populated into that style with the conditional masked language modelling task. However, these works jointly learn style and headline generation, thus cannot support freely combination of styles and generation tasks at inference time." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 251, + 294 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 251, + 294 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 280, + 251, + 294 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "5.2 Unsupervised Text Style Transfer" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 291, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 291, + 615 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 304, + 291, + 615 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Text style transfer is to generate a sentence consistent with desired style while preserving the content of the source sentence (Shen et al., 2017). Due to the scarcity of style parallel corpora, unsupervised text style transfer is widely explored in previous works. Wu et al. (2019) regard text style transfer as a cloze task to accomplish sentiment style conversion of sentences. Dai et al. (2019) incorporates the sentiment style information through a reconstruction task. Krishna et al. (2020) redefine the style transfer problem as a paraphrase generation problem and propose a method based on reverse paraphrasing to generate the desired style. Lai et al. (2021) utilize large pretrained models such as BART and GPT-2, using BLEU scores and style classification scores as rewards, to achieve significant improvements in the transformation of formal and informal text. These models can be combined with plain headline generation model to achieve stylistic headline generation. However, they require two-steps decoding at inference time, while StyleBART generates stylistic headlines in one decoding step." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 147, + 649 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 147, + 649 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 636, + 147, + 649 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "6 Conclusion" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 665, + 291, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We propose StyleBART, an unsupervised stylistic generation method, which enables to freely combine the downstream tasks and styles by disentangling style learning and downstream task learning. Experimental results show that our model can generate content-relevant and style-intensive headlines, and can be extended to other stylistic generation tasks." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 70, + 366, + 83 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Limitations" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 527, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 527, + 228 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 93, + 527, + 228 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This work mainly explores the stylistic headline generation task. We leave the exploration of more combinations of tasks and styles such as stylistic machine translation, stylistic document summarization as future work. At the same time, our current method achieves stylistic generation by simply switching the adapters, which cannot provide fine-grained control of the style. This hinders Style-BART from meeting the diverse user demands related to style control." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 240, + 393, + 253 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 240, + 393, + 253 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 240, + 393, + 253 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ethics Statement" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 527, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 527, + 491 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 263, + 527, + 491 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We present a training-efficient approach to build an unsupervised stylistic headline generation model which disentangles the headline generation learning and style learning. Despite the strong performance of style control, StyleBART inherits the societal impacts including some negative ones of the original BART model, such as societal biases (Milios and BehnamGhader, 2022) and misuse of language models (Tamkin et al., 2021). The implicit biases are expected to be removed by debiasing either the dataset or the model (Meade et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2022). StyleBART makes it possible to generate text in various (e.g. clickbait) style which can be used to propagate the malicious or offensive content (Welbl et al., 2021). Future explorations are needed to mitigate the misuse of StyleBART model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 505, + 405, + 518 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 505, + 405, + 518 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 505, + 405, + 518 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Acknowledgements" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 527, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 527, + 596 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 528, + 527, + 596 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "This project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62106138, No. 62306132) and Shanghai Sailing Program (No. 21YF1412100). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedbacks on this work." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 362, + 632 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 362, + 632 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 619, + 362, + 632 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "References" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 640, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 15, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 674 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 674 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 640, + 526, + 674 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ankur Bapna, Naveen Arivazhagan, and Orhan First. 2019. Simple, scalable adaptation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08478." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 683, + 527, + 729 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 683, + 527, + 729 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 683, + 527, + 729 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Wenjie Li, and Sujian Li. 2018. Faithful to the original: Fact aware neural abstractive summarization. In thirty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 527, + 773 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 303, + 738, + 527, + 773 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sumit Chopra, Michael Auli, and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Abstractive sentence summarization with attentive recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10395" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 8 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 11, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 80, + 72, + 290, + 127 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 93-98, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 139, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 139, + 290, + 216 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 139, + 290, + 216 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Ning Dai, Jianze Liang, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. Style transformer: Unpaired text style transfer without disentangled latent representation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5997-6007, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 289, + 261 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 227, + 289, + 261 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "B. Dorr, David M. Zajic, and Richard M. Schwartz. 2003. Hedge trimmer: A parse-and-trim approach to headline generation. In HLT-NAACL 2003." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 349 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 272, + 290, + 349 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiatao Gu, Yong Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Victor O.K. Li. 2019. Improved zero-shot neural machine translation via ignoring spurious correlations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1258-1268, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 416 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 416 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 360, + 290, + 416 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomas Kocisky, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. 2015. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1693-1701." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 290, + 492 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 290, + 492 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 427, + 290, + 492 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 550 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 505, + 290, + 550 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Lisa Orii, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Hooks in the headline: Learning to generate headlines with controlled styles. meeting of the association for computational linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 290, + 627 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 560, + 290, + 627 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yashal Shakti Kanungo, Gyanendra Das, and Sumit Negi. 2022. Cobart: Controlled, optimized, bidirectional and auto-regressive transformer for ad headline generation. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 671 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 671 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 638, + 290, + 671 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 682, + 290, + 716 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 682, + 290, + 716 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 682, + 290, + 716 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kevin Knight and Daniel Marcu. 2002. Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artif. Intell., 139:91-107." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 728, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kalpesh Krishna, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Reformulating unsupervised style transfer as paraphrase generation. empirical methods in natural language processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 25, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 525, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Huiyuan Lai, Antonio Toral, and Malvina Nissim. 2021. Generic resources are what you need: Style transfer tasks without task-specific parallel training data. Proceedings of EMNLP." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 190 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 124, + 525, + 190 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Michael Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. Proceedings of ACL." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 13 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 231 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 198, + 525, + 231 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Zhengpeng Li, Jian Wu, Jiawei Miao, and Xinmiao Yu. 2022. News headline generation based on improved decoder from transformer. Scientific Reports, 12." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 238, + 524, + 272 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. meeting of the association for computational linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 15 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 313 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 280, + 525, + 313 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Junyang Lin, Xu Sun, Shuming Ma, and Qi Su. 2018. Global encoding for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03989." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 16 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 365 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 321, + 525, + 365 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nicholas Meade, Elinor Poole-Dayan, and Siva Reddy. 2022. An empirical survey of the effectiveness of debiasing techniques for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 1878-1898." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 17 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 407 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 373, + 525, + 407 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Aristides Milios and Parishad BehnamGhader. 2022. An analysis of social biases present in bert variants across multiple languages. ArXiv, abs/2211.14402." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 18 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 525, + 502 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 525, + 502 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 413, + 525, + 502 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Nathanael Chambers, Xiaodong He, Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra, Lucy Vanderwende, Pushmeet Kohli, and James Allen. 2016. A corpus and cloze evaluation for deeper understanding of commonsense stories. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 19 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 553 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 509, + 525, + 553 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jonas Pfeiffer, Ivan Vulic, Iryna Gurevych, and Sebastian Ruder. 2020. Mad-x: An adapter-based framework for multi-task cross-lingual transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00052." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 20 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 605 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 605 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 560, + 525, + 605 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 21 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 525, + 668 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 613, + 525, + 668 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Hakan Bilen, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2018. Efficient parametrization of multidomain deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 22 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 731 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 676, + 525, + 731 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alexander M. Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 23 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 739, + 525, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Evan Sandhaus. 2008. The new york times annotated corpus. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, 6(12):e26752." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 24 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10396" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 26 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 9 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 8, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 72, + 289, + 116 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianxiao Shen, Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2017. Style transfer from non-parallel text by cross-alignment. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 125, + 289, + 169 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and TieYan Liu. 2019. Mass: Masked sequence to sequence pre-training for language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02450." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 277 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 277 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 178, + 289, + 277 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Akhilesh Sudhakar, Bhargav Upadhyay, and Arjun Maheswaran. 2019. \"transforming\" delete, retrieve, generate approach for controlled text style transfer. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3269-3279, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 289, + 329 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 285, + 289, + 329 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. 2021. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. Preprint arxiv:2102.02503." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 590 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 590 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 338, + 289, + 590 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and finetuned chat models." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 666 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 599, + 289, + 666 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Johannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri, John Mellor, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Kirsty Anderson, Pushmeet Kohli, Ben Coppin, and Po-Sen Huang. 2021. Challenges in detoxifying language models. In *Findings of EMNLP*, pages 2447-2469." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 289, + 708 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 674, + 289, + 708 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Xing Wu, Tao Zhang, Liangjun Zang, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. 2019. \"mask and infill\": Applying masked language model to sentiment transfer." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 69, + 716, + 289, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Jiaao Zhan, Yang Gao, Yu Bai, and Qianhui Liu. 2022. Stage-wise stylistic headline generation: Style generation and summarized content insertion. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22, pages" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 72, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "list", + "angle": 0, + "index": 13, + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 314, + 72, + 524, + 95 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "4489-4495. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 102, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 102, + 524, + 147 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 102, + 524, + 147 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Tianyi Zhang*, Varsha Kishore*, Felix Wu*, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. *Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert.* In International Conference on Learning Representations." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 200 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 200 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 156, + 524, + 200 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Debiased contrastive learning of unsupervised sentence representations. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 6120-6130." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "ref_text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 524, + 275 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 304, + 208, + 524, + 275 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Rich Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies: Towards story-like visual explanations by watching movies and reading books. In The IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "sub_type": "ref_text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10397" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 14 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 10 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 280, + 260 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 280, + 260 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 280, + 260 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 82, + 69, + 280, + 260 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
Task: News Style Headline Generation
Stage 1: Learning Text StylesPlease read the following representative text with a particular style and understand its stylistic features STYLE Text: [STYLE TEXT]...
Stage 2: Learning Headline GenerationHere are some examples of news and corresponding headlines to learn how to generate news headlines:News: [NEWS]Headline: [HEADLINE]...
Stage 3: Generating Stylized HeadlinesGenerate a news headline with the previously learned style based on the news text given above:News: [NEWS]Style headline:
", + "image_path": "5bc6c6c35c6b815fc6220fe16e1ba87237bcb992dfad3757fdfcde32e5a00f8b.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 319, + 142, + 333 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 319, + 142, + 333 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 319, + 142, + 333 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A Appendix" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 346, + 223, + 359 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 346, + 223, + 359 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 346, + 223, + 359 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.1 GPT3.5-prompting Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 3 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 476 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 368, + 291, + 476 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We perform few-shot prompting with the gpt-3.5-turbo API. We follow the unsupervised setup of StyleBART which assumes paired news-stylistic headlines are unavailable. As a results, we use three non-parallel stylistic sentences, five newsplain headline pairs in our data template. Table 10 shows the details. We set the the temperature to 0.5." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 4 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 492, + 227, + 506 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 492, + 227, + 506 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 68, + 492, + 227, + 506 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.2 LLaMA2-InsTuning Details" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 5 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "We sample 10,000 data points per task and construct the corresponding instruction data. Table 11 shows our data template in training and inference stages. We utilize the 40,000 instruction data jointly to fine-tune LLaMA2-7B with LoRA. The hyperparameters for the LoRA module are set as follows: lora_rank = 256, lora_alpha = 256, and lora_dropout = 0.05. The training process employs the AdamW optimizer with parameters " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{1} = 0.9" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ", " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "\\beta_{2} = 0.999" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". We adopt a learning rate of " + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "inline_equation", + "content": "2e - 5" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 514, + 291, + 717 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": ". The training is executed with a batch size of 80 for one epoch, amounting to a total of 500 steps. After our training stage, we directly use the inference template in Table 11 to evaluate the fine-tuned model." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 6 + }, + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 528, + 272 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 291, + 295 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 291, + 295 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 269, + 291, + 295 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 10: The data template used for GPT3.5-prompting." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_caption" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 528, + 272 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 528, + 272 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 306, + 68, + 528, + 272 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StageTemplate
TrainingInstructionInverse Paraphrasing Task
Convert the following sentence to its [STYLE] version.
InputText: [PARAPHRASED TEXT]
Output[STYLE] version text: [STYLISTIC TEXT]
Headline Generation Task
InstructionRead the following news abstract and write a headline for it.
InputNews: [NEWS]
OutputHeadline: [HEADLINE]
Stylistic Headline Generation
InstructionRead the following news abstract and a write a [STYLE] version headline of the news.
InputNews: [NEWS]
Output[STYLE] version headline:
", + "image_path": "aa4c510b672aa9055067bae83b614b0ecd37522cbb468403a82f4dc22e3d91c8.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 7, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 7 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 304 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 304 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 280, + 526, + 304 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 11: The data template used for LLaMA2-InsTuning training and inference stage." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 8, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 500, + 338 + ], + "type": "title", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 500, + 338 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 326, + 500, + 338 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "A.3 Comparison with TitleStylist-BART" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 9 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 532 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 302, + 343, + 526, + 532 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "TitleStylist is initialized using the MASS model, a pretrained model with an encoder-decoder structure similar to BART. We adopt the methodology employed in TitleStylist and apply it to the BART model. We execute both TitleStylist-MASS (with their open-source code) and TitleStylist-BART (with our reimplemented code). As shown in Table 12, We can find that these two variations yield similar ROUGE and BERTScore results while TitleStylist-MASS gets better PPL and PPL-S scores. Therefore, we present the results for TitleStylist-MASS in this paper, as it demonstrates better performance and is consistent with the original paper." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 10 + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "page_footnote", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 67, + 730, + 290, + 772 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "9Our training loss shows no significant reductions after 150 steps when using a batch size of 80. Therefore, we do not use the full dataset as larger dataset requires more computation and only brings marginal performance improvement." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 11 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 780, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10398" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 12 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 11 + }, + { + "para_blocks": [ + { + "type": "table", + "bbox": [ + 119, + 353, + 477, + 465 + ], + "blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 353, + 477, + 465 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 353, + 477, + 465 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 119, + 353, + 477, + 465 + ], + "type": "table", + "html": "
StyleMethodGeneration QualityStyle Strength
R1(↑)R2(↑)RL(↑)BERT(↑)PPL(↓)PPL-S(↓)
HumorTitleStylist-BART28.210.024.987.768.5839.3
TitleStylist-MASS27.710.024.587.539.4640.9
RomanceTitleStylist-BART28.410.125.087.762.6923.7
TitleStylist-MASS27.69.924.587.539.5740.1
ClickbaitTitleStylist-BART28.29.824.987.748.2192.9
TitleStylist-MASS28.210.125.287.839.1256.4
", + "image_path": "7582eb29776cd47fb376a068801627b945c32c7c75ed8868f4afa38ec70db417.jpg" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 0, + "angle": 0, + "type": "table_body" + } + ], + "index": 0 + }, + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 473, + 442, + 485 + ], + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 473, + 442, + 485 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 149, + 473, + 442, + 485 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "Table 12: Comparison results of TitleStylist-BART and Titlelist-MASS." + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 1, + "angle": 0, + "type": "text" + } + ], + "discarded_blocks": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "page_number", + "angle": 0, + "lines": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "spans": [ + { + "bbox": [ + 284, + 781, + 312, + 791 + ], + "type": "text", + "content": "10399" + } + ] + } + ], + "index": 2 + } + ], + "page_size": [ + 595, + 841 + ], + "page_idx": 12 + } + ], + "_backend": "vlm", + "_version_name": "2.6.4" +} \ No newline at end of file